P. 1
The Diverse Face of Asians and Pacific Islanders in California

The Diverse Face of Asians and Pacific Islanders in California

|Views: 6|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Asian Pacific American Legal Center on Jun 07, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/03/2014

pdf

text

original

the diverse face

of Asians and Pacific Islanders in California

ASIAN & PACIFIC ISLANDER DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

Contents
Welcome Key Findings California Profile Race & Ethnicity Concentration Social Characteristics Education Income Poverty Language Immigration & Citizenship Health Bay Area Profile Race & Ethnicity Concentration Social Characteristics Education Income Poverty Language Immigration & Citizenship Health Central Valley Profile Race & Ethnicity Concentration Social Characteristics Education Income Poverty Language Immigration & Citizenship Health Southern California Profile Race & Ethnicity Concentration Social Characteristics Education Income Poverty Language Immigration & Citizenship Health Conclusion Glossary Technical Notes Appendices Order Form 1 2 3-12 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 12 13-22 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 22 23-32 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 32 32 33-42 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 42 42 43 44 45 46 56

Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California

Principal researcher The Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California (APALC) was founded in 1983 and is the largest organization in the country focused on providing multilingual, culturally sensitive legal services, education, and civil rights support to Asians and Pacific Islanders (APIs). APALC’s mission is to advocate for civil rights, provide legal services and education, and build coalitions to positively influence and impact Asians and Pacific Islanders and to create a more equitable and harmonious society. APALC works on a range of issues affecting APIs and immigrants, including workers rights, consumer rights, immigration, citizenship, domestic violence, hate crimes, health care, language access, and voting rights.
Asian Law Caucus

clients and provides legal information to over 5,000 people on workers’ rights, immigration, housing issues, voting rights, and hate crimes.
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium

The National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium (NAPALC) was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Washington, DC. NAPALC works to advance the human and civil rights of Asian Americans through advocacy, public policy, public education, and litigation. NAPALC is one of the nation’s leading experts on issues of importance to the Asian American community including: affirmative action, anti-Asian violence prevention/race relations, census, immigrant rights, immigration, language access, and voting rights. Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California in Los Angeles and the Asian Law Caucus in San Francisco are affiliated with the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium. Permission to reproduce materials from this report is granted with attribution to: Asian Pacific American Legal Center, 2005.

Founded in 1972, the Asian Law Caucus (ALC) was the nation’s first nonprofit law office serving Asians and Pacific Islanders. ALC’s mission is to promote, advance, and represent the legal and civil rights of the Asian and Pacific Islander community in Northern California. Annually, the Asian Law Caucus consults with and oversees cases of over 1,500

Stewart Kwoh
President & Executive Director, Asian Pacific American Legal Center

Welcome

California remains the heart of Asian and Pacific Islander America. More than one-third of all Asians and Pacific Islanders (APIs) in the nation live in California, and 2003 Census estimates show the continued growth and diversity of the state’s Asian and Pacific Islander community.
While Asians and Pacific Islanders are often thought of as a homogenous group, the reality is that our communities represent dozens of ethnic groups, cultures, and languages. While groups like Cambodians, Filipinos, Bangladeshi, Koreans, and Tongans share many common issues and values, they are different from one another in many ways. With The Diverse Face of Asians and Pacific Islanders in California, we hope to convey the rich diversity and multiple layers of API communities in three major regions in California. This report studies indicators such as race and ethnicity, housing, language, health, income, poverty, and education in the Bay Area, Central Valley, and Southern California regions.

Disaggregated data are a critical tool to illustrate common issues, as well as individual challenges of specific groups. This profile provides data for the API population as a whole, and separately for more than 20 individual API ethnic groups. Collectively, the data reveal great social and economic diversity within the API population. To highlight and respond to these issues, Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) works to make demographic information available that accurately reflects the realities of the growing API population. Through data collection, analysis, and mapping, APALC compiles demographic information that is critical to effective program planning, service delivery, and advocacy. We hope that the analysis and recommendations presented in this report will serve as the impetus for positive change for API communities in California. I would like to extend my thanks to the funders, sponsors, and community organizations throughout the state whose support made this report and its launch possible. I am also proud of the sponsorship of this report with the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium and the Asian Law Caucus.

Regional Definitions

Detailed Tables

The state of California and three regions are studied in this report. The counties within each region are listed below. Bay Area: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. Central Valley: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare Counties. Southern California: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura Counties.

Full tables capturing data discussed in the body of this report for major racial and ethnic groups and over 20 API ethnic groups can be found in its Appendix. Appendix A: Detailed population counts and growth (1990 to 2000) by race and ethnicity. Appendix B: Population characteristics (e.g. education, poverty, and language) by race and ethnicity. Appendix C: Asian and Pacific Islander population counts by county.

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

1

Key Findings
Asians and Pacific Islanders are among the fastest growing racial and ethnic groups in the state.

Asians are now the second largest major racial or ethnic group in four counties and the majority of the population in eight cities across the state. From 1990 to 2000, the Asian population grew as much as 52%, followed by Latinos, who grew 43%. This is compared to the state’s total population growth of 14%. From 2000 to 2003, Asians had the fastest growth rate among the major races in the Bay Area (9%) and Pacific Islanders had the fastest growth rate in the Central Valley (24%) and Southern California (14%) regions.
Asian communities experience language barriers at alarmingly high rates.

Asian households have the highest levels of linguistic isolation in the state. Overall, more than a third of Asians and more than a fifth of Asian children experience limited English proficiency. Nearly a majority of Chinese, the state’s largest Asian group, are limited English proficient. Six Asian ethnic groups have majority limited English proficient populations, including two of the state’s five largest Asian groups, Vietnamese and Korean.
Asians and Pacific Islanders as a whole fall below average on a number of indicators of well-being. Alone and Inclusive

For the first time, the 2000 census allowed people to report membership in more than one racial group. A unique feature of this report is the presentation of data for both single race and multiracial populations. Throughout the report, the term “alone” refers to persons reporting a single race only, while the term “inclusive” refers to the single race and multiracial population combined for a given group. (See Technical Note on page 45 for a more detailed explanation of these terms. Other census terminology is defined in the Glossary on page 44.) Figures for all racial and ethnic groups are given for the inclusive population, not exclusive of Latino/Hispanic, except for white, which is single race, non-Hispanic.

Contrary to the popular “model minority” image, Asians and Pacific Islanders are not doing well on all fronts. APIs fare worse than average on a number of important measures of socioeconomic status. APIs overall have lower than average homeownership rates and per capita incomes. APIs also have higher than average rates of overcrowded housing, three or more workers per family, and of receiving public assistance income or welfare. Pacific Islanders have college graduation rates far below average.
Disaggregated data for Asian and Pacific Islander ethnic groups reveal great disparities in socioeconomic status, with many groups among the most poverty stricken and least educated.

The more than 20 Asian and Pacific Islander ethnic groups studied in this report cover a wide spectrum of socioeconomic statuses. While overall data show APIs doing better than average in education, poverty, and median household income, data separated by API ethnic group reveal many groups faring among the worse in the state. Laotians, Cambodians, and Hmong have poverty rates higher than that of any of the major racial or ethnic groups. Vietnamese and Tongans have below average rates of high school completion. Koreans have below average median household incomes.

2

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Introduction to California
Percent of Population that is Asian and Pacific Islander, 2000

The Asian and Pacific Islander population in California is large and growing. The API population is projected to more than double from 4 to 9 million people between 2000 to 2025. Asians have already surpassed Latinos in the Bay Area to become the second largest racial or ethnic group in 2000. There are nine communities in California that are majority Asian and 17 more places that are a third or more Asian. As this growth continues in the years to come, the needs of this diverse community will also require greater attention.

Major Races White Latino/Hispanic Asian African American American Indian Pacific Islander Two or more races TOTAL

Note: All figures ranked by the California state population numbers. All figures are for the inclusive population, which is single race and multirace combined, except for “two or more races” and “white” which is single race only. Figures are not exclusive of Latino/Hispanic, except for white which is non-Hispanic. Figures do not add up to 100% due to overlap in categories. Source: Population Estimates Branch, U.S. Bureau of the Census, July1, 2003.

t
Table 1. 2003 Census Population Estimates
California Major Racial and Ethnic Groups

Figure 1: Asian and Pacific Islander Population in California
Population Projections, 2000 to 2025

Year 2025

18%

Year 2015

17%

Year 2005

15%

Year 2000 0 4 8 12

13% 16 20

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Division

California State 16,042,869 45% 12,176,087 34% 4,563,499 13% 2,679,687 8% 683,922 2% 245,934 1% 830,490 2% 35,484,453 100%

Bay Area 3,309,758 48% 1,407,511 21% 1,548,543 23% 569,858 8% 104,452 2% 67,772 1% 203,898 3% 6,846,466 100%

Central Valley 2,301,818 47% 1,762,514 36% 461,723 9% 371,241 8% 128,176 3% 36,575 1% 136,226 3% 4,913,508 100%

Southern California 8,117,837 40% 8,241,908 41% 2,391,843 12% 1,659,082 8% 345,371 2% 127,346 1% 407,191 3% 20,342,848 100%

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

3

California Race & Ethnicity
Asians Pacific Islanders Geographic Distribution

> Asians grew from 9% to 12% of the state’s population from 1990 to 2000, an increase of more than a million persons. Census Bureau estimates for 2003 show Asians now make up 13% of the population. > Chinese and Filipinos are the two largest Asian groups and together make up more than half of the Asian population. > Vietnamese have risen from fourth largest API group in 1990 to third largest in 2000. > Asian Indians are the fastest growing group, doubling in size from 1990 to 2000. > The Bay Area has the highest concentration of Asians in the state. The Bay Area is now 23% Asian, according to 2003 estimates.

> Pacific Islanders have increased from 0.4% of the state’s population in 1990 to 0.7% of the population in 2003 using inclusive figures. > Pacific Islander growth from 1990 to 2000 ranged from 6% using 2000 single race numbers to 100% using 2000 inclusive numbers (single race and multiracial figures combined). This wide range results from a large number of multiracial Pacific Islanders. > Nearly half (47%) of Pacific Islanders are multiracial, the highest among all racial/ethnic groups. > Native Hawaiians and Samoans continue to be the state’s largest Pacific Islander groups, followed closely by Guamanians/Chamorros.

Figure 2: Population Growth Rate, 1990 to 2000
Major Racial and Ethnic Groups in California

American Indian

38% 159%

> Asian and Pacific Islander ethnic groups are concentrated in certain parts of the state. Eighty percent of Hmong live in the Central Valley, while 80% of Taiwanese live in Southern California. Asian Indians are found in greater numbers in the Bay Area, and the Central Valley is home to more of Laotians. More than threequarters of Koreans are found in Southern California. > A majority of Tongans and Fijians live in the Bay Area, while Samoans reside disproportionately in Southern California. > The Bay Area’s four largest groups (in descending order of size) are Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese, and Asian Indian, making up 84% of the region’s Asian population. > The Central Valley’s four largest groups are Filipino, Hmong, Chinese, and Asian Indian, making up 65% of Asians. > Southern California’s four largest groups are Filipino, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean, making up 75% of Asians.

Asian

35% 52%

Latino 6%

33% 43%

Eighty percent of Hmong live in the Central Valley,
100%

Pacific Islander

African American

2% 14% 1990 to 2000 Alone 1990 to 2000 Inclusive

77% of Koreans live in Southern California, and 53% of Tongans live
160

White

-7% -3% 7

-10

24

41

58

75

92

109

126

143

in the Bay Area.

Note: Ranked by 1990 to 2000 alone

4

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

California Concentration
Counties with the Highest Concentration
Table 2: Asian Population Concentration in California
Places in California With the Highest Percentage of Asians, 2000

> There are four counties in the state where the Asian population is larger than the Latino population: San Francisco, Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Mateo. > Los Angeles County is home to more than 1.3 million Asians by 2003 estimates, the largest population in one county in the state. Santa Clara County has the second largest population with more than half a million Asians. > San Francisco County has the highest proportion of Asians with 33%. Santa Clara County has the second highest proportion with 30%. > The highest concentration of Pacific Islanders is found in San Mateo County with 1.9%, followed by Solano County with 1.6%.
Places with the Highest Concentrations

> In 1990, Monterey Park was the only majority Asian city in the continental United States. In 2000, eight new places that are majority Asian appeared in California. Seven places in Southern California and two places in the Bay Area are now a majority Asian (see Table 2). > The population in 17 places in California is a third or more Asian, including Sunnyvale, Fremont, and San Francisco. > East Palo Alto has by far the highest percentage of Pacific Islanders, 9%, followed by Carson with 4%.
API Ethnic Group Concentrations

California State Places Monterey Park city Cerritos city Walnut city Milpitas city Daly City city Rowland Heights CDP* San Gabriel city San Marino city Rosemead city Alhambra city Arcadia city Union City city La Palma city Cupertino city Hercules city South San Gabriel CDP* Diamond Bar city East San Gabriel CDP* Temple City city Fremont city

Number 38,205 31,263 17,310 34,070 55,495 25,400 20,083 6,515 26,772 41,870 25,026 31,371 7,204 23,406 8,848 3,423 25,217 6,176 13,457 80,979

Percent 64% 61% 58% 54% 54% 52% 50% 50% 50% 49% 47% 47% 47% 46% 45% 45% 45% 43% 40% 40%

Note: Ranked by percent Asian. *Census designated place.

Table 3: Pacific Islander Population Concentration in California
Places in California With the Largest Number of Pacific Islanders, 2000

California State Places Los Angeles city San Diego city Long Beach city San Jose city Sacramento city San Francisco city Hayward city Carson city Oakland city Oceanside city East Palo Alto city Stockton city Vallejo city Anaheim city Modesto city San Mateo city

Number 13,144 10,613 7,863 7,091 6,833 6,273 4,709 3,401 3,218 3,057 2,536 2,437 2,358 2,356 2,234 2,222

Percent 0.4% 0.9% 1.7% 0.8% 1.7% 0.8% 3.4% 3.8% 0.8% 1.9% 8.6% 1.0% 2.0% 0.7% 1.2% 2.4%

> One out of five San Francisco County residents is Chinese. > The counties with the highest percentages of Filipinos are Solano (11%) and San Mateo (9%). > The highest percentages of Vietnamese are in Santa Clara County (6%) and Orange County (5%). > Japanese are fairly evenly distributed with the highest percentages found in Santa Clara, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties (2% each). > More than 67% of Koreans are found in two counties: Orange and Los Angeles. > The highest percentages of Asian Indians are in Sutter County (10%) and Santa Clara County (4%). > More than half of Samoans live in Los Angeles, San Diego, and Orange Counties, while more than half of Fijians live in Sacramento, Alameda, and San Mateo Counties.

Note: Ranked by number Pacific Islander. Communities with Pacific Islander population of 2,000 or more across the state of California.

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

5

California Social Characteristics
Age Housing

> The median age for Asians as a whole is nearly identical to the state average of 33, but Pacific Islanders fall far below the state average with a median age of 26. > While the Asian median age is close to the state average, many Asian groups fall below average. Sixteen API groups fall below the state median age, eight groups have a median age below 30, and five groups have a median age lower than any of the major racial groups. > Just over a quarter of the Asian population is under the age of 18, comparable to the state average. A third of Pacific Islanders are children. > Ten API ethnic groups have disproportionately large numbers of children. A majority of the Hmong population is under 18. > Nine percent of Asians are 65 years or older, again close to the state average. Yet only 5% of Pacific Islanders are seniors. > The percent of Japanese that are 65 or older (16%) is far above the state average. All but four other API groups fall below the state average for percent senior population.

> Both Asians and Pacific Islanders have larger than average household sizes, 3.2 and 3.5 respectively, compared to 2.9 for the state. > All but four API groups have average household sizes above the state average, and five groups have rates above all major race groups. > Asians and Pacific Islanders both have overcrowded housing rates far above average. A quarter of the population in each group live in overcrowded housing, and 14% live in severely over crowded housing.

> Eighteen API groups have above average overcrowded housing rates and six groups have rates higher than any other major racial group. A majority of four groups live in overcrowded housing and a majority of Hmong households are severely overcrowded. > Asians and Pacific Islanders have below average rates of homeownership. Asians (55%) have rates close to average, while Pacific Islanders (47%) have rates below the state average of 57%. > Only four API groups have above average homeownership rates. Koreans, the fifth largest group, and five other groups have rates below that of any other racial group.

Figure 3: Overcrowded Housing Rates
Major Racial and Ethnic Groups in California, 2000

Latino/Hispanic

42% 28% 26% 14% 24% 14% 17% 9% 13% 6% 4% 2% 15% 9% Overcrowded Severely Overcrowded

Pacific Islander

Asian

Eighteen API groups
American Indian

have above average overcrowded housing rates, and six groups have rates higher than any other major racial group.
California Black

White

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Note: Overcrowded housing is defined as having more than one person per room. Severely overcrowded housing is defined as more than 1.5 people per room.

6

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

California Education
Education High School Completion College Graduation

> Asians are more likely than whites to have graduated college (41% versus 34%), but also more likely to have less than high school education (19% versus 10%). > Twenty-two percent of Pacific Islanders have not completed high school, and only 17% have a college degree. > Four Southeast Asian groups— Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian, and Hmong—have educational levels far below average, some among the lowest in the state.

> Six API groups have below average rates of high school completion. More than a third of Fijians, Vietnamese, and Tongans do not have high school degrees. > Three API groups have rates higher than any other racial group. More than half of Cambodians, Laotians, and Hmong have not graduated from high school.

> Nine API groups have lower than average rates of attaining a college degree, and three groups have rates lower than any other racial group. > All four Pacific Islander groups have below average rates of attaining a college degree. Only 10% of Samoans have a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Figure 4: Educational Attainment
Asian & Pacific Islander Groups in California, 2000

Hmong Laotian Cambodian Tongan Vietnamese Fijian Samoan Chinese Guamanian Thai Pakistani Asian Indian Hawaiian Filipino Korean Japanese 7% 23% 22% 20% 19% 18% 16% 14% 12% 12% 38% 36% 40% 7% 11% 9% 23% 20% 4% 31% 6% 25% 7% 38% 36% 34% 58% 56%

66%

23% 30% 30%

5% 6% 6%

5% 2 5% 1 7% 2 6% 1 5% 7% 2 7% 2 19%

51% 4% 34% 9% 51% 59% 27% 59% 12% 31% 29% 57% 9% 15% 35% 32% 30% 8% 25% 7% 8% 16%

11%

3

13% 22% 30% 6% 6% 13% 13%

0

10

20

30 High School

40

50 Associate’s Degree

60

70

80

90

100

Less than High School

Bachelor’s Degree

Advanced Degree

Note: All education figures are for the population 25 years and older. Groups ranked by “Less than High School.”

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

7

California Income
Median Household Income

> Both Asians and Pacific Islanders as a whole have above average median household incomes. > Ten API groups have median household incomes below the state median, and three groups have medians lower than any other racial group.
Per Capita Income

Per capita income is the income available per individual in a population, rather than for an entire household. Because API households are larger on average, per capita income is a better measure of an ethnic group’s overall well-being.

