The 2020 Census offers new information on changes in residential segregation in metropolitan regions across the country as they continue to become more diverse. We take a long view, assessing trends since 1980 and extrapolating to the future. These new data mostly reinforce patterns that were observed a decade ago: high but slowly declining black-white segregation, and less intense but hardly changing segregation of Hispanics and Asians from whites. Enough time has passed since the civil rights era of the 1960s and 1970s to draw this conclusion: segregation will continue to divide Americans well into the 21st Century.
-
Structural versus Ethnic Dimensions of Housing Segregation
March 2016
Working Paper Number:
CES-16-22
Racial residential segregation is still very high in many American cities. Some portion of segregation is attributable to socioeconomic differences across racial lines; some portion is caused by purely racial factors, such as preferences about the racial composition of one's neighborhood or discrimination in the housing market. Social scientists have had great difficulty disaggregating segregation into a portion that can be explained by interracial differences in socioeconomic characteristics (what we call structural factors) versus a portion attributable to racial and ethnic factors. What would such a measure look like? In this paper, we draw on a new source of data to develop an innovative structural segregation measure that shows the amount of segregation that would remain if we could assign households to housing units based only on non-racial socioeconomic characteristics. This inquiry provides vital building blocks for the broader enterprise of understanding and remedying housing segregation.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Black Pioneers, Intermetropolitan Movers, and Housing Desegregation
March 2016
Working Paper Number:
CES-16-23
In this project, we examine the mobility choices of black households between 1960 and 2000. We use household-level Decennial Census data geocoded down to the census tract level. Our results indicate that, for black households, one's status as an intermetropolitan migrant ' especially from an urban area outside the South ' is a powerful predictor of pioneering into a white neighborhood. Moreover, and perhaps even more importantly, the ratio of these intermetropolitan black arrivals to the incumbent metropolitan black population is a powerful predictor of whether a metropolitan area experiences substantial declines in housing segregation.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
America's Churning Races: Race and Ethnic Response Changes between Census 2000 and the 2010 Census
August 2014
Working Paper Number:
carra-2014-09
Race and ethnicity responses can change over time and across contexts - a component of population change not usually taken into account. To what extent do race and/or Hispanic origin responses change? Is change more common to/from some race/ethnic groups than others? Does the propensity to change responses vary by characteristics of the individual? To what extent do these changes affect researchers? We use internal Census Bureau data from the 2000 and 2010 censuses in which individuals' responses have been linked across years. Approximately 9.8 million people (about 6 percent) in our large, non-representative linked data have a different race and/or Hispanic origin response in 2010 than they did in 2000. Several groups experienced considerable fluidity in racial identification: American Indians and Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, and multiple-race response groups, as well as Hispanics when reporting a race. In contrast, race and ethnic responses for single-race non-Hispanic whites, blacks, and Asians were relatively consistent over the decade, as were ethnicity responses by Hispanics. People who change their race and/or Hispanic origin response(s) are doing so in a wide variety of ways, as anticipated by previous research. For example, people's responses change from multiple races to a single race, from a single race to multiple races, from one single race to another, and some people add or drop a Hispanic response. The inflow of people to each race/Hispanic group is in many cases similar in size to the outflow from the same group, such that cross-sectional data would show a small net change. We find response changes across ages, sexes, regions, and response modes, with variation across groups. Researchers should consider the implications of changing race and Hispanic origin responses when conducting analyses and interpreting results.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Urban-Suburban Migration in the United States, 1955-2000
February 2016
Working Paper Number:
CES-16-08
This study uses census microdata from 1960 to 2010 to look at the rates of suburbanization in the 100 largest metro areas. Looking at the racial and ethnic composition of the population, and then further breaking down these groups by income, it's clear that more affluent people were more likely to move to the suburbs. Also, the White non-Hispanic population has long been the most suburbanized group. A majority of the White population lived in suburbs by 1960 in the 100 largest metro areas, while most of the Black non-Hispanic population lived in urban core areas as late as 2000. The Hispanic and Asian populations went from majority urban to majority suburban during this period.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Intergenerational Transmission of Race: Permeable Boundaries between 1970 and 2010
September 2012
Working Paper Number:
CES-12-24
We study the social construction of race boundaries by investigating patterns in the race, ancestry, and Mexican origin responses provided for children of 14 types of interracial marriages using dense restricted-use data from 1970 to 2010. Our broader purpose is to expose social processes that convert a newborn child of mixed heritage into an adult person of a particular race. We include a more diverse set of families, a longer time span, and more accurate estimates than prior research. These expansions bear fruit.Taking ancestry responses into account and studying the longer-term patterns reveals that mixed-heritage responses have been common since 1980. Expanding the types of mixed heritage and including double-minorities shows that there is substantial variation in response patterns across the 14 groups.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Is the Melting Pot Still Hot? Explaining the Resurgence of Immigrant Segregation
August 2004
Working Paper Number:
CES-04-10
This paper uses decennial Census data to examine trends in immigrant segregation in the United States between 1910 and 2000. Immigrant segregation declined in the first half of the century, but has been rising steadily over the past three decades. Analysis of restricted access 1990 Census microdata suggests that this rise would be even more striking if the native-born children of immigrants could be consistently excluded from the analysis. We analyze panel and cross-sectional variation in immigrant segregation, as well as housing price patterns across metropolitan areas, to test four hypotheses of immigrant segregation. Immigration itself has surged in recent decades, but the tendency for newly arrived immigrants to be younger and of lower socioeconomic status explains very little of the recent rise in immigrant segregation. We also find no evidence of increased nativism in the housing market. Evidence instead points to changes in urban form, particularly the tendency for ethnic enclaves to form as suburbanizing households leave older neighborhoods, as a central explanation for the new immigrant segregation.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
WHITE-LATINO RESIDENTIAL ATTAINMENTS AND SEGREGATION
IN SIX CITIES: ASSESSING THE ROLE OF MICRO-LEVEL FACTORS
January 2016
Working Paper Number:
CES-16-51
This study examines the residential outcomes of Latinos in major metropolitan areas using new methods to connect micro-level analyses of residential attainments to overall patterns of segregation in the metropolitan area. Drawing on new formulations of standard measures of evenness, we conduct micro-level multivariate analyses using the restricted-use census microdata files to predict segregation-relevant neighborhood outcomes for individuals by race. We term the dependent variables segregation-relevant neighborhood outcomes because the differences in average outcomes for each group on these variables determine the values of the aggregate measures of evenness. This approach allows me to use standardization and components analysis to quantitatively assess the separate contributions that differences in social characteristics and differences in rates of return make towards determining the overall disparity in residential outcomes ' that is, the level of segregation ' between Whites and Latinos. Based on our micro-level residential attainment analyses we find that for Latinos, acculturation and gains in socioeconomic status are associated with greater residential contact with Whites, in agreement with spatial assimilation theory, which promotes lower segregation. However, our standardization and components analyses reveals that a substantial portion of White-Latino disparities in residential contact with Whites can be attributed to differences in rates of return; that is White-Latino differences in the ability to translate acculturation and gains in socioeconomic status into more residential contact with Whites. This is further elaborated upon by assessing the changes in contact with Whites for Whites and Latinos after manipulating single variables while holding all others constant. This can be interpreted as the role of discrimination which is emphasized by place stratification theory. Therefore we conclude that while members of minority groups make gains in residential outcomes that reduce segregation by attaining parity with Whites on social characteristics as spatial assimilation theory would predict, a substantial disparity will persist as Latinos cannot translate those gains into greater contact with Whites at the rate that Whites can. At the aggregate level of analysis, this means that White-Latino segregation remains substantial even when groups are equalized on social and economic characteristics.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
More than a Million New American Indians in 2000: Who are They?
March 2013
Working Paper Number:
CES-13-02
Over a million people reported their race as American Indian in the 2000 U.S. Census but did not report that race in the 1990 Census. We investigate three questions related to this extraordinary population change: (1) Which subgroups of American Indians had the greatest numerical growth? (2) Which subgroups had the greatest proportional increase? And (3) is it plausible that all 'new' American Indians reported multiple races in 2000? We use full-count and high-density decennial U.S. census data; adjust for birth, death, and immigration; decompose on age, gender, Latino origin, education, and birth state; and compare the observed American Indian subgroup sizes in 2000 to the sizes expected based on 1990 counts. The largest numerical increases were among non-Latino youth (ages 10-19), non-Latino adult women, and adults with no college degree. Latinos, highly-educated adults, and women have the largest proportionate gains, perhaps indicating that 'American Indian' has special appeal in these groups. We also find evidence that a substantial number of new American Indians reported only American Indian race in 2000, rather than a multiple-race response. This research is relevant to social theorists, race scholars, community members, program evaluators, and the Census Bureau.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Dynamics of Race: Joining, Leaving, and Staying in the American Indian/Alaska Native Race Category between 2000 and 2010
August 2014
Working Paper Number:
carra-2014-10
Each census for decades has seen the American Indian and Alaska Native population increase substantially more than expected. Changes in racial reporting seem to play an important role in the observed net increases, though research has been hampered by data limitations. We address previously unanswerable questions about race response change among American Indian and Alaska Natives (hereafter 'American Indians') using uniquely-suited (but not nationally representative) linked data from the 2000 and 2010 decennial censuses (N = 3.1 million) and the 2006-2010 American Community Survey (N = 188,131). To what extent do people change responses to include or exclude American Indian? How are people who change responses similar to or different from those who do not? How are people who join a group similar to or different from those who leave it? We find considerable race response change by people in our data, especially by multiple-race and/or Hispanic American Indians. This turnover is hidden in cross-sectional comparisons because people joining the group are similar in number and characteristics to those who leave the group. People in our data who changed their race response to add or drop American Indian differ from those who kept the same race response in 2000 and 2010 and from those who moved between a single-race and multiple-race American Indian response. Those who consistently reported American Indian (including those who added or dropped another race response) were relatively likely to report a tribe, live in an American Indian area, report American Indian ancestry, and live in the West. There are significant differences between those who joined and those who left a specific American Indian response group, but poor model fit indicates general similarity between joiners and leavers. Response changes should be considered when conceptualizing and operationalizing 'the American Indian and Alaska Native population.'
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Changes in Metropolitan Area Definition, 1910-2010
February 2021
Working Paper Number:
CES-21-04
The Census Bureau was established as a permanent agency in 1902, as industrialization and urbanization were bringing about rapid changes in American society. The years following the establishment of a permanent Census Bureau saw the first attempts at devising statistical geography for tabulating statistics for large cities and their environs. These efforts faced several challenges owing to the variation in settlement patterns, political organization, and rates of growth across the United States. The 1910 census proved to be a watershed, as the Census Bureau offered a definition of urban places, established the first census tract boundaries for tabulating data within cities, and introduced the first standardized metropolitan area definition. It was not until the middle of the twentieth century, however, the Census Bureau in association with other statistical agencies had established a flexible standard metropolitan definition and a more consistent means of tabulating urban data. Since 1950, the rules for determining the cores and extent of metropolitan areas have been largely regarded as comparable. In the decades that followed, however, a number of rule changes were put into place that accounted for metropolitan complexity in differing ways, and these have been the cause of some confusion. Changes put into effect with the 2000 census represent a consensus of sorts for how to handle these issues.
View Full
Paper PDF