BY THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS

FOR THE PRESIDENT’S INITIATIVE ON RACE

Changing

AMERICA

INDICATORS of SOCIAL and

ECONOMIC WELL-BEING by

RACE and HISPANIC ORIGIN
Changing

AMERICA

INDICATORS of SOCIAL and

ECONOMIC WELL-BEING by

RACE and HISPANIC ORIGIN

September 1998

BY THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS

FOR THE PRESIDENT’S INITIATIVE ON RACE
This report reflects the commitment and involvement of a number of agencies and individuals. The

Council of Economic Advisers would like to thank the leadership and staff of the following

government agencies for their generous support and invaluable assistance with this project.

The Bureau of the Census

The Bureau of Justice Statistics

The Bureau of Labor Statistics

The Department of Housing and Urban Development

The National Center for Education Statistics

The National Center for Health Statistics

We also thank the President’s Initiative on Race and the Statistical Policy Office of the Office of

Management and Budget for their extensive comments and assistance.

The data on which charts are based, and a copy of Changing America, can be found online at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/CEA/html/publications.html. 

Acknowledgments
As we approach the 21st century, America is once again a nation of new promise, with the

opportunity to become the world’s first truly multiracial, multiethnic democracy. In as

few as 50 years, there may be no majority race in our nation. This rich and growing

diversity should be a source of great pride and strength as we enter the new millennium. 

In June 1997, I launched The President’s Initiative on Race: One America in the 21st Century, in

part to educate Americans about the facts surrounding the issue of race in America. I appointed

an Advisory Board of seven distinguished Americans to help lead this national conversation. I also

asked my entire Administration to participate in this effort and called upon all Americans to

recognize the lingering problems and limitless possibilities of our diversity. We face a variety of

racial challenges in our country, many of them deeply rooted in our history. If we are to harness

the great opportunities within these challenges, we must better understand the contours and nature

of racial issues. 

By providing much needed information about racial disparities, this statistical chartbook provides

the basis for an informed discussion about the problems faced by people of different races and

backgrounds in America. There is much good news here, with improvements over the past 20 years

for all Americans in education, in economic status, and in health. But in far too many areas, there

are still troubling disparities between people of color and other Americans. 

Understanding the disparities highlighted in this book is important, but to widen the circle of

opportunity for all Americans, we must also continue to act. We must make sure that our federal,

state, and local governments, our public schools, our health care system, and our courts deal fairly

with all people and provide equal opportunities for every American to participate fully in our

society. We must also reach out to our neighbors and co-workers of other races or ethnicities, for

it is only by getting to know one another that we will realize that what unites us is far stronger than

what divides us. 

Only by honestly confronting the walls that continue to separate us, can we break down those walls

and move closer to creating a community in which we recognize diversity as a source of strength

rather than a cause of division. A decade from now, I hope that people will look back and see that

this Initiative made a difference by supplying much needed information, encouraging conversation,

and inspiring concrete actions to provide equal opportunity for all Americans. I hope that when

we revisit the facts and trends presented in this book, we will see much progress in closing racial

gaps. Above all, I hope we will continue to build on that progress, and continue to build one

America in the 21st Century. 

Changing America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being by Race and Hispanic Origin

Presidential Foreword

iii
Presidential Foreword ................................................................................................iii

I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................1

II. Population ....................................................................................................................4

1. Racial/Ethnic Composition of the Population

2. Foreign-Born Population

3. Minority Population by Region, 1995

4. Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Residence

5. Intergroup Married Couples, 1990

6. Household Structure

7. Age Distribution, 1997

III. Education .................................................................................................................. 13

1. Participation in Literacy Activities with a Parent or 

Family Member by Children Aged Three to Five

2. Children Aged Three to Four Enrolled in

Center-Based Programs or Kindergarten

3. Computer Use by Children in First through Sixth Grade

4. Average Reading Proficiency Scores

5. Average Mathematics Proficiency Scores

6. Educational Attainment of Adults Aged 25 and Over

7. Persons Aged 25 to 29 with a High School Degree or Equivalent

8. Persons Aged 25 to 29 with a Four-Year College Degree or Higher

IV. Labor Markets .......................................................................................................... 23

1. Labor Force Participation Rates of Persons Aged 25 to 54

2. Unemployment Rates of Persons Aged 16 and Over

3. Persons Aged 16 to 24 Who Are Not in School and Not Employed

4. Median Usual Weekly Earnings of Male Full-Time Workers

5. Median Usual Weekly Earnings of Female Full-Time Workers

6. Black and Hispanic Male Earnings as a Percentage of White Male Earnings

7. Black and Hispanic Female Earnings as a Percentage of White Female Earnings

8. Occupations of Employed Persons, 1997

V. Economic Status........................................................................................................ 33

1. Median Family Income

2. Poverty Rates for Individuals

3. Poverty Rates for Children

4. Poverty Rates by Selected Individual Characteristics, 1996

5. Households Owning Selected Assets, 1993

Changing America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being by Race and Hispanic Origin

Table of Contents

ivTable of Contents
VI. Health ........................................................................................................................ 40

1. Infant Mortality Rates

2. Life Expectancy at Birth

3. Children Aged 19 to 35 Months Who Are Up to Date with

Recommended Vaccinations, 1995–96

4. Prevalence of Smoking among Persons Aged 18 to 24

5. Death Rates by Cause for Persons Aged 15 to 34, 1994–95

6. Death Rates by Cause for Persons Ages 45 to 64, 1995

7. Persons Aged 18 to 64 without Health Insurance Coverage, 1994–95

VII. Crime and Criminal Justice ...................................................................................... 50

1. Victims of Homicide

2. Victims of Property Crime

3. Admissions to State and Federal Prisons

4. Adults under Correctional Supervision

5. Arrests, Convictions, and Prison Admissions for Violent Crimes, 1994

6. Minority Composition of Local Police and Sheriffs’ Departments

7. Perception of Whether Blacks or Whites are Treated More Harshly 

by the Criminal Justice System, 1997

VIII. Housing and Neighborhoods .................................................................................... 60

1. Homeownership Rates

2. Households with High Housing Cost Burdens

3. Housing Units with Physical Problems

4. Crowding: Households with More Than One Person per Room

5. Reported Problems in Neighborhood, 1993–95

6. Average Racial and Ethnic Composition of Metropolitan Neighborhoods, 1990

7. Whites’ Attitudes towards Integration

IX. Appendix .................................................................................................................. 69

X. Detailed Chart Sources ............................................................................................ 72

iv

Table of Contents
Changing America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being by Race and Hispanic Origin

I. Introduction

1

This chart book is intended to document current differences in well-being by race and

Hispanic origin and to describe how such differences have evolved over the past several

decades. It has been produced for the President’s Initiative on Race by the Council of

Economic Advisers in consultation with the Federal statistical agencies. The book is designed to

further one of the goals of this initiative: to educate Americans about the facts surrounding the issue

of race in America.

The charts included in this book show key indicators of well-being in seven broad categories:

population, education, labor markets, economic status, health, crime and criminal justice, and

housing and neighborhoods. This information provides a benchmark for measuring future progress

and can highlight priority areas for reducing disparities in well-being across racial and ethnic

groups, another goal of the President’s Initiative on Race. The indicators in the charts were selected

on the basis of their importance for economic and social well-being, as well as the quality and

availability of data (for example, availability of longer time trends or information on more groups).

A book of this size cannot encompass all important aspects of social and economic life. Instead,

these charts are a place to begin. The appendix indicates how to access additional information on

these topics from Federal government agencies.

The American record of the past 50 years has been one of tremendous progress in areas such as

education, health and longevity, and economic growth, but deterioration in other areas, such as

incarceration rates, divorce, and the likelihood that a child is born outside of marriage. Life

expectancy at birth increased from 68 years to 76 years between 1950 and 1996, and the infant

mortality rate has fallen from 29 per thousand live births to 7 over the same period. Per capita

income, adjusted for inflation, has more than doubled since 1950. The proportion of American

adults with a high school education increased from 34 percent in 1950 to 82 percent in 1996. The

fraction of households living in inadequate housing fell from 10.2 percent in 1976 (the first year

for which data are available) to 6.5 percent in 1995.

Introduction

“I believe the greatest challenge we face . . . is also

our greatest opportunity. Of all the questions of

discrimination and prejudice that still exist in our

society, the most perplexing one is the oldest, and in

some ways today, the newest: the problem of race.

Can we fulfill the promise of America by embracing

all our citizens of all races? . . . In short, can we

become one America in the 21st Century?”

President Clinton

President’s Initiative on Race Announcement at the 

University of California at San Diego Commencement, 1997
Although all racial and ethnic groups considered here have experienced substantial improvements

in well-being over the second half of this century, disparities between groups have persisted or, in

some cases, widened. Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians continue to suffer disadvantages in

opportunity and in material and physical well-being. These disadvantages appear in many arenas,

but they are larger in some than in others. For example, although the Hispanic poverty rate is far

higher than that of non-Hispanic whites, differences in infant mortality between Hispanics and

non-Hispanic whites are relatively modest. Blacks have nearly closed the gap with non-Hispanic

whites in the attainment of a high school degree, but the gap between blacks and non-Hispanic

whites in the completion of a four-year college degree has widened.

Several themes emerge from the data presented in this document.

• Race and ethnicity continue to be salient predictors of well-being in American society. On

average, non-Hispanic whites and Asians experience advantages in health, education, and

economic status relative to blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians. 

• Over the second half of the 20th century, black Americans have made substantial progress

relative to whites in many areas. But this progress generally slowed, or even reversed, between

the mid-1970s and the early 1990s. In many cases, large disparities persist. 

• The relative economic status of Hispanics has generally declined over the past 25 years.

However, the Hispanic population has grown rapidly, more than doubling in size between 1980

and 1997, in large part because of immigration. Thus, in interpreting trends in the relative wellbeing of Hispanics, it is important to keep in mind that the increasing representation of

Hispanic immigrants with lower average levels of education and income has contributed to the

decline in average Hispanic social and economic well-being.

• Asians and Pacific Islanders, on average, are nearly as well-off as non-Hispanic whites according

to many indicators. There is great diversity within this population, however, and some

subpopulations are quite disadvantaged. The fact that Asians have both a higher median income

and a higher poverty rate than non-Hispanic whites, for example, illustrates the economic

diversity of the Asian population.

• American Indians are among the most disadvantaged Americans according to many available

indicators, such as poverty rate and median income, although comparable data for this group

are sparse due to their small representation in the population.

The charts in this book generally show averages or medians of indicators for each race or Hispanic

origin category and therefore do not attempt to capture the diversity within these groups. For

instance, Cuban Americans have much higher median family income than Dominican Americans

according the 1990 census, but both are included in the “Hispanic” category. Median family

income for Japanese Americans was more than twice that of Cambodian, Laotian, and Hmong

Americans in 1990, but all are included in the “Asian and Pacific Islander” category. Diversity exists

within all groups, including diversity across ethnic groups within the non-Hispanic white

population. Unfortunately, this book does not have the space to present data for all subpopulations,

nor do such data exist for many indicators. Nonetheless, the population categories shown here are

among the most salient in America today.

Introduction

2 Introduction
The classification of individuals by race and ethnicity is a complex and controversial undertaking.

The concepts of race and ethnicity lack precise and universally accepted definitions. Their

economic and social significance depend on a variety of factors, including how individuals identify

themselves racially or ethnically and how others identify and treat them. Most of the data collected

by the Federal statistical agencies are classified by self-reported race and ethnicity. (Notable

exceptions are mortality statistics.) Most of these data are collected through household surveys and

the decennial censuses, in which respondents are asked to identify their race in one question and

whether or not they are of Hispanic origin in a separate question. Whenever possible, data for the

following five categories are presented: 

• Hispanic, may be of any race,

• White, not of Hispanic origin,

• Black, not of Hispanic origin,

• Asian, including Pacific Islander,

• American Indian, including Alaska Native (Alaskan Eskimo and Aleut).

In this book, categories of race and Hispanic origin are labeled as they were labeled in most of the

surveys at the time the data were collected. For example, the terms “black” and “Hispanic” are used

rather than “African American” or “Latino.” It should be noted, however, that the Office of

Management and Budget revised the standards for classifying Federal data on race and ethnicity in

October 1997. The new standards permit respondents to mark one or more race categories on

survey questionnaires and other Federal reporting forms. In addition, the “Asian and Pacific

Islander” category has been divided into two categories: “Asian” and “Native Hawaiian or Other

Pacific Islander.” The “black” category has been changed to “Black or African American.” There will

continue to be a separate question on Hispanic origin, which will have two categories: “Hispanic

or Latino” and “Not Hispanic or Latino.”

Published data are not always available for all of the groups described above. At times statistics are

lacking because survey sample sizes are too small to yield reliable estimates for smaller populations

such as American Indians or Asians. (In some cases, data from the 1990 census are presented for

these groups.) In addition, statistical agencies tabulate published data using different classifications.

For example, as noted above, Hispanics may be of any race. Some agencies tabulate data for

Hispanics but also include Hispanics in tabulations for the categories white and black. In a few

cases, agencies have changed the way they tabulate data over time as well. The labels and notes for

each chart indicate these differences in data classification. (Unless otherwise noted, data for Asians

include Hispanic Asians, and data for American Indians include Hispanic American Indians.)

This book is divided into seven sections. Each section begins with a brief introduction and an

overview of the charts presented in that section. These introductions provide background

information on the concepts addressed in the section, including references to some key research

articles. In addition, each chart is accompanied by bullet points, which highlight the important

information in the chart and also provide related information that may not appear in the charts.

The appendix provides a list of other government publications and internet addresses where the

reader can find more information on all of the topics covered in this book.

Introduction

3

Introduction
Changing America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being by Race and Hispanic Origin

Population

4

The population of the United States is becoming increasingly diverse. In recent years,

Hispanics and minority racial groups1—non-Hispanic blacks, Asians, and American

Indians—have each grown faster than the population as a whole (Population 1). In 1970

these groups together represented only 16 percent of the population. By 1998 this share had

increased to 27 percent. Assuming current trends continue, the Bureau of the Census projects that

these groups will account for almost half of the U.S. population by 2050. Although such

projections are necessarily imprecise, they do indicate that the racial and ethnic diversity of the

United States will grow substantially in the next century. 

