U S C E N S U S B U R E A U

Census 2000 Special Reports

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration 

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 

CENSR-3

Issued August 2002

Helping You Make Informed Decisions •1902-2002

By 

John Iceland

and 

Daniel H. Weinberg

with

Erika Steinmetz

Racial and Ethnic 

Residential Segregation in the 

United States: 1980-2000
This report was prepared under the direction of Daniel H. Weinberg,

Chief, Housing and Household Economics Statistics Division (HHES) by

Dr. Weinberg and Dr. John Iceland, Chief, Poverty and 

Health Statistics Branch, HHES, and with major assistance from 

Erika Steinmetz, a staff member of HHES.

A number of people within the Census Bureau made significant

contributions to the preparation of this report. Marie Pees,

Population Division, processed the census data files used for this

report. Paula Coupe, Jorge del Pinal, Samantha Friedman, 

Gerald Gates, Larry Long, and Charles Nelson reviewed 

the contents. 

The authors wish to acknowledge the conceptual contributions of

Roderick Harrison, formerly chief of the Racial Statistics Branch,

Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, in setting the stage for 

the current report. They also wish to acknowledge the technical

assistance of Scott Susin, of HHES, and the mapping assistance 

of Timothy Trainor, Constance Beard, Linda Orsini, and 

Gerald Coleman of the Geography Division. Patrick Cantwell of

the Decennial Statistical Studies Division provided guidance on 

statistical testing issues.

Greg Carroll, Nelsa Brown, Jan Sweeney, Arlene Butler, and

Gloria Davis of the Administrative and Customer Services Division, 

Walter C. Odom, Chief, provided publications and printing

management, graphics design and composition, and editorial review

for print and electronic media. General direction and production

management were provided by Gary J. Lauffer, Chief, Publications

Services Branch. 

Acknowledgments
U.S. Department of Commerce

Donald L. Evans,

Secretary

Samuel W. Bodman,

Deputy Secretary

Economics and Statistics Administration

Kathleen B. Cooper, 

Under Secretary for Economic Affairs

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Charles Louis Kincannon,

Director

Racial and Ethnic

Residential Segregation in the

United States: 1980-2000

CENSR-3

Issued August 2002
Suggested Citation

Iceland, John, Daniel H. Weinberg,

and Erika Steinmetz,

U.S. Census Bureau, Series CENSR-3, 

Racial and Ethnic

Residential Segregation in the

United States: 1980-2000, 

U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC, 2002.

ECONOMICS

AND STATISTICS

ADMINISTRATION

Economics and Statistics

Administration

Kathleen B. Cooper,

Under Secretary for Economic Affairs

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Charles Louis Kincannon,

Director

William G. Barron, Jr.,

Deputy Director

John H. Thompson,

Principal Associate Director for Programs

Nancy M. Gordon,

Associate Director for Demographic Programs

Daniel H. Weinberg,

Chief, Housing and Household Economic

Statistics Division

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free 866-512-1800; DC area 202-512-1800

Fax: 202-512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 iii

Chapter 1: Introduction and Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Race and Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Segregation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Plan of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Chapter 2: Data and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Race and Ethnicity Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Areas and Units of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Residential Segregation Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Statistical Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Interpreting the Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Text Tables

Table 2-1. Dimensions of Segregation and 

Indexes Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 2-2. Estimated Net Percent Undercount From 

Demographic Analysis: 1990-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figures

Distribution of Households Within One Hypothetical 

Metropolitan Area With High Segregation and One With 

Low Segregation

Figure 2-1a. Dissimilarity Index (Evenness) . . . . . . 9

Figure 2-1b. Isolation Index (Exposure) . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 2-1c. Delta Index (Concentration) . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 2-1d. Absolute Centralization Index

(Centralization) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Figure 2-1e. Spatial Proximity Index (Clustering) . . . 13

Chapter 3: The Residential Segregation of American Indians 

and Alaska Natives: 1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Text Tables

Table 3-1. Descriptive Statistics for Residential 

Segregation Indexes for American Indians and 

Alaska Natives: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 3-2. Residential Segregation Indexes for American 

Indians and Alaska Natives by Characteristics of 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . 24

Table 3-3. Distribution of Percent Change in 

Residential Segregation Indexes for American 

Indians and Alaska Natives: 1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Table of Contents
iv Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 3-4. Residential Segregation for American Indians and Alaska 

Natives in Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 3-5. Percent Change in Residential Segregation Indexes for American 

Indians and Alaska Natives in Metropolitan Areas: 1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . 29

Figures

Figure 3-1a. Distribution of Dissimilarity Index for American Indians 

and Alaska Natives: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 3-1b. Distribution of Isolation Index for American Indians and 

Alaska Natives: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 3-1c. Distribution of Delta Index for American Indians and 

Alaska Natives: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 3-1d. Distribution of Absolute Centralization Index for 

American Indians and Alaska Natives: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 3-1e. Distribution of Spatial Proximity Index for American 

Indians and Alaska Natives: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 3-2a. Dissimilarity Index for American Indians and Alaska 

Natives for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 3-2b. Isolation Index for American Indians and Alaska Natives 

for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 3-2c. Delta Index for American Indians and Alaska Natives for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 3-2d. Absolute Centralization Index for American Indians 

and Alaska Natives for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980 . . . . . . 26

Figure 3-2e. Spatial Proximity Index for American Indians and 

Alaska Natives for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . 27

Maps

Figure 3-3. The Most Segregated Metropolitan Area for American 

Indians and Alaska Natives in 2000: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 3-4. The Least Segregated Metropolitan Area for American 

Indians and Alaska Natives in 2000: Oklahoma City, OK MSA . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Chapter 4: Residential Segregation of Asians, Native Hawaiians, and 

Other Pacific Islanders: 1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Text Tables

Table 4-1. Descriptive Statistics for Residential Segregation Indexes 

for Asians and Pacific Islanders: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Table 4-2. Residential Segregation Indexes for Asians and Pacific Islanders 

by Characteristics of Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . 43
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 v

Table 4-3. Distribution of Percent Change in Residential Segregation 

Indexes for Asians and Pacific Islanders: 1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 4-4. Residential Segregation for Asians and Pacific Islanders in 

Large Metropolitan Areas: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Table 4-5. Percent Change in Residential Segregation Indexes for Asians 

and Pacific Islanders in Large Metropolitan Areas: 1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Text Tables for Asians and Pacific Islanders (API), Asians, and 

Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders (NHOPI)

Table 4-6. Descriptive Statistics for Residential Segregation Indexes for 

Asians and Pacific Islanders, Asians, and Native Hawaiians and Other 

Pacific Islanders: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Figures

Figure 4-1a. Distribution of Dissimilarity Index for Asians and 

Pacific Islanders: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 4-1b. Distribution of Isolation Index for Asians and 

Pacific Islanders: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 4-1c. Distribution of Delta Index for Asians and 

Pacific Islanders: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 4-1d. Distribution of Absolute Centralization Index for 

Asians and Pacific Islanders: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 4-1e. Distribution of Spatial Proximity Index for Asians and 

Pacific Islanders: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 4-2a. Dissimilarity Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 4-2b. Isolation Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 4-2c. Delta Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Figure 4-2d. Absolute Centralization Index for Asians and Pacific 

Islanders for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Figure 4-2e. Spatial Proximity Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Maps

Figure 4-3. The Most Segregated Large Metropolitan Area for Asians 

and Pacific Islanders in 2000: San Francisco, CA PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure 4-3a. The Most Segregated Large Metropolitan Area for Asians 

and Pacific Islanders in 2000: San Francisco, CA PMSA (inset) . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Figure 4-4. The Least Segregated Large Metropolitan Area for Asians 

and Pacific Islanders in 2000: Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
vi Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figures for Asians and Pacific Islanders (API), Asians, and 

Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders (NHOPI)

Figure 4-5a. Distribution of Dissimilarity Index for API, 

Asian, and NHOPI: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure 4-5b. Distribution of Isolation Index for API, 

Asian, and NHOPI: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Figure 4-5c. Distribution of Delta Index for API, 

Asian, and NHOPI: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Figure 4-5d. Distribution of Absolute Centralization Index for API, 

Asian, and NHOPI: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Figure 4-5e. Distribution of Spatial Proximity Index for API, 

Asian, and NHOPI: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Figure 4-6a. 2000 Dissimilarity Index for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander by Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Figure 4-6b. 2000 Isolation Index for Selected Metropolitan Areas: Native 

Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander by Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Figure 4-6c. 2000 Delta Index for Selected Metropolitan Areas: Native 

Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander by Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 4-6d. 2000 Absolute Centralization Index for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander by Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 4-6e. Spatial Proximity Index for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander by Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Chapter 5: Residential Segregation of Blacks or African Americans: 1980-2000 . . . 59

Text Tables

Table 5-1. Descriptive Statistics for Residential Segregation Indexes for 

Blacks or African Americans: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Table 5-2. Residential Segregation Indexes for Blacks or African Americans 

by Characteristics of Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . 64

Table 5-3. Distribution of Percent Change in Residential Segregation 

Indexes for Blacks or African Americans: 1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Table 5-4. Residential Segregation for Blacks or African Americans in 

Large Metropolitan Areas: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Table 5-5. Percent Change in Residential Segregation Indexes for Blacks 

or African Americans in Large Metropolitan Areas: 1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . 73

Figures

Figure 5-1a. Distribution of Dissimilarity Index for Blacks: 

1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Figure 5-1b. Distribution of Isolation Index for Blacks: 

1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 vii

Figure 5-1c. Distribution of Delta Index for Blacks: 

1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Figure 5-1d. Distribution of Absolute Centralization Index for Blacks: 

1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Figure 5-1e. Distribution of Spatial Proximity Index for Blacks: 

1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Figure 5-2a. Dissimilarity Index for Blacks for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Figure 5-2b. Isolation Index for Blacks for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Figure 5-2c. Delta Index for Blacks for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Figure 5-2d. Absolute Centralization Index for Blacks for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Figure 5-2e. Spatial Proximity Index for Blacks for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Maps

Figure 5-3. The Most Segregated Large Metropolitan Area for Blacks or 

African Americans in 2000: Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Figure 5-4. The Least Segregated Large Metropolitan Area for Blacks or 

African Americans in 2000: Orange County, CA PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Chapter 6: Residential Segregation of Hispanics or Latinos: 1980-2000 . . . . . . . 77

Text Tables

Table 6-1. Descriptive Statistics for Residential Segregation Indexes 

for Hispanics or Latinos: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Table 6-2. Residential Segregation Indexes for Hispanics or Latinos by

Characteristics of Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . 84

Table 6-3. Distribution of Percent Change in Residential Segregation 

Indexes for Hispanics or Latinos: 1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Table 6-4. Residential Segregation for Hispanics or Latinos in Large 

Metropolitan Areas: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Table 6-5. Percent Change in Residential Segregation Indexes for 

Hispanics or Latinos in Large Metropolitan Areas: 1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Figures

Figure 6-1a. Distribution of Dissimilarity Index for Hispanics: 

1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Figure 6-1b. Distribution of Isolation Index for Hispanics: 

1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Figure 6-1c. Distribution of Delta Index for Hispanics: 

1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
viii Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 6-1d. Distribution of Absolute Centralization Index for Hispanics: 

1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Figure 6-1e. Distribution of Spatial Proximity Index for Hispanics: 

1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Figure 6-2a. Dissimilarity Index for Hispanics for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Figure 6-2b. Isolation Index for Hispanics for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Figure 6-2c. Delta Index for Hispanics for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Figure 6-2d. Absolute Centralization Index for Hispanics for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Figure 6-2e. Spatial Proximity Index for Hispanics for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Maps

Figure 6-3. The Most Segregated Large Metropolitan Area for Hispanics or 

Latinos in 2000: New York, NY PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Figure 6-3a. The Most Segregated Large Metropolitan Area for Hispanics 

or Latinos in 2000: New York, NY PMSA (inset) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Figure 6-4. The Least Segregated Large Metropolitan Area for Hispanics 

or Latinos in 2000: Baltimore, MD PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Chapter 7: Cross-Group Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Text Tables

Table 7-1. Descriptive Statistics for Residential Segregation Indexes 

for American Indians and Alaska Natives, Asians and Pacific 

Islanders, Blacks, and Hispanics: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Table 7-2. Percent Changes for Residential Segregation Indexes for 

American Indians and Alaska Natives, Asians and Pacific Islanders, 

Blacks, and Hispanics: 1980-1990, 1990-2000, and 1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . 97

Table 7-3. Residential Segregation Indexes for Los Angeles-Long 

Beach PMSA: 1980, 1990, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Table 7-4. Percent Change in Residential Segregation Indexes 

for Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA: 1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Figures

Figure 7-1a. Distribution of Dissimilarity Index for AIAN, API, Black, 

and Hispanic: 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Figure 7-1b. Distribution of Isolation Index for AIAN, API, Black, and 

Hispanic: 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Figure 7-1c. Distribution of Delta Index for AIAN, API, Black, 

and Hispanic: 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 ix

Figure 7-1d. Distribution of Absolute Centralization Index for AIAN, 

API, Black, and Hispanic: 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Figure 7-1e. Distribution of Spatial Proximity Index for AIAN, API, 

Black, and Hispanic: 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Figure 7-2a. Distribution of Dissimilarity Index for AIAN, API, 

Black, and Hispanic: 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Figure 7-2b. Distribution of Isolation Index for AIAN, API, Black, 

and Hispanic: 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Figure 7-2c. Distribution of Delta Index for AIAN, API, Black, and 

Hispanic: 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Figure 7-2d. Distribution of Absolute Centralization Index for AIAN, 

API, Black, and Hispanic: 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Figure 7-2e. Distribution of Spatial Proximity Index for AIAN, API, 

Black, and Hispanic: 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Figure 7-3a. Distribution of Dissimilarity Index for AIAN, API, 

Black, and Hispanic: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Figure 7-3b. Distribution of Isolation Index for AIAN, API, Black, 

and Hispanic: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Figure 7-3c. Distribution of Delta Index for AIAN, API, Black, and 

Hispanic: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Figure 7-3d. Distribution of Absolute Centralization Index for AIAN, 

API, Black, and Hispanic: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Figure 7-3e. Distribution of Spatial Proximity Index for AIAN, API, 

Black, and Hispanic: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Figure 7-4a. Dissimilarity Index for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 

2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Figure 7-4b. Isolation Index for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 

2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Figure 7-4c. Delta Index for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 

2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Figure 7-4d. Absolute Centralization Index for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Figure 7-4e. Spatial Proximity Index for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 2000 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Maps

Figure 7-5a. The Residential Segregation of American Indians and 

Alaska Natives and non-Hispanic Whites in 2000: Los Angeles-Long 

Beach, CA PMSA (part) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
x Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 7-5b. The Residential Segregation of Asians and Pacific Islanders and 

non-Hispanic Whites in 2000: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSA (part) . . . . 112

Figure 7-5c. The Residential Segregation of Blacks or African-Americans and 

non-Hispanic Whites in 2000: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSA (part) . . . 113

Figure 7-5d. The Residential Segregation of Hispanics or Latinos and 

non-Hispanic Whites in 2000: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSA (part) . . . . 114

Appendixes

A Measuring Segregation Using Alternative Methods of 

Identifying Racial/Ethnic Group Members: “Alone” vs. “Alone 

or in Combination” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Text Table

Table A-1. Comparison of Segregation Indexes for Racial Groups Defined 

Alone vs. Alone or in Combination: 1980 and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

B Measures of Residential Segregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

C Comparison with Other Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Text Table

Table C-1. Comparison of Dissimilarity Scores in This Report With Those 

From Other Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Table C-2. Comparison of Isolation Scores in This Report With Those From 

Other Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Table C-3. Medians and Unweighted Means for Segregation Indexes, 

by Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

D Detailed Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Figures

Figure D-1a. Dissimilarity Index for American Indians and Alaska Natives 

for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Figure D-1b. Dissimilarity Index for American Indians and Alaska Natives 

for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Figure D-1c. Isolation Index for American Indians and Alaska Natives for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Figure D-1d. Isolation Index for American Indians and Alaska Natives for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Figure D-1e. Delta Index for American Indians and Alaska Natives for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Figure D-1f. Delta Index for American Indians and Alaska Natives for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Figure D-1g. Absolute Centralization Index for American Indians and 

Alaska Natives for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . 132
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 xi

Figure D-1h. Absolute Centralization Index for American Indians and Alaska 

Natives for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Figure D-1i. Spatial Proximity Index for American Indians and Alaska 

Natives for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Figure D-1j. Spatial Proximity Index for American Indians and Alaska 

Natives for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Figure D-2a. Dissimilarity Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Figure D-2b. Dissimilarity Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Figure D-2c. Isolation Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Figure D-2d. Isolation Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Figure D-2e. Delta Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Figure D-2f. Delta Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Figure D-2g. Absolute Centralization Index for Asians and Pacific 

Islanders for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Figure D-2h. Absolute Centralization Index for Asians and Pacific 

Islanders for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Figure D-2i. Spatial Proximity Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders 

for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Figure D-2j. Spatial Proximity Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders 

for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Figure D-3a. Dissimilarity Index for Blacks for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 1990 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Figure D-3b. Dissimilarity Index for Blacks for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 2000 by 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Figure D-3c. Isolation Index for Blacks for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 

1990 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Figure D-3d. Isolation Index for Blacks for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 

2000 by 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Figure D-3e. Delta Index for Blacks for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 

1990 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Figure D-3f. Delta Index for Blacks for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 

2000 by 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Figure D-3g. Absolute Centralization Index for Blacks for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
xii Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure D-3h. Absolute Centralization Index for Blacks for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Figure D-3i. Spatial Proximity Index for Blacks for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 1990 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Figure D-3j. Spatial Proximity Index for Blacks for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 2000 by 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Figure D-4a. Dissimilarity Index for Hispanics for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 1990 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Figure D-4b. Dissimilarity Index for Hispanics for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 2000 by 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Figure D-4c. Isolation Index for Hispanics for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 1990 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Figure D-4d. Isolation Index for Hispanics for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 2000 by 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Figure D-4e. Delta Index for Hispanics for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 1990 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Figure D-4f. Delta Index for Hispanics for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 2000 by 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Figure D-4g. Absolute Centralization Index for Hispanics for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Figure D-4h. Absolute Centralization Index for Hispanics for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Figure D-4i. Spatial Proximity Index for Hispanics for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Figure D-4j. Spatial Proximity Index for Hispanics for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND HIGHLIGHTS
A. INTRODUCTION

Data recently released from

Census 2000 provide an opportunity to examine the extent of

changes in racial and ethnic residential segregation in the last 2

decades of the 20th century.

Segregation can result from,

among other factors, voluntary

choices people make about where

they want to live or from the involuntary restriction of choices, such

as through discrimination in the

housing market, or from a lack of

information about residential

opportunities. This study does not

attempt to identify the causes of

racial and ethnic residential segregation (or simply “segregation”),

nor do we argue that segregation

is a more serious problem in one

area than another. This report simply describes the extent of, and

changes in, segregation over the

1980 to 2000 period. Because segregation is much more of an issue

in urban environments, we focused

on segregation patterns in metropolitan areas across the United

States.

B. RACE AND ETHNICITY

Residential segregation measures

are influenced by how race and

ethnicity are defined. In 1977, the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) issued Statistical Policy

Directive 15, which provided the

framework for data collection on

race and ethnicity to federal agencies, including the Census Bureau,

for the 1980 decennial census.

That directive identified four racial

groups: 

• White; 

• Negro or Black; 

• American Indian, Eskimo, or

Aleut; and 

• Asian or Pacific Islander 

— and one ethnicity — 

• Spanish/Hispanic origin or

descent. 

The questions on the 1980 and

1990 censuses asked individuals

to self-identify with one of these

four racial groups and indicate

whether they were Hispanic.1

In the 1990s, after much research

and public comment, OMB revised

the racial classification to include

five groups: 

• White, 

• Black or African American, 

• American Indian or Alaska

Native, 

• Asian, and 

• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific

Islander (also referred to as

Pacific Islanders). 

An additional major change was to

permit the individuals to report

more than one race. Census 2000

figures indicate that 6.8 million

people, or 2.4 percent of the population, reported more than one

race.2

C. SEGREGATION MEASURES

This report examines five dimensions of segregation proposed by

Massey and Denton (1988). Within

each of these dimensions, several

segregation measures are possible.

In this report we focus on only one

segregation measure from each

dimension as follows:

evenness dimension: 

dissimilarity index

exposure dimension: 

isolation index

concentration dimension: 

delta index

centralization dimension:

absolute centralization index

clustering dimension: 

spatial proximity index

These dimensions and indexes are

discussed in more detail in

Chapter 2 and in Appendix B. 

D. HIGHLIGHTS

• The trend for Blacks or African

Americans is clearest of all —

declines in segregation were

observed over the 1980 to 2000

U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 3

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND HIGHLIGHTS

1

The population censuses have a special

dispensation from OMB to allow individuals

to designate “Some Other Race” rather than

one of those specifically listed. The vast

majority of individuals choosing that option

are Hispanic (Grieco and Cassidy 2001). The

decennial census questions also ask about

specific Asian and Pacific Islander races

(e.g., Chinese).

2

Many of those who report more than

one race list “other” as one of the races.

About 1.2 percent of the population selected

two races which did not include the “other”

race. Another 0.2 percent of the population

selected three or more races (indicating that

they selected at least two races which were

not “other”).
period across all dimensions of

segregation we considered.

• Despite these declines, residential segregation was still higher

for African Americans than for

the other groups across all

measures. Hispanics or Latinos

were generally the next most

highly segregated, followed by

Asians and Pacific Islanders, and

then American Indians and

Alaska Natives, across a majority of the measures. 

• Asians and Pacific Islanders, as

well as Hispanics, tended to

experience increases in segregation, though not across all

dimensions. Increases were generally larger for Asians and

Pacific Islanders than for

Hispanics. 

• Increases in segregation were

apparent for Asians and Pacific

Islanders and Hispanics when

using the dissimilarity index

(evenness), the isolation index

(exposure), and the spatial proximity index (clustering). Both

groups, however, experienced

declines in the absolute centralization index (centralization),

and Hispanics also had declines

in the delta index (concentration) while Asian and Pacific

Islanders showed little change

in that measure.

• The story of American Indian

and Alaska Native residential

segregation was mixed, with

declines across some

dimensions of segregation and

increases in others.

• In terms of trends across the five

dimensions of segregation,

declines in segregation were

most evident in centralization,

where all groups experienced

declines over the 1980 to 2000

period when all metropolitan

areas are considered. Three of

the four groups experienced

declines in concentration. Trends

for the evenness and clustering

dimensions were split, with two

racial/ethnic groups experiencing increases and two experiencing declines. Finally, exposure

(isolation) was the one dimension where increasing segregation was the norm, with only

African Americans experiencing

declines. 

E. PLAN OF THE REPORT

Chapter 2 discusses the data and

methods employed in this report.

It covers race and ethnicity measurement, geographic areas and

units of analysis, residential segregation measurement, the data

used, statistical testing, and guidance on how to interpret the findings. Chapters 3 through 6 focus

on the 1980 to 2000 residential

segregation patterns of four major

racial and ethnic groups:

• Chapter 3: American Indians

and Alaska Natives 

• Chapter 4: Asian and Pacific

Islanders, with a special section

on its subgroups in 2000 —

Asians, and Native Hawaiians

and Other Pacific Islanders 

• Chapter 5: Blacks or African

Americans

• Chapter 6: Hispanics or Latinos

In each case, non-Hispanic Whites

serve as the reference (majority)

group, even though in some metropolitan areas they are actually in

the minority.

Each chapter presents information

in the same way using the same

table structure. First, descriptive

statistics about the five indexes are

presented and discussed. Second,

changes over time are discussed

using the characteristics of the metropolitan areas to understand differences. Third, the magnitudes of

changes are examined and any differing patterns are discussed.

Fourth, statistics are presented for

all large metropolitan areas (1 million people or more) that have at

least 20,000 people or three percent of their population in the

minority group. Then, the metropolitan areas with the biggest increases and decreases in segregation are

discussed. Each chapter includes

graphical representations of residential segregation in the form of

scatter plots, histograms, and

maps. The chapters close with a

summary of findings. Finally,

Chapter 7 presents some crossgroup comparisons and analyses.

4 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau
CHAPTER 2

DATA AND METHODS
This report is based on data from

the 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial censuses. The main methodological issues involved in analyzing

racial and ethnic residential segregation revolve around the definition

of racial and ethnic categories, geographic boundaries, and segregation measures. We begin with a discussion of these issues, and then

follow with a more detailed description of the data and notes on statistical testing and the interpretation

of findings.

A. RACE AND ETHNICITY

MEASUREMENT

One issue that arises when measuring residential segregation is choosing a reference group against which

the segregation of other groups can

be measured. We chose nonHispanic Whites as the reference

group (Massey and Denton 1988).

For 2000 data, when individuals

could report more than one race,

we chose those who designated

White alone as their racial classification, and not Hispanic. 

For other groups, we have used

definitions that closely approximated 1990 census categories:

African American, Asian, American

Indian, and Hispanic. So for 2000,

the Asian and Native Hawaiian or

other Pacific Islander groups have

been combined. We computed segregation indexes using anyone

designating himself or herself as a

member of a particular racial

group, e.g., Black or African

American alone or in combination

with another group (or groups).

The alternative was to use only

individuals identifying with that

group alone. Appendix A shows

residential segregation indexes for

2000 calculated both ways.

We decided to use the “alone or in

combination” method for two reasons. First, as described in

Appendix A, using a different

method had little impact on estimates of African American segregation and only a modest effect on

those of Asians and Pacific

Islanders and American Indians and

Alaska Natives. Second, and perhaps more importantly, was that for

some racial groups (particularly

Native Hawaiians and other Pacific

Islanders, but also American Indians

and Alaska Natives) so many people

chose more than one race that we

were concerned that the analysis

using only those who identify with

one group alone would have

excluded too many metro areas to

provide reliable results.1 

B. AREAS AND UNITS 

OF ANALYSIS

Residential segregation usually

describes the distribution of different groups across units within a

larger area. Thus, to measure residential segregation, we must

define both the appropriate area

and its component parts (its units

of analysis). While residential segregation can occur at any geographic level, we have chosen to

focus on metropolitan areas as reasonable approximations of housing

markets. The census-defined

“place,” which represents a town

or city, is often too small. For

example, some individuals in

Washington, DC, need only move

across the street to be in another

jurisdiction, such as Prince

George’s County, Maryland.

However, Consolidated

Metropolitan Statistical Areas

(CMSAs) seem too large; the New

York CMSA stretches from

Pennsylvania to Connecticut. We

present estimates for all independent and primary metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), referred to

hereafter as metropolitan areas.2

The second geographic consideration — choosing an appropriate

component part or unit of 

analysis — also presents alternatives. Independent estimates for

racial characteristics are available

for occupied households, census

tabulation blocks, block groups,

tracts, places, and counties. Both

places and counties seem too large;

movement from Park Avenue to

Harlem in Manhattan, within the

same place (New York City), or from

Scarsdale to Yonkers, within the

same county (Westchester County,

New York) should have some measurable effect on segregation indexes. 

U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 7

CHAPTER 2

DATA AND METHODS

1 For historical analysis, Native Hawaiians

and Other Pacific Islanders are combined

with Asians in 2000 to calculate indexes

comparable to the Asian and Pacific Islander

population in 1980 and 1990. The residential segregation of Native Hawaiians and

other Pacific Islanders in 2000 is analyzed in

Chapter 4.

2 OMB is introducing a substantially new

concept for metropolitan areas to be defined

on the basis of results of Census 2000 by

June 30, 2003.
Occupied households are at the

other end of the spectrum.

Movement from one household to

another usually occurs because of

some life cycle event, and not to

mitigate residential segregation.

That leaves blocks, block groups,

and tracts. Blocks are created to

ease data collection and can often

have no residents, especially in

commercial or industrial areas.

Block groups are created by the

Census Bureau as an intermediate

geographic level to permit release

of tabulated data that cannot be

presented at the block level for

confidentiality purposes.

Arguments can be made that residential segregation indexes ought

to be built up from the smallest

geographic unit available — the

block. Yet we believe it makes less

sense to include the residents you

may never see (on the opposite

edge of a census block as blocks

tend not to cross streets) and

exclude the residents living across

the street (in a different block).

Going to larger aggregations of

blocks, this problem is mitigated,

although it never disappears as all

geographies have boundaries.3

Census tracts, which typically have

between 2,500 and 8,000 people,

are defined with local input, are

intended to represent neighborhoods, and typically do not change

much from census to census,

except to subdivide. In addition,

census tracts were often the unit

of analysis chosen by other

researchers. Consequently, we

have chosen census tracts as our

unit of analysis.4 We will examine

the effects of choosing census

block groups instead of tracts in

future research.

C. RESIDENTIAL

SEGREGATION

MEASUREMENT

Residential segregation has been

studied extensively with a variety

of measures for many years

(Duncan and Duncan, 1955;

Taeuber and Taeuber, 1965; and

Lieberson, 1980, 1981). Massey

and Denton (1988) compiled, augmented, and compared these

measures and used cluster analysis

with 1980 census data from 60

metropolitan areas to identify five

dimensions of residential segregation: evenness, exposure, concentration, centralization, and clustering. These five dimensions were

further broken down into 20 measures of segregation, 19 of which

we have calculated.5

• Evenness involves the differential distribution of the subject

population.

• Exposure measures potential

contact.

• Concentration refers to the relative amount of physical space

occupied.

• Centralization indicates the

degree to which a group is

located near the center of an

urban area. 

• Clustering measures the degree

to which minority group members live disproportionately in

contiguous areas. 

Appendix B discusses all 19 measures proposed by Massey and

Denton in detail. It also presents

comparative analysis of the indexes within each dimension. Based

on our assessment of the indexes,

Massey and Denton’s recommendations, and earlier research, we

selected the indexes listed in Table

2-1 above to represent the five

Massey-Denton dimensions.

The most widely used measure of

evenness and the most-widely

used measure of residential segregation, in general, is dissimilarity.

Conceptually, dissimilarity, which

ranges from 0 (complete integration) to 1 (complete segregation),

measures the percentage of a

group’s population that would have

to change residence for each

neighborhood to have the same

percent of that group as the metropolitan area overall. 

8 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 2-1. 

Dimensions of Segregation and Indexes Used

Dimension of Segregation Index Representing the Dimension 

Evenness Dissimilarity Index

Exposure Isolation Index 

Concentration Delta Index 

Centralization Absolute Centralization Index 

Clustering Spatial Proximity Index

3 One interesting future possibility is to

tabulate data pooled across block faces,

though this would take a great deal of work

and must await better geographic information systems at the Census Bureau. 4 We note that tract subdivision can

increase measured residential segregation if

it creates more homogeneous tracts.

5 We omit an index which measures the

proportion of the minority group residing in

the central city of the metropolitan area.

Massey and Denton (1988) note that this

index, while quite simple to calculate, is a

rather poor measure of segregation. We

agree.
The exposure measure, the isolation index, describes “the extent to

which minority members are

exposed only to one another,”

(Massey and Denton, 1988, p. 288)

and is computed as the minorityweighted average of the minority

proportion in each area. It also

varies from 0 to 1. 

We chose delta as the measure of

concentration. This index, which

also varies from 0 to 1, measures

the proportion of a group’s population that would have to move

across neighborhoods to achieve a

uniform density across a metropolitan area. Massey and Denton’s

preferred concentration measure,

relative concentration, does not

conform well to theoretical constraints, having several calculated

values below -1. 

Absolute centralization examines

only the distribution of the minority group around the metropolitan

area center and varies between -1

and 1. Positive values indicate a

tendency for group members to

reside close to the center, while

negative values indicate a tendency to live in outlying areas as compared with the reference group. A

score of 0 means that a group has

a uniform distribution throughout

the metropolitan area. 

Finally, the clustering measure

used here, spatial proximity, basically measures the extent to which

neighborhoods inhabited by

minority members adjoin one

another, or cluster, in space.

Spatial proximity equals 1 if there

is no differential clustering

between minority and majority

group members. It is greater than

1 when members of each group

live nearer to one another than to

members of the other group, and

it is less than 1 in the rare case

U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 9

Majority resident

Minority resident

Figure 2-1a.

Distribution of Households Within One 

Hypothetical Metropolitan Area With High 

Segregation and One With Low Segregation:

Dissimilarity Index (Evenness)

Low segregation

Note: Neighborhoods within the metropolitan areas are delineated by 

the white lines.

High segregation
that minority people lived nearer,

on average to nonminority people

than to members of their own

group.

Figure 2-1(a-e) provides illustrations of what high and low segregation look like for all five measures; it shows how the measures

capture different dimensions of

segregation. Red boxes represent

minority residents, while green

ones represent majority residents.

Each group of boxes represents a

neighborhood, and each illustration represents a metropolitan

area. Using the dissimilarity index

(Figure 2-1a), a metropolitan area

with high segregation has very

homogeneous neighborhoods,

though the location of those neighborhoods within the metropolitan

area does not matter. Low segregation is characterized by an even

distribution of minority group

members across neighborhoods. In

contrast, the isolation index, a

measure of exposure, segregation

(Figure 2-1b) is sensitive to the

overall number of minority group

members. Thus, the figure illustrating high segregation shows a

metropolitan area with relatively

few majority group members, and

not evenly spread across tracts.

Low segregation shows high levels

of exposure to majority group

members.

10 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Majority resident

Minority resident

Figure 2-1b.

Distribution of Households Within One 

Hypothetical Metropolitan Area With High 

Segregation and One With Low Segregation:

Isolation Index (Exposure)

Low segregation

Note: Neighborhoods within the metropolitan areas are delineated by 

the white lines.

High segregation
Metropolitan areas with high levels

of concentration (Figure 2-1c), as

measured by the delta index, are

ones where minority members are

densely packed in certain neighborhoods, while the low concentration illustration shows minority

group members less densely

packed in physical space than

majority group members. 

U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 11

Majority resident

Minority resident

Figure 2-1c.

Distribution of Households Within One 

Hypothetical Metropolitan Area With High 

Segregation and One With Low Segregation:

Delta Index (Concentration)

Low segregation

Note: Neighborhoods within the metropolitan areas are delineated by 

the white lines.

High segregation
Figure 2-1d illustrates high centralization (the absolute centralization

index), which measures the degree

minority members are disproportionately in neighborhoods at the

center of the metropolitan area,

while low centralization indicates

that minority group members are

more toward the periphery of the

metropolitan area. 

Finally, clustering (Figure 2-1e), as

measured by the spatial proximity

index, is sensitive to the proximity

of tracts to one another, regardless

of how close to the metropolitan

area center they are (centralization) or their density (concentration). So the illustration of high

clustering shows that tracts with

many minority group members are

adjacent to each other, while the

illustration of low clustering shows

them further apart. 

Because our choice in this report,

to focus on five specific indexes,

has subjective elements, the

Internet materials accompanying

this report have information on all

19 indexes, not just the five chosen. We note that the dissimilarity

index is the one most often chosen by researchers calculating only

one index.

12 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Majority resident

Minority resident

Figure 2-1d.

Distribution of Households Within One 

Hypothetical Metropolitan Area With High 

Segregation and One With Low Segregation:

Absolute Centralization Index (Centralization)

Low segregation

Note: Neighborhoods within the metropolitan areas are delineated by 

the white lines.

High segregation
D. DATA

The data for this analysis were

drawn from Census Bureau files

(Census 1980, 1990, and 2000

Summary File 1) giving population

counts for all racial groups and for

Hispanics by census tract in all metropolitan areas. Data are presented

for independent MSAs and Primary

MSAs, not Consolidated MSAs.

Town and city-based MSAs are used

in New England. For 1980, 1990,

and 2000 comparisons, the boundaries of metropolitan areas as

defined on June 30, 1999 are used

to ensure comparability.6

While this analysis uses constant

metropolitan area boundaries, it

does not use constant tract boundaries. The latter would require a

considerable amount of mapping

beyond the scope of this project.

Tracts are sometimes added, split,

or combined between censuses.

Newly constructed tracts may tend

to have greater racial or ethnic

homogeneity than others, given

that tracts are designed to represent relatively homogenous neighborhoods, and race may be one

factor in their construction. The

magnitude and effect of tract redefinition on computed segregation

scores is not well understood.

Some estimates are presented at

the aggregate summary level of

“all U.S. metropolitan areas.” Most

estimates are for MSAs with a

minority population of at least

20,000, or 3 percent of the 1980

total population.7 We have imposed

these restrictions because segregation indexes for metropolitan areas

with small minority populations

are less reliable than those with

U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 13

Majority resident

Minority resident

Figure 2-1e.

Distribution of Households Within One 

Hypothetical Metropolitan Area With High 

Segregation and One With Low Segregation:

Spatial Proximity Index (Clustering)

Low segregation

Note: Neighborhoods within the metropolitan areas are delineated by 

the white lines.

High segregation

6 Counts may differ from official counts

as tracts representing Crews of Vessels have

been eliminated. 7 MSAs must also have at least 10 census

tracts.
larger ones. Random factors and

geocoding errors are more likely to

play a role in determining the settlement pattern of group members

when fewer members are present,

causing these indexes to contain

greater variability. We note that

Farley and Frey (1996) used these

same cutoffs in their analysis.

When averages across MSAs are

presented, they are weighted by

the minority group population in

the MSA. 

As a visual supplement to the segregation indexes, we created maps

displaying the spatial distribution

of racial and ethnic population

groups in the most and least segregated large metropolitan areas

for each group, as well as Los

Angeles, which has an exceptionally diverse population. These maps

are intended to convey a general

impression of the racial and ethnic

population distribution of these

metropolitan areas, rather than

showing exact numbers or locations. The map elements are

scaled to a size that works well in

the “typical” census tract.

Consequently, in the largest and

smallest census tracts, these maps

do not always accurately display

the true location and size of the

underlying population.

When interpreting the maps, it is

important to keep in mind that the

underlying data consist of population counts in each census tract.

The maps display dots of uniform

size, each of which represents 200

or 400 people of a particular racial

or ethnic group. Dots are placed

arbitrarily within census tracts.

This scheme works best in

medium-sized census tracts. In

large, sparsely populated census

tracts, dots are not necessarily

placed on the true population centers, and may be placed in nonresidential areas, such as uninhabited

mountains, airports, or industrial

facilities. Other census tracts are

too small and densely populated to

fit enough dots, causing dots to

overlay one another. When there is

not enough space in a census tract

to display dots representing both

non-Hispanic Whites and the

minority group, the minority group

dots overlay and cover up dots

representing non-Hispanic Whites.

E. STATISTICAL TESTING

Because the base data are from the

decennial census, they have no

sampling error and conventional

tests of significance do not apply.

Any criteria adopted to discern substantive, rather than statistical, differences in segregation scores is

inevitably somewhat arbitrary. We

designate substantively noteworthy

index differences as those that are

more than 1 percent of the range of

the index estimates for metropolitan areas meeting the minimum

size criteria. For example, in 2000,

the dissimilarity index for American

Indians and Alaska Natives ranged

from 0.213 to 0.607, a range of

0.394. Thus, differences of 0.004 

(1 percent of 0.394) are considered

substantively notable for this index

for comparisons across MAs within

this time period. For changes

across time, the average of the 3

years’ index range is used.8

Changes are shown in terms of

percentage change in various

tables. We present data in this way

in order to make comparable statements across indexes whose

ranges differ. It should be noted,

however, that the small base of

some index scores (i.e., those

close to zero), may result in large

percentage increases or decreases,

even while the point change is

small. Readers can refer to mean

scores in the different years shown

in various tables (or actual scores

of different metropolitan areas as

shown on the Internet) to compute

change in different ways.

In some tables, we rank metropolitan areas according to their level

of segregation, and we also

average ranks across the five

measures of segregation. We consider differences of less than 1 in

the average rank to be basically

tied. This cutoff, 1, was not

derived based on any specific statistical procedure. 

14 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

8 There was little difference in this range

among the years.

Table 2-2. 

Estimated Net Percent Undercount From Demographic

Analysis: 1990-2000

1990 2000 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.65 0.12 

Non-Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.08 -0.29 

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.52 2.78 

Note: The non-Black category in that year refers more specifically to those who were not

Black or non-Black Hispanic. 

Source: Estimates are from demographic analysis (Robinson 2001, Table A). 
Apart from the issue of statistical

testing, it should be noted that

these data also have nonsampling

error. Estimates of net undercoverage (underenumeration) of the

total population are 1.65 percent

for 1990, and 0.12 percent for

2000. This relatively low level of

undercount masks differential

undercount — a higher undercount

of minority populations than nonminority ones. Table 2-2 shows

estimated undercounts for the

total population, Blacks, and nonBlacks in 1990 and 2000.

How this differential undercount

affects residential segregation

indexes is not known. If the

people who were missed are distributed geographically like the

people who were enumerated,

then there may be little impact.

Also, because of their complexity,

segregation indexes are particularly subject to programming error.

Appendix C discusses how the

indexes calculated in this study

compare with others. 

F. INTERPRETING THE

FINDINGS

We think it critically important to

note that the values and ranks we

report for metropolitan statistical

areas on the several indexes can

readily be misinterpreted as indicating that residential segregation is a

more serious problem in some metropolitan areas, and a less serious

problem in others. We strongly

emphasize that the reported measures cannot necessarily sustain

such inferences or interpretations.

In particular, we do not speculate

about how racial discrimination,

free choices, or any of several other

underlying processes (e.g., the

growth or contraction of housing of

varying costs relative to the growth

or contraction of populations of

varying incomes and stages of

household formation; the

relationship of such housing and

population to jobs, schools, shopping and other amenities) might

have contributed to the patterns

observed. Similarly, the measures

tell us nothing about consequences

of an observed residential distribution (e.g., differential access to educational or job opportunities, a

group’s ability to maintain culturally

distinctive institutions or practices)

that might assist in identifying

either problems or benefits associated with the pattern.

For these reasons, the measures

reported here should be viewed as

representing a starting point for

research on contemporary patterns

of residential segregation in the

United States. To facilitate such

work, as we noted above, the values for all 19 indexes for all metropolitan areas for each of the

years and groups examined are

available on the Internet.

U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 15
CHAPTER 3

THE RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION 

OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA

NATIVES: 1980-2000
Discussing the metropolitan residential segregation of American

Indians and Alaska Natives is difficult because of the group’s relatively small population and the

fact that many still live on rural

American Indian reservations and

in Alaska Native villages. Of the

4.1 million American Indians and

Alaska Natives (1.5 percent of the

total population) counted in

Census 2000, 1.4 million, or 

34 percent, lived outside metropolitan areas.1 Another challenge

arose with the Census 2000

method of measuring race that

allowed people to identify themselves as being of more than one

race. In this chapter we focus on

people identified as American

Indian or Alaska Native alone or in

combination with another race

group. Appendix A shows residential segregation indexes for 2000

for those who just identified as

being of this group alone.

Because of the relatively small total

metropolitan population of

American Indians and Alaska

Natives, only 13 metropolitan areas

qualified for our analysis (MAs that

have at least 3 percent or 20,000 or

more American Indian and Alaska

Native population in 1980, as discussed in chapter 2).2 The ten metropolitan areas that had at least 

3 percent or more American Indian

and Alaska Native population in

1980, in decreasing percentage

order, using 2000 percentages,

were: Tulsa, OK (10.7 percent);

Anchorage, AK (10.4 percent);

Rapid City, SD (9.9 percent); Fort

Smith, AR-OK (8.0 percent); Lawton,

OK (7.0 percent); Albuquerque, NM

(6.6 percent); Great Falls, MT 

(5.7 percent); Yakima, WA (5.6 percent); Bellingham, WA (3.8 percent);

and Yuma, AZ (2.2 percent in 2000,

though 3.6 percent in 1980). The

other three metropolitan areas

included in this analysis were

Oklahoma City, OK (6.6 percent in

2000, though 2.9 percent in 1980);

Phoenix-Mesa, AZ (2.8 percent in

2000); and Los Angeles-Long Beach,

CA (1.5 percent in 2000).

Table 3-1 illustrates the extent of

residential segregation of

American Indians and Alaska

Natives in 1980, 1990, and 2000.

It has the weighted average of

American Indian and Alaska Native

segregation in all metropolitan

areas and in the 13 “selected”

areas that meet the population

criteria described above. These 

13 metropolitan areas accounted

for only 12.7 percent of all U.S.

American Indian and Alaska

Natives and only 19.4 percent of

metropolitan American Indian and

Alaska Natives. 

The most widely used measure of

residential segregation, dissimilarity, indicates a reduction in

American Indian and Alaska Native

segregation in both decades — for

all metropolitan areas and selected

metropolitan areas.3 The overall

1980-2000 reduction was 11 percent for all metropolitan areas and

6 percent for the selected metropolitan areas. In all metropolitan

areas, the reduction in dissimilarity

was larger in the 1990s than the

1980s, while for the selected metropolitan areas, the reduction was

more even.4

The measure of clustering, spatial

proximity, also showed a reduction

of 10.0 percent for all metropolitan

areas and 15.4 percent for selected

metropolitan areas over the 1980 to

U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 19

CHAPTER 3

THE RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION 

OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA

NATIVES: 1980-2000

1 The 2000 American Indian and Alaska

Native population figure includes all people

who identified as American Indian or Alaska

Native alone or in combination with another

race. The number of people who identified

as American Indian or Alaska Native alone in

2000 was 2.5 million. Forty-nine (48.7) and

44.8 percent lived in nonmetropolitan areas

in 1980 and 1990, respectively, when using

2000 MA boundaries. 

2 In 1980 and 1990, this population was

called American Indians, Eskimos, and

Aleuts.

3 Using the approach described in

Chapter 2 to determine substantive changes

as 1 percent of the index range, the following critical values are used: dissimilarity,

0.004; isolation, 0.004; delta, 0.005;

absolute centralization, 0.008; spatial proximity, 0.015. 4 Appendix A shows that dissimilarity for

American Indians and Alaska Natives is the

one index that shows a different trend for

those identifying themselves as American

Indian and Alaska Native alone versus in

combination with another racial group —

those identifying as American Indian and

Alaska Native alone are more residentially

segregated in metropolitan areas than indicated above for the alone or in combination

group.
20 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 3-1.

Descriptive Statistics for Residential Segregation Indexes for American Indians and

Alaska Natives: 1980, 1990, and 2000

Index, year, and percent change

All

metropolitan

areas

(weighted

average)

Selected metropolitan areas

Weighted

average Minimum

25th

percentile Median

75th

percentile Maximum

Dissimilarity Index

1980................................. 0.373 0.414 0.252 0.257 0.351 0.602 0.655

1990................................. 0.368 0.404 0.228 0.270 0.390 0.562 0.667

2000................................. 0.333 0.390 0.213 0.237 0.472 0.474 0.607

Percent change

1980-1990 ......................... –1.4 –2.5 –9.3 5.2 10.8 –6.7 1.8

1990-2000 ......................... –9.5 –3.6 –6.8 –12.2 21.3 –15.7 –9.0

1980-2000 ......................... –10.8 –6.0 –15.5 –7.6 34.4 –21.3 –7.4

Isolation Index

1980................................. 0.082 0.177 0.037 0.054 0.080 0.401 0.505

1990................................. 0.102 0.188 0.050 0.079 0.107 0.349 0.463

2000................................. 0.103 0.205 0.092 0.161 0.172 0.261 0.416

Percent change

1980-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.0 5.9 35.4 46.2 33.0 –13.0 –8.3

1990-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 9.3 85.0 105.0 61.0 –25.2 –10.2

1980-2000 ......................... 25.0 15.8 150.6 199.8 114.3 –34.9 –17.7

Delta Index

1980................................. 0.695 0.673 0.454 0.561 0.711 0.788 0.924

1990................................. 0.685 0.674 0.442 0.552 0.658 0.808 0.918

2000................................. 0.676 0.699 0.451 0.642 0.716 0.813 0.892

Percent change

1980-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –1.4 0.2 –2.6 –1.5 –7.5 2.5 –0.7

1990-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –1.4 3.7 2.1 16.3 8.8 0.6 –2.8

1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –2.8 3.8 –0.5 14.6 0.6 3.1 –3.5

Absolute Centralization Index

1980................................. 0.622 0.627 0.039 0.560 0.665 0.783 0.908

1990................................. 0.619 0.646 0.059 0.583 0.603 0.828 0.904

2000................................. 0.611 0.658 0.152 0.578 0.643 0.817 0.882

Percent change

1980-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0.5 3.0 50.7 4.2 –9.3 5.8 –0.5

1990-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –1.2 1.8 159.5 –0.8 6.7 –1.3 –2.4

1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –1.7 4.9 291.3 3.3 –3.3 4.4 –2.9

Spatial Proximity Index

1980................................. 1.197 1.376 1.005 1.014 1.031 1.925 2.785

1990................................. 1.244 1.466 1.006 1.016 1.054 2.089 3.049

2000................................. 1.077 1.164 1.017 1.031 1.051 1.356 1.666

Percent change

1980-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 6.5 0.1 0.2 2.2 8.5 9.5

1990-2000 ......................... –13.5 –20.6 1.1 1.4 –0.3 –35.1 –45.4

1980-2000 ......................... –10.0 –15.4 1.2 1.6 1.9 –29.6 –40.2

Note: Selected Metropolitan Areas (13 of 330) are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska Natives in

1980. Higher values indicate more segregation; the reference group is White non-Hispanic. Segregation estimates are weighted by the size of the American

Indian and Alaska Native population.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 21

Figure 3-1a.

Distribution of Dissimilarity Index for American Indians 

and Alaska Natives: 1980, 1990, and 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska

Natives in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Dissimilarity index

1980

1990

2000

Figure 3-1b.

Distribution of Isolation Index for American Indians 

and Alaska Natives: 1980, 1990, and 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska

Natives in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Isolation index

1980

1990

2000
22 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 3-1c.

Distribution of Delta Index for American Indians and 

Alaska Natives: 1980, 1990, and 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska

Natives in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Delta index

1980

1990

2000

Figure 3-1d.

Distribution of Absolute Centralization Index for American 

Indians and Alaska Natives: 1980, 1990, and 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska

Natives in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Absolute centralization index

1980

1990

2000
2000 period, with large declines in

the 1990 to 2000 period overwhelming small increases in the

1980s. Isolation is the one measure

which showed increases among

both all and selected metropolitan

areas between 1980 and 2000.

Delta and absolute centralization

showed mixed results, with

declines among all metropolitan

areas, but increases when only the

selected MAs were considered.5

This mixed story seems to take

place throughout the distribution

of segregation, though different

indexes display different patterns.

The fact that there are only 13

selected metropolitan areas contributes to the skewed distributions shown in Figures 3-1a

through 3-1e.

Table 3-2 shows how trends in

segregation vary by metropolitan

area characteristics. The middlesized metropolitan areas (500,000

to 999,999 population) had lower

residential segregation than larger

or smaller ones across all five

indexes, with the sole exception of

the absolute centralization index in

1980. In all years, the four

metropolitan areas in Oklahoma (in

the South region) had substantially

lower levels of residential segregation for all five indexes than the

eight in the West.

There is no clear pattern between

segregation and quartiles of percent American Indian/Alaska

Native in the metropolitan area.

American Indians and Alaska

Natives were more likely to be

evenly spread (dissimilarity index)

but more likely to be centralized

(absolute centralization index) in

metropolitan areas with a low percentage (under 3 percent) or a

higher percentage (over 4.4 percent) of American Indians and

Alaska Natives. As the percentage

of the group increases, they are

less likely to share common neighborhoods (isolation index) with

non-Hispanic Whites, but when

U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 23

Figure 3-1e.

Distribution of Spatial Proximity Index for American Indians 

and Alaska Natives: 1980, 1990, and 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska

Natives in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.95- 2<=

1.999

1.90-

1.949

1.85-

1.899

1.80-

1.849

1.75-

1.799

1.70-

1.749

1.65-

1.699

1.60-

1.649

1.55-

1.599

1.50-

1.549

1.45-

1.499

1.40-

1.449

1.35-

1.399

1.30-

1.349

1.25-

1.299

1.20-

1.249

1.15-

1.199

1.10-

1.149

1.05-

1.099

1-

1.049

<1

Spatial proximity index

1980

1990

2000

5 As noted in Appendix A, American

Indians and Alaska Natives are the one

group for whom it matters, albeit modestly,

as to whether group population counts

include only those reporting being of that

group “alone,” vs. “alone or in combination”

with another group. Whereas declines in segregation from 1980 to 2000 are registered

across four of the five indexes for this group

when the “alone or in combination” scheme

is used, and all metropolitan areas are considered, this number falls to 3 when the

“alone” category is used.
using other measures, patterns are

more mixed.

No obvious pattern was observed

between segregation and quartiles

of the percent change in the

American Indian and Alaska Native

population from 1980 to 2000. For

example, metropolitan areas with

the greatest increase in the

American Indian and Alaska Native

population (over 188.3 percent)

experienced increases in three of

the five indexes, and metropolitan

areas with the lowest growth experienced increases in two.

Figures 3-2a through 3-2e show

two-decade changes for the individual metropolitan areas. The

metropolitan areas near the upper

right of the figures are those with

higher levels of segregation. Those

above the 45-degree line experienced increases in segregation

between 1980 and 2000, and

those below the line are those that

experienced decreases over that

period. The figures show that a

great majority of metropolitan

areas show only a small change

(are clustered near the 45-degree

line).6 Only the dissimilarity index

shows unmistakable signs of

declining residential segregation.

Table 3-3 shows the distribution of

the percentage change — the proportion of metropolitan areas with

24 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 3-2.

Residential Segregation Indexes for American Indians and Alaska Natives by

Characteristics of Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1980, 1990, and 2000

(Weighted averages)

Characteristic

Number of

metropolitan

areas

Dissimilarity index Isolation index Delta index Absolute

centralization index

Spatial

proximity index

1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000

Selected metropolitan

areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 0.414 0.404 0.390 0.177 0.188 0.205 0.673 0.674 0.699 0.627 0.646 0.658 1.376 1.466 1.164

Region

Northeast. . . . . . . . . . 0 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Midwest ........... 1 0.398 0.399 0.384 0.110 0.132 0.177 0.924 0.918 0.885 0.908 0.899 0.871 1.049 1.053 1.050

South ............. 4 0.286 0.283 0.253 0.076 0.101 0.144 0.584 0.587 0.587 0.530 0.542 0.561 1.036 1.051 1.053

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 0.487 0.488 0.465 0.236 0.250 0.239 0.715 0.726 0.755 0.673 0.709 0.706 1.574 1.769 1.228

Population Size

1 Million or more . . . 2 0.461 0.481 0.483 0.181 0.205 0.208 0.742 0.757 0.754 0.715 0.738 0.712 1.368 1.567 1.160

500,000-999,999 . . . 2 0.254 0.250 0.226 0.069 0.093 0.137 0.607 0.603 0.605 0.590 0.593 0.608 1.025 1.035 1.038

Under 500,000 ..... 9 0.510 0.493 0.422 0.278 0.277 0.281 0.647 0.660 0.714 0.549 0.601 0.625 1.728 1.843 1.318

Percent American

Indian/Alaska Native

(Quartiles)

Under 3 percent.... 4 0.413 0.400 0.418 0.153 0.165 0.184 0.726 0.726 0.728 0.681 0.690 0.682 1.278 1.379 1.125

3-3.8 percent ...... 3 0.526 0.539 0.456 0.171 0.151 0.187 0.664 0.624 0.584 0.224 0.323 0.389 1.208 1.127 1.139

3.8-4.4 percent..... 2 0.526 0.534 0.469 0.170 0.226 0.275 0.579 0.584 0.600 0.585 0.613 0.547 1.264 1.314 1.286

Over 4.4 percent . . . 4 0.379 0.374 0.319 0.218 0.220 0.237 0.606 0.618 0.674 0.621 0.631 0.668 1.580 1.660 1.223

Percent Change

(1980-2000) American Indian/Alaska

Native (Quartiles)

Under 88.7 percent . 4 0.517 0.502 0.431 0.187 0.194 0.231 0.684 0.658 0.672 0.524 0.673 0.638 1.278 1.242 1.213

88.7-139.8 percent . 2 0.580 0.549 0.461 0.469 0.435 0.392 0.554 0.562 0.701 0.519 0.527 0.603 2.558 2.818 1.597

139.8-188.3 percent ............. 4 0.288 0.287 0.260 0.076 0.102 0.146 0.610 0.611 0.604 0.557 0.565 0.579 1.034 1.048 1.053

Over 188.3 percent . 3 0.447 0.459 0.463 0.173 0.195 0.205 0.753 0.775 0.769 0.732 0.760 0.728 1.333 1.496 1.147

X Not applicable.

Note: Includes 13 Metropolitan Areas with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska Natives in 1980. Higher values

indicate more segregation; the reference group is White non-Hispanic. Characteristics of metropolitan areas as of 1980. Segregation estimates are weighted by

the size of the American Indian and Alaska Native population.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.

6 The analogous figures for 1980 versus

1990 and 1990 versus 2000 are presented

in Appendix D.
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 25

Figure 3-2a.

Dissimilarity Index for American Indians and Alaska Natives for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska

Natives in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 dissimilarity index

2000 dissimilarity index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure 3-2b.

Isolation Index for American Indians and Alaska Natives 

for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska

Natives in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 isolation index

2000 isolation index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
26 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 3-2c.

Delta Index for American Indians and Alaska Natives 

for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska

Natives in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 delta index

2000 delta index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure 3-2d.

Absolute Centralization Index for American Indians and Alaska Natives 

for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska

Natives in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 absolute centralization index

2000 absolute centralization index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
changes in five ranges. This table

confirms the mixed message on

trends in segregation of the previous

analyses. For example, dissimilarity

decreased by 5 percent or more

between 1980 and 2000 in 11 of the

13 areas, while isolation increased

by 5 percent or more over the same

period in 9 of the 13 areas.

Table 3-4 presents the levels and

Table 3-5 presents the change in

each residential segregation index

for the 13 metropolitan areas

selected for study in this chapter.

Each index in Table 3-4 is ranked by

their 2000 score to obtain the averaged 2000 ranks. The averaged

ranks are then ordered to obtain an

overall rank. Similarly in Table 3-5,

the 1980-2000 change is ranked for

each index to obtain the averaged

1980-2000 change ranks. The averaged 1980-2000 change ranks are

then ordered to obtain an overall

rank. The rankings indicate highest

to lower segregation in ascending

order for an MSA/PMSA. Using the

dissimilarity index alone, Yakima

was the most segregated metropolitan area for American Indian and

Alaska Natives in 2000, followed by

Fort Smith and Phoenix-Mesa. The

least segregated in 2000 was

Oklahoma City, followed by Tulsa

and Lawton (see Table 3-4). When

all five indexes are used to rank the

areas, the most segregated is

Phoenix-Mesa, followed by Yakima,

and then Albuquerque and Rapid

City, which are tied. The least segregated in 2000 was Oklahoma

City, followed by Lawton and Tulsa.

Figures 3-3 and 3-4 show the actual

settlement patterns of PhoenixMesa and Oklahoma City, respectively. 

Yuma showed the largest decline

in dissimilarity, 40 percent,

between 1980 and 2000 (see Table

3-5). It also tied in ranking for first

overall in reductions, with Great

Falls, a difference of one average

rank or less from Phoenix-Mesa

and Rapid City. Los Angeles-Long

Beach showed the biggest (and

only) increase in dissimilarity over

the 1980 to 2000 period. Overall,

Tulsa and Fort Smith showed the

greatest increase in residential segregation over the 1980-2000 period (they were tied in average

rank), followed by Los AngelesLong Beach (less than one average

rank different).

U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 27

Figure 3-2e.

Spatial Proximity Index for American Indians and Alaska Natives 

for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska

Natives in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 spatial proximity index

2000 spatial proximity index

1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0
The story of American Indian and

Alaska Native residential segregation over the 1980 to 2000 period

is a mixed one. The most widely

used measure of residential segregation, dissimilarity, indicates a

moderate reduction of 6 to 

11 percent in segregation in 1980-

1990 and again, a moderate reduction of 4 to 10 percent in 1990-

2000, both for all metropolitan

areas and selected metropolitan

areas. Other residential segregation indexes show different

patterns, however, with some

indexes showing an increase in

segregation. Overall, metropolitan

areas in Oklahoma seem the least

segregated for American Indian

and Alaska Natives.

28 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 3-3.

Distribution of Percent Change in Residential Segregation Indexes for American Indians

and Alaska Natives: 1980-2000

Time period change

Dissimilarity index Isolation index Delta index Absolute

centralization index

Spatial

proximity index

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

1980-1990

Increase of 5 percent or more . . 4 31 9 69 1 8 3 23 3 23

Increase of 1-4.99 percent . . . . . 2 15 0 0 4 31 5 38 5 38

Change of less than 1 percent . 1 8 0 0 2 15 1 8 4 31

Decrease of 1-4.99 percent .... 1 8 1 8 6 46 4 31 0 0

Decrease of 5 percent or more . 5 38 3 23 00001 8

1990-2000

Increase of 5 percent or more . . 1 8 10 77 2 15 4 31 0 0

Increase of 1-4.99 percent ..... 0 0 0 0 3 23 2 15 2 15

Change of less than 1 percent . 0 0 0 0 2 15 2 15 8 62

Decrease of 1-4.99 percent .... 1 8 1 8 4 31 4 31 1 8

Decrease of 5 percent or more . 11 85 2 15 2 15 1 8 2 15

1980-2000

Increase of 5 percent or more . . 1 8 9 69 2 15 4 31 1 8

Increase of 1-4.99 percent ..... 0 0 0 0 3 23 3 23 5 38

Change of less than 1 percent . 0 0 0 0 3 23 2 15 3 23

Decrease of 1-4.99 percent .... 1 8 0 0 4 31 3 23 1 8

Decrease of 5 percent or more . 11 85 4 31 1 8 1 8 3 23

Note: Includes 13 Metropolitan Areas with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska Natives in 1980.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 29 Table 3-4. Residential Segregation for American Indians and Alaska Natives in Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1980, 1990, and 2000 MSA/PMSA Name Dissimilarity index Isolation index Delta index Absolute centralization index Spatial 

1980 1990 2000 

2000 rank 1980 1990 2000 2000 rank 1980 1990 2000 2000 rank 1980 1990 2000 2000 rank 1980 1

Albuquerque, NM MSA ....... 0.602 0.562 0.472 5 0.505 0.463 0.416 1 0.521 0.535 0.695 8 0.479 0.494 0.578 10 2.785 3

Anchorage, AK MSA ......... 0.322 0.319 0.288 10 0.104 0.128 0.185 6 0.850 0.890 0.892 1 0.879 0.904 0.865 3 1.019 1

Bellingham, WA MSA ........ 0.435 0.456 0.380 7 0.235 0.224 0.218 5 0.771 0.759 0.743 6 0.783 0.781 0.786 6 1.070 1

Fort Smith, AR-OK MSA ...... 0.551 0.607 0.515 2 0.123 0.177 0.221 4 0.454 0.495 0.451 13 0.048 0.059 0.152 13 1.117 1

Great Falls, MT MSA ........ 0.357 0.393 0.310 9 0.069 0.081 0.092 13 0.892 0.895 0.835 4 0.860 0.848 0.859 4 1.014 1

Lawton, OK MSA ........... 0.340 0.318 0.254 11 0.096 0.106 0.132 11 0.459 0.442 0.519 12 0.422 0.454 0.492 12 1.075 1

Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSA ................... 0.351 0.390 0.474 4 0.037 0.050 0.172 8 0.711 0.703 0.716 7 0.665 0.641 0.643 7 1.005 1

Oklahoma City, OK MSA...... 0.257 0.228 0.213 13 0.054 0.079 0.107 12 0.671 0.658 0.642 10 0.560 0.583 0.576 11 1.016 1Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA ...... 0.629 0.566 0.498 3 0.401 0.349 0.261 3 0.788 0.808 0.813 5 0.792 0.828 0.817 5 1.925 2

Rapid City, SD MSA ......... 0.398 0.399 0.384 6 0.110 0.132 0.177 7 0.924 0.918 0.885 2 0.908 0.899 0.871 2 1.049 1

Tulsa, OK MSA............. 0.252 0.270 0.237 12 0.080 0.107 0.161 9 0.561 0.552 0.574 11 0.611 0.603 0.634 8 1.031 1

Yakima, WA MSA ........... 0.655 0.667 0.607 1 0.221 0.299 0.367 2 0.662 0.671 0.652 9 0.698 0.711 0.582 9 1.395 1

Yuma, AZ MSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.617 0.428 0.368 8 0.346 0.139 0.153 10 0.880 0.858 0.881 3 0.039 0.870 0.882 1 1.545 1

Note: Includes 13 Metropolitan Areas with 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska Natives in 1980. Higher values indicate more segregation; the referenSource: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.

Table 3-5.Percent Change in Residential Segregation Indexes for American Indians and Alaska Natives in Me

1980-2000

MSA/PMSA name

Dissimilarity index Isolation index Delta index Absolute centralization index 

1980-

1990

percent

change

1990-

2000

percent

change

1980-2000 1980-

1990

percent

change

1990-

2000

percent

change

1980-2000 1980-

1990

percent

change

1990-

2000

change

1980-2000 1980-

1990

percent

change

1990-

2000

percent

change

1980-2000 198

199

perce

chang

Percent

change Rank

Percent

change Rank

Percent

change Rank

Percent

change Rank

Albuquerque, NM MSA. . –6.7 –15.9 –21.5 11 –8.3 –10.2 –17.7 11 2.8 29.9 33.6 1 3.1 17.2 20.8 3 9Anchorage, AK MSA. . . . –1.0 –9.7 –10.6 6 22.6 44.4 77.1 5 4.7 0.2 4.9 3 2.9 –4.3 –1.6 10 1

Bellingham, WA MSA . . . 4.8 –16.5 –12.5 7 –4.7 –2.7 –7.3 10 –1.6 –2.1 –3.7 10 –0.2 0.7 0.4 8 1Fort Smith, AR-OK MSA . 10.2 –15.0 –6.4 4 43.8 24.9 79.6 4 9.0 –8.8 –0.5 8 22.7 159.5 218.4 2 5

Great Falls, MT MSA . . . 9.9 –21.0 –13.2 8 16.6 14.3 33.3 9 0.4 –6.7 –6.4 13 –1.4 1.2 –0.2 9 0

Lawton, OK MSA . . . . . . –6.2 –20.3 –25.3 12 10.0 24.9 37.4 8 –3.7 17.4 13.0 2 7.4 8.4 16.4 4 2

Los Angeles-Long

Beach, CA PMSA ..... 10.8 21.6 34.7 1 35.4 246.2 368.9 1 –1.2 1.9 0.6 6 –3.6 0.3 –3.3 11 0

Oklahoma City, OK

MSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –11.1 –6.8 –17.1 9 46.2 36.4 99.5 3 –2.0 –2.4 –4.3 12 4.2 –1.2 3.0 7 0

Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA . –10.1 –12.0 –20.8 10 –13.0 –25.2 –34.9 12 2.5 0.6 3.1 4 4.6 –1.3 3.2 6 8Rapid City, SD MSA . . . . 0.2 –3.8 –3.6 2 20.1 33.7 60.6 7 –0.7 –3.6 –4.2 11 –1.0 –3.1 –4.1 12 0

Tulsa, OK MSA. . . . . . . . 7.2 –12.2 –5.8 3 33.0 50.9 100.8 2 –1.5 3.9 2.3 5 –1.4 5.2 3.7 5 2Yakima, WA MSA . . . . . . 1.8 –9.0 –7.4 5 35.4 22.7 66.2 6 1.2 –2.8 –1.6 9 1.9 –18.1 –16.5 13 3Yuma, AZ MSA. . . . . . . . –30.6 –14.0 –40.3 13 –59.8 9.9 –55.9 13 –2.5 2.7 0.1 7 2136.1 1.4 2167.8 1 –32

Note: Includes 13 Metropolitan Areas with 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska Natives in 1980. Higher values indicate more segregation; the referenSource: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
30 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau M

0 10 20

Kilometer

0 10 20

Census Tract County American India

White, non-Hisp

1 Dot = 200 People

Prepared by Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau Metropolitan Statistical Area 

and names are those defineManagement and Budget on boundaries and names are a

Maricopa

Pinal

Yavapai

Gila

Pi

ma Selection criteria of the most segreg

universe of 13 metropolitan areas wor 20,000 or more American Indian
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 31 Miles

0 5 10

Kilometers

0 5 10

N

15

15

Census TractCounty

American Indian and Alaska Native

White, non-Hispanic

1Dot = 200 People

Prepared by Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) boundaries and names are those defined by the Federal Office of Management and Budget on June 30, 1999. All other boundaries and names are as of January 1, 2000.

Oklahoma O

ma

McCl

Canadian

Logan

Lincoln

Pa

y

ne

Semin

Kin

gfisher

Blaine

Caddo

Gra

d

y

Garvi

n

Major Garfield Noble Pawn

Clevelan

Selection criteria of based on the univerwith at least 3 perceAmerican Indians an
CHAPTER 4

RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION OF 

ASIANS, NATIVE HAWAIIANS, AND OTHER

PACIFIC ISLANDERS: 1980-2000
The Asian and Pacific Islander population was the one racial or ethnic

group whose composition and

count was profoundly affected by

the revision of OMB Statistical

Directive 15 in 1997. For Census

2000, Asians and Pacific Islanders

were divided into two major race

groups: 1) Asians, and 2) Native

Hawaiians and Other Pacific

Islanders (also referred to as Pacific

Islanders). For historical comparability, we focus on results based on

the combined group. However,

since this change will persist, we

also present 2000 statistics for the

two new groups separately.

Like American Indians and Alaska

Natives, Asians and Pacific Islanders

do not constitute a large proportion

of the U.S. population, however, like

American Indians and Alaska

Natives, that proportion is growing.

Asians and Pacific Islanders grew

from 3.5 million (1.5 percent of the

U.S. population) in 1980 to 7.3 million (2.9 percent) in 1990. In

Census 2000, there were 11.9 million Asians (4.2 percent of the U.S.

population) and nearly 900,000

Pacific Islanders (0.3 percent).1

Asians and Pacific Islanders also

tended to be concentrated in the

West, but they are much more

urban than non-Hispanic Whites. Of

the Asians and Pacific Islanders

population, 92.2 percent were in

metropolitan areas in 1980, and

increasing to 94.4 percent in 1990.

In Census 2000, 95.1 percent of

Asians and 83.3 percent of Pacific

Islanders lived in metropolitan

areas. Therefore, we were able to

include substantially more metropolitan areas in our analysis than

we could for American Indians and

Alaska Natives.

When either all metropolitan areas

or selected ones (30 metropolitan

areas had at least 3 percent or

20,000 or more Asians and Pacific

Islanders) were considered, the

dissimilarity, isolation, and spatial

proximity indexes indicated

increases in the residential segregation of Asians and Pacific

Islanders between 1980 and 2000.

The delta index indicated no

change, and the absolute centralization index showed a small

decline (Table 4-1).2 The increase in

isolation over the 1980-2000 period was particularly pronounced.

An examination of the full distribution of the indexes for the selected

metropolitan areas likewise

showed an increase for dissimilarity, spatial proximity, and isolation

over much of their range (Figure 4-

1(a-e)). There were indications of a

small decline in absolute centralization, and a less clear pattern for

delta. Figure 4-2 (a-e), which plots

1980 index values versus the

2000 values, further confirmed

these patterns.

Nineteen of the 30 selected metropolitan areas were in the West

region (Table 4-2). Patterns of

change in the West mirrored the

summary above, with a few relatively minor differences as compared with the rest of the country.

Asians and Pacific Islanders in the

West in 2000 were more isolated

than Asians and Pacific Islanders in

the other regions, a bit less centralized, and lived slightly closer to

one another (spatial proximity).

There seemed to be noticeable differences by size of metropolitan

area. The isolation index was nearly

twice as high for medium-sized

areas (500,000 to 999,999) than for

larger or smaller areas, though there

were only three of them, compared

with 20 large areas and 7 small

ones. In contrast, three of the five

indexes — delta, absolute centralization, and spatial proximity —

were smallest for the mediumsized areas.

U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 35

CHAPTER 4

RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION OF 

ASIANS, NATIVE HAWAIIANS, AND OTHER

PACIFIC ISLANDERS: 1980-2000

1 The 2000 figures includes all people

who identified as being of the particular

group alone or in combination with another

race. The number of people who identified

as Asian alone was 10.2 million (3.6 percent

of the total U.S. population), and the analogous figure for Native Hawaiian and Other

Pacific Islanders was just under 400 thousand (0.1 percent of the population). 

2 Using the approach described in

Chapter 2 to determine substantive changes

as one percent of the index range over three

years, the following critical values are used:

dissimilarity, 0.003; isolation, 0.007; delta,

0.004; absolute centralization, 0.006; spatial

proximity, 0.002.
36 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 4-1.

Descriptive Statistics for Residential Segregation Indexes for Asians and

Pacific Islanders: 1980, 1990, and 2000

Index, year, and percent change

All

metropolitan

areas

(weighted

average)

Selected metropolitan areas

Weighted

average Minimum

25th

percentile Median

75th

percentile Maximum

Dissimilarity Index

1980................................. 0.405 0.422 0.268 0.390 0.424 0.468 0.511

1990................................. 0.412 0.424 0.252 0.379 0.443 0.463 0.551

2000................................. 0.411 0.433 0.256 0.397 0.436 0.477 0.505

Percent change

1980-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 0.4 –5.9 –2.7 4.6 –1.2 7.9

1990-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0.2 2.1 1.5 4.5 –1.7 3.1 –8.3

1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 2.5 –4.5 1.7 2.8 1.9 –1.1

Isolation Index

1980................................. 0.233 0.292 0.023 0.107 0.234 0.368 0.742

1990................................. 0.264 0.330 0.054 0.157 0.328 0.405 0.750

2000................................. 0.306 0.395 0.097 0.208 0.435 0.502 0.832

Percent change

1980-1990 ......................... 13.4 13.0 132.0 46.9 40.2 9.9 1.2

1990-2000 ......................... 16.0 19.9 81.7 33.0 32.7 24.1 10.9

1980-2000 ......................... 31.5 35.5 321.5 95.4 86.0 36.4 12.2

Delta Index

1980................................. 0.741 0.733 0.531 0.687 0.752 0.808 0.875

1990................................. 0.753 0.742 0.525 0.691 0.757 0.807 0.886

2000................................. 0.743 0.735 0.529 0.687 0.740 0.788 0.890

Percent change

1980-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 1.3 –1.1 0.5 0.7 –0.2 1.3

1990-2000 ......................... –1.3 –1.0 0.7 –0.4 –2.2 –2.4 0.5

1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.3 –0.5 0.1 –1.6 –2.5 1.8

Absolute Centralization Index

1980................................. 0.701 0.700 0.336 0.554 0.766 0.799 0.883

1990................................. 0.700 0.693 0.314 0.645 0.742 0.781 0.896

2000................................. 0.683 0.672 0.291 0.653 0.736 0.774 0.880

Percent change

1980-1990 ......................... –0.1 –1.1 6.6 16.4 –3.1 –2.3 1.5

1990-2000 ......................... –2.4 –2.9 –7.2 1.2 –0.8 –0.9 –1.9

1980-2000 ......................... –2.5 –4.0 13.3 17.8 –3.9 –3.1 –0.4

Spatial Proximity Index

1980................................. 1.057 1.071 1.005 1.041 1.063 1.123 1.130

1990................................. 1.083 1.104 1.013 1.073 1.093 1.137 1.190

2000................................. 1.096 1.124 1.024 1.072 1.113 1.154 1.222

Percent change

1980-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 3.1 0.7 3.1 2.8 1.3 5.3

1990-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 1.8 1.1 –0.1 1.9 1.4 2.7

1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 4.9 1.9 3.1 4.7 2.8 8.1

Note: Selected Metropolitan Areas (30 of 330) are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders in 1980. Higher

values indicate more segregation; the reference group is White non-Hispanic. Segregation estimates are weighted by the size of the Asian and Pacific Islander

population.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 37

Figure 4-1a.

Distribution of Dissimilarity Index for Asians 

and Pacific Islanders: 1980, 1990, and 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Dissimilarity index

1980

1990

2000
38 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 4-1b.

Distribution of Isolation Index for Asians and 

Pacific Islanders: 1980, 1990, and 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Isolation index

1980

1990

2000

Figure 4-1c.

Distribution of Delta Index for Asians and 

Pacific Islanders: 1980, 1990, and 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Delta index

1980

1990

2000
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 39

Figure 4-1e.

Distribution of Spatial Proximity Index for Asians 

and Pacific Islanders: 1980, 1990, and 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1.95- 2<=

1.999

1.90-

1.949

1.85-

1.899

1.80-

1.849

1.75-

1.799

1.70-

1.749

1.65-

1.699

1.60-

1.649

1.55-

1.599

1.50-

1.549

1.45-

1.499

1.40-

1.449

1.35-

1.399

1.30-

1.349

1.25-

1.299

1.20-

1.249

1.15-

1.199

1.10-

1.149

1.05-

1.099

1-

1.049

<1

Spatial proximity index

1980

1990

2000

Figure 4-1d.

Distribution of Absolute Centralization Index for Asians 

and Pacific Islanders: 1980, 1990, and 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Absolute centralization index

1980

1990

2000
40 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 4-2a.

Dissimilarity Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 dissimilarity index

2000 dissimilarity index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure 4-2b.

Isolation Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 isolation index

2000 isolation index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 41

Figure 4-2c.

Delta Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 delta index

2000 delta index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure 4-2d.

Absolute Centralization Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders 

for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 absolute centralization index

2000 absolute centralization index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
Areas with the smallest proportion

(under 1.8 percent) of Asians and

Pacific Islanders had, by far, the

lowest level of isolation and the

lowest level of spatial proximity.

Both the isolation and spatial proximity indexes increased monotonically with the percentage of Asians

and Pacific Islanders. The other

indexes did not seem to display a

pattern with respect to the percentage of Asians and Pacific Islanders.

In terms of patterns by the rate of

growth of the Asian and Pacific

Islander population, metropolitan

areas with the greatest growth

between 1980 and 2000

experienced particularly large

increases in isolation, and some

increases in dissimilarity and spatial proximity. Those with the lowest rate of growth (under 

256.8 percent increase — still a

large rate) experienced more modest changes in segregation over

the two decades.

42 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 4-2e.

Spatial Proximity Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 spatial proximity index

2000 spatial proximity index

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 43

Table 4-2.

Residential Segregation Indexes for Asians and Pacific Islanders by Characteristics of

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1980, 1990, and 2000

(Weighted averages)

Characteristic

Number of

metropolitan

areas

Dissimilarity index Isolation index Delta index Absolute

centralization index

Spatial

proximity index

1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000

Selected metropolitan

areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 0.422 0.424 0.433 0.292 0.330 0.395 0.733 0.742 0.735 0.700 0.693 0.672 1.071 1.104 1.124

Region

Northeast ........... 6 0.450 0.443 0.461 0.169 0.234 0.320 0.734 0.723 0.720 0.729 0.704 0.699 1.045 1.064 1.089

Midwest ............ 2 0.444 0.440 0.431 0.092 0.132 0.175 0.729 0.753 0.719 0.736 0.755 0.725 1.037 1.071 1.074

South .............. 3 0.363 0.393 0.418 0.069 0.128 0.221 0.793 0.797 0.780 0.810 0.800 0.776 1.018 1.048 1.088

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 0.419 0.420 0.426 0.360 0.396 0.467 0.728 0.740 0.735 0.680 0.672 0.644 1.086 1.124 1.146

Population Size

1 Million or more. . . . . 20 0.427 0.428 0.437 0.194 0.283 0.362 0.760 0.751 0.740 0.748 0.716 0.688 1.069 1.106 1.129

500,000-999,999..... 3 0.412 0.393 0.408 0.675 0.641 0.689 0.619 0.659 0.668 0.516 0.527 0.534 1.085 1.091 1.088

Under 500,000 ...... 7 0.375 0.434 0.398 0.153 0.275 0.307 0.806 0.831 0.811 0.751 0.752 0.724 1.050 1.103 1.114

Percent Asian/Pacific

Islander (Quartiles)

Under 1.8 percent . . . 8 0.388 0.398 0.421 0.062 0.102 0.175 0.728 0.739 0.732 0.719 0.725 0.710 1.017 1.041 1.067

1.8-3.1 percent ...... 7 0.433 0.430 0.438 0.151 0.222 0.303 0.765 0.768 0.758 0.772 0.761 0.750 1.045 1.068 1.090

3.1-5.7 percent ...... 8 0.386 0.412 0.412 0.147 0.250 0.332 0.768 0.754 0.739 0.737 0.699 0.666 1.045 1.091 1.133

Over 5.7 percent..... 7 0.433 0.432 0.442 0.428 0.469 0.556 0.712 0.726 0.720 0.659 0.648 0.613 1.099 1.143 1.163

Percent Change

(1980-2000) Asian/

Pacific Islander

(Quartiles)

Under 256.8 percent . 7 0.448 0.441 0.447 0.434 0.460 0.523 0.709 0.728 0.723 0.680 0.684 0.661 1.101 1.140 1.151

256.8-293.6 percent. . 8 0.454 0.460 0.470 0.179 0.270 0.353 0.782 0.778 0.773 0.766 0.753 0.750 1.052 1.081 1.104

293.6-356.5 percent. . 7 0.382 0.405 0.403 0.137 0.226 0.301 0.780 0.777 0.754 0.699 0.673 0.638 1.042 1.083 1.110

Over 356.5 percent . . 8 0.334 0.370 0.402 0.097 0.204 0.317 0.704 0.706 0.702 0.690 0.669 0.648 1.023 1.069 1.113

Note: Includes 30 Metropolitan Areas with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders in 1980. Higher values indicate

more segregation; the reference group is White non-Hispanic. Characteristics of metropolitan areas as of 1980. Segregation estimates are weighted by the size

of the Asian and Pacific Islander population.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
44 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Three of the five indexes — dissimilarity, isolation, and spatial

proximity — stand out as being

most likely to show increases

(Table 4-3). In fact, all 30 metropolitan areas had an increase in

isolation of more than 5 percent

between 1980 and 2000; the delta

and absolute centralization indexes showed more decreases than

increases.

Table 4-4 shows the index levels

for the 20 largest metropolitan

areas in the country that also have

at least 3 percent or 20,000 or

more Asians and Pacific Islanders.

The five areas with the highest

level of dissimilarity (the most

commonly used index) were, in

order, New York, San Francisco and

Houston (tied), Los Angeles-Long

Beach, and San Diego. Using all

five indexes, the most segregated

large areas include four of the

same five metro areas, with San

Francisco at number one and San

Jose moving into the top five and

Houston at number six, basically

tied with San Jose and Los

Angeles. Figure 4-3 shows the settlement pattern of Asians and

Pacific Islanders in 2000 in San

Francisco.

The least segregated large areas

were, again in order using the dissimilarity index, PortlandVancouver, Seattle-Bellevue-Everett,

Nassau-Suffolk, Newark, and

Bergen-Passaic. Using all the indexes, the five least segregated large

areas were Nassau-Suffolk,

Baltimore, Newark, Bergen-Passaic,

and Detroit. Figure 4-4 shows the

settlement pattern of Asians and

Pacific Islanders in 2000 in

Nassau-Suffolk.

Table 4-3.

Distribution of Percent Change in Residential Segregation Indexes for Asians and

Pacific Islanders: 1980-2000

Time period change

Dissimilarity index Isolation index Delta index Absolute

centralization index

Spatial

proximity index

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

1980-1990

Increase of 5 percent or more . . 14 47 28 93 2 7 3 10 6 20

Increase of 1-4.99 percent . . . . . 4 13 1 3 7 23 7 23 16 53

Change of less than 1 percent . 2 7 0 0 12 40 5 17 8 27

Decrease of 1-4.99 percent . . . . 5 17 0 0 8 27 10 33 0 0

Decrease of 5 percent or more . 5 17 1 3 1 3 5 17 0 0

1990-2000

Increase of 5 percent or more . . 9 30 29 97 00132 7

Increase of 1-4.99 percent . . . . . 10 33 1 3 1 3 0 0 20 67

Change of less than 1 percent . 1 3 0 0 12 40 8 27 7 23

Decrease of 1-4.99 percent . . . . 5 17 0 0 16 53 15 50 1 3

Decrease of 5 percent or more . 5 17 0 0 1 3 6 20 0 0

1980-2000

Increase of 5 percent or more . . 14 47 30 100 1 3 2 7 13 43

Increase of 1-4.99 percent . . . . . 7 23 0 0 7 23 4 13 16 53

Change of less than 1 percent . 2 7 0 0 9 30 4 13 0 0

Decrease of 1-4.99 percent .... 1 3 0 0 10 33 11 37 1 3

Decrease of 5 percent or more . 6 20 0 0 3 10 9 30 0 0

Note: Includes 30 Metropolitan Areas with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders in 1980.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 45 Table 4-4. Residential Segregation for Asians and Pacific Islanders in Large Metropolitan Areas: 1980, 1990, 

MSA/PMSA Name Dissimilarity index Isolation index Delta index Absolute centralization index Spatial 

1980 1990 2000 

2000 rank 1980 1990 2000 2000 rank 1980 1990 2000 2000 rank 1980 1990 2000 2000 rank 1980 1

Baltimore, MD PMSA ........ 0.376 0.382 0.389 13 0.030 0.054 0.097 20 0.686 0.691 0.687 15 0.634 0.670 0.652 16 1.007 1

Bergen-Passaic, NJ PMSA .... 0.342 0.344 0.359 16 0.048 0.121 0.213 10 0.531 0.525 0.529 20 0.374 0.363 0.361 18 1.012 1

Boston, MA-NH PMSA ....... 0.482 0.439 0.448 7 0.133 0.110 0.163 15 0.711 0.710 0.700 13 0.805 0.781 0.760 8 1.041 1

Chicago, IL PMSA........... 0.453 0.443 0.424 9 0.107 0.149 0.193 12 0.726 0.757 0.720 11 0.732 0.759 0.724 13 1.044 1

Detroit, MI PMSA ........... 0.405 0.428 0.456 6 0.030 0.056 0.113 17 0.741 0.734 0.716 12 0.756 0.737 0.729 12 1.008 1

Houston, TX PMSA.......... 0.424 0.459 0.484 3 0.088 0.157 0.281 8 0.814 0.817 0.799 6 0.821 0.790 0.760 9 1.026 1Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSA ................... 0.468 0.463 0.477 4 0.277 0.405 0.502 3 0.752 0.740 0.740 10 0.766 0.713 0.670 14 1.123 1

Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMSA .... 0.305 0.324 0.353 18 0.023 0.059 0.107 19 0.536 0.540 0.547 19 0.336 0.314 0.300 19 1.005 1

New York, NY PMSA......... 0.492 0.484 0.505 1 0.234 0.328 0.438 4 0.785 0.778 0.779 8 0.799 0.773 0.774 7 1.063 1

Newark, NJ PMSA .......... 0.312 0.313 0.355 17 0.040 0.075 0.130 16 0.687 0.685 0.684 16 0.667 0.656 0.653 15 1.007 1

Oakland, CA PMSA.......... 0.374 0.390 0.405 11 0.180 0.318 0.435 5 0.712 0.686 0.651 17 0.455 0.379 0.291 20 1.058 1

Orange County, CA PMSA .... 0.272 0.330 0.395 12 0.086 0.224 0.369 6 0.584 0.561 0.550 18 0.587 0.505 0.442 17 1.013 1

Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMSA .... 0.403 0.433 0.436 8 0.057 0.109 0.173 14 0.709 0.699 0.687 14 0.721 0.739 0.736 11 1.011 1

Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA PMSA ................... 0.284 0.308 0.311 20 0.032 0.059 0.107 18 0.838 0.858 0.848 2 0.883 0.896 0.880 1 1.009 1

Riverside-San Bernardino, CA PMSA ................... 0.287 0.328 0.360 15 0.037 0.102 0.191 13 0.875 0.886 0.890 1 0.842 0.880 0.860 2 1.012 1

San Diego, CA MSA ......... 0.460 0.481 0.461 5 0.181 0.291 0.362 7 0.841 0.831 0.826 4 0.775 0.781 0.775 6 1.061 1

San Francisco, CA PMSA ..... 0.511 0.501 0.484 2 0.368 0.460 0.523 2 0.845 0.839 0.826 5 0.862 0.860 0.847 3 1.130 1San Jose, CA PMSA......... 0.314 0.385 0.410 10 0.159 0.366 0.525 1 0.762 0.775 0.769 9 0.751 0.760 0.754 10 1.035 1

Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA PMSA ................... 0.390 0.364 0.343 19 0.160 0.198 0.240 9 0.857 0.849 0.828 3 0.877 0.842 0.804 5 1.061 1

Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSA ................... 0.322 0.355 0.382 14 0.068 0.125 0.208 11 0.808 0.807 0.788 7 0.849 0.833 0.812 4 1.016 1

Note: Includes 20 Metropolitan Areas with 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders and 1,000,000 or more total population in 1980. Higher values indicate 

is White non-Hispanic. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
46 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

See Inset, 

Figure 4-3a.

The Most Segregated Large Metropolitan Area for Asians and Pacific Islanders in 2000:

San Francisco, CA PMSA

Figure 4-3.

0

0 5 10

Kilometers

Miles

N

5 10

Census Tract

County

Asian or Pacific Islander

White, non-Hispanic

1 Dot = 400 People

Prepared by Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau

Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) boundaries 

and names are those defined by the Federal Office of 

Management and Budget on June 30, 1999. All other 

boundaries and names are as of January 1, 2000.

Selection criteria of the most segregated MA is based on

the universe of 20 metropolitan areas with at least 

3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders

and 1 million or more total population in 1980.

Sonoma Napa

Solano

Contra

Costa

Alameda

Santa

Clara

Santa Cruz

Marin

San

Francisco

San

Mateo
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 47

Figure 4-3a.

The Most Segregated Large Metropolitan Area for Asians and Pacific Islanders in 2000:

San Francisco, CA PMSA (inset)

Prepared by Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau

2 4

Miles

Kilometers

0 2 4

0

N

Census Tract

County

Asian or Pacific Islander

White, non-Hispanic

1Dot = 400 People

Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) boundaries 

and names are those defined by the Federal Office of 

Management and Budget on June 30, 1999. All other 

boundaries and names are as of January 1, 2000.

Selection criteria of the most segregated MA is based on

the universe of 20 metropolitan areas with at least 

3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders

and 1 million or more total population in 1980.

San

Francisco

San

Mateo

Alameda
48 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Prepared by Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau

0 5 10

Kilometers

0 5 10

Miles

Census Tract

CountyState

Asian and Pacific 

White, non-Hispa

1 Dot = 200 People

Primary Metropolitan Statisticand names are those defined Management and Budget on Jboundaries and names are as 

Nassa

u

Suffolk

Westc

hester

Fairfiel

d

New Haven iddlese

x

New Lo

Selection criteria of the least segregated MA is based onthe universe of 20 metropolitan areas with at least 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islandersand 1 million or more total population in 1980.

Put

nam

CONNECTICUT
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 49 Table 4-5. Percent Change in Residential Segregation Indexes for Asians and Pacific Islanders in Large Metro

1980-2000 MSA/PMSA name Dissimilarity index Isolation index Delta index Absolute centralization index 

1980- 1990 percent change 1990- 2000 percent change 1980-2000 1980- 1990 percent change 1990- 2000 percent change 1980-2000 1980- 1990 percent change 1990- 2000 percent change 1980-2000 1980- 1990 percent change 1990- 2000 percent change 1980-2000 198

199

perce

chang

Percent change Rank Percent change Rank Percent change Rank Percent change Rank 

Baltimore, MD PMSA . . . . 1.6 1.8 3.4 13 78.2 81.7 223.8 8 0.7 –0.5 0.2 5 5.8 –2.7 2.9 1 1

Bergen-Passaic, NJ PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 4.6 5.0 12 153.5 75.9 345.7 3 –1.1 0.7 –0.5 7 –2.9 –0.5 –3.4 11 1Boston, MA-NH PMSA . . . –8.8 1.9 –7.0 19 –17.1 47.6 22.3 20 –0.1 –1.4 –1.5 10 –3.0 –2.6 –5.5 14 2Chicago, IL PMSA ...... –2.2 –4.4 –6.4 18 39.4 29.6 80.6 17 4.3 –4.9 –0.8 8 3.7 –4.6 –1.1 7 3Detroit, MI PMSA. . . . . . . 5.7 6.4 12.5 8 82.6 103.5 271.6 5 –1.0 –2.4 –3.4 18 –2.4 –1.1 –3.6 12 0

Houston, TX PMSA . . . . . 8.3 5.4 14.2 6 78.2 79.7 220.2 10 0.3 –2.2 –1.9 13 –3.7 –3.8 –7.4 15 4Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSA............ –1.2 3.1 1.9 15 45.8 24.1 81.0 16 –1.6 0.0 –1.6 11 –6.9 –6.1 –12.6 18 6

Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 9.1 15.7 5 156.2 80.8 363.2 2 0.8 1.4 2.2 1 –6.6 –4.3 –10.6 17 1

New York, NY PMSA .... –1.6 4.4 2.7 14 40.2 33.7 87.4 15 –1.0 0.1 –0.9 9 –3.2 0.1 –3.1 10 2Newark, NJ PMSA . . . . . . 0.6 13.2 13.8 7 85.4 74.3 223.0 9 –0.3 –0.2 –0.4 6 –1.7 –0.4 –2.2 9 0Oakland, CA PMSA . . . . . 4.3 3.9 8.3 10 76.3 36.7 140.9 13 –3.6 –5.2 –8.6 20 –16.9 –23.1 –36.1 20 5Orange County, CA PMSA .............. 21.4 19.7 45.3 1 161.6 64.4 330.1 4 –3.9 –2.0 –5.8 19 –13.9 –12.6 –24.7 19 5Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 0.6 8.0 11 93.2 58.2 205.7 12 –1.4 –1.7 –3.1 16 2.5 –0.4 2.1 3 2

Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA PMSA . . . . . . . 8.6 1.1 9.8 9 81.8 83.0 232.7 6 2.4 –1.2 1.2 3 1.5 –1.9 –0.4 6 0

Riverside-San Bernar- dino, CA PMSA ....... 14.3 10.0 25.7 3 179.5 87.0 422.6 1 1.3 0.5 1.8 2 4.5 –2.3 2.2 2 2

San Diego, CA MSA . . . . 4.7 –4.2 0.3 16 61.0 24.6 100.6 14 –1.2 –0.6 –1.8 12 0.8 –0.7 0.1 5 5San Francisco, CA PMSA .............. –1.9 –3.4 –5.3 17 24.9 13.8 42.2 19 –0.8 –1.5 –2.3 14 –0.2 –1.5 –1.6 8 0San Jose, CA PMSA .... 22.5 6.5 30.5 2 130.0 43.5 230.0 7 1.8 –0.9 0.9 4 1.1 –0.8 0.4 4 8Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA PMSA ........... –6.7 –5.8 –12.1 20 23.2 21.3 49.5 18 –1.0 –2.4 –3.4 17 –4.0 –4.5 –8.3 16 1

Washington, DC-MD-VA- WV PMSA ........... 10.3 7.5 18.6 4 85.0 66.8 208.6 11 –0.2 –2.4 –2.5 15 –1.9 –2.5 –4.3 13 2

Note: Includes 20 Metropolitan Areas with 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders and 1,000,000 or more total population in 1980. Higher values indicate 

is White non-Hispanic. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
50 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

The large areas with the greatest

increase in segregation over the

1980-2000 period include two of

the five areas with low overall segregation — the five with the greatest increases were Riverside-San

Bernardino, San Jose, NassauSuffolk, Bergen-Passaic, and

Portland-Vancouver. The five with

the smallest increases (or largest

decreases) were Seattle-BellevueEverett, Boston, San Francisco,

Oakland, and Los Angeles-Long

Beach (Table 4-5).

Table 4-6 shows segregation statistics separately for Asians and

Pacific Islanders in 2000 for all and

selected metropolitan areas.

Because of the small number of

Pacific Islanders, in particular, the

selection criteria continue to refer

to metropolitan areas with at least

20,000 or 3 percent Asian and

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific

Islanders combined in 1980. As a

baseline, the index value for all

Asians and Pacific Islanders in

2000 already discussed is presented first, followed by the index

value for Asians and then Pacific

Islanders. 

The dissimilarity index shows only

a little difference between the residential segregation levels for the

two groups, though Pacific

Islanders are more segregated than

Asians (using the significance criteria explained in footnote 2). The

other indexes suggest, however,

that Pacific Islanders are slightly

less residentially segregated than

Asians. 

Table 4-6.

Descriptive Statistics for Residential Segregation Indexes for Asians and Pacific

Islanders, Asians, and Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders: 2000

Index and race

All

metropolitan

areas

(weighted

average)

Selected metropolitan areas

Weighted

average Minimum

25th

percentile Median

75th

percentile Maximum

Dissimilarity

Asians and Pacific Islanders............ 0.411 0.433 0.256 0.397 0.436 0.477 0.505

Asians ............................... 0.416 0.437 0.261 0.402 0.437 0.479 0.505

Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific

Islanders ............................ 0.427 0.443 0.254 0.392 0.441 0.448 0.649

Isolation

Asians and Pacific Islanders............ 0.306 0.395 0.097 0.208 0.435 0.502 0.832

Asians ............................... 0.300 0.386 0.096 0.207 0.428 0.499 0.810

Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific

Islanders ............................ 0.204 0.290 0.009 0.047 0.112 0.652 0.652

Delta

Asians and Pacific Islanders............ 0.743 0.735 0.529 0.687 0.740 0.788 0.890

Asians ............................... 0.747 0.739 0.529 0.689 0.743 0.790 0.894

Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific

Islanders ............................ 0.712 0.687 0.557 0.566 0.732 0.792 0.865

Absolute Centralization

Asians and Pacific Islanders............ 0.683 0.672 0.291 0.653 0.736 0.774 0.880

Asians ............................... 0.687 0.678 0.289 0.655 0.736 0.774 0.882

Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific

Islanders ............................ 0.582 0.533 0.281 0.324 0.596 0.718 0.846

Spatial Proximity

Asians and Pacific Islanders............ 1.096 1.124 1.024 1.072 1.113 1.154 1.222

Asians ............................... 1.098 1.127 1.023 1.080 1.115 1.154 1.225

Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific

Islanders ............................ 1.050 1.071 1.001 1.008 1.021 1.169 1.169

Note: Selected Metropolitan Areas (30 of 330) are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders in 1980. Higher

values indicate more segregation; the reference group is White non-Hispanic.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1.
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 51

An examination of the histograms

for 2000 (Figure 4-5(a-e)), shows a

higher level of residential segregation for Pacific Islanders than for

Asians when the dissimilarity index

is considered, but a lower level for

the other four indexes. This was

also very apparent when the scatter

diagrams were examined. The dissimilarity index scores were arrayed

along the diagonal in Figure 4-6a,

but slightly below the diagonal for

the delta index (Figure 4-6c), and

well below the diagonal for the

other three indexes.

In sum, there seems to have been

an increase in the residential segregation of Asians and Pacific

Islanders over the 1980-2000 period according to three of the five

measures, no change in a fourth

measure, and a small decline in

the fifth. Increases are most

notable in the isolation and spatial

proximity indexes. The more

Asians and Pacific Islanders in an

area as a percentage of the population, the more they are isolated,

and the more they tend to live

with one another. Asians as a

group were more segregated in

2000 than were Pacific Islanders.

Figure 4-5a.

Distribution of Dissimilarity Index for 

API, Asian, and NHOPI: 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Dissimilarity index

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Asian

Native Hawaiian and 

Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI)
52 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 4-5b.

Distribution of Isolation Index for 

API, Asian, and NHOPI: 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Isolation index

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Asian

Native Hawaiian and 

Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI)

Figure 4-5c.

Distribution of Delta Index for 

API, Asian, and NHOPI: 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Delta index

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Asian

Native Hawaiian and 

Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI)
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 53

Figure 4-5d.

Distribution of Absolute Centralization Index 

for API, Asian, and NHOPI: 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Absolute centralization index

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Asian

Native Hawaiian and 

Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1.95- 2<=

1.999

1.90-

1.949

1.85-

1.899

1.80-

1.849

1.75-

1.799

1.70-

1.749

1.65-

1.699

1.60-

1.649

1.55-

1.599

1.50-

1.549

1.45-

1.499

1.40-

1.449

1.35-

1.399

1.30-

1.349

1.25-

1.299

1.20-

1.249

1.15-

1.199

1.10-

1.149

1.05-

1.099

1-

1.049

<1

Figure 4-5e.

Distribution of Spatial Proximity Index 

for API, Asian, and NHOPI: 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

Spatial proximity index

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Asian

Native Hawaiian and 

Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI)
54 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 4-6a.

2000 Dissimilarity Index for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander by Asian

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. Red dots represent those MSAs where both Asians and NHOPI met the selection

criteria in 2000. Blue dots represent those MSAs where only Asians and not NHOPI met the selection criteria in 2000. See Chapter 2 

for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Asian

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure 4-6b.

2000 Isolation Index for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander by Asian

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. Red dots represent those MSAs where both Asians and NHOPI met the selection

criteria in 2000. Blue dots represent those MSAs where only Asians and not NHOPI met the selection criteria in 2000. See Chapter 2 

for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Asian

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 55

Figure 4-6c.

2000 Delta Index for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander by Asian

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. Red dots represent those MSAs where both Asians and NHOPI met the selection

criteria in 2000. Blue dots represent those MSAs where only Asians and not NHOPI met the selection criteria in 2000. See Chapter 2 

for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Asian

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure 4-6d.

2000 Absolute Centralization Index for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander by Asian

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. Red dots represent those MSAs where both Asians and NHOPI met the selection

criteria in 2000. Blue dots represent those MSAs where only Asians and not NHOPI met the selection criteria in 2000. See Chapter 2 

for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Asian

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
56 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 4-6e.

2000 Spatial Proximity Index for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander by Asian

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. Red dots represent those MSAs where both Asians and NHOPI met the selection

criteria in 2000. Blue dots represent those MSAs where only Asians and not NHOPI met the selection criteria in 2000. See Chapter 2 

for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Asian

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0
CHAPTER 5

RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION OF 

BLACKS OR AFRICAN AMERICANS: 

1980-2000
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 59

The number of African Americans in

the United States grew over the last

few decades from 26.5 million in

1980, to 30.0 million in 1990, and

to 36.4 million in 2000.1 Blacks

comprised 11.7 percent of the total

U.S. population in 1980, 12.1 percent in 1990, and 12.9 percent in

2000. About 86.5 percent of Blacks

lived in metropolitan areas in 2000.

Table 5-1 shows the extent of residential segregation of Blacks in

1980, 1990, and 2000. There were

220 metropolitan areas (of the 330

total) with 3 percent or 20,000 or

more Blacks in 1980. All five measures of segregation indicate a

reduction in the residential segregation of Blacks between 1980 and

1990, and a further reduction

between 1990 and 2000. The twodecade reduction ranges from 

4 percent (absolute centralization

and spatial proximity) to 12 percent

(dissimilarity), regardless of

whether all metropolitan areas or

just “selected” metropolitan areas

are examined. All indexes declined

by one percent or more in each

decade (the threshold for a change

that we consider substantive as

described in Chapter 2). This

decline demonstrates a clear trend

toward lower residential segregation for Blacks.2

The overall reduction in residential

segregation is illustrated in Figures

5-1a through 5-1e. These figures

demonstrate the clear shift in most

of the index distributions toward

less residential segregation for the

dissimilarity, isolation, and delta

indexes, although this was less

pronounced for the absolute centralization index and unclear for

spatial proximity index.

This reduction seemed to take place

throughout the distribution of segregation, but with different indexes

showing different patterns.

Dissimilarity, isolation, and delta

indexes showed a greater decline in

areas of higher segregation, while

changes in absolute centralization

and spatial proximity were perhaps

more uniform. The percentage

declines in each decade were similar for each index: sometimes the

1980-1990 change was larger than

the 1990-2000 change, and sometimes the reverse was true.

The largest metropolitan areas 

(1 million or more population) had

higher residential segregation than

the middle-sized ones (500,000 to

999,999 population), which, in

turn, had higher residential segregation than the smallest metropolitan areas (see Table 5-2). This was

true for all indexes for all 3 years,

but for several indexes, the difference between small and medium

metropolitan areas was small. The

1980-1990 and 1990-2000 reductions in the residential segregation

of Blacks took place in all regions

for all five indexes (with the

exception of the spatial proximity

index for the Northeast), and for

metropolitan areas of different

sizes for four of the five indexes.3

In 2000, the West region had the

lowest level of residential segregation for three of the five indexes,

and the South was lowest for the

remaining two. The Midwest had

the highest level of residential segregation for four of the five indexes; the Northeast had the highest

level for the remaining one. 

CHAPTER 5

RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION OF 

BLACKS OR AFRICAN AMERICANS: 

1980-2000

1 The 2000 figure includes all people who

identified as Black or African American alone

or in combination with another race. The

number of people who identified as Black or

African American alone was 34.7 million. 2 Using the approach described in

Chapter 2 to determine substantive changes

as one percent of the index range over three

years, the following critical values are used:

dissimilarity, 0.006; isolation, 0.008; delta,

0.005; absolute centralization, 0.010; spatial

proximity, 0.009.

3 The absolute centralization index

increased slightly for metropolitan areas

under 1 million between 1980 and 1990.

The index decreased back to its 1980 value

in 2000 for areas with 500,000-999,999 and

decreased from its 1990 value for small metropolitan areas but not fully back to the

1980 level.
60 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 5-1.

Descriptive Statistics for Residential Segregation Indexes for Blacks or African

Americans: 1980, 1990, and 2000

Index, year, and percent change

All

metropolitan

areas

(weighted

average)

Selected metropolitan areas

Weighted

average Minimum

25th

percentile Median

75th

percentile Maximum

Dissimilarity Index

1980................................. 0.727 0.730 0.272 0.682 0.750 0.812 0.908

1990................................. 0.678 0.682 0.227 0.606 0.683 0.769 0.899

2000................................. 0.640 0.645 0.263 0.569 0.648 0.730 0.846

Percent change

1980-1990 ......................... –6.8 –6.6 –16.6 –11.1 –8.9 –5.2 –1.0

1990-2000 ......................... –5.6 –5.4 15.8 –6.1 –5.1 –5.1 –5.9

1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –12.0 –11.7 –3.4 –16.6 –13.5 –10.1 –6.8

Isolation Index

1980................................. 0.655 0.662 0.070 0.586 0.698 0.758 0.855

1990................................. 0.614 0.622 0.064 0.525 0.653 0.735 0.842

2000................................. 0.591 0.601 0.061 0.495 0.649 0.721 0.827

Percent change

1980-1990 ......................... –6.3 –6.0 –7.6 –10.5 –6.5 –3.0 –1.5

1990-2000 ......................... –3.8 –3.4 –5.3 –5.7 –0.6 –1.9 –1.7

1980-2000 ......................... –9.9 –9.3 –12.4 –15.7 –7.1 –4.9 –3.2

Delta Index

1980................................. 0.834 0.835 0.438 0.814 0.862 0.902 0.954

1990................................. 0.816 0.816 0.467 0.795 0.834 0.880 0.967

2000................................. 0.793 0.793 0.454 0.761 0.811 0.844 0.966

Percent change

1980-1990 ......................... –2.2 –2.2 6.6 –2.3 –3.2 –2.4 1.4

1990-2000 ......................... –2.8 –2.8 –2.7 –4.3 –2.8 –4.1 –0.1

1980-2000 ......................... –5.0 –5.0 3.7 –6.5 –5.9 –6.4 1.2

Absolute Centralization Index

1980................................. 0.753 0.755 –0.022 0.721 0.789 0.846 0.966

1990................................. 0.743 0.745 0.054 0.717 0.773 0.831 0.973

2000................................. 0.722 0.724 0.015 0.663 0.749 0.818 0.962

Percent change

1980-1990 ......................... –1.3 –1.3 345.2 –0.5 –2.1 –1.7 0.7

1990-2000 ......................... –2.8 –2.8 –71.7 –7.5 –3.1 –1.6 –1.1

1980-2000 ......................... –4.1 –4.1 169.5 –8.0 –5.1 –3.3 –0.4

Spatial Proximity Index

1980................................. 1.435 1.441 1.024 1.261 1.441 1.596 2.054

1990................................. 1.400 1.406 1.021 1.226 1.388 1.508 1.826

2000................................. 1.374 1.381 1.015 1.220 1.382 1.469 1.821

Percent change

1980-1990 ......................... –2.5 –2.4 –0.2 –2.8 –3.7 –5.5 –11.1

1990-2000 ......................... –1.9 –1.8 –0.6 –0.5 –0.4 –2.6 –0.3

1980-2000 ......................... –4.3 –4.1 –0.8 –3.3 –4.0 –8.0 –11.4

Note: Selected Metropolitan Areas (220 of 330) are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans in 1980.

Higher values indicate more segregation; the reference group is White non-Hispanic. Segregation estimates are weighted by the size of the Black/African American population.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 61

Figure 5-1a.

Distribution of Dissimilarity Index for Blacks: 

1980, 1990, and 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Dissimilarity index

1980

1990

2000

Figure 5-1b.

Distribution of Isolation Index for Blacks: 

1980, 1990, and 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Isolation index

1980

1990

2000
62 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 5-1c.

Distribution of Delta Index for Blacks: 

1980, 1990, and 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Delta index

1980

1990

2000

Figure 5-1d.

Distribution of Absolute Centralization Index for 

Blacks: 1980, 1990, and 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Absolute centralization index

1980

1990

2000
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 63

Residential segregation varied by

the percentage (expressed in quartiles) of the population that is

Black. While all four metropolitan

area quartiles showed a pattern of

decreasing residential segregation

over time, three of the five indexes

showed a pattern of higher segregation in places with a higher percentage of Blacks in 2000, while

two showed the reverse. As the

percentage of the population that

is Black increased, Blacks were 

• less likely to be evenly spread

across the metropolitan area

(dissimilarity index), 

• less likely to share common

neighborhoods (isolation index), 

• less concentrated in dense areas

(delta index),

• less likely to be centralized

(absolute centralization index),

and

• more likely to live near other

Blacks (spatial proximity index).

The relationship between segregation and quartiles of percent

change in the African American

population does not show a clear

pattern. For example, metropolitan

areas with both the largest and

smallest percent increases in the

African American population experienced significant decreases in dissimilarity, isolation, delta, and spatial proximity. 

Figure 5-1e.

Distribution of Spatial Proximity Index for Blacks:

1980, 1990, and 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1.95- 2<=

1.999

1.90-

1.949

1.85-

1.899

1.80-

1.849

1.75-

1.799

1.70-

1.749

1.65-

1.699

1.60-

1.649

1.55-

1.599

1.50-

1.549

1.45-

1.499

1.40-

1.449

1.35-

1.399

1.30-

1.349

1.25-

1.299

1.20-

1.249

1.15-

1.199

1.10-

1.149

1.05-

1.099

1-

1.049

<1

Spatial proximity index

1980

1990

2000
64 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figures 5-2a through 5-2e show

that a majority of all of the selected metropolitan areas declined in

residential segregation between

1980 and 2000, though most only

had a small change (are clustered

near the 45-degree line).5 Table 5-3

shows the percentage of

metropolitan areas experiencing

change in segregation scores (in

five ranges). The proportion of

metropolitan areas with increases

of 1 percent or more between

1980 and 2000 ranged from only

3 percent (dissimilarity) to 34 percent (spatial proximity). However,

the proportion with decreases of 1

percent or more between 1980

and 2000 ranged from 43 percent

(spatial proximity) to 92 percent

(dissimilarity). Thus, the most

widely used index, dissimilarity,

showed that only 8 of 220 metropolitan areas had an increase in

residential segregation between

1980 and 2000, while 203 metropolitan areas had a decrease. The

others indicated a much less uniform pattern but still tended to

show a decline in segregation.

Table 5-2.

Residential Segregation Indexes for Blacks or African Americans by Characteristics of

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1980, 1990, and 2000

(Weighted averages)

Characteristic

Number of

metropolitan

areas

Dissimilarity index Isolation index Delta index Absolute

centralization index

Spatial

proximity index

1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000

Selected metropolitan

areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 0.730 0.682 0.645 0.662 0.622 0.601 0.835 0.816 0.793 0.755 0.745 0.724 1.441 1.406 1.381

Region

Northeast. . . . . . . . . . 31 0.779 0.766 0.739 0.690 0.695 0.679 0.860 0.840 0.819 0.754 0.736 0.717 1.442 1.463 1.465

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . 53 0.822 0.788 0.741 0.726 0.691 0.651 0.909 0.894 0.859 0.816 0.814 0.788 1.598 1.570 1.526

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 0.660 0.605 0.581 0.632 0.585 0.581 0.776 0.764 0.748 0.711 0.710 0.695 1.348 1.312 1.303

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 0.714 0.625 0.559 0.580 0.490 0.435 0.867 0.839 0.823 0.806 0.773 0.740 1.478 1.364 1.283

Population Size

1 Million or more . . . 43 0.780 0.732 0.694 0.717 0.680 0.657 0.869 0.845 0.815 0.805 0.787 0.757 1.543 1.502 1.469

500,000-999,999 . . . 33 0.685 0.632 0.597 0.605 0.551 0.529 0.807 0.795 0.776 0.684 0.687 0.684 1.307 1.273 1.263

Under 500,000 . . . . . 144 0.604 0.559 0.530 0.530 0.495 0.484 0.748 0.744 0.738 0.648 0.656 0.652 1.218 1.206 1.205

Percent Black/

African American

(Quartiles)

Under 6.2 percent . . 55 0.638 0.570 0.531 0.366 0.321 0.311 0.868 0.851 0.836 0.834 0.818 0.798 1.183 1.165 1.157

6.2-10.5 percent. . . . 55 0.715 0.661 0.613 0.523 0.474 0.446 0.857 0.843 0.817 0.720 0.709 0.688 1.234 1.222 1.223

10.5-19.1 percent . . 55 0.754 0.693 0.649 0.673 0.624 0.597 0.851 0.826 0.801 0.771 0.757 0.732 1.495 1.433 1.398

Over 19.1 percent . . 55 0.729 0.696 0.669 0.719 0.698 0.689 0.816 0.800 0.775 0.742 0.735 0.714 1.481 1.466 1.446

Percent Change

(1980-2000) Black/

African American

(Quartiles)

Under 25.4 percent . 55 0.793 0.760 0.721 0.736 0.710 0.686 0.872 0.852 0.825 0.787 0.771 0.744 1.608 1.596 1.569

25.4-41.7 percent . . 55 0.718 0.696 0.673 0.678 0.669 0.659 0.819 0.808 0.791 0.738 0.734 0.722 1.373 1.368 1.361

41.7-63.1 percent . . 55 0.673 0.621 0.594 0.596 0.554 0.547 0.805 0.793 0.776 0.758 0.745 0.718 1.357 1.318 1.307

Over 63.1 percent . . 55 0.684 0.601 0.567 0.555 0.487 0.480 0.819 0.797 0.773 0.708 0.719 0.707 1.305 1.254 1.246

Note: Includes 220 Metropolitan Areas with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans in 1980. Higher values indicate

more segregation; the reference group is White non-Hispanic. Characteristics of metropolitan areas as of 1980. Segregation estimates are weighted by the size

of the Black/African American population.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.

5 These figures are presented for 1980

versus 1990 and 1990 versus 2000 in

Appendix D.
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 65

Figure 5-2a.

Dissimilarity Index for Blacks for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 dissimilarity index

2000 dissimilarity index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure 5-2b.

Isolation Index for Blacks for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 isolation index

2000 isolation index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
66 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 5-2c.

Delta Index for Blacks for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 delta index

2000 delta index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure 5-2d.

Absolute Centralization Index for Blacks for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 absolute centralization index

2000 absolute centralization index

-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 67

Figure 5-2e.

Spatial Proximity Index for Blacks for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 spatial proximity index

2000 spatial proximity index

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0
68 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 5-4 presents the level of residential segregation for the 43

large metropolitan areas with 

1 million or more population in

1980 and at least 3 percent or

20,000 or more Blacks. In terms of

the most commonly used residential segregation index, dissimilarity, the five most segregated metropolitan areas for Blacks were, in

order, Detroit, MilwaukeeWaukesha, New York, Newark, and

Chicago (Newark at 0.801, is not

substantively higher than Chicago,

0.797, but both are higher than

number six — Cleveland-LorainElyria, at 0.768). 

When the other four indexes are

taken into account and the ranks

averaged across the five indexes,

the five most segregated metropolitan areas for Blacks in 2000 were,

in order, Milwaukee-Waukesha,

Detroit, Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, 

St. Louis, and Newark (MilwaukeeWaukesha and Detroit are less than

one average rank apart). Cincinnati,

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, and New York,

are roughly tied for number six, but

each is more than one average rank

behind Newark. The top ten are

rounded out by Chicago and

Philadelphia (the latter roughly tied

with Kansas City, New Orleans, and

Indianapolis). Figure 5-3 shows the

settlement pattern of Blacks in

2000 in Milwaukee-Waukesha.

Averaging the ranks across the five

indexes, the most segregated

areas in 2000 were also the most

segregated in 1990, and among

the six most segregated in 1980

(Kansas City comes in at number 5

in 1980). In 1990, MilwaukeeWaukesha was the most

segregated, followed by Detroit,

and in 1980, Detroit was followed

by St. Louis.

The five least segregated metropolitan areas for Blacks among the

large ones analyzed here were, in

order using just the dissimilarity

index: Orange County, San Jose,

Phoenix-Mesa, Riverside-San

Bernardino, and Norfolk-Virginia

Beach-Newport (which is substantively similar to PortlandVancouver). When using all five

indexes averaged, the five least

segregated metropolitan areas for

Blacks were, in order: Orange

County, San Jose, Norfolk-Virginia

Beach- Newport News, Tampa-St.

Petersburg-Clearwater, and San

Diego (the latter two are roughly

tied, and tied with Providence-Fall

River-Warwick). Figure 5-4 shows

the settlement pattern of Blacks in

Orange County in 2000.

Table 5-3.

Distribution of Percent Change in Residential Segregation Indexes for Blacks or African

Americans: 1980-2000

Time period change

Dissimilarity index Isolation index Delta index Absolute

centralization index

Spatial

proximity index

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

1980-1990

Increase of 5 percent or more . . 5 2 19 9 15 7 40 18 8 4

Increase of 1-4.99 percent . . . . . 10 5 26 12 33 15 37 17 42 19

Change of less than 1 percent . 20 9 13 6 55 25 47 21 74 34

Decrease of 1-4.99 percent . . . . 51 23 43 20 100 45 58 26 69 31

Decrease of 5 percent or more . 134 61 119 54 17 8 38 17 27 12

1990-2000

Increase of 5 percent or more . . 5 2 35 16 6 3 30 14 9 4

Increase of 1-4.99 percent . . . . . 12 5 37 17 18 8 31 14 66 30

Change of less than 1 percent . 29 13 20 9 39 18 25 11 65 30

Decrease of 1-4.99 percent . . . . 46 21 47 21 132 60 77 35 67 30

Decrease of 5 percent or more . 128 58 81 37 25 11 57 26 13 6

1980-2000

Increase of 5 percent or more . . 7 3 34 15 17 8 41 19 19 9

Increase of 1-4.99 percent . . . . . 1 0 19 9 18 8 27 12 55 25

Change of less than 1 percent . 9 4 16 7 23 10 24 11 51 23

Decrease of 1-4.99 percent . . . . 24 11 24 11 95 43 58 26 46 21

Decrease of 5 percent or more . 179 81 127 58 67 30 70 32 49 22

Note: Includes 220 Metropolitan Areas with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans in 1980.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 69

Table 5-4.Residential Segregation for Blacks or African Americans in Large Metropolitan Areas: 1980, 1990, 

MSA/PMSA Name

Dissimilarity index Isolation index Delta index Absolute centralization index Spatial pro

1980 1990 2000 

2000

rank 1980 1990 2000

2000

rank 1980 1990 2000

2000

rank 1980 1990 2000

2000

rank 1980 1990 

Atlanta, GA MSA............ 0.737 0.671 0.645 23 0.698 0.657 0.667 11 0.776 0.758 0.699 42 0.767 0.755 0.717 35 1.447 1.443 Baltimore, MD PMSA ........ 0.744 0.713 0.675 17 0.737 0.706 0.680 10 0.851 0.834 0.811 29 0.846 0.848 0.819 18 1.596 1.578 

Bergen-Passaic, NJ PMSA .... 0.803 0.768 0.723 11 0.585 0.596 0.583 19 0.860 0.821 0.787 31 0.710 0.696 0.678 36 1.241 1.284 

Boston, MA-NH PMSA ....... 0.763 0.693 0.658 22 0.594 0.543 0.504 27 0.861 0.835 0.812 28 0.877 0.855 0.825 15 1.475 1.469 

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY MSA . 0.801 0.800 0.766 7 0.663 0.651 0.634 16 0.917 0.916 0.878 8 0.860 0.842 0.818 19 1.416 1.453 Chicago, IL PMSA........... 0.878 0.838 0.797 5 0.855 0.809 0.776 5 0.908 0.888 0.844 18 0.721 0.717 0.663 38 1.812 1.802 

Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN PMSA . . . 0.781 0.761 0.739 8 0.637 0.608 0.584 18 0.911 0.920 0.884 5 0.926 0.921 0.898 4 1.323 1.317 Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH

PMSA ................... 0.854 0.824 0.768 6 0.784 0.772 0.721 7 0.919 0.901 0.874 9 0.892 0.879 0.856 12 1.729 1.751 

Columbus, OH MSA ......... 0.729 0.673 0.616 28 0.576 0.528 0.495 28 0.907 0.887 0.841 19 0.896 0.874 0.869 8 1.319 1.268 

Dallas, TX PMSA ........... 0.771 0.625 0.587 33 0.715 0.571 0.542 25 0.855 0.825 0.799 30 0.780 0.800 0.775 25 1.485 1.316 

Denver, CO PMSA .......... 0.689 0.640 0.605 30 0.496 0.410 0.364 34 0.907 0.890 0.863 13 0.938 0.918 0.898 3 1.251 1.191 

Detroit, MI PMSA ........... 0.874 0.874 0.846 1 0.805 0.823 0.813 2 0.928 0.908 0.865 12 0.889 0.878 0.848 13 1.818 1.826 Fort Lauderdale, FL PMSA .... 0.836 0.683 0.608 29 0.730 0.581 0.599 17 0.826 0.812 0.770 37 0.483 0.773 0.744 30 1.292 1.173 

Hartford, CT MSA ........... 0.712 0.696 0.644 24 0.562 0.543 0.490 29 0.829 0.817 0.773 36 0.819 0.807 0.746 29 1.396 1.432 

Houston, TX PMSA.......... 0.754 0.664 0.663 20 0.719 0.635 0.649 15 0.829 0.795 0.775 35 0.846 0.808 0.784 24 1.468 1.353 

Indianapolis, IN MSA ........ 0.788 0.746 0.704 13 0.653 0.599 0.554 22 0.927 0.913 0.880 7 0.833 0.861 0.858 11 1.440 1.373 

Kansas City, MO-KS MSA..... 0.773 0.725 0.688 15 0.687 0.615 0.568 20 0.905 0.891 0.862 15 0.903 0.894 0.888 6 1.461 1.361 

Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA

PMSA ................... 0.808 0.728 0.664 19 0.758 0.693 0.652 14 0.865 0.817 0.787 32 0.843 0.789 0.721 34 1.783 1.652 

Miami, FL PMSA............ 0.785 0.690 0.694 14 0.738 0.735 0.782 3 0.887 0.847 0.831 23 0.807 0.735 0.677 37 1.526 1.454 

Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI

PMSA ................... 0.839 0.826 0.818 2 0.718 0.725 0.720 8 0.935 0.923 0.893 1 0.894 0.890 0.864 10 1.646 1.696 

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI

MSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.677 0.622 0.576 34 0.330 0.296 0.313 36 0.897 0.889 0.863 14 0.948 0.938 0.917 1 1.110 1.136 

Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMSA .... 0.767 0.761 0.730 10 0.525 0.540 0.550 23 0.775 0.766 0.737 40 0.378 0.354 0.334 43 1.207 1.260 New Orleans, LA MSA ....... 0.698 0.679 0.684 16 0.715 0.713 0.738 6 0.867 0.836 0.833 22 0.901 0.866 0.847 14 1.351 1.388 

New York, NY PMSA......... 0.812 0.813 0.810 3 0.793 0.818 0.827 1 0.865 0.848 0.834 20 0.789 0.770 0.765 26 1.441 1.454 

Newark, NJ PMSA .......... 0.827 0.825 0.801 4 0.765 0.784 0.781 4 0.922 0.905 0.886 2 0.691 0.657 0.639 39 1.651 1.790 

Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC MSA ..... 0.595 0.494 0.460 39 0.618 0.551 0.547 24 0.733 0.738 0.736 41 0.747 0.743 0.730 32 1.244 1.179 

Oakland, CA PMSA.......... 0.739 0.678 0.618 27 0.649 0.606 0.563 21 0.843 0.809 0.761 38 0.582 0.520 0.435 41 1.427 1.400 Orange County, CA PMSA .... 0.447 0.382 0.371 43 0.106 0.084 0.091 43 0.644 0.580 0.539 43 0.644 0.517 0.369 42 1.030 1.021 

Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMSA .... 0.781 0.768 0.720 12 0.723 0.719 0.687 9 0.862 0.839 0.816 27 0.836 0.822 0.807 21 1.641 1.678 

Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA ...... 0.613 0.503 0.433 41 0.355 0.239 0.197 40 0.919 0.902 0.885 4 0.913 0.910 0.892 5 1.088 1.063 

Pittsburgh, PA MSA.......... 0.725 0.707 0.671 18 0.545 0.518 0.483 30 0.876 0.873 0.865 11 0.820 0.831 0.821 17 1.261 1.252 Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA

PMSA ................... 0.686 0.630 0.464 38 0.350 0.298 0.190 41 0.909 0.899 0.866 10 0.946 0.939 0.907 2 1.175 1.158 

Providence-Fall RiverWarwick, RI-MA MSA ....... 0.727 0.664 0.600 32 0.308 0.319 0.285 38 0.872 0.848 0.824 25 0.813 0.826 0.755 27 1.105 1.126 

Riverside-San Bernardino, CA

PMSA ................... 0.526 0.439 0.449 40 0.264 0.234 0.305 37 0.902 0.881 0.886 3 0.875 0.872 0.867 9 1.081 1.089 

Rochester, NY MSA ......... 0.677 0.672 0.661 21 0.485 0.499 0.517 26 0.855 0.854 0.845 17 0.834 0.827 0.821 16 1.240 1.277 

St. Louis, MO-IL MSA ........ 0.817 0.769 0.731 9 0.741 0.694 0.660 12 0.927 0.899 0.881 6 0.931 0.911 0.885 7 1.562 1.448 

San Antonio, TX MSA ........ 0.613 0.543 0.492 36 0.511 0.415 0.375 33 0.842 0.854 0.818 26 0.839 0.846 0.818 20 1.221 1.184 

San Diego, CA MSA ......... 0.643 0.579 0.535 35 0.409 0.355 0.346 35 0.852 0.822 0.828 24 0.762 0.730 0.737 31 1.264 1.224 

San Francisco, CA PMSA ..... 0.675 0.638 0.600 31 0.514 0.478 0.432 32 0.877 0.858 0.833 21 0.795 0.785 0.794 22 1.167 1.145 

San Jose, CA PMSA......... 0.478 0.430 0.399 42 0.135 0.143 0.151 42 0.790 0.793 0.776 34 0.751 0.752 0.747 28 1.052 1.040 

Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA

PMSA ................... 0.671 0.559 0.489 37 0.357 0.284 0.224 39 0.889 0.871 0.850 16 0.922 0.859 0.791 23 1.196 1.138 

Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA ........ 0.781 0.693 0.629 25 0.607 0.510 0.472 31 0.844 0.802 0.754 39 0.617 0.585 0.577 40 1.317 1.241 

Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV

PMSA ................... 0.687 0.650 0.625 26 0.686 0.653 0.654 13 0.825 0.804 0.779 33 0.819 0.781 0.724 33 1.585 1.508 

Note: Includes 43 Metropolitan Areas with 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans and 1,000,000 or more total population in 1980. Higher values indicate mor

is White non-Hispanic.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
70 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau N 0 5 10 Kilometers 0 5 10 Miles

Prepared by Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau Census Tract County Black or African American White, non-Hispanic 1 Dot = 200 People

Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) boundaries and names are those defined by the Federal Office of Management and Budget on June 30, 1999. All other boundaries and names are as of January 1, 2000.

Dodge

Jefferson

Fond Du Lac Sheboygan

Washington Ozaukee

Milwaukee

Selection criteria is based on the uareas with at leaor more Blacks or 1 million or more 

Walworth Racine
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 71

Prepared by Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau

Miles

0 5 10

Kilometers

0 5 10

N Census Tract County

Black or African American

White, non-Hispanic

1 Dot = 200 People

Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) boundaries and names are those defined by the Federal Office of Management and Budget on June 30, 1999. All other boundaries and names are as of January 1, 2000.

Los An

geles

San Bernar

dino

River

San Dieg

Orange

Selection criteria of the least the universe of 43 metropolit3 percent or 20,000 or more and 1 million or more total p
72 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

The top ten most segregated large

metropolitan areas were in the

older Northeast-Midwest “Rust

Belt,” which has tended to lose

population in recent decades. All

but one of the least segregated

large metropolitan areas were in

the West and South, where metropolitan areas have tended to gain

population. The exception was

Providence-Fall River-Warwick in

the Northeast, which tied for the

fifth-least-segregated and does not

fit the broader pattern.

Also of interest is how segregation

has been changing for these large

metropolitan areas. Table 5-5 presents these results for the 1980 to

2000 period. Of the 43 large metropolitan areas, 40 showed a

decline in residential segregation

using the dissimilarity index

between 1980 and 1990, while the

other three showed virtually no

change. This was also true for the

1990 to 2000 period. Combined,

all large metropolitan areas

showed a decline in the residential

segregation of Blacks and African

Americans between 1980 and

2000, but some of the changes are

not substantively significant.

The metropolitan areas showing

the largest percentage declines

(averaging ranks across the five

indexes) were, in order: Los

Angeles-Long Beach, Oakland,

Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, Tampa-St.

Petersburg-Clearwater, and Orange

County (the last two were among

the five least segregated large

metropolitan areas in 2000). The

five large metropolitan areas showing the least percentage declines

were, in order: Rochester, New

York, Riverside-San Bernardino,

Pittsburgh, and New Orleans. No

large metropolitan area showed an

increase in dissimilarity between

1980 and 2000, 10 showed an

increase in isolation, 1 in delta, 3

in absolute centralization, and 14

in spatial proximity.

When we examined all selected

metropolitan areas (not shown),

the five most residentially segregated for Blacks in 2000 were the

five large areas already noted

(using the averaging over five

ranks method) and the five least

segregated were Orange County

MSA CA, Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir

MSA NC, Fort Walton Beach MSA

FL, Charlottesville MSA VA, and

Auburn-Opelika MSA AL, all in the

South or West; the 10 least segregated were all in the South except

for Orange County and HamiltonMiddletown.

Based on the ranks of all selected

metropolitan areas, the five metropolitan areas showing the greatest

increase in residential segregation

over the two-decade 1980-2000

period were Dover MSA DE,

Columbus MSA GA-AL, Goldsboro

MSA NC, Athens MSA GA, and

Danville MSA VA. The seven metropolitan areas showing the greatest

increases were all in the South

region (the 8th was in Michigan

and the 9th in New Jersey). The

five metropolitan areas showing

the greatest decrease in residential

segregation over the 1980-2000

period were all in Florida:

Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay,

Daytona Beach, Fort Myers-Cape

Coral, Fort Pierce-Port St Lucie, and

Sarasota-Bradenton. Of the next

five largest declines, four were in

Texas, and another in Florida.

In conclusion, it is clear that the

decline in the residential segregation of African Americans in the

1980-1990 period continued apace

over the 1990-2000 period. Most

strides seemed to have been made

in the West and South, particularly

in California, Florida, and Texas,

although increases in segregation

were apparent for some small metropolitan areas in the South. Less

progress was made in the

Northeast and Midwest, and the

large metropolitan areas that had

been the most segregated at the

beginning of the period remained

at or near the top of the list. 

Yet, only 8 of the 220 metropolitan

areas examined in this chapter

showed an increase in the dissimilarity index of residential segregation for Blacks of 1 percent or

more, and 203 showed a decline

of 1 percent or more — indicating

widespread reductions in residential segregation between 1980 and

2000. The reduction of African

American residential segregation

remained slow, but steady.
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 73

Table 5-5.Percent Change in Residential Segregation Indexes for Blacks or African Americans in Large Metr1980-2000

MSA/PMSA name

Dissimilarity index Isolation index Delta index Absolute centralization index 

1980-

1990

percent

change

1990-

2000

percent

change

1980-2000 1980-

1990

percent

change

1990-

2000

percent

change

1980-2000 1980-

1990

percent

change

1990-

2000

percent

change

1980-2000 1980-

1990

percent

change

1990-

2000

percent

change

1980-2000 19

1

per

cha

Percent

change Rank

Percent

change Rank

Percent

change Rank

Percent

change Rank

Atlanta, GA MSA ............ –8.9 –3.9 –12.5 25 –6.0 1.6 –4.5 13 –2.4 –7.7 –9.9 41 –1.5 –5.0 –6.5 30 –

Baltimore, MD PMSA ......... –4.2 –5.3 –9.3 14 –4.2 –3.6 –7.7 18 –2.0 –2.8 –4.7 18 0.2 –3.4 –3.2 16 –

Bergen-Passaic, NJ PMSA ..... –4.4 –5.9 –10.0 16 1.9 –2.1 –0.3 11 –4.6 –4.1 –8.5 38 –2.0 –2.6 –4.5 24 

Boston, MA-NH PMSA ........ –9.1 –5.1 –13.8 26 –8.7 –7.2 –15.2 32 –3.1 –2.7 –5.7 29 –2.5 –3.5 –5.9 28 –Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY MSA . . 0.0 –4.4 –4.4 7 –1.7 –2.7 –4.4 12 –0.2 –4.2 –4.3 15 –2.1 –2.8 –4.8 26 

Chicago, IL PMSA ........... –4.6 –4.8 –9.2 13 –5.4 –4.1 –9.2 21 –2.1 –5.0 –7.0 36 –0.5 –7.5 –8.0 35 –Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN PMSA .... –2.5 –2.9 –5.3 9 –4.4 –4.1 –8.3 20 1.0 –3.8 –2.9 8 –0.5 –2.4 –3.0 13 –Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH

PMSA ................... –3.5 –6.8 –10.1 17 –1.5 –6.6 –8.0 19 –2.0 –3.0 –4.9 21 –1.4 –2.7 –4.0 21 

Columbus, OH MSA .......... –7.7 –8.4 –15.5 29 –8.2 –6.4 –14.1 30 –2.3 –5.1 –7.3 37 –2.4 –0.6 –3.0 14 –

Dallas, TX PMSA ............ –18.9 –6.1 –23.9 39 –20.2 –5.0 –24.2 38 –3.5 –3.1 –6.5 31 2.6 –3.2 –0.7 6 –Denver, CO PMSA ........... –7.2 –5.5 –12.3 24 –17.3 –11.4 –26.7 40 –1.9 –3.0 –4.9 20 –2.1 –2.1 –4.2 23 –Detroit, MI PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 –3.3 –3.3 6 2.3 –1.3 1.0 9 –2.2 –4.7 –6.8 35 –1.2 –3.4 –4.6 25 Fort Lauderdale, FL PMSA ..... –18.3 –11.0 –27.3 41 –20.5 3.1 –18.0 36 –1.6 –5.2 –6.8 34 59.9 –3.7 54.0 1 –

Hartford, CT MSA............ –2.3 –7.5 –9.5 15 –3.4 –9.7 –12.8 26 –1.4 –5.4 –6.8 33 –1.5 –7.5 –8.9 36 Houston, TX PMSA........... –12.0 –0.1 –12.1 23 –11.8 2.3 –9.8 22 –4.1 –2.6 –6.5 32 –4.5 –3.0 –7.4 33 –

Indianapolis, IN MSA ......... –5.4 –5.5 –10.6 19 –8.2 –7.6 –15.2 31 –1.5 –3.6 –5.0 23 3.3 –0.4 3.0 2 –Kansas City, MO-KS MSA ...... –6.2 –5.1 –10.9 20 –10.4 –7.7 –17.3 35 –1.5 –3.3 –4.8 19 –1.0 –0.7 –1.7 9 –

Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA

PMSA ................... –9.9 –8.9 –17.9 35 –8.6 –5.9 –14.0 29 –5.5 –3.7 –9.0 39 –6.5 –8.6 –14.5 40 –

Miami, FL PMSA ............ –12.0 0.5 –11.5 22 –0.4 6.4 6.0 4 –4.5 –1.9 –6.3 30 –8.9 –7.9 –16.2 41 –

Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI PMSA . –1.5 –1.0 –2.5 4 1.0 –0.6 0.3 10 –1.2 –3.3 –4.5 16 –0.4 –2.9 –3.3 19 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI

MSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –8.2 –7.3 –14.9 28 –10.3 6.0 –5.0 16 –1.0 –2.9 –3.8 11 –1.1 –2.3 –3.3 18 

Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMSA ..... –0.7 –4.1 –4.8 8 2.8 1.8 4.6 5 –1.2 –3.8 –4.9 22 –6.3 –5.8 –11.8 38 New Orleans, LA MSA ........ –2.7 0.8 –1.9 2 –0.4 3.5 3.2 7 –3.5 –0.5 –3.9 13 –3.9 –2.3 –6.0 29 New York, NY PMSA . . . . . . . . . 0.1 –0.4 –0.2 1 3.1 1.1 4.3 6 –2.0 –1.6 –3.6 9 –2.4 –0.7 –3.1 15 

Newark, NJ PMSA ........... –0.3 –2.9 –3.2 5 2.4 –0.3 2.1 8 –1.9 –2.0 –3.9 12 –5.0 –2.7 –7.5 34 Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC MSA....... –17.1 –6.8 –22.7 38 –10.8 –0.8 –11.5 25 0.8 –0.2 0.5 1 –0.4 –1.7 –2.2 10 –

Oakland, CA PMSA .......... –8.3 –8.9 –16.4 30 –6.7 –7.1 –13.3 27 –4.0 –5.9 –9.7 40 –10.5 –16.5 –25.3 42 –Orange County, CA PMSA...... –14.7 –2.7 –17.0 33 –21.3 9.3 –14.0 28 –9.9 –7.1 –16.2 43 –19.6 –28.7 –42.7 43 –

Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMSA ..... –1.8 –6.2 –7.8 11 –0.5 –4.4 –4.9 15 –2.6 –2.7 –5.2 26 –1.6 –1.9 –3.5 20 

Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA ....... –17.9 –14.1 –29.5 42 –32.7 –17.8 –44.6 42 –1.8 –1.9 –3.7 10 –0.3 –2.0 –2.3 11 –Pittsburgh, PA MSA .......... –2.5 –5.1 –7.5 10 –4.9 –6.7 –11.2 24 –0.4 –0.8 –1.3 3 1.3 –1.2 0.1 3 –Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA

PMSA ................... –8.2 –26.4 –32.4 43 –14.7 –36.4 –45.7 43 –1.0 –3.7 –4.7 17 –0.7 –3.4 –4.1 22 –

Providence-Fall River-Warwick,

RI-MA MSA ............... –8.7 –9.6 –17.5 34 3.5 –10.7 –7.6 17 –2.7 –2.8 –5.5 27 1.6 –8.6 –7.1 32 

Riverside-San Bernardino, CA

PMSA ................... –16.7 2.5 –14.6 27 –11.4 30.5 15.6 1 –2.3 0.6 –1.7 4 –0.4 –0.6 –1.0 7 

Rochester, NY MSA .......... –0.8 –1.7 –2.4 3 2.9 3.7 6.7 3 –0.1 –1.1 –1.2 2 –0.8 –0.7 –1.5 8 

Saint Louis, MO-IL MSA ....... –5.8 –5.0 –10.5 18 –6.4 –4.8 –10.9 23 –3.1 –2.0 –5.0 25 –2.2 –2.9 –5.0 27 –San Antonio, TX MSA . . . . . . . . . –11.5 –9.2 –19.7 37 –18.9 –9.5 –26.6 39 1.4 –4.2 –2.9 7 0.9 –3.4 –2.5 12 –San Diego, CA MSA .......... –9.9 –7.6 –16.8 32 –13.0 –2.7 –15.4 33 –3.5 0.7 –2.8 6 –4.3 1.0 –3.3 17 –San Francisco, CA PMSA ...... –5.6 –5.8 –11.1 21 –7.0 –9.6 –16.0 34 –2.2 –2.9 –5.0 24 –1.3 1.2 –0.1 4 –San Jose, CA PMSA.......... –10.0 –7.4 –16.7 31 5.9 5.6 11.9 2 0.3 –2.1 –1.8 5 0.2 –0.6 –0.4 5 –Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA

PMSA ................... –16.8 –12.6 –27.2 40 –20.3 –21.1 –37.1 41 –2.0 –2.4 –4.3 14 –6.9 –7.9 –14.3 39 –

Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA . . . . . . . . . –11.3 –9.2 –19.5 36 –15.9 –7.5 –22.2 37 –5.0 –5.9 –10.6 42 –5.3 –1.3 –6.5 31 –Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV

PMSA ................... –5.3 –3.9 –9.0 12 –4.9 0.2 –4.7 14 –2.6 –3.1 –5.6 28 –4.6 –7.3 –11.6 37 –

Note: Includes 43 Metropolitan Areas with 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans and 1,000,000 or more total population in 1980. Higher values indicate 

is White non-Hispanic.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
CHAPTER 6

RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION OF HISPANICS

OR LATINOS: 1980-2000
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 77

Census 2000 results showed that

Hispanics or Latinos (hereafter

referred to as Hispanics) already are

or are about to become the largest

minority group in the United States.

About 14.6 million people identified

as Hispanic in 1980 (6.4 percent of

the total population); this number

grew by over 50 percent to 

22.4 million people in 1990 

(9.0 percent of the total population), and to 35.3 million people

(12.5 percent of the total) in 2000.1

Table 6-1 shows the residential

segregation indexes for Hispanics

for 1980, 1990, and 2000.2 The

dissimilarity, isolation and spatial

proximity indexes showed an

increase in segregation between

1980 and 2000, and the delta and

absolute centralization indexes

showed a decrease in segregation. 

This lack of a consistent pattern is

illustrated by Figure 6-1(a-e), except

that the isolation index showed an

increase throughout its distribution

(rightward shift), as did, to a lesser

extent, the spatial proximity index.

An examination of Figure 

6-2b shows that only two of the

123 selected metropolitan areas

had a decrease in the isolation of

Hispanics between 1980 and 2000.

For regions, this mixed pattern persisted for the Northeast and

Midwest (see Table 6-2). However,

four of the five indexes indicated a

decline in the residential segregation of Hispanics in Southern metropolitan areas between 1980 and

2000, while four of the five indexes

indicated an increase in residential

segregation in Western metropolitan

areas over the same period.

While the picture was also mixed

for metropolitan areas of 1 million

or more and areas of under

500,000 people, for medium-sized

metropolitan areas (500,000-

999,999) three of the five indexes

increased, and the other two

showed no change. Despite these

increases, the medium-sized areas

tended to have lower levels of segregation than areas of larger or

smaller size.

The highest level of residential segregation among Hispanics was in

areas with the highest percentage

of Hispanics, in some cases substantially higher segregation (note

the isolation index particularly). In

2000, the dissimilarity index was

10 percent higher in areas where

the population was 17.5 percent

Hispanic or more (highest quartile)

CHAPTER 6

RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION OF HISPANICS

OR LATINOS: 1980-2000

1 The ethnicity question was moved

ahead of the race question on the 2000

Census because research showed it reduced

nonresponse to this item. 2 Using the approach described in

Chapter 2 to determine substantive changes

as 1 percent of the index range over 3

years, the following critical values are used:

dissimilarity, 0.006; isolation, 0.008; delta,

0.005; absolute centralization, 0.010; spatial

proximity, 0.009.
78 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 6-1.

Descriptive Statistics for Residential Segregation Indexes for Hispanics or Latinos: 1980,

1990, and 2000

Index, year, and percent change

All

metropolitan

areas

(weighted

average)

Selected metropolitan areas

Weighted

average Minimum

25th

percentile Median

75th

percentile Maximum

Dissimilarity Index

1980................................. 0.502 0.511 0.160 0.425 0.525 0.573 0.690

1990................................. 0.500 0.508 0.193 0.423 0.499 0.611 0.744

2000................................. 0.509 0.517 0.175 0.439 0.513 0.611 0.754

Percent change

1980-1990 ......................... –0.3 –0.6 20.9 –0.4 –5.0 6.6 7.7

1990-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 1.8 –9.6 3.8 2.7 0.1 1.4

1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 1.2 9.3 3.3 –2.4 6.7 9.3

Isolation Index

1980................................. 0.454 0.477 0.030 0.350 0.496 0.604 0.925

1990................................. 0.508 0.531 0.029 0.426 0.501 0.715 0.946

2000................................. 0.552 0.585 0.057 0.486 0.578 0.708 0.952

Percent change

1980-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.8 11.4 –4.5 21.5 1.1 18.3 2.3

1990-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 10.0 94.7 14.1 15.3 –0.9 0.6

1980-2000 ......................... 21.5 22.5 86.0 38.7 16.5 17.2 2.8

Delta Index

1980................................. 0.774 0.778 0.440 0.763 0.792 0.823 0.963

1990................................. 0.769 0.772 0.545 0.752 0.779 0.808 0.942

2000................................. 0.764 0.767 0.557 0.755 0.771 0.793 0.950

Percent change

1980-1990 ......................... –0.7 –0.8 23.9 –1.4 –1.6 –1.7 –2.2

1990-2000 ......................... –0.7 –0.6 2.2 0.3 –1.1 –1.9 0.9

1980-2000 ......................... –1.4 –1.4 26.6 –1.1 –2.7 –3.6 –1.4

Absolute Centralization Index

1980................................. 0.725 0.731 –0.336 0.698 0.788 0.837 0.954

1990................................. 0.716 0.720 –0.310 0.682 0.757 0.816 0.950

2000................................. 0.689 0.695 –0.476 0.660 0.718 0.801 0.934

Percent change

1980-1990 ......................... –1.2 –1.4 7.7 –2.2 –4.0 –2.4 –0.4

1990-2000 ......................... –3.7 –3.5 53.7 –3.2 –5.1 –1.9 –1.7

1980-2000 ......................... –4.9 –4.9 –41.9 –5.4 –8.9 –4.3 –2.1

Spatial Proximity Index

1980................................. 1.200 1.210 1.004 1.112 1.218 1.325 1.635

1990................................. 1.225 1.236 1.004 1.128 1.250 1.347 1.426

2000................................. 1.232 1.246 1.009 1.142 1.241 1.350 1.459

Percent change

1980-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 2.1 0.0 1.4 2.6 1.7 –12.8

1990-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.8 0.6 1.3 –0.7 0.2 2.3

1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 3.0 0.6 2.7 2.0 1.9 –10.8

Note: Selected metropolitan areas (123 of 330) are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos in 1980. Higher values indicate more segregation; the reference group is White non-Hispanic. Segregation estimates are weighted by the size of the Hispanic/Latino population.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 79

Figure 6-1a.

Distribution of Dissimilarity Index for Hispanics: 

1980, 1990, and 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Dissimilarity index

1980

1990

2000

Figure 6-1b.

Distribution of Isolation Index for Hispanics: 

1980, 1990, and 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Isolation index

1980

1990

2000
80 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 6-1c.

Distribution of Delta Index for Hispanics: 

1980, 1990, and 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Delta index

1980

1990

2000

Figure 6-1d.

Distribution of Absolute Centralization Index for 

Hispanics: 1980, 1990, and 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Absolute centralization index

1980

1990

2000
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 81

Figure 6-1e.

Distribution of Spatial Proximity Index for Hispanics:

1980, 1990, and 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

1.95- 2<=

1.999

1.90-

1.949

1.85-

1.899

1.80-

1.849

1.75-

1.799

1.70-

1.749

1.65-

1.699

1.60-

1.649

1.55-

1.599

1.50-

1.549

1.45-

1.499

1.40-

1.449

1.35-

1.399

1.30-

1.349

1.25-

1.299

1.20-

1.249

1.15-

1.199

1.10-

1.149

1.05-

1.099

1-

1.049

<1

Spatial proximity index

1980

1990

2000

Figure 6-2a.

Dissimilarity Index for Hispanics for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 dissimilarity index

2000 dissimilarity index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
82 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 6-2b.

Isolation Index for Hispanics for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 isolation index

2000 isolation index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure 6-2c.

Delta Index for Hispanics for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 delta index

2000 delta index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 83

Figure 6-2d.

Absolute Centralization Index for Hispanics for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 absolute centralization index

2000 absolute centralization index

-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure 6-2e.

Spatial Proximity Index for Hispanics for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 spatial proximity index

2000 spatial proximity index

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0
84 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

than in areas that were under 

3.9 percent Hispanic (lowest quartile). When we compared the same

group of metropolitan areas for the

other indexes, the same pattern

emerged — the isolation index was

147 percent higher, the delta index

was 3 percent higher, the absolute

centralization index was 1 percent

higher, and the spatial proximity

index was 11 percent higher. With a

few minor exceptions, the increase

in segregation was monotonic from

the under 3.9 percent category to

the 3.9 to 7.3 percent category, to

the 7.3 to 17.5 percent category,

and to the highest quartile.

Metropolitan areas with the largest

increases (over 213.9 percent) in

Hispanic or Latino population

between 1980 and 2000 generally

experienced larger increases in segregation than metropolitan areas

with relatively small increases in

the Hispanic or Latino population.

The highest quartile was also the

only one which experienced

increases in all five dimensions of

segregation over the 20-year period. In contrast, metropolitan areas

with the smallest increases in the

Hispanic or Latino population experienced decreases in three of the

five indexes and increases in the

other two.

Table 6-3 gives the distribution of

percent change in each index by

decade. This table also confirms

the findings described earlier. The

isolation and spatial proximity

indexes increased over the 1980-

2000 period, the absolute centralization index showed a possible

decrease, and the other two

Table 6-2.

Residential Segregation Indexes for Hispanics or Latinos by Characteristics of Selected

Metropolitan Areas: 1980, 1990, and 2000

(Weighted averages)

Characteristic

Number of

metropolitan

areas

Dissimilarity index Isolation index Delta index Absolute

centralization index

Spatial

proximity index

1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000

Selected metropolitan

areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 0.511 0.508 0.517 0.477 0.531 0.585 0.778 0.772 0.767 0.731 0.720 0.695 1.210 1.236 1.246

Region

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . 22 0.616 0.612 0.615 0.497 0.543 0.578 0.792 0.773 0.757 0.721 0.693 0.666 1.196 1.246 1.290

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . 13 0.571 0.560 0.567 0.336 0.384 0.449 0.779 0.786 0.765 0.736 0.744 0.710 1.226 1.307 1.328

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 0.479 0.456 0.461 0.547 0.563 0.601 0.770 0.759 0.736 0.744 0.741 0.706 1.203 1.186 1.182

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 0.477 0.494 0.514 0.449 0.529 0.597 0.777 0.777 0.791 0.726 0.715 0.695 1.218 1.252 1.261

Population Size

1 Million or more . . . . 36 0.540 0.541 0.552 0.478 0.545 0.600 0.788 0.781 0.774 0.774 0.757 0.729 1.236 1.268 1.278

500,000-999,999 . . . . 16 0.466 0.442 0.463 0.372 0.399 0.468 0.748 0.743 0.744 0.611 0.622 0.624 1.147 1.168 1.204

Under 500,000. . . . . . 71 0.432 0.416 0.421 0.521 0.543 0.589 0.759 0.749 0.756 0.630 0.629 0.609 1.150 1.150 1.154

Percent Hispanic/

Latino (Quartiles)

Under 3.9 percent . . . 31 0.437 0.444 0.483 0.153 0.207 0.291 0.751 0.754 0.751 0.719 0.719 0.706 1.058 1.094 1.144

3.9-7.3 percent . . . . . 31 0.477 0.472 0.476 0.255 0.302 0.372 0.726 0.728 0.722 0.599 0.610 0.594 1.093 1.137 1.180

7.3-17.5 percent . . . . 31 0.474 0.480 0.517 0.348 0.421 0.524 0.773 0.776 0.777 0.720 0.713 0.698 1.172 1.220 1.268

Over 17.5 percent . . . 30 0.541 0.535 0.532 0.601 0.662 0.718 0.791 0.779 0.774 0.755 0.741 0.711 1.261 1.278 1.266

Percent Change

(1980-2000)

Hispanic/Latino

(Quartiles)

Under 100.4 percent . 30 0.546 0.539 0.538 0.559 0.603 0.647 0.791 0.778 0.759 0.740 0.727 0.698 1.216 1.240 1.249

100.4-148.2 percent . 31 0.537 0.546 0.546 0.536 0.625 0.677 0.779 0.771 0.766 0.741 0.723 0.682 1.268 1.302 1.286

148.2-213.9 percent . 32 0.457 0.473 0.506 0.335 0.419 0.516 0.743 0.741 0.743 0.691 0.668 0.646 1.142 1.195 1.248

Over 213.9 percent . . 30 0.413 0.408 0.461 0.264 0.320 0.435 0.793 0.801 0.801 0.729 0.765 0.759 1.098 1.115 1.179

Note: Includes 123 metropolitan areas with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos in 1980. Higher values indicate more

segregation; the reference group is White non-Hispanic. Characteristics of metropolitan areas as of 1980. Segregation estimates are weighted by the size of the

Hispanic/Latino population.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 85

indexes did not change much, on

average.

Table 6-4 displays 36 large (1 million or more) metropolitan areas

with 3 percent, or 20,000 or more,

Hispanics in 1980. In terms of the

most commonly used residential

segregation index — dissimilarity —

the five most segregated metropolitan areas for Hispanics were, in

order: Providence-Fall RiverWarwick, New York, Newark,

Hartford, and Los Angeles-Long

Beach. When the other four indexes

are taken into account, and the

ranks averaged across the five

indexes, the five most segregated

metropolitan areas for Hispanics in

2000 were, in order, New York,

Providence-Fall River-Warwick,

Phoenix-Mesa, Los Angeles-Long

Beach, and Chicago and Newark

(tied). The top ten were rounded

out by Denver, Riverside-San

Bernardino and Houston (tied), and

five others that were roughly tied

for tenth. Figure 6-3 presents the

settlement patterns for Hispanics in

New York in 2000.

While New York has been the most

segregated large metropolitan area

for Hispanics since 1980,

Providence has risen from 27th of

36 in 1980 to 10th in 1990, and to

2nd most segregated in 2000.

Miami moved in the other direction, from 3rd most segregated in

1980, to 4th in 1990, and to 17th

in 2000. 

The five least segregated metropolitan areas for Hispanics, based

on the dissimilarity index, were, in

order: St. Louis, Seattle-BellevueEverett, Fort Lauderdale, PortlandVancouver, and Baltimore. Using all

five indexes averaged, the five

least segregated metropolitan

areas for Hispanics were, in order:

Table 6-3.

Distribution of Percent Change in Residential Segregation Indexes for Hispanics

or Latinos: 1980-2000

Time period change

Dissimilarity index Isolation index Delta index Absolute

centralization index

Spatial

proximity index

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

1980-1990

Increase of 5 percent or more . . 30 24 96 78 7 6 17 14 18 15

Increase of 1-4.99 percent . . . . . 16 13 12 10 37 30 24 20 46 37

Change of less than 1 percent . 8 7 4 3 28 23 25 20 43 35

Decrease of 1-4.99 percent . . . . 25 20 7 6 41 33 36 29 14 11

Decrease of 5 percent or more . 44 36 4 3 10 8 21 17 2 2

1990-2000

Increase of 5 percent or more . . 55 45 108 88 10 8 15 12 32 26

Increase of 1-4.99 percent . . . . . 24 20 9 7 30 24 12 10 52 42

Change of less than 1 percent . 6 5 4 3 30 24 19 15 33 27

Decrease of 1-4.99 percent . . . . 23 19 0 0 48 39 43 35 4 3

Decrease of 5 percent or more . 15 12 2 2 5 4 34 28 2 2

1980-2000

Increase of 5 percent or more . . 52 42 114 93 22 18 23 19 56 46

Increase of 1-4.99 percent ..... 9 7 6 5 29 24 14 11 35 28

Change of less than 1 percent . 9 7 1 1 18 15 9 7 20 16

Decrease of 1-4.99 percent . . . . 20 16 0 0 31 25 27 22 7 6

Decrease of 5 percent or more . 33 27 2 2 23 19 50 41 5 4

Note: Includes 123 Metropolitan Areas with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos in 1980.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
86 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 6-4.Residential Segregation for Hispanics or Latinos in Large Metropolitan Areas: 1980, 1990, and 200

MSA/PMSA name

Dissimilarity index Isolation index Delta index Absolute centralization index Spatial 

1980 1990 2000 

2000

rank 1980 1990 2000

2000

rank 1980 1990 2000

2000

rank 1980 1990 2000

2000

rank 1980 1

Atlanta, GA MSA ........ 0.299 0.349 0.511 18 0.063 0.088 0.297 26 0.652 0.667 0.673 31 0.734 0.737 0.703 23 1.006 1

Baltimore, MD PMSA ..... 0.326 0.301 0.358 32 0.062 0.045 0.075 35 0.652 0.651 0.666 32 0.606 0.615 0.589 32 1.011 1

Bergen-Passaic, NJ PMSA. 0.609 0.588 0.578 10 0.396 0.475 0.528 13 0.732 0.723 0.710 28 0.676 0.653 0.629 27 1.152 1Boston, MA-NH PMSA .... 0.553 0.547 0.587 9 0.219 0.264 0.330 24 0.759 0.764 0.779 18 0.761 0.746 0.749 15 1.077 1

Chicago, IL PMSA ....... 0.635 0.619 0.611 6 0.437 0.487 0.550 9 0.792 0.803 0.774 20 0.749 0.764 0.715 21 1.325 1

Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria,

OH PMSA............. 0.575 0.575 0.577 11 0.162 0.183 0.218 30 0.786 0.781 0.768 24 0.613 0.618 0.613 29 1.063 1

Dallas, TX PMSA ........ 0.485 0.498 0.537 14 0.311 0.406 0.546 10 0.781 0.788 0.777 19 0.793 0.816 0.801 9 1.119 1Denver, CO PMSA ....... 0.488 0.465 0.500 21 0.323 0.338 0.434 18 0.870 0.857 0.844 4 0.914 0.897 0.881 1 1.146 1Detroit, MI PMSA ........ 0.413 0.398 0.456 26 0.105 0.128 0.244 28 0.690 0.669 0.662 33 0.679 0.651 0.627 28 1.047 1Fort Lauderdale, FL PMSA. 0.262 0.259 0.310 34 0.080 0.141 0.306 25 0.440 0.685 0.693 29 0.264 0.705 0.612 30 1.010 1Hartford, CT MSA........ 0.663 0.659 0.634 4 0.383 0.444 0.447 17 0.816 0.804 0.772 21 0.745 0.731 0.678 25 1.174 1Houston, TX PMSA ...... 0.499 0.494 0.551 12 0.425 0.492 0.618 5 0.797 0.779 0.755 25 0.851 0.813 0.780 11 1.218 1Kansas City, MO-KS MSA . 0.404 0.394 0.455 27 0.129 0.135 0.229 29 0.791 0.811 0.802 9 0.834 0.842 0.848 4 1.032 1Los Angeles-Long Beach,

CA PMSA ............. 0.573 0.611 0.631 5 0.603 0.715 0.781 2 0.778 0.771 0.770 22 0.788 0.757 0.718 19 1.344 1

Miami, FL PMSA......... 0.525 0.503 0.439 29 0.625 0.734 0.791 1 0.809 0.798 0.780 17 0.855 0.820 0.772 13 1.290 1

Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI

PMSA ................ 0.550 0.564 0.595 8 0.190 0.266 0.396 21 0.793 0.794 0.786 15 0.749 0.744 0.708 22 1.072 1

Minneapolis-St. Paul,

MN-WI MSA ........... 0.364 0.355 0.465 25 0.050 0.057 0.158 31 0.788 0.799 0.792 12 0.852 0.857 0.854 3 1.015 1

Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMSA . 0.371 0.423 0.469 24 0.134 0.221 0.340 22 0.569 0.587 0.597 36 0.385 0.369 0.350 35 1.033 1New Orleans, LA MSA .... 0.265 0.314 0.358 31 0.104 0.123 0.147 33 0.817 0.827 0.827 5 0.859 0.864 0.846 5 1.024 1

New York, NY PMSA ..... 0.652 0.656 0.667 2 0.604 0.665 0.708 3 0.829 0.808 0.793 11 0.837 0.816 0.812 7 1.244 1

Newark, NJ PMSA ....... 0.669 0.669 0.650 3 0.408 0.481 0.534 12 0.847 0.826 0.808 7 0.606 0.572 0.545 33 1.183 1Oakland, CA PMSA ...... 0.365 0.388 0.469 23 0.250 0.333 0.486 16 0.697 0.691 0.689 30 0.349 0.341 0.292 36 1.066 1Orange County, CA PMSA . 0.425 0.499 0.551 13 0.350 0.501 0.612 6 0.643 0.652 0.648 34 0.642 0.594 0.533 34 1.163 1Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMSA. 0.628 0.623 0.601 7 0.351 0.426 0.429 20 0.769 0.752 0.744 26 0.765 0.757 0.727 18 1.183 1Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA . . . 0.522 0.486 0.521 16 0.390 0.404 0.511 14 0.859 0.857 0.866 2 0.818 0.849 0.861 2 1.163 1Portland-Vancouver,

OR-WA PMSA ......... 0.208 0.256 0.343 33 0.030 0.065 0.158 32 0.727 0.736 0.800 10 0.756 0.747 0.785 10 1.006 1

Providence-Fall RiverWarwick, RI-MA MSA .... 0.497 0.614 0.676 1 0.114 0.283 0.429 19 0.783 0.829 0.851 3 0.684 0.785 0.777 12 1.032 1Riverside-San Bernardino,

CA PMSA ............. 0.381 0.358 0.425 30 0.358 0.427 0.578 7 0.879 0.868 0.879 1 0.802 0.830 0.835 6 1.119 1

St. Louis, MO-IL MSA..... 0.264 0.229 0.273 36 0.046 0.029 0.057 36 0.737 0.723 0.716 27 0.782 0.755 0.736 16 1.004 1San Antonio, TX MSA..... 0.575 0.535 0.507 19 0.699 0.688 0.704 4 0.811 0.804 0.769 23 0.827 0.810 0.769 14 1.382 1San Diego, CA MSA...... 0.418 0.453 0.506 20 0.345 0.436 0.543 11 0.806 0.804 0.819 6 0.706 0.682 0.660 26 1.112 1

San Francisco, CA PMSA. . 0.455 0.498 0.535 15 0.309 0.411 0.497 15 0.793 0.793 0.790 13 0.801 0.764 0.716 20 1.112 1San Jose, CA PMSA ..... 0.452 0.478 0.513 17 0.378 0.471 0.570 8 0.732 0.769 0.782 16 0.704 0.707 0.699 24 1.180 1Seattle-Bellevue-Everett,

WA PMSA............. 0.191 0.207 0.303 35 0.031 0.047 0.112 34 0.787 0.785 0.786 14 0.797 0.755 0.733 17 1.004 1

Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA ..... 0.498 0.453 0.444 28 0.220 0.215 0.278 27 0.666 0.622 0.621 35 0.716 0.623 0.597 31 1.098 1Washington, DC-MDVA-WV PMSA.......... 0.322 0.423 0.480 22 0.097 0.222 0.338 23 0.792 0.810 0.802 8 0.846 0.842 0.805 8 1.027 1

Note: Includes 36 Metropolitan Areas with 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos and 1,000,000 or more total population in 1980. Higher values indicate more s

White non-Hispanic.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 87

N

The Most Segregated Large Metropolitan Area for Hispanics or Latinos in 2000: 

New York, NY PMSA

Figure 6-3.

Census Tract

County

State

Hispanic or Latino

White, non-Hispanic

1 Dot = 400 People

0 5 10

Kilometers

Miles

See Inset, Figure 6-3a.

0 5 10

Prepared by Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau

Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) boundaries 

and names are those defined by the Federal Office of 

Management and Budget on June 30, 1999. All other 

boundaries and names are as of January 1, 2000.

Westcheste tchester

Y

Richmond

Nassau

Suffolk

Fairfield

Orange

Bergen

Passaic

Essex

Union

Middlesex Selection criteria of the most segregated MA 

is based on the universe of 36 metropolitan areas 

with at least 3 percent or 20,000 or more 

Hispanics or Latinos and 1 million or more 

total population in 1980.

CONNECTICUT

NEW JERSEY
88 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Prepared by Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau

The Most Segregated Large Metropolitan Area for Hispanics or Latinos in 2000:

New York, NY PMSA (inset)

Figure 6-3a.

Kilometers

2 4

N

Miles

0 2 4

0

Census Tract

County

State

Hispanic or Latino

White, non-Hispanic

1 Dot = 400 People

Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) boundaries 

and names are those defined by the Federal Office of 

Management and Budget on June 30, 1999. All other 

boundaries and names are as of January 1, 2000.

Selection criteria of the most segregated MA 

is based on the universe of 36 metropolitan areas 

with at least 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics 

or Latinos and 1 million or more total population in 1980.

Westchester

Bronx

New

Yor

Kings

Quee

Richmond

Bergen

Hudson

Passaic

Essex

Union

Nassau

NEW JERSEY
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 89

Baltimore; St. Louis; Fort

Lauderdale; Nassau-Suffolk; and

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater

(Detroit is roughly tied with

Nassau-Suffolk and TampaSt. Petersburg). Figure 6-4 presents

the settlement pattern for

Hispanics in Baltimore in 2000. 

Table 6-5 presents the changes by

decade in the 1980 and 2000 period

for these large metropolitan areas.

Those showing the largest percentage declines (or smallest increases)

in residential segregation of

Hispanics over the 1980-2000 period (averaging ranks across the five

indexes) were, in order: San Antonio,

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater,

Miami, Hartford, and St. Louis. The

five large metropolitan areas

showing the smallest percentage

declines (largest increases) were, in

order: Providence-Fall River-Warwick,

Atlanta, Fort Lauderdale and

Portland-Vancouver (tied), and

Washington. 

Not only was Providence-Fall 

River-Warwick one of the most

segregated large metropolitan

areas for Hispanics in 2000, it was

also the metropolitan area with the

largest percentage increase over

the 1980-2000 period when all

123 selected areas (areas with

20,000 or 3 percent or more

Hispanics in 1980) were considered. The other four with the

largest increases were Fort

Lauderdale, Las Vegas, Santa Rosa,

and Richland-Kennewick-Pasco. In

contrast to Providence-Fall RiverWarwick, Fort Lauderdale was one

of the least segregated large areas

in 2000. 

Of the five metropolitan areas

showing the largest percentage

decrease, based on the ranks of all

selected metropolitan areas in residential segregation over the 1980-

2000 period, four were in Texas: 

El Paso; Odessa-Midland; San

Antonio; Jersey City, NJ; and

Laredo (tied). Of the next five,

another was in North Carolina

(Fayettville), another two were also

in the South (Miami FL and

Galveston-Texas City TX), and two

were in the Midwest (Gary IN and

Saginaw-Bay City-Midland MI).

Overall, the residential segregation

picture for Hispanics in the United

States is mixed, with increases

slightly outnumbering declines

when all measures are considered.

There was some slight evidence of

declines in segregation in the

South, but increases for mediumsized metropolitan areas, and

increases in metropolitan areas

with large percentages of

Hispanics. While New York continued to be the most segregated

large metropolitan area for

Hispanics, as it had been for two

decades, several areas showed significant changes — ProvidenceFall River-Warwick, for example,

became much more segregated

and Miami much less so.
90 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau Miles

0 5 10

Kilometers

0 5 10

N

White, non-Hispanic

Hispanic or Latino

Census Tract

State

County or Statistical Equivalent

1 Dot = 200 People

Prepared by Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau

Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) boundaries and names are those defined by the Federal Office of Management and Budget on June 30, 1999. All other boundaries and names are as of January 1, 2000.

PrinceGeorge's

Cecil

Montgomer

y

K

C

albot

Frederick

arroll

Baltimor

ltimore

ty)

Selection criteria of the least segregathe universe of 36 metropolitan area3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispan1 million or more total population in 

PENNSYLVANIA
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 91 Table 6-5. Percent Change in Residential Segregation Indexes for Hispanics or Latinos in Large Metropolitan 

MSA/PMSA name Dissimilarity index Isolation index Delta index Absolute centralization index 

1980- 1990 percent change 1990- 2000 percent change 1980-2000 1980- 1990 percent change 1990- 2000 percent change 1980-2000 1980- 1990 percent change 1990- 2000 percent change 1980-2000 1980- 1990 percent change 1990- 2000 percent change 1980-2000 1

Percent change Rank Percent change Rank Percent change Rank Percent change Rank 

Atlanta, GA MSA ......... 16.7 46.5 71.0 1 39.8 236.2 370.1 2 2.3 0.8 3.2 6 0.4 –4.6 –4.2 16 

Baltimore, MD PMSA . . . . . . –7.5 18.7 9.8 21 –26.8 65.7 21.2 33 –0.2 2.4 2.1 8 1.5 –4.3 –2.8 13 

Bergen-Passaic, NJ PMSA. . –3.5 –1.7 –5.2 33 20.0 11.2 33.3 24 –1.2 –1.8 –3.0 27 –3.4 –3.7 –6.9 23 Boston, MA-NH PMSA. . . . . –1.0 7.3 6.2 23 20.7 24.9 50.8 18 0.6 1.9 2.6 7 –2.1 0.4 –1.6 12 

Chicago, IL PMSA . . . . . . . . –2.6 –1.2 –3.8 30 11.4 13.0 25.9 30 1.3 –3.6 –2.3 24 2.0 –6.4 –4.5 17 

Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.5 0.5 27 13.3 19.3 35.1 22 –0.6 –1.6 –2.2 23 0.7 –0.7 0.0 9 Dallas, TX PMSA. . . . . . . . . 2.7 7.8 10.7 17 30.7 34.4 75.7 13 0.9 –1.4 –0.5 19 2.9 –1.8 1.0 7 

Denver, CO PMSA. . . . . . . . –4.7 7.6 2.5 25 4.8 28.3 34.5 23 –1.5 –1.5 –3.0 26 –1.9 –1.8 –3.6 15 

Detroit, MI PMSA. . . . . . . . . –3.8 14.6 10.3 19 22.4 90.9 133.6 9 –3.2 –1.0 –4.1 30 –4.1 –3.8 –7.7 25 

Fort Lauderdale, FL PMSA. . –1.2 19.5 18.1 12 76.3 117.5 283.4 3 55.7 1.2 57.5 1 167.4 –13.2 132.2 1 Hartford, CT MSA . . . . . . . . –0.6 –3.8 –4.4 32 15.9 0.6 16.7 35 –1.5 –3.9 –5.3 35 –1.9 –7.2 –8.9 29 

Houston, TX PMSA . . . . . . . –1.0 11.6 10.5 18 16.0 25.4 45.4 20 –2.2 –3.1 –5.2 34 –4.5 –4.0 –8.3 27 

Kansas City, MO-KS MSA . . –2.5 15.4 12.5 15 4.6 69.3 77.1 12 2.5 –1.1 1.4 10 0.9 0.6 1.6 6 Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 3.3 10.2 20 18.7 9.2 29.6 27 –0.9 –0.2 –1.1 21 –4.0 –5.1 –8.9 28 

Miami, FL PMSA . . . . . . . . . –4.2 –12.7 –16.4 36 17.4 7.8 26.6 28 –1.3 –2.3 –3.6 29 –4.1 –5.8 –9.7 31 

Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 5.6 8.2 22 39.7 49.0 108.2 10 0.1 –1.0 –0.9 20 –0.6 –4.8 –5.4 20 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI MSA . . . . . . . . . . . –2.5 31.0 27.8 9 14.0 178.6 217.6 7 1.4 –0.9 0.5 15 0.5 –0.3 0.2 8 Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMSA . . 13.8 10.9 26.2 10 65.0 53.7 153.5 8 3.1 1.7 4.9 5 –4.1 –5.1 –9.0 30 New Orleans, LA MSA ..... 18.3 14.2 35.1 6 18.3 18.9 40.7 21 1.3 0.0 1.3 11 0.5 –2.1 –1.6 11 

New York, NY PMSA . . . . . . 0.7 1.6 2.3 26 10.1 6.5 17.2 34 –2.5 –1.9 –4.3 31 –2.4 –0.6 –3.0 14 

Newark, NJ PMSA. . . . . . . . 0.0 –2.9 –2.9 29 17.9 11.0 30.8 26 –2.4 –2.2 –4.5 32 –5.7 –4.6 –10.1 32 

Oakland, CA PMSA . . . . . . . 6.4 20.8 28.5 8 33.2 46.0 94.5 11 –0.9 –0.2 –1.1 22 –2.3 –14.3 –16.2 34 

Orange County, CA PMSA . . 17.4 10.4 29.6 7 43.0 22.1 74.5 14 1.4 –0.6 0.8 14 –7.4 –10.3 –17.0 36 Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMSA. . –0.8 –3.6 –4.4 31 21.3 0.7 22.2 32 –2.2 –1.1 –3.2 28 –0.9 –4.1 –5.0 19 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA . . . . –6.8 7.2 –0.1 28 3.6 26.6 31.1 25 –0.2 1.0 0.9 13 3.8 1.4 5.2 3 

Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA PMSA .......... 23.2 33.6 64.7 2 113.0 143.1 417.9 1 1.2 8.7 10.0 2 –1.2 5.1 3.8 5 

Providence-Fall River- Warwick, RI-MA MSA..... 23.5 10.1 36.0 5 148.4 51.4 276.1 4 5.9 2.6 8.7 3 14.7 –1.0 13.6 2 

Riverside-San Bernardino, CA PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . –6.0 18.5 11.4 16 19.5 35.2 61.5 15 –1.2 1.2 0.0 16 3.4 0.7 4.1 4 

St. Louis, MO-IL MSA ..... –13.2 19.6 3.7 24 –36.6 94.7 23.5 31 –2.0 –1.0 –2.9 25 –3.6 –2.5 –6.0 21 

San Antonio, TX MSA . . . . . –7.0 –5.1 –11.8 35 –1.5 2.4 0.8 36 –0.9 –4.3 –5.2 33 –2.0 –5.0 –6.9 24 

San Diego, CA MSA . . . . . . 8.3 11.8 21.0 11 26.5 24.4 57.4 17 –0.3 1.9 1.6 9 –3.3 –3.2 –6.4 22 

San Francisco, CA PMSA . . 9.4 7.3 17.4 13 32.9 20.8 60.5 16 0.0 –0.4 –0.5 18 –4.5 –6.4 –10.6 33 San Jose, CA PMSA . . . . . . 5.9 7.2 13.5 14 24.4 21.0 50.6 19 5.0 1.8 6.9 4 0.4 –1.2 –0.8 10 Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0 46.3 58.0 3 49.3 138.0 255.4 5 –0.2 0.1 –0.1 17 –5.3 –2.9 –8.0 26 Tampa-St. Petersburg- Clearwater, FL MSA. . . . . . –9.1 –1.9 –10.8 34 –2.2 29.2 26.3 29 –6.7 –0.1 –6.8 36 –13.0 –4.2 –16.6 35 Washington, DC-MD-VA- WV PMSA ............. 31.3 13.3 48.8 4 129.2 52.1 248.7 6 2.2 –0.9 1.2 12 –0.5 –4.3 –4.8 18 

Note: Includes 36 Metropolitan Areas with 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos and 1,000,000 or more total population in 1980. Higher values indicate more s

White non-Hispanic. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
CHAPTER 7

CROSS-GROUP COMPARISONS
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 95

The previous four chapters discussed

residential segregation within metropolitan areas separately for the four

major racial and ethnic minority

groups in the United States —

American Indians and Alaska Natives,

Asians and Pacific Islanders, Blacks or

African Americans, and Hispanics or

Latinos. This chapter examines these

groups together and makes comparisons across them in the extent and

patterns of segregation.

Because the size of these populations vary, as does their geographic

distribution, this chapter examines

the five residential segregation

indexes by focusing mainly on all

metropolitan areas, rather than the

“selected” areas that were highlighted in the previous chapters. As a

basis of comparison, Tables 7-1 and

7-2 include descriptive statistics

both for all metropolitan areas and

for the selected metropolitan areas

from chapters 3-6.1

It is clear from Table 7-1 that

Blacks were the most residentially

segregated of the four groups

examined. They had the highest

mean index score for all metropolitan areas for all five indexes for all

three censuses. They also had the

highest index score for selected

metropolitan areas for all five

indexes for all three censuses,

with only one exception (spatial

proximity for American Indians

and Alaska Natives for 1990). 

Hispanics were the second-most

segregated group, with the second-highest index score for all

metropolitan areas for all five

indexes for all 3 years, with the

same exception as that for Blacks.

Similarly, they had the secondhighest index score for selected

metropolitan areas for all five

indexes for all 3 years, this time

with only two exceptions: spatial

proximity for American Indians

and Alaska Natives for 1980, and

Blacks with the second highest

spatial proximity in 1990.

Asians and Pacific Islanders were

more residentially segregated than

American Indians and Alaska

Natives, as measured by four of

the five indexes for all years for

both all metropolitan areas and

selected metropolitan areas. The

one exception, again, was spatial

proximity.

As noted in Chapter 4, in 2000,

the residential segregation indexes for Asians were close to those

for Asians and Pacific Islanders

(not surprising as they make up

the vast majority of the combined

group), while the indexes for

Native Hawaiians and Other

Pacific Islanders (also referred to

as Pacific Islanders) tended to be

somewhat lower (though not universally so). When all metropolitan areas are considered, both

Asians and Pacific Islanders were

more segregated than American

Indians and Alaska Natives for

three of the five indexes — dissimilarity, isolation, and delta —

while Pacific Islanders were less

segregated than American Indians

and Alaska Natives for the other

two indexes — absolute centralization and spatial proximity.

The distribution of index values is

presented in a histogram for all

CHAPTER 7

CROSS-GROUP COMPARISONS

1 As discussed in chapter 2, the set of

indexes averaged across all metropolitan

data suffers from the weakness of including

metropolitan areas where the minority group

is so small that segregation estimates may

appear peculiar or anomalous. This weakness is at least partly compensated for by

computing averages based on weights in all

tables, where the weights are the number of

the minority group in question present in

the metropolitan area.
96 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 7-1.

Descriptive Statistics for Residential Segregation Indexes for American Indians and

Alaska Natives, Asians and Pacific Islanders, Blacks, and Hispanics: 1980, 1990, and 2000

(Weighted averages)

Index and race/ethnicity

All metropolitan areas Selected metropolitan areas

1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000

Dissimilarity Index

American Indians and Alaska Natives ............ 0.373 0.368 0.333 0.414 0.404 0.390

Asians and Pacific Islanders .................... 0.405 0.412 0.411 0.422 0.424 0.433

Asians...................................... (NA) (NA) 0.416 (NA) (NA) 0.437

Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders . . . (NA) (NA) 0.427 (NA) (NA) 0.443

Blacks or African Americans..................... 0.727 0.678 0.640 0.730 0.682 0.645

Hispanics or Latinos ........................... 0.502 0.500 0.509 0.511 0.508 0.517

Isolation Index

American Indians and Alaska Natives ............ 0.082 0.102 0.103 0.177 0.188 0.205

Asians and Pacific Islanders .................... 0.233 0.264 0.306 0.292 0.330 0.395

Asians...................................... (NA) (NA) 0.300 (NA) (NA) 0.386

Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders . . . (NA) (NA) 0.204 (NA) (NA) 0.290

Blacks or African Americans..................... 0.655 0.614 0.591 0.662 0.622 0.601

Hispanics or Latinos ........................... 0.454 0.508 0.552 0.477 0.531 0.585

Delta Index

American Indians and Alaska Natives ............ 0.695 0.685 0.676 0.673 0.674 0.699

Asians and Pacific Islanders .................... 0.741 0.753 0.743 0.733 0.742 0.735

Asians...................................... (NA) (NA) 0.747 (NA) (NA) 0.739

Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders . . . (NA) (NA) 0.712 (NA) (NA) 0.687

Blacks or African Americans..................... 0.834 0.816 0.793 0.835 0.816 0.793

Hispanics or Latinos ........................... 0.774 0.769 0.764 0.778 0.772 0.767

Absolute Centralization Index

American Indians and Alaska Natives ............ 0.622 0.619 0.611 0.627 0.646 0.658

Asians and Pacific Islanders .................... 0.701 0.700 0.683 0.700 0.693 0.672

Asians...................................... (NA) (NA) 0.687 (NA) (NA) 0.678

Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders . . . (NA) (NA) 0.582 (NA) (NA) 0.533

Blacks or African Americans..................... 0.753 0.743 0.722 0.755 0.745 0.724

Hispanics or Latinos ........................... 0.725 0.716 0.689 0.731 0.720 0.695

Spatial Proximity Index

American Indians and Alaska Natives ............ 1.197 1.244 1.077 1.376 1.466 1.164

Asians and Pacific Islanders .................... 1.057 1.083 1.096 1.071 1.104 1.124

Asians...................................... (NA) (NA) 1.098 (NA) (NA) 1.127

Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders . . . (NA) (NA) 1.050 (NA) (NA) 1.071

Blacks or African Americans..................... 1.435 1.400 1.374 1.441 1.406 1.381

Hispanics or Latinos ........................... 1.200 1.225 1.232 1.210 1.236 1.246

NA Not available.

Note: Selected Metropolitan Areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more of the racial/ethnic group in 1980. Higher values indicate more segregation; the reference group is White non-Hispanics or Latinos. Segregation estimates are weighted by the size of the applicable minority group

population.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 97

Table 7-2.

Percent Changes in Residential Segregation Indexes for American Indians and

Alaska Natives, Asians and Pacific Islanders, Blacks, and Hispanics: 1980-1990,

1990-2000, and 1980-2000

Index and race/ethnicity

All metropolitan areas Selected metropolitan areas

1980-1990

percent

change

1990-2000

percent

change

1980-2000

percent

change

1980-1990

percent

change

1990-2000

percent

change

1980-2000

percent

change

Dissimilarity Index

American Indians and Alaska Natives ........ -1.4 –9.5 –10.8 –2.5 –3.6 –6.0

Asians and Pacific Islanders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 –0.2 1.4 0.4 2.1 2.5

Blacks or African Americans ................ -6.8 –5.6 –12.0 –6.6 –5.4 –11.7

Hispanics or Latinos ....................... -0.3 1.8 1.5 –0.6 1.8 1.2

Isolation Index

American Indians and Alaska Natives . . . . . . . . 24.0 0.8 25.0 5.9 9.3 15.8

Asians and Pacific Islanders ................ 13.4 16.0 31.5 13.0 19.9 35.5

Blacks or African Americans ................ -6.3 –3.8 –9.9 –6.0 –3.4 –9.3

Hispanics or Latinos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.8 8.7 21.5 11.4 10.0 22.5

Delta Index

American Indians and Alaska Natives ........ -1.4 –1.4 –2.8 0.2 3.7 3.8

Asians and Pacific Islanders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 –1.3 0.3 1.3 –1.0 0.3

Blacks or African Americans ................ -2.2 –2.8 –5.0 –2.2 –2.8 –5.0

Hispanics or Latinos ....................... -0.7 –0.7 –1.4 –0.8 –0.6 –1.4

Absolute Centralization Index

American Indians and Alaska Natives ........ -0.5 –1.2 –1.7 3.0 1.8 4.9

Asians and Pacific Islanders ................ -0.1 –2.4 –2.5 –1.1 –2.9 –4.0

Blacks or African Americans ................ -1.3 –2.8 –4.1 –1.3 –2.8 –4.1

Hispanics or Latinos ....................... -1.2 –3.7 –4.9 –1.4 –3.5 –4.9

Spatial Proximity Index

American Indians and Alaska Natives . . . . . . . . 4.0 –13.5 –10.0 6.5 –20.6 –15.4

Asians and Pacific Islanders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 1.2 3.7 3.1 1.8 4.9

Blacks or African Americans ................ -2.5 –1.9 –4.3 –2.4 –1.8 –4.1

Hispanics or Latinos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 0.5 2.7 2.1 0.8 3.0

Note: Selected Metropolitan Areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more of the racial/ethnic group in 1980. Higher values indicate more segregation; the reference group is White non-Hispanica or Latinos.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
98 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

metropolitan areas for 1980, 1990,

and 2000 in Figures 7-1(a-e), 7-2(ae), and 7-3(a-e), respectively. These

generally confirm the findings

described above. The dissimilarity

index shows the same ordering

from most to least segregated:

Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Pacific

Islanders, American Indians and

Alaska Natives. This conclusion also

holds, though not as clearly

because of their relatively narrower

distributions, for the isolation index

and the spatial proximity index. 

Table 7-2 displays the percentage

changes in the weighted averages

for each index over each decade.

No index shows a uniform pattern

for all groups. Of the five dimensions examined, declines in segregation were most evident in centralization (absolute

centralization), where all groups

experienced declines over the

1980 to 2000 period when all metropolitan areas were considered

(declines were not registered for

American Indians and Alaska

Natives in their 13 selected metropolitan areas). Three of the four

groups experienced declines in

concentration (delta) when all metropolitan areas are considered —

Asians and Pacific Islanders, who

experienced no change, are the

exception. Trends for the evenness

(dissimilarity) and clustering (spatial proximity) dimensions were

split, with two racial/ethnic groups

experiencing increases and two

experiencing declines. Finally,

exposure (isolation) was the one

dimension where increases predominated, with only African

Americans experiencing declines.

Because the isolation index is sensitive to the overall size of the

minority group, it is unsurprising

that this index showed the greatest increases as the population of

all of the minority groups grew

substantially over the 1980-2000

period. 

Figure 7-1a.

Distribution of Dissimilarity Index for 

AIAN, API, Black, and Hispanic: 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more of the racial/ethnic group 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Dissimilarity index

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 99

Figure 7-1b.

Distribution of Isolation Index for 

AIAN, API, Black, and Hispanic: 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more of the racial/ethnic group 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Isolation index

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino

Figure 7-1c.

Distribution of Delta Index for 

AIAN, API, Black, and Hispanic: 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more of the racial/ethnic group 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Delta index

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino
100 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 7-1d.

Distribution of Absolute Centralization Index 

for AIAN, API, Black, and Hispanic: 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more of the racial/ethnic group 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Absolute centralization index

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino

Figure 7-1e.

Distribution of Spatial Proximity Index for 

AIAN, API, Black, and Hispanic: 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more of the racial/ethnic group 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1.95- 2<=

1.999

1.90-

1.949

1.85-

1.899

1.80-

1.849

1.75-

1.799

1.70-

1.749

1.65-

1.699

1.60-

1.649

1.55-

1.599

1.50-

1.549

1.45-

1.499

1.40-

1.449

1.35-

1.399

1.30-

1.349

1.25-

1.299

1.20-

1.249

1.15-

1.199

1.10-

1.149

1.05-

1.099

1-

1.049

<1

Spatial proximity index

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 101

Figure 7-2a.

Distribution of Dissimilarity Index for 

AIAN, API, Black, and Hispanic: 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more of the racial/ethnic group 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Dissimilarity index

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino

Figure 7-2b.

Distribution of Isolation Index for 

AIAN, API, Black, and Hispanic: 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more of the racial/ethnic group 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Isolation index

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino
102 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 7-2c.

Distribution of Delta Index for 

AIAN, API, Black, and Hispanic: 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more of the racial/ethnic group 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Delta index

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino

Figure 7-2d.

Distribution of Absolute Centralization Index 

for AIAN, API, Black, and Hispanic: 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more of the racial/ethnic group 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Absolute centralization index

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 103

Figure 7-2e.

Distribution of Spatial Proximity Index for 

AIAN, API, Black, and Hispanic: 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more of the racial/ethnic group 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1.95- 2<=

1.999

1.90-

1.949

1.85-

1.899

1.80-

1.849

1.75-

1.799

1.70-

1.749

1.65-

1.699

1.60-

1.649

1.55-

1.599

1.50-

1.549

1.45-

1.499

1.40-

1.449

1.35-

1.399

1.30-

1.349

1.25-

1.299

1.20-

1.249

1.15-

1.199

1.10-

1.149

1.05-

1.099

1-

1.049

<1

Spatial proximity index

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino

Figure 7-3a.

Distribution of Dissimilarity Index for 

AIAN, API, Black, and Hispanic: 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more of the racial/ethnic group 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Dissimilarity index

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino
104 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 7-3b.

Distribution of Isolation Index for 

AIAN, API, Black, and Hispanic: 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more of the racial/ethnic group 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Isolation index

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino

Figure 7-3c.

Distribution of Delta Index for 

AIAN, API, Black, and Hispanic: 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more of the racial/ethnic group 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Delta index

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 105

Figure 7-3d.

Distribution of Absolute Centralization Index 

for AIAN, API, Black, and Hispanic: 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more of the racial/ethnic group 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

.95- 1<=

.999

.90-

.949

.85-

.899

.80-

.849

.75-

.799

.70-

.749

.65-

.699

.60-

.649

.55-

.599

.50-

.549

.45-

.499

.40-

.449

.35-

.399

.30-

.349

.25-

.299

.20-

.249

.15-

.199

.10-

.149

.05-

.099

0-

.049

<0

Absolute centralization index

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino

Figure 7-3e.

Distribution of Spatial Proximity Index for 

AIAN, API, Black, and Hispanic: 2000

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more of the racial/ethnic group 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

Number of metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1.95- 2<=

1.999

1.90-

1.949

1.85-

1.899

1.80-

1.849

1.75-

1.799

1.70-

1.749

1.65-

1.699

1.60-

1.649

1.55-

1.599

1.50-

1.549

1.45-

1.499

1.40-

1.449

1.35-

1.399

1.30-

1.349

1.25-

1.299

1.20-

1.249

1.15-

1.199

1.10-

1.149

1.05-

1.099

1-

1.049

<1

Spatial proximity index

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino
106 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 7-4(a-e) shows the change

in the indexes between 1980 and

2000 for all “selected” metropolitan areas graphically (use of all

metropolitan areas for such a figure would not give the reader

much information because the

extent of the overlap obscures too

many individual points). Not only

do the figures confirm the findings

from Table 7-1 (Blacks tend to be

more highly segregated than other

groups), they also show groups

that experienced changes in the

indexes from 1980 to 2000 (as

shown in Table 7-2).

It is again clear that Blacks or

African Americans had the biggest

declines in dissimilarity (Figure 7-

4a) and delta (Figure 7-4c) and

almost all the declines in isolation

(Figure 7-4b), since those points lie

below the 45-degree line. The other

groups are clustered around the 45-

degree line for dissimilarity and

delta, indicating little change over

the 20-year period, with perhaps a

preponderance of increases for

Hispanics for dissimilarity.

American Indians and Alaska

Natives experienced increases in

isolation for low levels of that index

and decreases for higher levels; the

other two groups — Asians and

Pacific Islanders, as well as

Hispanics — experienced increases

in segregation using the isolation

index (and Hispanics had the four

highest isolation scores for 2000).

The absolute centralization index

(Figure 7-4d) does not show much

change from 1980 to 2000, with

most of the points scattered fairly

closely around the 45-degree line.

Spatial proximity (Figure 7-4e) also

clusters around the 45-degree line,

indicating little change. Blacks

experienced a decrease in this

index between 1980 and 2000,

while Hispanics experienced an

increase in this index.

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino

Figure 7-4a.

Dissimilarity Index for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more of the racial/ethnic group

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 dissimilarity index

2000 dissimilarity index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 107

Figure 7-4b.

Isolation Index for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more of the racial/ethnic group

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 isolation index

2000 isolation index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino

Figure 7-4c.

Delta Index for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more of the racial/ethnic group

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 delta index

2000 delta index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino
108 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 7-4d.

Absolute Centralization Index for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more of the racial/ethnic group

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 absolute centralization index

2000 absolute centralization index

-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino

Figure 7-4e.

Spatial Proximity Index for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more of the racial/ethnic group

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 spatial proximity index

2000 spatial proximity index

1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 109

Only one metropolitan area, Los

Angeles-Long Beach, had sufficient

minority group population in 1980

to qualify as a selected metropolitan

area in chapters 3 through 6, which

analyzed the groups individually. For

that reason, we thought it worthwhile to present those data in Table

7-3 and discuss their consistency

with the general findings stated

above. Blacks and Hispanics were

the two most segregated groups in

Los Angeles, with Blacks more segregated than Hispanics according to

most measures in most years.

Hispanics were, however, more isolated than Blacks in 1990 and 2000,

and were tied in their absolute centralization index in 2000.

In all 3 years, Asians and Pacific

Islanders were more segregated in

Los Angeles than American Indians

and Alaska Natives (tied for one

measure, dissimilarity, in 2000) but

less segregated than Hispanics or

Blacks. In 2000, Asians were also

more segregated in Los Angeles

than American Indians and Alaska

Natives (and tied for dissimilarity),

but less segregated than Hispanics

or Blacks. Pacific Islanders had a

higher dissimilarity index in Los

Angeles than either Asians or

American Indians and Alaska

Natives, were tied with Asians for

delta (both higher than American

Indians and Alaska Natives), but

were the least segregated group

using the other three segregation

measures (and substantially less

isolated, a function of their relatively small size). So, in general, the

patterns in Los Angeles-Long Beach

seem to mirror the patterns in the

Nation as a whole.

Table 7-4 presents the percentage

changes in residential segregation

over the 1980-2000 period for 

Los Angeles-Long Beach. It should

be noted that while there was a

decline of 6 percent in the number

of American Indians and Alaska

Natives between 1980 and 1990,

there was a tremendous growth

between 1990 and 2000 (a tripling

of the population). Much of this

growth is attributable to multiplerace identification, as only 76,988

people identified as American

Indian and Alaska Native only,

whereas 138,696 identified either

as American Indian and Alaska

Native alone or in combination with

at least one other race.

For the other three minority 

groups, there were the expected

changes — decreases in dissimilarity

and spatial proximity for Blacks and

increases in isolation for Hispanics

and for Asians and Pacific Islanders.

Delta and absolute centralization,

however, showed declines in segregation for all groups (with the exception of no change for American

Indians and Alaska Natives).

Figure 7-5(a-d) presents a map of

the population distribution of all

four groups, contrasted with the

settlement pattern of non-Hispanic

Whites. 

Table 7-3.

Residential Segregation Indexes for Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA: 1980, 1990, and 2000

Race/ethnicity

Minority group population Dissimilarity

index

Isolation

index

Delta

index

Absolute

centralization index

Spatial proximity

index

1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000

American Indians

and Alaska

Natives ....... 48,095 45,388 138,696 0.351 0.390 0.474 0.037 0.050 0.172 0.711 0.703 0.716 0.665 0.641 0.643 1.005 1.006 1.031

Asians and

Pacific Islanders . . . . . . . . . . . 434,713 954,065 1,282,466 0.468 0.463 0.477 0.277 0.405 0.502 0.752 0.740 0.740 0.766 0.713 0.670 1.123 1.190 1.222

Asians ....... (NA) (NA) 1,245,019 (NA) (NA) 0.479 (NA) (NA) 0.499 (NA) (NA) 0.743 (NA) (NA) 0.671 (NA) (NA) 1.225

Native Hawaiians and

Other Pacific

Islanders .... (NA) (NA) 49,514 (NA) (NA) 0.506 (NA) (NA) 0.112 (NA) (NA) 0.739 (NA) (NA) 0.626 (NA) (NA) 1.021

Blacks or African

Americans ..... 943,544 991,581 999,747 0.808 0.728 0.664 0.758 0.693 0.652 0.865 0.817 0.787 0.843 0.789 0.721 1.783 1.652 1.558

Hispanics or

Latinos. . . . . . . . 2,065,906 3,350,638 4,242,213 0.573 0.611 0.631 0.603 0.715 0.781 0.778 0.771 0.770 0.788 0.757 0.718 1.344 1.379 1.350

Total population . . . . . . . 7,473,856 8,856,074 9,519,338 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

NA Not available. X Not applicable.

Note: All groups include multi-race reporters. Higher values indicate more segregation; the reference group is White non-Hispanic.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
110 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

To recap, a comparison of segregation patterns of the different

groups indicated that African

Americans were the most segregated (vis-a-vis the reference group,

non-Hispanic Whites). Hispanics or

Latinos were generally the next

most highly segregated, followed

by Asians and Pacific Islanders,

and then American Indians and

Alaska Natives across a majority of

the measures. However, African

Americans experienced declines,

albeit modest ones, in segregation

across all dimensions, while other

groups showed either mixed patterns or small increases over the

1980-2000 period. 

Table 7-4.

Percent Change in Residential Segregation Indexes for Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA:

1980-2000

Race/ethnicity

Minority group

population

Dissimilarity

index

Isolation

index

Delta

index

Absolute

centralization index

Spatial proximity

index

1980-

1990

percent

change

1990-

2000

percent

change

1980-

2000

percent

change

1980-

1990

percent change

1990-

2000

percent change

1980-

2000

percent

change

1980-

1990

percent

change

1990-

2000

percent

change

1980-

2000

percent

change

1980-

1990

percent change

1990-

2000

percent change

1980-

2000

percent

change

1980-

1990

percent change

1990-

2000

percent

change

1980-

2000

percent

change

1980-

1990

percent change

1990-

2000

percent

change

1980-

2000

percent

change

American Indians

and Alaska Natives. -6.0 205.6 188.4 9.8 21.6 34.7 26.2 246.3 368.9 –1.3 1.9 0.6 –3.7 0.3 –3.3 0.1 2.5 2.6

Asians and Pacific

Islanders ....... 54.4 34.4 195.0 –1.2 3.1 1.9 31.4 24.1 81.0 –1.6 0.0 –1.6 –7.4 –6.1 –12.6 5.6 2.7 8.8

Blacks or African

Americans . . . . . . 4.8 0.8 6.0 –11.0 –8.9 –17.9 –9.4 –5.9 –14.0 –5.9 –3.7 –9.0 –6.9 –8.6 –14.5 –8.0 –5.6 –12.6

Hispanics or Latinos. 38.3 26.6 105.3 6.2 3.3 10.2 15.7 9.2 29.6 –0.9 –0.2 –1.1 –4.1 –5.1 –8.9 2.5 –2.1 0.4

Total Population . . 15.6 7.5 27.4 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

X Not applicable.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 percent change Summary File 1.
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 111

Prepared by Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau

N

Miles

0 5 10

Kilometers

0 5 10

Census TractCounty

American Indian and Alaska Native

White, non-Hispanic

1 Dot = 400 People

Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) boundaries and names are those defined by the Federal Office of Management and Budget on June 30, 1999. All other boundaries and names are as of January 1, 2000.

Ve

ntura

Orange

Los Angeles
112 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

N

Miles

0 5 10

Kilometers

0 5 10

Census Tract

County

Asian and Pacific Islander

White, non-Hispanic

1 Dot = 400 People

Prepared by Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau

Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) boundaries and names are those defined by the Federal Office of Management and Budget on June 30, 1999. All other boundaries and names are as of January 1, 2000.

Orange

Los Angeles
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 113

Prepared by Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau

N

Miles

0 5 10

Kilometers

0 5 10

Census Tract

County

Black or African American

White, non-Hispanic

1 Dot = 400 People

Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) boundaries and names are those defined by the Federal Office of Management and Budget on June 30, 1999. All other boundaries and names are as of January 1, 2000.

Ve

ntura

Orange

Los Angeles
114 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Prepared by Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau

N

0 5 10

Kilometers

0 5 10

Miles

Census Tract

CountyHispanic or LatinoWhite, non-Hispanic

1 Dot = 400 People

Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) boundaries and names are those defined by the Federal Office of Management and Budget on June 30, 1999. All other boundaries and names are as of January 1, 2000.

Ve

ntura

Orange

Los Angeles
APPENDIXES
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 117

Census 2000 was the first to allow

respondents to identify themselves

using multiple race categories. This

change raises concerns of how to

classify multi-race individuals when

making demographic comparisons

over time. One possibility is to

include in the minority group of

interest anyone designating themselves as a member of that racial

group, e.g., people who self-identified as Black or African American

alone or in combination with another group. An alternative is to

include in a group’s count only individuals identifying with that group

alone. We have decided to use the

first method (“alone or in combination”) in this report for reasons

described in Chapter 2. This means

that the minority group definitions

used in this report are not mutually

exclusive. The purpose of this

appendix is to show how segregation statistics differ across the two

racial classification schemes. The

reference group — non-Hispanic

Whites — is always defined as

those who report being White

alone, and who are not of Hispanic

origin. The count of Hispanics or

Latinos is not affected by this issue

since Hispanic ethnicity is determined by a separate census question, and Hispanics or Latinos can

be of any race.

Table A-1 indicates that the differences across the methods are generally small across the 19 segregation indexes examined. The

indexes in bold are the ones used

throughout this report. As might

be expected, segregation tends to

be a little higher when using the

“alone” classification scheme than

the “alone or in combination” one

(which includes multiracial individuals). Differences tend to be particularly small for African Americans,

and modest for Asians and Pacific

Islanders; conclusions about the

patterns of segregation for these

groups would change slightly if

the “alone” methodology were

used instead of the “alone or in

combination” one. The differences

are moderately larger for American

Indians and Alaska Natives.

Whereas declines in segregation

from 1980 to 2000 are registered

across four of the five measures

used in this report for this group

when the “alone or in combination”

scheme is used and all metropolitan areas are considered, this number falls to three when the “alone”

category is used.

In short, racial classification methods have only a modest effect on

our conclusions about trends in

segregation over the 1980 to 2000

period. Alternative methods have a

somewhat larger effect on

American Indian and Alaska Native

segregation scores than on the

African American or Asian and

Pacific Islander ones. 

APPENDIX A

MEASURING SEGREGATION USING

ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF IDENTIFYING

RACIAL/ETHNIC GROUP MEMBERS: “ALONE”

VS. “ALONE OR IN COMBINATION”
118 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Table A-1.

Comparison of Segregation Indexes for Racial Groups Defined Alone vs. Alone

or in Combination: 1980 and 2000

Index

African American or Black American Indian and

Alaska Native Asian and Pacific Islander (API)

1980

2000

1980

2000

1980

2000

Alone

Alone

or in

combo Alone

Alone

or in

combo

API

Alone

Asian

Alone

NHOPI

Alone

API

Alone

or in

combo

EVENNESS MEASURES

Dissimilarity ................... 0.727 0.651 0.640 0.373 0.393 0.333 0.405 0.434 0.439 0.493 0.411

Gini ........................... 0.864 0.798 0.787 0.502 0.522 0.450 0.545 0.578 0.584 0.650 0.550

Entropy ........................ 0.546 0.447 0.434 0.125 0.144 0.111 0.151 0.180 0.183 0.177 0.165

Atkinson with b=.1 .............. 0.232 0.156 0.148 0.073 0.064 0.041 0.062 0.065 0.067 0.162 0.058

Atkinson with b=.5 .............. 0.701 0.587 0.570 0.252 0.266 0.198 0.261 0.286 0.291 0.392 0.258

Atkinson with b=.9 .............. 0.883 0.801 0.789 0.402 0.435 0.346 0.423 0.454 0.461 0.559 0.418

EXPOSURE MEASURES

Interaction ..................... 0.345 0.403 0.409 0.918 0.887 0.897 0.767 0.700 0.705 0.848 0.694

Isolation ...................... 0.655 0.597 0.591 0.082 0.113 0.103 0.233 0.300 0.295 0.152 0.306

Correlation ratio ................ 0.571 0.478 0.468 0.068 0.089 0.071 0.120 0.168 0.170 0.099 0.158

CONCENTRATION MEASURES

Delta .......................... 0.834 0.796 0.793 0.695 0.692 0.676 0.741 0.753 0.756 0.747 0.743

Absolute concentration .......... 0.888 0.883 0.881 0.863 0.871 0.882 0.869 0.892 0.899 0.894 0.876

Relative concentration ........... 0.627 0.662 0.658 –1.423 –0.622 –0.261 0.483 0.614 0.622 0.346 0.588

CENTRALIZATION MEASURES

Absolute centralization......... 0.753 0.724 0.722 0.622 0.610 0.611 0.701 0.691 0.694 0.593 0.683

Relative centralization ........... 0.314 0.294 0.290 0.003 0.051 0.067 0.194 0.214 0.218 0.097 0.202

CLUSTERING MEASURES

Absolute clustering.............. 0.416 0.365 0.360 0.086 0.095 0.061 0.087 0.124 0.125 0.053 0.116

Spatial proximity .............. 1.435 1.382 1.374 1.197 1.131 1.077 1.057 1.103 1.104 1.053 1.096

Relative clustering .............. 2.139 1.259 1.192 6.605 2.731 1.206 0.766 0.555 0.584 0.712 0.454

Distance decay interaction ....... 0.493 0.496 0.499 0.929 0.910 0.923 0.808 0.746 0.752 0.886 0.736

Distance decay isolation ......... 0.507 0.504 0.501 0.069 0.090 0.077 0.189 0.254 0.248 0.114 0.264

Notes: Segregation scores represent weighted averages across all metropolitan areas. Indexes in bold are those highlighted in this report. NHOPI = Native

Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980 and 2000 Summary File 1.
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 119

Massey and Denton (1988) used an

extensive literature search and cluster analysis to identify 20 different

indexes of segregation and classify

them into five key dimensions of

segregation. Basically, evenness

involves the differential distribution

of the subject population,

exposure measures potential contact, concentration refers to the

relative amount of physical space

occupied, centralization indicates

the degree to which a group is

located near the center of an urban

area, and clustering measures the

degree to which minority group

members live disproportionately in

contiguous areas. Below we

describe the 19 measures we have

calculated, though we focus on

only one per dimension, as

described in Chapter 2. In all of the

calculations, non- Hispanic Whites

are considered the “majority” (reference) population. The formulas for

the 19 indexes are listed at the end

of this appendix.

I. MEASURES OF EVENNESS

Evenness measures of segregation

compare the spatial distributions of

different groups among units in a

metropolitan area. Segregation is

smallest when majority and

minority populations are evenly

distributed. The most widely used

measure of evenness is the dissimilarity index. Conceptually,

dissimilarity measures the percentage of a group’s population that

would have to change residence for

each neighborhood to have the

same percentage of that group as

the metropolitan area overall. The

index ranges from 0.0 (complete

integration) to 1.0 (complete segregation).

A second measure of evenness is

the Gini coefficient. Like the index

of dissimilarity, it can be derived

from the Lorenz curve, and varies

between 0.0 and 1.0, with 1.0

indicating maximum segregation.

The Gini coefficient is “the mean

absolute difference between

minority proportions weighted

across all pairs of areal units,

expressed as a proportion of the

maximum weighted mean difference” (Massey and Denton, p.

285). A third evenness measure is

entropy, proposed originally by

Theil (Theil 1972; Theil and

Finizza, 1971). The entropy index

(also called the information index)

measures the (weighted) average

deviation of each areal unit from

the metropolitan area’s “entropy”

or racial and ethnic diversity,

which is greatest when each group

is equally represented in the metropolitan area. The entropy index,

like the other two evenness measures, also varies between 0.0

(when all areas have the same

composition as the entire metropolitan area) and 1.0 (when all

areas contain one group only).

The only evenness measures to

satisfy the four criteria established

by James and Taeuber (1985) for

an ideal segregation index1 are the

Gini index and the Atkinson

index, often used to evaluate

inequality.2 The Atkinson index

APPENDIX B

MEASURES OF RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION

1 The four criteria are: 1) the “transfer

principle”, which states that a measure

should be sensitive to the redistribution or

“transfer” of minorities among areal units

with minority proportions above or below

the metropolitan area’s minority proportion

(and not just transfers from areas above to

areas below that proportion); 2) “compositional invariance”, which states that the relative size of minority population should not

affect the index; 3) “size invariance”, which

states that the measure should not be affected if the number of people in each group is

multiplied by a constant; and 4) “organizational equivalence”, which holds that an

index should be unaffected by aggregating

units with the same minority composition. 2 See Jones and Weinberg (2000) for an

application to income inequality.
(Atkinson, 1970) allows the

researcher to differentially weight

areal units at different points along

the Lorenz curve, allowing, for

example, areal units where minorities are under- or over-represented

to contribute more heavily to the

overall index. For values of the

shape parameter of 0.0 or more

but less than 0.5, areal units

where the proportion of minorities

is smaller than the metropolitan

area’s average (i.e., where minorities are “underrepresented”) contribute more to the segregation

index; for large values of the

shape parameter (more than 0.5

up to 1.0), the reverse is true —

areas of “overrepresentation” contribute more. When the shape

parameter is 0.5, such areas contribute equally. For values of the

parameter between 0.0 and 1.0,

the Atkinson index also varies in

that range, with 1.0 indicating

maximum segregation. Three

shape parameters — 0.1, 0.5, and

0.9 — are used in our analysis,

resulting in three separate

Atkinson indexes.

II. MEASURES OF EXPOSURE

“Exposure measures the degree of

potential contact, or possibility of

interaction, between minority and

majority group members” (Massey

and Denton, p. 287). Exposure

thus depends on the extent to

which two groups share common

residential areas, and hence, on

the degree to which the average

minority group member “experiences” segregation. As Massey and

Denton point out, indexes of evenness and exposure are correlated

but measure different things:

exposure measures depend on the

relative sizes of the two groups

being compared, while evenness

measures do not.

The two basic, and related, measures of exposure are interaction

and isolation. The two indexes,

respectively, reflect the probabilities that a minority person shares

a unit area with a majority person

or with another minority person.

The interaction index measures the

exposure of minority group members to members of the majority

group as the minority-weighted

average of the majority proportion

of the population in each areal

unit. The isolation index measures

“the extent to which minority

members are exposed only to one

another,” (Massey and Denton, p.

288) and is computed as the

minority-weighted average of the

minority proportion in each area. 

When there are only two groups,

the isolation and interaction indexes sum to 1.0, so lower values of

interaction and higher values of

isolation each indicate higher segregation. However, when there are

more than two groups, the interaction and isolation indexes will not

sum to 1.0 (one must add the

interaction indexes for all other

minority groups to the interaction

and isolation indexes for the original minority group to obtain

unity).3 Furthermore, the interaction indexes representing minority

exposure to majority members and

majority exposure to minority

members will be equal only if the

two groups constitute the same

proportion of the population. An

adjustment of the isolation index

to control for this asymmetry

yields a third exposure index, the

correlation ratio, also known as

eta-squared.

III. MEASURES OF

CONCENTRATION

“Concentration refers to the relative amount of physical space

occupied by a minority group in

the metropolitan area” (Massey and

Denton, p. 289). Minority groups

of the same relative size occupying

less space would be considered

more concentrated and consequently more segregated. 

One measure of concentration, originally proposed by Hoover (1941),

is delta, which “computes the proportion of [minority] members

residing in areal units with above

average density of [minority] members” (Massey and Denton, p. 290).

The index gives the proportion of a

group’s population that would have

to move across areal units to

achieve a uniform density. 

Massey and Denton propose two

additional measures. The first,

absolute concentration, computes the total area inhabited by a

group and compares this with the

minimum and maximum areas (the

areal sum, respectively, of the

fewest number of the geographically smallest and the greatest number of the geographically

largest areal units) that could

accommodate a group of that size

(at observed densities). The index

varies from 0.0 to 1.0, where a

score of 1.0 means that a group

has achieved the maximum spatial

concentration possible (all minority

members live in the smallest areal

units). The second, relative concentration, is measured similarly,

but takes account of the distribution of the majority group as well.

This measure varies from -1.0 to

1.0.4 A score of 0.0 means that the

120 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

3 The interaction and isolation indices

reported here are calculated with the nonHispanic White population as the referent

group rather than the total population

(excluding the minority group of interest).

Our interaction and isolation indices therefore do sum to unity for each group. 

4 In fact we obtained values below -1.0, and

Massey and Denton (personal communication)

indicate that they did as well in calculating

indices for the 60 largest metropolitan areas.
minority and majority groups are

equally concentrated. An index of -

1.0 means that the concentration of

the majority exceeds that of the

minority to the maximum extent,

and an index of 1.0 the reverse.

IV. MEASURES OF

CENTRALIZATION

“Centralization is the degree to

which a group is spatially located

near the center of an urban area”

(Massey and Denton, p. 291). As

for concentration, absolute and relative measures are presented.

Relative centralization compares the areal profile of the

majority and minority populations,

and may be interpreted as the relative share of the minority population that would have to change

their area of residence to match

the centralization of the majority.

The index varies between -1.0 and

1.0 with positive values indicating

that minority members are located

closer to the center than majority,

and negative values the reverse.

An index of 0.0 indicates that the

two groups have the same spatial

distribution around the center.

Absolute centralization examines only the distribution of the

minority group around the center

and also varies between -1.0 and

1.0. “Positive values indicate a tendency for [minority] group members to reside close to the city center, while negative values indicate

a tendency to live in outlying

areas. A score of 0 means that a

group has a uniform distribution

throughout the metropolitan area”

(Massey and Denton, p. 293).

Most analysts using a centralization measure define it in terms of

access to the traditional Central

Business District (CBD). We feel

that this concept is increasingly

outmoded as jobs, retail sales, and

other CBD functions continue to

decentralize. Similarly, the transitional zones that once developed

around CBDs should, following

Hoover’s (1941) logic, also develop

around many of the “multiple

nuclei” that also have partially supplanted CBDs (see Garreau, 1991).

Accordingly, we have defined an

alternative to CBD-centered indexes that are based on distance from

the population centroid. 

V. MEASURES OF

CLUSTERING

Clustering measures “the extent to

which areal units inhabited by

minority members adjoin one

another, or cluster, in space”

(Massey and Denton, p. 293). A

high degree of clustering indicates

a racial or ethnic enclave. The first

measure of clustering is absolute

clustering. This index “expresses

the average number of [minority]

members in nearby [areal units] as

a proportion of the total population in those nearby [areal units]”,

where distances between areal

units are measured from their centroids (Massey and Denton, p.

294). It varies from 0.0 to 1.0.5

White’s (1986) index of spatial

proximity is the average of intragroup proximities for the minority

and majority populations, weighted by the proportions each group

represents of the total population.

Spatial proximity equals 1.0 if

there is no differential clustering

between minority and majority

group members. It is greater than

1.0 when members of each group

live nearer to one another than to

members of the other group, and

is less than 1.0 if minority and

majority members live nearer to

members of the other group than

to members of their own group.

Massey and Denton derive from

these two measures an index of

relative clustering, which “compares the average distance between

[minority] members...with the average distance between [majority]

members” (Massey and Denton, p.

295). The index equals 0.0 when

minority members display the same

amount of clustering as the majority, is positive when minorities display greater clustering than the

majority, and is negative if they are

less clustered than the majority.

If there is clustering, the number

of majority persons with whom a

minority might potentially interact

should increase with increasing

distance from the minority’s area

of residence. However, the likelihood of actual encounters and

interaction with majority persons

should decay rapidly. The

distance-decay interaction

index measures this as the sum of

the probabilities that a minority

person in each tract i, weighted by

the minority proportion in that

tract, would encounter a resident

in another tract j, weighted by the

proportion of majority persons in

tract j. The index can be interpreted as measuring the probability

that the next person a minority

group member meets anywhere in

the city is a majority member. 

Corresponding to this is a

distance-decay isolation index,

which measures the probability that

the person a minority next encounters is also a minority. Massey and

Denton note that Morgan’s (1983)

paper proposing these distancedecay indexes did not describe

their behavior or provide an empirical example. However, as a distance

U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 121

5 We have obtained negative values,

though these have been close to zero.

Rounding error in calculations could play a

role.
122 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

weighted function of the exposure

interaction and isolation indexes,

one might expect the distancedecay measures to also to vary

between 0.0 and 1.0, with 0.0

representing maximum segregation

on the distance-decay interaction

index and 1.0 indicating this on the

distance-decay isolation index. The

values obtained from census data

suggest such a range.

VI. TECHNICAL

DESCRIPTION OF

SEGREGATION INDEXES

Definitions

n the number of areas (census

tracts) in the metropolitan area,

ranked smallest to largest by

land area

m the number of areas (census

tracts) in the metropolitan area,

ranked by increasing distance

from the Central Business

District (m = n)

xi the minority population of area i

yi the majority population (nonHispanic Whites in this report)

of area i

yj the majority population of area j

ti the total population of area i

tj the total population of area j

X the sum of all xi (the total

minority population)

Y the sum of all yi (the total

majority population)

T the sum of all ti (the total population)

pi the ratio of xi to ti (proportion

of area i’s population that is

minority)

P the ratio of X to T (proportion

of the metropolitan area’s population that is minority)

ai the land area of area i

A the sum of all ai (the total land

area)

n1 rank of area where the sum of

all ti from area 1 (smallest in

size) up to area n1 is equal to X

T1 the sum of all ti in area 1 up to

area n1

n2 rank of area where the sum of

all ti from area n (largest in

size) down to area n2 is equal

to X

T2 the sum of all ti in area n2 up

to area n

dij the distance between area i and

area j centroids, where dii =

(0.6ai

)0.5

cij the exponential transform of -

dij [= exp(-dij)]

b a shape parameter that determines how to weight the increments to segregation contributed by different portions of

the Lorenz curve

Index Formulas

Note: Indexes in this report were

calculated as if non-Hispanic

Whites and the minority group in

question were the only two groups

present in the total population.

Formulas are from Massey and

Denton (1988).

1.Dissimilarity

2.Gini

3.Entropy

4.Atkinson (parameter b) 

5.Interaction

6.Isolation

7.Correlation

where I is the isolation index

( )

( )

I P

1 P

−

−

x

X

x

t

i i

i 1 i

n 



 









 



 



 



 =

∑

x

X

y

t

i i

i 1 i

n 



 









 



 



 



 =

∑

( ) 1 P

1 P

1 p pt

PT

i

1 b

i

b

i

i 1

n

1

1 b

− −





 





 −















−

=

−

∑

where E p ln ( ) 1

p

1 p ln 1

1 p

and E Pln 1

P (1 P) ln 11 P

i i

i

i

i

= 



 



 + − −





 





= 



 



 + − −





 





t (E E )

ET

i i

i 1

n  −



 

 ∑  =

t

i

t

j

(pi p j)

j 1

n

i 1

n

2 2T P(1 P)

− = =

∑ ∑

−

t

i

(pi P)

[2TP(1 P)]

i 1

n

− 



 



 ∑

−

=
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 123

8.Delta

9.Absolute Concentration

10.Relative Concentration

11.Absolute Centralization

12.Relative Centralization

13.Absolute Clustering

14.Spatial Proximity

15.Relative Clustering

16.Distance-Decay Interaction

17.Distance-Decay Isolation

x

X

k x

t

i ij j

j 1 j

n

i 1

n 



























 = =  ∑ ∑

x

X

k y

t

where k

t

t

i ij j

j 1 j

n

i 1

n

ij 

j

(d)

ij

(d)

i 1

n

ij

ij

































=

























= =

−

−

=

∑ ∑

∑

P

P

1 xx

yy















 −

( )

( )

{ } { }{ }{ }

XP YP

TP

where P ggc

G

and g,G x, X , y,Y , t,T

xx yy

tt

gg

i j ij

2

j 1

n

i 1

n

+

= 















=

= =

∑∑

x

X

c x

X

n

c

x

X

c t

X

n

c

i

ij j

j 1

n

i 1

n

2 ij

j 1

n

i 1

n

i

ij j

j 1

n

i 1

n

2 ij

j 1

n

i 1

n

= = = =

= = = =

∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

∑ ∑ ∑ ∑





 



 − 



 





























 



 − 



 

























( )( ) X Y XY i1 i

i 1

m

i i1

i 1

m

−

=

−

=

∑ ∑−

( )( ) X A XA i1 i

i 1

m

i i1

i 1

m

−

=

−

=

∑ ∑−

x a

X

y a

Y

1

t a

T

t a

T

1

i i

i 1

n

i i

i 1

n

i i

i 1 1

n1

i i

i n2 2

n





 









 





























−





 









 

































−





















































=

=

=

=

∑

∑

∑

∑

1

x a

X

t a

T

t a

T

t a

T

i i

i 1

n

i i

i 1 1

n1

i i

i n2 2

n

i i

i 1 1

n1 −





 



 − 



 



 



 









 



 − 



 



 



 

































= =

= =

∑ ∑

∑ ∑

0.5 x

X

a

A

i i

i 1

n 



 



 − 



 



 =

∑
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 125

How do the racial and ethnic residential segregation indexes in this

report compare with those of others? The residential segregation

estimates in this report were calculated by examining the distribution

of the population across census

tracts within Metropolitan Areas

(MAs) and Primary Metropolitan

Statistical Areas (PMSAs), as defined

by the Office of Management and

Budget on June 30, 1999, and used

in Census 2000. Minor Civil

Division-based MAs and PMSAs

were used in New England. Indexes

for different minority groups were

calculated using non-Hispanic

Whites as the reference group.

Since segregation indexes for metropolitan areas with small minority

populations are less reliable than

those with larger ones, we have

also focused on MAs where the

minority population comprises at

least 3 percent of the MA population or numbers over 20,000. 

We evaluated our estimates using

two strategies. First, we compared

our estimates with those generated

by three different institutes: the

Ralph and Goldy Lewis Center at the

University of California in Los

Angeles (UCLA), the Center on

Urban and Metropolitan Policy at the

Brookings Institution, and the Lewis

Mumford Center at State University

of New York (SUNY)-Albany. Second,

because these research centers only

calculate one or two different measures of residential segregation, we

compared our other segregation

measures to those generated by

Massey and Denton (1988) using

1980 Census data. 

The Ralph and Goldy Lewis Center

at UCLA focuses mainly on the dissimilarity index, calculating it by

using census tract information and

Census 2000 boundaries for MAs

for Blacks or African Americans,

Latinos, and Asians and Pacific

Islanders. The Lewis Center also

analyzes only MAs where the

minority population of the group

in question numbers over 20,000

or constitutes 3 percent of more of

the total population. In addition,

the reference group is nonHispanic Whites and the overall

mean dissimilarity score is weighted by the size of the racial/ethnic

group population in the MA.

The Brookings Institution uses two

basic measures of African

American residential segregation in

1980, 1990, and 2000: the dissimilarity and isolation indexes.

Census tracts are again used to

proxy for neighborhoods, and

indexes are calculated at the MA

level. Brookings only calculates

indexes for MAs with at least

1,000 African American residents

in 1990. The 2000 segregation

indexes presented by Brookings

does not take into account the

recent change in the Census 2000

that allowed respondents to identify themselves with multiple race

categories. The report defines

African Americans as those who

checked that category only. The

non-Black population serves as the

reference group.

The Mumford Center at SUNYAlbany also uses two measures of

segregation: dissimilarity and isolation. They calculate both indexes

using census tract data and the

Census 2000 boundaries for MAs.

Federal Information Processing

Standards (FIPS) place codes are

used to determine which tracts

should be located in each MA,

whereas we use the state and county code to determine the allocation

of tracts in MAs. Using FIPS place

codes makes places with populations of less than 10,000 unidentifiable, in which case the Mumford

Center assigns those tracts to their

original 1990 MA/PMSA location.

The 2000 segregation indexes presented by the Mumford Center also

take into account the recent change

in the Census 2000 that allows

respondents to identify themselves

with multiple races categories. The

Mumford Center’s racial and ethnic

categories are coded slightly different than in this report. Aside from

those in the reference group —

non-Hispanic Whites — we allow

individuals to fall into more than

one racial or ethnic minority

category. Hispanics and nonHispanic Whites are coded similarly

by the Mumford Center and this

report, but their Black category contains all non-Hispanics who selfidentified as Black alone or in combination with another race group,

and Asians consist of those who

marked Asian but not Black. The

Mumford Center alternatively uses

Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and

Asians as reference groups in some

APPENDIX C

COMPARISON WITH OTHER SOURCES
126 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

of their calculations. In Tables C-1

and C-2, we compare our segregation estimates to those from the

Mumford Center where Whites

serve as their reference group.

Given the striking similarity in

methodologies between the Lewis

Center and those used in this

report, it should be no surprise then

that the Lewis Center’s dissimilarity

index estimates are virtually the

same as ours. Additionally, the

Mumford Center dissimilarity scores

are not that different from ours.

Comparing our figures for all 331

MAs for 1990 and 2000 and 330 for

1980 to the Mumford Center’s figures reveals prominent similarities.

The Mumford Center’s analysis uses

the same number of MAs as we do

in 1990 and 2000, but includes only

325 MAs in 1980. The unweighted

dissimilarity scores have slight differences, with Blacks and Hispanics

having the largest differences.

Brookings, which calculates indexes

for MAs with at least 1,000 African

Americans in 1990, are compared

against our numbers for all MAs for

better comparability. The Brookings’

weighted and unweighted dissimilarity index scores for Blacks in

1990 and 2000 are very close to

numbers in this report, with ours

always higher. The Brookings figure

for Black dissimilarity in 1980 is

similar to ours, but with a slightly

higher difference.

Another index used to measure

segregation by two of the three

institutes is the isolation index.

Brookings’ isolation index scores

are notably different from our

scores. These differences are not

trivial, with our numbers consistently higher than Brookings. At

least part of the reason for this is

the fact that Brookings uses the

non-Black population as the reference group, while this report calculates isolation in a two-group context — where only non-Hispanic

Whites and the minority group in

question are considered in the metropolitan area population.

Supporting this explanation, the difference in the scores is larger in

2000 (when the U.S. population

was more diverse) than in 1990.

The same observation can be seen

with the Mumford Center weighted

Table C-1.

Comparison of Dissimilarity Scores in This Report With Those From Other Sources

Source

1980 1990 2000

Weighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted

Blacks

Hispanics

Asians

and

Pacific

Islanders BlacksHispanics

Asians

and

Pacific

Islanders BlacksHispanics

Asians

and

Pacific

Islanders BlacksHispanics

Asians

and

Pacific

Islanders BlacksHispanics

Asians

and

Pacific

Islanders

This report—selected

MAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.729 0.509 0.422 0.681 0.505 0.424 0.587 0.408 0.393 0.643 0.515 0.433 0.550 0.432 0.397

This report—all MAs . 0.727 0.502 0.405 0.678 0.500 0.412 0.541 0.343 0.366 0.640 0.509 0.411 0.500 0.374 0.338

Brookings Institution. . 0.700 (NA) (NA) 0.659 (NA) (NA) 0.559 (NA) (NA) 0.620 (NA) (NA) 0.495 (NA) (NA)

Mumford Center

10/31/011 ......... 0.738 0.507 0.412 0.688 0.506 0.420 0.557 0.361 0.384 0.650 0.515 0.421 0.514 0.386 0.355

Lewis Center 7/19/01 . (NA) (NA) (NA) 0.674 0.484 0.409 (NA) (NA) (NA) 0.646 0.513 0.420 (NA) (NA) (NA)

NA Not available.

1

Unweighted dissimilarity scores were calculated by using metropolitan area data obtained through the Mumford Center website.

Note: Selected MAs are those with 3 percent or 20,000 or more of minority group in 1990. See text for methodological differences across studies.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1 and studies listed.
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 127

and unweighted isolation scores.

Comparing our figures for all MAs

to the Mumford Center’s weighted

and unweighted isolation scores

reveals moderate to high differences, with our scores primarily

higher than those of the Mumford

Center’s. The differences observed

in 1990 are not as great as those in

2000, with Asians having the highest differences for the unweighted

scores and Hispanics for the

weighted scores. Again, the method

that the Mumford Center employs

for calculating the isolation index is

not the same as in this report. Our

isolation index numbers are once

again higher, in general, probably

because only the minority and reference group population (nonHispanic Whites) are considered in

the calculation, while the Mumford

Center calculates isolation vis-a-vis

the total population.

After comparing our numbers with

those of the Brookings Institution,

the SUNY-Albany Lewis Mumford

Center, and the UCLA Ralph and

Goldy Lewis Center, we feel confident that the numbers presented

in this report are valid. Our dissimilarity index scores for 1990 and

2000 were very close to those

posted by all three research centers, though isolation index scores

differed somewhat, but for an

understandable reason. These differences are in large part due to

the fact that the various Institutes

used different methods. The numbers in this report are, unsurprisingly, closest to those who used

the most similar methods.

While the above analysis compared

segregation scores from Census

2000, it focused only on the two

segregation measures calculated

by the three research centers.

However, in a detailed review of

segregation measures, Massey and

Denton (1988) described five general dimensions of segregation,

each of which have several potential measures (See Appendix B).

Following this lead, we calculated

19 of their 20 measures of segregation. So, to evaluate the 17

measures not mentioned above

plus the isolation index, we compared our estimates to Massey and

Denton’s. Massey and Denton

calculated their indexes using

1980 census data on the 50

largest Standard Metropolitan

Statistical Areas (the forerunner of

Table C-2.

Comparison of Isolation Scores in This Report With Those From Other Sources

Source

1980 1990 2000

Weighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted

Blacks

Hispanics

Asians

and

Pacific

Islanders BlacksHispanics

Asians

and

Pacific

Islanders BlacksHispanics

Asians

and

Pacific

Islanders BlacksHispanics

Asians

and

Pacific

Islanders BlacksHispanics

Asians

and

Pacific

Islanders

This report—selected

MAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.661 0.468 0.292 0.622 0.521 0.330 0.441 0.282 0.213 0.599 0.572 0.395 0.428 0.354 0.285

This report—all MAs .... 0.655 0.454 0.233 0.614 0.508 0.264 0.327 0.140 0.059 0.591 0.552 0.306 0.320 0.207 0.081

Brookings Institution..... 0.548 (NA) (NA) 0.467 (NA) (NA) 0.255 (NA) (NA) 0.391 (NA) (NA) 0.205 (NA) (NA)

Mumford Center

10/31/011 ........... 0.618 0.384 0.184 0.559 0.424 0.191 0.300 0.128 0.447 0.514 0.455 0.210 0.277 0.167 0.557

NA Not available.

1

Weighted and unweighted isolation scores were calculated by using metropolitan area data obtained through the Mumford Center Web site. Tabulations

weighted by the number of members in the minority group in question in each metropolitan area.

Note: Selected MAs are those with 3 percent or 20,000 or more of minority group in 1990. See text for methodological differences across studies.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1 and studies listed.
128 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

MAs), plus 10 others with sizeable

concentrations of Hispanics. Their

study defines neighborhoods in

terms of census tracts. For an

approximate comparison, we

selected the 58 largest MAs in

1980, whose total population was

greater than 810,000. 

When one compares Massey and

Denton’s estimates to our 1980 segregation calculations, the values are

quite similar (see Table C-3).

Differences between the calculations were generally below 0.05.

Because we used the same method

to calculate the isolation index,

these scores differed only slightly.

The indexes that exhibited high

differences in unweighted averages

were the relative clustering index,

the relative concentration index, the

relative centralization index, and

Atkinson with its shape parameter,

b, equal to 0.1. Each had differences above 0.05 but below 0.065,

with the exception of the relative

clustering index, which had a high

difference of 0.238. This index,

though, has a greater range (from 

-0.729 to 10.086 according to

Massey and Denton calculations)

and standard deviation than any

other measure. Our median values

tended to be lower than Massey

and Denton’s, with the relative clustering index, the relative concentration index, and Atkinson (b=0.1)

again exhibiting the greatest differences. Our minimum values also

tended to be smaller than Massey

and Denton’s while our maximum

values were not that different from

Massey and Denton’s. Overall, our

1980 calculations were not that different from Massey and Denton’s

calculations. Differences can likely

be attributed, at least in part, to the

difference in the method in which

these MAs were chosen.

In sum, the indexes presented in this

report are robust, but the reader is

warned that differences in approach,

whether in geographic unit of analysis, the reference group, the treatment of multirace individuals, or the

inclusion/exclusion or weighting of

metropolitan areas, can have an

effect on the indexes. It is, however,

our conclusion that the comparisons

over time and among groups would

likely be consistently found across

studies that use slightly different

approaches.

Table C-3.

Medians and Unweighted Means for Segregation Indexes by Source

Index

Census Bureau calculations for 58 MAs, 1980 Massey and Denton calculations for 60 MAs, 1980

Median

Unweighted

Mean

Unweighted

Standard

Deviation Minimum Maximum Median

Unweighted

Mean

Unweighted

Standard

Deviation Minimum Maximum

Dissimilarity............. 0.457 0.500 0.184 0.191 0.878 0.465 0.510 0.169 0.215 0.906

Gini..................... 0.609 0.636 0.191 0.276 0.971 0.620 0.654 0.171 0.318 0.974

Entropy ................. 0.187 0.262 0.207 0.031 0.781 0.198 0.267 0.196 0.042 0.780

Atkinson with b=.1 ........ 0.076 0.110 0.087 0.013 0.436 0.148 0.170 0.114 0.024 0.553

Atkinson with b=.5 ........ 0.315 0.397 0.235 0.069 0.908 0.358 0.427 0.214 0.097 0.922

Atkinson with b=.9 ........ 0.514 0.574 0.263 0.129 0.988 0.551 0.599 0.237 0.171 0.994

Interaction ............... 0.827 0.724 0.263 0.145 0.991 0.805 0.713 0.261 0.147 0.989

Isolation ................ 0.173 0.276 0.263 0.009 0.855 0.195 0.287 0.261 0.011 0.853

Correlation ratio .......... 0.122 0.231 0.237 0.003 0.813 0.126 0.232 0.230 0.006 0.811

Delta ................... 0.792 0.781 0.096 0.437 0.935 0.781 0.774 0.097 0.416 0.937

Absolute concentration..... 0.951 0.933 0.059 0.609 0.990 0.936 0.901 0.098 0.468 0.990

Relative concentration ..... 0.554 0.522 0.269 –0.582 0.965 0.469 0.458 0.291 –0.483 0.945

Absolute centralization . . . 0.765 0.724 0.156 0.264 0.948 0.778 0.744 0.154 0.128 0.969

Relative centralization ..... 0.216 0.238 0.195 –0.222 0.696 0.265 0.291 0.202 –0.142 0.742

Absolute clustering ........ 0.051 0.145 0.180 –0.003 0.667 0.060 0.137 0.168 0.006 0.668

Spatial proximity......... 1.057 1.148 0.192 1.001 1.818 1.053 1.133 0.182 1.000 1.844

Relative clustering ........ 0.875 1.436 1.598 –0.351 9.983 0.518 1.198 1.742 –0.729 10.086

Distance decay interaction . 0.891 0.802 0.206 0.304 0.994 0.886 0.790 0.214 0.216 0.993

Distance decay isolation . . . 0.103 0.195 0.207 0.005 0.696 0.114 0.210 0.214 0.007 0.739

Note: Indexes in bold are those highlighted in this report.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau figures from Census Summary File 1 for 1980. Others are from Massey and Denton, 1988.
The following detailed figures

show 2-decade changes for selected individual metropolitan areas

for each racial/ethnic group for

each of the five indexes. The 2-

decade changes include 1980 versus 1990 and 1990 versus 2000.

Those metropolitan areas above

the 45 degree line indicate an

increase in segregation between

the two decades, while those

below the line indicate a decrease.

APPENDIX D

DETAILED FIGURES

Figure D-1a.

Dissimilarity Index for American Indians and Alaska Natives for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska

Natives in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 dissimilarity index

1990 dissimilarity index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 129
130 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure D-1b.

Dissimilarity Index for American Indians and Alaska Natives for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska

Natives in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1990 dissimilarity index

2000 dissimilarity index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure D-1c.

Isolation Index for American Indians and Alaska Natives 

for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska

Natives in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 isolation index

1990 isolation index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 131

Figure D-1d.

Isolation Index for American Indians and Alaska Natives 

for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska

Natives in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1990 isolation index

2000 isolation index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure D-1e.

Delta Index for American Indians and Alaska Natives 

for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska

Natives in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 delta index

1990 delta index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
132 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure D-1f.

Delta Index for American Indians and Alaska Natives 

for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska

Natives in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1990 delta index

2000 delta index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure D-1g.

Absolute Centralization Index for American Indians and Alaska Natives 

for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska

Natives in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 absolute centralization index

1990 absolute centralization index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 133

Figure D-1h.

Absolute Centralization Index for American Indians and Alaska Natives 

for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska

Natives in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1990 absolute centralization index

2000 absolute centralization index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure D-1i.

Spatial Proximity Index for American Indians and Alaska Natives 

for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska

Natives in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 spatial proximity index

1990 spatial proximity index

1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2
134 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure D-1j.

Spatial Proximity Index for American Indians and Alaska Natives 

for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more American Indians and Alaska

Natives in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1990 spatial proximity index

2000 spatial proximity index

1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

Figure D-2a.

Dissimilarity Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 dissimilarity index

1990 dissimilarity index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 135

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure D-2b.

Dissimilarity Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1990 dissimilarity index

2000 dissimilarity index

Figure D-2c.

Isolation Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 isolation index

1990 isolation index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
136 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure D-2d.

Isolation Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1990 isolation index

2000 isolation index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure D-2e.

Delta Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 delta index

1990 delta index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 137

Figure D-2f.

Delta Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1990 delta index

2000 delta index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure D-2g.

Absolute Centralization Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders 

for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 absolute centralization index

1990 absolute centralization index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
138 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure D-2h.

Absolute Centralization Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders 

for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1990 absolute centralization index

2000 absolute centralization index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure D-2i.

Spatial Proximity Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 spatial proximity index

1990 spatial proximity index

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 139

Figure D-2j.

Spatial Proximity Index for Asians and Pacific Islanders for 

Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1990 spatial proximity index

2000 spatial proximity index

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

Figure D-3a.

Dissimilarity Index for Blacks for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 1990 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 dissimilarity index

1990 dissimilarity index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
140 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure D-3b.

Dissimilarity Index for Blacks for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 2000 by 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1990 dissimilarity index

2000 dissimilarity index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure D-3c.

Isolation Index for Blacks for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 1990 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 isolation index

1990 isolation index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 141

Figure D-3d.

Isolation Index for Blacks for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 2000 by 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1990 isolation index

2000 isolation index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure D-3e.

Delta Index for Blacks for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 delta index

1990 delta index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
142 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure D-3f.

Delta Index for Blacks for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1990 delta index

2000 delta index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure D-3g.

Absolute Centralization Index for Blacks for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 absolute centralization index

1990 absolute centralization index

-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 143

Figure D-3h.

Absolute Centralization Index for Blacks for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1990 absolute centralization index

2000 absolute centralization index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure D-3i.

Spatial Proximity Index for Blacks for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 spatial proximity index

1990 spatial proximity index

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0
144 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure D-3j.

Spatial Proximity Index for Blacks for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Blacks or African Americans

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1990 spatial proximity index

2000 spatial proximity index

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

Figure D-4a.

Dissimilarity Index for Hispanics for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 dissimilarity index

1990 dissimilarity index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 145

Figure D-4b.

Dissimilarity Index for Hispanics for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1990 dissimilarity index

2000 dissimilarity index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure D-4c.

Isolation Index for Hispanics for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 isolation index

1990 isolation index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
146 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure D-4d.

Isolation Index for Hispanics for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1990 isolation index

2000 isolation index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure D-4e.

Delta Index for Hispanics for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 delta index

1990 delta index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 147

Figure D-4f.

Delta Index for Hispanics for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1990 delta index

2000 delta index

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Figure D-4g.

Absolute Centralization Index for Hispanics for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 absolute centralization index

1990 absolute centralization index

-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0
148 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure D-4h.

Absolute Centralization Index for Hispanics for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1990 absolute centralization index

2000 absolute centralization index

-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure D-4i.

Spatial Proximity Index for Hispanics for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 1990 by 1980

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1980 spatial proximity index

1990 spatial proximity index

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 149

Figure D-4j.

Spatial Proximity Index for Hispanics for Selected 

Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1990

Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos 

in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1990 spatial proximity index

2000 spatial proximity index

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0
U.S. Census Bureau Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 151

Atkinson, A.B. 1970. “On the

Measurement of Inequality.”

Journal of Economic Theory 2:

244-63.

Duncan, Otis D., and Beverly

Duncan. 1955. “A Methodological

Analysis of Segregation Indices.”

American Sociological Review 20:

210-17. 

Frey, William H. and Reynolds Farley.

1996. “Latino, Asian, and Black

Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan

Areas: Are Multiethnic Metros

Different?” Demography 33:35-

50.

Glaeser, Edward L. and Jacob Vigdor.

2001. “Racial Segregation in the

2000 Census: Promising News.”

Center on Urban and

Metropolitan Policy, The

Brookings Institution.

http://www.brook.edu/es/urban/

census/glaeser.pdf.

Grieco, Elizabeth, and Rachel C.

Cassidy. 2001. Overview of Race

and Hispanic Origin: 2000.

Census 2000 Brief # C2KBR/01-1. 

Harrison, Roderick J. and Daniel H.

Weinberg. 1992a. “Changes in

Racial and Ethnic Residential

Segregation, 1980-1990.” Paper

prepared for the American

Statistical Association meetings, August.

Harrison, Roderick J. and Daniel H.

Weinberg. 1992b. “Racial and

Ethnic Residential Segregation in

1990.” Paper prepared for the

Population Association of

America meetings, May.

Hoover, Edgar M. 1941. “Interstate

Redistribution of Population,

1850-1940.” Journal of Economic

History 1: 199-205. 

James, David R., and Karl E. Taueber.

1985. “Measures of Segregation.”

Pp. 1-32 in Sociological

Methodology 1985, edited by

Nancy Tuma. Jossey-Bass.

Jones, Arthur F. Jr., and Daniel H.

Weinberg. 2000. “The Changing

Shape of the Nation’s Income

Distribution.” U.S. Census Bureau,

Current Population Reports,

Series P60-204, Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

Lieberson, Stanley. 1980. A Piece of

the Pie: Blacks and White

Immigrants Since 1880.

University of California Press.

Lieberson, Stanley. 1981. “An

Asymmetrical Approach to

Segregation.” Pp. 61-82 in Ethnic

Segregation in Cities, edited by

Ceri Peach, Vaughn Robinson,

and Susan Smith. Croom-Helm.

Lewis Mumford Center. 2001. “Ethnic

Diversity Grows, Neighborhood

Integration is at a Standstill.”

Report by the Lewis Mumford

Center, State University of New

York-Albany, December 18, 2001.

http://mumford1.dyndns.org/

cen2000/WholePop/WPreport/

MumfordReport.pdf. 

Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A.

Denton. 1988. “The Dimensions

of Residential Segregation.”

Social Forces 67:281-315.

Ralph and Goldy Lewis Center. 2001.

“Residential Segregation Series

Census 2000 Fact Sheet

Residential Segregation in United

States Metropolitan Areas.”

Report by The Ralph and Goldy

Lewis Center for Regional Policy

Studies, The School of Public

Policy & Social Research,

University of California, Los

Angeles, April 27, 2001.

Robinson, J. Gregory. 2001. “ESCAP

II: Demographic Analysis

Results.” Executive Steering

Committee For A.C.E. Policy II,

Report No. 1, October 13, 2001,

U.S. Census Bureau. 

Taeuber, Karl E., and Alma F. Taeuber.

1965. Negroes in Cities:

Residential Segregation and

Neighborhood Change. Aldine.

Theil, Henri. 1972. Statistical

Decomposition Analysis. North

Holland. 

Theil, Henri, and A.J. Finizza. 1971.

“A Note on the Measurement of

Racial Integration in Schools.”

Journal of Mathematical

Sociology 1: 187-93.

REFERENCES