U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

The White Population: 2010

2010 Census Briefs

By

Lindsay Hixson,

Bradford B. Hepler, 

and

Myoung Ouk Kim

C2010BR-05

Issued September 2011

INTRODUCTION

This report provides a portrait of 

the White population in the United 

States and discusses its distribution at the national level and at 

lower levels of geography.1 It is 

part of a series that analyzes population and housing data collected 

from the 2010 Census. The data 

for this report are based on the 

2010 Census Redistricting Data 

(Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 

which was the first 2010 Census 

data product released with data on 

race and Hispanic origin and was 

provided to each state for use in 

drawing boundaries for legislative 

districts.2

UNDERSTANDING RACE 

DATA FROM THE 2010 

CENSUS

The 2010 Census used established 

federal standards to collect and 

present data on race.

For the 2010 Census, the question on 

race was asked of individuals living in the 

United States (see Figure 1). An individual’s response to the race question was 

based upon self-identification. The 

U.S. Census Bureau collects information 

on race following the guidance of the 

U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB) 1997 Revisions to the Standards 

for the Classification of Federal Data on 

1 This report discusses data for the 50 states and 

the District of Columbia, but not Puerto Rico. 2 Information on the 2010 Census Redistricting 

Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File is available 

online at <http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data

/redistricting-data.php>.

Race and Ethnicity.

3 These federal standards mandate that race and Hispanic 

origin (ethnicity) are separate and distinct 

concepts and that when collecting these 

data via self-identification, two different 

questions must be used.4

Starting in 1997, OMB required federal agencies to use a minimum of five 

race categories: White, Black or African 

3 The 1997 Revisions to the Standards for the 

Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, 

issued by OMB is available at <www.whitehouse.gov

/omb/fedreg/1997standards.html>. 4 The OMB requires federal agencies to use a 

minimum of two ethnicities: Hispanic or Latino and 

Not Hispanic or Latino. Hispanic origin can be viewed 

as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country 

of birth of the person or the person’s parents or 

ancestors before their arrival in the United States. 

People who identify their origin as Hispanic, Latino, or 

Spanish may be of any race. “Hispanic or Latino” refers 

to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or 

Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin 

regardless of race.

Figure 1.

Reproduction of the Question on 

Race From the 2010 Census

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census questionnaire.
2 U.S. Census Bureau

American, American Indian or 

Alaska Native, Asian, and Native 

Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. 5

For respondents unable to identify 

with any of these five race categories, OMB approved the Census 

Bureau’s inclusion of a sixth category—Some Other Race—on the 

2000 and 2010 Census questionnaires. The 1997 OMB standards 

also allowed for respondents to 

identify with more than one race. 

The definition of the White racial 

category used in the 2010 Census 

is presented in the text box on this 

page.

Data on race have been collected 

since the first U.S. decennial census 

in 1790, and the White population 

has been enumerated in every census. 6 For the first time in Census 

2000, individuals were presented 

with the option to self-identify 

with more than one race and this 

continued with the 2010 Census, 

as prescribed by OMB. There are 

57 possible multiple race combinations involving the five OMB race 

categories and Some Other Race.7

The 2010 Census question on race 

included 15 separate response 

categories and three areas where 

respondents could write in detailed 

information about their race (see 

5 The terms “Black or African American” 

and “Black” are used interchangeably in 

this report. 6 For information about comparability 

of 2010 Census data on race and Hispanic 

origin to data collected in previous censuses, 

see the 2010 Census Redistricting Data 

(Public Law 94-171) Summary File—Technical

Documentation at <www.census.gov/prod

/cen2010/doc/pl94-171.pdf>. 7 The 2010 Census provides data on the 

total population reporting more than one 

race, as well as detailed race combinations, 

(e.g., White and Asian; White and Black or 

African American and American Indian and 

Alaska Native). In this report, the multiplerace categories are denoted with the conjunction and in bold and italicized print to indicate the separate race groups that comprise 

the particular combination.

Figure 1).8 The response categories and write-in answers can be 

combined to create the five minimum OMB race categories plus 

Some Other Race. In addition to 

White, Black or African American, 

American Indian and Alaska Native, 

and Some Other Race, 7 of the 

15 response categories are Asian 

groups and 4 are Native Hawaiian 

and Other Pacific Islander groups.9

For a complete explanation of the 

race categories used in the 2010 

Census, see the 2010 Census Brief, 

Overview of Race and Hispanic 

Origin: 2010.

10

8 There were two changes to the question 

on race for the 2010 Census. First, the wording of the race question was changed from 

“What is this person’s race? Mark ý one or 

more races to indicate what this person considers himself/herself to be” in 2000 to “What 

is this person’s race? Mark ý one or more 

boxes” for 2010. Second, in 2010, examples 

were added to the “Other Asian” response 

category (Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, 

Cambodian, and so on) and the “Other Pacific 

Islander” response category (Fijian, Tongan, 

and so on). In 2000, no examples were given 

in the race question. 9 The race categories included in the 

census questionnaire generally reflect a social 

definition of race recognized in this country 

and are not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. In addition, it is recognized that the categories of 

the race question include racial and national 

origin or sociocultural groups. 10 Humes, K., N. Jones, and R. Ramirez. 

2011. Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 

2010, U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census 

Briefs, C2010BR-02, available at 

<www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs

/c2010br-02.pdf>.

RACE ALONE, RACE IN 

COMBINATION, AND RACE 

ALONE-OR-IN-COMBINATION 

CONCEPTS

This report presents data for the 

White population and focuses on 

results for three major conceptual 

groups.

People who responded to the question on race by indicating only one 

race are referred to as the race

alone population, or the group who 

reported only one race. For example, respondents who marked only 

the “White” category on the census 

questionnaire would be included 

in the White alone population. This 

population can be viewed as the 

minimum number of people reporting White.

Individuals who chose more than 

one of the six race categories are 

referred to as the race in combination population, or as the group 

who reported more than one race. 

For example, respondents who 

reported they were White and Black 

or White and Asian and American 

Indian and Alaska Native would be 

included in the White in combination population. This population is 

also referred to as the multiple-race 

White population.

DEFINITION OF WHITE USED IN THE 2010 CENSUS

According to OMB, “White” refers to a person having origins in any 

of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. 

The White racial category includes people who marked the “White” 

checkbox. It also includes respondents who reported entries such 

as Caucasian or White; European entries, such as Irish, German, 

and Polish; Middle Eastern entries, such as Arab, Lebanese, and 

Palestinian; and North African entries, such as Algerian, Moroccan, 

and Egyptian.
U.S. Census Bureau 3

The maximum number of people 

who reported White is reflected in 

the White alone-or-in-combination

population. One way to define the 

White population is to combine 

those respondents who reported 

White alone with those who 

reported White in combination with 

one or more other races. This 

creates the White alone-or-incombination population. Another 

way to think about the White

alone-or-in-combination population 

is the total number of people who 

reported White, whether or not they 

reported any other races.

Throughout the report, the discussion of the White population 

compares results for each of these 

groups and highlights the diversity 

within the entire White 

population.11

THE WHITE POPULATION: A 

SNAPSHOT 

The 2010 Census showed that the 

U.S. population on April 1, 2010, 

was 308.7 million. Out of the total 

population, 223.6 million people, 

or 72 percent, identified as White 

alone (see Table 1).12, 13 In addition, 

7.5 million people, or 2 percent, 

reported White in combination with 

one or more other races.

Together, these two groups totaled 

231.0 million people. Thus, 75 

percent of all people in the United 

States identified as White, either 

alone, or in combination with one 

or more other races. 

12 Percentages shown in text generally are 

rounded to the nearest integer, while those 

shown in tables and figures are shown with 

decimals. All rounding is based on unrounded 

calculations. Thus, due to rounding, some 

percentages shown in tables and figures 

ending in “5” may round either up or down. 

