latinos and latinas in community psychology: a review of the literature

American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 4, 1994

Latinos and Latinas in Community Psychology: A Review of the Literature

G u i l l e r m o Bernal 1 and N o e m i E n c h a u t e g u i - d e - J e s d s 1

University of Puerto Rico and New York University

Latinos and Latinas are one of the largest minority groups in the United States yet they remain a silent group. The article begins by considering the social, historical, and economic backgrounds of Latino and Latina groups in the U.S. as a context for understanding diversity and as a resource for explaining the participation of this minority group in community psychology. This article then examines the extent to which Latinos and Latinas are present and participate in community psychology throughout its publications and explores the nature of their participation through a thematic analysis of the published literature. A content analysis was conducted on 1,851 articles published from 1973 through 1992 in the American Journal of Community Psychology and the Journal of Community Psychology to evaluate the presence of Latinos and Latinas in the community psychology literature. The quantitative analysis revealed that 3. 7% (n = 69) of all the articles reviewed focused on Latinos and Latinas or had samples with at least 15% of the participants coming from this ethnic group. Mexican Americans~Chicanos were the focus of the largest number of articles about specific Latino and Latina subgroups, followed by Cubans and Puerto Ricans. The results indicated less attention to Latino and Latina populations in the community psychology literature than would be expected from the field's goals. However, a qualitative review of the articles was more encouraging since many articles by and about Latinos and Latinas reflected values consonant with the field such as cultural pluralism or employed conceptual tools o f the discipline such as empowerment or ecological approaches. Nevertheless, some of the articles reviewed also lacked a concern for the field's values in relation to Latinos and Latinas as a group. Finally, suggestions and strategies to empower this group are offered.

Latinos and Latinas represent one of the largest minority groups in the United States. Indeed, by the year 2000 important geographic areas

1University of Puer to Rico, and New York University.

531

0091--0562/94/0800--0531507.00/0 �9 1994 Plenum Publishing Corporation

532 Bernai and Enchautegui-deoJesfis

within the United States (such as the East and West Coasts, parts of the South, the Southwest, and, increasingly, metropolitan areas of the Midwest) will have a strong Latino and Latina presence. Despite their increasing numbers, Hispanics remain a relatively silent group. The purpose of this article is twofold: 1) to examine the extent to which Latinos and Latinas are present and participate in community psychology through its publications; and 2) to explore the nature of their participation through a thematic analysis of the published literature.

However, to appreciate the participation of Latinos and Latinas or any minority group in any field, it is important to understand their social, political, and economic context. To this end, we begin by considering problems regarding the labeling of this minority group and continue with a description of the demographic, social, historical and political differences among subgroups. Our intent here is to underscore issues of diversity among Latinos and Latinas with the conviction that an appreciation of such differences will help to contextualize concerns about the participation of this minority group in community psychology and, thus can help to foster empowerment strategies for Latino and Latina communities.

HISPANICS, LATINOS, AND LATINAS

"Hispanics" do not usually refer to themselves as such nor as "Lati- nos". These labels are political ones used almost exclusively within a U.S. context. "Hispanic" was a label adopted by the federal government in the 1970's for the purpose of classifying census data and administering federal programs (Hayes-Bautista & Chapa, 1987). The term "Hispanic" is used to refer to people from Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Central or South America, as well as to people from other Spanish cultures or origins. In parts of California, the preferred term is "Latino" (Trevifio, 1987). Hayes-Bautista and Chapa (1987) contend that "Latino" is the term of reference that best fits the criteria of respecting the diverse national origins of Latin American populations. 1 Murguia (1991) points out that the term "Latino" also con-

1In fact, the term "Latin America" (Latinoam6rica) emerged in the 19th Century to refer to the newly formed countries of the Americas of Spanish, French, and Portuguese speaking people. Gros-Espiell (1978) notes that the term "Latin America" was a polemical one which expressed an opposition to Hispanic America (Hispanoam6rica or Iberoam6rica). The term Hispanic emph~isizes the Spanish roots while the term Latino encompasses individuals of different languages and diverse origins. By the turn of the Century, the growing panamericanism coupled with the fall of the Spanish Empire helped to popularize the term "latinoamericano". After the United Nations was created, the term Latin America was used to refer to any of the states of the Western Hemisphere excluding the United States and Canada (Gros-Espiell, 1978). The term "Latino" is an abbreviated form of the term

Latinos and Latinas in Community Psychology 533

notes cultural pluralism by virtue of being a Spanish word. Alternatively, the term "Hispanic", an English term, is assimilationist to the extent that it connotes an incorporation into mainstream U.S. white European values with some degree of cultural distinction (legacy from Spain). Other groups prefer the term "Raza", a somewhat more politicized term which acknowledges el Dfa de la Raza (the day of the race) considered to be the day the Americas were "discovered" or the day on which Spanish "conquis- tadores" came in contact with native American women forming a new mixed race. While there is general dissatisfaction with both the terms "His- panic" and "Latino" (as they describe no one's national origin), the latter implies a recognition of Latin American origins and nationalities, while the former acknowledges Spanish roots which are primarily white and Euro- pean. Unlike "Hispanic", the term "Latino" is not gender neutral. And yet gender neutrality can obscure the contributions of women, whereas the use of the term "Latino and Latina" requires an explicit recognition of women. While we recognize there is no ideal term, we will use the phrase "Latino and Latina" throughout this article as we discuss the contributions of men and women of Latin American origins to community psychology.

SOCIAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDS OF MAJOR LATINO AND LATINA GROUPS IN THE U.S.

Most Latinos and Latinas have a common language and share some cultural traits, like familismo and simpatfa (Marin, Marin, Sabogal, Otero- Sabogal, & Perez-Stable, 1986). However, Latinos and Latinas represent a heterogeneous population in terms of national histories and socioeconomic factors. Historically, Chicanos or Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans, unlike other Latinos and Latinas, share a legacy of being incorporated by the United States. Mexicans in what is now California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona were annexed into the Union by conquest or purchase (Bernal & Flores-Ortiz, 1984). After the Mexican American War, Mexico lost 45% of its national territory and well over 100,000 of its people to the United States.

Subsequent migrations of Mexicans to the U.S. were stimulated by the combination of the demand for cheap labor in the States and high unemployment and low wages in Mexico. A rise in the number of Mexican migrants to the United States was precipitated by the Mexican Revolution of 1910. Thousands fled the turmoil of the revolutionary process to find

"latinoamericano" or Latin American and as such represents an acknowledgement of Latin American roots (i.e., nationalities, races, and ethnic backgrounds).

534 Bernal and Enchautegui-de-Jesfis

work in industry, agriculture and transportation systems. By 1930, nearly a million Mexicans had migrated to the United States (Garver & McGuire, 1981). However, during the Depression, about 300,000 Mexicans and Mexi- can-Americans were repatriated or deported by U.S. authorities. A new wave of immigration was fostered by the Second World War. A shortage of farm workers developed in the U.S. as people left the land to enter the armed forces or work in the war effort. The U.S. and Mexico negotiated the "Bracero" agreement which issued Mexicans temporary work permits to work in the States. Mexican migrants tended to be from the rural areas of central Mexico and from the strip along the border. After the war, migration continued as people from rural areas in Mexico sought improved living conditions in the U.S. As difficult economic conditions during the 1970s and 1980s began to affect metropolitan centers of Mexico, migrants began coming from urban areas as well (Garver & McGuire, 1981; McWil- liams, 1968).

