California's San Joaquin Valley: A Region in Transition
Congressional research reportDec 12, 2005
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Order Code RL33184
California’s San Joaquin Valley:
A Region in Transition
December 12, 2005
name redacted, Coordinator
Analyst in Rural and Regional Development Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
California’s San Joaquin Valley: A Region in Transition
Summary
CRS was requested to undertake a study of the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) and
a comparison with another U.S. region. The eight-county San Joaquin Valley, part
of California’s Central Valley, is home to 5 of the 10 most agriculturally productive
counties in the United States. By a wide range of indicators, the SJV is also one of
the most economically depressed regions of the United States. This report analyzes
the SJV’s counties and statistically documents the basis of current socioeconomic
conditions. The report further explores the extent to which the SJV shares similarities
with and differs from the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) area and a 68county Central Appalachian subregion which contains some of the most
economically distressed counties in Appalachia. The report also examines the role
of federal expenditures in the cities and counties of the SJV.
During the past twenty-five years, population growth rates in the SJV were
significantly higher than for California or the United States and their projected
growth rates over the next 20 years are also significantly higher. In 2000, the SJV
also had substantially higher rates of poverty than California or the United States.
Poverty rates were also significantly higher in the SJV than in the ARC region,
although the rate is somewhat lower than that of the Central Appalachian subregion.
Unemployment rates in the SJV were higher than in California or the United States
and the ARC area. Per capita income and average family income were higher in the
SJV than in Central Appalachia, but per capita income in the SJV was lower than in
the ARC region as a whole. SJV households also had higher rates of public
assistance income than did Central Appalachian households. Madera County ranked
among the 10 lowest per capita income Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in the
United States in 2003, and the other 5 MSAs in the San Joaquin were all in the
bottom 20% of all U.S. MSAs. Other indicators of social well-being discussed in the
report showed that the SJV is a region of significant economic distress.
Data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census’s Consolidated Federal Funds Reports
for 2002 and 2003 showed that every SJV county received fewer federal funds than
the national per capita average or for California. Most SJV counties received
approximately $1,240- $2,800 per capita less than the national per capita rate in
2002. Madera County had $3,176 per capita less than the national per capita rate in
2003. Two rural counties adjacent to the SJV, Mariposa and Tuolomne, received
significantly higher per capita rates of federal funding in 2003 than the SJV. In 2002,
the SJV received $1,559 less per capita in federal funds than the ARC region as a
whole. The SJV also received $2,860 per capita less than the Tennessee Valley
Authority region in 2003. Other federal funds data for 2000 also show that the per
capita rate of federal spending was lower in the SJV than in the generally depressed
Central Appalachian subregion.
In addition to examining socioeconomic conditions in the SJV, the report
provides analysis of water supply and quality issues especially those concerning
agriculture, air quality concerns, and rail and shipping issues.
This report will not be updated.
Contributing Staff
Areas of Expertise
Name
Division
Telephone
RSI
7-....
Regional Economic
Development,
Agriculture, Federal
Expenditures, and
Project Coordinator
(name redacted)
Economic, Social, and
Demographic
Information
(name redacted)
Air Quality
James McCarthy
Census of Agriculture
and Electronic Data
Resources
(name redacted)
Education
David Smole
DSP
7-....
Electronic Publishing
Atilla Akgun
Shelly Butts
Laura Comay
Shelley Harlan
Katie Yancey
ERPO
7-....
Food Stamps
(name redacted)
DSP
7-....
Geographical
Information System
Cartography
Virginia Mason
GMD
7-....
Health Indicators
Pamela Smith
DSP
7-....
Highways
Robert Kirk
RSI
7-....
Medicare
Paulette Morgan
DSP
7-....
Obesity
Donna Porter
DSP
7-....
Teen Births
(name redacted)
Transportation
Infrastructure and
Economic Development
(name redacted)
Water Supply and
Infrastructure
Betsy Cody
Water Quality
(name redacted)
DSP
RSI
7-....
KSG
KSG
7-....
7-....
7-....
RSI
RSI
RSI
7-....
7-....
7-....
All Divisions are CRS except Geography and Maps, a Division of the Library of Congress.
Abbreviations: RSI = Resources, Science and Industry; DSP = Domestic Social Policy; KSG
= Knowledge Service Group; ERPO = Electronic Research Products; GMD = Geography
and Map Division
Contents
Chapter 1 — An Overview of the San Joaquin Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Contemporary Research on the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Demographic Issues and the Role of Farmworkers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Agricultural Immigration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Employment, Poverty, and Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Regional Approaches to Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The Appalachian Regional Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Tennessee Valley Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Delta Regional Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
The United States-Mexico Border Health Commission . . . . . . . . . . . 15
The Northern Great Plains Regional Authority (NGPRA) . . . . . . . . . 16
Denali Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Chapter 2 — The San Joaquin Valley and Appalachia: A
Socioeconomic Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Socioeconomic Indicators in the SJV and Appalachia, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . 25
County and Regional Population Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appalachia’s Demographic Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
County and Regional Poverty Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Other Poverty Measures: Food Stamps, Public Assistance Income,
Health Insurance, and Medicaid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
County and Regional Employment and Income Measures . . . . . . . . . 66
County and Regional Educational Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Health and Disease Rates in the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Age-Adjusted Death Rates from Cancers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Health and Disease Profile of Appalachia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Crimes and Crime Rates in the SJV and Appalachia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Chapter 3 — Federal Direct Expenditures in the San Joaquin Valley
and the Appalachian Regional Commission Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
The Consolidated Federal Funds Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Comparing FY2002 Federal Expenditures in the San Joaquin, the
United States, and California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Federal Funding in the SJV and the TVA for FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Comparing Federal Funding in the Appalachian Regional
Commission Area to Federal Funding in the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Federal Funding in Appalachia and the San Joaquin: The
Economic Research Service Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Geographical Information System Mapping of Federal Funds Data . . . . . 153
Chapter 4 — The Economic Structure of the San Joaquin Valley . . . . . . . . . . 163
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Agriculture in the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Trends in the Structure of SJV Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Agriculture and SJV Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Agricultural Land Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
SJV Farm Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Agricultural Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Agriculture’s Future in the San Joaquin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
The Non-Agricultural Economy of the San Joaquin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
SJV County Employment Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Appalachian State Employment Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
Labor Force Characteristics in the San Joaquin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
Fresno Regional Jobs Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
The Health Care Industry as a Growth Sector for the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Chapter 5 — Selected Natural Resource and Environmental Issues
in the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
Water Resources of the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
Water Supply Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Water Quality Issues in the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Irrigated Agriculture and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Actions to Address Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
A TMDL Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
Financial Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Managing Manure at Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations . . . . . . . . 253
Funding Sources for CAFOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Air Quality Issues in the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Ozone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
Federal Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Chapter 6 — Transportation Investment and Economic Development . . . . . . . 260
The Federal-Aid Highway System and the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
The Obligation of Federal-Aid Highway Funds in the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
The Relation Between Freight Infrastructure and Economic
Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
Supporting the Perishable Goods Delivery Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
Warehouse and Distribution Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
High Speed Rail and Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
APPENDIX A: Reports and Studies on the SJV: 1980-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
Water Resources Management and Geomorphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
Natural Resources: Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
Labor and Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
Poverty and Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
Population and Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Economic Growth and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
Education and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Socioeconomic Surveys of Central Valley Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
Agriculture in California and the San Joaquin/Central Valley . . . . . . . . . 280
Publications of the Center for Public Policy Studies, California
State University-Stanislaus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Public Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
Great Valley Center Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
APPENDIX B: Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
APPENDIX C: San Joaquin Valley Governments and Institutes . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Public Policy Analysis Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
APPENDIX D: Central Appalachian Counties As Defined by USDA’s
Economic Research Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
APPENDIX E: Counties of the Tennessee Valley Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
APPENDIX F: Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations by Individual
Program and San Joaquin Valley County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
List of Figures
Figure 1. The San Joaquin Valley of California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Figure 2. The Appalachian Regional Commission Area and its Distressed
Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 3. Percent Change in Mexican-Born Population by County,
1990-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 4. Percent of Persons Below Poverty Level by County (2000) . . . . . . . . 48
Figure 5. Percent of Households Receiving Public Assistance by County
(2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Figure 6. Median Family Income By County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Figure 7. Percent of Persons with Education Less Than High School by
County (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Figure 8. Percent of Persons with a Bachelors Degree or Advanced
Degree by County (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Figure 9. Total Federal Assistance by County, FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Figure 10. Total Federal Assistance Per Capita, FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Figure 11. Federal Assistance per Capita for Agriculture and Natural
Resources by County, FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Figure 12. Federal Assistance Per Capita for Community Resources . . . . . . . 156
Figure 13. Federal Assistance Per Capita for Defense and Space by County,
FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Figure 14. Federally Owned Land in the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Figure 15. Federal Assistance Per Capita for Human Resource by County,
FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Figure 16. Federal Assistance per Capita for Income Security by County,
FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Figure 17. Federal Assistance per Capita for National Functions by County,
FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Figure 18. Allocation of Federal Assistance by ERS Category in California
and the SJV, FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Figure 19. SJV Land Use/Land Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Figure 20. Average Sales per Farm by County (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Figure 21. Irrigated Farm Acreage by County (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Figure 22. Irrigated Land in Acres by County (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Figure 23. Average Federal Farm Payments per Farm by County (2002) . . . . 185
Figure 24. Number of Migrant Workers on Farms with Hired Labor by
County, (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
List of Tables
Table 1. Appalachian Regional Commission County Economic Fiscal
Status, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 2. Population: United States, California, and Counties of the SJV,
1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 3. Population Density: United States, California, and Counties
of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 4. Population: United States, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West
Virginia, and Central Appalachian Counties of the Appalachian
Regional Commission, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 5. Population Projections: United States, California, and Counties
of the SJV, to 2010 and 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Table 6. Population Projections: United States, Kentucky, Virginia,
Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the Appalachian
Regional Commission, to 2010 and 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Table 7. Estimated Percent of the Population That Moved During the
Previous Year: United States, California, and Metropolitan Statistical
Areas of the SJV, 1989-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 8. Estimates of Where Persons Who Moved During the Previous
Year Lived One Year Earlier: United States, California, and
Metropolitan Statistical Areas ofthe SJV, 1989-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table 9. Percent of the Population Foreign-Born: United States,
California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Table 10. Percent of Population of Hispanic Origin: United States,
California, and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Table 11. Percent of the Population Mexican-Born: United States,
California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Table 12. Distribution of Population by Race: United States, California,
and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 13. Distribution of Population by Gender: United States, California,
and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 14. Distribution of Population by Age: United States, California,
and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table 15. Portion of the Population Below Poverty: United States, California,
and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table 16. Appalachian Regional Commission Poverty Rates, 1980-2000 . . . . . 51
Table 17. Portion of the Population Below Poverty: United States,
Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central
Counties of the ARC, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Table 18. Percent of Households Receiving Food Stamps: United States,
California, and the MSAs of the SJV, 1988-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Table 19. Public Assistance Income: United States, California, and the
Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Table 20. Public Assistance Income: United States, Kentucky, Virginia,
Tennessee, West Virginia,and Central Counties of the ARC,
1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Table 21. Percent of Population Without Health Insurance: United
States, California, and the MSAs of the SJV, 1988-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Table 22. Percent of Population Without Health Insurance: United
States, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central
Counties of the ARC, 1988-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Table 23. Percent of the Population Enrolled in Medicaid: United States,
California, and MSAs of the SJV, 1988-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Table 24. Percent of the Population Enrolled in Medicaid: United States,
Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties
of the ARC, 1988-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 25. Employment in the United States, California,and the Counties
of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Table 26. Employment in the United States, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee,
West Virginia, and Central Counties of the ARC, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . 69
Table 27. Labor Force Participation Rate: United States, California,
and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Table 28. Labor Force Participation Rate: United States, Kentucky,
Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the ARC,
1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Table 29. Civilian Unemployment Rates: United States, California, and the
Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Table 30. Civilian Unemployment Rates: United States, Kentucky,
Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the ARC,
1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Table 31. Per Capita Income: United States, California,and the Counties
of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Table 32. Per Capita Income: United States, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee,
West Virginia, and Central Counties of theARC, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Table 33. Median Family Income: United States, California, and the Counties
of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Table 34. Median Family Income: United States, Kentucky, Virginia,
Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the ARC, 1980-2003 . 82
Table 35. Average Family Income: United States, California,and the Counties
of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Table 36. Average Family Income: United States, Kentucky, Virginia,
Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the Appalachian
Regional Commission (ARC), 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Table 37. Wage and Salary Income: United States, California, and the
Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Table 38. Wage and Salary Income: United States, Kentucky, Virginia,
Tennessee, West Virginia,and Central Counties of the ARC, 1980-2003 . . 86
Table 39. Interest, Dividend, or Net Rental Income: United States,
California,and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Table 40. Retirement Income: United States, California, and the Counties
of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Table 41. Social Security Income: United States, California, and the Counties
of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Table 42. Social Security Income: United States, Kentucky, Virginia,
Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the ARC,
1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Table 43. Supplemental Security Income (SSI): United States, California,
and the Counties of the SJV, 2000-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Table 44. Supplemental Security Income (SSI): United States, Kentucky,
Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the ARC,
2000-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Table 45. Educational Attainment: United States, California, and Counties
of the SJV, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Table 46. Educational Attainment: United States, Kentucky, Virginia,
Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the ARC, 1990-2003 . 98
Table 47. Per Pupil Amounts for Current Spending of Public Elementary
and Secondary School Systems: United States, California, and Counties
of the SJV,1992-1993 and 2002-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Table 48. Percent of Persons Who Speak a Language Other than English at
Home: United States, California, and Counties ofthe SJV, 1980-2003 . . 100
Table 49. Per Pupil Amounts for Current Spending of Public Elementary
and Secondary School Systems: United States,Kentucky, Tennessee,
Virginia, West Virginia, and CentralCounties of the ARC, 1992-1993
and 2002-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Table 50. Educational Attainment of Persons in the Labor Force Who
Moved During the Previous Year: United States, California, and MSAs
of the SJV, 1989-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Table 51. Total Active Doctors Per 1,000 Population: United States,
California, and the Counties of the SJV, 1995-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Table 52. Doctors Engaged in Patient Care Per 1,000 Population: United
States, California, and the Counties of the SJV, 1995-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Table 53. Total Active Doctors Per 1,000 Population: United States,
Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the Central
Counties of the ARC, 1995-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Table 54. Doctors Engaged in Patient Care Per 1,000 Population: United
States, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the Central
Counties of the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), 1995-2001 . 111
Table 55. Teen Birth Rates: United States, California, and Counties
of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Table 56. Infant Mortality Rates: United States, California, and Counties
of the SJV, 1980-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Table 57. Age-Adjusted Prevalence of Obesity and Healthy Weight: United
States, California, and Counties of the SJV, 1992-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Table 58. Age-Adjusted Death Rates from Heart Disease: United States,
California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Table 59. Cancer Deaths: Age-Adjusted Death Rates from Cancers: United
States, California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Table 60. Age-Adjusted Death Rates from Stroke: United States,
California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Table 61. Age-Adjusted Death Rates from All Causes of Death: United
States, California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Table 62. Age-Adjusted Prevalence of Diagnosed Diabetes in Adults: United
States, California, and Counties of the SJV, 2000-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Table 63. Diabetes Deaths — Age-Adjusted Death Rates for Diabetes
Mellitus: United States, California, and Counties of the SJV,
1980-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Table 64. Percent of the Population Covered by Medicare: United States,
California, and MSAs of the SJV, 1988-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Table 65. Percent of the Population Covered by Medicare: United States,
Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties
of the ARC, 1988-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Table 66. Per Capita Monthly Medicare Expenditures for Aged
Beneficiaries in Traditional Medicare: United States, California, and
Counties of the SJV, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Table 67. Per Capita Monthly Medicare Expenditures for Aged
Beneficiaries in Traditional Medicare: United States, Kentucky,
Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties ofthe ARC,
1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Table 68. Number of Crimes and Crime Rate: United States,
California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Table 69. Number of Crimes and Crime Rate: United States, Kentucky,
Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the ARC,
1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Table 70. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations in the SJV, FY2002 . 142
Table 71. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations in the Appalachian
Regional Commission, FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Table 72. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations in the SJV, FY2003 . 144
Table 73. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations in the Tennessee
Valley Authority Area FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Table 74. Per Capita Federal Funds By ERS Function for the SJV, FY2000 . . 151
Table 75. Per Capita Federal Funds for Appalachia by ERS Function and
Region, FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Table 76. Farms by Size, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Table 77. Market Value of Agricultural Product Sales, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Table 78. Leading Commodities for Gross Value of Agricultural Production
by SJV and Adjacent Counties, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Table 79. SJV Commodity Rank and Leading Counties by Gross Value
of Agricultural Production, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Table 80. SJV Irrigated Land, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Table 81. SJV Federal Farm Payments, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
Table 82. SJV Hired Farm Labor, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Table 83. SJV Farm Workers by Days Worked — Less than 150 days, 2002 . 187
Table 84. SJV Farm Workers by Days Worked — 150 Days or More, 2002 . . 188
Table 85. SJV Migrant Farm Labor Valley, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Table 86. Annual Employment and Average Annual Pay of the 20
Largest Industries, United States, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Table 87. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries,
California, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Table 88. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, Fresno
County, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Table 89. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, Kern
County, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Table 90. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, Kings
County, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Table 91. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, Madera
County, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Table 92. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, Merced
County, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Table 93. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, San
Joaquin County, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Table 94. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries,
Stanislaus County, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
Table 95. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, Tulare
County, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Table 96. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries,
Mariposa County, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Table 97. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries,
Tuolumne County, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Table 98. Percent of Workers Who Usually Worked Full-Timein the
Previous Year: United States, California, and the Counties of the
SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Table 99. Distribution of Employed Persons by the Number of Weeks
Worked in the Previous Year: United States, California, and the
Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Table 100. Class of Worker: United States, California,and the Counties
of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Table 101. Means of Transportation to Work: United States, California,
and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Table 102. Vehicles Available Per Household: United States, California,
and Counties of the SJV, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Table 103. Ambulatory Health Care Services, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Table 104. Bakersfield MSA Occupational Employment (November 2003)
and Wage (2004 - 3rd Quarter) Data Occupational Employment
Statistics (OES) Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Table 105. Fresno MSA Occupational Employment (November 2003) and
Wage (2004 - 3rd Quarter) Data Occupational Employment Statistics
(OES) Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Table 106. Modesto MSA Occupational Employment (November 2003) and
Wage (2004 - 3rd Quarter) Data Occupational Employment Statistics
(OES) Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Table 107. Stockton-Lodi MSA Occupational Employment
(November 2003) and Wage (2004 - 3rd Quarter) Data
Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . 237
Table 108. Visalia-Tulare-Porterville MSA Occupational Employment
(November 2003) and Wage (2004 - 3rd Quarter) Data
Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . 240
Table 109. Medical Instrument Supply/Equipment, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Table 110. Federal-Aid Highway Obligations: SJV — California — United
States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Table 111. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for Fresno County,
FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
Table 112. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for Kern County,
FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
Table 113. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for Kings County,
FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
Table 114. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for Madera
County, FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Table 115. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for Merced
County, FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Table 116. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for San Joaquin
County, FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
Table 117. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for Stanislaus
County, FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
Table 118. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for Tulare County,
FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
Table 119. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for Mariposa
County, FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
Table 120. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for Tuolumne
County, FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
California’s San Joaquin Valley: A Region in
Transition
Chapter 1 — An Overview of the San Joaquin Valley
Introduction. The San Joaquin Valley (SJV), an eight-county region
extending 250 miles from Stockton in the north to Bakersfield in the south (Figure
1), is a rapidly growing area that is also a severely economically depressed region
suffering from high poverty, unemployment, and other adverse social conditions.
