Mixed Race Studies

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America: A Census 2000 Study of Cities and Metropolitan Areas

Fannie Mae Foundation
2002
45 pages

William H. Frey
University of Michigan and the Milken Institute

Dowell Myers
University of Southern California

This report accompanies the release of detailed racial segregation indices for 1,246 individual U.S. cities with populations exceeding 25,000 and for the 318 U.S. metropolitan areas. These data can be accessed from the World Wide Web at www.CensusScope.org. This study extends earlier work on racial segregation from Census 2000 in the following respects:

• It examines segregation patterns for persons who identify themselves as one race alone as distinct from those who identify themselves as two or more races, which is possible for the first time in Census 2000.
• Its focus on large and small cities as well as metropolitan areas provides a comprehensive assessment of segregation variation across local areas and broader metropolitan regions.
• Segregation and exposure measures in this study are based on the block group unit (average population 1,100), which more closely approximates a neighborhood community area than the census tract unit (average population 5,000) used in other studies. This more refined block group–based segregation measure permits the detection of segregation patterns for small racial groups or in small areas that are camouflaged when tract-based segregation measures are used.

The opportunity to look at segregation for single-race and multirace groups with Census 2000 provides an important means of assessing the prospects of future integration in a multirace society where intermarriage and interrace identification are on the rise. Our analysis of singlerace and multirace segregation shows that:

• Persons who identify themselves as “white and black” live, on average, in neighborhoods that more closely approximate the racial composition of the average white person’s neighborhood, rather than that of the average black person’s neighborhood. For the combined metropolitan population of the United States, the average neighborhood of a “white and black” resident is 61 percent white and 19 percent black. The average neighborhood of someone who identifies as black alone is 29 percent white and 54 percent black, and the average neighborhood of someone who identifies as white alone is 81 percent white and 6 percent black.
• Among the cities and metropolitan areas in our study, persons identifying with two or more races showed, on average, less segregation from whites than did minority persons identifying with a single race.

Our analysis of cities with more than 25,000 population shows the wide variation in segregation levels for each race and ethnic group. For most race groups, the highest levels of segregation tend to occur in the nation’s largest cities. For example, the City of New York ranks in the top six of all cities for each minority group’s segregation from whites. It ranks third in segregation for blacks, fifth for Hispanics, first for American Indians, first for Hawaiians, and sixth for those who identify themselves as two or more races. Hence, studies that focus only on segregation in large cities or in cities that have the largest minority populations overstate the level of racial segregation that exits in most cities with a minority presence. Other findings are:

• Among cities with more than 100,000 population, white-black segregation ranges from an index of dissimilarity of 21 (Chandler, AZ) to 87 (Chicago, IL); Asian segregation from whites ranges from 15 (Coral Springs, FL) to 66 (New Orleans, LA); and Hispanic segregation from whites ranges from 17 (Hialeah, FL) to 71 (Oakland, CA).
• The lowest segregation from whites for each race group tends to be associated with cities with less than 100,000 population, located in the suburbs, and, largely, in California, Texas, and other “multiethnic” states in the Sunbelt. Lowest city segregation indices for each race are in: The Colony, TX (white-black index of 8); Morgan Hill, CA (white-Asian segregation index of 9); Copperas Cove, TX (white-Hispanic segregation index of 8); Moore, OK (white–American Indian index of 12); Carson, CA (white-Hawaiian index of 25); and Cerritos, CA (white–multiple race index of 7).

City segregation indices differ from metropolitan segregation indices because the former reflect local patterns that can vary within the same metropolitan unit. Our analyses of dissimilarity of both levels indicate that:

• On average, segregation levels are higher for metropolitan areas than for cities. Among the cities in our study, the average segregation levels for blacks, Asians, and Hispanics are indices of 45, 32, and 35 respectively. Average segregation levels among metropolitan areas for these three groups are indices of 59, 45, and 43, respectively.
• Among smaller racial categories, Hawaiians show the highest average segregation levels, with an index of 53 for cities and 61 for metropolitan areas. Persons identifying themselves as two or more races show the lowest average segregation levels: an index of 27 for cities and 33 for metropolitan areas. American Indian segregation levels lie inbetween, with an average index of 39 for cities and 43 for metropolitan areas.
• Different cities within the same metropolitan area can have quite different segregation measures. For example, although the Detroit primary metropolitan statistical area ranks second among all areas on white-black metropolitan segregation (index of 87), the city of Detroit ranks 55th, with an index of 63, among cities of more than 100,000 population. On the other hand, metropolitan Atlanta ranks 53rd in white-black segregation with a metropolitan wide dissimilarity index of 69, whereas the city of Atlanta ranks fourth in segregation, with an index of 83, among cities of more than 100,000 population. This shows that the metropolitan segregation index does not easily translate into segregation levels of large or small cities within the metropolitan area.

Finally, our use of the block group as a proxy for neighborhood in this segregation study provides a more refined measure that reveals segregation across smaller neighborhoods, rather than the larger census tract measures that have been used in some earlier studies. Block group–based segregation tends to be greater in smaller cities and metropolitan areas or where the minority population is small.

• On average, the white-black dissimilarity index is 5.8 points higher when block groups, rather than tracts, are used to measure segregation. The disparity is greatest in smaller metropolitan areas. For example, in metropolitan Reno, NV, white-black segregation measured on the basis of block groups has an index of 44, whereas the counterpart segregation index measured on the basis of census tracts is only 34.
• Indices of neighborhood exposure to other races are also affected by the choice of block group or tract as the neighborhood measure. For example, in metropolitan Jamestown, NY, the average black person lives in a neighborhood that is 69 percent white when the neighborhood is measured on the basis of block groups. However, that percentage rises to 81 percent white if the larger census tract is considered to be the neighborhood..

Read the entire paper here.

Marrying Out: One-in-Seven New U.S. Marriages is Interracial or Interethnic

Pew Research Center
2010-06-04
41 pages

Paul Taylor, Project Director
Pew Research Center

Jeffrey S. Passel, Senior Demographer
Pew Research Center

Wendy Wang, Research Associate
Pew Research Center

Jocelyn Kiley, Research Associate
Pew Research Center

Gabriel Velasco, Research Analyst
Pew Research Center

Daniel Dockterman, Research Assistant
Pew Research Center

A record 14.6% of all new marriages in the United States in 2008 were between spouses of a different race or ethnicity from each other, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of new data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

That figure is an estimated six times the intermarriage rate among newlyweds in 1960 and more than double the rate in 1980.

This dramatic increase has been driven in part by the weakening of longstanding cultural taboos against intermarriage and in part by a large, multi-decade wave of immigrants from Latin America and Asia.

In 1961, the year Barack Obama’s parents were married, less than one in 1,000 new marriages in the United States was, like theirs, the pairing of a black person and a white person, according to Pew Research estimates. By 1980, that share had risen to about one in 150 new marriages. By 2008, it had risen to one-in-sixty.

Key findings:

• A record 14.6% of all new marriages in the United States in 2008 were between spouses of a different race or ethnicity from one another. This includes marriages between a Hispanic and non-Hispanic (Hispanics are an ethnic group, not a race) as well as marriages between spouses of different races — be they white, black, Asian, American Indian or those who identify as being of multiple races or “some other” race.
• Among all newlyweds in 2008, 9% of whites, 16% of blacks, 26% of Hispanics and 31% of Asians married someone whose race or ethnicity was different from their own.
• Gender patterns in intermarriage vary widely. Some 22% of all black male newlyweds in 2008 married outside their race, compared with just 9% of black female newlyweds. Among Asians, the gender pattern runs the other way. Some 40% of Asian female newlyweds married outside their race in 2008, compared with just 20% of Asian male newlyweds. Among whites and Hispanics, by contrast, there are no gender differences in intermarriage rates.
• Rates of intermarriages among newlyweds in the U.S. more than doubled between 1980 (6.7%) and 2008 (14.6%). However, different groups experienced different trends. Rates more than doubled among whites and nearly tripled among blacks. But for both Hispanics and Asians, rates were nearly identical in 2008 and 1980.
• These seemingly contradictory trends were both driven by the heavy, ongoing Hispanic and Asian immigration wave of the past four decades. For whites and blacks, these immigrants (and, increasingly, their U.S.-born children who are now of marrying age) have enlarged the pool of potential spouses for out-marriage. But for Hispanics and Asians, the ongoing immigration wave has also enlarged the pool of potential partners for in-group marriage.
• There is a strong regional pattern to intermarriage. Among all new marriages in 2008, 21% in the West were interracial or interethnic, compared with 13% in both the South and Northeast and 11% in the Midwest.
• Most Americans say they approve of racial or ethnic intermarriage — not just in the abstract, but in their own families. More than six-in-ten say it “would be fine” with them if a family member told them they were going to marry someone from any of three major race/ethnic groups other than their own.
• More than a third of adults (35%) say they have a family member who is married to someone of a different race. Blacks say this at higher rates than do whites; younger adults at higher rates than older adults; and Westerners at higher rates than people living in other regions of the country.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Section I. Overview
Section II. Intermarriage by Race and Ethnicity
Section III. Intermarriage Trends
Section IV. Attitudes about Intermarriage

Appendices
Methodology
Additional charts
State and Regional Rates

Read the entire report here.

The Educational Costs of Being Multiracial: Evidence from a National Survey of Adolescents

PSC Research Report
Population Studies Center at the Institute for Social Research
University of Michigan
Report No. 02-521
August 2002
24 pages, 5 tables

David R. Harris, Deputy Provost, Vice Provost for Social Sciences, and Professor of Sociology
Cornell University

Justin L. Thomas, Lecturer in Public Policy
Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy
University of Michigan

There is clear evidence that the number of multiracial children in the U.S. is growing, yet existing research  offers few insights into how outcomes for these children compare to those of their single-racepeers. We address this gap by using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health to assess racial differences in education. Specifically, we compare vocabulary scores, grade point averages, and odds of repeating a grade for multiracial and single-race youth. Our findings deviate substantially from the predictions of the marginal man hypothesis, an influential, rarely tested thesis about the consequences of being multiracial. We find that white/black youth have outcomes that are unlike those of blacks, and white/American Indians do not differ from whites, but the situation is more complex for white/Asians. We close by acknowledging that racial classification is a social process, and discussing the implications of racial fluidity for assessments of educational differences.

Read the entire report here.

A portrait of couples in mixed unions

Component of Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 11-008-X
Canadian Social Trends
2010-04-20
pages 68-80

Anne Milan, Senior Analyst
Demography Division

Hélène Maheux, Analyst
Immigration and Ethnocultural Section

Tina Chui, Chief
Immigration and Ethnocultural Section in the Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division

As Canada‘s population continues to become ethnoculturally diverse, there is greater opportunity for individuals to form conjugal relationships with someone from a different ethnocultural background. In this study, a mixed union, either marital or common-law, is based on one of two criteria: either one member of a couple belongs to a visible minority group and the other does not; or the couple belongs to different visible minority groups. Using data primarily from the 2006 Census of Population, this study examines the socio-demographic characteristics of mixed union couples in Canada. Studying mixed unions is important not only because these relationships reflect another aspect of the diversity of families today, but also for their implications in terms of social inclusion and identification with one or more visible minority groups, particularly for subsequent generations.

What you should know about this study

Visible minority status is self-reported and refers to the visible minority group to which the respondent belongs.  The Employment Equity Act defines visible minorities as “persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour.” Under this definition, regulations specify the following groups as visible minorities: Chinese, South Asians, Blacks, Arabs, West Asians, Filipinos, Southeast Asians, Latin Americans, Japanese, Koreans and other visible minority groups, like Pacific Islanders.

Mixed couples refer to common-law or marital relationships comprised of one spouse or partner who is a member of a visible minority group and the other who is not, as well as couples comprised of two different visible minority group members. Mixed couples include both opposite-sex and same-sex couples unless indicated otherwise.

Data used are primarily from the 2006 Census of Population, with comparisons to 2001 data where appropriate. Throughout the paper, both person-level and couple-level data are used.

Person-level data are used for characteristics of individuals in mixed unions, such as age, sex, educational level, immigrant status and mother tongue. Couple-level data are more appropriate when analyzing characteristics of the union, for instance, whether it is a marriage or common-law relationship or if there are children present in the home.

Persons of multiple visible minority group status are individuals who reported belonging to more than one visible minority group by checking two or more mark-in circles on the census questionnaire, e.g., Black and South Asian.

List of Tables

• Table 1: Out-group pairing by visible minority group, 2006
• Table 2: Persons in couples and in mixed unions by visible minority group, 2006
• Table 3: Persons in mixed unions by place of birth and visible minority group, 2006
• Table 4: Persons in couples that were mixed unions by highest level of education, 2006
• Table 5: Census family median income by mixed union status, 2006
• Table 6: Percentage of couples in mixed unions by census metropolitan area, 2006
• Table 7: Children in two-parent families by visible minority status, 2006

List of Charts

• Chart 1: Higher proportion of Arab or West Asian, Black and South Asian men in couples were in mixed unions compared to women from these groups
• Chart 2: Longer history in Canada was associated with higher proportion of persons in mixed unions
• Chart 3: Young adults have highest proportion of mixed unions
• Chart 4: Persons in mixed unions are younger compared to those in non-mixed unions
• Chart 5: Persons in mixed unions have much higher levels of education than those in non-mixed unions
• Chart 6: Allophones in mixed unions reported using an official language at home more than allophones in non-mixed unions

Read the entire report here.

Racial Categorization in the 2010 Census

U.S. Commision on Civil Rights
Briefing Report
March 2009
59 pages

A Briefing Before The United States Commission on Civil Rights Held in Washington, DC on 2006-04-07.

On April 7, 2006, a panel of experts briefed members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on racial categorization in the 2010 Census. Charles Louis Kincannon, Director, U.S. Census Bureau; Sharon M. Lee, Professor and Director of Graduate Studies, Department of Sociology, Portland State University; Kenneth Prewitt, Carnegie Professor of Public Affairs, Columbia University; and Ward Connerly, Chairman, American Civil Rights Institute, made presentations and offered their expertise on 1) the current racial categories in the 2010 Census; 2) proposed alternative racial categories in the 2010 Census; 3) the proposed elimination of racial categories in the 2010 Census; and 4) the legal and policy implications of Office of Management and Budget guidance to federal agencies on allocation of multiple responses. The briefing was held in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

A transcript of this briefing is available on the Commission’s Web site (www.usccr.gov), and by request from the Publications Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW, Room 600, Washington, DC, 20425; (202) 376-8128; publications@usccr.gov.

Read the entire report here.

Pathways to Permanence for Black, Asian and Mixed Ethnicity Children: Delemmas, Decision-Making and Outcomes

Research Brief
DCSF-RBX-13-08
October 2008
8 pages

Julie Selwyn
Hadley Centre for Adoption and Foster Care Studies
University of Bristol

P. Harris
Hadley Centre for Adoption and Foster Care Studies
University of Bristol

David Quinton
Hadley Centre for Adoption and Foster Care Studies
University of Bristol

S. Nawaz
Hadley Centre for Adoption and Foster Care Studies
University of Bristol

Dinithi Wijedasa
Hadley Centre for Adoption and Foster Care Studies
University of Bristol

Marsha Wood
Hadley Centre for Adoption and Foster Care Studies
University of Bristol

Recent research reviews stress the lack of information on permanency planning and pathways to permanence for black and minority ethnic (BME) children. Even basic data are missing and there are no available comparisons between children of different ethnicities. Delays differentially affect and disadvantage children of minority ethnic heritage but, beyond speculation, there are no data on the processes that underlie delays for them.

In this study differential planning and decision-making affecting the progress of BME children towards permanence will be compared retrospectively from case files with that of non-BME children over a two-year period in a sample of approximately 106 children looked-after continuously for over one year in three local authorities with high and contrasting BME populations. Progress towards permanence following a recent or current best-interests recommendation will also be tracked prospectively in a separate sample of approximately 200 BME children. For fifty of these, decision-making will be followed in real-time. Case-file data and interviews with social workers and their managers will be used. The outcomes for children of black, Asian and mixed heritages will be compared.

There will be two additional outputs: a conceptual and research review of matching – a likely key element in delay and differential pathways-; and a scoping review of current practice models for the recruitment and support of BME parents for BME children for whom permanence is the aim.

This study will provide essential new information relevant to the policy objectives of increasing the use of adoption as a permanency solution for children unlikely to return to their own families and reducing the delays in this process. With respect to the brief for this initiative, the study will:

• Investigate whether looked-after BME children are less likely to be placed for adoption and why they may wait longer for placement
• Examine the process affecting successful placement for them.
• Compare the placement pathways of Black, Asian and mixed parentage children.
• Compare three authorities will high but different BME populations.
• Examine how the government’s attempts to increase the use of adoption are being translated into practice with respect to BME children.
• Examine how social workers are applying the principles underlying adoption reform.
• Identify good practice models for the recruitment and support of BME adopters.

Read the entire paper here.

Research Report: Black + White = Black: Hypodescent in Reflexive Categorization of Racially Ambiguous Faces

Psychological Science
Volume 19, Number 10 (2008)
pages 973-977

Destiny Peery
Department of Psychology, Northwestern University

Galen V. Bodenhausen, Lawyer Taylor Professor of Psychology in the Weinberg College of Arts & Sciences
Northwestern University

Historically, the principle of hypodescent specified that individuals with one Black and one White parent should be considered Black. Two experiments examined whether categorizations of racially ambiguous targets reflect this principle. Participants studied ambiguous target faces accompanied by profiles that either did or did not identify the targets as having multiracial backgrounds (biological, cultural, or both biological and cultural). Participants then completed a speeded dual categorization task requiring Black/not Black and White/ not White judgments (Experiments 1 and 2) and deliberate categorization tasks requiring participants to describe the races (Experiment 2) of target faces. When a target was known to have mixed-race ancestry, participants were more likely to rapidly categorize the target as Black (and not White); however, the same cues also increased deliberate categorizations of the targets as ‘‘multiracial.’’ These findings suggest that hypodescent still characterizes the automatic racial categorizations of many perceivers, although more complex racial identities may be acknowledged upon more thoughtful reflection.

After being told that Barack Obama’s mother was White and father was Black, a majority of White and Hispanic interviewees said they considered him multiracial (White, 2006). Does this result highlight the inadequacy of monoracial categories in understanding multiracial people, or does it merely reflect a superficial semantic distinction, with Obama still largely viewed and evaluated in terms of his Black heritage? The categories applied to multiracial persons carry important implications for their self-esteem and experiences of discrimination (Herman, 2004). Thus, it is important to understand how multiracial people are categorized by others…

Read the entire report here.

Multiracial Identity and the U.S. Census

ProQuest Discovery Guides
January 2010

Tyrone Nagai, Supervising Editor of Social Sciences
ProQuest

Introduction: What is Multiracial Identity?
 
Back on April 23, 1997, 21-year-old golfer Tiger Woods made headlines on the Oprah Winfrey Show when he described his racial background as “Cablinasian,” an abbreviation representing his “Caucasian,” “Black,” “American Indian,” and “Asian” heritage. Woods explained that he felt uncomfortable being labeled “African American,” and he was reluctant to check only one box for his racial background on school forms.  His father is half African American, a quarter Chinese, and a quarter Native American while his mother is half Thai, a quarter Chinese, and a quarter Dutch…

Read the entire report in HTML format or in PDF format.

Deconstructing Race: Biracial Adolescents’ Fluid Racial Self-labels

2008-12-01

Alethea Rollins
University of North Carolina, Greensboro

Andrea G. Hunter, Associate Professor, Human Development and Family Studies
University of North Carolina, Greensboro

Biracial people shatter the idea of effortless categorization of race, identity, and group membership. Multirace membership forces scholars to examine what race is, how they use it, and what it tells them about people. Lopez (1994) defined race as, “neither an essence nor an illusion, but rather an ongoing, contradictory, self-reinforcing process subject to the macro forces of social and political struggle and the micro effects of daily decisions” (p. 42). Studies of biracial people require that we explore the boundaries, intersections, and fluidity of race and challenge us to deconstruct race as a social construct.

The aims of this investigation are to:

• Explore similarities and differences in adolescent racial self-labels reported by parents and adolescents
• Illustrate fluidity and change in adolescent racial self-labels over time
• Examine method variance in adolescents’ selection of racial self-labels

Read the poster summary here.

Examining Mixed-Ancestry Identity in Adolescents

Wellesley Centers for Women
Research & Action Report
Fall/Winter 2008

Two years ago, scholars at the Wellesley Centers for Women (WCW) launched a study of racial and ethnic identification among adolescents of mixed ancestry. The reasons for pursuing the research were several. Most literature about ethnic/racial self-identification patterns derived from adult respondents. For example, the series of studies that led to the change in wording of racial self-identification in the 2000 Census was carried out with adults. Little is known about asking racial and ethnic identification questions of adolescents who have more than one racial ethnic ancestry. The WCW research team, led by Sumru Erkut, Ph.D., WCW associate director and senior research scientist, also noted that a growing body of evidence suggested that some mixed-ancestry adolescents have poorer social adjustment outcomes such as depression, substance use, and health problems than their single-race-reporting peers. Whether these youth also have particular strengths had not been systematically studied. Additionally, the beginnings of theoretical models for measuring mixed-racial/ethnic identity development existed but none had been empirically validated with large samples drawn from diverse regions of the U.S. Nor had these models been able to account for the fluidity or variability in self-identification which can vary over time; adolescents of mixed ancestry may report as different single-race or mixed-race at different times and in different situations.

Read the entire description here.