This graph shows the population of the U.S. by race and ethnic group from 2000 to 2023. In 2023, there were around 21.39 million people of Asian origin living in the United States. A ranking of the most spoken languages across the world can be accessed here. U.S. populationCurrently, the white population makes up the vast majority of the United States’ population, accounting for some 252.07 million people in 2023. This ethnicity group contributes to the highest share of the population in every region, but is especially noticeable in the Midwestern region. The Black or African American resident population totaled 45.76 million people in the same year. The overall population in the United States is expected to increase annually from 2022, with the 320.92 million people in 2015 expected to rise to 341.69 million people by 2027. Thus, population densities have also increased, totaling 36.3 inhabitants per square kilometer as of 2021. Despite being one of the most populous countries in the world, following China and India, the United States is not even among the top 150 most densely populated countries due to its large land mass. Monaco is the most densely populated country in the world and has a population density of 24,621.5 inhabitants per square kilometer as of 2021. As population numbers in the U.S. continues to grow, the Hispanic population has also seen a similar trend from 35.7 million inhabitants in the country in 2000 to some 62.65 million inhabitants in 2021. This growing population group is a significant source of population growth in the country due to both high immigration and birth rates. The United States is one of the most racially diverse countries in the world.

This map shows the percentage of people who identify as something other than non-Hispanic white throughout the US according to the most current American Community Survey. The pattern is shown by states, counties, and Census tracts. Zoom or search for anywhere in the US to see a local pattern. Click on an area to learn more. Filter to your area and save a new version of the map to use for your own mapping purposes.The Arcade expression used was: 100 - B03002_calc_pctNHWhiteE, which is simply 100 minus the percent of population who identifies as non-Hispanic white. The data is from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS). The figures in this map update automatically annually when the newest estimates are released by ACS. For more detailed metadata, visit the ArcGIS Living Atlas Layer: ACS Race and Hispanic Origin Variables - Boundaries.The data on race were derived from answers to the question on race that was asked of individuals in the United States. The Census Bureau collects racial data in accordance with guidelines provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and these data are based on self-identification. The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. The categories represent a social-political construct designed for collecting data on the race and ethnicity of broad population groups in this country, and are not anthropologically or scientifically based. Learn more here.Other maps of interest:American Indian or Alaska Native Population in the US (Current ACS)Asian Population in the US (Current ACS)Black or African American Population in the US (Current ACS)Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Population in the US (Current ACS)Hispanic or Latino Population in the US (Current ACS) (some people prefer Latinx)Population who are Some Other Race in the US (Current ACS)Population who are Two or More Races in the US (Current ACS) (some people prefer mixed race or multiracial)White Population in the US (Current ACS)Race in the US by Dot DensityWhat is the most common race/ethnicity?

The statistic shows the share of U.S. population, by race and Hispanic origin, in 2016 and a projection for 2060. As of 2016, about 17.79 percent of the U.S. population was of Hispanic origin. Race and ethnicity in the U.S. For decades, America was a melting pot of the racial and ethnical diversity of its population. The number of people of different ethnic groups in the United States has been growing steadily over the last decade, as has the population in total. For example, 35.81 million Black or African Americans were counted in the U.S. in 2000, while 43.5 million Black or African Americans were counted in 2017.

The median annual family income in the United States in 2017 earned by Black families was about 50,870 U.S. dollars, while the average family income earned by the Asian population was about 92,784 U.S. dollars. This is more than 15,000 U.S. dollars higher than the U.S. average family income, which was 75,938 U.S. dollars.

The unemployment rate varies by ethnicity as well. In 2018, about 6.5 percent of the Black or African American population in the United States were unemployed. In contrast to that, only three percent of the population with Asian origin was unemployed.

In the fiscal year of 2019, 21.39 percent of active-duty enlisted women were of Hispanic origin. The total number of active duty military personnel in 2019 amounted to 1.3 million people.

Ethnicities in the United States The United States is known around the world for the diversity of its population. The Census recognizes six different racial and ethnic categories: White American, Native American and Alaska Native, Asian American, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. People of Hispanic or Latino origin are classified as a racially diverse ethnicity.

