Fuerza Mexicana: The Past, Present and Power of Mexicans in Chicagoland

Fuerza Mexicana The Past, Present, and Power of Mexicans in Chicagoland

Authors: Juan González Teresa Córdova Matthew D. Wilson Elham Pilegar David Segovia José Miguel Acosta-Córdova Cover Design by: Olivia Abeyta and Elham Pilegar We thank Olivia Abeyta and Elena Oliveira, interns from Northwestern University, for their many contributions, especially to the List of References for Further Study and helping us to identify photographs. We also thank Jay Campos, a Chancellor’s Undergraduate Summer Research Assistant (CURA) awardee, for his additions to this report, including his research on the 1850 Census. It was a special pleasure to have these young people assisting with the preparation of this report.

September 16, 2024

Teresa Córdova, Ph.D., Director, GCI Great Cities Institute (MC 107) University of Illinois at Chicago 412 South Peoria Street, Suite 400 Chicago, Illinois 60607-7067 312.996.8700 greatcities.uic.edu

Contents Letter from CEOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Summary of Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Policy Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 A History of Mexicans in Chicago. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Identity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Key Demographic Patterns of Mexican Population in Chicago and Cook County, and the Chicago MSA Over Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Housing and Community Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Health. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Employment and Business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Citizenship and Civic Participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 List of References for Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Data Sources and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Appendix 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Letter from CEOs Querida Familia,

Being Mexican in Chicagoland is a paradox. It means existing as a foundational part of Chicago where we build skyscrapers, lift up economies, and create families while those in power often overlook our contributions, talent, and potential. It means we embody resilience, entrepreneurship, and care of community even when faced with systemic neglect and a lack of fair opportunities. For years, we have discussed these contradictions as Mexican leaders of Chicago-based nonprofits.

Convened by Latinos Progresando, we began meeting to support one another as we faced professional barriers and challenges. One frequent challenge was inadequate data on the Mexican population in Chicagoland. How could we help our community if we did not have access to baseline information? We recognized that insufficient information diluted Mexican power and stifled progress.

Mexicans make up over 70% of Chicago’s Latino/e population and over 20% of Chicago’s population. More and more of us are moving to the suburbs and surrounding counties, yet there are no grand agendas, funding streams, or programs dedicated to addressing our needs let alone a vision of how we advance together. In 2023, after years discussing this need, we recognized that it was time to act. We commissioned the University of Illinois Chicago’s Great Cities Institute to provide the data, history, and recommendations we rightfully deserve.

This is the first step in what must be an ongoing, long-term call to action. It underscores our longevity and how we continue to build this city and surrounding communities. It shares data that previews the needs of our youth and how to propel them into leadership roles in the future. We dissect pressure points around health, housing, education, economic development, leadership, and identity.

Identity is the undercurrent theme of this project. It is vital to identify as Mexican.

We respect our multifaceted identities and seek to uplift solidarity with other communities, in and out of the Latino/e diaspora. Even so, we cannot be conditioned away from claiming our identity. There is beauty in being Mexican, there is value in lifting up our culture, and there is power in proclaiming proudly who we are. We must feel secure in identifying as Mexicans to acknowledge our struggles and implement solutions on our own terms.

We want this report to raise the consciousness of our community of what it means to be Mexican in terms of collective power, cultural pride, and socioeconomic

needs. We want to amplify the recognition of who we are in a way that advances our self-determination as Mexicans in Chicagoland.

We recognize the work to support our community is not solely on our shoulders.

Use this report as a call to action to those in positions of power to demand fair resources for and representation of Mexicans. Bottom line, Chicagoland’s community nonprofits, private enterprises, and public sector cannot continue to benefit from Mexican labor, talents, and economic contribution without acknowledging the power gaps and a commitment to address our needs.

Beyond our community, let this report serve as an example that every community deserves to know itself – its history, challenges, and triumphs. Let this inspire others to pursue data-driven studies that highlight their own communities’ realities.

As part of this study, we will sponsor ongoing discussions based on this report to encourage deeper understanding of who we are and how we want our community to develop. With immense gratitude to the Mexican leaders who came before us and our colleagues in this lucha, we hope this report makes you even more proud of our community, committed to our growth, and excited for a future where Mexicans can proudly lead, build, and forge Chicagoland’s next chapter.

Sincerely,

Luis Gutierrez, Latinos Progresando Cristina De La Rosa, Erie Neighborhood House Adrian Soto, Greater Southwest Development Corporation Jose Muñoz, La Casa Norte Linda Xóchitl Tortolero, Mujeres Latinas en Accion Carlos Tortolero, National Museum of Mexican Art, President Emeritus

Acknowledgments A special note of appreciation for Carlos Tortolero, President Emeritus and Founder of the National Museum of Mexican Art, and stalwart advocate of the Mexican community. His work, pride in culture, and advocacy, laid a foundation and example on how to unapologetically create spaces for our community. During Mr. Tortolero’s tenure, the National Museum of Mexican Art provided the seed funding for this report, ensuring its success.

We express our thanks to MacArthur Foundation, Healthy Communities Foundation, Community Memorial Foundation, and Cabrera Capital for their investment and encouragement.

Additionally, we are grateful to the boards of directors of Erie Neighborhood House, La Casa Norte, Latinos Progresando, Greater Southwest Development Corporation, and Mujeres Latinas en Accion for supporting and believing in the mission of this project. Each nonprofit also provided funding for this report.

Thank you to the participants of each focus group and your willingness to share your time, experience, and vulnerable stories that advanced this work.

We are immensely thankful to UIC Great Cities Institute under the leadership of Dr. Teresa Córdova and the research of Juan González and their staff for their dedication to quality and delivery of this project.

Thank you to Latinos Progresando’s executive leadership team and staff, particularly Nubia Willman, for leading strategic planning, coordination, and logistics of this project.

Finally, we want to send gratitude through the cosmos to the first Mexican families that made their way to Chicago over a century ago; to the street vendor who sold tamales at the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair, and to Mexicans who came back to Chicago after being ripped away from family and community during Operation Wetback. Their fortitude, spirit of endurance, and dedication to building a life in a space unknown is a legacy we are proud of and must all embody as we continue to advance our city and state.

5

Introduction What’s Wrong with The Bear?

How is it possible to produce a hit TV series about a Chicago restaurant that features no Mexicans in a starring role? That’s exactly what has happened the past few years with The Bear, the multi-Emmy Award winning series that this year racked up a record 5.4 million viewers for the Hulu streaming network for the premiere of its third season. Amazingly, among the show’s half-dozen major actors, only one is Latine – Liza Colón Zayas in the role of Tina Marrero – and she plays a Puerto Rican from New York. Given that U.S. Census data estimate 44% of all cooks in Chicago are of Mexican origin, The Bear continues to reflect a persistent problem when it comes to public perception of the city’s Mexican community and Mexican labor. Both remain largely invisible and unrecognized, and not just to mass media.

Why This Report?

Numerous academic studies in recent years have examined the state of Chicago’s Latino community, but the specific contributions and particular conditions of the city’s Mexican residents have received little attention, even though recent Census data show Mexicans make up 21.5% of the city’s population and nearly 74% of all Chicago Latinos.1 The social and economic status of Mexicans invariably gets subsumed under statistics on Latinos in general, an approach that can mask significant disparities – in education, employment, health and housing – between Mexicans and other Hispanic or Latino groups, i.e., Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Ecuadorians, Colombians, or those from Central America.

Without more differentiated Latino or Hispanic ethnic data, government and social service agencies too often end up pursuing policies that do not adequately address the needs and reality of the MexicanAmerican community.

This report seeks to close that yawning gap in data by providing in one place an up-to-date and comprehensive portrait of the specific condition of Mexicans in Chicago and Cook County in comparison to other groups. In addition, we have provided some information about the collar counties, given that those areas currently represent the fastest-growing portion of the Mexican community in Illinois.

Our Approach We collected and sought to analyze whatever Mexican-specific data already exists on Chicago at the federal level, especially from the 2020 Census and the 2018-2022 American Community Survey, as well as from state and local governments. Sadly, there is shockingly little data available that disaggregates the various Latino ethnic groups, especially at the city and county level. That is why one of our main policy recommendations is that, in the future, local government agencies should dramatically expand the collection of specific Latino-ethnic data. Given the absence of that data, we opted on occasion for less

1

U.S. Census, American Community Survey (2018-2022).

Page 7

exact methods. In some cases, we used federal statistics on Mexicans nationally as reference points to offer a likely picture of the Chicago situation. In other cases, we used city and public school district data from selected Chicago neighborhoods where the population is overwhelmingly Mexican to help us deduce what was the most likely reality among Mexican students. We also provide some data on Chicago’s Mexican community in comparison to that of other major cities throughout the United States, to determine if there are any conditions that are unique to this city’s Mexicans.

We then supplemented the data by conducting a series of six audio-recorded focus groups over a threemonth period with some 60 Mexican activists, non-profit service providers, business and labor leaders, elected and appointed officials from Chicago and the suburban counties. In each of these sessions, we collected their personal experiences, recollections and opinions about life in Chicago’s Mexican community and sought to gauge the importance they attach to their Mexican heritage and identity. The observations of those participants, all volunteered anonymously, are included throughout the report as a way to give life to the statistics.

The Historical Context Besides collecting and interpreting current data, we provide a brief history of the immense and often neglected contributions of Mexican immigrants to Chicago’s economic and cultural progress. We do so to dispel the myth that Mexicans are recent arrivals to this city, or newcomers of the past three or four decades, or that as a group they are draining local resources. The facts show just the opposite: that

Mexican workers cutting weeds in Willow Springs, Cook County, in 1917. DN-0068516, Chicago Daily News collection, Chicago History Museum.

some Mexicans settled in Chicago as far back as the early 1850s, that the city’s first vibrant Mexican neighborhoods were established here more than 100 years ago, and that the growth of the city’s Mexican community and of Mexican labor and small businesses were a pivotal factor in reviving Chicago’s economy during the city’s post-industrial period of population decline.

Summary of Findings The rapid growth of Chicago’s Mexican population has been a remarkable bright spot in this city for the past 50 years, at first as a counterpoint to its post-industrial decline and population loss, then as an unheralded force of low-wage workers and business owners who quietly buttressed the city’s economic revival in the 21st century.

This report begins to fill in some of the blanks in that untold story. Policy makers, scholars and members of the public will find many surprising revelations, especially when it comes to little-examined distinctions between Mexicans and other Latinos or Hispanics. This executive summary touches only on the most remarkable of our findings. It is followed by a list of our Policy Recommendations that government and city leaders should use to address issues that arise from the findings.

•

The Mexican-origin population of Chicago was 581,376, 21.5% of residents, according to 2018-2022 US Census estimates. Overall, Latinos were 29.0% of the city’s population, with Mexicans representing by far the greatest share, 73.9% – or nearly three of every four Latinos. Our city has slipped in recent years from second to fifth in total Mexican population among major cities, mostly because of even faster growth in places like Houston, Phoenix and San Antonio, but Chicago still boasts the largest Mexican population of any major city outside the Southwest.

•

The Mexican population of the city’s two historic Mexican neighborhoods, Pilsen and Little Village, dropped significantly since 2000 but increased sharply in many other neighborhoods. Only six neighborhoods had more than 50% Mexican populations in 2000, but that number more than doubled to 15 community areas by 2018-2022, most of them on the Southwest Side in a contiguous swath of neighborhoods that could be dubbed the city’s mostlyMexican “Brown Belt.”

•

Even more impressive has been Mexican and Latino population growth in suburban Cook County and the five Collar counties of Will, McHenry, Kane, DuPage and Lake.

According to 2018-2022 US Census estimates, close to two-thirds of area Mexicans resided outside the city, 452,662 in suburban Cook County, and another 514,233 in the collar counties. Few people realize that Kane County had the highest percentage of Mexicans in Chicagoland; they made up 27.2% of Kane’s total population.

The Mexican-origin population has a significant presence in Chicagoland.

While historic Mexican neighborhoods have experienced decline in population, a mostly Mexican “Brown Belt” has formed on the city’s Southwest Side.

Mexican population growth in the suburbs has reached the point that nearly twothirds of all Mexicans in Cook County and the Collar counties now live outside the city of Chicago.

Page 9

Chicago’s Mexican population is younger than all other racial and Latino groups and comprises nearly 25% of city residents under 40.

The Mexican-origin population lives in larger households than any other racial and Latino group.

Latinos make a sizeable contribution to the economy of the metropolitan area.

While revenues from the 26th Street Commercial Corridor are significant, the overall percentage of business ownership is far below Mexican-origin share of population.

Among Latinos, Mexicans were one of three groups that had the lowest median income.

•

The city’s Mexicans are disproportionately young. Their median age was 30, considerably lower than for other Latinos, 34, or for the city’s White and Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) populations, 37.

•

Mexicans made up 24.0% of Chicago residents under the age of 40, and together with other Hispanics or Latinos, made up 32.3% of those under 40.

•

The mean household size for Mexicans was 4.2, significantly larger than for (non-Hispanic) White or Black households, 2.6 and 3.0, respectively, and it is even larger than the 3.4 household size of other Hispanics or Latinos.

•

Latinos contributed $97.5 billion to the Gross Annual Domestic Product of the Chicago Metropolitan Area (MSA) in 2018 (specific data for Mexicans is not available). For the U.S. as a whole, Latino GDP was estimated at $3.2 trillion in 2021, bigger than all but four nations, the United States, China, Japan and Germany.

•

Numerous media reports have spotlighted the thriving 26th Street business strip of mostly Mexican-owned businesses in Little Village for generating annual revenues second only to Chicago’s Magnificent Mile. Overall data on business ownership, however, is far less rosy. Only 14.9% of businesses in the Chicago MSA were owned

by Hispanics or Latinos in 2021, and that number shrinks to just 8.9% when you include only businesses that have employees (again, no data exists for Mexican ownership).

•

There was significant variation in income levels among various Latino ethnic groups. Ecuadorians and Guatemalans had the lowest median annual household incomes – $39,924 and $40,000, respectively – followed

by Mexicans at $43,236. Cubans had the highest income at $62,756, followed by Colombians and Puerto Ricans.

In addition, Cubans and Colombians had far higher mean incomes – $93,480 and $71,577, respectively – an indication that these two groups contain a significant portion of high-income earners who approximate the levels of White (non-Hispanic or Latino) and non-Hispanic or Latino Others.

Summary of Findings

•

In a positive finding, poverty rates for Mexican, other Hispanic or Latino, and Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) families declined significantly between 2000 and 20182022, while they remained almost unchanged for Whites and improved only slightly for non-Hispanic or Latino Others

•

Homeownership is a major unheralded achievement among Chicago Mexicans. The rate has increased significantly the past two decades – from 41.2% in 2000 to 49.9% in 2018-2022 – even as it remained static for White (nonHispanic or Latino) and declined for Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) householders. In fact, Mexican home-ownership rates are only slightly below the 52.7% rate among the city’s White (non-Hispanic or Latino) residents.

•

The median home values in predominantly Mexican neighborhoods such as East Side, Little Village, New City and Gage Park, however, were among the lowest in the city, only slightly above home values in the predominantly Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) neighborhoods of the South and West Sides.

•

Mexicans were the main workforce of some of Chicago’s most labor-intensive and dangerous industries. In 20182022, for example they made up 41.7% of city construction workers, 36.4% of manufacturing employees, and 32.2% of the Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting, and Mining Industry workforce. White (non-Hispanic or Latino) workers, on the other hand, were concentrated in the higher-paying industries. They made up 61.5% of information industry employees, 53.6% of those in finance, insurance and real estate, and 53.3% of those in professional, scientific and management industries.

•

Mexicans and other Latinos are systematically concentrated in the city’s low-wage jobs. We can glean a better picture by focusing on specific occupational categories where Mexicans predominate. For example, Mexicans make up 53.2% of all construction laborers, 44.3% of all cooks, 41.6% of all laborers in transportation and material moving, 38.6% of all janitors and building cleaners, and an astounding 70.8% of all landscapers in Chicago.

•

Mexicans also had the highest percentage of people whose primary means of transportation to work was by personal motor vehicle, and the lowest share that used subways or elevated lines. Nearly 69% of Mexicans commuted to work by motor vehicle, far less than the 48% of non-Hispanic or Latino Chicagoans who did so, and significantly higher than other Hispanics or Latinos.

Poverty rates declined significantly for Mexican, other Latino, and Black Populations.

Homeownership Rates among Chicago Mexicans have increased significantly, although many of the neighborhoods with large Mexican populations have among the lowest median home values.

Mexicans comprised the main workforce of some of Chicago’s most laborintensive and dangerous industries, while being severely underrepresented in higher paying, less dangerous industries.

Mexicans and other Latinos are systematically concentrated in the city’s low-wage jobs.

Mexicans rely on personal motor vehicles as a primary means of transportation to work.

Page 11

5

•

In education, Mexicans had the highest percentage of children attending Chicago public schools of any ethnic or racial group – 86.0%. That’s nearly 10 percentage points higher than other Latinos and nearly five percentage points higher than Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) children.

In fact, more Mexican children were enrolled in Chicago public schools in 2022, 131,597, than there were Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) children, 130,402.

•

Children in the city’s mostly Mexican public schools appeared to exhibit lower academic proficiency in English and Math than do Latino students citywide, despite registering less chronic absenteeism than the citywide Latino average.2

•

One of our most surprising findings is that Mexican and other Latino youth have emerged as a growing and pivotal portion of higher education students. An estimated 30,412 Chicago Latinos ages 18 to 24 were enrolled in undergraduate/graduate colleges or professional schools in 2018-2022, amounting to 32% of all college students in the city. Notably, Latino college enrollment in that age group approached the size of the 32,987 White (non-Hispanic or Latino) Chicagoans attending college. Of those Latino college students, 22,705 were of Mexican-origin.

•

While the number of Mexican and Other Hispanics or Latinos in elected office in Chicago and Illinois has improved in recent years, their proportion in the state legislature – 10% – remains significantly below the nearly 18% share that Hispanics or Latinos make up of Illinois’ population. A major reason for this disparity is the shockingly low voter registration and voter turnout rates among Hispanics and Latinos in both Chicago and the rest of the state. We found, for example, that only 2 of every 10 voter eligible Hispanics or Latinos cast ballots in the 2023 Chicago mayoral race. In addition, Hispanics or Latinos in Illinois had one of the lowest voter registration and voter turnout rates among all U.S. states with large Hispanic or Latino voter-eligible populations in the 2020 Presidential election.

86% of Mexican children attend Chicago public schools.

Mexican children in CPS appear to exhibit lower academic proficiency than other Latino groups.

Mexican and Latino youth have emerged as a growing and pivotal proportion of higher education students.

Despite increases, the proportion of Mexican or other Latinos in elected office in Illinois remains low.

2

Given the absence of pupil test results by ethnic origin, we opted for an alternative to approximate Mexican student proficiency in Math, English and Science, as well as chronic absenteeism rates among Mexican students. We collected and averaged out proficiency levels from all public elementary schools in the four most densely Mexican neighborhoods of the city. We then compare those combined results to published performance and attendance data for both Latino students and other racial groups citywide.

Summary of Findings

5

•

In the area of health, Mexicans along with other Latinos have long benefitted from what many public health experts describe as the Hispanic Paradox – data which indicate that Hispanics in the U.S., despite having lower economic levels and less access to quality health care, generally exhibit better health outcomes than White (non-Hispanic or Latino) and Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) Americans in many areas, e.g., longer life expectancy, lower rates of heart disease, cancer and other chronic physical and mental illnesses. The causes of this paradox, or even the extent to which it exists, has been the subject of much debate among health professionals for decades.3 But recently compiled data from the Centers for Disease Control have confirmed not only better outcomes among Latinos on many health indicators, but also significant differences between Hispanic/Latino ethnic groups.4 From 2019-2021, for example, Mexicans had far lower rates among all Latino groups when it came to coronary heart disease, heart attacks, cancer, asthma, and “feelings of worry, anxiety or depression,” while Puerto Ricans and Cubans generally registered the highest rates. Mexicans, however, had the second-highest rates of adult obesity and diabetes among Latinos, after only Puerto Ricans.

•

No health data exists by ethnic group for Chicago, but as an alternative we analyzed a subset of selected health indicators for four neighborhoods with the highest Mexican concentration. Our calculations indicate the four Mexican neighborhoods we selected were generally far below citywide rates for White (non-Hispanic or Latino) and Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) residents when it came to all cancers, lung cancer, and hypertension, but significantly above the citywide Hispanic rates. While the first finding appears to conform to the Hispanic Paradox theory, the higher Mexican rates over other Latinos is not consistent with national trends. Given that East Side and Little Village, the two neighborhoods that registered higher rates of all cancers and lung cancer, both border historic manufacturing corridors, one possible explanation could be that environmental factors from industrial pollution on those communities have been in part the cause.

Mexicans experience what is referred to as an “Hispanic Paradox” with better health outcomes than other groups, although there is variation among Latino groups.

Environmental factors from industrial pollution may explain higher rates of cancer and lung cancer in two of Chicago’s Mexican neighborhoods.

3

4

Medrano, Lourdes. (2023). “The ‘Hispanic Paradox’: Does a decades-old finding still hold up?” American Heart Association News. May 11, 2023. https://www.heart.org/en/news/2023/05/11/the-hispanic-paradox-does-a-decades-old-finding-still-holdup.; Fernández, Jose, García Pérez, Mónica, and Orozco Aleman, Sandra. (2023). “Unraveling the Hispanic Health Paradox.”

Journal of Economic Perspectives, 37 (1): 145. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.37.1.145.

Dominguez, Kenneth, Penman-Aguilar, Ana, Chang, Man-Huei, Moonesinghe, Ramal, Castellanos, Ted, Rodriguez-Lainz, Alfonso, Schieber, Richard. (2015). “Vital Signs: Leading Causes of Death, Prevalence of Diseases and Risk Factors, and Use of Health Services Among Hispanics in the United States – 2009-2013.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 8, 2015. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6417a5.htm?s_cid=mm6417a5_w.; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Interactive Summary Health Statistics for Adults, by Detailed Race and Ethnicity.” National Center for Health Statistics. Accessed August 25, 2024. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/NHISDataQueryTool/SHS_adult3yr/index.html.

Page 13

Policy Recommendations It is essential that detailed Hispanic or Latino data by national origin groups be regularly collected, disaggregated, and analyzed by local and state governments.

•

Our first and most important policy recommendation is that government leaders start moving beyond simply collecting and tracking data for Latinos in general. Given the substantial differences between Mexican and other Latino populations that we document in this report, it is essential that detailed Hispanic or Latino data by national origin groups be regularly collected, disaggregated, and analyzed by local and state governments. This is especially true when it comes to tracking local health outcomes, business and economic statistics. Simply put, if knowledge is power, then Mexicans, the city’s largest Latino group, must have access to more accurate data so they can better influence our city’s future in a manner commensurate with their size and economic contribution. Such detailed collection of information should encompass data on Mexicans of Indigenous descent. Current U.S. Census data on Indigenous ancestry among the nation’s Hispanic population is wholly inadequate and unreliable, in our opinion. Yet up to 15% of Mexico’s population is classified as Indigenous, and Mexicans of Indigenous ancestry in the Chicago area are virtually invisible to the broader society.

Future housing development plans should include a greater percentage of 3- and 4-bedroom affordable units, rather than the historic emphasis on 1- and 2-bedroom units.

•

In the area of housing, with a larger household size and lower median income than most other groups, Chicago’s Mexican population has a pressing need for large and affordable housing units. We recommend city officials include in future housing development plans a greater percentage of 3- and 4-bedroom affordable units, rather than the historic emphasis on 1- and 2-bedroom units.

New initiatives should be created by the City to ensure an increase in business ownership.

•

In the area of business ownership, we recommend a new initiative in the city’s largely Mexican neighborhoods that encourages medium-size loans by major banks, that streamlines and better promotes the application process for Mexican-owned businesses to contract with government agencies, and that provides financial literacy and training for business owners.

Policy Recommendations

City leaders should target schools in Mexican-majority neighborhoods for additional academic resources, counseling, and after-school programs.

•

In education, given that Mexican children make up the largest ethnic or racial group in Chicago Public Schools, and that children in Mexican-majority neighborhoods appear to be falling behind even other Latino pupils in English and Math proficiency, we recommend city leaders target schools in those neighborhoods for additional academic resources, counseling, and after-school programs. They should greatly expand parent engagement through culturally competent neighborhood outreach in both English and Spanish, and they should seek to increase the percentage of Mexican and other Latino teachers and principals employed by CPS to better reflect the students served by the system.

Protestors at the 1979 school busing protest in Pilsen, where one sign reads “Busing Monies should go into Better Schools.”

ST-10103838-0037, Chicago Sun-Times collection, Chicago History Museum.

University executives should invest in targeted programs for retention.

•

In addition, Mexican and other Latino youth have become the economic mainstay of Chicago’s colleges and universities, but a disproportionate number drop out before achieving their degrees, and this is especially true for Mexican students. We recommend university executives devise and support targeted intervention programs that help those students stay in school and achieve undergraduate and advanced degrees.

Page 15

Transportation officials should factor in the racial and ethnic effects of transit policy and reconfigure future transportation investment to better serve the city’s Mexican-majority neighborhoods.

•

Given that the city’s Mexican population has the highest percentage by far of workers who commute by motor vehicle each day to work, and the lowest percentage who commute by subway and elevated transit system, we recommend city officials begin to factor in the racial and ethnic effects of transit policy and reconfigure future transportation investment to better serve the city’s Mexican-majority neighborhoods. For example, implementing policies that eliminate parking requirements for new developments may have negative consequences on workers who commute by car because of a lack of public transportation options between their area of residence and work. Any plans for eliminating parking requirements should be carefully examined for their impacts.

Increase voter registration and turnout.

•

In the area of civic engagement and voter participation, the drastically low level of voter registration and voter turnout by adult citizen Latinos in Chicago and the entire state that we document here should prompt the launching of a systematic effort by city and state leaders to dramatically increase voter registration and turnout in the Mexican and Latino community, through targeted campaigns on social media, Spanish-language radio and television and in our public schools.

Create new programs to expand health insurance coverage.

•

In health care, given that Mexicans represent the largest group of Chicago residents with no health insurance, we recommend increased efforts by officials to create new programs to expand coverage for those who are not eligible for existing programs while expanding outreach to those who are eligible but are unenrolled.

Replicate or expand promotoras de salud programs.

•

In addition, as we note, Mexicans generally enjoy lower rates than Black and White (non-Hispanic or Latino) individuals – and even than other Hispanics or Latinos – for a variety of major chronic diseases, yet they suffer from some of the highest rates of obesity and diabetes in the city. To address this problem, we recommend officials consider replicating or expanding promotoras de salud (promoters of health), the successful community health education program pioneered by the non-profit Mujeres Latinas En Acción.

A History of Mexicans in Chicago The more than 100 year presence of Mexicans in Chicago is not a matter of coincidence, but the direct result of employers’ strategic recruitment, government policies, and political economic forces. While there was evidence in the 1850 census of a few Mexicans living in Chicago, and the 1910 Census counts 972 in Illinois, it was not until 1916 that Mexicans arrived and settled in the Chicago region in significant numbers. When, why, and how large numbers of Mexicans settled in Chicago comes from understanding the processes by which they became incorporated into this country’s economy generally and the Chicago economy in particular, creating “a distinct category within the U.S. labor market and an essential reason for the growth of key industries in the region.”5 Those early Mexican workers were met with fierce discrimination and racial violence, comparable to that experienced by African Americans who were arriving in larger numbers to the area at the same time and for the same reasons. Both groups were targeted for recruitment by employers, who saw them as sources of low-wage, exploitable labor. During World War I, U.S. immigration policies changed to restrict immigration from southern and eastern Europe, which had supplied much of the labor that fueled the economic growth in Chicago since the 1880s. Meanwhile, Jim Crow laws in the American South and the aftermath of the 1910 Mexican Revolution, when there was a surplus of labor in Mexico, became factors that influenced the movement of African Americans and Mexicans into the Chicago region. It was the targeted recruitment by employers, however, that provides the key to understanding the presence of large numbers of Mexicans in the Chicago region. Along with this presence, was the formation of settlements and the simultaneous creation of mutual aid and cultural associations.

1850 Census The earliest documented Mexicans in Chicago, as identified in census records, consisted of a group of eight individuals dispersed amongst the Third, Fifth, and Sixth Ward.6 The biggest household of the eight was headed by one “Adam Murray,” a 40-year-old Scottish immigrant who, due to his marriage to a Mexican woman, was categorized as Hispanic in census records.7 Murray worked as a manager in the retail trade, a position that provided him with a stable income and allowed him to support his 25-year-old wife, who identified herself solely as “Mrs. Murray” in the census records. She was born in California, and was classified as Mexican either due to Mexican parentage or to California being a part of Mexico until it was ceded to the U.S. by Mexico in 1848 by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The Murrays also had three additional, unrelated boarders who were of Mexican descent: “Jane Kuthman,” “J. McWike,” and “E. Mason” — all young unemployed women who had also been born in California. This household, while not bound by familial ties, represented a microcosm of early Mexican life in Chicago, one characterized by a mixture of immigrant backgrounds.

