Residential segregation in North Carolina metropolitan areas and municipalities

Stephen J. Appold

21 September 2015

North Carolina’s population has increased dramatically and its composition changed substantially over the last several decades. North Carolina has gone from being a net exporter of people to being a large importer of domestic and international migrants. Much of the population increase has been in the state’s metropolitan areas. Using block and consistent tract‐level Census data from 1980‐2010, the degree of segregation is traced and the pattern of residence described. North Carolina’s metropolitan areas and large municipalities exhibit a degree of racial segregation which is moderate by national standards and for whites and blacks decreasing in tandem with national trends. White‐Hispanic segregation is increasing, however. Migrants from domestic sources and from international sources are moderately segregated from the North Carolina born and bred.

Note: This is a rough, wordy, preliminary version which is in the process of being refined and expanded. Color graphics are needed for 12 figures. The final paper will be more analytic, more compact, and include analysis of income segregation. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Approximately 7,000 words.

Residential segregation in North Carolina metropolitan Overareas and municipalities the last several decades, North Carolina has experienced a tremendous increase in population. North Carolina’s population grew from 4,556,155 in 1960 to 9,535,483 in 2010, with much of the growth occurring over the last two decades. North Carolina’s population growth has outpaced that of the nation and of the South. Much of that growth has been in North Carolina’s metropolitan areas. In 1960, less than half of North Carolina’s population was its in metropolitan areas (using contemporary boundaries). By 2010, 70 percent of the population was.

Natural increase, the difference between the number of births and deaths, has accounted for a portion of the state’s population growth but in‐migration has been central. As of the 2000 Census, 12 percent of the population was net migrants. The same was true as of the 2010 Census when over one million people were net migrants since the previous Census. Until 1970, North Carolina was a net exporter of people.1 Recently, North Carolina has been nearly unique among U.S. states in that it attracted substantial migrants from both domestic and international sources. As of 2010, 42 percent of the state’s population was born out‐of‐state and nearly half of the North Carolina labor force was.

This large influx of people constituted a great turnaround for the state but has also resulted in the emergence of two Carolina’s – a dynamic metropolitan economy, especially visible in the state’s largest metropolitan regions – and a slowing economy in many of its smaller cities and towns and in much of its rural areas. While nearly half of North Carolina’s 100 counties are losing population, the state’s two largest metropolitan regions are among the fastest‐growing in the U.S.

These population shifts have led to large changes in the composition of the population. Large numbers of those from out‐of‐state – and from outside the South – have moved to North Carolina, directing attention to the potential fate of southern, and North Carolina, cultural identities. In particular, to the extent that racial ideologies have formed the core of regional identity, an influx of non‐Southerners could result in a dilution of southern identity.2 In addition, post‐1965 immigration in the U.S. has led to increased racial diversity in the U.S. and, as the number of immigrants in the state has increased, to North Carolina. In the first half of last decade, North Carolina emerged as the foremost Hispanic expansion state, based on the increase in the percentage of the population from Latin America.

The combination of rapid population increase, cultural differences between new and old residents, and increased racial diversity make North Carolina cities interesting case studies in the effects of population change. How these changes over the last several decades have affected North Carolina’s fourteen metropolitan areas and largest 20 municipalities is the focus of this paper. The baseline expectation is that the demographic changes would have an important impact on residential patterns.

1 Stephen J. Appold and James H. Johnson (2014) The New North Carolinians. 2 For a summary, see: e.g., John S. Reed (1986 [1972]) The Enduring South: Subcultural persistence in mass society, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 1 Draft 21 September 2015 This paper traces racial segregation patterns in North Carolina metropolitan areas, collectively and individually, and large municipalities from 1980 to 1980, the period for which trustworthy data are available for consistent 2010 geographic units (Census tracts). Because Census tracts are relatively large by North Carolina standards, smaller spatial units (Census block groups and blocks) are examined where possible. Detailed analysis is presented for the three largest metropolitan regions, Charlotte, the Piedmont Triad, and the Research Triangle. Five major racial groups and three broad categories of migration status are examined.

North Carolina Population Change over the Last Half Century As a result of immigration, North Carolina is no longer a “black‐white” state.3 In this paper, the North Carolina population has been classified into five broad racial/ethnic groups: non‐Hispanic whites, non‐ Hispanic blacks, non‐Hispanic Asians, non‐Hispanic “others,” and Hispanics. Following the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Hispanics are defined as those who classify themselves in one of the specific Hispanic origin categories: Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, as well as Central American or South American (Spanish‐speaking countries). Persons who identify themselves as “Other Spanish/Hispanic” are those whose origins are in Spain or who identify themselves generally as Spanish, Spanish‐American, Hispanic, Hispano, Latino, and so on. Hispanics may be of any race and many North Carolina Hispanics are classified as being members of a residual race category. Although Hispanic is an ethnic designation, it is treated here as a racial category. Also following the Census Bureau practice, Asians are defined as those who classify themselves as such.

Although a Hispanic presence in North Carolina has been documented at least as far back as 1940, Figure 1 shows that prior to 1990, they comprised less than one percent of the total population. The same holds for Asians and “others,” who were primarily Native Americans before the recent Census. It is only since 1990 that the racial mix of North Carolina has become more diverse. The percentage of the North Carolina population that is white peaked at 76 percent in 1970 and has since declined to around 65 percent. The percentage of the North Carolina population that is black peaked at 38 percent in 1880 and has been declining ever since to around 21 percent in 2010.

That shift can be seen in the racial composition of the state’s metropolitan areas. Figure 2 charts those changes. The new population groups, Hispanics and especially Asians, are largely metropolitan based.

North Carolinians are also classified into three basic categories of lifetime migrants: born and bred, domestic import, and immigrant. Born and bred refers to those who were born in the state and who still lived here at the time data were collected. Domestic import refers to those who are U.S. citizens by birth and who lived in North Carolina at the time of data collection but who were not born in the state. Immigrant refers to the foreign‐born who lived in North Carolina at the time of data collection. Given the dramatic increase in population through migration, this information is critical to understanding urban change. At this point, information on lifetime migration status has been gathered only for 2010.

3 Blackwell, Angela Glover, Stewart Kwoh, and Manuel Pastor. Searching for the Uncommon Common Ground: New Dimensions on Race in America. New York: W.W. Norton, 2002.

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 2 Draft 21 September 2015 This paper is based on U.S. Census data. Much of the data stems from decennial censuses in 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010. Summaries of earlier Censuses are also used. The data on lifetime migrants are taken from the summary version of the 2006‐2010 five‐year sample of the American Community Survey which serves as a replacement for the detailed information collected on a sample of those in the decennial Census.

Measures

Four measures of neighborhood segregation by race and lifetime migration status are used: the Dissimilarity Index, the Isolation Index, the Exposure Index,4 and a modified Entropy Index.5 The Dissimilarity Index is a measure of the evenness with which two mutually exclusive groups are distributed across the component geographic areas (Census tracts, block groups, and blocks) that make up a larger area (metropolitan areas individually and collectively). At one extreme, if all members of one group lived exclusively in neighborhoods composed of members of that group, and members of the other group did the same, the Dissimilarity Index would take on its maximum value of 100. At the other extreme, if members of both groups chose neighborhoods at random, the Dissimilarity Index would equal 0, meaning that the two groups were evenly distributed.

The Isolation Index measures the proportion of residents who are, say, white in the census tract of the typical white resident. If that number is high, whites can be considered residentially isolated. The maximum value of this index is 100. Even if whites make up only 20 percent of a metropolis’ population, all of them could live in all‐white neighborhoods. The minimum value of the Isolation Index is asymptotically close to 0.

The Exposure Index measures the average proportion of those who are of another group, say, black, Asian, or Hispanic in the neighborhood of a typical member of the baseline group, in this example, a white resident. The maximum value of this index is the percent in the second group. The minimum value of the exposure index is zero. The Isolation Index can be calculated for any group and the Exposure Index for any two groups. The two indexes are used in tandem to illustrate the composition of the average neighborhood.

The Dissimilarity Index is statistically independent of the size of the two groups used in its composition. It is not, however, independent of the geographic units used in the computation. The Isolation and Exposure Indexes are influenced by the evenness with which groups are distributed across neighborhoods and by the relative size of the groups.

The Dissimilarity Index and the Exposure Index are pair‐wise measures. The Entropy Index is an overall measure of diversity. Because the maximum value of the index depends upon the number categories, the Entropy Index is divided by its maximum value to scale the range to vary between 0 (no diversity; all

4 See any demography text or Reynolds Farley, Racial Residential Segregation Measurement Project, http://enceladus.isr.umich.edu/race/seg.html. 5 Steven R. Holloway , Richard Wright, and Mark Ellis (2012) “The Racially Fragmented City? Neighborhood Racial Segregation and Diversity Jointly Considered,” The Professional Geographer, 64: (1) 63‐82, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2011.585080

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 3 Draft 21 September 2015 residents are in one group) to 1 (equal numbers of residents in each group). Following Holloway, Wright, and Ellis, the index is simplified into three categories: “low diversity” (a value between 0 and .3707 or a single group accounts for more than 80 percent of the population), “high diversity” (a value of at least .7414 and no single group accounts for more than 45 percent of the population and no two groups account for more than 80 percent of the population), and “moderate diversity” (the remainder). In some analyses, the categorized index is combined with the group which accounts for the plurality of the population.

The Dissimilarity Index measuring the segregation of whites from blacks equals

(1/2) SUM (bi /B – wi / W)

The Isolation Index for whites equals:

SUM(wi / W)  (wi / ti)

This will report the percentage of population white in the geographic unit, e.g., tract, for the typical or average white person.

The Exposure Index of the typical or average white to blacks equals:

SUM(wi / W)  (bi /ti) .

This will report the average percent black in the geographic unit of the typical or average white resident.

The summation is over all the geographic units, e. g. census tracts, comprising the larger geographic entity for which the index is being calculated.

With a change in notation, the Indexes can be calculated for any group or combination of mutually exclusive groups.

The Entropy Index of a spatial unit equals:

Scaling factor * SUM [(kj/tj) * ln(tj/kj)]

The summation is over all groups, e.g., races, and is a characteristic of the spatial unit.

Notation:

th bi = the black population of the i areal unit, e.g. census tract, of the larger geographic entity for which the index is being calculated.

th wi = the white population of the i areal unit, for example, census tract, of the larger geographic entity for which the index is being calculated.

th kj = the group population (white, black, Hispanic, Asian, or other) of the i areal unit, for example, census tract, of the larger geographic entity for which the index is being calculated.

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 4 Draft 21 September 2015 ti= the total population of a component part of the larger geographic entity for which the index is being calculated.

B = the total black population of the large geographic entity for which the index is being calculated.

W = the total white population of the larger geographic entity for which the index is being calculated.

These measures are interwoven in the analysis which follows.

The Typical North Carolina Metropolitan Neighborhood The analysis begins with an overview of North Carolina metropolitan areas collectively before examining individual metropolitan areas and municipalities. Racial composition is considered first, at the most detailed spatial scale possible. Trends are then examined using the smallest consistent spatial unit available. Migration status composition follows. The central focus is the composition of neighborhoods. Most of the measures assume a random baseline – one in which race or migration status does not matter for residential choice.