> In contrast to median household income, both Asians and Pacific Islanders have below average per capita incomes. > Fifteen API groups have per capita incomes below the state average, and five groups are below any other racial group. > Filipinos show a median household income of $61,237, far above average, but fall far below average for per capita income ($19,223). One explanation for this is the high rate of three or more workers in Filipino families. More than a quarter of Filipino families have three or more workers, compared to only 14% for the state overall.
Public Assistance Income

Southeast Asian refugee groups Four Southeast Asian refugee groups— Cambodians, Hmong, Laotians, and Vietnamese—have the highest rates of receiving public assistance income in the state among the major racial and ethnic groups. Years of U.S. military intervention in Southeast Asia created millions of refugees in the region. The Refugee Act of 1980 requires states to provide social services to refugees. With agrarian backgrounds, little or no formal

> Asians and Pacific Islanders have above average rates of receiving public assistance income. > Seven API groups have above average rates of receiving public assistance income, and four refugee Asian groups have rates above all other racial groups. Fifteen percent of Vietnamese, the third largest API group, receive public assistance. More than a third of Cambodians and half of Hmong receive public assistance. > Samoans, Tongans, and Guamanians also have above average rates of receiving public assistance.
Figure 5: Families with Three or More Workers
Major Racial and Ethnic Groups in California, 2000

Latino/Hispanic

20%

Pacific Islander

20%

Asian

18%

education, and little or no ability to speak English, many Southeast Asian refugees begin their lives in the U.S. dependent on public assistance. In the 30 years since the arrival of the first wave of refugees, these communities have experienced improvements, but still remain among the
California 14% Black 9% White 10% American Indian 14%

most disadvantaged groups.
0
8

5

10

15

20

25

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

California Poverty
Below the Federal Poverty Line Below 200% of Poverty

> Asians (13%) and Pacific Islanders (14%) both have poverty rates much higher than those of whites (8%). > Eleven API groups have poverty rates above the state average and three groups have poverty rates higher than any other major racial or ethnic group. > More than 50% of Hmong, more than a third of Cambodians, and nearly a third of Laotians are in poverty. > Asians and Pacific Islanders have average poverty rates in the Bay Area and in Southern California. In the Central Valley, both groups have above average rates of poverty.
Child Poverty

Because the federal poverty level is not adjusted for local costs of living, a multiple of the poverty line is often used to better identify low-income populations. Using 200% of poverty doubles the poverty level to $34,058 for a family of four. > A third or more of the populations of 13 API groups are living below 200% of the federal poverty line. > Pacific Islander groups have among the highest rates of 200% of poverty: Samoans (45%), Tongans (44%), and Fijians (34%).

Places with the Highest API Poverty Rates

> The Asian child poverty rate (15%) is much higher than that of whites (9%). > The Pacific Islander child poverty rate (20%) is more than twice that of whites (9%). > Eight API groups have child poverty rates above average, and three groups have child poverty rates above any other racial group. > Hmong (60%), Cambodian (50%), and Laotian (40%) children have the highest poverty rates in the state. > Vietnamese, Samoan, Pakistani, Tongan, and Bangladeshi all have above average child poverty rates. More than a fifth of the children in these groups live in poverty. > Nearly half of Asian children in Fresno County are in poverty. More than a third of Asian children in San Joaquin County and 28% in Sacramento County are in poverty. > More than a third of Pacific Islander children in Fresno and Merced Counties are in poverty.

> Among cities with a minimum 10,000 Asian population, Fresno, Stockton, Modesto, Sacramento, and Rosemead have the poorest Asian populations in the state, all with nearly a third or more children in poverty, half or more at 200% of poverty, and a quarter or more living below poverty. Other cities that approach these levels of poverty are Long Beach, Oakland, and El Monte. Also in the top ten list for overall Asian poverty are the cities of Davis, Berkeley, and Riverside. > The highest Pacific Islander poverty is found in the city of Compton, where a majority are in poverty and 63% of children are in poverty. A majority of the Pacific Islander population in Lynwood and a majority of the children in Ontario are in poverty.

Figure 6: Poverty Rates, Groups Above Average
Asian & Pacific Islander Groups in California, 2000

Hmong Cambodian Laotian Samoan Pakistani Vietnamese Tongan Thai Indonesian Bangladeshi California 20% 23% 18% 21% 18% 24% 18% 21% 17% 19% 15% 13% 15% 20% 14% 19% 0 10 20 30 40 50 32% 40% 40%

53% 60% 50%

In Poverty Child Poverty

60

70

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

9

California Language
Limited English Proficiency (LEP)

Persons who speak English less than “very well” are considered limited English proficient. > More than one-third of the Asian population in California is limited English proficient. > Pacific Islanders have the third highest level of limited English proficiency among the major racial or ethnic groups (15%). > Six Asian groups, including two of the five largest groups (Vietnamese and Korean), have populations that are majority limited English proficient. > The largest Asian group, Chinese, is nearly majority LEP, with 48% speaking English less than “very well.” > Nearly a third or more of six additional groups are LEP, and one in four Pakistanis, Fijians, and Asian Indians are LEP. > More than one in five Filipinos, the second largest group, are LEP.

> Asian and Pacific Islander rates of LEP are similar across the three regions, except for children in the Central Valley where rates drop to less than half the state average for both groups. > San Francisco County has a majority LEP Asian population, the highest among the ten counties with the largest Asian populations. > Orange and Los Angeles Counties are also among those with the highest Asian LEP rates, 45% and 43% respectively. Half a million Asians in Los Angeles County are limited English proficient. > Pacific Islander rates are highest in Merced and Stanislaus Counties where one in four are limited English proficient. > The majority of Asians in twelve of the 50 cities with the largest Asian populations are limited English proficient. Nine of the twelve cities are in Southern California.

> The cities of San Francisco and Oakland have majority LEP Asian populations. > In the Central Valley, the majority of Asians in the cities of Fresno and Merced are LEP.
Child Limited English Proficiency

Children age 17 years and younger who speak English less than “very well” are considered limited English proficient. > More than one in five Asian children are limited English proficient (LEP). > Ten percent of Pacific Islander children are LEP. > The cities of San Francisco and Oakland have child LEP rates of 30% and 41%, respectively. > A majority of Asian children in Merced and 45% in Fresno are LEP.

Figure 7: Limited English Proficiency
Asian Groups in California, 2000

Vietnamese

62%

The largest Asian group, Chinese, is nearly majority limited English

Hmong

61%

Taiwanese

proficient, with 48% speaking English less than “very well.” Six other Asian groups are a majority LEP, including Vietnamese and Koreans.
Laotian 55% Cambodian

58%

56%

Korean

52%

40
10

45

50

55

60

65

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Table 4: Linguistically Isolated Asian Households
Top Places in California, 2000

Linguistic Isolation

Households in which all members 14 years old or older speak English less than “very well” are considered linguistically isolated. > Asian households have the highest levels of linguistic isolation in the state. > Pacific Islanders have the third highest level of linguistic isolation, (7%). > Six API groups are a third or more linguistically isolated, and four more groups have linguistic isolation rates of 24% or more. > In all three regions, Asians have the highest linguistic isolation rates, the highest being in Southern California with 28%. > San Francisco County has the second highest Asian linguistic isolation rate of all counties, 35%. Los Angeles and Orange Counties are among the top ten counties with the highest Asian linguistic isolation rates, with 30% and 39% respectively. > The county with the second largest Asian population, Santa Clara, has an Asian linguistic isolation rate of 25%. > Asian linguistic isolation is found at extremely high rates in many cities with large Asian populations in Southern California. El Monte tops the list with 50% household linguistic isolation followed by Rosemead (49%), San Gabriel (48%), and Garden Grove (48%). > Oakland and San Francisco city also have high rates of Asian linguistic isolation, with 42% and 35% respectively.

California Places El Monte city Rosemead city San Gabriel city Garden Grove city Alhambra city Westminster city Monterey Park city Oakland city Santa Ana city Rowland Heights CDP Arcadia city Hacienda Heights CDP San Francisco city

Number 2,757 3,104 2,705 6,151 6,117 3,781 5,239 8,823 3,183 2,927 2,775 2,177 29,041

Percent 50% 49% 48% 48% 46% 44% 44% 42% 40% 39% 37% 37% 35%

Among places with an Asian Inclusive population of 5,000 or more

The Commission on Asian Pacific Islander American Affairs The Commission on Asian Pacific Islander American Affairs is a state commission established in 2002 to help the governor and state legislature, agencies, departments, and commissions better understand and respond to California’s fastest growing major racial group. In the two short years since its inception, the 13 member commission has provided important guidance on issues impacting Asians and Pacific Islanders, including language access, hate crimes, and the recent resettlement of Hmong refugees in California.
Source: Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus.

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

11

California Immigration & Citizenship
Figure 8: Foreign-Born Rates, Child and Adult
Asians and Latinos in California, 2000

Immigration

Asian 18% Child 0-17 14% Latino/Hispanic

78% Adult 18 and over 61%

0

17

34

51

68

85

> Asians have the highest rates of being foreign-born in the state, 62% compared to 44% for Latinos. Among adults age 18 and over, 78% of Asians are foreign-born. > Asian youth, age 0-17, comprise much lower rates of being foreign-born (18%), although this is still the highest rate in the state. > Pacific Islanders have a foreign-born rate lower than Asians, but still have the third highest rate at 25%. > The majority of all Asian groups, except for Japanese, are foreign born. Among Pacific Islanders, more than three-quarters of Fijians and nearly a majority (48%) of Tongans are foreign born. > Fifty-two out of 58 counties in California have a majority foreign-born Asian adult population. > The majority of Pacific Islanders in five cities are foreignborn: Davis, San Bruno, East Palo Alto, Lynwood, and Sacramento.
Citizenship

California Health
> Pacific Islanders lack health insurance at a higher rate than average in California, 19% compared to 16% for the state. Approximately 14% of Asians and 5% of Asian children are uninsured, rates which are both higher than those of African Americans or whites. > There is a great disparity of health insurance coverage among Asian ethnic groups. Koreans have the highest rates of Asians who lack health insurance, 35% overall and 24% for Korean children. Koreans have uninsurance rates higher than any major racial or ethnic group. > Health insurance coverage also varies by citizenship. Only 7% of U.S. born Asians lack health insurance, compared to 24% of Asian non-citizens. This disparity is also reflected among Asian children, where 3% of U.S. born children lack health insurance, compared to 18% of non-citizen Asian children.

> A majority of foreign-born Asians are naturalized citizens, compared to 26% of foreign-born Latinos. > More than half of the foreign-born of six API groups are naturalized citizens, including the three largest groups, Chinese, Filipinos, and Vietnamese.

Figure 9: Lack of Health Insurance Coverage
Asians in California, 2001

Non-citizen

18%

24%

U.S. born citizen

3% Child, Age 0-17 7% Total, Age 0-65

0

6

12

18

24

30

Source: California Health Interview Survey, 2001

12

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Bay Area Region Introduction
Percent of Population that is Asian and Pacific Islander, 2000

A major hub for Asian and Pacific Islander communities since the mid1800s, the San Francisco Bay Area is making history in the 21st century. The Bay Area has the highest percentage of Asians in the continental United States. While Asians are the fourth largest racial group in the country, the Asian population in the Bay Area has become the second largest racial group after whites in 2000, surpassing Latinos. The California counties with the highest Pacific Islander percentages are in the Bay Area: San Mateo, Solano, and Alameda. The growth of the Asian and Pacific Islander populations has been phenomenal. From 1990 to 2000, four cities in the region doubled their Asian population, including Daly City and Milpitas, which are now majority Asian. Milpitas increased from 34% to 54% Asian from 1990 to 2000. The findings of this study capture not only the spectacular growth of API populations in the greater Bay Area, but also the complexity of their social characteristics.

Bay Area Nine County Region San Francisco Santa Clara Alameda San Mateo Solano Contra Costa Marin Napa Sonoma Bay Area

Note: Ranked by percent Asian. All figures are for the inclusive population, single race and multirace combined, and are not exclusive of Latino/Hispanic, except for white, which is single race non-Hispanic only.

t
Table 5: 2003 Census Population Estimates
Bay Area Region Major Racial and Ethnic Groups

Total

Asian 34% 30% 25% 24% 16% 14% 6% 5% 5% 23%

751,682 254,753 1,678,421 509,044 1,461,030 366,587 697,456 169,168 412,336 66,126 1,001,136 139,644 246,073 14,942 131,607 6,718 466,725 21,561 6,846,466 1,548,543

Pacific Latino/ White Islander Hispanic 5,142 0.7% 105,014 14% 330,303 44% 12,384 0.7% 411,752 25% 704,014 42% 18,571 1.3% 295,210 20% 572,789 39% 13,344 1.9% 155,807 22% 340,262 49% 6,422 1.6% 81,881 20% 193,537 47% 7,868 0.8% 200,919 20% 554,099 55% 804 0.3% 29,588 12% 191,959 78% 789 0.6% 34,985 27% 85,830 65% 2,448 0.5% 92,355 20% 336,965 72% 67,772 1.0% 1,407,511 21% 3,309,758 48%

African American 62,887 8% 55,419 3% 227,772 16% 26,995 4% 70,528 17% 105,282 11% 8,376 3% 2,660 2% 9,939 2% 569,858 8%

American Indian 24,388 2% 16,583 2% 2,642 1% 2,324 2% 8,544 1% 6,942 1% 23,042 1% 8,468 2% 11,519 2% 104,452 2%

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

13

Bay Area Race & Ethnicity
Asians Pacific Islanders

> By the 2000 Census, Asians had surpassed Latinos and become the second largest major racial or ethnic group in the region. Estimates for 2003 show Asians as 23% of the population in the Bay Area. > From 1990 to 2000, Asians in the region grew from under a million to more than 1.4 million persons, and more than 1.5 million by 2003. > Chinese are the largest Asian group in the region, making up 36% of the Asian population. > Together, Chinese, Filipinos, Vietnamese, and Asian Indians make up 84% of the Asian population in the region. > Asian Indians increased in size from fifth largest group in 1990 to fourth largest in 2000, growing by as much as 197%. > Santa Clara County had the fastest growing Asian population in the region, growing by up to 81% from 1990 to 2000.

> In both 1990 and 2000, Pacific Islanders comprised 1% of the area’s population. Thirty percent of the state’s Pacific Islander population lives in the Bay Area. > Native Hawaiians and Samoans are the largest Pacific Islander groups in the region. > A disproportionate share of the state’s Tongan and Fijian populations live in the Bay Area. Fifty-three percent of the state’s Tongans and half of the Fijians live in the Bay Area.

Access to Affordable and Safe Housing Affordable housing is a critical issue for Asian and Pacific Islander households of modest means attempting to live in the Bay Area. According to the National Low-Income Housing Coalition’s report, “Housing Out of Reach 2003,” San Francisco and San Jose are the two highest ranked metropolitan areas in the U.S. for housing costs. Housing costs are forcing increasing numbers of even moderate-income families out of the area or into inferior

Figure 10: Population Growth Rate, 1990 to 2000
Major Racial and Ethnic groups in the Bay Area

Asian 30%

46% 61%

housing. In addition, a recent study published by the U.S.

Latino 12%

42%

Department of Housing and
159%

American Indian

Urban Development (HUD) shows that APIs face rates

Pacific Islander

5% 92%

of discrimination in housing markets comparable to the rates experienced by other racial minorities.

Black

-4% 6% 1990 to 2000 Alone 1990 to 2000 Inclusive

White

-7% -2%

-10

7

24

41

58

75

92

109

126

143

160

Note: Ranked by 1990 to 2000 alone 14 A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Bay Area Concentration
Counties with the Highest Concentration API Ethnic Group Concentration

> A quarter million Asians live in San Francisco County, while more than half a million live in Santa Clara County, according to 2003 Census Bureau estimates. Santa Clara County has the second largest Asian population in the state after Los Angeles County. > The four counties with the highest Asian percentages in the state are in the Bay Area: San Francisco, Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Mateo Counties. These are also the only counties in the state where Asians outnumber Latinos. > The largest number of Pacific Islanders are in Alameda County and the highest percentage are found in San Mateo County with 1.9%. > The Bay Area includes the three counties with the highest percentages of Pacific Islanders in the state: San Mateo (1.9%), Solano (1.6%), and Alameda (1.3%) Counties.
Places with the Highest Concentrations

> The largest Chinese population is in San Francisco County, home to 30% of the region’s Chinese. > Two-thirds of the Bay Area’s Vietnamese population live in Santa Clara County. > Roughly 45% of the region’s Asian Indian population lives in Santa Clara County, while another 30% live in Alameda County. > Filipinos are the largest Asian group in Solano and Napa Counties, where they make up 71% and 46% of the Asian population respectively. > Guamanians make up more than half of the Pacific Islander population in Alameda County. A third of Pacific Islanders in San Mateo and Solano Counties are Tongan.

Table 6: Asian Population Concentration in the Bay Area
Ten Places in the Bay Area with the Highest Percentage of Asians, 2000

Asian 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Bay Area Place Milpitas city Daly City city Union City city Cupertino city Hercules city Fremont city Broadmoor CDP* Foster City city Sunnyvale city San Francisco city Number 34,070 55,495 31,371 23,406 8,848 80,979 1,529 10,040 45,105 253,477 Percent 54% 54% 47% 46% 45% 40% 38% 35% 34% 33%

> Two cities in the Bay Area have a majority Asian population: Milpitas and Daly City. > Eight others places are one third or more Asian, including Union City, Cupertino, Hercules, Fremont, Broadmoor, Foster City, Sunnyvale, and San Francisco. > San Jose has the largest number of Asians—more than a quarter million—making up 29% of that city’s population. > Other cities among the top ten with the largest Asian populations in the region are Oakland (fourth), Santa Clara (eighth), and Vallejo (ninth). > East Palo Alto has the highest percentage of Pacific Islanders of any city in the state of California (9%).

Figures are for the inclusive population, single race and multirace combined. Source: 2000 Census *Census designated place

Table 7: Pacific Islander Population Concentration in the Bay Area
Ten Places in the Bay Area with the Highest Percentage of Pacific Islanders, 2000

Pacific Islander 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Bay Area Place East Palo Alto city San Bruno city Hayward city South San Francisco city San Mateo city Suisun City city American Canyon city Ashland CDP* Vallejo city Cherryland CDP* Number 2,536 1,776 4,709 1,472 2,222 582 212 450 2,358 276 Percent 8.6% 4.4% 3.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.0% 2.0%

Figures are for the inclusive population, single race and multirace combined. Source: 2000 Census *Census designated place

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

15

Bay Area Social Characteristics
Age

> Asians and Pacific Islanders have higher median ages in the Bay Area than in the Central Valley or Southern California. > All the counties in the Bay Area have an Asian median age above 30. San Francisco County has the highest Asian median age of all counties in the state (37.6). > All the counties in the Bay Area, except Marin, have a Pacific Islander median age below 30. But six out of nine counties in the Bay Area have a Pacific Islander median age higher than the state median of 25.9 for Pacific Islanders.
Average Household Size

> Asians in all nine counties in the Bay Area have overcrowding rates above average. San Francisco (27%) and Santa Clara (24%) Counties have the highest Asian overcrowded housing rates in the region. > Sixteen API groups have above average rates of overcrowded housing and six groups have rates higher than any other major racial or ethnic group. A majority of Hmong, Tongans, Laotians, and Cambodians are living in overcrowded housing. > More than one in three Pacific Islanders in San Mateo County live in overcrowded housing.