Immigration has played a major role in increasing diversity of the population by contributing to the

rapid growth of the Asian and Hispanic populations since the 1960s. In 1997, 38 percent of the

Hispanic population and 61 percent of the Asian population were foreign-born, compared with 8

percent of the white population, 6 percent of the black population, and 6 percent of the American

Indian population (Population 2). The increased immigration of Asians and Hispanics over the past

several decades is largely the result of changes in immigration policy. In particular, the 1965

Immigration Act ended the system of national origin quotas that had previously restricted

immigration from non-European countries.2 The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

also contributed to the increase in the documented Asian and Hispanic populations by legalizing a

large number of immigrants.

While immigration of Asians and Hispanics has increased, population growth has slowed

dramatically for the nation as a whole, largely due to declining fertility rates among non-Hispanic

blacks and non-Hispanic whites. As a result of this declining fertility, the non-Hispanic white share

of the population has fallen since 1970, and the non-Hispanic black share of the population has

increased only slightly. 

Changes in racial and ethnic identification have also contributed to the increase in (measured)

racial and ethnic diversity. These changes are most important for the American Indian population,

which has increased more in recent years than can be accounted for by deaths, births,

immigration, and improvements in census coverage. The increase in the American Indian

population suggests that people are more likely to identify themselves as American Indian in the

census than they were in the past.3

National changes in the composition of the population mask differences across and within regions.

(Population 3). The geographical distribution of racial and ethnic groups is important because it

influences the potential for social and economic interaction between them. According to Census

Bureau projections, in 1995 the West had the highest concentration of minorities (36 percent),

followed by the South (30 percent), the Northeast (23 percent), and the Midwest (15 percent).

Non-Hispanic blacks are most likely to live in the South, while Asians, Hispanics, and American

Indians are most likely to live in the West. 

Racial composition also varies from the center cities of metropolitan areas, to the suburbs (metropolitan

areas outside center cities), to nonmetropolitan areas. Hispanics, blacks, and Asians are more likely than

non-Hispanic whites to live in central cities—in 1996 more than half of blacks and Hispanics and

nearly half of Asians lived in central cities, compared with less than a quarter of non-Hispanic whites

(Population 4). In contrast, over half of all non-Hispanic whites lived in the suburbs in 1996, as did 48

percent of Asians. American Indians are by far the most likely to live in nonmetropolitan areas; in 1990

nearly half of the American Indian population lived outside of metropolitan areas.

II. Population
Population Population

5

As the population becomes more diverse, opportunities for social interaction with members of

other racial and ethnic groups should increase. Intergroup marriage (marriage between persons

of different races or Hispanic origin) is one measure of social interaction (Population 5). The

number of interracial married couples (marriage between persons of different races) has

increased dramatically over the past several decades, more than tripling since 1960. However,

interracial married couples still represented only about 2 percent, and intergroup couples 4

percent, of all married couples in 1990.4

Many demographic characteristics affect economic and social status and play some role in

explaining differentials in well-being among the populations discussed in this book. For instance,

immigration has lowered the relative socioeconomic status of the U.S. Hispanic population, since

Hispanic immigrants tend to have lower levels of education and income than the Hispanic

population as a whole. 

Other demographic characteristics with important effects on social and economic status include

household structure and age distribution. In particular, growth of child poverty has often been

associated with the rising share of single-parent families. Since 1970 the fraction of families

maintained by a single parent has increased for all groups (Population 6) and is highest among

blacks (38 percent), American Indians (26 percent), and Hispanics (26 percent). Household

structure is also affected by economic status; for example, the greater tendency of the elderly to

head their own households has been linked to their growing wealth.

Differences in the age distribution of populations (Population 7) may affect their rates of growth

as well as differences in average economic and social well-being. For example, poverty rates are

highest among children, and rates of criminal activity are highest among young adults. On average,

the non-Hispanic white population is considerably older than the population as a whole. Only 24

percent of the non-Hispanic white population is below the age of 18, compared with about 30

percent of non-Hispanic blacks and Asians and about 35 percent of American Indians and

Hispanics. Differences in age distributions between racial and ethnic groups reflect differences in

death rates, fertility rates, rates of net immigration, and the age of immigrants. 

1. For the purposes of this report, the term “minority” is used to refer to racial and ethnic groups

that are less than 50 percent of the population.

2. Harrison, Roderick J. and Claudette E. Bennett. 1995. “Racial and Ethnic Diversity.” In State

of the Union: America in the 1990s, ed. Reynolds Farley. Vol. 2: Social Trends. New York: Russell

Sage Foundation.

3. Passel, Jeffrey S. 1996. “The Growing American Indian Population, 1960–1990: Beyond

Demography.” In Changing Numbers, Changing Needs: American Indian Demography and Public

Health, ed. Gary D. Sandefur, Ronald R. Rindfuss, and Barney Cohen. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

4. Harrison and Bennett. “Racial and Ethnic Diversity.”
Population Population

6

Note: Data for Asians exclude Hispanic Asians, and data for American Indians exclude Hispanic American

Indians. In 1970, data for Asians are for Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, Koreans, and Hawaiians.

1970 1990 1998 (projection) 2050 (projection)

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Source: Bureau of the Census

White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic Asian American Indian

• The share of the U.S. population that is non-Hispanic black, Asian, Hispanic, and American

Indian has increased since 1970. The American Indian population has grown more than can

be accounted for by birth rates, death rates, and immigration, suggesting that a substantial

portion of this increase has resulted from increased reporting of American Indian racial

identification. 

• If recent demographic trends continue, Asians, non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, and American

Indians together will approach 50 percent of the population by the year 2050.

• Around the year 2005, Hispanics, who may be of any race, are projected to be the largest

of the minority groups considered here.

1. Racial/Ethnic Composition of the Population
Population

7

White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percent

Source: Bureau of the Census

1970 1997

• Among all groups, the fraction of the population that is foreign-born increased between 1970

and 1997. 

• As of 1997, 61 percent of the Asian population and 38 percent of the Hispanic population

were foreign-born. In contrast, only 8 percent of whites, 6 percent of blacks, and 6 percent of

American Indians were foreign-born. 

• The immigrant population represents a wide range of social and economic backgrounds. On

average, Asian immigrants are highly educated and have high incomes. Hispanic immigrants,

along with immigrants from some Asian countries, have relatively low average levels of

educational attainment and income.

Population

2. Foreign-Born Population

Note: In 1970, data for Asians are for Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, Koreans and Hawaiians.
Population

8

Northeast

Midwest

South

West

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Percent of total regional population

Total population of region

(millions of persons)

51.5

61.8

91.9

57.6

Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic Asian American Indian

Source: Bureau of the Census

• Hispanics and members of racial minority groups are not evenly distributed across regions of

the country. The differing distribution of these populations across regions may contribute to

differences in individuals’ experiences of racial and ethnic diversity. 

• The highest concentration of Hispanics and members of racial minority populations is found

in the West (36 percent), followed by the South (30 percent), the Northeast (23 percent), and

the Midwest (15 percent). 

• More than half of non-Hispanic blacks live in the South. About half of American Indians,

Hispanics, and Asians live in the West. 

• In general, the minority share of the population has increased in all four regions since 1970

(not shown in chart). The Hispanic population has grown considerably in the West and the

South, and the Asian population has grown considerably in the West.

Population

3. Minority Population by Region, 1995

Note: Data for Asians exclude Hispanic Asians, and data for American Indians exclude Hispanic

American Indians. Data are projections based on the 1990 census.
Population Population

9

1970 1996 1970 1996 1970 1996 1970 1996 1970 1990

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

White,

non-Hispanic

Black Hispanic Asian American

Indian

Source: Bureau of the Census

Metropolitan, inside central city

Suburban (metropolitan, outside central city)

Nonmetropolitan

• Residents of nonmetropolitan, central city, and suburban areas may have different public

service needs and different political interests. 

• Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics are more likely to live in central cities of metropolitan areas than

are non-Hispanic whites or American Indians.

• A large percentage of non-Hispanic whites and Asians live in suburbs. The fraction living in

suburbs has increased since 1970 among all groups.

• Nearly half of American Indians in 1990, and nearly one quarter of non-Hispanic whites in

1996, lived outside of metropolitan areas. These nonmetropolitan proportions of the

population are shrinking for all groups, however.

4. Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Residence

Note: In 1970, data for whites include Hispanic whites. In 1970, data for Asians are for Japanese,

Chinese, and Filipinos. Data for 1996 are not available for American Indians.
Population

10

Source: Bureau of the Census

Hispanic Asian Hispanic Asian

0

20

40

60

80

0

20

40

60

80

Percent with spouse of different group

Race/ethnicity of husband Race/ethnicity of wife

White,

nonHispanic

White,

 nonHispanic

Black,

nonHispanic

Black,

nonHispanic

American

Indian

American

Indian

• Intergroup marriage (marriage between persons of different races or Hispanic origin) is an

indicator of social integration. This chart shows on the left the percentage of married men who

are members of intergroup couples and on the right the percentage of married women who are

members of intergroup couples.

• Between 1960 and 1990, interracial married couples (not including marriages between

Hispanics and non-Hispanics) more than tripled as a percentage of all married couples (not

shown in chart). However, intergroup married couples still accounted for only 4 percent of

all married couples in 1990. 

• Non-Hispanic blacks and non-Hispanic whites are proportionately least likely to marry outside

their groups. When non-Hispanic whites marry members of minority groups, they are least

likely to marry non-Hispanic blacks (not shown in chart).

Population

5. Intergroup Married Couples, 1990
Population

11

Population

1970 1996 1970 1996 1970 1996 1970 1996 1970 1990

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Source: Bureau of the Census

Black Hispanic Asian American

Indian

Married-couple family

Female-headed family, no spouse

People living alone

Other non-family households

White,

non-Hispanic

Male-headed family, no spouse

• Because resources can be pooled in households, household structure influences an individual’s

economic well-being. Changes in household structure may influence and be influenced by

economic status. For example, child poverty is higher in single-parent families, and as the wealth

of older persons has increased, they have become more likely to head their own households.

• Since 1970, the fraction of households maintained by a married couple has declined substantially;

this decline has been greatest for blacks. 

• The fraction of households maintained by a single parent has increased for all groups. The

increase has occurred for both families maintained by single females and single males, although

male-headed families with no spouse present make up less than one quarter of single-parent

families.

• Since 1970, the fraction of households composed of only one person has increased for all groups.

Other non-family households (unrelated individuals living together) have also increased as a

fraction of all households for all groups over this period.

6. Household Structure

Note: In 1970, data for whites include Hispanic whites. In 1970, data for Asians are for Japanese,

Chinese, and Filipinos. Data for 1996 are not available for American Indians.
Population

12

Population

Hispanic

Asian

0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent

American

Indian

White,

non-Hispanic

Black,

non-Hispanic

Source: Bureau of the Census

0 to 17 18 to 64 65 and over

• Differences in age distributions between population groups reflect differences in death rates,

fertility rates, rates of net immigration, and the age of immigrants. These age differences can

contribute to differences in economic, health, or social status across racial and ethnic groups. 

• The non-Hispanic white population is older, on average, than other groups. Less than 25

percent of non-Hispanic whites are below the age of 17, compared with nearly 30 percent of

Asians and more than 30 percent of Hispanics, non-Hispanic blacks, and American Indians.

In part, the young average age of Asians and Hispanics reflects the many children born to new

immigrants in these groups, since new immigrants are likely to be of childbearing age. 

• The school-aged population (persons aged 5 to 17, not shown separately in chart) is more

racially and ethnically diverse than the population as a whole; the racial/ethnic composition of

this population resembles the projected composition of the population as a whole for 2010.

7. Age Distribution, 1997
Education

13

E

ducational attainment is one of the most important indicators of lifetime economic opportunities.

Higher educational attainment is associated with lower unemployment and higher wages, higher

family income, and better health for adults and their children. A substantial portion of gaps in wellbeing among racial and ethnic groups can be accounted for by differences in educational opportunities and

attainment. Studies find that improvement in the economic status of blacks in the 1960s and early 1970s

resulted in part from improvements in educational attainment and school quality, especially in the South.1

Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians continue to experience educational disadvantages. Black and Hispanic

children are more likely than non-Hispanic white children to be poor (Economic Status 3) and to have parents

with lower education levels. As a result, they often begin life with disadvantages related to family financial and

educational resources. Research is mounting about the importance of a stimulating environment for early

childhood development, starting in infancy. This education begins at home. It is not until age three that

children typically enter preschools or Head Start programs designed to promote school readiness. The most

important teachers for children under the age of five are family members. For example, reading to young

children helps them learn to speak and, later, to read and write.2

Young non-Hispanic black and Hispanic children are less likely than their non-Hispanic white counterparts

to be read to by family members or to be told a story (Education 1). Because reading to children increases

sharply with parent’s educational attainment,3 some differences in reading to children across racial and

ethnic groups are likely to be related to parental education. 

Some social policies attempt to improve educational opportunities by providing enriched early childhood

educational opportunities through programs such as Head Start, the largest federal program for early

childhood education of economically disadvantaged children. Partly as a result of such policies, nonHispanic black children aged four are significantly more likely than non-Hispanic white children to be

enrolled in a preschool program (Education 2). Research has found that Head Start and other preschool

programs promote children’s cognitive development and achievement. Some research has found that the

effects of Head Start are largest for Hispanics, perhaps because it provides an advantage in English language

acquisition for children from homes where English is not the primary language spoken. The research

literature is unsettled on the question of whether the beneficial effects of preschool interventions persist or

fade as children age. One recent study reported that gains found for black children in the Head Start

program fade if the children enter poor quality elementary schools but persist if their elementary schools are

of good quality.4

Computing skills are valued in the labor market, and demand for workers with computer skills has increased

markedly over the past 25 years.5 Computer use by children, whether at home or at school, grew between

1984 and 1993 (Education 3). However, the increase in use at home was greatest for non-Hispanic whites,

and in 1993 non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics were considerably less likely to use a computer at home or

at school than non-Hispanic whites. Lower levels of computer usage among non-Hispanic black and

Hispanic children are probably related to lower income levels among these groups; in general, children from

families with higher incomes were more likely to have used a computer at home or at school than children

from families with lower incomes.

Higher scores on math and reading proficiency tests are associated with higher future educational

attainment; they are also associated with future success in the labor market, even among individuals with

similar levels of education.6 Non-Hispanic black and Hispanic children score lower on achievement tests,

on average, than non-Hispanic white children at similar ages (Education 4 and 5). Like many other

indicators of educational progress, however, between-group differences in achievement test scores may be

influenced by differences in a variety of social and economic factors, including school quality, parental

education, and family income.

