mcghee: california's diverse demographics and geography · 2020-03-10 · california’s...
TRANSCRIPT
California’s Diverse Demographics and GeographyCRC Applicant Review Panel training
Eric McGhee
August 29, 2019
Outline
2
Sources of data Demographic trends and patterns Commission 2011
Outline
3
Sources of data– Decennial censuses– Population estimates and projections– Survey data– Administrative data and other sources– Errors in the data
Demographic trends and patterns Commission 2011
Outline
4
Sources of data– Decennial censuses– Population estimates and projections– Survey data– Administrative data and other sources– Errors in the data
Demographic trends and patterns Commission 2011
Decennial census purpose
5
Why take a census?– Apportion the House of Representatives– Determine political districts– Disburse funds for programs (more than $400 billion in federal
funds every year)– Develop a portrait of our nation
Decennial census goals and methods
6
The 2020 Census– Goal: Count everyone once, only once, and in the right place– One person reports for everyone else in the household– Questionnaire: Just a few questions (name, age, race/ethnicity,
gender, own/rent, relationships within household)– Citizenship question controversy
Outline
7
Sources of data– Decennial censuses– Population estimates and projections– Survey data– Administrative data and other sources– Errors in the data
Demographic trends and patterns Commission 2011
Population estimates and projections
8
Estimates are historical population figures Projections are future population figures Produced by the US Census Bureau and the California
Department of Finance Estimates are based on decennial census counts updated with
recent administrative data Projections are based on assumptions about future fertility,
mortality, and migration rates
Latest population estimates match closely
9
Source: Department of Finance
35000
35500
36000
36500
37000
37500
38000
38500
39000
39500
40000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Popu
latio
n (1
000s
)
DOF
Census Bureau
Projections for California sometimes diverge
10
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
USC 2012
DOF 2016
UVA 2018
Outline
11
Sources of data– Decennial censuses– Population estimates and projections– Survey data– Administrative data and other sources– Errors in the data
Demographic trends and patterns Commission 2011
Two primary surveys of the U.S. population
12
Both surveys conducted by the Census Bureau Current Population Survey
– Monthly survey– Focus on labor market
American Community Survey (ACS)
What is the ACS?
13
Monthly survey conducted by the Census Bureau Annually samples about 3 million households Items covered are similar to those of the long-form
questionnaire of the 2000 decennial census Replaced the long form of the census starting in 2010
Topics Covered
14
Demographic characteristics
Income and employment
Transportation
Education
Origins and languages
Migration
Disability and caregivers
Housing: Physical characteristics
Housing: Financial characteristics
Advantages of the ACS
15
Large sample relative to the Current Population Survey– 3 million versus 60,000 households
Timely data relative to the decennial census Lots of topics covered—great portrait of the nation on many
dimensions
Limitations of the ACS
16
Not a count of the population Small sample relative to the decennial census
– Census long-form went to one in six households– ACS goes to one in forty
A moving average rather than a point in time Estimates for census tracts and block groups will be based on
five year periods Can’t be used for redistricting Still pegged to the census estimates
Outline
17
Sources of data– Decennial censuses– Population estimates and projections– Survey data– Administrative data and other sources– Errors in the data
Demographic trends and patterns Commission 2011
Administrative and other sources of demographic and housing data
18
California Statewide Database (UC Berkeley)– Voter registration– Election outcomes
California Department of Education– School demographics– School test scores
California Employment Development Department– Unemployment rates– Occupations
Private sources
Outline
19
Sources of data– Decennial censuses– Population estimates and projections– Survey data– Administrative data and other sources– Errors in the data
Demographic trends and patterns Commission 2011
California tends to have high net undercount rates
20
1990– CA: -2.7%– US: -1.6%
2000– CA: -0.1% (one of only 10 states)– US: +0.5%
2010– CA: -0.26%– US: +0.01%
Undercounts vary by county
21
2.31.9
2.6
1
1.9
3
1.2
3.5
0.7
3
0.9 0.8
1.6 1.7
0.5
5.7
2
10.1
3.1
10.2
4.8
1.5 1.5
3
1.32
3.1
0.9
1.91.2
1.81.4
2.5
1.7
0.3
6.4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2010
Net
und
erco
unt (
x100
0)
Source: US Census Bureau
Concerns about a 2020 Census undercount
22
Funding challenges General distrust that depresses response rates First-time Internet survey More aggressive administrative matching Non-citizen distrust
Many apply more to California than other states
What should we do about a bad Census?
23
Department of Finance estimates Post-Enumeration Survey and demographic analysis
Should the state adjust for the sake of redistricting?
