The ACS is the largest household survey in the United States, with a sample of about 3 million addresses. It covers the topics previously covered in the long form of the decennial census. The ACS is designed to provide estimates of the size and characteristics of the resident population, which includes persons living in households and group quarters.

The specific data sources for this statistical profile are the 1% sample of the 2011 ACS Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) and the 5% sample of the 2000 Census IPUMS provided by the University of Minnesota.¹ The IPUMS assigns uniform codes, to the extent possible, to data collected by the decennial census and the ACS from 1850 to 2011. Due to differences in the way in which the IPUMS and Census Bureau adjust income data and assign poverty status, data provided in Tables 31 – 37 might differ from data on these variables that are provided by the Census Bureau. For more information about the IPUMS, including variable definition and sampling error, please visit http://usa.ipums.org/usa/design.shtml. To learn more about the sampling strategy and associated error of the 2000 Census or the 2011 American Community Survey, please refer to Chapter 8 of the U.S. Census Summary File 3: 2000 and U.S. Census Design Methodology, respectively. For the purposes of this statistical portrait, the population is based on the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Persons born in Puerto Rico and other outlying territories of the U.S. and who are now living in the 50 states or the District of Columbia are included in the native-born Hispanic population. Hispanics who are now living in the 50 states or the District of Columbia and who identified as naturalized citizens or non-citizens are included in the foreign-born Hispanic population.

The ACS is the largest household survey in the United States, with a sample of about 3 million addresses. It covers the topics previously covered in the long form of the decennial census. The ACS is designed to provide estimates of the size and characteristics of the resident population, which includes persons living in households and group quarters.

The specific data sources for this statistical profile are the 1% sample of the 2011 ACS Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) and the 5% sample of the 2000 Census IPUMS provided by the University of Minnesota.¹ The IPUMS assigns uniform codes, to the extent possible, to data collected by the decennial census and the ACS from 1850 to 2011. Due to differences in the way in which the IPUMS and Census Bureau adjust income data and assign poverty status, data provided in Tables 31 – 37 might differ from data on these variables that are provided by the Census Bureau. For more information about the IPUMS, including variable definition and sampling error, please visit http://usa.ipums.org/usa/design.shtml. To learn more about the sampling strategy and associated error of the 2000 Census or the 2011 American Community Survey, please refer to Chapter 8 of the U.S. Census Summary File 3: 2000 and U.S. Census Design Methodology, respectively.

For the purposes of this statistical portrait, the foreign born include those persons who identified as naturalized citizens or non-citizens and are living in the 50 states or the District of Columbia. Persons born in Puerto Rico and other outlying territories of the U.S. and who are now living in the 50 states or the District of Columbia are included in the native-born population.

The ACS is the largest household survey in the United States, with a sample of about 3 million addresses. It covers the topics previously covered in the long form of the decennial census. The ACS is designed to provide estimates of the size and characteristics of the resident population, which includes persons living in households and group quarters.

The specific data sources for this statistical profile are the 1% sample of the 2010 ACS Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) and the 5% sample of the 2000 Census IPUMS provided by the University of Minnesota.¹ The IPUMS assigns uniform codes, to the extent possible, to data collected by the decennial census and the ACS from 1850 to 2010. Due to differences in the way in which the IPUMS and Census Bureau adjust income data and assign poverty status, data provided in Tables 27 – 37 might differ from data on these variables that are provided by the Census Bureau. For more information about the IPUMS, including variable definition and sampling error, please visit http://usa.ipums.org/usa/design.shtml. To learn more about the sampling strategy and associated error of the 2000 Census or the 2010 American Community Survey, please refer to Chapter 8 of the U.S. Census Summary File 3: 2000 and U.S. Census Design Methodology, respectively.

For the purposes of this statistical portrait, the foreign born include those persons who identified as naturalized citizens or non-citizens. Persons born in Puerto Rico and other outlying territories of the U.S. are included in the native-born population.

The ACS is the largest household survey in the United States, with a sample of about 3 million addresses. It covers the topics previously covered in the long form of the decennial census. The ACS is designed to provide estimates of the size and characteristics of the resident population, which includes persons living in households and group quarters.

