REGIONAL REPORT NUMBER 30 SEPTEMBER 1972 ■ ■ U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics 1515 Broadway New York, New York 10036 This report is the thirtieth in a series of Regional Reports presenting and analyzing data on various aspects of labor and the economy in the Middle Atlantic Region. Earl ier reports in this series are: No. 1 Profile 90: An Analysis of Pockets of High Unemployment in New York City. August 1963* No. 2 Wages 1963: Report on a Survey of Wages, Salaries, and Fringe Benefits for the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area of New York, New York. October 1963* No. 3 Jobs in the New York-Northeastern New Jersey Area. December 1964* No. 4 Employment Statistics for the New York-Northeastern New Jersey Metropolitan Area, 1949-64. July 1965* No. 5 Seasonally Adjusted Employment Statistics for the New York -Northeastern New Jersey Metropolitan Area, 1949-64. August 1965* No. 6 1966 Major Collective Bargaining in the Middle Atlantic States. February 1966* No. 7 Post World War II Price Trends in Rent and Housing in the New York-MetroDol i tan Area. June 1967* No. 8 Employment Statistics, 1958-66: A comDilation of Employment Statistics for the Middle Atlantic Region. June 1968* No. 9 Labor Force Experience of the Puerto Rican Worker. June 1968 No. 10 Changing Patterns of Employment, Income, and Living Standards in New York City. June 1968* No. 11 Professional, Administrative, and Technical Pay in New York, 1968. March 1969* No. 12 Charting the New York City Economy: A Graphic Summary of Recent Economic Trends. May 1969* No. 13 Urban Studies Series: Poverty Area Profiles. The Working Age Population - Initial Findings. October 1969* No. 14 Urban Studies Series: Poverty Area Profiles. Characteristics of the Unemployed. May 1970* No. 15 Professional, Administrative, and Technical Pav in New York, 1969. June 1970* No. 16 Wages in the Virgin Islands, 1970. November 1970 No. 17 A Price Index of Operating Costs for Uncontrolled Apartment Houses in New York City. February 1971 No. 18 Professional, Administrative, and Technical Pay in New York, 1970. February 1971 No. 19 Poverty Area Profiles: The New York Puerto Rican: Patterns of Work Experience. May 1971 No. 20 Changing Patterns of Prices, Pay, Workers and Work on the New York Scene. May 1971 No. 21 Poverty Area Profiles: The Job Search of Ghetto Workers. June 1971 No. 22 Poverty Area Profiles: Working Age Nonparticipants : Persons Not in the Labor Force and Their Employment Problems. June 1971 No. 23 Report on the 1971 Price Index of Operating Costs for Uncontrolled Apartment Houses in New York City. July 1971 No. 24 Wages and Benefits of Municipal Government Workers in the City of Newark. November 1971 No. 25 Work Stoppage Trends in the New York-Northeastern New Jersey Area. November 1971 No. 26 Wages and Benefits of Local Government Workers in the New York Area. December 1971 No. 27 Professional, Administrative, and Technical Pay in New York, 1971. February 1972 No. 28 1972 Price Index of Operating Costs for Rent Stabilized Apartment Houses in New York City. July 1972. No. 29 The Economics of Working and Living in New York City. July 1972 * Out of print. May be referred to at the Bureau's New York Office. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS OF RESIDENTS IN NEW YORK CITY'S LOW INCOME AREAS MIDDLE ATLANTIC REGIONAL OFFICE Herbert Bienstock. Director Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library Gift of Seymour B. Durst Old York Library Preface This report presents highlights of data on -selected low income areas in New York City from the Census Employment Survey (CES) published by the Bureau of the Census as part of the overall program of the 1970 Census of Population and Housing. The survey was conducted after the 1970 Census to provide detailed social and economic data on people residing in 68 areas in the United States with substantial numbers of families with low income. Information for seven of these areas in New York City plus City and borough summaries are published in eleven separate volumes by the Bureau of the Census. Each volume contains fourteen tables with summary information and fifty-four tables of detailed social, economic and labor force characteristics. The subject matter covered by the CES in general followed the pattern established earlier by the Urban Employment Survey (UES) of 1968-69 that was developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Findings from the UES in New York were published in Regional Reports, Number 13, The Working Age Population: Initial Findings ; Number 14, Characteris- tics of the Unemployed; Number 19, The New York Puerto Rican: Patterns of Work Experience ; Number 21 , The Job Search of Ghetto Workers; Num- ber 22, Working Age Nonparti ci pants . This report is intended to present highlights of data on unem- ployment, employment, income and earnings, job seeking methods, reasons for nonparticipation, educational attainment and training of low income area residents. The report was prepared by BLS Region II staff in New York City. The analysis was developed by Jesse Benjamin and June Mueller under the general direction of Samuel M. Ehrenhalt. Charts were drafted by Lillian Bogeinsky. *4 erbert Bi ens tod Regional Director Ml Contents Page Summary 1 Geography 6 Population characteristics 7 Income and earnings 12 Labor force status 19 Training and employment status 31 Appendixes : Maps of the Census Employment Survey areas in New York City 37 Statistical tables on general characteristics of the working age population residing in New York City low income survey areas 44 Technical note 56 V Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2014 https://archive.org/details/socialeconomiclaOOunit SUMMARY The Census Employment Survey (CES), conducted in late 1970 and early 1971 in 68 low income areas in the United States, provides detailed social and economic data on people residing in areas having substantial numbers of families with low income. The survey was conducted by the Bureau of the Census to fill the needs of officials directing government programs in the fields of labor, housing, education and welfare for tar- get groups in low income areas. To make the most effective use of the CES data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is providing technical assist- ance to government officials in interpreting and using the published data. The charts and tables presented here were prepared for a joint Bureau of Labor Statistics/Manpower Administration meeting to illustrate to State and local manpower officials the type of information available from the survey that might be useful for manpower planning purposes. The CES provides information for the total civilian noninsti- tutional population 16 years of age and over, and separately for Negroes, Whites, and Spanish Ameri cans , when the sample is large enough. This information is published in eleven separate volumes for New York City. A volume is published for each of the seven survey areas in the City -- two in Manhattan, three in Brooklyn, and one each in the Bronx and Queens. There are summary volumes for the Manhattan and Brooklyn boroughs and a New York City summary volume. In addition, there is a special summary volume for New York City that presents data separately for persons of Puerto Rican birth or parentage. 1 The ethnic and racial data presented, unless otherwise indi- cated, is for Negroes other than Puerto Rican, Whites other than Puerto Rican, and Puerto Ricans. Puerto Ricans are defined in the CES, as they are in the Decennial Census, as persons of Puerto Rican birth or parent- age. Due to problems in the original tabulations, the number of Puerto Ricans 16 years old and over as reported in the printed volume was under- estimated by about 40,000 persons, or 11.1 percent. The Bureau of the Census revised the Puerto Rican figures, and the revised summary tables are presented in a statistical appendix to this report. The figures for Puerto Ricans in this report utilize the revised data. However, the detailed tabulations which are the source of data presented on pages 14, 17, and 18, were not revised. As a result, the absolute numbers shown, for example, the number of families, are understated. On the other hand, characteristics shown by ratios or per- centages, such as labor force participation and unemployment rates, are not considered to be significantly impacted by the errors in the absolute numbers . Another appendix contains technical notes and presents the standard errors relevant to the New York City Puerto Rican volume. Each published CES volume contains a technical note and the standard errors for each survey area. A copy of the complete questionnaire also appears in the technical appendix of each volume. Data for New York City as a whole are from the April 1970 Census except where noted. Due to conceptual and timing differences between the CES and the Decennial Census, comparisons of data from these 2 two sources cannot be considered to measure the differences in character- istics with complete precision, but do provide valid comparisons of char- acteristics for practical purposes of appraising differences in terms of general order of magnitude. The following charts and tables highlight social and economic data from the CES volumes for low income survey area residents in New York City. Data were collected for a large number of New York City residents, since three out of every ten of the City's 7,896,000 popula- tion lived in the survey areas in 1970. Seven out of every ten Black and Puerto Rican New Yorkers lived in the low income areas, and over half of the female headed families. Low income area residents differed from all City residents in many characteristics. Unemployment rates for low income area residents were higher than for all City residents, 8.1 compared to 5.8; and labor force participation rates were lower, with 93.4 percent of all City males 25 to 54 years old in the labor force and only 87.7 percent of low income area males in this age group in the labor force. Low income area residents were less likely to be in higher status jobs than all City residents -- one out of every four City resi- dents were in professional and technical jobs compared to less than one out of seven low income area workers. Over half of the adult New Yorkers 25 years old and over have completed high school, but only about one third of the adults in the low income areas were high school graduates. 