During the years between 2006 and 2010, certain neighborhoods in Queens have seen a significant increase in the Hispanic population. These neighborhoods include Glendale , Ridgewood, Middle Village, and Maspeth (PUMA# 04110) as well as in Woodhaven and Kew Gardens (PUMA 04111). These towns have shown a fifteen to twenty-five percent increase in the Hispanic population. The American Community Survey (ACS) has specific data on those of Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban descent, but aggregates the rest of the population into a group “Other Hispanic or Latino.” By looking at annual census reports on income levels and educational attainment in these regions and the trend between years, we can get a clearer idea of why there was an increase the Hispanic population and their socio-economic impact on these communities.

Using Social Explorer (2010 Census Tract PL94), we mapped the population change of the ethnicity we chose (Hispanic) in each tract of New York City. From this map, we were able to choose two zones with the most significant increase to compare using social and economic data from the census website. It’s important to note that Social Explorer’s census tract data spans from 2000 to 2010, however, ACS data is only available as early as 2006.


EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 2010 2006
PUMA 04110 Estimate Estimate Margin of Error Percent Percent Margin of Error Estimate Estimate Margin of Error
Population 25 years and over 116507 +/-3,664 116507 (X) 121,437 +/-6,302
High school graduate (includes equivalency) 40801 +/-2,032 0.35 +/-1.2 48,185 +/-3,665
Some college, no degree 18496 +/-1,270 0.159 +/-0.9 17,668 +/-2,064
Associate’s degree 8329 +/-803 0.071 +/-0.7 6,379 +/-1,243
Bachelor’s degree 16456 +/-1,328 0.141 +/-1.0 16,047 +/-2,073
Graduate or professional degree 7438 +/-873 0.064 +/-0.7 8,091 +/-1,444
Percent high school graduate or higher (X) (X) 0.786 +/-1.3 79.40% +/-2.0
Percent bachelor’s degree or higher (X) (X) 0.205 +/-1.3 19.90% +/-2.0


EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 2010
Estimate
Estimate Margin of Error Percent Percent Margin of Error 2006 Estimate Estimate Margin of Error
PUMA 04111 +/-5,357
Population 25 years and over 93,037 +/-3,588 93,037 (X) 88,199 +/-1,617
High school graduate (includes equivalency) 28,912 +/-2,274 31.10% +/-1.9 28,319 +/-1,874
Some college, no degree 13,096 +/-1,089 14.10% +/-1.1 13,176 +/-3,393
Associate’s degree 6,318 +/-732 6.80% +/-0.8 6,960 +/-2,005
Bachelor’s degree 15,067 +/-1,319 16.20% +/-1.3 13,349 +/-1,443
Graduate or professional degree 8,671 +/-841 9.30% +/-0.9 7,486 +/-2,051
+/-1,614
Percent high school graduate or higher (X) (X) 77.50% +/-1.4 78.60% +/-2.6
Percent bachelor’s degree or higher (X) (X) 25.50% +/-1.5 23.60% +/-3.0


2006 Data

In PUMA 04110, census data shows that 79.4% of the 25 or older population had a high school degree or higher, while 19.9% of this population had a bachelor’s degree or higher. The mean household income was $61,613 and the median was $50,477.

In PUMA 04111, census data shows that 78.6% of the 25 or older population had a high school degree or higher, while 23.6% of the population had a bachelor’s degree or higher. The mean household income was $62,045 and the median was $52,722.

In terms of educational attainment and average household income, the two regions are strikingly similar, the high school attainment difference being only ~1% and the mean and median income difference being only ~$2,000.

2010 Data

In PUMA 04110, census data shows that 78.6% of the population (25 or older) had a high school degree or higher. 20.5% of the population had a bachelor’s degree or higher. The mean household income was $65,710 and the median was $53,913.

In PUMA 04111, census data shows that 77.5% of the population (25 or older) had a high school degree or higher. 25.5% of the population had a bachelor’s degree or higher. The mean household income was $66,577 and the median was $54,522.

The similarity between the two regions remains the same, with a slight decrease in mean and median income difference (~$1,000, down from ~$2,000).


INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2010 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) 2010
Estimate
Estimate Margin of Error Percent Percent Margin of Error 2006 Estimate Estimate Margin of Error
PUMA 04110
Total households 60,696 +/-1,641 60,696 (X) 62,690 +/-2,956
Less than $10,000 4,079 +/-628 6.70% +/-1.0 3,942 +/-887
$10,000 to $14,999 3,343 +/-528 5.50% +/-0.9 3,448 +/-841
$15,000 to $24,999 6,537 +/-644 10.80% +/-1.0 7,165 +/-1,240
$25,000 to $34,999 6,098 +/-700 10.00% +/-1.1 6,668 +/-1,209
$35,000 to $49,999 8,164 +/-781 13.50% +/-1.2 9,777 +/-1,513
$50,000 to $74,999 12,439 +/-988 20.50% +/-1.6 12,544 +/-1,655
$75,000 to $99,999 8,367 +/-778 13.80% +/-1.2 8,441 +/-1,504
$100,000 to $149,999 7,339 +/-668 12.10% +/-1.1 7,190 +/-1,285
$150,000 to $199,999 2,533 +/-387 4.20% +/-0.6 2,332 +/-687
$200,000 or more 1,797 +/-390 3.00% +/-0.6 1,183 +/-497
Median household income (dollars) 53,913 +/-1,917 (X) (X) 50,477 +/-3,495
Mean household income (dollars) 65,710 +/-1,662 (X) (X) 61,613 +/-2,707


INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2010 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) 2010
Estimate
Estimate Margin of Error Percent Percent Margin of Error 2006 Estimate Estimate Margin of Error
PUMA 04111
Total households 44,240 +/-1,491 44,240 (X) 43,117 +/-2,313
Less than $10,000 2,608 +/-496 5.90% +/-1.1 3,339 +/-905
$10,000 to $14,999 1,701 +/-411 3.80% +/-1.0 2,216 +/-649
$15,000 to $24,999 4,300 +/-509 9.70% +/-1.1 4,895 +/-1,080
$25,000 to $34,999 4,265 +/-552 9.60% +/-1.2 4,502 +/-1,073
$35,000 to $49,999 7,175 +/-609 16.20% +/-1.2 5,560 +/-1,209
$50,000 to $74,999 9,225 +/-946 20.90% +/-2.1 9,450 +/-1,445
$75,000 to $99,999 6,142 +/-695 13.90% +/-1.5 5,066 +/-997
$100,000 to $149,999 5,742 +/-655 13.00% +/-1.4 6,302 +/-1,199
$150,000 to $199,999 2,144 +/-361 4.80% +/-0.8 1,086 +/-485
$200,000 or more 938 +/-263 2.10% +/-0.6 701 +/-361
Median household income (dollars) 54,522 +/-2,194 (X) (X) 52,722 +/-4,910
Mean household income (dollars) 66,577 +/-1,803 (X) (X) 62,045 +/-4,052


From 2006 to 2010, PUMA 04110 displayed a 0.6% increase of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher, while PUMA 04111 displayed a 1.9% increase. As the percentage of population with college degrees increases, we would expect the mean and median income to increase as well. This is in accordance with the above data. PUMA 04110’s mean and median incomes increased by $4097 and $3436, respectively, while PUMA 04111’s increased by $4532 and $1800, respectively. The increase in median income in both of these PUMA regions provides an immigration incentive for low and medium-income families seeking better income opportunities. An influx of low and medium-income families, however, can also correspond to an influx of non-high school-graduates, which has a negative impact on the percentage of high school (or higher) educational attainment, as we will see.

Despite the increase in bachelor’s degrees, over the four years, there was a decrease in the number those that attained a high school degree or higher. This is a very strange phenomenon because one would expect that with an increase of those completing a college degree, there likely would not be any or negative change in the the number of those who had attained a high school diploma. A possible explanation for this strange occurrence could be that there was an influx of people who did not attain a high school degree or higher. A non-constant population would allow for this to happen, under the fact that if one attains a college degree, they must also have a high school degree.

Given this census data and the fact that the mean and median incomes continue to increase in these two PUMAs, we expect that the the trend of hispanic immigration (and increase in percentage of total population) will continue to increase into the future.