Southeast Michigan Latino Economic Impact (SMILEI) Study Group Members

Transcription

1

2 Southeast Michigan Latino Economic Impact (SMILEI) Study Group Members Ethriam Cash Brammer, SMILEI Group Chair, Assistant Director, Center for Chicano Boricua Studies, Wayne State University Larry Arreguín, Vice President, Government Affairs, VisionIT Terry Beltrán Miller, President/CEO, Vista Latinos, LLC Edith Castillo, Deputy Director, Southwest Detroit Business Association Dr. Jorge L. Chinea, Director, Center for Chicano Boricua Studies, Wayne State University Fred Feliciano, President, Business Alliance Victor Green, Director, Community Relations, Wayne State University Dr. David Martin, Research Associate, Center for Urban Studies, Wayne State University Greg Martínez, Jr., President, MTZ Industries Jessica Pellegrino, Senior Executive Special Project Manager, Office of the Wayne County Executive Angela Reyes, Executive Director & Founder, Detroit Development Corporation Tom Reynolds, Associate Director, Public Relations, Marketing & Communications, Wayne State University Vicente Sánchez Ventura, Consul General for Michigan & Ohio, Republic of Mexico Dr. Lyke Thompson, Director, Center for Urban Studies, Wayne State University Dr. Nicole Trujillo Pagán, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology & Center from Chicano Boricua Studies, Wayne State University Candice Twymon, Secretary, Center for Chicano Boricua Studies, Wayne State University Matthew Vorce, Senior Financial Advisor, Merrill Lynch Research Subcommittee Fund Development Marketing Subcommittee Subcommittee Dr. Lyke Thompson, Chair Fred Feliciano, Chair Tom Reynolds, Chair Ethriam Cash Brammer Ethriam Cash Brammer Terry Beltrán Miller Sarah Cahalan Edith Castillo Ethriam Cash Brammer Dr. Jorge L. Chinea Dr. Jorge L. Chinea Edith Castillo Jason Hardacre Angela Reyes Dr. Jorge L. Chinea Charo Hulleza Mathew Vorce Christa Mowry Maria Maniaci Jessica Pellegrino Dr. David Martin Francine Wunder Eric Stokan Doug Towns Dr. Nicole Trujillo Pagan Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 2

3 Table of Contents List of Tables... 5 List of Figures... 6 Introduction... 9 Purpose Preliminary Steps Demographic Data and Methods Demographics Historical Populations (1990 Present) Population Estimates and Projections ( ) Counties Growing Rapidly Citizenship Place of Birth Age School Enrollment Kindergarten through High School Collegiate Level Graduate Educational Attainment Household Data Household Type Income Data Median Household Income Per Capita Income Figure 21: Per Capita Income Percent in Poverty Average Wage Comparisons Industry Data Employment by Industry for Americans Economic Contributions Data and Methods Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 3

4 Results Jobs/Employment Conclusion Appendix Citizenship Place of Birth Education Economic Model References and Sources Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 4

5 List of Tables Table 1: Population (Raw Figures) Table 2: Population (Percent Increase from Earlier Time Point) Table 3: Percent Change in Population, Table 4: Change in Percent of Foreign born s Table 5: Age Distribution of s and Non s Table 6: Percent of Under 25 population enrolled in School Table 7: Age Distribution Table 8: College Enrollment per Population Table 9: Age Distribution Table 10: Correlation between Education and Wage Table 11: Population and Employment Estimates Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 5

6 List of Figures Figure 1: Population Trend by County Figure 2: Population Percent by County: Figure 3: Citizenship Rates Figure 4: Percent of s Born in the US Figure 5: and Non Place of Birth by Region Figure 6: US Age Breakdown: v. Non Figure 7: Michigan Age Breakdown: vs. Non Figure 8: Distribution of v. Non School Population K Figure 9: Distribution of Southeast Michigan's vs. Non School Population Figure 10: Percent of Population Enrolled in High School by Age Figure 11: Percent in School that are Enrolled in Undergraduate Studies Figure 12: Percent of Population Enrolled in College by Age Figure 13: Percent Enrolled in Graduate Studies Figure 14: Southeast Michigan s Age 25 or Older with Diploma or Higher Figure 15: Southeast Michigan Non s Age 25 or Older with Diploma or Higher (Age 25 and Over) Figure 16: Educational Attainment, Michigan vs. U.S Figure 17: Children Living in Two parent vs. Single parent Households Figure 18: Employment Status of Parent for Children Living in Two parent Households Figure 19: Employment Status of Parent for Children Living in One parent Households Figure 20: Median Household Income Figure 21: Per Capita Income Figure 22: Percent in Poverty Figure 23: Poverty Rates Figure 24: United State Wages: Non vs Figure 25: Michigan Wages: Non vs Figure 26: Total Employment by County, Figure 27: Employment by Industry: 2000 and Figure 28: Employment by Industry: Percent Share 2000 and Figure 29: Occupation: 2000 and Figure 30: Occupations: Percent Share 2000 and Figure 31: Comparison: Workers vs. Region Average by Industry Figure 32: Comparisons: Average versus Region Average Occupation Mix Figure 33: Multiplier Effect Diagram Figure 34: Population Multiplies its Economic Contributions Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 6