The specific data sources for this statistical profile are the 1% sample of the 2010 ACS Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) and the 5% sample of the 2000 Census IPUMS provided by the University of Minnesota.¹ The IPUMS assigns uniform codes, to the extent possible, to data collected by the decennial census and the ACS from 1850 to 2010. Due to differences in the way in which the IPUMS and Census Bureau adjust income data and assign poverty status, data provided in Tables 27 – 37 might differ from data on these variables that are provided by the Census Bureau. For more information about the IPUMS, including variable definition and sampling error, please visit http://usa.ipums.org/usa/design.shtml. To learn more about the sampling strategy and associated error of the 2000 Census or the 2010 American Community Survey, please refer to Chapter 8 of the U.S. Census Summary File 3: 2000 and U.S. Census Design Methodology, respectively. For the purposes of this statistical portrait, persons born in Puerto Rico and other outlying territories of the U.S. are included in the native-born Hispanic population. Hispanics who identified as naturalized citizens or non-citizens are included in the foreign-born Hispanic population.

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%.

The additional data used in the alternative measure include medical expenses, tax credits, non-cash government benefits (such as food stamps, housing subsidies and school lunch programs) and cost-of-living adjustments for different geographic areas. The alternative measure is not intended to replace the official poverty measure, at least for now. For the foreseeable future, the Census Bureau will report two sets of numbers.

Compared with the official measure, SPM figures released by the Census Bureau show a higher national poverty rate for 2010, 16.0%, compared with the official poverty rate of 15.2% (Short, 2011).¹ The number of poor people in 2010 was 49.1 million using the alternative measure, compared with 46.6 million using the official measure. Using the SPM also resulted in higher poverty rates for some groups and lower poverty rates for others, when compared with the official measure.

Among the nation’s largest racial and ethnic groups, poverty rates using the alternative measure are higher than official poverty rates for Hispanics, whites² and Asians, but are lower for blacks. For Hispanics, the SPM poverty rate (28.2%) was 1.5 percentage points higher than the official poverty rate of 26.7%. For whites, the SPM poverty rate was 11.1% while the official poverty rate was 10.0%. For Asians, the SPM poverty rate was 16.7% versus the official poverty rate of 12.1%. By contrast, the SPM poverty rate for blacks, 25.4% in 2010, was 2.1 percentage points lower than the official poverty rate of 27.5%.

The Census Bureau report on the alternative poverty measure did not explain why poverty rates for race groups and Hispanics change under the alternative measure.³

When the alternative measure is used, a greater share of Hispanics in 2010 lived in poverty than any other group. By contrast, when using the official poverty rate, a greater share of blacks in 2010 lived in poverty than Hispanics or any other group. Even so, no matter which measure is used, Hispanics make up nearly three-in-ten of the nation’s poor—28.6% under the official poverty measure and 28.7% under the SPM.

The nation’s youngest and oldest age groups also show notable differences in their poverty rates depending on whether the official measure or the SPM is used. For children younger than 18 in 2010, the SPM poverty rate was lower than the official poverty rate—18.2% versus 22.5%.⁴ For the elderly, by contrast, the SPM poverty rate was higher than the official poverty rate—15.9% versus 9.0%. One explanation of the difference for children is that the SPM, but not the official measure, accounts for the in-kind benefits of government programs that target families with children, according to the Census Bureau. One explanation of the higher poverty rates for the elderly shown in the SPM, according to the bureau’s analysis, is that the alternative measure incorporates out-of-pocket spending on health care costs.

The share of people born in the U.S. who are poor did not change significantly using the SPM in 2010, compared with the official measure, but the poverty rate for immigrants was higher—25.5% versus 20.0%. For immigrants who are not U.S. citizens, the SPM poverty rate was 32.4% in 2010, while the official poverty rate was 26.7%. For naturalized citizens, the SPM poverty rate was 16.8% in 2010, compared with the official poverty rate of 11.4%.

Because the SPM accounts for cost-of-living differences across geographic areas, it produced different results from the official rates for cities, suburbs and non-metropolitan areas. The SPM poverty rate for residents outside of metropolitan areas was lower than the official poverty rate—12.8% versus 16.6%. By contrast, among those who live in metropolitan areas (cities and suburbs), the SPM poverty rate was higher than the official poverty rate—16.6% versus 15.0%.

The SPM, which was developed by the Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics⁵, will not replace the official measure of poverty that has been used since the 1960s. The federal government’s official poverty measure defines thresholds based on the cost of a basket of food, adjusted for householder age, family size and composition. These costs are compared with before-tax cash income (including Social Security payments and cash welfare grants) to determine poverty status.

The alternative poverty measure, by contrast, starts with the cost of a basket of food, clothing, shelter and utilities, and adjusts it based on a wider range of family types and housing costs in different areas. The SPM also accounts for a larger range of financial resources, adding the value of non-cash benefits such as food stamps and subsidies for school lunches, housing costs and energy bills, while subtracting expenses such as taxes, child care costs and out-of-pocket spending for medical bills.

The spread of poverty across the United States that began at the onset of the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and accelerated last year hit one fast-growing demographic group especially hard: Latino children.

More Latino children are living in poverty—6.1 million in 2010—than children of any other racial or ethnic group. This marks the first time in U.S. history that the single largest group of poor children is not white. In 2010, 37.3% of poor children were Latino, 30.5% were white and 26.6% were black, according to an analysis of new data from the U.S. Census Bureau by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center.

This negative milestone for Hispanics is a product of their growing numbers, high birth rates and declining economic fortunes. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Hispanics today make up a record 16.3% of the total U.S. population. But they comprise an even larger share—23.1%—of the nation’s children (Passel, Cohn and Lopez, 2011), a disparity driven mainly by high birth rates among Hispanic immigrants (Pew Hispanic Center, 2011). According to the 2010 Census, some 53.5% of children are white and 14.6% of children are black.

Of the 6.1 million Latino children living in poverty, more than two-thirds (4.1 million) are the children of immigrant parents, according the new Pew Hispanic Center analysis. The other 2 million are the children of parents born in the U.S. Among the 4.1 million impoverished Latino children of immigrants, the vast majority (86.2%) were born in the U.S.

The Great Recession, which began in 2007 and officially ended in 2009, had a large impact on the Latino community. At its beginning, the unemployment rate among Latino workers increased rapidly, especially among immigrant workers (Kochhar, 2008). Today, the unemployment rate among Latinos, at 11.1%, is higher than the national unemployment rate of 9.1% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). Household wealth among Latinos declined more sharply than either black or white households between 2005 and 2009 (Taylor, Kochhar and Fry, 2011). And according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, food insecurity among Latino households increased sharply at the start of the Great Recession. In 2008, nearly a third (32.1%) of Latino households with children faced food insecurity, up from 23.8% in 2007 (Nord, Andrews and Carlson, 2009).¹

Prior to the Great Recession, more white children lived in poverty than Hispanic children. However, since 2007, that pattern has reversed. Between 2007 and 2010, an additional 1.6 million Hispanic children lived in poverty, an increase of 36.3%. By contrast, even though the number of white and black children living in poverty also grew, their numbers grew more slowly—up 17.6% and 11.7% respectively.

Poverty Rates Among Children

Even though there are more Latino children in poverty than any other racial or ethnic group, the poverty rate among black children is the nation’s highest. In 2010, 39.1% of black children lived in poverty, while 35% of Latino children and 12.4% of white children lived in poverty.

Since 2007, however, poverty rates among Latino children have increased most. Between 2007 and 2010, the Latino child poverty rate increased 6.4 percentage points. Among black children over the same period, the poverty rate increased 4.6 percentage points. And among white children, the poverty rate increased 2.3 percentage points.

Despite the record number of Latino children in poverty, the poverty rate among Hispanic children is not at a record high. In 1994 it stood at 41.5%. Among Hispanic children of immigrant parents, their poverty rate of 40.2% in 2010 is the highest since 1994, when it was 43.9%. Among the Hispanic children with U.S.-born parents, their poverty rate of 27.6% is also not a record high, though it is at its highest level in more than a decade.

The Demographics of Childhood Poverty Among Latino Children

The poverty rate among all Latino children has increased since 2007, but the Great Recession has had a varied impact on different subgroups of Latino children. Between 2007 and 2010, poverty rates among Latino children grew the most among those in families with parents who have a high school diploma or less—up 9.7 percentage points since 2007. By contrast, Latino children with a parent who has a college degree saw the smallest poverty rate increase—just 0.6 percentage points between 2007 and 2010.

Just as the Great Recession had a differential impact on subgroups of Latino children, the prevalence of poverty is not the same across all Latino children. In 2010, Latino children who lived in families headed by single mothers had the highest poverty rate—57.3%. Latino children in families with an unemployed parent also had one of the highest poverty rates overall—43.5% in 2010. By contrast, just 8.7% of Latino children in families with a college-educated parent lived in poverty in 2010.