Changing America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being by Race and Hispanic Origin

III. Education
Education

14

Higher educational attainment is associated with improved socioeconomic status, higher wage rates, and

better health. In addition, parents’ education is associated with better health, development, and educational

attainment for their children. Educational attainment has been steadily increasing (Education 6). The

fraction of the population aged 25 and older who completed high school (or equivalent) exceeded 50 percent

for all groups in 1997 and is 75 percent or higher for blacks, non-Hispanic whites, and Asians. The increase

in attainment has been faster among blacks, non-Hispanic whites, and Asians than among Hispanics.

Attainment has increased markedly among blacks since the 1940s, and between 1980 and 1997 the fraction

of blacks who did not complete high school dropped from nearly half to one quarter. Nonetheless, in 1997

blacks were considerably less likely than non-Hispanic whites to have completed a college, professional, or

doctoral degree. Asians have by far the highest level of educational attainment of any of these groups.

Generally, Asians’ educational attainment increased since 1980 as more attended and completed college.

In 1997, about 45 percent of Hispanic adults 25 and older had not completed high school. High school

attainment of Hispanic adults has improved only slowly over the past 15 years (Education 6), and progress

has also been slow among Hispanics aged 25 to 29 (Education 7). Among those who have completed high

school, however, the fraction completing at least some college rose from 31 percent in 1971 to 54 percent in

1997. Educational attainment has increased faster for native-born Hispanics than for the Hispanic

population as a whole. In 1990 the high school completion rate of native-born Hispanics was comparable to

that of non-Hispanic blacks, whereas that of Hispanic immigrants was considerably lower.7 Thus, the slow

increase in average educational attainment of Hispanics is at least partly due to the increasing representation

of immigrants with lower educational attainment in the Hispanic population.

Since education is usually completed at younger ages, data on attainment among younger adults provide a

better sense of current educational opportunities and conditions. The percentage of 25- to 29-year olds with

a high school diploma is nearly as high among non-Hispanic blacks as among non-Hispanic whites (Education

7). However, Hispanics aged 25 to 29 continue to have lower rates of high school completion. And, although

young blacks are attending college at increasing rates, the gap in college completion between young nonHispanic blacks and non-Hispanic whites did not narrow appreciably over the 1980s (Education 8).

1. Donohue, John J. III and James Heckman. 1991. “Continuous Versus Episodic Change: The Impact of

Civil Rights Policy on the Economic Status of Blacks.” Journal of Economic Literature 29

(December):1603–43.

2. Wells, Gordon. 1985. “Preschool Literacy-Related Activities and Success in School.” In Literacy, Language,

and Learning: The Nature and Consequences of Literacy, ed. David R. Olson, Nancy Torrance, and Angela

Hildyard. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

3. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. 1997. America’s Children: Key National

Indicators of Well-Being. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

4. Currie, Janet and Duncan Thomas. 1996. “Does Head Start Help Hispanic Children?” RAND Labor and

Population Working Paper No. 96-17; Currie and Thomas. 1995. “Does Head Start Make a Difference?”

American Economic Review 85 (3):341–64; Currie and Thomas. 1998. “School Quality and the LongerTerm Effects of Head Start.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 6362.

5. Autor, David H., Lawrence F. Katz, and Alan B. Krueger. 1997. “Computing Inequality: Have Computers

Changed the Labor Market?” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 5956.

6. Neal, Derek A., and William R. Johnson. 1996. “The Role of Premarket Factors in Black-White Wage

Differences.” Journal of Political Economy 104 (5):869–95.

7. Mare, Robert D. 1995. “Changes in Educational Attainment and Social Enrollment. ” In State of the Union:

America in the 1990s, ed. Reynolds Farley. Vol. 1: Economic Trends. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Education
15

• Young children’s interactions with others are critical to their development. Reading to children

or telling them stories helps them learn to read and improves their verbal communication

skills. This chart shows children’s reported participation in various literacy activities with a

parent or family member.

• In 1996, non-Hispanic white children were more likely to have been read to than their nonHispanic black or Hispanic counterparts, and they were also more likely to have been told a

story and to have visited a library in the past month. Some of these differences likely reflect the

higher levels of educational attainment of parents in the non-Hispanic white population.

• Parents in all groups shown above were more likely to report that they participated in these

literacy activities with their children in 1996 than in 1991.

Education

Education

Black, Hispanic Black, Hispanic Black, Hispanic

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Read to three or more

times in the past week

Told a story at least

once in the past week

Visited a library

in the past month

Source: National Center for Education Statistics

1991 1996

White,

nonHispanic nonHispanic

White,

nonHispanic nonHispanic

White,

nonHispanic nonHispanic

1. Participation in Literacy Activities with a Parent or

Family Member by Children Aged Three to Five
16

• Enrollment in prekindergarten programs and kindergarten is generally correlated with greater

progress in the early years of elementary school.

• In 1996, non-Hispanic black children aged three and four were more likely than non-Hispanic

white children to be enrolled in center-based learning programs or kindergarten. Hispanic

children were less likely than non-Hispanic blacks or non-Hispanic whites to be enrolled.

• Enrollment in these programs increased for nearly all groups between 1991 and 1996.

Note: Center-based programs are nursery schools, prekindergarten, and Head Start.

Education

Hispanic

White, non- Black, nonHispanicWhite, non- Black, non- Hispanic

0

20

40

60

80

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

Three-year olds Four-year olds

Source: National Center for Education Statistics

1991 1996

Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic

Education

2. Children Aged Three to Four Enrolled in

Center-Based Programs or Kindergarten
17

• Familiarity with computers is increasingly important at school and at work.

• Computer use increased markedly from 1984 to 1993 for all groups. In both years, nonHispanic whites were more likely than non-Hispanic blacks or Hispanics to have used a

computer both at home and at school. 

• Relatively few non-Hispanic black and Hispanic children used a computer at home in 1993.

However, over 55 percent of non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics and about 75 percent of nonHispanic whites used a computer at school. 

• Lower levels of computer usage at home among non-Hispanic black and Hispanic children are

probably related to lower income levels among these groups. In general, children from higher

income families are more likely to have used a computer at home or at school than children

from families with lower incomes.

Education

Education

 White Black Hispanic White Black Hispanic White Black Hispanic

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Used a computer

at school

Used a computer

at home Used a computer at

home or at school

Sources: Bureau of the Census and National Center for Education Statistics

1984 1993

White, Hispanic nonHispanic

Black,

nonHispanic

White, Hispanic nonHispanic

Black,

nonHispanic

White, Hispanic nonHispanic

Black,

nonHispanic

3. Computer Use by Children in

First through Sixth Grade
18

Note: A reading score of 300 means the student can understand complicated information. A score of

250 means the student can interrelate ideas and make generalizations. A score of 200 means the

student has partially developed skills and understanding.

• This chart presents data on reading proficiency scores from the National Assessment of

Educational Progress. This survey is designed to monitor the knowledge, skills, and

performance of the nation’s children and youth.

• On average, non-Hispanic white children score higher than non-Hispanic black or Hispanic

children in reading proficiency at each age.

• Non-Hispanic black 17-year olds made substantial progress in reading proficiency between

1980 and 1996. Reading proficiency changed little among other groups and ages from 1980

to 1996.

Education

Education

White, Hispanic nonHispanic

Black,

nonHispanic

White, Hispanic nonHispanic

Black,

nonHispanic

White, Hispanic nonHispanic

Black,

nonHispanic

0

100

200

300

0

100

200

300

Scale score

9-year olds 13-year olds 17-year olds

(still in school)

Source: National Center for Education Statistics

1980 1996

4. Average Reading Proficiency Scores
19

Note: A mathematics score of 300 means a student can do moderately complex procedures and

reasoning. A score of 250 indicates a student can do basic operations and beginning problem

solving. A score of 200 demonstrates a student’s beginning skills and understanding of math.

• This chart shows mathematics proficiency scores from the National Assessment of Educational

Progress. 

• On average, non-Hispanic whites tend to score higher on tests of mathematics proficiency than

non-Hispanic blacks or Hispanics at each age. 

• Mathematics proficiency scores generally increased between 1982 and 1996 at all ages among

all groups shown above.

Education

White, non-Hispanic Black Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black Hispanic

0

100

200

300

0

100

200

300

Scale score

9-year olds 13-year olds 17-year olds

(still in school)

Source: National Center for Education Statistics

1982 1996

White, Hispanic nonHispanic

Black,

nonHispanic

White, Hispanic nonHispanic

Black,

nonHispanic

White, Hispanic nonHispanic

Black,

nonHispanic

5. Average Mathematics Proficiency Scores

Education
20

• Educational attainment is predictive of economic status and health.

• Asians and non-Hispanic whites are more likely to have completed education beyond high

school than are blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians. In 1997, nearly half of Hispanics aged 25

and older had not completed high school. 

• Educational attainment has increased for all groups since 1980. Increases for blacks have been

most marked. Increases for Hispanics have been relatively small. 

• In 1997, 9 percent of non-Hispanic whites and 15 percent of Asians held master’s,

professional, or doctoral degrees, compared with 4 percent of blacks and 3 percent of Hispanics and

American Indians (not shown in chart).

Education

Education

Note: Data for 1980 are based on years of school completed, rather than on the highest diploma or

degree received. In 1997, high school graduates include those with a GED or equivalent. Data for

1997 are not available for American Indians.

1980 1997 1980 1997 1980 1997 1980 1997 1980 1990

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Source: Bureau of the Census

White,

non-Hispanic

Black Hispanic Asian

Less than high school

American

Indian

High school graduate Some college College graduate

6. Educational Attainment of Adults Aged 25 and Over
21

Note: Prior to 1971, data for whites include Hispanic whites, and data for blacks include

Hispanic blacks. Prior to 1992, data are for persons having completed four or more years of high

school; data for 1992 and beyond include persons with a GED or equivalent.

• High school completion rates for 25- to 29-year olds provide a sense of change in

educational attainment over time, since education is usually completed at younger ages. 

• High school completion rates have increased for 25- to 29-year olds in all groups over the past

30 years. However, rates for Hispanics have grown little since the early 1980s. 

• The percentage of non-Hispanic blacks aged 25 to 29 who have completed high school (87

percent) is nearly as high as that of non-Hispanic whites (93 percent). Hispanic 25- to 29-year

olds continue to have considerably lower rates of high school completion (62 percent),

however. The lower rates among Hispanics primarily reflect the lower average levels of

education among Hispanic immigrants; completion rates of native-born Hispanics (not shown

separately in chart) are comparable to those of non-Hispanic blacks.

Education

Education

0 0

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

50

60

70

80

90

100

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

Sources: Bureau of the Census and National Center for Education Statistics

White, non-Hispanic

Black, non-Hispanic

Hispanic

7. Persons Aged 25 to 29 with a High School Degree 

or Equivalent
22

Note: Prior to 1971, data for whites include Hispanic whites, and data for blacks include

Hispanic blacks. Data for non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics are three-year centered averages. 

Prior to 1992, data are for persons having completed four or more years of college.

• Completion of a four-year college degree has become increasingly associated with economic

status and success in the labor market. 

• The percentage of 25- to 29-year olds who have completed college increased sharply in the

1960s and early 1970s for non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks. Between the mid1970s and the early 1990s, college completion rose more slowly for all groups shown above.

College completion appears to have picked up again in the mid-1990s. 

• Non-Hispanic whites are more than twice as likely as non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics to

have completed a four-year college degree. Nearly 33 percent of non-Hispanic whites had

completed a four-year college degree in 1997, compared with only about 14 percent of nonHispanic blacks and 11 percent of Hispanics. 

Education

Education

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Percent

White, non-Hispanic

Black, non-Hispanic

Hispanic

Sources: Bureau of the Census and National Center for Education Statistics

8. Persons Aged 25 to 29 with a

Four-Year College Degree or Higher
Labor Markets

23

Earnings from the labor market are the primary source of income for the majority of families. Labor

market earnings are determined by labor force participation, the unemployment rate among labor

force participants, the number of hours worked per year, and hourly wage rates. 

In general, labor force participation rates are higher for men than women, although over the past 30

years female participation rates have greatly increased, while those of men have declined (Labor

Markets 1). Historically, black women had higher participation rates than white women, but since

1990, these rates have been roughly equal. Hispanic women’s participation rates are lower than those

of black or white women. Hispanic men’s participation rates are higher than those of black men and

approach those of white men.

Unemployment rates—the percentage of the labor force without jobs but actively seeking work—

of blacks have been roughly twice those of whites for many years (Labor Markets 2). Black average

annual unemployment rates have been over 10 percent for more than 20 years. (However, the

black unemployment rate fell below 10 percent in mid-1997 and was below 9 percent in mid1998.) Unemployment rates for Hispanics are generally between those of blacks and whites. Black

and Hispanic unemployment rates also rise more in recessions and fall more in recoveries than do

white rates.

Investment in labor market skills—either through schooling, training, or experience on the job—

tends to be most intensive at young ages. One reason is that investing in these skills early in life allows

workers to reap the “returns” to their investments over a greater number of years. When young

people are neither in school nor employed, there is concern about their current activities as well as

about their future employment and earnings prospects.

About 20 percent of young black men are neither in school nor working, compared with 14 percent of

young Hispanic men and 9 percent of young white men (Labor Markets 3). The percentage of young

men who are in this situation has not fallen substantially over the past 10 years. The percentage of

young women neither enrolled in school nor employed has fallen over the 1990s, however, particularly

among young black women. Much of this decline is the result of increased school enrollment. However,

the interpretation of these numbers is less clear cut for young women than for young men, as many

young women who are neither employed nor in school are taking care of children.

Wages of white men continue to exceed those of all other groups of workers (Labor Markets 4, 5, and

6). Studies indicate that black men’s wages rose relative to white men’s between the early 1960s and

the mid-1970s, especially in the South.1 But this trend reversed sometime in the mid- to late 1970s,

and black men’s relative pay declined for at least 10 years.2 The evidence of the last 10 years is mixed,

with one data series showing continued deterioration or little change in relative pay for black men,

and another showing improvement.3 Pay of Hispanic men has fallen relative to both white and black

men’s pay, at least in part as a result of falling relative educational attainment among Hispanics,

combined with increased demand for more highly educated workers. Wage levels for all groups have

risen in recent years.

After reaching near parity in the mid-1970s, black women’s wages have fallen relative to those of white

women. (White women have gained considerably relative to white men in this period.) Young, collegeeducated black women reached pay parity with their white counterparts in the early 1970s but have

seen their relative wages fall about 10 percentage points since then (Labor Markets 5 and 7).

Labor Markets

IV. Labor Markets
Labor Markets

24

The median wages of Hispanic men and women are lower than those of their black and white

counterparts. (For each group, half of workers have wages below and half have wages above the

median.) Hispanics’ relative wages have also fallen since 1979. The median wage of collegeeducated Hispanic women, however, is about 90 percent of that of white women and is slightly

higher than that of black women. The median wage of college-educated Hispanic men is about 80

percent of that of college-educated white males and is about 10 percent higher than the wages of

equivalent black males. For males, differences in educational attainment explain a much larger

portion of the wage differences between Hispanics and whites than between blacks and whites. 

Some of the differences in wages across racial and ethnic groups are linked to occupational

differences (Labor Markets 8). Occupation is an alternative indicator of socioeconomic status that

may capture aspects of status that are not reflected in employment or wages. Asian and white

employees are far more likely than black, Hispanic, and American Indian employees to work in

professional and managerial occupations and are less likely to work in “blue collar” occupations.

Within blue collar occupations, black, Hispanic, and American Indian employees are more likely

to be found in the lower-paying, “lower-skilled” occupations of operators, fabricators, and laborers

rather than the higher-paying precision production and craft occupations. Black, Hispanic, and

American Indian women are more likely than their non-Hispanic white counterparts to be

employed in service occupations.

1. Donohue, John J. III and James Heckman. 1991. “Continuous Versus Episodic Change: The

Impact of Civil Rights Policy on the Economic Status of Blacks.” Journal of Economic Literature

29 (December):1603–43.

2.Bound, John and Richard Freeman. 1992. “What went wrong? The Erosion of Relative Earnings

and Employment Among Young Black Men in the 1980s” Quarterly Journal of Economics 107 (1):

201–232 

3. According to the series for median annual earnings of full-time, year-round workers, black men’s

earnings have risen relative to white men’s earnings in the 1990s, and the black-white ratio of

median wages for men reached a new high in 1996 at about 0.80. However, the black-white ratio

of median usual weekly earnings of full-time workers fell between 1990 and 1996 and in 1997

returned to its 1990 level.

Changing America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being by Race and Hispanic Origin
25

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

0

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Black women

White women

Hispanic women

White men

Black men Hispanic men

• The labor force participation rate is the percentage of the population that is either employed

or actively seeking work. Participation in the labor force has long been the norm for men aged

25 to 54. Participation among women is often seen as an indicator of women’s economic

independence or, alternatively, as a response to family financial stress resulting from low male

wages or unemployment. 

• Over the second half of the 20th century, labor force participation rates have risen sharply for

all groups of women and have fallen for men.

• Participation rates of black women historically exceeded those of white women, but

participation rates for white women surpassed those of black women in the late 1980s. In the

mid-1990s, the increase in the rate for white women has slowed, whereas the rate for black

women has continued to increase. Participation rates of Hispanic women are lower than those

of black and white women. 

• Participation rates for white men exceed those of black and Hispanic men. Participation rates

have fallen more rapidly among black men than among white and Hispanic men. The decline

in male labor force participation has been concentrated among men with lower levels of

educational attainment.

Labor Markets

1. Labor Force Participation Rates of

Persons Aged 25 to 54

Labor Markets

Note: Prior to 1972, data for blacks include all non-whites.
26

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

5

10

15

20

25

Percent

Black

White

Hispanic

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

• The unemployment rate is a widely reported indicator of labor market distress. It is defined as

the percentage of the labor force without a job but actively seeking work. (Persons who are not

employed but not seeking a job are not included in the labor force and are therefore classified

as neither employed nor unemployed.)

• Unemployment rates for Hispanics and blacks are higher than those for whites; they also tend

to rise more in economic recessions and fall more in expansions. 

• The unemployment rate for blacks has been twice that of whites for more than 20 years. It was

above 10 percent from 1974 to 1997 (but below 9 percent by mid-1998). In part, this

disparity reflects differences in educational attainment. However, substantial differentials

persist even among blacks, whites, and Hispanics with similar levels of education, which may

reflect discrimination.

Labor Markets

Labor Markets

2. Unemployment Rates of Persons Aged 16 and Over

Note: Data are annual averages of monthly unemployment rates. Prior to 1972, data for blacks

include all non-whites.
27

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

10

20

30

40

0

10

20

30

40

Percent

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Black men

White men

Hispanic men

White women

Black women

Hispanic women

• When young adults are neither employed nor in school, there is concern about their current

status and activities as well as about their future earnings prospects. Women in this situation

may be raising children. 

• The percentage of black and Hispanic young adults who are neither employed nor in school

exceeds that of white young adults. For young men of all groups, the percentage that is neither

enrolled in school nor employed has been relatively flat since 1988.

• The percentage of young women who are neither employed nor in school has fallen

substantially in the 1990s, especially since 1995. For black and Hispanic women, much of the

decrease over the 1990s can be accounted for by increases in school enrollment.

Labor Markets

3. Persons Aged 16 to 24 Who Are Not in School

and Not Employed

Labor Markets
28

300

400

500

600

700

800

300

400

500

600

700

800

1997 dollars

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

0 0

Black

White

Hispanic

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

• Male labor market earnings are the largest source of household income.

• Median wages of black and Hispanic men are substantially lower than those of white men.

• Adjusted for inflation, median wages of men generally declined from 1970 to 1990, but have

risen in more recent years. The gap in pay between whites and blacks has changed little over

this period. The gap between whites and Hispanics has widened, however, in part due to the

widening gap in educational attainment between these two groups.

Labor Markets

Labor Markets

4. Median Usual Weekly Earnings of

Male Full-Time Workers

Note: Straight line between dots indicates data are not available for intervening years. Prior to

1979, data for blacks include all non-whites. Data for 1998 are from the first two quarters.
29

300

400

500

600

700

800

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1997 dollars

0 0

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Black

White

Hispanic

• Women’s earnings constitute a rising share of household income. Earnings of women are

particularly important for understanding differences between the economic status of black

families and those of other racial and ethnic groups. Black married-couple families have

typically relied more heavily on women’s earnings than other families, and the fraction of

single-parent, female-maintained families is highest among black families.

• After adjusting for inflation, weekly earnings of black and white women were higher in 1997

than in 1967. The black-white gap in pay narrowed in the 1960s and early 1970s but has

widened since the early 1980s.

• Hispanic women’s full-time earnings have fallen in real terms over the past decade.

• Although, on average, male earnings (chart 4) are higher than female earnings, white female

median weekly earnings have risen relative to men’s and surpassed Hispanic male earnings in

1989 and black male earnings in 1992.

Labor Markets

5. Median Usual Weekly Earnings of

Female Full-Time Workers

Labor Markets

Note: Straight line between dots indicates data are not available for intervening years. Prior to

1979, data for blacks include all non-whites. Data for 1998 are from the first two quarters.
30

Black Hispanic Black Hispanic

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percentage of white male earnings

All

1979 1997

Bachelor's degree or more

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

• Disparities in wages paid to workers with similar education may provide information about the

extent of pay discrimination, although disparities in pay within education categories can also

result from differences in other characteristics such as labor market experience or school quality. 

• Differences in pay between whites on the one hand, and blacks and Hispanics on the other, are

larger for men than for women (compare charts 6 and 7). The median black male worker earns

74 percent, and the median Hispanic male worker earns 63 percent, of the median for white

men.

• The median wage of all black men has changed little relative to that of all white men since

1979. However, the relative pay of college-educated black men has fallen by more than 10

percentage points. 

• Since 1979, median wages of Hispanic men have fallen relative to white men, reflecting the

growing gap in educational attainment. However, college-educated Hispanic men have lost

little ground relative to white men and now earn substantially more than college-educated

black men.

Labor Markets

Labor Markets

6. Black and Hispanic Male Earnings as

a Percentage of White Male Earnings

Note: Percentages are for median usual weekly earnings of full-time workers aged 25 and over on

their main job. Educational attainment categories for 1979 are based on the number of years of

school completed rather than the highest diploma or degree received.
31

Black Hispanic Black Hispanic

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percentage of white female earnings

1979 1997

All Bachelor's degree or more

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

• Between 1979 and 1997, the pay of black women relative to that of white women fell by nearly

10 percentage points. In 1979 the median wage of black women with a college degree was 98

percent of that of college-educated white women, but by 1997 their earnings had fallen to only

89 percent of the earnings of college-educated white women. 

• Hispanic women’s wages have also fallen relative to white women’s wages. However, the decline

in Hispanic women’s relative pay is much smaller for women with similar education levels.

Differences in educational attainment have grown increasingly important for Hispanic-white

differences in pay among women.

Labor Markets

7. Black and Hispanic Female Earnings as

a Percentage of White Female Earnings

Labor Markets

Note: Percentages are for median usual weekly earnings of full-time workers aged 25 and over on

their main job. Educational attainment categories for 1979 are based on the number of years of

school completed rather than the highest diploma or degree received.
32

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian*

American Indian*

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian*

American Indian*

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of the Census

Men

Women

Farming, forestry, & fishing

Operators, fabricators, & laborers

Precision production, craft, & repair

Services

Technical, sales, & administrative support

Managerial & professional

• Occupation is an alternative indicator of socioeconomic status that may capture aspects of

status that are not reflected in employment or wages.

• Relatively high percentages of white and Asian men are employed in managerial and

professional occupations, whereas black, Hispanic, and American Indian men tend to be

concentrated in the “lower-skilled,” lower-paid occupations of operators, fabricators, and

laborers. 

• Women of all groups are most likely to be employed in technical, sales, and administrative

support occupations. A high percentage of white and Asian women are also employed in

managerial and professional occupations, and a high percentage of black, Hispanic, and

American Indian women are employed in service occupations. 

• Between 1980 and 1997, the fraction of women employed in managerial and professional

occupations grew considerably, especially among white women. The fraction of black men in

these occupations also grew significantly; however, black men are still far less likely than white

and Asian men to be employed in these occupations.

Labor Markets

Labor Markets

8. Occupations of Employed Persons, 1997

*Data for Asians and American Indians are for 1990.
33

No single indicator can adequately capture all facets of economic status for entire populations, but

measures such as median or average annual income are the most often used. The economic status of

most individuals, especially children, is better reflected by the pooled resources of family or

household members than by their individual earnings or income. 

The average income of American families has increased markedly over the past 50 years. Between the

mid-1970s and the early 1990s, however, the median family incomes of blacks and Hispanics were

stagnant, whereas the median income of non-Hispanic whites generally increased (Economic Status

1). The income of non-Hispanic white and Asian families is nearly twice that of black and Hispanic

families. Since the early 1990s, black family income has risen, but Hispanic income fell and only

recently began to rise. As a result, the ratio of black to non-Hispanic white median family income is

about the same today as it was 30 years ago, whereas the ratio of Hispanic to non-Hispanic white

income has fallen markedly since the early 1970s.

The decline in the relative position of Hispanics is due, at least in part, to immigration of Hispanics

with relatively low levels of education and income. The lack of relative progress among black families

is in part due to the large rise in single parent families among blacks (Population 6). However, even

if family structure had not changed since 1967, the gap in average family income between blacks and

whites in 1996 would be reduced by only about one-fifth.1 Other factors contributing to differences

in family income include differences in educational attainment, unemployment rates, and wage

rates. Median family income of Asians is slightly higher than that of non-Hispanic whites, consistent

with Asians’ high levels of educational attainment and the higher percentage of Asian families with

two or more earners.

Differences in median incomes provide only a partial description of differences in the income

distributions of groups. A second indicator is the poverty rate: the proportion who lack the economic

resources needed to purchase a minimally acceptable standard of living. There is no scientifically

adequate method for determining the minimally acceptable living standard: this will vary from

society to society and over time as living standards and social norms change. The poverty rates

presented here are based on the Office of Management and Budget’s official definition. Alternative

measures reveal similar disparities in poverty rates among racial and ethnic groups.2

Despite their higher median income, the rate of poverty among Asians in the United States is more

than 50 percent higher than the poverty rate of non-Hispanic whites (Economic Status 2). This

reflects the economic and educational diversity of the Asian population. Blacks, Hispanics, and

American Indians have much higher rates of poverty than non-Hispanic whites and Asians. The

Hispanic poverty rate has generally risen since the 1970s and surpassed the rate for blacks in the early

1990s. Although still very high, the black poverty rate has declined since the early 1990s and reached

an all-time low in 1996. According to the 1990 census, in 1989 the poverty rate for American

Indians was higher than that of any other group.3

Poverty among children is of particular concern. Child poverty not only reflects current economic

problems among poor families with children, but it is also associated with inequality of opportunity,

risks to health and child development, and long-term economic disadvantage. Although child

poverty rates exceed overall individual poverty rates, differences between racial and ethnic groups in

child poverty mirror those in overall poverty. Black, Hispanic, and American Indian children have

higher poverty rates than non-Hispanic white and Asian children (Economic Status 3).

Changing America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being by Race and Hispanic Origin

V. Economic Status

Economic Status
34

Some of the disparities in poverty rates between racial and ethnic groups can be explained by

differences in factors such as age distribution, family structure, and educational attainment.

However, substantial differentials between groups exist even among individuals with similar

characteristics (Economic Status 4). For example, poverty rates among the elderly are considerably

higher among blacks and Hispanics than among whites and Asians. Similarly, although poverty

rates are relatively high for all children in single-parent families maintained by women, they are

considerably higher for Hispanic and black children than for white children in such families.

Among persons aged 25 and over without a high school degree, poverty rates for blacks, Hispanics,

and Asians are well above those of whites. 

Asset holdings are another important indicator of economic well-being. Greater wealth allows a

household to maintain its standard of living when income falls because of job loss, health problems,

or family changes such as divorce or widowhood. Wealth also provides resources that can be used

to finance education or to start a business. Disparities in asset holdings across racial and ethnic

groups are large and exceed disparities in income (Economic Status 5). In 1993, the net worth

(assets minus liabilities) of households maintained by whites was about 10 times that of households

maintained by blacks or Hispanics. Even among households with similar monthly incomes, net

asset holdings are far higher among whites than blacks or Hispanics.4

1. Council of Economic Advisers. 1998. Economic Report of the President. Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

2. Citro, Constance F. and Robert T. Michael, eds. 1995. Measuring Poverty: A New Approach.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

3. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1993. 1990 Census of Population: Social and Economic

Characteristics, United States. Washington, DC.

4. Eller, T.J. and Wallace Fraser. 1995. Asset Ownership of Households: 1993. U.S. Bureau of

the Census. Current Population Reports, P70-47. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

Economic Status

Economic Status
35

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Thousands of 1996 dollars

Source: Bureau of the Census

Black

White, non-Hispanic

Hispanic

Asian

0 0

• Median annual family income is a commonly used indicator of current family economic status. 

• Asian and non-Hispanic white families have much higher median incomes than black or

Hispanic families. The median income of black families as a percentage of non-Hispanic white

median family income was about the same in 1997 as in 1967, at less than 60 percent.

Hispanic median family income has fallen in absolute terms (and relative to that of nonHispanic whites) since 1972, in part due to the increasing representation of immigrants in the

Hispanic population. 

• There are great differences in income among Asian subgroups. For example, according to the

1990 census, the median family income of Japanese Americans exceeded that of non-Hispanic

white families, whereas the income of Cambodian American families was lower than that of

black families. 

• According to the 1990 census, the median family income of American Indians (not shown in

chart) was lower than that of blacks.

Economic Status

1. Median Family Income

Economic Status

Note: Prior to 1972, data for whites include Hispanic whites.
36

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percent

Black

White

Hispanic

Asian

White, non-Hispanic

Source: Bureau of the Census

• The poverty rate—a widely used indicator of economic disadvantage—measures the

proportion of a population whose cash income is below the official poverty line. The poverty

line is adjusted for family size. In 1996 the poverty line for a family of four was $16,036.

• Poverty rates for all racial and ethnic groups fell over the 1960s and early 1970s but improved

little over the next 20 years. Poverty rates have fallen since 1993, however, particularly among

blacks.

• The poverty rate for non-Hispanic whites remains well below that of Asians, blacks, and

Hispanics. According to the 1990 census, the poverty rate for American Indians was the

highest among the five racial and ethnic groups. The poverty rate for Hispanics increased from

the 1970s until the early 1990s, and it has been above the rate for blacks since 1994. The

increase in Hispanic poverty is partly the result of the lower educational and economic

attainment of many Hispanic immigrants. 

• Although their median family income exceeds that of non-Hispanic whites, Asians are more

likely than non-Hispanic whites to be poor. This combination of relatively high poverty and

high median income reflects the great economic diversity of the U.S. Asian population.

Economic Status

Economic Status

2. Poverty Rates for Individuals

Note: Straight line between dots indicates data are not available for intervening years.
37

Source: Bureau of the Census

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percent

Black

White

Hispanic Asian

• Child poverty measures current economic hardship among families with children. Poverty in

childhood is also associated with higher risk for poor child health, delayed cognitive

development, and poverty in adulthood. As such, it is an indicator of inequality of opportunity

and a predictor of long-term economic disadvantage. 

• Child poverty rates for all groups declined sharply in the 1960s. Since then, child poverty rates

have fluctuated with the economy and edged up for whites, blacks, and Hispanics over the

1970s and 1980s. Child poverty has fallen since the early 1990s for blacks and whites.

• The poverty rate for Hispanic children has increased more rapidly than for other groups and is

currently about equal to that of black children. According to the 1990 census, American

Indian children (not shown in chart) had a poverty rate second only to that of black children.

Economic Status

3. Poverty Rates for Children

Economic Status

Note: Straight line between dots indicates data are not available for intervening years. Prior to

1974 for whites and blacks, and prior to 1976 for Hispanics, poverty rates are for related children

in families.
38

Source: Bureau of the Census

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Percent

Aged 17 and under Aged 65 and over Children in singleparent families

maintained by females

Persons aged 25 and

over with less than a

high school degree

White Black Hispanic Asian

• The higher poverty rates of blacks and Hispanics are in part related to educational attainment,

the age distribution, and the prevalence of single-parent families for those groups. However,

even among individuals with similar characteristics, poverty rates are higher for blacks and

Hispanics than for whites. Lower wages and higher unemployment play a role in these

differences. 

Economic Status

Economic Status

4. Poverty Rates by

Selected Individual Characteristics, 1996
39

Stocks/mutual funds Home equity IRA/Keogh accounts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Percent

Source: Bureau of the Census

White Black Hispanic

• Net worth (assets minus liabilities) is a better indicator of permanent economic status than is

income in a single year. Such wealth can provide a cushion against temporary economic

hardship. 

• In 1993, households maintained by whites were more likely than those maintained by blacks

or Hispanics to own stocks or mutual funds, have equity in their home, or hold assets in a

retirement savings account such as an individual retirement account (IRA) or Keogh account. 

• Differences in stock ownership in 1993 are notable because the value of equity shares has

increased markedly since that time; for example, the Standard and Poor’s 500 Index has more

than doubled in value since 1993.

• Among those who own assets of each type shown above, the median value (not shown in chart)

of assets held by whites is higher than that of assets owned by blacks and Hispanics. In 1993,

the median net worth of households maintained by whites was about 10 times that of

households maintained by blacks or Hispanics.

Economic Status

5. Households Owning Selected Assets, 1993

Economic Status
40

Advances in public health practice and medical technology have contributed to dramatic

improvements in the longevity of the U.S. population. On average, Americans in 1900 could not

expect to live to the age of 50. By 1996 they could expect to live past the age of 76. Although all

racial and ethnic groups have experienced gains in life expectancy, differences between groups in

longevity and in many other measures of health status have been apparent for as long as these

measures have been collected separately by race. This is true for measures of health status at the

beginning, middle, and end of the life span. For some groups and some measures, these differences

are persistently large. For others, the differences are small.

In general, blacks fare worse than any other group, and American Indians and Hispanics are

often disadvantaged in health status relative to whites. On average, Asians fare as well as and

sometimes better than non-Hispanic whites on most measures of health. While many of the

observed differences are large, average differences between racial and ethnic groups may mask

important differences within the society. For instance, there is evidence that blacks who live in

very poor urban areas suffer extreme health disadvantages not only relative to non-Hispanic

whites but also relative to blacks who live in poor rural areas or middle class urban

neighborhoods.1 In addition, health differences by national origin, socioeconomic status, and

age, particularly within the Hispanic and Asian populations, are not apparent when statistics are

reported at this level of aggregation. For example, there is some evidence that the health status

of younger cohorts of Hispanics may be declining,2 and among Asian/Pacific Islanders, those

with low incomes and those with origins in south and southeast Asia are disadvantaged relative

to other Asian groups and non-Hispanic whites.3

Infant mortality is often used to compare the health and well-being of populations across countries

as well as within countries. Although the United States has a lower rate of infant mortality than a

typical developing country, it has long had one of the highest infant mortality rates among the

industrialized countries. Within the United States, blacks and American Indians have higher infant

mortality rates than other groups, and although infant mortality rates have been falling for all

groups, differences between groups have persisted (Health 1).

Declines in infant mortality and infectious diseases among the young contributed much to the

increase in overall life expectancy in the early part of the 20th century. In the latter part of the

century, the large declines in chronic disease death rates among the middle aged and older groups

have led to an acceleration of life expectancy. However, differences in life expectancy between whites

and blacks have persisted throughout the period, and, among men, they actually grew in the 1980s

(Health 2).

Childhood infectious diseases, once a significant cause of illness and death among children, have

largely been conquered through widespread use of vaccination. Mandatory vaccination

requirements for enrollment in most schools in the United States virtually assure vaccination by age

five. However, a large majority of children in the United States receive vaccinations much earlier,

following the recommended schedule that begins at birth and is largely complete by 18 months.

Whether or not a child aged 19 to 35 months is up to date with this schedule is a key indicator of

access to and use of basic medical care. Although there are differences among racial and ethnic

groups in the United States, these are largely a reflection of differences in their economic status

(Health 3).

Changing America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being by Race and Hispanic Origin

VI. Health

Health
41

Smoking contributes to nearly 400,000 cancer and heart disease deaths annually, and reducing

smoking has been an important goal of public health efforts for many years.4 Because of the

addictive property of nicotine, and because most current smokers began smoking at young ages,

efforts to reduce smoking have focused on youth. Between 1965 and 1990, there were large

reductions in smoking among 18- to 24-year olds, especially for blacks (Health 4). Since 1990,

however, there is concern that this decline has stopped. Rates of smoking among 18- to 24-year olds

are higher for whites than for blacks and Hispanics. Data for this age group are not available for

Asians and American Indians; however, among persons aged 18 to 34, smoking rates for Asians are

lower than those for all other groups, and rates for American Indians are higher than those of all

other groups.5

The other major areas of concern for adolescent and young adult health are unintentional injuries

(primarily motor vehicle injuries), homicides, suicides, and HIV (Human Immunodeficiency

Virus, the virus that causes AIDS). There are also racial and ethnic differences within this age group.

American Indians face much higher death rates due to suicides and unintentional injuries than any

other group, while blacks face much higher rates of homicide than any other group (Health 5).

Hispanics and American Indians also face higher than average homicide rates. HIV disease kills

black and Hispanic young adults at significantly higher rates than non-Hispanic whites, Asians, or

American Indians.

At middle age, chronic diseases are among the most important indicators of health. Heart disease

and cancer are the two leading causes of premature death for those aged 45 to 64, and much of this

mortality is directly attributable to smoking.6 Asians in this age range face the lowest death rates

due to heart disease (Health 6). Blacks, on the other hand, are at greater risk of mortality from these

chronic diseases than any other group in this age range. These differences in death rates from

chronic diseases are responsible for a majority of the disparity between blacks and whites in the

probability of survival to age 65.7

There is also evidence that health differences persist into old age, although these data are not

presented in this book. Black and Hispanic elderly are more likely to have disabilities and chronic

diseases than white elderly, but to some extent these differences are explained by differences in

socioeconomic status.8

Research into the reasons for health differences between racial and ethnic groups has focused largely

on differences in socioeconomic status.9 On average, white Americans have better access to the

social and economic resources necessary for healthy environments and lifestyles and better access to

preventive medical services. Other research suggests that discrimination and racism create stress

leading to poorer health among members of racial minority groups.10 For instance, the higher

prevalence of hypertension among blacks relative to whites has been linked to personal experiences

of discrimination.11

To the extent that access to medical care can prevent the onset of disease or ameliorate its effects,

the portion of the population without health insurance (either public or private) will be correlated

with ill health. Especially among men, Hispanics and blacks are less likely to have health insurance

than non-Hispanic whites (Health 7). Insurance coverage is highly correlated with income,

however, and the difference in insurance coverage between white and black men (though not the

difference between Hispanic and non-Hispanic white men) can be almost entirely explained by

differences in income.

Health

Health
42

Disparities in health status also have economic consequences. For example, poor health can lead to

high expenditures on medical care at the expense of other goods (for example, housing or

education). Perhaps more important, poor health can also reduce earning potential and lower

quality of life. Thus, the disparities observed in health between racial and ethnic groups in the

United States are tied to differences in many other economic and social realms.

1. Geronimus, Arline, et al. 1996. “Excess Mortality among Blacks and Whites in the United States.” New

England Journal of Medicine 335 (21):1552–58.

2. Liao, Youlian, et al. 1998. “Mortality Patterns among Adult Hispanics: Findings from the NHIS,

1986–1990.” American Journal of Public Health 88 (2):227–32.

3. Tanjasiri, Sora P., Steven P. Wallace, and Kazue Shibata. 1995. “Picture Imperfect: Hidden Problems

among Asian Pacific Islander Elderly.” The Gerontologist 35 (6):753–60; Klatsky, Arthur L., et al. 1994.

“The Risk of Hospitalization for Ischemic Heart Disease among Asian Americans in Northern

California.” American Journal of Public Health 84 (10):1672–75.

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1997. “Smoking-Attributable Mortality and Years of

Potential Life Lost—United States, 1984.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 46 (20):444–51. 

5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1998. Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minority

Groups–African Americans, American Indians and Alaska Natives, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and

Hispanics: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1993. “Cigarette Smoking-Attributable Mortality and Years

of Potential Life Lost—United States, 1990.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 42 (33):645–48.

7. Geronimus, et al. “Excess Mortality among Blacks and Whites in the United States.”

8. Schoenbaum, Michael and Timothy Waidmann. 1997. “Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Health:

Accounting for Race Differences in Health.” Journals of Gerontology 52B (Special issue):61–73; Smith,

James P. and Raynard Kington. 1997. “Demographic and Economic Correlates of Health in Old Age.”

Demography 34 (1):159–70.

9. Williams, David R. 1990. “Socioeconomic Differentials in Health: A Review and Redirection.” Social

Psychology Quarterly 53 (2):81–99.

10. Williams, David R., Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, and Rueben C. Warren. 1994. “The Concept of Race and

Health Status in America.” Public Health Reports 109 (1):26–41.

11. James, Sherman A. 1994. “John Henryism and the Health of African-Americans.” Culture, Medicine, and

Psychiatry 18:163–82; Krieger, Nancy and Stephen Sidney. 1996. “Racial Discrimination and Blood

Pressure: The CARDIA Study of Young Black and White Adults.” American Journal of Public Health 86

(10):1370–78.

Health

Health
43

1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995

0

4

8

12

16

20

0

4

8

12

16

20

Infant deaths per 1,000 live births

Asian

Hispanic

Black

American Indian

White, non-Hispanic

Source: National Center for Health Statistics

• The infant mortality rate is often used as a primary indicator of the overall health status of a

population. It is defined as the number of deaths that occur before a child’s first birthday per

1,000 live births. Rates presented here are categorized by race and Hispanic origin of mother.

• Although infant morality rates have fallen over time for all racial and ethnic groups, differences

between groups have persisted for many years. In 1950, for example, white infants died at a rate

of approximately 27 per thousand, while black infants died at a rate of nearly 44 per thousand

(not shown in chart).

• Wide disparities in infant mortality among racial and ethnic groups remain. In 1995 the rate

for blacks was more than twice the rate for non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics, and Asians.

American Indians also had relatively high rates. It is notable that Hispanic infant mortality rates

are equivalent to those of non-Hispanic whites, despite the considerably lower socioeconomic

status of Hispanics. 

• For most groups, the infant mortality rate is much higher for babies born to teenage mothers

(not shown in chart). The notable exception is black mothers, for whom the infant mortality

rate is no higher for teenage mothers than for other mothers. This means that higher teenage

birth rates do not account for the higher overall black infant mortality rate.

Health

1. Infant Mortality Rates

Health

Note: Straight line between dots indicates data are not available for intervening years.
44

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

60

65

70

75

80

85

60

65

70

75

80

85

Years of age

Black men

White men

White women Black women

Source: National Center for Health Statistics

0 0

• A key summary measure of mortality risk is life expectancy at birth. This represents the average

length of time that a baby born today would live if current death rates at each age remained

constant.

• For both men and women, whites can expect to live longer than blacks.

• Women of both race groups can expect to live longer than their male counterparts.

• Although life expectancy has increased substantially for all groups, the differences between

groups increased during the 1980s, particularly among men. Recently, however, the gap has

narrowed slightly.

Health

Health

2. Life Expectancy at Birth

Note: Straight line between dots indicates data are not shown in intervening years.
45

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Source: National Center for Health Statistics

Poor Not poor

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

White, Black Hispanic Asian American Indian

non-Hispanic

• Immunization is a fundamental component of regular medical care for children. In addition to

measuring the extent to which children are protected from childhood diseases, this measure

also indicates whether children have at least some access to medical care. This chart shows the

percentage of children aged 19 to 35 months who were up to date with the recommended

schedule of vaccinations in 1995 and 1996. 

• Non-Hispanic white, black, and Hispanic children who live in poverty are significantly less

likely than nonpoor children to be up to date with recommended vaccinations. 

• Among children in similar economic circumstances, there are relatively small differences

between racial and ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic white, black, and Hispanic children in

poverty have roughly equal chances of being currently vaccinated.

Health

3. Children Aged 19 to 35 Months Who Are Up to Date

with Recommended Vaccinations, 1995–96

Health

Note: Data for 1995 and 1996 are averaged to provide more reliable estimates.
46

0

20

40

60

0

20

40

60

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

0

20

40

60

0

20

40

60

White

Black

Black

White

Women

Source: National Center for Health Statistics

Hispanic

Hispanic

Men

Percent

• Cigarette smoking is one of the most important public health concerns in the United States,

contributing to nearly 400,000 deaths each year. Most smokers begin smoking early in life,

and much effort to reduce smoking has been focused on young people.

• Smoking rates for white young persons exceed rates for black and Hispanic young persons.

Black females have the lowest smoking rates. For men, and for black men in particular,

smoking rates have fallen substantially since 1965, when more than 60 percent of black males

and more than 50 percent of white males smoked. Reductions in smoking have been much

greater for black than for white women.

• Since the mid-1980s, smoking prevalence among black young adults has fallen faster than

among whites. 

• Data for Hispanics are only available beginning in 1990–91. Smoking is less prevalent among

Hispanics than among whites but is slightly more prevalent than among blacks.

Health

Health

4. Prevalence of Smoking Among Persons Aged 18 to 24

Note: Straight line between dots indicates data are not available for intervening years. Data for

Hispanics are for 1990–91, 1992–93, and 1994–95.
47

Unintentional Suicide Homicide HIV

0

20

40

60

80

0

20

40

60

80

Deaths per 100,000 persons

Source: National Center for Health Statistics

injury

White, non-Hispanic Black Hispanic Asian American Indian

• Although deaths among adolescents and young adults are rare relative to deaths among older

adults and the elderly, several causes of death are particularly important for this age group. The

most common cause of death in this group is not disease but injury, either intentional or

unintentional (accounting for more than half of deaths). The one fatal disease that affects this

age group significantly is HIV. 

• Deaths due to injuries (unintentional and intentional) are more prevalent among men than women

in all age groups (not shown in chart), but this difference is particularly apparent for persons

between the ages of 15 and 34. In this group, nearly 80 percent of injury deaths are to men.

• American Indians are much more likely than members of other groups to die as the result of

an unintentional injury (the most common cause is motor vehicle-related injuries) or to

commit suicide. Blacks are much more likely than members of any other group to be victims

of homicide. Blacks and Hispanics are also more likely to die from HIV-related diseases than

members of other groups. Asians have the lowest rates of death due to injuries and HIV in this

age group.

Health

5. Death Rates by Cause for Persons

Aged 15 to 34, 1994–95

Health

Note: Data for 1994 and 1995 are averaged to provide more relialbe estimates.

HIV data on American Indians are for 1993–95.
48

Heart Disease Cancer Heart Disease Cancer

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Deaths per 100,000 persons

Men Women

Source: National Center for Health Statistics

White, non-Hispanic Black Hispanic Asian American Indian

• Chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer account for the largest fraction of deaths

among those aged 45 to 64. Smoking is implicated in many of these deaths.

• Black men and women have the highest death rates from heart disease and cancer. Hispanics

have lower death rates than non-Hispanic whites for these diseases. Asians generally have the

lowest death rates, particularly for heart disease. American Indians have high rates of heart

disease mortality relative to Hispanics and Asians. 

• Overall, death rates among 45- to 64-year olds are higher for men than for women, largely

because of differences in rates of death from these diseases, particularly heart disease.

Health

Health

6. Death Rates by Cause for Persons

Aged 45 to 65, 1995

Note: Rates are age-adjusted.
49

White, non-Hispanic Black Hispanic

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percent

All incomes

Source: National Center for Health Statistics

Poor Near poor Middle income High income

• Coverage by health insurance, either private or public (for example, Medicaid), is a key

indicator of access to medical care.

• Hispanics are the most likely to be uninsured, and non-Hispanic whites are the least likely to

be uninsured. For every group, the rate of uninsurance is lower for those with higher incomes. 

• The overall difference in uninsurance rates between non-Hispanic whites and blacks stems

from the relative concentration of blacks in lower income categories, as non-Hispanic whites

and blacks with similar incomes have similar rates of uninsurance. Hispanics, on the other

hand, have higher rates of uninsurance at every level of income.

• In large part because they are more likely to be eligible for Medicaid, women tend to have lower

rates of uninsurance than men (not shown in chart).

Health

7. Persons Aged 18 to 64 without

Health Insurance Coverage, 1994–95

Health

Note: Percentages are age-adjusted.
Crime and Criminal Justice

50

Asafe environment is important for stable childhood development, good health, and

successful involvement in education and the job market. No single summary measure can

capture the difficulties that crime creates in the lives of individuals and communities. This

section discusses three important aspects of crime and justice: victimization—the experience of

being a victim of crime—criminal activity, and the criminal justice system. Violent crime

victimization is down in recent years, after rising in the late 1980s, and property crime rates have

been declining since the mid-1970s. The prison population has grown substantially over the past

20 years, and increasing numbers of individuals have other involvement in the criminal justice

system. The differences by race and Hispanic origin in the experiences with crime and involvement

in the justice system are stark. 

The measured level of criminal activity and criminal justice supervision is the result of actions by

many individuals and institutions, including offenders, victims, the police, the courts, and the

prison system. Because of these many actors, differences in observed rates of criminal activity and

victimization over time or across groups may be difficult to interpret. For example, if individuals

perceive that their risk of being victimized has increased, they may take precautions—such as

staying inside more or taking a taxi instead of walking—to reduce that risk. If those precautions are

successful, the crime rate may not rise, but crime is still playing a larger role in their lives, and they

are certainly worse off. 

Crimes fall into three major categories: crimes against persons (including violent crimes), property

crimes, and public-order crimes (traditionally, crimes such as drug sales, gambling, and prostitution

have been included in this category). Information about the number of crimes is available from two

types of sources, victimization surveys and data collected by law enforcement officials (the FBI

Crime Index, for example). Since surveys provide more reliable information about the

characteristics of victims, victimization data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, rather

than FBI data, are presented in this section.

In 1996, Americans were victims of an estimated 27.3 million property crimes and 9.1 million

violent crimes. Both property and violent crime rates fell in the mid-1990s. Victims of crime bear

psychological, economic, and health costs, and offenders may be arrested and punished for their

crimes. Although they are not costless to society, public-order crimes cannot be accurately counted

by surveys of households that ask about incidents of victimization. 

The effects of crime reach beyond victims and offenders to their families and communities. While

in prison or jail, offenders can support neither themselves nor their families—in 1991 more than

half of male prisoners had children under 18—and a criminal record can continue to impair

individuals’ labor market opportunities for years.1 In addition, political participation may be

affected: In many states, those convicted of a felony are temporarily or permanently prohibited

from voting. Crime costs the economy billions of dollars each year, including property losses and

damage, as well as public and private spending to control crime. But these numbers do not capture

the heightened sense of insecurity that crime imposes on individuals and communities. 

Hispanics and members of racial minority groups, particularly blacks, are much more likely than

whites to be victims of crime. Differences in victimization are particularly striking for violent

crimes. For example, the homicide victimization rate of blacks is more than twice that of Hispanics

and six times that of non-Hispanic whites and Asians. American Indians’ homicide victimization

Changing America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being by Race and Hispanic Origin

VII. Crime and Criminal Justice
Crime and Criminal Justice

51

rate falls between that of Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites and Asians (Crime and Criminal

Justice 1). The differences in victimization by race and Hispanic origin are much smaller for

property crimes than for violent crimes, although differences have grown somewhat since the

1970s. Hispanics have the highest rates of property crime victimization, followed by blacks and

whites (Crime and Criminal Justice 2).

Unfortunately, reliable national data on involvement in the criminal justice system are available

only for blacks, whites, and “others;” discussion of this subject here is limited to black-white

differences. Blacks have higher rates of involvement in the criminal justice system than do whites.

Although blacks comprised only 13 percent of the population, nearly equal numbers of blacks and

whites were admitted to prison in 1995 (Crime and Criminal Justice 3). Black adults are much

more likely than white adults to be under the supervision of the criminal justice system—on

probation or parole, or in jail or prison (Crime and Criminal Justice 4).

Blacks represented 43 percent of arrests, 54 percent of convictions, and 59 percent of prison

admissions for violent crimes in 1994 (Crime and Criminal Justice 5), indicating that arrested

blacks are more likely to be convicted, and convicted blacks are more likely to be imprisoned,

compared with whites. Historically, America’s criminal justice system has clearly been biased against

blacks—for example, between 1930 and 1973, southern jurisdictions put to death 398 black men

and 43 white men for the crime of rape.2 More recent instances of discrimination on the part of

police and elsewhere in the criminal justice system have been documented in personal and media

accounts.3 But assessing how much continuing discrimination contributes to the large black-white

difference in criminal justice system involvement is difficult. Research suggests that most or all of

the differences in the likelihood of conviction and imprisonment can be explained by other factors,

such as severity of crime or prior record of the offender.4 Less is known about the extent of

discrimination at the arrest stage, in part because underlying rates of criminal activity by race cannot

be easily assessed. Some evidence comes from comparing the race distribution of “offenders” derived

from victims’ surveys with the racial composition of individuals arrested for the same crime. Two

studies have found that these distributions are roughly comparable for many violent crimes.5

A variety of factors contribute to differences in victimization, criminal activity, and involvement in

the criminal justice system, including neighborhoods, economic status, and education. Those who

have poorer earnings prospects in the legal job market may be more likely to engage in criminal

activity. Since the 1970s, earnings for low-skilled men have deteriorated markedly, increasing the

attractiveness of illegal compared to legal job prospects. This trend may explain some of the rise in

prison admissions and criminal justice system involvement. In addition, since blacks, Hispanics,

and American Indians are over represented at the bottom of the earnings distribution, those groups

have been disproportionately affected by deteriorating earnings. Crime policy and enforcement

decisions also influence differences in victimization, criminal activity, and punishments. Some

policies can have different effects on different groups. For example, the War on Drugs (launched in

the early 1980s) resulted in larger increases in incarceration and criminal supervision rates among

blacks than among whites. This difference was related, in part, to differences in sentencing and

enforcement for crack cocaine—which is more commonly used and sold by blacks—relative to

powder cocaine.6 Drug use also contributes to nondrug crimes—40 to 80 percent of persons

arrested for nondrug offenses tested positive for drugs in 1991.7

Crime and Criminal Justice
Crime and Criminal Justice

52

Besides perceptions of discrimination in the criminal justice system, lack of racial and ethnic

diversity among those working in criminal justice may also undermine the perceived legitimacy of

the system. However, minority representation on local police departments has increased in recent

years and is much higher in large cities, which tend to serve more diverse populations (Crime and

Criminal Justice 6). Differences in perceptions about the fairness of the police, the courts, prisons,

and jails among racial and ethnic groups have been widely noted. National survey data indicate that

blacks are more likely than whites to believe that the criminal justice system treats blacks more

harshly (Crime and Criminal Justice 7), and some research based on particular groups or cities finds

that both whites and members of minority groups believe that discrimination on the basis of race

or ethnicity is a problem in the administration of the criminal justice system.8

1. Beck, Allen, et al. 1993. Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Washington, DC; Freeman, Richard B. 1992. “Crime and the Employment of Disadvantaged

Youth.” In Urban Labor Markets and Job Opportunity, ed. George E. Peterson and Wayne

Vroman. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

2. U.S. Department of Justice. 1975. “Capital Punishment 1973.” National Prisoners Statistics

Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

3. See, for example, Russell, Katheryn K. 1998. The Color of Crime. New York: New York

University Press.

4. Stone, Christopher. 1998. “Race, Crime and the Administration of Justice: A Summary of the

Available Facts.” Paper presented to the Advisory Board of the President’s Initiative on Race,

May 19. Blumstein, Alfred, et al. 1983. Research on Sentencing: The Search for Reform.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

5. Hindelang, Michael J. 1978. “Race and Involvement in Common Law Personal Crimes.”

American Sociological Review 43 (February):93–109; General Accounting Office. 1994. Racial

Differences in Arrests. Washington, DC.

6. McDonald, Douglas C. and Kenneth E. Carlson. 1993. Sentencing in the Federal Courts: Does

Race Matter? The Transition to Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 1986–90. Bureau of Justice

Statistics. Washington, DC. 

7. National Institute of Justice. Drug Use Forecasting, 1991 annual report.

8. See, for example, Carter, David L. 1985. “Hispanic Perception of Police Performance: An

Empirical Assessment.” Journal of Criminal Justice 13: 487–500; Moore, David W. and Lydia

Saad. 1995. “No Immediate Signs That Simpson Trial Intensified Racial Animosity.” The Gallup

Poll Monthly, October: 2–9; The Gallup Organization. 1997. The Gallup Poll Social Audit:

Black/White Relations in the United States 1997.

Crime and Criminal Justice
Crime and Criminal Justice

53

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

Homicides per 100,000 resident population

Black

White, non-Hispanic

Hispanic

Asian

American Indian

Source: National Center for Health Statistics

• Homicide victimization rates for blacks have been at least five times those of whites for the last

half century, sometimes reaching more than ten times the white rate. In 1996, non-Hispanic

whites and Asians had the lowest homicide victimization rates (3.5 and 4.6 per 100,000

resident population), followed by American Indians (9.8), Hispanics (12.4), and blacks (29.8). 

• Males are almost four times more likely than females to be victims of homicide (not shown in

chart).

• Males aged 15 to 24 (not shown in chart) have the highest homicide victimization rate, and

the differences across racial and ethnic groups are even larger for this group: Blacks have by far

the highest rate (123.1 per 100,000 population), followed by Hispanics (48.9), American

Indians (26.6), Asians (15.6), and non-Hispanic whites (6.4).

