CITY VARIATION IN THE
A 2006 Policy Brief for the
Honorable Sheldon Silver, Speaker |
||||||||
|
New York State Assembly Puerto Rican/Hispanic Task Force |
|
|
|
EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBERS Hon. Carmen Arroyo Hon. Jose Rivera Hon. Luis M. Diaz Hon. Felix Ortiz Hon. Adam Clayton Powell, IV Hon. Adriano Espaillat Hon. Jose Peralta Hon. Philip R. Ramos Hon. Naomi Rivera |
TASK FORCE STAFF Daniel Figueroa III, Executive Director Guillermo A. Martinez, Legislative Director Anton A. Konev, Senior Legislative Assistant |
PUBLICATION PRODUCTION STAFF Guillermo A. Martinez Anton A. Konev |
|
TASK FORCE MEMBERS |
|
Hon. Jeffrion L. Aubry | Hon. Rory I. Lancman |
Hon. Micheal R. Benedetto | Hon. Ivan C. Lafayette |
Hon. Michael Benjamin | Hon. John W. Lavelle |
Hon. William F. Boyland, Jr. | Hon. Joseph R. Lentol |
Hon. James F. Brennan | Hon. Margaret M. Markey |
Hon. Alec Brook-Krasny | Hon. Nettie Mayersohn |
Hon. Vivian E. Cook | Hon. Joan L. Millman |
Hon. Jeffrey Dinowitz | Hon. Catherine T. Nolan |
Hon. Herman D. Farrell, Jr. | Hon. Daniel J. O’Donnell |
Hon. Sandra R. Galef | Hon. Amy Paulin |
Hon. Michael N. Gianaris | Hon. Audrey I. Pheffer |
Hon. Aurelia Greene | Hon. James Gary Pretlow |
Hon. Diane Gordon | Hon. William Scarborough |
Hon. Richard N. Gottfried | Hon. Anthony S. Seminerio |
Hon. Aileen Gunther | Hon. Michele Titus |
Hon. Carl Heastie | Hon. Darryl C. Towns |
Hon. Sam Hoyt | Hon. Mark Weprin |
Hon. Rhoda S. Jacobs | Hon. Keith L. Wright |
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries | Hon. Kenneth P. Zebrowski |
Hon. Brian P. Kavanagh |
New York Latino Research and Resources Network
CITY VARIATION IN THE SOCIOECONOMIC
Christine E. Bose
Final Report |
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY: The data in this report indicate that the Latino population dispersion across New York State can, but does not necessarily, result in good socioeconomic outcomes. The highest incomes and lowest unemployment rates are found among Latinos in Nassau County, while their neighbors in New York City fare poorly. Similarly, residence in Albany is associated with higher education, a large managerial-professional work force, and among the highest incomes for Latinos in the state, although unemployment rates are high and state agencies generally employ low rates of Latinos. In contrast, the residents of Western New York are not doing as well as those living elsewhere-but there is also tremendous variation and some groups, such as Central and South Americans, seem to have found good economic niches in those cities. This report also shows that the employment and income benefits of changing labor markets do not affect men and women or immigrants and U.S. born Latinos in the same way. RECOMMENDATIONS: Since moving to a better labor market is not always an option, state or city resources should be mobilized to improve Latino capacity and opportunities in the locations where they live now. The considerable poverty among Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Dominicans in western New York is undoubtedly related to their high unemployment rates upstate-especially among Puerto Ricans in Buffalo, Mexicans in Rochester, and Dominicans in Albany, Buffalo, and Syracuse. Creating jobs in these cities or retraining Latinos for the jobs that already exist there could be extremely beneficial. In addition, the low rates of higher education among these three groups are undoubtedly related to the high rates of poverty they experience in New York City and western New York. High school retention programs and college scholarships aimed at these Latino groups, among other programs, could increase their average education and occupational opportunities. If these things occurred, Latinos would not need to migrate to other cities in order to get ahead.
New York Latino Research and Resources Network
CITY VARIATION IN THE SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS OF LATINOS
Christine E. Bose During the 1980s, two important geographic changes occurred in the lives of Puerto Ricans living in the United States. According to Rivera-Batiz and Santiago (1994), these were a dispersion outside of New York City and a shift to living in smaller cities---changes in geographic location, that by 1990, were associated with an overall improvement in the socioeconomic status of U.S. Puerto Ricans. Since then, Acosta-Belén and Santiago (2006), Angelo Falcón (2004), and others have examined the socioeconomic impact of the continued Puerto Rican geographic dispersion over a broad range of states and cities within them, making use of updated Census and Current Population Survey data from 2000 to 2003. This report narrows the geographic center of attention to New York State, but simultaneously expands its focus to the socioeconomic consequences of geographic dispersion for multiple Latino groups, using Census data from the year 2000 (Source: Integrated Public Use Micro-data Series or IPUMS). The Tables and Figures here compare outcomes for Latinos living in New York City with those on Long Island (Nassau County) and in the upstate cities of Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo; and they incorporate Puerto Ricans as well as the four other largest Latino nationality groups in the state-Dominicans, Cubans, Mexicans, and Central/South Americans-along with data on non-Hispanic whites for a comparison group. Because this report uses Census data, there is some undercount of groups with significant portions of undocumented individuals, such as Mexicans. In those cases, it is possible that the group's economic situation may appear better than it is in each city, because the poorest members will be those who remained uncounted. Nonetheless, it is possible to compare the same group's economic outcomes across various cities and, for most groups, there are some consistent positive effects of living in Nassau County or in Albany rather than in New York City, but a more mixed picture for those living in Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo. Migration and Dispersion: Where Do Latinos Live in New York State? As in the past, Puerto Ricans remain, numerically, the largest Latino group both in New York State and in most of the six metropolitan areas under consideration, with the exception of Nassau County (Long Island) where Central and South Americans predominate (Appendix Table 1). In fact, Rochester and Buffalo are the cities with the 13th and 21st largest concentrations of Puerto Ricans nationally (Acosta-Belén and Santiago 2006). Another way to look at dispersion is through the proportional representation of each Latino group in each city (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Each Group as a Percent of City Populations If all Latino groups were evenly dispersed around the state, then their representation in each urban area would be the same as their percentage statewide. As Figure 1 shows, despite significant migration outside of New York City, every Latino group is still over-represented in New York City and underrepresented in other cities (except Central and South Americans, who are over-represented in Nassau County). Of course, this means that the opposite is true of non-Hispanic whites who are under-represented in New York City and over-represented elsewhere. This report takes two approaches to evaluating whether or not the geographic dispersion of Latinos away from New York City has been associated with improved economic conditions. In the first section, the report considers the "upside" of dispersion by using three indicators of achievement for each national origin group in each metropolitan area, including the percent who are college graduates, the percent who hold managerial or professional jobs, and the median household or average per capita income. The second section examines the "downside" of geographic mobility using three measures of the drawbacks or challenges for each group in each metropolitan area, including the percent unemployed, the percent living below the poverty level, and the percent of households that are women-headed. The charts used in these two sections illustrate the aggregate, or overall, picture for each Latino group in each city. The tables at the end of the report, in the Appendix, have this same information, but also show the outcomes for men and women separately. We begin on a positive note with the indicators of socioeconomic success and any advantages to considering a move to living outside of New York City. Indicators of Socioeconomic Success: Education, Good Jobs, and Income Education: Figure 2 presents data on educational success as measured by the percentage of each Latino group who hold Bachelor's degrees. In New York State, Cuban rates of college graduation are similar to those of non-Hispanic whites, but the other Latino groups have low statewide rates of college graduation, ranging between six percent of Dominicans and nine percent of Puerto Ricans holding BAs.
