-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/ad96f4cc347f3747a85ca44e53c1fddc.pdf
bf2900df63440ea3d427ae79a8419943
PDF Text
Text
Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being
by Race and Hispanic Origin
,
"
Prepared by the Council of Economic Advisers
for the President s Initiative on Race
�•
Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being
by Race and Hispanic Origin
•
;.~.
Prepared by the Council ofEcbnomic· Advisers·
for the President'sInitiative on Race
�•
Acknowledgments
The Council of Economic Advisers would like to thank the following government agencies for
their assistance with this projecL
The Bureau of the Census
The Bureau of Justice Statistics
The Bureau of Labor Statistics
The Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The National Center for Education Statistics
The National Center for Health Statistics
•
•
�Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being
by Race and Hispanic Origin
•
Table of Contents
(With' chart listings)
I. Introduction
II. Population
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
RaciallEthniC Composition of the Population
Foreign-Born Population
Minority Population by Region, 1990
Urban, Suburban, and Rural Residence
Interracial Married Couples, 1990
Age Distribution, 1996
Household Structure
III. Education
•
1. Participation in Literacy Activities with a Parent or Family Member by Children Aged
three to five
.
2. Children Aged three to four Enrolled in Center-Based Programs or Kindergarten
3. Computer Use by Children in Grades 1 through 6
4. Average Reading Proficiency
5.- Average Mathematics Proficiency
6. Educational Attainment of Adults Aged 25 andOver
7. High School Completion Rates for 25- to 29:-Year 0 Ids
8. Persons Ages 25 to 29 with a Four Year College Degree or Higher
9. Literacy Skills of Adults, 16'Years Old and Over, 1992
IV. Labor Markets
•
�•
V. Economic Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Median Family Income
Poverty Rates for Individuals
Poverty Rates for Children
Poverty Rates by Selected Individual and Household Characteristics, 1996
Households Owning Selected Assets, 1993
VI. Health
1. Infant Mortality Rates
2. Life Expectancy at Birth
3. Up to Date With Recommended Vaccinations at 19 to 35 months, 1995-96
4. Prevalence of Smoking among 18- to 24-Year Olds .
5. Death Rates by Cause for Ages 15 to 34, 1994-95
6. Death Rates by Cause for Ages 45 to 64, 1994-95
.7. Persons Aged J 8 to 64 without Health Insurance Coverage, 1994-95
Vll. Crime and Criminal Justice
•
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Victims of Homicide
Property Crime Victimization.
Admissions to State and Federal Prisons
Adults under Correctional Supervision
Arrests, Convictions, and Prison Admissions for Violent Crimes, 1994
Minority Composition ofLocal Police and Sheriffs' Departments
Reported Confidence in the Police, 1994-97 .
VIII. Housing and Neighborhoods
1. Homeownership Rates
2.. Households with High Housing Cost Burdens
3. Housing Units with Physical Problems
4. Crowding: Households with More Than One Person per Room
5. Reported Problems in Neighborhood, 1995
6. Average Racial and Ethnic Composition ofMetropolitan Neighborhoods; 1990
7. Whites' Attitudes towards Integration
IX. Appendix
•
�•
Introduction
"I believe the greatest challenge we face ... is also our greatest opportunity. Of all the
questions of prejudice and discrimination that still exist in our society, the most
perplexing one is the oldest, and is in 'some ways today, the newest: the problem of race.
Can we fulfill the promise of America by embracing all our citizens of all races? ... In
short, c~m we become one America in the 21 st Century?"
>
President Clinton
President's Initiative on Race Announcement at the
University of Cal ifornia, San Diego Commencement, 1997
This fact book is intended to document current differences in well-being by race and Hispanic
origin and to describe how such differences have evolved over time. It has been produced for the
President's Initiative on Race by the Council of Economic Advisers in'consultation with the
Federal statistical agencies. It is hoped that this book will further one of the goals of this
initiative: to educate Americans about the facts surrounding the issue of race in America.
The collection of charts included in this fact book present some key indicators of well-being in
,
•
f
•
seven broad categories: population, education, labor markets, economic status, health, crime and
•
criminal justice, and housing and neighborhoods. This type of information can provide a
benchmark for measuring progress and can highlight priority areas for reducing disparities in well
being across racial and ethnic groups, another important goal of the President's Initiative on Race.
Indicators were selected for inclusion in this volume based on the importance of the indicator for
economic and social well-being, as well as the qi,mlity and availability of the data. In addition,
availability of longer tiine trends or information for more groups also influenced the decision to
include one indicator over another. Of course, a book of this size cannot cover all important
aspects of social and economic life. Instead, these charts provide the reader with a place to begin.
The appendix provides more information for how to access additional information that is collected
and compiled by agencies of the Federal government.
The American record has been one of tremendous progress in many areas such as education,
health and longevity, andeconomic growth, but deterioration in others, such as incarceration
'
.
.
.
rates, divorce, and the likelihood that a child is born outside of marriage.' Since 1950, life
expectancy at birth has increasedfrom 68 years to 76 in 1996, and infant mortality rates have
fallen from about 29 per thousand live births to 7: And per capita income, adjusted for inflation,
.>
has nearly tripled since 1950. The proportion of American adults with a high school education
has increased from 73 percent in 1967 (the first year for which comparable data are available) to
�•
87 percent in 1996. The fraction of households living in severely inadequate housing has fallen
from 8.5 percent in 1976 to 4.5 percent in 1995.
Although all racial and ethnic groups have experiences substantial improvements in social and
economic well-being over the second half of this century, disparities between groups persist. And
in some cases, disparities have widened. Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians continue to
suffer disadvantages in opportunity and in material and physical well-being. These disadvantages
appear in many arenas, but they are larger in some than others. For example, although the
Hispanic poverty rate is far higher than that of non-Hispanic whites, differences in·infant tnortality
between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites are relatively modest. Blacks have nearly closed the
gap with non-Hispanic whites in the attainment of a high school degree, but large gaps persist (or
have '.Videned) in the completion of a four-y~ar college degree.
Several themes emerge from the data presented in this document.
•
Race and ethnicity continue to be salient predictors of well-being in American society.
Non-Hispanic whites and Asians onavei';lge experience advantages in health, education,
•
and economic status relative to blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians.'
Since the first half of the century, black Americans have made substantial progress
towards narrowing gaps with whites in many areas. But this progress generally slowed, or
even reversed, between the mid-l 970s and the early 19905, and in inany cases, large
disparities persist.
•
Hispanics' status relativeto other groups has generally declined over the past 25 years.
However, the Hispanic population has grown rapidly, roughly doubling in size between
1980 and 1996, in large part the result of immigration. In interpreting these trends, it is
therefore important to keep in mind that the increasing representation of Hispanic
immigrants with lower average levels of education has contributed to the decline in
average Hispanic social and economic well-being.
•
Asians and Pacific Islanders, on .average, ilre nearly as advantageci as non-Hispanic whites
according to many indicators. There is great diversity within this popUlation, however.
Some subpopulations are quite disadvantaged, although data for subgroups are scarce.
The fact that Asians have both higher median income and higher poverty rates than non
Hispanic whites, for example, illustrates the economic diversity within the Asian
population .
•
�•
•
American Indians are among the most disadvantaged Americans according to many
available indicators, such as poverty rates and income, although comparable data for this
group are sparse due to their small representation in the population.
An important caveat is that, for each indicator, this volume generally
pl~esents
averages for each
race and Hispanic origin category and cannot fully capture the diversity within these groups. For
instance, Mexican Americans and Cuban Americans may have very different average economic
status, although both are included in the Hispanic category. Similar diversity occurs within all
groups (including ethnic diversity within the non-Hispanic white population). Unfortunately, this
book has not the space to look at subpoptllations, nor are the data readily available.
The classification of individuals by race and ethnicity is a complex and controversial undertaking.
The concepts of race and ethnicity lack precise and universally accepted definitions. Their
economic and social significance depend on a vJriety of factors, including how individuals identify
themselves racially or ethnically and how others identify and treat them. Most of the data
collected by the Federal statistical agencies and presented in this book are classified by self
••
reported race and ethnicity. (Notable exceptions are death and homicide statistics.) Most of these
data are collected through household surveys and the decennial censuses, in which respondents
are asked to identify their race in one questions and, in a separate question, are asked whether or
not they are of Hispanic origin. Whenever possible, data for the following five categories are
presented:
•
Hispanic, may be of any race,
•
White, not of Hispanic origin,
•
Black; not of Hispanic origin,
•
Asian, including Pacifi.c Islander,
•
Am~rican
Indian, including Alaska Native (Alaskan Eskimos and Aleuts).
In this volume, categories of race and Hispanic origin are labeled as they are labeled in most of
the surveys at the time the data were collected (using black rather than African American,
orHispanic rather than Latino, for example). It should be noted, however, that the Office of
Management and Budget revised standards for classifying Federal data on race and ethnicity in
Octobe~ 1997. The new standards pennit respondents to mark one or more race category on
survey questionnaires. In addition, the "Asian and Pacific Islander" category has been divided into
•
two categories: "Asian" and "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander." The "black"
category has been changed to "black or African American." There will continue to be a separate
�•
question on ethnicity, which will have two categories: "Hispanic or Latino" and "Not Hispanic
I
or Latino."
Published data are not always available for all of the groups described above. At times statistics
are lacking because survey sanlple sizes are too small to yield reliable estimates for smaller
populations such as American Indians or Asians. In addition, statistical agencies tabulate
published data using different c'Iassifications. For example, as noted above, Hispanics may be of
any race. Some agencies tabulate data forHispanics but also include Hispanics in tabulations for
the categories white and black.!In a few cases, agencies have changed the way they tabulate data
over time as well. The labels arid notes for each chart indicate these differences in data
classification.
This book is divided into seven sections. Each section begins with brief introduction of the
topical area and an overview of. the charts presented in that section. These introductions provide
background information on the concepts addressed in the section, including references to some of
the
k~y research literature in the area. In addition, each chart is accompanied by bullet points,
which highlight the important information in the chart and also provide related information that
•
may not appear in the charts 'but may draw on the preceding introductory sections. The appendix
provides a list of other government publications and internet addresses where the reader can find
more information on all of the topics covered in this book .
•
�';.'
��•
Population
The population of the United States is becoming increasingly'diverse. In recent years, racial and ethnic
minority populations-non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, Asian, and AmeriCan Indian-have each grown
faster than the population as a whole (Population 1). Whereas in 1970 racial and ethnic minorities together
represented only 17 percent of the population, by 1997 this share had increased to 28 percent. Assuming
.
,
current trends continue, the Bureau of the Census projects that racial and ethnic minorities will account for
almost half of the U.S. population by 2050.
Immigration has played a major role in the increasing diversity of the population by contributing to the
rapid growth of the Asian and Hispanic populations since the 1960s.' In 1997, 38 percent ohhe Hispanic
population and 61 percent of the Asian population were foreign-boni, compared with 8 percen't of the white
population, 6 percent of the black population, and 6 percent of the American Indian population (Population '
2). The increased immigration of Asians and Hispanics over the past several decades is largely the result of
changes in immigration policy. In particular, the 1965 Immigration Act ended the system of national origin
2
quotas that had previously restricted immigration from non-European countries. The Immigration Reform
•
and Control Act of 1986 also contributed to the increase in the documented Asian and Hispanic populations
by legalizing a large number of immigrants .
As immigration of Asians and Hispanics has increased, population growth has slowed dramatically for the
nation as a whole, largely ,due to declining fertility rates among blacksHnd non-Hispanic whites. As a result
of these declining fertility rates, the non-Hispanic white share of the population has fallen considerably
since 1970, and the black share of the population has increased only slightly.
Changes in racial and ethnic identification have also contributed to the increase in (measured) racial and
ethnic diversity. These changes are most important for the American Indian population, which has
increased more in recent years than can be accounted for by deaths, births, immigration, and improvements
. in census coverage. The increase in the American Indian population suggests that people are more likely to
.
.
, ' .
1
identify themselves as American Indian in the census than they were in the pas~:
Although the racial and ethnic diversity of the popUlation as a whole is increasing, an individual's
experience of growing diversity may be affected by the geographic region in which he or she lives, since the
racial and ethnic composition of the population varies considerably from region to region (Population 3).
.'
The West has the highest concentration of minorities (33 percent), followed by the South (28 percent), the
�•
Northeast (21 percent), and the Midwest (14 percent). Blacks are most likely to live in the South, while
Asians, Hispanics, and American Indians are most likely to live in the West.
Racial composition also varies from the center cities of metropolitan areas, to the suburbs (metropolitan
areas outside center cities), to nonmetropolitan areas. Hispanics, bla~k:>;, and Asians are more likely than
non-:-Hispanic whites and American Indians to live in central cities-in 1990 more than half of blacks and
. Hispanics and nearly half of Asians lived in the central city, compared with less than a quarter of non
Hispanic whites and American Indians (Population 4). In contrast, over half of all non-Hispanic whites
lived in the suburbs in 1990, as did 47 percent of Asians. American Indians were by far the most likely to
live in nonmetropolitan areas; in 1990 nearly half of the American Indian population lived outside of
metropolitan areas. Substantial percentages of both non-Hispanic whites and Southern blacks also live in
nonmetropolitan areas.
As the population becomes more diverse, individuals' opportunities for social interaction with members of
other racial and ethnic groups increase. Interracial marriage is one measure of social interaction
(Population 5). The number of interracial married couples has increased quite dramatically over the past
several decades, more than tripling since 1960. However, interracial married couples still represent less
•
than 4 percent of all married couples .
Many demographic characteristics may affect social and economic well-being. In pmticular, differences in
age distribution, household stI11cture. and immigration can affect the economic and social status of racial
and ethnic populations discussed throughout this book. For example, poverty rates are highest among
children, and rates of criminal activity are'higher among young adults. Differences in age distributions
between racial and ethnic groups reflect differences in death rates, fertility rates, rates of net immigration,
and the age of immigrants.
Differences in the age distribution of racial and ethnic groups (Population 6) affect rates of population
growth as well as differences in average economic and social well-being. For example, poverty rates are
.highest among children, and rates of criminal activity are highest among young rtdults. On average, the non
Hispanic white. population is considerably older than the population as a whole. Only 25 percent of the
,
non-Hispanic white population is below the age of 18, compared with more than 30 percent of blacks,
Asians, and American Indians, and nearly 40 percent of HispaniCs. Differences In age distributions between
racial and ethnic groups reflect differences in death rates, fertility rates, rates of net immigration, and the
age of immigrants .
•
�•
Household structure is also related to economic status. In particular, growth of child poverty has often been
associated with the rising share of single-parent families. Since 1970 the fraction of families headed by a
single parent has increased for all groups (Population 7) and is highest among blacks (36 percent),
American Indians (25 percent), and Hispanics (24percent).
Finally, immigration affects the average social and economic status of different racial and ethnic groups.
The immigrant population is diverse, representing a wide range of educational backgrounds and social
characteristics. Foreign-born Asians, on average, are highly educated and have high median incomes. In
contrast, Hispanic immigrants, along with some subgroups of Asian immigrants, tend to have low levels of
educational attainment and income, and some have had virtually no form;]1 schooling. The low average
socioeconomic status of Hispanic immigrants, coupled with their increasing share of the U.S. Hispanic
popUlation, has lowered the average socioeconomic status of Hispanics relative to
oth~r
racial/ethnic
groups.
•
1. Bennett, Claudette, and Roderick Harrison. J995. "Racial and Ethnic Diversity." In Reynolds Farley,
ed., State of the Union: America in the 1990s. New York: Russ.ell Sage Foundation .
2. ibid.
3. Passel, Jeffrey S. 1996. "The Growing American Indian Population, 1960-1990: Beyond Demography."
In Gary D, Sandefur, Ronald R. Rindfuss, and Berney Cohen, eds., Changing Numbers, Changing Needs,
American Indian Demography and Public Health. New York: National Academy Press .
•
�Population
•
1. Racial/Ethnic, Composition of the Population
100
niiii1mm
100
80
.,
80
60
..
.
.
60
40
..
. .
40
20
-
..
..
..
20
c:
Q)
()
.....
Q)
a..
•
o
o
1970
1990
1998 (estimate)
• White, non-Hispanic~ Black, non~Hispanic ~ Hispanic
2050 (projection)
Asian iIilll American Indian
Note: Data for Asians exclude Asian Hispanics, and data for American Indians exclude American Indian
Hispanics.
Source: Bureau of the Census .
• The share of the U.S. population that is Asian, Hispanic, and American Indian
has increased since 1970. A substantial portion of the increase in the American
Indian population has resulted 'from an increase in the number of persons
identifying themselves as American Indian .
• If recent demographic trends continue, Asians, non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics,
and American Indians together will approach 50 percent of the population by
the year 2050.
)
.• Hispanics, who may be of any race, are projected to outnumber blacks around
the year 2005.
•
�Population
•
2. Foreign-Born Population
~ ~------------------------------~------~-----------------,~
60
50
'E
:.......
.. ,
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . ..
. ... .
" . . . . . . . . ..
60
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ". . . . . . .
· . . . . . . . . . . ..
50
· .... ,
40
40
..
.,
(l)
e
(l)
· . . . . . . . . . . ..
••
................. .
10
........ .
20
· . . . . . . . . . . ..
20
30
. . . . . . . . ..
Il.. 30
10
o
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
American Indian
1111970 IF!! 1997
Source: Bureau of the Census.
• Among all groups, the fraction of the population that is foreign-born has
increased since 1970.
• As of 1997, 61 percent of the Asian population and 38 percent of the Hispanic
populations were foreign-born. In contrast, only 8 percent of whites, 6 percent
of blacks, and 6 percent of American Indians were foreign-born.
• The immigrant population represents a wide range of social and economic
backgrounds. On average, Asian immigrants are highly educated and have
· high median incomes. Hispanic immigrants, along with some subgroups of .
