Census Note 7: Changes in Monority Homeownership During the 1990Fannie Mae Foundation Census Note 07 (September 2001)* Changes in Minority Homeownership During
the 1990s Summary of Findings Analysis of homeownership trends by race and ethnicity using new data from Census 2000 indicates that:
Introduction Homeownership gains during the 1990s were the strongest in decades. The U.S. homeownership rate increased more last decade than at any time since the 1950s and the net increase in homeowners was the second highest on record (Simmons 2001). The homeownership expansion extended across almost all regions and states and many of the nation's large cities.. An important unexamined issue is the extent to which different racial and ethnic groups participated in the 1990s homeownership boom. Annual data from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey (CPS) indicate that the white-minority homeownership rate gap, which has hovered around 25 percentage points for decades, narrowed slightly during the second half of the 1990s. Though the CPS data are encouraging, they provide restricted insights into minority homeownership trends. Because the CPS is a household survey with a limited sample size, it does not provide reliable data for minority groups other than African Americans and Hispanics or for racial and ethnic groups at the state level. New data from Census 2000 offer an opportunity for closer inspection of trends in racial/ethnic homeownership attainment. This Census Note uses these and earlier census data to examine two aspects of racial and ethnic homeownership trends. First, it describes changes in homeownership rates and intergroup homeownership gaps for non-Hispanic whites, African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and all minorities combined. Particular attention is paid to the role that changing age structures of the various groups played in shaping homeownership rate trends. Second, this Census Note examines the importance of minority households to homeownership growth. This section of the paper highlights wide variations in minority homeownership growth and market share across states. Why Study Minority Homeownership Attainment? Racial/ethnic homeownership attainment trends and the persistent homeownership gap are important for several reasons. First, homeownership is an important indicator of socioeconomic achievement. Buying a home is the most expensive purchase ever made by most households, requiring at least a modest level of assets to cover the down payment and closing costs and sufficient income to repay the mortgage. Thus, a narrowing homeownership rate gap between whites and minorities would be one indication of increasing socioeconomic equality between groups. Homeownership attainment is not just an outcome of socioeconomic achievement, but it is also an important input to socioeconomic mobility (Masnick 2001; Oliver and Shapiro 1997). For most homeowners, equity in the home offers an opportunity to build wealth and is the single largest asset held (Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University 2000). In addition to its role in building wealth, home equity can be used for a variety of mobility enhancing activities, such as funding a child's education or starting a business. Home equity is also an important source of intergenerational wealth transfers. The study of minority homeownership attainment is also important because minorities are a key source of housing demand growth in the United States. Over the next two decades, minorities are projected to account for two-thirds of total household growth, and in recent years they have contributed an estimated two-fifths of the net increase in homeowners (Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University 2001). It is likely that these shares are significantly higher in certain age groups or regions of the country. Methods Measuring Changes in Homeownership Summary File 1 (SF1) of Census 2000 and similar tabulations from the 1980 and 1990 censuses are used to measure homeownership trends (U.S. Bureau of the Census n.d., 1983, 2001a). The tabulations used herein are derived from 100-percent census data and therefore are not subject to sampling error. A housing unit is owner-occupied if the owner or co-owner lives in the unit, even if it is mortgaged or not fully paid for (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001b). All occupied housing units that are not owner-occupied are classified as renter-occupied, and therefore the latter category includes both dwellings rented for cash and those occupied without payment of cash rent. The homeownership rate is the percentage of all occupied housing units that are owner-occupied.1 Changing population coverage in the decennial census has the potential to affect assessment of racial homeownership trends. According to preliminary analysis of census coverage data by the U.S. Bureau of the Census (2001c) Executive Steering Committee for Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Policy (ESCAP), the differential undercount between both minorities and whites and owners and renters is likely to have declined between the 1990 and 2000 censuses.2 The impacts of these coverage improvements are difficult to determine. However, it is possible that they suppressed the 1990-2000 increase in the overall homeownership rate, and to an even greater degree the increase in minority homeownership rates. If this is the case, the size of the whiteminority homeownership rate gap in 2000 is larger than it otherwise would have been had coverage not improved. 1 By definition, there is one household per occupied housing unit. Thus, the homeownership rate can be alternatively conceived as the proportion of households that own their homes. 2 In its report recommending against using adjusted Census 2000 data for redistricting purposes, the ESCAP stated (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001c):
Decomposing Aggregate Homeownership Rate Changes To better understand the role of demographic factors in shaping overall homeownership rate trends, the influence of changes in homeownership rates within age groups are separated from the effects of changes in the distribution of households across age groups. This portion of the analysis is used to answer the question: How would aggregate homeownership rates and intergroup gaps have changed during the 1990s had the age structures of the various racial and ethnic groups remained as they were in 1990? Answering this question is important because shifting age structures during the 1990s were more favorable to white than minority homeownership attainment.
