Issued October 2003

CLO/03-CIC

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Using Census Data to Help Local

Communities: Census Information

Centers at Work
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Customer Liaison Office, Stanley J.

Rolark, Chief, prepared this publication

under the general direction of Gloria

Gutierrez, Assistant Director for Marketing

and Customer Liaison. 

The U.S. Census Bureau wishes to acknowledge the following individuals and Census

Information Centers for their invaluable

contributions in the preparation of this

booklet:

Andrew Yan, Asian American Federation of

New York; John Flateau and Louis

Dabney, Medgar Evers College, Dubois

Bunch Center for Public Policy; Susan Beal,

Louisiana State University Shreveport,

Center for Business and Economic Research;

Cyndi Taylor, Vanderbilt University,

Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy Studies;

Dr. Lorenzo Morris and Dr. Rodney

Green, Howard University Center for Urban

Progress; Arloc Sherman and Beth

Haney, Children’s Defense Fund; SungChang Chun, University of Notre Dame,

Inter-University Program for Latino Studies;

Dr. S.J. Sethi, University of Texas-Pan

American, CoServe; Shilpa Patel, Asian

Pacific Islander American Health Forum; Dr.

Eui-Young Yu, Peter Choe, and Sang II

Han, Korean American Coalition; and Jose

Garcia, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and

Education Fund.

Barbara Harris, Program Administrator,

Customer Liaison Office, U.S. Census

Bureau, prepared the preliminary case studies booklet, which was the catalyst for the

preparation of this more detailed, in-depth

version. Members of the Customer Liaison

Office, Census Information Center Program

staff, under the direction and with the

assistance of Barbara Harris, assisted in

the preparation of this booklet. They

included Russell B. Davis, Jr.,

LaShaunne A. Graves, and Charmae G.

Taliaferro. 

George Selby, Senior Marketing Specialist,

under the direction of Joanne C.

Dickinson, Chief, Marketing Branch,

Marketing Services Office, provided editorial services and review and coordination of

design and printing for this publication.

John Kavaliunas, Chief, Marketing

Services Office, provided general direction

and production management.

Kim Ottenstein and Margaret A. Smith

of the Administrative and Customer

Services Division, Walter C. Odom, Chief,

provided publications and printing management, graphics design and composition,

and editorial review for print and electronic

media. James R. Clark, Assistant Chief,

provided general direction and production

management. 
Issued October 2003

CLO/03-CIC

U.S. Department of Commerce

Donald L. Evans,

Secretary

Samuel W. Bodman,

Deputy Secretary

Economics and Statistics Administration

Kathleen B. Cooper,

Under Secretary

for Economic Affairs

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Charles Louis Kincannon,

Director

Using Census Data to Help Local

Communities: Census Information

Centers at Work
SUGGESTED CITATION

U.S. Census Bureau

Using Census Data to Help Local

Communities: Census Information

Centers at Work

CLO/03-CIC

U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC 20402

Economics

and Statistics

Administration

Kathleen B. Cooper,

Under Secretary

for Economic Affairs

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Charles Louis Kincannon,

Director

Hermann Habermann,

Deputy Director and Chief

Operating Officer

Vacant,

Principal Associate Director

for Programs

Gloria Gutierrez,

Assistant Director for Marketing

and Customer Liaison

Stanley J. Rolark,

Chief, Customer Liaison Office
CONTENTS

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

Post 9/11 Relief and Recovery: Chinatown, New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Brooklyn’s Empowerment Zone Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Revitalization Areas: Shreveport, Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

“America’s Promise”—The State of Nashville’s Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Crime Patterns in Washington, DC, Public Housing: The Violence-Free

Zone Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Reaching Needy Children: The Minnesota Pilot Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Measuring the Minority Education Gap in Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Making Business Relocation Decisions: Rio Grande Valley, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

After-School Youth Program Initiative: Oakland, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Empowering the Latino Community: The Latino Voting Rights Project . . . . . . . . . .23

The Korean Immigrant Population in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Census Information Center Contact Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

iii

Introduction 1

U.S. Census Bureau

Using Census Data

to Help Local

Communities:

Census Information

Centers at Work

highlights examples

of how Census

Information Centers

(CICs) use census

data to serve underserved communities (such as rural, youth,

physically challenged, racial, and ethnic populations) in varied and meaningful ways. 

Case studies discussed here represent just a

sample of the countless uses of U.S. Census

Bureau data by the 52 CICs. Topics covered

range from identifying crime patterns in public

housing in Washington, DC, to conducting a

countywide assessment of children and youth

in Nashville, TN; demonstrating how the

events of September 11, 2001, affected New

York City’s greater Chinatown area to reaching

needy children with social services in

Minnesota; designating urban revitalization

areas in Shreveport to measuring the minority

education gap in Illinois; expanding the range

of the Brooklyn Empowerment Zone to facilitating business relocation decisions in the Rio

Grande Valley; helping Latino communities

redraw legislative boundaries in the Latino

Voting Rights Project to determining immigration and distribution patterns of Korean

Americans; and justifying the need for an after

school program in East Oakland, CA.

Started in 1988, the CIC Program is a cooperative venture between the U.S. Census Bureau

and national level, community-based organizations and colleges and universities to serve as

auxiliary data distribution centers reaching

underserved populations. Accordingly, each

CIC has its own target audience often requiring

unique information. The CIC Program includes

organizations such as chambers of commerce;

minority-serving colleges and universities; civil

rights, social justice, and social service groups;

think tanks; and research organizations.

The mission of the CIC Program is to provide

efficient access to Census Bureau data products through a wide data dissemination network of organizations. Those organizations

effectively process and disseminate Census

Bureau data to underserved population groups

in easily understandable formats. To accomplish this mission, CICs work in partnership

with the Census Bureau through the Customer

Liaison Office.

The CICs are recognized as official sources of

demographic, economic, and social statistics

produced by the Census Bureau. CICs provide

training and technical assistance to local governments, businesses, community groups, and

other interested data users in accessing and

using Census Bureau data for research, program administration, planning, and decision

making purposes. 

The CICs who produced these case studies are

shown on the acknowledgments page.

Introduction
In the weeks following the September 11,

2001, attacks, the city of New York and

numerous state, federal, and nongovernmental

agencies began the long process of recovering

and rebuilding from America’s worst terrorist

event. In addition to the tragic loss of life and

structures at the World Trade Center (WTC)

site, the attack had profound negative economic and social effects upon the residents

and businesses in the surrounding area.

Information from the U.S. Census Bureau

proved to be a valuable tool in the rebuilding

of Lower Manhattan.

To begin the rebuilding and recovery process,

various governmental and nongovernmental

agencies identified a relief area in Lower

Manhattan near the WTC site. Those residents

and businesses located in the identified area

could access relief funds and programs.

However, creating the relief area was not an

easy task. While the blocks surrounding the

site were very visibly affected, the attack’s

economic and social damage to the surrounding neighborhoods near the WTC were not as

visible and much more difficult to identify and

track. Most importantly, there was a distinct

need to ensure that all those who were affected by the WTC attacks would not fall between

the cracks.

Less than ten blocks away from ground zero,

Chinatown was one of New York City’s neighborhoods hardest hit by the 9/11 attacks.

Businesses in Chinatown were effectively shut

down by the imposition of a “frozen zone”

where the public could not enter the area for

one week. After this period, public access to

the entire neighborhood was restricted; major

transportation modes such as the subway and

bus services were unavailable, key entryways

to surrounding communities were blocked,

and basic phone and power lines were severed. Three weeks after September 11, streets

in parts of Chinatown remained closed. Some

streets were closed for as long as three

months due to increased security measures in

the area. The area was plagued by disruptions

to telephone service; transportation blockages

at checkpoints; bridge and tunnel closures;

and the elimination of parking spaces. 

The relief zone used by most governmental

and nongovernmental agencies for distributing

cash relief included parts of Chinatown that

were south of Canal Street, a major East-West

thoroughfare in Lower Manhattan. The Canal

Street boundary split Chinatown in two. The

northern half as described above and the

southern half which included 80 percent of

Chinatown garment factories (the largest

employer in the area) and 40 percent of its

population. Consequently, by using Canal

Street as a northern boundary, many members

of the Chinatown community were excluded

by many relief agencies from accessing 

immediate relief services. 

To address this issue, as well as other 9/11

relief concerns and needs in the Asian

American community, the Asian American

Federation of NY (referred to as the

Federation) Census Information Center (CIC)

spearheaded a comprehensive initiative called

“Relief, Recovery, and Rebuilding.” As part of

this initiative, the Federation—with collaborators such as the Federal Reserve Bank of New

Post 9/11 Relief and Recovery: 

Chinatown, New York

2 Chinatown, New York

U.S. Census Bureau
York, the Fiscal Policy Institute, and the Ralph

and Goldy Lewis Center for Regional Policy

Studies at the University of California, Los

Angeles—embarked upon a major study

assessing the impact of the WTC attacks on

New York City’s Chinatown. This initiative culminated in the publication of two major

reports, Chinatown After September 11th: An

Economic Impact Study in April 2002 and

Chinatown One Year After September 11th: An

Economic Impact Study in November 2002.

