Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America: A Census 2000 Study of Cities and Metropolitan Areas

Abstract

This report accompanies the first release of detailed racial residential segregation indices for 1,246 individual U.S. cities with populations exceeding 25,000 and for the 318 U.S. metropolitan areas. A complete set of both the dissimilarity and exposure indices based on Census 2000 raceethnic information at the block group level can be accessed from the World Wide Web at www.CensusScope.org. This report provides an overview of these statistics. Using the dissimilarity index, it ranks metropolitan areas and cities in several population-size classes based on the segregation of different racial and ethnic minority groups from non-Hispanic whites. It also examines neighborhood-level exposure of specific race-ethnic groups to other races for the national metropolitan population and for individual cities. This report differs from previous Census 2000 segregation studies in the following respects: (1) it analyzes segregation of persons who identify with two or more racial groups, and different racial combinations of these groups, distinct from persons who identify with one race alone; (2) it includes all individual cities with Census 2000 populations greater than 25,000, in addition to all metropolitan areas; and (3) it calculates segregation and exposure indices using data for block groups, which are smaller than census tracts and are more consistent with the concept of neighborhood. For the first time in 2000, the U.S. Census questionnaire permitted individuals to identify themselves with more than one racial group. These broad categories of race are: (1) white, (2) black or African American, (3) American Indian or Alaskan Native, (4) Asian, (5) Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and (6) some other race. Because racial residential segregation patterns have been so i...

Full text

Fannie Mae Foundation 2002.
All Rights Reserved.
Working Paper
Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America:
A Census 2000 Study of Cities and Metropolitan Areas
William H. Frey
University of Michigan and the Milken Institute
Dowell Myers
University of Southern California
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report accompanies the release of detailed racial segregation indices for 1,246 individual
U.S. cities with populations exceeding 25,000 and for the 318 U.S. metropolitan areas. These
data can be accessed from the World Wide Web at www.CensusScope.org. This study extends
earlier work on racial segregation from Census 2000 in the following respects:
• It examines segregation patterns for persons who identify themselves as one race alone as
distinct from those who identify themselves as two or more races, which is possible for
the first time in Census 2000.
• Its focus on large and small cities as well as metropolitan areas provides a comprehensive
assessment of segregation variation across local areas and broader metropolitan regions.
• Segregation and exposure measures in this study are based on the block group unit
(average population 1,100), which more closely approximates a neighborhood
community area than the census tract unit (average population 5,000) used in other
studies. This more refined block group–based segregation measure permits the detection
of segregation patterns for small racial groups or in small areas that are camouflaged
when tract-based segregation measures are used.
The opportunity to look at segregation for single-race and multirace groups with Census 2000
provides an important means of assessing the prospects of future integration in a multirace
society where intermarriage and interrace identification are on the rise. Our analysis of single-
race and multirace segregation shows that:
• Persons who identify themselves as "white and black" live, on average, in
neighborhoods that more closely approximate the racial composition of the average
white person's neighborhood, rather than that of the average black person's
neighborhood. For the combined metropolitan population of the United States, the
average neighborhood of a "white and black" resident is 61 percent white and 19 percent

2 William H. Frey and Dowell Myers
Fannie Mae Foundation 2002.
All Rights Reserved.
black. The average neighborhood of someone who identifies as black alone is 29 percent
white and 54 percent black, and the average neighborhood of someone who identifies as
white alone is 81 percent white and 6 percent black.
• Among the cities and metropolitan areas in our study, persons identifying with two or
more races showed, on average, less segregation from whites than did minority persons
identifying with a single race.
Our analysis of cities with more than 25,000 population shows the wide variation in segregation
levels for each race and ethnic group. For most race groups, the highest levels of segregation
tend to occur in the nation's largest cities. For example, the City of New York ranks in the top six
of all cities for each minority group's segregation from whites. It ranks third in segregation for
blacks, fifth for Hispanics, first for American Indians, first for Hawaiians, and sixth for those
who identify themselves as two or more races. Hence, studies that focus only on segregation in
large cities or in cities that have the largest minority populations overstate the level of racial
segregation that exits in most cities with a minority presence. Other findings are:
• Among cities with more than 100,000 population, white-black segregation ranges from
an index of dissimilarity of 21 (Chandler, AZ) to 87 (Chicago, IL); Asian segregation
from whites ranges from 15 (Coral Springs, FL) to 66 (New Orleans, LA); and Hispanic
segregation from whites ranges from 17 (Hialeah, FL) to 71 (Oakland, CA).
• The lowest segregation from whites for each race group tends to be associated with cities
with less than 100,000 population, located in the suburbs, and, largely, in California,
Texas, and other "multiethnic" states in the Sunbelt. Lowest city segregation indices for
each race are in: The Colony, TX (white-black index of 8); Morgan Hill, CA (white-
Asian segregation index of 9); Copperas Cove, TX (white-Hispanic segregation index of
8); Moore, OK (white–American Indian index of 12); Carson, CA (white-Hawaiian index
of 25); and Cerritos, CA (white–multiple race index of 7).
City segregation indices differ from metropolitan segregation indices because the former reflect
local patterns that can vary within the same metropolitan unit. Our analyses of dissimilarity of
both levels indicate that:
• On average, segregation levels are higher for metropolitan areas than for cities. Among
the cities in our study, the average segregation levels for blacks, Asians, and Hispanics
are indices of 45, 32, and 35 respectively. Average segregation levels among
metropolitan areas for these three groups are indices of 59, 45, and 43, respectively.
• Among smaller racial categories, Hawaiians show the highest average segregation levels,
with an index of 53 for cities and 61 for metropolitan areas. Persons identifying
themselves as two or more races show the lowest average segregation levels: an index of
27 for cities and 33 for metropolitan areas. American Indian segregation levels lie in-
between, with an average index of 39 for cities and 43 for metropolitan areas.
• Different cities within the same metropolitan area can have quite different segregation
measures. For example, although the Detroit primary metropolitan statistical area ranks
second among all areas on white-black metropolitan segregation (index of 87), the city of
Detroit ranks 55th, with an index of 63, among cities of more than 100,000 population.
On the other hand, metropolitan Atlanta ranks 53rd in white-black segregation with a

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America 3
Fannie Mae Foundation Working Paper
metropolitanwide dissimilarity index of 69, whereas the city of Atlanta ranks fourth in
segregation, with an index of 83, among cities of more than 100,000 population. This
shows that the metropolitan segregation index does not easily translate into segregation
levels of large or small cities within the metropolitan area.
Finally, our use of the block group as a proxy for neighborhood in this segregation study
provides a more refined measure that reveals segregation across smaller neighborhoods, rather
than the larger census tract measures that have been used in some earlier studies. Block group–
based segregation tends to be greater in smaller cities and metropolitan areas or where the
minority population is small.
• On average, the white-black dissimilarity index is 5.8 points higher when block groups,
rather than tracts, are used to measure segregation. The disparity is greatest in smaller
metropolitan areas. For example, in metropolitan Reno, NV, white-black segregation
measured on the basis of block groups has an index of 44, whereas the counterpart
segregation index measured on the basis of census tracts is only 34.
• Indices of neighborhood exposure to other races are also affected by the choice of block
group or tract as the neighborhood measure. For example, in metropolitan Jamestown,
NY, the average black person lives in a neighborhood that is 69 percent white when the
neighborhood is measured on the basis of block groups. However, that percentage rises to
81 percent white if the larger census tract is considered to be the neighborhood.

4 William H. Frey and Dowell Myers
Fannie Mae Foundation 2002.
All Rights Reserved.
INTRODUCTION
This report accompanies the first release of detailed racial residential segregation indices for
1,246 individual U.S. cities with populations exceeding 25,000 and for the 318 U.S. metropolitan
areas. A complete set of both the dissimilarity and exposure indices based on Census 2000 race-
ethnic information at the block group level can be accessed from the World Wide Web at
www.CensusScope.org.
This report provides an overview of these statistics. Using the dissimilarity index, it ranks
metropolitan areas and cities in several population-size classes based on the segregation of
different racial and ethnic minority groups from non-Hispanic whites. It also examines
neighborhood-level exposure of specific race-ethnic groups to other races for the national
metropolitan population and for individual cities.
This report differs from previous Census 2000 segregation studies in the following respects:
(1) it analyzes segregation of persons who identify with two or more racial groups, and different
racial combinations of these groups, distinct from persons who identify with one race alone;
(2) it includes all individual cities with Census 2000 populations greater than 25,000, in addition
to all metropolitan areas; and (3) it calculates segregation and exposure indices using data for
block groups, which are smaller than census tracts and are more consistent with the concept of
neighborhood.
For the first time in 2000, the U.S. Census questionnaire permitted individuals to identify
themselves with more than one racial group. These broad categories of race are: (1) white,
(2) black or African American, (3) American Indian or Alaskan Native, (4) Asian, (5) Native
Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and (6) some other race. Because racial residential
segregation patterns have been so ingrained in metropolitan areas, the ability to identify persons
of different race combinations with Census 2000 provides an opportunity to determine if mixed-
race persons are more integrated residentially than those who identify with a single race alone.
This is especially important given the increased propensity toward mixed-race marriages (Suro
1999) and the tendency for minority populations to grow and cluster in specific metropolitan
areas (Frey 2002; Frey and Fielding 1995; Myers 1999, 2001).
Our analysis shows that persons of mixed race are more likely to live in integrated
neighborhoods than persons of one race only. Measures of segregation and exposure for these
different biracial and mixed-race combinations have been computed for each area (city or
metropolitan area) in this study.
We have calculated exposure and segregation indices for each city exceeding a population of
25,000 in the United States, in addition to every metropolitan area. Earlier studies using Census
2000 data have provided valuable information at the metropolitan level; however, metropolitan
areas consist of counties that contain many individual municipalities. Segregation in these
localities often varies widely from the entire metropolitan area. For example, the Detroit
metropolitan area has a white-black segregation index of 87, one of the highest of all
metropolitan areas. Yet, within metropolitan Detroit, the white-black segregation indices for the
cities of Ann Arbor, Inkster, and Detroit are 39, 52, and 63, respectively.