The largest part of the population, about 61.3 percent, is composed of White Americans. The largest minority in the country are Hispanics with a share of 17.8 percent of the population, followed by Black or African Americans with 13.3 percent. Life in the U.S. and ethnicity However, life in the United States seems to be rather different depending on the race or ethnicity that you belong to. For instance: In 2019, native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders had the highest birth rate of 58 per 1,000 women, while the birth rae of white alone, non Hispanic women was 49 children per 1,000 women.

The Black population living in the United States has the highest poverty rate with of all Census races and ethnicities in the United States. About 19.5 percent of the Black population was living with an income lower than the 2020 poverty threshold. The Asian population has the smallest poverty rate in the United States, with about 8.1 percent living in poverty.

The median annual family income in the United States in 2020 earned by Black families was about 57,476 U.S. dollars, while the average family income earned by the Asian population was about 109,448 U.S. dollars. This is more than 25,000 U.S. dollars higher than the U.S. average family income, which was 84,008 U.S. dollars.

In 2023, 17.9 percent of Black people living in the United States were living below the poverty line, compared to 7.7 percent of white people. That year, the total poverty rate in the U.S. across all races and ethnicities was 11.1 percent. Poverty in the United States Single people in the United States making less than 12,880 U.S. dollars a year and families of four making less than 26,500 U.S. dollars a year are considered to be below the poverty line. Women and children are more likely to suffer from poverty, due to women staying home more often than men to take care of children, and women suffering from the gender wage gap. Not only are women and children more likely to be affected, racial minorities are as well due to the discrimination they face. Poverty data Despite being one of the wealthiest nations in the world, the United States had the third highest poverty rate out of all OECD countries in 2019. However, the United States' poverty rate has been fluctuating since 1990, but has been decreasing since 2014. The average median household income in the U.S. has remained somewhat consistent since 1990, but has recently increased since 2014 until a slight decrease in 2020, potentially due to the pandemic. The state that had the highest number of people living below the poverty line in 2020 was California.

Four focus groups of 15 individuals each were conducted in greater London and Birmingham in adjacent locales, one diverse, one more homogeneous. Locations were Croydon and Bromley in Greater London, and Lozells and Sutton Coldfield in Greater Birmingham. Participants were paid £30 apiece for their time and recruited by a Recruitment company.

Respondents were asked about perceptions of immigration and residential choice. We explored the 'halo' effect among those in whiter areas living in proximity to diversity, and the 'contact' effect of whites living with minorities in diverse areas. The former is theorised to increase threat perceptions of diversity, the latter to mitigate them.

Questions also explored ethnically motivated 'white flight' or whether social ties and amenities account for ethnic sorting. The link between immigration and issues of fairness, housing, services and employment was also broached.

Locations and dates:

3rd April, East Croydon United Reform Church, 6-7.30pm (diverse area) 8th April, Hayes Village Hall, Bromley, 6-7.30pm (White area)

9th April, Trinity Centre, Sutton Coldfield. 6-7.30pm (White area) 10th April, Lozells Methodist Community Centre, Birmingham, 6-7.30pm (diverse area)

This project advances the hypothesis that ethnic change in England and Wales is associated with white working-class ‘exit,’ ‘voice’, or ‘accommodation’. ‘Voice’ is manifested as a rise in ethnic nationalist voting and anti-immigration sentiment and ‘exit’ as outmigration from, or avoidance of, diverse locales. Once areas reach a threshold of minority population share, however, these initial responses may give way to ‘accommodation’ in the form of decreased ethno-nationalist voting, reduced anti-immigration sentiment and lower white outmigration. In the course of our investigation, we ask the policy-relevant question: do residential integration and minority acculturation calm or fuel white working-class exit and voice? In other words, does contact improve ethnic relations or do ‘good fences make good neighbours’? This research adds to existing scholarship by integrating individual data with a more complex array of contextual variables, blending quantitative methods with focus-group qualitative research.

This statistic shows the leading metropolitan areas with the highest percentage of white population in the United States in 2023. Among the 81 largest metropolitan areas (by population), Knoxville, Tennessee was ranked first with 90.9 percent of residents reporting as white, non-Hispanic in 2023.

Means and standard deviations of perceived presence of minority/majority groups in terms of gender and ethnicity in Study 1a and 1b (separately).

Release Date: 2024-08-08.The Census Bureau has reviewed this data product to ensure appropriate access, use, and disclosure avoidance protection of the confidential source data (Project No. 7504866, Disclosure Review Board (DRB) approval number: 2021 NES-D approval number: CBDRB-FY24-0307; 2022 ABS approval number: CBDRB-FY23-0479)...Key Table Information:.Data in this table combines estimates from the Annual Business Survey (employer firms) and the Nonemployer Statistics by Demographics (nonemployer firms)...Includes U.S. firms with no paid employment or payroll, annual receipts of $1,000 or more ($1 or more in the construction industries) and filing Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax forms for sole proprietorships (Form 1040, Schedule C), partnerships (Form 1065), or corporations (the Form 1120 series)...Includes U.S. employer firms estimates of business ownership by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status from the 2022 Annual Business Survey (ABS) collection. Data are also obtained from administrative records, the 2017 Economic Census, and other economic surveys...Note: For employer data only, the collection year is the year in which the data are collected. A reference year is the year that is referenced in the questions on the survey and in which the statistics are tabulated. For example, the 2022 ABS collection year produces statistics for the 2021 reference year. The "Year" column in the table is the reference year...Data Items and Other Identifying Records:.Data include estimates on:.Total number of employer and nonemployer firms. Total sales and receipts of employer and nonemployer firms (reported in $1,000 of dollars). Number of nonemployer firms (firms without paid employees). Sales and receipts of nonemployer firms (reported in $1,000s of dollars). Number of employer firms (firms with paid employees). Sales and receipts of employer firms (reported in $1,000s of dollars). Number of employees (during the March 12 pay period). Annual payroll of employer firms (reported in $1,000s of dollars)...These data are aggregated by the following demographic classifications of firm for:.All firms. Classifiable (firms classifiable by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status). . Sex. Female. Male. Equally male/female (50% / 50%). . Ethnicity. Hispanic. Equally Hispanic/non-Hispanic (50% / 50%). Non-Hispanic. . Race. White. Black or African American. American Indian and Alaska Native. Asian. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. Minority (Firms classified as any race and ethnicity combination other than non-Hispanic and White). Equally minority/nonminority (50% / 50%). Nonminority (Firms classified as non-Hispanic and White). . Veteran Status (defined as having served in any branch of the U.S. Armed Forces). Veteran. Equally veteran/nonveteran (50% / 50%). Nonveteran. . . . Unclassifiable (firms not classifiable by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status). ...Data Notes:.. Business ownership is defined as having 51 percent or more of the stock or equity in the business. Data are provided for firms owned equally (50% / 50%) by men and women, by Hispanics and non-Hispanics, by minorities and nonminorities, and by veterans and nonveterans. Firms not classifiable by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status are counted and tabulated separately.. The detail may not add to the total or subtotal because a Hispanic firm may be of any race; because a firm could be tabulated in more than one racial group; or because the number of nonemployer firm's data are rounded.. Nonemployer data do not have standard error or relative standard error columns as these data are from the universe of nonemployer firms, not from a data sample....Industry and Geography Coverage:.The data are shown for the total for all sectors (00) and 2-digit NAICS code levels for:..United States. States and the District of Columbia. Metropolitan Statistical Areas. County...Data are also shown for the 3- and 4-digit NAICS code for:..United States...Nonemployer data are excluded for the following NAICS industries:.Crop and Animal Production (NAICS 111 and 112). Rail Transportation (NAICS 482). Postal Service (NAICS 491). Monetary Authorities-Central Bank (NAICS 521). Funds, Trusts, and Other Financial Vehicles (NAICS 525). Management of Companies and Enterprises (NAICS 55). Private Households (NAICS 814). Public Administration (NAICS 92). Industries Not Classified (NAICS 99)...For more information about NAICS, see NAICS Codes & Understanding Industry Classification Systems. For information about geographies used by economic programs at the Census Bureau, see Economic Census: Economic Geographies...Employer Data Footnotes:.Footnote 660 - Agriculture, forestry...