Puerto Ricans share a similar history. In 1898 during the Spanish American War, Puerto Rico was invaded by the United States as were Cuba, Guam, and the Philippines. Unlike Cuba in 1902 and the Philippines in 1949, Puerto Rico has not obtained its independence; thus it remains a colony. While other groups became citizens by choice, Puerto Ricans became citizens by fiat of the U.S. Congress in 1917. After four centuries of Spanish colonial rule and 97 years as a colony of the United States, Puerto Ricans have never controlled their destiny as a people. Puerto Rico has changed from an agricultural to an increasingly industrialized economy, as a result of both U.S. Government and Commonwealth efforts to accelerate industrialization (Silvestrini & Luque de Sanchez, 1987). Given this socioeconomic and political context, large waves of Puerto Ricans emigrated to the U.S. during the 1940s and 1950s and still continue to emigrate but to a lesser degree. Although encouraged by the Commonwealth government to ameliorate "poverty and overpopulation" (Bernal & Flores-Ortiz, 1984), the massive emigration that took (and takes) place in Puerto Rico has not created better economic conditions for those who migrate. At this time, more than two million Puerto Ricans live in the United States, primarily in the Northeast, and are the poorest among Latino and Latina groups by key economic indicators (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991).

A unique aspect of the Puerto Rican experience lies in the fact that as U.S. citizens, Puerto Ricans face fewer barriers in the process of migration to the mainland. Unlike other Latino and Latina groups, Puerto Ricans can enter and leave the U.S. with relative ease. In contrast, Cubans and Mexicans face barriers in returning to their countries of origin either for political reasons or due to lack of legal documentation. Thus, having the country of origin within reach, coupled with the socioeconomic charac-


teristics of the early Puerto Rican migratory waves, may have served to hinder their integration into mainstream U.S. culture.

The sociopolitical context of Cubans in the U.S. differs from that of both Puerto Ricans and Mexicans. Cuba gained its independence in 1902 but remained tied to U.S. economic interests until the revolution in 1959. Radical programs instituted by the revolutionary government created changes in the social, economic, and political structure of Cuban society. These changes, coupled with an economic embargo by the U.S., produced dissatisfaction in sectors of the population leading to an unparalleled exo- dus. While the initial waves of Cubans left for political reasons, later waves of migrants entered the U.S. for economic considerations.

First-wave Cubans left between 1959 and 1965 and were predominantly white, upper and middle class with educational, business, and financial resources. The second wave (from 1965 to 1973) was composed of middle class, lower middle class and working class persons. The third wave began in the Summer of 1980 with the Mariel boat lift. By 1982, nearly 125,000 had entered the U.S. The most recent wave reflected the Cuban population as a whole in terms of race, education, gender, and socioeconomic status (Bernal & Gutierrez, 1988).

In comparison to other Latino and Latina groups, Cubans were generally received with open arms and provided with substantial resources. The Cuban Refugee Program, the Cuban Student Loan Program, and special provisions within the Small Business Administration Program are among several examples of federal resources made available to this group. This kind of support, coupled with the socio-demographic characteristics of the first two waves of Cubans may explain their relatively better standing in indices of income, education, and occupation in comparison to other Lat- inos and Latinas (Bernal & Gutierrez, 1988).

Still other Latino and Latina groups, such as South and Central Americans with unique historical backgrounds, have contributed to the diversity of this minority group in the United States. For example, some Ar- gentineans and Chileans fled repressive governments during the late '60s and '70s. The 1980s political turmoil in Nicaragua, E1 Salvador, and, to a lesser degree, Guatemala precipitated new waves of Latino and Latina migration into the States. The Nicaraguan migration, in some ways, was similar to the first wave of Cuban migrants. With the Sandinista revolutionary victory, persons obtained easy entry into the U.S. By contrast, Salvadorans and Guatemalans were predominantly lower middle and working class individuals who confronted immigration and political barriers in the U.S. The Nicaraguans were welcomed as political refugees fleeing political repres- sion, while Salvadorans and Guatemalans were considered to be migrating for economic reasons and often faced deportation by the immigration

536 Bernal and Enchautegui-de-Jesfs

authorities. In other words, while Latino and Latina immigrants from some countries are welcomed to the U.S. as refugees and receive proper legal documentation, others who leave their countries for often similar reasons are considered "illegal aliens".

The situations of these groups are complex. The brief descriptions given above should serve to illustrate differences in social, historical, and political circumstances among the major Latino and Latina groups in the United States. A critical evaluation of their sociopolitical history reveals that large numbers of Mexicans and Puerto Ricans have been incorporated by the United States, while other Latino and Latina groups had to migrate to this country. Also while many Mexicans and Puerto Ricans may have migrated to the U.S. to escape poverty, most Cubans migrated for political reasons. These and other historical differences need to be considered to understand the current social and economic profiles of each group. For example, if the social and historical circumstances of Puerto Rico were such that independence was achieved in the early 1900s and that by the 1960s a socialist revolution had come into political power, the character of the migration to the U.S. would likely have been similar to that of other groups that primarily migrated for political reasons. Perhaps, some would be speaking of Puerto Ricans as a model minority in the U.S. Clearly, sociocultural, national, and racial backgrounds among Latinos and Latinas must be considered to better understand demographic differences (Marfn & Marfn, 1991).

Each group's unique historical and political context, along with the accompanying socioeconomic differences, must be considered when explor- ing empowerment challenges for these groups in U.S. communities. In a sense, historical points of convergence between Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans and the divergence of both these groups from Cuban Ameri- cans set the stage for the differences in demographic profiles presented below. Simultaneously, the history of each group can inform us about the problems, themes, and issues that need to be addressed. Understanding such differences is critical if we are to develop empowerment strategies that reach Latino and Latina communities and maximize their participation in organized psychology.

THE LATINO AND LATINA POPULATION IN THE U.S.

In this section, we present demographic profiles of the Latino and Latina community as a whole and by major groupings (i.e., Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Central and South Americans, and Others) to high- light both similarities and differences among Latinos and Latinas in the


United States. These demographic and economic issues shape the concerns of particular Latinos and Latinas. Demographic and economic differences and similarities ---and their impl ica t ions - must be considered in light of the historical and political issues addressed above.

According to the "Current Population Report" (CPR) (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991), the Latino and Latina population totaled 21.4 million in 1991 and currently constitute 8.6% of the U.S. population. This group is continuing to grow at a rate five times faster than the non-Latino/Latina population. These figures do not include the 3.5 million Puerto Ricans who reside in Puerto Rico, despite the fact that they are U.S. citizens. Immi- gration accounts for about 50% of the growth compared to about 21% of the growth in the non-Latino/Latina population (U.S. Bureau of the Cen- sus, 1990).

With respect to country of origin, Mexicans constitute 62.6% of Lat- inos and Latinas in the mainland U.S. Puerto Ricans make up 11.1%, Cu- bans 4.9%, and Central and South Americans 13.8%. "Other Hispanics" make up 7.6% of all Latinos and Latinas in the United States (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991). This latter category refers to individuals from Spain or to other Latinos and Latinas who do not trace their background to a particular country of origin (Marfn & Marin, 1991).

The economic profile of Latinos and Latinas is poor. Census data (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990) highlights that "Hispanic families are more likely to be in poverty than non-Hispanic families" (p. 8). The poverty rate of persons 18 years of age and under for Latinos and Latinas was 38%, while for other groups it was 18%. Approximately 25% of Latino and Latina families were below the poverty level in contrast to 9.5% of non-Latinos/Latinas. About one out of every six persons living in poverty in the U.S. is Latino or Latina. Furthermore, 38.4% of Latino and Latina children were living in poverty in comparison to 18.3% of non-Latino/Lat- ina children.

