The Asian Community in Austin: a Demographic Snapshot April 19, 2016 Ryan Robinson City Demographer Planning & Development Review Department Austin’s Demographic Story continues to revolve around these three major themes: 1. Long-term, sustained, rapid job and population growth. 2. Profound diversification. 3. Stubborn structural and spatial socio-economic separations. The Asian Community in Austin: a Demographic Snapshot Ryan Robinson City Demographer City of Austin  Austin is an open city.  Austin is a tolerant city.  Austin is a magnet for entrepreneurs.  Austin is a well-educated city.  Austin is an international immigrant gateway.  Austin’s cultural vibrancy has become one of our biggest economic development engines. Bijoy Goswami ?q n. . Austin-- Williamson Round - - . MSA Metropolitan in 4: n: . . Statistical Area . FEE Li'f? 3' ?3 ?17" Ii La? TL January 2013 ?air-hTravis if :3 .a I. I. rr." 3 5p Rd 7. ?35} City of Au stin Full and Limited Jurisdiction City of Austin Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction ?7 i WE: Caldwell (-23 . a. .- r1 Austin Orlando Raleigh Houston Las Vegas San Antonio Denver DFW Nashville Jacksonville Charlotte Tampa Phoenix Portland Atlanta Seattle Oklahoma City Salt Lake City San Francisco Sacramento Miami Columbus San Jose Riverside Washington San Diego Grand Rapids Richmond New Orleans Indianapolis Top 30 Fastest Growing Large (1.0 million Metropolitan Areas: 2014 to 2015 I, 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 10 Fastest Growing Metro Areas, 2014 to 2015 Denver Las Vegas Nashville Raleigh DFW Jacksonville Austin Houston Orlando San Antonio 60Share of Metro Growth from Individual Counties. 9O 2011 and 2015 44.5% 2010?-2011 2014??2015 9.3% 4.1% 15% 03% 1.3% Bastrop Caldwell Hays Travis 33.3% Williamson Austin MSA Population History: 1900 to 2015 2,000,000 1,900,000 1,800,000 1,700,000 1,600,000 1,500,000 1,400,000 1,300,000 1,200,000 1,100,000 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 I, II. 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 metropolitan Austin?s population should crest the 3.0 million mark by 2030 Top 30 Largest Cities in the US: 2013 New York Los Angeles Chicago Houston Philadelphia Phoenix San Antonio San Diego Dallas 27th in Sag Jose 1th ustin . Indianapolis 16th In Jacksonville San Francisco 14th In Columbus Charlotte 11th in Fort Worth th Detroit Elmo . 10 by Memphis I. Seattle . Denver Wash DC Boston Nashville Baltimore Okla City Louisville Portland L33 V9335 .1 I- I I. 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000 Educational Attainment, Top 30 Metros, 2013: percentage of age 25 Plus with at least a Bachelor's Washington San Jose San Francisco 305?? - I .. I I 5th Denver Minnealmlis I I seat?e New York I I I Baltimore Atlanta Portland I Chicag? Sim Diego I Cmumbus . I Philade?ll?hia . I Kansas City I Charlmte I NaShViue . Milwaukee Indianapmis I L05 Ang??es DFW St' Louis I Pittsburgh 1 sacrament? I I 4 Source: American Community Survey, - Ian" .. 2013 Lyear estimates, Table B15003. Provndence - .1 I I l. I I 5.0% 10.0%. 15.0?n 20.0"? 25.0?0 30.000 35.0"? 40.0"0 45.0% 50.0?0 County (f I Bachelor's Degree or More, by tract Households -Less than 5% to 10% -10% to 20% :20% to 30% to 40% Austin__ to 50% Round Rock -50% to 60% MSA9 2013 -60% to 70% -70% to 80% Data source: American Community Survey, 2009?13 S-ycar composite damsel, Table 315003, census tracts. US Census Bureau. Caldwell County May produced by RJWJI Rnhilnum C507 Dewar-guitar. qun?wut mlr'n. 2N5. CENTER 0N URBAN AND METROPOLITAN POLICY The Rise Of New Immigrant Gateways attache}.i Singer Findings An analysis of immigration to metropolitan areas during the 20"" center}r using US. I'Sensus data reveals that: have I The 1.1.5. Foreign-born population grew 57.4 percent in the 1990s; by 2000 nesa?lsr one- third of immigrants resided outside established settlement states. Thirteen states primarilj,r in the 1"West and Southeast?including man},r that had not previouslyI been major become destinations for immigrants?saw Foreign-born growth rates more than double the national average. 'lhesc states included, Colorado, Georgia, Nevada, and North Carolina. gatm-va?ys; new I Historical settlement patterns along with recent in?uxes ot'irnmigrants have produced six major types of U5. immigrant "gateways." Former gateways, like Cleveland and Buf? Falo, attracted immigrants in the early 1900s but no longer do. Cmtinamrs gateuays such have as New 1tori?c and Chicago are long-established destinations for immigrants and continue to receive large numbers of the Foreign-horn. Post-World war II gateways like [as ?ngeles and Miami hean attracting immigrants on a grand scale during the past '30 years. Atlanta, Dallas, and i-Vashington, D.C., meanwhile, stand out as emerging gateways with Fast immi? orani' rinrino the nast 33.0 Hears. Hearlle ?militia {Jilin-a mlagg?hgiflA-og-i "1e- e-rae-rged; and Table 1. Six Immigrant Gateway Types, Metropolitan Areas, 2000 Former Continuous Post-World War II Emerging fie-Emerging Pre-Emerging Baltimore Bergen?Passaic Fort Lauderdale Atlanta Denver Austin Buffalo Boston Houston Dallas Minneapolis-St. Paul Charlotte Cleveland Chicago Los Angeles Fort Worth Oakland Greensboro- Detroit Jersey City Miami Las Vegas Phoenix Winston-Salem Milwaukee MiddleseX-Somerset- Orange County Orlando Portland, OR Raleigh-Durham Philadelphia Hunterdon Biverside? Washington, D.C. Sacramento Salt Lake City Pittsburgh Nassau-Suffolk San Bernardino West Palm Beach San Jose St. Louis New York San Diego Seattle Newark Tampa San Francisco . Mam, ?1.1 r?F?mr 7. Incoming Streams of International Immigrants Current Sources of Refugees Into Austin, 2014 Syria Iraq Nepal Cuba Iran Sudan El Salvador Honduras Somalia Ethiopia SOURCE: CARITAS, 2014 Burma Laos and Cambodia 60City of Austin Racial and Ethnicity Shares History and F0 recast: 1990 to 2030 CIAnglo IAfrican American El Hispanic I Asian I Other 2000 2010 2020 2030 Racial and Ethnic Mix, City of Austin, 2014 ACS Census Estimates Asian, 7.0% - ther,2.5% Hispanic, 34.4% non-Hispanic White, 48.6% Afri. American 7.5% Age Structure by Race and Ethnicity, City of Austin, 2014 Estimates Total 65 Plus 55-454 45--54 35--44 25--34 Iii-~24 10--17 0--9 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: American Community Sm. 2m 1m White I Hispanic I Asian I African American I Multi/O?ler quilted with cdhnulu Item the Oil} During-1pm. Poverty Rates by Age Group, Race and Ethnicity City of Austin American Community Survey, 2014, l-year Estimates Series, Table B17001 Table 1: Poverty Rates (1) Overall non-Hispanic African Category or Group Population White American Hispanic Asian Overall Population 18.50/11 10.50/11 27. 70/0 28.40/11 16.90/11 Under Age 5 29.1 8.40/0 50.9%: 42.6%: 20.9%: Under Age 18 26.80/11 6.1 0/0 43.3% 40.40/0 13.3'% Age 65 Plus 8.50/0 5.20/0 16.80/0 17.10/0 7.40/0 NOTES: (1) The source for data behind this table on. Poverty in the City of Austin is the American Surrey-a which is produced by the US Census Bureau. Data. for this table are from the 2014 layear Estimates Series. Poverty rates are calculated for only the portion of the total population that lives within a household. poverty rates are not calculated for institutionalized persons or individuals living "(Lh'oup Quarters situations. The Poverty Rate is a function of total annual household income and the number of individuals within a household. The 2014 Pitnrerty threshold for a fa only offour was $23,850. Ryan Hoffman. fifty DWI-arming"! nfl'famr?ug. 1? 'r'lrtw?mu'i'n. February BUM City of Austin 2014 Data Poverty Rates by census tract :Less than 10% to 20% -20% to 30% -30% Plus Dara soume: American Community NHL-14 5-year composite damn-t1 Table 8170M, census tracts. US Census Bureau. Lake Travm 513; .- JMiles . $50,000 to $00,000 iW 0f mumdmu, er?mhm. ?zm?lr! Mumuf?hnh: 5:13: 4 .1. mm, mm Median Family Income Austin, 2014 data Income Bracket No Households - Less than $20,000 $20,000 to $30,000 I: $30,000 to $40,000 I: $40,000 to $50,000 $60,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 - $100,000 to $125,000: - $125,000 to $150,00 $150,000 Plus Augtin Dali source: Aman {"nmmunlt? Survey. 1010 5 year I able 3191 13. (um: lunch. US Cult-us Human. Structural Descriptions and Trends The Asian Community in Austin: a Demographic Snapshot Ryan Robinson City Demographer City of Austin Structural Descriptions and Trends  Asians in Austin are the fastest growing local demographic group in terms of percentage gain year-to-year and are doubling in total size roughly every 12 years.  The City of Austin’s Asian share of total population is now above 7.0% and climbing rapidly—putting Austin in the 9th position out of the nation’s largest 30 cities in terms of their Asian shares—ahead of Houston and right behind Portland.  Austin’s Asian community is the fastest growing Asian community of any of the nation’s largest 30 cities--which speaks to the overall newness of the community in central Texas. The Asian Community in Austin: a Demographic Snapshot Ryan Robinson City Demographer City of Austin Structural Descriptions and Trends  The City of Austin’s Asian share of total population will soon surpass the City’s African American share of total population and Asians will become the City’s third largest demographic group behind Latinos and non-Hispanic Whites.  Austin’s Asian community is highly diverse with significant subgroup shares coming from Indians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Koreans and Filipinos.  At $101,699 annually, Asian families in Austin have the highest Median Family Income (MFI) of any demographic group in the City. This figure is substantially higher than the City’s overall MFI and ranks 3rd highest out of the nation’s largest 30 cities in terms of Asian MFI. The Asian Community in Austin: a Demographic Snapshot Ryan Robinson City Demographer City of Austin Sunduy?mriew COLUMNIST The Asian Advantage Read in Chinese 3301 31' Read in Korean 9 Nicholas Kristh GET. 221-15 1 . I I 81.; - - L4H ,7 Shis? I rd q. er My {are A?anQAm . 's ?fa sycce??ful Liv. er; I I - Morning Mix Asian Americans speak out against a decades-01d ?model minority? A I I Savefer Later I 55 Reading List Dcteber 20. 2015 I'iSteci-z] A eelumn published ever a week age in the New York Times began with what the writer calls ?an awkward question?: ?Th'l'hy are Asian Americans 30 NEE-IS LIFE TECH mum 153:: MONDAY, OCT 12, 2015 03:22 PM CDT Nicholas Kristof thinks all Asian Americans are alike: The New York Times gets the ?Asian Advantage? all wrong The "bamboo ceiling" is real and model mirmrityr only undermine meaningful change KHIH MM AUHG AN RUSSELL CHUN w; TOPICS: - 3' - Breakout of Asians in Austin, Census 2010 Korean, 0? Japanese, I 0 2.4% ther, 13.0% Vietnamese, 5.2 - VI 23.1 Breakout of Asians in Austin, ACS 2014 data Other, Filipino, 1042/9 4- Japanese, 2.2% 4. J. I Yen, Vietnamese, .1 0? - Breakout of Asians in the US, ACS 2014 data Vietnamese, Korean, 33% JapaneseEra-5 39?? Spatial Descriptions and Trends The Asian Community in Austin: a Demographic Snapshot Ryan Robinson City Demographer City of Austin Spatial Descriptions 1. Asian households in Austin are becoming increasingly suburban. 2. Distinctive housing patterns between various Asian communities are emerging. 3. Although not explicitly an Asian opportunity District, City Council District 6 had the greatest Asian share of total in 2010 (about 14%) and this share has surely grown… The Asian Community in Austin: a Demographic Snapshot Ryan Robinson City Demographer City of Austin Changing Asian Landscape Asian Population Concentrations, 1990 and 2000. Austin. Texas. 1990 Census and Census 2000 Dataation Percent Asian POpUlatiOn Percent Asian - 20% Pius 20% Ptus 15951920913 ?15%t020% - 10%to 15% 10961131595 5% 201096 5%Fbpulation Housing Units ?soulful-crab. Thu Elli Hum. Linn-"rum Penn-nu. :lr. ul ?an-In: tin-me! m1 Changing Asian Landscape--Travis County Asian Population Concentrations, 2000 and 2010 . A Percentage of the Less than 5% . Percentage ofthe Less than 5% Census 2000 Data 1M Pupuhm 5mm Census 2010 Data Totalpopula?m 5% mm sus Blocks that ?5 10% Census Blocks that is Asian - "m '59? - 10% to 15% Inn-oJIaM-wnw-b-u: it'll-dd. I-w ud- m?ba-?nl - Plus - Hus Lake - . Travis . winced M'Rh'rin?ruhiumrL Change in the Asian Percentage of Total Population 2000 to 2010 Travis County data from the US Census Bureau Change in a Census 'l?raet's Percentage of Total Population that is Asian from 2000 to 2010 at the 2000 tract-level Example: 50%. in 2000, 59% in 20l0 9 Point Gain Lam Point Gain or Loss - 5 Points Plus 3 to 5 Points to 3 Points 0 to 1 Points -1 to 0 Points -3 to -1 Points - -5 to -3 Points - ?5 Points Plus col: ('umn mm {'oe1m illtl Rut-1m mu] Flu. Mult- pro/Mid by Him, Karine-:31. L'n'y Llewe?rcgviwr. imparme oil-"Audio: JOEL Asian Population Growth and Decline: 2000 to 2010 Austin--Round Rock SA data from the US Census Bureau Change in a Census Tract?s Total Asian American Population from 2000 to 2010 at the 2000 tract-level - 1,000 Plus 500 to 1,000 100 -100 -100 to -500 - ?500 to ?1000 - -500 Plus morn-s! f?rnmn STI: ['rlw'a Fall-I "Ir Asian Population Share of Total Population Austin, Texas ACS 2014 Data Table 303002, census tracts Percentage of Total Population that is Asian Less than 5% 5% to 7.5% 7.15% Plus 16:6 H116 on 1.25 25 SMiles i. Mappmduced by Rnbinmn. City Hemographch Department of Planning. erutl?l' 20M. Asian Indian Share of Total Population Austin, Texas Census 2010 Data Lake Travis ,1 '10 54/6. Percentage of Total Population that is Asian Indian Less than 1% 10/0 to 30/0 to 50APlus 1.5 3 6 Miles Map IrquL-ml by Robinson, Ch)- of Planning. L?iaj? quu?in. July 2013. Lake Travis 1.5 3 6 Miles I I I I I I Map produced by Ryan Rnbinwm. City Dmiagmpher. a} Planning. (Hr ofAm'lin. July 2013. Chinese Share of Total 1 Population Austin, Texas Census 2010 Data Percentage of Total Population that is Chinese Less than Plus Ta 0 .. . 19 Vietnamese I Share of Total Austin, Texas Census 2010 Data Lake Travis I Percentage of II Total Population that is Vietnamese Less than Plus 1.5 3: (I?Miles I I Map by Ryan Robinson. cig- a; Planning. ca; ({IAm'iin. Jury 20:3. I a I, a" Data Indicators The Asian Community in Austin: a Demographic Snapshot Ryan Robinson City Demographer City of Austin Asian Quality of Life Data Indicators slut x?iriulysis ril' Dunlin of lift [loinonrupliit? l'r-r I'th?gllt'll? .Xsmn {?uiumuliil} Green indicates Ranking is Positive Source: and Am 1?year, Census Doreen the poverty rate for the City as a Whole, falls about in the middle ol'a rant; ordenng of bencluuarkers. Austin's large concentration of college students drives overall povertv rates higher. is less than that for die City as a li?l?llC?llC and yet the Asian poverty rate is quantitatively pulled opWards by the concentration of Asian college students in the City?the rate in?uenced by these lower income lmusoholds Data Theme ?gures are compared and benchmarked against the state ol'Texas. the nation, and Orange indicates is Negative and the 3t] hippest cities in the cowrtiy. Yellow indicates Ranking is Neutral Depth of Current Situation Compared Peer Level of Local Disparity and Comparison Dispanty Issue-"Data Theme with Other Communities Raul-ring to L?Jisparities in Other Communities Ranking Trend and Undool: Shari? i Austin's Asian community is esperieneing 9th This data point Won't have a Di-Sparity factor mi Austin '5 Asian share oftotal population explosive growth?its share ol? the Citys but it is Worth noting that cities without will surely continue to increase as the 1 total population ascending over 7% and is significant Asian populations. tend to volumes elm-migration for Asian 1 now the 9th largest concentration ol'Asians economic and cultural laggards and in Austin?s households are expected to increase 1 in the nation and the 10th largest in terms case our large Asian conununity sets us apart nationally over the next few decades-- of total size. li'oIn most other cities in the southwest. Austin will capture much of this growth. Family Income Asian families in Austin enjoy one oftlie Asian in Austin towers above overall 23rd The long-term trend for Asian wealth and 301-1 11(5- l-ym-C mm 31m" highest Median Family Incomes (MW) in MFL versus and this inverted a?luence in Austin could be all'ecled as a the nation [NOEL-ranking 3rd} when disparity ranks 23rd in the nation in terms of more diverse and less well-educated tier of 1 compared to Asimi in other cities dillierential magnitude. Within rnosl [24 out of new Asian immigrants and domestic 1 across the country, even higher than 32'} ofthc comparative observations, Asian arrivals begin changing the character of Seattle hut behind Wash DC and San Jose. MFI is higher than overall MFI. Austin's current Asian community. Educational Attainment The collective Asian communityr in Austin End The educational attairmient level for adult 15*? Austin should continue to receive an in?ux Source: 1014 nos 1-star, Census Bum-I 1 is one ol'lhe most well-educated Asian Asians in Austin is signi?cantly higher than ol'vvell-educated Asian households and yet i cormnunities in the entire country with Heat of the overall population versus as Austin matures as an irrternational port 1 Mia-4t: of Asians age ?25 plus having at 47.6%) and thus an inverted disparity exists of entry the overall socioeconomic levels 1 least a Bachelor's degree. A critical mass of hut the C'in as a whole ranks 4th nationally in of Asians in Austin could fall as a more 1 molessimial?class labor has emerged. terms ol'educational altaiiunent. diverse galaxy ol'Asian households arrive. Hon? own?'ShlP 1 Austin has one ofthe lowest rates of home 19?? 20th Home ownership in Austin will more than 3mm: 30141195 1-star. CmsusBmuu 1 ownership in the nation1 ranking '23rd in Although Asian households in Austin l'all likely only become more diilicull as 1 the set of eomparalz-les--.iuceordineg= Act an within the bottom half of comparable data overall housing affordability continues to 1 households ran}; 19lh when compared to points in terms with a home ouriership rate of collapse across the City with dozens of other Asian communities in ternis of their that rate still exceeds the overall rate of fonnerly affordable neighborhoods now rates ol'home ownership. home omrership of 44.7?fb for the entire City. out?ollreach tor the Huddle?class. P'Werly The poverty rate For Asians in Austin. like 13?" The poverty rate for Austin's Asian cornrrimiily "uh The long-term trend is somewhat unclear. Because the po 'erty rate is a somewhat simplistic measure calculated with only two input variables, household income and lmusehold size. it only partially re?ects sortie-economic dynamics. Asian Quality of Life Data Indicators 'u?r ?in'ilysis of (Juniin at Lil-r" lit-a L1 l'tll' irlslil?i's .tsinll lannurulrilg Data Theme ?gures are compared and against the state ol'Texas. the nation. and and the 30 biggest cities in the country. Page Two Green indicates Ranking is FosiLive Orange indicates Ranking is Negative Yellow indicates Ranking is Neutral {liurent Siniation Compared Level of Local Disparity and Comparison Disparity Issue?Data Theme with lOther Communities Ranking to Disparities in Other Communities Ranking Trend and Outlook Bu?incss ownersmp The rate of business ownership by Asian 5th Rates of business ownership for Asians are 3rd The long-term trend is decidedly positive 5mm?: ?HF-?mm? mm? inoprielors in Austin is truly irnpressive?- quite healthy in most sections ol'the coinilry as Austin emerges as one ol'lhe nation's greatly exceeding their share of total while glaring disparities existing between rates hot markets for Asian entrepreneurs, population with 1l."iel.namese business of business omrership 1er Lahnos and A?ican consistently ranking highly on the variety having an overwhelming presence Amadeus-in many cities this huge gap can of Best Places lists published by business within Austin's entrepreneurial landscape. ollen be the source ol'social liic-lion. media and economic analysis groups. Unemployment Austin Asians have an overall 8th Using Census data, the di?'erenoe between 25th Austin's overall economy continues to he ?'33 cm? B'm" unemplomuem rate ranking 3dr within the Austin's oVerall rate of unemployment and the one of the strongest in ?re entire country selection setD and yet Lhe simple rate or rule [in Asians is not large vs. with local economists hard messed to rmemplomuent can often disguise levels of and when compared to the sihlatic-n in other identify when forces out there will end raider?employment that can oileri he a Auslin ranks as 25th in Ihe what. has become the biggest and characteristic of highly educated cities. selected set. population boom of all time for Austin Age ?ll-"dung Putstm's Asian community is a relatively 8th Nationally. Austin's Asian median age ot?32.o As Austin continues to emerge as a 2'3? Am "um" yoimg one when compared to other Asian ranks as the 3th yoimgest out of the set of' destination For retirees. pint ofthis growth communities in other cities across the comparables while the median for the City is will consist of Asian Seniors with new country-- but mis comparison breaks down 32.4 putting it in 5th position within the long-term demographic consequences in locally as the Asian median age is only ranking. Auslin?s youlhllil advantage over its terms cite-source allocation and health lower than the overall median. peers and rivals has long been a great streng?i. care issues. ?"ll?in? Patterns Although Asian households erosl within Philith SEE During the past 15 years the spatial 56?: The recent trend ol'suhurlraiuzaLion will almost every neighborhood across the City Mall 1 311d distribution ofAsian households in Austin has M313 3 more than likely continue as Asian there are signi?cant clusters in certain Map 2 become markedly more suburban as sections Map 4 households are increasineg locating within parts of the Citynwith die exception ot?the of the urban core have seen a decrease in the suburban zones and across much of UT area and a [Few pockets. the distribution Asian share of total population, places like soullrem Williamson County and into is decidedly northern in nature. greater Riutdberp, and east RiVerside. nordiern Hays County. Hausa-mm An elemental characteristic of Austin's Asian families in Austin and elsewhere enioy Source: 1014 ACE- 1-year, Census Him-rm Asian is the very low incidence of Sill?l? patented households in conjunction with Verylow levals ot?out?ot- w?edlocl: births1 a combination that Innvitles economic and social stability the cohesive strength that comes with multi- generaticural household formations. Ur put another way. the presence ot?grandi'mrents in the homo-either year-roimd or at least in spurts, creates deep social strength. Another com demographic characteristic ofnsian households is the emphasis put on the importance of cdueation and educational attainment for Asian children and the signi?cance of academic suecess is highly valued within this diverse array. Top 30 Cities in the US, 2014 ranking Seattle Portland Boston Detroit Philadelphia Chicago NYC Columbus San Francisco Baltimore Indianapolis San Jose Denver Las Vegas Oklahoma City Los Angeles Wash DC Louisville Memphis Phoenix San Diego Nashville Raleigh Charlotte Dallas Ft Worth Jacksonville El Paso Austin Houston Orlando San Antonio Asian Share of Total Population: Top 30 Cities, Texas and US, 2014 San Jose San Francisco San D1e Seatt New York Los Angeles Boston Portland Austin Philadelphia Houston Las Vegas Charlotte Chicago United States Columbus Oklahoma City Jacksonville Texas Phoenix Washington DC Denver Fort Worth Nashville Dallas Baltimore Indianapolis San Antonio Louisville Memphis Detroit El Paso 0.0% 5.0% 7.00/0, ranking 9th I 10.0% 15.0% .I I 20.0% Sow 201 I 25.0% ?ce: American C01 1 1-year estimates nmunity Survey, Table B03002, Census Bureau. 30.0% 35.0% New York Los Angeles San Jose San Francisco San Diego Chicago Houston Philadelphia Seattle Austin Boston Phoenix Charlotte Portland Columbus Dallas Las Vegas Jacksonville San Antonio Oklahoma City Fort Worth Washington DC Denver Indianapolis Nashville Baltimore Louisville Memphis Detroit El Paso Total Asian Population: Top 30 Cities, 2014 ranking 10th Source: American ommunity Survey, 2014 l?year estimates, Table B03002, US Census Bureau. 200,000 600,000 1,000,000 400,000 800,000 1,200,000 Washm ton DC an Jose Austm San Dlego Texas El Paso United States Louisville Seattle San Franc1sco Las Vegas Nashv1lle Charlotte Baltimore Houston Phoemx San Antonio Jacksonville Los An eles Fort orth Dallas Chicago Portland Columbus Denver New York Oklahoma City Boston Philadelphia Indianapolis Memphis Detr01t 32 Asian Median Family Income: Top 30 Cities, Texas and US, 2014 I 1? $60,000 $80,000 $0 $20,000 $40,000 3rd Source: American 2014 1?year estimate US Census Bureau .1 $100,000 sinking mmunity Survey, 3, Table B19113D, .1 $120,000 $140,000 Median Family Income by Race and Ethnicity, City of Austin, 2014 $101,699 $97939 $100,000 - $90,000 1 $16,693 $80,000 $70,000 - $60,000? 7 ?i - 7 $50,000 $43,198 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 rs $10,000 "i I .- . Citywide non?Hi spani 0 African Hispanic A si an White American Asian Educational Attainment--percentage of age 25 Plus with at least a Bachelor's: Top 30 Cities, Texas and US, 2014 waShi?gtO? DC AUStin 74-50/ Baltlmore Chicago Texas Dallas Phoemx 8311 Jose Denver L03 ABE-59193 Cha?Otle san Antomo United States 8311 D13 0 seatt Memphis Fort worth NaShViue 8311 E1 P350 Detmit Indiana 0115 New Las Vegas Source: American Community Survey, 1 2014 1?year estimates, Table B15002D, a a US Census Bureau I I I I I I, _32 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Indian Share of Total Asian Population: Top 30 Cities, Texas and US, 2014 Austin 36.40/0 Texas Phoemx San Antoni?) Chicago Fort worth Oklahoma City United States NaShV?le Philadelphia Indiana OHS New Ork waShjn ton DC an Jose Dallas Denver Mem his E1 350 Baltimore San D1eg0 Seattle Los Angeles . . San Francisco Source: Amerlcan Commumty Survey, Portland 4C (11:32: giggtes, Table C02015, Las Vegas 5 ?=32 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% Chinese Share of Total Asian Population: Top 30 Cities, Texas and US, 2014 8311 New York Philadelphia waShington DC Seattle Chicago Baltimore Denver Columbus Portland Memphis United States San Jose Houston El Paso Austin Dallas Phoenix Indianapolis San Diego San Antonio Los An eles exas Charlotte Oklahoma City Nashville Louisville Las Vegas US Census Bureau 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 19.9%, ranking 17th n=32 0_ .53 Source: American 30mmunity Survey, 2014 1?year estimates, Table C02015, 60.0% Vietnamese Share of Total Asian Population: Top 30 Cities, Texas and US, 2014 Oklahoma City san Jose Portland Fort worth Jacksonville Texas Denver Dallas Cha?Otte Phoenix San Die 0 13 Austin 14.0%, ranking 15th Philadelphia Memphis Seat?e NaShV?le United States San Antonio Baltimore Washington DC Columbus San Francisco Los An eles Las egas Chica 0 Indiana 0 is Source' \merican Community Survey N631 2014 1?year estimates, Table C02015, Detroit 1 I 1 US Census Bureau I ?=32 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% San Francisco Las Ve as Los Ange es Portland San Jose New York Jacksonville El Paso United States San Diego Texas Seattle Chicago Houston Fort Worth Memphis Phoenix Oklahoma City Denver San Antonio Louisville Nashville Washington. . Philadelphia Austin Dallas Charlotte Boston Columbus Indianapolis Baltimore Detroit n=32 Asian Median Ages: Top 30 Cities, Texas and US, 2014 32rar kin you] lgest "h 34 35 8th 36 37 Sour 2014 e: Arm 1 ?year ensus I rican estim at Bureau USO .?ommunity SLrvey, es, Table B02002TH 1311.' 1 Total Population and RacinluE?ulicity Shares Table 32 City A l"ri can Asia II Total Total (331151.15 2.0 Emulation nun?I lispzmic Anle?can [lispm?c Asian Share Other nun?I Iispam'u Al'rit'an Total Total Total ngrapi?c Entity Populmion Rank White Share Share Share Share Rank Share While American Hispanic Asian Other . Au?tin 912.798: 11 43.13%: 7.5% 34.4042: 7.1196: 5" 2.4343 443.9710 (111.505 314.360 53.084 21.9110 13311111101: (122.793 2-5 28 62.1%: 23%: 26 2.41% 124.527 380.599 29.443 11092 15,027 Boston 656.051 2-1 45 .604: 22.301: 18.6%: 93% 7 3 37%: 299,245 146,502 122,342 [13.4 87 24.475 309.974 17 42.9% 34.4%: 13.694: 13 2.394: 347.315 273.914 110.440 49.918 22.83? Chicago 2,722,407 3- 31.8%: 31.0%: 29.594: 6.0% 366.559 342.574 802,245 163.818 4 7.101. (3011111111115 836.293 15 57.5%: 27.3%: 5.3% 15 431.169 223.496 43.1143 42.553 55.227 13911851 1.23 1. .1131 9 .2242: '34: .1190 4 1 .491) 3.33%: 2.5 37.3. 75') 307.913 530.793 42.4 .59 25.122 DEIWEI 663,802 21 53.3%: 30.332: 3.233 22 3.003 353.627 61.62? 204.3?5 24.408 19,325 Detroit 030,281 13 1.0 .2514: 79.1% 12% 1.2% 31 2.290 69.530 53 0.400 49.013 11.4 73 14.802 El Pas-u: 679.024 19 14.6% 3.7% 79.4%: 32 99,170 25.447 539,340 8.149 6.910 Furl 312.553: 16- 39.991: 19.6%: 34.2% 23 3:23.923 159.559 277.889 29.24? 21.430 2.240.796 24 22.8% 44. 1 91:: 1 1 552.325 51 1.7111 988.224 155.099 33.337 Indianapolis 851.353 14 5F: 27.4%: 10.2%: 27 2.11%: 434.523 2.113.671 36.51 1 22.371 23.672 Jacksonville 853.376 12 53 .094: 30.6%: 3.9% 4.61% 13 2.3113 452,600 261,399 75,?86 39,545 24,040 1.85 Vegas 1513.500 29 44 .494: 12.0% 33.0%: 6.694: 2 3 56 7.3. 5151 202.515 40.533 24.134 LOG 3.923.827 2 28.5%: 43.6% 11.??13 5: 2.633 1.113.352 339,431 1.910.990 459.117 100.937 012.7?5 30' 62.291: 22.0%: 2.49/0 29' 2.093 511 1.902 139.692 29.149 14.111]. 17.221 656,375 2 26.1% 64.051; 6.4 1.6511 30 1.904;: 171,4 27 420,398 41,907r 10.835 12,409 Nashville 644.003 25 56.0%: 9.2.994: 10.2% 24 360.545 179.945 55.626 21.790 16.102 New Tn?: 3.40111 79 1 32.3% 22.391: 29.0% 13.79-3- 5 2.233.547 1.891 .3117 2.450.393 1.1 55.003 235.244 Oldahmma City 520.55?- 27 55.1%: 14.4% 18.3% 4.51%: 17 341.334 39.344 113.361 29.795 46.210 Pmladelp?la 1.500.292 5 35.7%: 13.6%: 10% 10 2.5513 556.51? 0:43.052 212.203 109.123 33.84? Phoenix 1,537,045 6 44.9%: 6.438 41.233 3.933 20 3.79/0 (339.520 97.531 633,099 50,402 50,337 Pm?a?d 619.445 23 71.2% 10.2% 8 441,053 33.546 63.194 46,730 34.007 San 1,4 36.723 7 25.3% 6.6% 63.3% 2.7?5?9 28 1.51%: 354.003 9-1 .954 916.540 38.531 22,600 Sail Diego 1.381.083 3 43.1%: 6.1241: 30.3%: 16.6%: .1- 3.?9?0 594.315 34.036 413.435 229.540 54.257 San Francisco 852.4 59 13 40 3?41: 15.3% 34.191: 2 4 348.131 44.419 130.275 290.755 351.379 Hail JOSE 1.015.791?: 10 26.7%: 2.354.: 32.11%: 34.1531: 1 3.11% 270.1321 28.9110 332.951 351.1171 31.047 3831.113 0611.337 20 66.2%: 0.2% 14.5%: 4 442,198 40,250 41,229 110.810 41.790 Texas 26.956.953 113 43.4%: 11.7% 33.6% 4.3% 15' 11.203.173 3.150.560 10.408238 1.169.001 520.931 1.11121le Slates 318,857,056 n'd 61.90%: 12.3041 123% 15 197.409.353 55,279,452 17,021,202 9,329.900 ?halving-2:11 DC I 658.393 22 35.7% 1.0.4 3'1) 3.7% 21 2.49-6- 235,4 33 314.473 58.356 24,677 15.954 Table 2 Median Family Income (Tables 131191.} and 131191311) Table 3 Educa?onal Attainment (Tn bles 13151102 and 1315011211} II .32. Depth 01' Asian [Hamill Depth 01' Asian (Jvemil Disparity Hachd ?rs: Hacheln r5: Dispnh (360313151110 MFI Rank MFI Rank (100% Equality) Rank Plus Rank. Plus Rank (100% Equality] Rank. Anslin 1' $101,699 3 $26,663 6 132.2% 23 24.5% 2 42.6% 4 156.4% 16 Ballimurts 1 $22,642 14 $50,408 22 14 4.1% 29 22.8% 3 30.Boston $51,205 28 $61,214 12 83 0% 4 46.0% 20 46.5% 5 98.8% 4 CharloLle $24,864 13 $62,936 9 110.2% 12 52.4% 13 41.3% 9 126.8% 9 Chicago 1 $63,285 22 $55,832 19 114.2% 16 58.2% 6 36.0% 12 163.1% 18 Columbus $52,362 24 $55,388 21 103.6% 10 60.2% 4 34.2% 14 123.6% 22 132111.36 I $64,049 21 $46,880 29 136.6% 26 52.5% 8 29.9% 19 192.6% 25 Denver $56,920 25 $21,439 2 29.2% 2 52.8% 11 44.3% 8 119.3% 8 Dcimit $32,429 32 $31,028 '12 120.6% 12 41.5% 25 13.8% 32 301 13% 32 12.1 Pas-3 885.164 6 $46,184 30 184.4% 32 42.0% 24 23.3% 30 129.8% 24 Wm??l 5168,41 9 20 $61,433 13 111 13 45.2% 21 26.5% 25 122.6% 21 Houston 522,1 28 15 $50,226 26 142.1 28 59.3% 5 30. 4% 16 195.4% 26 Indj anapul is: $43,481 311 $52,062 2.5 33 5% [1 39.2%: 26 28.21% 20 1 38.6% 1 2 $211,243 11'1 $55,123 22 122.3% I '11 326%: 24 9?14: 28 151.11% 15 Las Vegas $22,880 11 $60,423 14 128.8% 21 38.8% 23 21 9% 31 122.4% 23 Los Angeles 3 $69,184 19 $55,142 23 125.5% 18 52.6% 12 32.3% 15 163.0% 12 $84,318 8 $52,481 12 146.2% 31 42.4% 19 28.3% 22 162.5% 19 1111611131165 $43,400 31 640.864 3] 106.2% 11 48.5% 18 24.4% 29 198.2% 28 Nashville I $22,234 12 $52,228 18 135.0% 25 4 2.8% 22 36.8% 1 1 1 16.6% 2 New York $56,489 26 $58,229 16 96.2% 8 39.5% 22 35.9% 13 110.1% 5 Oklahoma Cit}r $54,252 22 $58,938 15 92.9% 2 36.4% 30 28.5% 21 128.0% 10 Philadelphia $42,850 29 $46,989 28 101 8% 9 36.4% 31 26.0% 26 139.9% 14 $22,124 16 $55,560 20 129.9% 22 54.1% 9 22.4% 24 192.5% 22 Pnr?and 1 111.59, 1 64 23 5120,92. 1 8 H3 4% 5 35.9% 32 46.1% 6 22.3% 2 SanAntonio $20,901 12 $52,822 24 134.2% 24 52.2% 14 25.0% 22 208.5% 30 San 1'11 5?ng . $90,140 4 $29,251 5 113.11% 15 51.4% 1 (1 44.4% 2 115.9% 6 San 12511161565 $81,022 10 $1 00,1150 2 811.3% 3 42.1% 23 54.2% 3 22.6% 1 Sin! .1ch $109,140 2 $913,206 3 112.9% 14 53.196 111 39.21% 10 133.2% 11 Seattle 11:3 1 ,849 9 111 1 [13,2132 1 29.3% 1 511.0%: 12 58.9915 1 84.8% 3 Texas $32,636 5 $62,830 11 139.6% 22 52.9% 2 22.8% 23 208.3% 29 nitcd States $114,360 2 5165,91 0 10 128.8% 20 51.5% 15 30.1% 12 121.4% 20 DC $121,534 1 $64,094 '1 144.5% 30 26.6% 1 55.0% 2 139.3% 13