Spatial assimilation theory predicts that racial and ethnic residential segregation results at least in part from socioeconomic differences across groups. In contrast, the place stratification perspective emphasizes the role of prejudice and discrimination in shaping residential patterns. This article evaluates these perspectives by examining the role of race and class in explaining the residential segregation of African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians from non-Hispanic whites in all U.S. metropolitan areas over the 1990 to 2000 period. Using the dissimilarity index and various indicators of socioeconomic status (SES), we find that in both 1990 and 2000 high-SES racial and ethnic groups were significantly less segregated from non-Hispanic whites than corresponding low-SES groups, especially among Hispanics and Asians-much as the spatial assimilation model would predict. Consistent with the place stratification model, African Americans of all SES levels continued to be more segregated from whites than were Hispanics and Asians, and this changed little between 1990 and 2000. However, the importance of SES in explaining the segregation of African Americans from whites increased over the period, while not for Hispanics and Asian Americans, providing support for a modest increase in the applicability of the spatial assimilation model for African Americans in the 1990s.

Conventional wisdom says that social capital is more common among families in rural communities than urban communities. Using data from the 1988 wave of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, we compare the prevalence, type, and extent of social exchanges in these places. Results indicate that families living in rural areas are more likely to exchange exclusively with kin than are families living in urban areas. In particular, families living in rural areas are more likely to receive money help from kin than families in urban areas. Results on patterns of giving are more complex, with rural origin families with younger household heads more likely to give support to kin, and rural origin families with older heads less likely to provide such support, as compared to otherwise similar families of urban origin. Finally, only modest urban‐rural differences in amounts exchanged (in dollars) are found among otherwise similar families. Overall, some of the urban‐rural differences in patterns of exchange are explained by different family characteristics; however, key urban‐rural differences remain, probably reflecting differences in norms and the availability of institutional support services in different areas.

We used metropolitan-level data from the 2000 U.S. census to analyze the hypersegregation of four groups from whites: blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans. While blacks were hypersegregated in 29 metropolitan areas and Hispanics were hypersegregated in 2, Asians and Native Americans were not hypersegregated in any. There were declines in the number of metropolitan areas with black hypersegregation, although levels of segregation experienced by blacks remained significantly higher than those of the other groups, even after a number of factors were controlled. Indeed, although socioeconomic differences among the groups explain some of the difference in residential patterns more generally, they have little association with hypersegregation in particular, indicating the overarching salience of race in shaping residential patterns in these highly divided metropolitan areas.

This paper examines the extent of spatial assimilation among immigrants of different racial and ethnic origins. We use restricted data from the 1990 and 2000 censuses to calculate the levels of dissimilarity by race and Hispanic origin, nativity, and year of entry, and then run multivariate models to examine these relationships. The findings provide broad support for spatial assimilation theory. Foreign-born Hispanics, Asians, and blacks are more segregated from native-born non-Hispanic whites than are the U.S.-born of these groups. The patterns for Hispanics and Asians can be explained by the average characteristics of the foreign-born that are generally associated with higher levels of segregation, such as lower levels of income, English language ability, and home ownership. We also find that immigrants who have been in the United States for longer periods are generally less segregated than new arrivals, and once again, much of this difference can be attributed to the characteristics of immigrants. However, patterns also vary across groups. Levels of segregation are much higher for black immigrants than for Asian, Hispanic, and white immigrants. In addition, because black immigrants are, on average, of higher socioeconomic status than native-born blacks, such characteristics do not help explain their very high levels of segregation.

Objective Mental health disorders are of great social, economic, and policy concern. A higher incidence of major depressive disorder has been reported among those living in or near poverty. Our study examines the extent to which the relationship between income and depression is mediated by measures of material hardship. Methods We use measures of depression at two points in time from the longitudinal Fragile Families Survey to better discern the causal direction of the relationship between income poverty, hardship, and depression. More specifically, we use conditional logistic fixed-effect models that control for time-invariant unmeasured heterogeneity in the sample. Results We found a strong relationship between hardships and depression. The most prominent hardships were problems paying bills and phone turned off. We also found that hardship helped mediate much, though not all, of the link between poverty and depression in the conditional fixed effect logistic regression models. Conclusion Our policy simulations suggest that public health efforts to reduce depression may be enhanced from efforts that focus on specific forms of material hardship.