North Carolina Census Snapshot: 2010

Transcription

1 North Carolina Census Snapshot: ,309 Husband/wife 3,224 Unmarried partner 15,085 per 1,000 households Same-sex husband/wife per 1,000 husband/wife Same-sex unmarried partner per 1,000 unmarried partner per 1,000 households by Census tract

2 All Same-sex Couples Same-sex female per 1,000 households by county Female 10,272 56% Male 8,037 44% who identify as spouses Female 1,648 51% Male 1,576 49% Same-sex male per 1,000 households by county who identify as unmarried partners Female 8,624 57% Male 6,461 43% 2

3 Percent of same-sex raising own * by county * Own are nevermarried under 18 who are sons or daughters of one partner or spouse (Person 1) by birth, marriage (stepchild), or adoption. All Same-sex Couples who identify as spouses who identify as unmarried partners Raising 3,380 18% Not raising 14,929 82% Raising 1,061 33% Not raising 2,163 67% Raising 2,319 15% Not raising 12,766 85% Data and methodology Data are compiled using the US Census Bureau s state-level preferred estimates for same-sex found here. Same-sex are identified in households where Person 1 describes his or her relationship with another adult of the same sex as either a husband/wife or unmarried partner. The Census Bureau preferred estimates adjust original Census tabulations reported in the Census 2010 SF-1, PCT15 to account for the likelihood that a small portion of different-sex miscode the sex of a spouse or partner and are incorrectly counted as a same-sex couple. Adjusted data The Census Bureau only released preferred estimates for states. County, city, and tract data used in this report are adjusted by the authors and do not represent official Census Bureau tabulations. Like the Census Bureau preferred estimates, the adjustment procedure accounts for the likelihood that a small portion of different-sex miscode the sex of a spouse or partner and are incorrectly counted as a same-sex couple. Undercount The adjusted figures do not take into account the possibility that some same-sex may not be counted in Census tabulations due to concerns about confidentiality or because neither partner was Person 1 in the household. Go here for a complete description of the adjustment procedure. 3

4 State rank Counties with 50+ same-sex ranked by same-sex per 1,000 households US rank among 1,142 counties with 50+ same-sex County 4 per 1,000 households Same-sex male Same-sex female % Raising own among same-sex 1 20 Buncombe % 2 42 Durham % 3 93 Orange % Mecklenburg % Transylvania % Haywood % Dare % Madison % Watauga % Macon % New Hanover % Henderson % Polk % Jackson % Chatham % Guilford % Forsyth % Columbus % Franklin % Wake % Duplin % Person % Granville % Gaston % Alamance % Robeson % Pender % Lincoln % Cherokee % Brunswick % Bladen % Yadkin % Catawba % Davidson % Burke % Pitt % Alexander % Richmond % McDowell % Rutherford % Caldwell % Cleveland % Johnston %

5 Scotland % Craven % Vance % Rowan % Rockingham % Halifax % Cumberland % Wilson % Stokes % Edgecombe % Harnett % Hoke % Cabarrus % Nash % Sampson % Lenoir % Randolph % Carteret % Iredell % Union % Stanly % Lee % Beaufort % Onslow % Moore % Wilkes % Wayne % Surry % Counties with <50 same-sex Alleghany % Anson % Ashe % Avery % Bertie % Camden % Caswell % Chowan % Clay % Currituck % Davie % Gates % Graham % Greene % Hertford % Hyde % Jones % Martin % 5

6 Mitchell % Montgomery % Northampton % Pamlico % Pasquotank % Perquimans % Swain % Tyrrell % Warren % Washington % Yancey % 6

7 State rank Cities with 50+ same-sex ranked by same-sex per 1,000 households US rank among 1,415 cities with 50+ same-sex City per 1,000 households 1 68 Asheville Durham Carrboro Garner Charlotte Winston-Salem Greensboro Raleigh Hickory Wilmington Cornelius Chapel Hill Gastonia High Point Burlington Thomasville Salisbury Huntersville New Bern Greenville Rocky Mount Kannapolis Cary Concord Wilson Jacksonville Fayetteville About the authors Gary J. Gates, PhD is the Williams Distinguished Scholar at the Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Abigail M. Cooke is a PhD candidate in the Department of Geography at UCLA and is affiliated with the California Center for Population Research. Acknowledgments The authors thank Williams Institute Fellows Angeliki Kastanis, Laura Durso, and Christy Mallory for assistance with the Snapshots. For more information The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, (310)