According to the 2021 Census, London was the most ethnically diverse region in England and Wales – 63.2% of residents identified with an ethnic minority group.

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.

How racially diverse are residents in Massachusetts? This topic shows the demographic breakdown of residents by race/ethnicity and the increases in the Non-white population since 2010.

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.

The US Census Bureau projects that racial minority groups will make up a majority of the 2042 US national population, effectively creating a so-called "majority-minority" nation. We explore how presenting information about such racial demographic shifts affects White Americans' expressed political ideology.

Note. Demographic data were not collected in Study 3.Participant Demographics.

In 2023, **** percent of Black people living in the United States were living below the poverty line, compared to *** percent of white people. That year, the total poverty rate in the U.S. across all races and ethnicities was **** percent. Poverty in the United States Single people in the United States making less than ****** U.S. dollars a year and families of four making less than ****** 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.

According to the 2021 Census, 81.7% of the population of England and Wales was white, 9.3% Asian, 4.0% black, 2.9% mixed and 2.1% from other ethnic groups.

BackgroundMigrant and ethnic minority groups are often assumed to have poor health relative to the majority population. Few countries have the capacity to study a key indicator, mortality, by ethnicity and country of birth. We hypothesized at least 10% differences in mortality by ethnic group in Scotland that would not be wholly attenuated by adjustment for socio-economic factors or country of birth.Methods and findingsWe linked the Scottish 2001 Census to mortality data (2001–2013) in 4.62 million people (91% of estimated population), calculating age-adjusted mortality rate ratios (RRs; multiplied by 100 as percentages) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 13 ethnic groups, with the White Scottish group as reference (ethnic group classification follows the Scottish 2001 Census). The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, education status, and household tenure were socio-economic status (SES) confounding variables and born in the UK or Republic of Ireland (UK/RoI) an interacting and confounding variable. Smoking and diabetes data were from a primary care sub-sample (about 53,000 people). Males and females in most minority groups had lower age-adjusted mortality RRs than the White Scottish group. The 95% CIs provided good evidence that the RR was more than 10% lower in the following ethnic groups: Other White British (72.3 [95% CI 64.2, 81.3] in males and 75.2 [68.0, 83.2] in females); Other White (80.8 [72.8, 89.8] in males and 76.2 [68.6, 84.7] in females); Indian (62.6 [51.6, 76.0] in males and 60.7 [50.4, 73.1] in females); Pakistani (66.1 [57.4, 76.2] in males and 73.8 [63.7, 85.5] in females); Bangladeshi males (50.7 [32.5, 79.1]); Caribbean females (57.5 [38.5, 85.9]); and Chinese (52.2 [43.7, 62.5] in males and 65.8 [55.3, 78.2] in females). The differences were diminished but not eliminated after adjusting for UK/RoI birth and SES variables. A mortality advantage was evident in all 12 minority groups for those born abroad, but in only 6/12 male groups and 5/12 female groups of those born in the UK/RoI. In the primary care sub-sample, after adjustment for age, UK/RoI born, SES, smoking, and diabetes, the RR was not lower in Indian males (114.7 [95% CI 78.3, 167.9]) and Pakistani females (103.9 [73.9, 145.9]) than in White Scottish males and females, respectively. The main limitations were the inability to include deaths abroad and the small number of deaths in some ethnic minority groups, especially for people born in the UK/RoI.ConclusionsThere was relatively low mortality for many ethnic minority groups compared to the White Scottish majority. The mortality advantage was less clear in UK/RoI-born minority group offspring than in immigrants. These differences need explaining, and health-related behaviours seem important. Similar analyses are required internationally to fulfil agreed goals for monitoring, understanding, and improving health in ethnically diverse societies and to apply to health policy, especially on health inequalities and inequities.

In 2022, 12.4 percent of film writers in the United States were part of ethnic minorities, whereas the remaining 87.6 percent were white, according to the source. A decade earlier, the shares stood at 7.6 and 92.4 percent, respectively. More than 80 percent of movie directors in the U.S. were white in 2022.

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.

In the 2023-24 season, Over 61 percent of female characters on broadcast TV programming in the United States were white. Further, 21.4 percent of female characters were Black. By comparison, just 7.7. percent were Hispanic.

The statistic shows the public opinion on the number of television shows with racial minority leads in the United States as of August 2017. During the survey, 28 percent of respondents believed that there are not enough actors/actresses of racial minorities playing leading roles in TV shows.

In Western democracies, like the USA, UK, and Germany, the number of ethnic minority representatives has been steadily increasing. How is this trend shaping electoral behavior? Past work has focused on the effects of minority representation on ethnic minorities’ political engagement, with less attention to the electoral behavior of majority-group members. We argue that increased minorities’ representation can be experienced as a threat to a historically white-dominant political context. This, in turn, politically activates white constituents. Using data from four UK general elections and a regression discontinuity design, we find that the next election’s turnout in constituencies narrowly won by an ethnic minority candidate is 4.3 percentage points larger than in constituencies narrowly won by a white candidate. Consistent with our argument, this turnout difference is driven by majority-white constituencies. Our findings have implications for intergroup relations and party politics and help explain recent political dynamics.

In 2022, approximately 17 percent of film directors in the United States were part of ethnic minorities, while the remaining 83 percent were white, according to the source. A decade earlier, the shares stood at 12.2 and 87.8 percent, respectively.

The statistic presents a distribution of the showrunners for new TV shows on selected broadcast networks in the United States in the 2016-17 season, sorted by ethnicity and gender. According to the source, 33 percent of the showrunners on ABC's new shows for the season were white females.

Number of people belonging to a visible minority group as defined by the Employment Equity Act and, if so, the visible minority group to which the person belongs. 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 consists mainly of the following groups: South Asian, Chinese, Black, Filipino, Latin American, Arab, Southeast Asian, West Asian, Korean and Japanese.

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.

Relative concentration of the Southern California region's Black/African 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 13,312 block groups in the Southern 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 Southern 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.

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)...Key Table Information:.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)...Data Items and Other Identifying Records:.Data include estimates on:.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 by the following legal form of organization (LFO) categories:. S-Corporations. C-Corporations. Individual proprietorships. Partnerships...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.. For C-corporations, there is no tax form or business registry that clearly and unequivocally identifies all owners of this type of business. For this reason, the Census Bureau is unable to assign demographic characteristics for C-corporations. Data for C-corporations are included in the published tables but are not shown by the demographic characteristics of the firms....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 (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...FTP Download:.Download the entire table at: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/abs/data/2020/AB2000NESD03.zip...API Information:.Nonemployer Demographic Statistics data are housed in the Census Bureau API. For more information, see https://api.census.gov/data/2020/absnesd.html...Symbols:. D - Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual companies; data are included in higher level totals. S - Estimate does not meet publication standards because of high sampling variability, poor response quality, or other concerns about the estimate quality. Unpublished estimates derived from this table by subtraction are subject to these same limitations and should not be attributed to the U.S. Census Bureau. For a description of publication standards and the total quantity response rate, see link to program methodology page.. N - Not available or not comparable. X - Not applicable..The following symbols are used to identify the...