Among Latino and Latina subgroups, there are noteworthy differences in terms of age, educational attainment, employment, earnings, family size, and family income (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991). For example, Puerto Ricans have a median household income of $16,169 compared to $22,439 for Mexican Americans, $23,568 for Central and South Americans, $25,635 for "Other Hispanics", and $25,900 for Cubans. Family poverty was highest for Puerto Ricans (37.5%). Mexican Americans (25%) and Central and South Americans (22.2%) had the next highest percent of families below poverty, followed by "Other Hispanics"(19.4%). Cubans had the lowest percentage (13.8%) of families living below the poverty level. The Census Bureau Report notes that the high poverty rate for Puerto Rican families may be associated with the large number of single parent families headed

538 Bernai and Enchautegui-de-Jes6s

by women. Nearly, 65% of Puerto Rican families supported by a woman without a spouse were in poverty (U.S. Bureau of the Cens_us, 1991).

In terms of median age, Cub._ans are the oldest group (X =39.3 years), followed by "O_.ther Hispanics" (X = 31.0 years). Mexican Americans are the youngest (X = 24_3 years), while Puerto Ricans (X = 26.7 years) and Central Americans ( X = 27.9 years) are close to the median age for all Latinos and Latinas (X = 26.2 years). Concerning educational attainment, Mexican Americans had the lowest proportion (43.6%) of individuals who completed at least 4 years of high school in comparison to Puerto Ricans (58%), Cubans (61%), Central and South Americans (60.4%), and "Other Hispanics" (71.1%). Mexican Americans and Central Americans had the largest mean number of persons living in a household, 3.84 and 3.51 respectively, with 20% of Mexican American families having more than five members.

As noted earlier, historical differences provide a context for understanding the social and economic profiles of each group. The geographic proximity coupled with the political circumstances of incorporating new ter- ritories through U.S. expansionism explains why there are more Mexicans and Puerto Ricans in the mainland U.S. in contrast to other Latinos and Latinas. The relatively high poverty rate for Puerto Ricans is at least in part connected to the Commonwealth's historical encouragement to migrate for economic reasons. The overall inferior economic conditions of Puerto Ricans may also be maintained by the relative fluidity of some Puerto Rican communities due to movement to and from the mainland. Similarly, the poor financial conditions of many Mexican Americans are connected to the ongoing history of economically-motivated migrations. It is possible that the relatively low rate of graduation from high school for Mexican Americans might also be connected to their history of migration for seasonal and temporary employment which rarely operates on the same calendar as the formal U.S. educational system. Since Cubans and some Central American groups have migrated for primarily political reasons, it is not surprising that they tend to be better off economically and educationally. The fact that they also benefitted from more federal programs is probably also related.

The above descriptions of the economic, social, and political realities of Latino and Latina communities in the U.S. frames important questions about their presence in community psychology. First, since Latinos and Lat- inas as a whole represent a disenfranchised minority group that is growing rapidly, they should be a strong focus of attention within community psychology. How well has community psychology done at addressing this ethnic group? Second, an appreciation of diversity among Latino and Latina communities should serve to counter the tendency toward cultural stereotyping,


and thus generate a more meaningful understanding of this ethnic group. How well has community psychology utilized knowledge of the different histories and economic profiles to inform the way issues are addressed for different groups? And third, the consideration of diversity informed by culture and history should serve to broaden our general understanding of hu- man behavior as embedded in cultural contexts. How has community psychology taking advantage of this opportunity to enrich the field?

LATINOS AND LATINAS IN COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY

To provide a context for addressing the questions raised above, it is useful to examine the original goals and definitions of the discipline. The early descriptions of community psychology characterize this movement as one aimed at developing system-level interventions targeted at a wide variety of people throughout the entire community (Bloom, 1973; Tyler, 1973). There was a special concern with the delivery of relevant services to the poor and for minorities and a commitment to the powerless and disenfranchised (Mulvey, 1988; Sarason, 1973). Community psychologists are oriented to community action, identification of strengths instead of defi- cits, and development of community resources, among other tasks (New- brough, 1991; Rappaport, 1977). Thus, community psychologists assume an active role in social change efforts (Linney, 1990; Rappaport, 1984; Seid- man, 1988; Serrano-Garcia, L6pez & Rivera-Medina, 1987).

Most descriptions of community psychology involve, at a minimum, an expansion from the individual to a larger community focus. They usually also include an ecological viewpoint (Kelly, 1986) which stresses the relationship between social systems and individuals, based on values of cultural relativity and diversity (Lounsbury, Leader, Meares & Cook, 1980; Rap- paport, 1977; Weinstein & Frankel, 1974). Support of cultural pluralism (Escovar, 1983; Loo, Fong & Iwamasa, 1988) and empowerment (Rap- paport, 1984) are key aspects of community psychology.

The notion of empowerment, central to community psychology today, refers to the degree to which individuals gain control or mastery over their lives at personal, group, community, neighborhood, organizational, and broader social levels (Rappaport, 1987). Empowerment is concerned with the affirmation of personal influence coupled with a commitment to social action. As a participatory process, empowerment suggests a study of individuals in their social, historical, political, economic and cultural contexts.

Thus , the field rejects the existence of a unitary criteria or standard of mental health based on White middle-class values (Mulvey, 1988). Be- cause the characteristics of empowerment and pluralism are at the core of

540 Bernal and Enchautegui-de-Jes6s

the discipline, one would expect a broad presence of minority issues and an interest in minority communities to be clearly visible in the field. How- ever, such expectations are diminished by a review of the literature that examines the correspondence of community psychology's stated objectives to its actual development. Novaco and Monahan (1980) found that most empirical work in community psychology did not reflect the field's perspectives. Similarly, a 1981 survey of participants in the Boston Conference of 1965 found that many respondents' original hopes and expectations for the field had not been achieved (Moitoza & Herch, 1981). More specific to the coverage of minority issues, Loo, Fong, and Iwamasa (1988) concluded that there was much left to be desired in terms of community psychology's commitment to ethnic minority populations and cultural diversity. They found that only 11% of all articles reviewed in three journals of the field related to ethnic minorities in the U.S. Bachman, Smith and Jason (1981) studied the characteristics of community psychologists in the American Psy- chological Association (APA) and revealed that there was a "disproportionately low representation of females and minorities in community psychology" (p. 290).

Certainly, the failure of community psychology to achieve its original goals is disappointing, as well as challenging. The field's "commitment" rhetoric is far from its actual practices. The problems include a lack of real ecological considerations in analyses and interventions, person-level and victim-blaming perspectives, and the exclusion of disenfranchised, needy sectors of society from community psychology's agenda (Linney, 1990; Mulvey, 1988; Seidman, 1988; Serrano-Garcfa, Lopez & Rivera- Medina, 1987).

The present study examined community psychology's commitment to minorities, specifically Latinos and Latinas, by reviewing their presence in the community psychology literature. As discussed earlier, Latinos and Lat- inas as a whole represent a significant minority group in the United States. Latino and Latina communities are diverse and growing rapidly. Commu- nity psychology can make a significant contribution to these charac- teristically underserved and poor communities. Alternatively, Latinos and Latinas can enrich and diversify community research and action.

