NEWSLETTER
POPULATION SPECIALTY GROUP
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN GEOGRAPHERS

PSG's Nancy Torrieri Receives Bronze Medal from the U.S. Bureau of the Census

   Dr. Nancy K. Torrieri has been awarded the Bronze Medal from the Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. The Bronze Medal, the highest honorary award given by the Census Bureau, is granted for meritorious contributions. Nancy was honored for her research in the area of community data users, her presentations to meetings of numerous national, local, and community organizations, her contributions to the Census Bureau's overall understanding of the uses and benefits of the American Community Survey (especially to rural America), and her contributions to the understanding of the American Community Survey demographic and economic information by the community leaders using geographic information systems technology. Nancy is the primary contact for community leaders in the 1999 American Community Survey sites of Pima County, AZ; San Francisco, CA; Tulare County, CA; Flathead and Lake Counties, MT; Otero County, NM; Starr and Zapata Counties, TX,; and Ohio County, WV. (AAG Newsletter, Vol. 35, No. 2, February 2000, p. 6).

John Weeks Has Organized PSG's Plenary Session for the AAG Meetings in Pittsburgh

   This year's Plenary Session of the Population Specialty Group features a timely presentation by Margo Anderson, Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Professor Anderson's talk is titled "Who Counts: The Politics of Census-Taking in Contemporary America," which not coincidentally is the title of her latest book (with co-author Stephen Fienberg of Carnegie Mellon University), just published by the Russell Sage Foundation. Her 1988 book on "The American Census: A Social History" is now the standard reference on the US census and her insights, as an outsider, on the census are well grounded and thoroughly researched. Since our session comes during census week and will be Chaired by PSG President Jim Fitzsimmons of the Census Bureau, we can expect a lively conversation about the pratfalls, pitfalls, and of course the demographic and political significance of Census 2000. The session is co-sponsored by the Applied Geography Specialty Group. There will be an informal reception following Professor Anderson's talk and the question-and-answer session. The session is #354 in your program and is at 4PM on Thursday, 6 April. (Written by: John Weeks, Department of Geography, San Diego State University)

    Members of the Population Specialty Group address the issues of population geography in a variety of academic, private sector, and government settings, with the work ranging through both the theoretical and applied realms and through area-based studies around the world. Some components of this work are more visible than others. The current review of the federal government's metropolitan area (MA) standards falls among those foundation efforts that support many other endeavors. This review of the standards has been under way since the early 1990s and is the product of thousands of hours of work, much of it the work of geographers, including population geographers.

    John Adams, Brian Berry, and Richard Morrill (and sociologists William Frey and the late Alden Speare, Jr.) prepared papers early in the 1990s that helped establish the direction and scope of the review, and they continued to contribute in the following years. Other geographer contributors--both in and out of the federal government--have included John Cromartie, Donald Dahmann, Richard Forstall, Patricia Gober, J.W. Harrington, David Plane, and Alexander Vias. The U.S. Census Bureau's Population Distribution Branch, which includes several geographers,* has played a central role in the effort, and a federal interagency committee that includes geographers and others has put in long hours on behalf of the project.

   It was clear by the 1940s, if not earlier, that the value of data for metropolitan-level entities produced by different federal agencies would be enhanced if those data were prepared for the same areas. At that time, various programs had delineated areas for their own purposes. The Census Bureau defined and used its own metropolitan districts, which were composed principally of minor civil divisions and not useful for those programs that could produce data for entities no smaller than the county. Other programs had their own areas; e.g., the Bureau of Labor Statistics defined labor market areas.

   An interagency committee led by the Bureau of the Budget--predecessor of today's Office of Management and Budget (OMB)--defined what were called "standard metropolitan areas" in time for their use with 1950 decennial census data. Since that time, the standards have been reviewed before each decennial census; the current review is the fifth such review.

   The purpose of the MA program is to provide a single set of areas for the collection, tabulation, and publication of federal statistics, and MAs are used in hundreds of federal data sets. (MAs receive widespread use in non-statistical program capacities as well, but such uses are outside the scope of the MA program.) The beneficiaries of the program are data users--including government agencies, academic researchers, marketing statistics firms, the press, and, ultimately, citizens who want information about the areas where many of them live and work. Geographers are prominent among the areas' users in work on the distribution of people and activities.

   This decade's review--called the Metropolitan Area Standards Review Project (MASRP)--has been especially thorough. A principal objective was to determine if the standards could be made simpler in both conceptual and operational terms while also defining areas that meaningfully represent the distribution of population and activity and that can be used widely with federal statistics. Previous reviews of the standards responded to changes in settlement patterns and data availability, but over the course of those four earlier reviews, the standards grew longer and more complex.

   Several specific issues and questions have been on the review agenda. Among those issues are (1) the geographic entities or building blocks that should be used in defining statistical areas; (2) how those geographic entities should be aggregated to form statistical areas; (3) the appropriate frequency for updating areas; and (4) how a system could be developed that would account for a larger portion of the pattern of settlement and activity than does the current MA program.

   The review began early in the 1990s, and since that time there has been a continuing effort to collect and share information extensively about the review process and the purpose of the standards. Staff at the Census Bureau have given approximately 35 presentations on MASRP just during the past 14 months to professional associations, data user groups, nongovernmental organizations, and others. Since the start of the project, there have been many other presentations (including several at AAG meetings), a working paper and articles, two open conferences (1995 and 1999), a congressional hearing (1997), and two Federal Register notices about the review.

   The first Federal Register notice, published by OMB in December 1998, presented alternatives both in terms of several specific issues and in terms of four separate overall approaches to defining areas and requested comment on them. The second of the open conferences took place during the comment period for this notice and offered another public forum for discussion of issues.

   In October 1999, OMB published a second Federal Register notice, which requested public comment on recommendations it had received from the interagency federal advisory committee for changes to the MA standards. Key committee recommendations as presented in this second notice were that "Core-Based Statistical Areas" (CBSAs) should be defined using the county as the geographic building block throughout the country, that the extent of the CBSAs should be determined using commuting data from the Census Bureau, and that the extent of the country's settlement pattern accounted for by CBSAs should be more encompassing than what is accounted for by MAs. The last of these recommendations would be achieved by defining CBSAs with population cores as small as 10,000, compared with the 50,000 population minimum required for MAs. New CBSAs would be defined first in 2003 based on 2000 census data, and new ones could be defined each year after that based on Census Bureau population estimates or special censuses; the first update of existing CBSA definitions would take place in 2008, using commuting data from the Census Bureau's new American Community Survey. For many more details, see the 1999 notice, which is available at the Census Bureau's web site (visit the agency's home page--www.census.gov--and use the "Subjects A to Z" feature to find "Metropolitan Area Standards Review Project").

