University of Nebraska at Omaha DigitalCommons@UNO
Student Work
12-1-2006 A spatial analysis of the foreign-born population in Douglas Sarpy County, Nebraska – 2000 Leigh Anne L. Opitz University of Nebraska at Omaha
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/studentwork
Recommended Citation Opitz, Leigh Anne L., "A spatial analysis of the foreign-born population in Douglas Sarpy County, Nebraska – 2000" (2006). Student Work. 676. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/studentwork/676
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UNO. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Work by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF THE FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION IN
DOUGLAS/SARPY COUNTY, NEBRASKA - 2000
A Thesis
Presented to the
• Department of Geography
and the
Faculty of the Graduate College
University of Nebraska
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master o f Arts
University of Nebraska at Omaha
by
Leigh Anne L. Opitz
December, 2006 UMI Number: EP73316
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation PVblslWsg
UMI EP73316 Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest' < cr
ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 THESIS ACCEPTANCE
Acceptance for the faculty of the Graduate College, University of Nebraska, in Partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts University of Nebraska Omaha
Committee
Chairperson P ~ P
Date A-w-j. ^ OQC d TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1.1 Assimilation Theory ...... 2 1.1.2 Spatial Assimilation and the Ecological Urban Structure Model ...... 3 1.1.3 Historical Overview of American Immigration ...... 5 1.1.4 Current Overview of American Immigration and Immigration Law...... 6
1.2 Nature of the Problem ...... 8
1.3 Study Area...... 9
1.4 Research Objectives and Questions ...... 11
1.5 Significance of Research ...... 12
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction...... 14
2.2 Spatial Assimilation and Ethnic Residential Segregation ...... 14
2.3 American Immigration - Omaha, Nebraska ...... 15 2.3.1 Historical Overview ...... 16 2.3.2 Current Overview ...... 19
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction ...... 21
3.2 Data...... 21
3.3 Method ...... 22 3.3.1 Choropleth Mapping ...... 23 3.3.2 Local Spatial Autocorrelation Analysis ...... 24 3.3.3 Index of Dissimilarity ...... 25 3.3.4 Correlation Analysis ...... 26 3.3.5 Multiple Regression Analysis ...... 27 3.4 Summary...... 29
CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction ...... 31
4.2 Map-based Analysis ...... 32
4.2.1 Choropleth Maps ...... 32
4.2.1.1 Percentage of Foreign-bom population ...... 32
4.2.1.2 Mexican Population ...... 35 4.2.1.2a Percent of Mexican Population of Total Population... .35 4.2.1.2b Percent of Mexican Population of Total Foreign-bom Population ...... 38
4.2.1.3 Indian Population ...... 40 4.2.1.3a Percent Indian Population of Total Population ...... 41 4.2.1.3b Percent Indian Population of Total Foreign-bom Population ...... 43
4.2.1.4 Vietnamese Population ...... 45 4.2.1.4a Percent Vietnamese Population of Total Population... 45 4.2.1.4b Percent Vietnamese Population of Total Foreign-bom Population ...... 47
4.2.1.5 German Population ...... 49 4.2.1.5a Percent German Population of Total Population ...... 49 4.2.1.5b Percent German Population of Total Foreign-bom Population ...... 51
4.2.1.6 Filipino Population ...... 53 4.2.1.6a Percent Filipino Population of Total Population ...... 53 4.2.1.6b Percent Filipino Population of Total Foreign-bom Population ...... 55
4.2.1.7 El Salvadoran Population ...... 57 4.2.1.7a Percent El Salvadoran Population of Total Population ...... 57 4.2.1.7b Percent El Salvadoran Population of Total Foreign- bom Population ...... 59
4.2.1.8 Korean Population ...... 61 4.2.1.8a Percent Korean Population of Total Population ...... 61 4.2.1. 8b Percent Korean Population of Total Foreign-bom Population ...... 63
4.2.1.9 Chinese Population ...... 65 4.2.1.9a Percent Chinese Population of Total Population ...... 65 4.2.1.9b Percent Chinese Population of Total Foreign-bom Population ...... 67
4.2.1.10 British Population ...... 69 4.2.1.10a Percent British Population of Total Population ...... 69 4.2.1.1 Ob Percent British Population of Total Foreign-bom Population ...... 71
4.2.1.11 Guatemalan Population ...... 73 4.2.1.11a Percent Guatemalan Population of Total Population ...... 73 4.2.1.11b Percent Guatemalan Population of Total Foreign-bom Population ...... 75
4.2.2 Interpretation of GeoDa Cluster Maps ...... 77 4.2.2.1 Mexican Population ...... 78 4.2.2.2 Indian Population ...... 80 4.2.2.3 Vietnamese Population ...... 82 4.2.2.4 German Population ...... 84 4.2.2.5 Filipino Population ...... 86 4.2.2.6 El Salvadoran Population ...... 88 4.2.2.7 Korean Population ...... 90 4.2.2.8 Chinese Population ...... 92 4.2.2.9 British Population ...... 94 4.2.2.10 Guatemalan Population ...... 96
4.2.3 Index of Dissimilarity ...... 98
4.3 Evaluation of Remaining Statistical Methods ...... 99 4.3.1 Correlation Analysis ...... 99 4.3.2 Regression Analysis ...... 101
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
5.1 Introduction ...... 104
5.2 Settlement Patterns by Immigrant Group ...... 105 5.3 Contribution of Research ...... 107
5.4 Future Considerations ...... 108
APPENDICES
A. Maps of Foreign-Born Population Using Class Categories of 2,3,4, & 5, Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 ...... 110
B. Total Population for Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 ...... 121
C. Total Foreign-Born Population & Percent Foreign-Born Population for Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 ...... 123
D. Total Immigrant Group Population & Percent Immigrant Group Population of Total Population for Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 ...... 125
E. Total Immigrant Group Population & Percent Immigrant Group Population of Total Foreign-Born Population for Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 ...... 136
F. Regression Tables for each Foreign-Born Population ...... 147
G. Map of Census Tracts in Douglas/Sarpy County ...... 149
H. Map of Street Names Labeled by Census Tracts in Douglas/Sarpy County ...... 151
BIBLIOGRAPHY 153 FIGURES AND TABLES
Fig. 1.1 Concentric-Zone Model of Urban Structure ...... 4
Table 1.1 Percent Foreign-Born Population of Douglas/Sarpy County, 1990 & 2000... .8
Fig. 1.2 Study Area: Douglas County and Sarpy County, Nebraska ...... 10
Table 1.2 Top Ten Most Numerous Immigrants in Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 ...... 11
Fig. 4.2.1.1 Percentage of Foreign-bom population ...... 34
Fig. 4.2.1.2 South Omaha, 24th Street ...... 35
Fig. 4.2.1.2a Percent of Mexican Population of Total Population ...... 37
Fig. 4.2.1.2b Percent of Mexican Population of Total Foreign-bom Population ...... 39
Fig. 4.2.1.3 The Hindu Temple, Omaha, N E ...... 40
Fig. 4.2.1.3a Percent Indian Population of Total Population ...... 42
Fig. 4.2.1.3b Percent Indian Population of Total Foreign-bom Population ...... 44
Fig. 4.2.1.4a Percent Vietnamese Population of Total Population ...... 46
Fig. 4.2.1.4b Percent Vietnamese Population of Total Foreign-bom Population ...... 48
Fig. 4.2.1.5a Percent German Population of Total Population ...... 50
Fig. 4.2.1.5b Percent German Population of Total Foreign-bom Population ...... 52
Fig. 4.2.1.6a Percent Filipino Population of Total Population ...... 54
Fig. 4.2.1.6b Percent Filipino Population of Total Foreign-bom Population ...... 56
Fig. 4.2.1.7a Percent El Salvadoran Population of Total Population ...... 58
Fig. 4.2.1.7b Percent El Salvadoran Population of Total Foreign-bom Population ...... 60
Fig. 4.2.1.8a Percent Korean Population of Total Population ...... 62 Fig. 4.2.1.8b Percent Korean Population of Total Foreign-bom Population ...... 64
Fig. 4.2.1.9a Percent Chinese Population of Total Population ...... 66
Fig. 4.2.1.9b Percent Chinese Population of Total Foreign-bom Population ...... 68
Fig. 4.2.1.10a Percent British Population of Total Population ...... 70
Fig. 4.2.1.10b Percent British Population of Total Foreign-bom Population ...... 72
Fig. 4.2.1.11a Percent Guatemalan Population of Total Population ...... 74
Fig. 4.2.1.1 lb Percent Guatemalan Population of Total Foreign-bom Population ...... 76
Fig. 4.2.2.1 Mexican Population ...... 79
Fig. 4.2.2.2 Indian Population ...... 81
Fig. 4.2.2.3 Vietnamese Population ...... 83
Fig. 4.2.2.4 German Population ...... 85
Fig. 4.2.2.5 Filipino Population ...... 87
Fig. 4.2.2.6 El Salvadoran Population ...... 89
Fig. 4.2.2.7 Korean Population ...... 91
Fig. 4.2.2.8 Chinese Population ...... 93
Fig. 4.2.2.9 British Population ...... 95
Fig. 4.2.2.10 Guatemalan Population ...... 97
Table 4.2.3 Index of Dissimilarity Values by Immigrant Group, Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 ...... 98
Table 4.3.1 Correlation Coefficients for Pair-wise Immigrant Groups in Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 ...... 100
Table 4.3.2 Regression Results of Socio-Economic Characteristics Predicting Foreign-Born Residence in Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 ...... 102 A SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF THE FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION IN DOUGLAS/SARPY COUNTY, NEBRASKA - 2000
Leigh Anne L. Opitz, MA
University of Nebraska, 2006
Advisor: Dr. Michael Peteson
For a city that was initially settled mostly by Europeans, the recent immigrants largely from non-European countries, arriving in a changed urban and societal setting, have altered the settlement geography of Omaha, Nebraska. Due to the economic attainment of many newcomers to the country, many immigrant groups are able to settle in more prosperous areas than previous immigrants, and therefore live further away from the inner city. The transportation infrastructure throughout the city has also improved since the beginning of the century, so immigrants are able widen their geographic mobility. The resulting settlement pattern of these new immigrants is therefore much different than in the past. While immigrants still do decide to settle in areas of a city historically known for its immigrant communities, particularly just outside the central business district, those immigrants that have chosen not to live in these areas are creating more diverse suburbs within a city. Although these immigrants are selecting to live in the suburbs, many are still showing a slight tendency to cluster among members from their own country of origin, indicating that ethnic communities may be an important part of where immigrants decide to live, no matter what the economic status of an area may be. X
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to take this time to acknowledge all those who have assisted and supported me throughout the course of completing my thesis. My chair advisor, Dr.
Peterson, has been incredibly understanding throughout the whole thesis process, and kept me motivated when it felt like the walls were closing in. I enjoyed our meetings immensely, where our conversations provided me with more knowledge than just patterns of immigrant settlement. Thank you to Dr. Dando and Dr. Skreija - who both gave me fresh perspectives and insight to my research. I am ever so grateful for their advice and words of encouragement. Also, I am very thankful for the time that I spent with Dr.
Roncek, his statistical guidance and advice has proven invaluable to my research.
To my husband, Ben, thank you for understanding how important this is to me and for all your support - I love you.
And lastly I need to thank my little ones. Maddox, when you came along, you gave me a much needed break from my research. And Ahnika, your imminent arrival gave me the extra shove to get it done! 1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
In the heart of South Omaha, the landscape bursts with a Latino culture, thanks to
the rapid increase in Latino immigrants creating a distinctive settlement geography in the
city. Latinos are not, however, the only immigrants establishing themselves in the
Omaha area. The city is drawing immigrant groups from a variety of locations, not only
from Latin America, but also from countries throughout the world. Where have these
immigrant groups settled in the Omaha area, and are they as concentrated as the Latino population? Or, do these other groups exhibit different settlement patterns - and if so, why?
Migration can be defined as “a permanent or semi-permanent change of residence.
No restriction is placed upon the distance of the move or upon the voluntary or involuntary nature of the act, and no distinction is made between external and internal migration” (Lee, 1966, p. 49). The decision to migrate is based on a combination of push and pull factors associated with the migrant’s origin and their potential destination.
Migrants can include highly skilled professionals, entrepreneurs, or manual laborers, legal or illegal immigrants, political refugees or asylees.
Throughout American history, immigrants have continuously played a major role in the development and transformation of American society (Pedraza, 1996). From the first Europeans who permanently settled in the U.S. in the early 17th century (Fimple,
1989), to those that have arrived most recently, immigrants have come from various 2
origins and for various reasons. They bring with them their own social resources, such as
social class, education, and institutional knowledge (Pedraza, 1996).
Upon initial arrival to a city, immigrants may tend to group together in neighborhoods based on language, culture, and ethnic affiliation. Distinctive ethnic neighborhoods may form, characterizing city landscapes in a way that exposes their cultural and economic values. Food shops, clothing stores, and other services characteristic of the immigrants’ homeland arise, creating ethnically unique areas of the city. Once the immigrants have become assimilated into mainstream society, however, they may begin to move out of these ethnic communities.
1.1.1 Assimilation Theory
The ways in which immigrants and their offspring become incorporated into
American life is a widely debated topic in migration studies. Assimilation theory, in particular, has been criticized as being ethnocentric and culturally intolerant. The term
“assimilation” has been commonly referred to the process of an immigrant completely abandoning their own culture, and adapting to the cultural characteristics of the host country. For immigrants coming to live in the United States, this would mean Anglo- conformity (Feagin, 1999). Historically, the idea of conforming to an American way of life was seen as “both inevitable and desirable for the nation and for the immigrants”
(Dewind, 1997). Assimilation theory, therefore, has been regarded has a negative concept.
Alba and Nee (1997), however, argue that: 3
whatever the deficiencies of earlier formulations and applications of assimilation, we hold that this social science concept offers the best way to understand and describe the integration into the mainstream experienced across generations by many individuals and ethnic groups, even if it cannot be regarded as a universal outcome of American life (827).
Therefore, with assimilation both as a concept and a theory under much criticism, Alba
and Nee seek to redefine assimilation in order to make the term more suitable for
immigration that is presently occurring.
1.1.2 Spatial Assimilation and the Ecological Urban Structure Model
According to past theories, the incorporation of immigrants into American society occurs in several stages, the first being cultural assimilation, which includes an increased proficiency in the English language and formal education (Massey, 1985; Allen and
Turner, 1996). Allen and Turner (1996) argue “.. .the learning of English and other cultural skills on the part of the immigrants and their progeny leads to better jobs, resulting in higher income” (p. 141). Economic assimilation, therefore, is partly attained by an immigrant who has increased their income. Once cultural and economic assimilation have occurred, immigrants become more likely to move outside of an ethnic community and live in a more heterogeneously populated area, which is known as spatial assimilation (Turner and Allen, 1996).
Several different models of urban structure have described the spatial assimilation characteristics of ethnic groups. The segregation and distribution of a city’s ethnic neighborhoods have been major themes in geographical and sociological studies. The
“ecological models” of urban structure and growth arising out of the Chicago School of 4
Urban Sociology early in the 20th century, have influenced much of the research and
theory in these fields (Massey, 1985; Newbold, 2003). One of these ecological models,
known as the eoncentric-zone model of urban structure proposed Robert E. Park and
Ernest W. Burgess (1925), stated that a city will form several concentric rings around a
city's central business district, which become more prosperous as one moves awav from
the central business district (Fig. 1.1). This model is often related to the changing
structure of a city due to the mass numbers of immigrants settling in North American
cities at the turn of the 20th century, and exhibits the immigrants’ process of assimilation
into American society (Yeates & Gamer, 1980).
The Concentric Zone Model o Central Business District
( ] Transitional Zone - Recent Immigrant Croupe - Low-Rent Housing - Business .in i Light Manufacturing Working Class Zone O - Second General ton Immigrants - Single-Family Housing
Residential Zone O - Higter-Rent Housing
Commuter Zone © - Suburbs
Fig. 1.1 Concentric Zone Model of Urban Structure
The concentric zone model assumes that arriving immigrants will settle close to the center of the city, the transitional zone, where one can find both low-wage labor 5
markets and low-rent housing. Ecological succession then occurs after immigrants
increase their level of income, enabling them to move outward from their ethnic
neighborhoods to more affluent residential areas. Another aspect of ecological
succession is that as immigrants become more culturally assimilated in mainstream
society, they will no longer live in ethnic neighborhoods. New immigrants arriving to the
city, sometimes from a different country than previous immigrant groups, will settle in the areas where prior groups resided. As this group increases their level of income, they
will also move away from the center of the city.
1.1.3 Historical Overview of American Immigration — Omaha, Nebraska Example
Although European immigrants began entering the United States in the early
1600’s, the arrival of immigrants in vast numbers did not occur until almost a century later. The mass migrations of European immigrants coming to cities in the United States
in the early 19th century through the early 20th century largely conform to the previously mentioned ecological model. The phase of urban development that American cities were experiencing at the time, whether it was pre-industrial, industrial, or post-industrial, helped influence each wave of migration (Massey, 1985). These waves were also affected by the time of migration, migrant’s origin, push and pull factors, and the immigration policies in effect during the time of migration. These factors influenced the succession of immigrant communities in the American urban landscape.
The availability of jobs has made Omaha, Nebraska, a destination for many migrants seeking a home and opportunity. Omaha’s urban structure closely resembles 6
the concentric zone model, aside from the Missouri River to east of the city that prevented eastward expansion of the city limits. The process of ecological succession has clearly occurred in different areas of Omaha. With an increased need for labor after
World War I, North Omaha became predominately settled by African-Americans coming from the South, replacing the German and English residents who had previously occupied the area. South Omaha, however, has the best defined immigrant history in the city.
Different ethnic groups have been prominent in the area as each major immigration wave entered the city. This urban area with low-wage labor and low-rent residential neighborhoods became a home for many of these arriving immigrants. Today, remnants of previous ethnic communities that once existed in South Omaha persist in the midst of the new Latino culture that currently dominates in the area.
1.1.4 Current Overview of American Immigration and Immigration Law — Omaha, Nebraska Example
Throughout history, immigration law has helped shape the cultural urban landscape in the United States, by determining how many immigrants to allow in the country, as well as from where. Due to an amendment in immigration policy, a major shift occurred in immigration during the mid-twentieth century. According the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (2003), the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
Amendments of 1965 “abolished the national origins quota system, eliminating national origin, race, or ancestry as a basis for immigration to the United States” (pp. 1). These amendments also gave priority to those immigrants seeking visas with family already 7
residing in the United States for family reunification purposes, and “for persons with
special occupational skills, abilities, or training needed in the United States” (pp. 2).
Several acts following the INA involved immigration and resettlement assistance
of refugees, particularly from Southeast Asia. These acts included the Indochina
Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1975 following the end of the Vietnam War,
the Refugee Act of 1980, and the Amerasian Homecoming Act of 1987. Since the
inception of these laws, there has been an increase in immigration from war-torn
countries. Many of the immigrants arriving after 1965, therefore, come from different
countries than the immigrants who arrived to the United States in previous decades, due
in large part to the changing immigration laws. These changes, along with a rise in undocumented immigration, permitted an increase in immigration from less developed countries, such as Latin America and Asia (Massey, 1985), and in fewer numbers, from
Africa and the Middle East (Rumbaut, 1996).
This trend continues today, as more and more immigrants from lesser-developed countries continue to arrive in the cities of the United States, such as Omaha, Nebraska.
Douglas County and Sarpy County’s foreign-bom population more than doubled during the 1990s, increasing by 131.8%. Between 1990 and 2000, Douglas/Sarpy County gained 18,145 immigrants, bringing the total number of foreign-bom residents in both counties to 31,913 (Table 1.1). 8
Table 1.1 Percent Foreign-Born Population, ______Douglas/Sarpy County, 1990 & 2000
Year Foreign-Born Total Percent Population Population Foreign-Born 1990 13,768 519,027 2.70%
Year Foreign-Born Total Percent Population Population Foreign-Born 2000 31,913 586,180 5.40%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
With the variety of immigrants arriving in U.S. cities every year, Newbold (2003)
argues that issues concerning their settlement, distribution, and assimilation into
America’s dynamic society need to be examined in light of a new era. Therefore, this
research will focus on the more recent immigrants to Douglas/Sarpy County in Nebraska,
and the settlement patterns that they have established.
1.2 Nature of the problem
An analysis of the settlement patterns of many recent immigrants to American cities permits the testing of several assumptions made by the long-standing spatial assimilation model (Newbold, 2003). The ecological model could describe the historical migrant settlement patterns in South Omaha, with many immigrants from Europe in the late 19 f b and early 20 tfi centuries settling in this low-rent district of the city. The Latino community found in the area today has also been drawn to this low-rent part of town.
Although a large number of new immigrants have always settled in South Omaha, this is 9
not the only area of the city where new immigrants will first move. Immigrants arriving with higher levels of education, increased professional attainment, and more wealth, have a tendency to immediately settle in the more affluent residential areas of the city, especially the suburbs (Alba and Logan, 1991). The purpose of this study is to determine the settlement patterns of contemporary migrants to Douglas County and Sarpy County, and to examine socioeconomic factors that exist for the patterns of settlement for specific migrant groups.
1.3 Study Area
The area of study will be Douglas County and Sarpy County in Nebraska (Figure
1.2). Omaha, the largest city in Douglas County, has been noted for its historic ethnic enclaves and has recently been experiencing an increase and expansion of its immigrant population. Sarpy County is the fastest growing county in Nebraska, located just to the south of Douglas County, and is to a large extent a suburb of Omaha. Therefore, the entire Douglas/Sarpy County area will be used in efforts to show immigrant expansion and ethnic suburban settlement. 10
Fig. 1.2 Study Area: Douglas County & Sarpy County, Nebraska
This study will examine the foreign-bom population living in Douglas/Sarpy
County. Both the 2000 Census Summary File 1 and 3 data sets are used, which looks at the country of origin for the foreign-bom population and other socio-economic variables.
This data is broken down by census tract for each county.
The following table shows the top ten origins of immigrants arriving in
Douglas/Sarpy County as recorded in the 2000 Census: 11
Table 1.2 Place of Birth for Top Ten Most Numerous ______Immigrants, Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000
Country # of Immigrants Mexico 12,098 India 1,546 Vietnam 1,288 Germany 1,223 Philippines 1,137 El Salvador 1,087 Korea 1,048 China* 886 United Kingdom 882 Guatemala 755
* excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan Source: U.S. Census Bureau
As shown in the table, the majority of immigrants have arrived from Mexico and
in lesser number, from several Latin American, Asian and European countries. While not
specifically represented on the above table, immigration from Sudan, due to Sudanese
refugee resettlement, in recent years, has also played a significant role in the study area’s
increasing immigrant population (Sack, 2002). The Sudanese population in
Douglas/Sarpy County may possibly be one of the largest Sudanese populations in the
United States. Although their numbers reach into the thousands throughout the study
area, they are not represented in the study because a large number of the population may have gone unreported in the U.S. Census, and many have arrived after 2000.
1.4 Research Objectives and Questions
The general purpose of this research is to examine the location and spatial
concentration of the foreign-bom population residing in Douglas/Sarpy County. The 12
specific purpose is to identify areas of settlement, the levels of spatial concentration, and
the variety of socioeconomic characteristics associated with the settlement patterns. To
identify the associations of these characteristics with migration, the following tasks will
be undertaken:
• Locate settlements of contemporary immigrant groups in Douglas/Sarpy
County.
• Determine the statistical significance of spatial clustering of recent
immigrants in these counties.
• Examine the socioeconomic characteristics in the area of settlement where
immigrant groups reside.
The following specific questions will be addressed:
• Where do immigrant groups settle in Douglas/Sarpy County?
• Which immigrant groups have a tendency to cluster, and how do spatial
clusters and distribution patterns differ between immigrant groups?
• Does each immigrant group’s destination depend on socioeconomic
factors? If so, which ones?
1.5 Significance of research
The history of Omaha is characterized by a continual influx of new immigrants.
Much of the recent increase in population for Douglas County between 1990 and 2000 is based on immigration. In Douglas County, 35.4% of the county’s population increase was due to immigration from other countries, whereas in Sarpy County, 7.2% of the 13
population increase was due to immigration. By studying the new spatial patterns of
contemporary immigrants in these counties, an increased understanding of how new
immigrants settle may be achieved. This study will also show whether or not previous
and current models of urban structure are applicable or need to be revised.
Many immigration studies regarding recent trends in migrant settlement have
tended to focus on large cities nears the coasts with significant immigrant populations,
such as New York and Los Angeles. Omaha, a much smaller city, is located in the
central portion of the U.S., and may have a different pattern of migration settlement. In
addition, previous research done in the field of residential segregation has examined
segregation in broadly defined categories of racial groups. This study, however, will make use of specific country origins to analyze residential concentration, capturing the variation that may arise among the subgroups generally categorized as belonging to one racial group. 14
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
There has been substantial research on the topic of immigration in the fields of
sociology, geography, and history. Therefore, this research will use theories and
concepts on ethnic residential segregation and spatial assimilation from all disciplines.
Other research will be reviewed that focuses on the spatial aspects of immigrant
communities in the United States.
2.2 Spatial Assimilation and Ethnic Residential Segregation
Previous research has concentrated on the distribution of European immigrants in urban America, and focused on the cultural and economic assimilation of following
generations. As the pattern of immigrant distribution changed with new arrivals, however, new models of spatial assimilation were needed. Sociologist Douglas S.
Massey has been one of the leading contributors in spatial assimilation and residential
segregation research. In his 1985 influential article, “Ethnic Residential Segregation: A
Theoretical Synthesis and Empirical Review,” Massey formalized a spatial assimilation model, largely based on ecological theory. This model asserts that the immigrants’ residential locations are a reflection of their level of cultural and economic assimilation.
The residential segregation patterns of ethnic groups would then be a result of the cultural, social, and economic distance between them and the rest of the population
(Massey, 1985). Massey concludes that segregation will “dissipate over time through a 15
process of spatial assimilation driven by acculturation and socioeconomic mobility”
(Massey, 1985, p. 339). In other words, Massey is saying that as immigrants become
more culturally, socially, and economically assimilated to mainstream society, residential
concentration of their ethnic group will disperse as they and their families move to
neighborhoods throughout the city.