In equation 2, the two middle terms in parentheses are equal and have been simply added to and subtracted from the right side of the equation to maintain equality. In equations 3 and 4, the terms on the right side are reordered and regrouped. The first term in equation 4 represents the effects of changes in the age distribution of the population (represented by Dpi) on changes in the aggregate homeownership rate, and the second term represents the effects of changes in age-specific homeownership rates (represented by Dri) on the overall rate. For a given racial or ethnic group, the estimated change in the aggregate homeownership rate absent any shift in that group's age structure is obtained by setting Dpi in equation 4 equal to zero. 3 This technique can be used to study the effects of compositional shifts across multiple characteristics. (For an example using data from the American Housing Survey, see U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 1999.) In addition to age of householder, characteristics such as income, family type, education, nativity, and period of arrival of foreign-born householders are associated with homeownership attainment. Summary data currently available from Census 2000 do not permit examination of the effects of changes in these other characteristics on homeownership rates. Racial/Ethnic Categories Used in the Analysis Census 2000 ushered in significant changes in the collection of data on race and Hispanic origin (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001b).4 In the most important change, the census questionnaire instructed respondents for the first time to report as many race categories as they felt applied.5 Census 2000 SF1 homeownership tables provide data for the following major racial categories: "White alone," "Black or African American alone," "American Indian and Alaska Native alone," "Asian alone," "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone," "some other race alone," and "two or more races." Data are also provided for two groups classified by Hispanic origin and/or race: "Hispanic or Latino" and "White alone, not Hispanic or Latino." This Census Note analyzes homeownership trends for the
following four racial/ethnic groups: non-Hispanic white
(using Census 2000 data from the category "White alone, not
Hispanic or Latino"), African American (using Census 2000
data from the category "Black or African American alone"),
Hispanic (using Census 2000 data from the category "Hispanic
or Latino"), and Asian (using Census 2000 data from the
"Asian alone" and "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
alone" categories combined in order to maintain comparability
with the 1990 Census).6 The
African American and Asian categories include persons of
Hispanic origin. "Minority" is a racially and ethnically
diverse category derived by subtracting non-Hispanic whites
from all householders. The effects of Census 2000 racial reporting changes on homeownership trends are difficult to determine. Researchers have developed several "bridging" methods that promise improved comparability between 1990 and 2000 census data.7 The method utilized here corresponds most closely to what Myers and James (2001) call the "Hispanic partially dominant, minimum race alternative." Use of this method is dictated by the Census 2000 SF1 homeownership tables, which do not provide racial/ethnic detail for householders who report in the "two or more races" category. 4 The decennial census collects information separately on race and Hispanic origin, which for federal statistical purposes are considered to be distinct characteristics of an individual. Thus, a person of Hispanic origin may be of any race and a person of a given race may or may not be of Hispanic origin. 5 Other changes included placing the question on Hispanic origin before the question on race, providing separate response categories for Asians and Native Hawaiians/other Pacific Islanders, and providing new respondent instructions that clarified the distinct nature of the questions on race and Hispanic origin. Furthermore, unlike the case for the 1990 census, the race and Hispanic origin questions in Census 2000 were edited simultaneously so that information on race or Hispanic origin that was reported in response to the inappropriate question could be fully utilized (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001b). 6 Tables accompanying this report, which are available at http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/census_notes.html, also include data for American Indian and Alaskan Natives and householders of other race or two or more races. 7 For a useful summary, see Myers and James (2001). In this method, householders of Hispanic origin are included in all of the race categories except white. Furthermore, householders reporting in the "two or more races" category are not allocated to the specific racial groups of whites, African Americans, and Asians. For those tabulations in which the population is categorized as either non-Hispanic white or minority, all householders reporting in the "two or more races" category are included with minorities.8 Although the significance of the Census 2000 racial reporting changes cannot be minimized, it should be noted that other analysts have used a similar approach to that adopted here to measure racial trends. For example, in a study of racial and ethnic suburbanization, Frey (2001) developed change estimates by comparing the number of persons reporting in each of the major racial categories in the 1990 census with the corresponding "race alone" categories in Census 2000. Results Changes in Homeownership Rates and Homeownership Gaps Homeownership rates for minority households increased by 2.8 percentage points during the 1990s, reaching 47.4 percent by decade's end (table 1). In comparison, the homeownership rate for non-Hispanic whites rose by 3.4 percentage points to 72.4 percent. Homeownership rates also increased for each of the largest minority groups, ranging from a gain of roughly three percentage points for both African Americans and Hispanics to an increment of only one percentage point for Asians.