   OMB will publish a third Federal Register notice this spring to seek final public comment on revised recommendations to OMB from the interagency committee that reflect its continued work and the review of comments received in response to the October 1999 notice. OMB plans to publish the final standards for defining areas in the coming decade this summer, and those standards will first result in new areas being defined in mid-2003. (Tabulations from Census 2000, meantime, will use metropolitan areas as they are defined on census day.)

   There are many projects like MASRP in the academic, private, and government sectors that contribute to the fabric of population geography. Just on the topic of statistical areas and within the Census Bureau, there are a number of continuing projects that fall into this category. Geographers have participated in the design of other statistical areas such as public use microdata areas, census tracts, urbanized areas, and the overall urban-rural classification, all of which benefit from the work of population geography and then become analytical tools for the field.

*Staff of the Population Distribution Branch who have worked on the MA standards review include Darryl Cohen, Rodger Johnson, Colleen Joyce, Paul Mackun, Marc Perry, David Rain, Michael Ratcliffe, and Trudy Suchan. (Written by: James Fitzsimmons,U.S. Bureau of the Census, Suitland, Maryland).

   This past February the Census Bureau announced release of the third edition of the American Community Survey CD-ROM featuring information from the 1998 survey. The American Community Survey is designed to replace the long-form questionnaire in the 2010 census.

The CD-ROM, which comes with its own software, allows users to quickly access information in narrative and tabular formats. Users also can view or print charts, maps and reports from prepackaged tabulations, replicating those found in standard decennial reports, and conduct complex data manipulations and customized cross-tabulations.

Data are displayed in three formats: community profiles, detailed summary tables (similar to those from the 1990 census), and public-use microdata. The 1998 CD-ROM includes data for two new sites, as well as multi-year data for many 1996 and 1997 sites. The sites added in 1998 were Kershaw and Richland counties in South Carolina and Broward County in Florida. Also included in 1998 were Douglas County, Neb.; Franklin County, Ohio; Fort Bend and Harris counties, Texas; Otero County, N.M.; Rockland County, N.Y.; Multnomah County, Ore.; and Fulton County, Pa.

The data may be viewed with Windows 95, 98 or NT operating systems. The CD-ROM includes a user-friendly browser known as Beyond 20/20 licensed by Ivation Datasystems, Inc. The Hands-On Guided Tour includes tutorial "movies" about how to use the software to find the information the user needs. The Quick Start Guide has been updated to direct the user through more complex data manipulations and features.

A copy of the American Community Survey questionnaire is provided, along with information about methods, concepts and definitions related to the data. Narrative profiles providing plain-language descriptions of each community complement standard tables.

The American Community Survey will provide accurate and timely demographic and economic indicators throughout the decade for federal, state and local governments. Communities can use the information to plan for economic development; to make decisions about locating schools, roads, and hospitals; and to monitor change over time. The number of sites was expanded in 1999 to 31. The American Community Survey will be conducted nationwide in 2003.

For more information on the survey or to request a free copy of the CD-ROM, please call 1-888-456-7215 or send an e-mail message to: acs@census.gov

    This past November was American Indian Heritage Month in the United States. In celebration of this event, the Census Bureau released the following annotated list of documents that it produced during the past several years:

• The nation's American Indian, Eskimo and Aleut resident population grew by more than 300,000 between April 1, 1990 and July 1, 1999, to 2.4 million. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/1999/cb99-101.html
• The American Indian, Eskimo and Aleut resident population has grown more rapidly than the nation's population as a whole in the 1990s, 16.0 percent versus 9.7 percent between April 1, 1990 and July 1, 1999. http://www.census.gov/PressRelease/www/1999/cb99-101.html
• Despite its steady growth over the last five years, the nation's American Indian, Eskimo and Aleut population remained at 0.9 percent of the total population on July 1,1999. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/1999/cb99-101.html
• The nation's American Indian, Eskimo and Aleut resident population is young, with an estimated median age on July 1, 1999, of 27.6 years, nearly eight years younger than the median for the population as a whole. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/1999/cb99-101.html
• According to middle-series population projections, the nation's American Indian, Eskimo and Aleut resident population will grow to 3.1 million by 2020. This means that this race group should see its population increase faster over the next two decades than either Whites or African Americans but more slowly than Hispanics (who may be of any race) or Asians and Pacific Islanders. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb96-36.html
• There were an estimated 161,000 American Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts age 65 and over and 20,000 age 85 and over residing in the United States as of July 1, 1999. Projections indicate these numbers will double by July 1, 2020, to 321,000 and 51,000, respectively. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb96-36.html
• In 1997, about half of the nation's American Indian, Eskimo and Aleut households were located outside metro areas; the remainder were split about equally between the suburbs and the central cities of metro areas. http://www.census.gov/ftp/pub/ mp/www/pub/con/mscho20a.html
• As of July 1, 1996, the metropolitan areas with the largest American Indian, Eskimo and Aleut populations were Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, Calif., with 113,000; Phoenix-Mesa, Ariz., 65,000; New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, N.Y.-N.J.-Conn.-Pa., 61,000; Tulsa, Okla, 50,000; San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, Calif., 49,000; Oklahoma City, Okla., 48,000; Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, Wash., 45,000; Albuquerque, N.M., 38,000; Flagstaff, Ariz.-Utah, 34,000; and Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.-Wis., 28,000. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb98-226.html
• Among these metropolitan areas, the three with the highest concentration of American Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts were Flagstaff (where persons of this group constituted 28 percent of the total population), Tulsa (7 percent), and Albuquerque (6 percent). http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb98-226.html
• As of July 1, 1998, according to population estimates: The 10 states with the largest American Indian, Eskimo and Aleut populations were: California (309,000), Oklahoma (263,000), Arizona (256,000), New Mexico (163,000), Washington (103,000), Alaska (100,000), North Carolina (98,000), Texas (96,000), New York (76,000), and Michigan (60,000). Overall, nearly one-half of the nation's American Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts lived in Western states. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/1999/cb99-170.html
• Each of the 10 states with the largest percentage of American Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts were located west of the Mississippi River. They were: Alaska (where persons of this group constituted 16 percent of the total population), New Mexico (9 percent), South Dakota (8 percent), Oklahoma (8 percent), Montana (6 percent), Arizona (6 percent), North Dakota (5 percent), Wyoming (2 percent), Nevada (2 percent) and Washington (2 percent). http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/1999/cb99-170.html
• Of the 10 counties with the largest American Indian, Eskimo and Aleut population, seven were located in either Arizona or New Mexico. However, it was Los Angeles, Calif., that topped the nation, with 56,000 American Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts. Rounding out the top 10 were: Maricopa, Ariz. (54,000); Apache, Ariz. (53,000); Navajo, Ariz. (50,000); McKinley, N.M. (49,000); Robeson, N.C. (47,000); San Juan, N.M. (41,000); Coconino, Ariz. (34,000); Pima, Ariz. (27,000); and Tulsa, Okla. (27,000). http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/1999/cb99-170.html
• Of the seven counties (or county equivalents) with the largest percentage of American Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts, six were located in either South Dakota or Alaska. Shannon, S.D., and Wade Hampton Census Area, Alaska, where 94 percent of residents were American Indians, Eskimos or Aleuts, led the nation, followed by Menominee,Wis. (88 percent); Northwest Arctic Borough, Alaska (86 percent); Bethel Census Area, Alaska (84 percent); Todd, S.D. (83 percent); and Buffalo, S.D. (79 percent). http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/1999/cb99-170.html
• Between April 1, 1990, and July 1, 1998, according to population estimates:  Arizona added 42,000 American Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts to its population, more than any other state. Next were New Mexico (25,000), Texas (23,000), California (23,000), Florida (21,000) and North Carolina (17,000). http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/1999/cb99-170.html
• About one-third of the nation's American Indian, Eskimo and Aleut households had incomes that placed them below the poverty line in 1997. http://www.census.gov/ftp/pub/mp/www/pub/con/mscho20a.html
• In 1997, about one-quarter of the nation's American Indian, Eskimo and Aleut households had moved during the preceding year. http://www.census.gov/ftp/pub/mp/www/pub/con/mscho20a.html

    This past May was Asian and Pacific Islander American Heritage Month. The U.S. Census Bureau released the following list of publications that are relevant to this event.

• Asians and Pacific Islanders had the highest median household income among the nation's race groups in 1997 -- $45,249. However, because Asian and Pacific Islander households were, on average, larger than White households (3.17 people versus 2.58 people), their estimated income per household member was lower ($18,569 compared with $20,093). http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb98-177.html
• Both the number (1.5 million) and percentage (14.0 percent) of Asian and Pacific Islander individuals who were poor in 1997 were statistically unchanged from the previous year. For Asian and Pacific Islander families, the number and percent who were poor in 1997 were 244,000 and 10.2 percent, respectively. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb98-177.html
• One of every two Asian and Pacific Islander adults ages 25 to 29 had attained a bachelor's degree or higher in 1997, contributing to that population's high percentage of college graduates. Comparatively, almost 1 in 3 Whites (29 percent), 1 in 7 African Americans (14 percent), and just over 1 in 10 Hispanics (11 percent) in the 25- to 29-year-old age group had at least a bachelor's degree. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb98-108.html
• Among all persons ages 25 and over in 1997, Asians and Pacific Islanders had the greatest proportion of college graduates of any racial or ethnic group, at 42 percent. This compared with 25 percent for Whites, 13 percent for African Americans and 10 percent for Hispanics. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb98-108.html
• In 1996, non-Hispanic Asians and Pacific Islanders received 12 percent of the doctorates conferred by the nation's colleges and universities. This included 26 percent of those conferred in engineering, 22 percent each in mathematics and computer sciences and 20 percent each in physical sciences (astronomy, physics and chemistry) and biological sciences (biochemistry, botany, microbiology, physiology and zoology). http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb98-226.html
• In 1997, 24 percent, or 6.1 million, of the nation's foreign-born residents were Asians and Pacific Islanders. In addition, six in 10 Asians and Pacific Islanders in the United States were foreign-born. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb98-57.html
• China (including Hong Kong) and the Phillippines were the leading countries of origin after Mexico for the nation's foreign-born residents in 1997, with each contributing 1.1 million. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb98-57.html
• There were 2.2 million Asian and Pacific Islander families in 1997; of these, eight in 10 were married-couple families. Asian and Pacific Islander families are often large: 20 percent had five or more members, compared with 11 percent for non-Hispanic White families.  http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb98-180.html
• Asian and Pacific Islander children under 18 years of age were more likely to live with both parents (84 percent) than non-Hispanic White children (77 percent) in 1997. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb98-180.html
• On July 1, 1998, an estimated 10.4 million Asians and Pacific Islanders lived in the United States, up 2.8 million from a total of 7.6 million on July 1, 1990. They comprised 3.8 percent of the total population in 1998, up from 3.0 percent in 1990. http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/intfile3-1.txt
• Asians and Pacific Islanders had a higher rate of population growth between July 1, 1990 and 1998 than any other race or ethnic group: 37 percent. http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/intfile3-1.txt
• The nation's Asian and Pacific Islander population is young, with an estimated median age on July 1, 1998, of 31.2 years -- 4.0 years younger than the median for the U.S. population as a whole. http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/intfile3-1.txt
• By 2020, according to middle-series population projections, the nation's Asian and Pacific Islander population is expected to reach 19.7 million (6.1 percent of the nation's total population). http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb96-36.html
• In 1997, 55 percent of the nation's Asians and Pacific Islanders lived in the West and 95 percent resided in metro areas (49 percent in suburbs, 46 percent in central cities). http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb98-180.html
• As of July 1, 1997, according to population estimates: California had more Asians and Pacific Islanders than any other state, 3.8 million. New York was a distant second (952,736), followed by Hawaii (748,748), Texas (523,972) and New Jersey (423,738). http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb98-161.html
• The states with the highest concentration of Asians and Pacific Islanders were Hawaii (63 percent of the total population), California (12 percent), Washington (6 percent) and New Jersey and New York (5 percent each). http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb98-161.html
• Los Angeles County, Calif., was the U.S. county with the highest number of Asians and Pacific Islanders (1.2 million). Honolulu County, Hawaii, was second (559,752), followed by Orange County, Calif. (344,330); Santa Clara County (San Jose), Calif. (343,387); and Queens County, N.Y. (317,893). http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb98-161.html
• Between 1980 and 1995, the number of registrations in Japanese courses at U.S. colleges and universities almost quadrupled, from 11,500 to 44,700, while the number in Chinese courses more than doubled, from 11,400 to 26,500. Consequently, Japanese is now the fourth most popular foreign language course in U.S. colleges; Chinese is sixth. Furthermore, 42,300 of the nation's public high school students were enrolled in Japanese classes in fall 1994, up from 6,200 a dozen years earlier. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb98-226.html
• As of 1992, Chinese was tied with German as the third most common foreign language in which the nation's 17 million small businesses could conduct transactions: 2 percent could conduct them in Chinese. The leading foreign languages were Spanish and French. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb97-182.html

     From devising neighborhood statistical areas called census tracts in 1910, to the first civilian use of an electronic computer, UNIVAC I in 1951 and the launching of a multimillion-dollar paid advertising campaign to boost response in Census 2000, the Census Bureau led the way during the 20th century in collecting, tabulating and disseminating statistics.

    The following are some of the Bureau's major accomplishments, as reported in a press release dated December 22, 1999:

• UNIVAC (Universal Automatic Computer) I -- The first electronic computer for civilian use was designed and built specifically for the Census Bureau and marked a major speedup in data processing. It also was the dawning of "the computer age." First used to process results from the 1950 census, the machine was able to tabulate 4,000 items per minute, double the amount that electro-mechanical tabulating machines could process.
• FOSDIC/OCR (Optical Character Recognition) -- During the first half of the century, punch cards, first used in the 19th century, were still the principal method of tabulating census and survey data.
• During the 1950s, the Census Bureau and the National Bureau of Standards developed a system called Film Optical Sensing Device for Input to Computers (FOSDIC), which took census and survey questionnaires that had been photographed onto microfilm, "read" blackened dots opposite the appropriate answers and transferred the data to magnetic tape. These tapes constituted the input for the Census Bureau's computers. One major result was the elimination of most discrepancies in data records sent for processing. Developed to help process the 1960 decennial census, FOSDIC played an integral part in the Census Bureau's data processing system into the mid 1990s. For the first time in the history of the U.S. census, optical character scanners will be used to process questionnaires in 2000. The scanners recognize hand-written responses, as well as filled-in ovals or boxes. Using complex software, the scanned images are processed and translated into computer code. Then the responses are transmitted electronically over secure lines to Census Bureau headquarters for statistical processing and analysis.
• The Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) system -- This digital database of the nation's geographic features was developed at the Census Bureau in the 1980s to support the mapping and related geographic activities required by the decennial census and sample survey programs. This unified, coordinated, computerized database and its associated mapping software replaced the need to prepare and collect tens of thousands of maps and assign geographic codes to the data each time the agency undertook a census or survey. TIGER spawned a new computer industry: geographic information systems.
• The shift to self-enumeration -- Prior to 1960, every housing unit in the country was visited by an enumerator during the decennial census. Beginning with the 1960 census, however, householders in urban areas were mailed questionnaires, then asked to complete and hold them until they could be picked up by an enumerator. Today, the vast majority of housing units receive census questionnaires in the mail. Self-enumeration by mail improves quality of the resulting data and permits the Census Bureau to concentrate its resources in those areas where the greatest effort is needed to complete the census.
• Dissemination of data to the public -- CD-ROMs played a major role in the dissemination of data from the 1990 census. The Census Bureau's award-winning Internet site, launched in 1994, soon became the agency's primary avenue for data dissemination, permitting users to find the data they want with a few clicks of the mouse. For the better part of the 20^th Century, data users could find the information they needed only by locating the appropriate printed report and then thumbing through it.
• Development of statistical sampling techniques -- The Census Bureau first used statistical sampling methods in the 1937 Enumerative Check Census of Unemployment to estimate the scope of unemployment in the United States during the Depression. Sampling was used in a population and housing census for the first time in 1940. Sampling made it possible to ask selected questions of every fourth or fifth household and to produce reliable estimates for entire geographic areas. The use of sampling in the census led to the development of scores of recurring demographic surveys, most notably the Monthly Report on the Labor Force in 1943, expanded and renamed the Current Population Survey in 1947.
• Use of paid advertising in a census -- The 1950 through the 1990 censuses relied on pro bono advertisements coordinated by the Advertising Council to encourage census participation. These ads were run in the media as space allowed and often appeared when readership, viewership or listenership were at their lowest levels, thus doing little to increase participation. For Census 2000, paid advertising became an important part of the plan to promote census awareness and participation and ensure the right message reached the right people at the right time.
• Designing business classification systems -- In the 1940s, the Census Bureau began tabulating data from economic censuses and surveys on the basis of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system, which classified establishments by the type of activity in which they are engaged, promoting uniformity and comparability in the presentation of economic statistics. In the 1990s, as a result of cooperative work between Census, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Canadian and Mexican Statistical agencies, the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) replaced the SIC system. NAICS recognized hundreds of new industries the SIC system did not.
• Establishment of statistical areas -- Following the 1910 census, the Census Bureau re-tabulated for the first time some New York City data for relatively unchanging small neighborhood areas whose characteristics could be compared over time. This program became the census tract program. By 1990, it covered the entire country. Following the 1940 census, the agency started releasing population and housing data by block for cities with 50,000 or more. Decision-makers across the country have come to rely on these small-area data.
• Automated Export System (AES) -- A joint venture between the U.S. Customs Service, the Bureau of the Census, the Bureau of Export Administration, the Office of Defense Trade Controls, other federal agencies and the export trade community, the AES is the central point through which export shipment data required by multiple agencies is filed electronically to Customs. AES is a completely voluntary system that provides an alternative to filing paper Shipper's Export Declarations (SEDs). Export information is collected electronically and edited immediately, and errors are detected and corrected at the time of filing. AES is a nationwide system operational at all ports and for all methods of transportation.

    The estimated proportion of the Hispanic population with at least a bachelor's degree ranges from 25 percent for Cubans to 7 percent for Mexicans, according to 1999 data released on March 8^th by the U.S. Census Bureau. Overall, about 11 percent of Hispanics age 25 years and older reported having at least a bachelor's degree, compared with 28 percent of non-Hispanic Whites. "The country's Latino population is not as homogeneous as some might think," said Roberto Ramirez, author of The Hispanic Population in the United States March -- 1999. "In many respects, people with origins in Cuba, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Central America and South America, as well as in other Hispanic countries, have wide variations in their social and economic characteristics, from educational attainment and marriage, to employment and income."

    Estimates for 1999 showed that nearly two-thirds (20.6 million) of Hispanics were of Mexican origin; 14 percent (4.5 million) were of Central and South American origin; 10 percent (3 million) were of Puerto Rican origin; 7 percent (2 million) had origins in the Caribbean and other countries; and 4 percent (1.4 million) were of Cuban descent.

    Other findings included the following:

• Among Hispanic groups, people of Mexican origin had the lowest proportion (50 percent) of people with a high school diploma or more. Comparable figures for both Puerto Ricans and Central and South Americans were 64 percent and 71 percent for people from the Caribbean. About 70 percent of the Cuban-Americans had at least a high school degree. Overall, 56 percent of Hispanics were high school graduates compared with 88 percent of non-Hispanic Whites.
• The poverty rate among Hispanic groups ranged from 31 percent for Puerto Ricans to 14 percent for Cubans. Hispanics were about three times more likely to be living below the poverty level (26 percent) than non-Hispanic Whites (8 percent).

     About 16 percent (43 million) of U.S. residents moved from one home to another between March 1997 and March 1998, a decline from the 16.5 percent who moved during the previous one-year period, according to a report released this past January by the Census Bureau.

     In recent years, mobility rates have changed little or not at all and in fact, the overall drop since the 1950s and 1960s has been only around 4 percentage points," said Carol Faber, author of the report entitled Geographical Mobility: March 1997 to March 1998.

     Other highlights from the report, available on the Internet at: http://www.census.gov/ population/www/socdemo/migrate.html include:

• Moving rates decline as people grow older: between March 1997 and March 1998, only 4 percent of those 65 and over moved, while one-third of people ages 20 to 29 years old moved, the highest rate of all age groups.
• Of the 43 million movers, 27.1 million moved within the same county, 7.9 million moved to another county in the same state, and 6.4 million took up residence in a different state. Additionally, during that one-year period about 1.2 million people moved to the United States from abroad.
• Non-Hispanic Whites had lower overall rates of moving (14.5 percent) than African Americans or Asians and Pacific Islanders (about 19 percent for each group). People of Hispanic origin, who may be of any race, had the highest rate of moving (21.2 percent).
• One-third of America's renters moved between March 1997 and March 1998. In contrast, only 8.2 percent of homeowners moved during that time.
• The Northeast had the lowest overall moving rate (11.5 percent), well below the national rate of 16.0 percent, followed by the Midwest (14.7 percent), the South (17.2 percent) and the West (19.4 percent).

     More than half of all householders rated their homes and neighborhoods 8 or better on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest in 1997, according to a report released this past October by the Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

     The 8-or-better satisfaction level is reflected almost equally in every U.S. region. The proportion who scored their homes and neighborhoods at 8 or better was 59 percent in the Midwest and South; 58 percent in the Northeast; and 53 percent in the West.

     The report, "American Housing Survey for the United States: 1997," also presents data on the size and composition of the nation's housing inventory, characteristics of its occupants, housing costs and equipment and fuels. Other subjects covered are mortgages, rent subsidies, previous housing unit of recent movers and reasons for moving. Summary data are provided for the nation and the regions, as well as for inside and outside metropolitan statistical areas.

     For more information contact: William Hartnett of the Census Bureau at 301-457-3235 or send him an e-mail massage at: owner-press-media@Census.GOV

    The following sources of data and maps were provided by PSG's Michelle Behr (Western New Mexico State University):

• CensusCD+Maps ­ The most complete source of official US demographic data (1790-2004) and maps. 1999 estimates, 2004 projections, 1999 consumer expenditure, time series, historical data, as well as a complete set of 1990 Census data and geographic boundaries. All data and maps in easy-to-use format. Library Journal calls it a "Must Buy." USA Today places it on its reviewers' recommended list of software. And Business Geographics' lists "Weaknesses: None". http://www.geolytics.com/cdmaps/censuscd_maps.htm
• StreetCD ­ Complete TIGER 98 geography, that's easy-to-use. US street data for geocoding, routing, and mapping. Millions of landmarks, dozens of boundaries. Easily exports to popular GIS formats. http://www.geolytics.com/streetcd/streetcd.htm
• CensusCD 1980 ­ It took until 1999, but finally the 1980 Census data are in a format that anyone can use. Time series analysis on areas as small as a Census Tract can now be done with over 1,500 variables. Mapping software and boundaries for 1980 tracts, counties, states, places, and MCD, are included. http://www.geolytics.com/censuscd1980/censuscd1980.htm
• CensusCD Blocks ­ Contains a unique complete set of data and maps for 7 Million US census blocks. Includes all Census Bureau population and housing data, Block boundaries, and many value-added items such as block to ZIP projections. A sophisticated reporting engine with SQL-like filtering, and mapping software are included. http://www.censuscd.com/cdblocks/cdblocks.htm

     For further information call: 800-577-6717 or e-mail to: mail to: questions@geolytics.com. or visit the web site at: http://wwwgeolytics.com

    Please note the following PSG-sponsored/co-sponsored sessions at the Pittsburgh meetings. Days, times, and session numbers are as listed in the preliminary program. This program was arranged by PSG's Kavita Pandit (University of Georgia).

Wednesday, April 5, 8:00-9:40 am
33. Labor Markets, Metropolitan Change, and Migration in the U.S. (Co-sponsored by the Urban Geography Specialty Group)
Organizer: Kavita Pandit (University of Georgia)
Chair: K. Bruce Newbold (University of Illinois)
John Odland (Indiana University) and Mark Ellis (University of Washington) "Shifts in Earnings among Young Men in Urban Labor Markets."
Margaret Hudson (University of Georgia) "Segmented Circumstances: Niche Employment in Metropolitan Atlanta."
Paul Mackun (U.S. Census Bureau) "Metropolitan Area and Central City Population Trends, 1990-1998."
Jim Fitzsimmons (U.S. Census Bureau) "Review of Metropolitan Area Standards: New Areas for a New Decade."
James Raymer and Andrei Rogers (University of Colorado) "Age and Spatial Structures of Return Migration in the United States."

Wednesday, April 5, 12:00 noon-1:40 pm
105. Census and American Community Survey Data Applications. (Co-sponsored by the Applied Geography Specialty Group)
Organizer: Nancy Torrieri (U.S. Census Bureau)
Chair: Nancy Torrieri
Alfred R. Nucci (Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau) "Research Opportunities for Using Decennial Census Data at the Bureau of the Census."
Brian Shumon (Geography Division, New York Regional Office, U.S. Census Bureau) "Developing a Low Cost Community GIS Using Publicly Available Data and Tools."
Nancy Torrieri (Demographic Statistical Methods Division, U.S. Census Bureau) "Data Tabulations for the American Community Survey."

Wednesday, April 5, 2:00-3:40 pm
142. "Race" Categories and "Race" Counting in the Census.
Organizers: Mark Ellis, University of Washington and Dean Toji, California State University­Long Beach
Chair: Mark Ellis, University of Washington
Joanna Southworth (University of Bristol) "Precise, Political, or Just Perplexing? Counting Race and Ethnicity in Britain and America."
Dean Toji (California State University­Long Beach) "Racial Counting as Oppression and Resistance: The Census, Asian Americans, and Racial Formation."
Mark Ellis (University of Washington) "The Politics of Projection: Multiple Race Categories and the Representation of America's Racial Future."
Discussant: Laura Pulido (University of Southern California)
 

Wednesday, April 5, 4:00-5:40 pm
173. Sprawl and Repeat Home Buyers: Public Data and Empirical Results. (Co-sponsored by the Urban Geography Specialty Group)
Organizer: Hazel Morrow-Jones (Ohio State University)
Chair: Hazel Morrow-Jones
Thomas Bier (Cleveland State University) "Using Public Records for Spatial Analysis of Urban Residential Movement."
Steven Howe (University of Cincinnati) "Use of Census Migration Data to Validate the Analysis of Public Records on the Movements of Homeowners."
Mary V. Wenning (Wright State University) "Urban Sprawl and the Movement of Repeat Homebuyers in Dayton."
Hazel A. Morrow-Jones (The Ohio State University) "The Motivations of Repeat Home Buyers: Who Moves Where and Why."

Thursday, April 6, 8:00-9:40 am
255. The Chinese Diaspora I. (Co-sponsored by the China Specialty Group)
Organizer: Laurence J. C. Ma (University of Akron)
Chair: Carolyn Cartier (University of Southern California)
Laurence J. C. Ma (University of Akron) "Changing Patterns of Geographical Distribution of Overseas Chinese."
C. Cindy Fan (UCLA) "Chinese Americans: Immigration, Settlement and Social Geography."
Clifton W. Pannell (University of Georgia) "The Chinese in the South."

Thursday, April 6, 10:00-11:40 am
296. The Chinese Diaspora II (Co-sponsored by the China Specialty Group)
Organizer: Laurence J. C. Ma (University of Akron)
Chair: Laurence J. C. Ma
Carolyn Cartier (University of Southern California) "Diaspora and Social Restructuring in Postcolonial Malaysia."
George C. S. Lin (University of Hong Kong) "Identity, Mobility and the Making of the Chinese Diasporic Landscape: The Case of Hong Kong."
Nora Chiang (National Taiwan University) "A Preliminary Study of Taiwanese Immigrants to Australia."
Jack F. Williams (Michigan State University) "Who are the Taiwanese?: Taiwan in the Chinese Diaspora."

Thursday, April 6, 4:00-5:40 pm
354. PSG Plenary Session.
Organizer: John Weeks (San Diego State University)
Chair: James Fitzsimmons (US Census Bureau)
Speaker: Margo Anderson (University of Wisconsin­Milwaukee)

Thursday, April 6, 6:00-7:15 pm
399. Population Specialty Group Business Meeting
Chair: James Fitzsimmons (US Census Bureau)

Friday, April 7, 8:00-9:40 am
412. Population Distribution in the U.S.: Frameworks and Analysis.
Organizer: David Rain (U.S. Census Bureau)
Chair: David Rain
Darryl Cohen (U.S. Census Bureau) "Using Commodity Flow Data to Define Geographic Areas."
Rodger Johnson (U.S. Census Bureau) "Automating the Geographic Update System for the Census Bureau Population Estimates Program."
Paul Sutton (University of Denver) "Census from Heaven: Estimation of Human Population Parameters Using Nighttime Satellite Imagery."
David Rain (U.S. Census Bureau) "Framing a Comprehensive Typology For Where People Live in the United States."

Friday, April 7, 10:00 am-12:00 noon
484. The Role of Family, Gender, and Employment in Spatial Mobility.
Organizer: Kavita Pandit (University of Georgia)
Chair: Emily Skop (University of Arizona)
Paul Boyle (University of St. Andrews), Thomas Cooke (University of Connecticut), Keith Halfacree (University of Wales Swansea) and Darren Smith (University of Leeds) "Family-migration and Partnered Women's Employment Status in GB and the U.S.: The Effect of Relative Occupational Status."
Thomas Cooke (University of Connecticut) "The 'Trailing Wife': What is the Role of Life Course Events?"
Adrian Bailey (University of Leeds), Thomas Cooke (University of Connecticut), and Megan Blake (Clarke University) "The Quilt of Family Migration: Balancing Career and Home."
Devon Hansen (University of North Dakota) "Gender Differentials in Managerial Spatial Mobility."
John Watkins and Lisa Curch (University of Kentucky) "Spatial Character of the Family Life Course: A Case Study of Divorce."
Christiane Von Reichert (University of Montana) "Studying Migration through High School Reunions."

Friday, April 7, 4:00-5:40 pm
535. Demographic Applications of GIS and Remote Sensing. (Co-sponsored by the GIS Specialty Group)
Organizer: John Weeks (San Diego State University)
Chair: John Weeks
Michael Jerrett (McMaster University) "A GIS-Environmental Equity Analysis of Particulate Air Pollution in Hamilton, Canada."
Tarek Rashed (San Diego State University) "Demographic Analysis Using Spectral Mixture Modeling of Remote Imagery for Urban Areas: A Case Study of Cairo, Egypt."
Thomas Crawford (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) "Integration of Demographic Data with GIS and Remotely Sensed Data to Support a Village Level Analysis of Nang Rong District, Northeast Thailand."
John Weeks (San Diego State University), James Stanforth (Katz, Okitsu & Associates), M. Saad Gadalla (San Diego State University), Allan Hill (Harvard University) "The Environmental Context of Reproduction in Rural Menoufia, Egypt."
Discussant: Paul C. Sutton (University of Denver)

Saturday, April 8, 8:00-9:40 am
584. US Immigration: Asian and Latino Settlement
Organizer: K. Bruce Newbold (University of Illinios)
Chair: Kavita Pandit (University of Georgia)
Max Lu (Kansas State University) and David W. Wong (George Mason University) "Changing Patterns of Spatial Concentration of the Asian Population in the United States."
Sujata De (Kansas State University) "Labor Market Participation of Asian Indian Women in the Greater Kansas City Area."
James A. Tyner (Kent State University) "Incipient Migrant Networks of Filipinas in Northeast Ohio."
Emily H. Skop (Arizona State University) Tempe, AZ. "The Heterolocal Construction of Community and Identity."
Noemi Mendez (Hunter College) "Mexican Cultural Landscapes of Sunset Park, Brooklyn."

Saturday, April 8, 10:00-11:40 am
621. US Immigration: New Directions and Questions
Organizer: K. Bruce Newbold (University of Illinios)
Chair: Pasquale Pellegrini, Ohio State University
James Huff and Jani Little (University of Colorado) "A Multi-Level Analysis of Immigration Effects on Out-Migration Decisions of the Native Born."
Thomas D. Boswell (University of Miami), June M. Nogle (University of Florida), Richard Langendorf (University of Miami) "Taxes Paid by Immigrants and Non-Immigrants Living in Florida and Metropolitan Miami."
Ines M. Miyares (Hunter College), Richard Wright (Dartmouth College), Alison Mountz (University of British Columbia), Adrian J. Bailey (University of Leeds) "The State, Immigrants, and Refugee Law: Salvadoran Adaptations to Legal Limbo."
Kevin McHugh, Patricia Gober, Daniel Borough (Arizona State University) "Privatopias and Political Conflict in the Fragmented Metropolis."
K. Bruce Newbold (University of Illinois) "Refugees, Immigrants, and Non-Permanent Residents: What Are We Missing When We Discuss U.S. Immigration?"

Saturday, April 8, 2:00-3:40 pm
678. European Demographic Issues I. (Co-sponsored by the European Specialty Group.)
Organizers: Rachel Franklin and Brigitte Waldorf (University of Arizona)
Chair: James O. Huff (University of Colorado)
Anthony G. Champion (University of Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne) "The Social Selectivity of Migration Flows Affecting Britain's Larger Cities."
Robin Flowerdew (Lancaster University) "Measuring Accessibility for Remote Rural Populations."
Brad T. Dearden and Thomas Kontuly (University of Utah) "Testing the Importance of Economic Structural Change as an Explanation for Regional Population Deconcentration in Western Germany."
Rachel Franklin (University of Arizona) "Explaining Below Replacement Level Fertility: The Case of Italy."
Frank Heins (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Italy) "Long-term Trends in Interregional Migration in Italy 1955 to 1994."

Saturday, April 8, 4:00-5:40 pm
711. European Demographic Issues II. (Co-sponsored by the European Specialty Group.)
Organizers: Rachel Franklin and Brigitte Waldorf (University of Arizona)
Chair: Lawrence Brown (Ohio State University)
Michelle Behr (Western New Mexico University) "Factors in Hungary's Population Dilemma: Ethnicity, Nationalism, and History?"
Anita Drever (University of California, Los Angeles) "The Role of Ethnic Segregation in the Immigrant Integration Process."
Irene Hardill (Nottingham Trent University) "Migration and Dual Career Households: Case Studies from Great Britain."
Laura Huntoon (Indiana University, Indianapolis) "Joint Decision-Makers or Tied-Movers: Evidence from Family Migration to pain."
Richard C. Jones (University of Texas at San Antonio) "Emigration Decline in Spain."

    The University of Minnesota has created an Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (called IPUMS). This is a high-precision individual-level data base describing the characteristics of the U.S. population between 1850 and 1990. With a new $3.5 million grant from the National Science Foundation the scope of the IPUMS is now being expanded to included census microdata from around the world. It is already the world's largest public-access and individual-level database for the human population. Among some of the key research areas that can be studied using the IPUMS are economic development, poverty, inequality, industrial and occupational structure, household and family composition, the household economy, female labor force participation, employment patterns, population growth, urbanization, internal migration, immigration, nuptiality, fertility, and education.

    Currently, the IPUMS consists of 25 samples, which span the U.S. censuses from 1850 to 1990, collectively comprising the richest source of quantitative information on long-term changes in the American population. The IPUMS has assigned uniform codes across all the samples and brings relevant documentation into a coherent form to facilitate analysis of social and economic change.

    Most population data ­ especially historical census data ­ have traditionally been available only in aggregated tabular form. However, the IPUMS is comprised of microdata, which means that it provides information about individual persons and households. This make it possible for researchers to create custom tabulations tailored to their particular research needs. Since the IPUMS includes nearly all the detail originally recorded by the census enumerations, users can construct a great variety of tabulations interrelating any desired set of variables. The flexibility offered by microdata is particularly important for historical research because the aggregate tabulations produced by the U.S. Bureau of the Census are often not comparable across time, and until recently the subject coverage of census publications was limited.

    Microdata do, however, pose some limitations. Most important, for the period since 1920 census microdata in the U.S. are subject to strict confidentiality measures that limit their usefulness for some applications. The IPUMS samples for these years include no names, addresses, or other potentially identifying information. To further ensure that no individuals can be identified, the Census Bureau limits the detail on place of residence, place of work, persons, families, and households with very high incomes, and several other variables. Most important, the microdata records for the period since 1940 identify no geographic areas with fewer than 100,000 inhabitants (250,000 in 1960 and 1970). Therefore the IPUMS is inappropriate for research that requires the identification of specific small geographic areas in those census years.

    The data series includes information on a broad range of population characteristics. The information available in each sample varies according to the questions asked that year and by differences in post-enumeration processing. In general, the later census years provide a greater range of characteristics than the earlier ones, though the earlier censuses often contain greater detail for the variables that are available.

    Prospective graduate students are encouraged to apply for a research assistantship offered by Historical Census Project. This is a cross-disciplinary effort, so students wanting to enroll in the University of Minnesota's History, Geography, Sociology, Public Affairs, and Economics Departments are encouraged to apply. Unfortunately, the deadline for applicants for the 2000-2001 academic year has passed (it was December 26, 1999).

    For more information on the Historical Census Project see its website at: http://www.ipums.umn.edu.

    One of the lesser known new features of Census 2000 data tabulation is the planned use, for the first time, of ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (TM) (ZCTAs), a statistical entity developed by the Census Bureau as an approximation of the U.S. Postal Service's ZIP (R) Codes.

    ZIP Codes do not represent areas, but rather a network for the delivery of mail. The Census Bureau has released prototype ZCTAs for the three Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal sites (Columbia, S.C., and 11 surrounding counties; Menominee County, Wis.; and Sacramento, Calif.).

    Thus, the ZCTA will take its place alongside standard statistical tabulation areas, such as regions, divisions, metropolitan areas, urbanized areas, tribal statistical areas, county subdivisions, census designated places, census tracts, block groups and census blocks, as well as the legal and administrative areas for which the Census Bureau traditionally publishes summary data.

    The ZCTAs will be assigned in a computer-delineated process based on the Census Bureau's address list at the time of the census. The Census Bureau's address list itself is confidential under Title 13, U.S. Code, and therefore is not available to the public. ZCTAs follow census block boundaries, with the ZCTA code for each census block being the majority ZIP Code for addresses within that census block. Automated processes will extend ZCTA codes to blocks that have no addresses or no addresses with ZIP Codes. This means that the Census Bureau will be able to display the ZCTAs as polygons on maps.

    For the Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal sites, ZCTA codes are assigned to all land -- even that which is uninhabited -- and water areas, which will be displayed with three-digit instead of five-digit codes. A three-digit code indicates that the Census Bureau was not confident with the assignment of a five-digit code based on information available in its files.

    The Census Bureau hopes data users will look at its implementation of ZCTAs for the Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal sites and provide comments on the resulting product. More information is available on the Internet at: http://www.census.gov/geo/ZCTA/zcta.html.

    ZCTAs exclude unique, single-delivery-point ZIP Codes for firms and organizations, but do include dedicated Post Office Box ZIP Codes where a main post office has only Post Office Box deliveries. ZCTAs will be summary levels in both the 100 percent and sample data files and should be available at the same time as the data for the other summary levels, between June of 2001 and December of 2002. The Census Bureau's new American Community Survey plans to tabulate data for ZIP Code tabulation areas once the 2000 ZCTAs become available.

    (ZCTA is a trademark of the U. S. Bureau of the Census. ZIP is a registered trademark of the U. S. Postal Service.)

    For further information about ZCTAs contact J. Paul Wyatt of the Public Information Office on 301-457-3052 (fax: 301-457-3670; e-mail: pwyatt@census.gov).

    The proportion of first births conceived out of wedlock to women ages 15 to 29 years nearly tripled over the past six decades, from 18 percent between 1930-1934 to 53 percent between 1990-1994, according to a report released in November 1999 on the Internet by the U.S. Census Bureau. Growth in the proportion of all first births born or conceived premaritally grew five-fold, from 8 percent during the early 1930s to 41 percent in the early 1990s.

    The proportion of White women under age 30 who had either a premaritally born or premaritally conceived first birth tripled, from 15 percent in the early 1930s to 45 percent in the early 1990s. For African American women, it doubled, from 43 percent to 86 percent.

    The proportion of first births to women 15-19 years old that either were premaritally born or premaritally conceived increased from 28 percent in the early 1930s to 89 percent in the early 1990s. In 1990-1994, about 85 percent of all first births to White women ages 15 to 19 were either premaritally born or premaritally conceived, compared with 25 percent for the 1930-1934 period. The comparable figures for African American teenage women were 98 percent and 47 percent, respectively.

    For more information contact Amara Bachu at (301) 457-2449 or pio@census.gov.

    A fourth straight year of growth in real median household income made 1998 the year with the highest income levels ever recorded, as poverty dropped significantly and the children's poverty rate was lower than 20 percent for the first time since 1980, according to reports released this past September by the Census Bureau.

    All types of households saw significant gains in real median household income between 1997 and 1998 and, for the first time since 1975, all four regions of the country experienced significant increases. Also, 1998 was the first year that real median household income surpassed its 1989 prerecessionary peak. As income rose, the proportion of the population living below the poverty level dropped to 12.7 percent (34.5 million people) in 1998, down from 13.3 percent (35.6 million people) in 1997.

    Nationwide, the number of poor non-Hispanic Whites (15.8 million) and poor Hispanics (8.1 million) did not change significantly, but the poverty rate for both groups experienced a significant decrease. For non-Hispanic Whites, the rate dropped from 8.6 percent to 8.2 percent. For Hispanics, 25.6 percent were poor in 1998, down from 27.1 percent in 1997. Although the 1998 poverty rate for African Americans -- 26.1 percent, or 9.1 million people -- remained statistically unchanged from 1997, it continued to represent the lowest rate since 1959, the earliest year for which poverty statistics are available. The poverty rate for Asians and Pacific Islanders -- 12.5 percent, or 1.4 million people -- also did not change from the previous year.

    The average poverty threshold for a family of four in 1998 was $16,660 in annual income; it was $13,003 for a family of three.

    On the income front, between 1997 and 1998, the median income level for the nation's households rose 3.5 percent in real terms, from $37,581 to a new high of $38,885. The previous high -- in 1998 dollars -- was $37,884 in 1989 (not statistically different from the 1997 median income of households).

    A generation of Americans is poised at the edge of a frontier. Many may live to be 100 years or older. But most are frightened by that prospect. Only one in four wants to live to be 100, according to a survey released in May by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). More typically, they would like to live until about 90, but expect to live only until 80.

    According to the AARP study, more years of vigorous life are welcome, and many fight aging through food, drugs, and exercise. At the same time, they fear the last decades of an extended life will be filled with sickness, isolation, dementia, poverty, and a sterile existence among strangers in a nursing home.

    In fact, aging exerts say, the senior years are now far richer for many, filled with work, exercise, learning, and interaction with great-grandchildren. Those who survive to 100 usually stay active and healthy well into their 90s, with their final struggles with illness being relatively short at the end. As with much in life, the winners of the geriatric lottery benefit from a mixture of good genes and good behavior ­ including a positive mental outlook. Those who live longer tend to be more optimistic, less neurotic, and better able to handle stress.

    An aging population also worries about economics. Growing numbers of older Americans face the challenge of making savings intended to last 20 years after retirement stretch for 30 or even 40 years. And there could be social friction as healthy seniors attempt to stay on the job longer, thereby denying opportunities for younger workers. Today, centenarians are the country's fastest-growing age group. Demographers count nearly 50,000 of them in the U.S. (Excerpted from: Usha Lee McFarling, "An Aging America Needen't Fear Golden Years, Experts Say," The Miami Herald, May 27, 1999, p. 24A.).

Thomas D. Boswell
Department of Geography & Regional Studies
School of International Studies
301 Merrick Building
University of Miami
Coral Gables, Florida 33124-2060