Outline
24
Sources of data– Decennial censuses– Population estimates and projections– Survey data– Administrative data and other sources– Errors in the data
Demographic trends and patterns Commission 2011
Outline
25
Sources of data Demographic trends and patterns Commission 2011
Outline
26
Sources of data Demographic trends and patterns Commission 2011
Outline
27
Sources of data Demographic trends and patterns
– Overall change– Racial and ethnic change– Geographic change
Commission 2011
Outline
28
Sources of data Demographic trends and patterns
– Overall change– Racial and ethnic change– Geographic change
Commission 2011
California still has a large and growing population
29
Populations in thousands 1900-2018
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Comparisons of population change 1950=100
30
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018
Mexico California United States
Source: US Census Bureau
Outline
31
Sources of data Demographic trends and patterns
– Overall change– Racial and ethnic change– Geographic change
Commission 2011
California Population by Race/Ethnicity1970-2018
32
Source: United States Census Bureau, decennial censuses and American Community Survey
78 67
57 47
42 37
12
19
26
30 37 39
3 7 10
12 13 15
7 8 7 6
6 5
0
20
40
60
80
100
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2017
Mulitracial
African American
Asian/Other
Hispanic
White
Ethnic Majorities by Census Tract, 2010
33
Los Angeles Area
San Francisco Bay Area
50% or greater Native American
50% or greater African American
50% or greater Asian
50% or greater Hispanic
50% or greater non-Hispanic White
Percent foreign born population 1880-2017
34
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2017
Perc
ent r
esid
ents
who
are
fore
ign
born
California Rest of the United States
Latin America is the leading source of immigrants
35
Source: 2017 American Community Survey
Latin America 5,327,000 (50%)Asia 4,261,000 (40%)Europe 639,000 (6%)Africa 181,000 (2%)Canada 128,000 (1%)Oceania 96,000 (1%)
California immigrants come from dozens of countries
36
Mexico Iran Thailand Pakistan Cuba Burma Belize Jordan
China Taiwan Russia Iraq Argentina Romania Ireland Saudi Arabia
Philippines Canada Nicaragua Colombia Israel Ethiopia Tukey Sweden
Vietnam Japan Honduras Indonesia Lebanon Nigeria Chile Nepal
India Hong Kong England Brazil Afghanistan Ecuador Malaysia Costa Rica
El Salvador Germany Cambodia France Italy Poland Spain Greece
Korea Peru Ukraine Egypt Portugal Australia Bangladesh Sri Lanka
Guatemala Armenia Laos Fiji Syria Netherlands Jamaica Hungary
Latinos have become the single largest ethnic group
37Source: CA Department of Finance
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060
White
Latino
AsianAmericanAfricanAmerican
Young Californians are much more diverse
38Source: American Community Survey
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Under 5years
5 to 9years
10 to 14years
15 to 17years
18 and19 years
20 to 24years
25 to 29years
30 to 34years
35 to 44years
45 to 54years
55 to 64years
65 to 74years
75 to 84years
85 yearsand over
Other
Multiracial
African American
Asian
Latino
White
California Population by Age, 2017
39
Source: American Communities Survey
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+
California’s diversity is not represented among its voters
40
58
19
13
6
3
Likely voters
21
57
18
3
1
Not registered to vote
White
Latino
Asian
Black
Other
Source: PPIC Statewide Survey
Voters have different opinions than non-voters
41
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
All adults
Notregistered
to vote
Likelyvoters
Percent saying bigger government and more services
"If you had to choose, would you rather have a smaller government providing fewer services, or a bigger government providing more services?"
Source: PPIC Statewide Survey
Outline
42
Sources of data Demographic trends and patterns
– Overall change– Racial and ethnic change– Geographic change
Commission 2011
Population deviations: US Congressional districts
43
Population deviation
-1% or less
0
1% or greater
Population deviations: California Senate districts
44
Population deviation
-1% or less
0
1% or greater
Population deviations: California Assembly districts
45
Population deviation
-1% or less
0
1% or greater
Population deviations are smaller so far this cycle
46
Source: American Community Survey
Outline
47
Sources of data Demographic trends and patterns
– Overall change– Racial and ethnic change– Geographic change
Commission 2011
Outline
48
Sources of data Demographic trends and patterns Commission 2011
Outline
49
Sources of data Demographic trends and patterns Commission 2011
Outline
50
Sources of data Demographic trends and patterns Commission 2011
– Mandated goals– Aspirational goals
Outline
51
Sources of data Demographic trends and patterns Commission 2011
– Mandated goals– Aspirational goals
The CRC districts had to meet several goals
52
Equal population Compliant with Voting Rights Act Geographically contiguous, compact, and respectful of
communities with common interests Nested: two state assembly districts in each state senate district Not skewed by party or incumbent favoritism
VRA: new plans improved Latino, Asian-American representation
53
2001 Plan 2011 Draft Plan 2011 Final PlanAfrican-American 0 0 0Latino 18 19 26Asian-American 0 0 1
Majority-minority districts by plan
Cities: modest decline in split cities
54
2001 Plan 2011 Draft Plan 2011 Final PlanAssembly 11% 8% 8%Senate 4% 6% 4%Congress 6% 12% 9%
Share of cities split between districts
Counties: decline in split counties for Senate
55
2001 Plan 2011 Draft Plan 2011 Final PlanAssembly 27 27 28Senate 25 26 20Congress 24 27 25
Number of counties split between districts
Compactness: districts became far less convoluted
56
2001 Plan 2011 Draft Plan 2011 Final PlanAssembly 0.20 0.25 0.26Senate 0.12 0.21 0.23Congress 0.13 0.23 0.23
Average district compactness (Polsby-Popper)
Nesting: some remaining improvement after dramatic change
57
2001 Plan 2011 Draft Plan 2011 Final PlanAverage number of Assembly districtsper Senate district
6.35 2.95 4.95
Outline
58
Sources of data Demographic trends and patterns Commission 2011
– Mandated goals– Aspirational goals
Fair and competitive plans were hoped for but not required
59
Fairness to the major parties– No large gaps between the overall number of votes and seats won
Competitive races in most or all districts– 45%–55% vote share for each major-party candidate
Partisan fairness: Efficiency gap trends over time are noisy
60
Partisan fairness: Efficiency gap trends over time are noisy
61
Partisan fairness: Efficiency gap trends over time are noisy
62
Competition: CRC assembly districts are consistently more competitive than the districts drawn in 2001
63
Competition: CRC senate districts are consistently more competitive
64
Competition: CRC congressional districts are consistently more competitive
65
California’s Diverse Demographics and GeographyCRC Applicant Review Panel training
Eric McGhee
August 29, 2019
Notes on the use of these slides
67
These slides were created to accompany a presentation. They do not include full documentation of sources, data samples, methods, and interpretations. To avoid misinterpretations, please contact:
Eric McGhee ([email protected]; 415-291-4439)
Thank you for your interest in this work.