For example, unrounded numbers of 14.49 

and 14.51 would both be shown as 14.5 in 

a table, but would be cited in the text as 14 

and 15, respectively. 13 For the purposes of this report, the 

terms “reported,” “identified,” and “classified” are used interchangeably to refer to the 

response provided by respondents as well as 

responses assigned during the editing and 

imputation process.

11 As a matter of policy, the Census Bureau 

does not advocate the use of the alone

population over the alone-or-in-combination

population or vice versa. The use of the alone

population in sections of this report does not 

imply that it is a preferred method of presenting or analyzing data. The same is true 

for sections of this report that focus on the 

alone-or-in-combination population. Data on 

race from the 2010 Census can be presented 

and discussed in a variety of ways.

Table 1.

White Population: 2000 and 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/pl94-171.pdf)

Race and Hispanic or Latino origin

2000 2010 Change, 2000 to 2010

Number

Percentage of 

total 

population Number

Percentage of 

total 

population Number Percent

 Total population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281,421,906 100 .0 308,745,538 100 .0 27,323,632 9 .7

White alone or in combination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216,930,975 77 .1 231,040,398 74 .8 14,109,423 6 .5

 White alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211,460,626 75 .1 223,553,265 72 .4 12,092,639 5 .7

 Hispanic or Latino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,907,852 6 .0 26,735,713 8 .7 9,827,861 58 .1

 Not Hispanic or Latino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194,552,774 69 .1 196,817,552 63 .7 2,264,778 1 .2

 White in combination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,470,349 1 .9 7,487,133 2 .4 2,016,784 36 .9

 White; Black or African American . . . . . . . . . . . 784,764 0 .3 1,834,212 0 .6 1,049,448 133 .7

 White; Some Other Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,206,251 0 .8 1,740,924 0 .6 –465,327 –21 .1

 White; Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868,395 0 .3 1,623,234 0 .5 754,839 86 .9

 White; American Indian and Alaska Native . . . . 1,082,683 0 .4 1,432,309 0 .5 349,626 32 .3

 White; Black or African American; 

 American Indian and Alaska Native . . . . . . . 112,207 – 230,848 0 .1 118,641 105 .7

 All other combinations including White . . . . . . . 416,049 0 .1 625,606 0 .2 209,557 50 .4

Not White alone or in combination . . . . . . . . . . . . 64,490,931 22 .9 77,705,140 25 .2 13,214,209 20 .5

– Percentage rounds to 0 .0 .

Note: In Census 2000, an error in data processing resulted in an overstatement of the Two or More Races population by about 1 million people (about 15 

percent) nationally, which almost entirely affected race combinations involving Some Other Race . Therefore, data users should assess observed changes in the Two 

or More Races population and race combinations involving Some Other Race between Census 2000 and the 2010 Census with caution . Changes in specific race 

combinations not involving Some Other Race, such as White and Black or African American or White and Asian, generally should be more comparable .

Sources: U .S . Census Bureau, Census 2000 Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, Tables PL1 and PL2; and 2010 Census Redistricting Data 

(Public Law 94-171) Summary File, Tables P1 and P2 . 
4 U.S. Census Bureau

The White population 

increased at a slower rate 

than the total population.

The total U.S. population grew by 

9.7 percent, from 281.4 million 

in 2000 to 308.7 million in 2010 

(see Table 1). In comparison, the 

White alone population grew by 

6 percent from 211.5 million to 

223.6 million.14 But while the White 

alone population increased numerically over the 10-year period, its 

proportion of the total population 

declined from 75 percent to 72 

percent.

The White alone-or-in-combination 

population experienced slightly 

more growth than the White alone 

population, growing by 7 percent. 

However, both groups grew at a 

slower rate than the total population, as well as all other major race 

and ethnic groups in the country.15

14 The observed changes in the race 

counts between Census 2000 and the 

2010 Census could be attributed to a 

number of factors. Demographic change 

since 2000, which includes births and 

deaths in a geographic area and migration 

in and out of a geographic area, will have an 

impact on the resulting 2010 Census counts. 

Additionally, some changes in the race question’s wording and format since Census 2000 

could have influenced reporting patterns in 

the 2010 Census. 15 Humes, K., N. Jones, and R. Ramirez. 

2011. Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 

2010, U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census 

Briefs, C2010BR-02, available at 

<www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs

/c2010br-02.pdf>.

MULTIPLE-RACE REPORTING 

AMONG THE WHITE 

POPULATION

The proportion of Whites who 

reported more than one race 

grew by 37 percent.

In the 2010 Census, 7.5 million people reported White in combination 

with one or more additional races 

(see Table 1). The multiple-race 

White population grew at a faster 

rate than the White alone population, with an increase of more than 

one-third in size since 2000. 

The largest multiple-race 

combination was White 

and Black.

Among people who reported they 

were White and one or more additional races, there was a fairly even 

distribution of the four largest 

multiple-race combinations. Onefourth of Whites who reported multiple races identified as White and

Black, and nearly one-fourth identified as White and Some Other Race; 

over one-fifth reported White and

Asian, and nearly one-fifth reported 

White and American Indian and 

Alaska Native. Together, these four 

combinations comprised 89 percent 

of all Whites who reported multiple 

races (see Table 2).

Two of the race combinations 

contributed to most of the 

growth among Whites who 

reported multiple races.

The majority of the increase of the 

multiple-race White population was 

driven by the growth of two race 

combinations. Of the 2.0 million 

increase of Whites who reported 

multiple races, over half of the 

growth was attributed to White and

Black, and over one-third was due 

to White and Asian. 

The White and Black population 

grew by 134 percent or over 1 million people (see Table 1). The White 

and Asian population increased by 

87 percent or more than 750,000 

people over the decade. 

On the other hand, the White 

and Some Other Race population 

decreased by almost one-half million over the decade. This decrease 

was likely due to a data processing 

error in the Two or More Races population in 2000, which overstated 

the White and Some Other Race 

population and largely affected the 

Table 2.

Largest White Multiple-Race Combinations by Hispanic or Latino Origin: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/pl94-171.pdf)

Total Hispanic or Latino Not Hispanic or Latino White in combination

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total number reporting White and one 

or more other races . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,487,133 100 .0 2,448,577 100 .0 5,038,556 100 .0

White; Black or African American . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,834,212 24 .5 245,850 10 .0 1,588,362 31 .5

White; Some Other Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,740,924 23 .3 1,601,125 65 .4 139,799 2 .8

White; Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,623,234 21 .7 135,522 5 .5 1,487,712 29 .5

White; American Indian and Alaska Native . . . . . . . 1,432,309 19 .1 226,385 9 .2 1,205,924 23 .9

White; Black or African American; American 

Indian and Alaska Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230,848 3 .1 50,000 2 .0 180,848 3 .6

All other combinations including White . . . . . . . . . . 625,606 8 .4 189,695 7 .7 435,911 8 .7

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, Tables P1 and P2 .
U.S. Census Bureau 5

combinations that included Some 

Other Race.16

PATTERNS AMONG THE 

NON-HISPANIC WHITE 

POPULATION AND 

THE HISPANIC WHITE 

POPULATION

According to the 1997 OMB standards, Hispanics may be of any 

race. The 2010 Census results 

reflect this, demonstrating that 

Hispanics report a diversity of races 

(White, Black, American Indian or 

Alaska Native, etc.), or may also 

report that they are “Some Other 

Race” (self-identifying their race as 

“Latino,” “Mexican,” “Puerto Rican,” 

“Salvadoran,” or other national 

origins or ethnicities), or identify 

with various combinations of races. 

For more details on the race reporting patterns of Hispanics, see the 

16 In Census 2000, an error in data processing resulted in an overstatement of the 

Two or More Races population by about 1 

million people (about 15 percent) nationally, 

which almost entirely affected race combinations involving Some Other Race. Therefore, 

data users should assess observed changes 

in the Two or More Races population and 

race combinations involving Some Other 

Race between Census 2000 and the 2010 

Census with caution. Changes in specific race 

combinations not involving Some Other Race, 

such as White and Black or White and Asian, 

generally should be more comparable. 

2010 Census Brief, The Hispanic 

Population: 2010.

17

This section presents data for the 

White population, highlighting patterns for Whites who reported they 

are of Hispanic origin (Hispanic 

Whites), and Whites who reported 

they are not of Hispanic origin 

(Non-Hispanic Whites).

More than 29 million people of 

Hispanic origin reported that 

they were White. 

In 2010, the number of Whites who 

reported one race and identified 

as Hispanic was 26.7 million, or 9 

percent of the total population (see 

Table 3). In comparison, the number of Whites who reported one 

race and identified as non-Hispanic 

numbered 196.8 million, or 64 percent of the total population. 

Among the 7.5 million people who 

reported White in combination with 

an additional race group(s), 2.4 

million were Hispanic. Multiplerace White respondents who were 

of Hispanic origin represented 

1 percent of the total population. 

17 Ennis, S., M. Rios-Vargas, and 

N. Albert. 2011. The Hispanic Population: 

2010, U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census 

Briefs, C2010BR-04, available at 

<www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs 

/c2010br-04.pdf>.

The White population who 

identified as Hispanic grew by 

56 percent.

Whites who identified as being of 

Hispanic origin increased by 56 

percent between 2000 and 2010 

(see Table 3). Of the 231.0 million White alone-or-in-combination 

population in the 2010 Census, 

29.2 million or 13 percent reported 

they were Hispanic. In comparison, 

9 percent of the White alone-or-incombination population identified 

as Hispanic in 2000. The 4 percentage point increase in the proportion of all Whites who identified as 

Hispanic represented the largest 

increase in share of the total White 

population among all of the groups 

within the White population. 

The non-Hispanic White 

population share of the total 

population decreased.

While the non-Hispanic White 

alone-or-in-combination population 

increased numerically from 198.2 

million to 201.9 million, it grew 

by only 2 percent over the decade 

(see Table 3). This, coupled with the 

tremendous growth in other groups 

such as Hispanics and Asians, contributed to the non-Hispanic White 

alone-or-in combination population’s 

proportion of the total population 

Table 3.

White Population by Hispanic or Latino Origin: 2000 and 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/pl94-171.pdf)

2000 2010 Change, 2000 to 2010

Percentage of Percentage of Race and Hispanic or Latino origin total total 

Number population Number population Number Percent

Total population . . . . . . . . . . . 281,421,906 100 .0 308,745,538 100 .0 27,323,632 9 .7

White alone or in combination . . . . . . . . 216,930,975 77 .1 231,040,398 74 .8 14,109,423 6 .5

Hispanic or Latino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,753,075 6 .7 29,184,290 9 .4 10,431,215 55 .6

Not Hispanic or Latino . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198,177,900 70 .4 201,856,108 65 .4 3,678,208 1 .9

White alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211,460,626 75 .1 223,553,265 72 .4 12,092,639 5 .7

Hispanic or Latino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,907,852 6 .0 26,735,713 8 .7 9,827,861 58 .1

Not Hispanic or Latino . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194,552,774 69 .1 196,817,552 63 .7 2,264,778 1 .2

White in combination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,470,349 1 .9 7,487,133 2 .4 2,016,784 36 .9

Hispanic or Latino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,845,223 0 .7 2,448,577 0 .8 603,354 32 .7

Not Hispanic or Latino . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,625,126 1 .3 5,038,556 1 .6 1,413,430 39 .0

Sources: U .S . Census Bureau, Census 2000 Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, Tables PL1 and PL2; and 2010 Census Redistricting Data 

(Public Law 94-171) Summary File, Tables P1 and P2 .
6 U.S. Census Bureau

to decline from 70 percent to 65 

percent.

Three-fourths of the growth 

in the White population was 

due to growing numbers of 

Hispanic Whites.

The White alone-or-in-combination 

population increased by 7 percent, 

from 216.9 million in 2000 to 

231.0 million in 2010 (see Table 3). 

Most of this growth was a result of 

the increase in the White Hispanic 

population.

Whites who reported one race and 

identified as Hispanic accounted 

for 70 percent of the growth of 

the White alone-or-in-combination 

population (see Figure 2). Multiplerace Whites who identified as 

Hispanic accounted for another 4 

percent of the growth of the White 

alone-or-in-combination population. Thus, Hispanics accounted 

for about three-fourths of the 

increase in the White alone-or-incombination population.

On the other hand, non-Hispanic 

single-race Whites contributed to 

only 16 percent of the growth of 

the White alone-or-in-combination 

population, and non-Hispanic 

multiple-race Whites accounted for 

10 percent of the growth. 

Hispanic Whites comprised 

a larger proportion of the 

multiple-race White population 

than the White alone 

population.

Overall, Hispanic Whites comprised 

12 percent of the White alone population, but they represented 33 

percent of the multiple-race White 

population (see Figure 3). In comparison, non-Hispanic Whites were 

88 percent of the White alone population, but comprised 67 percent of 

the multiple-race White population.

Figure 2.

Percentage Distribution of the Growth of the White 

Population by Hispanic or Latino Origin: 2000 to 2010

Note: Percentages do not add to 100.0 due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) 

Summary File, Tables P1 and P2.

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, 

and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/pl94-171.pdf)

Non-Hispanic, White alone

Non-Hispanic, 

White in combination

Hispanic, 

White in combination

Total growth = 14.1 million

Hispanic, 

White alone

16.1

10.0

69.7 4.3

Figure 3.

Percentage Distribution of the White Population by 

Hispanic or Latino Origin: 2010

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) 

Summary File, Tables P1 and P2.

Hispanic Non-Hispanic

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and 

definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/pl94-171.pdf)

White in

combination

White alone

White alone or in

combination

12.6 87.4

88.0

67.3

12.0

32.7
U.S. Census Bureau 7

Although Hispanic Whites were 

more likely to report multiple races

than non-Hispanic Whites, growth 

over the last 10 years was faster 

among the non-Hispanic multiplerace White population. The nonHispanic multiple-race White population grew by 39 percent, whereas 

the Hispanic multiple-race White 

population grew by 33 percent (see 

Table 3).

Hispanic Whites and nonHispanic Whites reported 

different multiple-race groups. 

The largest multiple-race combinations reported by non-Hispanic 

Whites were White and Black (1.6 

million), White and Asian (1.5 

million), and White and American 

Indian and Alaska Native (1.2 million). Among non-Hispanic Whites 

who reported more than one race, 

the top combinations were White 

and Black (32 percent), White and 

Asian (30 percent), and White and

American Indian and Alaska Native 

(24 percent), as shown in Table 

2. These three race combination 

categories accounted for the vast 

majority of all non-Hispanic Whites 

who reported multiple races.

White and Some Other Race was 

the largest multiple-race combination reported by Hispanic Whites 

(1.6 million). Among Hispanic 

Whites who reported more than one 

race, the majority indicated they 

were White and Some Other Race 

(65 percent), followed by White 

and Black (10 percent), White and 

American Indian and Alaska Native 

(9 percent), and White and Asian 

(6 percent), as shown in Table 2.

THE GEOGRAPHIC 

DISTRIBUTION OF THE 

WHITE POPULATION

The majority of the White 

alone-or-in-combination 

population lived in the South 

and the Midwest.