The U.S. Poverty Rate

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the poverty rate among all Americans has increased since the beginning of the Great Recession. In 2007, the national poverty rate was 12.5%. In 2010, it was 15.1%, the highest it has been since 1993 when it was also 15.1%. Among the nation’s children, the poverty rate rose from 18% in 2007 to 22% in 2010, an increase of 4 percentage points. Among the nation’s largest racial and ethnic groups, the poverty rate among all Hispanics in 2010 was 26.6%, the highest it has been since 1997, and up 5.1 percentage points since 2007. Among blacks, the poverty rate was 27.4% and among whites 9.9%. Both rates were also higher than in 2007 (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor and Smith, 2011).

A Roadmap to the Report

This report provides an in-depth look at Latino children who live in poverty. The next two sections explore poverty rates among many subgroups of Latino children and provide a detailed demographic profile of impoverished Latino children. The report’s appendix includes two tables. The first shows the number of white, black and Latino children in poverty between 1976 and 2010. The second shows the number of Latino children in poverty with immigrant parents and the number of Latino children in poverty with U.S.-born parents between 1993 and 2010.

About this Report

This report focuses on children living in poverty by race and ethnicity in the United States. Children are those ages 17 and younger. The data for this report are derived from the Current Population Survey (CPS) March Supplements from various years. The 1993, 2007 and 2010 estimates are based on Pew Hispanic Center tabulations of March CPS Supplements, including the recently released 2011 March CPS data. Poverty estimates for other years of white, black and Latino children are from historical tables available from the U.S. Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf. Poverty estimates of Latino children with at least one immigrant parent and Latino children with two U.S.-born parents are based on Pew Hispanic Center tabulations of March CPS Supplements from 1994 to 2011.

The CPS March Supplement, also known as Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC), is a survey of about 100,000 households conducted by the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It is representative of the non-institutionalized population of the U.S. and is the source for annual, national official estimates of the number of persons living in poverty in the U.S. It also provides annual national estimates of income and health insurance coverage.

This report was researched and written by Associate Director Mark Hugo Lopez and Research Analyst Gabriel Velasco. Paul Taylor provided editorial guidance. D’Vera Cohn, Rakesh Kochhar and Jeffrey Passel provided research guidance and comments. Jeffrey Passel helped with the tabulation of poverty statistics. Seth Motel helped with the production of the report and number-checked it. The report was copy-edited by Molly Rohal.

A Note on Terminology

The terms “Latino” and “Hispanic” are used interchangeably in this report.

Reference to whites in this report refers to its non-Hispanic component. Reference to blacks includes both Hispanic and non-Hispanic components of the black population. The CPS altered its racial identification question in 2003 to allow respondents to identify themselves as being of more than one race. From 2003 onward, references to whites and blacks refer to persons self-identifying as white alone and black alone respectively.

“Foreign born” refers to persons born outside of the United States, Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories to parents neither of whom was a U.S. citizen. “Native born” refers to persons who are U.S. citizens at birth, including those born in the United States, Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories and those born abroad to parents at least one of whom was a U.S. citizen.

The children of immigrant parents are native-born and foreign-born children under age 18 who have at least one parent that was born in another country. The children of U.S.-born parents are native-born children under age 18 who have two U.S.-born parents.

The specific data sources for this statistical profile are the 1% sample of the 2009 ACS Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) and the 5% sample of the 2000 Census IPUMS provided by the University of Minnesota.¹ The IPUMS assigns uniform codes, to the extent possible, to data collected by the decennial census and the ACS from 1850 to 2009. Due to differences in the way in which the IPUMS and Census Bureau adjust income data and assign poverty status, data provided in Tables 27 – 34 might differ from data on these variables that are provided by the Census Bureau. For more information about the IPUMS, including variable definition and sampling error, please visit http://usa.ipums.org/usa/design.shtml. To learn more about the sampling strategy and associated error of the 2000 Census or the 2009 American Community Survey, please refer to Chapter 8 of the U.S. Census Summary File 3: 2000 and U.S. Cenus Design Methodology, respectively.

Because persons living in group quarters were not included in the 2005 ACS, the data contained in this profile of foreign-born persons, tabulated from the 2009 ACS, are not comparable with the data included in the Pew Hispanic Center’s Foreign Born at Mid-Decade report.

For the purposes of this statistical portrait, the foreign born include those persons who identified as naturalized citizens or non-citizens. Persons born in Puerto Rico and other outlying territories of the U.S. are included in the native-born population.

The specific data sources for this statistical profile are the 1% sample of the 2009 ACS Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) and the 5% sample of the 2000 Census IPUMS provided by the University of Minnesota.¹ The IPUMS assigns uniform codes, to the extent possible, to data collected by the decennial census and the ACS from 1850 to 2009. Due to differences in the way in which the IPUMS and Census Bureau adjust income data and assign poverty status, data provided in Tables 27 – 34 might differ from data on these variables that are provided by the Census Bureau. For more information about the IPUMS, including variable definition and sampling error, please visit http://usa.ipums.org/usa/design.shtml. To learn more about the sampling strategy and associated error of the 2000 Census or the 2009 American Community Survey, please refer to Chapter 8 of the U.S. Census Summary File 3: 2000 and U.S. Cenus Design Methodology, respectively.

Because those persons living in group quarters were not included in the 2005 ACS, the data contained in this profile of Hispanics, tabulated from the 2009 ACS, are not comparable with the data provided in the Pew Hispanic Center’s Statistical Portrait of Hispanics at Mid-Decade.

For the purposes of this statistical portrait, persons born in Puerto Rico and other outlying territories of the U.S. are included in the native-born Hispanic population. Hispanics who identified as naturalized citizens or non-citizens are included in the foreign-born Hispanic population.

The updated profiles feature two new topics: racial self-identification and health insurance coverage. Racial identity questions in census forms have varied over the years and that has had an impact on results. The race and ethnicity questions in the 2008 ACS reflect the wording being used in the 2010 census. Thus, the 2008 data predict how the results may appear in the 2010 census as well as how those results may differ from the 2000 census. Questions on health insurance coverage were included in the ACS for the first time in 2008. The large sample size of the ACS permits more detailed analysis of that issue at the state level and by detailed demographics.

Two profiles—Hispanics in the United States, 2008 and Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 2008—are national in scope. These profiles focus on the demographic and economic characteristics of Hispanics and the foreign born in the U.S. Topics covered include racial self-identification, age, geographic dispersion, nativity, citizenship, origin, language proficiency, living arrangements, marital status, fertility, schooling, health insurance coverage, earnings, poverty and other labor market outcomes.

A second set of profiles focuses on the demographic and economic characteristics of Hispanics in each of the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The range of topics covered in the State Demographic Profiles is similar to those included in the national portraits of Hispanics and the foreign born. Comparisons with the white, black and total populations are also available in the statistical portraits.

Racial Self-identification

When asked to identify their race, most Hispanics—62.5% in 2008—say they are white only. A small share—just 1.9%—self-identify as black only, and a sizeable minority—30.4%—self identifies with “some other race.” Among non-Hispanics, by contrast, just 0.3% identify with “some other race.”

Even though nearly one-third of Hispanics identified with “some other race” in 2008 that share is significantly less than in preceding years. Historically, about four-in-ten Hispanics have reported as being of some other race—37.7% in the 1980 census;¹ 43.2% in the 1990 census; 42.6% in the 2000 census and 39.7% in the 2007 ACS. The share persisted in that range despite several revisions in the race and Hispanic origin questions from census to census.

Why did the share of Hispanics identifying with some other race drop by nine percentage points from 2007 to 2008? The answer is not known definitively but a revision in the instructions may have contributed to that drop. The new instruction (in bold) in the 2008 ACS appears before the Hispanic-origin and race questions and is as follows: “NOTE: Please answer BOTH Question 5 about Hispanic origin and Question 6 about race. For this survey, Hispanic origins are not races.” The same instruction appears in the 2010 census.

The Census Bureau instruction “Hispanic origins are not races” is noteworthy from another perspective. Surveys of Latinos conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center generally find that a plurality volunteers Hispanic/Latino when asked the following: “What race do you consider yourself to be: white, black or African-American, Asian, or some other race?” In the 2009 National Survey of Latinos the response to this question was as follows: 26% white, 8% black or other, 28% some other race, and 37% Hispanic/Latino (volunteered).

Health Insurance Coverage

A question on health insurance coverage was asked in the ACS for the first time in 2008. The uninsured rate estimated from the ACS reflects the share of the population that lacked public or private health insurance coverage at the time of the survey. The ACS is conducted each month of the year and the resulting estimate is an annual average for 2008.

Among racial and ethnic groups, Hispanics are the least likely to have health insurance. Nationally, the uninsured rate among Hispanics was 31.7% in 2008. The rate among whites—10.7%—is the lowest of any group and the rate for blacks—19.0%—lies in between. Nativity also matters—12.9% of all native born are uninsured but the rate climbs to 32.9% for the foreign born. The uninsured rate for non-citizens was 46.4% in 2008.

The state demographic profiles also present data on health insurance coverage by race, ethnicity and nativity.