Since Massey’s article was published, it has been widely cited and modified by
others studying residential segregation and spatial assimilation. An example of this is
James P. Allen and Eugene Turner’s (1996), “Spatial Patterns of Immigrant
Assimilation,” published a decade after Massey’s article. They examined concentrations
of twelve immigrant groups in the Los Angeles area, and compared their results with
their modified version of Massey’s spatial assimilation model. By relying on quantitative
techniques, however, they concluded that “.. .ethnic concentrations are no longer
exclusively located in older centralized areas, and the areal differentiation of relative
assimilations is often weaker than implied by the model of spatial assimilation” (Turner
and Allen, 1996, p. 154). Turner and Allen’s updated model will also be taken into
consideration in this study by examining suburban settlement patterns of more prosperous
immigrant groups.
2.3 American Immigration — Omaha, Nebraska
In order to better understand modem immigration patterns, it is important to
examine American immigration in historical contexts. A general overview of historical
American immigration is offered by Silvia Pedraza (1996) in her article “Origins and 16
Destinies: Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in American History.” Migration specific to
the Omaha area was the topic of Kathleen L. Fimple’s (1989) dissertation entitled “An
Analysis of the Changing Spatial Dimensions of Ethnic Neighborhoods in Omaha,
Nebraska 1880-1900.”
2.3.1 Historical Overview
The initial immigrants arriving in what is today the United States settled in a
rural and agricultural land. Those entering the country during the 1800s, however,
encountered an America as it was experiencing widespread industrialization (Massey,
1985). Many immigrants, therefore, were settling in more urban areas than previous
groups. Formal procedures to document these immigrants began in 1819, which included
their country of origin (Pedraza, 1996). Those arriving during this time are considered as
being a part of the first major immigration wave, and came from countries in
northwestern Europe such as Germany, England, Ireland, and Sweden. Immigrants
choosing not to settle in rural locations established residences in low-rent urban areas
near the central business district, which were in close proximity to major areas of
employment (Massey, 1985).
These same patterns of immigrant settlement also occurred in Omaha, Nebraska.
In 1880, the almost three decade old city of Omaha was prospering as an industrial wholesale center, and was experiencing a rapid increase in population (Fimple, 1989).
Between 1880 and 1890, Omaha’s population increased by over 100,000 residents, 25% of whom were foreign-born (Fimple, 1989). The population was concentrated in housing 17
near the central business district, where industries such as the railroad, brewery, smelting
works, and the stockyards were also located. These industries provided employment
opportunities for those living close to the area, especially for the incoming migrants.
Ethnic communities established in this area consisted mostly of Germans, Irish, and
Bohemians. Although not as strong, the Swedish, English, and the Danish had also
developed their own ethnic communities.
Between 1881 and 1924, while the United States was peaking as an industrialized
society, the country received its next wave of immigrants, mostly from southern and
eastern Europe. Many immigrants coming from countries such as Italy, Poland, and
Austria-Hungary, were illiterate, rural peoples without specific trade or business skills
(Pedraza, 1996). Immigrants from this wave coming to live in an urban setting
established ethnic communities in the areas where the previous immigrants had lived,
although this time residential segregation among the different ethnic groups became more
apparent (Massey, 1985). I During this time, Omaha had expanded its city boundaries due to constant population increases. An important development for the city was the success of the new
Union Stockyard Company, which resulted in the organization of the South Omaha village in 1886 (Fimple, 1989). By 1900, the Germans and Irish still made up the majority of the ethnic population in the city, but had begun to move away from their ethnic neighborhoods, becoming more dispersed and less concentrated than they were in previous years. The Czech population, on the other hand, remained concentrated in
South Omaha. Several new ethnic groups settled in Omaha as well, such as Italians, 18
Hungarians, Polish, and Russians in and around South Omaha, and in fewer numbers,
Chinese in the central city.
Immigration restrictions in the 1920s resulted in a dramatic decrease of
immigrants coming to the U.S. The 1924 Immigration and Nationality Act set quotas
based on national origins, and at the same time the Oriental Exclusion Act barred all
immigration from Asia (Pedraza, 1996). After World War I, the city structure in the
United States transformed once again as a different group of migrants came to live in the
city. Largely as a result of decreasing numbers of immigrants, internal migration shifts
occurred within the country, as rural African-Americans from the southeast and Mexicans
from the southwest began moving to the industrialized North seeking employment
opportunities (Pedraza, 1996).
Although African-Americans had resided in Omaha for some time, it wasn’t until
after World War I that their population increased dramatically, especially in the North
Omaha area. Many migrated northward from the rural south as labor for the packinghouses of South Omaha. These same packinghouses also drew in several hundred Mexicans looking for work beginning in the 1920s. Many of these African-
American and Mexican migrants stayed in Omaha permanently and began to develop their own communities, which have grown and are still evident today (Larsen & Cottrell,
1982). 19
2.3.2 Current Overview
The Latin American population, particularly the Mexican population, has increased tremendously in Douglas County and Sarpy County, especially since the 1990s.
Although Mexican immigrants were a part of the Omaha landscape as early as the turn of the 20th century, much of their population has settled in Omaha only recently. The majority of recent immigrants migrating from Mexico come for job opportunities in the
U.S., jobs that pay a much higher wage than in Mexico.
Immigration from Asia to Omaha, on the other hand, has not been as substantial, in terms of numbers, as that from Mexico. Although many of the immigrants coming from Asia after the 1960s were a result of the lifting of the national origins quota, others came as refugees following the Vietnam War. Since the government implemented the
Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1975, Omaha has seen a trickle of refugees from Vietnam and surrounding countries up until the early 1990s (Burbach,
2002). During the 1970s, Omaha also experienced two waves of migrants coming from
India. The official website for the Omaha Hindu Temple (2005), states that the first wave consisted mostly of engineers and their families, whereas the second group was also professionally trained, but this time as medical doctors. Today, the computer and software industries in Omaha are key employers for many of the incoming Indian population according to Hindu Temple Limited website (2005).
Most recently, however, Omaha has seen an influx in the Sudanese population, which is currently estimated to be around 7,000 (Ruggles & Chu, 2006). This is the direct result of the U.S. government granting the Sudanese refugee resettlement and 20
permanent residence in the United States due to the ongoing civil war in Sudan (Sack,
2002). Many of the Sudanese living in Omaha have come through a secondary migration from other cities in the U.S., while others have come directly from refugee camps in
Ethiopia and Kenya (Sack, 2002). With the help of refugee services in Omaha, they have been able to establish themselves as one of the largest Sudanese communities in the
United States (Sack, 2002). 21
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
A variety of methods were used in analyzing data on the foreign-born population in Douglas County and Sarpy County, Nebraska. Previous research on the spatial distribution of immigrants has utilized both quantitative and qualitative methods.
3.2 Data
This study uses demographic data from the 2000 U.S. Census of Douglas County and Sarpy County in Nebraska. In order to test the model of spatial assimilation and the effects of recent changes in immigration law, this research specifically examines which immigrant groups are found in the highest numbers in Douglas/Sarpy County. The top ten most numerous immigrant groups residing in the study area are used and includes immigrants from: Mexico, India, Vietnam, El Salvador, Germany, China (excluding
Hong Kong and Taiwan), Guatemala, Korea, the Philippines, and the United Kingdom.
The population numbers of each foreign-born population are derived from the 2000 U.S.
Census, therefore, the more recent immigrants may not yet be accounted for, such as with the Sudanese, and may not be represented as one of the top ten most numerous foreign- born populations. Other demographic variables were used to help explain patterns of settlement. These are: the period in which the immigrant arrived to the United States
(before 1965, between 1965 and 1984, or after 1985), English language proficiency
(speaks English well, or does not speak English well), level of education (no education, 22
high school degree, bachelor’s degree or higher), household income, home-ownership
(rents or owns), and value of house. These particular socio-economic variables are used because they help explain cultural and economic assimilation characteristics applicable to the spatial assimilation model, and they are commonly applied in studies of the distribution patterns of immigrant populations.
In order to better understand the settlement geography of contemporary migrants in Douglas County and Sarpy County, data was used from the census tract level, since data on the country of origin for the foreign-born population were unavailable at the block or block group level. Demographic data were derived from the U.S. census and used both Summary File 1 (SF1) and Summary File 3 (SF3) data sets. Country of origin data for the foreign-born population is found in SF1 as well as data regarding housing occupancy. SF3 contains the data concerning housing value, English language proficiency, year of entry for the foreign-born population, household income, and educational attainment. SF1, however, represents an inventory of everybody within the census tract, whereas SF3 is based on sampling. In analyzing census data, it is common to use a combination of inventory and sample data.
3.3 Method
The methodology for this study applies both GIS-based mapping and statistical analysis. Using census data, a database file was created to analyze the data in a GIS software package, ArcMap 9.0. ArcMap was used to create choropleth maps from the census data to portray the spatial locations of each immigrant group, and make 23
preliminary analyses and observations. The statistical packages, GeoDa and SPSS were used for further detailed analysis.
3.3.1 Choropleth Mapping
ArcMap 9.0, a GIS program, was used to create several choropleth maps of the foreign-born population. In order to gain a sense of where the entire foreign-born population lives in the study area, the initial map shows the total foreign-born population as a percentage of the total population in Douglas County and Sarpy County. The remaining maps were created for each of the ten immigrant groups used in this study.
The first category of maps looks at the percentages of each immigrant group in the study area. The population data was mapped utilizing five different classes; 2, 3, 4, 5, and a multiple class (nearly classless) map. The purpose of applying different classes is to better understand the distribution of the foreign-born population throughout the study area, and will decrease the chance of biased observations that can be made by only examining one map. The final set of maps shows the percent of population from the immigrant country as a percentage of the total foreign-born population. These maps were created in order to gain a sense of how much one immigrant group resides in an area, as compared to other foreign-born groups.
Based on the irregular distribution of the data, the natural breaks, or Jenks’, method was chosen as the mapping classification method for this research. For this method, ArcMap 9.0 decides where to put class breaks in the data’s distribution by minimizing variation between classes. In other words, the ESRI Support Center (2005) 24
states that the Jenks’ optimization method works by minimizing the “squared deviations of the class means” (pp. 1).
3.3.2 Local Spatial Autocorrelation Analysis
GeoDa, a statistical software program that implements both basic GIS mapping methods and statistical graphics, was used to determine locations of immigrant clusters using local spatial autocorrelation analysis. In the most general sense, spatial autocorrelation refers to “the correlation of a variable with itself through space” (Burt &
Barber, 1996), where the value of some variable in a certain location, may or may not influence the value of a variable in nearby locations. Spatial autocorrelation can be categorized as either positive or negative. Positive spatial autocorrelation occurs when similar values are found close together in space. In this research, this would suggest immigrant clusters. Negative spatial autocorrelation, however, is when different values are near each other.
Spatial autocorrelation is based on neighbor relationships around a geographic unit (such as census tracts), and is evaluated by whether the borders of these polygons are adjacent to each other or not. To evaluate the adjacency of these relationships, one must indicate how the polygons are adjacent. If the polygons share a border of some length, it is known as “rook” adjacency, indicating the possible movement of the rook in the game of chess. If they share a common length of border and a common point, or vertex, it is known as “queen” adjacency, also representative of the movement possible by a queen.
The “queen” option was chosen for this particular study. 25
Local spatial autocorrelation analysis in Geoda is based on the Local Moran statistic (Anselin, 1995), which is derived from the Moran’s I statistic. The Local Moran statistic looks at spatial autocorrelation by examining the input of each census tract to the
Moran's I statistic for the entire study area in order to indicate areas of localized clusters.
This statistic helps to ensure that the observed clustering is not occurring at random.
GeoDa then depicts the result of the local analysis in the form of significance and cluster maps (Anselin, 2004). Significance maps, or LISA significance maps, show “those locations with a significant Local Moran statistic as different shades of green, depending on the significance level” (Anselin, 2003). Cluster maps, then, show “those locations with a significant Local Moran statistic classified by type of spatial correlation” (Anselin,
2003). The location of where each immigrant group resides in the study areas was represented by both of these types of maps, and any spatial patterns were observed.
3.3.3 Index of Dissimilarity
A segregation index measuring evenness was used to calculate the foreign-born population distribution. Evenness measures the spatial distribution of two different groups within an area (Massey & Denton, 1988). Evenness is increased and segregation is decreased when both the majority and minority populations are evenly distributed within the study area, therefore, when evenness is decreased and segregation is increased, the majority and minority populations will not be located in the same area (Massey &
Denton, 1988). 26
The specific segregation index used to analyze the immigrant population data is the Index of Dissimilarity (D). Although this index has been subject to much criticism, it has been largely agreed upon as being one of the best-known ways to measure segregation (Massey & Denton, 1988; White & Omer, 1997). Ultimately, D measures the “proportion of one group that would have to relocate to produce an even
(unsegregated) distribution” (White & Omer, 1997). Values of D range from 0.0 (0%), meaning complete integration, to 1.0 (100%), meaning complete segregation. In other words, the D value is the percentage of the immigrant group’s population that would need to relocate in order for the population to be equally distributed.
For the purposes of this study, the Index of Dissimilarity, was applied and calculated with an Excel spreadsheet. It is calculated as follows:
N D = Vi I Pli/Pl - P2i/P2 i=l
Where: Pi - the overall population of group 1 Pi - the overall population of group 2 i — the group population in the census tracts
3.3.4 Correlation Analysis
Correlation analysis was performed between each immigrant group residing in the study area to observe if certain immigrant groups had a tendency to live in similar census tracts. If so, observations could be made on what similar characteristics would bring these two groups to the same area. Correlation analysis can be defined as a statistical procedure that evaluates the relationship between two variables. In terms of this study, 27
the variables used were the different immigrant groups and the census tracts where they reside, where each of the ten immigrant groups were correlated with every other immigrant group used in this study. The value of the correlation coefficient calculated for each pair of immigrant groups can range from +1.0 to -1.0. The closer the correlation coefficient is to +1.0, the more correlated the two variables are, and would therefore be positively correlated. In other words, the two immigrant groups have a tendency to live in similar census tracts. A correlation coefficient that is nearing -1.0 would mean that the two immigrant groups do not live in similar tracts, and would therefore be negatively correlated. A correlation coefficient of zero would mean that there is no correlation between the two variables and has neither a positive or negative relationship.
3.3.5 Multiple Regression Analysis
Further analysis involved multiple regression analysis using SPSS to indicate those factors that are the best predictors of where immigrant groups settle. Multiple regression analysis can be generally defined as the analysis of a statistical relationship between dependent, or response, variables and independent, or predictor, variables (Burt
& Barber, 1996). 28
The regression equation is as follows:
Units of Y = a +b(units of X)
Where: X - the independent variable Y - the dependent variable a - the regression intercept b - the regression coefficient
Step-wise regression was used to build a regression model for each immigrant group being researched. This regression technique has been described in many studies, and is a valid way of analyzing socioeconomic characteristics using a single dependent variable (StatSoft, 2006). Step-wise regression employs several different independent variables, and attempts to find which of these independent variables are the best ones that will predict the dependent variable. This research uses the percentage of each immigrant group in a census tract as the dependent variable, and several socio-economic variables as the independent variables. These socio-economic variables include the period in which the immigrant arrived to the United States (before 1965, between 1965 and 1984, or after
1985), English language proficiency (speaks English well, or does not speak English well), level of education (no education, high school degree, bachelor’s degree or higher), household income, home-ownership (rents or owns), and value of house.
The step-wise procedure is to repeatedly search the list of independent variables and find the variable that has the highest correlation (R2) with the dependent variable.
Once this first variable is added to the model, its covariance with other independent variables is removed. It then looks at each of the independent variables once again; this time with the covariance of the previous variable removed, and finds the next variable 29
with the highest correlation. The procedure will repeat this process until all of the independent variables have been included in the model. Although it will not be apparent in the output generated for this study, the dependent and the independent variables may have a positive or negative relationship, or have no relationship at all.
Step-wise regression has several options to choose from in how to build the regression model. The forward entry method was used in for this study's analysis. This method begins with no independent variables in the model, and each time SPSS searches the list of independent variables, the most significant one is added to the model (StatSoft,
2006). This is done until there are no independent variables left, or at least until there are no more variables that contribute significantly to the model (StatSoft, 2006).
The results of the step-wise regression model analyzed for this study is a rank order of independent variables based on their correlation with the dependent variable. In other words, it is a list of the independent variables, or socio-economic characteristics, that are ranked in order of which ones best explain the dependent variable. The dependent variable, again, is the percentage of the immigrant group living in a particular census tract. For the purpose of this study, the rank order of independent variables found by building stepwise regression models is viewed as sufficient to justify the explanatory variables of immigrant settlement patterns.
3.4 Summary
The purpose of employing multiple procedures for this study was to gain a better understanding of immigrant settlement in Douglas County and Sarpy County. All of the 30
data was derived from the United States Census Bureau, and several different computer programs were used to analyze the census data for different purposes. 31
CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter is divided into two main parts. The first section will present the variety of maps that have been produced for this study, and will focus on the spatial distribution of each immigrant group being examined in Douglas County and Sarpy
County. The maps will set the stage for further analysis by generalizing the spatial patterns of each immigrant group being researched in the study area. Comparisons will also be made regarding the spatial distributions among the different immigrant groups.
Maps created using GeoDa will be examined next, and will provide a more statistical approach in analyzing the spatial distribution of the foreign-born population. These maps will show if an immigrant group has a tendency to cluster, and if these clusters are statistically significant - in other words, the chances that these clusters were not formed at random. Included in this section is the Index of Dissimilarity statistical analysis. This does not include any mapping but does provide statistical insight into the spatial distribution of immigrants in the study area.
The last section will address the remaining statistical methods used in this study.
In this section, the location where an immigrant group resides is correlated with every other immigrant group’s location to see if some immigrants live in similar areas. Finally, the multiple regression section evaluates the socio-economic factors by census tract that characterize each of the immigrant groups. 32
4.2 Map-based Analysis
4.2.1 Choropleth Maps
The data for the foreign-born population was mapped utilizing five different class categories; 2, 3, 4, 5, and a multiple class (nearly classless) map. The maps created with the multiple class (nearly classless) categories were used for the purpose of this particular analysis. The intent of applying different classes is to better understand the distribution of the foreign-born population throughout the study area, and will decrease the chance of biased observations that can be made by only examining one map. Maps created with the class categories of 2, 3, 4, and 5 are located in Appendix A. The numbers that were derived from the U.S. Census Bureau used to create these maps Eire found in Appendices
B, C, D, and E. Maps with the census tracts and roads labeled are found in Appendices F and G.
4.2.1.1 Percentage of Foreign-born population
Figure 4.2.1.1 displays the total foreign-born population as a percentage of the total population in Douglas County and Sarpy County. All census tracts, excluding tract
75.07 in the western portion of Douglas County, contain some percentage of foreign-born population. Much of the land in tract 75.07, bounded by Dodge Street to the south, 168th
Street to the east, Highway 31 to the west, and Fort Street to the north, has historically been farmland, but in recent years has experienced the development of new homes and shopping centers. Close to 60 percent of census tracts in Douglas/Sarpy County have greater than 3.0% foreign-born population. The highest percentages of the foreign-born 33
population are in eastern portions of the study area, mostly in and around the South
Omaha neighborhoods. This is due largely to the influx of Mexican immigrants settling in South Omaha. Outside of South Omaha, however, the percentage of the foreign-born population gradually becomes lower. 34
U s s S * ii H a 1 y is H i y g g i 11S M I ! ( I i I i i i ii i ih § Ua H i i £ i\ imiMmimmiiimmmim
S-i O o I o C r \i ♦b o rs C> 03 c/2 C/3 S - <50 O 3 D h o +-> Q G Figure 4.2.1.1 - Percentage of Foreign-Born Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 35 4.2.1.2 Mexican Population The most numerous foreign-born group located in the study area are Mexican immigrants, totaling 12.098 in the year 2000 out of 586,180 residents in Douglas/Sarpv County, or 2% of the study area’s population. Although Mexicans have settled in over half the census tracts, they are most strongly represented in South Omaha as can be seen in Figure 4.2.1.2. Figure 4.2.1.2 — South Omaha, 24th Street 4.2.1.2a Percent o f Mexican Population o f Total Population. Figure 4.2.1.2a shows the percentage of population from Mexico for each census tract in Douglas/Sarpy County. The map indicates the core area is along south 24th street, and has a Mexican immigrant population between 10% and 33%. All tracts adjacent to the 24vl' Street corridor show some Mexican immigrant presence, although the peripheral areas of south 36 24th street have less than 10% Mexican foreign-born population. The percentage of the Mexican foreign-born population gradually lessens as one leaves the boundaries of South Omaha, as does the cultural iconography representative of their community. Census tract 4 in North Omaha shows the highest percentage of Mexican foreign-born outside of the South Omaha district, with 7.8% of the population from Mexico. Mexican immigrants show their presence in smaller percentages outside of South Omaha, living in approximately 60% of the census tracts interspersed throughout the study area. 37 «H3§i§$yyH§ii§HUf§§H§*M § 1 n m y a. i i « is h msi i ss i t s ss i i s * llllllllllllllllllllllllllllfli c s-l o o CO o 1 o G 04 bD * (D l-i 03 O O Ph u C3 C3 O l/l >C s+-> o c Q Figure 4.2.1.2a - Percentage of Mexican Foreign-Born Population of Total Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 38 4,2.1.2 b Percent of Mexican Population of Total Foreign-born Population. Figure 4.2.1.2b displays the percentage of the total foreign-born population from Mexico. There are a number of locations in the study area that show Mexican immigrants as the dominating foreign-bom group in those census tracts, mostly those tracts located in the South Omaha area. Of the total foreign-bom population that has settled in the South Omaha neighborhoods, particularly along south 24th street, 67.96% to 95.1% are native Mexicans, with the remaining number being mostly from other parts of Middle and South America. Percentages decrease slightly in surrounding southern and eastern tracts. As one is examining areas outside of the South Omaha neighborhoods, there are far fewer tracts where Mexican immigrants represent a large percentage of the foreign-bom population. Mexican immigrants do make up a high percentage of the foreign-bom, greater than 67.96%, around several North Omaha tracts, as evidenced in census tract 3, 4, 53 and 59.02. Miles away from these urban neighborhoods is a high percentage area, 74.2%, in and around the city of Elkhom, tract 75.06, peculiarly isolated from all the other tracts in Omaha. This tract only has 31 foreign-bom residents, 23 of which are from Mexico. 39 « & JV -3 O -r c *£ —‘ O'. o —* S 'T-t* c"' x© V r: 3 o X e> rX> .5 « £ D Z/ di £ c ? in u a o a -4— > 0 Co QQ 1 c d . s o O 01 • i-H 0> O h t-. o o Uh O CJ OQ c i o c c/j 5 0 C/5 >< (2 O h Figure 4.2.1.2b - Percentage of Mexican Foreign-Born Population of Total Foreign-Born Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 40 4.2.1.3 Indian Population The Indian population is the second largest foreign-born group in Douglas County and Sarpy County with 1.546 residents. Immigrants from India are widely distributed throughout the study area. Most interesting about the distribution are the large areas that have little, if no Indian foreign-born population; the peripheral parts of the Omaha urban area, as well as North Omaha and South Omaha. Being the second largest immigrant group in the study area, the Indian presence is becoming more apparent on the cultural landscape of Omaha with the construction of the Hindu temple located near 132nd & Center Streets (Figure 4.2.1.3). Figure 4.2,1.3 - The Hindu Temple located in Omaha, Nebraska Source: http://www.hindutemnlenebraska.org.articles/Hindu temple histon.doc 41 4,2.1,3a Percent Indian Population of Total Population. The percentage of those coming from India is shown in Figure 4.2.1.3a. Indian immigrants reside in less than 40% of the census tracts located in the study area; many of these tracts are located in suburban areas. The census tract where the highest percentage of Indian immigrants resides is tract 74.58, which is 7.27% of the population. This census tract is bounded by 84th Street and 96th Street to the east and west, and L Street and Q Street to the north and south. Single-family housing and apartment complexes characterize this tract. Few census tracts have percentages of Indian immigrants greater than 1%; these are located in a line of census tracts along Dodge Streets in mid-town and downtown Omaha neighborhoods, as well as several interspersed tracts west of 72nd street. In all other census tracts where Indian immigrants are present, the percentages are less than 1%. Sarpy County does not have high percentages of Indian immigrants; those tracts where they do reside are oriented around Papillion and Bellevue. The Indian foreign-born population has not made residence in those census tracts in rural areas, as well as those tracts in the urban areas of North Omaha and South Omaha. 42 sssini111111iiiiis11 in fiiii HiiniiiiiiiiHiiiiiinHniiiit illllllllllllllllllllllllSlllDO D o o o CQ o 1 a '4—* bD <“1 Figure 4.2.1.3a - Percentage of Indian Foreign-Born Population of Total Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 43 4.2.1.3b Percent Indian Population of Total Foreign-born Population. Figure 4.2.1.3b illustrates varying percentages of Indian immigrants as a percentage of the foreign-born population. The highest percentage is found in census tract 69.05. Out of 98 foreign-born immigrants living here, 59.18% have come from India. Other high percentages are found in census tracts 73.08 and 74.58 in Douglas County with 43.5% and 48.8% respectively. Census tract 73.08 has a total of 62 foreign-born immigrants, whereas tract 74.58 has a population of 475 immigrants. 44 o g 0s-< QQ 1 a, G o • 61)—H CL, 0> s-i £ O 0 b CQ G 1 cd G 61) H3 G #s oL-i b 1-4—* 3 £ Figure 4.2.1.3b - Percentage of Indian Foreign-Born Population of Total Foreign-Born Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 45 4.2.1.4 Vietnamese Population The foreign-born Vietnamese population in both Douglas County and Sarpy County totals 1,288, and is the third-most numerous foreign-born group in the study area. The Vietnamese immigrants are shown to settle in the same general area as the Indian foreign-born population in the central portion of the study area. Also, like the Indian population, the Vietnamese have chosen neither to settle in the core North Omaha or South Omaha neighborhoods, nor the more rural western and southern tracts. 4.2.1.4a Percent Vietnamese Population of Total Population. The Vietnamese as a percentage of the total population is represented in Figure 4.2.1.4a, where percentages of Vietnamese immigrants are present throughout the central portion of the study area. The highest percentages, those greater than approximately 1%, are located in several tracts surrounding the core areas of North Omaha and South Omaha, several more along the county line on Harrison street west of 72nd Street, and tract 73.07 in the northern portion of the study area. The highest percentage is found in census tract 49, with a 3.46% Vietnamese foreign-born population, located in the area northeast of 48th and Dodge Streets. The Vietnamese immigrant population resides in even smaller percentages in those tracts that are near areas with the higher percentages. For example, census tracts with varying percentages of the Vietnamese foreign-born population begin to form a ring outside the western portion of the North Omaha district. 46 |V g r+ rig —£ —£ — S— £— Ofi ®£ O MO H C o a » C o ^ c » Q i C? q £ t£hi d Q o' S 5 ii6 *•*• r r*H »e— e— ■»— ^— rj— 9Q® r-#oo « © »r. q wj <3CJ v . 1«* vo , ^«» "*c3 *rq Q<»OQCJ r r i r iq rj©0®0<=»C?0*»S r j a» r i — — — o \8 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllliilDJ m s « < I O <— > a™ •r;q j >> lin C o 2 ^ (3 8 £ 0 > *2 *-HS ^ C/5 =2 Cu oi ^ Gt) > Q 4> O Ph Figure 4.2.1.4a - Percentage of Vietnamese Foreign-Born Population of Total Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 47 4.2.1.4b Percent Vietnamese Population o f Total Foreign-born Population. Very few census tracts have greater than 39.3% of the foreign-born population coming from Vietnam (Figure 4.2.1.4b). Most of these tracts are those that have the highest percentages of the Vietnamese population in the study area. The tract boasting the Vietnamese immigrant population as the largest percentage of the total foreign-born population is tract 106.13 in Sarpy County, with 76.6%. This tract, however, only has total foreign-born population of 47. 48 O c G c 0 O *+-> OQ 1 G G G o t f ) O h £ ‘53 O CN J - 4 Oh < O 4—* c = U h Figure 4.2.1.4b - Percentage of Vietnamese Foreign-Born Population of Total Foreign-Born Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 49 4.2.1.5 German Population German immigrants total 1,223 in both Douglas County and Sarpy County, and reside in both urban and rural tracts throughout the study area. They cover a large section of eastern Sarpy County, and a small portion of southeastern Douglas County. 4.2.1.5a Percent German Population o f Total Population. With the exception of a few tracts, the entire southeastern section of the study area contain some percentage of the German foreign-born population, and extends in a line of tracts northward into Douglas County near 60th Street (4.2.1.5a). Although there are over a thousand first- generation German immigrants residing in the study area, percentages in each tract remain below 1.37%. The highest percentage of German immigrants is in census tract 103.02, located within Offutt Air Force Base, with 1.37% of its population from Germany. Percentages gradually decrease as one moves outward from this tract in other parts of southeastern Sarpy County. Located in the western portion of the study area, the German immigrant population of the Elkhom and Gretna census tracts is 0.9% and 0.7%, respectively. 50 5 2 a ^— *ooocf^ooo^^oo* b >c ^ v, -i 4 7 i > f* ® <-*• c?oo n£ l^l £ I1} ? ® ri ® *f < c?ooo^Si!^? Ot£ ©£j? o «J © K=>’ C* © ^ sr© ©«» © •»» —' © ^O e» •*, «’n © Q ^© RQ r\© riQ ©Qtt>»©QQOCjQ ^ *! m “i “ ^5 &© llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 0 o QQ o 1 ° C 0 1 .SP ^ Figure 4.2.1.5a - Percentage of German Foreign-Born Population of Total Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 51 4.2.1.5b Percent German Population o f Total Foreign-born Population. In most of the tracts where a German immigrant population is present, less than 35% of the foreign-born population has come from Germany (Figure 4.2.1.5b). Although there are a very low number of German immigrants living in census tracts 2 and 73.04 - 5 and 6 , respectively - they make up 100% of the foreign-born population. 52 2 o fiQ $ O . 1 3 5 o yj g X) o - c/C/ -3 ■8yi u C • o1—H 4 —> 0 e3 QQ 1 3 C e x 0 1) o r-i O h $-■ c o £-4 (-X 0 •o PQ >-% c 1 d. c3 C c/o g o d * * 4 c/3 c Figure 4.2.1.5b - Percentage of German Foreign-Born Population of Total Foreign-Born Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 53 4.2.1.6 Filipino Population The Filipino population in the study area is approximately 1,137. These immigrants have settled throughout Douglas County and Sarpy County, mainly in Bellevue and in the central section of the study area. Their settlement pattern is similar to that of the Indian and Vietnamese foreign-born populations, although there are a couple rural tracts and a few South Omaha tracts with a Filipino immigrant population. 4.2.1.6a Percent Filipino Population o f Total Population. Offutt Air Force Base and Bellevue have the highest number of Filipino immigrants, between 1.03 and 1.87% in census tracts 101.06, 101.08, and 104.02 (4.2.1.6a). Groupings of tracts surrounding these areas have slightly smaller percentages. Northwest of Bellevue, surrounding the La Vista and Papillion area, there are 1% and less Filipino immigrants in several tracts. In Douglas County near Interstate 680 between Pacific and Fort Streets, is another grouping of tracts with relatively higher percentages of Filipino immigrants. 54 £ JE / * f £ j f rf J» jf J if ^ ll i» J 1! ; £ ft S £ a fe 3 ic 7 * %5 3s ja S fj £ jij “ 7 ” “ O ® <=> © © O © o O © o o © © !— 0 m O 1 04 f l S i) ♦ f—« (L> ?— o P p o f—j ‘S h # • iH Ph Figure 4.2.1.6a - Percentage of Filipino Foreign-Born Population of Total Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 55 4.2.1.6b Percent Filipino Population o f Total Foreign-born Population. Many of the census tracts in which the Filipino foreign-born population resides make up less than 10% of entire foreign-bom population that lives in those tracts (Figure 4.2.1. 6 b). Census tract 74.35 in Douglas County with 114 foreign-bom immigrants has 58.8% of the total foreign-bom population from the Philippines. Census tract 107.01 in the far southwestern Sarpy County has a relatively high percentage of Filipinos, 31.25%. There are, however, only 16 foreign bom immigrants residing in that tract, 5 of which are Filipino. 56 = ■ * c * v P 0 0 • I j? 1 w T s o O c 13 o ro Figure 4.2.1.6b - Percentage of Filipino Foreign-Born Population of Total Foreign-Born Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 57 4.2.1.7 El Salvadoran Population The total number of immigrants from El Salvador living in both Douglas County and Sarpy County in the year 2000 is 1,087. El Salvadoran immigrants are generally settled in the South Omaha area following the pattern of Mexican immigrants. Unlike the Mexican foreign-bom population, however, few El Salvadorans reside outside this area. 4,2.1,7a Percent El Salvadoran Population o f Total Population. Only 20% of the census tracts in the study area have any percentages of El Salvadorans living in them, as can be seen in Figure 4.2.1.7a. Although not as high in number or percentage, El Salvadorans live in the same general South Omaha area as Mexican immigrants. Census tracts in South Omaha along the south 24th Street corridor boast the highest percentages of El Salvadoran immigrants, between 2% and 5%. These percentages decrease slightly as one moves outward to surrounding tracts. While the Mexican foreign-bom population seems to branch out over the study area away from South Omaha, El Salvadoran immigrants remain near South Omaha where patterns of settlement stem outward linearly in several locations. Extending southward from South Omaha, a group of tracts in Sarpy County contain small percentages of El Salvadoran immigrants. Only a few tracts west of 72nd Street have any El Salvadoran presence. Far away from South Omaha, census tract 107.01, located in a largely rural area in southwestern Sarpy County is 0.3% El Salvadoran, with 5 El Salvadorans residing in this tract. 58 lsisn«Hs ^ O c P h 3 ^^ r o \ G w Cu O ^ r/"> 03 ^ , j 2 0 3 OX) o Q Figure 4.2.1.7a - Percentage of El Salvadoran Foreign-Born Population of Total Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 59 4.2.1.7b Percent El Salvadoran Population o f Total Foreign-born Population. Figure 4.2.1.7b displays the percentage of the total foreign-bom population that is from El Salvador. Census tract 7 has 100% of the foreign bom population as being from El Salvador, however, only there are a total of only 28 foreign-bom immigrants living there — all of which are from El Salvador. In the remaining tracts where El Salvadoran immigrants reside, they make up approximately less than 50% of the foreign-bom population. 6 0 V s - r/> .5 UJ H «r. G 0 O ao *- . ...A 1 4—> g 03 OD G • ¥—I O Figure 4.2.1.7b - Percentage of El Salvadoran Foreign-Born Population of Total Foreign-Born Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 61 4.2.1.8 Korean Population There are 1,048 Korean immigrants settled throughout Douglas County and Sarpy County, in both rural and urban tracts. Following a pattern less similar to that of previously mentioned Indian and Vietnamese immigrants, the Korean foreign-bom population settlement pattern is more akin to the Filipino immigrant population. Korean immigrants have chosen to settle in the suburban central portion of the study area, but have also settled in mral tracts as well. Only a few tracts in North Omaha and South Omaha have a Korean immigrant population. 4.2.1.8a Percent Korean Population o f Total Population. Those census tracts with a Korean foreign-bom population have less than 2% of its population from Korea (Figure 4.2.1.8 a). Although areas of Bellevue have a grouping of census tracts with high percentages of the Korean population, tract 74.55 in Douglas County has the highest percentage of the Korean population, 1.87%. A grouping of tracts surrounding the 72nd and Dodge Streets, and Interstate 680 and Fort Street, also shows higher percentages of the Korean foreign-bom population. 6 2 *#***.' <*%■?£ <** £* * * i t * ; ■( £ w g ^ r\ 3 § § ? 5 2 ?? i§ ? 3 5 <3?, © © o § ^ 5 22 * s s ^ £ £ «- — — e © © o o CJ © Q o <5 o sa o d<=J C? w qo* ©q w* ©6 ©S ©S ® Cf © q£ ® o c? O S 1 llllllllllllllllllllllllllll Ev I O 0 o OQ o 1 1=5 ° O h Figure 4.2.1.8a - Percentage of Korean Foreign-Born Population of Total Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 63 4.2.1.8b Percent Korean Population o f Total Foreign-born Population. Almost one half of the foreign-bom population in census tracts 73.11, 74.29, and 74.55 are Korean immigrants, between 38.47% and 58% (Figure 4.2.1.8b). The total numbers of foreign-bom immigrants for each of these tracts are 50, 21, and 59, respectively. 64 3fd -a ^ £Q -Q j j O ui 3 S I 2 * u i n : O g c o t ■ 0 o3 CQ 1 Ou £ g o Ol bS) c u V-i G o t (-P 0 CJ PQ )>> g 1 o3 G oo P-H G Q O Figure 4.2.1.8b - Percentage of Korean Foreign-Born Population of Total Foreign-Born Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 65 4.2.1.9 Chinese Population The Chinese foreign-born population in Douglas County and Sarpy County totals 886 residents. This population centers on the 72nd and Dodge Street area in Omaha, and is found otherwise predominantly eastward in the midtown area near Dodge street. 4.2.1.9a Percent Chinese Population o f Total Population. The census tract having the highest percentage of the Chinese immigrant population is tract 19, with 5.33%, which is near Creighton University (Figure 4.2.1.9a). A grouping of tracts around 72nd and Dodge Streets and proceeding north along 72nd Street, have varying percentages of the Chinese foreign-born population. Dodge and 72nd street is a major intersection in Omaha, with shopping centers and the University of Nebraska at Omaha nearby. 6 6 ii§iiii = iiy liiSiiiii s si si §§ § 0 5 i j? f£ f; = £ i Is £ £i t $ ^ ^ £ £ S! S Ss ft £ ?i?\ £ » ^ i ii k - 1 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin iiiii iirininn 1-4 o o o PQi o e 04 W) » * *<3 —c '3i o P-H o ! r>>1 v *, * s GO Figure 4.2.1.9a - Percentage of Chinese* Foreign-Born Population of Total Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 ^excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan 67 4.2.1.9b Percent Chinese Population o f Total Foreign-born Population. Census tracts 54 and 74.32 in Douglas County and tracts 106.15 and 102.05 in Sarpy County show that 40.5% to 53.8% of the foreign-born populations are Chinese immigrants (Figure 4.2.1.9b). The total numbers of the entire foreign-born population in these tracts are fairly low - below 55 in all tracts except census tract 54, which has a total of 84 foreign-born residents. 6 8 W rv| = * £ £ o CJ O w# <—i . o w SJ> $/} "3X C3cn ■* 3b o Q Figure 4.2.1.9b - Percentage of Chinese Foreign-Born Population of Total Foreign-Born Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 ^excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan 69 4.2.1.10 British Population There are 882 immigrants from the United Kingdom living within the study area, most notably in Bellevue located in the northeastern section of Sarpy County. 4.2.1. 10a Percent British Population o f Total Population. Immigrants from the United Kingdom are scattered throughout the study area, living in few rural tracts (Figure 4.2.1.10a). Some of the highest percentages are found in and around Bellevue and Offutt Air Force Base. The highest percentage of immigrants from the United Kingdom is in census tract 101.08 in Bellevue with 1.9%. Surrounding tracts have slightly lower percentages. 70 iiissiiissiiiiissiissssiiiisiiiie-silifili i i si is S H i I § I 5 i illllllllllllllllllimilllBBB ][ G o o o PQ o i Figure 4.2.1.10a - Percentage of British Foreign-Born Population of Total Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 71 4,2, L I Ob Percent British Population of Total Foreign-born Population, There are no census tracts where British immigrants make up more than half of the total foreign-born population (Figure 4.2.1.1 Ob). Out of 81 foreign-born residents in census tract 65.04,45.68% are from the United Kingdom. 72 O c o a • T—* G 4—» 0 c3 CQ 3 1 c p C o 5 0 Cu • t-H *S V-4 ppo 3 Figure 4.2.1.10b - Percentage of British Foreign-Born Population of Total Foreign-Born Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 73 4.2.1.11 Guatemalan Population Immigrants from Guatemala are the tenth-most numerous of the foreign-born groups in Douglas County and Sarpy County. As of 2000, 755 Guatemalan immigrants were dispersed in few tracts throughout the study area. 4.2.1.11a Percent Guatemalan Population o f Total Population. The majority of the Guatemalan foreign-born population lives east of 72nd Street in both Douglas/Sarpy County (Figure 4.2.1.11a). Several census tracts northwest of South Omaha have the highest percentage of Guatemalan immigrants. The highest percentage, 5.3%, is in census tract 39 near 31st and Pacific Streets. Other tracts where Guatemalan immigrants live are located in South Omaha along south 24th Street, and in the northern areas of North Omaha. Few tracts lie outside of these areas. 74 Sc ?• sC. v*. t S- 6 1 ~ «w O OO OOOO OO0 o '■'1 <4O c >> cd "c3 Co GO C/3 a a =5 j= Figure 4.2.1.11a - Percentage of Guatemalan Foreign-Born Population of Total Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 75 4.2.1.11b Percent Guatemalan Population o f Total Foreign-born Population. Although small in total population, there are several census tracts where the Guatemalan immigrant population makes up more than a quarter of the total foreign-born population (Figure 4.2.1.1 lb). The total number of foreign-born residents in census tracts 8 and 61.01 in North Omaha have less than 25 immigrants living in each tract. Whereas tract 43 in midtown, and tract 74.67 adjacent to 84th and Q Streets, have more than 250 total foreign-born residents living in those tracts, and the Guatemalan immigrant population still makes up more the 25% of the total foreign-born population. 76 i n c c 0 #o OQ *4—* 1 cd a P GO Q_ *<3 o V-i P-I O P-i c = 0 a QQ >> 1 p - G H SJi 0> i2 Vh bt) P-h Q 1 3 Figure 4.2.1.11b - Percentage of Guatemalan Foreign-Born Population of Total Foreign-Born Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 77 4.2.2 Interpretation of GeoDa Cluster Maps Local spatial autocorrelation analysis was performed to evaluate whether first- generation immigrant groups had a tendency to cluster. This analysis is based on the Local Moran LISA statistic (Anselin, 1995). The LISA (Local Indicators of Spatial Autocorrelation) statistic offers a measure of spatial autocorrelation for each individual geographic unit - census tracts - in the case of this study. The following steps were followed in order to begin LISA analysis in GeoDa: 1) a spatial weight file was created where the first-order queen contiguity matrix was employed; and 2) a univariate LISA analysis was administered where the percentage of each foreign-born population was chosen from the database to be assessed. In discussing the result of this LISA analysis are the LISA cluster map and significance map. Both maps were be created and analyzed for each immigrant group in the study. LISA cluster maps are shown with tracts that are shaded in red, blue, pink, or light blue. The census tracts that are shaded red represent the central tract of an area with high percentages of a foreign-born population, which also have neighboring areas having high percentages of the same immigrant population. Therefore these red tracts indicate positive spatial autocorrelation of high percentages of a foreign-born group, and would therefore signify a “cluster” of that immigrant group. The blue tracts also indicate positive spatial autocorrelation, but an autocorrelation that signifies lower percentages of a foreign-born group. Tracts colored in pink and light blue have a value that is more extreme than the values of its neighbors. Therefore, those tracts shaded in red and blue 78 imply clustering of similar values, whereas the pink and light blue tracts signify spatial outliers. A significance map will also be analyzed to determine those areas that have a significant Local Moran statistic as four different shades of green corresponding to a range of significance values: p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001, and p < 0.0001. The larger the p-value (probability value), the more likely the pattern has occurred randomly and is not quite as statistically significant. The following is an analysis of the LISA cluster maps and significance maps that were created for each immigrant population. 4.2.2.1 Mexican Population The cluster map created for the Mexican foreign-born population (Figure 4.2.2.1a) clearly shows a large clustering of census tracts with positive spatial autocorrelation of high percentages (shown in red) covering South Omaha, into the downtown and midtown areas, and extending into Sarpy County. The census tracts in South Omaha show to be statistically significant, with a p-value of .001, indicating that the settlement pattern of the Mexican foreign-born population in this area is not likely to be random (Figure 4.2.2.1b). Those areas colored in blue, representing autocorrelation of similar low populations, are primarily found in several discontinuous areas in the central portion of the study area. 79 LISA Cluster Map & Significance Map of Mexican Foreign-Born Population, Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 Figure4.2.2. la LISA Cluster Map p =0.05 p = 0.01 p =0.001 p = 0 0001 Figure 4.2.2.1 b Significance Map Figure 4.2.2.1 - LISA Cluster Map & Significance Map of Mexican Foreign-Born Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 80 4.2.2.2 Indian Population Clustering of the Indian immigrant population covers far fewer tracts than the Mexican foreign-bom population, and are only present in Douglas County (Figure 4.2.2.2a). A cluster of census tracts with high percentages of Indian immigrants is located in an area of red centered near the intersection of 132nd & Dodge Street in West Omaha. A smaller cluster is found north of Harrison Street to L Street, west of 96th Street. Both of these clusters indicating positive spatial autocorrelation of high percentages have a relatively low p-value of 0.05, indicating there is a 5% chance that this settlement pattern could have been produced randomly (Figure 4.2.2.2b). Small clusters of tracts having similar low percentages, areas shown in blue, are found along 72nd Street and further east. A cluster occurs in northeast Douglas County, another in th • • South Omaha along 24 Street, and one in Sarpy County south of Harrison Street just to the west of 72nd Street. These clusters of positive spatial autocorrelation of low percentages have the relatively low p-value of 0.05 as well. 81 LISA Cluster Map & Significance Map of Indian Foreign-Born Population, Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 Figure 4.2.2.2a LISA Cluster Map p = 0.05 p - 0.01 p = 0.001 p = 0.0001 Figure 4.2.2.2b Significance Map Figure 4.2.2.2 - LISA Cluster Map & Significance Map of Indian Foreign-Born Population by Douglas/Sarpy County’ Census Tracts, 2000 82 4.2.2.3 Vietnamese Population The LISA maps created for the Vietnamese foreign-born population only show clusters that have positive spatial autocorrelation of high percentages (Figure 4.2.2.3a). All of these clusters indicate to be statistically significant at the 0.05 level (Figure 4.2.2.3b). The largest area is centered on 96th and Harrison Streets, including tracts in both Douglas County and Sarpy County. A smaller area shows a discontinuous cluster of Vietnamese immigrants slightly to the east and one to the west of 42nd and Dodge Street. There are no blue areas showing clusters of tracts with low percentages of the Vietnamese population. 83 LISA Cluster Map & Significance Map of Vietnamese Foreign-Born Population, Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 High-High Low-Low Low-High I hgh-Low Figure 4.2.2.3a LISA Cluster Map p - 0.05 p = 0.01 p = 0.001 p - 0.0001 Figure 4.2.2.3b Significance Map Figure 4.2.2.3 - LISA Cluster Map & Significance Map of Vietnamese Foreign-Born Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 84 4.2.2.4 German Population The German foreign-born population shows clustering in several different areas (Figure 4.2.2.4a). The two larger clusters in Sarpy County, one located in Bellevue census tracts, the other in and around Offutt Air Force Base have positive spatial autocorrelation of high percentages. The most statistically significant tracts in these two clusters have p-values of 0.001 (Figure 4.2.2.4b). A much smaller cluster exists near 72nd and Dodge Streets. Tracts in blue representing clusters of positive spatial autocorrelation of low percentages are found in several locations around the study area. 85 LISA Cluster Map & Significance Map of German Foreign-Born Population, Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 High High Low-Low Low-High High-Low' Figure 4.2.2.4a LISA Cluster Map p — 0.05 p = 0.01 p = 0.001 p = 0.0001 Figure 4.2.2.4b Significance Map Figure 4.2.2A - LISA Cluster Map & Significance Map of German Foreign-Born Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 86 4.2.2.S Filipino Population Clusters with spatial autocorrelation of high percentages of Filipino populations are located in several scattered places in both counties (Figure 4.2.2.5a). A discontinuous cluster is located in southeast Sarpy County in and around Bellevue/Offutt Air Force Base. The other cluster is located in Douglas County near 108th and Blondo Streets. Both of these areas are statistically significant at the 0.05 level (Figure 4.2.2.5b). There were no clusters that indicated tracts having positive spatial autocorrelation with low percentages of the Filipino immigrant population. 87 LISA Cluster Map & Significance Map of Filipino Foreign-Born Population, Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 High-High Low-Low Low-High High-Low Figure 4.2.2.5a LISA Cluster Map p - 0.05 p — 0.01 p “ 0.001 p = 0.0001 Figure 4.2.2.5b Significance Map Figure 4.2.2.S - LISA Cluster Map & Significance Map of Filipino Foreign-Born Population by Douglas/Sarpy County’ Census Tracts, 2000 88 4.2.2.6 El Salvadoran Population The El Salvadoran immigrant population shows a cluster of positive spatial autocorrelation of high percentages in the same area as the Mexican immigrant population, although not as large a cluster (Figure 4.2.2.6a). The region covers most of South Omaha and reaches into northern areas of Bellevue. These tracts in this cluster range in significance levels, where the tracts that indicate p-values of 0.001 are mostly located in the neighborhoods west of 24th Street (Figure 4.2.2.6b). Census tracts indicating positive spatial autocorrelation of low percentages of El Salvadoran foreign- born population were not found. 89 LISA Cluster Map & Significance Map of El Salvadoran Foreign-Born Population, Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 Figure 4.2.2.6a LISA Cluster Map Figure 4.2.2.6b Significance Map Figure 4.2.2.6 - LISA Cluster Map & Significance Map of El Salvadoran Foreign-Born Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 90 4.2.2.7 Korean Population A large cluster with positive spatial autocorrelation with high percentages of the Korean foreign-born population covers several census tracts along Highway 75 in Bellevue (Figure 4.2.2.7a), which are statistically significant between the 0.05 and 0.01 level (Figure 4.2.2.7b). A much smaller cluster is located in Douglas County near 1-680 and Fort Street, with a p-value of 0.05. Areas with clusters suggesting positive spatial autocorrelation with low percentages of the Korean immigrant population are found in both North Omaha and South Omaha. 91 LISA Cluster Map & Significance Map of Korean Foreign-Born Population, Douglas/Sarpv County, 2000 High-High Low-Low Low-High High-Low Figure 4.2.2.7a LISA Cluster Map p - 0.05 P”0.01 p - 0.001 P = 0.0001 Figure 4.2.2.7b Significance Map Figure 4.2.2.7 - LISA Cluster Map & Significance Map of Korean Foreign-Born Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 92 4.2.2.8 Chinese Population Clusters of Chinese immigrants do not occur in very large areas (Figure 4.2.2.8a). Locations with positive spatial autocorrelation with high percentages of the Chinese foreign-born population are found in four different tracts along Dodge Street. Those tracts, located in the midtown district, show to be more statistically significant than the tracts found further west on Dodge Street (Figure 4.2.2.8b). 93 LISA Cluster Map & Significance Map of Chinese* Foreign-Born Population, Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 *e\cluding llong Kong & Taiwan High-High Low-Low Low-High High-Low Figure 4.2.2.8a LISA Cluster Map p = 0.05 p-O.OI p-O.OOi p - 0.0001 Figure 4.2.2.8b Significance Map Figure 4.2.2.8 - LISA Cluster Map & Significance Map of Chinese* Foreign-Born Population by Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 ‘ excluding Hong Kong & Taiwan 94 4.2.2.9 British Population Immigrants arriving from the United Kingdom have shown to cluster in the Bellevue and Offutt Air Force Base neighborhoods located in southeast Sarpy County (Figure 4.2.2.9a). Tracts being the most statistically significant are those tracts just to the east of Highway 75 (Figure 4.2.2.9b). Tracts showing an area with positive spatial autocorrelation of low percentages of the British immigrant population are located in South Omaha, and another near 72nd and Q Streets. 95 LISA Cluster Map & Significance Map of British Foreign-Born Population, Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 High-High Low-Low- Low-High High-Low Figure 4.2.2.9a LISA Cluster Map p — 0.05 p = 0.01 p = 0.001 p = 0.0001 Figure 4.2.2.9b Significance Map Figure 4.2.2.9 - LISA Cluster Map & Significance Map of British Foreign-Born Population by Douglas/Sarpy County' Census Tracts, 2(100 96 4.2.2.10 Guatemalan Population The Guatemalan foreign-born population clusters along the northern periphery of South Omaha in two very small locations (Figure 4.2.2.10a). The most statistically significant area is centered on tract 38 south of 42nd and Pacific Streets, the other north on 42nd and Dodge Streets (Figure 4.2.2.10b). 97 LISA Cluster Map & Significance Map of Guatemalan Foreign-Born Population, Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 High-High Low-Low Low-High High-Low Figure 4.2.2.10a LISA Cluster Map = 0.05 = 0.01 = 0.001 = 0.0001 Figure 4.2.2.1 Oh Significance Map Figure 4.2.2.10 - LISA Cluster Map & Significance Map of Guatemalan Foreign-Born Population by Douglas/Sarpy County* Census Tracts, 2000 98 4.2.3 Index of Dissimilarity The Index of Dissimilarity (D) was used to calculate how evenly distributed each foreign-born population was in the study area (Table 4.2.3). The D value indicates the percentage of the immigrant group’s population that would have to change their residence in order to produce a completely even distribution of their population throughout the entire study area. It is important to note, here, that since most of the immigrant populations are small in numbers, the value provided by the Index of Dissimilarity is statistically independent from the size of the populations used in the formula (Reynolds, N.A.). Values of D were relatively high (60% or more) for all but one of the immigrant groups throughout the study area. In other words, most of the foreign-born populations in the study area are relatively segregated from the rest of the non-foreign-bom population, which may be indicative of some sort of clustering. Table 4.2.3 Index of Dissimilarity Values by Immigrant ______Group Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 ______ Group D Value Guatemalan 86 . 1% El Salvadoran 80.8% Chinese 78.8% Vietnamese 68.9% Mexican 68 .2% Indian 66.2% British 62.4% Korean 60.6% Filipino 60.6% German 45.9% 99 The Guatemalan foreign-born population is the most segregated immigrant group from the rest of the study area’s total population. This means that 86.1% of the Guatemalan immigrant population would have to move from their current area of residence to produce a completely even distribution across the study area. The foreign-born group that is the next most segregated is from another Middle American country, El Salvador. The above table indicates the El Salvadoran immigrant group has a D value of 80.8%, which indicates they are a very highly segregated group. Another highly segregated group is the Chinese immigrant population, where their D value is 78.8%. The remaining immigrants (excluding the German foreign-born population) examined in this study have D values in the 60 percentile range, which is still considered very high. The only foreign-born group showing a moderate level of segregation is the German immigrant population, with a D value of 45.9%. 4.3 Evaluation of Remaining Statistical Methods 4.3.1 Correlation Analysis Table 4.3.1 below illustrates the correlation coefficients of each pair of immigrant groups, where each numerical value measures the degree of association between each group in terms of where they live in the study area. 100 Table 4.3.1 Correlation Coefficients for Pair-wise Immigrant Groups in Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 Mex. Ind. Viet. Ger. Fil. El Sal. Kor. Mexican [Too. Indian -0.07 L i.oo_ Vietnamese 0.02 -0.03 I 1.00 German 0.06 -0.05 0.07 Ll*oo_ Filipino -0.04 0.08 0.01 0-24 LJJK> El Salvadoran 0.62 -0.03 -0.03 -0.01 -0.07 |_ _ „_hQ0_. Korean -0.14 0.20 -0.03 0.15 0.36 -0.06 L l op Chinese 0.00 0.04 -0.01 -0.06 -0.07 -0.07 0.00 British -0.07 0.04 0.09 0.26 0.43 -0.06 0.31 Guatemalan 0.31 0.00 0.11 0.05 0.08 0.09 -0.05 0.17 -0.03 : __ 1.00 1 The two immigrant groups that show the highest degree of association are the Mexican and El Salvadoran foreign-born populations, with a correlation coefficient of 0.62. This value implies a relatively high positive correlation between the location of Mexican immigrants and the location of El Salvadoran immigrants. This is most likely due to the strong pull factors of South Omaha, attracting immigrant groups from the Spanish speaking countries of Middle America. The immigrant groups having the next highest degree of correlation, 0.43, are those populations from the Philippines and the United Kingdom. We see these two groups living throughout the study area, but mostly in the Bellevue area. Since there are few cultural traits that tie these two groups together, some other factor must attract these two immigrant groups to the area, possibly the presence of Offutt Air Force Base. The immigrant groups researched in this study did not have strong negative correlations among one another. The highest degree of negative correlation, -0.14, was 101 between the Mexican and Korean immigrant populations. The Korean foreign-born population resides in the central portion of the study area, but their presence is not found in high numbers in eastern Douglas County, an area where high percentages of Mexican immigrants live. The remaining pairs of immigrant groups would best be described as having neither a positive or negative relationship based on where each group lives, since their correlation coefficients are relatively low. There are no two immigrant groups that have a strong negative correlation, perhaps due to the fact that many immigrants try to find an area where housing is affordable for there income level, no matter who else may be living in that same location. 4.3.2 Regression Analysis An analysis of socio-economic characteristics using stepwise regression was the final analysis used in this study, and helps indicate those characteristics that are the best predictors of where immigrant groups settle. Table 4.3.2 provides a list of socio economic characteristics, or independent variables, that are ranked in order of which best explains the location of where each immigrant group lives. The R2 value included in the table is describing the predictor power of the regression model that was built for each immigrant group and socio-economic characteristics. Ranging from 0 to 1, the closer R2 gets to 1, the regression model has a greater ability to predict where a group may settle. 102 Table 4.3.2 Regression Results of Socio-Economic Characteristics Predicting ______Foreign-Born Residence in Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 ______ Mexican Foreisn-born E! El Salvadoran Foreisn-born B! No Education 0.639 No Education 0.272 Does Not Speak English Well 0.685 Does Not Speak English Well 0.318 High School Degree 0.692 High School Degree 0.321 Arrived between 1965 and 1984 0.698 Bachelor’s Degree 0.348 Bachelor's Degree 0.699 Rents Home 0.535 Household Income 0.702 Arrived between 1965 and 1984 0.355 Value of House 0.703 Value of House 0.355 Speaks English Well 0.703 Household Income 0.355 Arrived after 1985 0.703 Arrived after 1985 0.355 Owns Home 0.704 Arrived before 1965 0.355 Arrived before 1965 0.704 Speaks English Well 0.356 Those socio-economic characteristics present in the study area that best explain where the Mexican foreign-born population resides would be the English-language speaking ability and level of education. In the regression tables above (Table 4.3.2), those census tracts where Mexican immigrants live are shown to be associated with tracts that have a population that does not speak English well and have low levels of education. The variable contributing most to the step-wise regression model was “no education,” explaining 0.639 of the variance. In other words, areas with populations not having any type of education tended to be areas where Mexican immigrants resided. The next highest ranking variable in the model was “does not speak English well,” and, together with the “no education” variable, have a combined R2 value of 0.685. The El Salvadoran foreign-born population has a similar rank of socio-economic characteristics. The first variable represented in their table is “no education,” explaining 0.272 of the variance. 103 When the second variable, “does not speak English well,” is added, 0.318 of the variance is explained. Variables that contribute little to explaining where these two immigrant groups may live concern whether they speak English well, arrived to the United States after 1985, or arrived before 1965. The similar rankings of these two immigrant groups is logical, since that are the highest correlated groups in the study area in terms of which census tract they inhabit, as mentioned in section 4.3.1. The similar rankings of socio economic factors, as well as the higher correlations between these three immigrant groups is most likely due to the cultural characteristics South Omaha, such as the Spanish language, which may attract immigrant groups from the Spanish speaking countries. Regression analysis was performed on the remaining eight immigrant groups, as can be seen in Appendix F. These groups, however, were not significantly correlated with any of the predictor values (independent variables), and were therefore not discussed in the analysis. 104 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 5.1 Introduction This study sought to examine the settlement patterns of the top ten most numerous immigrant groups located in Douglas County and Sarpy County in Nebraska for the year of 2000. The research proposed to find those areas within these counties where each immigrant group has settled, to determine whether each immigrant group had a tendency to cluster and to what degree, and which socio-economic characteristics may play a role in determining where an immigrant has chosen to live. A previous study on the spatial distribution of immigrants in Omaha, Nebraska, was completed several years ago, but concerned immigrants from the period 1880 to 1900 (Fimple, 1989). Fimple’s research found that newly arriving immigrants settled ethnic enclaves in close proximity to the downtown area, primarily in the South Omaha district. Research on more contemporary immigrants, those arriving to the United States after 1965, has found that settlement patterns of newly arriving immigrants has changed, and is now characterized by some immigrant groups establishing homes in suburban areas (Alba & Logan, 1991; Allen & Turner, 1996; Logan, Alba, & Zhang, 2002). This new settlement pattern is due in part to the large number of immigrants that are now coming from different countries than in previous eras. Also, the United States nowadays places more emphasis on factors such as education, wealth, and professional attainment of its residents, so those immigrants arriving with higher levels of education, are wealthier, and have a professional occupation may have a better chance at being 105 incorporated in American society than the immigrants of yesteryear, and therefore will settle in different areas of they city. Coupled with the changing societal structure of America and its cities, this research shows a much different immigrant settlement geography in Douglas/Sarpy County than in the early 20th century. This final chapter presents a summary of the settlement patterns of each immigrant group studied, outlines the contribution of this research, and lastly discusses any future considerations that could further enhance the study of the settlement geography of immigrant group in Douglas/Sarpy County. 5.2 Settlement Patterns by Immigrant Group The largest population of any foreign-born group in Douglas/Sarpy County comes from Mexico. The distribution of this group is found all over the study area, but has a strong tendency to cluster in South Omaha, a primarily low-rent district long known as a gateway to immigrants and for the establishment of ethnic enclaves. Using the mapping and statistical software program, Geoda, the group of Mexican immigrants found in South Omaha proved to be an extremely significant statistical cluster, showing that recent immigrants from Mexico are inclined to settle among one another. This clustering effect follows urban settlement patterns found in previous decades, in which the immigrant group would often settle in close proximity to the central business district in areas of affordable housing. The regression analysis showed that census tracts where Mexican immigrants are found tend to have populations that have little to no education, and poor English-speaking skills. If an immigrant lacks these characteristics, they will most likely 106 not have a very high income which therefore does not allow them to live in many parts of the city. A similar pattern of settlement, although much smaller in size, is found among El Salvadoran and Guatemalan immigrant groups, who are also strongly represented in and near South Omaha. Not only can this be seen on the various maps that were produced, but the correlation analysis suggested that the El Salvadoran and Guatemalan immigrant populations had a tendency to be located where the Mexican foreign-born population resided. Similar socio-economic pull factors are involved with all three immigrant groups. The remaining foreign-born groups examined in this research are present in much smaller numbers, and exhibit less clustered settlement patterns. These groups do not follow the typical pattern of settling in low-rent areas in close proximity to the central business district as proposed by Park and Burgess (1925) at the turn of the 20th century, but are settling in dispersed areas throughout Douglas/Sarpy County. Due to the small numbers of immigrants on each group, it is much more difficult to determine through regression analysis the pull factors which may have brought an immigrant to live in a specific location in the study area. It can be concluded, however, that they are not settling in the inner city where recently arriving immigrants have been known to settle. Several different immigrant groups have chosen to live in and near Bellevue, Nebraska, located in Sarpy County: the Filipinos, Koreans, British, and Germans. This could possibly be because of the location of Offutt Air Force Base in Bellevue, and the fact that the armed forces may attract a foreign-born population for various reasons. 107 Other immigrant groups settling in scattered areas of the city are Indians, Chinese, and Vietnamese. The foreign-born population from India resides in the suburbs of the study area. Many Indian immigrants are arriving with higher incomes and with a better education, than immigrants at the turn of the century; therefore, are able to afford living in the higher priced suburbs. Another contributing factor is that many Indian immigrants are able to speak English, and are therefore considered more assimilated than those immigrants arriving to the area that cannot speak English. The Vietnamese have also shown to settle far from the central business district, and are found to cluster in an area where apartments are abundant. The Chinese immigrant population is present in the midtown area along Dodge Street near the major universities in Omaha, and could possibly be international students and faculty living close to campus. 5.3 Contribution of Research For a city that was initially settled mostly by Europeans, the recent immigrants largely from non-European countries, arriving in a changed urban and societal setting, have altered the settlement geography of Omaha, Nebraska. Due to the economic attainment of many newcomers to the country, many immigrant groups are able to settle in more prosperous areas than previous immigrants, and therefore live further away from the inner city. The transportation infrastructure throughout the city has also improved since the beginning of the century, so immigrants are able widen their geographic mobility. The resulting settlement pattern of these new immigrants is therefore much different than in the past. While immigrants still do decide to settle in areas of a city 108 historically known for its immigrant communities, particularly just outside the central business district, those immigrants that have chosen not to live in these areas are creating more diverse suburbs within a city. Although these immigrants are selecting to live in the suburbs, many are still showing a slight tendency to cluster among members from their own country of origin, indicating that ethnic communities may be an important part of where immigrants decide to live, no matter what the economic status of an area may be. Perhaps the most helpful contribution provided by this study to the understanding of contemporary immigrant settlement patterns is the implementation of GeoDa to evaluate clustering at the local level. In the past, statistical measures of spatial autocorrelation looked at global patterns of clustering in the geographic data, and was not able to pick up areas of local clustering. The development of Local Indicators of Spatial Autocorrelation (LISA), which locates local clusters within the data, have become of utmost importance because the degree of spatial autocorrelation is not always uniform over an entire study area. Due to the small numbers of some immigrant groups present in the study area, a global measure of spatial autocorrelation would have been impractical to use when determining whether these immigrant groups were inclined to cluster. By using GeoDa and its LISA capability, local clusters of these immigrant groups were able to be identified. 5.4 Future Considerations Immigration has become a very significant topic because it affects the entire country - its economy and culture, including the structure of cities. This nation has been 109 built because of, and has changed due to, its immigrant population, and understanding where they live, and why, can give us a better understanding of the changing urban structure, and perhaps tell us a bit more about the United States and why immigrants choose to move from their homeland to this country. This research could further be expanded by taking a more in-depth look at each immigrant group and attempting to better determine why they have chosen to live where they do within Douglas County and Sarpy County. Further research into the settlement patterns of contemporary immigrants would provide greater knowledge of the city structure and the motives that different immigrant populations may have in selecting a specific destination to call home. 110 APPENDIX A Maps of Foreign-Born Population Using Class Categories of 2, 3, 4, and 5, Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 Ill Percent Mexican Foreign-Born of Total Population Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 ''Iry, i . .. -j yt? rH~r • tX V o)jrFt' «-4v W 4- -AT •{ ? ,- x /. t .. 1 y Percent Mexican N Pe rcent Mexican M S 10.06%-33,03? 15.22% -3.V0V 0 % - 1 0 /6 5 % 3.66%- 1521% A 0 % . 3 65% 0 5 10 20 Miks h - ---r -| 1 1 „ =' v — -V | r rtrrri ri 55 - / 1: 1 j —-5i p riif^• -* .X ;T y* Percent Mexican 15.22%- 33.03% ■B ”.si%-132i"» 15% - 7.80*4 0.68% . 2.54% 0% -0.67% Source: US Census Bureau C lassification Method leak* A1 - Percent Mexican Foreign-Born Population of Total Population, Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 112 Percent Indian Foreign-Born of Total Population Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 — L x_Z W I JV”" N // Percent Indian Percent Indian H 0.92*.-727°.. m [ 3.09% - 727“. 0*. - Cl.91% A 0% . o. 5o*o 0 10 20 Miles -J—I—t- H—I—I—I—I ■» , jTjsg ~y«jj ) y Percent Indian Percent Indian H ?,€8%-7.27% H I 3.09*. - 7.27*0 t .00% *3.08% I S5®. - 3*.08% ~§ 0.~4“o - 1,84% 0®o - 0.2S* , 022% - 0.7.TX 0*.-02l% Source; US Census Bureau C lav.itkaUon N1« thod Jenk> A2 - Percent Indian Foreign-Boni Population of Total Population, Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts. 2000 113 Percent Vietnamese Foreign-Born of Total Population Douglas/Sarpy County; 2000 Percent Vietnamese 20 Miles ■ i I Percent Vietnamese Percent Vietnam ese flHI l.Srt‘.-3.46’o SHE " ss1.. t.85% 0.4W. - 0.87% _ o,K%.o,m 9“.-0.10% Source: US Census Bureau Classification MethoJ Jenks A3 - Percent Vietnamese Foreign-Born Population of Total Population, Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts. 2000 114 Percent German Foreign-Born of Total Population Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 N Pereont German Percent German 0-3 0*u- 1.37% 0*. - 0.2V*. A 0 5 10 1 - t <- ■! h Percent Gwman Source US Census Bureau Classification M ethod Icnk-. A4 - Percent German Foreign-Born Population of Total Population, Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 115 Percent Filipino Foreign-Born of Total Population Douglas/Sarpv County, 2000 Percent Filipino Percent Filipino W tM 0.45* * - LS?*4 ■ ■ 0.64*-.- I.87% 0°, . 0.44''* 0.19%-063% 0%-Q.|8% 20 Miles Perceat Fifipine Percent Filipino 1.03**- 1.87% 1.03%-1.87*. 0.52%- 1.02% £ 0.64% -1.025 . 0.15% - 0.51% ] 0.36%-0.63% Q%-0.14% G. 12%-0.3 5% 0% - 0. 11% Source: US Census Bureau Classification Mel hod Jenks A5 — Percent Filipino Foreign-Born Population of Total Population, Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts 2000 116 Percent El Salvadoran Foreign-Born of Total Population Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 K'rccnl El SahaJcran sm P c r c h E l Sal\ j d u m i Source US Census Bureau Classification Method. JcuLs A6 — Percent £1Salvadoran Foreign-Born Population of Total Population, Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 117 Percent Korean Foreign-Born of Total Population Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 Percent Korean Percent Korean B fll 0.44%- 1.S7S B fll 0.85%- 1.87% J 0% - 0.43% 0.2 5% - O.S4% (>*.-0.24% 20 Miles H—I—I Percent Korean Percent Korean 3.04% - 1.87% 12 0 49%-0.Q7% 039% - 1.03% 3 0.15%-0.48*0 0.30% - 0.58% ‘ 0%-0.14% 0.11% -0.29% J 00.-0.10*. Source1 US Census Bureau Classification McllioJ k uks A7 - Percent Korean Foreign-Born Population of Total Population, Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 118 Percent Chinese* Foreign-Born of Total Population Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 *cxc fading Hong Konc Taiwan h J T~y~ rj j . £ l . -LLi.1^ _ i d p c t r t k f — < j jH i-iJsi lia C ilL N Percent Chinese Percent Chinese ■ i - 5. »°u S 9 R t ‘»5"-- OH A W* - 10 20 Miles I 1-- 1-- 1-- 1--1-- 1-- 1--1 rHPS'S-A . J ! ¥*•'*-*. i . B V j Percent Chinese Percent C hinese H | 28W-.-5JJ*- H R 2.SX*- - 5,X>. i22*~-X87*. Si 122*..- 287-. 1 ^ - ^ 3 O..V>%- I.2I-, |o.n^..ft.ssv. r O H - O . I 5 H Source: US Census Bureau Classification Method Jenks A8 - Percent Chinese Foreign-Born Population of Total Population, Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 119 Percent British Foreign-Born of Total Population Douglas/Sarpy County, 20(10 : . > r M r \ JJ Percent British N Percent British B H 0 4 19s» - 1.93% H H t 0.59% - 1.93% ] m .- o.4o» . 0.17%-0.5X% A 0% - 0. 16% 10 2B Miles -i—i—b X Percent British Percent British mm 0-59% - 1.93% ■ 0 3 9 % -1.93% 9 n% . 0.5?.% 1 1 0.41* . - 033% 0.11%-0.32% | 0.26% . 0.40% 0 %-0 .10% 1 0.07% -0,23% o% - o.o6% Source: US Census Bureau Classification Medxxl .k-nks A9 - Percent British Foreign-Born Population of Total Population, Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 120 Percent Guatemalan Foreign-Born of Total Population Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 k r w H ^ r i' ■ Percent iluatemalan N FVrceni i iiu tc n w b n ■■ I t7S.-5.3Wi I .f e ~ . - J 30% v-.- 1 V.-. 0.35%. i**.% «•..« 34* A10 20 Miles I 1-- 1---1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1 s i I , x . C !t' a ..j— } A h VlgfP>^ / I rh*1 - fff'-d rfV: ■ t-fj-A-f..*1' ■ 1 Lrr. ..fnijji-, -i pB‘ F'etveat (, Source I IS Census Bureau Classification Method Jen Is A 10 - Percent Guatemalan Foreign-Born Population of Total Population, Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 121 APPENDIX B Total Population for Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 Appendix B - Total Population for Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 21100 Census Total Census Total Census Total Tract Pop. Tract Pop. T ract Pop. 2 4,026 . 65.05 2,068 ' : 74.56 2,393 3 2,618 65.06 3,299 74.57 2,759 4 2,386 ' 66.02 5,349 74.58 3,192 5 1,652 66.03 2,473 74.59 2,980 6 1,55.1 66.04 3,977 74.6 2,305 7 1.409 67.01 3,904 : :' ■ : :: ' - .1 : 74.61 3,179 8 2,011 67.03 3,137 74.62 5,042 11 2,894 67.04 1,713 74.63 4,888 12 2,643 68.03 2,094 74.64 2,794 16 2,684 68.04 1,524 74.65 3,856 18 3,011 68.05 3,326 74.66 6,220 19 1,558 68.06 2,907 74.67 5,107 20 3,145 69.03 2,500 74.68 2,532 2! 2,277 69.04 3,954 75.04 3,178 22 1,401 i: :: 69.05 1,881 ; 75.05 2,553 23 2,305 ■ 69.06 3,182 75.06 1,964 24 3,353 : : 70.01 3,153 75.07 2,419 25 2,580 70.02 3,424 75.08 1,981 26 2,313 70.03 2,331 75.09 3,402 27 2,440 iiitaif : 71.01 3,110 75.1 2,253 28 3,069 71.02 3,554 101.03 4,573 29 5,038 73.03 2,916 101.04 2,086 30 5,998 73.04 1,592 101.05 3,111 31 3,139 73.0T 3,337 101.06 4,308 ...... : : 32 2,403 73.08 1,812 ; : 101.07 3,012 33 2,210 : i ' - ...... 73.09 2,175 : : 101.08 3,468 34.01 3,425 : : 73.1 2,916 102.03 2,510 34.02 2,533 73.1! 2,841 102.04 3,194 35 4,326 : i: ;i;i; 73.12 1.817 102.05 2,679 36 4,432 73.13 3,187 102.06 3,894 37 2,542 74.05 2,042 102.07 1.498 38 4,489 74.06 5,355 : 102.08 1,871 39 2,942 74.07 3,195 103.02 1,460 ;; 40 2,994 74.08 4,311 103.04 7,468 42 1,556 74.09 2.461 104.01 2,976 43 2,928 74.24 2,963 104.02 4,401 44 1,565 74.29 3,329 105.01 4,653 45 3,069 74.3 3,326 105.02 4,554 46 2,419 74.31 3,519 105.03 3,685 47 2,788 74.32 2,923 106.05 4,598 48 4,423 74.33 4,459 106.07 4,545 49 4,627 74.34 3,472 ■/ ' 106.1 4,044 50 4,130 74.35 3,581 106.11 5,569 51 2,853 74.36 4,467 106.12 6,482 52 1,822 74.37 5,291 106.13 2,327 53 2,158 74.38 1,975 106.14 5,115 54 3,382 74.39 4,957 106.15 2,032 55 5,211 74.4 1,694 106.16 2,178 56 4,166 74.41 3,074 106.17 5.991 57 4,445 74.42 5,354 106.18 2,937 58 4,863 : 74.43 3,551 106.19 3,881 59.01 2,654 74.44 4,291 106.2 2,526 59.02 2,228 74.45 2,530 107.01 1,761 60 4,342 74.46 4,531 ■ 107.02 3,208 61.01 2,553 74.47 3,026 Total: 586,180 61.02 4,197 ' 74.48 2,872 62.02 5,166 74.49 2,047 63.01 2,855 74.5 3,820 63.02 3,968 : : 74.51 4,807 63.03 2,928 74.52 3,817 64 5,052 74.53 3,755 65.03 2.644 74.54 4,193 65.04 3,703 74.55 1,655 123 APPENDIX C Total Foreign-Born Population & Percent Foreign-Born Population, Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 124 Appendix C - Total Foreign-Born Population & Percent Foreign-Born Population for Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 Total Total Total % % % Census Foreign- Census F oreign- Census Foreign- Foreign- Foreign- Foreign- T ract Born T ract Born Tract Born Born Born Born Pop. Pop. Pop. 2 5 0.1% 65.05 55 2.7% 74.56 57 2.4% 3 46 1.8% 65.06 68 2 .1% 74.57 136 4.9% 4 234 9.8% 66.02 249 4.7% 74.58 475 14.9% 5 17 1.0% 66.03 112 4.5% 74.59 61 2.0% 6 49 3.2% 66.04 134 3.4% 74.6 79 3.4% 7 28 2.0% 67.01 280 7.2% 74.61 121 3.8% 8 15 0.7% 67.03 217 6.9% 74.62 88 1.7% 11 90 3.1% 67.04 56 3.3% 74.63 141 2.9% 12 189 7.2% 68.03 36 1.7% 74.64 62 2.2% 16 224 8.3% 68.04 109 7.2% 74.65 177 4.6% 18 92 3.1% 68.05 127 3.8% 74.66 366 5.9% 19 440 28.2% 68.06 258 8.9% 74.67 255 5.0% 20 889 28.3% 69.03 45 1.8% 74.68 58 2.3% 21 424 18.6% 69.04 151 3.8% 75.04 43 1.4% 22 99 7.1% 69.05 98 5.2% 75.05 53 2.1% 23 184 8 .0% 69.06 41 1.3% 7506 31 1.6% 24 804 24.0% 70.01 252 8 .0% 75.07 0 0.0% 25 263 10.2% 70.02 137 4.0% 75.08 17 0.9% 26 849 36.7% 70.03 95 4.1% 75.09 52 1.5% 27 728 29.8% 71.01 105 3.4% 75.1 46 2.0% 28 770 25.1% 71.02 242 6.8% 101.03 134 2.9% 29 1,166 23.1% 73.03 64 2.2% 101.04 163 7.8% 30 715 11.9% 73.04 6 0.4% 101.05 144 4.6% 31 204 6.5% : 73.07 87 2.6% 101.06 300 7.0% 32 735 30.6% : 73.08 62 3.4% 101.07 187 6.2% 33 664 30.0% 73.09 91 4.2% 101.08 372 10.7% 34.01 262 7.6% 73.1 72 2.5% 102.03 112 4.5% 34.02 39 1.5% 73.11 50 1.8% 102.04 154 4.8% 35 168 3.9% 73.12 144 7.9% 102.05 39 1.5% 36 86 1.9% 73.13 59 1.9% 102.06 148 3.8% 37 73 2.9% 74.05 57 2.8% 102.07 91 6.1% 38 622 13.9% 74.06 151 2.8% 102.08 42 2.2% 39 984 33.4% 74.07 242 7.6% 103.02 45 3.1% 40 737 24.6% 74.08 230 5.3% 103.04 282 3.8% 42 78 5.0% 74.09 112 4.6% 104.01 133 4.5% 43 363 12.4% 74.24 171 5.8% 104.02 324 7.4% 44 62 4.0% 74.29 21 0.6% 105.01 258 5.5% 45 28 0.9% 74.3 22 0.7% 105.02 186 4.1% 46 278 11.5% 74.31 120 3.4% 105.03 95 2.6% 47 126 4.5% 74.32 54 1.8% 106.05 209 4.5% 48 209 4.7% 74.33 190 4.3% 106.07 102 2.2% 49 522 11.3% 74.34 147 4.2% 106.1 74 1.8% 50 610 14.8% 74.35 114 3.2% 106.11 77 1.4% 51 456 16.0% 74.36 213 4.8% 106.12 84 1.3% 52 16 0.9% 74.37 243 4.6% 106.13 47 2.0% 53 48 2.2% 74.38 77 3.9% 106.14 150 2.9% 54 84 2.5% 74.39 265 5.3% 106.15 46 2.3% 55 292 5.6% 74.4 54 3.2% 106.16 52 2.4% 56 102 2.4% 74.41 150 4.9% 106.17 96 1.6% 57 42 0.9% 74.42 114 2.1% 106.18 100 3.4% 58 139 2.9% 74.43 137 3.9% 106.19 82 2.1% 59.0! 63 2.4% 74.44 291 6.8% 106.2 127 5.0% 59.02 31 1.4% 74.45 192 7.6% 107.01 16 0.9% 60 159 3.7% 74.46 51 1.1% 107.02 24 0.7% 61.01 24 0.9% 74.47 52 1.7% Total: 31,913 5.4% 61.02 129 3.1% 74.48 105 3.7% 62.02 120 2.3% 74.49 43 2.1% 63.01 117 4.1% 74.5 35 0.9% 1 i 63.02 89 2.2% 74.51 90 1.9% m iiii 63.03 56 1.9% 74.52 29 0.8% 64 285 5.6% 74.53 120 3.2% 65.03 22 0.8% 74.54 122 2.9% 65.04 81 2.2% 74.55 59 3.6% 125 APPENDIX D Total Population & Percent Population for Each Immigrant Group, Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 126 Appendix D1 - Total Mexican Population and Percent Mexican of Total Population for Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2(101) Census Mexican % Census Mexican % Census Mexican % Tract Pop. Mexican Tract Pop. Mexican T ract Pop. Mexican 2.00 0 0.0% 65.05 0 0.0% 74.56 0 0.0% 3.00 42 1.6% 65.06 18 0.5% 74.57 47 1.7% 4.00 186 7.8% 66.02 9 0.2% 74.58 45 1.4% 5.00 0 0.0% 66.03 9 0.4% 74.59 47 1.6% 6.00 30 1.9% 66.04 55 1.4% 74.60 0 0.0% 7.00 0 0.0% 67.01 0 0.0% 74.61 0 0.0% 8.00 0 0.0% 67.03 31 1.0% 74.62 0 0.0% 11.00 16 0.6% 67.04 0 0.0% 74.63 6 0.1% j 12.00 35 1.3% 68.03 0 0.0% 74.64 0 0.0% 16.00 4 0.1% 68.04 0 0.0% 74.65 97 2.5% 18.00 50 1.7% 68.05 0 0.0% 74.66 127 2.0% 19.00 292 18.7% 68.06 0 0.0% 74.67 0 0.0% 20.00 828 26.3% 69.03 0 0.0% 74.68 0 0.0% 21.00 280 12.3% 69.04 0 0.0% 75.04 6 0.2% | 22.00 11 0.8% ■ 69.05 9 0.5% 75.05 0 0.0% 23.00 117 5.1% 69.06 0 0.0% 75.06 23 1.2% 24.00 510 15.2% 70.01 47 1.5% 75.07 0 0.0% 25.00 173 6.7% 70.02 9 0.3% 75.08 4 0.2% 26.00 764 33.0% 70.03 85 3.6% 75.09 0 0.0% 27.00 657 26.9% 71.01 0 0.0% 75.10 31 1.4% 2R.00 722 23.5% 71.02 117 3.3% 101.03 0 0.0% 29.00 663 13.2% 73.03 0 0.0% 101.04 69 3.3% | 30.00 524 8.7% 73.04 0 0.0% 101.05 0 0.0% 31.00 194 6.2% 73.07 15 0.4% 101.06 0 0.0% 32.00 642 26.7% 73.08 0 0.0% 101.07 68 2.3% | 33.00 487 22.0% 73.09 0 0.0% 101.08 0 0.0% 34.01 118 3.4% 73.10 8 0.3% 102.03 0 0.0% 34.02 33 1.3% 73.11 0 0.0% 102.04 0 0.0% 35.00 24 0.6% 73.12 0 0.0% 102.05 11 0.4% 36.00 8 0 .2% 73.13 0 0.0% 102.06 0 0.0% 37.00 6 0.2% 74.05 2 0.1% 102.07 0 0.0% 38.00 451 10.0% 74.06 0 0.0° i 102.08 0 0.0% 39.00 698 23.7% 74.07 16 0.5% 103.02 0 0.0% 40.00 561 18.7% 74.08 44 1.0% 103.04 18 0.2% 42.00 53 3.4% 74.09 10 0.4% 104.01 7 0.2% 43.00 27 0.9% 74.24 7 0.2% 104.02 67 1.5% 44 00 20 1.3% 74.29 5 0.2% 105.01 137 2.9% 45.00 3 0.1% 74.30 11 0.3% 105.02 25 0.5% j 46.00 0 0.0% 74.31 0 0.0% 105.03 0 0.0% 47.00 0 0.0% 74.32 0 0.0% 106.05 24 0.5% 48.00 37 0.8% 74.33 0 0.0% 106.07 0 0.0% 49.00 220 4.8% 74.34 43 1.2% 106.10 0 0.0% 50.00 269 6.5% 74.35 0 0.0% 106.11 23 0.4% 51.00 138 4.8% 74.36 41 0.9% 106.12 0 0.0% 52.00 0 0.0% 74.37 18 0.3% 106.13 11 0.5% 53.00 41 1.9% !■ 74.38 7 0.4% 106.14 54 1.1% 54.00 34 1.0% 74.39 18 0.4% 106.15 0 0.0?i 55.00 12 0.2% 74.40 7 0.4% 106.16 19 0.9% 56.00 5 0.1% 74.41 0 0.0% 106.17 6 0.1% i 57.00 24 0.5% 74.42 0 0.0% 106.18 0 0.0% 58.00 84 1.7% 74.43 0 0.0% 106.19 17 0.4% 59.01 31 1.2% : 74.44 42 1.0% 106.20 31 1.2% 59.02 22 1.0% 74.45 17 0.7% 107.01 0 0.0% 60.00 0 0.0% 74.46 5 0.1% 107.02 3 0.1% 61.01 0 0.0% 74.47 0 0.0% Totals: 12098 2.1% 61.02 65 1.5% 74.48 11 0.4% 62.02 60 1.2% 74.49 0 0.0% 63.01 10 0.4% 74.50 11 0.3% 63.02 0 0.0% 74.51 0 0.0% 63.03 0 0.0% 74.52 0 0.0% 64.00 43 0.9% 74.53 0 0.0% 65.03 0 0.0% 74.54 24 0.6% 65.04 0 0.0% 74.55 0 0.0% Appendix 1)2 - Total Indian Population and Percent Indian of Total Population for Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 Census Indian Census Indian Census Indian % Indian % Indian % Indian Tract Pop. Tract Pop. Tract Pop. 2.00 0 0.0% 65.05 0 0.0% 74.56 0 0.0% 3.00 0 0.0% 65.06 0 0.0% 74.57 9 0.3% 4.00 0 0.0% 66.02 30 0.6% 74.58 232 7.3% 5.00 0 0.0% ■ 66.03 7 0.3% 74.59 0 0.0% 6.00 0 0.0% 66.04 0 0.0% 74.60 0 0.0% 7.00 0 0.0% 67.01 12 0.3% 74.61 23 0.7% 8.00 0 0 .0% 67.03 31 1.0% 74.62 0 0.0% 11.00 6 0.2% 67.04 0 0.0% 74.63 0 0.0% 12.00 0 0.0% 68.03 0 0.0% 74.64 0 0.0% 16.00 31 1.2% 68.04 16 1.0% 74.65 0 0.0? i 18.00 10 0.3% 68.05 21 0.6% 74.66 49 0.8% 19.00 5 0.3% 68.06 15 0.5% 74.67 0 0.0?i> 20.00 0 0.0% 69.03 0 0.0% 74.68 0 0.0?o 21.00 0 0.0% 69.04 29 0.7% 75.04 0 0.0% 22.00 0 0.0% 69.05 58 3.1% 75.05 0 0.0% 23.00 0 0.0% 69.06 0 0.0% 75.06 0 0.0% 24.00 0 0.0% 70.01 28 0.9% 75.07 0 0.0? i 25.00 0 0.0% 70.02 9 0.3% 75.08 0 0.0% 26.00 0 0.0% 70.03 0 0.0% 75.09 0 0.0?o 27.00 0 0.0% 71.01 16 0.5% 75.10 0 0.0% 28.00 0 0.0% 71.02 0 0.0% 101.03 0 0.0% 29.00 0 0.0% 73.03 0 0.0% 101.04 0 0.0% 30.00 6 0.1% 73.04 0 0.0% 101.05 3 0.1% 31.00 0 0.0% 73.07 3 0.1% 101.06 13 0.3% 32.00 0 0.0% 73.08 27 1.5% 101.07 0 0.0% 33.00 0 0.0% 73.09 0 0.0% 101.08 0 0 .0 ? Q 34.01 • 0 0.0% 73.10 13 0.4% 102.03 0 0.0% 34.02 0 0.0% 73.11 12 0.4% 102.04 7 0.2% 35.00 13 0.3% 73.12 0 0.0% 102.05 0 0.0?'o 36.00 0 0.0% 73.13 7 0.2% 102.06 0 0.0?'o 37.00 0 0.0% . 74.05 0 0.0% 102.07 21 1.4% 38.00 0 0.0% 74.06 24 0.4% 102.08 0 0.0?'o 39.00 0 0.0% 74.07 0 0.0% 103.02 0 0.0?i 40.00 25 0.8% 74.08 0 0.0% 103.04 0 0.0% 42.00 25 1.6% 74.09 0 0.0° « 104.01 0 0.0?o 43.00 36 1.2% 74.24 37 1.2% 104.02 0 0 .0 ? O 44.00 17 1.1% 74.29 0 0.0% 105.01 23 0.5% 45.00 0 0.0% 74.30 0 0.0% 105.02 0 0.0?'o 46.00 27 1.1% 74.31 32 0.9% 105.03 0 0.0?o 47.00 6 0.2% 74.32 0 0.0% 106.05 0 0.0% 48.00 0 0.0% 74.33 18 0.4% 106.07 6 0.1% 49.00 0 0.0% 74.34 50 1.4% 106.10 0 0.0% 50.00 13 0.3% 74.35 0 0.0% 106.11 6 0.1% 51.00 5 0.2% 74.36 16 0.4% 106.12 0 0.0% 52.00 0 0.0% 74.37 64 1.2% 106.13 0 0.0?o 53.00 0 0.0% 74.38 19 1.0% 106.14 0 0.0?o 54.00 0 0.0% 74.39 36 0.7% 106.15 0 0.0?o 55.00 19 0.4% 74.40 0 0.0% 106.16 0 0 .0 ? O 56.00 22 0.5% 74.41 20 0.7% 106.17 0 0.0?0 57.00 0 0.0% 74.42 42 0.8% 106.18 0 0.0% 58.00 0 0.0% 74.43 29 0.8% 106.19 0 0.0?i 59.01 10 0.4% 74.44 79 1.8% 106.20 33 1.3% 59.02 0 0.0% 74.45 0 0.0% 107.01 0 0.0% 60.00 0 0.0% 74.46 0 0.0% 107.02 0 0.0% 61.01 0 0.0% 74.47 0 0.0% Total 1,546 0.3% 61.02 0 0.0% 74.48 0 0.0% 62.02 0 0.0% 74.49 6 0.3% 63.01 0 0.0% 74.50 0 0.0% 63.02 0 0.0% 74.51 9 0.2% 63.03 0 0.0% 74.52 0 0.0% 64.00 0 0.0% 74.53 0 0.0% 65.03 0 0.0% 74.54 17 0.4% 65.04 0 0.0% 74.55 13 0.8% 128 Appendix D3 - Total Vietnamese Population and Percent Vietnamese of Total Population for Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 Census Viet. Census Viet. Census Viet. % Viet. % Viet. % Viet. Tract Pop. Tract Pop. Tract Pop. 2.00 0 0.0% 65.05 0 0.0% 74.56 0 0.0% 3.00 4 0.2% 65.06 0 0.0% 74.57 24 0.9% 4.00 0 0.0% 66.02 13 0.2% 74.58 0 0.0% 5.00 0 0.0% 66.03 0 0.0% 74.59 0 0.0% 6.00 0 0.0% 66.04 8 0 .2% 74.60 0 0.0% 7.00 0 0.0% 67.01 15 0.4% 74.61 0 0.0% 8.00 0 0.0% 67.03 0 0.0% 74.62 9 0.2% 11.00 0 0.0% 67.04 0 0.0% 74.63 72 1.5% 12.00 0 0.0% 68.03 0 0.0% 74.64 0 0.0% 16.00 21 0.8% 68.04 0 0.0% 74.65 0 0.0% 18.00 0 0.0% 68.05 0 0.0% 74.66 42 0.7% 19.00 0 0.0% 68.06 0 0.0% 74.67 62 1.2% 20.00 0 0.0% 69.03 0 0.0% 74.68 0 0.0% 21.00 0 0.0% 69.04 0 0.0% 75.04 0 0.0% 22.00 0 0.0% 69.05 0 0.0% 75.05 0 0.0% 23.00 •0 0.0% 69.06 0 0.0% 75.06 0 0.0% 24.00 54 1.6% 70.01 0 0.0% 75.07 0 0.0% 25.00 0 0.0% 70.02 0 0.0% 75.08 0 0.0% 26.00 0 0.0% 70.03 0 0.0% 75.09 0 0.0% 27.00 0 0.0% 71.01 0 0.0% 75.10 0 0.0% 28.00 0 0.0% 71.02 0 0.0% 101.03 0 0.0% 29.00 0 0.0% 73.03 0 0.0% 101.04 2 0.1% 30.00 0 0.0% 73.04 0 0.0% 101.05 0 0.0% 31.00 0 0.0% 73.07 10 0.3% 101.06 0 0.0% 32.00 0 0.0% 73.08 0 0.0% 101.07 0 0.0% 33.00 0 0.0% 73.09 0 0.0% 101.08 0 0.0% 34.01 62 1.8% 73.10 0 0.0% 102.03 0 0.0% 34.02 0 0.0% 73.11 9 0.3% 102.04 27 0.8 % 35.00 6 0.1% v ; : 73.12 43 2.4% 102.05 0 0.0% 36.00 0 0.0% 73.13 0 0.0% 102.06 20 0.5% 37.00 47 1.8% 74.05 0 0.0% 102.07 0 0.0% 38.00 0 0.0% 74.06 19 0.4% 102.08 0 0.0% 39.00 0 0.0% 74.07 8 0.3% 103.02 5 0.3% 40.00 0 0.0% 74.08 0 0.0% 103.04 0 0.0% 42.00 0 0.0% 74.09 30 1.2% 104.01 0 0.0% 43.00 0 0.0% 74.24 0 0.0% 104.02 0 0.0% 44.00 0 0.0% 74.29 0 0.0% 105.01 0 0.0% 45.00 11 0.4% 74.30 0 0.0% 105.02 11 0.2% 46.00 0 0.0% 74.31 0 0.0% 105.03 0 0.0% 47.00 0 0.0% 74.32 0 0.0% 106.05 79 1.7% 48.00 0 0.0% 74.33 0 0.0% 106.07 0 0.0% 49.00 160 3.5% 74.34 0 0.0% 106.10 0 0.0% 50.00 31 0.8% 74.35 0 0.0% 106.11 0 0.0% 51.00 14 0.5% 74.36 0 0.0% 106.12 0 0.0% 52.00 0 0.0% 74.37 0 0.0% 106.13 36 1.5% 53.00 0 0.0% 74.38 0 0.0% 106.14 27 0.5% 54.00 0 0.0% 74.39 14 0.3% 106.15 0 0.0% 55.00 72 1.4% 74.40 0 0.0% 106.16 0 0.0% 56.00 20 0.5% 74.41 14 0.5% 106.17 30 0.5% 57.00 0 0.0% 74.42 0 0.0% 106.18 9 0.3% 58.00 28 0.6% /_ ■ 74.43 20 0.6% 106.19 10 0.3% 59.01 0 0.0% 74.44 12 0.3% 106.20 0 0.0% 59.02 0 0.0% 74.45 0 0.0% 107.01 0 0.0% 60.00 24 0.6% 74.46 0 0.0% 107.02 0 0.0% 61.01 0 0.0% 74.47 0 0.0% Total 1.288 0.2% 61.02 0 0.0% 74.48 0 0.0% 62.02 9 0.2% 74.49 8 0.4% 63.01 0 0.0% 74.50 0 0.0% 63.02 0 0.0% 74.51 12 0.2% 63.03 16 0.5% 74.52 0 0.0% 64.00 0 0.0% 74.53 0 0.0% 65.03 0 0.0% 74.54 0 0.0% 65.04 9 0.2% 74.55 0 0.0% 129 Appendix 1)4 - Total German Population and Percent German of Total Population for Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 Census German % Census German % Census German % Tract Pop. German Tract Pop. German Tract Pop. German 2.00 5 0.1% 65.05 0 0.0% 74.56 5 0.2% 3.00 0 0.0% 65.06 5 0.2% 74.57 16 0.6% 4.00 12 0.5% 66.02 27 0.5% : 74.58 0 0.0% 5.00 6 0.4% 66.03 0 0.0% 74.59 0 0.0% 6.00 4 0.3% 66.04 7 0.2% 74.60 0 0.0% 7.00 0 0.0% 67.01 26 0.7% 74.61 0 0.0% 8.00 9 0.4% 67.03 0 0.0% 74.62 10 0.2% 11.00 0 0.0% 67.04 0 0.0% 74.63 6 0.1% 12.00 0 0.0% 68.03 6 0.3% 74.64 0 0.0% 16,00 0 0.0% 68.04 0 0.0% 74.65 0 0.0% 18.00 0 0.0% 68.05 0 0.0% 74.66 13 0.2% 19.00 0 0.0% 68.06 0 0.0% 74.67 13 0.3% 20.00 4 0.1% 69.03 22 0.9% 74.68 0 0.0% 21.00 7 0.3 % 69.04 0 0.0% 75.04 10 0.3% 22.00 0 0.0% 69.05 0 0.0% 75.05 11 0.4% 23.00 6 0.3% 69.06 0 0.0% 75.06 0 0.0% 24.00 0 0.0% 70.01 0 0.0% 75.07 0 0.0% 25.00 8 0.3% 70.02 7 0.2% 75.08 0 0.0% 26.00 0 0.0% 70.03 4 0.2% 75.09 32 0.9% 27.00 10 0.4% 71.01 7 0.2% 75.10 0 0.0% 28.00 6 0.2% 71.02 14 0.4% 101.03 25 0.5% 29.00 19 0.4% 73.03 0 0.0% 101.04 7 0.3% 30.00 57 1.0% 73.04 6 0.4% 101.05 8 0.3% 31.00 3 0.1% 73.07 15 0.4% 101.06 35 0.8% 32.00 0 0.0% 73.08 0 0.0% 101.07 7 0.2% 33.00 0 0.0% 73.09 0 0.0% 101.08 10 0.3% 34.01 12 0.4% 73.10 0 0.0% 102.03 8 0.3% 34.02 0 0.0% 73.11 0 0.0% 102.04 19 0.6% 35.00 14 0.3% 73.12 0 0.0% 102.05 0 0.0% 36.00 12 0.3% 73.13 0 0.0% 102.06 20 0.5% 37.00 0 0.0% 74.05 0 0.0% 102.07 0 0.0% 38.00 0 0.0% 74.06 0 0.0% 102.08 13 0.7% 39.00 14 0.5% 74.07 19 0.6% 103.02 20 1.4% 40.00 6 0.2% 74.08 18 0.4% 103.04 17 0.2% 42.00 0 0.0% 74.09 0 0.0% 104.01 7 0.2% 43.00 11 0.4% 74.24 26 0.9% 104.02 24 0.5% 44.00 0 0.0% 74.29 0 0.0% 105.01 19 0.4% 45.00 7 0.2% 74.30 0 0.0% 105.02 11 0.2% 46.00 18 0.7% 74.31 0 0.0% 105.03 22 0.6% 47.00 8 0.3% 74.32 8 0.3% 106.05 24 0.5% 48.00 19 0.4% 74.33 17 0.4% 106.07 13 0.3% 49.00 0 0.0% 74.34 0 0.0% 106.10 30 0.7% 50.00 12 0.3% 74.35 0 0.0% 106.11 5 0.1% 51.00 0 0.0% 74.36 0 0.0% 106.12 0 0.0% 52.00 0 0.0% 74.37 8 0 .2% 106.13 0 0.0% 53.00 0 0.0% 74.38 0 0.0% 106.14 8 0.2% 54.00 0 0.0% 74.39 6 0.1% 106.15 7 0.3% 55.00 19 0.4% 74.40 0 0.0% 106.16 12 0.6% 56.00 10 0.2% 74.41 14 0.5% 106.17 9 0.2% 57.00 11 0.2% 74.42 9 0.2% 106.18 8 0.3% 58.00 0 0.0% 74.43 0 0.0% 106.19 0 0.0% 59.01 0 0.0% 74.44 0 0.0% 106.20 8 0.3% 59.02 0 0.0% 74.45 0 0.0% 107.01 0 0.0% 60.00 16 0.4% 74.46 0 0.0% 107.02 6 0.2% 61.01 0 0.0% 74.47 8 0.3% Total 1.223 0.2% 61.02 0 0.0% 74.48 7 0.2% 62.02 0 0.0% 74.49 0 0.0% 63.01 11 0.4% 74.50 11 0.3% 63.02 0 0.0% 74.51 30 0.6% 63.03 0 0.0% 74.52 0 0.0% 64.00 5 0.1% 74.53 11 0.3% 65.03 0 0.0% 74.54 0 0.0% 65.04 0 0.0% 74.55 6 0.4% 130 Appendix D5 - Total Filipino Population and Percent Filipino of Total Population for Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 Census Filipino % Census Filipino °/o Census Filipino °/o Tract Pop. Filipino Tract Pop. Filipino Tract Pop. Filipino 2.00 0 0.0% 65.05 11 0.5% 74.56 0 0.0% 3.00 0 0.0% 65.06 0 0.0% 74.57 13 0.5% 4.00 11 0.5% 66.02 18 0.3% 74.58 8 0.3% 5.00 0 0.0% 66.03 15 0.6% 74.59 0 0.0% 6.00 0 0.0% 66.04 0 0.0% 74.60 7 0.3% 7.00 0 0.0% 67.01 0 0.0% 74.61 0 0.0% 8.00 0 0 .0% 67.03 10 0.3% 74.62 0 0.0% 11.00 0 0.0% 67.04 0 0.0% 74.63 0 0.0% 12.00 0 0.0% 68.03 0 0.0% 74.64 0 0.0% 16.00 8 0.3% 68.04 0 0.0% 74.65 0 0.0% 18.00 8 0.3% 68.05 0 0.0% 74.66 19 0.3% 19.00 0 0.0% 68.06 4 0.1% 74.67 0 0.0% 20.00 0 0.0% 69.03 0 0.0% 74.68 0 0.0% 21.00 0 0.0% 69.04 0 0.0% 75.04 3 0.1% 22.00 0 0.0% 69.05 0 0.0% 75.05 0 0.0% 23.00 0 0.0% 69.06 0 0.0% 75.06 0 0.0% 24.00 21 0.6% 70.01 9 0.3% 75.07 0 0.0% 25.00 0 0.0% ■ 70.02 0 0.0% 75.08 0 0.0% 26.00 0 0.0% 70.03 0 0.0% 75.09 0 0.0% 27.00 0 0.0% 71.01 27 0.9% 75.10 5 0.2% 28.00 0 0.0% 71.02 0 0.0% 101.03 0 0.0% 29.00 0 0.0% 73.03 0 0.0% 101.04 2 0.1% 30.00 0 0.0% 73.04 0 0.0% 101.05 11 0.4% 31.00 0 0.0% 73.07 0 0.0% 101.06 74 1.7% 32.00 5 0.2% 73.08 11 0.6% 101.07 9 0.3% 33.00 0 0.0% 73.09 0 0.0% 101.08 49 1.4% 34.01 0 0.0% 73.10 0 0.0% 102.03 0 0.0% 34.02 0 0.0% 73.11 0 0.0% 102.04 7 0.2% 35.00 0 0.0% 73.12 0 0.0% 102.05 0 0.0% 36.00 24 0.5% 73.13 7 0.2% 102.06 32 0.8% 37.00 0 0.0% 74.05 0 0,0% 102.07 9 0.6% 38.00 8 0 .2% 74.06 0 0.0% 102.08 4 0.2% 39.00 23 0.8% 74.07 0 0.0% 103.02 5 0.3% 40.00 4 0.1% 74.08 41 1.0% 103.04 76 1.0% 42.00 0 0.0% 74.09 14 0.6% 104.01 0 0.0% 43.00 0 0.0% 74.24 15 0.5% 104.02 66 1.5% 44.00 0 0.0% 74.29 0 0.0% 105.01 0 0.0% 45.00 0 0.0% 74.30 0 0.0% 105.02 0 0.0% 46.00 0 0.0% 74.31 0 0.0% 105.03 15 0.4% 47.00 8 0.3% 74.32 0 0.0% 106.05 6 0.1% 48.00 0 0.0% 74.33 18 0.4% 106.07 5 0.1% 49.00 0 0.0% 74.34 0 0.0% 106.10 0 0.0% 50.00 8 0.2% 74.35 67 1.9% 106.11 11 0.2% 51.00 4 0.1% 74.36 18 0.4% 106.12 0 0.0% 52.00 0 0.0% 74 37 9 0.2% 106.13 0 0.0% 53.00 0 0.0% 74.38 0 0.0% 106.14 9 0.2% 54.00 0 0.0% 74.39 40 0.8% 106.15 6 0.3% 55.00 21 0.4% 74.40 8 0.5% 106.16 6 0.3% 56.00 4 0.1% 74.41 0 0.0% 106.17 0 0.0% 57.00 0 0.0% 74.42 0 0.0% 106.18 22 0.1% 58.00 6 0.1% 74.43 29 0.8% 106.19 8 0.2% 59.01 6 0.2% 74.44 19 0.4% 106.20 20 0.8% 59.02 0 0.0% 74.45 10 0.4% 107.01 5 0.3% 60.00 0 0.0% 74.46 0 0.0% 107.02 . 0 0.0% 61.01 0 0.0% 74.47 0 0.0% T otal 1,137 0.2% 61.02 0 0.0% 74.48 0 0.0% 62.02 16 0.3% 74.49 7 0.3% 63.01 0 0.0% 74.50 0 0.0% 63.02 5 0.1% 74.51 0 0.0% 63.03 9 0.3% 74.52 0 0.0% 64.00 10 0.2% 74.53 0 0.0% 65.03 0 0.0% 74.54 0 0.0% 65.04 0 0.0% 74.55 9 0.5% Appendix 06 - Total El Salvadoran Population and Percent El Salvadoran of Total Population for Doujjlas/Sarpy County Census Tracts. 2000 Census F.1 Sal. % Census El Sal % Census El Sal. % Tract Pop. El Sal. Tract Pop. El Sal. T ract Pop. El Sal. | 2.00 0 0.0% 65.05 0 0.0% 74.56 0 0.0% 3.00 0 0.0% 65.06 0 0.0% 74.57 0 0.0% 4.00 0 0.0% 66.02 0 0.0% 74.58 12 0.4% 5.00 0 0.0% 66.03 0 0.0% 74.59 0 0.0% 6.00 0 0.0% 66.04 0 0.0% 74.60 0 0.0% 7.00 28 2.0% 67.01 0 0.0% : 74.61 0 0.0?'o 8.00 0 0 .0% 67.03 0 0.0% 74.62 0 0.0?'o 11.00 0 0.0% 67.04 0 0.0% 74.63 0 0.0% 12.00 0 0.0% 68.03 0 0.0% 74.64 0 0.0% 16.00 4 0.1% 68.04 0 0.0% 74.65 0 0.0% 18.00 3 0.1% 68.05 0 0.0% 74.66 9 0.1% 19.00 0 0.0% 68.06 0 0.0% 74.67 0 0.0% 20.00 23 0.7% 69.03 0 0.0% 74.68 15 0.6% 21.00 70 3.1% 69.04 0 0.0% 75.04 0 0.0% 22.00 0 0.0% 69.05 0 0.0? i : 75.05 0 0.0% 23.00 0 0.0% 69.06 0 0.0% 75.06 0 0.0% 24.00 52 1.6% 70.01 44 1.4% 75.07 0 0.0% 25.00 24 0.9% 70.02 0 0.0% 75.08 0 0.0?i 26.00 66 2.9% 70.03 0 0.0% 75.09 0 0.0?'o 27.00 31 1.3% 71.01 2 0.1% ; 75.10 0 0.0% 28.00 18 0.6% 71.02 11 0.3% 101.03 0 0.0% 29.00 150 3.0% 73.03 0 0.0% 101.04 6 0.3% 30.00 0 0.0% 73.04 0 0.0% 101.05 0 0.0% 31.00 0 0.0% 73.07 0 0.0% 101.06 0 0.0? O 32.00 50 2.1% 73.08 0 0.0% 101.07 29 1.0% 33.00 113 5.1% 73.09 0 0.0% 101.08 0 0.0% 34.01 15 0.4% 73.10 38 1.3% 102.03 0 0.0% 34.02 0 0.0% 73.11 0 0.0% 102.04 0 0.0?'o 35.00 22 0.5% 73.12 0 0.0% 102.05 0 0.0% 36.00 0 0.0? i 73.13 0 0.0? i 102.06 0 0.0% 37.00 0 0.0% 74.05 0 0.0% 102.07 0 0.0% 38.00 33 0.7% 74.06 0 0.0% 102.08 0 0.0% 39.00 10 0.3% 74.07 0 0.0% 103.02 0 0.0% 40.00 36 1.2% 74.08 0 0.0% 103.04 6 0.1% 42.00 0 0.0% 74.09 0 0.0% 104.01 0 0.0% 43.00 0 0.0% 74.24 0 0.0% 104.02 0 0.0% 44.00 0 0.0% 74.29 0 0.0% 105.01 22 0.5% 45.00 0 0.0% 74.30 0 0.0% 105.02 61 1.3% 46.00 0 0.0% 74.31 0 0.0% 105.03 0 0.0% 47.00 0 0.0% 74.32 0 0.0% 106.05 13 0.3?'o 48.00 0 0.0% 74.33 0 0.0% 106.07 0 0.0% 49.00 0 0.0% 74.34 0 0.0% 106.10 0 0.0% 50.00 0 0.0% 74.35 0 0.0?-o 106.11 0 0.0% 51.00 14 0.5% 74.36 0 0.0% 106.12 0 0.0% 52.00 12 0.7% 74.37 0 0.0% 106.13 0 0.0% 53.00 7 0.3% 74.38 0 0.0% ; 106.14 0 0.0% 54.00 0 0.0% 74.39 0 0.0% 106.15 0 0.0% 55.00 0 0.0% 74.40 0 0.0% 106.16 0 0.0% 56.00 0 0.0% 74.41 0 0.0% 106.17 0 0.0% 57.00 0 0.0% 74.42 0 0.0% 106.18 0 0.0% 58.00 0 0.0% 74.43 0 0.0% 106.19 0 0.0% 59.01 0 0.0% 74.44 0 0.0% 106.20 0 0.0% 59.02 0 0.0% 74.45 19 0.8% 107.01 5 0.3% 60.00 0 0.0% 74.46 0 0.0% 107.02 0 0.0% 61.01 8 0.3% 74.47 0 0.0% T otal 1,087 0.2% 61.02 0 0.0% 74.48 0 0.0% 62.02 0 0.0% 74.49 0 0.0% 63.01 0 0.0% 74.50 0 0.0% 63.02 0 0.0% 74.51 0 0.0% 63.03 0 0.0% 74.52 0 0.0% 64.00 0 0.0% 74.53 6 0.2% 65.03 0 0.0% 74.54 0 0.0% 65.04 0 0.0% 74.55 0 0.0% Appendix D7 - Total Korean Population and Percent Korean of Total Population for Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 20(10 Census Korean % Census Korean % Census Korean % Tract Pop. Korean Tract Pop. Korean Tract Pop. Korean 2.00 0 0.0% 65.05 0 0.0% 74.56 0 0.0% 3.00 0 0.0% 65.06 16 0.5% 74.57 15 0.5% 4.00 0 0.0% 66.02 0 0.0% 74.58 31 1.0% 5.00 0 0.0% 66.03 0 0.0% 74.59 0 0.0% 6.00 4 0.3% 66.04 16 0.4% 74.60 17 0.7% 7.00 0 0.0% 67.01 10 0.3% 74 61 16 0.5% 8.00 0 0.0% 67.03 5 0.2% 74.62 0 0.0% 11.00 5 0.2% 67.04 0 0.0% 74.63 0 0.0% 12.00 0 0.0% 68.03 9 0.4% 74.64 16 0.6% 16.00 35 1.3% 68.04 0 0.0% 74.65 30 0.8% 18.00 0 0.0% 68.05 0 0.0% 74.66 0 0.0% 19.00 16 1.0% 68.06 0 0.0% 74.67 7 0.1% 20.00 0 0.0% 69.03 0 0.0% 74.68 0 0.0% 21.00 0 0.0% 69.04 17 0.4% 75.04 0 0.0% 22.00 0 0.0% 69.05 0 0.0% 75.05 17 0.7% 23.00 0 0.0% 69.06 0 0.0% 75.06 0 0.0% 24.00 0 0.0% 70.01 15 0.5% 75.07 0 0.0% 25.00 0 0.0% 70.02 14 0.4% 75.08 2 0.1% 26.00 0 0.0% 70.03 0 0.0% 75.09 9 0.3% 27.00 0 0.0% 71.01 0 0.0% 75.10 0 0.0% 28 00 0 0.0% 71.02 0 0.0% 101.03 19 0.4% 29.00 5 0.1% 73.03 10 0.3% 101.04 12 0.6% 30.00 0 0.0% 73.04 0 0.0% 101.05 9 0.3% 31.00 0 0.0% 73.07 11 0.3% 101.06 36 0.8% ■ 32.00 0 0.0% 73.08 0 0.0% 101.07 24 0.8% 33.00 0 0.0% 73.09 0 0.0% 101.08 50 1.4% 34.01 0 0.0% 73.10 0 0.0% 102.03 0 0.0% 34.02 0 0.0% 73.11 29 1.0% 102.04 40 1.3% 35.00 0 0.0% 73.12 25 1.4% 102.05 0 0.0% 36.00 0 0.0% 73.13 0 0.0% 102.06 0 0.0% 37.00 7 0.3% 74.05 0 0.0% 102.07 10 0.7% 38.00 0 0.0% ; 74.06 0 • 0.0% 102.08 0 0.0% 39.00 0 0.0% 74.07 0 0.0% 103.02 0 0.0% 40.00 10 0.3% 74.08 4 0.1% 103.04 57 0.8% 42.00 0 0.0% 74.09 0 0.0% 104.01 0 0.0% 43.00 0 0.0% 74.24 5 0.2% 104.02 8 0.2% 44.00 0 0.0% 74.29 11 0.3% 105.01 0 0.0% 45.00 3 0.1% 74.30 0 0.0% 105.02 15 0.3% 46.00 14 0.6% 74.31 16 0.5% 105.03 0 0.0% 47.00 10 0.4% 74.32 0 0.0% 106.05 0 0.0% 48.00 6 0.1% 74.33 15 0.3% 106.07 7 0.2% 49.00 0 0.0% 74.34 20 0.6% 106.10 13 0.3% 50.00 7 0.2% 74.35 15 0.4% 106.11 0 0.0% 51.00 0 0.0% 74.36 25 0.6% 106.12 0 0.0% 52.00 0 0.0% 74.37 0 0.0% 106.13 0 0.0% 53.00 0 0.0% 74.38 16 0.8% 106.14 14 0.3% 54.00 0 0.0% 74.39 0 0.0% 106.15 0 0.0% 55.00 10 0.2% 74.40 0 0.0% 106.16 0 0.0% 56.00 0 0.0% 74.41 7 0.2% 106.17 6 0.1% 57.00 0 0.0% 74.42 13 0.2% 106.18 0 0.0% 58.00 0 0.0% 74.43 0 0.0% 106.19 0 0.0% 59.01 0 0.0% 74.44 0 0.0% 106.20 9 0.4% 59.02 0 0.0% 74.45 0 0.0% 107.01 0 0.0% 60.00 0 0.0% 74.46 0 0.0% 107.02 1 0.0% 61.01 0 0.0% 74.47 20 0.7% Total 1048 n.2% 61.02 0 0.0% 74.48 0 0.0% 62.02 0 0.0?'„ 74.49 0 0.0% 63.01 0 0.0% 74.50 6 0.2% . 63.02 8 0.2% ■ : 74.51 11 0.2% 63.03 5 0.2% : 74.52 0 0.0% 64.00 14 0.3% 74.53 7 0.2% 65.03 0 0.0% 74.54 0 0.0% 65.04 0 0.0% 74.55 31 1.9% Appendix 1)8 - Total Chinese Population and Percent Chinese of Total Population lor Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 Census Chinese % Census Chinese % Census Chinese °/o Tract Pop. Chinese T ract Pop. Chinese Tract Pop. Chinese 2.00 0 0.0% 65.05 0 0.0% 74.56 0 0.0% 3.00 0 0.0% 65.06 18 0.5% 74.57 0 0.0% 4.00 0 0.0% 66.02 11 0.2% 74.58 0 0.0% 5.00 0 0.0% 66.03 0 0.0% 74.59 0 0.0% 6.00 0 0.0% 66.04 0 0.0% 74.60 0 0.0% 7.00 0 0.0% 67.01 7 0.2% 74.61 0 0.0% 8.00 0 0.0% 67.03 48 1.5% 74.62 0 0.0% 11.00 0 0.0% 67.04 0 0.0% 74.63 0 0.0% 12.00 0 0.0% 68.03 0 0.0% 74.64 0 0.0% 16.00 0 0.0% 68.04 26 1.7% 74.65 0 0.0% 18.00 0 0.0% 68.05 0 0.0% 74.66 0 0.0% 19.00 83 5.3% 68.06 0 0.0% 74.67 17 0.3% 20.00 0 0.0% 69.03 0 0.0% 74.68 8 0.3% 21.00 0 0.0% 69.04 0 0.0% 75 04 7 0.2% 22.00 12 0.9% 69.05 0 0.0% 75.05 0 0.0% 23.00 0 0.0% 69.06 0 0.0% 75.06 0 0.0% 24.00 0 0.0% 70.01 0 0.0% 75.07 0 0.0% 25.00 0 0.0% 70.02 0 0.0% 75.08 0 0.0% 26.00 0 0.0% 70.03 0 0.0% 75.09 0 0.0% 27.00 0 0.0% 71.01 0 0.0% 75.10 0 0.0% 28.00 0 0.0% 71.02 0 0.0% 101.03 0 0.0% 29.00 0 0.0% 73.03 0 0.0% 101.04 0 0.0% 30.00 0 0.0% 73.04 0 0.0% 101.05 0 0.0% 31.00 0 0.0% 73.07 0 0.0% 101.06 0 0.0% 32.00 0 0.0% 73.08 0 0.0% 101.07 0 0.0% 33.00 0 0.0% 73.09 16 0.7% 101.08 12 0.3% 34.01 5 0.1% 73.10 0 0.0% 102.03 0 0.0% 34.02 0 0.0% 73.11 0 0.0% 102.04 0 0.0% 35.00 19 0.4% 73.12 0 0.0% 102.05 21 0.8% 36.00 0 0.0% 73.13 17 0.5% 102.06 6 0.2% 37.00 0 0.0% 74.05 0 0.0% 102.07 0 0.0% 38.00 0 0.0% 74.06 42 0.8% 102.08 0 0.0% 39.00 0 0.0% 74.07 0 0.0% 103.02 0 0.0% 40 00 5 0.2% 74.08 0 0.0% 103.04 0 0.0% 42.00 0 0.0% 74.09 0 0.0% 104.01 0 0.0% 43.00 45 1.5% 74.24 0 0.0% 104.02 0 0.0% 44.00 0 0.0% 74.29 0 0.0% 105.01 0 0.0% 45.00 0 0.0% 74.30 0 0.0% 105.02 0 0.0% 46.00 47 1.9% 74.31 33 0.9% 105.03 5 0.1% 47.00 20 0.7% 74.32 22 0.8% 106.05 0 0.0% 48.00 13 0.3% 74.33 0 0.0% 106.07 0 0.0% 49.00 0 0.0% 74.34 0 0.0% 106.10 0 0.0% 50.00 50 1.2% 74.35 0 0.0% 106.11 0 0.0% 51.00 82 2.9% 74.36 0 0.0% 106.12 0 0.0% 52.00 0 0.0% 74.37 0 0.0% 106.13 0 0.0% 53.00 0 0.0% 74.38 0 0.0% 106.14 0 0.0% 54.00 41 1.2% 74.39 0 0.0% 106.15 23 1.1% 55.00 0 0.0% 74.40 15 0.9% 106.16 0 0.0% 56.00 10 0.2% 74.41 15 0.5% 106.17 0 0.0% 57.00 0 0.0% 74.42 0 0.0% 106.18 5 0.2% 58.00 0 0.0% 74.43 0 0.0% 106.19 0 0.0% 59.01 0 0.0% 74.44 0 0.0% 106.20 0 0.0% 59.02 0 0.0%> 74.45 14 0.6% 107.01 0 0.0% 60.00 0 0.0% 74.46 0 0.0% 107.02 0 0.0% 61.01 0 0.0% 74.47 0 0.0% Total 886 0 .2% 61.02 0 0.0% 74.48 0 0.0% 62.02 0 0.0% 74.49 0 0.0% 63.01 0 0.0% 74.50 0 0.0% 63.02 0 0.0% 74.51 0 0.0% 63.03 0 0.0% 74.52 10 0.3% 64.00 44 0.9% 74.53 0 0.0% 65.03 0 0.0% 74.54 0 0.0% 65.04 12 0.3% 74.55 0 0.0% Appendix D9 - Total British and Percent British of Total Population for Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 Census British % Census British % Census British % Tract Pop. British Tract Pop. British Tract Pop. British 2.00 0 0.0% ■ 65.05 5 0.2% 74.56 20 0.8% 3.00 0 0.0% 65.06 0 0.0% 74.57 0 0.0% 4.00 0 0.0% 66.02 7 0.1% 74.58 0 0.0% 5.00 0 0.0% 66.03 0 0.0% 74.59 0 0.0% 6.00 0 0.0% 66.04 16 0.4% 74.60 0 0.0% 7.00 0 0.0% 67.01 6 0.2% 74.61 0 0.0% 8.00 0 0 .0% 67.03 16 0.5% 74.62 0 0.0% 11.00 0 0.0% 67.04 0 0.0% 74.63 19 0.4% 12.00 0 0.0% 68.03 0 0.0% ■ 74.64 0 0.0% 16.00 7 0.3% 68.04 5 0.3% ' 74.65 0 0.0% 18.00 0 0.0% 68.05 0 0.0% 74.66 28 0.5% 19.00 0 0.0% 68.06 9 0.3% 74.67 0 0.0% 20.00 0 0.0% 69.03 6 0.2% 74.68 0 0.0% 21.00 0 0.0% 69.04 0 0.0% : 75.04 2 0.1% 22.00 25 1.8 % 69.05 10 0.5% 75.05 7 0.3% 23.00 0 0.0% 69.06 0 0.0% 75.06 0 0.0% 24.00 6 0.2% 70.01 10 0.3% 75.07 0 0.0% 25.00 6 0.2% 70.02 0 0.0% 75.08 0 0.0% 26.00 3 0.1% 70.03 0 0.0% 75.09 0 0.0% 27.00 3 0.1% 71.01 0 0.0% 75.10 0 0.0% 28.00 11 0.4% 71.02 0 0.0% 101.03 25 0.5% 29.00 0 0.0% 73.03 0 0.0% 101.04 5 0.2% 30.00 0 0.0% 73.04 0 0.0% 101.05 26 0.8% 31.00 0 0.0% 73.07 0 0.0% 101.06 39 0.9% 32.00 5 0.2% 73.08 0 0.0% 101.07 0 0.0% 33.00 0 0.0% 73.09 0 0.0% 101.08 67 1.9% 34.01 0 0.0% 73.10 6 0.2% 102.03 0 0.0% 34.02 0 0.0% 73.11 0 0.0% 102.04 14 0.4% 35.00 7 0.2% 73.12 10 0.6% 102.05 0 0.0% 36.00 0 0.0% 73.13 0 0.0% 102.06 19 0.5% 37.00 0 0.0% 74.05 0 0.0% 102.07 7 0.5% 38.00 0 0.0% 74.06 7 0.1% 102.08 0 0.0% 39.00 0 0.0% 74.07 6 0.2% 103.02 15 1.0% 40.00 10 0.3% 74.08 0 0.0% 103.04 18 0.2% 42.00 0 0.0%> 74.09 0 0.0% 104.01 0 0.0% 43.00 0 0.0% 74.24 0 0.0% 104.02 42 1.0% 44.00 0 0.0% 74.29 5 0.2% 105.01 16 0.3% 45.00 0 0.0% 74.30 0 0.0% ' 105.02 0 0.0% 46.00 6 0.2% 74.31 0 0.0% 105.03 6 0.2% 47.00 0 0.0% 74.32 0 0.0% 106.05 22 0.5% 48.00 16 0.4% 74.33 0 0.0% 106.07 42 0.9% 49.00 0 0.0% 74.34 0 0.0% . 106.10 4 0.1% 50.00 0 0.0% 74.35 0 0.0% 106.11 0 0.0% 51.00 0 0.0% 74.36 12 0.3% 106.12 0 0.0% 52.00 0 0.0% 74.37 6 0.1% 106.13 0 0.0% 53.00 0 0.0% 74.38 0 0.0% 106.14 0 0.0% 54.00 0 0.0% 74.39 22 0.4% 106.15 10 0.5% 55.00 16 0.3% 74.40 0 0.0% 106.16 4 0.2% 56.00 0 0.0% 74.41 5 0.2% 106.17 7 0.1% 57.00 0 0.0% 74.42 21 0.4% 106.18 0 0.0% 58.00 0 0.0% 74.43 0 0.0% 106.19 0 0.0% 59.01 0 0.0% 74.44 10 0.2% 106.20 0 0.0% 59.02 0 0.0% 74.45 0 0.0% 107.01 0 0.0% 60.00 12 0.3% 74.46 0 0.0% 107.02 0 0.0% 61.01 0 0.0% 74.47 0 0.0% Total 882 0.2% 61.02 8 0.2% 74.48 0 0.0° i 62.02 0 0.0% 74.49 0 0.0% 63.01 0 0.0% 74.50 0 0.0% 63.02 23 0.6% 74.51 0 0.0% 63.03 0 0.0% 74.52 8 0 .2% 64.00 0 0.0% 74.53 0 0.0% 65.03 0 0.0% 74.54 9 0.2% : 65.04 37 1.0% 74.55 0 0.0% Appendix DIO - Total Guatemalan and Percent Guatemalan of Total Population for Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 Census Guat. % Census Guat. % Census Guat. °/o Tract Pop. Guat. Tract Pop. Guat. Tract Pop. Guat. 2.00 0 0.0% 65.05 0 0.0% 74.56 0 0.0% 3.00 0 0.0% 65.06 0 0.0% 74.57 0 0.0% 4.00 0 0.0% 66.02 0 0.0% 74.58 0 0.0% 5.00 0 0.0% 66.03 0 0.0% 74.59 0 0.0% 6.00 11 0.7% 66.04 0 0.0% 74.60 0 0.0% 7.00 0 0.0% 67.01 0 0.0% 74.61 0 0.0% 8.00 6 0.3% 67.03 30 1.0% 74.62 0 0.0% 11.00 0 0.0% 67.04 0 0.0% 74.63 0 0.0% 12.00 0 0.0% 68.03 0 0.0% 74.64 0 0.0% 16.00 0 0.0% 68.04 0 0.0% 74.65 0 0.0% 18.00 0 0.0% 68.05 0 0.0% 74.66 0 0.0% 19.00 0 0.0% 68.06 0 0.0% 74.67 85 1.7% 20.00 4 0.1% 69.03 0 0.0% 74.68 0 0.0% 21.00 0 0.0% 69.04 0 0.0% 75.04 0 0.0% 22.00 0 0.0% 69.05 0 0.0% 75.05 0 0.0% 23.00 0 0.0% 69.06 0 0.0% 75.06 0 0.0% 24.00 96 2.9% 70.01 0 0.0% 75.07 0 0.0% 25.00 5 0.2% 70.02 0 0.0% 75.08 0 0.0% 26.00 10 0.4% 70.03 0 0.0% 75.09 0 0.0% 27.00 0 0.0% 71.01 8 0.3% 75.10 10 0.4% 28.00 0 0.0% 71.02 0 0.0% 101.03 0 0.0% 29.00 0 0.0% 73.03 0 0.0% 101.04 7 0.3% 30.00 16 0.3% 73.04 0 0.0% 101.05 0 0.0% 31.00 0 0.0% 73.07 0 0.0% 101.06 0 0.0% 32.00 6 0.2% 73.08 0 0.0% 101.07 0 0.0% 33.00 0 0.0% 73.09 0 0.0% 101.08 15 0.4% 34.01 0 0.0% 73.10 0 0.0% 102.03 0 0.0% 34.02 0 0.0% 73.11 0 0.0% 102.04 0 0.0° 8 35.00 0 0.0% 73.12 13 0.7% 102.05 0 0.0% 36,00 0 0.0% 73.13 0 0.0% 102.06 0 0.0% 37.00 0 0.0% 74.05 0 0.0% 102.07 0 0.0% 38.00 54 1.2% 74.06 0 0.0% 102.08 0 0.0% 39.00 156 5.3% 74.07 0 0.0% 103.02 0 0.0% 40.00 0 0.0% 74.08 0 0.0% 103.04 7 0.1% 42.00 0 0.0% 74.09 0 0.0% 104.01 0 0.0% 43.00 138 4.7% 74.24 0 0.0% 104.02 0 0.0% 44.00 0 0.0% 74.29 0 0.0% 105.01 0 0.0% 45 00 0 0.0% 74.30 0 0.0% 105.02 0 0.0% 46.00 0 0.0% 74.31 0 0.0% 105.03 0 0.0% 47.00 0 0.0% 74.32 0 0.0% 106.05 0 0.0% 48.00 0 0.0% 74.33 0 0.0% 106.07 0 0.0% 49.00 0 0.0% 74.34 0 0.0% 106.10 0 0.0% 50.00 10 0.2% 74.35 0 0.0% 106.11 0 0.0% 51.00 14 0.5% 74.36 0 0.0% 106.12 0 0.0% 52.00 0 0.0% 74.37 0 0.0% 106.13 0 0.0% 53.00 0 0.0% 74.38 0 0.0% 106.14 0 0.0% 54.00 0 0.0% 74.39 0 0.0% 106.15 0 0.0% 55.00 0 0.0% 74.40 0 0.0% 106.16 0 0.0% 56.00 0 0.0% 74.41 23 0.7% 106.17 6 0.1% 57.00 0 0.0% 74.42 0 0.0% 106.18 0 0.0% 58.00 0 0.0% 74.43 0 0.0% 106.19 0 0.0% 59.01 0 0.0% 74.44 0 0.0% 106.20 0 0.0% 59.02 0 0.0% 74.45 0 0.0% 107.01 0 0.0% 60.00 0 0.0% 74.46 0 0.0% 107.02 0 0.0% 61.01 7 0.3% 74.47 0 0.0% Total 755 0.1% 61.02 18 0.4% 74.48 0 0.0% 62.02 0 0.0% 74.49 0 0.0% 63.01 0 0.0% 74.50 0 0.0% 63.02 0 0.0% 74.51 0 0.0% 63.03 0 0.0% 74.52 0 0.0?i 64.00 0 0.0% 74.53 0 0.0% 65.03 0 0.0% 74.54 0 0.0% 65.04 0 0.0% 74.55 0 0.0% 136 APPENDIX E Total Population & Percent Population of Total Foreign-Population for Each Immigrant Group, Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 Appendix E l - Total Mexican Population and Percent Mexican of Total Foreign-Born Population for Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 Census Mexican % Census Mexican °/o Census Mexican % Tract Pop. Mexican Tract Pop. Mexican Tract Pop. Mexican 2.00 0 0.0% 65.05 0 0.0% 74.56 0 0.0% 3.00 42 91.3% 65.06 18 26.5% 74.57 47 34.6% 4.00 186 79.5% 66.02 9 3.6% 74.58 45 9.5% 5.00 0 0.0% 66.03 9 8 .0% ||||p 74.59 47 77.0% 6.00 30 61.2% 66.04 55 41.0% 74.60 0 0.0% 7.00 0 0.0% 67.01 0 0.0% 74.61 0 0.0% 8.00 0 0.0% 67.03 3! 14.3% 74.62 0 0.0% 11.00 16 17.8% 67.04 0 0.0% :■ 74.63 6 4.3% 12.00 35 18.5% 68.03 0 0.0% 74.64 0 0.0% 16.00 4 1.8% 68.04 0 0.0% 74.65 97 54.8% 18.00 50 54.3% 68.05 0 0.0% 74.66 127 34.7% 19.00 292 66.4% 68.06 0 0.0% 74.67 0 0.0% 20.00 828 93.1% 69.03 0 0.0% 74.68 0 0.0% 21.00 280 66.0% 69.04 0 0.0% 75.04 6 14.0% 22.00 11 11.1% 69.05 9 9.2% 75.05 0 0.0% 23.00 117 63.6% 69.0f> 0 0.0% 75.06 23 74.2% 24.00 510 63.4% 70.01 47 18.7% 75.07 0 0.0% 25.00 173 65.8% 70.02 9 6.6% 75.08 4 23.5% 26.00 764 90.0% 70.03 85 89.5% 75.09 0 0.0% 27.00 657 90.2% 71.01 0 0.0% 75.10 31 67.4% 28.00 722 93.8% 71.02 117 48.3% 101.03 0 0.0% 29.00 663 56.9% 73.03 0 0.0% 101.04 69 42.3% 30.00 524 73.3% 73.04 0 0.0% 101.05 0 0.0% 31.00 194 95.1% 73.07 15 17.2% 101.06 0 0.0% 32.00 642 87.3% 73.08 0 0.0% 101.07 68 36.4% 33.00 487 73.3% 73.09 0 0.0% 101.08 0 0.0% 34.01 118 45.0% 73.10 8 11.1% 102.03 0 0.0% 34.02 33 84.6% 73.11 0 0.0% 102.04 0 0.0% 35.00 24 14.3% 73.12 0 0.0% 102.05 11 28.2% 36.00 8 9.3% 73.13 0 0.0% 102.06 0 0.0% 37.00 6 8 .2% 74.05 2 3.5% 102.07 0 0.0% 38.00 451 72.5% 74.06 0 0.0% 102.08 0 0.0% 39.00 698 70.9% 74.07 16 6.6% 103.02 0 0.0% 40.00 561 76.1% 74.08 44 19.1% 103.04 18 6.4% 42.00 53 67.9% 74.09 10 8.9% 104.01 7 5.3% 43.00 27 7.4% 74.24 7 4.1% 104.02 67 20.7% 44.00 20 32.3% 74.29 5 23.8% 105.01 137 53.1% 45.00 3 10.7% 74.30 11 50.0% 105.02 25 13.4% 46.00 0 0.0% 74.31 0 0.0% 105.03 0 0.0% 47.00 0 0.0% 74.32 0 0.0% 106.05 24 11.5% 48.00 37 17.7% 74.33 0 0.0% 106.07 0 0.0% 49.00 220 42.1% 74.34 43 29.3% 106.10 0 0.0% 50.00 269 44.1% 74.35 0 0.0% 106.11 23 29.9% 51.00 138 30.3% 74.36 41 19.2% 106.12 0 0.0% 52.00 0 0.0% 74.37 18 7.4% 106.13 11 23.4% 53.00 41 85.4% 74.38 7 9.1% 106.14 54 36.0% 54.00 34 40.5% 74.39 18 6.8% 106.15 0 0.0% 55.00 12 4.1% 74.40 7 13.0% 106.16 19 36.5% 56.00 5 4.9% 74.41 0 0.0% 106.17 6 6.3% 57.00 24 57.1% 74.42 0 0.0°, o 106.18 0 0.0?i 58.00 84 60.4% 74.43 0 0.0% 106.19 17 20.7% 59.01 31 49.2% 74.44 42 14.4% 106.20 31 24.4% 59.02 22 71.0% 74.45 17 8.9% 107.01 0 0.0% 60.00 0 0.0% 74.46 5 9.8% 107.02 3 12.5% 61.01 0 0.0% 74.47 0 0.0% Totals: 12098 37.9% 61.02 65 50.4% 74.48 11 10.5% 62.02 60 50.0% 74.49 0 0.0% 63.01 10 8.5% 74.50 11 31.4% 63.02 0 0.0% 74.51 0 0.0% 63.03 0 0.0% 74.52 0 0.0% 64.00 43 15.1% 74.53 0 0.0% 65.03 0 0.0% 74.54 24 19.7% 65.04 0 0.0% 74.55 0 0.0% 138 Appendix E2 - Total Indian Population and Percent Indian of Total Foreign-Born Population for Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 Census Indian Census Indian Census Indian % Indian % Indian % Indian Tract Pop. Tract Pop. Tract Pop. 0.0% 65.05 0 0.0% 74.56 0 0.0% 28141647348 65.06 0 0.0% 74.57 9 6.6% 66.02 30 12.0% 74.58 232 48.8% 66.03 7 6.3% 74.59 0 0.0% 66.04 0 0.0% 74.60 0 0.0% 67.01 12 4.3% 74.61 23 19.0% 67.03 31 14.3% 74.62 0 0.0% 67.04 0 0.0% 74.63 0 0.0% 68.03 0 0.0% 74.64 0 0.0% 68.04 16 14.7% 74.65 0 0.0% 68.05 21 16.5% 74.66 49 13.4% 68.06 15 5.8% 74.67 0 0.0% 69.03 0 0.0% 74.68 0 0.0% 69.04 29 19.2% 75.04 0 0.0% 69.05 58 59.2% 75.05 0 0.0% 69.06 0 0.0% 75.06 0 0.0% 70.01 28 11.1% 75.07 0 0.0% 70.02 9 6.6% 75.08 0 0.0% 70.03 0 0.0% 75.09 0 0.0% 71.01 16 15.2% 75.10 0 0.0% 71.02 0 0.0% 101.03 0 0.0% 73.03 0 0.0% 101.04 0 0.0% 73.04 0 0.0% 101.05 3 2.1% 73.07 3 3.4% 101.06 13 4.3% 73.08 27 43.5% 101.07 0 0.0% 73.09 0 0.0% 101.08 0 0.0% 73.10 13 18.1% 102.03 0 0.0% 73.11 12 24.0% 102.04 7 4.5% 73.12 0 0.0% 102.05 0 0.0% 73.13 7 11.9% 102.06 0 0.0% 74.05 0 0.0% 102.07 21 23.1% 74.06 24 15.9% 102.08 0 0.0% 74.07 0 0.0% 103.02 0 0.0% 74.08 0 0.0° o 103.04 0 0.0% 74.09 0 0.0% 104.01 0 0.0% 74.24 37 21.6% 104.02 0 0.0% 74.29 0 0.0% 105.01 23 8.9% 74.30 0 0.0% 105.02 0 0.0% 74.31 32 26.7% 105.03 0 0.0% 74.32 0 0.0% 106.05 0 0.0% 74.33 18 9.5% 106.07 6 5.9% 74.34 50 34.0% 106.10 0 0.0% 74.35 0 0.0% 106.11 6 7.8% 74.36 16 7.5% 106.12 0 0.0% 74.37 64 26.3% 106.13 0 0.0% 74.38 19 24.7% 106.14 0 0.0% 74.39 36 13.6% 106.15 0 0.0% 74.40 0 0.0% 106.16 0 0.0% 74.41 20 13.3% 106.17 0 0.0% 74.42 42 36.8% 106.18 0 0.0% 74.43 29 21.2% 106.19 0 0.0% 74.44 79 27.1% 106.20 33 26.0% 74.45 0 0.0% 107.01 0 0.0% 74.46 0 0.0% 107.02 0 0.0% 74.47 0 0.0% Total 1,546 4.8% 74.48 0 0.0% 74.49 6 14.0% 74.50 0 0.0% 74.51 9 10.0% 74.52 0 0.0% 74.53 0 0.0°,o 74.54 17 13.9% 74.55 13 22.0% 139 Appendix E3 - Total Vietnamese Population and Percent Vietnamese of Total Foreign-Born Population for Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 Census Viet, Census Viet. Census Viet. % Viet. % Viet. % Viet. Tract Pop. Tract Pop. Tract Pop. 65.05 0 0.0% 74.56 0 0.0% 36416073406 65.06 0 0.0% 74.57 24 17.6% 66.02 13 5.2% 74.58 0 0.0% 66.03 0 0.0% 74.59 0 0.0% 66.04 8 6 .0% 74.60 0 0.0% 67.01 15 5.4% J 74.61 0 0.0% 67.03 0 0.0% 74.62 9 10.2% 67.04 0 0.0% 74.63 72 51.1% 68.03 0 0.0% 74.64 0 0.0% 68.04 0 0.0% 74.65 0 0.0% 68.05 0 0.0% 74.66 42 11.5% 68.06 0 0.0% 74.67 62 24.3% 69.03 0 0.0% 74.68 0 0.0% 69.04 0 0.0% 75.04 0 0.0% 69.05 0 0.0% 75.05 0 0.0% 69.06 0 0.0% 75.06 0 . 0.0% 70.01 0 0.0% 75.07 0 0.0% 70.02 0 0.0% 75.08 0 0.0% 70.03 0 0.0% 75.09 0 0.0% 71.01 0 0.0% 75.10 0 0.0% 71.02 0 0.0% 101.03 0 0.0% 73.03 0 0.0% 101.04 2 1.2% 73.04 0 0.0% 101.05 0 0.0% 73.07 10 11.5% 101.06 0 0.0% 73.08 0 0.0% 101.07 0 0.0% 73.09 0 0.0% 101.08 0 0.0% 73.10 0 0.0% 102.03 0 0.0% 73.11 9 18.0% 102.04 27 17.5% 73.12 43 29.9% ■ 102.05 0 0.0% 73.13 0 0.0% 102.06 20 13.5% 74.05 0 0.0% 102.07 0 0.0% 74.06 19 12.6% 102.08 0 0.0% 74.07 8 3.3% 103.02 5 11.1% 74.08 0 0.0% 103.04 0 0.0% 74.09 30 26.8% 104.01 0 0.0% 74.24 0 0.0% 104.02 0 0.0% 74.29 0 0.0% 105.01 0 0.0% 74.30 0 0.0% 105.02 11 5.9% 74.31 0 0.0% 105.03 0 0.0% 74.32 0 0.0% 106.05 79 37.8% 74.33 0 0.0% 106.07 0 0.0% 74.34 0 0.0% 106.10 0 0.0% 74.35 0 0.0% 106.11 0 0.0% 74.36 0 0.0% 106.12 0 0.0% 74.37 0 0.0% 106.13 36 76.6% 74.38 0 0.0% ■ 106.14 27 18.0% 74.39 14 5.3% 106.15 0 0.0% 74.40 0 0.0% 106.16 0 0.0% 74.41 14 9.3% 106.17 30 31.3% 74.42 0 0.0% 106.18 9 9.0% 74.43 20 14.6% 106.19 10 12.2% 74.44 12 4.1% 106.20 0 0.0% 74.45 0 0.0% 107.01 0 0.0% 74.46 0 0.0% 107.02 0 0.0% 74.47 0 0.0% T otal 1,288 4.0% 74.48 0 0.0% 74.49 8 18.6% :; 74.50 0 0.0% 74.51 12 13.3% 74.52 0 0.0% 74.53 0 0.0% 74.54 0 0.0% 74.55 0 0.0% : ■;; 140 Appendix E4 - Total German Population and Percent German of Total Foreign-Born Population for Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 Census German % Census German % Census German % Tract Pup. German Tract Pop. German Tract Pop. German 2.00 5 100.0% 65.05 0 0.0% 74.56 5 8 .8% 3.00 0 0.0% 65.06 5 7.4% 74.57 16 11.8% 4.00 12 5.1% 66.02 27 10.8% 74.58 0 0.0% 5.00 6 35.3% 66.03 0 0.0% 74.59 0 0.0% 6.00 4 8 .2% 66.04 7 5.2% 74.60 0 0.0% 7.00 0 0.0% 67.01 26 9.3% ; 74.61 0 0.0% 8.00 9 60.0% 67.03 0 0.0% 74.62 10 11.4% 11.00 0 0.0% 67.04 0 0.0% : 74.63 6 4.3% 12.00 0 0.0% 68.03 6 16.7% 74.64 0 0.0% 16.00 0 0.0% 68.04 0 0.0% - 74.65 0 0.0% 18.00 0 0.0° i 68.05 0 0.0% 74.66 13 3.6% 14.00 0 0.0% 68.06 0 0.0% 74.67 13 5.1% 20.00 4 0.4% 69.03 22 48.9% 74.68 0 0.0% 21.00 7 1.7% 69.04 0 0.0% 75.04 10 23.3% 22.00 0 0.0% 69.05 0 0.0° o 75.05 11 20.8% 23.00 6 3.3% 69.06 0 0.0% 75.06 0 0.0% 24.00 0 0.0% 70.01 0 0.0% 75.07 0 0.0% 25.00 8 3.0% 70.02 7 5.1% 75.08 0 0.0% 26.00 0 0.0% 70.03 4 4.2% 75.09 32 61.5% 27.00 10 1.4% 71.01 7 6.7% ... 75.10 0 0.0% 28.00 6 0.8% 71.02 14 5.8% 101.03 25 18.7% 29.00 19 1.6% 73.03 0 0.0% 101.04 7 4.3% 30.00 57 8 .0% 73.04 6 100.0% 101.05 8 5.6% 31.00 3 1.5% 73.07 15 17.2% - 101.06 35 11.7% 32.00 0 0.0% 73.08 0 0.0% 101.07 7 3.7% 33.00 0 0.0% 73.09 0 0.0% 101.08 10 2.7% 34.01 12 4.6% 73.10 0 0.0% 102.03 8 7.1% 34.02 0 0.0% 73.11 0 0.0% 102.04 19 12.3% 35.00 14 8.3% 73.12 0 0.0% 102.05 0 0.0% 36.00 12 14.0% 73.13 0 0.0% 102.06 20 13.5% 37.00 0 0.0% 74.05 0 0.0% 102.07 0 0.0% 38.00 0 0.0% 74.06 0 0.0% 102.08 13 31.0% 39.00 14 1.4% 74.07 19 7.9% i 103.02 20 44.4% 40.00 6 0.8% 74.08 18 7.8% 103.04 17 6.0% 42.00 0 0.0% 74.09 0 0.0% 104.01 7 5.3% 43.00 11 3.0% 74.24 26 15.2% 104.02 24 7.4% 44.00 0 0.0% 74.29 0 0.0% 105.01 19 7.4% 45.00 7 25.0% 74.30 0 0.0% 105.02 11 5.9% 46.00 18 6.5% 74.31 0 0.0% 105.03 22 23.2% 47.00 8 6.3% 74.32 8 14.8% 106.05 24 11.5% 48.00 19 9.1% 74.33 17 8.9% 106.07 13 12.7% 49.00 0 0.0% 74.34 0 0.0% 106.10 30 40.5% 50.00 12 2.0% 74.35 0 0.0% 106.11 5 6.5% 51.00 0 0.0% 74.36 0 0.0% 106.12 0 0.0% 52.00 0 0.0% 74.37 8 3.3% ■ 106.13 0 0.0% 53.00 0 0.0% 74.38 0 0.0% 106.14 8 5.3% 54.00 0 0.0% 74.39 6 2.3% 106.15 7 15.2% 55.00 19 6.5% 74.40 0 0.0% 106.16 12 23.1% 56.00 10 9.8% 74.41 14 9.3% 106.17 9 9.4% 57.00 11 26.2% 74.42 9 7.9% 106.18 8 8 .0% 58.00 0 0.0% 74.43 0 0.0% 106.19 0 0.0% 59.01 0 0.0% 74.44 0 0.0% 106.20 8 6.3% 59.02 0 0.0% 74.45 0 0.0% 107.01 0 0.0% 60.00 16 10.1% 74.46 0 0.0% 107.02 6 25.0% 61.01 0 0.0% 74.47 8 15.4% T otal 1.223 3.8% 61.02 0 0.0% 74.48 7 6.7% 62.02 0 0.0% 74.49 0 0.0% 63.01 11 9.4% 74.50 11 31.4% 63.02 0 0.0% 74.51 30 33.3% 63.03 0 0.0“ i 74.52 0 0.0% 64.00 5 1.8% 74.53 11 9.2% 65.03 0 0.0% 74.54 0 0.0% 65.04 0 0.0% 74.55 6 10.2% Appendix E5 - Total Filipino Population and Percent Filipino of Total Foreign-Born Population for Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 Census Filipino % Census Filipino Vo Census Filipino % Tract Pop. Filipino Tract Pop. Filipino Tract Pop. Filipino 2.00 0 0.0°'o 65.05 11 20.0% 74.56 0 0.0% 3.00 0 0.0% 65.06 0 0.0% 74.57 13 9.6% 4.00 11 4.7% 66.02 18 7.2% 74.58 8 1.7% 5.00 0 0.0% 66.03 15 13.4% 74.59 0 0.0% 6.00 0 0.0% 66.04 0 0.0% 74.60 7 8.9% 7.00 0 0.0% 67.01 0 0.0% 74.61 0 0.0% 8.00 0 0.0% 67.03 10 4.6% 74.62 0 0.0% 11.00 0 0.0% 67.04 0 0.0% 74.63 0 0.0% 12.00 0 0.0% 68.03 0 0.0% 74.64 0 0.0% 16.00 8 3.6% 68.04 0 0.0% 74.65 0 0.0% 18.00 8 8.7% 68.05 0 0.0% 74.66 19 5.2% 19.00 0 0.0% 68.06 4 1.6% 74.67 0 0.0% 20.00 0 0.0% 69.03 0 0.0% 74.68 0 0.0% 21.00 0 0.0% 69.04 0 0.0% 75.04 3 7.0% 22.00 0 0.0% 69.05 0 0.0% 75.05 0 0.0% 23.00 0 0.0% 69.06 0 0.0% 75.06 0 0.0% 24.00 21 2.6% 70.01 9 3.6% 75.07 0 0.0% 25.00 0 0.0% 70.02 0 0.0% 75.08 0 0.0% 26.00 0 0.0% 70.03 0 0.0% 75.09 0 0.0% 27.00 0 0.0% 71.01 27 25.7% 75.10 5 10.9% 28.00 0 0.0% 71.02 0 0.0% 101.03 0 0.0% 29.00 0 0.0% 73.03 0 0.0% 101.04 2 1.2% 30.00 0 0.0% 73.04 0 0.0% 101.05 11 7.6% 31.00 0 0.0% 73.07 0 0.0% 101.06 74 24.7% 32.00 5 0.7% 73.08 11 17.7% 101.07 9 4.8% 33.00 0 0.0% . 73.09 0 0.0% 101.08 49 13.2% 34.01 0 0.0% 73.10 0 0.0% 102.03 0 0.0% 34.02 . 0 0.0% 73.11 0 0.0% 102.04 7 4.5% 35.00 0 0.0% 73.12 0 0.0% 102.05 0 0.0% 36.00 24 27.9% 73.13 7 11.9% 102.06 32 21.6% 37.00 0 0.0% 74.05 0 0.0% 102.07 9 9.9% 38.00 8 1.3% 74.06 0 0.0% 102.08 4 9.5% 39.00 23 2.3% 74.07 0 0.0% 103.02 5 11.1% 40.00 4 0.5% 74.08 41 17.8% 103.04 76 27.0% 42.00 0 0.0% 74.09 14 12.5% 104.01 0 0.0% 43.00 0 0.0% 74.24 15 8 .8% 104.02 66 20.4% 44.00 0 0.0% 74.29 0 0.0° a 105.01 0 0.0% 45.00 0 0.0% 74.30 0 0.0% 105.02 0 0.0% 46.00 0 0.0% 74.31 0 0.0% 105.03 15 15.8% 47.00 8 6.3% 74.32 0 0.0% 106.05 6 2.9% 48.00 0 0.0% 74.33 18 9.5% 106.07 5 4.9% 49.00 0 0.0% 74.34 0 0.0% 106.10 0 0.0% 50.00 8 1.3% 74.35 67 58.8% 106.11 11 14.3% 51.00 4 0.9% 74.36 18 8.5% 106.12 0 0.0% 52.00 0 0.0% 74.37 9 3.7% 106.13 0 0.0% 53.00 0 0.0% 74.38 0 0.0% 106.14 9 6.0% 54.00 0 0.0% 74.39 40 15.1% 106.15 6 13.0% 55.00 21 7.2% 74.40 8 14.8% 106.16 6 11.5% 56.00 4 3.9% 74.41 0 0.0% 106.17 0 0.0% 57.00 0 0.0% 74.42 0 0.0% 106.18 22 22.0% 58.00 6 4.3% 74.43 29 21.2% 106.19 8 9.8% 50.01 6 9.5% : 74.44 19 6.5% 106.20 20 15.9% 59.02 0 0.0% 74.45 10 5.2% 107.01 5 31.3% 60.00 0 0.0% 74.46 0 0.0% 107.02 0 0.0% 61.01 0 0.0% 74.47 0 0.0% Total 1,137 3.6% 61.02 0 0.0% 74.48 0 0.0% 62.02 16 13.3% 74.49 7 16.3% 63.01 0 0.0% 74.50 0 0.0° i 63.02 5 5.6% 74.51 0 0.0% 63.03 9 16.1% 74.52 0 0.0% 64.00 10 3.5% 74.53 0 0.0% 65.03 0 0.0% 74.54 0 0.0% 65.04 0 0.0% 74.55 9 15.3% 142 Appendix E6 - Total El Salvadoran Population and Percent El Salvadoran of Total Foreign-Born Population for Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 Census El Sal. % Census El Sal. % Census F.I Sal. % Tract Pop. El Sal. Tract Pop. El Sal. Tract Pop. El Sal. 65.05 0 0.0% 74.56 0 0.0% 41318241608 65.06 0 0.0% 74.57 0 0.0% 66.02 0 0.0% 74.58 12 2.5% 66.03 0 0.0% 74.59 0 0.0% 66.04 0 0.0% 74.60 0 0.0% 67.01 0 0.0% 74.61 0 0.0% 67.03 0 0.0% 74.62 0 0.0% 67.04 0 0.0% 74.63 0 0.0% 68.03 0 0.0% 74.64 0 0.0% 68.04 0 0.0% 74.65 0 0.0% 68.05 0 0.0% 74.66 9 2.5% 68.06 0 0.0% 74.67 0 0.0% 69.03 0 0.0“i 74.68 15 25.9% 69.04 0 0.0% 75.04 0 0.0% 69.05 0 0.0% 75.05 0 0.0% 69.06 0 0.0% 75.06 0 0.0% 70.01 44 17.5% 75.07 0 0.0% 70.02 0 0.0% 75.08 0 0.0% 70.03 0 0.0% 75.09 0 0.0% 71.01 2 1.9% 75.10 0 0.0% 71.02 11 4.5% 101.03 0 0.0% 73.03 0 0.0% 101.04 6 3.1% 73.04 0 0.0% 101.05 0 0.0% 73.07 0 0.0% 101.06 0 0.0% 73.08 0 0.0% 101.07 29 15.5% 73.09 0 0.0% 101.08 0 0.0% 73.10 38 52.8% 102.03 0 0.0% 73.11 0 0.0% 102.04 0 0.0% 73.12 0 0,0% 102.05 0 0.0% 73.13 0 0.0% 102.06 0 0.0% 74.05 0 0.0% 102.07 0 0.0% 74.06 0 0.0% 102.08 0 0.0?o 74.07 0 0.0% 103.02 0 0.0% 74.08 0 0.0% 103.04 6 2.1% 74.09 0 0.0% 104.01 0 0.0% 74.24 0 0.0% 104.02 0 0.0% 74.29 0 0.0% 105.01 22 8.5% 74.30 0 0.0% 105.02 61 32.8% 74.31 0 0.0% 105.03 0 0.0% 74.32 0 0.0% 106.05 13 6.2% 74.33 0 0.0% 106.07 0 0.0% 74.34 0 0.0% 106.10 0 0.0% 74.35 0 0.0% 106.11 0 0.0% 74.36 0 0.0% 106.12 0 0.0% 74.37 0 0.0% 106.13 0 0.0% 74.38 0 0.0% 106.14 0 0.0% 74.39 0 0.0% 106.15 0 0.0% 74.40 0 0.0% 106.16 0 0.0“ i 74.41 0 0.0% 106.17 0 0.0% 74.42 0 0.0% : 106.18 0 0.0% 74.43 0 0.0% 106.19 0 0.0% 74.44 0 0.0% 106.20 0 0.0% 74.45 19 9.9% 107.01 5 31.3% 74.46 0 0.0% 107.02 0 0.0% 74.47 0 0.0% T otal 1.087 3.4% 74.48 0 0.0% 74.49 0 0.0% 74.50 0 0.0% 74.51 0 0.0% 74.52 0 0.0% 74.53 6 5.0% 74.54 0 0.0% 74.55 0 0.0% Appendix E7 - Total Korean Population and Percent Korean of Total Foreign-Born Population for Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 Census Korean °/o Census Korean % Census Korean % Tract Pop. Korean Tract Pop. Korean Tract Pop. Korean 2.00 0 0.0% 65.05 0 0.0% 74.56 0 0.0% 3.00 0 0.0% 65.06 16 23.5% 74.57 15 11.0% 4.00 0 0.0% 66.02 0 0.0% 74.58 31 6.5% 5.00 0 0.0% 66.03 0 0.0% 74.59 0 0.0% 6.00 4 8 .2% 66.04 16 11.9% 74.60 17 21.5% 7.00 0 0.0% 67.01 10 3.6% 74.61 16 13.2% 8.00 0 0.0% 67.03 5 2.3% 74.62 0 0.0% 11.00 5 5.6% 67.04 0 0.0% 74.63 0 0.0% 12.00 0 0.0% 68.03 9 25.0% 74.64 16 25.8% 16.00 35 15.6% 68.04 0 0.0% 74.65 30 16.9% 18.00 0 0.0% 68.05 0 0.0% 74.66 0 0.0% 19.00 16 3.6% 68.06 0 0.0% 74.67 7 2.7% 20.00 0 0.0% 69.03 0 0.0% 74.68 0 0.0% 21.00 0 0.0% 69.04 17 11.3% 75.04 0 0.0% 22.00 0 0.0% 69.05 0 0.0% 75.05 17 32.1% 23.00 0 0.0% 69.06 0 0.0% 75.06 0 0.0% 24.00 0 0.0% 70.01 15 6.0% 75.07 0 0.0% 25.00 0 0.0% 70.02 14 10.2% 75.08 2 11.8% 26.00 0 0.0% 70.03 0 0.0% 75.09 9 17.3% 27.00 0 0.0% 71.01 0 0.0% 75.10 0 0.0% 28.00 0 0.0% 71.02 0 0.0% 101.03 19 14.2% 29.00 5 0.4% 73.03 10 15.6% 101.01 12 7.4% 30.00 0 0.0% . 73.04 0 0.0% 101.05 9 6.3% 31.00 0 0.0% 73.07 11 12.6% 101.06 36 12.0% 32.00 0 0.0% 73.08 0 0.0% . 101.07 24 12.8% 33.00 0 0.0% 73.09 0 0.0% 101.08 50 13.4% 34.01 0 0.0% 73.10 0 0.0% 102.03 0 0.0% 34.02 0 0.0% 73.11 29 58.0% 102.04 40 26.0% 35.00 0 0.0% 73.12 25 17.4% 102.05 0 0.0% 36.00 0 0.0% 73.13 0 0.0% 102.06 0 0.0% 37.00 7 9.6% 74.05 0 0.0% 102.07 10 11.0% 38.00 0 0.0% i % 74.06 0 0.0% 102.08 0 0.0% 39.00 0 0.0% 74.07 0 0.0% 103.02 0 0.0% 40.00 10 1.4% 74.08 4 1.7% 103.04 57 20.2% 42.00 0 0.0% 74.09 0 0.0% 104.01 0 0.0% 43.00 0 0.0% 74.24 5 2.9% 104.02 8 2.5% 44.00 0 0.0% 74.29 11 52.4% 105.01 0 0.0% 45.00 3 10.7% 74.30 0 0.0% 105.02 15 8 .1% 46.00 14 5.0% 74.31 16 13.3% 105.03 0 0.0% 47.00 10 7.9% 74.32 0 0.0% 106.05 0 0.0% 48.00 6 2.9% 74.33 15 7.9% 106.07 7 6.9% 49.00 0 0.0% 74.34 20 13.6% 106.10 13 17.6% 50.00 7 1.1% 74.35 15 13.2% 106.11 0 0.0% 51.00 0 0.0% 74.36 25 11.7% 106.12 0 0.0% 52.00 0 0.0% 74.37 0 0.0% 106.13 0 0.0% 53.00 0 0.0% 74.38 16 20.8% 106.14 14 9.3% 54.00 0 0.0% 74.39 0 0.0% 106.15 0 0.0% 55.00 10 3.4% 74.40 0 0.0% 106.16 0 0.0% 56.00 0 0.0% 74.41 7 4.7% 106.17 6 6.3% 57.00 0 0.0% 74.42 13 11.4% 106.18 0 0.0% 58.00 0 0.0% 74.43 0 0.0% 106.19 0 0.0% 59.01 0 0.0% 74.44 0 0.0% 106.20 9 7.1% 59.02 0 0.0% 74.45 0 0.0% . 107.01 0 0.0% 60.00 0 0.0% 74.46 0 0.0% 107.02 1 4.2% 61.01 0 0.0% 74.47 20 38.5% Total 1048 3.3% 61.02 0 0.0% 74.48 0 0.0% 62.02 0 0.0% 74.49 0 0.0% 63.01 0 0.0% 74.50 6 17.1% 63.02 8 9.0% 74.51 11 12.2% 63.03 5 8.9% ■ 74.52 0 0.0% 64.00 14 4.9% 74.53 7 5.8% 65.03 0 0.0% 74.54 0 0.0% 65.04 0 0.0% 74.55 31 52.5% 144 Appendix E8 - Total Chinese Population and Percent Chinese of Total Foreign-Born Population for Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 Census Chinese °/o Census Chinese % Census Chinese ° /o Tract Pop. Chinese Tract Pop. Chinese Tract Pop. Chinese 0 .0% 79821864830 0 .0% 8.00 0.0% 74.62 0 .0% 74.63 0.0% 16.00 18,00 13.8% 75.06 24.00 0 .0% 75.07 0 .0% 25.00 75.08 0 .0% 75.09 0 .0% 27.00 0 .0% 75.10 0.0% 0 .0% 101.08 3.2% 34.02 35.00 11.3% 102.05 53.8% 36.00 0.0% 104.01 12.4% 0.0% 44.00 0 .0% 105.01 0 .0% 46.00 47 16.9% 105.03 5.3% 47.00 8 .2% 0 .0% 54.00 48.8% 106.15 23 50.0% 55.00 0.0% 9.8% 106.18 0 .0% 61.01 0 .0% 2.8% 61.02 62.02 0 .0% 63.01 0 .0% 0 .0% 63.03 14.8% 145 Appendix E9 - Total British and Percent British of Total Foreign-Born Population for Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts, 2000 Census British ° /o Census British ° /o Census British % Tract Pop. British Tract Pop. British Tract Pop. British 2.00 0 0.0% 65.05 5 9.1% 74.56 20 35.1% 3.00 0 0.0% 65.06 0 0.0% 74.57 0 0.0% 4.00 0 0.0% 66.02 7 2.8 % 74.58 0 0.0% 5.00 0 0.0% 66.03 0 0.0% 74.59 0 0.0% 6.00 0 0.0% 66.04 16 11.9% 74.60 0 0.0% 7.00 0 0.0% 67.01 6 2.1% 74.61 0 0.0% 8.00 0 0 .0% 67.03 16 7.4% 74.62 0 0.0% 11.00 0 0.0% 67.04 0 0.0% 74.63 19 13.5% 12.00 0 0.0% 68.03 0 0.0% 74.64 0 0.0% 16.00 7 3.1% 68.04 5 4.6% 74.65 0 0.0% 18.00 0 0.0% 68.05 0 0.0% 74.66 28 7.7% 19.00 0 0.0% 68.06 9 3.5% 74.67 0 0.0% 20.00 0 0.0% 69.03 6 13.3% 74.68 0 0.0% 21.00 0 0.0% 69.04 0 0.0% 75.04 2 4.7% 22.00 25 25.3% 69.05 10 10.2% 75.05 7 13.2% 23.00 0 0.0% 69.06 0 0.0% 75.06 0 0.0% 24.00 6 0.7% 70.01 10 4.0% 75.07 0 0.0% 25.00 6 2.3% 70.02 0 0.0% 75.08 0 0.0% 26.00 3 0.4% 70.03 0 0.0% 75.09 0 0.0% 27.00 3 0.4% 71.01 0 0.0% 75.10 0 0.0% 28.00 11 1.4% 71.02 0 0.0% 101.03 25 18.7% 29.00 0 0.0% 73.03 0 0.0% 101.04 5 3.1% 30.00 0 0.0% 73.04 0 0.0% 101.05 26 18.1% 31.00 0 0.0° 'o 73.07 0 0.0% 101.06 39 13.0% 32.00 5 0.7% 73.08 0 0.0% 101.07 0 0.0% 33.00 0 0.0% 73.09 0 0.0% 101.08 67 18.0% 34.01 0 0.0% 73.10 6 8.3% 102.03 0 0.0% 34.02 0 0.0% 73.11 0 0.0% 102.04 14 9.1% 35.00 7 4.2% 73.12 10 6.9% 102.05 0 0.0% 36.00 0 0.0% 73.13 0 0.0% 102.06 19 12.8% 37.00 0 0.0% 71.05 0 0.0% 102.07 7 7.7% 38.00 0 0.0% 74.06 7 4.6% 102.08 0 0.0% 39.00 0 0.0% 74.07 6 2.5% 103.02 15 33.3% 40.00 10 1.4% 74.08 0 0.0% 103.04 18 6.4% 42.00 0 0.0% 74.09 0 0.0% 104.01 0 0.0% 43.00 0 0.0% 74.24 0 0.0% 104.02 42 13.0% 44.00 0 0.0% 74.29 5 23.8% 105.01 16 6.2% 45.00 0 0.0% 74.30 0 0.0% 105.02 0 0.0% 46.00 6 2.2% 74.31 0 0.0% 105.03 6 6.3% 47.00 0 0.0% 74.32 0 0.0% 106.05 22 10.5% 48 00 16 7.7% 74.33 0 0.0% 106.07 42 41.2% 49.00 0 0.0% 74.34 0 0.0% 106.10 4 5.4% 50.00 0 0.0% 74.35 0 0.0% 106.11 0 0.0% 51.00 0 0.0% 74.36 12 5.6% 106.12 0 0.0% 52.00 0 0.0% 74.37 6 2.5% 106.13 0 0.0% 53.00 0 0.0% 74.38 0 0.0% 106.14 0 0.0% 54.00 0 0.0% 74.39 22 8.3% 106.15 10 21.7% 55.00 16 5.5% 74.40 0 0.0% 106.16 4 7.7% 56.00 0 0.0% 74.41 5 3.3% 106.17 7 7.3% 57.00 0 0.0% 74.42 21 18.4% 106.18 0 0.0% 58.00 0 0.0% 74.43 0 0.0% 106.19 0 0.0% 59.01 0 0.0% 74.44 10 3.4% 106.20 0 0.0% 59.02 0 0.0% 74.45 0 0.0% 107.01 0 0.0% 60.00 12 7.5% 74.46 0 0.0% 107.02 0 0.0% 61.01 0 0.0% 74.47 0 0.0% T otal 882 2.8 % 61.02 8 6 .2% 74.48 0 0.0% 62.02 0 0.0% 74.49 0 0.0% 63.01 0 0.0% 74.50 0 0.0% 63.02 23 25.8% 74.51 0 0.0% 63.03 0 0.0% 74.52 8 27.6% 64.00 0 0.0% 74.53 0 0.0% 65.03 0 0.0% 74.54 9 7.4% 65.04 37 45.7% 74.55 0 0.0% Appendix E1U - Total Guatemalan and Percent Guatemalan of Total Foreign-Born Population for Douglas/Sarpy County Census Tracts. 2000 Census Guat. % Census Guat. % Census Guat. % Tract Pop. Guat. Tract Pop. Guat. Tract Pop. Guat. 2.00 0 0.0% 65.05 0 0.0% 74.56 0 0.0% 3.00 0 0.0% 65.06 0 0.0% 74.57 0 0.0% 4.00 0 0.0% 66.02 0 0.0% 74.58 0 0.0% 5.00 0 0.0% 66.03 0 0.0% 74.59 0 0.0% 6.00 11 22.4% 66.04 0 0.0% 74.60 0 0.0% 7.00 0 0.0% 67.01 0 0.0% 74.61 0 0.0% 8.00 6 40.0% 67.03 30 13.8% 74.62 0 0.0% 11.00 0 0.0% 67.04 0 0.0% 74.63 0 0.0% 12.00 0 0.0% 68.03 0 0.0% 74.64 0 0.0% 16.00 0 0.0% 68.04 0 0.0% 74.65 0 0.0% 18.00 0 0.0% 68.05 0 0.0% 74.66 0 0.0% 10.00 0 0.0% 68.06 0 0.0% 74.67 85 33.3% 20.00 4 0.4% 69.03 0 0.0% 74.68 0 0.0% 21.00 0 0.0% 69.04 0 0.0% 75.04 0 0.0% 22.00 0 0.0% 69.05 0 0.0% 75.05 0 0.0% 23.00 0 0.0% 69.06 0 0.0% 75.06 0 0.0% 24.00 96 11.9% 70.01 0 0.0% 75.07 0 0.0% 25.00 5 1.9% 70.02 0 0.0% 75.08 0 0.0% 26.00 10 • 1.2% 70.03 0 0.0% 75.09 0 0.0% 27.00 0 0.0% 71.01 8 7.6% 75.10 10 21.7% 28.00 0 0.0% 71.02 0 0.0% 101.03 0 0.0% 29.00 0 0.0% 73.03 0 0.0% 101.04 7 4.3% 30.00 16 2.2% 73.04 0 0.0% 101.05 0 0.0% 31.00 0 0.0% 73.07 0 0.0% 101.06 0 0.0% 32.00 6 0.8% 73.08 0 0.0% 101.07 0 0.0% 33.00 0 0.0% 73.09 0 0.0% 101.08 15 4.0% 34.01 0 0.0% 73.10 0 0.0% 102.03 0 0.0% 34.02 0 0.0% 73.11 0 0.0% 102.04 0 0.0% 35.00 0 0.0% 73.12 13 9.0% 102.05 0 0.0% 36.00 0 0.0% 73.13 0 0.0% 102.06 0 0.0% 37.00 0 0.0% 74.05 0 0.0% 102.07 0 0.0% 38.00 54 8.7% 74.06 0 0.0% 102.08 0 0.0% 39.00 156 15.9% 74.07 0 0.0% 103.02 0 0.0% 40.00 0 0.0% 74.08 0 0.0% 103.04 7 2.5% 42.00 0 0.0% 74.09 0 0.0% 104.01 0 0.0% 43.00 138 38.0% 74.24 0 0.0% 104.02 0 0.0% 44.00 0 0.0% 74.29 0 0.0% 105.01 0 0.0% 45.00 0 0.0% 74.30 0 0.0% 105.02 0 0.0% 46.00 0 0.0% 74.31 0 0.0% 105.03 0 0.0% 47.00 0 0.0% 74.32 0 0.0% 106.0? 0 0.0% 48.00 0 0.0% 74.33 0 0.0% 106.07 0 0.0% 49.00 0 0.0% 74.34 0 0.0% 106.10 0 0.0% 50.00 10 1.6% 74.35 0 0.0% 106.11 0 0.0% 51.00 14 3.1% 74.36 0 0.0% 106.12 0 0.0% 52.00 0 0.0% 74.37 0 0.0% 106.13 0 0.0% 53.00 0 0.0% . 74.38 0 0.0% 106.14 0 0.0% 54.00 0 0.0% 74.39 0 0.0% 106.15 0 0.0% 55.00 0 0.0% 74.40 0 0.0% 106.16 0 0.0% 56.00 0 0.0% 74.41 23 15.3% 106.17 6 6.3% 57.00 0 0.0% 74.42 0 0.0% 106.18 0 0.0% 58.00 0 0.0% 74.43 0 0.0% 106.19 0 0.0% 59.01 0 0.0% 74.44 0 0.0% 106.20 0 0.0% 59.02 0 0.0% 74.45 0 0.0% 107.01 0 0.0% 60.00 0 0.0% 74.46 0 0.0% 107.02 0 0.0% 61.01 7 29.2% 74.47 0 0.0% T otal 755 2.4% 61.02 18 14.0% 74.48 0 0.0% 62.02 0 0.0% 74.49 0 0.0% 63.01 0 0.0% 74.50 0 0.0% 63.02 0 0.0% 74.51 0 0.0% 63.03 0 0.0% 74.52 0 0.0% 64.00 0 0.0% 74.53 0 0.0% 65.03 0 0.0% 74.54 0 0.0% 65.04 0 0.0% 74.55 0 0.0% 147 APPENDIX F Regression Tables for Each Foreign-Born Population 148 Appendix F - Regression Results of Socio-Economic Characteristics Predicting Foreign-Born Residence in Douglas/Sarpy County, 2000 British Foreign-born R 2 Guatemalan Foreign-born R 2 Does Not Speak English Well 0.014 Does Not Speak English Well 0.072 Owns Home 0.042 Rents Home 0.096 Arrived before 1965 0.051 High School Degree 0.108 Bachelor’s Degree 0.061 Arrived between 1965 and 1984 0.116 High School Degree 0.086 No Education 0.121 No Education 0.102 Bachelor's Degree 0.125 Household Income 0.106 Value of House 0.130 Speaks English Well 0.109 Arrived after 1985 0.131 Value of House 0.111 Speaks English Well 0.131 Arrived between 1965 and 1984 0.111 Arrived before 1965 0.131 Arrived after 1985 0.113 Household Income 0.131 Chinese Foreign-born R 2 Indian Foreign-born R 2 Arrived after 1985 0.030 Arrived after 1985 0.046 Rents Home 0.041 Bachelor’s Degree 0.094 Bachelor's Degree 0.058 Rents Home 0.120 Value of House 0.070 High School Degree 0.142 Household Income 0.075 Arrived before 1965 0.148 Speaks English Well 0.077 Does Not Speak English Well 0.154 Does Not Speak English Well 0.079 Speaks English Well 0.157 High School Degree 0.080 Arrived between 1965 and 1984 0.159 No Education 0.080 Value of House 0.160 Arrived between 1965 and 1984 0.080 Household Income 0.161 Arrived before 1965 0.080 No Education 0.161 Filipino Foreign-born R 2 Korean Foreign-born R 2 Arrived between 1965 and 1984 0.051 Value of House 0.056 Owns Home 0.085 Owns Home 0.077 Does Not Speak English Well 0.103 No Education 0.092 Arrived after 1985 0.110 Arrived between 1965 and 1984 0.105 Household Income 0.115 Arrived after 1985 0.110 Bachelor's Degree 0.127 Household Income 0.112 No Education 0.131 High School Degree 0.120 Value of House 0.132 Speaks English Well 0.121 Speaks English Well 0.133 Bachelor's Degree 0.121 High School Degree 0.133 Does Not Speak English Well 0.121 Arrived before 1965 0.133 Arrived before 1965 0.121 German Foreign-born R 2 Vietnamese Foreign-born R 2 Arrived before 1965 0.055 Arrived before 1965 0.033 Owns Home 0.067 Owns Home 0.039 Arrived between 1965 and 1984 0.071 Bachelor's Degree 0.046 Value of House 0.075 Speaks English Well 0.059 High School Degree 0.083 High School Degree 0.067 Bachelor's Degree 0.101 Does Not Speak English Well 0.070 No Education 0.108 No Education 0.072 Does Not Speak English Well 0.109 Value of House 0.074 Arrived after 1985 0.109 Household Income 0.076 Speaks English Well 0.109 Arrived between 1965 and 1984 0.077 Household Income 0.109 Arrived after 1985 0.085 149 APPENDIX G Map of Census Tracts in Douglas/Sarpy County 150 tet 0O O r G - Map of Census Tracts in Douglas/Sarpy County, Nebraska, 2000 APPENDIX H Map of Street Names Labeled by Census Tracts in Douglas/Sarpy County 152 o o H - Map of Streets in Douglas/Sarpy County, Nebraska, 2000 153 REFERENCES Alba, R. D., & Logan, J. R. (1991). Variations on Two Themes: Racial and Ethnic Patterns in the Attainment of Suburban Residence. Demography. 28. 431-453. Alba, R. & Nee, V. (1997). Rethinking Assimilation Theory in a New Era of Immigration. International Migration Review. 31.4. 826-874. Allen, J. P. & Turner, E. (1996). Spatial Patterns of Immigrant Assimilation. Professional Geographer. 48. 140-155. Anselin L. (1995). Local Indicators of Spatial Association - LISA. Geographical Analysis. 27. 93 - 115. Anselin L. (2003). GeoDa 0.9User’s Guide. [WWW document]. Retrieved: http://geoda.uiuc.edu/pdf/geoda093.pdf. Anselin, L., Syabri, I., & Kho, Y. (2004). GeoDa: An Introduction to Spatial Data Analysis. [WWW document]. Retrieved: https://www.geoda.uiuc.edu/documentation/publications. Burbach, C. (2002, May 13). Among Asians, Everybody Helps Out, Building Their Own Support Systems, Communities adapt to the Midlands While Maintaining Their Culture. Omaha World Herald. Burt, J. E., & Barber, G. M. (1996). Elementary Statistics for Geographers (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. DeWind, J. (1997). Everything Old is New Again? Processes and Theories of Immigrant Incorporation. International Migration Review. Winter. ESRI 'Support Center. (2005). HowTo: Use Ihe Jenks optimization method to determine natural breaks in ArcView legends. Retrieved: http://support.esri.com/index.cfrn?fa=knowledgebase.techarticles.articleShow&d=l 1961 Feagin, J. R., & Feagin, C. B. (1999). Racial and Ethnic Relations. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Fimple, K. L., (1989). An Analysis of the Changing Spatial Dimensions of Ethnic Neighborhoods in Omaha, Nebraska 1880-1900. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nebraska at Lincoln, 1989). 154 Hindu Temple Limited. (2005). Omaha Hindu Temple History. Retrieved: http://www.hindutemplenebraska.org/articles/Hindu_temple_history.doc Larson, L. H., & Cottrell, B. J. (1982). The Gate Citv: A History of Omaha. US: Pruett Publishing Company. Logan, J. R., Alba, R., & Zhang W. (2002). Immigrant Enclaves and Ethnic Communities in New York and Los Angeles. American Sociological Review. 67. 299-322. Lee, E. S. (1966). A Theory of Migration. Demography. 3. 47-57. Massey, D. S. (1985). Ethnic Residential Segregation: A Theoretical Synthesis and Empirical Review. Sociology and Social Research 69. 315-350. Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1988). The Dimensions of Residential Segregation. Social Forces 68. 281-315. Park, R. E. & Burgess, E. W. (1925). The City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pedraza, S. (1996). Origins and Destinies: Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in American History. In S. Pedraza & R.G. Rutnbaut (Eds.), Origins and Destinies: Immigration. Race, and Ethnicity in America. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Newbold, B. K. (2003). Immigration, Spatial Assimilation, and Segmented Paths Within the Metropolis. Geography Research Forum 23. 56-77. Reynolds, F. (N.A). Calculation Formula for Segregation Measures. Racial Residential Segregation Measurement Project. [WWW document]. Retrieved: http://enceladus. isr.umich.edu/race/calculate.html Ruggles, R. & Chu, C. (2006, July 23). Sudanese Heartily Welcome Leader. Omaha World Herald. Rumbaut, R. G. (1996). Origins and Destinies: Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in Contemporary America. In S. Pedraza & R.G. Rumbaut (Eds.), Origins and Destinies: Immigration. Race, and Ethnicity in America. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Sack, S. (2002). Acculturation and Geographic Mobility : the Sudanese Refugees in Omaha, Nebraska. (Masters Thesis, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 2002). 155 StatSoft, Inc. (2006). Electronic Statistics Textbook. [WWW document] Retrieved: http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/stathome.html U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2003). Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of October 3, 1965. Retrieved: http ://uscis. gov/ graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/legishist/526.htm White, M. J., Biddlecom, A. E., & Guo, S. (1993). Immigration, Naturalization, and Residential Assimilation Among Asian Americans in 1980. Social Forces 72. 93- 117. White, M. J., & Omer, A. (1997). Segregation by Ethnicity and Immigrant Status in New Jersey. In T. J. Espenshade (Ed.), Keys to Successful Immigration: Implications of the New Jersey Experience. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press. Yeates, M. & Gamer, B. (1980). The North American City (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Harper & Row. i : s 5 s F: 1 ?, s, n ? ^ «s a ; : s f, S ?i a fi — — c? ©oo©© ©c?©®c?c5^® ocjc5<^oa®*aowo’oc;c?® IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII