Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

R 201BRR

Authors

R 201BRR

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3742 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "R_201BRR.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "1048780" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(103644) "Public Policy Institute of California A Portrait of Race and Ethnicity in California An Assessment of Social and Economic Well-Being Belinda I. Reyes, Editor Jennifer Cheng, Elliot Currie, Daniel Frakes, Hans P. Johnson, Elizabeth Bronwen Macro, Deborah Reed, Belinda I. Reyes, José Signoret, and Joanne Spetz, contributors The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens—William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller—recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291–4400 Fax: (415) 291–4401 Internet: info@ppic.org www.ppic.org A Portrait of Race and Ethnicity in California An Assessment of Social and Economic Well-Being Belinda I. Reyes, Editor Public Policy Institute of California Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A portrait of race and ethnicity in California : an assessment of social and economic well-being / Belinda I. Reyes, editor ; Jennifer Cheng ... [et al.], contributors. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. ). ISBN 1-58213-054-X 1. California—Race relations—Statistics. 2. California—Ethnic relations—Statistics. 3. Minorities— California—Social conditions—Statistics. 4. Minorities—California—Economic conditions—Statistics. I. Reyes, Belinda I., 1965– II.Cheng, Jennifer, 1975– III. Public Policy Institute of California. F870.A1 P67 2001 305.8'009794—dc21 00-055372 Copyright © 2001 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. List of Contributors Jennifer Cheng, Educational Outcomes and Labor Market Outcomes Berkeley Policy Associates Elliot Currie, Crime and Criminal Justice Legal Studies Program, University of California, Berkeley Daniel Frakes, Geographic Distribution Berkeley Policy Associates Hans P. Johnson, Demographics Public Policy Institute of California Elizabeth Bronwen Macro, Political Participation Berkeley Policy Associates Deborah Reed, Educational Outcomes and Labor Market Outcomes Public Policy Institute of California Belinda I. Reyes, Geographic Distribution, Economic Outcomes, and Political Participation Public Policy Institute of California José Signoret, Political Participation Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley Joanne Spetz, Health Outcomes Public Policy Institute of California iii Foreword In 1999, a team of PPIC research fellows led by Belinda I. Reyes began preparing a demographic portrait of California with special attention to the social and economic well-being of its major racial and ethnic groups. This volume is the result of that effort. It depicts an increasingly diverse California whose residents have experienced broad though uneven progress in health, educational attainment, crime reduction, and political participation. The volume’s impressive scope and consistent format allow its readers to follow both the progress of—and persistent inequalities among—California’s racial and ethnic groups in these and other areas. Its clear, graphic, and colorful presentation will serve the state’s business, policy, media, and scholarly communities equally well. This volume would not have been possible without the expertise developed by PPIC research fellows over the institution’s first six years. Dozens of databases, substantial computer capability, and a good deal of knowledge-sharing were required to compile the data and complete the portrait in less than a year and a half. PPIC’s goal has been to replace clichés and caricatures with reliable information about the state’s population and policies. This useful reference volume is a notable example of that effort. David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California v Summary This book documents differences in socioeconomic status by racial and ethnic groups and explores how patterns have changed over time. The data in this compendium will provide us with a benchmark for evaluating the socioeconomic status of racial and ethnic groups in the future and point us to the most important issues facing them. This book is meant to be a resource for policymakers, the media, and the general public. For the most part, the charts show averages or medians of particular indicators of well-being. A comprehensive examination of the explanations for the trends is beyond the scope of our work. Using a combination of datasets, we examine the following topics: demographics, geographic distribution, education, health outcomes, labor market outcomes, economic status, crime, and political participation. Each chapter presents key indicators of well-being for the four major racial and ethnic groups: white non-Hispanics, African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics. Where possible, we also present trends and outcomes for major Asian and Hispanic subgroups: Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Indian Asian, Southeast Asian, Mexican, Cuban/Dominican/Puerto Rican, and Central and South American. In general, there have been improvements in health, education, crime rates, and political outcomes for all racial and ethnic groups in California over the last 30 years. But disparities between groups have persisted and in some cases even widened. African Americans and Hispanics are especially at a disadvantage along many dimensions, as are Southeast Asians. In the following pages we describe the most important findings in each chapter. Demography Most of California’s population growth in the past few decades has occurred among the Hispanic and Asian populations of the state. As recently as 1970, almost 80 percent of the state’s residents were white non-Hispanics. By 1998, only 52 percent of the state’s residents were white non-Hispanics, Hispanics accounted for 30 percent of the state’s population, Asians for 11 percent, and African Americans for 7 percent. Projections for the future suggest that strong growth among California’s Hispanic and Asian populations will continue in the 21st century. The California Department of Finance projects that shortly after the turn of the century, no racial or ethnic group will constitute a majority of the state’s population, and that by 2025 Hispanics will represent the largest ethnic group in the state. Geographic Distribution Most counties of the state were predominantly white in 1970. However, between 1970 and 1998, the share of whites declined in all but one county (Sierra County). Whites were over 70 percent of the population of 54 of the 58 counties in 1970. More than 85 percent of the population of the Northern and Mountain counties was white. By 1998, only 28 counties had a population that was over 70 percent white. vii A large proportion of the California population resides in the southern part of the state—in Los Angeles or in the rest of Southern California—and in this region whites constituted half or less of the population. All groups became more dispersed in the last 30 years. By 1998, whites were the least geographically concentrated racial and ethnic group and African Americans the most concentrated. Education The main educational finding is that, by and large, Hispanics fare worse than any other group. The low educational attainment of Hispanic adults is not simply a result of recent immigration. U.S.-born Hispanics, particularly those of Mexican descent, have consistently lower high school and college completion rates than do African Americans, Asians, or whites. After Hispanics, African Americans are the next lowest-achieving group. The education gap between African Americans and whites has diminished over the last 30 years, so that high school completion rates of young African Americans are similar to those of whites. However, college completion rates remain much lower for African Americans than for whites. Health In terms of health outcomes, African Americans fare worse than other racial and ethnic groups, both nationally and in California. Hispanics often have less access to health care and lower health status than whites, whereas health indicators for Asians are similar to—and sometimes better than—those for whites. These broad generalizations about the health of Hispanics and Asians do not highlight important differences in the health of different Hispanic and Asian subgroups. Although people of Japanese, Chinese, and Korean ancestry tend to enjoy better health than whites, people of Southeast Asian and Filipino ancestry have comparatively poor health outcomes. Although Mexicans have poorer access to health services such as prenatal care, they have better birth outcomes than other Hispanic groups. Labor Market Outcomes We find that nonwhites, especially Hispanics, tend to have lower earnings than whites. Furthermore, Hispanics and African Americans have particularly high unemployment rates, and their rates of unemployment are more severely affected by economic fluctuations. Low levels of education and recent immigration contribute to low earnings. However, even when we compare U.S.-born workers from different racial and ethnic groups with similar education levels, we find that the median of earnings of white men is higher than the medians for Hispanic, Asian, and African American men. Economic Status Asian and white family incomes are substantially higher than those for African Americans and Hispanics. In 1997, Hispanics had the lowest median family income of any major racial and ethnic group. Not only was their family income lower than other groups, but Hispanics were also the only group that had a greater proportion of people at the bottom 25 percent of the income distribution in 1989 than in 1969. Lower median income and a greater proportion of the population at the bottom of the income distribution translate into higher poverty rates for Hispanics and African Americans. Also, poverty rates viii among African American, white, and Hispanic children were substantially higher in 1997 than in 1970. This is especially true for Hispanic children, for whom poverty rates were 29 percent in 1969 and 40 percent in 1997. Finally, compared to other households, a greater proportion of households headed by an African American received public assistance. However, in the mid-1990s, with the economic recovery and the passage of the welfare reform laws, public assistance use declined for all groups, especially for African Americans. By 1997, welfare use among African American households was half that of 1995. Crime There has been a dramatic shift in the ethnic distribution of those arrested and put behind bars. As in the population as a whole, the proportion of non-Hispanic whites has declined, and the proportion of Hispanic youth and adults behind bars has risen at a faster rate than has the Hispanic proportion of the general population. This shift has transformed the composition of California’s correctional system, both for youth and adults. African Americans in California continue to experience the highest risk of arrest and incarceration. African Americans are also more likely than others to be victims of violence. Along with Hispanics, African Americans are more likely to be killed than whites. They also tend to be killed in different ways and for different reasons. African American and Hispanic homicide victims are more likely to be young and male, to have been killed with a handgun, and to have been killed in a drug- or gang-related incident. White homicide victims tend to be older and more often female than their African American or Hispanic counterparts. They are also more likely to die in the course of a domestic dispute. Political Participation California’s story of political participation is complex. Whites are overrepresented in the voting population, and they register and vote at high rates. Although African Americans generally participate at slightly lower rates than whites, their share corresponds with their share of the adult population. They were 7 percent of the adult population in 1996 and 7 percent of the population who voted in that election. But African Americans have made little progress in achieving elected office over the past 20 years, and registration and voting rates declined during the 1990s. Asians and Hispanics have the lowest participation rates in California. Although a large proportion of both populations are not eligible to vote, this fact alone does not explain their underrepresentation at the polls. Low levels of education coupled with a relatively young voting population may account for the participation rates of Hispanics. However, these same factors do not easily explain the lower rates of Asian participation. Despite these low levels of political participation, Hispanics and Asians have steadily gained in winning elected office over the last two decades. ix Contents List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv Chapter 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter 2 Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Chapter 3 Geographic Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Chapter 4 Educational Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Chapter 5 Health Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Chapter 6 Labor Market Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Chapter 7 Economic Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Chapter 8 Crime and Criminal Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Chapter 9 Political Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Chapter 10 Chart Titles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Appendix Additional Sources of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 xi Acknowledgments I am grateful to Michael Teitz, Joyce Peterson, Kim Rueben, Elias Lopes, Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, and Jon Stiles for their thoughtful reviews of earlier versions of this report. Peter Richardson, Patricia Bedrosian, and Eileen La Russo provided invaluable suggestions on the editing, formatting, and style of this report. I would also like to thank Mai-San Chan and Van Swearinger for their research assistance on this project. Daniel Lawrence provided invaluable help finding books, datasets, and anything else we needed. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the generous and thoughtful contribution of the following authors: Elliot Currie, Daniel Frakes, Jennifer Cheng, Hans P. Johnson, Elizabeth Bronwen Macro, Deborah Reed, José Signoret, and Joanne Spetz. Although this report reflects the contribution of many people, the authors are solely responsible for its contents. xiii Contacts This book is intended as a resource for policymakers, community leaders, and the media. PPIC’s research staff can be contacted directly to discuss specific findings or other current public policy issues related to their areas of expertise. Visit the institute’s website at www.ppic.org for the most current information about our staff, publications, and projects. CHAPTER TOPICS Demographics Geographic Distribution Economic Outcomes Crime and Criminal Justice Educational Outcomes Labor Market Outcomes Health Outcomes Political Participation RESEARCH CONTACTS Hans P. Johnson Research Fellow (415) 291-4460 johnson@ppic.org Belinda I. Reyes, editor Research Fellow (415) 291-4492 reyes@ppic.org Deborah Reed Program Director and Research Fellow (415) 291-4455 reed@ppic.org Joanne Spetz Research Fellow (415) 291-4418 spetz@ppic.org Zoltan Hajnal Research Fellow (415) 291-4491 hajnal@ppic.org GENERAL CONTACTS Members of the media and policy community are also encouraged to contact PPIC’s public affairs staff for assistance. Abby Cook Public Affairs Manager (415) 291-4436 cook@ppic.org Victoria Pike Bond Public Affairs Associate (415) 291-4412 bond@ppic.org xv Chapter 1 Introduction California has one of the most ethnically diverse populations in the world. The current generation of school children is the first in which Hispanics, Asians, African Americans, and mixed-raced children together outnumber whites (California Department of Finance, June 1999). Within the next few years, no racial or ethnic group will constitute a majority of the state’s population. This increasing ethnic diversity represents a demographic transformation without historical precedent in the United States. Despite this tremendous demographic change, accurate socioeconomic data about racial and ethnic groups in California are not easily accessible to policymakers. Without such data, it is difficult to understand the important problems facing racial and ethnic groups in the state and how public policy can work to remedy these problems. This book documents differences in socioeconomic status by racial and ethnic groups and explores how patterns have changed over time. In doing so, it points to the most important issues facing these groups and provides us with a benchmark for evaluating their socioeconomic status in the future. Using a combination of datasets, we look at the following topics as they pertain to race and ethnicity: demographics, geographic distribution, education, health outcomes, labor market outcomes, economic status, crime, and political participation. We selected these topics to present a broad picture of social, political, and economic conditions facing racial and ethnic groups in California. Each chapter presents key indicators of well-being for the four major racial and ethnic groups: white non-Hispanic, African American, Asian, and Hispanic. Where possible, we also present trends and outcomes for major Asian and Hispanic subgroups: Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Asian Indian, Southeast Asian, Mexican, Cuban/Dominican/Puerto Rican, and Central and South American. Data availability limited the topics we could study and the groups we could consider. This book is therefore best regarded as a starting point for more comprehensive evaluations of race and ethnicity in California. In general, all racial and ethnic groups in California experienced improvements in health, education, crime rates, and political participation in the last 30 years. But disparities between groups have persisted and in some cases, even widened. African Americans, Hispanics, and Southeast Asians are especially at a disadvantage along many dimensions. Several themes emerge from the data: s Race and ethnicity continue to be important predictors of well-being in California. On average, whites and Asians enjoy better health, educational, and economic status than African Americans and Hispanics. African Americans and Hispanics have higher crime and victimization rates than Asians and whites. And Asians and Hispanics have lower political participation than African Americans and whites. s Hispanics have some of the poorest socioeconomic outcomes in California, and by many measures their condition has worsened in the last 30 years. Hispanics have the lowest educational outcomes, INTRODUCTION 1 some of the highest levels of victimization, and some of the lowest economic outcomes in California. Family income, weekly earnings, home ownership rates, poverty rates, unemployment rates, and public assistance use are worse only for African Americans. For some of these measures, conditions are worsening. However, most of this deterioration is due to an increasing share of Hispanic immigrants, who typically have low levels of education and earnings, in the Hispanic population. But this increasing share of immigrants cannot alone account for the whole story. Other issues are at play. s African Americans also have poor socioeconomic well-being, and in many aspects their relative economic status has deteriorated over time. Median weekly earnings for men and home ownership rates were lower and poverty rates higher in recent years compared to past decades. Although there were substantial improvements in education, crime rates, and health outcomes for African Americans in the last 30 years, they still have the poorest crime and health outcomes and the second-lowest educational outcomes of all racial and ethnic groups. s Asians fare as well as or better than whites in many respects. However, there is a great deal of variation among Asian groups. For instance, the median family income of U.S.-born Asians, Filipino immigrants, and Asian Indian immigrants was higher than that of non-Hispanic whites in 1989, yet the median family income of Southeast Asians was close to that of African Americans. Southeast Asians have the lowest material and physical well-being of all Asian groups. And they have the lowest labor force participation rate, one of the highest levels of unemployment, and the highest rate of poverty of all racial and ethnic groups in California. How to Use This Book This book is meant as a resource for policymakers, the media, and the general public. It documents current and historic differences in well-being across racial and ethnic groups. To do this, we chose the most commonly used measures of well-being and focused on what we believe to be the most important trends and outcomes. We recognized that a comprehensive explanation of these trends and their underlying factors lay beyond the scope of this book. We therefore tried to offer a reasonably complete picture with a limited number of indicators of well-being. The book is divided into eight chapters: demography, geography, health, education, crime, labor markets, economic status, and political participation. Each chapter starts with a short introduction that discusses the importance of the topic and the key findings. This is followed by a set of charts that present the most important outcomes for racial and ethnic groups in California. Each chart is paired with a description of its most important findings and other related information. A complete list of charts appears at the end of the volume. An appendix presents other sources of information where the reader can find more detailed information on all the topics covered in this book. Methodological Issues Throughout most of this book, we look at the four major racial and ethnic groups in the state using, for 2 INTRODUCTION the most part, self-reported racial and ethnic identifications:1 white non-Hispanics (also referred to as white), African American, Hispanic,2 and Asian.3 However, in some chapters, we used other definitions of ethnicity. In the chapter on political participation, for example, the only way to disaggregate party affiliation across counties was to use a surname dictionary. The racial categories in this chapter are therefore not comparable to those in the rest of the book. Some charts in the health and crime chapters use data in which people could select only between white, black, Hispanic, and “other.” We expect that most of the people in the “other” category are Asian, although other groups would also be included in this category. Also, some Hispanics may identify as whites when not given the choice of both a racial category and a Hispanic identifier, which would lead to an undercount of this group. Finally, questions about identity are asked in different ways in different datasets. These differences could also decrease the level of comparability across datasets.4 Whenever possible, we disaggregate groups into Asian and Hispanic subgroups. We also examine outcomes for U.S-born and foreign-born Asians and Hispanics. U.S-born Asian groups are Filipino, Chinese, and Japanese. Asian foreign-born groups are Filipino, Chinese, Japanese, Asian Indian, Korean, and Southeast Asian.5 The Hispanic groups are Mexican, Central and South American,6 and Caribbean.7 We tried to gather information in California for the last 30 years. In some data sources, information is available only for particular years; in others, groups are either missing or the samples are too small to generate reliable results.8 For the most part, we looked at the full sample of the population for each racial and ethnic group, except when using the decennial Census and the Current Population Survey, where we looked only at civilians not living in group quarters (e.g., dormitories, group homes, or prisons). For ease in presentation, we show trends and averages for the major racial and ethnic groups. We used three-year moving averages to present the trend data. Some charts may show differences in well-being that 1 People of mixed race or ethnicity are classified by their self-reported race and ethnicity, since people were asked to choose one racial group up until the 1990 Census. In the 2000 Census, they were able to choose mixed race. 2 Hispanics are all the people who identified themselves as Mexican, Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central American, South American, Dominican, and other Hispanic. Filipinos who identified themselves as Hispanic or Spanish are included in the Hispanic category. 3 In some instances, we included Native Americans, but for the most part they were excluded from the analysis because of data limitations. 4 For a summary discussion of the effect of question wording on self-identification, see Gey et al., 1993. 5 Southeast Asians are those who self-identify as Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian, or Hmong. 6 For the most part, the Central and South American category consists of people from Central America—Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Honduras—or those whose birthplace is these countries. 