data to inform strategy

July 2016

Data to Inform StrategyGetting to Know California’s Eligible-to-Naturalize Adult Population

By Manuel Pastor, Justin Scoggins, Madeline Wander, and Rhonda Ortiz

Data to Inform Strategy: Getting to Know California’s Eligible-To-Naturalize Adult Population

Page 1

Table of Contents

Summary 2 Introduction 3 The Why: Benefits of and Barriers to Naturalization 4 The Who: A Snapshot of California’s Eligible-to-Naturalize Adults 6 The Where: Geographic Distribution of California’s Eligible-to-Naturalize Adults 11 Conclusion 17 Appendix 18 Methods 33 References 34

Image Credits and Acknowledgements 36

USC Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration (CSII)

Page 2

Summary Increasing naturalization among eligible immigrants in California—which is home to about one quarter of the nation’s adult legal permanent residents (LPRs) who are eligible to naturalize—not only benefits those individuals, but also our state as a whole. Indeed, naturalization ushers in civic benefits, such as the right to vote and run for office, and economic benefits, such as increased earnings and income—as well as increased GDP and tax revenues. What this all adds up to is a stronger California for everyone. However, many barriers stand in the way of naturalization, such as the high price of applying, a lack of English language skills, and a fear of the test being too difficult, among others.

The good news is that California is well positioned to, once again, lead the nation in immigrant integration—this time through increasing naturalization rates—due to both the scale of California’s eligible-to-naturalize adult population (one quarter of them live here!) as well as the state’s robust landscape of immigrant-serving organizations. More specifically, The California Endowment’s 10-year Building Healthy Communities (BHC) Initiative—which is currently investing in 14 under-served communities across California in an effort to scale local movement-building work to have statewide impact—provides a strategic springboard for this work.

Using our latest estimates of the eligible-to-naturalize adult population based on a pooled sample of the 2010-2014 American Community Survey (ACS) microdata, this brief provides an analysis of eligible-to-naturalize adults in California along with detailed data that is tailored to each BHC site. Specifically, we address three issues—why it is important to increase naturalization, who the eligible to naturalize are, and where in our state they call home.

Here are some key findings (although we encourage you to read the brief—it is pretty short and full of important data points!):

The Why:• If California halved its eligible adult population

over five years through increased naturalization rates, the state would have a potential earnings gain of nearly $18 billion over 10 years.

• If all of California’s eligible adults naturalized, the state would experience a 9.2 percent increase in its citizen voting age population.

• Naturalization, itself, is a capacity-building tool—indeed, many organizations have created programs that engage LPRs, who then play a crucial role in helping bring about grassroots policy change.

The Who:

• Nearly 2.2 million of the nation’s 8.5 million eligible-to-naturalize adults are Californians.

• Mexicans are the largest group of California’s eligible-to-naturalize adults—representing over half—yet have one of the lowest naturalization rates at 53 percent and also delay the decision, with half having been eligible for at least 20 years.

• Asian American immigrants—who make up over one fifth of California’s eligible-to-naturalize adults—generally have the highest rates of naturalization: those from Vietnam, Taiwan, the Philippines, and China all have rates of 80 percent or more.

• Those who recently naturalized tend to have higher incomes and better English skills than those who did not, suggesting that lowering the cost, promoting English learning, and making older immigrants aware that they can test in their first language could all be important.

• Half of all eligible-to-naturalize adults live with a U.S. citizen child, indicating that working through family members might be one route to promote naturalization; in addition, women tend to naturalize more than men, suggesting another area in which to build on success.

The Where:• Five of the 10 counties with the largest eligible-

to-naturalize adult populations are in Southern California (L.A., Orange, San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino). These five counties account for 54 percent of the state’s total population and 61 percent of its eligible-to-naturalize adults, speaking to both the region’s large population and its status as a historic entry point for immigrants.

• In addition to Southern California, there are concentrations of eligible-to-naturalize adults in the Central Valley and, to some extent, the Bay Area and Central Coast—but these geographic patterns vary greatly between eligible Mexican, Central American, and Asian American adults.

• All 14 BHC sites except Del Norte County overlap with the areas hosting high concentrations (10 percent or more) of eligible-to-naturalize adults, suggesting that the BHC effort would have much to gain by promoting naturalization and citizenship.

We hope by providing a solid foundation of data, this brief will inform organizing strategies to increase naturalization among the eligible, and in turn create a more inclusive and vibrant California for us all.


Page 3

Introduction

Naturalization is the process by which immigrants lawfully residing in the U.S. can become citizens. The requirements to do so can seem complex: Generally, one needs to have been in the country lawfully at least five years, pay what is for many a substantial fee, and take a citizenship test in English. But the benefits of naturalization are clear: With citizenship comes the right to vote and participate in formal decision making, as well as improved economic outcomes.

There are about 8.8 million immigrants in the United States who are eligible to naturalize but have not yet done so—and so encouraging naturalization may be one of the most straightforward, effective, and rapid boons to our nation, improving the lives of both immigrants and native born. This is particularly true in California, which is home to the largest number—about one quarter—of all Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs) eligible to naturalize in the United States. The good news is that the Golden State and its communities are well positioned to realize the promise of citizenship. While it has the greatest numbers of those who are eligible to naturalize, it also has a vibrant ecosystem of immigrant-serving organizations, partnerships, and strategies for immigrant integration. Due to this robust organizing infrastructure, efforts to increase naturalization among the eligible have a solid foundation on which to build.

One platform to usher in work around increasing naturalization rates is The California Endowment’s Building Healthy Communities (BHC) initiative. Since 2010, the BHC initiative has focused on 14 communities across California in an effort to both further community improvement and scale lessons and local movement-building work to impact statewide outcomes. TCE chose these sites based primarily on the adverse economic conditions and poor health outcomes that exist within them, but also based on the potential to spur proactive policy change. The sites are located in urban, suburban, and rural areas, and represent some of the most economically disadvantaged areas in California. It comes as no surprise that many of these communities, with their large immigrant populations, could serve as critical components in the larger effort to catalyze opportunities for progress on immigrant integration statewide—including boosting naturalization rates. Part of a 10-year process for community transformation, the BHC initiative has the potential to help California continue to be a leader in integration efforts.

To get there, we need to educate Californians in general (and BHC residents and leaders in particular) about the benefits, barriers, and motivations for naturalization. We also need to provide relevant and localized data that is useful for those working to increase naturalization rates.

This brief seeks to do just that, providing an analysis of eligible-to-naturalize adults in California along with detailed data that is tailored to each BHC site. To do so, we use our latest estimates of the eligible-to-naturalize adult population based on a pooled sample of the 2010-2014 American Community Survey (ACS) microdata.1

The brief is organized in the form of three questions: First, why should we care about increasing naturalizations among the eligible? In this section, we review recent literature demonstrating the social and economicbenefits of naturalization—not just for the eligible, but for our communities and state as a whole. We also recap barriers that the eligible face when seeking naturalization. Second, we ask: Who are California’s eligible-to-naturalize adults? In this section, we present data on the size and characteristics of this population—including breakdowns by country of origin, years of eligibility, language, and the presence of citizen children in the household. We also present an analysis of factors that can help explain why some naturalize, and why others do not. Our third and final section asks: So now that we know a bit more about who the eligible are, where in the state do they live? In this section, we provide data and maps showing both the distribution of all eligible-to-naturalize immigrants (including adults and breakdowns by country/region of origin) given that immigrants are an immensely diverse group and so require different culturally-appropriate organizing.

Our hope is that by addressing the why, the who, and the where using the most recently-available data, we can help inform organizing strategies to increase naturalization among the eligible, and in turn create a more inclusive and vibrant California for us all.

1 See a description of our methodology here: http://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/731/docs/CSII_Elig_Naturalize_Methodology_Final.pdf.

http://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/731/docs/CSII_Elig_Naturalize_Methodology_Final.pdf


Page 4

The Why: Benefits of andBarriers to Naturalization

So why should we care about increasing naturalizations among the eligible? Arguably one of the greatest benefits to becoming a citizen is obtaining the right to vote. Nationally, our estimates for 2010-2014 suggest that there are about 8.5 million adult LPRs who are eligible to naturalize and thus could potentially participate in the electoral process.2 This means a large number of people are governed by policies that they have no effective means of influencing. For example, among all adults in Los Angeles County, about 5.9 million are citizens and thus eligible to vote. Full naturalization of the eligible to naturalize would increase that number by 13 percent to nearly 6.7 million.3 These potential civic gains are not lost on organizers, of course, as organizations like the Latino Victory Fund and National Partnership for New Americans have launched campaigns to help naturalize and register new citizens to vote across the country (Gamboa, 2015; Latino Victory Project, 2015). California in particular has a lot to gain. Figure 1 shows that California leads the country in the potential percentage increase in eligible voters (i.e., the citizen voting-age population) if all of the state’s eligible-to-naturalize became citizens.

Newly naturalized citizens also gain the ability to run for public office (Sumption & Flamm, 2012). This type of expansion (and diversification) in the electorate coupled with the development of new candidates and leaders to run for office can help broaden the range of perspectives on crucial issues like immigration and the economy. Moreover, greater civic participation—through both voting and getting elected to office—can yield greater resources for immigrant communities, including those who remain undocumented. Given the current volatile—and often hostile—rhetoric toward the undocumented population, greater representation in government decisions can lead to better quality-of-life outcomes and more integration-friendly policymaking (Bada, Fox, Donnelly, & Selee, 2010).

Of course, having more naturalized citizens in government does not guarantee representation of the immigrant community’s interests. Elected leaders from underrepresented communities often find themselves without backing once ‘inside’ making it difficult to support issues that matter to their base (Pastor, Ito, & Wander, 2016). Once electeds are on the inside, they may also get caught up in politics and forgo the interests of the

community base who got them there in the first place. Nonetheless, having a champion in office and a population that can vote and hold them accountable can be a game changer (Nicholls, 2013).

While civic participation is a key motivator, economic benefits are also part of the naturalization picture. Research shows that naturalization is associated with increased earnings and income even when controlling for many other important determinants (Bratsberg, Ragan, & Nasir, 2002; Enchautegui & Giannarelli, 2015; Pastor & Scoggins, 2012; Shierholz, 2010). The most recent estimate from Enchautegui and Giannarelli (2015) is based on an analysis of 21 U.S. cities and finds that, controlling for other important factors (as well as self-selection bias), naturalization produces an earnings gain of 8.9 percent (although the period of time over which that gain would be realized was not examined). Pastor and

Scoggins (2012) find a gain of between 8 and 11 percent nationwide and their analysis suggests that a little over half of that gain is realized in the first few years after naturalizing.

