Population Studies Center - William H. Frey · 2017-06-22 · Reynolds Farley William H. Frey Changes in the Segregation of Whites from Blacks During the 1980s: Small Steps toward

Reynolds FarleyWilliam H Frey

Changes in the Segregation of Whites from BlacksDuring the 1980s Small Steps toward a MoreRacially Integrated Society

No 92-257

Research Reports

Population Studies CenterUniversity of michigan

Changes in the Segregation of Whites from BlacksDuring the 1980s Small Steps toward a More Racially Integrated Society

No 92-257

Research ReportSeptember 1992

Reynolds Farley is Professor of Sociology and Faculty Associate at the University of Michigan PopulationStudies Center Ann Arbor Michigan

William H Frey is Research Scientist and Associate Director for Training at the University of MichiganPopulation Studies Center Ann Arbor Michigan

CHANGES IN THE SEGREGATION OF WHITES FROM BLACKS DURING THE 1980S

Small Steps toward a More Racially Integrated Society

INTRODUCTION

High levels of black-white reSidential segregation have become a staple of American

urban life for much of the twentieth century While other racial and ethnic groups became

aSSimilated geographically blacks were constrained to reside in selected neighborhoods and

communities These separate black and white residential patterns were reinforced and

maintained by a series of institutional mechanisms which evolved over time and led to peak

segregation levels during the 1960s (National AdviSOry Commission on Civil Disorders 1968)

Evidence from the 1970s decade shows a discernible but slight diminution in segregation levels

(Massey and Denton 1987 1988) These reductions resulted in part from attitude changes and

legislation traced to the mid-1960s Civil Rights movement

This paper represents the first analysis of black-white reSidential segregation for 1980shy

1990 It evaluates patterns for all metropolitan areas with substantial black populations The

results show a continued reduction in residential segregation across metropolitan areas

suggesting that the forces aimed at lowering institutionalized segregation have had some effect

The next section recounts the primary influences on black-white segregation historically through

the mid-1960s The subsequent section points up forces which evolved Since the 1960s that

have acted to reduce segregation These introductory sections will be followed by an evaluation

of 1980-1990 segregation patterns An appendix presents 1980 and 1990 segregation scores for

all metropolitan areas

Development of Institutionalized Segregation

Urban histOrians report that black-white residential segregation was not extreme at the

tum of this century In northern cities small numbers of blacks shared neighborhoods with

immigrants from southern and eastern Europe and in southern cities enclaves of blacks were

scattered across the urban landscape In both regions a few prosperous blacks lived In largely

white neighborhoods (Gatewood 1990 pp 65-66 194-196 Green 1967 Kusmer 1976 Lieberson

1963 Chap 3 Rabinowitz 1978 Spear 1967 Chap 1)

Whites in an era of Social Darwinism desired to maintain a social and physical distance

from supposedly inferior blacks so a system of racial residential segregation was Imposed upon

blacks as they migrated to cities a system which was not forced upon Italians Poles or Jews

Southern cities legislated where blacks and whites could live but the NAACP won the

Buchangn vs Wgrley suit (1917) overturning these Jim Crow ordinances (Vose 1959) Less than

a decade later however the Supreme Court upheld the use of restrictive covenants to prevent

blacks Asians Jews or any other targeted minority from occupying a home (Corrigan vs Buckley

1926) These were written into the deeds of many residential developments built during the first

half of this century President Trumans Commission on Civil Rights in 1947 for example

estimated that 80 percent of the land in Chicago was covered by racially restrictive covenants

(Committee on Civil Rights 1947 pp 68-69)

In the north blacks who moved Into white areas were targeted for violence Racial

competition for land helped trigger the bloody World War I era riots in East St Louis (Rudwlck

1966) and Chicago (Chicago Commission on Race Relations 1922) That war led to the growth

of a middle-class black population some of whom sought better housing located in white

neighborhoods The use of intimidation and violence toward such blacks was symbolized by the

two highly publicized trials of Dr Ossian Sweet In Detroit in the late 1920s (Levine 1976 pp 163shy

165 Canot 1974 pp 300-303 Capeci 1984 pp 6-7 Thomas 1992 pp 137-139)

A more genteel and perhaps even more effective way of preserving segregation was

denying blacks the credit they needed to purchase homes in white neighborhoods Congress in

the early 1930s established the Home Owners Loan Corporation to allow families buffeted by

the Depression to retain their homes This agency and its progeny -- the Federal Housing

Administration (FHA) -- developed the modem mortgage which for the first time permitted

middle- and lower-income families to become homeowners As part of their program the FHA

encouraged the drawing of color-coded maps indicating the credit worthiness of neighborhoods

Operating on the assumption that a racial transition inevitably led to a drastic fall in home values

areas which were racially mixed as well as those containing Jews -- regardless of their economiC

status -- were shown on red on these maps which continued to influence lending practices after

World War II (Jackson 1985 pp 185-186)

By 1940 a system of American Apartheid (Massey 1990) was firmly in place as

demonstrated by the Taeubers (1965 Table 4) Using block data for the 109 cities with large

black populations in 1940 they determined that interracial neighborhoods were extremely rare

and that the typical city had a segregation score of 85 That is it would have been necessary to

shift either 85 percent of the white or 85 percent of the black population to eliminate segregation

Building New Ghettos after World War I

Although the Supreme Court overturned the enforcement of restrictive covenants

(Shelley vs Kraemer 1948) the institutional forces encouraging segregation were so monumental

that black-white residential isolation did not decline in the quarter century after World War II

Indeed the Taeubers reported that segregation increased between 1940 and 1950 in 83 of the

109 cities they investigated

Four specific strategies exacerbated black-white segregation First were mortgage

lending patterns Between 1945 and 1970 29 million new homes and apartments were added to

the nations housing stock which included 37 million units in 1940 (U S Bureau of the Census

1943 Table 2 1975 Table N-156) This building was strongly encouraged by federal agencies

the FHA by insuring mortgages Fannie Mae by creating a secondary market for mortgages

thereby increasing the flow of capital to the housing market and the Veterans Administrations

programs encouraging home ownership by veterans and surviving spouses As Jackson (1985)

described it the nation invaded and conquered a suburban middotcrabgrass frontier- following World

War II Redlining policies which were endorsed by the federal agencies and by the ethical

standards of the National Association of Real Estate Boards which prohibited introducing

minorities into white neighborhoods assured that housing market decisions were made on a

color-coded basis and that the crabgrass frontier in the East and Midwest would be white

(McEntire 1960 p 245) FHA mortgage policies apparently replaced restrictive covenants as the

most effective weapon maintaining segregation (Kain and Quigley 1975 p300) Of course

hundreds of central-city neighborhoods went from white to black occupancy after World War II

but the first black to enter such areas often had to purchase a home for cash or on a land

contract use agents operating on the fringes of the real estate Industry or find a white who would

act as front for the transaction

Second throughout the late 1940s blacks who sought better housing in white areas were

targets for intimidation and sometimes for violence Hirsch (1983) described the many incidents

of whites stoning the houses and cars of blacks who dared to be the pioneers in Chicago white

neighborhoods In the suburb of Cicero 46 homes of blacks were attacked in a two-year interval

Violence over this issue eventually led to three deaths in Cicero and the mobilization of the

National Guard (Squires ma 1987 p 120 Hirsch 1983 pp89-91) Similar attacks occurred In

other cities but this violence abated when it became clear to whites that they could move from

racially changing central cities and into suburbs where government-backed loans facilitated their

purchasing home in all-white neighborhoods (Thompson Lewis and McEntire 1960 p63

Dodson 1960 p 107)

Third after World War II individual suburbs developed numerous strategies for keeping

blacks out The techniques to accomplish this -- generally non-violent ones -- are most fully

documented for Dearbom Michigan (Good 1989) and Parma Ohio CU S vs City of Panna

1981) Both places -- and presumably many other suburbs - developed reputations for extreme

hostility toward blacks Real estate agents agreed not to rent or sell to blacks and those few

blacks who might move in were visited by the police who encouraged them to leave for their own

safety Zoning ordinances were changed and variances were granted or denied so as to prevent

any construction which might be open to blacks As a result many large eastern and midwestern

cities by 1970 were surrounded by a necklace of white suburbs leading the Kerner Commission

to observe that the policies of the post-war era divided the country - into two societies one

largely Negro and poor located in the central cities the other predominantly white and affluent

located in the suburbs and outlying areas (National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders

1968 p 22)

Finally the construction of public housing in many cities encouraged residential

segregation As conceived in the 1930s this housing was to provide temporary shelter to poor

families as they moved into the middle class but by the early 1960s public housing in large cities

became the home of last resort for the most despised and dispossessed group in America

problem families often headed by an impoverished black woman (Friedman 1967) Federal

spending for urban renewal after World War II paid for the destruction of older homes occupied by

blacks Instead of dispersing this population to white central city neighborhoods or the suburbs

public housing was built Advocates recommended scattered site housing but whites in central

city neighborhoods and in the suburbs refused to allow such units The protracted litigation about

public housing in Chicago (Hills vs Gatreaux 1976 SquireslS 1987) and in Yonkers illustrates

the tenaCity of local reSidents when threatened by the possible arrival of poor blacks So public

housing units were constructed with the foreseeable result of further concentrating the black

population in largely black areas (Adams sect1i[ 1991 pp 109-111 Bickford and Massey 1991

Hirsch 1983 pp 223-227 Lemann 1991 p 74 Squires~1989 p 103)

Together these forces operating in the immediate post-World War II period had the effect

of preserving and in some cases increasing high levels of black-white segregation This

occurred despite the beginning development of a black middle class population which could

afford the housing cost in white suburban communities

In this respect the black experience differs from other racial and ethnic groups As

Lieberson (1963 Chaps 3 4 and 5) showed European immigrants were residentially segregatedmiddot

from native-born Americans upon arrival but this isolation decreased as their economic status

improved Indeed it appears that the first to leave ethnic ghettos were the most successful

individuals Blacks were the exception As the Jim Crow system spread throughout cities

prosperous blacks were denied the option to live among whites and were forced back into the

ghetto leading Zunz (1982 398) on the basis of his investigation of class race and segregation

in Detroit to observe that blacks lived urban history in reverse

Studies based on the 1960 and 1970 censuses showed that skin color not economic

status was the cause of segregation since regardless of their prosperity or poverty blacks were

segregated from their white peers (Farley 1975 pp 882-888 Massey 1979a and 1981a Simkus

1978 Taeuber 1965 Taeuber and Taeuber 1965 Chap 4)

CHALLENGING THE PATTERN OF RACIAL SEGREGATION

While institutionalized racial segregation seemed to be well entrenched by the midshy

1960s the Civil Rights movement set in motion a series of developments that served to counter

practices and attitudes that led to segregation Interacting with these was a continued

SOCioeconomic advancement of the black population together Four related developments served

to arrest continued segregation during the 1970s

Changes in Racial Attitudes

First the racial attitudes of whites had changed When national samples of whites were

first asked about the principle of segregation they strongly endorsed it As part of the domestiC

intelligence effort at the start of Wond War II NaRC asked a sample of 3600 whites 00 you

think there should be separate sections in towns and cities for Negroes to live in Eighty~

four percent agreed The most liberal group were high school graduates in the Northeast but

even among them three-quarters endorsed residential segregation (National Opinion Research

Center 1942 Question 22)

Since the early 1960s NaRC has asked whites whether they agree or disagree with the

statement White people have a right to keep blacks out of their neighborhoods if they want to

and blacks should respect that right Just before the Civil Rights Act was passed about

60 percent of whites agreed that whites could exclude blacks but by 1990 only one white in five

agreed (Schuman Steeh and Bobo 1985 Table 3 National Opinion Research Center 1990

Item 127B)