3 Poor education and low-skill, low-status jobs, unemployment and the heavy concentration of female headed families made for low income and earnings for the survey area residents. Some 22 percent of all low income area families had incomes below the poverty level and 40 percent of low income area families headed by women were below the national poverty line. At the time they were interviewed, one- third of the low income area families indicated they had received welfare or public assistance income at some time during the preceding year. Female headed Puerto Rican families were most likely to report welfare income, with over four out of five reporting some in the year preceding the interview. Of the unemployed who identified a job-finding problem over half of the men, and almost half of the women, reported lack of skill, experience or education as the major problem in finding a job. One out of every five part-year workers that experienced unem- ployment during the year preceding the interview reported the New York State Employment Service as the principal means of job search, but infor- mal methods such as direct application to employers and asking relatives and friends were the most frequently used methods of finding a job. Low earnings were a major problem for people in these areas, with one-fifth of the male family heads aged 16 to 64 that were at work full time and over two-fifths of the female family heads earning less than $100 a week. Low income area residents who completed job training such as apprenticeship, armed forces, special manpower or formal school programs, 4 held more desirable and higher-paying jobs than those who had no training. Twenty-two percent of the men who completed training were in professional, technical or managerial jobs compared to 14 percent who did not complete training. The same was true for women, with 22 percent who completed training in these higher paying occupations compared to 11 percent with- out job training. For both men and women, the majority who completed any job training received their training in formal school programs. 5 THE GEOGRAPHY OF LOW INCOME AREAS IN NEW YORK CITY Seven low income areas in New York City were surveyed between October 5, 1970, and March 5, 1971. A total of 41,300 household members residing in a sample of 22,200 occupied residences were interviewed representing the total civilian noninsti tutional population 16 years old and over of 1,536,600 in these areas. 6 RELATIVE SIZE OF NEW YORK CITY LOW INCOME SURVEY AREAS- • The largest survey area in terms of population was the Lower East Side and selected West Side areas in Manhattan with 23% of the total New York City survey area working age (16 and over) population • The Borough of Brooklyn and the Bronx with 62% of the working age population had 67% of the total population in the survey areas. This reflects the younger age composition of these areas. On the other hand Manhattan includes more older people DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION AMONG NEW YORK CITY SURVEY AREAS Survey areas Population ±/ Total 2/ 16 years and over All areas combined 2,443,200 1 ,536,578 Percent 100 100 Manhattan (both areas) 31 35 Central and East Harlem (Survey area I) 12 12 Lower East Side and selected West Side (Survey area II) 19 23 Brooklyn (three areas combined) 44 41 Williamsburg and Bushwick (Survey area I) 12 11 Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brownsville and East New York 3/ (Survey area II) 21 19 Fort Greene, South Brooklyn, Coney Island 4/ (Survey area III) 11 11 Bronx -- South Bronx, Morrisania and part of the Concourse 23 21 Queens South Jamaica 3 3 1/ Civilian noninsti tutional population 2/ Estimated by BLS from Census Employment Survey data. 3/ Also includes part of Crown Heights. 4/ Also includes part of Park Slope. 7 BLACKS AND PUERTO RICANS ARE HEAVILY CONCENTRATED IN THESE LOW INCOME AREAS • 3 out of every 10 of the city's population are Blacks and Puerto Ricans • 7 out of every 10 of the city's Blacks and Puerto Ricans reside in the low income areas surveyed PROPORTION OF THE NEW YORK CITY POPULATION IN LOW INCOME SURVEY AREAS Low income TOTAL BLACK PUERTO RICAN Low income areas: Race and New York Percent ethnic group City y Number of city (in thousands) Total 7,896 2,443 31 White 3/ 6,049 1,165 19 Negro 3/ 1,669 1,141 68 Other races 1/ 178 137 77 Puerto Ricans 812 4/ 692 85 1/ Decennial Census data, April 1970 2/ Estimates by BLS based on CES data. 3/ Includes Puerto Ricans presented separately. 4/ Preliminary Census data. 8 OVER HALF OF THE FEMALE HEADED FAMILIES LIVE IN THE LOW INCOME SURVEY AREAS— • 29 out of every 100 families in the city are in these areas 56 out of every 100 female headed families 23 out of every 100 male headed familes PROPORTION OF NEW YORK CITY'S FAMILIES IN LOW INCOME AREAS Low income MALE HEADED FEMALE HEADED 9 THE WORKING AGE POPULATION IS YOUNGER— • 53% of the city's working age population, 16 and over, are under 45 compared to 62% for the low income areas • The proportion in the prime working age group of 25 to 44 is somewhat higher in the low income areas than for the city as a whole AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE NEW YORK CITY POPULATION AND ITS LOW INCOME AREAS 16-24 25-44 45-54 55 AND OVEi* 10 AGE VARIES WIDELY BY COLOR AND ETHNIC GROUP— • Puerto Ricans are substantially younger -- three-fourths are under 45 as compared to two-thirds of the Blacks and half of the whites • Whites are much older-- one-third are over 55 as compared to one-fifth of the Blacks and one-eighth of the Puerto Ricans AGE DISTRIBUTION OF LOW INCOME AREAS POPULATION 100% 100% 100% PUERTO NEGRO RICAN WHITE 11 FAMILIES IN THE NEW YORK CITY LOW INCOME AREAS HAD LOWER ANNUAL INCOMES THAN FAMILIES IN THE UNITED STATES— Male headed families had higher incomes than female headed families The low income areas had a relatively high number of female headed families MEDIAN ANNUAL INCOME OF FAMILIES, 1970-71 MALE HEADED $10,480 Low income area Puerto Rican families had substantially lower incomes than White or Negro families MEDIAN ANNUAL INCOME OF FAMILIES IN THE NEW YORK CITY LOW INCOME AREAS MALE HEADED $7,936 $7,849 $6,488 FEMALE HEADED White Iffil Negro Puerto Rican Source: United States: Income in 1970 of Families and Persons in the United States , 1970. P-60, No. 80. 12 FAMILY INCOME VARIES WIDELY AMONG THE SURVEY AREAS — • The lowest median income was reported for Central and East Harlem, $5,619, and the highest, $8,857 for South Jamaica • Nearly one out of every four Harlem, Williamsburg-Bushwick, and Bedford- Stuyvesant- -East New York-Brownsville families were living in poverty MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME AND INCIDENCE OF POVERTY IN NEW YORK CITY LOW INCOME SURVEY AREAS Survey areas Medi an fami ly income Percent of fami 1 i es below the poverty , . level - f All areas combined $6,282 21.9 Manhattan Central and East Harlem Lower East Side and selected West Side 6,407 5,619 7,107 19.9 24.9 16.6 Brooklyn Williamsburg and Bushwick Bedford-Stuyvesant , East New York and Brownsville South Brooklyn, Fort Greene, and Coney Island 6,292 6,033 6,142 6,902 23.3 24.7 24.3 19.9 Bronx South Bronx, Morrisania and part of the Concourse 5,840 23.4 Queens -- South Jamaica 8,857 10.8 ]J Families are classified as being above or below the poverty level, using the poverty index adopted by a Federal Interagency Committee in 1969. This index provides a range of income cutoffs adjusted to take into account such factors as family size, sex and age of the family head and the number of children. These cutoff levels are updated every year to reflect the changes in the Consumer Price Index. The poverty thresholds used in this report were updated for changes in the cost of living between January and September 1970. The poverty cutoff for a nonfarm family of four, headed by a male with a wife and two children under 18 years, was $3,880. 13 INFLUENCE OF SECOND EARNERS ON FAMILY INCOME — Median family income of male headed families with more than one earner was two- thirds higher than families with- out multiple earners -- nearly $11,000 compared to $6,600 Such single earner families were five times more likely to be living in poverty Nearly half of the survey area's male headed families had multiple earners -- better than half of the Black families, but only two fifths of the Puerto Rican families Income levels for Puerto Rican male headed families were lower for both single and multiple earner families 1/ INCOME OF MALE HEADED FAMILIES BY NUMBER OF EARNERS IN NEW YORK CITY LOW INCOME AREAS Number of one-earner families Median income Percent below poverty level 2/ Total - Negro 159,500 $6,581 12.5 59,000 $6,705 12.8 Puerto y Rican White 43,700 $5,893 15.7 46,100 $7,531 8.4 Number of multiple earner families Median income Percent below poverty level 141 ,700 62,900 $10,987 $11,373 2.4 1.8 29,000 41 ,100 $9,497 $11,834 3.2 2.7 1/ Families with male heads, aged 16 to 64, who were wage earners not in school. 2/ Total includes races other than Negro or White not presented separately. 3/ The number of Puerto Rican families is understated. (See page 2, paragraphs 1 and 2.) Median income levels and percentages shown were not considered to be significantly affected by the errors in the absolute numbers. 