2 There are about 8.8 million eligible overall because these adults have children who can obtain derivative citizenship status if their parents naturalize; we focus on the adult total because it is the adults who make the decision in this case.

3 The numbers of adults eligible to vote or potentially eligible to vote reported here and throughout are likely to be slight overestimates given that those in prison or on parole for a felony conviction are included but are not eligible to vote.

9.2%

6.6%6.1% 6.1% 6.1%

4.6%4.2% 4.0% 3.8%

2.8%

CA NY FL TX NJ AZ MA IL WA GA

Figure 1: Percent Increase in Citizen Voting-Age Population (CVAP) if All Eligible-to-Naturalize Adults Naturalized, Top 10 States in Number of Eligible-to-Naturalize Adults, 2010-2014


Page 5

Applying the average estimated earnings gain trajectory found in Pastor and Scoggins (2012) to our most recent 2010-2014 data on eligible-to-naturalize adults by state, we again find that California leads the country— this time in potential economic benefits (Figure 2). More specifically, for the ten states with the greatest number eligible-to-naturalize adults, we simulated the cumulative increase in immigrant earnings over 10 years from a program aimed at halving the pool of eligible-to-naturalize adults over five years through increased naturalization rates.4 California leads with a potential earnings gain over 10 years of nearly $18 billion—more than double that of New York, the second leading state.

Research also shows that naturalized immigrants, compared with non-citizen immigrants or eligible-to-naturalize LPRs, fare better in terms of other significant economic indicators like poverty, unemployment, home ownership, and health insurance coverage (Enchautegui & Giannarelli, 2015; Pastor & Scoggins, 2012; Shierholz, 2010; Sumption & Flamm, 2012). And researchers have demonstrated that this economic improvement leads to even larger increases in local Gross Domestic Product (GDP), as well as enhancements in state and local tax revenues that promote prosperity for everyone (Enchautegui & Giannarelli, 2015; The Center for Popular Democracy, USC Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, & The National Partnership for New Americans, 2014).

Not only does naturalization bring civic and economic benefits, but the naturalization process, itself, can be a capacity-building tool for organizers. Indeed, organizations such as the Coalition for Humane Immigrant

Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA), the Central American Resource Center (CARECEN), PICO, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO), Asian Americans Advancing Justice Los Angeles (AAAJ-LA), the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and many more have created programs that engage LPRs on a broad range of issues throughout an extended amount of time.5 The hope is that through further local engagement year-round, naturalized citizens can play a crucial role in helping bring about grassroots policy change.

In light of all these benefits to individuals and communities, why is it that not all who are eligible naturalize? And more specifically, why do some naturalize, but others do not? There are a multitude of barriers immigrants face, including a lack of English language skills, fear of the test being too difficult, and what is for many a high cost of the naturalization process (Battistelli, 2013; Taylor, Gonzalez-Barrera, Passel, & Lopez, 2012). Proximity

from home country, likelihood of return, and other national factors might also make a difference; of the 25 top countries of origin in our data for the entire U.S. (ranked by the number of naturalized and eligible-to-naturalize adults), Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Canadians have some of the lowest rates of naturalization while Iranians and Vietnamese have the highest rates—the latter two groups being more geographically distant and, likely, more politically estranged from their home countries.

Economic, political, social, and cultural conditions in a host country or community have been shown to also have a profound impact on the likelihood to naturalize (Aguirre and Saenz 2002; Logan, Oh, and Darrah 2012; Yang 1994). Specific to the California experience, the anti-immigrant political climate in the mid-1990s seemed to increase naturalization rates and voter turnout of new citizens (Pantoja, Ramirez, & Segura, 2001). On the other hand, policies and systems that are more welcoming—e.g., foster economic engagement and facilitate English language acquisition and literacy—and assist immigrants to adapt to the U.S. are also central to naturalization (Yang 1994). Strong, concentrated immigrant communities can help foster information exchange, which can bolster the likelihood of naturalization, or conversely, serve to insulate legal permanent residents from the necessity of citizenship all together (Aguirre and Saenz 2002; Logan, Oh, and Darrah 2012; Yang 1994). Any approach to encouraging naturalization needs to take into account barriers and incentives, as well as historical legacies, and then work to strengthen local infrastructure to support immigrants making the decision to become U.S. citizens.

4 See the appendix for more on the methodology.5 More information can be found about the respective organizations’ campaigns by visiting their websites.

$17.7

$8.3$7.6

$5.5

$4.1$3.2

$2.4 $2.0 $1.8 $1.3

CA NY TX FL NJ IL MA WA GA AZ

Figure 2: Cumulative Increase in Immigrant Earnings over 10 Years from Reducing the Eligible-to-Naturalize Population by Half over 5 Years (in billions of 2014 dollars), Top 10 States in Number of Eligible-to-Naturalize Adults, 2010-2014


Page 6

The Who: A Snapshot of California’s Eligible-to-Naturalize Adults

California is home to the most eligible-to-naturalize adults—about 2.2 million—of any state in the U.S. That is roughly 7.5 percent of the state’s entire adult population! In order to increase naturalization among the state’s eligible-to-naturalize—to allow California and its communities to reap the benefits outlined above—it is important to understand who makes up this population.

Figure 3 shows California’s eligible-to-naturalize adults by country of origin. By far, Mexicans are the largest group, representing over half of all eligible adults. Mexicans are even larger shares of the eligible populations in BHC sites like Salinas and Santa Ana, where they constitute over 90 percent of the eligible population.6

Part of the reason Mexican-origin immigrants are such a large share of the eligible: They have fairly low naturalization rates and also tend to delay the decision, with half of those in the eligible pool having been so for at least 20 years (and hence in the country for even longer). We observe similarly low naturalization rates and lengths of eligibility for immigrants from Central America.

For example, Salvadorans and Guatemalans do only slightly better with naturalization rates of 60 and 56 percent, respectively, and a median of 18 years of eligibility for both. Hondurans, while only making up about 1 percent of all eligible-to-naturalize adults in California, have one of the lowest naturalization rates of any group (50 percent). The South Los Angeles BHC site exemplifies this phenomenon. There, Mexican and Central American eligible adults account for almost the entire eligible-to-naturalize population (60 percent and 36 percent, respectively), a population that has, at the median, been eligible to naturalize for about 19 years.

Conversely, California’s Asian American immigrants have the highest rates of naturalization. Many of the top naturalization rates are among eligible-to-naturalize adults from Asian countries: those from Vietnam, Taiwan, the Philippines, and China all have rates of 80 percent or more. They also have relatively low median years of eligibility of 10 or less (except for those from Vietnam with a median of 14 years). Other Asian countries such as Korea and Thailand also have high rates of naturalization (75 percent or more), while the rate for Indians is a bit lower at 70 percent.

Figure 3: Eligible-to-Naturalize Adults by Country of Origin, California, 2010-2014

Country of Origin

Total Population %

Median Years of

Eligibility

Naturalization Rate

Mexico 1,133,234 52% 20 53%El Salvador 113,804 5% 18 60%Philippines 110,615 5% 10 83%India 79,389 4% 5 70%China 75,826 3% 7 80%Guatemala 60,339 3% 18 56%Korea 52,378 2% 10 79%Japan 41,736 2% 16 48%Canada 40,647 2% 21 61%Vietnam 39,598 2% 14 91%Germany 21,084 1% 21 70%England 20,806 1% 21 64%Taiwan 19,753 1% 8 86%Iran 18,561 1% 8 89%United Kingdom, ns 18,501 1% 13 55%Peru 16,107 1% 12 69%Honduras 15,177 1% 15 50%Nicaragua 14,377 1% 19 73%Thailand 13,838 1% 17 75%Armenia 11,649 1% 6 80%All Other 280,798 13% 12 78%Total 2,198,217 100% 17 77%

Note: The naturalization rate is defined as the ratio of naturalized adults to the sum of the naturalized adults and eligible-to-naturalize adults.

6 For data specific of BHC sites, see detailed tables in appendix


Page 7

Figure 4 displays these same data in a more graphical way. The bubbles are proportional to the size of the eligible-to-naturalize adult population by country/region of origin and years of eligibility—and the naturalization rates for each group are labeled. This graphic provides a quick understanding of which groups represent the greatest potential for increasing naturalization rates overall. Specifically, it shows that Mexicans who have been eligible for more than 15 years account for a very large share of all eligible adults, but have some of the lowest naturalization rates. The next largest group is Asian Americans who have only been eligible for less than seven years. They have a high naturalization rate—and so represent an eager group of new citizens if caught early. The Sacramento BHC site exemplifies this difference between Latino and Asian American immigrants. Of those who naturalized, most are Asian Americans (58 percent versus 28 percent Mexican) and had been eligible to naturalize for a median of seven years before they did so. Conversely, those yet to naturalize have been eligible for a median of 17 years and, unsurprisingly, 45 percent of them are from Mexico (versus 39 percent from Asian countries).

Focusing on outreach within these groups to help increase naturalization would likely require different approaches: making sure that the relatively quick take-up of Asian American immigrants persists while making effort to reach long-term Asian and Mexican immigrants. A focus on long-term eligible Mexicans, for example, does not necessarily exclude other groups; Central Americans share a similar language and culture (and are in the same Spanish-language media market), and also have large numbers who have delayed naturalization, so any targeted strategies to accelerate the naturalization of Mexicans could have “spill-over” effects. For example, in the BHC sites of Richmond and South Los Angeles, while Mexicans account for 62 and 60 percent of eligible adults, adding in Central Americans captures 90 and 96 percent of all eligible adults, respectively.