While there may be multiple ways of evaluating the presence of Lat- inos and Latinas in the community psychology literature, our approach was aimed at evaluating the Latino and Latina presence both as authors and as the focus of discussion. We focused our evaluation on the participation of this group in the two key journals of the field: the American Journal of Community Psychology (AJCP) and the Journal of Community Psychology (JCP). Lounsbury et al. (1980), Novaco and Monahan (1980), and Loo, Fong and Iwamasa (1988) also selected these journals for examination since


their contents were considered representative and reflective of community psychology's research, trends, and activities. Similarly, we assumed that articles published in AJCP and JCP would best reflect the field's development and current priorities. Since these two journals are at the forefront of theory, research, and practice in community psychology, the publication of articles by Latinos and Latinas constitutes a reasonable measure of the actual presence and participation of Latinos and Latinas in the field of community psychology. Identification and evaluation of articles with content focused on Latinos and Latinas is a way to examine what specific issues are covered by and about this ethnic group. Our interest here was to not only count the number of articles about Latinos and Latinas, but to also complement siach quantitative data with qualitative information about what particular themes are addressed. Thus some of the concerns that guided this review included: To what extent are Latinos and Latinas included in community psychology studies? When they are included, are variations among subgroups considered? Are sociohistorical and demographic characteristics of the group studied considered when framing interventions and/or discussing research results? or, on the other hand, are all Latino and Latina groups considered a homogeneous group? are findings about one group unself- critically generalized to other groups?

Method

Quantitative Approach. All articles published in AJCP and JCP from 1973 to October, 1992 were content analyzed. We excluded all editorials (introductions to special issues, editorial opinions, notes, and comments), book reviews, and introductory comments for award recipients. A total of 1851 articles were coded; 912 from the AJCP and 939 from the JCP.

We followed a coding system similar to that reported by Loo, Fong, and Iwamasa (1988) in their study of ethnicity and cultural diversity. They conducted a content analysis of all articles published up to 1985 in the AJCP, the JCP, and the Community.

Mental Health Journal

All articles were coded on three distinct dimensions. (See Table 1.) The first considered the ethnic minority content (EMC) or extent to which any ethnic minority g r o u p / s - i.e. Asian American/Pacific Islander, Afri- can American, Latino and Latina and/or Native American m was/were present in the sample or content of the article. This dimension had five possible codes: (1) EMC = 0%; (2) 0% < EMC < 15%; (3) 15% < EMC


Table 1. Coding Scheme for Ethnic Minority Content, Ethnic Minority Groups, Latino/Latina Groups, and Author Surname a

Dimensions

% Ethnic minority Ethnic minority Latino and Latina Author content (EMC) group groups surname

1 = Zero 1 = Latinos/Latinas 1 = Puerto Rican 1 = Spanish Hispanics

2 = > 0 < = 1 5 % 2 = African Americans 2 = Mexian-Ameriean 2 = Non- Spanish

3 = > 1 5 % < = 5 0 % 3 = Asian Pacific 3 = Cuban-Americans Islanders

4 = > 5 0 % < = 7 5 % 4 = Native Americans 4 = Other Latino or origin not specified

5 = >75% 5 = More than one group

aEthnic Minority Content (EMC) was assessed in terms of the percentage of the sample that included minorities or the extent of thematic content primarily focused on minority issues.

< 50%; (4) 50% _< EMC < 75%; (5) EMC _ 75 percent. 2 To assign a code to an article, the title, abstract, method and/or results section(s) were reviewed to determine if they mentioned any of the four minority groups stated above. Minority groups could have been mentioned as part of the sample in empirical articles or as the central focus of the content of nonempirical ones. Codes for empirical articles depended on the percent (proportion) of ethnic minority members participating in the study. To code nonempirical articles, we considered how much the article dealt with one or more of the minority groups mentioned. If the article was not concerned with any of the ethnic minorities specified above, it was assigned code one. Code four was given to nonempirical articles that compared or focused on both minority and non-minority populations (similar to EMC = 50%). Articles that dealt exclusively with one or more of the minority groups mentioned before were assigned the fifth code (similar to EMC = 100%).

2Categories were developed based on a preliminary review of the articles and were designed to evaluate degree of inclusion of minority groups in general and Latinos and Latinas in particular.

Latinos and Latlnas in Community Psychology 543

The second coding dimension identified the specific ethnic minority group represented in the sample or content of articles reviewed. This dimension was coded in articles that had samples with at least 15% minority participants. The first code was for articles which included at least 15% Latinos and Latinas in the sample or focus. The second code was for articles having an African American focus or representation of at least 15%. The third and fourth codes were for Asian/Pacific Islander and Native American samples or focus, respectively. The fifth code was for articles with at least 15% representation by more than one minority group.

The third dimension involved identification of the specific Latino and Latina subgroups represented in at least 15% of the sample or content of an article. Code one was for articles about, or that included, Puerto Ricans; code two was for articles about Mexican Americans/Chicanos; and code three was for Cubans. The fourth code was for articles with any combination of, or other, Latino and Latina subgroups, including articles that did not specify the nation of origin of participants.

Another dimension of interest classified authors' surnames as Spanish or non-Spanish. This was a problematic category because a surname does not necessarily mean that a person belongs to a specific ethnic group. How- ever, at a minimum, we felt it would be informative to identify Spanish surnames. The first author's surname was used for coding. However, when the secondary author's surname was Spanish and the first author's name was not, the secondary author's surname was coded.

Coding of all articles was conducted by two raters trained to criterion. A reliability check on the coding procedure was conducted. Approximately 4.3% of all the articles (n = 80) were randomly selected for the reliability check. The second rater, uninformed as to the questions of the study, was trained to criterion and subsequently coded the 80 articles.

The percent agreement between the two raters was reasonably high. The agreement between raters by coding categories was the following: 93.75% for EMC; 97.5% for identifying specific minority groups; 97.7% for identifying specific Latino and Latina groups; and 91.25% for the author surname coding. The average percent agreement for all categories was 93.95.

Qualitative Approach. To assess the themes and topics covered, we examined all 110 articles that had at least 15% sample or content on Lat- inos and Latinas. Broad categories of themes emerged which were then used to describe the content of the articles. These themes included: a) awareness of the social and cultural diversity among Latino and Latina groups, b) development of culturally-sensitive assessments and interventions, c) utilization of mental health services, d) social support and coping

544 Bernal and Enchautegui-de-Jest~s

strategies, and e) participation and change. Exemplars from each broad category were also identified.

Results

In this section, both the quantitative and qualitative analyses aimed at evaluating Latino and Latina participation in community psychology publications are presented. No statistical tests were conducted since our purpose was primarily a descriptive one.

Descriptive Quantitative Analysis. All 1,851 articles published in AJCP and the JCP between 1973 and 1992 were analyzed. Approximately 79% (n = 1,466) of these articles did not include ethnic minority groups in their samples or content. Approximately 3% (n = 60) had samples with less than 15% EMC. A total of 325 articles (17.6%) had 15% or more minority presence in sample and/or content. Of these 325 articles, 47.1% (n = 153) were coded as having a proportion of 75% or more EMC, representing 8.3% of the 1,851 articles. Only 3.7% (n = 69) of the 325 articles with at least minimal minority sample/content focused predominantly on Latinos and Latinas, while 7.0% (n = 129) focused on African Americans, 1.2% (n = 23) on Asians, and 0.6% (n = 12) on Native Americans. Finally, about 5% (n = 92) of the articles were coded as having a mixed minority focus.