Metropolitan Racial Composition Figure 3 summarizes the basic information on the racial composition of North Carolina metropolitan areas in 2010 based on Census blocks data.6 The top bar of the figure illustrates the average overall racial composition of North Carolina’s 14 metropolitan areas.7 The remaining bars show the racial composition of the average neighborhood of a non‐Hispanic white person, a non‐Hispanic black person, a non‐Hispanic Asian person, and a Hispanic person, respectively. The final racial category, “others,” is omitted because there are so few of them.

On average a person in each of the racial groups lived in neighborhoods in which his or her group is over‐represented. For example, while whites comprised 63.5 percent of North Carolina’s metropolitan population (a slightly smaller proportion than their representation in the state as a whole), the typical white person living in a North Carolina metropolitan area resided in a neighborhood which was 78.3 percent white. That is, there were 23 percent more whites in the neighborhoods generally inhabited by whites than would be expected if race were not a factor in residential location decisions. Such a typical neighborhood contained an average of 11 percent black people (half the proportion expected if race were not a factor), 2.3 percent Asians (72 percent of what would be expected if race were not a factor in residential choice), and 6 percent Hispanics (less than two‐thirds than expected).

6 Census “blocks” contain an average of 62 residents. There were 108,133 of them in North Carolina’s metropolitan areas in 2010. Census “block groups” contain an average of 1,650 residents. There were 4,060 of them in North Carolina’s metropolitan areas in 2010. Census “tracts,” used in much of the analysis contain an average of 4,450 persons. There were 1499 of them in North Carolina’s metropolitan areas in 2010. Tyrrell County’s population in 2010 was 4,407. 7 They are Asheville, Burlington, Charlotte, Durham, Fayetteville, Goldsboro, Greensboro, Greenville, Hickory, Jacksonville, Raleigh, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, and Winston‐Salem.

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 5 Draft 21 September 2015 A typical black North Carolina metropolitan resident lived in a neighborhood which was over half black (more than two and one‐fourth the expectation). One‐third of such neighborhoods were white (half the expectation), 2.3 percent Asians (73 percent of the expectation), and 10 percent Hispanics (11 percent greater than expectation). Asians are a small group in North Carolina. Nevertheless, they were over‐ represented by a factor of five in the neighborhoods where they could typically be found. The other population groups were somewhat (82‐88 percent) under‐represented in those neighborhoods. A typical metropolitan North Carolina Hispanic lived in a neighborhood which was nearly 30 percent Hispanic (over‐represented by a factor of 3.18). At 19 percent, blacks were slightly over‐represented. Whites were under‐represented at 42 percent as were Asians at 2.4 percent.

These figures change somewhat as larger spatial units are used as the basis for operationalizing neighborhoods. The degree of over‐representation of racial in‐groups declines from 1.22 to 1.16 to 1.14 for whites as the unit of analysis changes from Census block to block group to tract. Similarly, the degree of over‐representation for blacks declines from 2.27 to 1.88 to 1.81, respectively. For Asians it declines from 5.09 to 2.93 to 2.59, respectively. For Hispanics, the progression is from 3.19 to 2.00 to 1.74. The larger spatial units suggest a more moderate level of segregation but many incorporated places in North Carolina include fewer people than the average Census tract or block group, meaning that, given the size of North Carolina cities, the smaller units may be the most appropriate.

Trends in Overall Metropolitan Racial Segregation Figure 4 charts the trends in one measure of residential segregation, the Dissimilarity Index, for whites, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. The data are for consistent 2010 Census tracts. Data for the smaller spatial units are not consistently available over time. Some indexes have declined over time, implying that segregation has decreased. Others have grown, implying that segregation has increased. Most notably, the residential segregation of blacks and whites has declined on average over the past several decades. The largest part of that decline preceded 1990, when the large scale influx of migrants to North Carolina began, but has proceeded slowly since. Black‐Asian and white‐Asian segregation has also declined but from a very small Asian population base.

White‐Hispanic and Asian‐Hispanic segregation has increased over time with the pace of increasing segregation slowing during the 2000s for the Asians and decreasing slightly for whites. At the same time, black‐Hispanic segregation has decreased. One implication of the growth of the Asian and especially Hispanic populations is that although neighborhood diversity has increased, the co‐residence of blacks and whites has barely increased since 1980.

The values for the Dissimilarity Index for North Carolina metropolitan areas are in the range many demographers characterize as moderate, between .30 and .60.8 In 2010, most overall indexes were approximately .50 or lower. The pace of change has been in the low to moderate range. Despite the rapid demographic change in the state and its cities, with respect to this measure there has been stability with respect to residential segregation patterns.

8 Douglas S. Massey and Nancy A. Denton. 1993, American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, page 20.

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 6 Draft 21 September 2015 Overall, North Carolina metropolitan areas are roughly in line with their counterparts throughout the U.S.9 North Carolina metropolitan areas are somewhat less segregated than the average for the country as a whole. Black‐white segregation is generally slowly declining in the U.S. and in North Carolina. North Carolina cities have never been as segregated as the cities in the so‐called Ghetto Belt, New York, Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia, St. Louis and their surrounding regions, where more than one in six U.S. blacks make their homes. These cities were often the destinations for those leaving the South in large numbers during the Great Migration.

North Carolina metropolitan regions differ somewhat from national trends in the pattern of Hispanic residential segregation. In this case also, the measured levels of segregation are lower in North Carolina than in the nation as a whole. Whereas the national trend for white‐Hispanic segregation has been steady, in North Carolina the trend has been generally increasing with the increase in Hispanic population. Consistent with national trends, black‐Hispanic segregation has been generally declining. The proportion of Asians in North Carolina is sufficiently low to undermine comparisons.

Metropolitan Migration Status/Birth Origin Figure 5 provides an overview of the neighborhood composition in metropolitan areas with respect to lifetime migration status (place of birth) based on 2010 Census tracts. Data are not available for smaller units or and have not yet been compiled for earlier years. Similar to Figure 3 the top bar of the figure illustrates the average overall composition of migration status in the combined metropolitan areas. The remaining bars show the composition of the average neighborhood of a person who is born and bred, domestic import, and immigrant, respectively.

On average a person in each of the migration statuses lived in neighborhoods in which his or her status was over‐represented. For example, those who were born and bred comprised 54.9 percent of North Carolina’s metropolitan population but the typical born and bred person living in a North Carolina metropolitan area resided in a neighborhood which was 59.6 percent born and bred. That is, there were 8.7 percent more people who were born and bred in the neighborhoods generally inhabited by the born and bred than would be expected if migration status were not a factor in residential location decisions. Such a typical neighborhood contained an average of 32.8 percent domestic import (less than expectation), and 7.6 percent immigrant (less than expected).

Interestingly, the proportion of born and bred was about the same in the neighborhoods inhabited by typical domestic imports and immigrants. Only the proportion of the respective in‐group changed. The degree of in‐group over‐representation was generally lower for the migration status groups, than it was for racial groups, but not markedly so. There were 15.8 percent more domestic imports in the neighborhoods inhabited by a typical person in that category than would be expected if migration status did not matter and 74.8 percent more immigrants in the neighborhoods inhabited by a typical person in that category than would be expected. The Dissimilarity Index for the born and bred and domestic

9 John R. Logan and Brian Stults. 2011. “The Persistence of Segregation in the Metropolis: New Findings from the 2010 Census” Census Brief prepared for Project US2010, http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/Data/Report/report2.pdf.

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 7 Draft 21 September 2015 import was .279, for born and bred and immigrants it was .392 and for domestic imports and immigrants it was .349.

Patterns and Trends in Individual Metropolitan Areas and Cities Residential choice is a complex multi‐stage process. The first stage may be the selection of a destination region. This choice is sometimes made by default by non‐migrants but is made explicitly by migrants. The next stage is the selection of a municipality within a region and finally a neighborhood within a municipality. For that reason, the composition of metropolitan areas and municipalities are considered before the composition of neighborhoods. Because the boundaries of municipalities have changed over time through sometimes extensive annexation, consistent 2010 boundaries are used as far as possible. The pattern of annexation has likely softened the tendency found nationally for minorities to concentrate in central cities while whites move to suburbs. In addition, with several important exceptions, North Carolina’s school districts are county‐wide, which may also dampen motivations for residential segregation among school districts. As in other areas of the U.S., the gentrification of selected areas of some municipalities has also become a phenomenon.

Racial Composition in Metropolitan Areas Table 1 provides an overview of 2010 population size and composition in North Carolina metropolitan areas. North Carolina’s 14 metropolitan areas can be grouped into three broad categories. The largest agglomerations of population and employment are along the Piedmont Crescent and account for more than one million residents each: Charlotte, the Triad (Greensboro which includes High Point and Winston‐Salem), and the Research Triangle (Raleigh, which includes Cary, and Durham, which includes Chapel Hill). A set of four independent mid‐sized metropolitan areas with populations between 350,000 and 450,000 make up the next tier. These are Asheville, Fayetteville, Hickory, and Wilmington, two in the west and two in the east. Finally, five metropolitan areas, Greenville, Jacksonville, Rocky Mount, Burlington, and Goldsboro, have 2010 populations of between 120,000 and 200,000. All but Burlington, which is in the Piedmont Crescent, are in the east. In addition, there are 26 micropolitan areas (not shown).10

Not surprisingly, two of the three the metropolitan areas with the highest proportion of residents who were white, Asheville and Hickory, are in the west, where blacks did not historically settle. One, Wilmington, a growth pole along the coast, is in the midst of a rural region which has a heavy representation of blacks. The least white metropolitan areas were Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, both along the I‐95 corridor and both minority‐majority metropolitan areas, and Durham, which is part of the Research Triangle. Correspondingly, Rocky Mount and Fayetteville had the highest proportion of black people in their populations, followed by Greenville, a university‐hospital city in the east. Despite the lower proportions, the greatest number of blacks could be found in Charlotte, Raleigh, and Durham. The lowest representation of blacks was found in Ashville, Hickory, and Wilmington. The highest

10 Albemarle, Boone, Brevard, Dunn, Elizabeth City, Forest City, Henderson, Kill Devil Hill, Kinston, Laurinburg, Lincolnton, Lumberton, Morehead City, Mount Airy, New Bern, North Wilkesboro, Roanoke Rapids, Rockingham, Salisbury, Sanford, Shelby, Southern Pines‐Pinehurst, Statesville‐Mooresville, Thomasville‐Lexington, Washington, and Wilson.

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 8 Draft 21 September 2015 number and highest representation of Asians were found in Raleigh, Charlotte, and Durham. Durham, Burlington, and Charlotte had the highest proportions of their populations which are Hispanic.

Winston‐Salem (.5607) and Charlotte (.5403) posted the highest white‐black scores on the Dissimilarity Index while Jacksonville (.2748), Greenville (. 2919), and Fayetteville (.3073) had the lowest scores, which are in the range considered low by demographers. With respect to segregation between whites and Hispanics, Winston‐Salem (.4883), Charlotte (.4798), and Durham (.4790) were the highest. Jacksonville (.2088) and Fayetteville (.2544) were the least segregated. Asheville (.4622), Rocky Mount (.4511), and Goldsboro (.4210) showed the highest degree of black‐Hispanic segregation. Jacksonville (.1622), Fayetteville (.2092), Burlington (.2190) and Raleigh (.2442) had the lowest.

