The Kinder Houston Area Survey is a longitudinal study that began in May 1982 after Houston, Texas, recovered from the recession of the mid-1980s. The overall purpose of this research was to measure systematically the public responses to the new economic, educational, and environmental challenges, and to make the findings of this continuing project readily available to civic and business leaders, to the general public, and to research scholars. Part 1, All Responses from 25 Successive Samples, contains all the responses from the successive representative samples of Harris County residents from 1982 through 2014. These are the data that enabled the project to analyze continuity and change among area residents over the course of 26 years. In 13 of the 14 surveys (the years from 1994 through 2014, the one exception being 1996), the surveys were expanded with oversample interviews in Houston's ethnic communities. Using identical random-selection procedures, and terminating after the first few questions if the respondent was not of the ethnic background required, additional interviews were conducted in each of the years to enlarge and equalize the samples of Anglo, African American, and Hispanic respondents at about 500 each. In 1995 and 2002, the research also included large representative samples (N=500) from Houston's Asian communities, with one-fourth of the interviews conducted in Vietnamese, Cantonese, Mandarin, or Korean -- the only such surveys in the country. These additional interviews are included in Part 2, Additional Oversample Interviews. The data contained in Part 2 are for Restricted-Use of Part 1, All Responses from 25 Successive Samples. The data contained in Part 3 are based on a 14-year total of 6,576 Anglos, 6,086 African Americans, 6,094 Hispanics, and 1,250 Asians, along with 387 others, and are of particular value in assessing the similarities and differences both within and among Houston's (and America's) four largest ethnic groups. Beginning in 2003, the data files have incorporated detailed information from the 2000 Census on the characteristics of the respondent's neighborhood, not only at the level of home ZIP code, but also by Census tract and block group. In Part 4, Restricted-Use information from 2000 Census, the data record the population and geographical area of each of the three sectors, distributions by ethnicity and immigrant status, age and gender composition, employment and commuting patterns, and levels of education and income. With this information incorporated in the datasets covering five years of expanded surveys, researchers are able to connect the respondents' perceptions and experiences with information on the neighborhoods in which they live, thereby adding a contextual dimension to analyses of the factors that account for individual differences in attitudes and beliefs. Conducted during February and March of each year, the interviews measured perspectives on the local and national economy, on poverty programs, inter-ethnic relationships. Also captured were respondents' beliefs about discrimination and affirmative action, education, crime, health care, taxation, and community service, as well as their assessments of downtown development, mobility and transit, land-use controls and environmental concerns, and their attitudes toward abortion, homosexuality, and other aspects of the social agenda. Also recorded were religious and political orientations, as well as an array of demographic and immigration characteristics, socioeconomic indicators, and family structures.

According to figures recently released by the United States Census, America’s largest metro areas are currently gaining population at impressive rates. The growth in these areas is in fact driving much of the population growth across the nation. Upon closer examination of the data, this growth is the result of two very different migrations – one coming from the location choices of Americans themselves, the other shaped by where new immigrants from outside the United States are heading.While many metro areas are attracting a net-inflow of migrants from other parts of the country, in several of the largest metros – New York, Los Angeles., and Miami, especially – there is actually a net outflow of Americans to the rest of the country. Immigration is driving population growth in these places. Sunbelt metros like Houston, Dallas, and Phoenix, and knowledge hubs like Austin, Seattle, San Francisco, and the District of Columbia are gaining much more from domestic migration.This map charts overall or net migration – a combination of domestic and international migration. Most large metros, those with at least a million residents, had more people coming in than leaving. The metros with the highest levels of population growth due to migration are a mix of knowledge-based economies and Sunbelt metros, including Houston, Dallas, Miami, District of Columbia, San Francisco, Seattle, and Austin. Eleven large metros, nearly all in or near the Rustbelt, had a net outflow of migrants, including Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, Philadelphia, and Saint Louis.Source: Atlantic Cities

For the past 28 years, these countywide, random-digit-dialed, computer-assisted telephone surveys have systematically measured the continuities and changes in demographic patterns, life experiences, attitudes and beliefs among successive representative samples of Harris County residents. Using identical items across the years, with new questions added periodically, the annual Houston Area Survey (HAS) has tracked America's fourth largest city in the process of fundamental transformation. Houston recovered from deep recession in the 1980s to find itself squarely in the midst of a restructured economy and a demographic revolution. New economic, educational, and environmental challenges have redefined the 'pro-growth' strategies required for urban prosperity in the twenty-first century. At the same time, major immigration flows have transformed Houston into one of the nation's most culturally diverse metropolitan areas, at the center of the transformations that are refashioning the social and political landscape of urban America. The overall purpose of this continuing project is to measure systematically the way area residents are responding to these remarkable changes, and to make the findings of this research widely available to the general public and to research scholars everywhere. Conducted annually during February and March, the interviews measure perspectives on the local and national economies, on poverty programs, interethnic relationships, and the new immigration; beliefs about discrimination and affirmative action, about education, crime, health care, taxation, and community service; assessments of downtown development, mobility and transit, land-use controls, and environmental concerns; attitudes toward abortion, homosexuality, and other aspects of 'the social agenda.' They record religious and political orientations, as well as a rich array of demographic and immigration characteristics, socioeconomic indicators, and family structures.

This study surveyed immigrant and non-immigrant populations residing in high Latino population communities in order to: Assess the nature and pattern of bias motivated victimization. Explore the co-occurrence of bias motivated victimization with other forms of victimization. Measure reporting and help-seeking behaviors of individuals who experience bias motivated victimization. Identify cultural factors which may contribute to the risk of bias victimization. Evaluate the effect of bias victimization on negative psychosocial outcomes relative to other forms of victimization. The study's sample was a community sample of 910 respondents which included male and female Latino adults across three metropolitan areas within the conterminous United States. These respondents completed the survey in one of two ways. One set of respondents completed the survey on a tablet with the help of the research team, while the other group self-administered the survey on their own mobile device. The method used to complete the survey was randomly selected. A third option (paper and pencil with an administrator) was initially included but was removed early in the survey's deployment. The survey was administered from May 2018 to March 2019 in the respondent's preferred language (English or Spanish). This collection contains 1,620 variables, and includes derived variables for several scales used in the questionnaire. Bias victimization measures considered both hate crimes (e.g. physical assault) and non-criminal bias events (e.g. racial slurs) and allowed the respondent to report multiple incidents, perpetrators, and types of bias victimization. The respondents were asked about their help-seeking and reporting behaviors for the experience of bias victimization they considered to be the most severe and the measures considered both formal (e.g. contacting the police) and informal (e.g. communicating with family) help-seeking behaviors. The victimization scale measured exposure to traumatic events (e.g. witnessing a murder) as well as experiences of victimization (e.g. physical assault). Acculturation and enculturation scales measured topics such as the respondent's use of Spanish and English and their consumption of media in both languages. The variables pertaining to acculturative stress considered factors such as feelings of social isolation, experiences of racism, and conflict with family members. The variables for mental health outcomes measured symptoms of anger, anxiety, depression, and disassociation.