This product contains summary population counts for two universes, total population and population 18 years and over. The data were derived from the basic questions asked on all census questionnaires. These are often called the 100-percent questions. This file contains four tables:
Download all files for the State of Texas to the block level. These files provide the greatest detail available from the Public Law data. Total and voting age populations are provided to the census block level, for all 63 race categories and Hispanic/Latino groups.
Download individual counties, all whole places, or congressional districts. These files can be read into most popular spreadsheet and database applications. Data for the State of Texas, counties, whole places, and part-places within counties, for total and voting age populations by 63 race categories and Hispanic/Latino groups.
A list of Texas counties comma-separated value (CSV) files that can be downloaded individually. These compressed (.zip) CSV files contain a header row and data for the county level Total Population redistricting data. The contents include all geographies for each individual county down to the block level.
A list of summary level comma-separated value (CSV) files that can be downloaded individually. These compressed (.zip) CSV files contain a header row and data for the summary level Total Population redistricting data. Summary Level Sequence Chart on pages 4-1 and 4-2 in the Census 2000 Redistricting Data Technical Documentation
A list of Texas counties comma-separated value (CSV) files that can be downloaded individually. These compressed (.zip) CSV files contain a header row and data for the county level Voting Age Population redistricting data. The contents include all geographies for each individual county down to the block level.
A list of summary level comma-separated value (CSV) files that can be downloaded individually. These compressed (.zip) CSV files contain a header row and data for the summary level Voting Age Population redistricting data. Summary Level Sequence Chart on pages 4-1 and 4-2 in the Census 2000 Redistricting Data Technical Documentation
Print or view total and voting age population for counties or places. Data are presented in a printable format for counties, whole places, and part-places within counties, for total and voting age populations, by aggregated race categories and Hispanic/Latino groups.
All tables in this section were compiled showing the six racial groups for respondents who reported only one race (White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander) and a "Some Other Race" category. Respondents who selected more than one of these race groups are shown on these profiles in the "Two or more races" category. Additional profiles in this section are by "Ethnicity", showing Hispanics or Latinos (which may be of any race) and the Non-Hispanic population by the racial groups described above. If you need data itemized by all 63 racial categories please see the raw data section of the Texas Redistricting Data web site.
The 2000 Census provides the most complete data ever made available for examining the racial and ethnic diversity of the population of the United States. By allowing respondents to mark one or more racial categories on the census questionnaire, it allowed respondents for the first time in decennial census history to indicate multiple racial backgrounds. It thus provides an essential set of data for bench marking the racial and ethnic diversity of the U.S. population.
For those who wish to assess changes in racial/ethnic groups between 2000 and earlier censuses, the data present certain challenges, however. The difficulty lies in knowing how to combine 2000 race/ethnicity categories so that they are comparable to those used for earlier periods. This arises because the combinations of the six racial groups used in the 2000 Census result in 63 separate racial categories and, if these are divided into those of Hispanic and those not of Hispanic origin, there are 126 combinations of race/ethnicity. This is a substantially larger number of categories than the 10 racial/ethnic categories available from the 1990 Census. It is impossible to make the results of the 2000 racial/ethnic categories completely comparable to those for earlier censuses because the census did not ask respondents indicating membership in multiple racial groups in 2000 to indicate how they responded to the race question in earlier censuses. In attempting to compare race/ethnicity data from the 2000 Census to those for earlier periods it is thus essential to realize that any comparisons to periods before 2000 will be approximations with greater or lesser degrees of comparability. Absolute comparability is not possible.
Despite this we believe it is possible in most areas in Texas to construct categories that are at least roughly comparable to those for earlier decades. In this brief writeup, we present alternatives for combining 2000 categories to produce historically comparable values and the assumptions underlying the alternatives presented. We also present our recommendation regarding which of the alternatives we believe is the best for most areas in Texas. In so doing, we realize that not all analysts will agree with the assumptions we have made (and describe below) in arriving at this recommendation and we thus present the data necessary for users to construct alternative categories.
Before examining the implications of using alternative assumptions to allocate populations in racial groups to categories which allow for comparisons between the 2000 and earlier censuses, it is useful to examine 2000 Census data to determine the distribution of the Texas population among the 63 racial categories (for Hispanics and non-Hispanics, a total of 126 categories) used in the 2000 Census. Table 1 shows data on the total number of persons in each of the 63 race categories for persons of Hispanic Origin and Not of Hispanic Origin for the State of Texas from the 2000 Census. Overall, an examination of these data for the total population show substantial concentration of the Texas population in a relatively few racial/ethnic groups, most of which are single race groups. Thus of the total population of Texas in 2000, 97.5 percent is accounted for by the six single race groups of White; Black; American Indian and Alaska Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander; and Some Other Race. The 15 categories of two-race combinations account for only 2.4 percent of the Texas population and the 42 categories involving three or more races account for only 0.09 percent of the population. Examined alternatively, although there are one or more persons in 62 of the 63 categories, however, there are 500 or fewer persons (0.02 percent of the population) in 36 of these categories and less than 10,000 persons (10,000 being equal to 0.05 percent of the population) in 51 categories. The Texas population is therefore substantially concentrated in a few racial groups.
Our analyses for several years has examined four large mutually exclusive race/ethnicity groups--Anglos (non-Hispanic Whites), Blacks (non-Hispanic Blacks), Hispanics (of all races), and an Other category which consists of non-Hispanic persons from all other racial categories, with a majority of this group consisting of Asians. Although this categorization results in a lack of detailed data for some groups, it has allowed for comparisons across time that are based on sufficiently large numbers of persons to allow meaningful comparisons to be made and provides totals across race and Hispanic Origin groups that equal the total population. In the analysis reported here we attempt to maintain comparability with these categories. To do so it is necessary to make certain assumptions about how specific multi-race categories of persons should be allocated and these assumptions are noted below. It is necessary to make specific allocation assumptions about:
In our historical analyses we have used Hispanics as a category such that all Hispanics, no matter what their race, were placed in the Hispanic group. This decision was made based on the fact that Hispanics are relatively concentrated in just a few racial groups and most indicate Mexican or Mexican-American, Puerto Rican or Cuban origins, persons for whom Hispanic Identification is generally dominant. For example, in 1990, 57.2 percent of Hispanics were White, 41.1 percent were members of the Other racial group, 1.0 percent were Black, and about 0.3 percent were of American Indian heritage and 0.4 percent of Asian or Pacific Islander heritage. More than 90 percent were Mexican American, Puerto Rican or Cuban.
In 2000, the patterns for persons of Hispanic Origin are similar to those in 1990. An examination of the Hispanic Origin subsection of Table 1 indicates that the three categories of White and Some Other Race, alone and in combination with each other, account for 97.7 percent of all Hispanics. Only 0.7 percent indicate they are American Indian or Alaska Natives, 0.6 percent indicate that they are Black, 0.1 percent Asian, and 0.06 percent indicate that they are Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander. That is a total of 99.2 percent of all Hispanics are in these seven categories. Only 0.8 percent are in the remaining 56 categories. Similarly, other analyses not shown here, indicates that 77.5 percent are of Mexican American, Puerto Rican or Cuban heritage. The two largest groups of Hispanics outside of the White and Some Other Race Groups (with which Hispanics have traditionally identified) are Hispanics of Black and those of Native American heritage. The proportion and number of Black Hispanics are lower than in 1990 and the proportion of Hispanics who identify as American Indian or Alaskan Native is relatively small and American Indian is a traditional racial identification for many Mexican Americans. In addition, other analysis not shown here indicates that roughly 90.0 percent of American Indians of Hispanic Origin and 90.0 percent of Blacks of Hispanic Origin in 2000 indicate that they are Mexican American, Puerto Rican or Cuban. Given the similarity in the race identification of Hispanics between 1990 and 2000 and the high concentration of Hispanics in groups with traditionally high levels of identification with Hispanics, we have chosen to again use Hispanics as a single group with all persons of Hispanic origin of all races being considered Hispanics for purposes of cross time, longitudinal, comparisons.
Given the decision to use all Hispanics as a group, assumptions still must be made about race combinations for the non-Hispanic population. The assumptions related to this are described below.
Forty-two of the 63 racial groups involve persons who identify themselves as members of 3 or more racial/ethnic groups. However, in Texas only 0.093 percent of the non-Hispanic population (and, as noted above, only 0.09 percent of the total population) was in such groups. These groups are very diverse and cannot be easily allocated to any of the Hispanic, Anglo or Black groups. In addition any attempt to allocate parts of these groups to the subcategories leads to extensive difficulties in using such data for other purposes. For example, if parts of a three-race subgroup are allocated to different race groups, then any data on other characteristics will require similar allocations that may be extremely difficult to actuate. Given the small size and diversity of these groups, we allocate persons in all of these three or more racial group categories of non-Hispanics to the Other category.
The six single race groups included in the 2000 Census are: White, Black, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and persons from Some Other Race. Consistent with 1990 we allocate these single race non-Hispanics to the four racial/ethnic groups we have used historically as follows: non-Hispanic Whites are allocated to the Anglo; Non-Hispanic Blacks to the Black category; and Non-Hispanic persons of American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, or Some Other Race to the Other category.
To summarize, to this point, Hispanics have been considered as a single group, all persons with three or more racial group identities have been placed in the Other category and all of the single race categories allocated as noted above. All 63 racial categories of Hispanics and 6 single race and 42 three or more race groups of Hispanics have thus been allocated.
This leaves 15 categories of two-race combinations of non-Hispanics to be allocated to one of the four groups (Anglo, Black, Hispanic, or Other). These 15 categories include:
Although these 15 categories include only 2.4 percent of Texas residents, we believe that it is the allocation of these groups that represent the major challenges for those wishing to compare 2000 race/ethnicity data to those for earlier periods. The assumptions made in regard to these groups differentiate the four alternatives presented in this analysis. These assumptions are described below.
In the analysis of alternatives for providing data appropriate for historical comparisons we present four allocation alternatives that we believe reflect logical assumptions for allocating racial groups of non-Hispanics to the Anglo, Black, Hispanic, and Other race/ethnicity categories. The assumptions made for Hispanics and each of the 63 racial groups of non-Hispanics under each of the 4 alternatives is shown in Table 2. These alternatives are clearly not all of the combinations that can be examined, but we believe they are among the most useful. Given the relatively small number of persons in the multiple race categories, the examination of a large number of alternatives does not seem merited. Similarly, as noted above, the allocation of parts of multiple race groups to different single race groups leads to allocation difficulties that are not easily resolved as one attempts to examine data on demographic or socioeconomic characteristics for the groups selected (e.g., there are extensive difficulties in using such allocation schemes with age-sex groupings and other demographic and socioeconomic data). Although we have examined the use of these and numerous other procedures prior to selecting Alternatives I-IV for display here, we believe that the examination of these alternatives in conjunction with the complete data shown in Table 1 provides a useful, yet measured, attempt to arrive at racial/ethnic categories that are useful for historical comparisons.
In Alternative I, we make several major assumptions. We assume that: (1) Hispanics of all races can be used as a single group; (2) only non-Hispanic persons indicating a race of White alone are categorized as Anglo; (3) only non-Hispanic persons indicating a race of Black alone are categorized as Black; and (4) non-Hispanics of all other single and multiple racial groups alone or in combination can be categorized as Other. This assumption places all persons in the 15 two-race categories noted above and all other multi-racial groups into a single category along with persons who are in the single race combinations of American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and Some Other Race. This alternative allocates all persons in these groups to the Other category. To allow the user to separate the data for the single race groups in the Other category from the multi-racial groups, separate values for three single race groups within the Other category are shown along with data for a multi-racial category. Because the 1990 Asian and Pacific Islander category is inclusive of the two 2000 categories of Asian and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, the values shown are for this combined category. Table 3 presents the data for this alternative for The State of Texas and all counties in Texas.
Alternative II makes one alternative allocation assumption about the two-race categories. Under this assumption, persons in the two-race categories (1)-(5) of the 15 two-race groups noted above are allocated to one of the 5 groups in which persons indicated two races with one being one of the first five of the six major single race groups (excluding the Some Other Race Alone Category) and the second being Some Other Race. That is, we assume that persons who indicated that they were non-Hispanic White and Some Other Race can be categorized as non-Hispanic White; those indicating they were non-Hispanic Black and Some Other race can be categorized as non-Hispanic Black; those indicating they were non-Hispanic Asian and Some Other Race can be considered as non-Hispanic Asians, etc. The assumption is that persons who indicate a major race identification and Some Other Race are likely to indicate the major race group if they were asked to indicate a single race. These groups all contain relatively small numbers of people with the sum of all such groups accounting for only 0.4 percent of the total non-Hispanic population in Texas.
Given the above, we allocate the 5 Single in combination with Some Other Race categories of non-Hispanics among the four categories of Anglo, Black, Hispanic, and Other as follows: person in the category of non-Hispanic White and Some Other Race were considered to be Anglo; persons who are non-Hispanic Black and Some Other Race are categorized as Black; and non-Hispanic persons in the American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, and Some Other Race were placed in the Other racial/ethnic group category. All other two and three race combinations of non-Hispanics are also placed in the Other non-Hispanic category. All Hispanics are again allocated to the category of Hispanic. The data for this alternative are shown in Table 4. Again the values for the subcategories of Asians and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders, American Indians and Alaska Natives, combined with Some Other Race and the Some Other Race totals are shown along with a remaining multi-race category of persons.
Alternative III uses identical assumptions to those in Alternative II with one exception. The two-race combination of White/Black is allocated from the Other category to the Black category. The assumption here is that Black is a dominant identification relative to White in American Society. Overall, then, this alternative allocates all Hispanics to the Hispanic category; non-Hispanic Whites alone or with Some Other Race to Anglo; non-Hispanic Blacks alone or with Some Other race and persons identifying themselves as Black and White to the Black category, and persons in all other categories to the Other category. Again persons in the Asian and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and American Indian and Alaska Native, in Combination with Some Other Race are shown as separate totals within the Other category, as well as a Some Other Race Alone total, and an all Others in a two or more races multi-racial category. The results for this alternative are shown in Table 5.
In Alternative IV, all of the assumptions in Alternative III are retained except that persons in the two race combinations including White, that is categories (7), (8), and (9) shown above are included in the Anglo category while those in (10), (11), (12) as well as (6) are included in the Black category. This assumes that within two-race categories that include Whites or Blacks, White and Black are dominant in terms of identification and that Black identification is dominant in the White/Black Combination. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 6.
The four alternatives have different advantages and disadvantages. Alternative I requires no assumptions about multi-racial groups except the assumption that Hispanics of all races can be included as a group. Alternative II-IV involve increasing amounts of allocation which allow the user to discern the level of allocation they believe feasible. Strictly for purposes of making comparisons between the four categories of Anglo, Black, Hispanic, and Other from 1990 to 2000, we believe that Alternative IV is to be recommended for most uses. This recommendation is based on the fact that it appears to provide values that are most reasonable relative to population change in the Anglo, Black, and Hispanic groups and within the Other group. As shown in Table 7, when one examines 1990-2000 change in the American Indian, and Asian and Pacific Islander groups (the latter obtained by comparing 1990 values to 2000 sums for the Asian and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander categories) and compares the rates of change in these to that for the remainder of the Other category, the values shown are most reasonable under Alternative IV. For example, at the State level the percentage change in the remaining multi-racial and Some Other Race category is 1,042 percent for Alternative I, 753 percent for Alternative II, 595 percent for Alternative III, and 76 percent for Alternative IV. We believe that the very high percentage growth rates for the Remaining multi-racial and Some Other Race category for the first three alternatives are likely to indicate changes in categorizations rather than true numerical increases. The values for Alternative IV seem more reasonable for all groups. We have also examined the four alternatives relative to their variation from expected historical patterns and Alternative IV again appears to be the most reasonable. Clearly other reasonable values could be obtained by other combinations but we believe Alternative IV represents a logical alternative for many uses.
It is important to again acknowledge that the assumptions made in this analysis are only some of numerous alternative sets of assumptions that might be made. We believe those employed here are reasonable and produce a measured set of values with high levels of comparability to data for past periods. However, the advantage of the detailed data provided in the 2000 Census is that it allows users to examine numerous alternatives representing different assumptions about racial identification. Therefore, users who disagree with the assumptions made here have, in the data provided in Table 1, the information necessary to examine numerous other sets of alternatives for allocating racial groups.