5

6 7

Betancur, John J., Córdova, Teresa and Torres, Maria de los Angeles. (1993). Economic Restructuring and the Incorporation of Latinos into the Chicago Economy” from Rebecca Morales and Frank Bonilla, Latinos in the Changing U.S. Economy. Sage Press: Acosta-Córdova, José M. (2019). Lower Wages and Continued Occupational and Industrial Segmentation of Latinos in the Chicago Economy, Retrieved from https://indigo.uic.edu/articles/thesis/Lower_Wages_and_Continued_Occupational_and_ Industrial_Segmentation_of_Latinos_in_the_Chicago_Economy/10840649?file=19347512. University of Illinois at Chicago.

IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (1850 Decennial Census). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

“United States Census, 1850”, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M85K-RZB : Sun Mar 10 03:30:07 UTC 2024), Entry for Adam Murray, Jane Kuthman, J McWike, E Mason, and Mrs. Murray, 1850.

Page 17

In the Fifth Ward was the household of “Levi Wadenhouse” and his spouse was another early example of Mexican presence in Chicago. Also Californian-born, Wadenhouse was a 27-year-old brick and stone mason who earned a modest income in construction.8 His wife, born in New York, identified herself as white but was categorized as Hispanic due to her marriage to him.9 Finally, there was “Silus Parblen,” a 16-year-old laborer who was born in Mexico and resided in a group quarters setting, likely a rooming house or barracks.10

Recruitment into Chicago’s Key Industries: Railroad, Steel, and Meatpacking Our earliest accounts of Mexican labor in Chicago and the Calumet Region come from the work of Paul S. Taylor (1932), who provided detail on the migration and employment experiences in the industries where Mexicans were most heavily recruited, including agriculture, railroad track maintenance, steel, and meat packing. In all instances, the lowest paying, most dangerous, and least desirable jobs were filled by Mexican labor. In 1916, 206 Mexican laborers were transported to Chicago to work on 16 railroads with terminals in the city. That number increased to 5,255 within 10 years.11 By 1928, Mexicans made up 43% of all track and maintenance workers in those 16 major railroad companies.12 Families were offered box cars as living space without running water, heat, or other amenities.13 Simultaneously, Mexican workers from Texas, the Southwest, and Mexico were recruited, primarily by sugar beet companies, to work in agriculture throughout the Midwest. However, both railroad and agricultural work was seasonal and transitory and pay for industrial work in the Calumet Region was slightly higher, even though it was lower than the average wage that an “American” worker made.14 Their desire for higher pay and relatively better working conditions, prompted Mexican workers to respond to the recruitment drives of industrial employers.

An ID badge of Pasquala Barrios Martinez, who immigrated from the Zacatecas region in 1923 and worked at CarnegieIllinois Steel during World War II. Southeast Chicago Historical Society, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

During the 1919 steel workers’ strike, companies, such as Inland Steel, Illinois Steel, Wisconsin Steel, and U.S. Steel actively recruited both Black and Mexican workers to the mills in the Calumet Region. That recruitment continued so that by 1926, 14% of steel workers in Chicago were Mexican.15 Concurrently, beef and hog producers contracted Mexican labor for the meat-packing industry, and by 1928, they comprised 11% of the workforce of 15 meatpacking 8

“United States Census, 1850”, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M85K-JCX: Sat Jul 13 14:54:06 UTC 2024), Entry for Levi Wadenhouse and Wadenhouse, 1850.

9 For more information about Hispanic classification estimates prior to the 1980 census, see https://usa.ipums.org/usa-action/ variables/HISPRULE#description_section .

10 “United States Census, 1850”, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M852-M7R : Sun Mar 10 21:55:19 UTC 2024), Entry for Silus Parlben, 1850.

11 Taylor, Paul S. (1932). Mexican Labor in the United States: Chicago and the Calumet Region. University of California Publications in Economics, vol. 7, no. 2., p. 28-32 cited in Reisler, Mark. (1976), By the Sweat of their Brow, Westport, Cn: Greenwood Press, p. 99.

12 Mohl, Raymond A. and Betten, Neil. (1987). “Discrimination and Repatriation: Mexican Life in Gary” in Escobar, E.J. and J.B. Lane, eds. Forging a Community: the Latino Experience in Northwest Indiana. Indiana University Press. p. 162, cited in Betancur, Córdova, and Torres (1993), p. 111.

13 See the film Boxcar People.

14 Edson, George. (1976) “Mexicans in the North Central States,” Mexican American Studies & Research Center, The University of Arizona, p. 5 cited in Reisler (1976), p. 100.

15 Rosales, Francisco A. and Simon, Daniel T. (1978). “Los trabajadores Chicanos en la industria siderúrgica y el sindicalismo en el Medio Oeste: 1919-1945” in J.G. Quińones and I.I. Arroyo. (1978). Orígenes del movimiento obrero Chicano, Mexico. Serie Popular Era, D.F. Ediciones Era. January. p. 147, cited in Betancur, Córdova, and Torres (1993), p. 111.

A History of Mexicans in Chicago

companies.16 Employment in these three industries was the impetus for a growing Mexican population in Chicago, which reached 19,362 by 1930.17 Over 70% of the workers who came from Mexico came from the central plateau states while another sizable percentage came from states in northeastern Mexico.18

A gathering in 1948 of the Latin American Society of South Chicago, which was formed by workers at Wisconsin Steel. Southeast Chicago Historical Society, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The First Major Settlements Three major Mexican settlements formed around these three industries: the Near West Side (railroad), South Chicago (steel), and Back of the Yards (meatpacking).19 While nearly every historical account of Mexicans in the Chicago region describes instances of discrimination and violence, including many by police, those same histories describe the formation of culturally vibrant communities built upon transborder and family networks. By the late 1920s, in the Near West Side near Hull House, there were 7,000 Mexicans living among Italians, Russians, Greeks, and Poles.20 Rents were higher in the Near West Side neighborhood than other settlements, although according to tenement housing assessments of the era, higher rents did not result in better living conditions. In fact, for Mexicans and African Americans, rents were often double or sometimes triple the rent for European groups in all three neighborhoods.21 Higher rents, crowded conditions, inadequate plumbing, etc., were characteristic of the housing conditions.

Wages were low for the men in these heavy industries and women supplemented family income by taking in lodgers, doing laundry and working outside the home as babysitters, laundresses, lampshade makers, and waitresses.22 Nonetheless, Mexican residents in these neighborhoods built settlements that fostered mutual aid societies and gatherings such as cultural celebrations and sports events.23 16 Moht and Betten. (1987). “From Discrimination to Repatriation: Mexican Life in Gary, Indiana, during the Great Depression” Pacific Historical Review, vol. 42, No.3. University of California Press., p. 162 cited in Betancur, Córdova, and Torres (1993), p. 111.

17 Reisler (1976), p. 99.

18 Taylor (1932).

19 Año Nuevo-Kerr, Louise. (1976). The Chicano Experience in Chicago: 1920-1970, Ph. D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

20 Año Nuevo-Kerr (1976), p. 28.

21 Ibid. p. 30.

22 Ibid. p. 26.

23 Año Nuevo-Kerr (1976); Innis-Jiménez, Michael. (2013) Steel Barrio and The Great Mexican Migration to South Chicago: 1915-1940.

Page 19

Political Awareness and Activism Cultural and political dynamics of Mexican settlements in Chicago also reflected the politics of Mexico. The Mexican Revolution that overthrew the dictator, Porfirio Díaz, engendered a consciousness of “revolution and rebellion” that accompanied many who immigrated to Chicago in the 1920s.24 The goal of these welleducated “liberals,” most of whom settled in the Back of the Yards neighborhood, was to promote reform, democracy, and upward mobility. They advocated that education was an important pathway to achieve these goals while struggling against police brutality and criminal injustice. Simultaneously, they remained committed to the nation state of Mexico and encouraged Mexican immigrants to retain their Mexican citizenship. Mirroring the political conflicts in Mexico, there were those in Chicago who resisted the anticlerical positions that emerged in the Mexican revolution and instead embraced the Catholic Church.

These views were more largely seen in the South Chicago neighborhood, where bonds were formed around Catholicism.25 Historian Xóchitl Bada identified nearly 20 Mexican organizations that existed in the 1920s and ‘30s, including the Cuauhtémoc Society, whose membership was mostly made up of Indigenous migrants from Michoacán — “from the less educated members of the colony.” These Hometown Associations often began informally as soccer clubs or prayer groups, but became, as Bada reveals, “a powerful force for change, advocating for Mexican immigrants in the United States while also working to improve living conditions in their communities of origin.”26 The members of these Hometown Associations engaged in an activism connecting their rural roots in Mexico with the sphere of a large urbanized area. 27

Population Shifts and Periods of Deportation and Repatriation Ebbs and flows of population numbers, however, were very much a function of economic and political shifts.

For example, the 1921 recession and the end of WWI led to a decrease in the demand for labor, which in turn resulted in the deportation of Mexicans from Chicago and the U.S. more generally — regardless of citizenship status. Yet, there were still industries wanting Mexican labor to remain and fought to reverse restrictionist polities.28 Once the economy rebounded, Mexicans were again recruited as laborers, as evidenced by the growth of their population in the 1920s. However, once the boom of the 1920s was over and the Great Depression hit, over 20,000 Mexicans were deported between 1930-1932 from the Calumet region to northeastern and central plateau states in Mexico.29 A decade later, Mexicans were once again sought to fill U.S. labor needs in manufacturing during World War II, as part of the Bracero guest worker program. Soon, however, another recession, this one following the end of the Korean War, sparked nationwide anti-Mexican sentiment, and a new wave of brutal mass deportation ensued. In the summer of 1954, Operation Wetback deported approximately 500,000 Mexicans nationally, primarily in the Southwest. On September 16, 1954, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) unleashed its terror on Chicago’s Near West Side Mexicans as they prepared to celebrate Mexican Independence Day with parades and bailes. Those detained were thrown in Cook County Jail for 2 days and then deported. The immigration sweep continued for the next several months until 20,000 to 40,000 were deported from Chicago.30 The “deportation regime” included the conversion of once bustling factories (e.g. the Studebaker plant) into “warehousing” facilities for the deportees. Local newspapers created the messaging that stirred 24 Flores, John. H. (2018). The Mexican Revolution in Chicago: Immigration Politics from the Early Twentieth Century to the Cold War (Latinos in Chicago and Midwest). University of Illinois Press, p. 16; Arredondo, Gabriela. (2008). Mexican Chicago: Race, Identity and Nation, 1916-1939. University of Illinois Press.

25 Flores (2018).

26 Bada, Xochitl. (2014). Mexican Hometown Associations in Chicagoacán: From Local to Translocal Civic Engagement. Rutgers University Press.

27 Ibid.

28 Betancur, Córdova, and Torres (1993), p. 111-113.

29 Taylor (1932).

30 Amezcua, Mike. (2022). Making Mexican Chicago: From Postwar Settlement to the Age of Gentrification, University of Chicago Press, p. 36 - 41.

A History of Mexicans in Chicago

up the racial hatred. The Sun Times, for example, described a Mexican neighborhoods as a “hotbed of filth, criminal activity, illiteracy, and ‘wetbacks.’31 Additionally tragic was the disregard for the vibrant communities that Mexicans had built.

A group of Mexican immigrants waits to board a U.S. Border Patrol plane at Midway Airport in 1954 in the midst of what, at the time, was called “a drive to clear Chicago of ‘wetbacks.” The group was to fly to Brownsville, Texas, and then board a boat for Veracruz, Mexico. Chicago Tribune historical photo.

The Changing U.S. Economy As the deindustrialization process began in the 1950s with the increasingly widespread loss of manufacturing jobs, so did the process of destroying long standing communities. Federal Urban Renewal policies allowed local governments to declare neighborhoods as “blighted” and provided the justification to tear them down. Such was the case with the Near West Side, where Mexicans had established commercial districts and generations of family ties. While there was some deteriorated housing, Mexicans were systematically dislocated from their community to make way for the building of The University of Illinois Circle Campus (now the University of Illinois Chicago).32 Many of the Mexicans that were displaced from this area moved to Pilsen and created what became one of the most vibrant Mexican neighborhoods in the U.S. with a strong small business sector and a politicized community of muralists, artists, artisans, service providers, and activists.33 By the mid-1970s, capital flight was well underway for most of Chicago’s manufacturing sector, which had reached its peak employment in 1947. Many factories initially moved to the Chicagoland suburbs, and eventually to the U.S./Mexico border and Southeast Asia. Despite the steady decline in industrial jobs, a large percentage of the city’s Mexican workers remained in manufacturing.34 Similarly, Mexican workers remained vital to the factories of Waukegan, Aurora, Elgin, and Blue Island. They helped sustain, even 31 Ibid. p. 97.

32 Fernandez, Lilia. (2012). Brown in the Windy City: Mexicans and Puerto Ricans in Post War Chicago. The University of Chicago Press.

33 Mora-Torres, Juan. (2005). Pilsen: A Mexican Global City in the Midwest. Diálogo, 9(1), 2. DePaul University.

34 Betancur, Córdova, and Torres (1993); Acosta-Córdova (2019).

Page 21

today, the manufacturing labor force in both Chicago and the surrounding suburban communities, largely accounting for the growth of Mexicans in Chicago’s collar counties.

This widespread loss of manufacturing employment and disinvestment coincided with “white-flight” to the suburbs, and a significant influx of African Americans from the South, and migrants from Latin America, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Cuba in particular. In 1960, the census counted 51,035 Mexicans, 32,271 Puerto Ricans, and 11,623 from other Latin Americans, for a total of 94,929.35 By 1970, the number of Latinos increased to 247,857 and Chicago was credited as having the most diverse Latino population in the country with 117,093 Mexicans and 78,963 Puerto Ricans.36 During the 1970s, migration to the U.S. from Latin America increased significantly and Chicago was a key port of entry.

By 1980, the Latino population in Cook County increased to 499,538, (61.6% were Mexican) with 84.7% of those Latinos still living within city limits. In 1990, those numbers increased to 694,194 in Cook County, with the proportion of Latinos that were Mexican continuing to grow to 67.0% (465,765) of the total. The percentage of Latinos living in the city of Chicago, however, declined to 78.6% with Latinos continuing to move to the suburbs.37 As Mexicans were increasingly drawn to the suburbs, they worked in large numbers in factories that had moved from the central city.

The 1980s again saw increased migration from Latin In Chicago, a protester at a 2017 rally in support of immigrants holds sign that reads “We Are Workers, Not Criminals.” Courtesy America due largely to neoliberal economic policies and of Charles Miller. destabilization efforts by the U.S. which often caused military conflicts or economic distress.38 For Mexico, it was an international trade policy in 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), that created economic conditions that dislocated a large segment of its rural population. For example, U.S. corn flooded the Mexican corn market, to the detriment of rural communities. These economic impacts along with the rise of cartels spurred many Mexicans to follow migratory paths formed over decades and come to Chicago and its surrounding suburbs just as Chicago’s economy was shifting.39 (See Appendix 1 for more figures on the growth of Latinos in the collar counties.)

While the continuing impact of NAFTA during the 1990s and 2000s led to further out migration, the shifting economic structures of the region created a demand for the labor that Mexicans provided. The large increase in the population of Mexicans into Chicagoland, paralleled a loss of population by other groups.

By 2000, 20 percent or 1.1 million persons in Cook County were Latino. Mexicans accounted for 73.0% (786,423) of that total. In the city of Chicago Mexicans comprised 18.3% (530,462) of the total population and Latinos as a whole comprised 26.0% of the city’s population.

With a regional economy that benefited from their presence, by 2010, the number of Latinos in Cook County further increased to 1,244,762 (24.0% of total pop.) while Mexicans alone were 18.5% (961,963) of 35 US Census Bureau, 1960 Census: Population Data [US, States, Counties].

36 Año Nuevo-Kerr (1976); US Census Bureau, 1970 Census: Count 4Pb - Sample-Based Population Data with Race/Ethnicity Breakdown.

37 US Census Bureau, 1980 & 1990: Hispanic Origin.

38 Galeano, Eduardo. (1997)(orig. 1973). Open veins of Latin America: Five centuries of the pillage of a continent. NYU Press; Gonzalez, Juan. (2022). Harvest of Empire: A History of Latinos in America: second revised and updated edition. Penguin.

39 Acosta-Córdova (2019).

A History of Mexicans in Chicago

the county’s population. In Chicago, 28.9% (778,862) of the population was Latino, with 21.5% (578,100) of the city’s population being Mexican.

Meanwhile, widespread Mexican migration into the collar counties brought the total Latino population to roughly 2 million in the metropolitan area, with over 1.5 million of those being Mexican.40 (See Appendix 1 for data on five-collar counties.)

The large numbers of Latinos coming into Chicago during this time, again, is no coincidence.

During the post-deindustrialization period, the service economy The Little Village Arch in 2024. Courtesy of Olivia Abeyta, GCI replaced manufacturing as the region’s leading sector. Corporate headquarters in banking, real estate, insurance, etc. gave rise to high end jobs, most of which were not available to the workers that were displaced by the loss of manufacturing jobs. Necessary to its functioning, however, was low wage service sector employment. Once again, Mexican labor provides a critical source of low wage labor and in many regards, can be seen as “saving the Chicago economy.”41 While there has been some improvement in educational levels and movement into professional jobs, the persistent ascriptive assignment of Mexican labor into certain industries and occupations at the lowest wages remains today.42 Though often undervalued, Mexicans remain essential to the Chicago region’s economy as workers, consumers, and small business owners. Mixed immigration status families is not uncommon and many live with the threats of detentions and deportations. Nonetheless, Mexican families in the Chicago area have built strong networks, both within the region and between Chicago and their rural communities of origin. Mexicans in Chicago add a cultural richness to the region, including a commitment to family and community. Consistent with the mutual aid societies and the political struggles of the 1920s, Mexicans today continue to serve one another through various Hometown Associations, promotores, non-profit service agencies, and cultural and recreational organizations.

A woman holds a photo of Cesar Chavez during a 1993 march in support of the United Farm Workers grape boycott. Behind her, people march in Harrison Park. ST-30002500-0077, Chicago Sun-Times collection, Chicago History Museum

40 US Census Bureau, 1980 & 1990: Hispanic Origin.

41 Betancur, Córdova, and Torres (1993); Acosta-Córdova (2019).

42 Acosta-Córdova (2019).

Page 23

Identity A systematic examination of Chicago’s Mexican community is long overdue: that was the overwhelming sentiment of 60 Mexican community and business leaders from throughout Chicagoland who participated in six separate focus groups as part of this report. The participants voiced overwhelming concern that the extensive contributions of Mexicans to our city have been overlooked over the past several decades at multiple levels, including subsuming data on the Mexican population under the general rubric of data on Hispanics or Latinos.

Many said their discussions in these focus groups were the first time they had ever been asked to reflect on the contributions of their parents, grandparents, and community to the city. Others shared personal memories about how they as Mexicans had been treated in the past and of the importance they attach to preserving Mexican identity and culture even as they are proud of being U.S. citizens.

All participants shared knowledge of their expertise, desires, and strategies to open the door for others, whether it was access to commercial banking, succession planning, dual language access, quality education, health services, affordable housing, or civic participation.

A recurring theme in the focus groups was the need for increased advocacy and mobilization within the Mexican community. Participants expressed a desire for the community members in business, public service, and legal work to help in addressing their needs. The sentiment is clear: if there were more organized efforts within these sectors, the Mexican community’s contributions and needs would be more effectively vocalized and recognized at a broader, legislative level.

A mural featuring workers, students and the Virgin of Guadalupe on a building behind a local laundromat. Photo by Natalia Wilson, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

A deep sense of collectivism and the importance of family were central to the participant’s reflections on their Mexican identity. The Mexican community’s collectivist values, in tandem with family and community, were seen as essential tools for progress. Participants emphasized that these cultural values should be

Identity

leveraged in such a fashion so that they may achieve their collective goals, whether in business or civic participation. The belief that ‘Mexicans are not an individualistic society’ underscores the potential for using these strengths to advance the community’s interests more effectively.

Some Focus Group Comments About the Importance of Mexican Identity and Heritage “I’m very Mexican, right? So that’s my identity.

That’s what I love. I had to learn to fit into a label in the United States, because then we encountered that, oh we are Hispanic, and later on, oh we are Latinos, and later on, Latinx. But nobody asked me, or anybody, to see what would make us, what will reflect us better or represent us better. To me, there’s a lack of respect that we were just given labels because we live in the United States.”

“We’ve done our own damage to ourselves by watering, diluting the Mexican brand and joining forces with the Latino and I think that might be a cultural thing. It’s because we want to help. We don’t want to be divisive.”

“Not being acknowledged for our contributions to the economy, is what…we should really hone in on here, because at the end of the day…understanding our impact in that space is huge.”

The painted steps leading up to the platform at 18th St. station. Photo by Richie Diesterheft, licensed under CC BY 2.0.

“…we are, I think, a little more humble in that way…and so now that we are subsumed in this ‘Latino movement’, I think we lose a little bit more of that identity of the Mexican community.”

“There is a lot of misunderstanding and misconception of the majority culture and the Mexican culture, the Latino culture, a lot of learning that has to happen, and there is no intention to learn about the good things, or acknowledge the contributions of Mexicans to building those communities.

“But I think the reason we’re not getting that credit right now is there seems to still be this sense that we are [only] in those corridors of 18th street. But the reality is [we] are everywhere.”

“Mexicans are not an individualistic society, we’re a collectivist society, right?”

“A lot of Mexicans still feel like guests, lacking that sense of ownership.”

“We are very family oriented. Because of the conversations we are not having, that they’re not hearing, we’re not having the kind of legislation we need.”

“We don’t get our fair share for anything.”

“It is in our sangre to work more.”

“We are the backbone – our men, our builders.”

“We helped build Chicago.”

A window of the Cementerio del Arte, an antique store in Pilsen. Courtesy of Olivia Abeyta, GCI

Page 25 5

Key Demographic Patterns of Mexican Population in Chicago and Cook County, and the Chicago MSA Over Time Due to its geography and distance from the U.S.-Mexico border, Chicago is often overlooked as a historical hub of Mexican migration and culture. Yet, from 1967 until 2016, Chicago had the second-largest Mexican population in the country after Los Angeles. That ranking has declined in recent years, according to our comparison of 2018-202243 American Community Survey (ACS 5-year estimates) figures for the 10 cities, counties and Metropolitan Statistical Area with the largest Mexican population (see Tables 1, 2, and 3).

Key Demographic Patterns of Mexican Population in Chicago and Cook County, and the Chicago MSA Over Time Table 1: Mexican MexicanPopulation Population Cities the Largest Share of Mexican Population, Table 1: forfor 10 10 Cities withwith the Largest Share of Mexican Population, 20182018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) 2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) City Name

Total Population

Hispanic or Latino Population

% Hispanic or Latino of Total Population

Total Mexican Population

% Mexicans of Total Population

% Mexicans of Hispanic or Latino Population

Los Angeles

3,881,041

1,865,763

48.1%

1,196,186

30.8%

64.1%

San Antonio

1,445,662

951,823

65.8%

808,918

56.0%

85.0%

Houston

2,296,253

1,029,429

44.8%

686,373

29.9%

66.7%

Phoenix

1,609,456

691,205

43.0%

607,389

37.7%

87.9%

Chicago

2,710,105

787,050

29.0%

581,376

21.5%

73.9%

El Paso

677,181

552,434

81.6%

519,100

76.7%

94.0%

Dallas

1,300,642

551,447

42.4%

449,290

34.5%

81.5%

San Diego

1,383,987

416,630

30.1%

353,790

25.6%

84.9%

New York City

8,622,467

2,503,005

29.0%

338,119

3.9%

13.5%

924,663

325,185

35.2%

271,493

29.4%

83.5%

Fort Worth

Data Sources: IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute. 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, U.S. Census Bureau, https://data.census.gov/.

•

Over the last decade or so, rapid Hispanic or Latino population growth in the Southwest, combined with a plateauing of Chicago and Cook County’s Mexican population, dropped Chicago to fifth in total Mexicanorigin population, behind Los Angeles, Houston, San Antonio, and Phoenix.

43 The U.S. Census Bureau advises 5-year ACS data users to include the entire 5-year ranges (e.g. 2018-2022) when reporting and writing about numbers since the data was collected over a 5-year period and does not represent a single year within the 5-year span. It would be innactuate to refer to this data as a single year such as 2022.

Key Demographic Patterns of Mexican Population

•

The Los Angeles metropolitan statistical area had the largest Mexican population in the country by far, while the Inland Empire (Riverside/San Bernardino/Ontario), which many argue is an extension of the LA metropolitan area, is second. These are followed by the metropolitan areas of Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, McAllen, and El Paso.

•

There were more than a million Mexicans in 7 out of the 10 metro areas we studied, with five having more than 1.5 million.

•

Although the Chicago metro is fifth for its total number of Mexicans, it was 10th in the Mexican percentage of its overall population, at 17.7%. It also has the lowest total percentage of Latinos, at 29.0%, but it remains the home to the country’s largest Mexican-origin population outside the Southwest.

•

In terms of the share of Latinos that were Mexican, Chicago has the fourth lowest percentage at 73.9%, which indicates the greater diversity of Chicago Latinos compared to the metro areas we studied. County level data tell a similar story as metro level data.

Table 2: Mexican Population, Income, and Mexican Homeownership Rate for 10 Metropolitan Areas

Table 2: Mexican Population, Income, and Mexican Homeownership Rate for 10 Metropolitan Areas with the with the LargestLargest Share Share of Mexican Population, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) of Mexican Population, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Mean Income

Median Income

34.2%

$44,800

$34,447

43.2%

2,086,735

45.3%

$45,104

$35,072

62.0%

7,142,603

1,925,395

27.0%

$46,129

$35,072

62.2%

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro Area

7,673,379

1,795,650

23.4%

$43,669

$35,000

62.2%

Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI Metro Area

9,566,955

1,696,231

17.7%

$44,024

$35,072

63.0%

Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ Metro Area

4,864,209

1,310,430

26.9%

$43,295

$35,824

59.1%

San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX Metro Area

2,570,862

1,220,362

47.5%

$44,964

$35,670

63.4%

San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, CA Metro Area

3,289,701

983,086

29.9%

$47,261

$35,072

43.2%

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX Metro Area

873,167

771,024

88.3%

$39,783

$29,226

70.0%

El Paso, TX Metro Area

867,161

677,323

78.1%

$40,855

$30,500

67.1%

Metro Name

Total Population

Total Mexican Population

% Mexicans of Total Population

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metro Area

13,111,917

4,488,186

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro Area

4,610,050

Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX Metro Area

Mexican Home Ownership Rate

Note: The data includes all employed individuals, regardless of whether they work full-time or part-time.

Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Page 27 5

Table 3: Mexican Population, Income, Mexican Homeownership Rate 10 Counties with the Table 3: Mexican Population, Income, and and Mexican Homeownership Rate for 10for Counties with the Largest Share ofPopulation, Mexican Population, (ACSEstimates) 5-year Estimates) Largest Share of Mexican 2018-20222018-2022 (ACS 5-year County Name

Total Population

Total Mexican Population

% Mexicans of Total Population

Mean Income

Median Income

Mexican Home Ownership Rate

Los County, California Income, 9,936,690 3,586,953 36.1% $44,286 $34,447 44.2% Table 3: Angeles Mexican Population, andand Mexican Homeownership Rate for for 10 10 Counties with thethe Table 3: Mexican Population, Income, Mexican Homeownership Rate Counties with Largest Share of Texas Mexican Population, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Harris County, 4,726,177 1,452,364 30.7% $44,571 $34,589 58.9% Largest Share of Mexican Population, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Maricopa County, Arizona County Name Riverside County, California County Name

Bexar County, Texas Cook County, Illinois San Bernardino County, LosLos Angeles County, California Angeles County, California California

Harris County, Texas San Diego County, Harris County, TexasCalifornia

4,430,871

1,191,488

26.9%

$43,204

$35,400

% % Total Total 2,429,487 1,074,125 44.2% Total Total Mexicans Population Mexican Mexicans Population Mexican 2,014,059 1,039,250 51.6% Population of Total Population of Total 5,225,367 1,034,038 Population 19.8% Population

Mean $45,047 Mean Income Income $44,801

Median $35,072 Median Income Income $35,595

2,180,563 1,012,610 9,936,690 9,936,690 3,586,953 3,586,953

46.4% 36.1% 36.1%

$45,164 $44,286 $44,286

$35,072 $34,447 $34,447

59.1% 44.2% 44.2%

4,726,177 3,289,701 1,452,364 983,086 4,726,177 1,452,364

30.7% 29.9% 30.7%

$44,571 $47,261 $44,571

$34,589 $35,072 $34,589

58.9% 43.2% 58.9%

$44,090

57.8%

Mexican 64.8% Mexican Home Home 62.2% Ownership Ownership $35,072 60.2% Rate Rate

Maricopa County, Arizona Orange County, California Maricopa County, Arizona

4,430,871 3,175,227 1,191,488 901,233 4,430,871 1,191,488

26.9% 28.4% 26.9%

$43,204 $46,716 $43,204

$35,400 $35,072 $35,400

57.8% 39.1% 57.8%

Riverside California DallasCounty, County, Texas Riverside County, California

2,429,487 2,604,053 1,074,125 858,197 2,429,487 1,074,125

44.2% 33.0% 44.2%

$45,047 $40,705 $45,047

$35,072 $33,994 $35,072

64.8% 59.0% 64.8%

Bexar County, Texas 2,014,059 51.6% $44,801 $35,595 62.2% Bexar County, 2,014,059 1,039,250 1,039,250 51.6% $44,801 $35,595 62.2% Note: The data Texas includes all employed individuals, regardless of whether they work full-time or part-time.

Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Cook County, Illinois 5,225,367 1,034,038 19.8% $44,090 $35,072 60.2% Cook County, Illinois 5,225,367 1,034,038 19.8% $44,090 $35,072 60.2% Tabulations

by Great Cities Institute.

SanEstimates).

Bernardino County, 2,180,563 46.4% 59.1% San Bernardino County, 2,180,563 1,012,610 1,012,610 46.4% $45,164 $45,164 $35,072 $35,072 59.1% California California SanSan Diego County, California 3,289,701 29.9% Diego County, California 3,289,701 983,086 983,086 29.9% $47,261 $47,261 $35,072 $35,072 Table 4: Mexican and Hispanic or Latino Population in Chicago, Cook County, and Orange County, California 3,175,227 901,233 28.4% Orange County, California 3,175,227 901,233 28.4% $46,716 $46,716 $35,072 $35,072 Collar Counties, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates)

43.2% 43.2% 39.1% 39.1%

According toTexas the 2018-2022 ACS, close to two 858,197 thirds of Chicagoland Mexicans resided outside 59.0% of the city, Dallas County, 2,604,053 33.0% Dallas County, Texas 2,604,053 858,197 33.0% $40,705 $40,705 $33,994 $33,994 59.0%

either in the suburbs of Cook County (452,662) or in the five collar counties (514,133), and in both of those Area Mexican Hispanic or Total % Mexican % Mexican Note: data all individuals, regardless of they work full-time or part-time.

Note: The The data includes includes all employed employed individuals, regardless of whether whether they work full-time of or part-time. areas Mexicans represent a larger percentage of Latino residents – roughly 80% – than in Chicago Population Latino Population Hispanic of Total itself Data Tables Source: 4 IPUMS USA, University Minnesota, (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Esti(see and 5, Map 1, andofFigure 1). www.ipums.org Population or Latino Population mates).

Tabulations

by Great Cities Institute.

Estimates).

Tabulations

by Great Cities Institute.

Chicago

581,376

787,050

2,710,105

73.9%

21.5%

Cook County Outside of 452,662 565,432 2,515,262 80.1% 18.0% 4:Hispanic Mexican and Hispanic or Latino Population in Chicago, County, andCollar Table 4: Mexican Hispanic or Latino Population in Chicago, Cook County, and TableChicago 4: MexicanTable and or and Latino Population in Chicago, CookCook County, and Counties, 2018Collar Counties, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Collar Counties, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) 2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Collar Counties 514,133 643,183 3,168,879 79.9% 16.2% Data Source: IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org (1990, 2000, 2010 Decennial Censuses, and Area Mexican or or Total % Mexican Area Mexican Hispanic Hispanic Total % Mexican % Mexican % Mexican 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Population Latino Population of Total Population Latino Population of Hispanic of Hispanic of Total Population or Latino Population or Latino Population Population

Chicago Chicago

581,376 581,376

787,050 787,050

2,710,105 2,710,105

73.9% 73.9%

21.5% 21.5%

Cook County Outside of of Cook County Outside Chicago Chicago

452,662 452,662

565,432 565,432

2,515,262 2,515,262

80.1% 80.1%

18.0% 18.0%

Collar County Collar Counties

514,133 514,133

643,183 643,183

3,168,879 3,168,879

79.9% 79.9%

16.2% 16.2%

Data Source: IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org (2018-2022 Community Survey 5-yearand Data Source: IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org (1990,American 2000, 2010 Decennial Censuses, Estimates).

Tabulations Great Cities Institute.

2018-2022 Americanby Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

•

The Mexican-origin population of Chicago was 581,376 or 21.5% of all Chicago residents.

•

Hispanics or Latinos as a whole made up 29% of Chicago’s population, with Mexicans representing by far the greatest share – 73.9% – nearly three of every four Latinos.

•

The Mexican portion of Chicago’s Hispanic or Latino population (73.9%) was far greater than in the U.S. as a whole, where Mexicans made up 60.1% of all U.S. Hispanic or Latinos.44 44 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, U.S. Census Bureau, https://data.census.gov/.

3

Key Demographic Patterns of Mexican Population Map 1: Mexican Population in Cook1990 County, and Collar Counties, 1990, 2000, 2010 1990 2000 2000 (Decennial Censuses), and 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates)

1990

1990 McHenry

2.7%

McHenry Lake

Lake

2.7% 5.3%

5.3%

McHenry 4,988

McHenry Lake 4,988 27,226

2000

McHenry

6.1%

2000

2000

McHenry Lake

Lake

6.1% 11.0%

11.0%

6.1% 11.0%

11.0%

15,881 71,153 Kane

71,153

2.7% 5.3%

Lake 27,226

5.3%

McHenry 15,881

McHenry Lake 15,881 71,153

4,988 Kane

4,988 27,226 Kane

27,226

15,881 Kane

11.2%

DuPage DuPage Cook Cook 11.2% 20.0% Kane Kane 35,583 3.2% 3.2% 9.1% 80,870 9.1% DuPage DuPage Cook Cook 11.2% 20.0% 24,703 24,703 465,765 465,765 35,583 3.2% 3.2% 9.1% 80,870 9.1%

DuPage DuPage Cook Cook 20.0% Kane 80,870 14.6% 7.0% 7.0% 14.6% DuPage DuPage Cook Cook 20.0% 63,135 63,135 786,423 786,423 80,870 14.6% 7.0% 7.0% 14.6%

24,703 24,703 465,765 465,765 Will Will

63,135 63,135 786,423 786,423 Will Will

2.7%

Kane 35,583

11.2% 35,583

ok

6%

423

2010 McHenry

9.3%

6.1%

Lake 71,153

4.6%

4.6%

7.1%

7.1%

4.6%

4.6%

7.1%

7.1%

16,582

16,582

35,416

35,416

Will 16,582

Will 16,582

2010

2010

2010

2010

McHenry Lake

Will 35,416

Will 35,416

2018−2022

2018−2022

2018−2022

2018−2022

2018-2022

Lake

McHenry

McHenry Lake

Lake

9.3% 15.9%

15.9%

11.0%

11.0% 17.8%

17.8%

McHenry 28,796

McHenry Lake 28,796 111,952

9.3% 15.9%

15.9%

11.0%

11.0% 17.8%

17.8%

28,796 Kane

28,796 111,952 Kane

111,952

34,279 Kane

34,279 127,212 Kane

127,212

9.3%

27.0% Kane 139,009

ok

27.0%

8%

,038

1990

139,009

Mexican Population

4,988 − 40,000 40,001 − 80,000 80,001 − 120,000 120,001 − 160,000 160,001 − 1,034,038 % Mexican of Total Population

Lake 111,952

McHenry 34,279

DuPage DuPage Cook Cook 27.0% 27.2% Kane Kane 139,009 18.5% 10.5% 10.5% 18.5% 140,614 DuPage DuPage Cook Cook 27.0% 27.2% 96,039 96,039 961,963 961,963 139,009 18.5% 10.5% 10.5% 18.5% 140,614 96,039 96,039 961,963 961,963 Will Will

McHenry Lake 34,279 127,212

Lake 127,212

DuPage DuPage Cook Cook 27.2% Kane 140,614 19.8% 11.1% 11.1% 19.8% DuPage DuPage Cook Cook 27.2% 103,194 1,034,038 103,194 1,034,038 140,614 19.8% 11.1% 11.1% 19.8% 103,194 1,034,038 103,194 1,034,038 Will Will

13.3%

13.3%

15.6%

15.6%

13.3%

13.3%

15.6%

15.6%

90,355

90,355

108,834

108,834

Will 90,355

Will 90,355

Will 108,834

Will 108,834

Mexican Population Mexican Po

4,988 − 40,000 4,988 − 40,001 − 80,000 40,001 Mexican Population Mexican Po 80,001 − 120,000 80,001 4,988 − 40,000 4,988 − 120,001 − 160,000 120,00 40,001 40,001 160,001−−80,000 1,034,03 160,00 80,001 − 120,000 80,001 120,001 − 160,000 120,00 % Mexican o% 160,001 − 1,034,03 160,00 Total PopulatT

Data Source: IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org (1990, 2000, and 2010 Decennial Censuses, and 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

% Mexican o% Total PopulatT

In Cook County’s collar counties, the greatest percentage increase in the Mexican population since 1990 has been in Will and McHenry County, more than 500% each.

Surprisingly, the highest percentage of Mexicans of any county was not in Cook but in Kane County, where the cities of Aurora and Elgin are located, Kane County was 27.2% Mexican.

•

•

2.7%

4.6%

3.2%

5.3%

11.2%

4.9%

12.7%

Percent

15,881

35,416

63,135

71,153

80,870

255,971

530,452

Number

2000

6.1%

7.1%

7.0%

11.0%

20.0%

10.3%

18.3%

Percent

28,796

90,355

96,039

111,952

139,009

384,069

577,894

Number

2010

9.3%

13.3%

10.5%

15.9%

27.0%

15.3%

21.5%

Percent

34,279

108,834

103,194

127,212

140,614

452,662

581,376

Number

11.0%

15.6%

11.1%

17.8%

27.2%

18.0%

21.5%

Percent

2018-2022

29,291

92,252

78,491

99,986

105,031

339,440

228,833

Number

587.2%

556.3%

317.7%

367.2%

295.2%

299.8%

64.9%

Percent Change

Change from 1990 to 2018-2022

Data Source: IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org (1990, 2000, 2010 Decennial Censuses, and 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates).

Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

4,988

16,582

Will County

McHenry County

27,226 24,703

35,583

Kane County

DuPage County

113,222

Lake County

352,543

Chicago

Number

1990

Cook County Outside of Chicago

Area

Table 5: Mexican Population in Chicago, Cook1990, County, and Collar 1990, Table 5: Mexican Population in Chicago, Cook County, and Collar Counties, 2000, 2010 Counties, (Decennial Censuses), and 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year 2000, 2010 (Decennial Censuses), and 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Estimates)

More importantly, since 1990, the Mexican populations of Kane County and suburban Cook have each more than tripled in sheer numbers, dwarfing the rate of Mexican increase in Chicago.

•

Page 29

5

Key Demographic Patterns of Mexican Population 5

Figure 1: Mexican Population in Chicago, Cook County, and Collar Counties, 1990, 2000, 2010 (Decennial Censuses), and 2018−2022 (ACS 5−year Estimates)

600,000 Figure 1: Mexican Population in Chicago, Cook County, and Collar Counties, 1990, 2000, 2010 (Decennial

Censuses), and 2018−2022 (ACS 5−year Estimates)

550,000

Figure 1: Mexican Population in Chicago, Cook County, and Collar Counties, 1990, 2000, 2010 (Decennial Censuses), and 2018−2022 (ACS 5−year Estimates)

500,000 450,000

600,000

400,000

550,000

350,000

500,000

300,000 250,000

450,000 400,000 350,000

200,000

300,000

150,000

250,000

100,000

200,000

50,000

150,000 100,000 50,000

1990

2000 1990

2010

2000 Chicago

2010 DuPage County

Chicago

DuPage County

Cook County of Chicago Cook Outside County Outside of Chicago

Kane KaneCounty County

Lake County

Lake County

2018−2022 2018−2022 Will County

Will County

McHenry County McHenry County

Data Source:University IPUMS NHGIS, University of www.nhgis.org Minnesota, www.nhgis.org (1990, 2000, 2010 Decennial Censuses, DataIPUMS Source: IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org (1990, 2000, 2010 Decennial Censuses, Data Source: NHGIS, of Minnesota, (1990, 2000, 2010 Decennial Censuses, and 2018−2022 and 2018−2022 American Community Survey 5−year Estimates).

2018−2022 American Community Survey 5−year Americanand Community Survey 5−year Tabulations

by Estimates).

Great Cities Institute.

Tabulations

by GreatEstimates).

Cities Institute.

Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Since 2000, Chicago’s Mexican population has spread dramatically throughout the 77 community areas, while at the same time a solid concentration of majority-Mexican neighborhoods has emerged throughout the city’s Southwest area, which has effectively become a Mexican “Brown Belt.” (see Maps 2-8).

•

At the same time, the two best-known Mexican neighborhoods, the Lower West Side (Pilsen) and South Lawndale (Little Village), underwent significant decline in their Mexican population between 2000 and 2018-2022. Pilsen dropped from 35,909 Mexicans to 21,524, and Little Village from 69,191 to 53,315, most likely as long-time residents were displaced by gentrification and rising home prices (see maps 1,2,3).45

•

Nonetheless, the geographic concentration of Mexican residents expanded. While only six neighborhoods had more than 50% Mexican populations in 2000 – Lower West Side (Pilsen), South Lawndale (Little Village), Brighton Park, Gage Park, McKinley Park and the East Side along Lake Michigan – that number more than doubled to 16 community areas that were over 50% Mexican by 2018-2022. Virtually all of the increase came in the city’s Southwest area, though it also included two northwest neighborhoods, Belmont-Cragin (51.4%) and Hermosa (52.0%) 6

45 Betancur, John, and Alexander Linares (2022) Who Lives in Pilsen: The Trajectory of Gentrification from 2000-2020. Great Cities Institute.

6

Page 31

•

Since 2000, the Mexican population has grown across the Northwest and West Sides of Chicago in Community Areas including Austin, Belmont Cragin, and Portage Park. From 2000 to 2018-2022, the Mexican population increased 8,250 in Austin, 8,266 in Belmont Cragin, and 8,618 in Portage Park.

•

More than 40% of Chicago’s Mexicans were concentrated in just 10 of the city’s 77 community areas, largely in the Southwest sections and the East Side. In those 10 neighborhoods, they made up an average of 71.7% of the total population and 91.4% of the Latino residents.

Table 6: Total, Hispanic or Latino, and Mexican Population by 10 Community Areas with

Table 6: Total, Hispanic or Latino, and Mexican Population by 10 Community Areas with the Largest the Largest Share of Mexican Population, (ACS 5-year Estimates) Share of Mexican Population,2018-2022 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates)

Total of 10 Community Areas

Total Population

Hispanic or Latino Population

Mexican Population

% Mexicans of Hispanic or Latino

% Mexicans of Total Population

Gage Park

34,788

32,117

29,245

91.1%

84.1%

East Side

23,942

20,791

18,901

90.9%

78.9%

West Lawn

32,594

27,397

25,269

92.2%

77.5%

South Lawndale

69,708

57,024

53,315

93.5%

76.5%

West Elsdon

18,366

14,917

13,885

93.1%

75.6%

Archer Heights

13,867

11,089

10,467

94.4%

75.5%

Brighton Park

42,243

33,789

30,269

89.6%

71.7%

Lower West Side

34,237

23,826

21,524

90.3%

62.9%

New City

41,048

27,426

24,431

89.1%

59.5%

Clearing

24,728

14,882

13,403

90.1%

54.2%

10 Community Areas with the Largest Share of Mexican Population

335,521

263,258

240,709

91.4%

71.7%

Other Community Areas

2,374,584

523,792

340,667

65.0%

14.3%

Chicago

2,710,105

787,050

581,376

73.9%

21.5%

Data Source: IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Table 7: Median Age for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Race/Ethnicity

Median Age

Mexican

30

Other Hispanics or Latinos

34

White (non-Hispanic or Latino)

37

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino)

37

Other (non-Hispanic or Latino)

33

Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates).

Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Key Demographic Patterns of Mexican Population

Map 2: Community Areas in Chicago

Edison Park

Ohare

Norwood Park

Dunning

West Ridge

Forest Glen

North Park

Jefferson Park

Edgewater Lincoln Square

Albany Park

Portage Park

Irving Park Avondale

Montclare

Belmont Cragin

Austin

Uptown

North Center

Lake View

Logan Square

Hermosa

East West Garfield Garfield Park Park North Lawndale South Lawndale

Archer Heights West Elsdon

Clearing West Lawn

Lincoln Park Near North Side

West Town

Humboldt Park

Garfield Ridge

Rogers Park

Brighton Park

Near West Side

Loop

Near South Side Armour Square Bridgeport Douglas Mckinley Park Oakland Lower West Side

Grand Fuller Boulevard Kenwood Park

New City

Gage Park

Washington Hyde Park Park

West Englewood Woodlawn Chicago Englewood Greater Lawn South Grand Shore Crossing

Ashburn

Auburn Gresham

Avalon Park

South Chicago Calumet Burnside Heights

Chatham

Washington Beverly Heights Roseland Pullman Mount Greenwood

East Side South Deering

Morgan Park West Pullman

Community Areas

Riverdale

Chicago

Data Source: City of Chicago Data Portal, Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

7

Hegewisch

Page 33

Map 3: Mexican Population by Community Area in Chicago, 2018−2022 (ACS 5−year Estimates)

7,563

598

12,108 1,436

4,352 929

3,940

1,894

3,624

4,748

13,244 15,639 6,954

4,390

11,572

2,265

4,540

12,300 4,833

38,036

12,049

13,203

8,970

15,226

10,886

2,375

721

505

3,229

2,310

4,465

2,793

863

21,524 53,315 7,783 10,467 18,269

5,367

439

1,031 134

30,269 199

24,431

13,885 29,245

13,403 25,269

28,143

0 − 15,000 15,001 − 30,000 30,001 − 45,000 45,001 − 60,000 60,001 − 75,000

219 843

133 4,056

296

812 384

17,764

Mexican Population

435

1,239

1,144 0

425

4,946 313

109 1,167 1,398

Chicago Community Areas

180 297

18,901

500 3,958

514 1,733

Community Areas with More Than 50% Share of Mexican Population

3,750

127

Data Source: IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org (2018−2022 American Community Survey 5−year Estimates).

Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

8

N 0

2

4

6

8 km

Key Demographic Patterns of Mexican Population

Map 4: Mexican Population by Community Area in Chicago, 2010 (Decennial Census)

11,606

123

10,102 1,251

2,197 867

5,519

1,742

3,052

4,391

17,412 14,085 5,562

4,039

14,412

2,375

3,651

17,870 3,731

39,573

12,158

19,694

12,559

14,151

4,849

2,044

127

133

2,205

921

2,855

1,383

669

28,422 56,540

8,406

9,575 9,100 11,757

418

133

34,625 158

21,140

13,784 33,619

8,937 24,020

21,473

0 − 15,000 15,001 − 30,000 30,001 − 45,000 45,001 − 60,000 60,001 − 75,000

499

433 970

50

278

119

473

305

12,134

Mexican Population

427

233

324 0

26

5,633 217

0 677 605

Chicago Community Areas

125 125

17,193

523 4,841

335 1,223

Community Areas with More Than 50% Share of Mexican Population

4,353

86

Data Source: IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org (2010 Decennial Censuses).

Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

9

N 0

2

4

6

8 km

Page 35

Map 5: Mexican Population by Community Area in Chicago, 2000 (Decennial Census)

13,966

263

6,430 545

1,132 311

7,485

999

1,322

6,385

16,546 7,021 2,449

7,684

13,964

3,435

4,394

16,342 2,495

29,770

2,636

11,231

26,777

1,642

21,769

16,248

119

85

1,240

602

3,148

1,451

235

35,909 69,191

8,644

8,534

27,911

13,289

18,483

3,649

0 − 15,000 15,001 − 30,000 30,001 − 45,000 45,001 − 60,000 60,001 − 75,000

145

113 590

70

130

193

278

114

5,378

Mexican Population

93

23,462

6,986

140 36

31,218

4,916 4,987

344

193

320 37

107

614

22 461 581

Chicago Community Areas

9,065

139 186

14,189

681 4,617

332 1,462

Community Areas with More Than 50% Share of Mexican Population

2,383

145

Data Source: IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org (2000 Decennial Census).

Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

10

N 0

2

4

6

8 km

Key Demographic Patterns of Mexican Population

Map 6: Percent Mexican Population by Community Area in Chicago, 2018−2022 (ACS 5−year Estimates)

13.6%

5.2%

15.3% 7.2%

11.1% 6.8%

7.0%

9.8%

13.4%

11.2%

27.8% 24.3% 16.3%

7.6%

21.6%

6.3%

4.7%

33.8% 35.1%

51.4%

52.0%

18.2%

11.0%

27.5%

10.9%

3.4%

3.6%

3.1%

3.3%

5.5%

6.8%

9.2%

3.1%

62.9% 76.5% 50.3% 75.5% 50.2%

3.3% 16.2% 4.8% 1.9%

71.7%

1.8% 9.3% 1.2%

59.5%

75.6%

84.1%

77.5%

53.6%

54.2%

1.1%

2.9% 1.1%

15.7% 3.8% 1.3%

41.6%

2.7%

2.1% 0.0%

1.4%

4.9%

Percent

5.9%

0.0% − 20.0% 20.1% − 40.0% 40.1% − 60.0% 60.1% − 80.0% 80.1% − 100%

7.3%

16.3%

2.6%

0.7% 0.8%

78.9%

7.3% 26.0%

2.5% 6.8%

Chicago Community Areas

1.6%

Data Source: IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org (2018−2022 American Community Survey 5−year Estimates).

Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

11

41.5%

Page 37

Map 7: Percent Mexican Population by Community Area in Chicago, 2010 (Decennial Census)

20.2%

1.1%

13.7% 6.8%

5.9% 6.4%

10.0%

9.3%

11.4%

11.4%

32.3% 22.1% 13.2%

7.3%

25.5%

7.1%

4.0%

43.0% 30.1%

50.8%

48.5%

26.7%

15.6%

26.0%

4.9%

3.2%

0.6%

0.7%

2.8%

3.5%

5.3%

3.8%

3.3%

77.7% 80.1% 58.3% 67.7% 34.6%

3.0% 25.9% 2.2% 2.1%

78.4%

2.2% 5.4% 2.4%

50.2%

72.6%

85.1%

72.9%

39.2%

39.3%

0.4% 1.3%

3.6% 1.1%

0.4% 0.9%

28.4%

0.5%

0.7% 0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

Percent

3.2%

0.0% − 20.0% 20.1% − 40.0% 40.1% − 60.0% 60.1% − 80.0% 80.1% − 100%

3.3%

19.1%

1.5%

0.5% 0.3%

73.1%

7.2% 29.4%

1.5% 4.0%

Chicago Community Areas

1.3%

Data Source: IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org (2010 Decennial Census), Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

12

42.8%

Key Demographic Patterns of Mexican Population

Map 8: Percent Mexican Population by Community Area in Chicago, 2000 (Decennial Census)

22.0%

2.3%

8.8% 3.0%

3.0% 2.7%

12.0%

5.4%

5.1%

14.3%

28.7% 10.8% 5.8%

12.1%

23.8%

10.8%

4.6%

37.9% 19.7%

38.1%

41.7%

32.4%

24.9%

24.7%

2.2%

2.5%

0.6%

0.4%

1.7%

3.7%

6.8%

3.5%

2.5%

81.6% 76.0% 53.5% 38.9% 13.8%

2.9% 25.7% 0.5% 0.6%

69.5%

0.5% 2.7% 0.6%

45.4%

43.9%

71.2%

45.5%

30.1%

16.3%

0.5% 0.6%

2.0% 0.5%

0.5% 0.3%

13.6%

0.3%

0.5% 0.3%

0.3%

0.7%

Percent

2.1%

0.0% − 20.0% 20.1% − 40.0% 40.1% − 60.0% 60.1% − 80.0% 80.1% − 100%

3.1%

23.5%

3.8%

0.5% 0.3%

60.0%

7.6% 27.2%

1.3% 4.0%

Chicago Community Areas

1.5%

Data Source: IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org (2000 Decennial Census), Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

13

24.4%

10 Community Areas with the Largest Share of Mexican Population

335,521

263,258

240,709

91.4%

71.7%

Other Community Areas

2,374,584

523,792

340,667

65.0%

14.3%

Chicago

2,710,105

787,050

581,376

73.9%

21.5%

Page 39

Mexicans had the lowest median age (30) of any ethnic or racial group in Chicago, even younger than DataHispanics Source: IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org American other or Latinos (34) in 2018-2022 (see Tables 7-9 and (2018-2022 Figures 2 and 3). Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Table 7: Median Age for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic

Table 7: Median Age for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates)

Race/Ethnicity

Median Age

Mexican

30

Other Hispanics or Latinos

34

White (non-Hispanic or Latino)

37

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino)

37

Other (non-Hispanic or Latino)

33

Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates).

Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

•

Mexicans also had the highest percentage under age 40 (63.5%), followed by Other (non-Hispanic or Latino) (60.9%), Other Hispanics or Latinos (58.7%), White (non-Hispanic or Latino) (54.1%), and Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) (52.8%) Chicagoans.

•

Hispanic or Latino residents made up 32.3% of Chicago’s population under age 40 – the largest of any racial or ethnic group – with Mexicans alone representing 24.0% of under-40 residents.

•

Ecuadorians and Mexicans had the largest percentages of under-40 population, 64.1% and 63.5% respectively, followed by Cubans (61.4%), Guatemalans (58.0%), and Colombians (56.3%). Puerto Ricans had the lowest percentage of population under 40 (54.5%).

•

Mexicans had a considerably larger household size (4.2) than Other Hispanics or Latinos (3.4) or Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) (3.0) and White (non-Hispanic or Latino) (2.6) Chicagoans.

14

Table 8: Population by Age for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS Table 8: Population by Age for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) 5-year Estimates) Mexican

Other Hispanics or Latinos

White (non-Hispanic or Latino)

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino)

Other (non-Hispanic or Latino)

Number Percent

Number Percent

Number Percent

Number Percent

Number Percent

Young (0-19)

163,048

31.5%

51,591

26.8%

112,854

14.5%

166,419

24.3%

50,607

21.3%

Adults (20-39)

165,753

32.0%

61,525

31.9%

308,923

39.6%

195,130

28.5%

93,821

39.6%

Middle-aged (40-59)

126,500

24.4%

49,939

25.9%

187,649

24.1%

167,834

24.5%

53,549

22.6%

Older Adults (60-79)

56,446

10.9%

25,476

13.2%

138,641

17.8%

129,827

19.0%

31,963

13.5%

Elderly (80+)

6,498

1.3%

4,109

2.1%

31,139

4.0%

25,832

3.8%

7,256

3.1%

Age Group

Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Figure 2: Population by Age for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018−2022 (ACS 5−year Estimates)

Key Demographic Patterns of Mexican Population Figure 2: Population by Age for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018−2022 (ACS 5− year Estimates)

Mexican Other Hispanics or Latinos White (non−Hispanic or Latino) Black (non−Hispanic or Latino) Other (non−Hispanic or Latino)

Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018−2022 American Community Survey 5−year Estimates).

Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Table 9: Population by Age for Hispanic or Latino Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Age Group

Mexican

Puerto Rican

Ecuadorian

Cuban

Guatemalan

Colombian

Table (ACS5-year 5-yearEstimates) Estimates) Table9: 9: Population Populationby byAge Age for for Hispanic Hispanicor or Latino Latino Groups Groups in in Chicago, Chicago, 2018-2022 2018-2022 (ACS Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Young (0-19)

Age Group 163,048 31.5%

Adults (20-39)

165,753 32.0%

Mexican 23,231 27.0%

Puerto Rican Ecuadorian 6,812 33.2% 2,097 25.0% 4,622

Cuban 26.0%

2,330

Guatemalan 22.9%

Colombian

23,604 27.5% 6,335 30.9% 3,053 36.4% 5,691 32.0% 3,397Number 33.4%Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Middle-aged (40-59) 126,500 24.4% 22,838 26.6% 6,059 29.5% 1,399 16.7% 4,389 24.7% 3,027 29.7% Young (0-19) 163,048 31.5% 23,231 27.0% 6,812 33.2% 2,097 25.0% 4,622 26.0% Older Adults (60-79) 56,446 10.9% 13,842 16.1% 1,149 5.6% 1,602 19.1% 2,787 15.7% 1,255 12.3% Adults (20-39) 165,753 32.0% 23,604 27.5% 6,335 30.9% 3,053 36.4% 5,691 32.0% Elderly (80+) 6,498 1.3% 2,393 2.8% 174 0.8% 230 2.7% 279 1.6% 175 1.7% Middle-aged (40-59) 126,500 24.4% 22,838 26.6% 6,059 29.5% 1,399 16.7% 4,389 24.7% Data Source: IPUMS University American 5.6% Community Survey 5-year 2,787 Estimates).

OlderUSA, Adults (60-79) of Minnesota, 56,446 www.ipums.org 10.9% 13,842(2018-2022 16.1% 1,149 1,602 19.1% 15.7% Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Elderly (80+) 6,498 1.3% 2,393 2.8% 174 0.8% 230 2.7% 279 1.6%

2,330

22.9%

3,397

33.4%

3,027

29.7%

1,255

12.3%

175

1.7%

Data Source: IPUMS USA, University Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates).

