A Guide to Nonprofit Organizations Serving the Colonias

A Guide to Nonprofit Organizations Serving the Colonias

Colonias and Public Policy in Texas and Mexico: Chapters 4 & 5

Ward, Peter. Colonias and Public Policy in Texas and Mexico. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1999, pp. 165-203

Chapter four covers social organization and participation within colonias. Highlighting the differences between settlements and communities, Ward argues that colonias tend to exhibit settlement-like qualities. This is in part due to the individualized nature of land contracting, the low population densities and absenteeism, and the lack of a perceived outside enemy (due to limited government action). Furthermore, colonias lack informal social infrastructure, which is defined as “networks of communication and habitual contact between individuals” (166). Formal social infrastructure, by contrast, are the institutions created externally to meet social needs, such as health and education. This distinction is expanded by looking at horizontal (informal, individual relationships) versus vertical (resources/linkages beyond community’s reach) forms of social integration. According to Ward, horizontal integration must occur first in order for a community to develop. However, both forms of integration must occur in order for physical improvements to be made.

Essential to Ward’s analysis of social organization is the concept of community participation. This is the residents’ awareness of, and involvement in, the community decision-making process and it is essential to building a sense of community. Whether an area is considered a community or settlement also affects the way in which it will be viewed by government and NGOs. Settlements are seen in spatial terms of physical structures and demographics; programs are therefore short-term and are implemented from the outside onto settlements. Communities, on the other hand, are viewed as containing internal cohesion, a set of common goals and are approached in a holistic manner where NGOs or government work with community organization. This approach requires more time, however it more successfully needs community needs and eventually lowers costs.

In looking at the degree of horizontal and vertical integration within Texas colonias, Ward examines migration patterns, levels of poverty, local leadership, land supply mechanisms, availability of information and the degree of political recognition. In order to create a strong horizontal integration, Ward claims that colonias must contain community participation, independent leaders, and interactions with other colonias. In terms of cross-colonia interaction, Ward points out that this type of organization is usually generated from outside NGOs. While NGOs in Texas colonias do help communities develop political and communication skills, they are also criticized for being paternalistic and increasing colonia dependency.

In terms of recommendations, Ward argues that colonia self-sufficiency and long-term needs should be the goals of NGOs. In terms of horizontal integration, organizations should foster community participation (through voter registration campaigns, recreational activities, etc.); responsible leadership (through transparent, simple elections); and cross-colonia initiatives (through civic representation of local needs and goals). Looking at vertical integration, Ward recommends fostering external links through simple means of information distribution; maintaining unaffiliated, independent leadership; institutionalizing external links and providing legitimacy colonias through cross-colonia mobilization; and fostering NGOs.

A brief overview of Chapter 5 on social services analyzes the difference between top-down and bottom-up service provision. Ward claims that social services are extremely important, however they are often (erroneously) viewed as independent of, and sequential to, the provision of physical infrastructure. This is due in part to the more visible nature of physical services. Also, residents tend to prioritize physical services as more urgent (although Ward believes this is partly because of constructed perceptions of state willingness to provide these services). Further more, physical services are cheaper and it is therefore easier to justify direct investment. Other factors include funding sources and the political leverage that accompanies being identified with visible physical projects. Ward effectively argues that stronger links should be created between physical and social services; one way this can be accomplished is by investing in “human capital” of colonia residents, instead of waiting for the development process to “come to them.”

The role of NGOs and NGO networks in meeting the needs of US colonias

Donelson, Angela. “The role of NGOs and NGO networks in meeting the needs of US colonias.” Community Development Journal, Vol.39, No. 4 (October 2004): pp. 332-344.

Based on her own experience in US colonias and academic research, Donelson analyzes the differences between local NGOs and NGO networks and their respective impact upon US colonias. She claims that NGO networks began “responding” to colonias in the 1980s, when professional organizers began working with church leaders to recruit primarily female community members. These networks created “spin-off” NGOs to resolve local disputes and policy problems, to foster community leadership, and to provide basic services, community centers and affordable housing. However, Donelson does state that local residents were also responsible for seeking the assistance of “intermediary” NGO networks. She claims that these networks have allowed colonias organizations to gain more political leverage and awareness.

In comparison to NGO networks, Donelson looks at local NGOs within the colonias, which she claims are rarely successful. For a variety of reasons, these NGOs “lack administrative staff, legal incorporation and clearly defined missions” (336). Not only do they lack the technical expertise and resource availability, but they are also prone to self-serving community leaders. Furthermore, these smaller NGOS only focus on service provision. In addition to the constraints imposed by federal funding (which earmarks funding to be used for service provision), colonias residents are also reluctant to engage in more political activities that do not provide immediate improvements.

Unlike local NGOs, Donelson claims that NGO networks focus on structural problems and political organization. The advantages offered by these networks, which she examines in greater detail, include negotiating with “centres of power;” the development of local NGOs; and solidarity among multiple, heterogeneous colonias. However the goals of NGO networks can also conflict with those of local NGOS. Furthermore, local NGOS risk losing their autonomy as well as their accountability with local residents.

