Dominican and Colombian, Women in New York City: Household Structure and Employment Patterns Douglas T. Gurak1 and Mary M. Kritz 2 In recent years, there has been a growing interest in"~ i. " as awareness o f the rapid growth of population spanics from Spanish-speaking areas has increased. The 1~80 U ~ Census showed an increase of 5.5 million in the H aspamc. f 9 1 to 14-.6 million, or 61 percent. In population, rom <1 the total population increased by 11. percompanson, H t A tendency to ignore the diversity among aspamc cen. fl cted in the very use of the term itself. To the groups ts re e.. s extent that our knowledge of different H ispamc group d d it has largely been through case has been expan e' b the. e"' of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and Cu ans d t s u "" (M" hi n State three largest Spanish-speaking groui;; l sc This Board of Education, 1982; Gurak and og er,.. 1 d rt extends that awareness by analyzing the socra an ::::omic situation of Dominican and Colombian women ;;:o) innewyorkcity.
I I Dominicans and Colombians are two of the fastest growing immigrant communities in the New York metropolitan region. As is common among most immigrant groups, females constitute a majority. According to annual data from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), from 1976 to 1978, 53 percent of all US. immigrants were female; among Dominicans and Colombians the percentages were 57 and 66, respectively. A predominance of female immigrants is not a recent phenomenon, however, inasmuch as a similar pattern occurs for most migration streams from Latin America to the United States, as well as in the rural-to-urban flows within Latin America (Safa, 1981 ). Very little is known about the basic demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of these female immigrants. Again, looking at INS data, it was observed that 56 percent of Dominican women were 20-59 years of age, as were 66 percent of Colombian women who immigrated from 1976 to 1978. Thus, well over half of these Dominican and Colombian female immigrants were in the productive ages. This article provides a profile of the household structure and labor force participation of Dominican and Colombian women in New York City using data from a 1981 probability survey. While the importance of analyzing the household has been recognized in recent years (See, Angel and Tienda, 1982; Pessar, 1982), most researchers have found it difficult to incorporate the household context into their analyses due to the unavailability of appropriate data. Thus inadequate attention has been given to the issues such as the structure of households, differentials in the labor force participation of household members, and household strategies for maximizing income. In addition, the preponderance of females in their productive years among immigrants raises questions regarding the extent to which female-headed households, observed to be increasing sharply among native-born groups, typifies these immigrants. Women enter a different job market than men, and the opportunities and rewards they receive from work also differ. This article will address these issues, focussing on the current employment patterns of Dominican and Colombian households. THE NEW YORK CITY SURVEY From July to December of 1981, a team of 20 interviewers completed over 900 interviews with a probability sample of Colombian and Dominican men and women. Respondents were persons between 20 and 45 years of age, born in either Colombia or the Dominican Republic, and current residing in Queens or the northern half of Manhattan. No other sample requirements, such as recency of immigration or legal status, were utilized because the study goal was to collect data that could describe all adult members of these groups and not just those with legal problems or those working in a given industry. Among the respondents, 53.3 percent of the Colombians and 60.4 percent of the Dominicans were females. The interviews were structured in form and ascertained information on a broad range of events, including legal status at entry; histories of migration, family structure and employment experiences were covered intensively. This report is being prepared shortly following completion of the survey and data preparation and, as such, only presents general descriptive 1 Douglas T. Gurak, Hispanic Research Center, Fordham University. 2 Mary M. Kritz, Rockefeller Foundation. 16 Migration Today/Vol. X, No. 3/4
I \1 data on the two female immigrant groups.3 The survey data show Colombian and Dominican women to be similar in terms of their average age (32) and years of completed formal education (9), but on most other demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, there are important differences. While both groups originated mainly from urban areas, Colombians are more urban in their background. Over90 percent of Colombian women grew up in urban areas compared to 76 percent of the Dominicans. About half of each group was born in one of their countries' four largest cities, which means larger cities on average in the case of Colombia than in the Dominican Republic. A major difference exists in the proportion of the two groups that were employed prior to migrating to the United States: 57 percent of Colombians versus 31 percent of Dominicans. While this may reflect opportunity differentials in the two countries, other factors, such as an older average age at time of immigrtion of Colombian women (24.1 compared to 22.2 for Dominicans) may contribute to this differential (See, Table 1). The importance of family and social networks in the migration process has been emphasized in recent years (Bach, 1982). According to the social network perspective, migrants are not randomly selected at origin, but form parts of social groups who are linked into the international migration stream through relatives and friends who can assist with the movement, particularly at destination. As such, it is important to examine the presence of other relatives in the United States at the time of immigration. Table 2 presents information on the location of spouse, children, parents and other relatives at the time of immigration. The time-of-immigration measure includes relatives already present, those who accompanied the respondent, and/ or those who joined the respondent within one year. The categories are not mutually exclusive inasmuch as the respondent may have had relatives of more than one type present. The data are for the total sample, including male and female respondents. At the time of entry, the vast majority of Colombians and Dominicans had another relative present. Only 4.2 percent of Dominicans and 10.7 percent of Colombians had no relative present. For both groups, relatives other than spouse, children or parents - or non-immediate relatives - were most likely to be present (82.6% for Dominicans versus 77.4% for Colombians). Only about a quarter of both groups had spouses present, but Dominicans were much more likely to have a parent present (45.5%) than were Colombians (28.4%). In contrast, Colombians were twice as likely to have had children present at the time of immigration. Examining current household characteristics, Colombian women are considerably more likely than Dominican to be living in a household constituted as a nuclear family with spouse present: 62 percent compared to 48 percent of the Dominicans (See, Table 3) While the nuclear family is the model type for both groups, single parent households, in this case headed by women with children present, and found among 37 percent of the Dominican households but only 14 percent of the Colombian This proportion of female-headed households among Dominicans approximates that of Puerto Ricans (43%) Related to these TABLE 1 Percentage of Immigrants with Relatives Present in the United States at the Time of Immigration a Spouse present Children present Parents present Other relatives present No relatives present Dominicans 25.1 10.7 45.5 82.6 4.2 Colombians 27.6 21.1 28.4 77.4 10.7 a Present at the time ofimmigration, includes relatives already present, those who accompanied the respondent, and/or those who joined the respondent within one year. Figures in Tables are percentages. Percentages total to more than 100 because categories are not mutually exclusive. Data are for both male and female respondents. TABLE2 Basic Demographic Characteristics of Dominican and Colombian Women in New York City Age at arrival Age at survey Education (years) % with high school degree % currently students % with urban childhood % currently in labor force % employed prior to immigration Dominicans 22.2 32.2 8.8 34.0 13.5 75.8 49.0 Colombians 30.7 56.9 i I I 24.1 32.7 8.7 28.9 18.2 92.7 66.4 I 11 3 Utilizing data from a preliminary coding of 15 percent of the items from a subsample of the Colombian respondents of this sample, Urea Giraldo (1982) and Garcia Castro (1982) have prepared informative reports on th condition of Colombians in Queens. Migration Today/Vol. X, No 3/4 17
household differentials, 55 7 percent of the Dominican women were receiving or had received some form of public assistance during the past year compared to 24 8 percent of Colombian women TABLE3 Household-Structure Distributions of Dominican and Colombian Women in New York City Dominicans Colombians Household Type: Nuclear family 48.4 62.0 Single parent 37.0 13.9 Single person 1.6 5.8 Extended family 12.0 13.9 Non-relative 1.0 4.4 Total(%) 100.0 100.0 Total (N) 384 137 (See, Table 5) show a strong tendency toward concentration in manufacturing, particularly in non-durable industries: 61 percent of the Dominican women were in manufacturing industries compared to 54 percent of the Colombians. Employment in garment manufacturing predominated with 42 percent of Dominican women and 36 percent of the Colombians located in this sector. Generally, the industrial distributions of Dominican and Colombian women are quite similar, although Colombian women are more likely to be in business and retail services than the Dominicans. In summary, Dominican and Colombian women tend to occupy low and semi-skilled jobs and Colombians differ from Dominicans by having a slightly lower concentration in manufacturing, a higher concentration in services, and a considerably higher rate of labor force participation. The examination of individual income figures reveals other differentials among these employed women. The average annual earnings for Dominican women was $7,627 while that of Colombian women was $6, 167. The lower Colombian earnings appear due to several factors including: the importance of employment outside of Manhattan, and fewer weeks and hours of employment during the year prior to the survey. EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME PATIERNS Both Dominican and Colombian women have high rates of labor force participation: 90.4 percent of the former and 92.7 percent of the latter worked for pay at some time since their immigration. However, during the 12 months prior to the survey, 51 percent of Dominican women were employed at some time compared to 65 percent of Colombian; at the time of the survey 49 percent of Dominican and 67 percent of Colombian women were in the labor force (employed or seeking employment). Thus important differentials currently exist in the employment rates of these two groups. Comparatively speaking, the Dominican participation rate is near the national average of 52 percent among women over 16 years of age, while the Colombian rate is considerably higher The location of immigrants in the occupational and industrial structure has been a subject of dispute in the immigration literature. One body of work emphasizes the location of immigrants, particularly undocumented migrants, in less desirable or marginal occupations and industries. A second body of work stresses the positive selectivity of immigrants and the tendency for immigrants to show upward social mobility, with occupational and income distributions converging over time to the national pattern. While the New York City data permit some assessment of these questions, the analysis presented at this stage will remain at the descriptive stage. The occupational and industrial distributions of Dominican and Colombian women are presented in Tables 4 and 5. These female immigrants tend to be disproportionately concentrated in the occupational group of operatives: 42 percent of the Dominicans and 45 percent of the Colombians. However, while the proportions in white collar (professional, managers, clerical and sales) jobs were less than among U.S. native-born women, they were not insignificant: 26 percent of Dominican women and 18 percent of Colombians. Work in service occupations also employed many of the immigrant women: 14.7 percent of the Dominicans and 25.8 percent of the Colombians. The industrial distributions TABLE4 Occupational Distribution of Dominican and Colombian Women in New York Citya Dominicans Colombians Professional, technical and kindred 7.6% 4.5% Managerial and administrative 3.0 1.1 Clerical and kindred workers 12.6 10.1 Sales workers 3.0 0.0 Private household workers 7.6 5.6 Service workers except private household 7.1 19.1 Craft and kindred workers 2.0 6.7 Operatives 41.9 44.9 Laborers 15.1 7.8 Total(%) 99.9 99.9 Total employed 198 89 a Includes all women employed at any time during the 12 months prior to the survey. THE HOUSEHOLD CONTEXT OF INCOME PATTERNS Most analyses of immigrants conclude after presentation of data on the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the individual migrants. Our data, however, permit us to examine how the employment and earnings patterns of these Dominican and Colombian immigrants fit into a household context. As was illustrated in Table 3, most of these women live in a household in which other adult members are present, with Colombian women being more likely than Dominican to have a spouse present. In 18 Migration Today/Vol X, No. 3/4
I' Among Colombians, the nuclearfamily appears to be the most adaptive household in terms of maximizing household income. Among Dominicans, however, this is not the case. 8ddition, about 13 percent of both groups live in an extended fi)rnily context with other adult relatives present. Considering 6rnployment and income patterns in these Colombian and oominican households, it was observed that 77.5 percent were 6rnployed in the Colombian households but only 56.7 percent in tl1e Dominican. As would be expected, these employment differentials translate into income differentials. For the total sample, Colombian annual household income is $17,081 while Dominican is $13,604. Considering only those households with a female ~espondent, the corresponding figures are $14,487 for Colombians 8nd $11,454 for Dominicans,4 reflecting the tendency for higher i(jcomes among males. Several factors tend to produce relative gains in household i(jcome for Colombians. Labor force participation rates of Colombian males and females exceed those of their Dominican counterparts. Colombian males earn considerably more than oominican males. Only the lower earnings of Colombian women attenuates the relative advantage of the Colombian household, 8nd that deficit is modest when compared to the large gains from female labor force participation and male income. However, even if the labor force participation rates and income levels of Dominican r0en and women equaled those of Colombians, the household i(jcome of Colombians would still be higher given the higher i(jcidence of nuclear families among Colombians in which a higher likelihood of finding two adult earners exists. Thus, the high proportion of single-parent households among Dominican women operates to their disadvantage in producing household income. The resort to public assistance is not surprising in this context given the relatively low average annual earnings of Dominican women reported above. The distinctive household-structure patterns of Dominican and Colombian women represent more than the existence of different proportions of distinct household types. It would appear that these patterns reflect distinct strategies of economic survival. At ]east this conclusion is suggested by preliminary analysis of the data. Among Colombians, the nuclear family appers to be the most adaptive household in terms of maximizing household income. Among Dominicans, however, this is not the case. The total household income of Colombian nuclear families exceeds that of other household configurations (single parent, single individual, unrelated individuals, other combinations of relaftves) by from $2,000 to $8,000. These differentials persist after controlling for the number of employed adults per household. In contrast, among Dominicans the nuclear family household constitutes the second-best household-income-maximizer. Households containing other combinations of relatives, rather loosely termed extended-family households, produce the highest ' Households are classified according to whether the respondent was male or female. This does not indicate that no male or female was present. However, some proportion of the female respondents lived in households with no male present, and some proportion of males lived in households with no females present. This leads to the different bases for calculation of the household income figures. Migration Today/Vol. X, No. 3/4 19
TABLE5 Sector Distributions of Dominican and Colombian Women in New York Citya Dominicans Colombians Manufacturing: (61.1 %) (54.0%) Durable 11.6 10.1 Garment 41.9 36.0 Other non-durable 7.6 7.9 Restaurant-Hotel 2-5 5.6 Wholesale-retail commerce 7.6 7.9 Transportation and utilities 1.5 2.2 Business services 1.5 11.2 Retail/personal services 8.6 11.2 Finance and communications 4.0 3.4 Photo/Courtesy Mark Day Professions and government 11. 7.9 Other 2.0 3.4 Total(%) 99.9 00.0 Total employed 198 89 a Includes all women employed at any time during the 12 months prior to the survey. household income - up to $3,200 more per year than other households. In part that differential is due to the greater number of employed adults in the extended household, but controlling for this factor only creates a situation of no significant difference in income between Dominican nuclear family households and extended family households. The reasons for this difference is the effectiveness of particular types of households as income producers deserve carefull attention in future analyses If distinct survival strategies are involved, then they may account, in part, for the Colombian and Dominican differentials in marital stability CONCLUSION Recent data from a sample survey of Colombian and Dominican immigrants in New York City show significant differences between immigrant women in their background characteristics, household sructure, and employment patterns Compared to their Dominican counterparts, Colombian women tend to migrate at an older age, be more urban in background, and have more employment experience prior to migration Experiences in the United States also differ. Colombian women are more likely to be a part of a nuclear family household and to be employed in 1981. In contrast, Dominican women have a much higher proportion of single parent households and receiving public assistance. The preponderance of women among US immigrants and the distinctive patterns identified among these two Hispanicgroups indicates the importance of addressing further research into the characteristics of female immigrants, and their settlement and acculturation processes. This analysis supports the interpretation that household structure is a valuable concept for analyzing family strategies for producing and maximizing income. While the earnings of Colombian women arc lower, on average, than those of Dominican women, they are more likely to be employed and located in a household with a husband who earns more, on average, than Dominican men As siich, the total household income of Colombians is higher than
for Dominicans. Thus, the household structure of Colombians interacts with certain labor force characteristics to change a situation of small differences to socioeconomic status and income to one of a distinct advantage for Colombian women in terms of household income. Of course, were public assistance payments factored in, this differential would probably be smaller and the implications of that possibility deserve attention. At this time we can only speculate concerning the sources of the differentials in household structures of Dominican and Colombians. In part the answer may lie in the factors that contribute to the higher marital disruption rate of Dominicans (315 percent of the sample women were divorced or separated as compared to 175 percent of the Colombian women). Another factor may be the forces which produce an immigration flow to New York City which is more heavily female for Dominicans than for Colombians.5 Finally, value differences among Colombians and Dominicans may be a factor, along with selectivity in the immigration and settlement processes. D Photo/S. Tomasi 5 INS data indicate that the Colombian immigration flow is, proportionately, more female than the Dominican flow. The New York Survey data indicate that this is not the case for New York City. Several factors may account for this discrepancy. First, the INS data include only legal immigrants. The New York survey data are a sample of all immigrants, regardless of their status. Second, the INS data include entries, while the New York survey data describe immigrant stocks. Third, the INS data are national in scope. While most Dominicans still reside in New York City, the majority of Colombians reside outside of the city. References Angel, R. and Tienda. 1982. "Determinants of Extended Household Structure: Cultural Patterns or Economic Need?" American Journal of Sociology 87(6):1360""33. Bach, R.L. 1983. "Emigration from the Spanish-Speaking Caribbean". In M.M. Kritz (ed.) U.S. Immigration and Rejugee Policy: Global and Domestic Issues. Boston: Lexington. Garcia, Castro M. 1982. " 'Mary' and 'Eve's' Social Reproduction in the Big Apple: Colombian Voices". (June) O:casional Paper No. 35, New York Research Program in Inter-American Affairs. Gurak, D.T. and L. H. Rogler. 1980. "New York's New Immigrants: Who and Where They Are - The Hispanics". New York University Educational Quarterly 11(4):19-24. Michigan State Board of Education. 1982. Proceedings: International Syrnposiurn and Hispanic-American Diversity. East Lansing, Michigan. Pessar. P.R. 1982. "The Role of Households in International Migration and the Case of the U.S. Bound Migration from the Dominican Republic". International Migration Review 16(2):342-64. Safa, H.l. 1981. "The Differential Incorporation of Hispanic Women Migrants into the United States Labor Force". Pp. 235-236 in D.M. Mortimer and R.S. Bryce-Laporte (eds.) Female Immigrants to the United States: Caribbean, Latin America and African Experiences. RIIES O:casional Papers, No. 2. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute. Urrea, Giraldo F. 1982. "Life Strategies and the Labor Market: Colombians in New York City in the 1970s". (June) O:casional Paper No. 32. New York Research Program in Inter-American Affairs. Migration Today/Vol. X, No. 3/4 21