These reports provided an important baseline for measuring and monitoring the 

ongoing effects of the 9/11 attacks upon 

the Chinatown community. Facts, such 

as Chinatown’s garment industry losing 

nearly $500 million in the year following

September 11, highlighted the significant economic impact the attacks had on the neighborhood. With nearly one-third of Asians living

below the poverty line and 70 percent of the

Asian population not having a high school

diploma (information from the U.S. Census

Bureau), it was clear that Chinatown had a significant population vulnerable to a loss of

service sector jobs. Information from the community and Census 2000 indicated a population that was already sensitive to small change

in the economic climate of Manhattan, much

less the effects of the 9/11 attacks.

The Federation’s first 9/11 interim report

received extensive coverage from international, national, and local media such as

the Wall Street Journal, the New York

Times, the Associated Press, the British

Broadcasting Corporation, and National

Public Radio. As a result, policymakers

and relief agencies began to reconsider

their service boundaries.

Two direct public policy consequences 

of the report were the extension of the

northern boundary from Canal Street 

to Houston Street by the Lower

Manhattan Development Corporation 

in its housing assistance program. (See

Figure 1.) This increased significantly the

number of Chinatown residents eligible

for housing assistance. The major relief

organization, the September 11th Fund,

also extended their relief boundaries to

include the entire Chinatown neighborhood by August 2002, in its long-term

relief activities in the area of mental health,

health care, job training, case management,

and business assistance. The Federation’s CIC

used Census 2000 data to build the case that

the boundaries of Chinatown with Canal Street

as the northern boundary were not adequately

capturing the Chinatown population that was

affected by the 9/11 attacks. The CIC used

Census 2000 population data and census tract

mapping files to examine the population density north of Canal Street and used a database

of businesses in the area to support the case

that a large immigrant, low-wage-earning population was being left out of the mainstream

relief efforts. 

By April 2002, the hard work and persistence

of the Federation and its fellow 9/11 coalition

organizations resulted in the extension of 

the northern boundary of the relief area from

Canal Street to Houston Street. Enhanced 

by community information, population numbers from Census 2000 helped build the case

for redrawing the relief boundaries. The

Federation’s 9/11 reports enabled communitybased organizations to advocate for resources

for their own programs and continue to 

inform residents and businesses about the

continuing efforts to rebuild Lower

Manhattan’s Chinatown.

Chinatown, New York 3

U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 1.

Chinese American Population:

New York City's Chinatown

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. 
The DuBois Bunche Center for Public Policy,

Medgar Evers College, Census Information

Center cochaired a steering committee and

project team that included Brooklyn’s four

Congressional members: the Honorable

Major R. Owens, Congressional District

11; the Honorable Edolphus Towns,

Congressional District 10; the Honorable

Jerrome Nadler, Congressional District 8;

and the Honorable Nydia Velasquez,

Congressional District 12. The committee

and project team also included the

Brooklyn Borough President, representatives from the Mayor’s Office, universities,

health and cultural institutions, major corporations, and over 100 nonprofit and

neighborhood groups. Together, these

individuals, organizations, and agencies

actively participated in the strategic planning process to create the Brooklyn

Empowerment Zone (BEZ) application,

which was submitted to the Department

of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD).

Defining the BEZ catchment area

and negotiating amongst its myriad

stakeholders was critical. The use and analysis of Census Bureau poverty data and

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping

was invaluable because the data showed that

nearly 1 million Brooklyn residents met HUD’s

poverty census tract threshold of 25 percent,

but only 200,000 residents could be included

in the empowerment zone. Figure 1 is a map

of Brooklyn depicting the census tracts at 25

percent poverty rate or above in the BEZ

Planning Area. Sixty-two of the 84 census

tracts had populations at or above the 25 percent poverty threshold, and the remaining

tracts contained commercial and industrial

land and development sites available to locate

additional industry and jobs in the BEZ catchment area. The map also shows 3 of the 4

Congressional Districts in Brooklyn (districts

10, 11, and 12), which cover the BEZ Planning

area. District 8 covers part of the Brooklyn

waterfront, which is also included in the BEZ

4 Brooklyn, New York 

U.S. Census Bureau

Brooklyn’s Empowerment

Zone Initiative

Figure 1.

Map of Brooklyn
catchment area. Figure 2 shows the final

boundaries for the BEZ.

The BEZ effort was successful in receiving a

“Strategic Planning Community” designation

from HUD and a $3 million grant that leveraged additional millions in public and private

dollars for a major community revitalization

initiative on the main commercial strip (Fulton

St.) in the BEZ, known as the “Fulton First” 

initiative.

Brooklyn, New York 5

U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 2.

Brooklyn Empowerment Zone

Source: Pratt Institute Center for Community and Environmental Development.

Reprinted by permission only.
In August 2001, the local U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) office

in Shreveport asked the Center for Business

and Economic Research (CBER), Louisiana State

University-Shreveport (LSUS) Census

Information Center (CIC) to prepare demographic profiles of the underserved neighborhoods in the city. The data were needed to

support Revitalization Area designation for

HUD Single Family programs. 

The local HUD office and the Shreveport

Department of Community Development knew

Shreveport had neighborhoods that would

qualify for revitalization designation, but had

never been able to document the neighborhoods in the past. No one in the local HUD

office knew how to group census blocks with

block groups into identifiable neighborhoods.

In the past, only one underserved neighborhood in Shreveport had received the

Revitalization Area designation because it happened to be completely contained within a

census tract, as defined by the 1990 Census.

All other likely neighborhoods shared a census

tract and/or a ZIP Code with a more affluent

neighborhood, thus preventing the deserving

neighborhood from being designated as a

Revitalization Area.

Revitalization Areas are HUD-designated neighborhoods in need of economic and community

development. Revitalization Areas are the

basis for HUD programs such as the

Officer/Teacher Next Door Program and the

Direct Sales Program for nonprofit agencies

and municipalities.

At the national level, HUD wants to make

American communities stronger and to build a

safer nation. The Teacher Next Door Program

is designed to further this goal by encouraging teachers to buy homes in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Public safety

improves when police officers live in a neighborhood. The Officer Next Door Program helps

make this goal a reality by making home ownership faster and more affordable for law

enforcement officers. 

HUD offers 

communitybased nonprofit

organizations

the opportunity

to purchase HUD

homes at discounts of up to

30 percent off

the appraised

value. With this

discount, local

nonprofit organizations invest in property rehabilitation and

resell to first-time homebuyers and low- to

moderate-income families. Every year, more

than 500 local nonprofit organizations partner

with HUD in this program to rebuild their communities. HUD also offers nonprofit agencies

favorable, FHA-insured mortgage financing

terms and opportunities for down payment

assistance programs. 

Needless to say, the local HUD office was anxious to make the HUD Single Family Programs

available to deserving neighborhoods within

the Shreveport city limits. When the local HUD

office learned that the LSUS-CBER had been

designated a Census Information Center, they

asked for assistance to generate the data

needed to support Revitalization Area designation for underserved neighborhoods in

Shreveport.

The CBER soon determined that the task was

more involved than it first appeared. The local

HUD office was asked to provide the boundary

lines for each of the underserved neighborhoods. The HUD office quickly obtained the

street boundaries for each neighborhood. The

CBER then set about creating the census pro -

files using the 100-percent data from Census

2000 for each of the 17 underserved neighborhoods identified by HUD in Shreveport. 

The task was time intensive, as each neighborhood included parts of census tracts and 

block groups. Ultimately, a profile of each

neighborhood was developed by combining

6 Louisiana

U.S. Census Bureau

Revitalization Areas:

Shreveport, Louisiana
data by blocks and block groups, since no

neighborhood was completely contained

within a Census 2000 tract. The resulting

profiles were extremely valuable and as a

result of the technical assistance provided by

the LSUS-CIC, the local HUD office was able

to obtain Revitalization Area designation for

15 of the 17 underserved neighborhoods in

Shreveport. Table 1 shows the profile of the

Allendale neighborhood, which was one of the

eight Revitalization Areas in Shreveport.

After completing the neighborhood profiles 

for the underserved neighborhoods, the 

CBER went on to complete profiles for all

Shreveport neighborhoods. The CBER then 

created an interactive map (Figure 1) 

showing neighborhood locations that 

allowed the user to go straight to the

neighborhood profile. 

Louisiana 7

U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 1.

Shreveport-Bossier

Census 2000

Neighborhood

Profiles

Table 1.

Allendale Census 2000 Profile

Note: Allendale boundaries: Caddo Parish Census Tracts 206, 207, 208, and 219

are bounded on the north by Cross Bayou, on the south by the Kansas City

Southern Railroad and Interstate 20, on the east by Allen Avenue, Ford, Caddo,

and Market Streets, and on the west by Hearne Avenue.