Figure 4: Number of Eligible-to-Naturalize Adults by Country/Region of Origin and Years of Eligibility, California, 2010-2014

70% 60% 60% 44% 43% 32%

70% 68% 70% 51% 42% 34%

78% 76% 77% 69% 63% 40%

85% 81% 78% 65% 53% 41%

82% 70% 69% 60% 53% 33%

80% 72% 72% 63% 54% 29%

75k150k300k

Number of eligible to naturalize:

Mexico

Central America

South America & Carribean

Asia

Europe

Rest

Years of Adult Eligibility

0 to 6 7 to 10 11 to 15 21 to 3016 to 20 >30

Note: Size of bubble indicates number eligible to naturalize. Naturalization rates are indicated in the data labels, and are defined as the ratio of naturalized adults to the sum of the naturalized adults and eligible-to-naturalize adults for each cohort. For naturalized adults, years of adult eligibility includes only years of eligibility prior to naturalization.


Page 8

In addition to the size and characteristics of the eligible-to-naturalize adult population in California, there are, of course, many other factors that influence naturalization rates, including gender and family. For example, while not shown in our tables, women are 52 percent of eligible-to-naturalize adults but are 54 percent of those who are naturalized, suggesting a higher propensity for women to naturalize and perhaps one important route to persuading their family members to follow suit. Another potential wind behind the back of the eligible to naturalize is their U.S.-born children. Indeed, research shows that having children—particularly U.S.-born citizen children—is associated with a greater likelihood of naturalizing (Johnson, 1999; Portes & Curtis, 1987; Yang, 1994). This notion of parents seeking citizenship to avoid being separated from their children is particularly relevant—and rational—in the midst of threats of deportation in national debates and the fact that LPRs represent 10 percent of all deportees (Immigration Policy Center, 2010).

It is also possible, however, that children can directly encourage their eligible-to-naturalize parents to become citizens. After all, they are bound to be exposed to the same political rhetoric around immigration, are likely to be learning about the constitution, civics, and voting in school, and are prone to be discussing this with their parents around the dinner table. In short, citizen children could have both direct and indirect influence on steering their eligible-to-naturalize parents toward citizenship.

How large is the potential impact of citizen children when considering all eligible-to-naturalize adults in California? Figure 5 shows that half of all eligible-to-naturalize adults in California live with at least one U.S.-citizen child—and about one third live with a U.S.-citizen child under age 18. Digging deeper, we see that over half (56 percent) of California’s eligible-to-naturalize adults from Mexico and Central America live with citizen children. While this is the largest share, more than one third of eligible-to-naturalize adults from Asia and all other parts of the world live with at least one of their own citizen children, and over a quarter have a minor citizen child in the household.

Another family motivator for naturalization comes from a different direction: the presence of undocumented family members and the desire to naturalize and vote in order to have a voice in political discussions around immigration policies. Our calculations suggest that nearly 30 percent of California families that include an eligible-to-naturalize adult also include a family member that is undocumented; utilizing an appeal that suggests how citizenship can allow one to better keep families together might be salient.7

7 The family calculation presented here is for just the first family units in any household (which can include subfamilies like children and siblings) with more than one family member (i.e., not single-person households since they are, by definition, single status in terms of documentation and citizenship). We did not include the secondary family units in the ACS because they are often quite small and often consist of unrelated individuals.

38%

29%27%

34%

56%

45%

37%

50%

Mexican and CentralAmerican

Asian American All Other All Eligible-to-NaturalizeAdults

Eligible-to-Naturalize Adults by Origin

Minor children (under 18) Children of all ages

Figure 5: Percent of Eligible-to-Naturalize Adults with U.S.-Citizen Children in the Household, California, 2010-2014


Page 9

Turning to language, Figure 6 shows data on California’s eligible-to-naturalize adult population by language spoken at home and ability to speak English. While it confirms past research that shows language is a significant barrier to naturalization, we find this is not the case across the board. For example, 61 percent of eligible-to-naturalize adults speak Spanish at home and that group has one of the lowest levels of both English speaking abilities and naturalization rates of any language group. On the other hand, several language groups among the eligible-to-naturalize Asian American population (such as Vietnamese, Chinese, and Korean) also report low levels of English speaking proficiency yet have some of the highest naturalization rates. This suggests that while English language fluency may be important—particularly in communities like the Coachella and South Los Angeles BHC sites where the over two thirds of eligible adults speak limited or no English and naturalization rates are very low—it is not the only factor at play. It also suggests that given a variety of barriers and motivations that differ between immigrant groups, it is useful to examine data on barriers separately for each group.

So which factors seem to be most important to the decision to naturalize and for whom? To help answer this question, we conducted a “flow analysis” in which we compare the eligible to naturalize to those who recently naturalized (or the “flow” of naturalizations) along key socioeconomic characteristics.8 This is different from what could be called a “stock” analysis above in which the all naturalized LPRs are compared to those who have not yet naturalized; shifting to a “flow” approach allows us to examine characteristics that can change over time (e.g., income) and so avoids confusing outcomes with causes. For example, just because naturalized adults have higher earnings than the eligible to naturalize does not mean that they had higher earnings when they made the decision to apply for citizenship; they may have subsequently realized the “citizen gain” we discussed above. To understand whether earnings really matter for the decision to naturalize, we must compare those who very recently naturalized to those who were eligible to naturalize in the same time period but did not.

Figure 6: Eligible-to-Naturalize Adults by Language Spoken at Home and Ability to Speak English, California, 2010-2014

Language Total Population % % Speak

English WellNaturalization

Rate

Spanish 1,347,323 61% 45% 55%English 221,499 10% 100% 73%Chinese 107,399 5% 49% 83%Filipino, Tagalog 98,292 4% 87% 83%Hindi and related 67,058 3% 79% 75%Korean 49,893 2% 50% 77%Japanese 37,352 2% 79% 41%Vietnamese 33,142 2% 36% 91%Dravidian 21,988 1% 95% 59%Armenian 20,070 1% 56% 84%German 17,462 1% 98% 64%Russian 17,137 1% 68% 84%French 15,716 1% 95% 68%Thai, Siamese, Lao 12,989 0.6% 58% 75%Arabic 12,572 0.6% 66% 85%Persian, Iranian, Farsi 12,495 0.6% 71% 90%Portuguese 10,607 0.5% 75% 71%Other East/Southeast Asian 9,736 0.4% 51% 79%Indonesian 8,654 0.4% 85% 60%Tibetan 8,299 0.4% 60% 78%All other 68,538 3% 81% 76%Total 2,198,221 100% 58% 100%

Note: The naturalization rate is defined as the ratio of naturalized adults to the sum of the naturalized adults and eligible-to-naturalize adults.

8 The “recently naturalized” are defined as those who naturalized during the same year in which the ACS survey was conducted or the year prior. Due to the sampling design of the ACS, this captures only about a year and a half of naturalizations (rather than two years).


Page 10

Figure 7 shows the results of our flow analysis. We see that in California, it is generally harder for those who have lower incomes, fewer assets, and lower English-fluency skills to naturalize. For example, for the recently naturalized, 76 percent report speaking English at least “well,” whereas only 58 percent of the eligible to naturalize have a good command of English.

Interestingly, while all of the factors examined seem to matter for Mexican and Central Americans immigrants, only English speaking ability and homeownership appear to matter for Asian American immigrants, and none of the factors seem to matter for all other immigrants (a group that accounts for only 14 percent of all eligible adults statewide). Of course, these latter two groupings of immigrants are comprised of diverse populations and thus the averaged measures reported may cover up factors that are important for some groups.

Figure 7: Flow Analysis, Adults in California, 2010-2014

Eligible to Naturalize % Recently

Naturalized % All Naturalized %

Below 150% of Poverty Line 735,445 34% 65,018 25% 976,158 20%Mexican and Central American 551,966 41% 27,170 30% 406,998 26%Asian American 111,287 22% 26,338 22% 393,722 18%All Other 72,193 21% 11,509 22% 175,438 18%

Median Annual Earnings $32,519 $40,000 $47,444Mexican and Central American $26,311 $30,080 $35,568Asian American $50,811 $49,493 $55,680All Other $57,884 $56,455 $60,973

Homeownership (householders) 335,672 40% 46,587 45% 1,428,899 62%Mexican and Central American 186,159 36% 16,124 45% 450,531 59%Asian American 78,596 42% 20,666 47% 658,409 65%All Other 70,917 47% 9,797 40% 319,959 62%

Speak English Well or Better 1,264,441 58% 199,083 76% 3,727,066 78%Mexican and Central American 619,058 46% 61,271 68% 1,103,540 70%Asian American 352,552 69% 90,483 76% 1,753,373 78%All Other 292,831 86% 47,327 88% 870,154 90%

Note: Median annual earnings is in inflation-adjusted, 2014 dollars, and is reported for full-time workers only, defined as those who worked at least 50 weeks and had usual work hours of at least 35 hours per week during the year prior to the survey.


Page 11

The Where: GeographicDistribution of California’s Eligible-to-Naturalize Adults

While understanding the overall size and characteristics of California’s eligible-to-naturalize adults is imperative to understanding the opportunities for and barriers to naturalization, geography matters as well. After all, California is a huge state with many regions, each with its own unique character. Mapping where eligible adults live within the state is key to developing regional strategies for increasing naturalizations statewide.

Of course, where eligible-to-naturalize adults live directly reflects both historical and current immigration patterns and trends. This is true nationwide and within California.9 Take Southern California, for example. For decades, the region has been a long-established gateway for immigrants—and continues to draw immigrants to this day. This means that, unlike other regions, it is home to multiple generations of immigrants living alongside one another. (See our L.A. County Brief at http://dornsife.usc. edu/CSII/eligible-to-naturalize-reports for an in-depth look at the eligible-to-naturalize population in this region.)

Since Los Angeles is the most populous county in the state, it is not surprising that it also home to the most eligible-to-naturalize adults. However, even among California’s top 10 counties in terms of eligible-to-naturalize adults, L.A. towers above the rest, as shown in Figure 8. Indeed, while L.A. County is home to nearly 770,000 eligible-to-naturalize adults, the next largest eligible population is in Orange County, at just over 175,000.

Figure 8 also shows that five of the 10 counties with the largest eligible-to-naturalize populations are in Southern California (L.A., Orange, San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino) and account for over 1.3 million of the state’s eligible adult population. That these five counties account for 54 percent of the states total population and 61 percent of its eligible-to-naturalize adults speaks to both Southern California’s large population and its status as a historic entry point for immigrants.

Figure 8: Number of Eligible-to-Naturalize Adults, California’s Top 10 Counties, 2010-2014

768,024

175,167 159,026 126,994 115,769 109,796 90,252

56,192 51,809 49,582

Los AngelesCounty

OrangeCounty

San DiegoCounty

RiversideCounty

Santa ClaraCounty

SanBernardino

County

AlamedaCounty

SacramentoCounty

FresnoCounty

KernCounty

9 See our recently released interactive map (https://dornsife.usc.edu/csii/eligible-to-naturalize-map/) for data on the eligible to naturalize nationwide.

http://dornsife.usc.edu/CSII/eligible-to-naturalize-reports


Page 12

While Figure 8 provides context, mapping California’s eligible to naturalize paints a more nuanced picture. Figure 9 on the following page shows that California’s eligible-to-naturalize adult population is vast and spreads far and wide—but also has clear areas of concentration. The map displays the state’s eligible-to-naturalize adults as a share of all adults by Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA)—a geography of at least 100,000 people—and so highlights key concentrations in several regions. To see where the BHC sites fall geographically, their outlines are overlaid on top of the maps.10

At a glance, parts of Southern California, the Central Valley and, to some extent, the Bay Area and Central Coast all stand out. In L.A. County, we see heavy concentrations in the central city as well as in the “Gateway Cities” spanning the 710 corridor that connects the region to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The two valleys—the San Fernando Valley in the northwest and the San Gabriel Valley to the east—also have higher concentrations of the eligible than surrounding areas. Outside of L.A. County, Santa Ana in Orange County, southwestern San Diego County, the cities of San Bernardino and Riverside, the eastern portion of Riverside County (including the Coachella BHC site), and Imperial County all stand out as major hubs for the eligible as well.

In California’s Central Valley, we see concentrations of eligible adults in counties with prominent agricultural industries, such as Merced, Fresno, Tulare, and Kern—as well as on the Central Coast in Monterey and San Benito counties. Returning to Figure 8, we see that the Central Valley hosts two of the top 10 counties in terms of the eligible to naturalize (Fresno and Sacramento)—and Kern County, not shown in Figure 8, actually ranks eleventh in terms of the total number of adults eligible to naturalize.

These three counties are home to over 150,000 eligible adults, suggesting that a strategy to increase naturalizations should most certainly spread outside of Southern California into the state’s burgeoning Central Valley. And in the Bay Area, we see eligible-to-naturalize concentrations in Richmond, Oakland, and the South Bay.

Another observation: 13 of the 14 BHC sites (with the exception of Del Norte County) overlap with areas hosting high concentrations (10 percent or more) of eligible-to-naturalize adults. As shown in the detailed tables in the appendix, each of these 13 BHC sites has a higher concentration of eligible adults than the statewide average of 8 percent; while not shown in the tables, they also all have higher concentrations than their respective counties. Thus, it is not an accident that immigrant integration has bubbled up as a leading priority in BHC organizing.

Our analysis in “The Who” section pointed to eligible-to-naturalize immigrants from Mexico, Central American countries, and Asian countries as important groups to mobilize as they make up such large shares of the eligible to naturalize. Moreover, our analysis showed eligible Mexicans and Central Americans as having some of the lowest naturalization rates among all groups. So a key question to inform an outreach strategy is: Where do these groups live?

10 We should stress, however, that because the BHC sites are often just a small portion of the population in the PUMAs being mapped, they do not necessarily reflect what is seen in the map. Thus, while the maps in this section provide a good sense of the geographic distribution of eligible-to-naturalize adults across the state, for information on eligible adults in each BHC site the reader should refer to the detailed tables in the appendix, which provide data that has been “fitted” to each site. See the appendix for more on the fitting procedure.


Page 13

Figure 9: Eligible-to-Naturalize Adults as Share of the Total Adult Population by Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA), California, 2010-2014

FresnoSalinas

Sacramento

San Diego

Coachella

Bakersfield

Visalia

Merced

0 60 12030 Miles

N

San Francisco

Oakland

Richmond

Fremont

San JosePalo Alto

Los Gatos

Palmdale

Pacoima

Santa Ana

Ontario

Long Beach

Los AngelesPomona

BHC Sites

By PUMALess than 4%

4% to 7%

7% to 10%

10% to 14%

Greater than 14%


Page 14

Paralleling overall trends, most of the state’s Mexican and Central American eligible-to-naturalize adults live in Southern California, with just four counties holding nearly 60 percent of the total: 38 percent in L.A. County, 8 percent in Orange County, and 7 percent each for Riverside and San Diego counties.

Specifically, Figure 10 below shows that large numbers of eligible Mexican adults are in Salinas, the southern part of the Central Valley (in Kern and Tulare counties), central and south Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley, Santa Ana, southwestern San Diego County, eastern Riverside County, and Imperial County.

Figure 10: Eligible-to-Naturalize Mexican Adults by Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA), California, 2010-2014

FresnoSalinas

Sacramento

San Diego

Coachella

Bakersfield

Visalia

Merced

0 60 12030 Miles

N

San Francisco

Oakland

Richmond

Fremont

San JosePalo Alto

Los Gatos

Palmdale

Pacoima

Santa Ana

Ontario

Long Beach

Los AngelesPomona

BHC Sites

By PUMALess than 2,400

2,400 to 4,700

4,700 to 7,500

7,500 to 11,000

Greater than 11,000


Page 15

Figure 11: Eligible-to-Naturalize Central American Adults by Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA), California, 2010-2014

FresnoSalinas

Sacramento

San Diego

Coachella

Bakersfield

Visalia

Merced

0 60 12030 Miles

N

San Francisco

Oakland

Richmond

Fremont

San JosePalo Alto

Los Gatos

Palmdale

Pacoima

Santa Ana

Ontario

Long Beach

Los AngelesPomona

BHC Sites

By PUMALess than 400

400 to 1,000

1,000 to 2,000

2,000 to 4,000

Greater than 4,000

As for eligible Central Americans, Figure 11 shows that there are high numbers in Richmond in the Bay Area, to be sure, but the numbers are even higher in the City of Los Angeles, particularly in San Fernando Valley and in central and south L.A.

Download full-page PDF versions of all the eligible-to- naturalize maps in this section at http://dornsife.usc.edu/CSII/ eligible-to-naturalize-reports.

http://dornsife.usc.edu/CSII/



Page 16

Figure 12: Eligible-to-Naturalize Asian American Adults by Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA), California, 2010-2014

FresnoSalinas

Sacramento

San Diego

Coachella

Bakersfield

Visalia

Merced

0 60 12030 Miles

N

San Francisco

Oakland

Richmond

Fremont

San JosePalo Alto

Los Gatos

Palmdale

Pacoima

Santa Ana

Ontario

Long Beach

Los AngelesPomona

BHC Sites

By PUMALess than 1,000

1,000 to 2,000

2,000 to 3,500

3,500 to 6,000

Greater than 6,000

Although Asian American immigrant adults in California tend to have much higher naturalization rates, there are still large numbers that are eligible to naturalize, but have not. Figure 12 below shows their geographic distribution. Given the great diversity in terms of language and culture within California’s Asian American immigrant community, we would ideally provide separate maps for the largest groups in terms of eligible-to-naturalize adults. However, our data generally does not allow for such precision at the PUMA level, so we provide a single map covering all eligible-to-naturalize Asian American adults.

As with most immigrant groups, the largest portion of the state’s Asian American eligible adults reside in L.A. County (31 percent), but, differing from other immigrants,

two counties among the top five are in the Bay Area: Santa Clara (11 percent) and Alameda (9 percent). Rounding out the top five are Orange County (9 percent), and San Diego County (7 percent). Santa Clara County’s eligible Asian Americans are largely found in the cities of San Jose and Sunnyvale, and parts of the cities of Cupertino, Saratoga, and Los Gatos, while Alameda County’s are in Union City, Newark, and Fremont. In the Greater Los Angeles region we see the highest numbers of eligible Asian Americans scattered in Koreatown, to the north in Glendale, and to the east in San Gabriel Valley—and farther east in and around Pomona. In Orange County, eligible Asian Americans tend to live closer to Irvine rather than in Santa Ana where we find a greater number of eligible Mexicans and Central Americans.


Page 17

Conclusion

The social and economic benefits of naturalization are substantial. As a state with about one quarter of all of the nation’s eligible-to-naturalize adults, California potentially has a lot to gain. One factor that can move us forward: There is a strong organizing infrastructure and innovative partnerships working toward immigrant integration in many parts of the state that can help. We also have an eligible-to-naturalize population that has deep roots and every reason to take the oath of citizenship—over two thirds of whom have been in the U.S. for more than 10 years and half of whom have U.S.-citizen children living in the same household. So with so much to gain, what stands in the way?

Our analysis suggests that English acquisition is certainly part of the challenge for most of those who are eligible to naturalize but have not. Also important are financial barriers, particularly for Mexican and Central American immigrants who comprise well over half of all eligible-to-naturalize adults and tend to be lower income. Less quantifiable in our analysis but suggested as factors in other research: fear of the civics test and concerns about losing ties to the home country.

There are policy solutions to some of these challenges. While promoting English is key, it is also the case that older immigrants (including many of the long-term eligible-to-naturalize Mexican adults) can take the citizenship test in their first language (if, for example, they are older than 50 and have resided as an LPR in the U.S. for at least 20 years). U.S. Citizenship and Immigrant Services (USCIS) has a fee waiver for those whose family income places them below 150 percent of the poverty line and USCIS is now considering a partial waiver for the working poor whose income places them between 150 and 200 percent of the poverty level.

But making real and sustained progress on naturalization will require more on-the-ground work as well. It will require educating both immigrants and the U.S.-born about the multiple benefits of naturalization, deeper investments in public and private infrastructure for immigrant integration (e.g., adult education, civics classes, and assistance with the application process), an expansion innovative programs and partnership that promote citizenship, and, of course, good old fashioned organizing and outreach.

Some of the latter will involve making the case—particularly to those who have U.S. citizen offspring—that this is their country; the place where their children are growing, their roots are sinking, and their future is being made. The challenge is that that future is often being made by others—and becoming a citizen and engaging in the democratic process is about creating a better future for their families and for the state and nation that they have come to love.

To this end, we hope that the statewide data on the eligible-to-naturalize presented in this brief—the why, the who, and the where—and the detailed data for BHC sites can be useful to the organizing efforts that are already underway. The demographics of the BHC sites have led many local leaders to grasp the motives of immigrant integration and to incorporate it as a priority in community development. While these sites do not represent a large share of the state’s population, they are at the forefront of developing solutions that can be applied to communities across the state, and we hope that providing detailed data to them and about them can help garner statewide attention that will embolden the immigrant integration movement.