14 FAMILIES IN POVERTY - • Among the low income survey areas median family income was lower in New York City than in Jersey City and Rochester, and roughly in line with the average for all urban survey areas MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME IN LOW INCOME SURVEY AREAS OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CITIES $8,072 $7,793 $6,65* $6,282 U.S. -All Jersey Rochester Buffalo Newark urban City survey areas New York City About one-fifth of the families in the New York City low income areas had incomes below the poverty level, compared to over one-fourth of the families in Newark, and about one-sixth in Rochester and Jersey City PROPORTION OF FAMILIES BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL IN LOW INCOME SURVEY AREAS OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CITIES U.S. -all urban 1 22 7 survey areas Newark Buffalo New York Rochester Jersey City 15 NEW YORK CITY LOW INCOME AREA FAMILIES ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE LIVING IN POVERTY— • Female headed families are most likely to be in poverty PERCENT OF FAMILIES WITH INCOME BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL FEMALE HEADED United States New York City low income areas In New York City low income areas,Puerto Rican families had the highest incidence of poverty. Almost half of the Puerto Rican female headed families were in poverty Source: United States: Characteristics of the Low Income Population, 1970 . P-60 , No. 81. 16 LOW EARNINGS ARE A PROBLEM EVEN AMONG THOSE EMPLOYED FULL TIME— • Nearly one out of every 10 men and one out of every five women full time workers earned less than $80 a week • Among the family heads nearly one fifth of the males and over two fifths of the females at work full time earned less than $100 a week PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF WAGE AND SALARY WORKERS AT WORK ON FULL-TIME SCHEDULES, NEW YORK CITY LOW INCOME AREAS WEEKLY EARNINGS Under $80^ £T00^ $150 Total $80 $99 $149 and over Males Total , 16 and over 100 9 15 45 31 Family heads, 16 to 64 ]_/ 100 6 13 48 33 Females Total , 16 and over 100 21 25 39 15 Family heads, 16 to 64 1/ 100 16 26 43 15 ]_/ Not in school . • Weekly earnings for low income area residents were consistently lower for Puerto Ricans MEDIAN WEEKLY EARNINGS OF FULL-TIME WAGE AND SALARY WORKERS S144 ALL MALE FAMILY FEMALE FAMILY WORKERS HEAD 1/ HEAD 1/ 1/ Persons 16 to 64, not in school. 17 ONE THIRD OF ALL FAMILIES REPORTED WELFARE OR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AS A SOURCE OF INCOME- • Female headed families were 5 times as likely as male headed families to have had welfare income during the preceding year PERCENT OF LOW INCOME AREA FAMILIES 1/ 2/ THAT REPORTED WELFARE OR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE ~* AS A SOURCE OF INCOME 1/ Families with income in the preceding year headed by persons 16 to 64, not in school . 2/ Welfare or public assistance includes AFDC , old age assistance, to the disabled , foster child care, etc. 18 LOW INCOME AREA RESIDENTS ARE LESS LIKELY TO BE IN THE LABOR FORCE- • This is true for both men and women of prime working age as well as other age groups LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES 93.4 Both Sexes Men Women Both Sexes 16 to 21 25 to 54 25 to 54 55 years years old years old years old and over New York City: Average of 1970-71 Current Population Survey data. 19 INTERCITY LABOR FORCE COMPARISONS- • New York City low income areas residents had one of the lowest labor force participation rates, 50.7, compared to other areas in 19 large cities surveyed • Unemployment rates varied from a high of 15.9 for low income area residents in San Diego, California to a low of 4.8 in Washington, D.C. The unemployment rate for areas in New York City was lower than in all but 2 of the other 19 survey areas LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN LOW INCOME SURVEY AREAS OF THE 20 LARGEST SURVEYED CITIES 1/ Labor force Area participation Unemployment rate rate U.S. -all urban survey areas 57 .1 9.6 Dallas, Texas 69 .5 9.0 Houston, Texas 66 .8 5.9 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 63 .8 11.8 Washington, D.C. 62 .8 4.8 Memphis, Tennessee 61 .2 11.3 Indianapolis, Indiana 59 .9 9.0 Phoenix, Arizona 58 .7 9.6 Baltimore, Maryland 58 .7 8.5 St. Louis, Missouri 57 .7 10.5 Los Angeles, California 57 .5 12.5 Cleveland, Ohio 57 .5 8.9 Detroit, Michigan 56 .9 14.0 New Orleans, Louisiana 56 .6 12.5 San Francisco, California 56 .6 12.5 Chicago, Illinois 55 .8 10.6 San Antonio, Texas 55 .8 9.6 San Diego, California 54 .0 15.9 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 53 .8 8.7 New York, New York 50 .7 8.1 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 50 .3 9.8 1/ Data based on interviews conducted between August 3, 1970 and March 5, 1971. In specific areas interviews might be concentrated in a more limited time span within this period. 20 LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION VARIES BY SEX AND AGE AS WELL AS COLOR AND ETHNICITY— • Younger Puerto Rican males are more likely to be in the labor force than Blacks or Whites • Older Puerto Rican males are less likely to be in the labor force • Puerto Rican women of all ages are least likely to be in the labor market LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES FOR SELECTED AGE GROUPS IN NEW YORK CITY LOW INCOME AREAS 71.0 724 •* •* "00 Puerto Negro Ri can Whi te Men 16 years and over 71.0 19.0 41.3 65.6 75.5 89.3 82.7 68.6 18.3 72.4 19.4 51.1 70.1 85.3 86.0 78.6 56.0 13.2 67.3 14.8 43.7 59.7 78.7 90.8 88.7 73.4 15.3 16 and 17 18 and 19 20 and 21 22 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and over Men, 16 years and over Women 16 years and over 39.8 9.9 32.3 42.4 43.5 43.2 50.2 47.6 11.6 22.2 13.0 24.4 33.1 22.0 22.9 29.3 17.1 2.2 36.8 17.9 45.6 59.8 56.8 43.4 50.7 38.5 8.3 39.8 . , 36.8 65 and over 16 and 17 18 and 19 20 and 21 22 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 Women, 16 years and over Negro Puerto Rican | White 21 REASONS FOR NOT SEEKING WORK — The primary reason for not seeking work y cited by men who indicated a desire for work was poor health, illness or disability The main reason for women was family responsibilities ]_/ Desire for work is defined as those who indicated that they want or might want a regular job now as well as those who would want a job if reasons for not looking for work were removed. MAIN REASONS FOR NOT LOOKING Inability to find work 2% Lack of skill, ^ education, or experience 3% All other Family responsibilities 2% MEN AGED 16 TO 64 Lack of skill, education, or experience 3% Inability to find work 1% Family responsi- bilities WOMEN AGED 16 TO 64 • 25,000 of the 318,000 men and women who indicated a desire for work cited inability to find work as the main or secondary reason for not looking • Over 40,000 cited lack of skill, education or experience 22 POPULATION WITH JOB RELATED PROBLEMS — • The largest group comprised labor force nonparticipants who expressed desire for work POPULATION WITH SELECTED JOB RELATED PROBLEMS Category Total Unempl oyed Working part-time for economic reasons Not in the labor force who indicated desi re for work y ]_/ Persons aged 16 to 64 who want or might want a regular job now as well as those who would want a job if reasons for not looking for work were removed. Total Men Women 398,900 113,600 285,300 63,400 40,700 22,700 17,800 8,100 9,700 317,700 64,800 252,900 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF THOSE WITH SELECTED JOB RELATED PROBLEMS Not in labor force who indicated desire for work U nemployed ' Working part-time for economic reasons Not in labor force who indicated desire for work MEN Working part-time for economic reasons WOMEN 23 YOUTH OUT OF SCHOOL AND NOT WORKING • Half of the low income area Puerto Rican young men 16 — were not in school compared to about one-third of the Blacks and Whites PROPORTION OF MEN 16 TO 21 NOT IN SCHOOL • Of all men 16-21 who were not in school 42 percent were either unemployed or not in the labor force Proportion of men 16 to 21 not in school and not employed New York City low income areas Men 16 to 21 years of age 100,300 In school 62,800 Not in school 37,500 Unemployed or not in the labor force 15,800 Percent of those not in school 42 24 THE DIVERSITY OF UNEMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE IN NEW YORK CITY— • Unemployment rates vary widely by geographic area, color or ethnicity, age and sex • Male Puerto Rican teenagers in low income areas registered the highest rate 39.8, about 8 times the rate for adult whites thoughout the city UNEMPLOYMENT RATES 20 30 White women. 20-59 White men, 20-59 Negro women. 20—59 Negro men, 20—59 TOTAL, ALL PERSONS, 16 AND OVER Negro women. 20 and over Negro men, 20 and over TOTAL, ALL PERSONS. 16 AND OVER Puerto Rican men, 20 and over Puerto Rican women. 20 and over White teenagers, both sexes Negro teenagers, both sexes Puerto Rican teenagers, female Negro teenagers, female Negro teenagers, male Puerto Rican teenagers, male NEW YORK CITY (331 A S A WHOLE LOW INCOME AREAS For New York City as a whole, the data represent an average for 1970 and 1971, in order to provide closer comparability to the time period covered by the data for the low income areas. The Negro category in- cludes a small percentage of persons of races other than Negro or white; separate data on Puerto Ricans are not collected for New York City as a whole. 25 JOBLESS RATES FOR NEW YORK CITY LOW INCOME AREAS- • The unemployment rate for each of the New York City low income areas studied exceeded the citywide 1970-71 average rate of 5.8 percent • Among the seven areas jobless rates were consistently higher for youth • Adult female unemployment rates were typically below male jobless rates UNEMPLOYMENT RATES BY NEW YORK CITY LOW INCOME SURVEY AREA Rates Survey areas Total Males , 20 and over Femal 20 anc es , over Youths , 16 to 19 All areas combined 8.1 7. 3 6. 6 29.9 Manhattan 8.4 8.2 6. 8 26.0 Central and East Harlem 8.1 8. 5 5. 7 26.8 Lower East Side and selected West Side 8.6 8. 7. 4 25.7 Brooklyn 7.6 6. 5 6. 2 31 .9 Williamsburg and Bushwick 6.8 5. 7 6. 1 25.8 Bedford-Stuyvesant, East New York and Browns vi 1 le 8.7 7. 6 7. 1 36.8 South Brooklyn, Fort Greene and Coney Island 6.4 5. 5 4. 6 29.7 Bronx -- South Bronx, Morrisania and part of the Concourse 8.5 7. 2 6. 5 30.5 Queens -- South Jamaica 9.6 8. 3 6. 