The 27,280 square mile SJV, part of California’s Central Valley, is also home to 5
of the 10 most agriculturally productive counties in the United States, as measured
by value of total annual sales. In addition to its socioeconomic condition, the SJV
region faces significant environmental and natural resource challenges. A substantial
body of empirical research over the past 20 years has explored the socioeconomic and
environmental issues facing the SJV, with particular attention to social welfare,
agriculture, air, and water quality issues.
Figure 1. The San Joaquin Valley of California
CRS-2
This report documents the basis of current socioeconomic and environmental
concerns in the SJV and assesses the role of federal assistance to the cities, counties,
residents, and businesses of the SJV. The report also explores the extent to which
the SJV shares similarities with and differs from other economically depressed areas
in the United States. It reviews the role of federal assistance in the SJV relative to the
role of federal assistance in Appalachia, specifically federal funding to the
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) area. The ARC is a federal agency
created in 1965. Its jurisdiction is a 410-county region spread across 13 states from
Alabama to New York.
The report’s major analytical focus is the 8 counties that compose the SJV:
Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare.
Particular data in the report also focus on the SJV’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(MSAs): Stockton-Lodi, Bakersfield, Fresno, Madera, Modesto, and VisaliaPorterville. A limited, but more detailed comparison is also developed with the
Central Appalachian subregion, a 68-county area in Tennessee, Virginia, Kentucky,
and West Virginia delimited by the USDA’s Economic Research Service and based
on Bogue and Beale’s Economic Areas of the United States.1 Two rural counties
adjacent to the SJV, Mariposa and Tuolumne, are also examined in the report to
provide a further comparison and contrast to the socioeconomic characteristics of the
SJV.
Data discussed in the text occasionally make reference to the Greater Central
Valley of which the SJV composes the southern portion. The Great Valley Center
in Modesto, a regional research institute, divides the Great Central Valley into 3
subregions: the North Valley encompasses 7 counties (Shasta, Tehama, Glenn,
Colusa, Butte, Yuba, and Sutter); the Sacramento Region has 4 counties (Yolo,
Sacramento, Place, and El Dorado); and the San Joaquin Valley. The North Valley
is less urbanized and less developed. The Sacramento Region has had the most
extensive development through its linkages to San Francisco.2
How federal assistance in the SJV and Appalachia is distributed among various
categories and their per capita rates of expenditure are also a focus of the report. A
key consideration is how federal assistance is currently distributed in the SJV and
how it differs from current federal expenditures in Appalachia.
The geography of global economic activity in 2005 is, in significant ways, quite
different from that of 25 years ago. An increasingly complex set of relationships
between local and global scales of economic activity has implications for SJV labor
markets, household consumption, the formation of growth coalitions, technological
innovation and growth, residential and transportation patterns, and human capital
issues. Federal assistance has been important in each of these policy issues in the
past and is likely continue as an important factor in future development and change
in the SJV. Concern with the challenges facing the SJV has led to efforts there to
1
Bogue, Donald J. and Calvin Beale. Economic Areas of the United States. New York:
Free Press. 1961.
2
Great Valley Center. The State of the Great Central Valley of California: Assessing the
Region Via Indicators. Modesto, California. July, 1999.
CRS-3
begin considering a wide range of issues from a regional perspective. The SJV now
has federally recognized regional status: a federal interagency task force on the
economic development of the Central SJV was created in 2000 by Executive Order.3
This chapter reviews the history of regional approaches to socioeconomic
development and discusses the federal role in the creation and support of specific
regional development commissions: the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the
ARC, the Delta Regional Authority, the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission,
the Denali Commission, and the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority. Each of
these federally authorized commissions targeted federal funds to development issues
specific to their geographic regions.
This section selectively surveys contemporary socioeconomic research on the
SJV, drawing on an extensive bibliography of research in Appendix A.
Contemporary Research on the SJV
In his 1987 Carl Sauer Memorial Lecture, Berkeley geographer James J. Parsons
argued that there were at least three categorical ways of approaching the SJV.4 First,
and most common, was to ignore the SJV or to view it as irrelevant to the largely
urbanized character of the state. He noted that in a mid-1980s publication listing the
100 best places in California the refurbished Capitol building in Sacramento was the
only attraction from the entire Central Valley to make the list. A second way of
considering the SJV was as a symbol “of capitalism gone rampant, of all that is bad
about profit-based, large-scale, labor intensive irrigated agriculture.” Here, Parsons
referred to Frank Norris’s Octopus, a story of the role of the railroad in what is today,
Kings County. John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath and Carey McWilliams
Factories in the Field also represented a way of seeing the Valley focused largely on
the social and human effects of agricultural production in the 1930s. In a similar
vein, news and stories of contemporary industrial agriculture in the Valley reinforce
this particular dimension of the SJV. For Parsons, a noted cultural geographer, a
third way of looking at the Valley was actually to see and appreciate the Valley as the
3
Executive Order 13173: Interagency Task Force on the Economic Development of the
Central SJV, October 25, 2000. Executive Order 13359, October 4, 2004, amended the
original Order to designate the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development as the Chair
of the task force.
4
Parsons, James J.. A Geographer Looks at the SJV. 1987 Carl Sauer Memorial Lecture.
[Http://geography.berkeley.edu/ProjectsResources/]
Publications/Parsons_SauerLect.html. While agriculture and the SJV are practically
synonymous, oil production was also an important factor in the development of the SJV.
At the turn of the 20th century, the Kern River Field was producing 70% of California’s oil,
and California was the country’s leading oil producer. Today, Kern County produces 10%
of the United States oil, making it the leading oil producing county in the United States. See
Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, Kern County Petroleum. January 2002.
[http://www.bakersfieldchamber.org/community.asp].
CRS-4
result of a consciously built and cultivated cultural landscape that has made
California agriculture a modern “wonder of the world.”5
Substantial research over the past decade has focused on the SJV in an effort
to describe, analyze, and plan for the challenges facing the region. Population growth
and change, global changes in the organization of agriculture, pressures on natural
resources stemming from population growth and agricultural production, human
resource concerns, environmental issues, employment, growth management concerns,
housing, and transportation represent some of the policy issues on which researchers
have focused particular attention. The general economic growth and development
in the Central Valley as a whole between 1999-2004 has not significantly changed
much of the basic economic distress of the region. Even with an increase in income
over that period, the Central Valley region may have lost ground because incomes in
the state grew faster than they did in the Valley. Between 1997 and 2002, Central
Valley’s per capita income grew by 19% while the state’s per capita income rose
25%.6 An overview of some of the most recent research and key findings is presented
below.
Demographic Issues and the
Role of Farmworkers. Although
agriculture is perhaps the most
significant socioeconomic feature of the
SJV today, the SJV is undergoing
changes that suggest a more diversified
economic base over the next 20 years
will be necessary to support the region’s
growth. The Bureau of the Census, for
example, projects the population of the
San Joaquin to grow by 39% from 2003
to 2020, with some counties (e.g.,
Merced and San Joaquin) projected to
grow by more than 55%, meaning that
1.4 million more people are projected to
live in the SJV by 2020.7 In contrast,
The SJV Region at a Glance — 2000
Counties: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera,
Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and
Tulare
Total area: 27,280 square miles; 17% of
the land area of California
Total population: 3.3 million; 10% of
California’s population
Ethnic composition: 53% white, 34%
Hispanic, 8% Asian/Pacific Islander, 4%
African American, and 1% Native
American
Age distribution: 0-9 years old, 18%;
10-19 years old, 16%; 20-44 years old,
36%; 45-64 years old, 19%; 65+ 10%
Adult educational attainment: 66% are
high school graduates; 14% have
bachelor’s degree
Source: Great Valley Center. The Economic
Future of the SJV: Growing a Prosperous
Economy that Benefits People and Place.
2000
5
Parsons, 1987. Op.Cit., p. 4.
6
Great Valley Center. Assessing the Region Via Indicators: The Economy, 1994-2004.
January. Modesto, California. 2005.
7
Projections of U.S. population growth are from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census, U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, available
(continued...)
CRS-5
the state is projected to grow approximately 24% over that period, with the United
States growing about 15%. The SJV currently attracts a large proportion of lowerskilled workers from across the state as well as from significant international
migration. At the same time, the South SJV is also losing its higher-skilled workers.8
Between 1995 and 2000, these counties had a net migration increase in the number
of adults without high school diplomas and a net decrease of college graduates.9
Along with the Sacramento metro region and the Riverside-San Bernardino
region, the SJV was among the three fastest growing regions in the state, accounting
for nearly 4 of every 10 new residents of the state during the 1990s.10 While natural
increase was the largest component of population change in the Valley during the
1990s, international migration was also a significant source of the San Joaquin’s
growth, as was migration from coastal areas where housing costs rose significantly
during the decade. Between 1995 and 2000, two of every three international
migrants to the SJV were Latino.11 During that same period, the South SJV
experienced net domestic migration losses for every group except African
Americans. More than half of domestic out-migrants were white.
The high rate of Latino immigration presents several issues. Latino immigrants
tend to: be younger than the state average, have lower high school graduation rates,
lack fluency in English, be disproportionately low-skilled, have higher birth rates and
related family sizes, and higher rates of family poverty.12 In some SJV communities,
as many as two-thirds of the residents have not finished high school and half of the
7
(...continued)
at [http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/popproj.html]. Projections for
California are from the State of California, Department of Finance, Population Projections
by Race/Ethnicity for California and Its Counties 2000-2050, Sacramento, California, May
2004, available at [http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/demograp/dru_publications/
projections/p1.htm].
8
In a study of the Central Valley’s migration patterns, the Southern SJV (Madera, Fresno,
Kings, Kern, and Tulare counties) was distinguished from the Northern SJV (San Joaquin,
Stanislaus, and Merced counties). Johnson, Hans P. and Hayes, Joseph M. The Central
Valley at a Crossroads: Migration and Its Implications. Report. Public Policy Institute of
California, San Francisco, CA. November. 2004.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_1104HJR.pdf]
9
Ibid., p.47.
10
Johnson, Hans P. A State of Diversity: Demographic Trends in California’s Regions.
California Counts: Population trends and Profiles, Vol.3, No.5, May. Report. Public Policy
Institute of California, San Francisco, CA. November. 2002.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/CC_502HJCC.pdf]
11
12
Ibid.
Reed, Deborah, Laura E. Hill, Christopher Jepsen, and Hans P. Johnson. 2005.
Educational Progress Across Immigrant Generations in California. Public Policy Institute
of California, San Francisco. September. [http://www.ppic.org/content/
pubs/R_905DRR.pdf]; Johnson, Hans P. 2001. “The Demography of California
Immigrants.” Paper based on testimony before the Little Hoover Commission Hearing on
Immigrant Integration, March 21, 2001. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco.
March.
CRS-6
households with children under 18 have incomes below the poverty line. Low-skilled,
part-time, seasonal employment is often the norm for many of these immigrants.
Labor intensive agricultural production in the fruit, vegetable, and horticultural
sectors is often the most viable source of employment. As hired farm labor jobs
decline, educating and training the immigrant community for higher-wage jobs will
present the SJV with considerable challenge.13
Predicting future population is a complicated exercise. Domestic and
international immigration, racial and ethnic composition of the population, and birth
rates of different social groups are a complex set of variables that influence
population growth rates. Birth rates are also influenced by personal characteristics
such as educational attainment, marital status, and income level. As educational
attainment and income rise, there tends to be a decrease in average birth rate. Third
and fourth generation immigrants, for example, tend to have lower birth rates on
average than earlier generations. A demographic analysis by the Public Policy
Institute of California concluded that, while second and third-generation Californians
do have lower birth rates than their earlier relatives, the declines are the result of
changing educational levels, income, and other personal characteristics.14 These
personal characteristics, rather than the particular immigrant generation, had
significant direct effects on birth rates.
