Copyright 1999 by
The Cerontological Society of America
The Gerontologist
Vol. 39, No. 3, 310-319
Hispanics will constitute a growing part of the older population well into the 21st century.
Accompanying this growth, we can expect that challenges associated with a large bilingual
and non-English speaking older population may become more pronounced. The purpose
of this research was to examine the level and determinants of English proficiency among
older Hispanics in the United States. Data from the 1990 Census indicate that a third of
the older Hispanic population in the United States speaks English poorly or not at all. This
group includes a sizable number who are 'linguistically isolated" in that they either live
alone or with other nonproficient speakers of English. Using multivariate logistic
regression techniques, it is shown that immigrant status and timing, socioeconomic status,
geographic concentration, and national origin are key determinants of English proficiency.
Key Words: Ethnicity, Linguistic isolation, Linguistic diversity
English Language Proficiency Among
Older Hispanics in the United States
Jan E. Mutchfer, PhD,1 and Sara Brallier, MA2
sidering the effects of immigration history and timing,
educational and economic background, and residence
in geographic areas with concentrated Hispanic populations. We conclude that a sizable minority of elderly Hispanics have limited proficiency in English, and
that the inability to speak English well is strongly shaped
by immigration history, socioeconomic status, geographic area of residence, and national origin group.
Like the population as a whole, the elderly population of the United States is becoming more diverse
in terms of ethnic composition and national origin.
Especially important in this regard is the rapid growth
of the elderly Hispanic population, which is expected
to constitute 17% of the elderly population of the
United States by the year 2050 (Day, 1996). One of
the most significant aspects of a large Hispanic population in the United States will be increased diversity
in language use and levels of English language proficiency (Espenshade & Fu, 1997). Although these issues are commonly discussed with reference to the
population at large, and perhaps particularly school
and working age populations, much less attention has
been directed to linguistic characteristics of elderly
adults. Although practitioners who deal with elderly
individuals have long cautioned that poor English skills
may result in barriers to social service and health care
delivery in the United States (Hart, Gallagher-Thompson, Davies, DiMinno, & Lessin, 1996; Jonnson et al.,
1995; Tanjasiri, Wallace, & Shibata, 1995), little research on levels of English proficiency has been
conducted.
This article examines levels of English language proficiency among older Hispanics residing in the United
States. Hispanic individuals aged 60 and older are
profiled in terms of their use of English and their residence in households where no one speaks English
proficiently. We then examine the determinants of
English proficiency levels for older Hispanics, by con-
Background
Recent projections of the U.S. population highlight
the growing importance of the Hispanic segments within
the aging population. The share of the 65-and-older
population that is White and non-Hispanic is projected
to decline substantially in coming decades, from 87%
in 1990 to 66% by 2050. In contrast, Hispanics have
been identified as the group that will grow most rapidly over this same time period, replacing Blacks as
the second largest racial/ethnic group within the older
population by the year 2030. This growth will continue to have implications for social policy well into
the next century (Treas, 1997; Treas & Torrecilha, 1995).
Although Hispanics—including persons of Mexican,
Puerto Rican, Cuban, and other Latin American origin
—are distinguished by considerable diversity in national origin, socioeconomic status, and regional concentration within the United States, they share the
"common denominator" of affinity to the Spanish
language (Bean & Tienda, 1987). As noted by Espenshade and Fu (1997), concerns about linguistic diversity may contribute to anti-immigrant sentiment within
the United States, and poor English skills are frequently
cited as contributing to poor adjustment, integration,
and well-being on the part of immigrants. In terms of
the implications for linguistic diversity, the growth of
both the immigrant and native-born Hispanic segments
is significant.
The grant support of the Administration on Aging is gratefully acknowledged. An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meetings
of the American Sociological Association, August 9-13, 1997, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada. We thank Jeffrey Burr, Namkee Choi, and Gloria Heinemann
for their thoughtful comments and suggestions.
address correspondence to Jan. E. Mutchler, Gerontology Institute, 100
Morrissey Boulevard, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA 02125.
E-mail: [email protected]
department of Sociology, State University of New York at Buffalo.
310
The Gerontologist
Through strengthening ethnic ties, retention of nonEnglish "mother tongue" or ethnic language can yield
benefits to the aging individual. By facilitating the formation of ethnically based communication systems,
language use can contribute to the creation and maintenance of ethnic subcommunities within larger geographic areas (Lieberson, 1963; Stevens, 1985). Moreover, ability to communicate in one's ethnic language
is often regarded as an important means of retaining
a strong sense of cultural identity. As a cultural marker,
the ability to speak Spanish is important to Hispanics
not only symbolically, but also functionally, providing
access to a language network (Mirowsky & Ross, 1984).
One's sense of well-being, as well as one's ethnically
based social support system, may be enhanced when
older Hispanics retain the use OT Spanish (Sotomayor,
1971). Although benefits for older Hispanics may result from residence in ethnic communities, linguistic
diversity may be a source of tension between ethnic
and English-speaking groups, as is evident in the efforts on the part of some locales to enact "Englishonly" legislation (King, 1997). Language can therefore
serve to tie an individual more closely to other members of a linguistic community, as well as to set him
or her apart from individuals speaking a different language.
Implications of Poor English Language Proficiency.
—The potential advantages of retaining the use of
Spanish aside, it is likely that the inability to communicate effectively in English is problematic for many
elderly Hispanics in the United States. Language use
patterns may represent a significant source of division
within ethnic and national origin groups, by forming
an "internal language boundary" between segments
of the same ethnic group (Stevens, 1985). Indeed,
intergenerational differences in pace and level of
acculturation may result in language boundaries occurring even among members of the same family, contributing to intergenerational cultural conflicts.
