whats at stake for the state

7/30/2019 Whats at Stake for the State

1/51


2/51

2 Whats at Stake for the State:

Acknowledgements

We thank Maria Blanco and Carolina Briones from the California Community Foundaon for

suggesng this project in the rst place well, we sort of thank you as it turned out to bemuch more work and many more weekends and late nights than we ever thought possible.We also thank Anthony Perez for his policy research, Jusn Scoggins for his advice during theesmaon process, and Jackie Agnello for her usual experse at design (and so much more);special thanks to Vanessa Carter and Jared Sanchez who drove the process of generangtables, maps and text.

We also thank the funders for this eort, the California Community Foundaon, the SiliconValley Community Foundaon, the Y&H Soda Foundaon, and the James Irvine Foundaon,a combinaon that was quickly put together in order to make sure that as much of the stateas possible would get covered by an analysis originally suggested just for Los Angeles.

Finally and most signicantly, we thank all the immigrant rights acvists and other concernedcivic leaders, including those from business, labor, and philanthropy, who have helped tomove forward the conversaon on comprehensive immigraon reform. As we suggest below,we believe that all of us in California have a stake in this turning out well.


3/51

3Undocumented Californians, Immigration Reform,

and Our Future Together

Contents

Executive Summary 4

Introduction 6

Documenting the Undocumented 7

Who are the Unauthorized? 9

The Diversity of the Population9

Interwoven Households, Economic Challenges9

Regional Variations11

Californias Stake in Reform 13

Potential Economic Gains14

Securing the Future of the State15

The Day After Reform 17

Conclusion 20

Technical Notes 21

References 26

Appendix 30


4/51


Executive Summary

As we release this report, comprehensive

immigraon reform is being discussed anddebated on Capitol Hill. While immigrantshave long been high on the list of concernsof policy makers, civic leaders,philanthropists and others in states likeCalifornia, Illinois, and New York, themajority of the naon is now taking interest

with nearly two-thirds of Americansbelieving that a path to cizenship shouldbe aorded to those immigrants who arecurrently unauthorized. But just as thisconversaon is heang up in D.C., it is

important that those of us in California stayfocused on what this will mean in thestate and what is needed in animmigraon reform bill andaer to help the stateprosper.

Aer all, California ishome to more than 10.3million immigrants of

which over 2.6 million ofthem are esmated to beunauthorized (a group we

and others oen also termundocumented). Indeed,according to the Pew HispanicCenter, the state is home to nearlyone-quarter (23 percent) of the naonsundocumented immigrants. In communiesacross California, the undocumented aremore than the subject of polical debates,they are our neighbors, relaves,colleagues, and friends: They are 7 percentof the states populaon, 8 percent of alladults, and 9 percent of the workforce.Many seled in California long ago almost

half (49 percent) of the statesundocumented have lived here for morethan 10 years. And they are deeply

connected to the states cizenry: more

than 13 percent of the states children arecizens who have at least oneundocumented immigrant parent.Immigraon reform maers to Californianot only because of the sheer size of ourimmigrant populaon, but becauseimmigrants have become woven intoCalifornias social, civic and economic life.

Moreover, the legalizaon and potenalnaturalizaon of these immigrants wouldeconomically benet the state. Severalrecent reports from the California

Immigrant Policy Center have highlightedthe economic, social, and civic

contribuons immigrants maketo specic regions within

California. Focusingspecically on theundocumented populaon,the Center for American

Progress recently

suggested that a roadmapto cizenship could

generate a 25 percent boost

in immigrant income, whereasa more conservave esmate forthe state generated last year by

USCs Center for the Study of ImmigrantIntegraon suggests a more modest gain ofover 14 percent. Either means a boost instate GDP, mulplied over mulple yearsand many sectors. And these are not theonly benets: roughly one in six of thestates children have at least oneundocumented immigrant parent andstabilizing and improving the situaon oftheir parents is an investment in our states

long-term future.

Immigration

reform matters

to California not only

because of the sheer size

of our immigrant population,

but because immigrants

have become woven into

Californias social, civic

and economic life.


5/51



Of course, the immigraon debate goesbeyond the queson of undocumentedCalifornians the state has mulpleinterests in geng reform right.There are a wide range of issuescurrently being discussed that

are crical to California: theextent to which our high-techindustries will be able torecruit high-skill workers, theways in which agriculturallabor ows will be stabilizedand those workers protected,and the degree to which familyreunicaon remains a guidingprinciple for decisions about who to let intothe country and how. But one of the issuesmost important for our state remains:ensuring a clear and rapid roadmap to

cizenship for the currently undocumentedpopulaon.

This report seeks to facilitate discussion ofour stake in reform by oering a prole ofthe states currently undocumentedpopulaon. We look at the characteriscs ofthe undocumented generally and do a divedown to key counes in the state in a seriesof tables and charts available at the end ofthe report. How we did the calculaons isexplained in the main text and expoundedupon in the Technical Notes if you are into

that sort of thing but what it means is thisanalysis paints a much more mul-huedpicture of who the undocumented are, howtheir authorizaon will benet California,and how to tailor policy to best maximizetheir contribuons.

Beyond the data, we suggest that Californiashould begin planning for what comes theday aer reform immigrant integraon.While the current policy debate has oenbeen about enforcement and future ows,surely a crucial task is accelerang the

progress of those who are already here. Thiswill be a special challenge if, as expected,federal funding from nes and fees is

targeted at enforcement rather than at

supporng the places where immigrantintegraon is happening our state

included. In fact, a relavelyrestricve bill is expected

barring immigrants from

eligibility of any public servicefor the rst 10 years (theperiod over which the bill iseconomically assessed) andso many of the direct costs

will fall on states. This isproblemac since funds will

need to be immediately directedtowards educaonal aainment,

health insurance and English Languageacquision in order maximize thecontribuons of all immigrants to theGolden State.

California has had a long and convolutedrelaonship with its undocumentedpopulaon (just think of Proposion 187),but the state now seems to be moving pastpunive policies towards embracing itsenre immigrant populaon. Santa ClaraCounty has an Immigrant Relaons andIntegraon Services oce, Los Angles has across-sector Council on ImmigrantIntegraon, and State Senator Ricardo Lararecently introduced a bill (SB23) to establisha State Oce of New Americans much like

those in Chicago and New York. Gengimmigraon reform right in the naon andin the state will require beerunderstanding undocumented Californians

and developing a shared and widespreadunderstanding that their integraon willbenet the state.

We

suggest that

California shouldbegin planning for

what comes the

day after reform

immigrant

integration


6/51


Introduction

California currently has over 2.6 residents

who are esmated to be undocumented and roughly one in six of our children areesmated to have at least oneundocumented parent. While thecurrent debates in Congress overcomprehensive immigraonreform will have a big impacton immigrants and their host

communies naonwide,there is an especially bigstake in geng reform rightfor our state and its regions.

Thisresearch brief oers a newlook at the numbers ofundocumented residents in California

and discusses some of the implicaons forthe design and implementaon of reform.We should stress that reform is likely to

have many elements, including increasedand more sophiscated enforcementmechanisms, new approaches toguaranteeing future ows of both high-skilland low-skill labor, and a new balancebetween meeng family and economic

needs in our migraon system. But centralto reform indeed, one reason why reformhas been stymied for so many years willbe some sort of system by which Americasundocumented populaon will be able tocome out of the shadows and it is thataspect of reform that we focus on here.

We begin with a brief discussion of themethodology used to conduct this study aer all, how does one develop esmatesabout the size and characteriscs of apopulaon that has generally sought to

avoid the limelight? We note that thenumbers here generally square withaggregate esmates by other demographers

studying undocumented migraon but also

emphasize that the parcular community-based probability method employed hereallows us to generate more detailed

portraits of the populaon in largermetro areas such as Los Angeles,

the Bay Area, the Inland Empireand the Central Valley. Ingeneral, however, the textfocuses on the overall statewith such detail mostlycoming up by way of

occasional comparison; the

more detailed metro portraitsare available in the tables at theend of this report.

We hope that the data are useful but wealso seek to provide more than just asnapshot. We suggest the economic andsocial benets that California might gainfrom a rapid path to legalizaon andnaturalizaon and we also consider someof the challenges that will face the state if,as expected, reform does pass and the taskof immigrant integraon becomes both

central andlocal. We close by oering a fewsuggesons about what the states polical,civic and philanthropic leaders might pressfor in reform and how we might pulltogether as a state post-reform to maximizethe potenal contribuons of this large,energec and perhaps soon-to-beauthorized populaon.

Roughly

one in six

of our children

are estimated to

have at least one

undocumented

parent


7/51



Documenting the Undocumented

Esmates of the undocumented populaon

in the U.S. have historically come in twoforms. The rst is a residual approach thathas been employed since the late 1970s andmore recently by the Oce of ImmigrantStascs (OIS) in its ocial esmates of theundocumented populaon (Hoefer andRyna 2012; see also Warren and Warren2013). In this approach, the esmatednumber of legal residents in the UnitedStates (e.g., legal permanent residents,refugees, and non-immigrant visa holders) issubtracted from annual census-based

esmates of the enre foreign-bornpopulaon, with adjustments foremigraon, mortality, and other factors. Theresidual or remainder is assumed to be thenumber of undocumented residents. Othershave adjusted this residual approach forCalifornia-specic esmates, combining itwith other administrave data such asIndividual Taxpayer Idencaon Numbers(ITINs) to produce sub-state esmates (Hilland Johnson 2011).

The second basic esmang approach was

pioneered by demographer Enrico Marcelliin the mid-1990s while at the University ofSouthern California. This method predictslegal status based on a community-basedmigrant household probability sample.These esmates are then applied to publiclyavailable data at the individual-levelallowing for legal status esmates to begenerated across geographic areas (Marcelliand Heer 1997; Marcelli and Lowell 2005;Marcelli 2013). Other demographers haveadopted variaons on this approach; forinstance, in an ongoing series of studies by

the Pew Hispanic Center led by JereyPassel, demographers have provideddetailed esmates of the number and

characteriscs of undocumented

immigrants naonally and by state in a waythat combines residual esmates andindividual legal status predicon strategies(Passel and Cohn 2011).

The good news is that both these basicapproaches generally arrive at stascallysimilar esmates. For example, the 2011 OISesmates suggest that there are 11.5million unauthorized residents in the U.S.while the Pew numbers for that year are11.1 million, a small dierence in light ofthe varying methods. We take thisagreement as a starng point for ouranalysis and build on those eorts asfollows.

We rst take every non-cizen foreign-bornresident of the United States who was notborn in Cuba in a pooled naonal sample ofthe 2009-2011 American Community Survey(ACS) and calculate a probability of being anundocumented adult using legal status

predictors computed from Marcellis 2001Los Angeles County Mexican ImmigrantLegal Status survey (LAC-MILSS) data(Marcelli and Lowell 2005; Marcelli 2004).We make use of the 2011 OIS breakdown ofthe top 10 naons of origin of theundocumented (adjusted for the agedistribuon they provide to look just atadults), and essenally tag non-cizenimmigrant adults with the highestprobability of being unauthorized unl wematch the esmated adult totals for each ofthose naons of origin. We also make use ofother informaon (see the technical notesat the end) to calibrate totals for 21 other

naonal origin groups. And we make amodest adjustment for the fact thatundocumented residents tend to be missed


8/51


9/51



Who are the Unauthorized?

The Diversity of the PopulationIn California, the undocumented are avariety of people. They are children, theyare adults; they are agricultural workers,they are retail workers; they have hardly anyschooling, and they have bachelors degreesor more. There is no singlecharacterizaon of anundocumented immigrant in the

state but rather many andthis analysis paints this picture,vividly. The descripon thatfollows comes directly from the

California data table on thefollowing page.

The foreign-born comprise 27percent of Californias total populaon. Weesmate that undocumented immigrantscomprise 7 percent of our total populaon,and 26 percent of the total immigrantpopulaon. This means that more than 2.6million people in California are without legaldocumentaon, which is about twice thepopulaon of San Diego. Eight percent ofadults are undocumented (2.4 million), as is

9 percent of the workforce. This makessense: the median age of undocumentedimmigrants is 31 years prime working age(as compared to 50 years for naturalizedimmigrants and 44 years for non-cizenimmigrants with documentaon).

The typical undocumented resident living inCalifornia migrated to this country at the

age of 20 and has been here for nine years.So contrary to popular mispercepons, weare talking about a fairly seled populaon.Put another way, nearly 50 percent of

undocumented immigrants have been in thecountry for more than 10 years, and over17 percent of household heads are

homeowners. While the laer may seem

remarkably high, research has suggestedthat unauthorized immigrant status is not

necessarily an insurmountable hurdle tohomeownership, parcularly givenalternave forms of idencaon that can

be used for home purchase, and thefact that the usual factors such as

income are more important(McConnell and Marcelli 2007).All of this speaks to apopulaon that is here to stay

as are their children.

Along with being a seledpopulaon, the undocumented

are also more diverse than manyCalifornians realize. Eighty-ve percent

are Lano and 12 percent are Asian/PacicIslander. The predominant sending countryis Mexico the country of origin for 72percent of undocumented immigrants.Following Mexico is not a country but aregion, Central America. Given theirgeographic proximity to the U.S., Mexicoand Central America have played a constant

role in sending new immigrants; however,Asia is also an important sending region.The Philippines (3 percent), Korea (2percent), and China (2 percent) are includedamong the top ve countries of origin forundocumented immigrants.

Interwoven Households, Economic

ChallengesAt the household level, it becomes clearthat the undocumented are connected at a

very inmate level with the states cizenry.

For example, 6 percent of all households areheaded by an undocumented Californianand 74 percent of those households have at

Nearly

50 percent of

undocumented

immigrants have

been in the country

for more than 10

years


10/51


11/51



least one cizen in the house. Moreover, ofthose, one in six California children whohave at least one undocumented parent, 81percent are cizens. Californians of all typesof documentaon are wrapped up in theoutcomes of CIR because their lives will be

so closely aected.

How the naon does by its immigrants,including those who are currentlyundocumented, will help determine thetrajectory of our state. Of real concern isthat fully two-thirds (67 percent) of childrenwith at least one undocumented parent areliving in poverty which we dene as 150percent of the federal poverty level, a morerealisc understanding of poverty for a statewith a very high standard of living. This ratedeclines when parents become documented

and naturalize. Documented or not, nearly amajority of Californias children have at leastone immigrant parent (47 percent) andthese families in their enrety will beaected by any federal policy changes.

The high levels of poverty make sense workforce opportunies are limited for theundocumented. There is a $30,000dierence in median annual earningsbetween full-me workers without lawfulstatus ($20,000) and U.S.-born workers($50,000). Most of this income is

earned by men labor forceparcipaon rates are 93percent for undocumentedmen compared to 56 percentfor undocumented women,although both have high ratesof employment if they are inthe labor force (90 percent and84 percent, respecvely). Aboutthe same share of the

undocumented are in the labor force asall workers, in aggregate (74 percentcompared to 79 percent), although a larger

share of men (93 percent compared to 87percent) and a smaller share of women (56percent compared to 71 percent).

When we compare the top industries andoccupaons employing undocumentedworkers to those employing all workers(ages 25 to 64, employed), the data show anover-concentraon of undocumentedworkers in lower-paying, seasonal industries

and occupaons. Almost one in fourundocumented workers is employed inretail trade (23 percent). Agriculture is thesecond highest industry employingundocumented workers (15 percent),followed by manufacturing (13 percent),construcon (13 percent), and business andrepair services (10 percent). Similar trendsare reected in the top occupaons ofundocumented workers. At the top of thelist is farming (16 percent) followed closelyby food preparaon and service occupaons(13 percent), construcon helpers and stock

handlers (11 percent), cleaning, buildingand household service occupaons (11percent), and machine operators (10percent).

Regional VariationsIndustries and occupaons are one of thebiggest regional dierences in the data. Forexample, in the Central Valley, nearly half(47 percent) of workers are employed inagriculture. The Central Valley also has

some of the most extreme poverty:

nearly 3 in 4 children with anundocumented parent are in

poverty as well as 64 percent ofthe enre undocumentedpopulaon. Nonetheless,homeownership is higher here(23 percent) and in the Inland

Empire where about 1 in 3undocumented heads of

household own their home. Theundocumented in rural parts of California

have higher homeownership rates.Sacramento, as well 20 percent but what

really sets Sacramento apart of from theother regions is the relavely higher mix ofsending countries. There, only 66 percent of

The

undocumented

in rural parts

of California

have higher

homeownership

rates


12/51


the undocumented are from Mexico; othertop sending countries and regions includeRussia and the former U.S.S.R., thePhilippines, Central America, and China.

Regional variaons showed up in the moreurban regions of the state, as well. The BayArea tends to have more Asian/PacicIslanders who are undocumented 22percent in the East Bay (Alameda andContra Costa counes), 24 percent in theSilicon Valley (Santa Clara and San Mateocounes), and 23 percent in the Bay Area atlarge (which we dene as a seven countyregion, including San Francisco, Marin,Napa, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara,and San Mateo counes). Perhapsunsurprisingly, the undocumented in theBay Area are also beer educated than

statewide more have a bachelors degreeor beer.

To the south, Los Angeles has the highestshare of self-employed undocumentedimmigrants about 14 percent and itsundocumented are some of the most

seled, having been in the state a medianof 10 years. Orange County, just south, hassome of the lowest rates of childhoodpoverty across the board but it also has oneof the biggest discrepancies in that ratebetween children with U.S.-born parents (14percent) and those with undocumentedparents (61 percent), a 47 percentage pointgap. Los Angeles and Orange counes havesome of the highest rates of full-me work

58 percent and 57 percent, respecvely.

While this analysis does notinclude every region inCalifornia it does includesome of those with thelargest shares of the

undocumented. Figure 1 givesa view of the share of adultswho are undocumentedacross the state by Public UseMicrodata Areas (PUMAs).The PUMA is the lowest levelof geography at which theindividual answers of the

Census and ACS are publicallyavailable; it is a geographicunit that contains a minimum

populaon of 100,000 andprovides a county level orlower view, depending on thesize and density of the

populaon. In metro areaslike Los Angeles and SanFrancisco, the level of detail isbelow the city, allowing thosewho work with immigrants tobeer know where to focus

their eorts.

Figure 1 Unodocumented Immigrant Adults


13/51



Californias Stake in Reform

As we have noted, California has a stake in

comprehensive immigraon reform. Thestate will be made beer or worse odepending on the extent to which ourhigh-tech industries will be able to recruithigh-skill workers, the ways in whichagricultural labor ows will be stabilized andthose workers will be protected, and thedegree to which family reunicaonremains a guiding principle for decisionsabout who to let into the country and how.

But California also has a clear stake in

ensuring a simple and relavely rapidroadmap to cizenship for those who aspireto be Americans. A glimpse of thepotenally posive future can be seen bylooking at the economic characteriscs of

Californians at dierent levels of

authorizaon. Consider homeownership:only 17 percent of the undocumented owna home, compared to 36 percent of non-naturalized, documented immigrants and 64percent of cizen immigrants (See Figure 2,below). In fact, cizen immigrants areperforming more strongly than the U.S.-born 59 percent of who own a home. Thistrend is the same across poverty andself-employment, as well: immigrants withcizenship have higher economic standingthan less documented immigrants and even

the U.S.-born. While some of that higherstanding has to do with dierences inhuman capital, such as educaon andEnglish ability, the studies reviewed below

77%

59%

12%

80%

64%

14%

68%

36%

13%

47%

17%

10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Above 150% Poverty Level Homeownership Self Employment

US-Born Citizen Immigrant Non-Citizen, Documented Immigrant Undocumented Immigrant

Figure 2. Economic Outcomes by US-born and Immigrant Status

2009-2011 ACS


14/51


15/51


16/51


unauthorized parents and they seem topay o as they have been associated withbeer cognive skills and beer health inthe rst years of life. It is in our interest toensure that all children that are eligible forthese programs ulize them to their fullpotenal for their sake and the future of

the state.

The states civic future will also bestrengthened: Advocates for immigraonreform have been reinvigorang Americancivic life. They have connected with, trained,and mobilized thousands of residents immigrants and U.S.-born to respond to

policy in a proacve way. Aside fromacons specically connected to

immigraon reform and immigrantrights, immigrants have alsoinvigorated local civic

engagement on issues that willbenet everyone parcularlyundocumented parents

involvement in schools.Research shows that despite the

barriers undocumented parentsface engaging in school systems

(linguisc, cultural, economic), if given theopportunity, they will become acvelyinvolved in their childrens schools(Terriquez 2011). In Los Angeles, immigrantmothers are just as involved as whitemothers, aer non-ethnic factors have been

taken into account (Terriquez 2012).Certainly, in places like Los Angeles, schoolsneed all the help they can get, and theseundocumented parents are at the ready.

Another set of undocumented immigrants,the Dreamers (undocumented immigrantyouth), mobilized a powerful movement,despite almost no paid sta, no lobbyistsand few nancial resources. They ledacons such as the Trail of Dreams, DreamFreedom Ride, and hunger strikes across thenaon (Wong et al. 2012). They were

instrumental in the California Dream Actand the Obama Administraons enactmentof Deferred Acon for Childhood Arrivals(DACA). Most recently despite an earlier

break from the immigraon reformmovement at large they have beeninstrumental in elevang the need forcomprehensive reform.

The Dream Movement has created a cohortof civically engaged youth who are changingthe polical and social ecosystem inCalifornia, the state with the largestDreamer populaon. It is esmated thatCalifornia has over a quarter of the 1.7million youth who might be eligible for aDream Act-type program (Hill and Hayes2013). These youth are civically engaged ontheir school campuses, in their communiesand elevang issues that go beyondimmigraon. They have become advocatesfor educaon reform, marriage equality,labor rights and economic prosperity. Inessence, movements for social change have

become infused with greater collecvity andecacy because of these ambious andcivically involved youth.

California and the naon need those whocan model and lead in this way. The statecrossed the majority-minority line wellbefore the 2000 Census, a landmark thenaon is esmated to reach in 2043. Withthis sea change, policies will need to berefreshed to be tailored to the needs of ournew demographic. With so many youth ofcolor seeing poor outcomes in educaon

and work the result of systems that do notoer the same opportunies as whiter,wealthier kids we will need to supportthem as they become the workforce of thefuture. For example, 33 percent of jobsprojected for the U.S. for 2018 are expectedto require an associates degree oroccupaonal program or higher. However,the share of U.S.-born Lanos with thosequalicaons in 2006-2008 was 24 percentand for immigrant Lanos was 14 percent(Blackwell and Pastor 2010). Immigrantsand their allies can help lead the way in

working to reshape local and statewidepolicies to make Californias future, well,more golden.

Advocates

for immigration

reform have beenreinvigorating

American civic life


17/51


18/51


coverage. Improvements on these outcomeswould be more likely if they were includedin the programs and services from whichthey will likely be barred. If we want tomake newly documented immigrantssuccessful and facilitate their integraon

into our state, investments need to be madein a few areas.

English prociency and ESL programs areneeded to raise their human capital and toprepare for naturalizaon. We esmate thatonly 42 percent of undocumentedimmigrants (ages ve and older) speakEnglish well or uently. While theseimmigrants will need instrucon, the statecurrently has a shortage of English languagelearning courses. According to an analysisby the Migraon Policy Instute, only 32

percent of the needed ESL instrucon wasprovided from 2000 to 2006, statewide(Grantmakers Concerned withImmigrant and Refugee Rights2011). Other educaonalintervenons will alsomaximize their potenal: ofall undocumented

immigrants 25 years andolder, 47 percent have lessthan a high school degree,19 percent have some highschool, and 22 percent have

graduated from high school.

Reform is also likely to exclude theunauthorized from public health insurance,at least in the short- and medium- terms.This is of concern because we esmate thatonly 39 percent of undocumented, workingage (25-64 years of age) immigrantsstatewide have health insurance coverage.Compare this to 60 percent of documented,non-cizen immigrants and 80 percent ofcizen immigrants with health insurance.Considering that the average median annual

earnings of undocumented immigrantworkers is $20,000 and that private healthinsurance is quite expensive, integrang the

undocumented into an aordable healthcare system would help ensure theirwell-being, so as to be producvecontributors to our economy and society.

Reform should also include support forspecic industries and occupaons bothfor employers and employees.Undocumented Californians tend to beconcentrated in low-wage occupaons athigher rates than U.S.-born workers. Theiremployers may need assistance as workerstransion to a new status. For theemployees with lower levels of humancapital, job training and skills buildingprograms will enable economic mobility and for those with credenals fromoverseas, some form of degree recognionwould make sense.

We also need to encourage something that

may seem a long way o for some:naturalizaon. As suggested

above, cizenship has its owneconomic and social

rewards, both forimmigrants and the state.Unfortunately, of all thestates in the U.S., Californiahas the highest share of

those eligible to naturalize(who have the appropriate

documents and length ofresidency) who have not yet done

so more than 2.3 million lawfulpermanent residents (Ryna 2011).

We should not reproduce that poor recordof naturalizaon with a new set ofimmigrants. And we can beer develop thepolical voice to get the right resources tomake reform successful if we get moreCalifornians acvely involved in eleconsand public meengs. There are encouragingeorts underway to promote cizenship in

the state and these deserve connuedsupport even as aenon shis toincorporang the unauthorized in what will

Integrating

the

undocumented into

an affordable health care

system would help ensure

their well-being, so as to be

productive contributors

to our economy and

society


19/51



be a new sort of temporary status (Pastorand Sanchez 2012).

There are also lessons to learn from the lastauthorizaon experience, the ImmigraonReform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). IRCAdid not account for the demand for specictypes of workers in the U.S. and, so, thenaon connued to draw workers withoutproviding a means for a legal ow ofmigraon (Cooper and ONeil 2005; Kerwin2010). The Act also did not clearly extendbenets to family members of the eligible,increasing the number of mixed-status families and those in limbo.This is a major concern withthe current legislaon.

Beyond how IRCA was

wrien, implementaon lesomething to be desired.Immigraon andNaturalizaon Services (INS)lacked capacity andinfrastructure for

implementaon. This resulted in a 12percent dropout of applicants, an increasedbacklog in applicaons for cizenship, andundermined integraon eorts. Regardingthe laer, states had to carry the scalburden of civics and English courses neededfor naturalizaon, new public assistance

enrollees, and new public health costs inpart because the reimbursement systemwith the federal government was faulty(Cooper and ONeil 2005).One encouragingfact is that U.S. Cizenship and ImmigraonServices (USCIS) did manage to get theDACA program up and running quickly(although there remain uncertaines forapplicants and potenal employers); thatmay be a good dry run for what is comingbut resources, creavity, and partnershipwith community-based organizaons maybe essenal.

The federal-level eorts are important butwe also need to coordinate public and

private eorts at the level of the state.Legislaon proposed by state SenatorRicardo Lara is calling for a State Oce ofNew Americans (SB23) to help agenciescoordinate their acvies. There are localmodels as well: Santa Clara County has an

Immigrant Relaons and IntegraonServices oce and the CaliforniaCommunity Foundaon in Los Angeles hasestablished a cross-sector Council onImmigrant Integraon. Geng theimplementaon of immigraon reform rightin California will require beer knowing the

populaon and then workingtogether across sectors, interests

and geographies.Thereare also lessons

to learn from the

last authorization

experience, the

Immigration Reform

and Control Act of

1986 (IRCA)


20/51


21/51


22/51


23/51



and 2012 Los Angeles County ImmigrantHealth & Legal Status Surveys (BM-IHLSSand LAC-IHLSS) suggests that 2000 and 2010census undercoverage rates forunauthorized Dominican, Brazilian andMexican migrants were higher than 10%. On

the other hand, Pew works with the CurrentPopulaon Survey, a similarly voluntarysurvey, and connues to employ anundercount rate of 10%. We sck with 10%and the reader should note that this means

that the resulng totals for all Californians,immigrant and non-immigrant, are slightlyhigher than what we derived from the ACSbecause of the weighng up of theundocumented.

With this naonal matching done, we arenally ready to adjust to the level of the

state. Fortunately, our esmates of adultsfor California actually seem to be justslightly higher than the implicit (that is,age-adjusted) esmates in Pew and OIS andrelavely close to those of Warren andWarren (2013). We essenally employ thesame sort of even-handed naon of origintrim to get to a total between Pew andOIS (again, those dropped are those withthe least likelihood of being unauthorized).Finally, we account for the reweighng issuemenoned above those trimmed arereturned to the lower original weight while

those tagged as undocumented retain theextra 10% adjustment for undercount.

There are admiedly a large number ofnecessary assumpons along the way in thisprocess. It is likely, for example, that thelegal status predictors are much more exactwhen applied to Mexicans and CentralAmericans and likely less exact whenapplied to those from Asian and Europeancountries. But the vast bulk of theunauthorized in California are either from

Mexico or Central America and the totals of

the other groups have been tagged basedon the naonal shares with the probabiliesused only to assign ll we get the right

amount. It is also hard to adjudicatebetween the California targets we derivefrom Pew, OIS and Warren and Warren(2013) since there is more divergence intheir gures at the state level; the Warrenand Warren approach oers numbers for

California that are much higher than thoseused by most observers in this eld so wetry to strike an aggregate total (once weaccount for children, as discussed below)that falls between Pew and OIS.

With the undocumented adult count in

place, we then turn to taggingundocumented children. To do this, we takeadvantage of the fact that the ACS includeseasily accessed informaon on the relaonsbetween members of a household,parcularly on the connecons between

parents and children. We associate allchildren living with their parents in thesame household, and assume that if thechild is a non-cizen immigrant and at leastone of the parents is undocumented, thenthe child is undocumented. The resulngshare of those under age 18 in the Californiaunauthorized populaon is 10.6%, close tothe naonal share given in the OISesmates. We should also note that, unlikeothers, if a child is listed as a naturalizedcizen and has an undocumented parent,we take that as correct. Others designate

those children as undocumented and if wefollowed suit, our child share of theundocumented populaon would riseslightly to 11%. In either case, our guremay be a bit of an understatement giventhe past esmates in Fortuny, et al. (2007).

As for calculang the other cizen childrenwith at least one undocumented parent, wemake some modicaons because theesmators used here, originally designed foran analysis of economic outcomes for

adults, do not explicitly account for the

immigraon status of the spouse; if theydid, spouses of similar immigraon statuswould be more clustered together in


24/51


25/51


26/51


27/51



Hinojosa Ojeda, Raul. 2010. Raising theFloor for American Workers The

Economic Benets of

Comprehensive Immigraon

Reform. Washington, D.C.: Centerfor American Progress. Retrieved

(hp://www.immigraonpolicy.org/special-reports/raising-the-oor-american-workers.pdf).

Hoefer, Michael, and Nancy Ryna. 2012.Esmates of the Unauthorized

Immigrant Populaon Residing in

the United States: January 2011.Washington, D.C.: Oce ofImmigraon Stascs, Departmentof Homeland Security. Retrieved(hp://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/stascs/publicaons/ois_

ill_pe_2011.pdf).

Kerwin, Donald M. 2010. More than IRCA:US legalizaon programs and the

current policy debate. WashingtonD.C.: Migraon Policy Instute.Retrieved (hp://www.migraonpolicy.org/pubs/legalizaon-historical.pdf).

Lynch, Robert, and Patrick Oakford. 2013.The Economic Eects of Granng

Legal Status and Cizenship to

Undocumented Immigrants.Washington, D.C.: Center forAmerican Progress. Retrieved(hp://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/EconomicEectsCizenship-1.pdf).

Marcelli, Enrico A. 2004. The UnauthorizedResidency Status Myth: HealthInsurance Coverage and MedicalCare Use among MexicanImmigrants in California.Migraciones Internacionales

2(4):535.

Marcelli, Enrico A. et al. 2009. (In)Visible(Im)Migrants: The Health and

Socioeconomic Integraon of

Brazilians in Metropolitan Boston.

San Diego, CA: Center forBehavioral and Community Health

Studies, San Diego State University.Retrieved (hp://boston.com/bonzai-a/Third_Party_PDF/2009/10/17/Marcelli_et_al_BACH_2009_Brazilian__1255753970_2565.pdf).

Marcelli, Enrico A. 2013. Community-BasedMigrant Household ProbabilitySampling. in Migraon and HealthResearch Methodologies: A

Handbook for the Study of Migrant

Populaons, edited by M Schenker,

Xchitl Casteeda, and A Rodriguez-Lainz. Berkeley and Los Angeles,CA: University of California Press.

Marcelli, Enrico A., and David M. Heer.1997. Unauthorized MexicanWorkers in the 1990 Los AngelesCounty Labour Force. InternaonalMigraon 35(1):5983.

Marcelli, Enrico A., and B. Lindsay Lowell.2005. Transnaonal Twist:Pecuniary Remiances and the

Socioeconomic Integraon ofAuthorized and Unauthorized

Mexican Immigrants in Los AngelesCounty. Internaonal MigraonReview39(1):69102.

Marcelli, Enrico A., and Paul Ong. 2002.Esmang the Sources of the 2000Census Undercount Among

Foreign-born Mexicans in LosAngeles County.


28/51


29/51



Ryna, Nancy. 2011. Esmates of the LegalPermanent Resident Populaon in2010. U.S. Department ofHomeland Security; Oce ofImmigraon Stascs.

Shierholz, Heidi. 2010. The Eects ofCizenship on Family Income andPoverty. Washington, DC: EconomicPolicy Instute.

Shust, Diane, and Randall Moody. 2008.Leer to the House ofRepresentaves regarding theimpact of immigraon raids onchildren. Retrieved April 23, 2013(hp://www.nea.org/home/Leer-to-the-House-of-Representaves-on-comments-

regarding-the-impact-of-immigraon-raids-on-chil.html).

Slovic, Beth. 2008. Hes an... Illegal Eh-lien.Willamee Week, February 20.Retrieved (hp://www.wweek.com/portland/arcle-8470-herss_an_illegal_eh_lien.html).

Terriquez, Veronica. 2011. Schools forDemocracy: Labor UnionParcipaon and Lano ImmigrantParents School-Based Civic

Engagement. AmericanSociological Review 76:581601.

Terriquez, Veronica. 2012. CivicInequalies? ImmigrantIncorporaon and Lana MothersParcipaon in Their ChildrensSchools. Sociological Perspecves55(4):66382.

Wallace, Steven P., Jacqueline M. Torres,Tabashir Z. Nobari, and NadarehPourat. 2013. Le Out in the Cold:Undocumented Immigrants UnderHealth Reform. Los Angeles, CA:UCLA Center for Health Policy

Research.

Warren, Robert, and John Robert Warren.2013. Unauthorized Immigraonto the United States: AnnualEsmates and Components ofChange, by State, 1990 to 2010.Internaonal Migraon Review.Retrieved (hp://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/imre.12022).

Wong, Kent et al. 2012. Undocumented andUnafraid: Tam Tran, Cinthya Felix,

and the Immigrant YouthMovement. Los Angeles, CA: UCLACenter for Labor Research andEducaon.

Yoshikawa, Hirokazu, and JenyaKholoptseva. 2013. UnauthorizedImmigrant Parents and theirChildrens Development: ASummary of the Evidence.Washington, D.C.: Migraon PolicyInstute.


30/51


Total Population Benefits of Authorization, with Roadmap to Citizenship

US- Born 73% Aggregate Earned Income for Undoc.

Immigrant 27% CSII Estimated Annual GainsNaturalized 4,656,506 12% CAP Estimated Annual Gains

Non-Citizen, Documented 3,004,403 8%

Non-Citizen, Undocumented 2,654,752 7% Median Annual Earnings, Full-time Workers+

US-born

Median Years in Country Undoc Imm

Immigrant, Citizen 27

Immigrant, Non-Citizen, Documented 19 Speaks English Well#

Immigrant, Undocumented 9 Citizens (US-born & Imm) 96%

Non-Citizen Documented Immigrants 61%

Adults who are undocumented 2,373,162 8% Undocumented Immigrants 42%

Workforce who are undocumented 1,350,362 9%

Undoc Imm All

Total Child Population Educational Attainment

US- Born 8,781,431 94% No School or Less than High School 47% 7%

Immigrant 551,188 6% Some High School 19% 8%

High School Grad 22% 21%

Children with Immigrant Parent 4,427,949 47% Some College or AA Degree 5% 32%

Children with Undoc. Imm. Parent 1,504,574 16% BA or Better 6% 33%

Of whom,

Citizen Children w/ Undoc. Imm.

Parent1,222,985 81% Top 5 Industries

Non-Citz. Children w/ Undoc. Imm.

Parent

281,590 19%Retail Trade 23% 14%

Agr icu lture, Foresting , F ish ing and Hunting 15% 4%

Child Poverty (below 150% of poverty line) Manufacturing 13% 11%

With US-Born Parent 25% Construction 13% 7%

With Immigrant Parent 42% Business and Repair Services 10% 8%

With Undocumented Parent 67%

Top 5 Occupations

Race/Ethnicity* Farming , Fores tr y, and Fish ing Occupat ions 16% 3%

Non-Hispanic White 3% Food Preparation and Service Occupations 13% 4%

Black 0.4% Cleaning, Building and Household Service 11% 3%

Latino 85% Helpers in Construction and Material Handlers 11% 3%Asian/Pacific Islander 12% Machine Operators, Assemblers, and Inspectors 10% 4%

Other 1%

Labor Force Participation (share of working age pop. 74% 79%

Top 5 Countries/Regions of Origin for Undocumented Residents Males, in Labor Force 93% 87%

Mexico 72% Employed (as a share of the labor force) 90% 89%

Central America 12% Females, in Labor Force 56% 71%

Philippines 3% Employed (as a share of the labor force) 84% 90%

Korea 2%

China 2%

Median Age at Living in Health Home Self Emp- Full-Time Burdened Overcrowded

Age Migration

)

Poverty I nsurance Ownership loyment Emp loyment Renters~ Housing**

US-Born 29 N/A 83% 59% 12% 65% 53% 1%

Imm., Citizen 50 21 80% 64% 14% 69% 54% 3%

Imm., Non-Citizen, Documented 44 23 60% 36% 13% 62% 56% 8%

Imm., Undocumented 31 20 39% 17% 10% 53% 69% 19%

Notes:

All data calculated by USC CSII using IPUMS 2009-2011 American Community Survey (ACS) data (Ruggles et al. 2011).*

Latino includes all who marked "Hispanic;" all other categories are Non -Hispanic

Workers (employed and unemployed) ages 25-64, not in group quarters+ For fu ll -t ime worke rs , a ge 16 +, not i n g roup quar te rs P over ty is ca lc ul ated at be low 1 50 % of the fe de ra l pover ty li ne be ca us e of Cal iforni a housi ng costs# For ages 5+, respondents who speak English well or better Ages 25-64 25 and older, not in group quarters ~ Renter-occupied households that spend more than 30% of household income on rent Employed workers age s 25- 64, not in group quar te rs De fine d as m ore than 1.5 peo ple pe r room in house hold

37,551,860

9,332,619

2009-2011 DATA PROFILE: CALIFORNIA

$20,000

$50,000

$31,489,524,048

$4,565,980,987$7,903,870,536

27,236,199

10,315,661

**

23%

20%

32%

53%

CAL

IFORNIA

Appendix


31/51


32/51


33/51


34/51




Immigrant 22% CSII Estimated Annual Gains

Naturalized 298,460 7% CAP Estimated Annual Gains

Non-Citizen, Documented 260,291 7%

Non-Citizen, Undocumented 331,584 8% Median Annual Earnings, Full-time Workers+

US-born






Adults who are undocumented 292,439 10% Undocumented Immigrants 35%

Workforce who are undocumented 160,206 11%

Undoc Imm All





Children with Immigrant Parent 506,549 43% Some College or AA Degree 3% 34%

Children with Undoc. Imm. Parent 224,958 19% BA or Better 2% 18%Of whom,


Parent

185,813 83% Top 5 Industries


Parent

39,146 17%Agricu lture , Foresting, F ishing and Hunting 47% 12%

Retail Trade 14% 14%

Child Poverty (below 150% of poverty line) Manufacturing 8% 9%


With Immigrant Parent 58% Wholesale Trade 6% 4%


Top 5 Occupations

Race/Ethnicity* Farming, Forestry, and Fishing Occupat ions 48% 11%

Non-Hispanic White 1% Helpers in Construction and Material Handlers 9% 4%

Black N/A Food Preparation and Service Occupations 6% 4%

Latino 93% Machine Operators, Assemblers, and Inspectors 6% 4%

Asian/Pacific Islander 6% Cleaning, Building and Household Service 5% 3%

Other N/A





India 3% Employed (as a share of the labor force) 75% 86%

Philippines 2%

South America 0.5%


Age Migration Poverty Insurance Ownership loyment Employment Renters~ Housing**

US-Born 26 N/A 79% 60% 10% 63% 53% 1%

Imm., Citizen 48 19 76% 71% 13% 64% 51% 3%

Imm., Non-Citizen, Documented 46 20 55% 48% 10% 54% 49% 6%Imm., Undocumented 31 19 41% 23% 6% 43% 62% 11%

Notes

All data calculated by USC CSII using IPUMS 2009-2011 American Community Survey (ACS) data (Ruggles at al. 2011).*

Latino includes all who marked "Hispanic;" all other categories are Non-Hispanic

Workers (employed and unemployed) ages 25-64, not in group quarters+

For ful l- time workers, age 16+, not in group quarters Poverty is calcu lated at below 150% of the federal poverty l ine because of Cali forn ia housing costs#

For ages 5+, respondents who speak English well or better Ages 25-64

25 and older, not in group quarters~

Renter-occupied households that spend more than 30% of household income on rent

Employed workers ages 25-64, not in group quar ters Defined as more than 1.5 people per room i n household' - .

3,989,754

1,189,031

2009-2011 DATA PROFILE: CENTRAL VALLEY (Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare Counties)

$20,631

$41,939

$3,270,849,308

$474,273,150

$820,983,176

666,602

890,335

**

33%

27%

43%64%

)

CEN

TRALVALLEY


35/51



19 percent of children in the Central Valley have at least

one undocumented parent

224,958Total children with at leastone undocumented parent

83 percent are citizens

17 percent are non-citizens

10%

11%

13%

15%

42%

Retail Trade

Business and Repair

Services

Construction

Wholesale Trade

Agriculture, Foresting,

Fishing and Hunting

Top 5 Industries with Highest Share of Workers that are

Undocumented(Employed Population Ages 25-64)

14%

19%

19%

22%

46%

Machine Operators,

Assemblers, and

Inspectors

Cleaning, Building and

Household Service

Food Preparation and

Service

Helpers in Construction

and Extraction, and

Freight

Farming, Forestry, and

Fishing

Top 5 Occupations with Highest Share of Workers that are



36/51








US-born








Undoc Imm All


US- Born 563,283 94% No School or Less than High School 38% 5%




Children with Undoc. Imm. Parent 73,575 12% BA or Better 10% 42%

Of whom,


Parent



Parent

17,247 23%Retail Trade 28% 13%

Construction 18% 7%

Child Poverty (below 150% of poverty line) Business and Repair Services 12% 9%

With US-Born Parent 18% Professional and Related Services 9% 31%

With Immigrant Parent 27% Manufacturing 9% 10%


Top 5 Occupations

Race/Ethnicity* Food Preparation and Ser vice Occupations 16% 4%

Non-Hispanic White 3% Helpers in Construction and Material Handlers 14% 3%

Black N/A Cleaning, Building and Household Service 13% 3%

Latino 72% Construction Trades 10% 3%

Asian/Pacific Islander 22% Sales Occupations 7% 10%Other N/A

Labor Force Participation 74% 80%





China 6%

India 5%



US-Born 32 N/A 88% 61% 11% 65% 52% 1%

Imm., Citizen 49 22 87% 69% 12% 70% 49% 2%



Notes

All data calculated by USC CSII using IPUMS 2009-2011 American Community Survey (ACS) data (Ruggles at al. 2011).

* Latino includes all who marked "Hispanic;" all other categories are Non-Hispanic Workers (employed and unemployed) ages 25-64, not i n group quarters+ For ful l- time workers, age 16+, not in group quarters Poverty is calculated at below 150% of the federal poverty l ine because of Cali forn ia housing costs# Among population ages 5+, share who speak English well or better Ages 25-64

For population ages 25+, not in group quarters ~ Renter-occupied households that spend more than 30% of household income on rent Fo r employe d wor ke rs age s 25- 64, not in g ro up quart er s Def ine d as mor e t han 1. 5 peo ple pe r ro om in ho us eho ld**

17%

14%

21%

44%

2,577,752

602,298

$24,000

$60,000

$2,018,392,184

$292,666,867

$506,616,438

1,855,943

721,809

2009-2011 DATA PROFILE: EAST BAY (Alameda & Contra Costa Counties)

EAS

TBAY


37/51



12 percent of children in the East Bay have at least one

undocumented parent

73,575Total children with at least one

undocumented parent



9%

14%

16%

18%

26%

Business and Repair

Services

Retail Trade

Personal Services

Construction


Fishing and Hunting



19%

26%

29%

30%

31%

Construction Trades


Fishing


Service


and Extraction, and

Freight


Household Service




38/51








US-born








Undoc Imm All








Parent



Parent

29,637 17%Retail Trade 22% 16%

Manufacturing 15% 11%

Child Poverty (below 150% of poverty line) Construction 13% 9%

With US-Born Parent 30% Agriculture, Foresting, Fishing and Hunting 13% 3%

With Immigrant Parent 45% Business and Repair Services 9% 6%


Top 5 Occupations

Race/Ethnicity* Farming, Forestry, and Fishing Occupations 13% 3%

Non-Hispanic White 2% Food Preparation and Service Occupations 12% 4%

Black N/A Helpers in Construction and Material Handlers 12% 4%

Latino 91% Machine Operators, Assemblers, and Inspectors 10% 4%

Asian/Pacific Islander 6% Cleaning, Building and Household Service 9% 3%

Other N/A

Labor Force Participation (share of working age pop.) 70% 76%





Korea 1%

South America 1%



US-Born 27 N/A 80% 66% 10% 63% 57% 1%

Imm., Citizen 49 19 74% 77% 12% 67% 57% 2%

Imm., Non-Citizen, Documented 45 21 54% 57% 15% 59% 62% 7%Imm., Undocumented 31 19 34% 35% 10% 49% 67% 14%

Notes




For ful l- time workers, age 16+, not in group quarters Poverty is calcu lated at below 150% of the federal poverty l ine because of Cali forn ia housing costs#




Employed workers ages 25-64, not in group quar ters Defi ned as more than 1.5 people per room in household' - .

4,251,779

1,216,814

2009-2011 DATA PROFILE: INLAND EMPIRE (San Bernardino and Riverside Counties)

$20,445

$45,000

$2,833,599,361

$410,871,907

$711,233,440

3,316,645

935,135

**

26%

21%

35%54%

)

INLA

NDEM

PIRE


39/51



14 percent of children in the Inland Empire have at least





11%

11%

12%

14%

36%

Retail Trade

Business and Repair

Services

Construction

Personal Services


Fishing and Hunting



17%

22%

22%

23%

35%

Machine Operators,

Assemblers, and

Inspectors


Household Service


and Extraction, and

Freight


Service


Fishing




40/51


41/51



20 percent of children in Los Angeles County have at least





17%

18%

19%

23%

37%

Manufacturing

Retail Trade

Personal Services

Construction

Agriculture, Foresting,Fishing and Hunting



30%

31%

32%

32%

37%

Machine Operators,

Assemblers, and

Inspectors


Service


and Extraction


Household Service


Fishing




42/51


43/51



11 percent of children in the North Bay have at least oneundocumented parent




6%

9%

12%

16%

29%

Manufacturing

Retail Trade

Personal Services

Construction


Fishing and Hunting



19%

21%

29%

30%

32%

Food Preparation and Service

Construction Trades

Helpers in Construction and Extraction,

and Freight

Cleaning, Building and Household

Service

Farming, Forestry, and Fishing




44/51








US-born








Undoc Imm All








Parent



Parent

25,021 19%Retail Trade 24% 14%

Manufacturing 16% 15%

Child Poverty (below 150% of poverty line) Business and Repair Services 13% 8%


With Immigrant Parent 37% Agriculture, Foresting, Fishing and Hunting 9% 2%


Top 5 Occupations

Race/Ethnicity* Food Preparation and Service Occupations 14% 4%

Non-Hispanic White 2% Cleaning, Building and Household Service 14% 3%

Black N/A Machine Operators, Assemblers, and Inspectors 13% 5%

Latino 83% Helpers in Construction and Material Handlers 10% 3%

Asian/Pacific Islander 14% Farming, Forestry, and Fishing Occupations 9% 2%

Other N/A





Korea 5% Employed (as a share of the labor force) 86% 91%

Vietnam 5%

Philippines 3%



US-Born 29 N/A 87% 64% 13% 68% 52% 1%

Imm., Citizen 49 22 82% 65% 15% 71% 56% 4%



Notes

All data calculated by USC CSII using IPUMS 2009-2011 American Community Survey (ACS) data (Ruggles at al. 2011).

* Latino includes all who marked "Hispanic;" all other categories are Non-Hispanic Workers (employed and unemployed) ages 25-64, not in group quarters

+ For fu ll -t ime workers , age 16+, no t in g roup quar te rs Pover ty is ca lculated at be low 150% o f the federa l pover ty line because o f Cal ifornia housing costs

# For ages 5+, respondents who speak English well or better Ages 25-64

25 and older, not in group quarters ~ Renter-occupied households that spend more than 30% of household income on rent

Employed workers ages 25-64, n ot in group qu ar ters Defined as m ore than 1.5 people per room in h ou sehold' - .**

17%

17%

29%

46%

3,053,122

743,452

2009-2011 Data Profile: Orange County

$20,760

$56,736

$3,127,046,981

$453,421,812

$784,888,792

2,107,244

945,878

)

ORA

NGE


45/51


46/51








US-born








Undoc Imm All







Of whom,


Parent



Parent

12,402 26%Retail Trade 26% 14%

Construction 18% 7%

Child Poverty (below 150% of poverty line) Agriculture, Foresting, Fishing and Hunting 16% 2%

With US-Born Parent 24% Personal Services 9% 3%

With Immigrant Parent 42% Professional and Related Services 8% 30%


Top 5 Occupations

Race/Ethnicity* Food Preparation and Ser vice Occupations 19% 4%

Non-Hispanic White 10% Farming, Forestry, and Fishing Occupations 16% 2%

Black N/A Cleaning, Building and Household Service 12% 3%

Latino 71% Construction Trades 10% 3%

Asian/Pacific Islander 19% Helpers in Construction and Material Handlers 10% 3%

Other N/A




Other USSR/Russia 8% Females, in Labor Force 54% 72%


Central America 4%

China 3%


Age Migration

)

Poverty Insurance Ownership loyment Employment Renters~ Housing**

US-Born 33 N/A 86% 62% 11% 64% 55% 0%

Imm., Citizen 47 20 82% 68% 13% 67% 54% 2%



Notes




For fu ll -t ime workers, age 16+, not in group quarters Poverty is ca lculated at below 150% of the federa l poverty l ine because of Ca li forn ia housing costs#




Employed workers ages 25-64, not in group quar ters Defined as more than 1.5 people per room in household

2,159,674

533,627

2009-2011 DATA PROFILE: SACRAMENTO METRO (El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba Counties)

$20,631

$50,000

$877,864,706

$127,290,382

$220,344,041

1,780,139

379,534

**

22%

22%

36%

57%

SAC

RAMEN

TO


47/51



9 percent of children in the Sacramento Region have at

least one undocumented parent




5%

8%

11%

12%

29%

Business and Repair

Services

Retail Trade

Construction

Personal Services


Fishing and Hunting


Undocumented

(Employed Population Ages 25-64)

13%

18%

19%

22%

31%

Construction Trades


and Extraction, and

Freight


Household Service


Service


Fishing




48/51








US-born








Undoc Imm All







Of whom,


Parent



Parent

18,877 23%Retail Trade 26% 13%

Business and Repair Services 17% 12%

Child Poverty (below 150% of poverty line) Construction 14% 6%

With US-Born Parent 13% Manufacturing 10% 17%

With Immigrant Parent 21% Agriculture, Foresting, Fishing and Hunting 9% 2%


Top 5 Occupations

Race/Ethnicity* Food Preparation and Service Occupations 15% 4%

Non-Hispanic White 4% Cleaning, Building and Household Service 15% 3%

Black N/A Helpers in Construction and Material Handlers 11% 3%

Latino 71% Farming, Forestry, and Fishing Occupations 9% 2%

Asian/Pacific Islander 24% Construction Trades 8% 3%Other N/A





India 6% Employed (as a share of the labor force) 86% 91%

Philippines 6%

Vietnam 5%



US-Born 29 N/A 89% 62% 11% 67% 45% 1%

Imm., Citizen 48 23 89% 69% 11% 72% 49% 2%



Notes




For fu ll -t ime workers , age 16+, not in group quarters Poverty is calculated at below 150% of the federal poverty line because of Cal ifornia housing costs#




Empl oyed worker s a ges 25-64, not in group quar ter s Defi ned as more than 1.5 peopl e per room i n household'

2,530,415

593,105

2009-2011 DATA PROFILE: SILICON VALLEY (Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties)

$23,400

$65,000

$2,642,977,674

$383,231,763

$663,387,396

1,608,519

921,896

**

14%

12%

17%

40%

)

SILIC

ONVALLEY


49/51



14 percent of children in the Silicon Valley have at least one

undocumented parent




11%

15%

18%

20%

35%

Business and Repair

Services

Retail Trade

Personal Services

Construction


Fishing and Hunting



21%

31%

32%

37%

38%

Construction Trades


Service


and Extraction, and

Freight


Household Service


Fishing




50/51


51/51

Soda FoundationY

Y&

whats at stake for the state

Documents