7 37.4 26 YOUTH CONSTITUTE A MUCH HIGHER PROPORTION OF THE UNEMPLOYED THAN OF THE LABOR FORCE— • The older workers had a disproportionately lower share of unemployment . This in part, may reflect withdrawal from the labor force after job loss DISTRIBUTION OF THE LABOR FORCE AND THE UNEMPLOYED IN NEW YORK CITY LOW INCOME AREAS, BY AGE (In percent) Labor Force Unemployment Labor Force Unemployment MEN WOMEN 27 JOB FINDING PROBLEMS CITED BY THE UNEMPLOYED— • About half of the jobless "" identified problems in finding work • Lack of skill, experience, or education was the chief problem reported • For women, family responsibilities were cited • Health problems were a factor for both men and women Employer thinks too PROBLEMS young or too old MEN Employer thinks too young or too old WOMEN \A\\ other 1/ Aged 16 to 64, not in school not expecting to return within three months. 28 INABILITY TO FIND WORK WAS THE MAJOR REASON FOR PART-YEAR EMPLOYMENT AMONG MEN OF PRIME WORKING AGE— • Among the 110,000 prime - working age males residing in the low income areas that did not work year round, 169,000 worked part-year, three out of five of these I workers cited inability to find work as the reason 41,000 did not work at all -- nearly 6,000/ or more than one out of every 7 , cited inability to find work as the reason for not working all year. The major reason for the remaining 35,000 was health problems MAIN REASON FOR LESS THAN FULL-YEAR WORK 1/ FOR MALES 25-54 YEARS OLD 3/ PART- YEAR NONWORKERS WORKERS 2/ 14% 62% m 24% Poor health illness or disabi lity 68% Inability to find work (unemployment) >OOOCl All other reasons 4/ 13% 19% 1/ Full-year Work: full-time or part-time work for 50 weeks or more a year. 2/ Part-year Workers : Persons not in school who worked either full- time or part-time for 1 to 49 weeks in the past 12 months. 3/ Nonworkers : Persons not in school who did not work during the last 12 months. 4/ Includes in the Armed Forces, retirement and other reasons. 29 JOB-SEEKING METHODS OF LOW-INCOME AREA UNEMPLOYED- • The New York State Employment Service was the principal means of job search of one out of every five part-year workers unemployed during the year preceding the survey • Younger workers were less likely to use the Employment Service and more likely to go to friends and relatives and community agencies for job services • Direct application to employers was the most prevalent principal method of job search cited by job seekers of all ages PRINCIPAL JOB-SEEKING METHODS 1/ Principal method used as a percent of total 2/ Number of workers State empl oyment servi ce Di rect application to employer Friend or rel ati ve News- paper All others 3/ Total , 16 and over 141 ,400 20.1 28.6 18.9 17.4 15.0 Male, total 82,600 20.2 28.8 20.2 16.1 14.7 16-21 21 ,700 15.5 29.0 22.8 14.5 18.2 Female, total 58,800 20.0 28.5 17.0 19.1 15.3 16-21 17,200 9.7 29.7 18.8 19.4 22.3 ]_/ Methods used by part-year workers, unemployed at any time during the preceding 12 months, excludes full -year unemployed. 2/ Information was not available for 21 percent of the workers. This group was allocated proportionately among those reporting. 3/ Includes registration with union, private employment agencies, community organizations. 30 LOW INCOME AREA RESIDENTS HAVE LESS SCHOOLING — • Only one third of the low income area population, over 25, graduated from high school compared to better than one half for the City as a whole • Among low income area adults, 25 years old and over, Puerto Ricans had the fewest years of formal schooling • The younger population, 25 to 34 years old, had substantially more schooling indicating some real improvement PERSONS COMPLETING 4 YEARS OF HIGH SCHOOL OR MORE ■ (in percent) 25 years old and over TOTAL LOW NEW INCOME YORK AREAS CITY 39 23 Negro Puerto Rican White LOW INCOME AREAS PERSONS COMPLETING 8 YEARS OF SCHOOL OR LESS (in percent) 25 years old and over TOTAL LOW NEW INCOME YORK AREAS CITY 42 Negro Puerto Rican White LOW INCOME AREAS 31 WITH MORE SCHOOLING EMPLOYMENT IS MORE LIKELY; WITH LESS SCHOOLING , UNEMPLOYMENT AND NONPARTICIPATION- Higher unemployment rates for persons with some high school, compared to those with elementary school only, may reflect the young age of the high school dropout UNEMPLOYMENT RATES BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT NEW YORK CITY LOW INCOME AREAS No high school education Some high school High school graduate Some college 11.8 LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT NEW YORK CTY LOW INCOME AREAS No high school e d u c at i o n Some high school High school graduate Some college I 50.0 56.7 68.5 r i 84.1 Low income area population aged 16 to 64, not in school. 32 LOW INCOME AREA RESIDENTS ARE LESS LIKELY TO BE EMPLOYED IN WHITE COLLAR OCCUPATIONS— • Four out of every 10 employed low income area residents were white collar workers compared to nearly six out of every 10 for the City as a whole • One out of every four employed City residents was in the higher status professional and technical jobs, but less than one out of seven low income area residents • Low income area residents were more heavily concentrated in the lower paying and lower status service and blue collar jobs OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE EMPLOYED (in percent) 38 Professional, Clerical Blue collar Service technical. and managers, sales and proprietors New York City: Average of 1970-71 Current Population Survey data. 33 THE PROJECTED DECLINE IN SEMI-SKILLED AND UNSKILLED JOBS IN THE NEXT DECADE MAY AFFECT LOW INCOME AREA RESIDENTS MORE THAN CITY WORKERS AS A WHOLE— • Almost 4 out of 10 low income area workers were in blue collar occupations compared to about 3 out of 10 employed city residents • Relatively few workers living in low income areas were in the professional and technical occupations, the fastest growing occupational group PROJECTED CHANGE IN OCCUPATIONAL EMPLOYMENT NEW YORK CITY 1968— 1980 percent decrease Professional and technical workers Clerical workers Service worke ALL OCCUPATIONS Sales Workers Managers, officials, and proprietors Craftsmen and for Operatives Laborers, except farm and mine percent increase Source: New York State Deportment of Labor 34 ONLY ONE OUT OF EVERY 10 LOW INCOME AREA RESIDENTS OF WORKING AGE HAD COMPLETED ANY JOB TRAINING— • Females were less likely to have completed training since most do not serve in the armed forces PERCENT OF THE NEW YORK CITY LOW INCOME AREA POPULATION. 16 YEARS OLD AND OVER. COMPLETING JOB TRAINING 12% 12% Total Male Female Negro Puerto White Rican NoCe: Job training consists of formal school programs, apprenticeship programs. Armed Forces training, and Special Manpower Programs • Manpower programs made up 9 percent of the job training programs completed by men and 16 percent of those completed by women • A majority of the residents who had completed any job training received their training in formal school programs- more than 8 of every 10 females and half of of the males PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF TRAINING PROGRAMS COMPLETED BY LOW INCOME AREA RESIDENTS 1/ Special 2/ MALES FEMALES _1/ Persons may have completed more Chan one type of program. 21 Specal Manpower Programs refer to both privately and publicly sponsored programs directed at disadvantaged persons living in poverty areas, such as MDTA and NYC. 35 THOSE WHO COMPLETE JOB TRAINING HOLD MORE DESIRABLE JOBS THAN THOSE WITH NO JOB TRAINING — • Both men and women in the low income areas with job training were about twice as likely to be in professional, technical and managerial jobs as those without OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE EMPLOYED y MALES FEMALES in any job training ]_/ Persons 16 to 64, not in school. 36 AREAS SURVEYED IN NEW YORK CITY MANHATTAN AREA I Census tract map of the Central and East Harlem section of Manhattan (Census Employment Survey - Manhattan Area I) Manhattan survey area I includes Central and East Harlem. The Harlems were surveyed between November 2, 1970 and February 26, 1971. A total of 4,888 household members residing in a sample of 2,936 occupied residences were interviewed , representing the total civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and over of 188,700 in this area. 37 MANHATTAN AREA II Census tract map of the Lower East Side and selected West Side areas of Manhattan (Census Employment Survey - Manhattan Area II) Manhattan survey area II includes the Lower East Side and selected West Side areas. These areas were surveyed between November 2, 1970 and March 3, 1971. A total of 5,797 household members residing in a sample of 3,501 occupied residences were interviewe ' , representing the total civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and over of 349,700 in this area. 38 BROOKLYN AREA I Census tract map of the Williamsburg and Bushwick section of Brooklyn (Census Employment Survey - Brooklyn Area I) L-L-l — i I Brooklyn survey area I includes Williamsburg and Bushwick. These areas were surveyed between November 2, 1970 and February 5, 1971. A total of 6,065 household members residing in a sample of 3,184 occupied residences were interviewed, representing a total civil- ian noninsti tutional population 16 years old and over of 168,600. 39 BROOKLYN AREA II Census tract map of the Bedford-Stuyvesant , Brownsville, and parts of East New York and Crown Heights section of Brooklyn (Census Employment Survey - Brooklyn Area II) 5 N> 12331 227 269 I 2211 ^247 315 5 271 Ol 1 273 \| 297 k 381 ^379! 12ZL02 309 •f 219 3'*»|341 [343 345 ^ J99^ 307 371 |369> 301 367, 317024-^339 \l66l M9& W - II) 10 ^1/ 361^ 900 116*1 I 119* \ 910] !