DEMOGRAPHY OF THE SALTON SEA STUDY AREA POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS RELEVANT TO ENSURING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE *

Transcription

1 DEMOGRAPHY OF THE SALTON SEA STUDY AREA POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS RELEVANT TO ENSURING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE * James V. Spickard Associate Professor of Sociology University of Redlands May, 1999 * Prepared for the Salton Sea Database Program, housed at the Center for Environmental Management at the University of Redlands. Copyright 1999.

2 DEMOGRAPHY OF THE SALTON SEA STUDY AREA POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS RELEVANT TO ENSURING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE James V. Spickard Associate Professor of Sociology University of Redlands CONTENTS: 1. Introduction Population Characteristics Data Sources a. The 1990 Census... 2 b. MSSA Estimates (1996)... 3 c. SANDAG Estimates (1997)... 4 d. School Attendance Data ( ) Current Population Estimates (by Census ) a. Overview... 6 b. Ethnicity and Poverty... 7 c. Neighborhood Stability, Age Structure, Education Appendix: Source Data Tables a. U.S. Census Tables (1990)... Appendix 1 b. MSSA Tables and Growth Multipliers (1996)... Appendix 42 c. SANDAG Tables (1997)... Appendix 46 d. School Data (1990/1,1996/7 & 1997/8) 1. District Data Tables and Growth Multipliers... Appendix Individual School Tables and Growth Multipliers... Appendix 51

3 DEMOGRAPHY OF THE SALTON SEA STUDY AREA POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS RELEVANT TO ENSURING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Introduction The Salton Sea Study Area comprises parts of four counties in southeastern California (San Bernardino and San Diego, Riverside, and Imperial), plus neighboring sections of Arizona and of the Mexican states of Baja California and Sonora. The California part of this region is largely rural, though it has a growing and locally diverse population. The area to the south of the Sea, stretching from Calipatria to Calexico, is largely Hispanic and poor; the area s northern-most reaches are largely White and more well-to-do. This picture is only general, however: a mixed economy based on agriculture, retirement, and tourism has placed pockets of quite-unlike people next to one another. The impact of any development project on various segments of this population will depend in good part on where that project is placed. Environmental Justice The Environmental Protection Agency has mandated that all federal environmental projects be subject to standards of environmental justice. To quote the EPA s draft guidelines 1, Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The guidelines are quite clear. Projects must be organized so that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group bear[s] a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies. In order to do this, all projects with potential environmental impact must investigate the demographic characteristics of the surrounding population. Unfortunately, the latest U.S. Census is now over 9 years old, and is thus an increasingly inaccurate tool with which to measure current (1999) population. 1 Draft Region 5 Interim Guidelines for Identifying and Addressing a Potential Environmental Justice Case ( dated 10/30/1997; downloaded 5/17/1999). These guidelines were designed to meet Executive Order 12898, focusing federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions in minority communities and low-income communities. Page 1

4 Figures Updating the 1990 Figures The Salton Sea Database Program, housed at the Center for Environmental Management at the University of Redlands, has contracted with the author to collect and analyze publicly available demographic data pertaining to the Salton Sea Study Area. Specifically, this report presents reasoned estimates of the current ( ) population of the California portion of the Study Area. While we cannot estimate all of the population characteristics relevant to ensuring environmental justice, we can estimate most of them, as the following data show. Population Characteristics Several population characteristics are relevant to the EPA guidelines, to the Executive Order that they implement, and to the principles of environmental justice out of which both grow. The following characteristics are the most relevant: a. Population ethnicity: the percentage of the population identified with each racial and ethnic group. b. Poverty: the percentage of the population that is poor and a related matter the population s average level of wealth. c. Neighborhood stability: the degree to which particular neighborhoods are or are not typified by long-term residence and well-developed social ties. (These population characteristics have been shown to reduce crime, alcoholism, drug-use, and other social ills. Given a forced choice, it is always better to disrupt an unstable neighborhood and preserve a stable one: the social consequences are less dire.) d. The population s age-structure: the percentage of the population that consists of children, senior citizens, and so on. e. The population s average level of education, which in our society is an indicator of relative social power. All of these are available from the 1990 Census. Some of them in particular, a, b, and d are available from more recent sources. Data Sources The following sources provide useful data for all or part of the four California counties in the study area. The 1990 U.S. Census The 1990 Census provides extremely detailed information about the population of the Salton Sea Study Area. 2 It covers the entire area, and its counts 2 Census data are available from several sources. The tract and block-group data needed to assess environmental justice issues are available from the Census Bureau s TIGER service at: and from ESRI at: Page 2

5 Figures are the most accurate available measures for the above population characteristics. 3 Unfortunately, the census counts are 9 years old a serious problem in a fast-changing region. Census data is organized both by census tracts and by census blockgroups. Tracts are larger; the Study Area consists of over 65 of them. Each tract consists of one or more block-groups, the latter of which provide a better picture of particular neighborhoods; the Study Area contains over 330 block-groups, each with data on the variables we seek. EPA Interim Guidelines recommend working with block-group data wherever possible Census data by necessity form the baseline on which our estimates of current population characteristics are built. Not only is it more accurate (being based on as close to a complete count as possible); it provides information, particularly on housing and education, that other sources do not. Medical Service Study Areas (1996) The California Department of Health Services collects demographic information about various regions of the state, in order to gauge these areas relative need for medical personnel. The boundaries of their Medical Service Study Areas follow U.S. census tract boundaries, though most MSSAs include more than one tract. The California Rural Health Policy Council has estimated 1996 demographic data for rural MSSAs, focusing on ethnicity, poverty, population age structure, and the percentage of limited English-speakers all factors important to the provision of medical services. The CRHPC has published this data, along with 1990 census data, on its web site. 4 Following federal reporting requirements, both age and ethnic dividing lines changed from the 1990 census to the 1996 estimates. Most importantly, in 1990 Hispanics could be of any race, where by 1996 they had become an exclusive category. This makes the comparison of raw figures between these years problematic. The CRHPC presentation, however, allows the analyst to transform the earlier categories into the later ones, thus estimating the rate of change between the two years. Applying this multiplier to 1990 census figures gives us a good estimate of the population characteristics of the rural portion of the Study Area. The two sources provide mapping software (though using two different and incompatible packages); each provides a somewhat different collection of additional data along with the census demographics. 3 Although they are generally thorough, Federal Censuses have been shown systematically to undercount both ethnic minorities and the poor. There is, unfortunately, no way of correcting for this undercount in the tables that follow. 4 At: (downloaded 4/1999; last visited 5/18/1999). Page 3

6 Figures This rural portion includes all those parts of Imperial, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties lying within the Study Area. It excludes only the central portion of Riverside County: Palm Springs, Palm Desert, and surrounding communities. The MSSA figures cannot be used to estimate these urban regions 1996 population characteristics. As noted below, however, school district data fill in this gap quite well. Unfortunately, the MSSA figures are more accurate for census tracts than they are for block-groups. While it is reasonable to use the MSSA mulipliers to produce block-group data, one can only do so on the assumption that the MSSA-derived growth rates are uniform across each MSSA an assumption that cannot be tested from this data alone. San Diego Association of Governments Population Estimates (1997) The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has published several population estimates on its web site. 5 Subregional Areas (SRA) 60, 62, and 63 in the eastern half of the county correspond to Study Area 1990 census tracts. They also correspond to MSSAs. The SANDAG population estimates for January 1, 1997 match the MSSA estimates for 1996 almost (but not quite) exactly, providing an independent verification of the MSSA figures. This comparison renders only the MSSA figure for the White population suspect. Fortunately, the MSSA figure for the percentage of the population that is ethnic minority allows us to deduce (by subtraction) the percentage that is White; this latter figure that matches the SANDAG estimates quite well. The SANDAG comparison encourages us to treat the 1996 MSSA population estimates for the whole region as valid data. School Attendance Data (1990 & ) The California Department of Education requires each public school and public school district within the state to report yearly pupil demographics largely ethnic enrollment, student poverty, and percentage of students with limited proficiency in English. 6 By comparing the current figures with those from the last census year (1990), one can develop a multiplier to estimate the percent change in population characteristics in various regions. These percentages match MSSA figures quite closely: estimates of total minority population differ by less than 2.5 percentage points, on average, while poverty estimates differ 5 Located at: (downloaded 4/1999; last visited 5/19/1999). 6 These data are available from two web sites. Individual school and district profiles can be obtained from the Education Data Partnership: (downloaded 4/1999 to 5/1999; last visited 5/19/1999). Summary files of district and school data can be obtained from the California Department of Education at: Page 4

7 Figures by just under twice that. Differences tend to be smaller for urban and semiurban areas, which justifies our use of school data for those parts of the Study Area not covered by the MSSA. Simultaneously, school figures give us a finer-toothed measure of current block-group populations than the MSSA alone provides. After adjusting for changed attendance boundaries, demographic ratios for individual elementary schools can tell us whether population growth is or is not uniform across MSSAs. Unfortunately, this analysis depends on a few simplifying assumptions, among them that a stable percentage of the school-aged population attends public (as opposed to private) schools. Despite changes in California education in the last decade, there is no reason to suspect much change in this percentage, which the following projections ignore. The next section of this report combines data from these four sources to produce a demographic model of the California portion of the Salton Sea Study Area, as of the late 1990s. Extensive notes describe the rationale for each element of the model. The Appendix presents the data tables out of which that model was made. Page 5

8 Figures Current Population Estimates (by Census ) Overview The EPA s environmental justice guidelines are intended to ensure that no disempowered minority bears a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from development projects. To that end, they require the identification of census block-groups that contain higher than normal percentages of racial and ethnic minorities, poor people, and other groups that are often left out of social decision-making. The following population estimates provide a basis for such identification. They allow us to identify those census block-groups with high minority populations and with high levels of poverty. They also allow us to identify those block-groups with high and low neighborhood stability, with various percentages of the elderly and the young, and with high and low levels of education. Though current EPA guidelines do not require us to consider these latter measures, the principles behind them do: no identifiable class of people should have to bear a disproportionate amount of a project s negative environmental consequences. By consulting the tables, one can tell at a glance whether a proposed means of restoring the Salton Sea might violate environmental justice standards and thus require further review. Page 6

9 Figures Ethnicity and Poverty Pages 8-15 contain two sets of figures: estimates of the ethnic composition and measures of poverty for each census block-group in the Study Area (except for those having fewer than 10 residents in 1990). The ethnic breakdowns are based on 1996 MSSA data or for those areas not covered by the MSSA on data collected by area school districts during the 1997/8 school year. These data were used to construct growth ratios to bring the 1990 Census figures up to date. Cross-checking between various data sources indicates that they are accurate, on average, to within a few percentage points. The Percentile Rank: % Minority indicates the relative size of each block-group s minority population on a ranked scale. A block-group with a 13% minority population, for example, has a larger minority population than 21% of all Study Area block-groups. A block-group with 87% minority population, on the other hand, has a larger minority population than 80% of the others. The EPA s environmental justice directives require that Salton Sea restoration does not disproportionately affect those block-groups with a high minority population. Poverty figures are similarly drawn from both MSSA and school district data, updating the Census s figures for the percent of the population living below the poverty level. The Percentile Rank: % Poverty compares the extent of poverty in each block-group, relative to others. Environmental justice directives likewise require that restoration does not disproportionately affect those block-groups with a high population living in poverty. As a further measure of poverty, the1990 Census provided information on housing. People with low income but also with low housing costs are usually not as badly off as are those with somewhat higher incomes but much more expensive housing. Similarly, those living in aged housing usually have poorer lives than those whose housing is new. The first housing column indicates the percentage of block-group residents who paid more than 30% of their income for housing. This indicates a relative poverty that is more informative than raw income level. The second housing column combines three figures: 1) the percent of each block-group s population living in poverty; 2) the percent having to spend more than 30% for housing; and 3) the average age of housing within the block-group. These figures are ranked by into a Live Poorly scale. Those block-groups scoring higher on this scale are also subject to environmental justice considerations. Page 7

10 Figures Tract # Current Population Characteristics I (1 of 8) Ethnicity Poverty ( ) ( ) (1990) % white % hispanic % native % black % other rank: % minority % poverty rank: % poverty % with highcost housing rank: live poorly San Bernardino County San Diego County Page 8

11 Figures Tract # Current Population Characteristics I (2 of 8) Ethnicity Poverty ( ) ( ) (1990) % white % hispanic % native % black % other rank: % minority % poverty rank: % poverty % with highcost housing rank: live poorly Riverside County Page 9

12 Figures Tract # Current Population Characteristics I (3 of 8) Ethnicity Poverty ( ) ( ) (1990) % white % hispanic % native % black % other rank: % minority % poverty rank: % poverty % with highcost housing rank: live poorly Riverside County (page 2) Page 10

13 Figures Tract # Current Population Characteristics I (4 of 8) Ethnicity Poverty ( ) ( ) (1990) % white % hispanic % native % black % other rank: % minority % poverty rank: % poverty % with highcost housing rank: live poorly Riverside County (page 3) Page 11

14 Figures Tract # Current Population Characteristics I (5 of 8) Ethnicity Poverty ( ) ( ) (1990) % white % hispanic % native % black % other rank: % minority % poverty rank: % poverty % with highcost housing rank: live poorly Riverside County (page 4) Imperial County Page 12

15 Figures Tract # Current Population Characteristics I (6 of 8) Ethnicity Poverty ( ) ( ) (1990) % white % hispanic % native % black % other rank: % minority % poverty rank: % poverty % with highcost housing rank: live poorly Imperial County (page 2) Page 13

16 Figures Current Population Characteristics I (7 of 8) Ethnicity Poverty ( ) ( ) (1990) Tract # % white % hispanic % native % black % other rank: % minority % poverty rank: % poverty % with highcost housing rank: live poorly Imperial County (page 3) Page 14

17 Figures Tract # Current Population Characteristics I (8 of 8) Ethnicity Poverty ( ) ( ) (1990) % white % hispanic % native % black % other rank: % minority % poverty rank: % poverty % with highcost housing rank: live poorly Imperial County (page 4) Page 15

18 Figures Neighborhood Stability, Age-Structure, and Education Pages contain three sets of figures: data on neighborhood stability, the population age-structure, and the average education level for each census block-group in the Study Area (again, except for those having fewer than 10 residents in 1990). The neighborhood stability figures come from the 1990 Census, and are thus out of date, though the relative stability of the various block-groups may not have changed. The first column presents the percentage of home ownership in the block-group; the second column ranks the block-groups according to the percentage that lived in the same dwelling for the five precensus years. Decades of criminological and sociological research indicates that, all other things being equal, it is better not to let environmental and other projects disrupt stable neighborhoods, regardless of their income level. Where possible, Salton Sea restoration efforts should be directed elsewhere. Columns 3 through 6 present the population age-structure for each block-group. Figures come from the 1996 MSSA survey, and from the 1990 Census for those block-groups that the MSSA does not cover. These data allow us to identify demographically unusual regions, such as those inhabited largely by retirees, by young families, etc. Environmental justice directives do not require use of this data, but it seems appropriate to learn whether Salton Sea restoration adversely affects one age-group more than another. The final two columns present census data on education. Column 7 shows the percentage of a block-group s population that has graduated from high school. Column 8 combines this with the percentage of college graduates, presenting the results as a relative ranking. groups with a highly educated population score high on this ranking; block-groups with an uneducated population score lower. This data is similarly not required by EPA environmental justice guidelines. Given the place of education in the current American status system, however, it seems appropriate to avoid adversely affecting the uneducated, as we avoid adversely affecting minorities and the poor. Page 16

19 Figures Tract # Current Population Characteristics II (1 of 8) Neighborhood Stability Age of Population Education % home ownership (1990) (black=1996 grey=1990) (1990) rank: housing stability % pre-school age % school age % working age % 65+ % high school graduate rank: education San Bernardino County San Diego County Page 17

20 Figures Tract # Current Population Characteristics II (2 of 8) Neighborhood Stability Age of Population Education % home ownership (1990) (black=1996 grey=1990) (1990) rank: housing stability % pre-school age % school age % working age % 65+ % high school graduate rank: education Riverside County Page 18

21 Figures Tract # Current Population Characteristics II (3 of 8) Neighborhood Stability Age of Population Education % home ownership (1990) (black=1996 grey=1990) (1990) rank: housing stability % pre-school age % school age % working age % 65+ % high school graduate rank: education Riverside County (page 2) Page 19

22 Figures Tract # Current Population Characteristics II (4 of 8) Neighborhood Stability Age of Population Education % home ownership (1990) (black=1996 grey=1990) (1990) rank: housing stability % pre-school age % school age % working age % 65+ % high school graduate rank: education Riverside County (page 3) Page 20

23 Figures Tract # Current Population Characteristics II (5 of 8) Neighborhood Stability Age of Population Education % home ownership (1990) (black=1996 grey=1990) (1990) rank: housing stability % pre-school age % school age % working age % 65+ % high school graduate rank: education Riverside County (page 4) Imperial County Page 21

24 Figures Tract # Current Population Characteristics II (6 of 8) Neighborhood Stability Age of Population Education % home ownership (1990) (black=1996 grey=1990) (1990) rank: housing stability % pre-school age % school age % working age % 65+ % high school graduate rank: education Imperial County (page 2) Page 22

25 Figures Tract # Current Population Characteristics II (7 of 8) Neighborhood Stability Age of Population Education % home ownership (1990) (black=1996 grey=1990) (1990) rank: housing stability % pre-school age % school age % working age % 65+ % high school graduate rank: education Imperial County (page 3) Page 23

26 Figures Tract # Current Population Characteristics II (8 of 8) Neighborhood Stability Age of Population Education % home ownership (1990) (black=1996 grey=1990) (1990) rank: housing stability % pre-school age % school age % working age % 65+ % high school graduate rank: education Imperial County (page 4) Page 24

27 Figures 1990 Census: s Appendix: Source Data Tables The following pages contain 5 data tables drawn from the 1990 U.S. Census. Each table contains information from one of the 5 areas identified above as relevant to assessing environmental justice. They are organized by census block-group the EPA s recommended geographical unit for E.J. assessment. The 5 tables contain, for each block-group: 1) Ethnic composition of the population ) Measures of poverty and average income ) Measures of neighborhood stability ) Age-structure of the population ) Education level of the population Appendix: Page 1

28 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract # 1990 Census: Ethnic Data by s (1 of 8) Percent from Each Ethnic # persons white black native asian other hispanic* minority* diversity rank (%ile) San Bernardino County San Diego County * "Hispanics" can be of any race. "Minority" includes all except non-hispanic Whites. Appendix: Page 2

29 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract # 1990 Census: Ethnic Data by s (2 of 8) Percent from Each Ethnic # persons white black native asian other hispanic* minority* Riverside County * "Hispanics" can be of any race. "Minority" includes all except non-hispanic Whites. diversity rank (%ile) Appendix: Page 3

30 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract # 1990 Census: Ethnic Data by s (3 of 8) Percent from Each Ethnic # persons white black native asian other hispanic* minority* Riverside County (page 2) * "Hispanics" can be of any race. "Minority" includes all except non-hispanic Whites. diversity rank (%ile) Appendix: Page 4

31 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract # 1990 Census: Ethnic Data by s (4 of 8) Percent from Each Ethnic # persons white black native asian other hispanic* minority* Riverside County (page 3) * "Hispanics" can be of any race. "Minority" includes all except non-hispanic Whites. diversity rank (%ile) Appendix: Page 5

32 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract # 1990 Census: Ethnic Data by s (5 of 8) Percent from Each Ethnic # persons white black native asian other hispanic* minority* diversity rank (%ile) Riverside County (page 4) Imperial County * "Hispanics" can be of any race. "Minority" includes all except non-hispanic Whites. Appendix: Page 6

33 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract # 1990 Census: Ethnic Data by s (6 of 8) Percent from Each Ethnic # persons white black native asian other hispanic* minority* Imperial County (page 2) * "Hispanics" can be of any race. "Minority" includes all except non-hispanic Whites. diversity rank (%ile) Appendix: Page 7

34 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract # 1990 Census: Ethnic Data by s (7 of 8) Percent from Each Ethnic # persons white black native asian other hispanic* minority* Imperial County (page 3) * "Hispanics" can be of any race. "Minority" includes all except non-hispanic Whites. diversity rank (%ile) Appendix: Page 8

35 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract # 1990 Census: Ethnic Data by s (8 of 8) Percent from Each Ethnic # persons white black native asian other hispanic* minority* Imperial County (page 4) * "Hispanics" can be of any race. "Minority" includes all except non-hispanic Whites. diversity rank (%ile) Appendix: Page 9

36 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract # 1990 Census: Income and Poverty Data (1 of 8) # households # persons household income income data per capita income income rank (%ile) % in poverty poverty data high-cost housing rank (%ile)* poor living rank (%ile) San Bernardino County $16,136 $9, $10,568 $6, $13,811 $8, $25,405 $12, $28,929 $15, $20,674 $10, $19,779 $9, $15,823 $11, $19,375 $11, $24,828 $15, $32,723 $14, $26,739 $14, $41,458 $30, $22,083 $9, $18,750 $7, $13,371 $7, $22,466 $9, $26,111 $11, $30,139 $14, $ $31,250 $11, $40,333 $24, $48,958 $21, $39,028 $22, $5,360 $2, $16,875 $12, San Diego County $24,744 $14, $21,797 $20, $27,813 $14, $30,089 $14, $41,250 $16, $38,750 $18, $15,909 $9, $33,214 $16, $33,625 $23, $19,875 $9, $25,179 $12, $25,795 $14, $29,190 $12, $21,949 $9, $17,137 $9, $14,648 $8, * Based on percent of home owners/renters paying more than 30% of their income on housing. Appendix: Page 10