Lower costs in the SJV compared to the state have attracted businesses to the
region over the past decade. Many businesses are attracted by the low-cost labor and
the relatively low land prices. Between 1990 and 2000, however, overall job growth
still lagged behind population growth in the SJV.15 Unemployment has been a
persistent problem in the Valley, typically at a rate nearly twice the national average
and significantly higher than the state average. In 2000, the SJV had an
unemployment rate of nearly 12%, while the U.S. and California averages were 5.8%
and 7% respectively. Individual counties, (e.g., Madera and Merced), had even
higher unemployment rates. Since 1980, the unemployment rate for the Valley has
ranged from 9.5%-12% (See Table 29, Chapter 2). Agriculture remains the major
economic engine of the regional economy. The agricultural sector offers much
seasonal employment, but pays relatively low average annual wages. For example,
in Parlier, a small community in Fresno County, 29% of the 4,511 labor force was
employed in agriculture in 2000. Median family income there was $24,300 and 33%
of the families in the community fell below the poverty line.16
13
Between 1992 and 2002, hired farm labor in the SJV declined 35.6%, from 377,853 jobs
in 1992 to 243,079 jobs in 2002. National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Census of
Agriculture 1992, 1997, 2002.
14
Hill, Laura E. and Hans P. Johnson. Understanding the Future of Californians’
Fertility: The Role of Immigrants. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, CA.
April, 2002. [http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_402LHR.pdf]
15
16
Johnson, Hans P. 2002. Op.Cit, p.8
Farm Foundation. Immigrants Change the Face of Rural America. Issue Report, January,
2005.
CRS-7
The proportion of the population living in poverty in the SJV is high, nearly
22% in 2002.17 Rural poverty in particular in California may be re-created through
the expansion of low-wage, immigrant-intensive agriculture. The globalization of
agricultural production, particularly as it is affected by the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is considered by many to be a significant factor in the
structure of California agriculture. Poverty in rural Mexico, the demand for lowwage labor in California’s fruit, vegetable, and horticultural sectors, and the existence
of family and village networks that grew from a history of migration to the United
States help sustain a stream of immigration to the fields of the SJV. This
combination of “push,” “pull,” and “network” effects appears to make both
immigration and the expansion of farm jobs on which immigrants depend
self-perpetuating.18
Agricultural Immigration. Immigration plays a significant role in the
demographic characteristics of the SJV and California, and this is likely to continue.
Since 1995, the Central Valley as a whole has received substantially more migrants
from other parts of California than it sends to the rest of California. The counties of
Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Kern have received the most international
migrants of any area of the Central Valley.19 Economically dominated by industrial
agriculture, these counties also are characterized by very high rates of poverty among
immigrants. This presents challenges to the region’s social services, especially for
health care and education providers. The growth in immigration in rural California
is generally regarded as a phenomenon directly related to the changing structure of
agriculture.20 Greater integration of farms under the control of agribusiness, the
increased use of immigrant farm labor hired through contractors, and a continuing
shift from owner-operated farms to hired-labor corporations characterize
contemporary agricultural production in the SJV.21
Because the economic structure of the rural sector in general is not well
diversified, newly arrived immigrants find very few opportunities outside the
agricultural sector. Immigrants often crowd into rural colonias — incorporated
towns resembling overgrown labor camps — whose population during the harvest
season often surges to several times their normal size. In 1997, California rural
colonias comprised 7 of the 20 U.S. cities in which the highest percentage of people
17
Reed, Deborah . California Counts: Recent Trends in Income and Poverty. Public Policy
Institute of Cali f o r n i a , S a n F r a n c i s c o , CA.
February, 2004.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/CC_204DRCC.pdf]
18
Ibid.
19
Johnson, Hans and Joseph Hayes. The Central Valley at a Crossroads: Migration and Its
Implications. Public Policy Institute. San Francisco. November 2004.
20
See Krissman, Fred. “Cycles of poverty in rural California towns: Comparing McFarland
and Farmersville in the southern SJV. Paper presented at the conference, Immigration and
the Changing Face of Rural California. Asilomar, California, June12-14, 1995; Palerm,
Juan V. Farm Labor Needs and Farm Workers in California, 1970-1989. California
Agricultural Studies Report #91-2. University of California-Santa Barbara. 1991.
21
These changes in the structure of agriculture are explored in greater detail in the section
of this report concerning the SJV’s economic structure.
CRS-8
in concentrated poverty were foreign-born.22 Unlike the small-scale farming
operations of the Midwest, agriculture in California has long been dominated by large
operations relying on a mobile labor force. Agricultural production in the SJV is,
accordingly, at the center of changes in the structure of agriculture; continuing
immigration into the SJV reflects these changing patterns.
Since the early 1990s, there has been a shift away from migrant labor towards
resident-based labor. Unlike many other farming regions of the United States, the
extended growing season in the SJV permits many workers the opportunity for yearround farm labor. While harvesting may be seasonal, the great variety of crops in the
region makes it possible for farm workers to reside in one area and find work for
much of the year. A report on farm workers in Kern County, cites a 1995 Kern
County Consolidated Plan that counted 10,240 resident farm workers and 19,570
migrant workers during peak season.23 This study noted that the number of
permanent farm workers had steadily increased and is expected to continue. Some
permanent residents with established networks may move out of farm labor and into
industries such as food packing, processing, transportation, or retail trade. Other
residents may provide food or housing services to newly arrived farm workers. The
young, Hispanic migrant workers, especially those without established networks in
the communities, continue to meet much of the demand for low-skilled labor
intensive agriculture.24 If present trends continue, the newly arrived will become
residents and move out of farm labor to provide opportunities for yet another wave
of agricultural immigrants. For the communities where many farm workers reside,
however, low farmworker earnings limit the potential for significant economic
growth.
Because agriculture in the SJV is so reliant on low-wage, low-skilled farm labor,
and because low-wage, low-skilled labor is attracted to the SJV for employment in
agriculture, some observers believe that the region could be caught in a vicious
22
Taylor, J. Edward, Philip L. Martin, Michael Fix. Poverty Amid Prosperity: Immigration
and the Changing Face of Rural California. Urban Institute Press, Washington, D.C. 1997.
23
Housing Assistance Council. Taking Stock: Rural People, Poverty, and Housing at the
Turn of the 21st Century. December 2002.
24
Beginning in the 1990s, many migrants to Kern County came from areas of Mexico not
traditionally sources of agricultural labor. The Mixtecs, an indigenous group from Oaxaca,
with a distinctive language and culture, are recent settlers. They, along with migrants from
Central America, do not have the support networks that traditional Mexican immigrants
have. Housing Assistance Council. 2002. Op. Cit. According to the 2001-2002 National
Agricultural Workers Survey, Mexico-born crop workers were from almost every state of
their native country. The largest share (46%) were from the traditional sending states of west
central Mexico: Guanajuato, Jalisco, and Michoacan. However, an increasing share were
from non-traditional states. The share from the southern part of Mexico, comprising the
states of Guerrero, Oaxaca, Chiapas, Puebla, Morelos and Veracruz, doubled from nine
percent in 1993-1994 to 19% in 2001-2002. See U.S. Department of Labor, National
Agricultural Workers Survey 2001 - 2002 A Demographic and Employment Profile of
United States Farm Workers. March, 2005. [http://www.doleta.gov/
agworker/report9/toc.cfm]
CRS-9
cycle.25 As long as agriculture dominates the economies of the small towns in the
SJV, farm labor will continue to regard the area as an employment destination. This
can encourage the expansion of agriculture and, with it, the expansion of a low-wage,
low-skilled workforce. As discussed below, there are countervailing forces on an
ever-expanding agriculture. These forces include an increasing substitution of labor
by technology as well as longer standing pressures on smaller, less efficient farming
operations. Still, the many farm workers who immigrate from Mexico to the SJV are
seeking seasonal, minimum wage agricultural jobs. The concern of some observers
is that as poor, immigrant farmworkers move to the SJV, as well as other
agriculturally significant areas, rural poverty may be re-created. Rather than
agriculture being a temporary employment stop for newly arrived immigrants before
moving on to better paying jobs, the rural farmworkers may have no opportunities
beyond low-paying agricultural work. In part, this may occur because there are so
few employment alternatives and the farmworkers themselves are generally poorly
prepared for jobs requiring a more educated employee.
Migrant and resident farmworkers comprise distinct populations whose needs
differ. Migrant workers without networks, at least those studied in the Kern County
case, experience the worst employment, job security, and housing conditions. Farm
workers and recent immigrants tend to live in relative isolation from the mainstream
and middle-class Hispanic population in the county. Consistent with historical
socioeconomic class processes, the county’s Hispanic population that has acquired
some economic success and increased English fluency begins to identify less with
newly arrived immigrants.26
A second important distinction within the farmworker population is that of
farmworker families and single men living by themselves. The case study of Kern
County farm workers pointed to an important transition in the SJV from single
workers remitting wages back to their families in Mexico to farm labor families
moving and residing together in the SJV.
Employment, Poverty, and Income. In a study of the labor markets in
Fresno, Madera, and Tulare Counties, the Fresno Bee examined changes in 600
occupations from the third quarter of 2002 to the first quarter of 2004.27 Its review
found that, in a region dominated by low- wage farm and service-related jobs, the
SJV lagged behind the rest of the state in average job earnings. Population growth,
however, spurred job growth in construction, medical doctors, teachers, and nurses.
Of the 10 occupations in Fresno and Madera counties with the most workers, only 2
— nurses and elementary school teachers — have average wages above $29,000, a
threshold set by the Regional Jobs Initiative.28 In Fresno and Madera counties,
25
Taylor, J. Edward, Philip L. Martin, Michael Fix. 1997. Op. Cit.
26
Housing Assistance Council. 2002, Op. Cit., p.77.
27
Schultz, E.J. “What people earn.” Fresno Bee. November 7, 2004.
28
The Fresno Regional Jobs Initiative (RJI), formed in 2001, is working to create 30,000
jobs in the Fresno Metropolitan Statistical Area by 2009 paying at least $29,000 per year.
The RJI is pursuing an “industrial cluster” strategy based on 8 clusters that build on existing
(continued...)
CRS-10
farmworkers were the largest employment category (20,000 workers) followed by
office clerks (10,000 workers) in 2003. Farmworker jobs, however, are declining.
In 1996, the Fresno Bee reported that the farm industry had a monthly average of
72,800 employees in Fresno and Madera counties, accounting for about 21% of the
work force. In 2003, it reported the monthly farm employment average was 53,800,
or 15% of the work force.
The proportion of the population living in poverty in the SJV is high, nearly
22% in 2002.29 This compares to a rate of approximately 13% for California. The
SJV also had the highest rate of poverty among eight geographic regions in
California.30 During the past three decades, increases in female employment, femaleheaded families, immigration, and economic changes that have produced greater
gains for college-educated workers compared to those with a high school diploma
have been especially influential in family income changes.31 For the state as a
whole, poverty was much lower in 2002 than in 1992, and the income levels of lowincome families showed more growth during that decade than did the income levels
of high-income families. These gains in poverty reduction over the past decade,
however, do not overcome the longer term growth in poverty and income inequality
in the state. Poverty and income inequality were higher in California in 2002 than
in 1969.32
Fresno, the largest metropolitan area in the region, has taken steps to begin
changing its economic structure for the future. To reduce persistent unemployment,
the Fresno Regional Jobs Initiative (RJI) aims to create 30,000 net new jobs that pay
at least $30,000 per year. In 2002, the three leading sectors of employment in the
SJV were government (260,000 jobs), agriculture (225,000 jobs), and health services
(85,000 jobs). Manufacturing, especially in California’s smaller metropolitan areas,
however, is also important to the region’s economic health.33 Manufacturing is an
28
(...continued)
and emerging economic sectors in the region.
29
Reed, Deborah . California Counts: Recent Trends in Income and Poverty. Public Policy
Institute of California, San Francisco, CA. February, 2004. The poverty rate is measured
as the share of people who live in families with income at or below the official federal
threshold. For example, in 2000, a family with two adults and two children was considered
poor if its annual income was below $17,463.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/CC_204DRCC.pdf]
30
Ibid., page 11. The eight geographic areas are the Sacramento region, the San Francisco
Bay area, the Central Coast, the SJV, Los Angeles County, the Inland Empire, and San
Diego County.
31
Ibid., page 12.
32
Ibid., page 13.
33
Milken Institute. Manufacturing Matters: California’s Performance and Prospects.
Report prepared for the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Santa
Monica, California. August 2002.
CRS-11
important stage of value-added production and its continued and expanded role in
agriculture is regarded as an important source of future economic growth.34
Regional Approaches to Economic Development
Introduction. There is a resurgence of interest in regional economic
development alliances in many parts of the United States.35 A 2001 statewide survey
of California residents found that a substantial majority believe that local
governments should take a regional approach with respect to land use, environmental,
transportation, and related growth issues that focuses more on public-private
partnerships rather than regional government.36 Proponents of regional approaches
share the view that the historic pattern of community-based economic development
may no longer address the complexity of development issues that can characterize a
larger geography. The fiscal problems in many states are also creating pressures on
many communities to seek new solutions to providing essential community services
through pooling resources.
Congress has had a long history of support for regional authorities based on
federal-state partnerships such as the TVA and the ARC. Both the TVA and the
ARC have continued to support economic development and social change in their
respective regions. A substantial body of literature exists on the impact of these
regional authorities. While there are differences in opinion about the development
successes of these authorities, a 1995 empirical assessment of ARC’s impact over 26
years in the region’s 391 counties, concluded that the programs did produce
significant growth. Using a methodology based on paired communities, the authors
concluded that growth was significantly faster in the 391 Appalachian counties than
it was in the control counties. This also held true for Central Appalachia, the poorest
subregion in the ARC. Another reported result was improved local planning in ARC
counties compared to the control counties.37
Congress has authorized several new regional authorities to deal with common
concerns including the Denali Commission (1998), the Delta Regional Authority
(2002), and the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority (2002). Most recently,
legislation for other regionally based approaches to economic development has been
34
Collaborative Economics. The Economic Future of the SJV. Report prepared for New
Valley Connexion, a partnership of the Great Valley Center and Office of Strategic
Technology, California Trade and Commerce Agency. January 2000.
35
See National Association of Development Organizations Research Foundation. 2003.
Federal State Regional Commission: Regional Approaches for Local Economic
Development. April. Washington, D.C. For a selective overview of 5 case studies of
regional development organizations, see Multi-Region Economic Development Strategies
Guide: Case Studies in Multi-Region Cooperation to Promote Economic Development.
National Association of Regional Councils. 2000.
36
Baldassare, Mark. PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey on Land Use. Public Policy
Institute of Californian, San Francisco, California, 2001.
37
Isserman, Andrew and T. Rephann. “The economic effects of the Appalachian Regional
Commission: An empirical assessment of 26 years of regional development planning.”
Journal of the American Planning Association, 61(3), Summer, 1995.
