Asian and Pacific Islanders...data on Asian and Pacific Islanders for the United States, California, and three counties in Southern California: Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego

Demographic Profile of

Asian and Pacific Islanders

in Southern California:

Census 2000

Asian Pacif

Print ing courtesy of F

ic American Legal Center

armers Insurance.

TECHNICAL NOTES Census 2000 marked the first decennial census in which persons could report more than one racial or ethnic background. While the change resulted in a more accurate measure of race and ethnicity, it complicates reporting and prevents direct comparisons between the 1990 Census and Census 2000. The Demographic Profile reports racial and ethnic background for Census 2000 as two figures, Alone and Inclusive. Alone numbers represent single race responses. Inclusive (also referred to as ‘in combination’) numbers represent single race and multiracial responses. Because the 1990 Census reported racial and ethnic background as a single figure, two measures of population growth from 1990 to 2000 are possible: one measuring growth using Alone numbers (single race responses) and another measuring growth using Inclusive numbers (single race and multiracial responses). Given these differences, growth rates for racial and ethnic groups with significant multiracial populations (e.g. Pacific Islanders, Japanese, etc.) may differ dramatically depending on which measurement is used. In tables reporting racial or ethnic population totals, the sum of Inclusive numbers will exceed 100%. Reporting of population characteristics (such as education, income, etc.) by race is limited to Alone numbers only. To better interpret Census 2000 data, we must recognize their limitations. First, the decennial census is conducted only intermittently. Given constant population change, Census 2000 data are most accurate soon after their release. Second, while unprecedented outreach by the Census Bureau and community organizations improved the undercount of Asians, Pacific Islanders remained one of the most difficult racial groups to count. Because those missed by census enumeration efforts tend to be among the most needy, Census 2000 figures likely understate the prevalence of characteristics like poverty and linguistic isolation in communities that are hard to count. Users of census data should also be aware of what Census 2000 measures tell us and don’t tell us. Census poverty measures fail to adjust the poverty line to accommodate differences in the cost of living, resulting in an understatement of poverty in areas like California where the cost of living is high. Because the Census Bureau considers South Asian languages to be ‘Indo-European,’ households speaking languages such as Gujarati, Hindi, and Urdu are excluded from overall census measures of language ability and linguistic isolation within Asian and Pacific Islander language speaking households. Census 2000 data were drawn from Summary File 1 (SF1), Summary File 2 (SF2), and Summary File 3 (SF3), while 1990 Census data were drawn from Summary Tape File 1 (STF1) and Summary Tape File 3 (STF3). Census 2000 data on many important population characteristics of Asian and Pacific Islander ethnic groups were not available at press time (e.g. Asian Indian educational attainment, Cambodian poverty rates, etc.). According to the Census Bureau, these data will be released as part of Summary File 4 (SF4) between April and September 2003. APALC’s Demographic Research Unit will compile a final Demographic Profile including these data following the release of SF4.

The Demographic Profile of Asian and Pacific Islanders in Southern California: Census 2000

is a product of the Asian Pacific American Legal Center’s Demographic Research Unit and was supported through the generosity of…

AT&T Chung Ying Tang Foundation

Farmers Insurance Sempra Energy

The Demographic Profile was written by . . .

Kimiko Kelly, M.P.P. Research Analyst

Daniel Kikuo Ichinose, M.A. Project Director

Asian Pacific American Legal Center, January 2003

APALC is an affiliate of the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Executive Summary 1

United States 2

California 4

Los Angeles County 6

Orange County 16

San Diego County 26

Glossary 36

Conclusion 37

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

A s i a n P a c i f i c A m e r i c a n L e g a l C e n t e r – D e m o g r a p h i c P r o f i l e : C e n s u s 2 0 0 0 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the midst of Southern California’s rich diversity, Asian and Pacific Islanders (APIs) stand as the region’s most diverse racial group. The API community includes over 45 ethnic groups of varied cultural, social, and economic backgrounds. Over 28 languages other than English are spoken. Understanding this diversity can be a daunting task.

The Demographic Profile of Asian and Pacific Islanders in Southern California: Census 2000 compiles available Census 2000 data on Asian and Pacific Islanders for the United States, California, and three counties in Southern California: Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego. It is intended as a tool to assist grant writers, program planners, advocates, legislative staff, and elected officials in better describing and understanding this growing population and its needs.

Key Findings

� Asian and Pacific Islanders are the fastest growing major racial group. API population growth outpaces that of African Americans, Latinos, and Whites nationally, in the state of California, and in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties.

� Population growth is occurring in both established and emerging Asian and Pacific Islander communities.

Established API communities in places such as Westminster doubled in size from 1990 to 2000. New communities are emerging throughout suburban Southern California in places like La Crescenta-Montrose, Aliso Viejo, and San Marcos.

� Asian Indians are the fastest growing among Asian and Pacific Islander ethnic groups.

The Asian Indian population doubled in size nationally, in the state of California, and in San Diego County. � Asian and Pacific Islanders are more likely than other racial or ethnic groups to be multiracial.

Among racial groups, Pacific Islanders were most likely to report more than one racial background. Asians were more multiracial than African Americans, Latinos, and Whites in most areas.

� Asian and Pacific Islanders are more likely than other racial or ethnic groups to be linguistically isolated.

API language speaking households were more linguistically isolated than Spanish speaking households in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Over one half of API language speaking households in El Monte, San Gabriel, Garden Grove, and Rosemead are linguistically isolated.

� Asian and Pacific Islander communities in several Southern California cities experience high rates of poverty.

One in five APIs in Long Beach, Rosemead, Paramount, Pomona, and El Monte live below the poverty line.

Given such considerable growth, government agencies and others serving Asian and Pacific Islander communities must allocate greater resources to programs that meet its needs. In particular, service providers must recognize the critical role language plays in the delivery of assistance to an increasingly linguistically isolated population.

Data released by the Census Bureau thus far offer only a general portrayal of the Asian and Pacific Islander community. Ethnic-specific data to be released later this year will allow a more nuanced and comprehensive picture of this community’s great cultural, social, and economic diversity.

U N I T E D S T A T E S

2 A s i a n P a c i f i c A m e r i c a n L e g a l C e n t e r – D e m o g r a p h i c P r o f i l e : C e n s u s 2 0 0 0

Un i t ed S ta tes T H E N A T I O N

The U.S. Asian and Pacific Islander population doubled from 1.5 million in 1970 to 3.7 million in 1980 and to 7.3 million in 1990. Surpassing the 10 million mark in 2000, APIs continue to be one of the fastest growing racial/ethnic groups. The API population is increasing in states with established communities and emerging in others.

Figure 1. Population Growth of Asian Ethnic Groups 1990 to 2000

36%

33%

40%

65%

68%

54%

75%

99%

107%

151%

133%

13%

17%

24%

32%

35%

48%

83%

88%

89%

106%

-6%Japanese

Laotian

Cambodian

Thai

Filipino

Korean

Chinese

Vietnamese

Hmong

Pakistani

Asian Indian

1990 to 2000 Alone

1990 to 2000 Inclusive

Note: Ranked by 1990 to 2000 Alone. Alone figures are single race responses only. Inclusive figures include single race and multiracial responses.

ASIAN & PACIFIC ISLANDER CENSUS 2000 KEY FACTS

� API Population 10.6 - 12.7 million API % of Total Population 4 - 5% API Growth 1990 to 2000 46 - 75%

� Largest API Ethnic Groups* %/APIs Growth Chinese 2,879,636 24% 48 - 75% Filipino 2,364,815 20% 32 - 68% Asian Indian 1,899,599 16% 106 - 133% Korean 1,228,427 10% 35 - 54% Vietnamese 1,223,736 10% 83 - 99% Japanese 1,148,932 10% -6 - 36%

� Children: 24%; Senior: 8%

� Less than High School degree: 20% Bachelor’s degree or higher: 43%

� Poverty: 13% Child Poverty: 15%; Senior Poverty: 12%

� Foreign Born: 67%

� Speak language other than English at home: 79% Speak English less than “very well”: 40% Linguistically isolated households: 29%

*Inclusive population (single race and multiracial responses)

S inc e th e f i r s t wave o f Ch in e s e imm ig ran t s du r ing t h e Go ld Ru sh o f t h e 1800s , U.S . immig ra t i on law s ou gh t

t o cu r b A s ian immig ra t i on . The 1965 Immigra t i on A c t chang ed th a t , open ing th e d oo r s f o r a d ramat i c

in c r ea s e i n imm ig ra t i on f r om Ch ina , In d ia , Ko rea , t h e Ph i l i pp in e s , and o the r A s ian and Pa c i f i c I s l an de r

a re a s . Du r in g the 1970 s , r e f uge e p r og rams s pu r r ed a wav e o f S ou thea s t A s ian imm ig ra t i on .

U N I T E D S T A T E S


RACE & ETHNICITY Together, Asian and Pacific Islanders make up 4 to 5% of the population and are represented by a diversity of ethnic groups.

Asians � While Asians remain the fourth

largest racial/ethnic group, they had one of the fastest rates of growth from 1990 to 2000: 49% to 72%.

� Asian Indians were the fastest growing among Asian ethnic groups, their population more than doubling in size.

� Asians are 14% multiracial, a rate higher than that of Latinos, African Americans, and Whites (6%, 5%, and 2%, respectively).

Pacific Islanders � Pacific Islander growth ranged

from 9% using Alone numbers to 140% using Inclusive numbers. This wide range is due to a large number of Pacific Islanders who indicated more than one race.

� Pacific Islanders are 54% multiracial, the highest of all racial groups. There are more multiracial Pacific Islanders than those of a single race.

Geographic Concentrations � The proportion of APIs nationally

that live in California is dropping – from 40% in 1990 to 35% in 2000. This indicates a greater distribution across other states.

� The API population is growing fastest in Nevada, Georgia, North Carolina, Minnesota, and Nebraska.