The analyses concerning Latino and Latina subgroups is based on 110 articles (69 articles focused on Latinos/Latinas exclusively plus 41 articles that addressed a mix of minorities yet still included Latinos and Lat- inas as at least 15% of the sample or content). Eleven of the 110 articles (10%) were coded as having at least 15% focus on Puerto Ricans. Ap- proximately 39% (n = 43) of the articles focused on Mexican Ameri- cans/Chicanos and 10.9% (n = 12) were on Cubans/Cuba. Finally, 40% (n = 44) of the articles focused on Latinos and Latinas without specifying their national origins or on a mix of different subgroups.

Spanish surnames were found in 8.8% (162) of the articles. About 91.2% (1,689) of the articles had a non-Spanish-surnamed author. As the amount of focus on ethnic minority content or sample increased in the articles (see Table 2) so did the proportion of the articles being written by Spanish-surnamed authors. While 11.3% (95) of the articles with less than 15% EMC had authors with Spanish surnames, 31.4% (48) of the articles with 75% EMC had Spanish-surnamed authors.

In terms of articles focused on Latinos and Latinas, Table 3 shows that authors of those articles are likely to have Spanish-surnames. About


t. , 0

._=

.u e ~

~ o

e -

e~

e~

0

v

v

t t 3

V

v

. c . ~ . e~

q~

v

u ~

0

S _= 8

c~


Table 3. Frequency and Percentages of Community Psychology Articles Focused on Latinos by Spanish Author Surname a

Author surname

Latino/a groups Spanish Non-Spanish

Mexican-American 7 (64%) 4 (36%)

Puerto Rican 17 (40%) 26 (60%)

Cuban 9 (75%) 3 (25%)

Other 16 (36%) 28 (64%)

Total 49 (44.5%) 61 (55.5%)

apercentages are for row totals.

44.5% of articles that focused on Latinos and Latinas had an author surname from the same ethnic group.

Analysis of Themes. The thematic analysis of articles revealed a number of discussions about the need to be sensitive to the culturally-distinctive features of Latino and Latina groups (e.g., Amaro, 1988; Bloom & Padilla, 1979; Comas-Diaz, 1988; Hernandez-Holtzman & Gilbert, 1987; Incl~n, 1983; Padilla, Cervantes, Maldonado, & Garcia, 1988; Rosado, 1980). As noted earlier, other broad themes that emerged were related to: social, economic, and cultural diversity; assessment and treatment strategies; utilization of services; social supports and coping; and participation and change.

In general, the writings about Latinos and Latinas consider social conditions, economic factors and cultural values such as familialism, collater- ality, "respeto", orientation to time, and gender roles (Marfn & Marfn, 1991) as a starting point in distinguishing Latinos and Latinas from other ethnic groups. Amaro (1988) discussed the importance of addressing social and economic factors in addition to cultural values (e.g., education, participation in labor force, urban vs. rural residence) when interpreting findings of research about Latinos and Latinas. She also noted the influence of cultural and religious factors on attitudes toward reproduction among Mexican-Americans. Bloom and Padilla (1979) called attention to particular social circumstances in Mexican-American communities, such as un- documentation, language, and distrust for outsiders, when developing research strategies to obtain empirically-valid data. Comas-Dfaz (1988) proposed a sociocultural approach to working with mainland Puerto Rican women. These articles serve as examples of sensitivity to the social and


historical context of the Latino and Latina participants (Mexican Ameri- cans and Puerto Ricans).

Several authors stressed the importance of developing assessments (e.g., Cauce & Jacobson, 1980; Humm-Delgado & Delgado, 1983) and interventions (e.g., Marin et al., 1990) tailored to the values, beliefs, and cultural background of the particular Latino and Latina group for which they were designed (e.g., Szapocznik, Scopetta, & King, 1978). For example, with assessments, Cauce and Jacobson (1980) described basic problems in the evaluation of Latinos and Latinas. These included overt prejudice and bi- ased assumptions about: bilinguality, homogeneity of language proficiency, equivalence of translations, population homogeneity, language uniformity, and culture-free nature of tests. The authors concluded with a compelling argument for language-appropriate testing and evaluation.

Marfn et al. (1990) developed a culturally-appropriate smoking cessation intervention program for Latinos and Latinas in the San Francisco Bay Area. They defined a culturally-appropriate intervention as having the following characteristics: 1) the intervention or treatment is based on the cultural values of the target group; 2) change strategies reflect the subjec- tive culture of the ethnic groups targeted (such as norms, attitudes and expectancies); and 3) the strategies are based on the behavioral preferences of the groups in question. Using a similar approach to culturally-sensitive treatments, Szapocznik, Scopetta, & King (1978) focused matching treatments to the special needs and problems of Cuban immigrants.

Generally, articles about Latinos and Latinas dealt with one subgroup, with Mexican Americans being the most frequent focus. Some authors further subcategorized the population of interest in terms of family migration to the United States (e.g., Soto, 1983), level of acculturation (e.g., P6rez, Padilla, Ramfrez, Ramfrez, & Rodriguez, 1980), or social class (e.g., Inchin, 1983). These subcategories allowed a better assessment of group variation within Latino and Latina populations.

Although articles addressed a variety of issues, utilization of services by Latinos and Latinas, especially mental health services, was a common theme (e.g., Denner & Halprin, 1974; Golding, Stein, Siegel, Burnam, & Sorenson, 1988; Starrett, Bresler, Decker, Waiters, & Rogers, 1990). The field of community psychology began precisely with a special concern for the adequate delivery of mental health services among underserved populations (e.g., Sarason, 1973). Different explanations and recommendations are proposed by authors to understand and increase service utilization in Latino and Latina communities (e.g., Acosta, 1979; Keefe & Casas, 1980; Escovar & Kurtinos, 1983). Among the barriers to service utilization that Latinos and Latinas encounter, Acosta and Cristo (1982) mentioned the lack of professional staff ethnically or linguistically representative of the


community served. Rosado (1980) mentioned, as well, the incompatibility of aspects of therapy with the psychological orientation, cultural value system, and expectations of the clients. The proposed recommendations to eliminate such barriers included having providers learn about ethnic communities, their cultural values, and the effects of social class and culture (Acosta, 1979; Rosado, 1980) and increasing the number of bilingual/bicultural community workers (Acosta, 1979; Delgado & Scott, 1979). Also, more involvement and input of Latino and Latina communities in program and service planning were suggested (Delgado and Scott, 1979; Keefe & Casas, 1980). Starrett et al. (1990) recommended using a wider range of channels to make information about services available (e.g., family). A systems perspective was proposed to increase understanding of the multidi- mensionality of variables related to service utilization (e.g., costs of services, accessibility, availability) and the socio-political factors that account for the psychological distress of Latino and Latina communities (Escovar & Kur- tinos, 1983; Rosado, 1980). In sum, most of the articles on the utilization of services point to the need for greater sensitivity of providers to cultural and social differences in the communities they serve, as well as to the need to increase the number of providers representative of those communities.

Social support and coping strategies appeared as topics in several articles (e.g, Okun, Sandier, & Baumann, 1988; Warheit, Vega, Shimizu, & Meinhardt, 1982), as did other factors related to psychological well-being (e.g, Bravo et al., 1990; Hernandez-Holtzman & Gilbert, 1987), educational concerns (e.g., Preciado, Greene, & Montesinos, 1984; Thomas, Chinsky, & Aronson, 1973), and race and gender (e.g., Amaro, 1988; Bernat & Balch, 1979). More specifically, according to Okun, Sandier, and Baumann (1988), support from faculty may foster adaptation to college and make a difference in attrition rates of Mexican American students in community colleges. Leslie (1992) noted that informal support networks are important in providing assistance in the adjustment of Central American immigrants who face a lack of formal support from government agencies. Warheit, Vega, Shimizu, and Mainhardt (1982) suggested that researchers corrobo- rate assumptions about the role of the family in ethnic minority groups, since they did .aot find that the family was a particularly significant part of interpersonal coping networks of Mexican Americans. The influence of social supports in reducing the negative effects of life events for different Latino and Latina groups and in varying contexts remains predominant in the research and intervention literature.

Preventive interventions were the topic of several articles in a range of domains. These interventions included media-based campaigns for HIV prevention (Crawford et al., 1990; Marfn, Marfn, Juarez, and Sorensen, 1992) and smoking cessation (Marfn et al., 1990); a drop out prevention


program for high school students (Reyes & Jason, 1991); a parent-child educat ion program to prevent behavior problems in young children (Johnson & Breckenridge, 1982); parent training for families with retarded children (Prieto-Bayard & Baker, 1986); and a preschool education program for Puerto Ricans in the U.S. (Thomas, Chinsky, & Aronson, 1973).

Across different topics, it was noted that rather than asserting Latino and Latina uniqueness, some authors relied on comparisons with an An- glo/White normative standard (e.g., Melgoza, Roll, & Baker, 1983), even when this comparison was not the author's explicit intention (e.g., Ecken- rode, 1983; Prieto-Bayard & Baker, 1986). Some areas of comparison included level of conformity and cooperation, degree of self-disclosure in therapy, amount of internal and external coping resources, and ability to mobilize resources. Such comparisons are problematic not only because they take the Anglo as norm, but also because, in doing so, they wrongly presume an equality of social conditions and a uniformity of social context. Such studies run the risk of fostering cultural and ethnic stereotypes.

In some instances, articles having at least 15% Latinos and Latinas in their sample did not address specific concerns regarding Latinos and Latinas or ethnic minority groups. Latino and Latinas were part of the sample, yet no mention of this fact was made in any part of the article beyond the sample description. The presence of Latinos and Latinas in those samples could be attributed to the geographic area where the sample was drawn (e.g., Los Angeles, California) or to the kind of issues addressed which disproportionately affect Latinos and Latinas and other minority groups (e.g., low income, underutilization of services, school dropouts, etc.).

More representative of community psychology's values were those articles that called attention to the importance of identifying resources and allowing Latinos and Latinas to assume a more active role in every sphere of their lives (e.g, Comas-Diaz, 1988; Hoffman, 1978; Keefe & Casas, 1980; Preciado, Greene, & Montesinos, 1984). For instance, Hoffman (1978) considered how participation in self-help or social change organizations could reduce feelings of powerlessness among Mexican Americans. Becoming more proficient in English, according to Preciado, Greene, and Montesinos (1984), is a necessary element for migrant workers to assume greater control over their lives within the U.S. context. Finally, Keefe and Casas' (1980) article on Mexican Americans and mental health services presents a critical review of the mental health delivery system. Ten recommendations for im- proving these services were offered. Heading the recommendations was the need for mental health service providers to obtain a "good understanding of the local Mexican American community ... fostering research at the local level" (pg. 312), tapping into existing networks of mental health care including formal and informal sources of support, involvement of the Latino

550 Bernal and Enchautegui-de-Jesfs

and Latina community in the development of the services they receive, and their collaboration with providers in domains such as mental health care. All of the authors' recommendations identified strengths within the Mexi- can American community as a resource to improve mental health services.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

As previously stated, our goal was to examine the extent to which Latinos and Latinas were present in community psychology publications and to explore the nature of this participation. We extended our analyses to include other minority groups and found that only 8.3% of the articles reviewed were almost exclusively focused on minorities. There are two main reasons why a higher percent is desirable. First, we agree with Loo, Fong, and Iwamasa (1988) in expecting that the attention given to minorities in these publications should be, at least, proportionate to their representation in the U.S. population, which is about 25%. However, we would go even further by asserting that given the goals of community psychology, the census data is too modest a criteria for the desired representation of these groups within our field. Community psychology goals involve working with ethnic minority communities and conducting research with underserved populations. Therefore, special efforts and actions need to be taken to bridge the gap between the field's stated ideal and the actual practice of community psychology.

Regarding specific minorities, our descriptive results are similar to the findings presented by Loo, Fong, and Iwamasa (1988). Both studies found that African Americans received somewhat more attention than other ethnic minorities. While there is a need to dedicate more attention in community psychology's publications to the multiple minority groups in the U.S., a truly multicultural perspective in the field will not be achieved until each group is considered on its own terms and within its own particular context instead of making superficial comparisons in a historical void (Escovar, 1983). An ecological perspective must include the historical analysis of their differences and similarities.

Within-group differences among the experiences of Latinos and Lat- inas have also not been adequately addressed since there is a tendency to label groups as "Hispanic" or "Latino" and not consider specific differences between them. The percentage of articles that were specifically about Mexi- can Americans or Chicanos was below what would be expected even if we were to accept the census data as a criterion. Cubans were numerically better represented, which may be attributed to a special issue of the JCP devoted to community psychology in Cuba (Bernal & Marin, 1985). Forty


percent of the time, different Latino and Latina groups were thrown into the catch-all category of "Hispanic."

In terms of authorship, as stated previously, as the ethnic minority content of articles increases so does the proportion of Spanish-surnamed authors. However, about 68.6% of the articles coded as having more than 75% EMC were written by Non-Spanish surnamed authors. Since these articles were only 8.3% of the total number of articles, the contribution to an increasingly diverse psychology enriched by minority authors has a great deal of room for improvement.

While the quantitative findings point to a limited participation of Lat- inos and Latinas in community psychology, our exploration of the nature of such participation revealed a more encouraging picture. Several articles on and about Latinos and Latinas reflected a larger systemic (often ecological) viewpoint, a focus on the relationship between the social system and the person, and a call for cultural pluralism and empowerment. The value of cultural pluralism was evident in the call for culturally-sensitive interventions, assessments, and the emphasis on the need to understand Latinos and Latinas on their own terms. The concern about the underutilization of services by Latinos and Latinas, adequate delivery of health and mental health services, barriers to such services, social supports, and coping strategies within culturally-relevant contexts is also of importance. It may be concluded that while the numbers are not up to the field's ideal, the quality of some publications by and about Latinos and Latinas comes closer to reflecting community psychology values.

Strategies for Empowerment

We have emphasized throughout this article that the historical and social backgrounds of ethnic minority groups deserve attention. Thus we began by presenting the social, historical, and economic backgrounds of Latino and Latina groups in order to provide a context for understanding differences between and within these groups. This sort of recognition of individuals and communities in their social, historical, political, economic, and cultural contexts is a first step toward empowerment.

We turn now to the issue of developing strategies to support the empowerment of this relatively silent minority group. Given the objectives and nature of community psychology presented earlier, it is clear that both the field and Latino and Latina communities can benefit from common efforts aimed at empowerment. Such strategies are based on the belief that appreciation of differences and collaborative efforts are major resources in the agenda to empower Latinos and Latinas in community psychology.

552 Bernal and Enchautegui-de-Jesfis

We propose that the agenda for the future place a high priority on the empowerment of minorities. It should, as well, promote collaboration, participation, and linkages with and among Latinos and Latinas in the U.S. and Latin America. Appreciation of differences would contribute to a psychology genuinely concerned with diversity. Community psychology should take steps to close the gap between its rhetoric and its practices. To do so as regards ethnic minorities in general and Latino and Latinas in particular, strategies for empowerment need to be multifaceted and multidirected, plu- ralistic, and based on divergent reasoning.

Earlier we outlined the importance of understanding the social, historical, and economic context of Latinos and Latinas in the United States. Understanding such contexts and rediscovering the unique histories of diverse Latino and Latina groups contributes to empowerment. If we consider Latinos and Latinas in the U.S. in isolation, we may conclude that this is a relatively small community. However, if we consider the number of Lat- inos and Latinas in the U.S. as well as the number of Latinos and Latinas throughout Central America, South America, and the Caribbean, our notion of the Latino and Latina community clearly expands into the millions who share the same hemisphere. New historical developments such as a free trade zone between the U.S., Canada and Mexico seem to point in the direction of reducing barriers and supporting economic integration. Given this situation, Latinos and Latinas in the U.S. may be in a unique leadership position to bridge gaps between cultures and contexts.

In that sense, community psychology's literature, curriculum, and practice has to facilitate an orientation to strengths and a broader perspective of Latino and Latina communities. Empowerment is fostered when the field's knowledge base integrates and addresses Latino and Latina issues from a Latino and Latina perspective. This process must begin with an acknowledgement of differences and an appreciation of diversity placed in its proper historical context. Also, developing empowerment among Latino and Latina community psychologists, requires the creation of mechanisms in order to enhance their possibilities of having an active role in the field's activities.

Again we have to emphasize the urgency of taking steps that move community psychology forward toward those goals. Hence, collaborative efforts, participation, and linkages emerge as means for developing empowerment among Latinos and Latinas in community psychology. The collaboration of Latinos and Latinas with their Latin American counter- parts can be a major resource for empowerment. Linkages and participation in organizations such as the Interamerican Society of Psychology can serve


as a means for political action, cross-cultural research, and the development of a culturally-diverse non-ethnocentric community psychology.

There is also a need for collaboration among the different Latino and Latina groups within the U.S. for organized efforts, as there is a need for collaboration between Latinos and Latinas and other minorities. Col- laboration might create "a sense of connectedness to others" which has been defined as an important aspect of empowerment (Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). Support of and participation in local community groups or grass-roots efforts provides a setting for being active outside APA and professional organizations (Linney, 1990; Mulvey, 1988). Besides, collaborative efforts provide an opportunity to see divergent solutions accounted for by a diversity of people and experiences (Rappaport, 1981). Within APA, the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA, Division 27) can be an empowerment resource by playing a collaborative role with the Society for Ethnic and Minority Issues (Divisions 45), with Family Psy- chology (Division 43) and with the Division on the Psychology of Women (Division 35) to name only three. For example, convention time may be shared around a theme of interest or the SCRA Biennial meeting may be focused on empowerment and ethnic minority families. In an era of free trade zones throughout the Americas, collaborative efforts between APA's Committee on International Relations in Psychology and the Committee on Ethnic Minority Affairs, for example, could serve as an important resource in evolving a plan of action for empowering Latinos and Latinas. Common agendas could serve as a blueprint for the next Century. Special efforts to focus conferences on cultural diversity, pluralism, minority concerns, and empowerment as those recently instituted at the APA conven- tions ('90, '91, and '92 and the SCRA Biennial Meetings in 1991) need to continue.

The agenda for the future needs to move toward the construction of a psychology rooted in socio-historical contexts and grounded on the issues of class, race, gender, sexual orientation, age, culture, and language. There are some noteworthy exemplars within the community psychology literature on Latinos and Latinas which do indeed consider variations among subgroups and discuss implications of the social, political and historical differences. However, overall, too few articles are devoted to this ethnic group, and too many articles still fail to even note which subgroup is being considered. A renewed commitment to collaborative efforts, minority issues, and cultural diversity would move community psychology away from the ethnocentric character of North American psychology, and would greatly enhance our ability to work for the empowerment of Latino and Latina communities.

554 Bernal and Enchautegui-de-Jesds

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A version of this article was presented at the meetings of the Ameri- can Psychological Association in 1991. Preparation of this article was supported by a National Institute on Mental Health Grant (MH 19134), Minority Research Resources Branch; and by Fondos Institucionales para la Investigacfon from the University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras Campus to the first author. The authors wish to thank Ana L. V61ez and Sigfrido Steidel for their assistance with the data coding and collection and to the editors of the Special Issue: Irma Serrano-Garcia, Ph.D. and Meg A. Bond, Ph.D. for their helpful comments and suggestions on the manuscript.

REFERENCES

Acosta, F. X. (1979). Barriers between mental health services and Mexican Americans: An examination of a paradox. American Journal of Community Psychology, 7, 503-520.

Acosta, F. X. & Cristo, M. H. (1982). Bilingual-bicultural interpreters as psychotherapeutic bridges: A program note. Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 54-56.

Acosta, F. X. & Sheehan, J. G. (1978). Self-disclosure in relation to psychotherapist expertise and ethnicity. American Journal of Community Psychology, 6, 545-553.

Amaro, H. (1988). Women in the Mexican-American community: Religion, culture, and reproductive attitudes and experiences. Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 6-20.

Bachman, S., Smith, T., & Jason, L. A. (1981). Characteristics of community psychologists in 1974 and 1978. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 283-291.

Bernal, G., & Gutierrez, M. (1988). Cubans. In L. Comas-Diaz & E. E. H. Griffith (Eds.), Clinical guidelines in cross-cultural mental health (pp. 233-261). New York: Wiley.

Bernal, G. & Flores-Ortiz, Y. (1984). Latino families: Sociohistorical perspectives and cultural issues. Nueva Epoca, Monograph published by the Bay Area Spanish Speaking Therapists Association, San Francisco, CA.

Bernal, G., & Marln, B. (1985). Community psychology in Cuba. Journal of Community Psychology, 12(3).

Bernat, G. & Balch, P. (1979). The Chicano Racial Attitude Measure (CRAM): Results of an initial investigation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 7, 137-146.

Bloom, B. L. (1973). The domain of community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1, 88-11.

Bloom, D. & Padilla, A. M. (1979). A peer interviewer model in conducting surveys among Mexican-American youth. Journal of Community Psychology, 7, 129-136.

Bravo, M., Rubio-Stipec, M., Canino, G. J., Woodbury, M. A., & Ribera, J. C. (1990). The psychological sequelae of disaster stress prospectively and retrospectively evaluated. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 661-680.

Cauce, A. M. & Jacobson, L. I. (1980). Implicit and incorrect assumptions concerning the assessment of the Latino in the United States. American Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 571-586.

Comas-Diaz, L. (1988). Mainland Puerto Rican women: A sociocultural approach. Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 21-31.

Crawford, I., Jason, L. A., Riordan, N., Kaufman, J., Salina, D., Sawaiski, L., Chu Ho, F. & Zolik, E. (1990). A multimedia-based approach to increasing communication and the level of AIDS knowledge within families. Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 361-373.

Delgado, M. & Scott, J. F. (1979). Strategic intervention: A mental health program for the Hispanic community. Journal of Community Psychology, 7, 187-197.

Latinos and Latinas in Community Psychology $55

Denner, B. & Halprin, F. (1974). Measuring consumer satisfaction in a community outpost. American Journal of Community Psychology, 2, 13-22.

Eckenrode, J. (1983). The mobilization of social support: Some individual constraints. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 509-528.

Escovar, L. A. (1983). Multicultural community psychology: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 283-284.

Escovar, L. A. & Kurtinos, W. M. (1983). Psychosocial predictors of service utilization among Cuban-American elders. Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 355-362.

Garver, S., & McGuire, P. (1981). Coming to North America: From Mexico, Cuba, and Puerto Rico. New York: Laurel-Leaf Books.

Golding, J. M., Stein, J. A., Siegel, J. M., Burnam, M. A., & Sorenson, S. B. (1988). Sexual assault history and use health and mental health services. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 625-644.

Gros-Espiell, H. (1978). La organizaci6n internacional del trabajo y los derechos humanos en la America Latina. M6xico: Universidad Nacionai Aut6noma de M6xico.

Hayes-Bautista, D. E. & Chapa, J. (1987). Latino terminology: Conceptual bases for standardized terminology. American Journal of Public Health, 77, 61-68.

Hernfindez-Holtzman, E. & Gilbert, L. A. (1987). Social support networks for parenting and psychological well-being among dual-earner Mexican-American families. Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 176-186.

Hoffman, C. (1978). Empowerment movements and mental health: Locus of control and commitment to the United Farm Workers. Journal of Community Psychology, 6, 216-221.

Humm-Delgado, D. & Delgado, M. (1983). Assessing Hispanic mental health needs: Issues and recommendations. Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 363-375.

Inclfin, J. (1983). Psychological symptomatology in second generation Puerto Rican women of three socio-economic groups. Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 334-345.

Johnson, D. L. & Breckenridge, J. N. (1982). The Houston parent-child development center and the primary prevention of behavior problems in young children. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 305-316.

Keefe, S. E. & Casas, J. M. (1980). Mexican Americans and mental health: A selected review and recommendations for mental health service delivery. American Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 303-326.

Kelly, J. G. (1986). Context and process: An ecological view of interdependence of practice and research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 581-589.

Leslie, L. A. (1992). The role of informal support networks in the adjustment of Central American immigrant families. Journal of Community Psychology, 20, 243-256.

Linney, J. A. (1990). Community Psychology into the 1990s: Capitalizing opportunity and promoting innovation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 1-17.

Loo, C., Fong, K. T., & Iwamasa, G. (1988). Ethnicity and cultural diversity: An analysis of work published in community psychology journals, 1965-1985. Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 332-349.

Lounsbury, J. W., Leader, D. S., Meares, E. P., & Cook, M. P. (1980). An analytic review of research in community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 415-441.

Marin, G., Mar[n, B., Sabogal, F., Otero-Sabogai, R., & P6rez-Stable, E. (1986). Intracultural differences in values among Hispanics: The role of acculturation. Technical Report #15. San Francisco: Hispanic Smoking Cessation Research Project, University of California.

Mar[n, G., Matin, B. V., Perez-Stable, E. J., Sabogal, F., & Otero-Sabogal, R. (1990). Changes in information as a function of a culturally appropriate smoking cessation community intervention for Hispanics. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 847-864.

Mar[n, G. & Marin, B. V. (1991). Research with Hispanic populations. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.

Marin, B. V., Matin, G., Juarez, R. A. & Sorensen, J. L. (1992). Intervention from family members as a strategy for preventing HIV transmission among intravenous drug users. Journal of Community Psychology, 20, 90-97.

McWilliams, C. (1968). North from Mexico: The Spanish-Speaking people of the United States. New York: Greenwood Press.


Melgoza, B., Roll, S., & Baker, R. C. (1983). Conformity and cooperation in Chicanos: The case of the missing susceptibility to influence. Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 323-333.

Moitoza, E. & Herch, C. (1981). Community psychology past, present, and future: The 1965 Boston conference participants revisited. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 225-232.

Mulvey, A. (1988). Community psychology and feminism: Tensions and commonalities. Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 70-83.

Murguia, E. (1991). On Latino/I-Iispanic ethnic identity. Latino Studies Journa~ 2, 8-18. Newbrough, J. R. (1991). Toward a theory of the community for Community Psychology.

lnteramerican Journal of Psychology, 25, 1-22. Novaco, R. W. & Monahan, J. (1980). Research in community psychology: An analysis of

work published in the first six years of the American Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 131-145.

Okun, M. A., Sandier, I. N., & Baumann, D. J. (1988). Buffer and booster effects as event-support transactions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 435-449.

Padilla, A. M., Cervantes, R. C., Maldonado, M., & Garcla, R. E. (1988). Coping responses to psychosocial stressors among Mexican and Central American immigrants. Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 418-427.

P6rez, R., Padilla, A. M., Ramfrez, A., Ramfrez, R., & Rodriguez, M. (1980). Correlates and changes over time in drug and alcohol use within a barrio population. American Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 621-636.

Preciado, J., Greene, B. F., & Montesinos, L. (1984). A multi-element analysis of language facilitation games with educationally deprived Mexican migrant workers. Journal of Community Psychology, 12, 140-148.

Prieto-Bayard, M. & Baker, B. L. (1986). Parent training for Spanish-speaking families with a retarded child. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 134-143.

Rappaport, J. (1977). Community psychology: Values, research, and action. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 1-25.

Rappaport, J. (1984). Seeking justice in the real world: A further explication of value contexts. Journal of Community Psychology, 12, 208-216.

Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 121-144.

Reyes, O. & Jason, L. A. (1991). An evaluation of a high school dropout prevention program. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 221-230.

Rosado, J. (1980). Important psychocultural factors in the delivery of mental health services to lower-class Puerto Rican clients: A review of recent studies. Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 215-226.

Sarason, I. G. (1973). The evolution of community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1, 91-97.

Seidman, E. (1988). Back to the future, community psychology: Unfolding a theory of social intervention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 3-24.

Serrano-Garcia, I., L6pez, M. M., & Rivera-Medina, E. (1987). Toward a social-community psychology. Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 431-446.

Silvestrini, B. G., & Luque de Sfinchez, M. D. (1987). Historia de Puerto Rico: Trayectoria de un Pueblo. San Juan: Cultural Puertorriquefia, Inc.

Soto, E. (1983). Sex-role traditionalism and assertiveness in Puerto Rican women living in the United States. Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 346-354.

Starrett, R. A., Bresler, C., Decker, J. T., Waiters, G. T., & Rogers, D. (1990). The role of environmental awareness and support networks in Hispanic elderly persons' use of formal social services. Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 218-225.

Szapocznik, J., Scopetta, M. A., & King, O. E. (1978). Theory and practice in matching treatment to the special characteristics and problems of Cuban immigrants. Journal of Community Psychology, 6, 112-122.


Trevifio, F. (91987). Standardized terminology for Hispanic populations. American Journal of Public Health, 77, 69-72.

Thomas, P. H., Chinsky, J. M., & Aronson, C. F. (1973). A preschool educational program with Puerto Rican children: Implications as a community intervention. Journal of Community Psychology, 1, 18-22.

Tyler, L. E. (1973). A counseling psychologist looks at community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1, 1-7.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1990). The Hispanic population in the United States: March 1989. Current Population Reports. Population Characteristics, Series, P-20, No. 444.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1991). The Hispanic population in the United States: March 1991. Current Population Reports. Population Characteristics, Series P-20, No. 455.

Warheit, G., Vega, W., Shimizu, D., & Meinhardt, K. (1982). Interpersonal coping networks and mental health problems among four race-ethnic groups. Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 312-324.

Weinstein, M. & Frankel, M. (1974). Ecological and psychological approaches to community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 2, 43-52.

Zimmerman, M. A. & Rappaport, J. (1988). Citizen participation, perceived control, and psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 725-750.

latinos and latinas in community psychology: a review of the literature

Documents