Department of Finance
915 L Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

E-3 California County Race / Ethnic Population Estimates and Components of Change by Year, July 1, 2000–2008

June 2010

OFFICIAL STATE ESTIMATES

Acknowledgments

Melanie Martindale produced the race / ethnic report text and tables. Mary Heim reviewed the estimates and provided methodological consultation. Linda Gage produced the total population estimates upon which these are based. Evaon Schnagl validated input formulas and data. The vital statistics were provided by the Department of Public Health, Office of Health Information and Research (www.cdph.ca.gov).

Suggested Citation

State of California, Department of Finance, California County Race / Ethnic Population Estimates and Components of Change by Year, July 1, 2000–2008. Sacramento, California, June 2010.

• E-3 California County Race / Ethnic Population Estimates and Components of Change by Year, July 1, 2000–2008 (.xls, <5 MB)

Contents

This report presents provisional state and county race / ethnic estimates for July 1, 2000 through July 1, 2008, and components of population change by year between fiscal years 2000–2008. The estimates are classified into seven race / ethnic groups. These are Hispanics (of any race) and non-Hispanic Whites, Blacks, American Indians, Asians, Multirace persons and Pacific Islanders. The definitions of these groups are found in federal Office of Management & Budget Directive 15 (1997 rev).

Highlights

State

From 2000 to 2008, California gained over 4 million people, increasing almost 12 percent during the period and adding over half a million people a year. However, population change for the state’s seven race / ethnic groups diverged noticeably from this pattern, with four growing at a much faster clip, one at a more modest rate, but with another barely holding its own while the seventh continues to experience marked decline. Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, and Multirace populations increased their shares of the state's population (by 4.7 percent, 1.36 percent and 0.05 percent, and 1.0 percent respectively), while the shares of Whites and Blacks declined (down 6.4 percent and 0.7 percent, respectively). The share of the state's American Indian group increased very slightly (up 0.01 percent) over the eight-year period. Although still the largest race / ethnic group, Whites were, by 2008, 40.8 percent of the population, down from 47.2 percent in 2000 and the only race / ethnic group to decline numerically over the period (regardless of share), dropping by about 518,000 persons. In the same period, Hispanics added over 3.1 million people, growing to 37.2 percent of the state total. Asians grew from 11 percent to 12.4 percent of this total, increasing by about 966,000, while Blacks added about 7,700 over the period, dropping to a 5.8-percent share of the state total from 6.5 percent in 2000. Multirace persons held the next largest share, 2.8 percent, growing to about 1.1 million people from under 650,000 in 2000. The two smallest groups, American Indians and Pacific Islanders, held 0.55 percent and 0.37 percent shares of the state population in 2008, adding about 27,000 and 31,000 people, respectively, over the period. These rates of growth and decline across the race / ethnic groups resulted from very different patterns in the components of change (births, deaths and migration).

The changes for the White population in California in the 2000–2008 period have been unprecedented in the state’s population history. Whites experienced natural decrease of population (that is, an excess of deaths over births) in all eight years and experienced net outmigration in seven of the eight years. Net migration was positive only in 2000, with a modest gain of about 91,000 that year. Net outmigration not only began the following year but increased every succeeding year through 2006, when it was about 121,000. It dropped to successively lower levels over 2007 and 2008 but was still substantial, with a net loss of 200,000 from 2006 to 2008. Somewhat similarly, the Black population is still growing but only modestly (it increased about 0.35 percent over the eight-year period). Its natural increase of population has declined or slowed year to year, and it has experienced net outmigration every year starting in 2002. American Indians are the only group besides Whites to have experienced natural decrease of population every year in the period albeit the decreases averaged only about 250 per year. And these losses were offset by substantial net inmigration ranging from about 3,100 to 4,500 people a year. As a consequence, the population grew by over 27,000 over the period, a solid 14.8 percent increase for this small group now numbering almost 212,000 statewide.

In contrast, the Multirace population has grown a remarkable 64 percent over the period, experiencing notable and growing natural increase of population every year, and also showing net inmigration every year. Because the Multirace category was only adopted in 2000, it is difficult to place any definitive interpretation on these data until the Multirace data base has accumulated over a longer period of time and 2010 Census results are available.

The remaining three race / ethnic groups—Asians, Pacific Islanders and Hispanics — have grown to about 28 percent since 2000. The Asian growth rate (about 26 percent) signals an addition of about 966,000 people, with almost 30 percent coming from natural increase and over 70 percent coming from net migration in each year. Pacific Islanders, the smallest group at about 141,000 people with a period growth rate of about 28 percent, also has been increasing mostly through net migration (about 78 percent of its increase over the period). Finally, Hispanics' strong growth (an addition of 3.1 million people and an increase of about 28 percent) results primarily from large and growing natural increase of population (excess of births over deaths). Today only about 37 percent of its growth comes from net migration, which declined from 2002-2007, while about 63 percent comes from natural increase. This Hispanic component-based change pattern is the opposite of that for Asians and Pacific Islanders.

Counties

The relative proportions of the race / ethnic groups vary widely across the Counties, with some of the groups heavily represented in certain county corridors or clusters. In this period, the continued and widely varying distribution of White population loss in particular continues.

White Population Decline in the Counties

Of the state’s 58 counties, 34 (59 percent) experienced one or more years between 2000 and 2008 when their estimated White populations notably declined. Ten of these (about 29 percent) all but two in the Bay Area or on the Coast had White population decline all eight years. Another 16 counties (28 percent) had a relatively small White loss for one year or an up-and-down small gain-and-loss pattern over the period, indicating a fairly stable if variable White population. For a few counties, the White loss has been quite recent, that is, within the last year or two. In contrast, only eight counties (14 percent) had White population gain all years of the analysis period. Regardless of White population loss or gain, 33 counties (57 percent) experienced natural decrease (excess of deaths over births) of their White populations in all years, or in all but one year, of the eight-year period. These counties are found in all regions of the state.

Race / Ethnic Group Representation in the Counties

The five counties with the highest percentages of Whites (87-90 percent) are Calaveras, Nevada, Plumas, Sierra and Trinity. Seven other counties, most in the sparsely settled northern and eastern part of California, are at least 81 percent White. In contrast, Imperial County, at the state's southern border, had the smallest percentage White, 15.4 percent, in 2008 as it did in 2007. Though the state itself is about 41 percent white, this percentage or less of Whites is true for only about 24 percent (14) of the state's 58 counties. Many of these counties are some of California's largest. Their notable race/ethnic diversity heavily determines that of the state as a whole.

Hispanics, as the second argest of the state's race/ethnic groups, appear in substantial percentages in most counties. They are most heavily represented, as might be expected, in Imperial County on the state's southern border, whee they are over 78 percent of the population. They are over 50 percent of the population is six other counties (Colusa, Madera, Merced, Monterey, San Benito and Tulare) and are a larger percentage of the county's population than Whites in yet another six counties (Fresno, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino). The smallest percent Hispanic, 3.45 percent, is found in Trinity County.

San Francisco County had the state's largest percentage of Asians -over 30 percent, with the three near-by counties of Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara being roughly one quarter Asian. Fous additional counties in the same west central part of the state were 10 to 15 percent Asian. In the southern part of California, only Los Angeles (13.8 percent) and Orange 17.7 percent) had marked percentages of Asians. On the other hand, there are at least 10 counties that are less than one percent Asian, with Sierra County having the smallest Asian presence (0.15 percent).

The highest concentration of Blacks is found in Alameda and Solano Counties, which are 12.7 and 14.9 percent Black, respectively. Several of the larger counties' Black percentages fall in the 8-10 percent range, but the majority of California counties' now and historically, have very small Black percentages. Slightly over a third of counties (34.5 percent, 20 counties), mostly in the northern and eastern part of the state, are less than one percent Black. However, the smallest ercentage Black, 0.1 percent, is found in Inyo, a more southerly county on the state's eastern border.

Methodology

A crude vital statistics rates method was used to develop the July series race / ethnic estimates. Calendar year births (by race of child); deaths by race / ethnicity; Census 2000 benchmarks; and independent July series total population estimates controls for the state and counties are the variables used in the method.

Step 1

Because of the small numbers of vital events in many counties, the first step in the method is to regress births and deaths over time to produce series of smoothed births and deaths for model input. This analysis was completed at the state and county levels for the seven race / ethnic groups.

Step 2

Two population estimates are developed for each of the state's race / ethnic groups, one using calendar births, the other, calendar deaths. Each of the crude rates for each race / ethnic group is calculated for the benchmark year and then divided into the vital statistic for the current year to obtain a current population estimate for the race / ethnic group. The resulting two estimates (a "birth"-based estimate and a "death"-based estimate) for each race / ethnic group are each controlled to the independent state total population July estimate from the E-2 series. These two controlled values are then averaged to produce the final estimate for each race / ethnic group. This method is repeated successively for each year in the race / ethnic estimates series.

Step 3

This process is repeated at the county level for each race / ethnic group, with the state's values created in Step 2 serving as the controls for the counties. Each county's "birth"-based and "death"-based estimates for each race / ethnic group are averaged after being controlled to the state value.

Step 4

The last county-level step of this method is to recontrol all the county estimates by race / ethnicity from Step 3 to the total county population estimates in the E-2 series (there may be some small differences in E-2 and E-3 totals due to independent rounding).

Step 5

The county-level race / ethnic estimates are summed to obtain the state-level estimates. This crude vital rates method is not used to produce an independent set of race / ethnic estimates at the state level.

Data Considerations

Sources: The benchmark (or starting point) for these estimates is the Census Bureau's Modified Race (MR) file from Census 2000. The vital statistics are provided by the California Department of Public Health. Data in consistent race / ethnic categories are available for all years in the series.

Accuracy: Because the definitions of race / ethnic categories and how people interpret them for self-identification purposes have changed over time, it is currently not possible to evaluate the accuracy of the method used to produce the estimates in this report. At present, by law the US Office of Management & Budget (OMB) defines race and ethnic groups for purposes of statistical classification by federal agencies, including the US Census Bureau. The OMB last updated these Directive 15 definitions in 1997 for use in Census 2000 and subsequent years. If alternate data sources, consistent with these 2000 Census race / ethnic definitions, become available, the method used in this report will be examined for possible enhancement.