text:
Download a pdf of this Backgrounder
Related Content: Press releases for individual states, Washington Times Article
Executive Summary
Using the latest Census Bureau data from 2010 and 2011, this paper provides a detailed picture of the more than 50 million immigrants (legal and illegal) and their U.S.-born children (under 18) in the United States by country of birth, state, and legal status. One of the most important findings is that immigration has dramatically increased the size of the nation's low-income population; however, there is great variation among immigrants by sending country and region. Moreover, many immigrants make significant progress the longer they live in the country. But even with this progress, immigrants who have been in the United States for 20 years are much more likely to live in poverty, lack health insurance, and access the welfare system than are native-born Americans. The large share of immigrants arriving as adults with relatively little education partly explains this phenomenon.
Overall Numbers
- The number of immigrants (legal and illegal) in the country hit a new record of 40 million in 2010, a 28 percent increase over the total in 2000.
- Of top sending countries, the largest percentage increase in the last decade was for those from Honduras (85 percent), India (74 percent), Guatemala (73 percent), Peru (54 percent), El Salvador (49 percent), Ecuador (48 percent), and China (43 percent).
Labor Force
- In March of 2011, the share of working-age (18 to 65) immigrants holding a job was the same as natives — 68 percent. Immigrant men have higher rates of work than native-born men, while immigrant women have lower rates.
- While immigrants tend to be concentrated in certain jobs, natives comprise the majority of workers in virtually every occupational category. For example, natives comprise 52 percent of maids, 73 percent of janitors, 66 percent of construction laborers, and 65 percent of butchers and meat processors.
- In 2010, 23 percent of immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) lived in poverty, compared to 13.5 percent of natives and their children. Immigrants and their children accounted for one-fourth of all persons in poverty.
- The children of immigrants account for one-third of all children in poverty.
- Among the top sending countries, poverty is highest for immigrants and their young children from Mexico (35 percent), Honduras (34 percent), and Guatemala (31 percent); and lowest for those from Germany (7 percent), India (6 percent), and the Philippines (6 percent).
Welfare Use
- In 2010, 36 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one major welfare program (primarily food assistance and Medicaid) compared to 23 percent of native households.
- Among the top sending countries, welfare use is highest for households headed by immigrants from Mexico (57 percent), Guatemala (55 percent), and the Dominican Republic (54 percent); and lowest for those from Canada (13 percent), Germany (10 percent), and the United Kingdom (6 percent).
Health Insurance Coverage
- In 2010, 29 percent of immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) lacked health insurance, compared to 13.8 percent of natives and their children.
- New immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for two-thirds of the increase in the uninsured since 2000.
- Among the top sending countries, the highest rates of uninsurance are for those from Guatemala (46 percent), Honduras (44 percent), El Salvador (44 percent), and Mexico (41 percent); and lowest for those from Canada (9 percent), Japan (8 percent), and Germany (5 percent).
Public Schools
- There are 10.4 million students from immigrant households in public schools, accounting for one in five public school students. Of these students, 78 percent speak a language other than English at home.
- Overall, one in four public school students now speaks a language other than English at home.
- Of immigrant households, 53 percent are owner-occupied, compared to 68 percent of native households.
- Rates of home ownership are highest for immigrants from Italy (83 percent), Germany (75 percent), and the United Kingdom (73 percent); and lowest for those from Guatemala (30 percent), Honduras (28 percent), and the Dominican Republic (24 percent).
Housing Overcrowding
- In 2010, 13 percent of immigrant households were overcrowded, compared to 2 percent of native households.
- Immigrant households account for half of all overcrowded households.
- Immigrants and natives have very similar rates of entrepreneurship — 11.7 percent of natives and 11.5 percent of immigrants are self-employed.
- Among the top sending countries, self-employment is highest for immigrants from Korea (26 percent), Canada (24 percent), and the United Kingdom (17 percent). It is lowest for those from Haiti (6 percent), Honduras (5 percent), and Jamaica (3 percent).
Educational Attainment
- Of adult immigrants (25 to 65), 28 percent have not completed high school, compared to 7 percent of natives.
- The share of immigrants (25 to 65) with at least a bachelor's degree is somewhat lower than that of natives — 29 vs. 33 percent.
- The large share of immigrants with relatively little education is one of the primary reasons for their lower socioeconomic status, not their legal status or an unwillingness to work.
- At the same time immigration added significantly to the number of less-educated workers, the share of young, less-educated natives holding a job declined significantly. The decline began well before the current economic downturn.
Progress Over Time
- Many immigrants make significant progress the longer they live in the country. However, on average even immigrants who have lived in the United States for 20 years have not come close to closing the gap with natives.
- The poverty rate of adult immigrants who have lived in the United States for 20 years is 50 percent higher than that of adult natives.
- The share of adult immigrants who have lived in the United States for 20 years who lack health insurance is twice that of adult natives.
- The share of households headed by an immigrant who has lived in the United States for 20 years using one or more welfare programs is nearly twice that of native-headed households.
- The share of households headed by an immigrant who has lived in the United States for 20 years that are owner occupied is 22 percent lower than that of native households.
Legal Status
- We estimate that 28 percent of all immigrants are in the country illegally. Roughly half of Mexican and Central American and one-third of South American immigrants are here illegally.
Impact on Population Size and Age
- New immigration (legal and illegal) plus births to immigrants added 22.5 million residents to the country over the last decade, equal to 80 percent of total U.S. population growth.
- Recent immigration has had only a tiny impact on the nation's age structure. If the nearly 14 million immigrants who arrived in 2000 or later are excluded, it raises the average age in the United States in 2010 from 37.4 years to 37.6 years — roughly two months.
State Data
- Among top immigrant-receiving states, poverty among immigrants and their children is highest in Arizona (37 percent), North Carolina (29 percent), and Minnesota (29 percent). It is lowest in Massachusetts (17 percent) Maryland (13 percent), and New Jersey (13 percent).
- Among top immigrant-receiving states, welfare use by immigrant households is highest in Minnesota (48 percent), New York (41 percent), and Texas (45 percent). It is lowest in Virginia (20 percent), Georgia (30 percent), and Nevada (25 percent).
- Among top immigrant-receiving states, home ownership for immigrant households is highest in Florida (61 percent), Illinois (61 percent), and Maryland (59 percent). It is lowest in California (48 percent), Massachusetts (47 percent), and Minnesota (46 percent).
- Among top immigrant-receiving states, the share of adult immigrants who have not completed high school is highest in Texas (46 percent), Colorado (41 percent), and North Carolina (36 percent). It is lowest in Virginia (15 percent), Massachusetts (15 percent), and Florida (16 percent).
There are many reasons to examine the nation's immigrant population. First, immigrants and their minor children now represent one-sixth of the U.S. population. Moreover, understanding how immigrants are doing is the best way to evaluate the effects of immigration policy. Absent a change in policy, between 12 and 15 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) will likely settle in the United States in the next decade. And perhaps 30 million new immigrants will arrive in the next 20 years. Immigration policy determines the number allowed in, the selection criteria used, and the level of resources devoted to controlling illegal immigration. The future, of course, is not set and when formulating immigration policy, it is critically important to know the impact of recent immigration.
It is difficult to understate the impact of immigration on the socio-demographics of the United States. New immigration plus births to immigrants added more than 22 million people to the U.S. population in the last decade, equal to 80 percent of total population growth. Immigrants and their young children (under 18) now account for more than one in five public school students, one-fourth of those in poverty, and nearly one-third of those without health insurance, creating very real challenges for the nation's schools, health care systems, and physical infrastructure. The large share of immigrants who arrive as adults with relatively few years of schooling is the primary reason so many live in poverty, use welfare programs, or lack health insurance, not their legal status or an unwillingness to work.
Despite the fact that a large share of immigrants have few years of schooling, most immigrants do work. In fact, the share of immigrant men holding a job is higher than native-born men. Moreover, immigrants make significant progress the longer they reside in the United States. This is also true for the least educated. While many immigrants do very well in the United States, on average immigrants who have been in the country for 20 years lag well behind natives in most measure of economic well-being.
At the same time that immigration policy has significantly increased the number of less-educated immigrants, there has been a dramatic deterioration in the labor market position of less-educated natives. Comparing data from the beginning of this decade shows a huge decline in the share of young and less-educated natives holding a job — from two-thirds to just under half. The decline in work among the young and less-educated natives began well before the Great Recession. It is difficult to find any evidence of a shortage of less-educated workers in the United States. Some may argue that immigrants only do jobs that American do not want, but an analysis by occupations shows that the vast majority of workers in almost every job are U.S.-born.
A central question for immigration policy is: Should we continue to allow in so many people with little education — increasing potential job competition for the poorest American workers and the population in need of government assistance? The primary goal of this paper is to better inform that debate.
Data Source
The data for this paper come primarily from the public-use files of the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) and the March 2011 Current Population Survey (CPS). In some cases, for state-specific information, we combine the March 2010 and 2011 CPS to get statistically robust results. In this report, the terms foreign-born and immigrant are used synonymously. Immigrants are persons living in the United States who were not American citizens at birth. This includes naturalized American citizens, legal permanent residents (green card holders), illegal immigrants, and people on long-term temporary visas such as foreign students or guest workers.
There are many reasons to examine the nation's immigrant population. First, the more than 50 million immigrants and their minor children now comprise one-sixth of U.S. residents, so how they are faring is vitally important to the United States. Moreover, understanding how immigrants are doing is the best way to evaluate the effects of immigration policy. Absent a change in policy, between 12 and 15 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) will likely settle in the United States in the next decade. And perhaps 30 million new immigrants will arrive in the next 20 years. Immigration policy determines the number allowed in, the selection criteria used, and the level of resources devoted to controlling illegal immigration. The future, of course, is not set and when deciding on what immigration policy should be, it is critically important to know what impact the immigration flow has had in recent decades.
There is no one answer to the question of whether the country has been well served by its immigration policy. To evaluate the effect of this immigration it is necessary to draw on the available data. This paper uses the latest Census Bureau data to provide readers with information so they can make sound judgments about the effects of immigration on American society and on what immigration policy should be in the future.
Although not explicitly acknowledged, the two most important ways of examining the immigration issue are what might be called the "immigrant-centric" approach and the "national" approach. They are not mutually exclusive, but they are distinct. The immigrant-centric approach focuses on how immigrants are faring, what is sometimes called "immigrant adaptation". The key assumption underlying this perspective is not so much how immigrants are doing relative to natives, but rather how they are doing given their level of education, language skills, and other aspects of their human capital endowment. This approach also tends to emphasize the progress immigrants make over time on their own terms and the benefit of migration to the immigrants themselves. The immigrant-centric view is the way most, but not all, academic researchers approach the issue.
The other way of thinking about immigration can be called the national perspective, which is focused on the impact immigration has on American society. This approach emphasizes that immigration is supposed to benefit the existing population of American citizens; the benefit immigrants receive by coming here is less important. So, for example, if immigration adds significantly to the population living in poverty or using welfare programs, this is seen as a problem, even if immigrants are clearly better off in this country than they would have been back home and are no worse than natives with the same education. This approach is also focused on possible job competition between immigrants and natives and the effect immigration has on public coffers. In general, the national perspective is the way the American public thinks about the immigration issue.
When thinking about the information presented in this report, it is helpful to keep both perspectives in mind. There is no one best way to think about immigration. By approaching the issue from both points of view, the reader may arrive at a better understanding of the complex issues surrounding immigration.
Data Sources and Methods
Data Sources. The data for this paper come primarily from the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) and the March 2011 Current Population Survey (CPS). In some cases, for state-specific information we combined the March 2010 and 2011 CPS to get a larger, more statistically robust sample. The ACS and CPS have become the two most important sources of data on the size, growth, and socio-economic characteristics of the nation's immigrant population. In this report, the terms foreign-born and immigrant are used synonymously. Immigrants are persons living in the United States who were not American citizens at birth. This includes naturalized American citizens, legal permanent residents (green card holders), illegal aliens, and people on long-term temporary visas such as foreign students or guest workers who respond to the ACS or CPS.1 We also use the terms illegal alien and illegal immigrant interchangeably.
The 2010 ACS is of particular value because it the first ACS weighted to reflect the results of the 2010 decennial census. (The decennial census itself no longer includes any immigration-related questions.) The public-use sample of the 2010 ACS used in this study has roughly 3.1 million respondents, nearly 350,000 of whom are immigrants. It is by far the largest survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. The ACS includes all persons in the United States, including those in institutions such as prisons and nursing homes. Because of its size and complete coverage we also use the ACS in this report to estimate the overall number of immigrants, their year of arrival, and other statistics at the national and state level. Because it includes questions on language and public school enrollment not found in the CPS, we use the ACS to examine these issues as well. While the ACS is an invaluable source of information on the foreign-born, however, it contains fewer questions than the CPS.
The March CPS, which is also called the Annual Social and Economic Supplement, includes an extra-large sample of minorities. While much smaller than the ACS, the March CPS still includes about 210,000 individuals, more than 26,000 of whom are foreign-born. Because the CPS contains more questions it allows for more detailed analysis in some areas than does the ACS. The CPS has been in operation much longer than the ACS and for many years it has been the primary source of data on the labor market characteristics, income, health insurance coverage, and welfare use of the American population. The CPS is also one of the only government surveys to include questions on the birthplace of each respondent's parent, allowing for generational analysis of immigrants and their descendants.
Another advantage of the CPS, unlike the ACS, is that every household in the survey receives an interview (phone or in-person) from a Census Bureau employee. The survey questions are complex and having a live person ask the questions almost certainly improves data quality. In contrast, most respondents to the ACS mail in their questionnaire and never actually speak to a Census Bureau employee. Moreover, respondents remain in the CPS for several months at a time and this, too, means there is some relationship with the Bureau. Like the ACS, the CPS is weighted to reflect the actual composition of the total U.S. population. Unlike the ACS, the CPS does not include those in institutions and so does not cover the nation's entire population. However, those in institutions are generally not part of the labor market nor are they typically included in statistics on health insurance coverage, poverty, income, and welfare use.
The ACS and CPS each have different strengths. By using both in this report we hope to provide a more complete picture of the nation's foreign-born population. However, it must be remembered that some percentage of the foreign-born (especially illegal aliens) are missed by government surveys of this kind, thus the actual size of the population is somewhat larger than what is reported here. There is research indicating that some 5 percent of the immigrant population is missed by Census Bureau surveys.2
Historic Trends in Immigration
Immigration has clearly played an important role in American history. Figure 1 reports the number and percentage of immigrants living in the United States from 1900 to 2010. Figure 1 shows very significant growth in the foreign-born both in absolute numbers and as a share of the total population since 1970. The immigrant population in 2010 was double that of 1990, nearly triple that of 1980, and quadruple that of 1970, when it stood at 9.6 million. The increase in the size of the immigrant population has been so dramatic (20.2 million) in the last two decades that just this growth is double the size of the entire foreign-born population in 1970 or even 1900. The seemingly large growth of 1.5 million immigrants from 2009 to 2010 should be interpreted with caution because the 2010 data were weighted using the 2010 census.
While the number of immigrants in the country is higher than at any time in American history, the immigrant share of the population (12.9 percent in 2010) was higher 90 years ago. In terms of the impact of immigrants on the United States, both the percentage of the population made up of immigrants and the number of immigrants are clearly important. The ability to assimilate and incorporate immigrants is partly dependent on the relative sizes of the native and immigrant populations. On the other hand, absolute numbers also clearly matter; a large number of immigrants can create the critical mass necessary to foster linguistic and cultural isolation regardless of their percentage of the overall population. Absent a change in policy, the number and immigrant share of the population will continue to increase for the foreseeable future.
Recent Trends in Immigration
Figure 2 reports the size of the foreign-born population from 2000 to 2010 based on the ACS. The figure shows significant growth during the last decade. The figure for 2000 is from the decennial census because the ACS was not fully implemented in 2000. The ACS was not fully implemented until 2005 and did not include those in group quarters until 2006. Figure 2 shows a significant fall-off in the growth of the immigrant population from 2007 to 2009, with an increase of only 400,000 over that two-year period.
This slowing in growth likely reflects a reduction in the number of new immigrants (legal and illegal) settling in the country and an increase in out-migration. The deterioration in the U.S. economy coupled with stepped up enforcement efforts at the end of the Bush administration likely caused fewer immigrants to enter the country and more to leave. In a series of recent reports, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated immigration and emigration rates throughout the decade. In general, our prior research found good evidence that the level of new immigration fell at the end of the decade and that out-migration increased.3
Flow of New Immigrants. Another way to examine trends in immigration is to look at responses to the year-of-arrival question. In addition to asking respondents if they are immigrants, the ACS also asks them what year they came to the United States to live. Of the 40 million immigrants in the country in 2010, 13.9 million (±99,000) responded that they came to the United States in 2000 or later. This would translate into 1.3 to 1.4 million new arrivals annually during the last decade. Some prior research indicates that 5.2 percent of immigrants are missed in the ACS.4 So the actual level of new immigrants could be closer to 1.5 million a year during the decade just completed.
The 2000 census also included a year-of-arrival question and found that 13.2 million immigrants arrived during the preceding decade and were still in the county in 2000. The difference between the number of new arrivals in the 1990s and the decade just completed is statistically significant.5 This makes the last decade the highest in U.S. history. The 1990 Census showed 8.7 million new immigrants arrived from 1980 to 1990, much lower than the nearly 14 million who arrived in the 10 years prior to 2010. Based on the available evidence, no other decade comes close to the level of new immigration from 2000 to 2010.6
The finding that new immigration was higher in the 10 years prior to 2010 than in the 10 years prior to 2000 is important because the two decades were very different in terms of job growth. There were two significant recessions during the first decade of this century plus the 9/11 terrorist attacks. During the decade there was actually a net loss of about 400,000 jobs according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) survey of businesses. In contrast, the BLS reported a net increase in jobs of about 22 million from 1990 to 2000.7
Figure 3 reports new arrivals based on the ACS from 2000 to 2010. (Each year the ACS provides complete data for the preceding calendar year, so, for example, figures for 2009 are from the 2010 ACS.) It also reports the unemployment rate for immigrants during the decade. The figure indicates that the number of new arrivals was higher in the first part of the decade than at the end of the decade. However, the growth in the foreign-born shown in Figure 2 indicates relatively high immigration from 2002 to 2005, which seems to contradict the finding in Figure 3. But there are breaks in the continuity of ACS data, so like the totals for the decade shown in Figure 2, the results in Figure 3 should be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, even taking into account the discontinuity in the data, it is difficult to reconcile some of the results in Figures 2 and 3.8
Moreover, Figure 3 by itself indicates that immigration remained very high throughout the decade, though the number of new arrivals was higher in 2000 and 2001 than later in the decade. This is a reminder that immigration is a complex process; not simply a function of labor-market conditions. Factors such as the desire to be with relatives or to enjoy political freedoms and lower levels of official corruption play a significant role in immigrants' decisions to come to the United States. The generosity of America's public benefits and the quality of public services can also make this country an attractive place to settle. These things do not change during a recession, even a steep one.
Deaths and Outmigration. By definition, no one born in the United States is foreign-born and so births cannot add to the immigrant population. Moreover, each year some immigrants die and others return home. There is some debate about the size of out-migration, but together deaths and return-migration equal 1 to 1.5 percent of the immigrant population annually, or 400,000 to 600,000 each year over the last decade. For the foreign-born population to grow, new immigration must exceed deaths and outmigration.
It is possible to estimate deaths and outmigration during the decade just completed based on the ACS data. Given the age, gender, race, and ethnic composition of the foreign-born population, the death rate over the last decade should be about seven per 1,000. (These figures include only individuals living in the United States and captured by the ACS, not any deaths that occur among illegal immigrants trying to cross the border.) This means that the number of deaths over the last decade varied from about 217,000 a year at the start of the decade to nearly 266,000 by the end of the decade, for a total of about 2.4 million deaths during this time period.
Assuming 2.423 million deaths during the decade among the foreign-born and 13.863 million new arrivals, and growth of 8.847 million, the implied level of emigration should be about 2.592 million during the decade. The equation looks as follows: outmigration = new arrivals – (growth + deaths). Filling in the numbers we get the following result: 2.592 million = 13.863 – (8.847 million + 2.423 million). This implies 2.592 million immigrants left the United States during the decade. Net immigration equals new immigration minus outmigration (13.863 – 2.592) or 11.271 million during the last decade.
Of course, it must be emphasized that this estimate is for the entire decade and outmigration may have varied significantly from year to year. Further, these estimates do not include the arrival and departure of individuals who came and went during the decade, such as a person who arrived in 2001 and left in 2008. There is also no adjustment for undercount in these numbers. So the estimate of slightly less than 2.6 million departures for the decade is a low-range estimate. Deaths, on the other hand, do not vary very much and should grow slowly but steadily as the size of the foreign-born population grows.
State Numbers
State Data. Table 1 shows the number of immigrants in each state for 2010. California, New York, Texas, Florida, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, Georgia, Virginia, Washington, Arizona, and Maryland have the largest immigrant populations. Each of these states had more than 800,000 foreign-born residents in 2010. California has the largest immigrant population, accounting for more than one-fourth of the national total. New York and Texas are next with about 10 percent of the nation's immigrants. With 9 percent of the nation's immigrants, Florida's foreign-born population is similar in size. New Jersey and Illinois are next with 5 and 4 percent of the nation's immigrants respectively. Table 1 shows that the immigrant population is concentrated in relatively few states. Six states account for 65 percent of the nation's foreign-born population, but only 40 percent of the nation's overall population.
Table 1 also shows the year of arrival for the foreign-born population in each state. As already noted, in 2010 13.9 million had arrived in 2000 or later. This means that 26.1 million (65 percent) immigrants have lived in the United States for more than 10 years. The ACS also shows that, on average, immigrants have lived in the United States for slightly more than 19 years.9 Thus the immigrant population in the United States is comprised mostly of long-time residents. As will become clear in this report, immigrants have much higher rates of poverty, uninsurance, and welfare use and lower incomes and home ownership rates. However, the economic status of the immigrant population is not because they are mostly new arrivals.
Many of the states with the largest immigrant populations are also those with the highest foreign-born shares. However, several smaller states, such as Hawaii and Nevada, rank high in terms of the percentage of their populations that are foreign-born, even though the overall number of immigrants is more modest relative to larger states. Table A1 in the appendix shows the share of each state's populations comprised of immigrants in in 1990, 2000, and 2010. Table A2 shows citizenship rates by state.
Table 2 reports the size of state immigrant populations in 2010, 2000, and 1990. While the immigrant population remains concentrated, it has become less so over time. In 1990, California accounted for 33 percent of the foreign-born, but by 2000 it was 28 percent, and by 2010 it was 25 percent of the total. If we look at the top six states of immigrant settlement, they accounted for 73 percent of the total foreign-born in 1990, 68 percent in 2000, and 65 percent in 2010.
Table 2 also shows there were 13 states where the growth in the immigrant population was more than twice the national average of 28 percent over the last decade. These states were Alabama (92 percent), South Carolina (88 percent), Tennessee (82 percent), Arkansas (79 percent), Kentucky (75 percent), North Carolina (67 percent), South Dakota (65 percent), Georgia (63 percent), Indiana (61 percent), Nevada (61 percent), Delaware (60 percent), Virginia (60 percent), and Oklahoma (57 percent). It is worth noting that the growth rate in California, the state with the largest immigrant population growth, was only about half the national average over the last decade. Table 2 makes clear that the nation's immigrant population has grown dramatically outside of traditional areas of immigrant settlement like the Golden State.
Immigrants by Country of Birth
Tables 3, 4, and 5 report immigrant figures by region and country of birth.10 Table 3 shows regions of the world by year of arrival.11 Mexico was by far the top sending country in the last decade, with more than four million immigrants from that country arriving between 2000 and 2010. Overall, 53 percent of immigrants came from Latin America (Mexico, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean). Table 4 reports the top immigrant-sending countries in 2010. In terms of sending the most immigrants, Mexico, India, China, the Philippines, El Salvador, and Guatemala sent the most during the decade. The former Soviet Union would also rank among the top sending countries as well if it were still intact.
Table 4 also reports the share of immigrants from each country who arrived in the last decade. Thus the table reads as follows: 34.5 percent of Mexican immigrants in 2010 indicated in the survey that they arrived in 2000 or later. For immigrants from countries such as India, Guatemala, Honduras, and Brazil, roughly half arrived during the last decade. In contrast, for countries like Canada and Vietnam, few are recent arrivals. Table 5 shows the top sending countries in 2010 and those same countries in 2000 and 1990. Table 5 shows that among the top sending countries, those with the largest percentage increase in their immigrant populations in the United States from 2000 to 2010 were Honduras (85 percent), India (74 percent), Guatemala (73 percent), Peru (54 percent), El Salvador (49 percent), Ecuador (48 percent), and China (43 percent). This compares to an overall growth rate of 28 percent during the decade just completed.
Population Growth
The ACS and CPS can be used to provide insight into the impact of immigration on the size of the U.S. population. Table 6 reports six different methods using the 2010 ACS and CPS to estimate the effect of immigration on U.S. population growth since the last census. The first column in the table shows that between April 2000 (the control data for the Census) and July 2010 (the control data for the ACS) the U.S. population grew 27.9 million. The first three rows of Table 6 use the number of immigrants who arrived in the United States in the last decade to estimate the impact of immigration on U.S. population growth. As already indicated, in 2010 13.9 million immigrants indicated that they had entered the country in 2000 or later. Because those who arrived in the first three months of 2000 should already have been counted in the 2000 census we reduce this figure by 390,000, or three months worth of new immigration, to account for those who arrived in the first quarter of 2000.12 It is reasonable to view the 13.47 million immigrants who arrived over this time period as the basis for estimating immigration's effect on population growth because this flow reflects current U.S. immigration policy — both legal immigration and the level of resources devoted to controlling illegal immigration.
Of course, immigrants do not just add to the population by their presence in the United States. Based on the 2010 CPS, there were 8.98 million births to immigrants in the United States over the last decade.13 The first row of Table 6 adds the 13.47 million new arrivals to the 8.98 million births for a total of 22.45 million additions to the U.S. population from immigration. This equals 80.4 percent of U.S. population growth from April 2000 to July 2010. Not all births during the decade to immigrants were to those that arrived 2000 to 2010. Method 2 reports that, of the 8.98 million births during the decade, slightly less than 2.3 million were to immigrants who arrived during the decade. If we add this number to new arrivals we get 15.73 million additions to the U.S. population, or 56.3 percent of population growth. In Method 3 we just use new arrivals, which accounted for 48.2 percent of total population growth.
Methods 4 through 6 use net immigration to estimate the impact of immigration on population growth. As discussed in the section on deaths and outmigration, our rough estimate is that net immigration during the decade was 11.27 million. This is the difference in the number arriving and the number leaving. If we add net immigration to total immigrant births during the decade it equals 20.24 million or 72.5 percent of population growth, as shown in Method 4. Method 5 adds just births to new arrivals during the decade to net immigration for a total addition of 13.5 million, which equals 48.4 percent of population growth. Net immigration by itself equals 40.4 percent of population growth, as shown in Method 6.
It may be worth noting that growth in the immigrant population of roughly 8.8 million (see Figure 1) is not an accurate way of assessing the impact of immigration on population size because it includes deaths, which are not a function of immigration policy and are not connected with new arrivals.14 Table 6 makes clear that whether new immigration or net immigration is used to estimate the impact, immigration policy has very significant implications for U.S. population growth.
The same data used in Table 6 not only provide an estimate of immigration's impact on population growth, they have other uses as well. If we wished to allow the current level of immigration, but still wished to stabilize the U.S. population by reducing native fertility, we can roughly estimate what it would take based on the table. In 2010 there were about 36.2 million children living in the country who were born to natives during the decade. As shown above, immigration added 22.5 million to the U.S. population. To offset these additions it would have required 22.5 million fewer births to natives, or roughly a 62 percent reduction in native fertility. Since the native-born population already has slightly below replacement-level fertility, to advocate a nearly two-thirds reduction in their fertility to accommodate immigration seems grossly impractical.
Selected Characteristics
Educational Attainment. Table 7 reports the education levels of immigrants and natives. The top of the table reports figures for all persons ages 25 to 65. Based on the 2011 CPS, about 28 percent of immigrants 25 to 65 have not completed high school, compared to about 7 percent of natives. This difference in the educational attainment of immigrants and natives has enormous implications for the social and economic integration of immigrants into American society. There is no single better predictor of economic success in modern America than one's education level. As we will see, the fact that so many adult immigrants have little education means their income, poverty rates, welfare use, and other measures of economic attainment lag well behind natives.
The table also shows that a slightly larger share of natives have a bachelor's degree than immigrants, and the share with a post-graduate degree is almost identical for the two groups. Historically, immigrants enjoyed a significant advantage in terms of having at least a college education. In 1970, for example, 18 percent of immigrants had at least a college degree compared to 12 percent of natives.15 This advantage at the top end has now entirely disappeared.
The middle of the Table 7 reports the education only for adults in the labor force.16 The figures are not entirely the same because those who are in the labor force age 18 and older differ somewhat from the entire population ages 25 to 65 in their educational attainment. For example, the least educated natives in particular are much less likely to be working or looking for work. This means that they are less likely to be in the labor force. The right side of the table reports figures for those immigrants who arrived in 2000 or later.
Overall, 16 percent of those in the labor force are immigrants and this is somewhat higher than their 12.9 percent share of the total U.S. population because, in comparison to natives, a slightly higher percentage of immigrants are of working age. The large number of immigrants with low levels of education means that immigration policy has dramatically increased the supply of workers with less than a high school degree, while increasing other educational categories more moderately. This is important because it is an indication of which American workers face the most job competition from foreign workers.
While immigrants comprise 16 percent of the total adult workforce, they comprise more than 44 percent of adults in the labor force who have not completed high school. Figure 4 shows how recently arrived immigrants have increased the supply of different types of workers. It reports the number of immigrants who arrived in 2000 or later divided by the total number of workers in each educational category (immigrant and native). Thus, the figure shows that post-2000 immigrants have increased the supply of high school drop-out workers by 17.3 percent, compared to 3 to 5 percent in other educational categories. This means that any effect immigration may have on the wages or job opportunities of natives will disproportionately affect the least educated native-born workers.
Income of Immigrants and Natives. In this paper we report figures for both earnings and income. Earnings are income from work, while income can be from any source such as working, investments, or rental property. Given the large proportion of immigrants with few years of schooling, it is not surprising that the income figures reported at the bottom of Table 7 show that, as a group, immigrants have lower median earnings than natives.17 (Earnings from the CPS are based on annual income from work in the calendar year prior to the survey.) The annual median earnings of immigrants who work full-time and year-round are only about 78 percent that of natives. And for the most recent immigrants, median earning are only 65 percent that of natives. Another way to think about immigrants and natives in the labor market is to examine the share of immigrants and natives who work for low wages. If we look at the 10 percent of full-time, year-round workers with the lowest weekly wages, we find that 17.5 percent of immigrants are in this bottom wage decile compared to 8.6 percent of natives. If we examine the weekly wages for the poorest fourth of the labor market, 37.7 percent of immigrants fall into the bottom quartile, compared to 22.5 percent of native-born full-time, year-round workers.
Household Income. Another way to think about the relative position of immigrants compared to natives is to look at household income. The bottom of Table 7 reports that the median household income of immigrant-headed households is $43,739, which is 87 percent that of the household income of natives — $50,293. (Income, unlike earnings or wages, is from all sources, not just income from working.) In addition to having lower incomes, immigrant households are 31 percent larger on average than native households — 3.14 persons versus 2.4 persons. As a result, the per capita household median income of immigrants is only 66 percent that of natives — $13,930 versus $20,955. This is important not only as a measure of their relative socio-economic standing, but also because it has fiscal implications. Lower household income means that, in general, immigrant households are likely to pay somewhat less in taxes than native households. This is especially true for progressive taxes, such as state and federal income taxes, which take into account income and the number of dependents. Larger household size also means that, in general, immigrant households will use somewhat more in services than native households. Since households are the primary basis on which taxes are assessed and public benefits are distributed in the United States, the lower income and larger size of immigrant households has implications for public coffers.
Age of Immigrants. The bottom of Table 7 shows that in 2010 the average age of an immigrant was 42.4 years compared to 36.6 years for the average native. The average overall age in the United States was 37.4. The fact that immigrants have a higher average age is a reminder that although immigrants may arrive relatively young, they age over time like everyone else. Partly for this reason, the belief that immigration will help fix the problem of an aging society is largely misplaced. Of course, those who argue that immigration will fundamentally change the age structure generally have in mind new arrivals. Table 7 shows that in 2010 the average age of immigrants who arrived in 2000 or later was somewhat younger than that of natives — 31.6 years compared to 36.6 years for natives. If we look at the most recent arrivals we also see they tend to be relatively young. In 2010 those immigrants who indicated they arrived in 2009 or the first half of 2010 had an average age of 29.8 years. This confirms the common belief that immigrants are younger than natives at arrival, but the difference with natives is modest. More important, the impact on the aging of our society is small.
We can estimate the overall impact on the age structure of American society by simply calculating the average age in the United States with and without recent immigrants. Again, the average age in the United States in 2010 for the entire population (immigrant and native) was 37.35 years. If all 13.9 million immigrants who arrived in 2000 or later are removed from the data, the average age in the United States would be 37.62 years. Thus, including post-2000 immigrants does lower the average age, but only by .27 years. Immigration over the last 10 years, which has been numerically the highest in American history, had a very modest impact on the average age in the United States.
If we remove from the 2010 ACS the 13.9 million newly arrived immigrants plus the more than two million children that these immigrants have given birth to in the United Sates in the last decade, the average age in the United States would be 37.87 years. So the full impact of recent immigration was to reduce the average age in the United States by about .52 years. Again, the impact is modest. Post-2000 immigration plus births to these new immigrants added 16 million new people to the U.S. population. But in a country of more than 300 million it is simply not enough to significantly lower the average age in the United States.
It could be argued that the benefit to the age structure might take more than just 10 years of high immigration. In a 2005 study, the Center for Immigration Studies examined the impact of immigration on the aging of American society as well as the Social Security system. Consistent with other research, we found that immigration has only a small impact on the problem of an aging society now and in the future. While immigrants do tend to arrive relatively young and have higher fertility rates than natives, immigrants age just like everyone else and the differences with natives are not large enough to fundamentally alter the nation's age structure.18 A Census Bureau report in 2000 came to a similar conclusion. Among other things, that report looked at the impact of different levels of immigration over the next century, and concluded that immigration is a "highly inefficient" means for increasing the percentage of the population who are of working-age in the long-run.19
In a 2007 report the Center for Immigration Studies generated population projections and examined the impact of different levels of immigration on the size and aging of American society. We found that although the current level of immigration will add 105 million to the U.S. population by 2060, it has only a small impact on the share of the population that will be of working age.20 There is a clear consensus among demographers, the people who study human populations, that immigration has a positive, but small, impact on the aging of society. A simple analysis of the ACS data confirms this conclusion.
Labor Force and Occupations
Labor Force Attachment. Table 8 shows the share of immigrant and native-born men and women holding a job or in the labor force based on the March 2011 CPS. Those in the labor force have a job or are looking for a job.21 The top of the table reports figures for persons 18 to 65 and the lower portion of the table provides the same figures for those in the primary working years of 25 to 55 — when rates of employment tend to be the highest. The table shows that immigrants and natives (18 to 65) overall have virtually identical rates of employment and labor force participation. However, male immigrants have higher rates of employment and labor force participation than native-born men, while female immigrants have lower rates than their native-born counterparts.
For those in the prime years of 25 to 55, Table 8 shows that the overall rate for natives of employment and labor force participation are somewhat higher than for immigrants. But male immigrants 25 to 55 are still more likely to have a job than are native-born men, while labor force participation is the same for both groups. In contrast, native-born women in the primary employment years are much more likely to work than foreign-born women. As will become clear in this report, immigrants' income, health insurance coverage, home ownership, and other measure of socio-economic status lag well behind that of natives. But Table 8 shows that these problems are not caused by immigrants' being unwilling to work. Immigrant men in particular have a strong attachment to the labor market.
Occupational Distribution. Table 9 shows the occupational concentration of immigrants and natives. The occupational categories are ranked based on immigrant share, which is shown in the first column. The numbers in the second and third columns show those employed and unemployed in each occupation. The table shows several important facts about U.S. immigration. First, there are millions of native-born Americans employed in occupations that have high concentrations of immigrants. While immigrants certainly are concentrated in particular occupations, it's simply not correct to say that immigrants only do jobs natives don't want. There are more than 20 million native-born Americans in the occupational categories of farming/fishing/forestry, building cleaning/maintenance, construction, production, and food service and preparation. More than four million of these natives are unemployed and they report one of these occupations as their last job. The second interesting finding in Table 9 is that in these top immigrant occupations unemployment for natives averaged almost 16 percent in 2010 compared to 9.5 percent nationally.
It is hard to argue that there are no Americans willing to work in these high-immigrant professions. Perhaps the native-born workers are not where employers want, or there is some other reason businesses find these unemployed natives unacceptable, but on its face Table 9 indicates that there is quite a lot of un-utilized labor of this kind in the United States.
It would be a mistake to think that every job taken by an immigrant is a job lost by a native. Many factors impact unemployment rates across occupations. But it would also be a mistake to assume that dramatically increasing the number of workers in these occupations as a result of immigration policy has no impact on the employment prospects of natives.
Continue to Poverty, Welfare, and the Uninsured


text:
TW-Brother MFC-5890CN LAN Scanner Error TW006, Cannot Scan From Brother Printer
For some reason today I could not scan an item on our Brother MFC-5890CN printer to my Windows 7 laptop today at the computer shop. It has been a couple weeks since I needed to scan something to my computer however it has never had a problem in the past. Today though when I attempted to scan a document using the Brother ControlCenter3 software it failed to connect to the Brother printer. The interesting thing is that when I attempted to configure the device remotely using the same Brother ControlCenter3 software it worked without an issue. I initially thought it was some form of firewall issue either on my computer or on the firewall at the computer shop however that was not the issue. Below I describe the error in more detail as well as how I resolved the problem.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Sprint Nextel Corp., the country's third-largest wireless carrier, on Thursday reported a wider loss for the second quarter as wrote down the value of its moribund Nextel network.
However, Sprint was successful in convincing smartphone subscribers to pay up for "unlimited data" service, and its service revenue zoomed, beating estimates.
Sprint's volatile stock jumped 46 cents, or 14 percent, to $3.83 in morning trading. It was the highest level in nearly a year.
In the April to June period, Sprint's net loss was $1.37 billion, or 46 cents per share. In the same quarter last year, the loss was $847 million, or 28 cents per share.
Analysts polled by FactSet were on average expecting a loss of 41 cents per share.
It was the nineteenth straight quarter of losses for Sprint, which is struggling to compete with AT&T and Verizon Wireless. Still, Sprint raised its forecast for adjusted operating earnings for the year by 18 percent. The measure excludes interest expenses and writing down asset values.
Revenue at the Overland Park, Kan., company was $8.84 billion, up 6 percent from a year ago. Analysts were expecting $8.72 billion.
Sprint's goal is to complete the shutdown of Nextel in the middle of next year. It bought the network in 2005, a deal that proved disastrous. Nextel's strength is its walkie-talkie-like push-to-talk capability, but it's not built for smartphones or data service. Even as subscribers abandoned it, Sprint was saddled with the cost of maintaining the network.
CEO Dan Hesse said Thursday that Sprint is ahead of schedule in deactivating Nextel antennas. It's putting the space freed up on the airwaves to use for faster data service.
Customers on contract-based Sprint plans paid an average of $63.38 per month in the quarter, a record high and nearly as much as AT&T customers are paying, even though AT&T has had the iPhone, which attracts high-paying customers, for longer.
IPhones proved surprisingly popular at Sprint. It activated 1.5 million of the phones in the quarter, the same number as in the first quarter. AT&T and Verizon saw a drop in iPhone activations from the first quarter to the second, as the excitement around the latest model, the iPhone 4S, cooled. Sprint is the only one of the four national wireless carriers that still offers unlimited data service, and Hesse said that was a major reason Sprint keeps pulling in iPhone subscribers. However, Sprint offers relatively slow data speeds.
Hesse said that Sprint focused its marketing resources in the quarter on getting departing Nextel subscribers to move over to Sprint instead of to Verizon, which has been getting most of them. That gave results: 60 percent of those leaving Nextel switched to Sprint.
However, excluding these Nextel conversions, Sprint recruited practically no new customers to its contract-based plans, the worst result in years. Contract-based plans are the most lucrative, and the additions figure is closely watched.
Still, Sprint raised its forecast for adjusted operating earnings for the year by 18 percent. The measure excludes interest expenses and writing down asset values.
Christopher King, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus, said he saw "troubling signs" in the poor subscriber recruitment compared with AT&T and Verizon.


text:
Present slides
You can present Google Slides so they show on a full screen.
Full-screen presentations work from a computer, mobile device, or TV with Chromecast or AirPlay. You can even accept audience questions while you present.
View a presentation
To present a full-screen presentation in Google Slides:
- Open a presentation in Google Slides.
- In the top right, click Present. For best results, present with Google Chrome.
- From the current slide, the presentation will become full screen. To change slides, use the arrow keys on your keyboard or click the arrows at the bottom of the presentation.
- To exit full-screen, press the Esc key.
Present with notes, auto-advance slides, and more
Here are some options for presenting your slides in full-screen on a computer.
- Open a presentation in Google Slides.
- In the top right corner, next to "Present," click the Down arrow .
- Click Presenter view.
- Click Speaker notes.
You can set your slides to play automatically when someone:
- Clicks on a link to your presentation
- Views your presentation that's embedded in a website.
After you publish your presentation, anyone with the link will be able to see your presentation.
Note: If you use Google apps through work or school, you can only share the link with people within your organization.
Publish your presentation
- Open a presentation in Google Slides.
- Click File Publish to the web.
- Choose Link or Embed.
- Under "Auto-advance slides," choose how much time you want to add between slides.
- Click Publish.
- Click OK.
Note: If you want to change your presentation or timing, you'll need to copy a new link.
Stop publishing
- Open a presentation in Google Slides.
- Click File Publish to the web.
- At the bottom, click Published content & settings.
- Click Stop publishing.
When you present, you can choose more options from the toolbar at the bottom of the presentation window:
- Select slides to present from a list.
- Open Presenter view.
- Turn on laser pointer.
- Print the presentation.
- Download the presentation in PDF or PPTX format.
Present with Chromecast
You can present slides on your television with Google Chromecast.
- Install the Google Cast extension in Chrome.
- Connect your computer to the same Wi-Fi network as your Chromecast device.
- Next to "Present," click the Down arrow .
- From the options, select your Chromecast. Your presentation will show on your television.


text:
Published on 2. December 2018
107 Comments
WOW!! This is a project I can see myself getting in to! You did an amazing job. So festive!! Cheers Tammy!
Reblogged this on Poltrack Pix and commented:
A Project for Christmas
Leave a Reply to Tammy Twinkle Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


text:
Quick Search: Choose Model and Year, then enter search topic.
Page: 14
PCM Basic functions
Switching the PCM on and off
Switching on and off via the ignition
The PCM is permanently active.
If the PCM was previously switched off using the left rotary knob (volume control), this knob must be pressed again after the ignition is switched on.
Switching on and off via the left rotary knob
Battery discharge protection
You can switch the PCM on and off via the left rotary knob even when the ignition is off. If the ignition is switched off, the PCM will automatically switch itself off after a factory-set time.
Setting the volume
Changing the volume
Depending on the situation, you can change the volume
– of the active audio source,
– of a driving recommendation announcement,
– of a traffic announcement,
– of a voice control announcement,
– when in hands-free mode during a telephone call,
– of the telephone ringtone during an incoming call.
Muting the device
The active audio source is muted. The mute icon can be seen in the bottom line.
Navigation recommendations, telephone calls, and traffic program announcements are still audible.


text:
Biking for a cause one state at a time
Koreen Burrow doesn't let having multiple sclerosis slow her down. In fact, the disease she's dealt with for two decades has pushed her to do more in recent years.
Burrow and her husband, David Fox, are on a quest to ride in a Bike MS event in all 50 states. Bike MS rides raise money for the National MS Society.
With seven states already checked off — Alaska, Hawaii, California, Nevada, Virginia, Minnesota and Colorado — Burrow and Fox plan to add Michigan to the list later this month and Texas in October.
"It's a really good way to meet people and see a lot of the country," Burrow said at her Eagle River home Monday, Aug. 29.
Burrow first participated in Alaska's race five years ago. After riding in Bike MS races in Hawaii and Nevada, Burrow and Fox traveled 4,000 miles to Virginia.
"The people in Virginia couldn't believe we came all the way from Alaska to do their ride," Burrow said.
Once that ride finished, Burrow and Fox decided to go for all 50 states.
Burrow said they plan to ride in six to seven different states each year until their goal is reached.
Blue jerseys — one with a howling wolf and the other covered with salmon — make spotting the Alaskans easy at out-of-state races.
Thanks to the jerseys, a couple Burrow and Fox got acquainted with during an intimate 12-person race in Hawaii later picked them out of 3,000 riders at a race in Colorado.
"It is really fun to interact with people from all over," Fox said. "They get really excited about the fact we're from Alaska."
According to the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, MS is an autoimmune disease that affects the central nervous sysand can have symptoms ranging from mild numbness and fatigue to severe pain and seisures.
Fox is keeping a permanent list of the states through which he and his wife have biked. So far, Fox has tattooed six small symbols on his leg — one representing each of the states they've raced in. Fox said he has yet to commemorate Colorado's ride.
Burrow got involved in Bike MS after learning a friend of hers walks each year in an MS fundraiser in honor of Burrow.
"She said, 'I do it every year for you,'" Burrow said.
Due to the type of MS she has — relapsing-remitting — Burrow said she can still be active. So she decided to put her legs to work for charity.
"I can still do something to raise money for the organization," she said. "I feel like I'm helping."
Through assistance of a friend, Burrow began training for her first Bike MS race, which are typically 150-mile rides over two days.
Learning to ride a racing bike was difficult, Burrow said.
"There's more to it than it looks like," she said. "It's just a challenge to train for some of them."
Fox joined Burrow the year after her first MS race. His wife is always ahead of him during races, Fox said with a smile.
Burrow said she encourages anyone interested to participate in a race. Bike MS events are for cyclists of all skill levels, she said.
"We're not really elite riders," Burrow said. "Anyone can do them."
As owner of Blondies Espresso in Eagle River and Schlotzsky's in Anchorage, Fox donates food to the fundraisers. The couple typically raises between $10,000 and $15,000 every year for MS. This year, they should hit the $17,000 mark, Fox said.
A majority of that money will stay in the Northwest, Burrow said. Along with research and development, the funds help families deal with MS, Burrow said. This is done through education and/or support groups, she said.
For obvious reasons, raising money for MS is important to he and his wife, Fox said.
"I know there are a lot of causes out there. I know it's hard to pick and choose, but this is one that really means a lot to us," he said.
MS isn't the only cause Fox and Burrow support. They recently participated in Seward's Lost Lake Run to benefit cystic fibrosis.
More than 400,000 people suffer from MS in the United States, according to Burrow.
"It's a very prominent disease," Burrow said. "It truly does affect lots of people's lives."
Through their fundraising efforts, Burrow said they've seen how many people have a connection to the disease.
"We really meet a lot of inspirational people that are challenged with MS or have someone in their family with MS," she said.
Alaska's Bike MS race will be held Sept. 10-11. The two-day event starts and finishes at Alyeska Resort in Girdwood. To sign up to ride or volunteer, visit bikemsnorthwest.org.
Anyone interested in donating to Burrow and Fox can do so at http://bike4ms.us/[email protected].
Each ride in a different state has offered a unique experience for Burrow and Fox. The couple has biked a lap around the Las Vegas Motor Speedway and traveled through California's Napa Valley.
"There's been something really cool in every state," Burrow said.
As someone with MS, maintaining an active lifestyle is essential, Burrow said.
"They always say MS keeps people from moving," she said. "So it's really important for me to stay moving."
Contact Mike Nesper at 830-6632 or [email protected]


text:
Support the US HEARTS Act to prioritize humane research
I am so pleased to support Cruelty Free International and be part of the global campaign to end cosmetics tests on animals.
Help dogs in laboratories escape suffering
Arguments against animal testing
Animal experiments are cruel, unreliable, and even dangerous.
Together we can change the world for animals.
What you can do
Raising money for animals
Our supporters raise vital funds for countless dogs, guinea pigs, mice, rats and rabbits in laboratories around the world. Could that be you?
It doesn't take a genius to know that using animals for cruel and unnecessary cosmetics tests is unjustifiable.
Look for the leaping bunny
What we do
Find out more about how we make a difference for animals in laboratories
Who we are
breaking news
There are many reliable and humane ways to carry out research which do not involve animal suffering.
Find out the most up to date facts and figures on animal testing across the globe.
Read updates from our dedicated team of experts combining award-winning campaigning, political lobbying, pioneering undercover investigations, scientific and legal expertise and corporate responsibility.


text:
The Chicago Tribune brings you full Pitchfork Music Festival coverage from Day 1 at Union Park. Check out our reviews, photos, videos, Tweets and more from the fest.
Tribune music mega-critic (at least this weekend) breaks down all of Day 1 at Pitchfork for us. And what a day it was! What do you think of his analysis?
Here's a photo of headliner Feist.
Check out all of the amazing photos from the Tribune's Chris Sweda and Red Eye's Mike Rich. Good stuff!
Photo of Big K.R.I.T. show in the middle of a rainstorm.
— Greg Kot (@gregkot) July 14, 2012
closes out #p4k As she did last year at the Riviera, she ignores what is likely her best-known song, "1234." Did anyone miss it? Feist
Many people not watching— Bob Gendron (@BobGendron25) July 14, 2012
Feistsurprised evening's other final performer, Purity Ring, done at 920. Pretty early finish. #p4k
Here's a pic of the new and improved video screen between the Red and Green stages from Kevin Williams.
— Greg Kot (@gregkot) July 14, 2012
at #p4k "We have some arena rock dreams that we hope you can make come true." Feist
Really, who doesn't love pictures of babies with headphones?
Is @FeistMusic a viable headliner for a festival as big as #p4k? You tell me.— Matthew Wood (@chicago_wood) July 14, 2012
Couple that made out for about 10 minutes on blanket during Clams Casino set will be depicted in many photos tomorrow, I am betting. #p4k— Bob Gendron (@BobGendron25) July 14, 2012
Whole lotta kissin' going on, apparently.
Kyle Romaneck and Crystal Stewart of Logan Square share a kiss while attending Pitchfork earlier today.
A lot of the talk leading up to Pitchfork was whether or not Feist was a true headliner. We'll find out when she takes the stage in a few minutes. In the meantime, tell us what you think in the comments below.
Our album 'Shrines' is out 7/24 but the 4AD booth at Pitchfork Fest has 100 copies for sale now @pitchforkfest @pitchforkmedia— PURITY RING (@PURITY_RING) July 13, 2012
Here's a taste of Purity Ring, which is taking the Blue Stage in just a few minutes. Are you a fan?
Crowd outside Dirty Projectors looks kinda beat down. It's even too indie for them. #p4k— Kevin Williams (@kevvwill) July 14, 2012
Just got a visit from Tribune On The Town editor Kevin Williams. He's not impressed with Dirty Projectors ... or anybody else so far. Do you agree?
Dirty Projectors are a very technically accomplishedart-— Greg Kot (@gregkot) July 14, 2012
pop band, but these songs feel like work #p4k
Tribune music critic Greg Kot is in the field, trying to stay dry while seeing as much music as possible. Here's his latest report.
Dirty Projectors have taken the Red Stage. Here's a sneak preview if you haven't heard them before.
Fewest amount of people I've seen at #p4k on a Friday night since fest's inception. Is it the rain?— Bob Gendron (@BobGendron25) July 13, 2012
"Is there a spare kick pedal?" Japandroids ask one song into set #p4k Fans search pockets— Greg Kot (@gregkot) July 13, 2012
Big KRIT doing more with less: He and deejay outdoing what A$AP Rocky and his mob accomplished in hiphop ser minutes earlier. #P4k— Bob Gendron (@BobGendron25) July 13, 2012
Solemn and thoughtful looking hipsters. Is there any other kind?
Great shot of Willis Earl Beal from Red Eye's Mike Rich.
POURING rain at #p4k now. Messy. But A$AP rocky is pretty OK with it.— Redeye Chicago (@redeyechicago) July 13, 2012
A$AP Rocky has set the bar high for energetic hip-hop shows. Can Big K.R.I.T keep it up? Go even bigger? We'll find out.
Is there any more anticipated Pitchfork act than Japandroids? The Vancouver duo take the stage in about 15 minutes. Here's a sneak preview.
Watch A$AP Rocky live at Pitchfork right now on the #p4k YouTube channel. It's much drier this way.
A steady rain isn't stopping A$AP Rocky and his crew from a raucous show. They've already dived off the stage and are getting everyone's energy levels up.
A$AP Rocky taking the stage right now. Should bump up the excitement levels real quick. Here's a video.
Tim Hecker coming up next. Check out some video of the Vancouver-born, Montreal-based artist. Who knew Canadians could rock?
Willis Earl Beal, a herculean voice at #p4k "I am over-indulgent and sappy -- I take pride in it."— Greg Kot (@gregkot) July 13, 2012
Soulful singer Willis Earl Beal is playing right now. Here's a taste of him live -- truly a must-see show.
The first photos from Pitchfork are coming in. Here's one of our faves so far.
Red Eye offers up the 10 people you meet at Pitchfork. Which one are you?
Baltimore band Lower Dens is getting ready to play. Watch for songs from their sophomore album "Nootropics." And here's a clip if you haven't heard them before.
Matt Pais picks five bands you should see at Pitchfork this weekend, including
Outer Minds is first up on the Pitchfork schedule today. If you're not familiar with them, here's a video of them playing live.
Watch a live stream of all the action at Pitchfork on the Pitchfork You Tube channel.
Tribune social media intern @magsmcglinchy put together a list of every band's Twitter handles. Follow along with them (and us @ChiTribEnt@ChiTribEnt) all weekend long.
Looking for a second opinion? How about the picks to click from our friends at Red Eye. They are high on A$AP Rocky and Japandroids today.
Tribune music critic Greg Kot gives us a rundown of every band at Pitchfork this weekend, giving his must-see picks.


text:
Melissa ISD trustee Rick Lafon has earned the designation of Master Trustee upon completion of Leadership TASB, a program sponsored by the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB). During the fifth session (June 13 –15) school board members in the 2012–13 Leadership TASB class made presentations of their team's findings following year long research. Class participants selected topics related to public school accountability and selected narrowed research fields for in-depth study. Their research focused on topics that included historical understandings, commonly held yet erroneous perceptions, international academic competiveness, relevance of national standards, alternatives to high-stakes testing, and regaining public trust.
The Leadership TASB class met in conjunction with TASB's Summer Leadership Institute in Fort Worth. More than 1100 new and veteran school leaders received extensive training on every facet of effective board governance, heard keynote addresses from renowned education experts, and picked up valuable ideas from district showcases and networking opportunities.
After the graduation ceremony June 14, participants joined the ranks of more than 700 school board members statewide who are Leadership TASB alumni.
The 2013 Leadership TASB class, composed of 35 school board members, represents Texas school districts of all sizes and property wealth. Participants who completed all required elements of the study program earned Master Trustee status, the highest designation recognized by TASB.
About TASB:
TASB is a voluntary, nonprofit association established in 1949 to serve local Texas school districts. School board members are the largest group of publicly elected officials in the state. The districts they represent serve more than 5 million public school students.


text:
For discussion of Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology. The ideas and opinions expressed on this forum do not necessarily reflect those of T-Bolts Group Inc or The Thunderbolts Project(TM)
moonkoon wrote:Re the chapter on "Carbon in the Core, Bin Chen and Jie Li"
... iron carbide, Fe7C3, provides a good match for the density and sound velocities of Earth's inner core under the relevant conditions.
... seismic waves called S waves travel through the inner core at about half the speed expected for most iron-rich alloys under relevant pressures.
Some researchers have attributed the S-wave velocities to the presence of liquid, calling into question the solidity of the inner core. In recent years, the presence of various light elements—including sulfur, carbon, silicon, oxygen and hydrogen—has been proposed to account for the density deficit of Earth's core.
... "This model challenges the conventional view that the Earth is highly depleted in carbon ...
http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/22547- ... l-suggests
Note that this iron carbide model is just that, ...a model. The modelers acknowledge that it is provocative and speculative.
Chromium6 wrote:In the beginning: The Bahamas, 203 million years BC
Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


text:
FULLERTON – As a cost-saving measure, the city is studying consolidating some police services with Brea, Buena Park, La Habra and Placentia.
A merger would not affect officers on patrol, detectives or command staff, City Manager Joe Felz said.
Instead, the study is focusing on non-sworn functions such as dispatching, record-keeping, evidence storage and crime-scene analysis.
Starting in 2016, cities will be required to upgrade dispatching equipment, Felz said, which could cost up to a combined $17 million for the five agencies. A consolidation could include merging dispatching equipment.
The five agencies have a total of 200 non-sworn personnel and combined police budgets of $100 million; Fullerton's annual police budget is $36 million.
"If we consolidate, we will have less cost and need less equipment," Felz said.
It is too soon to estimate the potential savings, Felz said, or when services would be merged.
As an example, in 2012 total compensation (salaries, overtime, pensions and insurance) ranged from $62,000 to $106,000 annually for each of the 18 dispatchers in Fullerton.
City managers in north Orange County meet about every six weeks, Felz said, sometimes examining cost-saving strategies. The idea of sharing police services grew out of those meetings.
Felz is presenting the idea to councils in the other four cities. Each council would have to approve its city's participation in a consolidation.
Since merging its Fire Department command staff with Brea's two years ago, Fullerton is saving $400,000 annually.
Contact the writer: 714-704-3730 or firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Writing diary entries turns out to be a lot harder than putting ChangeLog entries together, but I promised to write one so here it comes.
Halloween: Pheww. We did it. The most frightening thing ever happened -- murrayc finally released gtkmm 2.0.0. The mere thought of keeping it ABI stable until the next major version gives me the creeps. I dearly love to scratch and rewrite code whether it works or not -- a stable ABI makes me question the sense of life.
On the other hand, a whole year of hard work finally resulted in a modern C++ GUI toolkit that's better than ever before. I'd even go that far and call it the best of all: I don't know of any other GUI toolkit that provides interfaces as flexible as Gtk::TreeView while maintaining compile-time type safety.
In real life, I eventually managed to join school again. I really like being there it's just that I don't like getting up at 6.30 in the morning. Well, it'd have been better if I'd managed to get there on Monday too, since I was supposed to take a major test in chemistry. But it's too late to regret it now. We're in test season now and today I wrote a test in German (the subject, I do all my tests in the language German :). I performed better than I thought (it's not actually my favourite subject) but I'll have to wait for the results to be sure.
Weekend now. This means working on my new pet project regexxer, I hope to get a release out Really Soon Now (tm). Since gtkmm2 is now stable any excuses are void.


text:
What does cybersecurity mean to you?
The Citadel takes on new role in safeguarding against cyber attacks
When the news broke in October that the department of revenue's computer system had been hacked compromising 3.6 million social security numbers and 387,000 debit and credit card numbers, South Carolinians were left wondering how the attack had happened and what it meant to them.
"It was a wake-up call," said Dean of the School of Science and Mathematics Lok Lew Yan Voon, who is leading the college's efforts to bring cybersecurity education to the Lowcountry. "People don't generally realize just how important cybersecurity is until there's news of a breach in security, and by then it's too late. In talking with industry leaders in the region, it is clear that there is a need for technical programs in cybersecurity to train the workforce to fight this new war."
The Department of Mathematics and Computer Science has several new initiatives taking place, including new academic programs in cybersecurity, to achieve the goals in education and workforce training.
March 26: What is Cybersecurity? a talk by Matt Bishop, Ph.D.
6:30 p.m., Graham Copeland Auditorium, Grimsley Hall
Matt Bishop, professor of computer science at the University of California at Davis, California, will discuss what security in the internet infrastructure means. His talk, which will be general in nature to educate the public, will explore the meaning of cybersecurity, and the impact it has not only in day-to-day life but in society. Bishop's research is in the analysis of vulnerabilities in computer systems, including modeling them, building tools to detect vulnerabilities and ameliorating or eliminating them. The talk is free and open to the public.
April 13-14: 2013 Palmetto Cyber Defense Competition
Mark Clark Hall
Organized by the Palmetto Roost chapter of the Association of Old Crows, this inaugural competition will challenge South Carolina colleges and universities on Saturday and Charleston area high schools on Sunday. Blue Teams will be responsible for operating and protecting a small network while Red Teams will try to hack into the Blue Team systems.
Spring 2013: Minor in Cybersecurity
Five cadets will graduate this spring with a minor in cybersecurity. Students majoring in electrical engineering or computer science are the target for the new minor that requires five classes to complete: organization/architecture, a course in computer networks, a course in computer security, an approved elective such as computer crime, and the capstone class advanced cybersecurity.
Coming soon: Specialization in Cybersecurity for students pursuing a Master's Degree in Computer Science
Coming soon, the master's degree in computer science, which is a joint program between The Citadel and the College of Charleston, will have a specialization in cybersecurity. The new specialization is currently in the approval process. In addition to core courses, students will take advanced operating systems, privacy and security issues, data communications and networking and advanced cybersecurity to qualify for this specialization.


text:
- This event has passed.
Open 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
August 10 @ 10:00 am - 4:00 pm
An event every week that begins at 10:00 am on Saturday, repeating indefinitely
One event on July 4, 2018 at 10:00 am
One event on September 3, 2018 at 10:00 am
Enjoy creative fun for the whole family and explore our 6,000-ft. Climb, Crawl, Slide Sculpture. Ideal for families with children in 2nd grade through high school. Pop-up activities include: Virtual Reality Hot Air Balloon, Giant Light Bright, Recycled Art, and more! Children must be accompanied by an adult. Tickets are $10. Free Parking is available in the Retail Lot of South Side on Lamar, off of Austin Street.
Book your birthday party during this time.
SPARK! now offers memberships! All members receive free admission to SPARK! Public Hours. Learn more here.
SPARK! hosts groups on weekdays. Learn more here.
Have questions? See Visitor Guidelines for more details.


text:
Welcome to Susie Springers and Molly B Good Kennels. We have puppies for sale at the present time. They are AKC Registered, and come from Championship lines.
English Springers make the very best family dog. They are loyal, friendly, obedient and intelligent. They are eager to learn and easy to train.
Our English Springers are well-balanced, sturdy, medium size dogs, with short to medium silky hair.
Our Springers come Vet Certified with pertinent papers. We will ship. Referrals available upon request.


text:
Loughton Named Male Athlete of The Year
By ODU Athletics
April 26, 2005
NORFOLK, VA--Men's Basketball junior Alex Loughton (Perth, Australia), and senior sailor Anna Tunnicliffe (Perrysburg, OH) were named Athletes of the Year by the Old Dominion University Alumni Association. Baseball's James Burok (Archbald, PA.) and women's soccer Ashley Kramer (Jefferson Hills, PA.) were named 2005 Jack Wilkins/ James Howard Scholar Athletes of the Year at the annual Old Dominion University Athletic honors Banquet and Hall of Fame induction held at the Ted Constant Convocation Center Tuesday night.
Alex Loughton helped lead the Monarchs to the school's first CAA championship and NCAA appearance since 1997, and a school record 28 wins. Loughton averaged 14.1 points and 8.2 rebounds per, and was the CAA Player of the Year and tournament Most Valuable Player. He earned honorable mention All-American honors from the Associated Press and Basketball Times. He also earned All-Region honors from the National Association of Basketball Coaches and was named Player of the Year in the State of Virginia by the Richmond Times Dispatch and the Virginia Sports Information Director's Association. Loughton was selected CAA Scholar Athlete of the Year for men's basketball, earned regional and national academic honors from CoSIDA and NACDA. Loughton went over the 1,000 career point mark against Towson and now has 1,188 career points.
Anna Tunnicliffe made collegiate history by claiming her third straight Intercollegiate Sailing Association Women's single-handed national championship, taking the title in October in Minnesota. No individual has ever won three consecutive sailing championships. Tunnicliffe also claimed the MAISA Women's single-handed championship, and took first at the Atlantic Coach and Navy Women's Open with teammate Jen Adams. As a member of the USA National team, Anna took the silver medal in February at the annual Rolex Miami Olympic Class Regatta. She has also earned All-Academic honors and is a two-time collegiate sailing All-American. Tunnicliffe has also been named recipient of the Norfolk Sports Club Tom Scott Award as the top senior athlete at ODU, and is a two-time Portsmouth Sports Club Collegiate Athlete of the Year recipient. Tunnicliffe and the Lady Monarch sailing squad will be competing for the Women's National Championships, June 1-3 in Austin, TX.
The Jack Wilkins/James Howard Scholar Athletes of the Year are presented to the male and female senior athletes with the highest cumulative grade point averages. Both Howard and Wilkins were instrumental in the formation of the Intercollegiate Foundation in 1965.
Ashley Kramer did not play this year due to an injury, but last season she tied for second on the team in goals scored and as a sophomore led the team with six. Last summer Kramer was the project manager for Cave Automatic Virtual Environment. Upon graduation she will work for Corner Corporation in Kansas City, MO., as a software delivery consultant. Kramer is graduating with a 3.78 grade point average in computer science.
James Burok has been a four-year starter for the Monarchs baseball squad. This year he currently leads the CAA with five saves. He has a 3-4 record with a 3.07 earned run average and 49 strikeouts in 44 innings pitched. The righthander will graduate with a 3.95 grade point average in finance.
Old Dominion University also inducted four former athletes into the school's Sports Hall of Fame. They included: Odell Hodge (basketball), Kevin Gibbs (baseball), Charlie Ogletree (sailing), and Ronnie Drumwright (track and field).
In addition to the above, the Most Valuable Players from each sport were recognized. They are as follows:
Baseball: TBA (after completion of season) Men's Basketball: Alex Loughton (Perth Australia) Women's Basketball: Shareese Grant (Virginia Beach, VA.) Field Hockey: Lynn Farquhar (Alexandria, VA.) Men's Golf: Adam Condello (Fairport, NY) Women's Golf: Ashley Davis (Toronto, Ontario Canada) Women's Lacrosse: Caroline Jacobs (Gaithersburg, MD.) Men's Sailing: Bill Berg (Longwood, FL) Women's Sailing: Anna Tunnicliffe (Perrysburg, OH.) Men's Soccer: Kevon Harris (Kingston, Jamaica) Women's Soccer: Melissa Futrell (Virginia Beach, VA.) Men's Swimming: Nathan Tschohl (Chesapeake, VA.) Women's Swimming: Lauren Timby (Rochester, NY.) Men's Tennis: Izak van der Merwe (Kempton Park, South Africa) Women's Tennis: Kerstin Endlich (Neustadt, Germany) Wrestling: Adam Wright (Dayton, VA.)


text:
Three people were killed, including a 16-year-old boy, and 10 other people were wounded across Chicago on Labor Day through early Tuesday morning.
The 16-year-old, Maurice Knowles was sitting on the porch of his home in the 10500 block of South LaSalle Street in the Fernwood neighborhood when someone opened fire from a gangway across the street around 5:30 p.m Monday, police said.
Knowles was taken to Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn with a wound to the chest and was pronounced dead at 7:30 p.m., according to the Cook County medical examiner's office.
A 22-year-old man sitting nearby suffered a graze wound to the back but declined medical attention.
A suspect fled to a building in the 300 block of West 106th Place, authorities said. Police surrounded the building and the person was in custody by 7 p.m.
About an hour later, 27-year-old Frederick Brown was shot several times in the Englewood neighborhood, police said. Officers found him unresponsive in an alley near the 5700 block of South Princeton Avenue around 8 p.m., police said.
Brown, who lived in the 6300 block of South King Drive, was pronounced dead at 8:30 p.m. at Stroger Hospital, according to the medical examiner's office.
Earlier Monday, Jerome Wood, 21, was shot in the head around 2 p.m. in the 6600 block of South Rhodes Avenue in the West Woodlawn neighborhood on the South Side, authorities said.
Chicago police detectives and beat officers used red and yellow tape to cordon off a two-flat greystone in the middle of the block. Neighbors said Wood was shot outside the building and may have collapsed in a vacant lot next to it. Police placed several yellow evidence cards beside bullet casings in front of the building and the lot.
A few families on the block were barbecuing in their backyard.
David Westin, 33, who lives across the street, said he was inside his apartment building when he heard gunfire. He then heard a female voice screaming that a friend was just shot.
Westin said he hadn't seen much violence in his neighborhood since moving into his apartment in June. He said the police are usually out in full force. The shooting has only reinforced his desire to move by next month, he said.
"I heard of gang activity around here, but it's the first time I've seen it up close," he said from his front porch, watching detectives and officers walking around behind the crime tape.
Darlene Sneed, 55, lives in the two-story building that was cordoned off. She had just gotten home from her bartending job a few blocks away when she saw the tape.
Sneed, who has lived in the building for about a year and half, burst into tears because she didn't know the name of the victim and was afraid to find out.
"I don't know what friend it is of my great-niece. But I know it's got to be somebody I know because I can feel it in my heart that it's someone I know," Sneed said. "I know a lot of these kids out here and. . .It don't make no sense when things happen around here."
Sneed said shootings happen regularly on her block and surrounding area. Sneed was told by a detective around 4 p.m. that it would be a few hours before she would be allowed inside her apartment building.
"From 71st to 61st. King Drive to Cottage Grove. It's always nothing but all this gang-banging stuff," Sneed said. "It's crazy, this world is really crazy."
Her friend Willie Crump, 55, who also lives on the block, placed her arm around Sneed. Crump said she heard five gunshots while sitting at a table in her apartment. She said she's heard gunfire everyday in her neighborhood.
"If it's not here, it's on Saint Lawrence, Eberhart, Rhodes, Cottage Grove, Evans. It's just. . .It's disgusting," said Crump, shaking her head.
Kia McNeal was sitting on her front porch at the corner of Marquette Road and Rhodes Avenue -- where a Chicago police camera is affixed to a light pole -- when she heard a number of shots. Her 2-year-old daughter was about to walk down the front steps of her apartment building, McNeal said.
"They can't even come outside and play," McNeal, 28. "We're on the corner in the mix of this stuff."
In other shootings:
• A 20-year-old man was shot in the abdomen about 2 a.m. in the 4700 block of North Central Park Avenue, News Affairs Officer Amina Greer said, citing preliminary information. The man was taken to Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center in critical condition.
• A 16-year-old girl and an 18-year-old man were shot while sitting on a porch in the 8500 block of South Paulina Street around 1:20 a.m., Greer said.
Someone stepped out of a dark-colored sedan and opened fire, striking the girl in the leg and the man in the arm, according to police. The man also suffered a graze wound to the ankle.
A neighbor said he heard at least 20 gunshots, and police had laid about 20 yellow evidence markers in the street.
Both teens were brought to Little Company of Mary Hospital, where their conditions were stabilized.
• A 16-year-old boy and and a 22-year-old man were shot around 10:25 p.m. in the 4800 block of South Winchester Avenue, authorities said. The boy was struck in the chest and taken to Stroger, and the man was taken to Sinai with wounds to the leg and face. Both were listed in serious condition.
• About 10 p.m., a 17-year-old boy was shot in the wrist in a drive-by shooting in the 7400 block of South Chappel Avenue. Someone opened fire from a dark-colored SUV, which then fled west, police said. The boy was taken to Jackson Park Hospital, where he was listed in good condition.
• About 2:30 p.m., a 48-year-old man was shot twice in the 6300 block of South King Drive and taken to Stroger in critical condition, police said.
• Earlier, a 19-year-old man was shot in the leg in the 4200 block of West 15th Street around 9:55 a.m., said Police News Affairs Officer John Mirabelli. The man told police he heard shots and felt pain. The man's condition was stabilized at Mount Sinai Hospital, Mirabelli said.
• About 6:30 p.m., a 36-year-old man was shot in the 11700 block of South Marshfield Avenue, according to Chicago Fire Department spokesman Chief Joe Roccasalva. He was taken to Christ Medical Center in serious-to-critical condition.
•Police have launched a death investigation after a woman was found dead at a home on the 4400 block of West Wilcox, officials said. The Cook County medical examiner's office indicated that the body, believed to be a woman, was found heavily decomposed. She was pronounced dead at the scene at 6:11 p.m.
An autopsy conducted today determined that the woman died of multiple injuries from physical assault and ruled her death a homicide, according to the office. Her name and age were not known, officials said.
email@example.com | Twitter: @ChicagoBreaking


text:
Montana GEAR UP
(Gaining Early Awareness & Readiness for Undergraduate Programs)
Montana GEAR UP believes that postsecondary education is possible for all Montana students, regardless of economic background. Montana GEAR UP supports schools, students, and their families to increase students' college and career readiness through academic preparedness, postsecondary planning, and financial aid knowledge so that they may succeed in their education beyond high school.
What we do
Student and School Services:
Partners with 18 middle and receiving high schools from around the state, 13 of which are located on or near Montana's seven American Indian reservations, to improve high school graduation and college enrollment rates.
Serves students in grades seven through twelve, providing college and career readiness services, such as tutoring, financial aid information, dual enrollment, college applications, enrollment in rigorous academic courses, comprehensive mentoring, college visits, supplemental curriculum materials, summer programming, and professional development for school staff.
Works with colleges and universities to support GEAR UP college freshman with their transition to and retention in college.
By the end of the seven year grant, more than 8800 students, including 5800 American Indian students, will have participated in the program.
State Services:
Fund the ACT + Writing test for all Montana public high school juniors.
Support for Montana Common Core Standards implementation.
Implement Montana College Application Week campaign.
Support Graduation Matters Montana initiatives.
Funding for the annual Montana School Counselor Association Conference, Montana Indian Education for All conference, and the Montana College Access Network.
The U.S. Department of Education awarded the Montana Office of Commissioner of Higher Education a seven-year, $28 million GEAR UP grant in September 2018. (Montana was also awarded grants in 1999, 2005 and 2011)
Quick Facts
Montana GEAR UP:
*Serves Students in 7-12th grades at 18 middle schools and their receiving high schools to improve high school graduation and college enrollment rates.
*Partners with postsecondary institutions to support GEAR UP college freshman with their transition to and retention in college.
*Will serve 8,800 students, including 5,800 American Indian Students, by the end of the grant.


text:
BALTIMORE (AP)—The Texas Rangers were ready each time Mark Hendrickson walked to the mound.
Ian Kinsler homered twice and Texas led off the first three innings with home runs against Hendrickson in a 6-5 victory over the Baltimore Orioles on Saturday night.
"In baseball, stuff like that happens. One guy can kill you and I hope I can be that guy," said Kinsler, who is batting .398 (43-for-108) lifetime against Baltimore. "It gets them in a hole in a hurry."
Andruw Jones and Chris Davis also connected against Hendrickson (1-3), who lasted only 4 1-3 innings. The Rangers, who have won four of six, lead the majors with 35 homers and have hit two or more 13 times this season.
"We have guys who hit the ball out of the ballpark. … And I'm glad we did. It set the tone," manager Ron Washington said.
It was the first time since Oct. 2, 2004—when the Houston Astros accomplished the feat against Colorado's Shawn Estes—that a team has led off the first three innings with home runs.
"You leave it over the heart of the plate with this lineup, especially, and they're kind of free swingers," Hendrickson said. "It's a little bit all or nothing with their lineup."
Scott Feldman (1-0), starting in place of injured right-hander Kris Benson, allowed a run and four hits over five innings in his first start this season. Feldman said he was told by Washington that he'd earned another start Thursday.
"The runs early helped," Feldman said. "That's the kind of offense we have. They can put up so many runs."
Frank Francisco got the final two outs for his fourth save after Cesar Izturis' RBI double off C.J. Wilson made it 6-3 in the ninth. Francisco yielded a two-run single to Adam Jones, then fanned Nick Markakis and retired Aubrey Huff on a fly to left.
"We needed one more hit to get back in it and came up short," Baltimore manager Dave Trembley said.
Ty Wigginton homered and drove in two runs for the Orioles.
Texas center fielder Josh Hamilton left the game after 4 1/2 innings with inflammation near the left side of his rib cage. Hamilton hurt himself sliding into third base on a double steal and expects to play Sunday.
Kinsler hit Hendrickson's 2-2 pitch in the first inning into the Baltimore bullpen for his sixth homer of the season and sixth career leadoff home run. It was the start of a trend: Rangers leadoff men got hits in the first six innings.
Davis ripped Hendrickson's first pitch of the second into the left-field stands for a 2-0 lead. Jarrod Saltalamacchia singled and was erased on Elvis Andrus' fielder's choice before Kinsler connected again for a two-run shot.
Andruw Jones made it three straight innings with a leadoff homer in the third, depositing a changeup over the fence in center.
The Orioles cut it to 5-1 in the fourth, when Wigginton's two-out single scored Markakis, who extended his hitting streak to 12 games with a double. Markakis has reached base safely in 26 consecutive games, the longest active streak in the majors.
Hendrickson departed in the fifth after Marlon Byrd's sacrifice fly made it 6-1. He allowed five earned runs and eight hits.