Research shows that poor English proficiency is a
potential barrier to obtaining social and medical services (Hart et al., 1996; Johnson et al., 1995; Saldov,
1991; Tanjasiri et al., 1995), to employment, and to
educational attainment (Stevens, 1992). Espino, Bedolla,
Perez, and Baker (1996) show that the psychological
assessment of depression among older Mexican Americans is compromised by language barriers and the lack
of Spanish-language screening instruments. Legge and
Cant (1995) suggest that linguistic barriers may be detrimental to well-being among elderly immigrants, by
contributing to their sense of social isolation. Moreover, Markides and Black (1996) cite the low media
exposure resulting from poor English proficiency, which
may in turn limit health promotion activities among
some elderly Hispanics.
The potential costs of poor English proficiency may
not be as extreme if older individuals who are unable
to communicate well in English are nonetheless able
to access the English-speaking community "by proxy."
Older individuals are often embedded in familial networks that provide social, caregiving, and other support across generations. Many older Hispanics who do
Vol. 39, No. 3, 1999
311
not speak English well have ready access to a bilingual family member who may assist when communication with English speakers is desirable. Yet costs
to independence and self-esteem may be incurred—
although the position of older Hispanic individuals
within the extended family is described as "highly respected and secure" (Applewhite & Daley, 1988, p.
8), extensive reliance on children for communicating
in English could prove problematic and may represent a challenge to an older individual's autonomy.
Language use patterns within the elderly population have seldom been documented, much less examined in depth, yet it is clear that limited English
proficiency among older Hispanics may have implications for tneir overall well-being, as well as their ability to interact with members of the English-speaking community. These implications will be shaped not
only by individual and familial factors, but also by the
level of Hispanic concentration within the community
(Massey, 1995).
Determinants of English Language Proficiency.—
A high level of proficiency in English is common among
Hispanics in the United States, yet poor proficiency is
observed among segments of the population. Although
the determinants of English proficiency have not been
examined within the older population, available literature suggests that several processes are likely at
work. We examine three contributing processes in the
current analysis.
First, individual immigration history is an important
determinant of English language proficiency. Stevens
(1985) finds that native-born members of ethnic groups
commonly rely on English as their primary or sole language, a population-based process of mother-tongue
"shift" that is facilitated by intermarriage and other
assimilation-linked processes. Moreover, Veltman (1988)
reports that most Hispanic immigrants quickly adopt
English as their usual or only language. Recent arrivals
to the United States are less likely to have shifted to
English as their preferred language, and Hispanics who
migrate to the United States at an older age also tend
to retain their use of Spanish to a greater degree. We
therefore expect that older Hispanics who were born
in the United States will be more proficient in English, followed by older Hispanics who have resided
in the United States for an extended period of time.
Older Hispanics who migrated to the United States
more recently are expected to have the lowest levels
of English proficiency, all else equal.
Second, socioeconomic background shapes English
proficiency among ethnic groups, in that the acquisition of higher levels of education and income is
associated with more proficient use of English. English
language proficiency is commonly identified as one
indicator of Cultural assimilation (Bean & Tienda, 1987;
Burr & Mutchler, 1992; Gordon, 1964; Stevens, 1985;
Stevens & Swicegood, 1987). Cultural assimilation in
general, and English language proficiency in particular, are related to level of structural assimilation, including integration into the economic institutions of
mainstream U.S. society. English language proficiency
can therefore be seen as part of an overall process of
structural and cultural assimilation (Bean & Tienda,
1987).
It is to be expected that speaking English well facilitates the accumulation of educational and economic
resources through providing access to better training
and occupational opportunities. Yet, in addition, the
literature suggests that these socioeconomk: resources
may themselves precipitate greater skill in speaking
English. More substantial educational and economic
resources are thought to provide greater exposure to
English-speaking networks, which, in turn, results in
better spoken English. For example, based on their
investigation of Mexican Americans in El Paso, Texas,
Mirowsky and Ross (1984) report that individuals who
were embedded in largely Spanish-speaking networks
had lower socioeconomic status. They conclude that
the language shift process is facilitatea by higher economic and educational resources. In a national study,
Espenshade and Fu (1997) found a positive association between English-speaking proficiency of immigrants and their education (both schooling completed
in the home country and in the United States following immigration), as well as other indicators of socioeconomic status, including home ownership and higher
occupational status. Educational attainment was also
found to be a significant predictor of language shift
among Hispanics by Grenier (1984).
Third, geographic area of residence may shape an
individual's use of and proficiency in English. Residence
in communities where a language other than English
is commonly spoken has been found to delay language shift to English (Espenshade & Fu, 1997; Lieberson, 1963; Lieberson & Curry, 1971; Stevens, 1992).
Living in a spatially concentrated Hispanic community—that is, a community where a large share of the
population is of Hispanic origin—may Tower the "opportunity costs" of limited English language proficiency
(Espenshade & Fu, 1997; Grenier, 1984), in part by
promoting Spanish and bilingual environments and
community resources. As an illustration, we might compare an older Cuban-born immigrant living in Miami
with his sister living in Iowa City. The sister would
have many more opportunities to become proficient
in English, and might experience many more incentives to do so, than would her brother.
In the current analysis, indicators relating to each
of these three processes are considered. In addition,
interactions among immigrant status, socioeconomic
status, and geographic concentration are examined,
directed toward assessing the expectation that socioeconomic resources and residence in a Hispanic community may have differing implications for native-born
individuals and immigrants. A number of demographic
characteristics and indicators of national origin are also
examined.