> Daly City, Oakland, San Jose, and Santa Clara have the highest rates of Asians in overcrowded housing, among cities with 10,000 or more Asians in the region.
Homeownership

> Both Asians (57%) and Pacific Islanders (49%) have homeownership rates below the region’s average of 58%. > Seventeen API groups have homeownership rates below average, and four groups have rates below that of any of the major racial or ethnic groups. > Fewer than a third of Laotians, Cambodians, Samoans, and Hmong live in homes that they own.

> Asians and Pacific Islanders have above average household sizes in all nine counties in the Bay Area. > Pacific Islanders have the highest average household size (4.20) in San Mateo County among major racial or ethnic groups. In all other Bay Area counties, Pacific Islanders have the second largest households after Latinos. > The largest Asian households are found in the counties of Solano (3.53) and Santa Clara (3.33). > In seven Bay Area counties, API ethnic groups have average household sizes larger than any of the major racial or ethnic groups. Tongans have households of 5.16 or higher in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Solano Counties. > Filipinos and Vietnamese have the largest households in Santa Clara County, 4.09 and 4.17 respectively.
Overcrowded Housing

Figure 11: Overcrowded Housing Rates
Asians in the Bay Area, 2000

San Francisco County Santa Clara County Alameda County San Mateo County Solano County Sonoma County Napa County Contra Costa County Marin County Bay Area Region

27% 17% 24% 13% 22% 12% 21% 12% 18% 9% 16% 8% 16% 7% 15% 7% 14% 8% Overcrowded 11% 6% Severely Overcrowded 30

> Both Asians (23%) and Pacific Islanders (25%) have rates of overcrowded housing, that are twice as high as the region’s average of 11%.

0

6

12

18

24

Note: Overcrowded housing is defined as having more than one person per room. Severely overcrowded housing is defined as more than 1.5 people per room.

16

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Bay Area Education
Education High School Completion College Graduation

> Asian adults age 25 and older have slightly higher than average rates of not completing high school (18%), but are also much more likely than average to have a college degree (45%). > Pacific Islander adults are more likely than average to have less than a high school degree (22%), and also much less likely to have a college degree than average (18%). > Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders have among the lowest levels of educational attainment in the region. A majority of Hmong, Laotians, and Cambodians have not graduated from high school, and Tongans (6%), Fijians (9%), and Samoans (11%) have the lowest college completion rates among the major racial or ethnic groups in the region.

> Eight API groups in the region have higher than average rates of not completing high school. A majority of Hmong, Laotian, and Cambodian adults have not completed high school, the highest rates among the major racial and ethnic groups in the region. > Chinese, the largest group in the region, lack a high school degree at rates far above average, 23% compared to 16% for the region. > Oakland, San Francisco, and San Pablo cities have the lowest rates of Asian high school completion. Thirty percent or more of Asians in these cities do not have a high school degree. East Palo Alto and San Mateo cities have the lowest rates of high school completion for Pacific Islander adults. Thirty percent or more of Pacific Islanders in these cities do not have a high school degree.

> Nine API groups have below average rates of attaining at least a bachelor’s degree, and six API groups have rates lower than any of the major racial or ethnic groups. Only 6% of Hmong, Laotians, and Tongans have a college degree. > All five Pacific Islander groups have below average rates of college completion. Only 9% of Fijians and 11% of Samoans have a college degree. > Some Asian groups have the highest rates of college degree attainment in the region. A majority of 7 groups, including Pakistani, Korean, Japanese, and Asian Indians, have a bachelor’s degree or higher.

All five Pacific Islander groups have below average rates of college completion. Only 9% of Fijians and 11% of Samoans have a college degree.

Figure 12: Less than High School Degree, Above Average Rates
Asian & Pacific Islander Groups in the Bay Area, 2000

Hmong

61%

Laotian

55%

Cambodian

51%

Tongan

36%

Vietnamese

34%

Fijian

32%

Samoan

28%

Chinese

23%

Bay Area Region

16%

0

14

28

42

56

70
17

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Bay Area Income
Median Household Income Figure 13: Families with Three or More Workers
Pacific Islanders in the Bay Area, 2000*

> Asians have median household incomes higher than the county median in seven out of nine counties in the Bay Area. > Pacific Islanders have median household incomes lower than the county median in five out of nine counties. > However, many API ethnic groups have median household incomes below the county median and several groups—Cambodians, Laotians, and Vietnamese—have medians below all of the major racial or ethnic groups. > Eleven API ethnic groups in Santa Clara County have median household incomes below the county median including Asian Indians with $55,793, compared to the county median of $74,335.
Per Capita Income

Napa County 34%

49%

San Mateo County 24%

Alameda County

Santa Clara County

23%

Solano County

23%

Contra Costa County

22%

San Francisco County

19%

Sonoma County

18%

Per capita income is the income available per individual in a population, rather than for an entire household. Because API households are larger on average, per capita income is a better measure of an ethnic group’s overall well-being. > Asians and Pacific Islanders have per capita incomes below average in all counties in the Bay Area. > Filipinos have above average median household incomes in all counties in the Bay Area, but below average per capita incomes in all counties. In Solano County, Filipinos have the highest median household income of all racial groups ($68,112), but a below average per capita income of $19,193. Contributing to this great difference in measures of income is the high rate of three or more workers in Filipino families. A third of Filipino families have three or more workers, compared to 15% of the total population in Solano County. > Samoans and Laotians have per capita incomes lower than any of the major racial or ethnic groups in five counties in the region.
18

Bay Area Region

15%

0

10

20

30

40

50

*Population threshold not met for Marin County.

Public Assistance Income

> Asians and Pacific Islanders have above average rates of receiving public assistance income. > Eight API groups have above average rates of receiving public assistance income, and five groups have rates higher than any of the major racial/ethnic groups: Hmong, Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, and Samoans.

A third of Filipino families have three or more workers contributing to the family income, compared to 15% of families in the Bay Area overall.

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Bay Area Poverty
Below the Federal Poverty Level Below 200% of Poverty

> Asians (8%) and Pacific Islanders (10%) have poverty rates above that of non-Hispanic whites (5%) in the Bay Area region. > Poverty rates for Asians and Pacific Islanders are above average in two counties in the region: Alameda and San Francisco. > Pacific Islanders have the second highest poverty rate (22%) among the major racial or ethnic groups in San Francisco County. > Asians make up the largest number of those in poverty in San Francisco County (27,110). There are more Asians in poverty in San Francisco County than any other racial group. > Nine API groups have above average poverty rates in the region and two groups have rates higher than any of the major racial or ethnic groups, Cambodians (31%), and Laotians (19%).
Child Poverty

> Nine API groups have above average child poverty rates in the region, and two groups have rates higher than any of the major racial or ethnic groups, Cambodians (40%), and Laotians (24%). > The city of Oakland has the highest Asian child poverty rate (31%) among cities with 5,000 or more Asians. > Richmond has the highest Pacific Islander child poverty rate (47%) among cities with 500 or more Pacific Islanders in the region.

Because the federal poverty level is not adjusted for local costs of living, a multiple of the poverty line is often used to better identify low-income populations. Using 200% of poverty doubles the poverty level to $34,058 for a family of four. > Nearly a majority of Pacific Islanders and 27% of Asians in San Francisco County are at 200% of poverty. > Filipinos have the lowest rates of those living below the federal poverty line (5%) of all racial groups, but above average rates of those living at 200% of poverty (23%).

Figure 14: Poverty Rates, Groups Above Average
Asian & Pacific Islander Groups in the Bay Area, 2000

Cambodian

31% 40%

Laotian

19% 24%

> Asians (9%) and Pacific Islanders (11%) have child poverty rates above that of non-Hispanic whites (5%) in the Bay Area. > Child poverty rates for Asians and Pacific Islanders are above average in two counties in the region: Alameda and San Francisco. > Pacific Islanders have the second highest child poverty rate (28%) among major racial or ethnic groups in San Francisco County. > Asians make up the largest number of children in poverty in San Francisco County (5,005). There are more Asian children in poverty than children of any other racial group in San Francisco County.

Samoan

16% 18% 15% 12% 15% 21% 11% 12% 10% 11% 9% 10% In Poverty Child Poverty

Thai

Vietnamese

Tongan

Pakistani

Bay Area Region

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

19

Bay Area Language
Figure 15: Limited English Proficiency
Asians in the Bay Area, 2000

Limited English Proficiency (LEP)

San Francisco County 23%

30% 50%

Persons who speak English less than “very well” are considered limited English proficient. > More than a third of Asians in the Bay Area have limited English proficiency, defined as speaking English less than “very well.” > Pacific Islanders have the third highest level of limited English proficiency in the region. > Six Asian groups have a majority limited English proficient population, including 90,000 Vietnamese in the region. > Chinese, the largest Asian group, have nearly a majority LEP population (48%). > Tongans (34%) and Fijians (26%) have the highest LEP rates among Pacific Islander groups. > Half of the Asian population in San Francisco County is LEP, one of the highest rates in the state. > Santa Clara County has the second highest LEP rates in the region—40% of Asians and 23% of Asian children. > San Mateo County (22%) has the highest Pacific Islander LEP rate. > A majority of Asians in the city of Oakland are LEP, the highest rate of all cities in the region. > East Palo Alto has the highest Pacific Islander LEP rates in the region (34%).

Santa Clara County

40% 22% 38% 13% 29% 15% 29% 14% 28% 16% 17% 14% 23% 9% 23% 21% 38% Asian Child Asian Total Population 25%

Alameda County

San Mateo County

Contra Costa County

Sonoma County

Marin County

Napa County

Solano County

Bay Area Asians

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

San Francisco County has the second highest Asian linguistic isolation rate in the state with 35%. One out of four Asian households in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties is linguistically isolated.

20

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Table 8: Linguistically Isolated Asian Households
Top Ten Places in the Bay Area, 2000

Child Limited English Proficiency

Children age 17 years and younger who speak English less than “very well” are considered limited English proficient. > One in five Asian children is limited English proficient. > San Francisco County’s Asian child LEP rate (30%) is among the highest in the state. > Pacific Islander children have the highest LEP rates in Merced, San Mateo, and Fresno Counties (18% each). > The city of Oakland has the highest Asian child LEP rate in the region (41%). Pacific Islander children in East Palo Alto (29%) and San Bruno (30%) also face high LEP rates.
Linguistic Isolation

Bay Area Place Oakland city San Francisco city San Jose city Albany city San Leandro city Alameda city San Pablo city Milpitas city Cupertino city Richmond city

Number 8,823 29,041 19,741 458 1,498 1,605 375 2,214 1,770 1,036

Percent 42% 35% 29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 25% 25% 25%

Among places with an Asian inclusive population of 1,000 or more.

South Asians in the Silicon Valley South Asians have been at the heart of Silicon Valley’s high tech industry. Many have made their fortunes as scientists, engineers, managers, and executives working for industry giants such as Sun Microsystems,

Households in which all members 14 years old or older speak English less than “very well” are considered linguistically isolated. > Asians have the highest rates of household linguistic isolation in the region (25%), followed by Latinos (22%). > Pacific Islanders have the third highest rate of linguistic isolation (6%). > Vietnamese have the highest linguistic isolation rate among all API ethnic groups (44%). Chinese have the second highest rate with 34%. > San Francisco County has the second highest Asian linguistic isolation rate in the state with 35%. One out of four Asian households in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties is linguistically isolated. > The city of Oakland has the eighth highest level of Asian linguistic isolation (42%) across the state. > A quarter or more of the Asian households in Cupertino, Milpitas, and San Jose are linguistically isolated.

Hotmail, and Cirrus Logic. Co-founded by Vinod Khosla in 1982, Sun Microsystems had revenues of $11.2 billion in 2004 and employed approximately 35,000. While South Asians have been responsible for the creation of thousands of jobs in the Silicon Valley, increasing numbers work for low wages in the industry’s manufacturing sector.
Sources: Saxenian, AnnaLee. 1999. Silicon Valley’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. Sun Microsystems 2004 Annual Report. Jayadev, Raj. 2001. “South Asian Workers in Silicon Valley,” in Sarai Reader 2001: The Public Domain.

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

21

Bay Area Immigration & Citizenship
Figure 16: Foreign Born Rates, Child and Adult
Asians and Latinos in the Bay Area, 2000

Immigration

Asian 18% Child 0-17 16% Latino/Hispanic

79% Adult 18 and over 59%

0

16

32

48

64

80

> Asians have the highest foreign-born rates in the region, 64% compared to 45% of Latinos. Among adults 18 years and older, 79% are foreign-born. > Asian youth 17 years of age and younger also have the highest foreign-born rates, 18% compared to 16% of Latino children. > Pacific Islanders have the third highest rate of foreign-born (28%). Pacific Islander adults age 18 and older have above average foreign-born rates, 39% compared to 33% for the region. > Sixteen API groups have a majority foreign-born population. Three out of four Fijians, Vietnamese, and Asian Indians are foreign-born. > Santa Clara and San Francisco Counties have the highest Asian foreign-born rate among all counties in the state, (67% each). > A majority of Pacific Islander adults in San Mateo County are foreign-born. > Sunnyvale, Milpitas, and Santa Clara have the highest Asian foreign-born rates among all cities in the region, (72% each).
Citizenship

Bay Area Health
Bay Area Region

> Asians have the highest rates of naturalization among foreign-born in the region. More than half of foreign-born Asians have become naturalized U.S. citizens. > A majority of Korean, Cambodian, Samoan, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Filipino foreign-born are naturalized citizens.

Figure 17: Lack of Health Insurance Coverage
Asian Groups in the Bay Area, 2001

> Asians as a whole have health insurance rates equal to the regional average (11%), but when data is disaggregated for Asian ethnic groups, great disparities appear. While Filipinos, South Asians, and Japanese show below average rates of uninsurance, Koreans and Vietnamese have much higher than average rates of lacking health insurance coverage. > Non-citizen Asians also show much higher rates of lacking health insurance—16% compared to 11% for Asians overall. > A higher percentage of Asians (13%) do not have a “usual place to go to for medical care” than the average person in the Bay Area (11%). Of the major racial and ethnic groups, Koreans (23%) and Latinos (22%) have the highest proportion without a usual source of care. Chinese (14%), South Asians (13%), and Japanese (13%) also have higher than average proportions.
Source: California Health Interview Survey, 2001.

Korean

17%

Vietnamese

17%

Chinese

11%

Filipino

9%

South Asian

3%

Japanese

2%

Bay Area Total Population 0
22

9%

4

8

12

16

20

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Central Valley Region Introduction
Percent of Population that is Asian and Pacific Islander, 2000

The Central Valley is home to nearly half a million Asians and Pacific Islanders, representing 10% of the population. The fastest growing region in the state in the last decade, projections show that the Central Valley will continue to be the fastest growing region in future decades. The major contributors to this growth have been, and will continue to be, Latinos, Asians, African Americans, and Pacific Islanders. Estimates for 2003 show that the Central Valley has joined the state and other regions in reaching a “majority minority” population. This changing ethnic composition will require ongoing assessments of the needs of the population and re-allocation of resources. Increased diversity also brings a variety of benefits. Laotian immigrants have established hundreds of farms in the Central Valley, bringing a rich variety of Asian produce to California markets and restaurants.

Central Valley Nine County Region San Joaquin Sacramento Fresno Merced Stanislaus Tulare Kern Kings Madera Central Valley

Note: Ranked by percent Asian. All figures are for the inclusive population, single race and multirace combined, and are not exclusive of Latino/Hispanic, except for white, which is single race non-Hispanic only. A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R 23

t
Table 9: 2003 Census Population Estimates
Central Valley Region Major Racial and Ethnic Groups

Total 632,760 1,330,711 850,325 231,574 492,233 390,791 713,087 138,564 133,463 4,913,508

Asian 93,576 189,302 79,574 17,230 28,150 15,229 30,534 5,520 2,608 461,723 15% 14% 9% 7% 6% 4% 4% 4% 2% 9%

Pacific Latino/ White Islander Hispanic 6,019 1.0% 211,520 33% 275,425 44% 16,304 1.2% 235,730 18% 737,581 55% 3,147 0.4% 391,243 46% 326,415 38% 1,186 0.5% 114,526 49% 89,034 38% 4,660 0.9% 177,143 36% 265,197 54% 1,423 0.4% 210,369 54% 155,391 40% 2,664 0.4% 296,018 42% 335,211 47% 579 0.4% 62,912 45% 56,992 41% 593 0.4% 63,053 47% 60,572 45% 36,575 0.7% 1,762,514 36% 2,301,818 47%

African American 53,828 9% 159,563 12% 52,886 6% 10,833 5% 18,023 4% 8,685 2% 48,967 7% 12,658 9% 5,798 4% 371,241 8%

American Indian 14,898 2% 34,222 3% 22,761 3% 5,706 2% 12,454 3% 10,341 3% 18,912 3% 3,471 3% 5,411 4% 128,176 3%

Central Valley Race & Ethnicity
Asians Pacific Islanders

> From 1990 to 2000, the Central Valley’s Asian population grew from 7% to 9% of the population. Asians, together with Latinos and African Americans, have grown so rapidly in this region such that by 2003, nonHispanic whites no longer constituted a majority of the population. Seven out of nine counties in this region are now “majority minority.” > Although Asians were not the fastest growing group in the region, because many racial and ethnic groups experienced strong growth rates, the Asian growth rate is still close to that of Southern California. > Filipinos are the largest group, comprising a quarter of the Asian population, and are among the fastest growing groups in the area.

> Unique to the Central Valley is the large Hmong population. Eighty percent of the state’s Hmong population live in the Central Valley. From 1990 to 2000, Hmong increased their presence in the region, moving up from the third to second largest Asian group. > Asian Indians have a significant presence in the Central Valley. Statewide, Asian Indians are 9% of the Asian population and are the sixth largest group. In the Central Valley, they comprise 12% of Asians and are the fourth largest group. > Chinese, the largest API group across the state, are only 14% of the Asian population in the Central Valley.

> Pacific Islanders have a strong and steady presence in the Central Valley, growing from 0.2% to 0.65% of the population from 1990 to 2000, using inclusive figures. Estimates for 2003 show Pacific Islanders at 0.74% of the population. > Sacramento County had the fastest growing Pacific Islander population in the state from 1990 to 2000 (among counties with 2,000 or more Pacific Islanders). > Fijians make up 11% of the area’s Pacific Islander population, in contrast to the state, where Fijians constitute only 5% of the population.

Unique to the Central Valley is the large Hmong

Figure 18: Population Growth Rate, 1990 to 2000
Major Racial and Ethnic Groups in the Central Valley

population. Eighty percent of the state’s Hmong

Hispanic/Latino

49% 59%

population live in the Central
213%

Pacific Islander

48%

Valley. From 1990 to 2000, Hmong increased their

American Indian

42% 165%

Black

30% 47%

presence in the region, moving up from the third to
1990 to 2000 Alone 1990 to 2000 Inclusive

Asian

23% 47%

second largest Asian group.

White

-4% -0.5% 16

-10

42

68

94

120

146

172

198

224

250

Note: Ranked by 1990 to 2000 alone

24

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Central Valley Concentration
Counties with the Highest Concentration
Table 10: Asian Population Concentration in Central Valley
Ten Places in the Central Valley with the Highest Percentage of Asians, 2000

> San Joaquin County is 15% Asian, the highest percentage of Asians in the region and the seventh highest percentage in the state. > Sacramento County has the largest number of Asians in the region. Statewide, Sacramento County has the seventh largest Asian population and the eighth highest percentage in the state (14%). > The highest percentage and highest number of Pacific Islanders in the region are both found in Sacramento County.
Places with the Highest Concentrations

Asian Central Valley Places Number Laguna West-Lakeside CDP* 2,105 Stockton city 55,887 Florin CDP* 6,095 Laguna CDP* 7,300 Elk Grove CDP* 12,121 Parkway-South Sacramento CDP* 7,237 Sacramento city 77,008 Vineyard CDP* 1,892 Delano city 6,848 Gold River CDP* 1,325 Percent 25% 23% 22% 21% 20% 20% 19% 19% 18% 17%

> The city of Stockton has the highest percentage of Asians (23%) in the Central Valley (among cities with 5,000 or more Asians). > The city of Sacramento has the largest number of Asians and the second highest percentage (19%) in the region (among cities with 5,000 or more Asians). > The city of Sacramento has the fifth largest number of Pacific Islanders among cities across the state.
API Ethnic Group Concentration

Limited to Places with 1,000 or more Asians. Figures are for the inclusive population, single race and multirace combined. Source: 2000 Census *Census designated place

Table 11: Pacific Islander Population Concentration in Central Valley
Ten Places in the Central Valley with the Largest Number of Pacific Islanders, 2000

Pacific Islander

> Filipinos, the largest group in the region, are the largest Asian group in only four of the nine counties. > Hmong are more than a third of the Asian population in Fresno and Merced Counties. More than 50% of the Hmong in the region live in these two counties. > Asian Indians are the largest Asian group in two counties; Madera (30%) and Stanislaus (26%). > Laotians are the second largest group in Tulare County, where they are one fifth of the Asian population.

Bay Area Place Sacramento city Stockton city Modesto city Fresno city Elk Grove CDP* Arden-Arcade CDP* Bakersfield city Rancho Cordova CDP* Tracy city Citrus Heights city

Number 6,833 2,437 2,234 1,612 773 701 650 647 643 602

Percent 1.7% 1.0% 1.2% 0.4% 1.3% 0.7% 0.3% 1.2% 1.1% 0.7%

Figures are for the inclusive population, single race and multirace combined. Source: 2000 Census *Census designated place

Sacramento County has the largest number of Asians in the region. Statewide, Sacramento County has the seventh largest Asian population and the eighth highest percentage in the state (14%).

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

25

Central Valley Social Characteristics
Age Overcrowded Housing Homeownership

> All nine counties in the Central Valley have Asian median ages below the state median age for Asians (32.6). > Six counties in the region have Pacific Islander median ages below 25.9, the state Pacific Islander median. > Fresno County has the lowest Asian median age (22.6) in the state, among counties with 50,000 or more Asians. > San Joaquin County has the lowest Pacific Islander median age in the Central Valley (22.2). > Children make up a greater percentage of Asian and Pacific Islander communities than average—36% for both, compared to 31% for the region. Both groups have senior percentages below the area’s average of 10%, with Pacific Islanders among the lowest senior rates in the region (4%). > A majority (58%) of the Hmong population is under the age of 17, and fewer than 4% of Fijians, Samoans, Malaysians, and Hmong are 65 years or older.
Average Household Size

> Both Asians (26%) and Pacific Islanders (24%) have overcrowded housing rates well above the region’s average of 14%. > Twelve API groups have above average overcrowded housing rates, and five groups have rates above all major racial and ethnic groups. A majority of Cambodians and Laotians are living in overcrowded housing, and a majority of Hmong are living in severely overcrowded housing. > A majority of Asians in the city of Merced and Parkway-South Sacramento CDP live in overcrowded housing.

> Both Asians (55%) and Pacific Islanders (52%) have homeownership rates below the region’s average of 60%. > Sixteen API groups have homeownership rates below average, and four groups have rates below that of any of the major racial and ethnic groups. Fewer than a third of Samoans, Laotians, Cambodians, and Hmong live in homes that they own.

Figure 19: Overcrowded Housing Rates
Asians in the Central Valley, 2000

Merced County Tulare County Fresno County Stanislaus County San Joaquin County Kern County Sacramento County Kings County Madera County CV All Races 15% 13% 20% 19% 23% 30% 29% 35% 35%

44%

> Both Asians and Pacific Islanders have above average household sizes in all counties in the Central Valley. > Asians have larger household sizes than any of the major racial or ethnic groups in Merced (4.82), Fresno (4.11), and San Joaquin (3.84) Counties. > Hmong, Laotians, and Cambodians have the largest households among the major racial or ethnic groups in six counties. > Asian Indians have the highest average household sizes of any of the major racial and ethnic groups in four counties.

6%

0

9

18

27

36

45

Note: Overcrowded housing is defined as having more than one person per room. Severely overcrowded housing is defined as more than 1.5 people per room.

26

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Central Valley Education
Education High School Graduation College Completion

> A third of Asian adults age 25 years and older do not have a high school degree, the second highest rate in the region among the major racial and ethnic groups. But Asians also have the highest rates in the region for completing at least a bachelor’s degree. A quarter of Asians in the area have a college degree. > Pacific Islanders have higher than average rates of not completing high school (31%) and lower than average rates of completing college (11%).

> Eight API groups in the region have above average rates of not completing high school. A majority of Cambodians, Hmong, and Laotian adults do not have a high school degree, the highest rates among the major racial and ethnic groups in the region. > Asian Indians, the fourth largest group in the region, lack a high school degree at rates far above average—35% compared to 28% for the region. > A majority of Asian adults in Merced, Livingston, and Parkway-South Sacramento CDP lack a high school degree, the highest rates among cities with 1,000 or more Asians in the region. > A third or more of Pacific Islander adults in the cities of Merced, Sacramento, Modesto, and Fresno do not have a high school degree.

> Nine API groups have below average rates of completing at least a bachelor’s degree, and two groups have rates below any of the major racial or ethnic groups. Only 3% of Laotians and 4% of Cambodians in the region have a college degree. > All five Pacific Islander groups have below average rates of attaining a college degree: Fijians (7%), Samoans (7%), Tongans (8%), Guamanians (10%), and Native Hawaiians (16%).

A majority of Cambodians, Hmong, and Laotian adults do not have a high school

Figure 20: Less than High School Degree, Above Average Rates
Asian & Pacific Islander Groups in the Central Valley, 2000

degree, the highest rates
70%

Laotian

among the major racial and ethnic groups in the region.

Hmong

67%

Cambodian

66%

Pakistani

43%

Vietnamese

42%

Tongan

42%

Fijian

37%

Asian Indian

35%

Total CV Region

28%

0

16

32

48

64

80

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

27

Central Valley Income
Median Household Income Figure 21: Families with Three or More Workers
Pacific Islanders in the Central Valley, 2000

> In the Central Valley Asians have median household incomes below average in three counties and above average in six counties. > Pacific Islanders have median household incomes below average in four counties and above average in five counties.
Per Capita Income

Madera County Kern County Tulare County Sacramento County Stanislaus County San Joaquin County Fresno County Merced County

22% 16% 16% 15% 14% 14% 13% 12% 9% 12%

Per capita income is the income available per individual in a population, rather for an entire household. Because API households are larger on average, per capita income is a better measure of an ethnic group’s overall well-being. > Asians have per capita incomes below the county average in all counties except one in the Central Valley. > Pacific Islanders have per capita incomes below average in all counties in the region. > While Pacific Islanders in Madera County have a median household income higher than whites ($43,295), they have the lowest per capita income ($7,378) among the major racial groups. This is attributable to their large household sizes—4.03 for Pacific Islanders compared to 2.57 for whites. Another contributing factor is the higher rate of Pacific Islanders who have three or more workers in a family —19% compared to 9% for whites. > Several API groups have per capita incomes below those of all the major racial and ethnic groups. Hmong and Laotians have the lowest per capita incomes in six counties, Cambodians in five counties, and Samoans in three counties. > Filipinos have above average median household incomes in all counties in the region but below average per capita incomes in eight out of nine counties.

Kings County Central Valley All Races

0

5

10

15

20

25

Public Assistance Income

> Asians (14%) and Pacific Islanders (12%) have above average (7%) rates of receiving public assistance income in the Central Valley. > Nine API groups have above average rates of receiving public assistance, and six groups have rates higher than any of the major racial or ethnic groups in the region: Hmong (50%), Cambodians (47%), Laotians (46%), Vietnamese (27%), Samoans (19%), and Guamanians (16%).

A majority of Asian and Pacific Islander children in Merced city and Fresno city are living in poverty and a third or more of the Asian population in Stockton and Fresno live in poverty.

28

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Central Valley Poverty
Below the Federal Poverty Level

> Asians and Pacific Islanders have above average rates of poverty in the Central Valley. One out of four Asians and one out of five Pacific Islanders live below the federal poverty line. > A majority of Cambodians and Hmong, and one third or more of Samoans, Vietnamese, and Laotians live below the federal poverty line. > Asians have the highest poverty rates among the major racial and ethnic groups in Fresno and Merced Counties—37% in both counties. > Pacific Islanders have the second highest poverty rates among the major racial and ethnic groups in three counties: Stanislaus, Madera, and Kings. > A majority of Asians in the city of Merced live in poverty, and a third or more in Stockton, Fresno, and Parkway-South Sacramento CDP live in poverty.
Child Poverty

> Pacific Islander children have the highest poverty rates among the major racial and ethnic groups in Kings County (39%) and the second highest rate in Stanislaus County (30%). > A majority of Asian and Pacific Islander children in Merced city and Fresno city are living in poverty.
200% of Poverty

Because the federal poverty level is not adjusted for local costs of living, a multiple of the poverty line is often used to better identify low-income populations. Using 200% of poverty doubles the poverty level to $34,058 for a family of four.

> In the Central Valley, Asians and Pacific Islanders have above average rates of persons living below 200% of the federal poverty line. > A majority of Asians in Fresno, Merced, and Tulare Counties, and a majority of Pacific Islanders in Fresno, Merced, and Madera Counties, are living below 200% of poverty. > Eighty percent or more of Hmong, Cambodians, and Laotians, 64% of Pakistanis, and a majority of Vietnamese and Samoans live below 200% of poverty.

Figure 22: Poverty Rates, Groups Above Average
Asian & Pacific Islander Groups in the Central Valley, 2000

Cambodian

55% 66%

> Asians have the highest child poverty rates in the Central Valley region (35%) among the major racial and ethnic groups. The Pacific Islander child poverty rate (24%) is slightly below the average for the region (26%), but still much higher than that of whites (13%). > The majority of Cambodian, Hmong, and Laotian children in the Central Valley are living in poverty. More than a third of Thai, Pakistani, Samoan, and Vietnamese children live in poverty. These rates are all above those of any of the major racial or ethnic groups. > Asian children have the highest poverty rates among the major racial and ethnic groups in four counties: Fresno (49%), Merced (45%), San Joaquin (36%), and Stanislaus (31%). They have the second highest rates in Sacramento County (28%).

Hmong

55% 61% 44% 50% 34% 46%

Laotian

Vietnamese

Samoan

34% 42% 31% 42% 25% 40% 19% 26% In Poverty Child Poverty

Pakistani

Thai

Central Valley

0

7

14

21

28

35

42

49

56

63

70
29

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Central Valley Language
Figure 23: Limited English Proficiency
Asians in the Central Valley, 2000

Fresno County

41% 46% 40% 45% 32% 42% 25% 41% 29% 38% 25% 37% 17% 35% 7% 25% 8% 23% 31% 39% Child 0-17 Total

Merced County

A majority of Hmong, Cambodians, Vietnamese, and Laotians are limited English proficient. One third or more of Pakistanis, Chinese, Asian Indians, Koreans, and Fijians are limited English proficient

San Joaquin County

Tulare County

Sacramento County

Stanislaus County

Kern County

Kings County

Madera County

Central Valley Asians

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Limited English Proficiency (LEP)

Persons who speak English less than “very well” are considered limited English proficient. > Asians have the highest rates of limited English proficiency in the Central Valley— 40% compared to 37% for Latinos. > Pacific Islanders have the third highest LEP rate in the region (18%). > A majority of Hmong, Cambodians, Vietnamese, and Laotians are limited English proficient. A third or more of Pakistanis, Chinese, Asian Indians, Koreans, and Fijians are LEP. > More than one in five Filipinos, the largest group in the region, are limited English proficient.

> Fresno (46%), Merced (45%), and San Joaquin (42%) Counties have the highest Asian LEP rates in the region. > Pacific Islanders have the highest LEP rates in Merced and Stanislaus Counties, where one in four Pacific Islanders are LEP. > Sacramento County has the largest number of LEP Asians (56,000) and LEP Pacific Islanders (2,000) in the region. > A majority of Asians in Parkway-South Sacramento CDP, Merced city, Livingston city, and Fresno city, and a near majority in Delano and Stockton, are limited English proficient.

30

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Table 12: Linguistically Isolated Asian Inclusive Households
Top Ten Places in Central Valley, 2000

Child Limited English Proficiency (LEP)

Children age 17 years and younger who speak English less than “very well” are considered limited English proficient. > Asians have the highest rates of child LEP in the region, 10% compared to 8% for Latinos. > Pacific Islander children have the third highest rates of LEP (3%). > A majority of Hmong children are limited English proficient, and a third or more of Vietnamese, Pakistani, Laotian, and Cambodian children are LEP. > Fijian (27%) and Samoan (11%) children have the highest LEP rates among Pacific Islander groups. > Asian Indian (25%) and Chinese (22%) children also have high rates of limited English proficiency. > Fresno (41%) and Merced (40%) Counties have the highest rates of child LEP among Asians, followed by San Joaquin (32%) and Sacramento (29%) Counties. > Pacific Islander children have the highest LEP rates in Madera (27%), Fresno (18%), and Merced (18%) Counties. > Nearly 12,000 LEP Asian and Pacific Islander children are found in Sacramento County and there are nearly 10,000 in Fresno County. > A majority of Asian children in Parkway-South Sacramento CDP, Merced city, and West Sacramento city are LEP.
Linguistic Isolation

Central Valley Places Sacramento city Stockton city Fresno city Bakersfield city Parkway-S Sacramento CDP Modesto city Delano city Elk Grove CDP Florin CDP Arden-Arcade CDP

Number 5,823 4,088 3,306 749 731 683 539 493 470 465

Percent 27% 29% 27% 21% 45% 19% 36% 17% 29% 20%

Hmong Refugee Resettlement In late 2003, the federal government approved the resettlement of approximately 16,000 Hmong refugees to new lives in the United States, likely the last Hmong to be admitted to this country as refugees. Many were soldiers or the families of soldiers recruited by the United States to serve during the Vietnam War and were abandoned after U.S. withdrawal from Southeast Asia in 1975. After living for decades in Thai refugee camps, roughly one-third of this final wave will settle in California, with more than 4,000 destined

Households in which all members 14 years old or older speak English less than “very well” are considered linguistically isolated. > Asian households have the highest level of linguistic isolation in the region—24% compared to 22% of Latino households. > Pacific Islanders have the third highest level of household linguistic isolation (9%). > A third or more of Vietnamese, Hmong, and Cambodian households are linguistically isolated. > Korean (28%), Chinese (30%), and Laotian (31%) households have linguistic isolation rates higher than any of the major racial or ethnic groups. > San Joaquin County has the highest Asian linguistic isolation rate in the region (27%). > Nearly one out of every four Asian households in Sacramento and Merced Counties is linguistically isolated.

for either Fresno or Sacramento. Government agencies and service providers will work to help them establish new lives in the United States by providing both immediate and longterm assistance, including employment, social, and other services.
Source: California Department of Social Services, Refugee Programs Bureau.

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

31

Central Valley Immigration & Citizenship
Figure 24: Foreign Born Rates, Child and Adult
Asians and Latinos in the Central Valley, 2000

Immigration

Asian 19% Child 0-17 13% Latino/Hispanic

71% Adult 18 and over 49%

0

15

30

45

60

75

> Asians have the highest foreign-born rates in the region. A majority of Asians are foreign-born (52%), compared to 35% of Latinos. > Pacific Islanders have the third highest foreign-born rates in the region (33%). > Among Asian adults age 18 years and older, 71% are foreignborn. > Asian youth 17 years of age and younger also have the highest foreign-born rate, 19% compared to 13% of Latino children. > Pacific Islander children have the same foreign-born rate as Latino children (13%). > Twelve API groups have a majority foreign-born population. Fijians have the highest rate among all API groups (81%), and Asian Indians have the second highest rate (68%). > The majority of Pacific Islander adults are foreign-born in Sacramento and Stanislaus Counties.
Citizenship

> Nearly half of the Asian foreign-born population have become naturalized citizens, compared to 24% of Latino foreign-born. > Thirty-eight percent of Pacific Islander foreign-born are naturalized citizens.

Central Valley Health
Figure 25: Lack of Health Insurance Coverage

> Asians as a whole have rates of health insurance coverage higher than the average for the region. Nine percent of Asians lack health insurance, compared to 15% of residents in the region. But when data is disaggregated for Asian ethnic groups, great disparities appear. Koreans have the highest rates of uninsurance (20%), followed by Filipinos (14%), and Vietnamese (12%). > While Asians as a whole in the Central Valley have average (13%) rates of lacking “a usual place to go for medical care,” two Asian groups have rates far above average. Koreans (23%) and South Asians (17%) have among the highest proportions among the racial and ethnic groups without a usual source of medical care.

Asian Groups in the Central Valley, 2001

Korean

20%

Filipino

14%

Vietnamese

12%

South Asian

9%

Cambodian

6%

Asian Total

10%

Source: California Health Interview Survey, 2001.

0

4

8

12

16

20

32

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Southern California Region Introduction
Percent of Population that is Asian and Pacific Islander, 2000

Southern California is experiencing an Asian renaissance. In the suburban San Gabriel Valley, white and Latino residents are no longer trying to put “English only” measures on the ballot but rather are now working together with the majority Asian population so that all may benefit from the growth of the region. Urban Koreatown is experiencing a revival as new shopping malls, businesses, and hip bars lure an influx of new residents. Orange County recently elected the first Vietnamese American to the California State Assembly. Pacific Islanders were the fastest growing racial group in the Inland Empire counties of San Bernardino and Riverside from 2000 to 2003. As Asians and Pacific Islanders in the Southland enjoy a growing prominence, data in this report show that there are many areas, such as housing, education, and language services, where APIs need continued attention.

Southern California Total Asian Pacific Latino/ Seven County Region Islander Hispanic Orange 2,957,766 476,861 16% 18,139 0.6% 948,420 32% Los Angeles 9,871,506 1,334,931 14% 53,913 0.5% 4,573,051 46% San Diego 2,930,886 321,384 11% 27,329 0.9% 840,875 29% Ventura 791,130 54,436 7% 4,111 0.5% 279,324 35% San Bernardino 1,859,678 110,972 6% 12,309 0.7% 792,612 43% Riverside 1,782,650 89,740 5% 11,119 0.6% 696,125 39% Imperial 149,232 3,519 2% 426 0.3% 111,501 75% So. Cal Region 20,342,848 2,391,843 12% 127,346 0.6% 8,241,908 41%

Note: Ranked by percent Asian. All figures are for the inclusive population, single race and multirace combined, and are not exclusive of Latino/Hispanic, except for white, which is single race non-Hispanic only.

t
Table 13: 2003 Census Population Estimates
Southern California Region Major Racial and Ethnic Groups

White 1,464,439 50% 2,993,408 30% 1,569,930 54% 435,356 55% 762,295 41% 864,412 48% 27,997 19% 8,117,837 40%

African American American Indian 66,052 2% 41,613 1% 1,039,131 11% 154,871 2% 198,566 7% 49,779 2% 20,642 3% 14,840 2% 197,053 11% 42,663 2% 131,055 7% 38,119 2% 6,583 4% 3,486 2% 1,659,082 8% 345,371 2%

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

33

Southern California Race & Ethnicity
Asians Pacific Islanders

> Asians have increased from 9% of the population in 1990 to 11% in 2000. Estimates for 2003 show 2.4 million Asians in Southern California, comprising 12% of the population. > From 1990 to 2000, Asians were the fastest growing major racial or ethnic group. Asians continued this strong growth from 2000 to 2003 with a 9% growth rate, compared to 5% for the population overall. > Filipinos are the largest Asian group in Southern California, followed closely by Chinese. These two groups make up more than half of the Asian population in the region. > Vietnamese showed great growth in the 1990s and by 2000, had risen from the fourth to third largest Asian group in the region. Koreans also continued steady growth and are the fourth largest group.

> Southern California is home to 57% of the state’s total population and 52% of the Asian population. But several Asian ethnic groups have greater proportions in the region, and a few are underrepresented. Three-quarters or more of California’s Koreans, Taiwanese, Sri Lankans, and Bangladeshis are in Southern California, while only 37% of Asian Indians, 27% of Laotians, and 6% of Hmong live in the area.

> Pacific Islanders have grown from 0.4% of the population in 1990 to 0.6% in 2000, using inclusive figures. Census Bureau estimates for 2003 show 127,346 Pacific Islanders in the region. > From 2000 to 2003, Pacific Islanders were the fastest growing major racial or ethnic group, growing by 14%, compared to 5% for the population overall. > Half of the Pacific Islander population in the state lives in the region. However, some Pacific Islander groups are more represented than others in Southern California. Sixty-four percent of Samoans are found in Southern California, but only 33% of Tongans and 12% of Fijians live in the area.

From 1990 to 2000,
Figure 26: Population Growth Rate, 1990 to 2000
Major Racial and Ethnic Groups in Southern California

Asians were the
182%

American Indian

55%

fastest growing major racial or ethnic group.

Asian

32% 48%

Latino/Hispanic

31% 39%

Asians continued this strong growth from 2000 to 2003 with a 9% growth rate, compared to 5% for
84% 1990 to 2000 Alone 1990 to 2000 Inclusive

African American

1% 11%

Pacific Islander

-.1%

White

-10 -6%

the population overall.
190

-10

10

30

50

70

90

110

130

150

170

Note: Ranked by 1990 to 2000 alone

34

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Southern California Concentration
Counties with the Highest Concentration

> Los Angeles County has the largest number of Asians among all counties nationwide. Los Angeles County is home to 1.3 million of the 2.2 million Asians in the region. > Orange County has the highest percentage of Asians (16%) in the region and the fifth highest percentage across the state. > Los Angeles County has the largest population of Pacific Islanders in the region (54,000), and San Diego County has the highest percentage (0.9%). > The inland counties of Riverside and San Bernardino continue to show strong Asian population growth. From 2000 to 2003, Asians grew by 26% in Riverside County compared to 15% growth for the population overall, and by 14% in San Bernardino County compared to 9% overall growth.
Places with the Highest Concentrations

Table 14: Asian Population Concentration in Southern California
16 Places in Southern California with the Highest Percentage of Asians, 2000

Asian So. California Places Monterey Park city Cerritos city Walnut city Rowland Heights CDP* San Gabriel city San Marino city Rosemead city Alhambra city Arcadia city La Palma city South San Gabriel CDP* Diamond Bar city East San Gabriel CDP* Temple City city Westminster city Hacienda Heights CDP*
*Census designated place

> There are seven cities with a majority Asian population in Southern California, and all are located in Los Angeles County. An additional nine cities in the region have a population that is one third or more Asian, including two cities in Orange County. > The city of Carson has the highest percentage of Pacific Islanders in the region (4%). Other concentrations of Pacific Islanders appear around U.S. military bases and surrounding cities such as Oceanside, Long Beach, and Twentynine Palms.
API Ethnic Group Concentration

Number 38,205 31,263 17,310 25,400 20,083 6,515 26,772 41,870 25,026 7,204 3,423 25,217 6,176 13,457 34,860 20,012

Percent 64% 61% 58% 52% 50% 50% 50% 49% 47% 47% 45% 45% 43% 40% 40% 38%

Table 15: Pacific Islander Population Concentration in Southern California
18 Places in Southern California with the Largest Number of Pacific Islanders, 2000

Pacific Islanders

> Chinese are the largest group in Los Angeles County. While Filipinos are proportionally distributed across the seven counties in the region, 72% of Chinese are in Los Angeles County. > Vietnamese are highly concentrated in Orange County, where they are the largest Asian group. While 15% of Southern California’s population lives in Orange County, 49% of the region’s Vietnamese are found here. > The largest number of Laotians are found in San Diego County, where 46% of the region’s Laotians reside. > Native Hawaiians are the largest Pacific Islander group in all counties, except for Los Angeles and San Diego. > Samoans are the largest Pacific Islander group in Los Angeles County and Guamanians, the third largest Pacific Islander group in the region, are the largest group in San Diego County.

So. California Places Los Angeles city San Diego city Long Beach city Carson city Oceanside city Anaheim city Santa Ana city Chula Vista city Riverside city Garden Grove city Moreno Valley city Oxnard city Compton city Torrance city Huntington Beach city San Bernardino city Vista city Hawthorne city
*Census designated place

Number 13,144 10,613 7,863 3,401 3,057 2,356 1,812 1,807 1,775 1,618 1,298 1,228 1,167 1,106 1,096 1,077 1,018 1,012

Percent 0.4% 0.9% 1.7% 3.8% 1.9% 0.7% 0.5% 1.0% 0.7% 1.0% 0.9% 0.7% 1.2% 0.8% 0.6% 0.6% 1.1% 1.2%

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

35

Southern California Social Characteristics
Age Overcrowded Housing

> Seven counties have an Asian median age above 30 years. Los Angeles County has the fourth highest Asian median age of all counties in the state (34.7). > Pacific Islanders in all counties in Southern California have a median age below 30, but the majority of counties are close to the state Pacific Islander median of 25.9. > The city of Gardena has an Asian median age of 41.8, the highest in the state among places with an Asian population of 10,000 or more. Monterey Park has an Asian median age of 39.8, the highest among the 20 cities with the largest Asian populations. > A majority of API groups in Southern California have child percentages below average, but four groups have child percentages higher than any other racial group in the region, including Samoans (40%), the largest Pacific Islander group in the region.
Average Household Size

> Both Asians (25%) and Pacific Islanders (28%) have overcrowded housing rates above the 18% average for the region. > Eighteen API groups have above average overcrowded housing rates and six groups have rates higher than any of the major racial or ethnic groups. A majority of Bangladeshis, Laotians, and Cambodians live in overcrowded housing, and a majority of Hmong are in severely overcrowded housing. > More than a quarter of Asians and Pacific Islanders in Orange and Los Angeles Counties live in overcrowded housing.

> Nearly a majority of Asians in Rosemead and Garden Grove are living in overcrowded housing, while a majority of Pacific Islanders in Long Beach and Compton live in overcrowded housing.
Homeownership

> Both Asians (53%) and Pacific Islanders (44%) have homeownership rates below the region’s average of 55%. > Seventeen API groups have homeownership rates below average, and five groups have rates below that of any other major racial or ethnic group. A third or more of Bangladeshis, Hmong, Cambodians, and Tongans live in homes that they do not own.

Figure 27: Overcrowded Housing Rates
Asians in Southern California, 2000

Los Angeles County 20% 28% 15% 26% 13% 22% 12% 20% 8% 20% 9% 18% 6% 11% Overcrowded

32%

> Pacific Islanders have average household sizes above average in all counties in Southern California, and Asians have above average sizes in six of the seven counties. > Pacific Islanders have the second highest average household sizes in all seven counties in Southern California, after Latinos. > Samoans, Hmong, Cambodians, and Laotians have larger household sizes than any of the major racial or ethnic groups in five counties in the region.

Orange County

San Bernardino County

San Diego County

Riverside County

Ventura County

So Cal All Races

Severely Overcrowded

0

7

14

21

28

35

Note: Overcrowded is housing defined as having more than one person per room. Severely overcrowded housing is defined as more than 1.5 people per room.

36

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Southern California Education
Education

> A higher percentage of Asians lack a high school degree (18%) than whites (10%), but a higher percentage also have a college degree—41% compared to 34% of whites. > One in five Pacific Islander adults age 25 years and older lacks a high school degree, and only 17% have attained a college degree.
High School Graduation

Figure 28: Less than High School Degree, Groups Above Average
Asian & Pacific Islander Groups in Southern California, 2000

Cambodian

54%

Hmong

50%

Laotian

45%

> A majority of API groups lack a high school degree at rates higher than whites, and six groups have rates higher than the regional average of 26%. A majority of Cambodians and Hmong lack a high school degree, and a third or more of Laotians, Tongans, and Vietnamese have not completed high school. Fijians (30%) also have rates above average. > More than one in five Chinese adults, the largest group in the region, have not completed high school. > In Los Angeles County, nearly one in four Pacific Islander adults lacks a high school degree, the highest rate in the region. Imperial County (21%) and Orange County (19%) have the highest rates of Asians lacking a high school degree.
College Completion

Tongan

37%

Vietnamese

36%

Fijian

30%

So Cal All Races

26%

0

12

24

36

48

60

API Youth Perspective “When I was a child, honestly, I felt ashamed that I was an immigrant because I didn’t know I wasn’t the only one, and the fact that I wasn’t born here made me feel different. I learned almost everyone in my community is the first generation or their parents or grandparents were. Being an immigrant shouldn’t be embarrassing, it just means you were from another country and you just migrated to another piece of land to start anew. I’m proud of my descent and the values I brought with me when I came here because now I’m experiencing a new lifestyle as well as incorporating old values and traditions in it.”
Submitted by Dan Ying Wu, 15 years old. Photograph by Natalie Lee, 16 years old. Members of Southeast Asian Community Alliance.

> Nine API groups have lower than average rates of attaining at least a bachelor’s degree. Only 8% of Tongans and 9% of Laotians have completed a college degree. > All five Pacific Islander groups have lower than average rates of college completion. Only 10% of Samoans, the region’s largest Pacific Islander group, have a college degree.

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

37

Southern California Income
Median Household Income Figure 29: Families with Three or More Workers
Asians in Southern California, 2000

> Asians have the highest median household incomes among the major racial and ethnic groups in four counties in Southern California: Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. > Pacific Islanders have below average median household incomes in two counties in the region: Orange and San Diego. > In San Bernardino County, where Pacific Islanders have the second highest median household income, two Pacific Islander groups, Tongans and Samoans, have median household incomes lower than any of the major racial or ethnic groups. > In Riverside County, where Asians have the highest median household income, eight API groups have below average incomes, and three groups have the lowest incomes of the major racial or ethnic groups: Indonesians, Thai, and Hmong. > Koreans have below average median household incomes in five counties and Vietnamese in four counties in Southern California.
Per Capita Income

Orange County

20%

San Diego County

19%

Ventura County

18%

Los Angeles County

17%

Riverside County

16%

San Bernardino County

15%

Imperial County

8%

Southern California

14%

0

4

8

12

16

20

Public Assistance Income

Per capita income is the income available per individual in a population, rather for an entire household. Because API households are larger on average, per capita income is a better measure of an ethnic group’s overall well-being. > Asians have per capita incomes below average in five counties in the region. > Pacific Islanders have below average per capita incomes in six counties in the region. In Los Angeles and San Diego Counties, Pacific Islander per capita incomes are half those of whites. > A majority of API ethnic groups have below average per capita incomes in six counties in the region.

> Samoans and Tongans have per capita incomes below any of the major racial or ethnic groups in five counties. > While Filipinos have above average median household incomes in all counties in the region, they have below average per capita incomes in five counties. This shows the impact of larger average household sizes on income. Filipino households averages 3.62 members in San Diego County, compared to 2.36 for whites. > In addition to larger households, more Asians and Pacific Islanders have three or more workers per family, 18% and 19% respectively, compared to 10% for whites. Three out of four Filipino and Vietnamese families have three or more workers.

> Asians have average (5%) and Pacific Islanders have above average (7%) rates of receiving public assistance income. > Seven API groups have above average rates of public assistance, and five groups have rates higher than any of the major racial or ethnic groups. Cambodians, Hmong, Laotians, Vietnamese, and Tongans have the highest rates of receiving public assistance. > Vietnamese comprise 13% of the Asian population, but account for a third of Asians receiving public assistance. > Three Pacific Islander groups have above average rates of public assistance incomes: Tongans, Samoans, and Guamanians.

38

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Southern California Poverty
Below the Federal Poverty Level 200% of Poverty

> The poverty rates for Asians (13%) and Pacific Islanders (15%) are both higher than that of whites (8%) in Southern California. > Pacific Islanders have above average poverty rates in Los Angeles (19%), San Bernardino (18%) and Ventura (11%) Counties. > The highest Asian poverty rates are in Imperial, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, all at 14%. > Ten API groups have poverty rates higher than average in the region, and three groups have poverty rates higher than any of the major racial or ethnic groups: Cambodians (36%), Hmong (28%), and Tongans (27%).
Child Poverty

Because the federal poverty level is not adjusted for local costs of living, a multiple of the poverty line is often used to better identify low-income populations. Using 200% of poverty doubles the poverty level to $34,058 for a family of four. > Twenty-nine percent of Asians and 36% of Pacific Islanders live below 200% poverty, compared to 19% of whites. > Pacific Islanders have 200% of poverty rates higher than average in three counties in the region: Los Angeles (41%), San Bernardino (41%), and San Diego (34%).

> Seven API groups have 200% of poverty rates above average for the region, including three groups with rates higher than any of the major racial or ethnic groups. A majority of Cambodians, Hmong, and Tongans are living below 200% of poverty. > Half of the Asian population in the city of Rosemead is living below 200% of the federal poverty line. > More than half of the Pacific Islander population in the cities of Inglewood, Compton, Long Beach, and Pomona are living below 200% of poverty.

Figure 30: Poverty Rates, Groups Above Average
Asian & Pacific Islander Groups in Southern California, 2000

> Asians (14%) and Pacific Islanders (18%) both have child poverty rates higher than that of whites (8%) in the region. > One out of four Pacific Islander children in San Bernardino County is living in poverty. Pacific Islander children have above average poverty rates in Ventura County—14% compared to 12% for the county. > San Bernardino County has the highest Asian child poverty rate (16%) in the region. > Seven API groups have child poverty rates above the regional average and three groups have rates higher than any of the major racial or ethnic groups: Cambodians (45%), Hmong (34%), and Tongans (30%). > One out of four Bangladeshi, Samoan, and Vietnamese children live in poverty. > Long Beach (33%), Rosemead (32%), and Pomona (30%) have the highest Asian child poverty rates among cities in the region with 10,000 or more Asians. > The majority of Pacific Islander children in the cities of Ontario and Compton are living in poverty.

Cambodian 28%

36% 45%

Hmong

34% 27% 30% 22% 28% 20% 24% 19% 24% 18% 23% 17% 18% 16% 18% 16% 14% In Poverty 15% 21% Child Poverty

Tongan

Bangladeshi

Samoan

Laotian

Vietnamese

Pakistani

Thai

Indonesian

Southern California

0

10

20

30

40

50

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

39

Southern California Language
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Figure 31: Limited English Proficiency
Asians in Southern California, 2000

Persons who speak English less than “very well” are considered limited English proficient.
Orange County

26% 45% 24% 43%

> Forty percent of Asians and 15% of Pacific Islanders in Southern California are limited English proficient. > One quarter or more of the populations of 13 API groups have limited English proficiency. > Nine Asian groups have majority LEP populations, including three of the six largest groups in the region: Chinese, Vietnamese, and Koreans. > The highest Asian LEP rates are found in Orange County, where 45% of the Asian population is LEP. > Los Angeles County has the highest Pacific Islander LEP rate (18%). > Twelve communities in Southern California with Asian populations of 10,000 or more are majority LEP, including Garden Grove, Alhambra, Monterey Park, Westminster, and Santa Ana.
Child Limited English Proficiency

Los Angeles County

Imperial County

26% 39%

San Bernardino County

16% 33% 16% 32% 9% 28% 11% 26% 22% 40% Child 0-17 yrs Total

San Diego County

Ventura County

Riverside County

Southern California

Children age 17 years and younger who speak English less than “very well” are considered limited English proficient. > Twenty-two percent of Asian and 9% of Pacific Islander children are limited English proficient. > Asian children in Orange County have the highest LEP rates (26%). > The highest Pacific Islander child LEP rates are found in Los Angeles County, where 12% are LEP. > Forty percent or more of the Asian children in the cities of El Monte, Rosemead, Garden Grove, and San Gabriel are LEP.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Twelve communities in Southern California with Asian populations of 10,000 or more are majority limited English proficient, including Garden Grove, Alhambra, Monterey Park, Westminster, and Santa Ana.

40

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Table 16: Linguistically Isolated Asian Inclusive Households
Top Ten Places in Southern California, 2000

Linguistic Isolation

Households in which all members 14 years old or older speak English less than “very well” are considered linguistically isolated. > Asian households have the highest linguistic isolation rates in the region, 28% compared to 27% for Latinos. > Although Pacific Islander households have below average rates of linguistic isolation (7%), Tongans have above average rates (15%). > More than one in three Chinese and Thai households are linguistically isolated. > Forty percent or more of Korean, Taiwanese, and Vietnamese households are linguistically isolated. > The majority of Asian households in the city of El Monte, and nearly a majority in Rosemead, San Gabriel, and Garden Grove are linguistically isolated.

So. California Places El Monte city Rosemead city San Gabriel city Garden Grove city Alhambra city Westminster city Monterey Park city East San Gabriel CDP Santa Ana city Temple City city

Number 2,757 3,104 2,705 6,151 6,117 3,781 5,239 826 3,183 1,526

Percent 50% 49% 48% 48% 46% 44% 44% 42% 40% 40%

San Gabriel Valley Los Angeles County’s San Gabriel Valley is home to one of the largest concentrations of Asians in the United States. Located east of the city of Los Angeles, the area first became popular with Asian immigrants in the 1970s because of its proximity to downtown Los Angeles and lower property costs. It soon became a focal point for Asian immigration to Southern California and continues to grow dramatically as large numbers of Chinese and Vietnamese immigrants set up residence in cities like Alhambra, Monterey Park, Rosemead, and San Gabriel.
Source: Saito, Leland. 1998. Race and Politics: Asian Americans, Latinos, and Whites in a Los Angeles Suburb. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

41

Southern California Immigration & Citizenship
Figure 32: Foreign Born Rates, Child and Adult
Asians and Latinos in the Southern California, 2000

Immigration

Asian 18% Child 0-17 14% Latino/Hispanic

80% Adult 18 and over 65%

0

16

32

48

64

80

> A majority of Asians (64%) are foreign-born, a rate much higher than that of Latinos (46%). > Pacific Islanders have the third highest foreign-born rate (22%). > Among the adult population age 18 years and older, 80% of Asians and 31% of Pacific Islanders are foreign-born. > Among children, Asians also have the highest foreign-born rates, 18% compared to 14% for Latinos. > A majority of the populations of 16 API groups are foreignborn, including four of the six largest groups: Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, and Asian Indian. > Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans, and Taiwanese have the highest foreign-born rates, all 80% or higher. > Three-quarters or more of the Asian population in the cities of Alhambra, Garden Grove, Arcadia, and El Monte are foreign-born. > Lynwood (54%), Costa Mesa (41%), and Glendale (40%) have the highest Pacific Islander foreign-born rates among all cities in Southern California.
Citizenship

Southern California Health
> Pacific Islanders (21%) lack health insurance at rates above the average (18%) for the region. > Asians as a whole lack health insurance coverage at rates just below average (17%), but data disaggregated for Asian ethnic groups show some groups with much higher uninsurance rates. Forty percent of Koreans and 20% of Cambodians do not have health insurance coverage. > Health insurance coverage also varies by citizenship, an important factor given the large percentage of Asians who are foreign-born. Ten percent of U.S.-born Asians lack health insurance, compared to 31% of non-citizens and 15% of naturalized citizens. > Children’s rates of health insurance coverage are also affected by citizenship status. Twenty-six percent of non-citizen Asian children do not have health insurance coverage, while 5% of U.S.-born Asian children lack health insurance.
Source: California Health Interview Survey, 2001. 42

> More than half of Asian foreign-born are naturalized citizens (56%), a rate more than twice as high as that of Latino foreign-born (27%). > Nearly half (49%) of Pacific Islander foreign-born are naturalized citizens.

Figure 33: Lack of Health Insurance
Asian in Southern California, 2001

Total Age 0-64 U.S. born citizen 10% Child Age 0-17 5%

Non-citizen

31%

26%

0

7

14

21

28

35

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Policy Recommendations
Respond to changing needs as Asian and Pacific Islander populations grow in size and density.

education in order to help new immigrants and refugees adapt to the job market and social fabric of California.
Address the many social and economic development needs of Asians and Pacific Islanders.

Along with the Latino population, Asians and Pacific Islanders are growing rapidly across the state. In the Bay Area, Asians have surpassed Latinos to become the second largest racial or ethnic group. In 2000, there were nine communities across the state that were majority Asians; by 2010 that number is sure to increase. With this change in demographics comes the challenge of meeting changing service needs for populations of different ethnic backgrounds, speaking different languages. The need for services such as immigration and naturalization assistance increases with larger foreign-born populations. These populations should also be informed of the health and social services available and their rights as new members of our communities.
Assist those with language barriers in accessing services.

In contrast to the “model minority” image, Asians and Pacific Islanders face many challenges in overcoming barriers to social and economic advancement. For example, many APIs have housing challenges and need assistance in transitioning off of public assistance. Separately, many different API ethnic groups experience significant problems such as high poverty rates and lack of health insurance. A few examples are listed below, but as this report shows, each socioeconomic indicator needs to be assessed and addressed separately by API ethnic group. With high rates of overcrowded housing and lower than average homeownership rates, housing is an important issue in API communities. Information about how to explore housing beyond traditional options can be made available to APIs, offering them a greater pool of housing from which to choose. Increased education about the advantages of homeownership and securing a home loan can help APIs take steps towards purchasing a family home. Pacific Islanders have college graduation rates far below average, 17% compared to 27% of the state’s population overall. Tongans, Fijians, and Samoans all have rates at 10% or lower. A college degree is critical to improving employment and income outcomes. Workers with at least a bachelor's degree earned 95% more than high school graduates in California in 1996. Pacific Islander youths need targeted assistance and support so that they can follow a path to higher education and in turn attain greater opportunities for economic self-sufficiency.1

Southeast Asian refugees and some Pacific Islander groups have high rates of receiving public assistance income. Hmong, Cambodians, Laotians, and Vietnamese all have rates higher than any other major racial or ethnic group. Samoans, Tongans, and Guamanians all have rates above the state average. Job training, child care, transportation, and language needs all have to be addressed to enable these populations to become economically self-sufficient, in jobs with living wages and opportunities for advancement. Asian and Pacific Islander groups lack health insurance at above average rates. Pacific Islanders overall have higher than average rates of uninsurance and Koreans have one of the highest rates of uninsurance among all major racial and ethnic groups. Non-citizen Asians also suffer high uninsurance rates. Efforts need to be made to increase health insurance coverage among these populations.
Disaggregate data to reveal the needs of the diversity of Asian and Pacific Islander ethnic groups.

To those who do not experience language barriers, the many ways that a limited English proficient person may experience difficulties navigating everyday activities is unfathomable. Every aspect of daily life can be daunting, from applying for a driver’s license to responding to a notice from your child’s school to receiving a medical examination. Without sufficient aid, populations with difficulty communicating in English are left vulnerable to mistakes, misunderstandings, fraud, and even exploitation. Assessment of languages spoken in communities throughout California needs to be continually conducted and relevant translated materials or bilingual staff made available in order to ensure that health and human services are provided to all populations, regardless of English language proficiency. In addition, sufficient resources should be made available for English language instructions and civic

As illustrated in this report, Asians and Pacific Islanders are not a homogenous group, rather they encompass a great variety of social and economic conditions. Looking at data for API ethnic groups separate from APIs overall is essential to identifying the needs within each community. Yet few federal, state, and local agencies collect or report such data. Those responsible for collecting data must recognize the importance of disaggregating data and be encouraged to provide information by API ethnic group. This will ensure that the needs of individual groups will not be masked by overall averages, and services can be appropriately targeted.

1. “Education and Wages: The Payoff in California,” Research Brief, Issue #39. Public Policy Institute of California. September 2000. A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R 43

Glossary
Race and Ethnicity
Alone: Racial or ethnic population figure that includes those Poverty: A measure of income relative to the federal poverty

who reported a single race only.
Inclusive: Racial or ethnic population figure that combines

threshold (the poverty line). Adjusted for family size, the federal poverty line was $17,029 annually for a family of four in 1999.
Poverty, 200 Percent of: Because the federal poverty thresh-

those who reported a single race and those who reported more than one race. Also referred to as “alone and in combination” or “single race and multiracial population.”
Multiracial: Those who reported more than one race. Also referred to as “mixed race” or “in combination.”

Social Characteristics
Foreign-Born: Includes people not born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Island Areas (such as Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or the Northern Mariana Islands). Housing, Overcrowded and Severely Overcrowded:

old is not adjusted for regional differences in the cost of living, the number of people below different percentages of the poverty level is often used. These specified poverty levels are obtained by multiplying the official thresholds by the appropriate factor. The average income cutoff at 200 percent of the poverty level was $34,058 ($17,029 x 2.0) in 1999 for a family of four.

Geography
Census Designated Place (CDP): Geographic area designed

Overcrowded housing is defined as having more than one person per room. Severe overcrowding is defined as more than 1.5 people per room.
Income, Median Household: A measurement of income that

to “provide census data for concentrations of population, housing, and commercial structures that are identifiable by name but not within (a place).” In other words, CDPs are concentrations of populations identified by the U.S. Census Bureau that are not incorporated cities.
Places: Includes incorporated cities and Census Designated

divides the income distribution of households (all persons living in the same residence) in 1999 into two equal parts, half falling below and half above the median household income.
Income, Per Capita: The mean income computed for every man, woman, and child in a particular group. It is derived by dividing the total income of a particular group by the total population of that group. Income, Public Assistance: Public assistance income

Places (CDPs).

includes general assistance and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). Separate payments received for hospital or other medical care (vendor payments) are excluded. This does not include Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
Limited English Proficient: Persons who speak English less

than “very well.”
Linguistically Isolated Households: Households in which all members 14 years old or older speak English less than “very well.”

44

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Technical Notes
The 2000 Census marked the first decennial census in which persons could report more than one racial or ethnic background, capturing the multiracial population for the first time in U.S. Census history. While the change resulted in a more detailed description of race and ethnicity, it complicates reporting and prevents direct comparisons between the 2000 Census and 1990 or any other previous census.
The U.S. Census reports racial and ethnic background for the 2000 Census as two figures, “alone” and “inclusive.” Alone numbers represent single race responses. Inclusive (also referred to as “alone and in combination”) numbers represent single race and multiracial responses combined. Because the 1990 Census reported racial and ethnic background as a single figure, two measures of population growth are possible: one measuring growth from 1990 to 2000 alone and another measuring growth from 1990 to 2000 inclusive. Data for social and economic characteristics such as education, income, and home ownership are provided for the inclusive population for all racial and ethnic groups except for white, for which the alone population is described. The U.S. Census does not consider Latino or Hispanic a racial category but as an ethnic category. Those of Latino or Hispanic origin can be of any race. Therefore, figures for the Latino population include persons of all racial backgrounds who indicated Latino or Hispanic origin. Likewise, all racial categories include those of Latino or Hispanic origin, except for white, which is non-Hispanic. With the exception of data on health indicators, which is from the UCLA California Health Interview Survey (CHIS), the source for data in this report is the U.S. Bureau of Census including the 2000 Census and 2003 estimates.
The Diverse Face of Asians and Pacific Islanders in California was produced by the Asian Pacific American Legal Center. Special thanks to . . . Asian Pacific American Legal Center Pauline Chu Daniel Kikuo Ichinose Kimiko Kelly Stewart Kwoh Melinda Ou Punam Parikh Rebecca Shea Karin Wang Asian Law Caucus Sarita Ahuja Philip Y. Ting Claire Van Zevern Southeast Asian Community Alliance Sissy Trinh Principal Launch Partners Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality/Chinese for Affirmative Action Fresno Center for New Americans Orange County Asian and Pacific Islander Community Alliance Union of Pan Asian Communities Sundried Penguin Design Photographers Sarita Ahuja Craig Matsuzaki Amal Mongia Jamie Watson

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

45

Appendix A Race & Ethnicity: California State
Table 17: California 2000 Racial & Ethnic Groups White Latino / Hispanic Asian African American American Indian Pacific Islander Two or more races Total 1990 Number % Total 17,029,126 7,687,938 2,735,060 2,208,801 242,164 110,599 29,760,021 57% 26% 9% 7% 1% 0.4% 100% Alone Number % Total 15,816,790 10,262,025 3,697,513 2,263,882 333,346 116,961 1,607,646 33,871,648 47% 30% 11% 7% 1% 0.3% 5% 100% Inclusive Number % Total 16,538,491 10,966,556 4,155,685 2,513,041 627,562 221,458 33,871,648 2000 Asian Ethnic Groups Chinese -Chinese, except Taiwanese -Taiwanese Filipino Vietnamese Japanese Korean Asian Indian Cambodian Hmong Laotian Thai Indonesian Pakistani Sri Lankan Malaysian Bangladeshi Other Asian More than one Asian group Total Asian Population 1990 Number % Total 704,850 680,744 32,679 731,685 280,223 312,989 259,941 159,973 68,190 46,892 58,058 32,064 14,785 13,965 3,385 2,204 1,134 44,722 2,735,060 26% 25% 1% 27% 10% 11% 10% 6% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.04% 2% 100% Alone Number % Asian 980,642 918,325 62,317 918,678 447,032 288,854 345,882 314,819 70,232 65,095 55,456 36,525 17,755 20,093 5,775 1,948 3,044 38,979 86,704 3,697,513 27% 25% 2% 25% 12% 8% 9% 9% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0.5% 1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 1% 2% 100% 2000 Pacific Islander Ethnic Groups Native Hawaiian Samoan Guamanian or Chamorro Tongan Melanesian Other Pacific Islander More than one PI group Total Pacific Islander Population 1990 Number % P.I. 34,447 31,917 25,059 7,919 5,778 5,479 107,358 32% 30% 23% 7% 5% 5% 100% Alone Number % P.I. 20,571 37,498 20,918 12,111 7,676 15,715 2,472 116,961 18% 33% 18% 11% 7% 14% 2% 100% Inclusive Number % P.I. 60,048 49,804 33,849 15,252 10,200 57,774 221,458 27% 22% 15% 7% 5% 26% 100% Inclusive Number % Asian 1,122,187 1,046,775 75,412 1,098,321 484,023 394,896 375,571 360,392 84,559 71,741 65,058 46,868 29,710 27,832 7,212 4,282 4,088 94,008 4,155,685 27% 25% 2% 26% 12% 10% 9% 9% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 2% 100% 49% 32% 12% 7% 2% 0.7% 100% Percent Growth
1990 to 2000 1990 to 2000

Alone

Inclusive

-7% 33% 35% 2% 38% 6% 14%

-3% 43% 52% 14% 159% 100% 14%

Percent Growth
1990 to 2000 1990 to 2000

Alone

Inclusive

39% 35% 91% 26% 60% -8% 33% 97% 3% 39% -4% 14% 20% 44% 71% -12% 168% -13% 35%

59% 54% 131% 50% 73% 26% 44% 125% 24% 53% 12% 46% 101% 99% 113% 94% 260% 110% 52%

Percent Growth
1990 to 2000 1990 to 2000

Alone

Inclusive

-40% 17% -17% 53% 33% 187% 9%

74% 56% 35% 93% 77% 954% 106%

Note: Groups ranked by 2000 Inclusive number. Alone figures are single race responses only. Inclusive figures include single race and multiracial responses. Alone figures for Asian and Pacific Islander ethnic groups are single race and single ethnic group. Latino/Hispanic is not exclusive of other categories, except for white, which is non-Hispanic. Population figures are not mutually exclusive, therefore columns may not sum up to the total. 46 A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Appendix A Race & Ethnicity: Bay Area Region
Table 18: Bay Area 2000 Racial & Ethnic Groups White Asian Latino / Hispanic African American American Indian Pacific Islander More than one race Total 1990 Number % Total 3,658,309 883,759 923,606 535,121 39,026 34,690 6,023,577 61% 15% 15% 9% 1% 1% 100% Alone Number % Total 3,392,204 1,289,849 1,204,722 511,084 43,529 36,317 334,290 6,783,760 50% 19% 18% 8% 1% 0.5% 5% 100% 2000 Asian Ethnic Groups Chinese -Chinese, except Taiwanese -Taiwanese Filipino Vietnamese Asian Indian Japanese Korean Laotian Cambodian Pakistani Thai Indonesian Malaysian Sri Lankan Hmong Bangladeshi Other Asian More than one Asian group Total Asian Population 1990 Number % Total 324,266 37% Alone Number % Asian 468,736 457,735 11,001 321,333 146,253 143,306 74,505 56,724 11,516 10,462 6,119 5,732 3,628 616 977 867 655 11,613 26,807 1,289,849 36% 35% 1% 25% 11% 11% 6% 4% 1% 1% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.05% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 1% 2% 100% 2000 Pacific Islander Ethnic Groups Native Hawaiian Samoan Guamanian or Chamorro Tongan Fijian Other Pacific Islander More than one PI group Total Pacific Islander Population 1990 Number % P.I. 10,236 8,452 7,149 4,088 3,066 1,699 34,690 30% 24% 21% 12% 9% 5% 100% Alone Number % P.I. 5,422 9,361 5,577 6,679 3,907 4,546 825 36,317 15% 26% 15% 18% 11% 13% 2% 100 Inclusive Number % P.I. 17,313 12,319 9,359 8,142 5,035 16,156 66,577 26% 19% 14% 12% 8% 24% 100% Inclusive Number % Asian 516,859 503,463 13,396 375,652 157,972 157,273 103,650 64,392 13,451 13,098 8,197 7,701 6,127 1,376 1,248 956 799 27,049 1,420,109 36% 35% 2% 26% 11% 11% 7% 5% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 2% 100% Inclusive Number % Total 3,567,183 1,420,109 1,315,175 569,265 101,117 66,577 6,783,760 53% 21% 19% 8% 1% 1% 100% Percent Growth
1990 to 2000 1990 to 2000

Alone

Inclusive

-7% 46% 30% -4% 12% 5% 13%

-2% 61% 42% 6% 159% 92% 13%

Percent Growth
1990 to 2000 1990 to 2000

Alone

Inclusive

45%

59%

258,875 85,123 52,987 76,459 41,691 10,142 9,970 3,467 3,946 2,927 549 537 224 224 12,372 883,759

29% 10% 6% 9% 5% 1% 1% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.03% 0.03% 1% 100%

24% 72% 170% -3% 36% 14% 5% 76% 45% 24% 12% 82% 287% 192% -6% 46%

45% 86% 197% 36% 54% 33% 31% 136% 95% 109% 151% 132% 327% 257% 119% 61%

Percent Growth
1990 to 2000 1990 to 2000

Alone

Inclusive

-47% 11% -22% 63% 27% 168% 5%

69% 46% 31% 99% 64% 851% 92%

Note: Groups ranked by 2000 Inclusive number. Alone figures are single race responses only. Inclusive figures include single race and multiracial responses. Alone figures for Asian and Pacific Islander ethnic groups are single race and single ethnic group. Latino/Hispanic is not exclusive of other categories, except for white, which is non-Hispanic. Population figures are not mutually exclusive, therefore columns may not sum up to the total. A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R 47

Appendix A Race & Ethnicity: Central Valley
Table 19: Central Valley 2000 Racial & Ethnic Groups White Latino / Hispanic Asian African American American Indian Pacific Islander More than one race Total 1990 Number % Total 2,319,892 947,694 272,914 218,105 43,396 9,428 3,783,219 61% 25% 7% 6% 1% 0.2% 100% Alone Number % Total 2,225,079 1,409,047 336,545 282,884 61,838 13,984 236,529 4,526,291 49% 31% 7% 6% 1% 0.3% 5% 100% 2000 Asian Ethnic Groups Filipino Hmong Chinese -Chinese, except Taiwanese -Taiwanese Asian Indian Japanese Vietnamese Laotian Cambodian Korean Pakistani Thai Indonesian Malaysian Sri Lankan Bangladeshi Other Asian More than one Asian group Total Asian Population Pacific Islander Ethnic Groups Native Hawaiian Samoan Guamanian or Chamorro Fijian Tongan Other Pacific Islander More than one PI Group Total Pacific Islander Population 1990 Number % Total 56,476 37,959 41,062 21% 14% 15% Alone Number % Asian 74,190 52,252 46,510 45,748 762 39,901 24,207 27,456 24,968 18,319 9,796 3,120 1,785 641 153 209 50 5,510 7,478 336,545 22% 16% 14% 14% 0.2% 12% 7% 8% 7% 5% 3% 1% 1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.01% 2% 2% 100% 2000 1990 Number % P.I. 3,266 1,187 2,003 1,561 736 675 9,428 35% 13% 21% 17% 8% 7% 100% Alone Number % P.I. 2,531 2,627 2,284 2,397 1,295 2,559 291 13,984 18% 19% 16% 17% 9% 18% 2% 100% Inclusive Number % P.I. 7,265 3,787 3,709 3,238 1,653 10,435 29,490 25% 13% 13% 11% 6% 35% 100% Inclusive Number % Asian 98,680 57,418 56,498 55,515 983 48,992 35,632 30,138 29,004 21,258 12,541 4,441 2,771 1,320 278 270 61 11,559 400,289 25% 14% 14% 14% 0.2% 12% 9% 8% 7% 5% 3% 1% 1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.02% 3% 100% Inclusive Number % Total 2,330,896 1,508,794 400,289 320,914 115,102 29,490 4,526,291 51% 33% 9% 7% 3% 1% 100% Percent Growth
1990 to 2000 1990 to 2000

Alone

Inclusive

-4% 49% 23% 30% 42% 48% 20%

0.5% 59% 47% 47% 165% 213% 20%

Percent Growth
1990 to 2000 1990 to 2000

Alone

Inclusive

31% 38% 13%

75% 51% 38%

23,133 28,164 20,818 27,224 18,957 8,260 2,151 1,855 629 343 121 5 5,757 272,914

8% 10% 8% 10% 7% 3% 1% 1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.04% 0.00% 2% 100%

72% -14% 32% -8% -3% 19% 45% -4% 2% -55% 73% 900% -4% 23%

112% 27% 45% 7% 12% 52% 106% 49% 110% -19% 123% 1120% 101% 47%

Percent Growth
1990 to 2000 1990 to 2000

Alone

Inclusive

-23% 121% 14% 54% 76% 279% 48%

122% 219% 85% 107% 125% 1446% 213%

Note: Groups ranked by 2000 Inclusive number. Alone figures are single race responses only. Inclusive figures include single race and multiracial responses. Alone figures for Asian and Pacific Islander ethnic groups are single race and single ethnic group. Latino/Hispanic is not exclusive of other categories, except for white, which is non-Hispanic. Population figures are not mutually exclusive, therefore columns may not sum up to the total. 48 A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Appendix A Race & Ethnicity: Southern California
Table 20: Southern California 2000 Racial & Ethnic Groups White Latino / Hispanic Asian African American American Indian Pacific Islander More than one race Total 1990 Number % Total 8,895,182 5,361,834 1,479,108 1,391,737 109,412 60,386 17,138,848 52% 31% 9% 8% 1% 0.4% 100% Alone Number % Total 7,964,695 7,005,343 1,954,378 1,412,143 169,086 60,354 907,301 19,329,839 41% 36% 10% 7% 1% 0.3% 5% 100% Inclusive Number % Total 8,332,765 7,452,270 2,185,593 1,550,235 308,624 111,390 19,329,839 2000 Asian Ethnic Groups Filipino Chinese -Chinese, except Taiwanese -Taiwanese Vietnamese Korean Japanese Asian Indian Cambodian Thai Indonesian Laotian Pakistani Sri Lankan Hmong Bangladeshi Malaysian Other Asian More than one Asian group Total Asian Population Pacific Islander Ethnic Groups Samoan Native Hawaiian Guamanian or Chamorro Tongan Fijian Other Pacific Islander More than one PI Group Total Pacific Islander Population 1990 Number % Total 388,290 324,888 26% 22% Alone Number % Asian 493,309 445,977 396,060 49,917 267,177 270,514 174,936 114,938 40,587 27,904 13,065 14,647 9,833 4,357 3,942 2,303 1,080 19,891 49,918 1,954,378 25% 23% 20% 3% 14% 14% 9% 6% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 1% 3% 100% 2000 1990 Number % P.I. 21,270 18,351 14,254 2,983 777 2,751 60,386 35% 30% 24% 5% 1% 5% 100% Alone Number % P.I. 24,397 10,792 11,684 3,870 851 7,498 1,262 60,354 40% 18% 19% 6% 1% 12% 2% 100% Inclusive Number % P.I. 31,944 30,139 18,471 5,085 1,211 27,385 111,390 28% 26% 16% 4% 1% 24% 100% Inclusive Number % Asian 581,120 523,597 463,392 60,205 288,811 287,468 231,931 134,306 49,146 34,734 21,363 17,609 13,671 5,418 4,515 3,174 2,436 50,872 2,185,593 26% 23% 21% 3% 13% 13% 10% 6% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 2% 100% 43% 39% 11% 8% 2% 1% 100% Percent Growth
1990 to 2000 1990 to 2000

Alone

Inclusive

-10% 31% 32% 1% 55% -0.1% 13%

-6% 39% 48% 11% 182% 84% 13%

Percent Growth
1990 to 2000 1990 to 2000

Alone

Inclusive

27% 37%

50% 61%

169,366 201,420 191,370 74,154 38,614 25,311 10,783 15,794 7,556 2,615 3,142 889 1,138 23,778 1,479,108

11% 14% 13% 5% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 2% 100%

58% 34% -9% 55% 5% 10% 21% -7% 30% 67% 25% 159% -5% -16% 32%

71% 43% 21% 81% 27% 37% 98% 11% 81% 107% 44% 257% 114% 114% 48%

Percent Growth
1990 to 2000 1990 to 2000

Alone

Inclusive

15% -41% -18% 30% 10% 173% -0.1%

50% 64% 30% 70% 56% 895% 84%

Note: Groups ranked by 2000 Inclusive number. Alone figures are single race responses only. Inclusive figures include single race and multiracial responses. Alone figures for Asian and Pacific Islander ethnic groups are single race and single ethnic group. Latino/Hispanic is not exclusive of other categories, except for white, which is non-Hispanic. Population figures are not mutually exclusive, therefore columns may not sum up to the total. A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R 49

Appendix B Socioeconomic Indicators California State
Table 21: Major Racial and Ethnic Groups
Children Homeownership 0-17 Yrs of Age Crowded Housing Less than High Below Federal 200% of Federal School degree Poverty Line Poverty Line Public Assistance Income
12% 9% 8% 7% 6% 3% 5%

1. Latino 2. Pac. Islander 3. Black 4. Am. Indian 5. Asian 6. White California

37% Black 33% Latino 32% Pac. Islander 31% Am. Indian 26% Asian 22% White 28% California

39% Latino 44% Pac. Islander 47% Asian 47% Am. Indian 54% Black 65% White 57% California

42% Latino 26% Am. Indian 24% Pac. Islander 17% Black 13% Asian 4% White 15% California

53% Latino 26% Black 22% Am. Indian 19% Pac. Islander 19% Asian 10% White 23% California

22% Latino 22% Black 19% Am. Indian 14% Pac. Islander 13% Asian 8% White 14% California

52% Black 42% Am. Indian 41% Latino 34% Pac. Islander 28% Asian 20% White 33% California

Children, 0-17 Years of Age
1. Hmong 2. Tongan 3. Cambodian 4. Laotian 5. Samoan 6. Pakistani 7. Guamanian 8. Bangladeshi 10. Vietnamese 11. Asian Indian 12. Filipino 13. Indonesian 14. Sri Lankan 15. Korean 16. Chinese excl 17. Chinese 18. Thai 19. Taiwanese 20. Malaysian 21. Japanese

Homeownership

Crowded Housing

Less than High School degree

Below Federal Poverty Line

200% of Federal Poverty Line

Public Assistance
50% 37% 32% 15% 12% 10% 6% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1%

58% Hmong 42% Cambodian 41% Laotian 40% Samoan 34% Korean 32% Tongan 30% Pakistani 28% Vietnamese 27% Guamanian 26% Indonesian 24% Thai 24% Sri Lankan 22% Malaysian 22% Filipino 21% Chinese excl 21% Japanese 21% Chinese 20% Taiwanese

16% Hmong 27% Laotian 32% Tongan 34% Samoan 46% Vietnamese 47% Pakistani 48% Filipino 48% Sri Lankan 49% Guamanian 49% Thai 53% Malaysian 58% Chinese 62% Indonesian 62% Taiwanese 69% Japanese

74% Hmong 60% Laotian 56% Cambodian 52% Tongan 45% Vietnamese 40% Chinese excl 32% Chinese 30% Guamanian 27% Thai 24% Pakistani 22% Bangladeshi 22% Nat. Hawaiian 20% Sri Lankan 19% Filipino 18% Korean 14% Indonesian 4% Japanese

66% Hmong 58% Cambodian 56% Laotian 38% Samoan 36% Pakistani 23% Vietnamese 23% Tongan 22% Thai 20% Indonesian 19% Bangladeshi 18% Taiwanese 17% Korean 16% Chinese 14% Chinese excl 14% Malaysian 13% Nat. Hawaiian 12% Guamanian 12% Asian Indian 9% Sri Lankan 8% Japanese 7% Filipino

53% Hmong 40% Cambodian 32% Laotian 20% Samoan 18% Tongan 18% Vietnamese 17% Pakistani 15% Thai 15% Korean 15% Indonesian 14% Guamanian 12% Taiwanese 11% Chinese 11% Chinese excl 10% Malaysian 10% Asian Indian 9% Sri Lankan 8% Filipino 7% Japanese

84% Hmong 67% Cambodian 63% Laotian 45% Vietnamese 44% Samoan 38% Tongan 37% Nat. Hawaiian 33% Chinese excl 32% Chinese 29% Bangladeshi 29% Filipino 27% Korean 26% Pakistani 26% Asian Indian 23% Malaysian 23% Taiwanese 19% Indonesian 19% Japanese 17% Sri Lankan

43% Bangladeshi 26% Cambodian

38% Bangladeshi 45% Samoan

18% Bangladeshi 38% Guamanian

9. Nat. Hawaiian 29% Asian Indian 47% Korean

25% Nat. Hawaiian 49% Asian Indian 22% Asian Indian

11% Nat. Hawaiian 27% Thai

53% Chinese excl 19% Malaysian

63% Nat. Hawaiian 13% Taiwanese

Figures are for the inclusive population (single race and multirace combined) and are not exclusive of Latino/Hispanic, except for white, which is single race non-Hispanic. “Chinese” includes both Chinese and Taiwanese. “Chinese Excl” and “Taiwanese” are separate figures for the two groups. Racial and ethnic groups are ranked from worst to best with regards to socioeconomic status indicators. Source: U.S. Census 2000, Summary Files 1 through 4.

Shaded = Faring below Non-Hispanic whites Bold = Faring below the county average Boxed = Faring below all major racial and ethnic groups

50

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Median Household Income
1. Black 2. Latino 3. Am. Indian 5. White 6. Asian California

Per Capita Income

Foreign-Born

Naturalization Rate of Foreign-Born

3 or More Workers Per Family

Limited English Proficient

Linguistically Isolated Household
26% 26% 7% 6% 2% 1% 10%

35,192 Latino 38,764 Am. Indian 53,734 Asian 54,600 White 47,493 California

11,674 Asian 16,491 Pac. Islander 16,852 Am. Indian 21,195 White 31,700 Black 22,711 California

62% Latino 44% Am. Indian 25% Black 12% Pac. Islander 8% Asian 6% White 26% California

26% Latino 29% Pac. Islander 42% Asian 46% Am. Indian 55% White 56% Black 39% California

20% Latino 20% Asian 18% Pac. Islander 14% Am. Indian 10% White 9% Black 14% California

43% Asian 39% Latino 15% Pac. Islander 12% Am. Indian 3% White 3% Black 20% California

36,532 Pac. Islander 15,965 Latino

4. Pac. Islander 48,280 Black

Median Household Income
1. Hmong 3. Laotian 4. Korean 6. Samoan 8. Thai 9. Tongan 11. Pakistani

Per Capita Income

Foreign-Born

Naturalization Rate of Foreign-Born

3 or More Workers Per Family

Limited English Proficient

Linguistically Isolated Household
44% 42% 41% 36% 34% 34% 32% 32% 24% 22% 18% 14% 12% 11% 8% 6% 5% 1%

24,337 Hmong 31,226 Laotian 41,079 Tongan

5,286 Bangladeshi 8,493 Sri Lankan 8,679 Taiwanese 10,417 Malaysian 10,938 Vietnamese

83% Bangladeshi 79% Japanese 79% Hmong 77% Guamanian 74% Indonesian 72% Tongan 71% Malaysian 68% Asian Indian 68% Sri Lankan 68% Thai 65% Laotian 65% Pakistani 63% Korean 59% Taiwanese 55% Nat. Hawaiian 48% Samoan 28% Chinese 19% Chinese excl 8% Filipino 4% Vietnamese

30% Tongan 30% Filipino 32% Vietnamese 34% Samoan 34% Thai 34% Laotian 36% Guamanian 42% Chinese 44% Cambodian 44% Malaysian 46% Sri Lankan 47% Taiwanese 48% Nat. Hawaiian 54% Asian Indian 55% Pakistani 60% Hmong 61% Indonesian 61% Bangladeshi 63% Korean 63% Japanese

29% Vietnamese 26% Hmong 24% Taiwanese 23% Cambodian 21% Laotian 19% Korean 19% Thai

62% Vietnamese 61% Taiwanese 58% Korean 56% Hmong 55% Chinese 48% Thai 48% Cambodian

2. Cambodian 27,488 Cambodian

5. Bangladeshi41,681 Samoan

43,725 Vietnamese 15,752 Asian Indian 45,208 Bangladeshi16,650 Indonesian 47,656 Thai 48,936 Filipino 17,267 Pakistani 18,345 Thai 19,223 Chinese 19,302 Laotian

52% Chinese excl 34%

7. Indonesian 44,285 Guamanian 16,292 Korean

40% Chinese excl 17% Chinese 15% Bangladeshi 15% Indonesian 15% Malaysian 15% Tongan 14% Pakistani 14% Asian Indian 14% Filipino 14% Japanese 14% Samoan 13% Sri Lankan 12% Guamanian 10% Nat. Hawaiian

17% Chinese excl 47% Laotian 32% Malaysian 32% Indonesian 32% Japanese 28% Pakistani 25% Tongan 22% Filipino 17% Sri Lankan 16% Samoan 9% Guamanian 3% Nat. Hawaiian

10. Vietnamese 48,255 Pakistani 12. Nat. Hawaiian50,719 Korean 14. Taiwanese 15. Japanese 16. Chinese 18. Sri Lankan 19. Filipino 20. Malaysian

46% Bangladeshi 28%

13. Guamanian 51,959 Indonesian 19,311 Chinese excl 64% Cambodian 55,806 Nat. Hawaiian19,881 Cambodian 55,904 Malaysian 56,887 Taiwanese 24,101 Filipino 24,221 Hmong 24,388 Tongan 27,051 Samoan 28,342 Nat. Hawaiian

23% Asian Indian 11%

17. Chinese excl 56,930 Chinese 61,237 Sri Lankan

60,106 Chinese excl 24,410 Japanese 62,792 Asian Indian 27,906 Guamanian

21. Asian Indian 68,935 Japanese

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

51

Appendix B Socioeconomic Indicators Bay Area Region
Table 22: Major Racial and Ethnic Groups
Children, 0-17 Years of Age
SF2 PCT5 1. Latino 2. Pac. Islander 3. Black 4. Am. Indian 5. Asian 6. White Bay Area

Crowded Housing
SF4 HCT 11

Less than High School degree
SF4 PCT 64

Below Federal Poverty Line
SF4 PCT 142

3 or More Workers Per Family
SF4 PCT 84

Foreign-Born
SF4 PCT 44

Limited English Proficient
SF4 PCT 38 40% 38% 16% 10% 3% 3% 17%

32% Latino 32% Pac. Islander 29% Asian 27% Am. Indian 24% Black 20% White 24% Bay Area

36% Latino 25% Pac. Islander 23% Am. Indian 14% Asian 11% Black 3% White 11% Bay Area

43% Black 22% Latino 19% Am. Indian 18% Pac. Islander 18% Asian 7% White 16% Bay Area

18% Pac. Islander 13% Latino 11% Asian 10% Am. Indian 8% Black 5% White 9% Bay Area

25% Asian 24% Latino 21% Pac. Islander 16% Am. Indian 10% White 10% Black 15% Bay Area

64% Latino 45% Asian 28% Pac. Islander 11% Am. Indian 9% White 5% Black 27% Bay Area

Asian and Pacific Islander Ethnic Groups
Children, 0-17 Years of Age
SF2 PCT5 1. Tongan 2. Cambodian 3. Samoan 4. Hmong 5. Laotian 6. Pakistani 7. Guamanian 8. Fijian 9. Bangladeshi 10. Vietnamese 12. Filipino 13. Sri Lankan 14. Asian Indian 15. Korean 16. Chinese excl 17. Chinese 18. Indonesian 19. Taiwanese 20. Japanese 21. Thai 22. Malaysian

Crowded Housing
SF4 HCT 11

Less than High School degree
SF4 PCT 64

Below Federal Poverty Line
SF4 PCT 142

3 or More Workers Per Family
SF4 PCT 84

Foreign-Born
SF4 PCT 44

Limited English Proficient
SF4 PCT 38 62% 54% 53% 53% 52% 48% 44% 43% 34% 29% 26% 26% 24% 20% 19% 19% 6% 3% *

42% Hmong 40% Tongan 40% Laotian 39% Cambodian 38% Samoan 33% Vietnamese 30% Pakistani 29% Filipino 28% Fijian

74% Hmong 60% Laotian 58% Cambodian 55% Tongan 44% Vietnamese 39% Fijian 30% Samoan 27% Chinese 24% Guamanian 20% Pakistani 19% Korean 17% Asian Indian 15% Indonesian 11% Japanese 10% Taiwanese 4% Bangladeshi * Malaysian

61% Cambodian 55% Laotian 51% Indonesian 36% Samoan 34% Thai 32% Vietnamese 28% Korean 23% Taiwanese 16% Pakistani 14% Chinese 13% Guamanian 12% Nat. Hawaiian 11% Asian Indian 11% Japanese 7% Fijian 6% Filipino 5% Bangladeshi 5% Hmong 5% Malaysian * Sri Lankan

31% Tongan 19% Samoan 17% Fijian 16% Filipino 15% Laotian 15% Vietnamese 12% Cambodian 11% Guamanian 11% Thai 9% Chinese 8% Pakistani 7% Indonesian 7% Nat. Hawaiian 7% Taiwanese 6% Korean 6% Asian Indian 5% Bangladeshi * Japanese * Hmong * Malaysian * Sri Lankan

34% Sri Lankan 33% Taiwanese 31% Vietnamese 28% Fijian 22% Indonesian 20% Pakistani 19% Korean 18% Laotian 18% Chinese 15% Cambodian 15% Filipino 14% Tongan 12% Hmong 11% Japanese 9% Samoan * Guamanian * Nat. Hawaiian * Malaysian

83% Vietnamese 75% Hmong 75% Cambodian 72% Chinese 68% Korean 67% Thai 65% Tongan 64% Indonesian 63% Fijian 60% Filipino 50% Japanese 30% Sri Lankan 19% Samoan 5% Guamanian 3% Nat. Hawaiian * Malaysian

33% Bangladeshi 82% Laotian 33% Asian Indian 75% Taiwanese

75% Bangladeshi 50% 71% Chinese excl 48%

27% Chinese excl 24% Tongan

27% Bangladeshi 27% Thai

10% Chinese excl 18% Thai

11. Nat. Hawaiian 27% Korean 25% Guamanian 23% Chinese 22% Indonesian 22% Thai 22% Taiwanese 19% Sri Lankan 19% Japanese 18% Malaysian

25% Asian Indian 22% Nat. Hawaiian 14% Chinese excl 25% Chinese excl 20% Filipino

15% Chinese excl 64% Pakistani

52% Asian Indian 22%

20% Nat. Hawaiian 10% Sri Lankan

Figures are for the inclusive population (single race and multirace combined) and are not exclusive of Latino/Hispanic, except for white, which is single race non-Hispanic. “Chinese” includes both Chinese and Taiwanese. “Chinese Excl” and “Taiwanese” are separate figures for the two groups. Racial and ethnic groups are ranked from worst to best with regards to socioeconomic status indicators. Source: U.S. Census 2000, Summary Files 1 through 4. *Groups did not meet population threshold. Shaded = Faring below Non-Hispanic whites Bold = Faring below the county average Boxed = Faring below all major racial and ethnic groups 52 A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Appendix B Socioeconomic Indicators Central Valley Region
Table 23: Major Racial and Ethnic Groups
Children, 0-17 Years of Age
SF2 PCT5 1. Latino 2. Black 3. Asian 4. Pac. Islander 5. Am. Indian 6. White Central Valley

Crowded Housing
SF4 HCT 11

Less than High School degree
SF4 PCT 64

Below Federal Poverty Line
SF4 PCT 142

3 or More Workers Per Family
SF4 PCT 84

Foreign-Born
SF4 PCT 44

Limited English Proficient
SF4 PCT 38 40% 37% 18% 10% 3% 3% 17%

39% Latino 38% Asian 36% Pac. Islander 36% Am. Indian 34% Black 25% White 31% Central Valley

35% Latino 26% Asian 24% Pac. Islander 15% Am. Indian 13% Black 4% White 14% Central Valley

54% Latino 33% Black 31% Asian 29% Am. Indian 22% Pac. Islander 15% White 28% Central Valley

28% Latino 28% Asian 25% Pac. Islander 23% Am. Indian 20% White 10% Black 19% Central Valley

17% Asian 14% Latino 14% Pac. Islander 11% Am. Indian 10% White 7% Black 12% Central Valley

52% Asian 35% Latino 33% Pac. Islander 8% Am. Indian 4% White 3% Black 18% Central Valley

Asian and Pacific Islander Ethnic Groups
Children, 0-17 Years of Age
SF2 PCT5 1. Hmong 2. Cambodian 3. Laotian 4. Tongan 5. Samoan 6. Pakistani 7. Guamanian 8. Vietnamese 10. Asian Indian 11. Filipino 12. Thai 13. Fijian 14. Korean 15. Malaysian 16. Indonesian 17. Chinese excl 18. Chinese 19. Japanese 20. Taiwanese 21. Sri Lankan 22. Bangladeshi

Crowded Housing
SF4 HCT 11

Less than High School degree
SF4 PCT 64

Below Federal Poverty Line
SF4 PCT 142

3 or More Workers Per Family
SF4 PCT 84

Foreign-Born
SF4 PCT 44

Limited English Proficient
SF4 PCT 38 61% 58% 58% 57% 42% 42% 41%

58% Hmong 49% Cambodian 45% Laotian 43% Tongan 43% Pakistani 39% Vietnamese 35% Fijian

75% Laotian 62% Hmong 61% Cambodian 48% Taiwanese 46% Pakistani 33% Vietnamese 29% Tongan

70% Cambodian 67% Hmong 66% Laotian 44% Vietnamese 43% Samoan 42% Pakistani 42% Thai 37% Nat. Hawaiian 28% Tongan 28% Indonesian 25% Chinese excl 20% Asian Indian 19% Korean 17% Guamanian 17% Filipino 8% Taiwanese 7% Japanese * Bangladeshi * Malaysian * Sri Lankan

55% Tongan 55% Indonesian 44% Fijian 34% Asian Indian 34% Filipino 31% Vietnamese 25% Hmong 17% Laotian 16% Chinese 16% Pakistani 14% Samoan 14% Korean 14% Guamanian 12% Japanese 11% Nat. Hawaiian 10% Cambodian 9% Taiwanese 8% Thai * Bangladeshi * Malaysian * Sri Lankan

37% Fijian 20% Vietnamese 18% Pakistani 17% Taiwanese 15% Laotian 14% Korean 14% Indonesian 13% Thai 13% Hmong 12% Chinese 10% Filipino 9% Tongan 9% Japanese 8% Samoan 2% Guamanian 2% Nat. Hawaiian * Bangladeshi * Malaysian * Sri Lankan

81% Hmong 66% Vietnamese 65% Laotian 64% Pakistani 63% Thai 58% Chinese

28% Asian Indian 68% Cambodian

35% Asian Indian 27% Fijian 32% Filipino 30% Samoan 29% Korean 27% Chinese excl 26% Chinese 25% Taiwanese 25% Thai 25% Japanese 21% Indonesian 21% Bangladeshi 20% Malaysian * Sri Lankan 19% Chinese excl 18% Chinese

18% Chinese excl 14% Cambodian

58% Chinese excl 41% 57% Asian Indian 39% 57% Korean 55% Fijian 50% Filipino 47% Japanese 46% Guamanian 16% Nat. Hawaiian 16% Bangladeshi 5% Indonesian 4% Malaysian * Sri Lankan * Taiwanese * Tongan 37% 33% 23% 15% 14% 10% 3% * * * * * *

9. Nat. Hawaiian 33% Guamanian

23% Asian Indian 35% Fijian

30% Nat. Hawaiian 15% Samoan 12% Filipino 12% Thai 10% Guamanian 6% Korean 3% Japanese 0% Indonesian * Bangladeshi * Malaysian * Sri Lankan

12% Nat. Hawaiian 20% Chinese

10% Chinese excl 50% Samoan

Figures are for the inclusive population (single race and multirace combined) and are not exclusive of Latino/Hispanic, except for white, which is single race non-Hispanic. “Chinese” includes both Chinese and Taiwanese. “Chinese Excl” and “Taiwanese” are separate figures for the two groups. Racial and ethnic groups are ranked from worst to best with regards to socioeconomic status indicators. Source: U.S. Census 2000, Summary Files 1 through 4. *Groups did not meet population threshold. Shaded = Faring below Non-Hispanic whites Bold = Faring below the county average Boxed = Faring below all major racial and ethnic groups A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R 53

Appendix B Socioeconomic Indicators Southern California Region
Table 24: Major Racial and Ethnic Groups
Children, 0-17 Years of Age
SF2 PCT5 1. Latino 2. Pac. Islander 3. Black 4. Am. Indian 5. Asian 6. White Southern Cal

Crowded Housing
SF4 HCT 11

Less than High School degree
SF4 PCT 64

Below Federal Poverty Line
SF4 PCT 142

3 or More Workers Per Family
SF4 PCT 84

Foreign-Born
SF4 PCT 44

Limited English Proficient
SF4 PCT 38 45% 40% 16% 15% 4% 3% 23%

37% Latino 34% Pac. Islander 32% Asian 32% Am. Indian 25% Black 22% White 29% Southern Cal

46% Latino 28% Am. Indian 25% Pac. Islander 20% Black 14% Asian 4% White 18% Southern Cal

55% Latino 28% Black 20% Am. Indian 19% Pac. Islander 18% Asian 10% White 26% Southern Cal

23% Latino 22% Pac. Islander 18% Asian 15% Am. Indian 13% White 8% Black 15% Southern Cal

20% Asian 19% Latino 18% Pac. Islander 15% Am. Indian 10% White 9% Black 14% Southern Cal

64% Latino 46% Asian 22% Am. Indian 16% Pac. Islander 9% White 6% Black 30% Southern Cal

Asian and Pacific Islander Ethnic Groups
Children, 0-17 Years of Age
SF2 PCT5 1. Hmong 2. Tongan 3. Samoan 4. Cambodian 5. Pakistani 6. Guamanian 7. Laotian 8. Bangladeshi 10. Fijian 11. Asian Indian 12. Filipino 13. Indonesian 14. Sri Lankan 15. Korean 16. Chinese excl 17. Chinese 18. Taiwanese 19. Malaysian 20. Thai 21. Japanese 22. Vietnamese

Crowded Housing
SF4 HCT 11

Less than High School degree
SF4 PCT 64

Below Federal Poverty Line
SF4 PCT 142

3 or More Workers Per Family
SF4 PCT 84

Foreign-Born
SF4 PCT 44

Limited English Proficient
SF4 PCT 38 63% 60% 56% 56% 54% 53% 51% 50% 35% 31% 31% 24% 23% 23% 22% 22% 16% 16% 11% 4%

49% Hmong 45% Cambodian 40% Laotian 33% Tongan 33% Samoan 32% Vietnamese 30% Korean 29% Sri Lankan 26% Filipino 26% Fijian 26% Malaysian 24% Thai 23% Guamanian

72% Cambodian 61% Hmong 53% Laotian 49% Vietnamese 48% Fijian 42% Guamanian 32% Chinese excl 30% Samoan 29% Bangladeshi 28% Chinese 27% Thai 24% Sri Lankan 24% Asian Indian 23% Malaysian

54% Cambodian 50% Hmong 45% Tongan 37% Bangladeshi 36% Samoan 30% Laotian 23% Vietnamese 22% Pakistani 21% Thai 21% Indonesian 21% Taiwanese 19% Korean 17% Malaysian 13% Chinese 13% Chinese excl 12% Asian Indian 12% Guamanian 11% Japanese 10% Sri Lankan 8% Filipino 7% Fijian

36% Vietnamese 28% Filipino 27% Fijian 22% Laotian 20% Hmong 19% Thai 18% Tongan 17% Samoan 16% Guamanian 16% Sri Lankan 15% Malaysian 14% Cambodian 14% Chinese 11% Bangladeshi 10% Taiwanese 10% Asian Indian 9% Indonesian 8% Korean 7% Pakistani * Japanese

24% Bangladeshi 83% Vietnamese 24% Sri Lankan 23% Taiwanese 22% Fijian 22% Malaysian 22% Vietnamese 22% Korean 20% Thai 18% Indonesian 17% Pakistani 16% Laotian 15% Cambodian 15% Filipino 15% Hmong 14% Tongan 13% Japanese 12% Samoan 12% Guamanian 10% Nat. Hawaiian 80% Taiwanese 80% Cambodian 79% Korean 78% Hmong 75% Laotian 73% Thai 70% Chinese 68% Indonesian 68% Tongan 68% Malaysian 64% Pakistani 62% Asian Indian 51% Fijian 45% Filipino 30% Samoan 19% Sri Lankan 10% Guamanian 4% Nat. Hawaiian

40% Bangladeshi 50% Tongan

21% Asian Indian 70% Bangladeshi 50% 69% Chinese excl 48%

9. Nat. Hawaiian 29% Pakistani

15% Nat. Hawaiian 16% Chinese

14% Chinese excl 15% Chinese excl 67% Japanese

23% Asian Indian 20% Nat. Hawaiian 13% Nat. Hawaiian 22% Chinese excl 20% Pakistani 21% Indonesian 21% Chinese 21% Taiwanese 27% Japanese 20% Korean 19% Filipino 15% Indonesian 4% Japanese

19% Nat. Hawaiian 14% Taiwanese

Figures are for the inclusive population (single race and multirace combined) and are not exclusive of Latino/Hispanic, except for white, which is single race non-Hispanic. “Chinese” includes both Chinese and Taiwanese. “Chinese Excl” and “Taiwanese” are separate figures for the two groups. Racial and ethnic groups are ranked from worst to best with regards to socioeconomic status indicators. Source: U.S. Census 2000, Summary Files 1 through 4. *Groups did not meet population threshold. Shaded = Faring below Non-Hispanic whites Bold = Faring below the county average Boxed = Faring below all major racial and ethnic groups 54 A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Appendix C California Counties Ranked by Percent Asian & Pacific Islander, 2003
Table 25: 2003 Asian Inclusive Population 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. San Francisco County Santa Clara County Alameda County San Mateo County Orange County Solano County San Joaquin County Sacramento County Contra Costa County Los Angeles County Sutter County Yolo County San Diego County Fresno County Yuba County Monterey County Merced County Ventura County Marin County San Bernardino County Stanislaus County Santa Barbara County Napa County Riverside County Placer County Santa Cruz County Sonoma County Butte County Kern County Kings County Tulare County San Luis Obispo County San Benito County Glenn County Del Norte County El Dorado County Shasta County Humboldt County Imperial County Madera County Mendocino County Colusa County Amador County Mono County Calaveras County Siskiyou County Nevada County Inyo County Lake County Tehama County Mariposa County Tuolumne County Lassen County Trinity County Plumas County Modoc County Sierra County Alpine County 254,753 509,044 366,587 169,168 476,861 66,126 93,576 189,302 139,644 1,334,931 11,255 22,508 321,384 79,574 5,112 31,838 17,230 54,436 14,942 110,972 28,150 21,040 6,718 89,740 14,458 11,904 21,561 9,663 30,534 5,520 15,229 9,129 1,997 861 873 5,132 4,444 3,052 3,519 2,608 1,441 310 549 189 629 612 1,218 231 754 666 202 637 333 112 161 68 11 1 34% 30% 25% 24% 16% 16% 15% 14% 14% 14% 13% 12% 11% 9% 8% 8% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. Table 26: 2003 Pacific Islander Inclusive Population San Mateo County Solano County Alameda County Sacramento County San Joaquin County Monterey County Stanislaus County San Diego County Contra Costa County Santa Clara County San Francisco County San Bernardino County Yolo County Colusa County Riverside County Orange County Napa County San Benito County Los Angeles County Sonoma County Ventura County Merced County Lassen County Placer County Madera County Santa Barbara County Kings County Santa Cruz County Humboldt County Kern County Fresno County Tulare County Butte County Marin County Mendocino County Yuba County San Luis Obispo County Tuolumne County Lake County Imperial County El Dorado County Sutter County Shasta County Nevada County Tehama County Siskiyou County Amador County Calaveras County Glenn County Mariposa County Trinity County Sierra County Plumas County Mono County Del Norte County Inyo County Modoc County Alpine County 13,344 6,422 18,571 16,304 6,019 3,931 4,660 27,329 7,868 12,384 5,142 12,309 1,188 127 11,119 18,139 789 312 53,913 2,448 4,111 1,186 172 1,306 593 1,765 579 1,029 482 2,664 3,147 1,423 700 804 288 200 754 168 187 426 465 233 452 176 103 52 42 42 24 13 8 2 7 4 5 3 1 1.9% 1.6% 1.3% 1.2% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

55

Order Form
Publications are available in print or on the Asian Pacific American Legal Center’s Web site (www.apalc.org) where they can be downloaded or printed free of charge. All orders for paid copies must be prepaid. Sorry, but we cannot process purchase orders or invoice for future payments. For questions about ordering reports, please call 213-977-7500 ext. 267. If you wish to use your FedEx Account for shipping, please indicate the account number in the appropriate space. Fax order form with credit card information to 213-977-7595, attention Accounting Department, or mail order form with payment to: Asian Pacific American Legal Center, 1145 Wilshire Boulevard, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017.

Order Information
Title Ordered The Diverse Face of Asians and Pacific Islanders in California The Diverse Face of Asians and Pacific Islanders in Los Angeles County The Diverse Face of Asians and Pacific Islanders in Orange County The Diverse Face of Asians and Pacific Islanders in San Diego County Quantity _______ _______ _______ _______ Cost $10.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 Postage* $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 Amount Enclosed $ $ $ $

As a non-profit advocacy and educational group, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center appreciates any donations to support its work. All donations are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law. TAX ID#95-3854152 Donation: ( ) included with credit card billing ( ) check included Name Organization Address City Phone Number FedEx Number (if applicable) Please select method of payment (pre-payment is required for all orders): ( ) Check enclosed, payable to: Asian Pacific American Legal Center ( ) Bill my credit card: ( ) Visa ( ) MasterCard Email State Zip

$ Total $

Credit Card Number:__________________________________________________________________________ Name ________________________________________________ Expiration Date_________________________ Amount $____________________________________________________________________________________
*When ordering more than one item please call 213-241-0267 to get specific cost of postage. ( ) Please check if you would like to be notified of future demographic research related events and publications

56

A S I A N & PA C I F I C I S L A N D E R D E M O G R A P H I C P R O F I L E — A S I A N PA C I F I C A M E R I C A N L E G A L C E N T E R

Research and Launch Sponsors Platinum Sponsors

CYTF
Chung Ying Tang Foundation

Gold Sponsors

Silver Sponsors

Principal Launch Partners
Fresno-Fresno Center for New Americans Orange County-Orange County Asian and Pacific Islander Community Alliance Sacramento-Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality / Chinese for Affirmative Action San Diego-The Union of Pan Asian Communities San Francisco-Asian Law Caucus

Community Sponsors
89.3 KPCC Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders in Philanthropy, Southern California Chapter Asian American Journalists Association, Los Angeles Chapter Asian American Journalists Association, San Francisco Chapter Asian Pacific Policy and Planning Council Southwest Center for Asian Pacific American Law United Way of Greater Los Angeles

1145 Wilshire Boulevard, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 www.apalc.org

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->