Asian immigrants, tend to have low levels of edLicational attainment and
income, and some have had virtually no formal schooling.
•
• The low average socioeconomic status of Hispanic immigrants,coupled with
their increasing share of the U.S. Hispanic population, has lowered the average
socioeconomic status of Hispanics relative to other racial/ethnic groups.
o
�Population
•
3.. Minority Population by Region, 1995
Total P?pulation of region
Northeast
51.5
Midwest
61.8
South
91.9
West
•
57.6
o
10
20
30
Percent of total regional population
IjJ Black, non-Hispanic ~ Hispanic
40
1m Asian &I American Indian .
Note: Data for Asians exclude Asian Hispanics, and data for American Indians exclude American Indian
Hispanics.
.
Source: Bureau of the Census •
• The regional distribution of populations affects individuals' experiences of
growing racial and ethnic diversity.
• The West has the highest concentration of minorities (33 percent), followed by
the South (28 percent). the Northeast (21 percent). and the Midwest (14
percent) .
• A high proportion of non-Hispanic blacks live in the South, whereas American
Indians, Hispanics, and Asians are more likely to live in the West. Asians are
also concentrated in the Northeast.
.In general, the minority share of the population has increased across all four
regions since 1970 (not shown in chart). There has been ,dramatic growth of
the Hispanic populatiolls in the West and the South and of the Asian population
in the West.
�Population
•
4. Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Residence
=~
100 r---T7=r
100
80
60
60
40
40
20
..
c:
80
20
Q)
e
Q)
a..
•
o
1970
19961970
White,
non-Hispanic
19961970
Black
• Metropolitan, inside central city
~ Nonmetropolitan
1996
Hispanic
1970
1996
Asian
1970 1990'
American
Indian
III Suburban (metropolitan, outside central city)
. * 1996 data for American Indians are not available.
Note: In 1970, data for whites include white Hispanics.
Source: Bureau of the Census.
• Suburban residence is often associated with middle-class status.
Nonmetropolitan; metropolitan, central city; and suburban populations may
have different public service needs and different political interests.
• Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics are more likely to live in central cities of
metropolitan areas than are non-Hispanic whites or American Indians .
• A large percentage of non-Hispanic whites and Asians live in suburbs.. The
.. fraction living in suburbs has increased sjnc~ 1970 among all rac·ial and ethnic
,groups .
•
.• Nearly half of American Indians, one quarter of non-Hispanic whites, and nearly
20 percent of blacks live outside of metropolitan areas. These nonmetropolitan
population shares are shrinking for all groups, however.
o
�Population
•
5. Interracial Marriage, 1990
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
E
Q)
100
20
e
Q)
a..
•
o
o
White,
non-Hisp.
Black,
non-Hisp.
Hispanic
Asian American Indian
Race of husband
III Spouse of same race/Hispanic origin
White,
Black,
non·Hisp. non·Hisp.
Hispanic
Asian American Indian
Race of wife
[j] Spouse of different race/Hispanic origin
Source: Bureau of the Census.
-Intermarriage is an indicator of social integration and is associated with
increased interracial births. This chart shows on the left the percentage of
married men who are members of interracial couples and on the right the
percentage of married women who are members of interracial couples.
- Between 1960 and 1990, interracial married couples as a percentage of all
. married couples have more than tripled (not shown in chart). However,
interracial married couples still account for less than 4 percent of all married
couples.
-In general, members of smaller racial or ethnic groups (such as American
•
Indians) are more likely to be in an interracial marriage than members of larger
groups (such as non-Hispanic whites). The notable exceptions are Asian men
and non-Hispanic black women, since both groups, despite their small·group
size, have relatively low rates of intermarriage.
�Population
•
6. Age Distribution, 1997
White,
non-Hispanic
Black,
non-Hispanic
Hispanic
,Asian
American
Indian
•
o
20
40
60
80
100
Percent
III 0 to 17
~ 18 to 64 [}] 65 and over
Source: Bureau of the Census.
• Differences in age distributions between' population groups reflect differences in
death rates, fertility rates, rates of net immigration, and the age of immigrants.
These age differences can in turn lead to differences in economic. health, or
social status across racial and ethnic groups. For example, poverty rates are
highest among children, and rates of criminal activity are high in the teens and
twenties.
• Nearly 15 percent of non-Hispanic whites are above the age of 65, compared
with less than 9 percent of all other groups.
'
• More than 30 percent of Hispanics, non-Hispanic blacks, and American Indians,
and nearly 30 percent of Asians are below the age of 17, compared with less
than 25 percent of non-Hispanic whites. In part, the younger average age of
Asians and Hispanics reflects the younger average age of new immigrants in
these groups.
•
• As a result of the high percentages of non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, Asians,
and American Indians under the age of 17, the school-age population is more
raciallY.and ethnically diverse than the population as a whole; the racial/ethnic
composition of this population resembles the projected composition of the
population as a whole for 2020 (not shown in chart).
�Population
•
7. Household Structure'
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
.....
c
Q)
~
Q)
a...
•
o
1970 . 1996
o
1970
White,
non-Hispanic
1996
Black
1970
1996
Hispanic
1970
1996
'Asian
1970 1990·
American
Indian
Married-couple famil~ Female-headed family, no spouse 5J Male-headed family, no spouse
~ Other non-family households
... 1996 data for American Indians are unavailable,
Note: For 1970, data for whites include white Hispanics.
Source: Bureau of the Census.
-Household structure is often linked to social and economic status. For example, the increase in
'. child poVerty has been associated with the rising share of single-parent families. The greater
. tendency of older persons tolive independently has been linked to their increased wealth.
•
. II People living alone
-Since 1970 the fraction of families headed by married couples has declined substantially; this
d~cline has been greatest for blacks. A relatively high percentage of bVlh Asian and non-Hispanic
white households are maintained by married-couple families.
.
- The fraction of families headed by a single parent has increased for all groups. The increase has
occurred both for female-headed and male-headed families with no spouse present, although
male-headed families with no spouse presenrmake up less than one quarter of single-parent
families. .
.
•
- The fraction of households composed of only one person has increased for all groups except
Asians since 1970 and represented more than a quarter of non-Hispanic white and black
households in 1990. Other non-family households (unrelated individuals living together) have
increased as a fraction of all households for all groups since 1970.' .
,
��'I ...··
'.','
�r
•
Education
Educational attainment is one of the most important indicators of lifetime economic opportunities.
Higher education is associated with lower unemployment and higher wages, higher family income
and wealth, and better health status for adults and their children. A substantial portion of gaps in
well-befng among racial and ethnic groups can be accounted for by differences in edllcational
opportunities and attainment. For example, studies find that an important component of the
improvement in the economic status of blacks in the 1960s and early 1970s resulted from
improvements in educational attainment and school quality, especially in the South. 1
Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians continue to experience educational disadvantages. Black
and Hispanic children are more likely than non-Hispanic white children to be poor (Economic
Status 3), and to have parents with lower education levels. As a result, they often begin life with
•
disadvantages related to family fimmcial and educational resources. Research is mounting about
. the importance of a stimulating environment for early childhood d'evelopment, starting in infancy.
This education begins at home. It is not until age three that chIldren typically enter preschools or
Head Start programs designed to promote school readiness. The'most important teachers for
children underthe age of five m:e family members. For example, reading to young children helps
them leam to speak and, later, to read and write. Reading to children is also cdrrelated with
school pelformance in reading comprehension and overall success in schooJ. 2
Young non-Hispanic black and Hispanic children are less likely to be read to by family members
or to be told a story than their non-Hispanic white counterparts (Education 1). Because reading to
children increases sharply with a parent's educational attainment,) some differences in reading to
children across racial and ethnic groups are likely to be related to parental education.
Social policies attempt to improve educational opportunities by providing enriched early
childhood educational opportunities through programs such as Head Start, the largest federal
•
program for early childhood education of economically disadvantaged children. Partly as a result
�•
of such policies, non-Hispanic black children aged three and four are more likely than non
Hispanic white children to be enrolled in preschool programs (Education 2). Research has found
that Head Start and other preschool programs promote children's cognitive development and
achievement. Some research has found that the effects of Head Start are largest for Hispanics,
perhaps because it provides an advantage in English language acquisition for children from homes
where English is not the primary language spoken. The research literature is unsettled on the
question ofwhether the beneficial effects of preschool intel;ventions persist or fade as children
age. One recent study reported that gains found for black children in the Head Start program fade
if the children enter poor quality elementary schools but persist if their elementary schools are of
good quality.4
Computing skills are valued in the labor market, and demand for·workers with computer skills has
5
.
.
increased markedly over the past 20 years: Computer use by all children, whether at home or at
school, has grown markedly in the past 15 years (Education 3). However, the increase in use
•
both at home and at school has been greatest for non-Hispanic whites, and in 1993 non-Hispanic
blacks and Hispanics were considerably less likely to use a computer at home or at school than
non-Hispanic whites. Lower levels of computer usage among non-Hispanic black and Hispanic
children may be related to lower income levels among these groups; in general, children from
higher income families were more likely to ha~e used a computer at home or at school than
children from lower income families.
Math and reading proficiency scores measure student achievement in these areas. Higher scores
are predictive of higher future educational attainment; they are also associated with future success
in the labor market, even among individuals with similar levels of education. 6 Non-Hispanic black
and Hispanic children score lower on achievement tests, on average, than non-HispaniC white
children at similar ages (Education 4 and Education 5). Like many other indicators of educational'
progress, however, between-group differences in achievement tests scores may be influenced by
differences in a variety of sociill and economic factors, including school quality, parental
•
education, and family income .
�•
Educational attainment is predictive of improved socioeconomic status,higher wage rates, and
better health. Parents' education is associated with better health, development, and educational
attainment of children. Educational attainment has been steadily increasing (Education 6). The
.. fraction of the population aged 25 and older who completed high school (or equivalent) exceeds
50 percent for all groups and exceeds 75 percent for non-Hispanic blacks, non-Hispanic whites,
and Asians. The increase in attainment has been fastel: among blacks, non-Hispanic whites, and
. Asians than among Hispanics. Attainment has increased markedly among blacks since the 1940s,
and even since 1980, the fraction of non-Hispanic blacks who did not complete high school
dropped from nearly half to less than one quarter. In 1996, non-Hispanic blacks were more likely
to have completed high school, and more likely to have completed some education beyond high
schpol, than non-Hispanic whites were in 1980. However, non-Hispanic blacks today are still less
likely than whites were in ·1980 to have a college, professional, or doctoral degree. Asians have by
far the highest average level of educational attainment of any of these groups. Generally, Asian's
•
educ,ational attainment increased over the past] 5 years as more attended and completed college.
Hispanic high school attainment has improved only slowly over the past IS years. About 47
percent of Hispanic adults over the age of 25 have not completed high school. The numbers are
not much better for younger Hispanics (aged 25 to 29), However, among those who have
completed high school, the fraction completing at least some college has increased from 31
:
,
"
.
'
.
percent in 1971 to about 54 percent in ] 997. The slow increase of educational attainment among
. Hispanics in aggregate is at least pa~tly due to the immigration of persons with low educational
attainment. For example, in 1997 among Hispanics aged 25 and over, 3] pel;cent of U.S.-born
Hispanics had not completed high school, compared to 5XO/O of foreign born Hispanics. Further,
the high school completion rates of native-born ,Hispanics increased substantially between 1980
and 1990, similar to the increase among blacks, whereas attainment of Hispanic immigrants
remained stagnant at low levels.?
•
,Since education takes place most intensively at younger ages, data on attainment among younger
�•
J
adults provide a better sense of current educational opportunities and conditions. The percentage
of 25 to 29 year olds with a high school degree is nearly as high among blacks as among non
Hispanic whites (Education 7). However, Hispanic 25- to 29-year olds continue to have lower
rates of high school completion. And, although young blacks are attending college at increasing
rates, the gap in college completion between young blacks and non-Hispanic whites did not
narrow appreciably over the 1980s (Education 8).
1. Donohue, J., and J. Heckm~lI1. (1991) "Continuous Versus Episodic Change: The Impact of .
Civil Rights Policy on the Economic Status of Blacks." Journal of Economic Literature 29: ]603
43.
..
2. Wel1s, C. G. [[Date?]]"Preschool Literacy-Related Activities and Success in SchooL" In D.
Olson, N. Torrance, and A. Hildyard, eds., Literacy, Language and Learning: The Nature and
Consequences ofLiteracy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press (Cited in Federal
Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics /997).
•
3. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. 1997. American Children: Key
National Indicators of Well-being; White children are also about 50 percent more likely than,
black or Hispanic children to be read to daily-64 percent of white children, 44 percent of black
children, and 39 percent of Hispanic children aged 3 to 5 were read to every day by a family
member (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics 1997, p. 43).
4. Currie, 1. andT. Duncan. 1995."DoesHeadStart Make a DifferenceTAmericall Economic
Review 85 (3): 341-64; Currie, J. and T. Duncan. 1998. "School Quality and the Longer-Term
Effects of Head Start." Workin·g Paper No. 6362, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Washington. DC.
5. Krueger, A. B. 1993. "How Computers Have Changed the Wage Structure: Evidence from
. Microdata. ] 984-1989." Quarterly Journal ofEconomics, February 1993: 33-60.
6. Neal, D., and W. Johnson. 1996: "The Role of Premarket Factors in Black-White Wage
Differences." Journal of Political Economy 104 (5): 869-95.
7. Mare, R. 1995."Changes in Educational Attainment and Social Enrollment" In Reynolds Farley,
ed., State of the Union: America in the 1990s, Economic Trends, Vol. 1. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
•
�Education
1. Participation in Literacy Activities with a Pa.rent
orFa.mily Member by Children Aged Three to Five
•
100
Read to . . . - - - . . . . . . .. -three- or more ..
times in the past week
T~I_d. ~ ~~o_ry a~ 1~B:s~ . __ . .. Vi~!t~d .a.I!~r?ry' ..
once in the past week
in the past month
.. - . . . . - ..
80
60
- . - : - - .. - .. - - . - - - . - . ..
60
40
.. - - - - - . . . .
40
80
e
c:
(1)
..
- . . . - . . . . - . - - ..
100
(1)
/l.
20
•
o
20
White,
Black,
Hispanic
non-Hisp. non·Hisp.
White,
Black,
Hispanic
non-Hisp. non-Hisp.
White,
Black,
Hispanic
non-Hisp. non-Hisp.
1111991 .1996
Source: National Center for Education Statistics.
- Parental and family interactions with children are critical to child development.
Reading to children or telling them stories hefps children learn to read and
improves their verbal communication skills.
-In 1996 non-Hispanic white children were more likely to have been read to than
their non-Hispanic black or Hispanic counterparts, and they were also more
likely to have been told a story and to have visited a library In the past month.
Some of these differences may reflect the lower levels of educational
attainment of parents in the non-Hispanic black and. Hispanic populations.
•
o
�Education'
•
2. Children Aged Three to Four Enrolled in
Center-Based Programs or Kindergarten
.3-y~aJ.Qlds. .. ..'..... . .......... ~.-YE?~r o!d~ .......
80
80
60
......
60
......
c:
Q)
~
Q)
Cl.. 40
40
20
20
•
o
White,
non-Hisp.
Black,
non-Hisp.
Hispanic
White,
non-Hisp.
Black,
non-Hisp .
Hispanic
• 1991 ~ 1996
Note: Center-based programs consist of nursery schools, prekindergarten, and Head Start.
Source: National Center for Education Statistics.
- Enrollment in preschool programs and kindergarten is generally correlated with
greater progress in the early years of elementary school.
-In 1996 non-Hispanic black children aged three and four were more likely than
non-Hispanic white children to be enrolled in center-based ~3arning programs
or kindergarten. Hispanic children were less likely than non-Hispanic blacks or
non-Hispanic whites to be enrolled.
- Enrollment in these programs generally increased between 1991 and 1996
among all groups, although it decreased for Hispanic four year olds.
•
o
�Education
•
3. Computer Use by Children in Grades
1 through 6.
100 r---------------------------------------------------------~ 100
Used a computer
at school
80
. . . . . . . . ..
Used a computer
at home
..............
Used a computer at
home or at school
. . .......... .
80
60
..
60
40
...
..
40
C
Q)
~
Q)
a..
20
•
o
20
White.
Black.
Hispanic
non-Hisp. non-Hisp.
White.
Black.
Hispanic
non·Hisp. non-Hisp.
While.
Black.
Hispanic
non-Hisp. non-Hisp.
1111984.1993
Source: Bureau of the Census and National Center for Education Statistics.
• Familiarity with computers is increasingly important to success in education and
the labor market.
• Computer use increased markedly from 1984 to 1993 for all groups. In both
years, non-Hispanic whites were more likely than non-Hispanic blacks or
Hispanics to .have used a computer at home and at school.
• Relatively few non-Hispanic black and Hispanic children use a computer at
home. However, over 55 percent of non-Hispanic blacks ana Hispanics and
about 75 percent of non-Hispanic whites used a computer at school in 1993.
•
• Low levels of computer useage among non-Hispanic black and Hispanic
children may be related to lower income levels among these groups; in general,
children from higher income families are more likely to have used a computer at
home or at school than children from lower income families ..
o
�Education
•
4. Average Reading Proficiency
9*year olds
300
....
13-year olds
. . . . . . , ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.' .. .
17-year olds
(still in school)
..
300
~
o
0200
CIJ
200
Q)
.(ij
o
(f)
100
•
o
100
White,
Black,
Hispanic
non·Hisp. non·Hisp. '
White,
Black,
Hispanic
non·Hisp. non-Hisp.
Black,
Hispanic
White,
non-Hisp. non-Hisp.
(I] 1980 • 1996
Note: A reading score of 300 means the student cah understand complicated information; a score of 250
means the student can interrelate ideas and make generalizations; and a score of 200 means the student has
partially developed skills and understanding.
Source: National Center for Education Statistics.