Release Date: 2024-02-08.The Census Bureau has reviewed this data product to ensure appropriate access, use, and disclosure avoidance protection of the confidential source data (2020 NES-D Project No. 7504866, Disclosure Review Board (DRB) approval number: CBDRB-FY24-0051; 2021 ABS approval number: CBDRB-FY23-0479)...Key Table Information:.Data in this table combines estimates from the Annual Business Survey (employer firms) and the Nonemployer Statistics by Demographics (nonemployer firms)...Includes U.S. firms with no paid employment or payroll, annual receipts of $1,000 or more ($1 or more in the construction industries) and filing Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax forms for sole proprietorships (Form 1040, Schedule C), partnerships (Form 1065), or corporations (the Form 1120 series)...Includes U.S. employer firms estimates of business ownership by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status from the 2021 Annual Business Survey (ABS) collection. Data are also obtained from administrative records, the 2017 Economic Census, and other economic surveys...Note: For employer data only, the collection year is the year in which the data are collected. A reference year is the year that is referenced in the questions on the survey and in which the statistics are tabulated. For example, the 2021 ABS collection year produces statistics for the 2020 reference year. The "Year" column in the table is the reference year...Data Items and Other Identifying Records:.Data include estimates on:.Total number of employer and nonemployer firms. Total sales and receipts of employer and nonemployer firms (reported in $1,000 of dollars). Number of employer firms (firms with paid employees). Sales and receipts of employer firms (reported in $1,000s of dollars). Number of nonemployer firms (firms without paid employees). Sales and receipts of nonemployer firms (reported in $1,000s of dollars)...These data are aggregated by the following demographic classifications of firm for:.All firms. Classifiable (firms classifiable by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status). . Sex. Female. Male. Equally male/female (50% / 50%). . Ethnicity. Hispanic. Equally Hispanic/non-Hispanic (50% / 50%). Non-Hispanic. . Race. White. Black or African American. American Indian and Alaska Native. Asian. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. Minority (Firms classified as any race and ethnicity combination other than non-Hispanic and White). Equally minority/nonminority (50% / 50%). Nonminority (Firms classified as non-Hispanic and White). . Veteran Status (defined as having served in any branch of the U.S. Armed Forces). Veteran. Equally veteran/nonveteran (50% / 50%). Nonveteran. . . . Unclassifiable (firms not classifiable by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status). ...The data are also shown for the urban or rural classification of the firm:. Urban. Rural. Not classified...Data Notes:.. Business ownership is defined as having 51 percent or more of the stock or equity in the business. Data are provided for firms owned equally (50% / 50%) by men and women, by Hispanics and non-Hispanics, by minorities and nonminorities, and by veterans and nonveterans. Firms not classifiable by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status are counted and tabulated separately.. The detail may not add to the total or subtotal because a Hispanic firm may be of any race; because a firm could be tabulated in more than one racial group; or because the number of nonemployer firm's data are rounded.. Nonemployer data do not have standard error or relative standard error columns as these data are from the universe of nonemployer firms, not from a data sample.. Firms are classified as urban or rural based on the population of the Census block of its physical location or mailing address. Firms without an assigned Census block are designated as "Not classified". Firms with a physical location or mailing address on a Census block with at least 2,500 inhabitants are classified as "Urban". All other firms are classified as "Rural"....Industry and Geography Coverage:.The data are shown for the total for all sectors (00) and 2-digit NAICS code levels for:..United States. States and the District of Columbia. Metropolitan Statistical Areas...Data are also shown for the 3- and 4-digit NAICS code for:..United States...Data are excluded for the following NAICS industries:.Crop and Animal Production (NAICS 111 and 112). Rail Transportation (NAICS 482). Postal Service (NAICS 491). Monetary Authorities-Central Bank (NAICS 521). Funds, Trusts, and Other Financial Vehicles (NAICS 525). Management of Companies and Enterprises (NAICS 55). Private Households (NAICS 814). Public Administration (NAIC...

In 2011, 87.2 percent of the total population of the United Kingdom were white British. A positive net migration in recent years combined with the resultant international relationships following the wide-reaching former British Empire has contributed to an increasingly diverse population.

Varied ethnic backgrounds

Black British citizens, with African and/or African-Caribbean ancestry, are the largest ethnic minority population, at three percent of the total population. Indian Britons are one of the largest overseas communities of the Indian diaspora and make up 2.3 percent of the total UK population. Pakistani British citizens, who make up almost two percent of the UK population, have one of the highest levels of home ownership in Britain.

Racism in the United Kingdom

Though it has decreased in comparison to the previous century, the UK has seen an increase in racial prejudice during the first decade and a half of this century. Racism and discrimination continues to be part of daily life for Britain’s ethnic minorities, especially in terms of work, housing, and health issues. Moreover, the number of hate crimes motivated by race reported since 2012 has increased, and in 2017/18, there were 3,368 recorded offenses of racially or religiously aggravated assault with injury, almost a thousand more than in 2013/14.

Relative concentration of the Central California region's Hispanic and/or Black, Indigenous or person of color (HSPBIPOC) American population. The variable HSPBIPOC is equivalent to all individuals who select a combination of racial and ethnic identity in response to the Census questionnaire EXCEPT those who select "not Hispanic" for the ethnic identity question, and "white race alone" for the racial identity question. This is the most encompassing possible definition of racial and ethnic identities that may be associated with historic underservice by agencies, or be more likely to express environmental justice concerns (as compared to predominantly non-Hispanic white communities). Until 2021, federal agency guidance for considering environmental justice impacts of proposed actions focused on how the actions affected "racial or ethnic minorities." "Racial minority" is an increasingly meaningless concept in the USA, and particularly so in California, where only about 3/8 of the state's population identifies as non-Hispanic and white race alone - a clear majority of Californians identify as Hispanic and/or not white. Because many federal and state map screening tools continue to rely on "minority population" as an indicator for flagging potentially vulnerable / disadvantaged/ underserved populations, our analysis includes the variable HSPBIPOC which is effectively "all minority" population according to the now outdated federal environmental justice direction. A more meaningful analysis for the potential impact of forest management actions on specific populations considers racial or ethnic populations individually: e.g., all people identifying as Hispanic regardless of race; all people identifying as American Indian, regardless of Hispanic ethnicity; etc.

"Relative concentration" is a measure that compares the proportion of population within each Census block group data unit that identify as HSPBIPOC alone to the proportion of all people that live within the 4,961 block groups in the Central California RRK region that identify as HSPBIPOC alone. Example: if 5.2% of people in a block group identify as HSPBIPOC, the block group has twice the proportion of HSPBIPOC individuals compared to the Central California RRK region (2.6%), and more than three times the proportion compared to the entire state of California (1.6%). If the local proportion is twice the regional proportion, then HSPBIPOC individuals are highly concentrated locally.

Relative concentration of the Sierra Nevada region's Hispanic and/or Black, Indigenous or person of color (HSPBIPOC) population. The variable HSPBIPOC is equivalent to all individuals who select a combination of racial and ethnic identity in response to the Census questionnaire EXCEPT those who select "not Hispanic" for the ethnic identity question, and "white race alone" for the racial identity question. This is the most encompassing possible definition of racial and ethnic identities that may be associated with historic underservice by agencies, or be more likely to express environmental justice concerns (as compared to predominantly non-Hispanic white communities). Until 2021, federal agency guidance for considering environmental justice impacts of proposed actions focused on how the actions affected "racial or ethnic minorities." "Racial minority" is an increasingly meaningless concept in the USA, and particularly so in California, where only about 3/8 of the state's population identifies as non-Hispanic and white race alone - a clear majority of Californians identify as Hispanic and/or not white. Because many federal and state map screening tools continue to rely on "minority population" as an indicator for flagging potentially vulnerable / disadvantaged/ underserved populations, our analysis includes the variable HSPBIPOC which is effectively "all minority" population according to the now outdated federal environmental justice direction. A more meaningful analysis for the potential impact of forest management actions on specific populations considers racial or ethnic populations individually: e.g., all people identifying as Hispanic regardless of race; all people identifying as American Indian, regardless of Hispanic ethnicity; etc.

"Relative concentration" is a measure that compares the proportion of population within each Census block group data unit that identify as HSPBIPOC alone to the proportion of all people that live within the 775 block groups in the Sierra Nevada RRK region that identify as HSPBIPOC alone. Example: if 5.2% of people in a block group identify as HSPBIPOC, the block group has twice the proportion of HSPBIPOC individuals compared to the Sierra Nevada RRK region (2.6%), and more than three times the proportion compared to the entire state of California (1.6%). If the local proportion is twice the regional proportion, then HSPBIPOC individuals are highly concentrated locally.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

This research addresses social cohesion at the community level, and how this has evolved over a forty year period in a multicultural setting in a place in Surrey.

It aims to bridge the potential tensions between the community approach pursued by national and local government agencies and the lived complexities of multicultural areas of Britain.

The research focuses on a location that includes established white Italian-Sicilian and Asian Pakistani minorities and the majority white population. White Italian settlers are particularly interesting in this context since they are invisible in the 'race' and ethnicity literature in Britain as a minority group. An examination of how belonging is experienced for white and Asian minorities will provide insights into the ways in which these established minorities are positioned in relation to the white majority.

Particular emphasis will be given to how residents across ethnic locations narrate their attachment to the area they live. This also involves an analysis of how residents perceive and interact with newly arrived migrants. The research will be based on recorded family histories for each of the three ethnicities.

The 705 respondents to the Ethnic Minority Survey are a subset of the BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION CROSS-SECTION SURVEY, 1997 (ICPSR 2615) with an ethnic boost generated by a random screening survey. Eligible ethnic minority respondents for this survey were those who considered themselves to be Black, Indian, Pakistani, or Bangladeshi. The aims of this survey were (1) to measure the extent to which ethnic minority voters are integrated into the electoral process, (2) to evaluate, after taking into account social background, whether members of the main ethnic minorities vote differently from each other and from their white counterparts, (3) to examine whether the political attitudes of ethnic minority voters differ significantly from those of white voters, and (4) to explore whether members of ethnic minorities are influenced by different considerations than their white counterparts in deciding how to vote, and to evaluate in particular the importance of issues of race and immigration in voting behavior of ethnic minority and white voters. Fieldwork was conducted between May 1, 1997, the day of the 1997 British general election, and August 1997. Respondents were asked for their opinions on the existence of prejudice against them, recent improvements in Britain for minorities, the role of the government in improving conditions for minorities, the effectiveness of laws against racial discrimination and racial violence, school programs tailored for minority students, Britain's blasphemy law, state funding of religious schools, the stances of British political parties toward minorities, and the presence of minority figures in British politics. Additionally, topics covered in the Cross-Section Survey include the 1997 election campaign, participation in 1997 local elections, political knowledge, trust in government, images of British leadership, and views on British political parties, the European Union, Northern Ireland, nuclear weapons, unemployment, inflation, nationalization and privatization of companies, redistribution of income, women's rights, the role of government in social policy, abortion, ethnic minorities, the British economy, and the future of governmental institutions such as the House of Lords. Background information on respondents includes age, sex, race, ethnicity, political party, political orientation, marital status, number of members in household, social class, employment history, health insurance status, citizenship, country of birth, voter registration and participation history, household income, education, religion, parents' employment history, parents' voting behavior, spouse's employment history, and union membership.

Release Date: 2023-05-11.The Census Bureau has reviewed this data product to ensure appropriate access, use, and disclosure avoidance protection of the confidential source data (2019 NES-D Project No. 7504866, Disclosure Review Board (DRB) approval number: CBDRB-FY23-0262; 2020 ABS approval number: CBDRB-FY22-308)...Key Table Information:.Data in this table combines estimates from the Annual Business Survey (employer firms) and the Nonemployer Statistics by Demographics (nonemployer firms)...Includes U.S. firms with no paid employment or payroll, annual receipts of $1,000 or more ($1 or more in the construction industries) and filing Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax forms for sole proprietorships (Form 1040, Schedule C), partnerships (Form 1065), or corporations (the Form 1120 series)...Includes U.S. employer firms estimates of business ownership by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status from the 2020 Annual Business Survey (ABS) collection. Data are also obtained from administrative records, the 2017 Economic Census, and other economic surveys...Note: For employer data only, the collection year is the year in which the data are collected. A reference year is the year that is referenced in the questions on the survey and in which the statistics are tabulated. For example, the 2020 ABS collection year produces statistics for the 2019 reference year. The "Year" column in the table is the reference year...Data Items and Other Identifying Records:.Data include estimates on:.Total number of employer and nonemployer firms. Total sales and receipts of employer and nonemployer firms (reported in $1,000 of dollars). Number of employer firms (firms with paid employees). Sales and receipts of employer firms (reported in $1,000s of dollars). Number of employees (during the March 12 pay period). Annual payroll of employer firms (reported in $1,000s of dollars). Number of nonemployer firms (firms without paid employees). Sales and receipts of nonemployer firms (reported in $1,000s of dollars)...These data are aggregated by the following demographic classifications of firm for:.All firms. Classifiable (firms classifiable by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status). . Sex. Female. Male. Equally male/female. . Ethnicity. Hispanic. Equally Hispanic/non-Hispanic. Non-Hispanic. . Race. White. Black or African American. American Indian and Alaska Native. Asian. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. Minority (Firms classified as any race and ethnicity combination other than non-Hispanic and White). Equally minority/nonminority. Nonminority (Firms classified as non-Hispanic and White). . Veteran Status (defined as having served in any branch of the U.S. Armed Forces). Veteran. Equally veteran/nonveteran. Nonveteran. . . . Unclassifiable (firms not classifiable by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status). ...Data Notes:.. Business ownership is defined as having 51 percent or more of the stock or equity in the business. Data are provided for firms owned equally (50% / 50%) by men and women, by Hispanics and non-Hispanics, by minorities and nonminorities, and by veterans and nonveterans. Firms not classifiable by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status are counted and tabulated separately.. The detail may not add to the total or subtotal because a Hispanic firm may be of any race; because a firm could be tabulated in more than one racial group; or because the number of nonemployer firm's data are rounded.. Nonemployer data do not have standard error or relative standard error columns as these data are from the universe of nonemployer firms, not from a data sample....Industry and Geography Coverage:.Data are shown for the total for all sectors (00) and the 2-digit NAICS levels for the U.S., states and District of Columbia, and metro areas. Data are shown for the 3-digit NAICS for U.S. only. Nonemployer data are excluded for the following NAICS industries:.Crop and Animal Production (NAICS 111 and 112). Rail Transportation (NAICS 482). Postal Service (NAICS 491). Monetary Authorities-Central Bank (NAICS 521). Funds, Trusts, and Other Financial Vehicles (NAICS 525). Management of Companies and Enterprises (NAICS 55). Private Households (NAICS 814). Public Administration (NAICS 92). Industries Not Classified (NAICS 99)...For more information about NAICS, see NAICS Codes & Understanding Industry Classification Systems. For information about geographies used by economic programs at the Census Bureau, see Economic Census: Economic Geographies...Employer Data Footnotes:.Footnote 660 - Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting (Sector 11): Crop and Animal Production (NAICS 111 and 112) are out of scope..Footnote 661 - Transportation and ware...

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the population of Paris by race. It includes the population of Paris across racial categories (excluding ethnicity) as identified by the Census Bureau. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of Paris across relevant racial categories.

Key observations

The percent distribution of Paris population by race (across all racial categories recognized by the U.S. Census Bureau): 83.49% are white, 8.19% are Black or African American, 0.79% are American Indian and Alaska Native, 0.05% are Asian, 0.63% are some other race and 6.85% are multiracial.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates.

Racial categories include:

• White
• Black or African American
• American Indian and Alaska Native
• Asian
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
• Some other race
• Two or more races (multiracial)

Variables / Data Columns

• Race: This column displays the racial categories (excluding ethnicity) for the Paris
• Population: The population of the racial category (excluding ethnicity) in the Paris is shown in this column.
• % of Total Population: This column displays the percentage distribution of each race as a proportion of Paris total population. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Paris Population by Race & Ethnicity. You can refer the same here

The Housing Discrimination Study 2000 (HDS 2000) represents the most ambitious effort to date to measure the extent of housing discrimination in the United States against persons because of their race or color. It is the third nationwide effort sponsored by HUD to measure the amount of discrimination faced by minority home seekers. The previous studies were conducted in 1977 and 1989.The report noted below provides national estimates of discrimination faced by African Americans and Hispanics in 2000/2001 as they searched for housing in the sales and rental markets. It also provides an accurate measure of how housing discrimination has changed for these groups since 1989.Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 1The results in this report are based on 4,600 paired tests in 23 metropolitan areas nationwide. The report shows large decreases between 1989 and 2000 in the level of discrimination experienced by Hispanics and African Americans seeking to a buy a home. There has also been a modest decrease in discrimination toward African Americans seeking to rent a unit. This downward trend, however, has not been seen for Hispanic renters. Hispanic renters now are more likely to experience discrimination in their housing search than do African American renters.While generally down since 1989, housing discrimination still exists at unacceptable levels. The greatest share of discrimination for Hispanic and African American home seekers can still be attributed to being told units are unavailable when they are available to non-Hispanic whites and being shown and told about less units than a comparable non-minority. Although discrimination is down on most measures for African American and Hispanic homebuyers, there are worrisome upward trends of discrimination in the areas of geographic steering for African Americans and, relative to non-Hispanic whites, the amount of help agents provide to Hispanics with obtaining financing. On the rental side, Hispanics are more likely in 2000 than in 1989 to be quoted a higher rent than their white counterpart for the same unit.There are three volumes to this report, the main report, an annex, and a supplement. The main report provides the key findings; the annex provides more details on the data collection, analysis methods and metropolitan estimates; and the supplement uses 1,507 additional tests conducted in Phase 2 to provide state estimates for Alabama, California, Georgia, and New York, metropolitan estimates for the Baltimore MSA and the Miami MSA, and updated national estimates of discrimination for blacks and Hispanics.Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific IslandersThis study provides the first ever estimate of the level of discrimination experienced by Asians and Pacific Islanders. The results are based on 889-paired tests conducted in eleven metropolitan areas nationwide in 2000 and 2001. The key findings are that:Asian and Pacific Islander prospective renters experienced consistent adverse treatment relative to comparable whites in 21.5 percent of tests, about the same as the level for African American and Hispanic renters.Asian and Pacific Islander prospective homebuyers experienced consistent adverse treatment relative to comparable whites 20.4 percent of the time, with systematic discrimination occurring in housing availability, inspections, financing assistance, and agent encouragement.In addition to the national estimate for Asians and Pacific Islanders, the report also provides a national estimate for Asians alone, an estimate for the continental U.S., statewide estimate of discrimination against Asians and Pacific Islanders in California, estimates of discrimination faced by Chinese and Koreans in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, and an estimate of discrimination faced by Southeast Asians in the Minneapolis metropolitan area.Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 3 - Native AmericansThis study provides estimates of the level of housing discrimination experienced by Native Americans when they search for housing in the metropolitan areas of Minnesota, Montana, and New Mexico. Across all three states, Native Americans receive consistently unfavorable treatment relative to whites in 28.5 percent of rental tests. Systematic discrimination is most observable on measures of availability. That is,

The purpose of these two studies was to determine the perceptions of major life transitions for women of different ethnic backgrounds, and the role of these perceptions in the formation of their identities as adult women. The first sample included 36 black women and 64 white women. The second included 25 Mexican American women and 25 Puerto Rican women. The typical participant was in her late 30s to early 40s, employed in a professional or technical occupation or self-employed, and college educated. She also combined the roles of wife and mother. In 1979 and 1981, the participants in both studies were asked to identify and describe those critical events or turning points in their past lives that they believed had made a difference in their present identity as adult women. The Critical Events Interview format was used to organize the participants' descriptions of various dimensions of the events such as associated thoughts and feelings, coping strategies, factors related to the resolution of the events, and sources of support or frustration associated with the events. The critical event was used as the unit of analysis. The Murray Center has typed transcripts of over 800 single critical events from the 150 participants, as well as demographic information for the Latina sample.

The 2006 Census estimated 5.1 million individuals who belonged to a visible minority. The Employment Equity Act defines visible minorities as 'persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour’. The visible minority population has grown steadily over the last 25 years. In 1981, when data for the four Employment Equity designated groups were first derived, the estimated 1.1 million visible minorities represented 4.7% of Canada's total population. In 1991, 2.5 million people were members of the visible minority population, 9.4% of the total population. The visible minority population further increased to 3.2 million in 1996, or 11.2% of the total population. By 2001, their numbers had reached an estimated 3.9 million or 13.4% of the total population. In 2006, the visible minorities accounted for 16.2% of Canada’s total population. This map shows the percentage of visible minorities by census divisions.