Methods
The primary data source used in this project is the
1990 Census of Population and Housing Public-Use
Microdata Samples. These data include demographic,
social, and economic information about individuals and
their families as well as the households and housing
312
units within which they live. We use the 5% PublicUse Microdata Sample (PUMS), representing a 5%
sample of the population, combined with data from a
3% Public-Use Microdata Sample of individuals aged
60 and older (PUMS-O), resulting in an 8% sample of
the Hispanics aged 60 and older in 1990. The PUMSO is a special extract released by the Bureau of the
Census under agreement with the Administration on
Aging and includes only housing units with at least
one person aged 60 or older and persons aged 60
and older living in group quarters (see Appendix,
Note 1). The 5% PUMS and the PUMS-O share the
same level of geographic detail, and each includes
codes identifying the area of residence (see Appendix, Note 2). Inasmuch as the 1990 PUMS and PUMSO are not self-weighting, Census Bureau-generated
weights are applied. For the multivariate analyses, the
weights are adjusted to replicate the original sample
size.
The PUMS data offer several advantages for the current study. First, these data are nationally representative and do not suffer from idiosyncratic features of
local area surveys. Second, sufficient sample sizes
allow us to evaluate specific national origin groups within the Hispanic population. Respondents self-classify
in the Census with regard to race, ethnicity (Hispanic/
non-Hispanic), and national origin group. As noted by
Angel and Hogan (1992), Census data provide virtually the only vehicle for detailed race and ethnic group
comparisons, given the small size of some ethnic subgroups. Finally, acceptable indicators of the key variables for our analyses are included in these data.
Variables
The central variable of interest is based on an assessment of how well an individual speaks English.
Respondents to the long-form of the 1990 Census
of Population were asked if they speak a language
other than English at home. People who responded
that they always or sometimes speak a language other
than English at home were also asked to indicate their
ability to speak English. Respondents rated their ability as "very well," "well," "not well," or "not at all"
(see Espenshade & Fu, 1997, for further discussion of
an equivalent measure). We note that this indicator
does not tap ability or proficiency in speaking Spanish, and therefore does not adequately reflect level
of cultural attachment or Hispanic identity. Rather, this
measure assesses functional ability to speak English, a
skill offering many advantages in most communities
throughout the United States. For most of our analysis, we collapse this variable into a dichotomous measure composed of (0) speaking English only, very well,
or well, and (1) speaking English not well or not at all
(see Appendix, Note 3). Individuals falling into the
second category are considered to have poor English
language proficiency.
A related variable considered in the descriptive portion of our analysis is a measure of linguistic isolation.
As suggested earlier, it is important not only to assess
an older individual's level of English proficiency, but
also to assess the extent to which he or she may jiave
The Gerontologist
ready access to someone who can communicate with
members of the English-speaking community on his
or her behalf. Census data do not permit an exhaustive investigation of this issue, but allow the identification of individuals living in "linguistically isolated
households." As defined by the U.S. Bureau of the
Census, a linguistically isolated household is one in
which "no person age 14 years or over speaks only
English and no person age 14 years or over who
speaks a language other than English speaks English
'very well'" (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992, p. 220).
An individual who speaks English "well," "not well,"
or "not at all" is therefore at risk of living in a linguistically isolated household; if no other adult in the household speaks English proficiently, the household is considered linguistically isolated (see Appendix, Note 4).
Older individuals living in linguistically isolated households have no coresident adults who speak English
proficiently, although other proficient English speakers
may be included in their networks outside of the
household.
English proficiency is examined with reference to a
number OT individual and community-level characteristics. Each individual's immigrant status and timing of
entry is considered through use of dummy variables.
Individuals born in the United States (or elsewhere to
U.S. citizen parents) are contrasted with persons born
elsewhere and entering the mainland United States to
stay, either prior to 1965 or since 1965. Island-born
Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens by birth and therefore
are not technically immigrants when moving to the
mainland. Yet, given the dominance of Spanish as the
spoken language in Puerto Rico, it is desirable for this
study to treat only those Puerto Ricans born on the
mainland as U.S.-born. For purposes of this study, island-born individuals are classified as immigrants, and
timing of entry is based on when they arrived on the
mainland. Key changes in the immigration preference
system occurring in 1965, as well as critical changes
in the global economy, resulted in large increases in
the number of immigrants entering the United States
during the past three decades from Latin America and
Asia, making this a particularly important cutpoint in
the timing of entry (Bean & Tienda, 1987; Massey,
1995).
Two indicators of socioeconomic status are considered. Educational attainment is measured in years of
completed education. For the age groups considered
here, many immigrants' schooling would have been
completed prior to arriving in the United States. Although education completed in Mexico or Cuba, for
instance, may have included limited or no training in
English, we would expect that even schooling obtained
outside the United States would shape subsequent
acquisition of English through resulting job opportunities and contact with broader social networks. Annual
relative income is calculated based on personal income if the individual is not married, or the combination of own and spouse's personal income if the
individual is married, the income values are expressed
relative to the poverty cutoff for an individual or couple,
depending on marital status, and classified into three
categories. Individuals with relative income values be-
Vol. 39, No. 3, 1999
313
low 100% of the poverty cutoff are classified as being
poor, whereas individuals with relative income values
between 100% and 125% of the poverty cutoff are
classified as "near poor." Many observers nave argued
that the official poverty line is far below what may
reasonably reflect economic hardship, and advocate
using a higher cutoff in summarizing economic wellbeing. Indeed, rates of hardship reflected by incomes
under 125% of the poverty cutoff are routinely reported in government statistics (e.g., in Current Population Reports). Individuals with values above 125% of
the poverty cutoff are considered non-poor.