• The ability to read is linked to success in school and the labor market. This test
is scaled to have a mean of 250 (and astandard deviation of 50) across all age
. groups in 1984.
'
• On average, non-Hispanic white children score higher than non-Hispanic black
or Hispanic children in readi~g proficiency at each age.
• No'n-Hispanic black 17-year-olds made substantial progress in reading
proficiency between 1980 and 1996. Reading proficiency changed little among
all other groups and ages from 1980 to 1996.
•
o
�Education
•
5. Average Mathematics Proficiency
9-year ofds
300
. . . . . . . - . - _.
o
I
13-year aids
. - . - . . . . . . . _.
White,
Black,
Hispanic
non-Hisp. non-Hisp.
17-year aids
(still in school)
_ ...... - - -
White,
Black,
Hispanic
non-Hisp. non-Hisp.
300
While,
Black,
Hispanic
non-Hisp. non-Hisp.
1111982 • 1996 .
Note: In mathematics, a score of 300 means a student can do moderately complex procedures and
reasoning; a score of 250 indicates a student can do basic operations and beginning problem solving; and a
~core of 200 demonstrates a student's beginning skills and understanding of math.
Source: National Center for Educ'ation Statistics.
• Mathematics proficiency is valued in college admissions and in many
occupations. This test is scaled to have a mean of 250 (and a standard
deviation of 50) across all age groups in 1986.
• On average, non~Hispanic whites tend to score higher on tests of mathematics
proficiency than non-Hispanic blacks or Hispanics at each age .
• Mathematics proficiency scores have generally increased since 1982 at all
ages among non-Hispanic blacks, non~Hispanic whites, and Hispanics .
•
o
�Educati,on
•
.6. Educational Attainment of Adults Aged 25 and Over
~=-.,
100
100
80
60
60
40
40
20
•
80
20
o
o
1980
1997
White,
non-Hispanic
1980
1997
Black
1980
1997
Hispanic.
iii Less than high school [IJ High school graduate
1980
1980 1990·
1997
Asian
[§81 Some college
American'
Indian
0
College graduate
* 1997 data for American Indians are not available.
Notes: Prior to 1992, data are based on years of school completed, rather than on the highest diploma or
degree received. Beginning in 1992, high school graduates include those with a GED or high school
equivalency.
.
Source: Bureau of the Census .
. • Educational attainment is a powertul predictor of economic status and health .
• Asians and non-Hispanic whites are more likely to have completed education
beyond high school than are non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, and American .
Indians. Nearly halfof Hispanics aged 25 ~:lnd older have not completed hjgh
school.
•
• Educational attainment has increased for all groups since 1980. Increases
have been most marked for American Indians and blacks. Increases for
Hispanics have been relatively small, in part.reflecting increased immigration of
Hispanics with low levels of education.
• Nine percent of non-Hispanic whites and 15 percent of Asians hold master's,
professional, or doctoral degrees, compared to only 4 percent of blacks and 3
percent of Hispanics and American Indians (not shown in chart, since
comparable data are not available for 1980).
�Education
•
7. High 'School Completion Rates
for 25- to 29-Year Olds
100
r------------------------:--------~
, , , - - - ,, - - - -
100
70
, - - - - 50
•
oll
,'I
1965
I
I','
I
I
1970
I
I
I
'1
!
1975
!
1
!
I
!
1980
'
I
!
!
t
1985
!
!
!
I
!
1990
,
!
,
1995
Note: Prior to 1971 data for whites include Hispanic whites, and data for blacks include Hispanic blacks. Prior
to 1992, data are for persons having completed four or more years of high school; data for 1992 and beyond
.
include persons with a GED or high school equivalency.
Sources: BureaLi of the Census and National Center for Education Statistics.
- High school completion rates for 25- to 29-year aids provide a sense of
changes in educational attainment over time, since education takes place more
intensively at younger ages.
-At these ages, high school completion rates have increased for all groups over
the past 30 years. However, rates for Hispanics have remained virtually ,
stagnant since the early 1980s.
•
- The percentage of non-Hispanic blacks aged 25 to 29 who have completed
high 'school (87 percent) is nearly as high as that of non-Hispanic whites (93
percent). Hispanic 25- to 29-year aids continue to have considerably lower .
rates of high school completion (62 percent), however.' The lower rates among
Hispanics primarily reflect the lower average levels of education among
.,
Hispanic immigrants; completion rates of native-born Hispanics (not shown
separately in chart) are comparable to those of non-Hispanic blacks. Takeout?
�Education
•
8. Persons Aged 25 to 29 with a Four Year
College Degree or 'Higher'
35
.-----------------------------~---------------------------,35
J
White, non-Hispanic
30
25
1:
.................... .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~~~""~"'"
_.-/
",-_..
30
······25
" ' . . . . . . . . . .
20
20
(])
e
(])
a.
. . ..
15
10
.........
.. ...
......
- -
. . . . . . .
~
. . .
- .
. . . . ................ .......
.
~
15
....~~~9,~~.. ~~~.~.~~=~.~!:!9......._
................................................................
. . . . :..... .
..
10
........................................~ .....................
5
•
................ .
o
, , "
. . . . . . . .
5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-L~~~~O
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
, 1995
Notes: Prior to 1971, data for whites include Hispanic whites, and data for blacks include Hispanic blacks.
Because of small sample sizes, data for blacks and Hispanics are 3-year centered averages. Prior to 1992,
data are for persons having completed fouryears of college or more.
Sources: Bureau of the Census,and National Center for Education Statistics.
• Completion of a four-year college degree has become an increasingly important
predictor of economic status and success in the labor m~rket.
• The precentage of persons who have completed college increased sharply in
the 1960s and early 1970s for non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks.,
Between the mid-1970s and the early' 1990s, college complAtion rose more
slowly for all groups shown above. College completion appears to have picked
up again since the mid-1990s.
•
• Non-Hispanic whites are more than twice as likely as non-Hispanic blacks and
Hispanics to have completed a four-year college degree. Nearly 33 percent of
non-Hispanic whites had completed 'a four-year college degree in 1997,
compared with only about 14 percent of non-Hispanic blacks and 11 percent of
Hispanics .
�Education
•
9. Literacy Skills of Adults, 16 Years Old
and Over, 1992
White.
non-Hispanic
Black.
non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Asian
American
Indian
•
o
20
• 1 (lowest level) ~ 2 t213
40
60
80
100
Score
4 rlTI 5 (highest level)
Source: National Center for Education Statistics.
• The above chart displays English document literacy scores from the National
Adult Literacy Survey. Document literacy measures skills particularly relevant to
success in the labor market, ranging from the ability to sign one's name to the
ability to complete a job application to the ability to interpret and summarize
complex tables and text .
• Adults with poor literacy skills are less likely to be employed and more likely to
be poor than adults with better literacy skills.
•
• Non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics were more likely than other groups to have
.poor literacy skills in 1992. 79 percent of blacks and 75 percent of Hispanics
scored in the bottom two levels of the document literacy scale. In contrast, 64
percent of American Indians, 59 percent of Asians, and 43 percent of
non-Hispanic whites scored in the bottom two levels. Differences in scores
between racial and ethnic groups partially reflect differences in educational
attainment between these groups .
• The low scores among Hispanics and Asians may in party reflect lower English
literacy skills of new immigrants. Foreign-born Asians, Hispanics, and
non-Hispanic whites scored lower on this literacy test than their native-born
counterparts (not shown in chart).
��; ,,'
"
,.
"
,".,1
."'.
,
'.',.
:i,·,"
.' .. ','
".
,
�•
Labor Markets
Earnings from the labor market are the primary source of income for the vast majority of families.
Labor market earnings are determined by the number of family members who participate in the
labor force, the unemployment rate among labor force participants; the number of hours worked
per year, and hourly wage rates.
In general, labor force participation rates are higher for men than women, although participation
rates have generally increased for women over the past 30 years and have declined gradually for
men (Labor] ). Historically, black women had higher participation rates than white women, but
since] 990, these rates have been roughly equivalent. . Hispanic women's participation rates are
lower than those of black or white women. Hispanic men's participation rates are higher than
those of black men and approach those of white men.
•
Unemployment rates-the percentage of the labor force not employed---Df blacks have been
roughly twice those of whites for m<lny years (Labor 2). Black average annual unemployment
rates have been over 10 percent for more than 20 years. Unemployment rates for Hispanics are
generally between those of blacks and whites. Black and Hispan ic unemployment rates rise more.
in recessions and fall more in recoveries than do white rates.
IJ.1vestment in labor market skills tends to be most intensive at young ages. One reason is that·
investing in these skills early in life allows workers to reap the "returns" to their investments over
a greater number of years. Therefore, our society encourages young people to invest in labor
market skills-either through schooling, training, or experience on the job. Young people who are
neither in school nor employed are classified as "idle," and there is concern not only about their
current stat~s and activities, but that "idleness" may reduce their future earnings prospects.
'
.
. .
About 20 percent of young black men are neither in school nor working, a rate that is twice that
•
of young white men (Labor 3). You ng Hispanic men's rate of "idleness" falls between those of
�•
. their black and white counterparts. Rates of "idleness" have not fallen substantially over the past
10 years among men. They have fallen among young women, however, especially among young
black women, as a result of both increased enrollment and employment. However, the
interpretation of figures on "idleness" is less clear cut for young women than for young men, as
many young women who are neither employed norin school are taking care of children .
. Wages of white men continue to far exceed those of all other groups of workers (Labor 4 and
Labor 6. Studies document that black men's wages rose relative to white men's between the early
1960s and the mid-1970s, especially in the South. But this trend reversed sometime in the mid- to
late 1970s, and their relative pay decl ined for aUeast 10 years. The evidence of the last 10 years is
mixed, with some data series showing continued deterioration or little change in relative pay for
black men,while other series show some improvement. I Pay of Hispanic men has fallen relative to
both white and black men's pay, at least in part as a result of falling relative educational
•
attainment among Hispanics, combined withjncreased demand for highly educated workers.
After reaching near parity in the mid-1970s, black women's wages have fallen relative to those of
white women. (White women have gained considerably relative to white men in this period.)
Young, college-educated black women actually reached pay parity with their white counterparts
in the early 1970s but have seen their relative wages f<lll about 10 percentage points since then
(Labor 5 and Labor 7).
The median wages of Hispanic men and women are below those of their black and white"
·counterparts. Hispanics' Telative wages have also fallen since 1979. The median wage of college':'
educated Hispanic women, however, is abollt 90 percent of that of white women and is slightly
higher than that of black
wome~:
The median wage of college-educated Hispanic men is about 80
percent of eqlliv~lent white males and is about 10 percentage points higher than equivalent black
males. In contrast, differences in educational attainment account for a much smaller portion of
•
black-white differences in wages.
�•
Some of the differences in wages across racial and ethnic groups are .Iinked to occupational
differences (Labor 8). Occupation is also an indicator of longer-term socioeconomic status. Asian
and white employees are far more likely than black, Hispanic, and American Indian employees to
work in professional and managerial occupations and are less likely to work in "blue collar"
occupations. Within blue collar occupations, black, Hispanic, and American Indian employees are
more likely to be found in the lower-paying, "lower-skilled" occupations of operators, fabricators,
and laborers rather than the higher paying precision production and craft occupations. Black,
HispaniC, and American Indian women are more likely that their non-Hispanic white counterparts
to be employed in service occupations.
1. The black-white ratio of median wage of full-time year-round male workers reached a new high
in 1996 at about 0.80.
•
•
�Labor Markets
•
1. Labor Force Participation Rates of
25- to 54-Year Olds
100 ~-----------------------------------------------------------------, 100
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . Y Y h i t e men
............................................................................
90
· . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~h:~c!< men.
80
..........................
..~
.. ....,..-..~.., .......... r.lisl'lamc· men-
-
. . . . . . . ..
90
............ .......~................-...........•.... ~ .......~~......-.......~.......~.......•
...........
...................
80
. ................
~
E "70
· . . . . ..
. . . . . . . Black women . ..-.--:<.....
.............
e
Q)
a..
0'
......
60
· . . . . --_/:..:~-~.><.-~.'--""-<' . .
50
................. .
..
. . . . . . . . . ..
oL'1
I
1950
I
II
1
I
1955
I
I
!
I
!
t
!
1960
!
I
!
1965
!
I
!
,
!
1970
!
t
"'
!
!
1975
t
,""
I
!
1980
!
. ................
1
!
!
!
1985
!
!
!.
I
!
!
1990
Note: Prior to 1972, data for blacks include all non-whites.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
- The labor force participation rate is the percentage of a population that is either employed or
seeking work. Participation in the labor force has long been the norm for men ages 25 to 54.
Participation among women has been variously viewed as an indicator of women's economic
power and independence or a response to family financial stress resulting from slow male wage
growth or unemployment.
-Over the second half of the 20th century, labor torce participation rates have risen sharply for
all groups of women and have fallen for men.
- Participation rates of black women historically exceeded those of white women, but participation
rates for white women surpassed those of black women in the late 1980s. In the mid-1990s, the
rate for white women has slowed, whereas the rate for black women has continued to increase.
Participation rates of Hispanic women are lower than those of black and white women. Recent
welfare reform legislation may encourage more Single mothers with young children to enter the
labor force.
•
60
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
40
•
70
.........................
Q)
- Participation rates for white men exceed those of black and Hispanic men. Participation rates
have fallen more rapidly among black men than among white and Hispanic men. The decline in
male labor force participation may result from a variety of factors, including increased school
enrollment among persons in their late 20s, earlier retirement, and declining opportunities for
lower-skilled workers.
.
40
�Labor Markets
•
·2. Unemployment Rates
25
.-----------------------------------------~------------~25
20
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.... 15
c:
- - - - - - - -- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -
20
- - - - - - - - - - - -
15
~
Q)
c..
10
10
5
•
- - - - -
o
0
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975.
1980
1985
1990
1995
Note: Prior to 1972, data for blacks includes all non-whites.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
• The unemployment rate is a widely reported indicator of labor market distress. It
is the percentage of the labor force without a job but actively seeking work. .
(Persons who are not employed but not seeking a job are I')ot included in the
labor force, and are therefore classified as neither employed nor unemployed.)
• Unemployment rates for Hispanics and blacks are higher than those for whites;
they also tend to rise mor~ in economic recessions and fall more in expansions.
• The unemployment rate for blacks has been twice that of whites for more than.
20 years. It was above 10 percent from 1974 to 1997. This disparity reflects in
part difference in educational attainment, but substantial differentials persist
even among blacks, whites, and Hispanics with similar levels of education.
•
�Labor Markets
•
3. "Idleness a.mong 16- to24~ Year Olds
ll
40
~----~------------------------------------------------~40
_....... ........ ""
30
.HispaniG .w.omen.•. ....
.. .....
'
. . . • . . . . . . : - / : " " ' ' ' ' ' : : : : ' ' ' ' ; : : , : : , ' ' .. ,
..............
.,/
.............
.•.......••....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . .
30
Black women
.....•.....................................................................
E
i
,
BlacK men
20
~
.:..:...:..:...:...:...:......:...:...:....... ...:...........:...:...
:.·:···:·······'<·~i:~·::~·::~:·. :..:.:.:.~. .:.:.. . :.:.:.:.~. .:.:..~. :.:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::
20
. . . .. . . . ... ...
... .... " ....
"
.......... ,. ................. . .......
10
.................•
..............•.......
, '"
............ -'"
Hispanic men
,
...
... . .,., ...
.' .
..
'
. ................ .
------------~-----------------
•
. . . . . . . . . . ..
10,
----...,..-
o ~----~~--~----~----~----~------~----~----~----~
1988
1989, 1990,
1991
1992' 1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
-Individuals are classified as "idle" if they are neither employed nor enrolled in
school, Concerns about idleness are linked to youth crime and future
employment prospects. For women, being neither employed nor enrolled in
school is often related to child rearing. High idleness rates are partly the result
. ", of decreased labor market demand for younger, less-educated workers.
-Idleness rates of black and Hispanic youths exceed those of white youths. For
young men of all groups, idleness has peen relatively flat since 1988.
- For women, idleness rates have fallen substantially in the 1990s,especially
since 1995. For black and Hispanic women, most of this decrease was due to
increases in school enrollment.
•
0
�LaborMarkets
4. Median Weekly Earnings of
Full-Time Male Workers
•
800
700
~-------------------------------,
............
.•....
.......................
....................:............... .................. ~...
\.
•
600
. . . . . . . . . . . . ,
700
White
' .........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
800
~4~ ~·~·····
...
. . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • • • ....
··"~.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ':"':"',..,...:...:..:._:...:...:...,..:...:...:.,
600
500
Black
. .
400
. . . :'''~.
. . . .
".
-.
Hispanic
300
•
.
.
.
.............
-...... .
............... .
oll .
",'!
•
,
,
19651970
300
•
t'
,
1975
•
j
!
!
1980
I
I
,
!
1985
1990
t.
,J
1995
Notes: Straight lines between dots indicate data are unavailable in intervening years. Prior to 1979, the
. series for blacks includes other non-whites. Beginning in 1979, data are for workers ages 25 and over.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
• Male labor market earnings are the largest source of household income.
• Median wages of black and Hispanic men are substantially below those of white
men.
• Median wages of men have generally declined since the mid- to late 1970s.
The gap in pay between whites on the one hand and black~and Hispanics on
the other generally widened over that period, owing in part to differences in
educational attainment.
' .
•
400
0
�Labor Markets
•
5. Median Weekly Earnings of
Full-Time Female Workers
800
~------------------------------------------------------~800
700
.... " ..
600'
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.
....
.
700
. ................ .
. . . . . ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
. ...
600
. ...........
500
White
.................-.........................
~~
~.. ..*..u._............... ........ :...:.....................................,.",. ......n......._............~.·
•.......:..:...,.......:... . . . . ......
. -
. . . . . . . . . . 'BlacK' . . .:
400
•••••
400
•••*. . .
."."
...... .