Endorsing a principle is easier than accepting black neighbors or approving governmental

strategies to enforce that ideal Changes in white attitudes however are much more than just

about principles In 1958 Gallup found that 44 percent of a national sample of whites said they

would move if a black came next door When the question was last asked -- in 1978 -- only

14 percent said having a black neighbor would trigger their fiight (Schuman Steeh and Bobo

1985 Table 33)

Since the 1970s NaRC has asked whites whether they would vote for a law which says

a homeowner can decided for himself whom to sell to even if he prefers not to sell to a black or

for an alternative law which says a homeowner cannot refuse to sell because of someones race

In the early 1970s - five years after the Fair Housing Act guaranteed blacks their property rights shy

- only one-third of whites said they would vote for an open housing law By 1990 a majority of

whites choose the law protecting minOrity rights over homeowners rights (Schuman Steeh and

Bobo 1985 National Opinion Research Center 1990 Item 128)

Successes of the Civil Rights the Open Housing and Urban Redevelopment Movements

Second residential integration depended upon the success Of the civil rights movement

especially In the field of open housing After Wond War II local ordinances were passed in many

communities and a few states protecting the housing market rights of blacks Jews and Asians

(Smith 1989 Salt man 1978 1990) but the major achievement was the Fair Housing Act of 1968

a law upheld and even strengthened by encompassing Supreme Court rulings (Jones VB AHred

H Maver Co 1968 Uo S VB Mjtchell1971 Zuch Vs Hussey 1975 Havens VS Coleman 1982)

Although enforcement of the law by federal agencies was often lax (Lamb 1984 p 172)

the open housing movement was bolstered by developments concemlng reSidential finance In

1975 Congress passed the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) which neither outlawed

discrimination nor told banks where to invest Rather it proved to be a potent freedom of

information requirement since it mandated that federally chartered banks and thrifts explicitly

report where they made or denied loans Studies in Atlanta (Dedman 1988) and Detroit

(Blossom Everett and Gallagher 1988) demonstrated that banks loaned much more frequently to

white areas than to economically similar black neighborhoods

In 19n urban development groups succeeded in getting Congress to pass the

Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which specified that federally chartered fiscal institutions

had an obligation to meet the credit needs of the entire community they served specifically

mentioning the credit needs of low and moderate income areas Presumably a bank which

closed branches in poor black neighborhoods and opened them in affluent white suburbs would

abrogate their responsibilities The law took on greater importance in the 1980s as a national

system of interstate banks replaced local ones Community development groups challenged

mergers before federal regulatory agencies charging that banks failed to satiSfy their CRA duties

In Atlanta studies which linked HMDA and CRA information lead banks to create a pool of $65

million for loans in black and moderate income neighborhoods (Robinson 1992 p104)

Presumably these loans help to stabilize inner city neighborhoods which might have gone

through the usual white to black transition Similar studies of apparent discrimination in lending

practices using HMDA have been carried out in many Cities (Feins and Bratt 1983 Leahy 1985

Pol Guy and Bush 1982 Shlay 1988 Taggert and Smith 1981)

The civil rights movement was also successful in making the Fair Housing Act a strong

one The 1988 amendments allow the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to

bring suit against violators much more easily and for the first time substantial financial penalties

may be assessed against those who break the law (Kushner 1992)

The open housing movement effectively kept the issue of discrimination in the housing

market before the public In 1977 HUD carried out the first national audit study of discrimination

in the sale or rental of advertised housing (Wienk~ 1979) In 1989 a federally sponsored

similar investigation reported that black home seekers were typically treated differently than

whites specifically they were provided less information about their housing market choices

Authors of the 1989 study concluded blacks and Hispanics experience systematic

discrimination in terms and conditions financing assistance and general sales effort in about half

of their encounters with real estate agents (Tumer Stryk and Yinger 1991 p43) Although

there are no empirical studies of the impact of HMDA the CRA or the strengthened Fair Housing

Law upon segregation open housing advocates now have a much stronger hand now than in the

The Supreme Court decision in the Chicago public housing litigation established the

principle that such housing could not be constructed so as to perpetuate segregation and ruled

that public housing should be spread across a metropolis (Hills vs Gatreaux 1976)

Subsequently federal judges ordered scatter site public housing in many localities but relative

few units were built largely because of the intransigent opposition of residents and partly

because federal funds for this purpose were cut drastically The voucher plans rent supplements

and Section 8 grants which replaced public housing in some cities encouraged a degree of

residential integration (Rosenbaum and Popkin 1991 Rosenbaum1992 Uef and Goering 1987

p 246 Gray and Tursky 1986 Stucker 1986 P259)

Growth of the Black Middle Class

A third factor contributing to decreases in segregation was the continued growth of the

middlemiddot and upper-income black population White attitudes about integration have become more

liberal and we presume prosperous and extensively educated blacks will be seen by whites as

acceptable neighbors Data from the Census of 1980 pertaining to segregation by class differed

from those for previous enumerations and revealed that blacks who held prestigious jobs who

had large incomes or who completed many years of schooling were somewhat less segregated

from similar whites than were blacks toward the bottom of these status distributions (Denton and

Massey 1989 Table 1 Massey and Denton 1987 Table 7)

Between 1940 and the earty 1970s the black middle class grew more rapidly than the

white A minimum criterion for membership might be having an income at least twice the poverty

line The percent of blacks living in such households increased from a miniscule 1 percent in

1940 to 39 percent in 1970 Among whites the change was from 12 percent in 1940 to

70 percent in 1970 The period between the early 1970s and 1990 involved a much slower

growth of the middle class By 1988 about 43 percent of the black and 71 percent of the white

populations lived in households with incomes more than double the poverty line (U S Bureau of

the Census 1972 1982 1989)

There is an important change Similar to whites the income distribution of blacks has

become more polarized In 1968 5 percent of black households had incomes in excess of

$50000 in constant 1990 dollars This grew to 8 percent in 1974 and continued to rise so that by

1990 one black household in eight had such a large income Among whites the change was

from 15 percent with incomes above $50000 in 1968 to 28 percent in 1990 (U S Bureau of the

Census 1991 a Table B-10)

Members of this growing black economic elite will seek improved housing In places with

large prosperous black populations such as Atlanta (Garreau 1991 Chap 4) and Washington

(Dent 1992) some of them may decide to live in emerging upper-class black suburbs Many

others however are likely to make housing decisions similar to their white peers contributing we

believe to reductions in segregation

The Construction of New Housing

A fourth factor necessary for declines in segregation was the construction of new

housing Older neighborhoods often have clear and widely-known identities sometimes with

reputations for hostility toward blacks Newly developed areas generally lack such reputations

In addition fair housing advocates often target new developments for their testing and finally

since 1972 HUD regulations require that builders and developers who use federally backed loans

affirmatively market their properties meaning that they are sometimes advertised In black

newspapers or on soul music stations (Lief and Goering 1987 p 238)

The 1970s and 1980s were years of substantial new construction In the earlier decade

an average of 18 million units were started annually and in the 1980s approximately 15 million

each year (U S Bureau of the Census 1991b Table 1289) This assists In reducing segregation

BLACK-WHITE RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION TRENDS IN THE 1980S

The 1970s differed from previous decades in that there was an unambiguous pattern of

small declines in segregation Studies which investigated the largest arrays of metropOlises were

emphatiC in stressing that declines outnumbered rises albethey the decreases very modest

(Jakubs 1988 Wilger 1988) As Massey and Gross (1991 p 13) authoritatively concluded

During the 1970s there were hopeful signs that the monolithic facade of racial

segregation in U S Cities was beginning to crumble After decades of persistently high

and nearly universal residential segregation between blacks and whites the prevailing

direction of change after 1970 was downward

Old black-white segregation continue to drop in the 1980s or were the 1970s aberrant

years Here we address this question

Areas Data and Indexes

At the outset we note four points about the methodology and data for our investigation

1) We considered all metropolitan areas (PSMAs and In New England NECMAs)

defined for the Census of 1990 and analyzed those 232 metropolises in which there were 20000

or more blacks or in which blaCks made up 3 percent or more of the population Data were

obtained from the STF-1A files of the Census of 1990 and the equivalent file from 1980 We did

not assess segregation In places with few blacks because the index of dissimilarity is unreliable if

the ratio of blacks to areal units is low

2) Data for block groups in 1980 and 1990 were analyzed These averaged 903

residents in 1980 and 564 In 1990 They give a more sensitive picture of segregation - and

higher scores -- than do indexes based on census tract data We used geographically constant

metropOlises consisting of the counties for the metropolis as defined for the 1990 enumeration

3) In this analysis we analyze data for people who identified themselves as white or

black on the race question About 6 percent of whites and 3 percent of blacks went on to claim

Hispanic heritage on the distinct question which asked about Spanish-origln (U S Bureau of the

Census 1992 Table 2)

4) To measure segregation we used the Index of dissimilarity an Index which is not

influenced by the relative size of the black or white population (Zoloth 1976) Were there a

system of apartheid such that every block group in a metropoliS were exclusively black or

exclusively white the index would take on its maximum value of 100 Were individuals randomly

assigned to place of residence the index would approach its minimum value of zero The

numerical value of the index reports the proportion of either blacks or whites who would have to

be shifted from one block group to another to eliminate segregation that is to produce an index

of zero (Duncan and Duncan 1955 Jakubs 1979 Massey and Denton 1988 White 1986)

National Patterns

Trends of the 1970s continued into the 1980s There was a pervasive pattern of modest

declines the average index of dissimilarity falling from 69 to 65 Segregation decreased in 194 of

the 232 locations and the drop was 5 points or more in 85 of them Figure 1 shows the

distributions of metropolises by their segregation scores with the shift to the left indicating a

decline in the separation of the races In 1980 14 metropolises had extremely high scores

exceeding 85 Ten years later this changed such that only four metropolises had scores at that

extreme level In 1980 29 metropolises might have been classified as moderately segregated if

by that you mean a score of less than 55 The number of moderately segregated places more

than doubled to 68 in 1990

[Figure 1]

The most and least segregated locations are listed in Table 1 Looking at places where

segregation was greatest in 1990 11 of the 15 most segregated areas are older midwestern

industrial centers and two are retirement communities in Florida The list of most segregated

places in 1980 was dominated by older midwestern metropolises but also included seven Florida

retirement centers Five of these disappeared from the list as their populations grew rapidly and

the new housing built during the 1980s was less racially segregated The average score for the

most highly segregated places fell from 88 to 84

[Table 1]

The list of metropolises with lowest levels of segregation is dominated by places whose

economic base involved the Armed Forces Jacksonville North Carolina (Camp LeJuene)

Lawton (Ft Sill) Anchorage (Elmendorf Field) Fayetteville North Carolina (Ft Bragg) and

Clarksville (Ft Campbell) appeared on the list both years while Fort Walton Beach (Elgin Air

FIGURE 1 Distribution of 232 Metropolitan Areas by Black-White Residential Segregation Soores 1980 and 1990

I 19BO

SOURCE U S Bureau of the Census Censuses of population and Housing 1980 SfF1A Files Indexes are based upon distributions of blacks and whites across block groups for metropolises as defined in 1990

TABLE 1 Metropolitan Areas with Greatest and Least Black-White Residential Segregation 1980 and 1990

1980 o 1990 o

bull METROPOLISES WITH GREATEST SEGREGATIONmiddot

1) Bradenton 91 1) Gary 91 2) Chicago 91 2) Detroit 89 3) Gary 90 3) Chicago 87 4) Sarasota 90 4) Cleveland 86 5) Cleveland 89 5) Buffalo 84 6) Detroit 89 6) Flint 84 7) Ft Myers 89 7) Milwaukee 84 8) Flint 87 8) Saginaw 84 9) Ft Pierce 87 9) Newark 83

10) West Palm Beach 87 10) Philadelphia 82 11) Ft Lauderdale 86 11) Sf Louis 81 12) Naples 86 12) Ft Myers 81 13) Saginaw 86 13) Sarasota 80 14) Milwaukee 85 14) Indianapolis 80 15) St Louis 85 15) Cincinnati 80

AVERAGE 88 AVERAGE 84

bull METROPOLISES WITH LEAST SEGREGATIONmiddot

1) Jacksonville NC 36 1) Jacksonville NC 31 2) Lawrence KN 38 2) Lawton 37 3) Danville 41 3) Anchorage 38 4) Anchorage 42 4) Lawrence KN 41 5) Fayetteville NC 43 5) Fayetteville NC 41 6) Lawton 43 6) Clarksville 42 7) Honolulu 46 7) Anaheim 43 8) Anaheim 47 8) Ft Walton Beach 43 9) Charlottesville 48 9) Cheyenne 43

10) Clarksville 48 10) Honolulu 44 11) Colorado Springs 48 11) Tucson 45 12) San Jose 48 12) Danville 45 13) EI Paso 49 13) San Jose 45 14) Columbia MO 49 14) Charlottesville 45 15) Victoria 49 15) Killeen 45

Force Base) Honolulu (Wheller Ariu Force Base and Peart Harbor Navy Yard) Cheyenne

(Warren Air Force Base) and Kileen (Ft Hood) were on the 1990 list The university towns of

Lawrence Kansas and Charlottesville had low levels of segregation in 1990 while a similar place

Columbia Missouri was among the least segregated a decade eartier Two metropolises

exceeding one-half million -- Honolulu and Tucson - as well as San Jose with its population of

15 million and Anaheim with 24 million were on the 1990 list suggesting that some large

metropolises have low levels of segregation And while the percent black was small in several of

the integrated places it was far above the national average in others including Fayetteville

Danville Lawton and Chartottesville

Despite an increasing geographic dispersal of the nations black population a plurality of

blacks still live in areas with large black populations Among the 23 areas with 1990 black

populations exceeding 200000 all except one (Detroit) reduced them Segregation levels over

the 1990s decreased (see Table 2) These reductions were most apparent in areas which

attracted large numbers of middle class blacks during the decade such as Atlanta Dallas and

Houston

[Table 2)

Metropolitan Attributes

Was the pattem of modest declines in segregation widespread or was it limited to

metropolises with special characteristics Several factors are associated with whether

segregation levels are high or low (Denton and Massey 1989 Galster 1988 Marshall and Jiobu

1975 Massey and Denton 1987 Massey and Gross 1991)

Regions

Among the most important of these is region places in the West and South are much

less segregated than those in the Northeast or Midwest Figure 2 shows average segregation

scores by region and the percent change during the 1980s In 1980 places in the most

TABLE 2 Black-White Residential Segregation for Individual Metropolitan Areas with Largest 1990 Black Populationsa

WHITE-BLACK RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION

1990 Black Black Percent of Region Population Metropolitan Change

Metropolitan Area (1000) Population 1990 1980-90

NORTHEAST

New York 2250026 263 778 -06 Philadelphia 929907 191 815 -11 Newark 422802 232 828 -10 Boston 233819 62 704 -59

MIDWEST

Chicago 1332919 220 871 -36 Detroit 943479 215 888 01 St Louis 423182 173 811 -39 Cleveland 355619 194 861 -31 Kansas City 200508 128 755 -51

Washington DC 1041934 266 675 -39 Atlanta 736153 260 726 -64 Baltimore 616065 259 754 -24 Houston 611243 185 690 -92 New Orleans 430470 347 73S -22 Dallas 410766 161 662 -148 Memphis 399011 406 756 -02 Norfolk 398093 2S5 567 -S5 Miami 397993 105 746 -64 Richmond 252340 292 641 -36 Birmingham 245726 271 793 -03 Charlotte 231654 199 646 -30

Los Angeles 992974 112 714 -87 Oakland 303826 146 687 -60

aWith 1990 black populations greater than 200000

segregated region -- the Midwest -- averaged 13 points higher than those In the least segregated

region -- the West Segregation decreased in all regions but more rapidly in the South and West

where levels were lower at the start As a consequence the gap between the highly segregated

Midwest and the more integrated West increased to an average of 16 points 71 in the Midwest

55 in the West in 1990 Only four of the 25 western metropolises -- Denver Los Angeles

Oakland and Portland -- had scores above 65 but in the Midwest 48 of 61 locations had such

extensive segregation in 1990

[Figure 2]

Functional Specialization Metropolises differ in their economic specializations Many of

those in the Midwest grew rapidly after the Civil War and attained a large size early this century

because they specialized in producing steel or manufacturing durable goods Some metropolises

are centered around a major university such as Gainesville Tuscaloosa or Athens Georgia while

other places have an unusually large proportion of their work force employed by the state or

federal government

Segregation levels are strongly linked to the economic base of a community A

metropolis centered around a large university will have a different stock of housing and attract a

different demographic mix than another metropolises which specializes in heavy industrial

manufacturing Each of the 232 metropolises was classified according to the following

demographic or economic characteristics1

bull percent of population aged 65 and over (retirement communities)

bull percent of employed work force in durable goods manufacturing industries (durable

goods communities)

bull percent of employed work force in non-durable goods manufacturing industrial (nonshy

durable goods communities)

bull percent of employed work force in public administration (government communities)

FIGURE 2 Black-White Residential Segregation Scores 1980 and 1990 for Metropolfses Classified by Region and by FuncUonal Specialization

REGIONS

middot10 PERCENT CHANG

10 20 ao to so eo 10 eo iO

TYPEOF METROPOUS

REt1REMENTr tN 111)NOlmtEAST

(Na32) DlJRABIOOOOSI

tNmiddot

MIXEDIM10WEST tN-101)(NaI1)

tofOIIAASLQ00D8 tN -t

SOUTHI 0GYEfNIN1

(Na11~ tN-

lNVERSItY tNdtWEST

tNd5) MIJ1MV tN a 23)

8EQREOAlCH SCClRES PERCENr CfWt3

lo 010 10 io 30 lt10 Go eo 70 amp0 ~

SEGREGAlCH SCORS

IC119BO 1990 ~ PERCENrCI-fANGE I

bull percent of population aged 18 to 24 enrolled in college (university communities)

bull percent of total labor force in the Armed Forces (military communities)

H a metropolis were one standard deviation or more above the national average on any

one of these measures it was classified Into one of the types listed in Figure 2 Mixed places are

metropolises which had a diversified economic base they were not far above average on any

dimension

Retirement communities - all but three of them in Florida - had exceptionally high levels

of segregalion Few older blacks have the requisite savings to move into these retirement areas

so their elderly population are largely white Additionally FitzgeraldS (1981) study of a Florida

retirement center reports that many residents moved there from cities in the North with long

histories of racial strife The retirees attitudes were conservative and they preferred to live in

segregated communities

Of the 44 metropolises which specialize In durable goods manufacturing 41 are locaIed

in the MidWest or Northeast where segregation levels are high Cleveland Detroit Flint Gary

and Saginaw for example have been among the most segregated locations since the end of

World War II (Taeuber and Taeuber 1965 Table 4) Many of the non-durable goods

manufacturing centers -- 16 of 21 -- are in the South and specialize in textiles chemicals or food

produds Residential segregation in these locations was somewhat less than in durable goods

centers

Govemment university and military metropolises attrad populations which differ in

important ways - especially in educational attainment - from metropolises which have

manufacturing as their bases Many residents in university and military centers spend only a few

years in the metropolis so their attachment to their neighborhoods may be ephemeral and those

living in dormitories in barracks or in single families homes on base may be assigned their place

of residence

Govemment centers had moderate levels of segregation The neighborhoods in the

Washington metropoliS for example were considerably more mixed than those of other large

eastem and midwest em centers Fifteen of the 29 govemment centers are state capitols and by

the 1980s 36 states had fair housing laws similar to the federal legislation (Lamb 1992 p 10)

Quite likely those enforcing these laws live in state capitols and hence there may be greater

awareness of residential discrimination issues in such metropolises

Most university metropolises are moderate In size but their black and white populations

are residentially mixed Southem university cities including Athens Charlottesville Gainesville

and Lubbock have unusually low scores and in the Midwest the least segregated locations

include Ann Arbor Champaign-Urbana Columbia and Lawrence Winebergs (1983) study of

Gainesville shows how demographic changes at a university overturned that Citys traditional

pattern of segregation In the 1970s the University of Florida attracted black students many of

them choosing to live off-campus in apartments which had previously been closed to blacks The

school also recruited black professionals who decided not to live in the impoverished black

section but rather in previously white neighborhoods commensurate with their incomes and

occupations

The most unusual metropolises are those dominated by the Armed Forces they have low

levels of segregation In some places this is undoubtedly encouraged by the fact that blacks are

in military service so they are assigned to integrated quarters or live off-base in apartment

complexes which have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the base commander that they do not

discriminate on the basis of race But even large metropolises whose economies depend upon

the military - Norfolk with 14 million residents and San Diego with 25 million -- had relatively low

levels of segregation

Between 1980 and 1990 manufacturing metropolis stood out for their low rate of change

in segregation although even in these places separation was less at the end of the decade

Reductions were greatest in the retirement communities places which experienced high rates of

population growth and new construction during the 1980s

Age of Metropolis The older a metropolis the more likely it was to be highly segregated

in 1990 and the less likely that segregation levels declined To classify places by age we

determined when the largest city first attained a size of 50000 For Baltimore New Orleans and

New York this occurred decades before the Civil War while many other presently large

metropolises including Atlanta Denver and Los Angeles satisfied this criterion in the later years

of the Nineteenth Century Some large metropolises are post-World War II locations Anaheim

Ft Lauderdale and Riverside And then there are locations which entered the metropolitan ranks

after the Fair Housing Law was enacted such as Daytona Beach and Anchorage2

[Figure 3]

Figure 3 shows that the oldest metropolises were most segregated in both 1980 and

1990 Differences by age were substantial since in 1990 the average segregation score was 76

in places whose central cities were large a century ago but only 61 in the newest locations

DeClines in segregation during the decade were largest in the youngest metropolises but were

certainly not restricted to such places

New ConstnJctlon New construction is also related to segregation since apartments and

homes built after 1969 came onto the market when discrimination was illegal If a high proportion

of the housing stock in a metropolis is new we expect the place to be less segregated than in

another metropolis in which most of the housing was built before World War II or in the building

boom which followed

To index this dimension we used homes and apartments built 1980 to 1989 as a percent

of the stock of housing enumerated in 1980 Many metropolises - including several large ones-shy

had much of their housing stock constructed during the 1980s In Orlando for instance housing

units erected during the 1980s were 66 percent as numerous as those existing in 1980 in

FIGURE 3 Black-White Residentiar Segregation Scores 1980 and 1990 for MetropoUses Classmed by Age and by New Housfng Construction in 1980

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

NO OITY OF SOooo (N38)

19500019110I (N40)

1970 OR AFTER (N 34)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

ABE OF tvETFIOPOUSES (Decade Central CIly Reached 60000)

HOMES BUILT IN 1980SAS PERCENT OF 1980HOUSING STOCK

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

LESS1HANla tNmiddotfi9)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

[cf1980- 1990 ~ PERCENTCHANGE In_

the Jim Crow era probably still are highly segregated and this in turn may encourage a racial

polarization which perpetuates the separation of whites from blacks The effects of the heavy

hand of the past are mitigated we believe by new construction which is the fourth factor

influencing segregation levels in 1990 Finally several demographic factors -- size of metropolis

the percent of its population black and the relative prosperity of blacks help to determine levels of

segregation

Table 3 presents a regression analysis testing the hypothesis that residential segregation

in 1990 in the 232 metropolises was dependent upon region type of metropoliS its age the

recent construction of homes and apartments and three indicators of its demographic make-up

[Table 3]

Metropolises in the Northeast and Midwest were more segregated than those in the

South or West an effect net of functional specialization age size or other factors There is no

reason to believe that people in the North are more conservative about racial issues than those in

the South or West Rather the net effect of region is rooted in the history of local governments

specifically the power of independent suburbs to exclude blacks Northeastern and Midwestern

states developed policies with regard to the prerogatives of local governments in the midshy

Nineteenth Century granting town and city officials much authority With this system in place

suburban communities sprung up around Northeastern and Midwestern cities early in this

century After World War II more suburbs were incorporated places which invoked their own

zoning statutes developed land use regulations established their own police forces and created

school systems for their residents When whites began leaving central cities in large nu mbers in

the 1950s and 1960s -- a migration hastened to some degree by the presence of blacks in those

cities (Frey 1979 1980a 1980b 1984) -- they found suburban communities which either had

histories of animosity toward blacks or places which soon responded to the wishes of their

TABLE 3 Model of Black-White Residential Segregation in 1990

INTERCEPT

REGION8

Northeast Midwest West

FUNCTIONAL SPECIALIZATION8

Retirement Durable Goods Manufacturing Non-Durable Goods Manufacturing Government University Military

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

1900 or Earlier 1910t01940 1950 to 1960 1970 or Later

NEW CONSTRUCTION 1980 TO 1989

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Log of Total Population Size in 1990 Percent of Population Black in 1990

REGRESSION INFORMATION

CHARACTERISTICS OF VARIABLES

Partial Regression Coefficient

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

Ratio of Black to White Household Income in 1980 -29 -37

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED 60

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

aOmitted categories are SOUTH for region DIVERSIFIED for functional specialization and NO CITY OF 50000 for age of metropolis

middotS~gnificant at 05 level

middotmiddotSignificant at 01 level

NOTE Because the dependent variable has a truncated range -- 0 to 100 -- a logit transformation has been used in analyses similar to this one (Massey and Denton 1987) However the distribution of the dependent variable is nearly normal (See Figure 1) so OLS regreSSion with an untransformed segregation score is appropriate

residents and developed strategies indicating that their neighborhoOds parks and public schools

were for whites

State legislatures in the South toward the end of the Nineteenth Century reorganized

local govemments partly because of a fear that black voters would join poor whites in a populist

movement Local authority was otten vested in county-wide govemments subject to strict state

control As a result most southern cities are not surrounded by numerous suburbs Decisions

about zoning or policing which are made by individual suburbs in the North are made at a county

level in the South School districts in most southern states are drawn along county lines an

important factor encouraging integration in those many metropolises which were subject to

federal court desegregation orders Southem whites seldom have the option of moving into a

suburban community with an exclusively white public school system Additionally southern

states have permissive annexation laws Recognizing the suburban trend and wishing to raise

tax revenues administrators in southern cities annexed their sparsely settled fringes In the 1950s

and 1960 a prerogative all but impossible in the Northeast and Midwest Older cities along the

West Coast -- Los Angeles San Francisco and Portland -- have systems of local government

similar in some ways to those of the Midwest but many of the newer western cities had the

authority to annex so they are not surrounded by numerous independent suburbs a factor linked

to the lower segregation scores of this region

The functional specialization of a metropoliS had an impact upon the extent of

segregation Places classified as retirement communities or as durable goods manufacturing

centers were Significantly more segregated in 1990 than metropolises with a mixed economic

base Net of other factors retirement places had scores 11 points higher and durable good

places 4 points higher while the net effect of having a university or a military installation as the

communityS economic base was a reduction of 9 or 10 points This comes about we believe

because racial attitudes differ by type of metropolis (Schuman and Gruenberg 1970) and because

the military plays an unusually strong role in integrating both Its own personnel and the areas they

dominate

Recent construction in a metropolis was associated with lower levels of segregation apart

from other factors Consider two places which were equivalent in every way except for the

number of new homes and apartments built during the 1980s Lets suppose that in the first

location construction equaled 5 percent of the housing stock there in 1980 while in the other it

equaled 30 percent The metropolis with the greater amount of new construction had a

segregation score 4 points lower Implying that neighborhoods built recently are less segregated

and suggesting that the Fair Housing Act may be somewhat effective

Population size also had an independent effect On average these 232 metropolises

had about 400000 If we compare a place of that siZe to a place of one million which was similar

on every dimension except size we find that the larger metropolis had a segregation score three

points higher

New construction size of a metropoliS and its age are closely intertwined since many of

the older places are large ones which have grown lethargically in recent decades This means

that If age of a location is entered into an explanatory model along with the confounding variables

measuring new construction and size then age does not have a significant independent effect

As Figure 3 shows however older metropolitan areas are the most highly segregated but the

effect due to age can just as easily be attributable to siZe or the absence of new construction

We argued that the development of a prosperous black middle class encouraged

residential integration Are metropolises in which the economic disparities smallest the ones

which are least residentially segregated We calculated the ratio of black to white average

(mean) household income from the 1980 census (the most recent data available) to index blackshy

white discrepancies in economic standing

This analysis suggests that where blacks and whites were more similar with regard to

income segregation was less Among these metropolises blacks had household incomes

66 percent those of whites Lets suppose that two places are similar in aI regards except that in

the first black household income was just 56 percent that of whites while in the second it was

76 J8rcent that of whites The model in Table 2 reports that the net effect of such a difference

upon the segregation score was 6 points That is independent of other factors increases in the

income of blacks relative to that of whites were associated with declines in segregation

Presumably if the 1980s had been a decade of substantial financial gains for blacks segregation

scores would have been lower in 1990

WHAT ACCOUNTS FOR DECLINING SEGREGATION IN THE 1980S

What explains the modest decreases In segregation Was there a national trend which

affected all places similarly perhaps attributable to the open housing movement and to changing

racial attitudes Or were certain factors associated with large declines

We wished to determine which characteristics of a metropolis -- its region functional

specialization age new construction or demographic attributes - had net effects upon changes

in black-white segregation The dependent variable is the percent change in the index of

dissimilarity Results are shown in Table 4 The dependent variable has a negative sign that is

the typical metropolis experienced a 6 percent drop in segregation

[Table 4]

Region had a substantial effect since the trend toward more integrated neighborhoods

was muted In the Northeast and Midwest a finding which holds even after you take into account

the age of the metropolis and its specialization Segregation decreased less in these regions

than in the South or West because of the proliferation of Independent suburban governments

many of them taking actions to discourage black homeseekers Litigation efforts for open

housing are also hampered in the Northeast or Midwest since even if a court overturns a zoning

TABLE 4 Model of Percent Change in Black-White Residential Segregation In the 1980s

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

FUNCTIONAL SPECIAlIZATION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

1900 or Earlier 1910 to 1940 1950 to 1960 1970 or Later

Log of Total Population Size in 1980 Growth Rate of Black Population in 1980sb White Exposure to Blacks in 1980

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

SOmitted categories are SOUTH for region DIVERSIFIED for functional specialization and NO CITY OF 50000 for age of metropolis

~his is the average annual growth rate for the decennial period

Significant at 05 level

regulation or orders affirmative marketing it will affect just one small component of the entire

suburban ring

The functional specialization of a metropolis was not linked to the rate of change in

segregation with two exceptions The shift to lower levels was particularly slow in retirement

communities undoubtedly reflecting the preferences and financial capabilities of older whites

And military locations which had exceptionally low levels of segregation in 1980 had unusually

large reductions The net effect of having a military specialization was an additional decline of

3 percentage points beyond the average 6 percentage point decrease For much of the 1980s

there was employment growth in the Armed Forces and an increase in population in places with

military specializations leading to lower levels of segregation (U S Bureau of the Census 1991b

Tables 537 and 538)

The age of a metropolis had no independent effect upon changes in segregation but as

expected places with much new construction experienced unusually large declines Lets

suppose that in one metropolis the amount of new housing built during the 1980s equalled

5 percent of the housing stock present at the start of the decade while In another new

construction equalled 30 percent This difference translated into an additional 5 percentage point

decline in segregation As the older housing stock in stagnant metropolises is replaced and as

new places grow we can expect further decreases in segregation

The net effects of several demographic characteristics were considered Population Size

was not linked to change in segregation The geographic redistribution of black population is

reducing segregation but the process is complicated Black growth during the 1980s was more

rapid in metropolises which had lower segregation at the start of the decade The correlation

coefficient relating the black growth rate during the decade to the index of dissimilarity in 1980

was negative -20 In the Midwest such highly segregated places as Chicago Cleveland

Detroit and St Louis lost black migrants while less segregated Grand Rapids Omaha and

Minneapolis attracted blacks Most western metropolises gained migrants of all races but two of

the most segregated locations -- Los Angeles and San Francisco - had substantial outshy

migrations of blacks while places with low levels of segregation in 1980 - Las Vegas Phoenix

and Riverside -- were popular destinations for black migrants There is a new pattern of black

migration as they scatter away from the traditional urban concentration a migration process

which will reduce residential segregation nationally Among individual metropolitan areas

however the growth rate of the black population did not have a net effect of reducing

segregation In fact independent of other factors black growth had a slight - but Insignificant -shy

effect of Increasing segregation This comes about because when many blacks migrant into a

metropolis quite a few settle in established black neighborhood which may Increase segregation

at least temporarily

Because whites are reluctant to live in neighborhoods with many blacks we believe that

from a demographic standpoint some metropolises are easier to integrate than others Suppose

there is a long history of segregation in one place such that whites live in neighborhoods which

on average are only 2 percent black In another place integration may have occurred so that

whites live In neighborhoods in which 12 percent of the residents are black Given recent change

in attitudes we think that whites in the highly segregated metropolis might not be upset if a few

more blacks came to their neighborhoods since their areas will still be overwhelmingly white But

in the other metropolis white reSistance to further Integration might be greater since it may

appear to whites that their neighborhoods are being overrun by blacks As attitude studies report

whites will accept token number of black neighbors but are averse to buying homes in

neighborhoods seen as open to black (Bobo Schuman and Steeh 1986 FarleymaL 1978)

Data from the Census of 1980 were used to calculate an index measuring the exposure

of whites to black neighbors (James and Taeuber 1985 Ueberson 1981 Massey and Denton

1987 Table 1 1988) To summarize the situation in a metropolis we determined the

average percentage of population black in the typical block group of whites in 1980 This index

has been described as the probability of whites contacting blacks in their neighborhood or as a

measure of white exposure- to black neighbors Its minimum value is zero and its maximum

value is the percent black in that metropolis On average whites in the 232 metropolises lived in

block groups in which 6 percent of the population was black In southern locations with numerous

black residents and moderate levels of segregation whites resided with quite a few blacks in

Tallahassee whites lived in neighborhoods where 18 percent of the residents were black in

Richmond and Norfolk 13 percent In northern metropOlises the higher levels of segregation

isolated whites from blacks In Kansas City and Detroit in 1980 whites lived in areas where only

4 percent of their neighbors were black in Chicago and Milwaukee 3 percent and in Boston

2 percent

This measure of white exposure to black neighbors had a substantial net impact upon

segregation changes during the 1980s The higher the proportion black in the neighborhoods of

whites in 1980 the smaller the decline in segregation Imagine two metropolises which were

similar in other regards but in one whites lived in block groups which were 2 percent black while

in the other the block groups were 12 percent black This differences translated into a

6 percentage point difference in the rate of decline in segregation strongly suggesting that whites

will accept limited numbers of blacks but that integration will occur slowly if at all when it means

that whites must live in neighborhoods with many blacks This finding is consistent with the

hypothesis that there is little white demand for housing in neighborhoods which already have

many black residents

CONCLUSION

For the first six decades of this century racial competition for neighborhoods occurred

throughout the country As blacks gained a toe-hold in the industrial economy they sought

neighborhood amenities and better housing for their families often housing located outside the

black area Whites wishing to maintain the traditional system of racial stratification attempted to

establish a physical separation for the presumably Inferior blacks The contest was nOt an

equitable one Most Institutions -- federally chartered lenders municipal governments the public

schools neighborhood associations and often the courts - sided with whites As an outcome

censuses from 1940 to 1970 revealed a pervasive thoroughly persistent system of racial

residential segregation

Vet changes began to occur in the decades following World War II which served to

loosen these constraints By the 1960s whites came to recognize the discrepancy between the

ideal of equal opportunities and the actual treatment of blacks The civil rights and open housing

movement were eventually successful in getting laws passed and in amassing the data needed to

show not only the extent of segregation but that traditional lending practices - if not explicitly

discriminatory - greatly disadvantaged blacks By the 1970s liberal court decisions began to

uphold the property rights of minorities and overturned the most blatant segregationist practiCes

such as the location of public housing Presumably blacks who sought better housing for their

families in the 1970s and 1980s faced numerous hurdles as the audit studies suggests but they

may have been more surmountable than those challenging blacks earlier this century

There are now some hopeful trends trends which were not evident when the Kerner

CommiSSion wrote their bleak but realistic report In the late 1960s For two decades black-white

segregation has declined New housing appears to be less segregated than old the geographic

shift of blacks is toward areas which are not so highly segregated and we can Identify quite a few

medium Sized and a few large metropolises which have sizable black populations but are not

extremely segregated And federal enforcement mechanisms have shifted In favor of equal

opportunities in the housing markets although the pace of change might best be calibrated by a

glacierologist

Nevertheless blacks remain a uniquely segregated group By 1990 three large

minorities were found in the United States blacks made up 121 percent of the population

Hispanics 90 percent and AsianPacific Islanders 29 percent (U S Bureau of the Census

1992 Table 4) The distindive urban experience of blacks is evident in Figure 4 which shows

indexes of dissimilarity computed from block group data comparing the residential distribution of

each minority group to aU other persons For each group we included a metropolis if the minority

comprised at least 3 percent of the population in 1990 or if there were 20000 members of the

minority resident there

[Figure 4)

The average segregation score comparing blacks to non-blacks in 1990 was 64 reflecting

a decline of 45 points The similar scores assessing the residential segregation of Hispanics or

Asians in 1990 were 43 Thus if the segregation of blacks continues to decrease at the rate of

the 1980s almost fifty years will elapse before the segregation level of blacks falls to the level

currently experienced by Hispanics and Asians

There was a fall In the segregation of blacks in the 1980s while there was no change for

Latinos and the segregation of Asians increased A full study of this topic requires dlsaggregatlng

Latinos and Asians Quite likely some subgroups such as the Vietnamese and Puerto Ricans are

highly segregated while others -- probably the Japanese and Cubans -- are not so segregated

(Bean and Tienda 1987 Chap 5 Langberg and Farley 1985 Massey 1979b 1981b Massey and

Bitterman 1985) There are we believe two basic demographic trends influencing segregation

trends among Asians and Latinos in the 1980 On the one hand these populations have

dispersed from their traditional points of arrival into metropolises where segregation levels are

lower On the other a few metropolises continue to receive a high proportion of the immigrants

from Latin America and Asia And in these places very rapid growth is asSOCiated with persisting

or increasing segregation as immigrants settle into ethnic enclaves For Latinos the dispersion

processes leading to lower levels of segregation were offset by the effects of population growth

But the Asian population grew much more rapidly -- an increase of 108 percent in the decade for

Asians compared to 58 percent for Hispanics - and contributed to the higher levels of residential

segregation shown in Figure 4 Despite these shifts the residential pattems of the rapidly

growing Asian and Latino populations contrast with the much higher levels of segregation of

blacks

FOOTNOTES

1 The following classification procedures were used

Durable Goods Manufacturing Because data from the Census of 1990 about industry of

employment were not available we determined the percent of employed workers in durable

goods manufacturing industries in 1980 If this percent in a metropolis were at least one standard

deviation unit above the mean for all metropolises the location was classHied as specialized In

durable goods manufacturing (N - 44)

Non-durable Goods Manufacturing A similar procedure was used with data for

employment in non-durable goods manufacturing (N - 21)

University Because age-specific enrollment data were not available from the Census of

1990 we used 1980 data and determined the percent of population 18 to 24 enrolled in school If

this proportion in a metropolis were one or more standard deviations above the average for all

metropolises the place was classHied as a university metropolis (N - 21)

Government Using data concerning employment in 1988 we determined the ratio of

local state and federal employment in a metropolis to the total population as cOunted in 1990 If

a metropolis had a ratio which was at least one standard deviation unit above the average for all

318 metropolises we classified it as specializing in government (N =29)

Military Using data concerning employment in 1988 we determined the ratio of

employment - both civilian and non-civilian -- by the Armed Forces in a metropolis to the total

population counted in the Census of 1990 If this ratio were one or more standard deviation units

above the average for all 318 locations it was assumed to have a military specialization

(N =23)

Retirement We used Census Bureau estimates of metropolitan populations by age in

1985 If the percent over age 64 in a metropolis were one or more standard deviations above the

average for the 318 metropolitan areas the location was identified as a retirement place This

procedure Identified 6 locations which had elderly populations not because retirees were moving

there but rather because of their long histories of very slow population growth They were

deleted from the retirement communities (N II 15)

There were 23 metropolises which were classified as specializing in two fields typically

university and government or military and government For purposes of the statistical modeling

they were recoded into only one category There were 102 metropolises not classified into any of

the six specializations

2 Thirty-five metropolises defined for the 1990 census had no central cities which ever

reached 50000 Undoubtedly some of these cities will do so by 2000 There were three

metropolises -- Nassau-Suffolk New York Orange County New York and Monmouth-Ocean

New Jersey -- which contain no central city

APPENDIX

Indices of Dissimilarity for IJlacb and Whites 318 US Metropolitan Areas bull 1980

Metropolitan 1990 Size Percent Index of Dissimilarity Area (1000s) Black 1990 1980

ABILENE 120 6 45 53 AKRON 658 10 74 79 AlBANYGA 113 46 70 72 ALBANYNY 874 5 66 67 AI13IQJERQUE 481 3 41 43 ALEXANDRIA 132 28 67 72 ALLENTOWN 687 2 60 63 ALTOONA 131 1 63 66 AMARILLO 188 5 65 74 ANAHEIM 2411 2 43 47 ANCHORAGE 226 6 38 42 ANDERSON IN 131 8 77 78 ANDERSJN SC 145 17 60 62 ANN ARBOR 283 11 55 55 ANNISTON 116 19 63 65 APPLETON 315 0 66 74 ASHVILLE 175 8 71 72 ATHENS 156 19 54 53 ATLANTA 2834 26 73 79 ATLANTIC CITY 319 14 72 77 AUGUSTA 397 31 56 54 ~ 357 5 64 63 AUSTIN 782 9 57 66 BAKERSFIELD 543 6 59 66 BALTIMORE 2382 26 75 78 ~ 147 0 50 66 BATON ROUGE 528 30 73 74 BATTLE CREEK 136 11 67 73 BEAUMONT 361 23 76 81 BEAVER COUNlY 186 6 67 68 BELLINGHAM 128 1 40 37 BENTON HARfIJR 161 15 78 77 EER3EN 1278 8 77 82 BWNGS 113 0 52 49 BILOXI 197 18 58 63 BINGHAMTON 264 2 50 48 BlRMNGHAM 908 27 79 80 BISMARK 84 0 66 61 BLOOMINGTON IN 109 3 43 49 BLOOMINGTON IL 129 4 47 50 80ISECITY 206 0 41 40 BOSTON 3784 6 70 76 EOJLDER 225 1 40 40 BRADENTON 212 8 79 91 BRAZORIA 192 8 58 64 BReJERTON 190 3 47 51 ERDGEPORT 828 10 69 72 BROWNSVILLE 260 0 49 57 BRYAN 122 11 56 73 BUFFALO 969 11 84 84 BURUNGTON NO 108 19 58 57 BURUNGTON vr 137 1 34 37 CANTON 394 6 67 74 CASPER 61 1 56 50 CEDAR RAPIDS 169 2 54 58

CHAMPAIGN 173 10 54 53 CHARLESTON SC 507 30 58 62 CHARLESTON WV 250 6 69 70 CHAFLOTTE 1162 20 65 68 CHARLOTIESVILLE 131 14 45 48 CHATTANOOGA 433 13 78 80 CHEYENNE 73 3 43 51 CHCAGO 6070 22 87 91 CHro 182 1 56 57 CINCINNATI 1453 13 80 82 ClARKSVILLE 169 21 42 48 CLEVELAND 1831 19 86 89 COlOFW)Q SPRINGS 397 7 47 48 COLUMBIA MO 112 7 49 49 COLUMBIA SC 453 30 63 64 COLUMBUS GA 243 38 62 59 COLUMBUS OH 1377 12 71 76 CORPUSCHRISTl 350 4 53 63 CUMBERlAND 102 2 62 59 DALLAS 2553 16 66 81 DANVILLE 109 32 45 41 DAVENPORT 351 5 63 68 DAYTON 951 13 78 80 DAYTONA BEACH 371 9 76 83 DECATURAL 132 11 71 70 DECATURIL 117 12 66 68 DENVER 1623 6 66 70 DES MOINES 393 4 67 73 DETROIT 4382 22 89 89 DOTHAN 131 21 53 63 DIJBlXJJE 86 0 60 60 DULUTH 240 1 65 68 EAUCLAIRE 138 0 66 66 ELPASO 592 4 50 49 ELKHART 156 5 71 75 ELMIRA 95 6 66 64 ENID 57 4 51 56 eE 276 5 69 70 8JGEfE 283 1 41 46 EVANSVILLE 279 6 66 70 FAFGgt 153 0 53 51 FAYETTEVILLE NC 275 32 41 43 FAYETTEVILLE AIlt 113 1 65 67 FLINT 430 20 84 87 FLORENCE AL 131 12 62 64 FlORENCE SC 114 39 60 65 FORT COLLINS 186 1 48 45 FORT LAUDERDALE 1255 15 73 86 FORTMVERS 335 7 81 89 FORT PIERCE 251 12 78 87 FORT SMITH 176 4 70 69 FORT WALTON BEAI 144 9 43 54 FORT WAYNE 364 8 76 77 FORT WORTH 1332 11 66 82 fREEK) 667 5 59 65 GADSDEN 100 14 78 80 GAINESVILLE 204 19 54 61 GALVESTON 217 18 65 75 GJR 605 19 91 90 GLENS FALLS 119 2 80 79

Metropolitan 1990 Size Percent Index of DissimilarItY Area (1000s) Black 1990 1980

GRAND FORKS 71 2 60 64 GRAND RAPIDS 688 6 74 78 GREAT FALLS 78 1 51 61 GREIEY 132 0 52 54 GREEN BAY 195 1 60 64 GIENSEOO 942 19 68 71 GREENVILLE 641 17 63 65 HAGERSTQIMI 121 6 73 77 HAMILTON 291 5 63 74 HARR5BlJR3 588 7 78 79 HARTFORD 1124 9 71 73 HCKCJ=tY 222 8 60 56 HONOLULU 836 3 44 46 HOUMA 183 15 64 67 HClJSTOO 3302 19 69 78 HUNTINGTOO 313 2 73 77 HUNTSVILLE 239 20 64 59 INDIANAPOUS 1250 14 80 83 OWACITY 96 2 38 40 JACKSONMI 150 8 74 78 JACKSONMS 395 42 75 75 JACKSON TN 78 31 66 67 JACKSONVILLE FL 907 20 65 75 JACKSONVILLE NC 150 20 31 36 JANESVILLE 140 5 72 74 JERSEY CITY 553 14 70 78 JOHNSON CITY 436 2 66 70 JOHNSTOWN 241 2 82 82 JOLIET 390 10 76 77 JOPLIN 135 1 64 68 KALAMAZOO 223 9 58 60 KANKAKEE 96 15 80 79 KANSAS CITY 1566 13 76 81 KENOSHA 128 4 68 68 KILLEEN 255 19 45 53 KNOXVILLE 605 6 68 70 KOKOMO 97 5 64 75 LACROSSE 98 0 54 53 LAFAYETIELA 209 25 60 62 LAFAYETTE IN 131 2 40 43 LAKE CHARLES 168 23 74 78 LAKE COUNTY 516 7 73 75 LAKELAND 405 13 72 79 LANCASTER 423 2 68 71 LANSING 433 7 60 60 LAREOO 133 0 54 60 LAS CRUCES 136 2 46 53 LAS VEGAS 741 10 51 64 LAWRENCE 82 4 41 38 LAWTON 111 18 37 43 LEWISTOO 105 0 45 54 LEXINGTOO 348 11 58 66 LIMA 154 8 71 71 LINCOLN 214 2 49 51 LITTLEROCK 513 20 68 70 LONGVIEW 162 22 58 64 LORAIN 271 8 62 66 LOS ANGELES 8863 1 1 71 80 LOUISVILLE 953 13 74 77 WB80CK 223 8 64 71

LYNCHBURG 142 21 49 54 MACON 281 35 60 63 MADISON 367 3 55 53 MANCHESTER 336 1 41 49 MANSAEID 126 8 71 74 MCAllEN 384 0 50 58 tJEDRR) 146 0 42 56 M8BlJRNE 399 8 62 78 ~ 982 41 76 76 tsreo 178 5 46 51 MIAMI 1937 21 75 81 M[)[)lESEX 1020 7 62 68 MIDLAND 107 8 67 84 MILWAUKEE 1432 14 84 85 MINNEAPOIIS 2464 4 65 70 MOBILE 477 27 74 77 MDESlO 371 2 45 56 tvDNMOUTH 986 6 71 75 PvDRE 142 31 76 77 ~RV 293 36 67 70 tJlJrCE 120 6 67 76 MUSIltEOOI 159 14 80 78 NAPLES 152 5 70 86 NASHVILLE 985 15 66 70 NASSAU 2609 7 79 80 rEN BEDFORD 506 2 53 58 NEW HAVEN 804 10 70 71 NEW LONDON 255 5 55 54 NEW ORlEANS 1239 35 74 76 NEWYOAK 8547 26 78 78 NEWARK 1824 23 83 84 NIAGARA FALLS 221 5 72 71 NORFOlK 1396 29 57 65 OAKLAND 2083 15 69 75 OCALA 195 13 61 70 ODESSA 119 5 55 75 OKLAHOMA CITY 959 11 65 75 OLYMPIA 161 2 48 38 OMAHA 618 8 72 76 ORANGE COUNTY 308 7 60 59 ORLANDO 1073 12 65 80 0NENSEkH) 87 4 63 71 OXNARD 669 2 47 55 PANAMACTY 127 11 60 73 PARKERSBUAG 149 1 52 56 PASCAGOULA 115 20 64 63 PENSACOLA 344 16 64 70 PECRA 339 7 74 73 PHILDElPHIA 4857 19 82 83 PHOENIX 2122 3 51 62 PNEBLUFF 85 43 68 73 PfTTSBURGH 2057 8 75 75 prrrSAELD 139 2 53 54 POFfTLAND ME 243 1 47 50 PORTLAND OR 1240 3 68 73 PORTSMlUTH 350 1 48 56 PClIGlaquoEEPSE 259 8 58 55 PRJV[)ENCE 916 4 69 76 PfOVO 264 0 57 63 PUEBlO 123 2 45 45

Metropolitan 1990 Size Percent Index of Dlssimllaritv Area (1000s) Black 1990 1980

RACINE 175 10 71 70 RALEIGH 735 25 57 62 RAPID CITY 81 2 47 53 READING 337 3 68 69 FEDDN3 147 1 49 49 FEN) 255 2 48 48 RICHLAND 150 2 52 53 RlCHMClIID 866 29 64 68 RIVERSIJE 2589 7 49 58 FDANClltE 224 12 72 75 RlCHESTEAMN 106 1 51 48 FOCHESTER NY 1002 9 70 70 AXKRR) 284 8 75 78 SACRAMENTO 1481 7 58 60 SAGINAW 399 10 84 86 ST CLOUD 191 0 61 62 ST JOSEPH 83 3 58 66 STLOUIS 2444 17 81 85 SALEM 278 1 49 51 SALINAS 356 6 60 68 SALT LAKE CITY 1072 1 55 59 SAN ANGELO 98 4 47 56 SAN ANTONIO 1302 7 57 65 SAN DIEGO 2498 6 59 63 SAN FRANCISCO 1604 8 65 68 SAN JOSE 1498 4 45 48 SANTABARBARA 370 3 47 45 SANTACRUZ 230 1 40 42 SANTA FE 117 1 37 43 SANTA ROSA 388 1 45 49 SARASOTA 278 4 80 90 SAVANNAH 243 36 71 75 SCRANTON 734 1 68 73 SEATTLE 1973 4 60 69 SHARON 121 5 73 73 SHEEOYGAN 104 0 70 77 SHERMAN 95 7 59 67 SHREVEPCRr 334 35 67 73 SIOUX CITY 115 2 63 68 SIOUX FALLS 124 1 47 46 SOUTH BEND 247 10 69 71 SPOKANE 361 1 47 50 SPRINGFIELD IL 190 8 71 70 SPRINGFELD tJO 241 2 59 62 SPRINGFIELD MA 603 6 70 74 STATE COLLEGE 124 2 56 56 STEUBENVILLE 143 4 67 70 STOCKTON 481 6 61 69 SYRACUSE 660 6 76 77 TACOMA 586 7 53 54 TALLAHASSEE 234 30 59 62 TAMPA 2068 9 74 82 TERRE HAUTE 131 5 64 69 TEXARKANA 120 22 61 60 TOLEDO 614 11 77 82 TOPEKA 161 8 58 57 TRENTON 326 19 76 77 TUCSJN 667 3 45 53 TULSA 709 8 69 81 TUSCALOOSA 151 26 59 59

1YLER 151 21 60 65 UTICA 317 4 72 68 VALLEJO 451 10 52 54 VANCOUVER 238 1 38 41 VICTORIA 74 7 45 49 VINELAND 138 17 59 54 VISALIA 312 1 59 64 WACO 189 16 62 72 WASHINGTON 3924 27 68 71 WATERlOO 147 6 73 79 WAUSAU 115 0 74 81 WEST PALM BEACH 864 12 78 87 WHEELNG 159 2 64 62 WICHITA 454 8 68 76 WICHITA FALLS 122 9 62 72 WIUAMSPORT 119 2 73 74 WILMINGTON DEL 579 15 64 68 WIlMINGTON NC 120 20 70 71 IfODSTER 710 2 58 61 YAKIMA 189 1 55 63 YeAlt 418 3 74 75 YOUNGSTOWN 493 11 79 81 VUBACITY 123 3 49 48

REFERENCES

Adams Carolyn sectUl 1991 Philadelphia Neighborhoods Division and a Conflict in a Post~

industrial City Philadelphia Temple University Press

Bean Frank D and Marta Tlenda 1987 The Hispanic Population of the United States New

York Russel Sage

Bickford A and Douglas Massey 1991 Segregation in the Second Ghetto Social Forces 69

1011-1036

Blossom Teresa David Everett and John Gallagher 1988 ~he Race for Money Detroit Free

emu (August)

Sobo Lawrence Howard Schuman and Charlotte Steeh 1986 Changing Racial Attitudes

toward Residential Integration In Housing Desegregation and Federal Poljcy edited by

John M Goering Chapel Hili NC University of North Carolina Press

BUQhanan vs Warley 1917 245 U S 60

Canot Robert 1974 American Odyssey New York Bantam Books

Capeci Dominic J Jr 1984 Race Relations in Wartime Detroit The Sojoumer Truth Housing

Controversy of 1942 Philadelphia Temple University Press

Chicago Commission on Race Relations 1922 The Negro in Chicago A Study of Race

Relations and a Race Riot Chicago University of Chicago Press

Committee on Civil Rights 1947 To Secure These Rights Washington DC U S Government

Printing Office

Corrigan vs Bucklev 1926 271 U S 323

Dedman W 1988 ~he Color of Money The Atlanta Joumal~onstHution (May 1-16)

Dent David J 1991 The New Black Suburbs The New York Times Magazine (June 14)

Denton Nancy A and Douglas S Massey 1989 Residential Segregation of Blacks Hispanics

and Asians by Socioeconomic Status and Generation Social Science Quarterly 69 797shy

Dodson Jack E 1960 Minority Group Housing in Two Texas Cities In Studies in Housing

and Minority GrouPS edited by Nathan Glazer and Davis McEntire Berkeley CA

University of Califomia Press

Duncan Otis Dudley and Beverly Duncan 1955 A Methodological Analysis of Segregation

Indexes American Sociological Review 20 210-217 (April)

Farley Reynolds 1975 Population Trends and School Segregation in the DetrOit area

Wayne law Review 21(3) 867-902 (March)

Farley Reynolds Howard Schuman Suzanne Bianchi Diane Colasanto and Shirley Hatchett

1978 Chocolate City Vanilla Suburbs Will the Trend toward Racially Separate

Communities Continue SOCial Science Research 7 319-344 (December)

Feins Judith D and Rachel G Bratt 1983 Barred in Boston Racial Discrimination in

Housing APA Joumal (Summer) 344-355

Fitzgerald Frances 1981 Cities on a Hill New Vork Simon and Schuster

Frey William H 1979 Central City White Flight Racial and Nonracial Causes American

Sociological Review 44 (June) 425-448

___ 1980a Black In-Migration White Flight and the Changing Economic Base of the

Central City American Joumal of Sociology 85(6) (March) 1396-1417

___ 1980b Status Selective White Flight and Central City Population Change Joumal

of Regional Science 20(1) 71-89

___ 1984 lifecourse Migration of Metropolitan Whites and Blacks and the Structure of

Demographic Change in large Central Cities American Sociological Review 49

(December) 803-827

Friedman L M 1967 Govemment and Slum Housing Some General Considerations Jm

and Contemporary Society 32 357-370

Galster George 1988 Assessing the Causes of Racial Segregation A Methodological

Critique Journal of Urban Affairs 10(4) 395-407

Garreau Joel 1991 Edge City LKe on the New Frontier New York Doubleday

Gatewood Willard B 1990 Aristocrats of Color The Black EIRe - 1880-1920 Bloomington IN

Indiana Universfty Press

GOOd 1989 Orvie The Dictator of Dearbom the Rise and Reign of Orville L Hubbard

Detroit Wayne State University Press

Gray Robert and Steven Tursky 1986 Location and RaciaVethnc Occupancy Patterns for

HUD-Subsidized Family Housing in Ten Metropolitan Areas In Housing pesegregation and

Federal Policy edited by John M Goering Chapel Hili NC Universfty of North Carolina

Green Constance Mclaughlin 1967 The Secret City A History of Race Relations in the

Nations Caojtol Princeton NJ Princeton Universfty Press

Havens VI Coleman 1982

Hills vs Gatreaux 1976 425 U S 284

Hirsch Arnold R 1983 Making the Second Ghetto Race amp Housina in Chicago 1940-1960

Chicago University of Chicago Press

Jackson Kenneth 1985 Crabgrass Frontier The Suburbanization of the United States New

York Oxford Universfty Press

Jakubs John F 1979 A Consistent Conceptual Definition of the Index of Dissimilarity

Geographical Analysis 11 (3) (July) 315-321

___ 1986 Recent Racial Segregation in U S SMSAs Urban Geograohy 7(2) 146-163

James David R and Karl E Taeuber 1985 Measures of Segregation Pp 1-32 In

sectoclolooical Methodology edited by Nancy B Tuma San Francisco Jossey-Bass

Jones vs Alfred H Maver Co 1968 392 U S 409

Kafn John F and John M Quigley 1975 Housing Markets and Racial Discrimination A

Microeconomic Analysis New York National Bureau of Economic Research

Kushner James A 1992 Federal Enforcement and Judicial Review of the Fair Housing

Amendments Act of 1988 Paper presented at the Fannie Mae Annual Housing

Conference Washington DC May 19

Kusmer Kenneth L 1976 A Ghetto Takes Shape Black Cleveland 1870-1930 UrbanaIL

University of Illinois Press

Lamb Charles M 1984 Equal Housing Opportunity In Implementation of CMI Rights PoliCY

edited by Charles S Bullock 11 and Charles M Lamb Monterey CA BrooksCole

Publishing

___ 1992 Fair Housing Implementation from Nixon to Reagan Madison WI The

Robert M LaFollette Institute for PubliC Affairs Working Paper 11 (June)

Langberg Mark and Reynolds Farley 1985 Residential Segregation of Asian Americans in

1980 sectociology and sectocial Research 70(1) 71-75

Leahy Peter J 1985 Are RaCial Fadors Important for the Allocation of Mortgage Money

American Journal of Economics and Sociology 44(2) 185-196

Lemann Nicholas 1991 The Promised Land The Great Black Migration and How It Changed

America New York Alfred A Knopf

Levine David Allan 1976 Internal Combustion degrhe Races in Detroit 1915-1926 Westport

CT Greenwood Press

Lieberson Stanley 1963 Ethnic Patterns in American Cities New York Free Press

Lieberson Stanley 1981 -An Asymmetrical Approach to Segregation In Ethnic Segregation in

~ edited by C Peach V Robinson and S Smith London Croom Helm

Lief Beth J and Susan Goering 1987 The Implementation of the Federal Mandate for Fair

Housing In Divided Neighborhoods Changing Patterns of Racial Segregation edited by

Gary A Tobin Newbury Park CA Sage Publications Urban Affairs Annual Review 32

Marshall Harvey and Robert Jiobu 1975 Residential Segregation in United States Cities A

Causal Analysis Social Forces 53(3) (March) 449-460

Massey Douglas S 1979a Effects of Socioeconomic Factors on the Residential Segregation

of Blacks and Spanish Americans in U S Urbanized Areas American Socjological

Review 44 1015-1022

___ 1979b -Residential Segregation of Spanish Americans in the United States Urbanized

Areas- Demographv 16 553-564

___ 1981a -Social Class and Ethnic Segregation A Reconsideration of Methods and

Conclusions American Sociological Review 46 641-650

___ 1981b Hispanic Residential Segregation A Comparison of Mexicans Cubans and

Puerto Ricans SOCiology and Social Research 65 311-322

___ 1990 American Apartheid Segregation and the Making of the Underclass

American Journal of Sociology 96(2) (September) 329-357

Massey Douglas S and Brooks Bitterman 1985 Explaining the Paradox of Puerto Rican

Segregation Social Forces 64 306-331

Massey Douglas S and Nancy A Denton 1987 Trends in the Residential Segregation of

Blacks Hispanics and Asians American Socioioglcal Review 52 802-825

___ 1988 The Dimensions of Residential Segregation Social Forces 67 (December)

281-315

Massey Douglas S and Andrew B Gross 1991 Explaining Trends in Racial Segregation

1970-1980 Urban Affairs Quarterly 27(1) 13-35 (September)

McEntire Davis 1960 Residence and Race Berkeley CA University of California Press

National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders 1968 Report of the National Advisory

CommiSSion on Civil Disorders New York Bantam Books

National Opinion Research Center 1942 White Attitudes Toward Negroes Denver University

of Denver (July 21) (The National Opinion Research Center is not located at the University

of Chicago)

___ 1990 General Social Surveys 1972 and 1990 Cumulative Codebook Distributed by

the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research Storrs CT University of Connecticut

Pol Louis G Rebecca F Guy and Andrew J Bush 1982 Discrimination in the Home Lending

Market A Macro Perspective Social Science Quarterly 63(4) (December) 716-728

Rabinowitz Howard N 1978 Race Relations in the Urban Soyth 1865-1890 New York

Oxford University Press

Robinson Carla J 1992 Racial Disparity in the Atlanta Housing Market In The Hoyslng

Status of Black Americans edited by Wilhelmina A Leigh and James B Stewart New

Brunswick NJ Transaction Publishers

Rosenbaum James E 1992 The Education and Employment of Low-Income Black Youth in

White Suburbs Evanston IL Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research (Unpublished

report)

Rosenbaum James E and Susan J Popkin 1991 Employment and Earnings of Low-income

Blacks Who Move to Middle-Class Suburbs In The Urban Underclass edited by

Christopher Jencks and Paul E Peterson Washington DC The Brookings Institution

Rudwick Elliot 1966 Race Riot in East St Louis July 21917 Cleveland World Publishing

Sallman Juliet 1978 Open Housing pvnamics of a Social Moyement New YorK Praeger

___ 1990 A Fraoile Movement The Struggle for Neighborhood Stabilization New YorK

Greenwood Press

SChuman Howard and Barry Gruenberg 1970 The Impact of City on Racial Attitudes

American Journal of Sociology 76(2) (September) 213middot261

Schuman Howard Charlotte Steeh and Lawrence Bobo 1985 Racial Attitydes In America

Trends and INemretations Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Shelley vs Kraemer 1948 344 U S 1

Shlay Anne B 1988 -Not in That Neighborhood The Effects of Population and Housing on

the Distribution of Mortgage Anance within the Chicago SMSA sectocjal Scjence

Research 17 137-163

Slmkus Albert A 1978 Residential Segregation by Occupation and Race in Ten Urbanized

Areas 1950middot1970 American Sociological Review 43 81middot93

Smith Richard A 1989 The Effects of Local Fair Housing Ordinances on Housing

Segregation American Joumal of Economies and SOCiOlogy 48(2) (April)~ 219middot230

Spear Allan H 1967 alack Chicago The Making of a Negro Ghetto 1890-1920 Chicago

University of Chicago Press

Squires Gregory D Larry Bennett Kathleen McCourt and Philip Nyden 1987 Chicago Race

Class and the Response to Urban Decline Philadelphia Temple University Press

Stucker Jennifer L 1986 Race and ReSidential Mobility the Effects of Housing Assistance

Programs on Household Behavior In Hoysing pesegregation and Federal Policy edited by

john M Goering Chapel Hill NC University of North Carolina Press

Taeuber Karl E 1965 The Effect of Income Redistribution on RaCial ResideNial Segregation

Urban Affairs Quarterly 4 5-14 (September)

Taeuber Karl E and Alma F Taeuber 1965 Negroes in Cnies ReSidential Segregation and

Neighborhood Change Chicago Aldine

Taggart Harriett Tee and Kevin W Smith 1981 Redlining An Assessment of the Evidence of

Disinvestment in Metropolitan Boston Urban Affairs Ouarterlv 17(1) (September) 91-107

Thomas Richard W 1992 Life for Us is What We Make It Building Black Community in

Detron 1915-1945 Bloomington IN Indiana University Press

Thompson Robert A Hylan Lewis and Davis McEntire 1960 Atlanta and Birmingham A

Comparative Study in Negro Housing In Studies in Housing and Minority Groups edited by

Nathan Glazer and Davis McEntire Berkeley CA University of Califomia Press

Turner Margery Austin Raymond L Stryk and John Yinger 1991 Housing Discrimination

Studyj Synthesis Washington DC U S Department of Housing and Urban Development

U S Bureau of the Census 1943 Sixteenth Census of the United States 1940 Housing

Vol II Part 1

___ 1972 Public use Samples of Basic Records from the 1970 Census

___ 1975 Historical StatistiCS of the Unijed States Colonial Times to 197Q Part 2

___ 1982 Census of Population 1940 Public Use Microdata Sample

U S Bureau of the Census 1989 Current Population Survey 1988 Public Use Microdata

Sample

___ 1991a Current Population Reports Series P-60 No 174

____ 1991b Statistical Abstract of the United States 1991

___ 1992 Census of Population and Housing 1990 1190 CPH-1-1

U S vs City of Parma 1981 494 F Supp 1049

U S vs Mitchell 1971 335 F Supp 1004

Vose Clement E 1959 Caucasians Only The Supreme Court the NAACP and the Restrictive

Covenant Cases Berkeley CA University of California Press

White Michael J 1986 American Neighborhoods and Residentjal Differentiation New York

Russell Sage

Wienk Ronald E Clifford E Reid John C Simonson and Frederick J Eggers 1979

Measurlna Racial DiSCrimination in American Housing Markets The Housina Market

Practices Survey Washington DC Department of Housing and Urban Development Office

of Policy Development and Research

Wilger Robert 1988 Black-White Residential Searegatjon in 1980 PhD Dissertation

University of Michigan Department of Sociology

Wineberg Morton D 1983 Changing Dlstnbutlon of the Black Population Florida Cities

1970middot1980 Urban Affairs Quarterly 18(3) 361-370 (March)

Zoloth Barbara S 1976 Ahemative Measures of School Segregation Land EconomicS 52

278-298

Zuch vs Hussey 1975 394 F Supp 1028

Zunz Oliver 1982 The Changing Face of Inequaljty Urbanlzatjon Industrial Develooment and

Immigrants In Detroit 1880-1920 Chicago University of Chicago Pressbull

scan0001

R-1992-10_ChangesSegregationpdf

Changes in the Segregation of Whites from BlacksDuring the 1980s Small Steps toward a More Racially Integrated Society

No 92-257

Research ReportSeptember 1992

Reynolds Farley is Professor of Sociology and Faculty Associate at the University of Michigan PopulationStudies Center Ann Arbor Michigan

William H Frey is Research Scientist and Associate Director for Training at the University of MichiganPopulation Studies Center Ann Arbor Michigan

INTRODUCTION

Dodson 1960 p 107)

1968 p 22)

Item 127B)

1985 Table 33)

the Census 1972 1982 1989)

National Patterns

[Figure 1]

[Table 1]

I 19BO

1980 o 1990 o

Houston

[Table 2)

Regions

NORTHEAST

MIDWEST

[Figure 2]

federal government

goods communities)

REGIONS

TYPEOF METROPOUS

tNmiddot

SOUTHI 0GYEfNIN1

(Na11~ tN-

lNVERSItY tNdtWEST

lo 010 10 io 30 lt10 Go eo 70 amp0 ~

SEGREGAlCH SCORS

dimension

centers

of residence

occupations

[Figure 3]

boom which followed

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

INTRODUCTION

Dodson 1960 p 107)

1968 p 22)

Item 127B)

1985 Table 33)

the Census 1972 1982 1989)

National Patterns

[Figure 1]

[Table 1]

I 19BO

1980 o 1990 o

Houston

[Table 2)

Regions

NORTHEAST

MIDWEST

[Figure 2]

federal government

goods communities)

REGIONS

TYPEOF METROPOUS

tNmiddot

SOUTHI 0GYEfNIN1

(Na11~ tN-

lNVERSItY tNdtWEST

lo 010 10 io 30 lt10 Go eo 70 amp0 ~

SEGREGAlCH SCORS

dimension

centers

of residence

occupations

[Figure 3]

boom which followed

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

Dodson 1960 p 107)

1968 p 22)

Item 127B)

1985 Table 33)

the Census 1972 1982 1989)

National Patterns

[Figure 1]

[Table 1]

I 19BO

1980 o 1990 o

Houston

[Table 2)

Regions

NORTHEAST

MIDWEST

[Figure 2]

federal government

goods communities)

REGIONS

TYPEOF METROPOUS

tNmiddot

SOUTHI 0GYEfNIN1

(Na11~ tN-

lNVERSItY tNdtWEST

lo 010 10 io 30 lt10 Go eo 70 amp0 ~

SEGREGAlCH SCORS

dimension

centers

of residence

occupations

[Figure 3]

boom which followed

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

Dodson 1960 p 107)

1968 p 22)

Item 127B)

1985 Table 33)

the Census 1972 1982 1989)

National Patterns

[Figure 1]

[Table 1]

I 19BO

1980 o 1990 o

Houston

[Table 2)

Regions

NORTHEAST

MIDWEST

[Figure 2]

federal government

goods communities)

REGIONS

TYPEOF METROPOUS

tNmiddot

SOUTHI 0GYEfNIN1

(Na11~ tN-

lNVERSItY tNdtWEST

lo 010 10 io 30 lt10 Go eo 70 amp0 ~

SEGREGAlCH SCORS

dimension

centers

of residence

occupations

[Figure 3]

boom which followed

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

Dodson 1960 p 107)

1968 p 22)

Item 127B)

1985 Table 33)

the Census 1972 1982 1989)

National Patterns

[Figure 1]

[Table 1]

I 19BO

1980 o 1990 o

Houston

[Table 2)

Regions

NORTHEAST

MIDWEST

[Figure 2]

federal government

goods communities)

REGIONS

TYPEOF METROPOUS

tNmiddot

SOUTHI 0GYEfNIN1

(Na11~ tN-

lNVERSItY tNdtWEST

lo 010 10 io 30 lt10 Go eo 70 amp0 ~

SEGREGAlCH SCORS

dimension

centers

of residence

occupations

[Figure 3]

boom which followed

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

1968 p 22)

Item 127B)

1985 Table 33)

the Census 1972 1982 1989)

National Patterns

[Figure 1]

[Table 1]

I 19BO

1980 o 1990 o

Houston

[Table 2)

Regions

NORTHEAST

MIDWEST

[Figure 2]

federal government

goods communities)

REGIONS

TYPEOF METROPOUS

tNmiddot

SOUTHI 0GYEfNIN1

(Na11~ tN-

lNVERSItY tNdtWEST

lo 010 10 io 30 lt10 Go eo 70 amp0 ~

SEGREGAlCH SCORS

dimension

centers

of residence

occupations

[Figure 3]

boom which followed

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

Item 127B)

1985 Table 33)

the Census 1972 1982 1989)

National Patterns

[Figure 1]

[Table 1]

I 19BO

1980 o 1990 o

Houston

[Table 2)

Regions

NORTHEAST

MIDWEST

[Figure 2]

federal government

goods communities)

REGIONS

TYPEOF METROPOUS

tNmiddot

SOUTHI 0GYEfNIN1

(Na11~ tN-

lNVERSItY tNdtWEST

lo 010 10 io 30 lt10 Go eo 70 amp0 ~

SEGREGAlCH SCORS

dimension

centers

of residence

occupations

[Figure 3]

boom which followed

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

Item 127B)

1985 Table 33)

the Census 1972 1982 1989)

National Patterns

[Figure 1]

[Table 1]

I 19BO

1980 o 1990 o

Houston

[Table 2)

Regions

NORTHEAST

MIDWEST

[Figure 2]

federal government

goods communities)

REGIONS

TYPEOF METROPOUS

tNmiddot

SOUTHI 0GYEfNIN1

(Na11~ tN-

lNVERSItY tNdtWEST

lo 010 10 io 30 lt10 Go eo 70 amp0 ~

SEGREGAlCH SCORS

dimension

centers

of residence

occupations

[Figure 3]

boom which followed

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

the Census 1972 1982 1989)

National Patterns

[Figure 1]

[Table 1]

I 19BO

1980 o 1990 o

Houston

[Table 2)

Regions

NORTHEAST

MIDWEST

[Figure 2]

federal government

goods communities)

REGIONS

TYPEOF METROPOUS

tNmiddot

SOUTHI 0GYEfNIN1

(Na11~ tN-

lNVERSItY tNdtWEST

lo 010 10 io 30 lt10 Go eo 70 amp0 ~

SEGREGAlCH SCORS

dimension

centers

of residence

occupations

[Figure 3]

boom which followed

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

the Census 1972 1982 1989)

National Patterns

[Figure 1]

[Table 1]

I 19BO

1980 o 1990 o

Houston

[Table 2)

Regions

NORTHEAST

MIDWEST

[Figure 2]

federal government

goods communities)

REGIONS

TYPEOF METROPOUS

tNmiddot

SOUTHI 0GYEfNIN1

(Na11~ tN-

lNVERSItY tNdtWEST

lo 010 10 io 30 lt10 Go eo 70 amp0 ~

SEGREGAlCH SCORS

dimension

centers

of residence

occupations

[Figure 3]

boom which followed

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

the Census 1972 1982 1989)

National Patterns

[Figure 1]

[Table 1]

I 19BO

1980 o 1990 o

Houston

[Table 2)

Regions

NORTHEAST

MIDWEST

[Figure 2]

federal government

goods communities)

REGIONS

TYPEOF METROPOUS

tNmiddot

SOUTHI 0GYEfNIN1

(Na11~ tN-

lNVERSItY tNdtWEST

lo 010 10 io 30 lt10 Go eo 70 amp0 ~

SEGREGAlCH SCORS

dimension

centers

of residence

occupations

[Figure 3]

boom which followed

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

National Patterns

[Figure 1]

[Table 1]

I 19BO

1980 o 1990 o

Houston

[Table 2)

Regions

NORTHEAST

MIDWEST

[Figure 2]

federal government

goods communities)

REGIONS

TYPEOF METROPOUS

tNmiddot

SOUTHI 0GYEfNIN1

(Na11~ tN-

lNVERSItY tNdtWEST

lo 010 10 io 30 lt10 Go eo 70 amp0 ~

SEGREGAlCH SCORS

dimension

centers

of residence

occupations

[Figure 3]

boom which followed

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

National Patterns

[Figure 1]

[Table 1]

I 19BO

1980 o 1990 o

Houston

[Table 2)

Regions

NORTHEAST

MIDWEST

[Figure 2]

federal government

goods communities)

REGIONS

TYPEOF METROPOUS

tNmiddot

SOUTHI 0GYEfNIN1

(Na11~ tN-

lNVERSItY tNdtWEST

lo 010 10 io 30 lt10 Go eo 70 amp0 ~

SEGREGAlCH SCORS

dimension

centers

of residence

occupations

[Figure 3]

boom which followed

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

National Patterns

[Figure 1]

[Table 1]

I 19BO

1980 o 1990 o

Houston

[Table 2)

Regions

NORTHEAST

MIDWEST

[Figure 2]

federal government

goods communities)

REGIONS

TYPEOF METROPOUS

tNmiddot

SOUTHI 0GYEfNIN1

(Na11~ tN-

lNVERSItY tNdtWEST

lo 010 10 io 30 lt10 Go eo 70 amp0 ~

SEGREGAlCH SCORS

dimension

centers

of residence

occupations

[Figure 3]

boom which followed

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

I 19BO

1980 o 1990 o

Houston

[Table 2)

Regions

NORTHEAST

MIDWEST

[Figure 2]

federal government

goods communities)

REGIONS

TYPEOF METROPOUS

tNmiddot

SOUTHI 0GYEfNIN1

(Na11~ tN-

lNVERSItY tNdtWEST

lo 010 10 io 30 lt10 Go eo 70 amp0 ~

SEGREGAlCH SCORS

dimension

centers

of residence

occupations

[Figure 3]

boom which followed

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

1980 o 1990 o

Houston

[Table 2)

Regions

NORTHEAST

MIDWEST

[Figure 2]

federal government

goods communities)

REGIONS

TYPEOF METROPOUS

tNmiddot

SOUTHI 0GYEfNIN1

(Na11~ tN-

lNVERSItY tNdtWEST

lo 010 10 io 30 lt10 Go eo 70 amp0 ~

SEGREGAlCH SCORS

dimension

centers

of residence

occupations

[Figure 3]

boom which followed

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

Houston

[Table 2)

Regions

NORTHEAST

MIDWEST

[Figure 2]

federal government

goods communities)

REGIONS

TYPEOF METROPOUS

tNmiddot

SOUTHI 0GYEfNIN1

(Na11~ tN-

lNVERSItY tNdtWEST

lo 010 10 io 30 lt10 Go eo 70 amp0 ~

SEGREGAlCH SCORS

dimension

centers

of residence

occupations

[Figure 3]

boom which followed

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

NORTHEAST

MIDWEST

[Figure 2]

federal government

goods communities)

REGIONS

TYPEOF METROPOUS

tNmiddot

SOUTHI 0GYEfNIN1

(Na11~ tN-

lNVERSItY tNdtWEST

lo 010 10 io 30 lt10 Go eo 70 amp0 ~

SEGREGAlCH SCORS

dimension

centers

of residence

occupations

[Figure 3]

boom which followed

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

[Figure 2]

federal government

goods communities)

REGIONS

TYPEOF METROPOUS

tNmiddot

SOUTHI 0GYEfNIN1

(Na11~ tN-

lNVERSItY tNdtWEST

lo 010 10 io 30 lt10 Go eo 70 amp0 ~

SEGREGAlCH SCORS

dimension

centers

of residence

occupations

[Figure 3]

boom which followed

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

REGIONS

TYPEOF METROPOUS

tNmiddot

SOUTHI 0GYEfNIN1

(Na11~ tN-

lNVERSItY tNdtWEST

lo 010 10 io 30 lt10 Go eo 70 amp0 ~

SEGREGAlCH SCORS

dimension

centers

of residence

occupations

[Figure 3]

boom which followed

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

dimension

centers

of residence

occupations

[Figure 3]

boom which followed

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

occupations

[Figure 3]

boom which followed

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

[Figure 3]

boom which followed

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

BeFORE 1890 (N-29)

189000190(1I tN-27)

1910001920I (N 40)

1830001amp40I (N-24)

19500019110I (N40)

PERCSIT CIiWlE

-O 40 0 10 20 ao io io eo 70 eo

SEIlRSlATICIfSOOAES

241ORMORI (NooA)

14110240 tNmiddotA)

tNmiddot57)

PEACeNI

middot

middot middot

io middot10

SEQREGATICIf SCORES

10 20 ao io so co 70 80 IQ

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

segregation

[Table 3]

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOLlS8

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

487 53

+459 24 +741 45 -480 -24

+1080 51 +352 22

-61 -3 -240 -13 -893 -45 -974 -57

174 9 -02 -0 -55 -3

-321 -19

-14 -31

270 40 14 23

SAMPLE SIZE 232

129 134 656

11 93 81

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

were for whites

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

dominate

points higher

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

[Table 4]

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

Value of t Mean

Standard Deviation

INTERCEPT

REGION8

AGE OF METROPOlIS8

ADJUSTED R-SQUARED

SAMPLE SIZE

+55 +45 +25

+31 +04 +16 +20 +08 -34

-16 -13 -17 -20

+01 +06 +06

41 40 19

20 04 13 16 06

-11 -11 -14 -17

03 18 65

128 16 61

10 14 43

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

suburban ring

Tables 537 and 538)

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

2 percent

CONCLUSION

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

glacierologist

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

[Figure 4)

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

blacks

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

FOOTNOTES

(N =23)

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

REFERENCES

York Russel Sage

1011-1036

emu (August)

Printing Office

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

(December) 803-827

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

Publishing

CT Greenwood Press

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

Review 44 1015-1022

281-315

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

of Chicago)

report)

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

Greenwood Press

Research 17 137-163

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

Vol II Part 1

Sample

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

Russell Sage

278-298

scan0001

Documents

Population Studies Center - William H. Frey · 2017-06-22 · Reynolds Farley William H. Frey Changes in the Segregation of Whites from Blacks During the 1980s: Small Steps toward