The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Census Atlas of the United States Census Atlas of the United States Census 2000 Special Reports CENSR-29 U.S. Departm ent o f Com m erce C a rlo s M. Gutierrez, Secretary D avid A. Sam pson, Deputy Secretary Econom ics and Statistics A dm in istration Cynthia A. G lassm an, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs U.S. CENSUS BUREAU Charles Louis Kincannon, Director Suggested Citation Trudy A. Suchan Marc J. Perry James D. Fitzsimmons Anika E. Juhn MM Alexander M. Tait Cynthia A. Brewer Census Atlas of the United States, ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION Series CENSR-29, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2007. Econom ics and Statistics A d m in istration Cynthia A. G lassm an, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs U.S. CENSU S BUREAU Charles Louis Kincannon, Director Preston Jay Waite, Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer Howard Hogan, Associate Director for Demographic Programs Enrique J. Lamas, Chief, Population Division A U T H E N T IC A T E D U.S. G O V E R N M E N T IN F O R M A T IO N GPO COPYRIGHT NOTICE Selected contributors to this publication have requested that their data be designated as subject to copyright restrictions, as indicated in the source notes at the end of the atlas. Permission to use copyright holder material must be obtained directly from the copyright holder. U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE OFFICIAL EDITION NOTICE This is the Official U.S. Government edition of this publication and is herein identified to certify its authenticity. The Superintendent of Documents of the U.S. Government Printing Office requests that any reprinted edition clearly be labeled as a copy of the authentic work. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll-free 866-512-1800; DC area 202-51 2-1 800 Fax: 202-512-2250 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 Foreword On behalf of the U.S. Census Bureau, I am pleased to present the Census Atlas of the United States. It is the product of extensive efforts on the part of many talented individuals, and I am proud of their work. You should prepare yourself before turning through the pages of this book. The Census Atlas of the United States is an invitation to spend several hours considering the characteristics of our country. These maps do not merely offer graphic representations of facts and data. They reveal the relationships among our nation’s people and the states, cities, and counties where they have chosen to live. In short, the book tells the story of our nation— its past, present, and future. The Year o f M axim um Population map provides a succinct history of the United States in one illustration. The color patterns capture the migration flows and growth of the nation’s population and its history, including the eras of westward expansion, sectional crisis and the Civil War, the end of the frontier, the industrial revolution, and the rise of the post-World War II suburban culture. The map of Prevalent Ancestry reveals a range of ancestries— millions of diverse people living among one another. Herbert Hoover once observed that “the real basis of American democracy” was “freedom of opportunity and equal chance.” These concepts were the foundation of our success. The range of ancestries living together is the proof of freedom and opportunity’s enticements to the many peoples from throughout the world who have made this nation their home. Throughout our nation’s history we have proven that diversity is a strength and an opportunity, as we have worked together to build a successful nation. In addition, these maps can tell us quite a lot about our recent history and our future. The regional migration maps, particularly the map of Migration Between California and Other States, as well as the college education completion maps, show that remarkable changes have taken place since the 1950s. The United States of my childhood is no more, a new America is emerging...different opportunities are becoming available, new occupations and industries are rising throughout the country. The rise of educational achievement in recent decades has offered new prospects for millions of Americans— not only extending the hope for individual success, but also changing the foundations of our economy. The map depicting the Total Dependency Ratio and the other dependency ratio maps tell something of where our country may be going in the future. The demographic composition of many regions foretells opportunities, as well as difficult choices, as we contemplate our nation’s future. In short, the Census Atlas of the United States offers lessons from our past and hints of our future. Look through this book. Enjoy it. In fact, look through it again and again. Each time I have seen this publication—from its beginning proposals to the final product— it has induced new associations, new insights, and new perspectives about our nation’s heritage and its future. These maps remind us of what we should not forget. The United States is a unique nation that has faced varied challenges and it must continue to draw on its unique strengths to succeed in the future. I hope you will not only learn from the pages of this atlas but also enjoy it. Charles Louis Kincannon, Director Decem ber 2 0 0 6 V Acknowledgments This book was prepared by T ru d y A. Suchan, Marc J. Perry, James D. Fitzsim m ons, and A n ika E. Juhn of the U.S. Census Bureau with Alex T ait of International Mapping Associates and C ynthia A. Brew er of The Pennsylvania State University, It was finalized with oversight by H ow ard R. Hogan, Associate Director for Demographic Programs, and Enrique J. Lamas, Chief of the Population Division. Earlier oversight was provided by Nancy M. Gordon, former Associate Director for Demographic Programs, and John F. Long, former Chief of the Population Division. In the Division, the Population Distribution Branch staff managed or contributed to much of the work to produce this report. Michael R. R a td iffe and Rachel S. F ranklin managed compilation and organization of a considerable amount of historical and contemporary census data, respectively, with significant contributions from D arryl T. Cohen, Donna L. D efibaugh, Todd K. Gardner, Colleen D. Joyce, Paul J. Mackun, Pedro M artin ez, Jason P. Schachter, and Steven G. Wilson. Several seasons of interns worked with enthusiasm on the project: Richard A. Nicholson, Kevin D. Rudy, T im o th y W. Schulz, W endy L. Wallace, and Ronald L. W hisler. R obert N u nziata and Brian P. Barenbaum provided extraordinary programming assistance with the 1990 and 2000 censuses of population and housing data; Elva M arie Pees was resourceful in providing 1970 and 1980 census data. Subject-matter experts in all branches of the Population and the Housing and Household Economics Statistics Divisions contributed initial map ideas, gave guidance on demographic concepts, and graciously reviewed multiple drafts of text and maps. The project team called particularly on Edwin R. Byerly, the late R obert Bonnette, A ngela M. B rittingham , Jorge del Pinal, Nicholas A. Jones, Rose M. Kreider, Karen M. M ills, M artin T. O’Connell, A nne Ross, Hyon B. Shin, Tavia Simmons, D enise I. Smith, Mai W eism antle, and Jeanne M. W oodward. Formative comments on first and second draft books were provided by Kaari Baluja, C laud ette E. Bennett, A lem ayehu Bishaw, Joseph M. Costanzo, G. Patricia De La Cruz, Kevin E. D eard o rff, Peter Fronczek, John Iceland, R obert A. Kom inski, Leonard J. Norry, T h o m as J. Palum bo, M arits a Poros, C lara A. Reschovsky, Sharon Stern, and Edward J. W elniak Jr. T im o th y R. Fitzg erald oversaw a mid project subject matter review. Reviewers in addition to those listed above were K urt J. Bauman, R obert L, Bennefield, Ellen Jean Bradley, Sandra L. Clark, C ynthia J. D avis, W arren F. Davis, K ath arin e M. Earle, Philip M. H arris, K elly Holder, Karen Hum es, A lexander L. Janus, M ary C. Kirk, Janin M enendez, Julie A. M eyer, K irby G. Posey, Roberto R. R am irez, C h risty L. Richardson, Peter J. Sepielli, Nicole S. Stoops, and Bruce H. W ebster. Chapter text often borrows from analysts’ work first published in the Census 2000 Briefs and Census 2000 Special Reports series; we are grateful to all authors for their work on those products in advance of this book. Staff who contributed significant review time to the book were C am pbell J. Gibson and M arjo rie Hanson. D avid R. Rain acquired components for the international border population densities on map 02-08; Gordon D eecker and Carolyn C. Weiss, Statistics Canada, provided geographic boundaries and data for this map. Constance Beard, Kaile H. Bower, Stephen F. Jones, and Linda H. O rsin i, under the direction of Leo B, D o ug h erty and T im o th y F. T ra in o r in the Cartographic Products Management Branch, Geography Division (Robert A. LaMacchia, Chief), provided data for map 02-07, advised on reference maps, and critically reviewed each book draft. Lori D onovan, Donald L. Moses Sr., Linda Vance, and W illiam H. Russell in the Acquisitions Division; T h ere sa J. DeM aio, Jennifer E. H unter, and Elizabeth D. M urph y in the Statistical Research Division; Julia Buckley Ess, Id abelle B. H ovland, and Hector Merced in the Decennial Management Division; and Paul T. Zeisset in the Economic Planning and Coordination Division all advised from their areas of expertise. M ered ith Gillum and Betty A d am ek in the Dallas Regional Office researched neighborhood names in Texas cities. Janet S. Sweeney, Jamie A. Peters, and D iane O liff M ichael, of the Administrative and Customer Services Division, W alter C. Odom, Chief, provided graphics design and composition, editorial review, and printing expertise. General direction and production management were provided by James R. C lark, Assistant Division Chief, and Wanda K. Cevis, Chief, Publications Services Branch. Earlier direction was also provided by Susan L. Rappa and G regory C arroll. The project found enthusiastic support from John C. K avaliunas, Joanne Dickinson, and George Selby in the Marketing Services Office, C h rista D. Jones in the Office of Analysis and Executive Support, and W illiam M au ry in the History Branch. Petra A. Noble, at the Minnesota Population Center, University of Minnesota, contributed knowledge of digital historical county boundaries. M yron Guttm an, of the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, University of Michigan; Michael Haines, Cornell University; and Steven Ruggles, of the Minnesota Population Center, graciously provided historical census data files used to produce many of the historical maps in this report. We also consulted the Historical United States County Boundary Files developed at the Louisiana State University Geography Department. Preparation of the historical county base maps and historical data used in this report were aided considerably by Richard L. F o rstall’s previously published work on geographic changes for counties. At International Mapping Associates, Jim M ille r made thousands of maps to aid topic selection and to populate this book in its draft versions. Many thanks to Erin Bolton, who finalized maps, figures, and other components of the book with a keen eye for detail. Thanks also to Kim Clark, T h o m as Frogh, Michael E. M eans, and Judith Nielsen at International Mapping Associates. Book design originated at Image Media Services where Jackie N esbitt-K rick was project manager and Sang Kim the art manager. The book design was further developed by Naylor Design Inc. We are grateful that the Library of Congress has made nineteenthcentury U.S. census atlases available to the public at its Web site <www.loc.gov>. Maps 02-30 and 05-09 are based on its images. Thanks to James E. Meacham and Jeannine M. Schonta for expert and detailed map editing and to James P. Allen and Eugene T u rn er for commenting on a late draft. These four improved the book with their perspective as experienced atlas authors. Thanks also to Dennis M cClendon and others from the MAP-MAC list who applied their local knowledge to the city reference maps. Finally, the authors would like to thank colleagues in the cartographic community for many helpful conversations during product development. Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. Population Distribution 8 3. Race and Hispanic Origin 28 4. Age and Sex 50 5. Living Arrangements 66 6. Place o f Birth and U.S. Citizenship 90 7. Migration 108 8. Language 124 9. Ancestry 138 10. Education 158 11. Work 176 12. Military Service 198 13. Income and Poverty 212 14. Housing 234 Reference Maps 258 Notes 278 Glossary 294 Map and Figure Index 300 Map and Figure List Chapter 1. Introduction Figure 1-l.U.S. Population (millions), 1790 to 2000 Population Density, 2000: Largest Metropolitan Areas — Con. 2 Dallas-Fort Worth, T X ..............................................................................................................19 Population Density...................................................................................................................... 2- 3 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA.....................................................19 1790 2 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD............................................................. 19 1850 2 Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV.................................................................................... 19 1900 3 Atlanta, GA.............................................................................................................................. 19 1950 3 Population Density, 2000: Largest C ities................................................................................20-21 2000 3 Los Angeles, C A ......................................................................................................................20 How to Use the Atlas..................................................................................................................4- -5 San Diego, C A ........................................................................................................................20 Phoenix, A Z ............................................................................................................................ 20 San Antonio, T X ......................................................................................................................20 Chapter 2. Population Distribution Chicago, IL .............................................................................................................................. 21 U.S. Census R eg ion s.................................................................................. 8 Philadelphia, P A ......................................................................................................................21 Figure 2-1. Percent Distribution of Population by Region, 1900 to 2000. 8 New York, N Y..........................................................................................................................21 Figure 2-2. Percent of Population in Metropolitan Areas by Central Cities Dallas, TX................................................................................................................................ 21 and Suburbs, 191 0 to 2000....................................................................................................... 9 Houston, T X ............................................................................................................................ 21 Percent Urban Population, 1900 ................................................................................................... 9 Low Population Density, 1900..................................................................................................... 22 Percent Urban Population, 1950 ................................................................................................... 9 Rural Population, 1900 ................................................................................................................ 22 Percent Urban Population, 2000 ................................................................................................... 9 Low Population Density, 2000..................................................................................................... 22 Population Change, 1990 to 2000 ...............................................................................................10 Center of Population, 1790 to 2000: WithTerritorial Expansion.................................................. 11 Center of Rural Population, 1790 to 2000.................................................................................. 23 Rural Population, 2000 ................................................................................................................ 22 Population Distribution, 2000 ....................................................................................................... 12 Rural Farm Population, 2000....................................................................................................... 23 Population Density, 2000: With Border Populations..................................................................... 13 Change in Distribution of Congressional S e a t s ..................................................................... 24-25 Percent Change in Population....................................................................................................... 14 Confederation Congress, 1789: Number of Seats ...............................................................24 1880 to 1890.......................................................................................................................... 14 2nd Congress, 1792 ........................................................................................................... 24 1890 to 1900.......................................................................................................................... 14 7th Congress, 1802 .............................................................................................................. 24 1900 to 1910.......................................................................................................................... 14 12th Congress, 1812............................................................................................................. 24 1910 to 1920.......................................................................................................................... 14 17th Congress, 1822 ........................................................................................................... 24 1920 to 1930.......................................................................................................................... 14 22nd Congress, 1832 ......................................................................................................... 24 1930 to 1940.......................................................................................................................... 14 27th Congress, 1842 ........................................................................................................... 24 1940 to 1950.......................................................................................................................... 14 32nd Congress, 1852 ......................................................................................................... 24 1950 to 1960.......................................................................................................................... 14 1960 to 1970.......................................................................................................................... 14 42nd Congress, 1872 ......................................................................................................... 24 1970 to 1980.......................................................................................................................... 14 47th Congress, 1882 ........................................................................................................... 24 1980 to 1990.......................................................................................................................... 14 52nd Congress, 1892 ......................................................................................................... 24 37th Congress, 1862 ........................................................................................................... 24 1990 to 2000.......................................................................................................................... 14 57th Congress, 1902 ........................................................................................................... 25 Population Change, 1990 to 2000 ...............................................................................................15 62nd Congress, 1912 ........................................................................................................... 25 Comparison of Population Change, 1980sand 1990s...................................................................15 67th Congress, 1922 ........................................................................................................... 25 Year of Maximum Population, 1790 to 2000................................................................................ 1 72nd Congress, 1932 ......................................................................................................... 25 6 Cities Above 100,000 ....................................................................................................................16 1840 .......................................................................................................................................16 1890 .......................................................................................................................................16 1940 .......................................................................................................................................16 1980 .......................................................................................................................................16 1990 .......................................................................................................................................16 2000 .....................................................................................................................................1 6 Population Density, 1880 ............................................................................................................. 17 77th Congress, 1942 ........................................................................................................... 25 82nd Congress, 1952 ......................................................................................................... 25 87th Congress, 1962 ........................................................................................................... 25 92nd Congress, 1972 ......................................................................................................... 25 97th Congress, 1982 ........................................................................................................... 25 102nd Congress, 1992 ....................................................................................................... 25 107th Congress, 2002 ......................................................................................................... 25 107th Congress, 2002: Number of Seats..............................................................................25 Population Density, 2000 ............................................................................................................. 17 Population Density, 2000: Largest Metropolitan Areas...........................................................18-1 9 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, C A...................................................................................... 18 Figure 3-1. Percent of Population by Race, 1900 to 2000 ......................................................... 28 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, T X .............................................................................................18 Percent Asian, 1900 ................................................................................................................... 29 Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI.............................................................................................19 Percent Black, Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, M i..................................................................................................... 19 Percent Asian, 2000 ................................................................................................................... 29 Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH ........................................................... 19 X Chapter 3. Race and Hispanic Origin Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County,C A ............................................................................. 18 Percent Black, 1900................................................................................................................... 29 2000................................................................................................................... 29 Prevalent Hispanic Croup, 2000: Largest Metropolitan Areas — Con. Figure 3-2. Percent Change in Population by Race and Hispanic Origin, 1980 to 2000 ...................................................................................... 30 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, T X ............................................................................................ 44 Race and Hispanic Diversity, 2000 ......................................................... 30 Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI............................................................................................ 45 Race and Hispanic Diversity, 2000 ......................................................... 31 Detroit Ann Arbor-Flint, M l.....................................................................................................45 White Non-Hispanic Population, 2000 ..................................................... 32 Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH.......................................................... 45 Black Population, 2000 ............................................................................ 32 Dallas-Fort Worth, T X ............................................................................................................. 45 American Indian and Alaska Native Population, 2000 ........................... 32 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA.................................................... 45 Asian Population, 2 000............................................................................ 32 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD.............................................................45 Pacific Islander Population, 2000 ........................................................... 33 Washington Ballimote, DC-MD-VA-WV....................................................................................45 Two or More Races Population, 2000 ..................................................... 33 Atlanta, CA.............................................................................................................................. 45 Hispanic Population, 2000 ..................................................................... 33 Race and Hispanic Diversity, 2000: Largest C itie s.................................................................46-47 White and Black Population, 2000 ......................................................... 34 Los Angeles, C A ..................................................................................................................... 46 White and American Indian and Alaska Native Population, 2000 ........ 34 San Diego, C A ........................................................................................................................46 White and Asian Population, 2000 ......................................................... 34 Phoenix, A Z ............................................................................................................................46 White and Pacific Islander Population, 2000.......................................... 34 San Antonio, T X ..................................................................................................................... 46 Interracial or Interethnic Couples, 2000: White Non-Hispanic............... 35 Chicago, IL .............................................................................................................................. 47 Interracial or Interethnic Couples, 2000: Black Non-Hispanic............... 35 Philadelphia, P A ..................................................................................................................... 47 Interracial or Interethnic Couples, 2000: Asian Non-Hispanic............... 35 New York, N Y..........................................................................................................................47 Interracial or Interethnic Couples, 2000: Hispanic.................................. 35 Dallas, TX................................................................................................................................ 47 Two or More Races, 2000: Children......................................................... 36 Houston, T X ............................................................................................................................47 White and American Indian and Alaska Native, 2000: C h ild re n .......... 36 White and Asian, 2000: C hildren........................................................... 36 White and Black, 2000: C h ild re n ........................................................... 37 Chapter 4. Age and Sex Black and American Indian and Alaska Native, 2000: Children............. 37 Median Age, 2000........................................................................................................................ 50 Black and Asian, 2000: Children ........................................................... 37 Figure 4-1. Percent Distribution of Population by Age and Sex, Prevalent Race or Ethnicity, 2000 ........................................................... 38 1900, 1950, and 2000 ........................................................................................................... 50 Prevalent Race or Ethnicity, 2000: Excluding White Non-Hispanic........ 38 Figure 4-2. Median Age by Sex, 1900 to 2000 .......................................................................... 51 Sex Ratio, 1900............................................................................................................................ 51 Number of American Indians and Alaska Natives, 2000: Reservations With Largest AIAN Populations...................................... 39 Sex Ratio, 1950............................................................................................................................ 51 Sex Ratio, 2000............................................................................................................................ 51 Number of American Indians and Alaska Natives, 2000: Cities With Largest AIAN Populations................................................... 39 Population 85 and Older, 2000 ................................................................................................... 53 Prevalent Asian Group, 2000................................................................... 40 Median Age, 1950........................................................................................................................ 54 40 Youth Dependency Ratio, 2000................................................................................................... 55 Asian Croups in the Metropolitan Areas With the Largest Asian Populations, 2000 ..................................................................... Median Age, 2000........................................................................................................................ 54 Largest Asian Croups, 2000 ................................................................... 41 Older Population Dependency Ratio, 2000 ................................................................................ 55 Chinese, 2000 .................................................................................. 41 Total Dependency Ratio, 2000..................................................................................................... 55 Filipino, 2000.................................................................................... 41 Under 18 Years, 2000: Total Population ...................................................................................... 56 Asian Indian, 2000............................................................................ 41 Under 18 Years, 2000: Hispanic Population..................................................................................56 Vietnamese, 2000 ............................................................................ 41 Under 18 Years, 2000: Two or More Races Population ...............................................................56 Korean, 2000.................................................................................... 41 65 and Older, 2000: Total Population.......................................................................................... 57 Japanese, 2000 ................................................................................ 41 65 and Older, 2000: White Non-Hispanic Population................................................................... 57 Cambodian, 2000 ............................................................................ 41 65 and Older, 2000: Black Population.......................................................................................... 57 Hmong, 2000.................................................................................... 41 Under 5 Years, 2000: Largest Metropolitan A r e a s ................................................................. 58-59 Laotian, 2000.................................................................................... 41 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA...................................................................................... 58 Prevalent Hispanic Croup, 2000 ............................................................. 42 Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, C A ............................................................................58 Mexican, 2000 ........................................................................................ 42 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, T X ............................................................................................ 58 Puerto Rican, 2000 .................................................................................. 42 Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI............................................................................................ 59 Cuban, 2000 ............................................................................................. 42 Detroit-Arin Arbor-Flint, M l.....................................................................................................59 Dominican, 2000...................................................................................... 43 Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH...........................................................59 Central American, 2000 .......................................................................... 43 Dallas-Fort Worth, T X ............................................................................................................. 59 South American, 2000.............................................................................. 43 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA.................................................... 59 Other Hispanic, 2000 .............................................................................. 43 Prevalent Hispanic Croup, 2000: Largest Metropolitan Areas.............................................. 44- -45 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD.............................................................59 Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV.................................................................................... 59 Sari Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, C A........ 44 Atlanta, CA.............................................................................................................................. 59 Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA 44 Sex Ratio, 2000: Total Population................................................................................................ 60 XI Sex Ratio, 2000: Population Under 18.......................................................................................... 60 Sex Ratio, 2000: Population 65 and Older....................................................................................60 Same-Sex Unmarried-Partner Households, 2000: Largest Metropolitan Areas —Con. New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA.................................................. 85 Percent Change in Male Population, 1990 to 2000 ................................................................... 61 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD.............................................................85 Percent Change in Female Population, Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV....................................................................................85 1 990 to 2000 ............................................................... 61 Median Age, 2 0 0 0 ................................................................................................................... 62-63 Atlanta, CA.............................................................................................................................. 85 White Non-Hispanic Pop u lation ............................................................................................ 62 Average Household Size, 1900 ................................................................................................... 86 Black Population..................................................................................................................... 62 Average Household Size, 2000 ................................................................................................... 86 American Indian and Alaska NativePop u lation .................................................................... 62 Nursing Home Population, 2000 ................................................................................................. 87 Asian Population................................................................................................................... 62 College Dormitory Population, 2000........................................................................................... 87 Pacific Islander Population.....................................................................................................63 Correctional Institutions Population, 1990 ................................................................................ 87 Two or More Races Population.............................................................................................. 63 Correctional Institutions Population, 2000 ................................................................................ 87 Hispanic Population............................................................................................................... 63 Chapter 6. Place of Birth and U.S. Citizenship Chapter 5. Living Arrangements Figure 6-1. Foreign Born (millions) by Place of Birth, 2000 ....................................................... 90 Ratio of Divorced to Married People, 2000 ................................................................................ 66 Figure 6-2. Percent Naturalized of the Foreign-Born Population Figure 5-1. Percent of Households by Type, 1950 to 2 0 0 0 .......................................................66 by Year of Entry and World Region of Birth, 2000 ................................................................. 91 Figure 5-2. Percent of Households by Size, 1940 to 2000......................................................... 67 Percent Native: 2000.................................................................................................................... 91 Average Household Size, 1900 ................................................................................................... 67 Percent Foreign Born: 2000......................................................................................................... 91 Average Household Size, 2000 ................................................................................................... 67 Percent Naturalized, 2000: Foreign Born Entered Before 1980 ............................................... 92 Married-Couple Households With Children, 2000 ...................................................................... 69 Percent Naturalized, 2000: Foreign Born Entered 1980 to 1989 .................................. 92 Married-Couple Households, 1950 ............................................................................................. 70 Percent Naturalized, 2000: Foreign Born Entered 1990 to 2000 .................................. 92 Married-Couple Households, 2000 ............................................................................................. 70 Percent Foreign Born, 2000......................................................................................................... 93 One-Person Households, 2000 ................................................................................................... 71 Prevalent World Region of Birth of the Foreign Born, 2 0 0 0 .......................................................94 Opposite-Sex Unmarried-Partner Households, 2000 ................................................................. 71 Sex Ratio, 2000............................................................................................................................ 94 Ratio of Divorced to Married People, 1890 ................................................................................ 72 Foreign Born From A s ia .......................................................................................................94 Ratio of Divorced to Married People, 2000 ................................................................................ 72 Foreign Born From Europe...................................................................................................94 Ratio of Divorced to Married Men, 2000 .................................................................................... 73 Foreign Born From A frica.....................................................................................................94 Ratio of Divorced to Married Women, 2000................................................................................ 73 Foreign Born From Latin Am erica........................................................................................ 94 Married-Couple Families, 2000: Families With Children...............................................................74 Foreign Born From O ce a n ia ................................................................................................ 94 One-Parent Families, 2000: Families With C hildren..................................................................... 74 Foreign Born From Northern America..................................................................................94 Male One-Parerit Families, 2000: Families With Children.............................................................75 Median Age, 2000: Native Population.......................................................................................... 95 Female One-Parent Families, 2000: Families With C hildren........................................................ 75 Median Age, 2000: Foreign-Born Population................................................................................95 Married-Couple Families, 2000 ............................................................................................. 76-77 Percent Native, 2000: Population 18 to 6 4 ................................................................................. 96 White Non-Hispanic Families With C h ild re n .................................................................... 76 Percent Native, 2000: Population 5 to 17 ................................................................................... 96 Black Families With C h ild re n .................................................................................................76 Percent Native, 2000: Population 65 and Older..........................................................................96 American Indian and Alaska Native Families WithC h ild re n ..................................................76 Percent Foreign Born, 2000: Population 18 to 6 4 ...................................................................... 97 Asian Families With C h ild ren .................................................................................................76 Percent Foreign Born, 2000: Population 5 to 17 ........................................................................ 97 Pacific Islander Families With Children.................................................................................. 77 Percent Foreign Born, 2000: Population 65 and Older................................................................97 Two or More Races Families With Children............................................................................77 Percent Foreign Born, 2000: Largest C itie s ..........................................................................98-99 Hispanic Families With Children............................................................................................ 77 Los Angeles, C A ......................................................................................................................98 One-Parent Families, 2000..................................................................................................... 78-79 San Diego, C A ........................................................................................................................98 White Non-Hispanic Families With C h ild re n .................................................................... 78 Phoenix, A Z ............................................................................................................................ 98 Black Families With C h ild re n .................................................................................................78 San Antonio, T X ......................................................................................................................98 American Indian and Alaska Native Families WithC h ild re n ..................................................78 Chicago, IL .............................................................................................................................. 99 Asian Families With C h ild ren .................................................................................................78 Philadelphia, P A ......................................................................................................................99 Pacific Islander Families With Children.................................................................................. 79 New York, N Y..........................................................................................................................99 Two or More Races Families With Children............................................................................79 Dallas, TX................................................................................................................................ 99 Hispanic Families With Children............................................................................................ 79 One-Parent Families, 2000: American Indian and Alaska Native Families With Children: Reservations With Largest AIAN Populations........................................................................... 80 One-Parent Families, 2000: American Indian and Alaska Native Families With Children: Cities With Largest AIAN Populations...................................................................................................80 Houston, T X ............................................................................................................................ 99 Percent From Mexico, 2000: Foreign-Born Population............................................................... 100 Percent From Canada, 2000: Foreign-Born Population............................................................. 100 Percent From China, 2000: Foreign-Born Population................................................................. 101 Percent From the Philippines, 2000: Foreign-Born Population.................................................. 101 Child-to-Woman Ratio, 2000 ....................................................................................................... 81 Prevalent Country of Birth, 2000: Foreign-Born Population.....................................................101 Multigenerational Households, 2000........................................................................................... 81 Sex Ratios (Males Per 100 Females) for Largest Foreign-Born Populations Grandparents Responsible for Their Own Grandchildren, 2000: From Latin A m erica ......................................................................................................... 102-103 Largest Metropolitan A r e a s ................................................................................................ 82-83 Mexico: Entered Before 1980...............................................................................................102 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, C A...................................................................................... 82 Cuba: Entered Before 1980 .................................................................................................102 Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, C A ........................................................................... 82 El Salvador: Entered Before 1980........................................................................................ 102 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, T X ............................................................................................ 82 Mexico: Entered 1980 to 1989.............................................................................................102 Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI............................................................................................ 83 Cuba: Entered 1980 to 1989 .............................................................................................102 Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, M l.....................................................................................................83 El Salvador: Entered 1980 to 1989...................................................................................... 102 Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NFI...........................................................83 Mexico: Entered 1990 to 1995.............................................................................................102 Dallas-Fort Worth, T X ............................................................................................................. 83 Cuba: Entered 1990 to 1995 ...............................................................................................102 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA.................................................... 83 El Salvador: Entered 1990 to 1995...................................................................................... 102 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD.............................................................83 Mexico: Entered 1996 to 2000.............................................................................................102 Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV.................................................................................... 83 Cuba: Entered 1996 to 2000 ...............................................................................................102 Atlanta, CA.............................................................................................................................. 83 El Salvador: Entered 1996 to 2000...................................................................................... 102 Same-Sex Unmarried-Partner Households, 2000: Dominican Republic: Entered Before 1980 ..........................................................................103 Largest Metropolitan A r e a s ................................................................................................ 84-85 Jamaica: Entered Before 1980 .............................................................................................103 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, C A...................................................................................... 84 Colombia: Entered Before 1980 .......................................................................................... 103 Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, C A ........................................................................... 84 Dominican Republic: Entered 1980 to 1989........................................................................103 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, T X ............................................................................................ 84 Jamaica: Entered 1980 to 1989 .......................................................................................... 103 Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI............................................................................................ 85 Colombia: Entered 1980 to 1989........................................................................................ 103 Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, M l.....................................................................................................85 Jamaica: Entered 1990 to 1995 .......................................................................................... 103 Dallas-Fort Worth, T X ............................................................................................................. 85 X II Dominican Republic: Entered 1990 to 1995........................................................................103 Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH...........................................................85 Colombia: Entered 1990 to 1995........................................................................................ 103 Sex Ratios (Males Per 100 Females) for Largest Foreign-Born Populations From Latin America — Con. Spoke English Less Than “Very Well,” 2000: School-Age Population: Largest Cities — Con. Dominican Republic: Entered 1996 to 2000..................................................................... 103 San Diego, C A ...................................................................................................................... 130 Jamaica: Entered 1996 to 2000 ........................................................................................ 103 Phoenix, A Z .......................................................................................................................... 130 Colombia: Entered 1996 to 2000...................................................................................... 103 San Antonio, T X ....................................................................................................................130 Percent U.S. Citizens, 2000: Population 18 and O lder.............................................................. 104 Chicago, IL ............................................................................................................................ 131 Naturalized Citizens, 2000: Population 18 and O ld e r..............................................................104 Philadelphia, P A ....................................................................................................................131 Naturalized Citizens, 2000: Foreign Born Entered Before 1980............................................... 105 New York, NY........................................................................................................................ 131 Naturalized Citizens, 2000: Foreign Born Entered 1980 to 1989................................... 105 Dallas, TX.............................................................................................................................. 131 Naturalized Citizens, 2000: Foreign Born Entered 1990 to 2000...................................105 Houston, T X .......................................................................................................................... 131 Prevalent Language Spoken at Home,2000: Excluding English and Spanish............................. 132 Distribution of Chinese Speakers, 2000 .....................................................................................132 Chapter 7. Migration Distribution of French Speakers, 2000 ...................................................................................... 132 Figure 7-1. Percent of Population 5 and Older by Type of Move, Distribution of German Speakers, 2000 .....................................................................................132 1995 to 2000 .......................................................................................................................... 108 Distribution ofTagalog Speakers, 2000 .....................................................................................132 Migration Rate, 1935 to 19 4 0 ..................................................................................................... 109 Distribution of Vietnamese Speakers,2000..................................................................................132 Migration Rate, 1965 to 19 7 0 ..................................................................................................... 109 Distribution of Italian Speakers, 2000........................................................................................ 132 Migration Rate, 1995 to 2000..................................................................................................... 109 Chinese Spoken at Home, 2000 .................................................................................................133 Figure 7-2. Migrants (millions) by Type and Region, 1995 to 2000..............................110 French Spoken at Home, 2000 ................................................................................................... 133 Population Living 1995 and 2000 ............................................... 110 Native North American Language Spoken at Home, 2000: in Different States in Migration Between California and Other States, Reservations With Largest AIANPopulations........................................................................... 134 1955 to 1960 and 1995 to 2000...........................................................................................I l l Native North American Language Spoken at Home, 2000: Migration, 1965 to 1970............................................................................................................. 112 Cities With Largest AIAN Populations...................................................................................... 134 Migration, 1975 to 1980............................................................................................................. 112 Non-English-Speaking Population, 1900 ..................................................................................... 135 Migration, 1985 to 1990............................................................................................................. 112 Number of Non-English Speakers, 1900 ..................................................................................... 135 Migration, 1995 to 2000............................................................................................................. 112 Spoke English Less Than “Very Well,”2000 ................................................................................. 135 Regional Migration, 1955 to 1960...............................................................................................113 Regional Migration, 1995 to 2000...............................................................................................113 Migration Rate, 1995 to 2000: Population 18 to 6 4 ................................................................. 114 Chapter 9. Ancestry Migration Rate, 1995 to 2000: Population 65 arid Older...........................................................114 One Ancestry, 2000...................................................................................................................... 138 Migration, 1995 to 2000: Population 25 to 3 9 ..........................................................................115 Two Ancestries, 2000 ..................................................................................................................138 Migration, 1995 to 2000: Population 65 and Older................................................................... 115 Figure 9-1. Percent of Population by Response to Ancestry Question, Migration Rate, 1995 to 2000: Native Population..................................................................... 116 1990 and 2000 ........................................................................................................................ 138 Migration Rate, 1995 to 2000: Foreign-Born Population...........................................................116 Figure 9-2. Fifteen Largest Ancestries(millions of people), 2000 ..............................................139 Outmigration of the Foreign Born, 1995 to 2000: Prevalent Ancestry, 2000............................................................................................................. 139 California, New York, and T e x a s .............................................................................................117 Outmigration of the Foreign Born, 1995 to 2000: Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey...............................................................................................117 Migration Rate, 1995 to 2000 ...........................................................................................1 8-1 19 1 Prevalent Ancestry, 2000............................................................................................................. 141 Selected Ancestry Croups, 2000 ........................................................................................ 142-145 American Ancestry, 2000..................................................................................................... 142 Armenian Ancestry, 2000..................................................................................................... 142 White Non Hispanic Pop u lation ...........................................................................................118 Asian Indian Ancestry, 2000 Black Population....................................................................................................................118 Austrian Ancestry, 2000....................................................................................................... 142 .......................................................................................... 142 American Indian and Alaska Native Pop u lation ................................................................. 118 Belgian Ancestry, 2000 ....................................................................................................... 142 Asian Population..................................................................................................................118 Brazilian Ancestry, 2000 ..................................................................................................... 142 Pacific Islander Population................................................................................................... 119 Canadian Ancestry, 2000..................................................................................................... 142 Two or More Races Population.............................................................................................119 Chinese Ancestry, 2000 ....................................................................................................... 142 Hispanic Population..............................................................................................................119 Colombian Ancestry, 2000................................................................................................... 142 Householders Living in the Same Home for Over 30 Years, 2000 .......................................... 120 Croatian Ancestry, 2000....................................................................................................... 142 Householders Who Were Recent Movers, 2000 ..........................................................................120 Czech Ancestry, 2000 ......................................................................................................... 142 Population Living in the Same Home in 1995 and 2000 ............................................... 121 Danish Ancestry, 2000......................................................................................................... 142 Population Living in Different States in 1995 and 2000 ...............................................121 Dominican Ancestry, 2000................................................................................................... 143 Percent Residing in State of Birth, 2000: TotalPopulation..................................................... 121 Dutch Ancestry, 2000 ......................................................................................................... 143 Percent Residing in State of Birth, 2000: Population65and O ld e r ........................................ 121 Ecuadorian Ancestry, 2000................................................................................................... 143 English Ancestry, 2000 ....................................................................................................... 143 Filipino Ancestry, 2000 ....................................................................................................... 143 Chapter 8. Language Finnish Ancestry, 2000 ....................................................................................................... 143 Figure 8-1. Percent of Population 5 and Older Who Spoke a Language French Ancestry, 2000 ......................................................................................................... 143 Other Than English at Home by Language Croup, 1990 and 2000 ....................................124 Figure 8-2. Speakers (millions) of Languages Most Frequently Spoken at Home, Other Than English and Spanish, 2000................................................................. 124 Percent Who Spoke a Language Other Than English at Home, 2000: Population 5 and O ld e r........................................................................................................... 125 Percent Who Spoke English Less Than “Very Well,” 1980: Population 5 and O ld e r........................................................................................................... 125 Percent Who Spoke English Less Than “Very Well,” 1990: Population 5 and O ld e r........................................................................................................... 125 Percent Who Spoke English Less Than “Very Well,” 2000: Population 5 and O ld e r........................................................................................................... 125 Percent Who Spoke a Language Other Than English at Home, 2000: Population 5 and O ld e r........................................................................................................... 127 French Canadian Ancestry, 2000 ........................................................................................ 143 German Ancestry, 2000 ....................................................................................................... 143 Creek Ancestry, 2000........................................................................................................... 143 Guatemalan Ancestry, 2 000.................................................................................................143 Haitian Ancestry, 2000......................................................................................................... 143 Hungarian Ancestry, 2000 ................................................................................................... 144 Iranian Ancestry, 2000......................................................................................................... 144 Irish Ancestry, 2000............................................................................................................. 144 Italian Ancestry, 2000 ......................................................................................................... 144 Jamaican Ancestry, 2000 ..................................................................................................... 144 Japanese Ancestry, 2000 ..................................................................................................... 144 Korean Ancestry, 2000......................................................................................................... 144 Lebanese Ancestry, 2000..................................................................................................... 144 Prevalent Language Spoken at Home, 2000: Excluding English.............................................. 128 Lithuanian Ancestry, 2000 ................................................................................................... 144 Linguistically Isolated Households, 2000 ................................................................................... 128 Norwegian Ancestry, 2000................................................................................................... 144 Spanish Spoken at Home, 2000................................................................................................... 129 Pakistani Ancestry, 2000 ..................................................................................................... 144 Spanish Spoken at Home, 2000: Native Population................................................................. 129 Polish Ancestry, 2000 ......................................................................................................... 144 Spanish Spoken at Home, 2000:Foreign-Born Population.......................................................... 129 Portuguese Ancestry, 2000 .................................................................................................145 Spoke English Less Than “Very Well,” 2000: School-Age Population: Romanian Ancestry, 2000 ................................................................................................... 145 Largest Cities..................................................................................................................130-1 31 Los Angeles, C A ....................................................................................................................130 Russian Ancestry, 2000 ....................................................................................................... 145 Salvadoran Ancestry, 2000................................................................................................... 145 x iii Selected Ancestry Croups, 2000 — Con. Completed College, 2000 — Con. Scotch-Irish Ancestry, 2000 ................................................................................................. I 45 American Indian and Alaska Native Pop u lation ................................................................. 166 Scottish Ancestry, 2000 ....................................................................................................... I 45 Asian Population..................................................................................................................166 Slovak Ancestry, 2000 ......................................................................................................... I 45 Pacific Islander Population................................................................................................... 167 Swedish Ancestry, 2000....................................................................................................... I 45 Two or More Races Population.............................................................................................167 Swiss Ancestry, 2000........................................................................................................... 145 Hispanic Population............................................................................................................. 167 Ukrainian Ancestry, 2000..................................................................................................... 145 Completed College, 2000: Largest Metropolitan A r e a s .....................................................168-169 Vietnamese Ancestry, 2000 ................................................................................................. 145 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA.................................................................................... 168 Welsh Ancestry, 2000........................................................................................................... 145 Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, C A ..........................................................................168 Prevalent Ancestry, 2000: Largest Metropolitan Areas.......................................................146-1 47 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, T X .......................................................................................... 168 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, C A.................................................................................... 146 Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI.......................................................................................... 169 Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, C A ..........................................................................146 Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, M l................................................................................................... 169 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, T X .......................................................................................... 146 Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH.........................................................169 Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI...........................................................................................147 Dallas-Fort Worth, T X ........................................................................................................... 169 Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, M l................................................................................................... 147 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA.................................................. 169 Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NFi.........................................................147 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD...........................................................169 Dallas-Fort Worth, T X ........................................................................................................... 147 Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV.................................................................................. 169 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA.................................................. 147 Atlanta, C A .......................................................................................................................... 169 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD...........................................................147 Completed Some College But No Degree, 2000..........................................................................170 Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV.................................................................................. 147 Completed Associate’s Degree, 2000 ........................................................................................ 170 Atlanta, C A .......................................................................................................................... 147 Completed Master’s Degree, 2000...............................................................................................171 Prevalent Ancestry, 2000: Largest C itie s ............................................................................ 148-1 49 Completed Professional or Doctoral Degree, 2000 ................................................................... 171 Los Angeles, C A ....................................................................................................................148 Percentage-Point Change in Population 3 to 17 Years, 1970 to 2000 ....................................172 San Diego, C A ...................................................................................................................... 148 Percentage-Point Change in Enrollment, 1970 to 2000: Population 3 to 17 ......................... 172 Phoenix, A Z .......................................................................................................................... 148 Percent Enrolled in School, 2000: Population 18 to 3 4 ............................................................. 173 San Antonio, T X ....................................................................................................................148 Percent Enrolled in School, 2000: Population 35 and Older.......................................................173 Chicago, IL ............................................................................................................................ 149 Private School Enrollment, 2000: Elem en tary............................................................................173 Philadelphia, P A ....................................................................................................................149 Private School Enrollment, 2000: High School............................................................................173 New York, N Y........................................................................................................................ 149 Dallas, TX.............................................................................................................................. 149 Houston, T X .......................................................................................................................... 149 Foreign Born From Austria, 1900 ...............................................................................................150 Chapter 11. Work Figure 11-1. Percent of Population 16 and Older iri the Labor Force by Sex, Austrian Ancestry, 2000 ............................................................................................................. 150 1960 to 2000 .......................................................................................................................... 176 Foreign Born From Canada, 1900 ...............................................................................................150 Labor Force Participation, 2000................................................................................................... 176 Canadian Ancestry, 2000 ........................................................................................................... 150 Figure 1 1-2. Percent of Workers by Means of Transportation to Work, Foreign Born From England, 1900...............................................................................................151 English Ancestry, 2000 ............................................................................................................... 151 1980 and 2000 ......................................................................................................................177 Percent of Commuters Who Used Public Transportation, 2000 ................................................ 177 Foreign Born From Germany, 1900 .............................................................................................151 Percent of Commuters Who Drove Alone, 2000 .......................................................................177 German Ancestry, 2000............................................................................................................... 151 Average Commuter Travel J'ime, 2000 ...................................................................................... 177 Foreign Born From Ireland, 1900.................................................................................................152 Labor Force Participation, 2000................................................................................................... 179 Irish Ancestry, 2000 ....................................................................................................................152 Labor Force Participation, 1950: Wom en.................................................................................. 180 Foreign Born From Italy, 1900..................................................................................................... 152 Labor Force Participation, 2000: Wom en.................................................................................... 180 Italian Ancestry, 2000 ..................................................................................................................152 Labor Force Participation, 2000: Women With Children Under 6 ............................................ 180 Foreign Born From Norway, 1900 ...............................................................................................153 Labor Force Participation, 2000: Women With Children 6 to 17.............................................. 180 Norwegian Ancestry, 2000 ......................................................................................................... 153 Both Spouses Worked, 2000: Married-Couple Fa m ilie s............................................................. 181 Foreign Born From Poland, 1900................................................................................................. 153 One Worker, 2000: Married-Couple Fam ilies..............................................................................181 Polish Ancestry, 2000 ..................................................................................................................153 Labor Force Participation, 2000...........................................................................................182-183 Foreign Born From Russia, 1900 ................................................................................................. 154 White Non-Hispanic Pop u lation .......................................................................................... 182 Russian Ancestry, 2000................................................................................................................154 Black Population....................................................................................................................182 Foreign Born From Sweden, 1900 ...............................................................................................154 American Indian and Alaska Native Pop u lation ................................................................. 182 Swedish Ancestry, 2000 ..............................................................................................................154 Asian Population..................................................................................................................182 American Ancestry, 2000 ........................................................................................................... 155 Pacific Islander Population................................................................................................... 183 Unspecified Ancestry, 2000......................................................................................................... 155 Two or More Races Population.............................................................................................183 Hispanic Population............................................................................................................. 183 Prevalent Industry, 2000 ............................................................................................................. 184 Chapter 10. Education Natural Resources and Mining, 2000...........................................................................................184 Figure 10-1, Percent of Population 25 and Older Who Completed Construction and Manufacturing, 2000...................................................................................... 184 High School or College, 1940 to 2000.................................................................................. I 58 Trade, Transportation, and Utilities, 2000 .................................................................................. 185 Completed High School,1950..................................................................................................... I 58 Information Services, 2000 ......................................................................................................... 185 Completed High School,2000..................................................................................................... I 58 Financial Activities, 2000 ........................................................................................................... 185 Figure 10-2. Percent of Population 25 and Older by Highest Professional and Business Services, 2000 .................................................................................. 185 Educational Attainment Level, 2000 .......................................................................................I 59 Education and Health Services, 2000 ........................................................................................ 186 Completed College, 1950 ............................................................................................................I 59 Leisure and Hospitality Services, 2000 ...................................................................................... 186 Completed College, 2000 ............................................................................................................I 59 Other Services, 2000....................................................................................................................186 Completed Master’s Degree, 2000............................................................................................... I 59 Public Administration, 2000 ....................................................................................................... 186 Increase in High School Completion, 1950 to 2000 ................................................................. I 61 Federal Government Employment, 2 000.................................................................................... 187 Completed High School,1950..................................................................................................... I 62 State Government Employment, 2000........................................................................................ 187 Completed High School,2000..................................................................................................... I 62 Local Government Employment, 2000........................................................................................ 187 Completed College, 1950 ........................................................................................................... 163 Prevalent Occupation, 1950 ....................................................................................................... 188 Completed College, 2000 ........................................................................................................... 163 Prevalent Occupation, 2000 ....................................................................................................... 188 Completed College, 1950: M en................................................................................................... 164 Working in Agricultural Occupations, 1950................................................................................ 189 Completed College, 2000: M en................................................................................................... 164 Working in Agricultural Occupations, 2000................................................................................ 189 Completed College, 1950: W o m e n .............................................................................................165 Average Commuter Travel Time, 2000 ...................................................................................... 190 Completed College, 2000: W o m e n .............................................................................................165 Commutes of One Hour or More, 1980.................................................................................... 190 Completed College, 2000 ................................................................................................... 166-1 67 Commutes of One Hour or More, 2000...................................................................................... 190 White Non-Hispanic Pop u lation ...........................................................................................166 Commuters Leaving Home Before 6 A.M., 1990..........................................................................191 Black Population.................................................................................................................... 1 Commuters Leaving Home Before 6 A.M., 2000..........................................................................191 66 X IV Intercounty Commuting, 1960 ................................................................................................... 192 Figure 13-2. Percent in Poverty by Age Croup, 1989 and 1999 ............................................ 214 Intercounty Commuting, 1980 ................................................................................................... 192 Poverty, 1999 ............................................................................................................................ 214 Intercounty Commuting, 2000 ................................................................................................... 192 Median Household Income, 1999 ............................................................................................. 215 Commuters Who Carpooled, 2000 .............................................................................................193 Median Household Income, 1969 ............................................................................................. 216 Commuters Who Used Public Transportation, 2000................................................................... 193 Median Household Income, 1979 ............................................................................................. 216 Commuters Who Drove Alone, 2000: Largest Metropolitan A re a s....................................194-195 Median Household Income, 1989 ............................................................................................. 216 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, C A.................................................................................... 194 Income and Education, 1950.......................................................................................................217 Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, C A ..........................................................................194 Income and Education, 2000..................................................................................................... 217 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, T X ...........................................................................................194 Median Household Income, 1999: Largest Metropolitan Areas ........................................218-219 Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI...........................................................................................195 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA....................................................................................218 Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, M l................................................................................................... 195 Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, C A ......................................................................... 218 Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NFI.........................................................195 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, T X .......................................................................................... 218 Dallas-Fort Worth, T X ........................................................................................................... 195 Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI.......................................................................................... 219 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA.................................................. 195 Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, M l...................................................................................................219 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD...........................................................195 Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH........................................................ 219 Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV.................................................................................. 195 Dallas-Fort Worth, T X ........................................................................................................... 219 Atlanta, C A .......................................................................................................................... 195 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA.................................................. 219 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD...........................................................219 Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV..................................................................................219 Chapter 12. Military Service Atlanta, G A ..........................................................................................................................219 Figure 12-1. Civilian Veterans (millions) by Period of Service, 2000 ........................................198 Median Earnings Ratio, 1999: Younger Working Age to Older Working A g e ........................... 220 Veterans, 2000 ............................................................................................................................ 199 Median Earnings, 1999: Younger Working A g e ......................................................................... 220 Figure 12-2. Percent Women of Civilian Veterans by Period of Service, 2000 ......................... 199 Median Earnings, 1999: Older Working A g e ..............................................................................220 Veterans, 2000 .......................................................................................................................... 200 Ratio of Women’s Earnings to Men’s Earnings, 1999 ............................................................... 221 White Non-Hispanic Pop u lation .......................................................................................... 200 Median Earnings, 1999: M en.......................................................................................................221 Black Population....................................................................................................................200 Median Earnings, 1999: W o m e n ................................................................................................ 221 American Indian and Alaska Native Pop u lation .................................................................200 Median Household Income, 1999 .................................................................................... 222-223 Asian Population................................................................................................................. 200 White Non-Hispanic Householders...................................................................................... 222 Pacific Islander Population...................................................................................................200 Black Householders............................................................................................................. 222 Two or More Races Population............................................................................................ 200 American Indian and Alaska Native Householders.............................................................222 Hispanic Population............................................................................................................. 200 Asian Householders............................................................................................................. 222 Active-Duty Military Population, 2000: With Military Installations............................................201 Pacific Islander Householders.............................................................................................. 223 Military Population in Croup Quarters, 1990............................................................................ 202 Two or More Races H ouseholders...................................................................................... 223 Military Population in Croup Quarters, 2000............................................................................ 202 Military Households With an Employed Partner, 2000 ............................................................. 203 Two-Military-Worker Households, 2000.................................................................................... 203 Percent Veterans, 19 9 0 ............................................................................................................... 204 Percent Veterans, 2 0 0 0 ............................................................................................................... 204 Percent Vietnam-Era Veterans, 2000: Hispanic Householders......................................................................................................... 223 Median Household Income, 1999: American Indian and Alaska Native Householders: Reservations With Largest AIAN Popu lations................................................ 224 Median Household Income, 1999: American Indian and Alaska Native Householders: Cities With Largest AIAN Populations.............................................................224 Median Household Income, 1999: Foreign-Born Householders................................................ 225 Reservations With Largest AIAN Populations......................................................................... 205 Median Household Income, 1999: Naturalized Citizen Householders......................................225 Percent Vietnam-Era Veterans, 2000: Cities With Largest AIAN Populations............................. 205 Poverty, 1999 ............................................................................................................................ 226 Veteran Population, 2000: World War I I ...................................................................................... 206 Poverty, 1999: Population 65 and O ld e r.................................................................................... 226 Veteran Population, 2000: Korean W a r ...................................................................................... 206 Poverty, 1969 .............................................................................................................................. 227 Veteran Population, 2000: Vietnam E ra ...................................................................................... 206 Poverty, 1979 ............................................................................................................................ 227 Veteran Population, 2000: Gulf War............................................................................................ 206 Poverty, 1989 ............................................................................................................................ 227 Veterans With a Disability, 2000 ............................................................................................... 207 Poverty, 1999 .............................................................................................................................. 227 Civil War Veterans, 18 9 0 ............................................................................................................. 207 Poverty, 1999: Largest Metropolitan A r e a s ...................................................................... 228-229 V e te ra n s...................................................................................................................................... 207 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA....................................................................................228 1960 ................................................................................................................................... 207 Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, C A ......................................................................... 228 1970 ................................................................................................................................... 207 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, T X .......................................................................................... 228 1980 ................................................................................................................................... 207 Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI.......................................................................................... 229 1990 ................................................................................................................................... 207 Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, M l...................................................................................................229 2000 ................................................................................................................................... 207 Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH........................................................ 229 Percent of Veterans in Poverty, 2000: Largest Metropolitan Areas.................................. 208-209 Dallas-Fort Worth, T X ........................................................................................................... 229 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, C A.................................................................................... 208 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA.................................................. 229 Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, C A ......................................................................... 208 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD...........................................................229 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, T X .......................................................................................... 208 Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV..................................................................................229 Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI.......................................................................................... 209 Atlanta, G A ..........................................................................................................................229 Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, M l...................................................................................................209 Poverty, 1999: Married Couples With C h ild re n ......................................................................... 230 Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH........................................................ 209 Poverty, 1999: Male One-Parent Families.................................................................................... 230 Dallas-Fort Worth, T X ........................................................................................................... 209 Poverty, 1999: Female One-Parent Families................................................................................230 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA.................................................. 209 Children in Poverty, 1999 ......................................................................................................... 231 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD...........................................................209 Children in High-Income Households, 1999 ............................................................................ 231 Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV..................................................................................209 Atlanta, C A ..........................................................................................................................209 Chapter 14. Housing Horneownership, 2000 .............................................................................................................. 234 Chapter IB. Income and Poverty Figure 14-1. Occupied Housing Units (millions) by Tenure, 1900 to 2000.............................. 234 Median Household Income, 1999 ............................................................................................. 212 Figure 14-2. Horneownership Rate by Race and Hispanic Origin Figure 13-1. Median Household Income (thousands of dollars) of Householder, 2000 ............................................................................................................ 235 by Household Type, 1999 ..................................................................................................... 212 Value of Owner-Occupied Housing, 2000 ................................................................................ 235 Median Household Income, 1999 ............................................................................................. 213 Ratio of Home Value to Income, 2000....................................................................................... 235 Householders Without a High School Diplom a................................................................... 213 New Housing, 2000 .................................................................................................................. 235 Householders Completed Only High School....................................................................... 213 Prevalent Period When Housing Was Built, 2000 ...................................................................... 237 Householders With a Bachelor’s Degree or H ig h e r.............................................................213 Horneownership, 2000 .............................................................................................................. 238 Native Householders........................................................................................................... 213 Value of Owner-Occupied Housing, 2000 ................................................................................ 238 Foreign-Born Householders.................................................................................................213 Renters, 2000 ............................................................................................................................ 239 XV Median Monthly Rent, 2000 ..................................................................................................... 239 Prevalent Housing Type, 2000: Largest Cities — Con. Homeownership, 2000: Married-Couple Fa m ilie s................................................................... 240 Chicago, IL ............................................................................................................................ 253 Homeownership, 2000: Female One-Parent Families............................................................... 240 Philadelphia, P A ................................................................................................................... 253 Homeownership, 2000: Male One-Parent Families................................................................... 240 New York, NY........................................................................................................................253 Minority Homeownership, 2000 ............................................................................................... 241 Dallas, TX.............................................................................................................................. 253 Change in Minority Homeownership, 1990 to 2000 ............................................................... 241 Houston, T X ..........................................................................................................................253 Homeownership, 2000 ..................................................................................................... 242--243 Prevalent Household Heating Fuel, 1950.................................................................................. 254 White Non-Hispanic Householders.................................................................................... 242 Prevalent Household Heating Fuel, 2000.................................................................................. 254 Black Householders........................................................................................................... 242 Changing Characteristics of Housing ........................................................................................ 255 American Indian and Alaska Native Householders........................................................... 242 Prevalent Household Heating Fuel, 1940 .......................................................................... 255 Asian Householders........................................................................................................... 242 Prevalent Household Heating Fuel, 1970 .......................................................................... 255 Pacific Islander Householders............................................................................................. 243 Prevalent Household Heating Fuel, 2000 .......................................................................... 255 Two or More Races H ouseholders.................................................................................... 243 Households Without Telephone Service, 1960 ................................................................. 255 Hispanic Householders....................................................................................................... 243 Households Without Telephone Service, 1970 ................................................................. 255 Homeownership, 2000: Householders Completed Only High School...................................... 244 Households Without Telephone Service, 2000 ................................................................. 255 Homeownership, 2000: Householders With a Bachelor’s Degree or H igher........................... 244 Households Without Plumbing, 1940..................................................................................255 Homeownership, 2000: Householders Without a High School Diploma.................................. 244 Households Without Plumbing, 1970..................................................................................255 Homeownership, 2000: Householders 35 to 6 4 ..................................................................... 245 Households Without Plumbing, 2000................................................................................ 255 Homeownership, 2000: Householders Under 3 5 ..................................................................... 245 Crowded Housing, 1940 ................................................................................................... 255 Homeownership, 2000: Householders 65 and Older............................................................... 245 Crowded Housing, 1970 ................................................................................................... 255 Difference Between Owner and Renter Housing Costs, 1980 ................................................ 246 Crowded Housing, 2000 ................................................................................................... 255 Difference Between Owner and Renter Housing Costs, 1990 ................................................ 246 Difference Between Owner and Renter Housing Costs, 2000 ................................................ 246 Ratio of Home Value to Income, 2000...................................................................................... 247 Reference Maps Renters Who Spent 35 Percent or More of Income on Rent, 1999 .......................................... 247 United States, 2000.................................................................................................................... 258 Percent of Housing Valued at $300,000 or More, 2000........................................................... 247 Largest Metropolitan Areas, 2000: With at Least 4 Million Peo p le .................................. 260-261 Homeownership, 2000: Low-Income Households................................................................... 247 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA....................................................................................260 Value of Owner-Occupied Housing, 2000: Largest Metropolitan Areas........................... 248--249 Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, C A ......................................................................... 260 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, C A.................................................................................. 248 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, T X .......................................................................................... 260 Los Arigeles-Riverside-Orange County, C A ........................................................................ 248 Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI.......................................................................................... 261 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, T X ........................................................................................ 248 Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, M l...................................................................................................261 Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI........................................................................................ 249 Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH........................................................ 261 Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, M i................................................................................................. 249 Dallas-Fort Worth, T X ........................................................................................................... 261 Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH ............................................... .. New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA.................................................. 261 249 Dallas-Fort Worth, T X ......................................................................................................... 249 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD...........................................................261 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA................................................ 249 Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV..................................................................................261 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD......................................................... 249 Atlanta, G A ..........................................................................................................................261 Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV................................................................................ 249 Largest Cities, 2000: With at Least 1 Million People ....................................................... 262-263 Atlanta, C A ........................................................................................................................ 249 Los Angeles, C A ................................................................................................................... 262 New Housing, 2000 .................................................................................................................. 250 San Diego, C A ......................................................................................................................262 Farm Housing, 2000 .................................................................................................................. 250 Phoenix, A Z ..........................................................................................................................262 Number of Mobile Homes, 2000 ............................................................................................... 251 San Antonio, T X ................................................................................................................... 262 Percent Mobile Homes, 2000..................................................................................................... 251 Chicago, IL ............................................................................................................................ 263 Number of Seasonal Housing Units, 2000................................................................................ 251 Philadelphia, P A ................................................................................................................... 263 Percent Seasonal Housing Units, 2000 .................................................................................... 251 New York, NY........................................................................................................................263 Prevalent Housing Type, 2000: Largest C itie s ................................................................. 252--253 Dallas, TX.............................................................................................................................. 263 Los Angeles, C A .................................................................................................................. 252 Houston, T X ..........................................................................................................................263 San Diego, C A .................................................................................................................... 252 Major Roads, 2000 .................................................................................................................... 264 Phoenix, A Z ........................................................................................................................ 252 County R eferen ce .............................................................................................................. 265-275 San Antonio, T X .................................................................................................................. 252 XVI Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 1 Introduction ill T his volume is the first comprehensive atlas Figure 1-1. produced by the U.S. Census Bureau since U.S. Population (m illions), 1 790 to 20 0 0 the early twentieth century. It highlights demographic, social, and economic conditions and changes for both people and housing in the United States and Puerto Rico. The atlas illustrates the wide range of data collected by the U.S. decennial censuses of population from the first in 1790 to the latest III ..I iiiE innni 250 200 150 100 50 in 2000. The census is conducted every ten years to 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 I860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 apportion representatives among the states for the largest metropolitan areas are approximately maps when the populations are concentrated in local Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The 1790 popula 1:2,900,000 scale. Showing the city or metropolitan communities. Special maps illustrate the distribution tion of 3.9 million resided on 860,000 square miles; in area maps across two pages and using the same scale of these populations. 2000 the population was 281 million distributed over for all of the maps in each series reveals the differ The scales of the maps are appropriate to 3.5 million square miles (Figure 1-1). In addition to the ences in total land area among the most populous emphasize the geographic distribution of the popula House of Representatives, as required by Article 1, population count required for apportionment, popula cities and metropolitan areas. Among the cities, for tion and housing characteristics but are not large tion statistics on the geographic distribution of the instance, Houston, with 579 square miles of land area, enough to include place labels. Reference maps for population are available for 21 decades. Data on is more than 4 times as large as Philadelphia, which states and selected cities and metropolitan areas demographic, social, and economic characteristics are has 135 square miles. showing geographic names and other features are in available for varying numbers of decades, depending U.S. maps by county and by state are presented the section beginning on page 2 58. Detailed county on when topics were first included in the census. Since at multiple scales, but the scale relationship of map maps that identify each of the 3,141 counties and 1940, a census of housing has been conducted in con components is constant: Alaska is half the scale, county equivalents and 78 Puerto Rican municipios at junction with the census of population. Puerto Rico twice the scale, and Hawaii the same scale the time of Census 2000 are on eleven pages begin as the conterminous United States. ning on page 265. This atlas reflects access to the full range of data for Census 2000 and earlier censuses, both digital and The relative size of the American Indian and in print. These resources enable the atlas to demon Alaska Native population is seen on maps of reserva Organization and Content strate in graphic form the continuous record of the tions and smaller cities, while it often does not come The atlas is arranged in topical chapters, grouped into changing population of the United States. to light on maps of the United States by county and three general themes: who we are (Chapters 2 through on largest-city maps. Similarly, some Asian groups Geographic Coverage 5), where we come from (Chapters 6 through 9), and have small national totals but are visible on small-area what we do (Chapters 10 through 14). All chapters Most maps in the atlas feature county-level detail for the United States and Puerto Rico. Territories prior to statehood are also included, in the case of maps for Population Density, 1850 1950 and earlier. Small state-level maps are frequently used to present topical series as well as time series Average population per square mile when detailed historical data are not available. Where 891.2 (DC) 80.0 to 138.3 40.0 to 79.9 20.0 to 39.9 7.9 to 19.9 5.0 to 7.8 0.1 to 4.9 it is useful to provide detail at the level of the neigh borhood, a topic is covered in a series of maps based on census tracts in selected cities or metropolitan areas. The selected cities are those with populations of 1 million people or more in 2000. The metropolitan ■ areas are those with 4 million or more people in 2000. Data not available The maps of the 9 largest cities are shown at a scale of approximately 1:550,000. Maps of the 1 1 2 01-02 U.S. Census Bureau except this introduction begin with one large map remaining chapters are typically based on sample data. focusing on a primary aspect of the topic covered in Data collected on a 100-percent basis—from every per Additional Information to Assist Understanding of the Maps the chapter. Within each chapter, pages presenting son—are subject to nonsampling error, while those col The geographic boundaries on Census 2000 maps are two, three, or four county-level maps (or up to 12 lected on a sample basis are subject to both sampling as of January 1, 2000, the geographic reference date state-level maps) encourage visual comparison, either and nonsampling error. The Notes section provides for that census. Historical base maps were developed between points in time or groups of the population. information concerning the effects of sampling and specifically for this publication to reflect the geo Some chapters include a set of state-level maps that nonsampling error on the accuracy of the data. graphic boundaries of states, territories, and counties may present a longer historical time series than is Changes in census questions or concepts can (or equivalent areas) that were used to conduct shown in the county maps. Alternatively, such state- affect comparability of data in time series. For exam selected decennial censuses. See the Notes section for level maps may illustrate more information about spe ple, race-group terminology has changed over time. additional information. cific population groups or more specific categories of Starting with Census 2000, the U.S. Office of variables or characteristics covered within the chapter. Management and Budget (OMB) required federal agen households received the same questionnaire as those cies to collect and report data for a minimum of five in the United States. For 1990 and earlier, maps show On map pages, map titles and key titles usually Census 2000 was the first time Puerto Rican provide the explanatory text. A glossary of key terms race categories: White, Black or African American, information for Puerto Rico when the data are avail pertaining to specific subject matter areas is provided American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, and Native able and comparable. Puerto Rico data, however, are beginning on page 294. In a few cases, comparisons Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. In addition, specif not included in data totals for the United States, of the historical usage and the Census 2000 defini ically for Census 2000, OMB approved a sixth cate which comprises the 50 states and the District of Columbia. tions of terms are included. Details of data sources gory, “Some Other Race.” A question on Hispanic or and particulars of maps and figures are contained in Latino origin was asked separately from the question the Notes section beginning on page 278. on race. Census 2000 data on race are available for or among those in series, the same data classes are people who indicated one race category only (termed used across the maps whenever possible. The class To facilitate comparisons between maps in pairs Census Data that race “alone”) and for people who indicated a race breaks on the maps were chosen using a combination The census data used in this atlas were obtained from category regardless of whether they also reported one of national rates and rounded breaks shared among published sources, from digital data sets available to or more other races (this group is sometimes termed maps for each topic. Class breaks may differ on the public, and from special tabulations. The data the “race alone or in combination” population). Maps in county-level maps depending on whether they were used are consistent with the population totals this publication show data for the single-race or race- classed alone, with other county-level maps, or with recorded at the time the census data were released, alone population. All respondents who indicated more tract-level data in a city or metropolitan area series. and they do not reflect adjustments or corrections to than one race are included in the Two or More Races the original data. category, which, combined with the six “alone" cate consistent format from one map to the next. Map gories, yields seven mutually exclusive and exhaustive components and symbolization types are shown on categories. the following two pages. Maps in the first four chapters use data collected from the entire population, while maps in the U.S. Census Bureau Map titles, legends, and other notations follow a 3 Chapter 1. Introduction HOW TO USE THE ATLAS Map Elements Illustrated below is a typical map from the atlas. Notes in red provide orientation to map elements and what they mean. Refer to the Notes section (page 278) for information on the data and mapping techniques for each map. A laska inset at half scale o f the l U.S. map Change in Minority Homeownership, 1990 to 2000 Data ye ars show n in the title Key caption w ith explanation of the variab les m apped Percentage-point change between 1990 and 2000 in the share of m inority householders w h o lived in owner-occupied housing; U.S. percentage 44.5 in 1990 and 47.4 in 2000 < 2 30.0 or m ore :.R U.S. percentage point change 2.9J 9 Value for the U.S. as a class break 2.9 to 29.9 0.0 to 2.8 -2.9 to -0.1 -30.0 to -3.0 Less than -30.0 No minority householders in 1990 or 2000 Data not available Special d ata conditions Puerto Rico inset at tw ice the scale o f the main U.S. map Haw aii inset at the sam e scale as the main U.S. map Map identification numbe Scale for main map Census Tract Maps Chicago-G ary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI Census tracts are used in maps for both largest metropolitan areas and largest cities. Because of the differ ence in scale between the two sets of maps, the tracts appear smaller on the metropolitan areas maps and larger on the cities maps. ^ jC E E C hicago, IL T rac ts e n la rg e d 5x T rac ts e n la rg e d 5x Scale in atlas: 1 :2 ,9 00 ,0 0 0 Scale in atlas: 1:550,000 Population Density, 2000; 4 Population Density, 2000; C hicago-G ary-Kenosha m etro p o litan area C h icag o city U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 1. Introduction HOW TO USE THE ATLAS Choropleth Map (Quantitative) Choropleth Map (Qualitative) Choropleth maps show derived values such as percentages and medians. Colors fill geographic areas to represent data values. Colors fill geographic areas to show data organized into categories. Areas are colored by the most commonly occurring category. Areas are shaded so that as the data value increases— or on some maps decreases— the color becomes darker and more intense. Different hues are used rather than shades of one color to avoid the impression of higher and lower values for the categories. (Federal Government Employment, 2000) (Prevalent Household Heating Fuel, 2000) Graduated Symbol Map Dot Location Map Graduated symbol maps show numbers of people or other quantities. Symbol size is larger for higher data values. Symbols also are shaded so that the highest numbers are shown in the darkest colors. Dots are centered on specific locales to represent a point of data at a point in time at that location. Symbols show geographic area totals and are placed at the center of those areas. Smaller circles are placed on top of larger circles. In areas of high symbol density, some circles may be hidden. (College Dormitory Population, 2000) Dot Density Map Isoplethic Map Each dot represents a specified number of people. The number per dot is noted on the map. An isoplethic map gives an impression of continuous population distribution with varying densities. The distribution of dots provides a visual sense of population density. Dots coalesce where population is densest and form areas of color. Lines connecting equal values are drawn between points of data. Darker shades represent areas with higher values. (Population Distribution, 2000) (Population Density, 2000) Flow Map Proportioned Bar Map Flow maps in the atlas use arrows to show migration of people. The height of the bar indicates magnitude of the population phenomenon at a specified location. The width of the flow arrow is proportional to the number of migrants. In this example, arrows coming from the same states are grouped by color. In this example, bars show data for American Indian reservations with the largest American Indian and Alaska Native populations. Color gradients fill bars and show high values with a different hue compared to low values. (Outmigration o f the Foreign Born, 1995 to 2000: California, New York, and Texas) U.S. Census Bureau (Number o f American Indians and Alaska Natives, 2000: Reservations With Largest AIAN Populations) 5 Population Distribution Chapter 2 Population Distribution more than 14 times as large in 2000 as in 1900, ne of the key characteristics of a popula O U.S. Census Regions tion is the way in which it is geographi increasing from 4.3 million in 1900 to 63 million. cally distributed. Is the population prima In 1950, the proportion of the total U.S. popula rily urban, for instance, with people living in densely tion in the West (1 3 percent) was half that of the nextlargest region, the Northeast (26 percent). By 1990, settled cities and adjacent or nearby communities? Or the population in the West had surpassed the popula is the population spread across a sparsely settled, rural landscape, with sizable distances separating tion in the Northeast, and by 2000 it was close to Northeast Midwest South W est communities? To give geographic context to the social and economic characteristics of the U.S. population overtaking the Midwest as the country’s second-mostpopulous region. Not applicable shown in subsequent chapters, it is useful to know the Increased Urbanization, 1900 to 2000 size and geographic distribution of the population and how these features have changed over time. U.S. population growth during the twentieth century occurred against a backdrop of increasing population Historical Changes in Population Distribution such as the populous “megalopolis” region stretching tion was 39.6 percent, and the percentages for individ When the United States conducted its first census in from Boston to Washington, DC, and the urbanized ual states and territories ranged from under 10 per density. In 1900, the urban share of the U.S. popula 1790, the new nation’s population of 3.9 million peo regions on the Great Lakes and along the Pacific cent urban to over 80 percent (map 02-02). Several ple was overwhelmingly rural. The most populous set Coast. Many areas of the Great Plains and the West states in the Northeast were more than 60 percent tlements at that time were the port cities of New York, continued to have low population densities. urban, while most states in the South were less than Philadelphia, Boston, Charleston, and Baltimore. There 20 percent urban. were 24 urban places (population of 2,500 or more), Population Growth by Region nearly all located on or close to the Atlantic coastline. While all four census regions of the United States— the a whole had increased to 64 percent, with noticeable The largest urban place was New York, with 33,000 Northeast, the Midwest, the South, and the West— increases since 1900 in the percentage urban for inhabitants. grew considerably during the By 1950, the percentage urban for the nation as twentieth century, the South Figure 2-1. 76.2 million. Population centers such as St. Louis, New and the West experienced the Percent Distribution of Population by Region, 1900 to 2000 Orleans, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Louisville, and largest increases in population, Memphis emerged near major rivers, and cities such 76 million and 59 million, By 1900, the country’s population had grown to lllllllllll as Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Milwaukee respectively. Combined, these grew up around the Great Lakes. Also during this two regions increased by 471 period, the railroad penetrated the West, and railroad percent during the century, towns such as Columbus, Ohio; Indianapolis; and compared with the combined Denver developed. The South remained predominantly increase of 149 percent for the rural, while the industrial Northeast and Midwest were Northeast and the Midwest. Midwest home to most of the larger cities. (Map 02-01 displays Between 1900 and 2000, the South the boundaries of the four census regions.) total increase of 135 million West At the end of the twentieth century, the country’s Northeast 60 people in the South and the population totaled 281.4 million, over 70 times as West represented 66 percent of large as the population in 1790, and it continued to be the U.S. population’s increase distributed unevenly across the landscape. High popu of 205 million people. The lation densities existed in some parts of the country, population in the West was 8 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 U.S. Census Bureau states in the South and the West (map 02-03). While population lived in metropolitan areas (known as met Figure 2-2. several states in the Northeast continued to be ropolitan districts at the time); by 1950, the propor highly urban, other states had urbanized at faster tion in metropolitan areas had grown to more than Percent of Population in Metropolitan Areas by Central Cities and Suburbs, 1910 to 2000 rates. In all states, at least 26 percent of the popula half of the U.S. population (56 percent). By 2000, the tion was urban. metropolitan population represented 80 percent of the In 2000, 79 percent of the U.S. population was urban (map 02-04), and the differences in percentage U.S. total of 281.4 million people (Figure 2-2). Metropolitan areas include central cities and their urban among the states were smaller than in previous suburbs. Between 1910 and 1960, a larger proportion decades. The West, which grew most rapidly during of the total population lived in central cities than in the twentieth century, was the most urbanized region suburbs. For example, in 1910, 21 percent of the total in 2000 and included five of the ten most urbanized U.S. population lived in central cities and 7 percent states (California, Nevada, Hawaii, Utah, and Arizona). lived in suburbs. From 1940 onward, suburbs experi Nevada in 2000 had a higher percentage urban than enced more population growth than central cities, and Massachusetts, while Utah and Arizona both had by 1960, the proportion of the total U.S. population higher percentages urban than New York. living in suburbs (territory within metropolitan areas but outside central cities) was 31 percent, almost Increasing Metropolitanization equal to the proportion of the population living in cen In addition to becoming more urban, the population tral cities (32 percent). By 2000, half of the entire U.S. has become more metropolitan. For Census 2000, the population lived in the suburbs of metropolitan areas. 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2000 percent. Five other states had gains of 2 5 percent to general concept of a metropolitan area was that of a Population Change for States and Counties, 1990 to 2000 40 percent: Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, and together with adjacent counties (or minor civil divi sions in New England) having a high degree of social Between 1990 and 2000, all 50 states gained popula grew at rates lower than the U.S. rate. The District of and economic integration with that core. Over the tion, with the largest percentage increases in states in Columbia’s population declined by 6 percent. course of the twentieth century, increasing proportions the West or the South (map 02-05). Nevada had the of the U.S. population lived in metropolitan areas. In highest percentage gain for the decade, increasing by growth were found throughout the nation but most 1910, less than a third (28 percent) of the total 66 percent, compared with the U.S. gain of 13 often within or adjacent to rapidly growing core area containing a substantial population nucleus, Percent Urban Population, 1900 80.0 to 100.0 60.0 to 79.9 39.6 to 59.9 20.0 to 39.5 6.2 to 19.9 U.S. Census Bureau Georgia. All states in the Northeast and the Midwest During the 1990s, counties with rapid population Percent Urban Population, 1950 80.0 to 64.0 to 40.0 to 26.6 to 100.0 79.9 63.9 39.9 9 Chapter 2. Population Distribution a key underlying dimension of patterns displayed in Population Change, 1990 to 2000 Los Angeles all contained many census tracts with many maps in subsequent chapters. densities of 10,000 or more people per square mile. Maps 02-09 through 02-20 show that all states had periods of rapid growth, and many states had swings in their growth rates over time. Nevada was Densities were generally lower across the tracts in Phoenix, San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston. Reflecting regional population trends discussed the fastest-growing state for the four final decades of earlier, many cities and metropolitan areas of the West the twentieth century, yet it was also the state with and the South had much larger populations in 2000 the largest drop in population in consecutive decades, than in earlier decades. In 1950, the city of Phoenix, falling 23.9 percent between 1880 and 1890, and a Arizona contained just over 100,000 people; by 2000, further 10.6 percent between 1890 and 1900. its population had increased to 1.3 million. The The different state-level rates of population percentage of the population residing in northeastern growth are also evident in maps 02-58 through 02-81, and midwestern cities of 100,000 or more decreased which show the changes in the distribution of con from 36 percent in 1950 to 23 percent in 2000. The gressional seats between 1789 and 2002. Some states percentage residing in southern and western cities have experienced only increases in the size of their increased from 20 percent in 1950 to 29 percent in metropolitan areas in the South or the West. High rates congressional delegation over time; other states have 2000. So, while Americans were slightly less likely to of growth also occurred in some counties in the seen both increases and decreases. The final map in live in a large city in 2000 than 50 years earlier (56 interior West that had natural resource amenities the series, showing the number of seats each state percent in 1950; 52 percent in 2000), the region (scenic lakes, mountain vistas, or mild climates), as was apportioned for the 107th Congress in 2002, is a where that large city is located was far more likely to well as in some coastal counties along the Atlantic state-level representation of the cumulative impact of be in the South or the West than it was 50 years seaboard that were attractive to retirees. two centuries of population growth and redistribution. earlier. Many of the counties that lost population during Population trends are also seen in map 02-23, Still, the national patterns of relative population the l 990s are located in a large band of sparsely popu showing the year of maximum population by county. lated nonmetropolitan counties in the Great Plains While in 2000 many counties had their largest density in 2000 were visible over a century ago, as shown in maps 02-30 and 02-31 on national patterns stretching from North Dakota to western Texas. Other decennial-census population ever, a large number of of population density in 1880 and 2000. Map 02-30 is pockets of population decline included some counties nationwide experienced their census year of reproduced from Scribner's Statistical Atlas o f the Appalachian counties and the Mississippi Delta. maximum population decades earlier. The prominence United States, created following the 1880 census. This Population declines also occurred in some large cities of the Great Plains, Appalachia, and parts of the lower map shows that density levels were higher across the in the Northeast and the Midwest, such as Philadelphia Mississippi River Valley illustrates the latter pattern. eastern half of the continental United States and along and Detroit. Several dozen counties in the Midwest had their maxi urban stretches of the Pacific coast and lower in much mum decennial population in the latter half of the This Chapter’s Maps of the interior of the West. Denver and Salt Lake City nineteenth century. are visible pockets of higher density in low-density Maps 02-24 through 02-29 chart the increase in regions. Population distribution in 2000, seen in map the United States can be seen in the various types of the number of large cities (populations of 100,000 or 02-31, displays a similar pattern. While the 2000 map changes over the centuries, such as the westward and more) in the United States, from 3 in 1840 to 234 in contains an additional category (1,000 and above), southward movement of the population, twentieth- 2000. The series of six maps also demonstrates the and densities were much higher in parts of California, century suburbanization, population declines in the emergence of large cities across all four regions of the Florida, and Texas, the basic patterns in the two maps rural Midwest, and continued urban and metropolitan country. While almost all of the large cities in 1890 are roughly similar. growth— particularly in the South and the West. were located in the Northeast or the Midwest, by Patterns of population distribution and redistribution in Map 02-07 portrays the country’s overall population distribution in 2000, with each dot on the 2000, many were also in the South and the West. Variations exist in the tract-level population den map representing 1,000 people. The uneven sity patterns for the largest cities in 2000 (maps 02-43 distribution of the population illustrated in this map is through 02-51). New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and 10 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 2. Population Distribution Center of Population, 1790 to 2000 With Territorial Expansion Date of acquisition o Center of population -----Proclam ation Line of 1763 1898 1800 Original thirteen colonies 1777 Treaty Line of 1842 Red R iver Basin ' ---\ 1818 Oregon Country 1846 Louisiana Purchase 1803 Territory N orthw est of the Ohio R iver 1787 Original Thirteen Colonies 1763 1o 800o 1820 O > ° 1810 1790 V? Mexican Cession 1848 Territory South of the Ohio River 1790 Gadsden Purchase 1853Texas Annexation 1845 M ississippi Territory 1798 Florida Cession j 1819 \ Puerto R ico Cession 1898 Hawaii Annexation 1898 Each decade, as part of its tabulation and publication activities following the decennial census, the U.S. Census Bureau calculates the country's center of population. The center is determined as the place where an imaginary, flat, weightless, and rigid map of the United States would balance perfectly if all residents were of identical weight. For Census 2000, the mean center of population was at 37°42'N latitude and 91°49'W longitude. (Alaska, Hawaii, U.S. Census Bureau and Puerto Rico were not included in the calculation of the center of population.) This location was in Phelps County, Missouri, approximately 2.8 miles east of the rural community of Edgar Springs. The center of population had moved 12.1 miles south and 32.5 miles west of the 1990 center of population, which was 9.7 miles southeast of Steelville, Missouri. Historically, the movement of the center of popula tion has reflected the expansion of the country, the set tling of the frontier, waves of immigration, and migration west and south. Since 1790, the center of population has moved steadily westward, angling to the southwest in recent decades. The center of population in 2000 was more than 1,000 miles from the first center in 1790, located near Chestertown, Maryland. 11 Chapter 2. Population Distribution Population Distribution, 2000 One dot represents 1,000 people The U.S. population in 2000 continued to be distributed unevenly across the country. Solid dark areas in the above map contained large numbers of people in rela tively densely settled territory, while the lighter-shaded areas contained few, if any, permanent residents. The eastern half of the United States contained a sizable number of settled areas in 2000, with the nearly uninter rupted string of densely settled territory stretching from 12 southern Maine to northern Virginia clearly visible. In the eastern half of the United States, the most visible areas with few residents are the Everglades of southern Florida and the wilderness areas of southern Georgia, upstate New York, and northern Maine. Unlike the eastern half of the United States, where population density generally lessens gradually as distance from an urban center increases, the West is an area of population extremes, containing populous metropolitan areas surrounded by large areas of mainly unpopulated terrain. As the Los Angeles area shows, density transi tions in the West can often be abrupt. The thin lines of population concentration connecting larger metropolitan areas in the West—for instance, between Las Vegas and Salt Lake City— are often the locations of highways or rivers or both. U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 2. Population Distribution Population Density, 2000 With Border Populations Can. U.S. Mex. 2,000.0 to 66,940.0 A verage population per square mile 300.0 to 1,999.9 160.0 to 299.9 79.6 to 159.9 30.0 to 79.5 7.0 to 29.9 San Diego, U.S.; Tijuana, Mex. Calexico, Mexicali, U.S.; Matamoros, Mex. The border populations in the United States, as this map reminds us, often coexist with neighboring population concentrations across the border in Canada or Mexico. While much of the U.S. border—for instance, along the Canadian border from Minnesota to Washington— is lightly populated and has low population densities, other U.S. Census Bureau areas have sizable population concentrations, as shown by the darker shadings of some border U.S. counties, Canadian census areas, and Mexican municipios on this map. The pairs of cities shown represent major centers within cross-border urban areas. The duplication or near duplication of city names on both sides of the border in some instances is testament to their intertwined histories and longstanding relationships. Data for Mexican municipios are from 2000. Data for Canadian census areas are from 2001. 13 Chapter 2. Population Distribution PERCEN T CHANGE IN POPULATION 14 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 2. Population Distribution Com parison of Population Change, 1980s and 1990s Net increase or decrease in total population 1980 to 1990 and 1990 to 2000 Increase both decades D ecrease 1980s, increase 1990s Increase 1980s, decrease 1990s Decrease both decades Data not comparable U.S. Census Bureau l5 Chapter 2. Population Distribution Year of M axim um Population, 1790 to 2000 16 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 2. Population Distribution TPBJ-,7 Population Density, 1880 5 < ? h I \ /> a y v ) < 1 l i f e 'f — \ •v j ; \ ^ A verage population per square mile 90 and above 45 to 89 18 to 44 6 to 17 2 to 5 1 or fe w e r 02-30 Reproduced from: S c rib n e r’s S ta tis tic a l A tla s o f th e U n ite d States'. 1883, with additional title and key. A verage population per square mile 1,000 and above ! 90 to 999 45 to 89 18 to 44 6 to 17 2t° 5 1 or fe w e r U.S. Census Bureau 17 Chapter 2. Population Distribution METROPOLITAN AREAS San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA Population Density, 2000 Largest Metropolitan Areas 40.000. 0 to 39,999.9 10.000. A verag e population per square mile; U .S . m ap by county, m etropolitan area m aps by census tract 0 and above 20.000. 0 to 19,999.9 5.000. 0 to 9,999.9 2.000. U.S. density 79.6 0 to 4,999.9 79.6 to 1,999.9 0.0 to 79.5 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria,TX 18 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 2. Population Distribution METROPOLITAN AREAS Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH Dallas-Fort Worth, TX New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA TEX A S Fort Worth Dallas New ark-^j^ Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD New York N EW JE R S E Y Atlantic City Baltimore At anta. GA Washingtoi D ELA W A R E Atlanta Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV U.S. Census Bureau 19 Chapter 2. Population Distribution CITIES Los Angeles, CA Population Density, 2000 Largest Cities 40.000. 