National estimates of racial segregation in rural and small-town America

The objective of this paper is to provide, for the first time, comparative estimates of racial residential segregation of blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan places in 1990 and 2000. Analyses are based on block data from the 1990 and 2000 U.S. decennial censuses. The results reveal a singularly important and perhaps surprising central conclusion: levels and trends in recent patterns of racial segregation in America's small towns are remarkably similar to patterns observed in larger metropolitan cities. Like their big-city counterparts, nonmetropolitan blacks are America's most highly segregated racial minority--roughly 30% to 40% higher than the indices observed for Hispanics and Native Americans. Finally, baseline ecological models of spatial patterns of rural segregation reveal estimates that largely support the conclusions reached in previous metropolitan studies. Racial residential segregation in rural places increases with growing minority percentage shares and is typically lower in "new" places (as measured by growth in the housing stock), while racially selective annexation and the implied "racial threat" at the periphery exacerbate racial segregation in rural places. Our study reinforces the need to broaden the spatial scale of segregation beyond its traditional focus on metropolitan cities or suburban places, especially as America's population shifts down the urban hierarchy into exurban places and small towns.     

Latino,Asian, and black segregation in U.S. metropolitan areas: Are multiethnic metros different*

This study examines 1990 residential segregation levels and 1980–1990 changes in segregation for Latinos, Asians, and blacks in U.S. metropolitan areas. It also evaluates the effect of emerging multiethnic metropolitan area contexts for these segregation patterns. While black segregation levels are still well above those for Latinos and Asians, there is some trend toward convergence over the decade. More than half of the areas increased their Latino segregation levels over the 1980s, and almost three-fourths increased their Asian segregation levels. In contrast, black segregation levels decreased in 88%ofmetropolitan areas. Multiethnic metropolitan area context is shown to be important for internal segregation dynamics. Black segregation levels are lower, and were more likely to decline in multiethnic metropolitan areas and when other minority groups grew faster than blacks. Latino segregation was also more likely to decline in such areas, and declines in both Latino and Asian segregation were greater when other minority groups were growing. These findings point up the potential for greater mixed-race and mixed-ethnicity coresidence in the neighborhoods of multiethnic metropolitan areas.     

Hypersegregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas: Black and Hispanic Segregation Along Five Dimensions

Residential segregation has traditionally been measured by using the index of dissimilarity and, more recently, the P* exposure index. These indices, however, measure only two of five potential dimensions of segregation and, by themselves, understate the degree of black segregation in U.S. society. Compared with Hispanics, not only are blacks more segregated on any single dimension of residential segregation, they are also likely to be segregated on all five dimensions simultaneously, which never occurs for Hispanics. Moreover, in a significant subset of large urban areas, blacks experience extreme segregation on all dimensions, a pattern we call hypersegregation. This finding is upheld and reinforced by a multivariate analysis. We conclude that blacks occupy a unique and distinctly disadvantaged position in the U.S. urban environment.     

Metropolitan America: beyond the transition

Americans have always gravitated toward cities, and for most of this century, urban growth has continued at a fast pace. During the 1970s, however, nonmetropolitan area grew at the expense of many large metropolitan areas, especially those in the industrial Northeast and Midwest. New patterns of population distribution appeared to be emerging. This Bulletin analyzes the trends of the 1970s, the shifting patterns of the 1980s, and likely prospects for future growth in metropolitan areas. The "rural renaissance" resulted from a combination of forces, including improved infrastructure in nonmetropolitan area, growing demand for retirement and recreation spots, the entrance of the large baby-boom cohort into the labor force, and the economic situation both at home and abroad. Some of these same forces have shifted settlement patterns in the 1980s, helping create "World Cities," like New York and San Francisco, and regional "Command and Control Centers" such as Atlanta and Minneapolis-St. Paul, that will continue to gain in both population and influence. Yet nonmetropolitan areas still attract retirees and other former urbanites. The distribution of minority groups among metropolitan populations is also undergoing significant change. The heavy immigration of Hispanics and Asians in the 1980s has increased the proportion of these groups, particularly in metropolitan areas in the South and West. More black Americans are moving to the suburbs formerly dominated by whites. Yet large pockets of poverty--of both black and whites--remain in both suburban and central city areas.     

Making a place in the metropolis: Locational attainment in cities and suburbs

What accounts for the differences in the kinds of communities within the metropolis in which members of different racial and ethnic groups live? Do socioeconomic advancement and acculturation provide greater integration with whites or access to more desirable locations for minority-group members? Are these effects the same for Asians or Hispanics as for blacks? Does suburbanization offer a step toward greater equality in the housing market, or do minorities find greater discrimination in the suburban housing market? Data from 1980 for five large metropolitan regions are used to estimate "locational-attainment models, " which evaluate the effects of group members’ individual attributes on two measures of the character of their living environment: the socioeconomic standing (median household income) and racial composition (proportion non-Hispanic white) of the census tract where they reside. Separate models predict these outcomes for whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. Net of the effects of individuals’ background characteristics, whites live in census tracts with the highest average proportion of white residents and the highest median household income. They are followed by Asians and Hispanics, and-at substantially lower levels-blacks. Large overall differences exist between city and suburban locations; yet the gap between whites and others is consistently lower in the suburbs than in the cities of these five metropolitan regions.     

The residential segregation of mixed-nativity married couples

This article examines the ways in which mixed-nativity marriage is related to spatial assimilation in metropolitan areas of the United States. Specifically, we examine the residential patterns of households with a mixed-nativity—and, in some cases, interracial—marriage to determine whether they are less segregated from the native-born than entirely foreign-born households. Using restricted-use data from the 2000 census, we find that compared with couples in which both spouses are foreign-born, mixed-nativity couples tend to be less segregated from various native-born racial and ethnic groups. Further, among both foreign-born Asians and Hispanics, those with a native-born non-Hispanic white spouse are considerably less segregated from native-born white households than from other foreign-born Asian and Hispanic households. We also find that even though nativity status matters for black couples in a manner consistent with assimilation theory, foreign-born and mixed-nativity black households still each display very high levels of segregation from all other native-born racial/ethnic groups, reaffirming the power of race in determining residential patterns. Overall, our findings provide moderate support for spatial assimilation theory and suggest that cross-nativity marriages often facilitate the residential integration of the foreign-born.     

Housing Tenure and Residential Segregation in Metropolitan America

Homeownership, a symbol of the American dream, is one of the primary ways through which families accumulate wealth, particularly for blacks and Hispanics. Surprisingly, no study has explicitly documented the segregation of minority owners and renters from whites. Using data from Census 2000, this study aims to fill this gap. Analyses here reveal that the segregation of black renters relative to whites is significantly lower than the segregation of black owners from whites, controlling for relevant socioeconomic and demographic factors, contrary to the notion that homeownership represents an endpoint in the residential assimilation process. The patterns for Hispanics and Asians conform more to expectations under the spatial assimilation model. The findings here suggest that race and ethnicity continue to be as important in shaping residential segregation as socioeconomic status, and raise concerns about the benefits of homeownership, particularly for blacks.     

Asian Americans: growth,change, and diversity

The 1980 US census counted 3.5 million Asian Americans, up from 1.4 million in 1970. Asian Americans made up just 1.5% of the total US population of 226.5 million as of April 1, 1980, but this was the 3rd largest racial or ethnic minority after blacks and Hispanics. Asians increased far more during the 1970s (141%) than blacks (17%) or Hispanics (39%). This Bulletin examines the characteristics of Asian Americans, how their numbers have grown, where they live, how different groups vary in age structure, childbearing, health, and longevity. It reports on the kinds of households Asian Americans form and how they fare with regard to education, occupation, and income. Asian Americans are now often perceived as the model minority. As a whole, they are better educated, occupy higher rungs on the occupational ladder, and earn more than the general US population and even white Americans. This Bulletin presents the 1st comprehensive look at many important facts about Asian Americans and how the groups differ. Special tabulations of data collected in the 1980 census are provided. The 1980 census data are the latest available to give a true picture at the national level of Asian Americans and the various groups among them. The Bulletin examines the current numbers of Asian Americans and how this population is defined. The major Asian American groups are Chinese (21%), Filipinos (20%), Japanese (15%), Vietnamese (21%), Koreans (11%), and Asian Indians (10%). Except for the latest-arrived Vietnamese, the fertility of the 6 groups is lower than the white average. The following areas are also discussed: mortality and health; families and households; education; Asian youth; employment; income and poverty; and future prospects.     

The spatial dynamics of stratification: Metropolitan context, population redistribution, and black and Hispanic homeownership

Racial and ethnic inequality in homeownership remains stubbornly wide, even net of differences across groups in household-level sociodemographic characteristics. This article investigates the role of contextual forces in structuring disparate access to homeownership among minorities. Specifically, I combine household- and metropolitan-level census data to assess the impact of metropolitan housing stock, minority composition, and residential segregation on black and Hispanic housing tenure. The measure of minority composition combines both the size and rate of growth of the coethnic population to assess the impact on homeownership inequality of recent trends in population redistribution, particularly the increase in black migration to the South and dramatic dispersal of Hispanics outside traditional areas of settlement. Results indicate remarkable similarity between blacks and Hispanics with respect to the spatial and contextual influences on homeownership. For both groups, homeownership is higher and inequality with whites is smaller in metropolitan areas with an established coethnic base and in areas in which their group is less residentially segregated. Implications of recent trends in population redistribution for the future of minority homeownership are discussed.     

Global Neighborhoods: Beyond the Multiethnic Metropolis

Neighborhoods where blacks and whites live in integrated settings alongside Hispanics and Asians represent a new phenomenon in the United States. These “global neighborhoods” have previously been identified in the nation’s most diverse metropolitan centers. This study examines the full range of metropolitan areas to ask whether similar processes are occurring in other parts of the country. Is there evidence of stable racial integration in places that lack such diversity? What are the paths of neighborhood change in areas with few Hispanic or Asian residents, or areas where Hispanics are the principal minority group, or where there is no large minority presence at all? We distinguish four types of metropolitan regions: white, white/black, white/Hispanic/Asian, and multiethnic. These regions necessarily differ greatly in neighborhood composition, but some similar trajectories of neighborhood change are found in all of them. The results provide new evidence of the effect of Hispanic and Asian presence on black-white segregation in all parts of the country.     

Racial inequality in active life among adult americans

Is a shorter life with more years lived in poor health a defining attribute of the life cycle of disadvantaged groups? Based on the J990 5% Public Use Microdata Survey, we develop life table models of healthy (or active) life for the major racial groups, by sex, in the United States. The analysis underscores the complexity of the relationship between morbidity and mortality in the population. For Asians, longer life is associated with fewer years lived in poor health. In contrast, Native Americans’ relatively longer lives are accompanied by extended periods of chronic health problems. of all racial groups, blacks live the fewest years, and they live a high proportion of those years with a chronic health problem. Hispanics also live substantially fewer years, yet the period of life they spend with a health problem is relatively compressed. Racial differences in the link between morbidity and mortality point to the importance of investigating how chronic diseases and disease prevention and treatment are related to active life across the population subgroups.     

Locational returns to human capital: Minority access to suburban community resources

The suburbanization of racial and ethnic minorities is analyzed in terms of the locational resources provided by their communities of residence. In suburbs in the New York CMSA, non-Hispanic whites and Asians, on average, live in communities with higher average socioeconomic status, while Hispanics and blacks live in the less desirable suburbs. Models predicting suburban socioeconomic status for each racial/ethnic group show that whites and Hispanics receive consistent returns on income, acculturation, and family status. Asians’ locational patterns differ because they are unrelated to measures of acculturation; for blacks, locational outcomes correspond least to any of these human capital characteristics.     

Asian Americans: diverse and growing

This bulletin analyzes the demographic, socioeconomic, and political characteristics of the Asian population in the US. During 1980-90, the Asian population doubled in size to 4% of total population. The Asian population is expected to double again in 20 years. The number and diversity of Asian ethnic groups has increased due to immigration. The proportion of Japanese, Chinese, and Filipino persons declined from 96% of Asians in 1970 to over 50% in 1997. Indians, Vietnamese, and Koreans outnumber Japanese ethnic groups in the US. Intermarriage is higher among US-born Asian Americans than foreign-born Asian Americans. Intermarriage is greater among female US-born Asian Americans than male US-born Asian Americans. The future size of the Asian population will depend upon how the children of these intermarriages identify themselves ethnically. Asians have advanced themselves educationally. In 1997, 42% of Asian Americans aged 25 years and older had a college or professional degree, compared to 26% of non-Hispanic Whites, 13% of Blacks, and 10% of Hispanics aged 25 years and older. Families with income below the poverty level, in 1996, amounted to 12.7% of Asians, compared to 26.4% of Hispanics, 26.1% of Blacks, and 6.5% of Whites. In 1990, over 43% of foreign born Asian Americans aged over 18 years were naturalized citizens, compared to 33% of all foreign-born residents. Asians have low rates of voter participation, but high rates of naturalization suggest greater political participation in the future. In Presidential 1996 elections, Asians tended to register as Republican, but voted Democratic.     

Immigrant residential segregation in U.S. metropolitan areas, 1990–2000

This paper examines the extent of spatial assimilation among immigrants of different racial and ethnic origins. We use restricted data from the 1990 and 2000 censuses to calculate the levels of dissimilarity by race and Hispanic origin, nativity, and year of entry, and then run multivariate models to examine these relationships. The findings provide broad support for spatial assimilation theory. Foreign-born Hispanics, Asians, and blacks are more segregated from native-born non-Hispanic whites than are the U.S.-born of these groups. The patterns for Hispanics and Asians can be explained by the average characteristics of the foreign-born that are generally associated with higher levels of segregation, such as lower levels of income, English language ability, and home ownership. We also find that immigrants who have been in the United States for longer periods are generally less segregated than new arrivals, and once again, much of this difference can be attributed to the characteristics of immigrants. However, patterns also vary across groups. Levels of segregation are much higher for black immigrants than for Asian, Hispanic, and white immigrants. In addition, because black immigrants are, on average, of higher socioeconomic status than native-born blacks, such characteristics do not help explain their very high levels of segregation.     

Housing and wealth inequality: Racial-ethnic differences in home equity in the United States

In our study, we took a first step toward broadening our understanding of the sources of both housing and wealth inequality by studying differences in housing equity among blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and non-Hispanic whites in the United States. Using data from the American Housing Survey, we found substantial and significant gaps in housing equity for blacks and Hispanics (but not for Asians) compared with whites, even after we controlled for a wide range of locational, life-cycle, socioeconomic, family, immigrant, and mortgage characteristics. Furthermore, the payoffs to many factors are notably weaker for minority than for white households. This finding is especially consistent across groups for the effects of age, socioeconomic status, and housing-market value. Blacks and Hispanics also uniformly receive less benefit from mortgage and housing characteristics than do whites. These findings lend credence to the burgeoning stratification perspective on wealth and housing inequality that acknowledges the importance of broader social and institutional processes of racial-ethnic stratification that advantage some groups, whites in this case, over others.     

Residential Segregation, Nativity Status, and Hispanic Living Arrangements in Later Life

This study examined the relationship between residential segregation in metropolitan areas and the living arrangements of middle-aged and older Hispanics. We specifically considered whether the relationship between residential segregation and living arrangements was different depending on nativity status. This study also explored whether measures of assimilation were related to living arrangements. Using data from the 2000 Census Public-Use Microdata Sample (5 %), our multilevel logistic regression models showed that residing in metropolitan areas with higher residential segregation indexes of evenness, isolation, and clustering was related to an increased likelihood of living in a co-resident household versus an independent household. We discovered that the relationship was in the same direction for US-born and foreign-born Hispanics but the relationship was stronger for US-born Hispanics. Finally, we found that as assimilation increased, so did the likelihood of living independently and that persons living in the ten largest immigrant gateway cities were most likely to co-reside as compared to live independently. These results underscored the importance of developing theoretic models of ethnic group living arrangements that include characteristics of both individuals and the community.     

Multiple Meanings of Minority Concentration: Incorporating Contextual Explanations into the Analysis of Individual-Level U.S. Black Mortality Outcomes

Prior research on mortality for U.S. blacks focuses on the detrimental effects of minority concentration and residential segregation in metropolitan areas on health outcomes. To date, few studies have examined this relationship outside of large U.S. central cities. In this paper, we extend current research on the minority concentration and mortality relationship to explain the rural advantage in mortality for nonmetropolitan blacks. Using data from the 1986–1994 linked National Health Interview Survey/National Death Index, we examine the rural-urban gap in mortality for U.S. blacks. Our findings indicate that blacks in nonmetropolitan areas experience a lower risk of mortality than metropolitan central city blacks after indicators of socio-economic and health status are controlled. Our findings also point to the importance of accounting for contextual factors. Net of individual level controls, minority concentration exerts differential effects across metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, such that nonmetropolitan black residents experience a lower risk of mortality in high minority concentration areas than blacks in metropolitan central city areas. This finding suggests a reconceptualization of the meaning for minority concentration with respect to studies of health outcomes in nonmetropolitan communities.     

The spatial separation of the poor in Canadian cities

We used the 1991 Canadian census to examine the extent of spatial separation of the poor in Canadian cities. Although there were no extensive areas of blight, decay, or housing abandonment, we found high spatial separation of poor visible minorities in the selected cities. The index of dissimilarity indicates high segregation of poor blacks and moderate separation of poor Asians from the nonpoor population. We tested the effects of three major structural factors--racial and ethnic segregation, income segregation, and urban redevelopment--and found that racial and ethnic residential patterns are related strongly to the spatial separation of poor persons. The relationship between income segregation and spatial separation of the poor is not significant, however. We also found that the relationship between urban redevelopment and spatial separation of the poor pertains only to blacks. These findings suggest that blacks are vulnerable in the process of urban redevelopment.     

Distinguishing the geographic levels and social dimensions of U.S. metropolitan segregation, 1960–2000

In this article, we assess trends in residential segregation in the United States from 1960 to 2000 along several dimensions of race and ethnicity, class, and life cycle and present a method for attributing segregation to nested geographic levels. We measured segregation for metropolitan America using the Theil index, which is additively decomposed into contributions of regional, metropolitan, center city-suburban, place, and tract segregation. This procedure distinguishes whether groups live apart because members cluster in different neighborhoods, communities, metropolitan areas, or regions. Substantively, we found that the segregation of blacks decreased considerably after 1960 largely because neighborhoods became more integrated, but the foreign born became more segregated largely because they concentrated in particular metropolitan areas. Class segregation increased between 1970 and 1990 mainly because the affluent increasingly clustered in specific metropolitan areas and in specific municipalities within metropolitan areas. The unmarried increasingly congregated in center cities. The main purpose of this article is to describe and illustrate this multilevel approach to studying segregation.