Source: Center for Business and Economic Research, Louisiana State 

University-Shreveport.
The Mayor’s Office of Children and Youth

(MOCY) is completing a countywide assessment of children and youth in NashvilleDavidson County and is planning to use the

assessment to develop a strategic plan to

improve the lives of all children and youth

throughout the city. Working in partnership

with public and private entities, the goal is to

ensure that all of Nashville-Davidson County’s

children are healthy, safe, successful in school,

connected to caring adults, and have the

opportunity to give back to their community.

These outcomes are modeled after the

“America’s Promise” program. The purpose of

America’s Promise and the MOCY in NashvilleDavidson County is to connect young people

with the support needed to fulfill these promises to every child. These promises, if consistently fulfilled, will significantly increase the

chances of youth becoming successful adults.

The goal of the MOCY for its first year is to

publish a State of the Child in NashvilleDavidson County report and to identify the

services and resources available to youth in

the city. As part of the assessment process,

the MOCY met with various agencies in

Nashville-Davidson County that collect data

about or provide services to children and

youth, including the Metro Health Department,

the Child and Family Policy Center at

Vanderbilt University, and the Vanderbilt

Census Information Center. Based on similar

national programs and the data available for

Nashville-Davidson County, the MOCY developed a number of indicators of child wellbeing for each promise. Included in these indicators are measures that describe the changing youth population, family characteristics,

and the context in which children are living

relative to economic security, health, education, and social environment. 

The Nashville-Davidson County Information

Consortium and the Vanderbilt Census

Information Center, both housed at the

Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy Studies,

have played a key role in this assessment by

taking a lead in providing Census 2000 data

to assist in the measurement of key indicators

set forth by the MOCY and by providing the

expertise necessary to understand and interpret these data.

In addition to providing basic population data

on the children and youth in NashvilleDavidson County, census data have proven

indispensable in providing reliable information

on indicators of child well-being, such as family composition, income and poverty, and

parental participation in the labor force (See

Figure 1 and Figure 2.)

8 Tennessee

U.S. Census Bureau

“America’s Promise”—The State

of Nashville’s Children

Figure 1.

Household Type With Related Children Under

18: Nashville-Davidson County, Tennessee

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census and Census 2000

Summary File 1.

“The Vanderbilt Census Information Center continually

provides the MOCY with valuable data. Through the

statistics your office has provided, we have been able

to look at the state of Nashville's children and youth to

help identify needs, gaps, and current trends.”

Bill Purcell, Mayor

Nashville-Davidson County
The MOCY is using the rich census data pro -

vided by the Vanderbilt Census Information

Center to assist them in the creation of a 

comprehensive State of the Child in NashvilleDavidson County report. This report will 

be distributed via the Internet and in print 

format to service providers, educators, and

child advocates throughout NashvilleDavidson County. 

The final piece to the MOCY assessment of

children and youth in Nashville-Davidson

County is to identify resources available to

meet these needs and gaps in services to

youth. This information will provide a foundation upon which to strengthen existing 

programs and services, to build innovative

additions to these programs, and to guide

future public policy surrounding the children

and youth in Nashville-Davidson County. 

The Vanderbilt Census Information Center has

also served as a key provider of information

to assist in this process. 

Through the use of Geographic Information

Systems (GIS) the Vanderbilt Census

Information Center has been able to visually

display both federal census data, and data collected locally, such as youth services in an

easy to understand map. (See Figure 3.)

Nashville-Davidson County and the Vanderbilt

Census Information Center have been proud

partners in this endeavor. A goal of this

assessment has always been to provide those

serving children with a comprehensive

overview of Nashville’s youth and the services

available to them. It is also the hope and

intention of the MOCY that the assessment will

improve community response to the needs of

the children and youth of Nashville-Davidson

County. Ideally, the net result would be young

people who are healthy, safe, successful in

school and connected to caring adults, thereby

preparing them to make their own contributions to the future and progress of NashvilleDavidson County.

Tennessee 9

U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 2.

Families in Poverty: Nashville-Davidson

County, Tennessee

Figure 3.

Children Ages 5-17 and Youth Services:

Nashville-Davidson County

“GIS allows complex data to be displayed in an easy-tounderstand, mapped format. GIS has allowed us to

provide the Mayor’s Office of Children and Youth with

maps displaying various data related to the children

and youth in Nashville. This will assist stakeholders in

quickly identifying areas of need, available resources,

and possible gaps in services related to youth. A picture

really is worth a thousand words.”

Cyndi Taylor, Director

Vanderbilt Census Information Center

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census and Census 2000.
In a study on crime patterns near District of

Columbia public housing sites, the Howard

University Center for Urban Progress Census

Information Center (HUCUP-CIC) used census

blocks in constructing reports on crime in

areas very close to relevant public housing

sites. The main interest was to establish baseline data in order to study the future impact of

the Violence-Free Zone (VFZ) Initiative undertaken by the East Capitol Center for Change

(ECCC), a project supported by the National

Center for Neighborhood Enterprise. The maps

and tables were vital in creating a strong foundation for future evaluation of the crimereducing potential of this faith-based program. 

The VFZ program in Washington, DC, is sponsored by the ECCC, a neighborhood-based initiative that began in 1996. ECCC was founded

by a former resident of the East Capitol Street

Dwellings and the President of the East Capitol

Street Dwellings Resident Management Council

as a community-based, family-centered youth

development organization serving the residents of Wards 7 and 8 in the District of

Columbia. 

Site Profiles

Site profiles for Washington, DC, and the VFZ

areas were prepared using 1990 Census and

Census 2000 data. The Center for Urban

Progress identified areas to compare to the

ECCC VFZ area over time. These included: the

East Capitol Street Dwellings (impact area),

Barry Farms, Benning Terrace, Carrollsburgh,

Frederick Douglass, and Stanton Dwellings

(comparison areas). The foundation for these

comparisons is laid in the current baseline

study. The Barry Farms housing development

was selected as a comparison area. Reviewing

Map 1, one can ascertain the proximity of

Barry Farms to the ECCC VFZ demographic

area. Data on these areas are presented in

Table 1, and crime data on the areas are presented in Table 2.

Table 1 shows that the population of the

District of Columbia in 2000 was 572,059.

While nationally, the population grew by 

13.2 percent between 1990 and 2000, the

District’s population fell by 5.7 percent during

the same period. The District is densely populated, at 9,378 persons per square mile. Blacks

constitute 60.0 percent of the population;

Whites constitute 30.8 percent; Hispanics 

constitute 7.9 percent; and Asians account 

for 2.7 percent of the District’s population.

According to Census Bureau data, the District

has 274,845 housing units of which 101,216

(36.8 percent) were owner occupied and the

rest (63.2 percent) were renter occupied.

There were 248,338 households. As for educational attainment, 81.7 percent of the population over the age of 25 were high school 

graduates, and 41.1 percent had a bachelor’s

degree or higher.

10 Washington, DC

U.S. Census Bureau

Crime Patterns in Washington, DC,

Public Housing: The Violence-Free

Zone Initiative

Map 1.

Locations of the District of Columbia

Study Areas
In 2000, the median household income in the

District was $40,127. Persons below poverty

constituted 19.3 percent of the population.

However, in the case of children, this figure

rose to 33.7 percent. One in three children in

the District lived below the poverty level. 

Of the total family households, 31 percent had

incomes below $25,000, 28 percent had

incomes between $25,000 and $50,000, and

25 percent of households had incomes

between $50,000 and $100,000. The rest had

an income above $100,000.

Of the population 16 years and over, 67.5 percent were in the labor force. But the unemployment rate in the District, at 7.9 percent,

was much higher than the national average 

of 4 percent. About 60.2 percent of the

females 16 years or older were in the labor

force, and 91 percent of them were employed.

The largest number were employed in 

management, professional, and related 

occupations, followed by sales and office

occupations, and then by service occupations.

The area corresponding to ZIP Code 20019,

which contained the impact area, had a population of 59,402. There were 22,828 households in the area. As for family income, 18

percent of the families had incomes below

$10,000 annually; 29 percent of families had

annual incomes between $10,000 and

$25,000; 35 percent of the families were

between $25,000 and $50,000; 17 percent

were between $50,000 and $100,000; and the

rest were above $100,000.

More females had incomes below the poverty

level compared to males. Whereas 8,619

females were below the poverty level, only

6,258 males were in this condition. As for 

children, 5,249 children from married couple

families were below poverty level, while 5,585

children below the poverty level were from 

families with a female householder with no

husband present.

Washington, DC 11

U.S. Census Bureau

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics for Washington, DC, Study Areas: 2000

Table 2.

Crime Data for Washington, DC: 1988-1998
The Impact Area

The impact area had a population of 4,739.

About 4,720 or 99.6 percent of the total population are minorities. Almost all of the minority

population in this area was Black; there were

few Hispanics or Asians in the population.

There were 1,550 households and 1,083 families living in the impact area. Over 38 percent

of the people living in the area lived below the

poverty level.

The impact area was classified as a lowincome area. The area’s median household

income was $21,344. This was only 40 percent of the median household income for the

Washington metropolitan area as a whole. 

The impact area was located inside the central

city. There was a total of 1,740 housing units

in the impact area. Of these, 590 (34 percent)

were owner-occupied, and the rest were

renter-occupied, while 158 units were vacant.

Of the total number of housing units of 1,740,

1,206 were one-to-four-family units, and nearly 50 percent of these one-to-four-family units

were owner-occupied. 

Impact Area Crime Patterns

A baseline of crime data is presented for the

Washington, DC area, where the impact area is

East Capitol Street Dwellings. After the VFZ

program has been operational for a significant

period of time, it will be possible to assess

whether crime associated with youth has

declined in this area in comparison with other

similar neighborhoods.

The method for collecting these data was to

obtain crime records from the Metropolitan

Police Department of the District of Columbia.

The available records showed, on an annual

basis, the number of crimes by type by city

block. By aggregating these available crime

data for the blocks near the East Capitol Street

Dwellings, the site of the VFZ project in the

District of Columbia, as well as for other 

housing projects and the city as a whole, it 

is possible to paint a picture of the severity 

of such crimes in each area. For comparison

purposes, crimes at other public housing sites

were also gathered and reported, and a mean

level of crime for housing projects, in 

general, developed.

Focus was placed on homicides, assaults,

automobile thefts, and robberies, since these

are the crimes most often associated with

youth, especially youth gang activity.

(Burglaries, rape, and arson, for example,

while serious crimes, were not thought to fit

into these categories.)

12 Washington, DC

U.S. Census Bureau

Map 2.

Homicides in the District of

Columbia Study Areas: 1988-1998

Map 3.

Assaults in the District of Columbia

Study Areas: 1988-1998
Public housing areas have historically been

found to be centers of youth crime, which is

one of the reasons that the VFZ Initiative often

focuses on these areas. Concentrations of

crime certainly occurred in the District of

Columbia in public housing areas during the

baseline period. (See Maps 1-4.) Comparing

public housing areas with nonpublic housing

areas shows dramatic differences in levels of

crime which are often youth-associated. 

Most dramatically, each of 112 blocks located

in housing projects experienced 6 homicides

per year on average over the 11-year baseline

period; nonhousing project areas (of which

there are 4,244) experienced on average 0.09

homicides, or less than one-tenth of a homicide annually per block over an 11-year period. Similarly, there were 87 assaults per block

annually in housing projects versus 15 in nonhousing project blocks. 

Robberies were also dramatically different.

There were slightly over 40 robberies per

block annually in housing project areas compared to 1.5 robberies in nonhousing project

blocks. Auto thefts in the two types of blocks

were more similar in number, but there were

still twice as many auto thefts (42 per block

versus 21 per block) annually in housing 

project areas.

When we turn our attention to the housing

projects themselves, we find that East Capitol

Street Dwellings is one of the most troubled

housing projects, with crime levels exceeding

the average for the four crimes under consideration.

Homicides typically receive the most attention

because of their dramatic and permanent

impacts. Over the 11-year baseline period,

there was an average of 13 homicides annually in each of the 51 housing projects in the

District. At East Capitol Street Dwellings, the

number was 77 percent higher at 23.

Reported assaults are also a serious reflection

of a culture of violence and occurred at an

average level of 191 per housing project annually over the 11-year baseline period. At East

Capitol Street, there were 339 assaults, 77

percent above the mean as well.

Auto theft is often associated with youth criminal activity. On the average, there were 92

automobile thefts in each housing project each

year over the 11-year baseline period. At East

Capitol Street, there were 110, 20 percent

above the mean.

Robberies occurred at an average of 89 times

over the 11-year baseline period in each housing project. At East Capitol Street, there were

Washington, DC 13

U.S. Census Bureau

Map 4.

Robberies in the District of

Columbia Study Areas: 1988-1998

Map 5.

Auto Thefts in the District of

Columbia Study Areas: 1988-1998
121 robberies, 36 percent above the average

for housing projects.

The plan is to revisit the area in 2 years and

see if the VFZ Program has had an uplifting

effect on the neighborhood. This aspect of the

evaluation will be coupled with direct program

evaluation and interviews with participants

and stakeholders. 

The overall evaluation will be used to finetune the program and possibly result in the

project being used as a national model, if, in

fact, there are positive neighborhood impacts. 

14 Washington, DC

U.S. Census Bureau
By pairing U.S. Census Bureau data with information from other sources, the Children’s

Defense Fund (CDF) Census Information Center

(CIC) is helping to develop better ways of linking children in need with public services that

already exist to help them.

In the Minnesota pilot project, census data

provided by the CDF’s CIC are helping to pinpoint the geographic areas with the greatest

unmet need for supports like child care, food

assistance, and medical care. CDF plans to

build on this experience with census data by

devising a model approach to targeting that

can be applied in program outreach

efforts around the nation. 

In 2002, recognizing that many children in need are not yet receiving publicly funded services that they are

meant to receive by law, the CDF’s

Minnesota office began work at the

local level to explore the potential for

improving program outreach and

access. CDF examined several publicly

funded supports, including:

• Food assistance.

• Child care assistance.

• Medical care (Medicaid and the

state’s own MinnesotaCare).

• The state’s version of the federal

earned income tax credit.

As part of its Covering All Families 

initiative, the CDF office collaborated

with federal, state, and county agencies, as well as local not-for-profit

organizations, to conduct outreach

efforts around the state. They also

worked with the University of

Minnesota to create a free online 

tool to screen families for program 

eligibility.

CDF office staff knew from long experience as

users and disseminators of data that census

information could play a vital role in identifying unmet needs.

CDF’s role as a CIC enhanced this knowledge.

CIC staff at CDF’s national office brought

added familiarity with little-known Census

2000 tables and techniques for identifying eligible families. The CDF’s CIC also provided

original tabulations of Census 2000 data using

the Census Bureau’s Advanced Query system,

then in a test phase. 

Minnesota 15

U.S. Census Bureau

Reaching Needy Children: The

Minnesota Pilot Project 

Figure 1.

Estimated Percentage of Eligible Children

Receiving Child Care Assistance: 1999

Data source: CDF analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary

File 3, and child care assistance program data from Minnesota Department of Children,

Families, and Learning.
A powerful example was the special tabulations of the population eligible for child care.

By matching the number of income-eligible

children with actual participant counts from

state administrative records, for example, CDF

was able to pinpoint counties or ZIP Codes

with the highest and lowest uptake of services

and income supports. (See Figure 1.)

Lessons learned at the local level will have

wider applications.

The CDF Minnesota office is translating these

data into “on-the-ground” action. The new targeting data are guiding CDF and its collaborators to focus child care outreach on counties

in the northeast and southwest corners of the

state, where participation levels appear to be

lowest.

The new information and lessons learned will

be shared far beyond CDF’s Minnesota office.

“CDF is seeking to expand this kind of project,

not only across Minnesota, but in CDF offices

in nine more states,” said Deborah Weinstein,

director of Family Income at CDF’s national

office.

“Most importantly, we want others to use the

data, too. We get calls from state and county

agencies and nonprofits all the time, all facing

similar questions about how to assess the

level and location of their unmet needs,” said

Weinstein. “It feels good to be able to offer

them the data and techniques we’re developing.”

CDF believes that, across the nation, millions

of children’s lives can be changed for the better simply by ensuring that existing programs

reach the families they are meant to reach and

that Census Bureau data can play a major role.

CDF cites projections by researchers at the

Urban Institute showing that 20 percent of

poverty in families with children—and 70 percent of extreme poverty—could be eliminated

if all eligible families got food stamps, supplemental security income, and public assistance.

“Every working parent in America struggles to

address both work and family needs,” says

CDF’s Diane Benjamin, “but the struggle is particularly acute for low- and moderate-income

families. Work supports like child care assistance, health care coverage, food support and

earned income tax credits ensure a critical

foundation for these families. By helping meet

families’ basic needs, work supports stabilize

families and help them pay for child care, hold

onto jobs, stay off welfare, and lift their children out of poverty.”

“But first we need to know who’s getting left

out and where to find them. That’s where the

data comes in,” says Benjamin.

16 Minnesota

U.S. Census Bureau

“The standard Census 2000 tables were great but 

didn’t match our eligible population. Without an accurate estimate of need, we had no way of knowing our

true statewide child care participation rate—or

whether our estimates of county-to-county differences

made sense. But our CIC staff got us better data,

which let us focus on the right group of children—

those younger than 13 with their parents in the labor

force and with family income below two and half times

the poverty line. It gave us a trustworthy yardstick

for measuring the total number of eligible children

under our state rules. And that was crucial for showing us our unmet need.”

Diane Benjamin, Director of the state Kids Count

Project, CDF-Minnesota
Researchers at the Institute for Latino Studies

(ILS) and Inter-University Program for Latino

Research at the University of Notre Dame

(IUPLR) are using demographic profiles from

the Census 2000 Summary File 1 to better

understand how Latino population growth

might affect the current achievement gaps

amongst minority and majority students in

Illinois. 

The Latino population in Illinois grew from

904,446 in 1990 to 1.5 million in 2000, representing an increase of 59.1 percent. (See

Figure 1.) During the same period, the state’s

total population growth was only 8.6 percent.

While Latino growth in Illinois exceeded the

national Latino growth of 57.9 percent, Illinois

continued to rank as the 5th highest state in

terms of Latino population. In 1990 Latinos

comprised 7.9 percent of Illinois’s total population, but by 2000 Latinos made up 12.3 percent of the state’s population. 

Striking differences exist in the age distributions of the Latino versus the non-Latino 

population in Illinois. (See Figure 2.)

In 2000, the Latino population was

significantly younger than the total

population. Half (50.9 percent) of the Latino

population in Illinois was 24 years old or

younger, whereas approximately one-third

(36.0 percent) of the total population was 24

years old or younger. On the other end of the

spectrum, a mere 3.2 percent of the Latino

population was of retirement age (65 years

and older), compared to 12.1 percent of the

total population in Illinois.

In 1990, over 229,000 Latino school-aged (5-

17) children resided in the state of Illinois,

making up 10.9 percent of their age group. By

2000, there were over 375,000 Latino children

in the state of Illinois. Approximately 1 in

every 6 children in Illinois, or 15.9 percent,

was Latino. This percentage was higher than

the overall rate of 12.3 percent for the total

Latino population in Illinois. (See Figure 3.)

In Illinois and around the country, the Latino

population is younger than the non-Latino

population. What implications does this fact

have, particularly for school-aged children?

Further research will be needed in order to

Illinois 17

U.S. Census Bureau

Measuring the Minority Education

Gap in Illinois

Figure 1.

Latino Population in

Illinois: 1990-2000

Figure 2.

Age of Latino and Total Population in

Illinois: 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990

Census and Census 2000. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
draw definitive conclusions, but based on the

most recent data available it is possible to

frame several specific questions that are relevant for Illinois:

• Given that there is a shortage of teachers

to meet the needs of current students with

limited English proficiency, will the growth

of the school-aged Latino population overwhelm school systems in the near future?

• Are teachers and administrators sufficiently

trained in cultural awareness to respond

appropriately to Latino students and their

families, which may improve student 

academic outcomes?

• Are school districts prepared for possible

overcrowding, particularly those communities experiencing new waves of Latino 

residents, such as in McHenry County?

• What can be done to assist state agencies

to direct resources toward improving 

educational outcomes in areas with high

concentrations of Latino students?

In order to answer these questions,

researchers at the ILS and IUPLR were awarded

a grant from the Joyce Foundation, with partial

support from the MacNeal Health Foundation,

to create a statewide information system by

combining Census 2000 Summary File 1 and

Summary File 3 (the Common Core Data) and

Census 2000 School District Demographics

Data Files from the National Center for

Educational Statistics and Illinois District

Report Card Data. The content of the system

will enable ILS and IUPLR to:

• Produce demographic profiles of families

and children by school district.

• Generate enrollment projections that 

suggest the future demand for public and

private education.

• Establish benchmarks for public school 

students regarding academic performance,

high school completion, and college 

readiness.

• Monitor change over time across the 

various benchmarks.

18 Illinois

U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 3.

Latino Children in

Illinois: 1990-2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990

Census and Census 2000.
In 1995, the University of Texas-Pan American

(UTPA) established the Office of Center

Operations and Community Services (CoSERVE)

to provide public service and community outreach to the people of the Rio Grande Valley,

which includes the southernmost four counties

in Texas–Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy.

CoSERVE is composed of 24 community, economic, and business development centers that

focus on providing public service to the fourcounty areas by providing expertise and a

comprehensive, holistic approach to community outreach. The Census Information Center

(CIC) falls under the auspices of CoSERVE and

operates under the leadership of Dr. S.J. Sethi,

Associate Executive Director.

Census data are used by the CIC to assist businesses and the local community. In one case,

information from the census was used to create a Demographic and Socio-Economic Profile:

2000, a four-page profile of all the cities and

census-designated places (CDPs) in the fourcounty area (Rio Grande Valley). The publication has assisted nonprofits, government,

businesses, and service providers in grant

writing and in making informed decisions.

The CIC at UTPA specializes in Geographic

Information Systems (GIS) and uses the technology to assist businesses in making relocation decisions. When an entrepreneur from

Harlingen, Texas, wanted to start an Adult

Care business, he contacted the CIC to conduct a “ring analysis.” Once the client identified the site, CIC staff mapped out a 1-, 3-,

and 5-mile ring around the location (Figure 1).

Census data are tied to the rings using

ArcView GIS mapping software and a census

demographic profile. The analysis shows population, age, race, income, and housing data

for each ring. A visual presentation of the data

helped the client make an informed decision.

In this example, the business owner considered the market demographics as well as other

factors when making a business decision.

Where a business is located in relation to its

customers and its competitors affects the profit potential and the probability of success of

the business; hence, it is important to look at

the customer demographics and market conditions. Using this same type of analysis, other

new businesses have successfully opened in

the community, including a pharmacy, a

Chinese restaurant, and a flooring products

specialty store.

In a study involving a local nonprofit, Proyecto

Azteca, the CIC was asked to develop a housing market study for Hidalgo County, Texas.

Proyecto Azteca is a self-help housing development program that works with low-income

families from Hidalgo County to build their

own affordable housing. Under the supervision

of experienced construction trainers, members

of the community work together for approximately 8-10 weeks to complete a project.

Proyecto Azteca provides assistance to the

participating families in securing financial

resources that enable them to purchase the

home and lot. 

When applying for an affordable housing grant

from the Texas Department of Housing and

Urban Development, Proyecto Azteca was

Note: Ring analysis helps

make business location decisions. It helps answer questions, such as:

• How may people live within 5 miles of a certain

location?

• What is the age breakdown of the population

in the ring?

• What is the mean household income of the people

living in this area?

Texas 19

U.S. Census Bureau

Making Business Relocation Decisions:

Rio Grande Valley, Texas

Figure 1.

Ring Analysis Map
asked to provide a housing market study. The

CIC at UTPA created an age-sex pyramid profile to assist in forecasting demand, product

development, and marketing. A look at Figure

2 shows that in Hidalgo County, Texas, the

size of the younger age cohorts (below 25

years) in the age-sex pyramid, is high and

there is a “bulge” in the central portion of the

age-sex pyramid, representing the larger number of residents who are aged 25 to 44 years

old. The study includes a section on the

demography of the area, characteristics of the

housing stock, and limitations and considerations on residential growth with special

emphasis on alternative affordable housing

options in the county. These data helped the

client make decisions about what types of

products to purchase, as well as to forecast

demand for products based on age group. 

Another case involved putting together a

“Demographic Update Report” for the Hidalgo

County Head Start Center. This report provides information on population growth,

employment, income and poverty characteristics, and educational attainment levels of people living in Hidalgo County, Texas. It also

gives an overview of needs of young children

in the region. This report helped the Head

Start Center officials get an accurate picture of

the demographic and economic conditions in

its service area and also assisted them in making informed decisions for the future of their

program.

The CIC itself has been successful in obtaining

grants for the university and in assisting local

nonprofits, economic development agencies,

school districts, local governments, and others

obtain grants using Census Bureau data to

make a case for their projects. 

20 Texas

U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 2.

Age-Sex Pyramid for Hidalgo County, Texas

"Having access to census data and information has

made it possible for the CIC at UTPA to effectively

assist its clients in making informed business decisions. Census information is very useful in obtaining

grants for all kinds of projects, ranging from affordable housing to community development to community

networking and technology development. When

organized and clearly presented, the data help all

kinds of organizations in making sound decisions and

taking appropriate action."

Dr. S. J. Sethi, Associate Executive Director

CoSERVE

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
A consultant from the Alameda County

California Department of Health Services

approached the Asian and Pacific Islander

American Health Forum (APIAHF) Census

Information Center (CIC) to collaborate on a

grant proposal to support the construction

and development of an after-school youth pro -

gram facility in Oakland, California. APIAHF

recognized that a needs assessment had to be

conducted at the block-group level to justify a

case for an after-school program facility in a

preselected area in East Oakland. 