CRS-12
introduced in the109th Congress. In March, 2005, the Regional Economic and
Infrastructure Development Act of 2005 (H.R. 1349) was introduced. The bill would
organize four regional commissions under a common state-federal framework. It
reauthorizes the Delta Regional Authority and the Northern Great Plains Regional
Authority and creates the two new regional commissions: the Southeast Crescent and
the Southwest Border Regional Commission. Every county or parish that is currently
included in a commission or would be included in the proposed legislation is
similarly included in that same commission under this bill. While the bill follows the
organizational model of the ARC, it does not include the ARC or the Denali
Commission in its framework. The bill has been referred to the Subcommittee on
Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology of the House
Financial Services Committee.
Regional authorities created by Congress share the general economic
development logic that real competitive advantage exists in addressing development
issues in economically distressed areas from a regionally cooperative stance rather
than communities vying in a zero-sum competition. A regional development
approach may contribute to communities regarding themselves as economic partners
with interdependencies rather than simply rivals. Federal regional commissions offer
assistance to the some of the most economically distressed areas largely by providing
a framework for federal and private investment. These federal regional commissions
are generally responsible for developing area-wide planning, establishing regional
priorities, recommending forms of interstate cooperation, and coordinating regional
growth strategies with stakeholders. Local Development Districts (LDD), sub-state
multi-jurisdictional local government-based organizations, are the principal entities
through which development assistance is structured. While each federal regional
commission may have certain distinctive elements, the more recently established
federal regional commissions are organized and structured to build on the strengths
of the ARC model.
The Appalachian Regional Commission. The ARC was created in 1965
in response to the persistent socioeconomic challenges in the Appalachian region:
poverty, isolation and neglect, absence of basic physical infrastructure,
underdevelopment, and stagnation. President Kennedy had earlier formed a cabinetlevel commission, chaired by Franklin Roosevelt, Jr., to study the problems of the
region and to develop a plan for addressing the long-standing problems. That
commission issued its report in 1964.38 The report encouraged a state-federal
partnership to focus on the region in new ways that went beyond the existing
categorical grant programs of state and federal governments. Congress enacted the
38
Appalachia: A Report by the President’s Appalachian Regional Commission.
Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964. Interestingly, the Commission
was immediately confronted by a problem of research strategy: whether to concentrate on
the most distressed part of Appalachia, the largely rural interior area of marginal farms and
coal mining, or concern itself with the entire area from southern New York to Northern
Mississippi. They chose the latter approach, at the same time recognizing that the statistical
case would have been more compelling had the chronically depressed interior been treated
separately. Subsequent analyses of the region have categorized the area in ways that take
into consideration the variance among counties and subregions of Appalachia.
CRS-13
Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (P.L.89-4) to carry out the
Commission’s recommendations through the new ARC.
The ARC was established as a unique organization, with a governing board
comprised of a federal cochair appointed by the President and confirmed by the
Senate, and the Governors of the 13 member states. The regional development
program requires the consensus of both the federal cochair and the majority of
Governors to set programs and policies. The federal co-chair and the Governors
must vote each year to allocate funds for various ARC programs. Between 1965 and
1975, the ARC emphasized environmental and natural resource issues (e.g.,
timbering and mining), as well as basic infrastructure, vocational education facilities,
and health facilities and services. Between 1965 and 2002, Congress appropriated
a total of $9.2 billion for Appalachian programs, with $6.2 billion allocated for the
Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) and $3.0 billion for ARC’s
economic and human development programs.39 The ADHS was a critical component
for the development program of Appalachia for two reasons. First, the new interstate
highway system had largely bypassed Appalachia. Second, a system of reliable roads
would link more isolated parts of Appalachia to potential economic growth centers.40
The Appalachian Regional Development Act has been amended over the years
to expand the number of counties in the program. Today, there are 410 counties
which are classified into four categories of economic development: Distressed,
Transitional, Competitive, and Attainment. Each category is based on three
indicators of economic viability: per capita income, poverty, and unemployment.
Since 1983, the ARC has designated the most distressed counties for special funding
consideration. In 2002, ARC incorporated into its strategic plan an enhanced
program for meeting the needs of distressed counties. In FY2002, there were 118
distressed counties in 10 states, although most were in Central Appalachia
(Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Virginia). The number of distressed
counties increased each year from 1997-2002.
Annual appropriations from Congress permit the ARC to make grants to public
and private non-profit organizations in the region. Each state prepares a four-year
plan and an annual strategy statement to address the five goals in ARC’s strategic
plan: (1) education and workforce training, (2) physical infrastructure, (3) civic
capacity and leadership, (4) dynamic local economies, and (5) health care. LDDs,
39
Appalachian Regional Commission, 2002 Annual Report. Washington, D.C., ARC, 2003.
The Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) and access road construction were
designed to break Appalachia’s isolation and encourage economic development. By
FY2002, approximately 85% of the highway system was either open to traffic or under
construction. See Appalachian Highway Development Program (ADHP): An Overview.
CRS Report 98-973E, December, 1998.
40
Since FY1999, annual funding for completing the ADHS has been provided from the
federal Highway Trust Fund in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L.105178). This act provided annual authorization of $450 million per year through FY19992003. Although funds were provided through the Highway Trust Fund, ARC exercised
programmatic control over the funds. The program was reauthorized at $470 million
annually FY2005-2009 with the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation
Equity Act of 2005 (HR3) and signed into public law on August 10, 2005.
CRS-14
governed by local government officials and leaders from the member counties,
typically assist with grant applications consistent with state and regional priorities.
Throughout its 40 years, the ARC has developed a record of helping small,
distressed communities move closer to the economic mainstream. A key element of
the ARC model is the network of 72 multi-county development districts that are
responsible for helping local officials and communities assess, plan, and implement
socioeconomic development initiatives. The ARC structure is unique because it is an
intergovernmental partnership that, while preserving a direct federal role in
investment decisions, also maintains a strong emphasis on state priorities and
decision making.
In 2002, Congress reauthorized the ARC through the Appalachian Regional
Development Act Amendments of 2002. (P.L.107-149). In addition to adding four
counties to the region, the reauthorization also included several new provisions
regarding the ARC’s activities. Among them were:
!
!
!
!
!
The ARC was required to use at least half of its project funds to
benefit distressed counties;
A new telecommunications program was authorized;
A new Interagency Coordinating Council on Appalachia was
established to increase coordination and effectiveness of federal
funding in the region;
An entrepreneurship initiative was authorized to encourage
entrepreneurial education, improve access to debt and equity capital,
develop a network of business incubators, and help small
communities create new strategies for small businesses;
A new regional skills partnership program was established to
encourage collaboration among businesses, educational institutions,
state and local governments, and labor organization to improve skills
of workers in specific industries.
Tennessee Valley Authority. TVA is a unique federal corporation charged
with responsibility for regional development and power generation in the Tennessee
Valley. It is one of the largest producers of electric power in the United States and
the nation’s largest public power system. Through 158 municipal and cooperative
power distributors, TVA serves about 8.3 million people in an 80,000-square-mile
region covering Tennessee and parts of Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia,
Alabama, and Mississippi. The TVA power system consists of three nucleargenerating plants, 11 coal-fired plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, six combustion-turbine
plants, a pumped-storage plant, and about 17,000 miles of transmission lines. TVA
also manages the Tennessee River, the nation’s fifth-largest river system, and offers
economic development and environmental assistance throughout the region.
Congress authorized the TVA with the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933
(P.L.73-17). The act created the TVA as a federal corporation to address important
problems facing the valley, such as flooding, providing electricity to homes and
businesses, and replanting forests. Other TVA responsibilities written in the act
included improving navigation on the Tennessee River and helping develop the
region’s business and farming. The establishment of the TVA marked the first time
CRS-15
that an agency was directed to address the total resource development needs of a
major region.
The President appoints three TVA Directors, who are confirmed by the Senate
and serve staggered nine-year terms. That Board of Directors has sole authority for
determining the rates that TVA and its distributors charge for power. Although TVA
was formed to build dams and improve navigation on the Tennessee River, only 11%
of its installed capacity comes from 114 hydropower units. About 65% is provided
by 59 coal-fired power plants. Another 24% percent comes from nuclear reactors.
The small remainder is derived from gas turbines.
Bringing electrical power to the Tennessee Valley was arguably the greatest
contribution to improving the social well-being of TVA residents. Even by
Depression standards, the Valley was a significantly impoverished, underdeveloped
area in 1933. Electrical power not only improved the lives of individuals, the power
attracted industry that brought relatively well-paid jobs to the Valley. Today,
although TVA is still popularly regarded as a multi-purpose agency, the great
majority of its resources are targeted to power-generation and transmission. While
it is beyond the scope of this report to assess the efficiency or effectiveness of TVA
as a regional development agency, TVA today has critics, including Members of
Congress. While Valley residents recall TVA’s role in alleviating poverty during the
Depression, many of the Valley’s contemporary residents have raised concerns about
TVA’s contribution to air pollution through its reliance on coal-fired plants,
perceived mismanagement, and a series of high-profile conflicts with Valley
residents, e.g., the Tellico Dam controversy.41
Delta Regional Authority. The Delta Regional Authority (DRA) was
authorized by the 2002 farm bill, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (P.L.
107-171). The Authority serves 240 counties and parishes in the Mississippi River
delta areas of Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, and Tennessee. Working through State Economic Development Agencies,
DRA targets economically distressed communities and assists them in leveraging
other federal and state programs focused on basic infrastructure development,
transportation improvements, business development, and job training services. The
act requires that at least 75% of funds be invested in distressed counties and parishes
and pockets of poverty, where 50% of the funds are earmarked for transportation and
basic infrastructure improvements.
The United States-Mexico Border Health Commission. In recognition
of the need for an international commission to address dire border health problems,
the Congress enacted the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission Act of
1994 (P.L.103-400). The act authorized the President of the United States to reach
41
For a discussion of critical perceptions of the TVA by Members of Congress,
TennesseeValley residents, and researchers, see Richard Munson. Restructure TVA: Why
the Tennessee Valley Authority Must Be Reformed. Northeast-Midwest Institute, 1997.
[http://www.nemw.org/tvareport.htm]; William. U. Chandler, Myth of TVA: Conservation
and Development in the Tennessee Valley, 1933 — 1983. Ballinger, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 1984.
CRS-16
an agreement with Mexico to establish a binational commission to address the unique
and severe health problems of the border region. In 1997, Congress approved funding
for a commission through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Office of International and Refugee Health. In 2000, the U.S.-Mexico Border Health
Commission (USMBHC) was created through an agreement by the U.S. Secretary of
Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Health of Mexico. In December,
2004, the USMBHC was designated as a Public International Organization by
Executive Order.42
The USMBHC comprises the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and
Mexico’s Secretary of Health, the chief health officers of the 10 border states and
prominent community health professionals from both nations. Each section, one for
the United States and one for Mexico, has 13 members. The Commissioner of each
section is the Secretary of Health from that nation. Each Commissioner may
designate a delegate. The chief state health officer of the 10 border states is a
statutory member of the Commission, and the other 14 members are appointed by the
government of each nation.
The economic burden on the two countries from increased immigration is
significant. Much of the border area is poor and health resources are scarce. Rapid
population growth is putting further pressure on an already inadequate medical care
infrastructure, which further decreases access to health care. The large and diverse
migrant population increases the incidence of communicable diseases such as
HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, as well as chronic illnesses such as diabetes, certain
cancers, and hypertension. The numerous problems and concerns affecting the
border region have broad repercussions for both nations.
The USMBHC was created to serve all the people who reside within 62 miles
on either side of the U.S.-Mexican international boundary line. The border area is
comprised of six Mexican states and four U.S. states. The original agreement was
in effect for five years (1994-1999); it is automatically extended for additional
five-year periods unless either party gives notice of withdrawal.
The Northern Great Plains Regional Authority (NGPRA).
The
NGPRA is a newly created federal-state-provincial partnership that includes Iowa,
Minnesota, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, and the Provinces of Manitoba and
Saskatchewan. In 1994, Congress passed the Northern Great Plains Rural
Development Act (P.L. 103-318). The following year, the Northern Great Plains
Rural Development Commission was established. In 1997, the Commission issued
its regional development report to Congress and the Commission was sunset. Later
that year, the Commission set up an operating arm, NGP, Inc., to implement the
Commission’s recommendations. Discussions with the region’s congressional
delegation led to a plan to create a regional development authority similar to the one
Congress created for the Delta Authority. The Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (P.L.107-171, Section 6028) established the NGPRA to implement the
42
Executive Order 13367, United States-Mexico Border Health Commission. December 21,
2004.
CRS-17
Commission’s plan and authorized $30 million to be appropriated each year
(FY2002-2007) to support the Authority’s programs.
At the local level, the NGPRA relies on the existing network of the Economic
Development Administration’s (EDA) designated economic development districts
to coordinate efforts within a multi-county area. These EDA districts, known as
LDDs, are regional entities with extensive experience in assisting small
municipalities and counties improve basic infrastructure and help stimulate economic
growth. They also serve as the delivery mechanism for a variety of other federal and
state programs, such as assistance to the elderly, aging, economic development,
emergency management, small business development, telecommunications,
transportation and workforce development programs.
The NGPRA has identified four areas for its strategic planning: (1) Agriculture
and Natural Resources, (2) Economic and Policy Analysis, (3) Information
Technology, and (4) Leadership Capacity Development. Given the central role of
agriculture in the regional economy, the Authority is integrating into its planning (1)
shifts in consumer demand toward organic foods, (2) a recognition of the shift to
supply-chains in production and the corresponding need to develop identity preserved
commodities, sand (3) the emerging importance of non-food commodities, (i.e., biobased industrial commodities). A central objective is to turn the Great Plains into an
internationally recognized center for biomass research and use. These agricultural
plans also are grounded more broadly in transforming the transportation systems of
the region, developing local and regional leadership capacity, and expanding the
availability and use of information technologies within the region.
Denali Commission. The Denali Commission, created by the Denali
Commission Act of 1998 (P.L.105-245), is a federal-state partnership focusing on
development concerns in rural Alaska. The Commission supports job training and
other economic development services in rural communities, particularly distressed
communities, many of which have very high rates of unemployment. The
Commission also promotes rural economic development and provides power
generation and transmission facilities, modern communication systems, water and
sewer systems and other physical infrastructure needs. Project areas include energy,
health facilities, solid waste facilities, elder and teacher housing, and domestic
violence facilities.
The Governor of Alaska and a representative nominated by Congress and
appointed by the Secretary of Commerce serve as co-chairs of the Commission. The
Denali Commission Act also provides for a five member panel of statewide
organization presidents, or their designees, to be appointed by the Secretary of
Commerce. These members include the president of the University of Alaska,
president of the Alaska Municipal League, president of the Alaska Federation of
Natives, president of the Alaska State AFL-CIO, and president of the Associated
General Contractors of Alaska.
In FY2003, appropriations provided nearly $100 million in funding to the
Denali Commission. Funding sources included general appropriations for energy
and water, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability Fund, USDA Rural Utilities, the U.S.
CRS-18
Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.
CRS-19
Chapter 2 — The San Joaquin Valley and
Appalachia: A Socioeconomic Comparison
Overview.
The San Joaquin Valley shares certain socioeconomic
characteristics with other U.S. regions where poverty and limited economic
development opportunities have persisted for decades. When the Appalachian
Regional Commission was created in 1965, Appalachia, especially Central
Appalachia, was practically synonymous with U.S. white, rural poverty. Forty years
and billions of public and private dollars later, the region has changed. Appalachia
has cut poverty among its population of 23 million by approximately half and
increased high school graduation rates by 70%. While socioeconomic indicators still
show the region lagging behind the United States as a whole, the deepest poverty,
isolation, and underdevelopment that characterized much of the region in the past has
lessened over the past 40 years.