Hispani~'''''''''''''''''' --', ' ...............
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
300
•
o~L
I
1965
!
I
!
1970
I
!
1975
!
I
t
1980
!
I
!'
1985
. ..........
300
!
1990
!
·1
1995
Notes: Straight lines between dots indicate data are unavailable in. intervening years. Prior to 1979, the
series for blacks includes other non-whites. Beginning in :1979, data are for workers ages 25 and over.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
- Women's earnings constitute a rising share of household income. Earnings of
women are particularly important for understanding differences between the
economic status of black families and those of other racial and ethnic groups,
because black married-couple families have typically relied more heavily on
women's earnings than other"farnilies, and because the fraction of single
female-headed families is highest among black families.
- After adjusting for inflation, weekly earnings of black and white women were
higher in 1997 than in 1967. The black-white gap in pay narrowed in the 1960s
and early 1970s' but has widened since the early 1980s, possibly reflecting
differences in educational attainment.
•
- Hispanic women'sfull ..time earnings have fallen in real terms over the past
decade.
-Although, on average, male earnings (not shown in chart) are higher than
female earnings, white femalemedian weekly earnings surpassed Hispanic
male earnings in 1987 and black male earnings in 1992. Black female earnings
have been roughly equal to Hispanic male earnings since 1991.
�Labor Markets
•
100
80,
-
6. Ratios of Black and Hispanic Male
to White Male Median Weekly Earnings
~------------------------~--------~----------------~100
..
...........
. ..
60
C
Q)
2
Q)
c..
40
20
•
o
Black
Hispanic
All
Black
Hispanic
Bachelor's degree or more
.1979 111997
Note: Ratios reflect usual weekly earnings of full-time workers on their main job.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
• Differences in wages can reflect differences in the education of workers and
differences in wages paid to workers with similar levels of education. The latter
differences may provide information about pay discrimination, although they
can also result from differences in other characteristics such as labor market'
experience..
• Differences in pay across racial and ethnic groups are larg~r for men than for
women. The median black male worker earns 74 percent, and the median
Hispanic male worker earns 63 percent of the median for white men.
•
• The median wage of black men has changed little relative to that of white men
since 1979. The relative pay of college-educated black men has fallen more
than 10 percentage points. This may reflect in part differences in educational
attainment beyond the bachelor's degree.
• The Hispanic-to-white ratio of median male wages has fallen since 1979,
reflecting the growing gap in educational attainment. However,
college-educated Hispanic men have lost little ground relative to white men and
now earn substantially more than COllege-educated black men.
�Labor Markets
7. Ratios of Black and Hispanic Female
to White Female Median Weekly Earnings
•
100.-------------------------------------------------------.100
80
60
+-'
C
Q)
~
Q)
c..
40
20
•
o
Black
Hispanic
All
.1979
Black
Hispanic
Bachelor's degree or more
1997
Note: Ratios reflect usual weekly earnings of full-time workers on their main job.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics .
• Between 1979 and 1997, the pay of black women relative to that of wI-lite
women fell by nearly 10 percentage points. In 1979 the median wage of black
women with a college degree was 98 percent that of college-educated white
women, but by 1997 their earnings had fallen to only 89 percent of the earnings
of white women~ This decline may reflect differences in the level of educational
attainment beyond the bachelor's degree .
• Hispanic women's wages have also fallen relative to white women's wages.
However, the decline in Hispanic women's relative pay is much smaller for
women with similar education levels. Differences in educational attainment '
have grown increasingly important for Hispanic-white differences in pay among
women.
•
o
�Labor Markets
•
8. Occupational 'Distribution of Employed Persons,
1997
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian"
American Indian"
White
. Black
Hispanic
Asian'
•
American Indian'
o
20
40,
60'
. 80
100
Percent
• Managerial & professional
Technical, sales, & administrative support
fi8a Service occupations
[!J Precision production, craft, and repair
• Operators, fabricators, and laborers IillI Farming, forestry, and fishing
*Data for Asians and American Indians are from 1990,'
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of the Census .
• Occupation is a better indicator of permanent social and economic status than
are employment or wages.
'
• Except among Hispanic men, the fraction of employed persons in managerial
and professional occupations grew considerably between the early 1980s and
1997 (not shown in chart). Growth in managerial and professional employment
has been greatest among white women. A high percentage of Asians are
employed in these jobs as well. American Indians are least likely to be
employed in the managerial and professional occupations .
•
• The percentage of employed men in the lower-paying manual occupation of
"operators, fabricators, and laborers" has declined (not shownoin chart). Among
blue collar employees, black and Hispanic men are more likely than white men
to be employed in these lower-skilled, lower-paid occupations than in previous .
years.
�,,'j
'.
:'
�I •• ,
:'.'.
:,'.
�•
Economic Status
No single indicator can be expected to capture fuJly all facets of economic status for entire
populations, but median annual income is the most often used. The economic status of most
individuals, especially children, is better reflected by the pooled resources of family or household
members than by their individual incomes.
The incomes of American families have generally increased markedly over the past 50 years.
Between the mid-1970s and the 1990s, however, the median family incomes of blacks and
Hispanics were stagnant, whereas incomes for non-Hispanic whites generally increased
(Economic Status]). Since the early 1990s, black family income has risen, but Hispanic income
has generally fallen. As a result, the ratio of black to non-Hispanic white median family income is
about the same today as it was 30'years ago, whereas the ratio of Hispanic to non-Hispanic white
•
income has fallen markedly since the early 1970s .
The decline in the relative position of Hispanics is due, at least in pal1, to immigration of
Hispanics with relatively low levels of education and income. The Jack of relative progress among
black families is in part due to the large rise in single parent families among blacks (see Population
7). However, these changes in family structure since 1967 can account for only about a fifth of the
gap in average family income between blacks and whites in 1996. 1 Other factors include
differences in educational attainment, unemployment rates, and w'age rates. Median family
income of Asians is slightly higher than that of non-Hispanic whites, consistent with Asians' high
levels of educational attainment.,
Differences in median incomes provide only a partial description of differences in the income
distributions of racial> and ethnic groups. A second indica[Or of the economic status of a
population is the poverty rate: the proportion who lack the economic resources needed to
purchase a minimally acceptable standard of living. There is no scientifically adequate method for
•
determining the minimally acceptable living standard: this will vary from society to society and
�•
over time as living standards and social norms vary. The poverty rates presented here are based on
the Office of Management and Budget's "official" definition. Although there is growing consensus
among economists that the official measure has limitations and could be improved by revision,
alternative measures produce similar disparities in poverty rates among racial and ethnic groups.2
Despite their higher median income, the rate of poverty among Asians in the United States is
nearly 50 percent higher than the poverty rate of non-Hispanic whites (Economic Status 2). This
reflects the economic, educational, and cultural diversity of the Asian population. Blacks,
Hispanics, and American Indians have much higher rates of poverty and chi ld poverty than non
Hispanic whites and Asians. Hispanic poverty rates have generally risen since the 1970s and
surpassed the rate for blacks in the early 1990s. Although still very high, rates of poverty among
blacks have declined since the early 1990s and reached an all-time low in 1996. In 1990, the
poverty rate for American Indians was higher than that of any of the other group.3
•
Poverty among children is of particular concern. Child poverty not only indicates current
economic disadvantages among families with children, but it is also associated with inequality of
opportunity, risks to health and development in childhood, and lifetime socioeconomic
,disadvantage. Although child poverty rates exceed overal I individual poverty rates, trends in child
poverty mirror, trends in, overall poverty, and black, Hispanic, and American Indian children have
higher poverty rates, than non-Hispanic white and Asian children (Economic Status 3).
While many of the disparities in poverty rates between racial and ethnic groups can be explained
by differences in factors such as age distribution, fami Iy structure, and educational attainment,
substantial differentials persist even among individuals with similar characteristics (Economic
Status 4). For example, poverty rates among the elderly are considerably higher among blacks
and Hispanics than among whites and Asians. Similarly, while poverty rates are relatively high for
all children in single-parent families maintained by women, they are considerably higher for
Hispanic and black children in such families than for white children. Among persons aged 25 and
•
over without a high school degree, poverty rates for blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are well above
�•
those of whites.
Asset holdings are another important indicator of economic well-being. Greater wealth allows a
.household to maintainits standard of living when income falls because of job loss, health
problems, or family changes such as divorce or widowhood. Wealth also provides resources that
can be used to finance education
01:
to start a business. Disparities in asset holdings across racial
and ethnic groups are large and exceed disparities in income (Economic Status 5). In 1993, the
. net worth (assets minus liabilities) of households headed by whites was more than 10 times that
of households headed by blacks or Hispanics. Even among households with similar monthly
incomes, net asset holdings are far higher among whites than blacks or Hispanics. 4
1. Council of Economic Advisers. 1998. Economic Report of the President. Washington, DC.
2. Citro, Constance F., and Robert 1. Michael, eds.1995. Measuring
Washington, DC: National Academy of Science.
•
Pover~v:
A New Approach:.
3. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1997. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1997 (117th
'edition.). Washington, DC.
4. E11er, T.J., and Wallace Fraser. 1995. Asset Ownership of Households: 1993. U.S. Bureau of
the Census. Current Population Reports, P70-47. Washington, DC.
•
�Economic Status
•
1. Median Family Income
55 ~--------~--------------------------------------------------~55
50
e!
45
CU
15
"'C
<.0
40
(j)
(j)
..
'0
35
35
CI)
"'C
c:
CU 30
CI)
:::J
o
~
•
25
20
- - - - - -- - --
of;,
.1965
,I
1970
20
t
I
1975
!
!
!'!
1980
,
I
,
1985
,
1990
I
1995
Note: Prior to 1972, data for whites include Hispanic whites.
Source: Bureau of the Census.
• Median annual family income is the most commonly used indicator of current family
economic status. (Half of families have incomes below and half have incomes above
the median.)
,
• Asian and non-Hispanic white families have much higher median incomes than black
or Hispanic families. The median income of black families as a percentage of
non-Hispanic white median family income was about the same in 1997 as in 1967.
Hispanic median family income has fallen in absolute terms (and relative to that of
non-Hispanic whites) since 1972, in part due to immigration .
• There are great differences in income among different groups of Asians and Hispanic.
For example, according to the 1990 Census, the median family income of Cubans and
Japanese Americans exceeded that of non-Hispanic white families, whereas the
income of Mexicans and Vietnamese was lower than that of median black families .
• A portion of the family income gap between non-Hispanic .whites and blacks is
•
. associated with the higher prevalence of single-parent families among blacks.
'Differences in family structure account for onlya small part of the difference in median
income between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites .
• According to the 1990 census, the median family income of American Indians (not
shown in chart) was lower than that of blacks.
.
�conomic Status
•
2. Poverty Rates for Individuals
~----------------------------~------------~----------~m
70
60.
50
'E
- - - - - . -
........
w
~
-
~
•••
-
••
-
. . . . . . . . ..
••
.
60
. . . . . . . . . ..
50
. . . . . . . ..
40
. . . . . . . . . . ..
40
20
Q)
~
Q)
a..
30
20
... ···....~sian
10
•
....
.....
. . . . . . . .
.--,.:--...:.....::.,.-.:..../ '. . . . . . .
.
..................
-----
.....................
··········~·10
White, non-Hispanic
o
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985.
1990
1995
Notes: Straight lines between dots indicate data are unavailable in intervening years.
Source: Bureau of the Census ..
• The poverty rate··a widely used indicator of economic disadvantage··measures
the proportion of a population whose cash income is below the offical poverty
line. The poverty line varies with family size. and changes from year to year. In
1996 the poverty line for a family of four was $16,036.
• Poverty rates for all racial and ethnic groups fell over the 1960s and early 1970s
bLit improved little over the next 20 years. Poverty rates have fallen since 1993,
however, particularly among blacks.
.
• The poverty rate for non-Hispanic whites remains well below that of Asians,
blacks, and Hispanics. According to the 1990 Census, the poverty rate for
American Indians was the highest among the five racial and ethnic groups.
•
• The poverty rate for Hispanics increased from the 1970s until the early 19~Os.
It has been above the rate for blacks since 1994. The increase in Hispanic
poverty is partly the result of the lower levels of educational attainment of many
Hispanic immigrants.
.• Although their median family income exceeds that of non-Hispanic whites,
Asians are more likely than non-Hispanic whites to be poor. This combination
of relativel,y high poverty and high median income reflects the great economic
diversity within the U.S. Asian population.
�Eco'nomic Status
•
3. Poverty Rates for Children'
70
~--------~------------~--------------------------------~70
.....-'.
60
- - - ..
.
'.
"~."
50
.. . . . . . . .
-":"':..: - - .
'.
Black
>. . .:.-.. ----.---.--.-.---.. -.- . -----.. . --.
.. - - - - - . - . - .:...
..........
'E
40
•
•
•
.
.
•.
..•...
60
~
_ .
.
.
..~..
~\\I .•
<···:..._· . :.. . .
~
. t.......: •••: ••• •• •••
:
.....
:.n....._
...
.~.................. ~.".~.
~
.....................:........
.~ ....."·.h...
50
.............
40
~
Q)
a..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
-. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
20
10
......
10
•
30
30
..
o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_·~i~'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
Notes: Straight lines between dots indicate data are unavailable in intervening years. Prior to 1974 for
whites and blacks, and prior to 1976 for Hispanics, poverty rates are for related children in families.
Source: Bureau of the Census.
'. Child poverty me.asures current economic hardship among familes with
children. Poverty in childhood is also associated with poor child health, delayed
cognitive development, and poverty in adulthood. As such, it is also an
indicator of inequality of opportunity and a predictor of long-term economic
disadvantage.
.
• Child poverty rates for all groups declined sharply in the 1900s. Since then,
child poverty rates have fluctuated with the economy and edged up for most
· groups.
•
• Poverty rates for Hispanic children have increased more rapidly than among
other groups and are currently about equal to those of black children.
According to the 1990 Census, American Indian children had poverty rates that
were second only to blacks (not shown in .chart) .
'
�Economic Status
•
4. Poverty Rates by Selected Individual
Characteristics, 1996
r------------------------------,
80
70
60
-
................ -
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . - ..
................. ,......
50
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _.
...
. .... .
. ......... .
. . . ..
.
"
80'
. . . . . .
70
. . . . . . . . . .
60
.................
50
c:
Q)
~ 40
40
Q)
CL
30
20
20
10
•
30
10
o
o
Ages 17 and under
Ages 65 and over
• White III Black ~ Hispanic 0 Asian
Children in single
parent families
maintained by females
Persons aged 25 and
over with less than a
high school degree
Source: Bureau of the Census.
'. The higher poverty rates of blacks, Hispanics and American Indians (not shown
, in chart) are in part linked to educational attainment arid single-parent families.
But even for children in .households maintained by single mothers or for
,persons aged 25 and older without a high school degree, poverty rates for
blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians are higher than poverty rates for
, whites .
• Poverty rates for black and Hispanic children and elderly are markedly higher
than those of their white counterparts.
•
�Economic Status
'.
5. Households Owning Selected Assets, 1993
80.--------------------------------------------------------,80
... - - - .. - -
70
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -, - - - - - - - . - . . . . . . - . ',' - - - - -
60
50
. - - - - - . . . . . . - - .. - . - - .
- . _.
. - - . - - - .. -
50
40
- - . - - - . -
. - - . . . - - .. - . - .. - - - - - -
40
30
- - - - . - - - . - . - . - - - .
- - - .. - .. - - . - - . - -
30
70
------. ----------
60
- - - - - - . . . . - . . ..
.....
c
Q)
~
Q)
- - .. - . - . - - - - ..
0..
20
•
20
10
10
o
Stocksl Mutual funds
• White
III Black
Home Equity
BU o
IRA/Keogh accounts
~ Hispanic
Source: Bureau of the Census.
- Wealth (assets minus liabilities) isa bettEn indicator of permanent economic
status than is income in a single year. Wealth can provide a cushion against
temporary economic hardship.
- Households maintained by whites were more likely than those maintained by
blacks or Hispanics to own stocks or mutual funds, have equity in their home, or
own a private pension plan such as an IRA or Keogh account.
- Differences in stock ownership in 1993 are notable, because the value of stock
has increased markedly since that time; for example, the Standard and Poor's
500 Index has more than doubled in value since 1993.
•
-Among those who own assets of each type, the median value of assets held by
white.s is higher than that of assets owned by blacks and Hispanics (not shown
in chart). In 1993, the median net worth of households maintained by whites
was 10 times that of households maintained by blacks or Hispanics.
�5
II
··.·:i:
.. ,';',
��•
Health
Advances in public health practice and medical technology have contributed to dramatic
improvements in the average longevity of the U.S. population. On average, Americans in 1900
"could not expect to live to the age of 50. By 1996 the they could expect to live past the age of
76. Although all racial and ethnic groups have experienced gains in life expectancy, differences"
between groups in longevity and in mmiy other measures of health status have been apparent for
as long as these measures have been collected separately by race. This is true for measures of
healt!! status at the beginning, middle, and end of the life span. For some groups and some
measures, these differences are persistently large. For others, the differences are small.
l
.In general, blacks fare worse than any other group, and American Indians and Hispanics are often
disadvantaged in health status relative to whites. On average, Asians fare as well as and
sometimes better than whites on most measures of health. While many of the observed
differences are large, average differences between racial and ethnic groups may understate
important differences within the society. For instance, there is evidence that blacks who live in
very poor urban areas suffer extreme health disadvantages not only relative to
•
whit~s
but also.
2
relative to blacks who live in poor rural areas or middle class urban neighborhoods. In addition,
there are differences by national origin, socioeconomic status, and age, particularly within the
Hispanic artd Asian popUlations, that are not apparent when statistics are reported at this level of
aggregation. For example, there is some evidence that the health status of younger cohorts of
Hispanics may be declining,3 and among AsianlPacific Islanders, those with low incomes and
those with origins in south'and sOlltheast Asia are disadvantaged relative to whites and other
Asian groupS.4
Infant mortality is often usedto compare the health and well-being of populations across countries
as well as within countries. Although the United States has a lower rate of infant mortality than a
typical developing country, it has long had one of the highest infant 11l00taiity rates of any
industrialized country in the world. Within the United States, blacks and A..merican Indians have
higher infant mortality rates than other groups, and although mortal ity rates have been falling for
all groups, differences among gj"OUPS have, persisted over time (Health 1) .
./
Declines in infant mortality and infedious diseases 'among the young contributed much to the
increase in overall life expectancy in the early part of the 20th century_ In the latter part of the
•
century, the large declines in chronic disease death rates among the middle aged and older groups
.
have led to an acceleration of life expectancy. However, differences in life expectancy between
.
�•
whites and blacks have persisted throughoLlt the period, and, among men, they have actually
grown since the I 980s (Health 2).
Childhood infectious diseases, once a significant cause of illness and death among children, have
largely been conquered through widespread use of vaccination. Mandatory vaccination
requirements for enrollment in Inost schools in the United States virtually assure vaccination by
age 5. However, a large majority of children in the United States receive vaccinations much
earlier, following the recommended schedule that begins at birth and is largely complete by 18
months. Whether or not a child aged 19 to 35 months is up to date with this schedule is a key
indicator of access to basic medical care. Although there are differences among racial and ethnic
groups in the United States, these.are largely a reflection of differences in economic status among
groups (Health 3).
Smoking contributes to nearly 400,000 cancer and heart disease deaths annually, and the
reduction of smoking rates ha~ been an important goal of public health efforts for many years. s
Because of the addicti ve property of nicotine, and because most current smokers began smoking
at young ages, efforts at smoking reduction have focused on youth. Between 1965 and 1990,
•
there were large reductions in smoking among 18- to 24-year olds, especially for men and for
black women (Health 4). Rates of smoking fell more for blacks than for whites. Since 1990,
however, there is concern that this decline has stopped.
The other major areas of concern for adolescent and young adult health are injuries and AIDS.
Adolescents and young adults, particularly males, face higher rates ofdeath due to motor vehicle
injuries,
s~icides,
and homicides than any other age group. There are also racial and ethnic
differences within this age group. American Indians face much higher death rates due to suicides
and unintentional injuries than any other group, while blacks face much higher rates of homicide
than any other group (Health 5). Hispanics and American Indi4ll1s also face higher than average
homicide rates. HIV disease kills black and Hispanic young adults at significantly higher rates·
than non-Hispanic whites, Asians, or American Indians.
At middle age, chronic diseases are much more important indicators of health. Heart disease and
cancer are the two most important causes of premature death for those aged 45 to 64, and much
6
of this' mortality is directly attributable to smoking. Asians in this age range face the lowest death
rates due to heart disease (Health 6). Blacks, on the other hand; are at greater risk of mortality
•
from these chronic diseases than any other group in this age range. To a large extent, these
differences in death rates from chronic diseases are responsible for the relatively low pl;obability
�•
,
'
that blacks survive to old age. While only two out of three blacks can expect to live to age 65,
nearly 90 percent of Asians can expect to live that long.
At middle age, chronic diseases are muchmore important indicators of health. Heart disease and
cancer are, the two most important causes of prematul'e death for those ages 45 to 64, and much
7
of this mortality is directly attributable to smoking. Relative to other groups, blacks face large
health disadvantages in mortality due to these chronic diseases (Health 6). Asians face lower
death rates due to heart disease at these ages than other groups.
While not presented in this volume, there is also evidence that health differences persist into old
age. Black and Hispanic elderly are more likely to have disabilities and chronic diseases than
white elderly, but to some extent these differences are explained by differences in socioeconomic
status.
8
,
Research into the reasons for health differences between racial and ethnic groups has focused
9
largely on differences in socioeconomic status. On average, white Americans have better access
to the social and economic resources necessary for healthy living environments and better access
•
to preventive medical services; they also make healthier lifestyle choices. Other research suggests
that stress leading to poor health among members of racial minority groups, particularly blacks, is
created by discrimination and racism.
lo
To the extent that access to medical care can prevent the onset of disease or ameliorate its effects,
the portion of the population without health insurance (either public or private) will be correlated
with ill health. Among men especially, Hispanics and blacks are less likely to have health insurance
than non-Hispanic whites (Health 7) .. Insurance coverage is highly correlated with income,
however, and the difference between white and black men (though not the difference between
Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites) is almost entirely explained by differences in income.
Disparities in healtlTStatus also have economic consequences. For exam!1le, poor health can lead
to high expenditures on medical care at the expense of other goods (forex<lmple, housing or
education). Perhaps more important, poor health can also reduce earning potential. Thus, the
disparities observed in health between race and ethnic groups in the United States are tied to
differences in many other economic and social. realms.
•
�•
I Schoenbaum, Michael; 'and Timothy Waidmann. 1997. "Race, Socioeconomic Status, and
Health: Accounting for Race Differences in Health." Joumals of Gerontology 52B (Special
issue):61-73; Smith, James P., and Raynard Kington. 1997. "Demographic and Economic
Correlates of Health in Old Age." Demography 34 (I ):.159-70.
'
Geronimus, Arline, et aJ. 1996. "Excess Mortality 'among Blacks and Whites in the United
States." New' England Journal of Medicine 335 (21); 1552-58.
2
Liao, Youlien, et al. 1998. "Mortality Patterns among Adult Hispanics: Findings from the NHIS
1986-1990." American Journal ofPttblic Healtlz 88 (2):227-32.
.
3
Tanjasiri, Sora P., Steven P. Wallace, and Kaiue Shibata. 1995, "Picture Imperfect: Hidden
Problems among Asian Pacific Islander Elderly," The Gerontologist 35 (6):753-60; Klatsky,
, Arthur L, et aJ. J 994. "The Risk of Hospitalization for Ischemic Heart Disease among Asian
Americans in Northern California." American Journal of Public Health 84 (10):1672-75.
4
5Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1993. "Smoking Attributable Mortality and Years of
Potential Life Lost-,United States, 1990." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report ,42 ([[Issue
immber]]):645-48.
.
,
6
7
•
ibid.
ibid.
Schoenbaum, Michael, and Timothy Waidmann. 1997. "Race, Socioeconomic Status, and
Health: Accounting for Race Differences in Health." Journals of Gerontology 52B (Special
issue):61-73; Smith, James P., and Raynard Kington. 1997. "Demographic and Economic
Correlates of Health in Olel Age." Demography 34 (\): 159-70.
8
Williams, David R. 1990. "Socioeconomic Differentials in Health: A Review and Redirection."
Social Psychology Quarterly 53 (2):81-99.
9
10 James, Sherman A., Sue A. Hartnett, and William D. Kalsbeek. 1983. "John Henryism and
Blood Pressure Differences among Black Men." Journal ,ofBehavioral Medicine 6 (3):259-78.
•
�Health
•
. 1. Infant Mortality Rates
20
r-------------------------------------------~------------~20
........................................................................~~~~.~....
...........' ..........----........-~>.,..~_~:.:.
CJ)
.I::
:;; 16
.0
16
.~.
o
o
o
. . . . . - - . ..
Qj 12
c..
.: .. _.
12
CJ)
.I::
(6
Q)
Hispanic
................. ..
"0
~
C
•
""
8
:":"':''':''.
7-"~~:~":":"';"':":'":''' ..:~.: ..:-.. -..... -..... : .. ~ .. ' .. -...-.:....
....·................·..·...... ··Asi~~··············.~.·.. ~.. ·-..·...............
White, non-Hispanic
of I .'
1983
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
8
.
.
,·,·~~-I·,·-·: y
0
1987
1985
1989
1991
1993
1995
Source: National Center for Health Statistics.
• The infant mortality rate is often used as a primary indicator of the overall
health status of a population. It is defined as the number of deaths that occur
before a child's first birthday per 1,000 live births.
• Although infant morality rates have fallen over time for all racial and ethnic
groups, differences between groups have persisted. In 1968 (not shown in
chart), black infants died at a rate of more than 35 per thousand, while white
infants died aLa rate ofjust under 20 per thousand.
.
.
.
• Wide disparities in infant mortality among racial and ethnic groups remain. In
1995 the rate for blacks was more than twice the rate for non-Hispanic whites,
Hispanics, and Asians. American Indians also had relatively high rates. It is
notable that Hispanic infant mortality rates are equivalent to those of
non-Hispanic whites, despite the considerably lower socioeconomic status of
Hispanics .
•
• For most groups, the infant mortality rate is much higher for babies born to
teenage mothers. The notable exception is black mothers, for whom the infant
mortality rate is no higher for teenage mothers than for other mothers. This
means that higher teenage birth rates do not account for higher overall black
infant mortality rates.
�2. Life Expectancy at Birth
85
r-------------------~----------------------------~----~~85
. . . . . . . . . ..
80' ......... .
.. Biack women
75
-
............................
Ol
ca
::
0 70
~
. . . . . . . . ..
. ..
. . . . . . . . - - - ..
Black men
~-:-:-:-~:-:-:--:--::-,.~.
60
of!
I
1950
..
70
I
I
I
I
1955
I
I
I
I
I
1960
I
I
I
I
I
1965
I
I
I
I
. .
.
I
' 1970
I
.
. .
I
I
I
. . . . . . .
I
1975
I
I
I
I
I
1980
-..,--~~
..
..
65
. - -
I
I
... - . . . ..
-
I
I
. -
. . .
1985
I
I
.......
I
I
I
I
I
1990
I
Source: ,National Center for Health Statistics ..
• A key summary measure of mortality risk is life expectancy at birth. This
represents the length of time that an average baby born today would live if
current death rates at each age remained constant
'
• For both men and women, whites can expect to live longer than blacks,
although black women now slightly outlive white men .
• Women cif both race groups can expect to live longer than their male
counterparts.
• Although life expectancy has increased substantially for all groups, the
differences between whites and blacks have not narrowed and have actually
increased since 1982, particularly among men .
60
I',J O
1995
Note: Straight lines between dots indicate data 'are unavailable in intervening years.
•
75 '
on _
. . . . . ..
•• "
White men
65
•
-0.
.... .. ...:.......:..... .
ca
~
. . .
80
, .... - -. -.
~.~*~~.nnnu' ••••••• _ ..... __ ••• __ ••••• Ow.~
---
........ _ ....
Q)
.
�Health
•
3. Up to Date with Recommended
Vaccinations at 19 to 35 Months, 1995-96
1oor-------------~------------~------------------------1100
80
..... .
.. 60
..... 60
c
Q)
...
0
Q)
0..
40
20
•
.. 40
..
o
White, non-Hispanic
• Poor
o
Black
Hispanic
Asian
American Indian
III Not Poor
Source: National Center for Health Statistics.
I
-Immunization is a fundament~1 component of regular medical care for children.
In addition to measuring the extent to which children are protected from
childhood diseases, this measure also indicates whether children have at least
some access to medical care. This chart shows the percentage of children aged
19 to 35 months who were up to date with the recommended schedule of
, vaccinations in 1995 and 1996.
- Non-Hispanic white, black, Hispanic, and American Indian children who live in
poverty are less likely than nonpoor children to be up to date with
recommended vaccinations .
•
20
. - Among children ih similar economic circumstances, there are relatively small
differences between racial and ethnic groups. !\Ion-Hispanic white, black, and
Hispanic children in poverty have roughly equal chances of being currently
vaccinated. Among children above the poverty line, Hispanic children are
somewhat less likely to be vaccin~ted than nonpoor children inother groups.
�Health
•
4. Prevalence of Smoking 'among
18- to 24-Year Olds
60
- - - - - - - - - - . - . - - - . - .. - - - .. - - -
.Wp.men.. -. - - .... - - -.... -. - - - - .... - 60
40 :~ ••:___:._. . - - . . . . - . .- .. :...:...:.•_~._:.:...:.' . - -. - - . - - . - - - - . . ..:..- . - . . . . - .- - - . . . . . . . - . - . - . . . 40
-
-...............-..................................
-
White
.,
..........
~
........................................ .iiiaCKM:".~ Hi~~~~~~_
20
20
. - - - - - . -
c:
CD
f:?
CD
a.
•
. . . • -.
-.
- - . - .. - ... - - . - ....
o~--------~--------~--------~~--------~~~----~--------~o
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
Notes: Straight lines between dots indicate data are unavailable in intervening years. Data for Hispanics are
from 1990-91. 1992-93, and 1993-94.
.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics.
• Cigarette smoking is one of the most important public health concerns in the
United States, contributing to nearly 400,000 deaths each year. Most smokers
begin smoking early in life, and much effort to reduce smoking has been
focused on young people.
• Approximately 25 percent of 18- to 24-year-old whites smoke, compared with
approximately 10 percent of blacks and Hispanics. For men, smoking rates for
this age group have fallen substantially since 1965, when more than 60 percent
of black males and more than 50 percent of white males smoked. For women,
reductions since 1965 have been less dramatic, although rates among black
women have fallen by more than half.
•
1995
• Since the rnid-1980s, smoking prevalence among black young adults has fallen
faster than among whites.
• Data for Hispanics are only available beginning in 1990-91. Smoking is less
. prevalent among Hispanics than among whites but is slightly more prevalent
than among blacks.
�Health
•
5. Death Rates by Cause for Ages 15 to 34, 1994-95
80 ,-----------------------------------------------------------------, 80
~ 60
- - -
o
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
60
[!?
Q.)
c..
o
o
o
g 40
40
yo
....
Q.)
c..
C/)
.c
1U
~ 20
•
20
o
. Unintentional
Injury
Suicide
• White, non-Hispanic IIJ Black~. Hispanic
Homicide
H.I.V.
o
Asian. American Indian
Note: HIV data on American Indians are from 1993-95.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics.
-Although deaths to adolescents and young adults are rare relative to deaths among older adults
and the elderly, several causes of death are particularly important for this age group. The most
common cause of death in this group is not disease but injury, either intentional or unintentional,
which accounts for more than half of all deaths in this age group. The one fatal disease that
affects this age group significantly is HIV. However, more than 90 percent of HIV deaths between
ages 15 to 34 are among those aged 25 to 34 .
. -Deaths due to injuries (accidental and intentional) are more prevalent among men than women in
all age groups (not shown in chart), but this difference is particularly apparent for persons between
the ages of 15 and 34. In this group, more than 80 percent of injury deaths are to men.
•
-American Indians are much more likely than members of other groups to die accidentally (the
most common cause is motor vehicle accidents) or to commit suicide. Blacks are much more
likely to be a victim of homicide (with Hispanics and American Indians ranked a distant second and
, third but still with higher rates than non-Hispanic whites). Blacks and Hispanics are also more likely
to die from AIDS-related diseases than other groups. Asians have the lowest rates of death due to
injuries and AIDS in this age group.
�Health
•
6. Death Rates by Cause for Ages 45 to 64, 1995
600
.-------------------------------------------------------~600
" , , , , , ..
500
.,."......
. . . . . 500
(J)
c:
o
(J)
. . . . . . ..
Q; 400
..........
. .. 400
a.
o
o
q
g 300
.....
Q)
a.
(J)
..c: 200
iil
'Q)
o
100
•
o
Heart Disease
Cancer
Men
,•
White, non-Hispanic ~ Black ~ Hispanic
Heart Disease
Cancer
Women
ASian. American Indian
Source: National Center for Health Statistics.
-In this age group, chronic diseases like heart disease and cancer account for
the largest fraction of deaths. Smoking is implicated in many of these deaths.
-Slack men and women have the highest death rates from heart disease and
cancer. Hispanics have lower death rates, than non-Hispanic whites for these
diseases. Asians have among the lowest death rates, pa1icularly for heart
disease. American Indians have relatively high rates of heart disease.
- Overall, men are more likely to die in this age range than women, largely
because of differences in rates of death from these diseases, particularly heart
disease.
•
�Health
•
7. Persons Aged 18to 64 without Health Insurance
Coverage, 1994-95
60
r-------------------------------------------------------~60
. . . . . . . . . ..
...... .
-
40
. . . . . . ..
40
50
. .... . . ..
50
30'
c:
Q)
~30
Q)
0..
20
20
10
•
..
o
White, non-Hispanic
• AII.incomes
III Poor ill Near Poor
Black
18§ Middle
Hispanic
II High
Source: National Center for Health Statistics.
• Coverage by health insurance, either private or public (like Medicaid), is a key
indicator of access to medical care.
• Hispanics have the highest rates of uninsurance, while non-Hispanic whites
. have the lowest.
• For every group, the rate of uninsurance is lower for those with higher incomes.
. • The overall difference in uninsurance rates between non-Hispanic whites and .
blacks stems from the relative concentration of blacks in lower income
categories, as non-Hispanic whites and blacks with similar incomes have similar
rates of uninsurance. Hispanics, on the other hand, have higher rates of
uninsurance at every level of income.
•
• In large part because they are more likely to be eligible for Medicaid, women
tend to have lower rates of uninsurance than men (not shown in chart).
o
�6
',",
',:'.
,
----
,R?\~~?4~ Ali!lq!~~~i
"~,I,:
�6
�•
Crime and Criminal Justice
A safe environment isimportant for stable childhood development, good health, and successful
involvement in education and the job market. No single summary measure can capture the
difficulties that crime creates in the lives of individuals and communities. This section discusses
three important aspects of crime and justice: victimization-the experience of being a victim of
crime-,criminal activity, and the criminal justice system. Victimization is down in recent years
after rising in the 1980s. The prison population, however, has grown substantially over the past
20 years, and increasing numbers of individuals have other involvement in the criminal justice
system. The differences by race and Hispanic origin in experiences with crime and involvement in
the justice system are stark.
The measured level of criminalactivity and criminal justice supervision is the result of actions by
many individuals and institutions, including offenders, victims, the police, the courts, and the
"
prison system. Because of these many actors, it is difficult to interpret differences in observed
•
rates of criminal activity and victimization, either over time or across different groups. For
example, if individuals perceive that their risk of being victimized has increased, they may take
precautions-'such as stayil,lg inside more or taking a taxi instead of walking-to reduce that risk.
If those precautions are successful, the crime rate may not rise, but crime is still playing a larger
role in their lives, and they are cerrainly worse off.
Crimes fall into three major categories: crimes against persons (including violent crimes), property
crimes, and victimless crimes (traditionally, crimes such as drug sales and prostitution have been
included in this category). Information about the number of crimes is available from two types of
,
,
,
'
sources, victimization surveys and data collected by law enforcement ofGcials (tbe FBI crime
index, for example). Since surveys provide more reliable information about the characteristics of
victims, victimization data from the National
data, are presented in this section.
•
~rime
and Victimization Survey, rather than FBI
�•
In 1996, Americans were victims of an estimated 27.6 million property crimes and 9.1 million
violent crimes. Both property and violent crime rates have fallen in rhe ] 990s. Victims of crime
bear psychological, economic, and health costs, and offenders 111ay be arrested and punished for
their crime. Although they are not costless to society, "victimless" crimes cannot be accurately
counted by surveys of households that ask about incidents of victimization. The effects of crime
.
.
.
.
reach beyond victims and offenders to their families and communities. Offenders can support
neither themselves nor their families while in prison or jail-more than half of male prisoners have
children under 18, and a criminal record can continue to impair individuals' labor market
opportunities for years.' Crime costs the economy hu~dreds of billions of dollars each year,
including property losses and damage, as well as public and private spending to control crime. But
these numbers do not capture the heightened sense of insecurity that crime imposes on individuals
and neighborhoods.
Minorities, particularly blacks, are much Illorelikely than non-Hispanic whites to be victims of
crime. Differences in victimization are particularly striking for violenl crimes. For example, the
•
homicide victimization rate of blacks is more than twice that of Hispanics <lnd6 times that of non'
Hispanic whites and Asians. American Indians' homicide victimization rate falls between that of
HispaniCs and non-Hispanic whites and Asians (Crime and Criminal Justice
I)~
The differences in
victimization by race and Hispanic origin are much smaller for property crimes than for violent
crimes, although differences have grown somewhat since the 1970s. Hispanics have the highest
rates of property crime victimization, followed by blacks and whites (data for other groups are
unavailable) (Crime and Criminal Justice 2).
Unfortunately, reliable national data on involvement in thecriminal justice system are available
only for blacks, whites, and "others," so this subject is discussed here oniy in tenns of black-white
differences. Blacks have higher rates of involvement in the criminal justice system than do whites.
Although blacks comprise only] 2 percent of the popUlation, nearly equal numbers of blacks and
. whites were admitted to prison in 1995 (Crime and Criminal Justice 3). Black adults are much
more likely than white adults to be under the supervision of the crimina] justice system
•
probation; parole, jail, or prision (Crime and Criminal Justice 4).
�•
Blacks represented 43 percent of arrests, 54 percent of convictions, and 59 percent of prison
admissions for violent crimes in 1994 (Crime and Criminal Justice 5), indicating that arrested
blacks are more likely to be convicted, and convicted blacks are more likely to be imprisoned,
compared with whites. America's criminal justice system has clearly been biased against blacks in
the past -for example, between 1930 and 1964, six southern jurisdictions put to death 67 black
men and no white men for the crime of rape. 2 More recent instances of discrimination on the part
of police and elsewhere in the criminal justice system have been documented in personal and
media accounts,3 and perceptions of discrimination in the criminal justice system may undermine
its effectiven~ss. But assessing how much continuing discrimination contributes to the large black
white difference in criminal justice system involvement is difficult. Research suggests that most or
all of the differences in the likelihood of conviction and imprisonment can be explained by other
factors, such as severity of crime or prior record of the offender. 4 Less is known about the extent
of discrimination at the arrest stage, in part because underlying rates of criminal activity by race
cannot be easily assessed. Some evidence comes from comparing the race distribution of
•
"offenders" derived from victims' surveys with the racial composition of individuals arrested for
the same crime. Two studies have found that these distributions are roughly comparable for many
violent crimes. s
A variety of factors contribute to differences in victimization, criminal activity, and involvement in
the criminal justice system, including neighborhoods, economic status, and education. Those who
have poorer earnings prospects in the legal job market.may be more likely to engage in criminal
activity. Since the 1970s, earnings for low-skilled men have deteriorated markedly, increasing the
attractiveness of illegal compared to legal job prospects. This trend may explain some of the rise
in prison admissions and criminal justice system involvement. In additioll, since blacks, Hispanics,
and American Indians are over represented at the bottom of the earnings distribution, those
groups have been disproportionately affected by deteriorating earnil1gs. Crime policy and
enforcement decisions also influence differences in victimization, criminal activity, and
•
punishments. Some policies can have different effects on different groups. For example, the War
on Drugs (launched in the early 1980s) resulted in larger increases in incarceration and criminal
�•
supervision rates among blacks than among whites. This was due, in large part, to differences in
sentencing and enforcement for crack cocaine-which is more commonly used by blacks
relative to powder cocaine. Drug LIse also contributes to nondrug crimes-50 to 80 percent of
persons arrested for nondrug offenses tested positive for drugs in 1992. 6
Besides perceptions of discrimination in the criminal justice system, lack of racial and ethnic
diversity among those working in criminal justice may also undennine the perceived legitimacy of
the system. However, minority representation on local police departments has increased in recent
years and is much higher in large cities, which tend to serve more diverse populations (Crime and
. Criminal Justice 6). Differences in perceptions about the fairness of the police, the courts, prisons,
and jails among racial and ethnic groups have been widely noted. National survey data indicate
that blacks and Hispanics have less confidence in the police (Crime and Criminal Justice 7), and
research based on particular groups or cities also indicates that a majority of both whites and
minorities believe that discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity is a problem in police
departments and throughout the criminal justice system. 7
•
1. U.S. Department of Justice. 1991. SlIrvey (~l State Prison Inmates. Washington, DC. 201-37; Freemen,
Richard. 1992. "Crime and Employment of Disadvantaged Youth." In Peterson, George and Wayne
Vroman, eds., Urban Labor Markets alld Job Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 1992~ 201
37.
2. BJS: Source?[[Incomplete reference.]]
3. Russell, Kathryn K. 1998. The Color ql' Crime. New York: New York University Press. (In a study of
the Maryland State Troopers ·and the searches they made of motorists on the Interstate Highway 95, black
motorists were subject to 409 out of 533 searches. The police justified this procedure by explaining the
blacks were 50 percent higher chance of being found with contraband. However, blacks were searched
more than 400 percent more often.) .
4. Stone, Christopher. 1998. "Race, Crime and the Administration of Justice: A Summary of the Available
Facts." (Presented to the Advisory Board of the President's Intiative on Race).
5. General Accounting Office. 1994. Racial Differences ill Ari·ests. Washington, D.C.
6,. National Institute of Justice, Drug Use Forecasting.
7. Carter, David. 1995. "Hispanic Perception of Police Performance: An Empirical Assessment." Journal
of Criminal Justice 13 (vol): 487-500; The Gallup Monthly Poll, October 1995; The Gallup Orgaization.
1997. The Gallup Poll Social Audit: Black White Relat~()lls ill the United States.
•
�Crime and Criminal Justice
•
1. Victims of Homicide
, 50
r-----~--------------------------~~--------------------~50
c:
~
Cd
40
40
"5
0.
o
-
0.
c:
Q)
"'C
Blac
30
30
'w
~
o
o
~20
o
o
. . . ..
..
....
. . . . . . . . . . . Hispanic . . , ..
20
•
T""
....
Q)
0.
Q)
1ti
a:
•
10
10
..······A.~ian·.···········
White, non-Hispani
.
o
0
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
Notes: Straight lines between dots indicate data are unavailable in intervening years. Data include deaths from
"legal intervention" (use of police force). Prior to 1985, series for whites includes white Hispanics. Prior to
1970, series include nonresidents.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics.
• Homicide victimization rates for blacks have been at least five times those of
whites for the last half .century, sometimes reaching more than ten times the white
rate. In 1995, non-Hispanic whites had the lowest homicide victimization rate (5.1
per 100,000 resident population), followed by Asians (5.3), American Indians
(11.6), Hispanics (14.9), and blacks (32.5).
• Males are almost four times more likely'than females to be victims of homicide
(not shown in chart);·
•
• Fifteen- to 24-year-old males (not shown separately in chart) have the highest
homicide victimization rate, and the differences across racial and ethnic 'groups
. are even larger for this group: Blacks have by far the highest rate (132.0 per
100,000 population), followed by Hispanics (63.5), American Indians (32.3);
Asians (19.4), and non-Hispanic whites (7.3).
�.Crime and Criminal Justice
•
2. Property Crime Victimization
600
r-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~600
500
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 500
. . . . . ..
en
lJ
o
-ai 400
. . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . . 400
en
:::l
o
.c,
g 300
......
.. . . . . . 300
o~
T"""
10..
0)
C
O)
.......
200
200
'E
a::
100
•
...... .
. . . . . ..
01.....----
-----'0
1973
1995
• White !il Black ~ Hispanic
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
!
•
Property crimes include burglary, motor vehicle theft, and personal theft.
Both attempted and completed crimes are reported .
• Differences in property' crime victimization rates across racial and ethnic
groups are much less pronounced than for violent crimes like homicide (not
.shown in chart) .
• Property crime victimization was less frequent in 1995 than 1973 among both
black and white households, althoughdiffe~ences between these groups grew
somewhat. (Data for Hispanics are not available for 1973.)
•
100
�Crime and Criminal Ju'stice
•
3. Admissions to State and Federal Prisons
200 , . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , 200
150
...
........
.
... .
150
(/)
c:
o
[!?
f
:
:
C1>
Co
o
- . - . . . . . . ..
(/) 100
./
...... - .,......... - . . . . - . . . - . -I! . . . . . . . ~\
100
"C
c:
ttl
•
(/)
~
o
F
50
•
~
O
......•.......................-............_
....
~
. .........•.......
I/\j
B!.~.C.~........' .........-,_._.__.-..
.........:.:.
'"
- - . -.
.. _.
0 ..···.---·····..··•
.................................I-.L...J'-'-J...J....I...L..J....J.-'-'-.l.-.l..J'-'-J...J....I...L..J....J....I-I...J...J...J...J...J....I..J-.............I-I...J...J...J...J...J....I..J-'--'-I....i-I...J...J...J...J...J....J....I...L..J....J...I....I-..IO
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
Note: Straight lines between dots indicate data are unavailable in intervening years.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
- Prison admissions were flat or rose slowly between 1930 and the 1970s and
have risen substantially since then. Between 1980 and 1995, white admissions
more than doubled, and black admissions nearly tripled. Admissions of blacks
leveled off in the 1990s, and actually fell slightly between 1992 and 1995.
0:
- Rapidly rising admissions for drug offenses explain much the recent increase
in total admissions. Between 1985 and 1995, the fraction of admissions to state
and federal prisons that were for drug offenses grew from 16 to 32 percent (not
shown in chart). The fraction of new admissions for drug offenses was similar
for blacks and whites in 1985; however, the increase in drug-crime admissions
has been much larger for blacks.
•
50
-In 1995 women comprised less than 1o percent of new court commitments to
state and federal prisons, but prison admissions have been growing faster
among women than men (not shown in chart).
�'Crime and Criminal Justice
•
4. Adults Under Correctional Supervision
10 ~--~----------------------------~--------------------~ 10
8
. . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - ..
6
.
. - - - . ..
- - -
.- . - .. - - .
8
- - - .... -
6
(/)
'U
o
..c:
Q)
(/)
:::::l
o
. .. - . . . . .
..c:
o
q
o
,-
ID
4
................. .
- . - - - _.
4
c.
Q)
~
a:
2
e·
. - - .. - - - -
...
~~......."
-.---.-
- .. - .. - -
0'------
------'0
1985
' 1995
Wh Ite
1985 Black1995
• Probation ~ Parole IS] Jailor Prison
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics,
• The fraction of the adult population under correctional supervision provides
an indication of the extent to which the criminal justice system is involved in
the lives of individuals and communities.
-The fraction of the population that is involved in the criminal justice system -
· on probation or parole or in jailor prison -- has grown substantially. Between
1985 and 1995, the fraction of white and black adults in each category of
supervision nearly doubled.
• Black adults were nearly 5 times more likely than white adults to be under
supervision of the criminal justice.system in 1995.
•
2
• Twenty- to 29-year-old men are the most likely to be under correctional
supervision (not shown in chart). In 1991, about 7 percent of white men and
26 percent of black men in their twenties were under correctional supervision.
�Crime and Criminal Justice
•
5. Arrests, Convictions, and Prison Admissions
for Violent Crimes, 1994
100
100
80
...
..
80
60
60
40
.....
c
40
Q)
u
....
Q)
Q.
20 ...
•
. ..
o
o
Arrests
Convictions
Admissions
• White ~ Black ~ Other
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
• This chart shows the racial composition of arrests, convictions, and prison
admissions for violent crimes in 1994, including murder, rape, robbery, and
aggravated assault.
• Blacks r:epresented 43 percent of arrests, 54 percent of convictions, and 59
percent of prison admissions for violent crimes in 1994. Thus, compared with .
whites, arrested blacks are more likely to be convicted, ar.d convicted blacks
are more likely to be imprisoned.
•
20
• Discriminatory behavior on the part of police and elsewhere in the criminal
justice system may contribute to blacks' high represent~tion in arrests,
convictions, and prison admissions. While incidences of discrimination in
arrest situations have been clearly documented, research sLiggeststhat much
of the black-white differential in arrest rates for violent crimes may be
explained by differences in rates of criminal activity. Several studies have
concluded that factors other than race, including severity of crime and prior
record, may explain most or all of the black-white difference in the likelihood of
conviction and imprisonment.
�Crime and Criminal Justice
•
6. Minority Composition of Local Police
and Sheriffs' Departments
~ ~----------------------------~------------------------~35
30
- - - - - - - , , - - - - , , , , , - - - - -.- ' , - - - - - - , -
~
Q)
u
!§
c:
"
o
~
Q)
E
"
25
20
25
_--20
~
-
- -
15
- -
10
- -
, ::l 15
5'
o
.....
c:
Q)
~
10
Q)
c..
~-
5
•
o
o
1987
III Black
~
1993
1993 (Large cities)
Hispanic • Other
Note: Large cities are police departments serving a population of one million or more.
Sou~ce:
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
• The police are typically the first contact with the criminal justice system for both
victims and offenders. Many have argued that higher minority representation
among police o'fficers can improve relations between police departments and
those they serve, reduce discrimination, and improve police departments'
ability to fight crime.
• Total minority representation among full-time sworn officers in local police and
sheriffs' departments grew from 15 percent in 1987 to 18 percent in 1993.
Representation of blacks grew from 9 to 11 percent, arid Hispanic '
representation grew from 4 to 6 percent.
•
• Minority representation is higher in police and sheriffs' departments serving ,
larger cities. For example, minorities comprise 30 percent of full-time sworn
officers in cities with one million or more, compared with less than 10 percent
for departments serving fewer than 50,000 people (not shown in chart).
�Crime and Criminal Justice
•
7. Reported Confidence in the Police, 1994-97
100
. 100
80
-
60
· ..
..
..
80
60
c:
Q)
()
....
Q)
a..
· ..
20
•
..
40
· ..
40
20
o
White
III Great deal/quite a lot
Black
[J Some
o
HisPCinic
iii Very little/none
Note: Totals exclude persons who did not respond.
Source: Gallup, C.N.N., U.S.A. Today poll.
e Lack of confidence in the police and perceptions of unfair practices may limit
, their effectiveness, especially' since police rely heavily on community members
to report crime and act as witnesses.
eThis chart presents the opinions of a national sample of whites, blacks, and
Hispanics, who were asked how much confidence they have in a variety of
'institutions, including the police.
e,Whites have more confidence in the police, followed by Hispanics and blacks.
Whites are much more likely to report "a great deal" or "qlJite a lot" of
confidence in the'police and less likely to report "little" or no confidence,
compared with blacks and Hispanics.
•
�·. '~~" ~.:
'.:-:'.
. ",'
,
,
'.
.'\
.....
��•
Housing and Neighborhoods
The housing in which people live and the neighborhoods where they reside are important factors
affecting child development and opportunities for adults. Poor hOllsing may contribute to a
number of adverse health and educational outcomes, particularly in children. For example, severe
crowding, indoor air pollution, or deteriorating lead paint may cause or exacerbate diseases such
as asthma or lead poisoning, sometimes with long-term effects.'
There are currently about] 00 million occupied housing units in the United States, of which about
two-thirds are owner-occupied. Homeownership has increased in recent years to the highest level
in history. The national homeownersl1ip rate was 66 percent in 1997, but less than half of black
and Hispanic householders owned their homes (Housing and Neighborhoods I). About 5 million
of the 35 million renters receive some'form offederal subsidy.
High housing burdens, moderate or severe physical housing problems, and crowding are three
'.
commonly used measures of adverse housing conditions? Between the mid-1970s and I 990s, the
fraction of households with moderately high housing cost burdens (30 to 50 percent of income)'
rose (Housing and Neighborhoods 2). Over the same period the physical
condi~ion
of housing
improved markedly, although the fraction ofhouseholds experiencing severe physi<:;al problems
rose (Housing and Neighborhoods 3). The fraction of households thilt are crowded (more than
one person per room) also fell substantially, from 4.6 percent in 1976 to 2.6 percent in 1995
(Housing and Neighborhoods 4). With the exception of crowding among Hispanic households,
these trends have been consistent across groups for which data are available.
Non-Hispanic white households have the best housing conditions acconjing to all three of these
measures, but the relative position of the other groups varies depending on the measure. Non
Hispanic black, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian households are about equally likely to have
very high housing cost burdens, and non-Hispanic white households are least likely to have high
housing cost burdens. Non-Hispanic black households are most likely to be living in units with
•
moderate or serious physical problems, followed by American Indians, Hispanics, Asians; and
,I
�•
non-Hispanic·whites. Hispanic households are the most likely to be crowded, followed by Asians
and American Indians, non-Hispanic blacks, and non-Hispanic whites ..
An individual's neighborhood influences the availability and quality of important amenities such as
a safe environment, primary education and other public services; as well as economic
opportunities. Growing up in neighborhoods with concentrate~ poverty, high crime, and poor
public schools is associated with poorer educational outcomes and may reduce chances of sllccess
for years to come.) Neighborhood quality and the quality of associated ser~ices vary
considerably according to the racial and ethnic composition of the population. Non-Hispanic black
and Hispanic househol?s tend to report more problems in their neighborhoods, including crime,
litter and housing deterioration, and poor public services (Hollsing and Neighborhoods 5).
Concern about crime in neighborhoods rose considerably between 1985 and 1995.
Neighborhoods have long been segregated by race and Hispanic origin, although segregation has
fallen somewhat since J970, particularly betweenblacks and all others. 4 Because neighborhoods
•
. have historically been segregated, public servicesand.6ther amenities associated with
neighborhoods have also been unequally distributed. In addition, the racial and ethnic composition
of neighborhoods can play an important role in determining how much interllction individuals have
with members of other racial and ethnic groups. Members of each group live disproportionately
with members of the same group (Housing and Neighborhoods 6). According to several measures
of segregation, whites and blacks live in more segregated neighborhoods than Asians or
Hispanics. s
The 1968 Fair Housing Act prohibited discrimination on the basis of race or ethnic origin in
housing and mortgage lending. Evidence suggests that the Act may havcheJped reduce
discrimination in housing markets and contributed to declining segregation.(' Attitudes about
racial integration have also changed dramatically: The fraction of whites saying they would move
if a black family moved in next door fell from 44 perc~nt in ]958 to I percent in 1997 (Hollsing
•
and Neighborhoods 7): Still, segregation remains high. And continued discrimination in housing
and mortgage lending has been clearly documented through audit studies, in which similar white
�,.
and minority candidates are sent to rent apartments or apply for home mortgage loans. One
national study found that the incidence of unfavorable treatment ill the hOllsing market was 23 to
.
.
30 percentage points higher for a black or Hispanic applicant c9mpared with his or her matched
white counterpart. 7
Children's Defense Fund. 1994. Wasting America '.I' Future; Council of Economic Advisers. 1998. To
"Save" One Dollar; Needleman, H. L., et al. "Bone Levels and Delinquent Behavior'." Journal of the
American Medical Association 275 (5): 363-69; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1997.
"Update: Blood Lead Levels- United States. 1991-1994." Morhidity and Mortality Weekly Report 46 (7):
141-46.
.
I
2For a description, see American Housing Survey for the United Stoles ill /995, U.S. Department of
Commerce and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Rosenbaum, James. 1993. "Black Pioneers- Do Their Moves to the Suburbs Increase Economic
Opportunity for Mothers and Children?" Housing Policy Debate 2 (4): I 179-1213.
3
Cutler, David M., Edward L.Glaeser, and Jacob L. Vigdor. 1997. "The Rise and Decline of the
American Ghetto:" National Bureau (~l Economic Research Working Paper No. 5881; Farley, Reynolds
. and William H .. 1994. "Changes in the Segregation of Whites from Blacks during the 1980s: Small Steps
Toward a More Integrated Society." American Sociological Review 59 (vol): 23-45.
4
•
Farley, Reynolds and William H. 1994. "Changes in the Segregation of Whites frol11 Blacks during the.
1980s: Small Steps Toward a More Tntegrated Society." Americon Sociological Review 59 (vol): 23-45.
5
6
ibid.
7
Council of Economic Advisors. 1998. Economic Report (~lthe President. Washington. DC.
•
�Housing and Neighborhoods
•
1. Homeownership Rates
80
60
-
~------------------------------------~----------------~80
. ..
.........
60
..
40
..
..
20
c
Q.)
2
40
Q.)
c..
20
•
o
..
White, non-Hispanic .
Black
Hispanic
.1983 ~ 1997
Source: Bureau of the Census.
• Homeownership is an indicator of financial well-being and may also contribute to
the stability of families and neighborhoods. The homeownership rate is the
percentage of households that own their own home.
• The homeownership rate of non-Hispanic whites is about 25 !1ercentage points
above that of blacks and Hispanics. Less than half of black and Hispanic
householders own their own home.
• Homeownership rates were slightly higher in 1997 than in 1983 for all groups .
•
o
�Housing and Neighborhoods
,.
2. Households with High Housing Cost Surdens
50
r-----------------------------------------------~--------~50
40
-
........... .
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
c:
Q)
~
Q)
a..
•
o
1976
1995
White,
non-Hispanic
•
1976
1995
Black,
non-Hispanic
'1976
1995
1995
Hispanic
Asian
1995
American
Indian
Pay 50 percent or more of income in housing costsB'ill Pay 30 to 50 percent of income in housing costs
Note: Data for Asians exclude Asian Hispanics, and data for American Indians exclude American Indian
Hispanics.
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development and Bureau of the Census.
• High housing cost burdens limit households' ability to afford other necessities.
Housing expenditures less than 30 percent of income are considered "affordable,"
while the Department of Housing and Urban Development considers a household .
to have "worst case" housing needs if housing costs are mor~ than 50 percent of
household income (and income is below 50 percent of the arda median).
• Non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian households are nearly
twice as likely as non-Hispanic whites to spend at least 50 percent of their income
on housing costs. Differences across groups in the fraction paying 30 to 50
percent of income for housing are much less pronounced.
•
o
• Between 1976 and 1995, the fraction of non-Hispan'ic black and Hispanic
households facing housing cost burdens 50 percent or more of income fell slightly,
while the fractionfacing housing cO,st burdens between 30 and 50 percent
increased. The fraction of non-Hispanic whites in both categories rose. (Data for
Asians and American Indians are not available for 1976.) .
�Housing and Neighborhoods
3. Housing Units with. Physical Problems
30
r-------~~------------------------~----------------------_.
. . . . . . . . . . . . ..
25
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ..'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
20
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
15
25
20
30
........ : ...... .
+-'
C
.0.>
~ ,15
0.>
a..
10
................ .
10
5
•
o
5
1976-78 1993-95
White,
non-Hispanic
1976-78 1993-95 ..
1976-78 1993-95
Black,
non-Hispanic
Hispanic
1993-95
Asian.
1993-95
o
American
, Indian'
• Severe problems I£!l Moderate problems .
Note: Due to small sample sizes for some categories,two years of data are averaged to.provide more reliable
estimates. 'Data for Asians exclude Asian Hispanics, and data for American Indians exclude American
Indian Hispanics.
.
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development and Bureau of the Census.
- Poor physical housing quality can contribute to poor health, particularly in children .
. Severe physical problems include lack of indoor plumbing, inadequate heating,'
electrical problems, and other serious upkeep problems~ Moderate physical .
problems include problems with heating or plumbing or the,lack of a kitchen sink,
'"
refrigerator, or stove' burners.
-In 1993-95 non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians were more
, likely than non-Hispanic whites or American Indians to live in housing units with
.. serious or moderate physical problems.'
'
.'
~ Between 1976~ 78 and 1993-95, the fraction of households living in units with
moderate physical problems fell substantially for, all groups for which data are
available. The fraction of households living in units with serious problems has
risen but' is still less than 5 percent for all groups.
.' .
�Housing and Neighborhoods
•
4. Crowding (Households With More-Than
-One Person peJ Room)
25
r---------~~------------------~------------------------_.25
, 20
20
-- ,- - ---
15
'·····A5ia~.. . .::........ ..
10
~=------_-
15
~
... ...................
~
. '
5
-'
,. . . . ~ ............... - . . . . . . . . . - .
.......
.......
.....
. . ~ ~ .................. '\, ....... -"' ....:. ....... ,,;:
5
"
•
_ _ _ White, non-Hispanic
,
o
.-----------------------------~---~--~~~~~~--~~--~~~~~~--~~--~~--~~~--~.~
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
Note: Data for Asians exclude Asian Hispanics, and data for American Indians exclude American Indian
Hispanics.
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development and Bureauof the Census.
- Crowding is another widely used- measure of housing conditions. A household is
considered crowded if it contains more than one person per room. (Rooms used
for living space are counted, including bedrooms, living rooms, and kitchens, but
bathrooms or rooms created with temporary partitions are not included.)
-In 1995, only about 1 percent of non-Hispanic white households were crowded,
_with greater crowding among non-Hispanic blacks (4 percent) and Asians and
American Indians (6 percent each). Hispanic households were more than twice as
likely as any other ~roup to be crowded (14 percent).
,
•
- Crowding has declined for all groups since 1976. Among Hispanics; however,
crowding rose slightly between 1985 and 1995 after falling considerably,between
1975 and 1985.
'
0
�Housing and Neighborhoods
•
...
5. Reported Problems in Neighborhood, 1~95
.
16
~--------------~----~~--------------------------------~16
.. . . . . ..
. 12
12
en
'U
(5
..c
(J,)
en
:::s
o
'..c 8
. . . . . . . . . . ..
a
......
8
...........
4
c:
(J,)
e
&.
. . . . . . . . ..
4
•
o
Crime
. • White, non-Hispanic
Litter/Housing
Deterioration
.Poor Public
Services
Black, non-Hispanic Illl1l Hispanic rn!lll Asian. American Indian
Note: Data for Asians exclude Asian Hispanics, and data for American Indians exclude American Indian
Hispanics.
.
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development and Bureau of the Census.
- Households' reports of problems in their neighborhood most likely reflect a
combination of objective conditions,expectations, and overall satisfaction with
their housing and neighborhood.
-In 1995, about 14 percent of non-Hispanic black households
~eported that crime
. was a problem in their neighborhood, compared with 11 percent of Hispanics, 8
percent bf Asians and American Indians, and 6 percent of non-Hispanicwhites.
The fraction of households reporting concern about crime rose between 1985 and
1995 for all groups (not shown in chart) ..
•
- Non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, and American Indian households are more likely to
report problems with litter and housing deterioration, compared with Asians and
non-Hispanic whites.
- Reported dissatisfaction with public services is less than 2 percent for all groups ...
o
�Housing and Neighborhoods
.' .
6.
Average Racial and Ethnic Composition'
of Metropolitan Neighborhoods, 1990
Total
Neighborhood
of
Non-Hispanic
Whites
Non-Hispanic
Blacks
Hispanics
Asians
•
o
20
40
80
60
100
Percent
•
White, non-Hispanic
Black, non-Hispanic ~ Hispanic
Asian. American Indian
Note: Data for Asians exclude Hispanic Asians, and data for American Indians exclude Hispanic American
Indians.
Source: Bureau of the Census (from The New American Reality by Reynolds Farley) .
• The racial and ethnic composition of neighborhoods plays an important role in
determining how much interaction individuals have with members of other racial or
ethnic groups. This chart shows the average racial and ethnic composition of
metropolitan neighborhoods for members of each group .
• Members of each racial and ethnic groupJive disproportionately with members of
the same group.
• Residential segregation of non-Hispanic blacks from other groups declined slightly
between 1970and 1990 {not shown in chart}. Between 1980 and 1990, residential
segregation of Asians and Hispanics from other groups changed little but is still
lower than for non-Hispanic blacks .
•
�Housing and Neighborhoods
•
7. Whites' Attitudes towards Integration
100 ~----------------------------------------------------~ 100
Percent of whites who say they would move if blacks moved ...
20
•
o
............... .
~~~~~~~~~~~-L~~~~~~~~-L~~~~~~~O
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
Note: Straight lines between dots indicate data are unavailable in intervening years.
Source: Gallup.
• A variety of questions have been used to examine America's changing views on
race and racial tolerance. Beginning in 1958, a national sample of whites has
been asked whether they would move if "black people came to live next door" or if
"black people came to live in great numbers" in their neighborhood.
• The fraction of whites saying they would move if blacks moved in next door fell
dramatically from 44 percent in 1958 to 1 percent in 1997. The fraction saying
they would move if blacks moved into their neighborhood in large numbers fell
from 80 percent to 18 percent over the same period.
• These questions have been consistently asked only of whites, so similar indicators
of other groups' views of integration are not available.
•
�•
Appendix .
For further information on the topics covered in this book, see the following government websites
and publications:
Population
Government websites
U.S. Bureau of the Census (http://www.census.gov)
Census data and publications on population
(http://www.census.gov/prod/www/titles.html#pop)
Census data and publications on race
(http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race.html)
Census data and publications on Hispanic origin
(http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hispanic.htm1)
Education
Government websites
National Center for Education Statistics (http://www.nces.ed.gov)
•
Government publications
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Digest ofEducation
Statistics 1997. Washington, DC: 1997.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of
Education 1998. Washington, DC: 1998.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Projections of
Education Statistics to 2008. Washington, DC: 1998.
Labor Markets
Government websites
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (http://stats.bls.gov)
Current Population Survey page of BLS (http://stats.bls.gov/cpshome.htm)
Monthly Labor Review page ofBLS (http://stats.bls.gov/m1r/opub/m1rhome.htm)
Government publications
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment and Earnings.
Washington, DC: January 1998 and previous issues.
Economic Status
•
Government websites
U.S. Bureau of the Census (http://www.census.gov)
�Census data and publications on income
(http://www.census.govlhhes/www/income.html)
Census data and publications on wealth (http://www.census.govlhhes/www/wealth.html)
Census data and publications on poverty
. (http://www.census.govlhhes/www/poverty.html)
Government publications
Lamison-White, Leatha, 1997. Poverty in the United States: 1996._U.S. Bureau of the
Census, Current Population Reports, Series P60-198, , Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office .
. Health
•
Government websites
National Center for Health Statistics (http://www.cdc.gov/nchswww)
. Healthy People 2000 (http://www.web.health.govlhealthypeople)
Center for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/cdc.html)
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (http://www.samhsa.gov)
The Office of Minority Health Resource Cen~er (http://www.omhrc.gov)
Improving Services for Hispanics (http://www.dhhs.gov/aboutlheolhispanic.html)
Indian Health Service (http://www.ihs.gov)
The Minority Health Project (sponsored by the National Center for Health Statistics
(http://www.minority.unc.edu)
Government publications
.
National Center for Health Statistics. (Forthcoming, 1998) H.ealth United States, 1998 with
Socioeconomic Status and Health Chartbook.
National Center for Health Statistics. 1997. Health United States, 1996~97 and Injury
Chartbook. Hyattsville, Maryland (and previous annual editions of the report; the
1990 edition included a chartbook on minority health).
U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services. 1990. Healthy People 2000: National
Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives. Washington: Public Health
Service.
.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1985. Report ofthe Secretary's Task Force
on Black and Minority Health. Volume 1. Washington, DC: Public Health Service.
Crime and Criminal Justice
Government websites
.
.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.govlbjs)
Government publications
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice StatisHcs. 1997. Sourcebook ofCriminal
Justice, 1996. Washington, DC.·
•
Housing and Neighborhoods
�•
Government websites
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (http://www.hud.gov)
. The Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD USER (http://www.huduser.org)
U.S. Bureau of the Census (http://www.census.gov)
Government publications
U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
1996. American Housing Survey for the United States in 1995. Current Housing
Reports H150/95RV.
•
•
�•
Detailed Sources
Population
1. RaciallEthnic Composition ortlle Population
Need 1970 cite for population by race and Hispanic origiri (see attached)
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Need year of publication. 1970 CenslIs of Poplllatioll Subject Report:
Persons ofSpanish Origin: Table 1 ,"Persons of Spanish Origin by Race, for the United States:
1970."
,
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1997. Statistical Abstract of tfle United States: 1997. (l J 7th edition.)
Washington, DC: Table 19, "Resident Population, by Hispanic Origin Status, 1980 to 1995, and
Projections, 1996 t02050."
.
' .
2. Foreign-Born Population
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1973. 1970 Census ofPopu/atioll, Characteristics ()fthe Populatioll,
volume l. Table 86, "Ethnic Characteristics by Race i'or Urban and Rural Residence: 1970."
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1973. 1970 Census of Population Subject Reports: American/nellans .
. Need table numbers and table namcs--didn't come throllgh on fax.
•
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Date. 1970 Census of Population Subject Reports: Japanese, Chinese,
and Filipinos ill the United Stales. Tahles 3, 18,33,46, and 48 ..
U.S. Bureau of the Census. "Selected Characteristics of the Population by Citizenship: 1996."
(http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/foreign/96/96tab-l.txt.)
3. Minority Population by Region, J 995
Campbell, Paul R., 1996., Populotioll Projection.i·for States hy Age, 5'ex, Race. cme! Hispanic
Origin: .1995 to 2025, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Division, PPL-47: Table 3.
4. Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Residence
Harriso\1, Roderick J. and Claudette Bennett. 1995. "Racial and ElIlI1ic'Oivcrsity." In State o/the
Union: America in the 1990.1', cd. Reyolds Farley. New York: Russell Sagc Foundation. Table 4A.l
"Selected soeial and economic indicators of exclusion tor the racial groups: 1·990." From lJ.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1970 and 1980 decenniill CenslIs of Population and HOllsing, Geiteral Social
and Economic Characteristics, and the 1980 and 1990 Puhlic Use Microdata Samples.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Current Population Survey Reports. HousehOlds and Families: Detailed
Tables. (http://www.censlls.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam.html).
•
5. Household Structure
Table 206. "Families and Subfamilies by Marital Status, Race. and Sex of Head and Number of Own
Children Under 18 Years'Old; and UnrelatedIndividuals and Inmalcs of Institutions 14 Years Old
and Over by Marital Status, Racc.and Sex: ]970," Bureau of Censlls, (UllitedStates Summary, 1970
Census ofP()/ntiation). 1-658.
�Table 204. "Persons in Households by Relationship [0 Head, 1970 and 1960, and by Race and sex,
1970," Bureau of Census, (United Stmes Summary, 1970 Census of Populatioll), 1-650- 51 651.
Table 258. "Income in '1969 of Household, by Size, Composition and Sex and Race of Head: 1970,"
Bureau of Census, (United States Slllllllwry, 1970 Census of PoplilatiOli), 1-957- 58.
Table 3. "Social Characteristics of the Indian Population by Urban and Rural.Residence: 1970,"
Bureau of the Census, (Americ(1JI IlIdi(//ls, 1970 Cellsus of the Populaliol1),I!-j, 129.
Table 3. "Social Characteristics of the Japanese Population by Urban and Rural Residence: 1970,"
Bureau of the Census, (Japanese, Chillese and Filipinos ill the United States). 9.
Table 10. "Housing Characteristi<.:s or Japanese Households by Urban and Rural Residence: 1970,"
Bureau of the Census, (Japallese. Chillese and Filipinos ill the Ullilcc/Stmes). 46.
Table 18. "So<.:ial Characteristi<.:s of Chinese Population by Urban and Rural Rcsiden<.:e: [970,"
Bureau of the Census, (Japanese, Chillese and Filipinos in the United Stutes). 68.
.
Table 25. "Housing Characteristics of Chinese Households by Urban und Rural Residence: 1970."
Bureau of the·Census. (Japanese. Chinese and Filipinos in the UI/ited States). 105.
Table 33. "Social Characteristics of the Filipino Population by Rural Rcsidcm:e: 1970," Bureau of
the Census, (Japanese, Chinese (/lld Filipinos ill the United SWtes), page # '!
Table 40. "Housing Chara<.:teristics of Filipino Households by'Urban and Ruml Residence: 197,0:'
Bureau of the Census, (Japanese. Chillese alld FilipinOCl' ill the United ,S·wtes). 164.
•
Table 50. "Households and Family .Characteristics for Race and Hisp'lI1ic Origin: 1990," Bureau of
the Census. (Gel/eral Population Characteristics. 1990 Cel/SllS (~f Population). 63-64.
6. Race or Ethnkity of Married Couples
Harrison, Roderick 1. and Claudette E. Bennett. 1995. "Racial and Ethnic Diversity." In State of the
Union: America ill the 1990.1', ed. Rcyolds Farley. New York: RusseliSage Foundlltion. Figure 4.4
"Race orethnicity of couples: 1980 and 1990," Bureau of the Censlls. /980 (1//(/ 1990 Census of
Population alld Housing. 166.
7. Foreign-Born Population
Table 253. "Nativity, Place of Binh. lind Citizenship by Age. Race and Spanish Origin: 1980...
Bureau of the Census, 1980 Cel/SllS of Population, UI/ited Siates Sum/1lary, 1-7- 1-8.
•.
'
�•
Education
1. Participation in Literacy Activities with a Parent or Fami Iy Member by Ages 3 105
Graph I. "Perccntage of children ages 3-5 who parlil:ipated in various literacy activities with a
parent or family member by race/ethnicity: 1991 and 1995." U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey, J 99 I (Early Childhood
Education File) and 1995 (Early Childhood Education File).
"Percent of 3- to 5-year-olds who parlidrated in vari{)us literacy activities with a family member, by
activity and race-ethnicity: J 996,:' U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, 1996 National Household Education Survey, 1-2.
2. Children Ages 3 and 4 Enrolled in Center-Based Programs and Kindergarten
"Enrollment of 3-year-olds, by race-ethnicity and enrollment levels: 11)96",U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 National Household Education Survey.
"Enrollment of 4-year-olds, by racc-ethnicity and enrollment levels: J 996", U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 National Household Education Survey.
Graph 2. "Percentage of Children Ages 3-5 Enrolled in Center-based Programs and Kin~ergarten by
Race/Ethnicity: 1991 and 1995." U.S. Department of Education, National Centei' for Education
Statistics, National Household Education Survey, 1991 (Early Chi Idhood Education File) and 1995
(Early Childhood Education File).
•
3. Computer Use by Children in Grades through 6
.Graph 6. "Percentage of Students in Grades 1-6 Who Used a Computer at School und/or at Home, by
Race/Elhnicity: 1984 and 1993," U.S. Derartment of Commerce. Bureau or the Census, Octoher
Current Population Surveys.
4. Average Reading Proficiency
Figure 5.4 ''Trends in Average Reading Scale Scores by Race/Ethnicity, 1971 to 1996," U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Research Improvement, NAEP /996,Trellds ill Academic
Progress. 113-114.
5. Average Mathematics Proficiency
Figure 3.4 "Trends in Average Mathematics Scale Scores by RacelEthnicity. 1973 to 1996," U.S..
Department of Education, OITice or Research Improvement. NAEP / VY6 TreJl(/s ill Academic
Progress, 63-64.
6. Educational Attainment or Adults Ages 25 and Over
"Educational Attainment of People 25 Years and Older by Race: March 11)97," U.S. Census Bureau,
Selected Characteristics of the Poptt/(I[iol! by Race: March 1997.
•
"Educational Auainment of People 25 Years Old and Older by Hispanic Origin: March 1997," U.S.
Census Bureau. Selected CharaClcrislics (d"the Population by RacCf: March '1997.
Figure 6. "Educational Attainment: 1990," Bureau of the Census, Al1Ieric(1/I /ndiw/, Eskimo alld
Aleut Population., 4.
�•
Table I. "Years of School Completed by persons 15 Years Old and Over. by Age. Sex, Race, and
Spanish Origin: March 1981 and I9XO," Bureau of the Census, Edllc(llioJl(r/ Alfainmcnt in the
United State:\',' March 1981 alld 1980. 15-/7.
7. High School Completion Rates for 25- to 29- Year Olds
Table 22-1. "Percentage of 25- to 29- year aids who have completed high school, by race/ethnicity
and sex: March 1971-96,"Bureau or the Census, National Center for Education Statistics.
Table A-2. "Percent of People 25 Years Old and Over Who Have Completed High School or College,
by Race, Hispanic Origin and Sex: Selected Years 1940 to 1996," Bureau or the Census, 1947, and
1952 to 1996 March Current POplI/({lioll Survey.
8. Persons Ages 25 to 2 with a Four Year College Degree or Higher
Tabie 22-3: "Percentage of 25 to 29-year-old high school graduates who have completed 4 or more
years of college, by race/ethnicity and sex: March 1971-96," National Center 1'01' Education Statistics.
Table A-2. ';Percent or People 25 Years Old and Over Who Have Completed High School or College,
by Race, Hispanic Origin and Sex: Selected Years 1940 to 1996," Bureau of the Census, 1947, (lnd
1952 to 1996 March Current POjlrtialioll Survey.
9. Literacy Skills or Adults, 16 Years Old and Over (1992)
Table 388. "Literacy skills of adults, 16 years old u'nd older, by selected char;;cteristics: 1992,"
Digest of Educaliolla/ Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, Adult Literacy in America, 1992, prepared by the
Educational Testing Service.
Table B2.2D "Percentages atEach Level and Average Document Proriciencies or Adults, by
RacelEthncity," Educational Testing Service, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992 .
•
�••
Labor
1. Labor Force Participation Rates of 25- to 54-Year Olds
See "Labor FOl'ce Participation" File
2. Unemployment Rates
"Civilian Unemployment Rates," Haver. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
3. "Idleness" among 1 6-to 24-Year 0ld5
See "Idleness" File.
4. Median Weekly Earnings of Full Time Female Workers
Table I. "Median usual weekly earnings in current dollars and indexes of median usual weekly.
earning in May 1967 dollars for full-time wage and salary workers, by selected characteristics. May
1967- May 1978,"U.S. Bureau or Labor Statistics, Division of Labor Force Statistics, 33.
"Median usual weekly earnings 01' full-time wage and salary workers 25 years and over by sex, race,
. hispanic origin; and educational attainment, annual averages, 1979-97," Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Current Popu/afiiJl1 Survey.
5. Median Weekly Earnings of Full-Time Male Workers
Table 1. "Median llsual weekly earnings in current dollars and indexes or median usual weekly
earning in May 1967 dollars for full-time wage and salary workers. by selected characteristics. May
1967- May I 978,"U.S. Bureau or Labor Statistics, Division of Labor Force Statistics, 33.
•
"Median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers 25 years and over by sex, race,
hispanic origin, and educational attainment, annual averages, 1979-97," Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Current P()pularirJ/l Survey.
6. Ratios of Black and Hispanic Female to White Female Median Weekly Earnings
"Median usual weekly earnings or full-time wage and salary workers 25 years and over by sex, race,
hispanic origin, and educational allainmenl, annuaL averages, 1979-97," Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Current Populatioll Survey.
7.'Ratios of Black and Hispanic Male to White Male Median Wceki y Earnings
"Median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers 25 years and over by sex, race,
hispanic origin, and educational attainment, annual averages, 1979-97," Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Current Popu/atioll Survey.
8. Occupational Distribution of Employed Persons (1997)
Figure 4.8 "Occupational distribution of the civilian labor force, by sex and race or ethnicity: 1990
(16 years and over)," State of the Union: America in the 19905, Volume Two: Social Trends, ed.
Reynolds Farley, 177. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population.
Supplementary Reports, Detailed Occupation and Other Clwracterisficsjiwu the EEO Filefor the
United Stales.
Table? "Employed and experienced unempJoy~d persons by detailed occupation. sex, race. and
Hispanic origin. A;1nual Average (based on CPS) 19S0 1," U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Economic Status
1. Median Fami Iy Income
�••
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Historical Tables, Families. Table F-5, "Race and Hispanic Origin of
householder- Families by Median and Mean Income: 1947 to 1996."
(http://www.census.gov/hheslincome/hislinc/f05.html)
2. Poverty Rates for Individuals
Lamison-White. Leatha. 1997. P(Jllerty ill the United State.\': 1996. U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Current Population Reports, Series P60-198. Washington. DC. Table C-I. "Poverty Status of
Persons by Family Relationship. Race. and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 1996."
'3. Poverty Rates for Children'
Lamison-While. Leatha. 1997. P(JllertY in the Ullited States: J996. U.S. Bureau of the Censlls,
Current Population Reports, Series P60-198. Washington. DC. Table C-2. "Poverty Status of
Persons by Age. Race. and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 1996."
4. Poverty Rates by Selected Characteristics (1996)
Lamison- White. Leatha. 1997. Poverty ill the UI/ited States: J996. U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Current Population Reports. Series P60-198. Washington. DC. Tables 2. "Age, Sex, Household
Relationship. Race, and Hispanic Origin by ratio of Income to Poverty Level: 1996," C-2, "Poverty
Status of PerSOlis by Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 1996." and unpublished tables.
5. Household Owning Selected Assets (1993)
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Asset Ownership of Households: 1993. Table 2. "Households Owning
Asset Types by Selected Characteristics: 1993." Need detailed citc--plcase scnd inside page with
this information.
•
�Health
1. Infant Mortality Rates
National Center for Health Statistics. Unpublished tahles from the
****
2. Life Expectancy at Birth
National Center for Health Statistics. Unpublished tahles from the
****
3. Up to Date with RecommendedVnccinntions at 19 to 35 Months. 1995-96
National Center for Health Statistics. Unpublished estimates from the National Immunization
Survey.
4. Prevalence of Smoking among 18 to 24-Year Olds
National Center for Health Statistics. 1997. Health. United States. 1996:....97 and Injury Clwrtbook.
Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. Table 64; National Center for Health
Statistics. Unpublished table from the Health Interview Survey. Forthcoming HUS.
5. Death Rates by Cause for Ages 15 te) 34, 1994-95
National Center for Health Statistics. Unpublishec!tahles rrom the **'!'*
6. Death Rates by Cause for Ages 45 to 64, 1995
National Center ror Health Statistics. Unpublished tahles from the
7. Persons Aged 18 (0 64 without Health Insurance Coverage, 1994-95
National Center for Health Statistics. Unpublished tables from the
••
****
****
�Crime and Criminal Justice
.1. Victims of HOIilicide
National Center for Health Statistics. 1997. Health. United States, /99!J-97 and Injury Clwrtbook.
Hyattsville, Maryland: Naiional Center I'or Health Statistics, Table 47. "Death rates for homiCide and
legal intervention, according to sex, detai led race, Hispanic origin and age. United States, selected
years \950-95." 1998 updates.
2. Property Crime Victimization
Bureau of JusLice Statistics. Unpublished tabulations from.thc Natidmil Crime Victimization Survey.
3. Admissions to State and Federal Prisons.
Bureau of Justice Statistics.· 1997. Correctioflal Populations ill /995 the Ulliled States, 1995. Table
1.16. "New court commitmenLs L(! State and Federal prison, by rac'e, 1985-95.";
Langan, Patrick A. 1991. Race
Tables I and 2.
4
Pl'i,l'Ollel's Admitted to State a/ld Federa/I/lstitutions, 19i6-86.
4. Adults Under Correctional.Supervision
Table 1.2 "EsLimaLed number of adults Oil probation, in jail, in prison. or on parol~ and their percent
of the adult popUlation, by sex and race, 1985".(Correctional Populations in the United States, 1985)
Bureau ofJustice Statistics (May 199 1).6.
Table 1.2 "Estimated number bf adults on probation, in jail, in prison, or on parole and their percent
of the adult popUlation, by sex and race, 1995" (Trends in US correctional popUlations, 1995?)
. Bureau ofJustice Statistics (May 1997 'n, ?,
Table 2. "Estimated number of males uncler correctional slljJcrvision, hy raCe. age and year" (Trends
in U.S. correctional popUlations,'?) Bureau (!lJu.I'/iceStatistics (Yeal' '!. Page # '!)
5. Arrests, Con,vic\ions, and, Prison Admissions for Violent Crimes (1994)
"Percent or arrests, convictions and prison admissions for violent crimes in 1994" Federal Bureau of
Investigation. Uniform Crime ReporLs (annual). Bl/real! ofJlIstice Statistics. Nati(}l1al Judicial
Reporting Program. ( ~iennial).
6.Minority Composition gf Local Police ami Sheriffs' Departmcnt
Figure 2. "Women and minority locnl.police officers, 1987, 1990an<1 1993," (Local Police
Departments, I993)"Bureau (~l Justice Statistics, 4.
Table: 6. "Race and ethnicity of rull-time sworn personnel in local police departments, by size of
population servcd, I?93," (Local P61 ice Depanmcrits. 1993) Bureau 'orJtis/ice Statistics, 4.
7. Reported Confidenccin 'the Police (1994-97)
Demographics. Public Opinion Online (Ropel' Center at University of COllneL'Licllt, 1997), Gallop.
C.N.N., U.S.A. Today Poil, 4'.
Demographii.:s, Public Opinion Onlinc (Roper Center at University or Coqnel:licut, 1996), Gallup,
C.N.N:, U.S.A: Today Poll, 9 .
.Demographics, Public Opinion. Online (Roper Center at University ~)r Connecticut, 1995), Gallup,
C.N.N., U.S.A. Today Poll, 32.
�Demographk:s. Public Opinion Online (Roper Center at Universilyof Connecticut. 1994). Gallup.
'
C.N.N., U.S.A. Today Poll. 34
.'
.
Demogniphics. Public Opinion Onl inc (Roper Center at Uilivcrsity of Connecticut. 1993), Gullup,
C:N.N., U.S.A. Today Poll, 39. ,
•
�•
Housing and Neighborhoods
1. Homeownership Rates
U.S. Bureau of tile Census, Current Population Survey. Unpublished table.
2. Households with High. Housing Cost Burdens
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Bureau of the Censlis. Special
tabulations of the American Housing Survey, 1976 ami 1995.
.
3. Housing Units with Physical Problems
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Bureau of lhc Census. Special
tabulations 61' the Americun HOllsing Survey, 1976. 1978. 1993, and 1995.
4. Crowding (Households With More Than One Person per Room)
U.S. Department of Housing ane! Urban Development and U.S. Bureau of the Census. Special
tabulations of the American HOllsing Survey, 1976-95.
5. Reported Problems in Neighborhood. 1995
U.S. Department or Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Burcau or the Census. Special
tabulations of the American HOllsing 'Survey, 1995.
•
•
6. Average Racial and Ethnic Composition or Metropolitan Neighborhoods (1990)
Farley, Reynolds. 1996. .Thc NCl\! Alllerican Realit,·: Who We Are. HOI!! We Got Here, Where We
AreGoinl(, New York, Russell Sagc Foundation, 1996. Figure 6-21, "Racial Composition 01'
Neighborhoods of Asians, I3laeks, Hispanics, and Whites in 318 Metropolitan Areas: 1990;" ('rom
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing: 1990, Summary Tape FileA.
7. Whites' Attitudes towards Integration
The Gallup Organization. 1997. The C(I/hIP Puli Social Audit: Black White Relations it/. the Utiited
States. "Whites: Percent Who Would Move if Blacks Came to Live Next Door-Came. in Great
Numbers inlO Neighborhood," 21 .
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Kendra Brooks - Printed Materials Series
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/648021" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36030">Collection Finding Aid</a>
Description
An account of the resource
The Kendra Brooks Printed Materials series consists of publications related to national and state education goals and standards, funding for education, class-size reduction, school safety, after-school programs, reading reform, teacher quality and preparation, and student assessments.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office FIles
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
130 folders in 13 boxes
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Kendra Brooks
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
[Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being by Race and Hispanic Origin]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Kendra Brooks
Printed Materials
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 23
<a href="http://clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/Systematic/KendraBrooksPrintedMaterials.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/648021" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
1/20/2012
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
648021-indicators-of-social-and-economic-well-being-by-race-and-hispanic-origin
648021