20 0 to 19,999.9 5.000. 0 to 9,999.9 2.000. 0 to 4,999.9 U.S. density 79.6 San Diego, CA 0 to 39,999.9 10.000. A verag e population per square mile; U .S . m ap by county, city m aps by census tract 0 and above 20.000. 79.6 to 1,999.9 0.0 to 79.5 Phoenix, AZ U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 2. Population Distribution CITIES U.S. Census Bureau 21 Chapter 2. Population Distribution 100.0 Average population per square mile; U .S. density 21.5 7.0 and above 2.0 to 6.9 0.0 to 1.9 80.0 to 99.9 Rural population as a percentage of total population 60.2 to 79.9 40.0 to 60.1 20.0 to 39.9 Data not available 0.0 to 19.9 Data not available 100.0 80.0 to 99.9 A verag e population per square mile; U.S. density 79.6 7.0 and above 2.0 to 6.9 0.0 to 1.9 Rural population as a percentage of total population 60.0 to 79.9 40.0 to 59.9 U.S. percent 210 22 21.0 to 39.9 0.0 to 20.9 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 2. Population Distribution Rural population center at each decade County w a s at least 50 percent rural in 2000 U.S. Census Bureau 23 Chapter 2. Population Distribution CHANCE IN D ISTRIBUTIO N OF C O N G RESSIO N A L SEATS Confederation Congress, 1789 2nd Congress, 1792 7th Congress, 1802 Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1790 census Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1800 census 12th Congress, 1812 17th Congress, 1822 22nd Congress, 1832 Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1810 census Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1820 census Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1830 census 27th Congress, 1842 32nd Congress, 1852 37th Congress, 1862 Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1840 census Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1850 census Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1860 census plus nonvoting seats for territories N um ber o f Seats I 10 (VA) 6 to 8 3 to 5 1 to 2 No seats Total voting seats: 65 4 to 5 1 to 3 No change -2 to 1 I Non voting seats _| No seats Total voting seats: 243 42nd Congress, 1872 47th Congress, 1882 Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1870 census Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1880 census plus nonvoting seats for territories 52nd Congress, 1892 Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1890 census 4 to 5 1 to 3 No change B -1 Nonvoting seats No seats Total voting seats: 332 24 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 2. Population Distribution CHANGE IN D ISTRIBUTIO N OF C O N G RESSIO N AL SEATS 57th Congress, 1902 62nd Congress, 1912 Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1910 census Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1900 census 67th Congress, 1922 No reapportionment was made ]] No change J Non voting seats _ No seats Total voting seats: 435 72nd Congress, 1932 77th Congress, 1942 82nd Congress, 1952 Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1930 census Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1940 census Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1950 census 87th Congress, 1962 92nd Congress, 1972 97th Congress, 1982 Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1960 census Change in number of congressional Change in number of congressional 102nd Congress, 1992 107th Congress, 2002 107th Congress, 2002 Change in number of congressional seats as a result of the 1990 census Change in number of congressional seats as a result of Census 2000 4 to 8 1 to 3 No change -2 to 1 -3 (PA) H Non voting seats No seats Total voting seats: 435 N um ber of Seats 4 to 7 1 to 3 No change -2 to 1 -3 (NY) Non voting seats 1 to 2 No change -2 to 1 Nonvoting seats Total voting seats: 435 Total voting seats: 435 U.S. Census Bureau 25 Race and Hispanic Origin Chapter 3 Race and Hispanic Origin ncreasing racial and ethnic diversity character Figure 3-1. ized the population of the United States during Percent of Population by Race, 1900 to 2000 I the latter half of the twentieth century. Largescale immigration between 1970 and 2000, primarily 10 0 from Latin America and Asia, has fueled the increase in diversity. In the last two decades of the century, the 80 Asian and Pacific Islander population tripled, and the Hispanic population more than doubled. Every decennial census of population in the 60 United States has collected data on race, beginning with the first national enumeration in 1790. The num 40 ber of specific groups identified generally increased over time, and Census 2000 was the first U.S. census to allow individuals to identify themselves as being of 20 more than one race. lllllllllli- iiiiiiim r Races other than White or Black Black White This atlas generally uses six groups in showing Census 2000 data by race: White, Black, American 1900 Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and 1910 1920 1930 1940 19S0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Note: In 2000, the percent distribution is based on the reporting o f race alone for Whites and Blacks. Other Pacific Islander, and Two or More Races. (See the glossary for more detailed information on the racial data categories used, including the Some Other Race census was the first to include a question about was 69.1 percent. The Black population also increased group.) The data collected by Census 2000 on race Hispanic origin; it was asked of a 5-percent sample of steadily throughout the century, from 8.8 million in can be divided into two broad categories: people who the population. Beginning with the 1980 census, infor 1900 to about 4 times as large in 2000 (34.7 million responded to the question on race by indicating only mation on Hispanic origin was collected on a 100- people reported the single race Black, and 36.4 million one race, referred to as the single-race or as the race- percent basis. alone population, and those who reported more than people reported Black only or Black in combination with one or more other races). The single-race Black popula one race, referred to as the race-in-combination popu Racial Composition tion in 2000 was 12.3 percent of the population. lation. The maps and figures in this book refer to the The White population, which includes White Hispanics, Compared with the combined population of races other single-race populations, unless otherwise indicated. continues to be the largest race group in the United than White or Black, the Black population in I 960 was However, this does not imply that it is the preferred States. As recently as 1970, nearly the entire U.S. more than 10 times as large, in 1980 it was slightly method of presenting or analyzing data; the U.S. population was either White or Black, as the popula more than double, and in 2000 it was of comparable Census Bureau uses a variety of approaches. tion of other races was 2.9 million, or 1.4 percent of size, reflecting the rapid growth of the population of the population. By 2000, the number of people in the other races in the United States. The federal government considers race and eth nicity to be separate concepts. People of a specific United States who were races other than White or race may have any ethnic origin, and people of a Black (including all people of two or more races) had American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, specific ethnic origin may be any race. The Hispanic- grown to 35 million, comparable in size to the Black Other Pacific Islander, Two or More Races, and Some origin population is defined as an ethnic group for fed population. Other Race. Hereafter, AIAN is sometimes used to refer eral statistical purposes, and Hispanics may be any race. Prior to 1970, determinations of Hispanic origin Numerically, the White population more than Race groups other than White or Black include to people who reported being American Indian or tripled in the twentieth century, from 66.8 million in Alaska Native and the term “Pacific Islander” to refer to were made indirectly, such as through information on 1900 to over 100 million by 1930 and 211.5 million in people who reported being Native Hawaiian or Other Spanish surname or by tabulating data on people who 2000. The proportion single-race White in 2000 was Pacific Islander. The number of people reporting two or reported Spanish as their “mother tongue." The 1970 75.1 percent, while the proportion non-Hispanic White more races in 2000 was 6.8 million. 28 U.S. Census Bureau book, these two groups are combined.) In 1970, the throughout the twentieth century. In 1900, about 1 (who are primarily Hispanic) populations experienced The Asian, Pacific Islander, and Some Other Race population other than White or Black was 0.5 million, out of 8 Americans was of a race other than White. By large increases during the period from 1970 to 2000. whereas in 2000 the Some Other Race population was 2000, that proportion had increased to about 1 out of The Asian and Pacific Islander population was 1.4 mil 15.4 million (5.5 percent of the U.S. population). 4. As recently as 1970, the White population’s share of lion in 1970; in 2000, the Asian population stood at International migration contributed to these rapid pop the U.S. total was just slightly smaller than it had been 10.2 million (3.6 percent of the population), and the ulation increases. at the beginning of the century. The Black population also represented a slightly smaller share of the total Pacific Islander population was 399,000 (0.1 percent of the U.S. population). (In Census 2000, the Asian and Increasing Diversity From 1900 to 2000 U.S. population in 1970 than in 1900, and at the century’s close, its share was less than 1 percentage Pacific Islander group was split into “Asian” and In general, Blacks, Asians, Pacific Islanders, American “Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander.” When Indians and Alaska Natives, and Hispanics represented point higher than in 1900. The decline since 1970 in showing comparisons with earlier decades in this increasing shares of the national population the proportion of the U.S. population that is White resulted mainly from faster growth of the Asian, Pacific Islander, and Some Other Race populations. PercentAsian, 1900 Percent Black, 1900 Regional Racial Patterns The geographic distributions by race and Hispanic ori Chinese and Japanese as a Blacks as a percentage of total population gin also changed between 1900 and 2000 as a result of trends in both international migration and migration among the states. In 1900, for instance, the Asian population (0.3 percent of the U.S. population) was primarily located in the West. All 1 1 states and territo ries with percentages exceeding that of the United States were located in that region (map 03-01), and the percentage Asian was higher in the western state of Nevada than in New York. In 2000, 3.6 percent of the U.S. population was Asian, and states with per centages exceeding the U.S. figure were located in the Northeast, South, and West (map 03-02). The Black population in 1900, 1 1.6 percent of the U.S. total, had a strong regional presence in the South (map 03-03), which had nearly 90 percent of the Black population. Large Black outmigration from the South to metropolitan areas in the Northeast and Midwest during much of the twentieth century resulted in lower percentages Black for some states in 41.6 (HI) 10.9 (CA) 3.6 to 5.7 1.0 to 3.5 0.2 to 0.9 the South and higher percentages Black for a number of states outside the South (map 03-04). In Michigan, for example, Blacks increased from 0.7 percent of the population in 1900 to 13.9 percent in 2000. The number of states with less than 1 percent Black in their population dropped from 18 in 1900 to 9 in 2000. U.S. Census Bureau 29 Chapter 3. Race and Hispanic Origin Population Growth Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin Considering race without regard to Hispanic origin, Figure 3-2. Percent Change in Population by Race and Hispanic Origin, 1980 to 2000 the White population grew more slowly from 1980 to 2000 than every other group in percentage terms Total population (Figure 3-2). The rapid growth of the Some Other White Race population reflects the large number of people Black in this group who are Hispanic, a group with a high growth rate. The large percentage change of the American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) Asian and Pacific Islander AIAN population in part may be attributed to a Some Other Race higher tendency among respondents to report as this race in 2000 than in 1980, as well as changes in cen Hispanic sus procedures and improvements in census cover White non-Hispanic age of this population. Minority population Considering both race and Hispanic origin, the non-Hispanic White population grew by 7.9 percent between 1980 and 2000, while the aggregate minor Note: In 2000, the percent distribution is based on the reporting of race alone. ity population (people of races other than White plus those of Hispanic origin) increased 1 1 times as fast which Hispanics represented at least one-fourth of the Midwest and in smaller numbers of counties in the (88 percent) during the 20-year period. Among all population. By 2000, Hispanics made up at least 2 5 South and Northeast. The Two or More Races popula the population groups shown in Figure 3-2, only the percent of the population in three additional states tion and the Asian population were the prevalent White and the non-Hispanic White populations grew (California, Arizona, and Texas). All four of these minority groups for a scattering of counties across the at a slower rate than the total population. The higher states are on the U.S.-Mexico border. country, with Asians particularly noticeable in the upper Midwest. percentage increases for each individual race other than White and for the Hispanic population produced This Chapter’s Maps a high percentage growth for the minority popula In addition to map 03-05, the diversity of the U.S. tion, resulting in an increase in the minority share of population by race and Hispanic origin in 2000 is counties was Mexican (map 03-43). In the Northeast the U.S. population from 20 percent in 1980 to 31 evidenced in other ways in this chapter. The map of and some counties in Florida, the prevalent Hispanic percent in 2000 and a corresponding decrease in the the White a n d AIAN population in 2000 (map 03-1 5) group was Puerto Rican. This pattern is also reflected non-Hispanic White share. The Hispanic population has grown rapidly in With respect to the most common Hispanic group, the prevalent Hispanic group in 2000 for most shows strong regional presence in Alaska and parts in the tract-level metropolitan area maps 03-52 of Oklahoma, as does the subset map for children of through 03-60, where Puerto Rican was the most com recent decades, more than doubling in size between these two races (map 03-23). (The race-in- mon Hispanic group for many tracts in metropolitan 1980 and 2000. In every state except Hawaii, the combination categories use the conjunction a n d in areas in the Northeast. percentage of the population that was Hispanic italicized and bold-face print to link the race groups increased during the 20-year period from 1980 to that compose the combination.) 2000. In 1980, New Mexico was the only state in For a majority of counties, the prevalent group in 2000 was non-Hispanic White (map 03-28). Maps 03-34 through 03-42 reveal the top metro politan areas of residence for each of the nine largest Asian groups. In general, the metropolitan areas that were home to the largest Asian groups in 2000 were Predominantly Hispanic counties are found in the Race and Hispanic Diversity, 2000 located in California or New York— the two states with southwest, close to the Mexican border, while predom the largest Asian populations in 2000—and they usu inantly Black counties are generally found in the ally had large overall populations. For the Hmong, a South, especially along the Mississippi River. different pattern emerged. The metropolitan area with Predominantly AIAN counties are present across much Probability that two randomly selected people in a state would be of different races or that only one of the two would be Hispanic the largest Hmong population in 2000 was the of Alaska and in counties containing sizable American Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI metropolitan statistical Indian and Alaska Native reservations. area (MSA). Smaller Hmong populations existed in two The map of prevalent minority groups in 2000 smaller metropolitan areas in Wisconsin— the (map 03-29) shows distinct regional patterns in identi Wl MSA. The fact that relatively large populations of a In the South and much of the Northeast, the prevalent small Asian group are located in these less populous minority group was Black, while Hispanics were the metropolitan areas demonstrates the geographic dis prevalent minority group across much of the West and 30 Appleton-Oshkosh-Neenah, Wl MSA and the Wausau, fying the largest group other than non-Hispanic White. persal of our country’s race groups. U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 3. Race and Hispanic Origin Race and Hispanic Diversity, 2000 Higher diversity 0.70 to 0.77 0.60 to 0.69 U.S. diversity index 0.49 0.49 to 0.59 0.40 to 0.48 0.30 to 0.39 0.20 to 0.29 0.10 to 0.19 Lower diversity The diversity index displayed on this map reflects the probability that two randomly selected people in a state would be of different races or that only one of the two would be Hispanic. The index is calculated by summing the squares of the proportion of the total population in each of the selected groups and subtracting the sum from 1.00, so more diversity is represented by a higher index value. The groups included in this calculation are U.S. Census Bureau Hispanic, non-Hispanic White, Black, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic Two or More Races, and non-Hispanic Some Other Race. While the diversity index for the United States in 2000 was 0.49, the diversity index of individual counties varied, as seen in the above map. Higher values of the index—the darker-shaded counties in the map— are pres ent in some areas in the West, for instance California, 0.01 to 0.09 Hawaii, and New Mexico. The South shows numerous counties in the middle range of the diversity index, with a solid band of such counties stretching from Maryland through much of the South across to Texas. Lower values of the diversity index are seen in much of the Northeast and the Midwest. Pockets of higher diversity indexes are visible in counties in the New York and Chicago metropolitan areas. 31 Chapter 3. Race and Hispanic Origin White Non-Hispanic Population, 2000 c Black Population, 2000 • d> -' 3 90.0 to 99.6 70.0 to 86.5 69.1 to 89.9 40.0 to 69.0 Non-Hispanic W h ites as a percentage of total population 20.0 to 39.9 40.0 to 69.9 Blacks as a percentage of total population 10.0 to 19.9 20.0 to 39.9 U.S. percent 12.3 3.0 to 9.9 12.3 to 19.9 3.0 to 12.2 0.0 to 2.9 0.2 to 2.9 American Indian and Alaska Native Population, 2000 90.0 to 94.2 70.0 to 89.9 40.0 to 46.0 40.0 to 69.9 A m erican Indians and Alaska N atives as a percentage of total population 20.0 to 39.9 10.0 to 19.9 3.0 to 9.9 U.S. percent 0.9 32 0.9 to 2.9 20.0 to 39.9 A sians as a percentage of total population 10.0 to 19.9 U.S. percent 3.6 to 9.9 3 .6 0.0 to 3.5 0.0 to 0.8 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 3. Race and Hispanic Origin 40.0 to 48.3 20.0 to 39.9 Pacific Islanders as a percentage of total population 10.0 to 19.9 3.0 to 9.9 U.S. percent 0.1 0.1 to 2.9 20.0 to 28.4 Two or M ore Races population as a percentage of total population 10.0 to 19.9 U.S. 2.4 to 9.9 2.4 0.0 to 2.3 Less than 0.1 90.0 to 99.7 70.0 to 89.9 40.0 to 69.9 Hispanics as a percentage of total population 20.0 to 39.9 U.S. percent 12.5 12.5 to 19.9 3.0 to 12.4 0.1 to 2.9 U.S. Census Bureau 33 Chapter 3. Race and Hispanic Origin 2.0 or m ore Percentage of population w h o reported race com bination of W h ite a n d Black 2.0 or m ore Percentage of population w h o reported race com bination of W h ite a n d A m erican Indian and Alaska Native 1.0 to 1.9 U.S. percent 0.3 0.3 to 0.9 1.0 to 1.9 0.4 to 0.9 Less than 0.3 Less than 0.4 White and Asian Population, 2000 I E 3 2.0 or m ore Percentage of population w h o reported race com bination of W h ite a n d Asian 1.0 to 1.9 0.3 to 0.9 Less than 0.3 34 2.0 or m ore Percentage of population w h o reported race com bination of W h ite a n d Pacific Islander 1.0 to 1.9 0.3 to 0.9 U.S. percent (0.04) rounds to 0.0 0.0 to 0.2 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 3. Race and Hispanic Origin 70.0 or m ore Percentage of couples with a non-Hispanic W h ite partner in w hich the other partner w a s Hispanic or a race other than W h ite 45.0 to 69.9 30.0 to 44.9 15.0 to 29.9 U.S. percent 7.9 7.9 to 14.9 70.0 or m ore 45.0 to 69.9 Percentage of couples with a non-Hispanic Black partner in w h ich the other partner w a s Hispanic or a race other than Black 30.0 to 44.9 15.0 to 29.9 7.0 to 14.9 Less than 7.0 Less than 7.9 No couples with a non-Hispanic Black partner 70.0 or m ore Percentage of couples with a non-Hispanic Asian partner in w hich the other partner w a s Hispanic or a race other than Asian 45.0 to 69.9 U.S. 30.2 to 44.9 15.0 to 30.1 30.2 7.0 to 14.9 70.0 or m ore Percentage of couples with an Hispanic partner in w hich the other partner w a s non-Hispanic or a different race 45.0 to 69.9 U.S. 34.2 to 44.9 15.0 to 34.1 34.2 7.0 to 14.9 Less than 7.0 □ U.S. Census Bureau No couples with a non-Hispanic Asian partner Less than 7.0 1 I ___ I _ No couples with an Hispanic partner 35 Chapter 3. Race and Hispanic Origin 8.0 to 13.8 8.0 to 10.5 4.0 to 7.9 Percentage of population under 18 w h o reported race com bination of W h ite a n d Am erican Indian and Alaska Native 2.0 to 3.9 1.0 to 1.9 4.0 to 7.9 Percentage of population under 18 w h o reported race com bination of W h ite a n d Asian 2.0 to 3.9 1.0 to 1.9 U.S. U.S. percent 0.6 to 0.9 0.5 36 0.5 to 0.9 0.0 to 0.4 0.6 0.0 to 0.5 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 3. Race and Hispanic Origin Percentage of population under 18 w h o reported race com bination of W h ite a n d Black 8.0 to 16.5 4.0 to 7.9 2.0 to 3.9 U.S. percent - 0.8 0.8 to 1.9 0.0 to 0.7 Percentage of population under 18 w h o reported race com bination of Black a n d Am erican Indian and Alaska Native U.S. Census Bureau 1.0 to 1.2 U.S. 0.1 0.1 to 0.9 Less than 0.1 Percentage of population under 18 w h o reported race com bination of Black a n d Asian U.S. percent 0.1 0.1 to 0.7 Less than 0.1 37 Chapter 3. Race and Hispanic Origin Am erican Indian and Alaska Native Asian Black Hispanic Pacific Islander W h ite non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Some Other Race and Two or More Races groups were not the most common in any county; Pacific Islander was most common in Kalawao County, HI 38 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 3. Race and Hispanic Origin U.S. Census Bureau 39 Chapter 3. Race and Hispanic Origin 40 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 3. Race and Hispanic Origin LARGEST ASIAN GROUPS, 2000 Asian Indian, 2000 Ten metropolitan areas with the Key to metropolitan areas 1 Appleton-Oshkosh-Neenah, Wl 2 Atlanta, GA 3 Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-LowellBrockton, MA-NH 4 Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI 5 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 6 Detroit-Ann Arbor Flint, Ml 7 Fresno, CA 8 Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, NC 9 Honolulu, HI 10 Houston-Galveston Brazoria, TX U.S. Census Bureau 11 Las Vegas, NV-AZ 12 Los Angeles-RiversideOrange County, CA 13 Merced, CA 14 Milwaukee-Racine, Wl 15 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI 16 New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA 17 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD 18 Portland-Salem, OR-WA 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA Sacramento-Yolo, CA San Diego, CA San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA Stockton-Lodi, CA Washington Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV Wausau, Wl 41 Chapter 3. Race and Hispanic Origin Mexican, 2000 * O Central Am erican Cuban Dominican Mexican Percentage of population Mexican Puerto Rican South Am erican Other Hispanic 20.0 to 98.8 20.0 to 28.9 7.0 to 19.9 Percentage of population Puerto Rican 7.0 to 19.9 3.0 to 6.9 3.0 to 6.9 U.S. percent 1.2 0.5 to 1.1 0.0 to 0.4 42 Percentage of population Cuban 1.2 to 2.9 1.0 to 2.9 U.S. percent 0.4 0.4 to 0.9 0.0 to 0.3 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 3. Race and Hispanic Origin 7.0 to 10.0 3.0 to 6.9 Percentage of population Dominican 1.0 to 2.9 U.S. 1.0 to 2.9 0.6 to 0.9 0.6 0.0 to 0.2 U.S. 0.0 to 0.5 0.3 to 0.9 0.3 3.0 to 6.0 Percentage of population Central Am erican 20.0 to 70.9 3.0 to 6.9 Percentage of population South Am erican 1.0 to 2.9 U.S. 0.5 to 0.9 0.5 0.0 to 0.4 7.0 to 19.9 Percentage of population Hispanic, Latino, Span ish, or Spaniard U.S. percent 2.2 2.2 to 6.9 1.0 to 2.1 0.5 to 0.9 0.0 to 0.4 U.S. Census Bureau 43 Chapter 3. Race and Hispanic Origin METROPOLITAN AREAS San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA Prevalent Hispanic Group, 2000 Largest Metropolitan Areas Central Am erican Cuban Dom inican U .S . m ap b y county; m etropolitan area m aps by census tract Mexican Puerto Rican South Am erican Other Hispanic No Hispanic population Boston-WorcesterLawrence-LowellBrockton PhiladelphiaW ilm ingtonA tla n tic C ity Detroit-Ann _ _ A rb o r- F lin t/^ ) Chicago-Gary-| \ Kenosha S a n FranciscoO akland-San Jo s e ’ N ewYorkNorthern N e w Je r s e y Long Island W ashington.Baltim o re Lo s Angeles-Riverside- ^ O range C o u n ty % A tla n ta' DallasFort W orth| HoustonGalvestonBrazoria Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA 44 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria,TX U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 3. Race and Hispanic Origin METROPOLITAN AREAS Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH VERMONT NEW MAI NE HAMPSHIRE MASSAC Boston Worcester CONNECTICUT Dallas-Fort Worth, TX New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA TEX M A S S A NEW Fort Worth U S E TT S YORK Dallas CONNECT 03-58 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD New York P E N NS Y 'ilmington RY L> Vt ’Atlantic City Atlanta, GA WEST VIRGINIA D ELA W A R E Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV U.S. Census Bureau 03-59 45 Chapter 3. Race and Hispanic Origin CITIES Race and Hispanic Diversity, 2000 Largest Cities Higher diversity 0.70 to 0.82 0.60 to 0.69 Probability that tw o random ly selected people in an area w ould be of different races or that o nly one of the tw o w o u ld be Hispanic; U.S. m ap by county, city m aps by census tract U.S. diversity index 0.49 0.49 to 0.59 0.40 to 0.48 0.30 to 0.39 0.20 to 0.29 0.10 to 0.19 Lower diversity 0.01 to 0.09 No population 46 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 3. Race and Hispanic Origin CITIES U.S. Census Bureau 47 Age and Sex Chapter 4 Age and Sex A ge and sex composition provides a the population pyramids in Figure 4-1. Each of the bars glimpse of a country’s demographic his in the population pyramids represents the percentage tory— reflecting past trends in births, of the total population in that age-sex group. The dis deaths, and migration— as well as a view toward its tribution of the population by age and sex in 1900 demographic future. The age and sex structure of the exhibited the classic pyramid shape, wider at the bot U.S. population affects many of the characteristics tom and narrower at the top. This broad-based shape described in other chapters of this atlas. For example, characterizes a young, relatively high-fertility popula knowing that many Great Plains counties have high tion. In 1900, children under 5 years old accounted for median ages and relatively few young people in their 12 percent of the U.S. population, while people aged populations provides insight into the patterns of popu 65 and older accounted for less than 5 percent. lation decline seen in some maps in Chapter 2. In The low fertility of the Great Depression years is some cases, maps and graphics have been disaggre evidenced by the “pinch” in the age structure in the gated by age or sex to make the impact of these 1950 pyramid, as people born during the 1930s were demographic characteristics more apparent. 10 to 19 years old. By 1950, the onset of the post World War II Baby Boom had altered the bottom of the Changes in Age and Sex Structure pyramid, as 1 1 percent of the population was under The age and sex structure of the U.S. population age 5, giving the second age-sex pyramid a large base of the Census 2000 age-sex pyramid shows the changed during the twentieth century, as shown by of very young people. aging of the U.S. population in the second half of the The more rectangular shape of the lower half twentieth century, due primarily to low fertility fol lowing the Baby Boom. A pinch in the pyramid for Fig u re 4-1. the 20-to-29 age group resulted from the relatively Percent Distribution of Population by Age and Sex, 1900, 1950, and 2000 low number of births during the 1970s. The Baby Boom bulge appears in the 2000 pyramid in the 35to-54-year age range. Another feature of the 2000 85 and older M ale F em a le M ale 1 i[ ■ 1 ■■ 80 to 84 75 to 79 70 to 74 65 to 69 60 to 64 Fem a le 85 and older 80 to 84 m 75 to 79 age-sex pyramid is the less cone-like shape at the top of the pyramid compared with the 1900 and 1950 1 ■ i ■ pyramids. The larger proportions of the population in older age groups in 2000 resulted in part from sus 60 to 64 ]. ■ ■ H 70 to 74 65 to 69 50 to 54 40 to 44 Fem a le 1 5 5 to 59 45 to 49 M ale 1 1 ■ ■ tained low fertility rates and partly from relatively 55 to 59 50 to 54 45 to 49 larger declines in mortality at older ages than at younger ages. 40 to 44 3 5 to 39 35 to 39 Trends in Median Age 30 to 34 30 to 34 Another way of summarizing the overall age struc 2 5 to 29 25 to 29 ture of a population is with its median age— the age 20 to 24 20 to 24 at which half the population is older and half is 15 to 19 15 to 19 10 to 14 10 to 14 Under 5 Under 5 younger. The median age of the population in 1900 was 22.9 years. The median age rose in 8 of the next 6 4 2 0 2 1900 50 4 6 4 2 0 2 1950 4 2 0 2000 2 10 decades, reaching a record high of 35.3 years in 2000 (Figure 4-2). The only two decades of the twen tieth century when the median age did not increase U.S. Census Bureau were 1950-1 960 and 1960-1 970, when Fig u re 4-2. Changes in Sex Ratios, 1900 to 2000 the iarge number of births during the Median Age by Sex, 1900 to 2000 While the overall sex ratio— the number of males per Baby Boom (1946-1964) resulted in a 100 females— in the United States declined during the decline in median age from 30.2 years in twentieth century, a sustained East-West dichotomy is 1950 to 28.1 years in 1970. evident in maps 04-02 through 04-04. In 1900, the sex ratios in most western states were higher than the At the state level, the median age in 2000 was lowest in Utah (27.1 years), U.S. figure of 104.9, and lower sex ratios were found Texas (32.3), Alaska (32.4), and Idaho in states along the Atlantic coast. By 1950, only Alaska (33.2). The median age was highest in and Flawaii had a sex ratio above 105, and West Virginia (38.9), Florida (38.7), Maine Massachusetts had the lowest sex ratio among the 48 (38.6), and Pennsylvania (38.0). States states (93.8). In 2000, the sex ratio for the United with lower median ages in 2000 were States was 96.3, and most states in the eastern half of generally located in the West and the the country had a sex ratio below that figure. South (map 04-01). Growth of the Male and Female Populations Along with the overall rise in median age between 1950 and 2000, the county-level maps of median age in 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 this chapter show distinct geographic Between 1990 and 2000, the male population grew slightly faster (1 3.9 percent) than the female popula patterns. In 2000, the highest median ages occurred were born in Florida. In contrast, many of the counties tion (12.5 percent). In 1990, females outnumbered in counties in the upper Great Plains and the interior in the Northeast and Midwest with older populations males by 6.2 million, a difference that dropped to 5.3 Northeast, and also in Florida, coastal areas of the reflected what is known as “aging in place.” In those million in 2000. This decline resulted in the sex ratio Pacific Northwest, and northern portions of Michigan, areas, the high percentage aged 65 and older was (males per 100 females) increasing from 95.1 in 1990 Wisconsin, and Minnesota. often a result of older people remaining while younger to 96.3 in 2000. The large proportion of those aged 65 and older people migrated elsewhere. Whether the pattern is due Despite this increase, the sex ratio in the United in Florida in 2000 was, in part, the product of a well- to the inmigration of retirees or the outmigration of States decreased during most of the twentieth century. established pattern of retiree migration to that state. young adults, the result is counties with large propor After a peak of 106.2 in 1910, the sex ratio declined Relatively few members (8.9 percent) of this group tions of people 65 and older. to a low of 94.5 in 1980. This long decline resulted U.S. Census Bureau 51 Chapter 4. Age and Sex mainly from the relatively larger reduction in female populations. On the other hand, some counties in the population, with high percentages of the non-Hispanic mortality rates during the period. The sex ratio then Great Plains and Florida have relatively high older White population aged 65 and older in counties in increased between 1980 and 1990, as male death population dependency ratios. Taken together, the Florida, the Great Plains, and parts of the desert rates declined faster than female death rates and as total dependency ratio shows the relationship between southwest (map 04-1 5). The counties with higher more male immigrants than female immigrants the number of people younger than age 18 or 65 and percentages of Blacks who were 65 and older in 2000 entered the country. older to those aged 18 to 64. A handful of counties were located in the South, the Great Plains, and the have ratios of 100 or more, while central Colorado has Ohio River Valley (map 04-16). This Chapter’s Maps a number of counties with a total dependency ratio The maps in this chapter illustrate the age and sex below 40. composition of the U.S. population both historically The percentage of the population under age 18 A series of tract-level maps displays the percent age of the population under age 5 for the country’s largest metropolitan areas (maps 04-1 7 through and in 2000. They also show the geographic distribu varied by race and Hispanic origin in 2000. The Two 04-26). For the United States as a whole, 6.8 percent tion of the young and old populations by race and or More Races population and the Hispanic population of the population in 2000 was under age 5. While the Hispanic origin. Historical maps in the chapter high had the highest percentages under 18 in 2000, at 41.9 tract-level patterns varied among metropolitan areas, light the aging of the U.S. population and the gradual percent and 35 percent, respectively. For the United one pattern was common across all of the metropoli disappearance of high sex ratios in western states. States as a whole, 2 5.7 percent was under age 18. The tan areas: suburban tracts with high percentages Map 04-07 shows patterns of median age by county in 2000. Counties with a high median age are found in Appalachia, much of Florida, the midsection county-level variations in these percentages are seen under age 5 were almost always located in rapidly in maps 04-1 1 through 04-1 3. growing areas with high percentages of new housing The percentage of the population 65 and older and young families. of the country, and the northern Rockies. Counties also varied by race and Hispanic origin in 2000, with with a low median age are seen in Utah and Alaska. the highest percentage found in the non-Hispanic Throughout the country, some individual counties White population (1 5 percent), followed by the Black centages of the total population that were aged 85 have a markedly lower median age than neighboring population (8.1 percent). For the United States as a and older in 2000 (map 04-05), no Arizona or Nevada Some of the chapter’s map patterns may be unexpected. For instance, in the map showing the per counties, due in some cases to the presence of a large whole, 12.4 percent of the population in 2000 was 65 county fell within the two highest percentage ranges, university or military base. and older, and the county-level percentages exhibited although these areas are generally perceived to be a strong geographic concentration (map 04-14). popular destinations for retirees. The maps in the older to the population aged 18 to 64 are shown in Counties with 20 percent or more of their population chapter on migration show that Arizona and Nevada The ratios of people under 18 and people 65 and maps 04-08 through 04-10. Many counties in Utah and aged 65 and older are located in the country’s are indeed magnets for retirees, and at the same time Alaska have high youth dependency ratios, meaning midsection and across much of Florida. The they are also destinations for younger migrants. In that they have larger-than-average numbers of young geographic patterns of the older, non-Hispanic White 2000, the median ages for Arizona (34.2) and Nevada people compared with the sizes of their 18-to-64 population are similar to those of the entire older (35.0) were both below the U.S. median of 35.3 years. 52 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 4. Age and Sex Population 85 and Older, 2000 4.5 to 6.6 3.0 to 4.4 Percentage of population 85 and older In 2000, 1.5 percent of the U.S. population was 85 and older. The darkest-shaded counties in the map above had 4.5 percent or more of their population in this age group. These counties stretch through the country's midsection from central Texas through Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota. They are generally thinly popu lated and rural. The population in many of these counties U.S. Census Bureau declined in recent decades, in part due to the outmigra tion of younger people. Numerous other counties in the Great Plains are in the second- and third-highest categories. Some Florida counties also had relatively high percentages of their populations 85 and older, partly reflecting the large number of retirees who moved to the state. 2.0 to 2.9 1.5 to 1.9 Many metropolitan-area counties have low percent ages of population aged 85 and older. Indeed, visible within the area of darker-shaded counties in the middle of the country are lighter-shaded counties in metropolitan areas such as Dallas-Fort Worth and Minneapolis-St. Paul. Many counties in interior western states also have generally low percentages 85 and older. 53 Chapter 4. Age and Sex 40.0 to 41.9 35.3 to 39.9 U.S. median ~ 30.2 30.2 to 35.2 25.0 to 30.1 20.0 to 24.9 15.2 to 19.9 Data not available Median Age, 2000 45.0 to 58.6 40.0 to 44.9 U.S. median 35.3 35.3 to 39.9 30.2 to 35.2 25.0 to 30.1 20.0 to 24.9 54 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 4. Age and Sex Older Population Dependency Ratio, 2000 - 60.0 to 96.2 60.0 to 73.7 50.0 to 59.9 Population under 18 years old per 100 people 18 to 64 U.S. ratio 41.5 41.5 to 49.9 30.0 to 41.4 50.0 to 59.9 40.0 to 49.9 Population 65 and older per 100 people 18 to 64 30.0 to 39.9 20.0 to 29.9 20.1 to 29.9 3.1 to 19.9 U.S. Census Bureau U.S. ratio - 20.1 2.6 to 20.0 55 Chapter 4. Age and Sex Under 18 Years, 2000 Under 18 Years, 2000 Hispanic Population Two or More Races Population ■ fM P ~ ■ 60.0 or m ore 60.0 or m ore 50.0 to 59.9 50.0 to 59.9 Percentage of Hispanic population under 18 years old U.S. percent — 35.0 35.0 to 49.9 30.0 to 34.9 Percentage of T w o or M ore Races population under 18 years old U.S. percent 41.9 41.9 to 49.9 30.0 to 41.8 20.0 to 29.9 20.0 to 29.9 Less than 20.0 Less than 20.0 No Two or More Races population 56 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 4. Age and Sex Percentage of population 65 and older 25.0 to 34.7 20.0 to 24.9 15.0 to 19.9 u .s. 12.4 to 14.9 percent 124 5.0 to 12.3 1.8 to 4.9 65 and Older, 2000 65 and Older, 2000 White Non-Hispanic Population Black Population ■ £ 2 ?- ■ 25.0 or m ore 25.0 or m ore 20.0 to 24.9 Percentage of non-Hispanic W h ite population 65 and older U.S. percent 15.0 to 19.9 15.0 10.0 to 14.9 20.0 to 24.9 Percentage of Black population 65 and older 15.0 to 19.9 8.1 to 14.9 5.0 to 9.9 5.0 to 8.0 Less than 5.0 Less than 5.0 No Black population U.S. Census Bureau 57 Chapter 4. Age and Sex METROPOLITAN AREAS San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA Under 5 Years, 2000 Largest Metropolitan Areas 20.0 to 31.5 13.0 to 19.9 Percentage of population under 5 years old; U .S. m ap b y county, m etropolitan area maps by census tract 10.0 to 12.9 U.S. percent 6.8 6.8 to 9.9 5.0 to 6.7 0.0 to 4.9 No population Boston-WorcesterLaw re nee- Lo w el I - Lo s Angeles-Riverside- * O range C o u n ty 1 \ „o 0 1 100 mi 0 cf 7 GalvestonBrazoria \i 1 j - m 0 200 mi * ' 100 mi 04-17 Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA 58 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 4. Age and Sex METROPOLITAN AREAS Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH Dallas-Fort Worth, TX New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA TEX A S P Fort W orth Dallas Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD New York NEW JE R S E Y 'Wilmington Atlantic City Atlanta, GA DISTRICT OF .COLUMBIA > Washington, D E L AWA R E Atlanta Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV U.S. Census Bureau 59 Chapter 4. Age and Sex Sex Ratio, 2000 Sex Ratio, 2000 Population Under 18 Population 65 and Older ■SE& - • m m -- More More males 130.0 to 208.3 130.0 to 173.5 N um ber of m ales under 18 years old per 100 fem ales under 18 U.S. ratio 105.2 105.2 to 129.9 100.0 to 105.1 95.0 to 99.9 105.0 to 129.9 100.0 to 104.9 N um ber of m ales 65 and older per 100 fem ales 65 and older 95.0 to 99.9 U.S. ratio 79.0 to 94.9 females 60 70.0 to 94.9 49.9 to 69.9 females U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 4. Age and Sex 25.0 to 192.7 U.S. percent _ change 12.5 12.5 to 24.9 0.0 to 12.4 -10.0 to -0.1 -25.0 t o -10.1 -39.8 to -25.1 U.S. Census Bureau 61 Chapter 4. Age and Sex 45.0 or m ore 45.0 to 64.6 U.S. median 38.6 40.0 to 44.9 38.6 to 44.9 35.0 to 39.9 35.0 to 38.5 30.2 to 34.9 30.0 to 34.9 25.0 to 30.1 25.0 to 29.9 20.0 to 24.9 20.7 to 24.9 Less than 20.0 No Black population Median Age, 2000 Median Age, 2000 American Indian and Alaska Native Population Asian Population • tW - 45.0 or m ore 45.0 or m ore 40.0 to 44.9 28.0 to 34.9 30.0 to 32.6 25.0 to 27.9 25.0 to 29.9 20.0 to 24.9 Less than 20.0 Less than 20.0 No AIAN population 62 32.7 to 39.9 20.0 to 24.9 u .s. median 28.0 40.0 to 44.9 35.0 to 39.9 No Asian population U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 4. Age and Sex 45.0 or m ore 40.0 to 44.9 35.0 to 39.9 35.0 to 39.9 27.5 to 34.9 30.0 to 34.9 25.0 to 27.4 2 2 .1 to 29.9 20.0 to 24.9 U.S. median 27.5 45.0 or m ore 40.0 to 44.9 20.0 to 22.6 Less than 20.0 Less than 20.0 No Pacific Islander population No Two or More Races population Median Age, 2000 Hispanic Population 45.0 or m ore 40.0 to 44.9 35.0 to 39.9 30.0 to 34.9 U.S. median 25.8 25.8 to 29.9 20.0 to 25.7 Less than 20.0 U.S. Census Bureau 63 Chapter 5 Living Arrangements Chapter 5 Living Arrangements H ouseholds and families are social units that more people related to the householder by birth, mar Ratio of Divorced to Married People, 2000 both influence and reflect changes that riage, or adoption; it may also include people unre lated to the householder. If the householder is married occur in the larger society. Information about the living arrangements of a society also illumi Number of divorced people per 100 married people and living with his or her spouse, then the household nates certain facets of individuals’ needs and is designated a m a r rie d -c o u p le h o u se h o ld . The remain resources. For example, family care may be more read ing types of family households not maintained by a ily available for younger children when they live with 22.0 to 19.1 to 17.0 to 14.3 to their grandparents, and living alone may create special needs for older people. This chapter’s maps show data 38.9 21.9 19.0 16.9 married couple are designated by the sex of the householder (for instance, m a le h o u se h o ld e r, n o s p o u s e pre se n t). A n o n f a m ily h o u s e h o ld consists of a on family and household structure, marital status, person living alone or a householder who shares the family size, the presence of multigenerationai family home with nonreiatives only (for example, with room households, and grandparents who reside with, and mates or an unmarried partner). are responsible for, their grandchildren. In 2000, there were 105.5 million households in Questions about the marital status of the popula the United States, an increase of 15 percent from the tion and the relationship of members of a household 1990 figure of 91.9 million households. Of the 105.5 to the householder have been asked in the decennial percent. Higher percentages of adults were separated million households in 2000, 68.1 percent (71.8 mil census since 1880. (Data on marital status were first and divorced in 2000 than in 1950. From 1950 to lion) were family households and 31.9 percent (33.7 published in 1890, while data on relationship to the 2000, the percentage of people aged 2 5 to 34 who million) were nonfamily households. householder were first published in 1930.) From 1880 were divorced increased from 2 percent to 6 percent through 1940, marital status was categorized as “sin for men and from 3 percent to 9 percent for women. gle,” “married,” “widowed,” or “divorced.” “Separated” The corresponding increases for people aged 35 to 59 was added as a category in 1950. In various years, were from 3 percent to 13 percent for men and from 3 additional related questions were asked, including age percent to 16 percent for women. at first marriage, whether the person was married in the last year, whether ever-married people had married For 25-to-34-year-olds, the percentage divorced Figu re 5-1. Percent of Households by Type, 1950 to 2000 100 increased from 1950 to 1980 and then subsequently more than once, and the dates of current and first decreased by several percentage points between 1980 marriages. New in Census 2000 was a question about and 2000 for both men and women. For men and grandparents who were responsible for the care of women aged 35 to 59, the percentages divorced their grandchildren. increased during both periods. Marriage and Divorce Patterns were 19.1 divorced people for every 100 married peo Of the 221.1 million people 15 and older in 2000, ple (map 05-01). The ratio was higher in some states 120.2 million people (54.4 percent) were currently in the South and West and lower in parts of the married, while 59.9 million people (27.1 percent) had Northeast and upper Midwest. 80 N o n fa m ily h ou seho lds For the population 15 and older in 2000, there 60 40 never married. In addition, 21.6 million people (9.7 percent) were divorced, 14.7 million people (6.6 per Households and Families cent) were widowed, and 4.8 million people (2.2 The majority of households in 2000 were family percent) were separated. households. A h o u s e h o ld is a person or group of peo Marital patterns vary by age. For people aged 2 5 ple who occupy a housing unit. The h o u s e h o ld e r is the to 29 in 2000, 49 percent of men and 38 percent of f a m ily h o u s e h o ld consists of a householder and one or O ne p erso n F am ily h ou seho lds O th e r fa m ily M a rried c o u p le s housing unit is owned, being bought, or rented. A 75 to 84, the corresponding figure was about 4 M in i llllll- O th e r n o n fa m ily person, or one of the people, in whose name the women had never married. For men and women aged 20 ■ 66 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 U.S. Census Bureau (Figure 5-1). Between 1950 and 2000, married-couple Figure 5-2. in 2000 was 273.6 million. The country’s remaining The total population living in those households households declined from more than 3 out of every 4 7.8 million people lived in group quarters—dwelling households (78 percent) to just over one-half (52 Percent of Households by Size, 1940 to 2000 places that are not housing units. Group quarters percent) of all households. Other family households include both institutionalized populations—for exam declined as a proportion of all households in the ple, people in correctional facilities or nursing 1950s and then increased every decade thereafter. By homes—and noninstitutionalized populations, such as 2000, other family households represented about 1 of college dormitories and military quarters. Maps 05-57 every 6 U.S. households (16 percent). 100 through 05-60 at the end of this chapter illustrate the 80 The shares of all U.S. households represented by distributions of these often geographically concen both types of nonfamily households (one-person and trated group-quarters populations. other nonfamily households) increased every decade 60 during the period 1950 to 2000. The proportional Family and Nonfamily Households share of one-person households increased more than The majority of family households in 2000 were 40 any other type. In 1950, one-person households com married-couple households (76 percent, or 54.5 mil posed 9.5 percent of households. By 2000, the propor lion). Family households maintained by women with tion was 26 percent. The proportional share of other no husband present numbered 12.9 million, almost 3 ■■■■■ inilDUQ holds) increased every decade, from 1.1 percent in present (4.4 million). Among nonfamily households, People in hou seho ld nonfamily households (excluding one-person house times the number maintained by men with no wife 20 im ie i 1950 to 6.1 percent of all households in 2000. 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 one-person households predominated (27.2 million) and were more than 4 times as numerous as nonfam Household Size figure of 2.6. Maine had the lowest average house ily households with two or more people (6.5 million). Average household size in the United States declined hold size among the states in 2000, 2.4 people per from 4.6 people in 1900 to 2.6 in 2000. High average household (map 05-03). Although all household types have increased numerically since 1950, the slower rate of increase of household sizes in 1900 can be found in many of the The proportion of households with five or married-couple households in each decade has rural states in the South and the Midwest (map 05-02) more people declined from 27 percent in 1940 to 1 1 resulted in a continual decline in the proportion of Utah’s average household size of 3.1 people in 2000 percent in 2000 (Figure 5-2). Declines occurred also U.S. households that are married-couple households was the highest in the country, exceeding the U.S. in four-person households (from 18 to 14 percent) and three-person households (from 22 to 17 percent). The shares of both one-person and twoperson households increased since 1940, with two-person households climbing from 2 5 percent to 33 percent and one-person households increasing from 8 percent to 26 percent by 2000. Since 1980, households of one or two people have represented an increasing majority of households in the United States, reaching 58 percent of all households by 2000. In 2000, one-person households represented at least 2 5 percent of all households in 36 of the 50 states, where the proportion ranged narrowly from 25.0 percent to 29.3 percent (led by North Dakota). The next highest-ranking states in the percentage of U.S. Census Bureau 67 Chapter 5. Living Arrangements one-person households were all in the Northeast— multigenerational family households (8.2 percent). This Chapter’s Maps Rhode Island, New York, Massachusetts, and Other states exceeding 5 percent in 2000 were The maps in this chapter focus predominantly on the Pennsylvania. One-person households represented 44 California (5.6 percent) and Mississippi (5.2 percent). characteristics of America’s households and families in percent of all households in the District of Columbia North Dakota had the lowest figure (1.1 percent). 2000. Maps from previous censuses provide a in 2000. Map 05-07 later in this chapter illustrates the Several regional clusterings of counties had county-level geographic patterns of the percentage of higher rates of multigenerational households, as ments, revealing changes such as those in household one-person households in 2000. Scattered across the shown in map 05-54 later in the chapter. Two group and family structure and in average household size. midsection of the country, primarily in the Great ings, one in South Dakota and the other in Arizona Map 05-09, reproduced from the atlas published fol Plains, are a number of counties where 55 percent or and New Mexico, largely mirror the distribution of lowing the 1890 census, broadly presents the higher more of households in 2000 were one-person house Native American populations in those areas. Another ratios of divorced to married people for most western holds— often a widow or widower. Nationally, 8.8 per band of counties stretches through the Mississippi states and territories. Viewing it with map 05-10 cent of all one-person households consisted of a male Delta region and across the Deep South, while a allows comparison of more than a century of change 65 or older, while 26.9 percent consisted of a female fourth one runs along the border with Mexico from in marital status patterns in the United States. 65 or older. Texas to California. historical context for contemporary living arrange The chiid-to-woman ratio in 2000, shown in map 05-55, gives a broad indication of the relative rate of Multigenerational Households Coresident Grandparents Muitigenerational households are family households Of the 158.9 million people aged 50 and older living ratio is affected by age structure within this age span consisting of more than two generations, such as a in households in the United States, 5.8 million (or 5.6 and to a lesser degree by infant and childhood mortal recent childbearing among women aged 15 to 49. The householder living with his or her own children and percent) lived with their grandchildren under 18 years ity. Counties with the highest values are seen in grandchildren. Data presented in this chapter are of age. The percentage of grandparents living with nearly all parts of the country and are prominent in a based on three types of commonly encountered multi their grandchildren varied by race and Hispanic origin. band stretching from southern Idaho through Utah generational households: (1) householder-child-grand- While 5.6 percent of all people 50 and older lived with into parts of Arizona and New Mexico. child, (2) parent (or parent-in-law) of householder- their grandchildren, 2 percent of non-Hispanic Whites householder-child, and (5) parent (or parent-in-law) of did so. Higher proportions were found among other patterns of families with children, headed by married householder-householder-child-grandchild. groups: 6 percent of Asians, 8 percent of Blacks, 8 couples or by parents without a spouse present. One Multigenerational family households may be more likely to reside in areas where new immigrants live with their relatives, in areas where housing short Maps 05-15 and 05-14 portray the geographic percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives, and broad swath of counties in the Great Plains and 10 percent of Pacific Islanders. another stretching through Utah and southern Idaho Among grandparents living with their grandchil have higher percentages of families with children that ages or high costs force families to combine their liv dren, 2.4 million (42 percent) were also “grandparent are headed by married couples. Maps 05-1 7 through ing arrangements, or in areas where unwed mothers caregivers," people who had primary responsibility for 05-50 continue this theme, examining spatial patterns tend to live (with their children) in their parents’ their coresident grandchildren younger than 18. Maps of family types, for families that include children, by homes. In 2000, there were 5.9 million multigenera 05-55 through 05-44 in the chapter provide a look at race and Hispanic origin. tional family households, representing 5.7 percent of geographic patterns of grandparents as caregivers in all households. Hawaii had the highest percentage of the largest metropolitan areas. 68 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 5. Living Arrangements Married-Couple Households With Children, 2000 35.0 to 54.9 30.0 to 34.9 Married-couple households with children under 18 as a percentage of all households Counties with relatively high percentages of households containing married couples and their own children under 18 years old are found throughout the country. Concen trations of such counties appear in Alaska, southern Idaho, southwestern Kansas, Utah, and Texas. U.S. Census Bureau Outlying counties of some metropolitan areas also have higher percentages of households composed of married couples with children. Notable examples are counties surrounding Chicago, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Washington, DC. U.S. percent 23.5 23.5 to 29.9 - 20.0 to 23.4 Counties with low percentages also appear throughout the country. In some cases, such as Florida, Arizona, and the upper Great Lakes, these areas are pop ular retirement destinations. 69 Chapter 5. Living Arrangements Married-couple households as a percentage of all households 75.0 to 85.6 68.0 to 74.9 60.0 to 67.9 U.S. percent 52.5 70 52.5 to 59.9 10.6 to 52.4 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 5. Living Arrangements One-person households as a percentage of all households H 33.0 or m ore 29.0 to 32.9 U.S. 25.8 to 28.9 percent--------I25.8 22.0 to 25.7 18.0 to 21.9 8.4 to 17.9 Opposite-Sex Unmarried-Partner Households, 2000 Opposite-sex unmarriedpartner households as a percentage of all households 7.0 to 14.6 6.0 to 6.9 U.S. percent 4.3 4.3 to 5.9 3.0 to 4.2 2.0 to 2.9 0.0 to 1.9 0 100 m i U.S. Census Bureau 71 Chapter 5. Living Arrangements Number of divorced people per 100 married people 30.0 to 51.7 25.0 to 29.9 U.S. ratio 19.1 19.1 to 24.9 15.0 to 19.0 10.0 to 14.9 0.0 to 9.9 72 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 5. Living Arrangements Number of divorced men per 100 married men 30.0 to 69.9 25.0 to 29.9 20.0 to 24.9 U.S. ratio 16.4 16.4 to 19.9 10.0 to 16.3 0.0 to 9.9 Number of divorced women per 100 married women 30.0 to 48.7 25.0 to 29.9 U.S. ratio - 21.8 to 24.9 21.8 15.0 to 21.7 10.0 to 14.9 0.0 to 9.9 U.S. Census Bureau 73 Chapter 5. Living Arrangements 74 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 5. Living Arrangements Female One-Parent Families, 2000 Percentage of fam ilies with children m aintained by w o m en w ith no husband present 40.0 to 54.4 30.0 to 39.9 U.S. percent 219 21.9 to 29.9 12.0 to 21.8 6.0 to 11.9 2.5 to 5.9 U.S. Census Bureau 75 Chapter 5. Living Arrangements Married-Couple Families, 2000 Married-Couple Families, 2000 White Non-Hispanic Families With Children Black Families With Children 80.0 or m ore 70.0 to 79.9 77.6 to 97.4 Percentage of non-Hispanic W h ite fam ilies with children m aintained by m arried couples Percentage of Black fam ilies w ith children m aintained b y m arried couples 70.0 to 77.5 60.0 to 69.9 60.0 to 69.9 50.0 to 59.9 U.S. 41.9 to 49.9 419 50.0 to 59.9 Less than 41.9 No Black families with children Married-Couple Families, 2000 American Indian and Alaska Native Families With Children Married-Couple Families, 2000 Asian Families With Children • e s r- - 80.0 or m ore 86.1 or m ore 70.0 to 79.9 Percentage of A m erican Indian and Alaska N ative fam ilies with children m aintained by m arried couples U.S. 58.3 to 69.9 58.3 50.0 to 58.2 70.0 to 86.0 Percentage of Asian fam ilies with children m aintained by m arried couples 60.0 to 69.9 50.0 to 59.9 40.0 to 49.9 40.0 to 49.9 Less than 40.0 Less than 40.0 1 No AIAN families I ____I with children _ 76 No Asian families with children U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 5. Living Arrangements 80.0 or m ore 80.0 or m ore 71.0 to 79.9 Percentage of Pacific Islander fam ilies w ith children m aintained b y m arried couples 60.0 to 70.9 50.0 to 59.9 Percentage of Two or M ore Races fam ilies with children m aintained by m arried couples U.S. percent — 65.4 60.0 to 65.3 50.0 to 59.9 40.0 to 49.9 40.0 to 49.9 Less than 40.0 No Pacific Islander families with children 65.4 to 79.9 Less than 40.0 i I____ I No Two or More Races families with children 80.0 or m ore Percentage of Hispanic fam ilies w ith children m aintained by m arried couples U.S. percent — 69.4 69.4 to 79.9 60.0 to 69.3 50.0 to 59.9 40.0 to 49.9 Less than 40.0 □ U.S. Census Bureau No Hispanic families with children 77 Chapter 5. Living Arrangements 58.1 or more Percentage of non-Hispanic W h ite fam ilies w ith children m aintained b y m en or w o m en with no sp ouse present U.S. 22.4 3 50.0 to 58.0 40.0 to 50.0 30.0 to 39.9 40.0 to 49.9 Percentage of Black fam ilies with children m aintained by m en or w o m e n w ith no sp ouse present 22.4 to 29.9 10.0 to 22.3 30.0 to 39.9 20.0 to 29.9 10.0 to 19.9 Less than 10.0 Less than 10.0 No Black families with children One-Parent Families, 2000 One-Parent Families, 2000 American Indian and Alaska Native Families With Children Asian Families With Children o 60.0 or m ore 60.0 or m ore 50.0 to 59.9 Percentage of Am erican Indian and Alaska N ative fam ilies with children m aintained by m en or w o m en with no sp ouse present 41.7 to 49.9 30.0 to 41.6 20.0 to 29.9 10.0 to 19.9 Less than 10.0 No AIAN families with children 78 50.0 to 59.9 40.0 to 49.9 Percentage of Asian fam ilies with children m aintained by m en or w o m en with no spouse present 30.0 to 39.9 20.0 to 29.9 U.S. percent 13.9 13.9 to 19.9 Less than 13.9 No Asian families with children U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 5. Living Arrangements One-Parent Families, 2000 Two or More Races Families With Chi ■ £ 3 ?- 60.0 or m ore 60.0 or m ore 50.0 to 59.9 Percentage of Pacific Islander fam ilies with children m aintained by men or w o m en with no sp ouse present 40.0 to 49.9 29.0 to 39.9 20.0 to 28.9 50.0 to 59.9 Percentage of Two or M ore Races fam ilies with children m aintained by men or w o m en with no spouse present 40.0 to 49.9 34.6 to 39.9 20.0 to 34.5 10.0 to 19.9 10.0 to 19.9 Less than 10.0 Less than 10.0 No Pacific Islander families with children No Two or More Races families with children 60.0 or m ore 50.0 to 59.9 Percentage of Hispanic fam ilies with children m aintained by m en or w om en with no sp ouse present 40.0 to 49.9 30.6 to 39.9 20.0 to 30.5 10.0 to 19.9 Less than 10.0 No Hispanic families with children U.S. Census Bureau 79 Chapter 5. Living Arrangements One-Parent Families, 2000 American Indian and Alaska Native Families With Children Reservations With Largest AIAN Populations Percentage of A m erican Indian and Alaska N ative fam ilies with children m aintained by men or w o m en with no spouse present 73.4 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 80 --- U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 5. Living Arrangements N um ber of children under 5 years old per 100 w o m en 15 to 49 More children per woman 35.0 to 49.5 30.0 to 34.9 U.S. 26.7 to 29.9 26.7 24.0 to 26.6 20.0 to 23.9 Fewer children per woman 0.0 to 19.9 Multigenerational households as a percentage of all households 10.0 to 20.2 7.0 to 9.9 5.0 to 6.9 U.S. percent 3.7 3.7 to 4.9 2.0 to 3.6 0.0 to 1.9 U.S. Census Bureau 81 Chapter 5. Living Arrangements METROPOLITAN AREAS San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA Grandparents Responsible for Their Ow n Grandchildren, 2000 Largest Metropolitan Areas 6.0 or more Percentage of population 30 and older responsible fo r their own grandchildren living in the home; U .S. m ap b y county, m etropolitan area m aps by census tract 3.0 to 5.9 1.5 to 2.9 0.5 to 1.4 Less than 0.5 No population 30 and older Boston-WorcesterLawrence-LowellBrockton PhiladelphiaW ilm ingtonA tla n tic City Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, Chicago-Gary-| \ Kenosha S a n FranciscoO akland-San Jo s e N ewYorkNorthern N e w Je rsey Long Island W ashingtonJB altim o re Los A ngeles-Riverside O range C o u n ty ' A tla n ta' Dallas- FortWorthl r HoustonGalvestonBrazoria Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX 82 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 5. Living Arrangements METROPOLITAN AREAS Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH W IS CO N S I ILLINOIS DIA N, Dallas-Fort Worth, TX New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA TEX AS AS S A NEW YORK CONNECTICUT ,05-42 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD New York P E N N S YLVAN IA Philaj JE R S E Y Wilmini MARY “Atlantic City Baltimore Atlanta, GA tasbiftgl D ELAW A RE Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV U.S. Census Bureau 05-43 83 Chapter 5. Living Arrangements METROPOLITAN AREAS Sam e-Sex Unmarried-Partner Households, 2000 Largest Metropolitan Areas 5.0 or more Sam e-sex unmarried-partner households as a percentage of all households; U.S. m ap by county, m etropolitan area m aps by census tract 4.0 to 4.9 2.0 to 3.9 U.S. percent 0.6 0.6 to 1.9 Less than 0.6 No households Los Angeles-Riverside- % O range C o u n ty * Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA 84 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria,TX U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 5. Living Arrangements METROPOLITAN AREAS Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH Dallas-Fort Worth, TX New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA T E X AS hort Worth Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD New York N EW JE R S E Y Atlantic City Atlanta, GA Washington, D ELA W A R E Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV U.S. Census Bureau 85 Chapter 5. Living Arrangements A verag e num ber of people in a household ■ u.s. j average-------- 2.6 4.0 to 4.4 3.0 to 3.9 2.6 to 2.9 2.3 to 2.5 1.3 to 2.2 86 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 5. Living Arrangements N um ber of people in nursing hom es by county o o 20,000 to 37,000 10,000 to 19,999 0 5,000 to 9,999 ° 500 to 4,999 20,000 to 42,000 N um ber of people in dormitories, university-owned off-campus housing, and fraternity and sorority houses by county 10.000 to 19,999 5.000 to 9,999 500 to 4,999 1 to 499 N um ber of people in prisons, jails, and other confinem ent facilities b y county o o © 20,000 to 29,000 10,000 to 19,999 5,000 to 9,999 500 to 4,999 1 to 499 U.S. Census Bureau 1 to 499 N um ber of people in prisons, jails, and other confinem ent facilities by county • o 20,000 to 29,000 10,000 to 19,999 • 5,000 to 9,999 • 500 to 4,999 1 to 499 87 Chapter 6 Place of Birth and U.S. Citizenship Chapter 6 Place of Birth and U.S. Citizenship f the 281.4 million people in the United Figure 6-1. States in 2000, 31.1 million (or 11.1 per Foreign Bom (m illio n s) by Place o f Birth, 2000 O cent) were foreign born. Individuals from Latin America represented 52 percent of the total foreign-born population, followed by those from Asia (26 percent), Europe (16 percent), and other areas of the world (6 percent). Natives are those born in the United States or Puerto Rico, born in a U.S. island area (such as Guam), or born abroad of a U.S.-citizen parent. The U.S. Census Bureau considers anyone who is not born a U.S. citizen or a U.S. national to be foreign born. Because a person may be born outside the United States and be a U.S. citizen at birth (i.e., born abroad to a U.S.-citizen parent), information on place of birth cannot be used alone to determine whether an individ Note: China includes those w ho responded China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, or the Paracel Islands. Korea includes those w ho responded Korea, North Korea, or South Korea. ual is native or foreign born. The concept and measurement of citizenship and nativity have evolved across censuses. In the 1820 and 1830 decennial censuses, enumerators recorded The number of foreign born increased by 88 per Mexico), 3.0 million people (10 percent) were from the cent in the South between 1990 and 2000, followed Caribbean, and 1.9 million people (6.2 percent) were the number of individuals who were “aliens” (foreign by 65 percent in the Midwest, 50 percent in the West, from South America. ers who were not naturalized citizens). Questions con and 38 percent in the Northeast. The West had the cerning an individual’s place of birth have been asked largest foreign-born population in 2000 (1 1.8 million), in the decennial census since 1850. In many decennial followed by the South (8.6 million), the Northeast (7.2 of the total foreign-born population, respectively. The censuses, an additional question asked for the year in million), and the Midwest (3.5 million). foreign born from Africa, Northern America, and which a person born outside the United States came to live in the United States. Foreign-born residents accounted for 19 percent The foreign born from Asia and Europe accounted for 26 percent (8.2 million) and 16 percent (4.9 million) Oceania each composed 3 percent or less of the total of the population in the West and 14 percent of the foreign-born population. The foreign born from Mexico population in the Northeast, exceeding the national accounted for 9.2 million people, or 30 percent of the Foreign-Born Population Gains From 1990 to 2000 level of 11.1 percent. The proportion was below the total U.S. foreign-born population, making Mexico the national level in the South (8.6 percent) and the largest country of birth (Figure 6-1). China (1.5 million) Between 1990 and 2000, the foreign-born population Midwest (5.5 percent). and the Philippines (1.4 million) were the next largest sources, providing 4.9 percent and 4.4 percent of the increased by 57 percent, from 19.8 million to 31.1 Origins of the Foreign-Born Population in 2000 total foreign born, respectively. the native population and 13 percent for the total U.S. population. The foreign born who were naturalized In 2000, over 16 million foreign-born individuals were across the United States. In 2000, 45 percent of the citizens of the United States increased by 56 percent from Latin America, representing 52 percent of the foreign born from Asia, 34 percent from Northern (from 8.0 million to 12.5 million), compared with an total foreign-born population. Of the foreign born from America, and 66 percent from Oceania lived in the increase of 58 percent for those who were not U.S. Latin America, 1 1.2 million people (36 percent of all West, home to the largest concentrations of these pop citizens (from 1 1.8 million to 18.6 million). foreign born) were from Central America (including ulations in the United States. Individuals from Europe million, compared with an increase of 9.3 percent for 90 Foreign-born groups are distributed unevenly U.S. Census Bureau were most likely to live in the Northeast (38 percent), (274 percent), Georgia (233 percent), and Nevada Figure 6-2. while the foreign born from Africa lived primarily in (202 percent). In 16 states, this group grew by 100 the South (35 percent) and the Northeast (31 percent). percent to 199 percent; in 12 states by 57 percent Percent Naturalized of the Foreign-Born Population by Year of Entry and World Region of Birth, 2000 The proportion of the foreign born who were (the national average) to 100 percent; and in the from Latin America ranged from 63 percent in the remaining 19 states and the District of Columbia by South to 36 percent in the Midwest. The proportion less than 57 percent. The only growth rate below 10 from Asia ranged from 32 percent in the West to 19 percent occurred in Maine (1.1 percent). percent in the South, and those from Europe ranged The foreign born represented 26 percent of the from 26 percent in the Midwest and Northeast to 10 population in California in 2000, the highest propor percent in the West. tion in any state (maps 06-01 and 06-02). The per centage also exceeded the national average (11.1 State-Level Patterns percent) in nine other states and the District of In 2000, 21.3 million foreign born (68 percent of the Columbia: New York (20 percent), New Jersey and total) lived in the six states with foreign-born popula Hawaii (1 8 percent each), Florida (1 7 percent), tions of 1 million or more: California, Florida, Illinois, Nevada (16 percent), Texas (14 percent), the District New Jersey, New York, and Texas. Fifty percent of the of Columbia and Arizona (1 3 percent each), and foreign-born population (15.6 million people) lived Illinois and Massachusetts (12 percent each). B efore 1 9 8 0 I 9 8 0 to 1 9 8 9 lion), or Texas (2.9 million). The foreign-born popula tion ranged from 500,000 up to 1 million in eight 1 9 9 0 to M arch 2000 either in California (8.9 million), New York (3.9 mil Foreign-Born Populations in “Gateway” Areas and Large Cities (California to Texas) and the New York and Miami states and from 100,000 up to 500,000 in 19 states. In 2000, the percentage foreign born was at or metropolitan areas. Additional areas with high con The foreign born numbered fewer than 100,000 in the above the U.S. average in 199 of the 3,141 counties centrations of the foreign-born population included in the United States. Many of these counties are in the Pacific Northwest and the Washington, DC metro areas that have been gateways for immigrants in politan area. 17 remaining states and the District of Columbia. From 1990 to 2000, the foreign born increased by 200 percent or more in three states: North Carolina recent decades: southwestern border states The foreign born were the majority of the population in one U.S. county: Miami-Dade County, Florida, which was home to 1.1 million foreign born— 51 percent of the county’s population. The foreign born represented 20 percent or more in 60 additional counties, some of which are far from the “gateway” areas noted earlier. Among cities, the largest foreign-born populations in 2000 were in New York (2.9 million), Los Angeles (1.5 million), Chicago (629,000), and Houston (516,000). Together, their share of the nation’s foreign-born population was 18 percent, while their share of the total population was 5.9 percent. In three cities, the total population was not among the ten largest, while the foreign-born U.S. Census Bureau 91 Chapter 6. Place of Birth and U.S. Citizenship A Percent Naturalized, 2000 Foreign Born En tered 1980 to 1989 06-03 population was—San Jose (330,000 foreign born), San Francisco (286,000), and Miami (216,000). 06-05 Within separate race and Hispanic-origin cate ratio for those from Cuba was 107.4, while for the for eign born from the Dominican Republic the sex ratio one group— 69 percent of Asians were foreign born. Citizenship Status, Race, and Hispanic-Origin Patterns gories, the foreign born represented the majority in was 90.8. The foreign born accounted for 24 percent of the pop The percentage foreign born by age group varied ulation of Two or More Races, 20 percent of Pacific across the country, as shown in maps 06-19 through In 2000, 40.3 percent of the foreign born were natu Islanders, 6.1 percent of Blacks, and 3.5 percent of 06-21. Nationally, 14 percent of the population 18 to ralized U.S. citizens, down slightly from 40.5 percent the non-Hispanic White population. Among Hispanics, 64 years old in 2000 was foreign born, compared with in 1990. The percentage naturalized varied by period 40 percent were foreign born. 10 percent of the population 65 and older and 5 per cent of the population aged 5 to 17. These age groups of entry: 74 percent of the foreign born who entered the United States prior to 1980 and 13 percent of This Chapter’s Maps broadly represent populations of school age, working those who entered in 1990 or later were naturalized The foreign-born presence in the largest cities is seen age, and retirement age. The geographic patterns for U.S. citizens by 2000 (Figure 6-2 and maps 06-03 in maps 06-23 through 06-31, which show the percent all three age groups were similar, with higher percent through 06-05). foreign born by census tract. Chicago, for example, ages foreign born found in the immigrant gateway contains neighborhoods with large percentages for areas noted earlier. The foreign born who were naturalized U.S. citi zens (40 percent nationally) outnumbered those who eign born as well as neighborhoods with small per were not citizens in seven states in 2000: Alaska, centages foreign born. Philadelphia also has a sizable States had experienced three decades of large-scale Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and number of census tracts with relatively low percent immigration, reminiscent in relative magnitude to the West Virginia. The proportion naturalized ranged from ages foreign born. In New York and Los Angeles, large-scale immigration from the 1840s until World 60 percent in Hawaii to 26 percent in North Carolina. many census tracts have high percentages War I. This chapter’s maps demonstrate the geographic foreign born. impact of immigration and the growth of the foreign- In 2000, the foreign born were less likely than natives to report that they were non-Hispanic White Maps 06-37 through 06-60 present sex ratios for By the end of the twentieth century, the United born population across the country. In 2000, people (43 percent compared with 79 percent), and more the foreign born from selected Latin American coun born outside the United States constituted sizable pop likely than natives to report being Asian (23 percent tries of origin and years of entry. The overall sex ratio ulations in many parts of the country, from neighbor compared with 1.3 percent). Almost half—46 per for Mexicans who entered from 1996 to 2000 was hoods in the largest cities to rural counties in the cent—of the foreign-born population was Hispanic, 144.1. For many states in the southeastern United Midwest and the South. compared with 8.4 percent of natives. States, the ratio was considerably higher. The sex 92 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 6. Place of Birth and U.S. Citizenship Percent Foreign Born, 2000 30.0 to 50.9 11.1 to 29.9 7.0 to 11.0 3.0 to 6.9 1.0 to 2.9 0.0 to 0.9 Census 2000 data revealed that the foreign-born popula tion was 31.1 million, representing 11.1 percent of the country's total population. The percentage of the population that was foreign born varied by county. Nation wide, most counties in 2000 had percentages under the U.S. figure, but a handful of counties had populations that were more than one-third foreign born. Many of the U.S. Census Bureau counties that had foreign-born percentages at or above the U.S. figure also had large total populations. Some counties with relatively small populations also had high percentages of foreign-born residents. The foreign-born population in 2000 was geo graphically concentrated. The high-percentage counties were generally located in southern Florida, southwestern Kansas, western Oklahoma, and in the West— particularly in areas near the border with Mexico, central California, and Washington. Other pockets of counties with high percentages of their populations foreign born included counties within the Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, New York, and Washington-Baltimore metropolitan areas. 93 Chapter 6. Place of Birth and U.S. Citizenship Sex Ratio, 2000 Sex Ratio, 2000 Sex Ratio, 2000 Foreign Born From Asia Foreign Born From Euro pe Foreign Born From Africa 150.1 (PR) 100.0 to 104.5 91.6 to 99.9 75.0 to 91.5 53.4 to 74.9 06-10 Sex Ratio, 2000 94 Sex Ratio, 2000 Sex Ratio, 2000 Foreign Born From Latin Am erica Foreign Born From Oceania Foreign Born From N o rth ern Am erica U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 6. Place of Birth and U.S. Citizenship 55.0 or more 45.0 to 54.9 40.0 to 44.9 U.S. median - 35.0 to 39.9 25.0 to 34.9 35.0 Less than 25.0 Median Age, 2000 55.0 or m ore 45.0 to 54.9 40.0 to 44.9 U.S. median 37.5 to 39.9 37.5 25.0 to 37.4 Less than 25.0 No foreign-born population 0 100 mi U.S. Census Bureau 95 Chapter 6. Place of Birth and U.S. Citizenship Percent Native, 2000 Percentage native of population 18 to 64 years old 95.0 or more 90.0 to 94.9 U.S. percent - 86.0 86.0 to 89.9 75.0 to 85.9 50.0 to 74.9 39.0 to 49.9 Percent Native, 2000 Population 65 and Older us■ percent — 94.8 Percentage native of population 5 to 17 years old 90.0 to 94.7 85.0 to 89.9 75.0 to 84.9 72.3 to 74.9 96 95.0 or m ore 94.8 or m ore Percentage native of population 65 and older U.S. percent 90.5 90.5 to 94.9 85.0 to 90.4 75.0 to 84.9 50.0 to 74.9 32.5 to 49.9 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 6. Place of Birth and U.S. Citizenship Percentage foreign born of population 18 to 64 years old 50.0 to 61.0 25.0 to 49.9 U.S. percent 14.0 14.0 to 24.9 10.0 to 13.9 5.0 to 9.9 Less than 5.0 Percent Foreign Born, 2000 Population 65 and Older 50.0 to 67.5 25.0 to 27.7 25.0 to 49.9 15.0 to 24.9 Percentage foreign born of population 5 to 17 years old U.S. Census Bureau 10.0 to 14.9 U.S. percent 5.2 5.2 to 9.9 Less than 5.2 Percentage foreign born of population 65 and older 15.0 to 24.9 9.5 to 14.9 5.0 to 9.4 Less than 5.0 97 Chapter 6. Place of Birth and U.S. Citizenship CITIES Los Angeles, CA Percent Foreign Born, 2000 Largest Cities 50.0 or m ore Percentage of population foreign born; U .S. m ap by county, city m aps by cen sus tract 25.0 to 49.9 U.S. percent f l 7 .7 7 11.1 to 24.9 5.0 to 11.0 Less than 5.0 No population Chicagi • N e w York 'Philad elp hia Los A n g e le s # S a n Diegoi Dallas San Anto nio H ouston San Diego, CA 98 Phoenix, AZ San Antonio,TX U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 6. Place of Birth and U.S. Citizenship CITIES U.S. Census Bureau 99 Chapter 6. Place of Birth and U.S. Citizenship 100 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 6. Place of Birth and U.S. Citizenship Percent From the Philippines, 2000 Foreign-Born Population - 50.0 or m ore 50.0 or m ore 30.0 to 49.9 30.0 to 49.9 15.0 to 29.9 15.0 to 29.9 10.0 to 14.9 10.0 to 14.9 U.S. percent 4.9 0.0 to 4.8 0.0 to 4.3 No foreign-born population U.S. Census Bureau 4.9 to 9.9 U.S. percent No foreign-born population 4.4 to 9.9 101 Chapter 6. Place of Birth and U.S. Citizenship SEX RATIOS (M ALES PER 100 FEM ALES) FOR LARGEST FOREIGN-BORN POPULATIONS FROM LATIN AM ERICA Mexico Cuba El Salvador Entered Before 1980 Entered Before 1980 Entered Before 1980 Mexico Cuba El Salvador Entered 1980 to 1989 Entered 1980 to 1989 Entered 1980 to 1989 Mexico Cuba El Salvador Entered 1990 to 1995 Entered 1990 to 1995 Entered 1990 to 1995 ^ m a le s U.S. r a tio 126.3 M o re 200.0 or more 126.3 to 199.9 100.0 to 126.2 85.0 to 99.9 50.0 to 84.9 Less than 50.0 ~| No foreign born entered from Cuba Mexico 102 Cuba El Salvador Entered 1996 to 2000 Entered 1996 to 2000 Entered 1996 to 2000 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 6. Place of Birth and U.S. Citizenship SEX RATIOS (M ALES PER 100 FEM ALES) FOR LARG EST FOREIGN-BORN POPULATIONS FROM LATIN A M ERIC A Dominican Republic Jamaica Colombia Entered Before 1980 Entered Before 1980 Entered Before 1980 Dominican Republic Jamaica Colombia Entered 1980 to 1989 Entered 1980 to 1989 Entered 1980 to 1989 Dominican Republic Jamaica Colombia Entered 1990 to 1995 Entered 1990 to 1995 Entered 1990 to 1995 Dominican Republic Entered 1996 to 2000 U.S. Census Bureau Jamaica Colombia Entered 1996 to 2000 Entered 1996 to 2000 103 Chapter 6. Place of Birth and U.S. Citizenship 104 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 6. Place of Birth and U.S. Citizenship Naturalized Citizens, 2000 Foreign Born Entered Before 1980 90.0 or m ore 90.0 or m ore 74.0 to 89.9 Percentage naturalized citizens of foreign born w h o entered before 1980 50.0 to 73.9 30.0 to 49.9 75.0 to 89.9 Percentage naturalized citizens of foreign born w h o entered betw een 1980 and 1989 U.S. 44.6 to 74.9 44.6 30.0 to 44.5 15.0 to 29.9 15.0 to 29.9 Less than 15.0 Less than 15.0 No foreign born entered before 1980 1 I____ I No foreign born entered 1980 to 1989 Percentage naturalized citizens of foreign born w h o entered between 1990 and 2000 90.0 or m ore 75.0 to 89.9 50.0 to 74.9 30.0 to 49.9 U.S. percent 13.4 13.4 to 29.9 Less than 13.4 No foreign born entered 1990 to 2000 U.S. Census Bureau 105 Chapter 7 Migration Chapter 7 Migration A mericans have traditionally been highly mobile, with nearly 1 in 7 people chang higher levels of educational attainment than the area’s residents or outmigrants. ing residence each year. Some of these moves occur within the same neighborhood; others Why Figure 7-1. Percent of Population 5 and Older by Type of Move, 1995 to 2000 People Move There are mixed and multiple motives are to a different state or region. People move for many reasons, including a search for economic oppor tunities, the desire for a different social environment Sam e residen ce behind migration. Combinations of eco nomic and noneconomic factors can help or lifestyle, the beckoning lights of a bigger city, or explain the reasons why people move and the lure of a better climate. Regardless of the reason how far away they choose to move. Some for moving, migration has brought about substantial M o vers Within county of the economic factors include cost of and continued redistribution of the nation’s people. M ig r a t io n is commonly defined as a move that Different county, same state housing, employment opportunities, and Different state Abroad in 1995 10 20 30 40 50 commuting time to work. Noneconomic fac crosses a jurisdictional boundary, such as that of a tors include proximity to family, change in county or state. R e sid e n tia l m o b ility includes migration marital status, and a desire for better housing. as well as moves within a jurisdictional boundary. The socioeconomic characteristics of movers, “Go West, Young Man” Westward migration has been a hallmark of American Moves between counties are referred to as in t e rc o u n ty such as level of education and income, can also play migration, while moves that also cross state bound a role in the decisions people make. In general, the nation gradually expanded westward, the location of aries are called in te rsta te migration. Further, migration likelihood of migrating decreases with age (until the “West” shifted accordingly. In the early to mid can be differentiated as movement among the 50 retirement), and long-distance migration is more com nineteenth century, migrants from New England and states and District of Columbia ( d o m e s t ic , or internal, mon among the highly-educated. the Northeast settled much of the Great Lakes region migration for more than two centuries, and as the of the Midwest. In the Dust Bowl years of the 1950s, migration) and movement into and out of the United Distances of Moves many thousands of farm families in the hard-hit states Census 2000 revealed that most people were living in of the Great Plains and elsewhere migrated westward Migration’s Impact the same residence in 2000 as in 1995 (Figure 7-1). to California in search of work. Stark regional States ( in t e rn a tio n a l migration). Population redistribution has consequences for the ori Of the 262.4 million people aged 5 and older in differences in migration patterns from 1955 to 1940 gin and the destination communities as well as the 2000, 142.0 million, or 54.1 percent, were living in are seen in map 07-01, with the net domestic individual migrants. Migration can result in population the same residence as in 1995. In contrast, 120.5 mil outmigration in the Great Plains states contrasting decline or population growth for an area, depending lion people were living in a different residence in with the net domestic inmigration for many western on whether the net movement of people to the area is 2000 than in 1995. Most of the movers had not states. (Alaska and Hawaii, which became states in positive (more inmigrants than outmigrants) or nega moved a long distance. Indeed, 65.4 million of the 1959, were not part of the domestic migration tive (more outmigrants than inmigrants). Migration 120.5 million movers lived in a different residence universe in the 1940 census.) The flow of migrants to trends also can affect the size, age-sex structure, and within the same county in 1995 and 2000, while 22.1 California continued in the decades following World other characteristics of an area’s population. For million people had moved from a different state. In War II, with the result that in the early 1960s, instance, the average educational level of an area’s 2000, 7.5 million people reported they had lived California surpassed New York to become the nation’s population can increase if inmigrants to the area have abroad in 1995. most populous state. 108 U.S. Census Bureau occurred in many states in the Northeast and Midwest. 2000 are located in the southeast and parts of the such as Alabama and Mississippi, continued to experi In the 1950s and 1960s, some southern states, Four states (Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, and West (map 07-03). ence net outmigration to the rest of the country, Wyoming) that had net domestic inmigration between while others, including Florida and Texas, received 1975 and 1980 saw their migration patterns reverse considerable net domestic inmigration. These migra to net domestic outmigration 10 years later. Migration migrants in recent decades, the top destination region tion patterns were due, in part, to shifting economic patterns in these four states were likely affected by for migrants in the 1990s was the South (Figure 7-2). conditions. Florida, in particular, was the destination the economic hardships in the energy industry during Census 2000 migration data revealed that the South of many migrants from other states. Between 1965 the period 1985 to 1990. had the highest levels of net domestic inmigration Although some western states like Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado have attracted many new among the four regions, with a net gain of 1.8 million and 1970, Florida had net domestic migration of 573,000 people, a rate of 1 10.2 per 1,000 residents Contemporary Migration Patterns migrants in the preceding 5 years. The South was the in 1965 (map 07-02). State-level domestic migration patterns shifted again only region that experienced substantial net domestic for the period 1995 to 2000. California, historically a inmigration. The West had net domestic inmigration of Between 1975 and 1980, net domestic inmigra tion occurred in the majority of southern states, as destination for migrants from elsewhere in the United 12,000. The Northeast had domestic net outmigration Oklahoma, North Carolina, South Carolina, and States, changed roles and experienced net domestic of 1.3 million people, while the Midwest had net Tennessee joined Florida, Georgia, and Texas in outmigration of about 756,000. California’s population outmigration of 0.5 million people. experiencing net domestic inmigration from the rest still grew—from both natural increase (births minus of the country. deaths) and net international migration— but its expe cated that they were living in a different state 5 years rience in the 1990s illustrates that migration patterns earlier. Three regional patterns are visible on map In the 1985-to-l 990 period, net domestic inmi In 2000, 8 percent of the U.S. population indi gration occurred in southeastern states and in much often change over time. The states with the highest 07-04. First, a group of western states (with California of the West, while net domestic outmigration rates of net domestic migration between 1995 and as a notable exception) had high percentages of their U.S. Census Bureau 109 Chapter 7. Migration population living in another state Figure 7-2. various characteristics. The width of each arrow is 5 years earlier. Second, states sur Migrants (millions) by Type and Region, 199S to 2000 proportional to the migration flow. rounding the Great Lakes all had Domestic inmigrants lower percentages living in a differ ent state 5 years earlier. Finally, Region-to-region migration patterns have International inmigrants changed somewhat over time, as maps 07-10 and 07-11 demonstrate. Between 1955 and 1960, the Domestic outmigrants some states along the southern Northeast had net outmigration to all three other 5 Atlantic coast had percentages regions, the Midwest had net outmigration to the 4 South and the West, and the South had net out 3 migration to the West. Between 1995 and 2000, the 2 Northeast again had net outmigration to the Midwest, This chapter’s maps reveal a coun 1 the South, and the West; and the Midwest had net try of varied migration patterns. For 0 outmigration to the South and the West. Unlike in the some nonmetropolitan counties in I earlier period, however, the West had net outmigra exceeding the U.S. figure. This Chapter’s Maps the Great Plains and in Pennsylvania, 20 percent or more of householders in 2000 reported tion to the South between 1995 and 2000. -2 In some cases, the maps confirm commonly -3 N o rth e a st M id w e st So u th W e st held beliefs about migration patterns. Between 1995 that they were living in the same and 2000, the largest state-to-state net flow of house in 1969 (map 07-27). In migrants aged 65 and older was from New York to many counties in Florida and the West, in contrast, counties in the South also were in the highest less than 6 percent of householders reported living in category. the same residence in 1969. Some counties nation The percentage of a county’s 65-and-older popu Florida (map 07-1 5). Patterns shown in some maps may be less expected, however. One of the larger net flows of 25-to-39-year-olds was from Florida to Georgia (map 07-14). wide have mobile populations, with SO percent or lation that was born in its current state of residence more of their householders in 2000 reporting that varied geographically in 2000 (map 07-32). Some of they had changed residences in the previous year the counties with low percentages of their older between 1995 and 2000 lived in one of the six immi (map 07-28). For some counties, over one-fifth of the population born in their state reflect the inmigration gration gateway states with foreign-born populations population in 2000 was living in a different state 5 of retirees in recent decades. For other counties, the of 1 million or more in 2000: California, Florida, A majority of immigrants to the United States years earlier (map 07-30). Counties with the highest older adult populations migrated from other states as Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Texas. Three of percentages of inmigrants from other states often bor young adults or children. Many areas in southern those states— New York, California, and Illinois—also der one or more of these other states. Many coastal California are in the lowest category on the map, experienced considerable outmigration of their reflecting that much of its older population in 2000 foreign-born populations to other states during that had moved to California from other states in earlier same period. This secondary migration redistributed decades. some of the foreign-born population out of the gate Population Living in Different States in 1995 and 2000 The series of maps illustrating net domestic Percentage of population living in a different state in 2000 than in 1995 migration as captured in the 1970 through 2000 cen way states to other states. States receiving large numbers of foreign-born suses (maps 07-06 through 07-09) shows that domes migrants from California included Nevada, Texas, tic migration patterns for states also may differ from Arizona, and Washington (map 07-18). California’s role one period to the next. Texas and Colorado, for as a source of population redistribution was not lim instance, saw migration reversals over the decades, ited to neighboring states in the West— Georgia had with domestic net inmigration between 1975 and higher net foreign-born migration from California than 1980, net outmigration between 1985 and 1990, and from more geographically proximate gateway states net inmigration between 1995 and 2000. The maps with arrows in this chapter graphically represent flows of migrants among the states by 1 10 such as Florida or New York. New York’s largest flows of foreign-born migrants were to Florida, New Jersey, and California. U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 7. Migration Migration Between California and Other States, 1955 to 1960 and 1995 to 2000 Migration 1955 to 1960 Largest net migration flo w s between California and other states Migration 1995 to 2000 The above map portrays the largest state-to-state net migration flows involving California for the periods 1955 to 1960 and 1995 to 2000. For the earlier period, the largest flows involving California were all inflows to the state, generally from states in the midwestern or north eastern parts of the country. In the 1995 to 2000 period, nearly all of the largest flows involving California were outflows—that is, outmigration from California to other U.S. Census Bureau states, generally elsewhere in the West but also to states in the southeastern part of the country. The only inflow to California among its largest flows was from New York. The contrasts in internal migration for the two peri ods illustrate a recent shift in migration patterns for California, which historically had been a destination for migrants from elsewhere in the country. Between 1955 and 1960, California had net inmigration from nearly every state and an overall net gain of 1.1 million migrants. During the 1990s, in contrast, California experienced sus tained net outmigration to other states for the first time. In the 1995 to 2000 period, this net domestic outmigra tion from California totaled 756,000— second only to New York's net domestic outmigration of 874,000. 111 Chapter 7. Migration 20,000 to 49,999 20,000 to 49,999 Net dom estic migration into or out of the 50 states and District of Colum bia Oto 19,999 -20,000 to -1 Net dom estic migration into or out of the 50 states and District of Colum bia Oto 19,999 -20,000 to 1 © -50,000 to -20,001 o -100,000 to -50,001 20,000 to 49,999 Oto 19,999 -20,000 to 1 O o 20.000 to 49,999 Net dom estic migration into or out of the 50 states and District of Columbia Oto 19,999 20.000 to 1 -50,000 to -20,001 O -50,000 to -20,001 -100,000 to -50,001 o -100,000 to -50,001 -821,000 t o -100,001 1 12 -100,000 to -50,001 -1,098,000 t o -100,001 -568,000 t o -100,001 Net dom estic migration into or out of the 50 states and District of Colum bia -50,000 to -20,001 -875,000 to -100,001 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 7. Migration v Regional Migration, 1955 to 1960 W E ST y ^X 0 200 m i I 3u M igration from the Northeast < NORTHEAST WEST M ig ra tio n fro m th e M id w est ^ NORTHEAST 318 Gross dom estic m igration (in thousands) MIDWEST M igration from the South M igration from the W e st Net dom estic m igration (in thousands) Northeast to M idwest: Northeast to South: 40 Northeast to W est: 314 286 M id w est to South: M id w est to W est: 760 South to W est: 380 122 SOUTH W EST v y 'J Regional Migration, 1995 to 2000 W EST 0 200 m i 1 G ross dom estic m igration (in thousands) M igration from the Northeast M igration from the M id w est M igration from the South WEST MIDWEST M igration from the W e st Net dom estic m igration (in thousands) N ortheast to Midwest: N ortheast to South: N ortheast to W est: 57 1,035 179 M id w est to South: M id w est to W est: 495 104 W e st to South: 271 1,713 SOUTH. W E ST U.S. Census Bureau 11 3 Chapter 7. Migration 1 14 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 7. Migration Migration, 1995 to 2000 v Population 65 and Older / ’O Y 0 200 m i / Ten largest net flow s *4 ^ Migration U.S. Census Bureau ll5 Chapter 7. Migration 1 16 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 7. Migration Outmigration of the Foreign Bom, 1995 to 2000 California, New York, and Texas WA 26,700 NY 20,300 \ M o vem ent of the foreign born out of the im m igration g ate w a y states of California, N ew York, and Texas \ \ CA PA j / \^ ^ ^ ^ J 4 Z 7 0 0 j j NJ ir- NV From NY M igration from California M igration from N ew York 7 7 00 NC M igration from Texas AZ TX 42,400 FL 7 7 ,5 0 0 100 m i | fS " — -------- ■ ■ — 65,300 22,200 \ \ 0 \ 200 m i 0 100 m i 07-18 Outmigration of the Foreign Born, 1995 to 2000 Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey M o vem ent of the foreign born out of the im m igration g ate w a y states of Florida, Illinois, and N ew Je r s e y M igration from Florida M igration from Illinois M igration from N ew Je rs e y U.S. Census Bureau 1 17 Chapter 7. Migration 100.0 or m ore Net dom estic m igration rate per 1,000 non-Hispanic W h ite s in 1995 100.0 or m ore 50.0 to 99.9 50.0 to 99.9 0.0 to 49.9 -50.0 to -0.1 Net dom estic migration rate per 1,000 Blacks in 1995 0.0 to 49.9 -50.0 to -0.1 -100.0 t o -50.1 -100.0 t o -50.1 Less than -100.0 Less than -100.0 No Black population in 1995 100.0 or m ore Net dom estic m igration rate per 1,000 A m erican Indian and Alaska N atives in 1995 100.0 or m ore 50.0 to 99.9 50.0 to 99.9 0.0 to 49.9 -50.0 to -0.1 Net dom estic m igration rate per 1,000 A sians in 1995 0.0 to 49.9 -50.0 to -0.1 -100.0 t o -50.1 Less than -100.0 No AIAN population in 1995 1 18 -100.0 t o -50.1 Less than -100.0 No Asian population in 1995 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 7. Migration 100.0 or m ore 100.0 or m ore 50.0 to 99.9 50.0 to 99.9 0.0 to 49.9 Net dom estic migration rate per 1,000 Pacific Islanders in 1995 -50.0 to -0.1 Net dom estic m igration rate per 1,000 Two or M ore Races population in 1995 0.0 to 49.9 -50.0 to -0.1 -100.0 t o -50.1 -100.0 t o -50.1 Less than -100.0 Less than -100.0 No Pacific Islander population in 1995 i I____ I No Two or More Races population in 1995 100.0 or m ore 50.0 to 99.9 0.0 to 49.9 Net dom estic m igration rate per 1,000 Hispanics in 1995 -50.0 to -0.1 -100.0 t o -50.1 Less than -100.0 □ U.S. Census Bureau No Hispanic population in 1995 119 Chapter 7. Migration H O USEHO LDER M O BILITY Householders Living in the Percentage of all householders in 2000 living in the sam e house, apartm ent, or m obile hom e as in 1969 or earlier 20.0 to 27.8 16.0 to 19.9 13.0 to 15.9 U.S. percent 9.7 9.7 to 12.9 6.0 to 9.6 0.4 to 5.9 Percentage of householders w h o m oved from Ja n u a ry 1,1999, to April 1,2000 30.0 to 43.5 25.0 to 29.9 U.S. percent 19.9 19.9 to 24.9 16.0 to 19.8 12.0 to 15.9 6.0 to 11.9 120 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 7. Migration POPULATION M O BILITY Population Living in the Same Home in 1995 and 2000 Population Living in Different States in 1995 and 2000 70.0 to 90.5 Percentage of population living in the sam e house, apartm ent, or m obile hom e in 2000 as in 1995 20.0 to 63.3 65.0 to 69.9 60.0 to 64.9 U.S. percent 54.1 54.1 to 59.9 45.0 to 54.0 15.0 to 19.9 Percentage of population living in a different state in 2000 than in 1995 12.0 to 14.9 U.S. 8.4 8.4 to 11.9 5.0 to 8.3 0.0 to 4.9 15.4 to 44.9 Percent Residing in State of Birth, 2000 Total Population 90.0 to 96.5 90.0 to 100.0 80.0 to 89.9 80.0 to 89.9 70.0 to 79.9 U.S. 60.0 to 69.9 60.0 30.0 to 59.9 14.3 to 29.9 U.S. Census Bureau 70.0 to 79.9 U.S. percent 52.3 52.3 to 69.9 30.0 to 52.2 1.5 to 29.9 121 Language Chapter 8 Language x he languages spoken in the United States responded “yes” to this question were asked what lan Figure 8-2. today reflect the diversity of the country’s guage they spoke. The responses created about 380 population. In Census 2000, as in the two categories of single languages or language families. previous censuses, the U.S. Census Bureau asked peo People who indicated that they spoke another Speakers (m illions) o f Languages Most Frequently Spoken at Home, O ther Than English and Spanish, 20 0 0 ple aged 5 and older if they spoke a language other language at home were also asked to indicate how than English at home. Among the 262.4 million people well they spoke English. Respondents who said they aged S and older, 47.0 million (18 percent) spoke a spoke English “very well” were considered to have no language other than English at home. The maps in this difficulty with English. The remaining respondents chapter demonstrate the geographic patterns of lan who reported they spoke English “well,” “not well,” or guage use in the United States. Many of the map pat “not at all” are shown together as those who spoke terns seen in this chapter echo patterns seen in other English less than “very well.” chapters’ maps, particularly those showing distribu tions of the foreign-born population or of ancestries. Non-English-Language Speakers The number and percentage of people in the United The History of Census Bureau Data on Language States who spoke a language other than English at 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 home increased between 1980 and 2000. In 2000, 18 Various questions pertaining to language were asked percent of the total population aged 5 and older, or in the censuses from 1890 to 1970, including a ques 47.0 million people, reported they spoke a language tion on “mother tongue” (the language spoken in the other than English at home. These figures were up increased. Recent language patterns reflect the fact person’s home when he or she was a child). Census from 14 percent (31.8 million) in 1990 and 1 1 percent that most new immigrants to the United States now 2000 asked respondents whether they spoke a lan (23.1 million) in 1980. The number of people who hail from Latin America and Asia. guage other than English at home. Those who spoke a language other than English at home grew by After English (21 5.4 million speakers) and 38 percent in the 1980s and by 47 per Spanish (28.1 million speakers), Chinese was the lan Figure 8-1. cent in the 1990s. guage most commonly spoken at home in 2000 (2.0 Percent of Population 5 and Older Who Spoke a Language Other Than English at Home by Language Group, 1990 and 2000 Historical Patterns of Language Use (1.4 million) (Figure 8-2). The number and types of languages spo between 1990 and 2000 (Figure 8-1), and Spanish con ken in the United States have changed tinued to be the non-English language most frequently million), followed by French (1.6 million) and German Sp o k e la n g u a g e o th e r than E n g lis h a t hom e Spanish speakers grew by about 60 percent over time, reflecting shifts in the countries O ther IndoEuropean language English language, as the number of Chinese speakers grants to the United States came from O th er language Vietnamese speakers doubled over the decade, from sources of immigration shifted to Southern 2000 1990 rose from 1.2 to 2.0 million people. The number of Northern and Western Europe. As the main Asian and Pacific Island language about 507,000 speakers to just over 1 million speakers. and Eastern Europe at the turn of the Of the 20 non-English languages most frequently twentieth century, the number of people 10 124 from the fifth to the second-most widely spoken non- In the nineteenth century, most immi Spanish spoken at home in the United States. Chinese jumped sending immigrants to the United States. 15 spoken at home, the largest proportional increase was who spoke Italian, Yiddish, and Polish for Russian, whose speakers nearly tripled from U.S. Census Bureau 242,000 to 706,000. The second-largest percentage increase was for French Creole speakers (the language group that includes Haitian Creoles), whose numbers Percent Who Spoke a Language Other Than English at Home, 2000 P opulation 5 and O lder and Utah and between Arkansas and Oregon were not statistically different from one another. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of people speaking a language other than English decreased in more than doubled from 188,000 to 453,000. three states. North Dakota had the largest decrease State-Level Language Patterns in 2000 (19 percent), followed by Maine (1 1 percent) and In seven states, more than one-quarter of the popula Louisiana (2 percent). These three states also had low tion aged 5 and older spoke a language other than rates of population growth from 1990 to 2000. In 2000, most people who spoke a language English at home in 2000 (map 08-01). California had the largest percentage of non-English-language speak other than English at home reported they spoke ers (39 percent), followed by New Mexico (37 percent), English “very well” (55 percent, or 25.6 million peo Texas (31 percent), New York (28 percent), Hawaii (27 ple). When they are combined with those who spoke percent), and Arizona and New Jersey (each about 26 only English at home, 92 percent of the population percent). The five states where less than 5 percent of aged 5 and older had no difficulty speaking English. the population 5 and older spoke a language other The number of non-English-language speakers at The proportion of the population aged 5 and least doubled in six states from 1990 to 2000. The older who spoke English less than “very well” grew (4.8 percent), Alabama and Kentucky (each 3.9 per largest percentage increase occurred in Nevada, where from 4.8 percent in 1980 to 6.1 percent in 1990, and cent), Mississippi (3.6 percent), and West Virginia (2.7 the number increased by 193 percent. (Nevada also to 8.1 percent in 2000 (maps 08-02 through 08-04). percent). had the highest rate of population increase [66 per than English at home were all in the South—Tennessee cent] during the decade.) Georgia’s non-English- Linguistically Isolated Households Mexico as the state with the largest proportion of non- language-speaking residents increased by 164 percent, A linguistically isolated household is defined as one in which no person aged 14 and older speaks only During the 1990s, California surpassed New English-language speakers. In New Mexico, the propor followed by North Carolina (1 51 percent), Utah (1 10 tion increased from 36 to 37 percent; in California, it percent), Arkansas (104 percent), and Oregon (103 English at home or speaks another language at home rose from 31 to 39 percent. percent). The percentage increases between Arkansas and speaks English “very well.” In 2000, 4.4 million Percent Who Spoke English Less Than "Very Well," 1980 Percent Who Spoke English Less Than "Very W ell" 1990 Percent Who Spoke English Less Than "Very Well," 2000 Population 5 and O lde r P opulation 5 and O lde r P opulation 5 and O ld e r U.S. Census Bureau l 25 Chapter 8. Language households, with 11.9 million people, were linguisti every state. Many similarities in patterns exist patterns shown on these maps, map 08-07 on linguis cally isolated. The corresponding numbers were lower between those displayed in language prevalence maps tically isolated households, and earlier maps on the in 1990, when 2.9 million households with 7.7 million and map 09-04 (prevalent ancestry) at the start of the percent foreign born in the chapter on the foreign- people were linguistically isolated. ancestry chapter. born population. Native North American languages are prominent The relationship between nativity and the ten This Chapter’s Maps in the two maps on prevalent language by county dency to speak Spanish at home in 2000 is revealed For a majority of counties in 2000, the prevalent lan (maps 08-06 and 08-21). Maps 08-30 and 08-31 focus in maps 08-09 and 08-10. In 2000, 6.4 percent of guage spoken at home, excluding English, was on the American Indian and Alaska Native population natives and 43.4 percent of foreign-born people Spanish (map 08-06). Exceptions included parts of in more detail. The percentage of AIAN populations reported speaking Spanish at home. Counties with Louisiana, where the prevalent language for parishes speaking a native North American language at home high percentages of natives speaking Spanish at home in the southern half of the state was French (including varied widely, with high figures for some reservations often also had high percentages of their foreign-born Patois and Cajun). French was also the prevalent non- and cities in the southwest and lower percentages for populations speaking Spanish at home. English language for most counties in northern New many of the other large reservations and cities. England. German was the prevalent non-English lan Map 08-34 shows the geographic distribution of A diverse group of languages is spoken in the United States, as shown in this chapter’s state-, guage spoken at home for a band of counties in the the 8.1 percent of the total population who reported county-, and census tract-level maps. From Navajo and Dakotas and other parts of the Midwest, while Navajo speaking English less than “very well” in 2000. The other native North American languages spoken on the was the prevalent non-English language for several ability to speak English for the school-aged population largest American Indian and Alaska Native reservations counties in northeast Arizona. After excluding both is explored in maps 08-1 1 through 08-20, which show to English-speaking ability among the school-aged English and Spanish, the language most commonly the distribution in the largest cities of the population 5 population in our largest cities, the maps in this chap spoken at home in 2000 for many counties was to 17 years old who spoke English less than “very ter illustrate the linguistic diversity in the United German (map 08-21), including counties in nearly well” (6.6 percent). Similarities exist between the States. 126 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 8. Language Percent W ho Spoke a Language Other Than English at Home, 2000 Population 5 and Older 50.0 to 92.1 30.0 to 49.9 u .s. In 2000, many of the counties with a large percentage of their population speaking a language other than English at home stretched along the border with Mexico from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. Many of these coun ties also had a large percentage of their population born outside the United States. Outside the southwestern and western parts of the country, other areas—also with sizable foreign-born U.S. Census Bureau 17.9 to 29.9 percent 17.9 10.0 to 17.8 populations in 2000— had high proportions speaking a lan guage other than English at home. These areas included counties in south Florida, the Boston to Washington met ropolitan corridor, metropolitan Atlanta, and metropolitan Chicago. Not all of the darker-shaded counties in the above map had large numbers of foreign-born residents. Some counties in Alaska, the rural Midwest, and the West contained sizable American Indian and Alaska Native communities. Navajo speakers in the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation, spanning counties in Arizona and New Mexico, accounted for a large proportion of the population in those counties that spoke a language other than English at home. Several sparsely populated counties in North Dakota and South Dakota had high percentages of the native population that spoke German at home in 2000. 127 Chapter 8. Language Prevalent Language Spoken at Home, 2000 M ost com m on language spoken at hom e, excluding English, for the population 5 and older N ative North Am erican language Czech Finnish French G erm an Italian Miao, Hmong Norw egian Pen nsylvan ia Dutch Polish Portuguese Spanish Tagalog Other language Only English spoken Linguistically Isolated Households, 2000 Percentage of households in w hich all m em bers 14 and older spoke English less than "v e ry w e ll" 20.0 to 33.9 10.0 to 19.9 7.0 to 9.9 U.S. percent ' 4.1 4.1 to 6.9 1.0 to 4.0 0.0 to 0.9 Data not comparable 128 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 8. Language 70.0 to 93.2 70.0 to 100.0 40.0 to 69.9 Percentage of native population 5 and older w h o spoke Span ish at hom e 15.0 to 39.9 U.S. percent 6.4 6.4 to 14.9 43.4 to 69.9 Percentage of foreign-born population 5 and older w h o spoke Spanish at home 15.0 to 43.3 6.0 to 14.9 2.0 to 6.3 2.0 to 5.9 0.0 to 1.9 0.0 to 1.9 No foreign-born population U.S. Census Bureau 129 Chapter 8. Language CITIES Los Angeles, CA Spoke English Less Than "Very Well," 2000 School-Age Population Largest Cities 60.0 to 100.0 30.0 to 59.9 Percentage of population 5 to 17 years old w h o spoke English " w e ll," "n o t w e ll," or "n o t at all"; U .S . m ap by county, city m aps by census tract 15.0 to 29.9 U.S. percent 6.6 6.6 to 14.9 2.0 to 6.5 0.0 to 1.9 No population 5 to 17 130 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 8. Language CITIES U.S. Census Bureau 131 Chapter 8. Language Prevalent Language Spoken at Home, 2000 Excluding English and Spanish M ost com m on language spoken at hom e, excluding English and Spanish, fo r the population 5 and older Native North A m erican language Chinese Czech French G erm an Italian Korean Laotian M iao, Hmong Norw egian Pennsylvania Dutch Polish Portuguese Tagalog ■ □ Vietnam ese Other language Only English or Spanish spoken Distribution of Italian Speakers, 2000 Percentage share of the U.S. population 132 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 8. Language Percentage of population 5 and older w h o spoke French at home 20.0 to 27.4 10.0 to 19.9 5.0 to 9.9 2.0 to 4.9 U.S. percent - 0.6 0.6 to 1.9 0.0 to 0.5 U.S. Census Bureau 133 Chapter 8. Language 134 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 8. Language Non-English-Speaking Population, 1900 ■ wm- 10.0 to 53.2 7.0 to 9.9 Percentage of population 10 and older unable to speak English w e ll enough to be understood in ordin ary conversation 5.0 to 6.9 2.5 to 4.9 1.0 to 2.4 0.0 to 0.9 Data not available to speak English w e ll enough to be understood in ordin ary conversation O G o 30.000 to 49,999 15.000 to 29,999 2,500 to 14,999 1 to 2,499 Data not available Percentage of population 5 and older w h o spoke English "w e ll," "n o t w e ll," or "n o t at all" 60.0 to 81.4 30.0 to 59.9 15.0 to 29.9 u .s. 8.1 to 14.9 percent ~ 8.1 2.0 to 8.0 0.0 to 1.9 U.S. Census Bureau 135 w ^ ^ ^ C h a p te r 9 Ancestry Chapter 9 Ancestry A ncestry is a broad concept that can mean having one or both parents born outside the United different things to different people; it can States. The Census 2000 ancestry question allowed be described alternately as where a per respondents to give one or two attributions of their son’s ancestors are from, where individuals or their “ancestry or ethnic origin” and enabled people to identify an ethnic background, such as German, parents were born, or simply how people see them selves ethnically. Some people may have one distinct ancestry, while others are descendents of several ancestry groups, and still others may know only that Lebanese, Nigerian, or Portuguese. Ancestries discussed in this chapter also include the groups covered in the Census 2000 their ancestors were from a particular region of the questions on race and Hispanic origin, such as world or they may not know their ethnic origins at all. African American, Mexican, American Indian, and The U.S. Census Bureau defines ancestry as a person’s Chinese. For these groups, the results from the ethnic origin, heritage, descent, or “roots,” and it may ancestry question and the race and Hispanic-origin reflect a person’s place of birth, the birthplace of his questions differed, and the latter are the official or her parents or ancestors, or ethnic identities that sources of data for race groups and Hispanics. In have evolved within the United States. some cases, the totals reported on the Census 2000 ancestry question were lower than the num Collecting Data on Ancestry bers from the race or Hispanic-origin questions. For The question about ancestry first appeared on the cen instance, nearly 12 million fewer people specified sus form in 1980, replacing a question about where a “African American” as their ancestry than gave that person’s parents were born. The parental birthplace response to the race question. One reason for this question provided foreign-origin data only for people difference is that some people who reported Black or African American on the race question reported Figure 9-1, Percent of Population by Response to Ancestry Question, 1990 and 2000 their ancestry more specifically, such as Jamaican, Haitian, or Nigerian, and thus were not counted in the African American ancestry category. Similarly, more than 2 million fewer people reported Mexican ancestry than gave that answer to the Hispanicorigin question. In other cases, the ancestry ques tion produced higher numbers, such as for Dominicans, whose estimated totals were over 100,000 higher from the ancestry question than ancestry and 62.0 million providing multiple from the Hispanic-origin question, to which many ancestries. Another 53.7 million did not report any Dominicans may have reported a general term ancestry, while 2.4 million gave an ancestry that was (such as Hispanic) or checked “other" without writ not classifiable. ing a detailed response. Nationally, 58 percent of the population specified only one ancestry, 22 percent provided two ancestries, Ancestry Results From Census 2000 percent reported an unclassifiable ancestry such as an ancestry, with 163.3 million specifying one 138 19 percent did not report any ancestry at all, and 1 In 2000, about 22 5 million U.S. residents reported “mixture" or “adopted” (Figure 9-1). U.S. Census Bureau The percentage of the population reporting either one or two ancestries var ied by state (maps 09-01 and 09-02). Many Figure 9-2. 20.2 million in 2000, the largest numerical growth of Fifteen Largest Ancestries (millions of people), 2000 any group during the 1990s. (American was consid ered a valid ancestry response when it was the only states in New England and the upper ancestry provided by a respondent.) This figure repre Midwest had relatively higher percentages tries, while a number of states in the South sents an increase of 63 percent, as the proportion rose Germ an of their populations reporting two ances from 5.0 percent to 7.2 percent of the population. Irish African Am erican had relatively lower percentages reporting Regional and State-level Patterns English two ancestries. Among the four U.S. regions, the most common ances Am erican tries in 2000 were Irish in the Northeast (16 percent), Mexican Common Ancestries in 2000 Italian Polish In 2000, 42.8 million people (1 5 percent of the Midwest (27 percent), and Mexican in the West (16 French the population) considered themselves to be of German (or part-German) ancestry, African American in the South (14 percent), German in percent). Am erican Indian the most frequent response to the census question (Figure 9-2). Other ancestries with over 1S million people reported in 2000 were Irish (30.5 million, or 1 1 percent), Eight different ancestries were the most fre Scottish quently reported in one or more states. German was Dutch the most common in 23 states, including every state N orw egian in the Midwest, the majority of states in the West, and Scotch-lrish one state in the South (map 09-03). In three of those Sw edish African American (24.9 million, or 9 per 40 states, German was reported by more than 40 percent of the population: North Dakota (44 percent), cent), English (24.5 million, or 9 percent), American (20.2 million, or 7 percent), Wisconsin (43 percent), and South Dakota (41 percent). Mexican (18.4 million, or 7 percent), and Italian (15.6 decreased as a proportion of the population from 16 million, or 6 percent). percent to 1 1 percent and from 13 percent to 9 per were African American in eight contiguous states from cent, respectively. Louisiana to Maryland and in the District of Columbia Other ancestries with 4 million or more people were Polish, French, American Indian, Scottish, Dutch, The other leading ancestries at the state level The number of people who reported African Norwegian, Scotch-lrish, and Swedish. In total, seven American ancestry increased by nearly 1.2 million, or ancestries were reported by more than 15 million peo 4.9 percent, between 1990 and 2000, making this ple in 2000, 37 ancestries were reported by more than group the third-largest ancestry. At the same time, the 1 million people, and 92 ancestries were reported by proportion reporting African American ancestry more than 100,000 people. Prevalent Ancestry, 2000 decreased slightly over the decade, from 9.5 percent to 8.8 percent. The population of many ancestries, Changes Between 1990 and 2000 such as Mexican, Chinese, Filipino, and Asian Indian, The three largest ancestries in 1990 were German, increased during the decade, reflecting sizable immi Irish, and English. In 2000, those groups still were gration, especially from Latin America and Asia. among the largest European ancestries, but each had Several small ancestry populations at least doubled, decreased in size by at least 8 million and by more including Brazilian, Pakistani, Albanian, Honduran, and than 20 percent. As a proportion of the population, Trinidadian and Tobagonian. German ancestry decreased from 23 percent in 1990 to 15 percent in 2000, while Irish and English U.S. Census Bureau African American American English | German I Irish | Italian L Japanese (HI) _ Mexican | Puerto Rican (PR) g The number who reported American and no other ancestry increased from 12.4 million in 1990 to 139 Chapter 9. Ancestry (also notably high at 43 percent); American in wide assortment of cultures and ethnicities that exist States occurred many decades ago. This phenomenon Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia; within the United States. The maps are based on the is demonstrated by the pairs of county-level maps that Italian in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and first and second ancestries reported by respondents in present distributions of the largest foreign-born popu Rhode Island; Mexican in the four border states of Census 2000. California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas; English in Maps 09-05 through 09-52 contain a series of Maine, Utah, and Vermont; Irish in Delaware, state-level graduated symbol maps for 48 ancestries Massachusetts, and New Hampshire; and Japanese in reported in Census 2000. The category sizes are Hawaii. roughly consistent across the series, making it possi lations, as reported in the 1900 census, alongside their ancestry counterparts from Census 2000 (maps 09-73 through 09-92). For some ancestries, continuity in geographic distribution from 1900 to 2000 is evident. For ble to compare the sizes of the symbols both within instance, in 1900, Norwegians were a large share of ancestry in any state but represented more than 10 and across maps. The series reveals that some ances the foreign-born population in parts of Wisconsin, percent of a state’s population, including American tries, such as Irish and German, are present in large Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. One hun Indian in Oklahoma (12 percent) and Alaska (1 1 per numbers in nearly every state, while other ancestries, dred years later, ancestry data from Census 2000 still Many other ancestries were not the largest cent); Filipino (18 percent) and Hawaiian (16 percent) such as Slovak, are smaller in size and more geo indicated high percentages of Norwegian ancestry in in Hawaii; French in Maine (14 percent), Vermont (1 5 graphically concentrated. these states’ populations. The geographic distributions percent), and Rhode Island (11 percent); French Canadian in New Hampshire (10 percent); and Maps 09-54 through 09-62 present the most fre of Russian, Polish, and Swedish ancestries in 2000 quently reported ancestry in each census tract for the also mirror their foreign-born distributions in 1900. Norwegian in North Dakota (30 percent), Minnesota nation’s largest metropolitan areas. In some cases, an In some cases, the specific county-by-county foreign- (1 7 percent), South Dakota (1 5 percent), and Montana ancestry is prevalent in a series of tracts arcing out born patterns evident in 1900— with a high share in a (1 1 percent). ward from the central city, suggesting a pattern of particular county and lower shares in its neighboring suburbanization for a particular group. In Chicago, for counties— continued to exist in 2000, despite 100 the five largest in a state but represented less than 10 instance, clusters of tracts with Irish or African years of migration and other demographic changes. percent of the state’s population, including Chinese in American ancestries radiate south of the central city, For instance, Las Animas County in southern Colorado Hawaii (8.3 percent), Czech in Nebraska (4.9 percent), and in the Boston area, Italian-prevalent census tracts had a large Italian share in its 1900 foreign-born Danish in Utah (6.5 percent), Eskimo in Alaska (6.1 appear in the city of Boston and communities to the population and in 2000, many of its residents percent), Polish in Michigan (8.6 percent), Portuguese north. A similar series (maps 09-64 through 09-72) reported Italian ancestry. Ancestry data reveal the in Rhode Island (8.7 percent), Spanish in New Mexico shows the most commonly reported ancestry for cen country’s links to many heritages and illuminate our sus tracts in cities with populations of 1 million diverse roots. Other ancestries not noted above were among (9.3 percent), and Swedish in Minnesota (9.9 percent). or more. This Chapter’s Maps The geographic patterns of ancestry data show The ancestry maps in this chapter echo some of the the endurance of the awareness of ancestries even findings reported in previous chapters concerning the when a group’s largest immigration to the United 140 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 9. Ancestry Prevalent Ancestry, 2000 African Am erican A leut or Eskim o Am erican Am erican Indian Dutch English Finnish French This map classifies counties by the most frequently reported ancestry. In 2000, the ancestries prevalent in counties across the country reflected historical settle ment patterns. German was the prevalent ancestry reported in many counties in the northern half of the country, from Pennsylvania to Washington. Mexican was the prevalent ancestry along the southwestern border of the United States, and American and African American U.S. Census Bureau were the most commonly reported ancestries in many southern counties, from Virginia to eastern Texas and Arkansas. Some ancestries appear primarily in smaller clus ters of counties. English was the most common ancestry in many counties in Utah and southern Idaho, for instance, while American Indian ancestry was the most common in parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and eastern G erm an □ Hispanic or Spanish Irish Italian Mexican Norwegian Puerto Rican Other ancestrv Oklahoma. Irish was prevalent in some counties in Massachusetts, and Italian was the most common ances try in many counties in Connecticut and New Jersey. Norwegian was common in parts of Minnesota and North Dakota. French was prevalent in several counties of Louisiana, New York, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. 141 Chapter 9. Ancestry SELECTED AN C ESTRY CROUPS, 2000 Austrian Ancestry, 2000 Belgian Ancestry, 2000 Brazilian Ancestry, 2000 Croatian Ancestry, 2000 Czech Ancestry, 2000 Danish Ancestry, 2000 100.000 to 188,000 100.000 to 208,000 20.000 to 99,999 20.000 to 99,999 5.000 to 19,999 500 to 4,999 1 to 499 (PR) 5.000 to 19,999 500 to 4,999 1 to 499 (PR) 20.000 to 51,000 5.000 to 19,999 500 to 4,999 1 to 499 142 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 9. Ancestry SELEC TED AN CESTRY CROUPS, 2000 Dominican Ancestry, 2000 Dutch Ancestry, 2000 Ecuadorian Ancestry, 2000 100.000 to 481,000 20.000 to 99,999 5.000 to 19,999 500 to 4,999 (DC) 1 to 499 (PR) French Ancestry, 2000 French Canadian Ancestry, 2000 German Ancestry, 2000 100.000 to 783,000 20.000 to 99,999 100.000 to 999,999 5.000 to 19,999 500 to 4,999 (PR) Greek Ancestry, 2000 1,000,000 to 3,333,000 20.000 to 99,999 500 to 4,999 (PR) Guatemalan Ancestry, 2000 Haitian Ancestry, 2000 204.000 (CA) 20.000 to 99,999 500 to 4,999 1 to 499 U.S. Census Bureau 100.000 to 234,000 20.000 to 34,000 500 to 4,999 1 to 499 143 Chapter 9. Ancestry SELECTED AN C ESTRY CROUPS, 2000 Korean Ancestry, 2000 Lebanese Ancestry, 2000 Lithuanian Ancestry, 2000 100.000 to 358,000 20.000 to 88,000 20.000 to 99,999 5.000 to 19,999 500 to 4,999 1 to 499 5.000 to 19,999 500 to 4,999 1 to 499 (PR) Norwegian Ancestry, 2000 100.000 to 851,000 Pakistani Ancestry, 2000 20,000 to 54,000 144 100.000 to 987,000 20.000 to 99,999 20.000 to 99,999 5.000 to 19,999 500 to 4,999 1 to 499 (PR) Polish Ancestry, 2000 500 to 4,999 1 to 499 5.000 to 19,999 500 to 4,999 (PR) U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 9. Ancestry SELEC TED AN CESTRY CROUPS, 2000 Portuguese Ancestry, 2000 Romanian Ancestry, 2000 Russian Ancestry, 2000 Ukrainian Ancestry, 2000 Vietnamese Ancestry, 2000 Welsh Ancestry, 2000 100.000 to 149,000 © U.S. Census Bureau 100.000 to 410,000 100.000 to 189,000 20.000 to 99,999 20.000 to 99,999 20.000 to 99,999 5,000 to 19,999 500 to 4,999 1 to 499 (PR) 5.000 to 19,999 500 to 4,999 1 to 499 5.000 to 19,999 500 to 4,999 1 to 499 (PR) 145 Chapter 9. Ancestry METROPOLITAN AREAS San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA Prevalent Ancestry, 2000 Largest Metropolitan Areas U .S . m ap b y state; m etropolitan area m aps by census tract African American American American Indian Chinese English Filipino French German Irish Italian Japanese Mexican Polish g § I Portuguese I Puerto Rican _] Russian Scotch-1 rish Subsaharan African West Indian (except Hispanic groups) San Francisco Boston-W orcesterLaw rence-Low ellB ro ckton PhiladelphiaW ilm ingtonA tla n tic City D etroit-A nn1 ^ Arbor- Flint/" Chicago-Gary-| \ Kenosha S a n Francisco O akland-San Jo s e N e w York N orth ern N e w Je r s e y Long Island % W ashington,B altim o re African American Chinese English Filipino French German Irish Italian Mexican Other ancestry Los A ngeles-Riverside O range C o u n ty ' Atlanta' DallasFort W o rth l ^HoustonGalvestonBrazoria Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX 146 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 9. Ancestry METROPOLITAN AREAS Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH Dallas-Fort Worth, TX New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA African American American English German Worth Irish Mexican Other ancestry No population Newark Philadeiphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD Philadelphia NEW JE R S E Y Baltimore 'Atlantic City Atlanta, GA African American American r English v German c DfSTRIC CQLUI DELAWARE Irish African American American English German Irish Italian Polish Puerto Rican Russian Subsaharan African West Indian (except Hispanic groups) Other ancestry No population Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV U.S. Census Bureau Atlanta Mexican Scotch-1 rish Other ancestry No population 147 Chapter 9. Ancestry CITIES Los Angeles, CA Prevalent Ancestry, 2000 Largest Cities U .S . m ap by state; city m aps by census tract 1 African American American American Indian Chinese English Filipino French German Irish Italian Japanese Korean Mexican Polish Puerto Rican Russian Salvadoran Subsaharan African Vietnamese West Indian (except Hispanic groups) C hicago' iflNIew York Philad elp hia Lo s A ng e le s • S a n D ie g o 1 Phoenix Dallas San A n to n io H ouston San Diego, CA San Antonio, TX African American American English Filipino German Irish Italian Mexican Vietnamese Other ancestry No population 148 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 9. Ancestry CITIES Chicago, IL Philadelphia, PA New York, NY / African American American Chinese German Irish Italian Polish Puerto Rican Russian "\ West Indian (except Hispanic groups) Other ancestry ■ African American German African American German | _ Irish Italian Mexican Irish Italian Polish Puerto Rican Russian ■ Polish I Puerto Rican Subsaharan African \ Other ancestry No population Dallas, TX West Indian (except Hispanic groups) Other ancestry No population Houston,TX African American American English German g | Irish Mexican Other ancestry No population U.S. Census Bureau 149 Chapter 9. Ancestry 50.0 to 100.0 Percentage of the foreign born from Austria 10.0 to 11.9 25.0 to 49.9 5.0 to 9.9 10.0 to 24.9 5.0 to 9.9 2.5 to 4.9 Percentage of the population reporting Austrian ancestry 1.0 to 2.4 U.S. percent 0.3 2.6 to 4.9 0.0 to 2.5 0.3 to 0.9 U.S. 0.2 to 0.9 0.2 0.0 to 0.1 0.0 to 0.2 No foreign-born population Data not available 50.0 to 100.0 25.0 to 49.9 Percentage of the foreign born from Canada U.S. 113 " 11.3 to 24.9 5.0 to 11.2 2.0 to 4.9 Percentage of the population reporting Canadian ancestry 1.0 to 2.2 0.0 to 1.9 No foreign-born population Data not available 1 50 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 9. Ancestry 25.0 to 45.6 50.0 to 100.0 Percentage of the foreign born from England u-s \ porc ■ 15.0 to 24.9 25.0 to 49.9 8.1 to 24.9 5.0 to 8.0 Percentage of the population reporting English ancestry U.S. percent 8.7 8.7 to 14.9 5.0 to 8.6 2.5 to 4.9 2.0 to 4.9 1.0 to 2.4 0.0 to 1.9 0.0 to 0.9 No foreign-born population Data not available 25.0 to 73.0 50.0 to 100.0 U.S. Percentage of the foreign born from G erm any 25.5 25.5 to 49.9 10.0 to 25.4 5.0 to 9.9 2.0 to 4.9 0.0 to 1.9 Percentage of the population reporting G erm an ancestry U.S. percent 15.2 15.2 to 24.9 10.0 to 15.1 5.0 to 9.9 2.5 to 4.9 1.0 to 2.4 0.0 to 0.9 No foreign-born population Data not available U.S. Census Bureau 151 Chapter 9. Ancestry 25.0 to 31.4 50.0 to 100.0 15.0 to 24.9 25.0 to 49.9 Percentage of the foreign born from Ireland U.S. percent — 15.5 ■ 15.5 to 24.9 5.0 to 15.4 3.0 to 4.9 0.0 to 2.9 Percentage of the population reporting Irish ancestry U.S. percent — 10.8 10.8 to 14.9 5.0 to 10.7 2.5 to 4.9 1.0 to 2.4 0.0 to 0.9 No foreign-born population Data not available 50.0 to 91.3 25.0 to 49.9 Percentage of the foreign born from Italy ■ U.S. 4.6 10.0 to 24.9 4.6 to 9.9 2.0 to 4.5 0.0 to 1.9 No foreign-born population Data not available 1 52 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 9. Ancestry Foreign Born From Norway, 1900 Norwegian Ancestry, 2000 • mKm • w m ~ 25.0 to 64.7 15.0 to 24.9 50.0 to 79.6 10.0 to 14.9 25.0 to 49.9 Percentage of the foreign born from N o rw ay 10.0 to 24.9 5.0 to 9.9 5.0 to 9.9 Percentage of the population reporting N orw egian ancestry 2.5 to 4.9 3.2 to 4.9 U.S. percent 1.6 to 2.4 0.0 to 3.1 1.6 0.5 to 1.5 0.0 to 0.4 No foreign-born population Data not available 25.0 to 33.1 15.0 to 24.9 25.0 to 45.6 Percentage of the foreign born from Poland 10.0 to 24.9 3.7 to 9.9 2.0 to 3.6 0.0 to 1.9 No foreign-born population 10.0 to 14.9 Percentage of the population reporting Polish ancestry 5.0 to 9.9 U.S. percent 3.2 3.2 to 4.9 1.0 to 3.1 0.0 to 0.9 Data not available U.S. Census Bureau 1 53 Chapter 9. Ancestry Percentage of the foreign born from Russia U.S. percent 4.1 0 15.0 to 19.9 50.0 to 100.0 10.0 to 14.9 25.0 to 49.9 10.0 to 24.9 4.1 to 9.9 5.0 to 9.9 Percentage of the population reporting Russian ancestry 2.5 to 4.9 U.S. 0.9 to 2.4 0.9 0.5 to 0.8 2.0 to 4.0 0.0 to 1.9 0.0 to 0.4 No foreign-born population Data not available 50.0 to 100.0 25.0 to 49.9 Percentage of the foreign born from S w e d e n 10.0 to 24.9 U.S. 5.5 5.5 to 9.9 2.0 to 5.4 0.0 to 1.9 No foreign-born population Data not available 1 54 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 9. Ancestry Percentage of the population that left the census ancestry question blank or provided an unclassifiable response 40.0 to 54.4 30.0 to 39.9 u .s. 19.9 to 29.9 percent 19.9 10.0 to 19.8 0.0 to 9.9 U.S. Census Bureau 155 Chapter 10 Education Chapter 10 Education L evels of school enrollment and educational Figure 10-1. increase for the previous decade, and slightly below attainment both reached all-time highs in Percent of Population 25 and Older Who Completed High School or College, 1940 to 2000 the rate from 1970 to 1980. data reported from Census 2000. Of the 182.2 million people aged 25 and older in 2000, 80 Educational Attainment in 2000 percent had a high school diploma or more education Most American adults in 2000 had graduated from and 24 percent had completed at least a bachelor’s high school. With respect to highest educational level degree. With respect to school enrollment, the 50 mil attained, the three most commonly achieved education lion students in the country’s elementary and high levels in 2000 were high school graduate (29 percent), schools represented the highest figure recorded in a bachelor’s degree (16 percent), and 1 or more years of decennial census. college but no degree (14 percent). Other common educational attainment levels were master’s degree (6 Historical Increases in Educational Attainment percent), associate’s degree (6 percent), and some col Inquiry related to education has been included in the doctoral degrees were relatively rare, as were the cate lege, but less than 1 year (7 percent). Professional and U.S. decennial census questionnaire since the 1840 gories of education below high school; no one of census, when literacy rates were first determined for those education levels accounted for as much as 4 people aged 20 and older and revealed a nation percent of the population 25 and older (Figure 10-2). whose people had limited education. Census questions In 2000, more than half of the U.S. population 2 5 on literacy continued through the 1930 census. Beginning in 1940, the census inquired about educa tional attainment as measured in years of schooling and older (52 percent) had completed at least some Note: Prior to 1990, educational attainm ent was measured by years o f completed schooling. completed. In 1990, the question on educational attainment was changed to ask for the highest level college education. Just under one-quarter (24 percent) had a bachelor’s or higher degree (map 10-04). Nine percent had an advanced degree (master’s degree, pro both levels of schooling presented in Figure 10-1 (high fessional degree, or doctoral degree) (map 10-05). completed. School attendance has been included in school and higher, and bachelor’s degree and higher), the decennial census questionnaire for all censuses the largest percentage increases were in the period school completion in 2000, with women having the from 1850 to 2000. As recently as 1950, 34 percent of the popula tion 25 and older had completed 4 years of high Men and women had nearly equal rates of high I960 to 1980. From 1990 to 2000, the increase in the slight edge— 81 percent compared with 80 percent. At percentage of people completing a bachelor’s or higher levels of education, men had higher completion higher degree was about the same as the percentage rates. For example, among people 25 years or older in school or more (Figure 10-1 and map 10-01). Steady increases in educational attainment have taken place since then, with the result that by 2000, a record 80 percent of the population 25 and older had a high school diploma or more education (map 10-02). During a span of 50 years, completion of high school went from being the mark of the educated minority of the population to the minimum education level attained by 4 out of 5 adults. The share of the adult population with a bache lor’s degree also increased in recent decades. While just under 1 adult in 20 had completed at least 4 years of college in 1940, almost 1 adult in 4 had attained a bachelor’s degree or higher in 2000. For 1 58 U.S. Census Bureau 2000, 26 percent of men had bachelor’s degrees or Figure 10-2. more education, compared with 23 percent of Percent of Population 25 and Older by Highest Educational Attainment Level, 2000 women. Men also led women in holding advanced degrees, 10 percent and 8 percent, respectively. No one region could claim to have the besteducated population; the regions’ ranks depended on the level of education being examined. The Midwest had the largest percentage of its population 2 5 and older holding a high school diploma or higher (83 percent), while the West had the largest percentage having completed at least some college (58 percent). The population in the Northeast had the highest bachelor’s degree and advanced degree levels, 2 7 per cent and 1 1 percent respectively. While the South had the lowest completion rates from high school through college, the Midwest had the lowest advanced-degree completion rate, at 7.9 percent, slightly below the proportion in the South, 8.1 percent. D octoral degree Professional degree M aster's degree Bachelor's degree A ssociate's degree 1 or more ye ars o f college, no degree Som e college, but less than 1 y e a r High school graduate 12th grade, no diplom a 1 1th grade 10th grade 9th grade 7th grade or 8th grade Sth grade or 6th grade N ursery school to 4th grade No schooling com pleted College Attendance Patterns Just over one-third of young adults (1 8 to 24 years College attendance among young adults differed Natives, and 14 percent of Hispanics were enrolled old) were attending college in April 2000. Among by race and Hispanic origin. More than one-half of young-adult women, 37 percent attended college, young-adult Asians and more than one-third of non- compared with 31 percent of men. Even though there Hispanic White young adults were enrolled in college Enrollment Levels in Census 2000 were slightly more men than women in this age in 2000. Thirty-six percent of young adults of two or According to findings from Census 2000, more than group in the general population, the college student more races were in college, as were 30 percent of one-fourth of the U.S. population aged 3 and older body aged 18 to 24 was dominated by women (54 Pacific Islanders. Twenty-seven percent of young-adult attended school in the spring of 2000, and enrollment percent compared with 46 percent). Blacks, 21 percent of American Indians and Alaska levels reached a new high in April 2000. The 76.6 Completed College, 2000 in college. Completed Master's Degree, 2000 Percentage of population 25 and older with a bachelor's degree or higher 30.0 to 39.1 24.4 to 29.9 20.0 to 24.3 14.8 to 19.9 U.S. Census Bureau 1 59 Chapter 10. Education The percentage of the population 25 and older million students included 5 million enrolled in nursery current age structure and historical fertility trends of school, 4.2 million in kindergarten, 33.7 million in ele the American population. Map 10-36 presents the that completed college is shown by census tract for mentary school, 16.4 million in high school, 14.4 mil percentage-point change in the share of the U.S. popula the most populous metropolitan areas in 2000 in lion in college (undergraduate), and 3.1 million in tion aged 3 to 17. In 1970, when members of the Baby maps 10-23 through 10-31. As the county-level map graduate school. Boom were between the ages of 6 and 24, fully 29.3 accompanying this series demonstrates, many of the percent of the population was between ages 3 and 17; counties in 2000 with high percentages completing cent) were enrolled in preschool, kindergarten, or in 2000 the share was 21.6 percent, a 7.6 percentage- college are located within the country’s largest metro elementary school; 21 percent attended high school; point decline. Counties in the category with the largest politan areas. As the tract-level maps reveal, large dif and 23 percent were enrolled in colleges across the percentage-point declines were located throughout the ferences in college completion rates exist within the country. Although the percentage of people aged 3 country, especially in the southeast, Appalachia, the metropolitan areas themselves. In the Los Angeles- and older who were enrolled increased modestly Dakotas, and parts of New Mexico and Colorado. Riverside-Orange County metropolitan area, for Among all students, more than one-half (56 per between 1990 and 2000, from 27 to 28 percent, this In 1950, when 34.3 percent of the population 25 instance, college diplomas were more common among statistic conceals the sizable numerical increase in the and older in the United States had completed at least 4 the adult population residing in census tracts on the student population— over the decade, the total number years of high school, many counties in the South had western side of the city of Los Angeles and were less of students grew by 12 million, or by 18 percent. percentages of 14.9 percent or less (map 10-07). In common in tracts on the south side of the city. 2000, 80.4 percent of the population 25 and older had Similarly, in both the Dallas-Fort Worth and Chicago (those aged 5 to 17) accounts for most of this a high school diploma, and an increasing number of areas, the percentage of the population with a bache increased enrollment. During the decade, elementary counties in the South— particularly in metropolitan lor’s degree was higher in many tracts in their north and high schools added another 8 million students to areas— had percentages at or above the U.S. rate. While ern sections. In the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose their classrooms, reaching a record of 50 million stu some other southern counties continued in the lowest metropolitan area, relatively few census tracts had dents by April 2000. category, their percentages now ranged from 34.7 per percentages below the U.S. figure. Growth of the number of school-aged children School attendance is compulsory for children between 7 and 15 years old. (The minimum and maxi cent to 44.9 percent. The percentage of the population 25 and older The maps in this chapter reveal broad geo graphic differences in educational attainment and mum ages of compulsory school attendance vary by with at least a bachelor’s degree also increased in the school enrollment patterns nationwide, from high state law, but all cover ages 7 to 15.) In 2000, 98.7 1950-to-2000 period, from 6.2 to 24.4 percent (maps school and college completion rates to the private percent of children in this age group were enrolled in 10-09 and 10-10). In 1950, counties with lower per school enrollment of elementary and high school stu school. Forty-nine percent of children 3 and 4 years centages of their populations having 4 or more years of dents. Comparisons of maps for various levels of edu old were enrolled in school, as were 91 percent of 5 - college were found in parts of the South and the north cational attainment show that some areas have nearly and 6-year-olds. More than one-third (36 percent) of ern Great Plains. In 2000, counties with higher percent universal high school completion and relatively low adults aged 20 to 24 and 12 percent of people aged ages were seen throughout the country and were rates of college completion. Such areas had few high prominent in the metropolitan corridor from Boston to school dropouts, in other words, yet also had few col Washington, Colorado, California, and elsewhere in the lege graduates. Other areas, often in larger cities or This Chapter’s Maps West. The percentage with at least a bachelor’s degree metropolitan areas, had distinctly bimodal patterns, The chapter’s maps on school enrollment reveal demo also varied by race and Hispanic origin, as seen in maps with high percentages of both high school dropouts graphic and geographic dimensions. Enrollment pat 10-15 through 10-21, and by sex, as seen in maps and college graduates. terns in American schools are in part a reflection of the 10-12 and 10-14. 25 to 34 were enrolled in college. 160 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 10. Education Increase in High School Completion, 1950 to 2000 65.0 to 80.5 Percentage-point increase in population 25 and older w h o com pleted high school or higher, 1950 to 2000; U .S . percentage 34.3 in 1950 and 80.4 in 2000 Between 1950 and 2000, the percentage of the popula tion 25 and older with a high school diploma rose from 34.3 percent to 80.4 percent, an increase of 46.1 percent age points. While increases were widespread across the country, some counties' increases were considerably larger than the national average. Some of these counties also had high rates of high school completion in 2000, U.S. Census Bureau while others did not. High school completion rates in 1950 and 2000 are shown in other maps in this chapter. Many counties in southern states had large percentage-point increases in high school completion. Parts of the Midwest also show large increases, espe cially in the southern portions of Illinois and Missouri, and in Michigan and Wisconsin. 58.0 to 64.9 52.0 to 57.9 U.S. percentage-point change 46.1 to 51.9 40.0 to 46.0 In some Texas counties in the western part of the state and along the border with Mexico, the percentagepoint changes were lower than the national average. The West, particularly California, also contained a number of counties with smaller percentage-point increases in high school completion. 161 Chapter 10. Education ^C => Percentage of population 25 and older with 4 years of high school or higher 70.0 to 74.7 50.0 to 69.9 U.S. percent 34.3 to 49.9 34.3 25.0 to 34.2 15.0 to 24.9 0.0 to 14.9 162 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 10. Education Percentage of population 25 and older w ith 4 years of college or higher 18.0 to 23.9 13.0 to 17.9 U.S. percent 6.2 6.2 to 12.9 3.0 to 6.1 0.0 to 2.9 Percentage of population 25 and older with a bachelor's degree or higher 37.0 to 63.7 U.S. percent 24.4 24.4 to 36.9 18.0 to 24.3 13.0 to 17.9 6.0 to 12.9 4.9 to 5.9 U.S. Census Bureau 163 Chapter 10. Education Percentage of men 25 and older with 4 years of college or higher 25.0 to 32.5 15.0 to 24.9 U.S. percent 7.3 7.3 to 14.9 4.0 to 7.2 0.0 to 3.9 Percentage of men 25 and older with a bachelor's degree or higher 50.0 to 70.6 U.S. percent 26.1 26.1 to 49.9 - 15.0 to 26.0 8.0 to 14.9 4.0 to 7.9 0.0 to 3.9 164 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 10. Education Percentage of w o m e n 25 and older with 4 years of college or higher 25.0 to 27.8 15.0 to 24.9 8.0 to 14.9 U.S. percent 5.2 5.2 to 7.9 0.0 to 5.1 Completed College, 2000 Percentage of w o m en 25 and older with a bachelor's degree or higher 50.0 to 57.7 u .s. percent 22.8 22.8 to 49.9 15.0 to 22.7 8.0 to 14.9 3.9 to 7.9 U.S. Census Bureau 165 Chapter 10. Education Completed College, 2000 Completed College, 2000 White Non-Hispanic Population Black Population - £ 2 ?- - - 50.0 or m ore Percentage of non-Hispanic W hite population 25 and older with a bachelor's degree or higher U.S. percent — 27.0 50.0 or m ore 27.0 to 49.9 30.0 to 49.9 Percentage of Black population 25 and older w ith a bachelor's degree or higher 20.0 to 26.9 12.0 to 19.9 20.0 to 29.9 14.3 to 19.9 5.0 to 11.9 5.0 to 14.2 Less than 5.0 Less than 5.0 No Black population 25 and older Completed College, 2000 Completed College, 2000 American Indian and Alaska Native Population Asian Population ■ £2gV - 50.0 or m ore Percentage of A m erican Indian and Alaska N ative population 25 and older with a bachelor's degree or higher 44.1 or m ore 30.0 to 49.9 20.0 to 29.9 U.S. percent 11.5 11.5 to 19.9 30.0 to 44.0 Percentage of Asian population 25 and older with a bachelor's degree or higher 20.0 to 29.9 12.0 to 19.9 5.0 to 11.4 5.0 to 11.9 Less than 5.0 Less than 5.0 ] No AIAN population I------- 1 25 and older 166 No Asian population 25 and older U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 10. Education Completed College, 2000 Completed College, 2000 Pacific Islander Population Two or More Races Population • e a rn - ' - G 3 - .- 50.0 or m ore Percentage of Pacific Islander population 25 and older with a bachelor's degree or higher 50.0 or m ore 30.0 to 49.9 30.0 to 49.9 Percentage of Tw o or M ore Races population 25 and older with a bachelor's degree or higher 20.0 to 29.9 13.8 to 19.9 U.S. 19.6 to 29.9 10.0 to 19.5 19.6 5.0 to 13.7 5.0 to 9.9 Less than 5.0 Less than 5.0 No Pacific Islander population 25 and older 1 I____ I No Two or More Races population 25 and older Completed College, 2000 Hispanic Population . timr 50.0 or m ore 30.0 to 49.9 Percentage of Hispanic population 25 and older with a bachelor's degree or higher 20.0 to 29.9 10.4 to 19.9 5.0 to 10.3 Less than 5.0 No Hispanic population 25 and older U.S. Census Bureau 167 Chapter 10. Education METROPOLITAN AREAS Completed College, 2000 Largest Metropolitan Areas 75.0 or more 45.0 to 74.9 Percentage of population 25 and older with a bachelor's degree or higher; U .S . m ap by county, m etropolitan area m aps by census tract U.S. percent 24.4 24.4 to 44.9 10.0 to 24.3 Less than 10.0 ] No population 25 and older Boston-WorcesterLawrence-LowellBrockton PhiladelphiaW ilm ingtonA tla n tic City Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, Chicago-Gary-| \ Kejrosha S a n FranciscoO akland-San Jo s e N ewYorkNorthern N e w Je r s e y Long Island W ashington.Baltim o re Los Angeles-Riverside- * O range C o u n ty * A tla n ta' DallasF o rtW o rth | 'H o u sto n GalvestonBrazoria Houston-Galveston-Brazoria,TX 168 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 10. Education METROPOLITAN AREAS Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH Dallas-Fort Worth, TX New ¥>rk-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA TEX Dallas Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD New York EW JE R S E Y W ilm ington Atlantic City Atlanta, GA W a shing to n DELAWARE Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV U.S. Census Bureau 169 Chapter 10. Education Percentage of population 25 and older with an associate's degree as the highest level of education completed 10.0 to 15.6 8.0 to 9.9 u .s. percent ■ 6.3 6.3 to 7.9 5.0 to 6.2 3.0 to 4.9 0.0 to 2.9 170 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 10. Education Percentage of population 25 and older with a master's degree or higher 20.0 to 36.0 U.S. percent 8.9 8.9 to 19.9 5.5 to 8.8 2.9 to 5.4 1.5 to 2.8 0.0 to 1.4 Percentage of population 25 and older with a professional or doctoral degree 8.9 to 17.5 5.5 to 8.8 U.S. percent 2.9 2.9 to 5.4 1.5 to 2.8 0.0 to 1.4 U.S. Census Bureau 171 Chapter 10. Education Percentage-Point Change in Population 3 to 17 Years, 1970 to 2000 Percentage-point change betw een 1970 and 2000 in the share of the population 3 to 17 years old; U .S. percentage 29.3 in 1970 and 21.6 in 2000 Higher share of population 0.0 to 10.0 -3.8 to -0.1 U.S. percentage-point change -7.6 -7.5 to -3.9 -10.8 to -7.6 -14.8 t o -10.9 Lower share of population -29.1 to -14.9 Percentage-Point Change in Enrollment, 1970 to 2000 Population 3 to 17 Percentage-point change betw een 1970 and 2000 in the share of the population 3 to 17 years old enrolled in school; U.S. percentage 82.8 in 1970 and 90.8 in 2000 Higher share enrolled 21.0 to 55.3 15.0 to 20.9 U.S. percentage-point change 8.0 8.0 to 14.9 4.0 to 7.9 0.0 to 3.9 Lower share enrolled 1 72 -11.3 to -0.1 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 10. Education Percent Enrolled in School, 2000 Percent Enrolled in School, 2000 Population 18 to 34 Population 35 and Older 35.0 or m ore U.S. 25.0 6.0 or m ore 25.0 to 34.9 U.S. 3.4 to 5.9 3.4 2.0 to 3.3 20.0 to 24.9 15.0 to 19.9 Less than 2.0 Less than 15.0 Private School Enrollment, 2000 Private School Enrollment, 2000 Elementary High School - c m -* - SS»- 20.0 to 42.8 Percentage of students in kindergarten through eighth grad e enrolled in private school U.S. 11.3 to 19.9 11.3 5.0 to 11.2 2.0 to 4.9 0.0 to 1.9 U.S. Census Bureau 20.0 to 43.5 Percentage of students in ninth through twelfth grade enrolled in private school U.S. 9.4 9.4 to 19.9 5.0 to 9.3 2.0 to 4.9 0.0 to 1.9 173 Chapter 11 Work Chapter 11 Work W ork affects our lives in many ways. The Labor force participation rates in 2000 were need to commute from place of resi highest in Alaska and Minnesota, at 71.3 percent and dence to place of work means that work 71.2 percent, respectively (map 1 1-01). A cluster of Figure 1 1 1 . Percent of Population 16 and Older in the Labor Force by Sex, 1960 to 2000 states in often influences decisions about where to live. Salary the Midwest also had high labor force partici pation rates in 2000. The state with the lowest rate levels, workforce safety, and the time of day (or night) employees report to work can all affect workers’ expe was West Virginia, 54.5 percent, followed by Florida, riences. This chapter focuses on the nature of work the populations are 65 and older. Labor force partici workplace and the workforce. Maps detail geographic Women at 58.6 percent. In both of these states, large shares of conducted by America’s labor force, covering both the Men pation was also low in many other southern states. patterns, both by industry (the kind of business con occupation (the kind of work a person does on a job). Historical Changes in the Economy and Workforce The maps in this chapter reveal patterns relating to a The nature of work in the United States changed dra ducted by a person’s employing organization) and by variety of issues, from the likelihood of participating matically in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, as in the labor force to differences in methods and sched the country evolved from a nation of farmers to a ules of commuting. global leader in the production of manufactured goods and the provision of public, personal, business, and Labor Force Participation in 2000 producer services, in 1950, 11.9 percent of American The population 16 years and older numbered 2 I 7.2 workers were employed in agricultural occupations, million people according to Census 2000, of whom including more than one-half of all workers in some 138.8 million, or 63.9 percent, were in the labor force counties. By the close of the twentieth century, less (map 1 1-01). Within the labor force, 1.2 million were than 2 percent of the country’s workforce was adopted in 1997 to replace the Standard Industrial in the armed forces, leaving 137.7 million (63.4 per employed in agricultural occupations. Classification (SIC) system. cent) in the civilian labor force. Within the civilian labor force, 8.0 million were unemployed in 2000, As the economy has shifted over time—from a natural resource basis to a production basis to a The Census 2000 industry data in this volume are classified into one of ten groupings of industry resulting in 129.7 million people in the employed civil service basis— the characteristics of the workers who sectors. The groupings, and their shares of the ian labor force. The maps in this chapter utilize a vari drive the economy have also changed. One trend in employed civilian population 16 and older, are: natural ety of different universes (civilian labor force, total the twentieth century was the sizable increase in resources and mining (1.9 percent); construction and labor force, workers who do not work at home), female labor force participation rates. In 1960, about manufacturing (20.9 percent); trade, transportation, depending on the specific map topic. 36 of every 100 women 16 and older participated in and utilities (20.5 percent); information (3.1 percent); the labor force, a figure that reached 57 in 1990 and financial activities (6.9 percent); professional and busi then increased slightly to 58 in 2000 (Figure 1 1-1). ness services (9.3 percent); education and health The labor force participation of men, on the other services (19.9 percent); leisure and hospitality services hand, declined from 80 percent in 1960 to 71 percent (7.9 percent); other services (4.9 percent); and public in 2000. administration (4.8 percent). Industry and Occupation Patterns in 2000 based on the government-wide 2000 Standard Industries in the United States can be categorized in Occupation Classification (SOC) system. The SOC was many ways. The North American Industry overhauled in 1998 (with additional revisions in 2000) Classification System (NAICS) was developed as the to create a classification system that more accurately Census 2000 occupation classifications are standard for use by federal statistical agencies in clas reflected the occupational structure in the United sifying business establishments for the collection, States at the time of the revisions. analysis, and publication of statistical data related to the business economy of the United States. NAICS was 176 The census classified occupations at various levels, from the least detailed summary level— six U.S. Census Bureau occupational groups—to the most detailed level— 509 workers were self-employed in their own (not incorpo Figure 1 1-2. occupational categories. Of the six major categories of rated) business. Percent of Workers by Means of Transportation to Work, 1980 and 2000 occupations in 2000, more than one-third of all civilian workers (33.6 percent) worked in management, pro Commuting Patterns in 2000 fessional, or related occupations. An additional 26.7 Of the 128.3 million workers who reported in Census percent worked in sales and office occupations, while 2000 that they worked at some point during the week 14.9 percent worked in service occupations, which preceding the day of the census (April 1, 2000), 96.7 included health, protective, food, building and percent of them worked somewhere other than their grounds, and personal services. Production, trans was the primary mode of transportation to work. extraction, and maintenance occupations contained Some 97.1 million workers (75.7 percent) reported 9.4 percent of all workers. The smallest percentage of that they drove to work alone. Carpooling was the (including taxi cabs) of all workers aged 16 and older), a car, truck, or van for 14.6 percent of all workers, while construction, Public transportation homes. For the vast majority of workers (87.9 percent portation, and material-moving occupations accounted Car, truck, or van (drove alone or carpooled) workers, 0.7 percent, worked in farming, fishing, and Motorcycle, bicycle, or other means No commute, worked at home mode of transportation for 12.2 percent of all work forestry occupations. Walked ers, while public transportation was used by 4.7 per More non-Hispanic White workers (36.6 percent) worked in management, professional, and related a means of transportation to work, dropping from 5.6 cent of workers. Use of public transportation for commuting percent in 1980 to 2.9 percent in 2000 (Figure 11-2). In 2000, 26.7 percent of workers aged 16 and occupations than in any other occupational category, varied by state in 2000. States with higher percent while the highest percentage of Black workers (27.3 ages were located in the Northeast or the West, with older (34 million people) worked outside the county in percent) worked in sales and office occupations. Sales lower percentages seen for states in the midsection of which they lived, compared with 21.2 percent in 1980 and office occupations also accounted for the highest the country and the South. and 15.5 percent in 1960. The eastern United States— percentages of Pacific Islander workers (28.8 percent) The mode of transportation used by workers where counties are often geographically smaller than and Hispanic workers (23.1 percent). The highest shifted between 1980 and 2000. In 1980, 64.4 per the national average— had higher percentages of work degree of occupational specialization was found cent of workers drove to work alone using a car, truck, ers cross county boundaries to commute between among Asian workers, of whom 44.6 percent worked or van; in 2000 this figure had increased to 75.7 home and work than did counties in the West, where in management, professional, and related occupations. percent. Meanwhile, the percentage of workers who counties are often larger than the national average Nearly four-fifths (79 percent) of all civilian work carpooled in a car, truck, or van declined from 19.7 in area. ers aged 16 and older in 2000 were private wage and percent in 1980 to 12.2 percent in 2000. The share salary workers. Government workers constituted 14.6 using public transportation fell from 6.4 percent in and 2000. Of those workers who did not work at percent of workers, while an additional 7 percent of 1980 to 4.7 percent in 2000. Walking also declined as home, the proportion who spent 45 minutes or more Percent of Commuters Who Drove Alone, 2000 U.S. Census Bureau Travel times generally increased between 1980 Average CommuterTravelTime, 2000 1 77 Chapter 11. Work traveling to work rose from 12 percent in 1980 to 13 common industry by county in 2000 for ten broad the 1998 overhaul of the Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) system that classified farm and percent in 1990 and to 15 percent in 2000. Average groupings of industries (map 1 1-19). For many coun travel time has followed a similar trend, increasing ties in the eastern half of the country, the most com ranch owners as managers. In this map, managers from 21.7 minutes in 1980, to 22.4 minutes in 1990, mon category was construction and manufacturing. and professionals are shown in separate categories. and to 25.5 minutes in 2000 (map 1 1-04). Natural resources and mining was most common in a This chapter also explores travel time to work, The lowest average travel times in 2000 at the band of counties in the Great Plains and the West. state level were in a band of states stretching west Following that map is a series of maps displaying means of transportation to work for commuters ward from Iowa to Wyoming and Montana. States shares of the population employed in each of the ten (workers who did not work at home). such as New York, California, and Illinois that contain broad groupings. large metropolitan areas typically had higher average travel times. Employment in local, state, and federal govern ment in 2000 is seen in maps 1 1-30 through 11-32. departure time for work, intercounty commuting, and In 1980, the percentage of commuters whose travel time to work was 1 hour or more was 6 percent (map 11-38); in 2000 the figure was 8 percent (map Areas with relatively large percentages of workers 1 1-39). Fewer counties were contained in the lowest This Chapter’s Maps employed in state government are often state capitals category (less than 3 percent) in 2000 than in 1980. The maps in this chapter address many of the ele or the locations of large public universities. Federal ments of the nature of work in 2000, including labor government employment in 2000 was concentrated in A higher share of commuters in 2000 began their journey to work before 6 a.m. than did so in force participation, employment by industry and occu a handful of areas nationwide, including the 1990 (maps 1 1-40 and 11-41). In 1990, 8.9 percent of pation, and commuting to work. Washington, DC metropolitan area. all commuters left home before 6 a.m.; in 2000 this Maps 11-06 and 1 1-07 present the labor force Agriculture commands an ever-smaller share of figure was 11 percent. Similar geographic patterns are participation rates for women in 1950 and 2000, total employment in the United States. In 1950, work seen in the 1990 and 2000 maps. In both cases, revealing the large increases in the percentages of ers in agricultural occupations constituted 1 1.9 per many of the counties with higher shares of their com women in the labor force that occurred during the cent of the population 14 and older (map 1 1-35); in muters beginning their commutes early in the morn second half of the twentieth century. Labor force par numerous southern and midwestern counties the fig ing are located in the South, the Midwest, and the ticipation rates for women varied by the presence and ure was 50 percent or more. In 2000, 1.6 percent of West, while counties with lower percentages of early- age of children (maps 1 1-08 and 1 1-09). Nationally, workers in the United States were employed in morning commuters are located in the Great Plains. the rate for women with children under age 6 was agricultural occupations (map 1 1-36). Even in the agri 63.5 percent in 2000, while that for women with cultural Midwest, few counties were in the highest to work. Within the largest metropolitan areas, driving school-aged children was 75.0 percent. category (35 percent or more of workers employed in alone was more common in tracts in the outlying agricultural occupations). counties (maps 1 1-48 through 11-56) and was less Both spouses were working in most marriedcouple families (59.5 percent) in the United States in Map 1 1-34 shows which of the summary-level In 2000, 78.2 percent of commuters drove alone common for many tracts in central cities. 2000. As seen in map 11-10, counties with the high occupational groups employed the most civilian work est percentages of families with both spouses work ers in each county in 2000. Sales and office occupa For the United States as a whole, 4.9 percent of ing tended to be located in the northern part of the tions was the prevalent occupational category for portation (map 11-46), and many counties across the country, particularly in the Midwest and mountain most counties nationwide, and production and trans country saw less than I percent of commuters using commuters in 2000 traveled to work via public trans states. The highest percentages of single-worker portation was common for many counties in the public transportation to get to work. In the denser, families were found in the South, as well as in the eastern half of the country. Management was the more urbanized parts of the country, including the western states of Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico prevalent occupation for a band of counties in the Boston to Washington metropolitan corridor and sec (map 11-11). Great Plains. The predominance of this occupation in tions of California, Illinois, and south Florida, sizable The regional industrial variations in the U.S. economy are displayed in the map showing the most 178 several rural and sparsely populated counties in states shares of workers in 2000 used public transportation such as Montana, the Dakotas, and Nebraska reflects to get to work. U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 11. Work Labor Force Participation, 2000 72.0 to 86.1 67.0 to 71.9 u .s. Percentage of population 16 and older in the labor force Census 2000 found that 63.9 percent of the 217.2 million people 16 and older in the United States were in the labor force. High rates of labor force participation characterized a number of counties from Chicago to Minneapolis-St. Paul and in a band of counties stretching U.S. Census Bureau from southern Maine to northern Virginia. Labor force par ticipation rates also were high in a number of counties in Colorado, as well as in several metropolitan areas in the South, including Atlanta, Nashville, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Austin. Low labor force participation was found in many 63.9 to 66.9 percent 63.9 59.0 to 63.8 Appalachian counties and in scattered nonmetropolitan counties throughout the South. In some counties, low labor force participation rates reflect the presence of large retiree populations. 179 Chapter 11. Work 40.0 to 48.2 Percentage of w o m en 14 and older in the labor force U.S. percent 28.9 28.9 to 39.9 Percentage of w o m en 16 and older in the labor force 20.0 to 28.8 10.0 to 19.9 0.0 to 9.9 Labor Force Participation, 2000 Labor Force Participation, 2000 Women With Children Under 6 Women With Children 6 to 17 ■ £ 2 ?- ' - 85.0 or m ore 85.0 or m ore U.S. 75.0 to 84.9 Percentage in labor force of w o m en 16 and older w h o had children under 6 years old 71.0 to 74.9 U.S. percent 63.5 63.5 to 70.9 Percentage in labor force o fw o m e n 16 and o ld e rw h o had children 6 to 17 years old 75.0 to 84.9 75.0 68.0 to 74.9 60.0 to 67.9 45.0 to 63.4 0.0 to 44.9 □ 180 45.0 to 59.9 0.0 to 44.9 No women 16 and older with children under 6 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 11. Work U.S. Census Bureau 181 Chapter 11. Work 75.0 or m ore Percentage of non-Hispanic W h ite population 16 and older in the labor force U.S. percent — 64.9 75.0 or more 64.9 to 74.9 65.0 to 74.9 60.0 to 64.8 60.2 to 64.9 Percentage of Black population 16 and older in the lab o rfo rce 55.0 to 59.9 54.7 to 60.1 45.0 to 54.6 45.0 to 54.9 Less than 45.0 Less than 45.0 No Black population 16 and older Labor Force Participation, 2000 Labor Force Participation, 2000 American Indian and Alaska Native Population Asian Population . ■ sss?- S 3 ? - 75.0 or more 75.0 or more 65.0 to 74.9 Percentage of A m erican Indian and Alaska N ative population 16 and older in the lab o rfo rce 61.1 to 64.9 55.0 to 61.0 45.0 to 54.9 Less than 45.0 1 No AIAN population I--------1 16 and older 182 Percentage of Asian population 16 and older in the lab o rfo rce U.S. percent — 63.3 63.3 to 74.9 60.0 to 63.2 55.0 to 59.9 45.0 to 54.9 Less than 45.0 1 No Asian population I--------1 16 and older U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 11. Work Labor Force Participation, 2000 Two or More Races Population » 75.0 or more 75.0 or m ore 66.2 to 74.9 60.0 to 66.1 Percentage of Pacific Islander population 16 and older in the labor force 55.0 to 59.9 Percentage of Two or M ore Races population 16 and older in the labor force U.S. percent — 64.1 64.1 to 74.9 60.0 to 64.0 55.0 to 59.9 45.0 to 54.9 45.0 to 54.9 Less than 45.0 Less than 45.0 No Pacific Islander population 16 and older 1 No Two or More Races I ------ 1 population 16 and older - 75.0 or more 65.0 to 74.9 Percentage of Hispanic population 16 and older in the labor force U.S. 61.4 61.4 to 64.9 50.0 to 61.3 45.0 to 49.9 Less than 45.0 1 No Hispanic population I--------1 16 and older U.S. Census Bureau 183 Chapter 11. Work M ost co m m on industry for em plo yed civilians 16 and older Natural resources and m ining Construction and m anufacturing Trade, transportation, and utilities Professional and business services Education and health services Leisure and hospitality services Public adm inistration The Information Services, Financial Activities, and Other Services sectors were not prevalent in any county Natural Resources and Mining, 2000 . m y - 40.0 to 58.2 40.0 to 54.4 20.0 to 39.9 Percentage of em plo yed civilians 16 and older in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, or m ining industries 10.0 to 19.9 5.0 to 9.9 U.S. percent 19 184 1.9 to 4.9 0.0 to 1.8 Percentage of em plo yed civilians 16 and older in construction or m anufacturing industries U.S. 20.9 20.9 to 39.9 10.0 to 20.8 5.0 to 9.9 2.1 to 4.9 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 11. Work Trade, Transportation, and Utilities, 2000 - G ® *- Percentage of em plo yed civilians 16 and older in w h o le sa le trade, retail trade, transportation and w areho usin g , or utilities industries U.S. 20.5 20.5 to 38.2 10.0 to 20.4 5.6 to 9.9 Percentage of em plo yed civilians 16 and older in publishing, telecom m unications, softw are and data processing, or other information services industries 10.0 to 10.7 5.0 to 9.9 U.S. percent 3.1 20.0 to 20.7 Percentage of em plo yed civilians 16 and older in finance and insurance, real estate, or rental and leasing industries 10.0 to 19.9 U.S. percent 6.9 6.9 to 9.9 2.0 to 6.8 0.0 to 1.9 U.S. Census Bureau 3.1 to 4.9 0.0 to 3.0 20.0 to 23.5 Percentage of em plo yed civilians 16 and older in professional, scientific, and technical services; m anagem ent of com panies; or adm inistrative and support services industries U.S. percent 9.3 9.3 to 19.9 5.0 to 9.2 2.0 to 4.9 0.0 to 1.9 185 Chapter 11. Work Leisure and Hospitality Services, 2000 • » 40.0 to 47.1 Percentage of em plo yed civilians 16 and older in educational services, health care, or social assistance industries U.S. 19.9 to 39.9 19.9 10.0 to 19.8 6.5 to 9.9 20.0 to 36.4 Percentage of em plo yed civilians 16 and older in arts, entertainm ent, and recreation; or accom m odation and food services industries U.S. percent 7.9 7.9 to 19.9 5.0 to 7.8 2.0 to 4.9 0.0 to 1.9 40.0 to 42.6 Percentage of em plo yed civilians 16 and older in other service industries except public adm inistration U.S. 4.9 4.9 to 9.7 2.0 to 4.8 0.0 to 1.9 20.0 to 39.9 Percentage of em plo yed civilians 16 and older in public adm inistration 10.0 to 19.9 U.S. percent 4.8 to 9.9 2.0 to 4.7 0.0 to 1.9 186 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 11. Work Percentage of civilian population 16 and older em plo yed in federal governm ent 15.0 to 41.5 10.0 to 14.9 7.0 to 9.9 5.0 to 6.9 U.S. percent 2.7 2.7 to 4.9 0.4 to 2.6 State Governm ent Em ploym ent, 2000 Local Governm ent Em ploym ent, 2000 15.0 to 51.7 15.0 to 51.8 10.0 to 14.9 Percentage of civilian population 16 and older em plo yed in state g overnm ent 7.0 to 9.9 U.S. percent 4.7 4.7 to 6.9 10.0 to 14.9 Percentage of civilian population 16 and older em plo yed in local governm ent U.S. 7.1 7.1 to 9.9 5.0 to 7.0 3.0 to 4.9 0.0 to 2.9 U.S. Census Bureau 3.0 to 4.6 0.0 to 2.9 187 Chapter 11. Work M ost co m m o n occupation for em plo yed population 14 and older Clerical occupations Craftsmen and forem en Farm ers and farm m anagers Laborers, except farm and m ine M anagers, officers, and proprietors, except farm M anufacturing occupations Private household w orkers 1 Professional and 1 technical occupations S a le s occupations ______ S e rvic e workers, except private household W a g e farm labor Prevalent Occupation, 2000 M ost co m m o n occupation for em plo yed population 16 and older Construction, extraction, and m aintenance occupations Farm ing, fishing, and forestry occupations M anagem ent occupations Production and transportation occupations Professional occupations S a le s and office occupations S e rvic e occupations 188 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 11. Work Percentage of em ployed population 14 and older working in agricultural occupations 70.0 to 92.3 50.0 to 69.9 35.0 to 49.9 u .s. percent 11.9 11.9 to 34.9 5.0 to 11.8 0.0 to 4.9 Percentage of em ployed population 16 and older working in agricultural occupations 35.0 to 51.1 12.0 to 34.9 5.0 to 11.9 U.S. percent - 1.6 to 4.9 1.6 U.S. Census Bureau 189 Chapter 11. Work Commutes of One Hour or More, 1980 Commutes of One Hour or More, 2000 - - w m - 20.0 to 38.2 20.0 to 36.6 12.0 to 19.9 Percentage of com m uters 16 and older w h o traveled one hour or m ore to work U.S. 6.0 6.0 to 11.9 5.0 to 5.9 12.0 to 19.9 Percentage of com m uters 16 and older w h o traveled one hour or m ore to work U.S. percent 8.0 8.0 to 11.9 5.0 to 7.9 3.0 to 4.9 3.0 to 4.9 0.0 to 2.9 0.0 to 2.9 Data not comparable 190 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 11. Work Percentage of com m uters 16 and older w h o left hom e betw een m idnight and 6 a.m. 25.0 to 38.9 20.0 to 24.9 15.0 to 19.9 U.S. percent 8.9 8.9 to 14.9 5.0 to 8.8 0.0 to 4.9 Data not comparable U.S. Census Bureau 191 Chapter 11. Work Intercounty Commuting, 1960 Intercounty Commuting, 1980 • f l t ' ■M T ' 65.0 to 80.2 Percentage of workers 14 and older w h o com m uted to a different co u nty for w ork 65.0 to 81.2 45.0 to 64.9 45.0 to 64.9 30.0 to 44.9 U.S. percent 15.5 15.5 to 29.9 Percentage of workers 16 and older w h o com m uted to a different county fo r work 30.0 to 44.9 21.2 to 29.9 8.0 to 15.4 i I ____I _ 192 8.0 to 21.1 0.0 to 7.9 0.6 to 7.9 Data not available Data not available U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 11. Work Percentage of com m uters 16 and older w h o used public transportation to get to work 10.0 to 63.3 U.S. percent 4.9 4.9 to 9.9 2.0 to 4.8 1.0 to 1.9 0.0 to 0.9 U.S. Census Bureau 193 Chapter 11. Work METROPOLITAN AREAS Com m uters W ho Drove Alone, 2000 Largest Metropolitan Areas 90.0 to 100.0 Percentage of com m uters drove to w o rk alone; U .S. by county, m etropolitan m aps by census 85 to 89.9 who m ap area tract U.S. 78.2 to 84.9 78.2 75.0 to 78.1 70.0 to 74.9 Less than 70.0 □ No commuters 16 and older Boston-WorcesterLaw re nee-LowellBrockton PhiladelphiaW ilm ingtonA tla n tic City roit-Ann >or-Flint Chicago-Gary-| 1 K enosha S a n FranciscoO aldand-San Jo s e N ewYorkNorthern N e w Je r s e y Long Island W ashingtonyB altim o re Los Angeles-Riverside- * O range C o u n ty * A tla n ta' gallasFort W orth ] \ „© I J r (f GalvestonBrazoria | 1 0 100 mi 0 0 200 mi 100 mi 11-47 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria,TX 194 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 11. Work METROPOLITAN AREAS Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, Ml Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH MAINE NEW HIGA N M PS HIR E Lowell MASSACHU Detroit Boston Worcesh CONNECTICUT Dallas-Fort Worth, TX New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA TEX MASSACHUSETT NEW YORK Dallas CONN 11-54 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD New York PEN S Y LVA N IA Philadi W ilm ington ’Atlantic City Atlanta, GA HSTRIt G A :OLUM I Washington D ELA W A R E Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV U.S. Census Bureau 11-55 195 Chapter 12 Military Service Chapter 12 Military Service T his chapter addresses current or former (Figure 12-1). World War II veterans made up the next- Figure 12-1. active-duty members of the armed forces in largest group (5.7 million people, or 21.7 percent of the United States. According to Census all veterans), followed by veterans who served from Civilian Veterans (m illions) by Period o f Service, 20 0 0 2000, 1.2 million active-duty members of the armed February 1955 to July 1964 (4.4 million or 16.5 per forces resided in the United States. Census 2000 also cent) and those who served during the Korean War counted 208.1 million civilians 18 and older in the (4.0 million or 15.3 percent). Veterans who served dur country, of whom 26.4 million (12.7 percent) were vet ing the period from September 1980 to July 1990 erans. A civilian veteran was defined as someone 18 accounted for 3.8 million people, or 14.4 percent of or older who was not currently on active duty but who the veteran population. Finally, those who served once served on active duty in the U.S. Army, Navy, Air between May 1975 and August 1980 (2.8 million or Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard, or who served in 10.5 percent) and those who served in August 1990 the Merchant Marine during World War II. (Active duty or later (3.0 million or 11.5 percent) made up the does not include time spent training in the military smallest percentages of the total veteran population. reserves or National Guard, such as the 4 to 6 centages sum to more than 100 percent because some This definition includes people who served for even a veterans served in more than one period.) Korean W ar (June 19S0 to January 195S) February 1955 to Ju ly 1964 Vietnam era (August 1964 to April I 975) This last group includes Gulf War veterans. (The per months of initial training or yearly summer camps.) W orld W ar II (September 1940 to July 1947) short time. Census 2000 collected data about the periods In 2000, the median age of all veterans living in M ay 1975 to A ugust 1980 Sep te m b e r 1980 to Ju ly 1990 A ug u st 1990 or later (including the Gulf War) the United States was 57.4 years. The median age and length of service for veterans. Period-of-military- ranged from 33.3 years for those serving since August service data distinguish veterans who served during Som e o ther time 1990 to 76.7 years for World War II veterans. In total, wartime from those who served during peacetime. 9.7 million were 65 or older. 4 6 8 16.7 million veterans were under the age of 65 and Questions about period and length of military service 2 two most populous regions of the country in 2000. The West and the Northeast had veteran populations provide information necessary to estimate the number Recent Declines in the Veteran Population of 5.7 million and 4.6 million, respectively. The per During the last 20 years of the twentieth century, the varied slightly among the regions, ranging from 11.5 included a question on veterans. The Census 2000 veteran population declined as older veterans, particu percent in the Northeast to 13.4 percent in the South. long-form questionnaire asked respondents about any larly Korean War, World War II, and World War I veter active-duty service in the U.S. armed forces, military ans, died. The number dropped from 28.5 million in reserves, or National Guard; about periods of service; 1980 to 27.5 million in 1990 and to 26.4 million in increased by 6.7 percent. The largest decline was in and about the number of years of active-duty military 2000. The declines occurred exclusively among the the Northeast, where the number of veterans dropped service. male veteran population, which fell from 27.4 million from 5.5 million to 4.6 million, or 15.4 percent. The in 1980 to 24.8 million in 2000. veteran population fell 7.6 percent in the Midwest and of veterans who are eligible to receive specific benefits. Since 1840, many decennial censuses have Veteran Status by Period of Service Vietnam-era veterans constituted the largest group of centage of civilians 18 and older who were veterans Between 1990 and 2000, the number of veterans decreased in every region except the South, where it 2.7 percent in the West. Regional and State-level Patterns Among the 50 states and the District of veterans in Census 2000, accounting for 8.4 million The veteran population in 2000 was largest in the Columbia, Alaska had the highest percentage of veter people, or 31.7 percent of the total veteran population South (9.9 million) and the Midwest (6.1 million), the ans in 2000, 17.1 percent (map 12-01). Veterans 198 U.S. Census Bureau percent decline in the veteran population in the Figure 12-2. District of Columbia was not statistically different from Percent Women of Civilian Veterans by Period of Service, 2000 declines in New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut. The percentage of the civilian population 18 and older who were veterans fell in every state and the District of Columbia between 1990 and 2000. Nevada, the state with the largest percentage increase in the number of veterans, was also the state with the largest decline in veterans as a percent of the total population 18 and older. Because of rapid growth of the nonveteran population in Nevada, the veteran pop ulation dropped from 19.7 percent to 16.1 percent. Veteran Status by Sex and Employment Status accounted for 16.2 percent of the adult population in Of the 26.4 million veterans in the United States in Montana, followed by Nevada, Wyoming, and Maine 2000, 24.8 million were men and 1.6 million were (percentages were not statistically different in the four eran population in 2000 and their percentages have Columbia (9.8 percent) had the lowest percentages of Feb ruary 1955 t o ju ly 1964 Vietnam era (August 1964 to April 1975) M ay 1975 to A ugust 1980 Sep tem ber 1980 t o ju ly 1990 A ug u st 1990 or later (including the Gulf War) steadily increased in recent decades (Figure 12-2). veterans in their populations (again, the two percent Korean W ar (June 1950 to January 1955) women. Women made up 6 percent of the total vet states). New York state (9.5 percent) and the District of W orld W ar II (September 1940 to July 1947) Nearly 10 percent of veterans who served from May Som e o ther tim e ages were not statistically different). Map 12-1 5, 1975 to August 1980 and 13 percent of those who employed. They were closely followed by veterans appearing later in the chapter, shows the proportion of served from September 1980 to July 1990 were who served from May 1975 to August 1980 (78.0 per veterans in 2000 at the county level nationwide. women. In the most recent period of service, August cent). More than three-quarters (75.4 percent) of veter 1990 or later, 15.7 percent were women. In contrast, ans of the Vietnam era were employed in 2000, as wide between 1990 and 2000, some states saw in 2000, women made up 4.2 percent of the World were more than half (51.4 percent) of those who increases. The state with the most rapidly growing War II veteran population and 2.2 percent of the served from February 195 5 to July 1964. The percent veteran population was Nevada, the state that also Korean War veteran population. age employed was lower for Korean War veterans Even though the number of veterans fell nation had the fastest-growing total population. In Nevada, The majority of U.S. veterans (54.7 percent) were (24.6 percent) and World War II veterans (1 1.6 per cent), most of whom were of retirement age. veterans increased by B0.8 percent, from 182,000 to employed in 2000. This was slightly below the figure 238,000. Increases of 10 percent or more were of 59.7 percent for the general population aged 16 recorded in the veteran populations in Arizona, Idaho, and above. Reflecting the relationship between age Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Utah. and employment, veterans who served most recently Veteran Status by Race and Hispanic Origin Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia were most likely to be employed in 2000. Among vet Veteran status for the civilian population 18 and older recorded declines in their veteran populations during erans serving in August 1990 or later, 81.4 percent varied by race and Hispanic origin, as seen in maps the 1990s. Among the states, New York had the were employed, while 82.7 percent of those who 12-02 through 12-08. In 2000, 3.7 percent of the civil largest decline, falling by 20.3 percent. The 23.1- served from September 1980 to July 1990 were ian Asian population 18 and older had veteran status; U.S. Census Bureau 199 Chapter 12. M ilita ry Service Veterans, 2000 Asian Population Veterans as a percentage of Asian population, including changes in the active-duty 1970 and 2000 are due to deaths of World War I, military population living in group quarters, the total World War II, and Korean War veterans. veteran population, and the proportion of military households with an employed spouse or partner. The active-duty military population represents The veterans’ share of the population, according to period of service, varied geographically. The series of maps 12-18 through 12-21 show the distribution of less than 1 percent of the nation’s total population but veterans as a percentage of civilians who would have is sometimes a far higher share in those parts of the been 18 or older in the last year of the selected period country— including the southeastern United States, of service. World War II veterans— representing 23.9 southern California, and Hawaii— where there are mili percent of the civilian population aged 71 and older in tary installations with large numbers of active-duty 2000— were a higher share in popular retiree destina personnel (map 12-09). Maps 12-10 and 12-1 1 use tions. Veterans of the Korean War (10.2 percent of the graduated symbols to indicate the locations of the civilian population aged 63 and older in 2000) and largest military group-quarters populations in 1990 Vietnam-era veterans (7.8 percent of the civilian popu and 2000. lation aged 43 and older) had broadly similar geo While there was a decrease in the total number graphic distributions. Veterans of the Gulf War had a the corresponding figure for the non-Hispanic White of veterans between 1990 and 2000, many counties different spatial distribution. While their share of the population was 14.6 percent. had high percentages of veterans in both decades, population was low (1.5 percent of the population 23 particularly in parts of the southeastern United States, and older in 2000), the percentages were higher in a For the Black population, for instance, veteran percent Florida, the Ozark region of Missouri and Arkansas, handful of counties containing large military installa ages were higher in most states in the West and lower the northern Great Lakes region, and the West (maps tions, a reflection of the recency of their service. in most states elsewhere. For the non-Hispanic White 12-14 and 12-1 5). Some of these counties also are Geographic patterns are also visible in the maps. population, too, most states in the western half of the locations of military installations, while others— such country displayed elevated percentages of veterans. as those in Florida, the Ozarks, and the northern Great Lakes— have become popular destinations for retirees. This Chapter’s Maps Maps 12-24 through 12-28 show the distribu The maps in this chapter present both the historical tions of veterans by state from 1960 to 2000. The and the contemporary portraits of the veteran declines in the overall veteran population between 200 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 12. M ilita ry Service Active-Duty Military Population, 2000 With Military Installations Active-duty m ilitary as a percentage of population 18 and older u .s. percent 0.5 I 10.0 to 60.3 3.0 to 9.9 1.0 to 2.9 0.5 to 0.9 0.2 to 0.4 0.0 to 0.1 M ilitary installation with 10,000 or m ore active-duty m ilitary personnel Fort Norfolk Naval Base Cam p Pendlei M arine C o rp s Bas< Cam p Lejeune M arine C o rps Base N o rth Island San Diego Naval A ir S tatio n San Diego Naval S tation H unter A rm y A irfield M a yp o rt Naval Station Pensacola Naval Air S tation (? w Ja ck so n ville Naval A ir S tatio n S cho field Barracks M ilita ry Reserve Pearl Harbor Public W orks Center According to Census 2000, the active-duty military popu lation in the United States was about 1.2 million, roughly 0.5 percent of the population 18 and older. In a small number of counties across the country— shaded darkest in the above map—the active-duty military population constituted 10 percent or more of the population 18 and older. These counties often contained one or more large military installations (symbolized by a dot in the above U.S. Census Bureau map), and the high proportions of active-duty military can result in unusual demographic profiles for the county, such as distinct age-sex structures. In a majority of coun ties, no military installations were present and the activeduty military population represented less than 1 percent of the population. Counties with a large percentage of their popula tion consisting of active-duty members of the military are found in nearly every state, from populous California and Texas to sparsely populated Wyoming and North Dakota. Higher-than-average percentages of active-duty military populations are found in Washington, DC and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs, as well as in a number of coastal counties stretching from southeastern Virginia to northern Florida. 201 Chapter 12. M ilita ry Service 202 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 12. M ilita ry Service Military Households With an Employed Partner, 2000 Percentage of couples with an active-duty m ilitary householder in w h ich the spouse or partner w a s a civilian em plo yed full-time u .s. percent 52.7 5 90.0 or m ore 80.0 to 89.9 65.0 to 79.9 52.7 to 64.9 40.0 to 52.6 Less than 40.0 No couples with an activeduty military householder Percentage of couples with an active-duty m ilitary householder in w h ich the spouse or partner w a s also active-duty m ilitary 10.0 or m ore 8.0 to 9.9 U.S. 5.5 to 7.9 5.5 4.0 to 5.4 2.0 to 3.9 Less than 2.0 No couples with an activeduty military householder U.S. Census Bureau 203 Chapter 12. M ilita ry Service Veterans as a percentage of civilian population 16 and older 20.0 to 29.0 17.0 to 19.9 U.S. percent ~ 14.5 14.5 to 16.9 13.0 to 14.4 10.0 to 12.9 0.0 to 9.9 Veterans as a percentage of civilian population 18 and older 20.0 to 39.1 17.0 to 19.9 15.0 to 16.9 U.S. percent 12.7 12.7 to 14.9 10.0 to 12.6 0.0 to 9.9 204 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 12. M ilita ry Service Percent Vietnam-Era Veterans, 2000 Reservations With Largest AIAN Populations A IA N Veterans w h o served during the period A ugust 1964 to April 1975 as a percentage of the A IA N population 43 and older (18 and older in 1975) U.S. Census Bureau 205 Chapter 12. M ilita ry Service Veterans w h o served during the period Sep tem ber 1940 to J u ly 1947 as a percentage of the population 71 and older (18 and older in 1947) I cent — 23.9 I 30.0 to 50.0 23.9 to 29.9 10.0 to 23.8 5.0 to 9.9 Veterans w h o served during the period Ju n e 1950 to Ja n u a ry 1955 as a percentage of the population 63 and older (18 and older in 1955) 25.0 to 27.4 U.S. 10.2 to 24.9 10.2 5.0 to 10.1 0.0 to 4.9 0.0 to 4.9 Veterans w h o served during the period August 1964 to April 1975 as a percentage of the population 43 and older (18 and older in 1975) 206 U.S. percent 7 8 to 22 4 0.0 to 4.9 Veterans w h o served during the period August 1990 to March 1995 as a percentage of the population 23 and older (18 and older in 1995) U.S. percent 1.5 E 25.0 to 30.2 10.0 to 24.9 1.5 to 9.9 0.0 to 1.4 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 12. M ilita ry Service Percentage of civilian veterans w h o reported having a long-lasting disability; disability m ay not be related to m ilitary service 45.0 or m ore 37.0 to 44.9 33.0 to 36.9 U.S. percent - 28.2 28.2 to 32.9 23.0 to 28.1 5.2 to 22.9 12-25 16.8 to 21.7 3.9 to 16.7 U.S. Census Bureau 207 Chapter 12. M ilita ry Service METROPOLITAN AREAS San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA Percent of Veterans In Poverty, 2000 Largest Metropolitan Areas 30.0 or m ore 15.0 to 29.9 U .S. m ap b y county, m etropolitan area m aps by census tract U.S. percent 8.3 8.3 to 14.9 5.0 to 8.2 2.0 to 4.9 Less than 2.0 No veterans Boston-WorcesterLawrence-LowellBrockton PhiladelphiaW ilm ingtonA tla n tic City Detroit-Ann A rb o r- Flin t Chicago-Gary-| \ K enosha S a n FranciscoO akland-San Jo s e N ewYorkNorthern N e w Je r s e y Long Island W ashington.Baltim o re Los Angeles-Riverside- * O range C o u n ty ' A tla n ta' D a lla s - FortWorth| HoustonGalvestonBrazoria Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX 208 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 12. M ilita ry Service METROPOLITAN AREAS Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH NEW HAMPSHIRE MAI NE Lowell MASSAC Boston ‘Worcester Brocktoi CONNECTICUT Dallas-Fort Worth, TX New tfork-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA TEX A b AS S A NEW YORK Fort Worth CONNECTICUT RHOD ISLAN ' Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD New York PEN N S YLVAN IA * Philach NE W JE R S E Y lington RY LA ‘Atlantic City Baltimoi Atlanta. GA Washington D ELA W A R E Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV U.S. Census Bureau 12-37 209 Chapter IB Income and Poverty Chapter 13 Income and Poverty ensus income and poverty data measure questions into a single question. Census 2000 counted general economic circumstances and pro Median Household Income, 1999 105.5 million households in the United States and col vide insight into one element of the lives lected data on income for the calendar year 1999. of Americans. Also, income and poverty are often Income from wages and salary, self-employment, inter related to other social and economic indicators, and est and dividends, Social Security, Supplemental some of the geographic patterns seen in this chapter’s Security Income, public assistance, retirement, and all maps echo those shown for other topics in earlier other sources were aggregated for all individuals in a chapters. household to form household income. Income Data The 1940 decennial census was the first to include a Median Income of Households and Families question about income. Later censuses expanded and Median household income in 1999 was $41,994, up $50,000 to $55,146 $41,994 to $49,999 $35,000 to $41,993 $14,412 to $34,999 refined approaches to collecting income data. The 7.7 percent from 1989 in real terms (after adjusting most recent refinements included adding a question for 30 percent inflation over the period). In 1999, 12.3 about Supplemental Security Income and combining percent of households had incomes over $100,000 separate farm and nonfarm self-employment income and 22.1 percent had incomes below $20,000. Median ($29,423). The median income for non-Hispanic family income in the United States in 1999 was White households was $45,367. The median income Figure 13-1. Median Household Income (thousands o f dollars) by Household Type, 1999 $50,046. Median family income tends to be higher for Hispanic households was $33,676. Asian house than median household income because many house holds also had the highest percentage (19.8 percent) holds consist of people who live alone (Figure 13-1). of households with incomes of $100,000 or more; About 15 percent of all families reported incomes of 10.0 percent reported incomes below $10,000. Black $100,000 or more. households had the highest percentage (19.1 per cent) of households with incomes below $10,000; A ll h o u se h o ld s Median Household Income by State 5.9 percent reported incomes over $100,000. Maps Median household income in 1999 ranged from Married-couple households Fem ale householders, no husband present Male householders, no w ife present 13-30 through 13-36 later in the chapter illustrate $29,696 in West Virginia to $55,146 in New Jersey. geographic patterns of median income by race and The relative standings of the states changed little F a m ily h o u se h o ld s Hispanic origin at the county level in 1999. between 1989 and 1999. The same four states ranked highest in median income in 1989 and 1999 (New Households with a householder 45 to 54 years old reported the highest median income ($56,300). Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland, and Alaska). New Jersey Median income was lowest among households with a climbed two places to replace Connecticut as the state householder 15 to 24 years old ($22,679) and house Female householders Fem ales living alone Male householders Males living alone holds with a householder 75 years old and older the lowest median incomes in 1989 (Louisiana, Non fa m ily h o u se h o ld s with the highest median income. The four states with ($22,259). Arkansas, Mississippi, and West Virginia) were also the lowest in 1999, with West Virginia falling one place to replace Mississippi as the state with the lowest median income (map 13-01). Median Household Income by Educational Attainment and Nativity of Householder Median household income also varies by the Median Household Income by Race and Hispanic Origin and by Age of Householder educational attainment of the householder. Median household income in 1999 for households main tained by people without a high school diploma was 212 Median income in 1999 was highest for Asian house $23,449. The comparable figure for households holds ($51,908) and lowest for Black households maintained by someone who completed high school U.S. Census Bureau Median Household Income, 1999 H o useh o lde rs W ith o u t a H igh S cho o l Diplom a only was $36,764, and for households maintained 21.1 million households had incomes higher by someone who completed college, it was than $79,663. $62,248. Maps l 3-02 through l 3-04 illustrate state-level patterns in median household income The Poverty Rate for these three educational categories. In 1999, 12.4 percent of the U.S. population, or Median income in l 999 for foreign-born $23,449 to $32,093 $17,440 to $23,448 33.9 million people, were living in poverty, down households (those with a foreign-born householder) from 13.1 percent in 1989. (The glossary provides was $39,444, while the median income for native more information on the poverty definition and households was $42,299. The state-level geo poverty thresholds.) Poverty rates declined for most graphic patterns for median income by nativity— age groups (Figure 13-2). The poverty rate for chil seen in maps l 3-05 and l 3-06—appear broadly dren declined by 1.7 percentage points, from 18.3 similar to the overall national pattern. $8,857 (P R ) percent in 1989 to 16.6 percent in 1999. The poverty rate for people 75 and older fell from 16.5 Changes in Median Household Income by Region and State Median Household Income, 1999 H o useh o lde rs Co m pleted O n ly H igh School All regions and nearly all states posted increases in real median household income between l 989 and percent in 1989 to 1 1.5 percent in 1999. Median Household Income, 1999 N a tive H o useh o lde rs 1999. The Northeast had the highest median household income in l 999 ($45,481), followed by the West ($45,084), the Midwest ($42,414), and the South ($38,790). From 1989 to 1999, real median $40,000 to $45,624 $36,764 to $39,999 $30,000 to $36,763 $14,541 to $29,999 household income grew more in the South and the $45,000 to $56,000 Midwest than in the Northeast or the West. In the $42,299 to $44,999 South and Midwest, median income increased by $14,200 to $34,999 $35,000 to $42,298 11.4 percent; the West and Northeast posted gains of 7.6 percent and 3.6 percent, respectively. All states showed an increase in median household income with the exception of Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, and Rhode Island. The District of Columbia also did not show an increase in real Median Household Income, 1999 median household income. Colorado and South Median Household Income, 1999 H o useh o lde rs W ith a B achelor's D egree or Higher Dakota experienced the largest increases in real F o reign -B o rn H o useh o lde rs median household income (21 percent each). New Jersey and Connecticut had the largest proportions of high-income households in 1999. Thirty-two percent of households in New Jersey $75,000 to $87,080 $62,248 to $74,999 $50,000 to $62,247 $35,696 to $49,999 and 30 percent of Connecticut’s households had household income above $79,663 (the eightieth percentile figure for the United States). West Virginia, while not statistically different from Arkansas, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota, had the lowest concentration of high-income households, at 9 percent. Nationally, U.S. Census Bureau 2 13 Chapter 13. Incom e and P overty The child poverty rate in 1999 exceeded rates for adults, in 1999, the poverty rate for people aged 18 to 64, for example, was 11.1 percent, and Fig u re 1 3-2. United States, with a considerable proportion of those Percent in Poverty by Age Group, 1989 and 1999 counties also showing college completion rates below the national average. By 2000, the West had fewer the rates for people 65 to 74 years old and those counties with median household incomes at or above 75 and older were 8.5 percent and 1 1.5 percent, the national figure. Many counties with higher respectively. incomes and college completion rates were in metro Poverty Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin tan areas often also had median incomes at or above At 8.1 percent, non-Hispanic Whites had the lowest below the U.S. percentage. politan areas. Counties on the periphery of metropoli the national median but college completion rates Median household income in 1999 by census poverty rate in 1999. Poverty rates were higher for Asians and for Pacific Islanders (1 2.6 percent and tract for the most populous metropolitan areas is 17.7 percent, respectively) and among Blacks and shown in maps 13-15 through 13-23. A general pat the American Indian and Alaska Native population tern emerges, with many of the lower household (24.9 percent and 2 5.7 percent, respectively). income tracts found in the largest cities of metropoli Hispanics had a poverty rate of 22.6 percent. tan areas and many of the tracts with high median household incomes seen in suburban areas. Poverty rates also varied by family type and the presence and number of children. The poverty Map 13-24 reveals the ratio of median earnings rate for all married-couple families in 1999 (4.9 per of younger workers (16-to-44-year-olds) to older cent) was lower than the rate for male-householder workers (45-to-64-year-olds). The ratio for the country families with no spouse present (1 3.6 percent) and as a whole was 0.73 in 1999. female-householder families with no spouse present All people Under 18 18 to 64 65 to 74 75 and older (26.5 percent). Among the latter group, the poverty Another series of maps, 13-43 through 13-46, presents counties classified by poverty rates for 1969, rate for those with related children under 18 was 1979, 1989, and 1999. While counties shift in and out 34.3 percent in 1999, down from 42.3 percent This Chapter’s Maps in 1989. The maps in this chapter provide a close look at the number of counties with higher rates of poverty is geographic distributions of income levels and poverty visible. Regional and State Poverty Rates rates in the United States. A number of the maps of the various categories over time, a decline in the The geographic distribution of poverty within Census 2000 found differences in poverty rates examine income and poverty by various characteris the largest metropolitan areas in 1999 is seen in among the four U.S. regions. Overall, the South had tics, such as age, family structure, or citizenship maps 13-48 through 13-56. Echoing the geographic the highest poverty rate in 1999 (1 3.9 percent), fol status. patterns seen in median household income within lowed by the West (1 3.0 percent). The Northeast Trends in median household income at the metropolitan areas, the tracts with the lowest poverty had a lower poverty rate (11.4 percent), with the county level from 1969 through 1989 can be seen in rates are generally in suburban areas, while the tracts with the highest poverty rates are usually found in the Midwest experiencing the lowest rate among the maps 13-09 through 13-11. In all three maps, the four regions (10.2 percent). Poverty rates at the incomes were adjusted to current (1 999) dollars. central city or cities. In 1999, the overall poverty rate state level varied from a low of 6.5 percent in New When viewed in conjunction with the chapter’s county- for central cities of metropolitan areas was 17.6 per Hampshire to a high of 19.9 percent in Mississippi. level map on median household income in 1999 (map cent, while the rate for suburbs (the areas inside met The poverty rate in the District of Columbia— 20.2 13-08), changes over time in geographic patterns are ropolitan areas but outside the central city) was 8.4 percent— was not statistically different from the evident. Much of the South was in the lowest income percent. The poverty rate for nonmetropolitan terri poverty rate for Mississippi (map 13-07). category in 1969 and moved into higher income cate tory in 1999 was 14.6 percent. gories by 1999. Likewise, the major metropolitan areas in Texas are more prominent at the end of the Maps 13-60 and 13-61 compare the geographic distributions of children living in poverty and children period as more of their counties moved into higher living in high-income households. In 1999, 16.6 per income categories. At the same time, the higher cent of children were in poverty, while 8.1 percent income counties in the Northeast’s urban corridor and lived in households with incomes of $125,000 or the Great Lakes area in the Midwest are prominent in more (roughly 3 times the U.S. median household 1969 and less so by 1999, as incomes in counties income). The geographic pattern on the map of chil throughout the country increased. dren in poverty is similar to that of map 13-41, the Maps 13-12 and 13-1 3 illustrate income levels map of overall poverty. The map of children living in and education levels in 1950 and 2000. Each county gether. Aside from the Boston to Washington area and hold income and higher or lower on education (rela coastal California, metropolitan areas are more promi tive to the U.S. national percentage that completed nent than regions. Counties with high percentages of college). In 1950, many rural counties in the West had children in high-income households are generally met median incomes at or above the median for the 214 high-income households has a different pattern alto was categorized as higher or lower on median house ropolitan and are often suburban. U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 13. Incom e and Poverty According to Census 2000, the median household income in the United States in 1999 was $41,994, indi cating that half of all households had income above that figure and half had income below it. For individual coun ties, the median household income varied. As shown in the map above, counties with rela tively high median household income in 1999 are located in several parts of the country, with one area stretching U.S. Census Bureau across the heavily populated area in the Northeast, from southern Maine to northern Virginia, and a second large band found in the Midwest, from Ohio to Wisconsin. Other areas with higher median household income include Colorado, Utah, and California. One area of coun ties with relatively low median household income is found in eastern Kentucky and West Virginia; a second group of counties with lower household income hugs the lower Mississippi River in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Median household income in 1999 in metropolitan areas ($44,755) was higher than in nonmetropolitan coun ties ($33,687), and counties with higher median house hold income are often located within metropolitan areas. This pattern can be seen in Texas, north Georgia, Oregon, and Washington. 21 5 Chapter 13. Incom e and P overty Median Household Income, 1979 Median Household Income, 1989 I ■ $60,000 to $76,942 $60,000 to $71,291 $50,000 to $59,999 $50,000 to $59,999 $40,000 to $49,999 M edian household incom e in 1999 dollars U.S. median $35,822 to $39,999 Median household incom e in 1999 dollars U.S. median $39,009 to $49,999 $39,009 $35,000 to $39,008 $30,000 to $34,999 $25,000 to $29,999 Less than $25,000 216 $30,000 to $35,821 $25,000 to $29,999 $35,822 Less than $25,000 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 13. Incom e and Poverty Median fam ily incom e (1949) and householder com pletion of 4 years of college (1950), relative to 1950 national levels; higher incom es and college com pletion values are at or ab ove U .S . values INCOME Low er Higher Higher m EDUCATION Low er Data not comparable M edian fam ily incom e (1999) and householder college com pletion (2000), relative to 2000 national levels; higher incom es and college com pletion values are at or ab o ve U .S . values INCOME Low er Higher Higher Lo w er EDUCATION m U.S. Census Bureau 217 Chapter 13. Incom e and P overty METROPOLITAN AREAS San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA Median Household Income, 1999 Largest Metropolitan Areas $200,000 and over $100,000 to $199,999 U .S. m ap b y county; m etropolitan area m aps b y census tract $70,000 to $99,999 U.S. median $41,994 $41,994 to $69,999 $25,000 to $41,993 Less than $25,000 No households LosAngeles-Riverside- *> Orange County % *© \ o. 0 100 mi \ 0 7 GalvestonBrazoria \t v_ \ 200 mi i 1 0 100 mi 13-14 Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA 218 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria,TX U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 13. Incom e and Poverty METROPOLITAN AREAS Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH Dallas-Fort Worth, TX r O lt W orth New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA Dallas Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD New York ’hiladelphia* N EW JE R S E Y ‘Atlantic City At anta. GA D IST R lA " o f O O I^ JM B IA ? Washington; D ELA W A R E Atlanta Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV U.S. Census Bureau 219 Chapter 13. Incom e and P overty Median Earnings Ratio, 1999 Ratio of m edian earnings of the population 16 to 44 years old to the population 45 to 64; includes part-time and seasonal w orkers Younger population earned more 1.00 to 4.42 0.80 to 0.99 U.S. 0.73 to 0.79 0.73 0.60 to 0.72 0.50 to 0.59 Older population earned more 0.16 to 0.49 Median Earnings, 1999 Older Working Age - cr> - $30,000 to $32,976 M edian earnings fo r the population 16 to 44 years old; includes part-time and seasonal workers $30,000 to $49,115 $25,000 to $29,999 $25,000 to $29,999 $20,000 to $24,999 U.S. median $15,999 $15,999 to $19,999 M edian earnings fo r the population 45 to 64 years old; includes part-time and seasonal workers U.S. median $21,900 $21,900 to $24,999 $15,000 to $21,899 $10,000 to $14,999 $2,499 to $9,999 220 $10,000 to $15,998 $2,499 to $9,999 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 13. Incom e and Poverty Ratio of m edian earnings of w o m en to m en for the population 16 and older w h o worked year-round and full-time 1.18 to 1.41 1.00 to 1.17 0.85 to 0.99 U.S. ratio 0.73 0.73 to 0.84 0.60 to 0.72 0.45 to 0.59 Men earned more Less than 0.45 No women worked year-round and full-time Median Earnings, 1999 Median Earnings, 1999 Men Women I C I o - ? ' $45,000 to $70,063 M edian earnings fo r men 16 and older w h o worked year-round and full-time U.S. median $37,057 $37,057 to $44,999 $25,000 to $37,056 $20,000 to $24,999 $12,097 to $19,999 $35,000 to $46,014 M edian earnings fo r w o m en 16 and older w h o worked year-round and full-time U.S. median $27,194 $27,194 to $34,999 $20,000 to $27,193 $11,648 to $19,999 No women worked year-round and full-time U.S. Census Bureau 221 Chapter 13. Incom e and P overty Median Household Income, 1999 White Non-Hispanic Householders • £3>- $70,000 and o ver $40,000 to $49,999 $29,423 to $39,999 $15,000 to $29,999 $45,367 $50,000 to $69,999 $40,000 to $45,366 - $70,000 and over $45,367 to $69,999 $30,000 to $39,999 U.S. $15,000 to $29,422 Less than $15,000 Less than $15,000 No Black householders Median Household Income, 1999 Median Houshold Income, 1999 American Indian and Alaska Native Householders Asian Householders I :- .v - ■L $70,000 and o ver $70,000 and o ver $50,000 to $69,999 U.S. $40,000 to $49,999 U.S. median $30,599 $51,908 - $51,908 to $69,999 $40,000 to $51,907 $30,599 to $39,999 $15,000 to $29,999 Less than $15,000 222 $30,000 to $39,999 $15,000 to $30,598 j ■ Less than $15,000 No AIAN householders No Asian householders U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 13. Incom e and Poverty Median Household Income, 1999 Median Household Income, 1999 Pacific Islander Householders Two or More Races Householders ■r r ? § - o $70,000 and over $70,000 and o ver $50,000 to $69,999 $50,000 to $69,999 U.S. median $42,717 U.S. median $35,587 $42,717 to $49,999 $30,000 to $42,716 $35,587 to $49,999 $30,000 to $35,586 $15,000 to $29,999 $15,000 to $29,999 Less than $15,000 Less than $15,000 No Pacific Islander householders 1 I____ I No Two or More Races householders Median Household Income, 1999 Hispanic Householders - EZ&t $70,000 and o ver $50,000 to $69,999 $40,000 to $49,999 U.S. median $33,676 $33,676 to $39,999 $15,000 to $33,675 Less than $15,000 No Hispanic householders U.S. Census Bureau 223 Chapter 13. Incom e and P overty 224 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 13. Incom e and Poverty U.S. Census Bureau 225 Chapter 13. Incom e and P overty Percentage of population in poverty 40.0 to 68.0 30.0 to 39.9 20.0 to 29.9 u .s. percent ~ 12.4 12.4 to 19.9 8.0 to 12.3 0.0 to 7.9 Percentage of population 65 and older in poverty 40.0 to 67.1 30.0 to 39.9 20.0 to 29.9 15.0 to 19.9 U.S. percent 9.9 226 9.9 to 14.9 0.0 to 9.8 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 13. Incom e and Poverty Poverty, 1969 40.0 or m ore Percentage of population in poverty; U .S . percentage 13.7 20.0 to 39.9 Percentage of population in poverty; U.S. percentage 12.4 Less than 20.0 40.0 or m ore Percentage of population in poverty; U .S. percentage 13.1 20.0 to 39.9 Less than 20.0 U.S. Census Bureau 40.0 or m ore 20.0 to 39.9 Less than 20.0 Percentage of population in poverty; U.S. percentage 12.4 40.0 or m ore 20.0 to 39.9 Less than 20.0 227 Chapter 13. Incom e and P overty METROPOLITAN AREAS San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA Poverty, 1999 Largest Metropolitan Areas 30.0 or more Percentage of population in poverty; U.S. m ap by county, metropolitan area m aps by census tract 20.0 to 29.9 U.S. 12.4 to 19.9 12.4 6.0 to 12.3 3.0 to 5.9 Less than 3.0 No population Boston-WorcesterLaw re nee-LowellBrockton PhiladelphiaW ilm ingtonA tla n tic City Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, Chicago-Gary-| \ Kenosha S a n Francisco O akland-San Jo s e NewYorkN orthern N e w JerseyLong Island W ashington. Baltim o re Los Angeles-RiversideO range C o u n ty * A tla n ta' DallasF o rtW o rth | 'H o u sto n GalvestonBrazoria 228 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 13. Incom e and Poverty METROPOLITAN AREAS Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH W IS CO NS I N EW HAMPSHIRE MAINE Lawrence Lowel MASSACHUS Boston Worcestei Brockton, L IN O IS CONMECTJCUT Dallas-Fort Worth, TX New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA TEX MASSA NEW YORK Fort Wol CONNECT Newark Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD New York S Y L V A NI A NE W JE R S E Y ‘Wilmington M-A R Y/L A Atlantic City Baltimore Atlanta, GA D ELA W A R E Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV U.S. Census Bureau 229 Chapter 13. Incom e and P overty Percentage in poverty am ong m arried couples with children 60.0 to 68.8 45.0 to 59.9 30.0 to 44.9 15.0 to 29.9 U.S. percent - 6.6 6.6 to 14.9 0.0 to 6.5 60.0 or m ore Percentage in poverty am ong m ale householders with children and no w ife present 60.0 or m ore 45.0 to 59.9 45.0 to 59.9 30.0 to 44.9 U.S. percent 17.7 17.7 to 29.9 5.0 to 17.6 Percentage in poverty am ong fem ale householders w ith children and no husband present U.S. percent 34.3 34.3 to 44.9 15.0 to 34.2 5.0 to 14.9 Less than 5.0 □ 230 Less than 5.0 No male one-parent families with children No female one-parent families with children U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 13. Incom e and Poverty Percentage o f population under 18 in poverty 50.0 to 81.3 30.0 to 49.9 20.0 to 29.9 U.S. percent - 16.6 16.6 to 19.9 10.0 to 16.5 0.0 to 9.9 Percentage of population under 18 in households with incom es of $125,000 and over 20.0 to 36.2 15.0 to 19.9 u .s. 8.1 to 14.9 percent 8.1 5.0 to 8.0 0.0 to 4.9 O U.S. Census Bureau 231 r C h a p te r 14 H o u s in g Chapter 14 Housing hanges in the housing stock in the percent of housing units were in structures with 20 United States reflect some of the demo- or more units. Mobile homes accounted for 7.6 per graphic changes portrayed elsewhere in cent of all housing units. this atlas. The characteristics of the 115.9 million housing units in the United States include features Owner- and Renter-Occupied Housing such as whether individuals are homeowners or Occupied housing units are classified as either owned renters, live in a newly constructed home or an or rented. Nationally, renter-occupied housing units older one, and heat their home with utility gas or outnumbered owner-occupied housing units from with wood. 1900 to 1940 (Figure 14-1). In 1900, there were 8.2 million renter-occupied housing units and 7.2 million Growth in the Housing Stock owner-occupied housing units. By 1950, the number When the U.S. Census Bureau conducted the first of owner-occupied housing units had tripled to 23.6 census of housing in 1940, it found S7.3 million million, while the number of renter-occupied housing housing units. (Prior to 1940, the population census units had more than doubled to 19.3 million. From collected limited information on the number of occu 1950 to 2000, the increase in owner-occupied units pied housing units in the United States.) Between far outpaced the growth of renter-occupied units. among the states (map 14-01). In 2000 (as in 1990), 1940 and 2000, the U.S. population more than dou Owner-occupied units grew by 46.3 million, to a total West Virginia and Minnesota had the highest propor Homeownership rates in 2000 varied widely bled in size, from 132.2 million to 281.4 million, and of 69.8 million in 2000, while renter-occupied units tions of owner-occupied housing. While the majority of the number of housing units more than tripled, to increased by 16.4 million, to a total of 35.7 million. occupied units in all 50 states were owner occupied, 11 5.9 million. The largest census-to-census housing In 2000, 66.2 percent of the 105.5 million occupied about 3 out of 4 households in West Virginia (75.2 unit increase, both in numerical and percentage housing units were owner occupied, the highest percent) and Minnesota (74.6 percent) owned their terms, occurred during the 1970s, with the entry of homeownership rate of the twentieth century. homes. As in 1990, New York ranked at the bottom the Baby Boom generation into young with respect to homeownership (53.0 percent) in adulthood. Between 1970 and 1980, Figure 14-1. 2000. The homeownership rate for the District of the number of housing units grew by Occupied Housing Units (millions) by Tenure, 1900 to 2000 Columbia reached 40.8 percent in 2000, its highest- 19.7 million, an increase of 29 percent. ever rate during the twentieth century. While the smallest numerical increase in housing units (8.7 million) occurred in the 1940s, the lowest percentage increase (1 3 percent) occurred during the 1990s. Homeownership rates in 2000 also varied by the I 100 Renter occupied Owner occupied race and Hispanic origin of the householder (Figure 14-2). Non-Hispanic White households had the highest homeownership rates in 2000, at 72 percent. 80 Of the 115.9 million housing American Indian and Alaska Native households and Asian households had the next-highest homeowner units in 2000, 60.3 percent (69.9 mil ■ IR II lion) were single-family houses not attached to any other structure. Another 5.6 percent (6.4 million) were 60 ship rates, respectively, with lower rates for house holds with a householder who was Black, Pacific Islander, Hispanic, or Two or More Races. single-family houses attached to one or Median Home Values more other structures (usually other Among all owner-occupied housing (69.8 million homes). Structures with 2 to 19 hous units), the median home value in 2000 was $1 11,800. ing units composed an additional I 7.7 percent of all housing units, and 8.6 234 For the 56.3 million single-family detached homes, the 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 median value was $121,100. This estimate was U.S. Census Bureau somewhat higher than the $1 12,500 for Figure 14-2. Arizona (18.8 percent) (map 14-04). New housing con single-family attached units, which Momeownership Rate by Race and Hispanic Origin of Householder, 2000 stituted a smaller share of all housing for states in the numbered 3.8 million and included townhouses, row houses, and duplexes. The I 990s were all lower than the U.S. average. median value for owner-occupied homes in Occupied units are defined as crowded if more W hite non-Hispanic buildings of two or more units (3.8 million) was $116,600. The median value for mobile homes (5.9 million) in 2000 was $31,200. Northeast; these states’ population growth rates in the than one person occupies each room. Nationally, 5.7 Black percent of occupied units in 2000 were crowded, an Am erican Indian and A laska N ative (AIAN) The median home value in 2000 for all owner-occupied housing varied by state (map 14-02). States in the highest category (median values of $1 50,000 or more) were located in the West (California, Colorado, increase from 1990 when 4.9 percent of housing units were crowded. The percentage-point increases were Asian highest in California (from 12.3 percent to 15.2 per Pacific Islander cent) and Nevada (from 6.4 percent to 8.6 percent). Two or More Races Nationally, occupied housing units with a foreign-born Hispanic householder accounted for slightly more than one-half SO Hawaii, and Washington) or the Northeast 60 70 (Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey). States with the lowest values (median values (51.7 percent) of all crowded units. Complete plumbing facilities—defined as hot and for a band of states in the country’s midsection, cold piped water, a bathtub or shower, and a flush toilet— were nearly universal in American housing of $64,700 to $84,999) were located in the South stretching from Texas to North Dakota, and a handful and the Midwest. The figure for the District of of other states in the Midwest and the South. The ratio units in 2000, with 0.6 percent of homes lacking Columbia was $ 153,500. was at or above 3.0 for a number of states in the complete plumbing facilities. This level is a dramatic Northeast and the West. Map 14-31 later in the chapter change from 1940, when nearly half of homes lacked illustrates this pattern at the county level nationwide. complete plumbing, or from the 1970 figure of 6.9 Many areas with higher median home values also have higher-than-average income levels, but the percent. relationship between housing values and incomes is not uniform across the country. Nationally, in 2000, Characteristics of Housing Telephone service in U.S. housing units was also the ratio of median value of owner-occupied housing Nationally, 9.7 percent of all housing units in 2000 ($111,800) to median household income in 1999 were built between 1995 and 2000. The percentage of units lacking telephone service. Only a few decades ($42,000) was 2.7, but this figure varied by state, as “new” housing was considerably higher in some fast ago the picture was different. In 1960, 21.5 percent of seen in map 14-03. The ratio was at or below 2.2 growing states such as Nevada (26.2 percent) and all households nationally had no telephone service U.S. Census Bureau nearly universal in 2000, with 2.4 percent of housing 235 Chapter 14. Housing available; the figures for Mississippi and Arkansas of the census tracts within the San Francisco-Oakland- Chicago, the prevalent housing type varied by were 54.7 percent and 48.6 percent, respectively. In San Jose metropolitan area were in the top categories proximity to Lake Michigan. In the neighborhoods 1970, the U.S. figure was 13.0 percent and by 1980 it of housing value in 2000, in contrast to the Houston- closest to the lake, the prevalent housing type was had fallen to 7.1 percent. Galveston-Brazoria and Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan often structures of five or more units, while in tracts areas, which had relatively few tracts in the highest farther away from the lake, the prevalent type often categories. was structures of two to four units. Single-family, This Chapter’s Maps The nature of our housing reflects some aspects of Counties in the southern and southwestern parts detached homes were the prevalent type in Chicago’s tracts farthest from Lake Michigan. how we live our lives. Many of the characteristics of of the United States that experienced rapid population the U.S. population first seen in other chapters of this growth during the 1990s often had newer housing atlas, from income patterns to overall population stock than the nation overall. In some of these coun 1940 onward illustrates one way homes have changed growth, are also reflected in this chapter’s maps. ties, between one-fourth and one-half of all housing in little over a half-century (maps 14-63 through Tracing the history of home heating fuels from units in 2000 had been built in the previous 5 years 14-65). Coal was the prevalent source of heat in 1940 in a number of maps in the chapter, including map (map 14-45). The Great Plains region had lower pro in many northern states, while wood was the preva 14-07, which portrays the median value of owner- portions of new housing in 2000; much of the existing lent source of heat in much of the South, the Pacific occupied housing in 2000. Strong regional patterns housing in its rural areas was on farms (map 14-46). Distinctive, familiar geographic patterns are seen are visible on the map, with bands of counties in the In recent decades, the fastest-growing type of Northwest, and northern New England. Gas was the most common heating fuel in 1940 for California and Boston to Washington corridor and along the Pacific housing has been mobile homes (also called “manufac Oklahoma, while electricity was so rare as a source of coast in the highest categories. Many of the largest tured housing”). The 8.8 million mobile homes in 2000 heat in 1940 that the Census Bureau did not yet tally were unevenly distributed across the country, with rel its usage. metropolitan areas are prominent on the map. Some counties had ratios of median value of atively large numbers in some counties in Florida and By 1970, gas had become the prevalent heating owner-occupied housing to median household income the southwestern United States (map 14-47). While fuel for most of the country. Fuel oil (which includes that were considerably higher than the national figure mobile homes represented 7.6 percent of all housing kerosene and other liquid fuels) was the most com of 2.7 in 2000 (map 14-31). In southern New England, units nationally, they were 30.0 percent or more of the mon heating fuel in the Pacific Northwest and much of parts of the interior West, and coastal California, the housing stock in many counties in the southeastern the East, stretching from Maine to South Carolina. ratio for some counties was 4.0 or higher. In many of and southwestern areas of the country. Electricity was the most common heating fuel in these counties, large percentages of the housing was Housing stock variation also existed among the Florida and Tennessee, while coal and wood were no valued at $300,000 or more in 2000 (map 14-33) and country’s largest cities in 2000 (maps 14-52 through longer the most common heating fuels in any state. In large shares of renters spent 35 percent or more of 14-60). For some cities, such as San Diego and San 2000, gas remained the most common heating fuel in their income on rent (map 14-32). Antonio, the prevalent housing type in 2000 in most many states, while electricity became the prevalent census tracts was a single-family, detached house. In heating fuel in an increasing number of states in the also varied both within and among the largest Philadelphia, the prevalent housing type in many South and the West. Fuel oil remained the prevalent metropolitan areas (maps 14-36 through 14-44). Many census tracts was a single-family, attached house. In heating fuel in most states in New England. The median value of owner-occupied housing 236 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 14. Housing Prevalent Period When Housing W as Built, 2000 1990 and after 1980 to 1989 1970 to 1979 1960 to 1969 National trends in population growth and redistribution are reflected in the above map showing the most com mon period in which a county's housing was constructed. Many of the counties in which most of the current hous ing stock was built was before 1940 have had minimal population growth or population decline in recent decades. These counties are found in a wide swath stretching across much of the Northeast and the U.S. Census Bureau Midwest into a large portion of the Great Plains. Nation wide, most housing was built either before 1940 or in 1970 and later. Outside of Florida and Texas, relatively few coun ties saw most of their housing constructed during the 1980s, in part because many counties that had rapid pop ulation growth in the 1980s continued to grow rapidly in the 1990s. Counties in the most recent category, 1990 to 2000, are seen across the map but are most visible in the South and the West— areas that experienced rapid popu lation growth in the 1990s. These fast-growing counties with large proportions of new housing sometimes ring the central counties of metropolitan areas. The DallasFort Worth and Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan areas exemplify this phenomenon. 237 Chapter 14. Housing M edian value of owner-occupied housing $175,000 to $583,499 U.S. median $ 111,800 $111,800 to $174,999 $80,000 to $111,799 $60,000 to $79,999 $40,000 to $59,999 $0 to $39,999 238 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 14. Housing M edian m onthly rent including utility costs $750 to $1,185 US. median $602 $602 to $749 $500 to $601 $400 to $499 $350 to $399 $206 to $349 U.S. Census Bureau 239 Chapter 14. Housing Homeownership, 2000 Homeownership, 2000 Female One-Parent Families Male One-Parent Families . & ' - 90.0 to 100.0 90.0 to 100.0 80.0 to 89.9 Percentage of w o m en with children and no husband present w h o lived in owner-occupied housing 70.0 to 79.9 60.0 to 69.9 U.S. percent 48.9 48.9 to 59.9 0.0 to 48.8 □ 240 No female one-parent families with children 80.0 to 89.9 Percentage of m en with children and no w ife present w h o lived in owner-occupied housing 70.0 to 79.9 60.0 to 69.9 U.S. percent 54.7 54.7 to 59.9 0.0 to 54.6 No male one-parent families with children U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 14. Housing Percentage of householders w h o w ere Hispanic or races other than W h ite w h o lived in owneroccupied housing 80.0 or m ore 70.0 to 79.9 60.0 to 69.9 u .s. percent 47.4 47.4 to 59.9 40.0 to 47.3 Less than 40.0 No minority householders Change in Minority Homeownership, 1990 to 2000 Percentage-point ch an g e betw een 1990 and 2000 in the share of m inority householders w h o lived in owner-occupied housing; U.S. percentage 44.5 in 1990 and 47.4 in 2000 30.0 U.S. percentagepoint change 2.9 or m ore 2.9 to 29.9 0.0 to 2.8 -2.9 to -0.1 -30.0 to -3.0 Less than -30.0 No minority householders in 1990 or 2000 Data not available U.S. Census Bureau 241 Chapter 14. Housing Homeownership, 2000 Homeownership, 2000 White Non-Hispanic Householders Black Householders - 85.0 or m ore 85.0 or m ore Percentage of non-Hispanic W h ite householders w h o lived in owner-occupied housing U.S. cent —t---- 1 72.4 I 75.0 to 84.9 72.4 to 84.9 Percentage of Black householders w h o lived in owner-occupied housing 65.0 to 72.3 50.0 to 64.9 65.0 to 74.9 46.3 to 64.9 35.0 to 49.9 35.0 to 46.2 Less than 35.0 Less than 35.0 No Black householders Homeownership, 2000 Homeownership, 2000 American Indian and Alaska Native Householders Asian Householders - • v JU 85.0 or m ore 85.0 or m ore 75.0 to 84.9 Percentage of A m erican Indian and Alaska N ative householders w h o lived in owner-occupied housing 65.0 to 74.9 U.S. percent 55.7 55.7 to 64.9 35.0 to 55.6 Less than 35.0 I-------1 NoAIAN I____I householders 242 • 75.0 to 84.9 Percentage of Asian householders w h o lived in owner-occupied housing 65.0 to 74.9 U.S. percent 53.2 53.2 to 64.9 35.0 to 53.1 Less than 35.0 1 No Asian I------- 1 householders U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 14. Housing Homeownership, 2000 Two or More Races Householders ■w m - 85.0 or m ore 85.0 or m ore 75.0 to 84.9 Percentage of Pacific Islander householders w h o lived in owner-occupied housing 65.0 to 74.9 U.S. percent 45.5 45.5 to 64.9 75.0 to 84.9 Percentage of T w o or M ore Races householders w h o lived in owner-occupied housing 65.0 to 74.9 46.6 to 64.9 35.0 to 45.4 35.0 to 46.5 Less than 35.0 Less than 35.0 No Pacific Islander householders No Two or More Races householders Homeownership, 2000 Hispanic Householders 85.0 or m ore 75.0 to 84.9 Percentage of Hispanic householders w h o lived in owner-occupied housing 65.0 to 74.9 45.7 to 64.9 35.0 to 45.6 Less than 35.0 No Hispanic householders U.S. Census Bureau 243 Chapter 14. Housing Homeownership, 2000 Homeownership, 2000 Householders With a Bachelor's Degree or Higher Householders Without a High School Diploma 85.0 to 100.0 Percentage of householders 25 and older with a bachelor's degree or higher w h o lived in owner-occupied housing 80.0 to 84.9 U.S. percent 74.7 74.7 to 79.9 70.0 to 74.6 60.0 to 69.9 11.1 to 59.9 □ 244 85.0 to 100.0 Percentage of householders 25 and older w h o had not com pleted high school w h o lived in owner-occupied housing 80.0 to 84.9 75.0 to 79.9 70.0 to 74.9 U.S. percent 60.5 60.5 to 69.9 0.0 to 60.4 No householders with a bachelor's degree or higher U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 14. Housing 85.0 to 100.0 80.0 to 82.7 Percentage of householders under 35 years old w h o lived in owner-occupied housing 75.0 to 79.9 65.0 to 74.9 39.0 to 64.9 0.0 to 38.9 80.0 to 84.9 Percentage of householders 65 and older w h o lived in owner-occupied housing U.S. percent 77.6 77.6 to 79.9 65.0 to 77.5 40.0 to 64.9 0.0 to 39.9 No householders under 35 U.S. Census Bureau 245 Chapter 14. Housing Difference Betw een O wner and Renter Housing Costs, 1980 Difference Betw een O wner and Renter Housing Costs, 1990 • GZ>-- Higher homeowner cost Difference betw een the m edian m onthly cost, including utilities, for hom eow ners (selected m onthly o w n e r costs) and renters (gross rent), in 1999 dollars $262 - $262 to $499 $150 to $261 $0 to $149 Higher Higher homeowner cost $700 to $985 $500 to $699 U.S. - Difference between the m edian m onthly cost, including utilities, for hom eow ners (selected m onthly o w n e r costs) and renters (gross rent), in 1999 dollars $700 to $1,931 $500 to $699 U.S. difference $376 $376 to $499 $150 to $375 $0 to $149 -$407 to -$1 -$368 to -$1 renter cost Difference Between Owner and Renter Housing Costs, 2000 Difference betw een the m edian m onthly cost, including utilities, fo r hom eow ners (selected m onthly o w n er costs) and renters (gross rent), in 1999 dollars Higher homeowner cost U.S. difference $486 $700 or m ore $486 to $699 $300 to $485 $150 to $299 $0 to $149 Higher renter cost 246 -$575 to -$1 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 14. Housing Renters W ho Spent 35 Percent or More of Income on Rent, 199° 35.0 to 54.5 Ratio of m edian value (2000) of owner-occupied housing to m edian household incom e (1999) Percentage of renter-occupied housing units in w hich gross rent w a s 35 percent or m ore of the household's incom e U.S. percent 29.5 29.5 to 34.9 24.0 to 29.4 20.0 to 23.9 15.0 to 19.9 0.0 to 14.9 Percent of Housing Valued at $300,000 or More, 2000 Percentage of owneroccupied housing valued at $300,000 or m ore U.S. 9.1 ■ 20.0 to 49.9 9.1 to 19.9 2.0 to 9.0 0.0 to 1.9 U.S. Census Bureau 75.0 or m ore 50.0 to 88.7 65.0 to 74.9 Percentage of households with incom e (1999) less than $21,000 in owner-occupied housing (2000) 55.0 to 64.9 U.S. percent 46.1 46.1 to 54.9 30.0 to 46.0 Less than 30.0 247 Chapter 14. Housing METROPOLITAN AREAS Value of Owner-Occupied Housing, 2000 Largest Metropolitan Areas $500,000 and over $350,000 to $499,999 Median value of owner-occupied housing; U .S . m ap b y county, m etropolitan area m aps by census tract p $250,000 to $349,999 $175,000 to $249,999 U.S. median $111,800 to $174,999 $111800 Less than $111,800 1 I____ I No owner-occupied housing Boston-WorcesterLawrence-Lowell- Los Angeles-RiversideO range C o u n ty % Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA 248 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria,TX U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 14. Housing METROPOLITAN AREAS Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH Dallas-Fort Worth, TX New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA TEX AS hort W orth Da as lewa'rk Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD New York Philadelphia NEW JER S EY Atlantic City At anta. GA DISTRICT OF COLUM BIA S Washington, DE L A WA R E Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV U.S. Census Bureau 249 Chapter 14. Housing Housing built betw een 1995 and 2000 as a percentage of all housing 27.0 to 47.9 20.0 to 26.9 14.0 to 19.9 U.S. percent 9.7 9.7 to 13.9 6.0 to 9.6 0.0 to 5.9 250 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 14. Housing Number of Mobile Homes, 2000 Percent Mobile Homes, 2000 . 0 N um ber of m obile hom es in a county • O o 30.0 to 60.5 30,000 to 91,000 20.0 to 29.9 20,000 to 29,999 14,000 to 19,999 a 8,000 to 13,999 - = M obile hom es as a percentage of all housing units 3,000 to 7,999 13.0 to 19.9 U.S. percent 7.6 7.6 to 12.9 4.0 to 7.5 0.0 to 3.9 1 to 2,999 Percent Seasonal Housing Units, 2000 • £Z> - 50.0 to 75.4 20,000 to 53,000 N um ber of beach cottages, hunting cabins, and other units for seasonal or occasional use in a county 10.000 to 19,999 4.000 to 9,999 500 to 3,999 1 to 499 U.S. Census Bureau 30.0 to 49.9 Beach cottages, hunting cabins, and other units for seasonal or occasional use as a percentage of all housing units 15.0 to 29.9 8.0 to 14.9 U.S. percent 3.1 to 7.9 3.1 0.1 to 3.0 251 Chapter 14. Housing CITIES Prevalent Housing Type, 2000 Largest Cities Boat, RV, or van M ost co m m on type of housing based on the total num ber of units of each structure type; U.S. m ap by county, city m aps by census tract Five units or m ore I M obile hom e Single-fam ily, attached Single-fam ily, detached Two to four units ] Phoenix, AZ 252 No housing units San Antonio, TX U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 14. Housing CITIES Houston, TX U.S. Census Bureau 253 Chapter 14. Housing Coal Electricity Fuel oil G as (bottled) G as (utility) W oo d No fuel Data not available 254 U.S. Census Bureau Chapter 14. Housing CHANGING CHARA CTERISTIC S OF HOUSING Prevalent Household Heating Fuel, 1940 Coal Gas (any type) Wood Data not available Prevalent Household Heating Fuel, 1970 Electricity Fuel oil Gas (utility) No fuel (HI) Prevalent Household Heating Fuel, 2000 Electricity Fuel oil Gas (utility) No fuel (PR) Data not available 14 6 3 Households W ithout Plumbing, 1940 Households W ithout Plumbing, 1970 Households W ithout Plumbing, 2000 Crowded Housing, 1940 Crowded Housing, 1970 Crowded Housing, 2000 Percentage of housing units with more than one person per room Percentage of housing units with Percentage of housing units with w U.S. Census Bureau - 72.0 (PR) 30.0 to 48.0 20.2 to 29.9 9.8 to 20.1 n U.S. Data not available 20.2 255 Reference Maps R eference Maps 170°W 160:W 150°W RUSSIA 140°W Arctic Ocean ALASKA N om e St. Law rence \ \ Island ^ Yukon P- CANADA ttle '• > WASHING Bering Sea Nuntvak S3 Island Sp o k an e ' anchorage ^ssouri 'odiak Kodiak Island Aleutian i7 o °w Unalaska Island Eugene IDAHO Island 5 „« y K rtc s h P a cific 150°W ie o °w O c e a n Unalaska Island 0 lampa ledford 200 mi 10 8° 140°W WYOMING WY tedding W in n em u cca G reat S a lt Chico -Lake) IEVADA United States, 2000 NV Elevation Feet Meters Aurora Tonopah 20,320 t-------- r 6,194 ' Grand Junction 15.000-4,000 1 .0 0 0 0- S a n L u js O bispo. - 2,000 5,000- Bakersfii i i i I 0i-- I- -282 Farm ington S an ta Barbara* Barsto w , Dry I W e t Anaheim • 4? Santa I Y p~i I i | rV_iA[^trqiierciu Prescott _ Riverside C ity w ith 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 p eo ple or m ore • City with 200,000 to 499,999 people • S elected city w ith few er than 200,000 people N EW M EXICO 3lendale< Phoenix Atlanta State capital W ashington National capital Yum a State boundary ^Tucson County boundary Las Cruces 160°W Kure A to ll M id w a y Islands Pearl and H erm es A to ll L is ia n s k i ' Island 120°W Laysan Island / G ardner Pinnacles $ 155°W Tern Island French Frigate Shoals Necker Island O N ihoa & Kauai n HAWAII HI N iih a u / Kaula ~ ’ l ihup Oahu H o no lulu^ . Wailuku ^O^Maui Kahoolaw e M id w a y Is la n d s a r e n o t p a r t o f th e s ta te o f H a w a ii; H a w aii t h e y a r e a d m in is t e r e d b y th e U .S . F is h & W ild lif e S e n d e e , 258 U.S. Census Bureau Reference Maps 105°W 100°W 95°W 90°W 85°W 80°W 7 5°W 7 0°W 65°W tia r* C A N D A A Presque* Isle Internationi Falls Minot Bismarcl Sau lt Ste. M arie Burlingtc •ortland Cloud, ^Wausau SOUTH D « Boston BiiffajOj| rv^b^Fil^ Hartford \ Warwick . N e w X / ' RHODE ISLAND /?/ ^ ^ C O N N EC T IC U T C 7 Detroit r^ey>City [Sioux City ^Mon Cheyenne Sterling( Columbus COLORADO -J col ^Virginia Beach hesapeake Wilmington .Am arillo Myrtle Beach ® i ^Lubbock lharleston Savannah ’ensacola lumont ’Galveston Tam pa St. Petersburj 'Laredo irpus Christi C ulebra SfS- °te/a C aribbean 100 mi 1 M °W U.S. Census Bureau 85°W R E F -0 1 259 R eference Maps San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA Largest Metropolitan Areas, 2000 With at Least 4 Million People Ha Ba County r r is l t im o r e * ® National capital Independent City • State capital M etropolitan area boundary • Selected city with 200,000 people or m ore ----- State boundary • Selected city with fe w e r than 200,000 people ----- County boundary M etropolitan areas show n are as of Ja n u a ry 1, 2000. The N ew England County Metropolitan Areas (N E C M A s) are used as alternatives to the city- and town-based m etropolitan areas in the Boston area and in Connecticut. Atlanta, G A is a M etropolitan Statistical A rea (M S A ). Other areas show n are Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (C M S A s). Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX H e n d e rs o n NEVADA Bakersfield CALIFORNIA 1 .-gg M ONTGOM ERY L IB E R T Y La n c a s te i P a lm d a le V E N T U R A S A N B E R N A R D I N O H A R R IS VA LLE R S a n ta .C larita Houston, CHAM BERS O x n ard G le n d a le T housand Los Angeles, VENTURA Ipart) Ing lew o od - R ancho San Pasadena B e r n a r d in o * E l M o n te C u c a m o n g a Pom on a F o n ta n a W est D o w n e y C o v in a 210 .Riverside } Torrance- * • F u llerfb ri j „ .C o r o n a G a rd e n G ro v e ^ C (part) G a lve s to n B R A Z O R IA RIVERSIDE Jr v in e G ALVE STO N G ALVE STO N M o ren o V a lle y ^ (£o §5 •Anaheim /* #Santa Ana Long Beach FO RT BEND B raz o ria O R A N G E H u n tin g to n B e a c h C o sta X y M esa ^5) / r ■ LO S AN G E LE S Ipart) VENTURA o Ipart) E s co n d id o " v \ LO S AN G E LE S \ \ (part) San Diego* 260 U.S. Census Bureau Reference Maps Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, IVIA-NH KENOSHA Lake MCHENRY R ock ford D EKA LB LA K E Michigan co o ky KANE DUPAGE (355') \ a p e r v ille ^ A u ro ra * KEND ALL J o lie t W IL L LAKE PORTER GRUNDY KANKAKEE Dallas-Fort Worth, TX New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA L o w e ll © DENTON SACHU ’© c W o rcester^ C O L L IN C a rro llto n PARKER Plano TARRANT 12) ^0 Dallas 'ovidence. Worth Hartford G ra n d P rairie Arlingto n D ALLAS D U TC H ES S KAUFM AN HOOD JO H N S O N W a te rb u ry ' E L L IS PUTNAM HENDERSON NEW HAVEN fiTf) ORANGE F A IR F IE L D TEXAS R O C KLAI B rid g e p o rt PASSAIC 'S ta m fo r d . ’E R G E N ) W ARREN Yonkers M O R R IS SUFFO LK NASSAU QUEENS Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD J le n t o w n HUNTERDON 'Pittsburgh R IC H M O N D BUCKS SYLVANI Harrisburg © M ONMO UTH & CHESTER DELAW ARE B U R L IN G T O N OCEAN W A S H IN G T O N CAR R O LL H ARFO RD F R E D E R IC K BERKELEY B A L T IM O R E JE F F E R S O N ' SA LE M C E C IL MARYL A T L A N T IC C U M B ER LA N D \B A L T lfy lC ^Atlantic C ity HOW ARD -- M ONTGOM ERY CLA RK E LO UDO UN A R L IN G T C W ARREN SCHURCH w / w ^ ) A N N E 'S Dover1 Atlanta, GA . DISTRICT OF a n n e ^ C O L U M B IA ARUNDEL © V vY \ Annapolis-* \ M ANASSAS PA RK*^ i W ashington "495 M A N A S S A S *F A IR F A X P R IN C E W IL L IA M F A U Q U IE R C U LPEPER , QUEEN C APE M AY p P IC K E N S £ © @ p A L E X A N D R IA * / J prince l> G E O R G E 'S I © FO RSYTH BARTO W DELAWARE C H AR LE S STA FFO RD I F R E D E R IC K S B U R G * G W IN N E T T “K I N G jE O R G L l BA R R O W © P A U L D IN C ^Atlanta iP O T S Y L V A N IA . W ALTO N DO U G LAS FU LTO N C AR R O LL D EKA LB C LAYTO NNEW TON PAYETTE HENRY COW ETA S P A L D IN G : Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV U.S. Census Bureau 261 R eference Maps Los Angeles, CA Largest Cities, 2000 With at Least 1 Million People LOS ANGELES Phoenix City City limits S u n la n d C h a ts w o rth L a k e v ie w T errac e P a c o im a VENTURA N o rth rid g e HARRIS T u ju n g a N o rth M a d is o n --- State boundary County Neighborhood County boundary H ills P a n o ra m a _ C ity W est H ills Canoga P ark Van N u ys W o o d la n d H ills E n c in o Selected city N o rth H o lly w o o d M unicipal boundaries are as of Ja n u a ry 1, 2000. U °1 3 S h e rm a n Oaks S t u d io C ity G riffith P a rk Los Angeles H o lly w o o d P a c ific P a lis a d e s B r e n tw o o d H ig h la n d P ark E c h o ( 5} P art d H ancock Park W e s tw o o d D o w n to w n . . . . . . C h e v io t W e s t s id e HjMs M id-C ity C ren sh aw B o y le H eig h ts S o u th C e n tral W e s t c h e s te i W a tts , Santa Monica Bay H a rb o r C it y W ilm ii S a n -wT^Terminal P e d r o M ^ Isla n d San Diego, CA Phoenix, AZ KENDALL COMAL S a n Pasqual S AN DIEGO R ancho Bern ard o R ancho P e n a s q u ito s C a rm e l V a lle y T o rre y P in e s M ira M esa S o r re n t o V a lle y S c rip p s Ranch O a k la n d H eig h ts K e a rn y M esa T ierra s a n ta © 0 !* iremont Serra jy jjj L in d a V is ta M iss io n Bay M esa San ( C a rlo s G a rd e n s San Antonio *** K e n s in g to n H illcre st O cean Beach, GUADALUPE P o in t M id w a y L o m a D istrict H eights © © . (S ' Denver , Heights (j E n c a n to Logan ^Heights ■Paradise'' H ill? PACIFIC OCEAN 262 San riju an a Y s id ro 'e r V a lle y __________ O ta y M esa CAUFO RN 1A " 1 / lE X t C O ATASCOSA WILSON U.S. Census Bureau Reference Maps Chicago, IL Philadelphia, PA New York, NY r OCKLAl CONNECTICUT NEW JERSEY © WESTCHESTER BUCKS PASSAIC . , . W a k e fie ld iiv e rd a le K in g s b rid g e ) 7 MONTGOMERY W illia m s b rid g e V T re m o n t M e lro s e S o m e r to n B u s tle to n Fox nt O ak Lan e. own £ Chase 0 A7oiu© T,h s n \ r ite to e Torr ' M anayunk L n °9a VV yh nefield © T acom a W l^ ^ \ M a s p e th sB rid e s l F a irm o u n t Cobbs f C reek 0 Center UNION KINGS R ic h m o n d Sunset G e o rg e ( Is DELAWARE . BROOKLYN H o w la n d Hook „ \ J P o rt Philadelphia E & s tw ic k Park / \ C y p re s s lia m s b u r a H ills | B e d fo rd ^ Stu yvesan h BURLINGTON K e n s in g to n V O v e r b ro o k x r f e j fFre s# h / p > n g Isla n d n9l5>w C ity Rego H o lm e sb u j F e lto n v ille F r a n k f o r d ^ ^ \ ' i HUDSON L a w n d a le O ln e y R ic h m o n d S t a p lL ol W e s t e r le ig h T ) n RICHMOND / STATEN ISLAN D __ H e a rtla n d 440 V illa g e e n n s y \> jr e e n r id g e © / c^Park B a y B o ro u g h ^idge P ark N ASSAU M eadow s "G le n O aks Pom onok Q ueen? V illa g e . J a m a ic a R ic h m o n d Hill A lb a n s E. N e w \ York J Howard R o s e d a le B r o w n s v ille C a n a rs F tla c ^ la n fe ' ■a s n uS h e s ) eno h r ts e p ^ t By a • C o n e y M a n h a tta n N s t a r rd --- B e a c h S o u jn Beach Oakw o 7 W o o d ro w CAMDEN P le a sa n t P la in s , fotten' ATLANTIC OCEAN M O N M O U TH SALEM Dallas, TX Houston, TX MONTGOMERY LIBER n ' COLLIN HARRIS DENTON IA H A irp o rt N o rth D a lla s DALLAS P re s to n H o llo w ' Lake H ig h la n d s ‘ Houston East D allas Law n beep EMum W est D a lla s H ig h la n d H eig h ts ROCKWALL 1 © _ D o w n to w n O a k (®Z) C liff ^ S o u th D allas East H o u ston H o u ston H eig h ts (352) © s°s T h o rn w o o d Denver H a rb o r ( 12) M o n tro s e © Dallas © (i B ro a d A cres P le a sa n t M R iv e rs id e T e rrac e (175) © © G le n Shan n o n S o u th Law n M e y e r la n d P ie rc e J u n c tio n H eak ers M ykaw a K AU FM AN FORT BEND BRAZORIA ELLIS GALVESTON U.S. Census Bureau 263 R eference Maps Major Roads, 2000 ® National capital ★ State capital ® Interstate route Limited-access hig hw ay Selected principal road ----State boundary Olympli Helena Salem Bism arck Mont| ioston Madison1 Hartford Harri^bi Cheyenne, fenver Indi; im ond1 letters on1 City Santa Fe. Trenton Des Moines r Carson City v a J Nashyjlle 'Davidson Oklahoma JC ik Phoenix (tiahta, Baton Rougi Honolulu 264 San Ju a n U.S. Census Bureau Reference Maps U.S. Census Bureau 265 R eference Maps 266 U.S. Census Bureau Reference Maps U.S. Census Bureau 267 R eference Maps 268 U.S. Census Bureau Reference Maps Map 4 Maps represent county and statistically equivalent entity boundaries as o f January 1, 2000. Keweenaw (part) Houghton Ashland (part) Ontonagon Gogebic Marguette Chippewa MINNESOTA Ashland Schoolcraft See Map 3 Mackinac Burnett Dickinson Washburn Florence Charlevoix rt (part) Oneida Barron Mackinac '(part) Emmet Menomim Cheboygan Lincoln Langlade Marinette iharlevoix Montmorency Antrim Marathon Oconto Pierce Shawano Kalkaska Crawford Missaukee toscommon Alcona Oscoda Ogemaw Waupaca Buffalo Brown Jackson Outagamie Manistee Adams Calumet Winnebago Monroe Gladwin Mason larguette ( Green r 1 Lake Juneau Wexford i/lanitowoc. Waushara Sheboygar Vernon Oceana .Crawford Midland Mecosta Newaygo Columbia Richland Arenac Osceola Tuscola \ -ashing! Montcalm Muskegon Sanilac Gratiot Waukesha hinwassm Jefferson Clinton Ottawa la comb Racine Lafayette Walworth Oakland Livingston Kenosha Winnebago .Jo Daviess Stephenson IOWA See Map 3 Boone McHenry Kalamazoo Jackson Calhoun Washtenaw Carroll DeKalb Branch DuPage Whiteside Monroe Hillsdale , Elkhart LaPorte Lucas Steuben Williams Marshall Mercer Starke Putnam Warren, Putnam lWyandot I untingt Adam: PENNSYLVANIA Columbiana (Richlant Hardin Mercer iscarawa; Howard Warren Mason Schuyler Coshocton Clinton Vermilion Randolph Champaign Montgomery Macon Sangamon Champaign Guernsey Franklin Hamilton Montgome y Marion I endricks Moultrie Cumberland Fayette MISSOURI Monroe Sullivan Effingham Lawrence] Clinton Marion Dubois Gibson Warrick Perry Hamilton Highland Jackson Brown Jeffersor /itzerlaj Adams WEST VIRGINIA .awrencel Washing tor Washington Athens See Map 5 Crawfordj [Harrison] Spencer Franklin Jackson iearbo i Sermon Daviess Washington Randolph Decatur Jackson Martin Monroe Hocking Clinton Jennings Richland Jefferson Warren Franklin artholomei Lawrence See Map 9 iMonroe Brown Crawford Madison Belmont Muskingum Fairfield Fayette Johnsor Montgomery Lickint Pickaway Putnam Christian Macoupin Harrison Jelaware Menard Brown See Map 5 Carroll Holmes Marion Hancock Mahoning ‘ .slilaiKl Crawford Carroll IcDonougl Medina Summit Hancock Wabasl McLean fazewe If Lorain Seneca Paulding [Whitley Livingston Woodford Cuyahoga Sandusky <osciusko Pulaski ewto Ottawa Defiance Kankakee Marshall Adams Ashtabula Ottawa LaGrange Kendall Gallatin1 Williamson Johnson Hardin KENTUCKY See Map 9 0 Map 4 10mi 0 ■cr?REF-27 U.S. Census Bureau 269 R eference Maps 270 U.S. Census Bureau R eference Maps U.S. Census Bureau 271 R eference Maps 272 U.S. Census Bureau R eference Maps Map 8 COLORADO See Map 7 KANSAS See Map 3 MI SSOURI See Map 9 Ottawa Nowata Cimarron Woods Alfalfa Delaware Woodward Dallam Sherman Hansford Hartley Moore Hutchinson Ochiltree Garfield Lipscomb Pawnee Cherokee Kingfishet Hemphill Lincoln Canadian Oldham Okfuskee Seguoyah McIntosh Carson Beckham Cleveland Caddo Randall NEW MEXICO Armstrong Collingsworth See Map 7 ARKANSAS Latimer Pittsburg See Map 9 Pontotoc Garvin Comanche Briscoe Haskell Seminolel Pottawatoi ie McClain Harmon Swisher Muskog< Okmulgee Oklahoma Jackson Childress Pushmataha Murray Tillman Hardeman Johnston Cotton McCurtain Marshall Wilbarger Choctaw Wichita Lamar Cochran Hockley Lubbock Montague Dickens Grayson Archer Yoakum Stonewall Haskell Fannin Denton Throckmorton Marion Dawson Borden Parker Shackelford Tarrant Harrison Kaufman Andrews Johnson Martin Howard Mitchell LOUISIANA Eastland Callahan Panola Henderson See Map 9 Navarro Loving Midland Glasscock Comanche Sterling Hudspeth Cherokee Anderson Brown Coleman Nacogdoches Hamilton ^ Limestone McLennan Culberson [ San VugustiiK Houston McCulloch Lampasas Newtor Robertson Schleicher Madison Menard Walker Burnet Crockett Mason Williamson San ‘ Jacinto Grimes Sutton Sabine Angelina Concho Kimble Hardin Montgomery Blanco Washington Liberty Orange Presidio Jefferson Edwards Kendall .Chambers Fayette Caldwell Colorado Guadalupt Gonzales Uvalde Lavaca Medina Wharton Brazoria DeWitt Jackson Karnes Zavala Matagorda Victoria Maverick Goliad Dimmit Refugio McMullen Calhoun (part) San Patricio Nueces Kenedy 'Aransas (part) Nueces (part) Kenedy i(part) i Willacy (part) Willacy Hidalgo Cameron Cameron (part) Maps represent county and statistically equivalent entity boundaries as o f January 1, 2000. U.S. Census Bureau 273 R eference Maps IOWA See Map 3 EBRASKA Atchison Nodaway Scotland Putnam Mercer Harrison OHIO Sullivan Grundy Andrew Daviess See Map 4 Macon Livingston Clinton Buchanan See Map 4 ILLINOIS Lewis Marion Caldwell Chariton Carroll Monroe Randolph Audrain Howard Jackson Lincoln outgo me i Callaway Johnson KANSAS Warren Charles Mason Moniteau, See Map 3 Harrison Greenup Lewis WEST VIRGI NI A Fleming Franklin See Map 5 Rowan Bourbon Benton 'Jefferson Maries Camden Lawrence1 Crawford Hickory Vernon Martiir Powell Washington Pulaski Henderson ,Breckinridg< Daviess Franc oisN Mercet /ashington Hardin Barton Reynolds! Breathitt Marion Larue Cape V Girardeau Madison Lincoln Jackson' tckcastn [Crittenden Letcher Bollinger Lawrence tonsonf Shannon Christian Newton Stoddard 'Carlisle Howell McDonald Oregon lickman /itnpson Graves Newton XHOMA Dickson Bentor Gibson Carroll Cumberland Blount Madison Bedford Lewis Jackson Monroe Grundy fequatchie Conway j Crittender Hardeman Fayette See Map 10 .Warren Coffee Chester Faulkner NORTH CAROLINA Williamson 1 Rutherford lickman Crockett Haywood Cleburne ashingtc Morgan \Andersor Putnam DeKalb Humphreys Mississippi Johnson Franklin Map 8 1 Hawkins Jackson Overton Davidson .auderdal^ Crawford Sullivan in co cl ^Campbell Sumner Houston Dunklin Craighead Claiborne Macon Weakley Lawrence IcCreary' Monroe Calloway Pemiscot Madison See Map 5 Whitley * Stewart \Montgomeryj Randolph Marion Washington VI RGI NI A Harlan Barren !Christian i Marshal New Madrid Carroll Benton Warren cCracken Pulaski Lawrence Hardin McNairy Lincoln Franklin Marion ^Hamilton' St. Francis Montgomery Benton DeSoto Prairie Pulaski Lonoke Lauderdale Alcorn Limestone Marshall IMonroe! Garland Jackson Madison Colbert Prentiss Lawrence Morgan Franklin Arkansas Jefferson [Coahoma Uuilillili! Pontotoc Marion Sevier Yalobusha Lincoln .Cleveland Tallahatchie Calhoun Etowah Blount Monroe Lamar Nevada Calhoun Cleburne Jefferson Leflore Oktibbeha Lowndes | Carroll ^ Columbia Chicot lumphreys Calhoun Walker Fayette Webster Sunflower DeKalb Cullman Winston (Chickasaw Bolivar Ouachita Marshall liawjiiiibi Randolph' Choctaw Holmes Pickens GEORGIA Winston See Map 10 Chambers Claiborne Chilton Morehouse Lincoln Caddo saquens Ouachita Bienville Elmore Madison Warren Macon Newton Jackson Dallas Rankin Caldwell Autauga Sumter Richland Choctaw Franklin Marengo Montgomery, Lowndes Bullock Wilcox Claiborne Barbour Simpson Jefferson Adams Clarke fovington Lawrenc Xoncort Sabine Monroe Lincoln Franklin Conecuh Washington Coffee Covington Vernon Avoyelles Wilkinson West y (aliciana Beauregard Escambia .Marion Lamar Washington Eaa / Feliciana Evangeline Mobile St. Landry Tangipahoa Harrison Livingston Calcasieu Baldwin Jackson FLORIDA St. Tammany 1>I ancock See Map 10 Acadia Martin Houston Geneva Iberville tscensior Harrison (part) Jackson (part) Mobile (part) Cameron Vermilion St. Bernard St. Bernard (part) Lafourche Terrebonne Plaque mmest Maps represent county and statistically equiva lent entity boundaries as of January 1, 2000. An asterisk (*) identifies an incorporated place that is legally independent o f any county. 274 U.S. Census Bureau R eference Maps Map 10 Stokes Roc kinghi Caswell Wilkes Wataugf Caldwell TENNESSEE Davidsor See Map 9 McDowell! Catawba 'Haywood 'Cleveland Gaston Hoke ^Walker Chester Chesterfield Shattoogs Abbevilk Elbert ,Florence ^ O g le th o rp e Wilkes DeKalb Carroll Newton ALABAMA See Map 9 '’Georgetowr Orangeburg Coweta Barnwell Berkeley irchestef Colletor 'Crawford' Talbot Stewa r Liberty Coffee Mitchell Decatur Liberty Brooks Wakullf Lafayette Bradford Alachi Osceoli Okeechobee DeSoto Charlotte Beach Maps represent county and statistically equivalent entity boundaries as o f January 1, 2000. M ap 10a O PUERTO RICO U.S. Census Bureau 275 Notes Notes Introduction This section provides general information about geographic areas, change betw een the historical census and Census 2000 data. For exam ple, w hen calculating the percentage-point change in the popula volum es. Data for 1990 maps are from Su m m ary Tape Files 1 and 3 and the SEDF. Data for 2000 maps are from Sum m ary Files 1 , 2 , 3 , explains data sources, and broadly describes the data sets used in this book. Notes that follow provide more detailed inform ation for tion with at least a high school diplom a b etw een I 930 and 2000 (m ap 10-06), the percentage for Yum a County, Arizona, in 1950 w as used to and 4 and the SEDF. Data for Puerto Rico were not included in the calculations o f national percentages, m edians, and other measures. each map and figure. calculate the change for both Yum a and La Paz counties. The same assum ption o f uniform distribution w as made for the 1950 Alaska bor In addition to the ICPSR data file, decennial census data were oughs and census areas, but the boundaries changed in more com plex w a ys by 2000, so the calculations included the estim ation o f shares of acquired from the following sources, published by the U.S. Census Bureau. Sources are arranged from the earliest publication to the Base maps for states and counties for Census 2000 originally were developed for use in: Cynthia A. Brew er and Trudy A. Suchan, 1950 geographic units within 2000 geographic units. most current. M a p p in g C e n s u s 2 0 0 0 : T h e G e o g r a p h y o f U S . D iv e r s it y , Series CENSR/01 -1, U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 2 0 0 1, available at The prim ary source for historical boundaries is: Richard L. Forstall, V ol. I R e p o r t o n p o p u la t io n o f th e U n ite d S ta te s a t th e E le v e n th P o p u la tio n o f S ta te s a n d C o u n tie s o f th e U n ite d S ta te s : 1 7 9 0 to 1 9 9 0 , C e n s u s : 1 8 9 0 , Part 2, W ashington, DC, 1897. <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>. U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 1996. All o ther base maps o f geographic areas w ere developed specifically for this book. M any maps show tracts, counties, or states w ith w h ite fill, w hich indi cates that the area does not have any o f the base population of inter Part 2, W ashington, DC, 1902. est. For these cases, a special category appears in the legend with an explanatory note. Because o f its small population and land area, w hen T h ir t e e n t h C e n s u s o f th e U n ite d S ta te s ta k e n in th e y e a r 1 9 1 0 , Each o f the m apped areas w a s drawn using a custom ized version of the Albers equal area conic projection. Kalaw ao County, Haw aii, w a s the only entity with no base population o f interest, that county is m apped with a w hite fill but no descriptive DC, 1913. M etropolitan areas show n by census tract are those with the largest populations in Census 2000 and are based on the Ju n e 30, 1999, category appears in the legend. Geographic Areas T w e lf th C e n s u s o f th e U n it e d S ta te s : 1 9 0 0 , Vol. II P o p u la tio n , V ol. I P o p u la tio n , G e n e r a l R e p o r t a n d A n a ly s is , W ashington, T e r r it o r ie s a n d P o s s e s s io n s : P o p u la tio n , H o u s in g , B u s in e s s , a n d M a n u f a c tu r e s : S ix te e n th C e n s u s o f th e U n it e d S ta te s , 1 9 4 0 , Office o f M anagem ent and Budget m etropolitan area definitions. Most areas shown are Consolidated M etropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSAs). Data Sources W ashington, DC, 1943. Atlanta, C A is a M etropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The New England County Metropolitan Areas (N ECM As) are used as alternatives to the Each decennial census enum erated all people living within the b ou nd aries of the United States, including all states and territories. For city- and town-based m etropolitan areas in the Boston area and in Connecticut. The Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Loweil-Brockton MA-NH details on each census, see: U.S. Census Bureau, M e a s u r in g A m e r ic a : T h e D e c e n n ia l C e n s u s e s F r o m 1 7 9 0 to 2 0 0 0 , POL/02-MA(RV), 1 9 5 0 C e n s u s o f P o p u la tio n Vol. II C h a r a c te r is t ic s o f th e area is a NECMA. The C onnecticut portion o f the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA area is based on the New Haven- W ashington, DC, 2001, <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>. P o p u la tio n , Parts 1-54, W ashington, DC, 1953-1954. Bridgeport-Stamford-Waterbury-Danbury, CT NECMA. Data from U.S. decennial censuses o f population and housing are used e xclusively in this book, with the addition of Canadian and Mexican P o p u la tio n , Parts 1-53, W ashington, DC, 1963. 1 9 5 0 C e n s u s o f H o u s in g Vol. I G e n e r a l C h a r a c te r is t ic s , Parts 1-7, W ashington, DC, 1953. 1 9 6 0 C e n s u s o f P o p u la tio n Vol. I C h a r a c t e r is t ic s o f th e For maps by census tracts o f the cities w ith the largest populations in 2000, areas are defined by the m unicipal boundaries o f the city as of population data on map 02-08. Most data for the 1790 through 1970 censuses were obtained from H is to r ic a l, D e m o g r a p h ic , E c o n o m ic , a n d 1 9 6 0 C e n s u s o f P o p u la tio n Vol. II S u b je c t R e p o rts , W ashington, Ja n u a ry 1, 2000. S o c ia l D a ta : th e U n ite d S ta te s , I 790-1 970, [C om puter file], Ann Arbor, DC, 1963-1968. Boundaries for 1990 and earlier censuses represent the geographic areas as they existed at the tim e o f each census. There are, however, ducer and distributor]. For this atlas, the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) files m ay have been modified tw o exceptions. Data for Kalawao County, Haw aii w ere treated as part o f Maui County data in the 1940, 19S0, and 1970 censuses. or augm ented using data from Census Bureau printed decennial census volum es. Ml, Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [pro 1 9 7 0 C e n s u s o f H o u s in g Vol. I H o u s in g C h a r a c te r is t ic s f o r S ta te s , C itie s , a n d C o u n tie s , Parts 1-53, W ashington, DC, 1972. 1 9 7 0 C e n s u s o f P o p u la tio n Vol. I C h a r a c t e r is t ic s o f th e Independent cities in Virginia are considered county equivalents but w ere com bined with the counties from w hich th e y w ere originally Most o f the 1990 and 2000 census data are from sources available to form ed to create datasets for years other than 2000. For more infor mation regarding the com bination o f independent cities and counties the public. Som e maps and figures for these census years are based on data from the Sam ple Edited Detail File (SEDF), w hich is used for tab u W ashington, DC, 1982. in Virginia, see P o p u la tio n o f C o u n tie s b y D e c e n n ia l C e n s u s , 1 9 0 0 to 1 9 9 0 , com piled and edited by Richard L. Forstall, Population D ivision, lation purposes and is not released to the public. Specific sources of inform ation for each map and figure are listed in the Map and Figure Census o f Population and Housing, 1980, Sum m ary Tape U.S. Census Bureau, April 199S, available at <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>. Details section. Maps for 1880 and earlier do not show data for Am erican Indian areas. The U.S. g o vernm ent identified Am erican Indian settlem ent For years prior to statehood in 1959, data for Alaska and Haw aii were included w hen decennial census data published in volum es for the te r Census o f Population and Housing, 1980, Sum m ary Tape areas as early as the census of 1790 and excluded such areas from the enum eration process. ritories w ere com parable in content and level o f geography to those published for the United States. Calculations o f national percentages, File 3A (STF3A), [machine-readable data file], W ashington, DC, 1982. Historical census data w ere distributed to Census 2000 county m edians, and other m easures do not include data for these areas for years during w hich they were territories. P o p u la tio n , Parts 1-53, W ashington, DC, 1973. boundaries to show change for the intervals 19S0 to 2000, 1970 to 2000, and 1990 to 2000. For counties and equivalent entities that level o f geog raph y to those availab le for the United States. For cen suses prior to 1990, data were acquired from tables in published File 1A (STF1A), [machine-readable data file], W ashington, DC, 1981. 1 9 8 0 C e n s u s o f P o p u la tio n Vol. I C h a r a c t e r is t ic s o f th e Data for Puerto Rico w ere included w hen com parable in content and formed out o f a single county in existence at the tim e of a previous census, the total for the original co u nty w as used to calculate the 1 9 8 0 C e n s u s o f H o u s in g Vol. I C h a r a c t e r is t ic s o f H o u s in g U n its , 278 P o p u la tio n , W ashington, DC, 1983. 1 9 9 0 C e n s u s o f P o p u la tio n a n d H o u s in g C P H -2 P o p u la tio n a n d H o u s in g U n it C o u n ts , W ashington, DC, 1993. U.S. Census Bureau 1990 Census o f Population and Housing, Sam ple Edited Detail File (SEDF). census w as the first in w h ich all people (with the continuing exception o f “ Indians not tax ed ”) were enum erated togeth er on the same forms. more inform ation on Census 2000 race and ethnicity definitions and data, see Elizabeth M. Crieco and Rachel C. Cassidy, O v e r v ie w o f R ace A separate form w as created for the I 880 census to enum erate Indians living on reservations. a n d H is p a n ic O r ig in , Census 2000 Brief C2KBR/01 -1, U.S. Census 1990 Census o f Population and Housing, Sum m ary Tape File IA (STF1), [machine-readable data file], W ashington, DC, 1991, data also available through Am erican FactFinder, The 1940 census w a s the first to include sam ple questions as a <factfinder.census.gov>. Bureau, W ashington, DC, available at <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>. Accuracy of the Estimates m eans of collecting additional detailed inform ation. One in tw en ty individuals w as asked a va rie ty o f “ su pp lem en tary” or “ sample-line” The estim ates in this report (which m ay be show n in text, figures, and 1990 Census o f Population and Housing, Sum m ary Tape File 3A (STF3), [machine-readable data file], W ashington, DC, 1992, data questions pertaining to characteristics such as parental birthplace, m other tongue, and veteran status. The y e a r 1940 also marked the m aps) that are based on responses from a sam ple o f the population m ay differ from actual valu es because o f sam pling variab ility or other also available through Am erican FactFinder, <factfinder.census.gov>. beginning o f the census o f housing. The 1950 census included sample-line questions, but the density o f the 1950 sam ple was higher factors. As a result, apparent differences betw een the estim ates for tw o or more groups m ay not be statistically significant. All co m p ara than in 1940, 1 in 5. tive statem ents have undergone statistical testing and are significant at the 90-percent confidence level unless otherw ise noted in the The 1960 census w a s the first to use a mailed form that w as co m pleted b y the respondent; it w as also the first to be tabulated by detailed notes for m aps and figures. 2 0 0 0 ) , [DVD], issued O ctober 2003. Census 2000, Sam ple Edited Detail File (SEDF). computer. Basic dem ographic information w a s collected for the entire population and further inform ation w as collected from a 25-percent Som e o f the data contained in this publication are based on a sample o f households. In Census 2000, approxim ately 1 o f e ve ry 6 housing sam ple o f households. units w a s included in this sam ple. The sam ple estim ates m ay differ so m ew h at from the 100-percent figures that w ould have been obtained W ashington, DC, 2003, data also availab le through Am erican FactFinder, <factfinder.census.gov>. Sim ilarly, the 1970 census included a small num ber of questions asked of 100 percent of the population and a larger set o f questions if all housing units, people within those housing units, and people liv ing in group quarters had been enum erated using the same question Census 2000, Sum m ary File 2 (SF2), [machine-readable data file], asked of a sam ple of the population. Som e of the sam ple questions w ere asked o f 5 percent of the population, others were asked o f 1 5 naires, instructions, enum erators, and so forth. The sam ple estim ates also m ay differ from the valu es that w ould have been obtained from W ashington, DC, 2003, data also availab le through Am erican FactFinder, <factfinder.census.gov>. percent o f the population, and som e were asked o f both sample groups (20 percent). different sam ples of housing units, and hence o f people living in those housing units, and people living in group quarters. The deviation o f a Census 2000, Sum m ary File 3 (SF3), [machine-readable data file], The 1980 census continued the practice o f asking basic dem ographic sam ple estim ate from the average of all possible sam ples is called the sam pling error. W ashington, DC, 2003, data also availab le through American FactFinder, <factfinder.census.gov>. questions o f 100 percent o f the population and asking more detailed questions o f a sam ple o f the population. After testing the use o f a In addition to the variab ility that arises from the sam pling procedures, Census 2000, Sum m ary File 4 (SF4), [machine-readable data file], mail-out and mail-back census questionnaire in 1970, the 1980 cen sus covered 95.5 percent o f the population through mailed surveys. both sam ple data and 100-percent data are subject to nonsam pling error. N onsam pling error m ay be introduced during any of the various W ashington, DC, 2003, data also availab le through Am erican FactFinder, <factfinder.census.gov>. One in five households received the sam ple form in 1980. About 1 in 6 households received the sam ple form in 1990. com plex operations used to collect and process data. Such errors m ay include: not enum erating e very household or e ve ry person in the pop For Census 2000, Puerto Rico w as enum erated at the same tim e and ulation, failing to obtain all required inform ation from the respondents, obtaining incorrect or inconsistent inform ation, and recording inform a C e n s u s 2 0 0 0 M ig r a t io n D a t a : C r o s s a n d N e t M ig r a t io n T a b u la tio n s a n d C o u n t y - t o - C o u n t y M ig r a t io n F lo w D a ta ( 1 9 9 5 to Census 2000, Sum m ary File I (SF1), [machine-readable data file], Decennial Censuses 1790 to 2000 with the same questionnaire as w as used in the United States. tion incorrectly. In addition, errors can o ccur during the field review of the enum erators’ w ork, during clerical handling o f the census q ues quent postcensal corrections. Starting with Census 2000, the Office of M anagem ent and Budget (OM B) required federal agencies to use a m inimum o f five race ca te tionnaires, or during the processing o f the questionnaires. From 1790 to 1930, the Census Bureau collected all census info rm a tion from 100 percent of the population. Beginning with the 1940 gories: W hite, Black or African Am erican, Am erican Indian and Alaska N ative, Asian, and Native Haw aiian and O ther Pacific Islander. For the Nonsam pling error m ay affect the data in tw o w ays: ( ! ) errors that are introduced random ly w ill increase the variab ility of the data and, there census o f population and housing, the Census Bureau collected inform ation on both a 100-percent and a sam ple basis. This book Census 2000 questionnaire, the OM B approved including a sixth category, “Som e O th er Race.” A question on Hispanic or Latino origin fore, should be reflected in the standard errors; and (2) errors that tend to be consistent in one direction will bias both sam ple and 100- uses both 100-percent and sample-based data. w as asked separately. percent data in that direction. For exam ple, if respondents consistently tend to underreport their incom es, then the resulting estim ates of For the 1 790 through 1840 censuses, each household provided the name o f the head of the household and a count of the num ber of Census 2000 data on race are available for people w h o reported one race category alone and for people w h o reported a race category in households or fam ilies by income category w ill tend to be understated for the higher income categories and overstated for the low er income people in the follow ing categories: free w hite males, free w hite fem ales, all other free people (b y sex and color), and slaves. The only com bination w ith other race categories. In this book, population char acteristics for specific race groups are show n for respondents who categories. Such biases are not reflected in the standard errors. segm ent o f the population not enum erated during this period was “ Indians not tax ed.” reported only one race. Respondents w h o reported more than one race are included in the Two or More Races group. This does not imply W hile it is im possible to com pletely elim inate error from an operation as large and com plex as the decennial census, the Census Bureau The 1850 census w a s the first in w hich each individual (with the that it is the preferred method o f presenting or analyzing data. The Census Bureau uses a varie ty o f approaches. A few maps and figures attem pts to control the sources o f such error during the data collection and processing operations. The prim ary sources of error and the pro exception o f slaves) w as listed separately on the census q uestion naire, w ith inform ation collected regarding the name, age, sex, and in this publication include data on race from earlier censuses to pro vide an historical backdrop for Census 2000 patterns. See the g lo s gram s instituted to control error in Census 2000 are described in detail in S u m m a r y F ile 3 T e c h n ic a l D o c u m e n ta tio n under C hapter 8, race of each individual in a household. The 1860 and earlier censuses used a separate schedule to tally the num ber o f slaves. The 1870 sary entry for “ race” and the detailed notes to maps and figures with historical data for inform ation about com p arab ility o ver tim e. For “A ccuracy o f the Data,” at <w w w .censu s.g ov/prod/cen2 0 0 0 /doc /sf3 .p df>. No data have been modified or adjusted to incorporate an y su bse U.S. Census Bureau 279 Notes: Chapters 1-3 Map and Figure Details Chapter 1. Introduction 0 2 -0 6 F ig u r e 1-1 C en ter o f Po p u la tio n , 1 790 to 2000: W ith T e rrito ria l Ex p ansio n P o p u la tio n D e n sity, 2000 U.S. P o p u la tio n (m illio n s ), 1 790 to 2000 Mean centers of population 1790 to 2000 from U.S. Census Bureau, G eography D ivision, “ Centers of Population C om putation for 1950, Census 2000, S F I 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000,” issued April 2001, available at <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>. Consulted for historical reference: F lis t o r ic a l A tla s 0 2 -3 2 th ro u g h 0 2 -4 1 o f th e U n it e d S ta te s , National G eographic Society, 1988. Census 2000, S F I Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico w ere not included in the calculation of the mean geographic center o f population. 0 2 -4 2 th ro u g h 0 2 -5 1 Census 2000, SF1; U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census o f Population and Housing, “ 1990 Population and Housing Unit Counts: United States,” (C PU 2), W ashington, DC, 1993. 01-01 P o p u la tio n D e n sity, 1 790 Bureau o f Foreign and Dom estic Com m erce, S t a t is t ic a l A b s t r a c t o f th e U n ite d S ta te s : 1 9 2 0 , W ashington, DC, 1921. Average population per square mile for states and counted territories. 0 2 -0 7 0 2 -3 1 P o p u la tio n D e n sity, 2000: L a rg e s t M etro p o litan A re a s P o p u la tio n D ensity, 2000: L a rg e s t C itie s Census 2000, S F I P o p u la tio n D is trib u tio n , 2000 Census 2000, SF1 01-02 P o p u la tio n D e n sity, 1850 0 2 -0 8 Bureau o f Foreign and Dom estic Com m erce, S t a t is t ic a l A b s t r a c t o f th e U n ite d S ta te s : 1 9 2 0 , W ashington, DC, 1921. P o p u la tio n D e n sity, 2000: W ith B o rd e r P o p u la tio n s 0 2 -5 2 Lo w P o p u la tio n D ensity, 1900 Population data from ICPSR and area data from U.S. Census Bureau, A r e a in S q u a r e M ile s o f S ta te s , T e r r it o r ie s , a n d C o u n tie s , Bulletin Census 2000, S F I : National Atlas o f the United States available at No. 57, 1901. <http://nationalatlas.gov>; ESRI Data & Maps [CD-ROM], Environm ental System s Research Institute, Redlands, CA, 2002. Area is land only. 0 1 -0 3 Data for Canada census divisions are from Statistics Canada, 0 2 -5 3 P o p u la tio n D e n sity, 1900 G eography D ivision, 2001 Census Division C artographic Boundary File and 2001 census data. These copyrighted data are used with the per ICPSR Average population per square mile for states and counted territories. Bureau o f Foreign and Dom estic Com m erce, S t a t is t ic a l A b s t r a c t o f th e U n ite d S ta te s : 1 9 2 0 , W ashington, DC, 1921. Average population per square mile for states, counted territories, and Puerto Rico. mission o f Statistics Canada. See <w w w .sta tcan .ca> for more inform a tion. Data for Mexico m unicipios are from the National Institute of Statistics, G eog rap hy and Inform atics (INECI), XII Census o f Population and Housing, 2000, available at <w w w .in eg i.g ob .m x >. 1950 Census o f Population, Vol. II Data are for the population living outside o f incorporated places of 2,500 or more population. 0 2 -5 4 Lo w P o p u la tio n D ensity, 2000 0 1 -0 4 P o p u la tio n D e n sity, 1950 R u ra l Po p u la tio n , 1900 0 2 -0 9 th ro u g h 0 2 -2 0 Census 2000, S F I Percen t C h an g e in P o p u la tio n Census 2000, S F I ; Richard L. Forstall, Population o f States and 0 1 -0 5 P o p u la tio n D e n sity, 2000 Census 2000, SF1 0 2 -5 5 Counties o f the United States: 1790 to 1990, U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 1996, available at <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>; Puerto Rico Census 2000, SF3 R u ra l Po p u la tio n , 2000 data from published decennial census volum es. 0 2 -5 6 Chapter 2. Population Distribution F ig u r e 2-1 Percen t D istrib u tio n o f P o p u la tio n b y Regio n , 1900 to 2000 02-21 P o p u la tio n C h an ge, 1990 to 2000 C en ter o f Ru ral Po p u la tio n , 1 790 to 2000 Census 2000, S F I ; 1990 Census of Population and Housing, S T FI S T F I ; ICPSR 1990 data were distributed to Ja n u a ry 1, 2000, county boundaries. The calculation of mean center o f rural population is based on rural population by county, using the form ula described in U.S. Census 02-22 Frank Hobbs and Nicole Stoops, D e m o g r a p h ic T re n d s in th e 2 0 t h Census 2000, S F I ; 1990 Census of Population and Housing, C e n tu r y , Census 2000 Special Report CENSR-4, U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 2002. C o m p a riso n o f P o p u la tio n C h an ge, 1980s and 1990s Bureau, G eog rap hy D ivision, “ Centers o f Population C om putation for 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000,” issued April 2001, a va il F ig u r e 2 - 2 Census 2000, S F I ; 1990 Census of Population and Housing, S T F I ; 1980 Census o f Population and Housing, S T F I able at <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>. Alaska, Haw aii, and Puerto Rico are not included in the calculation o f the geographic center of rural 1980 and 1990 data were distributed to Ja n u a ry 1, 2000, county population. Percen t o f P o p u la tio n in M etro p o litan A re a s b y C en tral C ities and Su b u rb s, 1910 to 2000 Frank Hobbs and Nicole Stoops, D e m o g r a p h ic T re n d s in th e 2 0 t h C e n tu r y , Census 2000 Special Report CENSR-4, U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 2002. boundaries. At the time of the 1980 census, Martin County, IN had a population of 1 1,001 in the 1980 census, 10,369 in the 1990 census, 0 2 -5 7 and 10,369 in Census 2000. The county is m apped in the category show ing counties that experienced population decrease in the 1980s Census 2000, SF3 M etropolitan area data in this figure are based on the decennial cen sus data tabulated for m etropolitan districts from 1910 to 1940. In and increase in the 1990s. 1910 and 1920, cities with populations b etw een 100,000 and 200,000 were also included. M etropolitan area data from 1950 to 0 2 -2 3 Year o f M axim um Po p u la tio n , 1 790 to 2000 2000 are based on the population in m etropolitan areas, as defined by the Office o f M anagem ent and Budget (OMB). Census 2000, SF I ; 1990 Census of Housing, CPI-l-2; 1940 Census of Population and Housing; 1910 Census o f Population, Vol. I; Richard L. R u ra l Farm Po p u la tio n , 2000 02-01 U.S. C e n su s Regio n s U.S. Census Bureau, G eog rap hy D ivision, C e n s u s 2 0 0 0 : C e n s u s R e g io n s , Cartographic Boundary Files, W ashington, DC, 2000, available 0 2 -5 8 th ro u g h 0 2 -8 1 Forstall, Population o f States and Counties o f the United States: 1790 to 1990, U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 1996. The y e a r o f maxim um population is determ ined for the period starting with the first census follow ing the last m ajor county bou nd ary change and ending with Census 2000. at <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>. 02-02 Percen t U rb an Po p u la tio n , 1900 U.S. Census Bureau, “ Urban and Rural Population: 1900 to 1990,” released O ctober 1995, available at <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>; United States W ar D epartm ent, R e p o r t o n th e c e n s u s o f P o r to R ic o , 1 8 9 9 /L t . C o l. J.P. S a n g e r, in s p e c t o r - g e n e r a l, d i r e c t o r ; F ie n r y G a n n e tt, W a lte r F W illc o x , s t a t i s t i c a l e x p e r ts , W ashington, DC, 1900. D is trib u tio n o f C o n g re ss io n a l Sea ts N um ber o f seats from Office o f the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, “ Representatives Apportioned to Each State: 1st to 22nd Census (1790-2000),” <http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh /C ongressional_H istory/congA pp.htm l>. Territorial status from Office o f the Clerk, U.S. House o f Representatives, “State Representation 1789 to Present,"<http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh /C o ngressional_H istory/stateRep.htm l>. District o f Colum bia delegate inform ation from Office o f the Clerk, U.S. House o f Representatives, “ Biographical D irectory of the United States Congress 1774-Present,” <http ://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/biodirectory.htm l>. 0 2 -2 4 th ro u g h 0 2 -2 9 C itie s A b o v e 100,000 Census 2000, S F I ; I 990 Census of Population and Housing, S T F I ; 1980 Census o f Population, Vol. I; 1970 Census of Population, Vol. I; 1960 Census o f Population, Vol. I; 1950 Census of Population, Vol. II; Cam pbell Gibson, “ Population of the 100 Largest Cities and Other Urban Places in the United States: 1790 to 1990,” Population Division W orking Paper No. 27, U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 1998. G eographic changes and seat-count changes are show n for the y e a r of the first congressional election follow ing the decennial census. Seatcounts are cum ulative from the previous census and do not capture changes before the next census. The total num ber o f seats does not include nonvoting seats. In 1922, Congress did not approve reappor tionm ent o f seats in Congress based on the 1920 census. As a result, the size o f each state’s delegation in the House o f Representatives remained unchanged from the size based on the 1910 census. 0 2 -0 3 Percen t U rb an Po p u la tio n , 1950 U.S. Census Bureau, “ Urban and Rural Population: 1900 to 1990,” released O ctober 1995, available at <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>. 0 2 -0 4 Included are incorporated places in the 50 states, the District of Colum bia, and Puerto Rico, as well as m inor civil divisions in the six New England states and the census designated places of Honolulu, HI and Arlington, VA. Because different entities are recognized as incor porated places, the units show n on these maps m ay be cities, towns, tow nships, villag es, or boroughs. Percen t U rb an Po p u la tio n , 2000 Census 2000, SF1 0 2 -0 5 P o p u la tio n C h an ge, 1990 to 2000 Chapter 3. Race and Hispanic Origin Data in this chapter are based on responses to the census questions on race and Hispanic origin. F ig u r e 3-1 0 2 -3 0 P o p u la tio n D e n sity, 1880 Fletcher W. H ew es and H. Gannett, S c r ib n e r 's S t a t is t ic a l A t la s o f th e U n ite d S ta te s , New York, C. Scribner’s sons, 1883. Percen t o f P o p u la tio n b y Race, 1900 to 2000 Frank Hobbs and Nicole Stoops, D e m o g r a p h ic T re n d s in th e 2 0 t h C e n tu r y , Census 2000 Special Report CENSR-4, U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 2002. Census 2000, S F1 ; 1990 Census of Population and Housing, STF1 280 U.S. Census Bureau Notes: Chapter 3 F ig u r e 3 -2 0 3 -1 3 0 3 -3 0 Percent Change in Population by Race and Hispanic O rigin, 1 980 to 2 0 0 0 Hispanic Population, 2 0 0 0 Number o f American Indians and Alaska Natives, 2000: Reservations With Largest AIAN Populations Census 2000, S F I Frank Flobbs and Nicole Stoops, D e m o g r a p h ic T re n d s in th e 2 0 t h Census 2000, S F I C e n tu r y , Census 2000 Special Report CENSR-4, U.S. Census Bureau, 0 3 -1 4 W ashington, DC, 2002. White and Black Population, 2 0 0 0 Prior to 19S0, all published race data could be classified into one of Census 2000, S F I four categories: W hite; Black; Asian and Pacific Islander; and Am erican Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut. Beginning with the 19S0 census, the cate gory O ther or Som e O ther Race becam e a fifth m ajor category. This figure show s trends for the four categories m entioned above as well as the Som e O th er Race and the Two or More Races groups. The group Asian and Pacific Islander refers to the Census 2000 race groups of Asian and Native Flawaiian and O ther Pacific Islander. Except for the Asian and Pacific Islander category, Census 2000 race group names are used. For a discussion of historical census population data on race, see Cam pbell Gibson and Kay Ju n g , H is t o r ic a l C e n s u s S t a t is t ic s o n P o p u la tio n T o ta ls b y R a ce, i 7 9 0 to 1 9 9 0 , a n d b y H is p a n ic O r ig in , 1 9 7 0 to 1 9 9 0 , f o r th e U n it e d S ta te s , R e g io n s , D iv is io n s , a n d S ta te s , Population D ivision W orking Paper No. 56, U.S. Census Bureau, 2002, available at <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>. 0 3 -0 1 Percent Asian, 1900 ICPSR Race data in 1900 were based on the observations of the census enumerator. 0 3 -0 2 Percent Asian, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, S F I 0 3 -0 3 Percent Black, 1900 0 3 -1 5 W hite and American Indian and Alaska Native Population, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, S F I W hite and Asian Population, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, S F I 0 3 -1 7 W hite and Pacific Islander Population, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, S F I 0 3 -0 5 Race and Hispanic Diversity, 2 0 0 0 Interracial o r Interethnic Couples, 2000: White Non-Hispanic Census 2000, SED F If either spouse or partner w as not o f the sam e single race as the other spouse or partner, or if at least one spouse or partner w as in a m ulti ple-race group, then the couple w a s classified as an interracial couple. The seven race groups used in this calculation w ere W hite alone. Black alone, Am erican Indian and Alaska Native alone, Asian alone, Pacific Islander alone, Som e O ther Race alone, and Two or More Races. A co u ple w a s classified as interethnic if one partner w as Hispanic and the other w as non-Hispanic. For more inform ation, see Tavia Sim m ons and Martin O’Connell, M a r r ie d - C o u p le a n d U n m a r r ie d - P a r t n e r H o u s e h o ld s : 2 0 0 0 , Census 2000 Special Report CENSR-5, U.S. Census Bureau. W ashington, DC, 2001. selected people w ould differ by race or ethnicity. The index is ca lcu lated in three steps: A. Square the percent for each group. B. Sum the 0 3 -3 2 Prevalent Asian Croup, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, S F I Lankan; Taiwanese; O ther Asian; and Other Asian, not specified. The category also includes counties in w hich there w as a tie betw een tw o groups based on fe w e r than 100 people. Ties for three counties with more than 100 people w ere broken based on the Asian group p reva lent in the largest num ber o f adjacent counties. 0 3 -3 3 Asian Groups in the M etropolitan Areas With the Largest Asian Populations, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SF2 0 3 -3 4 th ro u g h 0 3 -4 2 Largest Asian Groups, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SF2 Includes people w h o reported their race as Asian alone, not in com b i Interracial o r Interethnic Couples, 2000: Black Non-Hispanic Census 2000, SED F See note for map 03-18. 0 3 -2 0 Interracial o r Interethnic Couples, 2000: Asian Non-Hispanic Census 2000, SED F See note for map 03-18. nation w ith any other race, and w h o reported the detailed Asian group alone. People w h o reported tw o or more detailed Asian groups, such as Korean and Filipino, w ere tabulated in the “ O ther Asian” category, w hich is not m apped in this series. 0 3 -4 3 Prevalent Hispanic Group, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, S F I Most com m on Hispanic group reported. See notes for maps 03-44 through 03-50 for inform ation on the com position o f each group. Census 2000, S F I The d iversity index reports the percentage of tim es tw o random ly Data are for cities with Am erican Indian and Alaska Native race alone populations o f 5,000 or more. Included in the O ther category are: Cam bodian; Pakistani; Thai; Sri 0 3 -1 8 Percent Black, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, S F I Number o f American Indians and Alaska Natives, 2000: Cities With Largest AIAN Populations Census 2000, S F I 0 3 -1 9 0 3 -0 4 0 3 -3 1 0 3 -1 6 ICPSR Race data in 1900 were based on the observations of the census enumerator. Data are for federal reservations, including off-reservation trust lands, with Am erican Indian and Alaska Native race alone populations of 5,000 or more. 0 3 -2 1 Interracial o r Interethnic Couples, 2000: Hispanic Census 2000, SED F 0 3 -4 4 Mexican, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, S F I squares, and C. Subtract the sum from 1.00. For more inform ation, see Stanley Lieberson, “ Measuring Population Diversity,” Am erican See note for map 03-18. Sociological Review, Vol. 34, No. 6, D ecem ber 1969. Eight groups w ere used for the index: 1. W hite, not Hispanic; 2. Black; 3. Am erican 0 3 -2 2 Two or More Races, 2000: Children Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN); 4. Asian; 5. Pacific Islander; 6. Two or More Races, not Hispanic; 7. Som e Other Race, not Hispanic, and 8. 0 3 -2 3 La Raza, Mexican Am erican Indian, or Mexico. Census 2000, S F I Hispanic. People indicating Hispanic origin w h o also indicated Black, AIAN, Asian, or Pacific Islander w ere counted only in their race group Includes respondents w h o checked the box for Mexican or reported one of the follow ing: Mexican, Mexican Am erican, M exicano, Chicano, (0.5 percent of the population) and th e y w ere not included in the Hispanic group. 0 3 -4 5 W hite and American Indian and Alaska Native, 2000: Children Puerto Rican, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, S F I Census 2000, S F I 0 3 -4 6 0 3 -2 4 0 3 -0 6 W hite and Asian, 2 0 0 0: Children Race and Hispanic Diversity, 2 0 0 0 Cuban, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, S F I Census 2000, S F I 0 3 -4 7 Census 2000, S F I See note for map 03-05. 0 3 -0 7 0 3 -2 5 W hite and Black, 2000: Children 0 3 -0 8 0 3 -4 8 0 3 -2 6 0 3 -0 9 Black and American Indian and Alaska Native, 2000: Children Census 2000, S F I Includes respondents w h o reported one o f the follow ing: Costa Rican, G uatem alan, Honduran, N icaraguan, Panam anian, Salvadoran, Central 0 3 -2 7 A m erican, Central Am erican Indian, or Canal Zone. Black and Asian, 2000: Children Census 2000, S F I 0 3 -4 9 South American, 2 0 0 0 American Indian and Alaska Native Population, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, S F I Central American, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, S F I Black Population, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, S F I Census 2000, S F I Census 2000, S F I W hite Non-Hispanic Population, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, S F I Dominican, 2 0 0 0 0 3 -2 8 Prevalent Race or Ethnicity, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, S F I Census 2000, S F I Includes respondents w h o reported one o f the follow ing: Argentinean, Bolivian, Chilean, Colom bian, Ecuadorian, Paraguayan, Peruvian, Census 2000, S F I People o f Hispanic origin w h o are not W hite w ere counted in the Hispanic group and w ere also counted in the Black, Am erican Indian Uruguayan, Venezuelan, South Am erican Indian, Criollo, or South Am erican. 0 3 -1 1 and Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Haw aiian and O th er Pacific Islander group they indicated. Each o f these people w a s counted tw ice 0 3 -5 0 Pacific Islander Population, 2 0 0 0 in the com parison of percentages (0.5 percent o f the population). O ther Hispanic, 2 0 0 0 0 3 -1 0 Asian Population, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, S F I Census 2000, S F I 0 3 -2 9 0 3 -1 2 Two or More Races Population, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, S F I U.S. Census Bureau Prevalent Race or Ethnicity, 2000: Excluding W hite Non-Hispanic Census 2000, S F I See note for map 03-28. Includes respondents w h o checked the box for Other Spanish/Flispanic or reported one of the follow ing: Hispanic, Spanish, Californio, Tejano, Nuevo Mexicano, Spanish Am erican, Spanish Am erican Indian, Meso Am erican Indian, Mestizo, Caribbean, Latin A m erican, Latin, Latino, Spaniard, Andalusian, Asturian, Castillian, 281 Notes: Chapters 3-5 Catalonian, Balearic Islander, Gallego, Valencian, Canarian, Spanish Basque, or an oth er Hispanic group not classified elsewhere. 0 4 -1 6 0 5 -0 3 65 and O lder, 2000: B la ck P o p u la tio n A v e ra g e H o u se h o ld Size, 2000 Census 2000, S F I Census 2000, S F I 0 5 -0 4 0 3 -5 1 th ro u g h 0 3 -6 0 P re v a le n t H isp a n ic G ro u p, 2000: L a rg e s t M etro p o litan A re a s 0 4 -1 7 t h r o u g h 0 4 - 2 6 Census 2000, S F I U n d er 5 Y ears, 2000: L a rg e s t M etro p o litan A re a s M arried-Couple H o u se h o ld s W ith C h ild ren , 2000 See notes for maps 03-44 through 03-S0 for inform ation on the co m Census 2000, S F I Census 2000, S F I 0 4 -2 7 0 5 -0 5 Sex Ratio , 2000: Total Po p u latio n M arried-Couple H o u se h o ld s, 1950 position o f the groups. 03- 61 th ro u g h 0 3 -7 0 Race and H isp a n ic D iv e rs ity , 2000: L a rg e s t C ities Census 2000, S F I Census 2000, S F I 1950 Census o f Population, Vol. II; ICPSR Marital status data are for the population 14 and older. 0 4 -2 8 See note for map 03-05. Sex Ratio , 2000: P o p u la tio n U n d er 18 Census 2000, S F I Chapter 4. Age and Sex F ig u r e 4-1 Percen t D istrib u tio n o f P o p u la tio n b y A g e and Sex, 1900, 1950, and 2000 Frank Hobbs and Nicole Stoops, D e m o g r a p h ic T re n d s in th e 2 0 t h C e n tu r y , Census 2000 Special Report CENSR-4, U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 2002. F ig u r e 4 - 2 0 5 -0 6 M arried-Couple H o u se h o ld s, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 0 4 -2 9 Sex Ratio , 2000: P o p u la tio n 65 and O ld e r Census 2000, SF I 0 5 -0 7 O ne-Person H o u se h o ld s, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 0 4 -3 0 Percen t C h an g e in M ale P o p u la tio n , 1990 to 2000 0 5 -0 8 Census 2000, SF I ; 1990 Census of Population and Housing, STF1 Opposite-Sex U n m arried -Partner H o u se h o ld s, 2000 1990 data were distributed to Ja n u a ry 1, 2000, county boundaries. Census 2000, SF3 0 4 -3 1 0 5 -0 9 Percen t C h an g e in Fem a le P o p u la tio n , 1990 to 2000 R a tio o f D ivo rced to M a rried Peop le, 1890 M edian A g e by Sex, 1900 to 2000 Frank Hobbs and Nicole Stoops, D e m o g r a p h ic T re n d s in th e 2 0 t h C e n tu r y , Census 2000 Special Report CENSR-4, U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 2002. Census 2000, SF I ; 1990 Census of Population and Housing, STF1 1990 data were distributed to Ja n u a ry 1, 2000, county boundaries. 04- Map reproduced from Henry Gannett, S t a t is t ic a l A t la s o f th e U n ite d S ta te s , Eleventh (1890) Census, U.S. G overn m ent Printing Office, W ashington, DC, 1898. 01 M edian A ge, 2000 0 4 -3 2 Census 2000, SF I M edian A ge, 2000: W h ite Non-Hispanic P o p u la tio n Marital status data are for the entire population. Census 2000, S F I 0 5 -1 0 0 4 -3 3 Census 2000, SF3 R a tio o f D ivo rced to M a rried Peop le, 2000 0 4 -0 2 Sex Ratio , 1900 1900 Census o f Population, Vol. II; ICPSR M edian A ge, 2000: Black Po p u latio n Census 2000, S F I Married people are those w h o reported th e y w ere married and their spouse w as present. 0 4 -0 3 Sex Ratio , 1950 0 4 -3 4 1950 Census o f Population, Vol. II; ICPSR M edian A ge, 2000: A m erica n In d ian and A la s k a N a tive Po p u la tio n 0 4 -0 4 0 5 -1 1 R a tio o f D ivo rced to M a rried M en, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, S F I See note for map 05-10. Sex Ratio , 2000 Census 2000, S F I 0 4 -3 5 0 4 -0 5 Census 2000, S F I M edian A ge, 2000: A sia n Po p u latio n R a tio o f D ivo rced to M a rried W om en, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 P o p u la tio n 85 and O lder, 2000 Census 2000, S F I 0 5 -1 2 See note for map 05-10. 0 4 -3 6 M edian A ge, 2000: P a cific Is la n d e r Po p u latio n Census 2000, S F I 0 5 -1 3 1950 Census o f Population, Vol. II 0 4 -3 7 Census 2000, S F I 0 4 -0 7 Census 2000, S F I 0 4 -0 6 M edian A ge, 1950 M arried-Couple F a m ilie s, 2000: F a m ilie s W ith C h ild ren M edian A ge, 2000: Two o r M ore Races Po p u latio n M edian A ge, 2000 Census 2000, S F I 0 5 -1 4 One-Parent F a m ilie s, 2000: F a m ilie s W ith C h ild ren 04- 38 Census 2000, S F I M edian A ge, 2000: H isp a n ic P o p u la tio n 0 4 -0 8 Census 2000, S F I 0 5 -1 5 Youth D e p en d en cy Ratio, 2000 M ale One-Parent F a m ilie s, 2000: F a m ilie s W ith C h ild ren Census 2000, S F I Census 2000, S F I Chapter 5. Living Arrangements 0 4 -0 9 Unless otherw ise specified in this chapter, “ children” are the house 0 5 -1 6 O ld e r P o p u la tio n D e p en d en cy R atio , 2000 Fem ale One-Parent F a m ilie s, 2000: F a m ilie s W ith C h ild ren Census 2000, S F I holder’s own children, w hich includes those under 18 years old, w h o are a son or daughter by birth, m arriage (a stepchild), or adoption. 0 4 -1 0 W hile the legal age o f marriage m ay vary by state, marital status data for Census 2000 are presented for the population 1 5 and older. 0 5 -1 7 F ig u r e 5-1 M arried-Couple F a m ilie s, 2000: W h ite Non-Hispanic F am ilies W ith C h ild ren Percen t o f H o u se h o ld s b y Typ e, 1950 to 2000 Census 2000, S F I Total D ep en d en cy Ratio , 2000 Census 2000, S F I 0 4 -1 1 Frank Hobbs and Nicole Stoops, D e m o g r a p h ic T re n d s in th e 2 0 t h U n d er 18 Y ears, 2000: Total Po p u latio n C e n tu r y , Census 2000 Special Report CENSR-4, U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, S F I W ashington, DC, 2002. 0 4 -1 2 F ig u r e 5 -2 U n d er 18 Y ears, 2000: H isp a n ic Po p u latio n Percen t o f H o u se h o ld s b y Size, 1940 to 2000 Census 2000, S F I Data are for fam ilies in w hich the householder is non-Hispanic W hite. 0 5 -1 8 M arried-Couple F a m ilie s, 2000: B la ck F a m ilie s W ith C h ild ren Census 2000, S F I Frank Hobbs and Nicole Stoops, D e m o g r a p h ic T re n d s in th e 2 0 t h Census 2000, S F I Data are for fam ilies in w hich the householder is Black. C e n tu r y , Census 2000 Special Report CENSR-4, U.S. Census Bureau, 0 4 -1 3 W ashington, DC, 2002. U n d er 18 Y ears, 2000: Tw o o r M ore Races Po p u latio n Census 2000, S F I 05- 0 4 -1 4 Census 2000, SF3 01 R a tio o f D ivo rced to M a rried Peop le, 2000 65 and O lder, 2000: Total P o p u la tio n Census 2000, S F I 65 and O lder, 2000: W h ite Non-Hispanic Po p u latio n Census 2000, S F I 282 M arried-Couple F a m ilie s, 2000: A m erica n In d ian and A la s k a N a tive F a m ilie s W ith C h ild ren Census 2000, S F I Data are for fam ilies in w hich the householder is Am erican Indian and A laska Native. 0 5 -0 2 A v e ra g e H o u se h o ld Size, 1900 0 4 -1 5 0 5 -1 9 0 5 -2 0 1900 Census o f Population, Vol. II M arried-Couple F a m ilie s, 2000: A s ia n F a m ilie s W ith C h ild ren Data are for private fam ilies, w h ich exclude groups o f laborers and Census 2000, S F I those living in group quarters. Data are for fam ilies in w hich the householder is Asian. U.S. Census Bureau Notes: Chapters 5-6 0 5 -2 1 0 5 -3 4 M arried-Couple F a m ilie s, 2000: P a cific Is la n d e r F a m ilie s W ith C h ild ren M u ltig e n e ra tio n a l H o u se h o ld s, 2000 Percen t N atu raliz ed , 2000: Fo reig n Born En tere d 1980 to 1989 Census 2000, SEDF Census 2000, SF3 Three types o f com m only encountered m ultigenerational households are represented: (1) householder with child and grandchild; (2) house See note for map 06-03. Data are for fam ilies in w hich the householder is Pacific Islander. holder with parent or parent-in-law and child; (3) householder with parent or parent-in-law, child, and grandchild. The child m ay be the 0 6 -0 5 0 5 -2 2 M arried-Couple F a m ilie s, 2000: Tw o o r M ore Races F am ilies W ith C h ild ren natural born child, adopted child, or stepchild o f the householder. These num bers, then, represent a subset o f all possible m ultigenera Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, S F I tional households. Data were not tabulated in 1990 for m ultigenera tional households. For more inform ation, see Tavia Sim m ons and Census 2000, S F I Data are for fam ilies in w hich the householder is tw o or more races. 0 5 -2 3 M arried-Couple F a m ilie s, 2000: H isp a n ic F a m ilie s W ith C h ild ren Census 2000, SF I Data are for fam ilies in which the householder is Hispanic or Latino. 0 5 -2 4 One-Parent F a m ilie s, 2000: W h ite Non-Hispanic F a m ilie s W ith C h ild ren Census 2000, S F I Grace O’Neill, H o u s e h o ld s a n d F a m ilie s : 2 0 0 0 , Census 2000 Brief C2KBR/01 -8, U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 2001. 0 5 -3 5 th ro u g h 0 5 -4 4 G ra n d p a re n ts R e sp o n s ib le fo r T h e ir O w n G ra n d c h ild re n , 2000: L a rg e s t M etro p o litan A re a s Census 2000, SF3 0 6 -0 4 Percen t N atu raliz ed , 2000: Fo reig n Born En tere d 1990 to 2000 See note for map 06-03. The naturalization process requires that the foreign-born applicant reside co n tinuously in the United States for 5 years (or less for special categories o f m igrants) follow ing adm ission as a lawful perm anent resident. Therefore, most o f the foreign born w h o entered betw een 1995 and 2000 w ere not eligible to becom e U.S. citizens, resulting in a low er overall percentage naturalized o f the foreign born w h o entered betw een 1990 and 2000. 0 6 -0 6 Percen t Fo reig n Born, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 0 5 -4 5 th ro u g h 0 5 -5 4 Same-Sex U n m arried -Partn er H o u se h o ld s, 2000: L a rg e st M etro p o litan A rea s Census 2000, SF3 0 6 -0 7 P re v a le n t W o rld Regio n o f B irth o f th e Fo reig n Bo rn , 2000 Census 2000, SF3 Data are for fam ilies in which the householder is non-Flispanic W hite. 0 5 -5 5 0 5 -2 5 One-Parent F a m ilie s, 2000: Black F a m ilie s W ith C h ild ren 1900 Census o f Population, Vol. II Most com m on w orld region o f birth for the foreign-born population. A v e ra g e H o u se h o ld Size, 1900 Census 2000, S F I Data are for private fam ilies, w h ich exclude groups o f laborers and Data are for fam ilies in which the householder is Black. those living in group quarters. 0 5 -2 6 0 5 -5 6 One-Parent F a m ilie s, 2000: A m erica n In d ian and A la s k a N a tive F a m ilie s W ith C h ild ren A v e ra g e H o u se h o ld Size, 2000 0 6 -0 8 Sex Ratio , 2000: Fo reig n Born From A s ia Census 2000, SED F 0 6 -0 9 A laska Native. Census 2000, SED F Census 2000, S F I Census 2000, S F I Data are for fam ilies in w hich the householder is Am erican Indian and Sex Ratio , 2000: Fo reig n Born From Eu ro p e 0 6 -1 0 0 5 -5 7 N u rsin g H om e Po p u la tio n , 2000 Sex Ratio , 2000: Fo reig n Born From A frica Census 2000, SED F Census 2000, S F I 0 5 -2 7 One-Parent F a m ilie s, 2000: A s ia n F a m ilie s W ith C h ild ren Census 2000, S F I 0 6 -1 1 0 5 -5 8 C o lleg e D o rm ito ry Po p u la tio n , 2000 Sex Ratio , 2000: Fo reig n Born From La tin A m erica Census 2000, SED F Census 2000, S F I Data are for fam ilies in w hich the householder is Asian. 0 6 -1 2 0 5 -5 9 0 5 -2 8 One-Parent F a m ilie s, 2000: P a cific Is la n d e r F a m ilie s W ith C h ild ren Census 2000, S F I Data are for fam ilies in which the householder is Pacific Islander. C o rre ctio n a l In s titu tio n s Po p u la tio n , 1990 Sex Ratio , 2000: Fo reig n Born From O ceania Census 2000, SED F 1990 Census o f Population and Housing, S T F I 0 6 -1 3 0 5 -6 0 C o rre ctio n a l In s titu tio n s Po p u la tio n , 2000 Sex Ratio , 2000: Fo reig n Born From N o rthern A m erica Census 2000, SED F Census 2000, S F I 0 5 -2 9 One-Parent F a m ilie s, 2000: Two o r M ore Races F a m ilie s W ith C h ild ren Census 2000, S F I Data are for fam ilies in w hich the householder is tw o or more races. 0 5 -3 0 One-Parent F a m ilie s, 2000: H isp a n ic F a m ilie s W ith C h ild ren 0 6 -1 4 Chapter 6. Place of Birth and U.S. Citizenship N atives are those born in the United States, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam , American Sam oa, or the C om m onw ealth o f the Northern M ariana Islands. The native population also includes people born in a foreign cou ntry to at least one U.S.-citizen parent. The 0 5 -3 1 Census 2000, S F I M edian A ge, 2000: Foreign-Born Po p u latio n Census 2000, SED F 0 6 -1 6 F ig u r e 6-1 One-Parent F a m ilie s, 2000: A m erican In d ian and A la s k a N a tive F a m ilie s W ith C h ild ren : R e s e rv a tio n s W ith L a rg e s t AIAN P o p u la tio n s 0 6 -1 5 foreign-born population includes all people w ho are not native. Census 2000, S F I Data are for fam ilies in w hich the householder is Hispanic. M edian A ge, 2000: N a tive Po p u latio n Census 2000, SED F Fo reig n Born (m illio n s ) by P lace o f B irth , 2000 Nolan Malone, Kaari F. Baluja, Jo sep h M. Costanzo, and Cynthia J. Davis, T h e F o r e ig n - B o r n P o p u la tio n : 2 0 0 0 , Census 2000 Brief C2KBR- Percen t N a tive, 2000: P o p u la tio n 18 to 64 Census 2000, SED F 0 6 -1 7 34, U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 2003. Percen t N a tive, 2000: P o p u la tio n 5 to 1 7 There is no statistical difference betw een the estim ated num ber of foreign born from Cuba and Korea or Canada and El Salvador. Census 2000, SED F 0 6 -1 8 Data are for federal reservations, including off-reservation trust lands, with Am erican Indian and Alaska Native race alone populations of 5,000 or more. Fam ilies are those in w h ich the householder is Am erican Indian and Alaska Native. F ig u r e 6 -2 Percen t N a tive, 2000: P o p u la tio n 65 and O ld e r Percen t N atu raliz ed o f the Foreign-Born P o p u la tio n b y Year o f E n try and W o rld Region o f B irth , 2000 Census 2000, SED F Census 2000, SF3 0 6 -1 9 0 6 -0 1 Census 2000, SED F Percen t Fo reig n Born, 2000: P o p u la tio n 18 to 64 0 5 -3 2 One-Parent F a m ilie s, 2000: A m erican In d ian and A la s k a N a tive F a m ilie s W ith C h ild ren : C itie s W ith L a rg e s t A IA N P o p u la tio n s Percen t N a tive: 2000 Census 2000, SF3 0 6 -2 0 Data are for cities with Am erican Indian and Alaska Native race alone populations o f 5,000 or more. Families are those in w hich the house 0 6 -0 2 Census 2000, SED F holder is Am erican Indian and Alaska Native. Census 2000, SF3 0 6 -2 1 0 5 -3 3 0 6 -0 3 Census 2000, SED F Census 2000, S F I Percen t Fo reig n Born, 2000: P o p u la tio n 5 to 1 7 Percen t Fo reig n Born: 2000 Percen t Fo reig n Born, 2000: P o p u la tio n 65 and O ld e r Chiid-to-Woman R atio , 2000 Percen t N atu raliz ed , 2000: Fo reig n Born En tere d B e fo re 1980 Census 2000, SF I Census 2000, SF3 0 6 -2 2 th ro u g h 0 6 -3 1 The child-to-woman ratio is calculated by dividing the total num ber of children under 5 b y the total num ber of w om en aged 1 5 to 49 and Year o f entry is based on a respondent’s report o f the year in w hich he or she came to live in the United States, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. island Census 2000, SF3 m ultiplying the result b y 100. areas (the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam , Am erican Sam oa, and the C om m onw ealth of the Northern M ariana Islands). 0 6 -3 2 Percen t Fo reig n Born, 2000: L a rg e s t C ities Percen t From Mexico, 2000: Foreign-Born Po p u latio n Census 2000, SF3 U.S. Census Bureau 283 Notes: Chapters 6-7 0 6 -3 3 0 7 -0 1 Percen t From C anad a, 2000: Foreign-Born Po p u latio n M ig ra tio n Rate, 1935 to 1940 M ig ra tio n Rate, 1995 to 2000: N a tive Po p u latio n Census 2000, SF3 Larry E. Long, M ig r a t io n a n d R e s id e n tia l M o b ilit y in th e U n ite d S ta te s , Russell Sage Foundation, N ew York, 1988. (Original source, U.S. Census 2000, SEDF; also available from the Census 2000 Migration DVD 0 6 -3 4 Census Bureau). The net migration rate is based on an approxim ated 1995 native Percen t From C h in a, 2000: Foreign-Born Po p u la tio n Census 2000, SF3 Data includes the foreign-born populations from Hong Kong and Taiwan. 0 6 -3 5 population. 0 7 -0 2 M ig ra tio n Rate, 1965 to 1970 Larry E. Long, M ig r a t io n a n d R e s id e n tia l M o b il it y in th e U n ite d S ta te s , Russell Sage Foundation, N ew York, 1988. (Original source, U.S. Census Bureau). Percen t From the P h ilip p in e s, 2000: Foreign-Born Po p u latio n Census 2000, SF3 0 6 -3 6 0 7 -0 3 M ig ra tio n Rate, 1995 to 2000 C ountry o f birth o f the largest num ber o f foreign-born respondents. Korea includes responses o f Korea, North Korea, or South Korea. China includes Hong Kong and Taiwan. Ties were resolved by choosing the country o f origin that w a s prevalent most frequently in the United States. The O ther category includes countries o f origin prevalent in fe w e r than 15 counties. 0 7 -1 7 M ig ra tio n Rate, 1995 to 2000: Foreign-Born P o p u la tio n Census 2000, SEDF; also available from the Census 2000 Migration DVD The net migration rate is based on an approxim ated 1995 foreignborn population. Census 2000 M igration DVD 0 7 -1 8 P re v a le n t C o u n try o f B irth , 2000: Foreign-Born P o p u la tio n Census 2000, SF3 0 7 -1 6 0 7 -0 4 P o p u la tio n L iv in g in D iffe re n t S tates in 1995 and 2000 Census 2000, SF3 O u tm ig ra tio n o f the Fo reig n Born, 1995 to 2000: C a lifo rn ia , New York, and Texas Census 2000, SEDF; also available from the Census 2000 Migration DVD 0 7 -0 5 M ig ra tio n Betw een C a lifo rn ia and O th e r Sta te s , 1955 to 1960 and 1995 to 2000 The map show s gross migration o f the foreign born out o f the selected states. Sex R a tio s (M a le s P e r 100 Fem a le s ) fo r L a rg e s t Foreign-Born P o p u la tio n s From La tin A m erica Census 2000, SEDF; U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. C e n s u s o f P o p u la tio n : 0 7 -1 9 1 9 6 0 , S u b je c t R e p o r ts , M ig r a t io n B e tw e e n S ta te E c o n o m ic A r e a s , Final 0 6 - 3 7 th ro u g h 0 6 -6 0 Report PC(2)-2E, W ashington, DC, 1967. O u tm ig ra tio n o f the Fo reig n Born, 1995 to 2000: Flo rid a , Illin o is , and New Je r s e y 0 7 -0 6 Census 2000, SEDF; also available from the Census 2000 Migration DVD Census 2000, SEDF M ig ra tio n , 1965 to 1970 See note for map 06-03. Larry E. Long, M ig r a t io n a n d R e s id e n tia l M o b ilit y in th e U n ite d S ta te s , 0 6 -6 1 Russell Sage Foundation, N ew York, 1988. (Original source, U.S. Census Bureau). Percen t U.S. C itize n s, 2000: P o p u la tio n 18 and O ld e r Census 2000, SEDF The map show s gross migration o f the foreign born out o f the selected states. 0 7 -2 0 M ig ra tio n Rate, 1995 to 2000: W h ite Non-Hispanic Po p u latio n 0 7 -0 7 M ig ra tio n , 1975 to 1980 Census 2000, SEDF; also available from the Census 2000 Migration DVD 0 6 -6 2 Larry E. Long, M ig r a t io n a n d R e s id e n tia l M o b ilit y in th e U n ite d S ta te s , N a tu raliz ed C itiz e n s , 2000: P o p u la tio n 18 and O ld e r Census 2000, SF4; Census 2000, SF3 Russell Sage Foundation, N ew York, 1988. (Original source, U.S. Census Bureau). 0 6 -6 3 0 7 -0 8 N a tu raliz ed C itiz e n s , 2000: Fo reig n Born En tere d B e fo re 1980 M ig ra tio n , 1985 to 1990 Census 2000, SF3 1990 Census o f Population and Housing, STF3 Census 2000, SEDF; also available from the Census 2000 Migration DVD 0 7 -0 9 The net migration rate is based on an approxim ated 1995 Black M ig ra tio n , 1995 to 2000 population. The net migration rate is based on an approxim ated 1995 nonHispanic W hite population. 0 7 -2 1 M ig ra tio n Rate, 1995 to 2000: Black Po p u la tio n See note for map 06-03. 0 6 -6 4 N a tu raliz ed C itiz e n s , 2000: Fo reig n Born En tere d 1980 to 1989 Rachel S. Franklin, D o m e s tic M ig r a t io n A c r o s s R e g io n s , D iv is io n s , a n d S ta te s : 1 9 9 5 to 2 0 0 0 , Census 2000 Special Report CENSR-7, U.S. 0 7 -2 2 Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 2003. M ig ra tio n Rate, 1995 to 2000: A m erica n In d ian and A la sk a N a tive Po p u latio n 0 7 -1 0 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SEDF; also available from the Census 2000 See note for map 06-03. 0 6 -6 5 N a tu raliz ed C itiz e n s , 2000: Fo reig n Born En tere d 1990 to 2000 R e g io n a l M ig ra tio n , 1955 to 1960 1960 Census o f Population, Vol. II Census 2000, SF3 See notes for maps 06-03 and 06-05. Migration DVD The net migration rate is based on an approxim ated 1995 Am erican Indian and Alaska Native population. 0 7 -1 1 R e g io n a l M ig ra tio n , 1995 to 2000 Rachel S. Franklin, D o m e s tic M ig r a t io n A c r o s s R e g io n s , D iv is io n s , a n d Chapter 7. Migration S ta te s : 1 9 9 5 to 2 0 0 0 , Census 2000 Special Report CENSR-7, U.S. Migration data are derived from the census questionnaire item related Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 2003. to residence 5 years ago, w hich w a s not asked o f children under 5 years old. Unless otherw ise specified, maps in this chapter are for the 0 7 -1 2 population aged 5 and older. Dom estic migration includes people m oving w ithin or betw een the 50 states and the District o f Colum bia 0 7 -2 3 M ig ra tio n Rate, 1995 to 2000: A s ia n Po p u la tio n Census 2000, SEDF; also available from the Census 2000 Migration DVD Census 2000, SEDF; also available from the Census 2000 and excludes those m oving to or from Puerto Rico, w hich is co n sid ered international migration. Calculations o f net dom estic migration are based on an approxim ated population in the earlier y e a r of the tim e period in question. A pproxim ations do not account for deaths or international migration (population m oving into or out o f the United States, defined as the 50 states and the District o f Colum bia). M ig ra tio n Rate, 1995 to 2000: P o p u la tio n 18 to 64 Migration DVD The net migration rate is based on an approxim ated 1995 population, w hich is the num ber o f people 18 to 64 years old (in 2000) who The net migration rate is based on an approxim ated 1995 Asian population. 0 7 -2 4 M ig ra tio n Rate, 1995 to 2000: P a cific Is la n d e r P o p u la tio n Census 2000, SEDF; also available from the Census 2000 Migration DVD reported having lived in a given area in 1995. 0 7 -1 3 The net migration rate is based on an approxim ated 1995 Pacific Islander population. M ig ra tio n Rate, 1995 to 2000: P o p u la tio n 65 and O ld e r F ig u r e 7-1 Percen t o f P o p u la tio n 5 and O ld e r b y T y p e o f M ove, 1995 to 2000 Bonny B e rk n e ra n d Carol S. Faber, G e o g r a p h ic a l M o b ilit y : 1 9 9 5 to 2 0 0 0 , Census 2000 Brief C2KBR-28. U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 2003. M overs from foreign countries, Puerto Rico, U.S. island areas, U.S. m inor outlying areas, and those w h o w ere living at sea in 1995 are included in the category Abroad in 1995. Census 2000, SEDF; also available from the Census 2000 Migration DVD The net migration rate is based on an approxim ated 1995 population, w hich is the num ber o f people 65 and o lder (in 2000) w h o reported having lived in a given area in 1995. Migration DVD The net migration rate is based on an approxim ated 1995 Two or More Races population. 0 7 -1 4 M ig ra tio n , 1995 to 2000: P o p u la tio n 25 to 39 Census 2000, SEDF; also available from the Census 2000 0 7 -2 6 M ig ra tio n Rate, 1995 to 2000: H isp a n ic Po p u latio n Census 2000, SEDF; also available from the Census 2000 Migration DVD F ig u r e 7 -2 Bonny B e rk n e ra n d Carol S. Faber, G e o g r a p h ic a l M o b ilit y : 1 9 9 5 to M ig ra tio n Rate, 1995 to 2000: Two o r M ore Races Po p u la tio n Census 2000, SEDF; also available from the Census 2000 Migration DVD M ig ra n ts (m illio n s ) b y T y p e and Regio n , 1995 to 2000 0 7 -2 5 The net migration flow s are based on reports o f people 25 to 39 years old (in 2000) w h o reported having lived in a given area in 1995. The net migration rate is based on an approxim ated 1995 Hispanic population. 2 0 0 0 , Census 2000 Brief C2KBR-28. U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 2003. M overs from foreign countries, Puerto Rico, U.S. island areas, U.S. m inor outlying areas, and those w h o w ere living at sea in 1995 are 0 7 -1 5 M ig ra tio n , 1995 to 2000: P o p u la tio n 65 and O ld e r Census 2000, SEDF; also available from the Census 2000 Migration DVD included in the category International inmigrants. The net migration flow s are based on reports o f people 65 and older (in 2000) w h o reported having lived in a given area in 1995. 284 U.S. Census Bureau Notes: Chapters 7-9 Am erican Indian and Alaska native languages and som e indigenous languages of Central and South Am erica. 0 7 -2 7 0 8 -0 6 H o u se h o ld e rs L iv in g in th e Sam e H om e fo r O v e r 30 Y ears, 2000 P re v a le n t La n g u a g e Sp o k en a t Hom e, 2000: Exclud ing En g lis h Census 2000, SF3 2 0 0 0 , Special Tabulation 224, released April 2004, available at 0 8 -3 1 Data are for householders w h o responded to the census question <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>. regarding the y e a r th e y m oved into the housing unit by checking the box labeled 1969 or earlier. Native North Am erican languages include the Am erican Indian and A laska native languages and som e indigenous languages o f Central N a tive North A m erica n La n g u ag e Sp o k en a t Hom e, 2000: C itie s W ith L a rg e s t A IA N P o p u la tio n s 0 7 -2 8 and South Am erica. Languages prevalent in a single county are included in the O ther languages category. Data are for cities with Am erican Indian and Alaska Native race alone populations o f 5,000 or more. Native North Am erican languages 0 8 -0 7 include the Am erican Indian and Alaska native languages and some indigenous languages o f Central and South Am erica. U.S. Census Bureau, L a n g u a g e S p o k e n a t F io m e f o r th e U n ite d S ta te s : H o u se h o ld e rs W h o W e re R ecent M o ve rs, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 Data are for householders w h o responded to the census question regarding the y e a r they m oved into the housing unit by checking the box labeled 1999 or 2000. L in g u is tic a lly Is o la te d H o u se h o ld s, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 P o p u la tio n L iv in g in the Sam e H om e in 1995 and 2000 S p a n ish Sp o k en a t Hom e, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SF3 0 8 -0 9 0 7 -3 0 P o p u la tio n L iv in g in D iffe re n t S tates in 1995 and 2000 0 8 -3 2 Non-English-Speaking Po p u la tio n , 1900 0 8 -0 8 0 7 -2 9 Census 2000, SED F S p a n ish Sp o k en a t Hom e, 2000: N a tive Po p u latio n Census 2000, SF3 1900 Census o f Population, Vol. II For this map, it is assum ed that the native W hite population o f native parentage spoke English. The census question on English-speaking ab ility w as asked in the Indian Territory (eastern portion o f w h at is now O klahom a) and Haw aii. The question w as not asked in Alaska or in the 1899 census o f Puerto Rico, w hich w a s conducted by the W ar Departm ent. Census 2000, SF3 0 8 -1 0 0 7 -3 1 Percen t R e sid in g in S tate o f B irth , 2000: Total Po p u la tio n S p a n ish Sp o k en a t Hom e, 2000: Foreign-Born Po p u latio n Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SF3 0 8 -1 1 t h r o u g h 0 8 - 2 0 0 7 -3 2 Percen t R e sid in g in S tate o f B irth , 2000: P o p u la tio n 65 and O ld e r Sp o k e E n g lis h Le ss Th an “ V e ry W e ll,” 2000: School-Age Po p u la tio n : L a rg e s t C itie s Census 2000, SF3 0 8 -3 3 N u m b er o f Non-English Sp e a k e rs, 1900 1900 Census o f Population, Vol. II See note for map 08-32. 0 8 -3 4 Sp o k e E n g lis h Le ss Th an “ V e ry W e ll,” 2000 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SF3 0 8 -2 1 Chapter 8. Language Data on language spoken at home and English-speaking ab ility are for the population 3 ye ars and older. P re v a le n t La n g u a g e Sp o k en a t Hom e, 2000: Exclud ing En g lis h and Sp a n ish U.S. Census Bureau, L a n g u a g e S p o k e n a t F io m e f o r th e U n ite d S ta te s : 2 0 0 0 , Special Tabulation 224, released April 2004, available at <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>. Chapter 9. Ancestry Data in this chapter are based on responses to the census question on ancestry. In Census 2000, respondents could w rite in multiple an ce s tries. O n ly the first tw o ancestries reported w ere coded and tabulated. Unless otherw ise specified. Census 2000 data are for the total num ber F ig u r e 8 - I Native North Am erican languages include the Am erican Indian and Percen t o f P o p u la tio n 5 and O ld e r W h o S p o k e a La n g u ag e O th e r Th an E n g lis h a t H om e by La n g u ag e C ro u p , 1990 and Alaska native languages and som e indigenous languages o f Central and South Am erica. Languages prevalent in fe w e r than tw e n ty co u n 2000 ties are included in the O ther languages category. Percen t o f P o p u la tio n b y R e sp o n s e to A n c e s try Q u e stio n , 1990 and 2000 0 8 -2 2 Angela Brittingham and C. Patricia de la Cruz, A n c e s tr y : 2 0 0 0 , Census Census 2000, SF3; 1990 Census of Population and Housing, STF3 Also see Hyon B. Shin and Rosalind Bruno, L a n g u a g e Use a n d E n g lis h S p e a k in g A b ili t y : 2 0 0 0 , Census 2000 Brief C2KBR-29, U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 2003. D is trib u tio n o f C h in e s e S p e a k e rs, 2000 o f responses for a given ancestry, w h e th e r reported as first or second. F ig u r e 9-1 2000 Brief C2KBR-35, U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 2004. Census 2000, SF3 F ig u r e 8 - 2 Chinese includes Hakka, Kan, Cantonese, M andarin, Fuchow, Form osan, and Wu. Fiftee n L a rg e s t A n c e s trie s (m illio n s o f p eo p le), 2000 S p e a k e rs (m illio n s ) o f La n g u ag e s M o st F re q u e n tly Sp o k en at Hom e, O th e r Th an En g lis h and S p a n ish , 2000 0 8 -2 3 Angela Brittingham and C. Patricia de la Cruz, A n c e s tr y : 2 0 0 0 , Census 2000 Brief C2KBR-35, U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 2004. Hyon B. Shin and Rosalind Bruno, L a n g u a g e Use a n d E n g lis h -S p e a k in g D is trib u tio n o f Fren ch Sp e a k e rs, 2000 A b ili t y : 2 0 0 0 , C e n s u s 2 0 0 0 Brief C2KBR-29, U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, SF3 W ashington, DC, 2003. The num ber o f Vietnam ese speakers and the num ber o f Italian speak ers were not statistically different from one another. The num ber of speakers o f som e languages show n in this figure m ay not be statisti cally different from the num ber o f speakers of languages not show n. French includes Patois, Cajun, and Provencal. 0 8 -2 4 D is trib u tio n o f G erm an Sp e a k e rs, 2000 0 8 -0 2 Percen t W h o S p o k e E n g lis h L e s s T h a n “ V e ry W e ll,” 1980: P o p u la tio n 5 and O ld e r 0 9 -0 1 Census 2000, SF3 Data include those w h o reported only one ancestry. Census 2000, SF3 Germ an includes Luxem bourgian. Census 2000, SF3 Data are for total num ber o f people. O n e A n cestry, 2000 0 8 -0 1 Percen t W h o S p o k e a La n g u ag e O th e r T h an E n g lis h a t Hom e, 2000: P o p u la tio n 5 and O ld e r F ig u r e 9 - 2 0 9 -0 2 Two A n c e s trie s , 2000 0 8 -2 5 D is trib u tio n o f Tagalo g Sp e a k e rs, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 0 8 -2 6 D is trib u tio n o f V ie tn a m e se S p e a k e rs, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 1980 Census o f Population, Vol. I Data for Puerto Rico show the percentage o f the population 5 and 0 8 -2 7 older that reported th e y spoke English “with difficulty” or w ere “ unable to speak English.” D is trib u tio n o f Ita lia n S p e a k e rs, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SF3 In Census 2000, respondents could w rite in multiple ancestries. O nly the first tw o ancestries reported were coded and tabulated. 0 9 -0 3 P re v a le n t A n cestry, 2000 Census 2000, SEDF 0 9 -0 4 P re v a le n t A n cestry, 2000 Census 2000, SED F The m ost com m on an cestry for an area is based on the num ber of people reporting a given ancestry as their first or second ancestry. 0 8 -0 3 0 8 -2 8 Percen t W h o S p o k e E n g lis h L e s s T h a n “ V ery W e ll,” 1990: P o p u la tio n 5 and O ld e r C h in e s e Sp o k en a t Hom e, 2000 1990 Census o f Population and Housing, STF3 Chinese includes Hakka, Kan, Cantonese, M andarin, Fuchow, Data for Puerto Rico show the percentage o f the population 5 and older that reported th e y spoke English “with difficulty” or w ere “ unable Form osan, and Wu. County, CA), Cuban (Miami-Dade County, FL), Dom inican (N ew York County, NY), Filipino (Kauai and Maui counties, HI), French Canadian to speak English.” 0 8 -2 9 (Androscoggin County, ME), Haw aiian (Haw aii and Kalawao counties, HI), Japan ese (Honolulu County, III), Polish (Luzerne County, PA), and Census 2000, SF3 French Sp o k en a t Hom e, 2000 0 8 -0 4 French includes Patois, Cajun, and Provencal. Portuguese (Bristol County, MA and Bristol County, Rl). Census 2000, SF3 Percen t W h o S p o k e E n g lis h L e s s T h a n “ V ery W e ll,” 2000: P o p u la tio n 5 and O ld e r The follow ing ancestries were prevalent in few er than three counties and are included in the O ther category: Chinese (San Francisco Census 2000, SF3 0 8 -0 5 Percen t W h o S p o k e a La n g u ag e O th e r T h an E n g lis h a t Hom e, 2000: P o p u la tio n 5 and O ld e r Census 2000, SF3 0 8 -3 0 N a tive North A m erican La n g u ag e Sp o k en a t Hom e, 2000: R e s e rv a tio n s W ith L a rg e s t A IA N P o p u la tio n s Census 2000, SEDF Data are for federal reservations, including off-reservation trust lands, with Am erican Indian and Alaska Native race alone populations of 3,000 or more. Native North Am erican languages include the U.S. Census Bureau 0 9 -0 5 A m erica n A n cestry, 2000 Census 2000, SEDF Data include those w h o provided only an American an cestry response, including any of the follow ing: United States, a state name, Southerner, Am erican, or Northern Am erican. A person w h o w rote in an an cestry such as Japanese-Am erican w o u ld not be tallied in this group. 285 Notes: Chapter 9 0 9 -0 6 0 9 -2 5 Armenian Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 German Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Russian Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SEDF Census 2000, SEDF Census 2000, SEDF Germ an includes Bavaria, Berlin, Flamburg, Hannover, Hessian, Lubecker, Pom eranian, Prussian, Saxon, Sudetenlander, W estphalian, Russian includes M uscovite. 0 9 -0 7 Asian Indian Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 East Germ an, and W est Germ an. Census 2000, SED F Austrian Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 0 9 -4 4 Salvadoran Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 0 9 -2 6 0 9 -0 8 0 9 -4 3 Census 2000, SEDF Greek Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F Census 2000, SED F Greek includes Cretan and Cyclades. 0 9 -4 5 Scotch-lrish Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F 0 9 -0 9 Belgian Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F 0 9 -2 7 Guatemalan Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F 0 9 -4 6 Scottish Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F 0 9 -1 0 Brazilian Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SEDF 0 9 -2 8 Haitian Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F 0 9 -4 7 Slovak Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F 0 9 -1 1 Canadian Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F 0 9 -2 9 Hungarian Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F 0 9 -4 8 Swedish Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SEDF 0 9 -1 2 Hungarian includes Magyar. Sw edish includes Aland Islander. Chinese Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F Chinese includes Cantonese, M anchurian, and Mandarin. 0 9 -3 0 Iranian Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F 0 9 -4 9 Swiss Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SEDF 0 9 -1 3 Colombian Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F 0 9 -3 1 Irish Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F 0 9 -1 4 Irish includes North Irish. 0 9 -5 0 Ukrainian Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SEDF Croatian Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F Sw iss includes Suisse, Switzer, Rom ansh, and Suisse Roman. 0 9 -3 2 Ukrainian includes Lemko, Bioko, and Husel. Italian Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 0 9 -1 5 Czech Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SEDF Census 2000, SED F Italian includes Friulian, Ladin, Trieste, Abruzzi, Apulian, Basilicata, Calabrian, Am alfin, Emilia Rom agna, Rome, Ligurian, Lom bardian, 0 9 -5 1 Vietnam ese Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SEDF Marche, Molise, Neapolitan, Piedm ontese, Puglia, Sardinian, Sicilian, Tuscany, Trentino, Um brian, Valle d’Aost, Venetian, and San Marino. Vietnam ese includes Katu, Ma, and Mnong. Danish Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 0 9 -3 3 Welsh Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SEDF Jamaican Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SEDF Czech includes Bohem ian, M oravian, and Czechoslovakian. 0 9 -1 6 Danish includes Faeroe Islander. 0 9 -5 2 Census 2000, SED F 0 9 -5 3 th ro u g h 0 9 -6 2 0 9 -1 7 Dominican Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SEDF 0 9 -3 4 Prevalent Ancestry, 2000: Largest M etropolitan Areas Japanese Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F Census 2000, SED F Ja p an e se includes Issei, Nisei, Sansei, Yonsei, and Gonsei. The m ost com m on ancestry for an area is based on the total num ber o f responses reported as first or second ancestry. The an cestry groups Dutch Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 09-35 displayed in the tract-level maps are based on their representation in the I I largest m etropolitan areas in the country. Therefore, the an ces Census 2000, SED F Korean Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 0 9 -1 8 Dutch includes Frisian. Census 2000, SED F try groups show n in this series differ from those show n in map 09-04. See note for map 09-05 for more inform ation regarding the category Am erican. 0 9 -1 9 Ecuadorian Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F 0 9 -3 6 Lebanese Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F 0 9 -6 3 th ro u g h 0 9 -7 2 Prevalent Ancestry, 2000: Largest Cities Census 2000, SED F 0 9 -2 0 English Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F English includes Cornish. 0 9 -3 7 Lithuanian Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F Filipino Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F 0 9 -3 8 Census 2000, SED F 0 9 -3 9 Pakistani Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 0 9 -2 2 Finnish Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F Finnish includes Karelian. 0 9 -7 3 Foreign Born From Austria, 1900 Norwegian Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 0 9 -2 1 See note for maps 09-53 through 09-62. Census 2000, SED F 0 9 -4 0 Polish Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 ICPSR Includes those born in Austria, Bohem ia, and Hungary. 0 9 -7 4 Austrian Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SF3 0 9 -7 5 Foreign Born From Canada, 1900 Census 2000, SED F 0 9 -2 3 French Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F French includes Lorraine, Breton, Corsican, and Occitan. ICPSR Polish includes Kashubian. Includes those born in N ew foundland. 0 9 -4 1 Portuguese Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F 0 9 -2 4 French Canadian Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F Portuguese includes Azores Islander and M adeira Islander. 0 9 -7 6 Canadian Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SF3 0 9 -7 7 Foreign Born From England, 1900 0 9 -4 2 Romanian Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SED F Rom anian includes Bessarabian, Moldavian, and W allachian. ICPSR 0 9 -7 8 English Ancestry, 2 0 0 0 Census 2000, SF3 286 U.S. Census Bureau Notes: Chapters 9-11 0 9 -7 9 F ig u r e 1 0 -2 10-21 Fo reig n B o m From G erm any, 1900 Percen t o f P o p u la tio n 2 S and O ld e r b y H ig h e s t Ed u catio n a l A tta in m e n t L e ve l, 2000 C o m p leted C o llege, 2000: H isp a n ic Po p u latio n ICPSR Census 2000, SF3 K u rtJ. Bauman and Nikki L. Graf, E d u c a tio n a l A t t a in m e n t : 2 0 0 0 , 0 9 -8 0 G erm an A n cestry, 2000 Census 2000 Brief C2KBR-24, U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 2003. Census 2000, SF3 /0 - 2 2 t h r o u g h 1 0 -3 1 C o m p leted C o llege, 2000: L a rg e s t M etro p o litan A rea s Census 2000, SF3 10-01 0 9 -8 1 C o m p leted H igh Scho o l, 1950 1 0 -3 2 Fo reig n Born From Ire lan d , 1900 1950 Census o f Population, Vol. II; ICPSR C o m p leted So m e C o lleg e B u t No D egree, 2000 ICPSR Census 2000, SF3 0 9 -8 2 10-02 C o m p leted H igh Scho o l, 2000 1 0 -3 3 Iris h A n cestry, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 C o m p leted A s s o c ia te ’s D egree, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SF3 1 0 -0 3 0 9 -8 3 C o m p leted C o llege, 1950 1 0 -3 4 Fo reig n Born From Italy, 1900 1950 Census o f Population, Vol. II; ICPSR C o m p leted M a ste r’s D egree, 2000 ICPSR Census 2000, SF3 1 0 -0 4 0 9 -8 4 C o m p leted C o llege, 2000 Ita lia n A n cestry, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SF3 1 0 -3 5 C o m p leted P ro fe s s io n a l o r D o cto ral D eg ree, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 1 0 -0 5 0 9 -8 5 C o m p leted M a ste r’s D egree, 2000 1 0 -3 6 Fo reig n Born From N orw ay, 1900 Census 2000, SF3 Percentage-Point C h an g e in P o p u la tio n 3 to 1 7 Years, 1970 to 2000 1 0 -0 6 Census 2000, S F I ; I 970 Census of Population, Vol. I ICPSR 0 9 -8 6 In c re a se in H igh Scho o l C o m p letio n , 1950 to 2000 N o rw eg ian A n cestry, 2000 Census 2000, SF3; 1950 Census of Population, Vol. II; ICPSR Census 2000, SF3 1950 data were distributed to Ja n u a ry 1, 2000, county boundaries. 0 9 -8 7 Fo reig n Born From Po lan d , 1900 ICPSR Poland w as not an independent country in the nineteenth century, but w as split betw een Germ any, Austria, and Russia. This map show s the distribution o f people w h o indicated that th e y w ere born in the Polish portions o f those countries, as w ell as those w ho sim ply responded 1 0 -0 7 10-37 C o m p leted H igh Scho o l, 1950 Percentage-Point C h an g e in En ro llm e n t, 1970 to 2000: P o p u la tio n 3 to 1 7 1950 Census o f Population, Vol. II; ICPSR Census 2000, SF3; 1970 Census of Population, Vol. I 1 0 -0 8 C o m p leted H igh Scho o l, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 that th e y w ere born in Poland. For more inform ation, see U.S. Census Bureau, M e a s u r in g A m e r ic a : T h e D e c e n n ia l C e n s u s e s F r o m 1 7 9 0 to 1 0 -0 9 2 0 0 0 , POL/02-MA(RV), W ashington, DC, 2001, available at C o m p leted C o llege, 1950 <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>. 1950 Census o f Population, Vol. II; ICPSR 1970 data were distributed to Ja n u a ry 1, 2000, county boundaries. 1 0 -3 8 Percen t E n ro lle d in Scho o l, 2000: P o p u la tio n 18 to 34 P o lish A n cestry, 2000 10-10 C o m p leted C o llege, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SF3 0 9 -8 8 1970 data were distributed to Ja n u a ry 1, 2000, county boundaries. Due to rounding, the U.S. value shown on the key differs from that w hich w ould be calculated from the valu es shown in the key caption. 0 9 -8 9 10-11 Fo reig n Born From R u s s ia , 1900 C o m p leted C o llege, 1950: Men ICPSR 1950 Census o f Population, Vol. II; ICPSR R u ssia n A n cestry, 2000 10-12 C o m p leted C o llege, 2000: Men Census 2000, SF3 1 0 -1 3 Fo reig n B o m From Sw e d e n , 1900 C o m p leted C o llege, 1950: W om en ICPSR 1950 Census o f Population, Vol. II; ICPSR 0 9 -9 2 1 0 -1 4 S w e d ish A n cestry, 2000 C o m p leted C o llege, 2000: W om en Census 2000, SF3 1 0 -1 5 A m erica n A n cestry, 2000 C o m p leted C o llege, 2000: W h ite Non-Hispanic Po p u latio n Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SF3 1 0 -4 0 P riv a te Scho o l En ro llm e n t, 2000: E le m e n ta ry Census 2000, SF3 10-41 P riv a te Scho o l En ro llm e n t, 2000: H igh School Census 2000, SF3 0 9 -9 3 1 0 -3 9 Percen t E n ro lle d in Scho o l, 2000: P o p u la tio n 35 and O ld e r Census 2000, SF3 0 9 -9 1 Census 2000, SF3 0 9 -9 0 Census 2000, SF3 Chapter 11. Work F ig u r e 11-1 Percen t o f P o p u la tio n 16 and O ld e r in the La b o r Fo rce b y Sex, 1960 to 2000 Sandra Luckett Clark and Mai W eism antle, E m p lo y m e n t S ta tu s : 2 0 0 0 , Census 2000 Brief C2KBR-18, U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 2003. F ig u r e 1 1 -2 Percen t o f W o rk e rs b y M ean s o f T ra n sp o rta tio n to W o rk , 1980 and 2000 Census 2000, SF3; I 980 Census of Population, Vol. I See note for map 09-0S for more inform ation regarding the category Am erican. 0 9 -9 4 1 0 -1 6 C o m p leted C o llege, 2000: Black Po p u la tio n Census 2000, SF3 11-01 La b o r Fo rce P a rtic ip a tio n , 2000 Census 2000, SF3 U n sp e c ifie d A n cestry, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 1 0 -1 7 C o m p leted C o llege, 2000: A m eric a n In d ian and A la s k a N ative Po p u la tio n Chapter 10. Education 1 0 -1 8 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SF3 Educational attainm ent data are presented for the population 25 and older. Data for 1950 exclude those w h o did not report their level of 11-02 Percen t o f C o m m u ters W h o U sed P u b lic T ra n sp o rta tio n , 2000 education on the census questionnaire (nonrespondents). For years prior to 1990, educational attainm ent w as m easured by years of C o m p leted C o llege, 2000: A s ia n Po p u la tio n Census 2000, SF3 Data are for w o rkers 16 and older, excluding those w h o w orked at home, w h o usually used public transportation to get to w o rk in the reference w eek. Public transportation includes bus or trolley bus, streetcar or trolley car (Publico in Puerto Rico), su bw ay or elevated, railroad, ferryboat, and taxicab. schooling com pleted. 1 0 -1 9 F ig u r e 10-1 Percen t o f P o p u la tio n 2 S and O ld e r W h o C o m p leted H igh Scho o l o r C o llege, 1940 to 2000 K u rtJ. Bauman and Nikki L. Graf, E d u c a tio n a l A t t a in m e n t : 2 0 0 0 , Census 2000 Brief C2KBR-24, U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 2003. U.S. Census Bureau C o m p leted C o llege, 2000: P a cific Is la n d e r P o p u la tio n Census 2000, SF3 1 1 -0 3 Percen t o f C o m m u ters W h o D ro v e A lo n e, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 10-20 C o m p leted C o llege, 2000: Two o r M ore Races Po p u la tio n Data are for w o rkers 16 and older, excluding those w h o w orked at home, w h o usually drove to w o rk alone during the reference w eek. Census 2000, SF3 287 Notes: Chapters 11-12 1 1 -0 4 1 1 -2 3 1 1 -4 1 A v e ra g e C o m m u ter T ra ve l Tim e, 2000 In fo rm a tio n S e rv ic e s , 2000 C o m m u ters L e a vin g H om e B e fo re Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SF3 Average travel tim e for the jo u rn e y from home to w o rk. Respondents w ere not asked to provide inform ation about their jo u rn e y home See note for map 11-19. from w ork. 1 1 -2 4 La b o r Fo rce P a rtic ip a tio n , 2000 Bureau o f Econom ic Analysis, R e g io n a l E c o n o m ic I n f o r m a t i o n S y s te m (REIS) C D -R O M 1 9 6 9 - 9 6 , Item No. RCN-0295, published Ju n e of 1998. Census 2000, SF3 This d ataset includes U.S. Census Bureau estim ates on intercounty See note for map 11-19. com m uting flow s for 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990. The Bureau of Econom ic Analysis (BEA) derived the journey-to-work data from the 1 1 -2 5 1 1 -0 6 .m ., 2 0 0 0 1 1 -4 2 Census 2000, SF3 La b o r Fo rce P a rtic ip a tio n , 1950: W om en a In te rc o u n ty C o m m utin g, 1960 F in a n cial A c tiv itie s , 2000 1 1 -0 5 6 P ro fe s s io n a l and B u s in e s s S e rv ic e s , 2000 Census 2000, SF3 decennial censuses o f population. The data reflect editing by BEA (p ri marily, assigning unusually long-distance com m uting flow s to the place-of-work elsew here category). Data are for the population 14 and older w h o w orked during the reference w eek. 1950 Census o f Population, Vol. II; ICPSR See note for map 11-19. 1 1 -0 7 La b o r Fo rce P a rtic ip a tio n , 2000: W om en Census 2000, SF3 1 1 -2 6 1 1 -4 3 Ed u catio n and H ealth S e rv ic e s , 2000 In te rc o u n ty C o m m utin g, 1980 Census 2000, SF3 1 1 -0 8 See note for map 11-42. Data are for the population 16 and older who See note for map 11-19. w orked during the reference week. La b o r Fo rce P a rtic ip a tio n , 2000: W om en W ith C h ild ren U n d e r 6 Census 2000, SF3 1 1 -0 9 La b o r Fo rce P a rtic ip a tio n , 2000: W om en W ith C h ild ren 6 to 17 1 1 -2 7 1 1 -4 4 L e is u re and H o s p ita lity S e rv ic e s , 2000 In te rc o u n ty C o m m utin g, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SF3 See note for map 11-19. Data are for the population I 6 and older w h o w orked during the refer ence w eek. Census 2000, SF3 11-10 Both Sp o u s e s W o rk e d , 2000: M arried-Couple F a m ilie s 1 1 -2 8 O th e r S e rv ic e s , 2000 1 1 -4 5 Census 2000, SF3 C o m m u ters W h o C arp o oled , 2000 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SF3 See note for map 11-19. Data are for w o rkers 16 and older, excluding those w h o w orked at 11-11 O n e W orker, 2000: M arried-Couple F a m ilie s home, w h o usually used a carpool to get to w ork. 1 1 -2 9 Census 2000, SF3 P u b lic A d m in is tra tio n , 2000 11-12 See note for map 11-19. La b o r Fo rce P a rtic ip a tio n , 2000: W h ite Non-Hispanic Po p u la tio n 1 1 -3 0 Census 2000, SF3 F ed eral G o ve rn m e n t Em p lo ym e n t, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 1 1 -4 6 C o m m u ters W h o U sed P u b lic T ra n sp o rta tio n , 2000 Census 2000, SF3 See note for map 1 1-02. Census 2000, SF3 11- 1 1 -3 1 C o m m u ters W h o D ro v e A lo n e, 2000: L a rg e st M etro p o litan A rea s 11-13 La b o r Fo rce P a rtic ip a tio n , 2000: B la ck Po p u latio n 4 7 t h r o u g h 1 1 -5 6 S tate G o ve rn m e n t Em p lo y m e n t, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SF3 See note for map 11-03. 1 1 -1 4 La b o r Fo rce P a rtic ip a tio n , 2000: A m eric a n In d ian and A la s k a N a tive Po p u latio n Local G o ve rn m e n t Em p lo ym e n t, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SF3 1 1 -3 2 Chapter 12. Military Service F ig u r e 12-1 C iv ilia n V eteran s (m illio n s ) b y Perio d o f S e rvic e , 2000 11-15 1 1 -3 3 La b o r Fo rce P a rtic ip a tio n , 2000: A s ia n P o p u la tio n P re v a le n t O ccu p atio n , 1950 Census 2000, SF3 1950 Census o f Population, Vol. II; ICPSR 1 1 -1 6 Those working in m anufacturing occupations were listed as O peratives in the decennial census publications for 1950. La b o r Fo rce P a rtic ip a tio n , 2000: P a cific Is la n d e r Po p u la tio n Census 2000, SF3 11-17 La b o r Fo rce P a rtic ip a tio n , 2000: Tw o o r M ore Races P o p u la tio n Census 2000, SF3 C hristy Richardson and Ju d ith W aldrop, V e te r a n s : 2 0 0 0 , Census 2000 Brief C2KBR-22, U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 2003. F ig u r e 1 2 -2 Percen t W om en o f C iv ilia n V e te ra n s b y Perio d o f S e rvic e , 2000 C hristy Richardson and Ju d ith W aldrop, V e te r a n s : 2 0 0 0 , Census 2000 Brief C2KBR-22, U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 2003. 1 1 -3 4 P re v a le n t O ccu p atio n , 2000 12- 01 Census 2000, SED F V eteran s, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 1 1 -3 5 W o rk in g in A g ric u ltu ra l O ccu p atio n s, 1950 1 1 -1 8 La b o r Fo rce P a rtic ip a tio n , 2000: H isp a n ic Po p u latio n Census 2000, SF3 1950 Census o f Population, Vol. II; ICPSR 12-02 V eteran s, 2000: W h ite Non-Hispanic P o p u la tio n 1 1 -3 6 Census 2000, SF3 W o rk in g in A g ric u ltu ra l O ccu p atio n s, 2000 1 1 -1 9 P re v a le n t In d u stry , 2000 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SED F 1 2 -0 3 V eteran s, 2000: B la ck Po p u latio n Census 2000, SF3 1 1 -3 7 Categories are based on the North Am erican Industry Classification (NAICS) alternative grouping of industry sectors. See the NAICS A v e ra g e C o m m u ter T ra ve l Tim e, 2000 Alternate Aggregation Structure for Use By U.S. Statistical Agencies, Clarification M em orandum No. 2, available at <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>. See note for map 11-04. 11-20 N atu ral R e so u rce s and M ining , 2000 Census 2000, SF3 1 2 -0 4 V eteran s, 2000: A m erican In d ian and A la s k a N a tive Po p u latio n Census 2000, SF3 1 1 -3 8 1 2 -0 5 C o m m utes o f O n e H o u r o r M ore, 1980 1980 Census o f Population and Housing, STF3 Census 2000, SF3 V eteran s, 2000: A sia n Po p u latio n Census 2000, SF3 Data are for the jo u rn e y to w o rk. Respondents w ere not asked to See note for map 11-19. 11-21 C o n s tru c tio n and M a n u fa ctu rin g , 2000 Census 2000, SF3 See note for map 11-19. 11-22 T rad e, T ra n sp o rta tio n , and U tilitie s , 2000 Census 2000, SF3 See note for map 11-19. provide inform ation about their jo u rn e y home from w ork. 1 2 -0 6 V eteran s, 2000: P a cific Is la n d e r Po p u la tio n 1 1 -3 9 Census 2000, SF3 C o m m utes o f O n e H o u r o r M ore, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 12-07 Data are for the jo u rn e y to w o rk. Respondents w ere not asked to provide inform ation about their jo u rn e y home from w ork. 1 1 -4 0 C o m m u ters L e a vin g H om e B e fo re 6 V eteran s, 2000: Tw o o r M ore Races Po p u latio n Census 2000, SF3 1 2 -0 8 a .m ., 1990 1990 Census o f Population and Housing, STF3 V eteran s, 2000: H isp a n ic P o p u la tio n Census 2000, SF3 Data published for Puerto Rico did not co ver the sam e hours of the day as those published for the United States. 288 U.S. Census Bureau Notes: Chapters 12-13 1 2 - 2 9 t h r o u g h 1 2 -3 8 1 3 -1 1 A ctive-D uty M ilita ry Po p u la tio n , 2000: W ith M ilita ry In s ta lla tio n s 1 2 -0 9 Percen t o f V eteran s in P o verty , 2000: L a rg e st M etro p o litan A re a s M edian H o u se h o ld Incom e, 1989 Census 2000, SF3; D epartm ent o f Defense area names from the Census 2000, SED F <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>. National Atlas o f the United States, <http://nationalatlas.gov>. 12-10 M ilita ry P o p u la tio n in G ro u p Q u a rte rs , 1990 Chapter 13. Income and Poverty 1990 Census o f Population and Housing, S T F I tus is determ ined. 12-11 F ig u r e 13-1 M ilita ry P o p u la tio n in G ro u p Q u a rte rs , 2000 M edian H o u se h o ld In co m e (th o u sa n d s o f d o lla rs ) by H o u se h o ld Typ e, 1999 Census 2000, S F I Brief C2KBR-36, U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 2005. Census 2000, SED F F ig u r e 1 3 -2 1 2 -1 3 Two-M ilitary-W orker H o u se h o ld s, 2000 A lem ayehu Bishaw and Jo h n Iceland, P o v e rty : 1 9 9 9 , Census 2000 Brief C2KBR-19, U.S. Census Bureau, W ashington, DC, 2003. Census 2000, SED F Po verty status w as determ ined for all people except institutionalized Percen t in P o v e rty b y A g e G ro u p, 1989 and 1999 1990 Census o f Population and Housing, STF3 1 3 -1 2 In co m e and Ed u catio n , 1950 Ed W elniak and K irby Posey, H o u s e h o ld In c o m e : 1 9 9 9 , Census 2000 Percen t V eteran s, 1990 Values have been adjusted to 1999 dollars using the CPI-U-RS inflation table. Po verty data are presented for the population for w hom poverty sta 12-12 M ilita ry H o u se h o ld s W ith an Em p lo yed Partn er, 2000 1 2 -1 4 U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Incom e Tables for Counties, “ Median Household Income by County: 1969, 1979, and 1989,” available at 1950 Census o f Population, Vol. II; ICPSR 1 3 -1 3 In co m e and Ed u catio n , 2000 Census 2000, SF3 1 3 -1 4 t h r o u g h 1 3 -2 3 M edian H o u se h o ld Incom e, 1999: L a rg e s t M etro p o litan A re a s Census 2000, SF3 1 3 -2 4 people, people in m ilitary group quarters, people in college dorm ito ries, and unrelated individuals under 1 5 years old. These groups also M edian E a rn in g s R atio , 1999: Yo u nger W o rk in g A g e to O ld e r W o rk in g A ge w ere excluded from the num erator and the denom inator w hen calcu lating poverty rates. Census 2000, SEDF 1 3 -0 1 M edian E a rn in g s , 1999: Yo u n g er W o rk in g A ge M edian H o u se h o ld Incom e, 1999 Census 2000, SED F 1 3 -2 5 1 2 -1 5 Percen t V eteran s, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SF3 1 3 -2 6 1 2 -1 6 Percen t Vietnam -Era V eteran s, 2000: R e s e rv a tio n s W ith L a rg e s t A IA N P o p u la tio n s Census 2000, SED F Data are for federal reservations, including off-reservation trust lands, with Am erican Indian and Alaska Native race alone populations of 5,000 or more. 1 3 -0 2 M edian E a rn in g s , 1999: O ld e r W o rk in g A ge M edian H o u se h o ld Incom e, 1999: H o u se h o ld e rs W ith o u t a H igh Scho o l D ip lom a Census 2000, SEDF Census 2000, SED F Median incom e data are for householders 25 and older w h o do not have a high school diplom a. 1 3 -0 3 1 2 -1 7 Percen t Vietnam -Era V eteran s, 2000: C itie s W ith L a rg e s t AIAN P o p u la tio n s M edian H o u se h o ld Incom e, 1999: H o u se h o ld e rs Com p leted O n ly H igh School V eteran Po p u la tio n , 2000: W o rld W a r II Census 2000, SED F 1 2 -1 9 V eteran Po p u la tio n , 2000: K o rean W a r M edian H o u se h o ld Incom e, 1999: H o u se h o ld e rs W ith a B a ch e lo r’s D e g ree o r H ig h er Census 2000, SED F Median incom e data are for householders 2 5 and older w h o have a bachelor’s degree or higher level o f education. Census 2000, SF3 M edian E a rn in g s , 1999: Wom en Census 2000, SF3 1 3 -3 0 M edian H o u se h o ld Incom e, 1999: W h ite Non-Hispanic H o u se h o ld e rs Census 2000, SF3 1 3 -3 1 M edian H o u se h o ld Incom e, 1999: B la ck H o u se h o ld e rs Census 2000, SED F 1 3 -0 5 12-20 V eteran Po p u la tio n , 2000: V ie tn a m Era 1 3 -2 8 M edian E a rn in g s , 1999: Men 1 3 -2 9 Median incom e data are for householders 25 and older whose highest level o f education is a high school diploma. 1 3 -0 4 1 2 -1 8 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SEDF Census 2000, SED F Data are for cities with Am erican Indian and Alaska Native race alone populations o f 5,000 or more. 1 3 -2 7 R a tio o f W o m en ’s Ea rn in g s to M en’s E a rn in g s , 1999 Census 2000, SF3 M edian H o u se h o ld Incom e, 1999: N a tive H o u se h o ld e rs Census 2000, SEDF 1 3 -3 2 1 3 -0 6 M edian H o u se h o ld Incom e, 1999: A m erica n In d ian and A la sk a N a tive H o u se h o ld e rs M edian H o u se h o ld Incom e, 1999: Foreign-Born H o u se h o ld e rs Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SED F 12-21 V eteran Po p u la tio n , 2000: G u lf W a r Census 2000, SEDF 1 3 -3 3 Census 2000, SED F 1 3 -0 7 M edian H o u se h o ld Incom e, 1999: A s ia n H o u se h o ld ers P o verty , 1999 Census 2000, SF3 12-22 V eteran s W ith a D isa b ility , 2000 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SED F See note for Figure 13-2. 1 2 -2 3 1 3 -0 8 C iv il W a r V eteran s, 1890 M edian H o u se h o ld Incom e, 1999 1890 Census o f Population, Vol. I 1 3 -3 4 M edian H o u se h o ld Incom e, 1999: P a cific Is la n d e r H o u se h o ld e rs Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SF3 1 3 -3 5 See note for Figure 13-2. M edian H o u se h o ld Incom e, 1999: Tw o o r M ore Races H o u se h o ld e rs 1 3 -0 9 Census 2000, SF3 1 2 -2 4 V eteran s, 1960 1960 Census o f Population, Vol. I M edian H o u se h o ld Incom e, 1969 U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Incom e Tables for Counties, “ Median 1 2 -2 5 V eteran s, 1970 Household Income b y County: 1969, 1979, and 1989,” available at <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>. 1970 Census o f Population, Vol. I 1 3 -3 6 M edian H o u se h o ld Incom e, 1999: H isp a n ic H o u se h o ld e rs Census 2000, SF3 Values have been adjusted to 1999 dollars using the CPI-U-RS 1 2 -2 6 inflation table. 1 3 -3 7 1 3 -1 0 M edian H o u se h o ld Incom e, 1999: A m erica n In d ian and A la s k a N a tive H o u se h o ld e rs : R e s e rv a tio n s W ith L a rg e s t A IA N P o p u la tio n s V eteran s, 1980 1980 Census o f Population, Vol. I 1 2 -2 7 V eteran s, 1990 1990 Census o f Population and Housing, STF3 1 2 -2 8 M edian H o u se h o ld Incom e, 1979 U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Incom e Tables for Counties, “ Median Household Income b y County: 1969, 1979, and 1989,” available at <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>. Values have been adjusted to 1999 dollars using the CPI-U-RS inflation table. Census 2000, SF3 Data are for federal reservations, including off-reservation trust lands, with Am erican Indian and Alaska Native race alone populations of 5,000 or more. V eteran s, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 U.S. Census Bureau 289 Notes: Chapters 13-14 1 3 -3 8 1 3 -6 1 1 4 -1 7 M edian H o u se h o ld Incom e, 1999: A m erica n In d ian and A la s k a N a tive H o u se h o ld e rs : C itie s W ith L a rg e s t A IA N P o p u la tio n s C h ild ren in High-Incom e H o u se h o ld s, 1999 Census 2000, SED F H o m eo w n ersh ip , 2000: A m erica n In d ian and A la s k a N ative H o u se h o ld e rs Census 2000, SF3 In this map, children are people in a household under the age o f 18. Census 2000, SF3 Chapter 14. Housing H o m eo w n ersh ip , 2000: A s ia n H o u se h o ld e rs Data are for cities with Am erican Indian and Alaska Native race alone 1 4 -1 8 populations o f 5,000 or more. 1 3 -3 9 F ig u r e 14-1 M edian H o u se h o ld Incom e, 1999: Foreign-Born H o u se h o ld e rs Census 2000, SF3 O ccu p ied H o u sin g U n its (m illio n s ) b y T enure, 1900 to 2000 Census 2000, SED F Frank Flobbs and Nicole Stoops, D e m o g r a p h ic T re n d s in th e 2 0 t h C e n tu r y , Census 2000 Special Report CENSR-4, U.S. Census Bureau, 1 3 -4 0 M edian H o u se h o ld Incom e, 1999: N a tu ra liz ed C itizen H o u se h o ld e rs W ashington, DC, 2002. F ig u r e 1 4 -2 Census 2000, SED F H o m e o w n e rs h ip R ate b y Race and H isp a n ic O rig in o f H ou seho ld er, 2000 13-41 Census 2000, SF3 P o verty , 1999 Census 2000, SF3 See note for Figure 13-2. 14-01 H o m eo w n ersh ip , 2000 1 4 -1 9 H o m eo w n ersh ip , 2000: P a cific Is la n d e r H o u se h o ld e rs Census 2000, SF3 1 4 -2 0 H o m eo w n ersh ip , 2000: Two o r M ore Races H o u se h o ld e rs Census 2000, SF3 14-21 H o m eo w n ersh ip , 2000: H isp a n ic H o u se h o ld ers Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SI 1 1 4 -2 2 1 3 -4 2 P o verty , 1999: P o p u la tio n 65 and O ld e r Census 2000, SF3 1 4 -0 2 V a lu e o f Owner-Occupied H o u sin g , 2000 Census 2000, SF3 H o m eo w n ersh ip , 2000: H o u se h o ld e rs C o m p leted O n ly H igh School Census 2000, SED F See note for Figure 13-2. 1 4 -0 3 1 3 -4 3 P o verty , 1969 R a tio o f H om e V a lu e to Incom e, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SED F 1970 Census o f Population, Vol. I; ICPSR; U.S. valu e from 1990 Census o f Population and Flousing, “ Persons by Po verty Status in 1969, 1979, and 1989, by State,” (CPH-L 162), W ashington, DC, 1991, available at New H o u sin g , 2000 <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>. Census 2000, SF3 Po verty status w as determ ined for all people except institutionalized people, people in m ilitary group quarters, people in college dorm ito ries, and unrelated individuals under 14 years old. These groups also w ere excluded from the num erator and the denom inator w hen calcu lating poverty rates. 1 4 -2 3 H o m eo w n ersh ip , 2000: H o u se h o ld e rs W ith a B a ch e lo r’s D egree o r H ig h er 1 4 -0 4 1 4 -0 5 1 4 -2 4 H o m eo w n ersh ip , 2000: H o u se h o ld e rs W ith o u t a H igh School D ip lom a Census 2000, SED F P re v a le n t Perio d W hen H o u sin g W as B u ilt, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 Ties for four counties were broken based on the tim e period prevalent in the largest num ber o f ad jacent counties. 1 4 -2 5 H o m eo w n ersh ip , 2000: H o u se h o ld e rs 35 to 64 Census 2000, SF3 1 3 -4 4 P o verty , 1979 1 4 -2 6 1 4 -0 6 1980 census o f population H o m eo w n ersh ip , 2000 See note for Figure 13-2. H o m eo w n ersh ip , 2000: H o u se h o ld e rs U n d e r 35 Census 2000, SF1 Census 2000, SF3 1 4 -2 7 1 3 -4 5 1 4 -0 7 P o verty , 1989 V a lu e o f Owner-Occupied H o u sin g , 2000 1990 census o f population Census 2000, SF3 See note for Figure 13-2. 1 3 -4 6 R e n ters, 2000 M edian M o n th ly Rent, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 P o verty , 1999: L a rg e s t M etro p o litan A re a s Census 2000, SF3 See note for Figure 13-2. Data are for specified renter-occupied housing units, w hich exclude single-family detached houses on 10 acres or more. P o verty , 1999: M a rried C o u p les W ith C h ild ren Census 2000, SF3 See note for Figure 13-2. In this map, children are those in the house hold under the age o f 18, regardless o f marital status, w h o are related to the householder. The householder’s spouse or foster children are not included, regardless o f age. Census 2000, SF3 14-11 H o m eo w n ersh ip , 2000: Fem ale One-Parent F am ilies Census 2000, SF3 1 4 -1 2 See note for Figure 13-2. In this map, children are those in the house hold under the age o f 18, regardless o f marital status, w h o are related to the householder. The householder’s foster children are not included, regardless o f age. 1 3 -5 9 P o verty , 1999: Fem a le O ne-Parent F am ilies Census 2000, SF3 See note for Figure 13-2. In this map, children are those in the house hold under the age o f 18, regardless o f marital status, w h o are related to the householder. The householder’s foster children are not included, regardless o f age. 1 3 -6 0 C h ild ren in Po verty, 1999 Census 2000, SF3 or more. Values have been adjusted to 1999 dollars using the CPI-U-RS inflation table. I 980 data w ere distributed to Ja n u a ry 1, 2000, county 1 4 -2 9 D iffe re n c e Betw een O w n e r and R e n ter H o u sin g C o sts, 1990 1990 Census o f Population and Housing, STF3 Data are for specified owner-occupied housing units with a m ortgage and specified renter-occupied housing units. See note for map 14-28 for more inform ation. Values have been adjusted to 1999 dollars using the CPI-U-RS inflation table. 1990 data were distributed to Ja n u a ry 1, 2000, county boundaries. Census 2000, SF3 1 4 -3 0 P o verty , 1999: M ale O ne-Parent F am ilies Census 2000, SF3 more acres, and housing units in m ultiunit buildings. Specified renteroccupied housing excludes single-family detached houses on 10 acres boundaries. H o m eo w n ersh ip , 2000: M ale One-Parent F am ilies 1 3 -5 8 occupied housing. Specified owner-occupied housing excludes mobile homes, houses w ith a business or medical office, houses on 10 or 1 4 -1 0 H o m eo w n ersh ip , 2000: M arried-Couple F am ilies 1 3 -5 7 1980 Census o f Housing, Vol. I Data are for specified owner-occupied housing and specified renter- 1 4 -0 9 1 3 - 4 7 t h r o u g h 1 3 -5 6 D iffe re n c e Betw een O w n e r and R e n ter H o u sin g C o sts, 1980 Census 2000, SI-1 Census 2000, SF3 See note for Figure 13-2. Census 2000, SF3 1 4 -2 8 1 4 -0 8 P o verty , 1999 H o m eo w n ersh ip , 2000: H o u se h o ld e rs 65 and O ld e r 1 4 -1 3 D iffe re n c e Betw een O w n e r and R e n ter H o u sin g C o sts, 2000 M in o rity H o m eo w n ersh ip , 2000 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SF3 Data are for specified owner-occupied housing units with a m ortgage and specified renter-occupied housing units. See note for map 14-28 1 4 -1 4 for more inform ation. C h an g e in M in o rity H o m e o w n e rs h ip , 1990 to 2000 Census 2000, SF3; 1990 Census of Population and Housing, SED F Data on race and Hispanic origin w ere not collected in Puerto Rico in 1990. 1 4 -1 5 H o m eo w n ersh ip , 2000: W h ite Non-Hispanic H o u se h o ld e rs Census 2000, SF3 14-31 R a tio o f H om e V a lu e to Incom e, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 1 4 -3 2 R e n te rs W h o Sp en t 35 P ercen t o r M ore o f In co m e on Rent, 1999 Census 2000, SF3 1 4 -1 6 Data are for specified renter-occupied housing units, w hich exclude H o m eo w n ersh ip , 2000: Black H o u se h o ld ers single-family detached houses on 10 acres or more. Census 2000, SF3 See note for Figure 13-2. In this map, children refers to people under 18 years old for w hom poverty status is determ ined. 290 U.S. Census Bureau Notes: Chapter 14 and Reference Maps 1 4 -3 3 1 4 -6 5 1 4 -7 3 Percen t o f H o u sin g V alu ed a t $300,000 o r M ore, 2000 P re v a le n t H o u se h o ld H eatin g Fuel, 2000 C ro w d ed H o u sin g , 1970 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SF3 U.S. Census Bureau, Housing Characteristics in the U.S., “ Crowding: 1 4 -3 4 1 4 -6 6 1940-2000,” available at <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>; 1970 Census of Housing, Vol. I H o m eo w n ersh ip , 2000: Low-Incom e H o u se h o ld s H o u se h o ld s W ith o u t T elep h o n e S e rvic e , 1960 W hole rooms used for living purposes are counted. This excludes Census 2000, SED F U.S. Census Bureau, Housing Characteristics in the U.S., “Telephones: 1960-2000,” available at <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>. bathroom s, foyers, utility rooms, etc. Data are for occupied units. The U.S. median household incom e for 1999 w as $41,994. Lowincom e households are those with income less than or equal to A household w as considered to have telephone service if the house 1 4 -7 4 one-half o f the U.S. median or $20,997 (rounded to $21,000). holder reported that the occupants o f the housing unit could be reached by telephone. The telephone could have been in another unit, C ro w d ed H o u sin g , 2000 1 4 -3 5 t h r o u g h in a com m on hall, or outside the building. V a lu e o f Owner-O ccupied H o u sin g , 2000: L a rg e st M etro p o litan A rea s For each unit, rooms include living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens, bedroom s, finished recreation rooms, enclosed porches suitable for 1 4 -6 7 Census 2000, SF3 H o u se h o ld s W ith o u t T elep h o n e S e rvic e , 1970 year-round use, and lodger rooms. Excluded are strip kitchens, b ath rooms, open porches, balconies, halls or foyers, half-rooms, utility 1 4 -4 5 U.S. Census Bureau, Housing Characteristics in the U.S., “Telephones: 1960-2000,” available at <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>; 1970 Census of rooms, unfinished attics or basem ents, or other unfinished space. Data are for occupied units. 1 4 -4 4 New H o u sin g , 2000 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000, SF3 Housing, Vol. I See note for map 14-66. Reference Maps 1 4 -4 6 Farm H o u sin g , 2000 Census 2000, SF3 1 4 -4 7 N u m b er o f M o b ile H om es, 2000 Census 2000, SED F 1 4 -6 8 R E F -0 1 H o u se h o ld s W ith o u t T elep h o n e S e rvic e , 2000 U n ited Sta te s , 2000 Census 2000, SF3 Census 2000 S F I ; U.S. Geological Su rve y digital elevation model A household w as considered to have telephone service if the house holder reported that a telephone w a s available in the house, ap art ment, or m obile home. 1 4 -6 9 1 4 -4 8 Percen t M o b ile H om es, 2000 Census 2000, SED F H o u se h o ld s W ith o u t P lu m b in g , 1940 U.S. Census Bureau, Housing Characteristics in the U.S., “ Plum bing Facilities: 1940-1990,” available at <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>; 1940 Census o f Population and Housing, Territories and Possessions 1 4 -4 9 N u m b er o f S ea so n a l H o u sin g U n its, 2000 Census 2000, SF1 For a housing unit to be considered to have com plete plum bing, all three o f the follow ing facilities needed to be available for the ex clu 1 4 -5 0 sive use o f the inhabitants: hot/cold piped water, bathtub or shower, and a flush toilet. Percen t S ea so n a l H o u sin g U n its, 2000 Census 2000, S F I 1 4 -7 0 H o u se h o ld s W ith o u t P lu m b in g , 1970 1 4 -5 1 t h r o u g h 1 4 -6 0 P re v a le n t H o u sin g Typ e, 2000: L a rg e s t C ities Census 2000, SF3 U.S. Census Bureau, Housing Characteristics in the U.S., “ Plum bing Facilities: 1940-1990,” available at <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>; 1970 Census o f Housing, Vol. I (DEM); National Atlas o f the United States, <http://nationalatlas.gov>; Digital Chart o f the World (DCW ) from Environm ental System s Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), released 1994. R E F -02 t h r o u g h R E F -1 1 L a rg e s t M etro p o litan A re a s, 2000: W ith at Le a st 4 M illio n Peo p le Census 2000, S F I ; National Atlas o f the United States, <http://nationalatlas.gov>. The m etropolitan areas show n are based on the Office of M anagem ent and Budget (OM B) definitions o f Ju n e 1999. The C onnecticut portion o f the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA area is based on the New Haven-Bridgeport-Stamford-Waterbury-Danbury, CT NECMA. In some areas, census tracts are defined to fo llo w the b ou nd ary o f an Am erican Indian reservation. If the reservation has a checkerboard pattern, the census tract w ill also have this pattern. Such patterns can be seen on m any o f the tract-level m aps show ing data for Riverside County, California. R E F-1 2 t h r o u g h REF-21 P re v a le n t H o u se h o ld H eatin g Fuel, 1950 19 S0 Census o f Housing, Vol. I For a housing unit to be considered to have com plete plum bing, all L a rg e s t C itie s, 2000: W ith a t L e a s t 1 M illio n Peop le three o f the follow ing facilities needed to be available for the exclu sive use o f the inhabitants: hot/cold piped water, bathtub or shower, U.S. Census Bureau cartographic bou nd ary files available at <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>; Digital Chart o f the World (DCW ) from and a flush toilet. Environm ental System s Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), released 1994; ESRI Data & Maps [CD-ROM], Environm ental System s Research 1 4 -7 1 14-61 Fuel most com m only used by households for heating. 1 4 -6 2 H o u se h o ld s W ith o u t P lu m b in g , 2000 Institute, Redlands, CA, 2002.; and the U.S. Geological Survey 1:1 00,000 map series and G eographic Names Inform ation System , P re v a le n t H o u se h o ld H eatin g Fuel, 2000 Census 2000, SF3 <http://geonam es.usgs.gov>. Census 2000, SF3 For a housing unit to be considered to have com plete plum bing, all three o f the follow ing facilities needed to be available: hot/cold piped R E F-22 water, bathtub or shower, and a flush toilet. M a jo r R o ad s, 2000 P re v a le n t H o u se h o ld H eatin g Fuel, 1940 1 4 -7 2 National Atlas o f the United States, <http://nationalatlas.gov>; Digital Chart o f the W orld (DCW ) from Environm ental System s Research U.S. Census Bureau, Housing Characteristics in the U.S., “ House C ro w d ed H o u sin g , 1940 Institute, Inc. (ESRI), released 1994. Heating Fuel: 1940-2000,” available at <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>. U.S. Census Bureau, Housing Characteristics in the U.S., “ Crowding: 1940-2000,” available at <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>; 1940 Census of R E F-23 t h r o u g h R E F-33 Population and Housing, Territories and Possessions C o u n ty R e fe ren ce m aps Fuel most com m only used by households for heating. 1 4 -6 3 Fuel most com m only used by households for heating. Gas includes utility, bottled, and liquid propane (LP) types. 1 4 -6 4 P re v a le n t H o u se h o ld H eatin g Fuel, 1970 The num ber o f rooms reported for a dw elling unit includes all rooms used or available for use as living quarters for the household. U.S. Census Bureau, Housing Characteristics in the U.S., “ House Bathroom s, closets, pantries, halls, screened porches, and unfinished rooms in the b asem ent or the attic are not counted as rooms. Data are Heating Fuel: 1940-2000,” available at <w w w .ce n su s.g o v>. National Atlas o f the United States, <http://nationalatlas.gov>; Digital Chart o f the W orld (DCW ) from Environm ental System s Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), released 1994. for occupied units. Fuel most com m only used by households for heating. U.S. Census Bureau 291 Glossary Glossary related to the householder, regardless of marital status. This does not include the householder’s spouse or foster children, regardless of age. Children can also refer to the population under 18. A b ility to sp e ak E n g lis h For respondents who speak a language other than English at home, a self-assessment of English-speaking ability, from “very well” to “not at all.” A IA N See American Indian and Alaska Native. A m e ric a n In d ian and A la s k a N a tive In Census 2000, a person with origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) who main tains tribal affiliation or community attachment. American Indian includes people who indicated their race as American Indian, entered the name of an Indian tribe, or reported such entries as Canadian Indian and Spanish-American Indian. Alaska Native includes written responses of Eskimos, Aleuts, and Alaska Indians, as well as entries such as Arctic Slope and Inupiat. A m erica n In d ian re s e rv a tio n Land that has been set aside for the use of the tribe. There are two types of American Indian reservations, federal and state. Entities included may be colonies, communities, pueblos, ranches, rancherias, reservations, reserves, tribal towns, or villages. A n c e s try A person’s self-identification of heritage, ethnic origin, descent, or close identification to an ethnic group. Examples of ancestry groups are Arab, Brazilian, Canadian, Czech, Irish, Italian, Russian, Subsaharan African, and West Indian. See also Place of birth. A p p o rtio n m e n t The process of dividing the memberships, or seats, in the U.S. House of Representatives among the states. See also Decennial census. A rm ed fo rce s See Military population. A sia n In Census 2000, a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent. A s ia n and P a cific Is la n d e r A person with origins in any of the Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander races. The term Asian and Pacific Islander is used to maxi mize data comparability over the century despite changes that took place in the terms used to describe each race, the race categories col lected on the questionnaire, and the manner in which the data were tabulated. Where used in this publication in reference to data from Census 2000, the single-race group Asian and the single-race group Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander were added together to form the category Asian and Pacific Islander. A ve ra g e Also known as the mean. A value derived by dividing the sum of a group of numerical items by the total number of items in that group. For example, mean family income is obtained by dividing the total of all income reported by people 15 and older who are in families by the total number of families. 294 B a ch e lo r’s d eg ree See Educational attainment. Black o r A fric a n A m erican In Census 2000, a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. See also Race. C arp ool See Means of transportation to work. C itiz e n s h ip sta tu s A person’s self-reported status of being a citizen, either by birth or naturalization, or not a citizen. See also Naturalization. C ity A type of incorporated place in 49 states and the District of Columbia. Hawaii is the only state that has no incorporated places recognized by the U.S. Census Bureau. C o lleg e A post-secondary educational institution offering 2-year, 4-year, or advanced degrees. Included are community colleges, universities, and graduate schools. See also Educational attainment. C e n su s d e s ig n a te d place A statistical entity defined for each decennial census according to U.S. Census Bureau guidelines, comprising a densely settled concentration of population that is not within an incorporated place but is locally identified by a name. Census designated places (CDPs) are delineated cooperatively by state and local officials and the Census Bureau, fol lowing Census Bureau guidelines. Beginning with Census 2000, there are no size limits. C e n su s tra ct A small, relatively permanent statistical subdivision of a county delin eated by a local committee of census data users for the purpose of presenting data. Census tract boundaries normally follow visible fea tures, but may follow governmental unit boundaries and other nonvisible features, and they always nest within counties. Designed to be relatively homogeneous units with respect to population characteris tics, economic status, and living conditions at the time of establish ment, census tracts average about 4,000 inhabitants. C en ter o f p o p u la tio n , mean The place on a map where an imaginary, flat, and rigid map of the United States would balance perfectly if all residents were of identical weight. The calculation of the mean center of rural population consid ers only residents living outside of urban areas or in places with fewer than 2,500 people. C en tra l city The largest city in a metropolitan area (MA) or an additional city inside an MA that functions as a population and employment center, as defined by criteria and standards set forth by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) or its predecessor agency. See also Metropolitan area. C h ild (C h ild re n ) This publication uses multiple definitions of children. A householder’s own children refers to those less than 18 years old who are sons or daughters by birth, marriage (a stepchild), or adoption. For tabula tions based on 100-percent data (Summary File 1), the category “own children” consists of a householder’s sons or daughters who are under 18. For tabulations based on sample data (Summary File 3), the cate gory consists of a householders sons or daughters who are under 18 and who have never been married. Therefore, numbers of own chil dren of householders may be different in these two tabulations. Related children are those in a household under the age of 18 who are C o lleg e d o rm ito ry University-owned, on-campus and off-campus housing for unmarried residents. See also Croup quarters population. C o m m uter A worker who usually does not work at home. C o m m utin g, in te rco u n ty The regular travel to a workplace that is in a different county than the one in which a commuter resides. C o n g re ss io n a l se a ts See Apportionment. C o n s o lid ate d M etro p o litan Sta tis tic a l A rea (C M SA ) For the 1990 census and Census 2000, an area that qualifies as a met ropolitan area and has more than 1 million people. To qualify as a CMSA, a metropolitan area must also contain two or more primary metropolitan statistical areas (PMSAs). PMSAs consist of a large urban ized county or cluster of counties (cities and towns in New England) that demonstrate very strong internal economic and social links, in addition to close ties to other portions of the larger area. CMSAs and PMSAs are established only where local governments favor such des ignations for a large metropolitan area. See also Metropolitan area. C o rre ctio n a l in s titu tio n An institution type that includes prisons, federal detention centers, military disciplinary barracks and jails, police lockups, halfway houses used for correctional purposes, local jails, and other confinement facil ities such as work farms. C o u n ty and e q u iv a le n t e n tity The primary legal subdivision of most states. In Louisiana, these sub divisions are known as parishes. In Alaska, which has no counties, the county equivalents are boroughs, a legal subdivision, and census areas, a statistical subdivision. In four states (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia), there are one or more cities that are indepen dent of any county and thus constitute primary subdivisions of their states. The District of Columbia has no primary divisions, and the entire area is considered equivalent to a county. In Puerto Rico, municipios are treated as county equivalents. U.S. Census Bureau C o up le A self-identified status that indicates a pair of married or unmarried individuals who maintain a household together. were actively looking for work during the 4 weeks before the census, and were available to accept a job. Also included are civilians who did not work at all during the reference week, were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off, and were available for work except for temporary illness. mental hospitals) and noninstitutional (for example, college dormito ries, military barracks, group homes, missions, and shelters). E th n ic ity See Ancestry, Hispanic or Latino origin. D ecenn ial c en su s The census of population (1 790 through 1930) and the census of pop ulation and housing (1940 through 2000) taken by the U.S. Census Bureau in years ending in zero. Article I of the U.S. Constitution requires that a census be taken every 10 years for the purpose of reapportioning the U.S. House of Representatives. See also Apportionment. D e n s ity The quantity of something, per a unit of something. Density indicates the extent to which spaces or objects are packed within a given area. See also Population density. D e p en d en cy ra tio See Older population dependency ratio, Total dependency ratio, Youth dependency ratio. D is a b ility A long-lasting physical, mental, or emotional condition. This condition can make it difficult fo ra person to do activities such as walking, climbing stairs, dressing, bathing, learning, or remembering. This con dition can also impede a person from being able to go outside the home alone or to work at a job or business. Fleating fuel Fuel used most often to heat the house, apartment, or mobile home. Types include utility gas, liquid propane (LP) gas, electricity, fuel oil, coal, wood, solar energy, and other fuel. F a m ily h o u seh old (F a m ily ) A householder and one or more people living together in the same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. All people in a household who are related to the house holder are regarded as members of his or her family. A family household may contain people not related to the householder, but those people are not included as part of the householder’s family in census tabulations. See also Household. F a m ily ty p e Families are classified by type as either a married-couple family or other family according to the presence of a spouse. A family in which the householder and his or her spouse are enumerated as members of the same household is a married-couple family. Other family types include male householder, no wife present; female householder, no husband present, and nonfamily households. A householder living alone or with nonrelatives is a nonfamily household. H o m eo w n er w ith m o rtgage See Selected monthly owner costs. H o m eo w n ersh ip See Owner-occupied housing unit. H ou seho ld One person or a group of people living in a housing unit. See also Family household, Croup quarters population. Foreign-born p o p u la tio n People living in the United States who are not native. H o u se h o ld incom e Income of the householder and all other individuals in the household, whether they are related to the householder or not. Although the household income statistics cover the calendar year preceding the census, the characteristics of individuals and the composition of households are as of the day of the census. (2000, 1990, 1980) The incomes of household members I S and older were included. (1970) The incomes of household members 14 and older were included. E a rn in g s The sum of wage or salary income and net income from selfemployment. Earnings represent the amount of income received regu larly for people 16 and older before deductions such as personal income taxes, social security, bond purchases, union dues, and Medicare deductions. See also immigration. Native population. See also Income. E d u c atio n a l a tta in m e n t The highest level of schooling completed by a person. (2000) Grades of school completed or highest degree (if any) held by a respondent. (1950) Number of years of school completed by a respondent. In this publication, people with 4 years of high school were considered to be high school graduates, while those with 4 or more years of college were considered to be college graduates. G ra n d p a re n ts a s c a re g iv e rs Grandparents who have assumed the care of their grandchildren on a temporary or permanent live-in basis. D ivo rced See Marital status. E le m e n ta ry school A school with the first through the eighth grades. It can include both elementary and intermediate or middle schools. Em p lo yed Civilians 16 years and older who were either “at work” or were “with a job but not at work.” People on active duty in the U.S. armed forces are not included. Unemployed civilians are those who were neither “at work” nor “with a job but not at work” during the reference week, U.S. Census Bureau Farm h o usin g Occupied single-family houses or mobile homes located on a property of 1 acre or more with at least $1,000 worth of agricultural product sales in 1999. Group quarters and housing units that are in multiunit buildings or are vacant are not included. H isp a n ic o r L a tin o o rig in (2000) Based on self-identification, a person who reports origins such as “Mexican,” “Mexican-American,” “Chicano,” “Puerto Rican,” or “Cuban.” Also included are those who indicate that they are “other Spanish,” “ Hispanic,” or “ Latino.” Origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the per son’s parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States. People who identify their origin as “Spanish,” “Hispanic,” or “ Latino” may be any race. G ro ss re n t The amount of the contract rent plus the estimated average monthly cost of utilities (electricity, gas, and water and sewer) and fuels (oil, coal, kerosene, wood, etc.) if paid for by the renter. Gross rent is intended to eliminate differentials that result from varying practices with respect to the inclusion of utilities and fuels as part of the rental payment. G ro u p q u a rte rs p o p u la tio n The U.S. Census Bureau classifies all people not living in households as living in group quarters. There are two types of group quarters: institutional (for example, correctional facilities, nursing homes, and H o u se h o ld ty p e Households are classified according to the householder’s relationship to the other people living in the housing unit. A family household is a householder living with one or more people related to him or her by birth, marriage, or adoption. A nonfamily household is a householder living alone or with nonrelatives only. (1900) In this publication, pri vate families are considered to be comparable to households. In the 1900 census, this category excluded groups of laborers and those liv ing in group quarters. See also Family household, Croup quarters population. H o u se h o ld e r The person in whose name the housing unit is owned or rented. The person who designates himself or herself as the householder (or head of household) is the “ reference person” to whom the relationship of all other household members, if any, is recorded. See also Family household, Group quarters population. H o u sin g co s ts See Cross rent, Selected monthly owner costs. 295 Glossary H o u sin g u n it A house, apartment, mobile home, group of rooms, or single room that is occupied, or intended for occupancy, as separate living quar ters. In separate living quarters, occupants live separately from any other people in the building and have direct access to the quarters from outside the building or through a common hall. H o u sin g v a lu e For owner-occupied homes, the respondent’s estimate of how much the property (house and lot, mobile home and lot, or condominium unit) would sell for if it were for sale. See also Owner-occupied housing unit. M a rita l sta tu s People are generally classified as being currently married, never mar ried, separated, divorced, or widowed. (2000) Marital status data are presented for the population 1S and older. (1950) Marital status data are presented for the population 14 and older. (1890) Classification as single, married, widowed, or divorced was made regardless of the respondent’s age. M arried-couple fa m ily See Fam ily type. M ean See Average. Im m ig ra tio n The movement of population into a new country of residence. For example, a person who immigrates to the United States enters from another country to live in the United States. See also Foreign-born population. Incom e (2000) The sum of the amounts reported by respondents 1S and older for wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, or tips; self-employment income from own nonfarm or farm businesses; interest, dividends, net rental income, royalty income, or income from estates and trusts; social security or railroad retirement income; Supplemental Security Income; any public assistance or welfare payments; retirement, sur vivor, or disability pensions; and any other sources of income received regularly, such as veterans’ payments, unemployment compensation, child support, or alimony. Although the income statistics cover the calendar year preceding the census, the characteristics of individuals are as of the day of the census. The income data collected in the 1990, 1980, and 1970 censuses are similar to Census 2000 data, but details of the questions varied. (1970) Income data were collected and presented for the population 14 and older. See also Household income. In d u s try The kind of business conducted by a person’s employing organization. For employed people, the data refer to the person’s job during the ref erence week. For those who worked at two or more jobs, the data refer to the job at which the person worked the largest number of hours. Examples of industrial groups include agriculture, forestry, and fisheries; construction; manufacturing; wholesale or retail trade; trans portation and communication; personal, professional, and entertain ment services; and public administration. See also Occupation. In m ig ra tio n See Migration. In te rn a l m ig ratio n See Migration. In te rn a tio n a l m ig ra tio n See Migration. In te rra c ia l o r in te re th n ic cou p le If either spouse or partner was not in the same single race as the other spouse or partner, or if at least one spouse or partner is in a multiple-race group, then the couple was classified as an interracial couple in this publication. The seven race groups used in the calcula tion were White alone (i.e., single race), Black or African American alone, American Indian and Alaska Native alone, Asian alone, Native Flawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, Some Other Race alone, and Two or More Races. In this publication, a couple was classified as interethnic if one partner was Hispanic and the other was nonHispanic. M ean s o f tra n s p o rta tio n to w o rk The principal mode of travel or type of conveyance that the worker usually used to get from home to work during the reference week. Workers who usually drove alone to work are those who drove them selves to work. Workers who carpooled reported that two or more people usually rode to work in the vehicle during the reference week. Workers using public transportation usually used a bus or trolley bus, streetcar or trolley car (Publico in Puerto Rico), subway or elevated, railroad, ferryboat, or taxicab. See also Reference week. M edian A measure representing the middle value in an ordered list of data val ues. The median divides the total frequency distribution into two equal parts: one-half of the cases fall below the median and one-half of the cases exceed the median. For instance, the median age divides the age distribution into two equal parts, one-half of the population is younger than the median age and one-half is older. M etro p o litan area A large population nucleus together with adjacent communities hav ing a high degree of social and economic integration with that nucleus. Since 19S0, metropolitan areas have been defined based on criteria and standards set forth by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) or its predecessor agency. M ig ratio n Commonly defined as moves that cross jurisdictional boundaries. This publication includes moves that crossed county, state, or region boundaries within the United States. Moves within a jurisdiction are referred to as residential m obility. Migration can be differentiated as movement within the United States (dom estic, or internal, migration) and movement into and out of the United States (international m igra tion). Inm igration is the number of domestic migrants who moved into an area during a given period, while outm igration is the number of domestic migrants who moved out of an area during a given period. Net m igration is the difference between inmigration and out migration during a given time. A positive net, or net inm igration, indi cates that more migrants entered an area than left during a period of time. A negative net, or net outm igration, means that more migrants left an area than entered it. See also Mobility, Residence 5 years ago. M ilita ry p o p u la tio n Members of the U.S. armed forces (people on active duty with the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard). M ilita ry q u a rte rs A type of group quarters that includes barracks and dormitories on base, transient quarters on base for temporary residents (both civilian and military), and military ships. M in o rity In this publication, people who are races other than White (White alone or single-race White in Census 2000) or are Hispanic. M o b ility Refers to all spatial, physical, or geographic movement, regardless of distance, and includes both moves within a jurisdiction as well as moves that cross jurisdictional boundaries. See also M igration. La b o r fo rce All employed or unemployed people, including members of the U.S. armed forces. See also Employed. La n g u ag e sp o k en a t hom e The language used by a respondent at home, either “English only” or a non-English language, used in addition to, or in place of, English. See also A bility to speak English. La tin A m erica Area including Central America (including Mexico), the Caribbean, and South America. L in g u is tic iso la tio n A household in which all members 14 and older speak a non-English language at home and also speak English less than “very well.” M u itig e n e ra tio n a l h o u se h o ld s A family household consisting of more than two generations, such as a householder living with his or her children and grandchildren. Three types of commonly encountered muitigenerational households are represented in this publication: (1) householder with child and grand child; (2) householder with parent or parent-in-law and child; (3) householder with parent or parent-in-law, child, and grandchild. The child may be the natural born child, adopted child, or stepchild of the householder. These households represent a subset of all possible muitigenerational households. M u u icip io s Primary legal geographic divisions of Puerto Rico. These are treated as county equivalents. See also County and equivalent entity. N a tive H a w a iia n and O th e r P a cific Is la n d e r (2000) A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. (1990, 1980) Data on Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders were presented under the term Pacific Islander and they were included in the broader race category Asian and Pacific Islander. N a tive p o p u latio n People born in the United States, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The native population also includes people born in a foreign country to at least one U.S.-citizen parent. N atu ra liz a tio n The conferring, by any means, of citizenship upon a person after birth. In census data, a naturalized citizen is a foreign-born person who reports having been naturalized. See also Citizenship status. Net m ig ratio n See Migration. New En g la n d C o u n ty M etro p o litan A re a (N EC M A ) A county-based alternative to the city- and town-based metropolitan areas of New England. Outside of New England, all metropolitan areas are county-based. See also M etropolitan area. N o rthern A m erica Area including the United States, Canada, Bermuda, Greenland, and St. Pierre and Miquelon. N u rsin g hom e A place providing continuous nursing and other services to patients. While the majority of patients are elderly, people of any age who require nursing care because of chronic physical conditions may be residing in these homes. Included in this category are skilled-nursing facilities, intermediate-care facilities, long-term care rooms in wards or buildings on the grounds of hospitals, or long-term care rooms/nursing wings in congregate housing facilities. Also included are convales cent and rest homes, such as soldiers’, sailors’, veterans’, and fraternal or religious homes for the aged with nursing care. O ccu p atio n The kind of work a person does on the job. Examples of occupational groups include managerial occupations, business and financial special ists, scientists and technicians, entertainment, health care, food serv ice, personal services, sales, office and administrative support, farm ing, maintenance and repair, and production workers. See also Employed, Industry. O ceania Area including Australia, New Zealand, and island countries in Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia. O ld e r p o p u la tio n d ep en d en cy ra tio Also referred to as the old-age dependency ratio in traditional demo graphic literature, this measure is derived in this book by dividing the population 6S years and older by the 18-to-64 population and multi plying by I 00. It is the number of people 65 and older per 100 people aged 18 to 64. See also Total dependency ratio. Youth dependency ratio. O u tm ig ra tio n See Migration. O w n ch ild re n See Child. O wner-occupied h o u sin g u nit A housing unit in which the owner or co-owner lives, even if the unit is mortgaged or not fully paid for. See also Housing unit. P a cific Is la n d e r See Native H aw aiian and O ther Pacific Islander. Percen ta g e A measure calculated by taking the number of items in a group pos sessing a particular characteristic and dividing by the total number of items in that group, then multiplying by 100. See also A b ility to speak English. 296 U.S. Census Bureau Glossary P lace o f birth The U.S. state or foreign country where a person was born. Information on place of birth and citizenship status was used to clas sify the population into two major categories: native and foreign born. See also Foreign-born population, Native population. P lace o f w o rk The geographic location at which a worker carried out occupational activities during the reference week. See also Labor force, Reference week. Po p u la tio n See Total population. P o p u la tio n d e n s ity Total population within a geographic entity, such as a state or county, divided by the area of that entity. P o v e rty Poverty status is determined by comparing total family income with the poverty threshold appropriate to the family’s size and composi tion. If the total income of a family is less than the threshold appropri ate to the family, then the family and all individuals in the family are considered to have income below the poverty level (“living in poverty”). For instance, a family consisting of a married couple and two related children under 18 years old with a total income in 1999 of less than $1 6,895 would be classified as “ living in poverty.” If a per son is not living with anyone related by birth, marriage, or adoption, then the person’s own income is compared to his or her poverty threshold. P riv a te school A school supported and controlled primarily by private groups, such as religious organizations or practitioners of a particular educational philosophy. P u b lic tra n s p o rta tio n See Means o f transportation to work. P u e rto Rico The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is treated as the eguivalent of a state for data presentation purposes. Puerto Rico is divided into legal government municipios, which are statistically equivalent to counties. Race For Census 2000, race alone includes the five single-race categories required by the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (White alone, Black or African American alone, American Indian or Alaska Native alone, Asian alone, and Native Flawaiian or Other Pacific Islander alone), plus the Some Other Race alone category (included by the U.S. Census Bureau with the approval of the OMB). Race alone-orin-combination includes people who marked only one race (a “ race alone” category) and also those who marked that race and at least one other race. R atio A measure of the relative size of one number to a second number expressed as the quotient of the first number divided by the second. R e fe ren ce w eek The 1-week time period, Sunday through Saturday, preceding the date on which a respondent completed the census questionnaire. Region Four groupings of states (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West) estab lished by the U.S. Census Bureau in 1942 for the presentation of cen sus data. The Northeast region includes Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The Midwest region includes Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas. The South region includes Delaware, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. The West region includes Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, and Hawaii. Puerto Rico and the U.S. island areas (the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) are not part of any of these regions. Rent See Cross rent. Renter-occupied h o u sin g u nit An occupied housing unit that is not owner occupied, regardless of whether cash rent is paid by a member of the household. U.S. Census Bureau R e se rva tio n See Am erican Indian reservation. Tract See Census tract. R e sid e n ce 5 y e a rs ago In Census 2000, respondents 5 and older who reported they lived in a different house on April 1, 1995, were asked where they lived in 1995. Similar questions were asked in the 1940, 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990 censuses. Data on residence 5 years ago is used in conjunc tion with data on location of current residence to determine the extent of residential mobility of the population and the resulting redistribu tion of the population across the various states, metropolitan areas, and regions of the country. T ra ve l tim e to w o rk The total number of minutes that it usually took a worker to get from home to work each day. The elapsed time includes time spent waiting for public transportation, picking up passengers in carpools, and engaging in other activities related to getting to work. R e sp o n d e n t The person supplying survey or census information. R u ral Territory, population, and housing units not classified as urban. This classification cuts across other hierarchies and can be in metropolitan or nonmetropolitan areas. Two o r M o re Races A respondent who provided more than one race response either by marking two or more race response check boxes, by providing certain multiple write-in responses, or by indicating some combination thereof. There are 57 possible combinations of two, three, four, five, or six races. See also Race. See also Urban. R u ra l fa rm p o p u la tio n People in households who are living in farm residences located in rural areas. In Census 2000, farm residence is an occupied single family house or mobile home located on a property of 1 acre or more with at least $ 1,000 worth of agricultural product sales in 1999. Group quarters and housing units that are in multiunit buildings or are vacant are not included as farm residences. U n m arried -p artner h o u seh o ld A household in which a person reports he or she is the “ unmarried partner” of the householder by checking that box in the census ques tionnaire item regarding relationship to the householder. In contrast, people sharing the same living quarters but doing so just to share liv ing expenses were offered the opportunity to identify themselves as roommates or housemates. S ea so n a l h o u sin g u nit Seasonal, recreational, or occasional-use housing units include vacant units used or intended for use only in certain seasons, on weekends, or for other occasional use throughout the year. Interval ownership units, sometimes called shared ownership or time-share condomini ums, are included. U rb an For Census 2000, all territory, population, and housing units located within an urbanized area (UA) or an urban cluster (UC). UA and UC boundaries encompass densely settled territory, which consists of core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile and surrounding census blocks with a density of at least 500 people per square mile. For censuses from 1950 to 1990, the definition included urbanized areas and places of 2,500 or more persons. In censuses prior to 1950, the defi nition included incorporated places of 2,500 and some areas based on special rules relating to population size and density. Selected m o n th ly o w n e r co sts The sum of payments for mortgages, deeds of trust, contracts to pur chase, or similar debts on a property; real estate taxes; fire, hazard, and flood insurance on a property; utilities; fuels; condominium fees; and mobile home costs. Sex An individual’s classification as male or female. Sex ra tio A measure derived by dividing the total number of males by the total number of females, then multiplying by 100. So m e O th e r Race In Census 2000, this race category included respondents who pro vided write-in entries to the census question on race such as multira cial, mixed, interracial, Mexican, Puerto Rican, or Cuban and did not report they were in any of the race-alone or race-in-combination groups White, Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. See also Race. S tate and e q u iv a le n t e n tity The primary legal geographic subdivision of the United States. In this publication, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are treated as the statistical equivalents of states. Su b u rb an The area inside metropolitan areas but outside central cities. See also Central city, Metropolitan area. Veteran Based on self-identification, a person who once served on active duty in the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard, or who served in the Merchant Marine during World War II. A civilian vet eran is a person who served on active duty but was not on active duty at the time of the census. Veteran status is presented for the population (2000) 18 and older, (1990, 1980) 16 and older, (1970) male and 16 and older, (1960) male and 14 and older, and (1890) male and served as a soldier, sailor, or marine during the Civil War. W h ite A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race is White or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish. See also Race. W o rk See Employed, Industry, Occupation. W o rk e r In Census 2000, a member of the armed forces or a civilian 16 and older who was employed and at work in the reference week. See also Reference week. Total d ep en d en cy ra tio Also known as the age dependency ratio, this measure is derived in this book by dividing the combined under-age-18 and 65-and-older population by the 18-to-64-year-old population and multiplying by 100. The total dependency ratio is based on the proportion of people in different age groups, as opposed to different economic groups, and should not be confused with the economic dependency ratio. Even though the total dependency ratio is specific to age, it is com monly used as a demographic proxy that could indicate economic dependency. Youth d ep en d en cy ra tio Also referred to as the child dependency ratio in traditional demo graphic literature, this is derived in this book by dividing the popula tion underage 18 by the 18-to-64 year old population and multiplying by 100. It is the number of people under age 18 per 100 people aged 18 to 64. Total p o p u latio n All people, male and female, child and adult, living in a given geo graphic area. 297 Map and Figure Index Map and Figure Index A ncestry: — Con. G e rm a n ....................... Africa, foreign born f r o m ..........................................94 African A m erican. See B la c k o r A f r ic a n A m e r ic a n . A g e ..................................................................SO, S I , 54 C h ild re n ......... 36, 37, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 96, 97 D ependency r a t i o ................................................. 5 5 Foreign b o rn .......................................... 95, 97, 104 H o m e o w n e rs h ip ...................................................245 In c o m e ................................................................... 220 N a t iv e ........................................................................ 96 O lder p o p u la tio n .............. 5 3 ,5 5 , 57, 60, 96, 97, 114, 115 Race and Hispanic o rig in .............. 36, 37, 56, 57, 62, 63 Sex r a t io ...........................................................51, 60 W orking age ..................... 9 6 ,9 7 , 1 1 4 , 1 1 5 , 2 2 0 Agriculture, em ploym ent in ..........................184, 189 Am erican a n c e s t r y .......................................... 142, 155 Am erican Indian and A laska N a tiv e .................32, 39 A g e ............................................................. 36, 37, 62 College c o m p le tio n ...............................................166 H o m e o w n e rs h ip ...................................................242 In c o m e ........................................................ 222, 224 Labor force p articip atio n ..................................... 182 Married-couple fam ilies w ith c h ild re n .................76 M ig r a t io n ............................................................... 118 Native North American lang u ag e.......................................... 128, 1 32, 134 One-parent fam ilies with c h ild re n .............. 78, 80 V e t e r a n s ...................................................... 200, 205 Am ericas, foreign born from . . . . 94, 100, 102, 103 A n c e s t r y ...........................................................1 38, Croup, selected: 139 A m e r ic a n ................................................. 142, 15 5 A r m e n ia n .......................................................... 142 Asian In d ia n ......................................................142 150 142 142 150 142 142 142 Czech 142 142 143 143 143 151 143 143 143 143 BOO 151 Asian: — Con. Interracial or interethnic co u p le s......... ..............35 C r e e k ....................... G u ate m a lan .............. 143 143 Labor force p articip atio n ....................... ............182 Married-couple fam ilies with children . .............76 Race and Hispanic o rig in .............. 36, 37, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 H a i t i a n ..................... H u n g a ria n ................ 143 144 Migration ................................................. ............118 One-parent fam ilies w ith children . . . . .............78 School-age p o p u la tio n .............. 96, 97, 130, 131, 172, 180 144 1 52 V e t e r a n s ................................................... ............200 Austrian: Spoke English less than “v e ry w e ll” . . . . 130, 131 Youngest children (under 5 ) ................... . . 58, 59 Iranian ..................... i r i s h ............................ Ita lia n .......................... Ja m a ic a n ................... ......... 143, ......... 144, ......... 144, 1 52 144 Ja p an e se ................... K o r e a n ..................... 144 144 1eb a n e se ................... L ith u an ian ................ 144 144 A n c e s t r y .................................................... .1 4 2 ,1 5 0 Foreign b o r n ............................................ ............150 N o r w e g ia n ................ P a k is ta n i................... ......... 144, P o lis h ........................ P o rtu g u e s e .............. ......... 144, R o m a n ia n ................ R u s sia n ....................... 1 53 144 1 53 145 Children: — Con. P o v e r t y ........................................................ ____ 231 Youth dependency r a t i o .......................... ......... 55 Child-to-woman r a t i o ................................... ......... 81 C h in e s e ............................................................. ......... 41 A n c e s t r y ...................................................... ____ 142 Foreign b o r n ............................................... ____ 101 Language .................................................... 132, 133 Id Belgian a n c e s t r y .......................................... ............142 Cities: A n c e s t r y ...................................................... 148, 149 Black or African A m e ric a n ..........................____ 29, 32 A g e ............................................................. 37, 57, 62 D iv e rs ity ...................................................... . . 46, 47 Foreign b o r n ............................................... . . 98, 99 145 1 54 College c o m p le tio n .............................................166 H o m e o w n e rs h ip ..................................... ............242 Housing t y p e ............................................. 252, 253 Population d e n s i t y ................................... . . 20, 21 S a lv a d o r a n .............. Sco tch -lrish.............. 145 145 In c o m e ..................................................................222 Interracial or interethnic co u p le s......... ..............35 Population ever over 1 0 0,000................ ......... 16 R e fe r e n c e .................................................... 262, 263 S co ttis h ..................... S lo v a k ....................... 145 145 Labor force p articip atio n ....................... ............182 Married-couple fam ilies with children ..............76 C itiz e n s h ip ............................................... 92, 104, 105 Civil W ar v e t e r a n s .......................................... ____ 207 1 54 145 Migration ................................................. ............118 O lder p o p u latio n ..................................... ..............57 College. See E d u c a tio n , a t t a in m e n t . College dorm itory population ................... ......... 87 145 145 One-parent fam ilies w ith children . . . ..............78 V e t e r a n s ................................................... ............200 Colom bian: A n c e s t r y ...................................................... ____ 142 145 Brazilian a n c e s t r y ....................................................142 S w e d i s h ..................... S w i s s ....................... ......... 145, ......... 145, U k r a in ia n ................ V ie tn a m e s e .............. W e l s h ....................... Nonrespondents to the an cestry q u e s tio n ....................... One a n c e s try ................ Prevalent a n c e s try . . . . ____ 139, ......... 138, 1 55 138 141, 146, 147, 148, 149 Foreign born, sex ratio o f ....................... ____ 103 Com m uting . . . 177, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195 Congressional s e a t s ...................................... . . 24, 25 Construction and m anufacturing. n la em ploym ent i n ............................................. ____ 184 Correctional institution p o p u la tio n ............ ......... 87 Two a n c e s t r ie s ............ 138 Arm enian a n c e s t r y ................................................. 142 C a m b o d ia n ................................................... ..............41 Canadian (see also F r e n c h C a n a d ia n a n c e s try )'. Counties, re fe re n c e .......... 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275 Asia, foreign born fro m ............................ 9 1 ,9 4 , 101 A sia n ............................................................... 29, 32, 40 A n c e s t r y ...................................................... 142, 150 Border w ith U.S., population d e n s ity ................ 13 Croatian a n c e s t r y ....................................................142 C u b a n ......................................................................... 42 A g e ................................... ......................................62 Ancestries, selected . . . ____ 142, 143, 144, 145 Foreign b o r n ................................... ........... 100. 150 C a r p o o lin g ........................................ ..................... 193 Foreign born, sex ratio o f . . . . ........................102 Czech an cestry . . . . ........................142 College com pletion . . . . ................................... 166 Foreign b o rn ................... ..................... 9 1 ,9 4 , 101 Census re g io n s ................................... . . . 8, 110, 113 Central Am erican (see also L a t in A m e r i c a ) ......... 43 Croup, p re v a le n t............ ......................................40 Group, selected: C h ild r e n ............................................... 56, 58, 59. 172 Child-to-woman r a t i o ................ ....................... 81 n L I C a m b o d ia n ................ ......................................41 C h in e se ........................ ......................................41 Enrollm ent...................................... ..................... 172 Private s c h o o l.......................... ..................... 173 Danish ancestry. . . . ........................142 F ilip in o ........................ ......................................41 H m o n g ........................ ......................................41 Foreign b o r n ................................. ....................... 97 G randparents responsible for their own D ependency ratio . . C h ild r e n .............. ..........................55 ..........................55 Indian, A s ia n .............. ......................................41 Ja p an e se ..................... ......................................41 g ra n d c h ild re n .............................. ................ 82, 83 High-income h o u seho ld s............ ..................... 231 O lder p o p u latio n . D isa b ility ................... ..........................55 ........................207 K o r e a n ........................ ......................................41 L a o t ia n ........................ ......................................41 Married-couple fam ilies w ith . . . . ____ 74, 76, 77 Married-couple households with ....................... 69 D iv e rs ity ................... Divorce. See M a r i t a l s ta tu s . . . . 30, 3 1 ,4 6 , 47 V ie tn a m e s e ................ ......................................41 H o m e o w n e rs h ip ............ ................................... 242 N a t iv e ............................................ ....................... 96 One-parent fam ilies w i t h ............ . 74, 75, 78, 79, D o m in ican ................. A n c e s t r y .............. ..........................43 ........................143 In c o m e ............................ ................................... 222 80, 230, 240 Foreign born, sex ratio o f . . . . ........................103 U.S. Census Bureau Dutch an cestry 143 Foreign born: — Con. In c o m e .......................................................... 213, 225 Germ an: — Con. Foreign b o r n .......................................................... 151 M ig r a t io n ...................................................... 116, 117 Naturalized c it iz e n s ................... 9 1 ,9 2 , 104, 105 Language ............................................................. 132 G overnm ent, em ploym ent in ................................... 187 g ra n d c h ild re n .................................................82, 83 High-income households, children i n ............231 O lder p o p u latio n ..................................................... 97 Origin, country o f ........................................ 90, 101 Greek a n c e s t r y ...........................................................143 Croup quarters, population in: H o m e o w n e rs h ip .......... 234, 235, 238, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 247 A u s t r i a ............................................................... 150 C a n a d a ....................................................100, 1 50 College d o rm ito rie s.................................................87 Correctional in s titu tio n s ....................................... 87 In c o m e ............................ 212, 21 5, 21 6, 21 8, 219 Married c o u p le s .............................. 70, 74, 76, 77 M e n .........................................................................22 1 W o m e n ................................................................... 221 C h i n a ................................................................. 101 E n g lan d ............................................................... 151 M ilitary q u a r t e r s ................................................... 202 Nursing h o m e s ........................................................87 M u ltig e n e ra tio n a l...................................................81 One p a r e n t ........................................................74, 75 Ecuadorian a n c e s t r y ................................................. 143 Education, a tta in m e n t...............................................158 G e rm a n y .............................................................151 I r e la n d ............................................................... 152 G uatem alan a n ce stry ................................................. 143 One person ............................................................ 71 Opposite-sex unm arried-partner Associate’s d e g re e ................................................. 170 Bachelor’s d e g r e e ...................159, 163, 168, 169 I t a l y ....................................................................152 M e x ic o ....................................................100, 102 h o u s e h o ld s ............................................................ 71 P o v e r t y ................................................................... 230 M en...................................................................... 164 Race and Hispanic o r i g i n ......... I 65, 166, 167 N orw ay .............................................................153 P h ilip p in e s ........................................................ 101 Race and Hispanic o r i g i n .............. 76, 77, 78, 79 Same-sex unm arried-partner W o m e n ............................................................... 165 High s c h o o l ......................................158, 161, 162 Po la n d ................................................................. 153 R u s s ia ................................................................. 154 Haitian a n c e s t r y ........................................................ 143 Heating f u e l .................................................... 254, 255 h o u se h o ld s..................................................... 84, 85 Size of h o u s e h o ld ............................................67, 86 H o m e o w n e rs h ip ...................................................244 In c o m e ........................................................ 213, 217 Sex ratio b y .......................................... 102, I 03 Sw eden .............................................................154 High school. See E d u c a tio n , a t t a in m e n t . Hispanic or L a tin o .................................................33, 43 Type o f h o u s e h o ld .................................................66 W orkers in h o u s e h o ld .......................................... 181 M aster’s d e g re e ............................................ 159,171 Professional or doctoral d eg ree..........................171 Origin, w orld region o f .................................9 1 ,9 4 A f r i c a ................................................................... 94 A g e ......................................................................56, 63 Ancestries, s e le c t e d .............. 142, 143, 144, 145 Housing (see also H o m e o w n e r s h ip ) ............ 252, 253 A g e ...................................................... 235, 237, 250 Som e college but no d e g r e e .............................. 170 Education, enrollm ent: A s i a ...........................................................94, 101 E u r o p e ................. 94, 1 50, 1 51, 152, 1 53, 1 54 C h ild r e n ....................................................................56 College c o m p le tio n ...............................................167 Crow ded units........................................................255 F a r m ........................................................................ 250 A dult p o p u la tio n ................................................... 173 Private s c h o o l........................................................ 173 Latin A m e r ic a ....................... 94, 100, 102, 103 Northern Am erica Group, p re v a le n t...................................... 42, 44, 45 Group, selected: Heating f u e l ............................................... 254, 255 Mobile h o m e s ........................................................251 School-age p op u lation ..........................................172 Education and health services, (except U . S . ) ................................. 94, 100,1 50 O c e a n ia ................................................................. 94 Central A m e r ic a n .............................................. 43 C u b a n ................................................................... 42 P lu m b in g ................................................................. 255 Renters and re n t............................... 239, 246, 247 em ploym ent i n ........................................................ 186 Elderly. See O ld e r p o p u la t io n . Sex ratio b y ........................................................94 Sex ratio by origin: D om inican............................................................ 43 M e x ic a n ...............................................................42 Seasonal housing u n it s ....................................... 251 Telephone s e r v ic e .................................................255 A f r i c a ................................................................... 94 A sia ........................................................................ 94 Prevalent Hispanic g r o u p .................42, 44, 45 Puerto R ic a n ........................................................42 Type o f unit, p r e v a le n t ............................. 252, 253 V a l u e ............................... 235, 238, 247, 248, 249 A n c e s t r y ...................................................... 143, 1 5 1 Foreign b o r n .......................................................... 151 C o lo m b ia .......................................................... 103 C u b a ....................................................................102 South A m e rican ...................................................43 H o m e o w n e rs h ip ................................................... 243 Hungarian a n c e s try ................................................... 144 Enrollm ent. See E d u c a tio n , e n r o llm e n t . Europe, foreign born fr o m ............ 9 1 ,9 4 , 150, 15 1, Dom inican R e p u b lic ........................................103 El S a lv a d o r ........................................................ 102 In c o m e ................................................................... 223 Interracial or interethnic co u p le s......................... 35 1 52, 1 53, 154 E u r o p e ................................................................. 94 Ja m a ic a ............................................................... 103 Labor force p articip atio n ..................................... 183 Married-couple fam ilies with c h ild re n ................ 77 Latin A m e r ic a ..................................................... 94 M e x ic o ............................................................... 102 Migration ............................................................... 119 One-parent fam ilies w ith c h ild re n ....................... 79 Income (see also E a r n in g s , P o v e r t y ) ......... 212, 215, 218, 219 Northern A m erica (except U .S .)....................... 94 O c e a n ia ................................................................. 94 V e t e r a n s ................................................................. 200 H m o n g .......................................................................... 41 E d u c a t io n ..................................................... 2 1 3 ,2 1 7 Foreign b o r n ...............................................21 3, 225 S p a n ish - sp e a k in g ................................................. 129 Working-age p o p u la t io n ....................................... 97 H o m e o w n e rs h ip ................................... 234, 235, 238 A g e .......................................................................... 245 Home value-to-income r a t i o ................... 23 5, 247 Low-income households and H o u s in g ................................................................. 250 Po p u latio n ................................................................. 23 French: A n c e s t r y ................................................................. 143 E d u c a t io n ...............................................................244 Female one-parent fa m ilie s ................................ 240 h o m e o w n e rs h ip .................................................247 N a t iv e ......................................................................213 Female population (see also W o m e n ) ....................... 61 F ilip in o .......................................................................... 41 L a n g u a g e ....................................................132, 1 33 French Canadian a n c e s t r y ........................................143 Low-income h o u s e h o ld s ..................................... 247 Male one-parent fa m ilie s ..................................... 240 N aturalized c i t i z e n s ............................................ 225 Race and Hispanic o r i g i n .............. 222, 223, 224 Earnings (see also In c o m e ): Age o f w o r k e r s ....................................................220 Em ploym ent. See W o rk a n d e m p lo y m e n t. English: Fam ilies. See H o u s e h o ld s a n d f a m ilie s . Farm: Households and families: — Con. G randparents responsible for their own A n c e s t r y ................................................................. 143 Foreign b o r n .......................................................... 101 Married-couple fa m ilie s....................................... 240 M inority p op ulation.............................................. 241 Indian, Am erican. See A m e r ic a n I n d ia n a n d Financial activities, em ploym ent i n ........................185 Finnish a n c e s t r y ........................................................ 143 O lder p o p u latio n ................................................... 245 Race and Hispanic o r i g i n .............. 235, 242, 243 Indian, A s ia n ................................................................. 41 A n c e s t r y ..................................................................142 Working-age p o p u la t io n ..................................... 245 Homes. See H o u s in g . Inform ation, em ploym en t i n ................................... 185 Interracial or interethnic c o u p le s.............................. 35 Households and fa m ilie s.....................................66, 67 Iranian an ce stry ...........................................................144 Foreign b o r n .......................................... 9 1 ,9 3 , 98, 99 A g e .............................................................................95 C h ild r e n ................................................................... 97 U.S. Census Bureau Germ an: Ancestry 143, 151 A la s k a N a tiv e . B01 Map and Figure Index Irish: A ncestry . . . Foreign born Italian: 144, 152 ____ 152 M ex ican.......................................................................... 42 Border with U.S., population d e n s ity ...................13 Population, total: — Con. Center o f ..................................................................11 Two or More Races: — Con. One-parent fam ilies with c h ild re n ..................... 79 Foreign b o r n ...........................................................100 Sex ratio o f ........................................................ 102 D e n sity...............................2, 3, I 7, 18, 19, 20, 21 Low d e n s i t y ............................................................ 22 Migration (see also M o b i l i t y ) ............108, 109, 1 10, 111, 112, 113, 1 14, 115, 116, 117, 118, 1 19 Year o f m a x im u m ................................................... 16 Portuguese a n c e s t r y ................................................. 145 Foreign b o r n ...............................................1 16, 11 7 N a t iv e ...................................................................... 116 P o v e rty ................................. 214, 226, 227, 228, 229 C h ild r e n ................................................................. 231 O lder p o p u latio n .......................................... 114, 115 Race and Flispanic origin ........................1 18, 119 Female one-parent fa m ilie s ................................ 230 Male one-parent fa m ilie s ..................................... 230 Ukrainian a n c e s t r y ................................................... 145 R e g io n a l................................................................. 113 W orking a g e ................................................. 114, 115 Married couples w ith ch ild re n ............................230 O lder p o p u latio n ................................................... 226 United States reference m a p ...................................258 Unm arried-partner h o u s e h o ld s ................ 71, 84, 85 Jam aican : A n c e s t r y ....................................................................144 Younger w orking a g e .......................................... 115 M ilitary population (see also V e te ra n s )'. V e te ra n s ...................................................... 208, 209 Prison population. See C o r r e c t io n a l in s t i t u t io n Urban p o p u la t io n .......................................................... 9 Foreign born, sex ratio o f ..................................... 103 Ja p a n e s e .......................................................................... 41 A ctive d u t y ................................................. 2 0 1 ,2 0 3 Am erican Indian and Alaska N a tiv e .................. 205 Professional and business services, A n c e s t r y ....................................................................144 Jo u rn e y to w o rk. See C o m m u t in g . Group q u a r t e r s ..................................................... 202 Two-military-worker h o u se h o ld s....................... 203 em ploym en t i n ........................................................ 185 Public adm inistration, em ploym ent i n ...................186 A ncestry . . . Foreign born 144, 152 ____ 152 Language . . ____ 132 M inority group (see also A m e r ic a n I n d ia n a n d p o p u la t io n . Public tran sp o rtatio n ......................................177, 193 Puerto R i c a n ................................................................. 42 A la s k a N a tiv e , A s ia n , B la c k o r A f r ic a n Two-race group, s e le c t e d ..................... 34, 36, 37 V e t e r a n s ............................................................... 200 Veterans (see also M il it a r y p o p u la t io n ) . . . 198, 199, 204, 207 T w o o r M o re R a c e s ) ......................................... 38, 241 Civil W a r ................................................................. 207 D isab ility ................................................................. 207 Mobile h o m e s ............................................................ 251 M obility (see also M ig r a t io n ) ......................... 120, 121 G ulf W a r ................................................................. 206 Korean W a r ............................................................ 206 A m e r ic a n , H is p a n ic o r L a tin o , P a c ific Is la n d e r , K o rean............................................................................41 A n c e s t r y ..................................................................144 Born in state o f re s id e n c e ................................... 121 M o v e r s ............................................... 110, 120, 121 N o n m o v e rs ................................................... 120, 121 M ultiracial. See T w o o r M o re R aces. Race and Flispanic origin (see also A m e r ic a n I n d ia n a n d A la s k a N a tiv e , A s ia n , B la c k o r A f r ic a n A m e r ic a n , H is p a n ic o r L a tin o , P a c ific I s la n d e r , T w o o r M o re R a ce s, W h ite n o n - H is p a n ic ) ............................................. 28, 30, 38 Labor force. See W o rk a n d e m p lo y m e n t. L a n g u a g e ................................................. 124, 125, 127 D iv e rs ity ............................................. 30, 3 1 ,4 6 , 47 Interracial or interethnic co u p le s......................... 35 Chinese ........................................................ 132, 133 French ...........................................................132, 133 Native Am erican. See A m e r ic a n I n d ia n a n d G e rm a n ...................................................................... 132 It a lia n ........................................................................ 132 Native Haw aiian and O ther Pacific Islander. See Linguistically isolated h o u se h o ld s....................... 128 Native North A m e r ic a n .......................................... 134 Native p o p u la tio n ..................... P o v e r t y ........................................................ 208, 209 Race and Hispanic origin ........................ 200, 205 Vietnam e ra............................................................ 206 W orld W ar II............................................................ 206 V ie tn a m e s e ................................................................... 41 A n c e s t r y ................................................................. 145 Language .............................................................. 132 Race or ethnicity, p rev alen t...................................38 Som e Other R ace..................................................... 28 Reference maps: Cities, la r g e s t ............................................. 262, 263 A la s k a N a tiv e . . 91 C o u n t ie s .............. 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275 Welsh a n c e s t r y .......................................................... 145 W hite no n -H isp an ic..................................................... 32 A g e .......................................... ....................... 95 i 96 C h ild r e n ................................. . 96 M etropolitan areas, la r g e s t..................... 260, 261 M ilitary b a s e s ........................................................201 A g e .................................................................... 57, 62 College c o m p le tio n ...............................................166 Foreign b o r n ........................................................ 129 N a t iv e ....................................................................129 In c o m e ................................... M ig r a t io n .............................. 213 116 Roads, m ajo r.......................................................... 264 Territorial expansion of the U .S.............................I I H o m e o w n e rs h ip ...................................................242 In c o m e ................................................................... 222 Spoke English less than “v e ry w e ll” . . . . 125, 130, 1 3 1 ,1 3 5 O lder p o p u latio n ................... S p a n ish - sp e a k in g ................. . 96 129 United S ta te s .......................................................... 258 Renters and re n t.......................... 234, 239, 246, 247 Interracial or interethnic co u p le s......................... 35 Labor force p articip atio n ..................................... 182 Spoke language other than English at h o m e .......................... 125, 129, 132, 133, 135 W orking a g e .......................... Natural resources and mining, . 96 Reservations. See A m e r ic a n I n d ia n a n d Married-couple fam ilies with c h ild re n ................76 M ig r a t io n ............................................................... 118 T a g a lo g ...................................................................... 132 V ie tn a m e s e ............................................................... 132 em ploym ent i n ........................ Non-Hispanic W hite. See W h ite n o n - H is p a n ic . 184 Rom anian a n c e s t r y ................................................... 145 R u ra l............................................................. 22, 23, 250 Older p o p u latio n ..................................................... 57 One-parent fam ilies with c h ild re n ....................... 78 Northern Am erica, foreign born fr o m ................................. ............ 94, 100, 150 Russian: A n c e s t r y ........................................................ 145, 1 54 V e t e r a n s ................................................................. 200 W om en (see also F e m a le p o p u la t io n ): Foreign b o r n .......................................................... 154 Non-English-speaking p o p u la t io n ....................... 135 S p a n is h ...................................................................... 129 L a o t ia n .............................................................................41 Latin A m erica (see also C e n t r a l A m e r ic a n , S o u th A m e r ic a n ) ................................................. 42, 43 Foreign born fro m .......................................... 91, 100 Sex ratio o f ........................................ 94, 102, 103 Latino. See H is p a n ic o r L a tin o . P a c ific Is la n d e r . A la s k a N a tiv e . Norw egian: A n c e s t r y ................................. ...................144, 153 Child-to-woman r a t i o ............................................81 College c o m p le tio n ...............................................165 Foreign b o r n .......................... Nursing home population . . . . 153 . 87 Divorced-to-married, ratio o f................................ 73 E a r n in g s ................................................................. 221 Lebanese a n c e s try ........................................................ 144 Leisure and hospitality, em ploym ent in ................. 186 Hom eow nership, fem ale one-parent fa m ilie s ................................................................. 240 Lithuanian a n c e s try ......................................................144 Living arrangem ents. See G r o u p q u a r t e r s , p o p u la t io n Salvadoran: A n c e s t r y ................................................................. 145 Labor force participation by presence of ch ild re n ................................................................. 180 Occupation. See W o rk a n d e m p lo y m e n t. Foreign born, sex ratio o f ................................... 102 Scotch-lrish a n c e s try ................................................. 145 Poverty, fem ale one-parent f a m i l ie s ................230 W ork and em ploym ent. . . 1 7 6 , 177, 179, 180, 181, Oceania, foreign born fr o m ....................................... 94 O lder p o p u latio n ................................................. 53, 57 Scottish a n c e s try ........................................................ 145 Services, other, em ploym ent i n .............................. 186 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195 in , H o u s e h o ld s a n d fa m ilie s . B la c k ...........................................................................57 Born in state o f re s id e n c e ................................... 121 Sex of population (see also F e m a le p o p u la t io n , M a le p o p u la t io n ) ..........................................5 0 ,5 1 ,6 1 E m p lo y m e n t......... 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189 G overnm ent, em ploym ent in .............................. 187 Male population (see also M e n ) ...................................61 Marital status (see also H o u s e h o ld s a n d fa m ilie s )'. D ependency r a t i o ................................................... 55 Foreign b o r n ............................................................ 97 Sex r a t io ............................................................... 5 1, 60 C h ild r e n ................................................................... 60 Industry, em ploym ent b y ................................... 184 Construction and m a n u fa c tu r in g ................ 184 D iv o rc e d ...................................................... 66, 72, 73 M a r r ie d ................................. 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 76, G randparents responsible for their own g ra n d c h ild re n ........................................................82 Foreign born ...................................... 94, 102, 103 O lder p o p u latio n ..................................................... 60 Education and health se rv ice s ....................... 186 Financial a c tivitie s............................................ 185 77, 181,230, 240 M e n ............................................................................... 73 H o m e o w n e rs h ip ................................................... 245 M ig r a t io n ....................................................114, 115 Single population. See H o u s e h o ld s a n d f a m ilie s , Unm arried-partner households . . . . 7 1 , 84,85, 86 W o m e n ........................................................................ 73 N a t iv e ........................................................................ 96 P o v e r t y ................................................................... 226 Slovak a n c e s try .......................................................... 145 Som e Other R ace .......................................................... 28 Natural resources and m in in g ....................... 184 Prevalent in d u s try ............................................ 184 Sex ratio ................................................................. 60 V e t e r a n s ................................................................. 206 South Am erican (see also L a t in A m e r i c a ) ............. 43 Spanish la n g u a g e ......................................................129 Professional and business s e rv ic e s ..............185 Public a d m in is tra tio n ..................................... 186 W hite non-H isp anic.................................................57 States, re fe re n c e ........................................................258 Suburban p o p u latio n ..................................................... 9 Services, o t h e r .................................................186 Trade, transportation, and u t ilit ie s ..............185 Married couples. See H o u s e h o ld s a n d f a m ilie s . Men (see also M a le p o p u la t io n ): College c o m p le tio n ............................................164 Divorced-to-married, ratio o f ...................................73 M a r i t a l s t a tu s . Info rm atio n ........................................................ 185 Leisure and h o s p ita lit y ................................... 186 E a r n in g s ...............................................................221 Flom eow nership, male one-parent fam ilies . . . 240 Swedish: A n c e s t r y ...................................................... 145, 1 54 Labor force p articip atio n.......................... 176, 179 Race and Hispanic o r i g i n .......................182, 183 One-parent fam ilies with c h ild re n ......................... 75 Poverty, male one-parent fa m ilie s ..................230 Foreign b o r n .......................................................... 154 Sw iss a n ce stry .............................................................145 W o m e n ............................................................... 180 Married-couple families: M etropolitan areas: A n c e s t r y .......................................................... 146, 147 Pacific Is la n d e r ............................................................ 33 A g e .............................................................................63 Both spouses w o r k e d ..................................... 181 One w o rk e r........................................................ 181 Asian group, la r g e s t .......................................... 40, 41 C h ild r e n .......................................... 58, 59, 130, 131 College c o m p le tio n ...............................................167 H o m e o w n e rs h ip ................................................... 243 M ilit a r y ........................................................ 2 0 1 ,2 0 3 O c c u p a tio n ................................................. 188, 189 College co m p le tio n ........................................168, 169 Com m ute to w o r k .......................................... 194, 195 In c o m e ................................................................... 223 Labor force p articip atio n ..................................... 183 T a g a lo g ........................................................................ 132 W orking age: E a r n in g s ................................................................. 220 Grandparents responsible for their own g ra n d c h ild re n ....................................................82, 83 Married-couple fam ilies with c h ild re n ................77 M ig r a t io n ............................................................... 119 Telephone s e r v ic e ..................................................... 255 Trade, transportation, and utilities, Enrollm ent............................................................... 173 Foreign b o r n ............................................................ 97 Flispanic g r o u p ................................................... 44, 45 Housing v a lu e ............................................... 248, 249 One-parent fam ilies with c h ild re n ....................... 79 V e t e r a n s ................................................................. 200 em ploym en t i n ........................................................ 185 Two or More R a c e s ..................................................... 33 H o m e o w n e rs h ip ...................................................245 M ig r a t io n ....................................................114, 11 5 In c o m e ...........................................................21 8, 219 Population d e n s i t y ............................................. 18, 19 Pakistani a n c e s t r y ......................................................144 Philippines. See F ilip in o . A g e ............................................................. 36, 56, 63 College c o m p le tio n ...............................................167 N a t iv e ........................................................................ 96 P o v e r t y ........................................................... 228, 229 R e fe r e n c e ...................................................... 260, 261 Plu m b in g ......................................................................255 Polish: H o m e o w n e rs h ip ................................................... 243 In c o m e ................................................................... 223 Same-sex unmarried-partner h o u se h o ld s........................................................ 84, 85 A n c e s t r y ...................................................... 144, 153 Foreign b o r n ...........................................................153 Labor force p articip atio n ..................................... 183 Married-couple fam ilies with c h ild re n ................ 77 Veterans in p o v e rty ...................................... 208, 209 302 Population, t o t a l..........................2, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15 Migration ............................................................... 119 Youth. See C h ild r e n . U.S. Census Bureau
@FedFRASER