For the latest on a contested primary election in New York City’s upper Manhattan congressional district, check out the Capital New York article, “Adriano Espaillat, Charlie Rangel, and the coalition-fracturing primary neither of them wanted.”  The story details the demographics of the district and the impact of the new district lines on the communities and candidates.  It also cites Social Explorer’s Andrew Beveridge as Mr. CVAP.

The Hispanic community in the new district contains a sizable immigrant population, which means that a number of the Hispanic residents—even those who are part of the voting-age population—aren’t citizens, and therefore aren’t eligible to vote.

The Citizen Voting Age Population (or CVAP) for the district is just under 45 percent, according to estimates from Andrew Beveridge, a redistricting expert (and self-proclaimed “Mr. CVAP”). The black CVAP, according to Beveridge, is just over 34 percent, and the white CVAP is about 17 percent.

Also, this week, the Census Bureau released its 1940 individual records.  (Census records over 72 years old are made public.)  The Bergen Record article “Data Will be a Boon for History Buffs,” details the release’s significance to genealogy, data and history enthusiasts, and cites Beveridge on access to this data.

The release of questionnaires will provide the most detail to date of life at that time, experts say. While reports for towns, counties and states were initially released in 1942, the individual census forms can help people track family members or provide a clearer picture of what a town or neighborhood was like 72 years ago.

“Because of the massive advances in computer technology and data analysis, we’ll be able to see lots more things about the data than people did in 1942,” said Andrew Beveridge, a professor of sociology at Queens College in New York.

That detail will include who lived on which streets, where immigrant groups clustered and who was unemployed.

Stay tuned to the blog for more Social Explorer in the news.

The once-a-decade redistricting process is heating up in New York as deadlines approach and the legislature, governor, advocacy groups, public and the federal courts become more involved.  There was a court hearing on Monday on what map looked like.

On Monday, magistrate judge Roanne Mann held a public hearing.  Social Explorer’s Andrew Beveridge testified on behalf of the Center for Law and Social Justice and Newman Ferrara LLP.  Based on decades of demographic experience, including work as a consultant and expert witness in redistricting cases, Beveridge analyzed data from the various plans and the changing demographics of New York.

Since the court hearing, Judge Mann put forth her own plan.  Notably, it includes a new Asian-majority district in Queens, with 39.1 percent of the district.  This district was drawn in response to the major population changes in the area (where over 500,000 Asians reside) and around the city (32 percent growth).

New York 1 produced a story on this proposed district, and included an interview with Beveridge.

For more on the latest New York State redistricting news, check out the New York Times series Unmapped.

In his latest op-ed “Santorum’s Gospel of Inequality,” New York Times columnist Charles Blow takes on the presidential candidate’s public comments about how income inequality is good for society.

Blow writes that “for Santorum to champion income inequality in Detroit, of all places, is still incredibly tone-deaf.”  He cites data from Social Explorer’s Andrew Beveridge in his discussion.

Detroit has the highest poverty rate of any big city in America, according to data provided by Andrew A. Beveridge, a demographer at Queens College. Among the more than 70 cities with populations over 250,000, Detroit’s poverty rate topped the list at a whopping 37.6 percent, more than twice the national poverty rate. And according to the Census Bureau, median household income in Detroit from 2006-10 was just $28,357, which was only 55 percent of the overall U.S. median household income over that time.

Beveridge also provided data for a list of the most impoverished cities in America, featured in the article.

Click here to read the rest of the op-ed and see the full list.

In New York City, a large number of first generation children from wealthy families are going to public schools, even though their parents could afford private school.  In the New York Times article “Affluent, Born Abroad and Choosing New York’s Public Schools,” Kirk Semple examines the trend in school choice among foreign-born parents.  The article features census data and analysis from Social Explorer’s Andrew Beveridge and Susan Weber-Stoger.

In New York, the affluent typically send their children to private schools. But not the foreign-born affluent. In a divergence, a large majority of wealthy foreign-born New Yorkers are sending their children to public schools, according to an analysis of census data.

There are roughly 15,500 households in the city with school-age children where the total income is at least $150,000 and both parents were born abroad. Of those, about 10,500, or 68 percent, use only the public schools, the data show.

That is nearly double the rate of American-born parents in the city in the same income bracket.

In the United States over all, there is almost no difference between the two groups, apparently because wealthy people outside of urban areas are much more likely to show allegiance to the public schools. Nationally, 73 percent of native-born couples and 76 percent of foreign-born couples send their children only to public school, according to the data, which was analyzed by Andrew A. Beveridge and Susan Weber-Stoger, demographers at Queens College.

The article goes on to detail the motivations behind this trend in school choices, such as seeking ethnic and economic diversity, living in neighborhoods with better public schools and avoiding private school tuition.

Click here to read the whole story.

In today’s New York Times, sociologist Eric Klinenberg writes about the major demographic shift he examines in his new book Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone. Census data show that more than 32 million Americans live alone today.  The article features graphics based on analysis by Social Explorer’s Susan Weber and Andrew Beveridge, from historical and current census data.  Klinenberg investigates this trend across different genders, ages, races, incomes and more, both in the US and internationally.

More people live alone than at any other time in history. In prosperous American cities — Atlanta, Denver, Seattle, San Francisco and Minneapolis — 40 percent or more of all households contain a single occupant. In Manhattan and in Washington, nearly one in two households are occupied by a single person.

The decision to live alone is common in diverse cultures whenever it is economically feasible…

The mere thought of living alone once sparked anxiety, dread and visions of loneliness. But those images are dated. Now the most privileged people on earth use their resources to separate from one another, to buy privacy and personal space.

Living alone comports with modern values. It promotes freedom, personal control and self-realization — all prized aspects of contemporary life.

Klinenberg also analyzes how singletons are more actively engaged in social and civic life than their partnered peers.

Read more about the phenomenon, and explore the data and interactive maps here.

In the Queens Tribune article “Fighting for Representation: Battles on the Horizon over Redistricting in Burgeoning Asian Communities,” Ross Barkin writes about a growing legislative redistricting controversy in Eastern Queens.

Already, a skirmish is underway between the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) and State Sen. Tony Avella (D-Bayside). AALDEF, along with the Center for Law and Social Justice at Medgar Evers College, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, and the National Institute for Latino Policy, came together to create a “Unity Map,” a proposal for redistricting Congressional, Assembly, and State Senate lines in the City. AALDEF, along with these other groups, seeks to take into account the shifting demographics in the 2010 Census, including the surge in the Asian population of northeast Queens.

The Queens Chinese population has grown by nearly 43 percent since 2000, and the Asian Indian population has jumped almost 8 percent. Overall, the Asian population in Queens is roughly 23 percent.

He discusses the arguments from politicians, advocacy groups and community interests.  He turns to Social Explorer’s Andrew Beveridge for further explanation of the issues:

Ultimately, whether or not the Asian population deserves more favorable district lines, their advocates’ efforts will most likely fail because the legal process will foil them, said redistricting consultant and Queens College sociology professor Dr. Andrew Beveridge.

“The law is that to have the ability legally to get a district, you need several criteria,” he said. “One is that you have to have a history of polarized voting, with non-Asian groups that frustrate the ability to form a voting bloc. You need Asians voting cohesively as a bloc. And a third thing you need to show is that there is a district where they would have a majority if you drew it.”

Beveridge explained that at least 50 percent of citizens of a voting age population are needed to form a specific voting coalition. Although the Asian population in the district created may exceed 50 percent, those who cannot vote—especially non-citizen immigrants—will lower that percentage. An “Asian influence” district could be formed, but it would be up to politicians to accommodate the expanding minority.

Beveridge said he does not think they will.

Read the whole article here.

In the New York Times article, “View of the World From New Hampshire and Iowa,” Juliet Lapidos details the constituencies in the first Republican primary state contests.  With data from Social Explorer’s Andrew Beveridge, she breaks down state-by-state demographics, beginning with a look at the large number of white people in both states:

This is not surprising: Iowa is 88.6 percent white, and New Hampshire 92.2 percent white. Compare those numbers to the country as a whole, which is 63.7 percent white.

Large white populations are not the only ways in which these two early-voting states, which play such a significant role in choosing presidential nominees, fail to reflect the United States in the 21^st century.

I asked Andrew Beveridge, a sociologist who has done consulting work for The Times and is the CEO of Social Explorer, to help me put the demographic differences between Iowa, New Hampshire and the United States into perspective.

She lists a number of 2010 census numbers about these state populations and how they compare to the rest of the US, and concludes that:

New Hampshire and Iowa are less ethnically diverse, have less unemployment, and have more married-couple households than the rest of the country. New Hampshire does better, and Iowa slightly worse than the national average on household income and college graduates. Stopping well short of saying that Iowa and New Hampshire aren’t “the real America,” it’s clear that these states aren’t average, either.

She goes on to show what the most “average” states are in each category (racial composition, education, median income, etc.).

For the full rundown of data and analysis, visit the New York Times.

In contrast to most economic news, the oil industry is booming in North Dakota.  In the New York Times article “A Great Divide Over Oil Riches,” A. G. Sulzberger reports on mineral rights in Mountrail County and the revenue’s impact on landowners, speculators and the area.  He cites analysis from Social Explorer’s Andrew Beveridge, and features a map and chart based on Beveridge’s and the Census Bureau’s numbers.

Sure enough, money is flowing by the barrelful into Mountrail County, transforming a tiny community once proudly situated in the middle of nowhere into an unexpected oasis of prosperity at the heart of the nation’s biggest oil play.

No other county in the state has had a bigger jump in the number of households earning more than $100,000, which spiked to 21 percent from 6 percent during the last decade, according to an analysis of census data. But much like the crude below, the benefits have spread unevenly, often as a result of decisions made long ago.

…With the unemployment rate at only 1.3 percent, local sons and daughters are no longer leaving to find work.

And as the rest of the nation watched incomes drop or stagnate, in Mountrail County median income rose more than 50 percent in the last decade, the fifth-highest gain in the nation. Residents earned on average an additional $20,000, adjusted for inflation, according to an analysis of census data by Andrew A. Beveridge, a demographer at Queens College in New York.

Click here to read the full article.

In the article “Births Drop in Region Amid Sagging Economy,” Journal News reporter Jane Lerner explores the decline in birthrates in Westchester and nationwide.  Looking at hospital data, demographic change and a recent study by the Pew Research Center, she examines the recession and other factors behind the trend.

Recent data from the Journal News, the Department of Health and Pew show that:

• Births at all but two hospitals in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam declined between 2000 and 2010 (often with a sharper drop after 2007).
• The total number of babies born at hospitals in the three counties declined 13 percent between 2000 and 2010 (over half the decline–seven percent–took place between 2007 and 2010).
• The birthrate dropped from 69.6 births per thousand women ages 15-44 in 2007 to 66.7 births per thousand in the same group in 2009.
• Additional preliminary data indicate a further drop to 64.7 births per thousand in 2010.
• From 2008 to 2009, birth rates dropped by 5.9 percent among Hispanic women, compared with a 2.4 percent drop among black women and 1.6 decline for white women.

She also cites Social Explorer’s Andrew Beveridge

The birth decline in the Lower Hudson Valley is likely the result of several different trends — some linked to the current bad economic times and others that have nothing to do with it, experts said.

The population in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam is aging, which in part explains the drop in babies, said Andrew Beveridge, a professor of sociology at Queens College and the Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York.

“With all the empty nesters, you would expect to see fewer births,” he said.

Fewer young families are moving from the city to the suburbs as urban living becomes more popular, further reducing the number of babies born locally.

But the poor economy is likely playing some role in the drop in the number of births locally, said Beveridge, a Yonkers resident.

“When people get insecure they’re less likely to have kids,” he said.

The article ends with a look to the future:

Experts expect the region’s high unemployment rate to continue to have an impact on the number of babies being born until the economy gets significantly better.

“As a longterm trend you really do want to have kids,” Beveridge said. “Without kids, the future looks bleak longterm.”

Click here to read the full article.

While discussions about tax policy changes swirl in Albany, an analysis of the Census shows that wealthy New Yorkers have stayed in the state regardless of tax rate changes.  In the New York Times City Room article “Wealthy New Yorkers Are Staying In State, Census Shows,” Sam Roberts examines the controversy over maintaining or increasing taxes on the wealthy.  He cites data and analysis from Social Explorer’s Andrew Beveridge in his discussion.

Opponents of extending the surcharge have argued that it would chase away the rich and, as a result, reduce overall tax revenue. But two census analyses do not support that view.

According to the Census Bureau’s latest American Community Survey, the average household income of those who left the state in 2010 was $44,739. The average for those who came was $55,419 — the largest differential in at least five years.

“Despite claims to contrary,” said Andrew A. Beveridge, a sociologist at Queens College of the City University of New York, “it appears that among affluent households, more chose to move to New York State and City than chose to leave it.”

A separate analysis of census data found that the number of households making more than $250,000 who lived in New York a year earlier but left peaked in 2004 and has generally declined since 2007. About 14,000 households in 2009 and the about the same number in 2010 reported having left New York within the past year, the lowest numbers in that category since 2003.

Click here to read the full article.