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.

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.

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.

Among the 81 largest metropolitan areas (by population) in the United States, Knoxville, Tennessee was ranked first with **** percent of residents reporting as white, non-Hispanic in 2023.

This map contains the 2020 Vulnerable Population Index along with the component demographic layers. The following seven populations were determined to be vulnerable based on an understanding of both federal requirements and regional demographics: 1) Low-Income Population (below 200% of poverty level) 2) Non-Hispanic Minority Population 3) Hispanic or Latino Population (all races) 4) Population with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) 5) Population with Disabilities 6) Elderly Population (age 75 and up) 7) Households with No CarFor each of these populations, Census tracts with concentrations above the regional mean concentration are divided into two categories above the regional mean. These categories are calculated by dividing the range of values between the regional mean and the regional maximum into two equal-sized intervals. Tracts in the lower interval are given a score of 1 and tracts in the upper interval are given a score of 2 for that demographic variable. The scores are totaled from the seven individual demographic variables to yield the Vulnerable Population Index (VPI). The VPI can range from zero to fourteen (0 to 14). A lower VPI indicates a less vulnerable area, while a higher VPI indicates a more vulnerable area.FIELDSP_PovL100: Percent Below 100% of the Poverty Level, P_PovL200: Percent Below 200% of the Poverty Level, P_Minrty: Percent Minority (non-White, non-Hispanic), P_Hisp: Percent Hispanic, P_LEP: Percent Limited English Proficiency (speak English "not well" or "not at all"), P_Disabld: Percent with Disabilities, P_Elderly: Percent Elderly (age 75 and over), P_NoCarHH: Percent Households with No Vehicle, RG_PovL100: Regional Average (Mean) of Percent Below 100% of the Poverty Level, RG_PovL200: Regional Average (Mean) of Percent Below 200% of the Poverty Level, RG_Minrty: Regional Average (Mean) of Percent Minority (non-White, non-Hispanic), RG_Hisp: Regional Average (Mean) of Percent Hispanic, RG_LEP: Regional Average (Mean) of Percent Limited English Proficiency (speak English "not well" or "not at all"), RG_Disabld: Regional Average (Mean) of Percent with Disabilities, RG_Elderly: Regional Average (Mean) of Percent Elderly (age 75 and over), RG_NoCarHH: Regional Average (Mean) of Percent Households with No Vehicle, [NO SC_PovL100: Note: Percent Below 100% of the Poverty Level not used in VPI 2020 calculation],SC_PovL200: VPI Score for Below 200% of the Poverty Level (Values: 0, 1, or 2),SC_Minrty: VPI Score for Minority (non-White, non-Hispanic) (Values: 0, 1, or 2),SC_Hisp: VPI Score for Hispanic (Values: 0, 1, or 2),SC_LEP: VPI Score for Limited English Proficiency (speak English "not well" or "not at all") (Values: 0, 1, or 2),SC_Disabld: VPI Score for Disabilities (Values: 0, 1, or 2),SC_Elderly: VPI Score for Elderly (age 75 and over) (Values: 0, 1, or 2),SC_NoCarHH: VPI Score for Households with No Vehicle (Values: 0, 1, or 2),VPI_2020: Total VPI Score (0 minimum to 14 maximum).Additional information on equity planning at BMC can be found here.Sources: Baltimore Metropolitan Council, U.S. Census Bureau 2016–2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Margins of error are not shown.Updated: April 2022

BackgroundIt is widely claimed that racial and ethnic minorities, especially in the US, are less willing than non-minority individuals to participate in health research. Yet, there is a paucity of empirical data to substantiate this claim. Methods and FindingsWe performed a comprehensive literature search to identify all published health research studies that report consent rates by race or ethnicity. We found 20 health research studies that reported consent rates by race or ethnicity. These 20 studies reported the enrollment decisions of over 70,000 individuals for a broad range of research, from interviews to drug treatment to surgical trials. Eighteen of the twenty studies were single-site studies conducted exclusively in the US or multi-site studies where the majority of sites (i.e., at least 2/3) were in the US. Of the remaining two studies, the Concorde study was conducted at 74 sites in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and France, while the Delta study was conducted at 152 sites in Europe and 23 sites in Australia and New Zealand. For the three interview or non-intervention studies, African-Americans had a nonsignificantly lower overall consent rate than non-Hispanic whites (82.2% versus 83.5%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84–1.02). For these same three studies, Hispanics had a nonsignificantly higher overall consent rate than non-Hispanic whites (86.1% versus 83.5%; OR = 1.37; 95% CI 0.94–1.98). For the ten clinical intervention studies, African-Americans' overall consent rate was nonsignificantly higher than that of non-Hispanic whites (45.3% versus 41.8%; OR = 1.06; 95% CI 0.78–1.45). For these same ten studies, Hispanics had a statistically significant higher overall consent rate than non-Hispanic whites (55.9% versus 41.8%; OR = 1.33; 95% CI 1.08–1.65). For the seven surgery trials, which report all minority groups together, minorities as a group had a nonsignificantly higher overall consent rate than non-Hispanic whites (65.8% versus 47.8%; OR = 1.26; 95% CI 0.89–1.77). Given the preponderance of US sites, the vast majority of these individuals from minority groups were African-Americans or Hispanics from the US. ConclusionsWe found very small differences in the willingness of minorities, most of whom were African-Americans and Hispanics in the US, to participate in health research compared to non-Hispanic whites. These findings, based on the research enrollment decisions of over 70,000 individuals, the vast majority from the US, suggest that racial and ethnic minorities in the US are as willing as non-Hispanic whites to participate in health research. Hence, efforts to increase minority participation in health research should focus on ensuring access to health research for all groups, rather than changing minority attitudes.