In order to create a balance between community mobilization and service provision, NGO networks must work carefully with local NGOs. While they do offer access to greater resources and the means to increase political leverage, networks can often leave community residents feeling mis-represented or simply ignored. In order to effectively to transform colonias into “mutual aid communities of hope” (342), NGO networks must work to clearly express their goals and philosophies. They must also “help small NGOs maintain accountability by encouraging them to preserve their ‘smallness’” (342). Finally, networks must constantly work towards leader-development and self-sufficiency of colonias. Donelson’s recommendations are certainly useful in terms of thinking about the relationship – and differences – between NGOs within the colonias. However, I would like to examine the negative aspects of NGOs networks further. It might be helpful to look at how NGO networks as well as local NGOs are structured administratively, how they receive funding, etc.

Colonias and Public Policy in Texas and Mexico: Chapters 1-2

Ward, Peter.  Colonias and Public Policy in Texas and Mexico.  Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1999, pp. 1-130.

 

Ward provides a useful overview of a variety of aspects of the colonias in Texas and Mexico.  I plan on reading the entire book, however his introduction to his case studies and the processes of land use and development will provide a helpful introduction to the colonias.  His view that “colonias are actively produced and articulated, rather than being a residual outcome of rapid urbanization” (Ward 9) is an insightful way of approaching and understanding the development of colonias – and communities like VES.

In 1996, there were nearly 1,400 colonias with a total of 350,000 residents along the Texas-Mexico border.  According to Ward’s research, colonias tend to integrate with paved roads, services and two-story dwellings within 15-20 years.  In terms of characteristics, 80% of the residents have incomes at or below the national poverty level.  Anywhere from 65-80% of adults are U.S. citizens and 33% do not speak English.  Colonias lack basic services such as water services and sewage disposal. This clearly leads to serious health problems, such as Hepatitis A and shigellosis; Ward also points out that the colonias became an issue for state and local governments only when the health problems related to inadequate water services began to affect city life.  He also emphasizes the way in which water (or lack thereof) came to embody the definition of a colonia.  This limited definition not only ignores the social and income aspects of colonia life, but also affects the way in which governments go about “solving” the problem.  The lack of an integrated housing policy leads to the colonias being seen as an environmental or health care concern – not as a housing problem.  Although public task forces are created to address issues within the colonias, they tend to see the problem in partial, restricted terms. 

In contrast to their Mexican counterparts, colonias in the U.S. tend to be smaller in physical size and population density.  This makes intervention more costly and low voter registration translates into less political influence for colonia residents.  Furthermore, Ward claims that low population densities and high levels of owner absenteeism also limits a sense of community.  Informal and formal “community organization structures are weak or nonexistent, especially during…settlement” (Ward 5)  This aspect, which Ward covers in depth in later chapters, could provide an interesting contrast to the community organizations in VES. 

In his chapter on land and housing production, Ward relies on development trends of Mexican colonias to explain the Texas phenomenon.  Much like the development of other shanty towns, the colonias were a product of the inability of the market, public sector and government to provide housing for individuals with low wages and limited credit-worthiness.  Ward also claims that rapid urbanization, the growth of the economy and demand for labor, as well as the integration of the low wage formal sector are all aspects of colonia development.  Much like Gilbert, he claims that population growth was in sync with economic growth.  Chronologically, the 1940-50s were a time of import-substituting programs and rapid urbanization in developing countries.  Up until the 1960s, government viewed shanty towns as illegal and substandard.  Such communites were either eradicated by the government or simply ignored.  Influenced by scholars such as Turner and Mangin, the 1960-70s gave way to government-sponsored “sites-and-services” and upgrading programs, and the regularization of land titles.  The 1980s, however, saw a decrease in direct involvement as governments focused on making the market work smoother via infrastructure projects, removing “bottlenecks” on land markets, and so on.  

In terms of Texas colonias, Ward claims that the government is relatively passive.  Unlike Mexican government, the federal and state governments in the U.S. support home ownership for a number of reasons.  Public housing is therefore limited and socially stigmatized.  In addition to less federal support for supplying housing, state regulations are much higher than in Mexico.  With the end of the Bracero Program in 1964, employers no longer had to provide housing for laborers.  Real estate developers and landowners responded by capitalizing on consumer demand, idle agricultural land, lax land development regulations and the Contract for Deed (CFD) mechanism.  Unlike shanty towns elsewhere, this form of land development is usually legal, albeit exploitative.

 

According to Texas law, land developers must pave roads and provide basic infrastructure for residential land within city limits.  Until 1989, developers used county land close to cities and sold “unimproved” lots at low prices.  Also, until 1985, land titles were only given to the buyer after the entire price of the lot had been paid off; without equity protection, many residents were subject to immediate forfeiture of their land (and improvements they had made) if they were unable to pay monthly fees.  The federal and state governments have passed a number of laws which require basic services in newly sold colonias and limit the exploitative nature of CFD.  However, the laws and federal grants do not cover all colonias.  As stated earlier, many of these grants are designated for water projects within colonias.  This highlights the assumption that once services are installed, the settlement is no longer a colonia.  However, Ward challenges this notion, claiming that a colonia is also constituted by its specific housing production process and embedded patterns of social and cultural organization.