The ethnic concentration of the geographic area
within which each individual lives is assessed using a
location quotient" (LQ) measure that establishes the
concentration of Hispanics in a specified geographic
area relative to the concentration of the population as
a whole in the same geographic area (see Appendix,
Note 5; Smaje, 1995). In this study, location quotients
are generated for Hispanics as a group, rather than
for each national origin group. Inasmuch as our focus
is on English proficiency rather than attachment to
one's national origin, Hispanics are treated as a single
linguistic group for purposes of this measure.
A number of demographic characteristics are also
considered, including gender of the individual, age,
and marital status (married vs not married). Given the
potentially important differences among national origin groups in exposure to English, dummy variables
are also examined specifying whether the person
identifies him- or herself as of Mexican origin, Puerto
Rican, of Cuban origin, or of other Hispanic origin.
Results
The first goal of this study is to document patterns
of English language proficiency and rates of linguistic
isolation among older Hispanics. Several conclusions
are readily drawn based on Table 1. First, exclusive
reliance on English is unusual for the older Hispanics
considered here. Among Mexican Americans, Puerto
Ricans, and Cuban Americans, 12% or fewer speak
English only. Among "other Hispanics," a residual
category including those from Central America, South
America, and other areas not specified, 23% communicate exclusively in English. Larger shares are proficient in English but nearly a third or more of each
group speaks English poorly or not at all, ranging from
31% among "other" Hispanics to 63% of Cuban
Americans. Puerto Ricans and Cubans are particularly
likely to report speaking English poorly or not at all,
possibly facilitated by the nigh levej of geographic
concentration among these groups.
Also evident in Table 1 are the high levels of linguistic isolation experienced by many older Hispanics. Readers are reminded that individuals who speak
English proficiently are by definition not linguistically
isolated. The second column for each national origin
group indicates the share of each proficiency group
that is linguistically isolated. For example, among Mexican Americans, the first column of figures indicates
that 21% speak English "well." Of these, 50% are lin-
Table 1. English Language Proficiency and Linguistic Isolation by National Origin Group, Hispanic Population
Aged 60 and Older in the United States, 1990
Mexican American
Proficiency in English
Speaks
Speaks
Speaks
Speaks
Speaks
English only
English very wail
English well
English, not well
no English
Total
6
N of cases
Total
%
Linguistically
Isolated3
Puerto Rican
Total
%
Linguistically
Isolated
Cuban American
Total
%
Linguistically
Isolated
Other Hispanic
Total
%
Linguistically
Isolated
12%
35%
21%
18%
14%
n/a
n/a
50%
53%
56%
10%
28%
26%
24%
12%
n/a
n/a
54%
61%
64%
6%
13%
18%
30%
33%
n/a
n/a
61%
66%
70%
23%
30%
16%
16%
15%
n/a
n/a
51%
52%
54%
100%
28%
100%
36%
100%
54%
100%
25%
66,061
11,733
18,436
28,543
•"Linguistic isolation is not defined for individuals speaking English only or very well.
b
Unweighted counts.
Source: 8% sample from the U.S. Census of Population. Percentage calculations are weighted. Sample excludes those living in group
quarters.
or not at all, more than 70% of the sample's older
Hispanics who immigrated since 1965 have difficulty
communicating in English. As anticipated, individuals
migrating to the United States before 1965 are more
likely to speak English poorly than are their U.S.-born
counterparts, but they are also substantially less likely
to do so than more recent arrivals.
Socioeconomic status is also related to English proficiency. Older Hispanics who speak English proficiently
report substantially higher educational attainments than
do those who speak English poorly. In addition, a much
higher rate of poor English proficiency is observed among
older Hispanics who are poor and near poor than among
their non-poor counterparts.
Older Hispanics who speak English poorly also live
in substantially more concentrated Hispanic geographic
areas, on average. A location quotient of 1.0 indicates
that the geographic area of residence has a representation of Hispanics that is roughly proportional to that
of the U.S. population as a whole, with values greater
than 1.0 reflecting a greater share of Hispanics than
would be expected. We note from Table 2 that, as a
group, older Hispanics are concentrated in areas that
nave close to three times the representation of Hispanics expected, but that those who speak English poorly
or not at all typically live in even more concentrated
areas.
Demographic differences are evident in Table 2,
but are much less striking than those already described.
Women are more likely than men to speak English
poorly or not at all, as are individuals who are not
married relative to the married population. In addition, persons with poor English skills are slightly older,
on average. Finally, although roughly a third of most
national origin group members speak English poorly
or not at all, nearly two thirds of the Cuban-origin
older population has low proficiency in English.
In Table 3, results from the multivariate analysis are
presented. Inasmuch as our English language proficiency
measure is a dichotomous outcome, logistic regression
guistically isolated, because they do not live with any
adult speaking English very well or only.
These results suggest that half or more of older Hispanics who are at risk of linguistic isolation by virtue
of their own limited proficiency levels are residing in
households where no one speaks English proficiently.
Moreover, the poorest speakers of English face the
highest risk of linguistic isolation, suggesting that, as
would be expected, an older individual, his/her spouse,
and other family members often share roughly the same
proficiency levels. Considering these two distributions
together—the proficiency levels experienced by members of each group in combination with the differential risk of linguistic isolation—we find that overall, a
quarter or more of the Hispanics aged 60 and older
in the United States are linguistically isolated. Twentyeight percent of the Mexican Americans, more than a
third of the Puerto Ricans, and more than one half of
the Cuban Americans neither communicate proficiently
in English themselves nor live with an adult who could
communicate in English proficiently on their behalf.
Clearly, these patterns represent a challenge for many
Hispanic individuals, as well as for the communities
in which they live.
Table 2 provides a description of the sample used
in this study, along with bivariate results for two categories of English proficiency—older Hispanics who
speak English only, very well, or well versus those who
speak English poorly or not at all. As reflected in Table
1, about one third of the older Hispanic individuals
considered here are not proficient speakers of English. This translates to an estimated 578,662 Hispanics older than 60 who speak English poorly or not
at all.
At this descriptive level, important associations between English proficiency and other characteristics
are evident. Immigrant status and timing appear to be
particularly important parts of the English language
acquisition process: although only 15% of the U.S.born older Hispanics in this sample speak English poorly
314
The Gerontologist
Table 2. Sample Characteristics, Hispanic Population Aged 60 and Older in the United States, 1990
Sample Characteristics3
Hispancis Aged 60+ (%)
Immigration Status (%)
Born in the U.S.
Immigrated before 1965
Immigrated 1965-1990
Socioeconomic Status
Education (median years completed)
Unit Income Relative to Poverty Cutoff
Poor
Near poor
Not poor
Geographic Context
Ethnic concentration (LQ: median)
Demographic Characteristics
Age (median)
Sex (%)
Female
Male
Marital status (%)
Married
Not married
National Origin Group (%)
Mexican American
Puerto Rican
Cuban American
Other Hispanic
N of cases6
Sample
Distribution
Speaks English
Only, Very Well,
or Well
Speaks English
Poorly or
Not at All
100
63
37
44
32
25
85
59
28
15
41
72
8
10
5
34
17
48
45
59
76
55
41
24
2.9
2.8
4.2
67
67
68
57
43
59
67
41
33
53
47
67
57
33
43
51
11
15
23
67
64
37
68
33
36
63
32
124,773
77,766
47,007
a
See text for definition of variables.
Unweighted counts.
Source: 8% sample from the U.S. Census of Population. Percentage calculations are weighted. Sample excludes those living in group
quarters.
b
techniques are used to estimate our models, using maximum likelihood estimation (Maddala, 1983). Coefficients reported in the first column represent log-likelihoods, with standard errors given in parentheses. A
positive coefficient suggests that the probability of
speaking English poorly or not at all is positively associated with that characteristic. In the second column,
odds ratios are reported with their 95% confidence
intervals.
These regression results suggest that virtually all of
the variables included in the model significantly improve the model fit. Immigration status and history form
particularly important parts of the model. Examining
the odds ratios suggests that, relative to older Hispanics who are U.S.-born, immigrants arriving prior to 1965
are more than four times as likely to be limited in
English proficiency. Recent arrivals to the United States
are nearly 15 times as likely to speak English poorly,
relative to their U.S.-born counterparts, all other characteristics held constant. Socioeconomic status is also
an important influence. Older Hispanics with more
education are significantly less likely to speak English
poorly or not at all; those who are poor or near poor
are significantly more likely to speak English poorly or
not at all than are their non-poor counterparts. In addition, older Hispanics living in concentrated Hispanic
communities are significantly more likely to lack good
English skills.
Vol. 39, No. 3, 1999
315
Age, marital status, and gender are also associated
with English language proficiency, although the magnitude of these effects is quite small relative to the
others. The coefficients for national origin group suggest that, in comparison to the residual "other Hispanic" group, Puerto Ricans are significantly less likely
and Cubans are significantly more likely to speak
English poorly. No statistically significant difference between Mexican Americans and other Hispanics is
observed.
In the final stage of the analysis a series of interaction models are estimated, the results of which are
presented in Table 4 in the form of predicted probabilities. Given the diverse immigration histories of the
older Hispanics considered here, and the overwhelming importance of this history on English language proficiency, we examined a series of interaction effects
between immigration history, socioecoaomic status, and
ethnic concentration. Each of the three interaction effects results in a statistically significant improvement
to model fit-and, importantly, each supports a similar
conclusion. Taken together, these effects suggest that
socioeconomic status (education as well as income)
and geographic concentration have more pronounced
effects for U.S.-born Hispanics than for foreign-born
Hispanics, especially recent immigrants.
For ease of interpretation, predicted probabilities
are calculated and presented in Table 4. The formula
area with a concentration index of 2.9) has a .19 probability of speaking English poorly or not at all. Her similarly defined counterpart who is not poor has only a
.07 chance. In contrast, a Mexican American who is
also poor but immigrated to the United States since
1965 has a .73 chance of having poor English skills.
Summarizing the results from Table 4 yields a number of conclusions. The overwhelming importance of
immigration status and timing of entry is obvious. For
each national origin group, native-born individuals are
much more likely to speak English well, whereas persons who came to the United States most recently
have high probabilities of speaking English poorly. Smaller
but still sizable effects of income, education, and geographic concentration in Hispanic areas are noted. Regardless of national origin group or immigration status, older Hispanics in poorer economic circumstances,
with less education, and in more highly concentrated
areas have higher predicted probabilities of speaking
English poorly. In addition to these effects, national
origin continues to shape English proficiency. All else
being equal, predicted probabilities of poor English
skills for Mexican American and Puerto Rican groups
are fairly similar, especially among the U.S.-born. However, persons of Cuban origin have substantially
higher expected probabilities throughout.
The effects of the interactions can be seen by comparing predicted probabilities within each immigrant
group, across levels of socioeconomic status and geographic concentration. The results suggest that the relative impacts of socioeconomic status and geographic
concentration are more substantial among the nativeborn Hispanics than among their foreign-born counterparts, especially those who have immigrated since
1965. For example, poor Mexican Americans who
immigrated recently are 22% more likely to speak
English poorly or not at all than are their non-poor
counterparts. In contrast, although their absolute probabilities of speaking English poorly are lower than among
their immigrant counterparts, poor U.S.-born Mexican
Americans are nearly three times more likely to lack
English skills than are their non-poor U.S.-born counterparts. Similarly, poorly educated Cuban Americans
who immigrated recently are 29% more likely to speak
English poorly than are their well-educated counterparts, whereas poorly educated U.S.-born Cuban Americans are more than eight times as likely to speak English poorly or not at all as their well-educated U.S.born counterparts. Together, these results suggest that
although U.S.-born older Hispanics have generally
low probabilities of speaking English poorly or not at
all, regardless of their other characteristics, substantial
Table 3. Logistic Regression of Poor English Proficiency
6(SE)
Odds Ratio
(95% Cl)
1.447**
(0.019)
4.25
(4.10, 4.41)
2.699**
(0.022)
14.86
(14.24, 15.51)
-0.248**
(0.003)
0.78
(0.78, 0.78)
Poor
0.785**
(0.019)
2.19
(2.11, 2.28)
Near poor
0.502**
(0.021)
1.65
(1.58, 1.72)
0.116**
(0.003)
1.12
(1.12, 1.13)
0.003**
(0.001)
1.00
(1.00, 1.01)
Married
0.182**
(0.017)
1.20
(1.16, 1.24)
Female
0.253**
(0.016)
1.29
(1.25, 1.33)
Variable
Immigration History
Immigrated prior to 1965
Immigrated after 1965
(U.S. Born)
Socioeconomic Status
Education (years)
(Not poor)
Geographic Context
Ethnic Concentration
Demographic Characteristics
Age
National Origin
Mexican American
-0.001
(0.021)
1.00
(0.96, 1.04)
Puerto Rican
-0.160**
(0.027)
0.85
(0.81, 0.90)
Cuban
0.918**
(0.026)
2.51
(2.38, 2.64)
(Other Hispanic)
Constant
Model x 2
Degrees of Freedom
N of cases3
-1.647
51923
12
124,757
a
Unweighted count.
*p < .05; **p < .01.
Source: 8% sample from the U.S. Census of Population. All
calculations are weighted. Sample excludes those living in group
quarters.
for calculating predicted probabilities from binomial
logistic regression results is as follows (Cherlin, Kiernan,
& Chase-Lansdale, 1995): p = (exP/(1 + exP)). The estimates from the multivariate logistic regression models used to compute the predicted probabilities are
available from the corresponding author upon request.
These estimates reflected the predicted chances that
an individual with the specified characteristics speaks
English poorly or not at all. To facilitate comparisons,
the probabilities are generated based on a consistent set of characteristics, which are outlined at the
bottom of Table 4. The first cell of this table indicates
that a poor, native-born Mexican American with other
characteristics set as noted in the table (i.e., age 67,
married, female, 10th grade education, living in an
pockets of poor English proficiency are observed among
older Hispanics who are in poor economic circumstances, who have very little education, and who live
in highly concentrated Hispanic communities.
Discussion
Hispanics will comprise an increasing share of the
older population as we move into the 21st century.
Results presented in this article, based on the 1990
U.S. Census of Population, suggest that substantial
316
The Gerontologist
Table 4. Predicted Probabilities of Poor English Proficiency, Based on Interactive Models
Poverty Status
Poor
Near poor
Not poor
Educational Attainment
Education = primary
Education = 10th grade
Education = High school
graduate
Geographic Concentration
LQ = 1.5
LQ = 2.9
LQ = 5.5
Cuban
Puerto Rican
Mexican American
Native
Born
Immigrated
Before
1965
Immigrated
Immigrated
Native
Before
Since
1965
Born
1965
Immigrated
Since
Native
Born
1965
Immigrated Immigrated
Before
Since
1965
1965
.19
.12
.07
.44
.40
.29
.73
.71
.60
.17
.11
.06
.41
.36
.26
.70
.67
.57
.37
.26
.16
.66
.62
.50
.87
.85
.79
.18
.06
.45
.29
.71
.59
.16
.05
.41
.26
.67
.55
.33
.12
.65
.49
.85
.77
.02
.18
.46
.01
.15
.42
.04
.33
.66
.06
.08
.12
.25
.28
.34
.57
.58
.61
.05
.07
.10
.22
.25
.30
.52
.54
.56
.15
.18
.25
.47
.51
.57
.78
.78
.80
Notes: Results are based on multivariate logistic regressions based on an 8% sample from the U.S. Census of Population (N =
124,757). Calculations are based on separate interactive models for immigration status by geographic concentration, educational attainment, and poverty status. All calculations are weighted. Sample excludes those living in group quarters. Predicted probabilities are
generated assuming subject age of 67, married, and female. Unless otherwise specified, individual is assumed to be not poor, with 10
years of schooling, living in an area with concentration coefficient (LQ) of 2.9.
graphic concentration are even more substantial for
U.S.-born Hispanics than for their immigrant counterparts. Unless the socioeconomic disadvantages common within the Hispanic population are remedied, it
is expected that many U.S.-born older Hispanics will
continue to experience challenges communicating in
English.
These results suggest that many older Hispanics
cannot communicate well in an English-only environment. Dealing with practitioners and service providers in health care or social service settings would be
difficult for them, and their formal care use may be
limited as a result. Informal care providers, such as
family members and neighbors, likely provide a particularly large share of support for these individuals.
