Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

CC 802JSCC

Authors

CC 802JSCC

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

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

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3711 (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(14) "CC_802JSCC.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "371193" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(46008) "Public Policy Institute of California California Counts POPULATION TRENDS AND PROFILES Hans P. Johnson, editor Volume 4 Number 1 • August 2002 Who’s Your Neighbor? Residential Segregation and Diversity in California By Juan Onésimo Sandoval, Hans P. Johnson, and Sonya M. Tafoya During the 1990s, California’s population became more racially ummary and ethnically diverse. By 2000, no single racial or ethnic group constituted a majority of the state’s population. Increases in Latino and Asian populations were particularly high. In this edition of California Counts, we examine the degree to which the state’s increasing diversity was experienced at the neighborhood level. Did California’s growing Latino and Asian populations lead to even greater segregation in the state, or did neighborhoods in California reflect the diversity of the state’s population? As components of larger geographic areas, how did these neighborhoods define the character of cities, counties, and regions? Using a diversity index that incorporates the complexity of California’s population, we find that neighborhood segregation—the extent to which groups live separately from one another—is generally on the decline. In 1990, 43 percent of California neighborhoods were segregated, and by 2000 only 25 percent were. Since 1990, the number of majority nonHispanic white neighborhoods decreased and the number of Asian and Latino majority neighborhoods increased. Although Latino majority neighborhoods were the most likely of five neighborhood types to be segregated in 2000, segregation in all neighborhood types declined between 1990 and 2000. Regional analysis tends to mask segregation at lower geographic levels, yet it elucidates the results of major immigration and general growth trends. For example, the Far North and Sierra regions are distinct from the rest of the state in that they have very few diverse tracts and are primarily non-Hispanic white. Conversely, the Bay Area, Sacramento Metro, and Inland Empire regions rank highest in terms of the proportion of diverse tracts. The Inland Empire and Sacramento Metro regions were relatively fast growing in the 1990s and received many migrants from other parts of the state, whereas the Bay Area continued to attract international immigrants from many countries. Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? Sacramento, Stockton, Fremont, Long Beach, and Oakland ranked among the most diverse of California’s large cities, whereas Vallejo, Pittsburg, Hayward, San Leandro, and Fairfield were the most diverse among cities with at least 50,000 people. Among those cities, East Los Angeles was the least diverse place in California. Of the ten least diverse cities, seven were majority Latino; of the remaining three, all were majority white cities—two in expensive Southern California neighborhoods and the other in the Far North region. The city of Los Angeles has a diverse population overall, but that diversity is not reflected in most of its neighborhoods, which are among the most segregated of any large city in California. Juan Onésimo Sandoval is a professor at Northwestern University. This report was completed while he was a dissertation fellow at PPIC. Hans P. Johnson and Sonya M. Tafoya are researchers at PPIC. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of PPIC. The authors acknowledge the helpful comments of William Clark, Deborah Reed, Belinda Reyes, and Gary Bjork on earlier drafts of this report. CORRECTION The previous issue of California Counts (“A State of Diversity...,” Vol. 3, No. 5, May 2002) contains an error in Table 5 (p. 12). For 1980 only, the numbers in columns 4 (Asian and Pacific Islander) and 5 (African-American) are reversed. Please see the issue posted on our website (www.ppic.org/publications/CalCounts/calcounts12.pdf ) for the correct version of the table. We apologize for any inconvenience this has caused. 2 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? Introduction Residential segregation refers to the degree to which groups live separately from one another. To the extent that segregation constrains social, educational, political, and economic advancement for various racial/ethnic groups, it remains a salient public policy issue. Historically, urban segregation studies have examined the distribution of the majority (generally white) population and compared it with that of a minority (generally African American) population. Recent studies have shown that metropolitan areas in California have relatively low levels of segregation, especially compared with the Northeast, and that black-white segregation in California declined between 1980 and 1990 (Farley and Frey, 1994). Residential segregation has historically been more severe for African Americans than for other racial/ ethnic groups, but the new waves of immigrants from Asia and Latin America have added further layers to the study of residential segregation. Using techniques similar to those used to study black-white segregation, scholars have found that Latino and Asian segregation actually increased between 1980 and 1990, unlike the patterns seen for African Americans (Frey and Farley, 1996). As previous scholars have done, we depart from the most commonly used dichotomous techniques for studying residential segregation. With no single racial/ ethnic group constituting a majority of the population, designation of a reference group is somewhat arbitrary. Rather than describing how any two groups are segregated from one another, we examine several racial/ethnic groups at once in order to describe California’s overall degree of geographic homogeneity or heterogeneity. Using this type of analysis with national data from 1980, some scholars found that high diversity was most evident in towns and cities in the Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay areas (Allen and Turner, 1989). More recently, studies of the Los Angeles metropolitan area between 1980 and 1990 have shown the emergence of large and concentrated Latino neighborhoods as well as the persistence of largely white coastal areas (Clark, 1996). In this report, we define five broad racial/ethnic groups to compare highly urbanized areas of the state that are home to numerous ethnic subgroups with smaller or more rural areas that have traditionally been more homogeneous. Results are reported here at the level of census tract (neighborhood), city, county, and region. Because we are interested in neighborhood diversity and segregation, our indicators of city, county, and regional diversity and segregation are an average of the diversity and segregation of census To the extent that segregation constrains social, educational, political, and economic advancement for various racial/ethnic groups, it remains a salient public policy issue. tracts in those places.1 Within this report, we refer to neighborhoods as diverse, somewhat diverse, somewhat segregated, and segregated. These labels refer to specific values along the range of entropy scores that we calculated for the state’s census tracts (see the text box, “Measuring Diversity and Segregation”). Thus, although we recognize that the social consequences of living in a segregated neighborhood are different for residents of a poor inner-city environment than they are for residents of a wealthy suburban neighborhood, the neighborhood is deemed segregated if one racial/ethnic group constitutes the overwhelming 3 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? Measuring Diversity and Segregation To measure diversity and segregation in California census tracts, we construct an index. This index, known as the diversity index, is based on the “entropy” measure of residential segregation and is calculated as: H ∑= K (log (P (i)) * P (i) * 100 i i =1 (log k) where Hi = Diversity index for tract i P(i) = Proportion of the tract population in racial/ethnic group k K = The total number of racial/ethnic categories. Scores range from 0 to 100, where 0 is homogeneous and 100 is heterogeneous. A score of 0 means that a tract has only one race/ethnic group; a score of 100 means that each of the k groups is of equal size in the tract. Diversity index scores for cities and counties are a weighted average of the diversity index scores for the tracts contained either wholly or partly in the city or county. In some of the following tables and in the map, we have divided census tracts into four categories according to the diversity index. We consider a place to be diverse if its diversity index is 75 or greater, somewhat diverse if its index is 60 to 75, somewhat segregated if its index is 45 to 60, and segregated if its index is 0 to 45. Examples of cities that meet the criteria for each category are as follows (note that the ethnic distribution is that of all census tracts either wholly or partly in the city): Diverse—Vallejo: 34 percent white, 21 percent African American, 23 percent Asian, 16 percent Latino, 5 percent other Somewhat diverse—Burbank: 59 percent white, 2 percent African American, 9 percent Asian, 26 percent Latino, 5 percent other Somewhat segregated—Santa Rosa: 71 percent white, 2 percent African American, 4 percent Asian, 20 percent Latino, 4 percent other Segregated—Encinitas: 81 percent white, <1 percent African American, 3 percent Asian, 13 percent Latino, 2 percent other. The four categories reflect to some degree natural breaks in the distribution of the entropy score. The average entropy score for California was 58. We round the mean to 60 and use a 15 point interval to create the categories. Populations by census tract were obtained from Summary File 1 from the 2000 Census and Summary Tape File 3A from the 1990 Census. 4 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? majority, regardless of other sociodemographic neighborhood characteristics. Data and Methods Population data for this report are drawn from the decennial Censuses of 1990 and 2000. We developed a diversity index score for each census tract in the state (see the text box, “Measuring Diversity and Segregation”). Since the diversity index is maximized when a local population can be divided evenly among all ethnic groups, we limited our categories to the four largest ethnic groups in California—non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Asian and Pacific Islander,2 and Hispanic or Latino (of any race)—and an aggregate “other” category. “Other” in the context of this report captures American Indian populations in the sparsely populated regions of the state, but it also includes respondents who do not fit into the four racial/ethnic groups listed above and persons of more than one race.3 This format allows us to compare temporal changes in diversity and segregation between 1990 and 2000.4 We equate census tracts with neighborhoods. The average census tract in California has about 4,000 people. Our measure of diversity and segregation in cities and counties is a weighted average of the diversity index for the cen- sus tracts either wholly or partly contained in the city or county. Residential Segregation and Diversity in California Statewide Summary Measures Alarge number of California’s census tracts are segregated, and the state has more segregated census tracts than diverse census tracts; however, diversity is on Diversity is on the rise and segregation is on the decline in California’s neighborhoods. the rise and segregation is on the decline in California’s neighborhoods. Statewide in 2000, one of every four census tracts in California was segregated, whereas about one of every five census tracts had a diverse population. Still, the number of diverse census tracts in California increased dramatically between 1990 and 2000 (Figure 1). By 2000, the proportion of cen- Percentage Figure 1. Percentage Distribution of Census Tracts in California by Level of Diversity/Segregation, 1990 and 2000 50 1990 45 2000 43% 40 35 30 29% 27% 27% 25 22% 20 19% 25% 15 10 7% 5 0 Diverse Somewhat diverse Somewhat segregated Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1990 and 2000 Census data. Note: Numbers may not sum to 100 percent because of independent rounding. Segregated 5 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? sus tracts in the state that were diverse had almost tripled. At the same time, the proportion of segregated census tracts declined markedly. In most of California’s census tracts, non-Hispanic whites constitute a majority of the population. However, the proportion of census tracts with either a Latino or Asian majority, or no majority group at all, increased from 31 percent in 1990 to 47 percent by 2000 (Figure 2). The number and share of census tracts with an African American majority dropped sharply between 1990 and 2000. In 2000, census tracts with a Latino majority were the least likely to be diverse and the most likely to be segregated (Table 1). This is in sharp contrast to 1990, when tracts with non-Hispanic white majorities were much more likely to be segregated than tracts with any other majority group. Nevertheless, the percentage of segregated neighborhoods in Latinomajority tracts was lower in 2000 than in 1990. Indeed, regardless of which group constituted a majority of the population, the level of neighborhood segregation declined between 1990 and 2000. Thus, increases in Latino and Asian populations in California Percentage Figure 2. Percentage Distribution of Census Tracts in California by Majority Racial/Ethnic Group, 1990–2000 70 65% 60 52% 50 1990 2000 40 30 23% 20 13% 10 4% 2% 0 White majority African American Latino majority majority 1% 3% Asian majority Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1990 and 2000 Census data. Note: Numbers may not sum to 100 percent because of independent rounding. 21% 17% No majority did not lead to substantially greater levels of neighborhood segregation. The number of Latinomajority segregated tracts almost doubled between 1990 and 2000; however, the number of Latino majority diverse tracts increased eightfold. The percentage of California’s residents living in segregated neighborhoods significantly declined from 1990 to 2000: Twenty-three percent lived in segregated tracts in 2000 compared with 39 percent in 1990 (Table 2). Twenty percent of Californians lived in racially diverse tracts in 2000 compared with only 8 percent in 1990. All racial/ethnic groups experienced a decline in the percentage that lived in segregated tracts. African Americans were the most likely to live in diverse tracts, followed by Asians, Latinos, and whites. Whites were the most likely to live in segregated tracts, followed by Latinos, African Americans, and Asians. Some scholars have suggested that stable diverse neighborhoods are an exception to the rule in the United States. These scholars argue that diverse neighborhoods are rare because racial attitudes and preferences to live next to individuals of the same race foster selfperpetuating social processes that lead to neighborhood succession, rapid population change, and “inevitable resegregation” (Zubrinsky and Bobo, 1996; Schelling, 1971; Massey and Denton, 1993). Diverse neighborhoods are consid- 6 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? Table 1. Diversity/Segregation of Census Tracts in California by Majority Racial/Ethnic Group, 1990 and 2000 Diverse Somewhat Diverse Somewhat Segregated Segregated Total Number of Tracts, 1990 White majority African American majority Latino majority Asian majority No majority Total 27 659 5 51 7 194 3 18 382 366 424 1,288 1,171 87 274 18 41 1,591 1,948 72 294 7 218 2,539 3,805 215 769 46 1,007 5,842 Percentage Distribution of Diversity/Segregation by Majority Group, 1990 White majority 1 17 African American majority 2 24 Latino majority 1 25 Asian majority 7 39 No majority 38 36 Total 7 22 31 51 100 40 33 100 36 38 100 39 15 100 4 22 100 27 43 100 Number of Tracts, 2000 White majority African American majority Latino majority Asian majority No majority Total 176 10 59 22 1,070 1,337 1,045 45 475 112 367 2,044 1,288 48 486 39 44 1,905 1,141 26 576 7 13 1,763 3,650 129 1,596 180 1,494 7,049 Percentage Distribution of Diversity/Segregation by Majority Group, 2000 White majority 5 29 African American majority 8 35 Latino majority 4 30 Asian majority 12 62 No majority 72 25 Total 19 29 35 31 100 37 20 100 30 36 100 22 4 100 3 1 100 27 25 100 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1990 and 2000 Census data. Note: Numbers may not sum to 100 percent because of independent rounding. ered unstable principally because these diverse neighborhoods often experience rapid population change, which skews the population toward the incoming group. In other words, once a neighbor- hood reaches some threshold level of integration, the majority group begins to move out in large numbers, leaving behind a newly segregated neighborhood. Farley and Frey also have argued that “most whites are uncomfortable when numerous blacks enter their neighborhoods, and few whites are willing to move into neighborhoods with many black residents” (Farley and Frey, 1994). 7 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? A new set of research studies has shown that the “tipping point” thesis does not hold true for all neighborhoods. These studies have found that diverse neighborhoods tend to be located in the western United States (Lee and Wood, 1991). Such neighborhoods are increasingly becoming an important element in the urban fabric in the United States, especially in California (Nyden et al., 1997). In California between 1990 and 2000, we find that racially diverse neighborhoods appear to be quite stable, and the general pattern has been one of increasing diversity regardless of the initial level of diversity/segregation. Among the 322 tracts in California that were diverse in 1990, the vast majority (83 percent) remained diverse.5 None became segregated or even “somewhat segregated” (Table 3). Table 2. Percentage Distribution of Population in California by Race/Ethnicity and Level of Neighborhood Diversity/Segregation, 1990 and 2000 Diverse Somewhat Diverse Somewhat Segregated Segregated 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 White African American Asian Latino Total 5 15 19 38 21 35 9 18 8 20 20 28 34 31 37 39 30 30 25 30 28 30 28 21 26 18 30 25 28 26 48 28 19 10 16 7 31 26 39 23 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1990 and 2000 Census data. Note: Numbers may not sum to 100 percent because of independent rounding. Table 3. Percentage Distribution of Census Tracts in California in 2000 by Level of Diversity/Segregation in 1990 Diverse 2000 Level of Diversity/Segregation Somewhat Diverse Somewhat Segregated Segregated 1990 Diverse 83 17 0 Level of Diversity/ Somewhat Segregation Diverse 46 43 10 Somewhat Segregated 12 52 29 0 1 7 Segregated 0 8 38 54 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1990 and 2000 Census data. Note: Numbers may not sum to 100 percent because of independent rounding. Total 100 100 100 100 8 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? At the other end of the diversity index, almost half of California’s segregated tracts in 1990 were no longer in that category in 2000. Regions and Counties California’s regions and counties exhibit strong differences in diversity and segregation. The Sierras and Far North have very few diverse census tracts, as the entire population of those regions is overwhelmingly non-Hispanic white (Table 4).6 Rather than stating that those regions have a great deal of neighborhood segregation, we might instead say that those entire regions are racially and ethnically segregated from the rest of California. The Sierras was the only region in California not to experience a substantial decrease in the number of segregated census tracts between 1990 and 2000. At the other extreme, the Bay Area and Sacramento Metro regions have the greatest concentration of diverse census tracts. Along with the Bay Area, the San Joaquin Valley and the Inland Empire have Table 4. Percentage Distribution of Census Tracts in California by Level of Diversity, 1990 and 2000 Region Diverse Somewhat Diverse 1990 Somewhat Segregated Segregated Total Bay Area Central Coast Far North Coast and Mountains North Valley Inland Empire Sacramento Metro San Diego San Joaquin Valley Sierras South Coast State total 12 24 2 10 04 02 05 4 33 13 14 7 20 5 19 03 6 25 7 22 23 41 100 28 60 100 13 83 100 6 93 100 20 75 100 32 31 100 22 51 100 24 49 100 34 41 100 13 84 100 31 38 100 27 43 100 2000 Bay Area Central Coast Far North Coast and Mountains North Valley Inland Empire Sacramento Metro San Diego San Joaquin Valley Sierras South Coast State total 31 32 5 18 1 10 13 2 17 17 37 29 18 18 28 14 36 35 17 29 19 29 22 15 100 38 40 100 27 61 100 26 70 100 28 53 100 27 19 100 20 33 100 26 28 100 34 15 100 13 79 100 28 27 100 27 25 100 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1990 and 2000 Census data. Notes: See Table 5 for counties in each region. Numbers may not sum to 100 percent because of independent rounding. 9 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? Regional patterns mask strong differences within some regions. For example, the Bay Area is home to both the county with the greatest neighborhood diversity in the state and one of the least diverse counties. the lowest concentration of segregated census tracts. Regional patterns mask strong differences within some regions (Table 5). For example, the Bay Area is home to both the county with the greatest neighborhood diversity in the state (Solano) and one of the least diverse counties (Marin). Likewise, the Sacramento Metro region includes the very diverse neighborhoods of Sacramento County as well as the least diverse of all of California’s metropolitan counties, El Dorado. The northern part of the San Joaquin Table 5. Average Level of Neighborhood Diversity/ Segregation in California Counties, 1990 and 2000 Diversity Index Region Bay Area Central Coast Far North Coast and Mountains North Valley Continued on next page County Solano Alameda San Francisco Santa Clara Contra Costa San Mateo Napa Sonoma Marin San Benito Santa Barbara Monterey San Luis Obispo Santa Cruz Lassen Del Norte Mendocino Lake Modoc Humboldt Siskiyou Plumas Nevada Sierra Trinity Sutter Yuba Colusa Glenn Butte Tehama Shasta 1990 63 60 61 57 49 54 37 34 31 47 47 52 37 37 38 46 33 29 30 28 29 24 18 19 24 51 52 53 42 30 30 24 2000 78 74 69 68 64 64 49 45 39 56 54 53 44 42 48 46 39 36 32 29 28 21 20 19 17 63 59 54 52 38 36 26 10 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? valley (especially San Joaquin County) tends to have more diverse neighborhoods than the southern part, and the southern part of the Far North (the North Valley counties of Sutter, Yuba, and Colusa) is more diverse than the rest of that region. In South- Table 5. continued ern California, San Bernardino County has the greatest proportion of diverse neighborhoods. Los Angeles County, home to one-fifth of the state’s whites, one-third of the state’s Asians, two-fifths of the state’s Latinos, and two-fifths of the state’s African Americans, had Region Inland Empire Sacramento Metro San Diego San Joaquin Valley Sierras South Coast County San Bernardino Riverside Sacramento Yolo Placer El Dorado San Diego Imperial San Joaquin Kings Merced Fresno Stanislaus Kern Tulare Madera Mono Inyo Amador Alpine Tuolumne Mariposa Calaveras Los Angeles Orange Ventura Diversity Index 1990 56 50 53 52 27 22 50 41 57 59 59 55 47 45 50 44 35 37 33 47 27 28 22 53 48 44 2000 67 61 68 63 34 29 60 45 70 66 66 64 59 54 54 50 40 33 32 28 28 26 25 60 58 51 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1990 and 2000 Census data. Notes: Higher values of the diversity index indicate greater diversity. The diversity index is the weighted average entropy measure for tracts in the county. The most diverse and most segregated places in California tend to be suburban cities in large metropolitan areas. 11 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? far more segregated tracts than diverse tracts in 2000 (544 versus 397). These neighborhoods were primarily white neighborhoods in 1990 (56 percent of all segregated tracts in 1990 had white majority populations), whereas in 2000 the vast majority of segregated neighborhoods in Los Angeles County were Latino (70 percent of all segregated tracts). Still, the share of Los Angeles County’s neighborhoods that were diverse increased from only 8 percent of all neighborhoods in 1990 to 19 percent in 2000, whereas the proportion of segregated neighborhoods declined from 35 percent in 1990 to 26 percent in 2000. Moreover, the increase in segregated Latino majority neighborhoods between 1990 and 2000 was not due to an increase in segregation among Latino majority neighborhoods.7 It was simply because there were many more Latino majority neighborhoods in 2000 in Los Angeles County than in 1990, both segregated and not segregated. Cities Many of California’s largest cities and many of the state’s suburban cities exhibit a great deal of neighborhood diversity.8 Less diversity is found in cities in some of the more remote areas of the state where regional populations are largely non-Hispanic white, in some expensive mostly non-Hispanic white suburban cities, and in some largely Latino cities in the Los Angeles area, San Joaquin Valley, Imperial Valley, and agricultural areas of the Central Coast. Of California’s 152 cities and unincorporated places with 50,000 or more people, only 18 experienced a decline in neighborhood diversity between 1990 and 2000. Among California’s largest cities (those with populations of more than 200,000 people in 2000), Sacramento had the highest level of neighborhood diversity (Table 6). Citywide, Sacramento’s population was 41 percent non-Hispanic white, 22 percent Latino, 17 per- cent Asian, and 15 percent African American.9 Most of Sacramento’s census tracts reflect this citywide diversity, with 40 percent of the city’s tracts having very high diversity index scores. Only 20 percent of the tracts in Sacramento were segregated. Other large cities in the state with a high degree of diversity include Stockton, Fremont, Long Beach, and Oakland. Only Santa Ana and Los Angeles had lower levels of neighborhood diversity than the state as a whole.10 The most diverse and most segregated places in California Table 6. Neighborhood Diversity in California‘s Largest Cities, 2000 City Diversity Index Population Sacramento 81 407,018 Stockton 76 243,771 Fremont 75 203,413 Long Beach 72 461,522 Oakland 72 399,484 Fresno 70 427,652 Riverside 68 255,166 San Jose 67 894,943 San Francisco 67 776,733 Anaheim 65 328,014 San Diego 61 1,223,400 Bakersfield 60 247,057 Los Angeles 57 3,694,820 Santa Ana 45 337,977 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2000 Census data. 12 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? tend to be suburban cities in large metropolitan areas. Of the ten most diverse cities in California in 2000, all except Sacramento were suburban cities in the state’s two largest metropolitan areas: seven were in the Bay Area; two were in the Los Angeles area (Table 7). Some of these cities are older innerring suburbs (Richmond, Vallejo, and Bellflower); others are newer fast-growing suburbs farther from the central city (Pittsburg, Fairfield, and Moreno Valley). Almost all of these are cities characterized by high levels of homeownership and relatively affordable housing. Seven of the ten most segregated cities in California are in the Los Angeles area and have large Latino majorities; two are expensive predominantly nonHispanic white cities in Southern California; and one is the largest city in the mostly non-Hispanic white Far North region of California (Table 8). During the 1990s, changes in neighborhood diversity were particularly prominent in suburban cities in California’s largest metropolitan areas. Rancho Cordova, an unincorporated area near Sacramento, experienced the most dramatic increase in diversity (Table 9). At the other extreme, South Gate experienced the greatest decline in neighborhood diversity (Table 10). The cities with the largest decline in neighborhood diversity are all cities in the Los Angeles area with increasing Latino populations. In Table 7. California Cities with the Most Diverse Neighborhoods, 2000 City Diversity Index Population Vallejo 85 116,760 Pittsburg 85 56,769 Hayward 84 140,030 San Leandro 83 79,452 Fairfield 82 96,178 Sacramento 81 407,018 Bellflower 81 72,878 Moreno Valley 80 142,381 Union City 80 66,869 Richmond 79 99,216 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2000 Census data. Note: Among cities and unincorporated places with 50,000 or more people in 2000. Table 8. California Cities with the Least Diverse Neighborhoods, 2000 Diversity Majority Percent of City Index Population Group Population East Los Angeles 12 124,283 Latino 97 Huntington Park 14 61,348 Latino 96 South Gate 20 96,375 Latino 92 Florence-Graham 27 60,197 Latino 86 Pico Rivera 32 63,428 Latino 88 Newport Beach 33 70,032 White 89 to 90 Redding 34 80,865 White 86 to 88 Lynwood 38 69,845 Latino 82 Encinitas 39 58,014 White 79 to 81 Montebello 41 62,150 Latino 75 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2000 Census data. Notes: Among cities and unincorporated places with 50,000 or more people in 2000. For cities with a white majority, the low percent is based on the population reporting white as their only race, and the high percent is based on the population reporting white regardless of how many other races were reported. 13 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? Table 9. California Cities with the Greatest Increases in Neighborhood Diversity, 1990–2000 Increase in Diversity Index, Diversity Index, Diversity Index, City 1990 to 2000 2000 1990 Population Rancho Cordova 25 71 46 55,060 Antioch 22 71 49 90,532 San Leandro 22 83 61 79,452 Lancaster 21 71 50 118,718 El Cajon 20 56 36 94,869 Concord 20 64 44 121,780 Victorville 20 69 49 64,029 Folsom 19 48 29 51,884 Temecula 19 59 40 57,716 Lakewood 18 75 57 79,345 Irvine 18 63 45 143,072 Vallejo 18 85 67 116,760 Arden-Arcade 18 57 39 96,025 Tracy 18 71 53 56,929 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2000 Census data. Note: Among cities and unincorporated places with 50,000 or more people in 2000. each of the cities in Table 10, at least 70 percent of the residents in 2000 were Latino. Finally, we ask, given a city’s overall population by race and ethnicity, how segregated are each of the neighborhoods within that city? That is, how do individual tracts compare with the city’s overall racial and ethnic structure? A city’s overall population might be diverse, but is that diversity reflected in the neighborhoods of the city? We answer these questions by comparing a city’s actual neighborhood diversity index score with its potential diversity index score. We define potential diversity as the diversity index score a city would have if its population was uniformly distributed throughout the city with respect to race and ethnicity. The difference between potential diversity and actual diversity would be zero if each census tract in a city had the same distribution of racial and ethnic groups as the entire city. By this measure, Los Angeles is the most segregated city in California (Table 11); the level of neighborhood diversity in Los Angeles is far less than the city’s overall diversity.11 Most of these relatively segregated cities in California are older large cities. Some do have diverse neighborhoods (Oakland, Long Beach, and Richmond), but many neighborhoods in those cities do not fully reflect the diversity of those cities’ overall populations. Others do not have high levels of neighborhood diversity, although they are cities with diverse populations (Los Angeles, Redwood City, and San Diego). These cities stand in stark contrast to diverse cities with diverse neighborhoods (Table 12). Diverse cities with diverse neighborhoods tend to be fast growing cities with plenty of new and relatively affordable housing. Between 1990 and 2000, seven of the ten cities in Table 12 experienced population increases of 20 percent or more, and six of the ten more than doubled in size between 1980 and 2000. Indeed, many of these integrated cities are the same places that are cited as examples of urban sprawl. Census Tract Map The map on page 17 illustrates the diversity of each census tract for the entire state. As illustrated in the map and noted earlier, large swaths of less populated regions are extremely homogeneous 14 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? Table 10. California Cities with the Greatest Declines in Neighborhood Diversity, 1990–2000 Change in Diversity Index, Diversity Index, Diversity Index, City 1990 to 2000 2000 1990 Population South Gate –20 20 40 96,375 Baldwin Park –11 45 56 75,837 Paramount –11 53 64 55,266 Huntington Park –10 14 24 61,348 East Los Angeles –9 12 21 124,283 Pico Rivera –9 32 41 63,428 Florence-Graham –9 27 36 60,197 Santa Ana –6 45 51 337,977 Lynwood –6 38 44 69,845 South Whittier –5 48 53 55,193 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1990 and 2000 Census data. Note: Among cities and unincorporated places with 50,000 or more people in 2000. Table 11. Diverse Cities in California with Relatively Segregated Neighborhoods 2000 Potential City Diversity Index Diversity Index Difference Los Angeles 57 80 23 Oakland 72 91 19 San Diego 61 79 18 Carson 70 87 17 Redwood City 56 71 15 San Francisco 67 82 15 Long Beach 72 87 15 San Jose 67 81 14 Pasadena 71 84 13 Richmond 79 92 13 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1990 and 2000 Census data. Note: Among cities and unincorporated places with 50,000 or more people in 2000. Diverse cities with diverse neighborhoods tend to be fast growing cities with plenty of new and relatively affordable housing. relative to the large population centers of the state. The diversity that does exist in these regions can be attributed to the presence of American Indian tribes native to California, the placement of prison facilities in areas with otherwise stagnant economies, and military bases such as those in the far east of Kern County. In the more populous and rapidly growing regions of the state, there is far more diversity. However, in Los Angeles County, five of the cities with the greatest declines in diversity are clustered within roughly ten square miles south of East Los Angeles. Cities such as Huntington Park, FlorenceGraham, South Gate, Lynwood, and Paramount form a segregated, highly Latino cluster along the 710 freeway. Around this area, especially visible to the south, are areas of high diversity. For example, Bellflower, Lakewood, Buena Park, and Signal Hill are among the most diverse areas in California. Most of the Los Angeles coastal areas remain segregated or somewhat segregated. Areas such 15 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? Table 12. Diverse Cities in California with Diverse Neighborhoods, 2000 Potential City Diversity Index Diversity Index Difference Bellflower Rancho Cordova Antioch Rialto Fairfield Tracy Lancaster Alhambra Victorville Moreno Valley 81 71 71 70 82 71 71 68 69 80 83 73 73 72 85 74 74 71 72 83 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1990 and 2000 Census data. Note: Among cities and unincorporated places with 50,000 or more people in 2000. as Manhattan Beach, Malibu, and Hermosa Beach are predominantly white, although not to the extent of Newport Beach in Orange County, one of the least diverse places in California. Similarly, the Bay Area shows relatively high levels of segregation along the Pacific coastline. Marin County is the most striking example of this, with segregation scores in small places such as Kentfield, Belvedere, and San Anselmo on par with those in Newport Beach. On the other hand, seven of ten of the most diverse cities with populations of 50,000 or more are in the Bay Area. For example, the area from Fairfield south to Pittsburg forms a contiguous cluster of highly diverse tracts. Moreover, newer suburbs to the east of Pittsburg expand the boundaries of this highly diverse area. The area from Vallejo south to Richmond and its surrounding area— Hercules, El Sobrante, and San Pablo—also contain some of the most diverse tracts in the state. In contrast to this diversity in the Bay Area are primarily white suburban clusters such as Walnut Creek, Danville, Lafayette, Alamo, and Clayton in Contra Costa County; Livermore, Pleasanton, and Sunol in Alameda County; Atherton, Woodside, and Portola Valley in San Mateo County; and Monte Sereno and Saratoga in Santa Clara County. 16 Conclusion The city of Los Angeles stands out in terms of its very diverse overall population but relatively high degree of neighborhood segregation. Latino majority neighborhoods are more likely to be segregated in Los Angeles County than elsewhere in the state. The number of African American majority segregated neighborhoods declined statewide and in Los Angeles, yet substantial African American segregation still exists in Los Angeles County. In fact, in 2000 all of the segregated neighborhoods with an African American majority in California were in Los Angeles County. That Newport Beach still ranks as one of the most segregated cities in California, and that wealthy primarily white neighborhoods remain among the most segregated areas in the state, suggest that there are still economic and social forces operating to prevent diversity in these neighborhoods. Nonetheless, the patterns presented here suggest that increases in residential mixing that began in earlier decades, partly as a result of civil rights initiatives and changing attitudes, continued in California in the 1990s. Again, forthcoming economic data will be helpful in elucidating the role that economic considerations play in the maintenance of segregation in these areas. ◆ Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Diversity in California, 2000 Who’s Your Neighbor? San Francisco Bay Area Diversity of tract Segregated (0–0.449) Somewhat segregated (0.45–0.599) Somewhat diverse (0.6–0.749) Diverse (0.75–0.963) Los Angeles Area 17 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? Notes 1 Other measures of segregation examine the degree to which a group is concentrated geographically. Our focus is on neighborhoods and neighborhood change, rather than on any one racial or ethnic group. In future research, we plan to examine measures of concentration of various populations. 2 Although the 2000 Census categorizes native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders separately, in this report we combine Pacific Islanders with Asians, as was done in the 1990 Census. 3 We also developed measures of diversity and segregation using only the four racial/ethnic groups. The differences between the measure using four groups and the measure using five groups are very small throughout the state, except for areas with sizable American Indian populations. 4 However, in 2000 we consider people of more than one race to be in the “other” category. The 1990 Census did not allow people to identify as being of more than one race. We do not adjust for this change in racial identity between 1990 and 2000. In 2000, 2.7 percent of Californians were multiracial non-Hispanic; 91 percent of African Americans and 89 percent of Asians identified as being of only one race. African Americans in majority African American tracts were less likely to identify as being of more than one race. 5 Our analysis is limited to tracts that did not change boundaries between 1990 and 2000; 4,414 out of 5,842 1990 census tracts did not change boundaries. 6 For information on racial and ethnic population trends in California’s regions, see Johnson (2002). 7 Forty-six percent of Latino majority neighborhoods in Los Angeles County were segregated in 2000, compared with 44 percent in 1990. 8 We include “census designated places” in our discussion of cities. Census designated places are unincorporated areas with a concentration of people, housing, and commercial buildings. 9 This figure includes the population of census tracts either wholly or partly in the city. An additional 6 percent were either multiracial, American Indian, or other. 10 Statewide, the diversity index score was 58. 11 In 2000, Los Angeles had far more segregated census tracts than diverse census tracts. Of the 865 census tracts either wholly or partially in the city of Los Angeles, 16 percent were diverse, 28 percent were somewhat diverse, 28 percent were somewhat segregated, and 28 percent were segregated. References Allen, James P., and Eugene Turner, “The Most Ethnically Diverse Urban Places in the United States,” Urban Geography, Vol. 10, November-December 1989, pp. 523–539. Clark, William A. V., “Residential Patterns: Avoidance, Assimilation, and Succession,” in Roger Waldinger and Mehdi Bozogmehr (eds.), Ethnic Los Angeles, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1996. Farley, Reynolds, and William Frey, “Changes in the Segregation of Whites from Blacks During the 1980s: Small Steps Towards a More Integrated Society,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 59, 1994, pp. 23–45. Frey, William H., and Reynolds Farley, “Latino, Asian, and Black Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas: Are Multi-Ethnic Metros Different?” Demography, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1996. Johnson, Hans P., “A State of Diversity: Demographic Trends in California’s Regions,” California Counts, Vol. 3, No. 5, May 2002. Lee, B. A., and P. B. Wood, “Is Neighborhood Racial Succession Place-Specific?” Demography, Vol. 28, No. 1, 1991, pp. 21–40. Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton, American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1993. Nyden, Philip, Michael Maly, and J. Lukehart, “The Emergence of Stable Racially and Ethnically Diverse Urban Communities,” Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1997, pp. 491–534. Schelling, Thomas, “Dynamic Models of Segregation,” Journal of Mathematical Sociology, Vol. 1, 1971, pp. 143–186. Zubrinsky, Camille L., and Lawrence Bobo, “Prismatic Metropolis: Race and Residential Segregation in the City of the Angels,” Social Science Research, Vol. 25, No. 4, 1996, pp. 335–374. 18 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? 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 Chief, Civil Liability Management Office of the City Attorney Los Angeles, California 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 The Public Policy Institute of California is a private, nonprofit research organization established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute conducts independent, objective, nonpartisan research on the economic, social, and political issues affecting Californians. The Institute’s goal is to raise public awareness of these issues and give elected representatives and other public officials in California a more informed basis for developing policies and programs. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or state and federal legislation nor does it endorse or support any political parties or candidates for public office. PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 • www.ppic.org 19 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? Other issues of California Counts POPULATION TRENDS AND PROFILES A State of Diversity: Demographic Trends in California’s Regions The Linguistic Landscape of California Schools At Home and in School: Racial and Ethnic Gaps in Educational Preparedness Check One or More . . . Mixed Race and Ethnicity in California Graying in the Golden State: Demographic and Economic Trends of Older Californians How Many Californians? A Review of Population Projections for the State Movin’ Out: Domestic Migration to and from California in the 1990s New Trends in Newborns: Fertility Rates and Patterns in California Population Mobility and Income Inequality in California Poverty in California: Levels, Trends, and Demographic Dimensions Trends in Family and Household Poverty are available free of charge on PPIC’s website www.ppic.org PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 In This Issue Residential Segregation and Diversity in California NON-PROFIT ORG. U.S. POSTAGE PAID BRISBANE, CA PERMIT #83" } ["___content":protected]=> string(106) "

CC 802JSCC

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(115) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/whos-your-neighbor-residential-segregation-and-diversity-in-california/cc_802jscc/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8172) ["ID"]=> int(8172) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:35:27" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(3308) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(10) "CC 802JSCC" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(10) "cc_802jscc" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(14) "CC_802JSCC.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "371193" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(46008) "Public Policy Institute of California California Counts POPULATION TRENDS AND PROFILES Hans P. Johnson, editor Volume 4 Number 1 • August 2002 Who’s Your Neighbor? Residential Segregation and Diversity in California By Juan Onésimo Sandoval, Hans P. Johnson, and Sonya M. Tafoya During the 1990s, California’s population became more racially ummary and ethnically diverse. By 2000, no single racial or ethnic group constituted a majority of the state’s population. Increases in Latino and Asian populations were particularly high. In this edition of California Counts, we examine the degree to which the state’s increasing diversity was experienced at the neighborhood level. Did California’s growing Latino and Asian populations lead to even greater segregation in the state, or did neighborhoods in California reflect the diversity of the state’s population? As components of larger geographic areas, how did these neighborhoods define the character of cities, counties, and regions? Using a diversity index that incorporates the complexity of California’s population, we find that neighborhood segregation—the extent to which groups live separately from one another—is generally on the decline. In 1990, 43 percent of California neighborhoods were segregated, and by 2000 only 25 percent were. Since 1990, the number of majority nonHispanic white neighborhoods decreased and the number of Asian and Latino majority neighborhoods increased. Although Latino majority neighborhoods were the most likely of five neighborhood types to be segregated in 2000, segregation in all neighborhood types declined between 1990 and 2000. Regional analysis tends to mask segregation at lower geographic levels, yet it elucidates the results of major immigration and general growth trends. For example, the Far North and Sierra regions are distinct from the rest of the state in that they have very few diverse tracts and are primarily non-Hispanic white. Conversely, the Bay Area, Sacramento Metro, and Inland Empire regions rank highest in terms of the proportion of diverse tracts. The Inland Empire and Sacramento Metro regions were relatively fast growing in the 1990s and received many migrants from other parts of the state, whereas the Bay Area continued to attract international immigrants from many countries. Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? Sacramento, Stockton, Fremont, Long Beach, and Oakland ranked among the most diverse of California’s large cities, whereas Vallejo, Pittsburg, Hayward, San Leandro, and Fairfield were the most diverse among cities with at least 50,000 people. Among those cities, East Los Angeles was the least diverse place in California. Of the ten least diverse cities, seven were majority Latino; of the remaining three, all were majority white cities—two in expensive Southern California neighborhoods and the other in the Far North region. The city of Los Angeles has a diverse population overall, but that diversity is not reflected in most of its neighborhoods, which are among the most segregated of any large city in California. Juan Onésimo Sandoval is a professor at Northwestern University. This report was completed while he was a dissertation fellow at PPIC. Hans P. Johnson and Sonya M. Tafoya are researchers at PPIC. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of PPIC. The authors acknowledge the helpful comments of William Clark, Deborah Reed, Belinda Reyes, and Gary Bjork on earlier drafts of this report. CORRECTION The previous issue of California Counts (“A State of Diversity...,” Vol. 3, No. 5, May 2002) contains an error in Table 5 (p. 12). For 1980 only, the numbers in columns 4 (Asian and Pacific Islander) and 5 (African-American) are reversed. Please see the issue posted on our website (www.ppic.org/publications/CalCounts/calcounts12.pdf ) for the correct version of the table. We apologize for any inconvenience this has caused. 2 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? Introduction Residential segregation refers to the degree to which groups live separately from one another. To the extent that segregation constrains social, educational, political, and economic advancement for various racial/ethnic groups, it remains a salient public policy issue. Historically, urban segregation studies have examined the distribution of the majority (generally white) population and compared it with that of a minority (generally African American) population. Recent studies have shown that metropolitan areas in California have relatively low levels of segregation, especially compared with the Northeast, and that black-white segregation in California declined between 1980 and 1990 (Farley and Frey, 1994). Residential segregation has historically been more severe for African Americans than for other racial/ ethnic groups, but the new waves of immigrants from Asia and Latin America have added further layers to the study of residential segregation. Using techniques similar to those used to study black-white segregation, scholars have found that Latino and Asian segregation actually increased between 1980 and 1990, unlike the patterns seen for African Americans (Frey and Farley, 1996). As previous scholars have done, we depart from the most commonly used dichotomous techniques for studying residential segregation. With no single racial/ ethnic group constituting a majority of the population, designation of a reference group is somewhat arbitrary. Rather than describing how any two groups are segregated from one another, we examine several racial/ethnic groups at once in order to describe California’s overall degree of geographic homogeneity or heterogeneity. Using this type of analysis with national data from 1980, some scholars found that high diversity was most evident in towns and cities in the Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay areas (Allen and Turner, 1989). More recently, studies of the Los Angeles metropolitan area between 1980 and 1990 have shown the emergence of large and concentrated Latino neighborhoods as well as the persistence of largely white coastal areas (Clark, 1996). In this report, we define five broad racial/ethnic groups to compare highly urbanized areas of the state that are home to numerous ethnic subgroups with smaller or more rural areas that have traditionally been more homogeneous. Results are reported here at the level of census tract (neighborhood), city, county, and region. Because we are interested in neighborhood diversity and segregation, our indicators of city, county, and regional diversity and segregation are an average of the diversity and segregation of census To the extent that segregation constrains social, educational, political, and economic advancement for various racial/ethnic groups, it remains a salient public policy issue. tracts in those places.1 Within this report, we refer to neighborhoods as diverse, somewhat diverse, somewhat segregated, and segregated. These labels refer to specific values along the range of entropy scores that we calculated for the state’s census tracts (see the text box, “Measuring Diversity and Segregation”). Thus, although we recognize that the social consequences of living in a segregated neighborhood are different for residents of a poor inner-city environment than they are for residents of a wealthy suburban neighborhood, the neighborhood is deemed segregated if one racial/ethnic group constitutes the overwhelming 3 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? Measuring Diversity and Segregation To measure diversity and segregation in California census tracts, we construct an index. This index, known as the diversity index, is based on the “entropy” measure of residential segregation and is calculated as: H ∑= K (log (P (i)) * P (i) * 100 i i =1 (log k) where Hi = Diversity index for tract i P(i) = Proportion of the tract population in racial/ethnic group k K = The total number of racial/ethnic categories. Scores range from 0 to 100, where 0 is homogeneous and 100 is heterogeneous. A score of 0 means that a tract has only one race/ethnic group; a score of 100 means that each of the k groups is of equal size in the tract. Diversity index scores for cities and counties are a weighted average of the diversity index scores for the tracts contained either wholly or partly in the city or county. In some of the following tables and in the map, we have divided census tracts into four categories according to the diversity index. We consider a place to be diverse if its diversity index is 75 or greater, somewhat diverse if its index is 60 to 75, somewhat segregated if its index is 45 to 60, and segregated if its index is 0 to 45. Examples of cities that meet the criteria for each category are as follows (note that the ethnic distribution is that of all census tracts either wholly or partly in the city): Diverse—Vallejo: 34 percent white, 21 percent African American, 23 percent Asian, 16 percent Latino, 5 percent other Somewhat diverse—Burbank: 59 percent white, 2 percent African American, 9 percent Asian, 26 percent Latino, 5 percent other Somewhat segregated—Santa Rosa: 71 percent white, 2 percent African American, 4 percent Asian, 20 percent Latino, 4 percent other Segregated—Encinitas: 81 percent white, <1 percent African American, 3 percent Asian, 13 percent Latino, 2 percent other. The four categories reflect to some degree natural breaks in the distribution of the entropy score. The average entropy score for California was 58. We round the mean to 60 and use a 15 point interval to create the categories. Populations by census tract were obtained from Summary File 1 from the 2000 Census and Summary Tape File 3A from the 1990 Census. 4 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? majority, regardless of other sociodemographic neighborhood characteristics. Data and Methods Population data for this report are drawn from the decennial Censuses of 1990 and 2000. We developed a diversity index score for each census tract in the state (see the text box, “Measuring Diversity and Segregation”). Since the diversity index is maximized when a local population can be divided evenly among all ethnic groups, we limited our categories to the four largest ethnic groups in California—non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Asian and Pacific Islander,2 and Hispanic or Latino (of any race)—and an aggregate “other” category. “Other” in the context of this report captures American Indian populations in the sparsely populated regions of the state, but it also includes respondents who do not fit into the four racial/ethnic groups listed above and persons of more than one race.3 This format allows us to compare temporal changes in diversity and segregation between 1990 and 2000.4 We equate census tracts with neighborhoods. The average census tract in California has about 4,000 people. Our measure of diversity and segregation in cities and counties is a weighted average of the diversity index for the cen- sus tracts either wholly or partly contained in the city or county. Residential Segregation and Diversity in California Statewide Summary Measures Alarge number of California’s census tracts are segregated, and the state has more segregated census tracts than diverse census tracts; however, diversity is on Diversity is on the rise and segregation is on the decline in California’s neighborhoods. the rise and segregation is on the decline in California’s neighborhoods. Statewide in 2000, one of every four census tracts in California was segregated, whereas about one of every five census tracts had a diverse population. Still, the number of diverse census tracts in California increased dramatically between 1990 and 2000 (Figure 1). By 2000, the proportion of cen- Percentage Figure 1. Percentage Distribution of Census Tracts in California by Level of Diversity/Segregation, 1990 and 2000 50 1990 45 2000 43% 40 35 30 29% 27% 27% 25 22% 20 19% 25% 15 10 7% 5 0 Diverse Somewhat diverse Somewhat segregated Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1990 and 2000 Census data. Note: Numbers may not sum to 100 percent because of independent rounding. Segregated 5 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? sus tracts in the state that were diverse had almost tripled. At the same time, the proportion of segregated census tracts declined markedly. In most of California’s census tracts, non-Hispanic whites constitute a majority of the population. However, the proportion of census tracts with either a Latino or Asian majority, or no majority group at all, increased from 31 percent in 1990 to 47 percent by 2000 (Figure 2). The number and share of census tracts with an African American majority dropped sharply between 1990 and 2000. In 2000, census tracts with a Latino majority were the least likely to be diverse and the most likely to be segregated (Table 1). This is in sharp contrast to 1990, when tracts with non-Hispanic white majorities were much more likely to be segregated than tracts with any other majority group. Nevertheless, the percentage of segregated neighborhoods in Latinomajority tracts was lower in 2000 than in 1990. Indeed, regardless of which group constituted a majority of the population, the level of neighborhood segregation declined between 1990 and 2000. Thus, increases in Latino and Asian populations in California Percentage Figure 2. Percentage Distribution of Census Tracts in California by Majority Racial/Ethnic Group, 1990–2000 70 65% 60 52% 50 1990 2000 40 30 23% 20 13% 10 4% 2% 0 White majority African American Latino majority majority 1% 3% Asian majority Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1990 and 2000 Census data. Note: Numbers may not sum to 100 percent because of independent rounding. 21% 17% No majority did not lead to substantially greater levels of neighborhood segregation. The number of Latinomajority segregated tracts almost doubled between 1990 and 2000; however, the number of Latino majority diverse tracts increased eightfold. The percentage of California’s residents living in segregated neighborhoods significantly declined from 1990 to 2000: Twenty-three percent lived in segregated tracts in 2000 compared with 39 percent in 1990 (Table 2). Twenty percent of Californians lived in racially diverse tracts in 2000 compared with only 8 percent in 1990. All racial/ethnic groups experienced a decline in the percentage that lived in segregated tracts. African Americans were the most likely to live in diverse tracts, followed by Asians, Latinos, and whites. Whites were the most likely to live in segregated tracts, followed by Latinos, African Americans, and Asians. Some scholars have suggested that stable diverse neighborhoods are an exception to the rule in the United States. These scholars argue that diverse neighborhoods are rare because racial attitudes and preferences to live next to individuals of the same race foster selfperpetuating social processes that lead to neighborhood succession, rapid population change, and “inevitable resegregation” (Zubrinsky and Bobo, 1996; Schelling, 1971; Massey and Denton, 1993). Diverse neighborhoods are consid- 6 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? Table 1. Diversity/Segregation of Census Tracts in California by Majority Racial/Ethnic Group, 1990 and 2000 Diverse Somewhat Diverse Somewhat Segregated Segregated Total Number of Tracts, 1990 White majority African American majority Latino majority Asian majority No majority Total 27 659 5 51 7 194 3 18 382 366 424 1,288 1,171 87 274 18 41 1,591 1,948 72 294 7 218 2,539 3,805 215 769 46 1,007 5,842 Percentage Distribution of Diversity/Segregation by Majority Group, 1990 White majority 1 17 African American majority 2 24 Latino majority 1 25 Asian majority 7 39 No majority 38 36 Total 7 22 31 51 100 40 33 100 36 38 100 39 15 100 4 22 100 27 43 100 Number of Tracts, 2000 White majority African American majority Latino majority Asian majority No majority Total 176 10 59 22 1,070 1,337 1,045 45 475 112 367 2,044 1,288 48 486 39 44 1,905 1,141 26 576 7 13 1,763 3,650 129 1,596 180 1,494 7,049 Percentage Distribution of Diversity/Segregation by Majority Group, 2000 White majority 5 29 African American majority 8 35 Latino majority 4 30 Asian majority 12 62 No majority 72 25 Total 19 29 35 31 100 37 20 100 30 36 100 22 4 100 3 1 100 27 25 100 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1990 and 2000 Census data. Note: Numbers may not sum to 100 percent because of independent rounding. ered unstable principally because these diverse neighborhoods often experience rapid population change, which skews the population toward the incoming group. In other words, once a neighbor- hood reaches some threshold level of integration, the majority group begins to move out in large numbers, leaving behind a newly segregated neighborhood. Farley and Frey also have argued that “most whites are uncomfortable when numerous blacks enter their neighborhoods, and few whites are willing to move into neighborhoods with many black residents” (Farley and Frey, 1994). 7 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? A new set of research studies has shown that the “tipping point” thesis does not hold true for all neighborhoods. These studies have found that diverse neighborhoods tend to be located in the western United States (Lee and Wood, 1991). Such neighborhoods are increasingly becoming an important element in the urban fabric in the United States, especially in California (Nyden et al., 1997). In California between 1990 and 2000, we find that racially diverse neighborhoods appear to be quite stable, and the general pattern has been one of increasing diversity regardless of the initial level of diversity/segregation. Among the 322 tracts in California that were diverse in 1990, the vast majority (83 percent) remained diverse.5 None became segregated or even “somewhat segregated” (Table 3). Table 2. Percentage Distribution of Population in California by Race/Ethnicity and Level of Neighborhood Diversity/Segregation, 1990 and 2000 Diverse Somewhat Diverse Somewhat Segregated Segregated 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 White African American Asian Latino Total 5 15 19 38 21 35 9 18 8 20 20 28 34 31 37 39 30 30 25 30 28 30 28 21 26 18 30 25 28 26 48 28 19 10 16 7 31 26 39 23 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1990 and 2000 Census data. Note: Numbers may not sum to 100 percent because of independent rounding. Table 3. Percentage Distribution of Census Tracts in California in 2000 by Level of Diversity/Segregation in 1990 Diverse 2000 Level of Diversity/Segregation Somewhat Diverse Somewhat Segregated Segregated 1990 Diverse 83 17 0 Level of Diversity/ Somewhat Segregation Diverse 46 43 10 Somewhat Segregated 12 52 29 0 1 7 Segregated 0 8 38 54 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1990 and 2000 Census data. Note: Numbers may not sum to 100 percent because of independent rounding. Total 100 100 100 100 8 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? At the other end of the diversity index, almost half of California’s segregated tracts in 1990 were no longer in that category in 2000. Regions and Counties California’s regions and counties exhibit strong differences in diversity and segregation. The Sierras and Far North have very few diverse census tracts, as the entire population of those regions is overwhelmingly non-Hispanic white (Table 4).6 Rather than stating that those regions have a great deal of neighborhood segregation, we might instead say that those entire regions are racially and ethnically segregated from the rest of California. The Sierras was the only region in California not to experience a substantial decrease in the number of segregated census tracts between 1990 and 2000. At the other extreme, the Bay Area and Sacramento Metro regions have the greatest concentration of diverse census tracts. Along with the Bay Area, the San Joaquin Valley and the Inland Empire have Table 4. Percentage Distribution of Census Tracts in California by Level of Diversity, 1990 and 2000 Region Diverse Somewhat Diverse 1990 Somewhat Segregated Segregated Total Bay Area Central Coast Far North Coast and Mountains North Valley Inland Empire Sacramento Metro San Diego San Joaquin Valley Sierras South Coast State total 12 24 2 10 04 02 05 4 33 13 14 7 20 5 19 03 6 25 7 22 23 41 100 28 60 100 13 83 100 6 93 100 20 75 100 32 31 100 22 51 100 24 49 100 34 41 100 13 84 100 31 38 100 27 43 100 2000 Bay Area Central Coast Far North Coast and Mountains North Valley Inland Empire Sacramento Metro San Diego San Joaquin Valley Sierras South Coast State total 31 32 5 18 1 10 13 2 17 17 37 29 18 18 28 14 36 35 17 29 19 29 22 15 100 38 40 100 27 61 100 26 70 100 28 53 100 27 19 100 20 33 100 26 28 100 34 15 100 13 79 100 28 27 100 27 25 100 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1990 and 2000 Census data. Notes: See Table 5 for counties in each region. Numbers may not sum to 100 percent because of independent rounding. 9 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? Regional patterns mask strong differences within some regions. For example, the Bay Area is home to both the county with the greatest neighborhood diversity in the state and one of the least diverse counties. the lowest concentration of segregated census tracts. Regional patterns mask strong differences within some regions (Table 5). For example, the Bay Area is home to both the county with the greatest neighborhood diversity in the state (Solano) and one of the least diverse counties (Marin). Likewise, the Sacramento Metro region includes the very diverse neighborhoods of Sacramento County as well as the least diverse of all of California’s metropolitan counties, El Dorado. The northern part of the San Joaquin Table 5. Average Level of Neighborhood Diversity/ Segregation in California Counties, 1990 and 2000 Diversity Index Region Bay Area Central Coast Far North Coast and Mountains North Valley Continued on next page County Solano Alameda San Francisco Santa Clara Contra Costa San Mateo Napa Sonoma Marin San Benito Santa Barbara Monterey San Luis Obispo Santa Cruz Lassen Del Norte Mendocino Lake Modoc Humboldt Siskiyou Plumas Nevada Sierra Trinity Sutter Yuba Colusa Glenn Butte Tehama Shasta 1990 63 60 61 57 49 54 37 34 31 47 47 52 37 37 38 46 33 29 30 28 29 24 18 19 24 51 52 53 42 30 30 24 2000 78 74 69 68 64 64 49 45 39 56 54 53 44 42 48 46 39 36 32 29 28 21 20 19 17 63 59 54 52 38 36 26 10 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? valley (especially San Joaquin County) tends to have more diverse neighborhoods than the southern part, and the southern part of the Far North (the North Valley counties of Sutter, Yuba, and Colusa) is more diverse than the rest of that region. In South- Table 5. continued ern California, San Bernardino County has the greatest proportion of diverse neighborhoods. Los Angeles County, home to one-fifth of the state’s whites, one-third of the state’s Asians, two-fifths of the state’s Latinos, and two-fifths of the state’s African Americans, had Region Inland Empire Sacramento Metro San Diego San Joaquin Valley Sierras South Coast County San Bernardino Riverside Sacramento Yolo Placer El Dorado San Diego Imperial San Joaquin Kings Merced Fresno Stanislaus Kern Tulare Madera Mono Inyo Amador Alpine Tuolumne Mariposa Calaveras Los Angeles Orange Ventura Diversity Index 1990 56 50 53 52 27 22 50 41 57 59 59 55 47 45 50 44 35 37 33 47 27 28 22 53 48 44 2000 67 61 68 63 34 29 60 45 70 66 66 64 59 54 54 50 40 33 32 28 28 26 25 60 58 51 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1990 and 2000 Census data. Notes: Higher values of the diversity index indicate greater diversity. The diversity index is the weighted average entropy measure for tracts in the county. The most diverse and most segregated places in California tend to be suburban cities in large metropolitan areas. 11 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? far more segregated tracts than diverse tracts in 2000 (544 versus 397). These neighborhoods were primarily white neighborhoods in 1990 (56 percent of all segregated tracts in 1990 had white majority populations), whereas in 2000 the vast majority of segregated neighborhoods in Los Angeles County were Latino (70 percent of all segregated tracts). Still, the share of Los Angeles County’s neighborhoods that were diverse increased from only 8 percent of all neighborhoods in 1990 to 19 percent in 2000, whereas the proportion of segregated neighborhoods declined from 35 percent in 1990 to 26 percent in 2000. Moreover, the increase in segregated Latino majority neighborhoods between 1990 and 2000 was not due to an increase in segregation among Latino majority neighborhoods.7 It was simply because there were many more Latino majority neighborhoods in 2000 in Los Angeles County than in 1990, both segregated and not segregated. Cities Many of California’s largest cities and many of the state’s suburban cities exhibit a great deal of neighborhood diversity.8 Less diversity is found in cities in some of the more remote areas of the state where regional populations are largely non-Hispanic white, in some expensive mostly non-Hispanic white suburban cities, and in some largely Latino cities in the Los Angeles area, San Joaquin Valley, Imperial Valley, and agricultural areas of the Central Coast. Of California’s 152 cities and unincorporated places with 50,000 or more people, only 18 experienced a decline in neighborhood diversity between 1990 and 2000. Among California’s largest cities (those with populations of more than 200,000 people in 2000), Sacramento had the highest level of neighborhood diversity (Table 6). Citywide, Sacramento’s population was 41 percent non-Hispanic white, 22 percent Latino, 17 per- cent Asian, and 15 percent African American.9 Most of Sacramento’s census tracts reflect this citywide diversity, with 40 percent of the city’s tracts having very high diversity index scores. Only 20 percent of the tracts in Sacramento were segregated. Other large cities in the state with a high degree of diversity include Stockton, Fremont, Long Beach, and Oakland. Only Santa Ana and Los Angeles had lower levels of neighborhood diversity than the state as a whole.10 The most diverse and most segregated places in California Table 6. Neighborhood Diversity in California‘s Largest Cities, 2000 City Diversity Index Population Sacramento 81 407,018 Stockton 76 243,771 Fremont 75 203,413 Long Beach 72 461,522 Oakland 72 399,484 Fresno 70 427,652 Riverside 68 255,166 San Jose 67 894,943 San Francisco 67 776,733 Anaheim 65 328,014 San Diego 61 1,223,400 Bakersfield 60 247,057 Los Angeles 57 3,694,820 Santa Ana 45 337,977 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2000 Census data. 12 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? tend to be suburban cities in large metropolitan areas. Of the ten most diverse cities in California in 2000, all except Sacramento were suburban cities in the state’s two largest metropolitan areas: seven were in the Bay Area; two were in the Los Angeles area (Table 7). Some of these cities are older innerring suburbs (Richmond, Vallejo, and Bellflower); others are newer fast-growing suburbs farther from the central city (Pittsburg, Fairfield, and Moreno Valley). Almost all of these are cities characterized by high levels of homeownership and relatively affordable housing. Seven of the ten most segregated cities in California are in the Los Angeles area and have large Latino majorities; two are expensive predominantly nonHispanic white cities in Southern California; and one is the largest city in the mostly non-Hispanic white Far North region of California (Table 8). During the 1990s, changes in neighborhood diversity were particularly prominent in suburban cities in California’s largest metropolitan areas. Rancho Cordova, an unincorporated area near Sacramento, experienced the most dramatic increase in diversity (Table 9). At the other extreme, South Gate experienced the greatest decline in neighborhood diversity (Table 10). The cities with the largest decline in neighborhood diversity are all cities in the Los Angeles area with increasing Latino populations. In Table 7. California Cities with the Most Diverse Neighborhoods, 2000 City Diversity Index Population Vallejo 85 116,760 Pittsburg 85 56,769 Hayward 84 140,030 San Leandro 83 79,452 Fairfield 82 96,178 Sacramento 81 407,018 Bellflower 81 72,878 Moreno Valley 80 142,381 Union City 80 66,869 Richmond 79 99,216 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2000 Census data. Note: Among cities and unincorporated places with 50,000 or more people in 2000. Table 8. California Cities with the Least Diverse Neighborhoods, 2000 Diversity Majority Percent of City Index Population Group Population East Los Angeles 12 124,283 Latino 97 Huntington Park 14 61,348 Latino 96 South Gate 20 96,375 Latino 92 Florence-Graham 27 60,197 Latino 86 Pico Rivera 32 63,428 Latino 88 Newport Beach 33 70,032 White 89 to 90 Redding 34 80,865 White 86 to 88 Lynwood 38 69,845 Latino 82 Encinitas 39 58,014 White 79 to 81 Montebello 41 62,150 Latino 75 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2000 Census data. Notes: Among cities and unincorporated places with 50,000 or more people in 2000. For cities with a white majority, the low percent is based on the population reporting white as their only race, and the high percent is based on the population reporting white regardless of how many other races were reported. 13 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? Table 9. California Cities with the Greatest Increases in Neighborhood Diversity, 1990–2000 Increase in Diversity Index, Diversity Index, Diversity Index, City 1990 to 2000 2000 1990 Population Rancho Cordova 25 71 46 55,060 Antioch 22 71 49 90,532 San Leandro 22 83 61 79,452 Lancaster 21 71 50 118,718 El Cajon 20 56 36 94,869 Concord 20 64 44 121,780 Victorville 20 69 49 64,029 Folsom 19 48 29 51,884 Temecula 19 59 40 57,716 Lakewood 18 75 57 79,345 Irvine 18 63 45 143,072 Vallejo 18 85 67 116,760 Arden-Arcade 18 57 39 96,025 Tracy 18 71 53 56,929 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2000 Census data. Note: Among cities and unincorporated places with 50,000 or more people in 2000. each of the cities in Table 10, at least 70 percent of the residents in 2000 were Latino. Finally, we ask, given a city’s overall population by race and ethnicity, how segregated are each of the neighborhoods within that city? That is, how do individual tracts compare with the city’s overall racial and ethnic structure? A city’s overall population might be diverse, but is that diversity reflected in the neighborhoods of the city? We answer these questions by comparing a city’s actual neighborhood diversity index score with its potential diversity index score. We define potential diversity as the diversity index score a city would have if its population was uniformly distributed throughout the city with respect to race and ethnicity. The difference between potential diversity and actual diversity would be zero if each census tract in a city had the same distribution of racial and ethnic groups as the entire city. By this measure, Los Angeles is the most segregated city in California (Table 11); the level of neighborhood diversity in Los Angeles is far less than the city’s overall diversity.11 Most of these relatively segregated cities in California are older large cities. Some do have diverse neighborhoods (Oakland, Long Beach, and Richmond), but many neighborhoods in those cities do not fully reflect the diversity of those cities’ overall populations. Others do not have high levels of neighborhood diversity, although they are cities with diverse populations (Los Angeles, Redwood City, and San Diego). These cities stand in stark contrast to diverse cities with diverse neighborhoods (Table 12). Diverse cities with diverse neighborhoods tend to be fast growing cities with plenty of new and relatively affordable housing. Between 1990 and 2000, seven of the ten cities in Table 12 experienced population increases of 20 percent or more, and six of the ten more than doubled in size between 1980 and 2000. Indeed, many of these integrated cities are the same places that are cited as examples of urban sprawl. Census Tract Map The map on page 17 illustrates the diversity of each census tract for the entire state. As illustrated in the map and noted earlier, large swaths of less populated regions are extremely homogeneous 14 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? Table 10. California Cities with the Greatest Declines in Neighborhood Diversity, 1990–2000 Change in Diversity Index, Diversity Index, Diversity Index, City 1990 to 2000 2000 1990 Population South Gate –20 20 40 96,375 Baldwin Park –11 45 56 75,837 Paramount –11 53 64 55,266 Huntington Park –10 14 24 61,348 East Los Angeles –9 12 21 124,283 Pico Rivera –9 32 41 63,428 Florence-Graham –9 27 36 60,197 Santa Ana –6 45 51 337,977 Lynwood –6 38 44 69,845 South Whittier –5 48 53 55,193 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1990 and 2000 Census data. Note: Among cities and unincorporated places with 50,000 or more people in 2000. Table 11. Diverse Cities in California with Relatively Segregated Neighborhoods 2000 Potential City Diversity Index Diversity Index Difference Los Angeles 57 80 23 Oakland 72 91 19 San Diego 61 79 18 Carson 70 87 17 Redwood City 56 71 15 San Francisco 67 82 15 Long Beach 72 87 15 San Jose 67 81 14 Pasadena 71 84 13 Richmond 79 92 13 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1990 and 2000 Census data. Note: Among cities and unincorporated places with 50,000 or more people in 2000. Diverse cities with diverse neighborhoods tend to be fast growing cities with plenty of new and relatively affordable housing. relative to the large population centers of the state. The diversity that does exist in these regions can be attributed to the presence of American Indian tribes native to California, the placement of prison facilities in areas with otherwise stagnant economies, and military bases such as those in the far east of Kern County. In the more populous and rapidly growing regions of the state, there is far more diversity. However, in Los Angeles County, five of the cities with the greatest declines in diversity are clustered within roughly ten square miles south of East Los Angeles. Cities such as Huntington Park, FlorenceGraham, South Gate, Lynwood, and Paramount form a segregated, highly Latino cluster along the 710 freeway. Around this area, especially visible to the south, are areas of high diversity. For example, Bellflower, Lakewood, Buena Park, and Signal Hill are among the most diverse areas in California. Most of the Los Angeles coastal areas remain segregated or somewhat segregated. Areas such 15 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? Table 12. Diverse Cities in California with Diverse Neighborhoods, 2000 Potential City Diversity Index Diversity Index Difference Bellflower Rancho Cordova Antioch Rialto Fairfield Tracy Lancaster Alhambra Victorville Moreno Valley 81 71 71 70 82 71 71 68 69 80 83 73 73 72 85 74 74 71 72 83 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1990 and 2000 Census data. Note: Among cities and unincorporated places with 50,000 or more people in 2000. as Manhattan Beach, Malibu, and Hermosa Beach are predominantly white, although not to the extent of Newport Beach in Orange County, one of the least diverse places in California. Similarly, the Bay Area shows relatively high levels of segregation along the Pacific coastline. Marin County is the most striking example of this, with segregation scores in small places such as Kentfield, Belvedere, and San Anselmo on par with those in Newport Beach. On the other hand, seven of ten of the most diverse cities with populations of 50,000 or more are in the Bay Area. For example, the area from Fairfield south to Pittsburg forms a contiguous cluster of highly diverse tracts. Moreover, newer suburbs to the east of Pittsburg expand the boundaries of this highly diverse area. The area from Vallejo south to Richmond and its surrounding area— Hercules, El Sobrante, and San Pablo—also contain some of the most diverse tracts in the state. In contrast to this diversity in the Bay Area are primarily white suburban clusters such as Walnut Creek, Danville, Lafayette, Alamo, and Clayton in Contra Costa County; Livermore, Pleasanton, and Sunol in Alameda County; Atherton, Woodside, and Portola Valley in San Mateo County; and Monte Sereno and Saratoga in Santa Clara County. 16 Conclusion The city of Los Angeles stands out in terms of its very diverse overall population but relatively high degree of neighborhood segregation. Latino majority neighborhoods are more likely to be segregated in Los Angeles County than elsewhere in the state. The number of African American majority segregated neighborhoods declined statewide and in Los Angeles, yet substantial African American segregation still exists in Los Angeles County. In fact, in 2000 all of the segregated neighborhoods with an African American majority in California were in Los Angeles County. That Newport Beach still ranks as one of the most segregated cities in California, and that wealthy primarily white neighborhoods remain among the most segregated areas in the state, suggest that there are still economic and social forces operating to prevent diversity in these neighborhoods. Nonetheless, the patterns presented here suggest that increases in residential mixing that began in earlier decades, partly as a result of civil rights initiatives and changing attitudes, continued in California in the 1990s. Again, forthcoming economic data will be helpful in elucidating the role that economic considerations play in the maintenance of segregation in these areas. ◆ Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Diversity in California, 2000 Who’s Your Neighbor? San Francisco Bay Area Diversity of tract Segregated (0–0.449) Somewhat segregated (0.45–0.599) Somewhat diverse (0.6–0.749) Diverse (0.75–0.963) Los Angeles Area 17 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? Notes 1 Other measures of segregation examine the degree to which a group is concentrated geographically. Our focus is on neighborhoods and neighborhood change, rather than on any one racial or ethnic group. In future research, we plan to examine measures of concentration of various populations. 2 Although the 2000 Census categorizes native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders separately, in this report we combine Pacific Islanders with Asians, as was done in the 1990 Census. 3 We also developed measures of diversity and segregation using only the four racial/ethnic groups. The differences between the measure using four groups and the measure using five groups are very small throughout the state, except for areas with sizable American Indian populations. 4 However, in 2000 we consider people of more than one race to be in the “other” category. The 1990 Census did not allow people to identify as being of more than one race. We do not adjust for this change in racial identity between 1990 and 2000. In 2000, 2.7 percent of Californians were multiracial non-Hispanic; 91 percent of African Americans and 89 percent of Asians identified as being of only one race. African Americans in majority African American tracts were less likely to identify as being of more than one race. 5 Our analysis is limited to tracts that did not change boundaries between 1990 and 2000; 4,414 out of 5,842 1990 census tracts did not change boundaries. 6 For information on racial and ethnic population trends in California’s regions, see Johnson (2002). 7 Forty-six percent of Latino majority neighborhoods in Los Angeles County were segregated in 2000, compared with 44 percent in 1990. 8 We include “census designated places” in our discussion of cities. Census designated places are unincorporated areas with a concentration of people, housing, and commercial buildings. 9 This figure includes the population of census tracts either wholly or partly in the city. An additional 6 percent were either multiracial, American Indian, or other. 10 Statewide, the diversity index score was 58. 11 In 2000, Los Angeles had far more segregated census tracts than diverse census tracts. Of the 865 census tracts either wholly or partially in the city of Los Angeles, 16 percent were diverse, 28 percent were somewhat diverse, 28 percent were somewhat segregated, and 28 percent were segregated. References Allen, James P., and Eugene Turner, “The Most Ethnically Diverse Urban Places in the United States,” Urban Geography, Vol. 10, November-December 1989, pp. 523–539. Clark, William A. V., “Residential Patterns: Avoidance, Assimilation, and Succession,” in Roger Waldinger and Mehdi Bozogmehr (eds.), Ethnic Los Angeles, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1996. Farley, Reynolds, and William Frey, “Changes in the Segregation of Whites from Blacks During the 1980s: Small Steps Towards a More Integrated Society,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 59, 1994, pp. 23–45. Frey, William H., and Reynolds Farley, “Latino, Asian, and Black Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas: Are Multi-Ethnic Metros Different?” Demography, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1996. Johnson, Hans P., “A State of Diversity: Demographic Trends in California’s Regions,” California Counts, Vol. 3, No. 5, May 2002. Lee, B. A., and P. B. Wood, “Is Neighborhood Racial Succession Place-Specific?” Demography, Vol. 28, No. 1, 1991, pp. 21–40. Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton, American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1993. Nyden, Philip, Michael Maly, and J. Lukehart, “The Emergence of Stable Racially and Ethnically Diverse Urban Communities,” Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1997, pp. 491–534. Schelling, Thomas, “Dynamic Models of Segregation,” Journal of Mathematical Sociology, Vol. 1, 1971, pp. 143–186. Zubrinsky, Camille L., and Lawrence Bobo, “Prismatic Metropolis: Race and Residential Segregation in the City of the Angels,” Social Science Research, Vol. 25, No. 4, 1996, pp. 335–374. 18 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? 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 Chief, Civil Liability Management Office of the City Attorney Los Angeles, California 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 The Public Policy Institute of California is a private, nonprofit research organization established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute conducts independent, objective, nonpartisan research on the economic, social, and political issues affecting Californians. The Institute’s goal is to raise public awareness of these issues and give elected representatives and other public officials in California a more informed basis for developing policies and programs. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or state and federal legislation nor does it endorse or support any political parties or candidates for public office. PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 • www.ppic.org 19 Public Policy Institute of California California Counts Who’s Your Neighbor? Other issues of California Counts POPULATION TRENDS AND PROFILES A State of Diversity: Demographic Trends in California’s Regions The Linguistic Landscape of California Schools At Home and in School: Racial and Ethnic Gaps in Educational Preparedness Check One or More . . . Mixed Race and Ethnicity in California Graying in the Golden State: Demographic and Economic Trends of Older Californians How Many Californians? A Review of Population Projections for the State Movin’ Out: Domestic Migration to and from California in the 1990s New Trends in Newborns: Fertility Rates and Patterns in California Population Mobility and Income Inequality in California Poverty in California: Levels, Trends, and Demographic Dimensions Trends in Family and Household Poverty are available free of charge on PPIC’s website www.ppic.org PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 In This Issue Residential Segregation and Diversity in California NON-PROFIT ORG. U.S. POSTAGE PAID BRISBANE, CA PERMIT #83" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:35:27" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(10) "cc_802jscc" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:35:28" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:35:28" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(52) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/CC_802JSCC.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) }