Crime and Criminal Justice

1. Victims of Homicide

Note: Straight line between dots indicates data are not shown for intervening years. Data include

deaths from “legal intervention” (use of police force). Prior to 1985, data for whites include

Hispanic whites. Prior to 1970, data include nonresidents.
Crime and Criminal Justice

54

1973

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Victimizations per 1,000 households

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics

1973 1995

White Black Hispanic

• Property crimes include burglary, motor vehicle theft, and personal theft. Both attempted and

completed crimes are reported.

• Differences in property crime victimization rates across racial and ethnic groups are much less

pronounced than those for violent crimes such as homicide (not shown in chart). 

• Property crime victimization was less frequent in 1995 than 1973 among both black and white

households, but differences between these groups grew somewhat. (Data for Hispanics are not

available for 1973.)

Crime and Criminal Justice

2. Victims of Property Crime
Crime and Criminal Justice

55

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

0

50

100

150

200

0

50

100

150

200

Thousands of persons

Black

White

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics

• Prison admissions rose slightly between 1930 and 1970 but have risen substantially since then.

Between 1970 and 1995, white admissions more than tripled, and black admissions increased

more than five-fold. Admissions of blacks fell slightly between 1992 and 1995. 

• Rapidly rising admissions for drug offenses explain part of the recent increase in total

admissions. Between 1985 and 1995, the fraction of admissions to state prisons that were for

drug offenses grew from 13 to 31 percent (not shown in chart). The fraction of new

admissions for drug offenses was similar for blacks and whites in 1985; however, the increase

in drug-crime admissions has been much larger for blacks.

• In 1995 women comprised less than 10 percent of new court commitments to state and federal

prisons, but prison admissions have been growing faster among women than men (not shown

in chart).

Crime and Criminal Justice

3. Admissions to State and Federal Prisons

Note: Straight line between dots indicates data are not available for intervening years.
Crime and Criminal Justice

56

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics

White Black

1985 1995 1985 1995 0

2

4

6

8

10

0

2

4

6

8

10

Percent

Probation Parole Jail or prison

• The fraction of the adult population under correctional supervision is one indicator of the

extent to which the criminal justice system is involved in the lives of individuals and

communities. 

• The fraction of the population that is involved in the criminal justice system—on probation

or parole or in jail or prison—has grown substantially. Between 1985 and 1995, the fraction

of white and black adults in each category of supervision grew considerably. 

• Black adults were nearly five times more likely than white adults to be under supervision of the

criminal justice system in 1995. 

• Men aged 20 to 29 are the most likely to be under correctional supervision (not shown in

chart). In 1991, about 7 percent of white men and 26 percent of black men in their twenties

were under correctional supervision.

Crime and Criminal Justice

4. Adults under Correctional Supervision
Crime and Criminal Justice

57

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics

Arrests Convictions Admissions

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

White Black Other

• This chart shows the racial composition of arrests, convictions, and prison admissions for

violent crimes in 1994, including murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

• Blacks represented 43 percent of arrests, 54 percent of convictions, and 59 percent of prison

admissions for violent crimes in 1994. Thus, compared with whites, blacks were more likely

to be convicted if arrested and are more likely to be imprisoned if convicted.

• Discriminatory behavior on the part of police and elsewhere in the criminal justice system may

contribute to blacks’ high representation in arrests, convictions, and prison admissions,

although research suggests that other factors may explain much of the difference for violent

crimes (see introduction to Crime and Criminal Justice).

Crime and Criminal Justice

5. Arrests, Convictions, and Prison Admissions

for Violent Crimes, 1994
Crime and Criminal Justice

58

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics

1987 1993 Large cities, 1993

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Percent of full-time sworn officers

Black Hispanic Other minority

• The police are typically the first contact with the criminal justice system for both victims and

offenders. Higher minority representation among police officers may improve relations

between police departments and those they serve, reduce discrimination, and improve police

departments’ ability to fight crime. 

• Total minority representation among full-time sworn officers in local police and sheriffs’

departments grew from 15 percent in 1987 to 18 percent in 1993. Representation of blacks

grew from 9 to 11 percent, and Hispanic representation grew from 4 to 6 percent.

• Minority representation is higher in police and sheriffs’ departments serving larger cities. For

example, minorities comprise 30 percent of full-time sworn officers in cities with one million

or more, compared with less than 10 percent for departments serving fewer than 50,000

people (not shown in chart).

Crime and Criminal Justice

6. Minority Composition of Local Police

and Sheriffs’ Departments

Note: Large cities are those with police or sheriffs’ departments serving a population of

one million or more.
Crime and Criminal Justice

59

Source: Gallup

Blacks treated Both treated Whites treated

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

White Black

Blacks treated

more harshly

Both treated

the same

Whites treated

more harshly

• Lack of confidence and perceptions of unfair practices in the criminal justice system may limit

its effectiveness, especially since police and prosecutors rely heavily on community members

to report crime and act as witnesses.

• This chart presents the opinions of a national sample of whites and blacks (data for other

groups are not available) who were asked whether blacks or whites are treated more harshly by

the criminal justice system.

• A large percentage of the population, both black and white, perceive that blacks are treated

more harshly by the criminal justice system than whites, although blacks are more likely than

whites to have this view (72 percent of blacks compared with 44 percent of whites). Forty-six

percent of whites perceived that the criminal justice system treats whites and blacks the same,

compared with only 23 percent of blacks.

Crime and Criminal Justice

7. Perception of Whether Blacks or Whites are Treated

More Harshly by the Criminal Justice System, 1997
Housing and Neighborhoods

60

The housing in which people live and the neighborhoods where they reside may affect a variety of

opportunities for children and adults. Poor housing may contribute to a number of adverse health

and educational outcomes, particularly in children. For example, severe crowding, indoor air

pollution, or deteriorating lead paint may cause or exacerbate diseases such as asthma or lead

poisoning, sometimes with long-term effects.1

There are currently about 100 million occupied housing units in the United States, of which about

two-thirds are owner-occupied. Homeownership has increased in recent years to the highest level

in history. The national homeownership rate was 66 percent in 1997, but less than half of black

and Hispanic householders owned their homes (Housing and Neighborhoods 1). About 5 million

of the 35 million renter households receive some form of federal subsidy.

High housing cost burdens, moderate or severe physical housing problems, and crowding are three

commonly used measures of adverse housing conditions.2 Between 1976 and 1995, the fraction of

households with moderately high housing cost burdens (30 to 50 percent of income) rose (Housing

and Neighborhoods 2). Over the same period, the physical condition of housing improved

markedly. (Housing and Neighborhoods 3). The fraction of households that are crowded (more

than one person per room) fell substantially, from 4.6 percent in 1976 to 2.6 percent in 1995

(Housing and Neighborhoods 4). All groups (for which data are available) have generally

experienced improvements in housing conditions, although crowding among Hispanic households

has risen somewhat in recently years.

Non-Hispanic white households have the best housing conditions according to all three of these

measures, but the relative position of the other groups varies depending on the measure. NonHispanic black, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian households are about equally likely to have

very high housing cost burdens, and non-Hispanic white households are least likely to have high

housing cost burdens. Non-Hispanic black households are more likely than members of other

groups to live in units with moderate or serious physical problems, followed by American Indians,

Hispanics, Asians, and non-Hispanic whites. Hispanic households are the most likely to be

crowded, followed by Asians and American Indians, non-Hispanic blacks, and non-Hispanic

whites.

An individual’s neighborhood is related to the availability and quality of important amenities such

as a safe environment, primary education and other public services, as well as economic

opportunities. Growing up in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty, high crime, and poor

public schools is associated with poorer educational outcomes and may reduce chances of success

in adulthood.3 Neighborhood quality and the quality of associated services vary considerably

depending on the racial and ethnic composition of the population. Non-Hispanic black and

Hispanic households tend to report more problems in their neighborhoods, including crime, litter

and housing deterioration, and poor public services (Housing and Neighborhoods 5). Concern

about crime in neighborhoods rose considerably between 1985 and 1995.

Neighborhoods have long been segregated by race and Hispanic origin, although segregation has

fallen somewhat since 1970, particularly between blacks and all others.4 Because neighborhoods

have historically been segregated, public services and other amenities associated with

neighborhoods have also been unequally distributed. In addition, the racial and ethnic composition

of neighborhoods can play an important role in determining how much interaction individuals

have with members of other racial and ethnic groups. Members of each group live

Changing America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being by Race and Hispanic Origin

VIII. Housing and Neighborhoods
Housing and Neighborhoods

61

disproportionately with members of the same group (Housing and Neighborhoods 6). According

to several measures of segregation, whites and blacks live in more segregated neighborhoods than

Asians or Hispanics.5

The 1968 Fair Housing Act prohibited discrimination on the basis of race or ethnic origin in

housing and mortgage lending. Evidence suggests that the Act may have helped reduce

discrimination in housing markets and contributed to declining segregation.6 Attitudes about

racial integration have also changed dramatically: The fraction of whites saying they would move

if a black family moved in next door fell from 44 percent in 1958 to 1 percent in 1997 (Housing

and Neighborhoods 7). Still, segregation remains high. And continued discrimination in housing

and mortgage lending has been clearly documented through audit studies, in which similar white

and minority candidates attempt to rent apartments or apply for home mortgage loans. One

national study found that the incidence of unfavorable treatment in the housing market was 23 to

30 percentage points higher for a black or Hispanic applicant compared with his or her matched

white counterpart.7

1. Children’s Defense Fund. 1994. Wasting America’s Future. Boston: Beacon Press. 

2. For a description, see 1996. American Housing Survey for the United States in 1995. U.S.

Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Washington, DC.

3. Ellen, Ingrid Gould and Margery Austin Turner. 1997. “Does Neighborhood Matter? Assessing

Recent Evidence.” Housing Policy Debate 8 (4):833–66. 

4. Cutler, David M., Edward L. Glaeser, and Jacob L. Vigdor. 1997. “The Rise and Decline of the

American Ghetto.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 5881; Farley,

Reynolds and William H. Frey. 1994. “Changes in the Segregation of Whites from Blacks

During the 1980s: Small Steps Toward a More Integrated Society.” American Sociological Review

59 (February):23–45.

5. Farley and Frey. “Changes in the Segregation of Whites from Blacks During the 1980s.”

6. Farley and Frey. “Changes in the Segregation of Whites from Blacks During the 1980s.”

7. Turner, Margery Austin, Raymond J. Struyk, and John Yinger. 1991. Housing Discrimination

Study: Synthesis. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington, DC.

Housing and Neighborhoods
62

1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997

40

50

60

70

80

40

50

60

70

80

Percent

Source: Bureau of the Census

0 0

Black, non-Hispanic

Hispanic

White, non-Hispanic

• Homeownership is an indicator of financial well-being and may also contribute to the stability

of neighborhoods. The homeownership rate is the percentage of households that own their

own homes.

• The homeownership rate of non-Hispanic whites is more than 25 percentage points above that

of non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics. Less than half of non-Hispanic black and Hispanic

householders own their own homes.

• Homeownership rates have risen in recent years for all groups, in part because of the aging of

the population. The overall rate reached a record high in 1997.

Housing and Neighborhoods

1. Homeownership Rates

Housing and Neighborhoods
63

1976 1995 1976 1995 1976 1995 1995 1995

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent

White,

non-Hispanic

Hispanic Asian American

Indian

Sources: Department of Housing and Urban Development and Bureau of the Census

Black,

non-Hispanic

Pay 30 to 50 percent of income in housing costs

Pay 50 percent or more of income in housing costs

• High housing costs limit a household’s ability to afford other necessities. Housing expenditures

of less than 30 percent of income are considered “affordable,” while the Department of

Housing and Urban Development considers a household to have “worst case” housing needs

if housing costs are more than 50 percent of household income (and income is below 50

percent of the area median).

• Non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian households are nearly twice as

likely as non-Hispanic whites to spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing costs.

Differences across groups in the fraction paying 30 to 50 percent of income for housing are

much less pronounced.

• Between 1976 and 1995, the proportion of non-Hispanic black and Hispanic households

facing housing cost burdens of 50 percent or more of income fell slightly, while the proportion

facing housing cost burdens between 30 and 50 percent increased. The proportion of nonHispanic whites in both categories rose. (Data for Asians and American Indians are not

available for 1976.)

Housing and Neighborhoods

2. Households with High Housing Cost Burdens

Note: Data for Asians exclude Hispanic Asians, and data for American Indians exclude Hispanic

American Indians.

Housing and Neighborhoods
Housing and Neighborhoods

64

1976-78 1993-95 1976-78 1993-95 1976-78 1993-95 1993-95 1993-95

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Percent

Sources: Department of Housing and Urban Development and Bureau of the Census

White,

non-Hispanic

Hispanic Asian American

Indian

Severe problems

Moderate problems

Black,

non-Hispanic

• Poor physical housing quality can contribute to health problems, particularly in children.

Severe physical problems include lack of indoor plumbing, inadequate heating, electrical

problems, and other serious upkeep problems. Moderate physical problems include problems

with heating or plumbing or the lack of a kitchen sink, refrigerator, or stove burners. 

• In 1993–95 non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians were more likely than

non-Hispanic whites or Asians to live in housing units with serious or moderate physical

problems. 

• Between 1976–78 and 1993–95, the fraction of households living in units with moderate physical

problems fell substantially for all groups for which data are available. The fraction of households

living in units with severe problems has risen but is still less than 5 percent for all groups.

3. Housing Units with Physical Problems

Note: Data for 1976 and 1978, or 1993 and 1995, are averaged to provide more reliable estimates. Data

for Asians exclude Hispanic Asians, and data for American Indians exclude Hispanic American Indians.

Housing and Neighborhoods
Housing and Neighborhoods Housing and Neighborhoods

65

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

5

10

15

20

25

Percent

Black, non-Hispanic

Hispanic

White, non-Hispanic

American

Indian

Asian

Sources: Department of Housing and Urban Development and Bureau of the Census

• Crowding is another indicator of housing conditions. A household is considered crowded if it

contains more than one person per room. (Rooms used for living space are counted, including

bedrooms, living rooms, and kitchens, but bathrooms or rooms created with temporary

partitions are not included.)

• In 1995, only about 1 percent of non-Hispanic white households were crowded, with greater

crowding among non-Hispanic blacks (4 percent) and Asians and American Indians (6 percent

each). Hispanic households were more than twice as likely as any other group to be crowded

(14 percent).

• Crowding has declined for all groups since 1976. Among Hispanics, however, crowding rose

slightly between 1985 and 1995 after falling considerably between 1975 and 1985.

4. Crowding: Households with More Than One Person

per Room

Note: Data for Asians exclude Hispanic Asians, and data for American Indians exclude Hispanic

American Indians.
Housing and Neighborhoods

66

Crime Litter or Housing De Government Services

0

4

8

12

16

0

4

8

12

16

Percentage of households

Poor public

services

Crime Litter/housing

deterioration

White, non-Hispanic

Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development and Bureau of the Census

Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic Asian American Indian

• Households’ reports of problems in their neighborhood most likely reflect a combination of

objective conditions, expectations, and overall satisfaction with their housing and

neighborhood.

• In 1993–95, about 15 percent of non-Hispanic black households reported that crime was a

problem in their neighborhood, compared with 12 percent of Hispanics, 8 percent of

American Indians, 7 percent of Asians, and 6 percent of non-Hispanic whites. The fraction of

households reporting concern about crime rose between 1985 and 1993–95 for all groups

except American Indians (not shown in chart). 

• Non-Hispanic black and Hispanic households are more likely to report problems with litter

and housing deterioration than are American Indians, non-Hispanic whites, and Asians.

• Reported dissatisfaction with public services is 2 percent or less for all groups.

Housing and Neighborhoods

5. Reported Problems in Neighborhood, 1993–95

Note: Data for 1993 and 1995 are averaged to provide more reliable estimates. Data for Asians

exclude Hispanics Asians, and data for American Indians exclude Hispanics American Indians.
Housing and Neighborhoods

67

Total

NH Whites

NH Blacks

Hispanics

Asians

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent

Source: Reynolds Farley, The New American Reality

Non-Hispanic

whites

Non-Hispanic

blacks

Average neighborhood of

White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic Asian American Indian

• The racial and ethnic composition of neighborhoods can affect how much interaction

individuals have with members of other racial or ethnic groups. This chart shows the average

racial and ethnic composition of metropolitan neighborhoods for members of each group.

• Members of each racial and ethnic group live disproportionately with members of the same group. 

• Residential segregation of blacks from other groups declined between 1970 and 1990 (not

shown in chart). Between 1980 and 1990, residential segregation of Asians and Hispanics

from other groups changed little but is still much lower than for blacks.

Housing and Neighborhoods

6. Average Racial and Ethnic Composition of

Metropolitan Neighborhoods, 1990

Note: Data for Asians exclude Hispanic Asians, and data for American Indians exclude Hispanic

American Indians. The American Indian category includes individuals classified as “other.”
Housing and Neighborhoods

68

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Source: Gallup

next door

in great numbers in neighborhood

Percent of whites who say they would move if blacks came to live...

• A variety of questions have been used to examine America’s changing views on race and racial

tolerance. Beginning in 1958, a national sample of whites has been asked whether they would

move if “black people came to live next door” or if “black people came to live in great

numbers” in their neighborhood.

• The fraction of whites saying they would move if blacks moved in next door fell dramatically from

44 percent in 1958 to 1 percent in 1997. The fraction saying they would move if blacks moved

into their neighborhood in large numbers fell from 80 percent to 18 percent over the same period.

• These questions have been consistently asked only of whites, so similar indicators of other

groups’ views of integration are not available.

Housing and Neighborhoods

7. Whites’ Attitudes towards Integration

Note: Straight line between dots indicates data are not available for intervening years.
69

For further information on the topics covered in this book, see the following government websites and

publications:

Population

Government websites

U.S. Bureau of the Census (http://www.census.gov)

Census data and publications on population characteristics

(http://www.census.gov/prod/www/titles.html#pop)

Census data and publications on race

(http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race.html)

Census data and publications on Hispanic origin

(http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hispanic.html)

Education

Government websites

National Center for Education Statistics (http://www.nces.ed.gov)

Government publications

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1997. Digest of

Education Statistics 1997. Washington, DC.

(http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs/digest97)

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1998. The

Condition of Education 1998. Washington, DC.

(http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs98/condition98/)

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1998. Projections

of Education Statistics to 2008. Washington, DC.

(http://www.nces.ed.gov/spider/webspider/98016XXXXX.html)

Labor Markets

Government websites

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (http://stats.bls.gov)

Current Population Survey (http://stats.bls.gov/cpshome.htm)

Monthly Labor Review (http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/mlrhome.htm)

Government publications

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment and Earnings. 

Washington, DC. 

(http://stats.bls.gov/cpshome.htm)

Changing America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being by Race and Hispanic Origin

IX. Appendix

Appendix
70

Economic Status

Government websites

U.S. Bureau of the Census (http://www.census.gov)

Census data and publications on income

(http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income.html)

Census data and publications on wealth

(http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/wealth.html)

Census data and publications on poverty

(http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html)

Government publications

Lamison-White, Leatha. 1997. Poverty in the United States: 1996. U.S. Bureau of the

Census, Current Population Reports, Series P60–198. Washington, DC.

(http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/povty96.html)

Health

Government websites

National Center for Health Statistics (http://www.cdc.gov/nchswww)

Healthy People 2010 (http://www.health.gov/healthypeople)

Center for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/cdc.html)

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

(http://www.samhsa.gov)

The Office of Minority Health Resource Center (http://www.omhrc.gov)

Improving Services for Hispanics

(http://www.dhhs.gov/about/heo/hispanic.html)

Indian Health Service (http://www.ihs.gov)

The Minority Health Project (sponsored by the National Center for Health Statistics)

(http://www.minority.unc.edu)

Government publications

National Center for Health Statistics. 1998. Health United States 1998 with Socioeconomic

Status and Health Chartbook. Hyattsville, MD. (See also previous annual editions;

1990 edition includes a chartbook on minority health.)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1990. Healthy People 2000: National 

Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives. Washington, DC: 

Public Health Service. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1985. Report of the Secretary’s Task Force

on Black and Minority Health. Volume 1. Washington, DC: Public Health Service. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1998. Tobacco Use Among U.S.

Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups–African Americans, American Indians and Alaska

Natives, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics: A Report of the

Surgeon General. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services. (http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/osh/sgr-minorities.htm)

Appendix

Appendix
71

Crime and Criminal Justice

Government websites

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs)

Government publications

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1997. Sourcebook of Criminal

Justice Statistics, 1996. Washington, DC. (http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/)

Langan, P. A. The Racial Disparity in U.S. Drug Arrests. 1995. Report for Attorney

General.

Langan, P. A., and Brown, J. M. Felony Sentences in State Courts, 1994. 1997. US

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC.

Racial Disparities in Federal Death Penalty Prosecutions, 1988-1994. 1994. US Congress

House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, Washington, DC.

United States Sentencing Commission Annual Report 1996. 1997. United States Sentencing

Commission, Washington, DC.

United States Sentencing Commission Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics. 1997.

United States Sentencing Commission, Washington, DC.

Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991. 1993. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Washington, DC.

(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/sospi91.txt)

Literacy Behind Prison Walls: Profiles of the Prison Population From the National Adult Literacy

Survey. 1994. Educational Testing Service Princeton, NJ, US Department of

Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, DC.

Stephan, J. J. 1997. Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 1995. US Department

of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC.

(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/csfcf95.txt)

Housing and Neighborhoods

Government websites

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (http://www.hud.gov)

The Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD USER

(http://www.huduser.org)

U.S. Bureau of the Census (http://www.census.gov)

Government publications

U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development. 1996. American Housing Survey for the United States in 1995.

Washington, DC. (http://www.census.gov/prod/www/titles.html#house)

Appendix Appendix
72

The data on which charts are based, and a copy of Changing America, can be found online at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/CEA/html/publications.html. 

Population

1. 1970 and 1990 Census of Population and projections. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1970 Census of

Population (Characteristics of the Population: United States Summary and Subject Reports (Japanese,

Chinese, and Filipinos in the United States; Persons of Spanish Origin; American Indians; and The Negro

Population)); Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1997. 

2. 1970 Census of Population and March 1997 Current Population Survey. U.S. Bureau of the Census.

1970 Census of Population (Characteristics of the Population: United States Summary and Subject Reports

(Japanese, Chinese, and Filipinos in the United States and American Indians)); “Selected 

Characteristics of the Population by Citizenship: 1997.”

(http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/foreign/97/ppltab1.txt.) 

3. Projections. Campbell, Paul R. 1996. Population Projections for States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic

Origin: 1995 to 2025. U.S. Bureau of the Census, PPL-47. 

4. 1970 and 1990 Census of Population and March 1996 Current Population Survey. Harrison,

Roderick J. and Claudette E. Bennett. 1995. “Racial and Ethnic Diversity.” In State of the Union:

America in the 1990s, ed. Reyolds Farley. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; Current Population

Survey Reports: Households and Families. (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hhfam.html).

5. 1990 Census of Population. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Unpublished data from the Public Use

Microdata Samples.

6. 1970 and 1990 Census of Population and March 1996 Current Population Survey. U.S. Bureau of

Census. 1970 Census of Population (Characteristics of the Population: United States Summary and Subject

Reports (Japanese, Chinese, and Filipinos in the United States and American Indians)); 1990 Census of

Population (General Population Characteristics: United States); selected tables from

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo.

7. Estimates. Hollman, Frederick W., et al. 1998. U.S. Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race, and

Hispanic Origin: 1990 to 1997. U.S. Bureau of the Census, PPL-91R.

Education

1. National Household Education Survey. National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of

Education, 1998. NCES 98-013.

2. National Household Education Survey. National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of

Education, 1998. NCES 98-013.

3. October Current Population Surveys. National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of

Education, 1995. NCES 95-273.

4. National Assessment of Educational Progress. National Center for Education Statistics. NAEP 1996

Trends in Academic Progress. NCES 97-986.

5. National Assessment of Educational Progress. National Center for Education Statistics. NAEP 1996

Trends in Academic Progress. NCES 97-986.

6. 1980 and 1990 Census of Population and March 1997 Current Population Survey. U.S. Bureau of

the Census. 1980 Census of Population (General Social and Economic Characteristics: United States

Summary); 1990 Census of Population (Social and Economic Characteristics: United States);

“Selected Characteristics of the Population by Race: March 1997.”

(http://www.bls.census.gov/cps/pub/1997/int_race.htm.)

Changing America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being by Race and Hispanic Origin

X. Detailed Chart Sources

Detailed Chart Sources
73

7. March Current Population Surveys. U.S. Bureau of the Census and National Center for Education

Statistics. Selected tables from http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/education/tablea-02.txt;

The Condition of Education, 1998.

8. March Current Population Surveys. U.S. Bureau of the Census and National Center for Education

Statistics. Selected tables from http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/education/tablea-02.txt;

The Condition of Education, 1998.

Labor Markets

1. Current Population Surveys. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Compiled from data from

http://www.bls.gov/.

2. Current Population Surveys. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data from http://www.bls.gov/.

3. Current Population Surveys. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unpublished calculations by the

Council of Economic Advisors. 

4. Current Population Surveys. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unpublished tables; Hedges, Janice and

Earl Mellor. 1979. “Weekly and Hourly Earnings of U.S. Workers.” Monthly Labor Review. (August.);

http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.t01.html.

5. Current Population Surveys. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unpublished tables; Hedges, Janice and

Earl Mellor. 1979. “Weekly and Hourly Earnings of U.S. Workers.” Monthly Labor Review. (August.);

http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.t01.html.

6. Current Population Surveys. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unpublished tables.

7. Current Population Surveys. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unpublished tables.

8. 1990 Census of Population and 1997 Current Population Survey. State of the Union: America in the

1990s. ed. Reynolds Farley. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. January

1998. Employment and Earnings. 

Economic Status

1. Current Population Surveys. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Historical Tables, Families.

(http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f05.html)

2. Current Population Surveys. Lamison-White, Leatha. 1997. Poverty in the United States: 1996. U.S.

Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P60-198.

3. Current Population Surveys. Lamison-White, Leatha. Poverty in the United States: 1996.

4. Current Population Surveys. Lamison-White, Leatha. Poverty in the United States: 1996;

http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/031997/pov/7_000.htm.

5. 1993 Survey of Income and Program Participation. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Asset Ownership of

Households: 1993. Detailed tables. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/wealth/wlth93t2.html)

Health

1. National Linked Files of Live Births and Infant Deaths. National Center for Health Statistics. 1998.

Health United States 1998 with Socioeconomic Status and Health Chartbook and previous annual editions. 

2. National Vital Statistics System and census population estimates. National Center for Health

Statistics. 1998. Health United States 1998 with Socioeconomic Status and Health Chartbook and previous

annual editions.

3. National Immunization Survey. Unpublished tabulations.

Detailed Chart Sources

Detailed Chart Sources
74

4. National Health Interview Survey. National Center for Health Statistics. 1998. Health United

States 1998 with Socioeconomic Status and Health Chartbook and previous annual editions, and

unpublished tabulations.

5. National Vital Statistics System. National Center for Health Statistics. Health United States 1996–97

and Injury Chartbook and unpublished tabulations.

6. National Vital Statistics System. Unpublished tabulations.

7. National Health Interview Survey. Unpublished tabulations.

Crime and Criminal Justice 

1. National Vital Statistics System. National Center for Health Statistics. 1998. Health United States

1998 with Socioeconomic Status and Health Chartbook and previous annual editions.

2. National Crime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Unpublished tabulations.

3. National Corrections Reporting Program and Federal Justice Statistics Program. Bureau of Justice

Statistics. 1997. Correctional Populations in 1995 the United States. NCJ-163916; Langan, Patrick A.

1991. Race of Prisoners Admitted to State and Federal Institutions, 1926-86. NCJ-125618.

4. Estimates. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Correctional Populations in the United States, 1995. NCJ163916; Correctional Populations in the United States, 1985.

5. Estimates. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Unpublished tables.

6. Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Local Police Departments, 1993; Sheriffs’ Departments, 1993; Profile of State and Local Law Enforcement

Agencies, 1987. 

7. Gallup Poll. The Gallup Organization. 1997. The Gallup Poll Social Audit: Black/White Relations in

the United States.

Housing and Neighborhoods

1. Current Population Surveys. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Unpublished table.

2. The American Housing Survey. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S.

Bureau of the Census. Unpublished tabulations.

3. The American Housing Survey. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S.

Bureau of the Census. Unpublished tabulations.

4. The American Housing Survey. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S.

Bureau of the Census. Unpublished tabulations.

5. The American Housing Survey. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S.

Bureau of the Census. Unpublished tabulations.

6. 1990 Census of Population. Farley, Reynolds. 1996. The New American Reality: Who We Are, How We

Got Here, Where We Are Going. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

7. Gallup Poll. The Gallup Organization. 1997. The Gallup Poll Social Audit: Black White/Relations in

the United States.

Detailed Chart Sources

Detailed Chart Sources