Moreover, as many of the older Hispanics with the
poorest English skills are also linguistically isolated, when
they must deal with formal organizations they must
rely on friends or relatives outside the household or
bilingual individuals within the service environments
to make their needs and concerns known. Unless
bilingual providers are available, such individuals in
formal settings like hospitals or nursing homes are particularly disadvantaged in communicating their needs,
and the quality of care provided to them may be compromised as a result.
«,
Inasmuch as these results suggest that limited English proficiency is particularly prevalent among immigrants, the future of linguistic diversity among older
Hispanics depends in large part on immigration policy.
Elderly immigrants constitute a small but significant
share of the older Hispanic population, due in part to
the preference given to parents of adult U.S. citizens
under current immigration policy (Wilmoth, Dejong,
& Himes, 1997). Our results suggest that many of these
older immigrants experience substantial difficulty
segments of the older Hispanic population speak English poorly or not at all. Many members of this group
not only have poor English proficiency skills, but also
either live alone or with others who also speak English poorly. These estimates suggest that issues surrounding language use and ability to speak and understand English may become more pressing as the
Hispanic population expands and ages. Given the expected increase in the older Hispanic population, challenges experienced by schools and other organizations
dealing with young Hispanics will increasingly be shared
by organizations and programs serving the elderly
population.
This study suggests that three processes contribute
to limited English proficiency among some members
of the older Hispanic population. First, and most importantly, immigrant status as well as timing of entry
to the United States are powerful determinants of
proficiency level. As would be expected, English proficiency is most limited among the most recent immigrants to the United States. Socioeconomic status, including education and income, is also strongly linked
to English language proficiency. In addition, living in a
community in which Hispanics constitute a relatively
large share of the population is associated with an
older Hispanic speaking English poorly or not at all.
Of the several distinct national origin groups, Cuban
Americans are most likely to have low proficiency in
English, due in part, but not exclusively, to their high
level of geographic concentration as well as their immigration history.
Although immigrant status is the most important
determinant of limited English proficiency, segments
of the U.S.-born population also experience difficulty
speaking English well. Our analyses suggest that the
marginal effects of poverty, low education, and geoVol. 39, No. 3, 1999
317
speaking English, and given their age as well as their
other characteristics, they may never become proficient speakers. Although changes in the immigration
preference system could result in fewer Hispanics entering old age with limited English skills, fundamental
changes are unlikely in the short term. Overall, the
projected increase in the number of Hispanics in the
United States, the fact that the immigrant component
of the Hispanic population is expected to continue
to be sizable (Massey, 1995), and our results showing
that even many U.S.-born Hispanics have poor English skills all suggest that the challenges posed by limited English proficiency will continue for the foreseeable future.
References
Angel, J. L., & Hogan, D. (1992). The demography of minority aging populations.
Journal of Family History, 17, 95-115.
Applewhite, S. R., & Daley, J. M. (1988). Cross-cultural understanding for
social work practice with the Hispanic elderly. In S. A. Applewhite
(Ed.), Hispanic elderly in transition (pp. 3-16). New York: Greenwood.
Bean, F. D., & Tienda, M. (1987). The Hispanic population of the United
States. New York: Russell Sage.
Burr, J. A., & Mutchler, J. E. (1992). The living arrangements of unmarried elderly Hispanic females. Demography, 29, 93-112.
Cherlin, A. J., Kiernan, K. E., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (1995). Parental
divorce in childhood and demographic outcomes in young adulthood.
Demography, 32, 299-318.
Day, J. C. (1996). Population projections of the United States by age, sex,
race, and Hispanic origin: 1995 to 2050. U.S. Bureau of the Census,
Current Population Reports (Pub. No. P25-1130). Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Espenshade, T. J., & Fu, H. (1997). An analysis of English-language proficiency among U.S. immigrants. American Sociological Review, 62, 288305.
Espino, D. V., Bedolla, M. A., Perez, M., & Baker, F. M. (1996). Validation
of the Geriatric Depression Scale in an elder Mexican American ambulatory population: A pilot study. Clinical Cerontologist, 16, 55-67.
Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion and national origins. New York: Oxford University Press.
Grenier, G. (1984). Shifts to English as usual language by Americans of
Spanish mother tongue. 5oc/a/ Science Quarterly, 65, 535-550.
Hart, V. R., Gallagher-Thompson, D., Davies, H. D., DiMinno, M., &
Lessin, P. J. (1996). Strategies for increasing participation of ethnic
minorities in Alzheimer's disease diagnostic centers: A multifaceted
approach in California. The Cerontologist, 36, 259-262.
Johnson, K., Anderson, N., Bastida, E., Kramer, B., Williams, D., & Wong,
M. (1995). Panel II: Macrosocial and environmental influences on minority health. Health Psychology, 14, 601-612.
King, R. D. (1997). Should English be the law? Atlantic Monthly, 279,
55-64.
Legge, V., & Cant, R. (1995). A lonely old age? Social Alternatives, 14,
44-47.
Lieberson, S. (1963). Ethnic patterns in American cities. New York: The
Free Press.
Lieberson, S., & Curry, T. J. (1971). Language shift in the United States:
Some demographic clues. International Migration Review, 5, 125-137.
Maddala, G. S. (1983). Limited dependent and qualitative variables in
econometrics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Markides, K. S., & Black, S. A. (1996). Aging and health behaviors in
Mexican Americans. Family and Community Health, 19, 11-18.
Massey, D. S. (1995). The new immigration and ethnicity in the United
States. Population and Development Review, 21, 631-652.
Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (1984). Language networks and social status
among Mexican Americans. Social Science Quarterly, 65, 551-564.
Saldov, M. (1991). The ethnic elderly: Communication barriers to health
care. Canadian Social Work Review, 8, 269-277.
Smaje, C. (1995). Ethnic residential concentration and health: Evidence
for a positive effect? Policy and Politics, 23, 251-269.
Sotomayor, M. (1971). Mexican American interaction with social systems.
Social Casework, 52, 316-324.
Stevens, G. (1985). Nativity, intermarriage, and mother-tongue shift. American
Sociological Review, 50, 74-83.
Stevens, G. (1992). The social and demographic context of language use
in the United States. American Sociological Review, 57, 171-185.
Stevens, G., & Swicegood, C. G. (1987). The linguistic context of ethnic
endogamy. American Sociological Review, 52, 73-82.
Tanjasiri, S. P., Wallace, S. P., & Shibata, K. (1995). Picture imperfect:
Hidden problems among Asian Pacific Islander elderly. The Cerontologist, 35, 753-760.
Treas, J. (1997). Older immigrants and U.S. welfare reform. International
journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 17, 8-33.
Treas, J., & Torrecilha, R. (1995). The older population. In R. Farley (Ed.),
State of the union: America in the 1990s. Volume two: Social trends
(pp. 47-92). New York: Russell Sage.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1992). Census of population and housing,
1990: Public use microdata samples (data documentation). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Veltman, C. (1988). Modeling the language shift process of Hispanic immigrants. International Migration Review, 22, 545-562.
Wilmoth, J., Dejong, G. F., & Himes, C. L. (1997). Immigrant and nonimmigrant living arrangements among America's White, Hispanic, and
Asian elderly population. International Journal of Sociology and Social
Policy, 17, 57-82.
Received October 27, 1998
Accepted February 24, 1999
Appendix
Notes
1. The group quarters population—persons living
in institutions or other group living situations—is excluded from this study because of its unique demographic, social, and economic characteristics. Despite
these differences, the rate of poor English proficiency
among the group quarters Hispanic population is
similar to that reported here for the household population. Excluding older Hispanics in group quarters
results in a loss of 2,451 cases, representing 2.4% of
the total older Hispanic sample.
2. The smallest geographic unit identifiable using the
PUMS data is the Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA).
Codes on the microdata identify PUMAs that correspond to places, counties, or county groups including
100,000 or more persons. In this analysis, data on the
size of the Hispanic population of an area is collected
at the county level, drawn from the STF-3C files of the
1990 Census of Population and Housing. For PUMAs
318
containing more than one county, these county data
are aggregated and values are generated for the PUMA
as a whole. For smaller PUMAs, covering only a portion
of a county, the original county-level data are used for
all component PUMAs. Due to unique features of
the geographic detail available for Alaska and Hawaii,
these two states are not included in the analysis.
3. Multivariate results using an alternative dichotomous coding of proficiency level (0 = speaks English
only or very well, 1 = speaks English well, not well, or
not at all) yield results consistent with those reported
here.
4. Although the Census Bureau considers anyone
speaking English "well" as eligible for linguistic isolation, these individuals in fact may face few obstacles
to effective communication with English speakers.
Readers should be aware of potentially substantial differences in isolation levels experienced across households defined by the Census Bureau as linguistically
isolated.
The Gerontologist
5. Location quotients are calculated according to
the following equation:
p/P
where h
H
p
P
=
=
=
=
number of Hispanics in the specified area
number of Hispanics in the United States
total population of the specified area
total population of the United States
LQs are interpreted as reflecting the relative geographic concentration of a given group in a specified
area. A value of 1.0 occurs when the representation
of Hispanics in a PUMA or county is roughly proportional to the U.S. population share. Although it does
not indicate that Hispanics are "evenly" distributed
over the geographic space, it does imply that Group
1 members (here, Hispanics) are distributed in the
same way as the comparison members of Croup 2
(here, the total population). Values less than one reflect an underrepresentation of a population, whereas
values greater than one indicate overrepresentation or
concentration. This measure is equivalent to calculating the value of a population that is Hispanic (e.g., h/
p) and standardizing it for the Hispanic share of the
U.S. population (H/P).
The Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University
School of Medicine is seeking a full-time Assistant Professor (Research). This is a
non-tenure track appointment and is coterminous with funding. The position will be
based in the Aging Clinical Research Center at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health
Care System. The successful candidate will be responsible for the development and
conduct of a geriatric mental health research program focusing on the interaction of
biological, genetic, psychosocial and cognitive factors in the progression of patients
with dementias and other types of cognitive impairment. The candidate should have a
documented interest in and experience with integrating biological and psychological
approaches to cognitive decline in normal and pathological aging.
Additionally, the individual will be expected to take an active part in teaching of Stanford medical students and psychiatry residents in gerontological mental health research and consulting with University and VA-based investigators on gerontological
mental health research projects. Finally, the individual in this position will provide
patient and staff education. A demonstrated ability to attract extramural research
support is required. Applicants must have demonstrated expertise in relevant clinical
training, teaching, and/or research publications.
Applicants must hold a Ph.D. or equivalent degree in psychology. Stanford University
is committed to increasing representation of women arid members of minority groups
on its faculty and particularly encourages applications from such candidates. Applicants should forward a curriculum vitae and the names of five referees to Dr. Jerome
Yesavage, Chairman of the Search Committee, c/o Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford Medical Center, 401 Quarry Road, Stanford, CA 943055550.
Vol.39, No. 3, 1999
319