With 2.2 million adults in the state alone so close to being able to fully participate in civic life, we hope organizations and advocates will find this analysis useful and that it will contribute to the work already being done to realize, and capitalize, on the opportunity presented by the large segment of potential new citizens to strengthen economic prosperity and foster a more robust civic life for us all.


Page 18

Appendix

For those interested in more data on eligible-to-naturalize adults in California and the BHC sites than is presented in the body of this brief, we provide the detailed tables in this appendix. In the tables, we compare naturalized and eligible-to-naturalize immigrant adults statewide and in 13 of the 14 BHC sites. Unfortunately, the underlying ACS sample size was too low for an analysis of the Del Norte County BHC site.


Page 19

num. % num. % num. % num. %

4,805,382 16 2,198,216 8 $47,444 $32,519

Female $42,992 $28,416

Non-Hispanic White 845,283 18 260,290 12 Male $51,000 $35,400

Latino 1,722,062 36 1,391,701 63

Asian or Pacific Islander 2,076,327 43 497,033 23 Above 500% of Poverty line 1,411,824 30 339,967 16

Black 72,783 2 23,263 1 250% to 500% of Poverty line 1,496,246 31 565,875 26

Other 88,929 2 25,929 1 150% to 250% of Poverty line 886,984 19 534,466 25

Below 150% of Poverty line 976,158 20 735,445 34

Female 2,597,631 54 1,134,898 52

Male 2,207,751 46 1,063,319 48 Above 500% of Poverty line 145,238 12 47,810 4

250% to 500% of Poverty line 428,094 34 271,991 24

Mexico 1,256,414 26 1,133,234 52 150% to 250% of Poverty line 346,109 28 333,557 30

Central America 324,206 7 211,984 10 Below 150% of Poverty line 329,294 26 468,130 42

South America & Carribean 186,570 4 64,873 3 English Language Ability

Asia 2,374,882 49 534,579 24 Yes, speaks only English 608,530 13 221,309 10

Africa 98,043 2 24,842 1 Yes, speaks well or very well 3,118,536 65 1,043,132 47

Europe 464,476 10 165,693 8 Yes, but not well 824,947 17 541,860 25

Rest of the World 100,791 2 63,011 3 Does not speak English 253,370 5 391,916 18

Age 51 47 Spanish 1,644,010 34 1,347,323 61

Years Residing in the USA 28 23 English 609,029 13 221,499 10

Age First Arrived in Country 22 23 Chinese 530,832 11 107,399 5

Years of Adult Eligibility2 8 17 Filipino, Tagalog 466,746 10 98,292 4

Hindi and related 201,431 4 67,058 3.1

Less than 5 years 1,620,223 39 350,952 16 All other 1,353,337 28 356,650 16

6-10 years 841,122 20 319,815 15

11-20 years 1,067,749 26 698,587 32 Female Participation 1,430,523 73 573,445 61

Greater than 20 years 586,451 14 828,862 38 of which, share employed 1,317,501 92 506,212 88

Educational Attainment (age 25+) Male Participation 1,521,799 87 791,522 87

Less than HS degree 1,132,497 24 999,379 47 of which, share employed 1,408,272 93 717,492 91HS grad 856,271 18 397,159 19

Some College/AA 1,114,518 24 346,722 16 Cleaning, Building, and Household Service 100,357 21 89,778 19

BA Degree 985,470 21 213,309 10 Farming, Forestry, and Fishing 57,202 11 94,050 19MA or Higher 555,928 12 150,807 7 Machine Operators/Assemblers/Inspectors 139,879 25 86,766 16

1,428,899 62 335,672 40Helpers in Construction/Extraction/Material Handlers

71,309 14 78,541 15

2,913,014 82 1,097,990 62 Food Preparation and Service 102,822 16 85,459 14

American Community Survey (ACS) microdata accessed from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS).* Indicates that the underlying number of observations is too small to make a reliable estimate.--- Indicates that the estimate came out to be zero, which is best interpreted as very small number (but perhaps not zero).

1 Latino includes all who identify as Hispanic or Latino; all other categories are Non-Hispanic.2 For the naturalized, years of adult eligibility prior to naturalization are reported and data is not available for all respondents.

See the methods section for more information.3

4 Top five languages spoken at home for eligible-to-naturalize adults listed in descending order.5 For the civilian noninstitutional population ages 18-64. Labor force participation is defined as being employed or seeking work.6 Top five occupations in terms of the percentage of all workers in the occupation that are eligible to naturalize, listed in descending order.

Universe includes the employed civilian noninstitutional population ages 25-64.

Source: USC Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration (CSII) analysis of a pooled sample of the 2010 through 2014

For full-time workers. Full-time workers include those reporting work of at least 50 weeks and usual workhours of at least 35 hours per week during the year prior to the survey.

Notes

Race and Ethnicity1

Poverty

Sex

Poverty (Mexicans only)

Places of origin

Age and Tenure (medians) Top 5 Languages4

Years of Adult Eligibility2

Labor Force Participation5

Top 5 Occupations6

Homeownership (households)

Health Insurance (age 25-64)

Total Population Median Annual Earnings, Full-time Workers3

2010-2014 Adult Population Profile: The State of California

All NaturalizedEligible to Naturalize



Page 20


12,182 18 12,085 18 $28,227 $22,000

Female $23,000 *

Non-Hispanic White 92 1 73 1 Male $30,000 $23,834

Latino 10,934 90 11,641 96

Asian or Pacific Islander 962 8 336 3 Above 500% of Poverty line 623 5 342 3

Black 60 0.5 --- --- 250% to 500% of Poverty line 2,904 24 1,885 16

Other 133 1 34 0.3 150% to 250% of Poverty line 3,593 30 3,064 26


Female 6,693 55 5,880 49

Male 5,489 45 6,204 51 Above 500% of Poverty line 462 5 262 3


Mexico 8,789 72 9,960 82 150% to 250% of Poverty line 2,703 31 2,532 26


South America & Carribean 235 2 116 1 English Language Ability

Asia 1,093 9 336 3 Yes, speaks only English 463 4 321 3

Africa --- --- --- --- Yes, speaks well or very well 5,209 43 4,236 35

Europe 40 0.3 79 1 Yes, but not well 4,528 37 3,910 32

Rest of the World 9 0.1 --- --- Does not speak English 1,982 16 3,618 30

Age 56 49 Spanish 10,741 88 11,378 94

Years Residing in the USA 33 26 English 463 4 321 3

Age First Arrived in Country 21 21 Chinese 465 4 164 1

Years of Adult Eligibility2 15 20 Japanese 11 0.1 111 1

Russian 13 0.1 41 0.3

Less than 5 years 1,890 17 727 6 All other 488 4 70 1

6-10 years 1,363 12 810 7

11-20 years 4,234 38 4,665 39 Female Participation 3,105 66 2,415 51

Greater than 20 years 3,788 34 5,882 49 of which, share employed 2,874 93 2,040 84

Educational Attainment (age 25+) Male Participation 3,242 85 4,225 80

Less than HS degree 7,257 61 8,320 72 of which, share employed 3,060 94 3,817 90HS grad 2,040 17 1,450 13

Some College/AA 1,619 14 1,329 11 Mechanics and Repairers 263 30 247 29

BA Degree 674 6 387 3 Protective Service 31 8 98 25

MA or Higher 270 2 73 1 Helpers in Construction/Extraction/Material Handlers 255 10 589 24

1,941 30 844 16 Personal Service 196 19 234 23

5,609 68 4,622 48 Machine Operators/Assemblers/Inspectors 544 12 1,000 23







Top 5 Occupations6



Notes




Places of origin




Race and Ethnicity1

Poverty

Sex

2010-2014 Adult Population Profile: Boyle Heights




Page 21


10,079 19 10,469 19 $33,600 $22,357

Female $32,519 *

Non-Hispanic White 45 0.4 18 0.2 Male $34,741 $25,406

Latino 8,484 84 10,305 98

Asian or Pacific Islander 1,503 15 112 1 Above 500% of Poverty line 1,323 13 289 3

Black 37 0.4 34 0.3 250% to 500% of Poverty line 4,046 40 2,519 24

Other 11 0.1 --- --- 150% to 250% of Poverty line 2,473 25 3,416 33


Female 5,134 51 4,893 47




Central America 596 6 708 7 Below 150% of Poverty line 1,776 23 3,850 40



Africa 37 0.4 34 0.3 Yes, speaks well or very well 6,164 61 4,061 39

Europe 28 0.3 8 0.1 Yes, but not well 2,713 27 3,498 33

Rest of the World 23 0.2 23 0.2 Does not speak English 720 7 2,665 25

Age 50 46 Spanish 8,188 81 10,078 96


Age First Arrived in Country 20 20 Vietnamese 1,076 11 49 0.5

Years of Adult Eligibility2 13 18 Amharic, Ethiopian, etc. --- --- 34 0.3

Japanese 10 0.1 25 0.2

Less than 5 years 2,116 24 718 7 All other 324 3 38 0.4

6-10 years 1,429 16 1,262 12





Some College/AA 1,732 18 1,035 10 Health Service 177 33 173 32

BA Degree 746 8 276 3 Transportation and Material Movers 205 18 364 31MA or Higher 143 1 44 0.4 Machine Operators/Assemblers/Inspectors 722 25 862 29

2,834 66 1,230 32 Mechanics and Repairers 240 25 283 296,344 76 4,969 55 Construction 249 16 451 29







2010-2014 Adult Population Profile: Central Santa Ana

NaturalizedEligible to Naturalize


Notes

Race and Ethnicity1

Poverty

Sex


Places of origin




Top 5 Occupations6






Page 22


7,647 11 6,741 10 $31,573 *

Female * *

Non-Hispanic White 134 2 27 0.4 Male * *

Latino 4,550 59 5,641 84

Asian or Pacific Islander 2,750 36 1,073 16 Above 500% of Poverty line 577 8 256 4

Black 137 2 --- --- 250% to 500% of Poverty line 1,433 19 890 13

Other 75 1 --- --- 150% to 250% of Poverty line 1,525 20 1,772 26


Female 3,838 50 3,389 50


250% to 500% of Poverty line 917 22 591 11




Asia 2,765 36 1,061 16 Yes, speaks only English 541 7 227 3

Africa 113 1 --- --- Yes, speaks well or very well 4,176 55 2,277 34

Europe 141 2 8 0.1 Yes, but not well 1,824 24 1,828 27

Rest of the World 78 1 34 1 Does not speak English 1,105 14 2,409 36

Age 48 47 Spanish 4,355 57 5,432 81

Years Residing in the USA 27 25 Tibetan 1,752 23 301 4

Age First Arrived in Country 18 20 Thai, Siamese, Lao 228 3 266 4

Years of Adult Eligibility2 12 19 English 541 7 227 3

Other East/Southeast Asian 74 1 132 2


6-10 years 1,610 26 569 8


Greater than 20 years 1,251 20 2,980 44 of which, share employed * * * *


Less than HS degree 3,394 48 4,522 72 of which, share employed 2,370 87 2,372 88HS grad 1,367 19 929 15

Some College/AA 1,417 20 587 9 Food Preparation and Service 108 7 440 29

BA Degree 744 10 153 2 Precision Production 32 3 242 26MA or Higher 206 3 93 1 Construction 87 8 251 22

2,293 57 1,190 45 Farming, Forestry, and Fishing 353 9 771 19

4,408 76 2,908 52 Transportation and Material Movers 220 21 201 19







2010-2014 Adult Population Profile: Central/Southeast/Southwest Fresno



Notes

Race and Ethnicity1

Poverty

Sex


Places of origin




Top 5 Occupations6






Page 23


12,066 19 6,769 11 $32,942 $28,227

Female * *

Non-Hispanic White 260 2 102 2 Male $37,998 *

Latino 4,742 39 4,832 71

Asian or Pacific Islander 6,129 51 1,536 23 Above 500% of Poverty line 1,093 9 388 6

Black 888 7 250 4 250% to 500% of Poverty line 3,640 30 1,611 24

Other 47 0.4 48 1 150% to 250% of Poverty line 2,918 24 1,494 22


Female 6,196 51 3,694 55


250% to 500% of Poverty line 1,173 28 886 20





Africa 836 7 241 4 Yes, speaks well or very well 7,493 62 3,677 54

Europe 134 1 118 2 Yes, but not well 2,944 24 1,788 26

Rest of the World 37 0.3 --- --- Does not speak English 928 8 1,068 16

Age 47 46 Spanish 4,656 39 4,660 69

Years Residing in the USA 22 23 Vietnamese 3,657 30 440 7

Age First Arrived in Country 22 23 Thai, Siamese, Lao 299 2 277 4

Years of Adult Eligibility2 6 18 Japanese 17 0.1 250 4

English 702 6 236 3

Less than 5 years 4,723 48 737 11 All other 2,739 23 905 13

6-10 years 1,771 18 938 14


Greater than 20 years 1,105 11 2,773 41 of which, share employed 3,018 88 * *


Less than HS degree 3,734 34 3,657 56 of which, share employed 3,878 90 * *HS grad 2,527 23 1,443 22

Some College/AA 2,729 25 893 14 Cleaning, Building, and Household Service 337 16 469 23

BA Degree 1,567 14 366 6 Machine Operators/Assemblers/Inspectors 456 35 280 22MA or Higher 340 3 150 2 Construction 183 12 310 20

2,260 37 455 17Helpers in Construction/Extraction/Material Handlers

165 13 231 18

6,561 75 3,007 53 Food Preparation and Service 641 18 620 17







2010-2014 Adult Population Profile: City Heights



Notes

Race and Ethnicity1

Poverty

Sex


Places of origin




Top 5 Occupations6






Page 24


3,127 14 3,947 17 * *

Female * *

Non-Hispanic White --- --- 27 1 Male * *

Latino 3,075 98 3,921 99

Asian or Pacific Islander 52 2 --- --- Above 500% of Poverty line 213 7 139 4

Black --- --- --- --- 250% to 500% of Poverty line 1,303 42 764 19

Other --- --- --- --- 150% to 250% of Poverty line 608 19 1,102 28


Female 1,651 53 2,045 52


250% to 500% of Poverty line 1,256 43 709 19

Mexico 2,937 94 3,754 95 150% to 250% of Poverty line 531 18 1,049 28

Central America 138 4 84 2 Below 150% of Poverty line 998 34 1,857 49

South America & Carribean --- --- 82 2 English Language Ability

Asia 52 2 --- --- Yes, speaks only English 144 5 166 4

Africa --- --- --- --- Yes, speaks well or very well 1,623 52 911 23

Europe --- --- 12 0.3 Yes, but not well 765 24 998 25

Rest of the World --- --- 15 0.4 Does not speak English 595 19 1,872 47

Age 50 52 Spanish 2,939 94 3,781 96


Age First Arrived in Country 18 20 All other 43 1 --- ---

Years of Adult Eligibility2 18 24

Less than 5 years 312 11 238 6

6-10 years 371 13 179 5

11-20 years 1,082 38 984 25 Female Participation * * * *


Educational Attainment (age 25+) Male Participation * * * *

Less than HS degree 1,611 53 2,920 76 of which, share employed * * * *HS grad 698 23 630 16

Some College/AA 518 17 200 5 Machine Operators/Assemblers/Inspectors 46 10 251 52

BA Degree 235 8 54 1 Food Preparation and Service 91 17 182 33MA or Higher --- --- 46 1 Health Service 87 16 163 29

* * * * Construction 24 4 156 291,558 65 2,164 62 Farming, Forestry, and Fishing 251 9 756 27







2010-2014 Adult Population Profile: Eastern Coachella Valley



Notes

Race and Ethnicity1

Poverty

Sex


Places of origin




Top 5 Occupations6






Page 25


7,342 11 6,102 9 $37,120 $28,871

Female * *

Non-Hispanic White 197 3 25 0.4 Male * *

Latino 4,683 64 5,303 87

Asian or Pacific Islander 2,138 29 659 11 Above 500% of Poverty line 1,069 15 510 8




Female 3,702 50 2,823 46




Central America 707 10 1,030 17 Below 150% of Poverty line 652 17 1,560 37

South America & Carribean 253 3 8 0.1 English Language Ability




Rest of the World 82 1 13 0.2 Does not speak English 531 7 1,160 19

Age 47 48 Spanish 4,489 61 5,163 85


Age First Arrived in Country 20 22 Chinese 1,285 18 222 4

Years of Adult Eligibility2 10 16 Japanese --- --- 108 2

Filipino, Tagalog 201 3 103 2

Less than 5 years 2,045 32 1,040 17 All other 860 12 215 4

6-10 years 1,120 18 1,071 18


Greater than 20 years 845 13 2,095 34 of which, share employed 1,969 94 * *


Less than HS degree 2,743 39 3,890 66 of which, share employed 2,440 93 2,272 91

HS grad 1,430 20 1,316 22

Some College/AA 1,626 23 438 7 Machine Operators/Assemblers/Inspectors 325 22 426 28

BA Degree 893 13 151 3 Precision Production 143 21 187 27MA or Higher 426 6 115 2 Cleaning, Building, and Household Service 394 18 553 25

1,729 53 702 31 Technicians and Related Support 100 22 76 174,474 77 3,487 68 Farming, Forestry, and Fishing 89 9 160 16







2010-2014 Adult Population Profile: East Oakland



Notes

Race and Ethnicity1

Poverty

Sex


Places of origin




Top 5 Occupations6






Page 26


3,108 9 6,487 18 * *

Female * *

Non-Hispanic White 70 2 76 1 Male * *

Latino 2,591 83 6,276 97


Black --- --- --- --- 250% to 500% of Poverty line 1,056 34 1,509 23

Other --- --- 44 1 150% to 250% of Poverty line 772 25 1,638 25

Below 150% of Poverty line 952 31 2,996 46

Female 1,686 54 3,476 54


250% to 500% of Poverty line 724 29 1,439 23


Central America 76 2 90 1 Below 150% of Poverty line 909 36 2,869 47

South America & Carribean 15 0.5 32 0.5 English Language Ability

Asia 447 14 91 1 Yes, speaks only English 180 6 508 8

Africa --- --- --- --- Yes, speaks well or very well 1,792 58 1,825 28

Europe 73 2 76 1 Yes, but not well 694 22 1,791 28

Rest of the World 6 0.2 44 1 Does not speak English 443 14 2,364 36

Age 50 48 Spanish 2,505 81 5,869 90


Age First Arrived in Country 19 20 Filipino, Tagalog 336 11 48 1

Years of Adult Eligibility2 12 19 Chinese --- --- 43 1

Russian --- --- 11 0.2

Less than 5 years 842 31 447 7 All other 87 3 9 0.1

6-10 years 364 13 749 12

11-20 years 765 28 2,386 37 Female Participation * * 1,479 50

Greater than 20 years 729 27 2,905 45 of which, share employed * * * *

Educational Attainment (age 25+) Male Participation * * 2,300 86


Some College/AA 723 24 675 11 Health Service 67 11 236 39

BA Degree 233 8 84 1 Cleaning, Building, and Household Service 54 8 227 32MA or Higher 91 3 59 1 Machine Operators/Assemblers/Inspectors 68 9 238 30

* * 927 31Helpers in Construction/Extraction/Material Handlers

53 4 332 28

1,637 75 3,045 57 Precision Production 25 10 64 25







2010-2014 Adult Population Profile: East Salinas (Alisal)



Notes

Race and Ethnicity1

Poverty

Sex


Places of origin




Top 5 Occupations6






Page 27


10,607 18 7,696 13 $36,584 $26,311

Female * *

Non-Hispanic White 232 2 49 1 Male $40,000 *

Latino 5,051 48 6,004 78

Asian or Pacific Islander 5,177 49 1,483 19 Above 500% of Poverty line 1,448 14 422 6


Other --- --- 89 1 150% to 250% of Poverty line 1,938 18 1,998 26


Female 5,926 56 3,858 50







Africa 64 1 30 0.4 Yes, speaks well or very well 6,441 61 3,377 44


Rest of the World 125 1 89 1 Does not speak English 1,065 10 1,385 18

Age 51 46 Spanish 4,909 46 5,882 76

Years Residing in the USA 29 24 Other East/Southeast Asian 2,358 22 658 9

Age First Arrived in Country 22 21 English 557 5 402 5

Years of Adult Eligibility2 9 19 Filipino, Tagalog 1,689 16 400 5

Micronesian, Polynesian 28 0 89 1


6-10 years 2,278 24 683 9


Greater than 20 years 1,190 13 3,011 39 of which, share employed 2,636 93 * *



Some College/AA 2,682 26 1,131 15 Farming, Forestry, and Fishing 33 6 227 39

BA Degree 957 9 435 6 Machine Operators/Assemblers/Inspectors 237 11 637 30MA or Higher 495 5 122 2 Helpers in Construction/

Extraction/Material Handlers224 14 458 28

1,812 35 579 16 Food Preparation and Service 291 12 497 215,409 70 3,255 48 Construction 117 11 203 19







2010-2014 Adult Population Profile: Long Beach



Notes

Race and Ethnicity1

Poverty

Sex


Places of origin




Top 5 Occupations6






Page 28


3,910 14 3,418 12 * *

Female * *


Latino 2,707 69 3,039 89


Black 139 4 26 1 250% to 500% of Poverty line 1,304 33 697 20

Other 20 1 191 6 150% to 250% of Poverty line 1,229 32 1,107 32

Below 150% of Poverty line 967 25 1,526 45

Female 2,097 54 1,561 46

Male 1,814 46 1,857 54 Above 500% of Poverty line * * * *

250% to 500% of Poverty line * * * *

Mexico 1,696 43 2,119 62 150% to 250% of Poverty line * * * *

Central America 1,000 26 951 28 Below 150% of Poverty line * * * *



Africa 97 2 --- --- Yes, speaks well or very well 2,350 60 1,632 48


Rest of the World 76 2 60 2 Does not speak English 159 4 586 17

Age 46 42 Spanish 2,671 68 3,080 90

Years Residing in the USA 24 20 Hindi and related 58 1 102 3


Years of Adult Eligibility2 10 15 Chinese 101 3 61 2

Portuguese 31 1 55 2

Less than 5 years 955 28 507 15 All other 804 21 41 1

6-10 years 822 24 697 20

11-20 years 1,158 34 1,517 44 Female Participation * * * *

Greater than 20 years 487 14 697 20 of which, share employed * * * *

Educational Attainment (age 25+) Male Participation * * * *


Some College/AA 581 16 770 24 Food Preparation and Service 191 17 373 33

BA Degree 261 7 98 3 Transportation and Material Movers 187 21 250 28MA or Higher 107 3 42 1 Technicians and Related Support 80 43 52 28

* * * * Machine Operators/Assemblers/Inspectors 66 19 81 23

2,690 85 1,949 64Helpers in Construction/Extraction/Material Handlers

190 17 261 23







2010-2014 Adult Population Profile: Richmond



Notes

Race and Ethnicity1

Poverty

Sex


Places of origin




Top 5 Occupations6






Page 29


8,478 16 3,974 8 $36,089 *

Female * *


Latino 2,746 32 1,882 47

Asian or Pacific Islander 4,765 56 1,695 43 Above 500% of Poverty line 909 11 168 4

Black 151 2 74 2 250% to 500% of Poverty line 2,226 26 789 20

Other 350 4 9 0.2 150% to 250% of Poverty line 2,038 24 945 24


Female 4,649 55 1,965 49

Male 3,830 45 2,010 51 Above 500% of Poverty line 230 10 --- ---

250% to 500% of Poverty line 713 30 --- ---

Mexico 2,340 28 1,784 45 150% to 250% of Poverty line 667 29 --- ---

Central America 277 3 135 3 Below 150% of Poverty line 729 31 --- ---





Rest of the World 240 3 175 4 Does not speak English 828 10 824 21

Age 50 48 Spanish 2,466 29 1,863 47

Years Residing in the USA 26 23 Tibetan 1,277 15 741 19


Years of Adult Eligibility2 7 17 Chinese 1,065 13 244 6

Vietnamese 902 11 143 4


6-10 years 1,405 19 558 14

11-20 years 1,865 25 1,390 35 Female Participation 2,216 61 --- ---

Greater than 20 years 1,047 14 1,516 38 of which, share employed 1,982 89 --- ---

Educational Attainment (age 25+) Male Participation 2,491 83 --- ---

Less than HS degree 3,107 38 2,296 60 of which, share employed 2,078 83 --- ---HS grad 1,692 21 701 18

Some College/AA 2,222 27 567 15 Farming, Forestry, and Fishing 133 10 292 23

BA Degree 654 8 159 4 Food Preparation and Service 253 17 271 18

MA or Higher 460 6 79 2 Mechanics and Repairers 113 24 77 172,552 58 --- --- Machine Operators/Assemblers/Inspectors 179 30 79 134,665 74 1,830 62 Health Service 416 35 132 11







2010-2014 Adult Population Profile: Sacramento



Notes

Race and Ethnicity1

Poverty

Sex


Places of origin




Top 5 Occupations6






Page 30


7,879 12 10,489 16 $27,840 $18,944

Female * *

Non-Hispanic White 31 0.4 12 0.1 Male $30,487 $21,713

Latino 7,277 92 10,210 97



Other 23 0.3 29 0.3 150% to 250% of Poverty line 2,218 28 2,629 25


Female 4,578 58 5,547 53







Africa 96 1 43 0.4 Yes, speaks well or very well 3,542 45 2,958 28

Europe 45 1 13 0.1 Yes, but not well 2,752 35 4,317 41

Rest of the World --- --- --- --- Does not speak English 1,113 14 3,059 29

Age 51 48 Spanish 7,180 91 10,150 97


Age First Arrived in Country 20 21 Filipino, Tagalog --- --- 77 1

Years of Adult Eligibility2 15 19 Korean 42 1 34 0.3

Armenian 18 0.2 20 0.2

Less than 5 years 1,062 15 893 9 All other 169 2 52 0.5

6-10 years 1,140 16 1,210 12




Less than HS degree 4,577 59 7,739 76 of which, share employed 2,123 94 3,478 92

HS grad 1,641 21 1,377 14

Some College/AA 1,239 16 839 8 Precision Production 91 9 307 29

BA Degree 269 3 166 2 Farming, Forestry, and Fishing 99 12 236 28

MA or Higher 52 1 46 0.4 Transportation and Material Movers 354 20 486 272,098 54 1,065 25 Health Service 300 28 292 273,925 62 3,811 42 Cleaning, Building, and Household Service 603 21 778 27







2010-2014 Adult Population Profile: South Los Angeles



Notes

Race and Ethnicity1

Poverty

Sex


Places of origin




Top 5 Occupations6






Page 31


6,186 12 6,628 13 $32,570 $25,000

Female * *

Non-Hispanic White 156 3 --- --- Male * *

Latino 5,480 89 6,343 96


Black --- --- --- --- 250% to 500% of Poverty line 2,129 34 1,574 24

Other 79 1 70 1 150% to 250% of Poverty line 1,711 28 1,915 29


Female 3,499 57 3,201 48





South America & Carribean 113 2 21 0.3 English Language Ability


Africa 20 0.3 --- --- Yes, speaks well or very well 4,200 68 2,611 39

Europe 21 0.3 39 1 Yes, but not well 1,356 22 1,763 27

Rest of the World --- --- --- --- Does not speak English 301 5 2,115 32

Age 49 49 Spanish 5,333 86 6,223 94

Years Residing in the USA 30 25 Hindi and related 197 3 164 2


Years of Adult Eligibility2 14 19 Filipino, Tagalog 211 3 41 1

Japanese --- --- 23 0.3


6-10 years 737 14 815 12



Educational Attainment (age 25+) Male Participation * * 2,511 83

Less than HS degree 2,258 38 4,551 72 of which, share employed * * 2,091 83HS grad 1,771 29 911 15

Some College/AA 1,286 21 675 11 Farming, Forestry, and Fishing 323 7 1,254 26

BA Degree 380 6 95 2 Cleaning, Building, and Household Service 57 5 257 24

MA or Higher 319 5 48 1 Mechanics and Repairers 98 8 272 232,564 77 1,442 48 Transportation and Material Movers 401 22 407 22

3,578 69 2,820 54 Helpers in Construction/Extraction/Material Handlers

271 19 287 20







2010-2014 Adult Population Profile: South Kern



Notes

Race and Ethnicity1

Poverty

Sex


Places of origin




Top 5 Occupations6






Page 32


5,787 14 4,313 10 * *

Female * *


Latino 3,268 56 3,517 82

Asian or Pacific Islander 1,949 34 496 12 Above 500% of Poverty line 520 9 174 4

Black 18 0.3 --- --- 250% to 500% of Poverty line 1,677 29 794 19



Female 2,957 51 2,066 48



Mexico 3,142 54 3,283 76 150% to 250% of Poverty line 996 32 981 30





Europe 265 5 287 7 Yes, but not well 906 16 1,149 27

Rest of the World 50 1 8 0.2 Does not speak English 565 10 1,173 27

Age 46 48 Spanish 3,313 57 3,311 77


Age First Arrived in Country 17 20 Tibetan 929 16 235 5

Years of Adult Eligibility2 12 18 Portuguese 137 2 134 3

Hindi and related 297 5 66 2


6-10 years 1,075 21 462 11

11-20 years 1,883 37 1,450 34 Female Participation 1,715 74 * *

Greater than 20 years 918 18 1,904 44 of which, share employed * * * *

Educational Attainment (age 25+) Male Participation 2,054 86 * *

Less than HS degree 2,181 40 3,014 74 of which, share employed * * * *HS grad 1,076 20 649 16

Some College/AA 1,587 29 251 6 Machine Operators/Assemblers/Inspectors 242 22 341 31

BA Degree 396 7 100 2 Farming, Forestry, and Fishing 271 10 697 26

MA or Higher 163 3 56 1 Mechanics and Repairers 101 15 173 261,949 61 * * Personal Service 52 13 67 163,473 80 1,887 56 Cleaning, Building, and Household Service 16 4 68 15







2010-2014 Adult Population Profile: Southwest Merced/East Merced County



Notes

Race and Ethnicity1

Poverty

Sex


Places of origin




Top 5 Occupations6






Page 33

Methods

Unless otherwise noted, all estimates and data presented in this brief are based on analysis by the USC Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration (CSII) of a pooled sample of the 2010-2014 American Community Survey (ACS) microdata accessed from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) (Ruggles, Genadek, Goeken, Grover, & Sobek, 2015). The analysis involved several steps.