Table 1. Racial & Ethnic Groups, United States 2000

Racial & 1990 Alone* Inclusive* Ethnic Groups Number %Total Number %Total Number %Total

White, Non-Hispanic 188,128,296 76% 194,552,774 69% 198,177,900 70% African American 29,986,060 12% 34,658,190 12% 36,419,434 13% Latino / Hispanic 22,354,059 9% 33,081,736 12% 35,305,818 13% Asian 6,908,638 3% 10,242,998 4% 11,898,828 4% American Indian 1,959,234 1% 2,475,956 1% 4,119,301 1% Pacific Islander 365,024 0.1% 398,835 0.1% 874,414 0.3% Total 248,709,873 100% 281,421,906 100% 281,421,906 100% Note: Latino / Hispanic is not exclusive of other racial and ethnic groups, unless otherwise noted. Table 2. Asian & Pacific Islander Ethnic Groups, United States 2000

Asian 1990 Alone* Inclusive* Ethnic Groups Number % Asian Number % Asian Number % Asian

Chinese 1,648,696 23% 2,432,585 24% 2,879,636 24% -Chinese, except Taiwanese 1,574,918 23% 2,314,537 23% 2,734,841 23% -Taiwanese 73,778 1% 118,048 1% 144,795 1% Filipino 1,406,770 19% 1,850,314 18% 2,364,815 20% Asian Indian 815,447 11% 1,678,765 17% 1,899,599 16% Korean 798,849 11% 1,076,872 11% 1,228,427 10% Vietnamese 614,547 8% 1,122,528 11% 1,223,736 10% Japanese 847,562 12% 796,700 8% 1,148,932 10% Cambodian 147,411 2% 171,937 2% 206,052 2% Pakistani 81,371 1% 153,533 2% 204,309 2% Laotian 149,014 2% 168,707 2% 198,203 2% Hmong 90,082 1% 169,428 2% 186,310 2% Thai 91,275 1% 112,989 1% 150,283 1% Indonesian 29,252 0.4% 39,757 0.4% 63,073 1% Bangladeshi 11,838 0.2% 41,280 0.4% 57,412 0.5% Sri Lankan 10,970 0.2% 20,145 0.2% 24,587 0.2% Malaysian 12,243 0.2% 10,690 0.1% 18,566 0.2% Other Asian 156,535 2% 1,235,517 12% 1,374,019 12% Total Asian Population 6,908,638 100% 10,019,410 100% 11,898,828 100% 2000

Pacific Islander 1990 Alone* Inclusive* Ethnic Groups Number % P.I. Number % P.I. Number %P.I.

Native Hawaiian 211,014 58% 140,652 36% 401,162 46% Samoan 62,964 17% 91,029 23% 133,281 15% Guamanian or Chamorro 49,345 14% 58,240 15% 92,611 11% Tongan 17,606 5% 27,713 7% 36,840 4% Melanesian 7,195 2% 10,100 3% 14,156 2% Other Pacific Islander 16,900 5% 62,183 16% 222,661 25% Total Pacific Islander Population 365,024 100% 389,917 100% 874,414 100% Note: Groups ranked by Inclusive number *Alone figures are single race responses only. Inclusive figures include single race and multiracial responses.

C A L I F O R N I A


Cal i fo rn ia S T A T E

Over one third of all Asian and Pacific Islanders in the nation live in the state of California. From 1990 to 2000, California had the largest numeric increase of APIs of all states with an increase of over a million people. There are more Asians in California than in any other state and the second largest population of Pacific Islanders, after Hawaii.


� API Population 3.8 - 4.4 million API % of Total Population 11 - 13% API Growth 1990 to 2000 34 - 54%

� Largest API Ethnic Groups* %/APIs Growth Chinese 1,122,187 27% 39 - 59% Filipino 1,098,321 26% 26 - 50% Vietnamese 484,023 12% 60 - 73% Japanese 394,896 10% -8 - 26% Korean 375,571 9% 33 - 44% Asian Indian 360,392 9% 97 - 125%








26%

12%

24%

46%

50%

44%

53%

59%

99%

73%

125%

3%

14%

26%

33%

39%

39%

44%

60%

97%

-4%

-8%Japanese

Laotian

Cambodian

Thai

Filipino

Korean

Hmong

Chinese

Pakistani

Vietnamese

Asian Indian

1990 to 2000 Alone



Beg inn in g in 1910, Ang e l I s l and in the S an F ran c i s c o Bay, o r th e “E l l i s I s l and o f t h e We s t , ” wa s th e p o in t o f

en t r y f o r 175,000 Ch ine s e immig ran t s . Ang e l I s l and func t i on ed a s a d e t en t i on c en t e r d e s igned t o c on t r o l

th e f l ow o f Ch ine s e in t o th e c oun t r y f o l l ow ing th e pa s sa ge o f t h e Ch ine s e Ex c lu s i on Ac t o f 1882.

Immig ran t s f r om o th e r Pac i f i c R im c oun t r i e s , i n c lud in g Japan, Ko r ea , th e Ph i l i pp ine s , and Ru s s ia p a s s ed

th rough Ang e l I s l and . Now, i t i s a s t a t e p a rk .

C A L I F O R N I A


RACE & ETHNICITY Asian and Pacific Islanders are the fastest growing major racial and ethnic group in California.

Asians � Asians increased from 9% in 1990

to 11-12% of the population in 2000. California is the only state, other than Hawaii, whose population is over 10% Asian.

� Asian Indians had the fastest growth among major Asian ethnic groups, their population doubling in size.

� Asians are 11% multiracial, a rate higher than that of African Americans, Latinos, and Whites (10%, 6%, and 4%, respectively).

Pacific Islanders � Pacific Islander growth ranged from

6% using Alone numbers to 100% using Inclusive numbers. This wide range results from a large number of multiracial Pacific Islanders.

� Pacific Islanders have the highest multiracial rate of all the racial/ethnic groups (47%).

Geographic Concentrations � Half of California’s Asian population

lives in three counties: Los Angeles, Santa Clara, and Orange County.

� San Francisco County has the highest percentage of Asians (33%).

� Placer, Santa Clara, Orange, and Alameda Counties had the highest Asian growth from 1990 to 2000.

� Sacramento County had the fastest rate of Pacific Islander growth.

Table 3. Major Racial & Ethnic Groups, California 2000


White, Non-Hispanic 17,029,126 57% 15,816,790 47% 16,538,491 49% Latino / Hispanic 7,687,938 26% 10,262,025 30% 10,966,556 32% Asian 2,735,060 9% 3,697,513 11% 4,155,685 12% African American 2,208,801 7% 2,263,882 7% 2,513,041 7% American Indian 242,164 1% 333,346 1% 627,562 2% Pacific Islander 110,599 0.4% 116,961 0.3% 221,458 0.7% Total 29,760,021 100% 33,871,648 100% 33,871,648 100% Note: Latino / Hispanic is not exclusive of other racial and ethnic groups, unless otherwise noted. Table 4. Asian & Pacific Islander Ethnic Groups, California 2000


Chinese 704,850 26% 980,642 27% 1,122,187 27% -Chinese, except Taiwanese 680,744 25% 918,325 25% 1,046,775 25% -Taiwanese 32,679 1% 62,317 2% 75,412 2% Filipino 731,685 27% 918,678 25% 1,098,321 26% Vietnamese 280,223 10% 447,032 12% 484,023 12% Japanese 312,989 11% 288,854 8% 394,896 10% Korean 259,941 10% 345,882 10% 375,571 9% Asian Indian 159,973 6% 314,819 9% 360,392 9% Cambodian 68,190 2% 70,232 2% 84,559 2% Hmong 46,892 2% 65,095 2% 71,741 2% Laotian 58,058 2% 55,456 2% 65,058 2% Thai 32,064 1% 36,525 1% 46,868 1% Indonesian 14,785 1% 17,755 0.5% 29,710 1% Pakistani 13,965 1% 20,093 1% 27,832 1% Sri Lankan 3,385 0.1% 5,775 0.2% 7,212 0.2% Malaysian 2,204 0.1% 1,948 0.1% 4,282 0.1% Bangladeshi 1,134 0.04% 3,044 0.1% 4,088 0.1% Other Asian 44,722 2% 38,979 1% 94,008 2% Total Asian Population 2,735,060 100% 3,610,809 100% 4,155,685 100% 2000

Pacific Islander 1990 Alone* Inclusive* Ethnic Groups Number % P.I. Number % P.I. Number % P.I.

Samoan 31,917 30% 37,498 33% 49,804 22% Guamanian or Chamorro 25,059 23% 20,918 18% 33,849 15% Native Hawaiian 34,447 32% 20,571 18% 60,048 27% Tongan 7,919 7% 12,111 11% 15,252 7% Melanesian 5,778 5% 7,676 7% 10,200 5% Other Pacific Islander 5,479 5% 15,715 14% 57,774 26% Total Pacific Islander Population 107,358 100% 114,489 100% 221,458 100% Note: Groups ranked by Inclusive number. *Alone figures are single race responses only. Inclusive figures include single race and multiracial responses.

L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y


Los Angeles C O U N T Y

Los Angeles County’s Asian and Pacific Islander population is larger than any state in the nation, except for California. There are more Chinese, Filipinos, and Koreans in Los Angeles County than in the entire state of New York.

API POPULATION, CENSUS 20000 to 199200 to 399400 to 599600 to 799800 to 9991000 to 10000

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

East San Gabriel Valley

West San Gabriel Valley

Glendale

Los Angeles

Torrance

Long Beach

Cerritos


� API Population 1.2 - 1.3 million API Percent 12 - 14% API Growth 1990 to 2000 22 - 35%

� Largest API Ethnic Groups* %API* Growth Chinese 377,300 30% 34 - 54% Filipino 296,708 24% 18 - 35% Korean 195,150 16% 28 - 34% Japanese 138,080 11% -14 - 6% Vietnamese 89,080 7% 25 - 42% Asian Indian 71,265 6% 38 - 63%







Dating back to the formation of Chinatown in the 1860s, Los Angeles County has had a rich history of Asian and Pacific

Islander communities. Little Tokyo was established at the turn of the century while Koreatown developed in the 1960s and Little India in the 1970s. Thai Town was officially named in 1999,

and in August of 2002, the oldest and best-known Filipino settlement was formally recognized as “Historic Filipinotown.”

These communities continue to grow and expand out into the suburbs. Today, dim sum can be found as easily in the

mini-malls of the San Gabriel Valley as in urban Chinatown.



RACE & ETHNICITY Asian and Pacific Islanders are now the third largest racial/ethnic group in Los Angeles County and the fastest growing among the four largest groups.

Asians � The Asian population grew

35 to 52% from 1990 to 2000, a rate faster than that of Latinos.

� Asians emerged as the third largest racial/ethnic group in the County in 2000, moving up from fourth place in 1990. Asians broke the million mark during the 1990s to make up 1.1 to 1.2 million people in 2000.

� Asian Indians are the fastest growing Asian ethnic group.

� Chinese continue to be the largest Asian ethnic group in the County and are the fastest growing among the five largest Asian groups.

� Japanese had one of the lowest growth rates. They experienced a negative growth rate using Alone numbers, but retained a positive, though low, rate using Inclusive numbers.

� Asians have a higher multiracial rate (9%), than Latinos, Whites, or African Americans (6%, 6%, and 7%, respectively).

� Among the six largest Asian ethnic groups, Japanese have the highest multiracial percentage (15%).

� Koreans have the lowest multiracial rate (3%) and Chinese have the second lowest (5%).

Table 5. Racial & Ethnic Groups, Los Angeles County 2000


Latino / Hispanic 3,351,242 38% 3,995,093 42% 4,242,213 45% White, Non-Hispanic 3,618,850 41% 2,959,614 31% 3,132,717 33% Asian 925,561 10% 1,137,500 12% 1,245,019 13% African American 992,974 11% 930,957 10% 999,747 11% American Indian 45,508 1% 76,988 1% 138,696 1% Pacific Islander 28,924 0.3% 27,053 0.3% 49,514 0.5% Total 8,863,164 100% 9,519,338 100% 9,519,338 100% Note: Latino / Hispanic is not exclusive of other racial and ethnic groups, unless otherwise noted. Table 6. Asian & Pacific Islander Ethnic Groups, Los Angeles County 2000


Chinese 245,033 26% 329,352 30% 377,301 30% - Chinese, except Taiwanese -- -- 294,178 27% 334,764 27% - Taiwanese -- -- 35,174 3% 42,537 3% Filipino 219,653 24% 260,158 24% 296,708 24% Korean 145,431 16% 186,350 17% 195,150 16% Japanese 129,736 14% 111,349 10% 138,080 11% Vietnamese 62,594 7% 78,102 7% 89,080 7% Asian Indian 43,829 5% 60,268 5% 71,265 6% Cambodian 27,819 3% 28,226 3% 34,032 3% Thai 19,016 2% 20,040 2% 24,151 2% Indonesian 6,490 1% 6,648 0.6% 10,899 0.9% Pakistani 4,580 0.5% 4,981 0.5% 6,885 0.6% Sri Lankan 1,921 0.2% 2,979 0.3% 3,716 0.3% Laotian 3,742 0.4% 2,763 0.2% 3,569 0.3% Bangladeshi 681 0.1% 1,689 0.2% 2,327 0.2% Malaysian 745 0.1% 660 0.06% 1,330 0.1% Hmong 359 0.04% 651 0.06% 745 0.06% Other Asian 13,832 1% 11,536 1.0% 28,874 2.3% Total Asian Population 925,461 100% 1,105,752 100% 1,245,019 100% 2000


Samoan 11,934 41% 12,836 49% 16,163 33% Native Hawaiian 8,009 28% 4,347 16% 12,166 25% Guamanian or Chamorro 5,632 19% 3,277 12% 5,188 10% Tongan 1,546 5% 2,058 8% 2,627 5% Melanesian 578 2% 573 2% 794 2% Other Pacific Islander 1225 4% 3,355 13% 13,744 28% Total Pacific Islander Population 28,924 100% 26,446 100% 49,514 100% Note: Groups ranked by Inclusive number. Taiwanese figures not available. *Alone figures are single race responses only. Inclusive figures include single race and multiracial responses.



Pacific Islanders � Pacific Islander growth ranged widely,

from negative 6% using Alone numbers to positive 71% for Inclusive numbers, due to a high multiracial percentage.

� Among Pacific Islander groups,

Samoans remained the largest group and also one of the fastest growing groups, growing at a rate of 8% to 35%.

� Tongans were the fastest growing

group with a 33-70% growth rate.

� The growth rate for Native Hawaiians ranged from negative 45% using Alone numbers to positive 52% using Inclusive numbers.

� Guamanian numbers declined from 1990 to 2000, showing a negative rate of growth both with Alone and Inclusive numbers (-42% to –8%).

� Of all the racial/ethnic groups, Pacific Islanders have the highest percentage reporting more than one race. With 45% reporting a multiracial heritage, Pacific Islanders consist of 27,053 of a single race and 22,461 who reported Pacific Islander plus at least one other race.

� Native Hawaiians have the highest multiracial percentage (62%).


6%

22%

68%

27%

50%

35%

42%

34%

54%

63%

1%

2%

5%

9%

18%

25%

28%

34%

38%

-14%Japanese

Cambodian

Indonesian

Thai

Pakistani

Filipino

Vietnamese

Korean

Chinese

Asian Indian

1990 to 2000 Alone



Figure 3. Population Growth of Racial and Ethnic Groups 1990 to 2000

71%

1%

27%

35%

205%

-13%

69%

23%

19%

-6%

-6%

-18%White, Non-Hispanic

Pacific Islander

African American

Latino

Asian

American Indian

1990 to 2000 Alone


Note: Ranked by 1990 to 2000 Alone.



GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION The Asian population is increasing in size and concentration across the San Gabriel Valley, growing both in established and new areas.

� The number of Places that have a majority Asian population increased from one Place in 1990 to seven Places in 2000 (see Table 7). Six of these Places are in the San Gabriel Valley1.

� Alhambra and Diamond Bar, also in the San Gabriel Valley, have an Asian plurality, where no racial or ethnic group has a majority but Asians are the largest group.

� Large percentage point increases occurred across the San Gabriel Valley. From 1990 to 2000, Arcadia increased from 23% to 47% Asian, increasing by 24 percentage points. Five Places experienced 20 or more percentage point increases.

� Asians increased percentages in suburban areas such as Claremont, Bradbury, and La Mirada. In La Canada Flintridge, Asians increased from 12% to 22% of the population and in La Habra Heights from 7% to 20%.

Asian Ethnic Groups � A third (33%) of the Asian population of

the County lives in the city of Los Angeles. Nearly half of the Korean population and 42% of Asian Indians live in the city of Los Angeles. Filipinos are the largest Asian ethnic group in the city.

Pacific Islanders � There are over a thousand Pacific

Islanders in Compton, Torrance, and Hawthorne.

Table 7. Geographic Concentration of the Asian PopulationHighest Percent Asian Largest Number of Asians Place Number* % Total Place Number* % Total Monterey Park city 38,205 64% Los Angeles city 407,444 11% Cerritos city 31,263 61% Long Beach city 63,181 14% Walnut city 17,310 58% Torrance city 42,919 31% Rowland Heights CDP 25,400 52% Alhambra city 41,870 49% San Gabriel city 20,083 50% Monterey Park city 38,205 64% San Marino city 6,515 50% Glendale city 34,241 18% Rosemead city 26,772 50% Cerritos city 31,263 61% Alhambra city 41,870 49% Rosemead city 26,772 50% Arcadia city 25,026 47% West Covina city 25,488 24% South San Gabriel CDP 3,423 45% Rowland Heights CDP 25,400 52% *Inclusive population (single race and multiracial population) Table 8. Places with Greatest Asian Percent Growth 1990 to 2000 Percent Increase Numeric Increase Place Alone* Inclusive* Alone* Inclusive* La Crescenta-Montrose CDP 135% 154% 1,991 2,272 Temple City city 115% 123% 6,952 7,429 La Mirada city 115% 132% 3,727 4,263 Arcadia city 114% 122% 12,809 13,744 East San Gabriel CDP 99% 109% 2,919 3,222 Rowland Heights CDP 97% 105% 12,043 13,011 Artesia city 84% 94% 2,047 2,303 Diamond Bar city 81% 90% 10,773 11,924 Santa Clarita city 77% 122% 3,452 5,469 La Canada Flintridge city 75% 91% 1,788 2,172 Note: Places ranked by Percent Increase of Alone population. Limited to Places with an Asian Inclusive population of 2,000 or greater in 2000. *Alone figures are single race responses only. Inclusive figures include single race and multiracial responses. Table 9. Places with Pacific Islander and Asian Group Concentrations

Racial / Ethnic Place with the Place with the Second* Group Highest Percentage %Total Number Largest Number Number

Pacific Islanders Carson city 4% 3,401 Long Beach city 7,863 Chinese Monterey Park city 45% 26,810 Alhambra city 31,099 Filipino Carson city 20% 18,223 Long Beach city 21,502 Korean Cerritos city 18% 9,109 Glendale city 12,800 Japanese Gardena city 13% 7,445 Torrance city 16,048 Vietnamese Rosemead city 13% 7,175 Rosemead city 7,175 Asian Indian Cerritos city 6% 3,017 Cerritos city 3,017 Note: Figures are for inclusive population (single race and multiracial population) *The Place with the largest number for each group was the city of Los Angeles

1San Gabriel Valley is defined as roughly bounded by the city of Los Angeles, Angeles National Forest, San Bernadino County, and the 60 Freeway.



SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS AGE Asians as a group are older and Pacific Islanders are younger than the County’s median age.

� The Asian median age of 36 is higher than the County median of 32 but lower than non-Hispanic Whites at 41. This overall median does not reflect the diversity among Asian ethnic groups, which have shown median ages that vary widely.

� Pacific Islanders are nearly ten years younger with a median age of 27.

� Asians have an older median age in Los Angeles County than in California or the nation (34 and 33, respectively).

� The median age of Asians increased from 31 to 36 from 1990 to 2000.

� The percentage of Asians who are seniors increased from 7% to 11% between 1990 and 2000. The Asian child percentage decreased from 26% to 22%.

HOUSING Asian homeownership rates are lower than non-Hispanic Whites but higher than the County average. Pacific Islanders have rates lower than both.

� Asian homeownership is 51%, compared to 58% for non-Hispanic Whites and 48% for the County.

� The Pacific Islander homeownership rate is only 36%.

� The average household size is 3.1 for Asians and 4.0 for Pacific Islanders. The County average is 3.6.

FAMILIES Over a fifth of Asian families and nearly a third of Pacific Islander families are headed by a single parent.

� Single parent headed families make up 22% of Asian families and 30% of Pacific Islander families. This compares to the County rate of 29%.

� Nearly two-thirds of Asian families in poverty (62%) are headed by a married couple.

� The majority (54%) of Pacific Islander families in poverty are headed by a single parent.

� Single parent API families are more likely to be in poverty than married couple families (19% compared to 9%).

EDUCATION A large number of Asians and Pacific Islanders do not have more than a high school education.

� Nearly half (49%) of Asians and 80% of Pacific Islanders have a high school diploma or less as their highest degree.

� Asians are more likely to have a Bachelor’s degree (31%) than non-Hispanic Whites (23%). Pacific Islanders are among the least likely to have a Bachelor’s degree (9%).

� Asians are less likely than non-Hispanic Whites to have more than a Bachelor’s degree (12% and 15%, respectively). Only 3% of Pacific Islanders have an advanced degree.

� Although Asians as a group show high rates of college completion, this is not true for all Asian ethnic groups. This is evident in the difference in the Asian rate of attaining a Bachelor’s degree or higher (43%) and Pacific Islander rate (13%). Southeast Asians have among the lowest levels of educational attainment among all racial and ethnic groups. In1990, 5% of immigrants from Laos in California had graduated from college, compared to 60% of immigrants from Taiwan and India.