7 Executive Summary Wayne State University s Center for Urban Studies (CUS) was contracted by Wayne County on behalf of the Southeastern Michigan Latino Economic Impact (SMILEI) Group, headed by the Center for Chicano Boricua Studies (CBS) and in collaboration with the Business Alliance, to conduct this /Latina(o) study detailing the economic contributions and demographic characteristics of Southeast Michigan s /Latina(o) population. population growth in Southeast Michigan. U.S. Census data indicate that 174,139 s were living in the seven county Southeast Michigan region in This represents a 27.9% increase since 2000 the second fastest rate of increase for any population group in the region. According to the Census Bureau, 43% of Michigan s total population resides in Southeast Michigan. s represent a rapidly increasing share of Southeast Michigan s population as a whole. In Wayne County, s are expected to increase from 2.4% to 7.3% of the population between 2005 and The bulk of this increase will likely come from U.S. born s as opposed to immigrants, given that the vast majority (78.1%) of Southeastern Michigan s s are U.S. citizens. Southeastern Michigan's s are younger than non s. They also have lower incomes. Their lower incomes are related, in turn, to lower educational achievement. population s economic contribution to Southeast Michigan. The total number of employed s in Southeast Michigan in 2006 was 92,965, a 65.4% increase from Using the REMI 2 model, we estimate that the economic activity of these residents supports 181,053 total jobs in Southeast Michigan, a multiplier of This estimated multiplier value means that for every employed, the intermediate goods purchased by the businesses that employ them and their spending of their wages and salaries generate almost one additional job in Southeast Michigan. Though s are substantially represented in every major job category in Southeastern Michigan, their employment is concentrated in manufacturing. This is consequential because manufacturing jobs have the largest multiplier of any basic job category in Southeast Michigan. While most people focus on jobs, there are several other noteworthy metrics of the contribution to economic activity in Southeast Michigan. The earnings of s and the spin off jobs they support amounted to $10.2 billion in 2006, with economic activity adding $14.5 billion to the Gross Regional Product (2006) in Southeast Michigan. In sum, economic activity, including spin off jobs, accounted for 6.5% of total employment, 6.4% of total earnings, and 6.2% of output in Southeast Michigan in 2006, while representing only 3.5% of the total population. Furthermore, this economic activity generated $727 million in state government tax revenue in American Community Survey, Regional Economic Models, Inc. Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 7

8 Strengthening educational opportunities for the population. Given the growing importance of s to Southeast Michigan s economy, it seems clear that the region as a whole would benefit by providing educational opportunities to facilitate increased high school and college graduation rates for the region s /Latina(o) residents. This, in turn, would allow s to better compete in vocational areas that will help lead this metropolitan area into the top ranks of the 21 st Century 3 as well as increase the standard of living for the region as a whole. 3 Michigan Future (2007). A New Agenda for a New Michigan. Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 8

9 Introduction Wayne State University s Center for Urban Studies (CUS) was contracted by Wayne County on behalf of the Southeastern Michigan Latino Economic Impact (SMILEI) Group, headed by the Center for Chicano Boricua Studies (CBS) and in collaboration with the Business Alliance, to conduct this study detailing the demographic characteristics and economic contributions of Southeast Michigan s /Latino(a) 4 population. This study relies upon United States Census Bureau s Decennial Census data, the American Community Surveys, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) population projections, and the 2007 Michigan Data Report issued by the Michigan Commission on Spanish Speaking Affairs. Census data provided input for an econometric model that estimated the number of jobs (employment) and the amount of income (earnings) in the local economy as a result of the population residing in Southeast Michigan. 5 During 2008, Center for Urban Studies researchers met with the SMILEI Group to discuss the feasibility of such a study, its objectives, how the study would be undertaken, the types of data that would be necessary, and the study s limitations. Center researchers soon discovered that a study of the economic contributions of s would be the first of its kind in Michigan and one of only a few studies nationally 6 that have sought to estimate the economic contributions of s. The study is also unique in its use of a well established economic impact model (the REMI model) 7 to gauge the contributions of a particular group within a local economy. The purpose of the study is to provide useful information to Wayne County and SMILEI. This includes establishing a base of information on projected population trends and a set of statistical measures on the economic contributions of s in Southeast Michigan. The conclusions and results of the study are intended to assist Wayne County in pursuing its economic and community development objectives. This study is also a part of the Center for Urban Studies ongoing efforts to describe the diversity of Southeast Michigan and to assess the increasing complexity of the considerable contributions of different immigrant and ethnic groups to the region s economic and social fabrics. It is our hope that this study will benefit s, policymakers, and regional business in their ability to gain a better understanding of the growing population in Southeast Michigan. An improved understanding will help us all to conceive of better economic opportunities for the Detroit area. This study was funded by Wayne County. The Center for Urban Studies assumes sole responsibility for the findings and conclusions presented in this report. 4 Henceforth, s/latino(as) will simply be referred to as s. For a detailed description of the Census designation, please refer to Appendix 1. 5 For the purposes of this report, Southeast Michigan is defined as the combined areas of Livingston, Oakland, Macomb, Monroe, St. Clair, Wayne, and Washtenaw counties. 6 See particularly The Economic Impact of the Population on the State of North Carolina, Frank Hawkins Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, For a detailed description of the REMI model, please see the Data and Methods section of this study. Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 9

10 Purpose The Nation s population is growing. On July 1, 2007, the Nation s population crossed 45 million, and is now over 15% of the nation s total population. There is no doubt that Michigan s population also is growing. According to the 2007 American Community Survey, Michigan has the 19 th largest population of s in the United States. A little less than half (44.4%) of Michigan s 401,009 s live and work in the seven county area of Southeast Michigan. SEMCOG population predictions indicate that by 2035 s will comprise 5.2% of the population of Southeast Michigan, a remarkable 64% increase over the previous 30 years. As a substantial minority group in Southeast Michigan, s are crucial to the region s continued economic and demographic growth. The purpose of this study is to expand our understanding of the population in Southeast Michigan by estimating the group s economic contributions. This study is unique in its use of the REMI model, a well established, economic impact model, to estimate the economic contributions of a specific population group to the economy in the seven counties Livingston, Oakland, Macomb, Monroe, St. Clair, Wayne, and Washtenaw that comprise Southeast Michigan, including the city of Detroit. This study estimates the overall economic contributions of s in Southeast Michigan in terms of employment (jobs), earnings (wages), and state tax contribution. The study also estimates contributions due to economic multiplier or spin off effects that is, the additional contributions of economic activities resulting from their expenditures in the local economy. It should be noted, however, that the scope of this report is limited to the contributions of residents of Southeast Michigan to the economic welfare of those same seven counties in Southeast Michigan and does not undertake an accounting of the economic benefits generated by residents in other counties within Michigan on the economy of Southeast Michigan, nor does it account for the economic contribution generated by residents of Southeast Michigan on other geographic regions in Michigan or beyond. Both as a jumping off point and to better understand Michigan s demographic, this study begins with a description of the population, education, and employment trends of Michigan s s and a description of how these attributes are changing. These demographic changes are an important factor in the continued growth of the Michigan economy and should be viewed as equally important to policy makers. Describing these demographic trends is important to the contextualization of economic contributions being made by Michigan s population. Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 10

11 Preliminary Steps As a first step, Center for Urban Studies researchers began by identifying and defining the population in Southeast Michigan for the purposes of this study. Following U.S. Census Bureau conventions to maintain consistency of categorization across data sets, we define as or Latino those persons who identify as one of the specific Census Bureau origin categories, which include: Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, and the Spanishspeaking countries of Central and South America, as well as those who indicate they are Spaniard or All Other//Latino. 8 Again, following U.S. Census Bureau convention, is an ethnic designation and does not denote race. As a second preliminary step, we examined data illustrating population change between 2000 and 2006/2007 by comparing population estimates drawn from the 2000 Decennial Census and the 2006 and 2007 American Community Surveys. Furthermore, Center researchers used SEMCOG projections to determine probable trends in the population over the next 30 years. Third, we analyzed American Community Survey data on s in an effort to give a detailed description of both economic and non economic factors that affect contributions to Southeast Michigan, the state, and the United States. In each case, we compare the findings between s and non s at the county, state, and national level. Finally, we analyzed industry level American Community Survey data on s in the sevencounty Southeastern Michigan region. This data was then further analyzed through input into an econometric input output model developed by REMI to estimate the direct, indirect, and induced effects of the labor force on Southeast Michigan s economy. Demographic Data and Methods This study relied on several sources for demographic data. Most data were obtained through the American Community Survey (ACS) for The 2007 ACS data, released on September 29, 2008, were incorporated to the extent possible. We also used the 1990 and 2000 Decennial Census for population data. Furthermore, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) shared with us their population projections through The 2006 and 2007 ACS Public Use Microdata were weighted as the samples are of roughly 100,000 people in Michigan, or 1% of the total population. These samples are randomly drawn and slightly more than 3,100 s were surveyed. The 2000 Census data uses a much larger sample and therefore the confidence intervals will be higher. Much of the county level data for Livingston, Washtenaw, St. Clair, and Monroe are in the appendices because the confidence intervals can be very large in the estimates due to sample size, but these data allow one to get an approximation at that level. 8 For a complete list of the US Bureau of Census PUMS categories, please see Appendix: List A1. Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 11

12 Analyses were conducted using several geographic units, including Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties as well as the rest of Southeast Michigan (Livingston, Washtenaw, St. Clair and Monroe). Furthermore, we constructed a Southeast Michigan variable representing the three counties and the rest of the Southeast Michigan. Likewise, we included a variable constructed as the rest of Michigan. This variable includes all geographic areas in Michigan with the exclusion of Southeast Michigan. Finally, we included Michigan and the United States where appropriate. Having multiple units allowed us to compare across counties, between Southeast Michigan and the rest of Michigan, and between Michigan and the United States. This added richness to the document that would not be present if only one unit of analysis existed (e.g., Southeast Michigan). Combining the 1990 and 2000 Census data with SEMCOG s population projections allowed us to look at the longitudinal projections of s and non s alike. We focused on the changes at the county and regional levels for both s and non s. Citizenship, place of birth, and age. The citizenship, place of birth, and age data were all obtained from ACS surveys and were compared across geographic units. The major focus of these analyses was the differences between Michigan and the United States. Most differences highlighted in the demographic section were descriptive; however, we tested the correlation between education and wages. Education. The education data included two variables: educational attainment and grade level attending. Both proved important variables for explaining wage and occupation structure. Educational attainment was given as a percentage of the population over age 25, while grade level attending was given as a percentage of the population under age 25. However, during analysis, we focused on both the distribution of educational attainment relative to the entire school population, and percentage of students enrolled at each grade level relative to the entire population under age 25. This led us to discover that many s dropped out of the educational system at age 16, the age in Michigan at which students may legally choose to leave school. Income. Income data, which includes median household income, per capita income, and percent of population in poverty, were obtained from American Factfinder. This is important because Factfinder did not allow us to separate s from non s. The comparison used then was between s, White (non s) and African American (non s). Data were compared between all geographic units at three time points (2000, 2006, and 2007), which allowed for the observation of income trends of s and non s. Industry level data and economic contribution data and methods are detailed thoroughly within their respective sections below. Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 12

13 Demographics Historical Populations (1990 Present) Census data shows that Michigan s population grew by 60.7% in the decade between 1990 and 2000, while Michigan s total population increased by only 6.9% in that same time period. In 1990, s accounted for 1.9% of the total population of Southeast Michigan; by 2000 this proportion had grown to 2.8 %, an increase of 44.5%. During that same time period the population increased, in raw numbers, by 52.2% in Southeast Michigan (Table 1). Livingston experienced the largest percentage increase as it doubled its population. Table 1: Population (Raw Figures) 1990 Total 2000 Total 2007 Total Livingston Macomb Monroe Oakland St. Clair Washtenaw Wayne Southeast Michigan 974 7,978 2,077 19,630 2,558 5,731 50,506 89,454 1,953 12,435 3,110 28,999 3,593 8,839 77, ,136 3,436 17,853 4,817 36,295 5,532 11,099 99, ,079 Source: 1990 and 2000 Decennial Census, 2007 American Community Survey The past seven years have seen extraordinary gains in the population with several counties growing by almost 50% or more (Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, and St. Clair; Table 2) and with both Monroe and St. Clair 9 outpacing their growth over the 10 years prior. Table 2: Population (Percent Increase from Earlier Time Point) Livingston Macomb Monroe Oakland St. Clair Washtenaw Wayne Southeast Michigan Total Total Total 100.5% 55.9% 49.7% 47.7% 40.5% 54.2% 52.9% 52.2% 75.9% 43.6% 54.9% 25.2% 54.0% 25.6% 28.3% 30.8% 252.8% 123.8% 131.9% 84.9% 116.3% 93. 7% 96.1% 99.1% Source: 2000 Decennial Census, 2007 American Community Survey The distribution of the population within Southeast Michigan remained largely the same between 1990 and In 1990 and 2000, the majority of Southeast Michigan s 9 Within the demographic regional designations, St. Clair county includes Lapeer. This is a Census designation, but for the economic contribution portion of this report, Lapeer was backed out. Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 13

14 population resided in Wayne County, with Oakland County a distant second. These numbers reflect two large, established urban communities: one in Southwest Detroit and the other in Oakland County s city of Pontiac. The population in Southeast Michigan doubled between 1990 and Livingston County showed the largest change with an increase of slightly over 250% in the population (Table 2). To place this growth in the context of the population, consider that during that same 17 year time period from 1990 to 2007, Southeast Michigan s non population grew from 4,501,014 to 4,793,398 an increase of only 6.9%. Population Estimates and Projections ( ) According to U.S. Census Bureau projections, by 2035, the population of the United States will soar to roughly 390 million people, and one in four (24.8%) of those people will be. How do Michigan and Southeast Michigan compare? SEMCOG estimates that s accounted for 3.3% of the population of Southeast Michigan in 2005, but following the national trend, this number is expected to rise significantly in coming years. By 2035, s will comprise 5.2% of the total population in the seven county Southeast Michigan area. Figure 1 illustrates the total projected number of s in each Southeast Michigan County in the coming decades. Wayne and Oakland Counties retain the largest number of s, with the gap between these two counties and the others growing over time since these other counties show more modest population increases. Counties Growing Rapidly While Wayne and Oakland have the largest numbers of residents for the 30 year projection period, Michigan s largest concentration of residents reside in Wayne County with Washtenaw a distant second. SEMCOG population projections predict that this will remain true through 2035 (Figure 1). As of the 2000 Census, s constituted 3.8% of Wayne s and 2.7% of Washtenaw s total populations, but SEMCOG projections predict that by 2035, the percentage of s in Wayne County will have grown to 7.3% of the total county population, and to 5.0% of the total population in Washtenaw County. For Wayne County, this represents a 96% increase in the proportion of the total population, and for Washtenaw an increase of 83% of the proportion of the total population. Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 14

15 8% Figure 1: Population Trend by County 7% Percentage of Population 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% Livingston 0.84% 1.24% 1.46% 1.60% 1.74% 1.87% 2.01% 2.14% 2.29% Macomb 1.11% 1.58% 1.88% 2.06% 2.23% 2.41% 2.58% 2.74% 2.92% Monroe 1.55% 2.13% 2.48% 2.76% 3.05% 3.34% 3.64% 3.93% 4.24% Oakland 1.81% 2.43% 2.83% 3.18% 3.53% 3.87% 4.20% 4.51% 4.82% St. Clair 1.76% 2.19% 2.46% 2.68% 2.88% 3.07% 3.27% 3.47% 3.68% Washtenaw 2.03% 2.74% 3.11% 3.48% 3.85% 4.16% 4.47% 4.75% 5.02% Wayne 2.39% 3.75% 4.51% 5.02% 5.50% 5.98% 6.45% 6.90% 7.33% SE Michigan 1.95% 2.82% 3.30% 3.63% 3.96% 4.29% 4.61% 4.93% 5.24% *1990 & 2000 data from US Census, +Data from from SEMCOG Forecast Estimates The maps in Figure 2 below depict the changes in population by county predicted by SEMCOG from 2005 to For each map, darker colors indicate higher concentrations. In general, the maps demonstrate the substantially increasing concentrations in Wayne and Washtenaw counties, especially. At the same time they demonstrate substantial increases in population in all counties. Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 15

16 Figure 2: Population Percent by County: *Cartography by CUS; Data from SEMCOG Forecast Estimates Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 16

17 In 2005, Wayne County shows the highest concentration, with 4.5%, which falls into the 4 to 4.9% category. Livingston and Macomb Counties are in the 1 to 1.9% population concentration category. By 2015, Wayne County has grown to 5.5%, depicted by a shift to the darkest green. Oakland and Monroe have joined Washtenaw in the 3 to 3.9% category and Livingston remains below 2%. By 2025, Oakland and Washtenaw have risen to the 4 to 4.9% category, which is where Wayne started in St. Clair and Monroe have shifted to 3 to 3.9%, and none of the seven counties remain below 2%. By 2035, Washtenaw has joined Wayne County in the 5 to 7.4% category, and Monroe has joined Oakland in the 3 to 3.9% category. Table 3: Percent Change in Population, Population 2035 Projected % Change Livingston 974 4, % Macomb 7,978 27, % Monroe 2,077 7, % Oakland 19,630 64, % St. Clair 2,558 7, % Washtenaw 5,731 19, % Wayne 50, , % Southeast Michigan 89, , % *1990 & 2000 data from U.S. Census, +Data from from SEMCOG Forecast Estimates Although Washtenaw has the second highest concentration of s, Oakland County has the second highest number of s in Southeast Michigan. Wayne County took first both in concentration and in raw number; however, Livingston will see the largest increase in population as a percent change (i.e., 402.9%) from 1990 to 2035 (Table 3). Although these figures seem extraordinary, they are on par with what the U.S. Census Bureau projects will occur at the national level. For Southeast Michigan, this means that, on average, the population will have nearly tripled from 1990 to The implications of this rapid growth in population will be widespread. Certainly this population will not only triple in their proportion in comparison to current population figures, but they also will displace a fleeing white population that is expected to see a 7% decline by 2035 based on SEMCOG projections (Appendix: Table A3). Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 17

18 Citizenship and Place of Birth Citizenship Minority populations must often overcome the stigma of being labeled immigrants and noncitizens. Based on responses to the 2006 ACS, citizenship rates show that this stereotype holds little truth. At the national level, where stereotypes are perhaps most firmly rooted, over 71.1% of the population claim US citizenship. In Michigan, 79.0% of the population are citizens and in Southeast Michigan, 78.1% of the population are citizens (Figure 3). Figure 3: Citizenship Rates US 71.1% Michigan 79.0% Southeast Michigan 78.1% Macomb 88.3% Oakland 74.0% Wayne 76.7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: 2006 American Community Survey Macomb has the largest percentage of s that claim US citizenship (88.3%) 10, while the rest of Southeast Michigan (Livingston, Washtenaw, St. Clair, and Monroe) lag slightly behind (78.1%). Oakland (74.0%) and Wayne (76.7%) are closer to Michigan and US figures (79.0% and 71.0%, respectively). 10 The Macomb figures are based on a sample size of 120. The small sample size make estimates less reliable and therefore increase the confidence interval. For this reason, the Macomb figures should only serve as a rough approximation. Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 18

19 Place of Birth Nationally, 40.7% of s are born outside of the United States (Figure 4). Some may assume then that this is also true of s in Michigan and within Southeast Michigan; however, far more s in Michigan and Southeast Michigan were born in the U.S. In Michigan, 71.2% of the population was born in the United States. This figure is only slightly higher than that for Southeast Michigan s, 68.8% of whom were born in the United States. There is a 23 percentage point difference between the proportion of s and non s in Michigan who were born in the US. Figure 4: Percent of s Born in the US US 59.3% Michigan Southeast Michigan Macomb Oakland Wayne 71.2% 68.8% 78.3% 66.2% 66.9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Source: 2006 American Community Survey According to Jordan and Daughtery s 2008 Wall Street Journal article, Immigration Slows in Face of Economic Downturn, William Frye indicates that many states have experienced a sharp decline in their foreign born population over the past year. This is not the case in Michigan, where the foreign born population increased by 10.3% between 2006 and 2007, or in Southeast Michigan where this population increased by 8.9%. This indicates that both Michigan and Southeast Michigan are still attractive to the population. While the non population only grew by.04% from in Southeast Michigan, the population increased by 2.8% during that same time period. Thus, the population increased by roughly 7 times that of non s in Southeast Michigan relative to their respective populations. At the county level, 66.2% to 78.3% of the population was born in the United States. Macomb s are more likely to have been born in the U.S. than s in Oakland, Wayne, or the rest of Southeast Michigan, on average. However, as noted above, the ACS PUMS data for Macomb County will have a larger confidence interval as fewer s were surveyed in this area. Nonetheless, data at the county level in Southeast Michigan indicate that between 60 and 80 percent of s were born in the United States (Figure 5). Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 19

20 Southeast Michigan s population was slightly more likely to have been foreign born in comparison to the rest of the state (Figure 5). While 8.4% of Southeast Michigan non s were foreign born, only 2.8% of non s from the rest of the state were foreign born (Figure 5). Figure 5: and Non Place of Birth by Region Rest of MI Southeast MI Non Non 68.8% 91.6% 73.1% 97.2% 31.2% 8.4% 26.9% 2.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Rest of MI Southeast MI Non Non Born in US 97.24% 73.07% 91.59% 68.80% Born Outside US 2.76% 26.93% 8.41% 31.20% Source: 2006 American Community Survey This is indicative of the fact that Southeast Michigan, in general, and Wayne County, in particular, are ports of entry for many immigrants to this country, a trend that can be seen in Southwest Detroit. This has been further confirmed by the 2007 ACS PUMS data released on September 27, Michigan is far outpacing the nation in the number of s who are coming from outside of the United States to live in Michigan (Table 4). From 2006 to 2007, the state increased by 10.3% in Foreign born s while nationally the increase was only 1.9%. Table 4: Change in Percent of Foreign born s Foreign Born (06) Foreign Born (07) Foreign Born Percent Change Wayne 32,616 35, % Oakland 11,207 11, % Rest of Southeast Michigan 6,602 7, % Rest of Michigan 60,770 67, % Southeast MI 54,062 58, % State 114, , % United States 18,028,838 18,378, % Source: 2006 and 2007 American Community Surveys Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 20

21 Age The United State s population is substantially younger than its non counterpart. The average citizen in Michigan is 27.5 years old; whereas, the average non citizen is This difference is comparable to differences in the national averages of 28.7 years of age for s and 38.0 for non s. The number of citizens under 18 is nearly 11 percentage points higher than non s for the U.S. and nearly 13 percentage points higher for Michigan. While 35.5% of U.S. s and 37.4% of Michigan s are under 18, only 24.5% of U.S. non s and 25.7% of Michigan non s are under 18. Conversely, 13.7% of U.S. non s and 12.8% of Michigan non s are over 65, while only 5.3% and 3.7% of s fall in this category at the national and state level, respectively. This age differential has significant economic and political implications: a larger proportion of s than non s will be entering the labor force over the next two decades. Although the 18 to 64 population percentages are very close between s and non s, s should have a larger percentage of their population enrolled in school (Figure 7), while non s should have a larger proportion at retirement age. 11 Figure 6: US Age Breakdown: v. Non Non Under 18 years Under 18 years 24.5% 35.5% Non 18 to 64 years 18 to 64 years 59.2% 61.8% Non 65 years and over 65 years and over 5.3% 13.% Source: 2006 American Community Survey 11 These differences are significant at the.001 level. Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 21

22 Michigan very closely resembles the age distribution nationally. Although s have a larger percentage of the population under the age of 18 and a smaller percentage over the age of 25 relative to non s, it is important to note that the 18 to 64 population is very similar. If s can acquire additional education, the population has the potential to increase their average wages, demonstrate more economic contributions to the local, state, and national government, and thereby increase their political clout at each of these levels. Figure 7: Michigan Age Breakdown: vs. Non Non Non Non Under 18 years Under 18 years 18 to 64 years 18 to 64 years 65 years and over 65 years and over 3.7% 12.8% 25.7% 37.4% 58.9% 61.5% Source: 2006 American Community Survey s have a much larger concentration of children and young adults than non s have (Table 5). This is especially noticeable for those between the ages of 5 and 17 where a 9 percentage point difference separates s from non s. This age distribution should signify that more s than non s should be enrolled in K 12 and college; however, the next section indicates that this is not the case. Despite a larger under 18 population, a larger percentage of non s than s are enrolled. Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 22

23 Table 5: Age Distribution of s and Non s Age 0 4 Age 5 17 Age and Older Outside SE Non 6.1% 17.2% 11.8% 64.9% Michigan 10.1% 26.1% 14.3% 49.5% SE Michigan Non 6.3% 18.6% 9.9% 65.3% 11.3% 22.9% 13.7% 52.2% Michigan Non 6.2% 17.9% 10.8% 65.1% 10.6% 24.7% 14.0% 50.7% Source: 2006 American Community Survey School Enrollment As is the case for any population, a major factor in the continued success of s is the extent to which the population is educated. As one moves along the continuum of education, wages and occupation opportunities are sure to follow. This section first examines K 12 education, and then discusses levels of post secondary education for the and non population in Michigan and within Southeast Michigan. Kindergarten through High School According to the 2006 ACS, 13.5% of Southeast Michigan s s and 13.6% of Southeast Michigan s non s are currently enrolled in some form of structured academic setting ranging from nursery school to the graduate/professional level. For the population under 25 enrolled in some form of structured academic setting, the proportions flip: 12.1% of Southeast Michigan s s under the age of 25 are enrolled, while 11.9% of Southeast Michigan non s under the age of 25 are enrolled. As previously noted, the average age differential between the non and the population in Michigan is significantly different. Whereas the average in Michigan is 27.5 years old, the average non is This 10 year differential is likely to skew everything from school enrollment distributions to wages and occupations. Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 23

24 Percentage of school population Figure 8: Distribution of v. Non School Population K 12 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Non Non Source: 2006 American Community Survey Non Southeast Michigan Michigan US Kindergarten 5.44% 4.71% 5.24% 5.84% 5.48% 7.54% Grade % 29.45% 21.00% 26.12% 21.77% 26.57% Grade % 25.66% 23.32% 25.99% 23.23% 25.00% Grade % 19.21% 25.74% 21.55% 24.38% 23.01% Southeast Michigan s population of s in grades one through four (29.5%) is larger than the proportion found in the State of Michigan (26.1%) and in the United States (26.6%). This is expected because the average age of s in both Michigan and nationwide are much younger than non s, and Figure 8 considers the distribution of school going individuals not the percentage of the total population. The percentages of and non students enrolled in kindergarten are relatively consistent across regions, but moving up the grade levels demonstrates a drop in enrollment and a corresponding increase in non s students. Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 24

25 Figure 9: Distribution of Southeast Michigan's vs. Non School Population 35% Percentage among School Population 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Non Southeast Michigan Nursery 6.83% 8.97% Kindergarten 5.44% 4.71% Grade % 29.45% Grade % 25.66% Grade % 19.21% Undergraduate 15.43% 11.65% Graduate 0.88% 0.35% Source: 2006 American Community Survey Since the population has a much larger percentage of the population under 18, a disproportionate number could be under 4 years old. Although this did appear to be the case (Table 7), there are also a disproportionate number of s between the ages of 5 through 17 and 18 through 24; yet despite this fact, there still exists an education gap between non s and s. Taken together, Tables 6 and 7 demonstrate that s have the opportunity to surpass non s at each level of education as a percentage of their population; however, the inverse is currently true. Although a larger percentage of the population is between the ages of 5 and 24, this is not reflected in the school figures. Fewer s are attending school despite their disproportionately large school aged population. Table 6: Percent of Under 25 population enrolled in School Nursery Kindergarten Grade 1 4 Grade 5 8 Grade 9 12 Southeast Non 4.9% 3.9% 15.5% 17.3% 18.4% Michigan 5.5% 2.9% 17.9% 15.6% 11.7% State Non 4.6% 3.7% 14.9% 16.5% 18.2% 4.7% 3.7% 16.7% 16.7% 13.8% US Non 4.8% 3.8% 15.0% 16.0% 16.8% 4.2% 4.4% 16.1% 15.3% 14.4% Source: 2006 American Community Survey Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 25

26 Table 7: Age Distribution Age 0 4 Age 5 17 Age Outside SE Non 6.1% 17.2% 11.8% Michigan 10.1% 26.1% 14.3% SE Michigan Non 6.3% 18.6% 9.9% 11.3% 22.9% 13.7% Michigan Non 6.2% 17.9% 10.8% 10.6% 24.7% 14.0% Source: 2006 American Community Survey The dropout rate for the population increases dramatically between 16 and 17 years old (Figure 10). Before this time, the percentage of the population enrolled at each age point is consistent for s and non s. However, it makes sense that this is the age that students are beginning to drop out since it corresponds with the legal age that the state allows students to drop out of the K 12 system. Figure 10: Percent of Population Enrolled in High School by Age % Percentage of Students Enrolled % 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% 15 years 16 years 17 years 18 years Non 97.13% 96.76% 95.00% 80.54% % 96.16% 62.91% 53.56% Source: 2006 American Community Survey Collegiate Level Undergraduate degrees are becoming increasingly essential in attaining a job as unemployment rates rise in Michigan. With most s currently in the manufacturing sector (Figure 28), a sector that is losing jobs at a disproportionate rate, a college degree increases in importance as a mechanism for attaining jobs, both in Michigan and nationally. Therefore, the extent to which Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 26

27 a population is pursuing a college degree will have an impact on their wages, occupations, and their continued economic contributions. Figures 11 and 13 show a comparison of the percentage of and non schoolgoing students in Southeast Michigan, the state as a whole, and the US that are attending college (undergraduate in the former and graduate in the latter). In every case, the percentage of non s attending is at least double that of s for the population that is enrolled in school. Certainly, these figures have implications for wages and occupations later in life. s as a population trail non s in their undergraduate enrollment by about 5% across each geographic region (Figure 11). However, Michigan s have made strides since the 2000 census in terms of attaining an undergraduate degree, as reflected in the following section. In the U.S., 10.3% of the population under the age of 25 and in school is enrolled in an undergraduate degree program; whereas 17.4% of their non counterparts are pursuing an undergraduate degree. For those attending school, more Michigan s (12.9%) are enrolled in an undergraduate degree program than the national percentage (10.3%); whereas, of the non s enrolled in school, 17.5% of them are pursuing an undergraduate curriculum. Although not as many Southeast Michigan s are enrolled in an undergraduate program as in the rest of the state, the difference between these and their non counterparts is less than 4 percentage points, which is the most narrow difference of any geographic units. Figure 11: Percent in School that are Enrolled in Undergraduate Studies Southeast Michigan Michigan US Non Non Non 10.3% 17.4% 12.9% 17.5% 11.6% 15.4% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Source: 2006 American Community Survey Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 27

28 More important than the distribution of those in an undergraduate degree relative to the school going population is the distribution of s enrolled in school relative to the under 25 population. Here we see that while 71.6% of Southeast Michigan non s under the age of 25 are enrolled in school with 11.5% in an undergraduate program, only 60.8% of their counterparts are enrolled in school and only 7.1% are enrolled in an undergraduate degree (Table 8). Southeast Michigan s disparity between the and non population is larger than the gap between both the state as a whole and the nation. One factor that could contribute to the gap in education levels is age. Southeast Michigan Table 8: College Enrollment per Population Undergraduate Graduate Total Non 11.1% 0.6% 71.6% 7.1% 0.2% 60.8% State Non 12.4% 0.6% 70.7% 8.3% 0.2% 64.1% US Non 12.0% 0.6% 69.0% 6.5% 0.2% 61.2% Source: 2006 American Community Survey Table 9: Age Distribution Age and Older Outside SE Non 11.8% 64.9% Michigan 14.3% 49.5% SE Michigan Non 9.9% 65.3% 13.7% 52.2% Michigan Non 10.8% 65.1% 14.0% 50.7% Source: 2006 American Community Survey Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 28

29 Figure 12: Percent of Population Enrolled in College by Age 90.00% 80.00% Percentage of Students Enrolled 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 18 years 19 years 20 years 21 years 22 years Non 80.54% 69.58% 60.87% 57.43% 41.89% 53.56% 49.71% 32.00% 27.34% 30.89% Source: 2006 American Community Survey Figure 12 indicates that while far less s are enrolled in a structured academic setting at age 18 (presumably college), they also drop off much faster between the years 19 to 21. There is some recovery around age 22, but the trajectory beginning at age 16 (as seen in Figure 10) does not depict a promising picture for s. Without a high school diploma, many will find it extremely difficult to find employment in this economy. The future success of the population is likely to be substantially improved with increased educational attainment, particularly high school diploma. Graduate Although the percentage of those enrolled in a graduate program under the age of 25 make up a small percentage of students overall (less than 1 percent for both s and non s alike), the differences between the population and the non population are substantial. The non cohorts at each level (U.S., Michigan, and the counties of Southeast Michigan) are nearly triple their counterparts (Figure 13) in terms of those enrolled in graduate school. This is, however, simply the percentage of school going individuals who are enrolled in graduate studies that makes it sensitive to the age distribution. While s have a larger proportion, their 25 and older portion is slightly smaller and, therefore, this has the potential to skew the distribution. Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 29

30 Figure 13: Percent Enrolled in Graduate Studies 0.30% Southeast Michigan Michigan US Non Non Non 0.29% 0.35% 0.78% 0.92% 0.88% 0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 0.40% 0.50% 0.60% 0.70% 0.80% 0.90% 1.00% Source: 2006 American Community Survey A better indicator for graduate studies in terms of its effect on income and occupations is degree of educational attainment and not current enrollment given that these individuals have not made it into the labor force. This is not to say that these figures are unimportant in the future success of employees. Educational attainment is the basis for the next segment of this report, where the disparities in higher level education are prominent. Educational Attainment While s in Southeast Michigan have lower levels of educational attainment than their non counterparts, they are doing substantially better than s elsewhere in the country. According to the 2006 ACS, approximately two thirds (68.5%) of Southeast Michigan s total population has earned a high school diploma or gone on to attend at least some college. In contrast, 87.5% of Southeast Michigan s non population has earned a high school diploma or gone on to attend at least some college (Figures 14 and 15) Although the population on average is younger than the non population, this should not have a major bearing on educational attainment and should significantly increase those who are enrolled in K 12 as a percentage of the population. While the former is true, the latter has proven not to be the case as demonstrated in the previous section. The reason that educational attainment should not be too severely affected by a younger population is that while s have a larger proportion of under 18 year olds and a smaller proportion of retirement age individuals, the 18 to 64 population is very similar. Therefore, although age distribution should have a slightly negative effect on educational attainment as a percentage of their population, it should not have a major effect. Furthermore, it should have little bearing on the percentage that has attained a diploma. Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 30

31 Figure 14: Southeast Michigan s Age 25 or Older with Diploma or Higher 31.6% No Diploma 68.5% Diploma or Higher Source: 2006 American Community Survey Figure 15: Southeast Michigan Non s Age 25 or Older with Diploma or Higher (Age 25 and Over) 12.5% No Diploma 87.5% Diploma or Higher Source: 2006 American Community Survey Considering educational attainment in more detail, Southeast Michigan s non s are more likely than s to have a high school diploma, and roughly 10% more of the non population have an Associate s or Bachelor s degree (25%) than s (15%). While 58.3% of the non population 25 and older has attended at least some college, only 39.9% of the population has taken a college course. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates the differences in wages between those at each level of educational attainment: Full time workers age 25 years and over without a high school diploma had median weekly earnings of $449, compared with $620 for high school graduates (no college) and $1,105 for those holding at least a bachelor's degree. Among college graduates with advanced degrees (professional or master's degree and above) (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007) Wayne State University / Center for Urban Studies & Center for Chicano Boricua Studies 31