The first was determining exactly who is eligible. This is a complex procedure: It involves first determining who is undocumented and unable to naturalize under any circumstances, then netting out those who might be on temporary visas, and then applying naturalization criteria to the rest of the foreign-born. However, we have explained this elsewhere and so eschew the details here; for those who are interested, the methodology followed to generate our aggregate estimates of the eligible-to-naturalize population statewide and the PUMA-level estimates presented in the maps is exhaustively described in Pastor & Scoggins (2016).

The second and third steps in this document involved estimating the earnings gains by state reported in Figure 2 and generating estimates for specific BHC sites. Other aspects of the analysis, such as how we estimate years of eligibility for citizenship for the naturalized and eligible-to-naturalize adult populations, are described in the methods section of our recent report on the eligible to naturalize in Los Angeles County (Pastor, Scoggins, Sanchez, & Ortiz, 2016).

To generate the estimates of aggregate earnings gains by state reported in Figure 2, we followed the same methodology that was used to produce the national estimates found in Table 7 of Pastor & Scoggins (2012), but applied to states and with slight modifications. First, rather than estimating separate regression models for each state to derive state-specific estimates of individual earnings gains associated with naturalization, we simply applied the national estimates found in Pastor & Scoggins (2012) to our more recent 2010-2014 ACS estimates of average earnings and numbers of eligible-to-naturalize adults by state. While this may lead to some degree of over- or under-estimation of the potential earnings gains by state, the fact that the national estimates are fairly similar to those based on 21 U.S. cities found in Enchautegui & Giannarelli (2015), as well as separate estimates for three large cities found in The Center for Popular Democracy et al. (2014), suggests that this is not cause for major concern.

Second, rather than applying the upper- and lower-bound earnings gain trajectories by recency of naturalization separately, we applied a single earnings gain trajectory that was derived by taking the averaging of the two for each group of years since naturalization for which estimated gains are reported (e.g., 1 to 2 years, 3 to 6 years, 7 to 11 years).

Generating estimates from the ACS microdata for BHC sites was a challenge. The reason is that the most detailed level of geography associated with each individual in the ACS microdata is the PUMA in which they reside, and, unfortunately, the BHC sites often cover only a portion of a PUMA. To assign individuals to BHC sites, we first utilized data from Mable/GeoCorr that is generated using GIS techniques to intersect PUMAs with the underlying census blocks, and we used those data to determine what percentage of a PUMA’s population lies within a BHC site. We then pulled enough households from each PUMA (or PUMAs) to meet the population total. The shortfall with this simple approach, one that we took in an earlier iteration of this analysis in fact sheets we released on the BHC sites in early 2015 (Marcelli & Pastor, 2015) but subsequently corrected in a later analysis (Marcelli, Pastor, & Wallace, 2015), is that it does not necessarily wind up matching the characteristics of the BHC population that can be surmised by adding up tract-level data. For example, in one simple case, the Boyle Heights BHC lies entirely within one PUMA. However, it is only part of that PUMA and the BHC neighborhood is much more Latino than the overall PUMA. To correct for that, for all BHC sites, we pulled more households than necessary (but in the correct proportions from multiple PUMAs if it was a multiple PUMA case) and then did a two-step iterative proportional fit to arrive at both a total population count and racial/ethnic distribution similar to that which could be calculated from tract-level summary characteristics in the ACS. We then adjusted to fit overall and ethnic-specific poverty rates, again, using a two-step approach. While the final numbers are not exactly what a tract-level summary would yield in terms of other socioeconomic characteristics, they are very close and much better than a simple pull by population from the PUMAs.


Page 34

References

Aguirre, B. E., & Saenz, R. (2002). Testing the Effects of Collectively Expected Durations of Migration: The Naturalization of Mexicans and Cubans. International Migration Review, 36(1), 103–124. http://doi. org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2002.tb00073.x

Bada, X., Fox, J. A., Donnelly, R., & Selee, A. D. (2010). Context Matters: Latino Immigrant Civic Engagement in Nine US Cities, Reports on Latino Immigrant Civic Engagement (Latino Immigrant Civic Engagement). Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Retrieved from http://www.escholarship.org/uc/ item/47f308pd

Battistelli, E. S. (2013). The Financial Barrier to Citizenship. Los Angeles, CA: National Immigration Law Center. Retrieved from https://www.nilc.org/financialbarriercitizenshiprev.html

Bratsberg, B., Ragan, J. F., & Nasir, Z. M. (2002). The Effect of Naturalization on Wage Growth: A Panel Study of Young Male Immigrants. Journal of Labor Economics, 20(3), 568–597.

Enchautegui, M. E., & Giannarelli, L. (2015). The Economic Impact of Naturalization on Immigrants and Cities. New York, New York: Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication- pdfs/2000549-The-Economic-Impact-of-Naturalization-on-Immigrants-and-Cities.pdf

Gamboa, S. (2015, December 10). New National Campaign Urges Legal Residents to Naturalize, Vote. NBC News. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/new-national-campaign-urges-legal-residents- naturalize-vote-n477916

Immigration Policy Center. (2010). The Ones They Leave Behind: Deportation of Lawful Permanent Residents Harms U.S. Citizen Children. Immigration Policy Center. Retrieved from http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/ default/files/docs/Childs_Best_Interest_Fact_Sheet_042610.pdf

Johnson, H. P. (1999). Taking the oath: an analysis of naturalization in California and the United States. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.

Latino Victory Project. (2015, December 10). Latino Victory Launches the New American Democracy Campaign. Retrieved January 26, 2016, from http://latinovictory.us/press-release/latino-victory-launches-the-new- american-democracy-campaign/

Logan, J. R., Oh, S., & Darrah, J. (2012). The Political and Community Context of Immigrant Naturalization. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(4), 535–554. http://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2012.659116

Marcelli, E. A., & Pastor, M. (2015, February 11). Unauthorized and Uninsured: Building Healthy Communities in California. Retrieved January 28, 2016, from http://dornsife.usc.edu/csii/unauthorized-and-uninsured

Marcelli, E. A., Pastor, M., & Wallace, S. P. (2015). Toward a Healthy California: Why Improving Access to Medical Insurance for Unauthorized Immigrants Matters for the Golden State. Retrieved from http://dornsife.usc.edu/ assets/sites/731/docs/Toward_A_Healthy_CA_Literature_Review_Web_Final_Dec2015A.pdf

Nicholls, W. (2013). The DREAMers: How the Undocumented Youth Movement Transformed the Immigrant Rights Debate. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Pantoja, A., Ramirez, R., & Segura, G. (2001). Citizens by Choice, Voters by Necessity: Patterns in Political Mobilization by Naturalized Latinos. Political Research Quarterly, 54(4), 729–750.

Pastor, M., Ito, J., & Wander, M. (2016). Changing States: A Framework for Progressive Governance. Los Angeles, CA: USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity. Retrieved from http://dornsife.usc.edu/pere/changing- states/



Page 35

Pastor, M., & Scoggins, J. (2012). Citizen Gain: The Economic Benefits of Naturalization for Immigrants and the Economy. Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, University of Southern California. Retrieved from http://csii.usc.edu/CitizenGain.html Pastor, M., & Scoggins, J. (2016). Estimating the Eligible-to-Naturalize Population. Los Angeles, CA: USC Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration. Retrieved from http://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/731/docs/CSII_Elig_ Naturalize_Methodology_Final.pdf

Pastor, M., Scoggins, J., Sanchez, J., & Ortiz, R. (2016). Breaking the Barriers: The Promise of Citizenship for Los Angeles County. Los Angeles, CA: USC Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration. Retrieved from http:// dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/731/docs/CSII_BreakingBarriers_LA_County_ETN_May2016_Final.pdf

Ruggles, S. J., Genadek, K., Goeken, R., Grover, J., & Sobek, M. (2015). Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Portes, A., & Curtis, J. W. (1987). Changing Flags: Naturalization and its Determinants among Mexican Immigrants. The International Migration Review, 21(2), 352–371. http://doi.org/10.2307/2546320 Shierholz, H. (2010). The Effects of Citizenship on Family Income and Poverty. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Sumption, M., & Flamm, S. (2012). The Economic Value of Citizenship for Immigrants in the United States. Washington D.C.: The Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/citizenship-premium. pdf Taylor, P., Gonzalez-Barrera, A., Passel, J. S., & Lopez, M. H. (2012). Reasons for Not Naturalizing. Washington D.C.: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/11/14/iv-reasons-for-not-naturalizing/

The Center for Popular Democracy, USC Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, & The National Partnership for New Americans. (2014). Citizenship: A Wise Investment for Cities. The Cities for Citizenship Initiative. Retrieved from http://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/731/docs/C4C-Report_Citizenship-A-Wise-Investment. pdf

Yang, P. Q. (1994). Explaining Immigrant Naturalization. International Migration Review, 28(3), 449–477.



Page 36

Image Credits

Cover images (from top left, going clockwise)

https://flic.kr/p/GoT9Wg - by the San José Library, Creative Commons Share Alike 2.0

https://flic.kr/p/bunc7d - by NAKASEC/Korean Resource Center, Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 2.0

https://flic.kr/p/pka8xc - by Vladimir Yaitskiy, Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 2.0

https://flic.kr/p/ePgZDc - by One America, Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 2.0

Page 3 https://flic.kr/p/pka8xc - by Vladimir Yaitskiy, Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 2.0

Page 17 https://flic.kr/p/9cSrt - by winmac, Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 2.0

This work by the Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration (CSII) at the University of Southern California is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

Acknowledgements

The USC Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration (CSII) would like to thank The California Endowment, the Carnegie Corporation, the James Irvine Foundation, the California Community Foundation, and the California Wellness Foundation for providing funding to enable us to carry out this research.

We also thank CSII staff Jared Sanchez, Gladys Malibiran, Pamela Stephens, and Magaly Lopez, as well as our graduate student researcher Victor G. Sánchez, Jr. for their assistance with the production of this paper.

Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration (CSII)University of Southern California 950 W. Jefferson Blvd., JEF 102Los Angeles, CA 90089-1291

http://dornsife.usc.edu/CSIIEmail: [email protected]

Phone: 213.740.3643

Facebook: facebook.com/csii.usc Twitter: @CSII_USC Instagram: USC_PERE_CSII

data to inform strategy

Documents