William Kandel

John Cromartie

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Economic

Research

Service

Rural

Development

Research

Report 

Number 99

New Patterns of Hispanic

Settlement in Rural America
Just dial 1-800-999-6779. Toll free in the United 

States and Canada.

Ask for New Patterns of HIspanic Settlement

in Rural America (RDRR-99)

It's Easy To Order Another Copy!

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political 

beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 

326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 

20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.

National Agricultural Library Cataloging Record:

Kandel, William

 New patterns of Hispanic settlement in rural America.

 (Rural development research report ; no. 99)

 1. Hispanic Americans--Population. 2. Hispanic Americans--Government

policy--United States. 3. Rural population--United States. 4. Land

settlement patterns--United States.

 5. Sociology, Rural--United States.

 I. Cromartie, John. II. United States. Dept. of Agriculture. Economic

Research Service.

 III. Title.

HN59.2
United States

Department

of Agriculture

www.ers.usda.gov

A Report from the Economic Research Service

May 2004

Rural 

Development

Research

Report

Number 99

New Patterns of Hispanic

Settlement in Rural America

William Kandel and John Cromartie

Abstract

Since 1980, the nonmetro Hispanic population in the United States has

doubled and is now the most rapidly growing demographic group in rural

and small-town America. By 2000, half of all nonmetro Hispanics lived

outside traditional settlement areas of the Southwest. Many Hispanics in

counties that have experienced rapid Hispanic growth are recent U.S.

arrivals with relatively low education levels, weak English proficiency, and

undocumented status. This recent settlement has increased the visibility of

Hispanics in many new regions of rural America whose population has long

been dominated by non-Hispanic Whites. Yet within smaller geographic

areas, the level of residential separation between them increased —i.e., the

two groups became less evenly distributed—during the 1990s, especially in

rapidly growing counties. Hispanic settlement patterns warrant attention by

policymakers because they affect the well-being of both Hispanics and rural

communities themselves. 

Keywords: Hispanics, Latinos, rural population, nonmetro population, new

immigrant destinations, settlement patterns, residential separation, segregation, rural communities, rural diversity
Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Past Research on Hispanic Settlement Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Data and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Hispanic Geographic Distribution Since 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

The New Rural Hispanic Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Residential Settlement Patterns of Hispanics 

and Non-Hispanic Whites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Measuring Residential Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Residential Separation among Counties Within the Nation . . . . . . . . .24

Residential Separation in Places Within Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Residential Separation among Neighborhoods Within Places . . . . . . .28

Conclusions and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Appendix: Rural Hispanics in Metro Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Cover photos: Back: bottom photo by William Kandel, ERS/USDA; all

others by Ken Hammond, USDA. Front, clockwise from top: William

Kandel, ERS/USDA; Ken Hammond, USDA; Bob Nichols, USDA.

ii

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA
iii

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

Summary

Although Hispanics made up just 5.5 percent of the nonmetropolitan U.S.

population in 2000, they accounted for over 25 percent of nonmetro population growth during the 1990s. As Hispanics increasingly populate communities in nonmetro counties outside of the Southwest, they have become a

visible presence in many different regions of the Nation.

This report uses 1990 and 2000 Census data and a typology of county

types—based upon their Hispanic population growth and composition—to

examine recent Hispanic settlement patterns, compare characteristics of

Hispanics with non-Hispanic Whites, and analyze residential separation

between those two groups at the county, place, and neighborhood levels. 

Nonmetro Hispanic growth in the 1990s was much greater than in

previous decades and spread throughout the Southeast, Midwest, and

Northwest. Hispanics remain among the most urbanized ethnic/racial groups

in America, with over 90 percent living in metro areas in the year 2000.

Moreover, they continue to be concentrated in the Southwest. But, by 2000,

for the first time, half of all nonmetro Hispanics lived outside the Southwest,

increasingly in areas of the Midwest and Southeast. While almost all 2,289

nonmetro counties experienced Hispanic population growth, 30 percent of this

growth occurred in 149 “high-growth Hispanic” counties. 

Hispanic newcomers have forged communities in nonmetro areas unaccustomed to seeing large numbers of foreign-born, particularly in the

Southeast and Midwest. Hispanics in these counties include disproportionate numbers of undocumented young men from rural communities in

economically depressed regions of Mexico. Such recent migrants typically

have relatively less formal education and often speak little English. Despite

these disadvantages, employment rates among Hispanics in nonmetro, highgrowth Hispanic counties exceed those of all other nonmetro Hispanics and

non-Hispanic Whites. 

Across all nonmetro counties nationally, residential separation between

Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites decreased. Hispanic communities

grew in many nontraditional destinations throughout the country, particularly in counties in the Southeast and Midwest previously unaccustomed to

large numbers of foreign-born residents.

Among places (small cities, towns, etc.) within nonmetro counties, residential separation between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites increased

slightly. On average, Hispanic population growth was concentrated within

incorporated places, while non-Hispanic White population growth was higher

outside of them. While high-growth Hispanic counties experienced an especially large growth in residential separation between Hispanics and nonHispanic Whites, there was little or no increase in other county types.

At the neighborhood level within nonmetro places, residential separation between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites increased noticeably.

Residential separation increased the most in high-growth Hispanic counties,

despite the rapid growth of both the Hispanic population and non-Hispanic

White population. While neighborhood separation was greater in metro

areas than nonmetro areas in 2000, nonmetro levels increased at a higher

rate during the 1990s. 
1

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

Introduction

In the past two decades, the Hispanic population in rural and small-town

America has doubled from 1.5 to 3.2 million and now makes up the most

rapidly growing segment of nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) county residents.1

Despite accounting for just 3 percent of the nonmetro county population in

1980, Hispanics contributed over 25 percent of the total nonmetro population increase and over 50 percent of the nonmetro minority population

increase during the past two decades. Patterns of Hispanic growth have

varied by decade. During the 1980s, when total nonmetro population growth

was barely discernible, the nonmetro Hispanic population grew by 27

percent. During the “rural rebound” of the 1990s, when the total nonmetro

population grew by 10 percent, Hispanic growth more than doubled to 67

percent (appendix table 2). Emerging residential patterns from this accelerated Hispanic population growth affect hundreds of small towns and rural

areas across America. 

This report examines Hispanic population growth and changing settlement

patterns in rural areas and the consequences and implications of such

changes for rural communities. Such patterns are reflected in the following

trends from 1990 to 2000:

1. The nonmetro Hispanic population more than doubled in 20 mostly

Southern and Midwestern States, with growth rates ranging from 120

to 416 percent (appendix table 2).

2. Of 2,289 nonmetro counties, the number in which Hispanics make up

at least 1 percent of the population grew by 636 from 882 to 1,518;

the number in which Hispanics make up at least 10 percent grew by

86, from 230 to 316. 

3. Since 1990, Hispanic population growth has prevented overall population decline in over 100 nonmetro counties, many of which lost

population during the 1980s.

4. Half of nonmetro Hispanics now reside outside the Southwest, the

traditional settlement area.

A significant proportion of Hispanics in new nonmetro destinations outside

the Southwest are recent U.S. arrivals with relatively low education levels,

weak English proficiency, and undocumented status who are employed in

low-wage jobs with limited economic mobility. Consequently, they are more

likely to reside in isolated low-income areas (Atiles and Bohon, 2002, forthcoming; Chavez, 1998; Dale et al., 2001; General Accounting Office, 1998;

Gouveia and Stull, 1995; Griffith, 1995). 

Traditional models of U.S. immigrant incorporation meld cultural assimilation with economic and spatial mobility. Immigrants and their children who

initially cluster for mutual support gradually adopt the host country’s

culture, improve their economic circumstances, and leave such ethnic

concentrations for housing among English-speaking native residents

(Burstein, 1981; Gordon, 1964; Massey, 1985; Nelli, 1970; Thernstrom,

1973; Ward, 1971).

1 We use the terms “rural” and “nonmetro” interchangeably throughout

this report as an editorial convention.

Technically, rural areas are defined by

the Census, while nonmetro counties

are defined by the Office of

Management and Budget. The two

geographic spheres overlap somewhat

but remain quite distinct.
For some, residential location is subject to financial constraints. Others

choose to live in particular areas to be among people of similar ethnic or

racial backgrounds while possessing the economic means to live in more

affluent and better-served areas (Massey and Denton, 1993). Nevertheless,

literature on racial and ethnic segregation documents historical institutional

arrangements, public policies, and discriminatory practices that isolated

specific native and foreign-born groups and continue to be felt by subsequent generations throughout the United States (see Myrdal, 1944; Spear,

1967; Zunz, 1982; Montejano, 1987; Massey and Denton, 1988, 1993). 

Residential separation in rural America warrants attention by policymakers

because of its impact on the well-being of minority groups and rural

communities themselves.2 Regardless of how such residential patterns

occur, they strongly influence socioeconomic well-being. Many characteristics of daily life depend on location, including the quality of public services

and schools, personal safety, and home values. These resources often accrue

to people according to their socioeconomic achievement or status, and, in

turn, influence economic mobility prospects for themselves and their children. 

While much evidence suggests socioeconomic improvement with secondand third-generation Hispanics, rural communities face the current and critical issue of social, economic, and civic incorporation for recent Hispanic

arrivals. Such integration is particularly important as Hispanics become the

Nation’s largest and fastest growing minority group, with new arrivals

increasingly populating nonmetro counties. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, foreign-born workers constituted nearly half of the net

increase in the U.S. labor force in the last half of the 1990s (Mosisa, 2002). 

Policymakers and local officials have increasingly been assisting these new

residents to become integrated and effective citizens (Jones, 2003). If these

issues are ignored, rural areas may face the prospect of harboring growing

pockets of disadvantaged residents whose children already make up a significant portion of future employees, taxpayers, and citizens. Second-generation children of immigrants constitute a group whose numbers in the past

decade have grown roughly seven times faster than children of native-born

parents (Hernandez and Charney, 1998). The majority of Hispanic children

are citizens because they were born in the United States. Yet, like their

parents, they face significant challenges in attaining economic well-being,

social integration, and health care (Portes and Rumbaut, 2001; Hernandez,

1999; Hernandez and Charney, 1998).

This report uses data from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 Censuses of Population

to explain recent Hispanic residential patterns during a decade of rapid

population growth and dispersion in nonmetro counties. Our study considers

three broad research questions:

What factors have affected Hispanic population growth and dispersion in rural areas?

We examine nonmetro population distribution and change to identify

both established and new, rapidly growing Hispanic destinations.

2

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

2 Throughout this report, we refer to

spatial distance between non-Hispanic

Whites and Hispanics using the term

“separation” rather than “segregation.”

However, much of the literature we

reference in this report uses the term

“segregation,” which refers to institutionalized arrangements which through

a variety of social, legal, or political

means result in a group’s spatial isolation from others. Although such

arrangements historically characterized

the urban and rural experience of U.S.

Blacks and Hispanics, it remains

unclear the extent to which they

describe recent residential settlement

patterns of Hispanics in rural communities (Alba and Logan, 1993; Allen

and Turner, 1996).
3

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

Nonmetro counties with rapidly growing Hispanic populations are

scattered throughout most of the Nation, and we expect their residential patterns to differ from those of established Hispanic counties,

mostly in the Southwest.

Are socioeconomic characteristics of Hispanics associated with recent

settlement patterns?

Because relative socioeconomic position influences residential 

separation, we compare characteristics of Hispanics with the 

dominant nonmetro group—non-Hispanic Whites—across a 

range of county types.

Was residential separation affected by recent patterns of nonmetro

Hispanic population growth?

We analyze residential separation at the county, place, and neighborhood levels. We compare changing levels of separation in established

and newly emerging Hispanic counties because such a comparison

provides useful insights on the prospects for social and economic

integration of rural Hispanics. We also contrast findings for nonmetro

and metro counties to provide a relative basis for understanding the

scale of residential settlement patterns in rural areas compared with

more familiar urban patterns.

At the end of this report, we discuss some implications of our findings for

the incorporation of recent Hispanic arrivals and steps that rural communities are taking to facilitate this process. These implications are not addressed

in our analysis but are based upon a large existing body of research.
Past Research on Hispanic 

Settlement Patterns

In the past decade, three concurrent trends contributed not only to Hispanic

population growth in nonmetro areas outside the Southwest, but also to

more permanent Hispanic settlement generally. First, labor market saturation

and weak economies in traditional urban destinations, such as Los Angeles,

encouraged Hispanics to seek work in nontraditional areas (Fennelly and

Leitner, 2002; Suro and Singer, 2002). Second, increased U.S. border

enforcement at certain popular crossing points effectively dispersed a wellestablished migration of international labor out along the entire border,

directing migrants3 to new U.S. destinations (Durand et al., 2000). Third,

employment availability and corporate recruitment helped steer both

domestic and foreign migration to new nonmetro destinations (JohnsonWebb, 2002; Krissman, 2000).

Recent border enforcement policies have increased the likelihood that labor

migrants to metro and nonmetro counties settle permanently in the United

States. In past decades, nonmetro Hispanic migrants worked primarily in

agriculture and stayed for relatively short periods. Less stringent border

enforcement policies permitted migrants to enter the United States during

times of peak labor demand through a de facto guest worker program that

provided a flexible supply of labor and allowed migrants to return to their

families for a significant portion of each year. Short stays in the United

States meant that migrants’ families were more likely to remain in their

countries of origin. Increased border enforcement in the early 1990s raised

the financial expense of migration and paradoxically made return migration

more difficult. Consequently, many migrants now extend their stays and

either bring or send for family members, increasing the likelihood of permanent settlement (Massey et al., 2002).

Stable employment also fosters permanent settlement. While the majority of

workers in agricultural crop production are Hispanic, their movement into

other industrial sectors is likely to yield higher wages and greater job

stability (Kandel, 2002; Martin and Martin, 1994). Hispanic population

growth throughout the nonmetro United States—especially in the South and

Midwest—reflects a growing presence in industries that require low-skill

workers. These include meat processing (Broadway, 1994; Gouveia and

Stull, 1995; Grey, 1995; Guthey, 2001; Kandel and Parrado, forthcoming),

carpet manufacturing (Engstrom, 2001; Hernández-León and Zúñiga, 2000),

oil extraction (Donato et al., 2001), timber harvesting (McDaniel and

Casanova, 2003), construction (Stepick et al., 1994), and fish processing

(Broadway, 1995; Griffith, 1995). 

Hispanics face the broader issues of economic mobility and social integration once they are more permanently settled (General Accounting Office,

1998; Salamon, 2003). Demographic characteristics, such as age, gender,

and household structure, and earnings-related characteristics, such as education and English language skills, become increasingly important (Kandel,

2003). Personal outcomes are often closely related to time spent in the

United States, with more years typically translating into greater employment

mobility, higher economic standing, increased English language compe4

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

3 In this report, we use the term

“migrant” to represent Hispanics who

have arrived recently in the United

States. As such, migrants may include

immigrants who possess legal documentation to visit, work, or live in the

United States, as well as undocumented

migrants who do not.
5

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

tence, and other benefits (Neidert and Farley, 1985). For example, more

time in the United States increases language proficiency, which makes individuals more attractive to prospective employers and affords them greater

opportunity to find employment outside of their immediate social networks

and local labor markets (Borjas, 1999; Chiswick and Miller, 1995; Phillips

and Massey, 1999). 

Demographic and earnings-related characteristics are key determinants of

socioeconomic integration through their influence on residential settlement

patterns. Higher median income, fewer female-headed households, lower

high school dropout rates, and other socioeconomic factors have been

shown to contribute to lower neighborhood segregation in metro settings

(Allen and Turner, 1996; Haverluk, 1998; Massey, 1990). Hence, to the

extent Hispanics can earn living wages and increase their economic

mobility, they are more likely to integrate spatially.

In turn, residential proximity of Hispanics to relatively more affluent nonHispanic Whites influences incorporation by providing exposure to higher

levels of public services and economic, social, and cultural resources that

function as public goods (Farley and Allen, 1987; Massey et al., 1987b,

1991; Schneider and Logan, 1982). It is widely acknowledged that neighborhoods, towns, and cities control resources, such as schooling, health

care, and other public services in ways that generally benefit their own residents. These same residents also accrue intangible benefits from their neighborhoods, such as access to useful information, social and professional

networks, and increased personal safety (Coleman, 1988; Granovetter, 1973;

Portes, 1998). Numerous studies of residential segregation in urban settings

demonstrate significant disadvantages accruing to minority groups residing

in concentrated and isolated enclaves and ghettos, and to their children who

attend different schools from non-Hispanic Whites (Anderson and Massey,

2001; Kozol, 1991; Massey and Denton, 1993; Wilson, 1987).

Available analysis of nonmetro residential separation offers mixed findings.

Those who examine residential patterns between Blacks and Whites find

that, in recent decades, Whites are increasingly settling outside of nonmetro

towns and cities, thereby accelerating minority population concentration in

towns and cities (Cromartie and Beale, 1996; Lichter et al., 1986; Lichter

and Heaton, 1986). Analysis of Hispanic settlement patterns in nonmetro

counties in Texas suggests that population growth disrupts established structural relationships and roles that inhibit an egalitarian distribution of

resources, including the allocation of housing (Hwang and Murdock, 1983;

Murdock et al., 1994).

On a much broader geographic scale, Frey and his colleagues have argued

that natives have responded to recent influxes of immigrants by migrating

out of large metro areas and into nonmetro areas (Frey, 1995, 1996; Frey

and Liaw, 1998a, 1998b). Empirical tests at the State and regional levels

support Frey’s “demographic balkanization” thesis in California

(Allensworth and Rochín, 1998; Clark, 1998), but refute it in metropolitan

areas throughout the country (Card and DiNardo, 2000; Wright et al., 1997).

While such metro settlement patterns within national regions extend beyond

the geographic scope of this analysis, Frey’s results suggest that rural 
residential separation may occur as non-Hispanic Whites move to counties

and areas less populated by new migrants (Frey, 1998).

This report contributes to the literature on rural residential separation and

segregation, using the latest available Census data to examine settlement

patterns at multiple geographic units of analysis. We create a typology of

county types that highlights settlement patterns in new and rapidly growing

rural Hispanic destinations. Our report surveys and contrasts demographic and

socioeconomic characteristics of Hispanics living in these different counties

and analyzes changing residential patterns between Hispanics and nonHispanic Whites in rural and small-town America over the past decade. We

examine factors affecting Hispanic population growth and dispersion in rural

areas, socioeconomic characteristics of Hispanics associated with recent

settlement patterns, and the relationship between new settlement patterns and

residential separation. Finally, we discuss some consequences of these

changing Hispanic geographic and spatial patterns for rural residents and their

communities. This report therefore represents the first national survey emphasizing nonmetro Hispanic residential settlement and separation.

6

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA
7

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

Data and Methods

We use population data on race and ethnicity and geographic characteristics from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial Censuses to examine

socioeconomic characteristics, population dispersion, and settlement

patterns among U.S. Hispanics and non-Hispanics, and their effects on

residential separation within rural communities. Hispanics and nonHispanic Whites are distinguished on the basis of self-identifying race

and Hispanic ethnicity questions on Census questionnaires. All people

classifying themselves as Hispanic were considered Hispanic for this

analysis, regardless of race.

Race and ethnicity questions are part of the 100-percent “short form”

sample of the decennial Census and are available at the full range of

Census geography down to the block level. We also use data on migration

and socioeconomic characteristics derived from sample data provided by

the 1990 and 2000 “long-form” questionnaires.4 We examine four

geographic levels of data: regions, counties, incorporated and Censusdefined places, and Census tracts. We alter the four standard Census

regions (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West) by identifying for separate

analysis a five-State Southwest region that includes Arizona, California,

Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas.

We use nonmetro counties to approximate “rural and small-town America,”

and include among them all counties that fall outside of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) as defined in 1993, based on the 1990 Census.5 MSAs,

as defined by the Office of Management and Budget, include either “core”

counties containing a city of 50,000 or more, or an urbanized area of 50,000

or more with a total population of at least 100,000 in the MSA. Additional

contiguous counties are included in the MSA if they are economically integrated with the core county or counties, as determined by population and

commuting data. We use the terms “rural” and “nonmetro” interchangeably

to refer to people living outside of MSAs.

The introduction of multiple race categories in the 2000 Census complicates

our comparison of racial and ethnic groups since 1990. Roughly 6.7 million

people self-identified with 2 or more race groups in 2000. Rather than omit

these cases from our residential separation analysis, we assigned them to

one race following methodologies used by other researchers facing the same

predicament (Allen and Turner, 2001). Accordingly, non-Hispanic Whites in

2000 include those that also checked American Indian or Other, while nonHispanic Blacks include those that also indicated White, American Indian,

Asian, or Other. We believe this approach does not significantly compromise our results because multi-race individuals make up less than 2.5

percent of both the nonmetro and total U.S. populations.

Finally, we emphasize that the term “Hispanic” in this report (and in

general) refers to an extremely diverse population that possesses roots

throughout the Caribbean, Latin America, and Europe, encompasses many

socioeconomic strata, includes recent migrants and citizens of pre-Anglo

settlement, and resides in geographically disperse urban and rural areas

throughout all 50 of the United States. This report includes information on

4 The “long form” Census questionnaire is administered to an average of

one in six households and includes

more detailed questions than the “short

form” questionnaire that is administered to all other U.S. households. 

5 We use the metro-nonmetro classification as defined at the beginning of

the 1990-2000 analysis period because

some of the rapid growth we describe

occurred in counties that subsequently

became metro, and thus would have

been missed using the later definition.

The new set of metro and nonmetro

counties—based on the 2000 Census

and released in June 2003—uses different criteria and contains 253 fewer

nonmetro counties than in 1990

(Cromartie, 2003).
all U.S. Hispanics, but focuses specifically on Hispanics in rapidly growing

nonmetro counties who constitute a population we expect foreshadows

demographic trends in rural America for the foreseeable future. To provide a

context for understanding Hispanic conditions and characteristics, we

frequently compare Hispanics with non-Hispanic Whites, who account for

over 85 percent of all nonmetropolitan residents.

8

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA
9

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

Hispanic Geographic Distribution

Since 1980

Over 90 percent of U.S. Hispanics live in metro areas, and 8 of the 10 largest

U.S. cities have populations that are over 25 percent Hispanic (Guzman, 2001).

Domestic migration from the 1950s through the 1980s was dominated by large

rural-to-urban flows, as thousands of Hispanics left farm jobs for better paying

city jobs (Bean and Tienda, 1987). Census 2000 data indicate that half of all

U.S. Hispanics live in just 16 cities, most notably the “gateway” cities of Los

Angeles, Chicago, New York, Miami, and Houston (Suro and Singer, 2002).

Regionally, both metro and nonmetro Hispanics are highly concentrated in

the Southwest; in 1990, over 60 percent lived in just five States: Arizona,

California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. Historically, Hispanics established agricultural communities in the Southwest while it was still part of

Mexico and later provided critical labor inputs in the development of the

region’s irrigated agriculture. Many moved to cities as part of the general

farm exodus following World War II, yet Hispanics continue to dominate

the Nation’s agricultural labor force to this day. A sizable proportion of

Hispanic agricultural laborers, especially in California and Arizona, live in

metro counties and thus are not included in this analysis of nonmetro population change (see Appendix, “Rural Hispanics in Metro Counties”). 

Urban and regional concentration began to weaken in the 1980s as Hispanics

dispersed in unprecedented numbers to new destinations. Large Hispanic populations emerged in smaller metro areas as growth rates exceeded those of

gateway cities (Suro and Singer, 2002), and sizable Hispanic communities

reached nonmetro areas as well (Rochin, 1995). Hispanics constituted less than

5 percent of the total nonmetro population in 1990 but accounted for over 25

percent of its growth from 1990 to 2000. The growth rate of the nonmetro

Hispanic population in the 1990s (67.3 percent) more than doubled from the

previous decade (26.7 percent) and far outpaced that of nonmetro nonHispanics (8.1 percent) (fig. 1); it even exceeded that of metro Hispanics

(Cromartie and Kandel, 2002). Urban concentrations of Hispanics in 2000 still

exceeded 90 percent, but the percentage of U.S. Hispanics residing in

nonmetro counties increased between 1990 and 2000 (table 1). 

In the majority of southwestern counties, Hispanics make up over 10

percent of the total population and continue to grow through a combination

of high natural increase and net inmigration. Yet, by the 1980s, Hispanic

populations in regions outside the Southwest were growing faster. By the

end of the 1990s, the percentage of nonmetro Hispanics in the Southwest

had declined from 62 to 51 percent of the U.S. total (fig. 2). In contrast, the

proportion of all nonmetro Hispanics in the Midwest and South increased

from 22 percent to 34 percent during the past decade.

Compared with non-Hispanics, nonmetro Hispanic population growth in the

1990s was both more widespread and more concentrated. On the one hand,

2,155 nonmetro counties (94 percent) had some Hispanic population growth in

the 1990s, compared with only 1,390 counties (61 percent) in the 1980s (fig.

3). While much of this growth was moderate and sometimes consisted of relatively small numbers of Hispanics, it affected communities in every region of
the country. This dispersed Hispanic population growth contrasts sharply with

the non-Hispanic population decline that occurred in over 700 nonmetro counties during the same period. Metro counties showed similar trends; only 9 lost

Hispanic population in the 1990s, while 117 lost non-Hispanic population.

On the other hand, among nonmetro counties that grew during the 1990s,

Hispanic population growth was more concentrated in a relatively small

number of counties than non-Hispanic population growth. For example, half

of all nonmetro Hispanic growth occurred in only 129, or just under 6

percent, of all nonmetro counties. In contrast, half of all non-Hispanic population growth was spread through 213 nonmetro counties. 

At the national level, nonmetro Hispanic dispersion over the past decade

can best be illustrated with two county maps showing the Hispanic population composition in 1990 and 2000 (figs. 4a-b). The change between the two

maps is dramatic; large numbers of nonmetro counties in the South and

Midwest increased their Hispanic population, from “less than 1 percent” to

“between 1 and 10 percent.” All States with any nonmetro counties have at

10

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 1—Total and nonmetro Hispanic and 

non-Hispanic population, 1980-2000

Ethnicity Total Nonmetro Nonmetro

---Number--- Percent of total 

Hispanic:

1980 14,603,683 1,492,552 10.2

1990 22,354,059 1,902,418 8.5

2000 35,305,896 3,175,953 9.0

Non-Hispanic:

1980 211,942,121 48,043,231 22.7

1990 226,355,804 48,995,484 21.6

2000 246,116,081 52,983,373 21.5

Source: Calculated by ERS using 1980, 1990, and 2000 Census data, SF1 files.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Non-Hispanics Hispanics Non-Hispanics Hispanics

Figure 1 

Rate of population change: 

Hispanics and non-Hispanics, 1980-2000

Percent

Source: Calculated by ERS using Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 data, SF1 files.

1980-90 1990-2000

Total U.S. Nonmetro U.S.
11

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

least one such county, and for most States in the South and Midwest, the

majority of nonmetro counties saw the Hispanic proportion of their populations climb above 1 percent during the 1990s.

The pattern of moderate but widespread Hispanic population growth has

helped stem the pattern of long-term population decline in many rural counties, especially in the Midwest and Great Plains, whose populations have

been diminishing from natural decrease and economically motivated outmigration since the 1950s (Fuguitt et al., 1989; Rathge and Highman, 1998).

Over 100 nonmetro counties would have lost population between 1990 and

2000 if not for Hispanic growth (fig. 5). Nearly 500 other nonmetro counties also had Hispanic population gains combined with non-Hispanic population declines, but these gains could not prevent population loss.

1980 1990

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Southwest Northeast West Midwest South

Figure 2

Regional distribution of nonmetro 

U.S. Hispanic population, 1980-2000

Proportion of all U.S. Hispanics

Source: Calculated by ERS using Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 data, SF1 files.

2000

1980-90 1990-2000

0

20

40

60

80

100

Non-Hispanics Hispanics Non-Hispanics Hispanics

Figure 3

Percent of metro and nonmetro counties gaining Hispanic and

non-Hispanic population, 1980-2000

Percentage of counties

Source: Calculated by ERS using Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 data, SF1 files.

Metro (813) Nonmetro (2,289)
12

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

Hispanic share of total county population, 1990

Figure 4a

Source: Calculated by ERS using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Less than 1 percent

Metro

10 percent or higher

1-9 percent

Hispanic share of total county population, 2000

Figure 4b

Source: Calculated by ERS using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Less than 1 percent

Metro

10 percent or higher

1-9 percent
13

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

These patterns of Hispanic population growth—with simultaneous dispersion

and concentration—lead to the identification of three types of nonmetro counties (fig. 6):

High-growth Hispanic counties. Between 1990 and 2000, Hispanic

population growth in 149 nonmetro counties exceeded 150 percent

and totaled at least 1,000 persons. These counties are in southeastern

North Carolina, elsewhere in the South, the Midwest, and along the

edges of traditional settlement areas, such as in Colorado, Oklahoma,

and Utah, and in the Northwest.

Established Hispanic counties. In 230 nonmetro counties, 10 percent

or more of the population was Hispanic in both 1990 and 2000.6 Twothirds of these counties are in Texas and New Mexico, near traditional

settlement areas along the Rio Grande Valley and in regions of irrigated

agriculture in the Texas panhandle. Traditional settlement areas extend

into Colorado and spill over into southwestern Kansas counties dominated by meatpacking. Areas of fruit crops and irrigated agriculture also

show up in the Northwest and southern Florida.

Other nonmetro counties. Almost all of the remaining 1,913 nonmetro

counties had some Hispanic growth during 1990-2000. In many, the

rates of growth matched those found in high-growth Hispanic counties,

but the population base remained small, often far below 1,000.

Nonmetro counties with Hispanic population gain and 

non-Hispanic population loss, 1990-2000

Figure 5

Source: Calculated by ERS using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Overall population loss avoided by Hispanic growth

Metro

Other nonmetro

Overall population loss despite Hispanic growth

6 In 2000, all but four established

Hispanic counties had Hispanic proportions of 10 percent or greater. Note

also that five counties that qualified as

both established and high-growth

Hispanic—all outside traditional

Hispanic areas—are classified as highgrowth in figure 6 and in the analyses

that follow in this paper.
These three categories registered large differences in aggregate population

growth rates, population sizes, and demographic characteristics (table 2).

Half of all nonmetro Hispanics live in established Hispanic counties where

they make up, on average, 35 percent of the total population, a figure that

far exceeds the Hispanic composition of the other nonmetro counties.

Nevertheless, the Hispanic population growth rate in established Hispanic

counties is also the lowest of any of the three county types. High-growth

Hispanic counties, in contrast, have smaller Hispanic population sizes that

grew faster than the other county types over the past decade. Hispanic populations in high-growth Hispanic counties were larger than those in the other

nonmetro county category, but, on average, they still made up less than 7

percent of the total population in these counties, partly because the nonHispanic population grew faster as well.

These classifications help identify communities in rural America where

rapid growth and differing characteristics are likely to have a large impact

on residential separation because the emergence of high-growth Hispanic

counties typically coincides with opportunities in regional industries

employing large numbers of low-skilled workers. According to employment

figures and informal surveys of county economies, a significant proportion

of employment in high-growth Hispanic counties stems from poultry

processing (40 counties), beef and pork processing (25 counties), other

manufacturing such as furniture and textiles (23 counties), and high-amenity

14

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

Nonmetro Hispanic high-growth and established counties, 1990-2000

Figure 6

Source: Calculated by ERS using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

High-growth Hispanic counties: Hispanic population growth 

exceeded 150 percent and at least 1,000 persons, 1990-2000. 

Established Hispanic counties: Had 10 percent or higher 

Hispanic population in 1990

Other nonmetro

Metro

High-growth Hispanic

Established Hispanic
15

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

resort areas that attract low-wage service workers (10 counties) (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2000). These industries play a far smaller economic role in

established Hispanic and other nonmetro counties, and they also foreshadow

significant differences in demographic and earnings-related characteristics

that influence socioeconomic integration.

Table 2—Hispanic and non-Hispanic population by Hispanic county type, 1990-2000

Hispanic Non-Hispanic

Average Average

Total county Percent Total county Percent

Number of population, population, change, population, population, change,

County type counties 2000 2000 1990-2000 2000 2000 1990-2000

Nonmetro 2,289 3,175,953 1,387 67.9 52,983,373 23,147 8.2

High-growth Hispanic 149 526,942 3,537 344.9 7,254,164 48,686 15.1

Established Hispanic 230 1,602,630 6,968 31.8 2,931,071 12,744 8.8

Other nonmetro 1,913 1,046,381 547 84.0 42,798,138 22,372 7.0

Metro 813 32,129,864 39,520 57.1 193,132,712 237,556 8.9

Source: Calculated by ERS using 1990, and 2000 Census data, SF1 files.
The New Rural Hispanic Population

The most prominent demographic differences between Hispanics and nonHispanic Whites occur in age and sex distributions, particularly in highgrowth Hispanic counties. Population pyramids display these differences

most effectively (fig. 7). Hispanics in high-growth counties possess a much

younger age distribution that is disproportionately male, particularly for

ages 15-39, a prime age range for international labor migration (Massey et

al., 1987a, p. 124). Higher percentages in the two youngest age categories

of the population pyramid reflect both younger, family-forming ages of

Hispanic parents and higher Hispanic fertility rates in the United States

(Downs, 2003). 

These differences become dramatic if percentages for selected age groups

are summed. In high-growth counties, for example, males aged 15-35

constitute 18.5 percent of the total non-Hispanic White population; for

Hispanics, the figure is almost double, 35.7 percent. Similarly, children

under age 10 make up 12.2 percent of the non-Hispanic White population

but 23.5 percent of the Hispanic population in these counties. Age and sex

data for other county types show patterns comparable to those of highgrowth Hispanic counties, although differences between Hispanics and nonHispanic Whites are less extreme. 

Age and sex composition have important economic and public policy ramifications. Younger populations attend schools, enter the labor force in relatively greater numbers, vote relatively infrequently, and require sharply

16

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

Males Females

Figure 7

Population pyramids for Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites, 

high-growth Hispanic counties, 2000

5-year age intervals

Source: Calculated by ERS using Census 2000 data, SF1 files.

Hispanics Non-Hispanic Whites

0-4

10-14

 20-24

 30-34

 40-44

 50-54

 60-64

 70-74

 80-84

10 10

0-4

10-14

20-24

30-34

40-44

50-54

60-64

70-74

80-84

 5 0 5 10 10 505

Percent
17

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

different social services than older populations who, in contrast, require

more health care, leave the labor force in relatively greater numbers, and

vote more reliably (Jamieson, Shin, and Day, 2002). Populations with high

proportions of young males are more likely to have higher rates of high-risk

behaviors (Hernandez and Charney, 1998). These differences can create

tensions among residents over local budgetary choices and may consequently alter residential settlement patterns over time.

Hispanic households (see box, “Household vs. Family”) reflect a younger

age structure and a greater tendency to live in more crowded housing (table

3). For example, despite the gender imbalance, Hispanics in high-growth

counties are significantly more likely to live in nuclear families with children than Hispanics in other nonmetro county types and twice as likely as

non-Hispanic Whites in all county types. Most Hispanic married couples

have children living at home, while most non-Hispanic White married

couples do not. This difference reflects both the younger age structure of

Hispanic couples who are more likely to have young children living with

them, as well as higher average birthrates of Hispanics compared with nonHispanic Whites. Higher percentages of single-parent and unrelated group

households among Hispanics reflect a greater preponderance of labor migration; older children often accompany their parents on U.S. trips, and group

housing is an effective household budget strategy. In contrast, higher

percentages of single-person households among non-Hispanic Whites for

elderly as well as young adults reflect several characteristics, including the

economic means and personal preferences for living alone, and a greater

proportion of elderly persons.

Two characteristics of Hispanic household structure are worth highlighting.

First, despite the fact that most working-age Hispanic migrants are male,

data from Census 2000 indicate a greater proportion of married couples with

children among Hispanic households in high-growth Hispanic counties than

among Hispanic households in all other county types as well as all nonHispanic White households. Second, the household structure of Hispanics

Table 3—Household structure for Hispanic and non-Hispanic Whites, by county type

Married Married Single Single Single

with without parent Unrelated person person Total

County type children children w/ children group under age 65 over age 65

Percent

Hispanics:

High-growth Hispanic 47 13 15 17 7 1 100 

Established Hispanic 37 22 15 11 9 6 100 

Other nonmetro 36 19 15 14 12 4 100 

Metro 37 18 16 16 10 3 100 

Non-Hispanic Whites:

High-growth Hispanic 24 35 7 10 14 11 100 

Established Hispanic 23 35 7 9 14 12 100 

Other nonmetro 24 34 7 9 14 12 100 

Metro 23 31 7 12 17 10 100 

Source: Calculated by ERS using 2000 Census data, SF3 files.
living in established Hispanic counties exhibits a slight resemblance to that

of non-Hispanic Whites rather than that of other Hispanics. 

Length of U.S. residence influences many socioeconomic outcomes, and

Hispanic groups vary noticeably in this regard. For example, Census 2000

data indicate that just over 30 percent of nonmetro Hispanics were born in a

foreign country compared with 45 percent in metro counties. On the other

hand, significant numbers of Hispanics have parents who were born in the

United States and whose more mainstream socioeconomic profiles bear little

resemblance to those of recent Hispanic arrivals (Suárez-Orozco and

Suárez-Orozco, 1995). Five centuries of Hispanic settlement in the United

States have established a distinction between recent Hispanic arrivals and

those living in the United States for generations. 

Where people lived at a previous point in time reflects the amount of their

time spent in the United States, and the 2000 Census long form asks where

respondents lived in 1995 (table 4). Hispanics in general were more likely

to report living in a different country in 1995 than non-Hispanic Whites,

reflecting decades of immigration from Latin America. However, Hispanics

residing in high-growth Hispanic counties were more likely than Hispanics

elsewhere to have migrated internally or internationally. For every 10

Hispanics in a high-growth Hispanic county in 2000, 2 lived in a different

country and 2 more lived in a different State just 5 years earlier. Although

data are not available, it is likely that the number of Hispanics reporting a

different place of residence in 1990 would have been even higher.

Data on year of arrival to the United States also reflect the relatively limited

U.S. experience of Hispanics in high-growth Hispanic counties (fig. 8).

Differences among county types are striking. Over 60 percent of all foreignborn residents of high-growth Hispanic counties arrived in the United States

between 1990 and 2000, compared with about 40 percent for all other

county types. In general, immigration has increased in recent decades, and

Latin Americans, who make up the majority of nonmetro foreign-born residents, have dominated this population since the 1960s. 

18

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

Family and household refer to

different entities. The Census

defines a family to include “a householder and one or more other people

living 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

householder are regarded as members of his or her family.” Families are

classified by type as either a married-couple family or an other family

according to the presence of a spouse. The other family category is further

broken out according to the sex of the householder. 

A household, on the other hand, is defined as “all the people who occupy a

housing unit. A household can contain only one family for purposes of

Census tabulations. Not all households contain families since a household

may be a group of unrelated people or one person living alone” (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2001).

Household vs. Family
19

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

Legal status also heavily influences economic and social well-being through

its impact on everything from social service eligibility to employment and

residential mobility, and even working conditions and wages (Lieberson,

1961; Ise and Perloff, 1993; Kossoudji and Cobb-Clark, 2002) (fig. 9).

Accordingly, Census data on naturalization rates of all foreign-born persons

provide some measure of the degree to which foreign-born persons integrate

into U.S. society. The Census data are somewhat limited because they are

summarized for all foreign born persons regardless of ethnicity, and include

only three general legal status categories: undocumented individuals who

comprise a substantial portion of the foreign-born, low-skill labor force;

documented individuals who possess legal status to work and live in the

United States; and naturalized individuals who possess all rights conferred

by citizenship. Nevertheless, data exist at the county level and are more

precise than most estimates of documented or undocumented legal status. 

Table 4—Residence in 1995 of Census 2000 respondents, by race and ethnicity

Residence in 1995

Same Same Different Different

Race/ethnicity County type county State State country Total

Percent

Hispanic High-growth Hispanic 49 10 19 22 100

Established Hispanic 80 11 5 4 100

Other nonmetro 59 16 15 10 100

Metro 77 7 6 10 100

Non-Hispanic White High-growth Hispanic 78 11 10 1 100

Established Hispanic 74 14 10 1 100

Other nonmetro 81 11 7 0 100

Metro 80 10 9 1 100

Source: Calculated by ERS using 2000 Census data, SF3 files.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

pre 1965 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94 95-2000

Figure 8

Year of U.S. arrival for all foreign-born Hispanics

Percent

Source: Calculated by ERS using data from Census 2000, SF3 files.

High-growth Hispanic

Established Hispanic

Other nonmetro

Metro
Naturalization rates for foreign-born persons do not differ significantly across

county types. Yet, because time spent in the United States is strongly correlated with naturalization, foreign-born persons who work and live in the

United States longer are more likely to regularize their legal status through

sponsorship, work visas, marriage, and other means (Johnson et al., 1999).

Foreign-born persons entering the United States between 1980 and 1990, for

example, were more than three times as likely to be naturalized as those

entering the following decade, although some or most of this difference may

be explained by the 5-year residence requirement for naturalization.

Apart from legal status regularization, time spent in the United States

provides foreign-born persons with greater opportunity to acquire English

language skills, a critical factor for earnings and employment mobility. In

high-growth Hispanic counties, roughly half of all working-age Spanish

speakers claimed English language proficiency, as measured by whether

they indicated on the Census long form they spoke it “well” or “very well.”

In established Hispanic and other nonmetro counties, the proportion, at

close to three-quarters, is significantly higher. Low English language proficiency in high-growth Hispanic counties is particularly pronounced among

working-age residents (fig. 10).

Formal education also heavily influences economic outcomes but is harder to

attain for most people than English language skills. On average, educational

attainment of Hispanics trails that of non-Hispanic Whites, and among

Hispanics, those living in high-growth Hispanic counties have lower educational levels than Hispanics in other county types due to higher proportions of

recent U.S. migrants (table 5). Regardless of whether such migrants have

more or fewer years of schooling than persons in their countries of origin,

they often originate from relatively poor and rural communities with fewer

opportunities to acquire and apply schooling (Kandel, 2003b).

In general, more education increases the chances of being employed.

However, this fundamental relationship appears to be more flexible for

20

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

Before 1980 1980-90 1990-2000

0

20

40

60

80

100

High-growth

Hispanic counties

Established

Hispanic counties

Other nonmetro

counties

Metro counties

Figure 9

Percent foreign-born who are naturalized citizens, by decade

of arrival in the United States

Percent

Source: Calculated by ERS using data from Census 2000, SF3 files.
21

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

Hispanics in high-growth counties, who, despite their lower educational

attainment, have employment levels that exceed not only those of nonHispanic Whites but also those of Hispanics in all other county types 

(table 6). This unusual pattern is consistent with evidence showing that

Hispanics move to these counties to follow employment opportunities

through social networks or recruitment efforts (Hernández-León and

Zúñiga, 2000; Johnson-Webb, 2002). Migration to other counties may also

be employment-based and tied to social networks but more random for

specific jobs. Greater employment opportunity in high-growth counties also

Age 5-17 Age 18-64 Age 65+

0

20

40

60

80

100

High-growth

Hispanic counties

Established

Hispanic counties

Other nonmetro

counties

Metro counties

Figure 10

Percent of Spanish-speaking people (at home) who speak

English "very well" or "well," by age group and county type

Percent

Source: Calculated by ERS using data from Census 2000, SF3 files.

Table 5—Educational attainment by race and ethnicity 

for persons 25 years and older1

0-8 years 9-11 years High

Race/ethnicity and of of school College Total

county type schooling schooling graduate graduate

Percent

Hispanic:

High-growth Hispanic 41 22 31 6 100

Established Hispanic 32 19 42 6 100

Other nonmetro 25 20 45 9 100

Metro 27 20 42 11 100

Non-Hispanic White:

High-growth Hispanic 7 13 61 18 100

Established Hispanic 5 12 63 21 100

Other nonmetro 8 13 63 16 100

Metro 4 9 57 30 100

1 High school graduation rates are relatively low because the sample of persons examined

includes older generations of persons who have less schooling than younger generations.

Currently, the high school graduation rate for Hispanic adults age 25-29 is 63 percent; for both

non-Hispanic Whites and African Americans, the rate is 88 percent. For persons born in the

United States, high school graduation rates are higher: 80 percent for Hispanics and 93 percent

for non-Hispanic Whites and African Americans (Council of Economic Advisors, 2000).

Source: Calculated by ERS using 2000 Census data, SF3 files.
accounts for slightly higher employment rates of non-Hispanic Whites

compared with those in established Hispanic and other nonmetro counties. 

Despite relatively high employment rates, Hispanics’ median individual,

family, and household incomes trail those of non-Hispanic Whites (table 7).

Ratios between the two groups’ incomes narrow as the unit of analysis

increases from individual to family to household, highlighting the importance of household structure for economic well-being, particularly among

recently arrived Hispanics. For example, among non-Hispanic Whites in

high-growth Hispanic counties, family income is higher than household

income. The opposite is true for Hispanics, reflecting larger average

Hispanic household sizes with more income earners among householders.

Numerous studies attribute income gaps to differences in education, English

language skills, legal status, and U.S. work experience. Despite progress in

the acquisition of characteristics that improve income, such as legal status

and English skills, it remains unclear if the persistent earnings gap between

Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites diminishes after controlling for these

factors (Borjas, 1999; Chiswick, 1978; Carliner, 1980; Schoeni et al., 1996). 

These income differences are mirrored by poverty rates for Hispanics,

which substantially exceed those of non-Hispanic Whites across all county

types (fig. 11). To define poverty, the Census Bureau compares income with

a threshold that varies by family size and composition; in 2000, that

threshold was $17,463 for a family of two adults and two children. Like

income, the gap in poverty rates between Hispanics and non-Hispanic

Whites is lowest in other nonmetro counties, where the Hispanic presence is

smallest. Relatively high employment rates of Hispanics in high-growth

counties imply other causes for higher poverty rates, such as low education

attainment and other individual factors such as English language ability and

legal status.

Our county typology highlights new Hispanic population destinations where

the average profile of rural Hispanics contrasts sharply with that of non22

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 6—Employment status for persons 16 and older, by sex, race, ethnicity, and county type, 2000

Males Females

Race/ethnicity and Out of Out of

county type Employed Inemployed labor force Employed Unemployed labor force

Percent

Hispanics:

High-growth Hispanic 70 6 24 48 6 46 

Established Hispanic 55 7 38 43 6 51 

Other nonmetro 60 5 34 50 6 44 

Metro 64 6 30 47 6 47 

Non-Hispanic Whites:

High-growth Hispanic 67 3 30 53 3 44 

Established Hispanic 62 3 35 50 3 47 

Other nonmetro 64 4 32 52 3 45 

Metro 71 3 26 56 2 41 

Note: Data on employment status from Census 2000 are not restricted by an upper age limit. Consequently, the percentage of each 

group out of the labor force also includes retirees.

Source: Calculated by ERS using 2000 Census data, SF3 files
23

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

Hispanic Whites. A significant proportion of Hispanic newcomers to

nonmetro U.S. counties lacks a high school degree, proficient English

language skills, and naturalized immigration status. In counties with rapidly

growing Hispanic populations, these differences help explain the stark

income and poverty gaps between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites.

Nevertheless, Hispanics are likely to continue to arrive in these areas at high

rates, attracted by the opportunity to earn enough money to support their

families back home and/or in the United States. Areas with rural industries

employing significant numbers of Hispanics will invariably confront the

policy implications presented by this growing population group.

Table 7—Median individual, family, and household income in 1999 dollars

Individuals Families Households

Non- Non- NonHispanic Hispanic Hispanic

Hispanic White Ratio Hispanic White Ratio Hispanic White Ratio

(a) (b) (a)/(b) (a) (b) (a)/(b) (a) (b) (a)/(b)

---- Dollars ---- Percent ---- Dollars ---- Percent ---- Dollars ---- Percent

High-growth Hispanic 8,989 18,819 48 28,875 44,945 64 29,398 37,199 79

Established Hispanic 9,193 18,859 49 26,559 42,865 62 24,621 34,653 71

Other nonmetro 9,578 17,208 56 29,807 40,663 73 28,594 33,360 86

Metro 12,523 21,896 57 36,596 53,383 69 34,750 44,690 78

Source: Calculated by ERS using Census 2000 data, SF3 files.

Hispanic non-Hispanic Whites

0

10

20

30

40

High-growth

Hispanic counties

Established

Hispanic counties

Other nonmetro

counties

Metro counties

Figure 11

Poverty rates for Hispanics and 

non-Hispanic Whites, by county type

Percent

Source: Calculated by ERS using data from Census 2000, SF3 files.
Residential Settlement Patterns of

Hispanics and Non-Hispanic Whites

Research demonstrates the importance of residential location for social and

cultural incorporation as well as resource allocation through a host of public

services. We now turn to the issue of Hispanic residential settlement

patterns by addressing the following question: How did residential separation between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites change in the past decade,

during a period of unprecedented growth in the rural Hispanic population?

By measuring changes in residential distance between non-Hispanic Whites

and Hispanics in different types of nonmetro counties and comparing these

changes to residential patterns in metro counties, we find a progression of

residential integration for Hispanics, based upon their location and length of

time in the United States. 

Measuring Residential Separation

Residential separation is a multi-dimensional characteristic comprised of

evenness of population patterns, exposure to majority members, concentration within certain areas, centralization around core areas, and clustering

toward enclaves (Massey, 1985; Massey and Denton, 1988). This analysis

uses the Dissimilarity Index (D) to compute relative evenness of the distribution of two population groups within a given area by comparing their

distributions across subareas, as shown in the following formula: 

where hi and wi are the Hispanic and non-Hispanic White population of

subarea i and H and W are the total Hispanic and non-Hispanic White populations of the area (see fig. 12 for a hypothetical example). Values of D range

from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 1. Each value represents the proportion of either population that would have to change subareas to achieve evenness with the other group. For instance, a given county subdivided into

Census tracts and with a D value of 0.5 indicates that half the Hispanic population would have to change Census tracts for the county’s Hispanic population to have the same relative distribution as that of non-Hispanic Whites.

Higher D values indicate greater spatial distance—meaning greater residential

separation and a less even distribution—between the two groups.

We employ the Dissimilarity Index to analyze residential separation of

Hispanics, by county category, of counties within the Nation, places (towns,

villages, cities, etc.) within counties, and neighborhoods (Census tracts)

within places (see box, “Analysis of Places”).

Residential Separation among 

Counties Within the Nation

The first of the three geographic scales we consider relevant for understanding changing settlement patterns of nonmetro Hispanics—the

county—captures Hispanic population dispersion nationally, including

among metro and nonmetro areas. In this case, the Nation functions as the

“area” and counties as “subareas” across which we measure residential

24

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

= ∑ − i

i i

W

w

H

h D 0.5* | |
25

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

separation. Earlier, we noted a clear and growing geographic diffusion of

Hispanics into new regions of rural America. The declines in the Dissimilarity Index (D)—from 0.59 to 0.55 for the Nation as a whole, and from

0.65 to 0.57 for all nonmetro counties—indicate less spatial distance

between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites, nationally.

Throughout the Nation and within all county types, Hispanics became

more geographically integrated among non-Hispanic Whites over the

course of the past decade (fig. 13). Hispanics were least dispersed among

the 1,913 other nonmetro counties, but this county type also experienced

the greatest decline in separation between Hispanics and non-Hispanic

Whites. If this trend continues, it could portend significant ethnic and

social change. With the exception of nonmetropolitan counties in the

Southwest, rural America has long been populated overwhelmingly by

non-Hispanic Whites who have had little consistent contact with foreignborn persons from non-European countries. If such interaction between

nonmetro non-Hispanic Whites and Hispanics increases, it could mirror

similar processes of, and struggles for, incorporation and acceptance

occurring in metropolitan areas.

Increasing values of D at the national level would support the “demographic

balkanization” thesis, which holds that America is dividing into broad ethnically and racially lopsided regional enclaves. However, since dispersion

dominated Hispanic population patterns throughout the 1990s, particularly

into nonmetro areas, declining dissimilarity indices across all county types

are neither surprising nor consistent with the demographic balkanization

thesis, at least for Hispanics.

Figure 12

Distribution of households within one hypothetical county with 

high residential separation and one with low residential separation

O O O

O O O

O O O

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y O

Y O O

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y O

Y Y O

O Y Y

O Y Y

Y Y O

Y Y O

Y Y O

Y Y O

Y Y O

Y Y O

Y Y O

O Y Y

O

Y

Minority household

Majority household

Note: Cells represent subareas within areas (e.g., places within counties, Census 

tracts within places). Adapted from Iceland et al., 2002

High-separation county Low-separation county
26

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

For the analysis of places, we

use incorporated and unincorporated places that were recognized in both the 1990 and 2000 Censuses.

For the analysis of neighborhoods, we use 1990 Census tracts, with matched

1990 and 2000 population figures to maintain identical spatial units between

Censuses. Where tracts were split to account for growing populations, we

re-aggregated 2000 tracts to match 1990 configurations. For the small

number of Census tracts that were re-configured, we used a computer-based

overlay analysis to allocate 2000 populations to 1990 geography. For the

analysis of counties, D values represent single values for each of the four

county types. For the analyses of places within counties, and neighborhoods

within places, we computed D values for each county and then averaged

them across counties for each of the four county types.

The Dissimilarity Index was chosen over other measures of segregation

because of its relatively straightforward interpretation and comparability.

Unlike measures of exposure used in some studies, D is not sensitive to

relative numbers of minority members. In high-growth Hispanic counties,

where both the absolute number and proportion of Hispanics increase

rapidly, most exposure measures would increase in situations where relative population evenness (as measured by D) remained the same. 

Some criticize the dissimilarity indicator for lower sensitivity to separation

among larger geographic units, thus yielding higher values for residential

separation in neighborhoods of a metropolitan area than in larger counties

of a State. Similarly, residential separation, as measured by Census blocks,

will be higher than for the same populations divided into larger units such

as Census tracts or places. Our interest, however, is not to compare

dissimilarity at different geographic scales—for example, between neighborhoods and places. Rather, within the same geographic scale, we wish

to compare changes over time and changes across different county types.

Analysis of Places

1990 2000

0

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

High-growth

Hispanic counties

Established

Hispanic counties

Other nonmetro

counties

Metro counties

Figure 13

Residential separation in counties within the United States,

Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites, by county type, 1990-2000

Dissimilarity Index (D)

Note: D measures how evenly distributed two population groups are within a given area, on

a scale of 0 to 1. The higher the value of D, the less evenly distributed the two groups are.

Source: Economic Research Service/USDA.
27

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

Residential Separation in 

Places Within Counties

Within counties, however, the national trend of Hispanic population dispersion does not hold. At this level of analysis, for purposes of measuring

dissimilarity, the county functions as the “area” and places (e.g., towns,

villages, cities, etc.) function as “subareas.” Results measure the degree to

which Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites live together within or outside of

town and city boundaries for the different county types (fig. 14). 

Between 1990 and 2000, residential separation increased slightly within

metro and other nonmetro counties, but significantly (63 percent) in highgrowth Hispanic counties, which exhibited the lowest average dissimilarity

among all county types at this level of analysis in 1990. This increase in D

means that, on average, Hispanics living in these 149 counties were about

two-thirds more likely to be spatially isolated from non-Hispanic Whites

across municipal boundaries in 2000 than they were in 1990. Changing residential separation in these counties is in striking contrast to that of established Hispanic counties, which, on average, exhibited geographic

equilibrium between the two groups.

As noted earlier, municipal boundaries often represent economic and social

dividing lines between groups that may heavily influence social service

availability and opportunity for economic development on the one hand, and

property values and local taxes on the other. The experience of nonmetro

Blacks, who migrated in significant numbers to towns and cities following

World War II, suggests that other nonmetro minority groups may similarly

seek social, economic, and political support within the legal and political

environment of places (Aiken, 1990). This occurs as non-Hispanic Whites

leave those same places, sometimes in response to such population trends.

1990 2000

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

High-growth

Hispanic counties

Established

Hispanic counties

Other nonmetro

counties

Metro counties

Figure 14

Residential separation in places within counties, Hispanics and

non-Hispanic Whites, by county type, 1990-20001

Dissimilarity Index (D)

Note: D measures how evenly distributed two population groups are within a given area, on

a scale of 0 to 1. The higher the value of D, the less evenly distributed the two groups are.

1As defined by the Census Bureau, places are "designated places, consolidated cities, and

incorporated places."

Source: Economic Research Service/USDA.
The D values do not distinguish between residential separation caused by

the place-level clustering of Hispanics versus the outmigration of nonHispanic Whites; in these places, either trend could produce the increase in

residential separation shown.

The distribution of Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites among places of

varying sizes in high-growth Hispanic counties as of 2000 suggests a pattern

similar to one observed between Blacks and Whites in the nonmetro South

from 1970 to 1990 (Cromartie and Beale, 1996). Hispanics are more likely

to live in larger towns and cities, while non-Hispanic Whites tend to

concentrate outside of Census-defined places (fig. 15). Both of these trends

increased during the 1990s (Cromartie and Kandel, 2002). 

Several reasons may explain these differences, but one likely explanation is

economic. In high-growth Hispanic counties, non-Hispanic Whites have

significantly higher average incomes than Hispanics, allowing them to

purchase newer and larger houses with larger properties. Such housing,

however, tends to be found outside of towns and small cities, where traditional neighborhoods are residentially more dense. By contrast, Hispanics in

these high-growth counties have less time in the United States than

Hispanics elsewhere (table 4) which, combined with lower earning power,

increases the likelihood they will live with or near relatives and friends in

more crowded housing until they can afford their own. Nevertheless, the

data raise broader concerns over whether Whites in these counties are

moving away from places in reaction to an influx of Hispanics.

Residential Separation among 

Neighborhoods Within Places

Measuring residential separation at the Census tract level is similar to the

more traditional measurement of neighborhood segregation within urban

28

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

Hispanic Non-Hispanic Whites

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

10,000+ 2,500-10,000 Less than 2,500 Outside places

Figure 15

Population distribution in high-growth Hispanic counties, by

place population, 20001

Percent

1As defined by the Census Bureau, places are "designated places, consolidated cities, and

incorporated places."

Place population

Source: Economic Research Service/USDA.
29

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

areas. Here the incorporated place acts as the area and Census tracts function as subareas. Between 1990 and 2000, dissimilarity levels remained

stable for established Hispanic counties and other nonmetro counties, but

increased for high-growth Hispanic and metro counties (fig. 16). The

increase in residential separation between Hispanics and non-Hispanic

Whites in high-growth Hispanic counties between 1990 and 2000 points to

greater separation associated with rapid demographic change. This finding

differs from those of Hwang and Murdock (1983) and Murdock et al.

(1994), whose analyses of Texas indicated that population growth from

1980-90 had reduced segregation at the place level.

Spatial separation between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites in neighborhoods within metro places remains relatively high compared with nonmetro

places, and is consistent with earlier findings (Iceland et al., 2002). This

results partly from differing sizes of rural and urban Census tracts. Because

these tracts are larger in nonmetro counties, values for D are less likely to

capture the same level of residential separation found between groups for

similarly populated tracts in metro counties. However, metro and nonmetro

residential separation patterns may also be capturing very different social

and geographic processes that limit what can be deduced from comparisons

of the two.

The increase in residential separation in high-growth Hispanic counties

resembles more the situation in metro areas than in the other nonmetro

county types. However, a stronger explanatory role must be given to rapid

population change itself and to the striking socioeconomic characteristics of

the new residents in these counties. Given influxes of new ethnic minorities,

many of whom have little U.S. experience, skewed age and sex distributions, low schooling levels, and weak English language proficiency, it is not

1990 2000

0

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

High-growth

Hispanic counties

Established

Hispanic counties

Other nonmetro

counties

Metro counties

Figure 16

Residential separation in neighborhoods within places, Hispanics

and non-Hispanic Whites, by county type, 1990-20001

Dissimilarity Index (D)

1As defined by the Census Bureau, places are "designated places, consolidated cities, and

incorporated places."

Note: D measures how evenly distributed two population groups are within a given area, 

on a scale of 0 to 1. The higher the value of D, the less evenly distributed the two groups are. 

In this figure, D equals the average of county D values within each county type.

Source: Economic Research Service/USDA.
surprising to find a rapidly rising, high level of separation in the initial

stages of settlement. 

At rates measured here, residential separation patterns between nonmetro

Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites, at least in high-growth counties, are

beginning to resemble settlement patterns of many groups in metro areas

and Blacks in parts of the rural South. If they follow patterns of Blacks in

the rural South, nonmetro communities with high Hispanic populations may

face similar outcomes: declining status as retail centers, growing dependence on government assistance, and inadequate schooling and transportation. Whether counties with growing Hispanic populations face such a

future depends on several factors that are hard to predict. These include the

continued availability of low-wage jobs, the extent of economic mobility

among Hispanics and their children, future demographic change, incorporation processes in those communities, and the extent to which nonmetro

counties and cities take steps to maintain and create healthy communities in

the face of increasing ethnic diversity. 

30

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA
31

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

Conclusions and Implications

Since 1990, the pace of Hispanic population growth in nonmetro counties has

surprised many demographers and challenged local officials and policymakers. This report has reviewed some causes and examined the extent of

recent Hispanic population and dispersion in nonmetropolitan counties of the

United States. We have compared the socioeconomic profiles of Hispanics

residing in all U.S. counties, emphasizing differences among counties characterized by rapidly growing and established Hispanic populations that may

illustrate future prospects for social and economic integration of rural

Hispanics. High-growth Hispanic counties often include significant percentages of recent migrants whose socioeconomic profiles contrast sharply with

those of native Hispanic and non-Hispanic White residents. Accordingly, we

have analyzed residential separation patterns at the county, place, and neighborhood levels. Where appropriate, we have compared these outcomes with

those of metro counties to provide a basis for understanding settlement

patterns in rural areas compared with more familiar urban patterns.

Hispanics remain among the most urbanized ethnic/racial groups in

America, with over 90 percent living in metro areas in 2000. Moreover, they

continue to be concentrated in the Southwest. Yet, nonmetro Hispanic

growth in the 1990s was much greater and more widespread than in

previous decades and appeared in hundreds of rural communities throughout

the Southeast, Midwest, and Northwest. The growth was both more

dispersed and more concentrated than for non-Hispanics because, while

almost all nonmetro counties experienced Hispanic population growth, 30

percent of this growth occurred in the 149 counties whose Hispanic population growth rates exceeded 150 percent. 

Hispanic newcomers have forged communities in areas unaccustomed to

seeing large numbers of foreign-born, particularly in the rapidly growing

Hispanic counties of the Southeast and Midwest highlighted in this report.

Hispanics in these counties include disproportionate numbers of young men

who come from rural communities in economically depressed regions of

Mexico and begin migrating as single teenagers or young adults without

documentation. Such recent migrants typically have relatively fewer years

of formal education and often speak little English. Despite these disadvantages, employment rates among Hispanics in high-growth nonmetro counties exceed those of all other nonmetro Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites. 

Hispanic population dispersion into new nonmetro destinations reduced

levels of residential separation at the national level between Hispanics and

non-Hispanic Whites between 1990 and 2000, corresponding to a similar

reduction within metro counties. However, increased residential separation

among Census-defined places within counties became evident, especially in

high-growth counties; Hispanics are more concentrated in these places than

non-Hispanic Whites, and place separation increased during the 1990s.

Among neighborhoods within places, separation increased within highgrowth Hispanic counties despite rapid growth of both Hispanics and 

non-Hispanic Whites.
Substantial empirical research on segregation demonstrates the importance

of location for the distribution of public resources and less tangible public

goods. If separation systematically restricts access to these resources for

some population groups, the impact can be significant over the long term.

Moreover, separation can have negative community effects. Numerous cases

of urban “White flight” in previous decades illustrate how the depopulation

of neighborhoods and even entire towns of typically better educated and

higher income individuals leaves behind increasingly concentrated minority

populations whose lower earnings reduce the tax base necessary for

adequate social services. While large cities may have sufficiently diverse

populations and industries to absorb such shifts in population, rural places

are less likely to be insulated from changes posed by rapid demographic

shifts. These issues will be magnified in scope and importance as Hispanics

increasingly populate nonmetro counties.

How Hispanics are viewed in new rural destinations depends on one’s

vantage point. Hispanic population growth has helped to stem decades of

population decline in some States, revitalizing many rural communities with

new demographic and economic vigor. Such population infusions may

affect the allocation of State and Federal program funding to rural areas for

education, health, other social services, and infrastructure projects. In addition to increasing the local tax base and spending money on local goods,

services, and housing, recent migrant workers may fill labor market

demands that otherwise might force employers to relocate domestically or

internationally, or even abandon certain industries. Finally, new migrants

clearly provide social and cultural diversity that introduces native residents

to new cultures, languages, and cuisine. 

Yet, many rural communities are unprepared, economically and culturally,

for significant numbers of culturally distinct, low-paid newcomers who seek

inexpensive housing, require distinct social services, and struggle to speak

English. Residents in many rural communities have little experience with

people of different backgrounds, and numerous popular reports suggest

pervasive social conflict among communities that have experienced rapid

influxes of Hispanic residents. While Hispanics in new destinations often

work in relatively more dangerous or less well-paid industries than native

workers, their presence in the labor market may exert downward pressure

on local wage rates even in comparatively skilled industries (Newman,

2003).

Moreover, sizable increases in the Hispanic proportion of the total population can significantly affect empirical socioeconomic measures for the

broader population. To cite one example, in five high-growth Hispanic

counties where the Hispanic proportion of the population increased from

under 10 percent in 1990 to over 25 percent in 2000, the proportion of

males over 25 with less than a ninth-grade education averages 20 percent.

The same proportion for the non-Hispanic population alone drops to 8

percent. Future research will expand on the extent to which such findings

can be generalized to other measures of socioeconomic well-being.

In some respects, the challenges that communities face in addressing the

needs of newcomers are intrinsic to international labor migration itself. The

32

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA
33

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

complicated process of labor migration, including limited skill demands,

arduous working conditions, and relatively low wages of many migrant

jobs, means that recent migrants are often self-selected simultaneously for

“favorable” characteristics such as initiative and youth, and “unfavorable”

characteristics, such as lower education attainment. However, it is also

important to remember that the term “Hispanic,” as used in this report,

encompasses a wide range of experience, ranging from families having

lived generations in the United States to recently arrived migrants whose

experience we have emphasized in this report. 

Prospects for Hispanics in rural America hinge on the same mechanisms for

social and economic mobility utilized by earlier generations of U.S. immigrants. These include acquiring legal status, U.S. work experience, English

skills, training, and education, as well as overcoming discrimination and

prejudice. Long-term prospects for Hispanic social and economic mobility,

on the other hand, depend critically on the degree to which the educational

attainments of Hispanic children match those of their peers. Local communities and States can address some of these issues in public policies targeted

toward helping new residents acquire information about basic public services, such as education, health care, transportation, and U.S. laws; many

States have already done so. In some cases, States have established formal

programs that help new residents acclimate to their civic environment. As

their experience in the United States increases, they will become socially

and economically integrated through various mechanisms, including the

acquisition of English language skills and legal status acquired through

sponsorship, marriage, and amnesty programs.

In rural America, these circumstances occur against the backdrop of an

aging, mostly White, baby-boomer population that will increasingly rely

upon the productivity, health, and civic participation of Hispanic children as

boomers begin retiring in large numbers in the coming decades. Consequently, the social and economic adaptation, integration, and mobility of

new rural residents and their children are critical public policy issues that

merit attention of social scientists and policy analysts.
References 

Aiken, Charles S. 1990. “A New Type of Black Ghetto in the Plantation

South.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 80:223-46.

Alba, R.D., and J.R. Logan. 1993. “Minority Proximity to Whites in

Suburbs: An Individual-level Analysis of Segregation.” American Journal

of Sociology. 98:1388-1427.

Allen, James P., and Eugene Turner. 1996. “Spatial Patterns and Immigrant

Assimilation.” Professional Geographer. 48:140-55.

______. 2001. “Bridging 1990 and 2000 Census Race Data: Fractional

Assignment of Multiracial Populations.” Population Research and Policy

Review. 20(6):513-33.

Allensworth, Elain M., and Refugio I. Rochín. 1998. “Ethnic

Transformation in Rural California: Looking Beyond the Immigrant

Farmworker.” Rural Sociology. 63:26-50. 

Anderson, Elijah, and Douglas Massey (eds.). 2001. Problem of the

Century: Racial Stratification in the United States. New York, NY:

Russell Sage Foundation.

Atiles, Jorge H., and Stephanie A. Bohon. 2002. “The Needs of Georgia’s

New Latinos: A Policy Agenda for the Decade Ahead.” Public Policy

Research. 3:1-51.

Atiles, Jorge H., and Stephanie A. Bohon. “Camas Calientes: Housing

Adjustments and Barriers to Adaptation among the South’s Rural

Latinos.” Rural Southern Sociology. Forthcoming.

Bean, Frank D., and Marta Tienda. 1987. The Hispanic Population of the

United States. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Borjas, George. 1999. Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the

American Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Broadway, Michael J. 1994. “Hogtowns and Rural Development.” Rural

Development Perspectives. 9(2):40-46.

Broadway, Michael J. 1995. “From City to Countryside: Recent Changes in

the Structure and Location of the Meat- and Fish-Processing Industries.”

In D. Stull, M. Broadway, and D. Griffith (eds.), Any Way You Cut It:

Meat Processing and Small-Town America. Lawrence, KS: University

Press of Kansas.

Burstein, Alan N. 1981. “Immigrants and Residential Mobility: The Irish

and Germans in Philadelphia, 1850-1880.” In Theodore Hershberg (ed.),

Philadelphia: Work, Space, Family, and Group Experience in the 19th

Century. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Card, David, and John DiNardo. 2000. “Do Immigrant Inflows Lead to

Native Outflows?” American Economics Review. (Proceedings).

90(2):360-367.

Carliner, Geoffrey. 1980. “Wages, Earnings, and Hours of First, Second, and

Third Generation American Males.” Economic Inquiry. 18:87-102.

34

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA
35

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

Chavez, Leo. 1998. Shadowed Lives: Undocumented Immigrants in

American Society, 2nd Edition. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace,

Jovanovich College Publishers.

Chiswick, Barry R. 1978. “The Effect of Americanization on the Earnings

of Foreign-Born Men.” Journal of Political Economy. 86:897-921.

Chiswick, Barry R., and Paul W. Miller. 1995. “The Endogeneity Between

Language and Earnings: International Analyses.” Journal of Labor

Economics. 13:246-88.

Clark, William. 1998. The California Cauldron: Immigration and the

Fortunes of Local Communities. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Coleman, James S. 1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human

Capital.” American Journal of Sociology. 94S:S95-S120.

Council of Economic Advisors. 2000. Educational Attainment and Success

in the New Economy: An Analysis of Challenges for Improving Hispanic

Students’ Achievement. Washington, DC.

Cromartie, John. 2003. “Measuring Rurality.” Economic Research Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/Rurality/. 

Cromartie, John, and Calvin Beale. 1996. “Increasing Black-White Separation

in the Plantation South, 1970-90.” In Linda L. Swanson (ed.), Racial/Ethnic

Minorities in Rural Areas: Progress and Stagnation, 1980-90. Agriculture

Economic Report No. 731. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture.

Cromartie, John, and William Kandel. 2002. “Did Residential Segregation

in Rural America Increase with Recent Hispanic Population Growth?”

Poster presented at the Meetings of the Population Association of

America, Atlanta, GA, May 8-11.

Dale, Jack G., Susan Andriatta, and Elizabeth Freeman. 2001. “Language and

the Migrant Worker Experience in Rural North Carolina Communities.” In

A. Murphy, C. Blanchard and J.A. Hill (eds.), Latino Workers in the

Contemporary South. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Donato, Katharine, Carl L. Bankston, and Dawn T. Robinson. 2001.

“Immigration and the Organization of the Onshore Oil Industry: Southern

Louisiana in the Late 1990s.” In Murphy, A., C. Blanchard, and J. A. Hill

(eds.), Latino Workers in the Contemporary South. Athens, GA:

University of Georgia Press.

Downs, Barbara. 2003. “Fertility of American Women: June 2002.” Current

Population Reports P20-548. U.S. Census Bureau.

Durand, Jorge, Douglas Massey, and Fernando Charvet. 2000. “The

Changing Geography of Mexican Immigration to the United States:

1910-1996.” Social Science Quarterly. 81:1-16.

Engstrom, James D. 2001. “Industry and Immigration in Dalton, Georgia.”

In A. Murphy, C. Blanchard, and J.A. Hill (eds.), Latino Workers in the

Contemporary South. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
Farley, Reynolds, and Walter R. Allen. 1987. The Color Line and the

Quality of Life in America. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Fennelly, Katherine, and Helga Leitner. 2002. “How the Food Processing

Industry is Diversifying Rural Minnesota.” Working Paper 59. The Julien

Samora Research Institute, Michigan State University.

Frey, William H. 1995. “Immigration and Internal Migration ‘Flight’ from

U.S. Metropolitan Areas: Toward a New Demographic Balkanisation.”

Urban Studies. 32:733-57.

_____. 1996. “Immigration, Domestic Migration, and Demographic

Balkanization in America: New Evidence for the 1990s.” Population &

Development Review. 22:741-63.

_____. 1998. “The Diversity Myth.” American Demographics. 20(6):38-43.

Frey, William H., and Kao-Lee Liaw. 1998a. “Immigrant Concentration and

Domestic Migrant Dispersal: Is Movement to Nonmetropolitan Areas

“White Flight?” Professional Geographer. 50(2):215-32.

______. 1998b. “The Impact of Recent Immigration on Population

Redistribution Within the United States.” In James P. Smith and Barry

Edmonston (eds.), The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic,

Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC:

National Academy of Sciences Press.

Fuguitt, Glenn V., David L. Brown, and Calvin L. Beale. 1989. Rural and

Small-town America. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

General Accounting Office. 1998. “Changes in Nebraska’s and Iowa’s

Counties with Large Meatpacking Plant Workforces.” GAO/RCED-98-

62.

Gordon, M. 1964. Assimilation in American Life. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Gouveia, Lourdes, and Donald Stull. 1995. “Dances with Cows:

Beefpacking’s Impact on Garden City, KS, and Lexington, NE. In D.

Stull, M. Broadway, and D. Griffith (eds.), Any Way You Cut It: Meat

Processing and Small-Town America. Lawrence, KS: University Press of

Kansas.

Granovetter, M. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of

Sociology. 78:1360-1380.

Grey, Mark A. 1995. “Pork, Poultry, and Newcomers in Storm Lake, Iowa.”

In D.D. Stull, M. J. Broadway, and D. Griffith (eds.), Any Way You Cut

It: Meat Processing and Small-Town America. Lawrence, KS: University

Press of Kansas.

Griffith 1995. “New Immigrants in an Old Industry: Blue Crab Processing

in Pamlico County, North Carolina.” In D.D.Stull, M.J. Broadway, and D.

Griffith (eds.), 1995. Any Way You Cut It: Meat Processing and SmallTown America. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Guthey, Greig. 2001. “Mexican Places in Southern Spaces: Globalization,

Work and Daily Life in and around the North Georgia Poultry Industry.”

36

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA
37

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

In Murphey, A., C. Blanchard, and J. A. Hill (eds.), Latino Workers in the

Contemporary South. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Guzmán, Betsy. 2001. “The Hispanic Population: Census 2000 Brief.” U.S.

Census Bureau.

Haverluk. 1998. “Hispanic Community Types and Assimilation in MexAmerica.” Professional Geographer. 50:465-80.

Hernandez, Donald J. (ed.). 1999. Children of Immigrants: Health, Adjustment,

and Public Assistance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Hernandez, Donald J., and Evan Charney. 1998. From Generation to

Generation: The Health and Well-Being of Children in Immigrant

Families. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Hernández-León, Rubén, and Víctor Zúñiga. 2000. “‘Making Carpet by 

the Mile:’ The Emergence of a Mexican Immigrant Community in an

Industrial Region of the U.S. Historic South.” Social Science Quarterly.

81:49-66.

Hwang, Sean-Shong, and Steven H. Murdock. 1983. “Segregation in

Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan Texas in 1980.” Rural Sociology.

48:607-23.

Iceland, John, Daniel H. Weinberg, and Erika Steinmetz. 2002. “Racial and

Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000.” Census

2000 Special Report CENSR-3. U.S. Census Bureau.

Ise, Sabrina, and Jeffrey Perloff. 1993. “Legal Status and Earnings of

Agricultural Workers.” University of California at Berkeley, Department

of Agricultural and Resource Economics (CUDARE) Working Paper 680.

Jamieson, Amie, Hyon B. Shin, and Jennifer Day. 2002. “Voting and

Registration in the Election of November 2000: Population

Characteristics.” Current Population Reports P20-542. U.S. Census

Bureau.

Johnson, Hans P., Belinda I. Reyes, Laura Mameesh, and Elisa Barbour.

1999. Taking the oath: an analysis of naturalization in California and the

United States. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.

Johnson-Webb, Karen D. 2002. “Employer Recruitment and Hispanic Labor

Migration: North Carolina Urban Areas at the End of the Millennium.”

The Professional Geographer. 54(3):406-421.

Jones, Gaytha. 2003. Migrant Services Directory: Organizations and

Resources. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and

Small Schools. 

Kandel, William. 2002. “A Profile of U.S. Agricultural Migrant Workers

Using Mexican Migration Project Data.” Presented at the Binational

Conference on Mexico-U.S. Migration, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, March.

______. 2003a. “Race and Ethnicity in Rural America.” Economic Research

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/RaceandEthnic/.
______. 2003b. “The Impact of U.S. Migration on Mexican Children’s

Educational Attainment.” In M. Cosio, R. Marcoux, M. Pilon, and A.

Quesnel (eds.), Education, Family and Population Dynamics. Paris:

CICRED.

Kandel, William, and Emilio Parrado. “Industrial Transformation and

Hispanic Migration to the American South: The Case of the Poultry

Industry.” In D.D. Arreola (ed.), Hispanic Spaces, Latino Places: A

Geography of Regional and Cultural Diversity. Austin, TX: University of

Texas Press. Forthcoming. 

Kossoudji, Sherrie A., and Deborah A. Cobb-Clark. 2002. “Coming Out of

the Shadows: Learning about Legal Status and Wages from the Legalized

Population.” Journal of Labor Economics. 20(3):598-628.

Kozol, Jonathan. 1991. Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools.

New York, NY: Crown Publishers.

Krissman, Fred. 2000. “Immigrant Labor Recruitment: U.S. Agribusiness

and Undocumented Migration from Mexico.” In N. Foner, R. Rumbaut,

and S. Gold (eds.), Immigration Research for a New Century. New York,

NY: Russell Sage.

Lichter, Daniel T., and Tim B. Heaton. 1986. “Black Composition and

Change in the Nonmetropolitan South.” Rural Sociology. 5:343-53.

Lichter, Daniel T., Tim B. Heaton, and Glenn V. Fuguitt. 1986.

“Convergence in Black and White Population Redistribution in the

United States.” Social Science Quarterly. 67:21-38.

Lieberson, Stanley. 1961. “The Impact of Residential Segregation on

Assimilation.” Social Forces. 40:52-57.

Martin, Philip L., and David A. Martin. 1994. The Endless Quest: Helping

America’s Farm Workers. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Massey, Douglas S. 1985. “Ethnic Residential Segregation: A Theoretical

Synthesis and Empirical Review.” Sociology and Social Research.

69:315-50.

______. 1987. “Trends in the Residential Segregation of Blacks, Hispanics,

and Asians: 1970-1980.” American Sociological Review. 52:802-25.

_____. 1990. “American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the

Underclass.” American Journal of Sociology. 96:329-57.

Massey, Douglas S., Rafael Alarcón, Jorge Durand, and Humberto

González. 1987a. Return To Aztlan. Berkeley, CA: University of

California.

Massey, Douglas S., Gretchen A. Condran, and Nancy A. Denton. 1987b.

“The Effect of Residential Segregation on Black Social and Economic

Well-Being.” Social Forces. 66:29-57.

Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy Denton. 1988. “The Dimensions of

Residential Segregation.” Social Forces. 67:281-315.

_____. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the

Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

38

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA
39

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

Massey, Douglas S., Jorge Durand, and Nolan Malone. 2002. Beyond Smoke

and Mirrors: Mexican Immigration in an Era of Economic Integration.

New York, NY: Russell Sage.

Massey, Douglas S., Andrew B. Gross, and Mitchell L. Eggers. 1991.

“Segregation, the Concentration of Povery, and the Life Chances of

Individuals.” Social Science Research. 20:397-420.

McDaniel, J.M., and V. Casanova. 2003. “Pines in Lines: Tree Planting,

H2B Guest Workers, and Rural Poverty in Alabama.” Southern Rural

Sociology. Forthcoming.

Montejano, David. 1987. Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas,

1836-1986. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Mosisa, Abraham T. 2002. “The Role of Foreign-born Workers in the U.S.

Economy.” Monthly Labor Review. May:3-14.

Murdock, Steve H., Sean-Shong Hwang, and Md. Nazrul Hoque. 1994.

“Nonmetropolitan Residential Segregation Revisited.” Rural Sociology.

59:236-54.

Myrdal, Gunnar. 1944. An American Dilemma. New York, NY: Harper and

Brothers.

Neidert, L.J., and R. Farley. 1985. “Assimilation in the United States: An

Analysis of Ethnic and Generational Differences in Status.” American

Sociological Review. 50:840-49.

Nelli, Humbert S. 1970. Italians in Chicago, 1880-1930: A Study in Ethnic

Mobility. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Newman, Constance. 2003. “Impacts of Hispanic Population Growth on

Rural Wages.” Agricultural Economic Report No. 826. Economic

Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Phillips, Julie, and Douglas Massey. 1999. “The New Labor Market:

Immigrants and Wages After IRCA.” Demography. 36(2):233-46.

Portes, Alejandro. 1998. “Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology. 24:1-24.

Portes, Alejandro, and Rubén G. Rumbaut. 2001. Legacies: The Story of the

Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California

Press, and New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Rathge, Richard, and Paula Highman. 1998. “Population Change in the

Great Plains: A History of Prolonged Decline.” Rural Development

Perspectives. 13(1):19-26.

Rochin, Refugio I. 1995. “Rural Latinos: Evolving Conditions and Issues.”

In E. Castle (ed.), The Changing American Countryside: Rural People

and Places. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Salamon, Sonya. 2003. Newcomers to Old Towns: Suburbanization of the

Heartland. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Schneider, Mark, and John R. Logan. 1982. “Suburban Racial Segregation

and Black Access to Local Public Resources.” Social Science Quarterly.

63:762-70.

Schoeni, Robert F., Kevin F. McCarthy, and George Vernez. 1996. The

Mixed Economic Progress of Immigrants. Santa Monica, CA: RAND

Corporation. 

Spear, Allen H. 1967. Black Chicago: The Making of a Negro Ghetto.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Stepick, Alex, Guillermo Grenier, Steve Morris, and Debbie Draznin. 1994.

“Brothers in Wood.” In L. Lamphere, A. Stepick, and G. Grenier (eds.),

Newcomers in the Workplace: Immigrants and the Restructuring of the

U.S. Economy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Suárez-Orozco, Carola, and Marcelo Suárez-Orozco. 1995.

Transformations: Migration, Family Life, and Achievement Motivation

Among Latino Adolescents. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Suro, Roberto, and Audrey Singer. 2002. “Latino Growth in Metropolitan

America: Changing Patterns, New Locations.” Washington, DC: Center

on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, The Brookings Institution, and The

Pew Hispanic Center.

Thernstrom, Stephen. 1973. The Other Bostonians: Poverty and Progress in

the American Metropolis, 1880-1970. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. County Business Patterns.

http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html/.

Ward, David. 1971. Cities and Immigrants: A Geography of Change in

Nineteenth Century America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Wilson, William J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago, IL: University

of Chicago Press.

Wright, Richard A., Mark Ellis, and Michael Reibel. 1997. “The Linkage

Between Immigration and Internal Migration in Large Metropolitan

Areas in the United States.” Economic Geography. 73(2):234-53.

Zunz, Olivier. 1982. The Changing Face of Inequality: Urbanization,

Industrial Development, and Immigrants in Detroit, 1880-1920. Chicago,

IL: University of 

40

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA
41

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

This report follows a widely accepted convention of using nonmetropolitan

counties (defined by the Office of Management and Budget) as a proxy for

“rural and small-town” America. The primary alternative is to use rural and

urban areas, defined by the Census Bureau using population density criteria

applied to much smaller geographical units (Cromartie, 2003). The metrononmetro county division is used because Federal agencies provide countylevel data for certain demographic and economic characteristics on an annual

basis, whereas data on the characteristics of rural and urban areas are available only from the decennial Censuses. Using nonmetro counties is an effective strategy for analyzing rural and small-town trends on a national scale

and in most States. However, it does exclude rural residents in metro counties, a drawback that is particularly significant in large counties in the West.

The problem warrants discussion here because 1.2 million “rural metro”

Hispanics are excluded from the analysis in this report. This group totals

more than a third of the overall nonmetro Hispanic population. We focus to

a large degree in this report on the situation of nonmetro Hispanics living in

new, high-growth destinations outside the West, where this “exclusion”

problem is not severe. However, throughout this report, comparisons are

made with residents of established nonmetro Hispanic counties, and the

exclusion causes severe truncation of this population group because large

swaths of rural territory in the Southwest are located in metro counties.

Because this report uses 1990 and 2000 decennial Census data, it would

have been technically possible to include the metro rural population in our

analysis. However, between 1990 and 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau altered

its urban and rural classification scheme, making it virtually impossible to

measure change during the decade, either in rural population or residential

separation (Cromartie, 2003). 

Although located throughout the country, rural metro Hispanics tend to be

concentrated in the Southwest. Just over half of rural metro Hispanics lived in

Texas or California in 2000 (appendix table 1). Over 80 percent lived in 198

counties in which they numbered 1,000 or more (appendix fig. 1). Ninetyeight of these counties are in the 5 Southwestern States, including all but 2 of

the 27 counties with 10,000 or more rural Hispanics. Metro counties in the

Southwest average over 1,800 square miles, compared with the national

average (outside Alaska) of just under 1,000 square miles. The 98 southwestern metro counties with large, rural Hispanic populations average over

2,000 square miles. Smaller concentrations of rural metro Hispanics outside

the Southwest are found in counties in the Pacific Northwest and in Florida,

Michigan, North Carolina, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. 

Despite greater land area, rural areas in southwestern metro counties tend to

be more sparsely populated than elsewhere, leaving a higher-than-average

urban population share (93 percent urban versus 87 percent in metro counties elsewhere). In addition, Hispanics in general are more likely than nonHispanics to live in urban settings. It is not surprising, then, that rural

Hispanics made up just 5 percent of the overall Hispanic population in the

Appendix: Rural Hispanics in Metro Counties
42

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 1—Characteristics of metropolitan counties and their

rural populations, 2000

Average Total Total rural Hispanic share 

area of rural metro of total 

Region/State metro counties metro Hispanic rural metro 

population population population

Square miles ----Number---- Percent

Southwest 1,831 4,051,032 797,213 20

Texas 846 1,947,115 354,906 18

California 2,658 1,427,888 305,357 21

Arizona 8,283 284,023 64,738 23

New Mexico 1,890 127,824 50,782 40

Colorado 1,468 264,182 21,430 8

Outside Southwest 629 22,147,505 440,032 2

Florida 935 1,105,445 81,428 7

North Carolina 457 1,494,474 42,169 3

Washington 1,550 583,172 39,037 7

Michigan 728 1,296,864 33,089 3

New York 647 1,441,154 26,803 2

All other States 76 16,226,396 217,506 1

All 50 States 791 26,198,537 1,237,245 5

Source: Compiled by ERS using Census 2000 data, SF1 files.

Rural Hispanics living in metro counties, 2000

Appendix figure 1

Source: Calculated by ERS using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Number of rural Hispanics

10,000 or more

Nonmetro

Less than 1,000

1,000 to 9,999
43

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

98 southwestern metro counties in 2000. However, Hispanics made up a

significant share of the overall rural metro population in this region, as high

as 40 percent in New Mexico (appendix table 1).

Many of these rural metro settings, especially in the Southwest and Florida,

are highly agricultural areas, and Hispanics provide crucial labor input to

large, industrialized agricultural operations found throughout these counties.

For instance, in California metro counties with 1,000 or more rural

Hispanics, the proportion of the total rural population employed in the agricultural sector (10 percent) is double that of rural residents of other metropolitan counties (5 percent) and five times the proportion for the total U.S.

population (2 percent). The percentage of rural metro Hispanics working in

agriculture in California is undoubtedly higher than 10 percent, but industry

data broken down by race and ethnicity are not available.

Rural metro Hispanics are likely to face many of the same challenges that

confront Hispanics living in new nonmetro destinations—relatively high

poverty and social isolation, for example—yet differ noticeably in their

levels of U.S. experience and occupational distribution. Given these differences, especially their importance to agricultural labor markets, rural metro

Hispanics merit separate, indepth demographic research.
44

New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America/RDRR-99

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 2—States1 with fastest growing nonmetro Hispanic populations, 1990-2000

Hispanic nonmetro population Total nonmetro population Hispanic share

State 1990 2000 Change 1990 2000 Change 1990 2000

----Number---- Percent ----Number---- ----Percent----

1 North Carolina 19,153 98,846 416 2,252,775 2,612,257 16 0.9 3.8

2 Alabama 5,582 26,155 369 1,330,857 1,453,233 9 0.4 1.8

3 Delaware 1,476 6,915 368 113,229 156,638 38 1.3 4.4

4 Tennessee 7,379 32,737 344 1,579,336 1,842,679 17 0.5 1.8

5 South Carolina 6,465 27,853 331 1,064,088 1,205,050 13 0.6 2.3

6 Georgia 29,543 124,296 321 2,126,654 2,519,789 18 1.4 4.9

7 Arkansas 9,933 36,504 268 1,310,724 1,434,529 9 0.8 2.5

8 Virginia 8,649 28,258 227 1,414,093 1,550,447 10 0.6 1.8

9 Minnesota 11,434 34,860 205 1,364,205 1,456,119 7 0.8 2.4

10 Indiana 13,253 36,921 179 1,581,713 1,690,582 7 0.8 2.2

11 Iowa 13,177 35,611 170 1,576,857 1,600,191 1 0.8 2.2

12 Kentucky 9,131 24,465 168 1,905,535 2,068,667 9 0.5 1.2

13 Mississippi 9,133 24,321 166 1,797,542 1,932,670 8 0.5 1.3

14 Nebraska 16,965 44,564 163 791,050 811,425 3 2.1 5.5

15 Pennsylvania 10,774 27,403 154 1,798,645 1,889,525 5 0.6 1.5

16 Missouri 11,281 27,807 146 1,626,202 1,800,410 11 0.7 1.5

17 Wisconsin 11,993 28,893 141 1,560,597 1,723,367 10 0.8 1.7

18 Washington 44,329 99,973 126 830,311 994,967 20 5.3 10.0

19 Florida 42,458 95,689 125 914,571 1,144,881 25 4.6 8.4

20 Utah 14,145 31,168 120 387,033 530,719 37 3.7 5.9

21 Maryland 3,496 6,958 99 342,581 385,446 13 1.0 1.8

22 Oregon 34,146 67,924 99 857,597 997,186 16 4.0 6.8

23 Kansas 43,484 86,016 98 1,144,646 1,167,355 2 3.8 7.4

24 Nevada 17,319 32,813 89 187,926 250,521 33 9.2 13.1

25 Connecticut 6,168 11,631 89 276,617 291,284 5 2.2 4.0

26 Oklahoma 29,166 54,881 88 1,275,743 1,352,292 6 2.3 4.1

27 South Dakota 2,804 5,206 86 475,425 493,867 4 0.6 1.1

28 Michigan 18,657 33,510 80 1,597,654 1,768,978 11 1.2 1.9

29 Idaho 35,533 63,768 79 710,898 861,608 21 5.0 7.4

30 Massachusetts 1,013 1,792 77 87,743 96,042 9 1.2 1.9

31 North Dakota 2,477 4,277 73 381,412 358,234 -6 0.6 1.2

32 Illinois 22,789 38,857 71 1,856,803 1,877,585 1 1.2 2.1

33 New Hampshire 2,405 3,854 60 423,101 465,353 10 0.6 0.8

34 Colorado 79,810 126,052 58 608,053 809,860 33 13.1 15.6

35 Vermont 2,326 3,644 57 385,699 409,938 6 0.6 0.9

36 California 180,393 275,669 53 961,303 1,121,254 17 18.8 24.6

37 Montana 7,618 11,344 49 607,955 692,486 14 1.3 1.6

38 New York 30,502 44,795 47 1,475,170 1,503,399 2 2.1 3.0

39 Rhode Island 1,712 2,409 41 87,194 85,433 -2 2.0 2.8

40 Arizona 97,209 133,073 37 559,476 719,952 29 17.4 18.5

41 Ohio 24,087 32,947 37 2,021,046 2,139,364 6 1.2 1.5

42 Texas 655,911 859,880 31 2,820,852 3,159,940 12 23.3 27.2

43 West Virginia 5,050 6,619 31 1,045,317 1,042,776 0 0.5 0.6

44 Maine 3,788 4,964 31 732,933 760,599 4 0.5 0.7

45 Alaska 8,545 11,053 29 323,705 366,649 13 2.6 3.0

46 New Mexico 233,414 292,788 25 673,385 783,991 16 34.7 37.3

47 Wyoming 16,189 19,515 21 319,220 345,642 8 5.1 5.6

48 Hawaii 24,506 28,970 18 271,998 335,381 23 9.0 8.6

49 Louisiana 15,648 17,505 12 1,060,433 1,098,766 4 1.5 1.6

Totals 1,902,418 3,175,953 67 50,897,902 56,159,326 10 4.0 5.6

1 District of Columbia and New Jersey do not appear because they have no nonmetro counties.

Source: Calculated by ERS using data from 1990 and 2000 Censuses, SF1 files.