As part of the needs assessment activities,

APIAHF had to establish the existence of a

population of “at-risk” youth in the area surrounding the potential program site. APIAHF

carefully reviewed the requirements the 

county developed to determine the need for

an after-school program, such as park and

recreation space. The process began with a

physical survey within a 2-mile radius surrounding the proposed program site. The surveillance of the area allowed APIAHF to draw

some important conclusions about the surrounding neighborhoods. One key observation

made in surrounding neighborhoods was the

absence of parks and recreation space, such

as baseball fields and basketball courts. 

APIAHF used census block group data from

Census 2000 to identify and evaluate key

sociodemographic characteristics to determine

whether the youth living in the surrounding

area of the potential program site were,

indeed, “at-risk.” APIAHF gathered and prepared demographic profiles on the household

and individual characteristics using data from

Census 2000. Specific information was compiled on race, English proficiency, youth ages

5-17, poverty rate, unemployment rate, educational level, household size, and single-parent

homes. (See Figures 1 and 2.) A trend analysis

was also completed to track socioeconomic

changes over time. To further support and

strengthen the argument for a population of

“at-risk” youth, APIAHF identified additional

risk factors, such as poor school achievement,

juvenile and adult crime rates, high school

dropout rates, and teenage pregnancy rates.

APIAHF and the consultant also recognized the

need to define the service area for the afterschool program. Since it was not clear whether

transportation to and from the program would

be provided, it was determined that the afterschool program would have to be within walking distance of youth homes. APIAHF decided

that .5 miles around the potential program site

would be a reasonable distance to travel, even

for younger children. This was further supported by a physical surveillance of the area to

ensure that this was, indeed, a safe distance

to walk. It was later suggested that if youth

had to walk to and from the program site, a

staff member would have to walk children to

and from their schools to the program center

and to their homes.

The result: Alameda County received the

grant, and construction of the after-school 

program facility was scheduled to begin

shortly thereafter.

California 21

U.S. Census Bureau

After-School Youth Program Initiative:

Oakland, California
22 California

U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 1.

Percent Below the Poverty Line Near East 14th Street

Oakland, California 94606

Figure 2.

Percent Between the Ages of 16 and 19 Who Are Not

Enrolled in School or a High School Graduate Near East

14th Street Oakland, California 94606

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Every 10 years,

after the U.S.

Census Bureau

completes the

Decennial

Census of

Population and

Housing, lawmakers come

together to

redraw legislative boundaries

to reflect the

demographic

changes from

the census. In

the past, only

those who

could process

data on computer tape

using mainframe computers were

involved in the

process. With

advances in computer technology, sophisticated Geographic Information System (GIS) software, and census block-level data available on

CD-ROM, anyone with a PC or laptop computer

can submit plans and maps and participate in

the redistricting process. Many civil rights

groups and nongovernmental organizations

like the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and

Education Fund (PRLDEF), participated in the

redistricting process in a meaningful way for

the first time after Census 2000. 

The PRLDEF created the Latino Voting Rights

Project (LVRP) to open the redistricting process

to empower the Latino community. PRLDEF

believes the redistricting process should bring

people together in a district encompassing

unique communities of interest. It enables

these communities to elect legislators of their

choice who will protect and promote the

issues of greatest concern to them. 

In order to achieve its goal of empowering

Latino communities, the LVRP organized Latino

communities throughout the Northeastern

United States. These areas were chosen based

on data from Census 2000, which showed that

the Latino community on the east coast is concentrated in the Boston-New York CityWashington, DC corridor, and Florida. In 

addition, the rise of new Latino populations in

the South is a new phenomenon whose consequences have not been systematically

addressed to date. For this reason, LVRP

organized the formation of statewide and local

Latino Voting Rights Committees

(“Committees”) to be directly involved in the

redistricting process resulting from Census

2000 for congressional, state legislature,

and/or local government on behalf of the

Latino community. In addition, the LVRP

helped to demystify the redistricting process

by giving priority to bringing new players

from the Latino community into the redistricting process.

The LVRP provided administrative, technical,

and legal assistance to all statewide and local

committees in their drafting of and advocacy

for redistricting plans that addressed the

needs and concerns of Latino communities.

More specifically, the LVRP was responsible for

convening the first organizing meeting at the

statewide level through their Latino Voting

Rights Conferences (LVRC) to provide needed

census demographic data, GIS map information, and legal Information to all state and

local committees.

The LVRP showed community members 

how to use GIS software and Census 2000

redistricting data files to depict ethnic concentration on the east coast, in different

neighborhoods, and also how to use the current district lines to reveal the demographic

makeup of their districts and the impact and

influence of populations on election day. For

example, the PRLDEF-LVRC, using the Census

2000 redistricting data file, produced a 

Latino Community 23

U.S. Census Bureau

Empowering the Latino Community:

The Latino Voting Rights Project
demographic workbook for their constituency

that highlighted the Latino population, by borough, using state legislative and congressional

boundaries. This allowed the Latino community to understand the crucial role between population and geography and the way in which it

is played out in the political arena. Examples

of the maps provided to aid in this process are

Maps 1 and 2, which show the Latino population in selected cities in Rhode Island and

Pennsylvania, respectively.

These community education materials enabled

the Latino communities to become actively

involved in redistricting efforts and were distributed at community meetings, presentations

and other community education events on voting rights and Latino east coast neighborhood

demographics. Out of these mobilizing efforts,

the Latino communities were better equipped

to become a part of the decision-making

process that is vital to their political and 

economical reality. The efforts allowed the

communities’ voices to be heard. In some

states and cities, their opinions made a difference. In Rhode Island and New York City, the

plans enacted closely resembled the plans put

together by the committees. In other jurisdictions, such as other areas in New York State,

the plans are still in litigation. 

The redistricting process is a unique experience that allows PRLDEF to engage the average community member in the many uses of

GIS mapping software, census data, and political data. These are all highly specialized skills

that, once shared, become indispensable to

advocates for understanding the realities of

their neighborhoods and the importance of

targeting and strategizing for maximum gain

using such technology and information.

24 Latino Community

U.S. Census Bureau

Map 1.

Rhode Island Legislative Districts for

Selected Cities With Large Latino Populations

Map 2.

Pennsylvania Legislative Districts for

Selected Cities With Large Latino Populations

Source: Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, Latino Voting

Rights Project.

Source: Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, Latino Voting

Rights Project.
As recent immigrants and members of an ethnic minority group of over 1 million people,

Korean Americans face many obstacles in their

pursuit of full participation in American society. This case study examines the growth of the

Korean immigrant population in the United

States and its implications for other minority

immigrant groups. The Korean American

Coalition (KAC) is an active member of the

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)

National Advisory Committee where key information and policy changes are discussed and

implemented.

This case study is drawn from a paper by Dr.

Eui-Young Yu, Peter Choe, and Sang Il Han entitled "Korean Population in the United States,

2000: Demographic Characteristics and SocioEconomic Status," published in the

International Journal of Korean Studies,

Volume VI, Number 1, Spring/Summer 2002,

pp. 71-107. The paper was written to provide

a baseline study of the Korean-American population and will have many uses by various

groups. The case study covers partially just

two of the topics dealt with in that paper:

immigration and population distribution. Among

other things, it shows the

usefulness of the U.S.

Census Bureau data

analysis by the KAC in its

role as a member of the

INS National Advisory

Committee.

As of April 1, 2000, the

Census Bureau reported

1,076,872 Koreans residing in the United States.

(See Figure 1.) These are

persons who identified

themselves as “Korean

alone.” Of the 1,076,872

Koreans, approximately

376,000 (34.9 percent)

were U.S. born, and

701,000 (65.1 percent) were foreign born. Of

the 701,000 foreign born, 341,000 (48.6 percent) were naturalized U.S. citizens. The U.S.

born, together with naturalized citizens

(720,000), comprised two-thirds of the total

Korean population in the United States.

Korean immigration to the United States has

proceeded in four distinct periods. 

• 1883 to 1902 (less than 500 immigrants)

• 1903 to 1924 (less than 10,000

immigrants)

• 1924 to 1950 (zero immigrants: all Asian

immigration banned, 1924)

• 1951 to 1964 (less than 19,000

immigrants)

• 1965 to present (Immigration Act of 1965

abolished national origin quota system

based on race and resulted in more than

800,000 immigrants)

The first period lasted from 1883, when diplomatic relations between the United States and

Korea were established, to 1902, when the

first organized migration of Korean laborers to

Korean Immigrant Population 25

U.S. Census Bureau

The Korean Immigrant Population

in the United States

Figure 1.

Asian Alone Population by Major Asian

Groups: 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Hawaii took place. The second period began in

1903, with the arrival of Korean laborers to

Hawaii, and ended in 1924, with the ban on all

Asian immigration by the U.S. government.

After a 26-year period devoid of Korean immigration, the American intervention in the

Korean War initiated the third phase of Korean

immigration.

The fourth phase was initiated with the passage of the Immigration Act of 1965, which

abolished the national origin quota system

based on race and for the first time, allowed

Koreans to immigrate to the United States as

families. Until this time, Korean immigrants

came mostly as individual laborers, students,

picture brides, war brides, and orphans. 

Between 1971 and 1980, the number of

Korean immigrants admitted to the United

States grew to 267,638. These Koreans constituted 6 percent of the total immigrants admitted to the United States in that decade, and

ranked third in number, surpassed only by

Mexicans and Filipinos. Korean immigration

peaked during the next decade (1981-90),

when 333,746 Koreans were admitted, 

constituting 4.6 percent of the total immigrants and ranking fourth after Mexico, the

Philippines, and China. The number of Korean

immigrants admitted annually, however, has

steadily declined after reaching a peak of

35,849 in 1987. 

The 164,166 Koreans admitted between 1991

and 2000 (see Figure 2) were less than onehalf of those Koreans admitted during the previous decade and represented 1.8 percent of

the 9,095,417 immigrants admitted to the

United States. Korea was the only country to

experience such a drastic decline in immigration in the 1990s. Other countries, for the

most part, maintained their usual patterns of

immigration flow. 

Nonetheless, due to the steady flow of Korean

immigrants, the Korean alone population in

the United States grew to 1,077,000 in 2000.

This constituted 0.38 percent of the

281,422,000 total United States population.

During the last 30-year period, the Korean

population in the United States increased by

more than 15 fold.

Koreans have been quicker than other Asians

to disperse themselves across a wider region

in the United States. They are visible in most

metropolitan areas. Census 2000 data

revealed that 44 percent of Koreans are located in the West, 23 percent in the Northeast, 12

percent in the Midwest, and 21 percent in the

South. California continues to be the state

with the largest number of Koreans, with

345,882; the next three highest concentrations of Koreans are New York, New Jersey,

and Illinois. California and New York contain

43 percent of all Koreans. Among other reasons, high rates of entrepreneurship among

Koreans have contributed to their wide dispersion around the country.

Ninety-six percent of Koreans in the United

States are found in metropolitan areas, while

in contrast, 80 percent of the general population resides in metropolitan areas. Korean

immigration to the United States since 1965

has typically been an urban-to-urban migration, from large urban centers of South Korea

to the large metropolitan areas of the United

States.

Koreans have become a visible and significant

minority in this multiethnic and multicultural

nation. This hardworking, highly educated,

and actively organized ethnic community 

26 Korean Immigrant Population

U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 2.

Korean Immigration Growth by

Decade: 1948-2000

Source: 2000 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and

Naturalization Service.
is increasing its stake in American society. 

The impact will be tremendous when secondgeneration Koreans reach adulthood. As the

Korean stake in the nation’s political and economic affairs makes itself felt, the volume of

Korean immigration appears to have slowed

down. However, whether the significant

increase of Korean immigration during the last

3-year period indicates the start of a long-term

trend remains to be seen. 

The population size has a significant bearing

not only on the political empowerment of

those Koreans who live in the United States,

but also on the country they left behind. In

this closely tied global village, the number of

Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese people living

in the United States has a significant effect on

the bilateral and multilateral relationships

among the United States, Korea, China, and

Japan. This significance will only increase in

the future. 

Korean Immigrant Population 27

U.S. Census Bureau
Arab American Institute

Helen Samhan

Karim Shaaban

1600 K Street, NW, Suite 601

Washington, DC 20006-2834

202-429-9210

Fax: 202-429-9214

hsamhan@aaiusa.org

kshaaban@aaiusa.org

www.aaiusa.org

www.aaiusa.org/census.htm

Asian American 

Federation of New York

Andrew Yan

Meghan Clark

120 Wall Street, 3rd Floor

New York, NY 10005-3904

212-344-5878 Ext. 19

Fax: 212-344-5636

andrew@aafny.org

meghan@aafny.org

www.aafny.org

www.aafny.org/cic/default.asp

ASIAN, Inc.

David Moulton

1670 Pine Street

San Francisco, CA 94109-4525

415-928-5910

Fax: 415-921-0182

dmoulton@asianinc.org

www.asianinc.org

www.asianinc.org/census.html

Asian and Pacific 

Islander American 

Health Forum, Inc.

Ho Tran

Gem Daus

450 Sutter Street, Suite 600

San Francisco, CA 94108

415-954-9988

Fax: 415-954-9999

htran@apiahf.org

gdaus@apiahf.org

www.apiahf.org

www.apiahf.org/programs/accis5.html

Barber-Scotia College 

Dr. Alexander Erwin

LaVerne Macon

145 Cabarrus Avenue

Concord, NC 28025-5143

704-789-2948

Fax: 704-789-2624

aerwin@b-sc.edu

lmacon@b-sc.edu

www.barber-scotia.edu

www.b-sc.edu/census.htm

Bayamon Central University

Jose Jorge

Bayamon Central 

University Library

P.O. Box 1725

Bayamon, PR 00960-1725

787-786-3030 Ext. 2142

Fax: 787-740-2200

jorgejose97@hotmail.com

www.ucb.edu.pr

www.ucb.edu.pr/home_page.html

California Indian 

Manpower Consortium, Inc.

Lorenda Sanchez

738 North Market Boulevard

Sacramento, CA 95834-1206

916-920-0285 or 800-640-CIMC

Fax: 916-641-6338

lorendas@cimcinc.com

www.aic-chicago.org/cimc/

Center on Pacific Studies,

San Diego State University

Interwork Institute

Kehaulani Galea'i

3590 Camino Del Rio, North

San Diego, CA 92108

619-594-0139

Fax: 619-594-8807

kehau@interwork.sdsu.edu

www.interwork.sdsu.edu/

web_centers/cic.html

28

U.S. Census Bureau

Census Information Center

Contact Information
Children's Defense Fund

Deborah Weinstein

Arloc Sherman

Family Income Division

25 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20001-1591

202-662-3537

Fax: 202-662-3560

Dweinstein@childrensdefense.org

asherman@childrensdefense.org

www.childrensdefense.org

www.childrensdefense.org/data.php

Child Welfare League of America, Inc.

Julie Ohm

50 F Street, NW, 6th Floor

Washington, DC 20001-1530

202-942-0331

Fax: 202-737-3687

johm@cwla.org

www.cwla.org

Chinese American Voters 

Education Committee

David Lee

838 Grant Avenue, Suite 403

San Francisco, CA 94108-1723

415-397-8133

Fax: 415-397-6617

cavecl@aol.com

www.ncmonline.com

Denmark Technical College

Carolyn Amos

Library Director

Solomon Blatt Blvd., P.O. Box 327

Denmark, SC 29042-0327

803-793-5213

Fax: 803-793-5942

amosc@den.tec.sc.us

www.den.tec.sc.us

Dillard University

Dr. Robert Collins

Department of Urban 

Studies and Public Policy

2601 Gentilly Boulevard

New Orleans, LA 70122-3097

504-816-4092

Fax: 504-816-4702

rcollins@dillard.edu

www.dillard.edu

El Paso Community College

James Coe

1359 Lomaland Drive, Suite 304

El Paso, TX 79936

915-831-7766

Fax: 915-831-7770

jamesc@epcc.edu

www.epcc.edu

First Nations 

Development Institute

Sarah Dewees

2300 Fall Hill Avenue, Suite 412

Fredericksburg, VA 22401

540-371-5615, ext. 47

Fax: 540-371-3505

sdewees@firstnations.org

www.firstnations.org

Florida A & M University

Dr. Juanita Gaston

Department of History and Political

Science/Public Administration, Geography, 

and African-American Studies

Tallahassee, FL 32307-4800

850-412-7545

Fax: 850-412-7611

juanita.gaston@famu.edu

www.famu.edu

www.famu.edu/acad/cic/

Goodwill Industries 

International, Inc.

Lisa Bowers

Information Collection and Analysis

9200 Rockville Pike

Bethesda, MD 20814-3896

240-333-5242

Fax: 301-530-1516

lisa.bowers@goodwill.org

www.goodwill.org

www.goodwill.org/index_gii.cfm/1781/

29

U.S. Census Bureau
Howard University Center

for Urban Progress

Dr. Lorenzo Morris

Dr. Rodney Green

2006 Georgia Avenue, NW, Lower Level

Washington, DC 20001-3027

202-806-9349

Fax: 202-265-3527

lmorris@howard.edu

AGAEC06@aol.com

www.howard.edu

www.howard.edu/CenterUrbanProgress

/cic.html

Indian and Native American

Employment and Training Coalition

Norman DeWeaver

1000 Wisconsin Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20007-3601

202-339-9314

Fax: 202-342-1132

norm_deweaver@rocketmail.com

www.nativeworkforce.org

www.nativetelecom.org/census/affiliat.html

Jackson State University 

Mark Colomb

Dawn Bishop

Mississippi Urban Research Center

P.O. Box 17309

Jackson, MS 39217-0195

601-979-4081

Fax: 601-979-4075

mcolomb@murc.org

dbishop@murc.org

www.jsums.edu

Joint Center for Political

and Economic Studies

Dr. Roderick Harrison

Office of Research

1090 Vermont Avenue, Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20005-4939

202-789-3514

Fax: 202-789-6390

rharrison@jointcenter.org

www.jointcenter.org

www.jointcenter.org/DB/index/htm

Korean American Coalition

Eui-Young Yu

Dr. Peter Choe

3727 West 6th Street, Suite 515

Los Angeles, CA 90020-5110

213-365-5999

Fax: 213-380-7990

eyu@kacla.org

peter@kacla.org

www.kacnational.org

www.kacla.org

Latin American 

Chamber of Commerce

Lorenzo Padron

3512 West Fullerton Avenue

Chicago, IL 60647-2418

773-252-5211

Fax: 773-252-7065

DLPadron@lacc1.com

www.lacc1.com

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights

Theora Sumler

1629 K Street, NW, Suite 1010

Washington, DC 20006-1639

202-466-5672

Fax: 202-466-3435

Sumler@civilrights.org

www.civilrights.org

www.civilrights.org/research_center

/census/index.html

LeMoyne-Owen College

Austin Emeagwai

807 Walker Avenue

Memphis, TN 38126-6595

901-942-7372

Fax: 901-942-6245

austin_emeagwai@nile.lemoyne-owen.edu

www.lemoyne-owen.edu

www.loccdc.org/cic.htm

Louisiana State University

Shreveport Center for Business

and Economic Research

Susan Beal

One University Place

Shreveport, LA 71115-2399

318-797-5187

Fax: 318-797-5208

sbeal@pilot.lsus.edu

www.lsus.edu/cber

30

U.S. Census Bureau
Medgar Evers College of the City

University of New York

John Flateau

Dr. Louis Dabney

DuBois Bunche Center for Public Policy

1650 Bedford Avenue, Room 2015A

Brooklyn, NY 11225

718-270-5110

Fax: 718-270-5181

jflat@mec.cuny.edu

ldabney@mec.cuny.edu

Meharry Medical College

Dr. Green Ekadi

1005 Dr. D.B. Todd Jr. Boulevard

Nashville, TN 37208-2599

615-327-5516 or -6069

Fax: 615-327-6717

gekadi@mmc.edu

mcic@mmc.edu

www.mmc.edu

NAACP

Tiffany Hawthorne

4805 Mt. Hope Drive

Baltimore, MD 21215-3297

410-580-5775

Fax: 410-358-3386

thawthorne@naacpnet.org

www.naacp.org/

www.naacp.org/connections/resources.html

National Asian Pacific Center on Aging

Kenneth Bostock

Melbourne Tower

1511 Third Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101-1626

206-624-1221

Fax: 206-624-1023

kjb@napca.org

www.napca.org

National Council of La Raza

Eric Rodriguez

1111 19th Street, NW, Suite 1000

Washington, DC 20036-3622

202-785-1670

Fax: 202-776-1792

erodriguez@nclr.org

www.nclr.org

www.nclr.org/policy/census.html

National Urban League 

Institute for Opportunity 

and Equality

Dr. William Spriggs

1111 14th Street, NW, Suite 1001

Washington, DC 20005-5699

202-898-1604

Fax: 202-408-1965

wspriggs@nul.org

www.nul.org

Norfolk State University

Dr. Rudolph Wilson

Center for Applied Research

and Public Policy

700 Park Avenue 

Norfolk, VA 23504-8010

757-823-9575

Fax: 757-823-9413

rwilson@nsu.edu

www.nsu.edu

www.nsu.edu/news/press/2000

/Oct/census.html

Northeast Council of Governments

Eric Senger

2210 6th Avenue, SE

Aberdeen, SD 57402-1985

605-626-2595

Fax: 605-626-2975

eric.necog@midconetwork.com

abe.midco.net/necog

abe.midco.net/necog/Census.html

Organization of Chinese Americans

Eleanor Lee

1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 601

Washington, DC 20036-5527

202-223-5500

Fax: 202-296-0540

elee@ocanatl.org

www.ocanatl.org

www.ocanatl.org/programs/index.html

Papa Ola Lokahi

Momi Lovell

894 Queen Street, #104

Honolulu, HI 96813

808-597-6550, Ext. 804

Fax: 808-597-6551

mlovell@papaolalokahi.org

papaolalokahi.8m.com

31

U.S. Census Bureau
Puerto Rican Legal Defense

and Education Fund

José Garcia

99 Hudson Street, 14th Floor

New York, NY 10013-2815

212-739-7577 or 800-328-2322

Fax: 212-431-4276

jose_garcia@prldef.org

www.prldef.org

Rural Community Assistance Program

Dr. Stephen Gasteyer

1522 K Street, NW, Suite 400

Washington, DC 20005-1255

202-408-1273

Fax: 202-408-8165

sgasteyer@rcap.org

www.rcap.org

www.rcap.org/cic.html

SER-Jobs for Progress National, Inc.

Maria Gomez

1925 W. Carpenter 

Freeway, Suite 575

Irving, TX 75063

972-506-7815, Ext. 310

Fax: 972-506-7832

mgomez@ser-national.org

www.ser-national.org

www.ser-national.org/Pages/Census/cic.htm

Siete del Norte

Alvin Korte

P.O. Box 400

Embudo, NM 87531

505-579-4217

Fax: 505-579-4206

alvinkorte@mail.cybermesa.com

Sitting Bull College

Mark Holman

1341 92nd Street

Ft. Yates, ND 58538-9721

701-854-3861

Fax: 701-854-3403

markh@sbci.edu

www.sittingbull.org

Special Service for Groups

Takuya Maruyama

Bong Vergara

605 West Olympic 

Boulevard, Suite 600

Los Angeles, CA 90015-1475

213-553-1800

Fax: 213-553-1822

cDardGIS@ssgmain.org

bvergara@ssgmain.org

www.ssgmain.org

www.ssgmain.org/CDGIS-2a.htm

Spelman College

Dr. Bruce Wade

350 Spelman Lane, SW, 

P.O. Box 292

Atlanta, GA 30314-4399

404-223-7572

Fax: 404-215-2569

bwade@spelman.edu

www.spelman.edu

The Navajo Nation

Trib Choudhary

Division of Economic Development

P.O. Box 663

Window Rock, AZ 86515

928-871-7394

Fax: 928-871-7381

tribthar@cia-g.com

www.navajo.org

The Urban Coalition

Heather Britt

2610 University Avenue 

Saint Paul, MN 55114-1090

612-348-8550, Ext. 320

Fax: 612-348-2533

heather@urbancoalition.org

www.urbancoalition.org

www.urbancoalition.org/census_updates!.htm

United States Hispanic 

Leadership Institute

Rudy Lopez

431 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 1203

Chicago, IL 60605-1152

312-427-8683

Fax: 312-427-5183

rlopez@ushli.com

www.ushli.com/index3.html

www.ushli.com/research.htm

32

U.S. Census Bureau
University of California Los Angeles

Asian American Studies Center

Melany de la Cruz

3230 Campbell Hall, 405 

Hilgard Avenue, Box 951546

Los Angeles, CA 90095-1546

310-825-2974

Fax: 310-206-9844

melanyd@ucla.edu

www.sscnet.ucla.edu/aasc

www.sscnet.ucla.edu/aasc/census/

University of Notre Dame Institute

for Latino Studies Inter-University 

Program for Latino Research

Tim Ready

Sung-Chang Chun

230 McKenna Hall

Notre Dame, IN 46556-0001

574-631-9781 or -8146

Fax: 574-631-3884

tready@nd.edu

Sung-Chang.Chun.1@nd.edu

www.nd.edu/~iuplr

www.nd.edu./~iuplr/

University of Puerto Rico at Cayey

Edfel Rivera

Victor M. Pons Gil Library

Antonio R. Barcelo St.

Cayey, Puerto Rico 00736

787-738-5651

Fax: 787-263-2760

sysop@neo.upr.edu

centus@coqui.net

www.cuc.upr.clu.edu

www.cuc.upr.clu.edu/

University of Texas-Pan American

Dr. S.J. Sethi

1201 West University Drive

Edinburg, TX 78539-2999

956-381-3361

Fax: 956-381-2322

sjsethi@panam.edu

www.panam.edu

www.coserve.org

Vanderbilt University

Vanderbilt Institute for 

Public Policy Studies

Cyndi Taylor

1207 18th Avenue South

Nashville, TN 37212-2807

615-343-9865

Fax: 615-343-1761

c.taylor@vanderbilt.edu

www.vanderbilt.edu

www.vanderbilt.edu/census/

William C. Velasquez Institute

Antonio Gonzalez

Care of Kelly USA

206 Lombard Boulevard, Suite 1

San Antonio, TX 78226

Fax: 210-922-4055

agonzalez@wcvi.org

www.wcvi.org

www.wcvi.net/redistricting/cic.html