A majority of Latinos (54%) believe that the economic downturn that began in 2007 has been harder on them than on other groups in America.

Large shares report that they or someone in their household has been out of work in the past year (59%); that their personal finances are in “only fair” or “poor” shape (75%); that they canceled or delayed a major purchase in the past year (49%); or that they are underwater on their mortgage (28% of Latino homeowners).

The findings are drawn from a new telephone survey of a nationally representative sample of 1,220 Hispanic adults conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center. For a full description of the survey methodology, see Appendix C.

Latinos, who make up 16% of the population of the United States, have long trailed other Americans on most measures of economic well-being, but analyses of recent government trend data indicate that the gaps have widened since 2005, a period that encompasses the housing market crash and the Great Recession. For example:

• Household wealth: From 2005 to 2009, median household wealth (all assets minus all debt) among Latinos fell by 66%, compared with a drop of 53% among blacks and 16% among whites (Kochhar, Fry and Taylor, 2011).
• Unemployment: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate among Latinos in December 2011 was 11.0%, up from 6.3% at the start of the Great Recession in December 2007. Over the same period, the national unemployment rate increased from 5.0% to 8.5%.
• Poverty: Between 2006 and 2010, the poverty rate among Hispanics increased nearly six percentage points—more than any other group—from 20.6% to 26.6%. By contrast, poverty rates among whites increased from 8.2% to 9.9%. And among blacks,¹ poverty rates increased from 24.3% to 27.4% (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor and Smith, 2011).

The new Pew Hispanic survey finds that most Latinos are broadly aware of these trends. Fully 54% say Hispanics have been hurt more than other groups by the economic downturn of the past four years, while just 5% say they have been hurt less. Some 38% say Hispanics have been affected about as much as other groups.

In their responses to a more detailed battery of questions, Latinos are more downbeat than the general public about various aspects of their economic lives. For example:

• Personal finances: Just 24% of Latinos rate their personal finance as excellent or good, compared with 38% of the general public.²
• Unemployment: Some 59% of Latinos say someone in their household has been out of work and looking for a job in the past year, compared with 51% of the general public.³
• Homeownership: Some 28% of Latino homeowners say they owe more on their home than they could sell it for today, compared with just 14% of homeowners in the general public.⁴

Despite these downbeat assessments about their current economic circumstances, Latinos are more upbeat than others about the prospect for better days ahead—both for themselves and their families in the short term and for their children over the long haul.

Fully two-thirds (67%) of Latinos say they expect their financial situation to improve over the next year, compared with 58% of the general population who say the same. Also, two-thirds (66%) of Latinos say they expect their children to eventually enjoy a standard of living that is better than theirs is now. By contrast, just 48% of the general public says the same.

The Latino population, at 50 million strong, is the largest minority group in the country. Some 52% of Latino adults are immigrants, and 48% were born in the United States. As is often the case, the new survey finds significant differences in the attitudes and experiences reported by these two groups.

In general, immigrants are more downbeat. For example, 62% of Latino immigrants say Latinos have been more hurt by the bad economy than other groups, compared with 45% of the native born who say the same. Just 16% of immigrants say their economic situation is “excellent” or “good,” compared with 32% of the native born. And 63% of immigrants say they expect their financial situation and that of their family to improve in the coming year, compared with 71% of the native born.

Immigrants, however, are more likely than the native born to say their children will eventually have a higher standard of living than theirs is now—72% versus 59%.

Nearly half (49%) say they have delayed or canceled plans to buy a car or make some other major purchase in the past year. Some 45% say they have delayed or canceled plans to buy a home or make major home improvements. Nearly four-in-ten (38%) say they have cut the size of meals or skipped meals because there wasn’t enough money for food. And 37% say they had trouble getting or paying for medical care for their family.

For some behaviors, there are no differences between foreign-born Hispanics and native-born Hispanics. For example, immigrant and native-born Hispanics are equally likely to say they have delayed or canceled plans to buy a car or make some other major purchase—49% and 48%, respectively. And, when it comes to getting medical care for their family, nearly equal shares of foreign-born and native-born Latinos say they have had trouble getting or paying for it in the past year—38% versus 35%.

On other behaviors, foreign-born Hispanics are more likely than native-born Hispanics to say they have changed. Nearly half (48%) of the foreign born say they have delayed or canceled plans to buy a home or make major home improvements, compared with 41% of the native born. And 43% of immigrant Hispanics say they have cut back the size of their meals or skipped meals altogether because of a lack of money for food. Among the native born, 33% say they have done this in the past year.

Among foreign-born Latinos, those who are not U.S. citizens are more likely to have changed their economic behavior than other Latinos. For example, more than half (53%) of immigrant Latinos who are not citizens and not legal residents (a group that closely aligns with the unauthorized immigrant population⁵) and 49% of immigrant Latinos who are legal residents say they have cut back on the size of meals because of a lack of money for food. On getting or paying for medical care, 45% of immigrant Latinos who are not U.S. citizens and not legal residents and 43% of immigrant Latinos who are legal residents say they have had trouble getting or paying for medical care for their family in the past year.

Personal Finances

The difficult economy has also affected Latinos’ assessments of their personal finances. According to the new survey, three-in-four (75%) Latinos rate their current financial situation as either “only fair” (51%) or “poor” (25%). By contrast, among U.S. adults, fewer (61%) rate their current financial situation as “only fair” (37%) or “poor” (24%).

Despite challenging economic conditions and difficult personal finances, Latinos are optimistic about their finances in the coming year—more so than the general public. Two-thirds (67%) of Latinos expect an improvement in their financial situation and that of their family. By contrast, 58% of all adults say they expect to see an improvement.

Overall, foreign-born Hispanics hold a grimmer view of their personal finances than the native born. More than eight-in-ten (83%) foreign-born Hispanics rate their own financial situation as “only fair” or “poor” while two-thirds (66%) of the native born offer the same rating. And when it comes to optimism about personal finances in the next year, fewer immigrant Hispanics than native-born Hispanics expect to see an improvement—63% versus 71%.

Unemployment and Latinos

Many Latinos have experienced a spell of unemployment or know someone who has been unemployed. According to the new survey, nearly six-in-ten (59%) Latino adults say this has happened to their household in the past year. Among all U.S. adults, nearly as many said the same in March of 2011—51% (Kohut, Doherty, Dimock and Keeter, 2011).

Overall, native-born Hispanics and foreign-born Hispanics are just as likely to say their households have experienced unemployment in the last year—57% and 60% respectively. However, among the foreign born there are notable differences. Two-thirds (66%) of immigrant Hispanics who are legal residents and two-thirds (66%) of those who do not have U.S. citizenship and are not a legal resident say someone in their household was without a job or looking for work in the last year. By contrast, 54% of naturalized U.S. citizens say the same.

Experience with unemployment varies across other Latino demographic groups as well. Seven-in-ten (70%) of those ages 18 to 29 have experienced unemployment in their households in the last year—more than any other age group—while 57% of Latinos ages 30 to 49, 57% of those ages 50 to 64, and half (51%) of those ages 65 and older say the same.

The survey also reveals differences by educational attainment. Two-thirds (65%) of Latinos with less than a high school diploma say they or someone in their household has been without a job in the last 12 months. By contrast 53% of those with some college education say the same. Additionally, 60% of high school graduates also say they or someone in their household has been without a job in the last 12 months.

Finally, household experience with unemployment is higher among Hispanics who are not registered to vote than it is among those who are registered—64% of the former say this compared with 53% of Hispanic registered voters.

For Latinos, after reaching a record high of 49.8% in 2006, the homeownership rate fell to 47.4% in 2011, matching similar declines among other groups.

Falling housing prices have affected household wealth among Latinos more than other groups. In 2005, Latinos derived nearly two-thirds of their net worth from home equity. However, because many Latinos live in places where housing prices increased the most prior to the housing crisis—and have fallen the most since—the housing bust had a greater impact on Latino household wealth than any other group (Kochhar, Fry and Taylor, 2011).

The steep decline in housing prices has many Latino homeowners underwater on their home mortgages. According to Pew Hispanic survey, 28% of Latino homeowners say they owe more on their home than what they could sell it for—double the share (14%) of homeowners in the general population who say the same.

Being underwater varies by region. More than four-in-ten (41%) Latino homeowners in Northeastern states say their mortgage is underwater, a share greater than any other part of the country. By comparison, 32% of Latino homeowners in the West, 27% in the North Central region, and 21% in the South say they owe more on their mortgage than what they could sell their home for.⁶

Recent home buyers are more likely to be underwater on their mortgages than other homeowners. Some 39% of Latinos who bought their home between 2000 and 2011 say they owe more in their home than what they could sell it for. This compares to 22% of those who bought a decade earlier (1990 to 1999) and only 15% of those who bought between 1980 and 1989.

The Investment Value of Homeownership

Despite being hit hard by the housing market downturn, three-in-four (75%) Latinos agree that buying a home is the best long-term investment a person can make in the U.S. This compares with 81% of the general population who say the same (Pew Social & Demographic Trends, 2011).

Large majorities of many groups of Latinos say buying a home is the best long-term investment. Homeowners are more convinced than renters of the value of owning a home. Fully 83% of Latino homeowners say owing a home is the best long-term investment, while 70% of renters say the same. Even among homeowners who are underwater, three-in-four (74%) say buying a home is the best long-term investment.

Home Foreclosures

Latinos have been more affected by the home foreclosure crisis than other groups. According to a recent study by the Center for Responsible Lending (Gruenstein Bocian, Li, Quercia and Reid, 2011), the rate of completed foreclosures on loans originating between 2004 and 2008 was 11.9% for Latinos. That foreclosure rate was more than double the rate for non-Hispanic whites (5.1%) and higher than the rate for blacks (9.8%).

The Pew Hispanic survey asked Hispanics who do not own a home about their experience with foreclosure. According to the survey, 7% of Latinos who do not own homes say they lost a home to foreclosure in the past year. By contrast, 5% of the general public that does not own a home said the same in May 2010.⁷

Two-thirds (67%) of Latinos (compared with 61% of the general public) say their standard of living is better than that of their parents when their parents were the age they are now.

This assessment of an improved standard of living is stronger among foreign-born Hispanics than it is among native-born Hispanics. Seven-in-ten (71%) foreign-born Hispanics say their standard of living is better than that of their parents. Among the native born, 62% say the same.

Looking to the next generation, Latinos are more optimistic than the general public. Two-thirds (66%) of Latino adults expect their children will do better than themselves, while fewer than half (48%) of the general public says the same about the next generation.

Among Hispanics, expectations of intergenerational upward mobility are higher among the foreign born than they are among the native born. More than seven-in-ten (72%) Hispanic immigrants say they expect their children’s standard of living will be better than their own. Among the native born, 59% expect their children’s standard of living to be better.

For this survey, SSRS maintained a staff of bilingual interviewers who, when contacting a household, were able to offer respondents the option of completing the survey in Spanish or English. A total of 674 (55%) respondents were surveyed in Spanish, and 546 (45%) respondents were interviewed in English. Any person ages 18 or older of Latino origin or descent was eligible to complete the survey.

To address concerns about coverage, the study employed a dual-frame landline/cellphone telephone design. The sample consisted of a landline component (n = 617) and a cellphone component (n = 603).⁸ Both the landline and cellphone components consisted of a stratified sampling design, oversampling areas with higher densities of Latino residents.

For the landline sampling frame, the sample was run against InfoUSA and other listed databases, and phone numbers that matched to known Latino surnames were subdivided into a Surname stratum. The remaining, unmatched and unlisted landline sample was divided into the following mutually exclusive strata: Very High Latino, High Latino and Medium Latino.

MSG’s GENESYS sample generation system was used to generate cellphone sample, which was divided into High and Medium Latino strata. Overall, the study employed eight strata.

Samples for the low-incidence landline and cell strata were drawn based on responses to SSRS’s weekly dual-frame Excel omnibus survey. Respondents who indicated they were Latino on the omnibus survey were eligible to be recontacted for the present survey.

It is important to note that the existence of a surname stratum does not mean this was a surname sample design. The sample is RDD, with the randomly selected telephone numbers divided by whether they were found to be associated with or without a Spanish surname. This was done simply to increase the number of strata and thereby increase the ability to meet ethnic targets and ease administration by allowing for more effective assignment of interviewers and labor hours.

A five-stage weighting design was used to ensure an accurate representation of the national Hispanic population.

• An adjustment was made for all persons found to possess both a landline and a cellphone, as they were twice as likely to be sampled as were respondents who possessed only one phone type.
• The sample was corrected for a potential bias associated with recontacting respondents in the low-incidence landline and cell strata.
• The sample was corrected for the likelihood of within-household selection, which depended upon the likelihood that the respondent’s age group would be selected, and that within that age group, the particular respondent would be selected.
• The sample was corrected for the oversampling of telephone number exchanges known to have higher densities of Latinos and the corresponding undersampling of exchanges known to have lower densities of Latinos.

Finally, the data were put through a post-stratification sample balancing routine. The post-stratification weighting utilized national 2011 estimates from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, March Supplement, on gender, age, education, census region, heritage, years in the U.S., and phone status (i.e., cellphone only, cellphone mostly, mixed/landline only/landline mostly).⁹

Florida Voter Registration Statistics

According to the Florida Division of Elections, final registration statistics for the state’s January 31 presidential primary show that 1,473,920 Latinos are registered to vote statewide. Overall, Latinos make up 13.1% of the state’s more than 11.2 million registered voters. Among Latino registered voters, 452,619 are registered as Republicans, making up 11.1% of all Republican registered voters. And 564,513 Latino registered voters are registered as Democrats, representing 12.4% of all Democratic registered voters.

As recently as 2006, more Hispanics in Florida were registered as Republicans than as Democrats. By 2008, the balance tipped over to the Democrats. This year that trend has accelerated, with the gap–111,894 registered voters–between Hispanics who are registered as Democrats and those registered as Republicans wider now than in 2008 or 2010.

Geographically, the majority of Hispanic Republican registered voters are located in South Florida. According to the Division of Elections, 58.5% (264,721) are in Miami-Dade County alone. By contrast, among the state’s Hispanic Democratic registered voters, a smaller share, 33.9% (191,359), are registered to vote in Miami-Dade County.

Hispanics in Florida’s Eligible Voter Population

• The Hispanic population in Florida is the third-largest in the nation. More than 4.2 million Hispanics reside in Florida, 8% of all Hispanics in the United States.
• Florida’s population is 23% Hispanic, the sixth-highest Hispanic population share nationally.
• There are 2.1 million Hispanic eligible voters in Florida—the third-largest Hispanic eligible-voter population nationally. California ranks first with 5.9 million.
• Some 16% of Florida eligible voters are Hispanic, the fifth-largest Hispanic eligible voter population share nationally. New Mexico ranks first with 39%.
• One-half (49%) of Hispanics in Florida are eligible to vote, ranking Florida 12th nationwide in the share of the Hispanic population that is eligible to vote. By contrast, 81% of the state’s white population is eligible to vote.

Characteristics of Eligible Voters

• Age. Florida’s Hispanic eligible voters are younger than all eligible voters in Florida—25% of Hispanic eligible voters are ages 18 to 29 versus 19% of all eligible voters.
• Citizenship. Some 43% of Hispanic eligible voters in Florida are naturalized U.S. citizens, compared with 13% of all Florida eligible voters.
• Nativity. Hispanic eligible voters in Florida are less likely to be native-born citizens (57%) than are Hispanic eligible voters nationwide (75%).
• Hispanic Origin. Hispanic eligible voters in Florida have a different country-of-origin profile from Hispanic eligible voters nationwide. One-third (32%) of Hispanic eligible voters in Florida are of Cuban origin, 28% are of Puerto Rican origin and 9% are of Mexican origin. By contrast, among Hispanic eligible voters nationwide, 59% are Mexican, 14% are Puerto Rican and 5% are Cuban.
• Educational Attainment. Two-in-ten Latino eligible voters in Florida (20%) have not completed high school. That is lower than the rate for Latino eligible voters nationwide—25%—but greater than the rate for all U.S. eligible voters (12%) or all eligible voters in Florida (13%).
• Homeownership. Two-thirds of Hispanic eligible voters in Florida (67%) live in owner-occupied homes versus 58% of Hispanic eligible voters nationwide. Somewhat greater shares of all eligible voters in Florida (71%) and all eligible voters nationwide (69%) live in owner-occupied homes.

Characteristics of Eligible Voters in Florida, by Race and Ethnicity

• Number of Eligible Voters. White eligible voters outnumber both Hispanic and black eligible voters in Florida by more than 4 to 1.
• Age. Black eligible voters are younger than Hispanic or white eligible voters in Florida—28% of black eligible voters are ages 18 to 29 compared with 25% of Hispanic and 16% of white eligible voters.
• Educational Attainment. More than half (53%) of Hispanic eligible voters have attended college or earned at least a bachelor’s degree compared with 60% of white and 46% of black eligible voters.
• Homeownership. Hispanic eligible voters are less likely than white eligible voters in Florida to live in owner-occupied homes—67% versus 76%.

According to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), the U.S. population in 2010 included 39.9 million foreign-born residents. This estimate, the latest available for the foreign-born population, is 1.5 million, or 4%, higher than the survey’s 38.5 million estimate in 2009.¹ A variety of additional data, however, suggest that both the absolute increase and the percentage increase in the foreign-born population were substantially smaller. An analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center, concludes that the growth in the foreign-born population from 2009 to 2010 is a markedly lower 616,000, or 1.6% (see Table 1).

The Pew Hispanic Center revision to the estimated growth in the foreign-born population was undertaken to account for changes between 2009 and 2010 in the Census Bureau’s assumptions about population composition that underlie the reported ACS estimates. This type of discontinuity in assumptions is not uncommon in government datasets, and government agencies often supply guidance to users on dealing with the issue. Pew Hispanic’s revised estimate smoothes out these discontinuities by employing the Census Bureau’s own revised and consistent set of underlying population estimates.

When the ACS data for 2009 are revised for consistency with the assumptions that underlie the 2010 ACS, the foreign-born population in 2009 is estimated to have been 39.3 million, 850,000 higher than the original ACS estimate. As a result, the growth in the foreign-born population from 2009 to 2010 is estimated to be less than originally reported (Table 1).

To appreciate the reasons for the gap between the estimates reported by the Census Bureau and the revisions produced by the Pew Hispanic Center, it helps to understand how the government agency collects and processes statistics. The 2010 ACS is based on the latest information from the 2010 Decennial Census; the 2009 ACS is based on the latest information available for that survey—updates of the 2000 Decennial Census. This report discusses how the difference in underlying data can affect estimates of the change in population from 2009 to 2010. A methodological section explains how the ACS estimates for 2009 are revised to make them consistent with the 2010 data. The analysis in this report is intended to clarify the extent to which the apparent change in the foreign-born population from 2009 to 2010 stems from inconsistencies in the underlying population estimates.²

Additional Data Show Similar Pattern

Additional data from other sources indicate that the Pew Hispanic revised estimate of the growth of the foreign-born population is more accurate than implied by the reported ACS data. For example, similar data from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly household survey conducted by the Census Bureau, show a drop in average annual change in the foreign-born population over the decade—from 880,000 per year for 2000-2006 to 510,000 per year for 2006-2010.³ These CPS data have been reweighted by the Pew Hispanic Center to produce a consistent dataset and adjusted to correct for undercount.

Unpublished analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center of ACS data on respondents’ year of immigration and residence one year ago show a decrease in arrivals of immigrants in 2009 compared with earlier in the decade. Additionally, other sources (e.g., National Research Council, 2011; U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 2011) also point to a slowdown of immigration flows, especially those of unauthorized migrants, associated with the onset of the Great Recession in late 2007.

Survey Changes Throughout the Decade

The need for revision of the 2009 ACS estimates stems from the fact that the ACS samples the U.S. population; unlike the decennial census, it does not count the entire population. Therefore, its basic population totals—for the country, states and smaller geographic areas, subdivided by age, gender, race and other characteristics—are imposed from other sources. ACS respondents are assigned sample weights that total to these pre-specified population numbers.

However, population estimates from the 2009 ACS and the 2010 ACS are “mismatched.” Sample weights in the 2009 ACS are based on a postcensal population estimate for 2009 that the Census Bureau derived by updating the 2000 Census using government records for births, deaths, immigration and migration (see Terminology). Sample weights in the 2010 ACS are based on an estimate for July 1, 2010, that is derived from the 2010 Census population count.

In other words, the 2009 ACS estimates are based on data tied to the 2000 Census and do not reflect the latest information on the size and the characteristics of the U.S. population as determined by the 2010 Census, a more relevant year.

Inconsistencies between the decennial census population counts and the population estimates during the previous decade are nothing new. However, until this decade, this discontinuity did not affect detailed data about the characteristics of the U.S. population, such as the number who are foreign born, because such data at the state and local level came only once a decade from the decennial census itself, via the long form that was mailed to a sample of the nation’s population. But the long form was last used in the 2000 Census. Since 2005, such data now come every year from the ACS, a long-form survey that includes data from more than 2 million households per year.

Discrepancies in Data for Some Groups

Although the 2010 Census national and state counts agreed very closely with the expected total based on the Bureau’s postcensal population estimates for 2010 (Cohn, 2011), there were notable discrepancies for some subgroups—especially those that are prominent in the foreign-born population. This suggests there are similar issues with the 2009 postcensal population estimates that were the basis for the 2009 ACS.

According to an earlier Pew Hispanic analysis, the 2010 Census counted nearly 1 million more Hispanics than would be expected (Passel and Cohn, 2011), or 1.9% more than expected, based on the postcensal population estimates for 2010. The count of non-Hispanic single-race Asians also was higher than would be expected—by about 700,000, or 5%.⁴ These groups account for almost three-quarters of immigrants. Thus, because the 2009 ACS total for the foreign-born population is derived from the same series of postcensal population estimates, it also can be considered to be an underestimate.

To account for differences between the postcensal estimates used to weight the 2009 ACS and the 2010 Census-based data used to weight the 2010 ACS, the Pew Hispanic Center adjusted the 2009 ACS to agree with the Census Bureau’s recently published new intercensal estimates for 2000 to 2010 (see Terminology and the methodological appendix). These estimates “smooth the transition from one decennial census count to the next” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011a) by adjusting the published postcensal estimates for each year so the trend is in line with the 2010 Census results. The Census Bureau does this by distributing throughout the decade any discontinuities between those estimates and population counts in the 2010 Census (i.e., the error of closure, see Terminology). The biggest differences between the reported and revised ACS estimates for 2009 are for young adult Asians and Hispanics.⁵

It is not unusual to see discontinuities attributable to changes in weighting or population counts in government data series. Every January, for example, new population estimates are introduced into the Current Population Survey, leading to discontinuities in estimates of the labor force and the number of employed and unemployed workers. The government agencies involved typically provide users with guidance on the impact of the changes (e.g., Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011), but they often do not revise previously released data. Only rarely does the Census Bureau issue a new set of survey weights that would enable data users to re-estimate time series and detailed measures.⁶

Revisions to ACS Weights

The adjustments to the 2009 ACS data are based on sample weights revised by the Pew Hispanic Center that are derived from intercensal population estimates for 2009. The originally reported 2009 ACS data are based on sample weights derived from the postcensal estimates for 2009. The revised weights are derived using a simplified version of the final stages of the ACS weighting procedure. (See the methodological appendix for more details of the revised weighting procedures.) As such, they should be considered approximations to full revisions that would incorporate new information from the 2010 Census into the full ACS weighting methods for 2009.

The estimate of the size of the foreign-born population is created by summing the revised survey weights of ACS respondents who say they are foreign born. This method is similar to that used by the Census Bureau to arrive at its estimate, except for the difference in the survey weights.

Analysis of changes in the foreign-born population throughout the 2000-2010 decade will require consistent data for years other than 2010, 2009 and 2000. These 2009 revisions are a first step in producing a consistent time series of ACS data for the decade. The Pew Hispanic Center plans to produce revised weights for ACS public use files for 2005 through 2008. These data will enable users to compare actual and apparent change for those years.⁷