| 1 - 9 2 6 1 223 66 9 12.3 36 8 15 7 156 2 49 2 85 B 19 5 206 e 52 7.8 19 3 22 7 154 8 28 6 71 52 9 FAMILY STATUS AND AGE 1 536 6 689 1 155.4 280 3 230 1 847 5 203 5 384 3 240 587 4 389 4 100.1 153 5 123 4 198 63 3 104 5 27 8 52 6 27 5 11.4 9 2 6 3 25 10 12 6 2 002 7 260 1 75.3 107 68 7 142 6 46 9 78 2 15 9 70 2 52 6 e.e 19 7 22 5 17 5 4 1 8 5 4 6 62 49 2 4.6 17 2 25 9 12 S 2 2 5 2 5 3 657 3 149 2 36.8 63 3 44 3 508 • 1 126 2 210 9 156 16 lo 24 years 246 9 101 6 26.5 1 27 5 145 2 41 1 63 36 9 309 3 40 2 9.1 16 7 13 3 269 2 71 7 113 76 55 2 3 7 .5 1 1 7 51 .5 7 7 20 4 22 2 U5 9 3 7 .6 1 1 1 8 42 .2 5 6 14 2 20 9 291 .8 150 5 18.6 63 4 62 4 141 .3 14 68 9 56 2 30 ■ 1 17 • 4 2.7 6 .1 7 8 12 .7 1 5 4 1 6 7 143 ,7 88 iS 12.2 41 4 32 .0 55 •0 6 4 32 .5 14 8 44 ■ 8 18 >4 1.6 8 ■ 1 7 .7 26 • 4 2 .7 14 6 8 9 73 .2 26 •0 2.1 7 a 14 .9 47 •2 3 5 17 .6 25 8 Table b Family Size and Composition of Civilian Noninstitutional Population [ Data in thousands, except mean ) Families with male heads Families with lemale heads Family Size Negro White Negro White Families by Number of Children Under 18 Years Total All Puerto other than other than All Puerto other than othei than tamilies laces Rican Puerto Rican Puerto Rican races Rican Puerto Rican Puerto Rican FAMILY SIZE 567 4 389 4 100.1 153 5 123 4 198 63 3 104.5 27.8 Familieswith- 195 6 131 3 20.7 52 7 54 5 64 3 16 33.7 13.7 135 2 84 3 22.5 32 5 25 8 50 9 17 3 25.2 7.6 109 1 74 5 23.6 27 4 20 9 34 6 12 9 18.0 3.2 66 3 45 6 14.5 17 8 12 1 20 7 7 6 11.2 1.8 37 5 24.7 8.1 10 5 5 2 12 8 4 7 7.1 .9 19 8 12 7 4.4 5 8 2 2 7 1 1 9 4.8 .4 11 7 2.5 2 9 1 5 4 1 5 2.3 .2 12 9 9 3 3.8 3 9 1 2 3 6 1 4 2.2 .1 3 7 3 7 4.1 3 7 3 3 3 6 3 8 3.7 2.9 FAMILIES BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS 587 4 369 4 100.1 153 5 123 4 198 63 3 104.5 27.8 Families with— 201 3 163 7 28.0 62 5 68 3 37 6 7 5 17.4 12.1 1 child 127 7 77 8 22.0 30 8 21 8 49 9 14 3 27.8 7.0 110 1 66 9 21.7 25 8 17 3 43 2 15 9 22.0 4.6 69 6 39 7 13.3 16 3 9 2 29 9 11 4 16.0 2.1 37.5 20 6 7.0 9 1 3 8 16.9 6 3 9,7 19 S 9 4 3.4 4 2 1 6 10 1 3 9 5.5 :l 10 2 4 .5 1.6 2 1 6 5 7 2 3.4 .3 11 7 t 9 3.1 2 8 8 4 8 2 2.6 .2 2.5 2 4 2.6 2 4 2 1 2 6 2 7 2.6 2.1 184 1 107 29.7 44.2 29 6 77 1 25 5 41.4 9.2 2 1 2 1 2.2 2 1 1 9 2 2 2 3 2.2 1 .9 202 ue 7 42*4 46 9 25 6 83.4 30.2 45.6 6.5 2 8 2 7 2.8 2 7 2 3.0 3 1 3.0 2.3 Note: The symbols used tn these tables are " - ", "NA", and 1n » few cases "Z". A dash signifies zero DT no data for that cell. "NA" means not applicable. "2" Is used where figures are shown 1n "thousands." Whenever the total 1n a cell represents so small a number that 1t 1s rounded to zero, the "Z" 1s used. Thus, the "Z" means there Is data and the dash means there Is no data 1n a specific category of a table. 44 Table c Social Characteristics of Civilian Noninstitutional Population ;0ata in thousands, except median and percent ) Veteran Status Educational Attainment School Enrollment Place of Birth Residence 5 Years Ago Total civilian noninsti- tutional population Male Female All laces Negro Puerto other than Rican Puerto Rican White other than Puerto Rican All races Puerto Rican Negro other than Puerto Rican White othei than Puerto Rican VETERAN STATUS 669. 1 689 1 155, 4 280, 3 230. 1 - - — - 178 7 178 7 26 2 84 65 5 - — - - 25. 9 25. 9 16 9 30 28 5 30. 7 30. 7 6 9 14 9 - - - m , 5 4 1 8 2 77. 1 77. 1 7, 2 36 7 31 7 z _ 29. 4 29 4 3, 6 11 2 14 2 - — - - 510. u 510. • 129, 1 196 3 164 6 - - - EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Toul DM 2S • 1 207. 542 5 114 6 220 8 188 5 66U. s 150 8 304 6 194 4 44. 9 17, 4 4 9 3 5 5 7 27. 5 12 4 14. 7 6 102 4 43 2 16 5 12 11 7 59. 2 29 7 14 7 14 195 6 62 4 24 6 31 6 23 3 113. 3 35 5 47 28 8 175 6 75 3 17 7 24 5 31 4 100. 3 22 5 38. 7 37 6 271, ? 121 7 29 1 58 3 32 4 150. 29 6 84. 5 33 8 290 7 129 16 3 62 6 34 1 2 8 15 4 14 6 28. 5 2 15 5 10 3 63 6 39 1 7 6 5 27 4 24. 5 7 6 8 16 : 26 11 26 42 o 3 30 25 65 5 62 7 82 6 58 8 55 4 67. 6 86 62 62 7 10 11 *' 8 2 10 8 10 336 7 153 7 40 7 63 3 45 2 183, 54 5 87 5 36 4 3 6 1 3 6 2 2 2, 3 1 4 4 3 It 1 5 9 3 6 1 1 2 6. 2 5 6 8 1. 5 31 1 12 7 1 2 3 2 2 19, 1 10 9 4| 3 3. 5 28 J 11 5 4 9 3 1 3 2 16. 8 7 7 6 1 2. 7 High jcfiool 1 to 3 yeari 98 42 3 14 4 20 7 1 55. 7 17 30 4 7. 1 109 7 49 8 6 27 1 12 1 60. 6 10 5 36 2 10. 6 24 2 14 1 1 2 6 6 5 7 10. 1 1 5 4 3. 4 27 e 17 7 3 2 9 13 » 10 1 4 2 7. 3 11 5 12 4 27 9 5 5 8 1 16 2 32 8 6 2 14. 7 30 55. 8 2 41 . 7 11 9 12 1 9 9 12 2 12 7 11 5 9 12 1 12. 3 SCHOOL ENROLLMENT Total enrolled 16 to 24 years 136 1 72 7 15 ,5 32 • 1 22 • 1 63 , 13 8 29 3 17 8 64 6 32 ,6 7 9 15 ,14 a ,6 32 7 ,7 14 7 8 5 1 8 and 1 9 years 35 2 18 4 4 6 ,2 5 .2 16 9 3 .6 8 6 4 19 5 11 7 2 ,2 4 3 4 .5 7 8 1 • 3 7 2 5 16 7 9 .9 1 ,4 14 .2 3 ,9 6 8 1 >3 2 4 2 7 HI 3 49 ,6 36 2 53 ,9 53 ,3 34 7 26 .3 36 5 39 85 67 • 6 81 ,2 90 ,0 91 ,1 82 73 2 87 1 83 5 56 •0 43 ,9 60 65 ,3 43 8 33 6 50 9 1 26 7 37 ,5 26 ,7 35 ,9 45 .9 18 6 9 ■ 1 19 2 25 2 15 2 21 ,5 10 ,3 24 ■ 6 27 .0 10 6 6 ■ 8 6 8 16 9 PLACE OF BIRTH »1 155 >4 203 .5 1469 3 233 ,0 19 ,2 91 ,9 117 .1 256 3 21 111 119 6 31 >S 33 ,s 12 ■4 32 .8 50 .9 30 2 10 .5 28 9 49 B 432 7 176 3 6 1143 2 31 256 7 224 2 30 : 92 9 "0 1 1 27 6 11 6 52 8 1 41 It 1 81 3 33 7 1 26 7 47 8 2 4 1 3 5 ,9 173 1 66 8 1 58 8 2 106 3 1 97 2 8 9 28 7 11 4 (Z) 10 4 9 17 3 1 16 1 1 32 1 13 5 12 8 ,7 18 6 17 5 1 24 5 10 2 2 2 2 2 327 9 126 8 IZ) 121 il S .1 201 2 • 1 191 2 6 2 57 4 22 8 21 il 1 6 34 5 31 8 2 4 214 3 61 2 IZ) 77 7 3 .1 133 1 >1 129 8 3 3 56 3 22 7 22 ,3 ,4 33 5 IZ) 32 6 8 — — — — — — - 315 135 135 •0 160 ■ 7 15 2 7 6 1 ,4 5 .7 7 6 1 1 i 3 283 e 137 3 6 43 ,9 76 .3 146 s .7 47 9 83 9 RESIOENCE 5 YEARS AGO 1 536 689 155 ,4 230 • 1 847 203 5 384 240 1 291 6 577 8 126 241 ,7 192 ,7 713 7 162 ■7 334 6 203 .4 84 1 63 9 61 3 86 ,2 83 .8 84 2 80 ■ 87 1 84 7 78 33 S 4 2 16 12 ■ 6 44 9 5 .0 26 12 9 20 9 9 1 5 2 9 4 .7 11 5 1 ■ 1 5 1 5 2 12 2 6 •0 •2 3 2 ,8 6 2 ,2 3 E 2 2 19 3 7 ,2 • 1 4 .3 2 .6 12 1 • 2 9 1 2 3 1 5 ,7 ■ 7 .1 6 7 1 I 5 • 6 ■ 1 .6 t Z) 9 IZI .8 23 9 >6 2 ,3 5 2 .5 13 3 6 ,9 2 1 29 7 11 .5 ,4 9 .3 1 .8 18 2 .2 16 .6 1 4 5 5 2 .3 1 ■ 6 5 3 1 IZ) 2 .1 9 20 7 5 il 6 .2 1 >2 12 ■ 1 11 8 3 2 6 1 ,2 1 .1 IZ) 1 1 ,4 1 6 ( {> .4 ■ 1 1 2 (Zl 1 ■ 1 m 52 2 20 ,8 20 ,7 ■ 1 31 5 31 .0 1 6 1 3 il .2 2 .6 3 .2 2 7 80 3 39 ,8 ■ 1 16 .9 17 .8 40 5 .2 17 ,7 16 8 26 1 14 il ■ 1 5 .5 4 • 1 14 4 .6 5 .3 3 8 45 Table d Labor Force Characteristics of Civilian Noninstitutional Population 1 Data in thousands, except rate] Male Female Employment Status civilian noninsti- Negio Whitp Negro wmie Labor Force Status tutional All Puerto other than other than All Puerto other than oilier than population taces Rican Puerto Rican Puerto Rican races Rican Puerto Rican Puerto Rican CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS 1 536.6 689.1 155.4 280 3 230.1 847.5 203.5 384.3 240.0 778.4 463. 1 112.5 199. 1 154.8 295.3 45.3 152.9 88.3 695.1 430.9 97.5 177.2 141.1 264.1 38.9 137.3 79.9 562. 3 360.9 86. 5 159.0 121.9 201.4 30.1 106.3 59.4 85.2 12.6 27.1 16.1 2.1 7.8 5.4 35 to 40 houfs 497. 1 311.7 73.9 132.0 lt'.7 165.3 27.9 98.6 54.0 '51.9 11.0 18.2 31.0 20.5 28.2 7.4 11.0 9.3 23.7 5.0 11.3 6.2 8.8 1.0 2.2 1.1 1.6 1.0 43.1 23^5 6.4 8.8 7.8 19U 3.9 9.7 5.2 60.9 3.6 7.2 19.7 14.3 8.9 3.3 .5 1.4 1.0 5.6 .4 3.6 1.5 51.9 18.5 3.1 5.8 8.8 33.4 3.5 16.1 12.9 19.9 11.4 3.0 5.1 3.1 6.5 1.0 4.6 2.7 17.7 10.8 3.0 4.7 2.9 7.0 .7 3.8 2.3 2.2 .7 ~ • 4 .2 1.5 .3 .7 .5 63.4 40.7 12.0 16.8 10.6 22.7 5.4 11.0 5.7 758.2 206.0 42.9 81.2 75.3 552.2 158.2 231.4 151.7 LABOR FORCE BY AGE 778.4 483.1 112.5 199.1 154.8 295.3 45.3 152.9 88.3 11.9 6.7 1.9 3.2 1.4 5.2 1.4 1.7 1.8 5.9 3.3 .8 2.5 .6 .9 .7 6.1 3.4 1.2 1.4 .7 2.7 .7 .8 1.1 26.7 13.9 3.5 12.7 2.7 5.4 4.2 5.4 2.9 .6 1.2 21.3 11.0 4.0 4.4 2.5 10.2 2.4 4. 1 3.4 38.7 5.8 7.9 5.9 5.6 .7 1.4 1.4 2.0 .1 .9 33.2 16* 5 5.1 6.5 ^.9 62.3 36.6 11.5 12.8 11.3 25.7 4.3 11.6 9.2 25 to 34 years 198.6 136.4 35.4 56.2 40.7 62.4 10.3 34.7 15.8 181.1 116.4 29.7 51.9 30.3 64.7 12.1 36.2 14.1 147.2 88.4 16.4 36.7 31.9 56.9 7.9 30.1 19.2 54.1 31.0 4.2 11.6 14.0 23.1 1.8 12.8 7.7 17.4 10.1 1.1 3.9 4.7 7.3 • 4 4.1 2.8 16.0 10.5 .8 4.5 4.7 7.5 .3 3.9 3.2 22.0 12.8 1.0 4.8 6.5 9.2 • 2 4.3 4.3 LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES BY AGE 50.7 70.1 72.4 71.0 67.3 34.8 22.2 39.8 36.8 15.6 18.0 19.4 19.0 14.8 13.3 13.0 9.9 17.9 9.0 10.2 6.7 7.8 B.2 5.9 8.7 52.9 73.7 64,4 81.3 77.2 38.9 26.0 36.6 64.8 38.0 44.0 51.1 41.3 43.7 33.1 24.4 32.3 45.6 Student 15.3 el!e 16.0 14.3 60.6 78.6 82.9 89.2 47.3 32^4 so'.i ll'.l 20 and 21 years 53.0 70.1 65.6 28.5 30.1 30.7 31.6 30.1 26.2 8.7 23.6 35.3 61.9 84.5 84.6 56.7 79.2 85.3 75.5 76.7 40.4 22.0 43.5 56.8 68.7 87.0 66.9 90.2 34.1 18.9 39.6 43.4 63.2 89.2 84.6 89.9 91.7 41.4 28.0 47.3 43.4 63.4 64.3 78.6 82.7 88.7 46.2 29.3 50.2 50.7 59.2 77.0 66.0 72.9 84.6 45.1 21.3 54.8 42.7 49.4 65.9 51.9 65.2 70.6 36.8 11.8 45.2 38.0 41.4 55.3 36.3 62.1 54.3 30.6 11.5 34.6 31. 5 12.2 16.3 13.2 18.3 15.3 9.0 2.2 11.6 8.3 MAJOR OCCUPATION GROUP OF THE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED 715.0 442.4 100. 5 182.3 144.2 272.6 39.8 141.9 82.6 285.8 147.6 23.1 56.6 62.3 138.2 13.S 70.5 50.6 68.4 37.9 2.4 12.4 21.4 30.5 1.9 14.0 13.3 37.7 31.3 5.0 9.1 15.5 6.4 .6 2.5 3.1 25.9 16.9 3.6 5.6 7.2 9.0 1.2 3.5 4.2 153.6 61.5 12.1 29.5 18.3 92.3 9.8 50.5 29.9 275.2 207.7 55.5 66.3 61.2 67.5 21.6 22.5 19.5 70.3 14.5 26.5 1.7 130.5 69.2 26.6 22.9 17.5 61.4 20.4 19.8 17!s 42.4 7.9 23.5 10.2 .4 (Zl .3 .1 31.6 30.2 6.5 13.4 9.6 1.4 .3 .6 .4 135.2 66.5 21.6 39.0 20.6 46.6 4.4 32.3 11.3 16.7 • 4 IZ) • 3 (Zl 18.3 .3 16.6 1.3 .1 • 1 IZI IZI *. 1 - - - - - ■ ■ ~ ■ ■ MAJOR OCCUPATION GROUP OF THOSE EMPLOYED ON FULL TIME SCHEDULES 643. 1 415.1 95.9 172.5 132.6 228.0 34.6 119.9 66.8 251.7 135.1 21.9 52.3 55.7 116.7 11.2 61.8 40.7 57.0 32.2 2.2 10.6 17.6 24.8 1.7 12.2 9.9 35.8 30.0 4.9 8.7 14.8 5.8 .5 2.3 2.8 22.3 15.5 3.3 5. 1 6.5 6.7 .8 2.9 2.9 136.7 57.4 11.4 27.8 16.5 79.4 8.3 44.5 25.1 259.7 198.2 53.1 82.6 56.2 61.5 20.0 20.6 17.8 66.0 63.8 14.0 25.7 23.2 4.2 1.0 1.7 1.4 122.5 66.9 25.5 22.3 17.0 55.6 18.7 17.9 15.9 41.1 40.7 7.7 22.7 9.5 • 4 IZ) .3 .1 28. 1 26.8 5.9 11.9 8.5 1.3 .3 .7 .4 120.2 81.4 20.9 37.2 18.6 38.9 3.2 27.8 7.3 11.3 .4 (Zl .3 IZI 10.9 .2 9.7 .9 . 1 .1 (Z) IZ) .1 46 Table e Earnings of Wage and Salary Workers on Full-Time Schedules, At Work Last Week I Data in thousands, except median I Weekly and Hourly Earnings Tolal wage and salaiy woikeis on lull-time schedules Male Female All laces Puerto Rican Negio other than Pueito Rican While othei lhan Pueito Rican All races Pueilo Rican Negio othei than Pueito Rican White othei lhan Pueito Rican WEEKLY EARNINGS LAST WEEK 602. e 386.8 90.3 162.9 120. 5 216.0 33.4 114.3 62.1 7.7 1.5 1.4 3.9 • 5 1 .7 1.4 5.7 2.5 • 4 1.2 .8 3.2 .5 1.8 .8 8.6 3.4 .8 1.4 1.0 5.1 .8 2.2 1 .8 8.0 2.8 1.0 .7 .9 5.6 1.3 2.6 1 .6 6.3 2.3 1.0 .7 .6 4.0 1 . 1 1.5 1.1 31.7 14.6 5.4 4.4 4.1 20.1 5.9 8.0 5.4 51. 4 25.3 10.2 8.1 5.6 26.1 6.5 12.6 6.5 27.8 11.3 9.6 5.6 22.0 4.3 12.1 5.0 141.5 91.7 26.8 39.2 22.5 49.7 6.5 29. 1 13.0 Si ?5 to $1 49 93. 