Minority homeownership rates increased not only in the aggregate, but also in every age category. Gains were strong among young (under age 35) minority households, which saw their homeownership rate expand by almost three percentage points during the 1990s. Young Hispanic households experienced a gain of nearly four percentage points and young African Americans nearly three. In contrast, the homeownership rate of young white households increased by less than one percentage point and that of young Asians fell by three percentage points. 8 In Census 2000, 1.9 million householders, or 1.8 percent of all householders, reported in the two or more races category and the homeownership rate for this group was 46.3 percent. Fewer than 900,000 homeowners, or just over 1 percent of all homeowners, reported being multiracial. In all states except Hawaii, the proportion of homeowners reporting two or more races was less than 4 percent. Despite widespread gains in minority homeownership rates, the white-minority "gap" in homeownership attainment expanded for the second consecutive decade. During the 1990s, the difference in homeownership rates between whites and minorities increased by 0.5 percentage points, from 24.5 to 25.0 percentage points. This followed an increase of a full percentage point during the 1980s. Gaps increased between whites and each minority group, although the extent of widening varied considerably. The difference between whites and Latinos increased by just 0.1 percentage point, compared with an increase of 2.4 percentage points in the gap between whites and Asians. The gap for African Americans widened by 0.5 percentage points, equaling the increase for the minority population as a whole. The overall homeownership rate gap between whites and minorities rose despite falling slightly in almost every age group (figure 1). Improvement was strongest for households under the age of 35, for whom the homeownership rate gap shrunk by 2.1 percentage points. Only for householders aged 75 or older did the white-minority gap increase.
The apparent paradox of an increasing overall homeownership rate gap and decreasing agespecific gaps can be explained by changes in the age structures of the white and minority populations. During the 1990s, the white population shifted more rapidly than the minority population into older age categories that have higher homeownership rates. For example, the proportion of all white households in the 25 to 34 year old category, which has a homeownership rate of around 50 percent, decreased by about 5 percentage points during the 1990s. In the meantime, the share of white households in the 45 to 54 year old category, which has a homeownership rate of about 80 percent, increased by 5 percentage points. Minority households, which exhibit a similar increment in homeownership attainment between these ages, saw a less pronounced shift in age structure. The proportion of minority households in the 25-34 age category fell by 2.8 percentage points, and the share in the 45-54 category expanded by 3.5 percentage points. The decomposition technique described previously in the Methods section can be used to remove the effects of these differential age shifts from aggregate homeownership rate trends. Had population age structures for minorities and whites remained as they were in 1990, greater parity in age-specific homeownership rates would have reduced the overall homeownership rate gap by 0.6 percentage points (figure 2). The effect for Latinos would have been even more substantial, resulting in a reduction of over a percentage point in the gap. Filtering out the effects of changing age structure results in a small decline in the white-African American gap rather than a modest increase. Only in the case of Asians would the homeownership rate gap still have expanded, although by a smaller amount.
The Growing Importance of Minorities to the Homeownership Market The number of minority homeowners increased by 4.4 million during the 1990s, reaching 12.5 million by the end of the decade (table 2). The increment last decade was substantially larger than during the 1980s, when the number of minority owners increased by only 1.9 million. During the 1990s the number of Hispanic homeowners increased by 1.7 million (reaching a total of 4.2 million by 2000), African American owners by 1.3 million (to 5.6 million), Asian owners by 0.7 million (to 1.7 million), and non-Hispanic whites by 6.4 million (to 57.3 million).
Minorities accounted for only 18 percent of all homeowners in 2000, but fully 40 percent of the net increase in homeowners between 1990 and 2000. The minority share of homeowner growth was up from only 27 percent during the 1980s. The importance of minorities to homeownership growth varied widely across the regions and states (see figure 3). In the West and Northeast, minorities accounted for nearly half of the net increase in homeowners during the 1990s. The minority share was 40 percent in the South, but only 27 percent in the Midwest.
Minority households accounted for only about 7 percent of homeownership growth in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, but over 95 percent in California and Hawaii. Minorities accounted for at least half of the net increase in homeowners in 10 states during the 1990s, up from only 4 during the 1980s. In another 18 states, minority households generated between a quarter and a half of total homeownership growth during the 1990s. The racial dynamics of homeownership growth in California are particularly interesting. During the 1980s, minorities accounted for just under half of the state's increase in homeowners. Last decade, this share jumped to 97 percent. About three-quarters of a million minority homeowners were added to the state last decade, up from half a million during the 1980s. In contrast, the increment in white Californian homeowners plummeted from half a million during the 1980s to just 25,000 last decade. This dramatic 95 percent reduction in white homeowner growth stands in sharp contrast to trends for the nation and other states. Nationally, the increment in white homeowners was 22 percent greater last decade than during the 1980s, and in seven out of ten states growth in white owners was greater during the 1990s than the 1980s. With the exception of Alaska and Hawaii, which also saw slowdowns in the growth of white homeowners, every state in the West region saw increases in white homeowners during the 1990s that far exceeded increments during the preceding decade. Contrasting trends between California and the remainder of the West suggest that the Golden State lost significant numbers of white homeowners through migration to other states in the region. As was the case with trends in homeownership rates, age is also an important factor when considering the role of minorities in homeowner growth. Minority households are particularly important to growth in the young homeowner market. Whereas the number of white homeowners under the age of 35 declined by 1.2 million during the 1990s, the number of young minority owners grew by almost 700,000. Young minority homeowners increased in every state, but the number of young white owners fell in 41 of the 50 states. Factors Contributing to the Homeownership Rate Gap The white-minority homeownership gap would have declined slightly were it not for shifting age distributions, but even under these circumstances it would have remained quite large. The size and persistence of the gap raise questions about why homeownership attainment is so unequal across racial and ethnic groups. Interethnic differences in a variety of household characteristics contribute to the persistent homeownership rate gap (Masnick 2001; Coulson 1999; Simmons 2000). Minority households tend to be younger, on average, than their white counterparts, which suppresses minority homeownership attainment because homeownership rates rise with age. A lower proportion of African-American households are married couples and a higher proportion of Hispanic and Asian households are recent immigrants, both of which tend to suppress overall homeownership rates relative to non-Hispanic whites. The concentration of Asians, and to a lesser extent Hispanics, in metropolitan areas with relatively high housing costs also contributes to their lower homeownership attainment. Socioeconomic differences also create disparities in homeownership attainment. Median incomes and average educational attainment of African-American and Hispanic households are lower than for non-Hispanic whites, although the opposite is true for Asians. Both income and education prove to be significant factors in determining homeownership attainment (Wachter and Megbolugbe 1993; Gyourko and Linneman 1997). Differences in average credit histories might also play a role. For example, a study by Freddie Mac of young adults with incomes up to $75,000 found that greater proportions of African Americans and Hispanics than whites report past credit difficulties (Freddie Mac 2000). Wealth differences across groups also contribute to differences in homeownership rates. Homeownership attainment usually requires that renters accumulate at least a minimal level of assets to cover downpayment and closing costs. Yet in 1995, African-American and Hispanic renters had median assets of $0 and mean assets of only about $2,000 (Listokin et al. forthcoming). In contrast, white renters had median assets of $649 and mean assets of roughly $11,000. Minorities are also disadvantaged relative to whites when it comes to using intergenerational wealth transfers to finance a home purchase. Whites are three times more likely than minorities to receive assets from their parents and the typical amount of transfer is considerably higher for the former group (Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University 2001). Intergroup differences in demographic and socioeconomic characteristics only partially explain homeownership inequalities, however, suggesting that discrimination remains an obstacle. Wachter and Megbolugbe (1993) find that differences in household characteristics explain only four-fifths of the difference in homeownership rates between whites and nonwhites. Studies have also found that African Americans and Hispanics are more likely to be denied home mortgage loansā"even after controlling for virtually all of the risk factors that are evaluated by lenders in the underwriting processā"and are also more likely to experience less favorable treatment than whites at the pre-application stage (Munnell et al. 1996; Carr and Megbolugbe 1993; Yinger 1999). Federal housing policy has also played no small role in creating unequal homeownership patterns. For example, the early underwriting policies of the Federal Housing Administration officially sanctioned racial redlining, cautioning lenders that, "...if a neighborhood is to retain stability, it is necessary that properties shall continue to be occupied by the same social and racial classes" (Oliver and Shapiro 1997, 18). Although recent federal housing policy has actively sought to redress imbalances in homeownership attainment, these early biases contributed to entrenched differences in homeownership rates across racial and ethnic groups. Conclusion Scholars, policy makers, and housing practitioners have long been concerned with persistent inequalities in homeownership attainment. Data from Census 2000 indicate that the whiteminority homeownership rate gap widened slightly during the 1990s despite strong economic growth and unprecedented efforts by government and the housing industry to expand homeownership opportunities. This discouraging finding is attenuated by several factors, however. First, differential shifts in the age structures of the white and minority populations contributed significantly to the widening homeownership gap. Were it not for shifts in age structures that were highly favorable to white homeownership, the minority-white homeownership rate gap would have decreased slightly during the 1990s. Even more encouraging is the fact that the gap for young households fell by two percentage points, suggesting that recent efforts to equalize homeownership opportunities for first-time buyers may be succeeding. Second, the extent to which changes between censuses in data collection procedures and population coverage affect trend measurement cannot be determined. It is possible, for example, that reductions in differential undercounts between minorities and whites and between owners and renters might have reduced measured minority homeownership rate gains relative to whites. Finally, the trends described in this Census Note span the entire decade of the 1990s and therefore might mask more recent progress in minority homeownership attainment. Minorities lost ground to whites in homeownership attainment during the recession of the early 1990s, only to experience stronger homeownership gains during the booming economy of the late 1990s (Masnick 2001). Not only were economic conditions more conducive to minority homeownership growth during the late 1990s, but many of the recent governmental and industry initiatives to expand homeownership opportunities were not put in place until after mid-decade (Listokin et al. 2000; Simmons 2001). In contrast to the murky evidence regarding trends in homeownership gaps, Census 2000 provides unmistakable evidence of the substantial and increasing importance of minorities to the homeownership market. Nationally, minorities accounted for about 40 percent of the net increase in homeowners during the 1990s, and in a few states accounted for virtually all homeownership growth. The growing minority presence in the homeownership market magnifies the importance of industry efforts to better understand and serve increasingly diverse housing preferences and needs. The analysis presented here helps to illuminate important aspects of minority homeownership attainment in recent years, but it leaves several critical questions unanswered. Two of the most significant issues that need to be addressed by further research are the sustainability and quality of homeownership for minority home buyers. To the extent that recent minority home buyers have lower incomes, fewer nonhousing assets, or less home equity than whites, they might be more susceptible to losing their homes in the event of a prolonged economic downturn. We also have much to learn about how the risks, costs, and benefits of homeownership vary across racial and ethnic groups. For example, McCarthy, Van Zandt, and Rohe (2001) note that home equity is overweighted in the portfolios of lower-income and minority homeowners, thereby increasing their overall portfolio risk. These authors also point to preliminary evidence of greater house price volatility and slightly lower price appreciation in neighborhoods with relatively large minority populations, further suggesting that the risks and rewards of homeownership might be adversely skewed for minority households. Minorities' greater reliance on subprime loans is an issue that has important implications for the costs and sustainability of homeownership (Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University 2000; 2001). In 1998, minorities were almost two times more likely than whites to use loans from subprime lenders for home purchase and about two and a half times more likely to use such loans for home refinance. Although subprime loans play an important role in expanding access to mortgage credit, they also have higher interest rates, fees, and default rates than prime loans. Furthermore, research conducted by Freddie Mac in 1996 indicates that between 10 and 35 percent of subprime borrowers could have qualified for lower-cost prime loans. These considerations do not suggest that efforts to expand minority homeownership are misplaced. Indeed, much additional work is needed to overcome entrenched historical barriers to minority homeownership attainment, particularly those related to discrimination in the housing and mortgage markets. However, the potential downsides of homeownership and the rapidly expanding ranks of minority homebuyers indicate that greater attention needs to be focused on the experiences of minorities after they gain entry to the "American Dream." Author Patrick A. Simmons is Director of Housing Demography at the Fannie Mae Foundation. He is also editor of the book Housing Statistics of the United States published by Bernan Press. The author thanks Dowell Myers of the University of Southern California and Jim Carr, Amy Bogdon, and Michelle McDonough of the Fannie Mae Foundation for invaluable comments on an earlier draft of this Census Note. He also thanks Carol Bell and Brenda Brown for their editorial input and assistance. *About the Census Notes Series The Fannie Mae Foundation's Census Notes series provides timely analyses of Census 2000 data to stimulate discussion and further research. Although Census Notes are reviewed internally and on an informal basis externally, they have not been subject to the formal process of external peer review that is commonly used for the Foundation's research publications. Therefore, they should be viewed as works in progress and their findings considered preliminary. References Carr, James H., and Isaac F. Megbolugbe. 1993. The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Study on Mortgage Lending Revisited. Journal of Housing Research 4( 2):277-313. Coulson, N. Edward. 1999. Why Are Hispanic- and Asian-American Homeownership Rates So Low?: Immigration and Other Factors. Journal of Urban Economics 45(2):209-27. Freddie Mac. 2000. Freddie Mac Consumer Credit Survey: Executive Summary. McLean, VA: Freddie Mac. Accessed on the World Wide Web at www.freddiemac.com/corporate/reports/cceipoll.htm on May 17, 2000. Frey, William H. 2001. Melting Pot Suburbs: A Census 2000 Study of Suburban Diversity. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. Gyourko, Joseph, and Peter Linneman. 1997. The Changing Influences of Education, Income, Family Structure, and Race on Homeownership by Age over Time. Journal of Housing Research 8(1):1-25. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. 2001. State of the Nation's Housing. Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. 2000. State of the Nation's Housing. Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies. Listokin, David, Elvin Wyly, Brian Schmitt, and Ioan Voicu. Forthcoming. The Potential and Limitations of Mortgage Innovation in Fostering Homeownership in the United States. Research Report. Washington, DC: Fannie Mae Foundation. Listokin, David, Elvin K. Wyly, Larry Keating, Kristopher M. Rengert, and Barbara Listokin. 2000. Making New Mortgage Markets: Case Studies of Institutions, Home Buyers, and Communities. Research Report. Washington, DC: Fannie Mae Foundation. Masnick, George S. 2001. Home Ownership Trends and Racial Inequality In the United States in the 20th Century. Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. Working Paper W01- 4. McCarthy, George, Shannon Van Zandt, and William Rohe. 2001. The Economic Benefits and Costs of Homeownership: A Critical Assessment of the Research. Working Paper No. 01-02. Arlington, VA: Research Institute for Housing America. Munnell, Alicia H., Lynn E. Browne, James McEneaney, and Geoffrey M. B. Tootell. 1996. Mortgage Lending in Boston: Interpreting HMDA Data. American Economic Review 86(1):25-54. Myers, Dowell, and Angela James. 2001. Overlap: A Guide to Race and Hispanic Origin in Census 2000. Preliminary draft, March 27, 2001. Accessed on the World Wide Web at http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/research/census2000/race_census/racecontours/overlap.htm in June 2001. Oliver, Melvin L. and Thomas M. Shapiro. 1997. Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality. New York: Rutledge. Simmons, Patrick A. 2001. A Coast-to-Coast Expansion: Geographic Patterns of U.S. Homeownership Gains During the 1990s. Fannie Mae Foundation Census Note 05, June 2001. Washington, DC: Fannie Mae Foundation. Available at http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/census_notes.html. Simmons, Patrick A. 2000. The Homeownership Boom of the 1990s: Characteristics and Implications. Housing Statistics of the United States, Third Edition. Lanham, MD: Bernan Press. U.S. Bureau of the Census. nd. 1990 Census of Housing. General Housing Characteristics. 1990 CH-1. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1983. 1980 Census of Housing. Volume 1: Characteristics of Housing Units, Chapter A: General Housing Characteristics. HC80-1-A. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2001a. Summary File One: Census 2000. Accessed on the World Wide Web at http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/sumfile1.html in July and August 2001. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2001b. 2000 Census of Population and Housing: Summary File 1 Technical Documentation. SF1/01. Issued May 2001. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2001c. Report of the Executive Steering Committee for Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Policy. Issued March 2001. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1999. What's Happened to Homeownership? U.S. Housing Market Conditions, Winter 1999. Wachter, Susan M., and Isaac F. Megbolugbe. 1993. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Homeownership. Housing Policy Debate 3(2):333-70. Yinger, John. 1999. Testing for Discrimination in Housing and Related Markets. In A National Report Card on Discrimination in America: The Role of Testing, ed. Michael Fix and Margery Austin Turner. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. |
| All Content © 2007 Fannie Mae Foundation. All rights reserved. |