7 Caribbeans, unless otherwise specified, are those who self-identify as Puerto Rican, Cuban, and Dominican. Puerto Ricans born on the island were considered foreign-born and those born on the U.S. mainland were considered U.S.-born. 8 In most of the charts in the crime chapter, we were not able to include Asians, since data were available only for whites, African Americans, Hispanics, and “other.” INTRODUCTION 3 may be due only to differences in age across racial and ethnic groups. Hence, we either adjusted the data for age or discussed the effect of age on the outcomes.9 Age adjustments are specified in the charts. Because no single dataset provides the breadth of information needed for this report, a combination of data sources was used to generate the charts. When possible, we examine outcomes for four California regions: the Northern and Mountain counties, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Farm Belt, and Southern California.10 We chose regions that were contiguous and were either part of the same labor market, such as the Bay Area, or had similar economic profiles, such as the counties of far Northern California. In Chapter 3, we further subdivide the state to gain additional information within regions for different racial and ethnic groups. In that chapter, we examine seven regions—the Northern and Mountain counties, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Valley counties, the Coastal counties, Los Angeles County, Southern California, and the Sacramento metropolitan area. 1.1 Four Regions of California INTRODUCTION Northern and Mountain counties San Francisco Bay Area Farm Belt Southern California 9 The age distribution for each group was matched to that of the overall California population in 1998, as determined by the California Department of Finance, and is presented in five-year age groups. 10 The Bay Area comprises Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. The Farm Belt includes Butte, Colusa, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Monterey, Sacramento, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Trinity, Yolo, and Yuba Counties. Southern counties are Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura. The Northern and Mountain counties are the remainder of the counties in the state. 4 Chapter 2 Demographics C O N TA C T P E R S O N : H A N S P. J O H N S O N The population of California is one of the most diverse and complex anywhere in the world. No other developed region the size of California has sustained such rapid and large population growth over the past several decades. As recently as 1950, California was home to only 10 million people, or about one out of every 15 U.S. residents. By 1990, California’s population had tripled to almost 30 million. At the end of the 1990s, one out of every eight U.S. residents is a Californian, and the state’s population has reached approximately 34 million. The California Department of Finance projects that by the year 2025, almost 50 million people will reside in California. The state’s population growth and its composition have directly and indirectly engendered numerous public policy debates in areas such as education, housing, political representation, and growth management. The sheer size of the state’s population increase has important implications for almost all government services and functions including welfare, education, transportation, and corrections. In addition, large increases in the state’s population have important implications for the protection of natural resources, the distribution of water, agriculture, and the location and nature of development. No less important, but perhaps less obvious, is how the changing composition of the state’s population will influence the state’s economic evolution, its political representation, and its cultural identity or identities. Most of California’s population growth in the past few decades has occurred among Hispanics and Asians (Chart 2.1). As recently as 1970, almost 80 percent of the state’s residents were non-Hispanic whites. By 1998, only 52 percent of the state’s residents were non-Hispanic whites; Hispanics constituted 30 percent of the state’s population, Asians 11 percent, and African Americans 7 percent (Chart 2.2). For almost all Asian and Hispanic subgroups, population growth has been rapid (Charts 2.3 and 2.4). Projections for the future suggest that strong growth among California’s Hispanic and Asian populations will continue into the 21st century (Chart 2.5). The California Department of Finance projects that shortly after the turn of the century, no single racial or ethnic group will constitute a majority of the state’s population, and that by the year 2025, Hispanics will be the largest ethnic group in the state (Chart 2.6).1 In some ways, California’s current diversity is a return to the diversity that is more typical of California’s demographic history than was the period from 1950 through 1970. By 1998, approximately 25 percent of the state’s population was composed of immigrants—a level similar to that seen from the late 1800s to the early 1900s. To understand this population growth, it is necessary to examine the components of population change (births, deaths, and migration). We look at these factors in the first part of this chapter. Over the 1The California Department of Finance and the Census Bureau produce population estimates and projections by race and ethnic group, but the California Department of Finance has developed population projections more recently than the Census Bureau. DEMOGRAPHICS 5 past few decades, most migrants to California have been Hispanic and Asian (Chart 2.7), reflecting the importance of international migration to the state’s population growth. Births to Hispanics and Asians have risen dramatically (Charts 2.8 and 2.9) as the number of women of childbearing age has increased and, especially for Hispanics, as fertility rates have increased (Chart 2.10). By the end of the 1990s, almost half of all births in the state were to Hispanic mothers. In contrast, the vast majority of deaths in California are among whites (Chart 2.11). This reflects the older age structure of whites compared to other groups in the state. Also, life expectancies are longest for Asians and Hispanics (Chart 2.12). Together, these components of change explain the rapid increases in Hispanic and Asian populations in California.2 The socioeconomic characteristics of the state’s population have also changed. The population lives in larger households and has become more foreign-born, younger, and less likely to live in married-couple families. These changes have important consequences for public policy in the state. In this chapter, we explore these issues by looking at the place of birth, age structure, household size, and family structure of the major racial and ethnic groups in California. In subsequent chapters, we examine in detail changes in the geographic distribution of the population, education, health, labor market, economic status, crime, and political participation. As noted above, international migration has accounted for much of California’s recent population growth (Charts 2.13 and 2.14). In 1990, two of every three Asians in California were foreign-born. Large flows of immigrants to California during the 1970s and 1980s led to an increase in the share of Hispanic immigrants in the population of the state. By 1990, almost half of all Mexicans in California and the vast majority of Central and South Americans in the state were born abroad. On the other hand, the proportion of foreign born among the Caribbean population has been declining. And by 1990, less than half of the Caribbeans in California were foreign-born. Although the proportion of immigrants has been increasing, many immigrants live in families and households with U.S.-born citizens (Charts 2.15 and 2.16). This is important because some public benefits are based on citizenship status. Most Hispanics, especially noncitizen Mexicans (close to 70 percent of the Mexican population in 1990), live in households with either naturalized citizens or with U.S.-born citizens. A greater proportion of Asian noncitizens than Hispanic noncitizens live with other noncitizens. The age structure of the state’s population is largely determined by the timing and magnitude of past migration flows and birth trends among the state’s racial and ethnic groups. The large flows of domestic migrants to California after World War II were primarily composed of whites. Thus, whites have a much older age structure than the other racial and ethnic groups in California. Hispanics, with large numbers of recent immigrants and high birth rates, have the youngest age structure (Charts 2.17 and 2.18). In particular, Asian and Hispanic subgroups are concentrated in working ages (Charts 2.19 and 2.20). Household size (the number of people per household) and household structure (type of family or household) is determined by age structure, fertility, socioeconomic status, housing costs, and cultural norms. Hispanics and Asians tend to have substantially larger household sizes than African Americans and whites. But household size has been declining for all racial and ethnic groups (Chart 2.21). 2 Nevertheless, an increasing share of births in California are to parents of different racial and ethnic groups (see Tafoya, 2000). 6 DEMOGRAPHICS Family structure has been found to be correlated with health and educational outcomes for children and is also used to determine eligibility for some social services. Only one in three African Americans in California lived in married-couple families in 1998, whereas the majority of white, Hispanic, and Asian residents of California lived in married-couple households (Chart 2.22). The 2000 Census will provide a new benchmark for assessing California’s population, because Census respondents can check more than one racial or ethnic group. Already of concern is the potential for a large undercount. California had one of the highest undercount rates of any state in 1990, with the undercounts being especially high for African Americans, Hispanics, and children (Chart 2.23). The increasing diversity and complexity of the state’s population during the 1990s make an accurate count for the 2000 Census even more difficult and imperative. 7 DEMOGRAPHICS DEMOGRAPHICS 2.1 California’s Population by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1998 18,000,000 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 1970 Source: California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1970–2040. 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 White Hispanic Asian African American Native American Population s Hispanics and Asians are the fastest growing ethnic groups in California. The Hispanic population grew over fourfold between 1970 and 1998, reaching 10 million by 1998. The Asian population grew over fivefold during this same period. s The population of whites increased only 11 percent from 1970 to 1998. s The African American population increased 67 percent from 1970 to 1998. African Americans are now the fourth most populous racial or ethnic group in California after being surpassed by Asians in the mid-1980s. s California’s population is substantially more diverse than that in the rest of the country. One in 11 whites in the United States lives in California, whereas one in three Hispanics and two in five Asians and Pacific Islanders live in California. One in 14 African Americans in the United States lives in California. DEMOGRAPHICS 8 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.2 California’s Population Distribution by Race and Ethnicity, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 1998 Percentage Source: California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1970–2040. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1970 1980 1990 1998 White Hispanic Asian African American Native American s The white proportion of the state’s population has declined substantially. In 1970, three in four Californians were white; by 1998, only one in two Californians was white. s Hispanic and Asian proportions are increasing rapidly. Hispanics increased from 12 percent of the population in 1970 to 30 percent in 1998. Asians increased from 3 percent of the population in 1970 to 11 percent in 1998. s African Americans have continued to constitute 7 percent of California’s population. s Only New Mexico (52 percent) and Hawaii (71 percent) have greater proportions of their populations consisting of nonwhites than California (48 percent). DEMOGRAPHICS 9 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.3 Population of Asian Groups, 1970, 1980, and 1990 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Chinese 1970 Japanese 1980 Sources: 1970, 1980, and 1990 Censuses (PUMS). Filipino 1990 Asian Indian Korean Southeast Asian Population s With the exception of the Japanese, population growth for all Asian ethnic groups has been very rapid. Rates of population growth have been much faster than California’s overall growth rates. s Chinese and Filipinos are the most populous Asian groups in California, numbering almost 700,000 in 1990. Both groups more than doubled in size in the 1980s and together constitute more than half of all Asians in the state. s Southeast Asians have experienced the most rapid growth, more than tripling in number from 1980 to 1990. In the 1980s, Southeast Asians surpassed the Japanese to become the third most populous Asian subgroup. s In 1990, California was home to half of the nation’s Filipinos and Southeast Asians, 40 percent of the nation’s Chinese and Japanese, almost one-third of the nation’s Koreans, and 20 percent of the nation’s Asian Indians. Overall, 12 percent of U.S. residents lived in California in 1990. 10 DEMOGRAPHICS DEMOGRAPHICS 2.4 Population of Hispanic Groups, 1970, 1980, and 1990 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 Mexican 1970 1980 Sources: 1970, 1980, and 1990 Censuses (PUMS). Central and South American 1990 Caribbean Population s Mexicans are by far the largest of the Hispanic groups, experiencing strong population growth in the 1970s and 1980s. About 80 percent of Hispanics in California in 1990 were of Mexican descent. The total number of Californians of Mexican descent increased by over four million people from 1970 to 1990, to almost six million. s Population growth rates have been highest for Hispanics of Central or South American descent. Between 1980 and 1990, their numbers tripled to over 800,000. s The Caribbean population in California increased 35 percent from 1980 to 1990, somewhat higher than the overall state population increase of 26 percent; just over 200,000 Californians were of Caribbean descent in 1990. s In 1990, California was home to almost half the U.S. population of Mexican descent and over one-third of the Central and South American population of the United States. Only about one in 20 residents of the United States with Caribbean ancestry lived in California in 1990. 11 DEMOGRAPHICS DEMOGRAPHICS 2.5 California’s Projected Population by Race and Ethnicity, 1990 –2040 30,000,000 25,000,000 Source: California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1970–2040. 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2019 2023 2027 2031 2035 2039 White Hispanic Asian African American Native American Population s Population projections are uncertain. Moreover, concepts and definitions of race and ethnicity change over time. Still, projections are useful in providing a picture of the future, assuming that historic patterns in births, deaths, and migration prevail. s Asians and Hispanics will experience the greatest population growth. Both groups are expected to more than double in size between 1999 and 2040. Continuing large flows of international immigrants and, for Hispanics, high birth rates are expected to lead to this growth. s Hispanics will become the largest ethnic group in the state, surpassing whites in the 2020s. s The white population is expected to experience little change in size, growing only 4 percent between 1999 and 2040. s The African American population is projected to increase almost 40 percent between 1999 and 2040, somewhat slower than the projected total population increase for the state of 72 percent. DEMOGRAPHICS 12 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.6 California’s Projected Population Distribution by Race and Ethnicity, 1990 –2040 Percentage Source: California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1970–2040. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1999 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 White Hispanic Asian African American Native American s Shortly after the turn of the century, no racial or ethnic group will make up a majority of California’s population. s By 2040, Hispanics are projected to constitute almost half of all Californians. s The Asian population is expected to increase from 11 percent of the state’s population to 15 percent by 2040. s The African American population will continue to constitute less than 10 percent of the state’s population. DEMOGRAPHICS 13 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.7 Net Migration by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1996 Migration 250,000 Sources: California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population Estimates, June 1999 and July 1999. 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 –50,000 –100,000 –150,000 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 White Hispanic Asian African American s Annual net migration is the difference between the number of people who move to California and the number who move out in a given year. It includes both international and domestic migration flows. s The recession of the early 1990s led to substantial migration out of California to other states. International migration gains offset some of the interstate migration losses. s Net migration outflows were especially pronounced for whites, reaching a record in 1993. Migration patterns of whites show stronger business cycle effects than for other groups. This is primarily because whites are predominantly interstate migrants and interstate migration is largely determined by economic conditions in California relative to other states. s Asian migration remained strongly positive even during the recession. During the 1990s, Asians experienced greater net migration than other groups. s Hispanic migration was strongly positive during the 1970s and 1980s but fell dramatically in the early 1990s. A decline in unauthorized immigration in the early 1990s accounts for some of this fall. Note: 1970 refers to the period July 1970 through June 1971 (similar for other years). 14 DEMOGRAPHICS DEMOGRAPHICS 2.8 Births by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1996 Births 300,000 250,000 Sources: California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population Estimates, June 1999 and July 1999. 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 White Hispanic Asian African American Native American s The number of births to Hispanic mothers grew threefold between 1970 and the early 1990s, surpassing whites in 1990. This reflects the large increase in the number of Hispanic women of childbearing age and increasing fertility rates. s The number of births to white mothers declined substantially in the early 1990s as baby boomers aged out of prime childbearing years and with large migrations out of the state. s The number of births to Asian mothers increased 11-fold from 1970 to 1996. s The number of births to African American mothers increased over 50 percent from 1970 to 1989 but has since declined 23 percent. DEMOGRAPHICS 15 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.9 Distribution of Births by Race and Ethnicity, 1970 –1996 Percentage Sources: California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population Estimates, June 1999 and July 1999. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1970 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 White Hispanic Asian African American Native American s In 1970, almost 70 percent of all births were to whites; by 1996, the proportion had declined to 34 percent. s Almost half of all births in California in 1996 were to Hispanics (48 percent), compared to only 20 percent in 1970. s The proportion of births to Asians increased from 1 percent of the total in 1970 to 11 percent of the total by 1996. s The proportion of births to African Americans declined from 9 percent of the total in 1970 to 7 percent of the total in 1996. DEMOGRAPHICS 16 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.10 Total Fertility Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 1970 –1998 Rate Sources: California Department of Finance (unpublished tables); Population Reference Bureau, 1998. 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 1970 1975 White 1980 Hispanic 1985 Asian 1990 African American 1995 Total s The total fertility rate is the average number of children a woman will have in her lifetime (based on current age-specific fertility rates). Replacement-level fertility is 2.1 children per woman. s Hispanics have substantially higher fertility rates than any other racial and ethnic group. With the increase in fertility during the late 1980s, Hispanics in California have higher fertility rates than those in Mexico (3.3 compared to 2.9). s Asian fertility rates increased dramatically in the late 1970s and early 1980s, as a result of the arrival of Southeast Asian immigrants who tended to have higher fertility rates than other Asians. s Total fertility rates for whites have been below the replacement level since the 1970s and are now near the historic lows of the baby bust. High labor force participation and relatively high levels of education are associated with lower fertility levels. s Total fertility rates for African Americans have declined since the late 1980s and once again are slightly below replacement levels. DEMOGRAPHICS 17 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.11 Deaths by Race and Ethnicity, 1970 –1996 Deaths 180,000 Sources: California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population Estimates, June 1999 and July 1999. 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 60,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 White Hispanic Asian African American Native American s Since mortality rates are much higher for older adults than for people in other age groups, the number of deaths for a racial and ethnic group is determined primarily by the group’s age distribution. Groups with a small proportion of its population age 60 and over would therefore have a lower mortality rate. s The number of deaths has increased for all groups as the population of older Californians has increased for all groups. s Most deaths in California are among whites, as whites continue to constitute the vast majority of older Californians. DEMOGRAPHICS Note: 1970 refers to the period July 1970 through June 1971 (similar for other years). 18 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.12 Life Expectancy at Birth by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender, 1998 Age Source: California Department of Finance (unpublished tables). 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 White Hispanic Asian African American Male Female s Life expectancy at birth is the average number of years a newborn infant is expected to live if current agespecific mortality rates remain the same throughout his or her lifetime. It is a broad measure of the health of a population. s Asians have the longest life expectancies—84 years for females and 79 years for males. s Hispanics in California have longer life expectancies than whites—a surprising outcome given Hispanics’ relatively low socioeconomic status. Life expectancy for Hispanic females is 83 years and is 76 years for Hispanic males. s African Americans have substantially lower life expectancies than any other group. African American males have particularly low life expectancies (66 years). The difference between male and female life expectancies for African Americans (eight years) is greater than for any other group. Less access to health care and lower socioeconomic status are associated with lower life expectancies. DEMOGRAPHICS 19 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.13 Percentage Foreign-Born Among Asian Groups, 1970, 1980, and 1990 Percentage 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Chinese 1970 Japanese 1980 Sources: 1970, 1980, and 1990 Censuses (PUMS). Filipino 1990 Asian Indian Korean Southeast Asian s Two of every three Asians in California are foreign-born. s Reflecting the relatively low levels of recent migration from Japan, the vast majority of Japanese in California are U.S.-born. s More than three of every four Asian Indians, Koreans, and Southeast Asians are foreign-born. These very high levels reflect the large and recent immigration flows to California from India, Korea, and Southeast Asia. DEMOGRAPHICS 20 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.14 Percentage Foreign-Born Among Hispanic Groups, 1970, 1980, and 1990 Percentage 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Mexican 1970 1980 Sources: 1970, 1980, and 1990 Censuses (PUMS). Central and South American 1990 Caribbean s The share of Caribbean people in California who are foreign-born has been declining. By 1990, less than half were foreign-born. s Large flows of immigrants to California from Mexico during the 1970s and 1980s led to an increase in the share of Mexicans who are foreign-born—almost half of all Mexicans in the state by 1990. s The vast majority of Central and South Americans in California are foreign-born. In 1980, almost four of every five Central or South Americans in the state were foreign-born. DEMOGRAPHICS 21 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.15 Percentage of Noncitizens Among Asian Groups by Citizenship of Other Household Members, 1970, 1980, and 1990 Percentage Sources: 1970, 1980, and 1990 Censuses (PUMS). 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1970 1980 1990 1970 1980 1990 1970 1980 1990 1980 1990 1980 1990 1980 1990 Chinese Japanese Filipino Asian Indian Korean Southeast Asian With naturalized and U.S.-born citizens With U.S.-born citizens With naturalized citizens With other noncitizens s Immigrants do not live only with immigrants, and U.S.-born Californians do not live only with other U.S.-born Californians. The mixed citizenship status of household members is important because noncitizens are restricted from receiving certain public benefits. s Most noncitizen Asian immigrants live in households with U.S. citizens. In 1990, 60 percent of noncitizen Asian immigrants lived in households with U.S. citizens. s Noncitizen immigrants from Southeast Asia were least likely to live with U.S. citizens in 1980 and most likely to do so in 1990. This large increase in the percentage of noncitizen Southeast Asians living with U.S. citizens occurred as young adult Southeast Asian immigrants began having U.S.-born children. s The vast majority (97 percent in 1990) of noncitizen Asian immigrants do not live alone. Japanese noncitizens have the highest rate of living alone (12 percent in 1990). For all other groups, fewer than 5 percent of noncitizens live alone. DEMOGRAPHICS Note: Restricted to noncitizen immigrants not living alone. 22 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.16 Percentage of Noncitizens Among Hispanic Groups by Citizenship of Other Household Members, 1970, 1980, and 1990 Percentage Sources: 1970, 1980, and 1990 Censuses (PUMS). 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1970 1980 Mexican 1990 With naturalized and U.S.-born citizens 1970 1980 1990 Central and South American 1970 1980 Carribbean 1990 With U.S.-born citizens With naturalized citizens With other noncitizens s Most noncitizen Hispanic immigrants live in households with U.S. citizens. In 1990, 70 percent of noncitizen Hispanic immigrants lived in households with U.S. citizens. s Noncitizen immigrants from Mexico were most likely to live with U.S. citizens. In 1990, almost three of every four noncitizen immigrants from Mexico lived in households with U.S. citizens. Most of those lived in households with their own U.S.-born children. s The vast majority (98 percent in 1990) of noncitizen Hispanic immigrants do not live alone. Caribbean noncitizens have the highest rate of living alone (13 percent in 1990). Only 1 percent of noncitizen Mexican immigrants and 2 percent of noncitizen Central and South American immigrants live alone. DEMOGRAPHICS Note: Restricted to noncitizen immigrants not living alone. 23 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.17 Age and Gender Pyramids by Race and Ethnicity, 1990 Age Source: 1990 Census, full Census sample. Totals: Males 8,416,000 Females 8,613,000 Median age: Males 34.7 Females 36.9 Gender ratio: 97.7 White population (1000s) 85+ 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 <5 Totals: Males 4,005,000 Females 3,682,000 Median age: Males 25.0 Females 26.2 Gender ratio: 107.4 Hispanic population (1000s) 900 700 500 300 100 0 100 300 500 700 900 600 400 200 0 200 400 600 Totals: Males 1,325,000 Females 1,385,000 Median age: Males 29.4 Females 31.4 Gender ratio: 95.7 Asian population (1000s) 85+ 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 50% Democrat >10% more Democrat than Republican >10% more Republican than Democrat >50% Republican No plurality s Thirty of the 58 California counties are evenly split between Republicans and Democrats or have significant numbers of registrants who identify with no party. s Twenty-one of the other 28 counties are Democrat. In 15 of them, Democrats make up more than 50 percent of all registered voters. Three counties lean toward Republican, and four have a majority of registered Republican voters. s Counties leaning toward Democrat or majority Democrat, with the exception of Imperial County, are concentrated on the western part of the state near the San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento, or Los Angeles. With the exception of Orange County, the counties that lean toward or are majority Republican lie on the eastern border of the state. POLITICAL PARTICIPATION Notes: No plurality means that the proportion of voters who declined to list their party affiliation exceeded 20 percent or the difference 178 between Democrat and Republican affiliation was less than 10 percent. POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 9.10 Party Affiliation of Asians in California, 1996 Source: Institute of Governmental Studies, Statewide Database, University of California at Berkeley. >50% Democrat >10% more Democrat than Republican >10% more Republican than Democrat >50% Republican No plurality POLITICAL PARTICIPATION s Much like the overall population, Asians in 33 counties register evenly between the two main parties or claim no party affiliation. s Asians affiliate themselves with the Democratic party less than all California voters. Asian Democrats are, for the most part, clustered around the Bay Area and Sacramento. s A higher percentage of Asians affiliate themselves with the Republican party than all California voters. In eight counties Republicans are a plurality of Asian registrants, and 11 counties lean toward Republican. However, Asians in seven counties lean toward Democrat, and in another seven they are predominantly Democrats. s In the five counties with the highest percentage of Asians (San Francisco, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Alameda, and San Benito), Asian registrants were evenly distributed between the two major parties or claimed no party affiliation. Notes: No plurality means that the proportion of voters who declined to list their party affiliation exceeded 20 percent or the difference between Democrat and Republican affiliation was less than 10 percent. Asian ethnicity was determined by feeding registrants’ names, as listed on registration documents, through a surname dictionary. 179 POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 9.11 Percentage of Registered Democrats Among Hispanics in California, 1996 Source: Institute of Governmental Studies, Statewide Database, University of California at Berkeley. Less than 50% 50% to 60% 60.1% to 70% More than 70% s In all but seven California counties, over 50 percent of all Hispanic registered voters are Democrat. These seven counties are clustered in the northern and eastern region of the state. s There is no county in which Republicans are a plurality of Hispanic registered voters. Nevada and Shasta have the highest proportion of registered Republicans: 34 percent of Hispanics were registered Republican in both counties. s In 27 of the 58 California counties, Democrats accounted for over 60 percent of the Hispanic vote. In four counties (Yolo, Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey), over 70 percent of Hispanics were registered as Democrats. s In all of the six counties with the highest percentage of Hispanic residents (Los Angeles, Tulare, San Benito, Colusa, Monterey, and Fresno), over 60 percent of registrants are Democrat. POLITICAL PARTICIPATION Note: Hispanic ethnicity was determined by feeding registrants’ names, as listed on registration documents, through a surname dictionary. 180 POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 9.12 Number of Elected Officials in California by Race and Ethnicity, 1980 –1998 Number Sources: National Rosters of African American Elected Officials for 1980–84 and 1986–92; National Asian Pacific American Roster, 1980–84; National Asian Pacific American Political Almanac, 1980–84; Annual Directory of Latino Elected Officials, 1984–98. 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 African American Asian Hispanic s The past two decades have seen representation vary only slightly for African Americans; throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Californians elected between 200 and 300 African American officials. s The number of Asian elected officials has dramatically increased over the last 20 years. In 1980, Asians had the fewest elected officeholders—only 106. By 1998, the number of Asian elected officials surpassed that of African Americans, totaling 503. s Since the 1980s, Hispanic elected officials significantly outnumbered their African American and Asian counterparts and further increased their ranks. Rising from 460 in 1984, the number of Hispanics holding public office peaked in 1994 with 796, decreasing only slightly to 789 in 1998. s Nevertheless, Asians, Hispanics, and African Americans remain underrepresented in public office. In 1998, Hispanics held 10 percent, Asians 6.5 percent, and African Americans 3 percent of these positions (calculated from data cited above and California Legislature, 1998). These rates reflect only half these groups’ representation in the adult population (Chart 9.1). These results, however, correspond closely with current Asian and Hispanic voting shares (Chart 9.1), although African American representation is less than half its voting population. Notes: Data on elected officials include federal, state, regional, municipal, judicial, law enforcement, and education elective offices. Differences in methodology may distort some results. POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 181 Chapter 10 Chart Titles Introduction 1.1 Four Regions of California Demographics 2.1 California’s Population by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1998 2.2 California’s Population Distribution by Race and Ethnicity, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 1998 2.3 Population of Asian Groups, 1970, 1980, and 1990 2.4 Population of Hispanic Groups, 1970, 1980, and 1990 2.5 California’s Projected Population by Race and Ethnicity, 1990–2040 2.6 California’s Projected Population Distribution by Race and Ethnicity, 1990–2040 2.7 Net Migration by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1996 2.8 Births by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1996 2.9 Distribution of Births by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1996 2.10 Total Fertility Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1998 2.11 Deaths by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1996 2.12 Life Expectancy at Birth by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender, 1998 2.13 Percentage Foreign-Born Among Asian Groups, 1970, 1980, and 1990 2.14 Percentage Foreign-Born Among Hispanic Groups, 1970, 1980, and 1990 2.15 Percentage of Noncitizens Among Asian Groups by Citizenship of Other Household Members, 1970, 1980, and 1990 2.16 Percentage of Noncitizens Among Hispanic Groups by Citizenship of Other Household Members, 1970, 1980, and 1990 2.17 Age and Gender Pyramids by Race and Ethnicity, 1990 2.18 Percentage of the Population Older Than Age 65 and Younger Than Age 18 and by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1998 2.19 Age Structure of Asian Groups, 1970, 1980, and 1990 2.20 Age Structure of Hispanic Groups, 1970, 1980, and 1990 2.21 Average Number of People per Household by Race and Ethnicity, 1969–1997 2.22 Household Structure by Race and Ethnicity, 1968, 1978, 1988, and 1998 2.23 1990 Census Undercount by Race and Ethnicity 183 CHART TITLES Geographic Distribution 3.1 Seven Regions of California 3.2 White Population in California Counties, 1970 and 1998 3.3 Hispanic Population in California Counties, 1970 and 1998 3.4 Asian Population in California Counties, 1970 and 1998 3.5 African American Population in California Counties, 1970 and 1998 3.6 Geographic Distribution of Racial and Ethnic Groups, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 1998 3.7 Geographic Distribution of Hispanic Groups by Place of Birth, 1980 and 1990 3.8 Geographic Distribution of Asian Groups by Place of Birth, 1980 and 1990 3.9 Geographic Concentrations of Racial and Ethnic Groups, 1970–1998 3.10 Percentage of Racial and Ethnic Groups Living in Central Cities, 1970–1998 3.11 Migration Patterns of Racial and Ethnic Groups, 1985–1990 3.12 Geographic Distribution in 1980 and the Destination in 1990 for Out-of-State Migrants by Race and Ethnicity 3.13 Destination and Origin of Out-of-State Migrants by Race and Ethnicity, 1985–1990 Educational Outcomes 4.1 Education of Mothers of Children Born in 1989 and 1997 by Race and Ethnicity 4.2 Education of Asian Mothers of Children Born in 1989 and 1997 4.3 Education of Hispanic Mothers of Children Born in 1989 and 1997 4.4 English Language Ability of Asians Age 5 and Over, 1990 4.5 English Language Ability of Hispanics Age 5 and Over, 1990 4.6 Preschool Activities of Children Age 3 and 4 by Race and Ethnicity, 1995–1997 4.7 Reading Proficiency for Grade 4 and Grade 8 Public School Students by Race and Ethnicity, 1998 4.8 Math Proficiency for Grade 4 and Grade 8 Public School Students by Race and Ethnicity, 1996 4.9 School Quality as Measured by Student Math Scores, 1998 4.10 High School Completion Rates of Adults Age 25 to 29 by Race and Ethnicity, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 1997 4.11 High School Completion Rates of Asians Age 25 to 29 by Place of Birth, 1980 and 1990 4.12 High School Completion Rates of Hispanics Age 25 to 29 by Place of Birth, 1980 and 1990 4.13 College Completion Rates of Adults Age 25 to 29 by Race and Ethnicity, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 1997 4.14 College Completion Rates of Asians Age 25 to 29 by Place of Birth, 1980 and 1990 4.15 College Completion Rates of Hispanics Age 25 to 29 by Place of Birth, 1980 and 1990 4.16 Educational Attainment of Adults Age 25 to 54 by Race and Ethnicity, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 1997 4.17 Educational Attainment of Asians Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth, 1980 and 1990 184 CHART TITLES 4.18 Educational Attainment of Hispanics Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth, 1980 and 1990 4.19 High School Completion Rates by Region for Adults Age 25 to 54 by Race and Ethnicity, 1990 4.20 Basic Literary and Quantitative Skills of People Age 16 and Over by Race and Ethnicity, 1992 Health Outcomes 5.1 Percentage of Adults with Health Insurance by Race and Ethnicity, 1989–1997 5.2 Percentage of Children Insured by Medi-Cal or Medicare by Race and Ethnicity, 1989–1997 5.3 Percentage of Mothers with Adequate Prenatal Care by Race and Ethnicity, 1989–1997 5.4 Percentage of Asian Mothers with Adequate Prenatal Care by Place of Birth, 1997 5.5 Percentage of Hispanic Mothers with Adequate Prenatal Care by Place of Birth, 1997 5.6 Percentage of Mothers with Adequate Prenatal Care by Race, Ethnicity, and Region, 1997 5.7 Percentage of Children Up to Date on Vaccinations at Age 2 by Race and Ethnicity, 1991–1998 5.8 Percentage of Adults Who Are Current Smokers by Race and Ethnicity, 1990, 1992, 1993, and 1996 5.9 Percentage of Births That Are Low Birthweight by Race and Ethnicity, 1982–1997 5.10 Percentage of Asian Births That Are Low Birthweight by Mother’s Place of Birth, 1997 5.11 Percentage of Hispanic Births That Are Low Birthweight by Mother’s Place of Birth, 1997 5.12 Rates of Use of Local Mental Health Programs by Race and Ethnicity, 1989–1990 5.13 Communicable Disease Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 1994 and 1995 5.14 AIDS Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 1981–1996 5.15 Age-Adjusted Infant Death Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 1985–1994 5.16 Death Rates for Persons Age 25 to 34 by Race, Ethnicity, and Cause, 1996 5.17 Death Rates for Persons Age 55 to 64 by Race, Ethnicity, and Cause, 1996 Labor Market Outcomes 6.1 Labor Force Participation Rates of Persons Age 25 to 54 by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender, 1979–1997 6.2 Labor Force Participation Rates of Asians Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth and Gender, 1980 and 1990 6.3 Labor Force Participation Rates of Hispanics Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth and Gender, 1980 and 1990 6.4 Unemployment Rates of Persons Age 25 to 54 by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender, 1979–1997 6.5 Unemployment Rates of Asians Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth and Gender, 1980 and 1990 6.6 Unemployment Rates of Hispanics Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth and Gender, 1980 and 1990 6.7 Unemployment Rates of Persons Age 25 to 54 by Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Region, 1990 6.8 Activities of Young Adults Age 16 to 24 by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender, 1980, 1990, and 1997 6.9 Activities of Young Adult Asians Age 16 to 24 by Place of Birth and Gender, 1980 and 1990 CHART TITLES 185 6.10 Activities of Young Adult Hispanics Age 16 to 24 by Place of Birth and Gender, 1980 and 1990 6.11 Median Weekly Earnings of Male Full-Time Workers Age 25 to 54 by Race and Ethnicity, 1979–1997 6.12 Median Weekly Earnings of Asian Male Full-Time Workers Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth, 1979 and 1989 6.13 Median Weekly Earnings of Hispanic Male Full-Time Workers Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth, 1979 and 1989 6.14 Median Weekly Earnings of Female Full-Time Workers Age 25 to 54 by Race and Ethnicity, 1979–1997 6.15 Median Weekly Earnings of Asian Female Full-Time Workers Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth, 1979 and 1989 6.16 Median Weekly Earnings of Hispanic Female Full-Time Workers Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth, 1979 and 1989 6.17 Median Earnings for Male High School and College Graduates Age 25 to 54 by Race and Ethnicity, 1989 6.18 Median Earnings for Asian Male High School and College Graduates Age 25 to 54 by Race, Ethnicity, and Place of Birth, 1989 6.19 Median Earnings for Hispanic Male High School and College Graduates Age 25 to 54 by Race, Ethnicity, and Place of Birth, 1989 6.20 Median Earnings for Female High School and College Graduates Age 25 to 54 by Race and Ethnicity, 1989 6.21 Median Earnings for Asian Female High School and College Graduates Age 25 to 54 by Race, Ethnicity, and Place of Birth, 1989 6.22 Median Earnings for Hispanic Female High School and College Graduates Age 25 to 54 by Race, Ethnicity, and Place of Birth, 1989 6.23 Occupations of Employed Men Age 25 to 54 by Race and Ethnicity 6.24 Occupations of Employed Asian Men Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth, 1989 6.25 Occupations of Employed Hispanic Men Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth, 1989 6.26 Occupations of Employed Women Age 25 to 54 by Race and Ethnicity 6.27 Occupations of Employed Asian Women Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth, 1989 6.28 Occupations of Employed Hispanic Women Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth, 1989 Economic Outcomes 7.1 Median Family Income by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1997 7.2 Median Family Income for Hispanics by Place of Birth, 1969, 1979, and 1989 7.3 Median Family Income for Asians by Place of Birth, 1969, 1979, and 1989 7.4 Percentage Who Own Stocks, Mutual Funds, Retirement Accounts, or Savings Accounts by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1997 186 CHART TITLES 7.5 Home Ownership Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 1970, 1980, and 1990 7.6 Home Ownership Rates for Hispanics by Place of Birth, 1970, 1980, and 1990 7.7 Home Ownership Rates for Asians by Place of Birth, 1970, 1980, and 1990 7.8 Levels of Overcrowding by Race and Ethnicity of the Household Head, 1970, 1980, and 1990 7.9 Levels of Overcrowding in Households Headed by Asians by Place of Birth, 1970, 1980, and 1990 7.10 Levels of Overcrowding in Households Headed by Hispanics by Place of Birth, 1970, 1980, and 1990 7.11 Distribution of Personal Income of Men Older Than Age 24 by Race and Ethnicity, 1969, 1979, and 1989 7.12 Top and Bottom 10 Percent of the Income Distribution of Men Older Than Age 24 by Race and Ethnicity, 1989 7.13 Distribution of Personal Income of Hispanic Adults Older Than Age 24 by Place of Birth, 1969 and 1989 7.14 Distribution of Personal Income of Asian Adults Older Than Age 24 by Place of Birth, 1969 and 1989 7.15 Poverty Rates for All Californians by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1997 7.16 Poverty Rates for Hispanics by Place of Birth, 1969, 1979, and 1989 7.17 Poverty Rates for Asians by Place of Birth, 1969, 1979, and 1989 7.18 Child Poverty Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1997 7.19 Child Poverty Rates by Race, Ethnicity, and Region, 1989 7.20 Percentage of Households Receiving Public Assistance by Race and Ethnicity, 1969, 1979, and 1989 7.21 Percentage of Households Receiving Public Assistance by Race and Ethnicity of Household Head, 1987–1997 7.22 Percentage of Hispanic Households Receiving Public Assistance by Place of Birth, 1969, 1979, and 1989 7.23 Percentage of Asian Households Receiving Public Assistance by Place of Birth, 1969, 1979, and 1989 Crime and Criminal Justice 8.1 Felony Arrest Rates for Adults by Race and Ethnicity, 1980, 1990, and 1998 8.2 Felony Arrest Rates for Juveniles by Race and Ethnicity, 1980, 1990, and 1998 8.3 Felony Arrest Rates for Participating in Street Gangs by Race and Ethnicity, 1998 8.4 Felony Narcotics Arrests by Race and Ethnicity, 1998 8.5 Distribution of Men Newly Admitted to California Prisons by Race and Ethnicity, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 1998 8.6 Distribution of Women Newly Admitted to California Prisons by Race and Ethnicity, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 1998 CHART TITLES 187 8.7 California Prison Incarceration Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 1998 8.8 Three-Strikes Inmates in California Prisons by Race and Ethnicity, 1999 8.9 Distribution of California Youth Authority First Admissions by Race and Ethnicity, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 1998 8.10 California Youth Authority Admissions Compared to the Youth Population by Race and Ethnicity, 1998 8.11 Homicide Rates by Race and Ethnicity of Victim, 1988 and 1997 8.12 Juvenile Homicide Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 1997 8.13 Types of Homicides by Race and Ethnicity, 1997 8.14 Percentage of Homicide Victims Who Are Women and Youth by Race and Ethnicity, 1997 8.15 Percentage Disagreeing That Courts Are Fair to All People by Race and Ethnicity, 1993 8.16 Race and Ethnicity of California Superior Court Judges, 1993 Political Participation 9.1 California’s Adult and Voter Populations by Race and Ethnicity, 1996 9.2 California’s Eligible, Registered, and Voting Populaton by Race and Ethnicity, 1996 9.3 Registration Shares of the Population Eligible to Vote by Race and Ethnicity, 1972–1996 9.4 Voter Shares of the Population Eligible to Vote by Race and Ethnicity, 1972–1996 9.5 Voter Participation in California by Race, Ethnicity, and Place of Birth, 1996 9.6 Voter Participation in California by Race, Ethnicity, and Educational Attainment, 1996 9.7 Voter Participation in California by Race, Ethnicity, and Age, 1996 9.8 Party Affiliation of Hispanics, Asians, and Others, 1996 9.9 Party Affiliation of Californians, 1996 9.10 Party Affiliation of Asians in California, 1996 9.11 Percentage of Registered Democrats Among Hispanics in California, 1996 9.12 Number of Elected Officials in California by Race and Ethnicity, 1980–1998 188 CHART TITLES Appendix Additional Sources of Information Demographics U.S. Bureau of the Census (http://www.census.gov). Census data and publications on population characteristics (http://www.census.gov/prod/www/titles.html#pop). Census data and publications on race (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race.html). Census data and publications on Hispanic origin (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hispanic.html). California Department of Finance Race/Ethnic Population Estimates 1970–1990 (http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/Demograp/Eth70-90.htm). California Department of Finance Race/Ethnic Population Estimates 1990–1997 (http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/Demograp/Race-eth.htm). California Department of Finance County Population Projections with Race/Ethnic Detail Estimated July 1, 1990–1996, and Projections for 1997 Through 2040 (http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/Demograp/Proj_race.htm). Geographic Distribution MapStat, Fed Stat (http://www.fedstats.gov/mapstats/06a.html). California State Association of Counties (http://csac.counties.org). Educational Outcomes California Department of Education (http://goldmine.cde.ca.gov). California Department of Education (http://www.cde.ca.gov/demographics/reports). National Center for Education Statistics (http://nces.ed.gov). U.S. Department of Education (http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs98/condition98). U.S. Department of Education (http://www.nces.ed.gov/spider). U.S. Department of Education (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard). Brookings Institution, Brown Center on Educational Policy (http://www.brookings.org/gs/brown/brown_hp.htm). 189 ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION Urban Institute, Education Policy Center (http://www.urban.org/centers/epc.html). The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning (http://www.cftl.org). Health Outcomes National Center for Health Statistics (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs). Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/hid/index.htm). California Department of Health Services (http://www.dhs.cahwnet.gov). California Office of Multicultural Health (http://www.dhs.cahwnet.gov/director/omh). California County Health Status Profiles, 2000 (http://www.dhs.ca.gov/hisp/chs/phweek/cprofile2000/profile2000.htm). Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov). California Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board (http://www.mrmib.ca.gov). California HealthLine, a publication of the California HealthCare Foundation (http://www.chcf.org). U.S. Initiative to Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health (http://raceandhealth.hhs.gov). Minority Health Resources, listed by the UC Berkeley Library (http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/PUBL/minority.html). Tobacco Use Research at the Cancer Prevention and Control Program, University of California at San Diego (http://ssdc.ucsd.edu/tobacco). California Health Care Fact Book, from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/factbook.pdf). Labor Market Outcomes California Employment Development Department (http://www.edd.cahwnet.gov). California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (http://www.dfeh.ca.gov). California Department of Industrial Relations (http://www.dir.ca.gov). Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://stats.bls.gov). Current Population Survey (http://stats.bls.gov/cpshome.htm). Monthly Labor Review (http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/mlrhome.htm). U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://stats.bls.gov/cpshome.htm). California Department of Finance (http://www.dof.ca.gov). California Department of Finance, Statistical Abstract (http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/fs_data/stat-abs/sa_home.htm). 190 ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION Economic Outcomes Department of Housing and Community Development (http://housing.hcd.ca.gov). Office of Small and Minority Businesses, California Department of General Services (http://www.osmb.dgs.ca.gov). Housing and Urban Development Publications (http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdrpubli.html). Crime and Criminal Justice California State and Local Government (http://lcweb.loc.gov/global/state/ca-gov.html). State of California, Office of the Attorney General, Criminal Justice Statistics Center (http://caag.state.ca.us/cjsc). California Department of Corrections, Data Analysis Unit, Offender Information Services Branch (http://www.cdc.state.ca.us). California Department of the Youth Authority, Ward Information and Parole Research Bureau (http://www.cya.ca.gov). California Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics (http://www.dhs.ca.gov). Political Participation California Government Home Page (http://www.ca.gov). California Governor Gray Davis (http://www.governor.ca.gov). California State Assembly (http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/default.asp). California State Senate (http://www.senate.ca.gov). California Secretary of State (http://www.ss.ca.gov). California State Office of Research (http://www.sen.ca.gov/sor). California State Assembly Republican Caucus (http://republican.assembly.ca.gov/index.asp). California State Assembly Democratic Caucus (http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/english/index.htm). State and Local Governments (http://lcweb.loc.gov/global/state/stategov.html). Fed World, National Technical Information Service (http://www.fedworld.gov). United States Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov). U.S. House of Representatives (http://www.house.gov). The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov). Statewide Database, University of California at Berkeley, Institute of Governmental Studies (http://swdb.berkeley.edu). 191 ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION California Legislative African American Caucus (http://www.sen.ca.gov/lbc). Latino Legislative Caucus (http://www.assembly.ca.gov/latinocaucus). National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) (http://www.naleo.org). Tomás Rivera Center (http://latino.sscnet.ucla.edu/research/tomas.html). General Sources Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) (http://www.maldef.org). Russell Sage Publications on Immigration and Ethnic Studies (http://www.russellsage.org/publications/subjects_immig.htm). Urban Institute’s Publications on Civil Rights and Affirmative Action (http://www.urban.org/combuilding.htm#civil rights). Urban Institute’s Publications on Community Building (http://www.urban.org/combuilding.htm#combuilding). Urban Institute’s Publications on Housing and Discrimination (http://www.urban.org/combuilding.htm#housing). Urban Institute’s Publications on Immigration (http://www.urban.org/socwelfare.htm#immigration). California Policy Research Center Latino Policy Research Program (http://www.ucop.edu/cprc/#LATINO). Latino Issues Forum (http://www.lif.org). Legislative Analyst’s Office (http://www.lao.ca.gov). Library of Congress (http://lcweb.loc.gov). UC Berkeley Library provides access to the Subject Summary Tapes files for the Hispanic Population, the Asian/Pacific Islander Population, the Foreign-Born Population, and the population by reported ancestry (http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/GovData/info). 192 ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION Bibliography African American Elected Officials: A National Roster, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies Press, Washington, D.C., 1986–1992. Arteaga, Luis M., Chione Flagel, and Guillermo Rodriguez, The Latino Vote, 1998: The New Margin of Victory, Latino Issues Forum, San Francisco, California, 1998. Baldassare, Mark, California in the New Millennium: The Changing Social and Political Landscape, University of California Press and the Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, 2000. Ballator, N., and L. Jerry, The NAEP 1998 Reading State Report for California, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 1999-460 CA, Washington, D.C., 1999. Betts, Julian R., Kim S. Rueben, and Anne Danenberg, Equal Resources, Equal Outcomes? The Distribution of School Resources and Student Achievement in California, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2000. Bishop, Donna M., and Charles E. Frazier, “Race Effects in Juvenile Justice Decision-Making: Findings of a Statewide Analysis,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 86, No. 2, 1996. Bouvier, Leon F., and Philip Martin, Population Change and California’s Future, Population Reference Bureau, Washington, D.C., 1985. California Department of Corrections, California Prisoners and Parolees, 1995–96, Sacramento, California, 1998. California Department of Corrections, CDC Fact Sheet, Sacramento, California, August 1, 1999. California Department of Corrections, Data Analysis Unit, Offender Information Services Branch, Institution Population, by Sex, December 31, 1978–December 31, 1998. California Department of Corrections, Data Analysis Unit, Offender Information Services Branch, Racial and Ethnic Groups, Felon New Admissions, 1993 and 1998. California Department of Corrections, Data Analysis Unit, Offender Information Services Branch, Three-Strikes Cases by Offense and Ethnic Group, December 31, 1999. California Department of Education, California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS), 1998. California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population Estimates: Components of Change for California Counties, April 1990–July 1997, Sacramento, California, June 1999. BIBLIOGRAPHY 193 California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population Projections: Components of Change for California Counties, July 1970–July 1998, Sacramento, California, July 1999. California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1970–2040, Sacramento, California, December 1998. California Department of Finance, Unpublished Tables on Fertility and Life Expectancy, 1999 California Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics, Department of Vital Statistics, Birth Public Use Tape, 1989–1997. California Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics, Juvenile Homicide Death Data, unpublished data, 1999. California Department of Health Services, Division of Communicable Disease Control, Communicable Diseases in California, 1994, 1995, 1997. California Department of Health Services, Epidemiological Studies Section, AIDS Among Racial/Ethnic Groups in California, 1998 Edition, February 1999. California Department of Health Services, Immunization Branch, Annual Kindergarten Retrospective Survey. California Department of Health Services, Vital Records Division, Vital Statistics of California, Birth Public Use Tape, 1989–1997. California Department of Health Services, Vital Records Division, Vital Statistics of California, Birth Statistical Master File, 1982–1988. California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Ethnic Distribution of Arrests for Participating in Street Gangs, 1999. California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Adult and Juvenile Arrests Reported, Race-Ethnic Group by Specific Offense, various years. California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Homicide in California, 1997. California Department of Mental Health, Health and Welfare Agency, Use of Mental Health Services, 1989–1990. California Journal, “The Latino Century: Will Latinos Be the Dominant Force of California Politics?” Vol. 21, No. 1, January 2000. California Judicial Council, Advisory Committee on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts, Fairness in the California State Courts: A Survey of the Public, Attorneys, and Court Personnel, 1994. California Judicial Council, Advisory Committee on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts, Fairness in the California State Courts: A Survey of the Public, Attorneys, and Court Personnel, Final Report, 1997. 194 BIBLIOGRAPHY California Legislature, Joint Committee on Legal Equality, California Roster 1998, California Secretary of State, 1998. California Legislature, The Challenge: Latinos in a Changing California, Report of the University of California SCR 43 Task Force in Response to Senate Concurrent Resolution 43 Introduced by Senator Robert Presley, 36th Senatorial District. California Youth Authority, Ward Information and Parole Research Bureau, unpublished data, 1999. Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Young African Americans and the Criminal Justice System in California: Five Years Later, San Francisco, California, 1996a. Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, From Classrooms to Cellblocks: How Prison Building Affects Higher Education and African American Enrollment, San Francisco, California, 1996b. Cho, Wendy K. Tam, “Naturalization, Socialization, Participation: Immigrants and (Non-)Voting,” Journal of Politics, Vol. 61 No. 4, November 1999, p. 1140. Clark, William A.V., The California Cauldron: Immigration and the Fortunes of Local Communities, Guilford Press, New York, 1998. Coleman, J. S., E. Campbell, A. Mood, E. Weinfeld, D. Hobson, R. York, and J. McPartland, Equality of Educational Opportunity, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1966. Conway, M. Margaret, Political Participation in the United States, Congressional Quarterly Inc., Washington, D.C., 1991. Currie, Elliott, “Race, Violence, and Justice Since Kerner,” in Fred R. Harris and Lynn A. Curtis, eds., Locked in the Poorhouse: Cities, Race, and Poverty in the United States, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland, 1998. Currie, Janet, and Duncan Thomas, “Does Head Start Make a Difference?” American Economic Review, Vol. 85, No. 3, 1995, pp. 341–364. Currie, Janet, and Duncan Thomas, “School Quality and the Longer-Term Effects of Head Start,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 6362, 1998. Erie, Steven P., Harold Brackman, and James Warren Ingram III, Path to Political Incorporation for Latinos and Asian Pacifics in California, California Policy Seminar, Research Report, University of California at Berkeley, 1993. Gey, Fredric, J. Eric Oliver, Benjamin Highton, Darwin Tu, and Raymond E. Wolfinger, California Latina/Latino Demographic Data Book, California Policy Seminar, Research Report, University of California at Berkeley, 1993. 195 BIBLIOGRAPHY Gibson, Cambell, and Emily Lennon, Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-Born Population of the United States: 1850 to 1990, Population Division Working Paper No. 29, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., 1999. Guendelman, Sylvia, and Barbara Abrams, “Dietary Intake Among Mexican-American Women: Generational Differences and a Comparison with White Non-Hispanic Women,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 85, No. 1, 1995, pp. 20–25. Guendelman, Sylvia, Gilberto Chavez, and Roberta Christianson, “Fetal Deaths in Mexican-American, African American and White Non-Hispanic Women Seeking Government-Funded Prenatal Care,” Journal of Community Health, Vol. 19, No. 5, 1994, pp. 319–330. Guendelman, Sylvia, Paul English, and Gilberto Chavez, “Infants of Mexican Immigrants: Health Status of an Emerging Population,” Medical Care, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1995, pp. 41–52. Hayes-Bautista, Aida Hurtado, Robert Burciaga Valdez, and Anthony C.R. Hernandez, No Longer a Minority: Latinos and Social Policy in California, UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center, University of California at Los Angeles, 1992. Huo, Yuen J., and Tom R. Tyler, How Different Ethnic Groups React to Authority, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2000. Institute of Governmental Studies, Statewide Database, University of California at Berkeley, 1996. Jackson, Bryan O., and Michael B. Preston, Racial and Ethnic Politics in California, IGS Press, Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California at Berkeley, 1991. Jaynes, Gerald David, and Robin M. Williams, Jr., A Common Destiny: African Americans and American Society, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989. Johnson, Hans P., and Sonya M. Tafoya, The Basic Skills of Welfare Recipients: Implications for Welfare Reform, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 1999. Kayden, Xandra, California Policy Options 1997, UCLA Policy Forum and UCLA Business Forecasting Project, School of Public Policy and Social Research, University of California at Los Angeles, 1998. Kotelchuck, M., “An Evaluation of the Kessner Adequacy of Prenatal Care Index and a Proposed Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilization Index,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 84, 1994, pp. 1414–1420. Lopez, Elias, Enrique Ramirez, and Refugio Rochin, Latinos and Economic Development in California, California Research Bureau, California State Library, Sacramento, California, 1999. Lopez, Elias, Ginny Puddefoot, and Patricia Gandara, A Coordinated Approach to Raising the Socio-Economic Status of Latinos in California, California Research Bureau, California State Library, Sacramento, California, 2000. 196 BIBLIOGRAPHY Manski, C., G. Sandefeur, S. McLanahan, and D. Powers, “Alternative Estimates of the Effects of Family Structure During Childhood on High School Graduation,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 87, 1992, pp. 25–37. Milbrath, Lester W., and Madan Lal Goel, Political Participation: How and Why Do People Get Involved in Politics? 2nd ed., Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1977. National Asian Pacific American Political Almanac, 1988–99, 8th ed., UCLA Asian American Studies Center, Los Angeles, California, 1998–99. National Asian Pacific American Political Almanac, 7th ed., UCLA Asian American Studies Center, Los Angeles, California, 1996–98. National Asian Pacific American Roster, UCLA Asian American Studies Center, Los Angeles, California, 1980–84. National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund, Annual Directory of Latino Elected Officials, Los Angeles, California, 1984–1998. National Rosters of African American Elected Officials, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies Press, Washington, D.C., 1980–1984. Niemi, Richard G., and Herbert F. Weisberg, Controversies in American Voting Behavior, CQ Press, Washington, D.C., 1993. Oliver, J. Eric, Fredric Gey, Jon Stiles, and Henry Brady, Pacific Rim States Asian Demographic Databook, Pacific Rim Research Program, University of California at Berkeley, 1995. Ortiz, Vilma, Stephen Trejo, Christian Zlolniski, and Juan-Vicente Palerm, New Research on Latino Workers in the California Economy: The Disadvantaged Labor-Force Position of Latino Immigrants; Obstacles to LaborMarket Progress of Mexican-Origin Workers; Working-Poor Mexican Immigrant Workers in San Jose, Brief, Vol. 8, No. 9, 1996. Passel, Jeffrey S., and Rebecca L. Clark, “How Many Naturalized Citizens Are There? An Assessment of Data Quality in the Decennial Census and CPS,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Washington, D.C. March 1997. Pierce, J. P., E. A. Gilpin, S. L. Emery, et al., Tobacco Control in California: Who’s Winning the War? An Evaluation of the Tobacco Control Program, 1989–1996, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California, 1998. Population Reference Bureau, World Population Data Sheet, Washington, D.C., 1998. Reed, Deborah, California’s Rising Income Inequality: Causes and Concerns, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 1999. 197 BIBLIOGRAPHY Reese, C. M., L. Jerry, and N. Ballator, The NAEP 1996 Mathematics State Report for California, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, D.C., 1997. Regalado, James, Minority Political Empowerment: The Changing Face of California? The Edmund G. “Pat” Brown Institute of Public Affairs, California States University, Los Angeles, 1991. Rodriguez, Gregory, The Emerging Latino Middle Class, Institute for Public Policy, School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University, Malibu, California, 1998. Rosenstone, Steven J., and John Mark Hansen, Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1993. Rumbaut, Ruben G., The New Californians: Assessing the Educational Progress of Children of Immigrants, CPS Brief Series, 1996. Schauffler, Helen, and E. Richard Brown, The State of Health Insurance in California, 1999, University of California at Berkeley, 2000. Schmidley, A. Dianne, and Gregory Robinson, How Well Does the Current Population Survey Measure the Foreign-Born Population in the United States? U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., 1988. Schmidley, A. Dianne, and Gibson Cambel, Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 1997, Current Population Report Series, Series P-23, Special Studies, Vol. 64, No. 195, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., August 1999. Schmidt, Ronald, “The Political Incorporation of Immigrants in California: An Institutional Assessment,” California Politics and Policy, 1996, pp. 1–19. Stiles, Jon, Jonathan Cohen, Zachary Elkins, and Frederic Gey, California Latino Demographic Databook, California Policy Seminar, University of California at Berkeley, 1998. Tafoya, Sonya M., “Check One or More . . .Mixed Race and Ethnicity in California, California Counts: Population Trends and Profiles, Vol. 1, No. 2, January 2000. Thernstrom, Stephan, and Abigail Thernstrom, America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1997. Tonry, Michael, Malign Neglect, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates for States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, June 1998. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates for States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, July 1, 1998. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates for States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, 1999. 198 BIBLIOGRAPHY U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990, Census of the Population and Housing Public Law 94-171 Data (Official and Adjusted) Age by Race and Hispanic Origin. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990 Census of Population: General Population Characteristics. U.S. Department of Education, National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), 1992. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Statistics to 2008, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 1996 Mathematics Report Card for the Nation and the States, Washington, D.C., 1996. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 1998 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States, Washington, D.C., 1998. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education 1998, Washington, D.C., 1998. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, Washington, D.C. Verba, Sidney, and Norman H. Nie, Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality, Harper and Row, New York, 1972. Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady, Voice and Equality, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995. Wolfinger, Raymond, and Steven J. Rosenstone, Who Votes? Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 1980. Wordes, Madeline, Timothy S. Bynum, and Charles J. Corley, “Locking Up Youth: The Impact of Race on Detention Decisions,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 31, No. 2, 1994. World Bank, World Development Report, Washington, D.C., 1993. Yanez-Chavez, Anibal, Latino Politics in California, Center for U.S.-Mexico Studies, University of California at San Diego, 1996. 199 BIBLIOGRAPHY BOARD OF DIRECTORS R AY M O N D L . W AT S O N, C H A I R Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ Partner Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP DA VI D A . C O U LT E R Vice Chairman Chase Manhattan Corporation ED WAR D K . HAMILTON Chairman Hamilton,Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. WALT E R B. HEWLETT Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities DAVID W. LYON President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California CHERYL WHITE MASON Partner O’Melveny & Myers ARJAY MI LLE R Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University KI SUH PARK Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates A. ALAN POST Former State Legislative Analyst State of California CYNTHIA A. TELLES Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine HAROLD M. WILLIAMS President Emeritus The J. Paul Getty Trust and Of Counsel Skadden,Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP ADVISORY COUNCIL JOEL FOX Joel Fox Consulting C L I F F O R D W. G R AV E S Director of Planning & Physical Development University of California, Merced ELIZABETH G. HILL Legislative Analyst State of California RUDOLF NOTHENBERG Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco H A R RY P. PAC H O N President The Tomás Rivera Policy Institute M A N U E L PA S TO R Professor of Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz CONSTANCE L. RICE Co-Director The Advancement Project PETER SCHRAG Contributing Editor Sacramento Bee J A M E S P. S M I T H Senior Economist RAND CAROL WHITESIDE President Great Valley Center California’s racial and ethnic composition has changed dramatically over the last generation; so dramatically, in fact, that many businesses, public interest groups, media professionals, and policymakers lack current, reliable information about the state’s population. In this volume, Belinda Reyes and a team of researchers provide that information along with a useful description of how the state’s major racial and ethnic groups are faring economically, socially, and politically. Drawing on data compiled between 1970 and the present, the authors examine trends and outcomes in demography, education, health, labor, economic status, crime, political participation,and ethnic geography. Each chapter presents key indicators of well-being for the four major racial and ethnic groups: whites, Hispanics, Asians, and African Americans. Where possible, the authors also present trends and outcomes for major Asian and Hispanic subgroups. In general, all four groups have experienced improvements in health, education, and crime rates over the last 30 years. However, many disparities have persisted or even widened during this time. These disparities form a clear pattern across the major indicators of economic, social, and political well-being. About the editor: Belinda Reyes is a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, where she studies immigration and the economic progress of immigrants and their families. She holds a Ph.D. in economics from the University of California, Berkeley." } ["___content":protected]=> string(102) "

R 201BRR

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(89) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/a-portrait-of-race-and-ethnicity-in-california/r_201brr/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8087) ["ID"]=> int(8087) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:34:48" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(3176) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(8) "R 201BRR" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(8) "r_201brr" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "R_201BRR.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "1048780" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(103644) "Public Policy Institute of California A Portrait of Race and Ethnicity in California An Assessment of Social and Economic Well-Being Belinda I. Reyes, Editor Jennifer Cheng, Elliot Currie, Daniel Frakes, Hans P. Johnson, Elizabeth Bronwen Macro, Deborah Reed, Belinda I. Reyes, José Signoret, and Joanne Spetz, contributors The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens—William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller—recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291–4400 Fax: (415) 291–4401 Internet: info@ppic.org www.ppic.org A Portrait of Race and Ethnicity in California An Assessment of Social and Economic Well-Being Belinda I. Reyes, Editor Public Policy Institute of California Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A portrait of race and ethnicity in California : an assessment of social and economic well-being / Belinda I. Reyes, editor ; Jennifer Cheng ... [et al.], contributors. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. ). ISBN 1-58213-054-X 1. California—Race relations—Statistics. 2. California—Ethnic relations—Statistics. 3. Minorities— California—Social conditions—Statistics. 4. Minorities—California—Economic conditions—Statistics. I. Reyes, Belinda I., 1965– II.Cheng, Jennifer, 1975– III. Public Policy Institute of California. F870.A1 P67 2001 305.8'009794—dc21 00-055372 Copyright © 2001 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. List of Contributors Jennifer Cheng, Educational Outcomes and Labor Market Outcomes Berkeley Policy Associates Elliot Currie, Crime and Criminal Justice Legal Studies Program, University of California, Berkeley Daniel Frakes, Geographic Distribution Berkeley Policy Associates Hans P. Johnson, Demographics Public Policy Institute of California Elizabeth Bronwen Macro, Political Participation Berkeley Policy Associates Deborah Reed, Educational Outcomes and Labor Market Outcomes Public Policy Institute of California Belinda I. Reyes, Geographic Distribution, Economic Outcomes, and Political Participation Public Policy Institute of California José Signoret, Political Participation Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley Joanne Spetz, Health Outcomes Public Policy Institute of California iii Foreword In 1999, a team of PPIC research fellows led by Belinda I. Reyes began preparing a demographic portrait of California with special attention to the social and economic well-being of its major racial and ethnic groups. This volume is the result of that effort. It depicts an increasingly diverse California whose residents have experienced broad though uneven progress in health, educational attainment, crime reduction, and political participation. The volume’s impressive scope and consistent format allow its readers to follow both the progress of—and persistent inequalities among—California’s racial and ethnic groups in these and other areas. Its clear, graphic, and colorful presentation will serve the state’s business, policy, media, and scholarly communities equally well. This volume would not have been possible without the expertise developed by PPIC research fellows over the institution’s first six years. Dozens of databases, substantial computer capability, and a good deal of knowledge-sharing were required to compile the data and complete the portrait in less than a year and a half. PPIC’s goal has been to replace clichés and caricatures with reliable information about the state’s population and policies. This useful reference volume is a notable example of that effort. David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California v Summary This book documents differences in socioeconomic status by racial and ethnic groups and explores how patterns have changed over time. The data in this compendium will provide us with a benchmark for evaluating the socioeconomic status of racial and ethnic groups in the future and point us to the most important issues facing them. This book is meant to be a resource for policymakers, the media, and the general public. For the most part, the charts show averages or medians of particular indicators of well-being. A comprehensive examination of the explanations for the trends is beyond the scope of our work. Using a combination of datasets, we examine the following topics: demographics, geographic distribution, education, health outcomes, labor market outcomes, economic status, crime, and political participation. Each chapter presents key indicators of well-being for the four major racial and ethnic groups: white non-Hispanics, African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics. Where possible, we also present trends and outcomes for major Asian and Hispanic subgroups: Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Indian Asian, Southeast Asian, Mexican, Cuban/Dominican/Puerto Rican, and Central and South American. In general, there have been improvements in health, education, crime rates, and political outcomes for all racial and ethnic groups in California over the last 30 years. But disparities between groups have persisted and in some cases even widened. African Americans and Hispanics are especially at a disadvantage along many dimensions, as are Southeast Asians. In the following pages we describe the most important findings in each chapter. Demography Most of California’s population growth in the past few decades has occurred among the Hispanic and Asian populations of the state. As recently as 1970, almost 80 percent of the state’s residents were white non-Hispanics. By 1998, only 52 percent of the state’s residents were white non-Hispanics, Hispanics accounted for 30 percent of the state’s population, Asians for 11 percent, and African Americans for 7 percent. Projections for the future suggest that strong growth among California’s Hispanic and Asian populations will continue in the 21st century. The California Department of Finance projects that shortly after the turn of the century, no racial or ethnic group will constitute a majority of the state’s population, and that by 2025 Hispanics will represent the largest ethnic group in the state. Geographic Distribution Most counties of the state were predominantly white in 1970. However, between 1970 and 1998, the share of whites declined in all but one county (Sierra County). Whites were over 70 percent of the population of 54 of the 58 counties in 1970. More than 85 percent of the population of the Northern and Mountain counties was white. By 1998, only 28 counties had a population that was over 70 percent white. vii A large proportion of the California population resides in the southern part of the state—in Los Angeles or in the rest of Southern California—and in this region whites constituted half or less of the population. All groups became more dispersed in the last 30 years. By 1998, whites were the least geographically concentrated racial and ethnic group and African Americans the most concentrated. Education The main educational finding is that, by and large, Hispanics fare worse than any other group. The low educational attainment of Hispanic adults is not simply a result of recent immigration. U.S.-born Hispanics, particularly those of Mexican descent, have consistently lower high school and college completion rates than do African Americans, Asians, or whites. After Hispanics, African Americans are the next lowest-achieving group. The education gap between African Americans and whites has diminished over the last 30 years, so that high school completion rates of young African Americans are similar to those of whites. However, college completion rates remain much lower for African Americans than for whites. Health In terms of health outcomes, African Americans fare worse than other racial and ethnic groups, both nationally and in California. Hispanics often have less access to health care and lower health status than whites, whereas health indicators for Asians are similar to—and sometimes better than—those for whites. These broad generalizations about the health of Hispanics and Asians do not highlight important differences in the health of different Hispanic and Asian subgroups. Although people of Japanese, Chinese, and Korean ancestry tend to enjoy better health than whites, people of Southeast Asian and Filipino ancestry have comparatively poor health outcomes. Although Mexicans have poorer access to health services such as prenatal care, they have better birth outcomes than other Hispanic groups. Labor Market Outcomes We find that nonwhites, especially Hispanics, tend to have lower earnings than whites. Furthermore, Hispanics and African Americans have particularly high unemployment rates, and their rates of unemployment are more severely affected by economic fluctuations. Low levels of education and recent immigration contribute to low earnings. However, even when we compare U.S.-born workers from different racial and ethnic groups with similar education levels, we find that the median of earnings of white men is higher than the medians for Hispanic, Asian, and African American men. Economic Status Asian and white family incomes are substantially higher than those for African Americans and Hispanics. In 1997, Hispanics had the lowest median family income of any major racial and ethnic group. Not only was their family income lower than other groups, but Hispanics were also the only group that had a greater proportion of people at the bottom 25 percent of the income distribution in 1989 than in 1969. Lower median income and a greater proportion of the population at the bottom of the income distribution translate into higher poverty rates for Hispanics and African Americans. Also, poverty rates viii among African American, white, and Hispanic children were substantially higher in 1997 than in 1970. This is especially true for Hispanic children, for whom poverty rates were 29 percent in 1969 and 40 percent in 1997. Finally, compared to other households, a greater proportion of households headed by an African American received public assistance. However, in the mid-1990s, with the economic recovery and the passage of the welfare reform laws, public assistance use declined for all groups, especially for African Americans. By 1997, welfare use among African American households was half that of 1995. Crime There has been a dramatic shift in the ethnic distribution of those arrested and put behind bars. As in the population as a whole, the proportion of non-Hispanic whites has declined, and the proportion of Hispanic youth and adults behind bars has risen at a faster rate than has the Hispanic proportion of the general population. This shift has transformed the composition of California’s correctional system, both for youth and adults. African Americans in California continue to experience the highest risk of arrest and incarceration. African Americans are also more likely than others to be victims of violence. Along with Hispanics, African Americans are more likely to be killed than whites. They also tend to be killed in different ways and for different reasons. African American and Hispanic homicide victims are more likely to be young and male, to have been killed with a handgun, and to have been killed in a drug- or gang-related incident. White homicide victims tend to be older and more often female than their African American or Hispanic counterparts. They are also more likely to die in the course of a domestic dispute. Political Participation California’s story of political participation is complex. Whites are overrepresented in the voting population, and they register and vote at high rates. Although African Americans generally participate at slightly lower rates than whites, their share corresponds with their share of the adult population. They were 7 percent of the adult population in 1996 and 7 percent of the population who voted in that election. But African Americans have made little progress in achieving elected office over the past 20 years, and registration and voting rates declined during the 1990s. Asians and Hispanics have the lowest participation rates in California. Although a large proportion of both populations are not eligible to vote, this fact alone does not explain their underrepresentation at the polls. Low levels of education coupled with a relatively young voting population may account for the participation rates of Hispanics. However, these same factors do not easily explain the lower rates of Asian participation. Despite these low levels of political participation, Hispanics and Asians have steadily gained in winning elected office over the last two decades. ix Contents List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv Chapter 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter 2 Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Chapter 3 Geographic Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Chapter 4 Educational Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Chapter 5 Health Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Chapter 6 Labor Market Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Chapter 7 Economic Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Chapter 8 Crime and Criminal Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Chapter 9 Political Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Chapter 10 Chart Titles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Appendix Additional Sources of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 xi Acknowledgments I am grateful to Michael Teitz, Joyce Peterson, Kim Rueben, Elias Lopes, Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, and Jon Stiles for their thoughtful reviews of earlier versions of this report. Peter Richardson, Patricia Bedrosian, and Eileen La Russo provided invaluable suggestions on the editing, formatting, and style of this report. I would also like to thank Mai-San Chan and Van Swearinger for their research assistance on this project. Daniel Lawrence provided invaluable help finding books, datasets, and anything else we needed. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the generous and thoughtful contribution of the following authors: Elliot Currie, Daniel Frakes, Jennifer Cheng, Hans P. Johnson, Elizabeth Bronwen Macro, Deborah Reed, José Signoret, and Joanne Spetz. Although this report reflects the contribution of many people, the authors are solely responsible for its contents. xiii Contacts This book is intended as a resource for policymakers, community leaders, and the media. PPIC’s research staff can be contacted directly to discuss specific findings or other current public policy issues related to their areas of expertise. Visit the institute’s website at www.ppic.org for the most current information about our staff, publications, and projects. CHAPTER TOPICS Demographics Geographic Distribution Economic Outcomes Crime and Criminal Justice Educational Outcomes Labor Market Outcomes Health Outcomes Political Participation RESEARCH CONTACTS Hans P. Johnson Research Fellow (415) 291-4460 johnson@ppic.org Belinda I. Reyes, editor Research Fellow (415) 291-4492 reyes@ppic.org Deborah Reed Program Director and Research Fellow (415) 291-4455 reed@ppic.org Joanne Spetz Research Fellow (415) 291-4418 spetz@ppic.org Zoltan Hajnal Research Fellow (415) 291-4491 hajnal@ppic.org GENERAL CONTACTS Members of the media and policy community are also encouraged to contact PPIC’s public affairs staff for assistance. Abby Cook Public Affairs Manager (415) 291-4436 cook@ppic.org Victoria Pike Bond Public Affairs Associate (415) 291-4412 bond@ppic.org xv Chapter 1 Introduction California has one of the most ethnically diverse populations in the world. The current generation of school children is the first in which Hispanics, Asians, African Americans, and mixed-raced children together outnumber whites (California Department of Finance, June 1999). Within the next few years, no racial or ethnic group will constitute a majority of the state’s population. This increasing ethnic diversity represents a demographic transformation without historical precedent in the United States. Despite this tremendous demographic change, accurate socioeconomic data about racial and ethnic groups in California are not easily accessible to policymakers. Without such data, it is difficult to understand the important problems facing racial and ethnic groups in the state and how public policy can work to remedy these problems. This book documents differences in socioeconomic status by racial and ethnic groups and explores how patterns have changed over time. In doing so, it points to the most important issues facing these groups and provides us with a benchmark for evaluating their socioeconomic status in the future. Using a combination of datasets, we look at the following topics as they pertain to race and ethnicity: demographics, geographic distribution, education, health outcomes, labor market outcomes, economic status, crime, and political participation. We selected these topics to present a broad picture of social, political, and economic conditions facing racial and ethnic groups in California. Each chapter presents key indicators of well-being for the four major racial and ethnic groups: white non-Hispanic, African American, Asian, and Hispanic. Where possible, we also present trends and outcomes for major Asian and Hispanic subgroups: Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Asian Indian, Southeast Asian, Mexican, Cuban/Dominican/Puerto Rican, and Central and South American. Data availability limited the topics we could study and the groups we could consider. This book is therefore best regarded as a starting point for more comprehensive evaluations of race and ethnicity in California. In general, all racial and ethnic groups in California experienced improvements in health, education, crime rates, and political participation in the last 30 years. But disparities between groups have persisted and in some cases, even widened. African Americans, Hispanics, and Southeast Asians are especially at a disadvantage along many dimensions. Several themes emerge from the data: s Race and ethnicity continue to be important predictors of well-being in California. On average, whites and Asians enjoy better health, educational, and economic status than African Americans and Hispanics. African Americans and Hispanics have higher crime and victimization rates than Asians and whites. And Asians and Hispanics have lower political participation than African Americans and whites. s Hispanics have some of the poorest socioeconomic outcomes in California, and by many measures their condition has worsened in the last 30 years. Hispanics have the lowest educational outcomes, INTRODUCTION 1 some of the highest levels of victimization, and some of the lowest economic outcomes in California. Family income, weekly earnings, home ownership rates, poverty rates, unemployment rates, and public assistance use are worse only for African Americans. For some of these measures, conditions are worsening. However, most of this deterioration is due to an increasing share of Hispanic immigrants, who typically have low levels of education and earnings, in the Hispanic population. But this increasing share of immigrants cannot alone account for the whole story. Other issues are at play. s African Americans also have poor socioeconomic well-being, and in many aspects their relative economic status has deteriorated over time. Median weekly earnings for men and home ownership rates were lower and poverty rates higher in recent years compared to past decades. Although there were substantial improvements in education, crime rates, and health outcomes for African Americans in the last 30 years, they still have the poorest crime and health outcomes and the second-lowest educational outcomes of all racial and ethnic groups. s Asians fare as well as or better than whites in many respects. However, there is a great deal of variation among Asian groups. For instance, the median family income of U.S.-born Asians, Filipino immigrants, and Asian Indian immigrants was higher than that of non-Hispanic whites in 1989, yet the median family income of Southeast Asians was close to that of African Americans. Southeast Asians have the lowest material and physical well-being of all Asian groups. And they have the lowest labor force participation rate, one of the highest levels of unemployment, and the highest rate of poverty of all racial and ethnic groups in California. How to Use This Book This book is meant as a resource for policymakers, the media, and the general public. It documents current and historic differences in well-being across racial and ethnic groups. To do this, we chose the most commonly used measures of well-being and focused on what we believe to be the most important trends and outcomes. We recognized that a comprehensive explanation of these trends and their underlying factors lay beyond the scope of this book. We therefore tried to offer a reasonably complete picture with a limited number of indicators of well-being. The book is divided into eight chapters: demography, geography, health, education, crime, labor markets, economic status, and political participation. Each chapter starts with a short introduction that discusses the importance of the topic and the key findings. This is followed by a set of charts that present the most important outcomes for racial and ethnic groups in California. Each chart is paired with a description of its most important findings and other related information. A complete list of charts appears at the end of the volume. An appendix presents other sources of information where the reader can find more detailed information on all the topics covered in this book. Methodological Issues Throughout most of this book, we look at the four major racial and ethnic groups in the state using, for 2 INTRODUCTION the most part, self-reported racial and ethnic identifications:1 white non-Hispanics (also referred to as white), African American, Hispanic,2 and Asian.3 However, in some chapters, we used other definitions of ethnicity. In the chapter on political participation, for example, the only way to disaggregate party affiliation across counties was to use a surname dictionary. The racial categories in this chapter are therefore not comparable to those in the rest of the book. Some charts in the health and crime chapters use data in which people could select only between white, black, Hispanic, and “other.” We expect that most of the people in the “other” category are Asian, although other groups would also be included in this category. Also, some Hispanics may identify as whites when not given the choice of both a racial category and a Hispanic identifier, which would lead to an undercount of this group. Finally, questions about identity are asked in different ways in different datasets. These differences could also decrease the level of comparability across datasets.4 Whenever possible, we disaggregate groups into Asian and Hispanic subgroups. We also examine outcomes for U.S-born and foreign-born Asians and Hispanics. U.S-born Asian groups are Filipino, Chinese, and Japanese. Asian foreign-born groups are Filipino, Chinese, Japanese, Asian Indian, Korean, and Southeast Asian.5 The Hispanic groups are Mexican, Central and South American,6 and Caribbean.7 We tried to gather information in California for the last 30 years. In some data sources, information is available only for particular years; in others, groups are either missing or the samples are too small to generate reliable results.8 For the most part, we looked at the full sample of the population for each racial and ethnic group, except when using the decennial Census and the Current Population Survey, where we looked only at civilians not living in group quarters (e.g., dormitories, group homes, or prisons). For ease in presentation, we show trends and averages for the major racial and ethnic groups. We used three-year moving averages to present the trend data. Some charts may show differences in well-being that 1 People of mixed race or ethnicity are classified by their self-reported race and ethnicity, since people were asked to choose one racial group up until the 1990 Census. In the 2000 Census, they were able to choose mixed race. 2 Hispanics are all the people who identified themselves as Mexican, Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central American, South American, Dominican, and other Hispanic. Filipinos who identified themselves as Hispanic or Spanish are included in the Hispanic category. 3 In some instances, we included Native Americans, but for the most part they were excluded from the analysis because of data limitations. 4 For a summary discussion of the effect of question wording on self-identification, see Gey et al., 1993. 5 Southeast Asians are those who self-identify as Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian, or Hmong. 6 For the most part, the Central and South American category consists of people from Central America—Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Honduras—or those whose birthplace is these countries. 7 Caribbeans, unless otherwise specified, are those who self-identify as Puerto Rican, Cuban, and Dominican. Puerto Ricans born on the island were considered foreign-born and those born on the U.S. mainland were considered U.S.-born. 8 In most of the charts in the crime chapter, we were not able to include Asians, since data were available only for whites, African Americans, Hispanics, and “other.” INTRODUCTION 3 may be due only to differences in age across racial and ethnic groups. Hence, we either adjusted the data for age or discussed the effect of age on the outcomes.9 Age adjustments are specified in the charts. Because no single dataset provides the breadth of information needed for this report, a combination of data sources was used to generate the charts. When possible, we examine outcomes for four California regions: the Northern and Mountain counties, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Farm Belt, and Southern California.10 We chose regions that were contiguous and were either part of the same labor market, such as the Bay Area, or had similar economic profiles, such as the counties of far Northern California. In Chapter 3, we further subdivide the state to gain additional information within regions for different racial and ethnic groups. In that chapter, we examine seven regions—the Northern and Mountain counties, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Valley counties, the Coastal counties, Los Angeles County, Southern California, and the Sacramento metropolitan area. 1.1 Four Regions of California INTRODUCTION Northern and Mountain counties San Francisco Bay Area Farm Belt Southern California 9 The age distribution for each group was matched to that of the overall California population in 1998, as determined by the California Department of Finance, and is presented in five-year age groups. 10 The Bay Area comprises Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. The Farm Belt includes Butte, Colusa, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Monterey, Sacramento, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Trinity, Yolo, and Yuba Counties. Southern counties are Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura. The Northern and Mountain counties are the remainder of the counties in the state. 4 Chapter 2 Demographics C O N TA C T P E R S O N : H A N S P. J O H N S O N The population of California is one of the most diverse and complex anywhere in the world. No other developed region the size of California has sustained such rapid and large population growth over the past several decades. As recently as 1950, California was home to only 10 million people, or about one out of every 15 U.S. residents. By 1990, California’s population had tripled to almost 30 million. At the end of the 1990s, one out of every eight U.S. residents is a Californian, and the state’s population has reached approximately 34 million. The California Department of Finance projects that by the year 2025, almost 50 million people will reside in California. The state’s population growth and its composition have directly and indirectly engendered numerous public policy debates in areas such as education, housing, political representation, and growth management. The sheer size of the state’s population increase has important implications for almost all government services and functions including welfare, education, transportation, and corrections. In addition, large increases in the state’s population have important implications for the protection of natural resources, the distribution of water, agriculture, and the location and nature of development. No less important, but perhaps less obvious, is how the changing composition of the state’s population will influence the state’s economic evolution, its political representation, and its cultural identity or identities. Most of California’s population growth in the past few decades has occurred among Hispanics and Asians (Chart 2.1). As recently as 1970, almost 80 percent of the state’s residents were non-Hispanic whites. By 1998, only 52 percent of the state’s residents were non-Hispanic whites; Hispanics constituted 30 percent of the state’s population, Asians 11 percent, and African Americans 7 percent (Chart 2.2). For almost all Asian and Hispanic subgroups, population growth has been rapid (Charts 2.3 and 2.4). Projections for the future suggest that strong growth among California’s Hispanic and Asian populations will continue into the 21st century (Chart 2.5). The California Department of Finance projects that shortly after the turn of the century, no single racial or ethnic group will constitute a majority of the state’s population, and that by the year 2025, Hispanics will be the largest ethnic group in the state (Chart 2.6).1 In some ways, California’s current diversity is a return to the diversity that is more typical of California’s demographic history than was the period from 1950 through 1970. By 1998, approximately 25 percent of the state’s population was composed of immigrants—a level similar to that seen from the late 1800s to the early 1900s. To understand this population growth, it is necessary to examine the components of population change (births, deaths, and migration). We look at these factors in the first part of this chapter. Over the 1The California Department of Finance and the Census Bureau produce population estimates and projections by race and ethnic group, but the California Department of Finance has developed population projections more recently than the Census Bureau. DEMOGRAPHICS 5 past few decades, most migrants to California have been Hispanic and Asian (Chart 2.7), reflecting the importance of international migration to the state’s population growth. Births to Hispanics and Asians have risen dramatically (Charts 2.8 and 2.9) as the number of women of childbearing age has increased and, especially for Hispanics, as fertility rates have increased (Chart 2.10). By the end of the 1990s, almost half of all births in the state were to Hispanic mothers. In contrast, the vast majority of deaths in California are among whites (Chart 2.11). This reflects the older age structure of whites compared to other groups in the state. Also, life expectancies are longest for Asians and Hispanics (Chart 2.12). Together, these components of change explain the rapid increases in Hispanic and Asian populations in California.2 The socioeconomic characteristics of the state’s population have also changed. The population lives in larger households and has become more foreign-born, younger, and less likely to live in married-couple families. These changes have important consequences for public policy in the state. In this chapter, we explore these issues by looking at the place of birth, age structure, household size, and family structure of the major racial and ethnic groups in California. In subsequent chapters, we examine in detail changes in the geographic distribution of the population, education, health, labor market, economic status, crime, and political participation. As noted above, international migration has accounted for much of California’s recent population growth (Charts 2.13 and 2.14). In 1990, two of every three Asians in California were foreign-born. Large flows of immigrants to California during the 1970s and 1980s led to an increase in the share of Hispanic immigrants in the population of the state. By 1990, almost half of all Mexicans in California and the vast majority of Central and South Americans in the state were born abroad. On the other hand, the proportion of foreign born among the Caribbean population has been declining. And by 1990, less than half of the Caribbeans in California were foreign-born. Although the proportion of immigrants has been increasing, many immigrants live in families and households with U.S.-born citizens (Charts 2.15 and 2.16). This is important because some public benefits are based on citizenship status. Most Hispanics, especially noncitizen Mexicans (close to 70 percent of the Mexican population in 1990), live in households with either naturalized citizens or with U.S.-born citizens. A greater proportion of Asian noncitizens than Hispanic noncitizens live with other noncitizens. The age structure of the state’s population is largely determined by the timing and magnitude of past migration flows and birth trends among the state’s racial and ethnic groups. The large flows of domestic migrants to California after World War II were primarily composed of whites. Thus, whites have a much older age structure than the other racial and ethnic groups in California. Hispanics, with large numbers of recent immigrants and high birth rates, have the youngest age structure (Charts 2.17 and 2.18). In particular, Asian and Hispanic subgroups are concentrated in working ages (Charts 2.19 and 2.20). Household size (the number of people per household) and household structure (type of family or household) is determined by age structure, fertility, socioeconomic status, housing costs, and cultural norms. Hispanics and Asians tend to have substantially larger household sizes than African Americans and whites. But household size has been declining for all racial and ethnic groups (Chart 2.21). 2 Nevertheless, an increasing share of births in California are to parents of different racial and ethnic groups (see Tafoya, 2000). 6 DEMOGRAPHICS Family structure has been found to be correlated with health and educational outcomes for children and is also used to determine eligibility for some social services. Only one in three African Americans in California lived in married-couple families in 1998, whereas the majority of white, Hispanic, and Asian residents of California lived in married-couple households (Chart 2.22). The 2000 Census will provide a new benchmark for assessing California’s population, because Census respondents can check more than one racial or ethnic group. Already of concern is the potential for a large undercount. California had one of the highest undercount rates of any state in 1990, with the undercounts being especially high for African Americans, Hispanics, and children (Chart 2.23). The increasing diversity and complexity of the state’s population during the 1990s make an accurate count for the 2000 Census even more difficult and imperative. 7 DEMOGRAPHICS DEMOGRAPHICS 2.1 California’s Population by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1998 18,000,000 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 1970 Source: California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1970–2040. 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 White Hispanic Asian African American Native American Population s Hispanics and Asians are the fastest growing ethnic groups in California. The Hispanic population grew over fourfold between 1970 and 1998, reaching 10 million by 1998. The Asian population grew over fivefold during this same period. s The population of whites increased only 11 percent from 1970 to 1998. s The African American population increased 67 percent from 1970 to 1998. African Americans are now the fourth most populous racial or ethnic group in California after being surpassed by Asians in the mid-1980s. s California’s population is substantially more diverse than that in the rest of the country. One in 11 whites in the United States lives in California, whereas one in three Hispanics and two in five Asians and Pacific Islanders live in California. One in 14 African Americans in the United States lives in California. DEMOGRAPHICS 8 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.2 California’s Population Distribution by Race and Ethnicity, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 1998 Percentage Source: California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1970–2040. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1970 1980 1990 1998 White Hispanic Asian African American Native American s The white proportion of the state’s population has declined substantially. In 1970, three in four Californians were white; by 1998, only one in two Californians was white. s Hispanic and Asian proportions are increasing rapidly. Hispanics increased from 12 percent of the population in 1970 to 30 percent in 1998. Asians increased from 3 percent of the population in 1970 to 11 percent in 1998. s African Americans have continued to constitute 7 percent of California’s population. s Only New Mexico (52 percent) and Hawaii (71 percent) have greater proportions of their populations consisting of nonwhites than California (48 percent). DEMOGRAPHICS 9 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.3 Population of Asian Groups, 1970, 1980, and 1990 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Chinese 1970 Japanese 1980 Sources: 1970, 1980, and 1990 Censuses (PUMS). Filipino 1990 Asian Indian Korean Southeast Asian Population s With the exception of the Japanese, population growth for all Asian ethnic groups has been very rapid. Rates of population growth have been much faster than California’s overall growth rates. s Chinese and Filipinos are the most populous Asian groups in California, numbering almost 700,000 in 1990. Both groups more than doubled in size in the 1980s and together constitute more than half of all Asians in the state. s Southeast Asians have experienced the most rapid growth, more than tripling in number from 1980 to 1990. In the 1980s, Southeast Asians surpassed the Japanese to become the third most populous Asian subgroup. s In 1990, California was home to half of the nation’s Filipinos and Southeast Asians, 40 percent of the nation’s Chinese and Japanese, almost one-third of the nation’s Koreans, and 20 percent of the nation’s Asian Indians. Overall, 12 percent of U.S. residents lived in California in 1990. 10 DEMOGRAPHICS DEMOGRAPHICS 2.4 Population of Hispanic Groups, 1970, 1980, and 1990 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 Mexican 1970 1980 Sources: 1970, 1980, and 1990 Censuses (PUMS). Central and South American 1990 Caribbean Population s Mexicans are by far the largest of the Hispanic groups, experiencing strong population growth in the 1970s and 1980s. About 80 percent of Hispanics in California in 1990 were of Mexican descent. The total number of Californians of Mexican descent increased by over four million people from 1970 to 1990, to almost six million. s Population growth rates have been highest for Hispanics of Central or South American descent. Between 1980 and 1990, their numbers tripled to over 800,000. s The Caribbean population in California increased 35 percent from 1980 to 1990, somewhat higher than the overall state population increase of 26 percent; just over 200,000 Californians were of Caribbean descent in 1990. s In 1990, California was home to almost half the U.S. population of Mexican descent and over one-third of the Central and South American population of the United States. Only about one in 20 residents of the United States with Caribbean ancestry lived in California in 1990. 11 DEMOGRAPHICS DEMOGRAPHICS 2.5 California’s Projected Population by Race and Ethnicity, 1990 –2040 30,000,000 25,000,000 Source: California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1970–2040. 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2019 2023 2027 2031 2035 2039 White Hispanic Asian African American Native American Population s Population projections are uncertain. Moreover, concepts and definitions of race and ethnicity change over time. Still, projections are useful in providing a picture of the future, assuming that historic patterns in births, deaths, and migration prevail. s Asians and Hispanics will experience the greatest population growth. Both groups are expected to more than double in size between 1999 and 2040. Continuing large flows of international immigrants and, for Hispanics, high birth rates are expected to lead to this growth. s Hispanics will become the largest ethnic group in the state, surpassing whites in the 2020s. s The white population is expected to experience little change in size, growing only 4 percent between 1999 and 2040. s The African American population is projected to increase almost 40 percent between 1999 and 2040, somewhat slower than the projected total population increase for the state of 72 percent. DEMOGRAPHICS 12 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.6 California’s Projected Population Distribution by Race and Ethnicity, 1990 –2040 Percentage Source: California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1970–2040. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1999 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 White Hispanic Asian African American Native American s Shortly after the turn of the century, no racial or ethnic group will make up a majority of California’s population. s By 2040, Hispanics are projected to constitute almost half of all Californians. s The Asian population is expected to increase from 11 percent of the state’s population to 15 percent by 2040. s The African American population will continue to constitute less than 10 percent of the state’s population. DEMOGRAPHICS 13 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.7 Net Migration by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1996 Migration 250,000 Sources: California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population Estimates, June 1999 and July 1999. 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 –50,000 –100,000 –150,000 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 White Hispanic Asian African American s Annual net migration is the difference between the number of people who move to California and the number who move out in a given year. It includes both international and domestic migration flows. s The recession of the early 1990s led to substantial migration out of California to other states. International migration gains offset some of the interstate migration losses. s Net migration outflows were especially pronounced for whites, reaching a record in 1993. Migration patterns of whites show stronger business cycle effects than for other groups. This is primarily because whites are predominantly interstate migrants and interstate migration is largely determined by economic conditions in California relative to other states. s Asian migration remained strongly positive even during the recession. During the 1990s, Asians experienced greater net migration than other groups. s Hispanic migration was strongly positive during the 1970s and 1980s but fell dramatically in the early 1990s. A decline in unauthorized immigration in the early 1990s accounts for some of this fall. Note: 1970 refers to the period July 1970 through June 1971 (similar for other years). 14 DEMOGRAPHICS DEMOGRAPHICS 2.8 Births by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1996 Births 300,000 250,000 Sources: California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population Estimates, June 1999 and July 1999. 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 White Hispanic Asian African American Native American s The number of births to Hispanic mothers grew threefold between 1970 and the early 1990s, surpassing whites in 1990. This reflects the large increase in the number of Hispanic women of childbearing age and increasing fertility rates. s The number of births to white mothers declined substantially in the early 1990s as baby boomers aged out of prime childbearing years and with large migrations out of the state. s The number of births to Asian mothers increased 11-fold from 1970 to 1996. s The number of births to African American mothers increased over 50 percent from 1970 to 1989 but has since declined 23 percent. DEMOGRAPHICS 15 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.9 Distribution of Births by Race and Ethnicity, 1970 –1996 Percentage Sources: California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population Estimates, June 1999 and July 1999. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1970 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 White Hispanic Asian African American Native American s In 1970, almost 70 percent of all births were to whites; by 1996, the proportion had declined to 34 percent. s Almost half of all births in California in 1996 were to Hispanics (48 percent), compared to only 20 percent in 1970. s The proportion of births to Asians increased from 1 percent of the total in 1970 to 11 percent of the total by 1996. s The proportion of births to African Americans declined from 9 percent of the total in 1970 to 7 percent of the total in 1996. DEMOGRAPHICS 16 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.10 Total Fertility Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 1970 –1998 Rate Sources: California Department of Finance (unpublished tables); Population Reference Bureau, 1998. 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 1970 1975 White 1980 Hispanic 1985 Asian 1990 African American 1995 Total s The total fertility rate is the average number of children a woman will have in her lifetime (based on current age-specific fertility rates). Replacement-level fertility is 2.1 children per woman. s Hispanics have substantially higher fertility rates than any other racial and ethnic group. With the increase in fertility during the late 1980s, Hispanics in California have higher fertility rates than those in Mexico (3.3 compared to 2.9). s Asian fertility rates increased dramatically in the late 1970s and early 1980s, as a result of the arrival of Southeast Asian immigrants who tended to have higher fertility rates than other Asians. s Total fertility rates for whites have been below the replacement level since the 1970s and are now near the historic lows of the baby bust. High labor force participation and relatively high levels of education are associated with lower fertility levels. s Total fertility rates for African Americans have declined since the late 1980s and once again are slightly below replacement levels. DEMOGRAPHICS 17 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.11 Deaths by Race and Ethnicity, 1970 –1996 Deaths 180,000 Sources: California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population Estimates, June 1999 and July 1999. 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 60,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 White Hispanic Asian African American Native American s Since mortality rates are much higher for older adults than for people in other age groups, the number of deaths for a racial and ethnic group is determined primarily by the group’s age distribution. Groups with a small proportion of its population age 60 and over would therefore have a lower mortality rate. s The number of deaths has increased for all groups as the population of older Californians has increased for all groups. s Most deaths in California are among whites, as whites continue to constitute the vast majority of older Californians. DEMOGRAPHICS Note: 1970 refers to the period July 1970 through June 1971 (similar for other years). 18 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.12 Life Expectancy at Birth by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender, 1998 Age Source: California Department of Finance (unpublished tables). 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 White Hispanic Asian African American Male Female s Life expectancy at birth is the average number of years a newborn infant is expected to live if current agespecific mortality rates remain the same throughout his or her lifetime. It is a broad measure of the health of a population. s Asians have the longest life expectancies—84 years for females and 79 years for males. s Hispanics in California have longer life expectancies than whites—a surprising outcome given Hispanics’ relatively low socioeconomic status. Life expectancy for Hispanic females is 83 years and is 76 years for Hispanic males. s African Americans have substantially lower life expectancies than any other group. African American males have particularly low life expectancies (66 years). The difference between male and female life expectancies for African Americans (eight years) is greater than for any other group. Less access to health care and lower socioeconomic status are associated with lower life expectancies. DEMOGRAPHICS 19 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.13 Percentage Foreign-Born Among Asian Groups, 1970, 1980, and 1990 Percentage 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Chinese 1970 Japanese 1980 Sources: 1970, 1980, and 1990 Censuses (PUMS). Filipino 1990 Asian Indian Korean Southeast Asian s Two of every three Asians in California are foreign-born. s Reflecting the relatively low levels of recent migration from Japan, the vast majority of Japanese in California are U.S.-born. s More than three of every four Asian Indians, Koreans, and Southeast Asians are foreign-born. These very high levels reflect the large and recent immigration flows to California from India, Korea, and Southeast Asia. DEMOGRAPHICS 20 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.14 Percentage Foreign-Born Among Hispanic Groups, 1970, 1980, and 1990 Percentage 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Mexican 1970 1980 Sources: 1970, 1980, and 1990 Censuses (PUMS). Central and South American 1990 Caribbean s The share of Caribbean people in California who are foreign-born has been declining. By 1990, less than half were foreign-born. s Large flows of immigrants to California from Mexico during the 1970s and 1980s led to an increase in the share of Mexicans who are foreign-born—almost half of all Mexicans in the state by 1990. s The vast majority of Central and South Americans in California are foreign-born. In 1980, almost four of every five Central or South Americans in the state were foreign-born. DEMOGRAPHICS 21 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.15 Percentage of Noncitizens Among Asian Groups by Citizenship of Other Household Members, 1970, 1980, and 1990 Percentage Sources: 1970, 1980, and 1990 Censuses (PUMS). 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1970 1980 1990 1970 1980 1990 1970 1980 1990 1980 1990 1980 1990 1980 1990 Chinese Japanese Filipino Asian Indian Korean Southeast Asian With naturalized and U.S.-born citizens With U.S.-born citizens With naturalized citizens With other noncitizens s Immigrants do not live only with immigrants, and U.S.-born Californians do not live only with other U.S.-born Californians. The mixed citizenship status of household members is important because noncitizens are restricted from receiving certain public benefits. s Most noncitizen Asian immigrants live in households with U.S. citizens. In 1990, 60 percent of noncitizen Asian immigrants lived in households with U.S. citizens. s Noncitizen immigrants from Southeast Asia were least likely to live with U.S. citizens in 1980 and most likely to do so in 1990. This large increase in the percentage of noncitizen Southeast Asians living with U.S. citizens occurred as young adult Southeast Asian immigrants began having U.S.-born children. s The vast majority (97 percent in 1990) of noncitizen Asian immigrants do not live alone. Japanese noncitizens have the highest rate of living alone (12 percent in 1990). For all other groups, fewer than 5 percent of noncitizens live alone. DEMOGRAPHICS Note: Restricted to noncitizen immigrants not living alone. 22 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.16 Percentage of Noncitizens Among Hispanic Groups by Citizenship of Other Household Members, 1970, 1980, and 1990 Percentage Sources: 1970, 1980, and 1990 Censuses (PUMS). 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1970 1980 Mexican 1990 With naturalized and U.S.-born citizens 1970 1980 1990 Central and South American 1970 1980 Carribbean 1990 With U.S.-born citizens With naturalized citizens With other noncitizens s Most noncitizen Hispanic immigrants live in households with U.S. citizens. In 1990, 70 percent of noncitizen Hispanic immigrants lived in households with U.S. citizens. s Noncitizen immigrants from Mexico were most likely to live with U.S. citizens. In 1990, almost three of every four noncitizen immigrants from Mexico lived in households with U.S. citizens. Most of those lived in households with their own U.S.-born children. s The vast majority (98 percent in 1990) of noncitizen Hispanic immigrants do not live alone. Caribbean noncitizens have the highest rate of living alone (13 percent in 1990). Only 1 percent of noncitizen Mexican immigrants and 2 percent of noncitizen Central and South American immigrants live alone. DEMOGRAPHICS Note: Restricted to noncitizen immigrants not living alone. 23 DEMOGRAPHICS 2.17 Age and Gender Pyramids by Race and Ethnicity, 1990 Age Source: 1990 Census, full Census sample. Totals: Males 8,416,000 Females 8,613,000 Median age: Males 34.7 Females 36.9 Gender ratio: 97.7 White population (1000s) 85+ 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 <5 Totals: Males 4,005,000 Females 3,682,000 Median age: Males 25.0 Females 26.2 Gender ratio: 107.4 Hispanic population (1000s) 900 700 500 300 100 0 100 300 500 700 900 600 400 200 0 200 400 600 Totals: Males 1,325,000 Females 1,385,000 Median age: Males 29.4 Females 31.4 Gender ratio: 95.7 Asian population (1000s) 85+ 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 50% Democrat >10% more Democrat than Republican >10% more Republican than Democrat >50% Republican No plurality s Thirty of the 58 California counties are evenly split between Republicans and Democrats or have significant numbers of registrants who identify with no party. s Twenty-one of the other 28 counties are Democrat. In 15 of them, Democrats make up more than 50 percent of all registered voters. Three counties lean toward Republican, and four have a majority of registered Republican voters. s Counties leaning toward Democrat or majority Democrat, with the exception of Imperial County, are concentrated on the western part of the state near the San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento, or Los Angeles. With the exception of Orange County, the counties that lean toward or are majority Republican lie on the eastern border of the state. POLITICAL PARTICIPATION Notes: No plurality means that the proportion of voters who declined to list their party affiliation exceeded 20 percent or the difference 178 between Democrat and Republican affiliation was less than 10 percent. POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 9.10 Party Affiliation of Asians in California, 1996 Source: Institute of Governmental Studies, Statewide Database, University of California at Berkeley. >50% Democrat >10% more Democrat than Republican >10% more Republican than Democrat >50% Republican No plurality POLITICAL PARTICIPATION s Much like the overall population, Asians in 33 counties register evenly between the two main parties or claim no party affiliation. s Asians affiliate themselves with the Democratic party less than all California voters. Asian Democrats are, for the most part, clustered around the Bay Area and Sacramento. s A higher percentage of Asians affiliate themselves with the Republican party than all California voters. In eight counties Republicans are a plurality of Asian registrants, and 11 counties lean toward Republican. However, Asians in seven counties lean toward Democrat, and in another seven they are predominantly Democrats. s In the five counties with the highest percentage of Asians (San Francisco, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Alameda, and San Benito), Asian registrants were evenly distributed between the two major parties or claimed no party affiliation. Notes: No plurality means that the proportion of voters who declined to list their party affiliation exceeded 20 percent or the difference between Democrat and Republican affiliation was less than 10 percent. Asian ethnicity was determined by feeding registrants’ names, as listed on registration documents, through a surname dictionary. 179 POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 9.11 Percentage of Registered Democrats Among Hispanics in California, 1996 Source: Institute of Governmental Studies, Statewide Database, University of California at Berkeley. Less than 50% 50% to 60% 60.1% to 70% More than 70% s In all but seven California counties, over 50 percent of all Hispanic registered voters are Democrat. These seven counties are clustered in the northern and eastern region of the state. s There is no county in which Republicans are a plurality of Hispanic registered voters. Nevada and Shasta have the highest proportion of registered Republicans: 34 percent of Hispanics were registered Republican in both counties. s In 27 of the 58 California counties, Democrats accounted for over 60 percent of the Hispanic vote. In four counties (Yolo, Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey), over 70 percent of Hispanics were registered as Democrats. s In all of the six counties with the highest percentage of Hispanic residents (Los Angeles, Tulare, San Benito, Colusa, Monterey, and Fresno), over 60 percent of registrants are Democrat. POLITICAL PARTICIPATION Note: Hispanic ethnicity was determined by feeding registrants’ names, as listed on registration documents, through a surname dictionary. 180 POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 9.12 Number of Elected Officials in California by Race and Ethnicity, 1980 –1998 Number Sources: National Rosters of African American Elected Officials for 1980–84 and 1986–92; National Asian Pacific American Roster, 1980–84; National Asian Pacific American Political Almanac, 1980–84; Annual Directory of Latino Elected Officials, 1984–98. 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 African American Asian Hispanic s The past two decades have seen representation vary only slightly for African Americans; throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Californians elected between 200 and 300 African American officials. s The number of Asian elected officials has dramatically increased over the last 20 years. In 1980, Asians had the fewest elected officeholders—only 106. By 1998, the number of Asian elected officials surpassed that of African Americans, totaling 503. s Since the 1980s, Hispanic elected officials significantly outnumbered their African American and Asian counterparts and further increased their ranks. Rising from 460 in 1984, the number of Hispanics holding public office peaked in 1994 with 796, decreasing only slightly to 789 in 1998. s Nevertheless, Asians, Hispanics, and African Americans remain underrepresented in public office. In 1998, Hispanics held 10 percent, Asians 6.5 percent, and African Americans 3 percent of these positions (calculated from data cited above and California Legislature, 1998). These rates reflect only half these groups’ representation in the adult population (Chart 9.1). These results, however, correspond closely with current Asian and Hispanic voting shares (Chart 9.1), although African American representation is less than half its voting population. Notes: Data on elected officials include federal, state, regional, municipal, judicial, law enforcement, and education elective offices. Differences in methodology may distort some results. POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 181 Chapter 10 Chart Titles Introduction 1.1 Four Regions of California Demographics 2.1 California’s Population by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1998 2.2 California’s Population Distribution by Race and Ethnicity, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 1998 2.3 Population of Asian Groups, 1970, 1980, and 1990 2.4 Population of Hispanic Groups, 1970, 1980, and 1990 2.5 California’s Projected Population by Race and Ethnicity, 1990–2040 2.6 California’s Projected Population Distribution by Race and Ethnicity, 1990–2040 2.7 Net Migration by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1996 2.8 Births by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1996 2.9 Distribution of Births by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1996 2.10 Total Fertility Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1998 2.11 Deaths by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1996 2.12 Life Expectancy at Birth by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender, 1998 2.13 Percentage Foreign-Born Among Asian Groups, 1970, 1980, and 1990 2.14 Percentage Foreign-Born Among Hispanic Groups, 1970, 1980, and 1990 2.15 Percentage of Noncitizens Among Asian Groups by Citizenship of Other Household Members, 1970, 1980, and 1990 2.16 Percentage of Noncitizens Among Hispanic Groups by Citizenship of Other Household Members, 1970, 1980, and 1990 2.17 Age and Gender Pyramids by Race and Ethnicity, 1990 2.18 Percentage of the Population Older Than Age 65 and Younger Than Age 18 and by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1998 2.19 Age Structure of Asian Groups, 1970, 1980, and 1990 2.20 Age Structure of Hispanic Groups, 1970, 1980, and 1990 2.21 Average Number of People per Household by Race and Ethnicity, 1969–1997 2.22 Household Structure by Race and Ethnicity, 1968, 1978, 1988, and 1998 2.23 1990 Census Undercount by Race and Ethnicity 183 CHART TITLES Geographic Distribution 3.1 Seven Regions of California 3.2 White Population in California Counties, 1970 and 1998 3.3 Hispanic Population in California Counties, 1970 and 1998 3.4 Asian Population in California Counties, 1970 and 1998 3.5 African American Population in California Counties, 1970 and 1998 3.6 Geographic Distribution of Racial and Ethnic Groups, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 1998 3.7 Geographic Distribution of Hispanic Groups by Place of Birth, 1980 and 1990 3.8 Geographic Distribution of Asian Groups by Place of Birth, 1980 and 1990 3.9 Geographic Concentrations of Racial and Ethnic Groups, 1970–1998 3.10 Percentage of Racial and Ethnic Groups Living in Central Cities, 1970–1998 3.11 Migration Patterns of Racial and Ethnic Groups, 1985–1990 3.12 Geographic Distribution in 1980 and the Destination in 1990 for Out-of-State Migrants by Race and Ethnicity 3.13 Destination and Origin of Out-of-State Migrants by Race and Ethnicity, 1985–1990 Educational Outcomes 4.1 Education of Mothers of Children Born in 1989 and 1997 by Race and Ethnicity 4.2 Education of Asian Mothers of Children Born in 1989 and 1997 4.3 Education of Hispanic Mothers of Children Born in 1989 and 1997 4.4 English Language Ability of Asians Age 5 and Over, 1990 4.5 English Language Ability of Hispanics Age 5 and Over, 1990 4.6 Preschool Activities of Children Age 3 and 4 by Race and Ethnicity, 1995–1997 4.7 Reading Proficiency for Grade 4 and Grade 8 Public School Students by Race and Ethnicity, 1998 4.8 Math Proficiency for Grade 4 and Grade 8 Public School Students by Race and Ethnicity, 1996 4.9 School Quality as Measured by Student Math Scores, 1998 4.10 High School Completion Rates of Adults Age 25 to 29 by Race and Ethnicity, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 1997 4.11 High School Completion Rates of Asians Age 25 to 29 by Place of Birth, 1980 and 1990 4.12 High School Completion Rates of Hispanics Age 25 to 29 by Place of Birth, 1980 and 1990 4.13 College Completion Rates of Adults Age 25 to 29 by Race and Ethnicity, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 1997 4.14 College Completion Rates of Asians Age 25 to 29 by Place of Birth, 1980 and 1990 4.15 College Completion Rates of Hispanics Age 25 to 29 by Place of Birth, 1980 and 1990 4.16 Educational Attainment of Adults Age 25 to 54 by Race and Ethnicity, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 1997 4.17 Educational Attainment of Asians Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth, 1980 and 1990 184 CHART TITLES 4.18 Educational Attainment of Hispanics Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth, 1980 and 1990 4.19 High School Completion Rates by Region for Adults Age 25 to 54 by Race and Ethnicity, 1990 4.20 Basic Literary and Quantitative Skills of People Age 16 and Over by Race and Ethnicity, 1992 Health Outcomes 5.1 Percentage of Adults with Health Insurance by Race and Ethnicity, 1989–1997 5.2 Percentage of Children Insured by Medi-Cal or Medicare by Race and Ethnicity, 1989–1997 5.3 Percentage of Mothers with Adequate Prenatal Care by Race and Ethnicity, 1989–1997 5.4 Percentage of Asian Mothers with Adequate Prenatal Care by Place of Birth, 1997 5.5 Percentage of Hispanic Mothers with Adequate Prenatal Care by Place of Birth, 1997 5.6 Percentage of Mothers with Adequate Prenatal Care by Race, Ethnicity, and Region, 1997 5.7 Percentage of Children Up to Date on Vaccinations at Age 2 by Race and Ethnicity, 1991–1998 5.8 Percentage of Adults Who Are Current Smokers by Race and Ethnicity, 1990, 1992, 1993, and 1996 5.9 Percentage of Births That Are Low Birthweight by Race and Ethnicity, 1982–1997 5.10 Percentage of Asian Births That Are Low Birthweight by Mother’s Place of Birth, 1997 5.11 Percentage of Hispanic Births That Are Low Birthweight by Mother’s Place of Birth, 1997 5.12 Rates of Use of Local Mental Health Programs by Race and Ethnicity, 1989–1990 5.13 Communicable Disease Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 1994 and 1995 5.14 AIDS Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 1981–1996 5.15 Age-Adjusted Infant Death Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 1985–1994 5.16 Death Rates for Persons Age 25 to 34 by Race, Ethnicity, and Cause, 1996 5.17 Death Rates for Persons Age 55 to 64 by Race, Ethnicity, and Cause, 1996 Labor Market Outcomes 6.1 Labor Force Participation Rates of Persons Age 25 to 54 by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender, 1979–1997 6.2 Labor Force Participation Rates of Asians Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth and Gender, 1980 and 1990 6.3 Labor Force Participation Rates of Hispanics Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth and Gender, 1980 and 1990 6.4 Unemployment Rates of Persons Age 25 to 54 by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender, 1979–1997 6.5 Unemployment Rates of Asians Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth and Gender, 1980 and 1990 6.6 Unemployment Rates of Hispanics Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth and Gender, 1980 and 1990 6.7 Unemployment Rates of Persons Age 25 to 54 by Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Region, 1990 6.8 Activities of Young Adults Age 16 to 24 by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender, 1980, 1990, and 1997 6.9 Activities of Young Adult Asians Age 16 to 24 by Place of Birth and Gender, 1980 and 1990 CHART TITLES 185 6.10 Activities of Young Adult Hispanics Age 16 to 24 by Place of Birth and Gender, 1980 and 1990 6.11 Median Weekly Earnings of Male Full-Time Workers Age 25 to 54 by Race and Ethnicity, 1979–1997 6.12 Median Weekly Earnings of Asian Male Full-Time Workers Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth, 1979 and 1989 6.13 Median Weekly Earnings of Hispanic Male Full-Time Workers Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth, 1979 and 1989 6.14 Median Weekly Earnings of Female Full-Time Workers Age 25 to 54 by Race and Ethnicity, 1979–1997 6.15 Median Weekly Earnings of Asian Female Full-Time Workers Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth, 1979 and 1989 6.16 Median Weekly Earnings of Hispanic Female Full-Time Workers Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth, 1979 and 1989 6.17 Median Earnings for Male High School and College Graduates Age 25 to 54 by Race and Ethnicity, 1989 6.18 Median Earnings for Asian Male High School and College Graduates Age 25 to 54 by Race, Ethnicity, and Place of Birth, 1989 6.19 Median Earnings for Hispanic Male High School and College Graduates Age 25 to 54 by Race, Ethnicity, and Place of Birth, 1989 6.20 Median Earnings for Female High School and College Graduates Age 25 to 54 by Race and Ethnicity, 1989 6.21 Median Earnings for Asian Female High School and College Graduates Age 25 to 54 by Race, Ethnicity, and Place of Birth, 1989 6.22 Median Earnings for Hispanic Female High School and College Graduates Age 25 to 54 by Race, Ethnicity, and Place of Birth, 1989 6.23 Occupations of Employed Men Age 25 to 54 by Race and Ethnicity 6.24 Occupations of Employed Asian Men Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth, 1989 6.25 Occupations of Employed Hispanic Men Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth, 1989 6.26 Occupations of Employed Women Age 25 to 54 by Race and Ethnicity 6.27 Occupations of Employed Asian Women Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth, 1989 6.28 Occupations of Employed Hispanic Women Age 25 to 54 by Place of Birth, 1989 Economic Outcomes 7.1 Median Family Income by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1997 7.2 Median Family Income for Hispanics by Place of Birth, 1969, 1979, and 1989 7.3 Median Family Income for Asians by Place of Birth, 1969, 1979, and 1989 7.4 Percentage Who Own Stocks, Mutual Funds, Retirement Accounts, or Savings Accounts by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1997 186 CHART TITLES 7.5 Home Ownership Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 1970, 1980, and 1990 7.6 Home Ownership Rates for Hispanics by Place of Birth, 1970, 1980, and 1990 7.7 Home Ownership Rates for Asians by Place of Birth, 1970, 1980, and 1990 7.8 Levels of Overcrowding by Race and Ethnicity of the Household Head, 1970, 1980, and 1990 7.9 Levels of Overcrowding in Households Headed by Asians by Place of Birth, 1970, 1980, and 1990 7.10 Levels of Overcrowding in Households Headed by Hispanics by Place of Birth, 1970, 1980, and 1990 7.11 Distribution of Personal Income of Men Older Than Age 24 by Race and Ethnicity, 1969, 1979, and 1989 7.12 Top and Bottom 10 Percent of the Income Distribution of Men Older Than Age 24 by Race and Ethnicity, 1989 7.13 Distribution of Personal Income of Hispanic Adults Older Than Age 24 by Place of Birth, 1969 and 1989 7.14 Distribution of Personal Income of Asian Adults Older Than Age 24 by Place of Birth, 1969 and 1989 7.15 Poverty Rates for All Californians by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1997 7.16 Poverty Rates for Hispanics by Place of Birth, 1969, 1979, and 1989 7.17 Poverty Rates for Asians by Place of Birth, 1969, 1979, and 1989 7.18 Child Poverty Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 1970–1997 7.19 Child Poverty Rates by Race, Ethnicity, and Region, 1989 7.20 Percentage of Households Receiving Public Assistance by Race and Ethnicity, 1969, 1979, and 1989 7.21 Percentage of Households Receiving Public Assistance by Race and Ethnicity of Household Head, 1987–1997 7.22 Percentage of Hispanic Households Receiving Public Assistance by Place of Birth, 1969, 1979, and 1989 7.23 Percentage of Asian Households Receiving Public Assistance by Place of Birth, 1969, 1979, and 1989 Crime and Criminal Justice 8.1 Felony Arrest Rates for Adults by Race and Ethnicity, 1980, 1990, and 1998 8.2 Felony Arrest Rates for Juveniles by Race and Ethnicity, 1980, 1990, and 1998 8.3 Felony Arrest Rates for Participating in Street Gangs by Race and Ethnicity, 1998 8.4 Felony Narcotics Arrests by Race and Ethnicity, 1998 8.5 Distribution of Men Newly Admitted to California Prisons by Race and Ethnicity, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 1998 8.6 Distribution of Women Newly Admitted to California Prisons by Race and Ethnicity, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 1998 CHART TITLES 187 8.7 California Prison Incarceration Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 1998 8.8 Three-Strikes Inmates in California Prisons by Race and Ethnicity, 1999 8.9 Distribution of California Youth Authority First Admissions by Race and Ethnicity, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 1998 8.10 California Youth Authority Admissions Compared to the Youth Population by Race and Ethnicity, 1998 8.11 Homicide Rates by Race and Ethnicity of Victim, 1988 and 1997 8.12 Juvenile Homicide Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 1997 8.13 Types of Homicides by Race and Ethnicity, 1997 8.14 Percentage of Homicide Victims Who Are Women and Youth by Race and Ethnicity, 1997 8.15 Percentage Disagreeing That Courts Are Fair to All People by Race and Ethnicity, 1993 8.16 Race and Ethnicity of California Superior Court Judges, 1993 Political Participation 9.1 California’s Adult and Voter Populations by Race and Ethnicity, 1996 9.2 California’s Eligible, Registered, and Voting Populaton by Race and Ethnicity, 1996 9.3 Registration Shares of the Population Eligible to Vote by Race and Ethnicity, 1972–1996 9.4 Voter Shares of the Population Eligible to Vote by Race and Ethnicity, 1972–1996 9.5 Voter Participation in California by Race, Ethnicity, and Place of Birth, 1996 9.6 Voter Participation in California by Race, Ethnicity, and Educational Attainment, 1996 9.7 Voter Participation in California by Race, Ethnicity, and Age, 1996 9.8 Party Affiliation of Hispanics, Asians, and Others, 1996 9.9 Party Affiliation of Californians, 1996 9.10 Party Affiliation of Asians in California, 1996 9.11 Percentage of Registered Democrats Among Hispanics in California, 1996 9.12 Number of Elected Officials in California by Race and Ethnicity, 1980–1998 188 CHART TITLES Appendix Additional Sources of Information Demographics U.S. Bureau of the Census (http://www.census.gov). Census data and publications on population characteristics (http://www.census.gov/prod/www/titles.html#pop). Census data and publications on race (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race.html). Census data and publications on Hispanic origin (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hispanic.html). California Department of Finance Race/Ethnic Population Estimates 1970–1990 (http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/Demograp/Eth70-90.htm). California Department of Finance Race/Ethnic Population Estimates 1990–1997 (http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/Demograp/Race-eth.htm). California Department of Finance County Population Projections with Race/Ethnic Detail Estimated July 1, 1990–1996, and Projections for 1997 Through 2040 (http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/Demograp/Proj_race.htm). Geographic Distribution MapStat, Fed Stat (http://www.fedstats.gov/mapstats/06a.html). California State Association of Counties (http://csac.counties.org). Educational Outcomes California Department of Education (http://goldmine.cde.ca.gov). California Department of Education (http://www.cde.ca.gov/demographics/reports). National Center for Education Statistics (http://nces.ed.gov). U.S. Department of Education (http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs98/condition98). U.S. Department of Education (http://www.nces.ed.gov/spider). U.S. Department of Education (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard). Brookings Institution, Brown Center on Educational Policy (http://www.brookings.org/gs/brown/brown_hp.htm). 189 ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION Urban Institute, Education Policy Center (http://www.urban.org/centers/epc.html). The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning (http://www.cftl.org). Health Outcomes National Center for Health Statistics (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs). Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/hid/index.htm). California Department of Health Services (http://www.dhs.cahwnet.gov). California Office of Multicultural Health (http://www.dhs.cahwnet.gov/director/omh). California County Health Status Profiles, 2000 (http://www.dhs.ca.gov/hisp/chs/phweek/cprofile2000/profile2000.htm). Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov). California Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board (http://www.mrmib.ca.gov). California HealthLine, a publication of the California HealthCare Foundation (http://www.chcf.org). U.S. Initiative to Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health (http://raceandhealth.hhs.gov). Minority Health Resources, listed by the UC Berkeley Library (http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/PUBL/minority.html). Tobacco Use Research at the Cancer Prevention and Control Program, University of California at San Diego (http://ssdc.ucsd.edu/tobacco). California Health Care Fact Book, from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/factbook.pdf). Labor Market Outcomes California Employment Development Department (http://www.edd.cahwnet.gov). California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (http://www.dfeh.ca.gov). California Department of Industrial Relations (http://www.dir.ca.gov). Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://stats.bls.gov). Current Population Survey (http://stats.bls.gov/cpshome.htm). Monthly Labor Review (http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/mlrhome.htm). U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://stats.bls.gov/cpshome.htm). California Department of Finance (http://www.dof.ca.gov). California Department of Finance, Statistical Abstract (http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/fs_data/stat-abs/sa_home.htm). 190 ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION Economic Outcomes Department of Housing and Community Development (http://housing.hcd.ca.gov). Office of Small and Minority Businesses, California Department of General Services (http://www.osmb.dgs.ca.gov). Housing and Urban Development Publications (http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdrpubli.html). Crime and Criminal Justice California State and Local Government (http://lcweb.loc.gov/global/state/ca-gov.html). State of California, Office of the Attorney General, Criminal Justice Statistics Center (http://caag.state.ca.us/cjsc). California Department of Corrections, Data Analysis Unit, Offender Information Services Branch (http://www.cdc.state.ca.us). California Department of the Youth Authority, Ward Information and Parole Research Bureau (http://www.cya.ca.gov). California Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics (http://www.dhs.ca.gov). Political Participation California Government Home Page (http://www.ca.gov). California Governor Gray Davis (http://www.governor.ca.gov). California State Assembly (http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/default.asp). California State Senate (http://www.senate.ca.gov). California Secretary of State (http://www.ss.ca.gov). California State Office of Research (http://www.sen.ca.gov/sor). California State Assembly Republican Caucus (http://republican.assembly.ca.gov/index.asp). California State Assembly Democratic Caucus (http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/english/index.htm). State and Local Governments (http://lcweb.loc.gov/global/state/stategov.html). Fed World, National Technical Information Service (http://www.fedworld.gov). United States Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov). U.S. House of Representatives (http://www.house.gov). The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov). Statewide Database, University of California at Berkeley, Institute of Governmental Studies (http://swdb.berkeley.edu). 191 ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION California Legislative African American Caucus (http://www.sen.ca.gov/lbc). Latino Legislative Caucus (http://www.assembly.ca.gov/latinocaucus). National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) (http://www.naleo.org). Tomás Rivera Center (http://latino.sscnet.ucla.edu/research/tomas.html). General Sources Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) (http://www.maldef.org). Russell Sage Publications on Immigration and Ethnic Studies (http://www.russellsage.org/publications/subjects_immig.htm). Urban Institute’s Publications on Civil Rights and Affirmative Action (http://www.urban.org/combuilding.htm#civil rights). Urban Institute’s Publications on Community Building (http://www.urban.org/combuilding.htm#combuilding). Urban Institute’s Publications on Housing and Discrimination (http://www.urban.org/combuilding.htm#housing). Urban Institute’s Publications on Immigration (http://www.urban.org/socwelfare.htm#immigration). California Policy Research Center Latino Policy Research Program (http://www.ucop.edu/cprc/#LATINO). Latino Issues Forum (http://www.lif.org). Legislative Analyst’s Office (http://www.lao.ca.gov). Library of Congress (http://lcweb.loc.gov). UC Berkeley Library provides access to the Subject Summary Tapes files for the Hispanic Population, the Asian/Pacific Islander Population, the Foreign-Born Population, and the population by reported ancestry (http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/GovData/info). 192 ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION Bibliography African American Elected Officials: A National Roster, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies Press, Washington, D.C., 1986–1992. Arteaga, Luis M., Chione Flagel, and Guillermo Rodriguez, The Latino Vote, 1998: The New Margin of Victory, Latino Issues Forum, San Francisco, California, 1998. Baldassare, Mark, California in the New Millennium: The Changing Social and Political Landscape, University of California Press and the Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, 2000. Ballator, N., and L. Jerry, The NAEP 1998 Reading State Report for California, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 1999-460 CA, Washington, D.C., 1999. Betts, Julian R., Kim S. Rueben, and Anne Danenberg, Equal Resources, Equal Outcomes? The Distribution of School Resources and Student Achievement in California, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2000. Bishop, Donna M., and Charles E. Frazier, “Race Effects in Juvenile Justice Decision-Making: Findings of a Statewide Analysis,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 86, No. 2, 1996. Bouvier, Leon F., and Philip Martin, Population Change and California’s Future, Population Reference Bureau, Washington, D.C., 1985. California Department of Corrections, California Prisoners and Parolees, 1995–96, Sacramento, California, 1998. California Department of Corrections, CDC Fact Sheet, Sacramento, California, August 1, 1999. California Department of Corrections, Data Analysis Unit, Offender Information Services Branch, Institution Population, by Sex, December 31, 1978–December 31, 1998. California Department of Corrections, Data Analysis Unit, Offender Information Services Branch, Racial and Ethnic Groups, Felon New Admissions, 1993 and 1998. California Department of Corrections, Data Analysis Unit, Offender Information Services Branch, Three-Strikes Cases by Offense and Ethnic Group, December 31, 1999. California Department of Education, California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS), 1998. California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population Estimates: Components of Change for California Counties, April 1990–July 1997, Sacramento, California, June 1999. BIBLIOGRAPHY 193 California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population Projections: Components of Change for California Counties, July 1970–July 1998, Sacramento, California, July 1999. California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1970–2040, Sacramento, California, December 1998. California Department of Finance, Unpublished Tables on Fertility and Life Expectancy, 1999 California Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics, Department of Vital Statistics, Birth Public Use Tape, 1989–1997. California Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics, Juvenile Homicide Death Data, unpublished data, 1999. California Department of Health Services, Division of Communicable Disease Control, Communicable Diseases in California, 1994, 1995, 1997. California Department of Health Services, Epidemiological Studies Section, AIDS Among Racial/Ethnic Groups in California, 1998 Edition, February 1999. California Department of Health Services, Immunization Branch, Annual Kindergarten Retrospective Survey. California Department of Health Services, Vital Records Division, Vital Statistics of California, Birth Public Use Tape, 1989–1997. California Department of Health Services, Vital Records Division, Vital Statistics of California, Birth Statistical Master File, 1982–1988. California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Ethnic Distribution of Arrests for Participating in Street Gangs, 1999. California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Adult and Juvenile Arrests Reported, Race-Ethnic Group by Specific Offense, various years. California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Homicide in California, 1997. California Department of Mental Health, Health and Welfare Agency, Use of Mental Health Services, 1989–1990. California Journal, “The Latino Century: Will Latinos Be the Dominant Force of California Politics?” Vol. 21, No. 1, January 2000. California Judicial Council, Advisory Committee on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts, Fairness in the California State Courts: A Survey of the Public, Attorneys, and Court Personnel, 1994. California Judicial Council, Advisory Committee on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts, Fairness in the California State Courts: A Survey of the Public, Attorneys, and Court Personnel, Final Report, 1997. 194 BIBLIOGRAPHY California Legislature, Joint Committee on Legal Equality, California Roster 1998, California Secretary of State, 1998. California Legislature, The Challenge: Latinos in a Changing California, Report of the University of California SCR 43 Task Force in Response to Senate Concurrent Resolution 43 Introduced by Senator Robert Presley, 36th Senatorial District. California Youth Authority, Ward Information and Parole Research Bureau, unpublished data, 1999. Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Young African Americans and the Criminal Justice System in California: Five Years Later, San Francisco, California, 1996a. Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, From Classrooms to Cellblocks: How Prison Building Affects Higher Education and African American Enrollment, San Francisco, California, 1996b. Cho, Wendy K. Tam, “Naturalization, Socialization, Participation: Immigrants and (Non-)Voting,” Journal of Politics, Vol. 61 No. 4, November 1999, p. 1140. Clark, William A.V., The California Cauldron: Immigration and the Fortunes of Local Communities, Guilford Press, New York, 1998. Coleman, J. S., E. Campbell, A. Mood, E. Weinfeld, D. Hobson, R. York, and J. McPartland, Equality of Educational Opportunity, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1966. Conway, M. Margaret, Political Participation in the United States, Congressional Quarterly Inc., Washington, D.C., 1991. Currie, Elliott, “Race, Violence, and Justice Since Kerner,” in Fred R. Harris and Lynn A. Curtis, eds., Locked in the Poorhouse: Cities, Race, and Poverty in the United States, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland, 1998. Currie, Janet, and Duncan Thomas, “Does Head Start Make a Difference?” American Economic Review, Vol. 85, No. 3, 1995, pp. 341–364. Currie, Janet, and Duncan Thomas, “School Quality and the Longer-Term Effects of Head Start,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 6362, 1998. Erie, Steven P., Harold Brackman, and James Warren Ingram III, Path to Political Incorporation for Latinos and Asian Pacifics in California, California Policy Seminar, Research Report, University of California at Berkeley, 1993. Gey, Fredric, J. Eric Oliver, Benjamin Highton, Darwin Tu, and Raymond E. Wolfinger, California Latina/Latino Demographic Data Book, California Policy Seminar, Research Report, University of California at Berkeley, 1993. 195 BIBLIOGRAPHY Gibson, Cambell, and Emily Lennon, Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-Born Population of the United States: 1850 to 1990, Population Division Working Paper No. 29, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., 1999. Guendelman, Sylvia, and Barbara Abrams, “Dietary Intake Among Mexican-American Women: Generational Differences and a Comparison with White Non-Hispanic Women,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 85, No. 1, 1995, pp. 20–25. Guendelman, Sylvia, Gilberto Chavez, and Roberta Christianson, “Fetal Deaths in Mexican-American, African American and White Non-Hispanic Women Seeking Government-Funded Prenatal Care,” Journal of Community Health, Vol. 19, No. 5, 1994, pp. 319–330. Guendelman, Sylvia, Paul English, and Gilberto Chavez, “Infants of Mexican Immigrants: Health Status of an Emerging Population,” Medical Care, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1995, pp. 41–52. Hayes-Bautista, Aida Hurtado, Robert Burciaga Valdez, and Anthony C.R. Hernandez, No Longer a Minority: Latinos and Social Policy in California, UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center, University of California at Los Angeles, 1992. Huo, Yuen J., and Tom R. Tyler, How Different Ethnic Groups React to Authority, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2000. Institute of Governmental Studies, Statewide Database, University of California at Berkeley, 1996. Jackson, Bryan O., and Michael B. Preston, Racial and Ethnic Politics in California, IGS Press, Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California at Berkeley, 1991. Jaynes, Gerald David, and Robin M. Williams, Jr., A Common Destiny: African Americans and American Society, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989. Johnson, Hans P., and Sonya M. Tafoya, The Basic Skills of Welfare Recipients: Implications for Welfare Reform, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 1999. Kayden, Xandra, California Policy Options 1997, UCLA Policy Forum and UCLA Business Forecasting Project, School of Public Policy and Social Research, University of California at Los Angeles, 1998. Kotelchuck, M., “An Evaluation of the Kessner Adequacy of Prenatal Care Index and a Proposed Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilization Index,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 84, 1994, pp. 1414–1420. Lopez, Elias, Enrique Ramirez, and Refugio Rochin, Latinos and Economic Development in California, California Research Bureau, California State Library, Sacramento, California, 1999. Lopez, Elias, Ginny Puddefoot, and Patricia Gandara, A Coordinated Approach to Raising the Socio-Economic Status of Latinos in California, California Research Bureau, California State Library, Sacramento, California, 2000. 196 BIBLIOGRAPHY Manski, C., G. Sandefeur, S. McLanahan, and D. Powers, “Alternative Estimates of the Effects of Family Structure During Childhood on High School Graduation,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 87, 1992, pp. 25–37. Milbrath, Lester W., and Madan Lal Goel, Political Participation: How and Why Do People Get Involved in Politics? 2nd ed., Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1977. National Asian Pacific American Political Almanac, 1988–99, 8th ed., UCLA Asian American Studies Center, Los Angeles, California, 1998–99. National Asian Pacific American Political Almanac, 7th ed., UCLA Asian American Studies Center, Los Angeles, California, 1996–98. National Asian Pacific American Roster, UCLA Asian American Studies Center, Los Angeles, California, 1980–84. National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund, Annual Directory of Latino Elected Officials, Los Angeles, California, 1984–1998. National Rosters of African American Elected Officials, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies Press, Washington, D.C., 1980–1984. Niemi, Richard G., and Herbert F. Weisberg, Controversies in American Voting Behavior, CQ Press, Washington, D.C., 1993. Oliver, J. Eric, Fredric Gey, Jon Stiles, and Henry Brady, Pacific Rim States Asian Demographic Databook, Pacific Rim Research Program, University of California at Berkeley, 1995. Ortiz, Vilma, Stephen Trejo, Christian Zlolniski, and Juan-Vicente Palerm, New Research on Latino Workers in the California Economy: The Disadvantaged Labor-Force Position of Latino Immigrants; Obstacles to LaborMarket Progress of Mexican-Origin Workers; Working-Poor Mexican Immigrant Workers in San Jose, Brief, Vol. 8, No. 9, 1996. Passel, Jeffrey S., and Rebecca L. Clark, “How Many Naturalized Citizens Are There? An Assessment of Data Quality in the Decennial Census and CPS,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Washington, D.C. March 1997. Pierce, J. P., E. A. Gilpin, S. L. Emery, et al., Tobacco Control in California: Who’s Winning the War? An Evaluation of the Tobacco Control Program, 1989–1996, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California, 1998. Population Reference Bureau, World Population Data Sheet, Washington, D.C., 1998. Reed, Deborah, California’s Rising Income Inequality: Causes and Concerns, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 1999. 197 BIBLIOGRAPHY Reese, C. M., L. Jerry, and N. Ballator, The NAEP 1996 Mathematics State Report for California, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, D.C., 1997. Regalado, James, Minority Political Empowerment: The Changing Face of California? The Edmund G. “Pat” Brown Institute of Public Affairs, California States University, Los Angeles, 1991. Rodriguez, Gregory, The Emerging Latino Middle Class, Institute for Public Policy, School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University, Malibu, California, 1998. Rosenstone, Steven J., and John Mark Hansen, Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1993. Rumbaut, Ruben G., The New Californians: Assessing the Educational Progress of Children of Immigrants, CPS Brief Series, 1996. Schauffler, Helen, and E. Richard Brown, The State of Health Insurance in California, 1999, University of California at Berkeley, 2000. Schmidley, A. Dianne, and Gregory Robinson, How Well Does the Current Population Survey Measure the Foreign-Born Population in the United States? U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., 1988. Schmidley, A. Dianne, and Gibson Cambel, Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 1997, Current Population Report Series, Series P-23, Special Studies, Vol. 64, No. 195, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., August 1999. Schmidt, Ronald, “The Political Incorporation of Immigrants in California: An Institutional Assessment,” California Politics and Policy, 1996, pp. 1–19. Stiles, Jon, Jonathan Cohen, Zachary Elkins, and Frederic Gey, California Latino Demographic Databook, California Policy Seminar, University of California at Berkeley, 1998. Tafoya, Sonya M., “Check One or More . . .Mixed Race and Ethnicity in California, California Counts: Population Trends and Profiles, Vol. 1, No. 2, January 2000. Thernstrom, Stephan, and Abigail Thernstrom, America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1997. Tonry, Michael, Malign Neglect, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates for States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, June 1998. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates for States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, July 1, 1998. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates for States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, 1999. 198 BIBLIOGRAPHY U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990, Census of the Population and Housing Public Law 94-171 Data (Official and Adjusted) Age by Race and Hispanic Origin. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990 Census of Population: General Population Characteristics. U.S. Department of Education, National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), 1992. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Statistics to 2008, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 1996 Mathematics Report Card for the Nation and the States, Washington, D.C., 1996. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 1998 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States, Washington, D.C., 1998. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education 1998, Washington, D.C., 1998. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, Washington, D.C. Verba, Sidney, and Norman H. Nie, Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality, Harper and Row, New York, 1972. Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady, Voice and Equality, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995. Wolfinger, Raymond, and Steven J. Rosenstone, Who Votes? Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 1980. Wordes, Madeline, Timothy S. Bynum, and Charles J. Corley, “Locking Up Youth: The Impact of Race on Detention Decisions,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 31, No. 2, 1994. World Bank, World Development Report, Washington, D.C., 1993. Yanez-Chavez, Anibal, Latino Politics in California, Center for U.S.-Mexico Studies, University of California at San Diego, 1996. 199 BIBLIOGRAPHY BOARD OF DIRECTORS R AY M O N D L . W AT S O N, C H A I R Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ Partner Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP DA VI D A . C O U LT E R Vice Chairman Chase Manhattan Corporation ED WAR D K . HAMILTON Chairman Hamilton,Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. WALT E R B. HEWLETT Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities DAVID W. LYON President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California CHERYL WHITE MASON Partner O’Melveny & Myers ARJAY MI LLE R Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University KI SUH PARK Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates A. ALAN POST Former State Legislative Analyst State of California CYNTHIA A. TELLES Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine HAROLD M. WILLIAMS President Emeritus The J. Paul Getty Trust and Of Counsel Skadden,Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP ADVISORY COUNCIL JOEL FOX Joel Fox Consulting C L I F F O R D W. G R AV E S Director of Planning & Physical Development University of California, Merced ELIZABETH G. HILL Legislative Analyst State of California RUDOLF NOTHENBERG Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco H A R RY P. PAC H O N President The Tomás Rivera Policy Institute M A N U E L PA S TO R Professor of Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz CONSTANCE L. RICE Co-Director The Advancement Project PETER SCHRAG Contributing Editor Sacramento Bee J A M E S P. S M I T H Senior Economist RAND CAROL WHITESIDE President Great Valley Center California’s racial and ethnic composition has changed dramatically over the last generation; so dramatically, in fact, that many businesses, public interest groups, media professionals, and policymakers lack current, reliable information about the state’s population. In this volume, Belinda Reyes and a team of researchers provide that information along with a useful description of how the state’s major racial and ethnic groups are faring economically, socially, and politically. Drawing on data compiled between 1970 and the present, the authors examine trends and outcomes in demography, education, health, labor, economic status, crime, political participation,and ethnic geography. Each chapter presents key indicators of well-being for the four major racial and ethnic groups: whites, Hispanics, Asians, and African Americans. Where possible, the authors also present trends and outcomes for major Asian and Hispanic subgroups. In general, all four groups have experienced improvements in health, education, and crime rates over the last 30 years. However, many disparities have persisted or even widened during this time. These disparities form a clear pattern across the major indicators of economic, social, and political well-being. About the editor: Belinda Reyes is a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, where she studies immigration and the economic progress of immigrants and their families. She holds a Ph.D. in economics from the University of California, Berkeley." ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:34:48" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(8) "r_201brr" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:34:48" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:34:48" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(50) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/R_201BRR.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }