master final 1021 · Victor Green, Director, Community Relations, Wayne State University Dr. David...

Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano‐Boricua Studies 2

Southeast Michigan Latino Economic Impact (SMILEI) Study Group Members

Ethriam Cash Brammer, SMILEI Group Chair, Assistant Director, Center for Chicano‐Boricua Studies, Wayne State University

Larry Arreguín, Vice President, Government Affairs, VisionIT

Terry Beltrán‐Miller, President/CEO, Vista Latinos, LLC

Edith Castillo, Deputy Director, Southwest Detroit Business Association

Dr. Jorge L. Chinea, Director, Center for Chicano‐Boricua Studies, Wayne State University

Fred Feliciano, President, Hispanic Business Alliance

Victor Green, Director, Community Relations, Wayne State University

Dr. David Martin, Research Associate, Center for Urban Studies, Wayne State University

Greg Martínez, Jr., President, MTZ Industries

Jessica Pellegrino, Senior Executive Special Project Manager, Office of the Wayne County Executive

Angela Reyes, Executive Director & Founder, Detroit Hispanic Development Corporation

Tom Reynolds, Associate Director, Public Relations, Marketing & Communications, Wayne State University

Vicente Sánchez Ventura, Consul General for Michigan & Ohio, Republic of Mexico

Dr. Lyke Thompson, Director, Center for Urban Studies, Wayne State University

Dr. Nicole Trujillo‐Pagán, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology & Center from Chicano‐Boricua Studies, Wayne State University

Candice Twymon, Secretary, Center for Chicano‐Boricua Studies, Wayne State University

Matthew Vorce, Senior Financial Advisor, Merrill Lynch

Research Subcommittee Fund Development

Subcommittee Marketing Subcommittee

Dr. Lyke Thompson, Chair Fred Feliciano, Chair Tom Reynolds, Chair Ethriam Cash Brammer Ethriam Cash Brammer Terry Beltrán‐Miller Sarah Cahalan Edith Castillo Ethriam Cash Brammer Dr. Jorge L. Chinea Dr. Jorge L. Chinea Edith Castillo Jason Hardacre Angela Reyes Dr. Jorge L. Chinea Charo Hulleza Mathew Vorce Christa Mowry Maria Maniaci Jessica Pellegrino Dr. David Martin Eric Stokan

Francine Wunder

Doug Towns Dr. Nicole Trujillo‐Pagan

Hispanics in Southeast Michigan: Characteristics & Econcomic Contributions October 2008


Table of Contents

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................... 5

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................... 6

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 9

Purpose .......................................................................................................................................... 10

Preliminary Steps ....................................................................................................................... 11

Demographic Data and Methods ............................................................................................... 11

Hispanic Demographics .................................................................................................................. 13

Historical Hispanic Populations (1990—Present) ...................................................................... 13

Population Estimates and Projections (2005—2035) ................................................................ 14

Counties Growing Rapidly .......................................................................................................... 14

Citizenship .............................................................................................................................. 18

Place of Birth .......................................................................................................................... 19

Age ............................................................................................................................................. 21

Hispanic School Enrollment ....................................................................................................... 23

Kindergarten through High School ......................................................................................... 23

Collegiate Level ...................................................................................................................... 26

Graduate ................................................................................................................................ 29

Educational Attainment ............................................................................................................. 30

Household Data.......................................................................................................................... 32

Household Type ..................................................................................................................... 33

Income Data ............................................................................................................................... 35

Median Household Income .................................................................................................... 36

Per Capita Income .................................................................................................................. 39

Figure 21: Per Capita Income ..................................................................................................... 40

Percent in Poverty .................................................................................................................. 41

Average Wage Comparisons ...................................................................................................... 43

Industry Data .................................................................................................................................. 46

Employment by Industry for Hispanic Americans ...................................................................... 46

Economic Contributions ................................................................................................................. 55

Data and Methods ......................................................................................................................... 55



Results ........................................................................................................................................ 57

Jobs/Employment .................................................................................................................. 58

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 60

Appendix ........................................................................................................................................ 61

Citizenship .................................................................................................................................. 69

Place of Birth .............................................................................................................................. 73

Education ................................................................................................................................... 76

Economic Model ........................................................................................................................ 82

References and Sources ................................................................................................................. 85



List of Tables

Table 1: Hispanic Population (Raw Figures) ................................................................................... 13 Table 2: Hispanic Population (Percent Increase from Earlier Time Point) ..................................... 13 Table 3: Percent Change in Hispanic Population, 1990‐2035 ........................................................ 17 Table 4: Change in Percent of Foreign‐born Hispanics .................................................................. 20 Table 5: Age Distribution of Hispanics and Non‐Hispanics ............................................................ 23 Table 6: Percent of Under 25 population enrolled in School ......................................................... 25 Table 7: Age Distribution ............................................................................................................... 26 Table 8: College Enrollment per Population .................................................................................. 28 Table 9: Age Distribution ............................................................................................................... 28 Table 10: Correlation between Education and Wage .................................................................... 44 Table 11: Population and Employment Estimates ......................................................................... 48



List of Figures

Figure 1: Hispanic Population Trend by County ............................................................................. 15 Figure 2: Hispanic Population Percent by County: 2005‐2035 ...................................................... 16 Figure 3: Hispanic Citizenship Rates .............................................................................................. 18 Figure 4: Percent of Hispanics Born in the US ............................................................................... 19 Figure 5: Hispanic and Non‐Hispanic Place of Birth by Region ...................................................... 20 Figure 6: US Age Breakdown: Hispanic v. Non‐Hispanic ................................................................ 21 Figure 7: Michigan Age Breakdown: Hispanic vs. Non‐Hispanic .................................................... 22 Figure 8: Distribution of Hispanic v. Non‐Hispanic School Population K‐12 .................................. 24 Figure 9: Distribution of Southeast Michigan's Hispanic vs. Non‐Hispanic School Population ..... 25 Figure 10: Percent of Population Enrolled in High School by Age ................................................. 26 Figure 11: Percent in School that are Enrolled in Undergraduate Studies .................................... 27 Figure 12: Percent of Population Enrolled in College by Age ........................................................ 29 Figure 13: Percent Enrolled in Graduate Studies ........................................................................... 30 Figure 14: Southeast Michigan Hispanics Age 25 or Older with Diploma or Higher ..................... 31 Figure 15: Southeast Michigan Non‐Hispanics Age 25 or Older with Diploma or Higher (Age 25 and Over) ....................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 16: Educational Attainment, Michigan vs. U.S. ................................................................... 32 Figure 17: Children Living in Two‐parent vs. Single‐parent Households ....................................... 33 Figure 18: Employment Status of Parent for Children Living in Two‐parent Households ............. 34 Figure 19: Employment Status of Parent for Children Living in One‐parent Households ............. 35 Figure 20: Median Household Income ........................................................................................... 38 Figure 21: Per Capita Income ......................................................................................................... 40 Figure 22: Percent in Poverty ......................................................................................................... 42 Figure 23: Poverty Rates ................................................................................................................ 43 Figure 24: United State Wages: Non‐Hispanic vs. Hispanic ........................................................... 45 Figure 25: Michigan Wages: Non‐Hispanic vs. Hispanic ................................................................ 46 Figure 26: Total Hispanic Employment by County, 2006 ............................................................... 48 Figure 27: Hispanic Employment by Industry: 2000 and 2006 ...................................................... 49 Figure 28: Hispanic Employment by Industry: Percent Share 2000 and 2006 ............................... 50 Figure 29: Hispanic Occupation: 2000 and 2006 ........................................................................... 51 Figure 30: Hispanic Occupations: Percent Share 2000 and 2006 .................................................. 52 Figure 31: Comparison: Hispanic Workers vs. Region Average by Industry .................................. 53 Figure 32: Comparisons: Hispanic Average versus Region Average Occupation Mix .................... 54 Figure 33: Multiplier Effect Diagram .............................................................................................. 56 Figure 34: Hispanic Population Multiplies its Economic Contributions ........................................ 57



Executive Summary

Wayne State University’s Center for Urban Studies (CUS) was contracted by Wayne County on behalf of the Southeastern Michigan Latino Economic Impact (SMILEI) Group, headed by the Center for Chicano‐Boricua Studies (CBS) and in collaboration with the Hispanic Business Alliance, to conduct this Hispanic/Latina(o) study detailing the economic contributions and demographic characteristics of Southeast Michigan’s Hispanic/Latina(o) population.

Hispanic population growth in Southeast Michigan. U.S. Census data indicate that 174,139 Hispanics were living in the seven‐county Southeast Michigan region in 2007.1 This represents a 27.9% increase since 2000—the second fastest rate of increase for any population group in the region. According to the Census Bureau, 43% of Michigan’s total Hispanic population resides in Southeast Michigan.

Hispanics represent a rapidly increasing share of Southeast Michigan’s population as a whole. In Wayne County, Hispanics are expected to increase from 2.4% to 7.3% of the population between 2005 and 2035. The bulk of this increase will likely come from U.S.‐born Hispanics as opposed to immigrants, given that the vast majority (78.1%) of Southeastern Michigan’s Hispanics are U.S. citizens. Southeastern Michigan's Hispanics are younger than non‐Hispanics. They also have lower incomes. Their lower incomes are related, in turn, to lower educational achievement.

Hispanic population’s economic contribution to Southeast Michigan. The total number of employed Hispanics in Southeast Michigan in 2006 was 92,965, a 65.4% increase from 2000. Using the REMI2 model, we estimate that the economic activity of these Hispanic residents supports 181,053 total jobs in Southeast Michigan, a multiplier of 1.95. This estimated multiplier value means that for every employed Hispanic, the intermediate goods purchased by the businesses that employ them and their spending of their wages and salaries generate almost one additional job in Southeast Michigan. Though Hispanics are substantially represented in every major job category in Southeastern Michigan, their employment is concentrated in manufacturing. This is consequential because manufacturing jobs have the largest multiplier of any basic job category in Southeast Michigan.

While most people focus on jobs, there are several other noteworthy metrics of the Hispanic contribution to economic activity in Southeast Michigan. The earnings of Hispanics and the spin‐off jobs they support amounted to $10.2 billion in 2006, with economic activity adding $14.5 billion to the Gross Regional Product (2006) in Southeast Michigan. In sum, Hispanic economic activity, including spin‐off jobs, accounted for 6.5% of total employment, 6.4% of total earnings, and 6.2% of output in Southeast Michigan in 2006, while representing only 3.5% of the total population. Furthermore, this economic activity generated $727 million in state government tax revenue in 2006.

1 American Community Survey, 2007. 2 Regional Economic Models, Inc.



Strengthening educational opportunities for the Hispanic population. Given the growing importance of Hispanics to Southeast Michigan’s economy, it seems clear that the region as a whole would benefit by providing educational opportunities to facilitate increased high‐school and college graduation rates for the region’s Hispanic/Latina(o) residents. This, in turn, would allow Hispanics to better compete in vocational areas that will help lead this metropolitan area into the top ranks of the 21st Century3 as well as increase the standard of living for the region as a whole.

3 Michigan Future (2007). A New Agenda for a New Michigan.



Introduction Wayne State University’s Center for Urban Studies (CUS) was contracted by Wayne County on behalf of the Southeastern Michigan Latino Economic Impact (SMILEI) Group, headed by the Center for Chicano‐Boricua Studies (CBS) and in collaboration with the Hispanic Business Alliance, to conduct this study detailing the demographic characteristics and economic contributions of Southeast Michigan’s Hispanic/Latino(a)4 population. This study relies upon United States Census Bureau’s Decennial Census data, the American Community Surveys, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments’ (SEMCOG) population projections, and the 2007 Michigan Hispanic Data Report issued by the Michigan Commission on Spanish‐Speaking Affairs. Census data provided input for an econometric model that estimated the number of jobs (employment) and the amount of income (earnings) in the local economy as a result of the Hispanic population residing in Southeast Michigan. 5

During 2008, Center for Urban Studies researchers met with the SMILEI Group to discuss the feasibility of such a study, its objectives, how the study would be undertaken, the types of data that would be necessary, and the study’s limitations. Center researchers soon discovered that a study of the economic contributions of Hispanics would be the first of its kind in Michigan and one of only a few studies nationally6 that have sought to estimate the economic contributions of Hispanics. The study is also unique in its use of a well‐established economic impact model (the REMI model)7 to gauge the contributions of a particular group within a local economy.

The purpose of the study is to provide useful information to Wayne County and SMILEI. This includes establishing a base of information on projected Hispanic population trends and a set of statistical measures on the economic contributions of Hispanics in Southeast Michigan. The conclusions and results of the study are intended to assist Wayne County in pursuing its economic and community development objectives. This study is also a part of the Center for Urban Studies’ ongoing efforts to describe the diversity of Southeast Michigan and to assess the increasing complexity of the considerable contributions of different immigrant and ethnic groups to the region’s economic and social fabrics.

It is our hope that this study will benefit Hispanics, policymakers, and regional business in their ability to gain a better understanding of the growing Hispanic population in Southeast Michigan. An improved understanding will help us all to conceive of better economic opportunities for the Detroit area.

This study was funded by Wayne County. The Center for Urban Studies assumes sole responsibility for the findings and conclusions presented in this report.

4 Henceforth, Hispanics/Latino(as) will simply be referred to as Hispanics. For a detailed description of the Census Hispanic designation, please refer to Appendix 1. 5 For the purposes of this report, Southeast Michigan is defined as the combined areas of Livingston, Oakland, Macomb, Monroe, St. Clair, Wayne, and Washtenaw counties. 6 See particularly The Economic Impact of the Hispanic Population on the State of North Carolina, Frank Hawkins Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2006. 7 For a detailed description of the REMI model, please see the Data and Methods section of this study.



Purpose The Nation’s Hispanic population is growing. On July 1, 2007, the Nation’s Hispanic population crossed 45 million, and is now over 15% of the nation’s total population. There is no doubt that Michigan’s Hispanic population also is growing. According to the 2007 American Community Survey, Michigan has the 19th largest population of Hispanics in the United States. A little less than half (44.4%) of Michigan’s 401,009 Hispanics live and work in the seven‐county area of Southeast Michigan. SEMCOG population predictions indicate that by 2035 Hispanics will comprise 5.2% of the population of Southeast Michigan, a remarkable 64% increase over the previous 30 years.

As a substantial minority group in Southeast Michigan, Hispanics are crucial to the region’s continued economic and demographic growth. The purpose of this study is to expand our understanding of the Hispanic population in Southeast Michigan by estimating the group’s economic contributions. This study is unique in its use of the REMI model, a well‐established, economic impact model, to estimate the economic contributions of a specific population group to the economy in the seven counties—Livingston, Oakland, Macomb, Monroe, St. Clair, Wayne, and Washtenaw—that comprise Southeast Michigan, including the city of Detroit.

This study estimates the overall economic contributions of Hispanics in Southeast Michigan in terms of employment (jobs), earnings (wages), and state tax contribution. The study also estimates contributions due to economic “multiplier” or “spin‐off” effects— that is, the additional contributions of Hispanic economic activities resulting from their expenditures in the local economy. It should be noted, however, that the scope of this report is limited to the contributions of Hispanic residents of Southeast Michigan to the economic welfare of those same seven counties in Southeast Michigan and does not undertake an accounting of the economic benefits generated by Hispanic residents in other counties within Michigan on the economy of Southeast Michigan, nor does it account for the economic contribution generated by Hispanic residents of Southeast Michigan on other geographic regions in Michigan or beyond.

Both as a jumping‐off point and to better understand Michigan’s Hispanic demographic, this study begins with a description of the population, education, and employment trends of Michigan’s Hispanics and a description of how these attributes are changing. These demographic changes are an important factor in the continued growth of the Michigan economy and should be viewed as equally important to policy makers. Describing these demographic trends is important to the contextualization of economic contributions being made by Michigan’s Hispanic population.



Preliminary Steps

As a first step, Center for Urban Studies researchers began by identifying and defining the Hispanic population in Southeast Michigan for the purposes of this study. Following U.S. Census Bureau conventions to maintain consistency of categorization across data sets, we define as Hispanic or Latino those persons who identify as one of the specific Census Bureau Hispanic origin categories, which include: Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, and the Spanish‐speaking countries of Central and South America, as well as those who indicate they are Spaniard or “All Other/Hispanic/Latino”.8 Again, following U.S. Census Bureau convention, Hispanic is an ethnic designation and does not denote race.

As a second preliminary step, we examined data illustrating Hispanic population change between 2000 and 2006/2007 by comparing population estimates drawn from the 2000 Decennial Census and the 2006 and 2007 American Community Surveys. Furthermore, Center researchers used SEMCOG projections to determine probable trends in the Hispanic population over the next 30 years.

Third, we analyzed American Community Survey data on Hispanics in an effort to give a detailed description of both economic and non‐economic factors that affect Hispanic contributions to Southeast Michigan, the state, and the United States. In each case, we compare the findings between Hispanics and non‐Hispanics at the county, state, and national level.

Finally, we analyzed industry‐level American Community Survey data on Hispanics in the seven‐county Southeastern Michigan region. This data was then further analyzed through input into an econometric input‐output model developed by REMI to estimate the direct, indirect, and induced effects of the Hispanic labor force on Southeast Michigan’s economy.

Demographic Data and Methods

This study relied on several sources for demographic data. Most data were obtained through the American Community Survey (ACS) for 2006. The 2007 ACS data, released on September 29, 2008, were incorporated to the extent possible. We also used the 1990 and 2000 Decennial Census for population data. Furthermore, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) shared with us their population projections through 2035.

The 2006 and 2007 ACS Public Use Microdata were weighted as the samples are of roughly 100,000 people in Michigan, or 1% of the total population. These samples are randomly drawn and slightly more than 3,100 Hispanics were surveyed. The 2000 Census data uses a much larger sample and therefore the confidence intervals will be higher.

Much of the county‐level data for Livingston, Washtenaw, St. Clair, and Monroe are in the appendices because the confidence intervals can be very large in the estimates due to sample size, but these data allow one to get an approximation at that level.

8 For a complete list of the US Bureau of Census’ Hispanic PUMS categories, please see Appendix: List A1.



Analyses were conducted using several geographic units, including Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties as well as the rest of Southeast Michigan (Livingston, Washtenaw, St. Clair and Monroe). Furthermore, we constructed a Southeast Michigan variable representing the three counties and the rest of the Southeast Michigan. Likewise, we included a variable constructed as the rest of Michigan. This variable includes all geographic areas in Michigan with the exclusion of Southeast Michigan. Finally, we included Michigan and the United States where appropriate. Having multiple units allowed us to compare across counties, between Southeast Michigan and the rest of Michigan, and between Michigan and the United States. This added richness to the document that would not be present if only one unit of analysis existed (e.g., Southeast Michigan).

Combining the 1990 and 2000 Census data with SEMCOG’s population projections allowed us to look at the longitudinal projections of Hispanics and non‐Hispanics alike. We focused on the changes at the county and regional levels for both Hispanics and non‐Hispanics.

Citizenship, place of birth, and age. The citizenship, place of birth, and age data were all obtained from ACS surveys and were compared across geographic units. The major focus of these analyses was the differences between Michigan and the United States. Most differences highlighted in the demographic section were descriptive; however, we tested the correlation between education and wages.

Education. The education data included two variables: educational attainment and grade level attending. Both proved important variables for explaining wage and occupation structure. Educational attainment was given as a percentage of the population over age 25, while grade level attending was given as a percentage of the population under age 25. However, during analysis, we focused on both the distribution of educational attainment relative to the entire school population, and percentage of students enrolled at each grade‐level relative to the entire population under age 25. This led us to discover that many Hispanics dropped out of the educational system at age 16, the age in Michigan at which students may legally choose to leave school.

Income. Income data, which includes median household income, per capita income, and percent of population in poverty, were obtained from American Factfinder. This is important because Factfinder did not allow us to separate Hispanics from non‐Hispanics. The comparison used then was between Hispanics, White (non‐Hispanics) and African American (non‐Hispanics). Data were compared between all geographic units at three time points (2000, 2006, and 2007), which allowed for the observation of income trends of Hispanics and non‐Hispanics.

Industry level data and economic contribution data and methods are detailed thoroughly within their respective sections below.



Hispanic Demographics

Historical Hispanic Populations (1990—Present)

Census data shows that Michigan’s Hispanic population grew by 60.7% in the decade between 1990 and 2000, while Michigan’s total population increased by only 6.9% in that same time period. In 1990, Hispanics accounted for 1.9% of the total population of Southeast Michigan; by 2000 this proportion had grown to 2.8 %, an increase of 44.5%. During that same time period the Hispanic population increased, in raw numbers, by 52.2% in Southeast Michigan (Table 1). Livingston experienced the largest percentage increase as it doubled its Hispanic population.

Table 1: Hispanic Population (Raw Figures)

Livingston Macomb Monroe Oakland St. Clair Washtenaw Wayne Southeast Michigan

1990 Total

974 7,978 2,077 19,630 2,558 5,731 50,506 89,454

2000 Total

1,953 12,435 3,110 28,999 3,593 8,839 77,207 136,136

2007 Total

3,436 17,853 4,817 36,295 5,532 11,099 99,047 178,079

Source: 1990 and 2000 Decennial Census, 2007 American Community Survey

The past seven years have seen extraordinary gains in the Hispanic population with several counties growing by almost 50% or more (Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, and St. Clair; Table 2) and with both Monroe and St. Clair9 outpacing their growth over the 10 years prior.

Table 2: Hispanic Population (Percent Increase from Earlier Time Point)

Livingston Macomb Monroe Oakland St. Clair Washtenaw Wayne Southeast Michigan

1990‐ 2000 Total

100.5% 55.9% 49.7% 47.7% 40.5% 54.2% 52.9% 52.2%

2000‐ 2007 Total

75.9% 43.6% 54.9% 25.2% 54.0% 25.6% 28.3% 30.8%

1990‐ 2007 Total

252.8% 123.8% 131.9% 84.9% 116.3% 93. 7% 96.1% 99.1%

Source: 2000 Decennial Census, 2007 American Community Survey

The distribution of the Hispanic population within Southeast Michigan remained largely the same between 1990 and 2000. In 1990 and 2000, the majority of Southeast Michigan’s Hispanic

9 Within the demographic regional designations, St. Clair county includes Lapeer. This is a Census designation, but for the economic contribution portion of this report, Lapeer was backed out.



population resided in Wayne County, with Oakland County a distant second. These numbers reflect two large, established urban Hispanic communities: one in Southwest Detroit and the other in Oakland County’s city of Pontiac. The Hispanic population in Southeast Michigan doubled between 1990 and 2007. Livingston County showed the largest change with an increase of slightly over 250% in the Hispanic population (Table 2). To place this growth in the context of the Hispanic population, consider that during that same 17 year time period from 1990 to 2007, Southeast Michigan’s non‐Hispanic population grew from 4,501,014 to 4,793,398 — an increase of only 6.9%.

Population Estimates and Projections (2005—2035)

According to U.S. Census Bureau projections, by 2035, the population of the United States will soar to roughly 390 million people, and one in four (24.8%) of those people will be Hispanic.

How do Michigan and Southeast Michigan compare?

SEMCOG estimates that Hispanics accounted for 3.3% of the population of Southeast Michigan in 2005, but following the national trend, this number is expected to rise significantly in coming years. By 2035, Hispanics will comprise 5.2% of the total population in the seven‐county Southeast Michigan area. Figure 1 illustrates the total projected number of Hispanics in each Southeast Michigan County in the coming decades. Wayne and Oakland Counties retain the largest number of Hispanics, with the gap between these two counties and the others growing over time since these other counties show more modest population increases.

Counties Growing Rapidly

While Wayne and Oakland have the largest numbers of Hispanic residents for the 30‐year projection period, Michigan’s largest concentration of Hispanic residents reside in Wayne County with Washtenaw a distant second. SEMCOG population projections predict that this will remain true through 2035 (Figure 1). As of the 2000 Census, Hispanics constituted 3.8% of Wayne’s and 2.7% of Washtenaw’s total populations, but SEMCOG projections predict that by 2035, the percentage of Hispanics in Wayne County will have grown to 7.3% of the total county population, and to 5.0% of the total population in Washtenaw County. For Wayne County, this represents a 96% increase in the Hispanic proportion of the total population, and for Washtenaw an increase of 83% of the Hispanic proportion of the total population.



Figure 1: Hispanic Population Trend by County

*1990 & 2000 data from US Census, ⁺Data from 2005‐2035 from SEMCOG Forecast Estimates

The maps in Figure 2 below depict the changes in Hispanic population by county predicted by SEMCOG from 2005 to 2035. For each map, darker colors indicate higher concentrations. In general, the maps demonstrate the substantially increasing concentrations in Wayne and Washtenaw counties, especially. At the same time they demonstrate substantial increases in Hispanic population in all counties.

1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Livingston 0.84% 1.24% 1.46% 1.60% 1.74% 1.87% 2.01% 2.14% 2.29%

Macomb 1.11% 1.58% 1.88% 2.06% 2.23% 2.41% 2.58% 2.74% 2.92%

Monroe 1.55% 2.13% 2.48% 2.76% 3.05% 3.34% 3.64% 3.93% 4.24%

Oakland 1.81% 2.43% 2.83% 3.18% 3.53% 3.87% 4.20% 4.51% 4.82%

St. Clair 1.76% 2.19% 2.46% 2.68% 2.88% 3.07% 3.27% 3.47% 3.68%

Washtenaw 2.03% 2.74% 3.11% 3.48% 3.85% 4.16% 4.47% 4.75% 5.02%

Wayne 2.39% 3.75% 4.51% 5.02% 5.50% 5.98% 6.45% 6.90% 7.33%

SE Michigan 1.95% 2.82% 3.30% 3.63% 3.96% 4.29% 4.61% 4.93% 5.24%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%Percen

tage of H

ispanic Po

pulatio

n



Figure 2: Hispanic Population Percent by County: 2005‐2035

*Cartography by CUS; Data from SEMCOG Forecast Estimates



In 2005, Wayne County shows the highest concentration, with 4.5%, which falls into the 4 to 4.9% category. Livingston and Macomb Counties are in the 1 to 1.9% Hispanic population concentration category.

By 2015, Wayne County has grown to 5.5%, depicted by a shift to the darkest green. Oakland and Monroe have joined Washtenaw in the 3 to 3.9% category and Livingston remains below 2%.

By 2025, Oakland and Washtenaw have risen to the 4 to 4.9% category, which is where Wayne started in 2005. St. Clair and Monroe have shifted to 3 to 3.9%, and none of the seven counties remain below 2%.

By 2035, Washtenaw has joined Wayne County in the 5 to 7.4% category, and Monroe has joined Oakland in the 3 to 3.9% category.

Table 3: Percent Change in Hispanic Population, 1990‐2035

1990 Population 2035 Projected % Change 1990‐2035 Livingston 974 4,898 402.9%

Macomb 7,978 27,030 238.8%

Monroe 2,077 7,211 247.2%

Oakland 19,630 64,465 228.4%

St. Clair 2,558 7,078 176.7%

Washtenaw 5,731 19,101 233.3%

Wayne 50,506 135,602 168.5%

Southeast Michigan 89,454 265,385 196.7%

*1990 & 2000 data from U.S. Census, ⁺Data from 2005‐2035 from SEMCOG Forecast Estimates

Although Washtenaw has the second highest concentration of Hispanics, Oakland County has the second highest number of Hispanics in Southeast Michigan. Wayne County took first both in concentration and in raw number; however, Livingston will see the largest increase in Hispanic population as a percent change (i.e., 402.9%) from 1990 to 2035 (Table 3).

Although these figures seem extraordinary, they are on par with what the U.S. Census Bureau projects will occur at the national level. For Southeast Michigan, this means that, on average, the Hispanic population will have nearly tripled from 1990 to 2035. The implications of this rapid growth in population will be widespread. Certainly this population will not only triple in their proportion in comparison to current population figures, but they also will displace a fleeing white population that is expected to see a 7% decline by 2035 based on SEMCOG projections (Appendix: Table A3).



Citizenship and Place of Birth

Citizenship

Minority populations must often overcome the stigma of being labeled immigrants and non‐citizens. Based on responses to the 2006 ACS, citizenship rates show that this stereotype holds little truth. At the national level, where stereotypes are perhaps most firmly rooted, over 71.1% of the Hispanic population claim US citizenship. In Michigan, 79.0% of the Hispanic population are citizens and in Southeast Michigan, 78.1% of the Hispanic population are citizens (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Hispanic Citizenship Rates

Source: 2006 American Community Survey

Macomb has the largest percentage of Hispanics that claim US citizenship (88.3%)10, while the rest of Southeast Michigan (Livingston, Washtenaw, St. Clair, and Monroe) lag slightly behind (78.1%). Oakland (74.0%) and Wayne (76.7%) are closer to Michigan and US figures (79.0% and 71.0%, respectively).

10 The Macomb figures are based on a Hispanic sample size of 120. The small sample size make estimates less reliable and therefore increase the confidence interval. For this reason, the Macomb figures should only serve as a rough approximation.

76.7%

74.0%

88.3%

78.1%

79.0%

71.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Wayne

Oakland

Macomb

Southeast Michigan

Michigan

US



Place of Birth Nationally, 40.7% of Hispanics are born outside of the United States (Figure 4). Some may assume then that this is also true of Hispanics in Michigan and within Southeast Michigan; however, far more Hispanics in Michigan and Southeast Michigan were born in the U.S. In Michigan, 71.2% of the Hispanic population was born in the United States. This figure is only slightly higher than that for Southeast Michigan Hispanics, 68.8% of whom were born in the United States. There is a 23 percentage point difference between the proportion of Hispanics and non‐Hispanics in Michigan who were born in the US.

Figure 4: Percent of Hispanics Born in the US


According to Jordan and Daughtery’s 2008 Wall Street Journal article, “Immigration Slows in Face of Economic Downturn”, William Frye indicates that many states have experienced a sharp decline in their foreign‐born Hispanic population over the past year. This is not the case in Michigan, where the foreign‐born Hispanic population increased by 10.3% between 2006 and 2007, or in Southeast Michigan where this population increased by 8.9%. This indicates that both Michigan and Southeast Michigan are still attractive to the Hispanic population.

While the non‐Hispanic population only grew by .04% from 2006‐2007 in Southeast Michigan, the Hispanic population increased by 2.8% during that same time period. Thus, the Hispanic population increased by roughly 7 times that of non‐Hispanics in Southeast Michigan relative to their respective populations.

At the county level, 66.2% to 78.3% of the Hispanic population was born in the United States. Macomb Hispanics are more likely to have been born in the U.S. than Hispanics in Oakland, Wayne, or the rest of Southeast Michigan, on average. However, as noted above, the ACS PUMS data for Macomb County will have a larger confidence interval as fewer Hispanics were surveyed in this area. Nonetheless, data at the county level in Southeast Michigan indicate that between 60 and 80 percent of Hispanics were born in the United States (Figure 5).

66.9%

66.2%

78.3%

68.8%

71.2%

59.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Wayne

Oakland

Macomb

Southeast Michigan

Michigan

US



Southeast Michigan’s Hispanic population was slightly more likely to have been foreign‐born in comparison to the rest of the state (Figure 5). While 8.4% of Southeast Michigan non‐Hispanics were foreign‐born, only 2.8% of non‐Hispanics from the rest of the state were foreign‐born (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Hispanic and Non‐Hispanic Place of Birth by Region


This is indicative of the fact that Southeast Michigan, in general, and Wayne County, in particular, are ports of entry for many immigrants to this country, a trend that can be seen in Southwest Detroit. This has been further confirmed by the 2007 ACS PUMS data released on September 27, 2008. Michigan is far outpacing the nation in the number of Hispanics who are coming from outside of the United States to live in Michigan (Table 4). From 2006 to 2007, the state increased by 10.3% in Foreign‐born Hispanics while nationally the increase was only 1.9%.

Table 4: Change in Percent of Foreign‐born Hispanics

Foreign‐Born (06) Foreign‐Born (07) Foreign‐Born Percent Change 06‐07

Wayne 32,616 35,457 8.7%Oakland 11,207 11,132 ‐0.7%Rest of Southeast Michigan 6,602 7,111 7.7%Rest of Michigan 60,770 67,815 11.6%Southeast MI 54,062 58,896 8.9%State 114,832 126,711 10.3%United States 18,028,838 18,378,762 1.9%

Source: 2006 and 2007 American Community Surveys

97.2%

73.1%

91.6%

68.8%

2.8%

26.9%

8.4%

31.2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Rest of M

ISouthe

ast M

I

Rest of MI Southeast MI

Non‐Hispanic Hispanic Non‐Hispanic Hispanic

Born in US 97.24% 73.07% 91.59% 68.80%

Born Outside US 2.76% 26.93% 8.41% 31.20%



Age The United State’s Hispanic population is substantially younger than its non‐Hispanic counterpart. The average Hispanic citizen in Michigan is 27.5 years old; whereas, the average non‐Hispanic citizen is 37.5. This difference is comparable to differences in the national averages of 28.7 years of age for Hispanics and 38.0 for non‐Hispanics. The number of Hispanic citizens under 18 is nearly 11 percentage points higher than non‐Hispanics for the U.S. and nearly 13 percentage points higher for Michigan. While 35.5% of U.S. Hispanics and 37.4% of Michigan Hispanics are under 18, only 24.5% of U.S. non‐Hispanics and 25.7% of Michigan non‐Hispanics are under 18. Conversely, 13.7% of U.S. non‐Hispanics and 12.8% of Michigan non‐Hispanics are over 65, while only 5.3% and 3.7% of Hispanics fall in this category at the national and state level, respectively.

This age differential has significant economic and political implications: a larger proportion of Hispanics than non‐Hispanics will be entering the labor force over the next two decades. Although the 18 to 64 population percentages are very close between Hispanics and non‐Hispanics, Hispanics should have a larger percentage of their population enrolled in school (Figure 7), while non‐Hispanics should have a larger proportion at retirement age. 11

Figure 6: US Age Breakdown: Hispanic v. Non‐Hispanic


11 These differences are significant at the .001 level.

13.%

5.3%

61.8%

59.2%

24.5%

35.5%

65 years and over

65 years and over

18 to 64 years

18 to 64 years

Under 18 years

Under 18 years

Non

‐HispanicHispanic

Non

‐HispanicHispanic

Non

‐HispanicHispanic



Michigan very closely resembles the Hispanic age distribution nationally. Although Hispanics have a larger percentage of the population under the age of 18 and a smaller percentage over the age of 25 relative to non‐Hispanics, it is important to note that the 18 to 64 population is very similar. If Hispanics can acquire additional education, the Hispanic population has the potential to increase their average wages, demonstrate more economic contributions to the local, state, and national government, and thereby increase their political clout at each of these levels.

Figure 7: Michigan Age Breakdown: Hispanic vs. Non‐Hispanic


Hispanics have a much larger concentration of children and young adults than non‐Hispanics have (Table 5). This is especially noticeable for those between the ages of 5 and 17 where a 9 percentage point difference separates Hispanics from non‐Hispanics. This age distribution should signify that more Hispanics than non‐Hispanics should be enrolled in K‐12 and college; however, the next section indicates that this is not the case. Despite a larger under 18 population, a larger percentage of non‐Hispanics than Hispanics are enrolled.

12.8%

3.7%

61.5%

58.9%

25.7%

37.4%

65 years and over

65 years and over

18 to 64 years

18 to 64 years

Under 18 years

Under 18 years

Non

‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non

‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non

‐Hispanic

Hispanic



Table 5: Age Distribution of Hispanics and Non‐Hispanics

Age 0‐4 Age 5‐17 Age 18‐24 25 and OlderOutside SE Michigan

Non‐Hispanic 6.1% 17.2% 11.8% 64.9% Hispanic 10.1% 26.1% 14.3% 49.5%

SE Michigan Non‐Hispanic 6.3% 18.6% 9.9% 65.3% Hispanic 11.3% 22.9% 13.7% 52.2% Michigan Non‐Hispanic 6.2% 17.9% 10.8% 65.1% Hispanic 10.6% 24.7% 14.0% 50.7%


Hispanic School Enrollment

As is the case for any population, a major factor in the continued success of Hispanics is the extent to which the population is educated. As one moves along the continuum of education, wages and occupation opportunities are sure to follow. This section first examines K‐12 education, and then discusses levels of post‐secondary education for the Hispanic and non‐Hispanic population in Michigan and within Southeast Michigan.

Kindergarten through High School According to the 2006 ACS, 13.5% of Southeast Michigan’s Hispanics and 13.6% of Southeast Michigan’s non‐Hispanics are currently enrolled in some form of structured academic setting ranging from nursery school to the graduate/professional level. For the population under 25 enrolled in some form of structured academic setting, the proportions flip: 12.1% of Southeast Michigan’s Hispanics under the age of 25 are enrolled, while 11.9% of Southeast Michigan non‐Hispanics under the age of 25 are enrolled. As previously noted, the average age differential between the non‐Hispanic and the Hispanic population in Michigan is significantly different. Whereas the average Hispanic in Michigan is 27.5 years old, the average non‐Hispanic is 37.5. This 10‐year differential is likely to skew everything from school enrollment distributions to wages and occupations.



Figure 8: Distribution of Hispanic v. Non‐Hispanic School Population K‐12


Southeast Michigan’s population of Hispanics in grades one through four (29.5%) is larger than the proportion found in the State of Michigan (26.1%) and in the United States (26.6%). This is expected because the average age of Hispanics in both Michigan and nationwide are much younger than non‐Hispanics, and Figure 8 considers the distribution of school‐going individuals not the percentage of the total population.

The percentages of Hispanic and non‐Hispanic students enrolled in kindergarten are relatively consistent across regions, but moving up the grade levels demonstrates a drop in Hispanic enrollment and a corresponding increase in non‐Hispanics students.

Non‐Hispanic

HispanicNon‐

HispanicHispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Southeast Michigan Michigan US

Kindergarten 5.44% 4.71% 5.24% 5.84% 5.48% 7.54%

Grade 1‐4 21.62% 29.45% 21.00% 26.12% 21.77% 26.57%

Grade 5‐8 24.14% 25.66% 23.32% 25.99% 23.23% 25.00%

Grade 9‐12 25.66% 19.21% 25.74% 21.55% 24.38% 23.01%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%Pe

rcen

tage of schoo

l po

pulatio

n



Figure 9: Distribution of Southeast Michigan's Hispanic vs. Non‐Hispanic School Population


Since the Hispanic population has a much larger percentage of the population under 18, a disproportionate number could be under 4 years old. Although this did appear to be the case (Table 7), there are also a disproportionate number of Hispanics between the ages of 5 through 17 and 18 through 24; yet despite this fact, there still exists an education gap between non‐Hispanics and Hispanics. Taken together, Tables 6 and 7 demonstrate that Hispanics have the opportunity to surpass non‐Hispanics at each level of education as a percentage of their population; however, the inverse is currently true. Although a larger percentage of the Hispanic population is between the ages of 5 and 24, this is not reflected in the school figures. Fewer Hispanics are attending school despite their disproportionately large school‐aged population.

Table 6: Percent of Under 25 population enrolled in School

Nursery Kindergarten Grade 1‐4 Grade 5‐8 Grade 9‐12

Southeast Michigan

Non‐Hispanic 4.9% 3.9% 15.5% 17.3% 18.4%

Hispanic 5.5% 2.9% 17.9% 15.6% 11.7%

State Non‐Hispanic 4.6% 3.7% 14.9% 16.5% 18.2% Hispanic 4.7% 3.7% 16.7% 16.7% 13.8%

US Non‐Hispanic 4.8% 3.8% 15.0% 16.0% 16.8% Hispanic 4.2% 4.4% 16.1% 15.3% 14.4%


Non‐Hispanic Hispanic

Southeast Michigan

Nursery 6.83% 8.97%

Kindergarten 5.44% 4.71%

Grade 1‐4 21.62% 29.45%

Grade 5‐8 24.14% 25.66%

Grade 9‐12 25.66% 19.21%

Undergraduate 15.43% 11.65%

Graduate 0.88% 0.35%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%Pe

rcen

tage amon

g Scho

olPo

pulatio

n



Table 7: Age Distribution

Age 0‐4 Age 5‐17 Age 18‐24 Outside SE Michigan

Non‐Hispanic 6.1% 17.2% 11.8% Hispanic 10.1% 26.1% 14.3%

SE Michigan Non‐Hispanic 6.3% 18.6% 9.9% Hispanic 11.3% 22.9% 13.7% Michigan Non‐Hispanic 6.2% 17.9% 10.8% Hispanic 10.6% 24.7% 14.0%


The dropout rate for the Hispanic population increases dramatically between 16 and 17 years old (Figure 10). Before this time, the percentage of the population enrolled at each age point is consistent for Hispanics and non‐Hispanics. However, it makes sense that this is the age that students are beginning to drop out since it corresponds with the legal age that the state allows students to drop out of the K‐12 system.

Figure 10: Percent of Population Enrolled in High School by Age


Collegiate Level Undergraduate degrees are becoming increasingly essential in attaining a job as unemployment rates rise in Michigan. With most Hispanics currently in the manufacturing sector (Figure 28), a sector that is losing jobs at a disproportionate rate, a college degree increases in importance as a mechanism for attaining jobs, both in Michigan and nationally. Therefore, the extent to which

15 years 16 years 17 years 18 years

Non‐Hispanic 97.13% 96.76% 95.00% 80.54%

Hispanic 100.00% 96.16% 62.91% 53.56%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

Percen

tage of Stude

nts Enrolled



a population is pursuing a college degree will have an impact on their wages, occupations, and their continued economic contributions.

Figures 11 and 13 show a comparison of the percentage of Hispanic and non‐Hispanic school‐going students in Southeast Michigan, the state as a whole, and the US that are attending college (undergraduate in the former and graduate in the latter). In every case, the percentage of non‐Hispanics attending is at least double that of Hispanics for the population that is enrolled in school. Certainly, these figures have implications for wages and occupations later in life. Hispanics as a population trail non‐Hispanics in their undergraduate enrollment by about 5% across each geographic region (Figure 11). However, Michigan Hispanics have made strides since the 2000 census in terms of attaining an undergraduate degree, as reflected in the following section.

In the U.S., 10.3% of the Hispanic population under the age of 25 and in school is enrolled in an undergraduate degree program; whereas 17.4% of their non‐Hispanic counterparts are pursuing an undergraduate degree. For those attending school, more Michigan Hispanics (12.9%) are enrolled in an undergraduate degree program than the national percentage (10.3%); whereas, of the non‐Hispanics enrolled in school, 17.5% of them are pursuing an undergraduate curriculum. Although not as many Southeast Michigan Hispanics are enrolled in an undergraduate program as in the rest of the state, the difference between these and their non‐Hispanic counterparts is less than 4 percentage points, which is the most narrow difference of any geographic units.

Figure 11: Percent in School that are Enrolled in Undergraduate Studies


15.4%

11.6%

17.5%

12.9%

17.4%

10.3%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Southe

ast

Michigan

Michigan

US



More important than the distribution of those in an undergraduate degree relative to the school‐going population is the distribution of Hispanics enrolled in school relative to the under 25 population. Here we see that while 71.6% of Southeast Michigan non‐Hispanics under the age of 25 are enrolled in school with 11.5% in an undergraduate program, only 60.8% of their Hispanic counterparts are enrolled in school and only 7.1% are enrolled in an undergraduate degree (Table 8). Southeast Michigan’s disparity between the Hispanic and non‐Hispanic population is larger than the gap between both the state as a whole and the nation. One factor that could contribute to the gap in education levels is age.

Table 8: College Enrollment per Population

Undergraduate Graduate Total

Southeast Michigan

Non‐Hispanic 11.1% 0.6% 71.6% Hispanic 7.1% 0.2% 60.8%

State Non‐Hispanic 12.4% 0.6% 70.7% Hispanic 8.3% 0.2% 64.1%

US Non‐Hispanic 12.0% 0.6% 69.0% Hispanic 6.5% 0.2% 61.2%


Table 9: Age Distribution

Age 18‐24 25 and Older Outside SE Michigan

Non‐Hispanic 11.8% 64.9% Hispanic 14.3% 49.5%

SE Michigan Non‐Hispanic 9.9% 65.3% Hispanic 13.7% 52.2% Michigan Non‐Hispanic 10.8% 65.1% Hispanic 14.0% 50.7%




Figure 12: Percent of Population Enrolled in College by Age


Figure 12 indicates that while far less Hispanics are enrolled in a structured academic setting at age 18 (presumably college), they also drop off much faster between the years 19 to 21. There is some recovery around age 22, but the trajectory beginning at age 16 (as seen in Figure 10) does not depict a promising picture for Hispanics. Without a high school diploma, many will find it extremely difficult to find employment in this economy. The future success of the Hispanic population is likely to be substantially improved with increased educational attainment, particularly high school diploma.

Graduate Although the percentage of those enrolled in a graduate program under the age of 25 make up a small percentage of students overall (less than 1 percent for both Hispanics and non‐Hispanics alike), the differences between the Hispanic population and the non‐Hispanic population are substantial. The non‐Hispanic cohorts at each level (U.S., Michigan, and the counties of Southeast Michigan) are nearly triple their Hispanic counterparts (Figure 13) in terms of those enrolled in graduate school. This is, however, simply the percentage of school‐going individuals who are enrolled in graduate studies that makes it sensitive to the age distribution. While Hispanics have a larger 18‐24 proportion, their 25 and older portion is slightly smaller and, therefore, this has the potential to skew the distribution.

18 years 19 years 20 years 21 years 22 years

Non‐Hispanic 80.54% 69.58% 60.87% 57.43% 41.89%

Hispanic 53.56% 49.71% 32.00% 27.34% 30.89%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

Percen

tage of Stude

nts Enrolled



Figure 13: Percent Enrolled in Graduate Studies


A better indicator for graduate studies in terms of its effect on income and occupations is degree of educational attainment and not current enrollment given that these individuals have not made it into the labor force. This is not to say that these figures are unimportant in the future success of Hispanic employees. Educational attainment is the basis for the next segment of this report, where the disparities in higher level education are prominent.

Educational Attainment While Hispanics in Southeast Michigan have lower levels of educational attainment than their non‐Hispanic counterparts, they are doing substantially better than Hispanics elsewhere in the country. According to the 2006 ACS, approximately two‐thirds (68.5%) of Southeast Michigan’s total Hispanic population has earned a high school diploma or gone on to attend at least some college. In contrast, 87.5% of Southeast Michigan’s non‐Hispanic population has earned a high school diploma or gone on to attend at least some college (Figures 14 and 15).12

12 Although the Hispanic population on average is younger than the non‐Hispanic population, this should not have a major bearing on educational attainment and should significantly increase those who are enrolled in K‐12 as a percentage of the population. While the former is true, the latter has proven not to be the case as demonstrated in the previous section. The reason that educational attainment should not be too severely affected by a younger population is that while Hispanics have a larger proportion of under 18 year olds and a smaller proportion of retirement age individuals, the 18 to 64 population is very similar. Therefore, although age distribution should have a slightly negative effect on Hispanic educational attainment as a percentage of their population, it should not have a major effect. Furthermore, it should have little bearing on the percentage that has attained a diploma.

0.88%

0.35%

0.78%

0.29%

0.92%

0.30%

0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 0.40% 0.50% 0.60% 0.70% 0.80% 0.90% 1.00%

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Southe

ast

Michigan

Michigan

US



Figure 14: Southeast Michigan Hispanics Age 25 or Older with Diploma or Higher


Figure 15: Southeast Michigan Non‐Hispanics Age 25 or Older with Diploma or Higher (Age 25 and Over)


Considering educational attainment in more detail, Southeast Michigan’s non‐Hispanics are more likely than Hispanics to have a high school diploma, and roughly 10% more of the non‐Hispanic population have an Associate’s or Bachelor’s degree (25%) than Hispanics (15%). While 58.3% of the non‐Hispanic population 25 and older has attended at least some college, only 39.9% of the Hispanic population has taken a college course. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates the differences in wages between those at each level of educational attainment:

Full‐time workers age 25 years and over without a high school diploma had median weekly earnings of $449, compared with $620 for high school graduates (no college) and $1,105 for those holding at least a bachelor's degree. Among college graduates with advanced degrees (professional or master's degree and above)… (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007)

31.6%

68.5%

No Diploma

Diploma or Higher

12.5%

87.5%

No Diploma

Diploma or Higher



Given the educational attainment of Hispanics, the drop in wages of Hispanics as one moves up the wage classification table becomes explicable (Figures 24 and 25). Education will serve as an important tool for the Hispanic population to realize equity in their wages.

Hispanics in Michigan, as a whole, have done better on their levels of educational attainment than the national average. Michigan’s percentages are higher in every category—from those who have attained a diploma to those who have earned a doctorate (with the exception of associates degrees)—than at the national level. This is not true of Michigan’s non‐Hispanic population who lag behind national percentages for bachelor and graduate degrees earned (Figure 16).

Figure 16: Educational Attainment, Michigan vs. U.S.


Household Data This section examines household type, median household income, per capita income, and percent of population in poverty at the national, state, and Southeast Michigan county level, using 2006 ACS data. This comparison includes the following: all races/ethnicities, White (non‐Hispanic), African American/Black, Asian, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic/Latino.

12%

32%

13%

40%

32%

31%

30%

28%

22%

17%

20%

15%

8%

5%

8%

8%

16%

10%

18%

8%

9%

5%

11%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

State

US

No Diploma

Diploma

Some college, no degree

Associates Degree

Bachelor's Degree

Graduate Degree



Household Type According to the 2006 ACS, roughly two‐thirds of Southeast Michigan’s Hispanic (63.8%) and non‐Hispanic (66.8%) children live in two‐parent households (Figure 17). 13 These percentages are on‐par with percentages at both the state and national level.

Figure 17: Children Living in Two‐parent vs. Single‐parent Households


While the percentages of Hispanic and non‐Hispanic children living in two‐parent households vs. single‐parent households in Southeast Michigan are very similar, these households look different in terms of the employment status of their parents. Hispanic children are more likely to have one parent in the workforce than non‐Hispanic children. There is about a ten percentage point difference between Hispanic and non‐Hispanic children in terms of whether both or only one parent works (Figure 18). Although the percentage of the populations that have neither parent working is small relative to the other two categories, Hispanics are still about 50% more likely to have neither parent working.

13 These percentages are age‐independent and include the entire universe of children who are reported to live with a parent who is head‐of‐household, not simply children under 18 years of age.

66.82%63.77%

67.92%62.55%

68.84%65.25%

33.18%36.23%

32.08%37.45%

31.16%34.75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%Non

‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non

‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non

‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Southeast MI State US

Two‐parent

Single‐parent



Figure 18: Employment Status of Parent for Children Living in Two‐parent Households


In Southeast Michigan, there is a slightly higher tendency for the parent to be working in single parent non‐Hispanic households than in Hispanic households. While 20.9% of non‐Hispanic children living with one parent live with a parent who does not work, this number rises to 24.5% for Hispanic children (Figure 19). The employment status of the parent in Hispanic and non‐Hispanic single‐family households is closer to equal at the national level. For those children who live with a single parent, this tendency for Hispanic parents to work less frequently than their non‐Hispanic counterparts holds up in some areas and not in others. For example, in Wayne County, non‐Hispanic parents are more likely to work, but this is not the case in Oakland and Macomb Counties.

64.8%

53.8%

63.4%

52.1%

33.0%

42.5%

34.4%

44.8%

2.2%3.7% 2.2% 32%

‐10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Non‐Hispanic Hispanic Non‐Hispanic Hispanic

Southeast MI US

Both Parents Work

One Parent Works

Neither Parent Works



Figure 19: Employment Status of Parent for Children Living in One‐parent Households


Income Data Using 2000 Census data and 2006 and 2007 ACS data, this section examines median household income and per capita income at the national, state, and Southeast Michigan county level. This comparison includes the following: White (non‐Hispanic), African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, and all races/ethnicities combined.

The percent of individuals in poverty is also examined using 2000 Census data in addition to 2006 and 2007 ACS Public Use Microdata. As with median household income and per capita

75.4%

59.2%

84.9%88.3%

79.3%82.4%

87.4%

67.4%

79.1%75.5%

80.0%77.5%

24.6%

40.8%

15.1%11.7%

20.1%17.6%

12.6%

32.6%

20.9%24.5%

20.0%22.53%

Non

‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non

‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non

‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non

‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non

‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non

‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Wayne Oakland Macomb Rest of SE Michigan

Southeast MI US

Parent Works Parent Does Not Work



income, the focus is on the national, state, and Southeast Michigan county level and includes an analysis of Hispanic individuals as compared to non‐Hispanic individuals.

An important attribute to note between median household and personal income is that while Hispanics consistently rank near the bottom in personal income, they fare better in terms of household income (Appendix: Table A5)14 relative to other minority groups. This conclusion tends to support the fact that Hispanics typically have larger household sizes with more working adults than other groups (Appendix Table: A6).

Median Household Income Among the groups analyzed, one can see that Hispanic households tended to have a lower median household income than White non‐Hispanic households and a higher median income than African‐American households. At the national level, from 2000 to 2007, all groups had steady increases in median household income, with Hispanic households posting a median income of $40,766 in 2007 ($38,747 in 2006, $33,676 in 2000). Non‐Hispanic white households reported a median income of nearly $10,000 more than Hispanic households ($55,096 in 2007, $52,375 in 2006, $44,687 in 2000), while African‐American/Black households trailed Hispanics by almost $7,000 in 2007 ($34,001 in 2007, $32,372 in 2006, $29,423 in 2000).

Michigan. Also in 2007, Hispanic households in Michigan recorded a median income of $36,453, while White non‐Hispanic households earned over $15,000 more with a median income of $51,193. African‐American/Black households earned a median income nearly $6,000 lower than their Hispanic counterparts ($30,630). Since 2000, both Hispanic and African‐American/Black households have had decreases in median household income. Between 2000 and 2007, Hispanic households have seen their median household income decrease by $2,028. At the same time, African‐American/Black households saw their median household income increase by $225 between 2000 and 2006, only to decrease from $31,276 to $30,630 from 2006 to 2007 yielding a net loss of $421 since 2000.

Southeast Michigan. In Southeast Michigan, among Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties, Hispanic households tended to register median incomes falling between White, non‐Hispanic and African‐American/Black households. In Wayne County, between 2000 and 2006, Hispanic households experienced a $4,222 gain ($37,292 in 2000, $41,514 in 2006), only to see median income decrease to $37,884 in 2007. Simultaneously, White, non‐Hispanic households saw a $4,236 increase in median household income from 2000 to 2007 ($53,867 in 2007, $52,822 in 2006, $49,631 in 2000) while African‐American/Black households experienced decreases during the same period ($29,320 in 2007, $29,709 in 2006, $30,119 in 2000).

Oakland County. In Oakland County, Hispanic households posted a $2,515 decrease in median household income between 2000 and 2006, only to rebound in 2007 by gaining $6,970 ($53,252

14 The groups that were ranked include: White alone (Non‐Hispanic), African American, Alaskan/Native American, Asian, and Hawaiin (only at the US and Michigan level). The rank for US, Michigan and Oakland, are out of 6 groups; while the rank for Wayne and Macomb are out of 5.



in 2007, $46,282 in 2006, $48,797 in 2000). White, non‐Hispanic households saw a continuous increase in median household income between 2000 and 2007 ($69,768 in 2007, 68,700 in 2006, $63,136 in 2000), while African‐American/Black households’ experienced continuous decreases in median household income during the same period ($47,536 in 2007, $48,264 in 2006, $51,074 in 2000).

Macomb County. Lastly, a similar pattern is evident in Macomb County. Among Hispanic households, median household income dropped by $6,077 from 2000 to 2006, only to rebound strongly in 2007 ($58,004 in 2007, $43,566 in 2006, $49,643 in 2000). African‐American/Black households had the opposite experience, posting a substantial increase of $5,868 in median income between 2000 and 2006, only to see $5,512 of the increase evaporate between 2006 and 2007 ($40,949 in 2007, $46,461 in 2006, $40,593 in 2000). White, non‐Hispanic households saw increases in median household income from 2000 to 2006 and from 2006 to 2007 ($56,022 in 2007, $54,080 in 2006, $52,399 in 2000). See Figure 20 below.



$40,000

$45,000

$50,000

$55,000

$60,000

$65,000

$70,000

$75,000

2000 2006 2007

Oakland County

Combined

White, Non‐HispanicBlack/African‐AmericanHispanic/Latino

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$50,000

$55,000

$60,000

2000 2006 2007

Macomb County

Combined

White, Non‐Hispanic

Black/African‐American

Hispanic/Latino

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$50,000

$55,000

$60,000

2000 2006 2007

Wayne County

Combined



Hispanic/Latino

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$50,000

$55,000

$60,000

2000 2006 2007

United States

Combined



Hispanic/Latino

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$50,000

$55,000

2000 2006 2007

Michigan

Combined



Hispanic/Latino

Figure 20: Median Household Income

Source: Factfinder 2000, 2006, & 2007



Per Capita Income Hispanic individuals tended to have the lowest per capita income among the three groups analyzed at the national, state, and county level. While per capita income has increased among all three groups, it was over two times higher for White non‐Hispanic individuals as compared to Hispanic in 2007 ($31,138 for White, non‐Hispanic individuals, $15,502 for Hispanic individuals). At the same time, African‐American/Black individuals held a $2,048 income advantage over Hispanics with a per capita income of $17,550.

Michigan. In Michigan, while per capita income among White, non‐Hispanic and African‐American/Black individuals consistently rose from 2000 to 2007 For White non‐Hispanic individuals: $26,947 in 2007, $26,174 in 2006 $23,697 in 2000; for African‐American/Black individuals: $16,424 in 2007, $15,622 in 2006, $15,714 in 2000), per capita income among Hispanic individuals dropped between 2006 and 2007 ($14,677 in 2007, $15,139 in 2006,). However, the 2007 figure remained higher than the $13,889 reported in 2000.

Southeast Michigan. At county level, Hispanic individuals tended to register the lowest per capita income among the three groups analyzed in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties. In Wayne County, Hispanic individuals posted a $2,281 increase between 2000 and 2006 ($16,153 in 2006, $13,872 in 2000). However, this fell by $1,297 between 2006 and 2007, when Hispanic individuals reported a per capita income of $14,856. White non‐Hispanic and African‐American/Black individuals saw consistent increases between 2000 and 2007, ending 2007 with $27,665 for White non‐Hispanic individuals and $15,680 for African‐Americans/Blacks.

Oakland County. In Oakland County, Hispanic individuals saw consistent per capita income increases between 2000 and 2007 ($23,073 in 2007, $21,047 in 2006, $20,568 in 2000). However, per capita income among Hispanic individuals remained low compared to their non‐Hispanic counterparts. White, non‐Hispanic individuals ended 2007 with a per capita income of $38,359, while African‐American/Black individuals registered a per capita income of $25,666.

Macomb County. As with Oakland County, Hispanic individuals in Macomb County saw consistent per capita income increases between 2000 and 2007 ($20,056 in 2007, $16,039 in 2006, $16,712 in 2000). Although White, non‐Hispanic individuals also reported a consistent per capita increase between 2000 and 2007 ($27,576 in 2007, $26,749 in 2006, $24,947 in 2000), African‐American/Black individuals saw a $2,377 portion of their per capita income rise between 2000 and 2006 but decline in 2007 ($20,874 in 2007, $22,218 in 2006, $19,841 in 2000). See Figure 21 below.



$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

2000 2006 2007

United States

Combined



Hispanic/Latino

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

$22,000

$24,000

$26,000

$28,000

2000 2006 2007

Michigan

Combined



Hispanic/Latino

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

$22,000

$24,000

$26,000

$28,000

$30,000

2000 2006 2007

Wayne County

Combined



Hispanic/Latino

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

2000 2006 2007

Oakland County

Combined



Hispanic/Latino

$15,000

$17,000

$19,000

$21,000

$23,000

$25,000

$27,000

$29,000

2000 2006 2007

Macomb County

Combined



Hispanic/Latino

Figure 21: Per Capita Income




Percent in Poverty Focusing on the percent of individuals in poverty, a clear dichotomy becomes apparent between Hispanic individuals and non‐Hispanic individuals across all geographic levels. From 2000 to 2007, Hispanic individuals nationally were approximately two times more likely to be in poverty than non‐Hispanic individuals (2007: 19.3% for Hispanics, 10.5% for non‐Hispanics; 2006: 20.1% for Hispanics, 10.8% for non‐Hispanics; 2000: 22.1% for Hispanics, 10.6% for non‐Hispanics). At the same time, the percent of non‐Hispanic individuals and Hispanic individuals in poverty have remained relatively stable over the last seven years.

Michigan. In Michigan, as with the U.S. as a whole, poverty levels have remained relatively stable between 2000 and 2007. In 2007, 22.8% of Hispanic individuals were found to be in poverty compared to only 12.5% of non‐Hispanic individuals. The net change between 2000 and 2007 for the percent of non‐Hispanic individuals in poverty was +2.5%, while for Hispanic individuals there was net change of +4.3% during the same period.

Southeast Michigan. Focusing on Wayne, Oakland and Macomb, one notices a substantial difference in the number of Hispanic and non‐Hispanic individuals in poverty in Oakland and Macomb counties, whereas in Wayne County the differences are relatively small. In Oakland County, 12.4% of Hispanic individuals lived in poverty in 2000, only to have the percentage balloon to 21.9% in 2006. The data revealed a slight decrease in 2007, with the number of Hispanic individuals in poverty holding steady at 19.1%. The percent of non‐Hispanic individuals living in poverty between 2000 and 2006 increased only slightly from 5.3% to 5.4%. However, in 2007, this number jumped to 7.7%.

Macomb County. Macomb County poverty figures were similar to those of Oakland County. In 2000, 9.3% of Hispanic individuals lived in poverty. This number jumped significantly to 24.1% in 2006, only to relax again at 13.5% in 2007. Simultaneously, the percent of non‐Hispanic individuals in poverty remained relatively flat with only slight increases between 2000 and 2007 (5.5% in 2000, 7.7% in 2006, 8.1% in 2007).

Wayne County. In Wayne County, the percent of Hispanic individuals and non‐Hispanic individuals in poverty were much closer than in Macomb and Oakland. Between 2000 and 2006, Hispanics saw 20.8% (2000) of their population in poverty that increased to 21.9% in 2006. In 2007, this figure jumped only slightly to 22.8%. Non‐Hispanic individuals saw similar increases, beginning at 16% in 2000 and increasing to 18.3% in 2007.



5%

7%

9%

11%

13%

15%

17%

19%

21%

23%

2000 2006 2007

United States

Hispanic/Latino

Non‐Hispanic/Latino

Combined

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

22%

24%

2000 2006 2007

Michigan

Hispanic/Latino


Combined

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

22%

24%

2000 2006 2007

Wayne County

Hispanic/Latino


Combined

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2000 2006 2007

Oakland County

Hispanic/Latino


Combined

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2000 2006 2007

Macomb County

Hispanic/Latino


Combined


Figure 22: Percent in Poverty


Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies &Center for Chicano‐Boricua Studies 43

Figure 23: Poverty Rates

Source: Census Factfinder 2006

Average Wage Comparisons Wages at different levels of government are pretty consistent between Hispanics and non‐Hispanics. As the wage classification goes up, the Hispanic portion of each wage category drops (Figure 24, 25). The one exception is in the ‘$9,999 and under’ category. Within this category, Hispanics and non‐Hispanics are almost evenly split at all levels. The US split is around 23.2% of non‐Hispanics making within the $1‐$9,999 category; while 25.01% of Hispanics fall into this category. The Michigan split is even closer between non‐Hispanics and Hispanics in this category. Whereas 25.9% of Michigan’s non‐Hispanic population make within this range, 25.8% of Michigan’s Hispanics fall within this category as well, a difference of only .07 percentage points. As wage classifications increase, the split becomes much less equitable. Once one moves into the $10,000‐$14,999 category, Hispanics almost double their non‐Hispanic counterpart. Whereas 12.4% of

21.9%

21.9%

24.1%

28.0%

23.0%

22.7%

22.8%

20.1%

18.2%

5.4%

7.7%

8.7%

11.4%

12.9%

12.2%

10.8%

18.4%

5.9%

8.0%

9.2%

11.8%

13.3%

12.6%

12.1%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Wayne County

Oakland County

Macomb County

Rest of SE Michigan

Total SE Michigan

Rest of State

Total State

USA

Combined

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic



Hispanics fall in this range, only 7.2% of non‐Hispanics do at the national level. Michigan is only slightly more equitable with the divide at 11.4% for Hispanics and 7.4% for non‐Hispanics. The $50,000 to $79,999 category sees a greater difference between Hispanics and non‐Hispanics in this category. While 14.5% of Michigan’s non‐Hispanic population falls within this category, only 8.9% of the Hispanic income exists within that range. Once one moves into the $100,000‐$149,999 range the differences become even more stark. Less than 5 percent (4.6%) of non‐Hispanics in Southeast Michigan earn an income between $100,000 and $149,999; however, only 1.6% of their Hispanic counterparts see those same wages. A plausible reason for the differences in pay between Hispanics and non‐Hispanics is that non‐Hispanics on average have higher degrees of education. However, looking at the correlation between wages and education by race indicates that this does not completely answer the question and points to a bias in wages. Table 10 indicates that the relationship between education and wage for Hispanics is not as strong as that for non‐Hispanics. This indicates that Hispanic wages are not equitable with Non‐Hispanic even when accounting for education.

Table 10: Correlation between Education and Wage

Education and Wage Sig Hispanic 0.374 <.001 Non‐Hispanic 0.414 <.001




Figure 24: United State Wages: Non‐Hispanic vs. Hispanic


23.19%

7.15%

14.46%

14.18%

15.77%

14.06%

5.30%

3.57%

1.03%

1.30%

25.01%

12.38%

24.18%

15.01%

12.19%

7.48%

2.07%

1.14%

0.27%

0.28%

>$9,999

$10,000‐$14,999

$15,000‐$24,999

$25,000‐$34,999

$35,000‐$49,999

$50,000‐$74,999

$75,000‐$99,999

$100,000‐$149,999

$150,000‐$199,999

$200,000+

US Non‐Hispanic US Hispanic



Figure 25: Michigan Wages: Non‐Hispanic vs. Hispanic


Industry Data

Employment by Industry for Hispanic Americans Information on employment by industry for specific population groups is available from the United States Census Bureau. In the 2000 decennial U.S. Census, every household received either a short form or a long form questionnaire. The long form questionnaire included the same population questions and housing questions that were on the 2000 Census short form, plus 46 additional questions about demographics and housing characteristics. On average, about 1 in every 6 households received the long form. The employment statistics for 2000 that are illustrated in this study come from the sample of U.S. households who completed the long form survey. The data we use here are available via the Bureau’s American Factfinder website (http://www.census.gov/).

More recent estimates of employment by industry for persons in Southeast Michigan are available from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. The ACS is a nationwide survey designed to provide communities a more frequent look at how they are changing. It is a major part of the Census Bureau's reengineered decennial census program. The ACS collects information such as age, race, income, commute time to work, home value, veteran status, and other important data. The ACS collects and

25.90%

7.37%

13.90%

13.07%

14.88%

14.48%

5.54%

3.28%

0.71%

0.86%

25.83%

11.44%

21.72%

16.19%

10.86%

8.85%

3.34%

1.32%

0.19%

0.25%

>$9,999

$10,000‐$14,999

$15,000‐$24,999

$25,000‐$34,999

$35,000‐$49,999

$50,000‐$74,999

$75,000‐$99,999

$100,000‐$149,999

$150,000‐$199,999

$200,000+

Michigan Non‐Hispanic Michigan Hispanic



produces population and housing information every year instead of every ten years. About three million housing unit addresses are selected annually, from across every county in the nation. Collecting data every year provides more up‐to‐date information throughout the decade about the U.S. population at the local community level. Region level data was first provided by the 2005 ACS, as previous years only included statewide data.

This analysis primarily relies on the 2006 ACS PUMS raw survey data. We used this dataset to identify persons living in the seven‐county region (Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw and Wayne counties). The 2006 ACS PUMS file includes a field indicating the geographic region of the household (PUMA code). We used this field to select data for the seven counties, although St. Clair County is combined with Lapeer County. As a result, we estimated employment figures for the St. Clair County region based on a population ratio. As such we use 63 percent of the combined St. Clair‐Lapeer employment total as an estimate for St. Clair County.

We then calculated employment by industry and occupation for the workers in the seven‐county region. In the following section, we present data for the years 2000 and 2006. The 2000 data comes from the Census Bureau's American Factfinder website. The data summarize employment by industry and occupation for Hispanics living in the seven county area. In all, the 2000 Census reports a total of 56,192 employed Hispanic persons.

We also analyzed the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2006 ACS (published August 29, 2007), which collected data on race/ethnicity, employment, and industry. These data were drawn from a random sample of Michigan residents. Nearly 100,000 Michigan respondents were included in the 2006 ACS. About 40,000 respondents were from the seven‐county Detroit metropolitan area. Of these, slightly more than 3,100 individuals were identified as Hispanic Americans. According to the 2006 ACS sample survey, a total of 92,965 Hispanic persons were employed. Because the 2006 ACS sample size was much smaller than the 2000 Census, the employment by industry, occupation and overall population estimates should be viewed as being less precise than the 2000 Census figures15.

In estimating Hispanic employment in the region, we included all persons reporting "Hispanic" as a response to surveys' ethnic classification question. Table 11 presents population and employment estimates from the 2000 Census and the 2005‐2007 American Community Surveys.

15 The exact margin of error will depend on a case by case basis (unit of government, whether it’s a binary variable, etc.) The 2006 ACS PUMS data surveys 1% of the actual population in Michigan.



Table 11: Population and Employment Estimates

2000 2005 2006 2007 Seven County Population 4,921,397 4,798,711 4,700,310 4,875,077 Hispanic Population 138,897 161,489 170,791 176,045 Population Percentage 2.8% 3.4% 3.6% 3.6 Hispanic Employment 56,192 93,348 92,965 93,924

Source: 2000 Census and 2005, 2006, and 2007 American Community Surveys For the seven‐county region in 2006, total Hispanic employment was 92,965 with roughly 28% accounted for by Hispanic persons living in the City of Detroit. Wayne County suburban communities accounted for 27% of Hispanic employment followed by Oakland County with 20%. These statistics are illustrated in Figure 26.

Figure 26: Total Hispanic Employment by County, 2006


Figure 27 compares employment by industry estimates from both the 2000 Census and 2006 ACS for the seven‐county Hispanic population. The employment figures drawn from the 2006 ACS represent a 65% increase in the number of Hispanic workers. The largest increases in the employ0ment statistics for 2000 and 2006 are seen in the Education/Health/Social Services sector, Accommodations/Food Service and Professional/Business Services. Manufacturing showed a major decline.

DETROIT25,94027.9%

WAYNE COUNTY (SUBURBS)24,94126.8%

OAKLAND18,64620.1%

MACOMB9,0689.8%

WASHTENAW8,2808.9%

ST. CLAIR2,4392.6%

LIVINGSTON1,9692.1%

MONROE1,6821.8%



Figure 27: Hispanic Employment by Industry: 2000 and 2006

Source: 2000 Census; 2006 American Community Survey

Industry sectors showing large increases in employment between 2000 and 2006 are indicators of job growth among Hispanics; however, it should be noted again that statistics from the 2006 ACS, while more current, will be less precise given the much smaller sample size of the survey.

Figure 28 compares the percent industry share among Hispanic workers. In 2006, manufacturing remained the leading industry for Hispanic workers accounting for 19% of workers followed by Education, Health & Social Services at 15 percent. Service industries (Accommodation/Food Service,

14,361

7,809

5,716

5,687

5,849

5,152

1,995

2,495

1,506

2,354

1,355

1,108

18,028

13,796

13,443

11,676

9,311

8,843

4,879

3,382

3,220

3,030

1,395

1,376

MANUFACTURING

EDUCATION, HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

ACCOMMODATIONS & FOOD SERVICES

PROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS SERVICES

CONSTRUCTION

RETAIL TRADE

TRANSPORTATION & UTILITIES

FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES

WHOLESALE TRADE

OTHER SERVICES

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

INFORMATION

2000 2006



Professional & Business Services, Other Services) account for 30% of Hispanic workers. The Construction and Retail Trade sectors both accounted for 10% of workers in 2006.

Figure 28: Hispanic Employment by Industry: Percent Share 2000 and 2006

Source: 2000 Census, 2006 American Community Survey

Figure 29 compares statistics on occupations of Hispanic workers from the 2000 Census and 2006 American Community Survey (ACS) for the seven‐county region. Again, these statistics reflect a 65 percent increase in Hispanic jobs in the seven‐county region. Increases are evident in all occupations except for Farming/Fishing/Forestry. The largest increases are clearly in Service Occupations growing to 26,375 in 2006 from 10,236 in 2000.

26%

14%

10%

10%

10%

9%

4%

4%

3%

4%

2%

2%

19.4%

14.8%

14.5%

12.6%

10.0%

9.5%

5.2%

3.6%

3.5%

3.3%

1.5%

1.5%

MANUFACTURING




CONSTRUCTION

RETAIL TRADE



WHOLESALE TRADE

OTHER SERVICES


INFORMATION

2000 2006



Figure 29: Hispanic Occupation: 2000 and 2006


Figure 30 illustrates the occupational data in terms of percent share for 2000 and 2006 for Hispanic workers. The major difference illustrated in Figure 30 is the shift toward service occupations. In

percentage terms, Service occupations reflect the only category that increased from 2000 to 2006.

13,861

12,631

11,077

10,236

7,528

859

18,905

18,597

16,381

26,375

12,225

483

Management, professional, and related occupations:

Production, transportation, and material moving occupations:

Sales and office occupations:

Service occupations:

Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations:

Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations:

2000 2006



Figure 30: Hispanic Occupations: Percent Share 2000 and 2006


Hispanic employment can also be analyzed against Southeast Michigan regional averages for 2006. A comparative analysis will illustrate which sectors or occupations in which Hispanic workers are over or under‐represented. Figure 31 presents the industry share and occupation mix data for Hispanic workers compared to all workers in the seven‐county region. As seen in Figure 31, the major differences in industry share are evident in Accommodations & Food Services, Construction, Educational, Health & Social Services. Hispanic workers are overrepresented in Accommodations & Food Services and Construction. Hispanic workers are underrepresented in Education, Health and Social Services and to a lesser extent in Financial Activities.

25%

22%

20%

18%

13%

2%

20%

20%

18%

28%

13%

1%







2000 2006



With regard to occupational mix in 2006, Hispanic workers were overrepresented in Service, Construction, and Production & Transportation occupations. Hispanic workers were underrepresented in Management & Professional and Sales occupations. This is illustrated in Figure 32.

Figure 31: Comparison: Hispanic Workers vs. Region Average by Industry


18.5%

20.4%

9.6%

10.9%

5.5%

11.6%

4.0%

6.2%

3.0%

4.6%

3.2%

2.2%

19.4%

14.8%

14.5%

12.6%

10.0%

9.5%

5.2%

3.6%

3.5%

3.3%

1.5%

1.5%

MANUFACTURING




CONSTRUCTION

RETAIL TRADE



WHOLESALE TRADE

OTHER SERVICES


INFORMATION

Region Hispanic



Figure 32: Comparisons: Hispanic Average versus Region Average Occupation Mix


More detailed employment by industry and occupation categories are included in the Appendix: Table A7. The table also shows the percentage distribution of aggregate employment in the seven‐county area for both Hispanics and all workers. 16

16 Note that the distribution of employment by industry reported by the Decennial Census is significantly different from the distribution of employment found in other government statistical reports, such as the U.S. Department of Labor’s Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). A small part of the difference can be explained by differences between residence and establishment employment and the inclusion of self‐employed workers in the census‐based data, but the greatest discrepancy appears to reflect confusion on the part of individual respondents to the census questionnaire with respect to their industry of employment. For example, the number of census respondents who report that they work in Corporate Management is a tiny fraction of the number recorded by the QCEW using administrative records. Undoubtedly many people (of all nationalities), working at GM and Ford Headquarters, for example, are reporting on their census forms that they work in

33%

15%

25%

19%

8%

0%

20%

20%

18%

28%

13%

1%







Region Hispanic



Economic Contributions

Data and Methods

The Center for Urban Studies consulted with Don Grimes, an economist highly experienced in using econometric models, to execute this analysis. In collaboration with Mr. Grimes, we used the Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) economic impact model to estimate the overall economic contributions of Hispanics in Southeast Michigan. The REMI model consists of a set of econometric equations that have been developed over nearly 30 years and includes detailed information on industries, such as wages, production outputs and industry linkages. This model can be used to estimate economic impacts on income and employment for specific industry sectors, occupational levels, and geographic areas.

REMI is an input/output model that captures input (demand) and output (supply) interrelationships for business, government, and industry sectors in a geographic region. It also captures the consumption of goods and services by these sectors and by households (i.e., consumers). The primary geographic region results can be estimated for is a county. Models can also be developed for multi‐county, state, multi‐state, and national levels.

The REMI model links various sectors of the economy such as construction, government, households, manufacturing, services, and trade through their respective spending flows. As a result of these linkages, the impact or contribution of economic activity in any sector or geographic area on other sectors and areas can be estimated. The effects of modeled economic activity can extend well beyond the sector and area in which the original activity took place. They include not only the direct or initial contribution of the economic activity, but also the subsequent or ripple/spin‐off effects that flow from this activity. Direct effects are analogous to the splash and indirect effects are like subsequent “waves” of economic activity (jobs, new income, production, and spending) that are triggered by this splash (REMI, 2006).

A "multiplier" statistic summarizes the total impact that can be expected from change in a given economic activity. Multipliers are simple ratios of the total impact to the direct activity – the higher the multiplier, the greater the effect on the local economy for each dollar, job, etc. of direct activity.

For the estimation of the economic contributions of Hispanics, the key input variables for the REMI model are the number of employed Hispanics in each of approximately 50 industries within Southeast Michigan (Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Wayne, and Washtenaw counties). Once these variables were created, they were inserted into the model. The model was then able to generate estimates of employment and earnings associated with the input data.

the auto manufacturing industry, while in truth they are working in corporate management according to the North American Industry Classification System.



Figure 33: Multiplier Effect Diagram

Multiplier Effect Diagram

`

In this particular case, the model assigned Hispanic American workers to their appropriate industry categories and assumed that they produced goods and services as if they were new additions to the local economy. However, since this is a study of the contribution of the Hispanic American workforce and not an impact estimate of what would happen to the local economy if the Hispanic American workforce disappeared (or doubled); we disabled several of the equilibrating responses built into the REMI model. For example, we did not allow the REMI model to increase the wage rate automatically in response to an increase in employment from the addition of new production activities.

Multipliers summarize the total impact that can be expected from change in a given economic activity.

For example, new jobs or new export activity by a local firm are economic changes that can spur ripple effects or spin-off activities. Multipliers measure the total economic impact of these new activities, including the resulting spin-off activities and increased consumer spending.

Jobs

IncreasedBusiness Spending

Increased Local Business And Supplier Revenues

Increased LocalEmployment

Increased local consumer spending

Spin-off Effe

cts

Induced or

Consumption Effe

cts

Direct Effects


Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies &Center for Chicano‐Boricua Studies 57

Results

Using the employment estimates from the 2006 American Community Survey, the data was input into the REMI model to estimate the economic contribution of Hispanic workers within the seven‐county Southeastern Michigan region. The REMI model quantifies the direct contributions of Hispanic workers and the spin‐off contributions, both from their purchases of goods and services directly (induced effect) and the purchases of goods and services in the production process in the industry in which they work (indirect effect).

In terms of overall economic contribution, the Hispanic community contributes toward 181,053 jobs or 6.5% of total employment in Southeastern Michigan, while only accounting for 3.5% of the population.

Figure 34: Hispanic Population Multiplies its Economic Contributions

Source: REMI output relying on 2006 American Community Survey data

These jobs represent $10.2 billion in wage and salary earnings in the local economy. This economic activity includes both the jobs held by Hispanic workers and those jobs that result from the associated business and consumer spending.

The contribution of Hispanic workers may be expressed in terms of an economic multiplier effect for employment in the region. The multiplier computed from the REMI model was 1.95. This means, on average, every Hispanic worker helps support nearly one additional job in the region’s economy. As the "Multiplier Effect Diagram" in Figure 33 illustrates, each Hispanic worker helps to create jobs when s/he spends personal earnings in the regional market buying products that other workers produce or sell.

The economic contribution metrics computed by the REMI Model include employment by industry and county, total earnings by industry and county and gross regional product (GRP). The model also provides information to estimate state tax revenues associated with the overall level of economic activity. Tables in the appendix, A7‐A9, present data for Southeast Michigan and the share of total employment, total earnings and GRP attributable to the employment of Hispanics.

6.5%

6.4%

6.2%

3.5%

0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0%

Employment

Earnings

Output

Hispanic Population



Both the employment and earnings estimates are consistent with the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) measures of these concepts. The BEA employment measure includes both full‐ and part‐time wage and salary employment and self‐employment (also known as proprietor’s employment). Wage and salary employment is an annual average, while self‐employment is the total of all persons reporting self‐employment earnings at any point during the year. The BEA measure is the broadest measure of employment reported by any government agency. 17

Jobs/Employment In the seven‐county Southeast Michigan region, Hispanic workers account for 92,965 jobs, or 3.3% of the region's total employment (approx. 2.8 million jobs) according to our employment estimates drawn from the 2006 American Community Survey.

These jobs are associated with an additional 88,088 jobs or a total of 181,053 jobs, which constitute 6.5% of total employment in Southeast Michigan region.

About 33% of all jobs attributable to the presence of the Hispanic workers are in three service industries (Professional and Business, Education and Social, and Other Services). This reflects the very high concentration of Hispanics employed in these sectors. Manufacturing ranked second at 13%, just ahead of Amusement & Recreation/Accommodations & Food Services (12%) and Retail Trade (12%).

Detailed figures for employment by industry of Hispanic workers in Southeast Michigan using 2000 Census estimates and the 2006 American Community Survey are shown in Table 7 of the Appendix. Table 8 of the Appendix illustrates the same data in terms of the percent share of employment by industry for Hispanics and provides a comparison to the population of all workers in the seven‐county area.

Figures for employment by industry associated with the contribution of Hispanic workers in the seven‐county area using the 2000 Census estimates and the 2006 American Community Survey are shown in the Appendix: Table 8. These statistics include jobs held by Hispanics (See Appendix: Table A7) and those jobs that result from associated business and consumer spending.

Earnings and Gross Regional Product (GRP) Annually, Hispanic workers contribute $10.2 billion in total earnings in Southeast Michigan. The share of total regional earnings (6.4%) that can be attributed to the economic activity of Hispanic Americans is slightly less than the share of total employment, 6.5%. The difference between the share of earnings and the share of employment reflects the fact, shown Appendix Table A7; Hispanic workers are overrepresented in relatively low‐wage industries such as Accommodations and Food Services, and underrepresented in high‐wage industries such as Financial Activities.

17 The BEA data set also includes estimates of farm and military employment and earnings, but the REMI model treats these as exogenous sectors, thus they are not changed by our “policy experiment,” and therefore are not reported here.



Hispanic contributions to regional earnings are most pronounced in Construction and Accommodations and Food services where they contribute toward 11% of regional earnings. Transportation and Utilities followed where Hispanic workers contribute toward 10 percent of the region’s earnings.

Gross Regional Product (GRP) is a measure of net economic contribution and includes the value of all goods and services produced in the region. Earnings are the sum of wage and salary disbursements, employer contributions to pensions and insurance, employer contributions to government social insurance funds, and self‐employment (proprietor’s) earnings. They are the sum of total compensation (wages plus fringe benefits) for employees and earnings (revenue minus expenses) for sole proprietors. In 2006, Hispanic workers in Southeast Michigan contributed 6.2% of GRP or $14.5 billion. The impact of Hispanic workers toward GRP is most pronounced in Detroit and suburban Wayne County, where they contribute 10.1% and 8.2% respectively.

Detailed figures for total earnings by industry and GRP associated with the economic contributions of Hispanic workers in Southeast Michigan are shown in Appendix ‐Table 3. These statistics include the direct wages and earnings of Hispanic workers and earnings from jobs that result from associated business and consumer spending.

Taxes The REMI model’s information on earnings (income) was used to estimate state‐level tax revenues associated with the economic activity summarized by the model. In terms of state government tax revenue, the economic activity of employed Hispanic workers generates approximately $727 million in state tax revenue. In percentage terms, this figure represents 3.4% of all state tax revenues, which were roughly $21 billion in 2006.

Geography Wayne County had the largest number of jobs associated with Hispanic economic activity—88,772. This figure includes 50,891 in direct employment and 37,891 jobs that are associated with Hispanic workers’ earnings and spending. Oakland County followed with 18,646 Hispanic workers whose wages and spending supports an additional 29,064 jobs in the region.

Among the seven counties in Southeast Michigan, the impact of the Hispanic community is largest in Wayne County, contributing to 9% of total earnings. Hispanic workers in the City of Detroit contribute toward a full 10% of total earnings of Detroit workers. The impact of Hispanic workers is smallest in Monroe (4.5%) and Livingston (4.7%) counties.

Spinoff effects from Hispanic employment were larger outside the city of Detroit. Hispanic workers in Oakland County account for 20 percent of Hispanic jobs in the region but they are associated with 29 percent of earnings in the region. This is primarily due to Hispanic workers presence in higher paying industries and occupations in Oakland County.



Conclusion

The most recent demographic data released by the U.S. Census Bureau indicates a growing Hispanic community in southeastern Michigan. Between 2000 and 2007, the Hispanic population has increased 23% while Michigan’s overall population has only increased by 4.2%. However, without the Hispanic population increase, the state would have only risen by 3.5%.

The 2007 American Community Survey data reveal that there are 178,079 persons of Hispanic ethnicity living in the seven‐county Southeastern Michigan region, a 2.8% increase from 2006. The data also estimate a total of 92,965 Hispanic workers in 2006.

Hispanic workers and their families contribute heavily to our region's economy. The study estimates that the Hispanic community is associated with:

• 92,965 in direct employment (jobs);

• 88,088 in jobs associated with Hispanic workers;

• $10.2 billion in total earnings;

• $727 million in state income tax payments; and

• $14.5 billion in gross regional product (GRP).

These numbers represent major contributions and important avenues to economic growth for this

region. Hispanics are providing a growing and disproportionate share of the population and economic growth in this region. Hispanics are energetically contributing labor and ingenuity to propel the regional economy.

However, Hispanic incomes lag substantially behind regional averages, which is a result of both their comparative education levels and occupational structure.

As Hispanics come to represent an increasing proportion of the region, one of the greatest challenges facing Hispanic families, Hispanic community leaders, and regional leadership will be finding the resources to facilitate education and support, which will improve the incomes of Hispanics. In many ways, this is the same challenge that faces all families and leaders in the region, finding the resources to foster creativity, education and entrepreneurialism to be successful in the highly competitive 21st century. So, to the extent that we solve the challenges of the Hispanic community’s economic development, we will solve those of the region as a whole.



Appendix

List A1: Hispanic Codes

American Community Survey (ACS) 2006 Public Use Microdata Code Lists: Hispanic Codes

PUMS Code Hispanic Origin Description Hispanic Origin Code Corresponding Detailed Hispanic Origin

02 Mexican 210 Mexican (check box)

211 Mexican

212 Mexican American

213 Mexicano

214 Chicano

215 La Raza

216 Mexican American Indian

218 Mexico

03 Puerto Rican 260 Puerto Rican (check box)

261 Puerto Rican

04 Cuban 270 Cuban (check box)

271 Cuban

05 Dominican 275 Dominican

06 Costa Rican 221 Costa Rican

07 Guatemalan 222 Guatemalan

08 Honduran 223 Honduran

09 Nicaraguan 224 Nicaraguan

10 Panamanian 225 Panamanian

11 Salvadoran 226 Salvadoran

12 Other Central American 227 Central American

228 Central American Indian

229 Canal Zone

13 Argentinean 231 Argentinean

14 Bolivian 232 Bolivian

15 Chilean 233 Chilean

16 Colombian 234 Colombian

17 Ecuadorian 235 Ecuadorian

18 Paraguayan 236 Paraguayan



PUMS Code Hispanic Origin Description Hispanic Origin Code Corresponding Detailed Hispanic Origin

19 Peruvian 237 Peruvian

20 Uruguayan 238 Uruguayan

21 Venezuelan 239 Venezuelan

22 Other South American 240 South American Indian

241 Criollo

242 South American

23 Spaniard 200 Spaniard

201 Andalusian

202 Asturian

203 Castillian

204 Catalonian

205 Balearic Islander

206 Gallego

207 Valencian

208 Canarian

209 Spanish Basque

24 All Other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino 250 Latin American

251 Latin

252 Latino

280 Other Spanish/Hispanic (check box)

281 Hispanic

282 Spanish

283 Californio

284 Tejano

285 Nuevo Mexicano

286 Spanish American

287 Spanish American Indian

288 Meso American Indian

289 Mestizo

290 Caribbean

291 Multiple Hispanic origin

299 Other Spanish/Hispanic, n.e.c.



Table A1: Un‐weighted Sample Size

Counties Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Wayne Valid Non-Hispanic 13705 95.6 95.6 95.6 Hispanic 634 4.4 4.4 100.0 Total 14339 100.0 100.0 Oakland Valid Non-Hispanic 9734 97.2 97.2 97.2 Hispanic 276 2.8 2.8 100.0 Total 10010 100.0 100.0 Macomb Valid Non-Hispanic 6648 98.2 98.2 98.2 Hispanic 120 1.8 1.8 100.0 Total 6768 100.0 100.0 Rest of Southeast Michigan

Valid Non-Hispanic 8447 97.4 97.4 97.4

Hispanic 224 2.6 2.6 100.0 Total 8671 100.0 100.0 Rest of State Valid Non-Hispanic 59708 97.0 97.0 97.0 Hispanic 1859 3.0 3.0 100.0 Total 61567 100.0 100.0

Table A1 shows the sample size for non‐Hispanics and Hispanics at each geographic level. Note that Macomb’s Hispanic sample is of 120 individuals used to estimate a population of roughly 16,731. For this reason, the reliability of those estimates will be less certain as the confidence intervals will be large. The more categories within a variable that is being estimated will increase the size of the confidence interval that much further. Table A2 shows corresponding weighted sample sizes.



Table A2: Weighted Sample Size

Counties Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent Wayne Valid Non-Hispanic 1874103 95.0 95.0 95.0 Hispanic 98380 5.0 5.0 100.0 Total 1972483 100.0 100.0 Oakland Valid Non-Hispanic 1181175 97.3 97.3 97.3 Hispanic 33196 2.7 2.7 100.0 Total 1214371 100.0 100.0 Macomb Valid Non-Hispanic 816068 98.0 98.0 98.0 Hispanic 16731 2.0 2.0 100.0 Total 832799 100.0 100.0 Rest of Southeast Michigan

Valid Non-Hispanic 924100 97.4 97.4 97.4

Hispanic 24946 2.6 2.6 100.0 Total 949046 100.0 100.0 Rest of State Valid Non-Hispanic 4901262 95.6 95.6 95.6 Hispanic 225682 4.4 4.4 100.0 Total 5126944 100.0 100.0



Table A3: SEMCOG Projections 2005‐2035

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Wayne White, Non‐Hispanic 988,688 907,005 837,538 793,646 764,489 742,707 720,885 Black, Non‐Hispanic 845,818 821,586 808,177 809,251 816,178 827,742 840,716 All Other, Non‐Hispanic 80,230 89,730 100,004 111,658 124,837 139,194 153,194

Hispanic 90,428 96,029 101,546 108,968 117,529 126,674 135,602

Total 2,005,164 1,914,351 1,847,266 1,823,524 1,823,033 1,836,317 1,850,397

Washtenaw White, Non‐Hispanic 253,713 250,656 243,845 237,879 233,014 229,919 228,655 Black, Non‐Hispanic 42,104 44,776 47,490 49,640 52,173 54,952 58,173 All Other, Non‐Hispanic 35,364 42,054 48,395 54,214 60,362 67,038 74,244

Hispanic 10,629 12,186 13,596 14,827 16,165 17,553 19,101

Total 341810 349,672 353,327 356,560 361,714 369,462 380,173

St. Clair White, Non‐Hispanic 160,139 161,062 163,064 166,287 169,921 173,054 174,939 Black, Non‐Hispanic 3,631 3,733 3,920 4,162 4,401 4,640 4,855 All Other, Non‐Hispanic 3,476 3,695 3,985 4,310 4,667 5,014 5,295

Hispanic 4,225 4,631 5,061 5,535 6,049 6,571 7078

Total 171,471 173,121 176,030 180,294 185,038 189,279 192,167

Oakland White, Non‐Hispanic 963,091 951,631 938,243 928,815 926,899 930,302 933,621 Black, Non‐Hispanic 134,853 140,075 145,178 149,968 155,441 162,459 170,471 All Other, Non‐Hispanic 82133 95415 108819 122,012 136,310 152,080 168,204

Hispanic 34,403 39,049 43,609 48,358 53,414 58,837 64,465

Total 1,214,480 1,226,170 1,235,849 1,249,153 1,272,064 1,303,678 1,336,761



Monroe

White, Non‐Hispanic 143,793 145,343 144,818 146,541 149,536 152,199 153,684 Black, Non‐Hispanic 3,121 3,234 3,341 3,499 3,679 3,840 3,961 All Other, Non‐Hispanic 3,059 3,374 3,708 4,087 4,535 4,970 5,357

Hispanic 3,811 4,314 4,785 5,333 5,959 6,579 7,211

Total 153,785 156,264 156,652 159,461 163,709 167,588 170,213

Macomb White, Non‐Hispanic 741,165 755,354 758,423 759,256 762,370 768,764 776,459 Black, Non‐Hispanic 35,328 38,206 40,632 42,878 45,194 47,791 50,609 All Other, Non‐Hispanic 37,699 43,489 48,937 54,114 59,525 65,448 71,626

Hispanic 15,572 17,577 19,347 21,111 22,924 24,892 27,030

Total 829,764 854,626 867,340 877,358 890,014 906,895 925,723

Livingston White, Non‐Hispanic 174,004 185,172 187,876 190,494 194,550 198,358 200,689 Black, Non‐Hispanic 981 1,100 1,199 1,298 1,430 1,537 1,667 All Other, Non‐Hispanic 3,859 4,376 4,730 5,096 5,497 5,940 6,303

Hispanic 2,657 3,093 3,422 3,750 4,125 4,510 4,898

Total 181,501 193,741 197,227 200,639 205,602 210,345 213,558

SEMCOG White, Non‐Hispanic 3,424,593 3,356,223 3,273,807 3,222,919 3,200,779 3,195,303 3,188,932 Black, Non‐Hispanic 1,065,837 1,052,711 1,049,938 1,060,696 1,078,497 1,102,962 1,130,452 All Other, Non‐Hispanic 245,820 282,132 318,579 355,491 395,733 439,684 484,223

Hispanic 161,726 176,879 191,367 207,882 226,165 245,616 265,385

Total 4,897,975 4,867,945 4,833,691 4,846,989 4,901,174 4,983,564 5,068,992



Table A4: Figures as a Percentage of the Population

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035Wayne White, Non‐Hispanic 49.3% 47.4% 45.3% 43.5% 41.9% 40.5% 39.0%Black, Non‐Hispanic 42.3% 43.0% 43.8% 44.4% 44.8% 45.1% 45.4%All Other, Non‐Hispanic 4.0% 4.7% 5.4% 6.1% 6.9% 7.6% 8.3%Hispanic 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% 6.0% 6. 5% 6.9% 7.3%Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Washtenaw White, Non‐Hispanic 74.2% 71.7% 69.0% 66.7% 64.4% 62.2% 60.1%Black, Non‐Hispanic 12.3% 12.8% 13.4% 13.9% 14.4% 14.9% 15.3%All Other, Non‐Hispanic 10.4% 12.0% 13.7% 15.2% 16.7% 18.1% 19.5%Hispanic 3.1% 3.5% 3.9% 4.2% 4.5% 4.8% 5.0%Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% St. Clair White, Non‐Hispanic 93.4% 93.0% 92.6% 92.2% 91.8% 91.4% 91.0%Black, Non‐Hispanic 2.1% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3% 2.4% 2.5% 2.5%All Other, Non‐Hispanic 2.0% 2.1% 2.3% 24% 2.5% 2.7% 2.8%Hispanic 2.5% 2.7% 2.9% 3.1% 3.3% 3.5% 3.7%Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Oakland White, Non‐Hispanic 79.3% 77.6% 75.9% 74.4% 72.9% 71.4% 69.8%Black, Non‐Hispanic 11.1% 11.4% 11.8% 12.0% 12.2% 12.5% 12.8%All Other, Non‐Hispanic 6.8% 7.8% 8.8% 9.8% 10.7% 11.7% 126%Hispanic 2.8% 3.3% 3.5% 3.9% 4.2% 4.5% 4.8%Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Monroe White, Non‐Hispanic 93.5% 93.0% 92.5% 91.9% 91.3% 90.8% 90.3%Black, Non‐Hispanic 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% 2.2% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3%All Other, Non‐Hispanic 2.0% 2.2% 2.4% 2.6% 2.8% 3.0% 3.2%Hispanic 2.5% 2.8% 3.2% 3.3% 3.6% 3.9% 4.2%Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Macomb White, Non‐Hispanic 89.32% 88.38% 87.44% 86.54% 85.66% 84.77% 83.88%Black, Non‐Hispanic 4.3% 4.5% 4.7% 4.9% 5.1% 5.3% 5.5%All Other, Non‐Hispanic 4.5% 5.1% 5.6% 6.2% 6.7% 7.2% 7.7%



Hispanic 1.9% 2.1% 2.2% 2.4% 2.6% 2.7% 2.9%Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Livingston White, Non‐Hispanic 95.9% 95.6% 95.3% 94.9% 94.6% 94.3% 94.0%Black, Non‐Hispanic 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8%All Other, Non‐Hispanic 2.1% 2.3% 2.4% 2.5% 2.7% 2.8% 3.0%Hispanic 1.5% 1.6% 1.7% 1.9% 2.0% 2.1% 2.3%Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% SEMCOG White, Non‐Hispanic 69.9% 69.0% 67.7% 66.5% 65.3% 64.1% 62.9%Black, Non‐Hispanic 21.8% 21.6% 21.7% 21.9% 22.0% 22.1% 22.3%All Other, Non‐Hispanic 5.0% 5.8% 6.6% 7.3% 8.1% 8.8% 9.6%Hispanic 3.3% 3.6% 4.0% 4.3% 4.6% 4.9% 5.2%Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

*SEMCOG Population Estimates



Citizenship This pie chart shows that more than three quarters of Hispanics in Southeast Michigan are citizens of the United States.

Figure A1: Hispanic Citizenship in Southeast Michigan


21.86%

78.14%

Non‐Citizen

Citizen



As shows in Figure A2, this holds true for each of the counties in Southeast Michigan.

Figure A2: Hispanic and non‐Hispanic Citizenship by County


97.02%

76.70%

95.08%

74.01%

96.52%

88.25%

96.80%

82.57%

2.98%

23.30%

4.92%

25.99%

3.48%

11.75%

3.20%

17.43%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Wayne

Oakland

Macom

bRe

st of SE

Citizen

Non‐Citizen



As shows in Figure A3, the rates of US citizenship among Hispanics in Southeast Michigan and the rest of Michigan are similar.

Figure A3: Hispanic and non‐Hispanic Citizenship by Region


Overall, 79.00% of Hispanics in Michigan are US Citizens, compared to 71.13% of Hispanics in the United States as a whole.

98.86%

79.66%

96.41%

78.14%

1.14%

20.34%

3.59%

21.86%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Rest of M

ISouthe

ast M

I

Citizen

Non‐Citizen



Figure A4: Hispanic and non‐Hispanic Citizenship, Michigan vs. US


97.65%

79.00%

96.51%

71.13%

2.35%

21.00%

3.49%

28.87%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

State

US

Citizen

Non‐Citizen



Place of Birth

More than two‐thirds (68.80%) of Southeast Michigan’s Hispanics were born in the United States.

Figure A5: Southeast Michigan Hispanic Place of Birth


68.80%

31.20%

Born in US

Born Outside US



Figure A6 shows Place of Birth for both Hispanics and non‐Hispanics by county. Oakland (33.76%) and Wayne (33.15%) had the largest percentage of Hispanics born outside the US

Figure A6: Hispanic and Non‐Hispanic Place of Birth by County


Southeast Michigan has more foreign‐born Hispanics than the rest of Michigan as a whole.

Figure A7: Hispanic and Non‐Hispanic Place of Birth by Region


Michigan has fewer foreign‐born Hispanics than the United States as a whole.

93.04%

66.85%

88.25%

66.24%

90.08%

78.26%

94.26%

73.53%

6.96%

33.15%

11.75%

33.76%

9.92%

21.74%

5.74%

26.47%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Wayne

Oakland

Macom

bRe

st of SE

Born in US

Born Outside US

97.24%

73.07%

91.59%

68.80%

2.76%

26.93%

8.41%

31.20%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Rest of M

ISouthe

ast M

I

Born in US

Born Outside US



Figure A8: Hispanic and Non‐Hispanic Place of Birth by County


94.49%

71.22%

91.53%

59.30%

5.51%

28.78%

8.47%

40.70%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

State

US

Born in US

Born Outside US



Education This chart shows the distribution of school aged students at each level. The margin of error will be relatively high at the county level since this variable is separated into 8 categories and there are only 120 Hispanics sampled in Macomb. Therefore, one should not rely on these as actual figures, but approximations.

Figure A9: Education Level Attending: Under 18


5.67%

9.55%

9.01%

9.01%

8.01%

9.05%

5.57%

6.53%

5.62%

3.97%

5.69%

10.37%

5.32%

2.94%

4.87%

2.48%

22.85%

28.84%

20.57%

37.04%

22.20%

29.49%

20.01%

23.66%

26.66%

29.32%

22.89%

15.18%

24.20%

26.05%

20.67%

21.88%

27.37%

20.54%

25.99%

19.82%

25.18%

11.33%

22.25%

17.05%

11.28%

7.37%

14.54%

8.59%

14.71%

21.13%

25.26%

27.76%

0.55%

0.41%

1.32%

0.00%

0.38%

0.00%

1.36%

0.65%

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Wayne

Oakland

Macom

bRe

st of SE

Michigan

Nursery Kindergarten Grade 1‐4 Grade 5‐8 Grade 9‐12 Undergraduate Graduate



Figure A10: Highest Level of Educational Attainment by County and Region (Age 25 or Older)


Figures A11 and A12 show the highest levels of educational attainment for both Hispanics and non‐Hispanics by county and region. Hispanics in Macomb County are most likely to have at least a high school diploma, and those in Wayne County are least likely. Hispanics in Wayne (14%) and Macomb counties (28%) are less likely than Oakland (32%) or the other Southeast Michigan counties (31%) to have a college degree (Associate’s, Bachelor’s, or Graduate/Professional).

12.52%

29.22%

22.52%

7.66%

17.14%

10.95%

31.55%

28.55%

18.66%

4.37%

10.60%

6.27%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Southeast Michigan Non‐Hispanic

Southeast Michigan Hispanic



Figure A11: Hispanic and Non‐Hispanic Educational Attainment by County (Age 25 and Over)


17%

37%

8%

26%

13%

17%

9%

28%

33%

33%

21%

22%

33%

28%

29%

21%

23%

17%

21%

20%

24%

27%

22%

19%

7%

3%

7%

7%

9%

9%

9%

4%

13%

7%

25%

14%

13%

12%

18%

20%

7%

4%

18%

12%

7%

7%

13%

7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Wayne

Oakland

Macom

bRe

st of SE

Michigan

No Diploma

Diploma


Associates Degree

Bachelor's Degree

Graduate Degree



Figure A12: Educational Attainment by Region (Age 25 and Over)


Michigan’s Hispanics (21%) are about equally as likely to have a college degree (Associate’s, Bachelor’s, or Graduate/Professional) as those in the United States as a whole (20%).

Table A5: Rank of Hispanics in Terms of Different Types of Income

US Michigan Wayne Oakland Macomb Household Rank 4 3 4 2 3 Personal Rank 6 6 5 4 4

Source: American Factfinder 2007

Table A6: Average Household Size

US Michigan Wayne Oakland Macomb Detroit White alone 2 3 2 2 3 2Black alone 3 3 3 3 2 3Alaskan/Native 3 3 3 3 3 3Asian 3 3 3 3 3 3Hispanic 4 3 3 3 3 4

Source: 2000 Census

11.74%

32.15%

12.52%

31.55%

35.62%

32.47%

29.22%

28.55%

22.48%

15.85%

22.52%

18.66%

8.30%

5.41%

7.66%

4.37%

14.13%

9.53%

17.14%

10.60%

7.72%

4.58%

10.95%

6.27%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

Hispanic

Rest of M

ichigan

Southe

ast M

ichigan

No Diploma

Diploma


Associates Degree

Bachelor's Degree

Graduate Degree



Figure A13: Median Household Income


$48,451

$47,182

$70,629

$54,444

$48,354

$56,817

$52,375

$50,511

$70,480

$54,987

$50,133

$60,983

$32,372

$31,276

$94,894

$40,635

$31,531

$35,024

$63,642

$67,985

$94,473

$99,169

$56,641

$38,747

$36,372

$57,426

$43,641

$27,292

$36,305

$33,762

$33,782

$56,181

$22,500

$80,278

$49,361

$34,127

$0 $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000

USA

Michigan

Livingston

Monroe

St. Clair

Washtenaw

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Hispanic/Latino

Asian



All



Figure A14: Median per Capita Income


$25,267

$24,097

$30,032

$25,113

$23,118

$30,048

$16,559

$15,622

$21,596

$18,553

$18,026

$27,884

$29,052

$30,752

$21,982

$40,797

$30,086

$14,736

$15,139

$10,255

$16,062

$15,736

$21,258

$27,095

$21,502

$22,018

$18,689

$22,801

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000

USA

Michigan

Livingston

Monroe

St. Clair

Washtenaw

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Hispanic/Latino

Asian



All



Economic Model Table A7. Share of Employment by Industry for Hispanic Americans and Overall Population for the Seven‐County Region

Industry (millions$) Livingston Macomb Monroe Oakland St. Clair

Washtenaw Detroit City

Rest of Wayne Region total

Region Share

Natural resources $0.484 $0.369 $0.288 $9.297 $1.089 $0.214 $2.247 $4.607 $18.595 3.56%Construction $14.467 $120.373 $5.854 $294.943 $9.378 $28.146 $335.569 $151.602 $960.331 11.25%Manufacturing $21.305 $340.705 $38.764 $675.617 $75.640 $133.987 $577.922 $658.629 $2,522.568 8.10%Wholesale Trade $18.474 $65.525 $6.894 $228.601 $11.925 $23.516 $70.885 $222.229 $648.047 7.64%Retail Trade $16.513 $82.057 $9.116 $203.535 $10.265 $38.692 $149.809 $161.910 $671.897 7.77%Transportation & Utilities $2.276 $41.428 $4.910 $46.092 $4.304 $82.371 $161.381 $288.419 $631.181 9.72%Information $2.230 $9.046 $0.313 $50.112 $5.805 $8.268 $44.834 $115.416 $236.023 6.63%Financial Activities $18.847 $50.836 $13.090 $332.775 $7.502 $46.407 $113.687 $219.594 $802.738 6.38%Professional & Business Services $14.442 $185.525 $5.675 $617.498 $14.439 $123.272 $372.015 $561.772 $1,894.638 5.36%Education, Health & Social Services $16.787 $78.035 $16.839 $249.747 $10.597 $99.555 $175.537 $244.007 $891.103 5.58%Amusement & Recreation $0.766 $8.179 $4.888 $35.355 $1.297 $2.392 $33.406 $52.059 $138.342 7.70%Accommodations & Food Services $2.742 $32.379 $2.626 $114.003 $7.658 $26.520 $101.812 $79.155 $366.895 11.63%Other Services $3.788 $38.673 $6.872 $61.000 $7.860 $10.003 $63.204 $88.960 $280.360 7.35%Public Administration $8.708 $16.042 $1.259 $28.121 $5.376 $24.415 $50.188 $39.111 $173.221 0.90%Total $141.828 $1,069.173 $117.390 $2,946.695 $173.134 $647.756 $2,252.495 $2,887.470 $10,235.941 6.43%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey PUMS file for Michigan

Table A8. REMI Model ‐ Employment by Industry Due to Hispanic Americans by County for the Seven‐County Region, Using 2006 American Community Survey Data



Employment Employment Employment Earnings GRP 2006$ Employment EarningsGRP

2006$

Total Hispanic

Non-Hispanic spin-off Total

Total millions Total millions Share Share Share

Livingston 1,969 1,726 3,695 $141.828 $244.824 4.86% 4.68% 5.00%Macomb 9,068 11,533 20,601 $1,069.173 $1,477.548 4.94% 4.77% 4.57%Monroe 1,682 1,132 2,814 $117.390 $167.585 4.71% 4.48% 4.11%Oakland 18,646 29,064 47,710 $2,946.695 $4,301.741 5.08% 5.05% 4.89%St. Clair 2,439 1,755 4,194 $173.134 $260.288 6.07% 6.40% 6.24%Washtenaw 8,280 4,988 13,268 $647.756 $899.098 5.51% 5.05% 4.71%Detroit 25,940 15,389 41,329 $2,252.495 $2,986.599 10.26% 10.10% 9.72%Rest of Wayne 24,941 22,502 47,443 $2,887.470 $4,192.816 8.28% 8.24% 8.13%Region Total 92,965 88,088 181,053 $10,235.941 $14,530.499 6.52% 6.43% 6.19%




Table A9. REMI Model – Total Earnings by Industry Due to Hispanic Americans by County for the Seven‐County Region, Using 2006 American Community Survey Data

Millions of dollars 2006 Earnings by Place of Work $10,235.941 Less: Contr for Gov Social Ins $1,120.310 Plus: Adj for Residence -$570.444 Plus: Dividends, Interest, and Rent $93.386 Plus: Personal Current Transfer Receipts -$598.715 Equals: Personal Income $8,039.857 Total State Government Tax Revenue $726.971




References and Sources

Commission on Spanish Speaking Affairs. (2008) 2007 Data Report. Retrieved September 3, 2008 from the State of Michigan website: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdcd/COSSA_Hisp_Data_Rpt_2007_Narr_236376_7.pdf

Kasarda, John D., & and Johnson Jr., J.H. (2006) The Economic Impact of the Hispanic Population on the State of North Carolina. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from The UNC Kenan Flager Institute of Private Enterprise website: http://www.kenan‐flagler.unc.edu/KI/reports/2006_HispanicStudy/

Regional Economic Models, Inc. (2006). REMI Policy Insight Model. Retrieved on August 31, 2008 from REMI website: http://www.remi.com/

Rickman, Dan S., Schwer, R. K. (1995) A Comparison of the multipliers of IMPLAN, REMI, and RIMS II: Benchmarking Ready‐Made Models for Comparison. Annals of Regional Science, 29, 263‐274.

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). (2006). Michigan’s Changing Demographics: Presentation to The Michigan Association of Planners, October 13, 2006. Retrieved from SEMCOG website: http://www.semcog.org/Data/assets/MichigansChangingDemo_10_13_06.pdf

Treyz, George I., Rickman, Dan S. & Gang Shao. (1991) The REMI Economic‐Demographic Forecasting and Simulation Model. International Regional Science Review, 14, 221‐253). U.S. Census Bureau. (1991) 1990 Decennial Census. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from the U.S. Census Bureau website: http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen1990.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (1991) Population Change and Distribution: 1990‐2000. Retrieved on September 2, 2008 from the U.S. Census Bureau website: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01‐2.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. (2001) 2000 Decennial Census. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from the U.S. Census Bureau website: http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2003) The Hispanic Population in the United States: March 2002. Retrieved on September 25, 2008 from the U.S. Census Bureau website: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20‐545.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. (2006) Hispanics in the United States. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from the US. Census Bureau website:


Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies / Center for Chicano‐Boricua Studies 86

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hispanic/files/Internet_Hispanic_in_US_2006.ppt

U.S. Census Bureau. (2007) 2006 American Community Survey. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from the U.S. Census Bureau website: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_1&_lang=en&_ts=

U.S. Census Bureau. (2008)U .S. Hispanic Population Surpasses 45 Million. Retrieved September 2, 2008 from the U.S. Census Bureau website: http://www.census.gov/Press‐Release/www/releases/archives/population/011910.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2008) 2007 American Community Survey. Retrieved September 24, 2008 from the U.S. Census Bureau website: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/

Wall Street Journal. (2008) Immigration Slows in Face of Economic Downturn. Retrieved September 23, 2008 from the Wall Street Journal website: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122213015990965589‐lMyQjAxMDI4MjIyMzEyMzMwWj.html

master final 1021 · Victor Green, Director, Community Relations, Wayne State University Dr. David...

Documents

Transcript of master final 1021 · Victor Green, Director, Community Relations, Wayne State University Dr. David...