OP 1001DROP
Database
This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.
object(Timber\Post)#3875 (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(15) "OP_1001DROP.pdf"
["wpmf_size"]=>
string(6) "711106"
["wpmf_filetype"]=>
string(3) "pdf"
["wpmf_order"]=>
string(1) "0"
["searchwp_content"]=>
string(90959) "Occasional Papers Demographic, Social, and Economic Trends for Young Children in California Deborah Reed Sonya M. Tafoya Prepared for presentation to the California Children and Families Commission October 18, 2001 Public Policy Institute of California 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 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Purpose This study was presented to the California Children and Families Commission (CCFC) to better inform the Commission about the size, growth, racial/ethnic makeup, regional distribution, resources, and needs of the child population it was created to serve following the Children and Families Act of 1998. The Commission is charged with providing all California children (prenatal to age five) with a comprehensive, integrated system of early childhood development services. These services include health care, quality childcare, parent education, and effective intervention programs for families at risk. We presented this study at the CCFC State Commission meeting on October 18, 2001. The presentation, selection of data sources, choice of indicators, and discussion are those of the authors and do not represent any position of the CCFC. This paper was reviewed and published solely by Public Policy Institute of California.1 1 The authors thank Hans Johnson for advising this project, Elizabeth Burr for reviewing an earlier draft of the study, and Amanda Bailey for research assistance. We also benefited from the helpful comments of Amy Dominguez-Arms, Elias Lopez, Michael Teitz, Peter Richardson, Arabella Cureton, members of the CCFC, participants at the August meeting of the School Readiness Working Group, and participants at the October CCFC meeting. i ii Summary This study provides a statistical portrait of children ages five and under in California. The study has several notable findings in the areas of population, family life, parental education, economic conditions, and health conditions. Population • There were over 3 million young children in California in 2000, of whom 48 percent were Hispanic, 32 percent were white, 9 percent were Asian, 7 percent were African American, and 4 percent were multiple race. • Over the 1990s, the number of Hispanic and Asian children grew substantially while the number of white, African American, and Native American children declined. • For most regions, Hispanic children are expected to be the largest group by 2020. In the northern and eastern regions of the state, whites are expected to remain the majority among young children. • Nearly half of all children have at least one parent who was born outside of the United States. Family Life • Seventy percent of young children in California live in families with married parents. For African American children, the share is less than 30 percent. • More than half of young children have a mother who works in the labor market. For children under age two with single mothers, about half have a mother who works. • About one-fourth of young children have moved in the previous year. For children in low-income families, close to one-third have moved. • More than 10 percent of births in California are to teen mothers. Of these births, more than half are to women ages 18 and 19, and more than one-third are to married women. iii Parental Education • Over 30 percent of births are to women who have not completed 12 years of education. In the Central Valley and the Central Coast regions, the share is closer to 40 percent. Among foreign-born Hispanics, the share is over 60 percent. • Statewide, 70 percent of fathers have a high school diploma. The share is substantially lower for Southeast Asians and Hispanics. Economic Conditions • One in every five young children is poor. Poverty rates declined in the late 1990s, but remain particularly high in the Central Valley and among Hispanics and African Americans. • The median income for families with young children increased over the last five years to reach $34,000 for a family of four in 1999. However, this figure has declined from $39,000 in 1979. • Twelve percent of young children are in families receiving public assistance. In the mid-1990s, that figure was over 20 percent. Health Conditions • One in every five young children does not have health insurance. Lack of insurance is particularly common in the Inland Empire and among foreign-born Hispanics. • One in every three children is not up-to-date for vaccinations at age two. Almost half of African American children are not up-to-date. iv Contents Purpose Summary 1. INTRODUCTION 2. POPULATION AGES FIVE AND UNDER Population Estimates from the 2000 Census Population Trends and Projections 3. FAMILY LIFE Family Structure Adult Workforce Participation Residential Mobility Births to Teenage Mothers 4. PARENTAL EDUCATION Maternal Education Paternal Education 5. ECONOMIC CONDITIONS Poverty and Low Income Median Income for Families with Young Children Public Assistance 6. HEALTH CONDITIONS Health Insurance Vaccinations References Other information resources on children in California Appendix A. Region Definitions Appendix B. Data and Methodology Appendix C. Indicators by County v i iii 1 3 3 7 13 13 15 20 22 27 27 29 33 33 35 37 41 41 42 45 47 49 53 55 vi 1. Introduction This study provides a statistical portrait of the conditions of California’s children ages five and under. In addition to presenting population trends, we document several indicators of family life as well as educational, economic, and health conditions. The study describes detailed regional and racial/ethnic results where the data are sufficient to do so. Unless otherwise noted, all reported statistics are for children ages five and under in California. Because this study is a statistical portrait, the text is meant to interpret and highlight information presented in tables and charts rather than explain underlying causes of trends, regional differences, or racial/ethnic disparities. Although we have chosen indicators that we believe are highly relevant to policymakers, we do not attempt to highlight policy implications or draw policy conclusions in this study. The study begins with a description of the size of the young child population, its racial/ethnic makeup, its regional distribution, and its foreignborn status. The third chapter presents information on family life, including family structure, adult work participation, residential mobility, and births to teen mothers. The next chapters describe parental education, poverty, income, and public assistance. The final chapter presents health insurance and vaccination status. We do not provide information on childcare, preschool, and kindergarten because PPIC has forthcoming research studies in those areas and because the CCFC has recently conducted a survey of those topics. The study relies on data from many sources including the 2000 Census, the California Department of Finance (DOF) population projections, the Current Population Survey (March files), and Vital Statistics Birth Records (see Appendix B for further information on data sources). Population estimates for the year 2000 are based on the 2000 Census. However, socioeconomic indicators from the 2000 Census have not yet been released. For many of the topics covered in this study, the 2000 Census will provide an excellent resource for further investigation. In particular, the large sample size of the 2000 Census long-form will permit county-level measurement as well as racial/ethnic subgroup distinctions. The 2000 Census microdata is scheduled for release in 2003. We use three different sets of geographical regions in this study. The first set sorts counties into ten regions as requested by the CCFC. We use these ten regions whenever the data are sufficient to do so. The second set of regions, “major regions,” consists of parts of the six largest of the ten CCFC regions for which the sample in March Current Population Survey (CPS) is -1- large enough to draw reasonable conclusions. Because the CCFC was particularly interested in whether areas with under-performing elementary schools were notably different from other areas, the final set of regions is based on counties with low-performing school districts. Readers are referred to Appendix A for a fuller description of the regions used in this study. Throughout the study, we use a consistent approach to racial/ethnic groups whereby Hispanics of any race are grouped together. For ease of presentation, we use the term “whites” when we literally mean “white nonHispanics.” When reporting data from the 2000 Census, we use the eight major racial/ethnic groups used by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. When reporting data from the California Department of Finance (DOF), we use the five groups used by the DOF. Further data and methodological issues are discussed in Appendix B. -2- 2. Population Ages Five and Under This chapter presents population estimates and projections for children ages five and under over the period 1980 to 2020. For the young child population, we present the racial/ethnic makeup, regional distribution, and foreign-born status. Population Estimates from the 2000 Census The 2000 Census showed just over 3 million children aged five and under living in California (Table 2.1, first row). The racial/ethnic makeup of young children was substantially different from that of the overall population. In the overall population, whites were the largest group at 47 percent and Hispanics the second largest at 32 percent. However, nearly half (48 percent) of California’s young children were Hispanic, and close to onethird (32 percent) were white (see Table 2.2). Asians made up 9 percent of the young child population and blacks another 7 percent. Native Americans, Pacific Islanders,2 and “other” races each comprised less than 1 percent of the young child population.3 The measurement and understanding of racial and ethnic categories have changed in the United States. The 2000 Census was the first decennial Census to permit multiple responses to the question about race. In California, the share of the overall population that identified itself as belonging to two or more races was 4.7 percent, but for children ages 5 and under, that figure was 8.3 percent. Just over half of these multiple-race children were Hispanic. Some 4.4 percent of non-Hispanic children were identified as belonging to two or more races (Table 2.2, final column). In a study of birth records, Tafoya (2000) found that14 percent of newborns in California had one parent from one of the major racial or ethnic groups and the other parent from another group. Most data on young children in this report is tabulated based on a single racial or ethnic group. However, in this section, where we report data from the 2000 Census, we report the numbers of children identified as two or more races. Across the major regions of California, the size and racial/ethnic makeup of the young child population varied considerably. More than 1.2 million young children, 40 percent of the state total, lived in the Los Angeles region, where 57 percent of the young children were Hispanic and 24 percent 2 Pacific Islanders include persons with origins in Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. For a full definition of 2000 Census race groups see http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf1.pdf beginning on page B-13. 3 The population projections in this study have not been adjusted for Census undercount. See Appendix B for a brief discussion of Census undercount. -3- Table 2.1 Number of Children Ages Five and Under by Region and Race/Ethnicity, 2000 California North State Sierra East Sacramento Gold Country Central Valley Central Coast S.F. Bay Area Los Angeles Inland Empire San Diego Total 3,018,386 46,707 6,190 245,178 31,874 237,269 108,883 538,947 1,226,739 322,950 253,649 Hispanic 1,436,172 8,457 1,296 83,302 4,463 138,350 58,225 161,743 701,917 170,314 108,105 White 960,614 31,716 4,190 105,059 24,770 67,534 40,914 200,251 288,161 102,422 95,597 African American 197,028 571 41 17,927 217 10,684 1,656 40,540 84,707 25,499 15,186 Native American 14,178 2,017 339 1,557 353 1,693 411 2,067 2,761 1,680 1,300 Asian 261,002 1,401 36 21,070 674 11,143 3,086 94,555 101,857 9,518 17,662 Pacific Islander 9,579 58 21 952 29 197 219 3,162 3,143 835 963 Source: Authors’ calculations from the 2000 Census, Summary File 1. Note: See Appendix A for definitions of regions. Other 8,385 98 23 739 67 417 247 2,176 3,174 657 787 Multiple Race 131,428 2,389 244 14,572 1,301 7,251 4,125 34,453 41,019 12,025 14,049 -4- Table 2.2 Racial/Ethnic Distribution of Children Ages Five and Under by Region, 2000 California North State Sierra East Sacramento Gold Country Central Valley Central Coast S.F. Bay Area Los Angeles Inland Empire San Diego Hispanic 47.6 18.1 20.9 34.0 14.0 58.3 53.5 30.0 57.2 52.7 42.6 White 31.8 67.9 67.7 42.9 77.7 28.5 37.6 37.2 23.5 31.7 37.7 African American 6.5 1.2 0.7 7.3 0.7 4.5 1.5 7.5 6.9 7.9 6.0 Native American 0.5 4.3 5.5 0.6 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.5 Asian 8.6 3.0 0.6 8.6 2.1 4.7 2.8 17.5 8.3 2.9 6.9 Pacific Islander 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.4 Other 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 Source: Authors’ calculations from the 2000 Census, Summary File 1. Notes: Percentages for each region may not sum to 100 due to rounding. See Appendix A for definitions of regions. Multiple Race 4.4 5.1 3.9 5.9 4.1 3.1 3.8 6.4 3.3 3.7 5.5 -5- were white. The San Francisco Bay Area was the next largest region with over a half million young children. In this region, 37 percent of young children were white, 30 percent were Hispanic, and 18 percent were Asian. The Inland Empire had almost a third of a million young children, of whom over half were Hispanic and 32 percent were white. The San Diego region had just over a quarter-million young children, with 43 percent Hispanic and 38 percent white. In the Sacramento area, there were close to a quartermillion young children, with 43 percent white and 34 percent Hispanic. The Central Valley also had close to a quarter-million young children, of whom 58 percent were Hispanic and 29 percent were white. The Central Coast area had over 100,000 young children; 54 percent were Hispanic and 38 percent were white. The northern and eastern regions of the state had much smaller populations and tended to have higher proportions of whites. In the North State and Sierra East regions, there were roughly 47,000 and 6,000 young children, respectively; 68 percent were white and about 20 percent were Hispanic. These were the only regions with substantial shares of Native Americans, at 4 and 6 percent. The Gold Country had almost 32,000 young children, of whom 78 percent were white and 14 percent were Hispanic. (See Appendix C for racial/ethnic populations by county.) The share of the population comprised of young children varies by region. Statewide, 8.9 percent of all Californians were aged zero to five (Table 2.3), but the Central Valley and Inland Empire regions had larger than average shares of young children, while the Sierra East and Gold Country regions had smaller than average shares. Table 2.3 Percentage of Children Ages Five and Under, by Region California North State Sierra East Sacramento Gold Country Central Valley Central Coast S.F. Bay Area Los Angeles Inland Empire San Diego Percentage 8.9 7.1 6.2 9.0 6.8 10.3 8.0 7.8 9.4 9.9 8.6 Source: Authors’ calculations from the Census 2000, Summary File 1. Note: See Appendix A for definitions of regions. -6- Population Trends and Projections This section begins with a description of trends in the young child population by race and ethnicity. We then describe trends for the ten CCFC regions and the regions based on low-performing schools. We also describe the foreign-born status of children and families. The young child population in California showed strong growth, increasing from 2 million in 1980 to 3 million in 2000 and a projected 4.1 million in 2020 (see Figure 2.1). During the 1980s, the young child population grew faster than the overall population. As a result, young children as a share of the population grew from 8.6 to 9.9 percent between 1980 and 1990. The share of young children declined to 8.9 percent in 2000. For young children, the rise in population from 1990 to 1994 stands out, particularly for Hispanics. The timing of this population increase suggests that it was related to the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, which granted legal status to undocumented immigrants living and working in the United States. Following IRCA, many spouses joined newly legalized immigrants in California which appears to have led to temporary growth in the Hispanic fertility rate and thus a rise in the young child population (Cornelius, 1989).4 The young child population declined in the late 1990s largely as a result of a decline in the number of white children. 4 Johnson, Hill, and Heim (2001) report a rise in the total fertility rate of foreign-born Hispanics between 1987 and 1991. -7- Millions Figure 2.1 Population Trends for Children Ages Five and Under 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 80 84 88 92 96 00 04 08 12 16 20 African American Asian Hispanic White Source: Authors’ calculations based on California Department of Finance estimates and projections, adjusted by 2000 Census estimates (see Appendix B). Notes: Chart shows groups in the order indicated in the legend. Native Americans are represented by the thickness of the black line at the top of the chart. The racial/ethnic mix of the young child population has changed considerably over the last two decades, and this trend is expected to continue. In 1980, the largest group (53 percent) was white. By 2000, the number of young white children had actually declined, and the white share of the young child population dropped to 32 percent. This decline is attributed both to the aging of the "baby-boom" generation out of childbearing years and to migration to other states. Over the next two decades, the number of young white children is expected to stay fairly steady, but the share of the young child population is expected to fall to 25 percent. In contrast, the young Hispanic child population has grown substantially. That share, which increased from 32 percent in 1980 to 48 percent in 2000, is expected to reach 57 percent in 2020. The Asian child population also shows a strong growth trend; in 2000, Asian children were the third largest group, at 9 percent. That share is expected to rise in the next two decades. Growth in the Hispanic and Asian young child population was primarily the result of births to the relatively young immigrant population in both groups.5 The numbers of African American and Native American young children have not changed substantially in the last two decades and are expected to stay fairly stable through 2020. However, growth in the Hispanic 5 See Johnson, Hill and Heim (2001) for a description of fertility patterns in California. -8- and Asian populations has reduced the share of the African American and Native American young child populations. Between 1980 and 2020, the African American share is expected to decline from 9 to 6 percent, while the Native American share is projected to drop from 0.7 to 0.4 percent. Most of the major regions of California show a strong growth trend in the number of young children between 1980 and 2020 (see Figure 2.2). Like the state as a whole, most regions show particularly strong growth in the early 1990s and some decline in the late 1990s. For most regions, the number of white children is expected to stay fairly stable over the next 20 years while the numbers of Hispanic and Asian children are expected to grow. By 2020, Hispanics are expected to be the largest group in seven of the ten major regions. The Los Angeles area shows the largest bulge in the young child population in the early 1990s; as noted earlier, this growth is probably the result of high fertility rates among young immigrant families following IRCA. There was also a substantial out-migration from Los Angeles to other regions and other states in the 1990s. The Central Coast, the Central Valley, and the Inland Empire also show strong effects of immigration. In 2020, the share of young Hispanic children is expected to be over 60 percent in each of these regions. The San Francisco Bay Area shows the strongest growth in the Asian population. In 2020, one in four young children in this region are expected to be Asian; 38 percent are expected to be Hispanic, and 28 percent are expected to be white. Three regions stand out from the others. In the Gold Country, the young child population grew substantially during the 1980s but showed little growth over the 1990s. The child population is expected to grow, primarily fueled by growth in the number of white children. In 2020, white children are expected to make up 78 percent of the child population. In the North region, there was growth in the number of children between 1980 and 1990 but then substantial decline by 2000. The population is expected to grow by 2020, with the Hispanic share increasing to 25 percent and the Asian share increasing to 7 percent. In the Sierra East region, the young child population grew moderately in the 1980s but then declined by an even larger margin in the 1990s, primarily due to a shrinking number of young white children in the region. The child population is expected to grow in the next 20 years, especially among white and Hispanic children. By 2020, Hispanic children are expected to make up 33 percent of the child population. (See Appendix C for population trends by counties.) -9- Figure 2.2 Trend in the Number of Children Ages Five and Under by Region (thousands) 80 North State 60 40 20 10 8 Sierra East 6 4 2 00 80 90 00 10 20 80 90 00 10 20 400 Central Valley 300 200 Central Coast 150 200 100 100 50 0 80 90 00 10 20 0 80 90 00 10 20 800 Inland Empire 600 400 San Diego Area 300 400 200 200 100 0 80 90 00 10 20 0 80 90 00 10 20 400 Sacramento 300 200 100 0 80 90 00 10 20 60 50 Gold Country 40 30 20 10 0 80 90 00 10 20 800 SF Bay Area 600 2,000 Los Angeles Area 1,500 400 1,000 200 500 0 80 90 00 10 20 0 80 90 00 10 20 African American Asian Source: Authors’ calculations based on California Department of Finance estimates and projections, adjusted by 2000 Census estimates, see Appendix B. Hispanic White Notes: Charts show groups in the order indicated in the legend. Native Americans are represented by the thickness of the black line at the top of each chart. - 10 - As Figure 2.3 indicates, counties with low-performing schools tend to have a higher proportion of Hispanic children and a lower proportion of white and Asian children. (See Appendix A for a description of regions based on low-performing schools.) In Los Angeles County, the largest of the counties with low-performing schools, the young child population in 2000 was over 60 percent Hispanic and less than 20 percent white. In other counties with low performing schools, young children were more than half Hispanic and about one-third white. In the remainder of counties, young children were over 43 percent white, 36 percent Hispanic, and 15 percent Asian. The racial/ethnic make-up of low-performing schools does not imply any causal link between race/ethnicity and test scores. Studies by the California Department of Figure 2.3 Population Trends for Regions by School Performance (thousands) 1,200 1,000 Los Angeles County 800 600 400 200 0 80 90 00 10 20 1,500 1,200 Counties with Low Performing Schools 900 600 300 0 80 90 00 10 20 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 All Other Counties African American Asian Hispanic 0 White 80 90 00 10 20 Source: Authors’ calculations based on California Department of Finance estimates and projections, adjusted by 2000 Census estimates, see Appendix B. Notes: Regions defined by elementary school performance in county. See Appendix A. Chart shows groups in the order indicated in the legend. Native Americans are represented by the thickness of the black line at the top of the chart. - 11 - Education show a strong relationship between low-performing schools and socio-economic disadvantage.6 In 1999, very few (3.4 percent) of the state’s children age five or under were foreign-born (see Table 2.3). However, nearly half of all young children had at least one foreign-born parent. This share increased substantially-from 37 percent to 47 percent-- between 1980 and 1990 and increased modestly (to 49 percent) in 1999. In the Los Angeles region, 63 percent of children had at least one foreign-born parent. In the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, and the Central Valley, roughly 45 percent of young children had a foreign-born parent. In Sacramento and the Inland Empire, about 30 percent of young children had a foreign-born parent. (The dataset used for this analysis was too small to include other regions.) The share of young children in families with a foreign-born head showed the same trend, growing from 31 percent in 1980 to 45 percent in 1999. Table 2.3 Percentage of Foreign-Born Residents: Trends and Regional Differences Statewide, 1980 Statewide, 1990 Statewide, 1999 Child 5.6 6.0 3.4 Either Parent 36.7 46.8 49.2 Family Head 31.1 41.6 44.7 Regions, 1999 Sacramento Area <1 30 28 SF Bay Area 5 46 40 Central Valley 6 45 40 Los Angeles Area 4 63 59 Inland Empire 1 31 29 San Diego County 2 44 37 Source: Authors’ calculations from Census (1980, 1990), March CPS (1998-2000). Notes: For regions not shown, the CPS sample was not large enough to calculate reliable statistics. See Appendix A for definitions of regions. 6 For recent reports on this topic, see the California Department of Education website at http://www.cde.ca.gov/psaa/apiresearch.htm. - 12 - 3. Family Life This chapter provides a statistical portrait of the family life of young children in California. We describe the marital status of parents, their workforce participation, residential mobility, and births to teens. Family Structure The share of young children living with married parents declined from 78 percent in 1980 to 74 percent in 1990 (see Table 3.1). By 1999, that figure stood at 70 percent while another 5 percent of young children lived with an unmarried but partnered parent.7 In that same year, 19 percent of young children lived with a single mother. The share of young children who lived with a single father was 3 percent. About 2 percent of young children lived with a relative but not a parent, and 1 percent lived with a non-relative. Table 3.1 Family Structure: Trends, and Regional Differences (percentage) Statewide, 1980 Statewide, 1990 Statewide, 1999 Married Parent 77.9 73.5 69.8 Partnered Parent 4.5 4.7 Single Mother 14.8 15.4 19.3 Single Father 2.7 2.4 2.7 Other Relative 3.0 1.9 2.3 Nonrelative 1.6 2.3 1.3 Regions, 1999 Sacramento Area SF Bay Area Central Valley Los Angeles Area Inland Empire San Diego County 61 77 66 72 66 62 5 29 2 2 1 3 15 2 1 1 5 23 3 2 1 4 18 2 3 1 8 18 6 1 1 7 22 5 2 1 Source: Authors’ calculations from Census (1980, 1990) and March CPS (1998-2000). Note: "Married parent" families include families with one biological parent and one stepparent. The CPS survey does not include children living in institutional settings. For regions not shown, the CPS sample was not large enough to calculate reliable statistics. See Appendix A for definitions of regions. 7 For heads of households, the CPS allows respondents to identify "unmarried partners." Reported statistics combine same sex and opposite sex domestic partnerships. The CPS does not identify whether the unmarried partner is the biological or adoptive parent of children in the household. Survey data from other sources suggest that the CPS measure of domestic partnerships may be too low (Casper, Cohen, and Simmons, 1999). The 1990 Census has similar information on domestic partnerships. The 1980 Census does not include information on domestic partnerships. - 13 - Of the major regions, the San Francisco Bay Area had the highest share (77 percent) of young children living with married parents. San Diego County and the Sacramento region had the lowest share at just over 61 percent. In each of the major regions, the vast majority of children who did not live with married parents lived with a single mother. Interestingly, San Diego County and the Inland Empire had relatively large shares of children living with single fathers (5 and 6 percent, respectively). Likewise, these regions also had higher shares of children living with partnered parents. Table 3.2 Family Structure by Race/Ethnicity (percentage) 1999 White Hispanic, F -born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian F.-born African American Married Parent 77 71 56 84 28 Partnered Parent 5 6 6 0 5 Single Single Other Mother Father Relative 14 2 18 2 29 4 94 59 3 2 2 2 2 3 Nonrelative 1 1 2 1 3 1990 White Hispanic, F.-born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian F.-born Asian U.S.-born Southeast Asian African American Native American 81 71 67 89 88 80 39 58 3 11 2 1 2 5 10 4 4 6 7 18 3 2 3 1 52 2 2 1 72 1 1 1 12 1 2 3 6 43 3 5 3 9 24 3 3 2 Source: Authors’ calculations from Census (1990) and March CPS (1998-2000). Note: The table does not show 1999 levels for groups for whom the CPS sample was too small to calculate reliable statistics. Foreign-born groupings are based on the family head. Southeast Asians are included with other Asians for 1999 but separated for 1990. The share of young children living with married parents varied substantially by race/ethnicity and foreign-born status. For young Asian and white children, the proportion of living with married parents was close to 80 percent in 1999 (see Table 3.2). For families with foreign-born Hispanic heads, the share was 71 percent. In families headed by U.S.-born Hispanics, 56 percent of young children lived with married parents and 29 percent lived with a single mother. Less than 30 percent of African American young children lived with married parents while almost 60 percent lived with a - 14 - single mother. In 1990, 58 percent of Native American children lived with married parents and 24 percent lived with a single mother. Adult Workforce Participation There are many ways to measure workforce participation depending on the definition of part-time work. We divide adults into three groups based on work participation in the previous year: those who worked very little or not at all (under 200 hours), those who worked a substantial amount but not close to full time (200-1,499 hours), and those who worked at least 1,500 hours. We chose 1,500 hours because it represents three-quarter-time work. For example, a person who worked full-time (i.e., 40 hours) for 37.5 weeks worked 1,500 hours. To meet the work requirements under the CalWorks welfare program, single parents must work 32 hours per week. With two weeks of vacation, this requirement translates to 1,600 hours annually. Most fathers and more than half of mothers of young children in California worked outside the home. Thirty-five percent of children living with single mothers in 1999 had mothers who worked at least 1,500 hours. Another 25 percent of these children had mothers who worked at least 200 hours that year (see Figure 3.1). For about 41 percent of children with single mothers, the mothers worked less than 200 hours in 1999. The comparable figure for such mothers in 1989 was 57 percent. This decline is likely due, in part, to CalWorks program rules requiring work participation.8 Compared to children with single mothers, children with married mothers were more likely to have mothers who worked less than 200 hours in 1999. For children with married mothers, the proportion with a mother working at least 1,500 hours rose from 20 percent in 1979 to 34 percent in 1999. For children living with single fathers, there has been a growing trend in fathers’ workforce participation, with the share working at least 1,500 hours growing from 60 to 78 percent. The share of children with fathers working less than 200 hours fell from 16 to 9 percent between 1979 and 1999. Children with married fathers were the group most likely to have a working father: 86 percent had a father working at least 1,500 hours in 1999, and only 5 percent of children had a father working less than 200 hours. 8 For CalWorks program information, see the Department of Social Services website at http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/getinfo/policypro.html. - 15 - Figure 3.1 Percentage of Children with Parents Participating in the Workforce, by Annual Hours of Work, 1979-1999 100 percentage 80 60 1,500+ 200-1,499 40 <200 20 0 79 89 99 Single Mothers 79 89 99 Married Mothers 79 89 99 Single Fathers 79 89 99 Married Fathers Source: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1979-1980, 1989-1990, 1999-2000). The youngest children were less likely to have a mother working outside the home. For children under two, 52 percent of those with single mothers and 46 percent of those with married mothers had mothers who worked less than 200 hours in 1999 (see Figure 3.2). For these youngest children, only 24 percent with single mothers and 33 percent with married mothers had a mother who worked at least 1,500 hours. For children age four to five, almost 40 percent had mothers working at least 1,500 hours for both single and married mothers.9 9 Calculations of maternal workforce participation by child age are generally based on the age of the youngest child. Because we are interested in the family life of children, we calculate statistics for each young child in the family. - 16 - Figure 3.2 Percentage of Children with Mothers Participating in the Workforce, by Age of Child, 1999 percentage 100 80 60 1,500+ 200-1,499 40 <200 20 0 0 to 1 2 to 3 4 to 5 Single Mothers 0 to 1 2 to 3 4 to 5 Married Mothers Source: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1998-2000). In four of the six major regions, 48 to 58 percent of children with single mothers had mothers who worked less than 200 hours in 1999 (see Table 3.3). In five of the regions, 22 to 32 percent of these children had mothers who worked 1,500 hours or more. In the San Francisco Bay Area, 55 percent of children with single mothers had mothers who worked at least 1,500 hours and only 31 percent had mothers that worked less than 200 hours. Between 32 and 41 percent of children with married mothers had mothers who worked at least 1,500 hours in five of the six regions. In the Central Valley, the share was only 24 percent. The workforce participation of married fathers did not vary as substantially: 79 to 89 percent of children with married fathers had a father working at least 1,500 hours. There were too few singlefather families to calculate reliable statistics by region. - 17 - Table 3.3 Parental Workforce Participation by Family Type and Region, 1999 (percentage) Single Mothers Sacramento Area SF Bay Area Central Valley Los Angeles Area Inland Empire San Diego County Married Mothers Sacramento Area SF Bay Area Central Valley Los Angeles Area Inland Empire San Diego County Married Fathers Sacramento Area SF Bay Area Central Valley Los Angeles Area Inland Empire San Diego County <200 Hours 36 31 55 48 58 56 39 48 52 48 44 43 12 3 4 4 8 2 200-1499 Hours 42 14 20 19 17 20 20 19 24 18 15 17 9 9 17 7 5 10 1500+ Hours 22 55 25 32 25 24 41 32 24 35 41 40 80 88 79 89 87 87 Source: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1998-2000). Note: Single father sample was too small to calculate reliable regional statistics. For regions not shown, the CPS sample was not large enough to calculate reliable statistics. See Appendix A for definitions of regions. As Table 3.4 indicates, among children with single mothers, white children had the largest share of mothers working at least 1,500 hours (38 percent) and the smallest share with mothers working less than 200 hours (36 percent). For Hispanics and African Americans, the share with a mother working less than 200 hours was about half. Among children with married mothers, Hispanic children in families with foreign-born heads had the highest share of mothers working less than 200 hours (57 percent) and those in families with U.S.-born heads had the lowest share (37 percent). For children with married fathers, for all groups shown, 80 to 90 percent had fathers who worked at least 1,500 hours. - 18 - Table 3.4 Parental Work Participation by Family Type and Race/Ethnicity (percentage) Single Mothers White Hispanic, foreign-born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian, foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Southeast Asian African American Native American Married Mothers White Hispanic, foreign-born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian, foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Southeast Asian African American Native American Married Fathers White Hispanic, foreign-born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian, foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Southeast Asian African American Native American <200 Hours in 1999 36 50 49 49 43 57 37 46 4 3 5 10 200-1499 Hours in 1999 25 17 22 25 21 17 22 16 6 13 10 10 1500+ Hours in 1999 38 33 28 26 36 26 41 38 90 84 85 80 Avg. Hours in 1989 880 842 675 879 1050 196 605 570 840 540 802 663 1165 442 1078 829 2191 1727 1901 1766 2053 866 1850 1941 Source: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1998-2000) and the Census (1990). Notes: The table does not show 1999 levels for groups for whom the CPS sample was too small to calculate reliable statistics. Foreign-born groupings are based on the family head. The single father sample in the CPS was too small to calculate reliable statistics for all groups. Southeast Asians are included with other Asians for 1999 but separated for 1990. Because of the small size of the CPS sample, we need to rely on 1990 Census data to estimate parental workforce participation for many groups (final column, Table 3.4). For Asian children, those in families with U.S.born heads had substantially higher average maternal work hours than did white children. However, Southeast Asians had particularly low workforce participation. Among Southeast Asians, for children with married fathers, the average annual hours worked was less than 900. For Native Americans, - 19 - workforce participation was similar to that of whites; the exception was the case of children with single mothers, for whom workforce participation was lower among Native Americans. Childcare cost, quality, and availability are important factors related to trends and differences in adult workforce participation. In this study, we do not cover childcare topics because PPIC has forthcoming research on that subject and the CCFC has a recent survey of childcare in the state. Residential Mobility In 2000, about one-fourth of all young children moved households in the previous year. For low-income children, the share that moved was close to one-third (see Figure 3.3).10 Residential mobility for young children varies Figure 3.3 Percentage of Young Children who Moved in the Previous Year, 1981-2000 45 40 Low-Income 35 30 25 20 All 15 10 5 0 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 Source: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1981-2000). Notes: Information refers to moving in the previous year. For 1987 and earlier, children are categorized by the mobility status of their mothers due to the nature of the survey question. In all years, children under one are categorized by the mobility status of their mothers. We use mobility status of fathers for children not living with their mothers. The CPS survey does not contain comparable mobility information in 1985. 10 See Chapter 5 for the definition of "low-income" used in this study. - 20 - percentage significantly from year to year, but the general trend has been downward over the last two decades. In 1981, the share that had moved in the previous year was 30 percent for all young children and over 40 percent for low-income children. Children from all regions of California were highly mobile in the late 1990s, especially children in low-income families (see Table 3.5). Of the major regions, San Diego County had children with the highest mobility, with 34 percent of young children having moved in the previous year. (The figure for low-income children was 45 percent.) Table 3.5 Percentage of Children Who Moved in 1999, by Region Sacramento Area SF Bay Area Central Valley Los Angeles Area Inland Empire San Diego County All children 30 20 25 23 27 34 Lowincome children 37 25 32 28 37 45 Sources: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1998-2000). Notes: See notes to Figure 3.3. For regions not shown, the CPS sample was not large enough to calculate reliable statistics. See Appendix A for definitions of regions. Residential mobility was particularly high for African American children in 1999; 34 percent had moved in the previous year (48 percent of low-income African American children). However, data from the 1990 Census provides a somewhat different measure of mobility--movement in the previous five years--and showed a particularly high level of residential mobility for foreign-born Asian and Hispanic children (Table 3.6, final column). - 21 - Table 3.6 Percentage of Children Who Moved by Race/Ethnicity White Hispanic, foreign-born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian, foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Southeast Asian African American Native American All children (1999) 23 26 28 25 34 Low income children (1999) 37 29 32 48 All children, 1990 73 82 69 89 72 82 70 69 Sources: Authors’ calculations from Census (1990) and March CPS (1998-2000). Notes: Information for 1999 refers to moving in the previous year. Information for 1990 refers to mother moving since 1985. See notes to Figure 3.3. The table does not show 1999 levels for groups for whom the CPS sample was too small to calculate reliable statistics. Foreign-born groupings are based on the family head. Southeast Asians are included with other Asians for 1999 but separated for 1990. Births to Teenage Mothers The typical measure of births to teenage mothers is the "teen birth rate" which is generally defined as the number of births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 19. The teen birth rate in California was roughly 60 births per 1,000 teen women in the late 1990s (Johnson, Hill, and Heim, 2001). For this report, we are interested in the characteristics of the families of young children. Therefore, we measure the share of births to teen mothers as a percentage of all births. For populations that have a high proportion of women ages 15-19, the share of births to teen mothers may be high even when the teen birth rate is not particularly high. Readers should keep in mind that the trends and racial/ethnic differences reported here are indicative of the families of young children and not the conditions of teenagers. In 1999, 11 percent of all births in California were to teen mothers, with 4 percent to young women ages 15 to 17 and 7 percent to young women ages 18 and 19 (see Figure 3.4). The percentage of births to teen mothers has been fairly stable over the last decade, showing a slight increase in the early 1990s and a slight decline in the late 1990s. Many teen mothers were married at the time of their children’s births. In 1999, 32 percent of births to women ages 15 to17 were to married women; the corresponding figure for - 22 - percentage women ages 18 and 19 was 43 percent. By comparison, 72 percent of births to women ages 20 and older were to married women. Figure 3.4 Percentage of Births that Were to Teenage Mothers, 1989-1999 14 12 All teens 10 8 Ages 18-19 6 4 Ages 15-17 2 0 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Source: Authors’ calculations from Vital Statistics Birth Records, 1989-1999. In nine of the ten regions of California, the share of births to mothers age 15 to 17 was 5 percent or less (see Table 3.7). In the Central Valley, the share was 7 percent. In all regions, a substantial share of births to women of this age was to married women. The Sierra East had the highest share to married women at 54 percent; the Central Valley had the lowest share at 26 percent. The share of births to women ages 18 to 19 ranged from a low of 5 percent in the San Francisco Bay Area to a high of 11 percent in the Central Valley. - 23 - Table 3.7 Percentage of Births to Teenage Mothers by Region, 1999 North State Sierra East Sacramento Gold Country Central Valley Central Coast S.F. Bay Area Los Angeles Inland Empire San Diego County Ages 15-17 Share As a to share of married births mothers 5 46 3 54 5 33 3 36 7 26 4 44 3 40 4 33 5 28 4 37 Ages 18-19 Share As a to share of married births mothers 10 55 9 45 8 41 6 45 11 39 8 55 5 49 7 40 9 42 7 51 Source: Authors’ calculations from Vital Statistics Birth Records, 1999. Notes: See Appendix A for definitions of regions. Foreign-born Asians had a very small share of births to women ages 15 to 17, less than 1 percent (see Table 3.8). For Southeast Asians and whites, the share was 2 percent. (Most teen births to Southeast Asian women were to married women.) For U.S.-born Hispanics, the share was 10 percent, and only 29 percent of these were to married women. Births to women ages 18 and 19 were also particularly low for foreign-born Asian women (2 percent) and high for foreign-born Hispanic women (14 percent).11 11 See Johnson, Hill, and Heim (2001) for teenage birth rates by race and ethnicity. - 24 - Table 3.8 Percentage of Births to Teenage Mothers by Race/Ethnicity, 1999 White Hispanic, foreignborn Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian, foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Southeast Asian African American Native American Ages 15-17 Share As a to share of married births mothers 2 31 4 43 10 29 1 32 5 34 2 61 6 23 7 35 Ages 18-19 Share As a to share of married births mothers 5 45 6 52 14 38 2 48 8 42 4 84 10 29 12 36 Source: Authors’ calculations from Vital Statistics Birth Records, 1999. - 25 - - 26 - 4. Parental Education This chapter describes education levels for parents of children ages five and under. The earliest educators of young children are their family members. Parental education is strongly associated with a child’s educational achievement (Manski et al., 1992). Early childhood development programs also contribute to educational achievement. However, in this study we do not investigate preschool, kindergarten, or other educational conditions for young children. The Public Policy Institute of California will publish studies of these topics in the coming year, and the California Children and Families Commission has recently fielded a survey of these topics. Maternal Education In 1999, roughly 30 percent of births in California were to women who had not completed 12 years of schooling, the usual time required for a high school diploma.12 This figure has fallen from its peak of 35 percent in 1992 to 30 percent in 1999 (see Figure 4.1). Seventy percent of these births were to foreign-born women. Figure 4.1 Percentage of Births to Women with Less than 12 Years of Schooling, 1989-1999 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Source: Authors’ calculations from Vital Statistics Birth Records, 1989-1999. 12 By way of comparison, 26 percent of women ages 20 to 45 have less than 12 years of education. Fertility rates tend to be higher than average among women with low levels of education; as a result, their share of births tends to exceed their share of the population. - 27 - percentage In the Gold Country, the share of births to women with less than 12 years of schooling was relatively low at only 11 percent (see Table 4.1). In the Sierra East and the San Francisco Bay Area, the share was 20 percent. At the other extreme--in Los Angeles, the Central Coast, and the Central Valley-the shares were between 35 and 40 percent. (See Appendix C for countylevel statistics.) Table 4.1 Percentage of Births to Women with Less than 12 Years of Schooling, 1999 North State Sierra East Sacramento Gold Country Central Valley Central Coast S.F. Bay Area Los Angeles Inland Empire San Diego Percentage of overall births 24 21 26 11 39 38 20 35 31 25 Source: Authors’ calculations from Vital Statistics Birth Records, 1999. In most regions, the majority of births to women with less than 12 years of schooling were to foreign-born women. However, in the Sierra East, 57 percent of these births were to U.S.-born women. In the North and the Gold Country, more than 65 percent of these births were to U.S.-born women. For whites and Asians, about 10 percent of births were to women with less than 12 years of schooling (see Table 4.2). For African Americans, the share was 18 percent; for Southeast Asians, 23 percent. Hispanics had the highest share of births to women with less than 12 years of schooling. The share for U.S.-born Hispanics was 30 percent; for foreign-born Hispanics, the share was more than 63 percent. - 28 - Table 4.2 Percentage of Births to Women with Less than 12 Years of Schooling by Race/Ethnicity, 1999 White Hispanic, foreign-born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian, foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Southeast Asian African American Native American As a share of births 8 63 30 8 9 23 18 28 Source: Authors’ calculations from Vital Statistics Birth Records, 1999. Paternal Education Unlike information on maternal education, information on paternal education is not available on birth records. We therefore use survey data to measure the percentage of young children with fathers who have not completed high school. In these measures, we consider only fathers who live with children ages five and under. Statewide, 28 percent of young children had fathers who lacked a high school diploma in 1999. This share has increased slightly over the last two decades from 26 percent in 1980 (see Table 4.3). Regionally, the share of children with fathers without a high school diploma went from a low of 14 percent in the San Francisco Bay Area to a high of 38 percent in the Central Valley. In the Los Angeles region, 34 percent of children had fathers who had not completed high school. - 29 - Table 4.3 Trends and Regional Differences in Paternal Education (percentage of children) Statewide, 1980 Statewide, 1990 Statewide, 1999 Regions, 1999 Sacramento Area SF Bay Area Central Valley Los Angeles Area Inland Empire San Diego County Less than HS diploma 25.6 26.6 27.7 Bachelor's or more 22.8 24.3 24.8 22 14 14 41 38 17 34 25 29 9 19 28 Source: Authors’ calculations from Census (1980, 1990) and March CPS (1998-2000). Notes: Calculations are based on children living with their fathers. In 1980, the Census reported years of completed schooling. For 1980, Table 4.1 shows the percentage not completing 12 years and the percentage completing 16 or more years. For regions not shown, the CPS sample was not large enough to calculate reliable statistics. See Appendix A for definitions of regions. Hispanic fathers of young children had the lowest levels of paternal educational attainment. Among Hispanic children with fathers born in the United States, the share of fathers who had not completed high school was 28 percent; for children with foreign-born Hispanic fathers, that share was 64 percent. For the other three major racial/ethnic groups, less than 10 percent of young children had fathers who had not completed high school. There was significant variation in the proportions of young children whose fathers had completed a bachelor’s degree. Among African Americans, that figure was 26 percent; for whites, the figure was 38 percent; and for Asians, the figure was 50 percent and higher. The high figure for Asians masks substantial variation among subgroups. Information from 1990 shows that less than 13 percent of young Asian children had fathers who lacked a high school diploma; but the corresponding figure among Southeast Asians was 47 percent. - 30 - Table 4.4 Paternal Education by Race/Ethnicity (percentage of children) White Hispanic, foreign-born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian, foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Southeast Asian African American Native American Less than HS diploma 1999 5 64 28 8 8 Bachelors’ or more 1999 38 4 9 50 26 Less than HS diploma 1990 9 74 54 13 11 47 14 23 Sources: Authors’ calculations from Census (1990) and March CPS (1998-2000). Notes: Calculations are based on children living with their fathers. The table does not show 1999 levels for groups for whom the CPS sample was too small to calculate reliable statistics. Foreign-born groupings are based on the family head. Southeast Asians are included with other Asians for 1999 but separated for 1990. - 31 - - 32 - 5. Economic Conditions This chapter describes economic conditions in the families of young children in California. We measure the share of children who are in poor and low-income families, the median incomes for families with young children, and the share of those families that receive public assistance. Poverty and Low Income The poverty rate is the percentage of people who live in families with incomes below a threshold set by the federal government. In 2000, the threshold for a family of four was $17,463. In 1999, 21 percent of young children in California were poor by this definition (see Figure 5.1, black line). In recent years, the poverty rate for young children has fallen from a high of 32 percent in 1994 to 21 percent in 1999. However, the 1999 rate still exceeds the poverty rate for young children in 1979, which was 18 percent. Figure 5.1 Percentage of Children in Poor and Low-Income Families, 1979-1999 60 50 Low-Income 40 30 Poor 20 10 0 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 Source: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1980-2000). The official definition of poverty has been criticized because it does not account for regional prices and income needs. To supplement this measure of poverty, we measured the share of children in low-income families using 75 percent of median income in California as the low-income threshold. We chose this income level because it is the standard for eligibility for childcare - 33 - percentage subsidies in the state.13 By this measure, 44 percent of young children were in low-income families in 1999 (see Figure 5.1, gray line). This rate was lower than that in the peak year of 1994 but higher than the 1979 rate. Regionally, the young child poverty rate in 1999 ranged from a low of 9 percent in the San Francisco Bay Area to a high of 40 percent in the Central Valley (see Table 5.1). The share of young children in low-income families followed a similar regional pattern, with a low of 24 percent in the San Francisco Bay Area and a high of 60 percent in the Central Valley. In Los Angeles County, the largest county with low-performing schools, the poverty rate was 32 percent and the low-income rate was 52 percent. Other counties with low-performing schools had similar poverty and low-income levels. For all other counties, the poverty rate was substantially lower (17 percent), as was the low-income rate (36 percent). Table 5.1 Percentage of Children in Poor and Low-Income Families by Region, 1999 Regions Sacramento Area SF Bay Area Central Valley Los Angeles Area Inland Empire San Diego County School-based regions LA County Low-performing All other counties Poor 31 9 40 27 23 26 32 32 17 Low-income 53 24 60 47 45 46 52 54 36 Sources: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1998-2000). Notes: For regions not shown, the CPS sample was not large enough to calculate reliable statistics. See Appendix A for definitions of regions. In 1999, white and Asian children had the lowest poverty rates at almost 13 percent. African American and Hispanic children had poverty rates of 30 percent and higher. Low-income rates in 1999 show essentially the same pattern. In 1989, almost half of Southeast Asian children were poor. The foreign-born Hispanic poverty rate was also very high at 44 percent. Income data from the Census are not directly comparable to data 13 For consistency over time, we calculate the threshold in each year using the median presented later in this chapter. See Appendix B for methodological details. - 34 - from the CPS, and the columns of Table 5.2 should not be interpreted as reflecting a change in poverty and low-income during the 1990s. Table 5.2 Percentage of Children in Poor and Low-Income Families by Race/Ethnicity White Hispanic, foreign-born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian, foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Southeast Asian African American Native American Poor 1999 13 39 30 12 38 Low-income 1999 27 68 50 25 58 Poor 1989 11 44 28 21 9 49 37 28 Low-income 1989 27 68 54 42 23 62 60 54 Sources: Authors’ calculations from Census (1990) and March CPS (1998-2000). Notes: Income data for 1989 are not directly comparable to data for 1999. The table does not show 1999 levels for groups for whom the CPS sample was too small to calculate reliable statistics. Foreign-born groupings are based on the family head. Southeast Asians are included with other Asians for 1999 but separated for 1990. Median Income for Families with Young Children Median income for families with young children has improved from a low of less than $29,000 in 1994 to just over $34,000 in 1999 (see Figure 5.2). However, the 1999 figure was lower than the inflation-adjusted medians for 1989 ($38,000) and 1979 ($39,000). - 35 - Figure 5.2 Median Income for Families with Young Children, 1979-1999 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 Source: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1980-2000). Notes: The median is the level of income at which half of children live in families with higher income and half of children live in families with lower income. Income reported in inflation-adjusted 1999 dollars. Income adjusted for family size. See Appendix B for details. In 1999, the San Francisco Bay Area had the highest median income for families with young children at almost $62,000 (see Table 5.3). In other regions, the median was about half of that or less. The Central Valley had the lowest median at $22,000. (See Appendix C for estimates of per capita and median income by county.) Table 5.3 Median Income for Families with Young Children by Region, 1999 Sacramento Area SF Bay Area Central Valley Los Angeles Area Inland Empire San Diego County Median 25,748 61,791 21,739 30,604 34,050 30,279 Sources: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1998-2000). Notes: See notes to Figure 5.2. For regions not shown, the CPS sample was not large enough to calculate reliable statistics. See Appendix A for definitions of regions. - 36 - A comparison of the major racial and ethnic groups shows that young white children had the highest median family incomes at over $56,500 in 1999 (see Table 5.4). Foreign-born Hispanics had the lowest median at just under $20,500. For 1989, when information is available at a more detailed level, we see that Southeast Asians had the lowest median of less than $18,500. Income data from the Census are not directly comparable to data from the CPS, and the columns of Table 5.4 should not be interpreted as showing an increase in median income during the 1990s. Table 5.4 Median Income for Families with Young Children by Race/Ethnicity White Hispanic, foreign-born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian, foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Southeast Asian African American Native American Median 1999 56,594 20,492 29,757 49,740 26,234 Median 1989 54,824 19,130 27,505 37,955 56,372 18,438 21,442 29,963 Sources: Authors’ calculations from the Census (1990) and March CPS (1998-2000). Notes: See notes to Figure 5.2. Income data for 1989 are not directly comparable to data for 1999. The table does not show 1999 levels for groups for whom the CPS sample was too small to calculate reliable statistics. Foreign-born groupings are based on the family head. Southeast Asians are included with other Asians for 1999 but separated for 1990. Public Assistance Over the last two decades, the share of young children living in families that received public assistance fluctuated between 14 and 21 percent (see Figure 5.3). In the late 1990s, the share fell from over 20 percent to 12 percent, the lowest level in the last 20 years. The recent decline in public assistance use reflects both welfare reform and the strength of the economy (MaCurdy et al., 2000). - 37 - Figure 5.3 Percentage of Young Children in Families Receiving Public Assistance, 1979-1999 25 20 percentage 15 10 5 0 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 Sources: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1980-2000). In Sacramento and the Central Valley, roughly one-fourth of young children were in families receiving public assistance in 1999 (see Table 5.5). In the Los Angeles area and the Inland Empire, only 11 percent of young children were in families that received public assistance; in the San Francisco Bay Area, less than 5 percent did. In San Diego County, the figure was 16 percent. Table 5.5 Percentage of Young Children in Families Receiving Public Assistance by Region Sacramento Area SF Bay Area Central Valley Los Angeles Area Inland Empire San Diego County Public Asst. (%) 26 4 23 11 11 16 Sources: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1998-2000). Notes: For regions not shown, the CPS sample was not large enough to calculate reliable statistics. See Appendix A for definitions of regions. - 38 - There were substantial differences in public assistance use across the major racial/ethnic groups (see Table 5.6). Almost 30 percent of young African American children were in families that received public assistance in 1999. For young children in families headed by a U.S.-born Hispanic, the share was 19 percent; for those headed by a foreign-born Hispanic, the share was 14 percent. Whites and Asians had lower overall public assistance use; among Southeast Asians, however, the share of children living in families receiving public assistance stood at 50 percent in 1989. To measure the rates of public assistance use for smaller racial/ethnic groups, we use the 1990 Census (Table 5.6, column 2). Public assistance data from the Census are not directly comparable to data from the CPS, and the columns of Table 5.6 should not be interpreted as showing an increase in public assistance use during the 1990s. Table 5.6 Percentage of Young Children in Families Receiving Public Assistance by Race/Ethnicity White Hispanic, foreign-born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian, foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Southeast Asian African American Native American Public Asst. 1999 9 14 19 8 29 Public Asst. 1989 6 5 11 5 4 50 28 20 Sources: Authors’ calculations from Census (1990) and March CPS (1998-2000). Note: Public assistance data for 1989 are not directly comparable to data for 1999. The table does not show 1999 levels for groups for whom the CPS sample was too small to calculate reliable statistics. Foreign-born groupings are based on the family head. Southeast Asians are included with other Asians for 1999 but separated for 1990. - 39 - - 40 - percentage 6. Health Conditions This chapter describes health insurance rates and vaccinations for young children. For a more exhaustive investigation of health status by racial or ethnic group in California, see Reyes (2001). Health Insurance Twenty percent of California’s young children had no health insurance in 2000 (see Figure 6.1). This is roughly the same share as in the late 1980s. During the mid-1990s, the share of children without health insurance declined to 15 percent but then increased to a peak of 22 percent in 1999. Figure 6.1 Percentage of Uninsured Children, 1989-2000 25 20 15 10 5 0 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 Source: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1989-2000). Regionally, the share of young children without health insurance was highest in the Inland Empire at 29 percent (see Table 6.1). In San Diego County and the Los Angeles area, about one-fourth of young children had no health insurance. In the Central Valley, the share was 16 percent. Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area had the lowest shares of uninsured children at about 12 percent. For information on child health insurance rates by county, see Brown, Ponce, and Rice (2001). - 41 - Table 6.1 Percentage of Uninsured Children by Region, 1999 Sacramento Area SF Bay Area Central Valley Los Angeles Area Inland Empire San Diego County Uninsured (%) 12 11 16 24 29 25 Sources: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1998-2000). Notes: For regions not shown, the CPS sample was not large enough to calculate reliable statistics. See Appendix A for definitions of regions. For most of the major racial and ethnic groups, the share of young children without health insurance was around 20 percent. For young children in families headed by a foreign-born Hispanic, the uninsured share was close to 30 percent. For white children, that share was 12 percent. Table 6.2 Percentage of Uninsured Children by Race/Ethnicity White Hispanic, foreign-born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian, foreign-born African American Uninsured 1999 12 29 20 19 19 Sources: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1998-2000). Note: The table does not show 1999 levels for groups for whom the CPS sample was too small to calculate reliable statistics. The 1990 Census did not include information on health insurance. Foreign-born groupings are based on the family head. Southeast Asians are included with other Asians. Vaccinations Information on vaccinations comes from the California Department of Health Services (DHS). The DHS measures the share of kindergarten children who had up-to-date vaccinations at age two. The figures discussed here are based on the regions and racial and ethnic groups presented by the DHS. - 42 - In 2000, 33 percent of kindergarteners in California were not up-todate on vaccinations at the time of their second birthday (Table 6.3, first row). Most regions fell between 30 and 35 percent of children not up-to-date. In the Central Valley, the share was 33 percent, a marked improvement from only two years prior when about half of children were not up-to-date. At 24 percent not up-to-date, the Central Coast stands out as the region with the lowest share of unvaccinated children. Table 6.3 Percentage of Kindergarten Children Not Up-to-Date at Age Two by Region, 2000 State overall Regions Rural North Central Valley North SF Bay Area Central Coast Central Valley Los Angeles County Other Southern CA Not up-todate (%) 33 37 35 31 24 33 35 34 Source: California Department of Health Services, 2000 Kindergarten Retrospective Survey, available at www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/dcdc/izgroup/pdf/krtab00.pdf. Almost half of African American kindergarten children in 2000 were not up-to-date on vaccinations at age two (see Table 6.4). For Hispanics, that share was 34 percent. Among Asians and whites, the corresponding figures were close to 30 percent. - 43 - Table 6.4 Percentage of Kindergarten Children Not Up-to-Date at Age Two by Race/Ethnicity, 2000 White Hispanic Asian African American Not up-todate (%) 30 34 27 46 Source: California Department of Health Services, 2000 Kindergarten Retrospective Survey, available at www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/dcdc/izgroup/pdf/krtab00.pdf. - 44 - References Brown, E.R., N. Ponce, and T. Rice, The State of Health Insurance in California: Recent Trends, Future Prospects, UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, Los Angeles, California, 2001. Casper, Lynn, Phillip Cohen, and Tavia Simmons, "How Does POSSLQ Measure UP?: Historical Estimates of Cohabitation," Population Division Working Paper 36, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., 1999. Cornelius, Wayne A., "Impacts of the 1986 US Immigration Law on Emigration from Rural Mexican Sending Communities," Population and Development Review Vol. 15, No.4, December 1989. Johnson, Hans P., Laura Hill, and Mary Heim, "New Trends in Newborns," California Counts Vol. 3, No.1, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, August 2001. MaCurdy, Thomas, David Mancuso, and Margaret O’Brien-Strain, The Rise and Fall of California’s Welfare Caseload: Types and Regions, 1980-1999, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2000. 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, Volume 87, pp. 25-37, 1992. Myers, D. and J. Pitkin, Demographic Futures for California, Population Dynamics Group, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, 2001. Reyes, Belinda I., ed., A Portrait of Race and Ethnicity in California: An Assessment of Social and Economic Well-Being, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2001. Tafoya, Sonya M., "Check One or More... Mixed Race and Ethnicity in California," California Counts Vol. 1, No. 2, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, January 2000. - 45 - - 46 - Other information resources on children in California U.S. Bureau of the Census website, www.census.gov. "Kids Count," from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, www.aecf.org/kidscount/kc2001/. "California: State of Our Children 2000," from Children Now at www.childrennow.org. County Fact Book, California State Association of Counties, www.cicg.org. Conditions of Children in California (1989), from Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE). - 47 - - 48 - Appendix A. Region Definitions This appendix describes the three main regional divisions used in this study. CCFC Regions The CCFC requested the following ten regions. These regions were used whenever the data was sufficient to do so. North State: Butte, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity Sierra East: Alpine, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Plumas, Sierra Sacramento: Colusa, El Dorado, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba Gold Country: Amador, Calaveras, Nevada, Placer, Tuolomne Central Valley: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Tulare Central Coast: Monterey, San Benito, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo San Francisco Bay Area: Alameda, Contra Costa, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma Los Angeles: Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura Inland Empire: Riverside, San Bernardino San Diego: Imperial, San Diego The CCFC regions differ from those used in other PPIC studies. In particular, PPIC studies typically include Placer County in the Sacramento region; Lake and Mendocino Counties are usually included in the North region. CPS Regions Because the CPS identifies only the 24 metropolitan counties in California, its data are not sufficient to estimate statistics for each of the regions identified above. Furthermore, the sample size of the CPS is not large enough to create reliable estimates for many counties and regions. We - 49 - created a subset of the ten CCFC regions using only identified counties where the regional samples were large enough to create reliable estimates (see Appendix B for a discussion of estimate reliability). Regions were created using CPS county codes. For families with no county code, MSA code was used. Sacramento: El Dorado, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Yolo counties, plus the metropolitan areas of Stockton-Lodi, Yolo, Yuba City, and Chico-Paradise (in Butte County) San Francisco Bay Area: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties Central Valley: Fresno, Kern, Merced, and Tulare counties, plus the metropolitan area of Fresno Los Angeles: Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura counties Inland Empire: Riverside and San Bernardino counties San Diego: San Diego County Regions with Low-Performing Schools The CCFC asked that some indicators be provided for regions with low- performing schools, where "low-performing" is defined as an Academic Performance Index (API) of 3 or less. To implement this request in countylevel data, for each county we computed the share of elementary students in a school with an API of 3 or less. We identified 18 counties where more than 30 percent of students were in a low-performing school.14 These counties were Colusa, Fresno, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Lake, Madera, Merced, Monterey, Riverside, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Tulare, and Yuba. Due to its large size, Los Angeles would dominate any statistics created for these 18 counties. We therefore report statistics for Los Angeles County, the 17 other counties with low performing schools, and all other counties. Poverty and income data for low-performing schools came from the CPS (Table 5.1). For these statistics, the analysis is limited to Los Angeles County plus the ten other counties with low-performing schools that were identified in the CPS: Fresno, Kern, Madera, Merced, Monterey, Riverside, 14 There were four counties where school API scores were missing for more than half of the students: Alpine, Modoc, Mono and Sierra. These counties appeared to have relatively high average scores and they are included in the "all other counties" category. - 50 - San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Santa Barbara, and Tulare. The category "all other counties" includes all California children not identified as living in one of these eleven counties. - 51 - - 52 - Appendix B. Data and Methodology This appendix describes the data sources and methodological approach used in this study. Data Sources The decennial Census data (1980, 1990, 2000) and the March Annual Demographic File of the Current Population Survey (CPS) are from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. These surveys are described more fully in Reed, Glenn Haber, and Mameesh (1996), Appendix A, at www.ppic.org/publications/PPIC000/PPIC000.pdf/index.html. Population estimates and projections from the California Department of Finance can be found at www.dof.ca.gov/html/Demograp/race.htm. The Vital Statistics Birth Records are provided by the California Department of Health Services. More information on this data set can be found at www.dhs.ca.gov/hisp/chs/OHIR/vssdata/vsdatatablesindex.htm. Adjustments to Population Estimates and Projections We rely on California Department of Finance (DOF) population projections by county and racial/ethnic group. The DOF projections of children aged five and under for July of 2000 were roughly 11 percent higher than the 2000 Census estimates for April 2000. The DOF expects to release population projections with adjustments based on the 2000 Census in the summer of 2003. In the interim, the DOF has calculated some crude adjustments, but these have not been done by age group. We use a strategy similar to that of the DOF to create crude adjustments for the California population aged five and under. Using data from 2000 Census Summary File 1, for each county we divide the 2000 Census young child population into two groups: Hispanics and non-Hispanics. Further division into racial groups is not possible without assigning all children described in the 2000 Census as "other race" or "multiple race" to one or another DOF racial/ethnic group. For each of the two groups, we calculate a county adjustment factor such that when the DOF population projection for 2000 is multiplied by the adjustment factor, the result is equivalent to the 2000 Census estimate of county population for that group (i.e., for Hispanics and for combined non-Hispanics). The county adjustment factor is then multiplied by DOF population projections for 2000 to 2020. For the period 1991 to 1999, we implement a smooth adjustment of 10 percent of the full adjustment per year (i.e., 10 percent in 1991, 90 percent in 1999, and full adjustment in 2000). - 53 - The population estimates in this study, the DOF projections, and the 2000 Census Summary File 1 do not adjust for Census undercount. The Bureau of the Census has released national estimates of 2000 Census undercount by race and ethnicity. The DOF has used the national data to develop estimates of the total population in each California county (see http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/repndat.htm, report E-4). The DOF county undercount-adjusted estimates are not available by age group.15 Estimate Reliability The CPS data sample includes roughly 5,000 households in California each year. To calculate reliable estimates for regions and racial/ethnic groups, we combined three years of CPS data (1998-2000). For each region and racial/ethnic group, we calculated the number of families and the standard errors of estimates.16 We did not report CPS-based statistics for regions and groups for whom estimates had excessively large standard errors. Typically, each region or group had more than 100 observations in the sample. For regions, we also checked that the racial/ethnic distribution of young children in the CPS sample roughly matched that of DOF estimates for the region. Calculation of Median Income The median family income figures reported in Chapter 5 are based on income adjusted for family size. Because large families require more resources than do small families to have the same level of well-being, we adjust for family size to create equivalent income for a family of four. We adjust by dividing income for each family by the 1999 poverty line for families of the same size and age-structure, and then multiplying by the 1999 poverty line for a family of four. The median is calculated such that 50 percent of young children live in families with less income than the median (i.e., childweighted). 15 For a description of 1990 Census undercount in California by race and ethnicity, see Reyes (2001), p. 30. For a study of undercount issues for children, see O’Hare (web publication: http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/census.pdf). 16 Our estimates of standard errors were too low because we did not take into account sample design effects. - 54 - Appendix C: Indicators by County Table C.1 Population Estimates by Race/Ethnicity for Children Ages 5 and Under, 2000 ALAMEDA ALPINE AMADOR BUTTE CALAVERAS COLUSA CONTRA COSTA DEL NORTE EL DORADO FRESNO GLENN HUMBOLDT IMPERIAL INYO KERN KINGS LAKE LASSEN LOS ANGELES MADERA MARIN MARIPOSA MENDOCINO MERCED MODOC Total 119,124 74 1,821 14,180 2,266 1,851 80,169 1,864 11,048 82,124 2,435 8,620 13,224 1,173 67,681 12,489 3,789 2,061 896,143 11,469 16,106 910 6,314 22,744 669 Hispanic 34,542 13 230 2,809 265 1,197 22,240 350 1,883 47,496 1,138 1,114 10,955 330 36,022 7,064 823 331 547,865 7,382 2,978 119 2,094 13,436 160 African White American 33,167 17,637 35 1 1,463 3 9,274 264 1,809 16 561 7 36,336 8,251 1,124 11 8,322 55 20,050 4,569 1,087 7 5,880 95 1,556 183 624 2 23,376 3,940 3,776 618 2,564 69 1,502 22 162,425 80,080 3,256 243 11,098 350 705 4 3,452 43 5,989 767 446 0 Native American 372 20 44 327 53 42 217 180 90 551 46 742 175 142 460 162 142 86 2,001 121 22 41 389 83 32 Asian 23,490 0 13 754 18 12 7,127 62 240 6,492 93 176 201 8 1,679 316 18 11 70,718 110 645 3 48 1,648 5 Pacific Islander 827 0 0 22 3 2 321 1 6 58 3 16 6 4 71 15 6 15 2,302 7 11 1 8 24 0 Other 570 0 7 24 2 3 334 2 13 179 5 24 11 3 91 18 2 5 2,414 21 68 0 6 53 4 Multiple Race 8,519 5 61 706 100 27 5,343 134 439 2,729 56 573 137 60 2,042 520 165 89 28,338 329 934 37 274 744 22 - 55 - Table C.1 (continued) Population Estimates by Race/Ethnicity for Children Ages 5 and Under, 2000 Total MONO 876 MONTEREY 37,777 NAPA 9,198 NEVADA 5,322 ORANGE 262,229 PLACER 19,494 PLUMAS 1,144 RIVERSIDE 148,643 SACRAMENTO 108,055 SAN BENITO 5,687 SAN BERNARDINO 174,307 SAN DIEGO 240,425 SAN FRANCISCO 37,890 SAN JOAQUIN 54,676 SAN LUIS OBISPO 15,134 SAN MATEO 54,525 SANTA BARBARA 31,546 SANTA CLARA 143,338 SANTA CRUZ 18,739 SHASTA 11,820 SIERRA 193 SISKIYOU 2,742 SOLANO 34,964 SONOMA 33,530 STANISLAUS 43,223 SUTTER 6,969 Hispanic 309 24,827 3,910 599 122,156 3,013 129 77,921 26,799 3,339 92,393 97,150 8,764 23,817 4,360 17,533 17,229 48,737 8,470 1,264 24 426 9,445 10,677 20,043 2,383 White 516 8,941 4,600 4,387 96,107 14,705 907 51,015 47,672 2,019 51,407 94,041 10,270 18,057 9,629 20,983 11,556 45,140 8,769 9,056 160 1,971 13,311 19,330 18,135 3,186 African American 1 824 112 21 3,576 157 13 9,168 12,246 40 16,331 15,003 3,632 3,808 146 1,477 516 3,349 130 128 2 39 5,143 477 1,220 148 Native American 15 110 40 51 564 136 43 893 652 11 787 1,125 71 223 75 83 148 366 67 476 1 149 132 233 277 83 Asian 9 1,436 214 35 28,350 589 3 3,680 11,556 98 5,838 17,461 12,073 5,569 262 9,649 893 36,836 397 242 0 33 3,461 994 1,550 820 Pacific Islander 1 135 10 4 747 16 1 308 634 9 527 957 339 143 7 951 51 389 17 11 0 3 237 63 112 10 Other 4 78 25 15 599 40 7 285 404 8 372 776 237 139 30 248 58 479 73 30 0 3 121 86 116 17 Multiple Race 21 1,426 287 210 10,130 838 41 5,373 8,092 163 6,652 13,912 2,504 2,920 625 3,601 1,095 8,042 816 613 6 118 3,114 1,670 1,770 322 - 56 - Table C.1 (continued) Population Estimates by Race/Ethnicity for Children Ages 5 and Under, 2000 TEHAMA TRINITY TULARE TUOLUMNE VENTURA YOLO YUBA Total 4,350 696 39,852 2,971 68,367 13,354 6,002 Hispanic 1,297 59 26,831 356 31,896 5,562 1,618 African White American 2,778 25 546 2 10,382 543 2,406 20 29,629 1,051 5,983 246 3,143 197 Native American 66 31 275 69 196 77 113 Asian 39 2 895 19 2,789 792 531 Source: Census 2000, Summary Tape File 1. Pacific Islander 1 1 21 6 94 35 10 Other 9 1 55 3 161 37 10 Multiple Race 135 54 850 92 2,551 622 380 - 57 - Table C.2 County Population Estimates and Projections for Children Ages 5 and Under, 1980-2020 ALAMEDA ALPINE AMADOR BUTTE CALAVERAS COLUSA CONTRA COSTA DEL NORTE EL DORADO FRESNO GLENN HUMBOLDT IMPERIAL INYO KERN KINGS LAKE LASSEN LOS ANGELES MADERA MARIN MARIPOSA MENDOCINO MERCED MODOC MONO 1980 86,371 74 1,325 10,733 1,422 1,247 52,603 1,812 6,749 51,300 2,109 9,104 10,097 1,429 43,325 8,700 2,533 1,914 663,701 6,933 13,072 714 6,196 15,314 773 717 1990 117,430 82 2,024 16,158 2,630 1,672 74,396 2,252 11,686 78,243 2,618 10,688 12,571 1,504 65,220 11,590 4,273 2,231 901,095 9,290 16,511 1,111 7,427 22,816 791 998 2000 119,124 75 1,821 14,180 2,266 1,851 80,169 1,864 11,048 82,124 2,435 8,620 13,224 1,173 67,681 12,489 3,789 2,061 896,143 11,469 16,106 910 6,314 22,744 670 876 2010 2020 122,297 139,772 97 102 2,326 2,441 18,230 22,191 3,368 3,896 3,027 3,924 83,074 95,594 2,540 2,668 16,039 19,220 94,373 116,729 3,748 4,753 9,094 9,306 20,259 27,767 1,511 1,668 90,810 120,284 15,524 19,628 5,511 6,656 2,840 3,151 873,093 1,050,311 16,212 21,615 16,248 18,425 1,294 1,506 8,395 9,626 29,562 37,049 895 924 1,051 1,423 Percentage change 2000-2020 17.3 35.8 34.0 56.5 71.9 112.0 19.2 43.1 74.0 42.1 95.2 8.0 110.0 42.2 77.7 57.2 75.7 52.9 17.2 88.5 14.4 65.5 52.5 62.9 38.0 62.5 - 58 - Table C.2 (continued) County Population Estimates and Projections for Children Ages 5 and Under, 1980-2020 MONTEREY NAPA NEVADA ORANGE PLACER PLUMAS RIVERSIDE SACRAMENTO SAN BENITO SAN BERNARDINO SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOAQUIN SAN LUIS OBISPO SAN MATEO SANTA BARBARA SANTA CLARA SANTA CRUZ SHASTA SIERRA SISKIYOU SOLANO SONOMA STANISLAUS SUTTER TEHAMA 1980 29,226 6,856 4,066 156,059 9,271 1,534 60,759 67,734 2,742 91,361 154,463 37,126 32,747 10,904 41,194 22,086 106,936 14,754 10,176 229 3,627 24,249 24,371 26,194 4,747 3,318 1990 38,457 9,165 6,121 224,716 15,751 1,611 131,133 103,853 4,015 170,789 237,883 43,895 52,795 17,133 54,923 32,826 137,211 20,447 14,073 290 3,674 36,794 35,083 42,199 6,746 4,523 2000 37,777 9,198 5,322 262,229 19,494 1,144 148,643 108,055 5,687 174,307 240,425 37,890 54,676 15,134 54,525 31,546 143,338 18,739 11,820 196 2,742 34,964 33,530 43,223 6,969 4,350 2010 47,630 10,886 7,818 256,064 26,496 1,626 211,176 126,583 7,338 229,901 274,793 30,270 69,396 21,560 53,053 35,140 147,784 21,493 15,130 287 3,601 42,755 40,226 56,877 8,624 5,920 2020 65,572 12,918 8,675 311,060 32,224 1,551 296,350 151,799 8,637 308,111 337,052 29,323 87,931 27,663 59,639 47,911 169,318 28,623 16,723 273 3,659 50,049 48,384 71,251 10,172 7,163 Percentage change 2000-2020 73.6 40.4 63.0 18.6 65.3 35.6 99.4 40.5 51.9 76.8 40.2 -22.6 60.8 82.8 9.4 51.9 18.1 52.7 41.5 39.3 33.4 43.1 44.3 64.8 46.0 64.7 - 59 - Table C.2 (continued) County Population Estimates and Projections for Children Ages 5 and Under, 1980-2020 TRINITY TULARE TUOLUMNE VENTURA YOLO YUBA 1980 1,087 26,961 2,637 51,643 9,085 5,354 1990 1,073 36,520 3,486 65,859 12,797 7,427 2000 696 39,852 2,971 68,367 13,354 6,002 2010 921 50,522 4,503 74,049 16,213 7,583 2020 952 63,815 4,760 90,809 19,734 8,764 Percentage change 2000-2020 36.8 60.1 60.2 32.8 47.8 46.0 Source: Authors’ calculations based on California Department of Finance estimates and projections, adjusted by 2000 Census estimates, see Appendix B. - 60 - Table C.3 County Socioeconomic Indicators CALIFORNIA ALAMEDA ALPINE AMADOR BUTTE CALAVERAS COLUSA CONTRA COSTA DEL NORTE EL DORADO FRESNO GLENN HUMBOLDT IMPERIAL INYO KERN KINGS LAKE LASSEN LOS ANGELES MADERA MARIN MARIPOSA Per capita Share of births to personal women with less Median household income, Child poverty, than a H.S. income, 1997 1999 ages 0-17, 1997 diploma, 1999 (dollars) (dollars) (%) (%) 39,595 29,856 24.6 30.4 46,795 34,131 17.6 18.5 31,080 25,480 30.6 25.0 37,829 20,915 17.1 14.6 29,367 22,012 30.9 23.9 34,672 20,719 20.8 15.1 30,464 23,085 29.4 46.1 54,275 37,994 13.6 15.7 29,044 17,722 31.8 32.9 44,954 28,487 13.2 15.1 31,587 21,146 38.0 40.6 28,649 18,015 29.2 40.8 30,426 22,871 26.0 19.1 23,359 17,550 43.8 32.8 32,871 24,212 21.5 26.3 32,359 19,886 30.2 32.5 30,577 15,732 31.3 35.1 27,295 22,925 33.2 31.7 36,819 17,506 22.9 16.4 36,441 28,276 30.5 37.3 30,804 18,358 35.5 46.8 60,967 57,982 9.5 14.8 31,178 22,452 27.1 15.2 - 61 - Table C.3 (continued) County Socioeconomic Indicators Per capita Share of births to personal women with less Median household income, Child poverty, than a H.S. income, 1997 1999 ages 0-17, 1997 diploma, 1999 (dollars) (dollars) (%) (%) MENDOCINO 32,306 23,758 28.5 25.6 MERCED 29,178 18,367 37.4 40.6 MODOC 28,174 21,427 33.3 21.1 MONO 36,276 25,477 17.8 33.6 MONTEREY 38,341 29,393 24.1 46.4 NAPA 44,667 34,935 14.4 29.8 NEVADA 40,347 26,341 15.3 11.5 ORANGE 49,583 33,805 17.4 31.2 PLACER 49,638 34,972 11.0 9.7 PLUMAS 35,154 24,945 20.1 12.4 RIVERSIDE 36,368 23,271 22.7 30.7 SACRAMENTO 39,461 27,485 27.3 20.9 SAN BENITO 42,578 22,402 17.9 32.6 SAN BERNARDINO 36,876 20,949 25.7 31.4 SAN DIEGO 39,427 29,489 22.0 24.3 SAN FRANCISCO 43,405 49,464 21.7 20.5 SAN JOAQUIN 35,629 21,544 27.3 30.0 SAN LUIS OBISPO 38,597 25,888 18.5 19.8 SAN MATEO 57,267 47,146 9.5 20.5 SANTA BARBARA 40,232 30,218 22.5 36.6 SANTA CLARA 59,639 46,649 13.6 20.6 SANTA CRUZ 44,607 33,539 21.3 33.4 SHASTA 32,109 22,880 28.2 20.2 - 62 - Table C.3 (continued) County Socioeconomic Indicators SIERRA SISKIYOU SOLANO SONOMA STANISLAUS SUTTER TEHAMA TRINITY TULARE TUOLUMNE VENTURA YOLO YUBA Per capita Share of births to personal women with less Median household income, Child poverty, than a H.S. income, 1997 1999 ages 0-17, 1997 diploma, 1999 (dollars) (dollars) (%) (%) 34,941 24,585 15.2 16.7 28,178 21,092 30.1 22.5 46,115 25,176 17.0 17.7 43,770 32,492 13.6 26.0 35,913 21,790 27.2 31.0 33,775 24,223 26.5 30.4 28,030 18,879 30.9 32.8 27,042 19,264 28.2 30.0 27,622 19,329 39.9 44.4 33,810 20,910 23.6 16.2 49,763 29,639 16.6 27.5 38,751 27,037 23.6 26.1 26,842 17,485 38.1 35.3 Sources and Notes: Median household income and child poverty statistics are based on small area estimates from the U.S. Bureau of the Census (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe.html). These estimates are based on predictions from models of income and poverty. Per capita income statistics are from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/). Maternal education statistics are based on authors’ calculations from the California Vital Statistics Birth Records (1999). - 63 - PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chair Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company William K. Coblentz Partner Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP David A. Coulter Vice Chairman J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Walter 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 Miller 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 Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Harold M. Williams President Emeritus The J. Paul Getty Trust and Of Counsel Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Advisory Council Clifford W. Graves Vice Chancellor, Physical Planning University of California, Merced Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Rudolf Nothenberg Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco Harry P. Pachon President The Tomás Rivera Policy Institute Manuel Pastor 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 James P. Smith Senior Economist RAND PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 Phone: (415) 291-4400 Fax: (415) 291-4401 www.ppic.org info@ppic.org"
}
["___content":protected]=>
string(108) "
"
["_permalink":protected]=>
string(117) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/demographic-social-and-economic-trends-for-young-children-in-california/op_1001drop/"
["_next":protected]=>
array(0) {
}
["_prev":protected]=>
array(0) {
}
["_css_class":protected]=>
NULL
["id"]=>
int(8184)
["ID"]=>
int(8184)
["post_author"]=>
string(1) "1"
["post_content"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_date"]=>
string(19) "2017-05-20 02:35:33"
["post_excerpt"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(3322)
["post_status"]=>
string(7) "inherit"
["post_title"]=>
string(11) "OP 1001DROP"
["post_type"]=>
string(10) "attachment"
["slug"]=>
string(11) "op_1001drop"
["__type":protected]=>
NULL
["_wp_attached_file"]=>
string(15) "OP_1001DROP.pdf"
["wpmf_size"]=>
string(6) "711106"
["wpmf_filetype"]=>
string(3) "pdf"
["wpmf_order"]=>
string(1) "0"
["searchwp_content"]=>
string(90959) "Occasional Papers Demographic, Social, and Economic Trends for Young Children in California Deborah Reed Sonya M. Tafoya Prepared for presentation to the California Children and Families Commission October 18, 2001 Public Policy Institute of California 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 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Purpose This study was presented to the California Children and Families Commission (CCFC) to better inform the Commission about the size, growth, racial/ethnic makeup, regional distribution, resources, and needs of the child population it was created to serve following the Children and Families Act of 1998. The Commission is charged with providing all California children (prenatal to age five) with a comprehensive, integrated system of early childhood development services. These services include health care, quality childcare, parent education, and effective intervention programs for families at risk. We presented this study at the CCFC State Commission meeting on October 18, 2001. The presentation, selection of data sources, choice of indicators, and discussion are those of the authors and do not represent any position of the CCFC. This paper was reviewed and published solely by Public Policy Institute of California.1 1 The authors thank Hans Johnson for advising this project, Elizabeth Burr for reviewing an earlier draft of the study, and Amanda Bailey for research assistance. We also benefited from the helpful comments of Amy Dominguez-Arms, Elias Lopez, Michael Teitz, Peter Richardson, Arabella Cureton, members of the CCFC, participants at the August meeting of the School Readiness Working Group, and participants at the October CCFC meeting. i ii Summary This study provides a statistical portrait of children ages five and under in California. The study has several notable findings in the areas of population, family life, parental education, economic conditions, and health conditions. Population • There were over 3 million young children in California in 2000, of whom 48 percent were Hispanic, 32 percent were white, 9 percent were Asian, 7 percent were African American, and 4 percent were multiple race. • Over the 1990s, the number of Hispanic and Asian children grew substantially while the number of white, African American, and Native American children declined. • For most regions, Hispanic children are expected to be the largest group by 2020. In the northern and eastern regions of the state, whites are expected to remain the majority among young children. • Nearly half of all children have at least one parent who was born outside of the United States. Family Life • Seventy percent of young children in California live in families with married parents. For African American children, the share is less than 30 percent. • More than half of young children have a mother who works in the labor market. For children under age two with single mothers, about half have a mother who works. • About one-fourth of young children have moved in the previous year. For children in low-income families, close to one-third have moved. • More than 10 percent of births in California are to teen mothers. Of these births, more than half are to women ages 18 and 19, and more than one-third are to married women. iii Parental Education • Over 30 percent of births are to women who have not completed 12 years of education. In the Central Valley and the Central Coast regions, the share is closer to 40 percent. Among foreign-born Hispanics, the share is over 60 percent. • Statewide, 70 percent of fathers have a high school diploma. The share is substantially lower for Southeast Asians and Hispanics. Economic Conditions • One in every five young children is poor. Poverty rates declined in the late 1990s, but remain particularly high in the Central Valley and among Hispanics and African Americans. • The median income for families with young children increased over the last five years to reach $34,000 for a family of four in 1999. However, this figure has declined from $39,000 in 1979. • Twelve percent of young children are in families receiving public assistance. In the mid-1990s, that figure was over 20 percent. Health Conditions • One in every five young children does not have health insurance. Lack of insurance is particularly common in the Inland Empire and among foreign-born Hispanics. • One in every three children is not up-to-date for vaccinations at age two. Almost half of African American children are not up-to-date. iv Contents Purpose Summary 1. INTRODUCTION 2. POPULATION AGES FIVE AND UNDER Population Estimates from the 2000 Census Population Trends and Projections 3. FAMILY LIFE Family Structure Adult Workforce Participation Residential Mobility Births to Teenage Mothers 4. PARENTAL EDUCATION Maternal Education Paternal Education 5. ECONOMIC CONDITIONS Poverty and Low Income Median Income for Families with Young Children Public Assistance 6. HEALTH CONDITIONS Health Insurance Vaccinations References Other information resources on children in California Appendix A. Region Definitions Appendix B. Data and Methodology Appendix C. Indicators by County v i iii 1 3 3 7 13 13 15 20 22 27 27 29 33 33 35 37 41 41 42 45 47 49 53 55 vi 1. Introduction This study provides a statistical portrait of the conditions of California’s children ages five and under. In addition to presenting population trends, we document several indicators of family life as well as educational, economic, and health conditions. The study describes detailed regional and racial/ethnic results where the data are sufficient to do so. Unless otherwise noted, all reported statistics are for children ages five and under in California. Because this study is a statistical portrait, the text is meant to interpret and highlight information presented in tables and charts rather than explain underlying causes of trends, regional differences, or racial/ethnic disparities. Although we have chosen indicators that we believe are highly relevant to policymakers, we do not attempt to highlight policy implications or draw policy conclusions in this study. The study begins with a description of the size of the young child population, its racial/ethnic makeup, its regional distribution, and its foreignborn status. The third chapter presents information on family life, including family structure, adult work participation, residential mobility, and births to teen mothers. The next chapters describe parental education, poverty, income, and public assistance. The final chapter presents health insurance and vaccination status. We do not provide information on childcare, preschool, and kindergarten because PPIC has forthcoming research studies in those areas and because the CCFC has recently conducted a survey of those topics. The study relies on data from many sources including the 2000 Census, the California Department of Finance (DOF) population projections, the Current Population Survey (March files), and Vital Statistics Birth Records (see Appendix B for further information on data sources). Population estimates for the year 2000 are based on the 2000 Census. However, socioeconomic indicators from the 2000 Census have not yet been released. For many of the topics covered in this study, the 2000 Census will provide an excellent resource for further investigation. In particular, the large sample size of the 2000 Census long-form will permit county-level measurement as well as racial/ethnic subgroup distinctions. The 2000 Census microdata is scheduled for release in 2003. We use three different sets of geographical regions in this study. The first set sorts counties into ten regions as requested by the CCFC. We use these ten regions whenever the data are sufficient to do so. The second set of regions, “major regions,” consists of parts of the six largest of the ten CCFC regions for which the sample in March Current Population Survey (CPS) is -1- large enough to draw reasonable conclusions. Because the CCFC was particularly interested in whether areas with under-performing elementary schools were notably different from other areas, the final set of regions is based on counties with low-performing school districts. Readers are referred to Appendix A for a fuller description of the regions used in this study. Throughout the study, we use a consistent approach to racial/ethnic groups whereby Hispanics of any race are grouped together. For ease of presentation, we use the term “whites” when we literally mean “white nonHispanics.” When reporting data from the 2000 Census, we use the eight major racial/ethnic groups used by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. When reporting data from the California Department of Finance (DOF), we use the five groups used by the DOF. Further data and methodological issues are discussed in Appendix B. -2- 2. Population Ages Five and Under This chapter presents population estimates and projections for children ages five and under over the period 1980 to 2020. For the young child population, we present the racial/ethnic makeup, regional distribution, and foreign-born status. Population Estimates from the 2000 Census The 2000 Census showed just over 3 million children aged five and under living in California (Table 2.1, first row). The racial/ethnic makeup of young children was substantially different from that of the overall population. In the overall population, whites were the largest group at 47 percent and Hispanics the second largest at 32 percent. However, nearly half (48 percent) of California’s young children were Hispanic, and close to onethird (32 percent) were white (see Table 2.2). Asians made up 9 percent of the young child population and blacks another 7 percent. Native Americans, Pacific Islanders,2 and “other” races each comprised less than 1 percent of the young child population.3 The measurement and understanding of racial and ethnic categories have changed in the United States. The 2000 Census was the first decennial Census to permit multiple responses to the question about race. In California, the share of the overall population that identified itself as belonging to two or more races was 4.7 percent, but for children ages 5 and under, that figure was 8.3 percent. Just over half of these multiple-race children were Hispanic. Some 4.4 percent of non-Hispanic children were identified as belonging to two or more races (Table 2.2, final column). In a study of birth records, Tafoya (2000) found that14 percent of newborns in California had one parent from one of the major racial or ethnic groups and the other parent from another group. Most data on young children in this report is tabulated based on a single racial or ethnic group. However, in this section, where we report data from the 2000 Census, we report the numbers of children identified as two or more races. Across the major regions of California, the size and racial/ethnic makeup of the young child population varied considerably. More than 1.2 million young children, 40 percent of the state total, lived in the Los Angeles region, where 57 percent of the young children were Hispanic and 24 percent 2 Pacific Islanders include persons with origins in Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. For a full definition of 2000 Census race groups see http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf1.pdf beginning on page B-13. 3 The population projections in this study have not been adjusted for Census undercount. See Appendix B for a brief discussion of Census undercount. -3- Table 2.1 Number of Children Ages Five and Under by Region and Race/Ethnicity, 2000 California North State Sierra East Sacramento Gold Country Central Valley Central Coast S.F. Bay Area Los Angeles Inland Empire San Diego Total 3,018,386 46,707 6,190 245,178 31,874 237,269 108,883 538,947 1,226,739 322,950 253,649 Hispanic 1,436,172 8,457 1,296 83,302 4,463 138,350 58,225 161,743 701,917 170,314 108,105 White 960,614 31,716 4,190 105,059 24,770 67,534 40,914 200,251 288,161 102,422 95,597 African American 197,028 571 41 17,927 217 10,684 1,656 40,540 84,707 25,499 15,186 Native American 14,178 2,017 339 1,557 353 1,693 411 2,067 2,761 1,680 1,300 Asian 261,002 1,401 36 21,070 674 11,143 3,086 94,555 101,857 9,518 17,662 Pacific Islander 9,579 58 21 952 29 197 219 3,162 3,143 835 963 Source: Authors’ calculations from the 2000 Census, Summary File 1. Note: See Appendix A for definitions of regions. Other 8,385 98 23 739 67 417 247 2,176 3,174 657 787 Multiple Race 131,428 2,389 244 14,572 1,301 7,251 4,125 34,453 41,019 12,025 14,049 -4- Table 2.2 Racial/Ethnic Distribution of Children Ages Five and Under by Region, 2000 California North State Sierra East Sacramento Gold Country Central Valley Central Coast S.F. Bay Area Los Angeles Inland Empire San Diego Hispanic 47.6 18.1 20.9 34.0 14.0 58.3 53.5 30.0 57.2 52.7 42.6 White 31.8 67.9 67.7 42.9 77.7 28.5 37.6 37.2 23.5 31.7 37.7 African American 6.5 1.2 0.7 7.3 0.7 4.5 1.5 7.5 6.9 7.9 6.0 Native American 0.5 4.3 5.5 0.6 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.5 Asian 8.6 3.0 0.6 8.6 2.1 4.7 2.8 17.5 8.3 2.9 6.9 Pacific Islander 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.4 Other 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 Source: Authors’ calculations from the 2000 Census, Summary File 1. Notes: Percentages for each region may not sum to 100 due to rounding. See Appendix A for definitions of regions. Multiple Race 4.4 5.1 3.9 5.9 4.1 3.1 3.8 6.4 3.3 3.7 5.5 -5- were white. The San Francisco Bay Area was the next largest region with over a half million young children. In this region, 37 percent of young children were white, 30 percent were Hispanic, and 18 percent were Asian. The Inland Empire had almost a third of a million young children, of whom over half were Hispanic and 32 percent were white. The San Diego region had just over a quarter-million young children, with 43 percent Hispanic and 38 percent white. In the Sacramento area, there were close to a quartermillion young children, with 43 percent white and 34 percent Hispanic. The Central Valley also had close to a quarter-million young children, of whom 58 percent were Hispanic and 29 percent were white. The Central Coast area had over 100,000 young children; 54 percent were Hispanic and 38 percent were white. The northern and eastern regions of the state had much smaller populations and tended to have higher proportions of whites. In the North State and Sierra East regions, there were roughly 47,000 and 6,000 young children, respectively; 68 percent were white and about 20 percent were Hispanic. These were the only regions with substantial shares of Native Americans, at 4 and 6 percent. The Gold Country had almost 32,000 young children, of whom 78 percent were white and 14 percent were Hispanic. (See Appendix C for racial/ethnic populations by county.) The share of the population comprised of young children varies by region. Statewide, 8.9 percent of all Californians were aged zero to five (Table 2.3), but the Central Valley and Inland Empire regions had larger than average shares of young children, while the Sierra East and Gold Country regions had smaller than average shares. Table 2.3 Percentage of Children Ages Five and Under, by Region California North State Sierra East Sacramento Gold Country Central Valley Central Coast S.F. Bay Area Los Angeles Inland Empire San Diego Percentage 8.9 7.1 6.2 9.0 6.8 10.3 8.0 7.8 9.4 9.9 8.6 Source: Authors’ calculations from the Census 2000, Summary File 1. Note: See Appendix A for definitions of regions. -6- Population Trends and Projections This section begins with a description of trends in the young child population by race and ethnicity. We then describe trends for the ten CCFC regions and the regions based on low-performing schools. We also describe the foreign-born status of children and families. The young child population in California showed strong growth, increasing from 2 million in 1980 to 3 million in 2000 and a projected 4.1 million in 2020 (see Figure 2.1). During the 1980s, the young child population grew faster than the overall population. As a result, young children as a share of the population grew from 8.6 to 9.9 percent between 1980 and 1990. The share of young children declined to 8.9 percent in 2000. For young children, the rise in population from 1990 to 1994 stands out, particularly for Hispanics. The timing of this population increase suggests that it was related to the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, which granted legal status to undocumented immigrants living and working in the United States. Following IRCA, many spouses joined newly legalized immigrants in California which appears to have led to temporary growth in the Hispanic fertility rate and thus a rise in the young child population (Cornelius, 1989).4 The young child population declined in the late 1990s largely as a result of a decline in the number of white children. 4 Johnson, Hill, and Heim (2001) report a rise in the total fertility rate of foreign-born Hispanics between 1987 and 1991. -7- Millions Figure 2.1 Population Trends for Children Ages Five and Under 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 80 84 88 92 96 00 04 08 12 16 20 African American Asian Hispanic White Source: Authors’ calculations based on California Department of Finance estimates and projections, adjusted by 2000 Census estimates (see Appendix B). Notes: Chart shows groups in the order indicated in the legend. Native Americans are represented by the thickness of the black line at the top of the chart. The racial/ethnic mix of the young child population has changed considerably over the last two decades, and this trend is expected to continue. In 1980, the largest group (53 percent) was white. By 2000, the number of young white children had actually declined, and the white share of the young child population dropped to 32 percent. This decline is attributed both to the aging of the "baby-boom" generation out of childbearing years and to migration to other states. Over the next two decades, the number of young white children is expected to stay fairly steady, but the share of the young child population is expected to fall to 25 percent. In contrast, the young Hispanic child population has grown substantially. That share, which increased from 32 percent in 1980 to 48 percent in 2000, is expected to reach 57 percent in 2020. The Asian child population also shows a strong growth trend; in 2000, Asian children were the third largest group, at 9 percent. That share is expected to rise in the next two decades. Growth in the Hispanic and Asian young child population was primarily the result of births to the relatively young immigrant population in both groups.5 The numbers of African American and Native American young children have not changed substantially in the last two decades and are expected to stay fairly stable through 2020. However, growth in the Hispanic 5 See Johnson, Hill and Heim (2001) for a description of fertility patterns in California. -8- and Asian populations has reduced the share of the African American and Native American young child populations. Between 1980 and 2020, the African American share is expected to decline from 9 to 6 percent, while the Native American share is projected to drop from 0.7 to 0.4 percent. Most of the major regions of California show a strong growth trend in the number of young children between 1980 and 2020 (see Figure 2.2). Like the state as a whole, most regions show particularly strong growth in the early 1990s and some decline in the late 1990s. For most regions, the number of white children is expected to stay fairly stable over the next 20 years while the numbers of Hispanic and Asian children are expected to grow. By 2020, Hispanics are expected to be the largest group in seven of the ten major regions. The Los Angeles area shows the largest bulge in the young child population in the early 1990s; as noted earlier, this growth is probably the result of high fertility rates among young immigrant families following IRCA. There was also a substantial out-migration from Los Angeles to other regions and other states in the 1990s. The Central Coast, the Central Valley, and the Inland Empire also show strong effects of immigration. In 2020, the share of young Hispanic children is expected to be over 60 percent in each of these regions. The San Francisco Bay Area shows the strongest growth in the Asian population. In 2020, one in four young children in this region are expected to be Asian; 38 percent are expected to be Hispanic, and 28 percent are expected to be white. Three regions stand out from the others. In the Gold Country, the young child population grew substantially during the 1980s but showed little growth over the 1990s. The child population is expected to grow, primarily fueled by growth in the number of white children. In 2020, white children are expected to make up 78 percent of the child population. In the North region, there was growth in the number of children between 1980 and 1990 but then substantial decline by 2000. The population is expected to grow by 2020, with the Hispanic share increasing to 25 percent and the Asian share increasing to 7 percent. In the Sierra East region, the young child population grew moderately in the 1980s but then declined by an even larger margin in the 1990s, primarily due to a shrinking number of young white children in the region. The child population is expected to grow in the next 20 years, especially among white and Hispanic children. By 2020, Hispanic children are expected to make up 33 percent of the child population. (See Appendix C for population trends by counties.) -9- Figure 2.2 Trend in the Number of Children Ages Five and Under by Region (thousands) 80 North State 60 40 20 10 8 Sierra East 6 4 2 00 80 90 00 10 20 80 90 00 10 20 400 Central Valley 300 200 Central Coast 150 200 100 100 50 0 80 90 00 10 20 0 80 90 00 10 20 800 Inland Empire 600 400 San Diego Area 300 400 200 200 100 0 80 90 00 10 20 0 80 90 00 10 20 400 Sacramento 300 200 100 0 80 90 00 10 20 60 50 Gold Country 40 30 20 10 0 80 90 00 10 20 800 SF Bay Area 600 2,000 Los Angeles Area 1,500 400 1,000 200 500 0 80 90 00 10 20 0 80 90 00 10 20 African American Asian Source: Authors’ calculations based on California Department of Finance estimates and projections, adjusted by 2000 Census estimates, see Appendix B. Hispanic White Notes: Charts show groups in the order indicated in the legend. Native Americans are represented by the thickness of the black line at the top of each chart. - 10 - As Figure 2.3 indicates, counties with low-performing schools tend to have a higher proportion of Hispanic children and a lower proportion of white and Asian children. (See Appendix A for a description of regions based on low-performing schools.) In Los Angeles County, the largest of the counties with low-performing schools, the young child population in 2000 was over 60 percent Hispanic and less than 20 percent white. In other counties with low performing schools, young children were more than half Hispanic and about one-third white. In the remainder of counties, young children were over 43 percent white, 36 percent Hispanic, and 15 percent Asian. The racial/ethnic make-up of low-performing schools does not imply any causal link between race/ethnicity and test scores. Studies by the California Department of Figure 2.3 Population Trends for Regions by School Performance (thousands) 1,200 1,000 Los Angeles County 800 600 400 200 0 80 90 00 10 20 1,500 1,200 Counties with Low Performing Schools 900 600 300 0 80 90 00 10 20 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 All Other Counties African American Asian Hispanic 0 White 80 90 00 10 20 Source: Authors’ calculations based on California Department of Finance estimates and projections, adjusted by 2000 Census estimates, see Appendix B. Notes: Regions defined by elementary school performance in county. See Appendix A. Chart shows groups in the order indicated in the legend. Native Americans are represented by the thickness of the black line at the top of the chart. - 11 - Education show a strong relationship between low-performing schools and socio-economic disadvantage.6 In 1999, very few (3.4 percent) of the state’s children age five or under were foreign-born (see Table 2.3). However, nearly half of all young children had at least one foreign-born parent. This share increased substantially-from 37 percent to 47 percent-- between 1980 and 1990 and increased modestly (to 49 percent) in 1999. In the Los Angeles region, 63 percent of children had at least one foreign-born parent. In the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, and the Central Valley, roughly 45 percent of young children had a foreign-born parent. In Sacramento and the Inland Empire, about 30 percent of young children had a foreign-born parent. (The dataset used for this analysis was too small to include other regions.) The share of young children in families with a foreign-born head showed the same trend, growing from 31 percent in 1980 to 45 percent in 1999. Table 2.3 Percentage of Foreign-Born Residents: Trends and Regional Differences Statewide, 1980 Statewide, 1990 Statewide, 1999 Child 5.6 6.0 3.4 Either Parent 36.7 46.8 49.2 Family Head 31.1 41.6 44.7 Regions, 1999 Sacramento Area <1 30 28 SF Bay Area 5 46 40 Central Valley 6 45 40 Los Angeles Area 4 63 59 Inland Empire 1 31 29 San Diego County 2 44 37 Source: Authors’ calculations from Census (1980, 1990), March CPS (1998-2000). Notes: For regions not shown, the CPS sample was not large enough to calculate reliable statistics. See Appendix A for definitions of regions. 6 For recent reports on this topic, see the California Department of Education website at http://www.cde.ca.gov/psaa/apiresearch.htm. - 12 - 3. Family Life This chapter provides a statistical portrait of the family life of young children in California. We describe the marital status of parents, their workforce participation, residential mobility, and births to teens. Family Structure The share of young children living with married parents declined from 78 percent in 1980 to 74 percent in 1990 (see Table 3.1). By 1999, that figure stood at 70 percent while another 5 percent of young children lived with an unmarried but partnered parent.7 In that same year, 19 percent of young children lived with a single mother. The share of young children who lived with a single father was 3 percent. About 2 percent of young children lived with a relative but not a parent, and 1 percent lived with a non-relative. Table 3.1 Family Structure: Trends, and Regional Differences (percentage) Statewide, 1980 Statewide, 1990 Statewide, 1999 Married Parent 77.9 73.5 69.8 Partnered Parent 4.5 4.7 Single Mother 14.8 15.4 19.3 Single Father 2.7 2.4 2.7 Other Relative 3.0 1.9 2.3 Nonrelative 1.6 2.3 1.3 Regions, 1999 Sacramento Area SF Bay Area Central Valley Los Angeles Area Inland Empire San Diego County 61 77 66 72 66 62 5 29 2 2 1 3 15 2 1 1 5 23 3 2 1 4 18 2 3 1 8 18 6 1 1 7 22 5 2 1 Source: Authors’ calculations from Census (1980, 1990) and March CPS (1998-2000). Note: "Married parent" families include families with one biological parent and one stepparent. The CPS survey does not include children living in institutional settings. For regions not shown, the CPS sample was not large enough to calculate reliable statistics. See Appendix A for definitions of regions. 7 For heads of households, the CPS allows respondents to identify "unmarried partners." Reported statistics combine same sex and opposite sex domestic partnerships. The CPS does not identify whether the unmarried partner is the biological or adoptive parent of children in the household. Survey data from other sources suggest that the CPS measure of domestic partnerships may be too low (Casper, Cohen, and Simmons, 1999). The 1990 Census has similar information on domestic partnerships. The 1980 Census does not include information on domestic partnerships. - 13 - Of the major regions, the San Francisco Bay Area had the highest share (77 percent) of young children living with married parents. San Diego County and the Sacramento region had the lowest share at just over 61 percent. In each of the major regions, the vast majority of children who did not live with married parents lived with a single mother. Interestingly, San Diego County and the Inland Empire had relatively large shares of children living with single fathers (5 and 6 percent, respectively). Likewise, these regions also had higher shares of children living with partnered parents. Table 3.2 Family Structure by Race/Ethnicity (percentage) 1999 White Hispanic, F -born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian F.-born African American Married Parent 77 71 56 84 28 Partnered Parent 5 6 6 0 5 Single Single Other Mother Father Relative 14 2 18 2 29 4 94 59 3 2 2 2 2 3 Nonrelative 1 1 2 1 3 1990 White Hispanic, F.-born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian F.-born Asian U.S.-born Southeast Asian African American Native American 81 71 67 89 88 80 39 58 3 11 2 1 2 5 10 4 4 6 7 18 3 2 3 1 52 2 2 1 72 1 1 1 12 1 2 3 6 43 3 5 3 9 24 3 3 2 Source: Authors’ calculations from Census (1990) and March CPS (1998-2000). Note: The table does not show 1999 levels for groups for whom the CPS sample was too small to calculate reliable statistics. Foreign-born groupings are based on the family head. Southeast Asians are included with other Asians for 1999 but separated for 1990. The share of young children living with married parents varied substantially by race/ethnicity and foreign-born status. For young Asian and white children, the proportion of living with married parents was close to 80 percent in 1999 (see Table 3.2). For families with foreign-born Hispanic heads, the share was 71 percent. In families headed by U.S.-born Hispanics, 56 percent of young children lived with married parents and 29 percent lived with a single mother. Less than 30 percent of African American young children lived with married parents while almost 60 percent lived with a - 14 - single mother. In 1990, 58 percent of Native American children lived with married parents and 24 percent lived with a single mother. Adult Workforce Participation There are many ways to measure workforce participation depending on the definition of part-time work. We divide adults into three groups based on work participation in the previous year: those who worked very little or not at all (under 200 hours), those who worked a substantial amount but not close to full time (200-1,499 hours), and those who worked at least 1,500 hours. We chose 1,500 hours because it represents three-quarter-time work. For example, a person who worked full-time (i.e., 40 hours) for 37.5 weeks worked 1,500 hours. To meet the work requirements under the CalWorks welfare program, single parents must work 32 hours per week. With two weeks of vacation, this requirement translates to 1,600 hours annually. Most fathers and more than half of mothers of young children in California worked outside the home. Thirty-five percent of children living with single mothers in 1999 had mothers who worked at least 1,500 hours. Another 25 percent of these children had mothers who worked at least 200 hours that year (see Figure 3.1). For about 41 percent of children with single mothers, the mothers worked less than 200 hours in 1999. The comparable figure for such mothers in 1989 was 57 percent. This decline is likely due, in part, to CalWorks program rules requiring work participation.8 Compared to children with single mothers, children with married mothers were more likely to have mothers who worked less than 200 hours in 1999. For children with married mothers, the proportion with a mother working at least 1,500 hours rose from 20 percent in 1979 to 34 percent in 1999. For children living with single fathers, there has been a growing trend in fathers’ workforce participation, with the share working at least 1,500 hours growing from 60 to 78 percent. The share of children with fathers working less than 200 hours fell from 16 to 9 percent between 1979 and 1999. Children with married fathers were the group most likely to have a working father: 86 percent had a father working at least 1,500 hours in 1999, and only 5 percent of children had a father working less than 200 hours. 8 For CalWorks program information, see the Department of Social Services website at http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/getinfo/policypro.html. - 15 - Figure 3.1 Percentage of Children with Parents Participating in the Workforce, by Annual Hours of Work, 1979-1999 100 percentage 80 60 1,500+ 200-1,499 40 <200 20 0 79 89 99 Single Mothers 79 89 99 Married Mothers 79 89 99 Single Fathers 79 89 99 Married Fathers Source: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1979-1980, 1989-1990, 1999-2000). The youngest children were less likely to have a mother working outside the home. For children under two, 52 percent of those with single mothers and 46 percent of those with married mothers had mothers who worked less than 200 hours in 1999 (see Figure 3.2). For these youngest children, only 24 percent with single mothers and 33 percent with married mothers had a mother who worked at least 1,500 hours. For children age four to five, almost 40 percent had mothers working at least 1,500 hours for both single and married mothers.9 9 Calculations of maternal workforce participation by child age are generally based on the age of the youngest child. Because we are interested in the family life of children, we calculate statistics for each young child in the family. - 16 - Figure 3.2 Percentage of Children with Mothers Participating in the Workforce, by Age of Child, 1999 percentage 100 80 60 1,500+ 200-1,499 40 <200 20 0 0 to 1 2 to 3 4 to 5 Single Mothers 0 to 1 2 to 3 4 to 5 Married Mothers Source: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1998-2000). In four of the six major regions, 48 to 58 percent of children with single mothers had mothers who worked less than 200 hours in 1999 (see Table 3.3). In five of the regions, 22 to 32 percent of these children had mothers who worked 1,500 hours or more. In the San Francisco Bay Area, 55 percent of children with single mothers had mothers who worked at least 1,500 hours and only 31 percent had mothers that worked less than 200 hours. Between 32 and 41 percent of children with married mothers had mothers who worked at least 1,500 hours in five of the six regions. In the Central Valley, the share was only 24 percent. The workforce participation of married fathers did not vary as substantially: 79 to 89 percent of children with married fathers had a father working at least 1,500 hours. There were too few singlefather families to calculate reliable statistics by region. - 17 - Table 3.3 Parental Workforce Participation by Family Type and Region, 1999 (percentage) Single Mothers Sacramento Area SF Bay Area Central Valley Los Angeles Area Inland Empire San Diego County Married Mothers Sacramento Area SF Bay Area Central Valley Los Angeles Area Inland Empire San Diego County Married Fathers Sacramento Area SF Bay Area Central Valley Los Angeles Area Inland Empire San Diego County <200 Hours 36 31 55 48 58 56 39 48 52 48 44 43 12 3 4 4 8 2 200-1499 Hours 42 14 20 19 17 20 20 19 24 18 15 17 9 9 17 7 5 10 1500+ Hours 22 55 25 32 25 24 41 32 24 35 41 40 80 88 79 89 87 87 Source: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1998-2000). Note: Single father sample was too small to calculate reliable regional statistics. For regions not shown, the CPS sample was not large enough to calculate reliable statistics. See Appendix A for definitions of regions. As Table 3.4 indicates, among children with single mothers, white children had the largest share of mothers working at least 1,500 hours (38 percent) and the smallest share with mothers working less than 200 hours (36 percent). For Hispanics and African Americans, the share with a mother working less than 200 hours was about half. Among children with married mothers, Hispanic children in families with foreign-born heads had the highest share of mothers working less than 200 hours (57 percent) and those in families with U.S.-born heads had the lowest share (37 percent). For children with married fathers, for all groups shown, 80 to 90 percent had fathers who worked at least 1,500 hours. - 18 - Table 3.4 Parental Work Participation by Family Type and Race/Ethnicity (percentage) Single Mothers White Hispanic, foreign-born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian, foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Southeast Asian African American Native American Married Mothers White Hispanic, foreign-born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian, foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Southeast Asian African American Native American Married Fathers White Hispanic, foreign-born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian, foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Southeast Asian African American Native American <200 Hours in 1999 36 50 49 49 43 57 37 46 4 3 5 10 200-1499 Hours in 1999 25 17 22 25 21 17 22 16 6 13 10 10 1500+ Hours in 1999 38 33 28 26 36 26 41 38 90 84 85 80 Avg. Hours in 1989 880 842 675 879 1050 196 605 570 840 540 802 663 1165 442 1078 829 2191 1727 1901 1766 2053 866 1850 1941 Source: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1998-2000) and the Census (1990). Notes: The table does not show 1999 levels for groups for whom the CPS sample was too small to calculate reliable statistics. Foreign-born groupings are based on the family head. The single father sample in the CPS was too small to calculate reliable statistics for all groups. Southeast Asians are included with other Asians for 1999 but separated for 1990. Because of the small size of the CPS sample, we need to rely on 1990 Census data to estimate parental workforce participation for many groups (final column, Table 3.4). For Asian children, those in families with U.S.born heads had substantially higher average maternal work hours than did white children. However, Southeast Asians had particularly low workforce participation. Among Southeast Asians, for children with married fathers, the average annual hours worked was less than 900. For Native Americans, - 19 - workforce participation was similar to that of whites; the exception was the case of children with single mothers, for whom workforce participation was lower among Native Americans. Childcare cost, quality, and availability are important factors related to trends and differences in adult workforce participation. In this study, we do not cover childcare topics because PPIC has forthcoming research on that subject and the CCFC has a recent survey of childcare in the state. Residential Mobility In 2000, about one-fourth of all young children moved households in the previous year. For low-income children, the share that moved was close to one-third (see Figure 3.3).10 Residential mobility for young children varies Figure 3.3 Percentage of Young Children who Moved in the Previous Year, 1981-2000 45 40 Low-Income 35 30 25 20 All 15 10 5 0 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 Source: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1981-2000). Notes: Information refers to moving in the previous year. For 1987 and earlier, children are categorized by the mobility status of their mothers due to the nature of the survey question. In all years, children under one are categorized by the mobility status of their mothers. We use mobility status of fathers for children not living with their mothers. The CPS survey does not contain comparable mobility information in 1985. 10 See Chapter 5 for the definition of "low-income" used in this study. - 20 - percentage significantly from year to year, but the general trend has been downward over the last two decades. In 1981, the share that had moved in the previous year was 30 percent for all young children and over 40 percent for low-income children. Children from all regions of California were highly mobile in the late 1990s, especially children in low-income families (see Table 3.5). Of the major regions, San Diego County had children with the highest mobility, with 34 percent of young children having moved in the previous year. (The figure for low-income children was 45 percent.) Table 3.5 Percentage of Children Who Moved in 1999, by Region Sacramento Area SF Bay Area Central Valley Los Angeles Area Inland Empire San Diego County All children 30 20 25 23 27 34 Lowincome children 37 25 32 28 37 45 Sources: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1998-2000). Notes: See notes to Figure 3.3. For regions not shown, the CPS sample was not large enough to calculate reliable statistics. See Appendix A for definitions of regions. Residential mobility was particularly high for African American children in 1999; 34 percent had moved in the previous year (48 percent of low-income African American children). However, data from the 1990 Census provides a somewhat different measure of mobility--movement in the previous five years--and showed a particularly high level of residential mobility for foreign-born Asian and Hispanic children (Table 3.6, final column). - 21 - Table 3.6 Percentage of Children Who Moved by Race/Ethnicity White Hispanic, foreign-born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian, foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Southeast Asian African American Native American All children (1999) 23 26 28 25 34 Low income children (1999) 37 29 32 48 All children, 1990 73 82 69 89 72 82 70 69 Sources: Authors’ calculations from Census (1990) and March CPS (1998-2000). Notes: Information for 1999 refers to moving in the previous year. Information for 1990 refers to mother moving since 1985. See notes to Figure 3.3. The table does not show 1999 levels for groups for whom the CPS sample was too small to calculate reliable statistics. Foreign-born groupings are based on the family head. Southeast Asians are included with other Asians for 1999 but separated for 1990. Births to Teenage Mothers The typical measure of births to teenage mothers is the "teen birth rate" which is generally defined as the number of births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 19. The teen birth rate in California was roughly 60 births per 1,000 teen women in the late 1990s (Johnson, Hill, and Heim, 2001). For this report, we are interested in the characteristics of the families of young children. Therefore, we measure the share of births to teen mothers as a percentage of all births. For populations that have a high proportion of women ages 15-19, the share of births to teen mothers may be high even when the teen birth rate is not particularly high. Readers should keep in mind that the trends and racial/ethnic differences reported here are indicative of the families of young children and not the conditions of teenagers. In 1999, 11 percent of all births in California were to teen mothers, with 4 percent to young women ages 15 to 17 and 7 percent to young women ages 18 and 19 (see Figure 3.4). The percentage of births to teen mothers has been fairly stable over the last decade, showing a slight increase in the early 1990s and a slight decline in the late 1990s. Many teen mothers were married at the time of their children’s births. In 1999, 32 percent of births to women ages 15 to17 were to married women; the corresponding figure for - 22 - percentage women ages 18 and 19 was 43 percent. By comparison, 72 percent of births to women ages 20 and older were to married women. Figure 3.4 Percentage of Births that Were to Teenage Mothers, 1989-1999 14 12 All teens 10 8 Ages 18-19 6 4 Ages 15-17 2 0 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Source: Authors’ calculations from Vital Statistics Birth Records, 1989-1999. In nine of the ten regions of California, the share of births to mothers age 15 to 17 was 5 percent or less (see Table 3.7). In the Central Valley, the share was 7 percent. In all regions, a substantial share of births to women of this age was to married women. The Sierra East had the highest share to married women at 54 percent; the Central Valley had the lowest share at 26 percent. The share of births to women ages 18 to 19 ranged from a low of 5 percent in the San Francisco Bay Area to a high of 11 percent in the Central Valley. - 23 - Table 3.7 Percentage of Births to Teenage Mothers by Region, 1999 North State Sierra East Sacramento Gold Country Central Valley Central Coast S.F. Bay Area Los Angeles Inland Empire San Diego County Ages 15-17 Share As a to share of married births mothers 5 46 3 54 5 33 3 36 7 26 4 44 3 40 4 33 5 28 4 37 Ages 18-19 Share As a to share of married births mothers 10 55 9 45 8 41 6 45 11 39 8 55 5 49 7 40 9 42 7 51 Source: Authors’ calculations from Vital Statistics Birth Records, 1999. Notes: See Appendix A for definitions of regions. Foreign-born Asians had a very small share of births to women ages 15 to 17, less than 1 percent (see Table 3.8). For Southeast Asians and whites, the share was 2 percent. (Most teen births to Southeast Asian women were to married women.) For U.S.-born Hispanics, the share was 10 percent, and only 29 percent of these were to married women. Births to women ages 18 and 19 were also particularly low for foreign-born Asian women (2 percent) and high for foreign-born Hispanic women (14 percent).11 11 See Johnson, Hill, and Heim (2001) for teenage birth rates by race and ethnicity. - 24 - Table 3.8 Percentage of Births to Teenage Mothers by Race/Ethnicity, 1999 White Hispanic, foreignborn Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian, foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Southeast Asian African American Native American Ages 15-17 Share As a to share of married births mothers 2 31 4 43 10 29 1 32 5 34 2 61 6 23 7 35 Ages 18-19 Share As a to share of married births mothers 5 45 6 52 14 38 2 48 8 42 4 84 10 29 12 36 Source: Authors’ calculations from Vital Statistics Birth Records, 1999. - 25 - - 26 - 4. Parental Education This chapter describes education levels for parents of children ages five and under. The earliest educators of young children are their family members. Parental education is strongly associated with a child’s educational achievement (Manski et al., 1992). Early childhood development programs also contribute to educational achievement. However, in this study we do not investigate preschool, kindergarten, or other educational conditions for young children. The Public Policy Institute of California will publish studies of these topics in the coming year, and the California Children and Families Commission has recently fielded a survey of these topics. Maternal Education In 1999, roughly 30 percent of births in California were to women who had not completed 12 years of schooling, the usual time required for a high school diploma.12 This figure has fallen from its peak of 35 percent in 1992 to 30 percent in 1999 (see Figure 4.1). Seventy percent of these births were to foreign-born women. Figure 4.1 Percentage of Births to Women with Less than 12 Years of Schooling, 1989-1999 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Source: Authors’ calculations from Vital Statistics Birth Records, 1989-1999. 12 By way of comparison, 26 percent of women ages 20 to 45 have less than 12 years of education. Fertility rates tend to be higher than average among women with low levels of education; as a result, their share of births tends to exceed their share of the population. - 27 - percentage In the Gold Country, the share of births to women with less than 12 years of schooling was relatively low at only 11 percent (see Table 4.1). In the Sierra East and the San Francisco Bay Area, the share was 20 percent. At the other extreme--in Los Angeles, the Central Coast, and the Central Valley-the shares were between 35 and 40 percent. (See Appendix C for countylevel statistics.) Table 4.1 Percentage of Births to Women with Less than 12 Years of Schooling, 1999 North State Sierra East Sacramento Gold Country Central Valley Central Coast S.F. Bay Area Los Angeles Inland Empire San Diego Percentage of overall births 24 21 26 11 39 38 20 35 31 25 Source: Authors’ calculations from Vital Statistics Birth Records, 1999. In most regions, the majority of births to women with less than 12 years of schooling were to foreign-born women. However, in the Sierra East, 57 percent of these births were to U.S.-born women. In the North and the Gold Country, more than 65 percent of these births were to U.S.-born women. For whites and Asians, about 10 percent of births were to women with less than 12 years of schooling (see Table 4.2). For African Americans, the share was 18 percent; for Southeast Asians, 23 percent. Hispanics had the highest share of births to women with less than 12 years of schooling. The share for U.S.-born Hispanics was 30 percent; for foreign-born Hispanics, the share was more than 63 percent. - 28 - Table 4.2 Percentage of Births to Women with Less than 12 Years of Schooling by Race/Ethnicity, 1999 White Hispanic, foreign-born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian, foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Southeast Asian African American Native American As a share of births 8 63 30 8 9 23 18 28 Source: Authors’ calculations from Vital Statistics Birth Records, 1999. Paternal Education Unlike information on maternal education, information on paternal education is not available on birth records. We therefore use survey data to measure the percentage of young children with fathers who have not completed high school. In these measures, we consider only fathers who live with children ages five and under. Statewide, 28 percent of young children had fathers who lacked a high school diploma in 1999. This share has increased slightly over the last two decades from 26 percent in 1980 (see Table 4.3). Regionally, the share of children with fathers without a high school diploma went from a low of 14 percent in the San Francisco Bay Area to a high of 38 percent in the Central Valley. In the Los Angeles region, 34 percent of children had fathers who had not completed high school. - 29 - Table 4.3 Trends and Regional Differences in Paternal Education (percentage of children) Statewide, 1980 Statewide, 1990 Statewide, 1999 Regions, 1999 Sacramento Area SF Bay Area Central Valley Los Angeles Area Inland Empire San Diego County Less than HS diploma 25.6 26.6 27.7 Bachelor's or more 22.8 24.3 24.8 22 14 14 41 38 17 34 25 29 9 19 28 Source: Authors’ calculations from Census (1980, 1990) and March CPS (1998-2000). Notes: Calculations are based on children living with their fathers. In 1980, the Census reported years of completed schooling. For 1980, Table 4.1 shows the percentage not completing 12 years and the percentage completing 16 or more years. For regions not shown, the CPS sample was not large enough to calculate reliable statistics. See Appendix A for definitions of regions. Hispanic fathers of young children had the lowest levels of paternal educational attainment. Among Hispanic children with fathers born in the United States, the share of fathers who had not completed high school was 28 percent; for children with foreign-born Hispanic fathers, that share was 64 percent. For the other three major racial/ethnic groups, less than 10 percent of young children had fathers who had not completed high school. There was significant variation in the proportions of young children whose fathers had completed a bachelor’s degree. Among African Americans, that figure was 26 percent; for whites, the figure was 38 percent; and for Asians, the figure was 50 percent and higher. The high figure for Asians masks substantial variation among subgroups. Information from 1990 shows that less than 13 percent of young Asian children had fathers who lacked a high school diploma; but the corresponding figure among Southeast Asians was 47 percent. - 30 - Table 4.4 Paternal Education by Race/Ethnicity (percentage of children) White Hispanic, foreign-born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian, foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Southeast Asian African American Native American Less than HS diploma 1999 5 64 28 8 8 Bachelors’ or more 1999 38 4 9 50 26 Less than HS diploma 1990 9 74 54 13 11 47 14 23 Sources: Authors’ calculations from Census (1990) and March CPS (1998-2000). Notes: Calculations are based on children living with their fathers. The table does not show 1999 levels for groups for whom the CPS sample was too small to calculate reliable statistics. Foreign-born groupings are based on the family head. Southeast Asians are included with other Asians for 1999 but separated for 1990. - 31 - - 32 - 5. Economic Conditions This chapter describes economic conditions in the families of young children in California. We measure the share of children who are in poor and low-income families, the median incomes for families with young children, and the share of those families that receive public assistance. Poverty and Low Income The poverty rate is the percentage of people who live in families with incomes below a threshold set by the federal government. In 2000, the threshold for a family of four was $17,463. In 1999, 21 percent of young children in California were poor by this definition (see Figure 5.1, black line). In recent years, the poverty rate for young children has fallen from a high of 32 percent in 1994 to 21 percent in 1999. However, the 1999 rate still exceeds the poverty rate for young children in 1979, which was 18 percent. Figure 5.1 Percentage of Children in Poor and Low-Income Families, 1979-1999 60 50 Low-Income 40 30 Poor 20 10 0 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 Source: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1980-2000). The official definition of poverty has been criticized because it does not account for regional prices and income needs. To supplement this measure of poverty, we measured the share of children in low-income families using 75 percent of median income in California as the low-income threshold. We chose this income level because it is the standard for eligibility for childcare - 33 - percentage subsidies in the state.13 By this measure, 44 percent of young children were in low-income families in 1999 (see Figure 5.1, gray line). This rate was lower than that in the peak year of 1994 but higher than the 1979 rate. Regionally, the young child poverty rate in 1999 ranged from a low of 9 percent in the San Francisco Bay Area to a high of 40 percent in the Central Valley (see Table 5.1). The share of young children in low-income families followed a similar regional pattern, with a low of 24 percent in the San Francisco Bay Area and a high of 60 percent in the Central Valley. In Los Angeles County, the largest county with low-performing schools, the poverty rate was 32 percent and the low-income rate was 52 percent. Other counties with low-performing schools had similar poverty and low-income levels. For all other counties, the poverty rate was substantially lower (17 percent), as was the low-income rate (36 percent). Table 5.1 Percentage of Children in Poor and Low-Income Families by Region, 1999 Regions Sacramento Area SF Bay Area Central Valley Los Angeles Area Inland Empire San Diego County School-based regions LA County Low-performing All other counties Poor 31 9 40 27 23 26 32 32 17 Low-income 53 24 60 47 45 46 52 54 36 Sources: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1998-2000). Notes: For regions not shown, the CPS sample was not large enough to calculate reliable statistics. See Appendix A for definitions of regions. In 1999, white and Asian children had the lowest poverty rates at almost 13 percent. African American and Hispanic children had poverty rates of 30 percent and higher. Low-income rates in 1999 show essentially the same pattern. In 1989, almost half of Southeast Asian children were poor. The foreign-born Hispanic poverty rate was also very high at 44 percent. Income data from the Census are not directly comparable to data 13 For consistency over time, we calculate the threshold in each year using the median presented later in this chapter. See Appendix B for methodological details. - 34 - from the CPS, and the columns of Table 5.2 should not be interpreted as reflecting a change in poverty and low-income during the 1990s. Table 5.2 Percentage of Children in Poor and Low-Income Families by Race/Ethnicity White Hispanic, foreign-born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian, foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Southeast Asian African American Native American Poor 1999 13 39 30 12 38 Low-income 1999 27 68 50 25 58 Poor 1989 11 44 28 21 9 49 37 28 Low-income 1989 27 68 54 42 23 62 60 54 Sources: Authors’ calculations from Census (1990) and March CPS (1998-2000). Notes: Income data for 1989 are not directly comparable to data for 1999. The table does not show 1999 levels for groups for whom the CPS sample was too small to calculate reliable statistics. Foreign-born groupings are based on the family head. Southeast Asians are included with other Asians for 1999 but separated for 1990. Median Income for Families with Young Children Median income for families with young children has improved from a low of less than $29,000 in 1994 to just over $34,000 in 1999 (see Figure 5.2). However, the 1999 figure was lower than the inflation-adjusted medians for 1989 ($38,000) and 1979 ($39,000). - 35 - Figure 5.2 Median Income for Families with Young Children, 1979-1999 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 Source: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1980-2000). Notes: The median is the level of income at which half of children live in families with higher income and half of children live in families with lower income. Income reported in inflation-adjusted 1999 dollars. Income adjusted for family size. See Appendix B for details. In 1999, the San Francisco Bay Area had the highest median income for families with young children at almost $62,000 (see Table 5.3). In other regions, the median was about half of that or less. The Central Valley had the lowest median at $22,000. (See Appendix C for estimates of per capita and median income by county.) Table 5.3 Median Income for Families with Young Children by Region, 1999 Sacramento Area SF Bay Area Central Valley Los Angeles Area Inland Empire San Diego County Median 25,748 61,791 21,739 30,604 34,050 30,279 Sources: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1998-2000). Notes: See notes to Figure 5.2. For regions not shown, the CPS sample was not large enough to calculate reliable statistics. See Appendix A for definitions of regions. - 36 - A comparison of the major racial and ethnic groups shows that young white children had the highest median family incomes at over $56,500 in 1999 (see Table 5.4). Foreign-born Hispanics had the lowest median at just under $20,500. For 1989, when information is available at a more detailed level, we see that Southeast Asians had the lowest median of less than $18,500. Income data from the Census are not directly comparable to data from the CPS, and the columns of Table 5.4 should not be interpreted as showing an increase in median income during the 1990s. Table 5.4 Median Income for Families with Young Children by Race/Ethnicity White Hispanic, foreign-born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian, foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Southeast Asian African American Native American Median 1999 56,594 20,492 29,757 49,740 26,234 Median 1989 54,824 19,130 27,505 37,955 56,372 18,438 21,442 29,963 Sources: Authors’ calculations from the Census (1990) and March CPS (1998-2000). Notes: See notes to Figure 5.2. Income data for 1989 are not directly comparable to data for 1999. The table does not show 1999 levels for groups for whom the CPS sample was too small to calculate reliable statistics. Foreign-born groupings are based on the family head. Southeast Asians are included with other Asians for 1999 but separated for 1990. Public Assistance Over the last two decades, the share of young children living in families that received public assistance fluctuated between 14 and 21 percent (see Figure 5.3). In the late 1990s, the share fell from over 20 percent to 12 percent, the lowest level in the last 20 years. The recent decline in public assistance use reflects both welfare reform and the strength of the economy (MaCurdy et al., 2000). - 37 - Figure 5.3 Percentage of Young Children in Families Receiving Public Assistance, 1979-1999 25 20 percentage 15 10 5 0 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 Sources: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1980-2000). In Sacramento and the Central Valley, roughly one-fourth of young children were in families receiving public assistance in 1999 (see Table 5.5). In the Los Angeles area and the Inland Empire, only 11 percent of young children were in families that received public assistance; in the San Francisco Bay Area, less than 5 percent did. In San Diego County, the figure was 16 percent. Table 5.5 Percentage of Young Children in Families Receiving Public Assistance by Region Sacramento Area SF Bay Area Central Valley Los Angeles Area Inland Empire San Diego County Public Asst. (%) 26 4 23 11 11 16 Sources: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1998-2000). Notes: For regions not shown, the CPS sample was not large enough to calculate reliable statistics. See Appendix A for definitions of regions. - 38 - There were substantial differences in public assistance use across the major racial/ethnic groups (see Table 5.6). Almost 30 percent of young African American children were in families that received public assistance in 1999. For young children in families headed by a U.S.-born Hispanic, the share was 19 percent; for those headed by a foreign-born Hispanic, the share was 14 percent. Whites and Asians had lower overall public assistance use; among Southeast Asians, however, the share of children living in families receiving public assistance stood at 50 percent in 1989. To measure the rates of public assistance use for smaller racial/ethnic groups, we use the 1990 Census (Table 5.6, column 2). Public assistance data from the Census are not directly comparable to data from the CPS, and the columns of Table 5.6 should not be interpreted as showing an increase in public assistance use during the 1990s. Table 5.6 Percentage of Young Children in Families Receiving Public Assistance by Race/Ethnicity White Hispanic, foreign-born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian, foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Southeast Asian African American Native American Public Asst. 1999 9 14 19 8 29 Public Asst. 1989 6 5 11 5 4 50 28 20 Sources: Authors’ calculations from Census (1990) and March CPS (1998-2000). Note: Public assistance data for 1989 are not directly comparable to data for 1999. The table does not show 1999 levels for groups for whom the CPS sample was too small to calculate reliable statistics. Foreign-born groupings are based on the family head. Southeast Asians are included with other Asians for 1999 but separated for 1990. - 39 - - 40 - percentage 6. Health Conditions This chapter describes health insurance rates and vaccinations for young children. For a more exhaustive investigation of health status by racial or ethnic group in California, see Reyes (2001). Health Insurance Twenty percent of California’s young children had no health insurance in 2000 (see Figure 6.1). This is roughly the same share as in the late 1980s. During the mid-1990s, the share of children without health insurance declined to 15 percent but then increased to a peak of 22 percent in 1999. Figure 6.1 Percentage of Uninsured Children, 1989-2000 25 20 15 10 5 0 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 Source: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1989-2000). Regionally, the share of young children without health insurance was highest in the Inland Empire at 29 percent (see Table 6.1). In San Diego County and the Los Angeles area, about one-fourth of young children had no health insurance. In the Central Valley, the share was 16 percent. Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area had the lowest shares of uninsured children at about 12 percent. For information on child health insurance rates by county, see Brown, Ponce, and Rice (2001). - 41 - Table 6.1 Percentage of Uninsured Children by Region, 1999 Sacramento Area SF Bay Area Central Valley Los Angeles Area Inland Empire San Diego County Uninsured (%) 12 11 16 24 29 25 Sources: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1998-2000). Notes: For regions not shown, the CPS sample was not large enough to calculate reliable statistics. See Appendix A for definitions of regions. For most of the major racial and ethnic groups, the share of young children without health insurance was around 20 percent. For young children in families headed by a foreign-born Hispanic, the uninsured share was close to 30 percent. For white children, that share was 12 percent. Table 6.2 Percentage of Uninsured Children by Race/Ethnicity White Hispanic, foreign-born Hispanic, U.S.-born Asian, foreign-born African American Uninsured 1999 12 29 20 19 19 Sources: Authors’ calculations from March CPS (1998-2000). Note: The table does not show 1999 levels for groups for whom the CPS sample was too small to calculate reliable statistics. The 1990 Census did not include information on health insurance. Foreign-born groupings are based on the family head. Southeast Asians are included with other Asians. Vaccinations Information on vaccinations comes from the California Department of Health Services (DHS). The DHS measures the share of kindergarten children who had up-to-date vaccinations at age two. The figures discussed here are based on the regions and racial and ethnic groups presented by the DHS. - 42 - In 2000, 33 percent of kindergarteners in California were not up-todate on vaccinations at the time of their second birthday (Table 6.3, first row). Most regions fell between 30 and 35 percent of children not up-to-date. In the Central Valley, the share was 33 percent, a marked improvement from only two years prior when about half of children were not up-to-date. At 24 percent not up-to-date, the Central Coast stands out as the region with the lowest share of unvaccinated children. Table 6.3 Percentage of Kindergarten Children Not Up-to-Date at Age Two by Region, 2000 State overall Regions Rural North Central Valley North SF Bay Area Central Coast Central Valley Los Angeles County Other Southern CA Not up-todate (%) 33 37 35 31 24 33 35 34 Source: California Department of Health Services, 2000 Kindergarten Retrospective Survey, available at www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/dcdc/izgroup/pdf/krtab00.pdf. Almost half of African American kindergarten children in 2000 were not up-to-date on vaccinations at age two (see Table 6.4). For Hispanics, that share was 34 percent. Among Asians and whites, the corresponding figures were close to 30 percent. - 43 - Table 6.4 Percentage of Kindergarten Children Not Up-to-Date at Age Two by Race/Ethnicity, 2000 White Hispanic Asian African American Not up-todate (%) 30 34 27 46 Source: California Department of Health Services, 2000 Kindergarten Retrospective Survey, available at www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/dcdc/izgroup/pdf/krtab00.pdf. - 44 - References Brown, E.R., N. Ponce, and T. Rice, The State of Health Insurance in California: Recent Trends, Future Prospects, UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, Los Angeles, California, 2001. Casper, Lynn, Phillip Cohen, and Tavia Simmons, "How Does POSSLQ Measure UP?: Historical Estimates of Cohabitation," Population Division Working Paper 36, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., 1999. Cornelius, Wayne A., "Impacts of the 1986 US Immigration Law on Emigration from Rural Mexican Sending Communities," Population and Development Review Vol. 15, No.4, December 1989. Johnson, Hans P., Laura Hill, and Mary Heim, "New Trends in Newborns," California Counts Vol. 3, No.1, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, August 2001. MaCurdy, Thomas, David Mancuso, and Margaret O’Brien-Strain, The Rise and Fall of California’s Welfare Caseload: Types and Regions, 1980-1999, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2000. 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, Volume 87, pp. 25-37, 1992. Myers, D. and J. Pitkin, Demographic Futures for California, Population Dynamics Group, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, 2001. Reyes, Belinda I., ed., A Portrait of Race and Ethnicity in California: An Assessment of Social and Economic Well-Being, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2001. Tafoya, Sonya M., "Check One or More... Mixed Race and Ethnicity in California," California Counts Vol. 1, No. 2, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, January 2000. - 45 - - 46 - Other information resources on children in California U.S. Bureau of the Census website, www.census.gov. "Kids Count," from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, www.aecf.org/kidscount/kc2001/. "California: State of Our Children 2000," from Children Now at www.childrennow.org. County Fact Book, California State Association of Counties, www.cicg.org. Conditions of Children in California (1989), from Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE). - 47 - - 48 - Appendix A. Region Definitions This appendix describes the three main regional divisions used in this study. CCFC Regions The CCFC requested the following ten regions. These regions were used whenever the data was sufficient to do so. North State: Butte, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity Sierra East: Alpine, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Plumas, Sierra Sacramento: Colusa, El Dorado, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba Gold Country: Amador, Calaveras, Nevada, Placer, Tuolomne Central Valley: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Tulare Central Coast: Monterey, San Benito, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo San Francisco Bay Area: Alameda, Contra Costa, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma Los Angeles: Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura Inland Empire: Riverside, San Bernardino San Diego: Imperial, San Diego The CCFC regions differ from those used in other PPIC studies. In particular, PPIC studies typically include Placer County in the Sacramento region; Lake and Mendocino Counties are usually included in the North region. CPS Regions Because the CPS identifies only the 24 metropolitan counties in California, its data are not sufficient to estimate statistics for each of the regions identified above. Furthermore, the sample size of the CPS is not large enough to create reliable estimates for many counties and regions. We - 49 - created a subset of the ten CCFC regions using only identified counties where the regional samples were large enough to create reliable estimates (see Appendix B for a discussion of estimate reliability). Regions were created using CPS county codes. For families with no county code, MSA code was used. Sacramento: El Dorado, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Yolo counties, plus the metropolitan areas of Stockton-Lodi, Yolo, Yuba City, and Chico-Paradise (in Butte County) San Francisco Bay Area: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties Central Valley: Fresno, Kern, Merced, and Tulare counties, plus the metropolitan area of Fresno Los Angeles: Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura counties Inland Empire: Riverside and San Bernardino counties San Diego: San Diego County Regions with Low-Performing Schools The CCFC asked that some indicators be provided for regions with low- performing schools, where "low-performing" is defined as an Academic Performance Index (API) of 3 or less. To implement this request in countylevel data, for each county we computed the share of elementary students in a school with an API of 3 or less. We identified 18 counties where more than 30 percent of students were in a low-performing school.14 These counties were Colusa, Fresno, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Lake, Madera, Merced, Monterey, Riverside, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Tulare, and Yuba. Due to its large size, Los Angeles would dominate any statistics created for these 18 counties. We therefore report statistics for Los Angeles County, the 17 other counties with low performing schools, and all other counties. Poverty and income data for low-performing schools came from the CPS (Table 5.1). For these statistics, the analysis is limited to Los Angeles County plus the ten other counties with low-performing schools that were identified in the CPS: Fresno, Kern, Madera, Merced, Monterey, Riverside, 14 There were four counties where school API scores were missing for more than half of the students: Alpine, Modoc, Mono and Sierra. These counties appeared to have relatively high average scores and they are included in the "all other counties" category. - 50 - San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Santa Barbara, and Tulare. The category "all other counties" includes all California children not identified as living in one of these eleven counties. - 51 - - 52 - Appendix B. Data and Methodology This appendix describes the data sources and methodological approach used in this study. Data Sources The decennial Census data (1980, 1990, 2000) and the March Annual Demographic File of the Current Population Survey (CPS) are from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. These surveys are described more fully in Reed, Glenn Haber, and Mameesh (1996), Appendix A, at www.ppic.org/publications/PPIC000/PPIC000.pdf/index.html. Population estimates and projections from the California Department of Finance can be found at www.dof.ca.gov/html/Demograp/race.htm. The Vital Statistics Birth Records are provided by the California Department of Health Services. More information on this data set can be found at www.dhs.ca.gov/hisp/chs/OHIR/vssdata/vsdatatablesindex.htm. Adjustments to Population Estimates and Projections We rely on California Department of Finance (DOF) population projections by county and racial/ethnic group. The DOF projections of children aged five and under for July of 2000 were roughly 11 percent higher than the 2000 Census estimates for April 2000. The DOF expects to release population projections with adjustments based on the 2000 Census in the summer of 2003. In the interim, the DOF has calculated some crude adjustments, but these have not been done by age group. We use a strategy similar to that of the DOF to create crude adjustments for the California population aged five and under. Using data from 2000 Census Summary File 1, for each county we divide the 2000 Census young child population into two groups: Hispanics and non-Hispanics. Further division into racial groups is not possible without assigning all children described in the 2000 Census as "other race" or "multiple race" to one or another DOF racial/ethnic group. For each of the two groups, we calculate a county adjustment factor such that when the DOF population projection for 2000 is multiplied by the adjustment factor, the result is equivalent to the 2000 Census estimate of county population for that group (i.e., for Hispanics and for combined non-Hispanics). The county adjustment factor is then multiplied by DOF population projections for 2000 to 2020. For the period 1991 to 1999, we implement a smooth adjustment of 10 percent of the full adjustment per year (i.e., 10 percent in 1991, 90 percent in 1999, and full adjustment in 2000). - 53 - The population estimates in this study, the DOF projections, and the 2000 Census Summary File 1 do not adjust for Census undercount. The Bureau of the Census has released national estimates of 2000 Census undercount by race and ethnicity. The DOF has used the national data to develop estimates of the total population in each California county (see http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/repndat.htm, report E-4). The DOF county undercount-adjusted estimates are not available by age group.15 Estimate Reliability The CPS data sample includes roughly 5,000 households in California each year. To calculate reliable estimates for regions and racial/ethnic groups, we combined three years of CPS data (1998-2000). For each region and racial/ethnic group, we calculated the number of families and the standard errors of estimates.16 We did not report CPS-based statistics for regions and groups for whom estimates had excessively large standard errors. Typically, each region or group had more than 100 observations in the sample. For regions, we also checked that the racial/ethnic distribution of young children in the CPS sample roughly matched that of DOF estimates for the region. Calculation of Median Income The median family income figures reported in Chapter 5 are based on income adjusted for family size. Because large families require more resources than do small families to have the same level of well-being, we adjust for family size to create equivalent income for a family of four. We adjust by dividing income for each family by the 1999 poverty line for families of the same size and age-structure, and then multiplying by the 1999 poverty line for a family of four. The median is calculated such that 50 percent of young children live in families with less income than the median (i.e., childweighted). 15 For a description of 1990 Census undercount in California by race and ethnicity, see Reyes (2001), p. 30. For a study of undercount issues for children, see O’Hare (web publication: http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/census.pdf). 16 Our estimates of standard errors were too low because we did not take into account sample design effects. - 54 - Appendix C: Indicators by County Table C.1 Population Estimates by Race/Ethnicity for Children Ages 5 and Under, 2000 ALAMEDA ALPINE AMADOR BUTTE CALAVERAS COLUSA CONTRA COSTA DEL NORTE EL DORADO FRESNO GLENN HUMBOLDT IMPERIAL INYO KERN KINGS LAKE LASSEN LOS ANGELES MADERA MARIN MARIPOSA MENDOCINO MERCED MODOC Total 119,124 74 1,821 14,180 2,266 1,851 80,169 1,864 11,048 82,124 2,435 8,620 13,224 1,173 67,681 12,489 3,789 2,061 896,143 11,469 16,106 910 6,314 22,744 669 Hispanic 34,542 13 230 2,809 265 1,197 22,240 350 1,883 47,496 1,138 1,114 10,955 330 36,022 7,064 823 331 547,865 7,382 2,978 119 2,094 13,436 160 African White American 33,167 17,637 35 1 1,463 3 9,274 264 1,809 16 561 7 36,336 8,251 1,124 11 8,322 55 20,050 4,569 1,087 7 5,880 95 1,556 183 624 2 23,376 3,940 3,776 618 2,564 69 1,502 22 162,425 80,080 3,256 243 11,098 350 705 4 3,452 43 5,989 767 446 0 Native American 372 20 44 327 53 42 217 180 90 551 46 742 175 142 460 162 142 86 2,001 121 22 41 389 83 32 Asian 23,490 0 13 754 18 12 7,127 62 240 6,492 93 176 201 8 1,679 316 18 11 70,718 110 645 3 48 1,648 5 Pacific Islander 827 0 0 22 3 2 321 1 6 58 3 16 6 4 71 15 6 15 2,302 7 11 1 8 24 0 Other 570 0 7 24 2 3 334 2 13 179 5 24 11 3 91 18 2 5 2,414 21 68 0 6 53 4 Multiple Race 8,519 5 61 706 100 27 5,343 134 439 2,729 56 573 137 60 2,042 520 165 89 28,338 329 934 37 274 744 22 - 55 - Table C.1 (continued) Population Estimates by Race/Ethnicity for Children Ages 5 and Under, 2000 Total MONO 876 MONTEREY 37,777 NAPA 9,198 NEVADA 5,322 ORANGE 262,229 PLACER 19,494 PLUMAS 1,144 RIVERSIDE 148,643 SACRAMENTO 108,055 SAN BENITO 5,687 SAN BERNARDINO 174,307 SAN DIEGO 240,425 SAN FRANCISCO 37,890 SAN JOAQUIN 54,676 SAN LUIS OBISPO 15,134 SAN MATEO 54,525 SANTA BARBARA 31,546 SANTA CLARA 143,338 SANTA CRUZ 18,739 SHASTA 11,820 SIERRA 193 SISKIYOU 2,742 SOLANO 34,964 SONOMA 33,530 STANISLAUS 43,223 SUTTER 6,969 Hispanic 309 24,827 3,910 599 122,156 3,013 129 77,921 26,799 3,339 92,393 97,150 8,764 23,817 4,360 17,533 17,229 48,737 8,470 1,264 24 426 9,445 10,677 20,043 2,383 White 516 8,941 4,600 4,387 96,107 14,705 907 51,015 47,672 2,019 51,407 94,041 10,270 18,057 9,629 20,983 11,556 45,140 8,769 9,056 160 1,971 13,311 19,330 18,135 3,186 African American 1 824 112 21 3,576 157 13 9,168 12,246 40 16,331 15,003 3,632 3,808 146 1,477 516 3,349 130 128 2 39 5,143 477 1,220 148 Native American 15 110 40 51 564 136 43 893 652 11 787 1,125 71 223 75 83 148 366 67 476 1 149 132 233 277 83 Asian 9 1,436 214 35 28,350 589 3 3,680 11,556 98 5,838 17,461 12,073 5,569 262 9,649 893 36,836 397 242 0 33 3,461 994 1,550 820 Pacific Islander 1 135 10 4 747 16 1 308 634 9 527 957 339 143 7 951 51 389 17 11 0 3 237 63 112 10 Other 4 78 25 15 599 40 7 285 404 8 372 776 237 139 30 248 58 479 73 30 0 3 121 86 116 17 Multiple Race 21 1,426 287 210 10,130 838 41 5,373 8,092 163 6,652 13,912 2,504 2,920 625 3,601 1,095 8,042 816 613 6 118 3,114 1,670 1,770 322 - 56 - Table C.1 (continued) Population Estimates by Race/Ethnicity for Children Ages 5 and Under, 2000 TEHAMA TRINITY TULARE TUOLUMNE VENTURA YOLO YUBA Total 4,350 696 39,852 2,971 68,367 13,354 6,002 Hispanic 1,297 59 26,831 356 31,896 5,562 1,618 African White American 2,778 25 546 2 10,382 543 2,406 20 29,629 1,051 5,983 246 3,143 197 Native American 66 31 275 69 196 77 113 Asian 39 2 895 19 2,789 792 531 Source: Census 2000, Summary Tape File 1. Pacific Islander 1 1 21 6 94 35 10 Other 9 1 55 3 161 37 10 Multiple Race 135 54 850 92 2,551 622 380 - 57 - Table C.2 County Population Estimates and Projections for Children Ages 5 and Under, 1980-2020 ALAMEDA ALPINE AMADOR BUTTE CALAVERAS COLUSA CONTRA COSTA DEL NORTE EL DORADO FRESNO GLENN HUMBOLDT IMPERIAL INYO KERN KINGS LAKE LASSEN LOS ANGELES MADERA MARIN MARIPOSA MENDOCINO MERCED MODOC MONO 1980 86,371 74 1,325 10,733 1,422 1,247 52,603 1,812 6,749 51,300 2,109 9,104 10,097 1,429 43,325 8,700 2,533 1,914 663,701 6,933 13,072 714 6,196 15,314 773 717 1990 117,430 82 2,024 16,158 2,630 1,672 74,396 2,252 11,686 78,243 2,618 10,688 12,571 1,504 65,220 11,590 4,273 2,231 901,095 9,290 16,511 1,111 7,427 22,816 791 998 2000 119,124 75 1,821 14,180 2,266 1,851 80,169 1,864 11,048 82,124 2,435 8,620 13,224 1,173 67,681 12,489 3,789 2,061 896,143 11,469 16,106 910 6,314 22,744 670 876 2010 2020 122,297 139,772 97 102 2,326 2,441 18,230 22,191 3,368 3,896 3,027 3,924 83,074 95,594 2,540 2,668 16,039 19,220 94,373 116,729 3,748 4,753 9,094 9,306 20,259 27,767 1,511 1,668 90,810 120,284 15,524 19,628 5,511 6,656 2,840 3,151 873,093 1,050,311 16,212 21,615 16,248 18,425 1,294 1,506 8,395 9,626 29,562 37,049 895 924 1,051 1,423 Percentage change 2000-2020 17.3 35.8 34.0 56.5 71.9 112.0 19.2 43.1 74.0 42.1 95.2 8.0 110.0 42.2 77.7 57.2 75.7 52.9 17.2 88.5 14.4 65.5 52.5 62.9 38.0 62.5 - 58 - Table C.2 (continued) County Population Estimates and Projections for Children Ages 5 and Under, 1980-2020 MONTEREY NAPA NEVADA ORANGE PLACER PLUMAS RIVERSIDE SACRAMENTO SAN BENITO SAN BERNARDINO SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOAQUIN SAN LUIS OBISPO SAN MATEO SANTA BARBARA SANTA CLARA SANTA CRUZ SHASTA SIERRA SISKIYOU SOLANO SONOMA STANISLAUS SUTTER TEHAMA 1980 29,226 6,856 4,066 156,059 9,271 1,534 60,759 67,734 2,742 91,361 154,463 37,126 32,747 10,904 41,194 22,086 106,936 14,754 10,176 229 3,627 24,249 24,371 26,194 4,747 3,318 1990 38,457 9,165 6,121 224,716 15,751 1,611 131,133 103,853 4,015 170,789 237,883 43,895 52,795 17,133 54,923 32,826 137,211 20,447 14,073 290 3,674 36,794 35,083 42,199 6,746 4,523 2000 37,777 9,198 5,322 262,229 19,494 1,144 148,643 108,055 5,687 174,307 240,425 37,890 54,676 15,134 54,525 31,546 143,338 18,739 11,820 196 2,742 34,964 33,530 43,223 6,969 4,350 2010 47,630 10,886 7,818 256,064 26,496 1,626 211,176 126,583 7,338 229,901 274,793 30,270 69,396 21,560 53,053 35,140 147,784 21,493 15,130 287 3,601 42,755 40,226 56,877 8,624 5,920 2020 65,572 12,918 8,675 311,060 32,224 1,551 296,350 151,799 8,637 308,111 337,052 29,323 87,931 27,663 59,639 47,911 169,318 28,623 16,723 273 3,659 50,049 48,384 71,251 10,172 7,163 Percentage change 2000-2020 73.6 40.4 63.0 18.6 65.3 35.6 99.4 40.5 51.9 76.8 40.2 -22.6 60.8 82.8 9.4 51.9 18.1 52.7 41.5 39.3 33.4 43.1 44.3 64.8 46.0 64.7 - 59 - Table C.2 (continued) County Population Estimates and Projections for Children Ages 5 and Under, 1980-2020 TRINITY TULARE TUOLUMNE VENTURA YOLO YUBA 1980 1,087 26,961 2,637 51,643 9,085 5,354 1990 1,073 36,520 3,486 65,859 12,797 7,427 2000 696 39,852 2,971 68,367 13,354 6,002 2010 921 50,522 4,503 74,049 16,213 7,583 2020 952 63,815 4,760 90,809 19,734 8,764 Percentage change 2000-2020 36.8 60.1 60.2 32.8 47.8 46.0 Source: Authors’ calculations based on California Department of Finance estimates and projections, adjusted by 2000 Census estimates, see Appendix B. - 60 - Table C.3 County Socioeconomic Indicators CALIFORNIA ALAMEDA ALPINE AMADOR BUTTE CALAVERAS COLUSA CONTRA COSTA DEL NORTE EL DORADO FRESNO GLENN HUMBOLDT IMPERIAL INYO KERN KINGS LAKE LASSEN LOS ANGELES MADERA MARIN MARIPOSA Per capita Share of births to personal women with less Median household income, Child poverty, than a H.S. income, 1997 1999 ages 0-17, 1997 diploma, 1999 (dollars) (dollars) (%) (%) 39,595 29,856 24.6 30.4 46,795 34,131 17.6 18.5 31,080 25,480 30.6 25.0 37,829 20,915 17.1 14.6 29,367 22,012 30.9 23.9 34,672 20,719 20.8 15.1 30,464 23,085 29.4 46.1 54,275 37,994 13.6 15.7 29,044 17,722 31.8 32.9 44,954 28,487 13.2 15.1 31,587 21,146 38.0 40.6 28,649 18,015 29.2 40.8 30,426 22,871 26.0 19.1 23,359 17,550 43.8 32.8 32,871 24,212 21.5 26.3 32,359 19,886 30.2 32.5 30,577 15,732 31.3 35.1 27,295 22,925 33.2 31.7 36,819 17,506 22.9 16.4 36,441 28,276 30.5 37.3 30,804 18,358 35.5 46.8 60,967 57,982 9.5 14.8 31,178 22,452 27.1 15.2 - 61 - Table C.3 (continued) County Socioeconomic Indicators Per capita Share of births to personal women with less Median household income, Child poverty, than a H.S. income, 1997 1999 ages 0-17, 1997 diploma, 1999 (dollars) (dollars) (%) (%) MENDOCINO 32,306 23,758 28.5 25.6 MERCED 29,178 18,367 37.4 40.6 MODOC 28,174 21,427 33.3 21.1 MONO 36,276 25,477 17.8 33.6 MONTEREY 38,341 29,393 24.1 46.4 NAPA 44,667 34,935 14.4 29.8 NEVADA 40,347 26,341 15.3 11.5 ORANGE 49,583 33,805 17.4 31.2 PLACER 49,638 34,972 11.0 9.7 PLUMAS 35,154 24,945 20.1 12.4 RIVERSIDE 36,368 23,271 22.7 30.7 SACRAMENTO 39,461 27,485 27.3 20.9 SAN BENITO 42,578 22,402 17.9 32.6 SAN BERNARDINO 36,876 20,949 25.7 31.4 SAN DIEGO 39,427 29,489 22.0 24.3 SAN FRANCISCO 43,405 49,464 21.7 20.5 SAN JOAQUIN 35,629 21,544 27.3 30.0 SAN LUIS OBISPO 38,597 25,888 18.5 19.8 SAN MATEO 57,267 47,146 9.5 20.5 SANTA BARBARA 40,232 30,218 22.5 36.6 SANTA CLARA 59,639 46,649 13.6 20.6 SANTA CRUZ 44,607 33,539 21.3 33.4 SHASTA 32,109 22,880 28.2 20.2 - 62 - Table C.3 (continued) County Socioeconomic Indicators SIERRA SISKIYOU SOLANO SONOMA STANISLAUS SUTTER TEHAMA TRINITY TULARE TUOLUMNE VENTURA YOLO YUBA Per capita Share of births to personal women with less Median household income, Child poverty, than a H.S. income, 1997 1999 ages 0-17, 1997 diploma, 1999 (dollars) (dollars) (%) (%) 34,941 24,585 15.2 16.7 28,178 21,092 30.1 22.5 46,115 25,176 17.0 17.7 43,770 32,492 13.6 26.0 35,913 21,790 27.2 31.0 33,775 24,223 26.5 30.4 28,030 18,879 30.9 32.8 27,042 19,264 28.2 30.0 27,622 19,329 39.9 44.4 33,810 20,910 23.6 16.2 49,763 29,639 16.6 27.5 38,751 27,037 23.6 26.1 26,842 17,485 38.1 35.3 Sources and Notes: Median household income and child poverty statistics are based on small area estimates from the U.S. Bureau of the Census (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe.html). These estimates are based on predictions from models of income and poverty. Per capita income statistics are from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/). Maternal education statistics are based on authors’ calculations from the California Vital Statistics Birth Records (1999). - 63 - PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chair Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company William K. Coblentz Partner Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP David A. Coulter Vice Chairman J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Walter 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 Miller 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 Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Harold M. Williams President Emeritus The J. Paul Getty Trust and Of Counsel Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Advisory Council Clifford W. Graves Vice Chancellor, Physical Planning University of California, Merced Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Rudolf Nothenberg Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco Harry P. Pachon President The Tomás Rivera Policy Institute Manuel Pastor 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 James P. Smith Senior Economist RAND PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 Phone: (415) 291-4400 Fax: (415) 291-4401 www.ppic.org info@ppic.org"
["post_date_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2017-05-20 09:35:33"
["comment_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["ping_status"]=>
string(6) "closed"
["post_password"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_name"]=>
string(11) "op_1001drop"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2017-05-20 02:35:33"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2017-05-20 09:35:33"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["guid"]=>
string(53) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/OP_1001DROP.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)
}