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America 5
Fannie Mae Foundation Working Paper
An additional refinement of our study, as compared to others conducted subsequent to Census
2000, is the use of the block group rather than the census tract as a proxy for a neighborhood.
Census tracts have an average population of about 5,000 and can range to populations of up to
15,000 in large cities. Block groups have average populations of about 1,100 and therefore are
more consistent with small areas that approximate more closely what is considered a
neighborhood (Myers 1992).
Whereas early Census 2000 studies on segregation tended to focus on tracts, segregation studies
based on block groups are more consistent with historical time series analyses (Frey and Farley
1996; Sorensen, Taeuber, and Hollingsworth 1975; Taeuber and Taeuber 1965). The use of block
groups in estimating segregation indices tends to increase the average level of segregation in
most areas (on average, metropolitan white-black segregation increases by 5.8 points).
Segregation levels are higher in smaller metropolitan areas or where the minority group is
smaller. It is in these areas that segregation within the block group area might be camouflaged
when the larger tract units are used.
The remainder of this paper provides some background on residential segregation, describes the
methods and data used to calculate the segregation indices, and presents an overview of
segregation statistics that were compiled. The paper and the accompanying Web site
(www.CensusScope.org) provide information on how cities and metropolitan areas rank on these
measures and make this information accessible to the public. In later research, we will conduct
statistical analyses designed to show how and why these measures vary across metropolitan areas
and cities. We also will discuss, in greater depth, the use of single-race–based and multiple-race–
based segregation measures toward enhancing the understanding of racial integration of U.S.
cities and metropolitan areas.
BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Many studies have documented the distinct racial and ethnic residential location patterns in the
United States (Frey and Farley 1996; Glaeser and Vigdor 2001; Logan 2001a; Massey and
Denton 1987; Sorensen, Taeuber, and Hollingsworth 1975; Taeuber and Taeuber 1965; Van
Valey, Roof, and Wilcox 1977). These patterns result from a variety of causes, including
disparate economic resources across groups, preferences to reside with same-group neighbors,
community zoning laws that discourage economic integration, and the long history of
discriminatory practices by lending institutions, real estate agents, insurers, and rental agents.
The effects of discriminatory practices have been most evident in the segregation of African
Americans from whites, which has been documented in a series of trend studies (Massey and
Denton 1993; Taeuber and Taeuber 1965). Because of the fair housing legislation in the 1960s
and its subsequent enforcement, and the emergence of a large black middle-class population,
black segregation levels recorded in the 1990 census showed an overall modest decline from
1980 levels (Frey and Farley 1996). Nonetheless, metropolitan area segregation levels in 1990
were still relatively high, such that, on average, 6 out of 10 blacks would have had to change
neighborhoods (block groups) to be distributed in the same way that whites were. Segregation
was lowest and showed the greatest decline in metropolitan areas with a preponderance of recent

6 William H. Frey and Dowell Myers
Fannie Mae Foundation 2002.
All Rights Reserved.
construction and significant in-migration of blacks and in "melting pot areas" where other race
and ethnic minorities were present (Frey and Farley 1996).
Segregation of Hispanics and Asians is also of increasing interest in light of the substantial
immigration waves that have affected many metropolitan areas in the past two decades. Data
from the 1990 census for all metropolitan areas show that Hispanics and Asians were
substantially less segregated than blacks at the block group level (Frey and Farley 1996). On
average, only 4 in 10 Hispanics or Asians would have had to change residences to be distributed
in the same way as the white populations in their respective metropolitan areas. The continuing
large waves of Hispanic and Asian immigration since 1990 suggest an even greater potential for
continued segregation among these groups and a more complicated set of "race and space"
dynamics, especially in large melting pot areas.
Soon after the Census 2000 racial statistics were released, two national studies compared
segregation patterns across metropolitan areas (Glaeser and Vigdor 2001; Logan 2001a). Both of
these studies examined variations in segregation measures across metropolitan areas and
employed census tracts (rather than block groups) as neighborhood units of analysis in
measuring segregation.
Logan's (2001a) analysis emphasized segregation across the major racial groups: non-Hispanic
whites, non-Hispanic blacks, non-Hispanic Asians, and Hispanics. This analysis did not evaluate
separately segregation patterns of minority persons who reported a single race or patterns of
persons who reported multiple races. Nor did it examine patterns for smaller racial groups such
as American Indians. Instead, largely to maintain consistency with pre-2000 census categories,
this study included multirace persons who reported being black or African American along with
other races in the non-Hispanic black category. Remaining multiracial persons who reported that
they were Asian or Pacific Islanders were included in the non-Hispanic Asian category.
The findings of the Logan (2001a) study reinforce metropolitan area segregation results observed
after the 1990 census. Black segregation from whites remained substantially higher than Asian or
Hispanic segregation from whites, yet the former declined slightly in most metropolitan areas,
whereas the latter increased to a small extent. Yet, variation occurred across all of these
measures, and the study emphasized a relative lack of change in the high segregation levels
observed for larger, northern metropolitan areas where most blacks continue to reside.
Glaeser and Vigdor's (2001) study focused exclusively on black-nonblack segregation across
metropolitan areas and found results somewhat similar to the white-black patterns revealed in
Logan's (2001a) study. Despite similar results, Glaeser and Vigdor chose to emphasize those
metropolitan areas where black segregation declined the most—those located in the South and
West regions, which are among the metropolitan areas experiencing rapid growth in their black
populations.
The current study builds on this earlier work by placing a greater focus on single-race and
multirace segregation patterns, examining large and small cities as well as metropolitan areas,
and using segregation measures based on block groups rather than tracts. Because of the greater
dispersion of new Hispanic and Asian groups to smaller localities within and across metropolitan

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America 7
Fannie Mae Foundation Working Paper
areas, and the increasing movement of blacks toward suburban and smaller communities (Frey
2001; Myers and Park 2001), this study provides the first nuanced evaluation of racial
segregation at the local level, based on the new race-ethnic information contained in Census
2000.
MEASURES
This research uses two different measures of residential segregation. The first is the index of
dissimilarity (defined below), which has become the standard indicator of racial and ethnic
segregation between pairs of groups within a metropolitan area. The index is calculated for small
neighborhood-like areas (block groups), for which data are available only from decennial U.S.
censuses. In any given city or metropolitan area, this index examines the extent to which racial
and ethnic minority groups are segregated from whites or are segregated from each other.
The index of dissimilarity has an intuitive interpretation. A maximum index value of 100 means
that the two groups being compared reside in completely separate neighborhoods (i.e., complete
segregation), whereas a minimum index value of 0 indicates that both groups are distributed in
exactly the same way across neighborhoods (i.e., complete integration). Values between 0 and
100 can be interpreted as the percent of one group that would have to relocate into a different
neighborhood to be distributed in exactly the same way as the other group. For example, a white-
black dissimilarity index of 75 means that 75 percent of the black population would have to
change neighborhoods to be distributed in the same way as the white population.
The formula used to calculate the dissimilarity index for two race and ethnic groups within the
same city (or metropolitan area) is as follows:
||
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
P
P
P
P
D
ii
n
i
−=
å
=
× 100, (1)
where P
1
= citywide population of Group 1
P
2
= citywide population of Group 2
P
1i
= neighborhood i population of Group 1
P
2i
= neighborhood i population of Group 2
n = number of neighborhoods in city.
These indices were calculated for all metropolitan areas and for each city with a Census 2000
population of at least 25,000. The study uses standard Office of Management and Budget
classifications of metropolitan statistical areas, primary metropolitan statistical areas, and New
England county metropolitan areas. Metropolitan areas are ranked with respect to degree of
segregation for each of the largest racial and ethnic minority groups. Cities were ranked not only
as a group, but also within three different population-size classes. Average (unweighted mean)

8 William H. Frey and Dowell Myers
Fannie Mae Foundation 2002.
All Rights Reserved.
segregation indices also are presented for metropolitan areas and cities in different regions and
size classes.
The second segregation measure used in this analysis is the index of residential exposure or,
simply, the exposure index (see White 1986). The exposure index is used to calculate the racial
composition of the average neighborhood for a specific group. For example, it can be used to
calculate the average neighborhood racial composition for blacks in a city. This could then be
compared with the average neighborhood racial composition for whites in the same city. This
measure takes into account both the underlying neighborhood segregation in the city as well as
the racial composition of the whole city. The following formula is used to calculate the average
percent of Group 2 that lives in the average neighborhood of Group 1:
))((
2
1
1
1
i
ii
n
i
T
P
P
P
P
å
=
=
× 100, (2)
where P
1
= citywide population of Group 1
P
1i
= neighborhood i population of Group 1
P
2i
= neighborhood i population of Group 2
T
i
= neighborhood i total population
n = number of neighborhoods in city.
This formula also is used when calculating the percent of Group 1 that lives in the average
neighborhood of Group 1. (In this case, all P values in the above equation pertain to Group 1.)
DATA
The indices of dissimilarity and exposure in this study were compiled from Census 2000 Public
Law (PL 94-171) data files, which represent the first detailed release of census data for small
geographic areas (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001). These files contain base tabulations of the
population by race and Hispanic origin for every level of geography down to the block group
level, which is the geographic unit used to calculate the dissimilarity and exposure indices.
As indicated earlier, this study pays particular attention to identifying groups by single-race and
multirace status. In Census 2000, for the first time, respondents were asked to identify
themselves according to one or multiple races. On a separate question they were asked to identify
themselves as Hispanic (Spanish/Hispanic/Latino). Hence, it is possible to classify persons by
both Hispanic status and race (including different combinations of races).
This study follows the convention of earlier studies of Hispanic status and race categories (Frey
and Farley 1996; Logan 2001a; Massey and Denton 1987) by classifying persons who are
Hispanic as one group and classifying the non-Hispanic population by their racial identification.

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America 9
Fannie Mae Foundation Working Paper
Because non-Hispanics can be classed by single race alone or multiple races, the following
represents the classification system used in this study: (1) Hispanic, (2) non-Hispanic white only,
(3) non-Hispanic black only, (4) non-Hispanic Asian only, (5) non-Hispanic American Indian
and Alaskan Native only, (6) non-Hispanic Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander only, (7) non-
Hispanic persons of other races only, and (8) non-Hispanic persons who reported combinations
of races. In some cases the latter group is treated as a single category, and in other cases
combinations of non-Hispanic races are examined separately: non-Hispanic whites and blacks,
non-Hispanic whites and Asians, and non-Hispanic whites and American Indians. For ease of
exposition, we use the terms "whites," "blacks," "Asians," "American Indians," "Hawaiians,"
"other," and "two or more" to pertain to the broad non-Hispanic race groups discussed above.
EXPOSURE TO OTHER RACES AND ETHNIC GROUPS
We begin our discussion with an elaboration on the exposure index as a measure of
neighborhood race-ethnic composition. In simple terms, the exposure index shows the racial
composition of the average neighborhood (block group) lived in by a given race-ethnic group.
The index can be calculated for individual metropolitan areas and cities. These indices appear on
the Web site www.CensusScope.org. This section focuses on exposure indices for different
groups at the national level and for the four census regions. We also examine intergroup
exposure in two large cities: Los Angeles and New York.
Single and Multirace Comparisons
Figure 1 shows the racial composition of the combined U.S. metropolitan population for the year
2000. Two-thirds of all residents are non-Hispanic white, 14.2 percent are Hispanic, 12.9 percent
are black, and 4.3 percent are Asian. Other groups account for much smaller percentages:
American Indians (0.5 percent), Hawaiians (0.1 percent), and members of two or more races (1.7
percent). If these race and ethnic groups were distributed equally across U.S. metropolitan
neighborhoods with no segregation, this would be the exact racial composition of every
neighborhood.
However, because segregation patterns do exist, the average neighborhood composition
experienced by each racial group differs from this national aggregate. Figure 2 shows the
average neighborhood race-ethnic composition for members of each major racial group residing
in U.S. metropolitan areas in the year 2000. On average, whites live in neighborhoods that are 81
percent white, blacks live in neighborhoods that are 54 percent black, Asians live in
neighborhoods that are 20 percent Asian, and Hispanics live in neighborhoods that are 47 percent
Hispanic. The small American Indian population lives in neighborhoods that are, on average, 10
percent American Indian. Persons identifying with two or more races live in neighborhoods that
are composed of only 3.8 percent of their counterparts, on average. However, persons identifying
with two or more races are more likely than blacks, Hispanics, or Asians to have whites living in
their neighborhoods.

10 William H. Frey and Dowell Myers
Fannie Mae Foundation 2002.
All Rights Reserved.
Figure 1. Race-Ethnic Composition of Combined U.S. Metropolitan Areas
for the Year 2000
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
Figure 2. Average Neighborhood Race-Ethnic Composition for Each Racial Group
for the Combined U.S. Metropolitan Areas for the Year 2000
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
66.0%
12.9%
0.5%
4.3%
0.1%
0.2%
1.7%
14.2%
White Black American Indian Asian Hawaiian Other Two or More Races Hispanic
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Whites Blacks Asians Hispanics American
Indians
Two or More
Races
Racial Group
Composition
White Black American Indian Asian Hawaiian Other Two or More Races Hispanic

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America 11
Fannie Mae Foundation Working Paper
We now turn to an analysis of exposure indices for persons who identify with two distinct races.
Our emphasis is on comparing exposure indices for different dual-race groups with those of the
corresponding single-race groups. We conduct the analysis for the entire U.S. metropolitan
population.
In figure 3 we compare exposure indices of persons identifying themselves as "white and black"
with exposure levels of those identified as white only and black only. On average, residents who
identify as white and black live in neighborhoods that are more similar to the average
neighborhood of whites than to the average neighborhood of blacks. That is, the average
neighborhood for a white and black person is 61 percent white, compared to 81 percent white for
the average neighborhood of a white person and 29 percent white for the average neighborhood
of a black person. Moreover, the average neighborhood for a white and black person contains
only 19 percent blacks, compared with the average black person's neighborhood, which is 54
percent black.
Figure 3.
Comparison of Average Neighborhood Race-Ethnic Composition for Whites
Only, Blacks Only, and Persons Reporting as White and Black, for the Combined U.S.
Metropolitan Areas for the Year 2000
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
Figure 4 presents a comparable analysis for persons identifying themselves as "white and Asian."
Here we see that the average race-ethnic composition of a white and Asian person's
neighborhood is between that of persons identifying themselves as Asian only and that of
persons identifying themselves as white only. The average neighborhood for a white and Asian
person is 65 percent white, squarely in-between the 50 percent white neighborhoods of Asians
and the 81 percent white neighborhoods of whites. Exposure to Asians also is nearly at the
midway point: 10.5 percent exposure for persons who are white and Asian compared with 20.7
percent exposure for Asians only and 3.3 percent exposure for whites only.
Whites Only
Blacks Only
White and Black
White Black American Indian
Asian Hawaiian Other
Two or More Races Hispanic

12 William H. Frey and Dowell Myers
Fannie Mae Foundation 2002.
All Rights Reserved.
Figure 4. Comparison of Average Neighborhood Race-Ethnic Composition for Whites
Only, Asians Only, and Persons Reporting as White and Asian, for the
Combined U.S. Metropolitan Areas for the Year 2000
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
Figure 5 presents an analysis for persons identifying themselves as "white and American Indian."
This comparison shows that the average neighborhood race-ethnic composition for a white and
American Indian person is slightly more similar to that of whites than to that of American
Indians. The average exposure of a white and American Indian person to other American Indians
is only 1.4 percent, compared to 10.2 percent exposure for American Indians.
Figure 5.
Comparison of Average Neighborhood Race-Ethnic Composition for Whites
Only, American Indians Only, and Persons Reporting as White and American Indian,
for the Combined U.S. Metropolitan Areas for the Year 2000
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
American Indians Only
White Black American Indian Asian
Haw aiian Other TwoorMoreRaces Hispanic
Whites Only
White and American Indian
Whites Only
Asians Only
White Black American Indian Asian Haw aiian Other Two or More Races Hispanic
White and Asian

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America 13
Fannie Mae Foundation Working Paper
Thus, this analysis clearly shows that a person's identification with two different racial groups
plays out quite differently depending on the specific racial groups involved. It also plays out
differently across individual metropolitan areas and individual cities, which can be examined
from the information on the Web sites listed above.
U.S. Regions
Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9 show the same neighborhood comparisons shown in figure 2, but they are
shown separately for the metropolitan populations in the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West
regions. The average neighborhood composition at the regional level reflects the different racial
composition of that region as well as the level of segregation that exists in that region.
Figure 6 shows that in the Northeast, whites live in neighborhoods that are 86 percent white,
blacks live in neighborhoods that are 55 percent black, Asians live in neighborhoods that are 20
percent Asian, and Hispanics live in neighborhoods that are 40 percent Hispanic. The Northeast
has a higher percentage of blacks and a lower percentage of Hispanics than the nation as a whole.
For the most part, this is reflected in the average neighborhood composition of the different
groups.
Figure 6.
Average Neighborhood Race-Ethnic Composition for Each Racial Group for
Northeast Metropolitan Areas for the Year 2000
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Whites Blacks Asians Hispanics American
Indians
Two or More
Races
Racial Group
Composition
White Black American Indian Asian Hawaiian Other TwoorMoreRaces Hispanic

14 William H. Frey and Dowell Myers
Fannie Mae Foundation 2002.
All Rights Reserved.
Figure 7 shows a similar set of exposure indices for the Midwest. The results are not that much
different from the Northeast. Whites live in neighborhoods that are 88 percent white, blacks live
in neighborhoods that are 64 percent black, Asians live in neighborhoods that are 11 percent
Asian, and Hispanics live in neighborhoods that are 34 percent Hispanic. The Midwest has
somewhat fewer Asians and Hispanics than the Northeast, proportionately, and this is reflected
in the lower exposure that other racial groups in the Midwest have to Asians and Hispanics.
Figure 7.
Average Neighborhood Race-Ethnic Composition for Each Racial Group for
Midwest Metropolitan Areas for the Year 2000
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
Figure 8 shows the race-ethnic compositions for metropolitan areas in the South. The biggest
difference in the South is the greater presence of blacks in the average neighborhoods of most
racial groups. For whites in the South, the average neighborhood is 10 percent black, for blacks it
is 56 percent black, for Asians it is 15 percent black, and for Hispanics it is 12 percent black. It is
interesting that although the South has a lower percentage of whites than the Northeast or the
Midwest, the average exposure of blacks to whites in the South (32 percent) is higher than it is in
the Midwest (27 percent) or the Northeast (23 percent).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Whites Blacks Asians Hispanics American
Indians
Two or More
Races
Racial Group
Composition
White Black American Indian Asian Hawaiian Other Two or More Races Hispanic

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America 15
Fannie Mae Foundation Working Paper
Figure 8. Average Neighborhood Race-Ethnic Composition for Each Racial Group for
Metropolitan Areas in the South for the Year 2000
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
Finally, figure 9 shows the same comparisons for the West, which is a much more racially and
ethnically diverse region. Here, the percentage of whites in the average neighborhood for each of
the major races is lower than in the other three regions. The contrast is greater, however, for
Asians than for the other racial groups. In the West, the average neighborhood of an Asian
person is only 40 percent white, compared with levels around 60 to 70 percent white in the other
regions. It is also noteworthy that the average neighborhood for a white person in the West
contains a fairly high (72 percent) proportion of whites, despite the greater diversity in the West.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Whites Blacks Asians Hispanics American
Indians
Two or More
Races
Racial Group
Composition
White Black American Indian Asian Hawaiian Other Two or More Races Hispanic

16 William H. Frey and Dowell Myers
Fannie Mae Foundation 2002.
All Rights Reserved.
Figure 9. Average Neighborhood Race-Ethnic Composition for Each Racial Group for
Metropolitan Areas in the West for the Year 2000
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
The Cities of New York and Los Angeles
Moving from the national and regional comparisons, we now examine neighborhood racial
exposure in two large and diverse cities: New York and Los Angeles. Figure 10 shows the
overall race-ethnic compositions of the two cities. They have roughly comparable shares of white
(35.0 percent for New York and 29.7 percent for Los Angeles) and Asian (nearly 10 percent in
both cities) populations. They differ most in their relative shares of Hispanics, where Los
Angeles has the higher proportion (46.5 percent versus 27.0 percent for New York), and of
blacks, where New York has the higher proportion (24.5 percent versus 10.9 percent in Los
Angeles).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Whites Blacks Asians Hispanics American
Indians
Two or More
Races
Racial Group
Composition
White Black American Indian Asian Hawaiian Other Two or More Races Hispanic

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America 17
Fannie Mae Foundation Working Paper
Figure 10. Race-Ethnic Composition of the Cities of New York and Los Angeles
for the Year 2000
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
Figures 11 and 12 show the neighborhood exposure indices for different racial groups in the two
cities. In New York, the average white person's neighborhood is 67 percent white, the average
black person's neighborhood is 62 percent black, the average Asian person's neighborhood is 30
percent Asian, and the average Hispanic person's neighborhood is 50 percent Hispanic. In Los
Angeles, on the other hand, the same-group percentages are lower for whites, blacks, and Asians
(58 percent, 37 percent, and 22 percent, respectively). Also, in Los Angeles, the average
Hispanic person's neighborhood is 64 percent Hispanic, compared to only 50 percent in New
York. However, this is more likely because of Los Angeles's much larger Hispanic population
than the cities's relative segregation levels. (The white-Hispanic dissimilarity index in the city of
New York is 70, compared with an index of 67 in Los Angeles.)
White Black American Indian Asian Haw aiian Other Tw o or more Races Hispanic
New York
35.0%
24.5%
0.2%
9.7%
0.0%
0.7%
2.8%
27.0%
Los Angeles
29.7%
10.9%
0.2%
9.9%
46.5%
2.4%
0.2%
0.1%

18 William H. Frey and Dowell Myers
Fannie Mae Foundation 2002.
All Rights Reserved.
Figure 11. Average Neighborhood Race-Ethnic Composition for Each Racial Group
in New York City for the Year 2000
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
Figure 12. Average Neighborhood Race-Ethnic Composition for Each Racial Group
in Los Angeles for the Year 2000
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Whites Blacks Asians Hispanics American
Indians
Two or More
Races
Racial Group
Composition
White Black American Indian Asian Hawaiian Other Two or More Races Hispanic
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Whites Blacks Asians Hispanics American
Indians
Two or More
Races
Racial Group
Composition
White Black American Indian Asian Hawaiian Other Two or More Races Hispanic

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America 19
Fannie Mae Foundation Working Paper
RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION FOR CITIES
In this study, we calculated indices of dissimilarity for each major racial-ethnic minority group
and for different combinations of multiracial groups. In all cases, we used the non-Hispanic,
white-only population as the comparison group. We computed indices for each city with a
Census 2000 population greater than 25,000 and with a minority group (e.g., blacks for the
analysis of white-black segregation) population of at least 1,000. The base population of 1,000
ensures that the minority population being examined is a minimally significant size.
Overview: Regions and City Size Classes
Table 1 provides an overview of the overall segregation patterns for major race and ethnic
groups. It shows mean indices of dissimilarity between non-Hispanic whites and the following
groups: non-Hispanic blacks, non-Hispanic Asians, non-Hispanic American Indians and Alaskan
natives, non-Hispanic Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders, and non-Hispanic persons of other
races, as well as for the combined Hispanic population. Each of these racial groups pertains to
persons who identify themselves as one race alone in Census 2000. A separate dissimilarity
index is computed between non-Hispanic whites and the combined population of non-Hispanic
persons who report two or more races. Once again, we employ the terms "whites," "blacks,"
"Asians," "American Indians," "Hawaiians," "other," and "two or more" when referring to the
various non-Hispanic racial groups.
Table 1 also shows the number of cities (N) included in the analysis of each group. (Recall that
only cities with at least 1,000 members of a given ethnic group are included in the calculations.)
The numbers of cities included are 1,005 for Hispanics, 873 for blacks, 701 for Asians, 543 for
those reporting two or more races, 114 for American Indians, 36 for other races, and only 26 for
Hawaiians. The rankings discussed later in this paper are based on these numbers of cities for
each race and ethnic group.
Table 1 shows that, overall, the highest levels of segregation from whites occur for Hawaiians
and other races, with average dissimilarity indices of 53 and 51, respectively. Among the
remaining groups, dissimilarity indices for blacks are, on the average, higher than those for
Asians and Hispanics (a mean index of 45 for blacks in comparison to 32 and 35 for Asians and
Hispanics, respectively). The lowest levels of segregation among the groups shown in Table 1
occur for persons reporting two or more races, who experience an average index of dissimilarity
of only 27.

20 William H. Frey and Dowell Myers
Fannie Mae Foundation 2002.
All Rights Reserved.
Table 1. Mean Indices of Dissimilarity between Non-Hispanic Whites and Major
Race-Ethnic Groups for Cities Exceeding 25,000 Population,
by Region and Size for the Year 2000
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
Notes: All cities included in this analysis had at least 1,000 members of the minority race-ethnic group. The race
groups pertain to persons who reported themselves as one race alone, except for the category of Two or More Races.
The names of the Census 2000 categories are shortened as follows: American Indian and Alaskan Native is
shortened to American Indians, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander is shortened to Hawaiians, and Some
Other Race is shortened to Other. All race groups except the Hispanic group contain only non-Hispanic members of
that group. NA, not applicable.
City Category Blacks Asians Hispanics
American
Indians Hawaiians Others
Two or
More
All cities exceeding
25,000 population
Mean Index 45 32 35 39 53 51 27
N
873
701
1005
114
26
36
543
Region
Northeast 49 38 43 60 83 54 38
N
124
91
132
6
1
14
70
Midwest 47353545NA5732
N 210 160 206 24 0 5 95
South 49343633NA5132
N 321 158 292 30 0 7 128
West 36 27 31 37 52 44 20
N 218 292 375 54 25 10 250
Size of city
100,00 and greater 50 37 41 42 56 72 30
N 232 228 239 80 21 30 232
50,000 to 99,999 44 30 34 33 41 50 26
N
281
242
330
22
3
5
223
25,000 to 49,000 43 28 32 28 46 43 23
N 360 231 436 12 2 1 88
Indices of Dissimilarity versus Non-Hispanic Whites

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America 21
Fannie Mae Foundation Working Paper
Table 1 also includes mean indices for each region of the country. Generally, the West has lower
levels of segregation than the other three regions. American Indians are the exception; they
experience a somewhat lower level of segregation in the South than in the West. Also, the
Northeast region tends to have the greatest levels of segregation for all groups except for the
other races group, which displays a higher average level of segregation in the Midwest than in
the Northeast.
The averages shown for each racial group by region camouflage the wide variations in
segregation within each region. For example, indices of dissimilarity for blacks range between
22 and 85 in the Northeast, between 19 and 87 in the Midwest, between 8 and 84 in the South,
and between 9 and 87 in the West. Indices of dissimilarity for Hispanics and Asians exhibit
similarly wide ranges.
The ranges are more skewed for persons reporting two or more races. For multiple-race persons
in the West, segregation ranges between 7 and 38. The range is skewed toward the higher end for
this group in the Northeast and Midwest. In the Northeast, persons of two or more races have
dissimilarity indices between 23 and 59; in the Midwest the indices are between 17 and 53. The
range is widest in the South. In North Lauderdale, FL, this group has a dissimilarity index of 9,
but in Delray Beach, FL, the index rises to 72.
Table 1 also shows variations by size of city in the year 2000, distinguishing among cities with
populations exceeding 100,000; cities with populations between 50,000 and 99,999; and cities
with populations between 25,000 and 49,999. For almost all race-ethnic groups, cities in the
largest size class exhibit higher levels of segregation from whites than cities in the two smaller
size classes, which have similar average segregation levels.
Blacks
Table 2 shows the 20 most-segregated and the 20 least-segregated cities in the United States with
respect to blacks and whites. Chicago leads all cities in segregation, where 87 percent of blacks
would have to change residence to be distributed in the same way as whites. The cities with the
most white-black segregation include many places in the Sunbelt. Notable cities are Atlanta, with
a segregation index of 83; Washington, DC, with an index of 81; and Fort Lauderdale and
Miami, FL, with indices of 80. The small California city of Menlo Park ranks second in the
nation after Chicago in white-black segregation. (Chicago's index of 87.3 is higher than Menlo
Park's index of 87.2.)

22 William H. Frey and Dowell Myers
Fannie Mae Foundation 2002.
All Rights Reserved.
Table 2. Cities with Highest and Lowest Dissimilarity Indices for
Non-Hispanic Whites versus Blacks
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
Note: The race groups pertain to persons who reported themselves as one race alone.
Although Atlanta ranks high in segregation on this list of cities, it has shown a significant decline
in its metropolitanwide white-black segregation in recent decades (Frey and Farley 1996). This
suggests that black suburbanization is helping to create those declines, while black segregation
within the city remains at fairly high levels.
Although the most-segregated cities include many Sunbelt cities, particularly in the South
Atlantic division, the least-segregated cities, with respect to white-black dissimilarity, include
only Sunbelt cities. Texas, California, and Florida dominate the list of cities with the least white-
black segregation. The lowest segregation level belongs to The Colony, TX, a city of 26,000
population where blacks comprise only 5.1 percent of the total population.
Most of the cities on the least-segregated list are relatively small suburban areas with small black
populations. One exception is Killeen, TX, a city of 28,000 population where blacks make up a
full third of the total population. Yet, it is generally the case that cities that rank lowest on the
index of white-black dissimilarity tend to be small places in the suburbs of Sunbelt metropolitan
areas.
Highest
Lowest
Dissimilarity, 2000
Rank City Index City Index
1
Chicago 87 The Colony,TX 8
2
Menlo Park, CA 87 Murrieta, CA 9
3
New York 85 Cerritos 9
4
Atlanta 83 Deltona, FL 12
5
Riviera Beach, FL 83 Copperas Cove, TX 12
6
Franklin 83 Weston, FL 13
7
Washington 81 Flower Mound, TX 13
8
Newark, NJ 81 Victorville, CA 13
9
Pompano Beach, FL 81 Diamond Bar, CA 14
10
Garfield Heights, OH 81 Lake Elsinore, CA 15
11
Philadelphia 81 Rio Rancho, NM 16
12
Fort Lauderdale, FL 80 Hinesville, GA 17
13
Miami 80 Killeen, TX 17
14
Cleveland 79 Gilbert, AZ 17
15
Kearny, NJ 79 Blacksburg, VA 17
16
Delray Beach, FL 79 Suisun City, CA 18
17
Dayton, OH 78 West Hollywood, CA 18
18
Flint, MI 77 Palm Coast, FL 18
19
St. Petersburg, FL 77 Goose Creek, SC 18
20
Saginaw, MI 76 Newark, CA 18
Dissimilarity, 2000

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America 23
Fannie Mae Foundation Working Paper
Table 3 shows the most- and least-segregated cities in three different size classes. High levels of
segregation can be seen for each size category, but the lowest levels of segregation are observed
in smaller places. Of all the cities exceeding 100,000 population, the lowest index of white-black
dissimilarity is 21, for Chandler, AZ. This stands in contrast to indices of 9 for Cerritos, CA, in
the 50,000 to 99,999 category; and 8 for The Colony, TX, in the 25,000 to 49,999 category.
Table 3.
Cities with Highest and Lowest Dissimilarity Indices for
Three Size Categories, Non-Hispanic Whites versus Blacks
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
Note: The race groups pertain to persons who reported themselves as one race alone.
One finds a mixture of Snowbelt and Sunbelt areas among the nation's largest cities with higher
levels of segregation. Although Chicago and New York rank first and second in segregation with
indices of 87 and 85, respectively, Atlanta and Washington, DC, follow close behind, ranking
third and fourth. Absent from this list is Detroit, which registers a high metropolitan level of
Highest Dissimilarity Indices
100,000 and Greater 25,000 to 49,999
Rank City Index City Index City Index
1
Chicago 87 Pompano Beach, FL 81 Menlo Park, CA 87
2 New York 85 Delray Beach, FL 79 Riviera Beach, FL 83
3
Atlanta 83 Saginaw, MI 76 Franklin, WI 83
4 Washington 81 Monroe, LA 76 Garfield Heights, OH 81
5 Newark, NJ 81 Folsom, CA 72 Kearny, NJ 79
6 Philadelphia 81 Taylor, MI 70 Hallandale, FL 75
7 Fort Lauderdale, FL 80 Greenville, SC 70 Bradenton, FL 74
8
Miami 80 Sarasota, FL 69 Long Beach, NY 73
9 Cleveland 79 Mount Vernon, NY 69 Florence, SC 73
10 Dayton, OH 78 Trenton, NJ 69 Kirkwood, MO 71
Lowest Dissimilarity Indices
100,000 and Greater 25,000 to 49,999
Rank City Index City Index City Index
1.
Chandler, AZ 21 Cerritos, CA 9 The Colony, TX 8
2. Simi Valley, CA 22 Deltona, FL 12 Murrieta, CA 9
3.
Moreno Valley, CA 22 Flower Mound, TX 13 Copperas Cove, TX 12
4. Thousand Oaks, CA 23 Victorville, CA 13 Weston, FL 13
5. Henderson, NV 24 Diamond Bar, CA 14 Lake Elsinore, CA 15
6. Palmdale, CA 24 Rio Rancho, NM 16 Hinesville, GA 17
7. Corona, CA 25 Killeen, TX 17 Blacksburg, VA 17
8.
Eugene, OR 25 Hesperia, CA 19 Suisun City, CA 18
9.
Hayward, CA 25 Tracy, CA 18 West Hollywood, CA 18
10. Carrollton, TX 27 Davis, CA 19 Palm Coast, FL 18
50,000 to 99,999
50,000 to 99,999

24 William H. Frey and Dowell Myers
Fannie Mae Foundation 2002.
All Rights Reserved.
segregation (ranking second at 87 percent) but a relatively low level of central-city segregation
with an index of 63. Clearly, most of Detroit's metropolitanwide segregation is because of the
extreme city-suburb segregation between whites and blacks.
A review of the regional locations of the cities that have high white-black dissimilarity indices
reveals a mixture of Sunbelt and Snowbelt cities in each size category. Yet, a review of the cities
with the lowest indices shows the dominance of Sunbelt cities, especially in California, in all
three size categories. Among cities exceeding 100,000 population with the lowest white-black
segregation are many suburban cities, such as Thousand Oaks, CA, or Henderson, NV. Eugene,
OR, a college town, also appears on this list.
Table 4 shows segregation levels of those cities with more than 100,000 blacks, according to
Census 2000. Apart from Los Angeles, and Oakland, CA, these cities are located in the
Northeast, Midwest, and South, reflecting past black migration patterns. The most segregated of
these large cities are located in the Northeast, where three of the five cities have white-black
dissimilarity indices higher than 80. Only three other cities in the rest of the country have indices
that high: Chicago, in the Midwest; and Atlanta and Washington, DC, in the South. At the other
extreme, the lowest segregation levels are shown for many "New South" cities. Jacksonville, FL,
with a dissimilarity index of 56, has the lowest white-black segregation of all of these cities.
Norfolk, VA, and Nashville-Davidson, TN, also have indices in the 50s. In all regions, cities
with large black populations tend to have higher segregation levels than some of the smaller
cities discussed earlier. The dispersal of blacks to the suburbs and to recently growing parts of
the country suggests that a focus on these large cities alone distorts the overall picture of white-
black segregation.

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America 25
Fannie Mae Foundation Working Paper
Table 4. Non-Hispanic White versus Black Indices of Dissimilarity for Cities
with the Largest Black Populations, by Region for the Year 2000
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
Note: Cities included in this table have a population of at least 100,000 non-Hispanic blacks. The race groups
pertain to persons who reported themselves as one race alone.
Region and City
Northeast
New York 1,962,154 25 85
Philadelphia 646,123 43 81
Newark, NJ 142,083 52 81
Boston 140,305 24 76
Buffalo, NY 107,066 37 74
Midwest
Chicago 1,053,739 36 87
Detroit 771,966 81 63
Cleveland 241,512 50 79
Milwaukee 220,432 37 71
Indianapolis 198,252 25 67
St. Louis 177,446 51 72
Columbus, OH 172,750 24 61
Cincinnati 141,534 43 63
Kansas City, MO 136,921 31 71
South
Houston 487,851 25 75
Baltimore 417,009 64 75
Memphis, TN 397,732 61 69
Washington, DC 340,088 59 81
New Orleans 323,392 67 71
Dallas 304,824 26 72
Atlanta 254,062 61 83
Jacksonville, FL 211,252 29 56
Birmingham, AL 177,709 73 66
Charlotte, NC 175,661 32 61
Nashville-Davidson, TN 145,483 27 58
Jackson, MS 129,609 70 68
Baton Rouge, LA 113,478 50 75
Richmond, VA 112,455 57 68
Fort Worth, TX 106,988 20 63
Norfolk, VA 102,268 44 57
Shreveport, LA 101,218 51 71
West
Los Angeles 401,986 11 74
Oakland, CA 140,139 35 60
Black Percent
of Total
Population
Black
Population
Size
White-Black
Index of
Dissimilarity

26 William H. Frey and Dowell Myers
Fannie Mae Foundation 2002.
All Rights Reserved.
Asians
White-Asian segregation varies from a low of 9 for Morgan Hill, CA, to a high of 69 for Inkster,
MI (table 5). Neither of these cities has a large Asian population (1,966 and 1,023, respectively),
yet they have extremely different segregation levels. As was the case for black populations, there
is a clear Snowbelt versus Sunbelt distinction between areas with the very highest indices of
dissimilarity and those with the very lowest. Northeast and Midwest cities such as Camden, NJ;
Detroit; Newark, NJ; Buffalo, NY; Pittsburgh; Philadelphia; and New York; have white-Asian
dissimilarity indices that are well above 50. A few Southern and Western cities also have high
levels, such as New Orleans, with an index of 66; Oakland, CA, with an index of 56; and Long
Beach, CA, with an index of 54. Yet, among those areas with the lowest levels of white-Asian
segregation, California cities heavily dominate. Most of these cities are relatively small, with
even smaller Asian populations. Still, Temple City, CA, has an Asian population exceeding
12,000 that constitutes 39 percent of its total population and registers a very low segregation
index of 11.
Table 5.
Cities with Highest and Lowest Dissimilarity Indices for
Non-Hispanic Whites versus Asians
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
Note: The race groups pertain to persons who reported themselves as one race alone.
Highest
Dissimilarity, 2000
Rank City Index City Index
1
Inkster, MI 69 Morgan Hill, CA 9
2 Camden, NJ 66 Temple, CA 11
3
New Orleans 66 Foster, CA 11
4 Detroit 63 Murrieta, CA 11
5 Newark, NJ 63 Cooper, FL 12
6 Amarillo, TX 62 Woodbury, MN 12
7 Troy, NY 59 West Hollywood, CA 12
8
Buffalo, NY 58 Novato, CA 12
9 Pittsburgh 58 Dublin, CA 12
10 Philadelphia 58 Citrus Heights, CA 13
11 Sayreville, NJ 57 Weston, FL 13
12 Glen Ellyn, IL 56 Rocklin, CA 14
13
Garden City, KS 56 Santee, CA 14
14 Oakland, CA 56 Moorpark, CA 14
15 St. Paul, MN 55 Culver, CA 14
16 Columbus, IN 55 Bergenfield, NJ 14
17 Bryan, TX 55 Redondo Beach, CA 14
18
Long Beach, CA 54 Los Altos, CA 15
19
New York 54 Coral Springs, FL 15
20 Revere, MA 54 Paramus, NJ 15
Dissimilarity, 2000
Lowest

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America 27
Fannie Mae Foundation Working Paper
It should be noted that the broad Asian population mentioned here includes many different
nationality groups (Barnes and Bennett 2002; Logan 2001b; Pollard and O'Hare 1999). The
largest groups are Chinese, Filipinos, and Indians, followed by Koreans, Vietnamese, and
Japanese. These groups differ in terms of their geographic distributions as well as their social and
economic status. In California cities, there is a large presence of Chinese, Filipinos, and
Vietnamese. In the city of New York, Vietnamese, Indians, and Koreans comprise the largest
group, and in Texas cities, Vietnamese and Indians outrank other groups. Indians and
Vietnamese rank at opposite ends of the socioeconomic spectrum. As a group, Indians are the
most highly educated of all groups, and Vietnamese are the least educated and lowest paid of all
groups. Asian segregation patterns reflect, in part, the concentrations of different groups in
different areas.
Table 6 breaks down white-Asian segregation patterns by city size category. As was the case in
the black population segregation analysis, each of the three size categories contains cities with
high levels of Asian segregation. When looking at areas with the lowest white-Asian
dissimilarity indices, the smaller areas tend to have lower values. Among the largest cities, New
Orleans leads all others with a white-Asian dissimilarity index of 66. Aside from the northern
cities discussed earlier, we find Amarillo, TX, and Oakland, CA, as non-northern cities with high
levels of white-Asian segregation. Across all three size categories, California cities are heavily
represented among the cities with the lowest levels of white-Asian segregation.

28 William H. Frey and Dowell Myers
Fannie Mae Foundation 2002.
All Rights Reserved.
Table 6. Cities with Highest and Lowest Dissimilarity Indices for
Three Size Categories, Non-Hispanic Whites versus Asians
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
Note: The race groups pertain to persons who reported themselves as one race alone.
Table 7 shows the segregation levels of cities with Asian populations that exceeded 50,000 in the
year 2000. All of these cities except for New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Houston are in
the West, and most of them are located in California. Among these large cities, Philadelphia,
with a dissimilarity index of 58, has the highest level of white-Asian segregation, and all of the
non-Western cities have indices above 50. In the West, only Oakland, CA; Long Beach, CA; San
Diego; Seattle; and San Jose, CA; have indices of 50 or more. At the other extreme, cities with
large Asian populations and indices of dissimilarity below 40 are: Daly City, CA, with a
segregation index of 26; Fremont, CA, with an index of 31; Garden Grove, CA, with an index of
39; and Honolulu, with an index of 39. As was the case for blacks, the cities with large Asian
populations are not the cities with the lowest levels of white-Asian segregation.
100,000 and Greater 25,000 to 49,999
Rank City Index City Index City Index
1
New Orleans 66 Camden, NJ 66 Inkster, MI 69
2
Detroit 63 Bryan, TX 55 Troy, NY 59
3 Newark, NJ 63 Lynn, MA 53 Sayreville, NJ 57
4 Amarillo, TX 62 Fall River, MA 53 Glen Ellyn, IL 56
5 Buffalo, NY 58 Sioux City, IA 52 Garden City, KS 56
6 Pittsburgh 58 Mount Prospect, IL 52 Columbus, IN 55
7
Philadelphia 58 Utica, NY 51 Revere, MA 54
8 Oakland, CA 56 Passaic, NJ 51 Lombard, IL 51
9 St. Paul, MN 55 Visalia, CA 50 Madison Heights, MI 50
10 Long Beach, CA 54 Merced, CA 50 Stillwater, OK 49
100,000 and Greater 25,000 to 49,999
Rank City Index City Index City Index
1
Coral Springs, FL 15 Citrus Heights, CA 13 Morgan Hill, CA 9
2
Downey, CA 15 Santee, CA 14 Temple City, CA 11
3 Simi Valley, CA 17 Redondo Beach, CA 14 Foster City, CA 11
4 Burbank, CA 17 Cerritos, CA 15 Murrieta, CA 11
5 Moreno Valley, CA 19 Killeen, TX 15 Cooper City, FL 12
6
Santa Clarita, CA 19 Carlsbad, CA 15 Woodbury, MN 12
7 Lancaster, CA 20 Temecula, CA 15 West Hollywood, CA 12
8 North Las Vegas, NV 20 Victorville, CA 16 Novato, CA 12
9 Escondido, CA 20 Cupertino, CA 16 Dublin, CA 12
10 Scottsdale, AZ 20 Bellflower, CA 16 Weston, FL 13
50,000 to 99,999
50,000 to 99,999
Lowest Dissimilarity Indices
Highest Dissimilarity Indices

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America 29
Fannie Mae Foundation Working Paper
Table 7. Non-Hispanic White versus Asian Indices of Dissimilarity for Cities with the
Largest Asian Populations, by Region for the Year 2000
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
Note: Cities included in this table have a population of at least 50,000 non-Hispanic Asians. The race groups pertain
to persons who reported themselves as one race alone.
Hispanics
The fast-growing Hispanic population also shows a wide range in its segregation levels across
cities (table 8). It is noteworthy that among the 20 cities with the highest white-Hispanic
dissimilarity indices are several cities in North Carolina and Georgia that are attracting new
waves of Hispanic immigrants. Wilson, NC, with a population of 44,000 and slightly more than
3,000 Hispanics, leads with a white-Hispanic dissimilarity index of 77. The large northern cities
New York and Philadelphia, as well as Sunbelt cities such as Los Angeles and Dallas that have
long-established Hispanic populations, also have high white-Hispanic dissimilarity indices.
Asian
Asian Percent White-Asian
Population of Total Index of
Region and City Size Population Dissimilarity
Northeast
New York 780,229 10 54
Philadelphia 67,119 4 58
Midwest
Chicago 124,437 4 52
South
Houston 102,706 5 50
West
Los Angeles 364,850 10 49
San Jose, CA 238,378 27 50
San Francisco 238,173 31 44
Honolulu CDP 205,563 55 39
San Diego 164,895 13 52
Fremont, CA 74,773 37 31
Seattle 73,512 13 52
Sacramento, CA 66,598 16 48
Oakland, CA 60,393 15 56
Long Beach, CA 54,937 12 54
Daly City, CA 52,154 50 26
Garden Grove, CA
50,803 31 39

30 William H. Frey and Dowell Myers
Fannie Mae Foundation 2002.
All Rights Reserved.
Table 8. Cities with Highest and Lowest Dissimilarity Indices for
Non-Hispanic Whites versus Hispanics
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
Note: The race groups pertain to persons who reported themselves as one race alone.
It should be understood that the Hispanic population comprises a variety of different Spanish-
origin groups (Grieco and Cassidy 2001; Guzmán 2001; Singer et al. 2001). The largest Hispanic
group is of Mexican origin (58 percent); Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and a growing number of
Central and South American groups make smaller representations. Nonetheless, New York and
other East Coast cities are more heavily dominated by Puerto Ricans and non-Mexican Hispanic
groups. Puerto Ricans, in particular, have higher levels of segregation that may account for the
overall higher levels of Hispanic segregation in northern and East Coast cities.
In contrast to the most-segregated cities, the least-segregated cities tend to be smaller ones,
mostly located in California. The city with the lowest white-Hispanic dissimilarity index, of 8, is
Copperas Cove, TX, a city with a population of nearly 30,000 where Hispanics comprise almost
12 percent of the population. Most of the other low-segregation cities have small populations as
well. One exception is Maywood, CA, where Hispanics comprise 96 percent of the city's 28,000
people. The low segregation index in Maywood indicates that the city's small numbers of whites
are well integrated with Hispanics.
Rank City Index City Index
1
Wilson, NC 77
Copperas Cove, TX
8
2 Menlo Park, CA 75 Rocklin, CA 9
3
Oakland, CA 71 Cerritos, CA 9
4 Tyler, TX 70 Santee, CA 9
5 New York, NY 70 Foster City, CA 10
6 Surprise, AZ 68 Moore, OK 10
7 Hilton Head Island, SC 68 Benicia, CA 10
8
Philadelphia 67 Martinez, CA 10
9 Los Angeles 67 San Ramon, CA 10
10 Dallas 65 Paradise, CA 10
11 Winston-Salem, NC 65 Redding, CA 10
12
Atlanta 65 Cooper City, FL 10
13
New Brunswick, NJ 64 Aventura, FL 11
14 Mount Prospect, IL 64 Northglenn, CO 11
15 Durham, NC 64 Deltona, FL 11
16 San Rafael, CA 62 Diamond Bar, CA 12
17
Grand Rapids, MI 62 Murrieta, CA 12
18 Long Beach, CA 62 San Dimas, CA 12
19 Milwaukee 62 Danville, CA 12
20 Gainesville, GA 62 Maywood, CA 12
Highest Dissimilarity, 2000
Lowest Dissimilarity, 2000

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America 31
Fannie Mae Foundation Working Paper
Table 9 shows the white-Hispanic segregation rankings for the three city size classes. In each
size class, the most-segregated cities have indices that range from the high 50s or low 60s to the
70s. Segregated cities in each size class also reflect a mixture of Snowbelt and Sunbelt cities.
Oakland, CA, has the highest segregation level of all the large cities on the list; whereas Tyler,
TX, and Wilson, NC, lead segregation in the other two size classes. Northern cities such as New
York; Philadelphia; and Grand Rapids, MI; are among the large, highly segregated cities for
Hispanics. In the second size category, one finds Mount Prospect, IL; Palatine, IL; Bethlehem,
PA; and Hempstead, NY. The cities of New Brunswick, NJ; Englewood, NJ; Spring Valley, NY;
and Highland Park, IL; are in the smallest size category.
Table 9.
Cities with Highest and Lowest Dissimilarity Indices for
Three Size Categories, Non-Hispanic Whites versus Hispanics
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
Note: The race groups pertain to persons who reported themselves as one race alone.
100,000 and Greater 25,000 to 49,999
Rank City Index City Index City Index
1 Oakland, CA 71 Tyler, TX 70 Wilson, NC 77
2 New York 70 Mount Prospect, IL 64 Menlo Park, CA 75
3 Philadelphia 67 San Rafael, CA 62 Surprise, AZ 68
4 Los Angeles 67 Wilmington, DE 61 Hilton Head Island, SC 68
5 Dallas 65 Marietta, GA 61 New Brunswick, NJ 64
6 Winston-Salem, NC 65 Palatine, IL 61 Gainesville, GA 62
7 Atlanta 65 Hoover, AL 60 Englewood, NJ 61
8 Durham, NC 64 Bethlehem, PA 59 Spring Valley, NY 60
9 Grand Rapids, MI 62 Roswell, GA 58 Highland Park, IL 60
10 Long Beach, CA 62 Hempstead, NY 58 San Juan Capistrano, CA 60
100,000 and Greater 25,000 to 49,999
Rank City Index City Index City Index
1
Hialeah, FL 17 Cerritos, CA 9 Copperas Cove, TX 8
2
Gilbert, AZ 17 Santee, CA 9 Rocklin, CA 9
3 West Covina, CA 19 Redding, CA 10 Foster City, CA 10
4 Coral Springs, FL 19 Deltona, FL 11 Moore, OK 10
5 Livonia, MI 19 Diamond Bar, CA 12 Benicia, CA 10
6
Henderson, NV 19 Killeen, TX 12 Martinez, CA 10
7 Cape Coral 20 Flower Mound, TX 13 San Ramon, CA 10
8 Mesquite, TX 21 Yorba Linda, CA 14 Paradise, CA 10
9 Sterling Heights, MI 21 Victorville, CA 14 Cooper City, FL 10
10
Downey, CA 22 Rio Rancho, NM 15 Aventura, FL 11
50,000 to 99,999
50,000 to 99,999
Lowest Dissimilarity Indices
Highest Dissimilarity Indices

32 William H. Frey and Dowell Myers
Fannie Mae Foundation 2002.
All Rights Reserved.
Among the cities with the lowest segregation indices, California is well represented in the two
smaller size classes. Among the least-segregated Hispanic cities in the larger size class are three
Florida cities (Hialeah, Coral Springs, and Cape Coral) and two Michigan cities (Livonia and
Sterling Heights), both with small Hispanic populations. In the two smaller size classes, cities
with low white-Hispanic segregation are located mostly in California and Texas and in many
cases have more substantial Hispanic populations than cities in the larger size class.
Table 10 shows the segregation measures for cities with Hispanic populations greater than
100,000. Most of these cities are in the South and West, with three exceptions: New York,
Philadelphia, and Chicago. New York tops all of the cities on this list with a white-Hispanic
dissimilarity index of 70. Chicago and Philadelphia both have indices at the upper end of the
range. Other cities with segregation indices in the 60s include Houston and Dallas, in the South;
and Los Angeles; Phoenix; San Diego; and Long Beach, CA, in the West. At the other end of the
spectrum is Hialeah, FL, with a segregation index of only 17. Its population is substantially
Hispanic (98 percent), as is the population of Laredo, TX (94 percent), which has a low
segregation index of 31.
Overall, cities with large Hispanic populations in the West and South exhibit a broad range of
segregation values in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. It is the large northern cities that stand out with their
high segregation values.
American Indians, Hawaiians, and Two or More Races
We now examine segregation rankings among cities for two smaller race-ethnic groups:
American Indians and Hawaiians (table 11). Both of these groups have far fewer cities with the
required minimum 1,000 population of the minority group. By this criterion, 114 areas are
ranked on the white–American Indian segregation index. Among these, the most highly
segregated areas tend to be large cities located primarily in the Northeast, Midwest, and eastern
seaboard. The highest segregation for American Indians is shown in the city of New York with
an index of 75. Close behind is Philadelphia with a segregation index of 71. Chicago, Boston,
and Washington, DC, all have segregation indices of 61 or higher. At the other extreme are
several smaller cities located in states where American Indians represent a bigger share of the
population. Seven Oklahoma cities have extremely low levels of segregation; for example,
Moore, OK, has a white–American Indian dissimilarity index of 12. American Indians show a
wide range of segregation, but it is skewed more heavily toward the low end, especially in areas
where this population has a larger presence.

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America 33
Fannie Mae Foundation Working Paper
Table 10. Non-Hispanic White versus Hispanic Indices of Dissimilarity for
Cities with the Largest Hispanic Populations, by Region for the Year 2000
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
Note: Cities included in this table have a population of at least 100,000 Hispanics. The race groups pertain to
persons who reported themselves as one race alone.
Hispanic White-
Hispanic Percent Hispanic
Population of Total Index of
Region and City Size Population Dissimilarity
Northeast
New York 2,160,554 27 70
Philadelphia 128,928 8 67
Midwest
Chicago 753,644 26 61
South
Houston 730,865 37 61
San Antonio 671,394 59 53
El Paso, TX 431,875 77 46
Dallas 422,587 36 65
Miami 238,351 66 46
Hialeah, FL 204,543 90 17
Austin, TX 200,579 31 53
Laredo, TX 166,216 94 31
Fort Worth, TX 159,368 30 58
Corpus Christi, TX 150,737 54 47
Brownsville, TX 127,535 91 43
West
Los Angeles 1,719,073 47 67
Phoenix 449,972 34 60
San Diego 310,752 25 61
San Jose, CA 269,989 30 55
Santa Ana, CA 257,097 76 54
Albuquerque, NM 179,075 40 41
Denver 175,704 32 59
Tucson, AZ 173,868 36 51
Fresno, CA 170,520 40 46
Long Beach, CA 165,092 36 62
Anaheim, CA 153,374 47 46
Las Vegas 112,962 24 50
Oxnard, CA 112,807 66 45
San Francisco 109,504 14 54

34 William H. Frey and Dowell Myers
Fannie Mae Foundation 2002.
All Rights Reserved.
Table 11. Cities with Highest and Lowest Dissimilarity Indices for Non-Hispanic
Whites versus American Indians, Hawaiians, and Two or More Races
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
Notes: The race groups pertain to persons who reported themselves as one race alone, except for the category of
Two or More Races. The names of the Census 2000 categories are shortened as follows: American Indian and
Alaskan Native is shortened to American Indians, and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander is shortened to
Hawaiians.
Our segregation analysis for the Hawaiian population includes only 26 cities with the requisite
1,000 Hawaiians. As was the case for American Indians, larger cities show the highest
segregation levels for Hawaiians. The city of New York again leads with a white-Hawaiian index
of 83. Other large cities with high white-Hawaiian dissimilarity indices are in the West. These
include the large California cities of Oakland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, as well as other
large western cities such as Seattle, Salt Lake City, and Phoenix. For all of these cities, white-
Hawaiian segregation indices range from the high 50s to the low 70s.
American Indians Two or More Races
Rank City Index City Index City Index
1
New York 75 New York 83 Delray Beach, FL 72
2 Philadelphia 71 Oakland, CA 73 Miami 71
3
Chicago 64 Seattle 69 Fort Lauderdale, FL 67
4 Boston 61 Long Beach, CA 68 Pompano Beach, FL 61
5 Washington, DC 61 San Francisco 67 Spring Valley, NY 59
6 Providence, RI 59 Salt Lake City 65 New York 54
7 Sioux City, IA 57 Los Angeles 62 Gary, IN 53
8
Baltimore 56 Phoenix 61 Fort Myers, FL 53
9 Oakland, CA 56 San Mateo, CA 59 Philadelphia 52
10 Minneapolis, MN 54 Sacramento, CA 58 Atlanta 52
American Indians Two or More Races
Rank City Index City Index City Index
1
Moore, OK 12 Carson, CA 25 Cerritos, CA 7
2 BrokenArrow, OK 14 West Valley City, UT 29 Rocklin, CA 8
3 Muskogee, OK 14 Vallejo, CA 37 North Lauderdale, FL 9
4
Midwest City, OK 14 Lakewood, WA 39 Copperas Cove, TX 10
5 Edmond, OK 16 Hayward, CA 39 Novato, CA 10
6
Norman, OK 18 Oceanside, CA 43 Santee, CA 10
7 Stillwater, OK 18 Las Vegas 44 Benicia, CA 10
8 Rio Rancho, NM 18 East Palo Alto, CA 45 San Ramon, CA 10
9 Eureka, CA 21 San Bruno, CA 47
Rancho Santa Margarita,
10
10 Redding, CA 22 Portland, OR 51 Victorville, CA 11
Hawaiians
Hawaiians
Lowest Dissimilarity Indices
Highest Dissimilarity Indices

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America 35
Fannie Mae Foundation Working Paper
Western cities are also well represented at the lower end of the segregation scale for Hawaiians.
Carson City, CA, has the lowest segregation index for Hawaiians, at 25. Other small cities such
as West Valley City, UT; Vallejo, CA; and Lakewood, WA; also have segregation indices below
40. On the whole, Hawaiian segregation is higher than most of the other groups examined in this
study.
Finally, we examine the segregation of persons identifying with two or more races in Census
2000. (As with the other race-ethnic groups, we examine only non-Hispanic members of this
group.) Nationally, such persons constitute only 1.6 percent of the U.S. population, but they
represent a larger share in Hawaii and other melting pot states such as California. Overall,
segregation for this group is lower than it is for the other groups we have examined, although
some cities still display high levels of segregation. Delray Beach, FL, leads all cities with an
index of dissimilarity of 72. It is followed closely by the other Florida cities of Miami, Fort
Lauderdale, and Pompano Beach. Other areas on the most-segregated list for these mixed-race
persons include New York; Gary, IN; Philadelphia; and Atlanta.
Cities where mixed-race persons show the lowest levels of segregation are in those states with
larger numbers of such persons. Hence, California cities dominate among the areas with the
lowest indices of dissimilarity. The cities with the lowest levels of segregation have indices that
range between 7 (Cerritos, CA) and 11 (Victorville, CA).
RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION FOR METROPOLITAN AREAS
We now change the geographic focus from cities to metropolitan areas. Indices of dissimilarity
were computed for the 318 U.S. metropolitan areas (metropolitan statistical areas, primary
metropolitan statistical areas, and New England county metropolitan areas). Again, we restrict
our focus to those metropolitan areas where the minority race-ethnic group being analyzed has a
population of at least 1,000.
Table 12 provides an overview of average segregation levels for the groups of interest. In
general, the segregation levels for metropolitan areas are somewhat higher than the counterparts
for cities. This is because typically there is more heterogeneity across a metropolitan area's
population than a city's population. Nonetheless, a similar ordering of segregation levels for the
different race-ethnic groups is observed for metropolitan areas and for cities. Hawaiians show the
highest level of segregation for metropolitan areas, with a white-Hawaiian mean dissimilarity
index of 61. However, for metropolitan areas, blacks are the second most-segregated group (with
an average dissimilarity index of 59). Segregation levels for blacks are well above those for
Asians, Hispanics, and American Indians, consistent with the city comparisons. Those
identifying themselves as other races also had high segregation indices, but the level is not as
high as it is for blacks. Consistent with the city analysis, persons identifying themselves as being
of two or more races had the lowest level of segregation.

36 William H. Frey and Dowell Myers
Fannie Mae Foundation 2002.
All Rights Reserved.
Table 12. Mean Indices of Dissimilarity with Non-Hispanic Whites for
Combined Major Metropolitan Areas for the Year 2000
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
Notes: The race groups pertain to persons who reported themselves as one race alone, except for the category of
Two or More Races. The names of the Census 2000 categories are shortened as follows: American Indian and
Alaskan Native is shortened to American Indians, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander is shortened to
Hawaiians, and Some Other Race is shortened to Other. All race groups except the Hispanic group contain only non-
Hispanic members of that group.
Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics
Table 13 shows the highest and lowest segregation levels for the three largest minority groups:
blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. Among these groups, blacks have the highest segregation levels.
Each of the 10 most-segregated metropolitan areas for blacks has an index of dissimilarity
greater than that of any of the 10 most-segregated metropolitan areas for Asians and Hispanics.
Gary, IN, leads all other metropolitan areas in white-black segregation with a dissimilarity index
of 88, followed by nine other metropolitan areas located in the Northeast and Midwest. The high
levels of segregation shown here are consistent with earlier studies (Frey and Farley 1996) and
suggest that the history of segregation in these areas has not diminished significantly.
American Two or
Blacks Asians Hispanics Indian Hawaiian Other More Races
All metropolitan
areas mean
index
59 45 43 43 61 57 33
N 298 262 305 178 44 66 293

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America 37
Fannie Mae Foundation Working Paper
Table 13. Metropolitan Areas with Highest and Lowest Dissimilarity Indices
for Non-Hispanic Whites versus Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
Notes: The race groups pertain to persons who reported themselves as one race alone. MSA, metropolitan statistical
area; NECMA, New England county metropolitan area; PMSA, primary metropolitan statistical area.
At the lower end of the spectrum of white-black segregation are smaller metropolitan areas
located outside of the Northeast and Midwest. Jacksonville, NC, has the lowest segregation with
a white-black dissimilarity index of 32. A few metropolitan areas with college towns also are
among the least-segregated areas for blacks, including Lawrence, KS; Santa Cruz, CA; Lawton,
OK; Boulder, CO; and Eugene, OR.
When examining results for Asians, the highest levels of segregation are not found in areas that
are typically associated with large Asian settlements. Ann Arbor, MI, has the highest level of
segregation for Asians, perhaps because of the segregation of college students.
Blacks Hispanics
Rank Metro Area Index Metro Area Index Metro Area Index
1
Gary, IN PMSA 88 Ann Arbor, MI PMSA 64 Reading, PA MSA 73
2 Detroit, MI PMSA 87 Terre Haute, IN MSA
63
Providence-Fall River-Warwick,
71
3 84 Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX MSA New York, NY PMSA 69
4 NewYork, NYPMSA 84 Amarillo, TXMSA 62 Springfield, MA NECMA 68
5 Chicago, IL PMSA 84 Lafayette, IN MSA 62 Newark, NJ PMSA 66
6 Newark, NJ PMSA 83 Fort Smith, AR-OK MSA 61 Hartford, CT NECMA 66
7 Flint, MI PMSA 81 Atlantic-Cape May, NJ PMSA 60 Chicago, IL PMSA 65
8 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY MSA 80 Pittsburgh, PA MSA 59 Lancaster, PA MSA 65
9 Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH PMSA 80 Charleston, WV MSA 59 64
10
79 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY MSA 58 64
Blacks Asians Hispanics
Rank Metro Area Index Metro Area Index Metro Area Index
1
Jacksonville, NC MSA
32 Fort Walton Beach, FL MSA 27 Redding, CA MSA 14
2 Yolo, CA PMSA 32 Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay, 27 Missoula, MT MSA 21
3 Lawrence, KS MSA 34 Punta Gorda, FL MSA 28 Lawton, OK MSA 23
4 34 Jacksonville, NC MSA 29 Lawrence, KS MSA 23
5 Lawton, OK MSA 35 Lawton, OK MSA 30 Burlington, VT NECMA 24
6 Boulder-Longmont, CO PMSA 37 Naples, FL MSA 30 Gainesville, FL MSA 24
7 Redding, CA MSA 37 Medford-Ashland, OR MSA 30 Pocatello, ID MSA 24
8 Boise City, ID MSA 37 Colorado Springs, CO MSA 31 St. Joseph, MO MSA 26
9 Fayetteville, NCMSA 38 Tucson, AZ MSA 32 Panama City, FL MSA 26
10 Eugene-Springfield, OR MSA 38 Fort Pierce-Port St. Lucie, FL MSA 33 Fort Walton Beach, FL MSA 26
Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA PMSA
Asians
Highest Dissimilarity Indices
Lowest Dissimilarity Indices
Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton,
PA
Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI PMSA
Saginaw-Bay City-Midland, MI MSA

38 William H. Frey and Dowell Myers
Fannie Mae Foundation 2002.
All Rights Reserved.
One does not find a consistent pattern among the metropolitan areas with the lowest levels of
Asian segregation. Many of these areas are not necessarily associated with large Asian
populations. One such metropolitan area is Fort Walton Beach, FL, which has the lowest
dissimilarity index of 27. No California metropolitan area is among either the most-segregated or
least-segregated metropolitan areas for Asians.
For Hispanics, metropolitan areas with the highest segregation indices are located mostly in the
Northeast. Metropolitan areas with the lowest levels of Hispanic segregation are a mixed group.
Only one of these areas, Redding, is located in California. Others areas, such as Missoula, MT;
Lawrence, KS; Burlington, VT; and Gainesville, FL; tend to contain university towns with a
sprinkling of Hispanic residents.
American Indians, Hawaiians, and Two or More Races
We also examine segregation at the metropolitan level for smaller racial groups. Segregation
levels for American Indians were ranked among the 178 metropolitan areas that had more than
1,000 American Indians or native Alaskans (table 14). The most-segregated metropolitan areas
are found in a mixture of states, including Arizona, New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. As is
the case for many other race-ethnic groups, high levels of segregation are more prevalent in
northern metropolitan areas, whereas low levels are more prevalent in southern and western
areas. The least-segregated area is Panama City, FL, with a white–American Indian dissimilarity
index of 20.

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America 39
Fannie Mae Foundation Working Paper
Table 14. Metropolitan Areas with Highest and Lowest Dissimilarity Indices for
Non-Hispanic Whites versus American Indians, Hawaiians, and Two or More Races
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
Notes: The race groups pertain to persons who reported themselves as one race alone. The names of the Census
2000 categories are shortened as follows: American Indian and Alaskan Native is shortened to American Indians,
and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander is shortened to Hawaiians. MSA, metropolitan statistical area;
NECMA, New England county metropolitan area; PMSA, primary metropolitan statistical area.
American Indians Two or More Races
Rank Metropolitan Area Index Metropolitan Area Index Metropolitan Area Index
1 Flagstaff, AZ-UT MSA 75 Chicago, IL PMSA 88 New York, NY PMSA 55
2 New York, NYPMSA 75 Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMSA 86 Newark, NJ PMSA 55
3
Bergen-Passaic, NJ
PMSA
72 New York, NY PMSA 84 Naples, FL MSA 54
4 Yakima, WA MSA 72 Boston, MA-NH NECMA 83 Miami, FL PMSA 49
5
Nassau-Suffolk, NY
PMSA
72 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI MSA 81
West Palm Beach-Boca
Raton, FL
48
6 Newark, NJ PMSA 72 Atlanta, GA MSA 75
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY
MSA
47
7 Tucson, AZ MSA 68 Dallas, TX PMSA 74
Providence-Fall River-
Warwick, RI-MA MSA
47
8 Pittsburgh, PA MSA 67 Fort Worth-Arlington, TX PMSA 73 Erie, PA MSA 46
9
Middlesex-Somerset-
Hunterdon, NJ PMSA
64 Kansas City, MO-KS MSA 73
Philadelphia, PA-NJ
PMSA
46
10 Chicago, IL PMSA 64 Houston, TX PMSA 71 Bridgeport, CT NECMA 46
American Indians Two or More Races
Rank Metropolitan Area Index Metropolitan Area Index Metropolitan Area Index
1
Panama City, FL
MSA
20 Bremerton, WA PMSA 43
Medford-Ashland, OR
MSA
15
2 Enid, OK MSA 22 Las Vegas, NV-AZ MSA 44 Redding, CA MSA 16
3
Medford-Ashland, OR
MSA
23 Provo-Orem, UT MSA 48
Santa Cruz-Watsonville,
CA PMSA
17
4 Redding, CA MSA 24 Stockton-Lodi, CA MSA 49 Yuba City, CA MSA 17
5
Eugene-Springfield,
OR MSA
25 Modesto, CA MSA 50
San Luis Obispo-
Atascadero-Paso Robles,
CA MSA
17
6 Pensacola, FL MSA 25
Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA
PMSA
50 Missoula, MT MSA 18
7 Yuba City, CA MSA 25 Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa, CA PMSA 51 Yolo, CA PMSA 18
8
San Luis Obispo-
Atascadero-Paso
Robles, CA MSA
27 San Diego, CA MSA 51 Corvallis, OR MSA 18
9 Modesto, CA MSA 27 Salem, OR PMSA 51
Eugene-Springfield, OR
MSA
19
10
Oklahoma City, OK
MSA
28 Honolulu, HI MSA 52 Lawton, OK MSA 20
Hawaiians
Hawaiians
Lowest Dissimilarity Indices
Highest Dissimilarity Indices

40 William H. Frey and Dowell Myers
Fannie Mae Foundation 2002.
All Rights Reserved.
We also rank the 44 metropolitan areas with at least 1,000 Hawaiians, the race-ethnic group with
the highest level of segregation. The Midwest and northeastern metropolitan areas of Chicago,
Philadelphia, New York, and Boston are the most-segregated areas for Hawaiians. These areas
have relatively few native Hawaiians who tend to be clustered in enclaves. Larger western
metropolitan areas such as Las Vegas, NV; Portland, OR; and San Diego, CA; have lower levels
of segregation for Hawaiians. Yet, segregation indices for Hawaiians in these metropolitan areas
are not nearly as low as the indices observed for the other race-ethnic groups in this study.
Honolulu, HI, home for the most Hawaiians of all the metropolitan areas in this study, has a
white-Hawaiian segregation index of 52.
Finally, we look at the 293 metropolitan areas that have at least 1,000 persons identifying with
two or more races. The segregation rankings for mixed-race persons in metropolitan areas are
comparable to the rankings for cities. That is, areas with the highest levels of segregation for
mixed-race persons tend to be located in the Northeast, with the exception of three Florida areas,
Naples, Miami, and West Palm Beach. Metropolitan areas with the lowest levels of segregation
tend to be on the West Coast, led by Medford, OR, where the dissimilarity index for mixed-race
persons is only 15. California and Oregon tend to dominate the least-segregated metropolitan
areas for mixed-race residents.
RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION FOR SINGLE-RACE AND TWO-RACE GROUPS
In this section, we examine dissimilarity indices to determine if segregation for a mixed-race
group (e.g., white and black) is less than that for the single-race group (e.g., black). As in the
preceding analyses of dissimilarity, we use non-Hispanic whites as the comparison group. Table
15 shows this comparison for mixed-race persons reporting themselves as white and black, white
and Asian, white and American Indian, or white and other. Relevant mean indices of
dissimilarity are shown separately for metropolitan areas and for cities with populations
exceeding 25,000.

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America 41
Fannie Mae Foundation Working Paper
Table 15. Mean Indices of Dissimilarity for Non-Hispanic Whites versus Single-Race
Groups and Selected Two-Race Combinations for All Metropolitan Areas and Cities
Exceeding 25,000 Population for the Year 2000
Source: Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001).
Notes: Cities and metropolitan areas in this table have a population of at least 1,000 members of the minority race-
ethnic group. All race groups include only non-Hispanic members of that group. The names of the Census 2000
categories are shortened as follows: American Indian and Alaskan Native is shortened to American Indians, Native
Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander is shortened to Hawaiians, and Some Other Race is shortened to Other.
The results tend to show a slight decline in segregation for mixed-race persons as compared to
single-race persons. For example, at the metropolitan area level, a person identifying as white
and black has an index of dissimilarity of 51, compared to an index of 59 for the person who
identifies as black alone. Similar results are obtained at the city level, where the mixed-race
white and black index of dissimilarity is 43, compared to an index of 45 for blacks alone. One of
the larger declines in segregation occurs among persons identifying themselves as white and
American Indian. The metropolitan area index of dissimilarity declines from 43 for American
Indians alone to 37 for mixed-race white and American Indians. The index of dissimilarity for
this same group comparison for cities declines from 39 to 34. Dissimilarity indices for individual
metropolitan areas and individual cities can be found on the Web site www.CensusScope.org.
Mean
Index of
Race-Ethnic Group Dissimilarity N
Metropolitan Areas, dissimilarity between whites and:
Blacks 59 298
Asians 45 262
American Indians 43 178
Others 57 76
White and black 51 298
White and Asian 45 262
White and American Indian 37 178
White and Other 53 76
Cities exceeding 25,000 population, dissimilarity between whites and:
Black 45 873
Asian 32 701
American Indian 39 114
Other 51 36
White and Black 43 873
White and Asian 33 701
White and American Indian 34 114
White and other 47 36

42 William H. Frey and Dowell Myers
Fannie Mae Foundation 2002.
All Rights Reserved.
SUMMARY
This report accompanies the release of detailed racial segregation indices for 1,246 individual
U.S. cities with populations exceeding 25,000 and for the 318 metropolitan areas. It differs from
previous Census 2000 segregation studies in the following respects: (1) it analyzes segregation of
persons who identify with one race alone, as well as for persons who identify with two or more
racial groups, (2) it includes all individual cities with Census 2000 populations exceeding 25,000
in addition to all the metropolitan areas, and (3) it calculates segregation and exposure indices
using data for block groups, which are smaller than census tracts and more consistent with the
concept of neighborhood.
For the first time in Census 2000, the decennial census identifies persons of different race
combinations and therefore provides an opportunity to determine if mixed-race persons are more
residentially integrated than those who identify with a single race alone. Our analysis, in fact,
shows that mixed-race persons are more likely to live in integrated neighborhoods than persons
of one race only. Measures of neighborhood exposure and segregation for different mixed-race
combinations have been computed for each area (city or metropolitan area) in this study. The
analysis demonstrates that identification with two different racial groups plays out quite
differently depending on the specific groups involved. For example, a person who identifies as
white and black lives, on average, in a neighborhood that more closely approximates the racial
composition of the average white person's neighborhood than that of the average black person's
neighborhood. On the other hand, the racial composition of the average neighborhood of a
person who identifies as white and Asian is roughly midway between that of a person identifying
as Asian only and that of a person identifying as white only. Further, among the cities and
metropolitan areas in our study, persons identifying with two or more races show, on average,
less segregation from whites than minority persons identifying with a single race.
Our analysis of cities with populations exceeding 25,000 suggests that studies that focus only on
segregation in large cities or on cities that have the largest minority populations overstate the
level of racial segregation that exits in most cities with a minority presence. A focus on both
large and small cities shows wide variation in segregation levels for each race-ethnic group. In
our study, even among cities with populations exceeding 100,000, segregation of blacks from
whites ranges from indices of dissimilarity of 21 to 87, Asian segregation from whites ranges
from indices of 15 to 66, and Hispanic segregation from whites ranges from indices of 17 to 71.
City segregation indices differ from metropolitan area segregation indices because the former
reflect local patterns that can vary within the same metropolitan area. Our analyses of
dissimilarity for both cities and metropolitan areas indicate that segregation levels are higher for
metropolitan areas than for cities. Among the cities in our study, the average segregation indices
for blacks, Asians, and Hispanics are 45, 32, and 35, respectively. Average segregation indices in
metropolitan areas for these same three groups are 59, 45, and 43, respectively. Hawaiians have
the highest average segregation levels with indices of 53 for cities and 61 for metropolitan areas.
Persons identifying themselves as two or more races have the lowest average segregation levels,
with indices of 27 for cities and 33 for metropolitan areas. American Indian segregation levels
are in-between, with average indices of 39 for cities and 43 for metropolitan areas.

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America 43
Fannie Mae Foundation Working Paper
Moreover, cities within the same metropolitan area can have quite different segregation
measures, and segregation within a principal city can differ substantially from the metropolitan
area as a whole. For example, although Detroit ranks second among all areas on white-black
metropolitan segregation (index of 87), the City of Detroit ranks 55th (index of 63) among cities
exceeding 100,000 population. As the Detroit case illustrates, metropolitan area segregation
indices do not easily translate into the segregation levels of large or small cities within that
metropolitan area.
An additional refinement of this study, as compared to other studies conducted subsequent to
Census 2000, is the use of block groups rather than census tracts as proxies for neighborhood.
The use of block groups in estimating segregation indices tends to increase the average level of
segregation in most areas (on average, metropolitan white-black segregation increases by 5.8
points). Segregation levels measured using block groups are higher in smaller metropolitan areas,
or in areas where the minority group is smaller, because it is in these areas that segregation might
be camouflaged when the larger census tracts are used. As Hispanic and Asian groups have
increasingly dispersed to smaller places within and across metropolitan areas, and as blacks have
increasingly moved toward the suburbs and smaller communities, the block group statistics
released with this study provide a nuanced view of racial segregation at the local level.
AUTHORS
William H. Frey is a Demographer on the faculty of the University of Michigan Population
Studies Center and Senior Fellow of Demographic Studies at the Milken Institute in Santa
Monica, CA. Dowell Myers is Professor of Urban Planning and Demography in the School of
Policy Planning and Development at the University of Southern California.
The authors acknowledge the research assistance and programming efforts of Cathy Sun, Senior
Computer Programmer at the Population Studies Center, University of Michigan.
REFERENCES
Barnes, Jessica S., and Claudette E. Bennett. 2002. The Asian Population, 2000. Census 2000 Brief
(March):1–12.
Frey, William H. 2001. Melting Pot Suburbs: A Census 2000 Study of Suburban Diversity. Census 2000
Series. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
Frey, William H. 2002. Metro Magnets for Minorities and Whites: Melting Pots, The New Sunbelt, and
the Heartland. Research Report No. 02-496. University of Michigan, Population Studies Center.
Frey, William H., and Reynolds Farley. 1996. Latino, Asian, and Black Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan
Areas: Are Multiethnic Metros Different? Demography 33(1):35–50. (Supplementary data for individual
areas available from Frey, William H., and Reynolds Farley. 1993. Latino, Asian and Black Segregation
in Multi-ethnic Metro Areas: Findings from the 1990 Census. Research Report No. 93-278, University of
Michigan, Population Studies Center.)

44 William H. Frey and Dowell Myers
Fannie Mae Foundation 2002.
All Rights Reserved.
Frey, William H., and Elaine Fielding. 1995. Changing Urban Populations: Regional Restructuring,
Racial Polarization and Poverty Concentration. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and
Research 1(2):1–66.
Glaeser, Edward L., and Jacob L. Vigdor. 2001. Racial Segregation in the 2000 Census: Promising News.
Census 200 Series. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
Grieco, Elizabeth M., and Rachel C. Cassidy. 2001. Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2000. Census
2000 Brief. (March):1–11.
Guzmán, Betsy. 2001. The Hispanic Population. Census 2000 Brief. (May):1–8.
Logan, John. 2001a. Ethnic Diversity Grows, Neighborhood Integration Lags Behind. Unpublished
report. State University of New York, University at Albany, Lewis Mumford Center. December.
Logan, John. 2001b. From Many Shores: Asians in Census 2000. Unpublished report. State University of
New York, University at Albany, Lewis Mumford Center. October.
Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. 1987. Trends in the Residential Segregation of Blacks,
Hispanics, and Asians. American Sociological Review 52(6):802–25.
Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of
the Underclass.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Myers, Dowell. 1992. Analysis with Local Census Data: Portraits of Change. New York: Academic
Press.
Myers, Dowell. 1999. Demographic Dynamism and Metropolitan Change: Comparing Los Angeles, New
York, Chicago, and Washington, DC. Housing Policy Debate 10(4):919–54.
Myers, Dowell. 2001. Demographic Futures as a Guide to Planning: California's Latinos and a Compact
City. Journal of the American Planning Association 66(4):383-97.
Myers, Dowell, and Julie Park. 2001. Racially Balanced Cities in Southern California, 1980–2000. Race
Contours 2000 Series, Public Research Report No. 2001-05. University of Southern California, School of
Policy Planning and Development, Population Dynamics Group.
Pollard, Kelvin, and William P. O'Hare. 1999. America's Racial and Ethnic Minorities. Population
Bulletin. Volume 54, Issue 3. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau.
Singer, Audrey, Samantha Friedman, Ivan Chung, and Marie Price. 2001. The World in a Zip Code:
Greater Washington, DC, as a New Region of Immigration. Survey Series. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
Sorensen, Annemette, Karl Taeuber, and Leslie J. Hollingsworth Jr. 1975. Indexes of Racial Residential
Segregation for 109 Cities in the United States: 1940 to 1970. Sociological Focus 8(1):125–42.
Suro, Roberto. 1999. Mixed Doubles. American Demographics 21(11):56–62.
Taeuber, Karl D, and Alma F. Taeuber. 1965. Negroes in Cities. Chicago: Aldine.

Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America 45
Fannie Mae Foundation Working Paper
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2001. Census 2000 Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary Files.
Washington, DC.
Van Valey, Thomas L., Wade Clark Roof, and James E. Wilcox. 1977. Trends in Residential Segregation:
1960–1970. American Journal of Sociology 82(4):826–44.
White, Michael J. 1986. Segregation and Diversity Measures in Population Distribution. Population Index
52(2):198–221.