[Census 2000 Ethnographic Study]{.underline} June 17, 2003

> GENERATION X SPEAKS OUT ON CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND THE DECENNIAL CENSUS:
> AN ETHNOGRAPHIC APPROACH

**FINAL REPORT**

This evaluation reports the results of research and analysis undertaken
by the U.S. Census Bureau. It is part of a broad program, the Census
2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation (TXE) Program, designed to
assess Census 2000 and to inform 2010 Census planning. Findings from the
Census 2000 TXE Program reports are integrated into topic reports that
provide context and background for broader interpretation of results.

[Melinda Crowley]{.underline}

Statistical![](media/image1.png){width="2.402083333333333in"
height="0.3597222222222222in"}

Research Division

# ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

# 

My aim here is to honor the influence of the people most closely
connected to this research for their commitments and contributions that
have impressed this research. I am grateful to Paul Draus, Victor
Garcia, Laura Gonzalez, Norma Gonzalez, Suzanne Hanchett, Alex Stepick
and Carol Dutton Stepick for their ethnographic expertise, authority and
activism. I am thankful for the opportunity to have worked with a team
of such passionate and dedicated researchers.

There are also many Census Bureau colleagues who have shaped this
research both before and over its duration. I appreciate the infinite
patience, wisdom and time that Yves Thibaudeau provided. I also
appreciate the suggestions that Eleanor Gerber, Manuel de la Puente,
Elizabeth Martin, Cleo Redline, Susan Trencher, Tom Mayer and Rich
Hoffman offered. I would also like to thank Safiya Hamid, Barbara
Palumbo, Rochelle Proctor, Gloria Prout and Lorraine Randall for their
administrative assistance and technical support. I am most indebted to
all of the respondents who gave their time and shared their hopes and
struggles along with their failures and successes to bring about the
knowledge contained within this report. However, none of this research
would have come to fruition if not for project funding and sponsorship
support. I would like to take a moment to thank both Ruth Ann Killion
who heads the Planning, Research and Evaluation Division (PRED) and
Tommy Wright who heads the Statistical Research Division (SRD) for their
generous endorsements.

It is my hope that the data presented in this paper can nourish our
current knowledge and future dialogues about the way GenXers experience
civic engagement in American society. It is essential that we continue
to learn about and understand the culture and behavior of respondents.
Respondents are the key to the stories less often told and represent the
voices much less heard. It is important to pay careful attention to the
messages respondents have shared, and in doing so, perhaps some insight
may be shed on the ways in which the Census Bureau can overcome
obstacles encountered with decennial enumeration and survey
participation.

#### CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY *v*

1\. BACKGROUND 1

2\. METHODS 3

2.1 Respondent Recruitment 3

2.2 Ethnographic Questionnaire Protocol 4

2.2.1 The Introduction 4

2.2.2 A Mixed-Mode survey 4

2.2.3 Civic Interests, Activism and Causes 4

2.2.4 Card Sort Activity 5

2.2.5 Government Participation 5

2.2.6 Demographics and Background 5

2.3 Focus Groups 5

2.4 Participant Observations 6

3\. LIMITS 9

4\. RESULTS 10

4.1 Society & Self: Core Values and Issues 10

4.2 To Be Or Not To Be Involved: GenXers Speak Out 13

4.3 Hope & Despair: The Meaning and Role of Community Among GenXers 21

4.4 Alienating Immigrants: The Impact of Citizenship on Civic-Mindedness
24

4.4.1 Afro-Caribbean Haitians 24

4.4.2 Afro-Caribbean Jamaicans 24

4.4.3 Afro-Caribbeans Collectively 25

4.4.4 Southeast Asians Collectively 26

4.4.5 Cubans 29

4.4.6 Mexicans 30

4.4.7 Nicaraguans 34

4.4.8 Hispanics Collectively 35

4.5 Distrust, Skepticism and Discontent: Government, Politics and Police
36

4.5.1 Government Agencies and Institutions 38

4.5.2 Politics and Politicians 39

4.5.3 Police 42

*i*

4.6 Decennial Compliance as a Civic Quest 43

> 4.7 Means, Motives and Barriers to "Stepping-Up" 48
>
> 4.7.1 Means and Motives 48
>
> 4.7.2 Barriers 48

5\. RECOMMENDATIONS 49

1.  Recommendations to Decrease Census Nonresponse and Respondent

> Undercoverage 49

2.  Recommendations about Decennial Census Privacy and Confidentiality

> Policies 50

3.  Recommendations to Improve Decennial Promotional Outreach Efforts

> And Educational Campaigns 51

6\. CLOSING REMARKS 52

7\. REFERENCES 55

8\. APPENDICES

Appendix A: Generation X Ethnographic Questionnaire Protocol

Appendix B: Card Sort Activity List

Appendix C. Generation X Focus Group Moderators Guide

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### *ii*

#### 

#### LISTING OF TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLES

Table 2.1A: Race/Ethnicity Demographics Of Respondents In This Study 6

Table 2.1B: Race/Ethnicity Demographics By Age of Generation X in

The U.S 7

Table 2.2: Gender Demographics Of Generation X Respondents In This Study
7

Table 2.3A: Highest Educational Levels Completed By Generation X
Respondents

In This Study 8

Table 2.3B: School Enrollment By Level Of School And Race For U.S.
Population......8

Table 2.4: Total Annual Incomes Of Generation X Respondents In This
Study 9

Table 2.5: Citizenship Demographics Of Generation X Respondents In This
Study 9

Table 4.1.1: Respondent Core Values And Issues In This Study 13

Table 4.2.1: Respondent Engagement Profile Types In This Study 20

Table 4.6.1: Generation X Survey Question Results: I Trust the Census
When

They Say Information Is Confidential 46

FIGURES

Figure 4.2.1: Generation X Survey Question Results:

I Would Like To Be More Involved In The Community 14

Figure 4.2.2: Generation X Survey Question Results:

It Does Not Matter If I Volunteer 18

Figure 4.4.1: Cambodians: Historical Overview 27

Figure 4.4.2: Laotians: Historical Overview 27

Figure 4.4.3: Vietnamese Historical Overview 27

Figure 4.5.1: Generation X Survey Question Results:

People Should Be Able To Trust the Government 37

Figure 4.5.2: Generation X Survey Question Results:

I Do Not Trust The Government 37

Figure 4.5.3: Generation X Survey Question Results:

I Do Not Have Any Say About What The Government Does 39

Figure 4.5.4: Generation X Survey Question Results:

Voting Is The Only Way I Have A Say About Government Decisions 41

Figure 4.5.5: Generation X Survey Question Results:

Public Leaders Do Not Care What Happens To Me 41

Figure 4.6.1: Generation X Survey Question Results:

It Is Important To Fill Out The Census 44

*iii*

#### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This research is part of a larger program of ethnographic research,
known as *Ethnography for the New Millennium*, conducted for the U.S.
Census Bureau by the Statistical Research Division, Center for Survey
Methods Research. The purpose of this project is to develop social
science insights that may help improve Census Bureau survey response
rates and population counts. Just as past ethnographic studies have
improved outreach to undercounted populations for Census 2000, it is
expected that findings from this research will have benefits ten years
hence.

The premise of this research is that response to surveys is motivated by
a respondent=s sense of civic responsibility[^1]. The main goal of this
study is to investigate shared attitudes among Generation X about civic
engagement and community involvement, government in general, and
decennial census participation in particular. Participants of this study
were drawn from "hard to reach" respondent populations, such as ethnic
minorities, lower socioeconomic classes, immigrants and alienated young
adults who are all members of the birth cohort Generation X[^2]. The
wider Generation X populace, according to past studies (Cheung 1995;
Halstead 1992; Holtz 1995), tends to be apathetic about community and
political involvement and disillusioned with government. If Generation X
respondents in this study share such attitudes as their wider Generation
X counterparts do, then the Census Bureau will face another major
obstacle in reaching out to them. This apathy and disillusionment with
government will also compound existing enumeration barriers identified
by past ethnographic research (de la Puente 1993; U.S. Census Bureau
1999)[^3] and may have short and long term implications for survey
nonresponse issues, undercoverage challenges, privacy and
confidentiality concerns and effective outreach campaigns.

All research findings and recommendations are based on 150
semi-structured, individual ethnographic interviews, ten focus groups, a
paper-and-pencil survey and participant observation activities in
diverse settings such as American Indian Pow Wow ceremonies, coffee
bars, community demonstrations, class rooms, pool halls, jobsites and
bowling alleys. The scope of this research was nationwide and was
conducted in Oregon, Illinois, Florida, Texas, Maryland, Virginia and
Washington, DC. Recruitment for this research was nonrandom, and
primarily by means of snowball sampling. Recruitment targeted 25 African
Americans, 14 first-generation Afro-Caribbean Immigrants (Haitian and
Jamaican), 20 American Indians (on and off reservations), 19 Southeast
Asians (Cambodian, Laotian, Vietnamese), 59 Hispanics (Mexican, Cuban,
Puerto Rican and Nicaraguan) and 13 non-Hispanic White Americans.
Respondents were primarily working class adults with levels of education
that ranged from high school dropouts to those in pursuit of PhDs.

The following section highlights some of the critical findings which
emerged as a result of research specific to this study, *Generation X
Speaks Out on Civic Engagement and The Census: An Ethnographic
Approach.* This research suggests that the following factors may
contribute to decennial noncompliance and undercoverage errors:

**Non-citizenship status or unstable immigration status**

-   The distinction between citizens and non-citizens (which includes
    immigrant permanent residents) is not nearly as important as the
    distinction between undocumented immigrants (illegal residents) and
    documented individuals (which includes citizens along with legal
    immigrants) in an attempt to convince respondents to comply with
    Census enumeration efforts.

-   Individuals with an insecure immigration status were much less
    likely to trust the government and specifically less likely to fill
    out the Census. Undocumented immigrants have long been a concern for
    the Census Bureau. This research demonstrates that respondents with
    irregular immigration statuses are unlikely to directly cooperate
    with the Census. Only one undocumented immigrant in our study was
    willing to be counted while she resided with her uncle who is a
    legal resident. On the other hand, another respondent, who did have
    legal status as a student, was afraid to participate in the Census
    because she feared that some time in the future she may go out of
    status and that the information she provided to the Census might be
    used to track her down.

-   Immigrant-centered community-based organizations are important
    conduits that attract distrustful and growing undocumented
    populations in the United States.

##### **Respondents not knowing about or understanding the decennial census** 

-   Generation X values the decennial census as important and
    worthwhile. While most respondents were familiar with the Census by
    name, most respondents were unclear about the roles and functions of
    the decennial census. However, most new immigrants and African
    American respondents in our study were significantly less informed
    about the Census. Some had heard about temporary jobs available via
    the Census, yet still did not know details about the decennial
    census. African Americans in this study were the least likely group
    of native-born respondents to have completed a Census questionnaire
    (in some instances, African American respondents in this study were
    enumerated by someone else who did complete and return a Census
    questionnaire).

-   Respondents either expressed a complete lack of faith in the notion
    of Census Bureau privacy and confidentiality statements or were
    ambivalent about such Census Bureau promises; in spite of perceived
    risks, most respondents were still willing to divulge personal
    information.

**Increased levels of distrust among respondents towards the
government**

-   Skepticism and mistrust towards the government is pervasive among
    this group of respondents. Respondents past negative experiences and
    interactions with federal bureaucracies do influence their overall
    negative attitudes towards the government.

-   Although respondents in this study possess unfavorable attitudes
    towards the

> *vi*
>
> government, derogatory views were not extended towards the Census
> Bureau. Respondents were still willing to comply with decennial
> enumeration efforts because they believe the social importance and
> benefits of the Census outweigh distrustful attitudes held towards the
> government.

-   Respondent distrust of police and law enforcement agencies,
    including the Justice Department, Immigration and Naturalization
    Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is a link that
    serves as a deterrent to Census participation.

**Miscellaneous findings**

-   Minority Generation X respondents in this study generally did not
    confirm many of the negative stereotypes (e.g. selfish, detached
    from civic responsibility) that surround all Generation X cohort
    members.

-   Family (including family values and family relationships) is seen as
    the most important social institution among this age cohort; family
    seems to represent the most stable sense of community for Generation
    X respondents.

-   Religious activities were extremely important among all respondent
    groups in this study with the exception of non-Hispanic White
    Generation X respondents (a small percentage of the respondents in
    this study). For non-citizen immigrant respondents in our study, the
    church and its parishioners represent their 'local' community.

The recommendations that follow are based on sound, empirical,
ethnographic research provided to the Census Bureau to help make
informed planning and policy decisions with regards to the 2010
decennial census. Key recommendations are:

-   **Downplay the national nature of the Census; emphasize making a
    difference through Census participation in one's local community
    without over promising benefits.**

-   **Stress benefits of the decennial census to families; promote the
    Census as a family activity that will also help one's ethnic
    community.**

    -   **It is recommended that the Census Bureau continue to partner
        with church and faith-based organizations to reach special
        population groups, especially immigrants.** The Census Bureau
        should recruit and hire church youth groups for outreach and
        enumeration work. Church members are familiar with their
        communities and the enumeration mission of the Census, and in
        many instances they are bilingual (i.e. Spanish and English;
        Creole and English). Church youth group members are ideal for
        outreach and enumeration work. They are local residents,
        bilingual and bicultural in many instances, and care about
        getting involved and improving conditions in their communities.
        Additionally, members of the church youth groups are in
        positions to reach out to hard-to-reach populations, such as
        gangs and undocumented workers, who are at a high risk of not
        being included in Census surveys.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Further research is needed to determine if the Census Bureau
    should only emphasize the distinction between *citizens* and
    *non-citizens* in its advertisements and outreach efforts to various
    respondent groups.** For instance, the 2000 decennial census
    posters, commercial announcements, billboards and other
    advertisements emphasized the distinction between *citizens* and
    *non-citizens* with regards to Title 13

> *vii*
>
> data. However, our research strongly indicates that 2010 decennial
> census posters, commercial announcements, billboards and ads should
> also emphasize that personal information is confidential for
> *documented* and *undocumented residents* as well. Specifically using
> the term "undocumented" in future advertisements may relay a clearer
> message to a group of respondents who are apprehensive towards the
> government that their participation in the decennial census is
> crucial. The terminology that the U.S. Census Bureau uses to target
> various immigrant populations is important. Further pretesting
> research is needed to determine the most effective terminology to use
> in marketing decennial census participation.

-   **Continue to focus on all undocumented immigrant population groups
    in educational and outreach campaigns.** Undocumented immigrants
    were by far the least trusting and the most unlikely to comply with
    the Census. Outreach messages from multiple sources that state it is
    "okay" and "safe" for undocumented immigrants to participate in the
    Census are needed.

-   **The decennial census is an easy way in which a generation can give
    back to the community while empowering the community.** This is a
    message that should be continuously publicized during outreach
    messages.

-   **The Census Bureau should collaborate with Immigration and
    Naturalization Services to incorporate one or two decennial census
    questions on the Naturalization Civics Exam sponsored by the
    Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Services.**
    All applicants are required to pass this exam before being
    considered eligible for American naturalization. According to 1996
    Immigration and Naturalization Services estimates (the most current
    and publicly available data), 1,044,689 persons are naturalized in
    the United States annually. The top ten countries for persons
    naturalized as American citizens according to 1996 Immigration and
    Naturalization Services estimates are from Mexico, Cuba, Vietnam,
    the Philippines, the Former Soviet Union, El Salvador, China, India,
    the Dominican Republic and Columbia. The top three countries that
    produce American naturalized citizens are also respondents included
    in this research sample. Questions included in this exam (go to
    http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/services/natz/require.htm for
    specific test questions) assess the applicant's knowledge of U.S.
    government and history. The Study Guide to the Naturalization Civics
    Exam is one venue that the Census Bureau can utilize to educate a
    segment of the immigrant population about the historical role and
    national function of the decennial census. Decennial census
    questions that could be included on this exam (e.g. What is the U.S.
    Decennial Census? Name one purpose of the U.S. Decennial Census.)
    could increase knowledge and familiarity about the

-   decennial census that many newly arrived immigrants often lack.

-   

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   

*viii*

**1. BackgrounD**

Civic engagement is an important explanatory factor in this Generation X
Census study. It is being used to assess whether it is an indicator of
Census survey participation. The basic argument in considering civic
engagement for this purpose is that individuals who engage in civic
engagement activities---such as voting, volunteering at soup kitchens
and joining political advocacy groups---will most likely participate in
Census surveys. For the purpose of this study, Generation X is defined
as respondents born during the years 1968-1979. Various studies define
Generation X differently by age, with some analyses categorizing persons
born in 1961 as the cohort=s oldest members, while others use a younger
upper boundary to demarcate the age group (Craig and Earl Bennett 1997).
Only in hindsight will the boundaries for this cohort become clearer.

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Table DP-1. Profile of
General Demographic Characteristics for 2000," 20.9% of the total
population in the United States is between the ages 20-34 years.
According to "Table 094 - International Data Base for 2002," 20,226,941
of

288, 368,698 (the total population in the United States as of July 2002)
is between the ages 20-24 years; 18,830,901 of 288, 368,698 (the total
population in the United States as of July 2002) is between the ages
25-29 years; and 20,744,483 of 288,368,698 (the total population in the
United States as of July 2002) is between the ages 30-34 years (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, http://blue.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbagg).
Although these data include a wider population range than the age groups
targeted for this study (ages 21-32), these data provide perspective on
the majority distribution of young adults in the United States
currently.

Research was conducted and completed during March 2000 through February
2001. This qualitative study was initiated in order to expand our basic
understanding of social trends and processes that affect decennial
census and survey participation in general. Research specific to this
project initiative is guided by the assumption that responsiveness to
survey data collection efforts has something to do with people=s sense
of civic responsibility. This collaborative research effort was an
opportunity for researchers to explore patterns of civic[^4] and
government[^5] engagement among GenXers in order to understand relevant
short and long-term consequences that such attitudes and behaviors may
have in terms of survey nonresponse, undercoverage challenges, privacy
and confidentiality concerns and effective public outreach campaigns.
This report describes the beliefs GenXers have about the government, how
they value, define, organize and view civic engagement, and how various
cultural value systems with respect to race/ethnicity, education, income
and citizenship status impact general survey participation rates.

According to media rhetoric, the majority of Generation X wants little
to do with government, is selfish, lazy and shuns civic responsibilities
and commitments. As a testament to these notions, GenXers have inherited
several nicknames, among them, *Slacker Generation* and *The Me
Generation*. Members of the age cohort AGeneration X@ are often derided
by a stereotype that casts them as *slackers* (persons who lack ambition
or drive) or as *whiners* (those who complain without reason). Popular
literature along with a multitude of research studies conducted depict
the children born to ABaby Boomers@ (Generation Xers) as the most
cynical and detached of current generations. While such individuals
exist in the Generation X population, these descriptions do not
characterize all of its members (as our research illustrates). In fact,
Generation X is often inaccurately portrayed as a homogeneous group.
Although concerns of cynicism cross-cut all segments of this generation,
it is speculated that historically underenumerated members of GenX
(minorities, young males, immigrants) may hold higher levels of distrust
and suspicion towards the government and any of its sponsored endeavors,
including the decennial census. Unfortunately, most previous Generation
X research and commentary relates to a narrow racial and socioeconomic
group (Barber 2000) \-- mostly Non-Hispanic White, middle class
Americans. Minority GenX populations have had no clear place in the
on-going discourse on Generation X. This research includes both minority
and non-Hispanic White respondents. However, minority respondents were
over-represented (see Table 2.1A) since, according to the U.S. Census
Bureau, ethnic minority groups, young adult males and immigrants are
among the population groups considered Ahard-to-reach (HTR)@ and thus,
are consistently underenumerated.

Generally, members of the same cohort usually share a similar
coming-of-age period in their lives in which tastes and preferences,
values and beliefs are shaped by important historical, social,
economical and cultural events or experiences. This proves true for the
GenX participants in this study as well. For the majority of GenXers in
this study, they believe that it is and will continue to be Amuch harder
for them to get ahead than it was for their parents - and that they are
overwhelmingly pessimistic about the long-term fate of their generation
and nation@ (Howe and Strauss1992). When GenXers in this study were
toddlers, the nation was riding high. By the time GenXers in this study
reached pre-adolescence, ugly new phrases like Alatch-key kids@ already
defined this generation. By the time GenXers in this study matured into
adolescents, national confidence had weakened and community and family
life had splintered. Schools had deteriorated and educational
curriculums included a mixture of bravado and fatalism with computer
training and AIDS educational programs. Generation X is one of the most
highly educated generations, but yet, not since the Great Depression
have more young adults had to experience a migration back to their
parent=s nest to make ends meet. And although it seems that things may
be rigged against GenXers in this study and among the majority of
GenXers in the larger population, they have emerged with robust visions
of society and self that capture this generations= worldview.

Research questions central to this study can be divided into three broad
areas of interest, which include: cultural, behavioral and social
factors.

**Cultural:**

-   Is there a shared generational consciousness that exists among
    Generation X with regards to civic engagement?

-   How does Generation X's construction of meanings and functions of
    community correlate with their civic values and civic engagement?

**Behavioral:**

-   How salient are civic engagement activities among GenXers?

-   What opportunities and/or barriers do Generation X members perceive
    or experience to being civically engaged?

-   What are the attitudes of GenXers towards participation in the
    decennial census and why?

-   How does the topic of privacy among respondents affect government
    civic cooperation?

**Social:**

-   Who are the GenXers that participate in government-sponsored data
    collection efforts and why?

-   How do race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, education, gender,
    age and citizenship affect GenXers' attitudes toward civic and
    government engagement behavior?

**2. METHODS**

Data for this research were exploratory and collected in the tradition
of social and cultural anthropology - primarily by means of in-depth
ethnographic interviews, focus groups and participant observations.
Personal narratives were used in order to expose the social
underpinnings of civic and government engagement. Through the collective
combination of these methods, recurrent statements and behaviors by
respondents were legitimized as shared and contemporary components of a
common culture.

**2.1 Respondent recruitment and research scope**

Recruitment targeted 150 male and female respondents (see Table 2.2).
African Americans, Afro-Caribbean Immigrants from Haiti and Jamaica,
American Indians (on and off reservations from the Hopi, Cheyenne,
Blackfoot, Oneida and Ojibwa tribes), Southeast Asians (Cambodians,
Laotians and Vietnamese), Hispanics (Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans and
Nicaraguans) and non-Hispanic White Americans were targeted to
participate in this research study (see Table 2.1A & Table 2.1B). Racial
and ethnic minority respondents are over represented in this study.
Respondents were primarily working class adults (see Table 2.4). The
educational backgrounds of these respondents included those in pursuit
of Ph.D.=s while others had dropped out of school prior to receiving
their high school diploma (see Table 2.3A & Table 2.3B). Respondents
recruited also included documented and undocumented immigrants (see
Table 2.5) residing in the United States. Ethnographic interviews
generally spanned two hours per respondent. At the completion of an
interview, respondents were paid a \$30 cash honorarium.

Respondent recruitment was the responsibility of each ethnographer.
Findings included in this report are from interviews, focus groups and
participant observations conducted in Portland and Madras, Oregon;
Chicago, Illinois; Dallas and Houston, Texas; Miami, Florida;
Washington, DC; Virginia; and Maryland between March and December 2000.

**2.2 Ethnographic questionnaire protocol**

The principal researcher designed a semi-structured questionnaire
protocol (see Appendix A), which was further developed in consultation
with five contract ethnographers who also served as interviewers for
this research. Each ethnographer is an experienced social scientist with
extensive training in qualitative techniques of investigation.

Questions for the protocol instrument were first pretested and then
revised. The main concern with the questionnaire protocol was making
sure it would be inclusive enough to tap into the personal life
narratives and decisions of respondents from diverse racial, ethnic,
citizenship, class and educational backgrounds. The protocol instrument
used to conduct the ethnographic interviews included the following six
sections:

*2.2.1 The Introduction*

The manner in which the introduction or greeting was handled was a
sensitive issue since a productive and engaging interview with a
respondent depended in large part on the rapport, trust and comfort
level established at the onset of each individual interview, especially
for respondents with irregular citizenship status. Individual interview
sessions were audio-taped (exceptions included some respondents with
unstable citizenship) and included explicit discussions about
confidentiality, anonymity, privacy and informed consent.

*2.2.2 A Mixed-Mode Survey*

Respondents were asked to complete a survey, in which the respondent was
instructed to indicate whether he/she "strongly agrees, agrees, neither
agrees or disagrees, disagrees, or strongly disagrees" to 16 statements
which represent ideas about the way relationships between people,
society and government could be. The objective of the survey was
threefold: one, to collect standardized quantitative data in order to
analyze significant trends and patterns; two, to allow the survey to be
self-administered or verbally-administered, contingent upon individual
respondent skills and needs (i.e. literacy, comprehension and language
competencies); and three, to warm respondents up (get them in the frame
of mind) to the topics of discussion for the remainder of the interview
session. The survey-questionnaire was also translated into Spanish. Care
was taken to make sure that, when appropriate, Spanish or Latino idioms
were used.

*2.2.3* *Civic Interests, Activism and Causes*

At this point in the protocol, respondents were questioned about their
thoughts, beliefs, behavior and attitudes regarding the ways in which
they engage or avoid engaging in society. Interviewers probed
respondents using open-ended questions designed to assess the interests,
issues and causes most meaningful (and meaningless) to respondent lives,
including decennial enumeration, voting, club memberships, group
activities and organizational functions.

*2.2.4* *Card Sort Activity*

Section four was designed to measure volunteer activities and
participation in organizations, clubs, and groups. A set of eighty-seven
cards was given to respondents to sort (see Appendix B). Each card
identified a specific or general action. The cards listed cultural,
political, financial, governmental, social, educational, spiritual,
global and environmental type activities. AOther@ was also a card sort
option from which respondents could choose. Respondents were asked to
sort the cards into three categories: first, endeavors which respondents
had "participated in during the past two years;" second, endeavors which
respondents had "not participated in during the past two years;" and
third, endeavors which respondents would like to participate "in the
future." A card was only allowed to go into one of the three categories.

The benefit of using card sorts was that they successfully served to
trigger respondents= recall of additional experiences with activities
and organizations. The card sorts also expanded specific topics under
discussion and encouraged respondents to talk freely and openly about
their experiences and behaviors. The card sorts allowed respondents to
conceptualize the activities and organizations into cognizant domains
that hit home for them. Once respondents had completed the card sort
activity, they were asked to explain their choices. Where appropriate,
respondents were probed to discuss any constraints that prevented them
from taking part in any engagement endeavor or activity.

*2.2.5* *Government Participation*

Eight open-ended questions on census participation and government made
up section five of the protocol. It was designed to capture knowledge
and participation about the Census and to gauge attitudes toward local,
state and federal government sectors.

*2.2.6* *Demographics and Background*

The last section of the instrument, section six, was comprised of twelve
open-ended questions on identity, marital/relationship status, age, race
and class; five open-ended questions on work and alternative income; and
six questions on education. A flash card containing annual income ranges
before taxes, which the respondent was to choose from, was used in
conjunction with the questions on work and alternative income. Section
six ended with probe questions on civic participation experiences, role
models and mentors, future ambitions and familial and peer
relationships.

**2.3 Focus Groups**

Ten focus groups were conducted and facilitated by project ethnographers
in order to extend relevant research issues that emerged from the
ethnographic interviews. Five of the focus group sessions conducted
included respondents who participated in an ethnographic interview; the
remaining five focus group sessions included new respondent recruits.
Focus groups varied in size from six to twelve participants. A
semi-structured focus group moderator=s guide (see Appendix C) was
designed to help clarify definitions (i.e. civic participation,
community), to help understand the reasons why (or why not) respondents
participate in civic activities, to determine how salient civic
engagement activities were to our respondent=s lives and to ascertain
the level of knowledge and awareness respondents possessed about the
decennial census. The questions posed in each focus group differed with
the intent of garnishing as much Afolk theory@ as possible, that is,
anecdotal and descriptive evidence of civic engagement and
responsibility from respondents. Focus groups were conducted at
professional facilities with state-of-the art equipment as well as in
community libraries and centers. Each focus group session was
audio-taped and spanned an average of two and a half hours. Respondents
who participated in focus groups sessions were paid a \$30 cash stipend.

**2.4 Participant Observations**

Participant observations added a creative and interesting dynamic to
this research. Ethnographers associated with this research observed and
spoke informally with GenXers at American Indian Pow Wow ceremonies,
coffee bars, parades, community demonstrations, classrooms, pool halls,
various jobsites and bowling alleys. By observing GenX respondents who
participated in an ethnographic interview, we were able to look for any
discrepancies between interview statements and actual behavior. We were
able to observe with whom and how GenXers interacted with others in
terms of participatory and non-participatory engagement roles. These
participant observations extracted data that would not have been
captured using any other method than that of ethnography. As
researchers, we were able to witness social reproduction as it was
actually lived out, that is, understand respondent behavior mechanisms
and decision-making processes.

**Table 2.1A. Race/Ethnicity Demographics of Respondents in this Study**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Race/Ethnicity**      **Frequency**           **Percent**

  African American        25                      16.6 %

  Non-Hispanic White      13                      8.6 %

  Hispanic\*              59                      39.3 %

  American Indian         20                      13.3 %

  Southeast Asian\*\*     19                      12.6 %

  Afro-Caribbean\*\*\*    14                      9.3 %

  **Total**               **150**                 **100.0 %**
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

\* Hispanic respondents in this study include Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto
Ricans and Nicaraguans.

\*\* Southeast Asian respondents in this study include Cambodians,
Laotians and Vietnamese.

\*\*\* Afro-Caribbean respondents in this study include Haitians and
Jamaicans.

Although the data in Table 2.1B below includes a wider population range
than the age groups targeted for this study (ages 21-32) as indicated in
Table 2.1A above, these data provide perspective on the majority
distribution of young adults (including GenXers) in the United States.
These data are included in this report for comparison purposes only.

**Table 2.1B. Race/Ethnicity Demographics By Age in the U.S**

+------------------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| **Age By Race/Ethnicity**          | **Total   | **Percent Estimate |
|                                    | E         | of Total U.S.      |
|                                    | stimate** | Population (277,   |
|                                    |           | 017,622)**         |
|                                    | **U.S.    |                    |
|                                    | Pop       |                    |
|                                    | ulation** |                    |
+------------------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| **African American & Black alone   | **33,     | **11.9%**          |
| in U.S. \***                       | 148,835** |                    |
+------------------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| 20 to 24 years                     | 2,386,406 | 0.86%              |
+------------------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| 25 to 29 years                     | 2,184,908 | 0.78%              |
+------------------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| 30 to 34 years                     | 2,389,144 | 0.86%              |
+------------------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| **White alone, Not Hispanic or     | **190,    | **68.8%**          |
| Latino in U.S.**                   | 611,186** |                    |
+------------------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| 20 to 24 years                     | 1         | ≈4.0%              |
|                                    | 1,171,672 |                    |
+------------------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| 25 to 29 years                     | 1         | ≈4.0%              |
|                                    | 1,248,127 |                    |
+------------------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| 30 to 34 years                     | 1         | ≈4.7%              |
|                                    | 3,098,604 |                    |
+------------------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| **Hispanic or Latino in U.S.       | **36,     | **13.0%**          |
| \*\***                             | 200,781** |                    |
+------------------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| 20 to 24 years                     | 3,346,169 | 1.2%               |
+------------------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| 25 to 29 years                     | 3,379,647 | ≈1.2%              |
+------------------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| 30 to 34 years                     | 3,208,627 | 1.1%               |
+------------------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| **American Indian and Alaska       | **1,      | **≈0.7%**          |
| Native alone in U.S. \*\*\***      | 927,777** |                    |
+------------------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| 20 to 24 years                     | 139,560   | .005%              |
+------------------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| 25 to 29 years                     | 148,758   | .005%              |
+------------------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| 30 to 34 years                     | 142,462   | .005%              |
+------------------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| **Southeast Asian in U.S.          | **10,     | **3.8%**           |
| \*\*\*\***                         | 564,333** |                    |
+------------------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| 20 to 24 years                     | 722,225   | 0.26%              |
+------------------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| 25 to 29 years                     | 1,011,738 | ≈0.37%             |
+------------------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| 30 to 34 years                     | 1,009,197 | 0.36%              |
+------------------------------------+-----------+--------------------+

\*This category of African American or Black alone collapses African
Americans and Blacks into one category.

Afro-Caribbeans are Black respondents in this category and include
Haitians and Jamaicans.

\*\* This category of Hispanic and Latino includes the following
respondents, but is not limited to, Mexicans,

Cubans, Puerto Ricans and Nicaraguans.

\*\*\*The American Indian and Alaska Native alone category includes, but
is not limited to tribe groups targeted

for participation in this study .

\*\*\*\* This category of Asian alone includes, but is not limited to,
Southeast Asian respondents of Cambodian,

Laotian and Vietnamese descent.

NOTE

Data for this table was extracted from The 2001 Supplementary Survey
universe (data that is based on twelve monthly samples during 2001):
Tables P005B, P005C, P005D, P005J and P005K. This data is limited to the
household population and excludes the population living in institutions,
college dormitories, and other group quarters. Data are based on a
sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of
uncertainty for an estimate is represented through the use of a
confidence interval. The confidence interval computed here is a 90
percent confidence interval and can be interpreted roughly as providing
90 percent certainty that the true number falls between the lower and
upper bounds, which are the figures displayed in this table.

**Table 2.2. Gender Demographics of Respondents in this Study**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Gender**              **Frequency**           **Percent**

  Male                    90                      60.0%

  Female                  60                      40.0%

  **Total**               **150**                 **100.0%**
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**Table 2.3A Highest Educational Level Completed by Respondents in this
Study**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Educational Level     **Frequency**           **Valid Percent**
  Completed**                                     

  No High School Diploma  20                      14.3%

  High School Diploma     57                      41.0%

  Some College            30                      21.8%

  College Graduate\*      27                      19.4%

  Advanced Degree         5                       3.5%

  **Total**               **139**                 **100.0%**

  Absent Data             11                      \-
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**\*** This total includes respondents who graduated from four-year
colleges or universities.

**Table 2.3B School Enrollment by Level of School and Race for U.S.
Population**

+-------------------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| **School Enrollment By              | **Total   | **Percent         |
| Race/Ethnicity**                    | E         | Estimate of Total |
|                                     | stimate** | U.S. Population   |
|                                     |           | (270, 076,176)**  |
|                                     | **U.S.    |                   |
|                                     | Pop       |                   |
|                                     | ulation** |                   |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| **African American & Black alone in | **32,     | **12.1%**         |
| U.S. \***                           | 734,511** |                   |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| Enrolled in grade 9 to grade 12     | 2,534,919 | 0.93%             |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| Enrolled in college, undergraduate  | 2,224,181 | 0.82%             |
| years                               |           |                   |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| Enrolled in graduate or             | 2,389,144 | 0.88%             |
| professional school                 |           |                   |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| **White alone, Not Hispanic or      | **187,    | **70.0%**         |
| Latino in U.S.**                    | 908,274** |                   |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| Enrolled in grade 9 to grade 12     | 1         | ≈4.1%             |
|                                     | 1,171,672 |                   |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| Enrolled in college, undergraduate  | 1         | ≈4.1%             |
| years                               | 1,248,127 |                   |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| Enrolled in graduate or             | 1         | ≈4.8%             |
| professional school                 | 3,098,604 |                   |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| **Hispanic or Latino in U.S. \*\*** | **36,     | **13.4 %**        |
|                                     | 200,781** |                   |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| Enrolled in grade 9 to grade 12     | 3,346,169 | 1.2%              |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| Enrolled in college, undergraduate  | 3,379,647 | ≈1.2%             |
| years                               |           |                   |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| Enrolled in graduate or             | 3,208,627 | 1.1%              |
| professional school                 |           |                   |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| **American Indian and Alaska Native | **1,      | **≈0.71%**        |
| alone in U.S. \*\*\***              | 927,777** |                   |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| Enrolled in grade 9 to grade 12     | 139,560   | .05%              |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| Enrolled in college, undergraduate  | 148,758   | .05%              |
| years                               |           |                   |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| Enrolled in graduate or             | 142,462   | .05%              |
| professional school                 |           |                   |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| **Southeast Asian in U.S.           | **10,     | **3.9%**          |
| \*\*\*\***                          | 564,333** |                   |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| Enrolled in grade 9 to grade 12     | 722,225   | 0.26%             |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| Enrolled in college, undergraduate  | 1,011,738 | ≈0.37%            |
| years                               |           |                   |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| Enrolled in graduate or             | 1,009,197 | 0.36%             |
| professional school                 |           |                   |
+-------------------------------------+-----------+-------------------+

\*This category of African American or Black alone collapses African
Americans and Blacks into one category.

Afro-Caribbeans are Black respondents in this category and include
Haitians and Jamaicans.

\*\* This category of Hispanic and Latino includes the following
respondents, but is not limited to, Mexicans,

Cubans, Puerto Ricans and Nicaraguans.

\*\*\*The American Indian and Alaska Native alone category includes, but
is not limited to tribe groups targeted

for participation in this study \*\*\*

\*\*\*\* This category of Asian alone includes, but is not limited to,
Southeast Asian respondents of Cambodian,

Laotian and Vietnamese descent.

NOTE

Data for this table was summarized from sample Census 2000 data. For
information on sampling error, nonsampling error and definitions, see
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/datanotes/expsf3.htm.

**Table 2.4 Total Annual Incomes of Generation X Respondents in this
Study**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Annual Income\***     **Frequency**           **Valid Percentage**

  Under \$6000            16                      14.8%

  \$6000-\$12000          19                      17.6%

  \$12000-\$18000         14                      12.9%

  \$18000-\$24000         20                      18.5%

  \$24000-\$30000         17                      15.7%

  \$30000-\$40000         10                      9.2%

  \$40000-\$50000         5                       4.6%

  \$50000-\$60000         2                       1.85%

  \$60000-\$70000         3                       2.7%

  Over \$70000            2                       1.85%

  **Total**               **108**                 **100.0%**

  Absent Data             42                      \-
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

\* Respondent total annual income before taxes.

**Table 2.5 Citizenship Demographics of Generation X Respondents in this
Study**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Citizenship Status**  **Frequency**           **Valid Percent**

  U.S. Citizen            91                      68.0%

  Non U.S. Citizen\*      43                      32.0%

  **Total**               **134**                 **100.0%**

  Absent Data             16                      \-

                                                  
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

\*This total includes immigrant respondents who are documented
non-citizens and undocumented non-citizens.

**3. LIMITS**

Ethnographic methods generate from anthropological theory and studies of
distinct societies and social groups. We use ethnographic methods to
ground Census Bureau concepts, processes and operations using direct
observation methods and discussions with respondents within
sociocultural contexts. Small study groups are often associated with
ethnographic interviewing procedures. Critics question how studies that
vary in size from the hundreds to less than ten can still carry similar
weight in their findings. This study includes 150 interviews, ten focus
groups and several participant observations and we have found that we
are able to make solid assessments and critical analyses based on
recurrent themes stated and observed. The methods of recruitment
employed, following social networks and working through particular
social spaces, were not random, thereby limiting the generalizability of
our findings. However, using a nonrandom sample allowed us to
specifically target special population respondents often
underrepresented in random samples of the population. Furthermore, we
were able to capture and observe patterns that a totally random sample
might not have produced.

**4. RESULTS**

The findings, analyses and insights presented in this report should be
regarded as a snapshot, rather than a portrait, of a rising generation.
An attempt is made to situate civic participation through the
experiences of school, work, family life, spirituality, formal and
informal organizations, volunteerism, government participation and
political activities. The research is essentially based on the voiced
and lived victories, struggles, and passions that young adults in
American society encounter on a daily basis.

**4.1 Society & Self: Core Values and Issues**

In response to the question, "what are your core values?" respondents
gave a wide variety of answers (see Table 4.1.1). The most common values
stated were *restrictive values*, values that pertain to personality and
morality issues (i.e. avoiding gang activities, not committing crimes,
not being a burden) such as equality (primarily in terms of one's
treatment of others), respect and honesty. Other core values mentioned
included hard work, independence and individuality. Some respondents
mentioned more *expansive values*, values entailing social justice
causes related to specific public issues such as AIDS/HIV, the health
and welfare of children, homelessness and the expansion of prison
systems across the nation.

GenXers in our study favor a return to family and family values. Family
relations are seen as very important among this group, almost as if
family represents the only stable sense of community for respondents.
Over 55 percent (56.5 percent) of respondents in this study declared the
importance of family as a value central to their life as demonstrated in
Table 4.1.1. Intergenerational contact is also important to GenXers
(especially minority GenXers). Parents serve as the role models of
choice for this age cohort, teachers, peers, athletes and celebrities
were only mentioned by a minority of respondents. TV is still the
primary source of news for this group, despite the popularity of the
Internet. There is no strong generational identity or Agenerational
consciousness@ (Richard Thau 2000) as with previous generational cohorts
(e.g. Baby Boomers) apparent among the group. GenXers have not adopted
the identity label, Generation X, with the vigor that Baby Boomers have
adopted their cohort marker. Identity labels such as age and race seem
to be unimportant. Racial prejudice, crime, violence and education are
important current and future issues for the majority of sampled
respondents.

### Respondents do share some cultural beliefs, but they are not the self-centered, materialistic ones of the Generation X stereotype. Most striking was respondent concerns for and value placed upon family. Jennifer[^6], a Nicaraguan, when asked about her fundamental values replied, "I was raised to be very family orientated, and I think that\'s where the values come from. I believe family is very important because that\'s where everything starts and you learn how to become a good person." Yuset, a Cuban, indicated that one of his most important goals was to not only have his own family, but also to take care of his mother and grandmother because, "They did everything for me, so now it\'s going to be my turn in a couple of years." Rosemary, a Mexican, indicated she cared most about, "My parents. 'Cause, I would say whatever my parents think of me, that's what I would care about." Family is foremost, before work and other commitments. Barbara, a Cuban, indicated, "If somebody is sick you have to take care of them, \[run\] errands and stuff. \[It's\] just your responsibility that you have to do." Family, moreover, is not just one's parents and siblings. Barbara added, "My aunts and my boyfriend\'s family, they\'ve become my family. So, if something goes wrong, I\'m responsible over there also."

Most Hispanics are so deeply committed to their families that they have
no ambition to leave the area or even to move out of their parental
household until, as Jennifer, a Cuban, jokingly stated, Athey kick me
out.@ Miguel, a Nicaraguan, is so tied to his family that in answering
many questions he did not distinguish between what he and other family
members did. If someone else in his family filled out the Census or
voted, then for Miguel that was the same as if he had done it. When
asked about their role models our respondents were most likely to name
someone within the family, particularly mothers. Our African American
respondents were especially likely to single out their mothers as their
role models. Several respondents also articulated an appreciation of
their elders,' and how they used their courage and survival skills in
the face of adversity. One American Indian focus group member expressed
great pride in her mother's commitment to ethnic group empowerment:

> My mom was active in speaking out for Native Americans, period. That's
> all she wanted to do, to get Native Americans to stand up and get what
> they deserved, not just what was handed to them. Even now (she's very
> old) she's still very proud to be Native American. She grew up in the
> 20s, and she's seen a whole lot. I grew up hearing that this is crap,
> what they've dealt us. We don't do all this 'racism' \[etc. talk\],
> but we deserve to be heard. We deserve better.

Other respondents, like Malikah, an African American, looks to her
father as a positive example for herself and her community,

> I mean, just he\'s a fine example. Look at the house we live in, and
> look at some of the houses; I mean, I don\'t know if you\'ve ever been
> to the Liberty City area \[the largest African American neighborhood
> in Miami-Dade County\]. I\'m not saying they have bad houses, but
> we\'re living a lot more comfortable. And, being that my dad was from
> the projects and from the area, he went back and had his shop right on
> 52nd and 7th Avenue where he was brought up and had his shop there
> instead of coming here and building a foundation. He went back. And, I
> feel like he set an example for a lot of people that came up after
> him. Especially people I guess my generation, Generation X, or
> whatever.

Even for those whose family is not close, their most important group is
described as family-like. Some of our male Jamaican respondents had
strained or distant relationships with their families, but had
established a tight group of friends that at least one, Michael,
self-consciously recognized as a substitute for family.

Census promotional materials could better reflect the importance of
family when targeting particular ethnic populations. Most AAnglos,@
non-Hispanic Whites, emphasize the individual first and then for issues
such as the Census, their emphasis jumps to the level of the community.
The ethnic minorities we studied, however, emphasize family first.
Accordingly, many GenXers would probably respond to Census promotional
materials that emphasized families, such as families filling out forms
together or how Census information can help families that are in
communities.

Many of our respondents did reflect at least one value contained in the
stereotypes of Generation X. Widespread, but not exclusively among
males, was a concern for Amaking it,@ getting a good job, making money
and obtaining material goods. Sop, a Jamaican, was the most cynical, AI
believe that everybody in this world is all in it for themselves,
truthfully. If they can help you on the way there they will, but
truthfully everybody is in the race for themselves. They much rather do
for themselves. No one is gonna look after you. You know what I\'m
saying? You got to do for yourself.@ Marilu, a Mexican respondent and a
former gang member, indicated that being able to obtain material goods
she wanted was her primary reason for joining a gang. Chris, a Jamaican,
indicated that what he cared about the most was money. Marlon, a
Nicaraguan, was only slightly more practical. He cares most about, AThe
future, I guess. Putting food on the table. Paying the bills.@

Most GenX respondents, however, recognized that Amaking it@ entailed
earning it. John, a Nicaraguan, indicated that you have to work hard,
AYeah, everyone has the goal to succeed, that=s what I think. Well, if
you wanta do good you gotta work hard. You can\'t just expect to stay
home and be on good terms, so you gotta work hard if you wanta get
somewhere."

Respondent self-indulgence and a corresponding disregard for community
inclines one to believe that one is utterly independent and thus the
Census is irrelevant to their lives. For our sample, the Census could
still reach such respondents through their families. The Census 2000
advertisements that emphasized young people in communities resonated
favorably with those among our sample who saw the decennial census
posters, billboards, television commercials or heard the various Census
radio announcements and ads. Over seventy percent (72 percent) of
sampled respondents had seen or heard a Census advertisement. Some of
our respondents, however, do not pay too much attention to mainstream
media. For them, outreach should be more targeted on media that attract
youth, specifically urban radio stations, young adult magazines and
perhaps clubs and bars that cater to young adults such as GenXers.

For most respondents, however, self-indulgence was second to family
obligations. Miguel, a Nicaraguan, asserted, AI want to be something in
life. I don\'t want to just stay here working like \[at\] McDonald\'s or
something like that. I want something better for myself. And also my
parents, when they came into this country, they had to do hard jobs like
at first and things like that. And so just as a little kid (they would
say) you know you deserve better, so you go \[to\] school and you make
something of yourself and later on it\'ll pay off. So, I guess since I
was a little kid they pretty much instilled that in my head."

Respondents in our study do exhibit a shared consciousness, but not in
terms of being disengaged self-centered slackers. For nearly all
respondents, the greatest value is placed on family. Some of our
respondents are sacrificing earnings and desires to have their own place
to help maintain the family or further family goals rather than
individual goals. While the values of some of our Generation X
respondents appear to be at least partially self-centered, a concern for
others, particularly their family, dominates.

#### Table 4.1.1 Generation X Respondent Core Values and Issues in this Study

[**Value Mentioned\*** **Percent Number**]{.underline}

Family relationships 56.5% 85

Giving to others and the community 21.3% 32

Equality and social harmony 18.6% 28

Respect for others 13.3% 20

Honesty 10.6% 16

Hard work 10.6% 16

Continuation of my culture 8.0% 12

Respecting elders 8.0% 12

Not stealing or cheating 5.3% 8

Non-violence 5.3% 8

Following Ten Commandments 5.3% 8

Improving the world 2.6% 4

[Being assertive 2.6% 4]{.underline} **\*** Values respondents mentioned
are not exclusive.

**4.2 To Be Or Not To Be Involved: GenXers Speak Out**

Contrary to popular belief, most members of the birth cohort Generation
X in this study have by no means opted out of civic life - they are
civically engaged. The general consensus among respondents in this study
is that civic involvement is a good thing. It would be a mistake to
assume that GenXers are wholly disengaged. Overall, our ethnographic
interviews have provided evidence that GenXers are engaged in a number
of civic responsibilities in and around the family, the home, the
church, through neighborhood crime watch committees, cultural activities
(i.e. Pow Wows, Cinco de Mayo, Kwanzaa), by donating food, money and
blood to local charities, by helping out senior citizens, through
recycling, tutoring, signing petitions, by voicing opinions on talk
radio shows (i.e. Native American Calling, National Public Radio and the
Tom Joyner Morning Show), and by joining school-based activities. Our
interviews, survey data, focus groups and participant observations also
revealed that our group of sampled GenXer's has far greater desires to
be involved in the community than actual involvement.

Figure 4.2.1 shows that nearly 85 percent of GenX respondents either
'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' with the survey statement, "I would like
to be more involved in the community." Of this total 85 percent, 96
percent of all African American respondents either 'strongly agreed' or
'agreed' with survey this statement; 91 percent of all Hispanic
respondents either 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' with this survey
statement; 83 percent of all American Indian respondents either
'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' with this survey statement; 83 percent of
all Afro-Caribbean respondents either 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' with
this survey statement; 77 percent of all Non-Hispanic White respondents
either 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' with this survey statement; and 67
percent of all Southeast Asian respondents either 'strongly agreed' or
'agreed' with this survey statement.

**Figure 4.2.1 Generation X Survey Question Result**

**'I would like to be more involved in the community.'**

![](media/image2.wmf){width="3.8965277777777776in"
height="3.2694444444444444in"}

Historically, young adults have always been active in activities that
require commitment and the giving of time (Putnam 2000). And today=s
young adults have not broken with the tradition of community involvement
and the spirit of volunteerism. In fact, many respondents commented on
their observations of a renewed interest in community among their peers,
a sort of revitalization in civic engagement. One Non-Hispanic White
male in his early thirties had this to say:

> In the past few years, it never ceases to amaze me how much more
> volunteerism I run into - I run into people who are volunteering time
> or are involved in things that aren=t necessarily going to be paying
> them any money but that they feel some ennobling urge- if you will- to
> be involved in a soup kitchen or a neighborhood clean up.

We argue that civic engagement has not disappeared among GenXers, but
that it has changed. Civic engagement now occurs during the
micro-processes of everyday life, a trend exhibited throughout
contemporary American culture and not a phenomenon unique solely to
Generation X.

GenXers were especially unlikely to be involved in what might be called
traditional community engagement areas, such as formal organizations and
political activities. By and large, our research data reveal that
respondents demonstrate their civic seriousness in large numbers through
four different patterns of civic engagement: 1) via l*ocal volunteer
associations*; 2) via *local, non-political networks*; 3) via *informal,
low-key activities*; and 4) via *unconventional forms of activism*.

One twenty-three year old American Indian respondent commented on her
commitment to volunteerism through a local Habitat for Humanity chapter,
Ait=s all about helping people to get up on their feet and have a home.
Getting them to be self-willed people." Another respondent shared an
example of a candle vigil, a local non-political activity important to
him and to other members of his immediate community,

> \...one of the things that I recently did was a little walk with
> candles through the neighborhood to bring awareness to this idea of
> keeping affordable housing in the neighborhood.

The opinion that there is more than one prescribed way to be civically
involved seemed to resonate with many GenXers. Some respondents were
particularly outspoken concerning the narrow focus of socially accepted
and legitimate forms of community involvement. One non-Hispanic White
female respondent, an advocate of informal, low-key activities, had this
to say about community involvement:

> I think it=s talking to people, finding out where people are from and
> what people are thinking about. I don=t necessarily think it
> \[community involvement\] always has to happen in these organized
> ways, like block meetings. Actually, I=m probably a little suspicious
> of those type of things, but I think it can happen in very informal
> ways\...you know, picnics, going down to the park, actually having a
> conversation with people, smiling to people as you pass them on the
> street, creating this kind of warmth in the neighborhood. If we=re
> talking about specific development issues, should a school be built,
> then that requires these organized meetings and things of that nature.
> But I don=t think that community can only take place in those spaces.
> Picking up your dog crap is community too so I don=t have to step in
> it.

Many respondents argued that they are involved in the community in a
variety of ways and on a variety of levels that do not always reflect
Atraditional" forms of activism. One twenty-one year old African
American male specifically addressed this issue by stating,

> When they have polls and stuff, I give my lil=two cents. I call the
> radio stations a lot. Stuff like that counts. You know it doesn=t have
> to go as high as government to always be heard because, a lot of
> people in my community and a lot of people in the community
> surrounding me listen to \[radio stations\]. So my opinion can go
> further sometimes than trying to petition or trying to be heard on
> Capital Hill.

One Indian male respondent in his late twenties, for example, does not
necessarily see volunteerism as a component of civic participation. For
him, volunteerism only scratches the surface of authentic civic
engagement. He states,

> I work with students, sometimes, and their idea of volunteering is
> service, service is going into a shelter and working in the soup
> kitchen, or doing a clothes drive, and that=s service. I don=t think
> you really make the individual connection\...institutionally you
> haven=t done anything. Now if you do that, then you would write to
> your legislator and say, Awhy don=t you do something about
> it?@\...that would mean taking the next step towards systemic change.

Other respondents were eager to point out that community civicness goes
hand in hand with responsible consumerism. For example, supporting
small, locally-owned businesses was deemed as yet another form of active
social consciousness. One respondent commented that, Aalthough I find
myself occasionally in a Seattle=s Best \[chain grocery store\] or
something like that, I try to support local, small businesses in my
community and elsewhere.@ From the perspectives of GenXers like this
respondent, activities such as these, suggest that they are more than
willing to be responsible citizens, but lament that such types of civic
activities receive little attention, respect and recognition. There is a
sense among GenXers in this study that Acommunity activism without
drama@ does not count.

When respondents were asked to explain *why* community involvement was
important to them, several GenXers mentioned that it was about
*community empowerment.* A Mexican American female respondent in her
late twenties explains,

> I believe that people should take a very strong role in solving
> community problems. I strongly disagree where people from government
> offices come, who are not from the community, don=t know much about
> our needs, try to solve our problems without any help from us. So I do
> believe in community empowerment.

A 26-year-old Non-Hispanic White female respondent expresses the same
sentiment,

> Well, I don=t think we should leave it all up to the government to
> decide on how to help people because a lot of it is not money. It=s
> your time, it=s personal interactions. And I think it also gives some
> control back to you because you don=t always get full control of where
> your tax dollars go or what organizations and what issues get help.
> But if you really feel strong about an issue, it=s your opportunity to
> make a difference there. And second of all, I think once you start
> doing it, unfortunately you may become aware of how big the problem is
> which I think encourages you to be more committed to the issue and how
> to resolve it. So, I think it \[community involvement\] broadens
> people=s horizon.

Others feel that the best way they can contribute to community life is
to inspire their children with a sense of self-respect they themselves
did not have when young. For example, an American Indian focus group
respondent expressed this point of view. She said, "I see the younger
generation being more proud of who they are." She explained her
position:

> \...I have children that I feel will play a big part in \[governance\]
> some day, as long as they -- I'm the generation who -- My parents just
> gave up. I'm the generation telling my children, stand up and be proud
> of who you are. If I'd been taught that when I was younger, I might
> have had a more powerful voice, but now I can at least say to my
> children, 'It doesn't matter what anybody says, stand up to them' and
> making them have the power, have a voice, that's what my power is.

It was also important for many respondents to maintain a bond or tie
with their community so they could continue to be a positive force,
*role model* or *advocate* to those currently living in or near their
community.

> I feel like I belong here; it doesn=t mean that if there are bad
> people in the community I should separate myself from that\...as a
> matter of fact, if I can see the wrong they=re doing, it=s up to me to
> try to talk to the right people, so I can change the youth who are
> being derailed from doing the right thing.
>
> I think of myself as a role model. I can go out there and make a young
> person just like myself\....not go through things that other young
> people go through. We have an organization that we meet with once a
> month to talk about issues within the community among young people,
> such as HIV education.
>
> I act as an advocate. If I see that your real and your issues are
> real, than I act as a advocate for you. At the age of 16 I was locked
> up\...I got to see the world on real terms. I decided that I wanted to
> be part of the plan, and not the destruction of the plan.

For the majority of respondents, getting involved in the community was
about *giving back to the community*, it=s about making the connection
between one=s personal values and larger systemic concerns or issues.
This was especially true for many ethnic minority respondents. The value
placed on *giving to others* is important to respondents in this study
(refer to Table 4.1.1), insofar as reciprocity is the heart of social
life. For example, an American Indian respondent talked about "giving
and receiving" as having magical effects, as well as being the very
definition of community involvement:

> You should give before you receive from the community\.... What is
> received is a feeling of being part of something. Many people feel
> isolated. To be a part of something beyond my own family\.... By
> \[our\] giving, our community becomes that much stronger, our kids can
> read that much better, we have more salmon to do our ceremonies
> around, and to keep our Oregon economy strong.

An 18-year-old Cambodian high school student made a similar though less
eloquent statement: "\[Others in the community expect that\] whatever
they do for you, you should help in return, whatever the problem is."
One twenty-one year old Hispanic female respondent shares this same
sentiment, AI=m remembering right now something that Martin Luther King
said, that an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere, it=s
important for people to have a communal oriented value. "

The decennial census is an easy way in which a generation can give back
to the community while empowering the community. This is a message that
should be publicized during outreach efforts. The decennial census can
also serve as a vehicle by which some GenXers can "have their voices
heard." The Census is a non-partisan, legislative, national resource
that tells politicians, policy makers, government agencies, community
organizations and businesses the resources a community has and the
resources a community needs.

In contrast, there were respondents in our study who revealed a higher
degree of skepticism about the value of civic engagement, particularly
Afro-Caribbean Immigrants. There seemed to be an awareness, as
first-generation Haitians and Jamaicans, that they are undervalued,
marginalized, not accepted, and alienated from local and national
communities alike. Jamaicans males, in particular, repeatedly voiced
this belief:

> I=m not saying that I don=t believe in it \[community involvement\],
> it=s just for others to do - I won=t knock anyone for doing it, to put
> it to you that way. Just don=t force me to do it. You know what I=m
> saying. All that good stuff make it right, but personally for me to go
> out and to help enhance it or you know - I don=t believe in that. They
> had a community clean-up one time and they were saying everyone=s
> cleaning up. That=s fine. I=m so glad. I was glad to see people there,
> but don=t ask me to come over there and come help too. It should be
> voluntary, not forced.

Other respondents like one 19-year-old Haitian-American respondent, felt
that community involvement was important, but not a priority. She
states,

> I mean, it=s not like detrimental, but you know, you need to give
> back, you need to give your input and try to help out when you can. I
> don=t feel people need to be pressured to get involved. You have to be
> involved by your own preference.

Perhaps the primary turn-off for Afro-Caribbean respondents is due to
the forced nature of community involvement activities as a prerequisite
for high school and college completion nowadays. The mandate that
community involvement is required and involuntary rather than voluntary,
was not well received by these respondents.

> **Figure 4.2.2 Generation X Survey Question Result**

![](media/image3.wmf){width="3.9166666666666665in"
height="3.8805555555555555in"} **'It does not matter if I volunteer.'**

Figure 4.2.2 shows that over seventy percent of our GenX respondents (72
percent) either "disagreed' or 'strongly disagreed' with the survey
statement, "It does not matter if I volunteer." Only 57 percent of
Afro-Caribbean respondents 'agreed' with this survey statement. As a way
to help describe the various civic and government engagement patterns
and values that characterize GenX respondents in this study, we have
identified five engagement profile types in Table 4.2.1: the
*Transitional* participation profile type; 2) the *Trend-Setter*
participation profile type; 3) the *Crisis* participation profile type;
4) the *Altruistic* participation profile type; and 5) the *Egoistic*
participation profile type. These engagement profile types discussed in
Table 4.2.1 may be indicative of current and future behavioral responses
to the decennial census and other demographic surveys.

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### Table 4.2.1 Generation X Respondent Engagement Profile Types in this Study

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Profile Type          **Consequence**         **Respondent Quote
  Definition**                                    Example**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

+--------+---------------+---------------+-----------------------------+
| **Tr   | The ability   | Civic and/or  | *\@Where I=m at now, as far |
| ansiti | to            | government    | as professionally, I=m just |
| onal** | participate   | engagement    | starting out, I just        |
|        | is directly   | may be        | graduated from school, so   |
|        | related to    | erratic,      | I=m not in a position to    |
|        | the           | inconsistent, | make much of an impact."*   |
|        | individual=s  | unstable.     |                             |
|        | station in    |               |                             |
|        | his/her       |               |                             |
|        | personal or   |               |                             |
|        | professional  |               |                             |
|        | life.         |               |                             |
+--------+---------------+---------------+-----------------------------+
| **Tr   | Civic and/or  | Civic and/or  | \-\--\_\_\_\_               |
| end-Se | government    | government    |                             |
| tter** | engagement    | engagement    | *"You can't work alone. If  |
|        | values are    | activities    | you work with your          |
|        | expressed     | may be        | neighbors -- for example,   |
|        | through folk  | progressive,  | every year there's a Cinco  |
|        | festivals,    | t             | de Mayo holiday. I'm there  |
|        | religion/     | ransformative | to help them even though    |
|        | spirituality, | and           | I'm not Mexican\.... I've   |
|        | art, music,   | innovative.   | also talked to a pastor in  |
|        | education,    |               | my neighborhood, actually   |
|        | politics and  |               | his wife* is                |
|        | etc.          |               | Buddhist*\....We want them  |
|        |               |               | to know what they have as   |
|        |               |               | part of the community\....  |
|        |               |               | I know there are gangs in   |
|        |               |               | our community. What can I   |
|        |               |               | do to bring them in? Maybe  |
|        |               |               | we can put together our     |
|        |               |               | resources in partnership on |
|        |               |               | behalf of our               |
|        |               |               | kids\....There should be    |
|        |               |               | more recognition of         |
|        |               |               | bilingualism in the public  |
|        |               |               | school system\....If the    |
|        |               |               | community colleges can      |
|        |               |               | teach Russian, they can     |
|        |               |               | also teach Lao."*           |
+--------+---------------+---------------+-----------------------------+
| **Cr   | The ability   | Civic and/or  | *"I recently left an        |
| isis** | to            | government    | abusive relationship and    |
|        | participate   | engagement    | live alone with my          |
|        | is undermined | perception    | two-year-old daughter. I    |
|        | by the        | and behavior  | work two part-time sales    |
|        | individual=s  | is altered;   | jobs in a shopping mall,    |
|        | overwhelming  | it is a low   | but I don't have a reliable |
|        | life          | priority.     | babysitter. Having a baby   |
|        | c             |               | and two jobs prevents me    |
|        | ircumstances, |               | from being active in the    |
|        | struggles and |               | community, but I do stay in |
|        | resp          |               | touch with the people at    |
|        | onsibilities. |               | the Title IX Indian         |
|        |               |               | Education Program."*        |
+--------+---------------+---------------+-----------------------------+
| **     | Civic and/or  | Civic and/or  | *"I do a lot of community   |
| Altrui | government    | government    | service. I've been          |
| stic** | engagement    | engagement is | volunteering this spring.   |
|        | emphasis is   | deliberate;   | My school encourages that.  |
|        | on doing,     | it is a       | Not everybody has access to |
|        | it=s          | priority.     | dental care, so it's        |
|        | p             |               | important that we volunteer |
|        | hilanthropic, |               | in the neighborhood         |
|        | for the       |               | clinics. \[I also go\] to   |
|        | greater good; |               | schools, educating students |
|        | Awe@          |               | about oral health care.     |
|        | mentality.    |               | \[And I volunteer\] at the  |
|        |               |               | clinics every Monday night. |
|        |               |               | After school I plan to      |
|        |               |               | continue doing this kind of |
|        |               |               | thing, even if it's only    |
|        |               |               | once a month. I think I owe |
|        |               |               | it to my community."*       |
+--------+---------------+---------------+-----------------------------+
| **Egoi | Civic and/or  | Civic and/or  | *"I=m not a part of my      |
| stic** | government    | government    | community. There are things |
|        | engagement    | engagement is | happening all the time, and |
|        | emphasis is   | avoided; it   | I=m around. But, I=m just   |
|        | solely        | is not a      | not interested. It just     |
|        | self-centered | priority.     | doesn't follow my           |
|        | and           |               | interest."*                 |
|        | self-seeking; |               |                             |
|        | AIA           |               |                             |
|        | mentality.    |               |                             |
+--------+---------------+---------------+-----------------------------+

**4.3 Hope and Despair: The Meaning and Role of Community Among
GenXers**

The term "community" is too frequently uttered with the intended meaning
of speakers and listeners readily assumed. The idea of community is a
deceptively simple one. The notion of 'community' emerges as something
much more complex and obscure than originally predicted. The concept of
community means different things to different people, and our GenX
respondents were no exception. Several respondents associated community
with *locality* or *localism*, "where you live, the people and places
that are surrounded by you," thus assigning a bounded, geographical
definition to the term. For such respondents, the source of civic life
is embedded in the "local" community. The term 'community' evokes a link
to a group of neighborhood people who probably have known each other for
many years, and who help one another. Respondents see in local civic
life a vehicle for creating and sustaining habits of social interaction
and social trust. This ideal, based on stable, long-term associations,
is both a *spatial* and *social* view on the term community. The "local"
community for such respondents seems to represent an entity that stands
in opposition to the "nation" or the "government." According to author
Alan Brinkley, the local community is "a defense against impersonal
bureaucracies" (Brinkley 1996). Edner, a male Haitian respondent
substantiated Brinkley's claim by simply stating, community is "another
part of your home."

Some respondents emphasized that community implied something shared,
such as an interest, religion or activity. Community was about
"meaningful connections," thus, community was about *association*. For
instance, according to respondents, "community means people who are, who
have some common bond, something that puts them in a group together,
something that gives them something in common with other members." The
meaning of community for these respondents moves beyond the customary
"weather-movie"conversations. A non-Hispanic White female respondent of
Jewish background remarks,

> There's a community that is my work-world community, there's an
> advocacy community, and there's a sort of a social justice community
> that I am a part of. I think for the most part, the communities that
> I'm involved with would have similar views.

A Southeast Asian respondent expressed a view of community that is
ethnic, social and spatial:

> A community is the way people live, the way people treat each other in
> the neighborhood. The government services, quality of life, protection
> from police. Small businesses, library -- everyday involvement. \...My
> community would be Asian group, first. And I have a community of
> people I work with. They're also my community. And my friends.

For other respondents, definitions of 'community' were discussed as
symbols of *identity.* For instance, one respondent commented*,* "I put
the communities I belong to\-- the African American, the middle class
community, college student community and the hip hop community." Another
respondent, a Hispanic female states, "people think of their race when
they think of community. Instead of seeing themselves as homes, they see
themselves as subdivisions: the Cubans, the Columbians, and stuff like
that. They break it down, which makes us weak." The meaning of community
for these respondents had evolved into a construct founded on
collective, yet distinctive characteristics that are physical, personal
or behavioral. One African American respondent was quick to reveal, "I'm
part of the gay community. That's the one community that I say that's my
life and that's the community I'm really a part of." A Southeast Asian
respondent from Portland, Oregon acknowledged that he is part of a
dispersed "Asian" community:

> Community in my mind is a group of people, like a village, who live
> together and work together and have activities with each other\....A
> leader who can talk about problems\....\[We "Asians" in Portland\] are
> distributed around town. Many Asians have small communities -- maybe
> at a common market. A place where they have the same language and same
> culture, people who understand each other.

The idea of sharing community responsibility was also valued among
respondents. Respondents seem to believe that part of a community's
inherent function is to teach its members how to mature into responsible
citizens. An African American respondent in her late twenties expressed
what so many other respondents had also voiced,

> It's very much important to be involved. If one person feel an issue,
> than maybe everyone on that block feel it and if you don't take a step
> to get involved and let other people know, making them aware of the
> issue, then they may feel that no one cares. And if they feel that no
> one cares, then the issue will remain an issue 'til somebody do
> something about it. To be involved means to get people involved, help
> get the word out on what's going on and also to just make your
> presence there every now and then, show up for those meetings, and
> participate, make your face known and make your beliefs known.

Another respondent remarks, "...a community only works when everyone
rotates, but there's always someone or a set of people who stop doing
and set the whole chain off." In terms of community citizenship, one
respondent noted, "it's very important \[to get involved in the
community\] but often frustrating, not knowing if you're getting heard."
For these respondents, civic involvement is about a shared sense of
community responsibility where it is important for everyone to do his or
her portion of the work in order to sustain a successful community,
thus, a civically engaged community.

Participation in community life, most GenXers regretfully admitted, is
too often based on an "I" mentality over a "we" mentality. A sense of
romanticized nostalgia overcame many respondents when they reflected
back on the way community in society used to exist. There is a belief
that the days of community as older generations once knew them to exist
have all but disappeared --"they no longer are vibrant" one respondent
remarks. The reality, however, for this highly mobile population, is
that they believe they have no "community." The demise of community is
evident for GenX respondents in that "a sense of confidence" is missing.
Many respondents commented on the disappointment, the fracture of, and
the moral decay they have increasingly witnessed in their communities.
Respondents had the following to say of their respective communities.

> Well, I think that community used to be more of a tangible defining
> word or term that people when they used it there was no question what
> it meant. I think when you talk to older generations you'll get that
> message. These days, we have to sit down and come up with different
> definitions of it, which means it is more abstract.
>
> The kids with the poverty and the drug abuse. I've seen it \[the
> community\] change since when we first moved there to now. The homes
> are run down. They're not being maintained. A lot of homes have become
> HUD homes now. I would say more than half. There's a lot of garbage
> outside the homes. I'm not saying everyone, but there's a few bad
> influences. They're writing all over the place and smoking and
> drinking, and I don't like that.
>
> I'll take my street for example. Growing up as a small child, we all
> knew each other, all the neighbors and now a lot of new families moved
> in, all younger, and no one knows each other. And if that were to be a
> microcosm of what's really going on in my home city\....you would have
> a city of people who don't know each other, who don't want to get to
> know each other. Maybe that's community these days.
>
> Well, I should say that I'm kind of disappointed with the status of
> community right now because most of the time, when I'm ready to go for
> work, or when I come back from work, I find youth just loitering in
> the streets, I mean doing nothing. And I wonder what amount of time
> they do waste, just hanging around in the streets. I wish they knew
> that the time they use, that they mess up, is kind of vital. They can
> do something constructive, rather than walking around in the streets,
> doing nothing\....I'm afraid that in our generation, we've lost track,
> tremendously. We don't have moral values. We don't respect parents,
> and that's really scary.

The decennial census can serve as a powerful tool for communities,
especially in communities such as the ones respondents described above.
Members of a community can get to know their communities through the
data collected, which is used as a resource to allocate federal and
state funds to communities, to formulate public policy and to assist
with planning and decision-making in the private sector. The importance
of Census survey data to community development and federal educational
allocations should be stressed to GenX respondents to inspire decennial
census compliance. Just as the lottery system has a slogan, *you can't
win if you don't play*; and the Census 2000 had a slogan, *This is your
future. Don't leave it blank*. The Census Bureau could create a new
slogan for the 2010 Census that would appeal to GenX respondents: *Be
counted in your community so that you can count on your community.
Return your 2010 Census form* (Crowley 2001).

Although our sample did not express a single, clear and coherent
definition of community or of what engagement in that community might
mean, some respondents added the criterion of sharing values and goals.
Allison, a Jamaican, defined community as, "People who come together
when they have a common interest. There's something in common whether it
be the neighborhood or church or work or school. Just a group of people
who have something or things in common, they go together." Edner, a
Haitian, indicated community is, "Another part of your home;" meaning,
"Family and friends. I know community is a big part in how you gonna
turn out in the future."

The notion of "community" emerges as something much more complex and
obscure than originally predicted. A full sense of what community is, as
respondents have clearly illustrated \-- is open to infinite
interpretation. Many respondents cited their family and/or church as the
primary source by which their civic values and beliefs were developed,
nurtured and encouraged. We refer to these communities as *root
communities*. In contrast, respondents often claimed that school, work
and neighborhood settings are akin to *surrogate communities*,
substitute communities that serve as resources and outlets by which
respondents are able to develop and maintain civic ties. The bottom line
for respondents is that community is a dualistic experience; it serves
as a place that represents both hope and despair.

**4.4 Alienating Immigrants: The Impact of Citizenship on
Civic-Mindedness**

### 

### *4.4.1 Afro-Caribbean Haitians*

Immigration and Naturalization Services( INS) identifies Haitians as
being the fifth highest undocumented alien population residing in the
United States according to 1996 estimates. Life for Haitians in the U.S.
has tended to be dominated by struggle; struggle against a
discriminatory immigration policy and struggle against ubiquitous
anti-Haitian prejudice. Their focus in the U.S. is commonly surviving
and getting ahead. Keisha, a Haitian immigrant reported, "Like what\'s
the most thing I care about in life? To be honest with you, I care about
my church and my education. I do have a problem that\'s bothering me all
the time, but I don\'t think it\'s a part of it. I just want to go see
my people. I\'m like, \'hey, it\'s a problem for me. I don\'t have a
green card. I can\'t go.\' I always think about it, and it\'s a problem
for real."

Coming from one of the least democratic heritages in the New World,
Haitians have little experience with civic involvement. Family and
church are the only two institutions Haitians trust. Civic participation
is an alien concept to Haitian respondents that participated in this
research. Even Haitians who are very active in their church do not
conceive of participating in a community outside of church. For
instance, the experiences of American societal racism urge Haitians to
identify with African Americans. At the same time, prejudice
specifically against Haitians, some of it on the part of African
Americans, supports a specifically Haitian identity. Census outreach
should be tailored to meet the specific needs of Haitians; it must also
be sensitive to their multiple, situational identities and sense of
community.

### *4.4.2 Afro-Caribbean Jamaicans*

None of the Afro-Caribbean Jamaican respondents had a strong sense of
local community history. Instead, they often compared the lack of
solidarity in their current community (e.g. Miami) to an idealized image
of their home country where people were allegedly more likely to help
each other out. Jamaicans, the only immigrants in our study from a
strongly democratic country, had notions of civic engagement most
similar to those in the U.S. Nevertheless, respondents frequently and
cynically noted widespread corruption and cronyism. Because most of the
Jamaicans in our study had come to the U.S. as adolescents, they have
fairly clear memories of civic and political society in Jamaica.
Immigration frequently sundered their nuclear family as one or both
parents remained in Jamaica while respondents came to the U.S. to pursue
their education. In the U.S., Jamaican respondents commonly live in
female-headed households or with relatives whom they did not previously
know very well. Moreover, their experiences with U.S. racism have
alienated them. As a result, these respondents are socially more
isolated in the United States and nostalgically recall the warm families
they left behind. Jamaican respondents did know about censuses, voting,
political parties and the like. But they did not feel particularly
attached to those activities in Jamaica nor in the United States. Their
sense of community in America tends to be no more than people who share
a neighborhood. They felt that the sharing needed for a broader
community is evident in Jamaica, but is absent in the United States.

*4.4.3 Afro-Caribbeans Collectively*

Afro-Caribbeans appear both staunch in their views and extreme in their
actions against civic involvement. Afro-Caribbean respondents in this
study sincerely believe that they are not cared for nor particularly
respected in America. These respondents articulated that they have
received little positive input from their surrogate or adopted
communities to date, and thus, are unwilling to put much of themselves
into any community outside of a familiar circle of family members and
church-circle friends. One Afro-Caribbean respondent expressed his
extreme alienation by stating, "As far as belonging to a community right
now where I stay at, I don't really know nobody there. I'm just in and
out. The only people I really know is who I hang around with, that's
about it." For this respondent and like so many other Afro-Caribbean
participants in this study, the community they belong to is comprised of
individuals who also feel disconnected, it's an endless vicious cycle.
One Jamaican respondent states,

> Where I'm living right now, I don't care too much about it 'cause I
> don't call it a community anyway. \[Community is\]\... people that
> come together for you because you know them and everything. But here
> \[in the U.S.\], everybody doing their own thing. So, I don't call
> that a community. I just call that, everybody wanting to do their own
> stuff. I don't care too much about the so-called community I'm
> supposed to live in.

To not feel like you belong to any bounded community group or
geographical space is to not feel like a citizen for many Afro-Caribbean
respondents. In essence, these respondents lack privileges and rights
associated with American citizenship because they feel as though they
have no claim to space or connection to community. The fastest growing
segments of the Black population are identified as immigrants and
children of immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa (Census 2000), and
thus, the need for more specific racial demographic data is critical.
Omission of specific racial demographic data for such groups such as
Haitians, leads to gross errors in planning strategies, family
well-being issues, health service access and utilization, civil rights
and socioeconomic estrangement (Marcelin and Marcelin 2001).

Not feeling connected to a community because of one's immigrant status
certainly takes it toll on one's willingness to get involved in
community affairs, even local ones. The willingness among these
immigrant respondents to undertake certain forms of civic involvement
and responsibility seem to be undermined by experiences of exclusion.
Information collected from our ethnographic interviews, survey data,
focus groups and participant observations underscored that a lack of
citizen rights, whether perceived or actualized, negatively impacts the
desire and motivation of many Afro-Caribbean GenXers to undertake civic
responsibilities and roles. It is this concept of citizenship, a sense
of social cohesion or connectedness, of performing a needed role in
society that is all but nonexistent for these GenX immigrants. In this
sense, not only is citizenship deferred but civic engagement is delayed.

Afro-Caribbean immigrants express an invisibility. Without being
recognized and feeling respected, Afro-Caribbean respondents are cynical
about assuming responsibilities in and around their communities.
Motivation paralleled by exclusion translates into apathy. The
incorporation of *cultural rights* (the right to practice and maintain a
distinct cultural identity and lifestyle) into a liveable definition of
citizenship is essential if full societal inclusion and participation is
to be achieved among Afro-Caribbean immigrants (Flores 1997). These
respondents need to have a way to engage in civic life without feeling
threatened or the need to trade their unique cultural values in order to
be included, accepted and respected in local and larger communities.
These feelings of isolation and separateness from local communities and
the larger American society seem to have translated into civic
disengagement among GenX Afro-Caribbean respondents on many levels: not
much involvement in community outreach activities, very little political
participation and a cavalier attitude about civic engagement in general.
The one community environment that seems to defy feelings of alienation
and exclusion is the church community. For the majority of
Afro-Caribbean respondents, "God comes first."

For many Haitians and Jamaicans, civic participation is restricted to
church affiliations and obligations. Seventy-one percent of GenX
Afro-Caribbean respondents stated that they have participated in church
activities on a regular basis in the past two years. One respondent
stated that, "man-made governments can't solve social problems. They've
been around too long and they have tried every form of government they
can think of. When you look at history, they show the same thing."
Beyond church activities, civic participation is more about a general
sense of being a good neighbor, maintaining one's residence, being
courteous and polite to others as well as ensuring not to offend other
people by "minding one's business." For the majority of GenX
Afro-Caribbeans, their attitudinal and behavioral responses to civic and
government engagement conform to profiles described as transitional,
crisis and egoistic types (refer to Table 4.2.1). Consequently, civic
and government engagement could be inconsistent, a low priority or not a
priority at all. This means that Census educational programs and
outreach efforts must specifically target and encourage Afro-Caribbeans
to participate in Census 2010.

*4.4.4 Southeast Asians Collectively*

Southeast Asian migration has resulted largely from events associated
with the 1964-1975 Vietnam War. Each nationality and ethnic group was
affected differently, but the total effect on all Southeast Asians was
mostly destructive, including catastrophic involuntary dislocation of
large populations, many of who found their way to the U.S. as refugees.
According to the most recent INS figures, during the period 1981-1996,
Vietnamese represented the highest rate of refugees entering the U.S.
and Cambodians accounted for the fourth highest rate of refugee influx
in the U.S. INS estimates place Laos as the sixth of ten leading nations
with approved refugee status in the United States. Southeast Asian
respondents continue to experience the lingering effects of horrific
torture, murder, and deprivation experiences of the Pol Pot era (see
Figure 4.4.1 for a brief description of Pol Pot era) and other events
associated with the Vietnam War. According to our ethnographic
interviews, participant observations and focus group sessions, the bonds
of trust were so badly destroyed by these events that they continue to
hinder community engagement of many Southeast Asian respondents today. A
few historical facts are discussed in Figures 4.4.1, 4.4.2 and 4.4.3
about Southeast Asians in order to understand the context of their
plight, attitudes and response to civic engagement.

The Southeast Asian subgroups selected for study represent approximately
one-quarter (26 percent) of all "Asians and Pacific Islanders" in the
five-county metropolitan area in the 1990 Census for the state of
Oregon. The five-county metropolitan area includes: Multnomah,
Clackamas, Columbia, Washington and Yamhill. The total population count
for these subgroups was 12,093, which also happened to be 0.9 percent of
the total population. There are no 1998 estimates of subgroup
populations, but the Asian and Pacific Islander total was 3.7 percent in
1990 and estimated at 4.8 percent in 1998. Data are from Census tables
(CO-98-11 & Table 5/General Population Characteristics) provided by the
Center for Population Research and Census, Portland State University.
The 1990 population count for the metropolitan region (the five county
total) was 1,277,399 and was estimated at 1,492,012 in1998. High rates
of geographical mobility make it almost impossible to anticipate what
the 2010 count of Southeast Asian subgroups will be.

**Figure 4.4.1 Historical Overview Figure 4.4.2 Historical Overview**

**Figure 4.4.3 Historical Overview**

As Southeast Asian refugees, all respondent families were entitled to
public assistance when they arrived in the United States. A large number
of Southeast Asian respondents, 86 percent, said that their parents had
used public assistance at some time during their childhoods. As might be
expected, a similarly large number of GenX respondents (77 percent),
worked while in high school. Some worked very long hours. One female
respondent, a high school drop-out, said she worked many hours per week
while in high school so as to be able to buy necessities such as clothes
and shoes.

The majority of Southeast Asian respondents in this study fit the
transitional or crisis engagement mode profile (refer to Table 4.2.1).
Even after initial refugee settlement to the U.S., there was still much
"secondary migration" within the U.S. Southeast Asians sought new
locations in order to increase social supports from kin, fictive kin,
and patrons (sponsors), some of whom worked in social service agencies.
Access to U.S. social services for Southeast Asians is largely obtained
through the offices of bilingual people who build up networks of
influence through job provisions and other essential services. This
system is true to the form of social structure back in respondents'
respective native countries. Thus, communal cooperation and mutual
problem solving are seen as strengths that respondents value. Giving to
others was mentioned as an important value by 43 percent of Southeast
Asian respondents.

Some respondents mentioned that efforts by members of their parental
generation to form "Asian" self-help associations had not succeeded. The
International Rescue Committee of Oregon established the Asian Family
Center to provide multiple social services for Southeast Asian refugee
families. Some of the community colleges' English as a Secondary
Language (ESL) programs also provide opportunities for much needed
skills development along with social contact. Gangs also provide a
measure of personal security and social status to young people when all
else fails.

Southeast Asians in the Portland metropolitan area have access to a
relatively meager group of social resources, that is, less "social
capital[^7]" available for their collective and individual use. The most
enduring and stable ethnically oriented institutions seem to be Buddhist
temples, in which three specifically serve Southeast Asian communities.
Among Southeast Asian respondents that are Buddhist, they use three
different Buddhist temples in the Portland metropolitan area: one
established by Laotians; another by Cambodians; and a third used mostly
by Vietnamese immigrants. Buddhist temples are staffed by a few
full-time monks, some Lao and some Thai, who perform initiation
ceremonies for young men and officiate at rites of passage ceremonies.
The Lao and Cambodian temples share the services of each other's monks
if necessary. Church membership once again, is important to this
respondent group. Sixty-four percent of GenX Southeast Asians said they
have been affiliated with a religious institution during the past two
years according to our card sort data.

Elicited Census counts and future survey cooperation from Southeast
Asian respondents should make use of community "leaders" (patrons), but
should be done with the awareness that there always will be multiple
community leaders recognized in any one location. Certain core values
should also be stressed when conducting outreach campaigns to engage
Southeast Asians. We suggest that these include: meeting family
responsibilities, respect for ones' elders (both parents and elder
siblings), self-respect, and surviving adversity. There is also a strong
tendency among Southeast Asians to value spiritual or personal
commitments over monetary ones, though no one criticizes financial
success. For 2010 enumeration efforts, field representatives can expect
Southeast Asian respondents to encounter language problems (English
fluency and literacy is modest) when filling out a Census form and to
reside in irregular household and family arrangements. It is also
recommended that Census 2010 planning committees increase their outreach
efforts to this population segment and continue to promote the
availability of Census short-forms in Lao, Thai and Vietnamese
languages.

#### *4.4.5 Cubans*

Unlike the other immigrant groups in this study, first generation Cubans
have power. Because of the relatively privileged background of the first
Cuban arrivals and the assistance afforded them from the U.S. government
(Stepick 1993), Miami is the only American city where Latino immigrants
have created a successful and self-sustained ethnic economy in which
they have a high likelihood of being able to work with co-ethnics in
enterprises owned by co-ethnics, shop in stores owned and operated by
co-ethnics, and obtain professional services from co-ethnics. By the
early 1990s, just thirty years after Cubans began arriving to the United
States, they controlled all of the most important local political
machinery and they had deeply penetrated the most important economic
positions. Cubans have the numbers, economic development, political
power, cultural and linguistic presence, and social and psychological
security to take center stage. Many immigrant groups point to Cubans as
the archetype community because they are a group who are internally
united and able to wield power and influence.

Cuban Americans view themselves as the most stalwart immigrant group in
opposing communism and thus, perceive themselves as loyal supporters and
defenders of U.S. interests. They further view themselves as strongly
contributing to U.S. society by being economically successful and
flourishing through their intense civic engagement reflected in their
high rates of naturalization and ability to elect Cuban American
officials locally. Cubans have the second highest naturalization rates
of all immigrant groups. Apart from their obvious opposition to Castro's
Cuba, they have voted as an ethnic block in local elections and have
consistently supported Republicans in state and national elections
(Moreno and Warren 1992). A 1997 south Florida survey of Cubans
revealed, that of those who are citizens, over 90 percent are registered
to vote. Of the Cubans registered to vote, 70 percent are registered
Republicans.

GenerationX Cuban immigrants are remarkably assimilated in a
characteristically American fashion. While they have not adopted an
entirely American or Cuban self-identity, they strongly prefer the
hyphenated label, Cuban-American. Previous ethnographic work conducted
reveals Cuban young adults to be the most Americanized of immigrant
groups in terms of teenage culture (Konczal 1997). Cuban GenXers are
also the least likely of all immigrant young adults to report
experiences of discrimination (Rumbaut 1997; Rumbaut 1998).

The Elián Gonzalez affair[^8] in 2000 has occasioned a profound
re-examination among Cubans in terms of how they experience civic and
government engagement. In general, Cuban respondents said they became
less trusting of the federal government as a result of how the Elián
Gonzalez case was handled by the U.S. government. The Hialeah Census
Office Manager in Dade County Florida, Gamael Nassar, maintained that up
to 1,000 Hialeah residents turned away door-to-door Census enumerators
(Yanez 2000). Subsequently, the Hialeah office was embroiled in a
controversy concerning fraudulent Census returns. Census workers were
fired (Morgan 2000) and a recount ordered (Cobb and Miguel 2000; Morgan
2000). The Elián Gonzalez incident incited much deep emotional
resentment among Cuban respondents:

> It's a betrayal. They betrayed us \[the U.S.\]. We've been the most
> loyal supporters of the U.S. How could they do this?
>
> The Americans \[meaning non-Hispanic Whites\], it's like this is their
> country and we're not part of this. We are visitors. Just that we're
> not Americans. We're from other places. We don't belong here." Onan
> added, "I think what she's trying to say is no matter how hard you try
> you're always going to be from another country. We're not going to be
> American American. We're going to be Latin"

The Elián Gonzalez affair has also had the contradictory effect of
promoting solidarity and ethnic consciousness, while also highlighting
differences among Cuban Americans, particularly between the primarily
older hardliners and the primarily more assimilated Generation X (or as
they are known as among Cubans - Generation Ñ) Cuban Americans.
Accordingly, the affair had a contradictory impact on the implementation
of Census 2000. During the height of media attention, response rates
apparently did decline. We say apparently because there were also
apparently a significant number of fraudulent returns. In the short
term, the Elián affair made the Census 2000 significantly more difficult
among Cubans in Miami. The affair required the Census Bureau to expend
significantly more effort in at least one heavily Cuban area, Hialeah.
Yet, these alienating events did not prove insurmountable. After the
recount, Hialeah ended up having a response rate of 77 percent, the
second highest response rate among large cities (Friess 2000) and
Miami-Dade County's overall rate of 65 percent surpassed the overall
state rate of 63 percent. Thus, even for groups that are apparently
successfully integrated and which have significant local power, whenever
others perceive, depict, and treat them as alien immigrants, or as the
"other," the successful, integrated immigrants may become at least
temporarily alienated and not respond to the Census. For most GenX Cuban
respondents, they confirm engagement characteristics belonging to the
trendsetter profile types refer to Table 4.2.1).

*4.4.6 Mexicans*

#### 

On the eve of Census 2000, nearly two-thirds of the 31.7 million
estimated Latinos[^9] in the United States were of Mexican origin[^10]
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2000a). According to the Census 2000 count for
Hispanics, there are 35 million Hispanics residing in the United States
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2000a). Geographically dispersed throughout the
nation, with heavy concentrations in the Southwest and West, Mexican
Americans and Mexican immigrants totaled about 21 million people (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2000a). They also were and continue to be one of the
youngest Latino subgroups. Their median age is about 26 years, and
nearly 70 percent of them were under 35 years of age (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2000a). A significant segment of this young Mexican origin
population, nearly 19 percent, was and continues to fall within the age
cohort known as Generation X. Our study includes Mexican Americans who
are secondary migrants from Texas and thus have been U.S. citizens for
generations as well as undocumented immigrants who have been in the U.S.
only a few years.

Undocumented Mexican immigrants in this study have worked anywhere from
one and half to five years, and they plan to reside in the United States
permanently or until economic conditions in their homeland improve. The
recent election of Mexican President Vicente Fox of the once described
conservative Partido Acción Nacional (National Action Party) has given
Mexican respondents some hope that the political and economic plight in
Mexico will change for the better. However, until they see a change,
they have a wait and see attitude. Although many of our Mexican
undocumented immigrants are married and their wives and children remain
in Mexico, they too plan to stay and work in the United States, at least
for the immediate future. Their long-term future plans are for their
families to join them in the U.S.

Our respondents' backgrounds reflect the change in the class of Mexicans
who immigrate to the United States illegally. Unlike the past, no longer
are they solely dispossessed or marginalized peasants who emigrate
because of the lack of land and other resources for growing subsistence
crops. Now, the immigrants include middle class urban dwellers who are
educated and professionals. Most of the undocumented Mexican immigrants
represent the new or "renaissance" Mexican immigrant. Respondents are
from cities in Mexico where they completed high school, and in one case,
attended a university. Their parents are also educated and work for
government, have their own businesses or are employed as taxi drivers,
store clerks, and in other urban-type employment.

These new immigrants, better educated, are not accepting of their plight
in the United States. They are literate and well aware of their rights
and, as a consequence, they are not apathetic, but outspoken, especially
in their quest for an immigration amnesty. In other major cities
throughout the country with a large concentration of Mexican immigrants
(e.g. Dallas, Chicago and Miami), they are creating their own political
organizations or joining existing ones, such as the Casa Guanajuato.
These undocumented immigrants, together with their legal counterparts,
are also marching and holding large rallies and demonstrations in front
of Federal Buildings in Dallas, Miami and Chicago, calling for an
amnesty program that will legalize the large undocumented population.
According to 1996 INS figures of this population, the most recent and
available to the public, it is estimated that there are 2.7 million
undocumented Mexican immigrants in the United States, 54 percent of the
total undocumented population in the country (Immigration and
Naturalization Service, 2001).

Follow up questioning reveal that all of our immigrant Mexican
respondents work long hours as construction workers, maintenance
employees or mechanics six days out of the week, sometimes on Sundays,
all while they make time to rest and attend church. Guillermo, 23,
discusses their time constraints in the following manner:

> Many times we would like to be active, but we cannot, we cannot
> because we work, we are alone in this country, and we have to follow
> the work schedule, but we can arrange time to do some activities, but
> to 'be active' means to give 100 percent for some goal, and this is
> difficult.

Their heavy work schedule and undocumented status places limits on their
community involvement. For the most part, their undocumented status is
limiting because they are fearful that, should their immigration status
be known, they would be deported. Like other undocumented immigrant
respondents, given these constraints, they have limited their
involvement to church activities. Lauro, 25, describes his church group
in the following fashion:

> Well, in this moment I am reintegration to a movement of the Catholic
> Church called \"Encuentros de Promoción Juvenil\" It is a Hispanic
> group, which devotes to Religion, and also to social. The group works
> evangelizing young people, and also with people in need \[of
> assistance\] like the elderly and the inmates. At this moment my
> participation is supporting the group. I am not a leader or head of
> the committees, but my contribution is singing and also doing
> handwork.

Involvement in the church, respondents explain, is very important to
them. For them, the church is not solely a place of worship; it is a
place of refuge, not in the physical sense but emotionally. As
undocumented workers, living a semi-clandestine life and without their
families in the U.S., they often feel alone and anxious. Although they
live in a neighborhood surrounded by other Mexican immigrants, some of
who are also living in the country without proper immigration documents,
they do not feel like they belong. Because of their immigration status
and not knowing whom to trust, the undocumented immigrants in the group
feel like outsiders. In church, on the other hand, they find solace,
peace of mind, and a sense of belonging to a community. The church and
its parishioners do not inquire about their immigration status. In fact,
they have found that the parishioners could care less about how they
entered the country. For them, the Latino church youth group that many
belong to is their *surrogate community*, their extended family in the
United States. These new extra-fictive family members do not condemn
them for seeking a better way of life, but embrace them, include them in
all of their activities, and judge them according to their character.

However, the limited community participation of the undocumented
immigrants in the group should not be viewed as apathy. Although their
work schedule keeps them from participating in community activities to
the extent that they would like to, they do care about social issues.
Waste, language, and education for Mexicans were some of the issues that
they care about. However, a major issue close to all of them was
immigration. They were of the opinion that something had to be done
about it besides apprehending and deporting undocumented workers. For
example, David, had the following to say about the need to resolve the
immigration problem in the following interview excerpt:

> I think the problems, right now, are the problems with the
> immigration. It is a big problem with us, who came from Mexico to
> work. I think the government should help us a little more. We,
> Hispanics, who come here from Mexico, in my case, I came from Mexico,
> we come here to work, and the \[U.S.\] government knows about that,
> knows that we come here to work, but in spite of this, the government
> does not want to accept us. I do not know what is the reason, but we
> are an important factor in the progress of this country. Without a
> good cooker it would have not good meals, and most of the cookers are
> Mexicans. The same for the constructions, without the Mexican workers
> in construction, we would not have those big constructions... I think
> we are a very important part of this country, and if the government
> gave us a little, that every one of us are asking for, amnesty, then I
> think the immigration problem would not be anymore a problem. We come
> to this country and help this country so that it could also help us.

He continued with the following:

> I wish I could do something to solve this problem. Maybe I could do
> something but I would need help of others, because "the union makes
> the power," but the government does not help us, does not allow us to
> do something to solve this.

Enrique, a 23 year old respondent, shared a similar view of this concern
in the following statement:

> Well, in my case, I think the most important problem is the problem
> that we have here in the United States with the immigrants. It is
> important not to have problems with the law, with the police, and the
> immigration. And, of course, the big problems that exist in Mexico,
> which are the reason because we are here. I think I can do something
> just to improve my own person, in this country.

It is important for the Census Bureau to understand that Mexican
immigrants are creating their own community-based organizations, such as
Casa Guanajuato, which are growing in number throughout the country
wherever there is a concentration of Mexican compatriots. These
organizations are reaching a segment of the Mexican origin population
long ignored by their Mexican American counterparts. The apathetic
Mexican immigrant is a thing of the past, that is, if he/she ever was
apolitical. These proactive immigrants, if approached correctly, will be
useful in reaching out to their countrymen, especially recent arrivals,
and convincing them to participate in Census surveys. Census figures of
this foreign-born population show that they are now a majority in many
communities, and estimates indicate that they will increase
substantially over the next two decades, as Immigration Reform and
Control Act and Special Agricultural Worker Program (amnesty and
legalization programs that adjusted the immigration status of over a
million undocumented workers in the late 1980s) recipients sponsor the
immigration of their kin in Mexico.

This undocumented immigrant respondent group does not have much contact
with government agencies and, as such, their experiences with such
agencies are very limited. It is not surprising to discover that the
undocumented immigrants have had little contact with government
agencies. This is a common occurrence among undocumented workers. Since
they are in the country illegally, they try their best to limit their
interaction with government agencies for fear of being detected and
deported. What was surprising is that they also try to have little
contact with government agencies in Mexico, especially when they return
to their homeland to visit kin. Mexican authorities, according to
respondents, often seek bribes from returning immigrants and migrants,
and in some cases, rob them at gunpoint without attempting to conceal
that they are government officials.

In the focus groups, when questioned about government, participants
expressed their apprehension with both the U.S. and Mexican governments.
The Mexican government, at least that of the ex-regime, is seen as
corrupt; while the U.S. government is considered to be more concerned
about the needs of its citizens, but not all of the people. All of them
were of the opinion that the U.S. federal government could care less
about people like them, that is, undocumented immigrants. Although
considered to be better than the Mexican government, the U.S. government
was not viewed as perfect, but as flawed. Nonetheless, our Mexican
respondents believe people have recourse in this country. In Mexico,
they do not.

Mexican undocumented immigrants are similar to Haitians - too concerned
and afraid of their immigration status to become involved in civic
activities outside of the church. Although Mexican respondents are
deeply involved in church, church involvement overall is less for
Mexicans than for Haitians and African Americans.

#### *4.4.7 Nicaraguans*

For Nicaraguans, much of their civic engagement in the U.S. has been
fighting with the American federal government in order to obtain a legal
status. The most important issue concerning civic engagement for these
respondents is that the U.S. government has not welcomed them as they
have Cubans (Portes and Stepick 1993). All Cubans who make it to the
U.S. can become documented, while other nationalities experience far
greater resistance from the INS. According to the most recent INS
estimates, Nicaraguans accounted for 70,000 of the estimated total
5,000,000 undocumented aliens as of 1996. They do not feel a debt to the
U.S. as do Cubans. For instance, struggling for documented status
dominates their experiences as it does for Haitians. Accordingly,
Generation X Nicaraguans, like Haitians, are focused on making it in the
U.S., on securing a firm immigration and financial footing. For them,
any other civic engagement is a luxury that they cannot afford.
Moreover, they report significant discrimination against them from
Cubans. While they occasionally feel a pan-Hispanic solidarity,
Nicaraguans frequently feel alienated from Miami's dominant Cubans. As a
result, Census outreach must incorporate Nicaraguans separately from
Cubans.

While Nicaraguans have a strong sense of national identity, they also
recognize that being a Latino in Latino-dominated Miami can be better
than being Latino elsewhere in the U.S. As one respondent in our study
stated,

> "I think here in Miami we're not going to have a problem, but I think
> if we move probably to Colorado, Michigan and stuff, they'll
> discriminate against any Hispanics. Okay, if you go up north in
> Orlando, they do discriminate; the White guy \[does\]."

The conflicted relations between Nicaraguans and Cubans indicates that
targeting Hispanics for outreach may be too broad or at least one must
be careful to not offend either group while emphasizing the solidarity
that emerges in the U.S. Cuban power alienates other Latinos. As one
Nicaraguan stated, "Cubans get more opportunities. Cubans think they are
better than Nicas. Cubans are able to move up in the work placer easier.
We Nicas get treated differently at work. They think we are less
competent. They make rude remarks about us, call us *indios* (Indians)
and *tira flechas* (spear throwers), make us feel unwelcome in public
places." Nicaraguans mirror Haitians in their treatment of civic
engagement, they also conform to transitional and crisis engagement
profile types (refer to Table 4.2.1).

### *4.4.8 Hispanics Collectively*

Latinos and Hispanics have a complex, evolving notion of community.
Parallel to the alternating solidarity and division between Haitians and
African Americans, various Hispanic groups at times see themselves as
unified and at other times they emphasize their unique identities.

Miguel, a Nicaraguan defined community as, "I think it's a group of
people kind of like, well it\'s tough. It gets you thinking. I would say
they share something, like for example I don\'t know why we are divided
here. Like people, Hispanics live here mostly, but then you move over
there and its Blacks mostly. I think a community is where people meet to
share the same experiences or... In this case they talk the same
language, because it\'ll be Spanish. This is a community of Spanish
speaking people. So, I\'ll say it's a group of people who share common
characteristics." As revealed in Miguel's quote and at least some
Latino's experiences with Elián, Latinos and Hispanics often feel a bond
based on language. Simultaneously, they feel differences based upon
national origin and differing experiences. National differences among
GenX Latinos and Hispanics remain important. Census outreach, therefore,
must mirror this diversity.

There are increasing populations of other Latin and Hispanic immigrants,
including Colombians, Venezuelans, Dominicans, El Salvadorans,
Hondurans, Peruvians and Portuguese-speaking Brazilians entering the
United States. Although we did not target these groups in our research,
the Census Bureau should remain aware that these groups see themselves
as quite distinct from Cubans, Nicaraguans, Mexican and Puerto Ricans.
In attempting to address the diversity between Latino and Hispanic
origin populations, at least to some degree, we attempted to avoid a
serious shortcoming. Government agencies, we have found, view ethnic
groupings within the Latino and Hispanic populations and treat them in
their surveys and programs as if they comprise a homogenous group. In
fact, the government term created to identify and categorize the larger
Latino population, "Hispanic," reflects and fosters this erroneous
depiction. This term, created by the U.S. Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) in the late 1970s, tends to amalgamate this highly
heterogeneous population into a single category. However, the Latino
population, like the ethnic groupings that comprise it, is far from
being homogeneous. Its members, as has been documented, differ according
to geographical location, national-origin and citizenship, immigration
status, language use, socioeconomic class and political affiliation.
This heterogeneity is important to keep in mind when conducting research
among ethnic groupings in the Latino population and in reaching them for
decennial enumeration purposes.

**4.5 Distrust, Skepticism and Discontent: Government**, **Politics and
Police**

The stories respondents shared with us revealed the depth of their
distrust towards government and large institutions. Respondents
discussed how government has let them down through scandals, lies,
half-truths and personal failures (i.e. The Bill Clinton and Monica
Lewinsky scandal). GenX respondents also cited high incidences of
unemployment experienced by many of them. Respondents discussed at
length their mistrust and angst for the government regarding wasteful
spending, ineffective public school boards, lack of affordable housing,
INS raids and discriminatory law enforcement agencies. GenXers have
grown up in a world where they could only trust in their
self-sufficiency. Many of the institutions that young adults have
ordinarily looked to for guidance in the past, are regarded as seriously
flawed by young adults today. Our respondents generally assumed
relations with big institutes to be short-lived, or at least our
respondents treat them as such. Government is perceived as being less
accessible, less accountable and less in tune with the needs of the
groups that they are expected to represent.

There was a widespread belief, among respondents, that the government
should be trusted. Over 70 percent of respondents, as illustrated in
Figure 4.5.1, 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' with the survey statement,
"People should be able to trust the government." Southeast Asian
respondents had the highest disagreement rate with this survey statement
(42 percent) while African Americans (76 percent) and Hispanics (75
percent) respondents had the highest agreement rate. However, Figure
4.5.2 shows that nearly 80 percent of respondents do not trust the
government. Agreement with this survey item, "I do not trust the
government" by respondent race/ethnicity is as follows: American Indians
and Southeast Asians unanimously agreed with this survey item (100
percent); African Americans (84 percent); Afro-Caribbeans (79 percent);
Non-Hispanic Whites (77 percent); and Hispanics (57 percent). This
mistrust is sometimes founded on bitter historical relations between
ethnic groups and the government,[^11] and at other times it is premised
on personal experience, intuition, the media or word-of-mouth. Distrust,
however, does not in and of itself imply disengagement. On the contrary,
distrust sometimes motivated more diligence or activism on the part of
some respondents in communities, as they sought to make their
institutions accountable. Respondents who saw the vote as one mechanism
or tool (39 percent), by which this might be accomplished, were more
likely to see the Census as another possible means of making government
accountable. Of course, we know that voting rates are dismally low among
poor and marginalized communities. In part, this stems from a sense of
disconnect or detachment from political institutions. This does not
necessarily entail detachment from civil society conceived in a broader
sense, however.

GenXers in this study view government as a public enemy that, for the
most part, should be resisted, not trusted, and declared threatening.
The seeds of pervasive distrust, skepticism and discontent among the
overwhelming majority of Generation X reveals that respondents
demonstrate a loss of trust in government on three levels: *1)
government agencies and institutions; 2) politics and politicians; and
3) police.*

> **Figure 4.5.1 Generation X Survey Question Result**
>
> **'People should be able to trust the government.'**

![](media/image4.wmf){width="4.315972222222222in" height="2.9625in"}

> **Figure 4.5.2** **Generation X Survey Question Result**
>
> ![](media/image5.wmf){width="4.25in" height="3.0569444444444445in"}
> **'I do not trust the government.'**

*4.5.1 Government Agencies and Institutions*

Negative attitudes towards government among GenXers are "a clear
departure from past patterns whereby young people were usually found to
be less cynical than their elders" (Owen 1997). GenXers have lived their
entire lives in an environment in which damning messages about
government are the norm. The tone of discussion by media, parents,
teachers and friends amplify the inability of government to produce
effective change. Based on our survey findings, Figure 4.5.3 reveals
that over 60 percent of our Generation X respondents believe that they
do not have a say about what the government does. American Indian and
Southeast Asian respondents agreed 100 percent with this survey
statement; whereas 67 percent of Hispanics disagreed with this survey
statement. Moreover, the life experiences of GenXers have also tended to
confirm such negative dialogue. Generation X has been forced to contend
with a litany of social problems from crime to corporate downsizings to
AIDS and drugs. Thus, it is not too hard to imagine that very few Xers
would be optimistic, trusting and idealistic about government. In fact,
political scientist Gregory Markus states, "Not only do most young
Americans want little to do with government, they want government to
have little to do with them in terms of obligations or
responsibilities"(1994). Respondents shared the following concerns about
government:

> It goes back to not trusting the government. It seems like regardless
> of what the people want they have their own agenda. It seems like
> okay, well the people have asked for this and the people have asked
> for that, but right now, this is what we're going to give them. This
> is all we will be offering.
>
> I don't trust the government period. They over-spend our tax money.
> The President lives like a king in the face of others poverty. I watch
> the X-Files, and must admit it influences my opinion of government.
> But mainly I am aware of the history of treatment of Native Americans.
> They've been deceived, had promises broken.
>
> We shouldn't trust - we should take things with a grain of salt- the
> best interest is still an old boys network.
>
> I don't deal too much with the government. These dangerous folks. I
> watch movies. I see the movies. Government are bad people. "Enemy of
> the State," that was a scary movie. You think about it, all of it
> could be going on now, probably is going on now. Government is
> crooked. They all crooked people, bad people.
>
> You can't trust the government agency, man! All of 'em, you shouldn't
> trust none of them because they are all being paid this enormous
> amount of money to do whatever they want to do. They gonna say they
> gonna do it to get into office, but once they get into office, they
> can do what they want to do. It's garbage, man! They protect and serve
> each other, that's about it.

**Figure 4.5.3 Generation X Survey Question Result**

**'I do not have any say about what the government does.'**

> ![](media/image6.wmf){width="4.5in" height="3.7666666666666666in"}

*4.5.2 Politics and Politicians*

The data reveal that GenXers are disconnected from the national
political scene, however, as we have discussed in previous report
sections, GenXers are engaged more locally. GenXers in our study simply
do not look to big institutions to solve social problems. One respondent
said this of himself and his peers, "We have no faith that politicians
will deal with society's ills and we won't bother to protest it, we'd
rather do it ourselves." Many respondents professed to being estranged
from larger political engagement, including withdrawing from political
party identification and not voting in general elections. For example,
one respondent passionately remarked, "Politics is predetermined. It's
like wrestling, it's fun to watch or to play for fun, but it's fake. "

There is also a popular perception among GenXers that politics is so
corrupt, that it is better to wash your hands of it completely than to
take on the system, make your voice heard and attempt to promote change.
Many respondents in our sample just do not take politics or things
political too seriously. Non-Hispanic White GenX respondents
acknowledged more often than their minority GenX counterparts that they
are not "as up" on politics as they felt they should be. Consequently,
they have become alienated as they feel less able to influence the
political process, so a "why-bother" attitude prevails and a counter
culture that is ambivalent about voting is common:

> I'm going to vote this next time\...I was uninformed, totally. And I
> didn't feel like going in there, it wasn't a priority.
>
> The government in general, it's a big word. Just by and large it seems
> creepy. I think that's a part of the reason I'm deliberately a little
> uninformed about it. Because it just creeps me out. I don't want to
> become more suspicious than I am. I don't want to get more involved
> than I am. I don't want to get more involved in something that makes
> me feel gross. I'm distrustful of it, suspicious. There's probably not
> a lot of good stuff going on.
>
> Personally, I consider it important because I've been following the
> Green Party, and I just feel like there is something to support now,
> as there wasn't in the past- or if there was, I didn't know about it.
> The two-party system just isn't worth my support. I never voted. This
> will be my first year voting in my entire life.

Minority GenX respondents were not immune from feelings of doubt and
ambivalence about the benefits of voting. This ambivalence is
demonstrated in Figure 4.5.4. Nearly 45 percent of respondents either
'agreed' or 'disagreed' with the survey statement, "Voting is the only
way I have a say about government decisions." Voting among minority GenX
respondents, in particular, African Americans, was more out of a sense
of obligation to honor those who have lost their lives during the
struggle for the civil right to vote than out of confidence in the
political system. But for many racial and ethnic respondents, the
fought-for ability to vote was still not incentive enough to outweigh
feelings of a "rigged" democracy filled with politicians who give lip
service to voters at election time and then ignore concerns once in
office:

> I would feel the importance \[of voting\] would be stronger, for like
> city appointed officials. I wouldn't vote for president or mayor,
> personally, I wouldn't think that it's too political. I think that
> regardless of who you vote for its' mapped out \--somebody already
> knows who's going to win. They will let you vote to let you think that
> you have some sort of empowerment over who your president may be. It's
> a conspiracy theory, that's how I feel.
>
> I mean, I should vote, but I never think about it 'cause the way I
> look at it, all politicians are the same. You know they come around
> when they want your vote, and then as soon as they're in position,
> some of them remember you in certain instances, but as saying what
> they were supposed to do before they were elected, and now they're
> elected, it's totally different.
>
> Yes, I do feel it's important to vote. I'm not sure it works. I don't
> have a lot of faith in the voting system. But as it's the process we
> have now, it's important to participate in it. One person once said,
> you may not see immediate changes, but you might see it happen if
> like-minded people get involved. If I didn't vote, I couldn't
> complain.
>
> You know, the higher up you go the less the faith I have in government
> officials. It seems like the higher the position, the further away
> from the common purpose the official holds. You know they are just not
> connected, they are not linked.
>
> I believe in voting on issues of relevance to the reservation, but not
> in national elections. Government to me means tribe. If it's the
> federal government, it's in DC, very remote.

GenXers may be poorly informed when it comes to public affairs, but they
do know enough to believe that our political system is in need of
reform. Figure 4.5.5 demonstrates that nearly 40 percent of GenX
respondents 'neither agree or disagree' with the survey statement,
"Public leaders do not care what happens to me." The fact that nearly 40
percent of survey participants responded in this manner should not be
interpreted as respondents who do not have an opinion concerning this
survey statement. At the very basic level, GenXers continually see a
large gap between the issues they care most about (education, crime,
equality, homelessness, children) and the ones politicians choose to
address. The outgrowth of political disengagement among GenXers has not
spilled over and thwarted respondents' optimism for human capital, that
is, faith in ordinary folk, fellow citizens. Although respondents
overwhelmingly believed politics to be a corrupt entity where the power
of the vote of one is dismissed and highly-appointed officials are
dirty, several GenX respondents preached that their disenchantment with
and cynicism towards the national political process coincides with "a
continued belief in people on the local level."

**Figure 4.5.4 Generation X Survey Figure 4.5.5 Generation X Survey
Question Result Question Result**

**'Voting is the only way I have a say about government decisions.'
'Public leaders do not care what happens to me.'**

![](media/image7.wmf){width="4.0in" height="3.876388888888889in"}

*4.5.3 Police*

Just as the majority of GenXers believe that they have been given a bad
rap by politicians who believe they do not need Xers' votes to get
elected, a disturbing number of GenXers feel they are getting a bad rap
by police. One 25 year-old Hispanic respondent discusses the subject of
police accountability and distrust,

> \...People should be able to trust the local police department, but
> they would have to do things completely differently. ..talk to the
> community, be a part of the community, get to know people in the
> community, and stop trying to intimidate the community, like some damn
> Gestapo. If they were able to do that it would be cool to trust the
> police, but I don't think it's necessarily beneficial for us to trust
> the police because they just don't give us much to trust them for.

Negative experiences and interactions with law enforcement agents and
agencies, including harassment, racial profiling, beatdowns and other
forms of violence, have contributed to the resentment, resistance and
skepticism that our respondents have toward government in general.
Collective negative experiences and interactions with police, for
example, pave the way for GenXers to estrange themselves from government
civic engagement activities. Negative beliefs about the government are
contagious and undoubtedly impact the level of engagement with
government- sponsored initiatives. Police, like politicians, have not
escaped extreme criticism from young adults:

> I don't think you can separate one from the other \[government
> agencies\]., it's all institutional. One looks after the other one in
> a certain sense, so whether or not that's a realistic way of looking
> at it, I just think that it's inevitable if you are feeling negative
> strife from one entity of the government or the structure than you're
> going to assume that the rest of the structure is just as corrupt or
> screwed up.
>
> It's like half-half, part can be trusted and part not. Sometimes you
> can trust cops and sometimes you don't.
>
> One bad apple might make lots of bad apples. The police try to stop
> minority people more than White people. One time I was translating in
> a court, and heard police joking about the "gooks" they had gotten-to
> keep, to arrest. I was standing right there, but they didn't seem to
> notice I was listening.
>
> I been harassed by the police before, because they said I was too
> young t be out on the street, when I was actually 20 years old, and
> they called me a few names and then I shoed my ID and they said you
> should be in bed anyway, you shouldn't be on the street at 12 o'clock
> at night. \...I think because they are police they think they have
> rights to do whatever they want to do, they can run the stoplight when
> they don't even going nowhere and get away with it, they can shoot
> somebody and get away with it, because they say, oh, I'm defending
> myself.
>
> I have been pulled over for no frigging reason, I fit their
> description, which was black male, natural hair, with a goatee, which
> probably would include like

10,000 people in a five block radius. I have been pulled over about 14
times in 1999 and only got one ticket.

Others described insults and worse at the hands of public officials.
These incidents were mostly interpreted as evidence of institutional
racism. Respondents expressed outrage at the ways that some public
officials -- especially the police -- abuse their authority when dealing
with young men. Like almost all of our Southeast Asian and African
American male respondents, they had experienced negative encounters with
police, which they rationalized as racial profiling. As a gang outreach
worker, one respondent has regular contact with the police and the
judiciary system, and comments,

> A lot of people see police agencies as two-faced, and I agree. For me
> as an outreach worker/counselor, if I told the police everything that
> would defeat my purpose, destroy the trust they have in me\.... They
> use their authority, but otherwise no one's going to come talk to
> them.

Although the sources for the cynical attitudes that GenXers have may
differ, the sentiments are the same. Even though minority GenXers
complain about government being too powerful and taxes being too high,
as researchers, we do not believe that these Xers are entirely ready to
abandon the premise that government can and should be made responsive to
the needs and interests of citizens. One Asian respondent remarks that
cops are 'two-faced," this is an appropriate description for the larger
relationship between GenXers and government. Although the majority of
GenXers in this study seem to have forsaken government and political
participation *en masse*, it would be a mistake to conclude that they
are apolitical. The majority of GenXers in this study feel that
government civic engagement is ineffectual and unresponsive, thus, many
GenXers have turned to local volunteerism activities and unconventional
forms of political activity such as demonstrations and boycotts as
discussed previously.

**4.6 Decennial Census Compliance As A Civic Quest**

Even though many respondents have unfavorable attitudes towards the
government in general, the good news is that these views were not
extended towards the U.S. Census Bureau. For the most part*,* GenXers
viewed completing the decennial census favorably as a government civic
engagement activity because it's social value outweighed any feelings of
distrust and cynicism towards the government as a whole. Furthermore,
the decennial census was viewed as a vehicle by which minority GenXers
could have their voices heard and feel as though there was a sense of
ownership and a sense of belonging to their common communities. Below is
a sample of what respondents had to say:

> The Census provides important information. It has meaning and carries
> a lot of impact. It's good, positive. It can help people. People feel
> they're being recognized by being counted. There's no segregation, no
> age limit or prejudice. All are counted as part of a whole. This makes
> people feel good.
>
> When I was 18 I really didn't care. I didn't think about the Census
> then. But now \[in mid-twenties\], I think it's important because I
> understand it more, and I know, so the money can be appropriated to
> where it's needed, because my kids are in school now\...
>
> The Census is similar to voting. Because if you did not let them know
> you're here they will not know what your needs are, so it is very
> important to fill out the Census.
>
> Well, from what I've heard and certain groups have told me especially
> if you're a minority, more money comes to that state especially for
> schooling and other funding organizations, so in that sense I do
> believe it is important.

In spite of the lack of trust and high suspicion towards the government,
GenXer's do have positive perceptions of the Census. Over 90 percent of
respondents collectively 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' with the survey
statement, "It is important to fill out the Census" (see Figure 4.6.1).
The majority of respondents have had no previous experience with a
Census before the 2000 decennial census, which is not surprising since
respondents are primarily in their early 20's. Fifty-eight percent of
our sample stated that they were familiar with the Census. Half of all
respondents included in the study stated that their families were
enumerated; 37 percent of these respondents actually completed the
Census form on behalf of their families. However, 33 percent of
respondents stated that they (including their families) were not
enumerated; 17 percent of respondents did not know if they (including
their families) were enumerated for Census 2000.

**Figure 4.6.1 Generation X Survey Question Result**

**'It is important to fill out the Census.'**

![](media/image9.wmf){width="3.9166666666666665in"
height="3.564583333333333in"}

In contrast to their American counterparts, Haitian respondents felt
excluded from yet another "piece of the American pie" - a constitutional
right to be counted. Upset and envious of the attention paid to other
immigrant groups, Haitians overwhelmingly stated, "I don't believe the
Census belongs to Haiti Haitians because in reading the section they put
all those other countries \[race\]', it means we don't need to get
involve \[in the Census\], which means they don't need to know about
Haitians." Again, these Afro-Caribbean respondents believed there to be
an alliance to exclude them from American society. In this example,
respondents perceive that their culture, their identity, and their
Creole language serve as excuses to continuously deny them an
"invitation" to participate in the Census, and thus, larger society.
According to Marcelin and Marcelin, when Haitians are omitted as a
distinct race category, as was the case for Census 2000, "Haitians have
no jural ground from which they can stand to defend their specific
collective interest as a minority in the wider context of 'minority
politics' in the United States" (Marcelin and Marcelin 2002). Marcelin
and Marcelin further add that because Haitians are "being classified
under or diluted within another category than the one they choose, it is
a massive affirmation of a willingness to break their condition as a
politically weak community and judicially unprotected minority"(Marcelin
and Marcelin 2002). Decennial outreach and educational programs would
bode well to specifically target local areas of highly-concentrated
Haitians to encourage them to participate in future decennial
enumeration efforts.

Although the U.S. Census Bureau is positioned positively on the
Generation X scale of cynicism, the Census Bureau is not exempt from
scrutiny when the topic is data confidentiality. The same lack of
confidence that GenXers have towards government civic engagement
endeavors (not viewed as the best way for GenXers to impact community or
have their voices heard) is the same lack of faith that GenXers have in
how the government really treats and protects personal information. As
Table 4.6.1 indicates, 74 percent of our total respondent sample was
skeptical about the protection of Title 13 data. The most disbelieving
respondent groups of our sample were Southeast Asians (95 percent
'disagreed' with this survey statement) and American Indians (90 percent
'disagreed' with this survey statement). Other respondent groups in our
sample were a little more dubious about the survey statement, "I trust
the Census when they say information is confidential;" Non-Hispanic
White respondents (76 percent 'disagreed' with this survey statement),
African Americans (68 percent 'disagreed' with this survey statement),
Hispanics (66 percent 'disagreed' with this survey statement) and
surprisingly, only 64 percent of Afro-Caribbeans 'disagreed' with this
survey statement. GenXers not only have a lack of trust in the
government's ability, including the Census Bureau, to protect ones'
privacy or personal information, GenXers generally do not believe in the
notion of confidentiality. Respondents from all backgrounds continuously
stated that, "they wouldn't be surprised if data were not confidential."
Some respondents outright dismissed the possibility of data remaining
confidential in the hands of the government and added:

> The only way it's confidential is when it's between me and you given
> all the hands it gonna pass through - it can't be confidential.
>
> I don't believe it's confidential \[decennial census data\] because
> its in the public eye, 'cause don't they got to tie all them same
> answers together to work on something? Confidential is from the public
> eye for a certain amount of time.
>
> I don't think that it's confidential. If that's the government, if you
> tell the government something, you don't really have confidentiality.
> I don't believe it because, I don't know, sometimes people say things
> are confidential, but then they screw up\...the federal government is
> one of those people also.

Other respondents were uncertain about the promises of confidentiality
that the Census Bureau espouses. These respondents confessed that they
were "not 100 percent confident that the Census was confidential" but
added:

> I guess they're confidential, But I don't know, I guess you'd have to
> be working for the federal government. They probably have to keep it
> confidential, they wouldn't pass it out for free.
>
> Our country has given us lots of reasons over the years to be
> suspicious of things that they tell us - I'm just suspicious.
>
> To be honest with you, I have no idea. Regarding that, I don't know
> what to believe because they could or could not use it however they
> want to. I've never worked for the Census so I don't know how they
> work. I want to believe that it is confidential.
>
> I do believe the Census is confidential, however, a lot of people say
> the government is nosy, but my feeling of it is, if the government
> really wants to know something, I think they got ways of finding out
> what they want to know\...they have access to everything, so they'll
> find out one way or another.
>
> **Table 4.6.1 Generation X Survey Question Result**
>
> **'Trust Census When They Say Information Is Confidential'**

  ----------------------- --------------- ---------------- ---------------
  **Race/Ethnicity**      **Agree**       **Disagree**     **Total**

  African American        8               17               25

  Non-Hispanic White      3               10               13

  Hispanic                20              39               59

  American Indian         2               18               20

  Southeast Asian         1               18               19

  Afro-Caribbean          5               9                14

  **Total**               **39**          **111**          **150**
  ----------------------- --------------- ---------------- ---------------

For the most part, respondents viewed the decennial census favorably in
that they deem it important to "be counted." In other ways, respondents
questioned, "What has changed in our communities by filling out the
Census?" Respondents further remarked, "A lot of stuff hasn't changed.
The roads are still raggedy, the schools need to be painted and the
parks need to be fixed." In short, respondents complained that the
census advertises "the count" in the same vein that commercials
advertise \-- only to sell their product. Unfortunately, some
respondents, mostly poor and working class ethnic minorities, perceive
the Census to be like "false advertisement" because respondents have not
seen evidence of the community funds promised to improve the communities
in which they live. Some respondents were suspicious of census
advertisements "overselling" benefits in order to pressure people to
complete and return their Census forms.

Some respondents expressed uncertainty or a mix of trust and distrust.
Allison, a Jamaican was more concerned about the consequences for her
immigration status. In explaining why she did not fill out the Census
she first chuckled and then stated, "Because I really haven't had any
personal experience, but it's just this deep down fear that I have. Put
it this way. I got the Census form, right, and I was all gung-ho about
filling it out. All enthusiastic 'cause I wasn't here for the 1990
Census. I'm here for the 2000. Great. I'm going to fill this out. I'm
going to send it in. And, I'm going through the form and I notice on it
that it asks for my name and my address, and I was like, oh my God, I
can't fill it out. I cannot fill it in. If I put my name and address
they're going to know who I am and they'll probably kick me out of the
country or something. Just because of that, I mean even though the form
says yes it's going to be confidential, I don't buy that."

In the case of individuals in so-called "hard to reach communities," we
found that the importance of the Census had, to some extent, been
effectively conveyed through advertisements, word-of-mouth and the
activities of public organizations, immigrant-based community centers,
and not-for-profit agencies. One respondent remembers, " Indeed, almost
everywhere I went in Chicago I saw Census ads: at the public hospital
where I worked, at the community colleges, at the activist
organizations, even at the cafes. This in itself had an impact on some
people, who responded 'It must be important because they say it is.' We
should participate, I'll be honest, because we're paying for it."
Respondents knew that the Census was important, because respondents felt
that the kind of money spent would not have been spent otherwise. But
what was not always clear to GenXers was *why* the Census was important,
or for *whom*.

People inside the Census Bureau know why the Census is important, and it
is clear that those working in local government agencies and
not-for-profit organizations know that it is important, at least in
terms of funding. The problem the Census Bureau faces is how to make the
importance of the decennial census clear and concrete to the average
respondent in such a way that the benefits of answering the Census are
apparent, and that the perceived "dangers" of answering the Census are
diminished. The Census Bureau should actively work to promote a public
image that is both strong and widely recognized as impartial. A possible
model for this might be the local fire departments, they have a positive
public image of competence and they have also maintained an image of
public trust and political impartiality. Along the same lines, examples
to avoid, among federal and local agencies, would be the Department of
Motor Vehicles, Public Aid, police departments and Immigration, all of
which were seen as contemptuous by our respondents, their clientele.

**4.7 Means, Motives and Barriers to "Stepping-Up"**

While the research presented in this paper assesses the correlation
between civic values and civic involvement, it also addresses motivation
and opportunity towards civic and government engagement. By framing this
research around a broad framework of civic engagement, this research has
unearthed a multitude of opinions and attitudes from young adults across
a range of life's activities.

*4.7.1 Mean and Motives*

There are strong indications that church youth groups are here to stay
and that they are making additional inroads into ethnic and immigrant
communities. Among the variety of factors responsible for motivating
engagement among minority GenXers are church activities. Membership
growth is the concern of churches everywhere. For instance, the Catholic
Church's concern over retaining their young parishioners is a top
priority. Over the last two decades, the Catholic Church has lost some
of their young flock to protestant religions, not only in the United
States but also in all of the Caribbean and Latin America. According to
our respondents, to prevent this exodus from continuing, church youth
groups have been established in many parishes, domestically and abroad.
Parents see these youth groups as healthy alternatives to street gangs
and, hence, encourage their children (GenXers) to join one of the many
groups in the parishes. Still another reason for the surge in youth
group participation is the recent influx of young GenX immigrants who
follow church doctrine. These young immigrants join the church youth
groups because it is a way for them to meet other young people with
similar interests and to get involved, not only in church, but also in
their neighborhoods and the larger community.

*4.7.2 Barriers*

It is important to recognize that all of our respondents felt that they
have experienced barriers to being civically engaged at times. Based on
respondent narratives, GenXers do not always "step-up," that is, "take
the necessary steps to live up to ones' maximum potential as a
member-leader in a community." Beyond possessing a "weak community
spirit" at times, as some respondents lamented, perceived and actualized
obstacles do exist that hinder GenX civic and government involvement.

The means to "step up", according to respondents, is sometimes
deficient. For example, if a respondent has irregular, unstable or
illegal residency status in the U.S., they are apprehensive of getting
involved in any civic or government engagement activities for fear of
deportation. Also, resources such as civic skills were felt to be
lacking among our respondents along with not knowing, at times, how to
get involved in something that will instigate economic, social or
cultural community change. Respondents have also expressed a lack of
motive to "step up" - a rallying point by which "twenty-year olds are
connected to," that is, a lack of motive to "step-up" is a sentiment
that some respondents can identify with. Additionally, GenXers reported,
"no one is reaching out to us." Respondents also expressed that the
expansion of power by certain adults has led to fewer decision-making
opportunities for GenXers as well as fewer roles with responsibilities
of importance. It is therefore important to recognize that without such
opportunities, many GenXers will not feel any ambition to "step up."
This ambivalence may stem in part, from the fact that Generation X has
had difficulty gaining access to national politics and has little
representation in the national arena. Lacking the incentive or
motivation to 'step up' could possibly include decennial census
noncompliance. Most GenXers do not seem to identify with any current
leader. Respondents do value being heard and having a voice. One
respondent explained that "having a voice is a value\...it's your
responsibility as a citizen to be heard." The same respondent further
shares,

> I want to be part of the government. I want to be able to sit down and
> voice my opinion to the head people. Because really, we as a community
> can do it, but we need someone inside the government who really wants
> that for us, who really wants to sit down and listen to us and take
> action. I believe that I'm that type of person because I want it for
> them also. I want a better community. But if we have no one there who
> wants it for us in return, it would never get done.

Decennial census enumeration, as stated previously, offers many
opportunities to serve as the motivating force among GenXers in which
civic and government engagement opportunities are readily available. The
Census provides the chance to 'step up,' it is a rallying point and
cause (caring about one's local community by completing and returning
ones' Census form), and it is a way to give back to the community all
while having your 'voice heard.' These are the means and motives that
should be stressed to GenXers and the general respondent population in
order to overcome some of the decennial engagement and enumeration
barriers.

###### 

###### 5. RECOMMENDATIONS

**5.1 Recommendations to Decrease Census Nonresponse and Respondent
Undercoverage**

-   Many of the immigrant newcomers, as we have found in our research,
    are not always aware of the Census and its mission, and as a
    consequence, they are reluctant to be counted. Often, the only time
    they hear of the Census is a few months before and during decennial
    census enumeration. If immigrants are to be enumerated accurately in
    the future, they must be informed of the Census and its mission. An
    effective way of accomplishing this task is for the Census Bureau to
    continue their partnership with immigrant-centered community-based
    organizations that can also serve as a vehicle to educate its
    members about the decennial census and the importance of decennial
    compliance.

-   For young adult respondents, the message broadcast about Census
    compliance should not contain any hints of compulsion. The negative
    reaction to being forced to do something indicates that for this
    respondent group, unlike past research findings for other cohorts,
    GenXers are likely to respond to such compulsion by purposely not
    complying. Instead, we suggest that Census promotions should
    continue to emphasize the positive good that filling out the Census
    may bring to one's family and community. The Census Bureau should
    *not* emphasize, in any messages targeting young adults that filling
    out a Census form is required by law.

-   Promote the Census Bureau as an impartial service agency that
    collects and tabulates data objectively. The Census Bureau should
    continue to develop a rapport with local, church and
    community-oriented organizations and avoid public links to
    Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS), the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the
    Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Many of our respondents reported
    that negative experiences with the police and other law enforcement
    agencies negatively impact their perceptions of any agency that is
    affiliated with them.

-   Advertisements should *clearly* and *simply* stress that all people
    residing in the United States be included in census surveys-
    documented as well as undocumented individuals.

-   Include information about the Census, its purpose and function, as a
    permanent part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's Guide
    to Naturalization. For instance, the Census Bureau should
    collaborate with Immigration and Naturalization Services to
    incorporate one or two decennial census questions on the
    Naturalization Civics Exam sponsored by the Department of Justice,
    Immigration and Naturalization Services. All applicants are required
    to pass this exam before being considered eligible for American
    naturalization. According to 1996 Immigration and Naturalization
    Services estimates (the most current and publicly available data),
    1,044,689 persons are naturalized in the United States annually. The
    top ten countries for persons naturalized as American citizens are
    from Mexico, Cuba, Vietnam, the Philippines, the Former Soviet
    Union, El Salvador, China, India, the Dominican Republic and
    Columbia. The top three countries that produce American naturalized
    citizens are also respondents included in this research study.
    Questions included in this exam (go to
    http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/services/natz/require.htm for
    specific test questions) assess the applicant's knowledge of U.S.
    government and history. The Study Guide to the Naturalization Civics
    Exam is one venue that the Census Bureau can utilize to educate a
    segment of the immigrant population about the historical role and
    national function of the decennial census. Decennial census
    questions that could be included on this exam (e.g. What is the U.S.
    Decennial Census? Name one purpose of the U.S. Decennial Census.)
    could increase knowledge and familiarity about the

    -   decennial census that many newly arrived immigrants often lack.

    -   

-   

**5.2 Recommendations about Decennial Census Privacy and Confidentiality
Policies**

-   The commitment of the Census Bureau to maintaining survey
    information confidential should be stressed in outreach efforts to
    all respondent groups.

-   A privacy and confidentiality brochure should be created and
    distributed to each household on the Master Address File during
    decennial enumeration. This brochure should clearly and simply
    explain how the law protects personal information and how third
    party agencies, such as INS, FBI, CIA and IRS, cannot access
    divulged personal information regardless of ones' citizenship
    status. This brochure should also be available in several different
    languages.

-   The commitment of the Census Bureau to maintaining survey
    information confidential should be especially stressed to
    undocumented immigrant populations.

**5.3 Recommendations to Improve Decennial Promotional Outreach Efforts
and Educational Campaigns**

-   The Census Bureau should continue to hold outreach efforts on
    community colleges. For instance, previous studies have found that
    college bound GenX Mexican Americans and GenX Mexican immigrants are
    concentrated in two-year, community colleges throughout the country.
    In fact, for the vast majority of them, their college education ends
    after receiving their Associates of Arts degree.

-   The Census Bureau should recruit and hire church youth groups for
    outreach and enumeration work. Their members are familiar with their
    communities and the enumeration mission of the Census, and in many
    instances they are bilingual (English- Haitian Creole,
    English-Spanish). The church youth groups, as we discovered, have
    also had success in attracting and recruiting young undocumented
    workers and ethnic-minorities, both hard-to-reach populations in
    Census surveys. The undocumented immigrants and migrants feel
    welcome and through these groups they feel part of the larger
    community. In a foreign and hostile world, the Catholic Church along
    with its Spanish or Haitian Creole language masses are familiar to
    them---they remind undocumented workers, for example, of home and
    give them hope. Many immigrant participants do not feel part of
    their neighborhoods because they do not know whom to trust with
    knowledge of their immigration status and, if they should be
    discovered, whether they will be accepted or turned in to the
    immigration authorities. At church, however, they do not have these
    concerns. They feel like they belong.

-   The importance of Census data for writing effective community
    development proposals and obtaining needed funds should be stressed
    in reaching church youth group members.

-   Outreach messages should incorporate images of the family. Family is
    the most important social institution in these communities. Filling
    out Census forms should be depicted as a family activity that will
    also help one's ethnic community and the broader community of
    everyone in the U.S.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Our findings indicate that no single, focused strategy for outreach
    will be sufficient. Rather outreach must be to multiple communities,
    simultaneously to local and national communities. This includes, for
    example, distinguishing among Mexicans and Cubans or Haitians and
    African Americans. There should **not** be solely a pan-Hispanic or
    pan-Black outreach strategy.

**6. Closing Remarks**

In planning this research, it was important to respond to the charge of
apathy levied against all GenXers. It seems that the perceptions
surrounding minority Generation X members are recklessly simplistic, and
that our understanding of the attitudes, values, behaviors and beliefs
embraced by GenXers regarding civic involvement needs to be deepened and
re-evaluated. By exploring the habits, behaviors, activities and
attitudes of civic and government engagement among minority GenXers, it
is our hope that this ethnographic research, as a first step, will
inform and improve decennial census enumeration efforts and respondent
survey cooperation in the future.

In thinking about generations, it is useful to distinguish between the
terms *life-cycle effects, generational effects* and *period effects.*
Life-cycle effects refer to the social, psychological and physical
changes that take place as individual's age (Erickson 1968). In any
society, particular experiences take place at particular stages in the
life-cycle. It is important not to overestimate common experiences
premised on age because in American society today, there are many
experiences that counter age-related experiences. For example, college
classrooms contain older students who have returned as older adults,
"non-traditional students." Many women are delivering their first baby
in their thirties and forties. Nevertheless, common life-cycle
experiences have implications for civic engagement and can help us to
understand civic participatory differences between age groups.

The generational phenomenon was most succinctly put forth by Karl
Mannheim in his essay, "The Problem of Generations." According to
Mannheim, a generational unit is not merely a chronological age unit,
but a social unit. It is formed by an age group, similarly situated in
the social and historical processes, whose shared experiences form a
common outlook and a sense of solidarity among its members. To produce a
generational effect, events must have a disproportionate impression on
the young compared to other segments of the population or affect the
young (i.e. Generation X) in ways different than other age groups.

When the consequences of an event ripple through almost every group in
society, irrespective of age, the phenomenon is known as a *period
effect*. In short, a period effect is when an event has an impact on an
entire population in a similar way (Carpini 1986). However, caution must
be taken, because a period effect can sometimes affect citizens of all
ages but exert its strongest influence on the young as we have seen with
the Internet.

If our research indicates a life-cycle effect, then civic apathy or
political efficacy among minority GenXers will correct itself with
maturity. As one grows up and accumulates habits - developing civic
skills, earning higher salaries, accumulating mortgages, and the like -
civic engagement among these individuals will match their age
counterparts in previous decades. If the relevant forces are
generational rather than life-cycle, then compared with previous
generations at similar points in the life-cycle, levels of civic
participation among GenXers, for instance, will be depressed.

We do know that Generation X has come of age in an era of high-level
political distrust, alienation and the deterioration of wages. Such
factors have the potential to leave a permanent mark on the members of
Generation X - impairing their sense of civic responsibility and duty.
Life-cycle and generational effects are conceptually interconnected and
separating the effects are quite tricky. Meanwhile, life-cycle and
period effects are obfuscated when using data drawn from a single cohort
followed over time.

This research has proven to be a constructive journey of discovery.
GenXers are optimistic cynics who believe that one person can make a
difference, but not much. Feeling connected to a community based on
trust, we have learned, may explain why historically underenumerated
GenX respondents participated in Census 2000. The two---trust and
feeling connected to a community---made a difference in decennial
compliance, in our opinion.

Too often, hard-to-reach subgroups in ethnic minority populations, such
as gang members and others who live in the shadows of society, are
targeted for special consideration in these studies. The rational behind
these efforts, is that, since these groups are at a higher risk of being
missed in decennial and related surveys, they should receive more
attention. However, other groups in minority populations, such as the
ones included in this study, are also at risk of not being included, not
because they are hiding or engaging in illicit activity, but because
they may not quite understand the mission and the importance of
participating in decennial censuses. They, too, need to be targeted
aggressively in outreach drives.

Were we right in our initial assumptions? Were there major differences
in community involvement, government, and participation in Census
surveys among our sample? Our sample of Generation Xer's did exhibit a
shared consciousness, but not in the same way stereotyped in the media.
They are not only concerned with themselves or people just like them.
They are not uniformly slackers disinterested in and disengaged from the
broader community. A minority in our study did indeed exhibit these
traits. A majority, however, evinced a strong concern for family.
Moreover, family seldom refers exclusively to the nuclear family. For
our respondents, it minimally extends to one's grandparents and is
further likely to include aunts, uncles and cousins.

For those respondents who did exhibit the characteristics of slackers,
we suspect that this is a temporary state, a role adopted primarily by
individuals who are relatively independent, have no significant
responsibilities and can thus socially afford to be self-centered. Other
research (Putnam 2000) indicates that individuals in the age range
included in our study are the least civically engaged, but that as they
mature, form their own families and obtain full-time work, they will
become more civically engaged. Since our research is not longitudinal
and only examined one age cohort, we do not know for certain if this
generalization will apply to our group. Nevertheless, we expect, given
the tendencies within our respondent groups, that those with stronger
family ties will be more civically engaged.

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
                                                  

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**7. References**

Barber, Benjamin R. 2000. "The Crack in the Picture Window." In *The
Nation*, August 7/14, 2000, Pp. 29-34. (A review of *Bowling Alone: The
Collapse and Revival of American Community*, by Robert Putnam).

Brinkley, Alan. 1996. "Liberty, Community, and the National Idea." In
*The American Prospect*, Volume 7, Issue 29, November 1-December 1,
1996.

Cheung, Edward. 1995. B*aby Boomers, Generation X and Social Cycles.*
Toronto, Canada: Longwave Press.

Cobb, J. and M. Miguel. 2000. Recommendation to Review 16 Local Census
Offices, Subcommittee on the Census, U.S. House of Representatives.

Coleman, James S. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. (Chapter 12.
Social Capital). Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London: The Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press.

Craig, Stephen and Earl Bennett. 1997. *After The Boom: The Politics of
Generation X.* New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

## Crowley, Melinda. 2001. "Generation X Speaks Out on Civic Engagement and the Census: An Ethnographic Approach." (Presentation prepared for the U.S. Census Bureau on February 27, 2001 in Suitland, Maryland).

de la Puente, Manuel, 1993. "Why Are People Erroneously Included by the
Census: A Summary of Findings from Ethnographic Coverage Reports."
Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census. (Report prepared for the 1993
Research Conference on Undercounted Ethnic Populations).

Delli Carpini, Michael X. 1986. *The Coming of Age of the Generation of
the 1960s*. New York: New York University Press.

Erickson, Erik H. 1968. *Identity, Youth and Crisis*. New York: Norton.

Fine, Michelle and Lois Weis. 1998. *The Unknown City*. Boston,
Massachusetts: Beacon Press.

Flores, William V. and Rina Benmayor.1997. *Latino Cultural Citizenship:
Claiming Identity, Space and Rights.*. Boston: Beacon Press.

Gerber, Eleanor, Crowley, Melinda and Susan Trencher. 1999. "Identity
Thieves, Warranty Cards and Government Surveys: The Ethnography of
Information Management." (Paper presented and prepared for The
International Conference on Survey Nonresponse: Portland, Oregon,
October 28-31, 1999).

Griffin, Christine.1993***.** Representations of Youth*. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Polity Press.

Halstead, Ted. 1999. "A Politics for Generation X." *The Atlantic
Monthly*; August 99.08, Volume 284, No. 2, Pp. 33-42.

Holtz, Geoffrey T. 1995. *Welcome to the Jungle: The Why Behind
'Generation X."* New York: St. Martins' Griffin.

Howe, Neil and William Strauss, 1992. "The New Generation Gap." In *The
Atlantic Online*, December 1992: Digital Edition.

Immigration and Naturalization Services. 2001. Illegal Alien Resident
Population.

Table 1: Estimated Illegal Immigrant Population for Top Ten Countries of

Origin: October 1966. www.ins.gov.

Konczal, L.1997. "Immigrant Identity and Academic Orientation:
Nicaraguan and Cuban

Adolescents in Miami." Presented at the American Anthropological
Association Annual

Conference, Washington, D.C.

Mannheim, Karl.1952. "The Problem of Generations." In *Essays on the
Sociology of Knowledge*. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Marcelin, Louis and Louise Marcelin. August 2002. "Ethnographic Social
Network Tracing Among Haitian Migrant Farm Workers in South Florida." A
report prepared as part of the Census Evaluation Project on
*Ethnographic Social Network Tracing of Highly Mobile People*. Suitland,
Maryland: The Statistical Research Division, Methodology and Standards
Directorate.

Markus, G. B.1994. \"Stability and Change in Political Attitudes:
Observed, Recalled, and Explained." In *Political Behavior*.1994: 21-44.

Moreno, D. and C. L. Warren. 1992. The Conservative Enclave: Cubans in
Florida.

*Latinos in the 1988 Elections*. R. de la Garza. Boulder, Colorado:
Westview Press.

Morgan, C.2000. "Census workers protest firings, Mistakes not our fault,
they say." In

[Miami Herald]{.underline}. Miami, Florida.

Morgan, C. 2000. "Feds urging census recount." In [Miami
Herald]{.underline}. Miami, Florida.

Owen, Diana. 1997. "Mixed Signals: Generation X's Attitudes Toward the
Political System." In *After The Boom: The Politics of Generation X.*
New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Portes, A. and A. Stepick. 1993. *City on Edge: The Transformation of
Miami*. Berkley, California: University of California Press.

Putnam, Robert. 2000. *Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of
American Community*. New York: Simon and Schuster Press.

Rumbaut, R.G. 1997. "Paradoxes and Orthodoxies of Assimilation." In
*Sociological*

*Perspectives*: 40(0731-1214): 1-22.

Rumbaut, R.G. 1998. "Pinos Nuevos? Growing up American in Cuban Miami."
In

*Cuban Affairs*: IV(3-4): 4-5.

## Thau, Richard. 2000. "Meeting the Challenges of the 'Leave Me Alone' X Generation." (Presentation prepared for the U.S. Census Bureau on March 7, 2000 in Suitland, Maryland).

U.S. Census Bureau. 1999. Ethnography for the New Millennium,
Manuscript. Suitland,

Maryland: The Statistical Research Division, Methodology and Standards
Directorate.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000a. The Hispanic Population in the United States,
Population

Characteristics, March 1999, [Current Population Reports]{.underline},
Washington, DC.

Yanez, L. 2000. "Elián case hurts census effort in Hialeah, Little
Havana." In [Sun-Sentinel]{.underline}. Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

[^1]: See Gerber, Crowley and Trencher 1999. Past ethnographic research
    clearly shows that a primary reason respondents participate in
    government-sponsored survey requests is that they feel it is their
    civic duty to do so as good citizens.

[^2]: For the purpose of this study, Generation X is defined as persons
    aged 21to 32, that is, respondents born during the years 1968-1979.
    Various studies define Generation X differently by age, with some
    analyses categorizing persons born in 1961 as the cohort=s oldest
    members, while others use a younger upper boundary to demarcate the
    age group (Craig and Earl Bennett 1997). Only in hindsight will the
    boundaries for this cohort become clearer.

[^3]: Past ethnographic research carried out at the Census Bureau has
    revealed that behavioral causes of census coverage errors are due to
    one or more of the following circumstances: residential mobility,
    language and illiteracy barriers, increased privacy fears, irregular
    housing and household arrangements and resistance by respondents as
    a strategy for dealing with outsiders, especially the government.

    *v*

[^4]: Civic engagement is defined in this research as being involved in
    something or contributing to something that attempts to create
    social alternatives expressed through informal activities and formal
    organizational ties

[^5]: Government civic engagement is specific to commitments or duties
    that are government-sponsored initiatives, which may produce a
    public benefit. 1

[^6]: All respondent names used in this report are aliases to protect
    the confidentiality of participants.

[^7]: Social capital" is a term used by Coleman (1990) and others to
    refer to the multiple kinds of networks and organizations that
    literally "produce" public welfare. Depending on the formation of
    interpersonal trust through long-term reciprocal exchanges (such as
    gifts, friendship, doing personal favors, and providing or receiving
    economic support), it grows slowly. It can be said to exist apart
    from any individual, but the actions, positive or negative, of all
    participants affect its strength and quality.

[^8]: Elián González, the Cuban rafter child in Miami, Florida around
    whom a custody battle swirled. Early dawn on April 22, 2000, INS
    agents rushed the house of Lázaro González to retrieve six-year-old
    Elián González in order to reunite the child with his father in
    Cuba. The raid spawned profound reactions from both those who were
    outraged and those who supported the action.

[^9]: Latino is used to identify a U.S. resident of Latin American
    heritage, foreign and U.S. born. The term also includes Mexican
    Americans.

[^10]: ? "Mexican origin" population refers to foreign and U.S. born
    residents of Mexican heritage in the United States. A Mexican
    American, as used within, is a native of the United States. However,
    readers should be aware that some Mexican immigrants, many of whom
    immigrated at an early age with their parents and were raised in the
    United States, also call themselves Mexican American. This term is
    used over others, such as Chicano or Tejano, because the majority of
    the U.S. born research respondents in this study used this term to
    identify themselves.

[^11]: For Indians endemic social turmoil was aggravated by the U.S.
    Congress's "termination" of tribal rights during the 1950s. In
    Oregon all tribes west of the Cascade Mountains had their official
    status cancelled as a result of this policy. Although Indians had
    been experiencing regular displacement and other injustices for more
    than 100 years before terminations resulted in increased
    geographical mobility, especially migration off reservations and
    into urban areas such as Portland, Oregon. The Confederated Tribes
    of Warm Springs were not terminated (tribal affiliation of American
    Indian respondents), but many on the reservation nonetheless were
    disturbed or frightened by what was happening elsewhere. In the
    Indian focus group it became evident that the concept of
    "termination" was perceived literally by some individuals, as
    indicating the literal end of their status as tribal members or even
    as Indians.