37 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract # 1990 Census: Income and Poverty Data (2 of 8) income data poverty data # households # persons household income per capita income income rank (%ile) % in poverty high-cost housing rank (%ile)* poor living rank (%ile) Riverside County $47,356 $18, $23,355 $14, $31,393 $15, $24,322 $10, $23,977 $8, $14,688 $6, $16,875 $8, $13,286 $6, $30,417 $19, $16,250 $4, $27,788 $11, $36,339 $12, $20,549 $12, $20,976 $10, $12,188 $7, $22,321 $16, $55,000 $21, $22,180 $9, $14,556 $5, $27,536 $10, $26,643 $8, $33,333 $17, $34,167 $15, $30,625 $16, $ $35,882 $24, $29,141 $15, $38,281 $16, $28,071 $13, $30,380 $12, $23,550 $12, $29,167 $15, $62,702 $28, $30,694 $15, $25,625 $11, $21,830 $11, $19,107 $9, $27,219 $12, $30,208 $11, $43,750 $2, $19,500 $12, $28,056 $13, $11,917 $9, $35,208 $18, $16,849 $10, $17,844 $12, * Based on percent of home owners/renters paying more than 30% of their income on housing. Appendix: Page 11

38 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract # 1990 Census: Income and Poverty Data (3 of 8) income data poverty data # households # persons household income per capita income income rank (%ile) % in poverty high-cost housing rank (%ile)* poor living rank (%ile) Riverside County (page 2) $33,616 $14, $14,665 $11, $26,250 $12, $16,983 $8, $17,388 $9, $23,382 $9, $32,578 $15, $18,000 $12, $40,417 $15, $40,729 $12, $15,227 $9, $36,875 $20, $19,167 $7, $33,897 $30, $29,647 $17, $57,613 $53, $25,885 $20, $34,886 $12, $21,042 $12, $29,569 $7, $25,212 $16, $15,595 $13, $26,083 $27, $36,667 $16, $25,399 $11, $34,394 $24, $21,176 $16, $31,493 $23, $37,396 $26, $22,216 $21, $31,364 $25, $22,500 $24, $39,737 $31, $25,489 $36, $46,855 $17, $17,204 $13, $26,298 $23, $43,111 $16, $39,508 $11, $24,497 $9, $21,411 $18, $35,223 $16, $49,444 $41, $61,437 $40, $30,859 $20, $76,281 $72, $68,729 $34, $36,161 $16, * Based on percent of home owners/renters paying more than 30% of their income on housing. Appendix: Page 12

39 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract # 1990 Census: Income and Poverty Data (4 of 8) income data poverty data # households # persons household income per capita income income rank (%ile) % in poverty high-cost housing rank (%ile)* poor living rank (%ile) Riverside County (page 3) $33,799 $25, $40,840 $25, $40,360 $31, $32,846 $17, $13,801 $8, $25,477 $9, $44,107 $18, $33,162 $16, $40,079 $19, $33,120 $16, $35,569 $19, $45,556 $40, $69,833 $48, $30,021 $18, $22,439 $21, $37,727 $51, $79,885 $36, $33,639 $19, $24,659 $22, $22,208 $16, $78,005 $80, $74,382 $50, $56,918 $33, $28,882 $15, $29,187 $11, $33,333 $11, $36,354 $12, $45,938 $13, $31,086 $14, $27,667 $15, $32,833 $22, $38,125 $9, $47,195 $23, $31,771 $17, $34,583 $16, $20,250 $6, $37,750 $14, $27,598 $11, $30,682 $15, $33,107 $8, $30,673 $7, $23,169 $5, $21,217 $7, $28,648 $9, $36,250 $17, $30,893 $7, $17,083 $5, $17,172 $4, $22,989 $5, * Based on percent of home owners/renters paying more than 30% of their income on housing. Appendix: Page 13

40 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract # 1990 Census: Income and Poverty Data (5 of 8) # households # persons household income income data per capita income income rank (%ile) % in poverty poverty data high-cost housing rank (%ile)* poor living rank (%ile) Riverside County (page 4) $17,805 $8, $24,440 $7, $29,286 $8, $20,871 $6, $16,557 $4, $25,000 $6, $38,846 $11, $15,809 $6, $30,114 $32, $102,948 $97, $21,287 $7, $16,540 $5, $17,344 $4, $20,347 $12, $22,679 $4, $25,714 $5, $19,306 $5, $17,297 $5, $22,141 $6, $23,750 $3, $25,383 $6, $24,250 $14, $ $16,250 $17, $12,656 $5, $31,827 $8, $32,097 $12, $16,154 $9, Imperial County $18,793 $8, $21,630 $6, $21,010 $5, $10,000 $7, $16,552 $7, $24,511 $8, $29,000 $9, $20,463 $7, $22,969 $7, $33,472 $10, $34,038 $14, $31,979 $12, $14,583 $6, $22,054 $5, $17,159 $5, $19,088 $5, * Based on percent of home owners/renters paying more than 30% of their income on housing. Appendix: Page 14

