Written by: Salima Jenkins

Every year, we collect data on the characteristics of new residential construction, such as square footage and the number of bedrooms, as well as average and median sales prices (for single-family houses only). These statistics are from the Survey of Construction, which is partially funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Here are a few interesting facts from the 2011 Characteristics of New Housing tables:

• There were 306,000 new single-family homes sold in 2011. Of these, 19 percent had a garage that could hold 3 or more cars.

• The size of the average single‑family house completed in 2011 was 2,480 square feet.

• 39 percent of single‑family homes completed in 2011 had four or more bedrooms.  48 percent of them had three bedrooms.

• The average sales price of new single‑family homes sold in the United States was $267,900. Average prices by region of the country were: Northeast $389,900; Midwest $241,700; South $248,900; and West $301,800.

• 54 percent of single-family homes completed in 2011 had 2 or more stories.

• 62 percent of multifamily units completed in 2011 used electricity for heating fuel, while 37 percent used gas.

• The average square footage of multifamily units completed in 2011 and built for sale was 1,408, compared with 1,131 for those built for rent.

For more annual new housing characteristics data, for 2011 and prior years, please visit the Characteristics of New Housing website, where you can see a complete list of characteristics highlights and view the entire set of over 200 tables.

Additional information on housing characteristics is available from the American Community Survey and American Housing Survey.

Written by: Ricardo J. Ruiz

Have you been looking for a way to view all of the Census Bureau’s geographic areas and geographic information?  Do you need spatial data for your applications?

We just released an updated version of TIGERweb — a system to share Census Bureau geographic information online and a useful tool for measuring America’s places.

TIGERweb consists of a viewer application and various web services designed to meet the needs of a variety of data users, from those who just want to view census geography and features, like roads and rivers, to those who want to analyze spatial data and build applications. TIGERweb allows us to share through the Internet our Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER) database with the public.

What is TIGER?

TIGER contains over 30 legal and statistical geographic areas as well as transportation and hydrographic features covering the 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The beauty of this system is that users may view and analyze TIGER data with a geographic information system without having to download the data.

How does the TIGERweb viewer work?

The TIGERweb viewer allows users to view and query census geographic areas and features such as roads, railroads, and rivers. It has a variety of uses, such as reviewing legal and statistical area boundaries.  Among a number of attributes available, TIGERweb includes 2010 Census housing and population counts.

You can access the TIGERweb viewer here. In addition, the TIGERweb introductory web page contains general information including 508-compliant data files.

The TIGERweb viewer is not recommended for analyzing data or linking to data. For these tasks, TIGERweb offers two types of web services: the Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc. (OGC) Web Map Service (WMS) standard and Esri’s Representational State Transfer (REST) interface. Both options allow you to access the TIGER data stored in the TIGERweb database.

Users who have a client that supports the WMS standard may access the TIGERweb service by adding the following URL to their WMS client application:
//tigerweb.geo.census.gov/ArcGIS/services/tigerWMS/MapServer/WMSServer.

Users who have a client that supports the REST interface may access the TIGERweb service by adding the following URL to their REST client application: //tigerweb.geo.census.gov/ArcGIS/rest/services.

Currently, only 2010 Census boundaries are available in TIGERweb. However, we plan to include current and ACS boundaries by refreshing TIGERweb with new data twice every year.

For more information, see the tip sheet.

Written by: Lindsay Hixson and Nicholas A. Jones

According to the 2010 Census, 1.2 million people, or 0.4 percent of all people in the United States, identified as Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (NHPI), either alone or in combination with one or more races. This population grew by 40 percent from 2000 to 2010. People who reported being Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone totaled 540,000, an increase of 35 percent from 2000 to 2010. The multiple-race Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population, as well as both the NHPI alone and NHPI alone-or-in-combination populations, all grew at a faster rate than the total U.S. population, which increased by 9.7 percent from 2000 to 2010.

Geographically, the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population experienced growth in every state in the country.  In fact, 32 states and the District of Columbia experienced an increase of more than 50 percent in their NHPI populations.

The figure shown presents the 6 largest detailed NHPI alone or in any combination groups in 2000 and 2010. The “in-any-combination” population represents the maximum number of people who identified with a particular detailed NHPI group (including people who reported that NHPI group and/or another NHPI group or race).

Native Hawaiian was the largest detailed Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander group, numbering more than half a million.

In the 2010 Census, Native Hawaiian was the largest detailed NHPI group in the United States, numbering more than one-half million in 2010, up from just over 400,000 in 2000. There were 156,146 people who reported Native Hawaiian with no additional detailed NHPI group or race group, and an additional 370,931 people who reported Native Hawaiian in combination with one or more other races and/or detailed NHPI groups.  Thus, 527,077 people reported Native Hawaiian alone or in any combination.

The Samoan population and the Guamanian or Chamorro population were the second and third largest detailed NHPI groups in the United States

In 2010, there were 109,637 people who reported only Samoan and an additional 74,803 who reported Samoan in combination with one or more other races and/or detailed NHPI groups. This sums to 184,440 people who reported Samoan alone or in any combination.

There were 88,310 people who reported Guamanian or Chamorro alone and an additional 59,488 who reported Guamanian or Chamorro in combination with one or more other races and/or detailed NHPI groups. Thus, 147,798 people reported Guamanian or Chamorro alone or in any combination.

Although Native Hawaiians, Samoans, and Guamanians or Chamorros were the largest detailed NHPI alone or in any combination groups, they grew at slower rates than Tongans, Fijians, and Marshallese and much slower than many of the smaller detailed NHPI groups. The Tongan population grew by over one-half in size (from 36,840 in 2000 to 57,183 in 2010). Fijian more than doubled in size over the decade, increasing from 13,581 to 32,304. Marshallese more than tripled in size, increasing from 6,650 to 22,434.

The report provides statistics for additional detailed NHPI groups, such as Tahitians, Palauans, and Papua New Guineans. For more information on the NHPI population, see the 2010 Census Brief, The Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Population: 2010.

Written by: Lisa Sikes and Katy Rossiter

When you think of the Census Bureau, you might imagine filling out a census or survey form.  Maybe you think of the billions of statistics and counts that are available. What you may not realize is that the Census Bureau is as much a geographic and cartographic agency as it is a statistical agency.  We produce millions of maps to support our many censuses and surveys.  Here are three ways these maps are vital to collecting the information we use to measure our people, places and economy and understanding the statistics we produce.

1. Maps assist census workers in the field gathering data.

These maps contain all of the information a field worker needs to get to each house in their survey or census operation.  They usually contain streets, rivers, a spot on the map representing each address, and census boundaries, such as census blocks.

As the country’s population has grown and technology has advanced, so has the need for maps for our field workers. Here is a look at how maps were created for each nationwide census and the amount made:

• 1970 – Cartographers painstakingly produced 25,800 maps using pen and ink and a wax backed lettering method
• 1980 – Technology of scribing and overlay allowed 33,000 maps to be created
• 1990 – Quantum shift in technology to electrostatic printers and the development of TIGER, our geographic database, had taken place. We produced over 1.3 million maps
• 2010 – Over 17 million maps were produced in PDF for use in field operations (at the peak of production we created a map every 1.2 seconds!).  Maps were plotted in over 470 different locations on printers running around the clock for use by field workers.

2. Reference maps display our geographic boundaries. 

We create these maps so you can see what our geographic boundaries look like or see the census geography where you are located.  Real estate agents use these types of maps to see what census tract contains a particular house or business.  Economic developers use these types of maps to see if their property is in an urban area.  Your congressional representative uses these types of maps to see the area they represent.

3. Thematic and special purpose maps present census statistics in eye-catching and meaningful ways. 

Maps are a great way to present information visually because they can easily show information about our population. A table shows a list of numbers, such as the population density, but a thematic map visualizes the data, revealing spatial patterns, such as a concentration of people.

The Census Bureau produces maps to illustrate information following the release of decennial census counts and census survey statistics.  We have also produced maps for major events, such as the Mississippi River flood in May 2011.

To view some of our maps, visit http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/CP_MapProducts.htm.

Written By: Melissa Chiu

As we honor those soldiers who have given their lives to their country this Memorial Day, we can also take the opportunity to better understand America’s veterans. The American Community Survey provides a profile of our 21.8 million veterans.

 So, who are our veterans in America? U.S. veterans are made up of every gender, race, ethnicity and almost every age group. There were more women veterans in 2010 than twenty years ago; this group has grown by 3 percentage points since 1980 to 1.6 million in 2010.  It is important to recognize that women constitute 19 percent of veterans in the age group 18 to 34.  There were 9 million veterans 65 and older in 2010 and, at the other end of the age spectrum, 1.7 million were younger than 35.

 We find that veterans age 18 to 34 are more racially and ethnically diverse than older veterans. Non-Hispanic whites account for 17.5 million veterans. In addition there were 2.4 million black veterans, 1.2 million Hispanics, 265,000 Asians, 157,000 American Indians or Alaska Natives and 28,000 Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders in 2010. 

 Understandably, the number of veterans that served during World War II has decreased to 2.1 million and the number of Vietnam-era veterans stands at 7.6 million, about thirty-five percent of all living veterans.

 The American Community Survey shows that overall, veterans and non-veterans participate in the labor force at similar rates, but when you look at various age groups younger veterans participate at higher levels than younger non-veteran groups. Both veterans and non-veterans are employed overwhelmingly in private for profit industries, but veterans are employed in government (local, state and federal) at a higher rate than non-veterans.

An injury or illness incurred or aggravated during active military service is noted as a service-connected disability and, among veterans in 2010, 1 in 6, about 3.4 million, have a service-connected disability.

Memorial Day is a time to reflect on what veterans have done for our country and how they are living today.  At the Census Bureau, we measure statistics about veterans, an important group in our society. This morning, I discussed these statistics, on C-SPAN’s America By the Numbers on Washington Journal.  I invite you to review the veteran graphs and watch the segment to learn more about our nation’s veterans.  For more on veterans’ disability, income, homeownership, poverty status, etc., please visit: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/cspan/veterans/

Written by: Wan He

China and India sit next to each other on the Asian continent, sharing a thousand-mile long border. The Silk Road connected these two countries more than 2,000 years ago, allowing exchanges not only in trade but in religion and culture as well.

However, despite their geographical proximity, the health status of their older populations appear to be poles apart. Results from the Study on Global Ageing and Adult Health (SAGE) consistently placed China and India at opposite ends of the spectrum among the six countries included – China, Ghana, India, Mexico, Russia and South Africa.

Here are some examples: fewer than 4 percent of older Chinese women reported being current tobacco users, while 32 percent of Indian women did. About 74 percent of the oldest Chinese (70 and older) fell in the category of the least disability and best functioning, compared with only 26 percent of the oldest Indians. And a mere 1 percent of the older Chinese reported being diagnosed with depression compared with 14 percent of older Indians.

So, the question becomes: Why are older Chinese more likely to report being healthy and happy but Indians  less so? These findings may very well be true differences in health levels between the two populations, but there could also be many other factors that come into play. Could the results also be a reflection of their cultural differences; that is, differences in how the two populations respond to the same questions? Do the responses and outcomes reflect differences in health care systems and health care policies? These and many other intriguing questions can be further investigated with more in-depth analysis, using cross-sectional and longitudinal data from future waves of SAGE.

If you are interested in learning more about the differences in health and health care between China and India or among other SAGE countries, please see the Census Bureau’s newly released report Shades of Gray: A Cross-Country Study of Health and Well-Being of the Older Populations in SAGE Countries, 2007-2010, commissioned by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) of the National Institutes of Health.

Written by: Mark Muenchrath

You or someone in your family may have been diagnosed with high blood pressure, or hypertension. About one in three adults in the United States has this condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with the prevalence rising with age.

Hypertension is a disease of long duration and generally slow progression, and is a major risk factor for heart disease, stroke, congestive heart failure, and kidney disease.  Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death globally, representing about 30 percent of all deaths worldwide and an even higher share in middle- and low-income countries, according to the World Health Organization.  Hypertension negatively affects older people’s state of health and well-being throughout the world but is preventable and treatable.

Data from the Study on Global Ageing and Adult Health (SAGE) show hypertension to be by far one of the most common health conditions for those age 50 and older in China, Ghana, India, Mexico, Russia, and South Africa (see Figure). It was the number one chronic condition reported by 50- to 69-year-olds in all countries except India, where it was the second-most common. Among people 70 and older, hypertension was the leading chronic condition in China, Russia, and South Africa. In Russia, almost half of the 50- to 69-year-olds and nearly two-thirds of the 70-and-older population reported this condition.

Hypertension also had a negative effect on other aspects of the health of older people in SAGE countries. For instance, older people with hypertension in most SAGE countries were more likely to be depressed than those without this chronic condition. In addition, they were more likely to have received outpatient care from a doctor in the 12 months before the survey.

If you are interested in learning more about hypertension and other chronic conditions among the older population in low- and middle-income SAGE countries, please see the Census Bureau’s newly released report Shades of Gray: A Cross-Country Study of Health and Well-Being of the Older Populations in SAGE Countries, 2007-2010, commissioned by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) of the National Institutes of Health.

Written By: Rose M. Kreider

Marriages among couples of different races or ethnicities have increased from about 8 percent in 2000 to 10 percent in 2010 for householders and their spouses. But what are the most common types of these relationships? If we define intermarriage as either spouses of different races, or couples that include one Hispanic spouse and one non-Hispanic spouse, the most common type is Hispanic/non-Hispanic marriage. Forty-five percent of intermarried couple households in 2010 contained Hispanic/non-Hispanic couples.

The next most common group was those in which one of the spouses reported more than one race for themselves and the other spouse reported only one race (16 percent).  The third and fourth most common interracial or interethnic combinations were couples with one white non-Hispanic spouse and one Asian non-Hispanic spouse, at 14 percent, followed by couples with one white non-Hispanic spouse and one black non-Hispanic spouse at 8 percent.

We can also look at the percent of people in a particular racial or ethnic group that is married to someone who is not in the same group.

It is easy to see that race groups that are relatively smaller in the U.S. have higher proportions of people married to someone of a different group. For example, 59 percent of American Indian and Alaskan Native women were intermarried, as were 42 percent of Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander women and 22 percent of Asian women. However, just 4 percent of white non-Hispanic women were married to someone who is a different race or is Hispanic. Similarly, 6 percent of black women were married to a spouse of another race or ethnicity.  Nearly 1 in 5 Hispanic women were married to a non-Hispanic man (19 percent).

For more details on the geographic distribution of interracial and interethnic couple households in 2010, and a profile of interracial opposite-sex and same-sex partner households, see the Households and Families: 2010 brief, and the webinar that accompanies the release.

Guest blog post by Deputy Commerce Secretary Rebecca Blank

Census Bureau Director Robert Groves has been an exceptional and dedicated leader. Over the past several years, Dr. Groves has done outstanding work to transform and modernize the Census Bureau. So our announcement today is bittersweet: Dr. Groves is resigning as Director of the Census Bureau in August to become the provost of Georgetown University. This is a significant and highly deserved honor for him – and a major capstone to his notable academic career.

Dr. Groves has led the Census Bureau for almost three years. During that time, his remarkable leadership of the 2010 Census resulted in a historic, successful operation that was completed on time and $1.9 billion under budget. Dr. Groves helped shape a strategy for planning a more cost-efficient 2020 Census and launched an employee-led operational efficiency program that saved millions of additional taxpayer dollars. He also led a formal reorganization of the Census Bureau, reestablishing the research directorate to spur technical innovation. With the implementation of a corporate hiring and job rotation program, Dr. Groves has worked to expand the breadth of skills among Census staff to effectively lead the Bureau into the 21st century.

Further, in a time of tight budgets, Dr. Groves’ management has increased the efficiency of the Census Bureau.  His leadership is a prime example of this Administration’s commitment to do more with less and be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. Most importantly, his efforts have greatly improved the quality of data that Census collects, which is crucial for researchers, service providers, and policymakers around the country – something I can personally attest to as a frequent consumer of Census data. By bringing quantitative management techniques to the oversight of data collection, Dr. Groves has helped provide high-quality information about the nation’s people and economy.

I have had the privilege of working closely with Bob during his tenure here, and have been consistently impressed by his vision and creativity. His leadership is a significant loss for the Department, but his contributions will not be soon forgotten. We are all grateful for his service to the Commerce Department, to this Administration and to the American people, and we wish him the best of luck in his exciting new role.

Written by: Alexa Kennedy Jones-Puthoff

Every year, except in the year after a decennial census is conducted, the Census Bureau releases population estimates for the nation’s more than 3,000 counties and equivalents, along with Puerto Rico’s municipios. Yesterday, we published the first such estimates since the 2010 Census and they show us the first measure of how much each county has grown since Census Day ─ April 1, 2010.

These estimates pertain to July 1, 2011, and provide evidence that different patterns of growth are emerging than what we witnessed during the last decade.

Traditionally, when we think of people packing up their belongings and moving out of state, we often picture them seeking out the sun and surf of Florida.

If we look at the counties with the highest rates of growth during the 15 months after the 2010 Census, we see that several in the top 10 were located far outside what many would consider the Sun Belt, including one in North Dakota, one in Iowa, and one in Washington state. Two more are in the New Orleans vicinity, providing further evidence that this area continues to rebound from 2005’s Hurricane Katrina.

Expanding the list out to the top 50 shows a more traditional pattern, with 38 of the fastest-growing counties over the period located in the South. That said, three of the top 50 are in North Dakota, which had one of the slower rates of growth among all states between the 2000 and 2010 censuses. That gave North Dakota more counties in the top 50 than Florida (which had only one), as many as North Carolina, and more than every state except for Texas, Georgia and Virginia. Furthermore, another two counties are in neighboring South Dakota.

The counties among the 10 with the highest numeric growth are exclusively in the Sun Belt, however, with four each in Texas and Southern California, and the remaining two in Arizona and Florida, respectively. Harris, Texas, home to Houston, led the way, gaining more than 88,000 residents over the period.

These estimates are the first for counties based on the 2010 Census. The Census Bureau uses births, deaths, administrative records and survey data to develop them. Released along with the county numbers were comparable estimates for metropolitan and micropolitan areas. In the coming months, we will publish estimates of the total population of incorporated places, as well as national, state and county population estimates by age, sex, race and Hispanic origin.

Written by: Marc Perry

Except for the year after the decennial census, the Census Bureau annually publishes population estimates for all metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. Today, we released the first such estimates since the 2010 Census and they provide us with the first measure of how such areas have grown since Census Day, April 1, 2010. These estimates pertain to July 1, 2011.

A metro area contains a core urban area of 50,000 or more population, and a micro area contains an urban core of at least 10,000 (but less than 50,000) population. Each metro or micro area consists of one or more counties and includes the counties containing the core urban area, as well as any adjacent counties that have a high degree of social and economic integration (as measured by commuting to work) with the urban core.

The estimates released today show patterns of growth around the country that are considerably different from those we saw between the 2000 and 2010 censuses. Fewer than half ─ 24 ─ of the 50 fastest-growing metro areas between 2010 and 2011 were also among the 50 fastest-growing between censuses.

Some metro areas showed dramatic changes: Palm Coast, Fla., was the fastest-growing area between 2000 and 2010, but fell to 55th place between 2010 and 2011. Similarly, Las Vegas, the third fastest-growing area between 2000 and 2010, fell to 151st place. Some areas showed less change: St. George, Utah, the second fastest-growing area between 2000 and 2010, dropped only to 11th place.

Conversely, New Orleans, which experienced the greatest percentage loss between the 2000 and the 2010 censuses, was the 35th fastest-growing metro between 2010 and 2011. Besides New Orleans, there were nine other metro areas that were not among the 100 fastest growing from 2000 to 2010 but were among the top 50 from 2010 to 2011: Hinesville-Fort Stewart, Ga.; Columbus, Ga.-Ala.; Odessa, Texas; Fayetteville, N.C.; Oklahoma City; Bismarck, N.D.; Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, Fla.; Gulfport-Biloxi, Miss.; and Hattiesburg, Miss.

As with metro areas, new patterns of growth have emerged with micro areas. The fastest-growing micro area between 2010 and 2011 was Williston, N.D., which grew by 8.8 percent. Two other North Dakota micro areas, Dickinson (fourth) and Minot (eighth), also were among the 10 fastest growing. All in all, New Mexico contained the largest number of micro areas among the 50 fastest growing (six): Gallup (11th), Portales (12th), Alamogordo (13th), Clovis (15th); Grants (34th) and Los Alamos (42nd).  None of these nine North Dakota and New Mexico micros were among the 50 fastest growing between 2000 and 2010.

These estimates are the first for metro and micro areas to be based on the 2010 Census. The Census Bureau uses births, deaths, administrative records and survey data to develop them. Released along with the metro and micro area numbers were comparable estimates for counties. In the coming months, we will publish estimates of the total population of incorporated places, as well as national, state and county population estimates by age, sex, race and Hispanic origin.

Written By: Michael Ratcliffe

If you have looked out the window of a plane while flying over the United States, you no doubt have seen areas that are clearly built-up and densely settled and areas that are not. The extent of each built-up area varies, but each is distinguishable from the surrounding less developed territory.

When we look at results from the 2010 Census, we not only see demographic changes in our population, but also geographic ones.

Throughout much of the nation, individual urban areas are clearly distinguished; however, in some areas, such as the heavily developed Northeast, one urban area flows into another, and determining the boundary between individual urban areas becomes difficult.

Starting with the 1910 Census, the Census Bureau has defined urban areas of at least 2,500 people (“rural” encompasses the territory outside urban areas) to provide the nation with information about our urban and rural population, housing, and land area. Over the course of a century, we have charted our growth from a mostly rural nation, to one that is predominantly urban.

Results from the 2010 Census show us that the nation’s urban population increased by 12.1 percent from 2000 to 2010, outpacing the nation’s overall growth rate of 9.7 percent for the same period.

The Census Bureau currently identifies two types of urban areas:  urbanized areas of 50,000 or more people, and urban clusters of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people, both representing densely developed territory and encompassing residential, commercial, and other non-residential urban land uses. Together these provide a nationally consistent classification for researchers, analysts, and policy makers.

However, how we define urban areas has changed over time, as the nation’s settlement patterns have changed. From 1910 through 1940, we generally limited our urban definition to incorporated places of 2,500 or more people. City and town boundaries closely matched the extent of built-up areas, so that definition was adequate, although not completely accurate. In 1950, in response to increasing suburban development, we began defining urbanized areas of 50,000 or more people. Outside urbanized areas, we still identified urban places of 2,500 or more people.

As we moved toward Census 2000, it was clear that substantial built-up areas also existed on the fringes of smaller cities and towns, and that our urban definition did not adequately reflect the distribution of densely settled populations. We introduced urban clusters of 2,500 and less than 50,000 people for Census 2000, resulting in our current classification.

For the 2010 Census, we used national land use and land cover data to enhance our ability to account for non-residential urban land uses and improve our delineation of urban areas. By consistently updating our methods, we are better able to measure America’s places.

For more information about the Census Bureau’s urban areas and our urban-rural classification for the 2010 Census, see our website.