Figure 5. Educational Attainment

18%26%

31%

54%8%

7%43%

13%

Asian Pacific Islander

Bachelor's degreeor higher

Associate'sDegree

High Schoolgraduate

Less than HighSchool diploma

Note: For single race population only


A s i a n P a c i f i c A m e r i c a n

IMMIGRATION Asians have the highest foreign born percentage among the racial and ethnic groups.

� 70% of Asians are foreign born, compared with 49% of Latinos and 36% of County residents overall.

� Only 26% of Pacific Islanders are foreign born.

� Foreign born Asian & Pacific Islanders are more likely to be naturalized citizens than other foreign born in the County. Over half of Asian (59%) and nearly half (49%) of Pacific Islander foreign born are naturalized citizens, compared to 27% for Latinos.

� Of the foreign born in the County, 24% are born in Asia or the Pacific Islands.

� Among those born in Asia, 74% entered between 1980 and 2000.

Figure 6. Native and Foreign Born Percentage

30%

74%70%

26%


Native Foreign Born


Figure 7. Citizenship of API Foreign Born

54%

49%

46%

51%


Naturalized Citizen Not a Citizen


Figure 8. Asian and Pacific Islander Foreign Born by Country

Philippines25%

China24%Korea

18%

Vietnam12%

Japan5%

India4%

Thailand3%

Other Asia & Pacific Islands

6%Cambodia

3%


L e g a l C e n t e r – D e m o g r a p h i c P r o f i l e : C e n s u s 2 0 0 0 11



LANGUAGE Among those who speak an Asian or Pacific Island language at home, more than half speak English less than “very well” and are considered limited English proficient (LEP).

� Over 80% of Asian households speak a

language other than English at home.

� While a majority of the API population as a whole speaks only English or speaks English very well, 44% speak English less than “very well.”

� Among those who speak an API

language at home, most speak English less than “very well” (55%) and are considered limited English proficient.

� Nearly half of the API adult population (46%) and two-thirds of seniors (65%) speak English less than “very well.”

� On the other hand, only 26% of API children speak English less than “very well.”

� API language speaking households make up 10% of households in Los Angeles County.

� The population that speaks an API language at home increased from 8% to 10% between 1990 and 2000.

Figure 9. Language Spoken at Home for Asian Alone(Single race population only)

18%

27%

16%

15%

82%

73%

84%

85%

Asian Total

Children

Adults

Seniors

Speak only English at Home Speak languages other than English at Home

Figure 10. Asian and Pacific Islander Languages Spoken at Home

Chinese32.9%

Tagalog22.3%

Korean18.9%

Other7.6%

Other Pacific Island languages

3.2%

Other Asian languages1.5%

Thai2.5%

Laotian0.4%

Mon-Khmer, Cambodian3.3%

Japanese6.8%

Vietnamese8.2%

Note: South Asian languages such as Hindi, Gujarathi, etc are not included in the U.S. Census Bureau’s definition of API Languages. If South Asian languages were included, they would make up 5% of API languages spoken at home.


LINGUISTIC ISOLATION Asian and Pacific Islander language speaking households have the highest levels of linguistic isolation.

� Over a third of API language speaking households (35%) are linguistically isolated, compared to 30% of Spanish speaking households.

� There are 113,849 linguistically isolated API language speaking households in Los Angeles County.

� There are 289,116 people in linguistically isolated API language speaking households.

� API language speaking seniors make up a disproportionate share of

linguistically isolated seniors. While API language speakers make up only 20% of the population in linguistically isolated households, they make up 36% of the seniors in such households. On the other hand, Spanish speakers make up 70% of the population in linguistically isolated households, but only 38% of the seniors.

� Among children in linguistically isolated households, the proportion of API language speaking children is low (13%).

Figure 11. Linguistic Isolation of API Language Speaking Households

Linguistically isolated

35%

Not linguistically isolated

65%

Figure 12. English Ability for Those Who Speak an API Language at Home


64%

26%

10%

1%

23% 23%

33%

21%

45%

29%

21%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Speak English Very Well Speak English Well Speak English Not Well Speak English Not At All

Children Seniors Total



AREAS WITH HIGH LANGUAGE NEEDS The San Gabriel Valley has the largest number of linguistically isolated API language speaking households and also the highest rate of growth of such households.

� Nine of the ten Places with the highest percentage of the population speaking an API language at home are in the San Gabriel Valley.

� Out of the ten Places with the highest percentage of linguistically isolated API language speaking households, eight are in the San Gabriel Valley.

� Seven of the ten Places that experienced the highest growth of linguistically isolated API language speaking households from 1990 to 2000 were in the San Gabriel Valley.

� A majority of the API language speaking households in three cities in the San Gabriel Valley are linguistically isolated: El Monte, San Gabriel, and Rosemead.

� Five Places had over 40% linguistic isolation of API Language speaking households and over a 100% growth: Rowland Heights, Temple City, East San Gabriel CDP, La Crescenta-Montrose CDP, and El Monte.

� From 1990 to 2000, the percentage of linguistically isolated API language speaking households in El Monte increased from 45% to a majority (52%), moving them from 8th rank in 1990 to number one in 2000.

� Rowland Heights rose from 29th to 7th ranked Place between 1990 and 2000 for percentage of linguistically isolated households.

Table 10. Places with the Highest Percentage of Those Who Speak an API Language at Home Place Number Percent

1. Monterey Park city 30,616 54% 2. Rosemead city 23,063 47% 3. Rowland Heights CDP 20,984 47% 4. Walnut city 13,275 46% 5. San Gabriel city 16,568 45% 6. Cerritos city 21,876 45% 7. Alhambra city 35,455 44% 8. San Marino city 5,200 42% 9. Arcadia city 21,168 42%

10. East San Gabriel CDP 5,025 37% Table 11. Highest Percentage of Linguistically Isolated API Language Speaking Households Place* Number Percent

1. El Monte city 2,754 52% 2. San Gabriel city 2,702 51% 3. Rosemead city 3,104 50% 4. Alhambra city 6,086 49% 5. Monterey Park city 5,238 49% 6. East San Gabriel CDP 818 45% 7. Rowland Heights CDP 2,915 42% 8. Temple City city 1,515 42% 9. La Crescenta-Montrose CDP 422 42%

10. Gardena city 1,850 41% *Limited to Places with over 1,000 API Language Speaking Households Table 12. Largest Numeric Growth of Linguistically Isolated API Language Speaking Households, 1990 to 2000 Numeric Percent Place* Increase Increase

1. Los Angeles city 7,518 21% 2. Alhambra city 1,993 49% 3. Rowland Heights CDP 1,953 203% 4. Arcadia city 1,610 137% 5. El Monte city 1,439 109% 6. San Gabriel city 1,124 71% 7. Diamond Bar city 1,073 116% 8. Rosemead city 1,043 51% 9. Torrance city 992 34%

10. Temple City city 934 161% *Limited to Places with over 1,000 API Language Speaking Households



ECONOMIC INDICATORS INCOME

Asians and Pacific Islanders lag behind non-Hispanic Whites in all measures of income.

� Median household income in 1999 was $47,631 for Asians and $42,363 for Pacific Islanders, both lower than $53,978 for the non-Hispanic White population.

� Median family income in 1999 was $54,108 for Asians and $45,471 for Pacific Islanders, both lower than $69,396 for non-Hispanic Whites.

� Per Capita income in 1999 was $20,595 for Asians and $13,344 for Pacific Islanders, both much lower than non-Hispanic Whites at $35,785.

POVERTY

Both Asians and Pacific Islanders have higher poverty rates than non-Hispanic Whites, while Pacific Islander rates are also higher than the County average.

� 14% of Asians and 23% of Pacific Islanders were living below the poverty line in 2000. Both have a higher rate than non-Hispanic Whites (9%), but only Pacific Islanders are above the County average of 18%.

� 13% of Asian children and 29% of Pacific Islander children are in poverty. Asian children are far below the County average of 25%, while Pacific Islander children are above. Both have rates higher than non-Hispanic Whites at 9%.

� 12% of Asian seniors and 13% of Pacific Islander seniors are in poverty.

These are both higher than the County (10%) and non-Hispanic Whites (7%).

� Although Asians as a whole have a low poverty rate, there are differences both by area (see Table 12) and by Asian ethnic group. This overall rate masks very high poverty rates found for some Asian ethnic groups such as Southeast Asians.

Figure 13. Percent Living Below the Poverty Line

14%

23%

9%

13%

29%

9%

12% 13%

7%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Asian Pacific Islander White, Non-Hispanic

Total

Children

Seniors


Table 13. Places with the Highest API Poverty Rates Number Percent Place* in poverty in poverty Long Beach city 15,648 26% Rosemead city 6,354 25% Paramount city 515 22% Pomona city 2,016 20% El Monte city 4,301 20% LA County Average 1,674,599 18% *Limited to Places with an Asian Alone population greater than 1,000. Note: For single race population only

O R A N G E C O U N T Y


Orange C O U N T Y

Orange County has the third largest number of Asian and Pacific Islanders and the third fastest growing API population in the state. Orange County has the largest number of Vietnamese of any County in the state and the second largest Korean population. Thirty percent of the Vietnamese in the state live in Orange County.


� API Population 396,000 – 440,000 API Percent 14 - 15% API Growth 1990 to 2000 59 - 77%

� Largest API Ethnic Groups* %API* Growth Vietnamese 141,164 33% 89 - 97% Chinese 72,437 29% 44 - 75% Filipino 60,000 14% 61 - 98% Korean 58,564 14% 55 - 63% Japanese 41,767 10% 5 - 41% Asian Indian 30,464 7% 79 - 100%






*Inclusive population (single race and multiracial population)

Garden Grove

Westminster

Irvine

La Palma

Fountain Valley

ORANGE COUNTY

Buena Park


When American military involvement in Southeast Asia

ended in 1975, many Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian, and

Hmong began to enter the United States as refugees.

One third of Vietnamese refugees settled in Orange County.

Vietnamese shopping malls, stores, and restaurants developed

in Westminster and came to be known as “Little Saigon.” The

surrounding homes and neighborhoods developed into the

largest Vietnamese community outside of Vietnam.1

1Allen, J.P. and E.Turner. 1997. The Ethnic Quilt


A s i a n P a c i f i c A m

RACE & ETHNICITY Asian and Pacific Islanders are the fastest growing among the four largest racial/ethnic groups.

Asians � From 1990 to 2000, the Asian

population grew 61 to 76%, a rate faster than that of Latinos.

� With over 400,000 in 2000, there will soon be over half a million APIs in Orange County.

� Vietnamese continue to be the largest Asian ethnic group in the County, and are also the fastest growing, nearly doubling in size from 1990 to 2000.

� Asian Indians, Pakistanis, and Filipinos experienced high percentage increases from 1990 to 2000, all practically doubling in size.

� Filipinos emerged as the third largest ethnic group in 2000, moving up from fourth position in 1990.

� Japanese experienced one of the lowest rates of growth and declined from 12% of the Asian population in 1990 to 8-10% in 2000.

� The Asian multiracial rate (9%) is higher than that of Latinos, and Whites (6% and 4%, respectively).


� Vietnamese have the lowest multiracial rate (2%) and Koreans have the second lowest (4%).

Table 14. Racial & Ethnic Groups, Orange County 2000


White, Non-Hispanic 1,554,501 64% 1,458,978 51% 1,512,912 53% Latino / Hispanic 564,828 23% 822,686 29% 875,579 31% Asian 240,703 10% 386,785 14% 423,911 15% African American 42,681 2% 47,649 2% 59,426 2% American Indian 12,165 1% 19,906 1% 37,584 1% Pacific Islander 8,489 0.4% 8,938 0.3% 16,666 0.6% Total 2,410,556 100% 2,846,289 100% 2,846,289 100% Note: Latino / Hispanic is not exclusive of other racial and ethnic groups, unless otherwise noted. Table 15. Asian & Pacific Islander Ethnic Groups, Orange County 2000


Vietnamese 71,822 30% 135,548 36% 141,164 33% Chinese 41,403 17% 59,717 16% 72,437 29% - Chinese, except Taiwanese -- -- 50,217 13% 61,174 14% - Taiwanese -- -- 9,500 3% 11,263 3% Filipino 30,356 13% 48,946 13% 60,000 14% Korean 35,919 15% 55,573 15% 58,564 14% Japanese 29,704 12% 31,283 8% 41,767 10% Asian Indian 15,212 6% 27,197 7% 30,464 7% Cambodian 3,979 2% 4,517 1% 5,359 1% Thai 2,227 1% 3,022 1% 3,822 1% Pakistani 1,508 47% 2,636 1% 3,579 1% Indonesian 1,395 44% 1,903 1% 3,301 1% Laotian 2,893 1% 2,711 1% 3,208 1% Hmong 575 0.2% 986 0.3% 1,126 0.3% Sri Lankan 314 0.1% 709 0.2% 843 0.2% Bangladeshi 113 0.05% 311 0.1% 433 0.1% Malaysian 107 0.04% 168 0.04% 324 0.1% Other Asian 3,176 1% 3,007 1% 8,387 2% Total Asian Population 240,703 100% 378,234 100% 423,911 100% 2000


Native Hawaiian 3,166 35% 1,986 23% 5,217 31% Samoan 2,979 37% 3,555 41% 4,555 27% Guamanian or Chamorro 1,406 4% 1,363 16% 2,318 14% Tongan 345 17% 442 5% 610 4% Melanesian 79 1% 104 1% 145 1% Other Pacific Islander 514 6% 1,327 15% 4,268 26% Total Pacific Islander Population 8,489 100% 8,777 100% 16,666 100% Note: Groups ranked by Inclusive number. Taiwanese figures not available. *Alone figures are single race responses only. Inclusive figures include single race and multiracial responses.

e r i c a n L e g a l C e n t e r – D e m o g r a p h i c P r o f i l e : C e n s u s 2 0 0 0 17



Pacific Islanders � Pacific Islander growth ranged widely,

from 5% using Alone numbers to 96% using Inclusive numbers, due to a large multiracial population.


Samoans and Native Hawaiians are the largest groups.

� Melanesians and Tongans were the

fastest growing groups, both showing around a 30% to 80% growth rate.


� Pacific Islanders have one of the highest multiracial percentages among racial groups. With 46% reporting a multiracial heritage, Pacific Islanders consist of 8,938 of a single race and 16,666 who reported Pacific Islander plus at least one other race.

� Native Hawaiians have the highest multiracial percentage (62%) with more multiracial Native Hawaiians than those of a single race.

Figure 14. Population Growth of Racial & Ethnic Groups 1990 to 2000

96%

39%

55%

76%

209%

5%

12%

46%

61%

64%

-3%-6%White, Non-Hispanic

Pacific Islander

African American

Latino

Asian

American Indian

1990 to 2000 Alone


Note: Ranked by 1990 to 2000 Alone.


41%

35%

72%

137%

75%

63%

98%

137%

100%

97%

5%

14%

36%

36%

44%

55%

61%

75%

79%

89%

Japanese

Cambodian

Thai

Indonesian

Chinese

Korean

Filipino

Pakistani

Asian Indian

Vietnamese

1990 to 2000 Alone





GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION The Asian and Pacific Islander population is predominately located in the northern half of the County.

� Five Places in Orange County show both the highest percentages of Asians and the highest rates of growth from 1990 to 2000. These are Places with established concentrations that are increasing: Westminster, Irvine, Garden Grove, Cypress, and Buena Park.

� The Places with the highest concentrations of Asians did not vary from 1990 to 2000, and these Places continued to show great growth in the Asian population.

� Irvine and Westminster doubled their Asian population from 1990 to 2000.

� Irvine and Garden Grove had the largest numeric increases from 1990 to 2000, the Asian population increasing by more than 20,000.

� La Palma has the highest percentage of Asians – nearly half of the population is Asian.

Asian Ethnic Groups � Orange County shows a diversity of

Asian ethnic groups in several Places. La Palma is 17% Korean, 9% Chinese, 8% Filipino, 5% Japanese, 4% Asian Indian, and 2% Vietnamese.

� Irvine is 12% Chinese, 5% Korean, 3% Vietnamese, and 3% Filipino.

Pacific Islanders � Santa Ana, Garden Grove, and

Huntington Beach each have over 1,000 Pacific Islanders.

Table 16. Geographic Concentration of the Asian PopulationHighest Percent Asian Largest Number of Asians Place Number* %Total Place Number* %Total La Palma city 7,204 47% Garden Grove city 53,224 32% Westminster city 34,860 40% Irvine city 46,251 32% Irvine city 46,251 32% Anaheim city 43,220 13% Garden Grove city 53,224 32% Westminster city 34,860 40% Fountain Valley city 15,229 28% Santa Ana city 31,897 9% Cypress city 10,543 23% Fullerton city 21,885 17% Buena Park city 17,770 23% Huntington Beach city 20,579 11% Newport Coast CDP 518 19% Buena Park city 17,770 23% Fullerton city 21,885 17% Fountain Valley city 15,229 28% Foothill Ranch CDP 1,866 17% Orange city 13,360 10% *Inclusive population (single race and multiracial population) Table 17. Places with Greatest Asian Percent Growth 1990 to 2000 Percent Increase Numeric Increase Place Alone* Inclusive* Alone* Inclusive* Aliso Viejo CDP 625% 769% 3,804 4,684 Rancho Santa Margarita CDP 276% 375% 2,564 3,476 Irvine city 116% 134% 22,885 26,464 Tustin city 99% 119% 4,997 6,023 Westminster city 97% 104% 16,576 17,807 Garden Grove city 81% 88% 22,830 24,976 La Habra city 77% 104% 1,520 2,066 Buena Park city 73% 87% 6,962 8,242 Cypress city 71% 87% 3,988 4,913 Stanton city 65% 79% 2,278 2,767Note: Places ranked by Percent Increase of Alone population. Limited to Places with an Asian Inclusive population of 2,000 or greater in 2000. *Alone figures are for single race responses only. Inclusive includes single race and multiracial responses.

Table 18. Places with Pacific Islander and Asian Group Concentrations

Racial / Ethnic Place with the Place with the Group Highest Percentage %Total Number Largest Number Number

Pacific Islanders Stanton city 1% 508 Anaheim city 2,356 Vietnamese Westminster city 32% 27,887 Garden Grove city 36,532 Chinese Irvine city 12% 16,961 Irvine city 16,961 Filipino La Palma city 8% 1,220 Anaheim city 9,655 Korean La Palma city 17% 2,685 Fullerton city 9,301 Japanese La Palma city 5% 847 Irvine city 6,075 Asian Indian La Palma city 4% 611 Irvine city 4,762 Note: Figures are for inclusive population (single race and multiracial population)



SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS AGE The median age of Asians is older than the county median and Pacific Islanders are younger.

� The Asian median age of 34 is higher than the County median of 33 but lower than non-Hispanic Whites at 40.

� Pacific Islanders are younger with a median age of 28.

� Asians have a higher proportion of their population in the 18 to 64 year age bracket than the County (68% compared to 63%).

� The percentage of Pacific Islanders who are 17 years old or younger is much higher than the County (33% compared to 27%).

HOUSING Asian and Pacific Islander homeownership rates are lower than both non-Hispanic Whites and the County average.

� Asian homeownership is 58%, compared to 69% for non-Hispanic Whites and 61% for the County.

� The homeownership rate for Pacific Islanders is 45%.

� Asians in Orange County have a higher homeownership rate than those in Los Angeles County, San Diego County, the state of California, or the nation.

� The average household size is 3.5 for Asians and 4.0 for Pacific Islanders, both higher than the County average of 3.0.

FAMILIES Nearly a fifth of both Asian families and Pacific Islander families are headed by a single parent.

� Single parent headed families make up 19% of Asian families and 18% of Pacific Islander families. The percentage of Pacific Islander families headed by a single parent is lower in Orange County than in Los Angeles County or San Diego County.

� Among both Asian and Pacific Islander families in poverty, two thirds are headed by married couples (66%).

� Single parent API families are more likely to be in poverty than married couple families (16% compared to 7%).

EDUCATION Half or more of Asians and Pacific Islanders do not have more than a high school education.

� Half (50%) of Asians and 79% of Pacific Islanders have a high school diploma or less as their highest degree.

� Asians are more likely to have a Bachelor’s degree (41%) than non-Hispanic Whites (38%). Pacific Islanders are among the least likely to have a Bachelor’s degree (14%).

� Asians are equally as likely as non-Hispanic Whites to have more than a Bachelor’s degree (each 13%). Only 3% of Pacific Islanders have an advanced degree.

� Although Asians as a whole show high rates of college completion, it is important to look at Asian ethnic groups separately since some ethnic groups fare worse than others. This is evident in the difference in the Asian rate of attaining a Bachelor’s degree or higher (41%) and the Pacific Islander rate (14%). Though the data are not available yet for Asian ethnic groups, 1990 data showed that more than half of Cambodian and Laotian adults had less than a high school degree in the state of California.


19% 20%

31%

59%8%

7%41%

14%



Associate degree

High Schoolgraduate






� 70% of Asians are foreign born, compared with 51% for Latinos and 30% for County residents overall.


� Foreign born Asian & Pacific Islanders are more likely to be naturalized citizens than other foreign born in the County. Over half of Asian (58%) and 46% of Pacific Islander foreign born are naturalized citizens, compared to 20% of Latino foreign born.


� Of those born in Asia, 73% entered between 1980 and 2000 and 27% before 1980.


30%

76%70%

24%


Native Foreign born



58%

46%42%

54%


Naturalized citizen Not a citizen

Note: For single population race only

Figure 19. Asian and Pacific Islander Foreign Born by Country

Vietnam41%

Korea16%

Philippines13%

China:12%

India6%

Cambodia1%Japan

4%

Thailand1%

Other Asia & Pacific Islands6%




LANGUAGE Among those who speak an Asian or Pacific Island language at home, most speak English less than “very well” and are considered limited English proficient (LEP).

� Over 80% of Asian households speak a

language other than English at home.



language at home, 80% speak English less than “very well” and are considered limited English proficient.

� Nearly half of the API adult population (49%) and over two-thirds of API seniors (70%) speak English less than “very well.”


� On the other hand, less than a third of API children speak English less than “very well” (29%).

� API langage speaking households make up 11% of the households in Orange County.

Figure 21. Asian & Pacific Islander Languages Spoken at Home

Vietnamese42.0%

Korean17.0%

Chinese16.6%


Other5.5%



2.7%

Japanese5.3%

Tagalog10.9%

Thai1.3%

Laotian1.0%

Note: South Asian languages such as Hindi, Gujarathi, etc are not included in the U.S. Census Bureau’s definition of API Languages. If South Asian languages were included, they would make up 7% of API languages spoken at home.

Figure 20. Language Spoken at Home for Asians(Single race population only)

16%

13%

15%

23%

84%

87%

85%

77%

Total

Seniors

Adults

Children

Speak only English at Home Speak Language other than English at Home


LINGUISTIC ISOLATION Asian and Pacific Islander language speaking households have the highest levels of linguistic isolation.

� A third of API language speaking households (33%) are linguistically isolated, compared to 27% of Spanish speaking households.

� There are 32,860 linguistically isolated API language speaking households in Orange County.

� There are 100,718 people in linguistically isolated API language speaking households.

� API language speaking seniors make up a disproportionate share of

linguistically isolated seniors. While API language speakers make up 30% of the population in linguistically isolated households, they make up 54% of the seniors in such households. On the other hand, Spanish speakers make up 65% of the population in linguistically isolated households, but only 27% of the seniors.

� Among children in linguistically isolated households, the proportion of API

Figure 22. Linguistic Isolation of API Language Speaking


language speaking child is low (22%).

Households


33%


67%

Figure 23. English Ability for Those Who Speak and API Language at Home

62%

28%

10%

1%

20% 20%

36%

23%

43%

31%

22%

4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Speak English very well Speak English well Speak English not well Speak English not at all

Children Seniors Total



AREAS WITH HIGH LANGUAGE NEEDS Linguistic isolation is growing in areas with the highest concentration of APIs, some more than doubling the number of linguistically isolated households from 1990 to 2000.

� Six Places in the County have the highest percentage of linguistically isolated API language speaking households and also doubled the number of linguistically isolated households, including Westminster, Irvine, Anaheim, and Garden Grove.

� Fountain Valley moved up from 17th rank in 1990 to 5th rank in 2000 for percentage of linguistically isolated API language speaking households. Fountain Valley increased from 27% linguistic isolation to 37%.

� Westminster, Garden Grove, and Fountain Valley have the highest percentage of those who speak Vietnamese at home (31%, 21%, and 13%, respectively).

� La Palma has the highest percentage of the population speaking Korean at home: 15%.

� Irvine has the highest percentage of those who speak Chinese at home, 9%, along with 5% Korean, and 3% Vietnamese spoken at home.


1. Westminster city 29,584 36% 2. La Palma city 4,814 34% 3. Garden Grove city 45,028 30% 4. Irvine city 30,971 23% 5. Fountain Valley city 11,103 21% 6. Buena Park city 12,411 17% 7. Cypress city 6,760 15% 8. Stanton city 4,735 14% 9. Fullerton city 15,468 13%

10. Foothill Ranch CDP 1,251 13% Table 20. Highest Percentage of Linguistically Isolated API Language Speaking Households Place* Number Percent

1. Garden Grove city 6,094 50% 2. Westminster city 3,726 46% 3. Santa Ana city 3,063 42% 4. Stanton city 605 40% 5. Fountain Valley city 1,264 37% 6. La Palma city 535 33% 7. Anaheim city 3,290 33% 8. Buena Park city 1,246 31% 9. Fullerton city 1,702 30%

10. Irvine city 3,185 29% *Limited to Places with over 1,000 API Language Speaking Households Table 21. Largest Numeric Growth of Linguistically Isolated API Language Speaking Households, 1990 to 2000 Numeric Percent Place* Increase Increase

1. Garden Grove city 2,939 93% 2. Westminster city 2,060 124% 3. Irvine city 1,759 123% 4. Anaheim city 1,654 101% 5. Fullerton city 770 83% 6. Fountain Valley city 726 135% 7. Santa Ana city 553 22% 8. Huntington Beach city 485 57% 9. Buena Park city 434 53%

10. Cypress city 365 138% *Limited to Places with over 1,000 API Language Speaking Households




� Median household income in 1999 was $58,501 for Asians, and $53,929 for Pacific Islanders, both lower than $65,160 for the non-Hispanic White population.

� Median family income in 1999 was $61,785 for Asians, and $58,107 for Pacific Islanders, both lower than $78,354 for non-Hispanic Whites.

� Per Capita income in 1999 was $21,137 for Asians, and $16,373 for Pacific Islanders, both much lower than non-Hispanic Whites at $35,739.

POVERTY

Both Asians and Pacific Islanders have higher poverty rates than non-Hispanic Whites, while Pacific Islanders rates are also greater than the County average.

� 12% of Asians and 11% of Pacific Islanders were living below the poverty line in 2000. Both have higher rates than non-Hispanic Whites (5%) and the County (10%).

� Asian children and Pacific Islander children have the same poverty rate of 13%. Asian and Pacific Islander child poverty rates are higher than the non-Hispanic Whites (5%), but lower than the County (14%).

� 10% of Asian seniors and 12% of Pacific Islander seniors are in poverty. These are higher than both non-

Hispanic Whites (5%) and the County average (6%).

� Although Asians in the County overall have a low poverty rate, there are differences both by area (see Table 8) and by Asian ethnic group. This overall rate masks very high poverty rates found for some Asian ethnic groups such as Southeast Asians.

Table 22. Places with the Highest API Poverty Rates Number Percent Place* in poverty in poverty Westminster city 5,967 18% Costa Mesa city 1,386 18% Garden Grove city 8,318 16% Irvine city 6,381 16% Stanton city 741 13% Orange County Average 44,813 12% *Limited to Places with an Asian Alone population greater than 1,000. Note: For single race population only


13% 13%

5%

10%

12%

5%

12%11%

5%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%


Children

Seniors

Total



S A N D I E G O C O U N T Y


San D i ego C O U N T Y

San Diego County has the fifth largest Asian and Pacific Islander population in the state and had the fifth largest numeric increase from 1990 to 2000. The County has the second largest number of Filipinos and Pacific Islanders, after Los Angeles County. San Diego County is distinct in that nearly half of the API population is Filipino.

San Diego

Chula Vista

National CityLa Presa

SAN DIEGO COUNTY



� API Population 263,000 – 319,000 API Percent 9 - 11% API Growth 1990 to 2000 33 - 61%

� Largest API Ethnic Groups* %API* Growth Filipino 145,132 49% 26 - 51% Chinese 39,512 13% 56 - 100% Vietnamese 36,512 12% 59 - 73% Japanese 29,028 10% 4 - 62% Korean 14,404 5% 79 - 114% Asian Indian 12,145 4% 101 - 141%






*Inclusive population (single race and multiracial population)

The number of Filipinos in San Diego grew as a result of

opportunities found in the military and industrial

development of the region. Filipino nationals have served in

the U.S. Navy since the Spanish-American war and have

been actively recruited up until 1992. Early Filipino

communities developed in areas surrounding Navy bases and

founded commercial establishments, churches, and community associations that continue to thrive today.


A s i a n P a c i f i c A m

RACE & ETHNICITY Asian and Pacific Islanders are a growing population in San Diego County, increasing in numbers and percentage of the total population.

Asians � From 1990 to 2000, Asians were

one of the fastest growing racial/ethnic groups, increasing by 35% to 60%.

� Asians grew from 7% of the population to 9-10% between 1990 and 2000.

� San Diego is distinct in that nearly half of the Asian population is Filipino. This compares to 20% nationally and 26% for California.

� Chinese and Vietnamese are the second and third largest groups, both growing more than fifty percent.

� Asian Indians are the fastest growing among Asian ethnic groups, more than doubling in size.

� Koreans had the second fastest growth rate, also doubling in size.

� Japanese were among the groups with the lowest growth rates.

� Asians have a high multiracial rate (15%), higher than that of Whites, Latinos, and African Americans (4%, 7%, and 13%, respectively).


� Vietnamese have the lowest multiracial rate (4%).

Table 23. Racial & Ethnic Groups, San Diego County 2000


White, Non-Hispanic 1,633,281 65% 1,548,833 55% 1,613,910 57% Latino / Hispanic 510,781 20% 700,010 27% 750,965 27% Asian 184,596 7% 249,802 9% 295,346 10% African American 159,306 6% 161,480 6% 186,679 7% American Indian 20,066 1% 24,337 1% 46,177 2% Pacific Islander 13,715 0.5% 13,561 0.5% 24,524 1% Total 2,498,016 100% 2,813,833 100% 2,813,833 100% Note: Latino / Hispanic is not exclusive of other racial and ethnic groups, unless otherwise noted. Table 24. Asian & Pacific Islander Ethnic Groups, San Diego County 2000


Filipino 95,945 52% 121,147 50% 145,132 49% Chinese 19,686 11% 30,750 13% 39,278 13% - Chinese, except Taiwanese -- -- 28,581 12% 36,660 12% - Taiwanese -- -- 2,169 1% 2,618 1% Vietnamese 21,118 11% 33,504 14% 36,512 12% Japanese 17,869 10% 18,649 8% 29,028 10% Korean 6,722 4% 12,004 5% 14,404 5% Asian Indian 5,039 3% 10,148 4% 12,145 4% Laotian 7,025 4% 7,002 3% 8,149 3% Cambodian 4,185 2% 4,314 2% 5,213 2% Thai 1,109 1% 1,584 1% 2,345 1% Hmong 1,585 1% 1,441 1% 1,636 1% Indonesian 643 0.3% 589 0% 1,254 0.4% Pakistani 384 0.2% 522 0% 770 0.3% Sri Lankan 70 0.0% 167 0% 223 0.1% Malaysian 159 0.1% 127 0% 478 0.2% Bangladeshi 19 0.01% 102 0% 117 0.04% Other Asian 3,038 2% 2,512 1% 6,520 2% Total Asian Population 184,596 100% 244,562 100% 295,346 100% 2000

Pacific Islander 1990 Alone* Inclusive* Ethnic Groups Number % P.I. Number % P.I. Number %P.I.

Guamanian or Chamorro 5,306 39% 4,875 37% 7,646 31% Samoan 3,929 29% 4,402 33% 6,149 25% Native Hawaiian 3,778 28% 2,362 18% 6,610 27% Tongan 116 1% 231 2% 339 1% Melanesian 34 0.2% 66 0.5% 116 0.5% Other Pacific Islander 552 4% 1,357 10% 4,402 18% Total Pacific Islander Population 13,715 100% 13,293 100% 24,524 100% Note: Groups ranked by Inclusive number. Taiwanese figures not available. *Alone figures are single race responses only. Inclusive figures include single race and multiracial responses.

e r i c a n L e g a l C e n t e r – D e m o g r a p h i c P r o f i l e : C e n s u s 2 0 0 0 27



Pacific Islanders � Pacific Islander percent growth ranged

from negative 1% using Alone numbers to positive 79% for Inclusive numbers, showing a high multiracial percentage.


Guamanians and Samoans are the largest groups.

� Tongans and Melanesians were the

fastest growing groups, both increasing by 100% or more.


� Of all the racial/ethnic groups, Pacific Islanders have the highest percentage reporting more than one race. With 45% reporting a multiracial heritage, Pacific Islanders consist of 13,561 of a single race and 24,524 who reported Pacific Islander plus at least one other race.

� Native Hawaiians have the highest multiracial percentage (62%) with more multiracial Native Hawaiians than those of a single race.

Figure 25. Population Growth of Racial & Ethnic Groups 1990 to 2000

79%

17%

130%

60%

47%

1%

21%

35%

37%

-1%

-1%

-5%White, Non-Hispanic

Pacific Islander

African American

American Indian

Asian

Latino

1990 to 2000 Alone

1990 to 2000

Note: Ranked by 1990 to 2000 Alone


3%

16%

25%

62%

51%

111%

100%

73%

114%

141%

3%

4%

26%

43%

56%

59%

79%

101%

-0.3%

-9%Hmong

Laotian

Cambodian

Japanese

Filipino

Thai

Chinese

Vietnamese

Korean

Asian Indian

1990 to 2000 Alone


Note: Ranked by 1990 to 2000 Alone. Alone figures are single race responses only. Inclusive figures include single race and multiracial responses



GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION The largest concentration of Asian and Pacific Islanders is in the South Bay – in San Diego and surrounding cities. A second concentration is found in North County.

� Four Places in San Diego County have the highest percentages of Asians and the highest rates of growth from 1990 to 2000: Chula Vista, Oceanside, Poway, and San Diego city. These are Places with established concentrations that are increasing.

� The top ten Places with the highest Asian population percentages did not change much from 1990 to 2000. These Places remained the top ten and continued to increase the percentages of Asians in the population.

� Two of the Places with the highest Asian percentages, Chula Vista and Oceanside, doubled their Asian population.

� San Diego city had by far the largest numeric increase of Asians, growing by 42,000 to 65,000.

Asian Ethnic Groups � Nearly two-thirds (64%) of the

Asian population of the County is in the city of San Diego. San Diego city is 7% Filipino, 2% Vietnamese, 2% Chinese, and 1% Japanese.

� In North County, the city of Oceanside is 4% Filipino, 2% Pacific Islander, 1% Japanese, and 1% Vietnamese.

Pacific Islanders � Chula Vista and Vista each have over

1,000 Pacific Islanders.

Table 25. Geographic Concentration of the Asian PopulationHighest Percent Asian Largest Number of Asians Place Number* %Total Place Number* %Total National City city 11,060 20% San Diego city 189,413 15% San Diego city 189,413 15% Chula Vista city 22,709 13% Chula Vista city 22,709 13% Oceanside city 11,853 7% La Presa CDP 4,118 13% National City city 11,060 20% Bonita CDP 1,305 11% Escondido city 7,271 5% Imperial Beach city 2,487 9% Vista city 4,499 5% Poway city 4,366 9% Poway city 4,366 9% Lemon Grove city 1,995 8% Carlsbad city 4,312 6% Oceanside city 11,853 7% La Presa CDP 4,118 13% Spring Valley CDP 1,833 7% El Cajon city 3,952 4% *Inclusive population (single race and multiracial population) Table 26. Places with Greatest Asian Percent Growth 1990 to 2000 Percent Increase Numeric Increase Place Alone* Inclusive* Alone* Inclusive* San Marcos city 148% 216% 1,533 2,233 Rancho San Diego CDP 89% 168% 394 744 Carlsbad city 79% 133% 1,464 2,461 Chula Vista city 71% 103% 7,902 11,548 Escondido city 57% 91% 2,154 3,468 La Mesa city 51% 100% 752 1,487 Oceanside city 50% 101% 2,985 5,942 Vista city 43% 93% 995 2,171 Poway city 39% 70% 1,013 1,795 San Diego city 34% 52% 42,175 64,620 Note: Places ranked by Percent increase of Alone population. Limited to Places with an Asian Inclusive population of 1,000 or greater in 2000. *Alone figures are single race responses only. Inclusive includes single race and multiracial responses. Table 27. Places with Pacific Islander and Asian Group Concentrations

Racial / Ethnic Place with the Place with the Second* Group Highest Percentage %Total Number Largest Number Number

Pacific Islanders La Presa CDP 2% 622 Oceanside city 3,057 Filipino National City city 19% 10,207 Chula Vista city 15,001 Vietnamese San Diego city 2% 29,665 Escondido 1,221 Chinese Fairbanks Rank CDP 4% 89 Chula Vista city 1,637 Japanese Chula Vista city 2% 3,252 Chula Vista city 3,252 Korean Chula Vista city 1% 1,732 Chula Vista city 1,732 Asian Indian Del Mar city 1% 33 Carlsbad city 471 Note: Figures are for Inclusive population (single race and multiracial population) *The Place with the largest number for each group was the city of San Diego



SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS AGE The median age of Asians is the same as the County median while Pacific Islanders are younger.

� The Asian median age of 33 is the same as the County, but lower than non-Hispanic Whites at 39. The median age for Asians as a group does not reflect differences known to exist between Asian ethnic groups.

� Pacific Islanders are younger with a median age of 29.

� Asians have a higher proportion of their population in the 18 to 64 year age bracket than the County (68% compared to 63%).

� Asians and Pacific Islanders both have a lower senior percentage than the County average (9% and 5%, respectively, compared to 11%).

HOUSING Asians and Pacific Islanders both have homeownership rates lower than non-Hispanic Whites and the County as a whole.

� Asian homeownership is 54%, lower than non-Hispanic Whites (62%) and the County (55%).

� The homeownership rate for Pacific Islanders is 47%.

� The average household size is 3.3 for Asians and 3.6 for Pacific Islanders. Both are higher than the County average of 2.7.

FAMILIES Over a fifth of Asian families, and over a quarter of Pacific Islander families are headed by a single parent.

� Single parent headed families make up 21% of Asian families and 29% of Pacific Islander families.

� The majority of Asian families in poverty are headed by married couples (57%).

� Over two-thirds of Pacific Islander families in poverty are headed by a single parent (67%).

� Single parent Asian families are more likely to be in poverty than married couple families (18% compared to 6%). This is also true for Pacific Islander families (23% compared to 5%).

EDUCATION A large number of Asians and Pacific Islanders do not have more than a high school education.

� More that half (54%) of Asians and 79% of Pacific Islanders have a high school diploma or less as their highest degree.

� Asians are about equally likely to have a Bachelor’s degree (36%) as non-Hispanic Whites (37%). Pacific Islanders are among the least likely to have a Bachelor’s degree (13%).

� Asians are less likely than non-Hispanic Whites to have an advanced degree (11% and 14%, respectively). Only 3% of Pacific Islanders have an advanced degree.

� Although Asians as a whole show high rates of college completion, this is not true for all Asian ethnic groups. This is evident in the difference in the Asian rate of attaining a Bachelor’s degree or higher (48%) and Pacific Islander rate (16%). Research has established that the level of educational attainment for Southeast Asian groups is much lower than other Asian ethnic groups.


19% 16%

35%63%

9%

9%37%

13%



Associate degree

High Schoolgraduate






� 67% of Asians are foreign born, compared to 42% for Latinos and 22% for County residents overall.


� Foreign born Asian & Pacific Islanders are more likely to be naturalized citizens than other foreign born in the County. Over half of both Asian (57%) and Pacific Islander (54%) foreign born are naturalized citizens, compared to 28% of Latino foreign born.


� Among those born in Asia, 69% entered between 1980 and 2000 and 27% before 1980.

Figure 30. Asian &

Vietnam17%

China:10%

Japan6%

Korea5%

Laos4%

India3%

Cam



33%

90%

67%

10%


Native Foreign born



57% 54%

43% 46%


Naturalized citizen Not a citizen



Pacific Islander Foreign Born by Country

Philippines48%

bodia2%

Other Asia & Pacific Islands5%


LANGUAGE Among those who speak an Asian or Pacific Island language at home, almost half speak English less than “very well” and are considered limited English proficient or LEP.

� Three-quarters, or 75% of Asians speak

a language other than English at home.



language at home, almost half speak English less than “very well” (46%).

� Over a third of the API adult population (36%) and nearly two-thirds of seniors (62%) speak English less than “very well” and are considered limited English proficient.

� On the other hand, only about a fifth of API children speak English less than “very well” (19%).

� API language speaking households make up 7% of the households in San Diego County.

Figure 31. Language Spoken at Home for Asians(Single race population only)

25%

12%

22%

43%

75%

88%

78%

57%

Total

Seniors

Adults

Children

Speak only English at Home Speak Language other than English at Home

Figure 32. Asian and Pacific Islander Languages Spoken at Home

Tagalog43.9%

Vietnamese16.9%

Chinese13.2%

Other9.2%



Miao, Hmong0.8%

Laotian3.9%

Korean4.8%


5.0%

Japanese7.0%

Note: South Asian languages such as Hindi, Gujarathi, etc are not included in the U.S. Census Bureau’s definition of API Languages. If South Asian languages were included they would make up 3% of API languages spoken at home.




LINGUISTIC ISOLATION Asian and Pacific Islander language speaking households are linguistically isolated at the same rate as Spanish speaking households.

� Over a fifth of API language speaking households (22%) are linguistically isolated, the same rate as Spanish speaking households.

� APIs in San Diego County have a lower

linguistic isolation rate than the nation, California, Los Angeles County and Orange County.

� There are 16,045 linguistically isolated API language speaking households in Los Angeles County.

� There are 41,864 people in

linguistically isolated API language speaking households.

� API language speaking seniors make up a disproportionate share of linguistically isolated seniors. While API language speakers make up only 21% of the population in linguistically isolated households, they make up 33% of the seniors in such households. On the other hand, Spanish speakers make up 70% of the population in linguistically isolated households, but only 44% of the seniors.

� Among children in linguistically isolated households, the proportion of API language speaking child is low (13%).

Figure 33. Linguistic Isolation of API Language Speaking Households


22%


78%

Figure 134 English Ability for Those Who Speak an API Language at Home

67%

24%

9%

1%

31% 31%26%

12%

54%

29%

14%

3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Speak English very well Speak English well Speak English not well Speak English not at all

Child

Senior

Total



AREAS WITH HIGH LANGUAGE NEEDS Linguistic Isolation is growing by over fifty percent in many areas and by over a hundred percent in six Places.

� In seven cities, over a fifth of the API language speaking households are linguistically isolated.

� Oceanside, Vista, La Mesa, Escondido, and San Marcos more than doubled the number of linguistically isolated households from 1990 to 2000.

� Linguistically isolated API language speaking households grew by nearly 50% in San Diego city.

� From 1990 to 2000, the percentage of linguistically isolated API language speaking households in National City increased from 26% to 32% and in La Mesa from 21% to 30%.

� Escondido and Vista rose from 9th and 10th rank in 1990 to 4th and 5th rank in 2000 among Places in San Diego County for percentage of linguistically isolated of API language speaking households.

� San Diego city has a diversity of API languages spoken at home: 4% Tagalog, 2% Chinese, and 2% Vietnamese.


1. National City city 8,387 17% 2. San Diego city 126,475 11% 3. La Presa CDP 2,729 9% 4. Chula Vista city 12,670 8% 5. Imperial Beach city 1,403 6% 6. Oceanside city 7,700 5% 7. Poway city 2,234 5% 8. Lemon Grove city 1,012 4% 9. San Marcos city 1,751 3%

10. Escondido city 3,924 3% Table 29. Highest Percentage of Linguistically Isolated API Language Speaking Households Place* Number Percent 1. National City city 1,013 32% 2. La Mesa city 229 30% 3. San Diego city 11,280 24% 4. Escondido city 372 23% 5. Vista city 298 23% 6. Carlsbad city 206 22% 7. El Cajon city 163 20% 8. San Marcos city 140 19% 9. Chula Vista city 961 18% 10. Poway city 138 17% *Limited to Places with over 1,000 API Language Speaking Households Table 30. Largest Numeric Growth of Linguistically Isolated API Language Speaking Households, 1990 to 2000 Numeric Percent Place* Increase Increase

1. San Diego city 3,732 49% 2. Chula Vista city 404 73% 3. National City city 330 48% 4. Oceanside city 272 139% 5. Escondido city 210 130% 6. Vista city 173 138% 7. La Mesa city 131 134% 8. Carlsbad city 88 75% 9. San Marcos city 72 106%

10. Lakeside CDP 39 557% *Limited to Places with over 1,000 API Language Speaking Households




� Median household income in 1999 was $51,981 for Asians and $47,097 for Pacific Islanders, both lower than $52,089 for the non-Hispanic White population.

� Median family income in 1999 was $56,764 for Asians and $49,631 for Pacific Islanders, both lower than $63,330 for Non-Hispanic Whites.

� Per Capita income in 1999 was $19,039 for Asians and $17,080 for Pacific Islanders, both much lower than non-Hispanic Whites at $30,150.

POVERTY

Both Asians and Pacific Islanders have higher poverty rates than non-Hispanic Whites.

� Asians and Pacific Islanders both had poverty rates of 11%, higher than non-Hispanic Whites (7%), but lower than the County (12%).

� 13% of Asian children and 14% of Pacific Islander children were living below the poverty line. Both have higher poverty rates than non-Hispanic White children at 7%, but both are below the County average of 17%,

� 10% of Asian and 5% of Pacific Islander seniors were in poverty. Asian seniors had higher rates than non-Hispanic Whites at 5% and the County average of 7%.

� Although Asians in the County as a whole have a low poverty rate, there are differences both by area (see Table 8) and by Asian ethnic group. Previous censuses have shown high rates of poverty for Southeast Asians that are masked by the overall rate.

Table 31. Places with the Highest API Poverty Rates Number Percent Place* in poverty in poverty La Mesa city 475 19% Vista city 608 16% El Cajon city 405 14% Imperial Beach city 264 14% S.D. County Average 29,242 11% *Limited to Places with an Asian Alone population greater than 1,000. Note: For single race population only


13%

14%

7%

9%

5% 5%

11%11%

7%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%


Children

Seniors

Total



G L O S S A R Y


GLOSSARY

Race and Ethnicity African American: A racial category referring to persons who reported having “origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa,” regardless of Hispanic origin.1 American Indian: A racial category referring to persons who reported having “origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America),” regardless of Hispanic origin.1 Asian: A racial category referring to persons who reported having “origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent,” regardless of Hispanic origin.1 Asian and Pacific Islander (API): A category combining Asian and Pacific Islander racial groups. Latino / Hispanic: An ethnic category referring to persons who reported their origin as “Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or some other Hispanic origin.”2 Persons of Latino / Hispanic origin may be of any race. Pacific Islander: A racial category referring to persons who reported having “origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands,” regardless of Hispanic origin.1 Also referred to as Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. White; White, non-Hispanic; or non-Hispanic White: A racial category referring to persons who reported having “origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.”1 For the purposes of this analysis, this racial category is always non-Hispanic. Alone: Racial or ethnic population figure that includes those who reported a single race only. Inclusive: Racial or ethnic population figure that combines those who reported a single race and those who reported more than one race. Multiracial: Persons reporting more than one race.

Social Characteristics Children: Persons 17 years-of-age and younger. Seniors: Persons 65 years-of-age and older. 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.” Income, Median Family: A measurement of income that divides the income distribution of families (all related persons living in the same residence) in 1999 into two equal parts, half falling below and half above the median family income. Income, Median Household: A measurement of income that 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 average income of a given group, calculated by dividing that group’s total income by its total population. In other words, Per Capita income is the average income of an individual in the population. Poverty: A measure of income in 1999 relative to a poverty threshold (the poverty line). Adjusted for family size, the poverty line was $17,029 annually for a family of four in 1999.

Geography

Census Designated Place (CDP): Geographic area designed to “provide census data for concentrations of population, housing, and commercial structures that are identifiable by name but not within (a place).” 1 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 Places (CDPs).

1 Technical Documentation: Summary File 3, 2000 Census of Population and Housing 2 The Hispanic Population: Census 2000 Brief

C O N C L U S I O N


CONCLUSION Census 2000 is the single most comprehensive source of information about the API community. The decennial census collects vital information on population and population characteristics such as race, age, education, poverty, income, and language that are used not only to better understand population dynamics, but to allocate federal funds to communities, better enforce civil rights laws, and redraw Congressional, State Senate, and State Assembly districts.

Census 2000 data compiled in this report for the United States, California, and Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties highlight several important trends.

First, the Asian and Pacific Islander population continues to grow at a rapid pace in established and emerging API communities. While the overall rate of growth in the API community has slowed over the past decade, it remains higher than any other major racial or ethnic group.

Second, Asian Indians are the fastest growing among Asian and Pacific Islander ethnic groups. Asian Indian population growth outpaced that of other Asian ethnic groups nationally, statewide, and in Los Angeles and San Diego Counties.

Third, the numbers of limited English proficient and linguistically isolated APIs have increased dramatically with population growth. In some parts of Southern California, the number of linguistically isolated API language speaking households doubled from 1990 to 2000.

Finally, while the overall poverty rate for APIs is low, API communities in several Southern California cities experience high rates of poverty. In Los Angeles County, one in five APIs in the cities of Long Beach, Rosemead, Paramount, Pomona, and El Monte live below the poverty line.

These data portray an Asian and Pacific Islander community that is growing in both size and diversity. As our community grows, its needs grow and become more complex. Government agencies and others serving the API community must respond to this growth by allocating greater resources to programs that meet these needs.

Service providers must recognize the critical role language plays in the delivery of assistance to an increasingly limited English proficient and linguistically isolated population. The inability to read a ballot effectively disenfranchises a voter. The failure to understand a contract written in English limits protection available to a consumer. The inability to communicate effectively with health care providers or law enforcement can even mean serious injury or death. In areas where language assistance is already being provided, additional resources may be needed to accommodate a greater number of limited English proficient speakers. In areas where language

assistance is unavailable, service providers should explore ways to provide it.

Population characteristics released by the Census Bureau thus far for Asian and Pacific Islanders offer only a general portrayal of the community, masking ethnic diversity within it.

For example, while Census 2000 data indicate that the overall poverty rate for Asians is lower than that for African Americans and Latinos, evidence from the 1990 Census shows that many Southeast Asian ethnic groups suffered poverty rates that rival the poorest communities in California.

Census 2000 data scheduled for release later this year will provide important information on the characteristics of API ethnic groups, allowing a more nuanced and comprehensive picture of this community’s great cultural, social, and economic diversity. The Asian Pacific American Legal Center will issue a full report compiling these data in late 2003.

Together, these reports serve as a valuable tool to grant writers, program planners, advocates, legislative staff, and elected officials looking to better understand and describe the growing population Asian and Pacific Islander population and its needs.

Service providers must recognize the critical role language plays in the delivery of assistance to an increasingly limited English proficient and linguistically isolated population.

The Asian Paci f ic Amer ican Legal Cente r (APALC) was

estab l ished in 1983 and has become the largest

organiza t ion in Southern Cal i forn ia dedicated to prov id ing

As ian and Paci f ic Is landers and other communi t ies wi th

mul t i - l ingual , cu l tura l ly sens i t ive serv ices and legal

educat ion, as wel l as c iv i l r ights advocacy.

APALC’s Demographic Research Uni t (DRU) was

estab l ished to make research more access ib le to the

growing As ian Paci f ic Is lander Amer ican communi ty and

the organi zat ions tha t serve i t .

Specia l thanks to . . .

Judy Kim

Stewar t Kwoh, Esq .

Rebecca Shea

Kar in Wang, Esq.

1145 W i lsh i re Boulevard , Second F loor � Los Angeles, CA 90017 � 213 .977.7500

The report is available on line at www.apalc.org

Documents

Asian and Pacific Islanders...data on Asian and Pacific Islanders for the United States, California, and three counties in Southern California: Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego