National Academies Press: OpenBook

America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I (2001)

Chapter: 3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends

« Previous: 2. An Overview of Trends in Social and Economic Well-Being, by Race
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

3
An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends

Gary D.Sandefur, Molly Martin, Jennifer Eggerling-Boeck, Susan E.Mannon, and Ann M.Meier

Provided here is an overview of major demographic trends for racial and ethnic groups in the United States over the past 50 or so years— a daunting undertaking for one paper, given the variety of groups and topics addressed. Consequently, this overview is selective, covering what we feel are the most important trends—population composition and growth, fertility, family, mortality, and migration. Racial and ethnic categories are the ones used by the federal government.

To enumerate racial and ethnic groups, demographers rely on the U.S. decennial census and annual Current Population Surveys (CPS). To estimate marriage, fertility, and mortality rates, demographers use the national vital statistics records of births, marriages, and deaths. Estimates of internal migration come from the U.S. Bureau of the Census (USBC), and estimates of international migration come from the Immigration and Naturalization Services and USBC.

THE LIMITATIONS OF PUBLIC DATA FOR STUDYING TRENDS

The U.S. Census has classified people by “race” since its inception in 1790. In spite of this long practice of differently defining groups, prior to the 1970s (in some cases, even later), tables of population characteristics and other official statistics, including vital statistics, often list only “Whites” and “non-Whites.” One factor complicating the analysis of historical trends for Blacks is the use of different racial and ethnic categories

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

in different years. Initially, slave status was used as a proxy for a racial category for Black Americans. Classification options for race were only “free White persons, slaves, or all other free persons.” Later a category for “free colored persons” was added. In 1870, “mulatto” was added; census enumerators were instructed to “…be particularly careful in reporting the class Mulatto. The word is here generic, and includes quadroons, octoroons, and all persons having any perceptible trace of African blood” (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1989). The 1890 Census divided Blacks thus: Black described those who had “three-fourths or more Black blood”; mulatto, those who had “three-eighths to five-eighths Black blood”; quadroon, “one-fourth Black blood”; and octoroon, “one-eighth or any trace of Black blood.” Terms used for a Black person changed from “slave,” to “colored person,” to “Negro,” to “Black.” The 2000 Census used “Black/ African American.”

For Asians, the history of classification is as complicated. In censuses of the late 1800s and early 1900s, three Asian groups were typically represented—Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino. Other Asian categories were added along the way—Korean in 1940 and Vietnamese and Asian Indian in 1980. By 1990, nine ethnic groups were listed under Asians and Pacific Islanders (API)—Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Asian Indian, Hawaiian, Samoan, Korean, Guamanian, and Vietnamese—as well as an “Other API” option with a blank for identifying “Other.” Trend analysis is further complicated by the fact that statistics released by USBC do not always mirror actual census classification; USBC combines some categories for ease of reporting. For example, most published tabulations of 1990 data on race report for the umbrella category of Asian and Pacific Islander, not each of the nine ethnic groups. Another complication for analysis is the fact that Asians do not appear in vital statistics publications until recently.

The 1870 Census included American Indians as a separate racial group. Prior to that, only Indians who paid taxes were enumerated, but they were not distinguished racially from the rest of the population. Currently, the census asks those who identify themselves as American Indians to write in their tribal affiliation. Published information on American Indians from 1970 onward sometimes includes data for Eskimo and Aleut populations as Alaska Natives. An issue that has a pronounced impact on the analysis of trends among American Indians is the USBC change to self-identification. Between 1970 and 1990, the size of the American Indian population tripled (Nagel, 1996; Eschbach, 1993), an increase far beyond what was generated by either migration or births. Renewed pride in American Indian heritage among many who earlier had identified themselves with some group other than American Indian (often White) led to the increased numbers of American Indians.

The 1970 Census introduced self-identification for persons of Spanish

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

origin. The “Hispanic” population includes Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and those of other Hispanic origin or descent (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1989). In the past, census methods to identify respondents of Spanish origin included identification based on Spanish surname, use of Spanish language at home, and respondent’s birthplace or birthplace of parents (Bean and Tienda, 1987). These identifiers were less than satisfactory. Surnames often change after marriage, some Spanish surnames are indistinguishable from Italian and Portuguese surnames, questions about one’s birthplace or birthplace of parents only capture first- and second-generation Hispanics, and identification by the use of Spanish at home excludes Hispanics who do not use Spanish at home. In fact, the 1980 Census found that of the 14.6 million Hispanics identified, only 11.1 million reported speaking Spanish at home (Davis et al., 1983). In the 2000 Census, the ethnicity question was only slightly different, asking respondents whether they are of “Hispanic or Latino” origin or descent rather than “Spanish/Hispanic” origin or descent (Office of Management and Budget, 1997).

Perhaps the most important development in racial and ethnic group definitions also came in 1970; that year the census was distributed by mail rather than having enumerators go door-to-door. This made enumerator identification of race obsolete. The 1960 Census was primarily self-identification, but enumerator identification was used in some rural areas where census forms were not mailed. Thus, since 1970, racial identification is no longer the province of census enumerators. Respondents now classify their own race and that of the members of their households.

Although the ethnicity question has remained relatively consistent in the past two censuses, USBC continues to grapple with racial classification. Most recently the issue is the classification of individuals of multiracial parentage who eschew single-race classification. The 2000 Census allowed respondents to identify with as many racial groups as they wished in a “check all that apply” list of options (Office of Management and Budget, 1997). This could prove extremely complicated when attempting to tabulate the composition of the nation by race.

A final limitation of the data to be mindful of is that decennial censuses have been plagued by a differential undercount problem. It is estimated that the 1990 Census missed 8.5 percent of Black males and 3.0 percent of Black females, compared to 2 percent of non-Black males and 0.6 percent of non-Black females (Robinson et al., 1993). Other hard-to-reach populations, such as American Indians on reservations, are undercounted as well.

The heterogeneity of the major racial and ethnic groups in the United States creates a final problem. All racial and ethnic groups discussed in this book are composed of subgroups that vary widely in characteristics.

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

Nevertheless, there is value in looking at trends for the broader groups. Federal, state, and local programs and funding allocations are often based on broad group membership rather than narrowly defined racial and ethnic groups. Also, most of the racial or ethnic groups within broader classifications share some cultural or historical experiences.

POPULATION SIZE, HISTORICAL TRENDS, AND PROJECTIONS

Population size is determined by three principal components of demography: fertility, mortality, and migration. Racial and ethnic differences in rates of one or more of these components cause the racial composition of the nation to shift. Recently, international migration and higher fertility rates among some racial and ethnic groups have been the primary contributors to the nation’s population growth and changing composition.

Historical Trends

The racial and ethnic composition of the more than 265 million U.S. residents is 1 percent American Indian, 3 percent Asian, 11 percent Hispanic, 12 percent Black, and 73 percent White (Deardorff and Hollmann, 1997)—quite different than it was 50 years ago, and projected to be different 50 years from now. Figure 3–1 shows historical trends in racial composition from 1900 to 1990, with projections to 2050.

Until 1940, Whites are shown as constituting more than 80 percent of the population; since then, the percentage of the population that is White has been declining. Hispanic and Asian percentages have increased significantly. The percentage of Blacks—10 to 12 percent—has remained relatively stable. The percentage of American Indians has grown dramatically, but is still only 1 percent at the end of this century.

Projected Trends

From 2000 to 2050 (Figure 3–1), the Black population is projected to increase only slightly, while the Hispanic and Asian populations are projected to increase dramatically. By 2010, Hispanics are expected to surpass Blacks as the largest minority group in the United States. Whites are projected to comprise 53 percent of the population by 2050.

One must take such projections with a huge grain of salt. Immigration rates may change. Fertility or mortality regimes could change significantly. The way Americans think and talk about racial and ethnic distinc-

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

FIGURE 3–1 Racial and ethnic composition of the United States: 1900 to 2050. SOURCES: Adapted from Day (1996: Table 1); Davis et al. (1983: Table 3); Garcia and Montgomery (1991: Table 1); Thornton and Marsh-Thornton (1981: Tables 1 and 4); Barringer et al. (1993: Table 2.4A); Elben (1974: Table 2); Coale and Rives (1973: Table 4); Hollmann (1993: Tables 1 and 2); Bogue (1985: Tables 2 and 3); Coale and Zelnik (1963: Tables 16 and 17); Siegel (1974: Table 2); and McDaniel (1995: Figure 1).

tions, as well as the racial and ethnic categories used by the federal government, may change in fundamental ways, as they have in the past.

Age Structure of Racial and Ethnic Groups

Figure 3–2, a through f, illustrates the age composition of U.S. populations over time. Figure 3–2a shows that the population as a whole has aged from 1950 to 1996. The most notable shifts are the decreases in the younger groups and increases in the middle-age groups. In 1950, the

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

youngest age group comprised the largest percentage of the population— the beginning of the baby-boom era. The dent in the 1950 age composition, at the 15- to-19-year-old segment, can be attributed, in part, to low fertility during the Depression. In 1950, almost half of the population was less than 30 years old; by 1996, only about 40 percent of the population was less than 30 years old. In the 1996 data, the bulge at the middle-age groups represents the aging of the baby-boomers, and the percentages of the population at the oldest ages are greater than they were in 1950, indicating the aging of the population.

In Figure 3–2, b through f, the population pyramids illustrate changes in relative age structures for racial and ethnic groups and indicate future trends. Logically, because they are the most populous group, Whites (Figure 3–2b) most closely mirror age structure trends for the total United States, with a lower and stabilizing birth rate, the baby-boomer bulge around the middle-age groups in 1996, and an aging population.

The pyramid for the Black population (Figure 3–2c) shows an older

FIGURE 3–2a 1950 and 1996 U.S. total age composition. SOURCES: Adapted from U.S. Bureau of the Census (1965: Table 1); Deardorff and Hollmann (1997: Table 1).

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

FIGURE 3–2b 1950 White (including Hispanic) and 1996 non-Hispanic White age composition. SOURCES: Adapted from U.S. Bureau of the Census (1965: Table 1); Deardorff and Hollmann (1997: Table 1).

FIGURE 3–2c 1950 Black (including Hispanic) and 1996 non-Hispanic Black age composition. 75–79 represents 75+ for the 1950 data, the highest age group tabulated for this group in 1950. SOURCES: Adapted from U.S. Bureau of the Census (1953f: Table 2); Deardorff and Hollmann (1997: Table 1).

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

FIGURE 3–2d 1950 and 1996 American Indian age composition. SOURCES: Adapted from U.S. Bureau of the Census (1953f: Table 2); Deardorff and Hollmann (1997: Table 1).

FIGURE 3–2e 1970 and 1996 Hispanic age composition. SOURCES: Adapted from U.S. Bureau of the Census (1973c: Table 2); Deardorff and Hollmann (1997: Table 1).

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

FIGURE 3–2f 1980 and 1996 Asian age composition. SOURCES: Adapted from U.S. Bureau of the Census (1983: Table 2); Deardorff and Hollmann (1997: Table 1).

population in 1996 than in 1950, but one that is still younger than that of the United States overall and Whites specifically.

The pyramid for American Indians (Figure 3–2d) suggests that that population has undergone dramatic changes in age composition since 1950; however, changes in self-identification probably influenced changes in age composition as well. In 1950, more than 15 percent of the American Indian population were less than 5 years old; by 1996, the percentage was almost half that, at just over 8 percent; at this time, data are also included for Alaska Natives. Even with the decline, this percentage is still higher than that for the total United States or Whites, but comparable to percentages for Blacks and Asians. Despite their aging population, in 1996 well over 50 percent of the American Indian population was less than 30 years old.

Hispanics (Figure 3–2e) are currently the youngest population of all major U.S. racial and ethnic groups. Nearly 60 percent of the Hispanic population is less than 30 years old; 12 percent are less than 5 years old, at least 3 percentage points more than Blacks, Asians, or American Indians/

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

Alaska Natives. Higher percentages in the young age groups in 19701 may be a reflection of immigration of young children under the Immigration Act of 1965, which emphasized family reunification. The young age of the Hispanic population, coupled with current high rates of immigration, support projections that the Hispanic population will surpass Blacks as the largest minority group by the year 2010.

In the pyramid for the Asian population (Figure 3–2f), 1980, rather than 1950, data are used because 1980 was the first year complete data for Asians are available. Earlier information reported only on selected Asian subgroups. The pyramid on the 1996 side is wider at the younger ages through the middle-age groups and more narrow at the older age groups. This is, in part, the result of the high rate of immigration among Asians. Together, Asians and Hispanics comprised 85 percent of all U.S. immigrants during the 1980s (Martin and Midgley, 1994). The relatively young age structure and high rates of immigration indicate rapid growth for Asians in the future; projected growth rates exceed 2.5 percent per year through 2020 (Day, 1996).

POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND MIGRATION

Historical Trends

The dramatic growth in major U.S. racial and ethnic populations owes much to immigration. In addition to legal immigration, substantial numbers of undocumented immigrants have entered the United States since the mid-1960s; estimates have been a source of controversy, but the most widely accepted is between 2 and 4 million (Bean and Tienda, 1987; see also, Passel and Woodrow, 1984). The 1965 Immigration Act, which replaced the national-origins system, increased the total number of immigrants allowed into the United States, and caused the number of immigrants entering the country to skyrocket.

Regional Distribution

USBC distinguishes between four major census regions: the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. Nearly one-half of the White population lives in the Northeast and Midwest, compared to less than one-third for all other racial and ethnic groups. Regional concentrations are shown in Table 3–1.

1  

1970 data are used rather than 1950 data because 1970 is the first time complete data on Hispanic ethnicity were gathered in the Census. Earlier information is based on surname or language spoken at home, or it is only for selected states.

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

TABLE 3–1 Population Percentage by Region, 1950 to 1990

 

 

Year

Race/Ethnicity

Region

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

Total U.S.

 

 

Northeast

26.2

24.91

24.13

21.69

20.43

Midwest

29.5

28.79

27.84

25.99

23.99

South

31.32

30.66

30.9

33.28

34.36

West

13.4

15.64

17.14

19.06

21.22

White

 

 

Northeast

27.54

25.95

24.69

22.47

21.07

Midwest

31.01

30

28.77

27.71

26.04

South

27.13

27.17

28.09

31.3

32.84

West

13.68

16.14

17.48

18.52

20.05

Black

 

 

Northeast

13.42

16.04

19.24

18.3

18.73

Midwest

14.81

18.26

20.25

20.14

19.05

South

67.98

59.94

53.01

53.02

52.83

West

3.8

5.75

7.51

8.54

9.39

Hispanica

 

 

Northeast

b

18.8d

20.89

17.83

16.61

Midwest

5

11.55

8.74

7.58

South

32.2

30.44

30.63

30.42

West

44.1

37.12

42.81

45.39

Asian

 

 

Northeast

12.17c

8.97c

13.57e

15.99

18.26

Midwest

9.88

6.5

7.96

11.14

10.47

South

14.4

5.22

6.64

13.42

15.23

West

63.55

79.23

71.83

59.45

56.01

American Indian

 

 

Northeast

4.6

6.41

5.99

5.56

6.15

Midwest

22.4

19.23

18.89

17.49

17.42

South

20.05

24.36

25.46

26.2

29.28

West

52.96

50.18

49.66

50.74

47.15

aIncludes persons of Spanish origin of any race.

bStatistics on Hispanic population limited to persons of Spanish origin in only five southwestern states during this year.

cIncludes Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, and other Asians (Koreans, Asian Indians, and Malayans) for 1950 and 1960.

dHispanic population figures for 1960 based on Bean and Tienda (1987: Table 5.1).

eIncludes Japanese, Chinese, and Filipino for 1970.

SOURCES: Adapted from U.S. Bureau of the Census (1953f: Tables 3–7; 1963i: Tables 2–6; 1973e: Tables 1, 16, 31; 1973c: Table 1; 1973d: Table 1; 1975: Series A172–194; 1991: Table E; 1993a: Table 135); Bean and Tienda (1987: Table 5.1).

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

Despite the dramatic migration of Blacks from the South during much of the past century, more than half continued to live in the South in 1990. Return migration of Blacks to the South in the past few decades, however, contributes to this regional concentration, despite the fact that the overall percentage has been declining. The West had the lowest percentage of Blacks in 1990. Nonetheless, this percentage has steadily increased since the 1950s.

The Hispanic population experienced its most dramatic boost in the late 1960s as a result of immigration reform, refugee movements, and illegal immigration (Bean and Tienda, 1987). Since the 1960s, approximately three-fourths of the Hispanic population has settled in either the West or the South (Table 3–1). Underlying this general pattern are significant variations by Hispanic origin. Mexicans, for example, live primarily in the West and Southwest, Puerto Ricans in the Northeast, and Cubans in Florida.

The Asian population experienced a dramatic increase in the 1980s, more than doubling their numbers (Barringer et al., 1993). With changing immigration laws in the 1960s, and recent refugee movements, immigration is clearly the most important factor leading to the concentration of Asians in Hawaii and the West. As with Hispanics, distribution varies considerably among Asian ethnic groups. Chinese, Koreans, Asian Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, and Bangladeshis were more likely to reside in the Northeast than other Asian Americans in 1980 and 1990. Filipinos, Japanese, Okinawans, and, to a lesser extent, Cambodians and Indonesians, were more concentrated in the West than all other Asians in 1980 and 1990. Malayans and Hmong were largely living in the Midwest in 1980 and 1990, and Laotians were primarily residing in the Midwest in 1980 (Barringer et al., 1993). Table 3–1 indicates that although the percentage of Asians living in the West dropped since the 1950s, more than half continued to reside in the West in 1990.

The vast majority of the American Indian population resides in the West and South. Although the percentage has decreased slightly since the 1950s, close to one-half continue to reside in the West alone. By 1990, almost 30 percent of American Indians lived in the South, an increase from 20 percent in 1950.

Metropolitan Areas

Harrison and Bennett (1995) argue that the geography of minority concentration is more related to states and metropolitan areas than to regions. In fact, minority groups are represented in large numbers in only a few states, most notably California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois. In these states, the vast majority of racial and ethnic

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

groups are concentrated in a few key cities, such as Miami, New York City, and Chicago. The USBC’s Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) include both metropolitan (metro) areas and nonmetro areas. SMSAs are further divided as inside and outside central cities. Tables 3–2 and 3–3 provide data for racial and ethnic distribution in SMSAs and central cities.

Blacks

The percentage of Blacks living in rural areas declined from 47 percent to 16 percent between 1950 and 1990, which contrasts with the steady deconcentration of the White population from cities to rural areas for the past 20 years (Long, 1981). The majority of Blacks moving to metro areas during this time relocated to central cities, where the percentage of the Black population increased from 41 to 57 percent from 1950 to 1990 (Table 3–3). This pattern should not disguise, however, the trend toward Black suburbanization. By 1980, Blacks had begun to migrate to the suburbs, causing the overall proportion of Blacks living in central cities to decline for the first time (Long and DeAre, 1981). In fact, the percentage of the Black population in the suburbs more than doubled between 1950 and 1980, with a 70 percent increase in the 1970s alone. A great deal of variation exists in the rates of Blacks moving to suburbs, however, by city and by region. In the 1970s, for example, the rate in the South was almost double the rate in the North (Nelson, 1980). Of the 21 metro areas to which more than 5,000 Blacks moved during 1985 to 1990, 15 are located in the South Atlantic region. Both the large size of the pre-existing southern Black population, and their net in-migration to the South beginning in the 1970s, account for this. At the same time, Blacks are more likely than Whites and American Indians, but less likely than Asians and Hispanics, to reside in metro areas. As Table 3–3 indicates, Blacks have been increasingly well represented in the nation’s largest metro areas. In addition to South Atlantic metro areas, Blacks have historically settled in Philadelphia, Detroit, and Baltimore.

Hispanics

Since the 1950s, the Hispanic population has moved in substantial numbers to metro areas, their percentages in metro areas exceeding that of Whites since the 1960s and reaching 90 percent in 1990 (Table 3–1). The Hispanic population has generally been more concentrated in central cities; however, the percentage of this population residing in central cities has declined since 1960. Hispanics are less concentrated in central cities than Blacks, but more so than all other racial/ethnic groups. Neverthe-

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

TABLE 3–2 Population Percentage Inside/Outside Metropolitan Areas and Central Cities, 1950 to 1990

 

 

Year

Race/Ethnicity

 

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

Total U.S.

Inside Metro Areas

56.07

62.95

68.60

75.80

77.49

Inside Central Cities

32.79

32.35

31.39

32.00

31.30

Outside Central Cities

23.28

30.60

37.21

43.80

46.19

Outside Metro Areas

43.93

37.05

31.40

24.20

22.51

White

Inside Metro Areas

56.14

62.30

67.18

74.40

75.56

Inside Central Cities

31.66

29.78

27.54

27.00

25.78

Outside Central Cities

24.48

32.52

39.64

47.40

49.79

Outside Metro Areas

43.86

37.70

32.82

25.60

24.43

Black

Inside Metro Areas

52.73

64.68

74.27

82.00

83.77

Inside Central Cities

41.18

51.42

58.19

59.70

57.34

Outside Central Cities

11.55

13.27

16.08

22.30

26.43

Outside Metro Areas

47.27

35.32

25.73

18.00

16.23

Hispanic

Inside Metro Areas

79.70a

86.8a

87.70

90.39

Inside Central Cities

72.60

64.80

52.90

51.50

Outside Central Cities

7.10

22.00

34.80

38.89

Outside Metro Areas

20.30

13.20

12.30

9.61

Asian

Inside Metro Areas

87.70b

91.70

93.81

Inside Central Cities

54.10

48.10

46.45

Outside Central Cities

33.50

43.60

47.36

Outside Metro Areas

12.30

8.30

6.19

American Indian

Inside Metro Areas

38.80b

48.20

51.36

Inside Central Cities

19.90

22.30

23.33

Outside Central Cities

18.90

25.90

28.04

Outside Metro Areas

61.20

51.80

48.64

aFigures for the Hispanic population in 1960 and 1970 based on Bean and Tienda (1987: Table 5.5–5.6).

bFigures for the Asian and American Indian populations in 1970 based on Harrison and Bennett (1995: Table 4A.1).

SOURCES: Adapted from U.S. Bureau of the Census (1984d: Table J; 1975:Series A276–287; 1991: Table E; 1993a: Table 5); Bean and Tienda (1987: Tables 5.5–5.6); Harrison and Bennett (1995: Table 4A.1).

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

TABLE 3–3 Population Percentage by Selected Metropolitan Areas, 1950 to 1990

 

 

Year

Metropolitan Area

Group

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

Los Angeles

Black

5

6.9

10.8

9.2d

8.5d

Hispanic

7.5a

9.3a

13.3

24

32.9

Asian

1.3b

1.7b

2.3

4.9

9.2

American Indian

c

0.1

0.3

0.7

0.6

Miami

Black

13.1

14.7

15

14.9d

18.5d

Hispanic

22.1

23.5

33.3

Asian

c

0.1

0.2

0.6

1.4

American Indian

c

c

c

0.1

0.2

Houston

Black

19.8

19.8

19.3

18.2d

17.9d

Hispanic

4.2

5.3

8

14.7

20.8

Asian

0.2

0.3

1.7

3.6

American Indian

c

0.2

0.2

0.3

San Francisco

Black

6.6

8.6

10.6

8.7d

8.6d

Hispanic

4.4

6.4

7.6

12.3

15.5

Asian

2.9

1.4

5.3

8.5

14.8

American Indian

c

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.7

San Antonio

Black

6.5

6.6

6.9

6.8

6.8

Hispanic

33.7

35.9

36.6

44.9

47.6

Asian

0.2

0.3

0.8

1.2

American Indian

c

0.1

0.3

0.4

New York

Black

8.6d

11.5d

16.3d

16.1d

18.2d

Hispanic

11.1

11.7

15.4

Asian

0.3

0.5

0.7

2.1

4.8

American Indian

c

c

c

0.1

0.3

Honolulu

Black

c

1

1.2

2.2

3.1

Hispanic

7.2

6.8

Asian

54.6d

46.8

44

59.8

63

American Indian

c

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

less, they, too, are part of the national trend toward suburbanization; the possible exception to this trend is Mexicans (Bean and Tienda, 1987). In 1980, Puerto Ricans were the most highly concentrated group in the central cities, whereas Cubans were the least concentrated (Bean and Tienda, 1987). In the past few decades, the Hispanic population has gravitated toward a few key metro areas, including Los Angeles, New York, Miami, San Antonio, and Houston. The metro areas with the highest number of Hispanics are Los Angeles and San Antonio, where Hispanics made up 33 and 47 percent, respectively, of the total populations in 1990. Recent immigration by Hispanics has contributed to this concentration.

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

 

 

Year

Metropolitan Area

Group

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

Washington, DC

Black

23.1

24.3

24.6

26.8

26.6

Hispanic

1.9

2.9

5.7

Asian

0.3e

0.3

0.6

2.6

5.2

American Indian

c

c

0.1

0.2

0.3

Chicago

Black

10.3d

14.3d

17.6d

19.6d

19.2d

Hispanic

5

8

11.1

Asian

0.3

0.4

0.5

1.8

3.2

American Indian

c

c

0.1

0.2

0.2

Dallas-Fort Worth

Black

13.4f

14.3f

15.9f

14.3d

14.3d

Hispanic

2.8

3.3

4.6

8.5

13.4

Asian

c

c

0.1

0.8

2.5

American Indian

c

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

aWhite with Spanish surname for 1950 and 1960.

bJapanese, Chinese, and Filipino for 1950 and 1960.

cLess than 0.1 percent of the metropolitan area population.

dMetropolitan area represents Consolidated Statistical Metropolitan Area.

eJapanese and Chinese only.

fDallas only for 1950–1970.

SOURCES: Adapted from U.S. Bureau of the Census (1953f: Tables 15–19; 1953g: Table 8; 1953c: Table 47; 1953b: Table 14; 1953e: Table 47; 1953f: Table 47; 1953g: Table 29; 1963b: Tables 50–54; 1963c: Table 9; 1963d: Table 21; 1963e: Table 21; 1963g: Table 21; 1963a: Table 21; 1963c: Table 21; 1963d: Table 21; 1963b: Table 21; 1963k: Table 1; 1971: Table 1; 1972c: Table 67; 1972b: Table 32; 1973d: Table 11; 1973e: Tables 11, 26, 41; 1973f: Table 11; 1973c: Table 13; 1984d: Tables 1, 3, 4); Harrison and Bennett (1995: Figure 4.3); Reddy (1993a: Table 94; 1993b: Table 146).

Asians

Asians are the most urbanized group of the total U.S. population, with almost 94 percent residing in metro areas in 1990. Of all the Asian groups, Chinese have been most prone to settle in urban areas (Barringer et al., 1993). The percentages for Asians are between those for Whites and Hispanics, in terms of central-city/suburban concentration, but their central-city concentration showed a slight decline from 1980 to 1990. Chinese showed the highest levels of central-city concentration, whereas Asian Indians exhibited the lowest levels. An interesting point is that U.S.-born Asians are more concentrated in metro areas than recent Asian immigrants (Barringer et al., 1993). Although some immigrant groups fol-

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

lowed unique settlement patterns, such as the Hmong who settled in Minnesota and Wisconsin, most recent Asian immigrants tend to concentrate in traditional port-of-entry metros. Vietnamese and Indochinese refugees are more geographically dispersed throughout the country as a result of federal government efforts to spread the impact of incoming refugees (see Barringer et al., 1993; Gordon, 1984). In 1990, more than half the U.S. Asian population lived in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York, where Asian populations have steadily increased since the 1950s (Table 3–3). Asians also made up 63 percent of the Honolulu population in 1990, another metro area traditionally attracting a large proportion of Asians.

American Indians

American Indians’ rapid urbanization in the 1950s and 1960s significantly altered their metro/nonmetro distribution, although it did not change the fact that they are one of the least urbanized groups in the United States. In 1990, a little more than half of the American Indian population resided in metro areas, compared to 77 percent of all Americans. Reservations continue to be a feature of life that sets American Indians apart from other racial and ethnic groups. In 1990, approximately 438,000 American Indians resided on the 279 American Indian reservations throughout the United States. Although in absolute numbers the reservation population is the largest it has ever been, in terms of percentages, there has been a decline, from 27 percent in 1980 to 22 percent in 1990 (Snipp, 1989).

Almost half of all American Indians living in urban settings live in only 16 cities. The urban relocation programs after World War II primarily directed American Indians to San Francisco, Dallas, Seattle, Los Angeles, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Chicago. As a percentage of these cities’ total populations, that of American Indians is small.

Internal Migration

Migration patterns of the U.S. population overall have been southward and westward in recent decades; however, substantial variation underlies migration streams for each group. USBC classifies U.S. citizens who resided in a different location five years prior to the census year as internal migrants.

After World War II, during the wave of industrialization in the North and West in the 1950s and 1960s, Blacks migrated to metro areas in the North and West, away from the rural South. During the 1950s, their growth in the Midwest was almost five times their growth rate in the

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

South (Johnson and Campbell, 1981). Beginning in 1970, however, Blacks began to migrate back to small and large metros in the South. During the 1970s, the Black population in the South grew by 17.3 percent—a rate that exceeded growth rates in both the Midwest and Northeast regions (Johnson and Campbell, 1981). In their return migration, Blacks have tended to move to areas with substantial pre-existing Black populations. The most popular destinations have been small and large metro areas in Georgia, North Carolina, and Maryland (Harrison and Bennett, 1995).

Because there was no Hispanic category on the U.S. census until the 1970 Census, internal migration data for the Hispanic population are lacking prior to the 1970s. Since then, however, regional migration of Hispanics has followed the trend South and West. The Northeast and Midwest experienced net losses of Hispanics, whereas the South and West gained substantially. In some cases, the rates at which Hispanics migrated to the South and West far exceeded those of the non-Hispanic White population (Bean and Tienda, 1987). They have tended to migrate to growth areas where there are pre-existing high concentrations of Hispanics. A great deal of variation underlies this trend with respect to national origin. Cubans, for example, have generally tended toward further regional concentration, whereas both Mexicans and Puerto Ricans have become more geographically dispersed (Bean and Tienda, 1987).

Although foreign-born Hispanics are more likely to settle in traditional port-of-entry metro areas, such as Los Angeles and Miami, U.S.-born Hispanics have tended to migrate outward (McHugh, 1989; Bartel, 1989). From 1985 to 1990, U.S.-born Hispanic migrants moved to metropolitan areas such as Orlando, Las Vegas, and Sacramento (Harrison and Bennett, 1995).

According to the 1860 Census, 100 percent of the U.S. Asian population resided in the West. Beginning in 1940, less than 90 percent lived in the West, and the percentage has decreased ever since. Despite this trend, Asian populations did not exceed 20 percent in any other region in 1990. Net migration flows during the 1970s and 1980s indicate that the six largest Asian ethnic groups tended to migrate to both the South and West in patterns similar to the overall U.S. population, but regional patterns differed among the various groups. The Vietnamese, for example, showed the highest migration from the Northeast and Midwest to the West (Barringer et al., 1993). Asians disperse from traditional immigrant metros even more so than Hispanics, in patterns related to their diverse origins and higher levels of education (Frey, 1995). As in the case of Hispanics, Asians tend to move outward to metro areas in high-growth regions; thus, during the late 1980s, there was a net migration of Asians out of such traditional Asian immigrant metro areas as New York, Chicago, and Honolulu. Los Angeles attracts both immigrants and internal migrants;

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

but in addition to Los Angeles, Asian migrants are moving to Sacramento, Atlanta, Orlando, and Las Vegas (Harrison and Bennett, 1995). Like Blacks and Hispanics, most Asians are moving to communities with high concentrations of their own groups.

Largely because of centuries of U.S. policies forcing American Indians westward, this group is primarily concentrated in the West. The most significant demographic trend in the second half of the twentieth century, however, has been rapid urbanization brought about by federal urban relocation programs aimed at moving reservation populations into cities as a way to address deteriorating economic conditions on reservations (Sorkin, 1971; Fixico, 1986). Some portion of this demographic shift can also be attributed to changing self-identification, rather than the actual relocation of individuals (Snipp, 1989); nevertheless, Sorkin (1971) estimates that from 1952 to 1972, approximately 100,000 American Indians migrated to cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago. Unfortunately, migration data provided by USBC are potentially problematic for American Indians. The census does not track residential relocations of less than five-years’ duration; yet, case studies suggest there is a good deal of short-term mobility between reservations and metropolitan areas. From 1985 to 1990, approximately 45 percent living in nonmetro areas moved, and about 65 percent in metro areas moved. Snipp (1989) argues that this mobility most likely represents movement to and from reservations as opposed to intra-reservation movement. In any case, the movement did not lead to significant changes in the distribution of the American Indian populations in metro and nonmetro areas (Snipp, 1989).

Understanding the Trends

After World War II, White and Black migration closely followed changes in national and regional economies. The push/pull factors, including mechanization of agriculture in the South and opportunities in the North’s manufacturing sectors, contributed to individual decisions to migrate (Fligstein, 1981, 1983; Dillingham and Sly, 1966; Johnson and Campbell, 1981; Raymond, 1972). Most Blacks first migrated to urban areas in the South (Dillingham and Sly, 1966). As competition for unskilled work in southern metro areas intensified, however, many Blacks migrated to northern metro areas, where incomes were higher, employment opportunities more plentiful, and educational opportunities promised upward advancement both socially and economically. Further, substantial Black communities in key northern metros offered physical protection, social acclimation, and economic assistance (Johnson and Campbell, 1981).

More recently, however, growth of industries such as agribusiness,

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

defense, technology, real estate and construction, and tourism was concentrated in southern and western states, reflecting the larger geographic decentralization of economic activity and sparking a massive redistribution of people and resources out of the Northeast and Midwest and into the South and West (Sale, 1975). For Whites, this population redistribution has involved not only movement to the South and West, but also a deconcentration of the population and dispersal to nonmetro areas of the South.

The reversal of the South-to-North pattern in Black internal migration was largely a response to the deindustrialization process and the concomitant decline in blue-collar jobs in manufacturing (Pettigrew, 1980; Long and Hansen, 1975). Blacks, like Whites, gravitated toward the growing economies, manufacturing communities, and university towns of the South Atlantic region. Disillusionment with the lack of economic and social ascendancy, as well as rising discontent with northern cities in general, were also compelling reasons for many Blacks to flee the inner cities of the North. The network of kinship ties throughout the South facilitated this return migration. Whether this southern migration reflects an increased assimilation into national labor markets for Blacks is debatable. As noted, most Blacks moved to metro areas in the South, not to nonmetro areas, which is where employment opportunities are actually expanding. Although there has been a lower net migration of Blacks into metro areas in each subsequent decade, their redistribution to nonmetro areas of the South has progressed more slowly. At the same time, the increase in the suburban Black population might reflect an ascendancy of more Blacks into the middle class (Frey, 1995); because many Blacks have moved to less affluent suburbs, however, this view is contentious.

Immigration and assimilation complicate this overall picture. Many metro areas and regions experienced a dramatic influx of internal migrants, but other areas grew primarily as a result of immigration from abroad. In port-of-entry cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, and Chicago, migration from abroad was the total source of gains in population from 1985 to 1990 (Harrison and Bennett, 1995).

Most recent immigrants rely on social networks of family and friends to aid in the settlement process. For Hispanic populations, geographic concentration is much more pronounced among foreign-born Hispanics than U.S.-born Hispanics (Bean and Tienda, 1987); thus, newly arrived Hispanic immigrants have generally settled in large port-of-entry metros in the Northeast and South following historic immigration patterns. As Bean and Tienda (1987) note, this pattern also mirrors that of European immigrants who typically settled in large cities in the Northeast. The one exception to this trend is the early Mexican immigrants, who were employed in mining and agriculture and, therefore, drawn to rural areas.

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

Since World War II, however, Mexicans have urbanized at a rapid rate. Current internal Hispanic migration streams suggest that Hispanics are in fact following larger national migration flows; however, they are moving to growth areas with substantial pre-existing Hispanic populations (Harrison and Bennett, 1995).

Asians appear to respond to the same forces as other groups in terms of geographic distribution and migration (Barringer et al., 1993). Recent immigrants, such as Koreans and Asian Indians, have tended to follow the migration stream of the U.S. population overall, responding to economic opportunities. The larger, older Asian groups have, nevertheless, tended to remain in the West and Hawaii. In both cases, economic opportunities and the location of family and friends are important motivating factors behind location decisions (De Jong and Fawcett, 1981).

Barringer et al. (1993) argue that as Asians become more assimilated, it is likely that their distribution patterns will come to more closely resemble those of the larger U.S. population, as in the case of Hispanics. Length of residence, generational effects, and identity formation all contribute to this process, which is apparently occurring at the regional level; evidence at the metro level is less indicative of this process. Bartel (1989) argues that because most Asians are moving to metro areas where high concentrations of Asians already live, the pattern does not suggest greater assimilation.

Historical distribution of the American Indian population was primarily determined by the migration of White settlers and U.S. policy (Snipp, 1989). In the North, disease and warfare destroyed many tribes after contact with Europeans; in the South and the Ohio River Valley, Indians were forced to move westward beginning in the early nineteenth century. Forced migrations continued under Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act of 1830, leading to removal of the entire American Indian population from eastern homelands onto reservations or into Indian Territory, what is now Oklahoma.

American Indians and Indian reservations are concentrated in rural areas because of another aspect of removal policies—an attempt to locate Indians in remote areas, separate from mainstream U.S. society. The rapid urbanization occurring in the second half of the twentieth century was brought about by federal urban relocation programs, primarily as a means to address deteriorating economic conditions on reservations by moving reservation populations into cities (Sorkin, 1971; Fixico, 1986). Such federal policies contributed to the trend of urbanization that had begun among the American Indian population with the start of World War II, which drew significant numbers into military service and into urban-based war-related industries (Hagan, 1979; Bernstein, 1991). Many American Indians chose to remain in metro areas for improved job oppor-

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

tunities (Fixico, 1986; Bernstein, 1991). A large percentage also returned to the reservations, however. Those who remained in metro areas tended to be younger, with higher levels of education, and of mixed blood. Motivating factors for returnees included lack of economic success in the city and difficulties in adjusting to urban life (Sorkin, 1971). Decreased emphasis on the relocation policies in the late 1960s and early 1970s slowed urbanization considerably, which is why almost half the American Indian population continues to live outside metro areas. The absence of any significant interregional shifts and high rates of mobility by this population in recent decades suggest less involvement in national labor markets (Harrison and Bennett, 1995).

Possible Future Trends

Short- (1993 to 2000) and long-term (1993 to 2020) trends suggest that the size of the population in the West and South regions will continue to increase. Whereas the West will receive a major portion of its growth from international migration, the South will experience growth from both international and internal migration. Net internal migration from both the Northeast and Midwest will account for slower growth in these regions (Campbell, 1993). The Black population is expected to be the second fastest growing group in the South, Northeast, and Midwest; Whites are expected to be the slowest-growing group in the long term.

Blacks are projected to continue being concentrated in the South, which will experience the largest gains in Black population of any region. Although growth of the Hispanic population is expected to be substantial in all four regions, the greatest absolute increase is expected to occur in the West. In all regions, Hispanics are projected to comprise a larger share of the population. Asians are projected to be the fastest growing group in all four regions. More than half of the 8 million Asians projected to be added to the total U.S. population will reside in the West. Finally, the American Indian population is projected to be the second fastest growing group in the West.

Despite the growing significance of all groups, in terms of their share of the overall U.S. population, regional- and metro-level disparities are likely to remain. Census data on five-year migration patterns show these patterns differ in magnitude and tend to involve migration to areas with pre-existing concentrations of the subject racial/ethnic group—South and West for Whites, South Atlantic states for Blacks, Florida for Hispanics, and California for Asians. American Indians tend to remain within regions rather than migrate across regional boundaries. Further, immigration will continue to largely concentrate groups in traditional port-of-entry metros. If White flight from high-immigration metro areas and

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

states continues, a few immigrant ports-of-entry will continue to gain minority populations while losing Whites to more prosperous areas. These developments may result in a more pronounced racial and ethnic balkanization pattern in the United States (Frey, 1995). As a result, minorities may continue to be virtually absent from many parts of the United States, and relatively disconnected to national labor markets (Harrison and Bennett, 1995). Furthermore, in those metropolitan areas or states with large Hispanic and White populations, race- and age-based political interests may begin to interact as the Hispanic population remains young and the White population grows increasingly older.

FERTILITY RATES AND FAMILY PATTERNS

Fertility rates and family patterns are two key elements of a population’s demography. Rates of marriage (same-race and interracial), divorce, and single-parenthood influence the population’s fertility rate, socioeconomic status, and sense of well-being. Fertility among couples, singles, and teenagers also affects a group’s rate of growth and age structure. Racial and ethnic groups differ significantly in their family patterns and fertility rates; these differences provide valuable clues to the rates of assimilation between and among the groups and into the mainstream, cultural differences, and possible reasons for socioeconomic differences.

In the United States, fertility rates rose after World War II, from 1950 to 1960—the baby-boom years—and then began a decline that lasted until 1975. From 1975 to 1990, fertility rates gradually increased, but declined slightly in the 1990s. The teenage childbearing rate also rose during the baby-boom years and then began a decline that lasted until 1985; the rate rose slightly in the late 1980s and has declined since. The rate of out-of-wedlock childbearing more than tripled from 1950 to 1995. Marriage trends also changed dramatically in this period. The median age at first marriage rose for both men and women, and divorce rates more than doubled, which led to a dramatic increase in single-parent families. Trends for racial and ethnic groups vary significantly within these overall trends in fertility rates and family patterns.

Fertility

Measuring Fertility

Three techniques for measuring fertility will be discussed in this chapter. The first technique counts the number of children ever born per 1,000 women of a certain age range as a rough indicator of fertility. The information for this measure is collected via the census. However, the number

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

of children ever born is an imperfect indicator because it is not limited to recent years—i.e., the births counted have been occurring over the entire childbearing period of women of different ages prior to the census. To have estimates of more recent fertility, the data must be limited to only young women, who have had their children in the few years before the census.

The second technique is the fertility rate (or general fertility rate). This rate computes the births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 for one year, thus gauging recent fertility data while including women of all ages. However, the age structure of females ages 15 to 44 differs from population to population, with some populations having more females at the younger end of this range and still in prime childbearing years, and others having females more concentrated at the older end of the range when females have usually completed their childbearing.

The third technique—total fertility rate—controls for these differences. This rate is a calculation of the number of children a woman would bear throughout her life if the rates for a given year for each age range were to remain stable. This technique requires the most information and therefore is not always available. Table 3–4 shows trends in the total fertility rate for racial and ethnic groups; we also discuss data on children ever born and the general fertility rate.

Fertility Trends Among Racial and Ethnic Groups
Blacks

U.S. census data show that Black women have, since data were collected, had higher fertility rates than White women (Farley and Allen, 1987). In 1950, the total fertility rate for non-Whites was 3,579 per 1,000 women or 3.6 children per woman, compared to 2.9 for Whites (Farley and Allen, 1987). Rates for both groups rose sharply in the post-war baby boom. Total fertility rates peaked in 1960 for both Blacks (4,542) and Whites (3,510). Black fertility then declined to 1985, rose in the late 1980s, and declined in the early 1990s.

Between 1960 and 1996, the absolute difference between Black and White total fertility rates dropped from 1,032 children to 408 children per 1,000 women, a 40 percent decline. In 1960, total fertility rates for Blacks were approximately 30 percent higher than those of Whites, while in 1996 they were 23 percent higher. Both ways of looking at the trends in fertility suggest a convergence over time. Others have found a clear convergence between Blacks and Whites regarding the percent of women who remain childless and the birthrate for married women (Farley and Allen, 1987; Jaynes and Williams, 1989).

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

TABLE 3–4 Total Fertility Rates (births per 1,000 women), 1950 to 1996

 

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1996

Total U.S.

3,028

3,498

3,606

2,882

2,432

1,770

1,840

1,844

2,081

2,027

White

2,945

3,405

3,510

2,764

2,338

1,685

1,773

1,787

1,851d

1,796d

Non-White

3,579

4,126

Black

4,542

3,829

3,099

2,243

2,177

2,109

2,548d

2,204d

Hispanic

2,534

2,960

3,048

Asian

2,399a

2,179b

1,948c

1,954

1,885

2,003

1,908

American Indian

3,398a

2,722b

2,409c

2,163

2,128

2,183

2,030

NOTE:—, Data not collected or separated by groups.

aData for 1965 to 1969.

bData for 1970 to 1974.

cData for 1975 to 1979.

dData are for non-Hispanic Whites and Blacks.

SOURCES: Adapted from U.S. Bureau of the Census (1997: Table 93); Taffel (1977: Table 13); National Center for Health Statistics (1994: Table 1–9); Barringer et al. (1993: Table 3.3); Ventura et al. (1998).

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Hispanics

Fertility data for Hispanics are more limited than data for Blacks (see Darabi, 1987), but since 1980, the total fertility rate for Hispanic women has been the highest of any group (Table 3–4). In addition, although other groups experienced a decline in the 1990s, the Hispanic fertility rate continued to increase. Among Hispanics in 1996, the total fertility rate was highest for the Mexican population (3,354) and lowest for the Cuban population (1,775) (National Center for Health Statistics, 1998). In relation to non-Hispanic Whites, the total fertility rate of the Mexican population was 87 percent higher and the total fertility rate of the Cuban population was slightly lower. This illustrates one of the many dimensions of heterogeneity within the Hispanic population.

Calculating the number of children ever born for Hispanics enhances the discussion of fertility. (This information is available for Hispanics from 1950, but it should be noted that 1950 and 1960 data are based on Spanish surname, and that the published data from census reports for 1950 included data for White Hispanics with data for Whites, and for Black Hispanics with data for Blacks; 1970 and 1980 data are based on Spanish origin.) Hispanic fertility was almost 30 percent higher than that of both Whites and Blacks in 1950. Higher fertility rates may be due in part to the desire for larger families among Hispanics (Darabi, 1987). Following the overall baby-boom trend, the number of children ever born increased for all age groups of Hispanic women in 1960.

American Indians

The U.S. census did not begin to collect data on the number of children ever born to American Indian women until 1960. Thus, information about fertility rates of American Indians is even more limited than that for Hispanics. Table 3–4 shows that the total fertility rate of American Indians has been lower than that of Hispanics since the first data shown for that group, 1980, but above that of Whites since 1970. In 1996, the total fertility rate of American Indians (2,030) was 13 percent higher than that of Whites, compared to 23 percent higher in 1965.

Birth rates rose during the baby boom after being at notably low levels in the early part of the century. According to Snipp (1996), 1960 Census data show that American Indian women had the highest number of children ever born of any racial or ethnic group. Older American Indian women had more children than both older Whites and Blacks. Census data show American Indian fertility levels declined in 1970 and again in 1980, except for births among teenagers. Snipp (1996) theorizes that key factors contributing to these higher levels of fertility are the

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

younger ages at which American Indian women begin bearing children and their contribution beyond the ages at which other groups suspend childbearing. Snipp (1996) also notes significant differences in American Indian fertility patterns relative to urban or rural residence, same-race or interracial marriage, and tribal affiliation.

Asians

The first available census-based data for Asian fertility are from the 1960 Census, which collected information on children ever born to Japanese and Chinese women. These data show that Asian fertility rates were the lowest of all racial/ethnic groups. In 1970, the number of children ever born had decreased for both Japanese and Chinese women for all age groups except Chinese women ages 35 to 44, for whom the rate had risen.

Table 3–4 shows that the total fertility rate for Asians was lower than that for Whites in 1965, but 6 percent higher than that for Whites in 1996. It is important to remember, however, that the care with which data are gathered for the Asian population has improved since 1965; so, the safest thing to say is that the evidence indicates that Asian fertility rates are lower than those for Hispanics, Blacks, and American Indians, but higher than those for Whites.

It is clear that there are distinct differences among Asian groups. Barringer et al. (1993) analyzed data from the 1980 Census and found that Vietnamese women had much higher fertility levels than other Asian women; Asian Indians had the second highest fertility rates, followed by Filipinos, Koreans, and Chinese; Japanese women had the lowest fertility levels.

Teenage Childbearing

Both historically and recently, there are important differences among racial and ethnic groups regarding teenage childbearing. In 1950, the teenage fertility rate—births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 19—for non-Whites was more than twice that of Whites (Table 3–5). According to Taylor et al. (1997), currently 21 percent of White adolescent girls, as opposed to 40 percent of minority adolescent girls, become pregnant by age 18. Historically, the overall teenage fertility rate followed the same pattern as the general fertility rate, rising quickly between 1940 and 1960 (although teenage childbearing seems to have peaked slightly earlier than overall fertility), falling through 1985, rising through 1990, and falling between 1990 and 1995.

There are substantial differences between childbearing of Black and White teens. In 1960, the teenage fertility rate for Blacks was almost twice

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

that of Whites; by 1995, this gap had widened and Black teens were more than two and one-half times more likely to give birth than their White counterparts. More Black teens than White teens are sexually active, and in general, Blacks engage in sexual activity at younger ages than Whites, therefore increasing the numbers of those at risk for pregnancy (Farley and Allen, 1987). Black teens also use contraception and abortion at lower rates than Whites. More positive attitudes toward motherhood among young Black women than among Whites may contribute to these differences (Taylor et al., 1997).

The American Indian population has also had a high teenage birth rate. In 1995, the general fertility rate for American Indian teenagers was 78, roughly twice that for Whites. Data from the census on the number of children ever born show that the childbearing rates for American Indian teens were close to those of Black teens and very similar to Hispanic teens from 1960 through 1990. As Snipp (1996) points out, American Indians begin bearing children early, 45.2 percent having their first child by age 20, whereas 20.6 percent of White women had their first child by this age in 1990.

Table 3–5 shows that Hispanic teens also had higher fertility rates than Whites, and slightly higher rates than Blacks, in 1995. However, data on children ever born suggest that fertility rates for Hispanic teens are dropping at a faster rate in the last 20 years than those of Blacks and American Indians. For the three main Hispanic groups, teen birth rates mirror the pattern of overall fertility: Cubans have lower teen fertility rates than non-Hispanic Whites, rates for Puerto Ricans range in the middle, and Mexican rates are significantly higher. In 1980, the teenage fertility rate for Mexicans was more than five and one-half times that of non-Hispanic Whites (Bean and Tienda, 1987). There are few studies on sexual activity among Hispanic teenagers, but Darabi (1987) suggests that Hispanic teenagers may begin sexual activity later than Blacks and Whites and may be more likely to postpone sex until after marriage. As it has for Blacks, the relative difference in teenage fertility rates from that of Whites has widened for Hispanics and American Indians.

Table 3–5 shows that Asian teenagers had the lowest general fertility rates of any of the groups in 1995.

Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing

Out-of-wedlock childbearing is an aspect of fertility that changed dramatically in the United States over the past 50 years. The fertility rate for unmarried women of all races more than tripled from 1950 to 1995 (Table 3–6). This is in large part a result of the declining tendency of unmarried pregnant women to marry before the birth of the child. Had

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

TABLE 3–5 General Fertility Rates (births per 1,000 women) for Teenagers Ages 15–19, 1950 to 1995

 

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

Total U.S.

81.6

90.3

89.1

70.5

68.3

55.6

53.0

51.0

59.1

56.8

White

70.0

79.1

79.4

60.6

57.4

46.4

44.7

42.5

49.3

39.3

Non-White

163.5

167.2

158.2

138.4

133.4

106.4

94.6

88.9

102.4

Black

156.1

144.6

140.7

111.8

100.0

97.9

118.3

99.3

Hispanic

106.7

Asian

26.1

American Indian

78.0

 

SOURCES: Adapted from National Center for Health Statistics (1994: Tables 1–9); Ventura et al. (1997: Table A); Ventura et al. (1998).

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

marriage rates remained steady from 1960 to the present, the increase in nonmarital births would have been greatly reduced (Taylor et al., 1997). Because women in general are spending less time married (marrying later and divorcing more often), they spend more time at risk for unmarried pregnancy; this fact, combined with lower birth rates among married women, produces a higher proportion of unmarried births (Farley and Allen, 1987; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995).

The increase in unmarried childbearing has been especially sharp among White women, whose out-of-wedlock childbearing rate in 1995 was more than six times higher than that for 1950. The rate for non-Whites increased just 12 percent from 1950 to 1990. Although a large gap remains, these figures illustrate a convergence between unmarried fertility rates for Whites and non-Whites.

Farley and Allen (1987) report that out-of-wedlock childbearing rates for Black women had been increasing before 1970. At that time, unmarried Black women were almost seven times more likely to bear a child than unmarried White women. Since 1970, however, fertility rates for unmarried Blacks fell from 95.5 to 75.9. This drop and the corresponding increase among White women led to a partial convergence of Black and White rates, to the point that fertility rates for unmarried Black women were approximately double those for Whites. The fact that Black women are still less likely than Whites to marry because of pregnancy, and are only about half as likely to end a nonmarital pregnancy in abortion, contributes to their higher rates of unmarried fertility (Farley and Allen, 1987). Despite the significant drop in out-of-wedlock childbearing for unmarried Black women, these births are an increasing proportion of all births to Black women (Farley and Allen, 1987; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995; Taylor et al., 1997). In 1995, approximately seven of ten births to Black women were out of wedlock.

Few data are available concerning out-of-wedlock childbearing among Hispanics. According to Table 3–6, unmarried fertility rates for Hispanics in 1995 were much higher than those for both Whites (153 percent higher) and Blacks (25 percent higher). This primarily reflects the presence of higher rates for Hispanic women older than age 25 (U.S. Department of Heath and Human Services, 1995). Since fertility rates are also higher for married Hispanic women, however, less than one-third of Hispanic babies were born out of wedlock in 1996.

Data are similarly sparse for American Indian women. John (1998) notes that evidence suggests rising nonmarital fertility rates for American Indians, but explains that out-of-wedlock childbearing is relatively common among this group and is not met with particularly negative attitudes, although childbirth within marriage is still the norm. In 1996, 58 percent of American Indian births were to unmarried women. As with

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

TABLE 3–6 Fertility Rates (births per 1,000 women) for Unmarried Women, Ages 15 to 44, 1950 to 1990; All Ages, 1995

 

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

Total U.S.

14.1

19.3

21.6

23.4

26.4

24.5

28.4

32.8

43.8

45.1

White

6.1

7.9

9.2

11.6

13.8

12.6

17.6

21.8

31.8

37.5

Non-White

71.2

87.2

98.3

97.6

89.9

80.4

77.2

72.4

79.7

Black

95.5

84.2

82.9

79.0

90.5

75.9

Hispanic

52.0

89.6

95.0

Asian

American Indian

 

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of the Census (1977: Table 87; 1996: Table 98); Ventura (1980: Table 11); Ventura et al. (1997: Table 14); National Center for Health Statistics (1994: Table 1–77); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1995: Table II–1).

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

other fertility behaviors, there is most likely tribal and residential (rural/ urban) variation.

Although there is little information available about out of wedlock childbearing among Asian and Pacific Islander women, in 1996, 17 percent of babies in this group were born out of wedlock (National Center for Health Statistics, 1998).

Family Patterns

Marriage, Divorce, Intermarriage, and Single-Parent Households

Marital patterns have moved away from traditional models in the last half-century. The median age at first marriage is one of the changing aspects. Since 1950, it has risen 21 percent for women and 17 percent for men for all race groups. This delay in marriage has been offset by a rise in rates of cohabitation. Young couples are still living together, but there has been a decrease in the legalization of these unions (Taylor et al., 1997).

Table 3–7 shows the percentage distribution of marital status from 1950 to 1995. Although this measure is influenced by a population’s age structure, it reveals some general trends. The percent of persons married in 1995 had fallen 9 percent from 1950 levels; the percent divorced had risen substantially. Despite a slight decrease after 1980, there were more than three and one-half times as many persons divorced in 1995 than there were in 1950. Cherlin (1992) points out that divorce rates have been rising steadily since 1860. The rate of increase slowed in the 1950s only to pick up again in the early 1960s and rise to historic highs by the early 1980s, when rates began to level off.

For Blacks, the median age at first marriage is roughly parallel to that of Whites, according to 1980 census data. Historically, Blacks have married at younger ages than Whites, but more recently the groups have traded places and now Blacks marry at somewhat older ages than Whites. Throughout their lives, Black women spend less time married than do their White counterparts. According to 1975 to 1980 rates, Black women could expect to spend 16 years of a 73-year life span married, whereas White women could expect to spend 33 out of their 77 years married. This 17-year difference increased from an 11-year difference based on 1955 to 1960 rates (Jaynes and Williams, 1989).

Jaynes and Williams (1989) suggest that Black women may feel less pressure than White women to marry or to stay married for financial support because of the poor economic status of Black men. It is also possible that the inner-city environment in which a larger portion of Blacks reside may exert less social pressure to enter, or remain in, marital situations; most of the increase in the percentage of unmarried people

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

TABLE 3–7 Percent Distribution of Marital Status, 1950 to 1995

 

1950

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

Total U.S.

 

Single

22.8

 

22.0

 

14.9

16.2

 

17.5

20.3

22.2

22.9

Married

67.0

67.3

73.2

71.7

69.6

65.5

61.9

60.9

Separated/divorced

1.9

2.3

2.9

3.2

4.6

8.0

7.6

7.0

Widowed

8.3

8.4

9.0

8.9

8.3

6.2

8.3

9.2

White

 

Single

 

 

15.6

 

18.9

19.8

20.3

20.6

Married

72.6

67.2

65.0

64.0

63.2

Separated/divorced

3.1

7.8

7.5

7.5

7.0

Widowed

8.7

6.0

7.7

8.1

9.1

Black

 

Single

23.9

 

29.6

 

31.9

24.3

 

27.2

30.5

34.6

35.1

38.4

Married

63.5

63.3

61.1

66.9

62.7

51.4

46.3

45.8

43.2

Separated/divorced

2.4

3.1

3.6

5.1

9.8

9.5

8.5

7.6

Widowed

12.6a

4.6

3.9

5.2

5.0

8.4

9.6

10.6

10.7

Hispanic

 

Single

31.6

 

27.9

 

29.3

 

31.6

24.1

25.5

27.2

28.6

Married

59.0

61.9

62.4

60.3

65.6

62.7

61.7

59.3

Separated/divorced

4.8

3.4

4.1

4.4

6.7

4.0

4.2

Widowed

9.4a

5.4

4.9

4.1

5.8

5.1

7.0

7.9

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

Asian

 

Single

32.1b

34.2c

27.3b

29.8c

25.4b

32.4c

29.6d

31.8

Married

58.0b

60.1c

65.3b

62.2c

64.9b

60.0c

60.8d

58.6

Separated/divorced

1.9b

2.9c

3.4b

2.5c

4.9d

5.4

Widowed

9.8a,b

5.7a,c

5.5b

5.0c

6.4b

5.4c

4.8d

4.3

American Indian

 

Single

32.1

 

34.7

 

26.8

 

36.9e

32.4

Married

57.4

52.7

57.8

46.9e

46.6

Separated/divorced

5.7

8.1

9.3e

15.5

Widowed

10.6a

6.9

7.3

6.7e

5.5

aIncludes widowed and divorced respondents.

bJapanese.

cChinese.

dFor states and Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas with 25,000 or more Asians and Pacific Islanders.

eFor identified reservations.

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of the Census (1953f: Tables 8–13; 1953g: Table 6; 1963h: Table 3; 1963i: Tables 10–12; 1966b: Table1; 1972a: Table 1; 1973d: Table 5; 1973c: Tables 5 and 20; 1977: Tables 48–50; 1984b: Table 10; 1986: Table 3; 1993b: Table 1; 1994: Table 3; 1997: Table 58); Schick and Schick (1991: Table C1–4).

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

among Blacks can be attributed to those who have never married. In contrast, for Whites, the increase is primarily the result of rising rates of divorce and decreasing rates of remarriage (Taylor et al., 1997). Blacks are also less likely than Whites to remarry after a divorce. Only one-third of Black women remarry within 10 years of a separation (Taylor et al., 1997). As with the general population, the number of Blacks cohabiting has increased, as have rates of divorce and separation.

In spite of the similarities, there has been a growing divergence between Blacks and Whites in marital behaviors (Cherlin, 1992), with regard to age at first marriage, rate of separation and divorce, and amount of time spent separated/divorced before remarriage. This has led to a marriage gap that grew from a 5 percent difference between Blacks versus Whites and Hispanics in 1950, to an almost 30 percent difference in 1995, when 60.9 percent of Whites and Hispanics were married versus 43.2 percent of Blacks (Table 3–7).

As regards trends in intermarriage, Black women are slightly more likely than White women to marry outside their race. The percentage of Black women married to non-Black men increased from 0.9 percent in 1960 to 3.2 percent in 1994. In 1960, the number of Black men married to Black women was approximately equal to the number of Black women married to Black men; since then, interracial marriages among Black men increased relatively sharply. In 1994, 6.6 percent of Black men were married to someone of a different race (Table 3–8).

As with other topics, fewer data on Hispanic marital trends are available than for Whites and Blacks, although it has traditionally been assumed that marriage and family relationships are more important and therefore more stable for Hispanics relative to non-Hispanics (Bean and Tienda, 1987). Bean and Tienda (1987) found that marital patterns for Cubans were much like those of non-Hispanic Whites by 1980, but that Mexicans married earlier and in higher percentages than Whites. However, among Hispanics in general they found no evidence of lower rates of marital instability, and concluded that the assumption of stronger familial importance among Hispanics was probably not valid. Rather, Hispanics have followed the general trend away from traditional marriage patterns.

The rate of interracial marriage among Hispanics has traditionally been far above that of Whites or Blacks. Jaffe et al. (1976) examined interracial marriage among Hispanics and found that most were to nonHispanic Whites. Cubans have the highest rate of intermarriage, followed by Mexicans, with Puerto Ricans being the least likely to marry non-Hispanics. Hispanic women have intermarried more than Hispanic men; however, unlike Blacks and Whites, levels of interracial marriage for Hispanics have changed little since 1970 and, if anything, have decreased.

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

TABLE 3–8 Percent of Wives and Husbands in Same-Race Marriages, 1960 to 1994

 

1960

1970

1980

1985

1990

1994

White

 

Wives

99.8

 

99.7

 

99.0

 

98.6

98.8

Husbands

99.8

99.6

98.9

98.8

98.7

Black

 

Wives

99.1

 

99.2

 

98.8

 

97.2

96.8

Husbands

99.0

98.5

96.4

93.7

93.4

Hispanic

 

Wives

 

82.3a

 

81.3

 

81.5b

83.9

Husbands

82.5a

82.2

85.3b

86.9

Asian

 

Wives

76.3c

89.2d

66.8c

87.8d

59.4c

83.2d

75.8

Husbands

93.9c

85.8d

88.6c

86.5d

81.4c

86.9d

87.7

American Indian

 

Wives

75.8

 

61.0

 

46.3

 

39.8

Husbands

82.5

64.2

47.6

41.2

aIncludes Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Other Spanish.

bData for 1989.

cJapanese.

dChinese.

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of the Census (1966b: Table 10; 1972a :Table 12; 1985: Table 11); Schick and Schick (1991: Table C1–7); Saluter (1996: Table C); Sandefur and Liebler (1996: Figure 9.3); Shinagawa and Jang (1998: page 53).

Although data on the marital patterns of American Indians are limited, some conclusions can be drawn. In 1980, the median age at first marriage for both men and women was slightly lower than that for Whites. Throughout the past 50 years, American Indians have had a higher percentage of single persons and a lower percentage of married persons than the total U.S. population. The gap for percentage of persons married has widened since 1950. The percent married has dropped 9 percent for all races but 18 percent for American Indians. However, it is difficult to draw conclusions from these data because of changes in the self-identification patterns of American Indians. The general trends of higher rates of never-married and divorced persons have probably been reflected in the American Indian population, as well as the rise in the age at first marriage (Sandefur and Liebler, 1996). The 1980 to 1990 percentages of American Indians divorced indicate a slower rate of increase relative to the total United States, but absolute differences grew simply because American Indians started with a higher percent of divorced persons.

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

American Indians have a long history of intermarriage with Whites (Sandefur and Liebler, 1996; John, 1998) and have had the highest rate of interracial marriage of all the groups, at almost all times over the last half-century; more women have married non-American Indians than men. The rates of intermarriage among American Indians increased substantially from 1960 to 1990. In 1970, American Indians were involved in 27 percent of all intermarriages (Sandefur and Liebler, 1996). In 1990, almost 60 percent of married American Indians had non-American Indian spouses; but this increase, too, may be partially the result of shifting self-identification.

The 1980 Census data show that Asian men and women marry much later than the general U.S. population, and Japanese and Chinese men and women marry later than other Asians (Barringer et al., 1993). Data in Table 3–7 show that for 1980 and 1990, a larger percentage of Asians were single than was the case for the overall population. Although changing racial definitions make trends difficult to read, the percentage of single Asian persons appears to have remained fairly constant. Asians historically have had lower divorce rates than the general population, and rates for Asian immigrants are lower than for U.S.-born Asians (Barringer et al., 1993); however, trends show increasing percentages of persons divorced.

Rates of interracial marriage for Asians are quite high, closer to those of Hispanics than Blacks and Whites. Among Asians, Japanese women have had especially high rates of marriage to non-Asian men. It appears that most Asian groups have had increasing rates of intermarriage over time, although rates for Chinese men have declined. Again, changes in racial classifications make trends difficult to interpret.

Single-Parent Families

Increasing rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing have resulted in a proliferation of children living with only one parent, usually the mother. The data in Table 3–9 show that for the total population, the percentage of children younger than age 18 living with both parents declined from 88.5 percent in 1960 to only 69 percent in 1995. The percentage of children living with only their mother more than tripled during this time period. Cherlin (1992) points out that divorced mothers had historically moved in with other family members, but this trend has declined in recent decades. Cherlin (1992) and McLanahan and Sandefur (1994) note that single parents frequently do not have enough time or resources for their children. McLanahan and Sandefur (1994) find evidence that children from single-parent homes are at increased risk for dropping out of high school, and girls are more likely to become teen

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

mothers. The consequences are somewhat less harmful for Blacks and Hispanics than for Whites, however (McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994).

Black children are much more likely to reside in a single-parent home than White children, as has been the case throughout the last 50 years. The percentage of Black children living with both parents decreased by half, from 67 percent in 1960 to 33 percent in 1995. Between 1970 and 1995, the percentage of White children living with both parents also fell, but by 15 percent, compared to 43 percent for Black children. By 1995, a little more than half of Black children lived with their mother only.

Some sociologists, such as E.Franklin Frazier, have theorized that Black family structure is a pathological result of forced family disorganization during slavery and the subsequent marginalization of Blacks in America (see, e.g., Frazier, 1968; see also Farley and Allen, 1987; and Cherlin, 1992, for a discussion of Frazier’s theory). Cherlin (1992), however, concludes that differing family patterns result from differential experiences of Black and White families in cities. Farley and Allen (1987) conclude that economic status and cultural values influence the Black family structure.

The percentages of Hispanic children living with both parents range between the rates for Black and White children, with the percentages of single-parent families having increased by 19 percent between 1970 and 1995. Within Hispanic ethnic groups, Bean and Tienda (1987) find that Cubans have the lowest rates of families headed by single females, with Mexicans at a slightly higher rate. Puerto Rican rates are much higher, approximately double those of Cubans and Mexicans, and similar to those of Blacks.

American Indians have also experienced an increase of single-parent families. Their rates are higher than for Hispanic but lower than for Black children. The rate of decrease of children with both parents has paralleled that of Hispanics. Sandefur and Liebler (1996) point out that there is significant variation among American Indian tribes as regards single-parent families, but rates on all reservations are higher than those for Whites.

Asian populations have also experienced increases in the number of single-parent families, but not to the same degree as other racial and ethnic groups. In 1970, the percentage of Asian (Japanese) children living with both parents was similar to that of Whites; but there was an 8 percent drop over the next 25 years, compared to a 15 percent drop for non-Hispanic Whites. Barringer et al. (1993) note that, within the Asian population, the levels of single-female heads of household are very low for Asian Indians and highest (higher than non-Hispanic Whites) for the Vietnamese population.

In sum, fertility rates and family structure have undergone significant

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

TABLE 3–9 Percent Distribution of Children Younger Than Age 18 Living in Both- or Single-Parent Households, 1960 to 1995

 

1960a

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

Total U.S.

 

Both parents

88.5

84.9

 

80.3

77

74

73

69

Mother only

7.5

10.8

15.5

18

21

22

23

Father only

1

1.1

1.5

2

3

3

4

White

 

Both parents

89.2

 

85.4

83

80

79

76

Mother only

7.8

11.3

14

16

16

18

Father only

0.9

1.5

2

2

3

3

Non-White

 

Both parents

67.7

 

Mother only

19.6

Father only

1.8

Black

 

Both parents

67

58.1

 

49.4

42

40

38

33

Mother only

29.4

41

44

51

51

52

Father only

2.2

1.8

2

3

4

4

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

Hispanic

 

Both parents

77.6b

 

75

68

67

63

Mother only

 

 

20

27

27

28

Father only

 

2

2

3

4

Asian

 

Both parents

89.3c

90.1d

89.3

83.6

82.4f

Mother only

10.9f

Father only

3.0f

American Indian

 

Both parents

68.6c

57.6e

55.4

Mother only

Father only

aData are for children younger than age 14.

bRespondents of Spanish origin.

cJapanese.

dChinese.

eFor identified reservations.

fData for 1994.

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of the Census (1964c: Table 1; 1973c: Table 4; 1973d: Table 3; 1973e: Tables 3 and 18; 1977: Table 66; 1984b: Table 8; 1986: Table 6 and 15; 1993b: Table 2; 1994: Table 2; 1997: Table 81); Russell (1996: page 18); Shinagawa and Jang (1998: page 32).

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

changes within the last half-century. There has been a move away from traditional fertility and family behaviors; out-of-wedlock childbearing, divorce, single-parent families, and later marriage have all increased; and differences in fertility rates and family patterns between racial and ethnic groups persist.

MORTALITY

Racial and ethnic mortality differences are determined by calculating life expectancies and death rates. These measures give information about the average length of life, but not the average quality of life. To help explicate reasons behind mortality patterns, researchers analyze infant mortality and causes of death.

Data and Their Limitations

Many researchers question the accuracy of the racial and ethnic identity items on vital statistics records (Hahn, 1992; Hahn et al., 1992; Palloni, 1978) because of the data problems mentioned previously. In addition, death registration data have shown problems of misclassification. Asians and American Indians are frequently misclassified as Whites on death certificates, which minimizes their groups’ mortality and exaggerates White mortality (Hahn, 1992). Furthermore, census underestimation also affects statistics on racial and ethnic group mortality. Infant mortality statistics are derived from two vital statistics registration forms—birth and death certificates. Inconsistencies in coding of race and ethnicity have been found across forms, and greater inconsistencies are found for Asians, American Indians, and Hispanics. When the group identification does not match, most misassignments code the individual as White (Hahn et al., 1992). Thus, rates presented below are probably underestimates of actual rates for Blacks, Asians, and American Indians and should be considered a lower bound of the true rates.

Life Expectancy

Life expectancy at birth is a commonly used indicator of the intrinsic mean health of a group. Life expectancies represent the mean number of years left to live, based on then-current mortality rates (Péron and Strohmenger, 1985:112). Since the 1950s, life expectancies for all Americans have increased through the elimination of many premature deaths (Wright, 1997). Whites have historically had the highest life expectancy, but their relative advantages are declining (Kitagawa and Hauser, 1973).

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

In 1950, the gap between White and non-White life expectancies was 8 years; by 1995 the gap had narrowed to 4.5 years (Table 3–10).

Blacks consistently have the lowest life expectancy among major U.S. racial and ethnic groups. A Black person born in 1970 could expect to live 64 years; by 1995, Black life expectancy had increased to 70 years. The 1990 life expectancy of Blacks is 7 years less than the 1990 life expectancy of Whites. American Indians also have lower life expectancies. An American Indian born in 1950 could expect to live, on average, 60 years; by 1990, the average was 74 years. The 1990 life expectancy for American Indians is 2 years less than the 1990 life expectancy of Whites.

Little historical information is available for the life expectancies of Hispanics and Asians. Life expectancies at birth for Asians and various Asian subgroups are only available for persons born in 1992 for seven selected states—California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Washington. These seven states, combined, accounted for 73 percent of the Asian population in 1990 (Hoyert and Kung, 1997) (see Table 3–10, column for 1990). The 1992 life expectancies for Asian subgroups vary greatly, but generally remain longer than life expectancy for Blacks. Hawaiians and Samoans had the lowest life expectancies; and Guamanians, Asian Indians, and Koreans had the highest, although estimates for Samoans, Guamanians, and Asian Indians should be viewed with caution because their small population sizes limit the reliability of results. Chinese and Japanese life expectancies were estimated at 82 years.

Females generally live longer than males, given their different mortality rates. This is true across all racial and ethnic groups. As seen in Figure 3–3, non-White females have made the greatest gains in life expectancy since 1950.

Death Rates and Age-Adjusted Death Rates

Death rates for racial and ethnic groups are calculated based on the number of deaths for that group per 1,000 persons. To account for the different age compositions of any population group, demographers calculate age-adjusted or standardized death rates. U.S. rates are calculated using direct age standardization, adopting the 1940 total U.S. population age structure as the standard population (for information on calculation methodologies, see Péron and Strohmenger, 1985; Curtin and Klein, 1995). Thus, the age-adjusted rate shows what the death rate would be in an actual population with the same age distribution as the standard population (Zopf, 1992). Table 3–11 shows historical patterns for age-adjusted death rates, and reveals that they have dropped dramatically. Standardized death rates for all males dropped more than the standardized death rates for all females, primarily because males started at much higher rates.

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

TABLE 3–10 Life Expectancy at Birth, 1950 to 1995

 

1950

1955

1960a

1965

1970c

Both Sexes

 

Total U.S.

68.2

69.6

69.7

70.2

70.9

White

69.1

70.5

70.6

71.0

71.7

Non-White

60.8

63.7

63.6

64.1

65.3

Black

64.1

Hispanic

Asian

77.4b

American Indian

60.0

61.7

65.1

Males

 

Total U.S.

65.6

66.7

66.6

66.8

67.1

White

66.5

67.4

67.4

67.6

68.0

Non-White

59.1

61.4

61.1

61.1

61.3

Black

60.0

Hispanic

Asian

American Indian

58.1

60.0

60.7

Females

 

Total U.S.

71.1

72.8

73.1

73.7

74.7

White

72.2

73.7

74.1

74.7

75.6

Non-White

62.9

66.1

66.3

67.4

69.4

Black

68.3

Hispanic

Asian

American Indian

62.2

65.7

71.2

aPrior to 1960, data exclude Alaska and Hawaii.

bData for only the Japanese population.

cBeginning in 1970, tabulations exclude nonresidents of the United States.

dData for 1992 and for only those in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Washington.

eData for years 1990–1992 for the population in areas served by the Indian Health Service.

After adjusting for their age composition, Whites have lower standardized death rates and have rates closer to those of Asians and Hispanics. Blacks have the highest age-adjusted death rates across all points in time for both the total group population and by sex, followed by American Indians, and then Whites. Hispanics have the second lowest age-adjusted death rates across time and for both sexes in the years in which data are available. Finally, Asians show the lowest age-adjusted death rates across time. The lower age-adjusted rates for Asians and Hispanics reflect misreporting of race on death certificates and population underestimation.

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

 

72.6

73.7

74.7

75.4

75.8

73.4

74.4

75.3

76.1

76.5

68.0

69.5

71.0

71.2

71.9

66.8

68.1

69.3

69.1

69.6

75.2d

71.1

73.5e

 

68.8

70.0

71.1

71.8

72.5

69.5

70.7

71.8

72.7

73.4

63.7

65.3

67.0

67.0

67.9

62.4

63.8

65.0

64.5

65.2

67.1

 

76.6

77.4

78.2

78.8

78.9

77.3

78.1

78.7

79.4

79.6

72.4

73.6

74.8

75.2

75.7

71.3

72.5

73.4

73.6

73.9

71.1

 

SOURCES: National Center for Health Statistics (1996: Table 6–5); Anderson et al. (1997: Table 5); Kochanek et al. (1994: Table 5); Hoyert and Kung (1997: Table B); Reddy (1993b: Table 398); Snipp (1989: Table 3.1); Indian Health Service (1995: Table 4.33); Barringer et al. (1993: Table 3.5).

The low standardized death rates for Hispanics and Asians mask the great diversity within these two groups. Immigrants and refugees usually have higher death rates than U.S.-born groups (Bradshaw and Liese, 1991; Barringer et al., 1993; Gardner et al., 1985). In 1992, among Asian groups, age-adjusted death rates were the lowest for Asian Indians, Koreans, and Japanese, respectively, and highest for Hawaiians and Samoans (Hoyert and Kung, 1997). For 1979 to 1981, and among Hispanic groups, Cubans had the lowest standardized death rates, and Mexicans ranged between Cubans and Puerto Ricans, who had the highest rates (Maurer et

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

FIGURE 3–3 Life expectancy at birth by sex, 1950 to 1995. SOURCE: National Center for Health Statistics (1996: Table 5).

al., 1990).2 This same pattern held for foreign-born Hispanics in 1979 to 1981 (Shai and Rosenwaike, 1991).

The relationship between male and female standardized death rates varies among groups. For both Whites and Blacks, female age-adjusted death rates are a little less than half the age-adjusted rates of males. The differences are smaller for Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians.

Infant Mortality

Like life expectancy, infant mortality is a general indicator of a group’s overall well-being or, conversely, deprivation (Cramer, 1987). Infant mortality is defined as the number of deaths in the first 11 months of life per 1,000 live births. Infant mortality can be broken down into neonatal mortality (rate of deaths in the first 28 days of life per 1,000 live births) and postneonatal mortality (the rate of deaths in the 1st through 11th month of life per 1,000 live births). Deaths in the neonatal period often result from congenital anomalies and problems associated with preg-

2  

For this group, data are derived from 15 states (Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming). During 1979–1981, 20 states had a census question about Hispanic or ethnic origin, but only these 15 had comparable wording on the origin question and at least 90 percent completion for that question.

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

nancy. Deaths in the postneonatal period more likely result from environmental causes (Bertoli et al., 1984).

Particular data problems arise for infant mortality statistics. First, as discussed previously, the race coded on an infant’s death certificate may or may not match that which the mother indicates on the birth certificate. This problem is especially important for children of mixed racial/ethnic couples, and, thus, the infant mortality of groups with higher rates of intermarriage. Babies of mixed ethnicity tend to be more often classified as White at death than at birth, leading to an underestimate of the infant mortality for non-Whites (Barringer et al., 1993).

Second, in 1989, the National Center for Health Statistics changed the way it calculated the race of live births. Before 1989, the Center determined the race of a child using an algorithm of the mother’s and father’s race:

  • if both parents were of the same race, the child was coded as that race;

  • if one parent was White and one parent was non-White, the child was classified as the non-White race;

  • when neither parent was White, the child was assigned the race of the father with one exception—if the mother was of Hispanic origin, the child was always determined by the Hispanic status of the mother;

  • if one parent was Hawaiian, then the child was considered Hawaiian;

  • if race was only reported for one parent, the race of the child was coded as the race of that parent (Hoyert, 1994).

Since 1989, the race, for all births, is classified as the race of the mother.

On a death certificate, the race of a child is not determined by any uniform rules, but by the next of kin or an official local or state recorder. The change in race coding of live births led to significant increases in the rates of infant mortality for racial and ethnic minority groups, especially for American Indians, Japanese, and Hawaiians (Hoyert, 1994); and this change limits our ability to compare rates before and after 1989.

Despite these additional data limitations, overall trends in infant mortality, as presented in Table 3–12, reveal dramatic declines in the U.S. infant mortality rate since 1950. The decrease results from significant reductions in neonatal mortality (MacDorman and Rosenberg, 1993; Singh and Yu, 1995); it falls short, however, of declines experienced in other industrialized countries. The slower pace of declines in infant mortality in the United States is largely the result of racial and socioeconomic inequalities in U.S. infant mortality rates (Singh and Yu, 1995).

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

TABLE 3–11 Death Rates and Age-Adjusted Death Rates Reported, 1950 to 1995 (per 1,000 persons)

Death Rates

1950

1955

1960

1965

Both Sexes

 

Total U.S.

9.6

9.3

9.5

9.4

White

9.5

9.2

9.5

9.4

Non-White

11.2

10.0

10.1

9.6

Black

11.3

10.4

10.4

Hispanic

Asian

Chinese

9.0

6.8

Japanese

6.1

5.1

American Indian

Age Adjusted for Both Sexesa

 

Total U.S.

8.4

7.6

7.6

7.4

White

8.0

7.3

7.3

7.0

Non-White

12.3

10.4

10.5

10.1

Black

10.7

10.5

Hispanic

Asian

Chinese

Japanese

American Indian

Age Adjusted for Malesa

 

Total U.S.

10.0

9.3

9.5

9.5

White

9.6

9.1

9.2

9.1

Non-White

13.6

11.9

12.1

12.2

Black

12.5

12.7

Hispanic

Asian

American Indian

Age Adjusted for Femalesa

 

Total U.S.

6.9

6.1

5.9

5.6

White

6.5

5.7

5.6

5.3

Non-White

11.0

9.1

8.9

8.3

Black

9.2

8.6

Hispanic

Asian

American Indian

a1940 U.S. Population used for the standardization.

bData an average of 1979 through 1981 cohorts and from 15 states.

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

 

9.5

8.8

8.8

8.8

8.6

8.8

9.5

8.7

8.9

9.0

8.9

9.1

9.4

8.2

7.9

7.4

7.4

 

10.0

8.8

8.8

8.5

8.7

8.6

3.7b

3.5

3.0

2.8

2.8

3.0

4.7

3.7

4.2

4.0

4.9

4.2

4.0

4.5

 

7.1

6.2

5.9

5.5

5.2

5.0

6.8

6.0

5.6

5.2

4.9

4.8

9.8

8.4

7.7

7.1

6.9

10.4

8.9

8.4

7.9

7.9

7.6

4.6b

3.9

3.2

3.1

3.0

3.0

4.9

3.5

3.3

2.9

5.6

4.7

4.5

4.7

 

9.3

8.2

7.8

7.2

6.8

6.5

8.9

8.0

7.5

6.9

6.4

6.1

12.3

10.9

10.1

9.3

9.1

13.2

11.6

11.1

10.5

10.6

10.1

6.12b

5.2

4.2

4.0

3.8

3.8

7.3

6.0

5.7

5.8

 

5.3

4.6

4.3

4.1

3.9

3.9

5.0

4.4

4.1

3.9

3.7

3.6

7.7

6.3

5.8

5.4

5.1

8.1

6.7

6.3

5.9

5.8

5.7

3.3b

2.7

2.2

2.3

2.3

2.3

4.1

3.5

3.4

3.7

 

SOURCES: National Center for Health Statistics (1996: Tables 1–2 and 1–3); Anderson et al. (1997: Tables 1 and 14); Maurer et al. (1990: Table 2); Barringer et al. (1993: Table 3.4).

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

TABLE 3–12 Infant Mortality (percent reported per 1,000 live births), 1950 to 1995

 

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990d

1995

Infant (0 to 11 months of age)

 

Total U.S.

29.2

26.4

26.0

24.7

20.0

16.1

12.6

10.6

9.2

7.6

White

26.8

23.6

22.9

21.5

17.8

14.2

11.0

9.3

7.6

6.3

Non-White

44.5

42.8

43.2

40.3

30.9

24.2

19.1

15.8

15.5

12.6

Black

43.9

43.1

44.3

41.7

32.6

26.2

21.4

18.2

18.0

15.1

Hispanic

10.9b

8.5c

7.9c

6.3

Asian

7.8

5.3

American Indiana

 

62.7

48.0

38.5

24.6

18.7

13.8

9.7

9.7f

9.0

Neonatal (less than 1 month of age)

 

Total U.S.

20.5

19.1

18.7

17.7

15.1

11.6

8.5

7.0

5.8

4.9

White

19.4

17.7

17.2

16.1

13.8

10.4

7.5

6.1

4.8

4.1

Non-White

27.5

27.2

26.9

25.4

21.4

16.8

12.5

10.3

9.9

8.1

Black

27.8

27.8

27.8

26.5

22.8

18.3

14.1

12.1

11.6

9.8

Hispanic

7b

5.5c

5e

4.1

Asian

4.8

3.4

American Indiana

23.1

16.1

12.2

9.2

6.6

4.4

4.6f

3.9

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

Postneonatal (1 to 11 months of age)

 

Total U.S.

8.7

7.3

7.3

7.0

4.9

4.5

4.1

3.7

3.4

2.7

White

7.4

5.9

5.7

5.4

4.0

3.8

3.5

3.2

2.8

2.2

Non-White

16.9

15.6

16.4

14.9

9.5

7.5

6.6

5.5

5.7

4.5

Black

16.1

15.3

16.5

15.2

9.9

7.9

7.3

6.1

6.4

5.3

Hispanic

3.9b

3.0c

2.9e

2.1

Asian

3.0

1.9

American Indiana

39.7

20.7

12.3

9.5

7.2

5.2

5.1f

5.1

aData an average of three years, centering on the year given, except where noted.

bData an average of 1979 through 1981 cohorts and from 15 states.

cData for 1985 and 1987 cohorts from 20 states and Washington, D.C.

dAfter 1989, the race of births is tabulated by the race of the mother. Before 1989, births were tabulated by the race of the child as determined by an algorithm of the mother’s and father’s race.

eData for 1987 from 18 states and the District of Columbia.

fData an average of 1987 and 1988 cohorts.

SOURCES: National Center for Health Statistics (1996: Table 2–2); MacDorman and Rosenberg (1993: Table 2); Pastore and MacDorman (1995: Table J); MacDorman and Atkinson (1998: Tables A and C); Maurer et al. (1990: Table C); Schick and Schick (1991: Table E1–14); Anderson et al. (1997: Table 25); Reddy (1993b: Tables 415, 448 and 449); Gall and Gall (1993: Table 439).

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Current Rates

In 1995, Asians had the lowest infant mortality rates. Hispanics and Whites had the next lowest rates. American Indians had the second highest infant mortality rate, and Blacks had the highest. The low rates for Asians and Hispanics mask the variability within these groups. Among Hispanics, Mexicans, Cubans, and Central and South Americans have similar rates, but Puerto Ricans have significantly higher rates (MacDorman and Atkinson, 1998). Among Asians, Chinese have the lowest rates; Japanese, Filipino, and “Other Asians” have median rates; and Hawaiians have the highest rate. For neonatal mortality, Blacks have an astonishingly high rate; Puerto Ricans, Whites, and Hawaiians have the next highest rates; and Chinese, Japanese, and Filipinos have the lowest rates. Cubans have the lowest Hispanic neonatal mortality rate. Postneonatal mortality rates remain especially high for American Indians and Blacks.

Trends

American Indians have experienced larger decreases in infant mortality than have Whites. Between 1955 and 1995, White infant mortality fell by 73 percent while American Indian infant mortality fell by 86 percent. Most of the declines in infant mortality for American Indians occurred between 1955 and 1980, and the decline results from reductions in postneonatal mortality. Black infant mortality rates have declined the least since 1955, by 65 percent. For Blacks, both neonatal and postneonatal mortality-rate declines contributed equally to the overall reduction in infant mortality rates since 1955; but declines in neonatal mortality rates have not kept pace with that of Whites. Since the 1970s, the gap between White and Black infant mortality rates has actually widened. Since 1985, Asian infant mortality rates have declined by 32 percent and Hispanic infant mortality rates have declined by 26 percent. Reductions in postneonatal mortality account for the overall attenuation of infant mortality rates for Asians and Hispanics since 1985.

Explaining Mortality Trends

The reduction in infectious and parasitic diseases largely accounts for the lower death rates and longer life expectancies reported here. This reduction occurred as a result of progress made in medicine and sanitation, as well as improvements in nutrition and health awareness (Zopf, 1992). Reductions in infant mortality have been associated with increased and improved prenatal care and better maternity health habits. Improved

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

living standards for all groups, especially for minorities in the last half century, reduced child and adult mortality from diseases and environmental causes. Employment and higher education and income status are associated with lower mortality for all groups (Kitagawa and Hauser, 1973; Bertoli et al., 1984; Sorlie et al., 1995). Also, the concentrated efforts of public health organizations, for the population as a whole and for various racial and ethnic groups, have helped improve health standards for everyone. The Indian Health Service and tribal health clinics, for example, greatly improved the health conditions of American Indians in areas of infant mortality, tuberculosis, gastrointestinal disease, and accidents (Indian Health Service, 1995). One of the three broad goals of the Presidential Healthy People 2000 Plan included targeted efforts to reduce health disparities for racial and ethnic groups, especially along the lines of infant mortality and certain causes of death (Plepys and Klein, 1995; also see the discussion in Volume II, Chapter 13). Also, because foreign-born members of Asian and Hispanic groups tend to be healthier than their U.S.-born counterparts, the better mortality conditions of Asians and Hispanics could be related to the higher proportions of Asian and Hispanic immigrants. The reason for better immigrant health might be that those Hispanics and Asians able to migrate are healthier than the general homeland populations (Barringer et al., 1993).

Discrepancies between the White and non-White mortality regimes continue to exist, despite advances, for several reasons. First, socioeconomic differences persist between Whites and non-Whites. Higher death and infant mortality rates, and higher instances of certain causes of disease, are associated with lower education and income levels (Kitagawa and Hauser, 1973; Cramer, 1987); and non-Whites, with the exception of Asians, have lower education and income levels (Harrison and Bennett, 1995). Asians have better-than-average socioeconomic status and, con-currently, lower mortality rates. Second, racial and ethnic groups have lower rates of health insurance coverage and receive lower-quality medical care than do Whites (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1992; Zopf, 1992). Finally, diet and health practices vary by racial and ethnic group and influence certain causes of disease, such as heart disease, stroke, and lung cancer (Gardner et al., 1985; Rogers, 1991). There is additional discussion of mortality differentials in Volume II, Chapter 14.

Possible Future Trends

Few projected estimates are calculated for mortality statistics, but one such projection was made for infant mortality. Singh and Yu (1995) projected neonatal and postneonatal mortality rates for Blacks and Whites through the year 2010. Based on their projections, the overall Black-White

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

disparity is not expected to diminish. These forecasts, however, do not take into account political, social, behavioral, demographic, or medical influences on future mortality changes.

One such future political influence is the President’s Healthy People 2010 plan, which includes the goal of reducing infant mortality by 22 percent for Blacks with the eventual goal of eliminating this racial disparity for Blacks, American Indians, and Puerto Ricans. Other Healthy People 2010 goals include increased screening and management for cancer; reductions in stroke and heart disease mortality; the elimination of disparities in diabetes, especially for Blacks and American Indians; equal access to life-enhancing therapies for low-income HIV-infected persons; and increased access to immunizations for minorities (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1998). Each of these measures will help eliminate important differences among racial and ethnic groups and break down barriers to increased life chances. These measures could help bring our population one step closer to a convergence in infant mortality and life expectancy.

Racial and ethnic minority groups suffer disproportionately from higher mortality rates and, thus, lower life expectancies and unequal chances for survival. Most of the gaps between Whites and non-Whites have narrowed over the years, but continue to be significant. Especially disturbing is the continued, and increasing, gap between Black and White infant mortality.

The United States has experienced a great reduction in the leading causes of death during this century, from suffering and dying primarily from infectious and parasitic diseases to degenerative diseases. Racial and ethnic groups have experienced this reduction in leading cause of death later than Whites, and still suffer more from infectious diseases than do Whites. The leading causes of death differ greatly, depending on age groups, but for both age-specific and overall causes of death, mortality rates are generally higher for Blacks and American Indians.

Additional difficulties arise for interpreting racial and ethnic mortality statistics because of multiple data problems. Combined, these data problems tend to underestimate the mortalities of non-Whites. Regardless of whether these estimates are lower bounds of the true discrepancies between racial and ethnic groups and Whites, clearly more attention needs to be devoted to the health conditions of minorities.

SUMMARY

The United States has witnessed significant demographic shifts in its racial and ethnic composition over the past 50 years, and still greater change is anticipated in the twenty-first century. Historically, Blacks con-

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

stituted the largest racial and ethnic minority group; Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians comprise smaller proportions of the population; but Hispanic and Asian populations are growing at a rapid rate. Hispanics are expected to surpass Blacks as the largest minority group, and the Asian population is expected to increase more rapidly than any other group.

Projected increases in the Hispanic and Asian populations can be partially explained by the influx of immigrants in the past several decades. The regional and metropolitan distribution of different racial and ethnic groups in the United States often reflects patterns of international migration. Foreign-born immigrants traditionally cluster on the coasts in port-of-entry cities such as Los Angeles, Miami, and New York; however, substantial numbers of the second generation move to inland metropolitan areas. In spite of all this movement, for both internal migrants and immigrants, racial and ethnic minority groups tend to migrate to areas with existing concentrations of coethnics or members of their racial or ethnic group.

Another aspect of the growing Hispanic population is fertility rates. Hispanic women have traditionally had much higher fertility rates than Whites and slightly higher rates than Blacks. In 1996, American Indian women had higher fertility rates than White, Black, and Asian women, for whom the rate was lowest, mostly because American Indian women start childbearing earlier and continue to have children much later than women in other racial and ethnic groups.

Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians had the highest rates of teenage childbearing, in 1995, while Asians had the lowest. Out-of-wed-lock childbearing, at any age, increased for all groups, but especially for Whites. Researchers attribute the particular increase among Whites to a decline in marriage rates. Despite the largest increase in out-of-wedlock childbearing being among Whites, Blacks maintained a rate twice that of Whites in this category, and American Indian women had out-of-wedlock childbearing rates similar to Blacks.

Blacks historically married at younger ages than Whites, but in 1995, Blacks married later than Whites. As the proportion of children born out of wedlock increased, as the average age at first marriage increased, and as the divorce rate increased, single-parent families became increasingly common. The proportion of children living in single-parent families was highest among Blacks in 1995, followed by American Indians, Hispanics, Whites, and finally Asians.

Life expectancies in 1995 were lowest at birth for Blacks and American Indians. These two groups also had the highest infant mortality rates and age-adjusted death rates.

As data collection for specific U.S. populations has improved, and

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

continues to improve, our understanding of specific-population characteristics has improved substantially. The quantity and quality of information on the major racial and ethnic groups—Blacks, Whites, American Indians, Asians and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics—is better now than ever before. Furthermore, we are accumulating better and better data on specific subgroups such as the Hmong, Vietnamese, and Mexican populations. Nonetheless, severe data limitations remain, especially in the area of vital statistics. The future of data collection and analysis will be even more complicated if patterns of immigration and intermarriage continue.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper was prepared for the Research Conference on Racial Trends in the United States sponsored by the National Research Council, October 15–16, 1998. Work on this paper was carried out at the Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, which receives financial support from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development.

REFERENCES

Anderson, R., K.Kochanek, and S.Murphy 1997 Advance report of final mortality statistics, 1995. Monthly Vital Statistics Report 45(11S).


Barringer, H., R.Gardner, and M.Levin 1993 Asians and Pacific Islanders in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bartel, A. 1989 Where do the new U.S. immigrants live? Journal of Labor Economics 7:371–391.

Bean, F., and M.Tienda 1987 The Hispanic Population of the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bernstein, A. 1991 American Indians and World War II: Toward a New Era in Indian Affairs. Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press.

Bertoli, F., C.Rent, and G.Rent 1984 Infant mortality by socio-economic status for Blacks, Indians, and Whites: A longitudinal analysis of North Carolina, 1968–1977. Sociology and Social Research 68(3):364–377.

Bogue, D. 1985 Population of the United States: Historical Trends and Future Projections. New York: The Free Press.

Bradshaw, B., and K.Liese 1991 Mortality of Mexican-origin persons in the southwestern United States. Ch. 5 in Mortality of Hispanic Populations, I.Rosenwaike, ed. New York: Greenwood Press.

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

Campbell, P. 1993 Population Projections for States, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1993 to 2020. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports P25–1111. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Cherlin, A. 1992 Marriage Divorce Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Edition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Coale, A., and N.Rives 1973 A statistical reconstruction of the Black population of the United States, 1880– 1970: Estimates of the numbers by age and sex, birth rates and total fertility. Population Index 39:3–35.

Coale, A., and M.Zelnik 1963 New Estimates of Fertility and Population in the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Cramer, J. 1987 Social factors and infant mortality: Identifying high-risk groups and proximate causes. Demography 24(3):299–322.

Curtin, L., and R.Klein 1995 Direct standardization (age-adjusted death rates). Healthy People 2000: Statistical Notes (10):1–10.


Darabi, K. 1987 Childbearing among Hispanics in the United States: An Annotated Bibliography. New York: Greenwood Press.

Davis, C, C.Haub, and J.Willette 1983 U.S. Hispanics: Changing the face of America. Population Bulletin 38(3).

Day, J. 1996 Population Projections of the United States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2050. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P25–1130. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Deardorff, K., and F.Hollmann 1997 U.S. Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin: 1990 to 1996. U.S. Bureau of the Census, PPL-57, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

De Jong, G. and J.Fawcett 1981 Motivations for migration: An assessment and a value-expectancy research model. In G.De Jong and R.Gardner, eds., Migration Decision Making: Multi-disciplinary Approaches to Microlevel Studies in Developed and Developing Countries. New York: Pergamon Press.

Dillingham, H., and D.Sly 1966 The mechanical cotton picker, Negro migration and the integration movement. Human Organization 25(Winter):346.


Elben, J. 1974 New estimates of vital rates of the United States Black population during the nineteenth century. Demography 11:301–319.

Eschbach, K. 1993 Changing identification among American Indians and Alaska Natives. Demography 30:635–652.


Farley, R., and W.Allen 1987 The Color Line and the Quality of Life in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

Fixico, D. 1986 Termination and Relocation: Federal Indian Policy, 1945–1960. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Fligstein, N. 1981 Going North, Migration of Blacks and Whites from the South, 1900–1950. New York: Academic Press.

1983 The transformation of southern agriculture and the migration of Blacks and Whites, 1930–40. International Migration Review 17:268–290.

Frazier, E. 1968 The Negro Family in America. Pp. 191–209 in E.Franklin Frazier on Race Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Frey, W. 1995 The new geography of population shifts. In State of the Union: America in the 1990s. Vol. II: Social Trends, R.Farley, ed. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Gall, S.B., and T.L.Gall, editors 1993 Statistical Record of Asian Americans. Detroit: Gale Research, Inc.

Garcia, J., and P.Montgomery 1991 The Hispanic Population in the United States: March 1990. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports, P20–449. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Gardner, R., B.Robey, and P.Smith 1985 Asian Americans: Growth change and diversity. Population Bulletin 40(4):1–44.

Gordon, L. 1984 Migration of refugees within the United States: New data sources and findings. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of Geographers.


Hagan, W. 1979 American Indians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hahn, R. 1992 The state of federal health statistics on racial and ethnic groups. Journal of the American Medical Association 267(2):268–271.

Hahn, R., J.Mulinare, and S.Teutsch 1992 Inconsistencies in coding of race and ethnicity between birth and death in U.S. infants. Journal of the American Medical Association 267(2):259–263.

Harrison, R., and C.Bennett 1995 Racial and ethnic diversity. Ch. 4 in State of the Union: America in the 1990s. Vol. II: Social Trends, R.Farley, ed. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Hollmann, F. 1993 U.S. Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin: 1980 to 1991. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P25–1127. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Hoyert, D. 1994 Effect on mortality rates of the 1989 change in tabulating race. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 20(25).

Hoyert, D., and H.Kung 1997 Asian or Pacific Islander mortality, selected states, 1992. Monthly Vital Statistics Report 46(1), (S).


Indian Health Service 1979 Selected Vital Statistics For Indian Health Service Areas and Service Units, 1972 to 1977. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

1995 Trends in Indian Health, 1995. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Jaffe, A., R.Cullen, and T.Boswell 1976 Spanish Americans in the United States: Changing Demographic Characteristics. New York: Research Institute for the Study of Man.

Jaynes, G., and R.Williams, Jr., eds. 1989 A Common Destiny: Blacks and American Society. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

John, R. 1998 American Indian families. Pp. 382–421 in Ethnic Families in America: Patterns and Variations, 4th edition, C.Mindel, R.Habenstein, and R.Wright, Jr., eds. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Johnson, D., and R.Campbell 1981 Black Migration in America—A Social Demographic History. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.


Kitagawa, E., and P.Hauser 1973 Differential Mortality in the United States. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Kochanek, K.D., J.D.Maurer, and H.M.Rosenberg 1994 Causes of Death Contributing to Changes in Life Expectancy: United States, 1984–1989. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.


Lieberson, S., and M.Waters 1988 From Many Strands: Ethnic and Racial Groups in Contemporary America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Long, J. 1981 Population Deconcentration in the United States. Special Demographics Analysis. CDES-81–5US. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Long, L. 1988 Migration and Residential Mobility in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Long, L., and D.DeAre 1981 The suburbanization of Blacks. American Demographics (September): 16.

Long, L., and K.Hansen 1975 Trends in return migration to the South. Demography 12(4):501–514.


MacDorman, M., and J.Atkinson 1998 Infant mortality statistics from the linked birth/infant death data set, 1995 period data. Monthly Vital Statistics Report 46(6), (S2).

MacDorman, M., and H.Rosenberg 1993 Trends in infant mortality by cause of death and other characteristics: 1960–1988. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 20(20).

Martin, P., and E.Midgley 1994 Immigration to the United States: Journey to an uncertain destination. Population Bulletin 49(2).

Maurer, J., H.Rosenberg, and J.Keemer 1990 Deaths of hispanic origin, 15 reporting states, 1979–1981. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 20(18).

McDaniel, A. 1995 The dynamic racial composition of the United States. Daedalus 124:179–199.

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

McHugh, K. 1989 Hispanic migration and population redistribution in the United States. Professional Geographer 41:429–439.

McLanahan, S., and G.Sandefur 1994 Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps? Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Nagel, J. 1996 American Indian Ethnic Renewal: Red Power and the Resurgence of Identity and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.

National Center for Health Statistics 1994 Vital Statistics of the United States, 1990. Volume I, Natality. Washington, D.C.: Public Health Service.

1996 Vital Statistics of the United States, 1991. Vol. II, Mortality, Part A. Washington, D.C.: Public Health Service.

1998 Monthly Vital Statistics Report. June 30.

Nelson, K. 1980 Recent suburbanization of Blacks. Journal of the American Planning Association (July): 287–300.


Office of Management and Budget 1997 Revisions to the standards for the classification of federal data on race and ethnicity. Federal Register. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.


Palloni, A. 1978 Application of an indirect technique to study group differentials in infant mortality. Ch. 12 in The Demography of Racial and Ethnic Groups, F.Bean and W.Frisbie, eds. New York: Academic Press.

Passel, J., and K.Woodrow 1984 Geographic distribution of undocumented immigrants: Estimates of undocumented aliens counted in the 1980 Census by state. International Migration Review 18:642–671.

Pastore, L., and M.MacDorman 1995 Infant mortality by Hispanic origin of mother: 20 states, 1985–1987 birth cohort. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 20(27).

Péron, Y., and C.Strohmenger 1985 Demographic and Health Indicators. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

Pettigrew, T. 1980 Racial change and the intrametropolitan distribution of Black Americans. In The Prospective City: Economic, Population, Energy and Environmental Developments, A. Soloman, ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Plepys, C., and R.Klein 1995 Health status indicators: Differentials by race and Hispanic origin. Healthy People 2000: Statistical Notes (10):1–8.


Raymond, R. 1972 Determinants of non-White migration during the 1950s. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 31:9–20.

Reddy, M., ed. 1993a Statistical Record of Hispanic Americans. Washington, D.C.: Gale Research.

1993b Statistical Record of Native North Americans. Washington, D.C.: Gale Research.

Robinson, J., B.Ahmed, P.Das Gupta, and K.Woodrow 1993 Estimation of population coverage in the 1990 United States Census based on demographic analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88:1061–1071.

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

Rogers, R. 1991 Health-related lifestyles among Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans in the United States. Ch. 9 in Mortality of Hispanic Populations, I.Rosenwaike, ed. New York: Greenwood Press.

Russell, C. 1996 Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, and Whites. Ithaca, N.Y.: New Strategist Publications, Inc.

Sale, K. 1975 Power Shift: The Rise of the Southern Rim and Its Challenge to the Eastern Establishment. New York: Random Press.

Saluter, A. 1996 Marital status and living arrangements: March 1994. Current Population Reports. Series P20(484).

Sandefur, G., and C.Liebler 1996 The demography of American Indian families. Pp. 196–217 in Changing Numbers, Changing Needs, G.Sandefur, R.Rindfuss, and B.Cohen, eds. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Schick, F., and R.Schick 1991 Statistical Handbook on U.S. Hispanics. Phoenix: The Oryx Press.

Shai, D., and I.Rosenwaike 1991 An overview of age-adjusted death rates among three Hispanic populations in their home countries and in the United States. Ch. 13 in Mortality of Hispanic Populations , I.Rosenwaike, ed. New York: Greenwood Press.

Shinagawa, L., and M.Jang 1998 Atlas of American Diversity. Walnut Creek, Calif.: AltaMira Press.

Siegel, J. 1974 Estimates of coverage of the population by sex, race, and age in the 1970 Census. Demography 11:1–23.

Singh, G., and S.Yu 1995 Infant mortality in the United States: Trends, differentials, and projections, 1950 through 2010. American Journal of Public Health 85(7):957–964.

Snipp, C. 1989 American Indians: The First of This Land. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

1996 The size and distribution of the American Indian population: Fertility, mortality, migration, and residence. Pp. 17–52 in Changing Numbers, Changing Needs, G. Sandefur, R.Rindfuss, and B.Cohen, eds. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Sorkin, A. 1971 American Indians and Federal Aid. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.

Sorlie, P., E.Backlund, and J.Keller 1995 U.S. mortality by economic, demographic, and social characteristics: The national longitudinal mortality study. American Journal of Public Health 85(7):949–956.


Taffel, S. 1977 Trends in fertility in the United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 20(28).

Taylor, R., M.Tucker, L.Chatters, and R.Jayakody 1997 Recent demographic trends in African American family structure. Pp. 14–62 in Family Life in Black America, R.Taylor, J.Jackson, and L.Chatters, eds. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

Thornton, R., and J.Marsh-Thornton 1981 Estimating prehistoric American Indian population size for the United States area: Implication of the nineteenth century population decline and nadir. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 55:47–53.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (USBC) 1953a 1950 Census of Population, Characteristics of the Population, Vol. II. Part 5: California. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1953b 1950 Census of Population, Characteristics of the Population, Vol. II. Part 9: Washington D.C. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1953c 1950 Census of Population, Characteristics of the Population, Vol. II. Part 10: Florida. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1953d 1950 Census of Population, Characteristics of the Population, Vol. II. Part 43: Texas. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1953e 1950 Census of Population, Characteristics of the Population, Vol. II. Part 52: Hawaii. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1953f 1950 Census of Population, Special Reports, PE-3B, NonWhite Population by Race. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1953g 1950 Census of Population, Special Reports, PE-3C8, Persons of Spanish Surname. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1963a 1960 Census of Population, Characteristics of the Population, Vol. 1. Part 6: California. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1963b 1960 Census of Population, Characteristics of the Population, Vol. 1. Part 10: Washington D.C. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1963c 1960 Census of Population, Characteristics of the Population, Vol. 1. Part 11: Florida. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1963d 1960 Census of Population, Characteristics of the Population, Vol. 1. Part 13: Hawaii. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1963e 1960 Census of Population, Characteristics of the Population, Vol. 1. Part 15: Illinois. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1963f 1960 Census of Population, Characteristics of the Population, Vol. 1. Part 34: New York. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1963g 1960 Census of Population, Characteristics of the Population, Vol. 1. Part 45: Texas. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1963h 1960 Census of Population, Subject Reports, PC(2)-1B, Persons of Spanish Surname. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1963i 1960 Census of Population, Subject Reports, PC(2)-1C, NonWhite Population by Race. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1963j 1960 Census of Population, Subject Reports, PC(2)-2B, Mobility for States and State Economic Areas. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1963k 1960 Census of Population, Subject Reports, PC(3)-1D, Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1964a 1960 Census of Population, Subject Reports, PC(2)-3A, Women by Number of Children Ever Born. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1964b 1960 Census of Population, Subject Reports, PC(2)-4B Persons by Family Characteristics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1964c 1960 Census of the Population, Characteristics of the Population, Vol. 1. Part 1: United States Summary. Washington, D.C.: U.S Government Printing Office.

1965 Current Population Reports, Series P25–310, Estimates of the Population of the United States and Components of Change, by Age, Color, and Sex, 1950–1960. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

1966a 1960 Census of Population, Subject Reports, PC(2)-4D, Age at First Marriage. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1966b 1960 Census of Population, Subject Reports, PC(2)-4E, Marital Status Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1971 1970 Census of Population, Subject Reports, PHC(2)-1, General Demographic Trends for Metropolitan Areas, 1960 to 1970. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1972a 1970 Census of Population, Subject Reports, PC(2)-4C, Marital Status. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1972b 1970 Census of Population, Supplementary Reports, PC(S1)-15, Race of the Population for SMSAs, Urbanized Areas, and Places of 50,000 or More: 1970. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1972c 1970 Census of Population, Supplementary Reports, PC(S1)-7, Population of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas: 1950 to 1970 . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1973a 1970 Census of Population, Characteristics of the Population, Vol. 1. Part 1: United States Summary. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1973b 1970 Census of Population, Subject Reports, PC(2)-1B, The Negro Population. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1973c 1970 Census of Population, Subject Reports, PC(2)-1C, Persons of Spanish Origin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1973d 1970 Census of Population, Subject Reports, PC(2)-1F, American Indian Population. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1973e 1970 Census of Population, Subject Reports, PC(2)-1G, Japanese, Chinese, and Filipinos in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1973f 1970 Census of Population, Subject Reports, PC(2)-2B Mobility for States and the Nation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1973g 1970 Census of Population, Subject Reports, PC(2)-3A, Women by Number of Children Ever Born. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1973h 1970 Census of Population, Subject Reports, PC(2)-4D, Age at First Marriage. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1975 Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970. Part 1, Bicentennial Edition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1977 Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1977. (98th edition.) Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office .

1983 1980 Census of Population, PC-80–1-B1, General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Summary. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1984a 1980 Census of Population, Characteristics of the Population, PC80–1-D1-A, Detailed Population Characteristics, Part I: United States Summary. Section A: United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1984b 1980 Census of Population, Subject Reports, PC80–2-1E, Asian and Pacific Islander Population in the United States: 1980. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1984c 1980 Census of Population, Supplementary Reports, PC80-S1–16, Residence in 1975 by Age, Sex, Race, and Spanish Origin: 1980. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1984d 1980 Census of Population, Supplementary Reports, PC80-S1–18, Metropolitan Statistical Areas Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1984e Statistical Abstract. 104th edition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×

1985 1980 Census of Population, Subject Reports, PC80 24C, Marital Characteristics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1986 1980 Census of Population, Subject Reports, PC80–2–1D, American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts on Identified Reservations and in the Historic Areas of Oklahoma (Excluding Urbanized Areas). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1989 200 Years of U.S. Census Taking: Population and Housing Questions, 1790–1990. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1991 State and Metropolitan Area Data Book. 4th edition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1992 1990 Census of Population, General Characteristics, U.S. Summary. 1990 CP-1–1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1993a 1990 Census of Population, Social and Economic Characteristics, United States. 1990 CP-2–1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1993b 1990 Census of Population. Subject Reports, CP-3–5, Asians and Pacific Islanders in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1993c Statistical Abstract. 113th edition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1994 1990 Census of Population, Subject Reports, Characteristics of American Indians by Tribe and Language. CP-3–7. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1996 Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1996. 116th edition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1997 Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1997. 117th edition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) 1995 Report to Congress on Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing. Hyattsville, Md.

1998 President Clinton announces new racial and ethnic health disparities initiative. White House Fact Sheet, February 20.

U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) 1992 Hispanic Access to Health Care: Significant Gaps Exist. Report to Congressional Requesters, PEMD–92–6.

Ventura, S. 1980 Births of Hispanic parentage, 1980. Monthly Vital Statistics Report 32(6S). Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics.

1988 Births of Hispanic parentage, 1985. Monthly Vital Statistics Report 36(11S). Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics.

Ventura, S., J.Martin, S.Curtin, and T.Mathews 1997 Report of final natality statistics, 1995. Monthly Vital Statistics Report 45(11S). Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics.

1998 Report of final natality statistics, 1996. Monthly Vital Statistics Report 46(11S). Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics.


Wright, R. 1997 Life and Death in the United States. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland Press.


Zopf, P., Jr. 1992 Mortality Patterns and Trends in the United States. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.

Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"3. An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends." National Research Council. 2001. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9599.
×
Page 102
Next: 4. Hispanics in a Multicultural Society: A New American Dilemma? »
America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I Get This Book
×

The 20th Century has been marked by enormous change in terms of how we define race. In large part, we have thrown out the antiquated notions of the 1800s, giving way to a more realistic, sociocultural view of the world. The United States is, perhaps more than any other industrialized country, distinguished by the size and diversity of its racial and ethnic minority populations. Current trends promise that these features will endure. Fifty years from now, there will most likely be no single majority group in the United States. How will we fare as a nation when race-based issues such as immigration, job opportunities, and affirmative action are already so contentious today?

In America Becoming, leading scholars and commentators explore past and current trends among African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, and Native Americans in the context of a white majority. This volume presents the most up-to-date findings and analysis on racial and social dynamics, with recommendations for ongoing research. It examines compelling issues in the field of race relations, including:

  • Race and ethnicity in criminal justice.
  • Demographic and social trends for Hispanics, Asian Americans, and Native Americans.
  • Trends in minority-owned businesses.
  • Wealth, welfare, and racial stratification.
  • Residential segregation and the meaning of "neighborhood."
  • Disparities in educational test scores among races and ethnicities.
  • Health and development for minority children, adolescents, and adults.
  • Race and ethnicity in the labor market, including the role of minorities in America's military.
  • Immigration and the dynamics of race and ethnicity.
  • The changing meaning of race.
  • Changing racial attitudes.

This collection of papers, compiled and edited by distinguished leaders in the behavioral and social sciences, represents the most current literature in the field. Volume 1 covers demographic trends, immigration, racial attitudes, and the geography of opportunity. Volume 2 deals with the criminal justice system, the labor market, welfare, and health trends. Both books will be of great interest to educators, scholars, researchers, students, social scientists, and policymakers.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!