Figure 3: Population by ofAge for Hispanic or Latino Groups Tabulations by Great Cities Institute. in Chicago, 2018−2022 (ACS 5−year Estimates)

Figure 3: Population by Age for Hispanic or Latino Groups in Chicago, 2018−2022 (ACS in 5−year Estimates) Figure 3: Population by Age for Hispanic or Latino Groups Chicago, 2018−2022 (ACS 5−year Estimates) 36.4% 31.5%

33.2%

27.0%

32.0%

26.0% 25.0% 22.9%

30.9%

33.4% 32.0%

27.5%

31.5%

33.2%

27.0%

29.7%

29.5% 26.6% 24.4%

32.0%

26.0% 25.0% 22.9%

36.4% 24.7% 30.9%

33.4% 32.0% 29.5% 19.1%

27.5% 16.7%

29.7%

26.6% 15.7% 16.1% 24.7% 24.4% 12.3% 10.9% 5.6% 16.7%

Mexican Puerto Rican 19.1% 16.1%

15.7%

2.8% 2.7% 1.7%12.3% 1.3% 0.8% 1.6% 10.9%

Young (0−19)

Adults (20−39)

Middle−aged (40−59)

Older Adults (60−79)

Ecuadorian Cuban Guatemalan Colombian

5.6%

Elderly (80+)

2.8% 2.7% 1.7% 1.3% 0.8% 1.6%

Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018−2022 American Community Survey 5−year Estimates).

Mexican Puerto Rican Ecuadorian Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Young (0−19) Adults Middle−aged Older Adults Elderly Cuban Guatemalan Colombian (20−39) (40−59) (60−79) (80+) Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018−2022 American Community Survey 5−year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Mexican Puerto Rican Ecuadorian Cuban

Guatemalan

Colombian

Page 41

Table 10: Mean Household Size for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Table 10: Mean Household Size for Mexicans and Other Racial/ Estimates) Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 5-year and Estimates) Table 10: Mean Household Size for(ACS Mexicans Other Table 10: Mean Household Size for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Racial/Ethnic (ACS 5-year Race/Ethnicity Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 Mean Household Size Estimates) Estimates)

Mexican and Other Hispanic or Latino households had roughly the same annual median income, $63,129 and $62,693 respectively in 2018-2022, and both were considerably higher than the median for Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) households, $45,326, while median income for White (nonHispanic or Latino) households was the highest by far at $105,215 (see Tables 10-12).

Mexican 4.2 Race/Ethnicity Mean Household Size Other Hispanics or Latinos 3.4 Race/Ethnicity Mean Household Size Mexican 4.2 White (non-Hispanic or Latino) 2.6 Mexican 4.2 Other(non-Hispanic Hispanics or Latinos 3.4 Black or Latino) 3.0 Other Hispanics or Latinos 3.4 White(non-Hispanic (non-Hispanicor orLatino) Latino) 2.6 Other 3.1 White (non-Hispanic or Latino) 2.6 Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) 3.0 Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org 3.0 Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) Other (non-Hispanic or Latino) Survey 5-year Estimates).

3.1 (2018-2022 American Community Other (non-Hispanic or Latino) 3.1 Tabulations

by IPUMS Great Cities Data Source: USA, Institute.

University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org Data Source:American IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 Community Survey 5-year Estimates).

(2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates).

Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Table 11: Mean and Median Household Income for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS Table 11: 11:Mean Meanand and Median Household Income for Mexicans 5-year Estimates) Table Median Household Income for Mexicans and Table 11: Mean and Median Household Income for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Estimates) Mean Median 5-year Race/Ethnicity Estimates) Household Household Mean Median Income Income Mean Median Household Household Household Household Income Income Mexican $ 77,711 $ 63,129 Income Income Other Hispanics or Latinos $ 83,857 $ 62,693 Mexican $ 77,711 $ 63,129 Mexican $ 77,711 $ 63,129 White or Latino) $146,895 Other(non-Hispanic Hispanics or Latinos $ 83,857 $$105,215 62,693 Other(non-Hispanic Hispanics or Latinos $$ 83,857 $ $62,693 Black 61,498 45,326 White (non-Hispanicor orLatino) Latino) $146,895 $105,215 White (non-Hispanic or Latino) $146,895 $105,215 Other $123,052 84,986 Black(non-Hispanic (non-Hispanic or or Latino) Latino) $ 61,498 $ $45,326 Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) $ 61,498 $ 45,326 Other (non-Hispanic or Latino) $123,052 $ 84,986 Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018Other (non-Hispanic or Latino) $123,052 Tabulations$by 84,986 2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates).

Great Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018Cities Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org 2022Institute.

American Community Survey 5-year Estimates).

Tabulations by(2018Great 2022 CitiesAmerican Institute. Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Race/Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity

Table 12: Mean and Median Income of Full-time Workers for Mexicans Other Groups in Chicago, Table 12: and Mean and Racial/Ethnic Median Income of Full-time Workers2018for Table 12:Mean Mean and Median Income of Full-time Full-time Workers for Table 12: and Median Income of Workers for 2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups Mexicans Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in in Chicago, Chicago, 201820182022 (ACSand 5-year Estimates) 2022 (ACS 5-year2022 Estimates) (ACS 5-year Estimates)

Race/Ethnicity Mean Income Median Income Race/Ethnicity Mean Income Median Income Race/Ethnicity Mean $Income Median Income Mexican 52,325 $43,236 Mexican $ 52,325 $43,236 Other Hispanics or Latinos $ 65,758 $50,000 Mexican $ 52,325 $43,236 Other Hispanics or Latinos $ 65,758 $50,000 White or Latino) $114,314 $82,672 Other(non-Hispanic Hispanics or Latinos $ 65,758 $50,000 White (non-Hispanic or Latino) $114,314 $82,672 Black $ 60,763 $48,136 White(non-Hispanic (non-Hispanicor orLatino) Latino) $114,314 $82,672 Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) $ 60,763 $48,136 Other (non-Hispanic or Latino) $102,800 $74,863 Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) $ 60,763 $48,136 Other (non-Hispanic or Latino) $102,800 $74,863 Other (non-Hispanic or Latino) $102,800 $74,863 Note: Data covers full-time employees working a minimum of 35 hours per Note: Data covers full-time employees working a minimum of 35 hours per week for at least 48 weeks each year.

Note: Data employees working a minimum of 35 hours per week for at covers least 48full-time weeks each year. of Data Source: IPUMS USA, each University Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018week for at least 48 weeks year. of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018Data Source: IPUMS USA, University 2022 American Community 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Data Source: IPUMS USA,Survey University of Minnesota, 2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates).www.ipums.org Tabulations by(2018Great Cities Institute.

2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates).

Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Cities Institute.

17 17 17

•

Other Hispanic or Latino households, however, had a far higher mean income ($83,857) than Mexican households ($77,711), which suggests a greater proportion of highincome households among Other Hispanics or Latinos.

•

When it comes to individual income levels, however, we see a different picture. Here, Mexicans had the lowest median income for individuals at $43,236, followed by Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) at $48,136, then by Other Hispanic or Latinos, at $50,000. The variation from the prior table likely indicates that although individual Mexican workers have the lowest income of any group, the larger average household size among Mexicans often means more than one household member is employed, thus boosting total household income for Mexicans.

Key Demographic Patterns of Mexican Population

There was considerable variation in median income among Chicago’s Latino ethnic groups (see Tables 13-15).

•

Ecuadorians and Guatemalans had the lowest median income – $39,924 and $40,000, respectively – followed by Mexicans, at $43,236.

Table 13: Mean and Median Income of Full-time Workers for the highest median • Those with Hispanic or Latino Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022income (ACS 5-year were Cubans at $62,757, Table 13: 13:Mean Meanand andMedian MedianIncome Income of of Full-time Full-time Workers Table Workers for for Estimates) followed by Colombians at $54,046 Hispanic or or Latino Hispanic Latino Groups GroupsininChicago, Chicago,2018-2022 2018-2022(ACS (ACS5-year 5-year and Puerto Ricans at $50,000.

Estimates) Estimates)

Race/Ethnicity

Mean Income

Race/Ethnicity

Mexican

Mean Income

Mexican

Puerto Rican

$52,325

Puerto Rican

Ecuadorian

$62,228

Ecuadorian

Cuban

$46,107

Cuban

Guatemalan

$93,480

Guatemalan

Colombian

$48,215

Colombian

$71,578

Income • Median Cubans and Colombians had much higher mean incomes – $93,480 Median Income $52,325 $43,236 and $71,578, respectively. This $62,228 $50,000 $43,236 suggests the latter two Latino groups $46,107 $39,924 $50,000 contain a significant portion of high $39,924 $93,480 $62,757 income earners who approximate the levels of White (non-Hispanic or $62,757 $48,215 $40,000 Latino) and $40,000 $71,578 $54,046 Other (non-Hispanic or Latino) workers. $54,046

Note: Data covers full-time employees working a minimum of 35 hours per • Annual median income for U.S.Note: Data covers full-time employees working a minimum of 35 hours per week for at least 48 weeks each year.

Data Source: (2018week for at least 48 weeks each year. IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org born Mexican workers was $1,480 Data Source: IPUMS USA, of Community Minnesota, www.ipums.org 2022University American Survey 5-year (2018Estimates). Tabulations Greatfor those born in Mexico. morebythan 2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

•

Between 2000 and 2018-22 poverty rates dropped for all ethnic and groups Table 14: Mean and Median Income of Full-timeracial Workers for in Chicago except for Table 14: Mean and Median Income of Full-time Workers for Table 14: Mean andMexico MedianBorn Income Full-time Workers in forChicago, the2018-2022 White (non-Hispanic or Latino) and of U.S. Born Mexicans Mexico Born Born and Born Mexicans ininChicago, Mexico and U.S. U.S. Mexicans Chicago,2018-2022 2018-2022 population, which saw a slight (ACSBorn 5-year Estimates) (ACS 5-year Estimates) (ACS 5-year Estimates) increase in poverty from 9.9% to 10.1%.

The biggest percentage Mexican Nativity Mean Income Median Income Mexican Nativity Mean Income Median Income drop came among Other Hispanic Mexico Born $47,238 $39,994 followed by Mexicans, or Latinos, Mexico Born $47,238 $39,994 and Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) U.S. Born $56,928 $45,929 U.S. Born $56,928 $45,929 Chicagoans. However, the Black Note: Data covers full-time employees 35 hours per Note: Data covers full-time employees working a minimum of 35 working hours pera minimum of (non-Hispanic or Latino) population week for year. at least 48 weeks each year. week for at least 48 weeks each still had nearly double the poverty DataUniversity Source: of IPUMS USA, www.ipums.org University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018Data Source: IPUMS USA, Minnesota, (2018levelby Great of Mexicans and Other 2022Survey American Community 5-yearbyEstimates).

Tabulations 2022 American Community 5-year Estimates).Survey Tabulations Great Cities Institute.

Hispanic or Latinos, and nearly triple Cities Institute. that of the White (non-Hispanic or Latino) population.

Table 15: Population in Poverty and Poverty Rate for Mexicans Other Racial/Ethnic in Table 15: Population in Poverty and Povertyand Rate for Mexicans andGroups Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Table 15: Population in Poverty Poverty(ACS Rate5-year for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2000 (Decennial 2008-2012, and and 2018-2022 Estimates) Chicago,Census), 2000 (Decennial Census), 2008-2012, and 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Chicago, 2000 (Decennial Census), 2008-2012, and 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Cities Institute.

Race/Ethnicity

Race/Ethnicity

Poverty in 2000

Poverty Poverty in 2008-2012

in 2000

Poverty Poverty in 2018-2022

in 2008-2012

Changes from 2000 Poverty in 2018-2022 to 2018-2022

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Difference

102,180

18.8%

115,240

22.6%

80,224

15.5%

-3.4%

Other Hispanics or Latinos

45,249

21.4%

30,839

20.0%

30,103

15.6%

-5.7%

White (non-Hispanic or Latino)

90,160

9.9%

92,174

12.1%

78,923

10.1%

0.2%

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino)

325,923

30.4%

276,940

33.0%

186,352

27.2%

-3.2%

Mexican

Mexican

Other Hispanics or Latinos

White (non-Hispanic or Latino)

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) Other (non-Hispanic or Latino) 34,278 18.9% Other (non-Hispanic or Latino)

Number 102,180 45,249

90,160

325,923 36,859 36,859

34,278

Percent 18.8% 21.4% 9.9%

30.4% 20.7% 18.9%

Number 115,240 30,839

92,174

276,940 41,455

36,859

Percent 22.6%

20.0%

12.1%

33.0% 17.5% 20.7%

Number 80,224

Changes from 2000 to 2018-2022

Percent

Difference

15.5%

-3.4%

30,103

15.6%

-5.7%

78,923

10.1%

0.2%

186,352 -1.4%

27.2%

-3.2%

17.5%

-1.4%

41,455

Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2000 Decennial Census, 2018-2012, and 20182022 American Community Estimates).

Tabulations

by Great Cities Institute.

Data Survey Source:5-year IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2000 Decennial Census, 2018-2012, and 2018-

2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Page 43

Some Focus Group Comments from Suburban Mexican Residents “I have worked for years in the Waukegan area, in Lake County. The government there was always majority white although they are minority, because Waukegan is over 60% Hispanic. It is very popular with Mexican immigrants, but there’s a big gap between the government and the people who live in any of those communities.”

“Woodstock in McHenry County was the hub for a lot of Latino farm workers who came for the harvesting season. We were highly discriminated against, highly harassed, and we had to endure a lot of things. In school, we used to take our lunch, our burritos and our tacos, and we would sit in the lunchroom, and the other students would come and knock our food off the table, and then they would tell us, ‘all you want to eat!’ The teachers would sit there and watch and laugh. We took it in a very humble way. We didn’t create any issues. We just walked away and started to eat our lunch on the bus on the way to the school, so we wouldn’t go hungry throughout the day.”

A rodeo in Plaza Garibaldi in Little Village in 1992. ST-19040889-0077, Chicago Sun-Times collection, Chicago History Museum

“When I arrived in Aurora, I was amazed, because I found many people speaking Spanish. I fell in love with the city, and moved there because it was a small piece of Mexico. Buying Mexican things was even easier there than in San Antonio, Texas, where I had lived before. So I love Aurora, it’s awesome.”

“The Mexican community has grown significantly in Berwyn and in Cicero over the last 20 years. I saw more efforts in Berwyn schools for our representation. They have a dual language program, they have culture nights, they provide communication to parents in Spanish, they have bilingual teachers. Berwyn has definitely grown in comparison to where we live now, in LaGrange Park, where the percentage of Latinos and Mexican students is way up, but less than in Berwyn. The only representation we get in LaGrange is multicultural night once or twice a year and no communication in Spanish.”

Education Mexicans had the highest percentage of children – 86.0% – attending Chicago public schools of any ethnic or racial group in 2018-2022 (see Table 16).

Education

Table 16: Number and Percent in Public and Private Schools for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic

Table 16: Number and Percent in Public and Private Schools for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022Chicago, (ACS 5-year Estimates) 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Mexican

Other Hispanics or Latinos

White (non-Hispanic or Latino)

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino)

Other (non-Hispanic or Latino)

Number Percent

Number Percent

Number Percent

Number Percent

Number Percent

Public

131,597

86.0%

40,463

76.8%

65,331

47.4%

130,402

81.9%

36,563

58.3%

Private

21,366

14.0%

12,189

23.2%

72,490

52.6%

28,883

18.1%

26,199

41.7%

Age Group

Education Education Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Table Table 16:16: Number Number andand Percent Percent in Public in Public andand Private Private Schools Schools for for Mexicans Mexicans andand Other Other Racial/Ethnic Racial/Ethnic Groups Groups in Chicago, in Chicago, 2018-2022 2018-2022 (ACS (ACS 5-year 5-year Estimates) Estimates) • The share of Mexicans in Chicago public schools was nearly 10 percentage points higher than Other Table 17: Performance in Chicago Public Schools (CPS) Elementary Schools in Four Hispanics Latinos and nearly five percentage points higher than for Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) White White Black Black Other Other Community Areas with Largest Share of Mexican Population and Performance CityOther Other Hispanics Hispanics students. (non-Hispanic (non-Hispanic (non-Hispanic (non-Hispanic (non-Hispanic (non-Hispanic Age Age Group Groupwide by Race/Ethnicity, Mexican Mexican 2023 or Latinos or Latinos Latino) or Latino) or Latino) or Latino) or Latino) or Latino) • There were more Mexican children enrolled in public or schools, 131,597, than there were Black (nonMean English Hispanic or Latino) children, 130,402.

As for White (non-Hispanic or Latino) children, less than half (47.4%) Number Number Percent Percent Number Number Percent PercentNumber Number Percent Percent Number Percent Percent Number Number Percent Percent MeanNumber Math Mean Science Languageprivate Arts Aggregation attended Chicago public schools, while 52.6% attended schools.

Proficiency Proficiency Public Public

Proficiency 131,597 131,597 86.0% 86.0%40,463 40,46376.8% 76.8% 65,331 65,33147.4% 47.4%130,402 130,402 81.9% 81.9%36,563 36,56358.3% 58.3%

Private Private

21,366 21,36614.0% 14.0%12,189 12,18923.2% 23.2% 72,490 72,49052.6% 52.6% 28,883 28,88318.1% 18.1% 26,199 26,19941.7% 41.7% Percent Percent Percent

Data Data Source: Source: IPUMS IPUMS USA, University University oforMexican Minnesota, of Minnesota, www.ipums.org www.ipums.org (2018-2022 (2018-2022 American American Community Community Survey Survey 5-year 5-year Esti-EstiMean Metrics for Hispanic Latino 19.4% 11.9% 36.7% A lower percentage ofUSA, children in majority public schools scored at proficiency level in English mates). mates).

Tabulations Tabulations

by Great byFour Great Cities Cities Institute.

Institute.

Students in Community Areas with and Math than Hispanic or Latino students citywide in 2023 (see Table 17).

Largest Share of Mexican Population

Total CPS Hispanic or Latino Students

21.2%

13.6%

35.6%

Table Table 17:17: Performance Performance in Chicago in(non-Hispanic Chicago Public Public Schools Schools (CPS) (CPS) Elementary Elementary Schools Schools in Four in Four Community Community Areas Areas Total CPS White or Latino) 54.3% 48.4% 65.0% Areas with Table 17: Performance in Chicago Public Schools (CPS) Elementary Schools in Four Community withwith Largest Largest Share Share of Mexican of Mexican Population Population and and Performance Performance Citywide Citywide by by Race/Ethnicity, Race/Ethnicity, 2023 2023 Students Largest Share of Mexican Population and Performance Citywide by Race/Ethnicity, 2023 Total CPS Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) Students Aggregation Aggregation Total CPS Other (non-Hispanic or Latino) Students

16.5% Mean Mean English English Language Language ArtsArts 47.7% Proficiency Proficiency

8.1% Mean Mean Math Math Proficiency Proficiency 41.0%

24.4% Mean Mean Science Science Proficiency Proficiency 57.0%

Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Sample size: 31 Chicago Public Schools Elementary Schools in Gage Park, East Side, West Lawn, and South Lawndale.

Mean Mean Metrics Metrics for Hispanic for Hispanic or Latino or Latino Students Students in Four in Four 19.4% 19.4% 11.9% 11.9% 36.7% 36.7% Data Source: Illinois Report Card (2023). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Community Community Areas Areas with with Largest Largest Share Share of Mexican of Mexican Population Population

Total Total CPSCPS Hispanic Hispanic or Latino or Latino Students Students

21.2% 21.2%

13.6% 13.6%

35.6% 35.6%

Total Total CPSCPS White White (non-Hispanic (non-Hispanic or Latino) or Latino) Students Students

54.3% 54.3%

48.4% 48.4%

65.0% 65.0%

Total Total CPSCPS Black Black (non-Hispanic (non-Hispanic or Latino) or Latino) Students Students

16.5% 16.5%

8.1% 8.1%

24.4% 24.4%

Total Total CPSCPS Other Other (non-Hispanic (non-Hispanic or Latino) or Latino) Students Students

47.7% 47.7%

41.0% 41.0%

57.0% 57.0%

Sample Sample size:size: 31 Chicago 31 Chicago Public Public Schools Schools Elementary Elementary Schools Schools in Gage in Gage Park, Park, EastEast Side, Side, West West Lawn, Lawn, andand South South Lawndale.

Lawndale.

Data Data Source: Source: Illinois Illinois Report Report Card Card (2023).

(2023).

Tabulations Tabulations

by Great

by Great Cities Cities Institute.

Institute.

Page 45

•

No Chicago public school data currently exists for student performance levels for specific Hispanic or Latino ethnic origins. In an effort to gauge performance of Mexican-origin students, we compared student proficiency levels for 31 elementary schools located in four neighborhoods that had 70% or more Mexican population to performance levels of Hispanic or Latino students citywide.

Table 18: Chronic Absenteeism in Chicago Public Schools

Table 18: 18:Chronic Chronic Absenteeism in Chicago Public Schools Table Absenteeism in Chicago Public Schools (CPS) (CPS) Elementary Schools in Four Community Areas with (CPS) Elementary Schools in Four Community Areas with Elementary Schools in Four Community Areas with Largest Largest Share of Mexican Population, 2023 Largest ShareShare of Mexican Population, 2023 2023 of Mexican Population, Aggregation Aggregation

Mean Mean Chronic Chronic Absenteeism Absenteeism

•

Our analysis indicates that students in the predominantly Mexican communities registered approximately two percentage points lower in ELA proficiency levels than the citywide average for Hispanic or Latino students and were slightly higher than citywide average for science among Hispanics or Latinos.

•

Our analysis also showed, however, that students in the largely Mexican neighborhoods had lower rates of chronic absenteeism (36.2%) than did Hispanic or Latino pupils citywide (40.3%) (see Table 18).

Percent Percent Mean Mean Metrics Metrics for for Hispanic Hispanic or or Latino Latino Students Students in in Four Four Community Community Areas Areas with with Largest Largest Share Share of of Mexican Mexican Population Population

36.2% 36.2%

Total Total CPS CPS Black Black (non-Hispanic (non-Hispanic or or Latino) Latino) Students Students

45.8% 45.8%

Total Total CPS CPS Hispanic Hispanic or or Latino Latino Students Students Total CPS White (non-Hispanic Total CPS White (non-Hispanic or or Latino) Latino) Students Students

40.3% 40.3% 27.1% 27.1%

Total Total CPS CPS Other Other (non-Hispanic (non-Hispanic or or Latino) Latino) Students Students

31.9% 31.9%

Note: size: 31 Chicago Public Public Schools SchoolsElementary ElementarySchools Schoolsin Note: Sample Sample size: size: 31 Chicago Chicago Public Schools Elementary Schools inin Gage Park, West West Lawn,Lawn, and South Lawndale.

Gage East Park,Side, East Side, Side, and South South Lawndale.

Gage Park, East West Lawn, and Lawndale.

Chronic Absenteeism is defined as students who missmiss 10 percent or more Note: Note: Chronic Chronic Absenteeism Absenteeism is is defined defined as as students students who who miss 10 10 percent percent or or of school days days per year. more of school school per year. year. more of days per Data Source: Illinois Report Card (2023).

Tabulations by Great Cities Data Data Source: Source: Illinois Illinois Report Report Card Card (2023).

(2023). Tabulations Tabulations by

by Great Great Cities Cities Institute.

Institute.

Institute.

Table Table 19: 19: Number Number and and Percent Percent of of Population Population with with Limited Limited EnEn-

Table 19: Numberfor and Percent of Population with LimitedGroups English glish and Other Racial/Ethnic glish Proficiency Proficiency for Mexicans Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups Proficiency for Mexicans and5-year Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS Estimates) in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Race/Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity Mexican Mexican Other Other Hispanics Hispanics or or Latinos Latinos

White White (non-Hispanic (non-Hispanic or or Latino) Latino) Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) Other Other (non-Hispanic (non-Hispanic or or Latino) Latino)

Number Number

Percent Percent

89,859 89,859 23,729 23,729

17.3% 17.3% 12.3% 12.3%

26,249 26,249

11.1% 11.1%

18,629 18,629 1,788 1,788

2.4% 2.4% 0.3% 0.3%

Mexicans had the highest percentage (17.3%) of their population with limited English proficiency, more than among other Hispanics or Latinos (12.3%) in 2018-2022 (see Table 19).

Note: as respondents who does not Note: English English Proficiency isisdefined defined as as respondents whowho doesdoes not speak speak EnglishProficiency Proficiencyis defined respondents not speak English or speaks English poorly.

English or or speaks speaks English Englishpoorly. poorly.

English Data www.ipums.org (2018Source: IPUMS IPUMSUSA, USA,University Universityof Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018Data Source: Source: IPUMS USA, University ofofMinnesota, Minnesota, www.ipums.org (20182022 Community Survey 5-year Estimates).

Tabulations by Great 2022 American American Community Survey 5-year Estimates).

Tabulations Great American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations byby Great Cities Cities Institute.

Institute.

Cities Institute.

•

Mexicans comprised 79.1% of Hispanics or Latinos and 56.1% of the total population that had limited English proficiency.

Education

Table 20: Number and Percent of Non-citizens enrolled in Pub-

Table 20: Number and Percent of Non-citizens enrolled in Public lic Schools Mexicansand andOther OtherRacial/Ethnic Racial/Ethnic Groups Groups in in Schools for for Mexicans Chicago, Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Race/Ethnicity

Number

Percent

Mexican

5,566

3.6%

Other Hispanics or Latinos

3,112

5.9%

A higher percentage of Hispanics and Other Latinos (5.9%) were non-citizen public school students than Mexicans (3.6%) in 20182022 (see Table 20).

• However, the Other (non-Hispanic 2,844 2.1% or Latino) Table 20: Number and Percent of Non-citizens enrolled in Pub-population had the Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) 2,399 1.5% highest of nonlic Schools for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups percentage in Other (non-Hispanic or Latino) 5,871 9.4% citizens in public school (9.4%) Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) of any group in the city and a Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (20182022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great slightly larger number (5,871) than Race/Ethnicity Number Percent Cities Institute.

Mexicans (5,566).

White (non-Hispanic or Latino)

Mexican

5,566

3.6%

Other Hispanics or Latinos

3,112

5.9%

Table 21: Number and Percent of Population Attending Undergraduate or Graduate ColWhite (non-Hispanic or Racial/Ethnic Latino) 2,844 2.1% leges or Professional Schools for Mexicans and Other Groups in Chicago, One of our most surprising findings was that Hispanic or Latino youth were a pivotal portion of higher Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) 2,399 1.5% 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) education enrollment in Chicago in 2018-2022.

Total Hispanic or Latino enrollment, approached the Other (non-Hispanic or Latino) 5,871 9.4% number of White (non-Hispanic or Latino) for 18to 34-year-olds who were attending college in Chicago Race/Ethnicity Ages 18-24 Ages 25-34 Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018(see Table 21).

2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Number Percent Cities Institute.

Mexican

22,705

Number

35.7%

Percent

6,449

7.7%

Other Hispanics or Latinos 7,707 39.1% 13.8% Table 21: Number and Percent of Population 4,435 Attending Undergraduate or Graduate Col-

Table 21: Number and Percent Population Attending Undergraduate White (non-Hispanic or Latino) 32,987 21,242 11.3% leges or Professional Schools49.3% forofMexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic GroupsorinGraduate Chicago, Colleges or Professional Schools for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in 9,301 8.8% Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates

2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) 16,458 25.9%

Other (non-Hispanic or Latino) 15,004 59.9% 11,042 20.7% Race/Ethnicity Ages 18-24 Ages 25-34 Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Number Percent Number Percent Mexican

22,705

35.7%

6,449

7.7%

Other Hispanics or Latinos

7,707

39.1%

4,435

13.8% 11.3%

White (non-Hispanic or Latino)

32,987

49.3%

21,242

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino)

16,458

25.9%

9,301

8.8%

Other (non-Hispanic or Latino)

15,004

59.9%

11,042

20.7%

Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

•

An estimated 30,412 Hispanics or Latinos ages 18 to 24 were enrolled in undergraduate or professional schools, and they made up 32% of all college students.

•

Of those, 22,705 were Mexican, representing 35.7% of Mexicans in that age group.

As for college degrees in Chicago, Mexican adults registered alarmingly low rates in 2018-2022. Only 15.6% had a bachelor’s or advanced degree, compared to 66.5% for the White (non-Hispanic or Latino) population, 29% for Other Hispanics or Latinos, and 24.3% for the Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) population (see Tables 22 and 23, and Figure 4).

21

•

11.0%

34,239 14,420

Bachelor’s Degree

Master’s Degree or Higher

14,261

22,432

9,969

22,554

31,877

21,246

4,218

Number

11.3%

17.7%

7.9%

17.8%

25.2%

16.8%

3.3%

Percent

Other Hispanics or Latinos

178,724

229,365

25,436

73,901

82,167

19,874

4,533

Number

29.1%

37.4%

4.1%

12.0%

13.4%

3.2%

0.7%

Percent

White (non-Hispanic or Latino)

48,449

65,976

38,312

124,818

133,418

55,257

5,511

Number

10.3%

14.0%

8.1%

26.5%

28.3%

11.7%

1.2%

Percent

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino)

46,394

54,042

8,721

16,749

20,228

14,180

5,939

Number

22 9,525 4,353

Master’s Degree or Higher

Percent 8.8%

2.4%

5.3%

3.5%

10.0%

34.4%

35.5%

2,288

9,849

24,404

11,135

27,380

38,117

13,410

Number

Percent

Mexicans Born in the U.S.

1.8%

7.8%

19.3%

8.8%

21.6%

30.1%

10.6%

Figure 4: Share of Population Aged 25−34 with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher for Hispanic or Latino Groups in Chicago, 2008−2012 and 2018−2022 (ACS 5−year Estimates)

Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

6,252

17,996

Some College, No Degree

Bachelor’s Degree

61,816

Regular High School Diploma, GED or Alternative Credential

Associate’s Degree

15,862 63,683

No Schooling Completed

Number

Mexicans Born in Mexico

Less than High School

Educational Level

Table Table23: 23:Educational EducationalAttainment AttainmentofofPopulation PopulationAged Aged25 25and andover overfor forMexico Mexico Born Bornand and U.S. Born U.S. Mexicans in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Born Mexicans in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates)

•

•

78.7% of U.S. Mexicans aged 25 and over that were born in Mexico had a high school diploma or lower level of education completed compared to 42.5% of Mexicans born in the U.S.

The percentage of Mexican adults with bachelor’s degrees or higher was substantially better for those born in the U.S. – 27.1% – than for those born in Mexico – 7.7%.

27.9%

32.5%

5.2%

10.1%

12.2%

8.5%

3.6%

Percent

Other (non-Hispanic or Latino)

Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

4.6%

5.7%

14.9%

46,070 17,726

Some College, No Degree

32.6%

25.2%

5.9%

Percent

Associate’s Degree

101,055

78,226

Regular High School Diploma, GED or Alternative Credential

18,404

No Schooling Completed

Number

Mexican

Less than High School

Educational Level

Table 22: Educational Attainment of Population Aged 25 and over for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS Table 22: Educational Attainment of Population Aged 25 and over for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year 5-year Estimates) Estimates)

The education picture was very different for Mexican adults (aged 25 and over). An estimated 31.1% of Mexicans aged 25 and over had less than a high school diploma. That’s far higher than the 20.1% among Other Hispanics or Latinos.

Page 47

Education

Some Focus Group Comments on Education “I went to Prosser Career Academy. They shut down our library my freshman year, so we had no library.

We got computer time maybe once a week, but they were borrowed laptops. And when it came to applying to colleges, there weren’t enough counselors to help us with applications, so the easier route was just to go to community college.”

“We have a larger population in Chicago Public Schools than any other group, but everything we’re learning has nothing to do about our history. It’s not like our Mexican history.”

Entering students at UIC’s First-Year Convocation at Harrison Field in fall 2024. Latino students made up an estimated 32% of all Chicago undergraduate and graduate students in 2018-2022. Courtesy of Elena Oliveira, GCI.

“The high school that I went to, it had a poor curriculum, and I remember people would look at me crazy when I told them my school required us to walk through metal detectors every day and have our bags searched. Every single day. They don’t do that to the White students, they only do that to Latino students and African Americans. Why?” “My parents spent 20 plus years in factories working night shifts, and it was hard for them. I couldn’t pull my mom to a PTA meeting, or to volleyball games or basketball games at school. I couldn’t have my dad participating at school. I was by myself for those things. It sucks when you don’t realize as a kid that not all parents have the extra time [to be involved].”

“We have kids that are graduating who are not college ready, and then they’re essentially coming out of college with a lot of debt and no degree.”

“There’s a lack of education and knowledge of the higher education system for a lot of our families. They don’t understand how to compare information on different schools and their costs, how to fill out a college application and the FAFSA, how they can get fees waived if they meet certain criteria, the difference between student loans and grants, or the scholarships that are available.”

Page 49 5

Housing and Community Development Increasing rates of homeownership is a major bright spot among Chicago Mexicans. In 2000, the homeownership rate for Chicago Mexicans was 41.2% and increased to 49.9% by 2018-2022 (see Table 24).

•

During this same period, the White (non-Hispanic or Latino) homeownership rate remained relatively flat, going from 52.2 to 52.7% while the Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) rate decreased from 37.0 to 34.6% – even as homeownership remained static for White (non-Hispanic or Latino) and Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) householders.46

•

Homeownership rates also increased for Other Hispanics or Latinos, but the rate still trailed Mexicans who were second among all groups in their rate, nearly achieving parity with White (non-Hispanic or Latino) homeownership (49.9% for Mexicans to 52.7% for White (non-Hispanic or Latino)).

•

When compared to the U.S., the share of homeownership for Mexicans was lower in Chicago, but only slightly - 52.5% in the U.S. compared to 49.9% in Chicago - but that is to be expected in a city like Chicago with a high percentage of rental housing.

•

The high rental rate in the city was most evident for White (non-Hispanic or Latino) householders, where Housing was 52.7% in Chicago and 72.7% in the U.S. homeownership Table 24: Homeownership for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago and the U.S., 2000 Table 24: Homeownership for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago and the U.S., 2000 (Decennial Census), 2008-2012, and 2018-2022 5-year Estimates) (Decennial Census), 2008-2012,(ACS and 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Race/Ethnicity

2000 Number

2008-2012

Percent

Number

Percent

2018-2022 Number

Change from 2000 to 2018-2022

Percent

Number

Percent

Chicago Mexican

53,008

41.2%

59,920

47.5%

74,970

49.9%

21,962

8.8%

Other Hispanics or Latinos

22,685

34.5%

19,494

39.5%

28,701

41.7%

6,016

7.2%

White (non-Hispanic or Latino)

232,907

52.2%

210,995

56.3%

206,780

52.7%

-26,127

0.5%

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino)

133,828

37.0%

111,882

35.8%

99,876

34.6%

-33,952

-2.4%

Other (non-Hispanic or Latino)

24,087

36.7%

28,551

42.4%

44,240

45.5%

20,153

8.8%

2,427,031

48.4%

3,978,209

49.2%

5,235,249

52.5%

2,808,218

4.1%

U.S. Mexican Other Hispanics or Latinos

1,765,890

42.3%

2,380,084

44.2%

3,575,520

45.9%

1,809,630

3.6%

White (non-Hispanic or Latino)

57,289,023

72.4%

58,845,290

72.6%

59,628,210

72.7%

2,339,187

0.2%

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino)

5,496,423

46.6%

6,045,479

44.5%

6,490,005

43.0%

993,582

-3.6%

Other (non-Hispanic or Latino)

2,832,626

52.3%

3,990,167

56.5%

6,395,041

59.1%

3,562,415

6.8%

Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2000 Decennial Census, 2008-2012, and 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates).Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

46 Homeownership and household characteristic data for groups refers to the characteristics of the “householder.” The U.S. Census Bureau definition of householder is “the person and (or one of the people) in whose name the in housing unit isHousing owned or rented or, if there is no such Table 25: Number Percent of Households Living Crowded for Mexperson, any adulticans member, excluding boarders, or paid employees.

If the house is owned or rented jointly by a married couple, and Other roomers, Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estithe householder may be either the husband or the wife. The person designated as the householder is the “reference person” to whom mates) the relationship of all other household members, if any, is recorded. The number of householders is equal to the number of households.”

Race/Ethnicity

Number

Percent

Mexican

12,862

8.3%

Other Hispanics or Latinos

2,343

3.3%

Other (non-Hispanic or Latino)

24,087

36.7%

28,551

42.4%

44,240

45.5%

20,153

8.8%

Housing and Community 2,427,031 Mexican Development Other Hispanics or Latinos 1,765,890

48.4%

3,978,209

49.2%

5,235,249

52.5%

2,808,218

4.1%

42.3%

2,380,084

44.2%

3,575,520

45.9%

1,809,630

3.6%

U.S.

White (non-Hispanic or Latino)

57,289,023

72.4%

58,845,290

72.6%

59,628,210

72.7%

2,339,187

0.2%

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino)

5,496,423

46.6%

6,045,479

44.5%

6,490,005

43.0%

993,582

-3.6%

Other (non-Hispanic or Latino)

2,832,626

52.3%

3,990,167

56.5%

6,395,041

59.1%

3,562,415

6.8%

households had a high percentwww.ipums.org of crowded housing in 2018-2022 8.3%. However, more people Data Mexican Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, (2000 Decennial Census, at 2008-2012, and 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates).Tabulations

by Great Citiesbeing Institute. per household also results in fewer Mexican households rental cost burdened (see Table 25).

Table 25: Number and Percent of Households Living in Crowded Housing for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year EstiTable 25: Number and Percent of Households Living in Crowded Housing for Mexicans mates) and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Race/Ethnicity

Number

Percent

Mexican

12,862

8.3%

Other Hispanics or Latinos

2,343

3.3%

White (non-Hispanic or Latino)

4,790

1.2%

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino)

7,402

2.4%

Other (non-Hispanic or Latino)

6,056

6.0%

Note: Housing is defined as overcrowded if more than one person in the room.

Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

•

The rate of crowded housing for Mexican householders of 8.3% was far higher than for Other Hispanics or Latinos at 3.3%, and Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) at 2.4% and White (non-Hispanic or Latino) householders at 1.2%. These figures reflect, as shown earlier, that Mexicans had the largest household size.

•

In Chicago, there were 12,862 crowded households with Mexican householders which was more than other racial/ethnic groups in 2018-2022.

50.8% of households with Mexican householders were burdened by rental costs, meaning the household paid more than 30% of household income on rental housing costs in 2018-2022 (see Table 26).

24 Table 26: Number and Percent of Rent Burdened Households for Mexicans and Other

Table 26: Number and Percent of Rent Burdened Households for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Race/Ethnicity

More than 30% of Household Income Spent on Rental Costs

More than 50% of Household Income Spent on Rental Costs

Number

Number

Percent

Percent

Mexican

38,258

50.8%

17,361

23.1%

Other Hispanics or Latinos

21,655

54.0%

11,512

28.7%

White (non-Hispanic or Latino)

69,290

37.3%

33,296

17.9%

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino)

108,343

57.4%

67,686

35.9%

Other (non-Hispanic or Latino)

22,851

43.1%

13,816

26.1%

Note: Rent cost burdened households defined as households paying 30 percent or more of household income on rental housing costs.

Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Table 27: Number and Percent of Owner Cost Burdened Households for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates)

Page 51

•

The rate of cost burdened renters for Mexican householders was 13.5 percentage points higher than Table 26: Number and Percent of Rentand Burdened Households for Mexicans and Other White (non-Hispanic or Latino) householders, 7.7 percentage points higher than Other (non-Hispanic Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACSthan 5-year Estimates) or Latino)Racial/Ethnic householders, yet 3.2 percentage points lower Other Hispanic or Latino householders and 6.6 percentage points lower than Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) householders.

•

While Mexican householders were in theHousehold middle when compared to other racial/ethnic groups, they had the Income Spent Household Income Spent Race/Ethnicity on Rental Costs on household Rental Costspaid more than 50% second lowest rate for extremely rent burdened households, meaning the of income on rental costs. This rate was 23.1% and only trailed White (non-Hispanic or Latino households) Number Percent Number Percent householders by 5.2 percentage points.

More than 30% of

More than 50% of

Mexican

38,258

50.8%

17,361

23.1%

Other Hispanics or Latinos

21,655

54.0%

11,512

28.7%

White (non-Hispanic or Latino)

69,290

37.3%

33,296

17.9%

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino)

108,343

57.4%

67,686

35.9%

Other (non-Hispanic or Latino) 13,816 26.1% There was a comparatively smaller share 22,851 of owner cost43.1% burdened households across all racial/ethnic groups for both cost burdened and extremely cost burdened households in Chicago in 2018-2022 (see Note: Rent cost burdened households defined as households paying 30 percent or more of household Table 27). income on rental housing costs.

Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Table 27: Number and Percent of Owner Cost Burdened Households for Mexicans and

Table 27: Number and Percent of Owner Cost Burdened Households for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Race/Ethnicity

More than 30% of Household Income Spent on Owner Housing Costs

More than 50% of Household Income Spent on Owner Housing Costs

Number

Number

Percent

Percent

Mexican

25,606

34.2%

11,937

15.9%

Other Hispanics or Latinos

11,304

39.4%

5,145

17.9%

White (non-Hispanic or Latino)

53,554

25.9%

25,670

12.4%

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino)

34,448

34.5%

18,838

18.9%

Other (non-Hispanic or Latino)

13,771

31.1%

7,388

16.7%

Note: Owner cost burdened households defined as households paying 30 percent or more of household income on owner housing costs.

Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

•

34.2% of Mexican householders were in cost burdened households, slightly lower than for Black (nonHispanic or Latino) (34.5%) and Other Hispanic or Latino householders (39.4%).

•

For Mexicans in Chicago, the rate of cost burdened ownership was 16.6 percentage points lower than cost burdened renters, meaning that homeownership was more affordable to owning households than rental costs for renting households.

•

15.9% of Mexican households were in households that were severely cost burdened and there were smaller gaps between racial/ethnic groups than for rental households.

25

Housing and Community Development Figure 4: Median House Value for Chicago Community Areas with More Than 50% Share of Mexican Population, Figure 5: Median House Value for Chicago2018−2022 Community Areas with (ACS 5−year Estimates) More Than 50% Share of Mexican Population, 2018−2022 (ACS 5−year Estimates)

Lower West Side

$330,200

Mckinley Park

$305,400

Belmont Cragin

$293,400

Hermosa

$292,900

Clearing

$275,700

Garfield Ridge

$262,300

West Elsdon

$234,700

Archer Heights

$231,400

West Lawn

$229,200

Brighton Park

$218,950

Gage Park

$212,500

South Lawndale

$209,200

Chicago Lawn

$206,000

New City East Side

For Chicago Community Areas with more than a 50% share of the Mexican population, median housing values varied from $330,200 in Lower West Side to $148,600 in East Side in 20182022 (see Map 9 and Figure 4 ).

$166,200 $148,600

Data source: IPUMS Data NHGIS, ofUniversity Minnesota, www.nhgis.org source:University IPUMS NHGIS, of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org (2018−2022 American Survey 5−yearTabulations Estimates). by (2018−2022 American Community Survey Community 5−year Estimates).

Tabulations by Great Cities Institute Great Cities Institute Map 9: Median House Value by Community Area in Chicago, 2018−2022 (ACS 5−year Estimates)

•

McKinley Park, just south of Lower West Side, had the second highest median house value of $305,400 in 2018-2022.

•

Belmont Cragin and Hermosa were two of the only three community areas that were not clustered together in the Southwest Side of Chicago that had a 50% or more share of Mexican population. These two areas had the third and fourth highest median house values of $293,400 and $292,900 and are located just west of the community areas in Chicago with the highest median house values.

•

Belmont

Cragin Hermosa

Lower West

South Lawndale Archer Garfield Ridge Clearing

Heights West

Side Mckinley

Brighton Park Gage

Elsdon

Park

West

Chicago

Lawn

Park New City

Lawn

27

The other area not clustered on the Southwest side of the city was East Side, which had amongst the lower median house values of all community areas in Chicago of $148,600.

Median House Values

$112,150 − $181,290 $181,290 − $231,540 $231,540 − $301,740 $301,740 − $389,640 $389,640 − $781,500

East Side

Chicago Community Areas with More Than 50% Share of Mexican Population

Data source:Data Source: IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org (2018−2022 American Community Survey 5−year Estimates).

Map Generated by Great Cities Institute

26

N 0

2

4

6

8 km

Page 53

Some Focus Group Comments On Housing and Community Development “The home ownership aspect makes a difference. I got here in 1978. There were 10 of us Mexicans in the building, all renters. Now, all own their own homes and at least two of them own a business. I think that’s our story, but we’re too humble [to tell it], we want to be accommodating, we want to just get along.”

“Most Mexican families live intergenerationally. Gage Park is like the bungalow belt; most of the housing is two bedrooms and some of my neighbors have like, eight, nine people living in a bungalow. There just isn’t any housing development there that would offer more spacious accommodations. For Latino folks, there definitely is a cultural component of wanting to have space for mom in the future.”

A row of Gage Park bungalows built in the 1920s as affordable housing. Photo by Eric Allix Rogers, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

“We need to dismantle the lie of the American dream. Wealthy White people also get assistance from banks and the government in order to build generational wealth. There needs to be honest conversations about this – whether parents can co-sign or help you with half of down payment.”

“We woke up to the news that Amazon bought 73 acres in Gage Park for $80 million for a warehouse in the middle of our neighborhood. But by the time we found out in the Tribune, it was too late. How do we organize against the richest corporation in America, and what does that do to our property values and quality of life? I think that people are so used to Latinos just kind of keeping their head down, like we don’t have time to do planning. That’s a skill that I didn’t learn in my life until adulthood.”

“With many low income Mexicans living in places with low rents, it is a big challenge for the family to buy a house. And what is happening is that they are buying houses in places where there were a lot of factories or there are still a lot of factories and there is still a lot of pollution in the land that they still can’t [eliminate] after so many years.”

5

Health In the area of health, Mexicans along with other Hispanics and Latinos have long benefitted from what many public health experts describe as the Hispanic Paradox – where Hispanics in the U.S., despite having lower economic levels and less access to quality health care, paradoxically exhibit better health outcomes than non-Hispanic White or Black Americans in many areas, e.g., longer life expectancy, lower rates of heart disease, cancer and other chronic physical and mental illnesses. The causes of this paradox, or even the extent to which it exists, has been the subject of much debate among health professionals for decades.47 Recently compiled data from the Centers for Disease Control have confirmed not only better outcomes among Hispanics and Latinos on many health indicators, but also significant differences between Hispanic and Latino ethnic groups. From 2019-2021, for example, Mexicans had far lower rates among all Hispanic and Latino groups for coronary heart disease, heart attacks, cancer, asthma, and “feelings of worry, anxiety or depression,” while Puerto Ricans and Cubans generally registered the highest rates. Mexicans, however, had the second-highest rates of adult obesity and diabetes among Latinos, after only Puerto Ricans.48 No health data exists for detailed ethnic groups for Chicago, but as an alternative we analyzed a subset of selected health indicators for four community areas (Gage Park, East Side, West Lawn, South Lawndale) with the highest share of Mexican population. We then compared data for those four areas to the citywide mean for the Hispanic or Latino, White and Black population.

Mexicans had the highest uninsured rate in Chicago at 18.2% and represented 40.2% of the uninsured population, indicating a significant and disproportionate coverage gap in 2018-2022 (see Table 28).

Health Table 28: No Health Insurance for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in

Table 28: No Health Insurance for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Race/Ethnicity

Mexican

Number Without Health Insurance

No Insurance Rate

Percent Share of the Uninsured Population

94,541

18.2%

40.2%

Other Hispanics or Latinos

24,171

12.5%

10.3%

White (non-Hispanic or Latino)

36,207

4.6%

15.4%

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino)

60,337

8.8%

25.7%

Other (non-Hispanic or Latino)

19,656

8.3%

8.4%

Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

47 See Medrano, Lourdes.

(2023).

‘Hispanic a decades-old still hold up?” American Heart Table 29: “The Number andParadox’: PercentDoes of Mexico Bornfinding and U.S. Born Association News. May 11, 2023. https://www.heart.org/en/news/2023/05/11/the-hispanic-paradox-does-a-decades-old-findMexicans Without Job Provided Health Insurance in Chicago, ing-still-hold-up.; also Fernández, Jose, García Pérez, Mónica, and Orozco Aleman, Sandra. (2023). “Unraveling the Hispanic 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Health Paradox.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 37 (1): 145. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.37.1.145.

48 See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Interactive Summary Health Statistics for Adults, by Detailed Race and Ethnicity.” National Center for Health Statistics. Accessed August 25, 2024. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/NHISDataQueryTool/SHS_ Mexican Nativity Number Without No Job adult3yr/index.html.

Job Provided Provided Health Health Insurance Insurance Mexico Born

119,608

61.8%

Page 55

alth Table 28: No Health Insurance for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates)

•

Mexicans had the highest number of individuals without health insurance in Chicago, totaling 94,541 and Number Without No Insurance Percent Share of the highest uninsuredHealth rate Insurance at 18.2%, suggesting one in five Mexicans in Chicago lacks health Rate that nearly the Uninsured insurance.

Population

Race/Ethnicity

• Mexican

Mexicans constitute the largest94,541 share of the uninsured 40.2% in 2018-2022.

18.2% population at40.2%

Other Hispanics or Latinos

24,171

12.5%

10.3%

White (non-Hispanic or Latino)

36,207

4.6%

15.4%

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino)

60,337

8.8%

25.7%

Other (non-Hispanic or Latino) 19,656 a greater coverage 8.3% 8.4% Mexico-born Mexicans experienced gap in job-provided health insurance, where

coverage compared to 52.8% for U.S.-born Mexicans in 2018-2022 (see Table 29).

Data Source:61.8% IPUMSlacked USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Table 29: Number and Percent of Mexico Born and U.S. Born

Table 29: Number and Percent of Mexico Born and U.S. Born Mexicans Without Job Provided Health Insurance in Chicago, Mexicans Without Job Provided Health Insurance in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Mexican Nativity

Number Without Job Provided Health Insurance

No Job Provided Health Insurance

Mexico Born

119,608

61.8%

U.S. Born

168,385

52.8%

Data Source: IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations

by Great Cities Institute.

•

A higher percentage of Mexicoborn Mexicans (61.8%) lacked job-provided health insurance compared to U.S.-born Mexicans (52.8%) in 20182022.

•

Despite a lower percentage, U.S.-born Mexicans had a larger absolute number without job-provided health insurance (168,385) compared to Mexicoborn Mexicans (119,608).

The four communities with the largest Mexican populations in Chicago — Gage Park, East Side, West Lawn, and South Lawndale — showed higher obesity and diabetes rates compared to the city averages for White (non-Hispanic or Latino) and Hispanic or Latino populations, with East Side surpassing the Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) citywide average for obesity (see Table 30).

•

Obesity Rates in Gage Park (44.2%), East Side (52.6%), West Lawn (38.4%), and South Lawndale (41.9%) all exceed the White (non-Hispanic or Latino) Chicago mean (24.5%), with East Side having the highest rate, surpassing even the Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) Chicago mean (47.6%) in 2022-2023.

•

Diabetes Rates in Gage Park (18.9%), East Side (15.2%), West Lawn (22.2%), and South Lawndale (25.7%) were significantly higher than the White (non-Hispanic or Latino) Chicago mean (6.9%) and the Hispanic or Latino Chicago mean (13.9%) in 2022-2023.

•

Asthma Rates in East Side were 12.1%, higher than the White (9.1%) and Hispanic or Latino Chicago means (9.7%) but lower than the Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) Chicago mean (14.9%). Gage Park had a notably low asthma rate of 1.9%, the lowest among all racial/ethnic groups in Chicago in 2022-2023.

28

Health 5

•

East Side reported a higher asthma rate than the White (non-Hispanic or Latino) and Hispanic or Latino averages, while Gage Park has a notably lower asthma rate compared to all racial/ethnic groups in Chicago. Low birthweight rates in these communities are similar to the White (non-Hispanic or Latino) and Hispanic/Latino averages, indicating relatively favorable infant health outcomes but underscoring the need for continued health support and resources in Mexican communities. One likely factor contributing to the higher asthma rates in East Side is the significant number of trucks passing through the community. Diesel exhaust from these trucks is a hazardous pollution source containing over 40 known carcinogens, which can contribute to respiratory issues and lung cancer. Low-income neighborhoods and communities of color, such as East Side, often bear a disproportionate burden of this pollution because industrial facilities, truckintensive operations, rail yards, and highways are commonly situated in these areas. An environmental justice project by the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO), Fish Transportation Group, Inc., and the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) documented approximately 1,215 dieselpowered trucks and buses passing through an intersection in East Side over a 24-hour period on August 1, 2023, underscoring the heavy pollution load in the area.49

Table 30: 30: Health HealthOutcomes Outcomesfor for Four Four Communities Communities with with the Table the Largest Largest Share Share of of Mexican Mexican Population and by Race/Ethnicity in Chicago, 2017-2021, and 2022-2023 Population and by Race/Ethnicity in Chicago, 2017-2021, and 2022-2023 Four Communities with the Largest Share of Mexican Population

Adult Obesity Rate(20222023)

Adult Diabetes Rate(20222023)

Adult Asthma Rate(20222023)

Low Birthweight Rate(20172021)

Gage Park

44.2%

18.9%

1.9%

7.1%

East Side

52.6%

15.2%

12.1%

6.9%

West Lawn

38.4%

22.2%

-

7.1%

South Lawndale

41.9%

25.7%

6.0%

8.0%

White (non-Hispanic or Latino) Chicago Mean

24.5%

6.9%

9.1%

6.2%

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) Chicago Mean

47.6%

19.6%

14.9%

14.6%

Hispanic or Latino Chicago Mean

39.9%

13.9%

9.7%

8.0%

Note: Obesity is defined as percent of adults who reported a height and weight that yield a body mass index of 30 or greater.

Diabetes is defined as percent of adults who reported that a doctor, nurse or other health professional has diagnosed them with diabetes.

Asthma is defined as percent of adults who reported that a doctor, nurse or other health professional has diagnosed them with asthma.

Low birthweight is defined as percent of births with a birthweight less than 2500 grams (5.5 pounds).

Data Source:Chicago Health Atlas, Chicago Department of Public Health (2022–2023) and Illinois Department of Public Health (2017-2021). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute

•

Table 31: Mental Health Outcomes for Four Communities with the Largest Share of Low Birthweight Rates in Gage Park (7.1%), East Side (6.9%), and West Lawn (7.1%) were similar to the Mexican Population and by Race/Ethnicity in Chicago, 2022-2023 White (non-Hispanic or Latino) Chicago mean (6.2%) but lower than the Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) Chicago mean (14.6%) in 2017-2021. South Lawndale’s rate of 8.0% aligned with the Hispanic or Latino Four Communities with the Adult Serious Adult Unmet Adult Loneliness Chicago mean.

Largest Share of Mexican Psych Distress Mental Health Need Rate(2022-2023) Population

Gage Park

Rate(2022-2023)

13.4%

Rate(2022-2023)

77.4%

33.4%

East Side 10.7% 77.1% 34.2% 49 Data from the truck data portal, a project by Little Village Environmental Justice Organization, Fish Transportation Group, Inc., and CNT, LawnZero Emissions Communities program 7.3% 78.9% 15.6% as part of the West Delivering funded by the Zero Now Fund.

South Lawndale

11.9%

78.3%

41.5%

White (non-Hispanic or Latino) Chicago Mean

7.5%

57.2%

26.5%

Black (non-Hispanic or

9.9%

81.4%

30.2%

Four Communities with the Largest Share of Mexican Population

Adult Obesity Rate(20222023)

Adult Diabetes Rate(20222023)

Adult Asthma Rate(20222023)

Low Birthweight Rate(20172021)

Gage Park

44.2%

18.9%

1.9%

7.1%

East Side

52.6%

15.2%

12.1%

6.9%

West Lawn

38.4%

22.2%

-

7.1%

South Lawndale

41.9%

25.7%

6.0%

8.0%

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) Chicago Mean

47.6%

19.6%

14.9%

14.6%

Hispanic or Latino Chicago Mean

39.9%

13.9%

9.7%

8.0%

Page 57

Mexican-majority communities in Chicago faced notably higher rates of serious psychological distress, White (non-Hispanic or 24.5% 6.9% 9.1% 6.2% unmet mental health needs, and loneliness compared to other racial/ethnic groups in 2022-2023.

These Latino) Chicago Mean findings highlight significant mental health challenges and access issues in these areas (see Table 31).

•

Of the four communities with the highest share of Mexican population, Gage Park (13.4%) and East Side Note: Obesity is defined as percent of adults who reported a height and weight that yield a body mass (10.7%), index experienced higher rates of serious psychological distress compared to the White (non-Hispanic of 30 or greater. or Latino)Diabetes Chicago meanas(7.5%) and thewho Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) Chicago mean has (9.9%) in 2022is defined percent of adults reported that a doctor, nurse or other health professional diagnosed them with diabetes.

2023.

•

Unmet mental health are notably high in these Mexican-majority communities, with South Lawndale diagnosed themneeds with asthma. is defined as percent of births with a birthweight less than 2500 grams (5.5 pounds). at 78.3% Low andbirthweight West Lawn at 78.9%, compared to the White (non-Hispanic or Latino) Chicago mean (57.2%) Data Source:Chicago Healththe Atlas, Chicago Department Public(80.0%) Health (2022–2023) and Illinois and approaching or exceeding Hispanic or Latino ofmean in 2022-2023.

Asthma is defined as percent of adults who reported that a doctor, nurse or other health professional has

Department of Public Health (2017-2021). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute

Table 31: 31: Mental MentalHealth HealthOutcomes Outcomesfor forFour FourCommunities Communities with with the Largest Share of Mexican Population and by Race/Ethnicity Chicago, 2022-2023 Mexican Population and by Race/Ethnicity in Chicago,in2022-2023 Four Communities with the Largest Share of Mexican Population

Adult Serious Psych Distress Rate(2022-2023)

Adult Unmet Mental Health Need Rate(2022-2023)

Adult Loneliness Rate(2022-2023)

Gage Park

13.4%

77.4%

33.4%

East Side

10.7%

77.1%

34.2%

West Lawn

7.3%

78.9%

15.6%

South Lawndale

11.9%

78.3%

41.5%

White (non-Hispanic or Latino) Chicago Mean

7.5%

57.2%

26.5%

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) Chicago Mean

9.9%

81.4%

30.2%

Hispanic or Latino Chicago Mean

14.9%

80.0%

29.9%

Note: Serious Psychological Distress is the percent of adults who experienced feelings of nervousness, hopelessness, and depression, in the past 30 days.

Unmet mental health need is the percent of adults with psychological distress who are not receiving treatment or medication.

Loneliness rate is defined as the percent of adults who reported feeling left out or felt alone.

Data Source: Chicago Health Atlas, Chicago Department of Public Health (2022–2023) and Illinois Department of Public Health (2017-2021).Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

•

Loneliness rates are particularly high in South Lawndale (41.5%) and East Side (34.2%), higher than the Hispanic or Latino Chicago mean (29.9%), White29Chicago (non-Hispanic or Latino) mean (26.5%) and Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) Chicago mean (30.2%) in 2022-2023.

Health

While Mexican-majority communities in Chicago experienced lower cancer and lung cancer rates in 20172021 compared to White and Black populations, they still have higher rates than the Hispanic or Latino average. Their hypertension rates are comparable to the Hispanic or Latino city mean in 2017-2021, highlighting specific health challenges and variations within these communities (see Table 32).

Table 32: Chronic ChronicHealth HealthIndicators Indicators for for Four Four Communities Communities with with the Table 32: the Largest Largest Share Share of of Mexican Population and by Race/Ethnicity in Chicago, (2017-2021, and 2022-2023) Mexican Population and by Race/Ethnicity in Chicago, (2017-2021, and 2022-2023) Top 4 Community Areas with the Largest Mexican Population Share

Adult Cancer Diagnosis Rate per 100,000 (2017-2021)

Adult Hypertension Rate (2022-2023)

Adult Lung Cancer Diagnosis Rate per 100,000 (2017-2021)

Gage Park

340.0

29.5%

26.3

East Side

461.8

37.2%

41.3

West Lawn

416.5

30.2%

44.7

South Lawndale

342.7

25.7%

31.4

White (non-Hispanic or Latino) Chicago Mean

676.2

29.8%

83.4

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) Chicago Mean

529.9

43.9%

77.4

Hispanic or Latino Chicago Mean

253.3

25.7%

13.9

Note: Cancer diagnosis is defined as the annual diagnosis rate for all invasive cancers, excluding pre-cancerous conditions. All ages, risk-adjusted.

Hypertension is the percentage of adults diagnosed with high blood pressure, excluding borderline or pregnancy-related cases.

Lung cancer is defined as lung and bronchus cancer for ages 15 and over, risk-adjusted.

Data Source: Chicago Health Atlas, Chicago Department of Public Health (2022–2023) and Illinois Department of Public Health (2017-2021).Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

•

The Mexican-majority communities of East Side (461.8 per 100,000) and West Lawn (416.5 per 100,000) had lower cancer diagnosis rates compared to the White (non-Hispanic or Latino) Chicago mean (676.2 per 100,000) and Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) Chicago mean (529.9 per 100,000), but was higher than the Hispanic or Latino city mean (253.3 per 100,000) in 2017-2021.

•

The hypertension rates in East Side (37.2%) and West Lawn (30.2%) were higher than the Hispanic or Latino city mean (25.7%) and the White (non-Hispanic or Latino) Chicago mean (29.8%) but were lower than the mean Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) rate (43.9%) in 2022-2023. This indicates that hypertension prevalence in these communities is higher than city-wide averages for Hispanic/Latino and Black (nonHispanic or Latino) citywide trends.

•

The lung cancer diagnosis rates in East Side (41.3 per 100,000) and West Lawn (44.7 per 100,000), were considerably lower than the White (non-Hispanic or Latino) Chicago mean (83.4 per 100,000) and Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) Chicago mean (77.4 per 100,000), but were higher than the Hispanic or Latino Chicago mean (13.9 per 100,000) in 2017-2021. While these communities experience lower rates of lung cancer compared to White and Black populations, they still face higher rates compared to the Hispanic or Latino average.

Page 59

Some Focus Group Comments on Health “Coverage doesn’t equate to access. Even though you have coverage, you don’t necessarily have access, right? For different reasons: doctors who don’t speak your language or aren’t open at the times you need to see a doctor.”

Manufacturing plants behind the soccer field at Benito Juarez Community Academy in the Lower West Side. Courtesy of Jack Rocha, GCI

“My mom and dad, in Mexico they learned only to go to the doctor when they felt very sick, so it is important to learn that the medical care is different here, it is more preventive care and we need to understand why that is done.”

“When my grandmother goes to Mexico, we notice a big difference in her health, her mood, if she wants to walk or not. In her town they help the elderly a lot. With educational activities, they go to the beach, they sing.”

“For Mexicans and Hispanics, especially for Mexican men, there’s a stigma about mental health issues, so advocating for people to reach out and have access to mental health is important.”

“Especially the older generation doesn’t believe in talking to therapists. There is a big stigma about anxiety and depression. When I was interpreting for one of the victims at the Highland Park shooting, he was extremely hurt by his peers at work who didn’t understand the trauma he went through.

He would relive the incidents and he would really have panic attacks, but his peers would make fun of him. He was completely destroyed by that, that these people he considered family would make fun of him, saw him as not man enough, or as weak.”

An Access Pilsen Family Health Center in Pilsen, located next to the Rudy Lozano Branch of the Chicago Public Library. Courtesy of Olivia Abeyta, GCI

Employment and Business Mexicans in Chicago had an increase in labor force participation from 60.6% in 2000 to 69.6% during 2008-2012 before decreasing slightly to 67.2% in 2018-2022 (see Table 33 and Figure 5).

•

Among Mexicans in the labor force in Chicago, the unemployment rate was 7.8%, higher than the White (non-Hispanic or Latino) (4.3%), and Other (non-Hispanic or Latino) (5.3%) labor force, slightly higher than the Other Hispanic or Latinos (7.2%) labor force, and about half the rate of the Black (Non-Hispanic Employment and Business or Latino) (15.0%) labor force.

Table 33: 33: Labor Labor Force Force Status Status for for Mexicans Table Mexicans and and Other Other Racial/Ethnic Racial/Ethnic Groups Groupsin inChicago, Chicago 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Race/Ethnicity

In the Labor Force

Employed

Unemployed

Unemployment Rate

Mexican

263,068

242,677

20,391

7.8%

Other Hispanics or Latinos

102,569

95,189

7,380

7.2%

White (non-Hispanic or Latino) Employment and Business Black (non-Hispanic or Latino)

504,107

482,183

21,924

4.3%

322,796

274,277

48,519

15.0%

Other (non-Hispanic or Latino)and Other Racial/Ethnic 133,767 Groups126,707 7,060 5.3% Table 33: Labor Force Status for Mexicans in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates).

Tabulations

by GreatUnemployed Cities Institute.

Race/Ethnicity In the Labor Employed Unemployment Force

• •

Rate

7.8% Other Hispanic or Latinos showed a similar trend to Mexicans but had a larger increase, going from 56.3% Figure 6:102,569 Labor Force Participation Rate for Mexicans and Other Other Hispanics or Latinos 95,189 7,380 7.2% in 2000 to 68.2% in 2008-2012, and then stabilizing at 67.7% by 2018-2022.

Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2000 4.3% (Decennial Census), White (non-Hispanic or Latino) 504,107 482,183 21,924 2008−2012, and 2018−2022decreased (ACS 5−year White (non-Hispanic or Latino) labor force participation the Estimates) least but was the highest from 2000 Mexican

263,068

242,677

20,391

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino)

322,796

274,277

48,519

15.0%

Other (non-Hispanicstarting or Latino) at 67.2% 133,767 7,060 to 73.1% 5.3%by 2018-2022. Black (non-Hispanic or to 2018-2022, in 2000126,707 and increasing Latino) participation ratesofwere consistently lower compared to other groups, going from 55.1% in 2000 Data Source: IPUMS USA, University Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates).

Tabulations

by Great Cities and increasing slightly to 58.4%

by Institute.

2018-2022.

69.6%68.2%71.1% 66.8% 61.2% 60.6% Figure 6: Labor Force Participation Rate for Mexicans and Other 56.3% 56.3% 55.1% Racial/Ethnic GroupsForce in Chicago, 2000 (Decennial Figure 5: : Labor Participation RateCensus), for Mexicans 67.2%

73.1% 67.2%67.7%

68.4%

58.4%

and Other Racial/Ethnic 2008−2012, and 2018−2022 (ACS 5−year Estimates) Groups in Chicago, 2000 (Decennial Census), 2008−2012, and 2018−2022 (ACS 5−year Estimates) 69.6%68.2%71.1%

67.2% 61.2% 60.6% 56.3% 55.1%

66.8%

73.1% 67.2%67.7%

2000

68.4%

58.4%

56.3%

2008−2012

Mexican

2018−2022 Other Hispanics or Latinos White (non−Hispanic or Latino) Black (non−Hispanic or Latino)

2000

Mexican

Other Hispanics or Latinos

Black (non−Hispanic or Latino) 2008−2012

Other (non−Hispanic or Latino) 2018−2022

(non−Hispanic or Latino) White (non−Hispanic orOther Latino)

DataIPUMS Source:USA, IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org Data Source: University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2000 Decennial Census, 2018−2012, and 2018−2022 (2000 Census, 2018−2022 Community MexicanDecennial Other Hispanics orand Latinos White (non−Hispanic or Latino) American Community Survey 5−year2018−2012, Estimates).

Tabulations

by American Great Cities Institute. Survey 5−year Estimates).

Tabulations

by Great CitiesOther Institute.

Black (non−Hispanic or Latino) (non−Hispanic or Latino) Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2000 Decennial Census, 2018−2012, and 2018−2022 American Community Survey 5−year Estimates).

Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Page 61

Compared to other racial/ethnic groups, Mexicans made up the largest share of employment in the industries of Construction (41.8%) and Manufacturing (36.4%) in 2018-2022 (see Table 34).

•

The industries where Mexicans have their highest numbers of employment were Educational Services, and Health Care and Social Assistance; Manufacturing; Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, and Accommodation and Food Services; Professional, Scientific, and Management, and Administrative, and Waste Management Services; Retail Trade, and Construction.

•

Although Educational Services, and Health Care and Social Assistance is the largest industry for Mexicans, there are significantly more White (non-Hispanic or Latino) (113,756) Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) (80,668) workers in that industry.

•

In the Finance and Insurance, and Real Estate, and Rental and Leasing industry, which typically has the highest wages, there were significantly fewer Mexican than White (non-Hispanic or Latino) (54,983) and Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) (18,204) workers.

•

Together, Mexicans and Other Hispanics or Latinos made up the largest percentage of industry employment in Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting, and Mining; Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, and Accommodation and Food Services; Construction; Manufacturing; Military; and Retail Trade.

The three sub-industries where Mexicans made up more than 50% of the workforce were Landscaping services (70.8%), Automotive repair and maintenance (61%), and Not specified manufacturing industries (52.3%) in 2018-2022. The sub-industry with the largest number of Mexican workers was Restaurants and other food services, which is also the largest sub-industry for Other Hispanics or Latinos, who together made up 48.1% of the total workforce in 2018-2022 (see Table 35).

•

The sub-industry of Construction was the next highest for Mexican workers, and is the third highest for Other Hispanics or Latinos, who together made up 52.3% of the total workforce.

•

The sub-industry with the third highest share of Mexican workers was Elementary and secondary schools, which was second highest for Other Hispanics or Latinos. Together they made up 23.3% of the total workforce. This is somewhat concerning given the percentage of Hispanic and Latino students within Chicago Public Schools is 46.9%.

•

Mexicans and Other Hispanics or Latinos have seven of the same top 10 sub-industries, with Other Hispanics or Latinos not having Automotive repair and maintenance; Landscaping services; and Not specified manufacturing industries; and Mexicans not having Computer systems design and related services; Justice, public order, and safety activities; and Child day care services.

32 32

38,856 38,856

12,055 12,055

Educational Educational Services, Services, andand Health Health Care Care andand Social Social Assistance Assistance

Finance Finance andand Insurance, Insurance, andand RealReal Estate, Estate, andand Rental Rental andand Leasing Leasing

Manufacturing Manufacturing

5,951 5,951

24.3% 24.3%

1,842 1,842

6,486 6,486

10,036 10,036

3,836 3,836

12,926 12,926

5,333 5,333

173173

9,972 9,972

910910

6,208 6,208

21,313 21,313

5,011 5,011

10,864 10,864

279279

Number Number

7.5% 7.5%

7.3% 7.3%

9.9% 9.9%

8.0% 8.0%

6.0% 6.0%

9.0% 9.0%

22.4% 22.4%

10.4% 10.4%

3.5% 3.5%

6.0% 6.0%

7.3% 7.3%

10.5% 10.5%

9.5% 9.5%

11.4% 11.4%

% Share % Share of of Industry Industry Employment Employment

Other Hispanics Other Hispanics or Latinos or Latinos

10,985 10,985

22,081 22,081

29,995 29,995

16,659 16,659

115,576 115,576

21,290 21,290

139139

27,629 27,629

15,798 15,798

54,983 54,983

113,756 113,756

16,452 16,452

36,015 36,015

825825

Number Number

44.8% 44.8%

24.9% 24.9%

29.7% 29.7%

34.9% 34.9%

53.3% 53.3%

35.8% 35.8%

18.0% 18.0%

28.7% 28.7%

61.5% 61.5%

53.5% 53.5%

38.8% 38.8%

34.5% 34.5%

31.5% 31.5%

33.7% 33.7%

% Share % Share of of Industry Industry Employment Employment

3,562 3,562

36,420 36,420

25,341 25,341

18,283 18,283

33,261 33,261

12,343 12,343

234234

15,110 15,110

3,905 3,905

18,204 18,204

80,668 80,668

4,676 4,676

21,864 21,864

406406

Number Number

14.5% 14.5%

41.0% 41.0%

25.1% 25.1%

38.3% 38.3%

15.3% 15.3%

20.8% 20.8%

30.3% 30.3%

15.7% 15.7%

15.2% 15.2%

17.7% 17.7%

27.5% 27.5%

9.8% 9.8%

19.1% 19.1%

16.6% 16.6%

% Share % Share of of Industry Industry Employment Employment

2,184 2,184

7,229 7,229

9,202 9,202

2,535 2,535

25,098 25,098

6,815 6,815

110110

8,461 8,461

3,042 3,042

11,227 11,227

38,409 38,409

1,614 1,614

10,630 10,630

151151

Number Number

8.9% 8.9%

8.1% 8.1%

9.1% 9.1%

5.3% 5.3%

11.6% 11.6%

11.5% 11.5%

14.3% 14.3%

8.8% 8.8%

11.8% 11.8%

10.9% 10.9%

13.1% 13.1%

3.4% 3.4%

9.3% 9.3%

6.2% 6.2%

% Share % Share of of Industry Industry Employment Employment

White Black Other White Black Other (non-Hispanic or Latino) (non-Hispanic (non-Hispanic or Latino) (non-Hispanic (non-Hispanic or Latino) (non-Hispanic or Latino) or Latino) or Latino)

Data Data Source: Source: IPUMS IPUMS USA, USA, University University of Minnesota, of Minnesota, www.ipums.org www.ipums.org (2018-2022 (2018-2022 American American Community Community Survey Survey 5-year 5-year Estimates).

Estimates).

Tabulations Tabulations

by Great

by Great Cities Cities Institute.

Institute.

Wholesale Wholesale Trade Trade

26.1% 26.1%

26,380 26,380 16,549 16,549

Retail Retail Trade Trade

Transportation Transportation andand Warehousing, Warehousing, andand Utilities Utilities

18.6% 18.6%

13.4% 13.4%

13.8% 13.8%

23.0% 23.0%

14.9% 14.9%

36.4% 36.4%

8.0% 8.0%

11.7% 11.7%

13.3% 13.3%

41.8% 41.8%

30.6% 30.6%

32.2% 32.2%

% Share % Share of of Industry Industry Employment Employment

6,369 6,369

29,970 29,970

Professional, Professional, Scientific, Scientific, andand Management, Management, andand Administrative, Administrative, andand Waste Waste Management Management Services Services

Public Public Administration Administration

13,696 13,696

115115

35,039 35,039

Other Other Services, Services, Except Except Public Public Administration Administration

Military Military

2,042 2,042

19,912 19,912

Construction Construction

Information Information

34,953 34,953

790790

Number Number

Mexican Mexican

Arts,Arts, Entertainment, Entertainment, andand Recreation, Recreation, andand Accommodation Accommodation andand Food Food Services Services

Agriculture, Agriculture, Forestry, Forestry, Fishing, Fishing, andand Hunting, Hunting, andand Mining Mining

Industry Industry

Table Table 34: 34: Employment Employment by Industry andand Percent Percent Share Share offor Industry ofMexicans Industry Employment Employment for Mexifor MexiTable 34: Employment by Industry and Percent Share by ofIndustry Industry Employment and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018-2022 cans cans andand Other Other Racial/Ethnic Racial/Ethnic Groups Groups in Chicago, in Chicago, 2018-2022 2018-2022 (ACS (ACS 5-year 5-year Estimates) Estimates) (ACS 5-year Estimates)

Employment and Business

Page 63 Table Employment Industry Percent Share of Industry Employment Table 35:35: Employment by by Industry andand Percent Share of Industry Employment for for 10 Sub-industries Where Hispanics or Latinos Have the Highest Number of Em10 Sub-industries Where Hispanics or Latinos Have the Highest Number of EmTable 35:for Employment

by Other Industry and Percent Share Industry Employment for ployees Mexicans Hispanics or Latinos inofChicago, 2018-2022 (ACS ployees for Mexicans andand Other Hispanics or Latinos in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 10 Sub-industries Where Hispanics or Latinos Have the Highest Number of Em5-year Estimates) 5-year Estimates) Table 35:forEmployment

by Other Industry and Percent ShareinofChicago, Industry2018-2022 Employment for ployees Mexicans and Hispanics or Latinos (ACS 10 Sub-industries Hispanics or Latinos Have theEmployment Highest Number of Em5-year Table 35: Employment byEstimates) Industry Where and Percent Share of Industry fo 10 Sub-industries Where Group Sub-industries Number % Share % Share Group Sub-industries Number of of ployees Mexicans and Other Hispanics or Latinos in Mexicans Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS Hispanics or Latinos Havefor the Highest Number of Employees for and Other Hispanics or Latinos Industry Industry 5-year Estimates) in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Group Sub-industries Number %EmployShare of EmployIndustry ment ment Group Sub-industries Number %EmployShare of Industry Mexican ment Mexican EmployAccommodation Food Services Restaurants other food services 27,844 38.1% Accommodation andand Food Services Restaurants andand other food services 27,844 38.1% Mexican ment Construction The cleaning of buildings and dwellings is 19,912 41.8% Construction TheRestaurants cleaning of and buildings 19,912 41.8% Accommodation and Food Services other and fooddwellings services is 27,844 38.1% incidental during construction Mexican incidental during construction andand Construction The cleaning ofconstruction buildings and dwellings is 19,912 41.8% immediately after construction immediately after Accommodation and Food Services Restaurants and other food services 27,844 38.1% incidental during construction and Educational Services Elementary and secondary schools 9,645 15.3% Educational Services Elementary and secondary schools 9,645 15.3% Construction The cleaningafter of buildings and dwellings is 19,912 41.8% immediately construction Construction Health Care and Social Assistance General medical and surgical hospitals, and 7,891 13.1% incidental during construction and Health Care and Social Assistance General medical and surgical hospitals, and 7,891 13.1% Educational Services Elementary and secondary schools 9,645 15.3% specialty (except psychiatric substance immediately after construction specialty (except psychiatric andand substance Health Care and Social Assistance General medical and surgical hospitals, and 7,891 13.1% abuse) hospitals abuse) hospitals Educational Services Elementary and secondary schools 9,645 15.3% specialty (except psychiatric and substance Administrative and support and waste Services to buildings dwellings (except 6,590 43.1% Administrative and support and waste Services buildings andand dwellings (except 6,590 43.1% Health Care and Social Assistance General medical and surgical hospitals, and 7,891 13.1% abuse)tohospitals management services cleaning during construction and immediately management services cleaning during construction andand immediately specialty (except psychiatric substance Administrative and support and waste Services to buildings and dwellings (except 6,590 43.1% after construction) after construction) abuse) hospitals management services cleaning during construction and immediately Retail Trade Supermarkets and other grocery (except 5,869 31.5% Retail Trade Supermarkets and otherand grocery (except 5,869 31.5% Administrative and support and waste Services to buildings dwellings (except 6,590 43.1% after construction) convenience) stores convenience) stores management services cleaning during construction and immediately Retail Trade Supermarkets and other grocery (except 5,869 31.5% Other Services, Except Public Administration Automotive Automotive repair maintenance 4,554 61.0% after construction) Other Services, Except Public Administration repair andand maintenance 4,554 61.0% convenience) stores Educational Services Colleges, universities, and professional 4,128 8.3% Retail Trade Supermarkets and other grocery (except 5,869 31.5% Educational Services universities, andmaintenance professional 4,128 8.3% Other Services, Except Public Administration Colleges, Automotive repair and 4,554 61.0% schools, including junior colleges convenience) stores schools, including junior colleges Educational Services Colleges, universities, and professional 4,128 8.3% Administrative support waste Landscaping services 3,927 70.8% Other Services, Except Public Administration Automotive repair and maintenance 4,554 61.0% Administrative andand support andand waste Landscaping services 3,927 70.8% schools, including junior colleges management services management Educationalservices Services Colleges, universities, and professional 4,128 8.3% Administrative and support and waste Landscaping services 3,927 70.8% Manufacturing specified manufacturing industries 3,636 52.3% schools, including junior colleges Manufacturing NotNot specified manufacturing industries 3,636 52.3% management services Administrative andorsupport and waste Other Hispanics Latinos Manufacturing Other Hispanics or Latinos management services Accommodation Food Services Accommodation andand Food Services Other Hispanics or Latinos Manufacturing Educational Services Educational Services Accommodation and Food Services Other Hispanics or Latinos Construction Construction Educational Services Accommodation and Food Services Construction Educational Services Educational Services Educational Services Construction

Landscaping services Not specified manufacturing industries

3,927 3,636

70.8% 52.3%

Restaurants other food services 7,334 10.0% Restaurants andand other food services 7,334 10.0% Not specified manufacturing industries 3,636 52.3% Elementary secondary schools 5,064 8.0% Elementary andand secondary schools 5,064 8.0% Restaurants and other food services 7,334 10.0% The cleaning of buildings and dwellings is 5,011 10.5% TheElementary cleaning ofand buildings and dwellings 5,011 10.5% secondary schools is 5,064 8.0% incidental during construction and Restaurants and other foodand services 7,334 10.0% incidental during construction The cleaning of buildings and dwellings is 5,011 10.5% Construction immediately after construction immediately after Elementary andconstruction secondary schools 5,064 8.0% incidental during construction and Colleges, universities, and professional 3,513 7.0% Colleges, universities, and professional 3,513 7.0% The cleaningafter of buildings and dwellings is 5,011 10.5% immediately construction schools, including junior colleges schools, including colleges incidental duringjunior construction and Educational Services Colleges, universities, and professional 3,513 7.0% Health Care Social Assistance General medical surgical hospitals, 3,383 5.6% immediately after construction Health Care andand Social Assistance General medical andand surgical hospitals, andand 3,383 5.6% schools, including junior colleges specialty (except psychiatric and substance specialty (except psychiatric substance Educational Services Colleges, universities, andand professional 3,513 7.0% Health Care and Social Assistance General medical and surgical hospitals, and 3,383 5.6% abuse) hospitals abuse) hospitals schools, including junior colleges specialty (except psychiatric and substance Professional, Scientific, and Technical Computer systems design related 2,374 7.0% Professional, Scientific, andAssistance Technical Computer systems andand related 2,374 7.0% Health Care and Social General medical design and surgical hospitals, and 3,383 5.6% abuse) hospitals Services services Services services specialty (except psychiatric and substance Professional, Scientific, and Technical Computer systems design and related 2,374 7.0% Administrative and support and waste Services to buildings dwellings (except 2,289 15.0% abuse)tohospitals Administrative Services buildings andand dwellings (except 2,289 15.0% Services and support and waste services management services cleaning during construction and immediately management services cleaning during construction Professional, Scientific, and Technical Computer systems designand andimmediately related 2,374 7.0% Administrative and support and waste Services to buildings and dwellings (except 2,289 15.0% after construction) after construction) Services services management services cleaning during construction and immediately Retail Trade Supermarkets other grocery (except 2,182 11.7% Retail Trade Supermarkets andand other grocery (except 2,182 11.7% Administrative and support and waste Services to buildings and dwellings (except 2,289 15.0% after construction) convenience) stores convenience) stores management services cleaning during construction and immediately Retail Trade Supermarkets and other grocery (except 2,182 11.7% Public Administration Justice, public order, safety activities 1,951 8.5% after construction) Public Administration Justice, public order, andand safety activities 1,951 8.5% convenience) stores Health Care Social Assistance Child care services 1,553 11.9% Retail Trade Supermarkets and other grocery (except 2,182 11.7% Health Care andand Social Assistance Child dayday care services 1,553 11.9% Public Administration Justice, public order, and safety activities 1,951 8.5% convenience) stores Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year EstiHealth Care and Social Assistance Childwww.ipums.org day care services Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, (2018-2022 American Community1,553 Survey 5-year11.9% EstiPublic Administration 1,951 8.5% mates).

Tabulations Great Cities Institute. Justice, public order, and safety activities mates).

Tabulations by by Great Cities Institute.

Data Care Source: USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org Survey 5-year EstiHealth andIPUMS Social Assistance Child day care services (2018-2022 American Community 1,553 11.9% mates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

3333 33 33

Mexicans had the second largest share in Service occupations (26.6%), and combined with Other Hispanics or Latinos made up the largest share of the workforce at 36.1%.

Mexicans were third for Sales and Office Occupations, after White (non-Hispanic or Latino) and Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) workers, and fourth in Management, Business, and Financial Occupations, which are generally the highest paying occupations.

•

•

34

27,822

55,691

46,080 57,966

Natural Resources, Construction, and Maintenance Occupations

Production, Transportation, and Material Moving Occupations

Sales and Office Occupations

Service Occupations

26.6%

20.3%

36.5%

46.8%

9.8%

% Share of Occupation Employment

20,685

20,492

14,999

6,491

32,402

Number

9.5%

9.0%

9.8%

10.9%

5.8%

% Share of Occupation Employment

Other Hispanics or Latinos

48,802

82,098

26,457

15,534

309,194

Number

22.4%

36.2%

17.4%

26.1%

54.8%

% Share of Occupation Employment

White (non-Hispanic or Latino)

71,291

59,969

45,088

7,415

90,361

Number

32.7%

26.5%

29.6%

12.5%

16.0%

% Share of Occupation Employment

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino)

19,365

18,128

10,129

2,179

76,902

Number

8.9%

8.0%

6.7%

3.7%

13.6%

% Share of Occupation Employment

Other (non-Hispanic or Latino)

Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

55,088

Number

Mexican

Management, Business, and Financial Occupations

Occupation

Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Employment Groups in Chicago, Table 36: Employment by Occupation ment and for Percent Share of Occupation for 2018-2022 Mexicans(ACS and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 5-year Estimates) 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates)

Table 36: Employment by Occupation and Percent Share of Occupation Employ-

Mexicans had the highest shares of employment in Natural Resources, Construction, and Maintenance Occupations and Production (46.8%), Transportation, and Material Moving Occupations (36.5%), and combined with other Latinos made up 57.7% and 46.3% respectively in 2018-2022 (see Table 36 and Figure 6).

Employment and Business

Page 65

Figure 6: Percent Share of Occupation Employment for Mexicans and Other Racial/ Ethnic GroupsFigure in Chicago, 2018−2022 5−yearEmployment Estimates) for 7 : Percent Share of(ACS Occupation Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, 2018−2022 (ACS 5−year Estimates)

Natural Resources, Construction, and Maintenance Occupations

46.8%

Production, Transportation, and Material Moving Occupations

36.5%

Service Occupations

Sales and Office Occupations Management, Business, and Financial Occupations

10.9%

9.8%

26.6%

20.3%

9.8%

9.5%

9.0%

5.8%

22.4%

36.2%

54.8%

17.4%

12.5% 3.7%

26.1%

29.6%

32.7%

26.5%

16.0%

6.7%

8.9%

8.0%

13.6%

Mexican Other Hispanics or Latinos White (non−Hispanic or Latino) Black (non−Hispanic or Latino) Other (non−Hispanic or Latino) Other (non−Hispanic or Latino) Black (non−Hispanic or Latino) White (non−Hispanic or Latino) Other Hispanics or Latinos

Mexican

Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018−2022 American Community Data Source: IPUMSby USA, University Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018−2022 American Survey 5−year Estimates).Tabulations Great CitiesofInstitute.

Community Survey 5−year Estimates).Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

The largest sub-occupation was the same for both Mexicans and Other Hispanics Latinos, who together made up 51% of the share of the workforce in Janitors and building cleaners in 2018-2022 (see Table 37).

•

The top five sub-occupations for Mexican workers were within Service Occupations, Transportation and Material Moving Occupations, Service Occupations, Sales and Related Occupations, and Transportation and Material Moving Occupations, which tend to be the occupations with the lowest wages.

•

The sub-occupations with the largest percentages of Mexican workers were Construction laborers (53.2%); Miscellaneous production workers, including equipment operators and tenders (46.8%); Cooks (44.3%); and Laborers and freight, stock, and material movers, hand (41.6%).

•

Mexicans and Other Hispanic or Latinos predominated in 8 of the same 10 sub-occupation categories, and most notably made up 68.9% of Construction laborers; 55.2% of Cooks; 51.8% of Laborers and freight, stock, and material movers, hand; and 51% of Janitors and building cleaners.