Like Central Appalachia, with its historic dependence on coal mining, the San
Joaquin is historically tied to a traditional extractive economy. Extractive
economies, whether based on timber, mining, or agriculture, may produce trajectories
of development that differ from industrial forms of economic growth and change.
How that shapes the SJV’s opportunities for creating new competitive advantage is
central to an understanding of the region’s future. Some researchers have suggested
that the effects on the Appalachian region of decades of mining created its own
dynamic of development and underdevelopment.43 Research on the Central Valley
has also suggested that agriculture is producing a “landscape of inequality” there that
will become even more pronounced in the future without concerted efforts to create
new paths of economic mobility for all SJV residents.44
High unemployment and low per capita incomes have long characterized many
Appalachian counties as data in this chapter show (Table 1). Similar patterns are
observable in the SJV. The geographic isolation of Appalachia, however, is one of
the major factors in its development history. While Appalachia saw an outflow of
residents as they searched for economic opportunities that did not exist there, the SJV
has an inflow of residents due to a very high rate of immigration. However, that
immigration is characterized by relatively large numbers of poorly educated,
unskilled workers, many of whom are drawn to the area by the availability of farm
employment. Even those immigrating to the SJV from coastal areas of the state are
not necessarily bringing good jobs with them, as much as they may be seeking the
more affordable housing in the SJV. Many continue to commute significant
distances to jobs outside the SJV. Without significant opportunities for higher wage
employment, young, well-educated people will not relocate to the SJV. Rather, much
like Appalachia, an exodus of the better trained and educated may push the area into
43
Gaventa, John. Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian
Valley. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1982.
44
Taylor, J. Edward. and Philip L. Martin. “Central Valley evolving into patchwork of
poverty and prosperity.” California Agriculture, 54(1), January-February, 2000. See also,
Taylor, J. Edward, P.L. Martin, and M. Fix. Poverty Amid Prosperity: Immigration and the
Changing Face of Rural California Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1997.
CRS-20
a downward spiral. Business, and industries needing trained and educated workers
are reluctant to relocate to an area where such workers are scarce, and the trained and
educated workers that are there leave for opportunities elsewhere reinforcing the
area’s growth of low-skilled labor.
In this portion of the report, we provide a general empirical overview of the
Appalachian region relative to the SJV. We also provide a more focused comparison
between the SJV and a subregion of Appalachia, Central Appalachia, across a range
of socioeconomic indicators. This exercise shows socioeconomic similarities and
differences between two regions where poverty and economic distress have long been
in evidence. Data on variables of concern here for the entire 410 county Appalachian
region as defined by the ARC were, in most cases, not available at a county level.
While the Central Appalachian region is half the population size of the SJV (1.8
million versus 3.5 million people in 2003), for methodological reasons, the scale
between these two regions appears more appropriate than attempting a comparison
of the eight counties of the SJV with the 410 of the ARC defined Appalachian region.
There are counties within the 410 area that are so different across indicators from
more economically distressed Appalachian counties, as well as the SJV, that to
include them in aggregate measures could introduce a degree of bias that would
weaken the validity of the comparison.45
The Appalachian Regional Commission categorizes its 410 counties by
economic development criteria (Distressed, Transitional, Competitive and
Attainment) based on three indicators of economic viability: per capita market
income, poverty, and unemployment. Distressed Counties have poverty and
unemployment rates that are at least 150% of the national averages and per capita
market incomes that are no more than two-thirds of the national average. Counties
are also considered Distressed if they have poverty rates that are at least twice the
national average and they qualify on either the unemployment or income indicator.
Transitional Counties are those ARC counties that are neither Distressed,
Competitive, nor Attainment. Competitive Counties have poverty and unemployment
rates that are equal to or less than the national averages and they have per capita
market incomes that are equal to or greater than 80% percent, but less than 100% of
the national average. Attainment Counties have poverty rates, unemployment rates,
and per capita market incomes that are at least equal to the national rates (Figure 2).
The ARC defined Appalachian area includes large urban populations in metropolitan
counties and small, remote counties with no urban concentrations. In 2002, 60% of
the ARC residents lived in metropolitan counties, 25% in counties adjacent to
45
For example, Knoxville, Tennessee and State College, Pennsylvania are part of the ARC
defined region. Knoxville is the third largest metro area in Tennessee and home to the
Tennessee Valley Authority and the University of Tennessee. State College, Pennsylvania
is the site of Pennsylvania State University. These and other similar metro areas within the
ARC defined region could skew socioeconomic data significantly. While CRS is unable to
remove all potential sources of bias in this comparison, we did strive to match an identified
region in Appalachia that appears to most closely resemble the SJV. A list of the individual
Appalachian counties in our analysis is provided in Appendix D. The ARC’s Central
Appalachian area includes counties in Tennessee, Virginia, Kentucky, West Virginia, and
Ohio. The Central Appalachian region used in our analysis includes 68 of these counties,
but excludes all 29 counties from Appalachian Ohio (See Figure 2 above).
CRS-21
metropolitan counties, with the remainder in more remote rural areas. For analytical
purposes, the ARC also divides the region into three subregions: Northern
Appalachia, Central Appalachia, and Southern Appalachia. The 215-county Central
Appalachian area contains the largest proportion of rural residents of any of the
ARC’s three subregions as well as the largest number of Distressed counties.
CRS-22
Table 1. Appalachian Regional Commission County Economic Fiscal Status, 2004
Three-Year
Average
Unemployment
Rate 1999-2001(%)
Per Capita Market
Income 2000a
Poverty Rate
2000 (%)
Unemployment Rate,
Percent of U.S.
Average
Per Capita
Market Income,
Percent of U.S.
Average
United States
4.3
$25,676
12.4
100
100
100
Appalachian
Region
4.7
$19,736
13.6
108.3
76.9
110.2
Alabama
4.9
$19,574
16.1
113.0
76.2
130.1
Appalachian
Alabama
4.5
$20,489
14.4
104.5
79.8
115.9
Georgia
3.9
$24,727
13.0
89.8
96.3
104.9
Appalachian
Georgia
3.1
$23,183
9.2
71.3
90.3
74.7
Kentucky
4.7
$19,957
15.8
108.3
77.7
127.8
Appalachian
Kentucky
6.3
$13,154
24.4
146.5
51.2
197.4
Maryland
3.8
$30,143
8.5
88.4
117.4
68.6
Appalachian
Maryland
5.2
$18,381
11.7
120.7
71.6
94.1
Mississippi
5.4
$16,915
19.9
125.5
65.9
161
Appalachian
Mississippi
6.1
$15,448
19.4
141.7
60.2
156.9
New York
4.9
$29,436
14.6
112.3
114.6
117.9
Appalachian New
York
4.8
$18,747
13.6
111.3
73.0
110.1
Poverty Rate,
Percent of U.S.
Average
CRS-23
Poverty Rate
2000 (%)
Unemployment Rate,
Percent of U.S.
Average
Per Capita
Market Income,
Percent of U.S.
Average
$23,311
12.3
95.2
90.8
99.2
3.9
$21,548
11.7
90.3
83.9
94.7
Ohio
4.2
$23,974
10.6
97.4
93.4
85.6
Appalachian Ohio
5.7
$17,345
13.6
132.3
67.6
109.8
Pennsylvania
4.4
$24,795
11.0
102.4
96.6
88.7
Appalachian
Pennsylvania
5.0
$21,418
11.4
114.9
83.4
92.1
South Carolina
4.6
$20,370
14.1
105.8
79.3
114.0
Appalachian South
Carolina
3.6
$21,893
11.7
82.8
85.3
94.7
Tennessee
4.1
$21,866
13.5
95.7
85.2
108.9
Appalachian
Tennessee
4.2
$19,050
14.2
98.1
74.2
114.4
Virginia
2.8
$28,198
9.6
65.2
109.8
77.5
Appalachian
Virginia
5.3
$15,939
15.7
122.3
62.1
127.1
West Virginia
5.7
$16,772
17.9
131.1
65.3
144.6
Appalachian West
Virginia
5.7
$16,772
17.9
131.1
65.3
144.6
Three-Year
Average
Unemployment
Rate 1999-2001(%)
Per Capita Market
Income 2000a
North Carolina
4.1
Appalachian North
Carolina
Poverty Rate,
Percent of U.S.
Average
Source: Appalachian Regional Commission
a. Per capita market income (PCMI) is a measure of an area’s total personal income, less government transfer payments, divided by the resident population of the area. The percent
of the U.S. average is computed by dividing the county per capita market income by the national average and multiplying by 100.
CRS-24
Figure 2. The Appalachian Regional Commission Area and its
Distressed Counties
Central Appalachia, as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
Economic Research Service, is a 68 county area in parts of Virginia (7 counties),
Tennessee (9 counties), Kentucky (43 counties), and West Virginia (9 counties).
This particular subregion of Appalachia was used as a case comparison to the SJV
across several socioeconomic variables because 45 (66%) of Central Appalachia’s
CRS-25
68 counties are Distressed counties.46 Because the counties of this subregion are
among the most impoverished of the ARC area, we regard the comparison as a more
reliable contrast to the SJV. The data presented in this chapter are drawn from public
sources, (e.g., Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of
the Census, Census of Agriculture, and ARC). A list of sources and websites can be
found in Appendix B as well as in notes accompanying individual tables. In some
cases, the data were not available because they were not collected at the county level,
or could not be accurately aggregated across the 68-county region. In those cases, we
have used state data as a comparative point. Data for 2003 are from the American
Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long
questionnaire of the decennial census.
Socioeconomic Indicators in the SJV and Appalachia, 19802003
A previous section provided an introduction and overview of contemporary
research on the policy issues facing the SJV. Rapid population growth, high rates of
immigration, low per capita and household income, high unemployment, low
educational achievement, weak economic diversity outside production agriculture,
and urban sprawl are among the central concerns of the SJV. While other regions in
the United States reveal similar distress, (e.g., the Rio Grande area, the Delta South,
and Native American reservations in the Great Plains), the SJV is not an area that
first comes to mind as one of concentrated poverty. This section of the report
provides a detailed examination of the socioeconomic conditions in the SJV over the
past 23 years. These indicators reveal the area as one lagging significantly behind
California, the United States, and, across many variables, the Central Appalachian
region as well. Statistics are presented in tables below based on each of the past three
decennial censuses, 1980, 1990, 2000, and, when available, for 2003-2004. Data
include indicators on labor and employment, poverty and income, disease prevalence,
educational attainment, and crime. For particular variables, geographic information
system maps of these data were created to show the graphic contrast between the SJV
counties and other California counties.
County and Regional Population Characteristics. The SJV population
is growing rapidly. In 2003, over 3.5 million people resided in the SJV, an increase
of 1.5 million since 1980, a population increase of 75.0%. Each of the SJV counties
exceeded the national rate of population growth between 1980-1990, 1990-2000, and
1990-2003 (Table 2). While California has also had relatively higher population
46
The ARC has used the distressed county designation for almost twenty years to identify
counties with the most structurally disadvantaged economies. Up to 30% of ARC’s Area
Development Funds are targeted to distressed counties through allocation of ARC grants to
distressed counties, requiring only a 20% match from the state and/or local government,
which is lower than the state/local match required from non-distressed counties. From 1983,
the inception of the distressed counties program, through 1999 the ARC provided $266
million dollars in single-county grants to distressed counties. This sum constituted 42% of
such single-county grants awarded across Appalachia. See Wood, Lawrence E. and Gregory
A. Bischak. Progress and Challenges in Reducing Economic Distress in Appalachia: An
analysis of National and Regional Trends Since 1960. Washington, DC: ARC, 2000.
CRS-26
growth rates than the national average, each SJV county substantially outpaced the
growth of California between 1980-2000. Madera County alone more than doubled
its population between 1980 and 2003. The adjacent counties of Mariposa and
Tuolumne also have had generally higher growth rates than either California or the
United States from 1980-2000. San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties now have
population densities considerably higher than the California average (Table 3). With
the high proportion of federal land in Mariposa and Tuolumne, these counties have
had relatively stable population densities compared to the SJV.
In marked contrast, Central Appalachia’s population declined 5.7% between
1980-1990, losing 52,000 people during that decade. The SJV grew by 34% in that
decade. Between 1990-2003, Central Appalachia grew by less than 3%, effectively
recovering about 1,000 persons more than it lost the previous decade. This rate is
considerably less than the Appalachian states as a whole, except for West Virginia,
which grew by just under 1% (Table 4).
The SJV population is projected to grow by 14.3% between 2003 and 2010
compared to projected growth rates of 10.6% for California and 6.2% for the United
States (Table 5). Projected population growth for the SJV between 2003 and 2020
is 39.0% compared to a growth rate of 15.5% for the United States and 23.6% for
California. Population growth between 2003-2020 for Mariposa and Tuolumne
counties is projected to be about the same as the national average but less than
California. Table 6 shows that Central Appalachia is projected to grow only 5.5%
between 2003 and 2020 and 2.3% between 2003-2010. If these projections prove
accurate, Central Appalachia will have a net gain of 98,000 people by 2020 and the
SJV a gain of 398,000. With the exception of West Virginia, Central Appalachia is
projected to grow between one-third and one-fourth below its respective state
population growth.
As noted earlier, immigration has been a major source of the population growth
in the SJV. As Table 7 and Table 8 show, California and the SJV’s towns and cities
have highly mobile populations, although they are not substantially different from the
United States as a whole, except for the fact that in the United States as a whole, a
much larger percent of those who moved in the previous year came from a different
state. For the 2002 through 2004 period, over 30% of the SJV metropolitan
population who moved during the previous year either lived in another California
county (16.1%), lived in a different state (8.0%), or lived abroad (6.7%). Most who
moved in the previous year, however, moved within the same county.
Nearly 20% of the SJV’s population in 2000 was foreign born (Table 9).
Almost one-quarter of the population of Merced was foreign born. In 1980, less than
14% were foreign born in that county. While these are relatively high percentages
compared to the United States percent of population that was foreign-born (11.1%),
the SJV had a lower percentage of foreign-born than California (26.2%). Mariposa
and Tuolumne counties had 2.8% and 3.2% respectively who were foreign-born.
Whether foreign-born or not, in 2000 nearly 40% of the SJV population identified
itself as Hispanic in origin, compared to 32.4% of California and 12.5% of the United
States (Table 10). I 2003, over 54% in Tulare County and 46% in Fresno County
identified themselves as Hispanic in origin. Since 1980, all the SJV counties have
increased the proportion of their population who identified themselves as Hispanic
CRS-27
in origin. In 1980, less than 6% of the SJV population was Mexican-born. By 2000,
13.5% were Mexican-born (Table 11). Each of the SJV counties have more than
doubled the percentage of their Mexican-born populations since 1980. This is true
of California as well. The United States more than tripled its Mexican-born
population between 1980 and 2003. Figure 3 shows the percent change in the
Mexican-born population by California county, 1990-2000.
Three additional tables show the distribution of the SJV population by race, sex,
and age, 1980-2003. From 1980-2003, the proportion of those in the SJV who
identified themselves as either Black, American Indian, or Native Alaskan have
remained small and stable (Table 12). Asian and Pacific Islanders more than
doubled from 2.9% in 1980 to 6.3% in 2000. Most of the increases in Asian and
Pacific Islanders were in Fresno, Merced, and San Joaquin counties with Fresno
County seeing the largest increase between 1980 and 2000 (63%) followed by San
Joaquin County (46%). The U.S. Census category of “Other” increased significantly
in the SJV, from 14% to over 23%. The proportion of the SJV population identifying
themselves as White declined from 77.6% in 1980 to 59.1% in 2000. Declines in the
proportion of those identifying themselves as White were evident in half of the SJV
counties between 1980 and 2000. In 2003, Fresno, Kern, San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
and Tulare counties registered increases in the proportion of the population who
identified themselves as White, as did California. Mariposa and Tuolumne counties
have the lowest proportions of their population who identify themselves as Black,
Native American Indian and Native Alaskan, Asian and Pacific Islanders, and Other.
Their population distribution by race was relatively stable between 1980 and 2000.
The distribution of the SJV population by sex in 2000 showed a slight male
bias, 50.2% versus 49.8% (Table 13). The population distribution of males and
females in California is 49.6% and 50.4% respectively. The male bias is very
pronounced in Kings county with 57.4% male and 42.6% female. Tuolumne County
also had a slight distributional bias toward males (52.6%). The sex distribution for
the United States was, like California, biased toward females, 48.9% males to 51.1%
female.
The SJV population is a relatively young population compared to many areas
of the United States, especially most rural areas. In 2000, the proportion of the U.S.
population 65 and older was 12.4%, while in California, that population stratum was
10.6% (Table 14). In the SJV, the proportion aged 65 and older was 9.9%. In Kings
County, the 65 and older accounted for just 7.5% of the population. As Table 13
showed, Kings County also has a high male proportion. That characteristic, along
with the age distribution shown in Table 14, suggest the county has a relatively high
proportion of men, especially in the prime labor cohort of 25-54 years old. The 2554 year old cohort in Kings County is the largest in the SJV. While the proportion
of this cohort is the largest in each SJV counties, the proportion is somewhat lower
than that of California, except for Kings County. Mariposa and Tuolumne counties,
in contrast, have very high proportions of their population 65 and older, substantially
higher than the proportions in the United States and California.
Appalachia’s Demographic Structure. In 2000, approximately 31% of
U.S. residents identified themselves as a member of a minority group. In the ARC
region, however, racial and ethnic minorities comprised only about 12% of the
CRS-28
population. Of the 2.8 million minority Appalachians, 66% (1.8 million) were nonHispanic black, with Hispanics making up another sixth (465,000).47 In the ARCdefined Central Appalachian area, only 4% identified themselves as minorities.
Southern Appalachia, with a 19% minority population, was the most diverse region
of the ARC.
In-migration has been a key factor in the ARC’s increase in racial and ethnic
diversity. More than half of Appalachia’s Hispanic and Asian residents and one-third
of its American Indians and multiracial persons had moved since 1995-either into the
region or from another Appalachian county. Among Appalachia’s black population,
just under one-fifth had migrated from another county between 1995 and 2000-only
slightly higher than the percentage for non-Hispanic whites.48
Appalachia has a higher proportion of elderly than either the SJV or the United
States as a whole. In 2000, 14.3% of Appalachian residents were ages 65 and over,
compared with 12.4% of all U.S. residents. In the SJV, just under 10% of the
population in 2000 was age 65 or older. Northern Appalachia had the oldest
population among the ARC subregions, with 16% ages 65 and over. West Virginia,
all of which is in the ARC area, ranked third among states in 2000 in the percentage
of its population ages 65 and over; only Florida ranked higher.49 The “youth deficit”
in the Appalachian region is fairly evenly divided between the school-age and
working-age populations, both of which are slightly lower than the corresponding
national percentages.50 Given current trends, regional demographic projections show
that the ARC area will have over 5 million people ages 65 and over in 2025, nearly
20% of the total population. One of every 40 Appalachian residents will be among
the oldest old, those ages 85 and over, in 2025.51
47
Pollard, Kelvin. Appalachia at the Millennium: An Overview of Results from Census
2000. Population Reference Bureau, June, 2000.
[http://www.arc.gov/images/reports/census2000/overview/appalachia_census2000.pdf]
48
Pollard, Kelvin. A “New Diversity”: Race and Ethnicity in the Appalachian Region.
Population Reference Bureau, September, 2004.
[http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=2310]
49
Haaga, John. The Aging of Appalachia. Population Reference Bureau, April, 2004.
[http://www.arc.gov/images/reports/aging/aging.pdf]
50
Ibid., p.7.
51
Ibid., p.9.
CRS-29
Table 2. Population: United States, California, and Counties of
the SJV, 1980-2003
Population
(in 1000s)
Percent change
1980- 1990- 19901990 2000 2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
2,048
2,744
3,303
3,583
34.0
20.4
30.6
Fresno County
515
667
799
850
29.7
19.8
27.4
Kern County
403
545
662
713
35.2
21.4
30.8
Kings County
74
101
129
139
37.6
27.6
36.6
Madera County
63
88
123
133
39.6
39.8
51.5
Merced County
135
178
211
232
32.6
18.0
29.8
San Joaquin County
347
481
564
633
38.4
17.3
31.7
Stanislaus County
266
371
447
492
39.3
20.6
32.8
Tulare County
246
312
368
391
26.9
18.0
25.3
Mariposa County
11
14
17
18
28.8
19.8
24.5
Tuolumne County
34
48
55
57
42.8
12.5
17.1
California
23,668
29,758
33,872
35,484
25.7
13.8
19.2
United States
226,542 248,718 281,422 290,810
9.8
13.1
16.9
SJV
Adjacent counties
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and
Housing, United States Summary, PHC-3-1, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2004, p. 44; and U.S.
Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov].
CRS-30
Table 3. Population Density: United States, California, and
Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
(population per square mile)
1980
1990
2000
2003
75
101
121
131
Fresno County
86
112
134
143
Kern County
50
67
81
88
Kings County
53
73
93
100
Madera County
30
41
58
62
Merced County
70
92
109
120
San Joaquin County
248
343
403
452
Stanislaus County
178
248
299
329
Tulare County
51
65
76
81
Mariposa County
8
10
12
12
Tuolumne County
15
22
24
25
California
151
191
217
228
United States
64
70
80
82
SJV
Adjacent counties
Source: Population data are from Table 2. Land area data are from U.S. Department of Commerce,
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Population and Housing
Characteristics, PHC-1-1, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2002, p. 11; U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Population and Housing
Unit Counts, United States, CPS-2-1, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2002, p. 116; and U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of the Population, Characteristics of
the Population, Number of Inhabitants, California, PC80-1-A6, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
1982, p. 6.8, available at [http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1980a_caAB-01.pdf].
CRS-31
Table 4. Population: United States, Kentucky, Virginia,
Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Appalachian Counties of
the Appalachian Regional Commission, 1980-2003
Population
(in 1000s)
Percent change
1980- 1990- 19901990
2000
2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
Central ARC Counties
1,837
1,732
1,783
1,785
-5.7
3.0
2.9
Kentucky
3,660
3,687
4,042
4,118
0.7
9.6
10.5
Tennessee
4,591
4,877
5,689
5,842
6.2
16.7
16.5
Virginia
5,347
6,189
7,079
7,386
15.8
14.4
16.2
West Virginia
1,950
1,793
1,808
1,810
-8.0
0.8
0.9
United States
226,54 248,71 281,42 290,81
9.8
13.1
16.9
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and
Housing, United States Summary, PHC-3-1, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2004, p. 44; and U.S.
Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov].
CRS-32
Table 5. Population Projections: United States, California, and
Counties of the SJV, to 2010 and 2020
Population
(in 1000s)
Population
projections
(in 1000s)
2003
2010
2020
Percent
Percent
change,
change,
2003-2010 2003-2020
SJV
Fresno County
Kern County
Kings County
Madera County
Merced County
San Joaquin County
Stanislaus County
Tulare County
3,583
850
713
139
133
232
633
492
391
4,097
950
809
156
150
278
747
559
447
4,981
1,115
950
185
184
361
989
654
544
14.3
11.7
13.4
12.8
12.6
19.9
18.1
13.6
14.5
39.0
31.1
33.2
33.3
37.8
55.8
56.4
32.8
39.1
Adjacent counties
Mariposa County
Tuolumne County
18
57
19
60
21
65
4.5
5.5
15.8
15.3
California
35,484
39,247
43,852
10.6
23.6
United States
290,810
308,936
335,805
6.2
15.5
Sources: Projections of U.S. population growth are from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census, U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, available at
[http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/popproj.html]. Projections for California are
from the State of California, Department of Finance, Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity for
California and Its Counties 2000-2050, Sacramento, California, May 2004, available at
[http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/demograp/dru_publications/projections/p1.htm].
CRS-33
Table 6. Population Projections: United States, Kentucky,
Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the
Appalachian Regional Commission, to 2010 and 2020
Population
(in 1000s)
Population
projections
(in 1000s)
Percent
Percent
change,
change,
2003-2010 2003-2020
2003
2010
2020
Central ARC Counties
1,785
1,826
1,883
2.3
5.5
Kentucky
4,118
4,326
4,661
5.1
13.2
Tennessee
5,842
6,426
7,195
10.0
23.2
Virginia
7,386
7,893
8,602
6.9
16.5
West Virginia
1,810
1,769
1,826
-2.3
0.9
United States
290,810
308,936
335,805
6.2
15.5
Sources: Projections of U.S. population growth are from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census, U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, available at
[http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/popproj.html]. Projections for Kentucky are
from Kentucky State Data Center and Kentucky Population Research, Population Projections,
available at [ksdc.louisville.edu]. Projections for Tennessee are from Tennessee Advisory
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and the University of Tennessee Center for Business and
Economic Research, Population Projections for the State of Tennessee, 2005-2025, available at
[cber.bus.utk.edu/census/tnpopdat.htm]. Projections for Virginia are from Virginia Employment
Commission, County/City/State Population Data, available at
[http://www.vec.virginia.gov/pdf/pop_projs.pdf].
Projections for West Virginia are from West Virginia University, Regional Research Institute,
Population Estimates and Projections, available at [http://www.rri.wvu.edu/wvpop4.htm].
CRS-34
Table 7. Estimated Percent of the Population That Moved
During the Previous Year: United States, California, and
Metropolitan Statistical Areas of the SJV, 1989-2004
1989-1991
1999-2001
2002-2004
SJV MSAs
Percent Who Moved
Percent Who Lived Elsewhere in the
Percent Who Lived Abroad
20.0%
19.2%
0.7%
19.1% a
17.6%
1.5%
18.0%
16.7%
1.2%
California
Percent Who Moved
Percent Who Lived Elsewhere in the
Percent Who Lived Abroad
21.6%
20.0%
1.5%
17.0%
16.0%
1.0%
15.5%
14.6%
0.9%
United States
Percent Who Moved
Percent Who Lived Elsewhere in the
Percent Who Lived Abroad
17.5%
16.9%
0.6%
15.4%
14.8%
0.6%
14.2%
13.7%
0.5%
Source: Estimates calculated by CRS from the March Current Population Surveys (CPS) for 19891991, 1999-2001, and 2002-2004.
Notes: In order to increase the sample sizes, all estimates are three-year averages. An MSA consists
of an urban center (or centers) and adjacent communities that have a high degree of economic and
social integration.
a. Data for 1998 and later years may not be comparable to data for 1988-1990. Data for 1998 and
later years include an MSA for Merced County. For 1998 and later, the Fresno MSA includes
both Fresno and Madera counties.
CRS-35
Table 8. Estimates of Where Persons Who Moved During the
Previous Year Lived One Year Earlier: United States, California,
and Metropolitan Statistical Areas of
the SJV, 1989-2004
1989-1991
1999-2001
2002-2004
SJV MSAs
Lived in the same county
Lived in a different county in California
Lived in a different state
Lived abroad
72.7%
18.4%
5.2%
3.7%
70.5% a
13.3%
8.3%
7.9%
69.1%
16.1%
8.0%
6.7%
California
Lived in the same county
Lived in a different county in California
Lived in a different state
Lived abroad
64.0%
18.9%
9.9%
7.2%
66.9%
18.6%
8.6%
5.9%
62.1%
22.7%
9.7%
5.5%
60.4%
57.3%
58.0%
18.7%
17.4%
3.5%
19.8%
19.0%
3.9%
19.7%
18.9%
3.4%
United States
Lived in the same county
Lived in a different county in the
same state
Lived in a different state
Lived abroad
Source: Estimates calculated by CRS from the March Current Population Surveys (CPS) for 19891991, 1999-2001, and 2002-2004.
Notes: In order to increase the sample sizes, all estimates are three-year averages. An MSA consists
of an urban center (or centers) and adjacent communities that have a high degree of economic and
social integration. Details may not sum to 100% because of rounding.
a. Data for 1998 and later years may not be comparable to data for 1988-1990. Data for 1998 and
later years include an MSA for Merced County. For 1998 and later, the Fresno MSA includes
both Fresno and Madera counties.
CRS-36
Table 9. Percent of the Population Foreign-Born: United
States, California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
SJV
Fresno
Kern
Kings
Madera
Merced
San Joaquin
Stanislaus
Tulare
10.4%
10.6%
8.6%
10.5%
9.8%
13.8%
10.6%
10.0%
11.3%
15.8%
17.8%
12.2%
14.1%
14.9%
19.8%
16.4%
14.3%
17.6%
19.8%
21.1%
16.9%
16.0%
20.1%
24.8%
19.5%
18.3%
22.6%
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
Tuolumne
3.1%
3.2%
2.6%
4.0%
2.8%
3.2%
California
15.1%
21.7%
26.2%
26.5%
United States
6.2%
7.9%
11.1%
11.9%
19.5%
18.1%
21.8%
17.0%
23.1%
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of
Population and Housing: Summary Social, Economic and Housing Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off, 1992; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population: General
Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Notes: Foreign-born persons include both naturalized U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens. Noncitizens include legal permanent residents, non-immigrants who are in the United States temporarily
(e.g., on business or as students), and unauthorized aliens. Data for 2003 are from the American
Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long questionnaire of the
decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all counties.
CRS-37
Table 10. Percent of Population of Hispanic Origin: United
States, California, and the Counties of
the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
22.9%
29.6%
39.8%
Fresno
29.2%
34.7%
44.1%
46.2%
Kern
21.6%
27.7%
38.4%
41.8%
Kings
NA
33.4%
43.6%
Madera
27.1%
34.2%
44.3%
Merced
25.3%
32.0%
45.4%
San Joaquin
19.2%
22.7%
30.5%
33.5%
Stanislaus
15.0%
21.6%
31.8%
36.2%
Tulare
29.8%
38.2%
50.8%
54.2%
Mariposa
4.3%
4.8%
7.5%
Tuolumne
5.2%
8.0%
8.1%
California
19.2%
25.4%
32.4%
34.6%
United States
6.4%
8.8%
12.5%
13.9%
SJV
2003
Adjacent counties
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Notes: A person of Hispanic origin may be of any race. Data for 2003 are from the American
Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long questionnaire of the
decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all counties.
CRS-38
Table 11. Percent of the Population Mexican-Born: United
States, California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
5.6%
8.8%
13.5%
Fresno
6.0%
9.9%
14.0%
12.3%
Kern
5.2%
8.1%
12.6%
11.8%
Kings
5.5%
9.2%
12.7%
Madera
6.4%
11.6%
17.4%
Merced
7.8%
10.9%
17.3%
San Joaquin
4.0%
6.0%
10.0%
11.2%
Stanislaus
4.3%
6.8%
11.4%
9.9%
Tulare
7.6%
12.5%
18.6%
19.2%
Mariposa
0.4%
0.2%
0.6%
Tuolumne
0.5%
1.4%
0.6%
California
5.4%
8.3%
11.6%
11.4%
United States
1.0%
1.7%
3.3%
3.5%
SJV
2003
Adjacent counties
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of
Population: Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1993; U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population: General Social and Economic
Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Note: Data for 2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned
replacement for the long questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover
all counties.
CRS-39
Figure 3. Percent Change in Mexican-Born Population by County,
1990-2000
Data Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
CRS-40
Table 12. Distribution of Population by Race: United States,
California, and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000 a
White
77.6%
69.6%
59.1%
Black
4.2%
4.4%
4.7%
American Indian and Native Alaskan
1.3%
1.2%
1.4%
Asian and Pacific Islander
2.9%
6.8%
6.3%
Other
14.0%
18.0%
23.3%
2003 a
SJV
Two or more races
5.3%
Fresno County
White
74.8%
63.5%
54.1%
70.9%
Black
5.0%
4.9%
5.1%
5.1%
American Indian and Native Alaskan
1.2%
1.1%
1.6%
1.0%
Asian and Pacific Islander
3.0%
8.6%
8.1%
8.4%
Other
16.0%
21.9%
26.0%
10.5%
5.1%
4.0%
Two or more races
Kern County
White
77.4%
69.8%
61.4%
77.4%
Black
5.2%
5.5%
5.9%
5.4%
American Indian and Native Alaskan
1.7%
1.3%
1.4%
1.3%
Asian and Pacific Islander
2.0%
3.0%
3.4%
3.6%
Other
13.7%
20.3%
23.5%
10.1%
4.5%
2.3%
Two or more races
Kings County
White
75.3%
63.9%
53.5%
Black
4.9%
8.3%
8.1%
American Indian and Native Alaskan NA
1.5%
1.6%
Asian and Pacific Islander
NA
3.6%
3.1%
Other
19.8%
22.7%
28.4%
Two or more races
5.2%
Madera County
White
75.7%
72.2%
62.5%
Black
3.4%
2.8%
3.9%
American Indian and Native Alaskan
1.8%
1.5%
2.6%
Asian and Pacific Islander
1.1%
1.4%
1.5%
Other
18.0%
22.0%
24.3%
Two or more races
5.2%
CRS-41
1980
1990
2000 a
White
77.9%
67.5%
55.8%
Black
5.0%
4.9%
3.7%
American Indian and Native Alaskan
1.0%
0.9%
1.0%
Asian and Pacific Islander
2.4%
8.3%
7.1%
Other
13.7%
18.3%
26.2%
2003 a
Merced County
Two or more races
6.2%
San Joaquin County
White
76.8%
73.5%
57.9%
68.9%
Black
5.6%
5.6%
6.5%
7.0%
American Indian and Native Alaskan
1.3%
1.2%
1.0%
1.2%
Asian and Pacific Islander
6.3%
12.4%
11.9%
14.4%
Other
10.1%
7.2%
16.5%
5.8%
6.2%
2.6%
Two or more races
Stanislaus County
White
88.1%
80.4%
69.1%
80.7%
Black
1.2%
1.6%
2.4%
2.8%
American Indian and Native Alaskan
1.7%
1.2%
1.2%
1.0%
Asian and Pacific Islander
1.7%
5.1%
4.5%
4.8%
Other
7.2%
11.7%
16.9%
8.2%
6.0%
2.5%
Two or more races
Tulare County
White
74.4%
65.9%
57.9%
64.3%
Black
1.5%
1.5%
1.7%
1.5%
American Indian and Native Alaskan
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
0.9%
Asian and Pacific Islander
2.1%
4.4%
3.4%
3.3%
Other
20.8%
27.0%
31.0%
27.2%
4.6%
2.7%
Two or more races
Adjacent Counties
Mariposa County
White
NA
92.4%
88.4%
Black
NA
1.0%
0.6%
American Indian and Native Alaskan NA
4.5%
3.1%
Asian and Pacific Islander
NA
0.9%
0.7%
Other
NA
1.2%
2.9%
Two or more races
4.3%
CRS-42
1980
1990
2000 a
White
94.7%
90.6%
89.4%
Black
NA
3.1%
2.3%
2.2%
1.8%
0.8%
0.9%
3.4%
2.6%
2003 a
Tuolumne County
American Indian and Native Alaskan
Asian and Pacific Islander
Other
1.6%
NA
3.7%
Two or more races
3.0%
California
White
77.0%
69.1%
59.4%
66.2%
Black
7.7%
7.4%
6.6%
6.2%
American Indian and Native Alaskan
1.0%
0.8%
0.9%
0.8%
Asian and Pacific Islander
5.5%
9.6%
11.2%
12.2%
Other
8.8%
13.1%
16.9%
11.6%
5.0%
2.9%
Two or more races
United States
White
83.4%
80.3%
75.1%
76.2%
Black
11.7%
12.0%
12.2%
12.1%
American Indian and Native Alaskan
0.7%
0.8%
0.9%
0.8%
Asian and Pacific Islander
1.6%
2.9%
3.7%
4.3%
Other
2.5%
3.9%
5.5%
4.8%
2.6%
1.9%
Two or more races
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Note: Details may not sum to 100% because of rounding. Data for 2003 are from the American
Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long questionnaire of the
decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all counties.
CRS-43
Table 13. Distribution of Population by Gender: United States,
California, and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
Male
49.5%
50.0%
50.2%
Female
50.5%
50.0%
49.8%
Male
49.2%
49.4%
49.9%
49.9%
Female
50.8%
50.6%
50.1%
50.1%
Male
49.8%
50.3%
51.2%
49.9%
Female
50.2%
49.7%
48.8%
50.1%
Male
50.5%
53.7%
57.4%
Female
49.5%
46.3%
42.6%
Male
50.5%
50.4%
47.6%
Female
49.5%
49.6%
52.4%
Male
50.2%
50.5%
49.6%
Female
49.8%
49.5%
50.4%
Male
49.4%
50.6%
49.8%
49.5%
Female
50.6%
49.4%
50.2%
50.5%
Male
48.9%
49.0%
49.1%
49.6%
Female
51.1%
51.0%
50.9%
50.4%
Male
49.4%
49.6%
49.8%
50.0%
Female
50.6%
50.4%
50.2%
50.0%
Male
51.0%
49.2%
50.7%
Female
49.0%
50.8%
49.3%
SJV
Fresno County
Kern County
Kings County
Madera County
Merced County
San Joaquin County
Stanislaus County
Tulare County
Adjacent Counties
Mariposa County
CRS-44
1980
1990
2000
2003
Male
50.8%
53.2%
52.6%
Female
49.2%
46.8%
47.4%
Male
49.3%
50.0%
49.7%
49.6%
Female
50.7%
50.0%
50.3%
50.4%
Male
48.6%
48.7%
49.0%
48.9%
Female
51.4%
51.3%
51.0%
51.1%
Tuolumne County
California
United States
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Note: Data for 2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned
replacement for the long questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all
counties.
CRS-45
Table 14. Distribution of Population by Age: United States,
California, and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
Less Than 5
8.6%
9.2%
8.2%
5 to 14
16.3%
17.7%
18.4%
15-24
19.0%
14.6%
15.5%
25-54 (prime age)
36.9%
41.0%
40.9%
55-64
9.0%
7.2%
7.1%
65 and over
10.2%
10.3%
9.9%
Less Than 5
8.3%
9.3%
8.4%
8.2%
5 to 14
15.8%
17.6%
18.4%
17.5%
15-24
19.7%
15.3%
16.3%
16.6%
25-54 (prime age)
37.3%
40.4%
40.3%
40.4%
55-64
8.8%
7.1%
6.8%
7.7%
65 and over
10.0%
10.2%
9.9%
9.5%
Less Than 5
8.9%
9.6%
8.3%
8.5%
5 to 14
16.3%
17.6%
18.4%
17.9%
15-24
18.8%
14.1%
15.3%
16.4%
25-54 (prime age)
37.0%
41.8%
41.6%
39.9%
55-64
9.2%
7.2%
7.0%
8.1%
65 and over
9.7%
9.7%
9.4%
9.1%
Less Than 5
9.8%
9.3%
7.9%
5 to 14
17.4%
17.1%
16.5%
15-24
20.5%
16.1%
16.1%
25-54 (prime age)
36.4%
43.7%
46.1%
55-64
7.3%
6.1%
5.9%
65 and over
8.6%
7.7%
7.5%
Less Than 5
9.2%
8.4%
7.6%
5 to 14
17.4%
18.0%
16.8%
15-24
16.4%
13.4%
14.8%
25-54 (prime age)
36.9%
39.4%
41.8%
55-64
9.2%
8.7%
8.2%
SJV
Fresno County
Kern County
Kings County
Madera County
CRS-46
1980
1990
2000
10.9%
12.1%
10.7%
Less Than 5
9.4%
10.1%
8.7%
5 to 14
17.2%
19.2%
20.2%
15-24
20.4%
15.3%
15.7%
25-54 (prime age)
36.2%
39.1%
39.1%
55-64
8.2%
7.1%
6.9%
65 and over
8.5%
9.2%
9.4%
Less Than 5
7.8%
8.6%
7.8%
7.7%
5 to 14
15.7%
16.6%
18.0%
17.2%
15-24
18.4%
14.5%
15.0%
15.7%
25-54 (prime age)
37.1%
41.7%
41.2%
41.7%
55-64
9.7%
7.5%
7.4%
8.4%
65 and over
11.2%
11.1%
10.6%
9.4%
Less Than 5
8.2%
9.1%
7.9%
8.0%
5 to 14
16.1%
17.2%
18.2%
16.7%
15-24
18.4%
13.8%
14.7%
15.7%
25-54 (prime age)
37.5%
41.7%
41.5%
42.0%
55-64
9.0%
7.2%
7.3%
8.2%
65 and over
10.9%
10.9%
10.4%
9.4%
Less Than 5
9.2%
9.3%
8.9%
9.1%
5 to 14
17.5%
19.0%
19.3%
18.3%
15-24
18.5%
14.7%
16.2%
17.0%
25-54 (prime age)
35.1%
39.2%
39.0%
38.9%
55-64
9.1%
7.1%
7.0%
7.7%
65 and over
10.7%
10.7%
9.7%
9.1%
Less Than 5
5.3%
6.3%
4.8%
5 to 14
13.0%
12.8%
13.0%
15-24
16.6%
9.7%
11.0%
25-54 (prime age)
37.4%
41.9%
41.3%
55-64
12.3%
11.4%
12.9%
65 and over
2003
Merced County
San Joaquin County
Stanislaus County
Tulare County
Adjacent Counties
Mariposa County
CRS-47
1980
1990
2000
15.4%
17.8%
17.0%
Less Than 5
6.5%
5.7%
4.7%
5 to 14
13.7%
13.4%
11.8%
15-24
15.5%
10.7%
12.1%
25-54 (prime age)
38.3%
42.9%
41.6%
55-64
12.4%
10.9%
11.4%
65 and over
13.7%
16.5%
18.5%
Less Than 5
7.2%
8.0%
7.2%
7.3%
5 to 14
14.6%
14.2%
15.8%
15.4%
15-24
18.9%
15.0%
14.1%
13.9%
25-54 (prime age)
39.9%
44.8%
44.7%
44.3%
55-64
9.3%
7.5%
7.6%
8.9%
65 and over
10.1%
10.5%
10.6%
10.3%
Less Than 5
7.2%
7.3%
6.8%
7.0%
5 to 14
15.4%
14.2%
14.6%
14.5%
15-24
18.7%
14.6%
13.8%
13.4%
25-54 (prime age)
37.8%
42.8%
43.7%
43.4%
55-64
9.6%
8.5%
8.6%
9.8%
65 and over
11.3%
12.5%
12.4%
12.0%
65 and over
2003
Tuolumne County
California
United States
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983. Data for
2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long
questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all counties
Note: Details may not sum to 100% because of rounding. Data for 2003 are from the American
Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long questionnaire of
the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all counties.
County and Regional Poverty Rates. Socioeconomic conditions in the
SJV as measured by a range of variables (including per capita income, poverty,
unemployment rates, median household income, Medicaid and Food Stamp
participation rates, and sources of personal income) reveal an area that falls
significantly below national and California averages. The 2000 poverty rate for the
SJV (20.5%), for example, was higher than the national rate (12.4%), California
(14.2%), and the 410 county ARC region (13.6%) (Table 15 and Table 16). While
the SJV’s poverty rate was somewhat closer both to the national and California
CRS-48
averages in 1980, the SJV counties saw significant increases in their poverty rates by
1990. These high rates continued to increase during the 1990s and increased between
1990 and 2000. However, in 2003, the rates declined somewhat in the 5 counties for
which there were data, as they did in California. Poverty rates in the United States,
however, rose slightly between 2000 and 2003. The two adjacent counties of
Mariposa and Tuolumne had 2000 poverty rates of 14.8% and 11.4% respectively.
Figure 4 maps county poverty rates for the SJV and other California counties.
Poverty rates for the entire 410 county ARC region, 1980-2000, were significantly
lower than those of the San Joaquin counties, although some Appalachian states had
poverty rates comparable to the SJV. ARC poverty rates were about 2.5 percentage
points higher than the United States during the decades 1980-2000, although ARC
area poverty rates did vary by state (Table 17).
Figure 4. Percent of Persons Below Poverty Level by County (2000)
Data Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
Turning to the 68 counties of Central Appalachia, the picture is different. In
1980, Central Appalachia had a poverty rate of 23.0% compared to a rate in the SJV
of 13.9%. In 1990, poverty rates for both Central Appalachia and the SJV had risen
to 26.9% and 18.3% respectively. Central Appalachia’s poverty rate was also higher
than the rate for all the Appalachian parts of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and
West Virginia in 1980, 1990, and 2000 (Table 16 and Table 17). By 2000, Central
Appalachia’s poverty rate had fallen to 23.2% while the SJV rate had increased to
20.5%. In 2003, some counties of the SJV also had somewhat lower poverty rates
CRS-49
than were evident in 2000. Poverty rates also fell in the four Appalachian states
where the 68 counties are located (Table 17).
For the entire ARC defined region, the 1980 poverty rate was 14.1% (Table 16).
This ARC-wide rate was lower than the rate for all the Appalachian parts of
Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia in 1980. Kentucky’s Appalachian
region alone had a poverty rate of 26%, highest among all 13 state Appalachian
regions (Table 17). The ARC-wide rate, 1990-2000, was always higher than the
U.S. rate, showing that Appalachia today still represents a region that is more
impoverished than the United States as a whole. By 2000, the ARC-wide region’s
poverty rate declined to 13.6%, still lower than the poverty rates for all the
Appalachian parts of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. This
relatively low rate of the ARC-wide region suggests the possible statistical skewing
that this analysis tried to avoid by focusing predominantly on the 68 county Central
Appalachian area.
CRS-50
Table 15. Portion of the Population Below Poverty: United
States, California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
13.9%
18.3%
20.5%
NA
Fresno
14.5%
21.4%
22.9%
21.8%
Kern
12.6%
16.9%
20.8%
18.1%
Kings
14.6%
18.2%
19.5%
Madera
15.7%
17.5%
21.4%
Merced
14.7%
19.9%
21.7%
San Joaquin
13.3%
15.7%
17.7%
14.2%
Stanislaus
11.9%
14.1%
16.0%
12.9%
Tulare
16.5%
22.6%
23.9%
22.9%
Mariposa
11.5%
12.7%
14.8%
Tuolumne
11.9%
9.1%
11.4%
California
11.4%
12.5%
14.2%
13.4%
United States
12.4%
13.1%
12.4%
12.7%
SJV
Adjacent counties
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Note: Data for 2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned
replacement for the long questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all
counties.
CRS-51
Table 16. Appalachian Regional Commission Poverty Rates,
1980-2000
State
Year
Persons for
Whom
Poverty
Status is
Determined
Persons
Below
Poverty
Level
Percent of
U.S.
Average
Poverty
Rate
Totals, Appalachian Portion of the State
Alabama
Georgia
Kentucky
Maryland
Mississippi
New York
North
Carolina
Ohio
1980
2,421,498
408,883
16.9
136.1
1990
2,510,095
404,533
16.1
122.9
2000
2,767,821
397,223
14.4
115.9
1980
1,124,481
140,896
12.5
101
1990
1,520,643
154,611
10.2
77.5
2000
2,169,854
200,543
9.2
74.7
1980
1,081,384
281,333
26
209.7
1990
1,045,741
303,238
29
221
2000
1,109,411
271,113
24.4
197.4
1980
211,771
25,296
11.9
96.3
1990
212,688
26,481
12.5
94.9
2000
220,722
25,719
11.7
94.1
1980
542,150
125,151
23.1
186.1
1990
551,305
129,538
23.5
179.1
2000
598,698
116,283
19.4
156.9
1980
1,031,537
124,156
12
97
1990
1,034,063
133,032
12.9
98.1
2000
1,016,532
138,586
13.6
110.1
1980
1,187,272
164,175
13.8
111.5
1990
1,270,693
158,185
12.4
94.9
2000
1,482,507
173,822
11.7
94.7
1980
1,346,905
169,992
12.6
101.8
1990
1,334,561
232,297
17.4
132.7
2000
1,409,519
191,502
13.6
109.8
CRS-52
State
Year
Persons for
Whom
Poverty
Status is
Determined
Persons
Below
Poverty
Level
Percent of
U.S.
Average
Poverty
Rate
Totals, Appalachian Portion of the State
Pennsylvania
South
Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
West
Virginia
United
States
ARC Region
1980
5,847,250
586,629
10
80.9
1990
5,593,189
696,729
12.5
95
2000
5,613,487
639,853
11.4
92.1
1980
770,339
96,995
12.6
101.5
1990
862,416
99,634
11.6
88.1
2000
1,000,780
117,314
11.7
94.7
1980
2,029,828
337,437
16.6
134
1990
2,095,424
337,709
16.1
122.9
2000
2,420,962
342,706
14.2
114.4
1980
637,134
99,104
15.6
125.4
1990
614,437
112,245
18.3
139.3
2000
638,257
100,438
15.7
127.1
1980
1,914,081
286,995
15
120.9
1990
1,755,331
345,093
19.7
149.9
2000
1,763,866
315,794
17.9
144.6
1980
220,845,766
27,392,580
12.4
100
1990
241,997,859
31,742,864
13.1
100
2000
273,882,232
33,899,812
12.4
100
1980
20,145,630
2,847,042
14.1
113.9
1990
20,400,586
3,133,325
15.4
117.1
2000
20,212,416
3,030,896
13.6
110.2
Source: Appalachian Regional Commission
CRS-53
Table 17. Portion of the Population Below Poverty: United
States, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and
Central Counties of the ARC, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
Central ARC Counties
23.0%
26.9%
23.2%
NA
Kentucky
17.6%
19.0%
15.8%
17.4%
Tennessee
16.5%
15.7%
13.5%
13.8%
Virginia
11.8%
10.2%
9.6%
9.0%
West Virginia
15.0%
19.7%
17.9%
18.5%
United States
12.4%
13.1%
12.4%
12.7%
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder,
available at [http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
1980 Census of Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1983.
Other Poverty Measures: Food Stamps, Public Assistance Income,
Health Insurance, and Medicaid. Poverty rates provide one useful perspective
on socioeconomic well-being. Poverty rates use income thresholds weighted for
different household sizes. Other indicators of a region’s degree of poverty can
include the proportion of the population receiving food stamps, the percent of
households reporting public assistance income, the population without health
insurance, and the percent of the population enrolled in Medicaid. Medicaid, for
example, is consistent with an income maintenance program because payments are
made to households with lower income, or with medical expenses that are beyond the
household’s financial capacity. These can be imperfect regional measures, however,
because the percent of a population receiving assistance from some social welfare
program may be, and often is, lower than the percent of the population that is actually
eligible by income level to receive assistance under the particular program. For
example, immigrants may be unaware of their eligibility for particular programs, or,
if they are knowledgeable, fail to take advantage of the assistance. According to the
Appalachian Service Project in Johnson City, Tennessee, a 1992 survey of a 10county area in southwestern Virginia found that of 90,197 families qualified for food
CRS-54
stamps, only 51,649 received food stamp assistance.52 Still, these additional
indicators can serve as supporting evidence about the depth and breadth of regional
poverty.
Food Stamps. The inability to buy sufficient food is a significant indicator
of poverty. Food stamp eligibility indicates an income insufficient to purchase
adequate food. Data on the SJV’s MSAs three-year averages of food stamp use show
that the SJV has a higher percent of households receiving food stamps than either
California or the United States (Table 18). In the period 1988-1990, 12.1% of SJV
households within MSAs received food stamps, compared to 5% of households in
California and 7.2% of households in the United States. Food stamp use increased
to 13% in the period 1998-2000, while the percent of households receiving food
stamps fell in the United States to 5.6% and rose only slightly in California to 5.1%.53
Households receiving food stamps in the SJV fell in the period 2001-2003 to 8.1%,
trending in the same direction as households in the state, which fell to 3.8%. In each
of the three sampling periods, the Visalia-Tulare-Porterville MSA had the highest
proportion of households receiving food stamps. In the period 2001-2003, that MSA
had 15.6% of its households receiving food stamps, down from 19.1% in the 19982000 period. The Merced MSA saw a significant increase in the 1998-2000 period,
rising from 8.2% of households in 1988-1990 to 15.8% of households in 1998-2000.
In the period 2001-2003, however, the percent of households receiving food stamps
fell to 8.1%. The Stockton-Lodi MSA saw a steady decrease in the percent of
households receiving food stamps in the three sampling periods, declining from
10.5% to 8.3% to 3.8% respectively. The Bakersfield MSA also had a significant
decrease in the 2001-2003 period, declining to 6.1% of households in 2001-2003
from 14.0% of households in 1998-2000.
Comparable data on household food stamp participation rates across the 68
Central Appalachian counties were not available. Other data on the ARC-defined
Appalachian region in general, and Central Appalachia especially, indicate an area
where food stamps use is high. Per capita funding for food stamps in the 410 county
ARC area was $120.26 in 1990, declining 36% to a per capita expenditure of $77.34
in 2000. For the United States, per capita food stamp funding was $92.00 in 1990,
52
A 2004 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report discussed state efforts to
increase food stamp participation rates among those who are eligible. See Food Stamp
Program: Steps Have Been Taken to Increase Participation of Working Families, but Better
Tracking of Efforts Is Needed. GAO 04-236, March, 2004.
53
The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act limited
social welfare benefits to three months in three years for able-bodied adults aged 18-50
without dependents (ABAWD). States, however, were permitted waivers for areas of high
unemployment. California did not have an “ABAWD waiver” to help ABAWDs get
assistance and ABAWD participation fell significantly. The state legislature passed SB 68
in July, 2005 which automatically requires the state to seek a waiver for eligible counties
to the extent permitted by federal law. Given the relatively high proportion of single
farmworkers in the SJV, this measure may provide food stamps to thousands of SJV
residents in coming years.
CRS-55
declining to $59.06 in 2000.54 The 215 county Central Appalachian area as defined
by the ARC, which includes th 68 counties profiled in this chapter, had the highest
per capita expenditures for food stamps among the ARC’s three subareas. Per capita
funding on food stamps in the ARC’s Central Appalachian subregion was $199.26
in 1990, declining to $139.25 in 2000.
54
Black, Dan A. And Seth G. Sanders. Labor Market Performance, Poverty, and Income
Inequality in Appalachia. Report prepared by the ARC and the Population Reference
Bureau. September, 2004.
CRS-56
Table 18. Percent of Households Receiving Food Stamps:
United States, California, and the MSAs of the SJV, 1988-2003
1988-1990
1998-2000
2001-2003
12.1%
13.0% a
8.1%
Bakersfield (Kern County)
9.6%
14.0%
6.1%
Fresno (Fresno County 1989-1991;
Fresno and Madera Counties later years)
14.8%
13.8%
9.1%
Merced (Merced County)
8.2%
15.8%
8.9%
SJV
Modesto (Stanislaus County)
NA
8.2%
6.7%
Stockton-Lodi (San Joaquin County)
10.5%
8.3%
3.8%
Visalia-Tulare-Porterville
(Tulare County)
16.3%
19.1%
15.6%
California
5.0%
5.1%
3.8%
United States
7.2%
5.6%
5.7%
Source: Calculated by CRS from the March Current Population Surveys (CPS) for 1989-1991, 19992001, and 2002-2004. The March CPS collects food stamp information for the previous year.
Notes: In order to increase the sample sizes for each Metropolitan Statistical Area all estimates are
three-year averages. An MSA consists of an urban center (or centers) and adjacent communities that
have a high degree of economic and social integration.
a. Data for 1998 and later years may not be comparable to data for 1988-1990. Data for 1998 and
later years include an MSA for Merced County. For 1998 and later, the Fresno MSA includes
both Fresno and Madera counties.
Public Assistance Income. The percentage of households in the SJV
reporting public assistance income is higher than for California and for the United
States (Table 19). Nearly 14% of households in the SJV received public assistance
income in 1980 and received higher average amounts in most of the counties than the
national or state averages. By 2000, the proportion of households receiving public
assistance income had fallen to 7.8%, down from 15.5% in 1990. Average amounts
of assistance received also fell from $6,384 to $4,808. Data from those SJV counties
reported by the U.S. Census in 2003 showed further declines in the proportion of
county households receiving public assistance income, although the average amounts
increased slightly (Note: Tulare County increased slightly from 8.6% to 8.7%).
Figure 5 maps public assistance income data for the SJV in 2000 and contrast it with
other California counties.
The percentage of households reporting public assistance income is higher in
the SJV than the percentage reporting public assistance income in Central Appalachia
CRS-57
(Table 20). In 1980, 12.8% of Central Appalachian households received public
assistance averaging $2,259. By 2000, only 5.9% of Central Appalachian households
were receiving public assistance income, and the average amounts were lower than
they were 20 years earlier, $2,130. In the four Appalachian states, the proportion of
households receiving public assistance income in 2003 was also lower than it was in
the eight counties of the SJV.
CRS-58
Table 19. Public Assistance Income: United States, California,
and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
Percent of
households with
public assistance
income
SJV
Fresno
Kern
Kings
Madera
Merced
San Joaquin
Stanislaus
Tulare
1990
Average
amount
Percent of
households with
public assistance
income
13.7%
13.4%
11.8%
13.8%
14.5%
14.0%
14.1%
13.3%
16.8%
$3,096
$3,230
$2,860
$3,060
$3,086
$3,158
$3,172
$2,888
$3,226
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
Tuolumne
10.6%
8.0%
California
United States
2000
2003
Average
amount
Percent of
households with
public assistance
income
Percent of
households with
public assistance
income
Average
amount
Average
amount
15.5%
16.5%
13.1%
15.8%
14.9%
16.7%
15.6%
14.2%
18.2%
$6,384
$6,636
$5,595
$5,765
$5,505
$6,714
$7,300
$6,260
$5,967
7.8%
8.5%
7.5%
7.6%
8.0%
9.1%
7.2%
6.3%
8.6%
$4,808
$4,969
$4,471
$4,124
$5,024
$5,113
$4,964
$4,699
$4,819
NA
5.8%
6.8%
NA
$5,060
$5,282
5.4%
3.7%
8.7%
$4,527
$3,022
$5,618
$2,832
$2,785
12.2
10.6
$5,197
$5,889
5.0%
4.3%
$4,476
$4,156
9.6%
$3,036
9.4
$5,972
4.9%
$4,819
3.6%
$4,896
8.0%
$2,518
7.5
$4,078
3.4%
$3,032
2.5%
$3,084
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at [http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
1980 Census of Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Note: Data for 2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover
all counties.
CRS-59
Table 20. Public Assistance Income: United States, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia,
and Central Counties of the ARC, 1980-2003
1980
Percent of
households with
public assistance
income
Central ARC Counties
1990
Average
amount
Percent of
households with
public assistance
income
12.8%
$2,259
Kentucky
9.7%
Tennessee
2000
Average
amount
Percent of
households with
public assistance
income
13.9%
$3,499
$2,038
9.6%
9.3%
$1,905
Virginia
6.6%
West Virginia
United States
2003
Average
amount
Percent of
households with
public assistance
income
Average
amount
5.9%
$2,130
NA
NA
$3,282
3.8%
$2,174
2.0%
$2,363
8.4%
$3,035
3.5%
$1,984
2.6%
$1,603
$2,166
5.4%
$3,394
2.5%
$2,242
1.8%
$2,528
8.7%
$2,348
9.7%
$3,545
4.0%
$2,019
3.1%
$2,588
8.0%
$2,518
7.5%
$4,078
3.4%
$3,032
2.5%
$3,084
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at [http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
1980 Census of Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
CRS-60
Figure 5. Percent of Households Receiving Public Assistance by
County (2000)
Data Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
CRS-61
Health Insurance. A 2000 study by the Urban Institute found that 14%
percent of U.S. urban residents under age 65 were without health insurance.55 In
2001-2003, 15.2% of the U.S. population were uninsured and 18.7% of the
California population were uninsured. Table 21 shows that the SJV MSAs,
California, and the United States each saw a significant increase in the percent
uninsured between 1988-1990 and 2001-2003. The SJV’s share of its population
without health insurance increased from 12.9% to 20.0% during that time period.
California’s portion of its population without health insurance increased from 14.9%
to 18.7%, while the share of the United States population without health insurance
increased from 10.8% to 15.2%.
Health insurance among low-income individuals is of particular concern in the
SJV. Between 1999 and 2002, public health insurance coverage increased among
two groups of low-income U.S.-citizen children: (1) those with parents who are
native or naturalized U.S. citizens and (2) those with at least one immigrant parent
who is not a U.S. citizen (referred to as mixed-status families). The improvements
in coverage followed efforts on the part of the states and the federal government to
expand coverage of children under Medicaid and the State Children’s Health
Insurance Program (SCHIP) and the introduction of policies directed at improving
Medicaid and SCHIP access for immigrant and non-English speaking families. Still,
nearly 20% of citizen children in low-income mixed-status families remained
uninsured in 2002. This is a rate 74% percent higher than that of children with
citizen parents.56 U.S. Census data in 2003 also showed that 33% of Hispanics
nationally are without health insurance.57
While the percentage of the SJV metropolitan population without health
insurance increased only slightly in the 2001-2003 period, particular MSAs in the
SJV saw larger increases. Fresno’s percent of its population without health insurance
increased to 22.6% in 2001-2003, up from 18.7% in 1998-2000. The percentage of
Modesto residents without insurance also increased, from 15.2% in 1998-2000 to
18.6% in 2001-2003. The percentage without health insurance fell significantly in
Bakersfield, falling from 20.5% in 1998-2000 to 15.7% in 2001-2003.
Data on the percentage of residents without health insurance in the 68 largely
rural Central Appalachian counties were not available. However, rural areas
nationally have rates of uninsured significantly higher than those for urban areas. The
percentage of rural businesses that have health insurance is generally lower than the
rate in urban areas. Table 22 shows that the percentage of the population without
health insurance in each of the four Appalachian states that include the 68 counties
was lower than for both California and the SJV in each three-year sampling period,
55
Ormond, Barbara, Stephen Zuckerman, and Aparna Lhila, “Rural/Urban Differences in
Health Care
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.