According to the 2010 Census, of 

all respondents who reported White 

alone-or-in-combination, 36 percent 

lived in the South, 24 percent lived 

in the Midwest, 22 percent lived in 

the West, and 18 percent lived in 

the Northeast (see Figure 4).18

The distribution of the White alone 

population was almost identical to 

the White alone-or-in-combination 

population across the regions, with 

36 percent living in the South, 24 

percent in the Midwest, 21 percent 

in the West, and 18 percent in the 

Northeast.

18 The Northeast census region includes 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. 

The Midwest census region includes Illinois, 

Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, 

South Dakota, and Wisconsin. The South 

census region includes Alabama, Arkansas, 

Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West 

Virginia. The West census region includes 

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, 

Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, 

Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

Figure 4.

Percentage Distribution of the White Population by 

Region: 2010

Note: Percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) 

Summary File, Tables P1and P2.

Northeast Midwest South West

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and 

definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/pl94-171.pdf)

White in 

combination

White alone

White alone or 

in combination 18.3

14.4

35.7 21.9

24.3 35.9

24.1

21.4

37.7

18.4

17.1 30.7
8 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 4.

White Population for the United States, Regions, and States, and for Puerto Rico: 

2000 and 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Area

White alone or in combination White alone, not Hispanic or Latino White in combination

2000 2010

Percentage 

change, 

2000 to 

2010 2000 2010

Percentage 

change, 

2000 to 

2010 2000 2010

Percentage 

change, 

2000 to 

2010

 United States . . . . 216,930,975 231,040,398 6 .5 194,552,774 196,817,552 1 .2 5,470,349 7,487,133 36 .9

REGION

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,395,625 42,246,801 –0 .4 39,327,262 38,008,094 –3 .4 862,123 1,078,463 25 .1

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54,709,407 55,704,560 1 .8 52,386,131 52,096,633 –0 .6 875,756 1,281,037 46 .3

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74,303,744 82,475,187 11 .0 65,927,794 68,706,462 4 .2 1,484,345 2,302,042 55 .1

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45,522,199 50,613,850 11 .2 36,911,587 38,006,363 3 .0 2,248,125 2,825,591 25 .7

STATE

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,199,953 3,337,077 4 .3 3,125,819 3,204,402 2 .5 37,145 61,683 66 .1

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463,999 518,949 11 .8 423,788 455,320 7 .4 29,465 45,373 54 .0

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,998,154 4,852,961 21 .4 3,274,258 3,695,647 12 .9 124,543 185,840 49 .2

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,170,534 2,296,665 5 .8 2,100,135 2,173,469 3 .5 31,936 51,436 61 .1

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,490,973 22,953,374 6 .8 15,816,790 14,956,253 –5 .4 1,320,914 1,499,440 13 .5

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,665,638 4,240,231 15 .7 3,202,880 3,520,793 9 .9 105,633 151,029 43 .0

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . 2,835,974 2,846,192 0 .4 2,638,845 2,546,262 –3 .5 55,619 73,782 32 .7

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594,425 637,392 7 .2 567,973 586,752 3 .3 9,652 18,775 94 .5

District of Columbia . . . . . 184,309 243,650 32 .2 159,178 209,464 31 .6 8,208 12,179 48 .4

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,734,292 14,488,435 13 .8 10,458,509 10,884,722 4 .1 269,263 379,273 40 .9

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,412,371 5,951,521 10 .0 5,128,661 5,413,920 5 .6 85,090 164,081 92 .8

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476,162 564,323 18 .5 277,091 309,343 11 .6 182,060 227,724 25 .1

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,201,113 1,432,824 19 .3 1,139,291 1,316,243 15 .5 23,809 36,337 52 .6

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,322,831 9,423,048 1 .1 8,424,140 8,167,753 –3 .0 197,360 245,171 24 .2

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,387,174 5,583,367 3 .6 5,219,373 5,286,453 1 .3 67,152 115,461 71 .9

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,777,183 2,830,454 1 .9 2,710,344 2,701,123 –0 .3 28,543 48,893 71 .3

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,363,412 2,468,364 4 .4 2,233,997 2,230,539 –0 .2 49,468 77,320 56 .3

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,678,740 3,878,336 5 .4 3,608,013 3,745,655 3 .8 37,851 68,799 81 .8

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,894,983 2,895,868 – 2,794,391 2,734,884 –2 .1 38,822 59,676 53 .7

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,247,776 1,284,877 3 .0 1,230,297 1,254,297 2 .0 11,762 19,906 69 .2

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,465,697 3,488,887 0 .7 3,286,547 3,157,958 –3 .9 74,389 129,603 74 .2

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . 5,472,809 5,400,458 –1 .3 5,198,359 4,984,800 –4 .1 105,523 135,222 28 .1

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,133,283 8,006,969 –1 .6 7,806,691 7,569,939 –3 .0 167,230 203,849 21 .9

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,466,325 4,634,915 3 .8 4,337,143 4,405,142 1 .6 66,043 110,853 67 .8

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,761,658 1,782,807 1 .2 1,727,908 1,722,287 –0 .3 15,559 28,123 80 .8

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,819,487 5,070,826 5 .2 4,686,474 4,850,748 3 .5 71,404 112,056 56 .9

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831,978 908,645 9 .2 807,823 868,628 7 .5 14,749 23,684 60 .6

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,554,164 1,607,717 3 .4 1,494,494 1,499,753 0 .4 20,903 34,879 66 .9

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,565,866 1,890,043 20 .7 1,303,001 1,462,081 12 .2 63,980 103,355 61 .5

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . 1,198,927 1,255,950 4 .8 1,175,252 1,215,050 3 .4 12,076 19,900 64 .8

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . 6,261,187 6,210,995 –0 .8 5,557,209 5,214,878 –6 .2 156,482 181,747 16 .1

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . 1,272,116 1,473,005 15 .8 813,495 833,810 2 .5 57,863 65,129 12 .6

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,275,834 13,155,274 –0 .9 11,760,981 11,304,247 –3 .9 382,145 414,300 8 .4

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . 5,884,608 6,697,465 13 .8 5,647,155 6,223,995 10 .2 79,952 168,515 110 .8

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . 599,918 616,350 2 .7 589,149 598,007 1 .5 6,737 10,901 61 .8

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,779,512 9,751,547 –0 .3 9,538,111 9,359,263 –1 .9 134,059 212,110 58 .2

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,770,035 2,906,285 4 .9 2,556,368 2,575,381 0 .7 141,601 199,440 40 .8

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,055,670 3,337,309 9 .2 2,857,616 3,005,848 5 .2 94,047 132,695 41 .1

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . 10,596,409 10,604,187 0 .1 10,322,455 10,094,652 –2 .2 112,206 197,899 76 .4

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . 910,630 882,280 –3 .1 858,433 803,685 –6 .4 19,439 25,411 30 .7

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . 2,727,208 3,127,075 14 .7 2,652,291 2,962,740 11 .7 31,648 67,075 111 .9

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . 678,604 715,167 5 .4 664,585 689,502 3 .7 9,200 15,775 71 .5

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,617,553 5,019,639 8 .7 4,505,930 4,800,782 6 .5 54,243 97,691 80 .1

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,240,387 18,276,506 19 .9 10,933,313 11,397,345 4 .2 440,882 574,954 30 .4

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,034,448 2,447,583 20 .3 1,904,265 2,221,719 16 .7 41,473 68,023 64 .0

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 596,079 606,588 1 .8 585,431 590,223 0 .8 6,871 10,296 49 .8

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,233,601 5,681,937 8 .6 4,965,637 5,186,450 4 .4 113,491 195,085 71 .9

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . 5,003,180 5,471,864 9 .4 4,652,490 4,876,804 4 .8 181,357 275,502 51 .9

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . 1,733,390 1,765,642 1 .9 1,709,966 1,726,256 1 .0 14,613 25,654 75 .6

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,827,514 4,995,836 3 .5 4,681,630 4,738,411 1 .2 57,657 93,769 62 .6

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462,902 522,739 12 .9 438,799 483,874 10 .3 8,232 11,460 39 .2

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . 3,199,547 2,928,808 –8 .5 33,966 26,946 –20 .7 134,685 103,708 –23 .0

– Percentage rounds to 0 .0 . 

Sources: U .S . Census Bureau, C

94-171) Summary File, Tables P1 an

ensus 2000 Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, Tables PL1 and PL2; and 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law

d P2 . 
U.S. Census Bureau 9

However, the distribution of Whites 

who reported multiple races was 

very different. Multiple-race Whites 

were much more likely to live in 

the West (38 percent) than other 

regions. 

The White-alone-or-incombination population grew 

in the South and West regions 

but was constant or declined 

in the Northeast and Midwest 

regions.

Between 2000 and 2010, the White 

alone-or-in-combination population 

grew by 11 percent in the South 

and the West. However, the White 

alone-or-in-combination population grew by only 2 percent in the 

Midwest, and actually dropped in 

the Northeast (see Table 4).

The non-Hispanic White alone 

population grew at an even slower 

rate. The non-Hispanic White alone 

population grew by 4 percent in 

the South and 3 percent in the 

West, and actually dropped in the 

Northeast and the Midwest.

The population of Whites who 

reported more than one race 

grew in every region between 

2000 and 2010, particularly in 

the South and the Midwest.

On the other hand, the White in 

combination population experienced growth in every region, 

particularly in the South and the 

Midwest (see Table 4). In the South, 

the White in combination population grew by more than half (55 

percent), and by nearly half (46 percent) in the Midwest. The Northeast 

and the West also experienced 

growth in the White in combination 

population, increasing by about 

25 percent in both regions.

Almost one-third of all people 

who reported White lived in 

just four states. 

In 2010, the four states with the 

largest White alone-or-incombination populations were 

California, Texas, Florida, and New 

York (see Table 4). Combined, 

these states represented nearly 

one-third (30 percent) of the White 

alone-or-in-combination population, 

or 68.9 million of the 231.0 million 

people. These four states were also 

the four states with the largest total 

populations in the United States.

The four states with the largest 

multiple-race White populations 

were also California, Texas, New 

York, and Florida. However, these 

four states comprised a high proportion (nearly two-fifths) of the 

multiple-race White population, 

with multiple-race White populations ranging from 379,000 to 

1.5 million (see Table 4). As an 

example of the differences, one-infive Whites who reported multiple 

races resided in California, compared with one-in-ten Whites who 

reported a single race.

The Hispanic White alone 

population was even more 

heavily concentrated in these 

same four states.

Almost half of the Hispanic White 

alone population lived in California 

and Texas (24 percent each), followed by Florida (12 percent) and 

New York (5 percent). Together, 

these four states comprised nearly 

two-thirds of the Hispanic White 

alone population. In contrast, the 

four states with the largest nonHispanic White alone populations 

comprised one-fourth of the nonHispanic White alone population 

(see Figure 5).

The White-alone-or-incombination population grew 

the fastest in western states 

and southern states.

Among all people who reported 

their race as White, the fastest 

growth between 2000 and 2010 

was observed in states in the West 

and states in the South (see Table 

4). Nine states in the West experienced a growth of greater than 10 

Figure 5.

Percentage Distribution of the White Alone Population 

by Hispanic or Latino Origin and State: 2010

Note: Percentages do not add to 100.0 due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) 

Summary File, Tables P1 and P2.

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and 

definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/pl94-171.pdf)

Hispanic

White alone

Non-Hispanic

White alone

18.4

CA

24.3

TX

23.6

FL

12.1

NY

5.4

IL

3.8

CA

7.6

TX

5.8

FL

5.5

NY

5.7

PA

5.1

All other states

70.2

All other states

30.9
10 U.S. Census Bureau

percent in their White alone-or-incombination population: Arizona 

(21 percent), Nevada (21 percent), 

Utah (20 percent), Idaho (19 percent), Hawaii (19 percent), New 

Mexico (16 percent), Colorado (16 

percent), Wyoming (13 percent), 

and Alaska (12 percent). 

In the South, the White alone-or-incombination population grew by 

more than 10 percent in four states 

(Texas, 20 percent; South Carolina, 

15 percent; North Carolina, 14 

percent; and Florida, 14 percent) 

and in the District of Columbia 

(32 percent). The White alone-orin-combination population did not 

experience growth greater than 10 

percent in any midwestern state, 

nor in any northeastern state.

The multiple-race White 

population increased by at 

least 8 percent in every state.

While the White alone population 

generally experienced slow or 

negative growth in most states, 

the multiple-race White population increased by at least 8 percent 

in every state in the country. Of 

particular note was the tremendous 

change seen among the top ten 

states with the greatest increase in 

the multiple-race White population. 

Of the top ten states, nine were 

in the South. South Carolina had 

the largest percentage increase in 

the multiple-race White population 

(112 percent), followed by North 

Carolina (111 percent), Delaware 

(95 percent), Georgia (93 percent), 

Kentucky (82 percent), Mississippi 

(81 percent), Tennessee (80 percent), West Virginia (76 percent), 

and Maryland (74 percent). 

The increase of multiple-race 

Whites in the South is noteworthy, 

considering the relatively small 

proportions seen in 2000. While the 

White and Black population represented 24 percent of the total Two 

or More Races population at the 

national level, the White and Black 

population represented between 28 

percent and 43 percent of the Two 

or More Races population in the 

Southern states listed above.

Few states had fast growth in 

their non-Hispanic White alone 

population.

Comparatively, the growth of the 

non-Hispanic White alone population 

was slower in the South (4 percent) 

and the West (3 percent). Only eight 

states and the District of Columbia 

had non-Hispanic White alone populations that increased by at least 

10 percent between the decennial 

censuses. The District of Columbia 

had the largest percent change in 

the non-Hispanic White alone population (32 percent), followed by Utah 

(17 percent), Idaho (16 percent), 

and Arizona (13 percent). Hawaii, 

Nevada, and South Carolina all had 

about 12 percent change in their 

non-Hispanic White alone population, while the non-Hispanic White 

alone population grew by about 10 

percent in North Carolina and in 

Wyoming (see Table 4).

The non-Hispanic White 

alone population declined 

in 15 states.

Eleven of the states with declines in 

their non-Hispanic White alone population were in the Northeast and 

the Midwest. In particular, two-thirds 

of the states in the Northeast had 

declines in the non-Hispanic White 

alone population—Connecticut (–4 

percent), Massachusetts (–4 percent), New Jersey (–6 percent), New 

York (–4 percent), Pennsylvania 

(–2 percent), and Rhode Island (–6 

percent). Nearly half of the states 

in the Midwest had declines in the 

non-Hispanic White alone population—Illinois (–3 percent), Iowa (–0.3 

percent), Kansas (–0.2 percent), 

Michigan (–3 percent), and Ohio 

(–2 percent). 

Fewer states in the South saw 

declines in the non-Hispanic White 

alone population—Louisiana (–2 

percent), Maryland (–4 percent), and 

Mississippi (–0.3 percent). California 

was the only state in the West with a 

non-Hispanic White alone population 

that declined (–5 percent). 

The White alone-or-incombination population was 

concentrated in counties in 

the Northeast and the Midwest.

The majority of all counties 

throughout the country had a high 

percentage of non-Hispanic White 

alone-or-in-combination respondents in their populations (see 

Figure 6). Out of all 3,143 counties 

in the United States, there were 

2,146 counties where the nonHispanic White alone-or-incombination population was 

75 percent or more of the 

total population.

Several distinct patterns can be seen 

in the distribution of the nonHispanic White alone-or-incombination population across 

the country. The non-Hispanic 

White population was generally 

most prevalent in counties across 

the northern half of the country 

throughout the Northeast and the 

Midwest regions. The most prevalent non-Hispanic White population 

counties also stretched into parts 

of the South and comprised much 

of the West. Another distinctive 

boundary was across central Alaska, 

where non-Hispanic Whites were 

concentrated in the southeastern 

portion of the state. 

The Hispanic White population 

was concentrated in counties 

throughout the Southwest.

The Hispanic White alone-or-incombination population was concentrated in counties throughout 

the Southwest in the states lining 

the U.S.-Mexico border (Texas, New 

Mexico, Arizona, and California) 
U.S. Census Bureau 11

.

Percentage

75.0 or more

50.0 to 74.9

25.0 to 49.9

10.0 to 24.9

Less than 10.0

Percentage

75.0 or more

50.0 to 74.9

25.0 to 49.9

10.0 to 24.9

Less than 10.0

U.S. percent 65.4

U.S. percent 9.4

Figure 6.

Non-Hispanic and Hispanic White Alone or in Combination 

Population as a Percentage of County Population: 2010

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, Tables P1 and P2.

Non-Hispanic White Alone or in Combination

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/pl94-171.pdf)

Hispanic White Alone or in Combination
12 U.S. Census Bureau

Percent change

50.0 or more

25.0 to 49.9

10.0 to 24.9

0.0 to 9.9

Less then 0.0

Fewer than 1,000 

Hispanic White Alone 

or in Combinationion

Not comparable

U.S. change 55.6

Percent change

50.0 or more

25.0 to 49.9

10.0 to 24.9

0.0 to 9.9

Less then 0.0

Fewer than 1,000 

Non-Hispanic White 

Alone or in Combination

Not comparable

U.S. change 1.9

Figure 7.

Percentage Change in Non-Hispanic and Hispanic White Alone or in 

Combination Population by County: 2000 to 2010

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, Tables PL1 and PL2; and 

2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, Table P1 and P2.

Non-Hispanic White Alone or in Combination

(Counties with a White Alone or in Combination population of at least 1,000 are included 

in the maps. For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/pl94-171.pdf)

Hispanic White Alone or in Combination
U.S. Census Bureau 13

and also in Nevada and Colorado 

(see Figure 6). Additionally, multiple groupings of counties in Florida 

and in the Pacific Northwest also 

had high proportions of the population that were Hispanic White. 

The growth in the Hispanic 

White population and the 

decline in the non-Hispanic 

White population were seen in 

different parts of the country.

The maps in Figure 7 illustrate the 

percent change in the non-Hispanic 

White alone-or-in-combination 

population and the Hispanic White 

alone-or-in-combination population 

between 2000 and 2010 by county. 

About half of all counties with a 

non-Hispanic White population of at 

least 1,000 experienced a decline 

in their non-Hispanic White population between 2000 and 2010. 

Among all non-Hispanic Whites, 

the mid-section of the country 

showed the largest decrease in the 

non-Hispanic White population, in 

areas stretching from Montana to 

the Dakotas southward to western 

Texas and eastern 

New Mexico. 

There were also observable 

declines in the non-Hispanic White 

alone-or-in-combination population stretching eastward to New 

England and in Arkansas and the 

Gulf Coast states. There were also 

declines in the non-Hispanic White 

population in counties in California 

and parts of the Pacific Northwest. 

The growth of the non-Hispanic 

White alone-or-in-combination population was concentrated in counties in the mid-Atlantic corridor and 

clusters throughout the southeastern states and in Florida. Counties 

in the Pacific Northwest, northern 

California, Arizona, Nevada, and 

areas of the interior West also had 

increases in their non-Hispanic 

White populations. Additionally, 

counties in Texas, Missouri, Hawaii, 

and Alaska experienced growth in 

their non-Hispanic White populations between 2000 and 2010. 

The Hispanic White alone-or-incombination population growth 

was concentrated in counties in the 

Pacific Northwest and Southwest, 

especially in Arizona and California. 

Counties in Texas, Florida, the 

Northeast corridor, the Great Lakes, 

Colorado, and Wyoming had significant growth in their Hispanic 

White populations. Hawaii also 

experienced growth in the Hispanic 

White population between 2000 

and 2010. 

The places with the largest 

White populations were New 

York, NY; Los Angeles, CA; 

Chicago, IL; Houston, TX; and 

San Antonio, TX.

The 2010 Census showed that, of 

all places in the United States with 

populations of 100,000 or more, 

New York, NY, had the largest White 

alone-or-in-combination population with almost 3.8 million people 

(see Table 5).19 Los Angeles, CA; 

Chicago, IL; Houston, TX; and San 

Antonio, TX, each had White populations between 1 and 3 million. 

These places were also the five 

largest places in the United States, 

with the exception of San Antonio, 

TX, which ranked seventh.

19 The 2010 Census showed 282 places in 

the United States with 100,000 or more population. They included 273 incorporated places 

(including 5 city-county consolidations) and 

9 census designated places that were not 

legally incorporated.

Table 5.

Ten Places With the Largest Number of Whites: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/pl94-171.pdf)

Place1 Total 

population

White alone or in combination White alone White in combination 

Rank Number Rank Number Rank Number

New York, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,175,133 1 3,797,402 1 3,597,341 1 200,061 

Los Angeles, CA . . . . . . . . . . 3,792,621 2 2,031,586 2 1,888,158 2 143,428 

Chicago, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,695,598 3 1,270,097 3 1,212,835 3 57,262 

Houston, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,099,451 4 1,116,036 4 1,060,491 4 55,545 

San Antonio, TX . . . . . . . . . . . 1,327,407 5 1,001,202 5 963,413 9 37,789 

Phoenix, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,445,632 6 995,467 6 951,958 6 43,509 

San Diego, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,307,402 7 824,542 7 769,971 5 54,571 

Philadelphia, PA . . . . . . . . . . . 1,526,006 8 655,021 8 626,221 11 28,800 

Dallas, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,197,816 9 633,355 9 607,415 13 25,940 

Austin, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 790,390 10 562,451 10 539,760 18 22,691 

Honolulu, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337,256 154 99,213 255 60,409 7 38,804 

San Jose, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 945,942 19 442,231 20 404,437 8 37,794 

San Francisco, CA . . . . . . . . . 805,235 21 420,823 21 390,387 10 30,436 

1

 Places of 100,000 or more total population . The 2010 Census showed 282 places in the United States with 100,000 or more population . 

incorporated places (including 5 city-county consolidations) and 9 census designated places that were not legally incorporated . 

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, Table P1.

They included 273 
14 U.S. Census Bureau

The places with the largest 

multiple-race White 

populations were New York 

and Los Angeles.

Of all places with populations of 

100,000 or more, New York, NY, 

had the largest multiple-race White 

population (200,000) followed by 

Los Angeles (143,000) (see Table 

5). Three other places, Chicago, IL; 

Houston, TX; and San Diego, CA, 

had populations over 50,000. 

More than half of the top 

ten places with the highest 

percentage of Whites were in 

the West.

Six of the ten places with the 

highest proportions of Whites 

alone-or-in-combination were in 

the West, three in the Midwest, and 

one in the South (see Table 6). The 

highest proportion of Whites was 

in Hialeah, FL, with 94 percent. In 

Hialeah, 95 percent of the population was Hispanic, indicating a 

large White Hispanic population, 

which is unique among the other 

top 10 places with the highest proportion of Whites in 2010. 

Among the places with populations 

of 100,000 or more, the top ten 

places with the greatest proportion 

of people who identified as White, 

alone or in combination, had populations over 90 percent White. Even 

among these places, the population 

was less homogeneous than 

in 2000. 

The place with the greatest 

proportion of multiple-race 

Whites was Honolulu, HI.

Among the places with populations 

of 100,000 or more, Honolulu, 

HI, had the highest proportion of 

people who identified as White 

and one or more other races (12 

percent), followed by Fairfield, CA; 

Anchorage, AK; and Tacoma, WA 

(7 percent each) (see Table 6). Of 

these ten places, nine were in the 

West (with six in California alone) 

and one was in the Midwest.

Table 6.

Ten Places With the Highest Percentage of Whites: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/pl94-171.pdf)

Place1

Total 

population

White alone or in 

combination White alone White in combination 

Rank

Percentage 

of total 

population Rank

Percentage 

of total 

population Rank

Percentage 

of total 

population

Hialeah, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224,669 1 94 .0 1 92 .6 268 1 .4

Arvada, CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106,433 2 92 .4 3 89 .8 194 2 .5

Billings, MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104,170 3 92 .3 4 89 .6 167 2 .7

Fargo, ND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105,549 4 92 .1 2 90 .2 250 1 .9

Fort Collins, CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143,986 5 91 .9 6 89 .0 153 2 .8

Boise City, ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205,671 6 91 .7 7 89 .0 158 2 .8

Springfield, MO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159,498 7 91 .7 8 88 .7 140 3 .0

Scottsdale, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217,385 8 91 .3 5 89 .3 237 2 .0

Spokane, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208,916 9 90 .8 15 86 .7 53 4 .1

Cedar Rapids, IA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126,326 10 90 .7 10 88 .0 173 2 .7

Cape Coral, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154,305 11 90 .2 9 88 .2 232 2 .1

Honolulu, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337,256 275 29 .4 281 17 .9 1 11 .5

Fairfield, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105,321 211 52 .8 226 46 .0 2 6 .8

Anchorage, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291,826 102 72 .8 117 66 .0 3 6 .8

Tacoma, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198,397 106 71 .6 127 64 .9 4 6 .7

Antioch, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102,372 195 55 .0 213 48 .9 5 6 .1

Elk Grove, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153,015 217 51 .9 225 46 .1 6 5 .8

Concord, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122,067 116 70 .1 130 64 .5 7 5 .5

Lansing, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114,297 135 66 .6 149 61 .2 8 5 .4

Berkeley, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112,580 146 64 .8 161 59 .5 9 5 .3

Murrieta, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103,466 94 75 .0 100 69 .7 10 5 .2

1

 Places of 100,000 or more total population . The 2010 Census showed 282 places in the United States with 100,000 or more population . 

incorporated places (including 5 city-county consolidations) and 9 census designated places that were not legally incorporated . 

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, Table P1 . 

They included 273 
U.S. Census Bureau 15

In the 20 largest metropolitan 

statistical areas, the 

proportion of the non-Hispanic 

White alone population living 

inside the largest principal 

cities varied by metro area.

Figure 8 shows the proportion 

of the non-Hispanic White alone 

population who lived inside the 

largest principal city of the 20 largest metropolitan statistical areas in 

the country versus those who lived 

outside of that largest principal 

city, in 2000 and in 2010.20, 21 For 

example, the dark blue bar denotes 

the proportion of the non-Hispanic 

White alone population who lived 

inside the largest principal city of 

Boston in 2010 (9.6 percent), out of 

the total non-Hispanic White alone 

population in the entire BostonCambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 

metro area.

20 For the remainder of this section, 

when metro areas are discussed, the report 

will refer to the largest 20 metropolitan 

statistical areas. 21 Data for the metro areas are based on 

the 2010 Census boundaries.

In all of the 20 metro areas (except 

for the San Diego-Carlsbad-San 

Marcos, CA metro area), less than 

one-third of the non-Hispanic 

White alone population lived inside 

their respective largest principal 

city in 2010. The metro areas that 

had the highest proportion of the 

non-Hispanic White alone population living inside their respective 

largest principal cities were San 

Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA (39 

percent); New York-Northern New 

Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA (29 

percent); Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, 

AZ (27 percent); Los Angeles-Long 

Beach-Santa Ana, CA (27 percent); 

and Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, 

TX (23 percent).

The metro areas with the lowest 

proportion of the non-Hispanic 

White alone population living inside 

their respective largest principal 

cities were Detroit-Warren-Livonia, 

MI (2 percent), and Miami-Fort 

Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 

(2 percent).

The proportion of the 

non-Hispanic White alone 

population living inside the 

largest principal city was 15 

percent or less in most of the 

selected metro areas in the 

Northeast, the Midwest, and 

the South, but higher in the 

West.

In 2 of the 3 northeastern metro 

areas shown (see Figure 8), 15 

percent or less of the nonHispanic White alone population 

lived inside their respective largest 

principal city—Boston (10 percent) 

and Philadelphia (15 percent).

In 6 of the 7 metro areas that 

represent the South, less than 15 

percent of the non-Hispanic White 

alone population lived inside their 

respective largest principal city—

Atlanta (6 percent), Baltimore (11 

percent), Dallas (11 percent), Miami 

Figure 8.

Proportion of the Non-Hispanic White Alone Population 

Living Inside the Largest Principal City of the 20 

Largest Metropolitan Areas: 2000 and 2010

Note: Principal cities within regions are organized based on proximity to each other. Boston, 

New York, and Philadelphia are located in the Northeast census region. Baltimore, 

Washington, Atlanta, Tampa, Miami, Houston, and Dallas are located in the 

South census region. St. Louis, Detroit, Chicago, and Minneapolis are located in the Midwest 

census region. Phoenix, San Diego, Riverside, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle are 

located in the West census region. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census special tabulation.

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and 

definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/pl94-171.pdf)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Seattle

San Francisco

Los Angeles

Riverside

San Diego

Phoenix

Minneapolis

Chicago

Detroit

St. Louis

Dallas 

Houston

Miami

Tampa

Atlanta

Washington

Baltimore

Philadelphia

New York

Boston 2010

Proportion Living Inside the Largest Principal City

 of the Metropolitan Area

2000
16 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 9.

Percentage-Point Difference of Race and Ethnic Groups Living Inside the Largest 

Principal City of the 20 Largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas: 2000 to 2010

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census special tabulation.

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/pl94-171.pdf)

Note: Minority refers to people who reported their race and ethnicity as something other than non-Hispanic White alone.

Principal cities within regions are organized based on proximity to each other. Boston, New York, and Philadelphia are located in the 

Northeast census region. Baltimore, Washington, Atlanta, Tampa, Miami, Houston, and Dallas are located in the South census 

region. St. Louis, Detroit, Chicago, and Minneapolis are located in the Midwest census region. Phoenix, San Diego, Riverside, Los Angeles, 

San Francisco, and Seattle are located in the West census region.

 

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

Boston

New York

Philadelphia

Baltimore

Washington

Atlanta

Tampa

Miami

Houston

Dallas 

St. Louis

Detroit

Chicago

Minneapolis

Phoenix

San Diego

Riverside

Los Angeles

San Francisco

Seattle

Boston

New York

Philadelphia

Baltimore

Washington

Atlanta

Tampa

Miami

Houston

Dallas 

St. Louis

Detroit

Chicago

Minneapolis

Phoenix

San Diego

Riverside

Los Angeles

San Francisco

Seattle

Boston

New York

Philadelphia

Baltimore

Washington

Atlanta

Tampa

Miami

Houston

Dallas 

St. Louis

Detroit

Chicago

Minneapolis

Phoenix

San Diego

Riverside

Los Angeles

San Francisco

Seattle

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

Total Population

Non-Hispanic White Alone

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

Minority
U.S. Census Bureau 17

(2 percent), Tampa (8 percent), and 

Washington (8 percent).

In the Midwest, this was the case 

for 3 out of the 4 metro areas 

shown, with lower proportions of 

the non-Hispanic White alone population living inside their respective 

largest principal city—Detroit (2 

percent), Minneapolis (9 percent), 

and St. Louis (6 percent).

The selected metro areas in the 

West generally had higher proportions of their non-Hispanic White 

alone population living inside the 

largest principal city. In 5 of the 6 

metro areas in the West, more than 

15 percent of the non-Hispanic 

White alone population lived inside 

their respective largest principal 

city—Los Angeles (27 percent), 

Phoenix (27 percent), San Diego 

(39 percent), San Francisco (18 percent), and Seattle (17 percent).

The proportion of the 

non-Hispanic White alone 

population living inside 

the largest principal city 

increased over the past 10 

years in about half of the 20 

largest metro areas.

Figure 9 shows the percentagepoint difference of a race or 

Hispanic origin group living inside 

the largest principal city in the 20 

largest metro areas, from 2000 to 

2010. For example, in the BostonCambridge-Quincy, MA-NH metro 

area, 9.2 percent of the nonHispanic White alone population lived in the largest principal 

city, Boston, in 2000. This figure 

increased to 9.6 percent in 2010. 

This represents an increase of 0.4 

percentage points.

In about half of the 20 largest 

metro areas in the United States, 

the proportion of the non-Hispanic 

White alone population living 

inside the largest principal cities increased, while the proportion living outside of these cities 

decreased, from 2000 to 2010. 

This unique pattern differed largely 

from the total population, where 

the proportions of people living 

inside the largest principal cities 

decreased in 19 of the 20 largest 

metro areas.

The largest growth in the proportion of the non-Hispanic White 

alone population living inside the 

largest principal city of a metro 

area was seen in Los Angeles (up 

1.9 percentage points), Washington 

(up 1.8 percentage points), and 

San Francisco (up 1.6 percentage 

points). The proportion living inside 

versus outside the largest principal 

cities of New York, Seattle, Atlanta, 

Miami, Boston, and San Diego also 

increased over the decade.

In contrast, the largest principal cities’ share of their respective metro 

area’s total population decreased 

between 2000 and 2010 in all of 

the major metro areas, with the 

exception of the Boston-CambridgeQuincy, MA-NH metro area.

Data for the 20 largest metro areas 

show that the largest principal 

cities’ share of the non-Hispanic 

White alone metro area population 

declined in each of the Midwestern 

metro areas—Detroit (down 1.3 

percentage points), St. Louis (down 

0.7 percentage points), Minneapolis 

(down 0.5 percentage points), 

and Chicago (down 0.4 percentage 

points).

In the 2010 Census, just over 

one-third of the U.S. population 

reported their race and ethnicity as 

something other than non-Hispanic 

White alone. This group is referred 

to as the “minority” population for 

this report. The proportion of the 

minority population living inside 

the largest principal city declined 

in all of the 20 largest metros 

over the decade. Four of these 

metro areas experienced declines 

greater than 10 percentage points 

in the proportion of the minority 

population that lived inside the 

city: Detroit (down 15.8 percentage points), Houston (down 11.8 

percentage points), Baltimore 

(down 11.1 percentage points), and 

Chicago (down 10.4 percentage 

points).

SUMMARY

This report provided a portrait 

of the White population in the 

United States and contributes 

to our understanding of the 

nation’s changing racial and 

ethnic diversity.

While the White population continued to be the largest race group, 

representing 75 percent of the total 

population, it grew at a slower 

rate than the total population. 

The majority of the growth in the 

White population was due to the 

growth among Hispanic Whites. 

The increase in the multiple-race 

reporting of groups that included 

White, specifically the White and

Black population and the White 

and Asian population also contributed to the growth of the White 

population.

Additional notable trends were 

presented in this report. The White 

population has become more 

diverse as evidenced by the growth 

of the Hispanic White population 

and the multiple-race White population. The increase of the nonHispanic White alone population 

accounted for 16 percent of the 

growth of the total White population 

between 2000 and 2010, whereas 

the Hispanic White alone population accounted for 70 percent, and 

the multiple-race White population 

accounted for 14 percent. 

Geographically, the White aloneor-in-combination population grew 

in the South and West regions, but 

was constant or declined in the 

Northeast and Midwest regions. 
18 U.S. Census Bureau

The non-Hispanic White alone 

population grew at an even slower 

rate. On the other hand, multiplerace Whites grew in every region 

between 2000 and 2010, particularly in the South and the Midwest.

Additionally, while the largest principal cities’ share of their respective metropolitan statistical area’s 

total population decreased between 

2000 and 2010 in 19 of the 20 

largest metro areas, the nonHispanic White alone population 

living inside versus outside the 

largest principal cities increased 

over the decade in Los Angeles, 

Washington, San Francisco, New 

York, Seattle, Atlanta, Miami, 

Boston, and San Diego.

Throughout the decade, the Census 

Bureau will release additional 

information on the White population, including characteristics such 

as age, sex, and family type, which 

will provide greater insights to the 

demographic characteristics of this 

population at various geographic 

levels.

ABOUT THE 2010 CENSUS

Why was the 2010 Census 

conducted?

The U.S. Constitution mandates 

that a census be taken in the 

United States every 10 years. This 

is required in order to determine 

the number of seats each state 

is to receive in the U.S. House of 

Representatives.

Why did the 2010 Census ask 

the question on race?

The Census Bureau collects data on 

race to fulfill a variety of legislative 

and program requirements. Data 

on race are used in the legislative 

redistricting process carried out by 

the states and in monitoring local 

jurisdictions’ compliance with the 

Voting Rights Act. More broadly, 

data on race are critical for research 

that underlies many policy decisions at all levels of government.

How do data from the question 

on race benefit me, my family, 

and my community?

All levels of government need information on race to implement and 

evaluate programs, or enforce laws, 

such as the Civil Rights Act, Voting 

Rights Act, Fair Housing Act, Equal 

Employment Opportunity Act, and 

the 2010 Census Redistricting 

Data Program. 

Both public and private organizations use race information to find 

areas where groups may need special services and to plan and implement education, housing, health, 

and other programs that address 

these needs. For example, a school 

system might use this information 

to design cultural activities that 

reflect the diversity in their community, or a business could use it to 

select the mix of merchandise it will 

sell in a new store. Census information also helps identify areas where 

residents might need services of 

particular importance to certain 

racial groups, such as screening for 

hypertension or diabetes.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

For more information on race in 

the United States, visit the Census 

Bureau’s Internet site at 

<www.census.gov/population

/www/socdemo/race/race.html>.

Information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and 

definitions is available at 

<www.census.gov/prod/cen2010

/doc/pl94-171.pdf>.

Data on race from the 2010 

Census Redistricting Data (Public 

Law 94-171) Summary File were 

released on a state-by-state basis. 

The 2010 Census redistricting data 

are available on the Internet at 

<http://factfinder2.census.gov

/main.html> and on DVD.

For more information on specific 

race groups in the United States, go 

to <www.census.gov> and search 

for “Minority Links.” This Web page 

includes information about the 

2010 Census and provides links 

to reports based on past censuses 

and surveys focusing on the social 

and economic characteristics of 

the Black or African American, 

American Indian and Alaska Native, 

Asian, and Native Hawaiian and 

Other Pacific Islander populations. 

Information on other population 

and housing topics is presented 

in the 2010 Census Briefs series, 

located on the Census Bureau’s Web 

site at <www.census.gov/prod

/cen2010>. This series presents 

information about race, Hispanic 

origin, age, sex, household type, 

housing tenure, and people who 

reside in group quarters. 

For more information about the 

2010 Census, including data products, call the Customer Services 

Center at 1-800-923-8282. You 

can also visit the Census Bureau’s 

Question and Answer Center at 

<ask.census.gov> to submit your 

questions online.