41 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract # 1990 Census: Income and Poverty Data (6 of 8) # households # persons household income income data per capita income income rank (%ile) % in poverty high-cost housing rank (%ile)* poor living rank (%ile) Imperial County (page 2) $15,372 $5, $19,464 $7, $43,523 $15, $32,593 $12, $30,091 $11, $24,063 $9, $54,349 $26, $38,177 $16, $15,217 $7, $19,750 $5, $19,911 $7, $36,528 $10, $62,558 $23, $33,182 $9, $23,594 $7, $19,375 $10, $35,735 $10, $19,939 $8, $18,958 $11, $17,604 $6, $32,396 $9, $17,411 $8, $19,531 $9, $35,282 $12, $48,750 $13, $41,293 $13, $33,583 $8, $29,464 $10, $31,667 $17, $21,792 $8, $22,083 $16, $20,938 $10, $16,250 $11, $44,750 $11, $25,664 $9, $36,597 $15, $17,188 $5, $11,853 $5, $18,750 $11, $26,172 $9, $22,417 $10, $17,350 $4, $23,571 $5, $34,107 $5, $21,136 $5, $12,083 $3, $16,607 $5, $12,750 $4, $16,351 $5, * Based on percent of home owners/renters paying more than 30% of their income on housing. poverty data Appendix: Page 15

42 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract # 1990 Census: Income and Poverty Data (7 of 8) # households # persons household income income data per capita income income rank (%ile) % in poverty high-cost housing rank (%ile)* poor living rank (%ile) Imperial County (page 3) $45,714 $9, $21,979 $6, $15,987 $6, $13,882 $5, $13,373 $5, $32,083 $11, $11,707 $8, $16,667 $10, $30,603 $10, $46,154 $17, $51,280 $16, $31,597 $11, $28,025 $8, $57,843 $16, $63,814 $21, $16,635 $13, $36,042 $17, $40,375 $13, $62,715 $18, $43,021 $13, $44,821 $17, $25,769 $9, $18,990 $5, $16,838 $8, $13,750 $7, $14,828 $6, $23,319 $8, $15,931 $6, $21,776 $8, $11,311 $5, $26,250 $6, $20,625 $4, $17,292 $7, $12,639 $5, $40,208 $11, $14,338 $9, $15,417 $7, $28,684 $15, $20,109 $12, $27,000 $20, $14,688 $10, $9,220 $11, $17,857 $11, $11,250 $8, $18,958 $14, $53,374 $24, * Based on percent of home owners/renters paying more than 30% of their income on housing. poverty data Appendix: Page 16

43 1990 & 1998 Figures 1990 Census: Income and Poverty Data (8 of 8) income data poverty data Tract # # households # persons household income per capita income high-cost income % in poverty rank (%ile) housing rank (%ile)* poor living rank (%ile) Imperial County (page 4) $8,964 $9, $31,607 $12, $17,727 $11, $12,132 $8, $8,571 $5, $ $12,750 $7, $8,585 $4, $12,049 $6, * Based on percent of home owners/renters paying more than 30% of their income on housing. Appendix: Page 17

44 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract # 1990 Census: Neighborhood Stability (1 of 8) households housing units % built bef 1940 median year built old housing rank (%ile)* % owners % renters % stable residents** housing stability rank (%ile) San Bernardino County San Diego County * group's rank for having old housing. Higher number indicates older housing units. ** Percent of residents over age five living at the same address for at least 5 years. Appendix: Page 18

45 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract # 1990 Census: Neighborhood Stability (2 of 8) households housing units % built bef 1940 median year built old housing rank (%ile)* % owners % renters % stable residents** housing stability rank (%ile) Riverside County * group's rank for having old housing. Higher number indicates older housing units. ** Percent of residents over age five living at the same address for at least 5 years. Appendix: Page 19

46 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract # 1990 Census: Neighborhood Stability (3 of 8) households housing units % built bef 1940 median year built old housing rank (%ile)* % owners % renters % stable residents** housing stability rank (%ile) Riverside County (page 2) * group's rank for having old housing. Higher number indicates older housing units. ** Percent of residents over age five living at the same address for at least 5 years. Appendix: Page 20

47 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract # 1990 Census: Neighborhood Stability (4 of 8) households housing units % built bef 1940 median year built old housing rank (%ile)* % owners % renters % stable residents** housing stability rank (%ile) Riverside County (page 3) * group's rank for having old housing. Higher number indicates older housing units. ** Percent of residents over age five living at the same address for at least 5 years. Appendix: Page 21

48 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract # 1990 Census: Neighborhood Stability (5 of 8) households housing units % built bef 1940 median year built old housing rank (%ile)* % owners % renters % stable residents** housing stability rank (%ile) Riverside County (page 4) Imperial County * group's rank for having old housing. Higher number indicates older housing units. ** Percent of residents over age five living at the same address for at least 5 years. Appendix: Page 22

49 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract # 1990 Census: Neighborhood Stability (6 of 8) households housing units % built bef 1940 median year built old housing rank (%ile)* % owners % renters % stable residents* * housing stability rank (%ile) Imperial County (page 2) * group's rank for having old housing. Higher number indicates older housing units. ** Percent of residents over age five living at the same address for at least 5 years. Appendix: Page 23

50 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract # 1990 Census: Neighborhood Stability (7 of 8) households housing units % built bef 1940 median year built old housing rank (%ile)* % owners % renters % stable residents** housing stability rank (%ile) Imperial County (page 3) * group's rank for having old housing. Higher number indicates older housing units. ** Percent of residents over age five living at the same address for at least 5 years. Appendix: Page 24

51 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract # 1990 Census: Neighborhood Stability (8 of 8) households housing units % built bef 1940 median year built old housing rank (%ile)* % owners % renters % stable residents** housing stability rank (%ile) Imperial County (page 4) * group's rank for having old housing. Higher number indicates older housing units. ** Percent of residents over age five living at the same address for at least 5 years. Appendix: Page 25

52 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract 1990 Census: Population Age-Structure (1 of 8) Percent of Population # persons age 0-4 age 5-9 age age age age 65+ San Bernardino County San Diego County Appendix: Page 26

53 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract 1990 Census: Population Age-Structure (2 of 8) Percent of Population # persons age 0-4 age 5-9 age age age age 65+ Riverside County Appendix: Page 27

54 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract 1990 Census: Population Age-Structure (3 of 8) Percent of Population # persons age 0-4 age 5-9 age age age age 65+ Riverside County (page 2) Appendix: Page 28

55 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract 1990 Census: Population Age-Structure (4 of 8) Percent of Population # persons age 0-4 age 5-9 age age age age 65+ Riverside County (page 3) Appendix: Page 29

56 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract 1990 Census: Population Age-Structure (5 of 8) Percent of Population # persons age 0-4 age 5-9 age age age age 65+ Riverside County (page 4) Imperial County Appendix: Page 30

57 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract 1990 Census: Population Age-Structure (6 of 8) Percent of Population # persons age 0-4 age 5-9 age age age age 65+ Imperial County (page 2) Appendix: Page 31

58 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract 1990 Census: Population Age-Structure (7 of 8) Percent of Population # persons age 0-4 age 5-9 age age age age 65+ Imperial County (page 3) Appendix: Page 32

59 1990 & 1998 Figures 1990 Census: Population Age-Structure (8 of 8) Percent of Population Tract # persons age 0-4 age 5-9 age age age age 65+ Imperial County (page 4) Appendix: Page 33

60 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract 1990 Census: Education Data (1 of 8) percent in # persons school percent with h.s. degree rank among block-groups Adults with college degree percent rank among block-groups San Bernardino County % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % San Diego County % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Appendix: Page 34

61 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract 1990 Census: Education Data (2 of 8) percent in # persons school percent with h.s. degree rank among block-groups Adults with college degree percent rank among block-groups Riverside County % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Appendix: Page 35

62 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract 1990 Census: Education Data (3 of 8) percent in # persons school percent with h.s. degree rank among block-groups Adults with college degree percent rank among block-groups Riverside County (page 2) % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Appendix: Page 36

63 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract 1990 Census: Education Data (4 of 8) Adults percent in # persons school percent with h.s. degree rank among block-groups with college degree percent rank among block-groups Riverside County (page 3) % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Appendix: Page 37

64 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract 1990 Census: Education Data (5 of 8) percent in # persons school percent with h.s. degree rank among block-groups Adults with college degree percent rank among block-groups Riverside County (page 4) % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Imperial County % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Appendix: Page 38

65 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract 1990 Census: Education Data (6 of 8) Adults percent in # persons school percent with h.s. degree rank among block-groups with college degree percent rank among block-groups Imperial County (page 2) % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Appendix: Page 39

66 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract 1990 Census: Education Data (7 of 8) Adults percent in # persons school percent with h.s. degree rank among block-groups with college degree percent rank among block-groups Imperial County (page 3) % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Appendix: Page 40

67 1990 & 1998 Figures Tract 1990 Census: Education Data (8 of 8) % in # persons school percent with h.s. degree rank among block-groups Adults with college degree percent rank among block-groups Imperial County (page 4) % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Appendix: Page 41

68 Figures MSSA Data (1990 &1996) The tables on the next three pages contain demographic data organized by Medical Survey Study Areas. These population breakdowns are only available for the rural portion of the Salton Sea region i.e., they do not include the cities of Palm Springs, Palm Desert, and surrounding communities. The first table contains 1990 census figures, organized by MSSA. The second table contains parallel demographic estimates for The third table contains figures for the growth or decline of each demographic variable standardized to eliminate the changed definitions of these variables between 1990 and The second table is the most important, as it constitutes the 1996 MSSA population estimates. The third table is useful because it allows us to estimate the 1996 demographics for census tract and block-groups, rather than for just the larger MSSA units. Appendix: Page 42

69 Figures 1990 POPULATION FROM U.S. CENSUS Totals by Medical Service Study Area Demographics by Percentage of Population Regional Designations County MSSA # White Black Native Asian Other 0 to 5 6 to to 64 ** 65+ <100% % Imperial ,543 Imperial ,826 Imperial ,152 Imperial ,054 Imperial ,854 Imperial Riverside ,494 Riverside ,022 Riverside ,514 Riverside ,404 San Bernardino ,362 San Bernardino ,554 San Diego ,989 San Diego ,318 San Diego ,390 *Hispanics may be of any race. **Calculated. Race Hispan ic * Age s Poverty Level Linguistically Isolated Persons Per Sq. Mile Total MSSA Population Appendix: Page 43

70 Figures 1996 ESTIMATED POPULATION Totals by Medical Service Study Area Demographics by Percentage of Population Regional Designations County MSSA # White * Black * Native * Asian * Other * Hispanic 0 to 4 5 to to 64** 65+ <100% Imperial ,042 Imperial ,636 Imperial ,195 Imperial ,354 Imperial ,977 Imperial Riverside ,295 Riverside ,483 Riverside ,179 Riverside ,803 San Bernardino ,176 San Bernardino ,061 San Diego ,565 San Diego ,005 San Diego ,077 *Non-Hispanics Race Age s Poverty Level % Linguistically Isolated Persons Per Sq. Mile Total MSSA Population Appendix: Page 44

71 Figures PERCENT CHANGE IN POPULATION FRACTIONS: 1990 TO 1996 With Equalized Definitions Demographics by Percentage of Population Regional Designations County MSSA # White Black Native Asian Other Hispanic Race* Age s** Poverty Level Linguistically Isolated preschool schoolaged workingage adult 65+ <100% % Imperial % -9.2% 10.3% -70.1% % 20.3% 46.2% 39.9% -4.6% 13.5% -21.5% -15.1% 0.0% 0.0% 32.3% Imperial % -14.9% -50.0% -19.3% -99.6% 10.9% -1.7% -3.8% 0.6% 14.4% 24.6% -4.5% -3.0% 29.1% 28.8% Imperial % -37.5% -88.9% -24.4% -99.6% 0.8% 5.2% -6.5% 2.4% -0.8% 25.0% -12.8% -1.1% 34.5% 34.9% Imperial % 0.4% -63.8% -28.5% -99.5% 7.6% 2.8% -0.4% -1.8% 12.8% 23.7% -1.6% 0.1% 19.0% 19.5% Imperial % 9.0% -36.6% -2.8% -98.6% 20.7% 9.3% 8.3% -0.1% -10.9% 57.9% -19.5% 17.6% 134.8% 133.1% Imperial % 16.7% -60.8% 12.4% % 31.2% -3.0% -31.4% -1.4% 16.3% 46.3% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 14.3% Riverside % 5.2% -21.4% -3.8% -93.2% 34.9% 1.9% -5.5% 0.4% 3.2% -21.0% 145.7% 21.4% 0.0% -4.4% Riverside % -17.3% -32.7% -12.8% -99.8% 5.8% 5.9% 0.5% -1.2% 10.7% 17.4% -20.5% -1.0% 25.0% 26.2% Riverside % -4.7% -32.0% 8.2% -96.9% 46.1% 1.2% 4.5% -2.8% 6.8% 48.8% 5.0% 2.4% 16.7% 17.5% Riverside % -2.3% -24.6% 6.5% -98.5% 22.0% 3.5% 4.5% -1.8% 1.2% 38.1% 7.7% -1.9% 20.1% 19.8% San Bernardino % 5.9% -15.9% 16.9% -96.3% 21.5% 4.7% 4.5% -1.5% 2.4% 52.3% 9.0% 0.0% 11.8% 10.0% San Bernardino % 0.0% -19.8% 11.5% -98.7% 23.3% -1.4% 0.6% -2.3% 16.7% 31.3% 4.6% 5.3% 2.6% 2.5% San Diego % -40.0% -11.4% 5.0% -98.5% 24.0% 10.9% -1.7% -1.1% 0.8% -17.5% 7.6% 2.6% 0.0% 19.3% San Diego % -49.1% -5.1% -1.6% -96.9% 22.4% -1.1% 4.5% -2.2% 5.4% 29.0% -1.0% 0.0% 10.0% 9.4% San Diego % -10.2% -7.5% 12.6% -97.6% 23.0% 0.6% -0.2% -2.4% 10.9% 27.4% 24.0% 2.4% 16.7% 12.7% *Race modified to separate Hispanic from other groups in 1990 census. Drop in "Other" category is assumed to be reclassified Hispanics. Rest of 1990 Hispanic category is assumed to be "White". **Age modified to fit 1996 category divisions "0-5" category is multiplied by 4/5 to get a 1990 "0-4" figure "6-18" category is assumed to be the same size as a 1990 "5-17" category would be. 1/13th of 1990 "6-18" category is transferred to get 1990 "18-64"figure. Persons Per Sq. Mile Total MSSA Population Appendix: Page 45

72 Figures SANDAG Data (1997) The following table contains population estimates for January, 1997, issued by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). These data provide age, ethnicity, and poverty estimates for San Diego County s sub-regional areas. These SRAs happen to correspond to census tract boundaries in the portion of San Diego County included in the Salton Sea Study Area. The key SRAs are numbered 60, 62, and 63 on the map below. JANUARY 1997 ESTIMATED POPULATION Totals by San Diego County Sub-Regional Area Demographics by Percentage of Population Regional Designations Race Age s Poverty Total SRA Population SRA # Tract # MSSA # White Black Hispanic Other * 0 to 4 5 to to , , ,588 *Includes Natives and Asians Appendix: Page 46

73 Figures School District Data (1990/1, 1996/7, & 1997/8) The Salton Sea Study Area is home to 28 public school districts: 10 elementary districts, 3 secondary districts, and 15 unified districts containing both elementary and secondary schools. Districts collect ethnicity and poverty data yearly. Shifting district boundaries make this data less precise than one might wish, but such shifts are rare enough to be ignored. Salton Sea Study Area School Districts The tables on the following three pages contain school district enrollment and demographic data. Enrollment data come from 1990/1 and 1997/8, and show the growth or decline in the number of Study Area children. Ethnic breakdowns come from the same years, and show the changing ethnic makeup of the Study Area. Two poverty indicators are shown for 1990/1, 1996/7 and 1997/8: the percent of children in the districts who are on AFDC, and the percent eligible for free or reduced-cost school meals. As the eligibility requirements for AFDC changed in 1997, the figures for 1996/7 are better for charting poverty trends. The poverty chart also shows the percentage of children in each district with limited proficiency in English. 7 7 For almost all districts, more than 97% of LEP students speak Spanish as a first language. Only Banning has a significant portion of non-spanish LEP speakers, mostly Hmong and Lao. Appendix: Page 47