1 66.2 14.4 31.2 18.6 27.0 2.4 15.2 8.8 60.0 46.4 6.3 22.3 16.6 13.5 1.0 7.5 4.8 28. 4 23.2 2.4 9.9 10.4 5.2 .2 3.0 2.0 18. 5 38.7 3.0 15.3 19.5 9.8 .5 5.2 3.7 59.0 38.2 6.4 17.5 12.9 20.8 2.1 11.9 6.1 118 125 110 130 140 104 89 ioa 108 HOURLY EARNINGS LAST WEEK 602. 8 386.8 90.3 162.9 120.5 216.0 33.4 114.3 62.1 7. 1 4.4 • 9 1.7 1.8 2.7 .3 1.1 1.1 2.3 1.2 .3 .5 .4 1.1 .2 • 6 .3 3. 1 3*9 1.9 .4 .6 .6 2.0 .2 • 9 .6 4.9 2.4 .6 .9 .7 2.5 1.5 .5 S1.45toS1.B9 7.8 3.6 .9 1.2 1.3 4.2 .7 2.3 I .0 8.9 4.4 1.3 1.0 1.6 4.5 1.0 1.9 1 .4 S1.75toS1.99 30.8 15.4 5.4 4.6 15.4 4.0 6.6 4.3 S2.M to $2.24 49.6 25.5 10.2 8.5 5.7 24.1 6.6 10.6 6.1 $2.25 to $2.49 17.8 28.1 10.2 10.6 5.9 19.8 3.8 10.7 4.9 115.9 71.7 21.6 31.0 16.9 44.1 6.8 25.3 10.9 88.7 59.9 14.0 27.6 16.4 28.6 3.5 16.6 8.3 61.6 46.8 8.5 22.4 14.9 17.8 1.8 9.4 6.0 58.2 43.1 5.6 19.6 16.9 15.1 1.1 7.8 5.9 50.3 38.7 3.6 14.5 19.7 11.6 .7 6.3 4.2 59.0 38.2 6.4 17.5 12.9 20.8 2.1 11.9 6.1 2.96 3.12 2.76 3.21 3.43 2.72 2.38 2.78 2.83 1 Not used in computing median. 47 Table f. Characteristics of the Unemployed Civilian Noninstitutional Population : Data in thousands, except rate and peicenl ] Age and Family Status Unemployment Rates by Age and Family Status Other Characteristics of the Unemployed Total unemployed Male Female All laces Negro Puerto oilier than Rican Puerto Rican While other than Puerto Rican All races Puerto Rican Negro other than Puerlo Rican While other than Puerto Rican AGE AND F-AMIl V STATUS 63.0 10 7 12 16.8 10 6 22.7 5.1 11.0 5.7 17.7 6.6 1.6 3.1 1.3 2.9 i 7 1 l!o 3 1.2 .3 .6 .1 14.8 9 1 3 2 4.3 7 5.4 1.3 2.8 1.2 11.5 7 2 6 3.2 1 1 4.5 1.2 2.3 .9 2.2 1 2 3 .8 1 1.0 .3 .5 . 1 9.4 5 8 2 3 2.1 1 51. 9 33 7 9 1 13.7 9 5 18.2 1.2 8.7 4.8 12.7 8 5 2 4 1.0 2 1.2 .9 2.3 .8 27, 1 18 5 9.2 2.5 1.3 2.0 7.1 7 1 1 i!e 1 6 2.6 .6 1.1 .9 4.6 2 5 3 .9 1 2.1 .2 .9 1.1 21.0 16 7 5 8 6.3 1 1 1.3 1.1 2.6 .5 7.2 7.2 2.0 3.0 2.1 22.5 15 2 1 7.2 3 3 7.3 2.1 3.7 1.3 Unrelated individual 12.6 8 8 1 7 3.3 3 2 3.9 .3 1.7 1.9 UNEMPLOYMENT RATES BY AGE AND FAMILY STATUS 8. 1 8 10 6 8.5 6 8 7.7 12.0 7.2 6.5 22.9 18.0 21.0 22.6 10.8 16.9 17 3 20 6 22.2 9 4 16.5 27.9 20.3 5.9 21.5 18.11 19.9 23.2 12.1 29.9 31 1 39 8 35.8 23 2 25.0 30.1 32.7 11.5 19.2 19 2 21 9 21.9 8 19.2 30.5 23.2 7.1 31.3 10 5 11 1 41.1 31 9 27 .3 7.0 7 3 8 8 7.2 6 3 10.2 5.9 12.6 11 9 13 7 19.2 11 8 9.6 11.7 11. 8 5.4 7.1 7 7.2 11.1 6.1 6.6 5.0 5 3 6 7 4.9 1 9 1.5 7.1 3.8 4.9 1.1 3 8 1 7 3.4 3 3 1.6 7,3 3.1 6.0 5.7 5 .1 7 1 5.0 4 .5 7.1 11.2 6.7 4.5 6.5 9.8 6,3 17.1 21 1 25 3 24!3 14 12.6 19.5 11.0 6.7 7.5 8 5 13 3 7.5 7 9 5.9 5.7 5.0 7.3 OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF THE UNEMPLOYED Total 16 e 63.1 10 7 12 16.8 10 6 22.7 5.1 11.0 5.7 56.5 38 3 11 5 15.7 9 9 18.3 1.1 8.6 4.9 7.9 8 3 10 5 8.2 6 a 7.1 10.9 6.5 6.6 6.9 2 5 5 1.2 7 1.1 1.0 2.3 .9 Duration of Unemployment 25.6 11 6 4 5 5.9 3 7 11.0 2.8 5.6 2.4 15.1 10 3 3 1 4.3 2 6 1.7 1.2 2.3 1.1 15 to 26 weeks u. a 8 3 2 3.3 2 5 3.4 .7 1.4 1.3 11.0 7 5 1 9 3.1 1 9 3.5 .8 1.7 .9 33.0 23 7 9.6 6 • 1 9.6 2.4 3.9 3.0 9.1 6 2 2 1 2.6 1 4 3.2 .9 1.6 .7 20.9 11 1 2 9 4.6 3 • 1 9.8 2.1 5.5 2.0 48 Table G Problems Affecting Job Holding and Job Seeking for Civilian Noninstitutional Population Oata in thousands, limited to persons 16 to 64 years, not in school and not expecting to return to school within 3 Months) Problems of Employed Persons Problems of Unemployed Persons Reasons Persons Not in the Labor Force Do Not Seek Work Total Male Female civilian noninsti- tutional population All races Rican Negro other than Puerto Rican Mh other than Puerto Rican All races Puerto Rican Negro other than Puerto Rican White other than Puerto Rican PROBLEMS OF EMPLOYED PERSONS IN HOLDING A JOB OR FINDING A BETTER ONE Total employed 672. 1 417.5 97.2 172.6 133. 4 254.6 38. 5 133.9 74.9 149. i 14. S 88.0 2.2 26.2 • 4 34.9 1.0 23.3 .7 61.1 12.3 10*4 2.3 33*2 6.8 15.5 3.0 36.2 7.0 15.5 38.8 5.4 3.2 8.9 3.2 8.7 2.4 105.3 5.4 15*3 66.5 a* 2 9.9 20, 3 " 6 2. 1 27*9 *• 3.2 t"S*2 * 4.5 6.0 • 6 1 .0 1.9 1 problem only More than 1 problem 24, 514 8 8.3 _ 13*4 324*9 4*7 22 3 3 8 28 a 6 1 _ 3 2 114 190.0 3.6 ft 16 7 2 2*«l No problem identified Not available 69.7 1.3 135.6 2.0 108 .9 1.2 27.6 .6 98 .7 59,3 1.0 PROBLEMS OF UNEMPLOYED PERSONS IN FINDING A JOB Total unemployed 58 5 37.7 11.1 15.3 9.7 20.8 5.1 10.1 5.2 24.0 14 .8 • 1 1.9 5.2 4.0 9.3 2.2 4.4 2.5 .5 2. a IZI no work .5 .2 52.2 .7 .2 .2 .3 51.6 15.6 28.1 6.9 Looked but could not lind work 34.7 11.9 1.9 11.2 3.2 3.6 1.2 5.5 1.2 .2 2.1 .8 23.5 8.7 7.9 2.2 12.7 5.4 2.6 1.1 24.0 .3 3.S 1.4 1.8 .1 .5 1.7 20.2 1.6 .2 7.0 • 9 11.1 .8 .5 2.0 2.3 .7 .3 .2 .2 .6 .2 Allother 9.6 2.7 .8 1.2 .7 6.8 1.8 3.6 1.5 59.4 12.8 3.3 6.3 3.1 46.6 11.6 10.2 26.2 15.7 8.0 33.6 1.5 1.8 1.9 .8 29.1 2.9 Do not want a fob 382.2 58. 4 17.8 23.5 15.8 323.8 111.3 128.5 78.0 49 Table h Job Tenure, Annual Work Experience, Annual Earnings, and Income for Civilian Noninstitutional Population Data in thousands, except median and percent : Job Tenure Male Female Work Experience Negro While Negro White Annual Earnings All Puerto other than other than All Pueito other than other thar Income Total laces Rican Puerto Ricart Puerto Rican Rican Puerto Rican Puerto Rican LENGTH OF TIME ON CURRENT JOB 715. 442. 4 182.3 144. 2 272.6 39.8 141 9 82.6 112. 6 65. 9 25 1 22. 2 46.8 7.0 20 6 16.7 15. 8 11. 9 15.9 15. 4 17.2 17.6 14 5 20.2 152.7 87. 2 33 2 28. 2 65.5 10.1 34. 19.2 149. 9 93 a 22!e Q 27. 3 56.1 9.1 30 15.7 122. 2 79.1 17.3 34 6 23. 8 42.8 6.3 23.0 12.1 105 8 14.7 30 a 22. 3 36.6 5.2 21 9.9 35. 4 23 7 3.0 9 7 10. 11.6 .8 ■ 4.1 9 8 7 ? .2 1 7 4. 9 2.7 * 1 .5 26. 6 16 4.0 7 3 4 6 10.4 1.4 5 3.5 4 6 1 9 4.3 S 2 5 1 4.0 3.7 4 4 3.7 SELECTED WORK CHARACTERISTICS 556 1 365 82.4 154 2 116 1 191.1 27.8 104 3 54.1 ei 4 50 8 15.2 18 6 15 6 30.6 7.5 12 9.6 46 7 29 4 8.7 11 3 8 6 17.3 4.6 6 • 3 5 .9 696 1 161 1 38.2 72 9 67 3 514.3 119.0 211 ,9 143.4 127 1 50 6 16.2 21 6 11 a 76.5 19.6 40 7 15.5 ANNUAL EARNINGS OF YEAR-ROUND FULL TIME WORKERS 556 1 365 82.4 154 2 116 1 191.1 27.8 104 3 51 . 1 Less than S2.0O0 26 7 11 6 3.0 6.2 5 1 12.1 2.0 6 3 3.3 $2,000 to S2.999 16 3 7 1 2 6 2 3 1.5 4 9 2.6 S3 000 to $3,999 46 19 7.5 5 1 5 3 26.6 5.6 13 1 7.1 89 18 16.5 17 9 9 9 40.6 6.5 21 5 9.7 S5.000 to S5.999 110 6 69 S 19.7 31 9 15 5 41.1 5.3 24 6 10.3 85 6 60 8 14.3 27 9 16 9 24.9 2.6 14 7 7.0 S7.000 to $7,999 66 6 51 3 9.2 25 3 15 5 17.5 1.1 10 5.5 S8.000 to S8.999 36 1 29 9 4.0 12 8 12.2 6.1 .5 3 2.6 S9.000 to S9.999 21 19 1 1.8 8 7 6 3 4.9 • 1 2 s 2.1 SI0.000toSII.999 26 4 22 4 1.6 8 9 11 2 4.0 • 2 1 8 1.9 SI 2.000 to $ 14.999 11 9 12 •5 .6 3 7 2 2.3 ,2 1 .0 t 9 S15.0CO or more 11 5 9 9 • 4 2.5 6 7 1*6 .1 5 1 .0 5 913 6 393 5 531 6 181 7 216 5 185 4 572 S 262 5 453 298 1 255 4 65.6 105.8 75 5 42.7 6.3 28.2 7.5 10 6 6 6 2.0 3 6 2 9 2.0 .2 1 .3 .3 5 9 4 2 1 . 1 1 6 1 2 1 .7 .1 1 .2 .3 S3.000 to S3.999 17 11 4 5.0 2 7 2 8 5.6 1.0 3.3 1.3 11 8 32 2 11 6 2 9.6 2.2 5 .a 1 .5 S5.O0O to S5.999 59 7 49 6 16.3 21 4 10 1 10.1 1.5 7 .2 1 .4 19 1 43 6 12.1 18 8 11 1 5.6 .7 3 .9 .9 12 5 36 3 8.1 18 .8 10 •6 4.2 .2 2 .9 S8.000 to S8.999 23 21 9 3.3 9 .5 6 3 1.2 .1 ■ 8 .2 $9,000 to $9,999 15 4 14 4 1.7 6 • 8 5 6 1.0 .8 .2 17 4 16 4 1.3 7 .0 7 6 1.0 .1 .6 9 1 8 6 .6 3 .1 4 •6 .5 .1 .3 . 1 $15,000 or more 6.5 6 •2 .2 1 5 4 3 .3 .1 .2 6 269 6 500 5 674 6 675 7 322 5 248 4 808 5 347 5 294 INCOME OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 291 a 150 •5 18.6 63 1 62 141.3 14.0 68 ,9 56.2 35 14 >9 1.3 7 .2 5 8 20.0 2.2 10 .7 6.6 S 1 "00 to S 1 999 57 6 21 .7 3.0 6 .5 9 .3 35.9 4.7 15 ■a 15.0 $2 000 to $2,999 10 3 17 .7 2.3 6 ,4 8 il 22.7 2.1 11 .9 8.4 30 4 13 • 8 2.7 1 2 6 .2 16.6 1.9 7.7 6.6 $4,000 to $4,999 26 9 15 • 1 3.8 5 .8 4 .5 13.8 1.4 7 • 5 1.8 $5,000 to $5,999 27 4 16 2.4 8 .9 4 ■6 11.0 1.0 5 ,7 1.2 $6,000 to S6.999 23 .5 16 >0 1.6 8 ,5 5 .5 7.4 .4 4 ■ 1 2.9 S7.000 to $7,999 16 .3 10 .4 .8 5 .4 3 9 5.9 .2 2 ,7 2.8 $8,000 to $8,999 9 6 8 .4 2 .9 3 ,1 2.2 (Zl ,9 1.2 $9,000 to $9,999 5 7 3 .7 • 1 1 5 2 1 1.9 IZI • 6 1.2 $10,000 to$11. 999 7 2 5 •5 1 .6 3 • 6 1.7 (Z> • 5 1.1 $12,000 to $14,999 1 9 3 ■9 1 .4 2 .3 1.0 .6 .4 5 ■ S 4 ■5 .1 1 ■0 3 2 1.3 .3 1.0 3 606 4 650 4 072 5 106 4 609 2 770 2 202 2 807 2 647 Not used in computing median. 50 Table I. Total Family Income for Civilian Noninstitutional Population Oata in thous.ir.ds, except mean and percent, includes wives in male-headed lamilies whose head is piesent and a member of the Armed Forces Total Family Income Total lamilies Less than SI. 000 SI.000loSI.999 S2.000 to S2.999 S3.000 10 S3.999 S4.000 lo S4.999 SS.000 lo S5.999 S6.000 lo S6.999 S7.000 10 S7.999 S8.000 10 S8.999 S9.000 10 S9.999 SI0.0O0loSlt.999 $12,000 io$14,999 J 1 5.000 or mora Median Income dollars. Total families Families with male heads All races Negro While Pueilo other than other than Rican Puerto Rican Puerto Rican 0.9 1 1 .4 19.5 22.2 32.0 ui.a 42.5 39.6 32.8 25.5 36.9 3.S 5.0 6.1 6.7 9.8 16.0 15.9 16.7 13.3 10.5 17 .4 16.5 16.3 7 849 123.6 3.0 3.7 8.5 7.3 8.6 9.7 10.9 11.1 10.1 8.7 12.8 11.8 17.4 * 936 Families with female he.nK All races Negio White Pueilo other than olhei than Rican Puerto Rican Puerto Rican 198.0 63.2 104.5 12.8 4.2 6.6 12. ..1 4.3 5.8 31.5 12.5 15.0 37.5 14.4 18.8 29.0 11.0 14.9 21.1 6.2 12.4 13.9 3.6 a. 3 9.9' 2.1 6.0 6.9 1.4 .8 3.8 4.5 2.6 7.6 1.2 1.1 4.7 5.6 2.7 5.0 .6 2.7 4 212 3 768 4 434 Table J Extent of Poverty in Civilian Noninstitutional Population Oata in Ihous.iwts, except percent Number and Percent of Persons With Income Below the Poverty Level Total pel sons Male Female All races Negio Puerto other than Rican Pueilo Rican White other than Pueilo Rican All races Puerto Rican Negio White other than other than Pueilo Rican Pueilo Rican 1 536 6 689.1 155 280.3 230.1 847.5 203.5 384.3 too NUMBER OF PERSONS WITH INCOME BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL 313 5 112.1 28 1 45.3 35.2 201.4 59.1 90.9 47 i 220 1 71.3 23 2 27.6 18.8 148.8 53.0 66.0 26 7 60 21.5 7 3 9.5 4.4 38.6 14.8 16.9 6 1 135 37.4 14 6 13.7 8.3 97.6 36.1 44.5 15 1 25 12.4 1 4 4.4 6. 1 12.6 2.1 4.6 5 2 93 4 40.8 4 9 17.7 16.4 52.6 6.1 24.9 20 7 PERCENT BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL 17 7 13.2 17 12.7 11.2 21.1 28.0 20.9 14 5 20 16.6 19 ,2 17.9 13.0 22.6 28.9 22.3 15 7 16 1 10.5 15 .5 9*4 7.8 20.3 27.6 20.2 12 9 23 ,2 23.5 26 .7 23.9 22.1 22.9 27.3 23.8 19 9 32 • 27.1 26 ■ 2 27.9 26.3 37.2 43.5 36.2 36 9 51 Table k Extent of Poverty in Families of Civilian Noninstitutional Population D.it.i in thousands, except mean and percent, includes wives in male-headed lamiltes whose head is present and a member of the Armed Forces I All Families wilh male heads Families with temale heads Family Size families (villi income White While Work Experience below 1 lie All Pucrlo oilier llian oilier Mian All Puerto other than other than poverty level laces Rican Puerto Rican Puerto Rican races Rican Puerto Rican Puerto Rican 128. 8 50. 7 17.0 18.3 14.2 78.1 30. 6 38.3 7.9 Families with— 37. 1 17. 8 3.0 6.8 7.4 19. 6 6. 6 9.7 2.8 23. 8 6. 5 1.8 2.4 2.1 17.3 7. 1 7.4 2.3 23. e 7. 5 2.8 2.5 1.9 16. 3 7. 8.0 1.0 17. 6. 3.3 1.9 .8 10.9 4. 4 5.7 .8 11. 7 5. 2.9 1.7 .7 6. 3 2. 9 2.9 .5 15. 3 7. 6 3.3 3.0 1.2 7. 7 2. 5 4.7 . 5 Families with- No children under 18 years 23 5 ie. 5 1 1. 1 13 6 12. 8 u.'u 5. 1 l.l 30.9 11 9 lt'.l 2.9 2 5 2. 6 2. u 2 5 61 7 19 5 9.4 6.6 3.1 42.2 17 6 20.4 sis 3 2 3 3 3.4 3.5 2.8 3 1 3 1 3.3 2.7 'la 38.6 15.7 14.0 8.1 74 7 29 7 36.8 6.9 4 15 2 5.3 5.9 3.5 3.2 2 2.5 .4 5 5 2 1.8 1.4 .9 1 3 2 .8 .2 6 4 3 9 1.7 1.3 .8 2 5 1 1.5 .1 2 9 8 .3 .4 .1 2 2 1.5 .3 eo 1 14 6 6.5 5,0 2.8 65 6 28.1 30. 6 18 1 9 4.6 3.1 1.2 9 1 3 3 4.8 i!o PERCENT OF FAMILIES WITH INCOME BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL 21 9 13 16.9 11.9 11.5 39 5 48 36.7 28.5 Families*!* 19 1 13 5 14.3 12.9 13.6 30 5 41 6 28.8 20.5 17 5 7 7 8.1 7.4 8.1 34 41 4 29.4 30.4 21 7 10 11.7 9.0 9.3 47 2 54 1 44.1 31.4 25 6 13 2 22.5 10.5 6.8 52 9 57 9 51.5 46.0 31 2 21 8 35.1 16.4 13.7 49 4 61 5 40.2 60.5 34 9 26 3 30.6 23.4 23.7 52 52 7 50.1 70.7 Families with- 11 .7 11 .2 11.3 10.5 11.9 13 5 15 ,3 13.2 12.6 23.7 1 1 .9 14.9 11.5 9.9 40 46 .5 37.6 31.2 30 .5 16 22. 1 14. 1 12.0 50 • 6 58 ■ 2 44.8 54.5 21 .5 1 1 • 3 16.4 10.2 8.3 40 .3 48 .7 37.1 30.9 6 .3 6 ■ 1 8.2 5.7 4.8 7 .7 3 .0 8.8 5.3 11 .4 11 .0 15.0 10.3 8.1 13.1 10 . 1 14.1 12.0 29 .3 27 .0 36.3 25.3 21.3 33 .6 44 .5 32.0 8.5 21 .9 14 .7 24.3 16.8 6.4 27 .4 27 .5 29.8 20.5 52.4 42 .3 52.3 38.9 33.3 55 • 4 56 .7 54.4 52. 3 144 .4 41 .7 50.3 36.5 33.5 47 .5 50 .6 47.2 40.8 52 Table l. Installment Debt and Charges for Rent, Mortgages, and Utilities COata in thousands, excepl median and percent] Installment Debt , . Mortgage or Rent and utilities Persons Per Room Total primary families Primary families with male heads Primary lamilies with lemale heaos All faces Puerto Rican Negro White ofhei than other than Pueito Rican Puerto Rican All faces Pueito Rican Negro White other than other than Puerto Rican Puerto Rican MONTHLY INSTALLMENT DEBT 1 584 3 388 3 99. g 153 123 1 196.0 62.8 103.3 27.5 387 9 246 57 5 88 2 90 7 141.8 45.9 72.4 22.0 66 4 63 4 57, 6 57. 7 73 6 72.4 73.1 70.1 79.9 13 1 7 4 2. 6 3 1 S 5.8 2.6 2.6 .5 24 7 15 1 4 2 6 8 3 8 9.5 3.3 4.6 1.3 52 1 to S30 26 6 17 9 5 6 7. 1 9 8.7 2.5 5.3 .6 20 13 9 5 2 5 3 3 1 6*0 1.9 3.5 .6 16 1 11 8 3 6 5 2 4 4.3 1.3 2.6 .4 10 9 Q 2.5 .4 11 5 9 2 9 3 7 2 4 2.5 .6 1.7 .2 3.3 1.0 22 4 18 5 4 6 9 8 3 9 3.9 .8 2.7 .3 23 9 19 9 5 a 10 7 3 5 4.0 .9 2.5 .4 12 8 3 2 l 3 2 8 3.7 1 .6 1.6 .5 Debt a, Percent ol Family Income 493 323 8 79 3 123 6 109 6 169.2 54.8 67.5 25.1 14.5 3.8 9 l 6 2 2 2 9 9 3.1 1.0 i.e .3 5 3 2 7 1 1 9 2.6 .9 6 5 3 5 1 2 1 2 1 I 2*9 .7 1.8 .2 12 a 3 2 1 3 2 8 3.7 1.6 1.6 .5 MONTHLY MORTGAOE OR RENT ANO UTILITIES Total families sea 3 388 3 99 8 153 123 • 1 196.0 62.8 103.3 27.5 27 2 20 8 3 6 4 7 10 8 6.4 1.2 2.4 2.6 S40 to S59 9 4 7 1 1 4 2 7 3 2.2 • 3 1.5 .4 123 9 83 6 26 1 22 32 2 40.2 15.2 17.0 7.6 S80 to S99 116 2 72 5 20 5 27 4 22 .1 43.7 16.3 21.9 5.1 141 4 88 2 18 5 41 7 25 8 53.1 16.3 30.6 5.7 56 3 41 7 5 9 20 9 14.6 2.8 6 5 5 5 1 2 2 c 1.1 .2 .7 .1 5 2 3 9 6 1 6 1 6 1.4 .3 .7 .4 93 93 87 104 18 94 92 99 65 98 3 65 21 8 30 11 9 33.3 10.2 19.3 3.3 Mortgage or Rent and Utilities *i Percent of Family Income 104 2 86 6 18 1 30 4 35 17.6 3.4 8.6 5.3 280 1 214 1 58 6 66 8 61 .9 66.0 17.6 36.5 11.2 85 2 39 4 11 4 16 9 9 9 45.8 18.1 23.2 4.1 ioe 4 43 3 10 9 17 1 14 .7 65.1 23.3 34.1 6.5 6 3 4 a 6 2 2 1 .7 1.5 .3 .6 AVERAGE PERSONS PER ROOM 460 .7 306 ■ 6 72 2 121 .5 104 .2 154.1 47.5 80.1 24.4 88 .9 58 .4 19 6 22 ,7 14 ■ 1 30.5 11.5 16.7 2.2 32 .7 22 ■ 1 7 .7 3 .3 .5 10.6 3.4 6.1 1.0 Not available 2 " 1 ■ 2 3 .5 .3 .7 .3 Excludes mortgage Of rent end utilities. 1 Not used in computing median 53 Table m Training, Employment, and Job-Seeking History of Civilian Noninstitutional Population I Data in thousands, except median and percent) Job Training Male Female Occupation of First and Longest Jobs Job-Seeking Method All Puerto Negro other than White other than All Puerto Negro other than White other than Lowest Acceptable Weekly Pay Total races Rican Puerto Rican Puerto Rican races Rican Puerto Rican Puerto Rican COMPLETION OF TRAINING 110.6 85 1 12.9 42.9 26 9 63.5 6.4 37 16.4 79.8 40 2 7 6 20 9 10 3 39 5 23 6 8.2 24 1 4.6 12.0 6 T 31.3 5.3 17 5 7.3 7.6 7 6 2 1 _ S.3 5 3 1.0 2.6 1 4 z z _ 1.7 S IZ> .5 • 1.2 .2 9 . 1 1.4 2 2 .5 1.5 2 2.2 .4 1 5 ,2 10.5 4 4 .9 2.7 6 6.2 .6 4 6 71.2 46 6 5.6 23.0 17 2 21 .5 13 8 H 19.7 26 3.3 12*9 9 2 23.7 2.1 13 3 8 17.5 17 5 1.7 9.5 6 '_ 5.9 5 9 .8 2.6 2 5 _ _ _ _ 1 386.0 604 142.5 237.4 203 1 784.0 195.1 347 3 223.6 MAJOR OCCUPATION GROUP OF FIRST REGULAR FULL TIME JOB SINC5 LEAVING SCHOOL FOR THOSE EMPLOYED ON FULL-TIME SCHEDULES Total employed on full-time schedules 643. 1 415 1 95.9 172.5 132 6 228.0 34.6 119 9 66.6 111 .1 83 7 12.0 30.6 37 7 60.7 5.5 28 7 24.4 33.0 19 7 1.3 5.7 11 3 13.3 .9 5 7 5.7 7.1 6 1 ■ 6 1.4 3 7 2 16 1 3.8 4.9 7 2 6.1 .5 3 1 2!l Clerical 62! 1 41 7 15 7 19 7 165.1 140 8 35)2 61.5 41 4 44.6 11.1 21 6 10.8 35.6 33 2 6.9 14.2 11 5 2.4 .4 1 2 .8 97.8 56 9 17.4 22.2 16 1 40.9 10.7 19 6 9.6 24.4 24 3 5.4 11.7 6 9 • 1 _ 1 _ 27.7 26 3 5.5 13.5 6 8 1.2 .1 7 .4 59.9 41 7 10.5 20.1 6 2 16.2 1.3 13 3 3.3 17.7 6 .1 .4 1 17.1 1.2 14 1 1.6 26.5 23 S 9.0 9.6 4 3 3.0 .3 1 7 .9 209. 1 124 9 29.2 50.0 40 8 84.3 15.3 10 3 2S.8 MAJOR OCCUPATION GROUP OF LONGEST JOB SINCE LEAVING SCHOOL FOR THOSE EMPLOVEO ON FULL-TIME SCHEDULES 643. 1 95.9 172.5 132 228.0 34.6 119 66.8 160.3 91 a 14,0 34.7 39 2 68.5 5.6 34 9 26.0 38.6 22 1 12 1 8 2 20.4 17 4 2)0 5.3 9 1 3.1 .3 1 1.7 16.6 11 8 5 2 2 2 2 . 1 84.7 40 6 7.8 ial7 12 8 44.2 4.2 23 5 15.6 185.8 144 2 38.0 64.6 39 2 41.5 11.7 18 9 9.6 48.3 45 5 9.8 19.7 15 5 2.8 .5 1 1 1.1 88.2 50 3 18.4 19.3 11 1 37.9 11.1 17 1 8.4 27 .8 27 5.1 15.5 6 5 .3 - .3 .1 21.5 20 9 4.7 10.0 5 9 • 6 (Z) 4 .1 69.9 47 12.2 22.3 10 .0 22.9 1.4 17 4.2 10. 1 3 .1 .1 1 9.9 .5 8 6 .6 9 9 4.0 2.9 2 9 1.2 .1 .5 .5 206.0 122 >0 27.7 47.9 41 3 84.0 15.4 40 .0 25.8 PRINCIPAL METHOD OF SEEKING WORK 172.2 101 ,9 28.7 39.7 30 6 70.4 16.4 32 3 19. 6 28.0 16 •6 3 .4 6 .7 16.2 16 3 17.7 19.4 11 16.2 13.0 20 .6 12 '0 29.8 16 9 5.8 6.3 6 6 10.9 2.9 4 ,1 3.7 20.2 12 8 4.0 4.3 4 i0 7.4 2.2 2 •6 2.3 20.8 11 6 2.2 5.1 3 9 9.1 1.7 4 .3 3.0 2.1 1 9 .1 .8 6 .3 - 2 .1 7.0 4 •0 .6 2.1 1 2 3.0 .3 1 ,4 1.3 3.3 1 .7 .5 .8 2 1.6 .6 18 .1 12) (Zl - IZ) IZ) - - - 2.6 1 5 .1 .6 ■7 1.0 .3 • 3 .4 58.4 32 8 9.9 11.8 10 il 25.6 6.2 11 9 6.4 LOWEST ACCEPTABLE WEEKLY PAY 172.2 101 ■9 39.7 30 .6 32 • 3 2.2 1 .1 .3 .4 3 1.1 .3 .5 .3 2.4 1 .0 .3 .4 3 1.3 .3 ■ 7 .4 7.6 3 • 2 .9 1.3 1 .0 4.4 1.2 1 .8 1.5 15.4 7 il 2.2 2.5 2 3 6.3 2.5 3 ■ 8 1.6 22.9 13 • 4.5 5.1 2 7 9.9 2.3 5 ■ 2.3 10.0 6 • 3 2.S 2.7 1 .0 3.7 .8 2 ■ .9 25.5 17 .5 4.4 7.3 5 2 6.0 1.5 3 ■ 5 2.9 8.7 6 .0 1.3 2.7 2 .0 2.6 .3 1 ■ 1 1.1 11.5 9 .1 1.1 3.6 4 3 2.4 .1 .8 1.3 66.2 37 ■ 5 11.2 13.7 11 6 28.7 7.2 13 1 7.3 93 101 92 102 109 86 82 86 91 Persons 16 to 21 yean of age unemployed at any time in last 12 months .... 37.6 21 • 1 6.4 9.9 4 .3 16.7 4.3 7 .6 4.1 1.3 .7 .2 .4 .2 .6 .1 ,2 .3 .6 . 1 .2 .1 • 4 .1 .2 .1 4.0 2 ■ .6 .8 .6 1.9 .5 ■ 6 .6 5.4 2 ■ 5 .5 1.2 .6 2.9 .7 1 ■ 3 .7 6.0 5 >0 1.6 2.5 ■ 7 3.0 .8 1 .6 2.5 1 • 2 .7 • 1 1.2 .2 e .2 5.0 3 • 2 .6 1.8 ,9 1.7 • 4 .7 .6 .6 ■ 5 .2 .2 .1 .1 ,1 .7 • 5 .2 .1 2 .2 .1 .1 9.5 4 .9 1.6 2.3 a 4.6 1.5 2 .2 .8 83 IS 86 85 84 81 80 82 79 1 Questions asked of males only. 1 Not used in computing median 54 Table n. Transportation of Civilian Noninstitutional Population (Data in thousands] Total Male Female Place of Work civilian noninsti- Negro While Negro White Method. Cost and Availability of Transportation tutional All All Puerto other than other llian All p . other lhan o 1 he c than population faces Rican Puerto Rican J ueno Rican races e mean ■'uerlo Rican 'uerto Rican USUAL PLACE OF WORK ANO METHOD OF TRANSPORTATION 715.0 442.4 100. 5 162.3 144.2 272.6 39.8 141.9 82 .6 678.2 622.3 417.3 375.2 66.8 170. 9 151.4 135.3 123.4 260.9 247. 1 39.0 37.2 134.5 125.8 79.3 76.2 167. n 99.3 35.8 68. 1 13.4 27,4 23.7 225.6 49.6 97.3 71.0 147 .4 19.0 82* 1 43.2 50.2 12.4 19.4 16*6 31 .7 4*8 16.3 9.3 52.0 39.8 8.8 18.7 1 1 .0 12.2 1*2 8.1 2 . 8 2.3 .4 .6 • 8 1.6 • 6 .6 .4 23 3 16.7 2.0 8.1 6*5 1 . 6 13.5 8.4 2.5 3.3 2.5 5.1 .7 2.7 1.7 Method o' Transportation 189.1 97.9 21.9 44. 1 29.6 91*2 10*0 56.2 23.9 373.9 224. i 51.7 96.2 68.0 149.9 22.3 83.5 41.0 98 • 7 58.5 14.0 16.0 24.4 40.2 8. 1 11.9 16.5 84 • 2 75.3 13.0 35.7 25.6 6.9 ■ 5 5.8 2.4 35.7 23.2 6.7 9.4 5.9 12.6 2.3 6.6 3.5 14. 1 10.3 1.9 3.8 4.4 3.8 .4 1.4 1.9 ONE WAY COST OF TRANSPORTATION 287.0 67.4 122.2 87.9 212.6 29.4 119.5 59.7 7.7 6.0 • 6 4.1 1*4 1.6 .1 1.1 .4 368.5 210.3 50*8 86.0 65.5 158.2 23.5 83.5 47.8 60.5 45.6 10.2 20.4 14.2 34.9 4.1 23. 3 7 . 2 4*3 • 9 3.6 • 3 2*6 . 6 6*9 3.8 1.0 1.6 1*1 * j ^* a . 6 1.7 • 4 1.2 . 4 14! l 7.6 1.6 3.9 1.8 6.5 ?*o 1.6 11.2 7.6 1.7 3.2 2*7 3.6 1 1.9 1.1 35.7 6.7 9.4 3 . 5 28.3 18.4 6.0 7.2 4.5 9.8 1.6 5.1 3.0 •i (Z) ^ " (Zl _ (Zl _ _ (Z) 6.0 3.4 .9 2.6 • 4 1.0 1.1 11.1 7.8 3.1 3.1 1.4 3.3 .4 1.9 . 8 SO. 75 to S0.99 .8 •6 .3 .2 • 1 • 1 - 2.1 • 4 1.2 *4 1.2 ■ 2 .7 .3 S1.3StoS1.49 * .5 (Z ) • z • 3 •2 .1 • 1 (Z) 5.0 3.2 • 7 1.4 1.1 1.8 • 4 • 9 .6 1.3 •7 • 2 • 1 .3 .6 .1 .4 , I TIME REQUIRED TO GET TO WORK 678 2 * 417. J 135*3 260.9 39.0 134.5 79.3 - 622 . 3 375.2 86.8 151.4 123.4 247.1 37.2 125.8 76.2 146.7 31.9 52.2 56.5 95.9 15.7 38.9 36.0 30 to 39 minutes 150.6 92. ? 20.9 38.4 30.5 57.9 8.2 28.9 19.8 40 to 59 mmutes 125.7 16.3 33.0 7.0 85.5 49.5 14.2 22.6 11.2 36.0 5*6 23.3 6.7 Not available 18.0 11.3 1*5 5.3 4.0 6.7 .8 3.4 2.3 52.0 39.6 8.8 18.7 11.0 12.2 1.2 8.1 2.8 5.3 3*9 . 8 2*0 1.2 1.4 .1 ,9 .3 8.4 6.8 1.5 3.1 2.0 1.6 • 4 40 to 59 minutes 13. 4 10.4 2.4 5.0 2.5 3. 1 2*1 2 2*8 16.3 3.8 7.3 4.7 5.7 .5 3.8 1.4 2.4 • 3 1.3 .7 • 4 - (Z) 3.9 2.3 ■ 4 .8 • 8 1.6 • 6 .6 ■ 4 AVAILABILITY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE UNEMPLOYED 63 .4 40.7 12.0 16.8 10.6 22.7 5.4 11.0 5 . 7 4.0 1. 1 1.5 1.3 •4 (Z ) .3 . 1 46*9 29.5 9.3 11.8 7.1 17.4 4.3 7.9 4 . 8 Not available 12.0 7.2 1.5 3.5 2*2 4.9 1.1 2.8 51.2 33.6 10.4 13.4 6.6 17.6 4.3 8.0 4 . 8 13.4 9.0 2.8 2.9 2*8 4.5 1.1 2.1 1.2 37.2 24.3 7.4 10.3 5.7 12.9 3.2 5.9 3.5 .6 • 2 .1 ■ 1 • 2 .1 . 1 .2 • 1 (Z) • 2 .1 (Z) • 2 in IZI .2 .1 (Z) (Z) (Zl (Zl .6 • 5 • 2 .2 • 1 .1 IZ) (Z) .1 11.3 6.5 1.3 3.2 1.9 4.8 1.1 2.8 .8 55 Technical note POPULATION COVERAGE This report covers the civilian noninsti- tutional population of the low-income area described by the maps and the list of tracts. Unlike the 1970 census, the Census Employment Survey (CES) excluded Armed Forces members and inmates of institutions. Another important difference is the treatment of college students. The CES consid- ered unmarried students as members of their parents' household even though they may have been living away from home when the survey was taken. The 1970 census counted stu- dents as members of the household or dormitory in which they actually resided at the time of the census. SAMPLE DESIGN The sample for the Census Employ- ment Survey (CES) was selected from a list of addresses and special places constructed prior to the 1970 census. A systematic sample of addresses was chosen for this survey prior to the start of the 1970 census with the restriction that households scheduled to receive a long form in the census were not eligible for selection in CES. After the census, there was an addi- tional sampling operation to account for addresses and persons added during the census enumeration. ESTIMATION The estimates from this survey were developed through the use of a ratio estimate to 1970 census population counts. The computer record for each sample person was first given a weight (the inverse of the probability of selection) adjusted to account for non- interviews encountered during the survey. The records were then used to prepare preliminary tallies of the CES data for the following ratio estimation cells: Age Male Female Negro Non- Negro Negro Non- Negro 25 to 44 .... 45 to 64 .... 65 and over . . Within each of the cells, the ratio of the 1970 census count to the prelimi- nary CES tally was computed and applied to the weights of all CES records in that cell. Because of dif- fering definitions of the eligible uni- verse, no ratio estimation was per- formed for persons age 16 to 24. The principle difference between CES and census definitions of eligible persons relates to the treatment of students and Armed Forces members. In CES, unmarried students living away from home were counted as members of their parent's household, while in the 1970 census they were counted as members of the household or dormi- tory in which they were residing. Armed Forces members were excluded from the CES but included in the 1970 census. The effect of this procedure is to produce estimates realizing some of the gains in sampling efficiency that would have resulted had the popula- tion been stratified into the above groups before sampling. The net effect is a reduction in both the sampling error and possible bias of most statis- tics below what would be obtained by weighting all of the sample households and persons by a uniform factor. The reduction in sampling error will be substantial for some items and less effective for others. A by-product of this estimation procedure is that esti- mates from the sample tend to be consistent with the census counts for the groups used in the estimation procedure except for the differences between the population covered in this survey and in the census. RELIABILITY OF THE ESTIMATES Since the estimates are based on a sample, they may differ somewhat from the figures that would have been obtained- if a complete census was taken using the same schedules, instructions, and interviewers. In addi- tion to this error (called sampling variability), the results are also subject to the errors of response, non- reporting, and processing inherent in censuses as well as sample surveys. The standard error is primarily a measure of the sampling variability, that is, of the variations that occur by chance because a sample rather than the whole of the population is sur- veyed. The chances are about 68 out of 100 that an estimate from the sample would differ from a complete census by less than the standard error. The chances are about 95 out of 100 that the difference would be less than twice the standard error and about 99 out of 100 that it would be less than 2-1/2 times the standard error. The figures presented in the fol- lowing tables are approximations to the standard errors of various esti- mates shown in this report. In order to derive standard errors that would be applicable to a wide variety of items and could be prepared at a moderate cost, a number of approximations were required. As a result, the stand- ard errors shown provide an indication of the order of magnitude rather than the precise standard error for any specific item. These tables do not reflect the effect of response variance or bias arising in the collection or processing stages. The standard errors in these tables are not directly applicable to differ- ences between two estimates. In order to estimate the standard error of a difference, the tables are to be used as described in the following two situations. 56 1. The standard error of a difference between a sample figure from the CES and a 1970 census complete count is the standard error of the CES statistic. 2. For a difference between two sample figures (two figures from the CES for the same or for one CES area versus another, or a CES figure versus one collected on a sample basis in the census), the standard error of the difference is approximately the square root of the sum of squares of the standard errors of each estimate considered separately. If two figures from the same CES area are being compared and there is a high positive correla- tion between the two character- istics, this formula will overstate the true standard error somewhat. Table B1 gives approximate stand- ard errors for estimated numbers of persons with a characteristic (e.g., the number of unemployed males) while table B2 gives approximate standard errors for estimated percentages (e.g., the percent of males who are unemployed). Linear interpolation in these tables will provide generally satisfactory results. Table B 1 Approximate Standard Errors ot Estimated Number of Persons New York City -- all survey areas (Range of 66 chances out of 100) Estimate 5,000 . . . 10,000 . 25,000 . . 75,000 . . 125,000 . 250,000 . 375,000 . 500,000 . 625,000 . 750,000 . 1.000,000 1,250.000 1,500,000 Standard error 470 670 1,050 1,780 2,260 3,050 3,550 3.870 4,060 4,130 3,940 3,220 1,260 Puerto Rican 470 670 1.050 1,780 2.260 3,050 3.550 3,870 4,060 4,130 3,940 3.220 1,260 Neoro other than Puerto Rican 480 670 1.050 1,740 2,150 2,660 2,730 2,370 1,310 White other than Puerto Rican 470 670 1,050 1.780 2.260 3.050 3,550 3,870 4,060 4,130 3,940 3,220 1.260 Table B2. Approximate Standard Errors of Estimated Percentage of Persons New York City -- all survey areas (Range of 6b chances out of 100) Estimated percentage Dase oi percentage 1 or 99 2 or 98 5 or 95 10 or 90 15 or 85 25 or 75 35 or 65 50 5,000 .9 1.3 2.1 2.8 3.4 4.1 4.5 4.7 10,000 .7 .9 1.5 2.0 2.4 2.9 3.2 3.3 25,000 .4 .6 .9 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.1 75,000 .2 .3 .5 .7 .9 1.1 1.2 1.2 125,000 .2 .3 .4 .6 .7 .8 .9 .9 250.000 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .6 .7 375,000 .1 2 .2 .3 .4 .5 .5 .5 500,000 .1 .2 .3 .3 .4 .4 .5 625,000 .1 2 .3 .3 .4 .4 .4 750,000 .1 .2 2 .3 .3 .4 .4 1,000,000 .1 .1 2 .2 .3 .3 .3 1,250,000 .1 .1 .2 .2 .3 .3 .3 1,500,000 .1 .1 2 .2 .2 .3 .3 1,750,000 .1 .1 .2 .2 .2 .2 .3 Example.— Assume a table in this report shows there are an estimated 450,000 males aged 25 and older who have completed high school in the poverty area. Interpolation in table B1 shows the sampling error on an esti- mate of this size is about 3,740. This means the chances are 68 in 100 that a complete census would show the number in this category would differ from the estimated 450,000 by less than this amount; the chances are 95 in 100 that the complete census would differ by less than twice this amount. Assume further the report shows that 8 percent of these males are unem- ployed. Interpolation in table B2 shows the standard error on an esti- mated 8 percent on a base of 450,000 would be 0.26 percent. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970 , Employment Profiles of Selected Low Income Areas . Final Report PHC (3)-3 New York, New York. Puerto Rican Population of Survey Areas. 7>U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1972-716-553/47-73(2-11) 57 U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Middle Atlantic Regional Office 1515 Broadway New York, New York 10036 Herbert Bienstock Regional Director Samuel M. Ehrenhalt Deputy Regional Director Alvin I. Margulis Assistant Regional Director for Operations Morton H. Meisler - Assistant to Regional Director Joseph H. Tessler - Administrative Officer DIVISION OF PROGRAM AND ANALYSIS Jesse Benjamin - Chief, Branch of Program, Development, and Evaluation Seymour Ehrlich - Chief, Branch of Cooperative Programs DIVISION OF OPERATIONS Anthony J. Ferrara - Chief of Operations and Field Activities Louise Fenstamaker - Assistant to Assistant Regional Director Robert M. Findlay - Chief, Branch of Survey Methods and Technical Review U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Middle Atlantic Regional Office 1515 Broadway New York, New York 10036 OFFICIAL BUSINESS THIRD CLASS MAIL Postage and Fees Paid U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR