Some Thoughts Relating to the United States of America

#### **Chapter 10**

## Slovenian Settlements in the USA since 1870s till Present

*Matjaž Klemenčič and Milan Mrđenović*

#### **Abstract**

Ethnic settlements represent cities or parts of them where one of the ethnic organizations are or were present, i.e., ethnic parish, national homes, or at least one fraternal organization. This is a result of the long historic processes which took place after a certain group immigrated. It normally took more than 10 years before a settlement is established and they lasted until another group prevailed or the members of community assimilated. Nevertheless, the traces of the remnants of these communities can be found also more than a century after these settlements were established. There were 800 cities, towns, and villages where Slovene settlements were established. The first was Ebeneser in Georgia. It was erased in the civil war. St. Stephen was established 150 years ago and there are still people who know their ancestry. We recently discovered that a Slovene flag was flown at the cemetery. The second largest Slovenian city worldwide after World War 1 was Cleveland, OH and the city with the largest percentage of Slovenian population in the USA is Ely, MN where more than half of the population has Slovene ancestors. Slovenian Americans were successful also in professional life and in politics.

**Keywords:** ethnicity, settlement, ethnic parishes, national homes, fraternal organizations

#### **1. Introduction**

An ethnic settlement represents a part of a settlement with a concentrated settlement core of an ethnic community, in which at least one of the ethnic organizational structures existed: a lodge of fraternal benefit society, a Slovene or a national home of another ethnic group, a Slovene or of another ethnic group's or mixed Catholic or Evangelical ethnic parish or a mosque and/or the editorial office of an ethnic newspaper. Of course, we distinguish between larger and smaller ethnic settlements, and this definition is very broad and also allows us to classify as places of ethnic settlements of a certain ethnic community also places that have only a single lodge or publish an ethnic newspaper in it, which sometimes depends on the place of the issuer of the print publication or online publication ([1], pp. 613–622).

This is a result of the long historic process which took place after a certain group immigrated. It normally took more than 10 years before a settlement is established and it lasted until another group prevailed or the members of the community

assimilated. This applies to virtually all communities that have settled in the United States since the Mayflower Pilgrims. Even the first settlers in the United States had to deal with similar problems as emigrants from the middle of the nineteenth century onwards. Thus, all ethnic communities had to be organized into an ethnic settlement. In the social sciences, they have been called colonies, but I think the term is not appropriate for immigrants who were not at the same time conquerors of territory on behalf of some power. From the middle of the nineteenth century onwards, we can talk about ethnic communities that settled in an already organized society in which, as individuals, members of an ethnic community wanted to survive socially and economically, but at the same time they wanted to preserve the characteristics of their community and individuals wanted to preserve also the awareness on where they and their ancestors came from.

We can conclude in general that the remains of these communities have been preserved until today in the form of inscriptions in churches and cemeteries, in the languages of the communities, regardless of whether they were Protestant or Catholic, or Orthodox ([2], pp. 169–180). After many years, descendants will also find for example material remains, of Bosniak community in St. Louis, Missouri, where over 30,000 Bosniaks settled after the Dayton Agreement. This agreement ended the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina in November 1995. As it is today, the great Catholic churches of New York can be said to be part of the Irish heritage. This also applies to Slovenes. Nevertheless, the traces of the remnants of these communities can be found also more than a century after these settlements were established. There were 800 cities, towns, and villages where Slovene settlements were established more than 170 years ago. The first was Ebeneser in Georgia. It was erased in the civil war. St. Stephen 60 miles NW of Twin Cities, MN was established 150 years ago and there are still people who know their ancestry who live there. We recently discovered that a Slovene flag was flown at the cemetery. The second largest Slovene city worldwide after World War 1 was Cleveland, OH and the city with the largest percentage of Slovene population is Ely, MN where more than a half of the population has Slovene ancestors.

As far as methodology is concerned, we used the methodology of historical science as well as methodology of ethnic studies. It means that we gathered data based on historical sources i.e., archival sources of Slovene organizations, ethnic newspapers, structured interviews, literature, and data of US censuses of population. We also compared Slovene organizational structures with the structures of other ethnic groups.

#### **2. The historic settlement of Slovenes in the USA and their geographical distribution**

Slovene immigrants in the United States settled mainly in compact Slovene settlements, in many of them they still live today. Most of them immigrated to the USA in the period between 1870 and 1924 ([3], pp. 1–71). Before this period, mainly Slovenian adventurers and missionaries settled there [4]. The period of the main Slovene settlement coincides with the strong development of industry and mining in the USA, which saw a great boom, especially after the end of the civil war. When prof. Matjaž Klemenčič showed a map of Slovene settlements in the USA to Prof John Bodnar, the famous researcher of the so-called new ethnic communities in the USA and the author of the book The Transplanted [5] he said that on the one hand, it is a

map showing the settlements of virtually all immigrant communities which immigrated to the USA in the same period, as Slovenes and on the other hand kt shows a map of the industrial and mining establishments of the time (Interview with John Bodnar 2011).

According to the data of the US population census, which are also recognized by the profession, in 1910 there were 183,431 Slovene immigrants and their children (according to their mother tongue) living in the USA, and in 1920, according to these data, there were already 208,552 of them ([6], pp. 595–1019; [7], pp. 967–1007). For the year 2010, American statisticians calculated, based on a 5% sample, that 185,645 people of Slovene descent lived in the USA in 2010 [8]. Considering the objective measure of ethnic origin, this number seems a bit too low, so the estimates of those researchers who estimate the number of people of Slovenian origin in the USA at around 500,000 are more likely, although this number also includes those who have only a quarter or even only an eighth of Slovenian ancestry. In this regard, it should be added that American statistics allow for a subjective measure. For the years 1910 to 1930, when it was possible to examine the primary materials of the population censuses, on the one hand, in addition to the Slovene mother tongue, we also have found the "Carniolian language" recorded among the Slovenes, and between the two wars, also the "Yugoslav or Austrian language" ([9], pp. 150–159). Similar findings could be made for the periods after 1980 when the ancestry of the population was determined. In doing so, they often confused ethnic ancestry with national origin (i.e., from which country they came) so that, for example, Slovenes wrote that their ancestry is "Yugoslav", which of course means mixing of pears and apples.

On the already mentioned map "Places of Slovene settlements in the USA" ([9], p. 122), we can see areas of Slovene settlement in the USA. Thus, it is worth mentioning in first place the industrially developed Northeast with the metropolis of New York and Bethlehem (eastern Pennsylvania), and Bridgeport (Connecticut). In addition to Bethlehem, there are a few places with larger Slovene settlements also in eastern Pennsylvania (Forest City is the most important), there are many places with Slovene settlements in western Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh, Johnstown, Cannonsburgh, etc.), the northern part of West Virginia (e.g., Triladelphia) and in Southeast (Lorrain, Akron) and Northeast Ohio (Barberton, Cleveland, Euclid, Lorain, etc.). The places where Slovene immigrants formed their settlements are also in southern Michigan (Detroit) and in the so-called Copper district on Michigan Peninsula (Calumet). In central Wisconsin, the farming settlement of Willard should be mentioned in particular. The majority of Slovene settlements in this state are located in the cities along the shores of Lake Michigan (Milwaukee, Sheboygan, West Allis, etc.). The area of Slovene settlements continues south to the state of Illinois, where Chicago and Waukegan are located on the shores of Lake Michigan. Joliet, south of Chicago, and La Salle, west of Chicago, deserve special mention. In the central and southern parts of this US state, Springfield should be mentioned along with the many other Slovenian settlements. East of the Mississippi River, it is also worth mentioning the concentrated area of places with Slovene settlements in Minnesota, especially on the so-called "iron range" (Ely, Tower, Eveleth, Hibbing, Chisholm, etc.), and St. Stephen in central Minnesota, which is considered one of the oldest Slovene settlements in the USA. In the Mississippi lowlands, there are several places with Slovene settlements in the extreme southeast of Kansas (Kansas City, Frontenac, and Pittsburgh) and in the northwest of the state of Arkansas (Jenny Lind). In the extreme southeast of the USA, there is a noteworthy place in southeast Florida, where the Slovene settlement of Samsula was founded by Slovenian farmers.

From the Mississippi River to the Pacific coast, most places with Slovene settlements are located in the mining areas of the Rocky Mountains. In the state of Colorado, Pueblo, Denver, Leadville, Trinidad, Walsenburg, Aspen, and Crested Butte are particularly noteworthy. There are also a few places with Slovene settlements in neighboring Utah (Sunnyside, Helper) and Wyoming. (Rock Springs, Diamondville), while in mountainous Montana, Anaconda, East Helena, Butte, and Bear Creek are particularly noteworthy. In the northwest of the USA, there are also places with Slovene settlements in the states of Washington (Enumclaw, Black Diamond) and Oregon (Oregon City, Portland). Slovene immigrants also settled in California, with the Slovene settlements in Fontana and San Francisco being particularly noteworthy. Slovenian immigrants also settled in other areas of the United States, which are not specifically mentioned in this short review, but those are mainly scattered settlements (especially in agriculturally developed areas).

In the following text, we will show the organizational forms that are typical or were typical of ethnic communities that settled in the United States, especially from Central, Eastern, and Southeastern Europe.

#### **3. Slovene fraternal benefit societies**

Fraternal benefit societies represented the basic form of organization for Slovene as well as other immigrants in the USA. These are insurance companies that were created in a period when the United States did not yet know any form of health insurance and have basically remained as such until today. First, such organizations among Slovene immigrants were organized already at the beginning of the 1880s. It concerns the insurance of workers in the event of accidents at work or in the event of illness, as well as attempts at pension insurance. The introduction of so-called "Obama care" was the first step in the right direction toward universal healthcare European style and it took till March 2010 to implement in the USA as a whole.

With the profits of ethnic fraternal benefit societies, these organizations supported the cultural and publishing activities of immigrants in the US in general and Slovene Americans in particular. The majority of these are centralized organizations consisting of individual lodges that operated or are still operating in Slovene settlements. Among the most important was the American Fraternal Union based in Ely (Minnesota), which had around 15,000 members at the time of its merger with Catholic United Financial ([9], p. 255). The American Mutual Life Association with headquarters in Cleveland (Ohio) with around 30,000 members still operates today, and the Slovene National Benefit Society/with headquarters in Imperial (Pennsylvania), and more than 50,000 members operates even today. Zapadna Slovenska zveza/Western Slavonic Association (WSA) with headquarters in Denver (Colorado) and 6500 members, which still operates today, and American-Slovenian Catholic Union with headquarters in Joliet (Illinois) and with around 30,000 members, which still operates today. The relatively large number of umbrella organizations is the result of the dispersion of Slovenian settlement in the USA, as well as ideological differences, which were partly brought from the old homeland and partly stimulated by the conditions in the new homeland. The American-Slovenian Catholic Union once called the Carnelian-Slovenian Catholic Union, required its members to be active Catholics, while the Slovene National Benefit Society has the loyalty or disloyalty of individual members to the Catholic Church for their private matters. Although the

Slovenian National Benefit Society was liberally oriented, its members were active in the socialist labor movement in the United States ([10], pp. 21–44).

#### **4. Slovenian ethnic parishes**

A special form of organization of immigrants in general, as well as Slovene Americans, are ethnic parishes, the creation of which dates to the end of the nineteenth century. Since the problem of apostasy among emigrants in America was becoming more and more urgent, the Catholic Church in Europe organized a meeting of the Catholic Congress on December 9 and 10, 1890 in Lucerne, Switzerland, which was actually a gathering of European national societies of St. Raphael. The result of the wishes of this meeting was the so-called "Lucerne memorandum", which the general secretary of the German Society of St. Raphael Paul Cahensly presented to Pope Leo XIII on April 16, 1891. In it, they proposed to the Pope the establishment of ethnic parishes for each ethnic community, with the condition that their priests must be members of the same ethnic community and religious instruction must also be conducted in the language of the ethnic community. They also proposed the establishment of parish schools for each ethnic community separately and a guarantee of equal rights for all priests, regardless of ethnicity. They also advocated the establishment of Catholic fraternal beneficial organizations and demanded that American bishops should be members of different ethnic communities ([9], pp. 180–181). Let us emphasize that the members of the Catholic church hierarchy at that time were mostly Irish. Among the members of the Slovenian ethnic community before the First World War, we can count as many as five bishops who were of Slovene origin. These were Frederick Baraga, Ignatius Mraks ¸John Vertin, James Trobec, and John Stariha ([9], p. 186; [4]). The first three bishops were in Baraga's diocese, while the other two were appointed by John Ireland, who liked Slovenes because they were not Germans but knew German. In the Lucerne Memorandum, some more incentives were proposed to the Pope. They advocated the establishment of branches of the Society of St. Raphael in all European countries. In Lucerne, they also advocated the equalization of the rights of priests of ethnic parishes and priests of territorial parishes. Ethnic parishes were established exclusively for members of certain ethnic communities, while territorial parishes were bound to a certain territory. Given that immigrants from individual ethnic communities initially settled in a certain territory, they easily mixed both types of parishes. At the same time, individual ethnic communities were tied to ethnic settlements. The development later led to ethnic parishes becoming territorial parishes, and then the former ethnic parish served all the communities in a certain territory with its buildings. For example, today, the formerly exclusively Slovenian parish in Joliet today serves mainly the Spanish-speaking community, but they also have masses in the Slovene language. The once entirely Slovene church of St. Stephen's in Chicago today serves primarily Spanish-speaking immigrants.

In the USA, the demands written in the Lucerne Memorandum sparked a lot of debate in the 1890s, especially the fact that the European St. Raphael Societies addressed their demands directly to the Pope and not to the American bishops. That this action was not acceptable to the American church authorities is shown by the case at the investiture of Archbishop Frederick Katzer in Milwaukee, when Cardinal James Gibbons also spoke about the need for "… American Catholics to take into account the fact that they are American citizens and as such owe loyalty only to America…". In the

continuation of the speech, he mentioned that "…Catholics must live in harmony with the American political institutions…". ([9], p. 181) Despite these objections, it was the "Lucerne memorandum" that most stimulated the movement, the result of which was the establishment of ethnic parishes in the USA, including many Slovenian parishes.

Thus, with the support of the Catholic Church, 40 Slovene or Slovene-mixed ethnic parishes were established in the USA alone in the period from 1871 to 1923. Among these, the history of ethnically mixed parishes is particularly interesting, but with a few exceptions, they soon split into several ethnic parishes. Within the framework of ethnic parishes, where a sufficient number of believers allowed for this, parish schools were also organized. At first, the language of the liturgy was only Slovene, but later masses were held in Slovene as well as in English. In the parish schools, the language of education was English, and Slovene was often a subject of study in these schools. Priests and teachers in these schools were usually of Slovene ethnic background. So, attending schools and organizing ethnic parishes had a positive effect on preserving ethnic consciousness among Slovene immigrants and their descendants ([9], pp. 167–234; [11], pp. 131–177; [12], pp. 279–315; [13], pp. 203–257).

Regarding consciousness, researchers must be aware that this is the consciousness of ancestors or ethnicity, which is always accompanied by the consciousness of belonging to the country in which the immigrants lived, in this case the USA. Thus, we are talking about Slovene Americans who, in terms of awareness of their belonging, have developed from American Slovenians, who were usually members of the first generation or immigrants themselves, while the children of immigrants, i.e., the second generation of immigrants and beyond, developed into Slovene Americans ([14], pp. 899–922).

#### **5. Slovene national homes**

A special form of organization for Sloven immigrants in the USA is represented in Slovene national homes. In 1990, according to data from the Slovenian National Directory, 69 Slovenian national homes were operating in the USA. They began to appear at the beginning of the twentieth century, before the First World War, when it was already clear to many Slovene-Americans that they would permanently stay in the United States. The establishment of the first Slovene national homes coincided with the establishment of the first fraternal benefit societies, reading rooms, libraries, music groups, and sports clubs. There was a natural need for a meeting place for Slovene immigrants, where various cultural, social, and also political events of Slovene Americans would be held. Many activities and events took place in the national homes, which with their events attracted many members of the Slovene ethnic community in the settlement, where the national homes operated, and also from other nearby settlements.

They were mostly built with contributions from community members or the for-profit activities of fraternal benefit societies. If it was not a rented or old building, they voluntarily helped to build it themselves, as was the case, for example. in Collinwood, in what is now a suburb of Cleveland. The national homes were mostly made of bricks or were simple wooden buildings. They were mostly two-story buildings that had their own central space, a hall with a stage, and a kitchen for preparing food. There were rooms where various activities of the societies took place. The larger the homes were, the greater number of smaller rooms they occupied. The most important events were dances and entertainment events, which attracted many

#### *Slovenian Settlements in the USA since 1870s till Present DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108055*

visitors. Concerts, especially of choirs, also attracted many listeners. In parallel with parties and cultural events, political manifestations and collection of contributions for various humanitarian activities were also carried out.

The peak of the building of national homes was the period after the First World War. At that time, due to the changed political situation in Europe (establishment of the new Yugoslav state) and the active political participation of Slovene Americans in the local community, awareness of their ethnic belonging increased among the members of the Slovene ethnic community. In 1924, in Cleveland on St. Clair Avenue, with a big celebration and a street parade, the largest Slovenian national home that still exists today was opened. It has an auditorium that seats 1000 with an additional 324 seats in the balcony. In it, many Slovene associations found their premises, and important political manifestations and conventions of the Democratic Party took place at the same time as local and national elections were held. It should be mentioned that in the St. Clair Slovene National Home two extremely important political events took place. The first was in 1942 when the Slovene National Congress was held and established the organization Slovene American National Council. It endeavored for Political Assistance and Reconstruction of the Old Homeland in connection with the events in the old homeland during World War II. The second was the meetings of the organization United Americans for Slovenia, which between June 1991 and April 1992 sent appeals to American politicians, including President George Bush, on behalf of all Slovene Americans, in which they demanded that the USA recognize the independence of Slovenia, which at that time had gained independence from Yugoslavia, as soon as possible.

In addition to the national homes in the already mentioned Cleveland, national homes also appeared in other Slovenian settlements in the USA. This happened most often in mining settlements, such as in Rock Springs, Wyoming (1913), Ely, Minnesota (1911). Frontenac in Kansas (1910), Herminie in Pennsylvania (1908), and elsewhere. It is worth noting that the establishment of national homes was opposed by some Slovene Catholic priests who led Slovene ethnic parishes. They believed that the money for building national homes could be used for the maintenance of churches and the construction of new schools that would nurture the Slovene language and culture. In addition, church halls could also be used for the purposes for which homes were built. Thus, the national homes became gathering places for liberal-oriented Slovenian Americans, as they were mostly built by societies with a more liberal and socialist-oriented Slovene Americans. An exception to this rule is the Slovene National Home no. 2 on East 80th Street in Cleveland. After the First World War, ethnic communities from the Yugoslav territories began to unite in some places. This is how national homes were created, which were built by Slovene, Croatian and Serbian Americans together. Thus, for example, the American-Yugoslav Center in Euclid (Ohio) and the Slovenian-Croatian Club in Escanaba (Michigan) were created. It often happened that Slovene national homes were rented out to associations of other ethnic communities and locals who organized their own events, parties, and cultural events.

In the 1960s, when the members of the community of Slovene Americans began to slowly move from the once compact settlements to the suburbs and other places, due to the decline in the number of events and people, the Slovene national homes began to decay or simply close their doors. By this time, the younger generations had mostly already assimilated, so they did not need special spaces and gathering places for members of the Slovene ethnic community to socialize. During these times, in Cleveland, the national homes began to join together in a federation so that they could operate

smoothly. It is interesting that in the 1970s two new Slovene were built national homes in Florida for the needs of Slovenian retirees who moved there because of the favorable climate. Thus, the Slovene national homes in New Smyrna Beach and Miami were created. At the end of the twentieth century, after 1991, new national homes were also opened in Detroit, Michigan and Imperial, Pennsylvania, where the headquarters of the Slovene National Benedit Society was opened and the Slovene Cultural Center was built in Lemont near Joliet, Illinois. National homes represent an important Slovenian cultural heritage. Thus, in all national homes, pictures of Bled and the island of Bled are painted on the walls, as a kind of symbol of Slovenes in the USA. Some national homes, however, have very rich objects of cultural heritage. In the Slovene National Home in Cleveland a painting of Slovene cultural figures painted by Maksim Gaspari hangs on the wall. Even today the Slovene National Homes fulfill their mission of bringing together people who are aware of their ethnic affiliation and Slovenian origin. ([11], pp. 219–263; [12], pp. 336–337, pp. 362–365; [13], pp. 269–272; [9], pp. 278–290; [15], pp. 26–28).

#### **6. Slovenian ethnic newspapers in the USA**

In the definition of ethnic settlement, we also mentioned the seat of the newspaper publisher or newsletters as a possible element for the formation of an ethnic settlement. Newspapers and newsletters, which were aimed at the local needs of Slovenian-Americans in the settlement or were sent by the editors to members of Slovenian organizations in some or even most of the states of the USA, also contributed significantly to the preservation of ethnic consciousness among Slovene immigrants in the USA. Newspapers and periodicals represented one of the most important expressions of the life of an ethnic community. In order to publish a newspaper, certain basic conditions had to be met: an editor had to be appointed, reporters and other writers had to be chosen, an agreement had to be made with a printer and a distribution system had to be provided. Nevertheless, this was usually not enough to publish newspapers. Another "important condition" had to be fulfilled - the Slovenian community had to be "full of life", something worth writing about had to be constantly happening in it. Slovenian newspapers usually began to be published in the USA about 10 years after the beginnings of the formation of the Slovene ethnic community in a certain place. This is how much time passed before the Slovene immigrants gathered and ensured the existence of the (previously mentioned) basic conditions for the publication of the newspaper. Of course, this was not a completely smooth process, as the need for spiritual food (and also the press) among Slovene immigrants, especially after the Second World War, was greater, and their educational level was also higher. The technical possibilities were also better, so many started publishing a newspaper immediately after settling. ([16], pp. 112–126) In the twenty-first century, the conditions for publishing a newspaper, and even an ethnic newspaper in general, are easier, as there are so-called newspapers that are only accessible online or in digital form. It does not require a lot of money or a lot of infrastructures. Therefore, for example, after the cessation of publication of Ameriška domovina in 2008 in Cleveland, which is still today the largest Slovene settlement outside the Slovene ethnic territory, very quickly started publishing online form of the newspaper "Slovenian Times", which took over certain elements published by "Ameriška domovina" such as a. "Rooster of Slovenian organizations".

#### *Slovenian Settlements in the USA since 1870s till Present DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108055*

Slovene newspapers in the USA played a leading and leadership role among Slovene immigrants. It not only recorded events in the Slovene community but also promoted political and economic developments among Slovene immigrants. We can claim that the mentioned newspapers are not only an excellent source for the historian of Slovene immigration to the USA, but also that the editors of these newspapers encouraged Slovene Americans to active and passive political participation.

During the century (1891–1991), individual newspapers began to be published in a wide variety of places across America (the places mostly also represent the main settlements of Slovenes in the USA). The place of publication also (sometimes) depended on the editor's place of residence. Nevertheless, we can conclude that newspapers were not only read in the places where they were printed but were often read throughout almost all of the United States. This is especially true if it was a newspaper that represented the newsletter of a certain fraternal benefit society [17].

Some newspapers were still published in the USA in the twenty-first century. Among them, it is worth mentioning in the first place Ameriška domovina, a local newspaper aimed at Slovenians in Cleveland. It served also as an organ of political emigree organizations after World War 2. It was published in 2008. Today, the Slovene ethnic newspapers are published primarily as newsletters of fraternal benefit societies: Amerikanski Slovenec—Glasilo Kranjska-Slovenska katolikške jednote as the successor of the first Slovenian newspaper, which was published in the USA since 1891, and as a newsletter of the American-Slovenian Catholic Union, Glas/Voice as a newsletter of the American Mutual life association, newsletter of the WSA, and Prosveta/Enlightment as a newsletter of the Slovene National Benefit Society. Many stopped publishing. Among them, Glas Naroda is particularly noteworthy, which at its peak, just before the First World War, had over 10,000 subscribers and was published in New York until 1957 ([18], pp. 98–117).

#### **7. Professional careers and political participation of Slovenians and their descendants**

Slovenian Americans were also relatively successful in liberal professions (lawyers, doctors) and as entrepreneurs and managers. They established themselves both as small entrepreneurs (shoemakers, tailors, innkeepers, grocers, etc.) and also in somewhat larger companies such as the hotel industry, banking, and funeral services. ([11], pp. 108–130; [9], pp. 93–109; [12], pp. 259–278; [13], pp. 176–203).

Together with the organizations of Slovene immigrants in their settlements, this also represented the basis for the inclusion of individuals from the ranks of the Slovene community in politics—first at the level of city districts, and then at the level of cities, counties, US states, and the entire United States. It is worth noting that members of the Slovene community and their descendants even became members of the US Congress (both the House of Representatives and the US Senate). In almost all settlements that historians have researched so far (Cleveland, Leadville, Rock Springs, Ely, Pueblo, Calumet), the degree of political participation of Slovene immigrants was always greater than the numerical strength or share of members of the Sloven community in the city or district. Until the twenty first century, Slovene-Americans mostly voted for Democrats. The exception was George Voinovich in Cleveland as well as Chuck Novak in Ely, Minnesota. Since 2020 Democrat Roger Skraba is the mayor of Ely.

In Ely in northern Minnesota, in which Slovene Americans were the relatively largest ethnic community from the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth century. Thus, shortly before the First World War, when the secret ballot was established in Minnesota, the first Slovene Americans were already elected. City councilors the first Slovene American to become the mayor of Ely, was George L. Brozich. He was elected on the ticket of the Democratic Party during the First World War. From this period onward and into the twenty-first century, Slovene-Americans as democrats have played an important role in city politics to the present day, as they have held the office of mayor for more than half of the time since the First World War. They were mostly elected on the ticket of the Democratic Party. The most important Slovene-American local politician in Ely was Jack P. Grahek, who served as mayor of Ely for 27 years on and off. The fact that he was on friendly terms with Congressman John Blatnik is not unimportant, as the latter helped him obtain federal funds for many projects. As the mayor of the city with the largest percentage of the Slovene population, Grahek attended the funeral of the president of the SFRY, Josip Broz Tito, in 1980. Of course, John Blatnik also played an important role in this. At the turn from the first to the second decade of the twenty-first century, Republican Roger Skraba, who served as mayor from 2008 to 2012 and from 2020 to 2022, won the battle for mayor. In 2020, 50% of Slovene-Americans also voted for Donald Trump in the presidential election in Ely. In this, the fact that Trump is married to the Slovene Melanija Knaus also played an important role ([19], pp. 104–197).

In Cleveland, for example, Slovenes and their descendants have been actively present in the city's political life since the beginning of the twentieth century (before the First World War, Doctor Frank Javh Kern was almost elected, running on the ticket of the Socialist Party), and in 1925 John L. Mihelich was finally elected to the city council as the first Slovene-American in Cleveland. Slovene Americans remained actively present in city politics until today. It is worth noting that in the 1930s Slovene Americans of the first generation, and their descendants, had as many as four members out of 25 in the city council, and in the period from 1941 to 1944, the mayor of the city was Frank Lausche. George Voinovich, whose mother was of Slovene descent was also elected mayor of the city at the end of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s. Both Lausche and Voinovich continued their political careers and became governors of the state of Ohio and US senators from Ohio (Lausche from 1957 to 1969, Voinovich from 1999 to 2011) ([19], pp. 362–373). Amy Klobuchar who became a member of the US senate in (2007 is still a member of the US Senate.), was one of the six candidates for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, later Joe Biden had shortlisted her for the vicepresidential position, but he chose Kamala Harris. Among the members of the House of Representatives, we should also mention John Blatnik from northern Minnesota (from 1947 to 1974), [19], pp. 198–215) Joe Skubitz from Kansas (1963–1979) and Phillip Edward Ruppe from Michigan (1967–1979), in the 1960s and 1970s, as well as three members of the American Congress of Slovenian origin in 1980s: Cleveland's Dennis Eckart ([11], pp. 341–344) (1981–1993), Colorado's Ray Kogovsek (1979–1985) ([13], pp. 280–281), Minnesota's James Oberstar ([19], pp. 205–210) (1975–2011). To this day, Paul Gosar (2011 - present), a member of the Republican Party and a staunch supporter of Donald Trump, is a member of the House of Representatives US Congress. [20].

#### **8. Conclusion**

The majority of Slovenian immigrants in the USA settled in areas where they continue to live today. During two decades of research, the author has developed a

#### *Slovenian Settlements in the USA since 1870s till Present DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108055*

map of Slovenian settlements that he uses as the basis for his discussion of the geographic distribution of Slovenian immigrants in the USA. The paper also discusses the 1910 and 1920 U.S. census reports. In 1910, there were 183,431 immigrants and their children in the USA who defined Slovene as their mother tongue; in 1920, there were 208,552 Slovenes according to the U.S. census figures.

Organizations of Slovenian immigrants in the USA played an important role in maintaining Slovene ethnic consciousness among them. The organizations, which are discussed in detail in this work, were comprised of fraternal benefit societies, Slovenian national homes, and Slovenian ethnic parishes. Slovenian Americans were actually over-represented in the political life of the United States; election results on municipal, county, state, and national levels are also discussed. There were half of dozen members of Congress and two US senators who were and claim they were of Slovenian descent. Currently, Amy Klobuchar serves in US Senate and Paul Gosar serves in the US House of Representatives.

#### **Author details**

Matjaž Klemenčič1 \* and Milan Mrđenović2

1 University of Maribor Filozofska fakulteta, Maribor, Slovenia

2 University of Ljubljana Filozofska fakulteta, Ljubljana, Slovenia

\*Address all correspondence to: matjaz.klemencic11@gmail.com

© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Klemenčič M. Slovenes and Slovene Americans, 1870-1940. In: Barkan ER, editor. Immigrants in American History: Arrival, Adaptation, and Integration. Vol. 2. Santa Barbara, Denver: Oxford: ABC-CLIO; 2013, 2013. pp. 613-622

[2] Klemenčič M. Slovenska tvarna kulturna dediščina v ZDA. Dve domovini: razprave o izseljenstvu. 2001;**14**:169-180

[3] Klemenčič M. Ameriški Slovenci in NOB v Jugoslaviji. Maribor: Založba Obzorja; 1987

[4] Markovič I. Irenej Friderik Baraga misijonar in škof med Otavci in Očipvejci. Celovec: Mohorjeva družba; 2017

[5] Bodnar J. The Transplanted. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 2008

[6] States U. Thirteenth census of the United States taken in the year 1910. [Reports] vol. II. Chapter 10, Mother Tongue of the Foreiggn White Stock. Population. Washington, U.S.: Govt. Print. Off. 1912

[7] States U. Fourteenth census of the United States taken in the year 1920. [Reports] vol. II. Chapter 10, Mother Tongue of the Foreiggn White Stock. Population. Washington, U.S.: Govt. Print. Off. 1921

[8] Data Access and Dissemination Systems - DADS. American FactFinder. 2018. [online] Census.gov. Available from: https://factfinder.census.gov

[9] Klemenčič M, Šeruga T. Pregled zgodovine slovenske skupnosti v Elyju, Minnesota. Maribor: Univerzitetna založba Univerze; 2019

[10] Klemenčič M, editor. Etnični fraternalizem v priseljenskih deželah. Maribor: Pedagoška Fakulteta Univerze V Mariboru; 1996

[11] Klemenčič M. Slovenes of Cleveland: The Creation of a New Nation and a New World Community Slovenia and the Slovenes of Cleveland, Ohio. Novo Mesto: Tiskarna Novo Mesto, Dolenjska Založba; Ljubljana; 1995

[12] Klemenčič M. Jurij Trunk med Koroško in Združenimi državami Amerike ter zgodovina slovenskih naselbin v Leadvillu, Kolorado, in v San Franciscu, Kalifornija. Celovec; Ljubljana; Dunaj: Mohorjeva Zal; 1999

[13] Klemenčič M. Zgodovina skupnosti slovenskih Američanov v Pueblu, Kolorado = History of the Slovene American community in Pueblo, Colorado. In: Maribor: Mednarodna Založba Oddelka Za Slovanske Jezike In Književnosti, Filozofska Fakulteta. Ljubljana: Inštitut Za Narodnostna Vprašanja; 2011

[14] Hazemali D, Matjašič FRIŠM. Naši simpatizerji Avstrije so bili utišani kot z nabojem: Položaj slovenske skupnosti v Združenih državah Amerike v času prve svetovne vojne. Acta Histriae. 2018;**26**(3)

[15] Valenčič J. "Slovenski narodni domovi". Enciklopedija Slovenije/12 Slovenska n - Sz. Ljubljana: Mladinska Knjiga; 1998

[16] Velikonja J. Slovene Newspapers and Periodicals in America. League and League. Symposia = Študijski dnevi. Vol. 1. *Slovenian Settlements in the USA since 1870s till Present DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108055*

New York, USA: League of Slovenian Americans, Inc.; 1981

[17] Klemenčič M. Slovenski izseljenski tisk = Slovenian emigrant newspapers. Znanstvena revija. Humanistika. 1991;**3**(2)

[18] Klemenčič M. Slovene periodicals in the USA, 1891-1920. Razprave in gradivo: Revija za narodnostna vprašanja = Treatises and documents. Journal of Ethnic Studies. 2008

[19] Klemenčič M, Mrđenović M, Šeruga T. Politična participacija slovenskih etničnih skupnosti v ZDA: študija primerov Clevelanda, Ohio, in Elyja, Minnesota. Maribor: Univerzitetna Založba Univerze; 2020

[20] Biographical Directory of US Congress (BDUSC). Bioguide Search. n.d.. [online] Available from: https:// bioguide.congress.gov/search/bio/ G000565. [Accessed 19 Aug. 2022]

### **Chapter 11**

Addressing US Youth Violence and Central American Migration through Fortifying Children, Families, and Educators in Central America: A Collaborative Approach to the Development and Testing of a Youth Violence Preventive Intervention

*Heather H. McClure, J. Mark Eddy, Charles R. Martinez Jr., Rubeena Esmail, Ana Lucila Figueroa and Ruby Batz*

### **Abstract**

Youth violence is a pressing problem in the United States (US) with multiple contributors. Some violence involving US youth can be linked to a larger global epidemic of youth violence in Latin America and in Central America, specifically. Hemispheric histories of violence fueled by a century of US resource extraction and intervention, and other factors such as internal economic and political strain, contribute to present-day migration from Central America to the US. Addressing the intricate problems of US youth violence and migration requires multi-systemic prevention programs to address youth violence in families, schools, and communities in Central America. One such example is *Miles de Manos (MdM;* "Thousands of Hands"). MdM is intended to target risk and protective factors related to migration from Central America to the US. It is a multi-modal, culturally-specified and community-based violence prevention intervention for elementary-school aged children, their families, and children's teachers and school staff. Data collected during pilot trials indicate promise in terms of MdM increasing positive teacher and parent behaviors that promote prosocial behaviors and reduce problem behaviors in youth. Outcomes due to MdM for youth, parents and other caregivers, and teachers are currently being examined in a randomized controlled trial in Tegucigalpa, Honduras.

**Keywords:** United States, youth violence, central American migration, preventive intervention, program development, community-based, cultural adaptation

#### **1. Introduction**

Violence in the United States (US) is the third leading cause of death for young people (aged 10 to 24 years) and has widespread costs for individuals, families, and communities [1]. Each day in the US, about 12 young people are victims of homicide and almost 1400 are treated in emergency departments for nonfatal physical assaultrelated injuries [2]. Further, one in five high school students report being bullied at school or engaging in a physical fight in the past year [2]. Losses from violence against US youth in a single year include approximately 1.3 million years of life and \$18.2 billion in combined medical and lost productivity costs [2]. Amidst these brutal statistics there is cause for hope; mounting evidence demonstrates that youth violence is preventable [3]. Though contributors to youth violence are multi-sectoral and multi-modal, few interventions engage stakeholders across key contexts of young people's lives, including home and school [4]. Further, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Justice recommend that, in addition to addressing common risk factors for youth violence—i.e., delinquent peers, poor family functioning, and school disengagement [4, 5]—youth violence programs may be more effective if they are racially, ethnically, and culturally sensitive and address stresses associated with discrimination and immigration [6, 7].

One of the contributors to youth violence in the US is deviant peer association, including gang involvement, typically beginning after age 10 and peaking at age 14 [8]. One in three US local law enforcement agencies reported youth gang problems in their jurisdiction [6]. In the same year, 45% of high school students and 35% of middle school students said that there were gangs—or students who considered themselves part of a gang—in their school [7]. Two-thirds of gangs are located in larger US cities and suburban counties and account for the majority of gang-related violence and more than 96% of all gang homicides [9]. In Chicago and Los Angeles, nearly half of all homicides were attributed to gang violence [6]. Contrary to popular perception, girls join gangs in large numbers [4].

Violence poses unique challenges for US Latine (a linguistically and gender inclusive term) youth, particularly those who live in communities that are underserved and shaped by histories of discrimination, exclusion, and erasure [10, 11]. Long-standing US histories of racism, xenophobia, and the use of violence by state actors (e.g., the over policing of low income Black and Latine neighborhoods, institutional corruption, and a legal system that disproportionately punishes Black and Latine urban residents [12–14]) create conditions within which US gang members are much more likely to be Latine than any other race or ethnicity [2], with attendant risks to Latine families and communities. For some Latine youth living in immigrant origin neighborhoods, gang-related risks can be potentially far-reaching. US youth violence is linked to a larger global epidemic of youth violence [3] and can be fueled by connections to gang crime and the trafficking of people and drugs to the US from Central America, and of guns from the US to Central America [15]. For US youth who are touched in some way by these gangs, seemingly distant connections can directly and often profoundly impact their individual well-being, as well as that of their families and compatriots both in the US and in countries of origin [16]. Indeed, when transnational gangs influence schools and communities, the health and safety of all youth and community members are at risk [17–19], in the US as well as throughout Central America. Here we describe our work to collaboratively develop a youth violence preventive intervention in Central America, which we currently are testing in Honduras, as one response

to complex conditions that give rise to the ongoing and dangerous migration of children and families from Central America to the United States.

#### **2. Central American migration to the United States**

As the US is home to millions of people who immigrated from all over the world, global social conditions have implications for the health and well-being of US populations. In recent years, a significant number of immigrants have hailed from countries in Latin America. Central to US immigration policy conversations are spikes in the numbers of families and unaccompanied minors who seek safe haven in the US having fled perilous conditions in the Northern Triangle (i.e., Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador). Central American regional instability resulted, in part, from decades of US resource extraction and military and corporate intervention, which, in the present day, are exacerbated by US demands for workers and drugs, and the profitable export of firearms.

Within the past 10 years, unaccompanied children (UACs) from the Northern Triangle have fled violence and entered the US in unprecedented numbers. After reaching record high levels during the spring and summer of 2014 (51,705 UACs apprehended), the number of UACs from Northern Triangle countries arriving at the US-Mexico border declined sharply to 28,387 apprehensions in 2015 [20]. By 2016, however, UAC arrivals from these nations once again began to increase (to 46,893 UACs apprehended), with 113,576 UACs apprehended by July 2022, over three-quarters of whom were from Northern Triangle nations and one-quarter of whom were Honduran [21]. During FY2022, family unit apprehensions totaled 356,174, a level slightly below that for all family unit apprehensions in FY2012 (394,762), the first year that US Customs and Border Protection published family unit apprehension figures [20]. These high numbers of UACs as well as families from Central America apprehended at the US border are testament to the dramatically worsening social conditions in the Central American region, especially related to violence [18, 22, 23].

Despite coordinated efforts involving Central and North American governments to step up enforcement and prosecute migrant smugglers, powerful push factors, including high levels of violence, appear to have overwhelmed these efforts [24]. Violence is perpetrated by drug trafficking and organized crime networks as well as by domestic abusers [18, 19, 24] at rates so momentous they have led Honduras and El Salvador to vie annually (until 2019) for the title as the world's most dangerous peacetime country [25]. The ripple effects of citizen insecurity in Central America are readily felt in the US—witness, for example, the increasing number of migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees arriving at the US border—and have spurred the US to collaborate with countries in the region to implement and refine security efforts. Between 2008 and March 2019, the US government supported the Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI), which provided the nations of the isthmus with equipment, training, and technical assistance to support immediate law enforcement operations and to strengthen the long-term capacities of Central American governments to address the underlying social and political factors that contribute to persistent security challenges [26, 27]. In March 2019, the Trump administration announced its intention to end US foreign assistance to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras due to the continued northward flow of migrants and asylum-seekers from the Northern Triangle [26]. Despite this policy decision, Congress continued to

appropriate nearly \$2.6 billion over the four years of the Trump administration and the Biden administration pledged \$4 billion in support to Central America [23, 27].

Congressional appropriations of over \$1.2 billion to CARSI provided little evidence that CARSI supported programs, and particularly those that endorsed a *Mano Dura* (tough on crime) approach, contributed to improved security conditions, with overall country-level security indicators remaining poor in several Central America nations [26, 27]. Encouragingly, however, several community-based violence prevention programs supported through CARSI funding have demonstrated positive impacts on reduced levels of violence and increased community cohesion [26]. Unfortunately, the information available on these programs is scant—few scientifically rigorous studies have been conducted on community-based violence prevention programs in Central America.

#### **3. Elements of successful community-based violence prevention programs**

Key elements of successful youth violence programs include emphases on early intervention in terms of decreasing risk for and increasing protection against the development of antisocial behaviors during the pre-K and elementary school ages in both the school and the home settings [28]. Key skills that parents, other caregivers, and teachers are often taught include the ability to support children's behavioral self-regulation, to encourage the positive resolution of conflict, and to enhance the development of prosocial relationships [29]. Further, promising programs tend to embrace a social-ecological approach that addresses individual and relationship level factors (e.g., protective factors include cultural assets of families), while simultaneously teaching parents, other caregivers, and teachers about the community (school and neighborhood-based) and societal level factors (e.g., risk factors include poverty, discrimination) that may contribute to youth violence. Adults are the primary target of such programs with the goal being that they provide consistent modeling, support and encouragement of children who then can develop skills that are key to violence prevention, including positive communication, problem-solving, conflict resolution and management, empathy, impulse control, and emotion regulation [29, 30]. Skill development interventions have an extensive and robust research base, which shows that building youth's interpersonal, emotional, and behavioral skills can help reduce both youth violence perpetration and victimization [30]. Enhancing these skills can also impact risk or protective factors that covary with youth violence, such as substance use and academic success [31–33]. Finally, through training parents and school staff in the social determinants of violence, they can be empowered to be de facto community health workers who engage more broadly with others to prevent violence.

Across a five-year period, our US-based research team worked with partners in Central America and Germany to develop *Miles de Manos* (*MdM; "*Thousands of Hands"), a universal, multi-modal, evidence-informed and community-based youth violence prevention intervention targeting elementary school-aged youth and their families and teachers. This culturally sensitive program was designed for Latin American origin communities and school staff and is informed by the process and content of two programs identified as "effective" by the National Institute of Justice: Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers (LIFT) and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), as well as *Nuestras Familias* (NF*;* Our Families), a program that is routinely cited as one of the few empirically supported efficacious preventive interventions for US Latine adolescent externalizing behaviors [31, 34–37]. *Addressing US Youth Violence and Central American Migration through Fortifying Children… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108189*

The development, testing and refinement of MdM was informed by five feasibility trials conducted between 2012 and 2016.

#### **4. The development of** *Miles de Manos*

MdM was developed through a collaborative process between practitioners, administrators, and researchers from within and outside of the Central American region. This process was launched in 2011 by the PREVENIR Team from the German international aid agency, *Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit* (GIZ). PREVENIR is a program intended to prevent youth violence through the application of four strategies: (1) the introduction of local multi-sectoral prevention councils, (2) improved and localized youth employability efforts, (3) the establishment of gender sensitive community police and attention to victims of violence, and (4) the installation of violence prevention programs in and out of school. While efforts were underway for the first three strategies, members of the PREVENIR Team began an international search to learn about evidence-based programs for youth violence prevention. This effort could have resulted in the adoption of the typical approach used by most international agencies in Central America: take an "evidence-based" program developed in a high-income country, translate the content into Spanish, train facilitators, and disseminate the program. Instead, the work of the PREVENIR team led to a much different outcome: the development of a new culturally and evidence-informed intervention by and for Central Americans that proceeded through seven phases. This international collaboration included consultants from four Central American countries, US university-based prevention scientists, leaders from the Central American Integration System, and Ministries or Secretaries of Education from each Northern Triangle country, as well as schools, community leaders, youth and families from the Northern Triangle and Nicaragua. The work was conducted through funding from the governments of Germany, Australia, and the Netherlands and involved a number of phases.

During **Phase 1**, GIZ invited US-based team members to Central America to meet with experts to gain a deeper understanding of the assets and needs of communities beset by violence. During this phase, we learned about programs and initiatives already in place. This phase also involved building the MdM development team of Central Americans and strengthening relationships between the MdM team and key stakeholders across the four countries.

During **Phase 2**, US team members, at the request of GIZ, presented three evidence-based programs, PBIS [34], LIFT [31], and Nuestras Familias (NF) [36] as the starting place for the content and process of MdM. GIZ was interested in these three programs due to the positive findings of each and due to the larger body of evidence on the positive effects of school-based cognitive-behavioral programs that are similar in content and process to these programs [38]. Specifically, positive impacts of LIFT on parent and youth behaviors have been found within the context of a longitudinal randomized controlled trial of 12 schools [31, 35]. Positive impacts of PBIS have been found in a wide variety of studies [39], including randomized controlled trials [40]. Positive impacts of NF on parent and youth behaviors have been found in two school-based randomized controlled trials, with NF routinely cited as one of the few empirically supported efficacious preventive interventions for Latine adolescent externalizing behaviors [36, 37, 41]. Discussions focused on training GIZ team members in the premises and practices of these programs and identifying how elements could be used to build on *Phase 1* findings.

During **Phase 3**, GIZ team members and curriculum and instruction consultants from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua worked closely with the US team to adapt the programs to create culturally-grounded parent and teacher programs, as well as a "bridge" program involving both parents and teachers. The content was further revised based on feedback from key stakeholders, including groups in each country (e.g. representatives from Ministries or Secretaries of Education and leaders of local non-governmental organizations).

During **Phase 4**, a research design was developed, namely a multiple feasibility pilot strategy that included four planned tests to be conducted in Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua [30]. **Phase 5** was the conduct of the feasibility pilots; following each of the tests, MdM was edited, ultimately undergoing substantive changes between its initial draft in 2013 and the final manualized version that was completed in December 2015. During **Phase 6**, feedback from all completed feasibility tests was used to finalize the process, content and design of MdM, and prepare for a rigorous test of program outcomes [42].

**Phase 7** involved the dissemination of MdM through GIZ and key collaborators, principally in Honduras and El Salvador. In Honduras, the program has been adopted as part of the country's national education strategy. This phase included the creation of training, supervision, and fidelity monitoring systems.

**Phase 8**, currently underway, involves the conduct of a rigorous RCT of MdM in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. This study involves a collaboration of The University of Texas at Austin, the University of Oregon, and ChildFund International, in partnership with the Honduran Secretary of Education.

#### **4.1 Program description**

MdM comprises three components [43]: a cognitive-behavioral skills training component for parents (8 sessions), a cognitive-behavioral skills training component for teachers (8 sessions), and a "bridge" component that brings parents, teachers, and school administrators together to talk about how to support each other's efforts related to youth violence prevention (4 sessions plus a community-wide program launch event). Core elements of PBIS, LIFT, and NF were adapted, combined, and shaped through interaction of the program development team with Central American teachers, parents, and families over the course of the three years of development and piloting [44]. Seven key research evidencebased ideas from these three programs (also common to other cognitive-behavioral school-based preventive interventions) are presented in parent, teacher, and bridge components: effective communication, clear expectations, limits and consequences, positive reinforcement, adult supervision and monitoring, effective problem solving, and emotion regulation [44]. The program is highly interactive, and involves brief lectures, small and large group discussions, role-plays, and interactive exercises. The key theme throughout the components is that the "first step" in youth violence prevention and prosocial promotion is the ongoing, active, positive, and constructive communication between and among parents, teachers, and youth [44]. MdM is designed to help parents and teachers take such a step with each other and with the children who are in their care.

#### **5. Preliminary studies of** *Miles de Manos*

Throughout the development process, data were collected from parents, teachers, and youth on their perceptions of MdM as well as on outcomes related to the program. *Addressing US Youth Violence and Central American Migration through Fortifying Children… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108189*

To illustrate, findings from three of five data collections are overviewed here [30, 42]: the first pilot in Honduras, the fifth and last pilot in El Salvador, and an independent dissertation research study in El Salvador. Our goal with these pilots was to optimize the feasibility of the program as well as to refine assessment instruments and procedures to inform a later rigorous study, which is currently in progress.

#### **5.1 First pilot**

MdM was first piloted with adults connected to 4th grade classes in a school located in a Yamaranguila, a remote, mountainous community in Honduras. Parent recruitment initially focused on the members of a parent committee involved in the construction of a new school in Yamaranguila, and then expanded to all parents connected to the school. The primary facilitator of the parent groups was a local resident and a licensed primary school teacher who had extensive experience facilitating youth and parenting classes. One of the authors of the parent component co-facilitated the teacher and bridge components with the primary facilitator. The research team trained GIZ assessors on the administration of study instruments, and provided ongoing support and supervision. To attend MdM sessions, the 75 parents who attended reported travel times (typically on foot) that varied between 1 and 30 minutes (39%), 30 minutes and 1 hour (39%), 1 and 1 ½ hours (11%), and 1 ½ and 2 hours (11%). Despite these distances, and frequent, powerful rains that made travel difficult on the dirt roads and trails in the area, parent participation in weekly sessions remained high, with the number of parents increasing 50% by the end of the program. Based on feedback received by consultants and community leaders, each meeting included food or *meriendas* prepared by a community member and brought to share with others during session breaks and at the end of gatherings. Nearly all participants expressed enthusiasm for the program and for what they rated as high-quality facilitation and materials. Participants also reported having learned valuable knowledge and skills they thought would make a difference for the children in their lives. As about 40% of parents had a 3rd grade education or less, parents' high levels of involvement were important evidence of the program's accessibility. In keeping with studies of low-income marginalized families in the US [45, 46], Yamaranguila parents, despite tremendous odds, were dedicated to their children's education. Nearly all participants responded that they would recommend the program to others and described speaking frequently with other adults in their lives about lessons learned in the program. The pattern of written responses was uniform: in response to questions about suggestions for improvement and program areas of strength, most participants identified the program as extremely beneficial.

#### **5.2 Last pilot**

The last pilot was conducted in schools located within two municipalities in the state of San Miguel, El Salvador [42]. Two schools were selected in each town; one school in each town was chosen to receive MdM. Both schools were in "orange" zones in terms of level of risk, meaning that the incidence of youth violence in the local area was low relative to the rest of El Salvador, but would be considered high by international standards considering the extremely high level of violence in the country at the time of the pilot. A random process was used to determine which school would receive MdM (i.e, the Program School) and which would be a "services-as-usual" Control School. Selected teachers and administrators from the Program School were

trained as MdM facilitators by GIZ staff. The training lasted for five days. Facilitators delivered MdM to the other teachers and staff in their school as well as to the parents of students at their school. Additionally, staff members from the research team provided training in the collection of data to a group of nine undergraduate students who were supervised by a professor from the Universidad Nacional de El Salvador. Students in all classes in grades 4–6 in each school were recruited for data collection. Parents of all students in these grades were also invited to participate. In the Program School, parents were invited to register for the parent component sessions. Subsequently, teachers, students, and parents from these grades were assessed in both the Control and Program Schools at "baseline" (Time 1) before MdM was delivered in the Program School. MdM was then delivered across a five-month period. The teacher component was delivered during special sessions offered during the regular school week. The parent component was offered at a time when parents indicated they were available to participate. After MdM was delivered, students, parents, and teachers in all schools were assessed again (Time 2) via written questionnaires that were administered either to groups (i.e., parents, students) or were completed by teachers during their class preparation time. In a few cases, assessments were administered individually, for example if a parent had difficulty understanding the questions and needed assistance.

The total number of participants in the assessment included 43 teachers, 388 students, and 59 parents. Participating teachers represented 80% of all teachers in the schools; students we assessed represented approximately 95% of students in the 4th to 6th grades; approximately 16% of students in grades 4–6 had parents who participated in the program. GIZ staff regularly monitored the fidelity of implementation of the program, observing sessions and providing ongoing training and consultation with facilitators throughout the delivery of MdM. A GIZ staff member directly observed delivery at least once a week; in addition, three GIZ staff members observed 65% of the sessions. During these sessions, staff collected data on the content presented in order to provide feedback and training for facilitators as a mechanism to continually improve and monitor implementation.

Teacher participation was exceptional, with 98% of teachers in the Program School participating in at least part of the teacher component. All teachers (100%) who attended the first session continued until the end of the program. Due to a limited capacity for parents (only one sequence of the parent sessions was offered), parent involvement in the program was limited (16% of eligible parents participated though many more were interested in participating). The majority of parents (85%) who came to the first session continued until the end. Both parents and teachers were overwhelmingly positive about their experiences with MdM. Over 95% of both parents and teachers reported that they liked the sessions and over 95% said they would recommend the program to others.

Change was compared between participants in the Program School versus participants in the Control School. Using a general linear modeling approach, significant changes were found on problem behaviors that, over time, can lead to violence against others (e.g., fighting, stealing, disobedience). Changes were also found in teachers' ratings of their abilities to influence their students' prosocial skills and reduce their likelihood of behaving violently (e.g., improved problem solving, better emotion regulation, improved communication). Parents reported increased abilities to create respectful, caring, and attentive relationships with their children. Such relationships are key to effective monitoring and discipline that can reduce youth antisocial and

*Addressing US Youth Violence and Central American Migration through Fortifying Children… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108189*

violent behavior. These effects are even more promising when placed within the negative social changes occurring in the neighborhood during the months of the pilot. Specifically, gang violence significantly increased, transforming the local community from an "orange" to a "red" zone (i.e., more than 90 homicides per 100,000 people within a year) [47, 48]. During the study, gang symbols appeared within the school, most notably within the boys' restroom. The lives of school staff were threatened should the symbols be removed. Despite this increase in risk, parents who took part in MdM reported their child was less likely to join a gang following the program than parents in the Control School.

#### **5.3 Independent study**

A staff member with USAID in El Salvador who was not connected with the MdM development process, completed in-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews with 10 parents in El Salvador who had recently participated in MdM at their child's school [49]. An interpretive phenomenological analysis approach was used to identify themes. Parents often entered the program with the expectation that they would be passive participants; however, this expectation changed through their involvement with the instructor, with other parents, and with teachers, most notably through the sharing of stories about their children and families and through engaging in roleplays. The active engagement of parents with each other and with teachers is a key part of the program and has been sustained even as the program is implemented on a broad scale.

#### **5.4 Dissemination**

Agreements between GIZ and the University of Oregon include provisions that MdM program materials would be made available for free for non-profit and governmental activities. Within Central America, GIZ provides program materials and training on MdM at no cost to interested schools. Since the completion of the development process in 2015, parents and teachers have been trained in MdM in multiple public schools throughout Central America, with the highest number of participants in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. In El Salvador, from 2014 to 2020, the US Agency for International Development education project, Education for Children and Youth, included MdM as one resource for supporting schools [50]. In Honduras, the Secretary of Education has chosen to use MdM as one of their approved programs, including it as part of the Parent School (Escuela de Padres) program, which is obligatory in the 22,000 public schools in Honduras [51]. At last count, MdM has been delivered in 892 Honduran schools, with a total of 10,697 parents and 6888 teachers participating in the program. Combined, these parents and teachers affect a total of 160,650 students. To the best of our knowledge, this level of use eclipses any of the school-based violence prevention programs that were present in these countries when the MdM development process began. The unique grounding of the program in both evidence-based interventions and regional and local cultures to ensure its cultural specificity, the program development process that involved multiple stakeholders in the region, the positive preliminary findings, and the ongoing enthusiasm for the program by the Ministries of Education in Central America are key reasons we now are conducting a randomized controlled trial of the program to examine whether or not MdM is related to positive outcomes for youth.

#### **6. Full-scale trial of** *Miles de Manos* **in Tegucigalpa, Honduras**

We are presently conducting a randomized controlled trial of MdM with 30 public primary schools in urban and semi-urban areas in and around the capital city of Tegucigalpa. As schools in Honduras were closed until March of 2022, the trial was launched in July of 2022. Schools have been randomized into a MdM intervention condition or a services-as-usual control condition (15 schools per condition). The Secretary of Education identified potential study schools in violence prevention zones, or those yellow and orange zones in which homicide rates are not as high as those in red zones [50, 51]. In addition, selected schools had no prior experience fully implementing MdM. In each participating school, 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students are invited to take part (approximate *n* = 50 students per school; 1500 total); one parent per student (*n* = 1500); and all 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade teachers (plus 6th grade teachers and other school staff) in each school (*n* = 8 per school; total *n* = 240). At each of three time points (i.e., baseline before intervention, intervention termination, and one-year post-termination), we will conduct assessments with all anticipated 3240 participants.

Facilitation of MdM classes is provided by four lead facilitators with prior facilitation experience (including with MdM), who train 2–3 staff per school to facilitate MdM classes involving parents and teachers. In this way, the study works to ensure that knowledge and skills are retained and sustained within each intervention school, thus sustaining the necessary "ingredients" for the success of the MdM program.

#### **7. Conclusion**

Migration from Central America to the United States, which can have catastrophic impacts upon families and communities, is exacerbated by youth violence across the Americas and the transnational networks that ferry people and drugs to the US, and guns to Central American nations. Our response to the complex problem of youth violence is a transnational collaboration of researchers and international development experts to create Miles de Manos, a multi-systemic prevention program to address the roots of youth violence in families, schools, and communities in Central America. Here we have reported persistently positive impacts of MdM on teacher and parent behaviors that promote prosocial behaviors and reduce problem behaviors in youth. As a result of the success of MdM, US researchers involved in the collaborative development team re-imported the program back to the US (Project *Juntos*/Together; PI: Martinez, Institute for Education Sciences, grant # R305A140290). It is our hope that Miles de Manos and similar programs, when implemented throughout Central America and the US with fidelity and in concert with other effective national and community development programs, can substantially reduce youth violence and ultimately contribute to greater hemispheric stability.

#### **Acknowledgements**

Thank you to all of the participants involved in our development of Miles de Manos, including Central American children, parents and other caregivers, teachers, school directors, departmental and country school leaders, leaders and members of governmental agencies, and experts in global education and international

#### *Addressing US Youth Violence and Central American Migration through Fortifying Children… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108189*

development. We are grateful to our collaborators in the development and early testing of Miles de Manos, including Alejandro Christ, Pauline Martin, Dr. Bienvenido Argueta, Claudia Flores, Ligia Diaz Pentzke, Bayron Flores, and Mauricio Caceres. We appreciate the Deutsche Gesellschaft für international Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) whose funding, expertise, staffing, and longstanding relationships with Central American Ministries and communities made possible MdM's development, implementation, and dissemination. Research reported in this publication is supported by Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institutes of Health of the National Institutes of Health under award number #5R01HD102984-02 (PIs: Martinez & Eddy). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

#### **Author details**

Heather H. McClure1 \*, J. Mark Eddy2 , Charles R. Martinez Jr.2 , Rubeena Esmail3 , Ana Lucila Figueroa1 and Ruby Batz<sup>4</sup>


\*Address all correspondence to: hmcclure@uoregon.edu

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, US Department of Health & Human Services; 2016

[2] US Government Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs. Youth Topics/Violence Prevention/Federal Data. 2022 [cited 2022 September 2]. Available from: youth.gov/youth-topics/ violence-prevention/federal-data

[3] Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. Youth Violence/Violence Prevention. 2022 [cited 2022 September 4]. Available from: www.cdc.gov/ violenceprevention/youthviolence/ index.html

[4] David-Ferdon C et al. A Comprehensive Technical Package for the Prevention of Youth Violence and Associated Risk Behaviors. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2016

[5] National Institute of Justice. Program Records: Youth violence. 2018 [cited 2018 May 13]. Available from: https://www. crimesolutions.gov/advsearch.aspx

[6] Simon TR, Ritter NM, Mahendra RR. Changing Course: Preventing Gang Membership. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice & Center for Disease Control and Prevention; 2013

[7] Esbensen F-A et al. Youth Violence: Understanding the Role of Sex, Race/ Ethnicity, and Gang Membership. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press; 2010

[8] Pyrooz DC, Sweeten G. Gang membership between ages 5 and 17 years in the United States. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2015;**56**(4):414-419

[9] Egley A, Howell JC. Highlights of the 2010 National Youth Gang Survey. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; 2012

[10] Ortiz P. An African American and Latinx History of the United States. Vol. 4. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press; 2018

[11] Laslett JH. Shameful Victory: The Los Angeles Dodgers, the Red Scare, and the Hidden History of Chavez Ravine. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press; 2015

[12] Samari G, Nagle A, Coleman-Minahan K. Measuring structural xenophobia: US state immigration policy climates over ten years. SSM-population health. 2021;**16**

[13] Katznelson I. When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America. New York, New York: WW Norton & Company; 2005

[14] Weitzer R, Brunson RK. Policing differential racial groups in the United States. Cahiers Politiestudies. 2015;**6**(35):129-145

[15] National Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. National Survey of American Attitudes on Substance Abuse XV: Teens and Parents, 2010. New York, NY: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University; 2010

*Addressing US Youth Violence and Central American Migration through Fortifying Children… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108189*

[16] National Gang Center. National Youth Gang Survey Analysis. 2012 [cited 2018 May 22]. Available from: http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/ Survey-Analysis

[17] Egley A, Howell JC. Highlights of the 2009 National Youth Gang Survey. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; 2011

[18] Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). Transnational Gangs: Understanding the Threat, in News. Washington, DC: FBI; 2016

[19] Johnston S, Muhlhausen DB. North American transnational youth gangs: Breaking the chain of violence. Trends in Organized Crime. 2005;**9**(1):38-54

[20] Chishti M, Hipsman F. Increased Central American Migration to the United States May Prove an Enduring Phenomenon, in Migration Information Source. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute; 2016

[21] US Customs and Border Protection. Southwest Land Border Encounters (by Component). 2022 [cited 2022 August 13]. Available from: https://www.cbp. gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-landborder-encounters-by-component

[22] Reisman L. Breaking the vicious cycle: Responding to central American youth gang violence. SAIS Review of International Affairs. 2006;**26**(2):147-152

[23] Cheatham A and Roy D. Central America's Turbulent Northern Triangle. 2022 [cited 2022 September 1]. Available from: https://www.cfr. org/backgrounder/central-americasturbulent-northern-triangle?gclid=CjwK CAjw9suYBhBIEiwA7iMhNPUONo0my 4rV-fyYHV-icEUp2DSzV3gXaFV2kIm4- ENBLRytZyT11BoCW8IQAvD\_ BwE#chapter-title-0-3

[24] Musalo K, Frydman L, Ceriani Cernadas P. Childhood and MIgration in Central and North America: Causes, Policies, Practices and Challenges. San Francisco, CA: Center for Gender & Refugee Studies; 2015

[25] World Population Review. Murder Rate by Country Population. 2019. Available from: http:// worldpopulationreview.com/countries/ murder-rate-by-country/

[26] Meyer PJ, Ribando Seelke C. Central America Regional Security Initiative: Background and Policy Issues for Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service; 2015

[27] Meyer, PJ. US Strategy for Engagement in Central America: Policy issues for Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service; 2019

[28] Hawkins JD et al. Youth problem behaviors 8 years after implementing the communities that care prevention system: A community-randomized trial. JAMA Pediatrics. 2014;**168**(2):122-129

[29] Eddy JM, Reid JB, Curry V. The etiology of youth antisocial behavior, delinquency, and violence and a public health approach to prevention. In: Shinn M, Walker H, Stoner G, editors. Interventions for Academic and Behavior Problems II: Preventive and Remedial Approaches. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists; 2002. pp. 27-51

[30] Eddy JM et al. Preventive intervention targeting youth violence in Central America: Pilot Studies. Division 45 Research Conference. Eugene, Oregon; American Psychological Association. 2014

[31] Eddy JM, Reid JB, Fetrow RA. An elementary-school based prevention

program targeting modifiable antecedents of youth delinquency and violence: Linking the interests of families and teachers (LIFT). Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2000;**8**(3):165-176

[32] Farrington DP, Loeber R, Ttofi MM. Risk and protective factors for offending. In: Welsh BC, Farrington DP, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Crime Prevention. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2012. pp. 46-69

[33] Eddy JM et al. A randomized controlled trial of a long-term professional mentoring program for children at risk: Outcomes across the first 5 years. Prevention Science. 2017;**18**:899-910

[34] Sprague JR, Horner RH. School wide positive behavior interventions and supports: Proven practices and future directions. In: Jimerson S et al., editors. Handbook of School Violence and School Safety: International Research and Practice. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2012. pp. 447-462

[35] Reid JB et al. Description and immediate impacts of a preventive intervention for conduct problems. American Journal of Community Psychology. 1999;**27**(4):483-517

[36] Martinez CR Jr, Eddy JM. Effects of culturally adapted parent management training on Latino youth behavioral health outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2005;**73**(4):841-851

[37] Prado G et al. Drug use/abuse prevalence, etiology, prevention, and treatment in Hispanic adolescents: A cultural perspective. Journal of Drug Issues. 2008;**28**(1):5-36

[38] Epstein MH, Kutash K, Duchnowski A. In: Epstein MH, Kutash K, Duchnowski A, editors. Outcomes for Children and Youth with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders and their Families: Programs and Evaluation Best Practices. Austin, TX, US: PRO-ED; 1998. pp. xviii, 738-xviii, 738

[39] Horner RH, Sugai G, Anderson CM. Examining the evidence base for schoolwide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptional Children. 2010;**42**(8):1-14

[40] Bradshaw CP, Mitchell MM, Leaf PJ. Examining the effects of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. 2010;**12**(3):133-148

[41] Castro FG et al. Substance abuse prevention intervention research with Hispanic populations. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2006;**84**(S1):S29-S42

[42] Batz R et al. Miles de Manos: Promise Test results. Eugene, Oregon, USA: Deutsche Gesellschaft für internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ); Center for Equity Promotion, University of Oregon; 2016

[43] Central American Youth Violence Prevention Collaborative. Miles de Manos Curriculum. Bonn and Eschborn, Germany: Deutsche Gesellschaft für internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) and Center for Equity Promotion, University of Oregon; 2015

[44] Figueroa L et al. Bases teoricas & orientaciones practicas. Bonn, Alemania: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ); 2015

[45] Yosso TJ, Burciaga R. Reclaiming our histories, recovering community cultural wealth. Center for Critical Race Studies at UCLA Research Brief. 2016;**5**:1-4

*Addressing US Youth Violence and Central American Migration through Fortifying Children… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108189*

[46] Luna NA, Martinez M. A qualitative study using community cultural wealth to understand the educational experiences of Latino college students. Journal of Multicultural Education. 2013;**7**(1):1-18

[47] Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras (UNAH). Observatorio local de la violencia del Distrito Central, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: Instituto Universitario en Democracia, Paz y Seguridad; 2016

[48] Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras (UNAH). Observatorio de la violencia. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: Instituto Universitario en Democracia, Paz y Seguridad; 2017. pp. 1-15

[49] Curtin TG. Transforming salvadoran parental behavior: Determinants and obstacles. In: School of Education. Ann Arbor, MI: Northeastern University; 2018

[50] US Agency for International Development. Fact Sheet: Education for Children and Youth. 2022 [cited 2022 September 10]. Available from: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/1862/Fact\_Sheet\_-\_ Education\_for\_Children\_and\_Youth\_ Project.pdf.

[51] Education V. Country: Honduras Practice: Miles de Manos. In: Innovation in Education: Models of Best Global Practices. 2022. Available from: https:// virtualeduca.org/muestra/2017/ muestra/29-miles-de-manos

Section 5