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

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.

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 (South Asian population) by census subdivisions.

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.

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). ...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 2,000 housing units, or have a population of at least 5,000 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. County...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 Ba...

To assess differences in psychological outcomes as well as risk and protective factors for these outcomes among several USA ethnic groups and identify correlates of these psychological outcomes among adults with diabetes in the second Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN2) study. The core USA DAWN2 sample was supplemented by independent samples of specific ethnic minority groups, yielding a total of 447 White non-Hispanics, 241 African Americans, 194 Hispanics, and 173 Chinese Americans (n = 1055). Multivariate analysis examined ethnic differences in psychological outcomes and risk/protective factors (disease, demographic and socioeconomic factors, health status and healthcare access/utilization, subjective burden of diabetes and social support/burden). Separate analyses were performed on each group to determine whether risk/protective factors differed across ethnic groups. Psychological outcomes include well-being, quality of life, impact of diabetes on life domains, diabetes distress, and diabetes empowerment. NCT01507116. Ethnic minorities tended to have better psychological outcomes than White non-Hispanics, although their diabetes distress was higher. Levels of most risk and protective factors differed significantly across ethnic groups; adjustment for these factors reduced ethnic group differences in psychological outcomes. Health status and modifiable diabetes-specific risk/protective factors (healthcare access/utilization, subjective diabetes burden, social support/burden) had strong associations with psychological outcomes, especially diabetes distress and empowerment. Numerous interactions between ethnicity and other correlates of psychological outcomes suggest that ethnic groups are differentially sensitive to various risk/protective factors. Potential limitations are the sample sizes and representativeness. Ethnic groups differ in their psychological outcomes. The risk/protective factors for psychological outcomes differ across ethnic groups and different ethnic groups are more/less sensitive to their influence. These findings can aid the development of strategies to overcome the most prominent and influential psychosocial barriers to optimal diabetes care within each ethnic group.

Research on the effects of racial context on public opinion often use residence-based measures of context, ignoring how the demographic composition of a context may change throughout the day. In this short article, we introduce a new zip code-level measure, racial flux, that accounts for how contexts differ between worker and resident populations. We merge our measure with survey data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, and show that greater racial flux --- more Black workers relative to Black residents in a zip code --- is associated with more conservative voting behaviors and racial attitudes among whites who live in the zip code. Our study suggests that whites are as politically responsive to the presence of non-resident minorities as they are resident minorities. More work is needed on measuring racial context, and on exploring the contours of how and why context affects political preferences.

Data quality:Hamilton, City (C)Total non-response (TNR) rate, short-form census questionnaire: 2.5%Total non-response (TNR) rate, long-form census questionnaire: 3.5%Notes: 117 'Visible minority' refers to whether a person is a visible minority or not as defined by the Employment Equity Act. 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 Arab Latin American Southeast Asian West Asian Korean and Japanese.In 2021 Census analytical and communications products the term "visible minority" has been replaced by the terms "racialized population" or "racialized groups" reflecting the increased use of these terms in the public sphere. For more information on visible minority and population group variables including information on their classifications the questions from which they are derived data quality and their comparability with other sources of data please refer to the Visible Minority and Population Group Reference Guide Census of Population 2021. 118 In 2021 Census analytical and communications products the term "visible minority" has been replaced by the terms "racialized population" or "racialized groups" reflecting the increased use of these terms in the public sphere. 119 The abbreviation "n.i.e." means "not included elsewhere." This category includes persons who provided responses that are classified as a visible minority but that cannot be classified with a specific visible minority group. Such responses include for example "Guyanese " "Pacific Islander " "Polynesian " "Tibetan" and "West Indian." 120 In 2021 Census analytical and communications products this category is referred to as "the rest of the population." 121 'Ethnic or cultural origin' refers to the ethnic or cultural origins of the person's ancestors. Ancestors may have Indigenous origins origins that refer to different countries or other origins that may not refer to different countries.The sum of the ethnic or cultural origins in this table is greater than the total population estimate because a person may report more than one ethnic or cultural origin in the census. The ethnic groups selected are the most frequently reported at the Canada level. For more information on ethnic or cultural origin variables including information on their classifications the questions from which they are derived data quality and their comparability with other sources of data please refer to the Ethnic or Cultural Origin Reference Guide Census of Population 2021. 122 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating French origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "French"). 123 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating British Isles origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "British " "United Kingdom"). 124 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Caucasian (White) origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Caucasian"). 125 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating First Nations (North American Indian) origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "First Nations " "North American Indian"). 126 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating European origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "European"). 127 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating African origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "African"). 128 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Arab origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Arab"). 129 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Asian origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Asian"). 130 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Cree origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Cree"). 131 The abbreviation "n.i.e." means "not included elsewhere." This category includes responses indicating Christian origins not included elsewhere (e.g. "Christian " "Baptist " "Catholic"). 132 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating North American Indigenous origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Aboriginal " "Indigenous"). 133 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating South Asian origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "South Asian"). 134 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Mi'kmaq origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Mi'kmaq"). 135 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Northern European origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Northern European " "Scandinavian"). 136 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Latin Central or South American origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Latin American " "South American"). 137 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Black origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Black"). 138 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Inuit origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Inuit"). 139 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Eastern European origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Eastern European"). 140 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating East or Southeast Asian origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "East Asian " "Southeast Asian"). 141 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating West or Central Asian or Middle Eastern origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Central Asian " "Middle Eastern " "West Asian"). 142 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Caribbean origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Caribbean"). 143 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating West Indian origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "West Indian"). 144 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Hispanic origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Hispanic"). 145 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Western European origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Western European"). 146 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Czechoslovakian origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Czechoslovakian"). 147 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Yugoslavian origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Yugoslavian"). 148 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Slavic origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Slavic"). 149 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Innu origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Innu " "Montagnais"). 150 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Celtic origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Celtic"). 151 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating North American origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "North American"). 152 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Dene origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Dene"). 153 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Blackfoot origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Blackfoot"). 154 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Iroquoian (Haudenosaunee) origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Iroquois " "Haudenosaunee"). 155 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating North African origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "North African"). 156 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Southern or East African origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "East African"). 157 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified.' This category includes responses indicating Anishinaabe origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Anishinaabe"). 158 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Bantu origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Bantu"). 159 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Akan origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Akan"). 160 The abbreviation "n.o.s." means "not otherwise specified." This category includes responses indicating Central or West African origins not otherwise specified (e.g. "Central African " "West African"). 161 'Religion' refers to the person's self-identification as having a connection or affiliation with any religious denomination group body or other religiously defined community or system of belief. Religion is not limited to formal membership in a

Lists visible minorities as a percentage of the total population, by census year and municipality and municipal district. Visible minorities, as defined in the federal Employment Equity Act, are "persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour".

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.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

The purpose of this survey was to study non-white people aged 15 and over, whose families originate from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, or the East Indies, with reference to their housing, employment and educational characteristics, their awareness and experience of racial discrimination. Comparative data were also collected for white men aged 16 and over, using the same questionnaire but with questions omitted when not applicable.
Main Topics:
Attitudinal/Behavioural Questions
Immigration: reasons; advantages of Britain/previous country; whether definite job arranged prior to arrival. Residence: number of rooms occupied; whether house was multi-occupied; amenities (whether shared); number of addresses in past five years. Tenure:
1. If owned: whether singly or jointly; mortgage/loan details; leasehold/freehold (date of expiry).
2. If rented: rent and rates details; council/private ownership; race of landlord. Council house tenants were asked how they obtained their housing.
Reasons for leaving previous residence:
A. Personal experience of mortgage/loan refusal, type of organisation which refused, year of application.
B. Personal experience of refusal of rented accommodation, number of refusals, details of last refusal.
In both A and B, respondents were asked to give the organisation's reasons for refusal and their personal opinion of reasons, with an explanation. Details of housing and financial facilities provided by the Council, entitlement/receipt of rent rebates and/or allowances, whether respondent has made an application to the council (length of time on waiting list). Occupation: hours worked per week, position, responsibility, qualifications, nature of firm, number of employees, source of information about job, promotion prospects, job satisfaction. In addition, respondents were asked whether they had visited the employment exchange or were receiving/had received benefits since 1964. Respondents were asked to relate experiences of unfair treatment with regard to promotion or application for jobs, and whether they thought there were firms giving equal opportunities to Asians and whites. Whether respondent believed employers discriminated against them - reasons. Details of previous refusals. Trade union membership and existence of unions at workplace.
Whether unemployed women had ever considered working (reasons). Working women with children were asked about child care facilities (hours, cost, satisfaction, etc.) Asian women were asked whether religion or family custom restricted their lives in terms of work, going out, company. Desired change was explored.
All respondents asked whether situation in Britain had improved for Asians over past five years - reasons. Knowledge of government bodies on race relations/Race Relations Board and its functions/Community Relations Commission and its functions was tested.
Whether voted at previous general election. Whether on voting list.
Background Variables
Age, sex, place of birth, previous countries of residence, date of arrival in Britain, age on arrival in Britain. Number of persons in household, household status. Age finished full-time education, examination and qualification details, further study, school attended by children.
Employment status, income, ownership of consumer durables. Residence: type, age, external conditions. Fluency in English, language of interview. Sampling area. Religion, church/mosque/temple attendance.

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