•

The two sub-occupations that were not in the top 10 for Mexicans but that were in for Other Latinos were Other managers, and First-line supervisors of retail sales workers. The two that were not in the top 10 for Other Latinos were Waiters and waitresses, and Miscellaneous production workers, including equipment operators and tenders.

35

Employment and Business

Table Table 37: 37: Employment Employment

by Sub-occupation

by Sub-occupation andand Percent Percent Share Share of Occupation of Occupation Em-Em-

ployment ployment for 10 Sub-occupations 10 Sub-occupations Where Where Hispanics Hispanics or Latinos or of Latinos Have Have the the Highest Highest Table 37: Employment byforSub-occupation and Percent Share Occupation Employment for 10 SubNumber Number of Employees of Employees for for Mexicans Mexicans andand Other Other Hispanics Hispanics or Latinos or Latinos in Chicago, in Chicago, occupations Where Hispanics or Latinos Have the Highest Number of Employees for Mexicans and Other 2018-2022 2018-2022 (ACS (ACS 5-year 5-year Estimates) Estimates) Hispanics or Latinos in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Occupation Occupation Group Group

Sub-occupation Sub-occupation

Number Number

% Share % Share of of Occupation Occupation Employment Employment

Mexican Mexican Service Service Occupations Occupations

Janitors Janitors andand building building cleaners cleaners

8,854 8,854

38.6% 38.6%

Transportation Transportation andand Material Material Moving Moving Occupations Occupations

Laborers Laborers andand freight, freight, stock, stock, andand material material movers, movers, hand hand

8,688 8,688

41.6% 41.6%

Service Service Occupations Occupations

Cooks Cooks

7,652 7,652

44.3% 44.3%

Sales Sales andand Related Related Occupations Occupations

Cashiers Cashiers

7,608 7,608

33.3% 33.3%

Transportation Transportation andand Material Material Moving Moving Occupations Occupations

Driver/sales Driver/sales workers workers andand truck truck drivers drivers

7,309 7,309

29.7% 29.7%

Office Office andand Administrative Administrative Support Support Occupations Occupations

Customer Customer service service representatives representatives

5,960 5,960

21.3% 21.3%

Construction Construction andand Extraction Extraction Occupations Occupations

Construction Construction laborers laborers

5,664 5,664

53.2% 53.2%

Sales Sales andand Related Related Occupations Occupations

Retail Retail salespersons salespersons

4,749 4,749

24.7% 24.7%

Service Service Occupations Occupations

Waiters Waiters andand waitresses waitresses

4,705 4,705

36.2% 36.2%

Production Production Occupations Occupations

Miscellaneous Miscellaneous production production workers, workers, including including equipment equipment operators operators andand tenders tenders

4,375 4,375

46.8% 46.8%

Service Service Occupations Occupations

Janitors Janitors andand building building cleaners cleaners

2,842 2,842

12.4% 12.4%

Office Office andand Administrative Administrative Support Support Occupations Occupations

Customer Customer service service representatives representatives

2,546 2,546

9.1% 9.1%

Transportation Transportation andand Material Material Moving Moving Occupations Occupations

Laborers Laborers andand freight, freight, stock, stock, andand material material movers, movers, hand hand

2,132 2,132

10.2% 10.2%

Other Other Hispanics Hispanics or Latinos or Latinos

Sales Sales andand Related Related Occupations Occupations

Retail Retail salespersons salespersons

2,065 2,065

10.7% 10.7%

Transportation Transportation andand Material Material Moving Moving Occupations Occupations

Driver/sales Driver/sales workers workers andand truck truck drivers drivers

2,042 2,042

8.3% 8.3%

Management, Management, Business, Business, andand Financial Financial Occupations Occupations

Other Other managers managers

1,911 1,911

5.5% 5.5%

Sales Sales andand Related Related Occupations Occupations

First-line First-line supervisors supervisors of retail of retail sales sales workers workers

1,896 1,896

12.4% 12.4%

Service Service Occupations Occupations

Cooks Cooks

1,882 1,882

10.9% 10.9%

Sales Sales andand Related Related Occupations Occupations

Cashiers Cashiers

1,799 1,799

7.9% 7.9%

Construction Construction andand Extraction Extraction Occupations Occupations

Construction Construction laborers laborers

1,670 1,670

15.7% 15.7%

Data Data Source: Source: IPUMS IPUMS USA, USA, University University of Minnesota, of Minnesota, www.ipums.org www.ipums.org (2018-2022 (2018-2022 American American Community Community Survey Survey 5-year 5-year Esti-Estimates). mates).

Tabulations Tabulations

by Great

by Great Cities Cities Institute.

Institute.

The top three sub-occupations in which Mexican males were the largest share of total sub-occupation employment were in Landscaping and groundskeeping workers (71.8%), Painters and paperhangers (59.8%), and Automotive service technicians and mechanics (56.6%) (see Table 38).

•

For sub-occupations containing the largest numbers of Mexican males, the top three were Driver/sales workers and truck drivers (7,053), Laborers and freight, stock, and material movers, hand (6,853), and Cooks (5,714).

36 36

Page 67

The top three sub-occupations in which Mexican females were the largest share of total sub-occupation employment were as maids and housekeeping cleaners (25.4%), Cashiers (25.3%), and Waitresses (22.3%) (see Table 38).

•

For sub-occupations containing the largest numbers of Mexican females, the top three were Cashiers (5,771), Janitors and building cleaners (3,728), and Customer service representatives (3,588).

Table 37: Employment by Sub-occupation and Percent Share of Occupation Employment for 10 Sub-occupations Where Hispanics or Latinos Have the Highest Table 38: Employment Industryand andOther Percent Share oforOccupation Number of Employees for by Mexicans Latinos in Employment Chicago, Table 38: Employment by Industry and Percent Share of Hispanics Occupation Employment for 10 Sub-occupations for 10 Sub-occupations Where Mexican Males and Females Have the Highest Num2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Have Estimates) Where Mexican Males and Females the Highest Number of Employees in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS ber of Employees in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) 5-year Estimates) Occupation Group Occupation Group

Mexican Mexican Males Service Occupations Transportation and Material Moving Transportation and Material Moving Occupations Occupations Transportation and Material Moving Service Occupations Occupations Sales and Related Occupations Service Occupations Transportation and Material Moving Construction and Extraction Occupations Occupations Service Occupations Office and Administrative Support Service Occupations Occupations Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Construction and Extraction Occupations Occupations Sales and Related Occupations Construction and Extraction Occupations Service Occupations Production Occupations Production Occupations Construction and Extraction Occupations Other Hispanics or Latinos Mexican Females Service Occupations Sales and Related Occupations Office and Administrative Support Service Occupations Occupations Office and Administrative Support Transportation and Material Moving Occupations Occupations

Sub-occupation Sub-occupation

Janitors and building cleaners Driver/sales workers and truck drivers Laborers and freight, stock, and material movers, hand Laborers and freight, stock, and material Cooks movers, hand Cashiers Cooks Driver/sales workers and truck drivers Construction laborers

Number Number

% Share of % Share of Occupation Occupation Employment Employment

8,854 7,053 8,688

38.6% 28.7% 41.6%

6,853 7,652

32.8% 44.3%

7,608 5,714 7,309 5,454

33.3% 33.1% 29.7% 51.2%

Janitors and building cleaners Customer service representatives Landscaping and groundskeeping workers

5,126 5,960 3,666

22.4% 21.3% 71.8%

Automotive service technicians and Construction laborers mechanics Retail salespersons Carpenters Waiters and waitresses Miscellaneous production workers, including Miscellaneous production workers, including equipment operators and tenders equipment operators and tenders Painters and paperhangers

3,296 5,664

56.6% 53.2%

4,749 3,254 4,705 2,773 4,375

24.7% 49.1% 36.2% 29.7% 46.8%

2,455

59.8%

Janitors and building cleaners Cashiers Customer service representatives Janitors and building cleaners

2,842 5,771 2,546 3,728

12.4% 25.3% 9.1% 16.3%

Customer representatives Laborers and service freight, stock, and material movers, hand

3,588 2,132

12.8% 10.2%

Service Occupations Sales and Related Occupations

Waiters and waitresses Retail salespersons

2,894 2,065

22.3% 10.7%

Sales and Related Occupations Transportation and Material Moving Occupations Service Occupations

Retail salespersons Driver/sales workers and truck drivers

2,858 2,042

14.8% 8.3%

2,509 1,911 2,389

25.4% 5.5% 21.4%

2,028 1,896

16.7% 12.4%

Maids and housekeeping cleaners Management, Business, and Financial Other managers Service Occupations Childcare workers Occupations Office and Administrative Support Secretaries and administrative assistants, Sales and Related Occupations First-line of retail workers Occupations exceptsupervisors legal, medical, andsales executive Service Occupations Education, Legal, Community Service, Arts, Cooks Elementary and middle school teachers

andand Media Occupations Sales Related Occupations

Cashiers

1,882 1,954 1,799

10.9% 9.3% 7.9%

Service Occupations Construction and Extraction Occupations

Cooks Construction laborers

1,938 1,670

11.2% 15.7%

Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Esti-Estimates).

Tabulations

by Great Cities Institute. mates).

Tabulations

by Great Cities Institute.

Employment and Business 5

Nationwide, Mexican workers are less likely than Other Hispanics or Latinos, and White (non-Hispanic or Latino) and Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) workers to be a member of a labor union, at 7.8% compared to 9.1%, 9.5%, and 9.3% respectively; but are slightly more likely than Other (non-Hispanics or Latinos) who are at 7.2% (see Table 39).

•

Mexicans are also less likely than every other group to be covered by a union but not be a member.

Table 39: 39:Union UnionMembership Membershipand andCoverage Coveragefor for Mexicans Mexicans and and Other Other Racial/Ethnic Table Racial/Ethnic Groups in the U.S., 2022 Groups in the U.S., 2022 Race/Ethnicity

Total Employed

Covered by Union but Not a Member

Member of Labor Union Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Mexican

18,101,402

1,405,940

7.8%

66,294

0.4%

Other Hispanics or Latinos

11,031,515

1,001,838

9.1%

118,350

1.1%

White (non-Hispanic or Latino)

96,265,453

9,171,730

9.5%

1,049,954

1.1%

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino)

18,553,017

1,727,357

9.3%

242,419

1.3%

Other (non-Hispanic or Latino)

14,154,300

1,024,372

7.2%

207,312

1.5%

Data Source: IPUMS CPS, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org. (2022 Current Population Survey).

Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Predominantly Mexican communities on the Southwest and Southeast Sides are surrounded by the city’s largest industrial corridors, which leads to some of the worst air pollution in Illinois (see Map 10).

•

Historically industrial neighborhoods that were once working-class White ethnic enclaves experienced a “second white-flight” during the 1980’s and 1990’s as Mexicans and other Latinos moved in.

•

Of the 24 industrial corridors, the 6 largest are on the Southwest and Southeast Sides, and contain the majority of the city’s heavy industry such as manufacturing; asphalt plants; transportation, distribution and logistics (TDL) facilities like rail yards and warehouses; rock and metal crushing; among many others. 50

•

Chicago’s Industrial Corridors are indeed major job centers that provide tens of thousands of jobs to people from throughout the metropolitan area, however, there is still a question of just how much these jobs are benefiting local communities. In 2019, the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) produced a Draft Framework Plan for the Little Village Industrial Corridor, the third largest in the city, and found that approximately 13% of all jobs in the corridor were held by residents from surrounding zip codes.51

•

These industrial corridors have a tremendous impact on the everyday lives of these communities, including but not limited to, air and noise pollution, medium and heavy-duty truck traffic, limiting the potential for bicycle network connectivity, reduced home values, among many other negative externalities.52

50 City of Chicago, Department of Planning and Development, “Chicago and its Industrial Corridor System” 51 City of Chicago, Department of Planning and Development, “Little Village Draft Framework Plan” 52 Chicago Environmental Justice Network

Page 69

Map 10: The Proximity of Industrial Corridors to Mexican Neighborhoods in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates)

% Mexican of Total Population 0% - 20% 20.01% - 40% 40.01% - 60% 60.01% - 80% 80.01% - 100% Industrial Corridors of Chicago

Employment and Business

Mexicans were by far the population that uses Auto, truck, or van to get to work (68.9%), especially compared to Non-Hispanics or Latinos (48.1%) in 2018-2022 (see Table 40).

•

Mexicans were less likely to use public transit to get to work than Other Hispanics or Latinos and NonHispanics or Latinos.

•

To travel to work 9% of Mexicans used the Bus, compared to 9.2% of Other Hispanics or Latinos, and 10.3% of Non-Hispanics or Latinos; 0.6% used the Long-distance train or commuter train compared to 0.9% and 1.4%; and 5.9% used the Subway or elevated compared to 6.7% and 10.2%.

40: Primary Means of Transportation for Mexicans andRacial/Ethnic Other Racial/Groups in Table 40:Table Primary Means of Transportation to Work to forWork Mexicans and Other GroupsEstimates) in Chicago, 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Chicago, 2018-2022 Ethnic (ACS 5-year Means of Transportation

Number Auto, truck, or van

Other Hispanics or Latinos

Mexican Percent

167,218

Number

68.9%

Non-Hispanic or Latino

Percent

57,961

Number

60.9%

424,893

Percent 48.1%

Bicycle

1,954

0.8%

696

0.7%

12,418

1.4%

Bus

21,894

9.0%

8,714

9.2%

90,905

10.3%

Light rail, streetcar, or trolley (Carro público in PR)

252

0.1%

192

0.2%

1,353

0.1%

Long-distance train or commuter train

1,475

0.6%

896

0.9%

12,148

1.4%

58

0.0%

96

0.1%

362

0.0%

Other

2,820

1.2%

1,323

1.4%

10,580

1.2%

Subway or elevated

14,417

5.9%

6,344

6.7%

90,438

10.2%

Taxicab

1,477

0.6%

645

0.7%

6,624

0.8%

Motorcycle

Walked only

8,195

3.4%

4,101

4.3%

51,523

5.8%

Worked at home

16,508

6.8%

11,990

12.6%

163,431

18.5%

-

-

-

-

74

0.0%

Ferryboat

Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

•

The two most environmentally Biking and Area Walking, were also2018 much lower for Mexicans.

Table 41:friendly Illinoismethods, and Chicago Metro Latino GDP, 0.8% of Mexicans used a Bicycle to get to work, compared to 0.7% of Other Latinos, and 1.4% of NonHispanics or Latinos; and 3.4% of Mexicans walked to work, compared to 4.3% of Other Latinos, and Latino GDP (billions 5.8% of Non-Hispanics or Latinos. of dollars)

•

Only 6.8% of Mexicans worked from home, compared to 12.6% of Other Latinos, and 18.5% of NonIllinois Latino GDP (5th highest state) 100.1 Hispanics or Latinos.

Chicago Metro Area (IL, IN, WI) Latino GDP (5th highest metro area)

97.5

Data Source: 2023 U.S. Latino GDP Report, www.LatinoGDP.us (CLU-CERF, Bank of America State and Metro Latino GDP Reports).

erryboat

-

-

-

-

74

0.0%

a Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2018-2022 American Community vey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

Page 71

Table 41: AreaLatino LatinoGDP, GDP, 2018 Table 41:Illinois Illinoisand andChicago Chicago Metro Metro Area 2018 Latino GDP (billions of dollars) Illinois Latino GDP (5th highest state)

100.1

Chicago Metro Area (IL, IN, WI) Latino GDP (5th highest metro area)

97.5

The size of the economy of Hispanics and Latinos in the United States is very significant, especially in Illinois. The GDP of Hispanics and Latinos in Illinois was 100.1 billion dollars in 2018, which was the fifth highest for any state in the country (see Tables 41 and 42).

Data Source: 2023 U.S. Latino GDP Report, www.LatinoGDP.us (CLU-CERF, Bank of America State and Metro Latino GDP Reports).

Table42: 42:2021 2021 Latino Latino GDP GDP with Table with 10 10 Largest LargestCountries Countries Table 42: 2021 Latino GDP with 10 Largest Countries Country Country

GDP (billions of GDP (billions of dollars)

dollars)

United States United States China China Japan Japan Germany Germany U.S. Latinos U.S. Latinos India India United Kingdom

23,315.1

23,315.1

17,759.3

17,759.3

5,005.5

5,005.5 4,262.8 4,262.8 3,159.7 3,159.7 3,150.3 3,150.3 3,123.2

United Kingdom France France Italy

3,123.2 2,957.4 2,957.4 2,115.8

Italy Canada

2,115.8 2,001.5

Canada Russia

2,001.5 1,836.6

•

Latinos in the Chicago Metro Area accounted for the majority of this with 97.5 billions of dollars in 2018, which was the fifth highest of any metro area in the country.

•

U.S. Latinos alone had the fifth largest economy in the world in 2021, ahead of traditionally large economies such as India, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada, and Russia.

Russia Data Source: 2023 U.S. Latino GDP Report, www.LatinoGDP.us 1,836.6 (International Monetary Fund and Organization for Economic Cooperation Source:2023 2023 GDP www.LatinoGDP.us Report, www.LatinoGDP.us Data Source: U.S. U.S. Latino Latino GDP40 Report, and Development).

Monetary Fund Fund and and Organization Organizationfor forEconomic EconomicCooperation Cooperation (International Monetary and Development).

Development). and

Table 43: 43:Median MedianHousehold HouseholdNet NetWorth Worth by

by Detailed Detailed Hispanic Table Hispanic Origin, 2020 Origin, 2020 Table 43: Median Household Net Worth by Detailed Hispanic

Origin, 2020

Hispanic Origin Group

Hispanic Origin Group Mexican

Median Household Median Net Worth

Household $52,440 Net Worth

Standard Error

$3,640

$52,650

$3,088

$47,530

$5,403

$35,770

$20,280

$92,700

$31,780

Salvadoran Colombian Dominican Other Hispanic

$30,600 $141,200

$7,468 $72,690

$9,430 $58,490

$7,428 $14,130

Colombian Not Hispanic

$141,200 $195,600

$72,690 $5,202

Other Hispanic Hispanic

$58,490 $52,190

$14,130 $3,260

Native-born Mexican Mexican Foreign-born Mexican Native-born Mexican Puerto Rican Foreign-born Mexican Cuban Puerto Rican Salvadoran Cuban Dominican

$52,440

$52,650

$47,530

$35,770 $30,600 $92,700 $9,430

Median household net worth for Mexican householders was $52,400 in 2020, $143,160 lower than for non-Hispanic householders (see Table 43).

Standard Error

$3,640

$3,088

$5,403

$20,280 $7,468 $31,780 $7,428

Not Hispanic $195,600 $5,202 Note: Use coefficients of variation (defined as the Use caution cautionwith withestimates estimateshaving having coefficients of variation (defined as standard errorerror divided by the largerlarger than$52,190 0.3 as they from the standard divided byestimate) the estimate) than 0.3 as may they suffer may$3,260 suffer Hispanic from data quality issues. Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 Survey of data quality issues.

Note: Useand caution with Participation, estimates having coefficients variation (defined as the Income Program public-use data. of Reproduced from a table Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 Survey of Income and Program Participastandard errorScherer divided by estimate) larger than statisticians 0.3 as they may from by: tion, Zachary andthe Yerís H. Mayol-García, in thesuffer Census Bureau’s public-use data. Economic, and Housing Statistics Division. data qualitySocial, issues.

Reproduced from a table by: Zachary Scherer Yerísand H. Mayol-García, Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 Survey ofand Income Program Participastatisticians in the Census Bureau’s Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics tion, Division. public-use data.

Reproduced from a table by: Zachary Scherer and Yerís H. Mayol-García, statisticians in the Census Bureau’s Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics

•

U.S.-born Mexicans had a slightly higher median household net worth compared to foreignborn Mexicans, $52,650 to $47,530 respectively.

•

Colombian householders had a median household net worth of 141,200, the highest among Hispanic or Latino origins, followed by Cubans at $92,700.

Employment and Business

Comparing the share of the population with the share of businesses owned with employees, Hispanics were 22.9% of the population yet owned just 8.2% of businesses (see Table 44 and Figure 7).

Table 44: Share of Business Ownership (2021) and Population by Race/Ethnicity

Table 44: Share of of Business Business Ownership (2021) and Population by (20182022 ACSand 5-year Estimates) in Chicago−Naperville−Elgin, IL−IN−WI Metro Are Table 44: Share Ownership (2021) Population

by Race/Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity (20182022 ACS 5-year Estimates) in Chicago−Naperville−Elgin, IL−IN−WI Metro Area 2022 ACS 5-year Estimates) in Chicago−Naperville−Elgin, IL−IN−WI Metro Area Ownership Without With Employees Employees Hispanic 124,000 15,499 Not Hispanic

Ownership Hispanic Not Hispanic

Without Employees Total Businesses

708,000by both groups 173,587 Owned equally 1,200 1,216 American Indian and Alaska Native (non-Hispanic) 3,000 441

Owned equally by both groups American Indian and Alaska Native (non-Hispanic)

With Employees

Total Busi

124,000 139,499 708,000 881,587 1,200

15,499

1

173,587

8

2,416 3,000 3,441

441

1,216

Asian (non-Hispanic) 80,000 Asian (non-Hispanic) 80,000 20,290 100,290 Table 44: Share of Business Ownership (2021) and American Population

by Race/Ethnicity (2018-146,000 Black or African (non-Hispanic)

2022 ACS 5-year Estimates) in Chicago−Naperville−Elgin, IL−IN−WI Metro Area Black or African American (non-Hispanic) 146,000 and Other 5,541 Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Ownership (non-Hispanic)

(non-Hispanic) 700 Without

With Employees

71

20,290

1

5,541

1

151,541700 771

71

Total Businesses

White (non-Hispanic) 488,000 147,353 Employees White (non-Hispanic) 488,000 147,353 635,353 Note: Counts include only businesses by owner demographic group Hispanic 124,000 15,499 classifiable 139,499 Databy Sources: Annual Business Survey, 2021 Note: Counts include only businesses classifiable owner demographic group Not Hispanic 708,000 173,587 881,587 Data Sources: Annual Business Survey, 2021(Census); Nonemployer Statistics by Demographics, 2021 (Census) Owned equally by both groups 1,200 1,216 2,416 (Census); Nonemployer Statistics by Demographics, 2021 (Census)

•

•

6

American Indian and Alaska Native 3,000 441of Business 3,441 Figure 8: Share Ownership (2021) and Population (non-Hispanic) For businesses with employees, Hispanics owned 8.2% of in the Chicago ACS Metro Area,Estimates) in by businesses Race/Ethnicity (2018−2022 5−year Figure 8: Share of Business Ownership (2021) and Population Asian 80,000 20,290 100,290 compared to 77.9% for(non-Hispanic) White (non-Hispanic or Latino) and 2.9% for Black (non-Hispanic or Latino), Chicago−Naperville−Elgin, IL−IN−WIand Metro Area

by Race/Ethnicity (2018−2022 ACS 5−year Estimates) in Black or African Chicago−Naperville−Elgin, American (non-Hispanic) 146,000 5,541 Area 151,541 10.7% of Asians (non-Hispanic or Latino).

IL−IN−WI Metro Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

700

71

771

For context, Latinos made up 22.9% of the metro area in 2018-2022, compared to 51.2% for Whites (non-Hispanic) (non-Hispanic or Latino), 15.9% Black (non-Hispanic or488,000 Latino), and 147,353 6.9% Asian (non-Hispanic or Latino), White (non-Hispanic) 635,353 77.9% meaning Hispanics and Black (non-Hispancic or Latino) both owned fewer businesses than they should Note: Counts include only businesses classifiable by owner demographic group Data Sources: Survey, 2021 based on their share of the Annual total Business population, while Asians (non-Hispanic or Latino) and especially Whites 51.2% Statistics

by Demographics, 2021of(Census) (non-Hispanic or (Census); Latino)Nonemployer own far more than their share the total population.

77

22.9%

Figure 8: Share of Business Ownership22.9% (2021) and Population 15.9% 10.7% 8.2% 6.9%

by Race/Ethnicity ACS 5−year Estimates) in 15.9%Population Figure 7: Share of Business Ownership (2021)(2018−2022 and

by Race/Ethnicity 2.9%(2018−2022 ACS 5−year 10.7% Chicago−Naperville−Elgin, 0.2% 0.1%8.2% IL−IN−WI Metro Area 6.9% Estimates) in Chicago−Naperville−Elgin, IL−IN−WI Metro Area 0.2%

2.9%

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

American Asian Black or Hispanic (non−Hispanic) American Asian Black or Indian Hispanic Native African White 77.9% and Alaska American Indian (non−Hispanic) African Hawaiian (non−Hispanic) (non−Hispanic) and Alaska AmericanNative and Other 51.2% (non−Hispanic) Native (non−Hispanic) Pacific (non−Hispanic) Islander (non−Hispanic) 10.7% 0.2% 0.1%

6.9%

15.9% 2.9%

0.0%

Native Hawaiian (non and Other Pacific Islander (non−Hispanic)

22.9%

8.2%

% of Business Ownership

% of Business Ownership 0.0% 0.0%

% of Population

% of Population

Data Annual Business Survey, American Asian BlackSources: or Hispanic Native 2021 (Census); White Nonemployer Statistics Indian Business (non−Hispanic) African Hawaiian Demographics, 2021(Census).

Tabulations(non−Hispanic)

by Great Cities Institute.

Data Sources: Annual Survey, 2021by (Census); Nonemployer Statistics and Alaska and Other

by Demographics, 2021(Census). Tabulations American

by Great Cities Institute.

Native (non−Hispanic) Pacific (non−Hispanic) Islander (non−Hispanic) % of Business Ownership % of Business Ownership

% of Population % of Population

0.0%

Data Sources: Annual Business Survey, 2021 (Census); Nonemployer Statistics by Demographics, 2021(Census). Tabulations by Data Sources: Annual Business Survey, 2021 (Census); Nonemployer Statistics Great Cities Institute.

by Demographics, 2021(Census). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

8

Asian

207

100.0%

13.0%

3.9%

1.0%

1.9%

200

20

6

3

8

163

100.0%

10.0%

3.0%

1.5%

4.0%

81.5%

204

13

6

4

7

174

100.0%

6.4%

2.9%

2.0%

3.4%

85.3%

Number Percent

2016

Data Source: Chicago United Inside Inclusion. Data compiled by Great Cities Institute.

Total

27

2

Unable to Verify Ethnicity

4

Hispanic

80.2%

Number Percent

Number Percent

166

2014

2012

African-American

Caucasian

Race/Ethnicity

216

10

5

6

11

184

100.0%

4.6%

2.3%

2.8%

5.1%

85.2%

Number Percent

2018

254

1

15

12

16

210

100.0%

0.4%

5.9%

4.7%

6.3%

82.7%

Number Percent

2020

278

0

27

7

23

221

100.0%

0.0%

9.7%

2.5%

8.3%

79.5%

Number Percent

2022

0.0%

-13.0%

5.8%

1.6%

6.3%

-0.7%

Percentage Point Difference

2012-2022

During the same period, there was a 6.4 percentage point increase in the share of African Americans in C-Suite Executive positions between 2012 and 2022, going from 1.9% to 8.3%.

•

TableTable 45: Race/Ethnicity Status of C-Suite Executives for Top 50 Companies in Chicago, 2012-2022 45: Race/Ethnicity Status of C-Suite Executives for Top 50 Companies in Chicago, 2012-2022

There was just a 1.5 percentage point increase in the share of Hispanics in C-Suite Executive positions between 2012 and 2022, going from 1.0% to 2.5%.

•

From the top 50 highest revenue companies in Chicago, in 2022, just 2.5% of C-Suite Executives were Hispanic compared to 79.5% for Caucasians, 8.3% for African Americans, and 9.7% for Asians (see Table 45).

Page 73

43

15 26

Asian

Unable to Verify Ethnicity 100.0%

4.1%

2.3%

3.0%

6.4%

551

16

16

19

34

466

100.0%

2.9%

2.9%

3.4%

6.2%

84.6%

557

17

14

19

44

463

100.0%

3.1%

2.5%

3.4%

7.9%

83.1%

Number Percent

2016

Data Source: Chicago United Inside Inclusion. Data compiled by Great Cities Institute.

641

19

Hispanic

Total

41

84.2%

Number Percent

Number Percent

540

2014

2012

African-American

Caucasian

Race/Ethnicity

555

16

14

22

42

461

100.0%

2.9%

2.5%

4.0%

7.6%

83.1%

Number Percent

2018

553

3

16

23

50

461

100.0%

0.5%

2.9%

4.2%

9.0%

83.4%

Number Percent

2020

489

4

23

20

67

375

100.0%

0.8%

4.7%

4.1%

13.7%

76.7%

Number Percent

2022

0.0%

-3.2%

2.4%

1.1%

7.3%

-7.6%

Percentage Point Difference

2012-2022

During the same period, there was a 7.3 percentage point increase in the share of African Americans in C-Suite Executive positions between 2012 and 2022, going from 6.4% to 13.7%.

•

TableTable 46: 46: Race/Ethnicity of of Boards ofofDirectors CompaniesininChicago, Chicago, 2012-2022 Race/Ethnicity Boards Directorsfor forTop Top50 50 Companies 2012-2022

There was just a 1.1 percentage point increase in the share of Hispanics as members of Boards of Directors between 2012 and 2022, going from 3.0% to 4.1%.

•

From the top 50 highest revenue companies in Chicago, in 2022, just 4.1% of members of Boards of Directors were Hispanic compared to 76.7% for Caucasians, 13.7% for African Americans, and 4.7% for Asians (see Table 46).

Employment and Business

44

Page 75

Some Focus Group Comments on Employment and Business “In the construction industry you see a lot of Mexicanos working but you don’t see them as supervisors; there’s a threshold that they can’t make it higher.”

“I like seeing through one of our workforce programs that Latinos are being more demanding about wages.

They’re not willing to work for just $14or $15-hour jobs. They also are more demanding about work schedules that are conducive towards their family life, more cognizant of what they’re willing and not willing to do.”

“The agencies or organizations that receive funding to help small business owners don’t do a great job reaching out to the Mexican business owners, which is really sad, because in some suburbs like here in Waukegan and Lake County, they thrive from those businesses. Some of these towns wouldn’t even exist if it wasn’t for the [Mexican] businesses.”

“There needs to be more funding for technical financial training for Mexican businesses to secure MBE [minority business enterprise] status. Unless you have an accountant, a good banker and an attorney, it makes it difficult to enter into those kinds of programs.”

A restaurant worker in Pilsen in 1999. ST-30003348-0003, Chicago Sun-Times collection, Chicago History Museum.

The exterior of El Milagro Tortillería in Little Village, a business which reports annual revenues of more than $500 million. Courtesy of Elena Oliveira, GCI

“The lens of my superpower is understanding what we [Mexicans] can do to get access to capital for small and middle market companies, because it’s that capital that’s going to create jobs, sustainability, and growth for Mexicanowned businesses,” said a lending officer at a major Chicago bank.

The window of Pilsen business Panadería Nuevo León. Courtesy of Olivia Abeyta, GCI

Citizenship and Civic Participation The number of Mexicans who were non-citizens dropped significantly from 2000 to 2018-2022, but they still made up a higher percentage of Chicago’s non-citizen population when compared to other groups in 2018-2022 (see Table 47).

Citizenship and Civic Participation

Table 47: U.S. U.S.Citizenship Citizenshipfor forMexicans Mexicansand andOther OtherRacial/Ethnic Racial/Ethnic Groups Groups in in Chicago, Chicago, Table 47: 2000 2000 (Decennial Census), 2008-2012, and 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) (Decennial Census), 2008-2012, and 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Race/Ethnicity

Citizen Rate 2000

Mexican

2008-2012

2018-2022

Change from 2000 to 2018-2022

60.7%

67.4%

77.5%

16.8%

81.7%

Citizenship and Civic Participation

84.1%

85.5%

3.8%

White (non-Hispanic or Latino)

90.1%

93.2%

95.1%

5.0%

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino)

98.9%

98.3%

98.2%

-0.7%

Other Hispanics or Latinos

Table 47: U.S. Citizenship for Mexicans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Chicago, Other (non-Hispanic or Latino) 72.2% 9.1% 2000 (Decennial Census), 2008-2012,67.1% and 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year76.2% Estimates) Data Source: IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2000 Decennial Census, 2008-2012, and 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates).Citizen Tabulations Race/Ethnicity Rate by Great Cities Institute.

• •

2000

2008-2012

2018-2022

Change from

The non-citizen rate for Mexicans has dropped from 39.3% in 2000 to 22.5% in 2018-2022, reflecting a 2000 to Table 48: Mexican and Hispanic/Latino Representation the Illinois Legisladecrease of 16.8 percentage points over the period, the largest amonginother racial/ethnic groups.

2018-2022 ture, 2024 Despite this decrease, Mexicans still had a higher non-citizen rate than other racial/ethnic groups. In Mexican 60.7% 67.4% 77.5% 16.8% comparison, the Body non-citizenMembers rate for other Hispanics or Latinos was 14.5%, for White (non-Hispanic or Mexicans Other Percent Hispanic3.8% Other Hispanics or Latinos 81.7% 84.1%Hispanic or 85.5% Latino) was 4.9%, and for Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) was 1.8% same Latino during the or Latinoperiod.

White (non-Hispanic or Latino) Senate Black (non-Hispanic or Latino)

90.1%

59

House Other (non-Hispanic or Latino) 118

93.2%

95.1%

5.0%

98.9%

4

98.3%

2 98.2%

10.2% -0.7%

67.1%

8

72.2%

4 76.2%

10.2% 9.1%

While the number of Mexican and other Hispanics or Latinos toCensus, the Illinois legislature has Data Source: IPUMS USA, University ofLatino Minnesota, www.ipums.org (2000elected Decennial 2008-2012, Data Source: Illinois Legislative Caucus Foundation.

Tabulation

by Great Cities Institute improvedand in 2018-2022 recent years, the total remains significantly below the Hispanic or Latino percentage of the American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute. state population.

Table 48: Mexican and Hispanic/Latino Representation in the Illinois Legislature,48: 2024 Table Mexican and Hispanic/Latino Representation in the Illinois Legislature, 2024 Body

Members

Mexicans

Other Hispanic or Latino

Percent Hispanic or Latino

Senate

59

4

2

10.2%

House

118

8

4

10.2%

Data Source: Illinois Legislative Latino Caucus Foundation. Tabulation by Great Cities Institute

Page 77 5

•

In 2024, there were 18 Hispanic or Latino members in the Illinois legislature, making up just over 10% of the combined membership of the House and Senate.

•

Of those 18 Hispanics or Latinos, 12 were of Mexican heritage and 6 were of other Hispanic or Latino heritage.

•

The total number is substantially below the 17.8% of the Illinois population that is Hispanic or Latino, and even lower than the 13% that Hispanics or Latinos make up of the state’s total voting eligible population.53

Only 52.4% of Hispanic U.S. citizens eligible to vote in Illinois were registered and only 46.8% voted in the 2020 presidential election, among the lowest rates for any state in the county with more than 300,000 eligible Hispanics. Increasing these rates is essential for ensuring that the voices of Illinois’ large Hispanic community are heard and represented in future elections (see Table 49).

Table 49: Population, Percent Registered to Vote, and Percent Voted for Hispanics by State for the

Table 49: Population, Percent Registered to Vote, and Percent Voted for Hispanics by State for the 2020 2020 Presidential Election Presidential Election State

Citizens Aged 18 and Older Number

% Registered to Vote

% Voted

Rank for % Registered

Rank for % Voted

New Jersey

996,000

82.0

72.1

1

1

Connecticut

347,000

67.8

56.4

2

3

Arizona

1,340,000

66.8

60.8

3

2

Virginia

425,000

63.8

51.3

4

12

Texas

5,599,000

63.2

53.1

5

10

New York

1,608,000

61.6

54.9

6

4

497,000

61.4

54.3

7

7

Pennsylvania Washington

485,000

61.0

53.7

8

9

Colorado

618,000

60.5

51.1

9

13

California

8,305,000

60.4

54.6

10

6

Massachusetts

449,000

60.4

50.7

10

14

New Mexico

539,000

59.9

53.8

12

8

Michigan

302,000

58.9

54.7

13

5

Florida

3,394,000

58.7

52.7

14

11

492,000

54.3

48.8

15

15

North Carolina Illinois

1,016,000

52.4

46.8

16

16

Nevada

515,000

52.0

46.4

17

17

Georgia

403,000

47.6

44.2

18

18

Data source: U.S. Census Bureau, ’Voting and Registration in Election of November 2020,’ Table 4a ’Voting and Registration By States,’ GCI tabulation of states with more than 300,000 Latino citizens over age 18.

•

In Illinois, only 52.4% of Hispanics were registered to vote and 46.8% participated in the 2020 presidential Table 50: Estimates of Voter Turnout and Percent of Adult Population That Voted in election. This contrasts sharply with the top performing state, New Jersey, where 82.0% of Hispanics were 2023 Chicago Mayoral Race registered, and 72.1% voted.

53 See “Key facts about Hispanic eligible votersor in 2024,” Pew Black Research Center, January Total White10, 2024, at: https://www.pewresearch.

Hispanic org/short-reads/2024/01/10/key-facts-about-hispanic-eligible-voters-in-2024/ (non-Hispanic or Latino (non-Hispanic or Latino) Latino)

Percent registered voter turnout

20.5%

29.0%

61.1%

38.7%

Percent of

11.3%

24.5%

52.7%

28.0%

Texas

5,599,000

63.2

53.1

5

10

New York Citizenship and Civic Pennsylvania Participation

1,608,000

61.6

54.9

6

4

497,000

61.4

54.3

7

7

Washington

485,000

61.0

53.7

8

9

Colorado

618,000

60.5

51.1

9

13

California

8,305,000

60.4

54.6

10

6

•

Massachusetts 449,000voter registration 60.4 50.7 10 Hispanic voter 14eligible Illinois ranked 16th for Hispanic out of 18 states with the largest population that we analyzed, and 16th among them a New Mexico 539,000 59.9 for voter 53.8 participation. The12disparity underscores 8 vast Michigan difference in voter engagement among states.

302,000 58.9 54.7 13 5

•

Florida 3,394,000 52.7 citizens aged 18 14 Illinois had a relatively large Hispanic population58.7 of 1,016,000 and older, which11was the fifth highest among the states listed. Despite this,54.3 the registration and voting rates North Carolina 492,000 48.8 15 were low.

15 Illinois

1,016,000

52.4

46.8

16

16

Nevada

515,000

52.0

46.4

17

17

Georgia

403,000

47.6

44.2

18

18

The same lack of voter engagement was evident in the 2023 Chicago mayoral race, where a significant Data source: U.S. Census Bureau, ’Voting and Registration in Election of November 2020,’ Table 4a ’Voting and portion of both Hispanic or Latino and Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) voters showed notably low turnout Registration By States,’ GCI tabulation of states with more than 300,000 Latino citizens over age 18. (see Table 50).

Table 50: Estimates of Voter Turnout and Percent of Adult Population That Voted in 2023 Mayoral Race TableChicago 50: Mexican and Hispanic/Latino Representation in the Illinois Legislature, 2024 Hispanic or Latino

Black (non-Hispanic or Latino)

White (non-Hispanic or Latino)

Total

Percent registered voter turnout

20.5%

29.0%

61.1%

38.7%

Percent of population aged 18 and over that voted

11.3%

24.5%

52.7%

28.0%

Race: A Progressive Victory Amidst Shocking Low Turnout

by Black Data Source: Source: Chicago’s Chicago’s2023 2023Mayoral Mayoral Race: A Progressive Victory Amidst Shocking Low Turnout by andand Latino Voters Black Latino Voters (Calculations from Chicago Board of Election Commissioners 2023 Municipal Runoff Election Results andBoard 2020 U.S. Census.)

(Calculations from Chicago of Election Commissioners 2023 Municipal Runoff Election Results and 2020 U.S. Census.)

•

Of those registered to vote, 20.5% of Hispanic or Latino adults, 29.0% of Black (non-Hispanic or Latino) adults, and 61.1% of White (non-Hispanic or Latino) adults voted.

•

Only 11.3% of Hispanic or Latino and 24.5% of Black adults voted, compared to 52.7% of White adults, indicating a stark gulf in civic participation.

Some Focus Group Comments on Civic Participation “In Mexico, we do not have a history of good relationships with politicians because they always promise things and do not deliver. So, many people do not believe that voting solves things. But what works, I think, is seeing the facts, knowing the work that is being done, and knowing that the candidate knows their community.”

“My mom didn’t talk to me about elections.

That type of civic engagement education was not passed down to me. I came to it on my own. And even then, my family and friends would say, that’s not for me. They just want to be focused on their families.”

46

Illinois Representative Jesús “Chuy” Garcia, the first Mexican-American elected to the U.S. Congress from Illinois, speaks at a Chicago anti-deportation rally in 2016.

Courtesy of Charles Miller. All rights reserved.

Page 79 5

“In McHenry County, things got so bad that we had to bring in the Department of Justice… so they came out to help us create different things within the government to bring more cultural understanding. And to this day we still have cultural diversity commissions in two of our cities, and Woodstock is one of them.

We even became a sister city with Zacatecas.”

Senator Tammy Duckworth, other veterans, and families honor the 12 parishioners of South Chicago’s Our Lady of Guadalupe Mexican Catholic Church (El Doce) who died while serving in the Vietnam War. November 11, 2023. Courtesy of Jack Rocha, GCI

“Government for the city of North Chicago, for example, is majority Black. The city doesn’t recognize the increased growth of the Mexicans, who are its biggest group. There’s a lot of mistrust between [older residents] and the new arrivals. It’s bad, to be honest with you. There is a lot of work to do, even within our Mexican culture. We’re very racist, right? It’s just going to take a lot of work, not only to look internally, but to look externally.”

“What we’re trying to do is work with other Black organizations to let our communities know that our issues are the same, that the systems have pitted us against each other and [promoted] this mindset of lack of resources. Even among Mexicans, with the new arrivals from Venezuela, there’s a lot of a lot of anger, because some, including my mother, have been undocumented for 30 years in this country, and they still have no work permits, still have no way to citizenship, and yet, we have the new arrivals coming here and they’re getting those permits within months.”

“To me it is unfathomable that in Cicero or in Berwyn, where the towns are highly Mexican, there isn’t a Mexican mayor. In both of them, there is a serious problem.”54 “I want to mention the sacrifices it took for the Mexican community to get Little Village Lawndale High School built. There was a hunger strike and protest. If we go back to Benito Juarez being built in Pilsen, the Mexican-American community had to work to be heard by the board of education. When the district was closing down Dyett High School in Englewood, it was the Mexican-Americans from Little Village who talked to the Dyett parents and said, this is how we did it, this is how you should do it too to make sure your school doesn’t close, and they actually were successful.”

54 According to the 2018-2022 ACS 5-year estimates, the Mexican population of Berwyn was 27,521 or 48.7% of Berwyn’s total population, and the Mexican population of Cicero was 66,382 or 78.9% of Cicero’s total population.

List of References for Further Study Acosta-Cordova, José. (2019). Lower Wages and Continued Occupational and Industrial Segmentation of Latinos in the Chicago Economy. Masters thesis, University of Illinois at Chicago.

Acosta-Córdova, J. M. (2017). The Latino neighborhoods report: Issues and prospects for Chicago.

Institute for Research on Race and Public Policy.

Acuña, Rodolfo. (1981). Occupied America : A History of Chicanos (2d ed.). Harper & Row. Alvarez-Pimental, Ricardo. (2012) Adopting the American Racial Lense: A history of Mexican migration to Chicago from the town of Arandas, Jalisco. University of Chicago Press.

Amezcua, Mike. (2022). Making Mexican Chicago: From Postwar Settlement to the Age of Gentrification.

University of Chicago Press.

Andrade, Juan. (1998). A Historical Survey of Mexican Immigration to the United States and an Oral History of the Mexican Settlement in Chicago 1920-1990. Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University.

Año Nuevo Kerr, Louise. (1975). Chicano Settlements In Chicago: A Brief History. The Journal of Ethnic Studies, 2(4), 22. Western Washington University.

Año Nuevo Kerr, Louise. (1976). The Chicano Experience in Chicago: 1920-1970. Doctoral Thesis.

Department of History, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle.

Arredondo, Gabriela. (2008). Mexican Chicago: Race, Identity, and Nation, 1916-39. University of Illinois Press.

Bada, Xóchitl. (2014). Mexican Hometown Associations in Chicagoacán: From Local to Transnational Civic Engagement. Rutgers University Press.

Barrett, James R. (1990). Work and Community in the Jungle: Chicago’s Packinghouse Workers, 18941922 (Illini books ed.). University of Illinois Press.

Bedorf, Franziska. (2018). Sweet Home Chicago?: Mexican Migration and the Question of Belonging and Return. Transcript Verlag. Columbia University Press.

Betancur, John. J., Cordova, Teresa., de Los Angeles, Torres. (1993). Economic Restructuring and the Process of Incorporation of Latinos into the Chicago Economy. In Rebecca Morales and Frank Bonilla (Eds.), Latinos in the Changing US Economy (pp. 109-132) Sage Publications.

Betancur, John. J., and Linares, Alexander. (2023). Who Lives in Pilsen: The Trajectory of Gentrification from 2000-2020. Great Cities Institute of the University of Illinois Chicago.

Córdova, Teresa. (1999). Harold Washington and the Rise of Latino Electoral Politics in Chicago, 19821987. In Montejano, David, ed. Chicano Politics and Society in the Late Twentieth Century (pp. 31-57).

University of Texas Press.

De Genova, Nicholas. (2005). Working the Boundaries: Race, Space, and “Illegality” in Mexican Chicago.

Duke University Press.

Delgado, Antonio P. (2020). Taking Off in the City: Mexicans from Hull House and Pilsen Areas in Chicago’s Near West Side, 1910-1960 (Chicago Latino History). La Casa Chicago Publishing.

Fernández, Lilia. (2005). From the near West Side to 18th Street: Mexican Community Formation and Activism in Mid-Twentieth Century Chicago. Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society (1998-), 98(3), 162–183. University of Illinois Press .

Fernández, Lilia. (2012). Brown in the Windy City: Mexicans and Puerto Ricans in Postwar Chicago (1st ed.). The University of Chicago Press.

Flores, John. H. (2018). The Mexican Revolution in Chicago: Immigration politics From the Early Twentieth Century to the Cold War. University of Illinois Press.

Garcia, Myrna. (2013). Sin Fronteras: Activism, Immigration, and the Politics of Belonging in Mexican

Page 81

Chicago, 1968-1986. Doctoral dissertation, University of California San Diego.

Gonzalez, Juan. (2011). Harvest of Empire: A History of Latinos in America. Penguin Books.

Great Cities Institute with Healthy Communities Foundation and Community Memorial Foundation. (2023).

Latinos in the Western Suburbs of Chicago. Digital report. University of Illinois Chicago.

Guerra, Juan C. (1998). Close to home: Oral and literate practices in a transnational Mexicano community.

Teachers College Press.

Guzmán, Oscar Alatriste. (2019). Origen y trayectoria de la migración mexicana a Chicago, 1890-1930.

Cuadernos Americanos, 168(2), 137-158. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Hernández, Rita. D., Sosa, Leticia Villarreal., Gutiérrez, Elena. R. (2024). Chicago Latina Trailblazers: Testimonios of Political Activism. University of Illinois Press.

Hoffman, Abraham. (1974). Unwanted Mexican Americans in the Great Depression: Repatriation Pressures, 1929-1939. University of Arizona Press.

Hunt, D. Bradford. (2009). Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing. (1st ed.).

University of Chicago Press.

Innis-Jiménez, Michael. (2013). Steel Barrio: The Great Mexican Migration to South Chicago, 1915-1940.

NYU Press.

Jones, Anita Edgar. (1928). Conditions Surrounding Mexicans in Chicago. Masters dissertation, University of Chicago Graduate School of Social Service Administration.

McCoyer, Michael. (2007). Darkness of a Different Color: Mexicans and Racial Formation in Greater Chicago, 1916-1960. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.

Mora-Torres, Juan. (2005). Pilsen: A Mexican Global City in the Midwest. Diálogo, 9(1), 2. DePaul University.

Padilla, Felix. M. (1985). Latino Ethnic Consciousness: The Case of Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans in Chicago. University of Notre Dame Press.

Pero, Peter. N. (2011). Chicago’s Pilsen Neighborhood. Arcadia Publishing.

Piñero, Rodolfo Cruz., Zapata-Garibay, Rogelio. (2013). ¡Vivir en el Norte! Condiciones de vida de los mexicanos en Chicago. El Colegio de la Frontera Norte.

Pulido, Isaura. Rivera., Angelica. Avilés., Ann M. (2022). Latina/o/x Education in Chicago: Roots, Resistance, and Transformation (Latinos in Chicago and Midwest). University of Illinois Press.

Ramírez, Leonard. G., Flores, Yenelli., Gamboa, María., González, Isaura., Pérez, Victoria., RamírezCastañeda, Magda., & Vital, Cristina (2011). Chicanas of 18th Street: Narratives of a Movement from Latino Chicago. University of Illinois Press.

Reisler, Mark. (1976). Always the Laborer, Never the Citizen: Anglo Perceptions of the Mexican Immigrant during the 1920s. Pacific Historical Review, 45(2), 231–254. University of California Press.

Reisler, Mark. (1976). By The Sweat of Their Brows. Greenwood Press.

Ropka, Gerald William. (1980). The Evolving Residential Pattern of the Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban population in the City of Chicago. Doctoral thesis. Arno Press.

Rosales, Francisco Arturo., & Simon, Daniel. T. (1981). Mexican Immigrant Experience in the Urban Midwest: East Chicago, Indiana, 1919-1945. Indiana Magazine of History, 77(4), 333–357. Indiana University Press.

Rosales, Francisco Artur. (1976). The Regional Origins of Mexicano Immigrants to Chicago During the 1920s. Aztlán International Journal of Chicano Studies Research, 7(2), 187-201.

Salces, Luis Mario. (1978). Spanish American Politics in Chicago. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.

Sanguino, Laurencio. (2008). Selective Service: Indians, Poles, and Mexicans in Chicago. Civic hopes and political realities: Immigrants, community organizations, and political engagement, 244-270. Russell Sage Foundation.

Sisk, Christina L. (2007). Revista Generación: Mexican Regionalism and Migration in Tijuana and Chicago.

Latino Studies, 5(4), 439-454. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Taylor, Paul. S. (1932). Mexican labor in the United States: Chicago and the Calumet Region (Vol. 7, No. 2). University of California Press.

Data Sources and Methodology Microdata from the American Community Survey (ACS), Decennial Censuses, and Current Population Survey were used to create tabulations for Mexican individuals and Mexican householders. Microdata from these sources was compiled from IPUMS.org and tabulated based on race and detailed ethnicity codes.

Chicago data from IPUMS was aggregated by matching Public Use Microdata Areas to Chicago’s boundary rather than relying on the IPUMS city variable because the city variable after PUMAs were redrawn in 2022 includes two PUMAs that are mostly outside of Chicago’s boundary. For more information, see https://usa.ipums.org/usa-action/variables/CITYERR#description_section.

5-year ACS data was used for the periods of 2008-2012 and 2018-2022 rather than 1-year ACS to increase the sample size and reliability of estimates. This was especially important for the data by Hispanic or Latino origin where sample sizes were small for some indicators published in this report.

The Census Bureau advises 5-year ACS data users to include the entire 5-year ranges when reporting and writing about numbers since the data was collected over a 5-year period and does not represent a single year within the 5-year span.

Data availability was a challenge for this report because many data sources aggregate data for Hispanics, or Hispanics or Latinos but do not disaggregate by country of origin. In some instances, such as business ownership, data is presented for Hispanics which is the category the Annual Business Survey of the U.S. Census Bureau uses. In instances where data was available at smaller geographies such as census tracts and was not available for Mexicans, we compare numbers for predominantly Mexican community areas to other community areas. This strategy was used for health and housing cost data.

For additional details on GDP calculations, see 2023 U.S. Latino GDP Report, www.LatinoGDP.us.

For information about how Hispanic or Latino populations were identified in the 1850 U.S. Census, see https://usa.ipums.org/usa-action/variables/HISPRULE#description_section.

We refer to racial and ethnic groups in the text according to how they were referred to from the data source. For example, the U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Business Survey has tabulations for the “Hispanic” population opposed to the American Community Survey’s tabulations for the “Hispanic or Latino” population.

Page 83

Appendix 1: Detailed Tables for Mexicans in Cook County and Collar Counties Table 52: in Total PopulationCook for Hispanic or Latino in Cook County and Collar Table 51: Mexican Population Chicago, County, andGroups Collar Counties, 1990, 2000, 2010 (Decennial Counties, 2000, 2010 (Decennial Census),(ACS and 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Censuses), and 2018-2022 5-year Estimates) 2000

2010

Change from 2000 to 2018-2022

2018-2022

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent Change

Cook County Mexican

786,423

14.6%

961,963

18.5%

1,034,038

19.8%

247,615

Puerto Rican

130,414

2.4%

133,882

2.6%

139,918

2.7%

9,504

31.5% 7.3%

Cuban

12,752

0.2%

13,679

0.3%

16,571

0.3%

3,819

29.9%

Guatemalan

16,795

0.3%

24,931

0.5%

28,091

0.5%

11,296

67.3%

Colombian

8,380

0.2%

12,114

0.2%

18,355

0.3%

9,975

119.0%

Ecuadorian

10,791

0.2%

19,450

0.4%

26,550

0.5%

15,759

146.0%

Total Hispanic or Latino

1,071,740

19.9%

1,244,762

24.0%

1,352,482

25.9%

280,742

26.2%

Total Population

5,376,741

100.0%

5,194,675

100.0%

5,225,367

100.0%

-151,374

-2.8%

Mexican

63,135

7.0%

96,039

10.5%

103,194

11.1%

40,059

63.4%

Puerto Rican

4,752

0.5%

7,736

0.8%

10,639

1.1%

5,887

123.9%

DuPage County

Cuban

1,834

0.2%

2,345

0.3%

3,174

0.3%

1,340

73.1%

Guatemalan

1,149

0.1%

3,322

0.4%

5,288

0.6%

4,139

360.2%

Colombian

934

0.1%

1,629

0.2%

2,646

0.3%

1,712

183.3%

Ecuadorian

445

0.0%

993

0.1%

1,201

0.1%

756

169.9%

Total Hispanic or Latino

81,366

9.0%

121,506

13.2%

137,806

14.8%

56,440

69.4%

Total Population

904,161

100.0%

916,924

100.0%

930,559

100.0%

26,398

2.9%

Mexican

80,870

20.0%

139,009

27.0%

140,614

27.2%

59,744

73.9%

Puerto Rican

5,630

1.4%

8,540

1.7%

11,262

2.2%

5,632

100.0%

Cuban

435

0.1%

843

0.2%

1,130

0.2%

695

159.8%

Guatemalan

351

0.1%

1,094

0.2%

1,640

0.3%

1,289

367.2%

Colombian

267

0.1%

692

0.1%

1,364

0.3%

1,097

410.9%

Ecuadorian

71

0.0%

397

0.1%

653

0.1%

582

819.7%

Kane County

Total Hispanic or Latino

95,924

23.7%

158,390

30.7%

168,609

32.6%

72,685

75.8%

Total Population

404,119

100.0%

515,269

100.0%

517,254

100.0%

113,135

28.0%

Mexican

71,153

11.0%

111,952

15.9%

127,212

17.8%

56,059

78.8%

Puerto Rican

7,066

1.1%

9,510

1.4%

12,659

1.8%

5,593

79.2%

Cuban

831

0.1%

1,324

0.2%

1,738

0.2%

907

109.1%

Guatemalan

545

0.1%

1,647

0.2%

1,909

0.3%

1,364

250.3%

Colombian

1,005

0.2%

1,793

0.2%

1,812

0.2%

807

80.3%

Ecuadorian

327

0.0%

546

0.1%

1,311

0.2%

984

300.9%

Lake County

Total Hispanic or Latino

92,716

14.4%

139,987

19.9%

162,456

22.8%

69,740

75.2%

Total Population

644,356

100.0%

703,462

100.0%

713,159

100.0%

68,803

10.7%

(Continued on Next Page...)

48

Appendix

Table 52: Total Population for Hispanic or Latino Groups in Cook County and Collar

Counties, 2000, 2010 (Decennial Census), and 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) Table 52: Mexican Population in Chicago, Cook County, and Collar Counties, 1990, 2000, 2010 (Decennial (continued) Censuses), and 2018-2022 (ACS 5-year Estimates) (continued) 2000

2010

Change from 2000 to 2018-2022

2018-2022

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent Change

Mexican

15,881

6.1%

28,796

9.3%

34,279

11.0%

18,398

115.8%

Puerto Rican

McHenry County 1,009

0.4%

2,156

0.7%

3,706

1.2%

2,697

267.3%

Cuban

283

0.1%

439

0.1%

731

0.2%

448

158.3%

Guatemalan

106

0.0%

415

0.1%

280

0.1%

174

164.2%

Colombian

149

0.1%

395

0.1%

540

0.2%

391

262.4%

Ecuadorian

82

0.0%

223

0.1%

496

0.2%

414

504.9%

Total Hispanic or Latino

19,602

7.5%

35,249

11.4%

44,625

14.3%

25,023

127.7%

Total Population

260,077

100.0%

308,760

100.0%

311,133

100.0%

51,056

19.6%

Mexican

35,416

7.0%

90,355

13.3%

108,834

15.6%

73,418

207.3%

Puerto Rican

Will County 2,480

0.5%

6,842

1.0%

7,841

1.1%

5,361

216.2%

Cuban

419

0.1%

844

0.1%

1,253

0.2%

834

199.0%

Guatemalan

165

0.0%

1,079

0.2%

1,487

0.2%

1,322

801.2%

Colombian

206

0.0%

761

0.1%

1,037

0.1%

831

403.4%

Ecuadorian

95

0.0%

428

0.1%

724

0.1%

629

662.1%

Total Hispanic or Latino

43,768

8.7%

105,817

15.6%

129,687

18.6%

85,919

196.3%

Total Population

502,266

100.0%

677,560

100.0%

696,774

100.0%

194,508

38.7%

Data Source: IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.org (2000, 2010 Decennial Censuses, and 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Tabulations by Great Cities Institute.

49