Segregation, the concentration of poverty, and the life chances of individuals

We outline a theoretical model that identifies residential segregation as a primary structural cause of the geographic concentration of poverty in U.S. urban areas. From this theory we specify and estimate a multilevel equation that links minority poverty and segregation within metropolitan areas to the concentration of socioeconomic deprivation within neighborhoods. We then estimate a second set of multilevel equations that connect neighborhood poverty rates to individual-level outcomes commonly associated with the underclass: male joblessness, teenage motherhood, and single parenthood. Our results link economic and social structures at the metropolitan level to individual outcomes that operate to perpetuate poverty and lead to the creation of the underclass.     

Undocumented migration and the residential segregation of Mexicans in new destinations

This study uses data from the 2000 Census and 2005–2009 American Community Survey to examine the impact of undocumented Mexican migration to new destinations on residential segregation between Mexican immigrants and native-born whites and native-born blacks. We find that Mexican-white and Mexican-black segregation is higher in new Mexican gateways than in established areas and that, for Mexican-immigrant segregation from whites, this heightened level of residential segregation in new destinations can be explained by the high presence of unauthorized Mexican immigrants living there which tends to bolster segregation between the two groups. By contrast, Mexican-immigrant segregation from native-born blacks tends to be lower in areas with larger undocumented populations, a pattern that is especially true in new destinations. Neither of these opposing effects of legal status on Mexican-immigrant segregation can be explained by compositional differences in assimilation (English ability and earnings) between documented and undocumented immigrants nor by structural variation in metropolitan areas, suggesting a unique association between legal status and segregation.     

Housing and neighborhood quality among undocumented Mexican and Central American immigrants

Extensive research has documented the challenges that undocumented immigrants face in navigating U.S. labor markets, but relatively little has explored the impact of legal status on residential outcomes despite their widespread repercussions for social well-being. Using data from the 1996–2008 panels of the Survey of Income and Program Participation to impute documentation status among Mexican and Central American immigrants, we examine group differences in residential outcomes, including homeownership, housing crowding, satisfaction with neighborhood and housing quality, problems with neighborhood crime/safety, governmental services, and environmental issues, and deficiencies with housing units. Results from our analysis indicate that undocumented householders are far less likely to be homeowners than documented migrants, and also live in more crowded homes, report greater structural deficiencies with their dwellings, and express greater concern about the quality of public services and environmental conditions in their neighborhoods. In comparison to native whites, undocumented migrants’ residential circumstances are lacking, but their residential outcomes tend to be superior to those of native-born blacks. Overall, our results highlight the pervasive impact of legal status on stratifying Mexicans’ and Central Americans’ prospects for successful incorporation, but also underscore the rigidity of the black/nonblack divide structuring American residential contexts.     

Residential segregation in metropolitan established immigrant gateways and new destinations, 1990-2000

In the 1990s, many immigrants bypassed established gateways like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Miami to create new immigrant destinations across the US. In this paper, we examine how segregation and spatial assimilation might differ between established gateways and new destinations among the 150 largest metropolitan areas. Using data from the 1990 and 2000 censuses, we calculate levels of dissimilarity for Hispanics and Asians by nativity for these two gateway types. Our findings show that segregation levels are consistently lower in new destinations. However, Hispanics in new destinations experienced significant increases segregation during the 1990s, suggesting a convergence in residential patterns by destination type. Nevertheless, in both destinations the native-born are less segregated than the foreign born—consistent with immigrant spatial incorporation. Finally, socioeconomic indicators are generally consistent with predictions of spatial assimilation.     

Metropolitan influences on migration into poor and nonpoor neighborhoods

Data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and three decennial US censuses are used to examine the influence of metropolitan-area characteristics on black and white households’ propensity to move into poor versus nonpoor neighborhoods. We find that a nontrivial portion of the variance in the odds of moving to a poor rather to a nonpoor neighborhood exists between metropolitan areas. Net of established individual-level predictors of inter-neighborhood migration, black and white households are more likely to move to a poor or extremely poor tract rather than to a nonpoor tract in metropolitan areas containing many poor neighborhoods and a paucity of recently-built housing in nonpoor areas. Blacks are especially likely to move to a poor tract in metropolitan areas characterized by high levels of racial residential segregation and in which poor tracts have a sizeable concentration of blacks. White households are more likely to move to a poor than to a nonpoor tract in metropolitan areas that have comparatively few African Americans.     

The immigration–crime relationship: Evidence across US metropolitan areas

Despite popular commentary claiming a link between immigration and crime, empirical research exploring this relationship is sparse. Especially missing from the literature on immigration and crime is a consideration of how immigration affects rates of crime at the macro-level. Although individual-level studies of immigrant criminality and victimization tend to demonstrate that immigrants typically engage in less crime than their native-born counterparts, the effect of immigration on aggregate criminal offending is less clear. In this research, we attempt to address this weakness in the literature by examining the effects of aspects of immigration on crime rates in metropolitan areas. We combine 2000 US Census data and 2000 Uniform Crime Report data to explore how the foreign-born population influences criminal offending across a sample of metropolitan areas. After controlling for a host of demographic and economic characteristics, we find that immigration does not increase crime rates, and some aspects of immigration lessen crime in metropolitan areas.     

Linking dichotomous segregation with multi-group segregation: Weighted segregation ratios in selected U.S. metropolitan areas

The U.S. residential landscape is increasingly multi-racial and multi-ethnic, giving rise to the question of how to compare dichotomous segregation among multiple groups living in the same area. To address the problem in the existing dichotomous approach, which offers no common basis for comparing dichotomous segregation among multiple groups, this paper develops a weighted segregation ratio approach based on Theil’s segregation index and its additive decomposability. This approach can be used to bridge information obtained from dichotomous segregation between specific groups (such as black-white and black-Hispanic), and dichotomous segregation between group and non-group (such as white-non-white and black-non-black) in previous studies. We apply both dichotomous and weighted segregation ratio approaches to 1990 and 2000 U.S. census data. Results are interpreted for five selected metropolitan areas as well as for the weighted national average. This new approach yields distinctive findings that portray the complicated process of residential segregation, including the increasing significance of Hispanic segregation and Asian segregation in the decade from 1990 to 2000.     

Hurdles or walls? Nativity,citizenship, legal status and Latino homeownership in Los Angeles

Homeownership is directly and indirectly linked with many positive child, adult, and community-level outcomes. Prior research offers strong evidence that nativity and immigrants’ citizenship status shapes U.S. homeownership, but relatively little work has explored how immigrants’ legal status is connected with homeownership. This study draws from locational attainment and classic assimilation theories to develop hypotheses about sources of intra-Latino heterogeneity in homeownership. Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey data are used to contrast four distinct groups of Latinos: U.S. born natives, naturalized citizens, authorized non-citizens, and unauthorized non-citizens. Logistic regression results indicate baseline and residual variation in Latino homeownership based on immigrant citizenship and legal status. Of these, unauthorized non-citizens are the least likely to own their home. The results provide support for all three theoretical models, particularly the place stratification perspective. The results also point to the need for more housing studies that jointly examine citizenship and legal status.     

Wealth accumulation among U.S. immigrants: A study of assimilation and differentials

Data from the New Immigrant Survey are used to study wealth differentials among U.S. legal permanent residents. This study is unique in its ability to account for wealth held in the U.S. and that held abroad and yields several key findings. First, relative to immigrants from Western Europe, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (who have median wealth similar to native born non-Hispanic whites), other immigrant groups have lower levels of total wealth even after accounting for permanent income and life course characteristics. Second, time in the U.S. is positively associated with the wealth of married immigrants, yet this relationship is not statistically significant for single immigrants. Third, differences in the means of measured characteristics between Western European immigrants and those from most other origin regions account for more than 75 percent of observed wealth disparities. However, for immigrants from Asia and from the Indian subcontinent, much of the wealth differential remains unexplained by these factors.     

Perpetuation theory and the racial segregation of young adults

Previous research confirms a strong empirical association between the racial composition of young adults' residential areas and the racial compositions of the residential areas and schools of their youth. Perpetuation theory predicts that part of this association is causal. The present study uses data from the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS) and the U.S. Censuses of 1990 and 2000 to test for this effect with regression models, propensity-score-weighted models with robustness tests, and regression models that look at long-distance movers. The findings suggest that the association declines rapidly as the distance moved increases, but it remains robust even at long distances. It is also stronger for African Americans and more assimilated Latinos than for whites and less assimilated Latinos. These findings suggests that to some extent, young white, African American, and Latino adults are residentially segregated from each other because they grew up that way. Policies that promote integrating youth residentially and/or desegregating schools may contribute to residential integration over time.     

论大都市区与美国经济增长

大都市区是现代美国经济活动的主要场所。人口和企业在大都市区的集中,使新工业更易产生,知识的传播速度加快,从而刺激了科技变革,增加了产量。大都市区比非大都市区有着更加广大的市场,更加专业化的劳动力和更加广泛和便利的交通、通讯设施。这些优势使大都市区成为美国经济增长的发动机。     

The healthy immigrant (migrant) effect: In search of a better native-born comparison group

This paper evaluates whether immigrants’ initial health advantage over their U.S.-born counterparts results primarily from characteristics correlated with their birth countries (e.g., immigrant culture) or from selective migration (e.g., unobserved characteristics such as motivation and ambition) by comparing recent immigrants’ health to that of recent U.S.-born interstate migrants (“U.S.-born movers”). Using data from the 1999–2013 waves of the March Current Population Survey, I find that, relative to U.S.-born adults (collectively), recent immigrants have a 6.1 percentage point lower probability of reporting their health as fair or poor. Changing the reference group to U.S.-born movers, however, reduces the recent immigrant health advantage by 28%. Similar reductions in the immigrant health advantage occurs in models estimated separately by either race/ethnicity or education level. Models that examine health differences between recent immigrants and U.S.-born movers who both moved for a new job—a primary motivation behind moving for both immigrants and the U.S.-born—show that such immigrants have only a 1.9 percentage point lower probability of reporting their health as fair or poor. Together, the findings suggest that changing the reference group from U.S.-born adults collectively to U.S.-born movers reduces the identified immigrant health advantage, indicating that selective migration plays a significant role in explaining the initial health advantage of immigrants in the United States.     

Student misbehavior during senior year: A comparison of immigrants and the native-born

Prior research has increasingly shown that the length of time in the U.S. and acculturation may have negative effects on a variety of immigrant outcomes, including academic performance, health, and occupational attainment. However, much of the research on the educational outcomes of immigrants focuses primarily on their academic achievement but neglects another factor that affects educational success—behavior at school. Using data from a sample of high school seniors in several Pacific Northwest school districts, I examine whether more time in the U.S. increases school misbehavior by testing the effects of immigrant generation and indicators of acculturation on three measures of disciplinary problems during the senior year of high school—attending class unprepared, getting in trouble for breaking school rules, and being put on suspension. First and one-point-five generation immigrants attend class more prepared and get into less trouble for breaking the school rules than do third or higher generation students during their senior year of high school. High academic performance and indicators of acculturation explain only part of this beneficial effect of immigrant generation on behavior at school. Additional analyses show that second generation Asian immigrants are more similar to first and 1.5 generation immigrants from all racial and ethnic groups than they are from other second generation racial and ethnic groups in regards to moderate and intermediate behavior.     

Segregation by race and income in the United States 1970–2010

A systematic analysis of residential segregation and spatial interaction by income reveals that as income rises, minority access to integrated neighborhoods, higher levels of interaction with whites, and more affluent neighbors also increase. However, the income payoffs are much lower for African Americans than other groups, especially Asians. Although Hispanics and Asians have always displayed declining levels of minority-white dissimilarity and rising levels of minority-white interaction with rising income, income differentials on these outcomes for blacks did not appear until 1990 and since then have improved at a very slow pace. Given their higher overall levels of segregation and income's limited effect on residential attainment, African Americans experience less integration, more neighborhood poverty at all levels of income compared to other minority groups. The degree of black spatial disadvantage is especially acute in the nation's 21 hypersegregated metropolitan areas.     

How do they do it? The immigrant paradox in the transition to adulthood

How do children of immigrants consistently outperform children of native-born U.S. parents, in spite of lower familial resources? Using the Transition to Adulthood Study of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, children of immigrant and native-born parents completing high school in 2005–13 are followed as they move into the young adult years. Children of immigrants are more likely to enroll in college, be employed or in school, and less likely to have a criminal record as young adults or to have a child than children of nonimmigrants. This is not a result of immigrant parentage but due primarily to greater parental educational expectations; immigrants enjoy a differential return to parental expectations for boys' college enrollment as well. Reading skills and activity patterns in the secondary school years also contribute to better outcomes. Children of immigrants are better able to translate their reading comprehension skills to college or employment later on.     

Effects of welfare reform policies on Mexican immigrants’ infant mortality rates

The welfare reform bill adopted in 1996 limited the eligibility of immigrants on federal funding for welfare use, while vesting states with the authority to create new state-funded substitute benefits for immigrants. This paper capitalizes on this inter-state variation in state welfare rules regarding new immigrants and estimates a triple difference-in-difference estimator that provides evidence on the impact of removing public assistance on Mexican immigrants’ infant mortality rates. Using the US linked birth and infant death cohort files from 1995 to 1996 and from 1999 to 2002, I find that infant mortality rates have decreased at a slower rate among children of low-educated Mexican immigrant women compared to their native Mexican-origin counterparts, especially for those mothers residing in less affluent metropolitan counties within their own state. These findings suggest that there may be unintended social costs associated with the Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity and Reconciliation Act, resulting in disparate impact on immigrant mothers and infants.     

Small groups,contexts, and civic engagement: A multilevel analysis of United States Congregational Life Survey data

Prior research suggests that church-goers are more civically engaged than their non-church-going counterparts. Little is known, however, about how the popular phenomenon of small groups factors into this equation. In the present study, we examine relationships between small group participation at individual and congregation levels and civic engagement. Using multilevel modeling and national data on congregations and individuals from the U.S. Congregational Life Study (n = 82,044), we find that: (1) individual-level small group involvement is associated with four measures of civic engagement; (2) congregation-level small group participation is associated with both lower and higher civic engagement in the case of two outcomes; and (3) in the case of three civic outcomes, congregation-level small group participation moderates individual-level small group involvement such that small group members’ civic activity more closely resembles the lower civic engagement of small group nonparticipants. In the case of one civic outcome, at high levels of overall small group participation, small group members’ civic engagement drops below that of small group nonparticipants. Explanations for these findings, including a “crowding out” effect, are examined including their complex implications for debates regarding small groups, religious involvement, and civic engagement.     

Selective Emigration, Cohort Quality, and Models of Immigrant Assimilation

In this article we identify sample underenumeration, changing cohort quality, and selective emigration as problems that threaten the validity of findings on immigrant socioeconomic assimilation derived from cross-sectional data. Using information on Mexican immigrants from the 1990 U.S. census and a unique binational source of data, we address the effects of these problems on cross-sectional regressions of English proficiency and wage attainment. Our results suggest that the underenumeration of temporary and undocumented migrants biases the estimated effects of human capital variables downward, but that selective emigration does not significantly affect cross-sectional models. We do find, however, that period of entry is a poor proxy for total migrant experience, and when we disentangle duration and cohort effects, we find some evidence for shifts in cohort quality over time, but not the systematic decline seen by others.     

Even whiter than we thought: What median residential exposure indices reveal about white neighborhood contact with African Americans in U.S. metropolitan areas

This paper expands upon earlier research concerning methodological issues with interracial exposure and isolation (p^*) indices. The earlier research, based on the fifty largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the United States, showed that due to skewness in the distribution of neighborhood racial compositions, these indices often overstate the degree of racial diversity in the neighborhoods of most individuals. That research showed that in the fifty largest metropolitan areas, a new measure, the median exposure or isolation index (p^*-md), provided a result more representative of the situation of most individuals. This paper expands the earlier research to include all U.S. metropolitan areas. Focusing on white exposure to African Americans, it is shown that in most metropolitan areas, the majority of whites live in areas significantly whiter than indicated by the p^* measure used in past studies. Moreover, the more segregated an area is, the more p^* understates the degree to which African Americans are excluded from most whites’ neighborhoods. Several implications of this finding for race relations are discussed. It is concluded that p^*-md provides a more accurate picture than p^* of the neighborhood racial composition of most white individuals.     

Black and white homebuyer,homeowner, and household segregation in the United States, 1990–2010

As homeownership has been expanding in the United States over the past several decades, residential segregation between blacks and whites has been declining in most metropolitan areas. However, the degree to which the residential patterns of new homebuyers have mirrored these overall trends in segregation and how the massive increase in home buying has related to changes in segregation has remained largely unexplored. This paper examines the segregation of new black homebuyers from white households, new white homebuyers from black households, and black and white households from each other using Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data from 1992 to 2010 merged with data from the Census and ACS. I find that black homebuyers are less segregated from white households than black homeowners overall and black households in general, providing evidence in support of the spatial assimilation model that would predict better outcomes for homeowners. Also consistent with the spatial assimilation perspective, I found in the multivariate models that increased income parity between blacks and whites and growth in black lending are associated with average declines in black/white household segregation from 1990 to 2010. Although subprime lending was not associated with overall changes in segregation, metropolitan areas with higher percentages of loans to blacks from subprime lenders experienced increases in segregation of both black homeowners from white households as well as white owners from black households.