Critical Sociology

http://crs.sagepub.com/

Celebrating a Return to Jim Crow? A Reflexive Analysis and Methodological Query

on Measuring Segregation
Kasey Henricks, Bill Byrnes and Victoria Brockett
Crit Sociol 2014 40: 89 originally published online 20 March 2013
DOI: 10.1177/0896920512471835

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://crs.sagepub.com/content/40/1/89

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Critical Sociology can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://crs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://crs.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://crs.sagepub.com/content/40/1/89.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jan 3, 2014

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Mar 20, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 27, 2014
471835
2013
CRS40110.1177/0896920512471835Critical SociologyHenricks et al.

Article

Critical Sociology
2014, Vol 40(1) 89109
Celebrating a Return to Jim The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
Crow? A Reflexive Analysis and sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0896920512471835
Methodological Query on Measuring crs.sagepub.com

Segregation

Kasey Henricks
Loyola University, USA

Bill Byrnes
Loyola University, USA

Victoria Brockett
Valparaiso University, USA

Abstract
Glaeser and Vigdor (2012) recently declared the end of a segregated century. Because America
has returned to 1910 segregation levels, it has allegedly achieved transcendence over racism.
After all, the authors note, government no longer endorses housing discrimination, all-white
neighborhoods are extinct, and white racial attitudes have liberalized. Despite the proclamation,
many questions regarding segregation remain unanswered by Glaeser and Vigdor. Namely,
how can segregation be conceptualized and its measurement improved, what might alternative
methods for analyzing it yield, and why does it matter in the first place? To prompt an overdue
substantive and methodological discussion, we undertake a case study analysis of Cook County,
Illinois to address these questions. Our analytic goal is to illuminate how segregation is a much
more complex matter than many analyses reflect, and when this is taken into account, it becomes
readily apparent that any assertions of racial transcendence are quite premature.

Keywords
housing segregation, methodology, racial inequality, sociology

Corresponding author:
Kasey Henricks, Department of Sociology, Loyola University Chicago, Coffey Hall 415, 1032 W. Sheridan Road, Chicago,
IL 60626, USA.
Email: khenricks@luc.edu

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 27, 2014
90 Critical Sociology 40(1)

Introduction
Dont believe everything you read, or so the old adage goes. In 2012, Glaeser and Vigdor released
a public report entitled The end of the segregated century: racial separation in Americas neigh-
borhoods, 18902010. It instantly garnered much national media attention and was, at times,
celebrated as a tribute to Americas greatness and a testament of the countrys racial transcen-
dence. Some of the headlines include: The dream is getting closer from the Economist (2012),
Segregation hits historic low from the Wall Street Journal (Jordan, 2012), Study finds black
segregation lowest in century from USA Today (El Nasser, 2012), and Segregation curtailed in
U.S. cities, study finds from the New York Times (Roberts, 2012).
Essentially, the authors thesis can be enumerated into three general findings:

1. US cities are the most integrated they have been since 1910. Beginning in 1970, black seg-
regation declined in the nations 85 largest metropolitan areas.
2. All-white neighborhoods are virtually extinct. Black residents are present in 199 of every
200 neighborhoods throughout the nation.
3. Urban ghettos persist, but most are experiencing depopulation. Fifty years ago, approxi-
mately half the black population resided in ghetto neighborhoods. Today that figure stands
at 20 percent.

The authors attributed these findings to several factors. Black suburbanization, immigration, and
gentrification have caused segregation to decline, and so too has the elimination of government-
endorsed discrimination, such as race-based zoning, restrictive covenants, and redlining. New pub-
lic housing initiatives like those in Atlanta and Chicago have demolished high-rise projects, thereby
accelerating integration. Liberalizing white racial attitudes, in which prejudice has largely become
a problem of the past, has enabled integration to become more of a reality.
Glaeser and Vigdor (2012) assert the end of a segregated century is upon us, but we caution
against any such conclusion. It is undeniable that residential patterns have undergone change since
the Civil Rights Movements, but it is another claim altogether to romanticize a return to 1910 lev-
els of segregation as the end of segregation. This was, after all, a time when formal and informal
Jim Crow codes solidified black Americas position as second-class citizens. The authors celebra-
tory title and selective findings, however, tend to whitewash an American history rooted in racial
oppression. This mutability of the past blurs boundaries between fact and fiction, and the desire for
yesterday becomes nostalgic for a world that never existed.
Aside from Glaeser and Vigdors (2012) overstated conclusions, their analysis is ridden with a
number of substantive, methodological, and analytic shortcomings. Namely, the authors rely pri-
marily upon a traditional indicator (the dissimilarity index, henceforth D)1 to measure how segre-
gation has changed across time, implying decreases in D scores indicate liberalizing trends of
whites attitudes and behavior (Bonilla-Silva and Baiocchi, 2003). This orientation wrongly
assumes segregation, and racism in general, is an unchanging, static phenomenon (Bonilla-Silva,
2001). Others provide an alternative, more nuanced perspective that understands this change as a
rearticulation of racial ideology and practices (Bobo, 2004; Bonilla-Silva, 2001; Bonilla-Silva and
Forman, 2000; Omi and Winant, 1994 [1986]).
When Glaeser and Vigdor (2012) employed D to measure Americas segregation status, they
nonetheless relied upon a measure that cannot capture nuances of how segregation persists in the
contemporary era. For instance, D is not sensitive to housing quality, segregation within neighbor-
hoods, and numerous other dimensions of how segregation can be measured (Bonilla-Silva, 2001;

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 27, 2014
Henricks et al. 91

Massey and Denton, 1988, 1993). Moreover, it is not an index robust enough to measure newer
strategies of segregation and how they manifest themselves, causing the authors to mistakenly
discern segregated areas for integrated ones (Alba and Romalewski, 2012). Thus, the authors con-
clusions are as much an artifact of their method as they are a reflection of contemporary segrega-
tion. As a methodological tool, D is not as reliable as it once may have been because racial dynamics
have transfigured. Discrimination has become more institutionalized and less individualized, more
covert and less formal, and seemingly nonracial but no less effective.
Not only has racial oppression transfigured in recent decades, but the racial composition of the
US has significantly shifted. No longer can analysts afford to measure segregation as though it
solely regards two groups, blacks and nonblacks or whites and nonwhites, because this unduly
places many groups under one umbrella category and dilutes analytic precision. The increasing
numerical presence of other minority groups, particularly Asians and Latinas/os,2 has complicated
how racial power is distributed in the US (Bonilla-Silva et al., 2003).3 Increasing representation of
other groups redraws the color line and nuances how political, cultural, social, and symbolic power
is distributed along racial lines.
Glaeser and Vigdors (2012) central argument leaves many questions unanswered. Namely, how
can segregation be conceptualized and its measurement improved, what might alternative methods
for analyzing it yield, and why does it matter in the first place? To overcome these shortcomings
and prompt an overdue methodological discussion of how to measure segregation, we undertake a
case study analysis of Cook County, Illinois addressing the aforementioned questions. Our over-
arching discussion is organized in the following manner. We first substantively define segregation,
outline its multidimensionality, and develop an approach for measuring it. We then describe our
methodological approach. The analysis draws upon 5-year estimates from the American Community
Survey, 20062010 (ACS), to measure multiple dimensions of segregation. To do this, we calculate
11 separate index measures while mapping a few of these with Geographic Information System
software (ArcMap 10). After operationalizing the concept of segregation and describing what each
index measures, we articulate the sociological implications of this case study. Namely, we show
how accounting for multiple dimensions of segregation can lead to much different conclusions of
what contemporary segregation looks like. We also illuminate why segregation matters and how it
affects persisting racial inequality, all the while arguing for continued critical consciousness in this
discipline. In closing, we highlight a number of methodological limitations inherent within our
own study and outline directions for future inquiry.

Conceptualizing Segregation: A Multidimensional Approach

Simply defined, segregation refers to the degree groups spatially live apart from one another
(Massey and Denton, 1988, 1993). Its measurement, however, is anything but straightforward. In
The end of the segregated century, Glaeser and Vigdor (2012) heavily rely upon one measure to
substantiate their claims of racial transcendence, arguing D is not only the most common but most
standard measure of segregation. Though D is regularly utilized, they overstate its usefulness as the
primary indicator of segregation. This index became the standard segregation measure during the
mid-1950s with the publication of Duncan and Duncans (1955) Methodological analysis of seg-
regation. Essentially, these analysts highlighted a number of the flaws inherent within D, but
nonetheless endorsed it over alternative measures of segregation. They argued other indices offer
little new information that cannot be captured by D. Taeuber and Taeuber (1965) later affirmed this
conclusion.

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 27, 2014
92 Critical Sociology 40(1)

Standardized acceptance of D as the premier segregation measure again underwent scrutiny

in 1976 when Cortese et al. re-introduced a thorough critique. They highlighted four central
objections: (1) The expectation of evenness as the opposite of segregation is not as useful in
most cases as the concept of randomness; (2) D is affected by differences in the proportion
of the minority in the population, thus preventing inter-city comparisons; (3) D is affected by
the size (number of households) of the areal unit of analysis; and (4) The present interpretation
of D as the proportion of nonwhites who would have to change their tract of residence to make
the distribution of the minority even throughout the city (Duncan and Duncan, 1955: 211) is
misleading since it does not include the concept of replacement of the relocated minority
(Cortese et al., 1976: 631). They concluded by calling for alternative measurements of segrega-
tion, which would be later developed by other notable scholars. Given the history of this meth-
odological development, any claim that D is the gold standard for measuring segregation is
more than a quarter-century too late.
In their signature article, Massey and Denton (1988) undertook a systematic effort to develop a
robust, multidimensional approach for measuring segregation. They argued segregation is not a
singular, one-dimensional, or monolithic phenomenon, and therefore it cannot be measured solely
by one index.4 Rather, it can be defined by five dimensions of conceptually related, but distinct
spatial variations: evenness, exposure, clustering, concentration, and centralization. Utilizing 1980
census data, Massey and Denton (1988) performed factor analysis to determine which indices
served as the best measures for each dimension. The validity and reliability of this approach has
been tested by various demographers, geographers, and urban scholars throughout the past few
decades, and it has arguably become the dominant paradigm for measuring segregation. A number
of analysts continue to employ this approach (e.g. Alba et al., 2000; Charles, 2003; Logan et al.,
2004; Massey and Denton, 1993; Massey et al., 1996; Wilkes and Iceland, 2004).
Though these multiple dimensions of segregation are conceptually related, each is unique and
can be distinguished from the other measures. Evenness is the differential distribution of two
social groups among areal units in a city (Massey and Denton, 1988: 283). As a relative measure
of group distribution across an area, it is maximized when different groups share no common
spatial units and minimized when all spatial units are inhabited by the same proportions of vari-
ous groups. Exposure refers to the degree of potential contact, or the possibility of interaction,
between minority and majority group members within geographic areas of a city (Massey and
Denton, 1988: 287). It measures physical contact between groups within an area, or the likeli-
hood that different groups will share a similar neighborhood. Though this dimension empirically
correlates with evenness, it is conceptually different because it does not rely upon the relative
size of the groups compared. Concentration is the relative amount of physical space occupied
by a minority group in the urban environment (Massey and Denton, 1988: 289). It proportion-
ally measures the physical space occupied by a particular group (or groups), and indirectly
gauges discriminatory practices (e.g. redlining or steering) that relegate minority groups to par-
ticular areas within a general space (Massey and Denton, 1993). Centralization is the degree to
which a group is spatially located near the center of an urban area (Massey and Denton, 1988:
291). This measure has arguably become less relevant in US cities during the past few decades,
especially those that have experienced deindustrialization and no longer have central manufac-
turing cores (e.g. Chicago, Detroit). Clustering is the extent to which areal units inhabited by
minority members adjoin one another, or cluster, in space (Massey and Denton, 1988: 293). It
is related to concentration, but measures the degree in which adjoined spatial areas are inhabited
by members of the same group. A high degree of clustering means groups reside in contiguously
arranged areas like an enclave.

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 27, 2014
Henricks et al. 93

The multidimensional approach is a more comprehensive way to measure segregation than relying
primarily upon one index, but the indices utilized to measure these dimensions nonetheless have limi-
tations. They do not squarely address spatially oriented questions like Where is a particular racial
group located within an area? or Do certain areas host a predominant group? (Apparicio et al.,
2008). Such questions remain unanswered by sociologists, largely because such analyses necessitate
complex calculations that are difficult to compute and GIS application remains underdeveloped
(Reardon and OSullivan, 2004). To uncover these spatial patterns, we rely upon two indices that
calculate segregation scores for each Cook County block group that can then be transformed into a
map that visually represents the segregation status of a general area. The first index, the entropy index
(henceforth H2) developed by Theil and Finizza (1971) and Theil (1972), measures the diversity level
of each block group, while the second index, the local quotient (henceforth LQ) developed by Isard
(1960), measures which block groups are under- or over-represented by a particular group.
Because our analytic goal is to provide a more comprehensive overview of how contemporary
segregation can be measured, our research strategy accounts for the multidimensionality of how
segregation can be conceptualized. Rather than relying upon one index, we utilize 11 separate
indices to provide a comparative descriptive analysis and discuss its broader sociological implica-
tions. These indices serve a robust range of functions that measure segregation by one, two, and
multiple groups at a time. Some are included for local (i.e. block group) measures, while others are
included for global (i.e. Cook County) measures. These indices also provide both spatial and non-
spatial measures. Together, these 11 indices broadly capture many, but certainly not all, the ways
segregation manifests in contemporary society.

Data and Method

Our data derive from five-year period estimates from the ACS.5 This dataset does not represent a
snapshot of a single point in time but mean scores over a 5-year period. The ACS also offers
1-year and 3-year estimates, but these datasets are suspect to significantly higher sampling errors
and do not measure smaller spatial units (e.g., census tracts, block groups) with much precision.
The 5-year estimates, on the other hand, provide more accurate measures for less populous areas
and yield representative samples. Further, the ACS provides several advantages over 2010 decen-
nial census data, in that it has a more robust set of variables (e.g., income measures) and provides
information spanning multiple years.
The ACS relies upon a sampling frame that extracts from the Master Address File. This is the US
Census Bureaus (2009, 2010) annually updated official inventory of known living quarters within
the US, which contains mailing addresses, geocodes, and other demographic data per living quarter.
The US Census Bureau (2009) compiled this list from multiple sources like the 1990 Address
Control File, the U.S. Postal Services (USPSs) Delivery Sequence File (DSF), field listing opera-
tions, and addresses supplied by local governments through partnership operations (p. 3-1).
Households and all their residents are sampled by a complex stratified multistage design to
represent each US county, and oversampling is performed in under-populated areas to minimize
sampling error (US Census Bureau, 2009, 2010). During a 5-year span, approximately 1 in 8
households are selected to participate. This design inherently warrants probability sampling, which
causes the data to be susceptible to margins of error. To account for this error, data are weighted to
reflect the US Census Bureaus 2010 decennial population counts. All reported data within this
article are statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence level. Given that our purpose is more
substantive and methodological, rather than generalizable, we omit standard error calculations. Our
goal is to prompt a dialog of how segregation can be conceptualized, defined, and measured.

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 27, 2014
94 Critical Sociology 40(1)

In terms of data collection, information was annually collected in two 4-month periods: January
April and SeptemberDecember (US Census Bureau, 2009). This spanned a 71-month period,
from January 2005 through November 2010. Utilizing a multi-modal approach, the study design
called for mail surveys, telephone interviews, and face-to-face interviews. Such a multifaceted
approach helped minimize the number of nonresponsive households and attain a representative
sample. Each year, the ACS has been able to produce response rates in the upper 90s percentiles
(US Census Bureau, 2012a).
Our fieldsite is narrowed to Cook County, Illinois. This area spans more than 945 square miles
with approximately 5,495 persons per square mile, comprising the entire city of Chicago and 29
other affiliated villages and townships (US Census Bureau, 2012c). It contains 3,992 block groups
(US Census Bureau, 2012b).6 The diversity of the population residing in this area lends itself to an
analysis of multiple racial groups, given that 2,294,644 non-Latina/o whites (henceforth whites),
1,289,020 non-Latina/o blacks (henceforth blacks), 313,606 non-Latina/o Asians (henceforth
Asians), and 1,202,937 Latinas/os reside in the area (US Census Bureau, 2012b).7 In total, the
population size of Cook County is 5,172,848.
We utilize Cook County as a case study to prompt a discussion of the intersecting and interact-
ing nature of data, method, and theory. The goal is not generalizability, but to illustrate the com-
plexity of segregation, the multiple ways it can be measured, and ultimately, how it can be defined.
Our multidimensional approach relies upon numerous indices, which better enable us to triangulate
our measures and avoid false conclusions that sole reliance upon one index can cause. Though we
endorse the utility a multidimensional quantitative analysis yields, we recognize that indices alone
cannot exhaustively measure a phenomenon as complex as segregation. Thus, we not only high-
light the strengths of our analysis but conclude our discussion by outlining some of its shortcom-
ings and future directions of inquiry. If analysts are to better understand the dynamically fluid
nature of race in the contemporary era, we ought to reconsider how to conceptualize segregation.

What Is To Be Measured
To complete our analytic tasks, we rely upon an application developed by Apparicio et al. (2008)
called Segregation Analyzer to calculate 11 segregation indices, and we also employ GIS software
(ArcMap 10) to visually represent two of these.8 We assume a multidimensional approach and
measure segregation by evenness, exposure, concentration, and clustering.9 Nine of these indices
are global measures (i.e. four single-group and five two-group indices), and two are local measures
(i.e. one single-group index and one multiple-group index). The global measures are summary
estimates for all of Cook County, and they calculate nonspatial dimensions of segregation (i.e.
evenness, exposure) as well as spatial dimensions (i.e. concentration, clustering). A limitation of
global measures is that they cannot measure particular spatial units (Apparicio et al., 2008). We
account for this limitation with the inclusion of two additional indices, LQ and H2, to measure
segregation levels within particular block groups. To summarize these calculations in a manage-
able way, we transform them into map form to better illustrate what each index measures.
It is worth noting that most of these indices have scales ranging from 0 to 1, with lower scores
indicating minimum segregation and higher scores indicating maximum segregation. Two excep-
tions to this rule include the relative concentration (henceforth RCO) and LQ indices. The former
index has a scale ranging from 1 to 1, whereby a score of 0 means two groups are equally concen-
trated throughout an area. A 1 represents high concentration for one group (Group x), while 1
represents high concentration for the other (Group y). The latter index ranges in scale from 0 to ,
whereby 0 designates high under-representation for a particular group while 1 designates high

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 27, 2014
Henricks et al. 95

Figure 1. Global One- and Two-Group Index Formulas and Their Authors, by Dimension*.
*Adapted from Apparicio et al. (2008).

over-representation. Any scores beyond 1 indicate extreme over-representation. Full dissections of

each index, and their underlying theory, are thoroughly explored and readily available elsewhere
(see Figures 1 and 2). A brief overview of the global one- and two-group indices is outlined in
Figure 1, while an overview of the two local indices is outlined in Figure 2. Rather than devoting
an exhaustive discussion to the various index formulas, we briefly describe their methodological
utility below and proceed to the analysis.
Evenness is a nonspatial construct that can be measured by at least four separate indices. For our
purposes, we utilize SI to measure single group segregation, and D and D (adj) to measure two-
group segregation. Duncan and Duncan (1955) argued SI is the referential index for most other
segregation indices, largely because they draw from its central premise: the geometrical construct

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 27, 2014
96 Critical Sociology 40(1)

Figure 2. Local Single- and Multiple-Group Index Formulas and Their Authors.
*Adapted from Apparicio et al. (2008).

known as the segregation curve. This curve contrasts proportions of one groups representative-
ness per unit within a designated spatial area to the rest of the population throughout that general
area. It ranks observed group distributions with an abstract notion of what perfect integration
would look like (proportionally even distribution throughout). Strongly related to SI, D measures
how evenly two groups are distributed within a designated spatial area with respect to their total
population in that area (Duncan and Duncan, 1955). Its index value expresses a groups percentage
that must relocate to another spatial unit occupied by another group to achieve an even racial dis-
tribution. An inherent problem with D is it assumes boundaries between adjacent spatial units are
impermeable borders separating people (see Morrill, 1991). Such a limitation can be overcome,
Wong (1993) argues, with an alternative measure: the adjusted dissimilarity index or D (adj). It
incorporates neighboring units boundary lengths and perimeter or area ratios, which enables ana-
lysts to better measure evenness of racial groups across adjacent units.
Like evenness, exposure is a nonspatial construct that measures potential contact, or lack
thereof, between groups (Bell, 1954). We use two indices to measure it: xPx and xPy. The former
calculates the degree of isolation for one group at a time and represents the probability that a mem-
ber of one group will remain in contact with fellow group members. The second index, xPy, calcu-
lates the degree of interaction for two groups at a time. It represents the probability that a member
of one group will come into contact with different group members. Both measures are sensitive to
the proportional distributions within an area because each depends upon the degree that groups
share common or uncommon neighborhoods.
Contrary to evenness and exposure, concentration is a spatial construct because it measures the
relative space a group occupies within an area. We use DEL and RCO to measure this dimension.
The former was developed by Hoover (1941), and later Duncan et al. (1961), to estimate the degree
of concentration for one group compared to all others. This index computes the proportion of one
groups members residing in an area with an above average density for that group. The other index,
RCO, was developed by Massey and Denton (1988) to compare one groups degree of concentra-
tion to another groups. It does this by comparing the total area where one group resides with the
groups minimum and maximum areas as measured by geographical space, and this value is con-
trasted to similar calculations performed for the other group.
Clustering is another spatial construct, but it measures the degree to which members of one
group or two groups live in neighborhoods that border or adjoin one another. To measure this
dimension, we use two indices developed by Morgan (1983): DPxx and DPxy. The first measures
the probability of isolation due to clustering that one group experiences in relation to the remaining
population. In other words, it gauges the likelihood of the next person a group member physically

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 27, 2014
Henricks et al. 97

Figure 3. Comparison of Segregation Indices by Single Racial and Income Groups, Block Groups in Cook
Co., Illinois; American Community Survey, 200610*.
*Segregation indices by income are calculated by total households within a block group, whereas segregation indices by
race are calculated by total individuals within a block group. Income has been adjusted for inflation. The Other racial
category is included in the calculations, but omitted from presentation.

contacts being a fellow group member. The second index, however, measures the probability of
interaction between two groups due to clustering. This estimates the likelihood of the next person
a group member physically contacts being a member of another group.
While the above segregation indices adequately summarize the segregation status for all of
Cook County, they cannot describe any one particular block group. To gain this richer look, we
calculate two local indices, LQ and H2, and transform them into map form for visual representa-
tion. LQ was developed by Isard (1960) to locate specific spatial units where a particular group is
under- or over-represented. Thus, this index dichotomizes race to compare one groups representa-
tion status to all other groups per spatial unit. H2, on the other hand, was developed by Theil and
Finizza (1971) and Theil (1972) to measure the diversity within particular spatial units. It simulta-
neously compares all groups to describe which spatial units are homogeneously or heterogeneously
comprised.

The Multidimensionality of Segregation in Cook County, Illinois

Our analytic goals are threefold. First, we compare race and class (solely measured by household
income) segregation by calculating one-group indices across four dimensions (evenness, exposure,
concentration, and clustering), and then we provide a more in-depth analysis of segregation levels
between groups. Second, we measure segregation levels of paired racial groupings compared to all
other groups by utilizing two-group indices for each corresponding segregation dimension. Third,
we draw upon two local indices to visually represent which neighborhoods are racially homoge-
neous and heterogeneous, and to show specifically where particular groups are located in Cook
County. After providing a descriptive analysis, we discuss some of its implications.
When comparing race and class segregation (see Figure 3), as measured by one-group indices,
it becomes readily clear that Cook Countys population is more segregated by race than class
across the four dimensions. According to SI, all racial groups are more unevenly distributed across
Cook County at about 1.52 times the rate of the highest income groups. Whereas 80 percent of the
black population would need to move to achieve perfect distribution, for example, only 40 percent
of households earning more than $100,000 would have to move to accomplish the same. In terms
of xPx, both blacks (0.77) and whites (0.69) have about two times the exposure level compared to
households from the highest (0.36) and lowest (0.34) income levels, whereas Latinas/os are more

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 27, 2014
98 Critical Sociology 40(1)

than 1.5 times more isolated compared to these households. The Asian xPx score, however, is lower
(0.23) than the highest and lowest income levels but comparable to all other income levels. For
concentration, DEL scores show whites (0.47) are concentrated at comparable rates to all income
levels, with the exception of households earning less than $25,000 (0.56). This means lower-
income white households are more segregated in terms of concentration than their other white
counterparts. Asians (0.67), blacks (0.71), and Latinas/os (0.69) are concentrated at least 1.4 times
higher than all households with incomes greater than $25,000, and at least 1.2 times more concen-
trated than households in the lowest income bracket. As for DPxx scores, blacks (0.64) and whites
(0.63) are clustered at about 2.2 to 4.8 times the rate of all household income levels, whereas
Latinas/os are clustered at about 1.4 to 3.2 times more than all income levels. Asians, however, are
clustered at lower rates than all household income levels.
When strictly comparing one-group indices of racial groups across the four dimensions, it is
evident that some groups are more segregated than others. According to SI scores, blacks have the
highest uneven distribution. All other racial groups score about 0.60, which is a moderately high
value, but the black score is 0.80. This means nearly 60 percent of Asians, Latinas/os, and whites
would have to move to achieve an even distribution throughout Cook County, whereas about 80 of
blacks would need to move.
In terms of exposure, as measured by xPx, blacks also face the highest level of isolation, whites
the second, Latinas/os the third, and Asians the fourth. The xPx score for blacks (0.77) is nearly 3.5
times more than Asians (0.23), nearly 1.35 times more than Latinas/os (0.57), and 1.1 times more
than whites (0.69). Thus, Asians are least likely to be isolated from other groups, which is reflec-
tive of their relatively small proportion of population.
Concentration measures have similar results. Blacks (0.71) remain the most concentrated in
relation to all other groups according to DEL, with other minority groups reporting lower, yet simi-
lar scores. The Asian and Latina/o scores range from 0.67 to 0.69, but whites report the lowest DEL
score at 0.47.
In terms of clustering, DPxx scores show that blacks (0.64) and whites (0.63) clustered at mod-
erately high levels. These rates are considerably higher than other groups. Asians and Latinas/os
report scores of 0.13 and 0.42, respectively, indicating that blacks and whites are clustered to live
alongside one another more so than other groups.
Whereas one-group indices lend themselves to comparing one groups distribution to all other
groups, the two-group indices enable us to compare two groups at a time to the rest of the popula-
tion (see Figure 4). In terms of D, unevenness levels for the paired grouping of Asians and blacks
scores highest (0.88), blacks and whites second highest (0.83), and blacks and Latinas/os third
highest, while the paired grouping between Asians and whites scores lowest (0.52), Latinas/os and
whites second lowest, and Asians and Latinas/os third lowest (0.52). These scores report moderate
to extremely high levels of unevenness. In particular, these D scores reveal how any pairing
between blacks and another group results in the highest levels of unevenness. When D is adjusted
to account for adjacent special units and their corresponding unit size, D (adj) scores confirm the
same patterns.
Exposure scores, as measured by xPy, show the paired grouping of Asians and whites scores the
highest level of segregation (0.52), Latinas/os and whites the second highest (0.29), and blacks and
whites the third highest (0.12). These scores indicate any pairing with whites decreases the likeli-
hood of interracial interaction with other groups. It should be noted, however, that xPy scores
diverge from other index scores in that they report moderate to low levels of segregation.
RCO scores show moderate levels of concentration, with the highest levels reported for Asians
and Latinas/os (0.63), Latinas/os and whites (0.49), and Asians and blacks (0.39). Given that

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 27, 2014
Henricks et al. 99

Figure 4. Segregation Indices by Two Racial Group Pairs, Block Groups in Cook Co., Illinois; American
Community Survey, 200610*.
*The Other racial category is included in the calculations, but omitted from presentation.

Asians and Latinas/os are each included in two of three pairings, this indicates their concentration
levels are more significant than the one-group index captures. Concentration for Asians and
Latinas/os is more likely to involve another group, whereas blacks, for example, are more likely to
be concentrated in isolation.
For clustering, DPxy scores range from moderate segregation to relative integration. The high-
est scores descend in the following order: whites and Asians (0.55), whites and Latinas/os (0.36),
and whites and blacks (0.18); while the lowest scores ascend in the following order: blacks and
Asians (0.02), Latinas/os and Asians (0.05), and whites and Asians (0.07). Whites and any other
pairing have the lowest rates of interaction with other racial groups due to clustering, whereas
Asians and any other pairing have the highest rates of interaction. It should be noted, however, that
high Asian DPxy scores reflect their comparatively smaller population size.
To supplement the global indices presented above, we calculate two local measures to visually
represent how racial groups are distributed across Cook County. H2 reveals the most homogeneous
block groups are located predominately on the south and west sides of Chicago and the far north,
far northwest, and southwest suburbs of Cook County (see Figure 5). The most heterogeneous
block groups, however, are predominately located on the north side of Chicago and the west and
south suburbs of Cook County. In terms of the distribution of H2 scores, about 19.9 percent of
block groups have significant to extreme homogeneity scores (0.600011.00000), 29.4 percent
have diversity scores in the moderate range (0.400010.60000), and 50.7 percent have significant
to perfect homogeneity (0.000000.400001). This index indicates most block groups contain mul-
tiple racial groups, yet a sizeable portion still is comprised by only one group. To show where
specific racial groups are located within Cook County, we turn our attention to LQ.

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 27, 2014
100 Critical Sociology 40(1)

Figure 5. Local Entropy (Diversity) Index Block Groups in Cook Co., Illinois; American Community
Survey, 200610.

When LQ scores are mapped by group, Cook Countys colorline becomes axiomatic (see Figure 6).
Blacks saturate Chicagos south and west sides (the traditional black belt), Latinas/os saturate the
near northwest and southwest sides (surrounding the black community in what looks like a side-
ways U), and whites saturate the north side and most the countys edges. The LQ distribution
shows a bifurcation of extremes across block groups. Most are either under-represented or over-
represented by one group. Blacks are highly under-represented in more than half the countys block
groups and highly over-represented in more than another 35 percent. In terms of extreme levels of
over-representation, 31.6 percent of all block groups are virtually all black. Latinas/os are highly

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 27, 2014
Henricks et al. 101

Figure 6. Local Quotient Index, by Racial Group Block Groups in Cook Co., Illinois; American Community
Survey, 200610*.
*Because LQ is sensitive to proportional representation, Asians do not carry statistical significance. They are omitted
from this figure for this reason.

under-represented in about half the countys block groups and over-represented in another 35 per-
cent. In total, Latinas/os are extremely over-represented in approximately 30.4 percent of all block
groups. For whites, only 29.0 percent of block groups are under-represented while more than half
are over-represented.

Whose Kind of Town?: Implications of the Analysis

If our multidimensional analysis of Cook County is any indication, it is quite premature to cele-
brate an end to a segregated century either statistically or substantively. Some integrated communi-
ties do exist, but comparatively speaking, Cook County has many more heterogeneous communities

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 27, 2014
102 Critical Sociology 40(1)

than homogenous ones. Despite the existence of these communities, however, the multidimen-
sional approach shows that racial segregation persists at high levels. Segregation is a much more
complicated phenomenon than reliance on only one index indicates. Though dissimilarity trends
may indicate segregation is receding, inclusion of multidimensional measures better captures other
ways segregation persists.
In Cook County, segregation persists more in racial terms than class terms across the four dimen-
sions. Looking at all the dimensions simultaneously, it becomes evident that blacks remain hyper-
segregated. They are more unevenly distributed, isolated, concentrated, and clustered than any other
group. When two-group indices are considered, any other minority pairing with blacks merely exac-
erbates the observed levels of segregation, especially in terms of unevenness. Asians and Latinas/os
also remain highly segregated across the four dimensions. When two-group indices are examined, it
becomes readily apparent that Asians and Latinas/os still face high levels of clustering and concen-
tration and are typically clustered and concentrated amongst other minority groups. Meanwhile,
whites remain highly insulated from the rest of the population. When they do live amongst other
groups, particularly Asians and Latinas/os, this insularity tends to extend to them.
The persistence of high levels of segregation sets a backdrop for racial inequality because it
contextualizes differentiated opportunity structures. As Oliver and Shapiro (2006 [1995]: 267)
have declared, Residential segregation is the lynchpin of race relations in America. Housing mat-
ters because it is embedded with a host of racial inequalities such as the quality of schools (Kozol,
2005), exposure to environmental hazards (Bullard, 1994), food access (Zenk et al., 2005), inter-
generational transfers of wealth (Oliver and Shapiro, 2006 [1995]), and employment availability
(Wilson, 1996), among many other unmentioned examples. People of color, particularly blacks and
Latinas/os, are relegated to lower social positions within the racial order, while whites are enumer-
ated handsomely, albeit unevenly, with concrete material advantages. The significance of segrega-
tion lies in its ability to shape peoples lives. Where people live helps determine what circumstances,
opportunities, and resources are available to them (Massey and Denton, 1993).
Given this reality, two substantive questions remain to be addressed: How do patterns of segrega-
tion persist in an era when discrimination is formally illegal and race has allegedly been transcended,
and what can the continued development of a critical consciousness lend to segregation studies?
Taking up the first question, some authors, like Wilson (1978), attribute persisting segregation trends
to legacies of the past. In this view, racial discrimination was defeated by the Civil Rights Movements
and blacks current social position results from a lack of human capital (e.g. skills and education),
ineffective public policy that has left their needs unaddressed, and structural shifts in the economic
mode of production (e.g. deindustrialization, globalization). Wilson (1978) argues, in other words,
continuing segregation is due to the increasing significance of class, not racism.
Massey and Denton (1993) provide a different take. They note how race remains a salient pre-
dictor in determining where someone lives even when factors of class are controlled. For many
people of color, black households in particular, higher class status does not buy entry into histori-
cally white spaces. Even high-income black households are more likely to live amongst low-
income black households than they are among whites of any class background. Persisting
segregation can be attributed to ongoing discriminatory practices such as racial steering and lin-
guistic profiling. The former refers to when realty agents direct people of color to neighborhoods
characterized by higher concentrations of minorities, poorer families, and more substandard hous-
ing (Massey, 2005: 149), while the latter refers to when realtors presume a potential clients race
or ethnicity on stereotypical notions of how their voice sounds, and then they filter what informa-
tion is provided (Massey and Fischer, 2004).
Both race and class scholars offer convincing arguments to explain why segregation persists,
but each perspective remains incomplete. We sympathize with Oliver and Shapiro (2006 [1995]) in

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 27, 2014
Henricks et al. 103

that class does not trump race, or vice versa, but it is the converging nature of race and class that
maintains high levels of segregation. Strictly comparing whites to blacks, they illuminate how
blacks are more likely to be: (1) discriminated against in open housing markets, steered to pov-
erty-stricken, heavily black-concentrated neighborhoods, (2) denied loans despite comparably
equivalent measures of credit-worthiness, (3) charged much higher interest rates once these loans
are approved, (4) reside in homes that appreciate value at significantly lower rates than white coun-
terparts, and (5) transfer significantly less accumulated wealth through inheritance to succeeding
generations.10 In this way race and class are not mutually exclusive, but the former is a compound
of both status and economic structure (Bonilla-Silva, 2001). Race influences matters of recognized
personhood, and it is grounded in how material resources and opportunities are distributed.
When considering the gravity of these implications, the significance of our findings expands
beyond the methodological augmentation of racial segregation to matters of epistemology. [F]or
all the demonstrated ability of science to produce such knowledge, as Feagin and Vera (2001: 260)
contend, it has not been possible, even in physics, chemistry or biology, to discount the impact of
particular human beings, their biases and assumptions, and their group interests on the form and
content of knowledge. The practice of science is socially embedded regardless of whether its
practitioners acknowledge this point. Observations, analyses, and theorizations all have political
ramifications, and in doing so, they also contain a dialectic of both repressive and liberative
dimensions (Gouldner, 1970: 12). With our research, we hope to inspire new inquiries about an old
dilemma: the complicit role we as social scientists play in preserving racial hierarchies (Zuberi and
Bonilla-Silva, 2008).
Historically, many sociologists who study race have been embroiled by contributions that
support racial domination, first in the realm of supposed biological difference, as McKee (1993)
has noted, and more recently in attributions of racial disparity to culture (e.g. Lewis, 1961;
Moynihan, 1965; Wilson, 1978, 1987).11 Although many have attempted to empirically detach
themselves from the objects of study, the craft of sociology is mired by racialized social con-
texts we both produce and are produced by (Blauner and Wellman, 1998 [1973]). With this
epistemological stance in mind, it is imperative to be acutely aware of the normative dispositions
we enter the field with as researchers. Otherwise, we may end up reproducing the very inequali-
ties many of us seek to overcome.
The purpose of a sociological study like ours is to interrogate the explicit and implicit founda-
tions that guide research such as Glaeser and Vigdors (2012), along with many other examples that
go unmentioned. This is among the tasks, as Burawoy (2005: 10, 11) notes, for critical sociologists:
we ask a sociology for whom? and a sociology for what?. Glaeser and Vigdors (2012) study
reflects a continued methodological and substantive need for asking these questions. We are not
accusing them of purposely skewing their results, but we do suggest they have taken their results
at face value without engaging the ideological biases many white social scientists (and some social
scientists of color) remain vulnerable to when studying race (Ladner, 1998 [1973]; McKee, 1993;
Pinkney, 1984; Steinberg, 2007; Zuberi and Bonilla-Silva, 2008).
As Harris and McCullough note:

[I]n recent years whites have begun to prepare statistical studies demonstrating Black progress and
achievements. Statistics are emerging showing Black progress in education, employment positions,
income, etc. The irony of these studies is that they, too, are done in the interest of whites rather than Blacks.
For it is only since Blacks have begun to assert themselves on a massive scale during the last decade that
these statements of progress have emerged. Their real purpose has not been to show Black progress but to
attempt to dampen Black fervor for change by implying that effective change is already taking place. It is
ironic that while absolute gains are being made, the same data frequently reveal that relative ground is
being lost. (1998 [1973]: 336, emphasis added)

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 27, 2014
104 Critical Sociology 40(1)

In this context of misinterpreting effective change, we suggest Glaeser and Vigdors (2012) work
inadvertently answers the questions a sociology for whom? and a sociology for what? subtly, yet
controversially. It is research that edifies the structure of white racial dominance, and given all of
the media attention their publication received, it serves to scientifically reaffirm an era of racial
transcendence in the public eye.

Limitations of Demographic Indices and Future Inquiries

Despite high levels of persisting segregation, some diverse communities do exist and could even
be expanding. Though Glaeser and Vigdor (2012) cite examples like these as evidence for growing
integration, such trends may be reflective of other social trends aside from racial transcendence.
The emergence of diverse neighborhoods may reflect broader social trends such as growing white
poverty or restructuring of urban space (Bonilla-Silva and Baiocchi, 2003). Furthermore, the fact
that multiple groups are living amongst one another does not necessarily translate into racially
harmonious relations. It simply means that people are living close to each other spatially, but such
spatial closeness cannot automatically be presumed to equal social closeness. Diversity, alone,
does not lend itself to equality. This is perhaps the most fundamental limitation to quantitative
measures of segregation, a subject to which we now turn.
If we are to fully understand segregation and how it works, indices cannot have the last word.
They are helpful to illustrate spatial variations for where racial groups reside and segregation out-
comes, but they cannot illuminate the processes that (re)create these patterns. At best, such empiri-
cal support only allows for inferred conclusions, rather than those that can be directly observed
(Goldthorpe, 1997). When indices and maps are disassembled to their bare components, we are left
with rather simple numerical and percentage comparisons of the numbers and proportions of per-
sons in each race/ethnicity group in a population (Murdock and Ellis, 1991: 152). Alone, these
static numerical methods cannot grasp how racial dynamics have changed over time in a qualita-
tive sense (Bonilla-Silva, 2001; Bonilla-Silva and Baiocchi, 2003).
Demographic indices do little to speak to how substantive integration is denied even when dif-
ferent racial groups live in close proximity. Whites often socially distance themselves from others
through various forms of racial practices that manifest through colorblind ideology (Bonilla-Silva,
2001), laissez-faire racism (Bobo, 2004), racial apathy (Forman and Lewis 2006), and other blatant
forms of racial profiling and exclusion (the arrest of black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr
is a clear example, as is the recent tragic death of Trayvon Martin). In other words, contemporary
racism persists, and indeed is even quite compatible with diverse residential settings where inter-
racial spatial proximity is present. To echo a point made long ago by Drake and Cayton (1993
[1945]), we cannot presume more physical interracial contact is synonymous with progressive
racial change.
Many scholars caution that more physical interracial contact does not automatically translate
into genuine interracial friendships and social networks (Mouw and Entwisle, 2006) or intimate
interracial relationships that are egalitarian (Twine and Steinbugler, 2006). Racially diverse set-
tings can help people, whites in particular, develop progressive racial views but it, alone, is not
sufficient to develop racial literacy (Twine, 2004).12 Disingenuous interracial relationships
whether collegial, casual, intimate, and so on tend to be the rule, not the exception, in an era of
alleged racial transcendence (Bonilla-Silva, 2001). Thus, we suggest that future inquiries must
devote more attentiveness to substantive social integration in addition to spatial segregation.
If these social and spatial elements are to be better understood, analysts must engage more sys-
temic analyses of ongoing social processes and racial practices that incorporate innovative racial

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 27, 2014
Henricks et al. 105

theorization and mixed-methodological orientations. A fertile area of research for such inquiry lies
in some of the exceptions to the rule of what Massey and Denton (1993) label American Apartheid:
the emergence of relatively stable racially diverse communities (see Nyden et al., 1997). These
communities reflect field sites for collaborative opportunities among academics and practitioners
that can richly nuance our collective actions against race-based segregation. Moreover, qualitative
and engaged methods can also augment our understandings of how substantive segregation works,
in that it does not merely boil down to physical separation between groups.13 Integration, as Hughey
(2010) notes, should not be celebrated as the ultimate end in achieving racial parity but a problem-
atic beginning. Racial oppression has not been eradicated after all, but remains under continuous
transfiguration.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank David G. Embrick and Scott Smith for their constructive feedback when this project
was in its early stages. Any shortcomings, however, remain strictly our own.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit
sectors.

Notes
1. D is an index that measures how (un)evenly a group is distributed across a spatial area with respect to
their proportion of the total population. Its index score expresses a groups percentage that must relocate
to another spatial unit occupied by another group to achieve an even racial distribution.
2. Much of the literature, and even publications from the US Census Bureau, privileges the term Hispanic
over Latina/o or treats the terms as though they are interchangeable. Throughout the article, we solely
employ the term Latina/o for political reasons. The pan-ethnic label is intricately intertwined with his-
torical European oppression because it refers to those who are of Spanish origin but is broadly imposed
onto anyone of Latin American ancestry (Senz and Murga, 2011). Thus, the term is a symbolic imposi-
tion directly rooted in conquest and colonization.
3. We recognize the murky boundaries between the overlapping concepts of race and ethnicity. Both are
social constructions; the former tends to refer to physical appearances (e.g. skin tone, eye shape, hair tex-
ture, and so on) while the latter tends to refer to cultural markers (e.g. language, religion, place of origin,
and so on). For sake of brevity, we simply use racial terminology to refer to Latinas/os but recognize the
analytic impression this entails.
4. Massey and Denton (1988) build upon the work of Timms (1971) to illustrate the multidimensionality of
segregation.
5. All data are retrieved from the ACS Summary File (US Census Bureau, 2012b). For a thorough descrip-
tion of the methodological design which includes the sampling frame and strategy, estimation meth-
ods, confidentiality protection, (non)sampling errors, confidence intervals, and standard errors, among
other items consult the US Census Bureaus (2009, 2010) Design and Methodology and Accuracy of
the Data reports.
6. Block groups, as opposed to census tracts, have been purposefully chosen. A methodological limitation
inherent in spatial data is they homogenize variation within the unit of scale. James and Taeuber (1985),
for example, point out that comparing summary statistics of census tract to census tract leaves degrees
of variance within each unit unmeasured. To minimize this measurement error, we rely upon the block
group as our primary unit of analysis. Smaller units of scale enable more precise measurement because
they summarize fewer data. Consequently, as the literature has shown, smaller spatial units of scale also
correspond with higher levels of segregation (Charles, 2003). Our full analysis, omitted here due to space
constraints, confirms this trend.

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 27, 2014
106 Critical Sociology 40(1)

7. Because those who identified as any other race (multiracial, Native American) were statistically insig-
nificant, they were collapsed with those whose racial identity was unknown. The number of people who
fell into this general Other category is 72,642.
8. Segregation Analyzer is a standalone application that does not require, but is compatible with, GIS soft-
ware. It is quickly gaining acceptance among the academic community and has been utilized in a number
of studies (e.g. Leloup et al., 2011; Martori and Apparicio, 2011; Wang, 2012). Among its strengths is its
ability to calculate up to 42 segregation indices, which include single-group, intergroup, and multiple-
group indices as well as local measures. Consult Apparicio et al. (2008) for a detailed discussion of this
applications development and how it functions.
9. The fifth dimension, centralization, is omitted from our analysis given that Chicago has experienced
much economic transformation (e.g. deindustrialization) and no longer has the central manufacturing
core it once possessed.
10. Much of this same analysis can be adapted, with some revision, to a comparison of whites to subgroups
of Latinas/os and Asians.
11. While many sociologists of race have reinforced various forms of racial hierarchy, this is not to say that
these views have gone without resistance. Quite the contrary. Scholars of color such as W. E. B. Du Bois,
Ida Wells-Barnett, and Oliver C. Cox, among many others, spent much of their professional careers offering
alternative perspectives that directly challenged biological and cultural explanations of racial inequality.
12. Twine (2004) defines racial literacy as a form of racial consciousness. Similar to Du Boiss (2005 [1903])
notion of double consciousness, or twoness, and Millss (2000 [1959]) sociological imagination, some-
one who is racially literate understands that she or he is situated within larger historical, institutional,
and structural forces that are principally organized along racial lines. One who possesses this level of
abstraction thus comes to understand her or his everyday interactions with others through a lens attentive
to this larger social context.
13. Though this area of research remains largely underdeveloped, a few notable case studies of local Chicago
neighborhoods have engaged such work. Burke (2012) shows how white residents living within a racially
integrated community consume diversity discourse rather than practice it. They endorse abstract notions
of diversity but their actions deny it because they still subscribe to colorblind ideological tenets like cul-
tural racism, minimization of racism, and naturalization of racial preferences. Another study completed
by Byrnes and Henricks (2012) details middle class black experiences of living in a racially integrated
community. They found middle class black residents to be located in a position of in-betweenness.
Fellow white residents discursively mobilized colorblind ideology to blame community deterioration on
all black residents, while middle class black residents also utilized colorblind ideology to police bounda-
ries between themselves and stigmatized forms of blackness. They, too, ultimately blamed poor black
residents for ongoing problems of community deterioration.

References
Alba RD and Romalewski S (2012) The end of segregation? Hardly: a more nuanced view from the New York
metropolitan region. Available (consulted 30 May 2012) at: www.urbanresearch.org/projects/hardly-the-
end-of-segregation/
Alba RD, Logan JR and Stults BJ (2000) The changing neighborhood contexts of the immigrant metropolis.
Social Forces 79(2): 587621.
Apparicio P, Petkevitch V and Charron M (2008) Segregation analyzer: a C#.net application for calculating
residential segregation indices. Cybergeo: Revue Europenne de Gographie, Systmes, Modlisation,
Gostatistiques 414: 113.
Bell W (1954) A probability model for the measurement of ecological segregation. Social Forces 32(4):
357364.
Blauner R and Wellman D (1998 [1973]) Toward the decolonization of social research. In: Ladner JA (ed.)
The Death of White Sociology: Essays on Race and Culture. Baltimore, MD: Black Classic, 310330.
Bobo LD (2004) Inequalities that endure? Racial ideology, American politics, and the peculiar role of social
science. In: Krysan M and Lewis AE (eds) Changing Terrain of Race and Ethnicity. New York, NY: Rus-
sell Sage Foundation, 1342.

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 27, 2014
Henricks et al. 107

Bonilla-Silva E (2001) White Supremacy and Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era. Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner.
Bonilla-Silva E and Baiocchi G (2003) Anything but racism: how sociologists limit the significance of rac-
ism. Race and Society 4(2): 117131.
Bonilla-Silva E and Forman TA (2000) Im not a racist, but : mapping white college students racial
ideology in the USA. Discourse and Society 11(1): 5085.
Bonilla-Silva E, Tyrone FA, Lewis AE and Embrick DG (2003) It wasnt me!: how will race and racism
work in 21st century America. Research in Political Sociology 12: 111134.
Bullard RD (1994) The legacy of American apartheid and environmental racism. St. Johns University Jour-
nal of Law and Commentary 9(Spring): 445474.
Burawoy M (2005) For public sociology. American Sociological Review 70: 428.
Burke MA (2012) Discursive fault lines: reproducing white habitus in a racially diverse community. Critical
Sociology 38(5): 645668.
Byrnes B and Henricks K (2012) Thats when the neighborhood went south: how middle class blacks and
whites police racial boundaries of stigmatized blackness. Unpublished manuscript, Loyola University
Chicago, Illinois.
Charles CZ (2003) The dynamics of racial residential segregation. Annual Review of Sociology 29: 67207.
Cortese CF and Falk RF and Cohen JK (1976) Further considerations on the methodological analysis of seg-
regation indices. American Sociological Review 41(4): 630637.
Drake SC and Cayton HR (1993 [1945]) Black Metropolis: A Study of Negro Life in a Northern City. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Du Bois WEB (2005 [1903]) The Souls of Black Folk. New York, NY: Pocket Books.
Duncan OD and Duncan B (1955) A methodological analysis of segregation indices. American Sociological
Review 20(2): 210217.
Duncan OD, Cuzzort RP and Duncan B (1961) Statistical Geography: Problems in Analyzing Areal Data.
Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Economist (2012) The dream is getting closer: A report shows that Americas cities are steadily becom-
ing more integrated. 11 February. Available (consulted 16 May 2012) at: http://www.economist.com/
node/21547270
El Nasser H (2012) Study finds black segregation lowest in century. USA Today, 31 January. Available (con-
sulted 16 May 2012) at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/20120130/racial-segregation-
decline/52889370/1
Feagin JR and Vera H (2001) Liberation Sociology. Cambridge, MA: Westview.
Forman TA and Lewis AE (2006) Racial apathy and Hurricane Katrina: the social anatomy of prejudice in the
post-civil rights era. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race 3(1): 175202.
Glaeser E and Vigdor J (2012) The end of the segregated century: racial separation in Americas neighbor-
hoods, 18902010. Report, Manhattan Institute, Center for State and Local Leadership, January.
Goldthorpe JH (1997) Current issues in comparative macrosociology: a debate on methodological issues.
Comparative Social Research 16: 126.
Gouldner A (1970) The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Harris J and McCullough WD (1998 [1973]) Quantitative methods and black community studies. In: Ladner JA
(ed.) The Death of White Sociology: Essays on Race and Culture. Baltimore, MD: Black Classic, 331343.
Hoover EM Jr (1941) Interstate redistribution of population, 18501940. Journal of Economic History 1(2):
199205.
Hughey MW (2010) A paradox of participation: nonwhites in white sororities and fraternities. Social Prob-
lems 57(4): 653679.
Isard W (1960) Methods of Regional Analysis: An Introduction to Regional Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
James DR and Taeuber KE (1985) Measures of segregation. In: Tuma N (ed.) Sociological Methodology
1985. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 132.
Jordan M (2012) Segregation hits historic low: flight from rust belt cities, immigration boost integration in
cities, study says. Wall Street Journal, 31 January. Available (consulted 16 May 2012) at: http://online.
wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203920204577193261646566778.html.

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 27, 2014
108 Critical Sociology 40(1)

Kozol J (2005) The Shame of a Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America. New York, NY:
Crown.
Ladner JA (ed.) (1998 [1973]) The Death of White Sociology: Essays on Race and Culture. Baltimore, MD:
Black Classic.
Leloup X, Apparicio P and Esfani FD (2011) Ethnicity and homeownership in Montral, Toronto and Van-
couver: measuring effects of the spatial distribution of ethnic groups using multilevel modeling in 1996
and 2001. Journal of International Migration and Integration 12(4): 429451.
Lewis O (1961) The Children of Sanchez, Autobiography of a Mexican Family. New York, NY: Random
House.
Logan JR, Stults BJ and Farley R (2004) Segregation of minorities in the metropolis. Demography 41: 122.
Martori JC and Apparicio P (2011) Changes in spatial patterns of the immigrant population of a southern
European metropolis: the case of the Barcelona metropolitan area (20012008). Journal of Economic and
Social Geography 102(5): 562581.
Massey DS (2005) Racial discrimination in housing: a moving target. Social Problems 52(2): 148151.
Massey DS and Denton NA (1988) The dimensions of residential segregation. Social Forces 67(2): 281315.
Massey DS and Denton NA (1993) American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Massey DS and Fischer MJ (2004) The social ecology of racial discrimination. City and Community 3(3):
221243.
Massey DS, White MJ and Voon-Chin P (1996) The dimensions of segregation revisited. Sociological Meth-
ods and Research 25(2): 172206.
McKee JB (1993) Sociology and the Race Problem: The Failure of a Perspective. Urbana, IL: University of
Illinois Press.
Mills CW (2000 [1959]) The Sociological Imagination. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Morgan BS (1983) An alternative approach to the development of the distance-based measure of segregation.
American Journal of Sociology 88(6): 12371249.
Morrill RL (1991) On the measure of geographical segregation. Geography Research Forum 11(1): 2536.
Mouw T and Entwisle B (2006) Residential segregation and interracial friendship in schools. American Jour-
nal of Sociology 112(2): 393441.
Moynihan DP (1965) The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. Washington: US Department of
Labor (Office of Policy Planning and Research).
Murdock SH and Ellis DR (1991) Applied Demography: An Introduction to Basic Concepts, Methods, and
Data. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Nyden P, Maly M and Lukehart J (1997) The emergence of stable racially and ethnically diverse urban com-
munities: a case study of nine U.S. cities. Housing Policy Debate 8(2): 491534.
Oliver ML and Shapiro TM (2006 [1995]) Black Wealth/ White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequal-
ity, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Routledge.
Omi M and Winant H (1994 [1986]) Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Pinkney A (1984) The Myth of Black Progress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reardon SF and OSullivan D (2004) Measures of spatial segregation. Sociological Methodology 34(1):
121162.
Roberts S (2012) Segregation curtailed in U.S. cities, study finds. New York Times, 31 January. Available
(consulted 16 May 2012) at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/us/Segregation-Curtailed-in-US-Cit-
ies-Study-Finds.html?_r=1
Senz R and Murga AL (2011) Latino Issues: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Steinberg S (2007) Race Relations: A Critique. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Taeuber KE and Taeuber AF (1965) Negroes in Cities: Residential Segregation and Neighborhood Change.
Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Theil H (1972) Statistical Decomposition Analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Theil H and Finizza AJ (1971) A note on the measurement of racial integration on schools by means of infor-
mational concepts. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1(2): 187194.

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 27, 2014
Henricks et al. 109

Timms DWG (1971) The Urban Mosaic: Towards a Theory of Residential Differentiation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Twine FW (2004) A white side of black Britain: the concept of racial literacy. Ethnic and Racial Studies
27(6): 878907.
Twine FW and Steinbugler AC (2006) The gap between whites and whiteness: interracial intimacy and racial
literacy. Du Bois Review 3(2): 341363.
US Census Bureau (2009) Design and methodology: American Community Survey. Available (consulted 18
June 2012) at: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/survey_methodology/acs_design_methodol-
ogy.pdf
US Census Bureau (2010) Accuracy of the data: American Community Survey. Available (consulted 18 June
2012) at: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_
of_Data_2010.pdf
US Census Bureau (2012a) American Community Survey: response rates data. Available (consulted 18 June
2012) at: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/methodology/response_rates_data/index.php
US Census Bureau (2012b) American Community Survey: data and documentation, summary file. Available
(consulted 15 April 2012) at: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/summary_file/
US Census Bureau (2012c) State and county quick facts: Cook County, Illinois. Available (consulted 18 June
2012) at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/17031.html
Wang Y (2012) Decomposing the entropy index of racial diversity: in search of two types of variance. Annals
of Regional Science 48(3): 897915.
Wilkes R and Iceland J (2004) Hypersegregation in the twenty-first century. Demography 41(1): 2336.
Wilson WJ (1978) The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wilson WJ (1987) The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Wilson WJ (1996) When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York, NY: Knopf.
Wong DW (1993) Spatial indices of segregation. Urban Studies 30(3): 559579.
Zenk SN, Schulz AJ, Israel BA, James SA, Bao S and Wilson ML (2005) Neighborhood racial composition,
neighborhood poverty, and the spatial accessibility of supermarkets in metropolitan Detroit. American
Journal of Public Health 95(4): 660667.
Zuberi T and Bonilla-Silva E (eds) (2008) White Logic, White Methods: Racism and Methodology. Lanham,
MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Downloaded from crs.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on January 27, 2014