Figure 2: Percent College Graduates for Specific Metropolitan Areas Considering each Latino group separately, the figure shows that residence in different metropolitan areas makes the rates of college-educated adults vary by as much as 18 percent between the city with the lowest percent of Bachelor's degree (BA) holders and the city with the highest percent. For example, among Mexicans, about 5 percent of those residing in New York City have BAs, in contrast to over 21 percent in Albany-a more than 16 percent range across the state. Indeed, Albany tends to attract college-educated Mexicans, Dominicans, and Central/South Americans-each group has more BA-holders in this city than statewide, perhaps because of the education requirements of a city dominated by state employment. In contrast, Syracuse does not attract BA-holders: Except for Central-South Americans, most Latino groups there have considerably fewer BAs here than they do statewide. Meanwhile, Buffalo and Rochester are mixed-two Latino groups have more BAs than average and three groups have fewer BA's than average in these cities. Nationally, only 12.1 percent of the Hispanic origin population has a BA or higher degree (CPS, March 2004, Table 6.1 a, b, c), and Latinas (12.3%) are more likely than Latino men (11.8%) to hold BAs. In general, New York State Latinos follow this pattern, since more Puerto Rican, Mexican, and Central or South American women than men hold Bachelor's degrees. However, at the statewide level, there is little male-female difference within the Cuban and Dominican national origin groups (Appendix Table 2). Good Jobs: The next measure of success is employment in managerial and professional work. Figure 3 shows that, statewide, Cuban rates of employment in these jobs are similar to those of non-Hispanic whites; but Puerto Ricans and Central or South Americans have the second highest rates at 10 to 11 percent; and Mexicans and Dominicans have the lowest rates of managerial-professional employment at 7 or 8 percent.
Figure 3: Percent in Managerial-Professional Jobs for Specific Metropolitan Areas Once again, metropolitan area has a large impact on the percentage of each Latino group that holds these desirable jobs. Both Dominicans and Puerto Ricans experience little geographic variation in managerial jobs-with a low of about 7 percent in some cities and highs between 12 and 18 percent in others. But in general, the groups vary widely in the cities where they are most successful, due to different migration patterns and different forms of urban occupational segregation or job niches. Puerto Ricans are the only Latino group to have their highest rates of managers and professionals in Nassau County (12.3%), although Cubans also exhibit high rates there too (22.8%). Dominicans are the only group to have their highest rates of managerial employment in Buffalo (15.8%), but there are relatively few Dominicans in Buffalo. Other Latino groups most frequently hold managerial-professional jobs in central upstate New York. Mexicans do quite well in Albany and Syracuse, with 25 and 22 percent, respectively, holding managerial jobs in those cities, yet they hold relatively few such posts in New York City or Nassau County (about 7 percent). Cubans do best in Albany and Rochester with fully 33 and 24 percent in managerial jobs in those cities, respectively. And, Central-South Americans also do well in Rochester, where 28 percent hold managerial-professional jobs, but they also hold a significant number of managerial jobs in Albany and Syracuse (about 22 percent in each city). At the national level, the Census Current Population Survey for March 2002 (PGP-5) reports that a greater percentage of Hispanic origin women (18.1%) than Hispanic origin men (11.3%) hold managerial and professional jobs, but in New York State slightly more men than women do (Appendix Table 3). Income: In which cities do Latinos earn the most money? This question is answered here in two ways: by looking at household income and individual income. Figure 4 (and Appendix Table 4) pictures the median income for an entire household. The good news is that New York State Latino household incomes generally are equal to or higher than the national Latino average of $33,455 for the year 2000. Statewide, Puerto Ricans and Dominicans have a household median income that is close to the national average; Mexicans, Central or South Americans, and Cubans are even higher (between $40,000 and $48,000); while non-Hispanic white households average almost $59,000.
Figure 4: Median Household Income for Specific Metropolitan Areas We can use this data to ask if Latino household incomes in each city are higher or lower than their statewide averages. Living in New York City is associated with lower than statewide incomes for all groups. However, living in Nassau County (Long Island) is associated with higher incomes for all groups, especially for Puerto Ricans ($68,300), Mexicans ($57,000), Cubans ($88,300), and Dominicans ($55,100) who achieve their highest median household incomes there. Turning our view upstate also provides opposing trends: In Syracuse all groups earn less than the statewide average figures. In contrast, all Latino groups in Albany (except Puerto Ricans) do better than their statewide averages, with Central and South Americans reaching their highest city income there ($66,600). In Western New York, Buffalo and Rochester have internally inconsistent patterns: Puerto Ricans and Cubans earn less than average in these two cities, while Mexican and Central/South Americans earn more than average. Thus, geographic dispersion out of the New York City area does not guarantee higher household incomes to all Latino families-although it may lower household costs. Interestingly, non-Hispanic whites and Latino groups do not always surpass or fall below their statewide levels in the same locations, underscoring the fact that urban economies do not necessarily have the same impact on each ethnic group. Another way to consider income is to see how much each person gets to live on, or average per capita income, which is shown in Figure 4A. Because household sizes vary, the resulting picture is not identical to the one in Figure 4. Now, Mexican, Dominican, Puerto Rican, and Central/South Americans have average statewide household per capita incomes between $10,000 and $15,000, compared to $23,000 for Cubans and $28,000 among non-Hispanic whites. In comparison to the statewide figures, most groups still do better in Nassau County and the highest per capita incomes for Puerto Ricans ($18,784) and Cubans ($27,160) are still found there. Most groups generally earn less in Buffalo and Syracuse, although Mexicans reach their highest average incomes in Buffalo ($14,965). And Albany or Rochester present mixed pictures, with Dominicans reaching their highest average in Rochester ($13,898) and Central or South Americans doing so in Albany ($19,659).
Figure 4A: Average Per-capita Income for Specific Metropolitan On average, both nationally and in New York State, Latino men and non-Latino white men have higher individual incomes than women of the same group. However, there are some exceptions: In Albany, Puerto Rican women ($19,592 vs. $12,140) and Dominican women ($17,650 vs. $14,094) have higher average incomes than men from the same national origin group (Appendix Table 4A). Furthermore, men and women do not always find their highest earnings in the same city. For example, Mexican women's highest individual incomes are found in Albany, but Mexican men earn the most in Buffalo and Rochester (see Appendix Table 4A). While the specific conditions need further research, it is likely that this pattern is an outcome of gendered occupational segregation-Mexican women's best income options may be in jobs within state government, located in Albany, while Mexican men have different, but good, opportunities in male-dominated fields in Rochester. Indicators of Socioeconomic Barriers: Unemployment, Poverty, and Woman-headed Households Another way to observe the effects of geographic dispersion is to focus on socioeconomic barriers, such as unemployment, poverty, and woman headed-households. Unemployment: As shown in the statewide statistics in Figure 5, Dominicans (14.9%) and Puerto Ricans (13.3%) have quite high unemployment rates, while Mexicans (10.2%), Cubans (9%) and Central/South Americans (8.5%) have moderately high unemployment rates, as compared to the non-Hispanic white rate of less than 5 percent in 2000. The national figure for the Hispanic origin population in 2002 was 8.1% (CPS, March 2002, PGP-5).
Figure 5: Average Unemployment Rate for Specific Metropolitan Areas Turning to city variations, Figure 5 shows that most Latino groups (except Mexicans) have their highest unemployment rates in Albany, but all had lower than average unemployment in Nassau County. The outcome in Albany is interesting, suggesting that many Latino groups have trouble finding employment there, but those who are employed generally do quite well. The picture in the rest of upstate New York-in Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse-is quite mixed, with some groups doing better in each city, and others doing worse. Finding employment in Buffalo is particularly difficult for Dominicans and Puerto Ricans, while Syracuse has high unemployment among Dominicans and Cubans. Central and South Americans are the exception, having low unemployment rates in all three cities. Unemployment also varies by gender. Statewide, non-Hispanic white men tend to have slightly higher unemployment levels than white women (Appendix Table 5). However among Latinos this pattern is frequently reversed, with Latinas having higher unemployment rates than men. Latinas might have higher unemployment rates because they are more persistent in looking for work, remaining in the "unemployed" category instead of retreating to the home, while white women may stop looking for work more easily, thus technically dropping out of the labor force and becoming "discouraged workers" who are not considered unemployed. As with all the previous trends, the job opportunities in particular cities can make unemployment patterns deviate from the typical trend. Thus, for example, in Buffalo Puerto Rican men have higher unemployment levels than women. Poverty: Nationally, the Hispanic poverty rate is about 21 percent. In New York State, it reaches the 21 percent level for Cubans and Central or South Americans, but poverty touches the lives of between 30 to 34 percent of Mexican, Dominican, and Puerto Rican New Yorkers. As shown in Figure 6, the only location with relatively low rates of Latino poverty is Nassau County. In contrast, the highest rates of Latino poverty are found in upstate western New York. For example, in Syracuse, 48 percent of Puerto Ricans, 33 percent of Mexicans, and 29 percent of Central or South Americans live below the poverty level. In Rochester and Buffalo poverty rates are also very high and, as we have seen, average incomes are quite low there. Clearly, geographic dispersion does not always result in improved opportunities.
Figure 6: Percent Below the Poverty Level for Specific Metropolitan Areas Furthermore, among New York State Latinos, women are more likely to live in poverty than are men (Appendix Table 6), putting the lives of children in woman-headed families in additional jeopardy of poverty. Woman-Headed Households: Some portion of Latino poverty can be attributed to living in woman-headed households, however such living arrangements are not equally common among Latino groups. If we take the statewide figure for non-Hispanic whites (36%) as the "average" rate of woman-headed households, then Mexicans' 27 percent level is considerably below average and their poverty is more likely to be caused by other factors (see Figure 7). Cubans (43%) and Central or South Americans (39%) have rates of woman-headed households that are only slightly higher than non-Hispanic whites (36%), but Puerto Ricans (55%) and Dominicans (57%) are considerably above the statewide average and have more than double the percentage found among Mexicans. This finding suggests that poverty among Puerto Ricans and Dominicans is partially caused by their high rates of single-parent households.
Figure 7: Percent Woman-Headed Households for Specific Metropolitan The approximate 30 percent variation in the statewide rates of woman-headed household (from 27 percent to 57 percent) is replicated among Latino origin groups within most cities. For example in Albany, Central or South Americans have the lowest rate at 21 percent of households, while Puerto Ricans and Cubans share the highest rate of 51 percent woman-headed households. However, the within-city range can be wider or narrower than 30 percent. In Syracuse, there is a 40 percent range between Cubans (17%) and Puerto Ricans (57%). In contrast, Nassau County has only an 11 percent difference between its lowest rate, held by Mexicans (24%), and the highest rate (35%) found among Puerto Ricans. This compressed range means that Nassau County has relatively uniform low levels of single parent households and of poverty, as well (see Figure 6). In sum, while Puerto Ricans and Dominicans generally have more woman-headed households than other Latinos and Mexicans typically have the fewest, the range (and ordering) among the groups is shaped by who migrates to each city and that, in turn, may be molded by men's and women's job opportunities in each place. Another dynamic, illustrated in Figure 7, is that the rate of woman-headed households varies between cities for any single national origin group, with a range as large as 51 percent for Dominicans, between Buffalo (69%) and Syracuse (18%), or as small as 13 percent for Mexicans, between Syracuse (37%) and Nassau County (24%). Furthermore, the city that is "best" for one Latino group may have less favorable outcomes for another. For example, both Puerto Ricans and Mexicans have their lowest rates of woman-headed households in Nassau County (35 and 24 percent, respectively) and their highest rates upstate, in Syracuse (57 and 37 percent, respectively). In contrast, Syracuse has the lowest rates of woman-headed households for Cubans (17%) and Dominicans (18%), while these groups have their highest rates in Buffalo (54 and 69 percent). Evidently, there is no consistency in which city is "best" or "worst" for all Latino groups. Finally, even though upstate cities share the trait of having small non-Puerto Rican Latino populations (see Appendix Table 1), they are not homogeneous in terms of Latino household composition patterns. Comparative Successes of (Im)migrant Generations in Each Metropolitan Area Some of the city-based differences in socio-economic indicators that were discussed earlier in this report are due to the comparative numbers of (im)migrants and U.S. born Latinos in each location, as well as to the relative successes of Latinos according to their place of birth, that is to say according to their migration status. How do migrants and the U.S. born Latinos vary in their access to education, good jobs, and income? In most large New York metropolitan areas, people born outside of the United States are more likely to hold college degrees than those born in the United States (Appendix Table 7). This is the predominant pattern, although it is not always true for each Latino group in each city. Figure 8 helps to visualize this trend using Puerto Ricans as an example. Here we see that migrants from Puerto Rico hold BAs more frequently than U.S. born ones, both statewide and in Albany, Buffalo, Syracuse, and dramatically so in Rochester; but in New York City and Nassau County, U.S. born Puerto Ricans are slightly more likely to hold Bachelor's degrees.
Figure 8. Percent College Graduates for Puerto Ricans, by Place of Birth In spite of this migrant advantage in college education, U.S. born Latinos consistently hold higher percentages of managerial or professional jobs (Appendix Table 8), with relatively few exceptions, primarily among Mexicans in the upstate cities of Albany, Rochester, and Syracuse. Figure 9 illustrates the predominant pattern, once again using Puerto Ricans as an example. The differences in college graduates consistently favor U.S. born Puerto Ricans by one or two percentage points, but the advantage is over five percent in Albany, probably because of the large effect of State government employment in attracting managerial workers to the local economy.
Figure 9. Percent Puerto Ricans Holding Managerial-Professional Jobs, Overall, it seems that (im)migrants have trouble turning their higher education into good jobs, while U.S. born Latinos are getting a higher proportion of professional and managerial jobs without quite the same levels of college educational attainment. This pattern is usually explained by two factors. First, the U.S. born are more likely to consider themselves adept English-speakers, an important characteristic for obtaining good jobs, and second, university credentials earned outside of the US are not always readily accepted. Nonetheless, this occupational advantage for U.S. born Latinos, as compared to immigrants, is not consistently reflected in average individual incomes (Appendix Table 9). U.S. born Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and Central or South Americans earn higher incomes than immigrants from their own national origin group in most, but not all, of the six metropolitan areas examined here. The Puerto Rican case is illustrated in Figure 10, where the income gap in favor of U.S. born Puerto Ricans varies between $300 and $4,000 dollars. On the other hand, immigrant Cubans and Dominicans have an income advantage, sometimes quite a large one, over the U.S. born in four or five cities each, and especially in upstate locations where there are relatively few members of these national origin groups. Therefore, place of birth does not have the same effect for all groups or in all locations.
Figure 10. Average Individual Income for Puerto Ricans, by Place Conclusion: City Comparisons The data in this report indicate that the Latino population dispersion across New York State can, but does not necessarily, result in good socioeconomic outcomes. The highest incomes and lowest unemployment rates are found among Latinos in Nassau County, while their neighbors in New York City fare poorly. Similarly, residence in the state capitol of Albany is associated with higher education, a large managerial-professional work force, and among the highest incomes for Latinos in the state, although unemployment rates are high and state agencies generally employ low rates of Latinos. In contrast, the residents of Western New York are not doing as well as those living elsewhere-but there is also tremendous variation and some groups, such as Central and South Americans, seem to have found good economic niches in those cities. This report also shows that the employment and income benefits of changing labor markets do not affect men and women in the same way. In sum, Latino households that are considering a move out of New York City should compare their options. For example, Mexican origin families have a relatively low percentage of college graduates in New York City (Figure 11) and their best choice for living in a location with a higher percentage of other Mexicans with bachelors degrees could be Albany (Figure 12). A move to Albany also would increase Mexican families' median average income (Appendix Table 4) and opportunity for managerial-professional jobs (Appendix Table 3), while dramatically lowering unemployment (Appendix Table 5) and poverty rates (Appendix Table 6) among Mexicans. However, rates of Mexican woman-headed households would be higher in Albany and in most upstate cities (Figure 7). This type of comparison, across various metropolitan areas, can be made for each of the Latino groups by reading along their row or line in the figures and tables for income, education, and managerial jobs, as well as for poverty, unemployment, and woman-headed households.
Figure 11. Percent College Graduates, New York City, Differences Among
Figure 12. Percent College Graduates, Albany, Differences Among Latino Unfortunately, most families do not have the option of making a long-distance geographic move in order to achieve a better standard of living. In these cases, state or city resources could be mobilized to improve Latino capacity and opportunities in the locations where they live now. The considerable poverty among Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Dominicans in western New York is undoubtedly related to their high unemployment rates upstate-especially among Puerto Ricans in Buffalo, Mexicans in Rochester, and Dominicans in Albany, Buffalo, and Syracuse. Creating jobs in these cities or retraining Latinos for the jobs that already exist there could be extremely beneficial. In addition, the low rates of higher education among these three groups are undoubtedly related to the high rates of poverty they experience in New York City and western New York. High school retention programs and college scholarships aimed at these Latino groups, among other programs, could increase their average education and occupational opportunities. If these things occurred, Latinos would not need to migrate to other cities in order to get ahead. Acknowledgements: I want to thank the New York Latino Research and Resources Network (NYLARNet) for funding this project, and "Somos el Futuro" workshop participants (2005) for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this report. In addition, my gratitude goes to Gabriel Aquino for his skilled efforts in data analysis, to Patricia McCarthy for help in locating relevant published materials, to Carmen Caamaño for the report's layout, and especially to Professor Edna Acosta-Belén for useful feedback on the substance of this report. References: Acosta-Belén, Edna and Carlos E. Santiago. 2006. Puerto Ricans in the United States: A Contemporary Portrait. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Current Population Survey (CPS). 2004. Tables 6.1a, b, c Accessed on April 15, 2006, www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hispanic/ASEC2004/2004CPS_tab6.1a.pdf Falcón, Angelo. 2004. Atlas of Stateside Puerto Ricans. San Juan: Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration. Rivera-Batiz, Francisco and Carlos E. Santiago. 1994. Puerto Ricans in the United States: A Changing Reality. Washington, D.C.: National Puerto Rican Coalition, Inc. |
Appendix Additional Tables-Population Numbers and Data by Sex or Place of Birth |
Table 1. Each Group as a Percentage of Residents in Various New York State Metropolitan Areas, 2000 U.S. Census | ||||||||
|
|
NY State | NYC | Albany | Buffalo | Rochester | Syracuse | Nassau County-Long Island |
Puerto Rican | Proportion In City | 5.53% | 9.01% | 1.52% | 1.96% | 2.92% | 1.08% | 1.76% |
Number | 1050293 | 839073 | 13306 | 22956 | 32078 | 7912 | 23540 | |
Mexicans | Proportion In City | 1.37% | 2.32% | 0.26% | 0.26% | 0.35% | 0.27% | 0.49% |
Number | 260889 | 215719 | 2290 | 3084 | 3868 | 1996 | 6569 | |
Cubans | Proportion In City | 0.33% | 0.50% | 0.09% | 0.06% | 0.19% | 0.12% | 0.33% |
Number | 62590 | 46712 | 781 | 756 | 2128 | 876 | 4458 | |
Dominicans | Proportion In City | 2.40% | 4.56% | 0.11% | 0.07% | 0.14% | 0.07% | 0.76% |
Number | 455061 | 424847 | 961 | 774 | 1518 | 539 | 10132 | |
Cen.-So. Am. | Proportion In City | 2.64% | 4.07% | 0.24% | 0.13% | 0.23% | 0.17% | 4.06% |
Number | 500262 | 379196 | 2080 | 1549 | 2508 | 1248 | 54168 | |
Non-Hisp White | Proportion In City | 67.95% | 48.80% | 89.42% | 83.78% | 83.97% | 88.92% | 79.30% |
Number | 12893669 | 4545657 | 782946 | 980346 | 922199 | 650980 | 1058285 |
Table 2. Percent College Graduates, Overall and By Gender, for Specific New York Metropolitan Areas, 2000 US Census | ||||||||
|
|
NY State | NYC | Albany | Buffalo | Rochester | Syracuse | Nassau County-Long Island |
Puerto Ricans | ||||||||
Overall | 9.2 | 6 | 8.4 | 4.9 | 4.1 | 4.8 | 9.2 | |
Women | 10.3 | 6.6 | 8.9 | 5.9 | 5 | 4.8 | 10.3 | |
Men | 6.1 | 5.3 | 7.9 | 4 | 3.2 | 4.7 | 8.1 | |
Mexicans | ||||||||
Overall | 8.4 | 4.7 | 21.3 | 9.6 | 7.5 | 7 | 8.4 | |
Women | 10.8 | 5.1 | 18.8 | 8.5 | 7.8 | 8.4 | 10.8 | |
Men | 6.8 | 4.4 | 23.4 | 10.6 | 7.2 | 5.2 | 6.8 | |
Cubans | ||||||||
Overall | 20.4 | 19.1 | 20.4 | 12.8 | 12.8 | 12.4 | 20.4 | |
Women | 20.1 | 19.9 | 30.5 | 10.8 | 10.8 | 13.9 | 20.1 | |
Men | 20.6 | 18.2 | 6.5 | 14.8 | 14.8 | 11.7 | 20.6 | |
Dominicans | ||||||||
Overall | 6 | 5.8 | 9.4 | 6.1 | 8.5 | 1.6 | 6 | |
Women | 5.9 | 6.5 | 19.2 | 14 | 11.5 | 6.8 | 5.9 | |
Men | 6.1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 6.1 | |
Central-South Americans | ||||||||
Overall | 7.1 | 10.5 | 28.4 | 24.2 | 28.4 | 22.5 | 7.1 | |
Women | 8.2 | 11.1 | 25.5 | 27.3 | 25 | 25.3 | 8.2 | |
Men | 6.1 | 9.9 | 31.5 | 21.3 | 32.2 | 19.5 | 6.1 | |
Non-Hispanic Whites | ||||||||
Overall | 24.3 | 33.8 | 21.3 | 17.9 | 21.1 | 17.3 | 24.3 | |
Women | 25.5 | 32.7 | 20.5 | 17.2 | 20.5 | 16.8 | 23.2 | |
Men | 23.2 | 35 | 22 | 18.6 | 21.7 | 17.8 | 25.5 |
Table 3. Percent in Managerial and Professional Jobs, Overall and By Gender, for Specific New York Metropolitan Areas, 2000 US Census | ||||||||
|
|
NY State | NYC | Albany | Buffalo | Rochester | Syracuse | Nassau County-Long Island |
Puerto Ricans | ||||||||
Overall | 11.1 | 11.3 | 10.9 | 9.7 | 7.3 | 9.9 | 12.3 | |
Women | 10.2 | 10.4 | 5.6 | 7.9 | 5 | 10.4 | 12.2 | |
Men | 12.1 | 12.3 | 15 | 11.4 | 9.6 | 9.5 | 12.4 | |
Mexicans | ||||||||
Overall | 7.3 | 6.7 | 24.5 | 15.2 | 12.2 | 21.9 | 7.3 | |
Women | 6.5 | 5.7 | 15.2 | 11.2 | 10.5 | 19.4 | 7.3 | |
Men | 7.8 | 7.2 | 37.9 | 19.1 | 13.8 | 24.7 | 7.3 | |
Cubans | ||||||||
Overall | 18.4 | 17.7 | 32.8 | 4.6 | 24.1 | 8.1 | 22.8 | |
Women | 16.1 | 15.9 | 25 | 0 | 22.5 | 0 | 19.3 | |
Men | 20.4 | 19.2 | 60.5 | 11.7 | 25.3 | 11.2 | 26.3 | |
Dominicans | ||||||||
Overall | 7.8 | 7.7 | 0 | 15.8 | 10.6 | 0 | 8.7 | |
Women | 6 | 6 | 0 | 15 | 4.9 | 0 | 5.3 | |
Men | 9.9 | 9.8 | 0 | 16.6 | 16.3 | 0 | 11.9 | |
Central-South Americans | ||||||||
Overall | 9.5 | 9.7 | 22.3 | 10.9 | 27.5 | 22.1 | 8.2 | |
Women | 8.4 | 8.3 | 14.1 | 3.4 | 14.5 | 12.4 | 9 | |
Men | 10.5 | 11.2 | 29.9 | 16.9 | 37.8 | 34.1 | 7.6 | |
Non-Hispanic Whites | ||||||||
Overall | 20.9 | 24.6 | 22.4 | 17.6 | 22.9 | 17.4 | 21 | |
Women | 16 | 20.1 | 11.9 | 12.7 | 16.4 | 12.8 | 15.5 | |
Men | 25.9 | 29.3 | 28.4 | 22.7 | 29.6 | 22.1 | 26.5 |
Table 4. Median Household Income, Overall and By Gender, for Specific New York Metropolitan Areas, 2000 US Census | ||||||||
Puerto Ricans | ||||||||
Overall | 31800 | 30000 | 27500 | 22000 | 23800 | 25000 | 68300 | |
Women | 29300 | 26860 | 25440 | 22000 | 22220 | 25000 | 65000 | |
Men | 34500 | 32200 | 34000 | 22200 | 28000 | 25000 | 71100 | |
Mexicans | ||||||||
Overall | 40000 | 38900 | 53000 | 45200 | 42200 | 35200 | 57000 | |
Women | 37180 | 35700 | 50000 | 44400 | 41200 | 33000 | 64000 | |
Men | 42000 | 41000 | 56700 | 51300 | 44100 | 42000 | 55100 | |
Cubans | ||||||||
Overall | 48000 | 44000 | 67000 | 34500 | 35800 | 27910 | 88300 | |
Women | 46900 | 42500 | 67000 | 34500 | 40000 | 27190 | 87200 | |
Men | 49000 | 45600 | 67000 | 21150 | 28200 | 27190 | 89000 | |
Dominicans | ||||||||
Overall | 32600 | 32000 | 48000 | 15000 | 42000 | 10390 | 55100 | |
Women | 31000 | 30000 | 48000 | 8000 | 25000 | 10390 | 51000 | |
Men | 34600 | 33700 | 45000 | 15000 | 48700 | 8500 | 56200 | |
Central-South Americans | ||||||||
Overall | 45900 | 42200 | 66600 | 48400 | 50200 | 43340 | 61300 | |
Women | 44000 | 40000 | 69700 | 62340 | 43600 | 50000 | 61000 | |
Men | 48000 | 44600 | 46500 | 47300 | 64700 | 40000 | 62000 | |
Non-Hispanic Whites | ||||||||
Overall | 58700 | 65000 | 56000 | 51700 | 56000 | 50000 | 80600 | |
Women | 56000 | 61320 | 53500 | 49500 | 54000 | 47840 | 78600 | |
Men | 61000 | 69900 | 58100 | 54000 | 58000 | 52200 | 83100 |
Table 4A. Average Individual Income, by Gender, for Specific New York Metropolitan Areas, 2000 US Census | ||||||||
|
|
NY State | NYC | Albany | Buffalo | Rochester | Syracuse | Nassau County-Long Island |
Puerto Ricans | ||||||||
Overall | 17662 | 17145 | 15988 | 14833 | 14927 | 14963 | 25884 | |
Women | 14464 | 14424 | 19592 | 12562 | 13302 | 14247 | 19049 | |
Men | 21245 | 20576 | 12140 | 17085 | 16734 | 15615 | 33803 | |
Mexicans | ||||||||
Overall | 14408 | 13949 | 18234 | 20731 | 20112 | 19252 | 17466 | |
Women | 9697 | 9094 | 15521 | 14155 | 12791 | 14315 | 13554 | |
Men | 17596 | 17817 | 22116 | 27528 | 27185 | 25293 | 20209 | |
Cubans | ||||||||
Overall | 27140 | 26374 | 21603 | 23732 | 27358 | 14751 | 33519 | |
Women | 21062 | 21306 | 19728 | 8692 | 12791 | 8937 | 22901 | |
Men | 33283 | 31656 | 26077 | 36212 | 27185 | 16882 | 44932 | |
Dominicans | ||||||||
Overall | 14080 | 13915 | 15631 | 11553 | 27358 | 9512 | 16789 | |
Women | 11642 | 11575 | 17650 | 11880 | 10506 | 6039 | 13004 | |
Men | 16961 | 16770 | 14094 | 11286 | 40511 | 10496 | 20426 | |
Central-South Americans | ||||||||
Overall | 18355 | 18251 | 25241 | 17123 | 21731 | 17897 | 18676 | |
Women | 13611 | 13797 | 15944 | 17202 | 10273 | 14876 | 12884 | |
Men | 23524 | 22920 | 34925 | 24150 | 33608 | 21518 | 23843 | |
Non-Hispanic Whites | ||||||||
Overall | 34829 | 44095 | 29746 | 27129 | 29764 | 26745 | 41264 | |
Women | 24134 | 31518 | 21558 | 18702 | 21035 | 19043 | 25396 | |
Men | 46597 | 58232 | 38762 | 36572 | 39340 | 35155 | 58694 |
Table 5. Unemployment Rate, Overall and By Gender, for Specific New York Metropolitan Areas, 2000 US Census | ||||||||
|
|
NY State | NYC | Albany | Buffalo | Rochester | Syracuse | Nassau County-Long Island |
Puerto Ricans | ||||||||
Overall | 13.3 | 14.5 | 15.4 | 16.7 | 9.3 | 11.8 | 5.7 | |
Women | 13.6 | 14.8 | 19.3 | 14.1 | 10.7 | 4.2 | 7 | |
Men | 12.9 | 14.1 | 12.5 | 19.3 | 7.8 | 20.8 | 4.4 | |
Mexicans | ||||||||
Overall | 10.2 | 10.4 | 6.6 | 9.4 | 12.5 | 4.5 | 7 | |
Women | 14.1 | 15.1 | 13.6 | 9.7 | 10.6 | 0 | 8.9 | |
Men | 8.5 | 8.5 | 0 | 9.1 | 14.1 | 8.7 | 6 | |
Cubans | ||||||||
Overall | 9 | 10.2 | 21.4 | 7.9 | 2.8 | 19.5 | 3.3 | |
Women | 7.7 | 11.6 | 29.4 | 19.8 | 1.8 | 0 | 4.5 | |
Men | 10 | 8.4 | 0 | 0 | 3.5 | 30.1 | 1.8 | |
Dominicans | ||||||||
Overall | 14.9 | 15.4 | 28.2 | 36.1 | 11.4 | 16.2 | 6.1 | |
Women | 17.1 | 17.6 | 25.5 | 31.6 | 13 | 22.1 | 5.8 | |
Men | 12.8 | 13.2 | 30.5 | 47.9 | 9.6 | 12.6 | 6.2 | |
Central-South Americans | ||||||||
Overall | 8.5 | 9.6 | 15.5 | 3.5 | 2.2 | 4.2 | 4.5 | |
Women | 11.2 | 12.6 | 27.9 | 0 | 5.2 | 8.7 | 5.4 | |
Men | 6.5 | 7.3 | 2.9 | 5.5 | 0 | 0 | 4 | |
Non-Hispanic Whites | ||||||||
Overall | 4.9 | 4.8 | 4.9 | 5.8 | 4.6 | 5.6 | 3.4 | |
Women | 4.5 | 4.8 | 4.2 | 4.9 | 3.5 | 4.7 | 3.4 | |
Men | 5.3 | 4.8 | 5.5 | 6.6 | 5.5 | 6.5 | 3.3 |
Table 6. Percent Living Below the Poverty Level, Overall and By Gender, for Specific New York Metropolitan Areas, 2000 US Census | ||||||||
|
|
NY State | NYC | Albany | Buffalo | Rochester | Syracuse | Nassau County-Long Island |
Puerto Ricans | ||||||||
Overall | 34.2 | 34.9 | 36.3 | 43.9 | 40.1 | 47.8 | 13.3 | |
Women | 36.1 | 37.7 | 41.8 | 42.4 | 43.5 | 44.9 | 14.4 | |
Men | 32 | 31.7 | 31.1 | 45.3 | 36.5 | 50.4 | 12.2 | |
Mexicans | ||||||||
Overall | 30.1 | 31.3 | 12.2 | 17.6 | 22.7 | 33.1 | 19.4 | |
Women | 32.2 | 34.1 | 11.3 | 20.5 | 24.9 | 30.9 | 20.8 | |
Men | 28.6 | 29.4 | 13.3 | 14.6 | 21 | 35.9 | 18.4 | |
Cubans | ||||||||
Overall | 20.5 | 21.7 | 19.3 | 45.7 | 30.2 | 26.9 | 7.7 | |
Women | 19.6 | 21.8 | 25.1 | 50.2 | 23.8 | 12.7 | 6.4 | |
Men | 21.4 | 21.6 | 11.3 | 41.9 | 36.4 | 33.3 | 9 | |
Dominicans | ||||||||
Overall | 31.8 | 31.8 | 38.3 | 71.3 | 49.9 | 88.2 | 18 | |
Women | 33.9 | 34.4 | 25.2 | 74.5 | 45.1 | 82 | 16.8 | |
Men | 29.5 | 29 | 50.7 | 68.8 | 53.1 | 90 | 19.3 | |
Central-South Americans | ||||||||
Overall | 20.5 | 21.3 | 10.7 | 26.9 | 31.7 | 28.7 | 16.3 | |
Women | 22.7 | 23.9 | 9.9 | 27.7 | 36.8 | 14 | 18.7 | |
Men | 18.3 | 18.5 | 11.5 | 26.3 | 17.1 | 44.7 | 14.7 | |
Non-Hispanic Whites | ||||||||
Overall | 10.6 | 11.7 | 9.4 | 9.4 | 8.8 | 12.2 | 5.2 | |
Women | 11.5 | 12.6 | 10.5 | 10.5 | 9.5 | 13.8 | 5.9 | |
Men | 9.6 | 10.7 | 8.2 | 9.1 | 8 | 10.4 | 4.4 |
|
NY State | NYC | Albany | Buffalo | Rochester | Syracuse | Nassau County |
Table 7. Percent College Graduates, by Place of Birth, 2000 US Census | |||||||
Puerto Ricans US Born | 6.41 | 6.62 | 8.69 | 4.61 | 2.70 | 5.19 | 9.84 |
Puerto Ricans Not US Born | 10.65 | 5.90 | 10.32 | 6.29 | 21.23 | 5.25 | 9.63 |
Mexicans US Born | 8.26 | 7.80 | 9.76 | 11.47 | 3.84 | 6.78 | 10.81 |
Mexicans Not US Born | 4.61 | 4.00 | 50.07 | 2.27 | 5.16 | 16.28 | 8.11 |
Cubans US Born | 19.94 | 21.46 | 13.73 | 17.28 | 6.41 | 10.96 | 19.52 |
Cubans Not US Born | 18.92 | 18.48 | 100.00 | 16.86 | 18.43 | 14.54 | 23.67 |
Dominicans US Born | 4.25 | 4.15 | 7.74 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3.74 | 6.22 |
Dominicans Not US Born | 6.75 | 6.71 | 11.36 | 8.73 | 11.35 | 0.00 | 6.36 |
Central-South Americans US Born | 9.07 | 9.49 | 36.28 | 13.91 | 11.34 | 16.31 | 6.44 |
Central-South Americans Not US Born | 10.97 | 11.27 | 28.50 | 34.69 | 36.87 | 27.50 | 7.93 |
Other Hispanics US Born | 6.03 | 5.71 | 11.77 | 11.14 | 5.94 | 5.73 | 6.71 |
Other Hispanics Not US Born | 8.40 | 7.83 | 13.70 | 34.63 | 24.95 | 24.31 | 9.76 |
Not Hispanic Whites US Born | 23.87 | 35.99 | 21.83 | 18.42 | 21.71 | 17.64 | 25.32 |
Not Hispanic Whites Not US Born | 28.59 | 30.96 | 26.85 | 19.67 | 24.37 | 25.51 | 24.78 |
|
NY State | NYC | Albany | Buffalo | Rochester | Syracuse | Nassau County |
Table 8. Percent Holding Managerial-Professional Jobs, by Place of Birth, 2000 US Census | |||||||
Puerto Ricans US Born | 11.80 | 12.70 | 14.93 | 10.59 | 9.26 | 9.75 | 12.91 |
Puerto Ricans Not US Born | 11.00 | 10.17 | 9.40 | 7.90 | 8.60 | 9.47 | 11.63 |
Mexicans US Born | 12.73 | 15.70 | 8.33 | 16.45 | 5.08 | 13.46 | 13.28 |
Mexicans Not US Born | 4.80 | 4.67 | 40.00 | 6.25 | 14.89 | 18.18 | 6.56 |
Cubans US Born | 22.08 | 20.92 | 40.00 | 20.00 | 27.77 | 16.67 | 21.77 |
Cubans Not US Born | 17.27 | 17.96 | 33.33 | 0.00 | 9.37 | 0.00 | 25.83 |
Dominicans US Born | 11.57 | 11.09 | 10.00 | 0.00 | 20.00 | 7.69 | 11.00 |
Dominicans Not US Born | 6.99 | 7.01 | 0.00 | 22.72 | 10.00 | 0.00 | 7.37 |
Central-South Americans US Born | 15.04 | 15.80 | 22.22 | 12.50 | 10.00 | 33.33 | 15.61 |
Central-South Americans Not US Born | 8.54 | 8.71 | 15.78 | 11.76 | 29.63 | 19.51 | 6.85 |
Other Hispanics US Born | 13.17 | 13.09 | 20.00 | 12.76 | 16.35 | 12.06 | 15.03 |
Other Hispanics Not US Born | 7.90 | 7.61 | 12.50 | 21.43 | 10.81 | 15.78 | 8.99 |
Not Hispanic Whites US Born | 20.41 | 25.35 | 20.66 | 16.85 | 20.99 | 16.59 | 21.56 |
Not Hispanic Whites Not US Born | 22.30 | 22.40 | 23.92 | 19.36 | 22.44 | 19.37 | 23.14 |
|
NY State | NYC | Albany | Buffalo | Rochester | Syracuse | Nassau County |
Table 9. Average Individual Income, by Place of Birth, 2000 US Census | |||||||
Puerto Ricans US Born | $18,029 | $18,442 | $16,740 | $17,612 | $16,197 | $16,426 | $26,859 |
Puerto Ricans Not US Born | $16,862 | $16,155 | $16,427 | $12,750 | $14,063 | $13,550 | $25,605 |
Mexicans US Born | $21,088 | $22,090 | $15,208 | $21,600 | $16,654 | $18,213 | $24,173 |
Mexicans Not US Born | $13,160 | $13,059 | $16,740 | $16,642 | $20,958 | $12,232 | $16,017 |
Cubans US Born | $27,862 | $27,308 | $18,770 | $12,639 | $15,343 | $19,200 | $33,129 |
Cubans Not US Born | $27,108 | $25,231 | $54,400 | $45,340 | $32,241 | $16,043 | $37,195 |
Dominicans US Born | $12,407 | $12,087 | $13,170 | $9,814 | $9,685 | $15,846 | $16,002 |
Dominicans Not US Born | $14,667 | $14,508 | $17,761 | $10,836 | $19,369 | $8,653 | $17,580 |
Central-South Americans US Born | $19,980 | $19,269 | $26,046 | $16,106 | $20,750 | $21,036 | $20,057 |
Central-South Americans Not US Born | $17,543 | $18,294 | $25,082 | $18,804 | $20,469 | $17,169 | $18,788 |
Other Hispanics US Born | $17,540 | $16,348 | $24,708 | $18,747 | $18,190 | $21,154 | $22,421 |
Other Hispanics Not US Born | $17,303 | $16,919 | $20,150 | $28,593 | $28,819 | $15,193 | $19,377 |
Not Hispanic Whites US Born | $35,574 | $46,960 | $29,636 | $27,351 | $29,317 | $26,376 | $44,556 |
Not Hispanic Whites Not US Born | $33,167 | $32,470 | $27,930 | $26,487 | $27,600 | $28,003 | $41,697 |
New York State Assembly Puerto Rican/Hispanic Task Force Assemblyman Peter M. Rivera, Chair Legislative Office Building, Room 826 Albany, New York 12248 Telephone: (518) 455-5102 FAX: (518) 455-3693 |
New York State Assembly [ Welcome Page ] [ Committee Updates ] |