Table 3 summarizes information on racial composition and contact in each of the 14 North Carolina metropolitan areas. The table is similar to Figure 3 in that the top row for each metropolitan area gives the racial composition of the metropolitan area as a whole. The next four rows summarize the neighborhood racial composition of the average white, black, Asian, and Hispanic, respectively. The final row shows a measure of the degree of over‐representation of each group in their respective neighborhoods.

In each metropolitan area, each group tends to concentrate, meaning that people tend to live in neighborhoods in which their group is over‐represented. The degree to which groups are concentrated varies, however. In Jacksonville, for example, there were six percent more whites in the neighborhoods where a white person typically lived than would be expected if race were not a factor in residential choice. In such neighborhoods, 11.9 percent of the residents where black, less than what might be expected. The degree of over‐representation in the respective typical neighborhoods was higher for non‐whites than it was for whites. Nevertheless, the degree of racial concentration was lower, on average, in Jacksonville than in other North Carolina metropolitan areas. On the other hand, Fayetteville, the other military center, is less integrated. In the Ashville, Hickory, and Wilmington metropolitan areas, the modest concentration of whites is linked with much higher concentrations of blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. Rocky Mount showed a moderate degree of mutual segregation among whites and blacks.

Trends in Metropolitan Area Racial Segregation The metropolitan areas fall into three broad growth categories. The most rapidly growing areas, with average annual growth rates of more than two percent per year were Raleigh, Wilmington, Charlotte and Greenville with Durham following close behind. Grouped together, the Triangle would fall into this category. Greenville, Jacksonville, Rocky Mount, Burlington, Goldsboro, and Winston‐Salem grew at an average annual rate of between 1.25 and 1.75 percent. Finally, Fayetteville, Jacksonville, Goldsboro, and Rocky Mount, all in the coastal plain, each grew at a rate of one percent or less with Hickory taking an intermediate position.

In every metropolitan area, the growth of the Hispanic population has by far outpaced the overall population over the last several decades. Table 2 summarizes basic information on metropolitan area population growth and segregation. In all but three metropolitan areas, the growth rate of the black

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 9 Draft 21 September 2015 population out‐paced that of the white population. In the remaining cases, Asheville, Jacksonville, and Wilmington, the white population grew faster than that of blacks but still slower than that of the Hispanics. Because the number of Asians in some metropolitan areas is quite small, they are excluded from the analysis of segregation trends in individual metropolitan regions.

The rate of population growth and the differentials in growth rates have an uncertain relationship to segregation trends. For the most part, the white‐black Dissimilarity Index changed little in North Carolina metropolitan areas, regardless of population growth rate. However, in three metropolitan areas, Asheville, Greenville, and Winston‐Salem, the level of white‐black segregation decreased by an appreciable amount. These three areas had different baseline population compositions and population group growth rate differentials.

In eleven of the fourteen metropolitan areas, white‐Hispanic segregation, as measured by the Dissimilarity Index, has increased over the last several decades. In one metropolitan area, segregation decreased. In two others, Fayetteville and Jacksonville, white‐Hispanic segregation actually decreased. These two cities are home to large military bases, suggesting a pattern of military cosmopolitanism. In the areas in which the index increased, the Hispanic population grew more than ten times as fast as that of the metropolitan area population as a whole. Aside from the apparent impact of the military on decreasing segregation, the pattern does not seem clear.

The Dissimilarity Index is a metropolitan area‐wide measure. In order to directly measure the nature of individual neighborhoods, the Entropy Index is used. Figure 6 provides an overview of the distribution of the racial diversity of Census tracts over time. For the figure, the categorized Entropy Index is combined with the dominant population group. In general, and in most metropolitan areas, the number of low‐diversity White neighborhoods has declined since 1980. Much of that decrease has led to moderate‐diversity White neighborhoods but also to a decrease in the number of neighborhoods in which Whites are the primary population group. In such cases, the neighborhoods have often transformed to moderate‐diversity Black neighborhoods but a small number have become low‐diversity Black neighborhoods or ones where Hispanics are the primary group. By 2010, a number of highly diverse neighborhoods Using the definition given above) had emerged.

Table 4 details the transitions made by neighborhoods. The top panel shows the diversity transitions; the bottom panel includes information about the primary racial group. Highly diverse neighborhoods did not arise until 2000. Their number had expanded by 2010 and most of those which had attained that status in 2000 remained in that status. In the remaining case, the black population had achieved a threshold. The large influx of Hispanics has, so far, not resulted in the emergence of a large number of Hispanic neighborhoods at the tract level.

The patterns of neighborhood change are summarized in Table 5. As can be inferred from Figure 6, most neighborhoods are stable. In any given decade, 75‐80 percent became neither substantially more nor less racially diverse and in 90 percent cases, the same racial group remained primary. Accordingly, on average, approximately three‐fourths of the neighborhoods retained the same primary group and remained approximately as diverse at the end of the decade as they were at the beginning. In each

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 10 Draft 21 September 2015 decade, 10‐18 percent of the Census tracts became more diverse but a small percentage became less diverse, suggesting a process of residential succession. Given the small number of tracts which become less diverse over time, it appears that, at least at the tract level, moderate diversity neighborhoods may be stable. Highly diverse neighborhoods were not sufficiently common to make an assessment.

Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9 provide detailed maps of the Charlotte, Triad, and Triangle metropolitan area neighborhood racial diversity, respectively, using the modified Entropy Index. In Charlotte, the horseshoe of mainly black neighborhoods and diverse neighborhoods which surround the Uptown Loop and the South Charlotte white belt is clearly visible. Moderately diverse Hispanic neighborhoods are sprinkled throughout the horseshoe. In the Triad, the primarily black neighborhoods are on the east sides of Winston‐Salem and Greensboro along with in the center of High Point. Moderately diverse Hispanic neighborhoods are mainly in Winston‐Salem. The primarily black neighborhoods of the Triangle are towards the east in Durham and in Southeast Raleigh. Primarily Hispanic neighborhoods are throughout the region but seem to be more heavily distributed along the U.S. 70 corridor. Primarily white neighborhoods find concentrations in the northern quarter of Raleigh and in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. A highly diverse neighborhood is located just north of Chapel Hill, outside municipal borders.

Migration Status in Metropolitan Areas Table 6 provides an overview of the composition of individual North Carolina metropolitan areas with respect to migration status. The total population shown is somewhat lower than in the previous tables because the data are taken from the 2006‐2010 five‐year sample of the American Community Survey, rather than the 2010 Census. As with race, migration status is unevenly distributed across metropolitan areas. Rocky Mount, Hickory, and Greenville had the highest representations of those who are born and bred. Jacksonville, Fayetteville, and Raleigh had the lowest representations. With the addition of Charlotte, these are the four majority‐cosmopolitan metropolitan areas in North Carolina. Correspondingly, Jacksonville and Fayetteville had the highest proportions of their populations who were domestic imports. Wilmington followed closely behind. Not surprisingly, Rocky Mount, Hickory, and Greenville had the lowest proportions which were domestic imports. The latter is somewhat surprising, given its status as a university and hospital center. Durham, Raleigh, and Charlotte hosted the highest proportions of immigrants, with immigrants making up more than ten percent of their respective populations. Rocky Mount, Jacksonville, and Wilmington had the lowest proportion immigrants.

Table 7 contains information similar to that in Figure 5 and is constructed similarly to Table 3 but contains data on the neighborhood composition by migration status. Durham, Charlotte, and Raleigh showed significant concentration of domestic imports and immigrants. In Wilmington, domestic imports also tend to concentrate. Jacksonville and Fayetteville, the two military centers, domestic imports were especially concentrated.

Figure 10, Figure 11, and Figure 12 provide detailed maps of the Charlotte, Triad, and Triangle metropolitan area neighborhood composition for migration status, respectively, using the degree of presence of each group compared to the metropolitan‐wide distribution as a baseline. In Charlotte, the born and bred are over‐represented in the primarily black neighborhoods and in the not‐yet‐developed

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 11 Draft 21 September 2015 non‐urban areas. Domestic imports appear to concentrate in South Charlotte and the northern suburbs. Immigrants are over‐represented in much of the horseshoe. In the Triad, the born and bred are over‐ represented in much of the rural area while domestic imports are over‐represented mainly to the northeast of Winston‐Salem and Greensboro but reside in other areas also. Immigrants may be concentrated along highway corridors. Immigrants are over‐represented throughout much of the Triangle. Notable concentrations of domestic imports include north Raleigh outside the beltline, south Cary, the eastern portion of Chapel Hill, and a small area near Duke.

Racial Composition of Selected Municipalities Table 8 summarizes information on the racial composition on the 20 largest North Carolina municipalities. Each of these has a population of 45,000 or more, which is approximately equivalent to ten Census tracts. Twelve of municipalities serve as the center cities of the state’s metropolitan areas. Two center cities, Hickory and Goldsboro, did not meet the inclusion criterion. One of the remaining municipalities, Wilson, is the center of a micropolitan area. The rest are components of larger agglomerations. Cary is a near‐suburb of Raleigh and a component of the metropolitan area. Chapel Hill is a portion of the Durham metropolitan area. Chapel Hill, Durham, Raleigh, and Cary form a single continuous urban area. High Point, as one leg of the Triad, is a component of the Greensboro metropolitan area. Gastonia, Concord, Huntersville, and Kannapolis are located in the Charlotte metropolitan area.

In most municipalities, the black proportion of the population increased. In six municipalities, the representation of blacks decreased. These were Asheville (representation of blacks decreased by 2.9 percentage points between 1980 and 2010), Cary (decreased by less than a percentage point), Chapel Hill (decreased by 1.89 points), Huntersville (decreased by 5.74 points), Jacksonville (decreased by 1.77), and Wilmington (decreased by 5.36). At the same time, in nearby municipalities such as Raleigh (contiguous with Cary) the representation of blacks increased (by 4.42 percentage points). In Durham (contiguous with Chapel Hill), the increase was 2.70 points from a high base and in Charlotte (just south of Huntersville), the increase was 7.12. Huntersville, Chapel Hill, and to a lesser extent Cary are examples of the emergence of non‐black suburbs even in the context of dynamic, renewing larger cities. That tendency may be visible among smaller municipalities.

Huntersville, Ashville, and Wilmington were the whitest municipalities. Rocky Mount, Durham, and Fayetteville were the least white. Those municipalities, along with Charlotte and Wilson, were minority‐ majority cities. Rocky Mount, Wilson, and Fayetteville had the highest proportion of black residents while Huntersville, Cary, and Ashville had the lowest. Cary, Chapel Hill, and somewhat surprisingly, High Point had the highest representations of Asians. Burlington, Durham, and Charlotte were home to the highest proportion of Hispanics, Rocky Mount, Greenville, and Willington the lowest. Table 9 is similar to Table 3 but analyzes selected municipalities, not metropolitan areas. Huntersville is an interesting case. In the largely white municipality, an apparently small tendency of whites to concentrate is tied to a high level of concentration among all minority groups. Chapel Hill shows a similar pattern. Several of the central cities showed similar patterns to those found in the corresponding metropolitan areas.

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 12 Draft 21 September 2015 Table 11 provides an overview of the composition of the largest North Carolina municipalities with respect to migration status. As in the metropolitan migration analysis above, the total population shown is somewhat lower than in the previous tables because the data are again taken from the 2006‐ 2010 five‐year sample of the American Community Survey. Rocky Mount, Wilson, and Gastonia showed the highest concentration of those who were born and bred. Jacksonville, Cary, and Huntersville were the most cosmopolitan. Accordingly, Jacksonville, Huntersville, and Cary were among those with the highest representation of domestic imports with Fayetteville nosing ahead of the last. Wilson, Rocky Mount, and Gastonia showed the lowest proportions of domestic imports. Immigrants were well‐ represented in Cary, Chapel Hill, and Charlotte but comparatively scarce in Rocky Mount, Greenville, and Wilmington. Table 11 shows interesting variations from Table 7 for central cities. The differences suggest that there is no common pattern of suburbanization. They suggest that domestic imports may sometimes concentrate in center cities but sometimes not.

Conclusions Dramatic changes in the size and composition of the North Carolina population over the past several decades have changed the nature of the state and, especially, its leading cities. This paper examined the impact of these changes on residential patterns in North Carolina. These patterns determine important aspects of the social environment of residents and may impact cultural anchor points. Residential segregation is often interpreted as an indicator of social and perhaps cultural divisions.

North Carolina metropolitan areas are often passed over in studies of urban development in favor of the nation’s largest and sometimes most problematic cities. Nevertheless, residential patterns in North Carolina metropolitan areas are important beyond the state’s borders because they offer insight into how rapidly‐growing Sunbelt cities develop. Two dimensions of population composition were examined: race and migration status (place of birth). The analysis examined selected municipalities but concentrated on metropolitan areas with consistent 2010 boundaries because suburbs have often been annexed over the last several decades.

North Carolina metropolitan areas, like those elsewhere, are segregated by race. North Carolinians of different races live in neighborhoods with significantly different racial compositions. North Carolina metropolitan areas are moderately segregated by national standards, however, and the results reported here are roughly comparable to those found elsewhere in the U.S.11 As in the rest of the U.S., white‐ black segregation has been declining, slowly. White‐black segregation has been declining primarily due to the transformation of low‐diversity neighborhoods into moderate‐diversity neighborhoods. In most cases, the most numerous racial group retains its position. The influx of new North Carolinians has had little, if any, perceptible impact on the pattern of white‐black segregation.

There are some hints at re‐segregation as some diverse areas continue along a process of residential segregation. In addition, non‐black and sometimes white‐dominated enclave municipalities may be

11 E.g., William H. Frey and Dowell Myers (2005) Racial Segregation in US Metropolitan Areas and Cities, 1990– 2000: Patterns, Trends, and Explanations, Population Studies Center Research Report 05‐573, April, http://www.frey‐demographer.org/reports/R‐2005‐2_RacialSegragationTrends.pdf and Logan and Stults (2011).

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 13 Draft 21 September 2015 developing. The pattern of residence seen in the large metropolitan areas suggests substantial areas of larger cities which are predominantly uni‐racial. At the other end of the spectrum, residential patterns in Jacksonville and, to a lesser extent, Fayetteville suggest a pattern of military cosmopolitanism.

White‐Hispanic segregation has been increasing. Just as black ghettos emerged in northern cities as a consequence of mass migration from the south during the early part of the 20th century, the rapid growth of the Hispanic population could result in the emergence of real ghettos in North Carolina.12 Black‐Hispanic segregation has declined over time.

North Carolinian residences are also segregated by birth origin with the born and bred, domestic imports, and immigrants living in different neighborhoods. Although birth origin correlates with race, the level of segregation by migration status is lower. Time series for migration status in North Carolina have not yet been compiled. So far there is little evidence for the spatial assimilation of immigrants.13

Several explanations have been offered for the persistence of residential segregation. These include economic differences among racial and other population groups, housing affordability, urban structure and the location of employment, public goods, and housing preferences. It is possible that as the de jure means of segregation have fallen away, informal mechanisms, in the form of white willingness to pay to live in relatively homogeneous neighborhoods, have maintained racial segregation. Given the relative size of the population, relatively modest racial preferences on the part of whites can have an out‐size impact on aggregate outcomes.14

Further research could provide stronger evidence concerning the causes of continuing and, in a few instances, increasing residential segregation in North Carolina. The over time analysis presented here relies on consistently‐defined Census tracts. Compared to historically‐defined Census tracts, these appear to under‐state prior levels of racial segregation slightly. Census tracts may also be too large to optimally study North Carolina residential patterns.

12 Cutler, David M. , Edward L. Glaeser , and Jacob L. Vigdor . 1999. “The Rise and Decline of the American Ghetto.” Journal of Political Economy 107:455–506. 13 Iceland, John and Melissa Scopilliti, 2008, “Immigrant Residential Segregation in US Metropolitan Areas, 1990– 2000.” Demography 45:79–94. 14 Schelling, Thomas C. (1971), “Dynamic Models of Segregation,” Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1, 143‐86; Schelling, Thomas C. (1978), Micromotives and Macrobehavior, Norton, New York, NY; Leah Platt Boustan (2011) “Racial Residential Segregation in American Cities,” in Nancy Brooks, Kieran Donaghy and Gerrit Knaap , eds., Handbook of Urban Economics and Planning, Oxford University Press, http://www.econ.ucla.edu/lboustan/research_pdfs/research13_handbook.pdf.

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 14 Draft 21 September 2015 Figure 1 North Carolina Racial Composition, 1790‐2010

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 15 Draft 21 September 2015 Figure 2 North Carolina Metropolitan Area Racial Composition, 1970‐2010

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 16 Draft 21 September 2015 Figure 3 Neighborhood Racial Composition of Combined North Carolina Metropolitan Areas: Census blocks 2010

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 17 Draft 21 September 2015 Figure 4 Trends in Racial Dissimilarity Indexes for Combined North Carolina Metropolitan Areas, 1970‐2010

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 18 Draft 21 September 2015 Figure 5 Neighborhood Lifetime Migration Status of Composition of Combined North Carolina Metropolitan Areas: Census tracts 2010

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 19 Draft 21 September 2015 Figure 6 Neighborhood diversity characteristics in North Carolina metropolitan areas

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 20 Draft 21 September 2015 Figure 7 Charlotte neighborhoods classified by diversity and racial dominance, 2010

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 21 Draft 21 September 2015 Figure 8 Triad neighborhoods classified by diversity and racial dominance, 2010

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 22 Draft 21 September 2015 Figure 9 Triangle neighborhoods classified by diversity and racial dominance, 2010

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 23 Draft 21 September 2015 Figure 10 Charlotte Neighborhood Migration Status Composition, circa 2010

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 24 Draft 21 September 2015 Figure 11 Triad Neighborhood Migration Status Composition, circa 2010

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 25 Draft 21 September 2015 Figure 12 Triangle Neighborhood Migration Status Composition, circa 2010

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 26 Draft 21 September 2015 Table 1 Racial Composition of North Carolina Metropolitan Areas, 2010

Total White Black Asian Hispanic White Black Asian Hispanic 6,680,811 4,265,427 1,457,351 183,929 610,782 0.6385 0.2181 0.0275 0.0914

1 Charlotte 1,531,965 911,650 371,876 51,437 162,691 0.5951 9 0.2427 7 0.0336 3 0.1062 3 2 Raleigh 1,130,490 716,883 223,870 49,535 114,512 0.6341 7 0.1980 9 0.0438 1 0.1013 5 3 Greensboro 723,801 449,177 182,490 20,888 54,683 0.6206 8 0.2521 6 0.0289 4 0.0755 9 4 Durham 504,357 278,907 134,853 21,985 56,915 0.5530 12 0.2674 5 0.0436 2 0.1128 1 5Winston‐Salem 477,717 317,660 95,147 6,851 49,274 0.6650 6 0.1992 8 0.0143 8 0.1031 4 6 Asheville 424,858 366,448 18,976 3,664 27,100 0.8625 1 0.0447 14 0.0086 13 0.0638 11 7 Fayetteville 366,383 169,891 129,331 7,352 36,013 0.4637 14 0.3530 2 0.0201 6 0.0983 8 8 Hickory 365,497 302,096 24,860 9,252 23,063 0.8265 2 0.0680 13 0.0253 5 0.0631 12 9 Wilmington 362,315 281,017 50,797 3,137 19,459 0.7756 3 0.1402 12 0.0087 12 0.0537 13 10 Greenville 189,510 106,076 64,715 2,628 12,256 0.5597 10 0.3415 3 0.0139 9 0.0647 10 11 Jacksonville 177,772 122,558 26,577 3,163 17,896 0.6894 4 0.1495 11 0.0178 7 0.1007 6 12 Rocky Mount 152,392 73,130 67,767 826 8,119 0.4799 13 0.4447 1 0.0054 14 0.0533 14 13 Burlington 151,131 101,718 27,985 1,806 16,639 0.6730 5 0.1852 10 0.0119 10 0.1101 2 14 Goldsboro 122,623 68,216 38,107 1,405 12,162 0.5563 11 0.3108 4 0.0115 11 0.0992 7

Piedmont Triad 1,201,518 766,837 277,637 27,739 103,957 0.6382 0.2311 0.0231 0.0865 Research Triangle 1,634,847 995,790 358,723 71,520 171,427 0.6091 0.2194 0.0437 0.1049

Micropolitan 2,072,403 1,429,938 392,998 19,087 133,671 0.6900 0.1896 0.0092 0.0645

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 27 Draft 21 September 2015 Table 2 Racial Indexes of Dissimilarity for North Carolina Metropolitan Areas, 1980‐2010

Index of Dissimilarity Population Metropolitan Area 1980 1990 2000 2010 2010 20‐year growth rate Relative growth Asheville Total 424,858 0.0161 White‐Black 0.6526 0.6350 0.5750 0.4615 0.1911 White 366,448 0.0124 0.7682 White‐Hispanic 0.1857 0.2343 0.3656 0.3530 ‐0.1673 Black 21,883 0.0114 0.7110 Black‐Hispanic 0.5211 0.5768 0.5161 0.4262 0.0948 Hispanic 27,100 0.1224 7.6085 Burlington Total 151,131 0.0167 White‐Black 0.4032 0.3985 0.3834 0.4076 ‐0.0044 White 101,718 0.0084 0.5055 White‐Hispanic 0.2079 0.1744 0.4235 0.4399 ‐0.2320 Black 29,405 0.0174 1.0417 Black‐Hispanic 0.2498 0.2961 0.2659 0.2190 0.0307 Hispanic 16,639 0.1559 9.3348 Charlotte Total 1,531,965 0.0270 White‐Black 0.5870 0.5510 0.5469 0.5403 0.0467 White 911,650 0.0148 0.5495 White‐Hispanic 0.2902 0.3295 0.5093 0.4790 ‐0.1887 Black 387,218 0.0346 1.2839 Black‐Hispanic 0.4238 0.5022 0.3997 0.3329 0.0910 Hispanic 162,691 0.1460 5.4122 Durham Total 504,357 0.0190 White‐Black 0.5009 0.4543 0.4634 0.4740 0.0269 White 278,907 0.0089 0.4652 White‐Hispanic 0.2045 0.2306 0.5369 0.4798 ‐0.2753 Black 139,744 0.0167 0.8759 Black‐Hispanic 0.3870 0.4026 0.3698 0.3239 0.0631 Hispanic 56,915 0.1310 6.8779 Fayetteville Total 366,383 0.0104 White‐Black 0.3600 0.3162 0.3102 0.3073 0.0527 White 169,891 (0.0014) (0.1315) White‐Hispanic 0.3541 0.3149 0.2878 0.2544 0.0997 Black 136,971 0.0177 1.7016 Black‐Hispanic 0.3806 0.3552 0.2573 0.2092 0.1713 Hispanic 36,013 0.0490 4.6997 Goldsboro Total 122,623 0.0079 White‐Black 0.3729 0.3855 0.4003 0.3981 ‐0.0252 White 68,216 (0.0002) (0.0288) White‐Hispanic 0.2529 0.2471 0.3115 0.3852 ‐0.1323 Black 39,348 0.0078 0.9820 Black‐Hispanic 0.3375 0.4098 0.4282 0.4210 ‐0.0835 Hispanic 12,162 0.1097 13.8522 Greensboro Total 723,801 0.0146 White‐Black 0.5825 0.5409 0.5340 0.5407 0.0418 White 449,177 0.0041 0.2772 White‐Hispanic 0.2655 0.2414 0.4419 0.4107 ‐0.1452 Black 190,045 0.0251 1.7114 Black‐Hispanic 0.4427 0.4747 0.4322 0.3735 0.0692 Hispanic 54,683 0.1278 8.7293 Greenville Total 189,510 0.0215 White‐Black 0.3729 0.3105 0.2919 0.0810 White 106,076 0.0148 0.6885 White‐Hispanic 0.2200 0.3355 0.3421 ‐0.1221 Black 66,559 0.0226 1.0538 Black‐Hispanic 0.2948 0.2890 0.3044 ‐0.0096 Hispanic 12,256 0.1185 5.5141 Hickory Total 365,497 0.0112 White‐Black 0.3955 0.4336 0.4543 0.4093 ‐0.0138 White 302,096 0.0062 0.5530 White‐Hispanic 0.1512 0.2233 0.3946 0.3882 ‐0.2370 Black 27,731 0.0131 1.1757 Black‐Hispanic 0.3394 0.4205 0.3639 0.2776 0.0618 Hispanic 23,063 0.1285 11.5257 Jacksonville Total 177,772 0.0086 White‐Black 0.3232 0.2259 0.2609 0.2748 0.0484 White 122,558 0.0059 0.6919 White‐Hispanic 0.3436 0.2359 0.2674 0.2088 0.1348 Black 29,643 0.0009 0.1011 Black‐Hispanic 0.2305 0.1640 0.2146 0.1622 0.0683 Hispanic 17,896 0.0400 4.6822 Raleigh Total 1,130,490 0.0368 White‐Black 0.4562 0.4156 0.4046 0.4136 0.0426 White 716,883 0.0280 0.7598 White‐Hispanic 0.1967 0.1966 0.3489 0.3713 ‐0.1746 Black 234,183 0.0357 0.9689 Black‐Hispanic 0.4003 0.3966 0.2842 0.2442 0.1561 Hispanic 114,512 0.1401 3.8028 Rocky Mount Total 152,392 0.0067 White‐Black 0.4104 0.4380 0.4044 0.3586 0.0518 White 73,130 (0.0020) (0.3006) White‐Hispanic 0.3337 0.2437 0.3648 0.3462 ‐0.0125 Black 68,940 0.0107 1.5965 Black‐Hispanic 0.2284 0.3929 0.4397 0.4511 ‐0.2227 Hispanic 8,119 0.1122 16.7027 Wilmington Total 362,315 0.0297 White‐Black 0.5093 0.4609 0.4419 0.4584 0.0510 White 281,017 0.0297 1.0004 White‐Hispanic 0.2196 0.1991 0.3392 0.3210 ‐0.1013 Black 53,577 0.0124 0.4165 Black‐Hispanic 0.4020 0.3743 0.3251 0.3421 0.0599 Hispanic 19,459 0.1262 4.2486 Winston‐Salem Total 477,717 0.0139 White‐Black 0.6917 0.6239 0.5969 0.5607 0.1311 White 317,660 0.0055 0.3976 White‐Hispanic 0.2773 0.2599 0.5043 0.4883 ‐0.2110 Black 99,220 0.0163 1.1654 Black‐Hispanic 0.5020 0.5271 0.3436 0.3173 0.1846 Hispanic 49,274 0.1421 10.1902

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 28 Draft 21 September 2015 Table 3 Neighborhood Racial Composition of North Carolina Metropolitan Areas, 2010

Asheville White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.8625 0.0447 0.0086 0.0638 0.9903 424,858 White 0.8975 0.0298 0.0080 0.0468 0.9820 Black 0.5750 0.3065 0.0087 0.0749 0.9650 Asian 0.7965 0.0451 0.0778 0.0578 0.9772 Hispanic 0.6325 0.0524 0.0078 0.2828 0.9755

1.0405 6.8612 9.0213 4.4328 Burlington White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.6730 0.1852 0.0119 0.1101 0.9803 151,131 White 0.7943 0.1115 0.0108 0.0657 0.9824 Black 0.4053 0.4309 0.0110 0.1301 0.9773 Asian 0.6087 0.1701 0.1120 0.0861 0.9768 Hispanic 0.4018 0.2188 0.0093 0.3509 0.9808

1.1802 2.3273 9.3708 3.1872 Charlotte White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.5951 0.2427 0.0336 0.1062 0.9776 1,531,965 White 0.7645 0.1230 0.0281 0.0647 0.9803 Black 0.3016 0.5182 0.0320 0.1231 0.9749 Asian 0.4982 0.2315 0.1452 0.0992 0.9742 Hispanic 0.3626 0.2814 0.0314 0.3013 0.9766

1.2846 2.1348 4.3257 2.8368 Durham White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.5530 0.2674 0.0436 0.1128 0.9768 504,357 White 0.7347 0.1380 0.0416 0.0641 0.9785 Black 0.2855 0.5432 0.0280 0.1202 0.9768 Asian 0.5282 0.1718 0.1900 0.0824 0.9724 Hispanic 0.3142 0.2847 0.0318 0.3469 0.9777

1.3286 2.0315 4.3595 3.0744 Fayetteville White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.4637 0.3530 0.0201 0.0983 0.9351 366,383 White 0.5884 0.2465 0.0200 0.0882 0.9430 Black 0.3238 0.5121 0.0175 0.0906 0.9441 Asian 0.4611 0.3080 0.0749 0.1013 0.9453 Hispanic 0.4160 0.3253 0.0207 0.1724 0.9344

1.2689 1.4508 3.7346 1.7535

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 29 Draft 21 September 2015 Goldsboro White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.5563 0.3108 0.0115 0.0992 0.9777 122,623 White 0.7227 0.1717 0.0122 0.0721 0.9786 Black 0.3073 0.5937 0.0093 0.0679 0.9781 Asian 0.5914 0.2521 0.0661 0.0615 0.9711 Hispanic 0.4045 0.2126 0.0071 0.3576 0.9818

1.2991 1.9103 5.7663 3.6053

Greensboro White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.6206 0.2521 0.0289 0.0755 0.9771 723,801 White 0.7907 0.1172 0.0217 0.0515 0.9811 Black 0.2885 0.5794 0.0295 0.0750 0.9724 Asian 0.4661 0.2574 0.1688 0.0797 0.9720 Hispanic 0.4233 0.2504 0.0304 0.2711 0.9752

1.2741 2.2982 5.8495 3.5885 Greenville White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.5597 0.3415 0.0139 0.0647 0.9798 189,510 White 0.7178 0.2024 0.0155 0.0455 0.9812 Black 0.3318 0.5783 0.0097 0.0601 0.9799 Asian 0.6255 0.2388 0.0784 0.0336 0.9762 Hispanic 0.3939 0.3173 0.0072 0.2618 0.9802

1.2824 1.6934 5.6514 4.0477 Hickory White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.8265 0.0680 0.0253 0.0631 0.9830 365,497 White 0.8773 0.0427 0.0206 0.0446 0.9851 Black 0.5188 0.3391 0.0245 0.0934 0.9758 Asian 0.6718 0.0659 0.1840 0.0602 0.9820 Hispanic 0.5835 0.1006 0.0242 0.2701 0.9784

1.0614 4.9857 7.2677 4.2805 Jacksonville White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.6894 0.1495 0.0178 0.1007 0.9574 177,772 White 0.7324 0.1192 0.0164 0.0922 0.9602 Black 0.5497 0.2817 0.0190 0.1043 0.9547 Asian 0.6339 0.1592 0.0488 0.1109 0.9528 Hispanic 0.6312 0.1549 0.0196 0.1495 0.9553

1.0624 1.8840 2.7422 1.4854

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 30 Draft 21 September 2015 Micropolitan White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.6900 0.1896 0.0092 0.0645 0.9533 2,072,403 White 0.8327 0.0902 0.0084 0.0459 0.9772 Black 0.3281 0.5646 0.0072 0.0606 0.9604 Asian 0.6309 0.1475 0.1280 0.0594 0.9658 Hispanic 0.4911 0.1782 0.0085 0.2813 0.9592

1.2068 2.9772 13.9011 4.3618 Raleigh White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.6341 0.1980 0.0438 0.1013 0.9773 1,130,490 White 0.7559 0.1182 0.0381 0.0672 0.9794 Black 0.3784 0.4477 0.0296 0.1197 0.9754 Asian 0.5514 0.1338 0.2184 0.0688 0.9723 Hispanic 0.4205 0.2340 0.0298 0.2932 0.9774

1.1921 2.2607 4.9839 2.8941 Rocky Mount White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.4799 0.4447 0.0054 0.0533 0.9833 152,392 White 0.7064 0.2317 0.0056 0.0414 0.9851 Black 0.2501 0.6934 0.0041 0.0361 0.9836 Asian 0.4919 0.3348 0.1197 0.0326 0.9790 Hispanic 0.3724 0.3017 0.0033 0.3061 0.9835

1.4721 1.5592 22.0876 5.7449 Wilmington White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.7756 0.1402 0.0087 0.0537 0.9782 362,315 White 0.8557 0.0748 0.0088 0.0410 0.9802 Black 0.4136 0.4996 0.0058 0.0563 0.9753 Asian 0.7856 0.0937 0.0552 0.0421 0.9766 Hispanic 0.5918 0.1470 0.0068 0.2301 0.9756

1.1032 3.5632 6.3801 4.2841 Winston‐Salem White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.6650 0.1992 0.0143 0.1031 0.9816 477,717 White 0.8169 0.0944 0.0136 0.0592 0.9840 Black 0.3151 0.5303 0.0125 0.1202 0.9780 Asian 0.6287 0.1732 0.1017 0.0746 0.9783 Hispanic 0.3817 0.2321 0.0104 0.3567 0.9808

1.2285 2.6623 7.0943 3.4582

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 31 Draft 21 September 2015 Table 4 Neighborhood racial diversity transitions, 1980‐2010

Panel A: Changes in level of racial diversity

2000‐2010 Low Moderate High diversity diversity diversity Low diversity 510 236 2 748 Moderate diversity 40 679 24 743 High diversity 1 7 8 550 916 33 1499 1990‐2000 Low Moderate High diversity diversity diversity Low diversity 710 257 967 Moderate diversity 41 487 8 536 High diversity 751 744 8 1503 1980‐1990 Low Moderate High diversity diversity diversity Low diversity 817 151 968 Moderate diversity 69 315 384 High diversity 886 466 1352

Panel B: Changes in primary group and racial diversity

2000‐2010 Hispanic White Black Hispanic White low Black low low moderate moderate moderate high diversity diversity diversity diversity diversity diversity diversity White low diversity 462 219 2 2 685 Black low diversity 48 15 63 Hispanic low diversity White moderate diversity 31 2 1 464 62 9 22 591 Black moderate diversity 6 17 123 4 2 152 Hispanic moderate diversity high diversity 1 7 8 493 56 1 700 203 13 33 1499 1990‐2000 Hispanic White Black Hispanic White low Black low low moderate moderate moderate high diversity diversity diversity diversity diversity diversity diversity White low diversity 652 241 893 Black low diversity 58 16 74 Hispanic low diversity White moderate diversity 36 340 65 8 449 Black moderate diversity 5 10 72 87 Hispanic moderate diversity high diversity 688 63 591 153 8 1503 1980‐1990 Hispanic White Black Hispanic White low Black low low moderate moderate moderate high diversity diversity diversity diversity diversity diversity diversity White low diversity 753 144 897 Black low diversity 62 2 7 71 Hispanic low diversity White moderate diversity 59 1 239 22 321 Black moderate diversity 9 10 44 63 Hispanic moderate diversity high diversity 812 72 2 393 73 1352

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 32 Draft 21 September 2015 Table 5 Changes in neighborhood racial diversity 1980‐2010

Stable diversity Increasing diversity Decreasing diversity Stable primary group Stable diversity and group 2000‐2010 1990‐2000 1980‐1990 2000‐2010 1990‐2000 1980‐1990 2000‐2010 1990‐2000 1980‐1990 2000‐2010 1990‐2000 1980‐1990 2000‐2010 1990‐2000 1980‐1990

0.7952 0.7959 0.7527 0.1742 0.1762 0.1004 0.0306 0.0279 0.1469 0.9189 0.9481 0.8757 0.7340 0.7460 0.7301

Asheville, NC 0.8571 0.9429 0.6000 0.0952 0.0571 0.0286 0.0477 0.0000 0.3714 0.9714 0.9905 0.6286 0.8381 0.9333 0.6000 Burlington, NC 0.8889 0.8333 0.8889 0.1111 0.1667 0.1111 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9722 0.9722 1.0000 0.8611 0.8056 0.8889 Charlotte‐Gastonia‐Rock Hill, N 0.7402 0.7874 0.8189 0.2283 0.2047 0.1365 0.0315 0.0079 0.0446 0.8583 0.9396 0.9554 0.6352 0.7270 0.7900 Durham‐Chapel Hill, NC 0.7963 0.7037 0.6574 0.1667 0.2407 0.1574 0.0370 0.0556 0.1852 0.8889 0.9444 0.8981 0.7222 0.6667 0.6389 Fayetteville, NC 0.9351 0.8831 0.7922 0.0390 0.1169 0.0909 0.0259 0.0000 0.1169 0.8571 0.8701 0.8701 0.8182 0.7532 0.7792 Goldsboro, NC 0.8077 0.7308 0.8077 0.1923 0.1538 0.1154 0.0000 0.1154 0.0769 0.9615 0.8846 1.0000 0.7692 0.6154 0.8077 Greensboro‐High Point, NC 0.8036 0.7321 0.8750 0.1726 0.2500 0.1012 0.0238 0.0179 0.0238 0.9226 0.9345 0.9762 0.7500 0.6726 0.8512 Greenville, NC 0.8611 0.8333 0.0278 0.1111 0.1667 0.0000 0.0278 0.0000 0.9722 0.8889 0.9444 0.0278 0.7500 0.7778 0.0278 Hickory‐Lenoir‐Morganton, NC 0.9041 0.8219 0.6849 0.0959 0.1781 0.0137 0.0000 0.0000 0.3014 1.0000 1.0000 0.6986 0.9041 0.8219 0.6849 Jacksonville, NC 0.9032 1.0000 0.8065 0.0968 0.0000 0.1935 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.9032 1.0000 0.8065 Raleigh‐Cary, NC 0.7098 0.6920 0.7411 0.2500 0.2366 0.0848 0.0402 0.0714 0.1741 0.9420 0.9554 0.9018 0.6696 0.6473 0.6964 Rocky Mount, NC 0.9063 0.8438 0.8125 0.0625 0.0938 0.1563 0.0312 0.0624 0.0312 0.9063 0.9375 0.9063 0.8125 0.7813 0.7188 Wilmington, NC 0.8352 0.8681 0.6264 0.1099 0.0330 0.0989 0.0549 0.0989 0.2747 0.9890 0.9670 0.8352 0.8352 0.8352 0.6264 Winston‐Salem, NC 0.7672 0.8621 0.8621 0.2069 0.1379 0.0690 0.0259 0.0000 0.0689 0.9483 0.9483 0.9224 0.7155 0.8103 0.8362

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 33 Draft 21 September 2015 Table 6 Migration Status Composition of North Carolina Metropolitan Areas, 2010

Total Born & Domestic Immigrant Born & Domestic Immigrant bred import bred import Metrocat1 1 Charlotte 1,472,524 726,862 588,377 157,285 0.4936 11 0.3996 6 0.1068 3 2 Raleigh 1,069,694 512,417 434,288 122,989 0.4790 12 0.4060 4 0.1150 2 3 Greensboro 709,142 449,861 202,736 56,545 0.6344 6 0.2859 9 0.0797 4 4 Durham 488,508 248,612 179,354 60,542 0.5089 10 0.3671 7 0.1239 1 5Winston‐Salem 468,922 296,920 136,916 35,086 0.6332 7 0.2920 8 0.0748 6 6 Asheville 416,276 224,983 167,785 23,508 0.5405 8 0.4031 5 0.0565 9 7 Hickory 362,665 259,805 84,820 18,040 0.7164 2 0.2339 13 0.0497 11 8 Fayetteville 357,122 164,129 172,497 20,496 0.4596 13 0.4830 2 0.0574 8 9 Wilmington 349,522 182,751 150,181 16,590 0.5229 9 0.4297 3 0.0475 12 10 Greenville 182,542 127,222 45,983 9,337 0.6969 3 0.2519 12 0.0511 10 11 Jacksonville 169,207 59,105 102,246 7,856 0.3493 14 0.6043 1 0.0464 13 12 Rocky Mount 150,649 116,415 28,234 6,000 0.7728 1 0.1874 14 0.0398 14 13 Burlington 147,072 98,338 37,693 11,041 0.6686 4 0.2563 11 0.0751 5 14 Goldsboro 120,102 79,260 33,277 7,565 0.6599 5 0.2771 10 0.0630 7

6,463,947 3,546,680 2,364,387 552,880 0.5487 0.3658 0.0855

Micropolitan 2,035,442 1,362,566 579,843 93,033 0.6694 0.2849 0.0457 non‐Metropolitan 771,789 518,812 215,935 37,042 0.6722 0.2798 0.0480

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 34 Draft 21 September 2015 Table 7 Neighborhood Migration Status Composition of North Carolina Metropolitan Areas, 2010

Asheville Born & bred Domestic import Immigrant Population Total 0.5487 0.3658 0.0855 1.0000 416,276 Born & bred 0.5652 0.3813 0.0535 1.0000 Domestic import 0.5113 0.4336 0.0551 1.0000 Immigrant 0.5124 0.3934 0.0943 1.0000

1.0301 1.1855 1.1024 Burlington Born & bred Domestic import Immigrant Population Total 0.5487 0.3658 0.0855 1.0000 147,072 Born & bred 0.6801 0.2484 0.0715 1.0000 Domestic import 0.6482 0.2825 0.0694 1.0000 Immigrant 0.6368 0.2368 0.1264 1.0000

1.2394 0.7723 1.4781 Charlotte Born & bred Domestic import Immigrant Population Total 0.5487 0.3658 0.0855 1.0000 1,472,524 Born & bred 0.5426 0.3642 0.0933 1.0000 Domestic import 0.4499 0.4463 0.1038 1.0000 Immigrant 0.4310 0.3884 0.1806 1.0000

0.9889 1.2201 2.1114 Durham Born & bred Domestic import Immigrant Population Total 0.5487 0.3658 0.0855 1.0000 488,508 Born & bred 0.5582 0.3338 0.1080 1.0000 Domestic import 0.4627 0.4148 0.1225 1.0000 Immigrant 0.4434 0.3629 0.1937 1.0000

1.0174 1.1341 2.2646 Fayetteville Born & bred Domestic import Immigrant Population Total 0.5487 0.3658 0.0855 1.0000 357,122 Born & bred 0.5172 0.4282 0.0546 1.0000 Domestic import 0.4075 0.5341 0.0585 1.0000 Immigrant 0.4369 0.4919 0.0712 1.0000

0.9426 1.4602 0.8328

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 35 Draft 21 September 2015 Goldsboro Born & bred Domestic import Immigrant Population Total 0.5487 0.3658 0.0855 1.0000 120,102 Born & bred 0.6761 0.2638 0.0601 1.0000 Domestic import 0.6283 0.3130 0.0587 1.0000 Immigrant 0.6294 0.2582 0.1124 1.0000

1.2323 0.8556 1.3136 Greensboro Born & bred Domestic import Immigrant Population Total 0.5487 0.3658 0.0855 1.0000 709,142 Born & bred 0.6565 0.2706 0.0729 1.0000 Domestic import 0.6005 0.3197 0.0799 1.0000 Immigrant 0.5803 0.2863 0.1334 1.0000

1.1964 0.8739 1.5598 Greenville Born & bred Domestic import Immigrant Population Total 0.5487 0.3658 0.0855 1.0000 182,542 Born & bred 0.7093 0.2396 0.0511 1.0000 Domestic import 0.6630 0.2892 0.0478 1.0000 Immigrant 0.6963 0.2354 0.0683 1.0000

1.2927 0.7907 0.7984 Hickory Born & bred Domestic import Immigrant Population Total 0.5487 0.3658 0.0855 1.0000 362,665 Born & bred 0.7266 0.2267 0.0467 1.0000 Domestic import 0.6944 0.2558 0.0498 1.0000 Immigrant 0.6729 0.2341 0.0930 1.0000

1.3242 0.6993 1.0874 Jacksonville Born & bred Domestic import Immigrant Population Total 0.5487 0.3658 0.0855 1.0000 169,207 Born & bred 0.4089 0.5489 0.0422 1.0000 Domestic import 0.3173 0.6355 0.0472 1.0000 Immigrant 0.3178 0.6145 0.0677 1.0000

0.7451 1.7373 0.7916

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 36 Draft 21 September 2015 Micropolitan Born & bred Domestic import Immigrant Population Total 0.5487 0.3658 0.0855 1.0000 2,035,442 Born & bred 0.7011 0.2553 0.0436 1.0000 Domestic import 0.5999 0.3555 0.0446 1.0000 Immigrant 0.6389 0.2782 0.0829 1.0000

1.2778 0.9719 0.9690 Raleigh Born & bred Domestic import Immigrant Population Total 0.5487 0.3658 0.0855 1.0000 1,069,694 Born & bred 0.5174 0.3765 0.1061 1.0000 Domestic import 0.4442 0.4444 0.1114 1.0000 Immigrant 0.4421 0.3935 0.1644 1.0000

0.9430 1.2148 1.9218 Rocky Mount Born & bred Domestic import Immigrant Population Total 0.5487 0.3658 0.0855 1.0000 150,649 Born & bred 0.7784 0.1834 0.0382 1.0000 Domestic import 0.7562 0.2027 0.0411 1.0000 Immigrant 0.7417 0.1932 0.0651 1.0000

1.4186 0.5542 0.7611 Wilmington Born & bred Domestic import Immigrant Population Total 0.5487 0.3658 0.0855 1.0000 349,522 Born & bred 0.5546 0.3991 0.0463 1.0000 Domestic import 0.4856 0.4681 0.0463 1.0000 Immigrant 0.5104 0.4190 0.0706 1.0000

1.0108 1.2797 0.8253 Winston‐Salem Born & bred Domestic import Immigrant Population Total 0.5487 0.3658 0.0855 1.0000 468,922 Born & bred 0.6539 0.2765 0.0697 1.0000 Domestic import 0.5996 0.3277 0.0727 1.0000 Immigrant 0.5895 0.2838 0.1267 1.0000

1.1917 0.8959 1.4810

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 37 Draft 21 September 2015 Table 8 Racial Composition of Selected North Carolina Municipalities, 2010

Total White Black Asian Hispanic White Black Asian Hispanic

1 Charlotte city 799,262 368,965 267,473 38,837 104,109 0.4616 17 0.3346 7 0.0486 4 0.1303 3 2Raleigh city 471,192 261,051 127,264 18,181 53,840 0.5540 13 0.2701 10 0.0386 6 0.1143 6 3Greensboro city 346,684 181,360 119,364 12,219 24,761 0.5231 15 0.3443 5 0.0352 7 0.0714 13 4Winston‐Salem city 286,690 153,493 84,900 5,358 36,905 0.5354 14 0.2961 8 0.0187 12 0.1287 4 5 Durham city 268,992 114,148 99,799 11,585 37,095 0.4244 19 0.3710 4 0.0431 5 0.1379 2 6 Fayetteville city 262,416 117,754 98,815 6,072 25,531 0.4487 18 0.3766 3 0.0231 9 0.0973 9 7Cary town 196,182 136,183 16,475 24,965 13,406 0.6942 6 0.0840 19 0.1273 1 0.0683 14 8Asheville city 144,959 116,763 13,099 1,830 9,619 0.8055 2 0.0904 18 0.0126 15 0.0664 15 9Wilmington city 144,954 106,440 24,710 1,684 8,793 0.7343 3 0.1705 14 0.0116 16 0.0607 18 10 Greenville city 143,298 81,893 47,991 2,501 7,776 0.5715 11 0.3349 6 0.0175 14 0.0543 19 11 High Point city 126,756 70,683 36,141 6,937 9,962 0.5576 12 0.2851 9 0.0547 3 0.0786 11 12 Gastonia city 126,601 87,516 25,353 1,345 9,663 0.6913 7 0.2003 12 0.0106 17 0.0763 12 13 Concord city 125,565 86,010 20,760 2,792 13,382 0.6850 8 0.1653 15 0.0222 11 0.1066 7 14 Jacksonville city 100,900 62,327 19,128 2,309 12,438 0.6177 9 0.1896 13 0.0229 10 0.1233 5 15 Chapel Hill town 83,191 59,070 8,025 8,396 5,404 0.7101 5 0.0965 17 0.1009 2 0.0650 17 16 Rocky Mount city 80,364 33,161 42,112 607 2,961 0.4126 20 0.5240 1 0.0076 20 0.0368 20 17 Burlington city 77,135 45,743 17,624 1,375 10,819 0.5930 10 0.2285 11 0.0178 13 0.1403 1 18 Wilson city 70,425 33,477 28,649 638 6,603 0.4754 16 0.4068 2 0.0091 19 0.0938 10 19 Huntersville town 52,605 42,679 4,067 1,345 3,479 0.8113 1 0.0773 20 0.0256 8 0.0661 16 20 Kannapolis city 45,308 33,115 6,284 451 4,655 0.7309 4 0.1387 16 0.0100 18 0.1027 8

3,953,479 2,191,831 1,108,033 149,427 401,201 0.5544 0.2803 0.0378 0.1015

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 38 Draft 21 September 2015 Table 9 Neighborhood Racial Composition of Selected North Carolina Municipalities, 2010

Asheville city White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.8055 0.0904 0.0126 0.0664 0.9748 144,959 White 0.8549 0.0603 0.0123 0.0503 0.9779 Black 0.5374 0.3479 0.0088 0.0689 0.9630 Asian 0.7862 0.0631 0.0713 0.0548 0.9753 Hispanic 0.6108 0.0938 0.0104 0.2540 0.9690

1.0614 3.8498 5.6471 3.8273 Burlington city White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.5930 0.2285 0.0178 0.1403 0.9796 77,135 White 0.7462 0.1387 0.0171 0.0799 0.9818 Black 0.3599 0.4563 0.0147 0.1461 0.9770 Asian 0.5687 0.1879 0.1270 0.0942 0.9778 Hispanic 0.3378 0.2380 0.0120 0.3935 0.9813

1.2582 1.9969 7.1245 2.8053 Cary town White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.6942 0.0840 0.1273 0.0683 0.9737 196,182 White 0.7588 0.0669 0.0985 0.0521 0.9762 Black 0.5526 0.2007 0.1187 0.0964 0.9684 Asian 0.5373 0.0783 0.3045 0.0506 0.9707 Hispanic 0.5288 0.1184 0.0942 0.2307 0.9721

1.0931 2.3900 2.3925 3.3757 Chapel Hill town White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.7101 0.0965 0.1009 0.0650 0.9724 83,191 White 0.7654 0.0767 0.0825 0.0498 0.9744 Black 0.5642 0.2271 0.0933 0.0848 0.9694 Asian 0.5801 0.0892 0.2380 0.0625 0.9698 Hispanic 0.5446 0.1259 0.0972 0.2018 0.9694

1.0780 2.3545 2.3580 3.1061 Charlotte city White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.4616 0.3346 0.0486 0.1303 0.9751 799,262 White 0.6774 0.1740 0.0458 0.0806 0.9777 Black 0.2400 0.5627 0.0388 0.1322 0.9737 Asian 0.4349 0.2672 0.1594 0.1115 0.9729 Hispanic 0.2856 0.3398 0.0416 0.3080 0.9750

1.4673 1.6815 3.2798 2.3646

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 39 Draft 21 September 2015 Concord city White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.6850 0.1653 0.0222 0.1066 0.9791 125,565 White 0.7765 0.1147 0.0204 0.0698 0.9814 Black 0.4754 0.3592 0.0228 0.1180 0.9754 Asian 0.6271 0.1698 0.1130 0.0676 0.9774 Hispanic 0.4488 0.1830 0.0141 0.3323 0.9782

1.1335 2.1727 5.0811 3.1178 Durham city White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.4244 0.3710 0.0431 0.1379 0.9763 268,992 White 0.6526 0.1954 0.0481 0.0810 0.9771 Black 0.2235 0.5925 0.0278 0.1331 0.9769 Asian 0.4741 0.2396 0.1722 0.0881 0.9740 Hispanic 0.2493 0.3580 0.0275 0.3437 0.9785

1.5377 1.5971 3.9988 2.4925 Fayetteville city White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.4487 0.3766 0.0231 0.0973 0.9457 262,416 White 0.5755 0.2588 0.0237 0.0901 0.9480 Black 0.3084 0.5324 0.0192 0.0895 0.9495 Asian 0.4595 0.3127 0.0768 0.0995 0.9485 Hispanic 0.4153 0.3463 0.0237 0.1568 0.9421

1.2824 1.4139 3.3169 1.6113 Gastonia city White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.6913 0.2003 0.0106 0.0763 0.9785 126,601 White 0.7909 0.1255 0.0105 0.0540 0.9808 Black 0.4332 0.4492 0.0079 0.0858 0.9762 Asian 0.6807 0.1497 0.0708 0.0776 0.9788 Hispanic 0.4889 0.2252 0.0108 0.2520 0.9769

1.1440 2.2432 6.6670 3.3016 Greensboro city White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.5231 0.3443 0.0352 0.0714 0.9741 346,684 White 0.7479 0.1550 0.0289 0.0468 0.9786 Black 0.2355 0.6338 0.0296 0.0723 0.9712 Asian 0.4285 0.2890 0.1728 0.0797 0.9700 Hispanic 0.3431 0.3486 0.0394 0.2394 0.9704

1.4297 1.8409 4.9019 3.3516

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 40 Draft 21 September 2015 Greenville city White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.5715 0.3349 0.0175 0.0543 0.9781 143,298 White 0.7212 0.2002 0.0193 0.0389 0.9796 Black 0.3416 0.5696 0.0123 0.0549 0.9784 Asian 0.6326 0.2353 0.0760 0.0324 0.9762 Hispanic 0.4096 0.3389 0.0104 0.2180 0.9769

1.2619 1.7007 4.3522 4.0164 High Point city White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.5576 0.2851 0.0547 0.0786 0.9761 126,756 White 0.7190 0.1581 0.0457 0.0578 0.9806 Black 0.3091 0.5353 0.0472 0.0803 0.9720 Asian 0.4659 0.2461 0.1793 0.0817 0.9729 Hispanic 0.4103 0.2913 0.0569 0.2161 0.9746

1.2893 1.8774 3.2753 2.7500 Huntersville town White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.8113 0.0773 0.0256 0.0661 0.9803 52,605 White 0.8410 0.0652 0.0240 0.0512 0.9814 Black 0.6843 0.1773 0.0273 0.0887 0.9775 Asian 0.7605 0.0824 0.0861 0.0509 0.9799 Hispanic 0.6282 0.1036 0.0197 0.2288 0.9803

1.0365 2.2933 3.3671 3.4601 Jacksonville city White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.6177 0.1896 0.0229 0.1233 0.9534 100,900 White 0.6581 0.1578 0.0220 0.1179 0.9557 Black 0.5141 0.3017 0.0220 0.1150 0.9527 Asian 0.5936 0.1822 0.0533 0.1223 0.9514 Hispanic 0.5908 0.1768 0.0227 0.1629 0.9532

1.0654 1.5915 2.3300 1.3212 Kannapolis city White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.7309 0.1387 0.0100 0.1027 0.9823 45,308 White 0.8144 0.0884 0.0091 0.0721 0.9839 Black 0.4657 0.3934 0.0083 0.1136 0.9811 Asian 0.6678 0.1162 0.1080 0.0890 0.9809 Hispanic 0.5125 0.1533 0.0086 0.3075 0.9819

1.1142 2.8367 10.8478 2.9927

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 41 Draft 21 September 2015 Raleigh city White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.5540 0.2701 0.0386 0.1143 0.9770 471,192 White 0.7347 0.1442 0.0368 0.0637 0.9794 Black 0.2957 0.5191 0.0299 0.1301 0.9749 Asian 0.5283 0.2095 0.1436 0.0923 0.9737 Hispanic 0.3090 0.3076 0.0312 0.3290 0.9767

1.3261 1.9221 3.7209 2.8791 Rocky Mount city White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.4126 0.5240 0.0076 0.0368 0.9810 80,364 White 0.6705 0.2737 0.0089 0.0295 0.9826 Black 0.2155 0.7322 0.0050 0.0292 0.9819 Asian 0.4856 0.3444 0.1192 0.0289 0.9780 Hispanic 0.3302 0.4155 0.0059 0.2269 0.9785

1.6249 1.3972 15.7762 6.1574 Wilmington city White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.7343 0.1705 0.0116 0.0607 0.9770 144,954 White 0.8353 0.0854 0.0123 0.0460 0.9790 Black 0.3680 0.5431 0.0068 0.0561 0.9741 Asian 0.7746 0.1003 0.0524 0.0470 0.9743 Hispanic 0.5573 0.1577 0.0090 0.2512 0.9752

1.1375 3.1860 4.5070 4.1416 Wilson city White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.4754 0.4068 0.0091 0.0938 0.9850 70,425 White 0.7090 0.2150 0.0105 0.0521 0.9866 Black 0.2513 0.6440 0.0071 0.0824 0.9848 Asian 0.5501 0.3191 0.0739 0.0377 0.9807 Hispanic 0.2641 0.3575 0.0036 0.3616 0.9869

1.4914 1.5831 8.1563 3.8571 Winston‐Salem city White Black Asian Hispanic Population Total 0.5354 0.2961 0.0187 0.1287 0.9790 286,690 White 0.7381 0.1509 0.0206 0.0714 0.9809 Black 0.2728 0.5666 0.0129 0.1256 0.9779 Asian 0.5902 0.2042 0.1023 0.0799 0.9766 Hispanic 0.2968 0.2890 0.0116 0.3820 0.9794

1.3785 1.9132 5.4716 2.9677

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 42 Draft 21 September 2015 Table 10 Migration Status Composition of Selected North Carolina Municipalities, 2010

Total Born & Domestic Immigrant Born & Domestic Immigrant bred import bred import

1Charlotte city 767,837 328,695 328,524 110,618 0.4281 15 0.4279 8 0.1441 3 2 Raleigh city 448,437 207,376 179,541 61,520 0.4624 14 0.4004 9 0.1372 5 3Greensboro city 338,366 196,657 111,119 30,590 0.5812 8 0.3284 12 0.0904 8 4Winston‐Salem city 279,990 167,624 85,463 26,903 0.5987 7 0.3052 14 0.0961 7 5Durham city 259,238 130,323 93,160 35,755 0.5027 12 0.3594 11 0.1379 4 6 Fayetteville city 256,803 109,225 132,753 14,825 0.4253 16 0.5169 3 0.0577 17 7Cary town 180,998 58,526 91,729 30,743 0.3234 19 0.5068 4 0.1699 1 8 Wilmington city 143,449 72,910 62,550 7,989 0.5083 11 0.4360 6 0.0557 18 9 Asheville city 140,313 70,220 60,653 9,440 0.5005 13 0.4323 7 0.0673 12 10 Greenville city 137,353 91,063 39,357 6,933 0.6630 4 0.2865 15 0.0505 19 11 Gastonia city 125,952 86,153 32,327 7,472 0.6840 3 0.2567 18 0.0593 15 12 High Point city 121,999 70,680 38,688 12,631 0.5793 9 0.3171 13 0.1035 6 13 Concord city 118,591 63,569 44,685 10,337 0.5360 10 0.3768 10 0.0872 10 14 Jacksonville city 100,115 26,901 67,317 5,897 0.2687 20 0.6724 1 0.0589 16 15 Chapel Hill town 81,905 30,520 39,340 12,045 0.3726 17 0.4803 5 0.1471 2 16 Rocky Mount city 80,444 61,245 16,683 2,516 0.7613 1 0.2074 19 0.0313 20 17 Burlington city 75,400 48,217 20,438 6,745 0.6395 6 0.2711 17 0.0895 9 18 Wilson city 68,984 51,505 12,855 4,624 0.7466 2 0.1863 20 0.0670 13 19 Huntersville town 49,266 16,377 29,059 3,830 0.3324 18 0.5898 2 0.0777 11 20 Kannapolis city 43,469 28,687 11,929 2,853 0.6599 5 0.2744 16 0.0656 14

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 43 Draft 21 September 2015 Table 11 Neighborhood Migration Status Composition of Selected North Carolina Municipalities, 2010

Asheville city Born & Domestic bred import Immigrant Population Total 0.5005 0.4323 0.0673 0.0000 140,313 Born & bred 0.5172 0.4155 0.0673 1.0000 Domestic import 0.4810 0.4574 0.0616 1.0000 Immigrant 0.5008 0.3958 0.1034 1.0000

1.0334 1.0580 1.5368 Burlington city Born & Domestic bred import Immigrant Population Total 0.6395 0.2711 0.0895 0.0000 75,400 Born & bred 0.6502 0.2606 0.0893 1.0000 Domestic import 0.6148 0.3071 0.0781 1.0000 Immigrant 0.6381 0.2366 0.1254 1.0000

1.0167 1.1331 1.4012 Cary town Born & Domestic bred import Immigrant Population Total 0.3234 0.5068 0.1699 0.0000 180,998 Born & bred 0.3356 0.4998 0.1647 1.0000 Domestic import 0.3189 0.5181 0.1631 1.0000 Immigrant 0.3135 0.4865 0.2000 1.0000

1.0378 1.0223 1.1773 Chapel Hill town Born & Domestic bred import Immigrant Population Total 0.3726 0.4803 0.1471 0.0000 81,905 Born & bred 0.3971 0.4736 0.1293 1.0000 Domestic import 0.3674 0.4888 0.1438 1.0000 Immigrant 0.3276 0.4696 0.2028 1.0000

1.0657 1.0177 1.3792 Charlotte city Born & Domestic bred import Immigrant Population Total 0.4281 0.4279 0.1441 0.0000 767,837 Born & bred 0.4604 0.4056 0.1340 1.0000 Domestic import 0.4058 0.4624 0.1319 1.0000 Immigrant 0.3983 0.3917 0.2101 1.0000

1.0755 1.0806 1.4582

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 44 Draft 21 September 2015 Concord city Born & Domestic bred import Immigrant Population Total 0.5360 0.3768 0.0872 0.0000 118,591 Born & bred 0.5572 0.3579 0.0849 1.0000 Domestic import 0.5092 0.4111 0.0797 1.0000 Immigrant 0.5222 0.3446 0.1332 1.0000

1.0394 1.0910 1.5279 Durham city Born & Domestic bred import Immigrant Population Total 0.5027 0.3594 0.1379 0.0000 259,238 Born & bred 0.5425 0.3289 0.1286 1.0000 Domestic import 0.4601 0.4033 0.1366 1.0000 Immigrant 0.4687 0.3559 0.1754 1.0000

1.0791 1.1222 1.2718 Fayetteville city Born & Domestic bred import Immigrant Population Total 0.4253 0.5169 0.0577 0.0000 256,803 Born & bred 0.4886 0.4572 0.0542 1.0000 Domestic import 0.3762 0.5650 0.0588 1.0000 Immigrant 0.3992 0.5266 0.0743 1.0000

1.1488 1.0930 1.2862 Gastonia city Born & Domestic bred import Immigrant Population Total 0.6840 0.2567 0.0593 0.0000 125,952 Born & bred 0.6906 0.2529 0.0565 1.0000 Domestic import 0.6739 0.2659 0.0602 1.0000 Immigrant 0.6512 0.2604 0.0883 1.0000

1.0097 1.0359 1.4889 Greensboro city Born & Domestic bred import Immigrant Population Total 0.5812 0.3284 0.0904 0.0000 338,366 Born & bred 0.6012 0.3138 0.0851 1.0000 Domestic import 0.5553 0.3581 0.0866 1.0000 Immigrant 0.5469 0.3147 0.1384 1.0000

1.0343 1.0903 1.5311

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 45 Draft 21 September 2015 Greenville city Born & Domestic bred import Immigrant Population Total 0.6630 0.2865 0.0505 0.0000 137,353 Born & bred 0.6724 0.2773 0.0504 1.0000 Domestic import 0.6415 0.3112 0.0473 1.0000 Immigrant 0.6615 0.2684 0.0701 1.0000

1.0142 1.0860 1.3882 High Point city Born & Domestic bred import Immigrant Population Total 0.5793 0.3171 0.1035 0.0000 121,999 Born & bred 0.5943 0.3067 0.0990 1.0000 Domestic import 0.5603 0.3401 0.0996 1.0000 Immigrant 0.5542 0.3049 0.1409 1.0000

1.0257 1.0725 1.3606 Huntersville town Born & Domestic bred import Immigrant Population Total 0.3324 0.5898 0.0777 0.0000 49,266 Born & bred 0.3463 0.5748 0.0789 1.0000 Domestic import 0.3240 0.6006 0.0754 1.0000 Immigrant 0.3374 0.5724 0.0902 1.0000

1.0416 1.0182 1.1604 Jacksonville city Born & Domestic bred import Immigrant Population Total 0.2687 0.6724 0.0589 0.0000 100,115 Born & bred 0.3233 0.6166 0.0601 1.0000 Domestic import 0.2464 0.6967 0.0569 1.0000 Immigrant 0.2740 0.6497 0.0763 1.0000

1.2032 1.0361 1.2952 Kannapolis city Born & Domestic bred import Immigrant Population Total 0.6599 0.2744 0.0656 0.0000 43,469 Born & bred 0.6638 0.2699 0.0663 1.0000 Domestic import 0.6490 0.2919 0.0590 1.0000 Immigrant 0.6664 0.2468 0.0868 1.0000

1.0059 1.0637 1.3219

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 46 Draft 21 September 2015 Raleigh city Born & Domestic bred import Immigrant Population Total 0.4624 0.4004 0.1372 0.0000 448,437 Born & bred 0.4837 0.3824 0.1340 1.0000 Domestic import 0.4416 0.4334 0.1249 1.0000 Immigrant 0.4516 0.3646 0.1839 1.0000

1.0459 1.0826 1.3403 Rocky Mount city Born & Domestic bred import Immigrant Population Total 0.7613 0.2074 0.0313 0.0000 80,444 Born & bred 0.7680 0.2027 0.0293 1.0000 Domestic import 0.7441 0.2208 0.0351 1.0000 Immigrant 0.7129 0.2328 0.0543 1.0000

1.0088 1.0648 1.7361 Wilmington city Born & Domestic bred import Immigrant Population Total 0.5083 0.4360 0.0557 0.0000 143,449 Born & bred 0.5289 0.4170 0.0541 1.0000 Domestic import 0.4860 0.4596 0.0543 1.0000 Immigrant 0.4940 0.4253 0.0807 1.0000

1.0406 1.0541 1.4481 Wilson city Born & Domestic bred import Immigrant Population Total 0.7466 0.1863 0.0670 0.0000 68,984 Born & bred 0.7532 0.1812 0.0657 1.0000 Domestic import 0.7259 0.2119 0.0622 1.0000 Immigrant 0.7315 0.1729 0.0957 1.0000

1.0087 1.1371 1.4274 Winston‐Salem city Born & Domestic bred import Immigrant Population Total 0.5987 0.3052 0.0961 0.0000 279,990 Born & bred 0.6175 0.2905 0.0920 1.0000 Domestic import 0.5698 0.3401 0.0901 1.0000 Immigrant 0.5730 0.2863 0.1408 1.0000

1.0315 1.1142 1.4648

Appold, North Carolina Segregation 47 Draft 21 September 2015