ed 399 510 author bell, emmy; and others institution … › fulltext › ed399510.pdf · document...
TRANSCRIPT
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 399 510 CS 012 592
AUTHOR Bell, Emmy; And OthersTITLE Literacy in Nevada: Needs Assessment.INSTITUTION Nevada Literacy Coalition.SPONS AGENCY Nevada State Library and Archives, Carson City.PUB DATE 95NOTE 47p.
PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143) StatisticalData (110)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Academic Achievement; *Adult Literacy; Basic Skills;
Non English Speaking; *Reading Achievement;*Workplace Literacy
IDENTIFIERS *Literacy Assessment; National Adult Literacy Survey(NCES); *Nevada
ABSTRACTBased on data from the National Adult Literacy Survey
(NALS) and census data, this document presents a series of studies onliteracy in Nevada. Estimates of the literacy levels of Nevada'sadults were derived from NALS data and census data. Employers who hadin-state addresses and who employed 10 or more workers in unskilledjobs were surveyed to describe workplace literacy in Nevada. A staffsurvey of the Department of Human Resources was conducted todetermine clients' literacy. Results of the studies indicated that:(1) over 200,000 adults in Nevada lack a high school diploma; (2)
over 62,000 Nevada households are bilingual, but in over 13,000households, no one speaks English; (3) the highest unemployment ratesin Nevada are for 16-19 year olds who are non-high school graduatesnot enrolled in school; (4) Nevada's high school dropout rate was 8%during the 1992-93 school year; (5) nearly three quarters ofemployers agreed that their unskilled employees' basic educationskills were generally adequate for their current jobs; (6) mostliteracy problems of Department of Human Resources customers involvednon-English speaking customers who had difficulty understandingagency and program policies; (7) more than half of Nevada StateWelfare Division's employment and training clientele have lowliteracy levels; and (8) half of Nevada's adult population functionbelow acceptable literacy-levels. Contains 13 charts of data drawnfrom the 1990 census. (RS)
************************************************************************ Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *
* from the original document. *
***********************************************************************
Literacy in Nevada:NEEDS ASSESSMENT
lit-er-a-cy: an individual's ability toread, write and speak in English,and compute and solve problemsat levels of proficiency necessary
to function on the job and in society,to achieve one's goals, anddevelop one's knowledge
and potential.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONMoe of Educational Researcn anti irnoroverneni
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)
CliThis document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.
Nevada Literacy Coalition
1 9 9 5
Source: Section 3 of P.L. 102-73,
National Literary Act of 1991.
NSLA NEVADA STATE LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES CARSON CITY, NEVADA 89710
2UST nnPv MIAII II F
LITERACY IN NEVADA:
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Published by:Nevada Literacy CoalitionNevada State Library & ArchivesCapitol Complex, 100 Stewart StreetCarson City, Nevada 89710In-State: (800) 445-WORD (9673)Local: (702) 687-8340Fax: (702) 687-8311
1995
Federally funded through:Nevada State Library & Archives
Library Services & Construction Act, Title VIand
State Job Training OfficeJob Training Partnership Act
3
LITERACY IN NEVADA: NEEDS ASSESSMENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The State Council on Libraries and Literacy which provided oversight for this study:Tim Carlson, Commission on Economic DevelopmentSharon Erck, Literacy OrganizationsLin Forest, Nevada Department of Education (NDE)Al Glover, Department of Human Resources (DHR)Carolyn Raw les-Heiser, Public Libraries (rural)Carol Jackson, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR)Joan Kerschner, Nevada State Library and Archives (NSLA)Bert Koon, Department of Parole & ProbationClark "Danny" Lee, Public Libraries (urban)
' Lauri Nitz, Private Sector EmploymentEdna Perkins, Library TrusteesJanet Pozarski, Institutional LibrariesSusan Southwick, Special LibrariesJean Spiller, School LibrariesWendy Starkweather, Academic LibrariesFran Terras, TeachersGeorge Weeks III, Department of PrisonsRoberta West, Labor
The four individuals who prepared Literacy in Nevada: Needs Assessment:Emmy Bell, Coordinator, Nevada Literacy Coalition, NSLAAl Glover, J.D., Chief of Planning, Evaluation and Program Development, DHRMike Mooney, Michael B. Mooney & Associates, Inc.Vicky Ramakka, Ed.D., for her doctoral dissertation
The significant contributors to this report:Jackie Cheney, Deputy Administrator, Welfare Division, DHRJim Hanna, Administrtor, Director's Office, DETRValorie Hopkins, Statewide One-Stop Coordinator, DETRRobert Kappmeyer, Executive Director, Cure America FoundationRobert Murdock, Economist and SOICC Manager, DETRKarren Rhodes, Public Information Officer, Employment Security Division, DETRPhyllis Rich, Director, Occupational and Adult Education, NDEDavid Smith, Ph.D., Consultant, Planning, Research and Evaluation, NDEJudy Thompson, Interim Consultant, Adult Education, NDEBarbara Weinberg, Administrator, State Job Training Office, DETR
The editorial review committee:Bonnie Buckley, Library Development Consultant, NSLAReina Fraze, Management Assistant, Nevada Literacy Coalition, NSLARoseanne Olds, Volunteer Editor, Library Development, NSLA
The sources of federal funding for this report:NSLA, Library Services Construction Act, Title VIState Job Training Office, Job Training Partnership Act
LITERACY IN NEVADA: NEEDS ASSESSMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
NATIONAL ADULT LITERACY SURVEY (NALS) AND NEVADA 3
Difficulties of Selected Tasks Along the Prose, Documentand Quantitative Literacy Scales 4
Description of the Prose, Document and QuantitativeDocument Levels 5
Combined Literacy Proficiencies of U. S. and NevadaAdults 16 Years and Older, by Level of Literacy Proficiency,Percent of Population and Geographic Location, 1994 6
Combined Literacy Proficiencies of Nevada Adults 16 Yearsand Older, by Level of Literacy Proficiency, Number ofPeople and Geographic Location, 1994 7
WORKPLACE LITERACY IN NEVADA: SURVEY OF EMPLOYERSAND EXTENT OF CURRENT PROGRAMS 8
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES: STAFF SURVEY OFCLIENTS' LITERACY 11
DEMOGRAPHICS 13
Education:Educational Attainment, All Persons 18 and Older, by GradeLevel and County, Nevada, 1990 16
Educational Attainment, All Persons 25 and Older, by GradeLevel and County, Nevada, 1990 17
Educational Attainment, Number and Percent of All Persons25 Years and Older, by Educational Level and Race,Nevada 1990 18
5
Employment and Education:Comparative Unemployment Rates of Persons 16-19 Years of Age,by School Enrollment Status, Labor Force and County,Nevada, 1990 19
Nevada Labor Force Estimates of Employment, Unemploymentand Unemployment Rates for Persons 16 Years and Older,1990 and 1994 20
Unemployment Rate of Persons 16 Years Old and Over, by Age,Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Highest Degree Attained,United States, 1992 21
Earnings and Education:Median Weekly and Annual Earnings of Year-Round Full-TimeWage and Salary Workers 16 Years Old and Over, byPrincipal Occupational Category, United States, 1994 22
Median Annual Money Earnings of Persons 25 Years Old andOver by Educational Attainment, Gender and Age, UnitedStates, 1992 23
Household Language(s):Household Language and Linguistic Isolation, by Language andCounty, Nevada, 1990 24
English-Speaking Ability of Nevadans Age 5 and Older WhosePrincipal Language Spoken at Home is Not English, 1990 25
Limited English and Non-English Speakers Age 5 Years andOlder, by Principal Language Spoken and by County,Nevada, 1990 26
Citizenship/Civil Status:Nevada Population by Citizenship, Age and County, 1990 27
Nevada Foreign-Born Residents by Age Group and County,1990 28
6
LITERACY IN NEVADA: NEEDS ASSESSMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
By Emmy Bell, Coordinator, Nevada Literacy Coalition
Over 200,000 of Nevada adults, 18 and older, lack a high school diploma:52,396 ( 6%) have less than a 9th grade education148,061 (16%) attended high school but did not graduate
In over 13,000 Nevada households no one speaks English and over 62,000 households arebilingual:
13,870 households are "linguistically isolated"62,447 households speak English "very well" in addition to their other household
language
The highest unemployment rates in Nevada are for 16-19 year olds who are non-high schoolgraduates not enrolled in school:
11% unemployment for high school graduates not enrolled in school25% unemployment for non-high school graduates not enrolled in school
Over 50,000 of Nevada's 93,000 foreign born adults are not yet U.S. citizens.
Nevada's high school dropout rate was eight percent during the 1992-93 school year:7% for Asian/Pacific Islanders7% for Whites9% for Blacks10% for American Indian /Alaskan Native14% for Hispanics
While nearly three-quarters of 696 respondents with unskilled employees agreed that theiremployees' basic education skills were generally adequate for their current jobs, employersidentified several areas where inadequate skills were impacting their companies. Basiceducation skills were defined as "reading, writing, mathematics, speaking and listening skills inEnglish that are generally necessary for employees in unskilled jobs to do satisfactory work."
62% of the respondents believed their job training would be more effective if employeeshad better basic skills
47% of the respondents had workers who could not be promoted due to poor basic skills23% of the respondents thought bringing in new equipment would be a problem due to
inadequate basic skills15% of the respondents indicated that poor basic skills increased their operational costs
5% or more11% of the respondents had difficulty providing safety training because of employees'
limited basic skills
1 7
A Department of Human Resources (DHR) survey revealed that most literacy problemsinvolved non-English speaking customers who had difficulty understanding agency andprogram policies as well as the forms and applications necessary to access those programs.DHR staff are frequently hindered by the customers' inability to communicate because either theagency had no bilingual staff or the clients did not bring an interpreter.
Many of the DHR customers who had difficulty with the English language communicationskills had little or no problems with math and interpretive skills. In all languages, thenumerical components, including denominations of money, are similar.
More than half of Nevada State Welfare Division's employment and training clientele havelow literacy levels. Of the mandatory participants during the state fiscal year 1991:
58% scored below the 8.9 grade literacy level on the Test of Adult Basic Education(TABE)
51% did not have a high school diploma or equivalency20% had been on Aid to Dependent Children (for single parents) or Aid to Dependent
Children of Unemployed Parents (for two-parent families) for three out of the lastfive years
15% of these non-high school graduates were young parents (under age 24) with youngchildren and little or no work history
The Nevada Literacy Coalition's statewide literacy assessment, modeled after -the 1992National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), found that Nevada had half of its adultpopulation, age 16 and older, functioning at or above acceptable literacy levels. The otherhalf of the adult population was functioning below average.
NALS determined literacy levels by an individual's ability to successfully perform selected tasks:prose: reading and writingdocument: forms, charts, graphs, tables, and mapsquantitative: consumer math and word problems
Scores ranged from level one (lowest) to level five (highest) on each of the three literacycontinuum.
A comparison of NALS to Nevada was made by applying a complicated mathematical formulato the data included in the 1990 Census long-forms for Nevada. Findings are:
Over 564,000 of Nevada's adults, 16 years and older, function at the three highest of fiveliteracy levels. Over 561,000 of Nevada's adults function at the two lowest literacy levels:
137,223 (12%) at level 1424,388 (38%) at level 2422,137 (38%) at level 3142,064 (12%) at levels 4 and 5 combined
Subtracting the 200,000 Nevadan adults lacking a high school diploma, 361,000 adults whoreported being high school graduates now living in Nevada, function at levels one and two.
NATIONAL ADULT LITERACY SURVEY (NALS) AND NEVADA
Prepared by Michael B. Mooney & Associates
Approximately 50 percent of Nevada's population age 16 and over (about 500,000 people)function in the two lowest of five literacy levels. That estimate is derived from the NationalAdult Literacy Survey (NALS) and updated census data. The proportion of Nevada's populationin the two lowest literacy levels is approximately the same as in the national population.Although Nevada did not participate in the NALS study, the survey's credibility makes itpossible to describe the Nevada population as being in the two lowest literacy levels. Thispopulation is the target audience for Nevada's literacy programs.
1. Nationally, adults who have a low educational attainment are more likely tofall within the two lowest literacy levels. In 1990, more than 200,000 Nevadaadults had less than a high school education.
2. Nationally, minority adults were more likely than white adults to perform atthe two lowest literacy levels. In 1990, there were 136,000 minority adults livingin Nevada.
3. Nationally, Hispanic adults reported the fewest years of schooling. In 1990,more than 16,000 Nevada Hispanic adults had less than a ninth grade education(more than 25% of the Hispanic population). More than 29,000 Hispanic adultshad completed less than 12 years of education (more than 46% of the Hispanicpopulation).
4. Nationally, individuals born in the United States generally outperformedindividuals born abroad. In 1990, there were more than 94,000 foreign-bornadults in Nevada (more than 8% of the state's population).
39
Diff
icul
ties
of S
elec
ted
Tas
ks A
long
the
Pro
se, D
ocum
ent,
and
Qua
ntita
tive
Lite
racy
Sca
les
Leve
l 1
Iden
tify
coun
try
In s
hort
art
icle
Loca
te o
ne p
iece
of I
nfor
mat
ion
in s
port
s ar
ticle
Leve
l 2
Und
erlin
e m
eani
ng o
f a te
rm g
iven
In g
over
nmen
t bro
chur
e on
supp
lem
enta
l sec
urity
Inco
me
Loca
te tw
o fe
atur
es o
f Inf
orm
atio
n in
spo
rts
artic
le
Inte
rpre
t Ins
truc
tion
from
an
appl
ianc
e w
arra
nty
Leve
l 1
Sig
n yo
ur n
ame
Loca
te e
xpira
tion
date
on
driv
er's
lice
nse
Loca
te ti
me
of m
eetin
g on
a fo
rm
Usi
ng p
ie g
raph
, loc
ate
type
of v
ehic
le h
avin
g sp
ecifi
c sa
les
Leve
l 2
Loca
te In
ters
ectio
n on
a s
tree
t map
Iden
tify
and
ente
r ba
ckgr
ound
Info
rmat
ion
on a
pplic
atio
n fo
rso
cial
sec
urity
car
d
....
.460
.
Leve
l 1
Tot
al a
ban
k de
posi
t ent
ry
Leve
l 2
Cal
cula
te p
osta
ge a
nd fe
es fo
r ce
rtifi
ed m
all
Cal
cula
te to
tal c
osts
of p
urch
ase
from
an
orde
r fo
rm
Leve
l 3
Writ
e a
brie
f let
ter
expl
aini
ng e
rror
mad
e on
a c
redi
t car
d bi
ll
Rea
d a
new
s ar
ticle
and
Iden
tify
a se
nten
ce th
at p
rovi
des
Inte
rpre
tatio
n of
a s
ituat
ion
Rea
d le
ngth
y ar
ticle
to Id
entif
y tw
o be
havi
ors
that
mee
t ast
ated
con
ditio
n
Leve
l 3
Iden
tify
Info
rmat
ion
from
bar
gra
ph d
epic
ting
sour
ce o
f ene
rgy
and
year
Use
sig
n-ou
t she
et to
res
pond
to c
all a
bout
res
iden
t
Use
bus
sch
edul
e to
det
erm
ine
appr
opria
te b
us fo
r gi
ven
set
of c
ondi
tions
Ent
er In
form
atio
n gi
ven
Into
an
auto
mob
ile m
aint
enan
cere
cord
form
Leve
l 3
Usi
ng c
alcu
lato
r, c
alcu
late
diff
eren
ce b
etw
een
regu
lar
and
sale
pric
e fr
om a
n ad
vert
isem
ent
Usi
ng c
alcu
lato
r, d
eter
min
e th
e di
scou
nt fr
om a
n oi
l bill
if p
aid
with
in 3
0 da
ys
Cal
cula
te m
iles
per
gallo
n us
ing
Info
rmat
ion
give
n on
mile
age
reco
rd c
hart
Pla
n tr
avel
arr
ange
men
ts fo
r m
eetin
g us
ing
fligh
t sch
edul
e
Leve
l 4
Sta
te in
writ
ing
an a
rgum
ent m
ade
In a
leng
thy
new
spap
erar
ticle
Exp
lain
diff
eren
ce(s
) be
twee
n tw
o ty
pes
of e
mpl
oyee
ben
efits
Con
tras
t vie
ws
expr
esse
d in
two
edito
rials
on
tech
nolo
gies
avai
labl
e to
mak
e fu
el-e
ffici
ent c
ars
Gen
erat
e un
fam
iliar
them
e fr
om s
hort
poe
ms
Com
pare
two
met
apho
rs u
sed
in p
oem
Leve
l 4
iden
tify
the
corr
ect p
erce
ntag
e m
eetin
g sp
ecifi
ed c
ondi
tions
from
a ta
ble
of s
uch
Info
rmat
ion
Use
bus
sch
edul
e to
det
erm
ine
appr
opria
te b
us fo
r gi
ven
set
of c
ondi
tions
Use
tabl
e of
info
rmat
ion
to d
eter
min
e pa
ttern
In o
il ex
port
sac
ross
yea
rs
Leve
l 4
Det
erm
ine
corr
ect c
hang
e us
ing
Info
rmat
ion
In a
men
u
Usi
ng in
form
atio
n st
ated
In n
ews
artic
le, c
alcu
late
am
ount
of
mon
ey th
at s
houl
d go
to r
aisi
ng a
chi
ld
Usi
ng e
ligib
ility
pam
phle
t, ca
lcul
ate
the
year
ly a
mou
nt a
coup
le w
ould
rec
eive
for
basi
c su
pple
men
tal s
ecur
ityIn
com
e
Leve
l 5
Com
pare
app
roac
hes
stat
ed in
nar
rativ
e on
gro
win
g up
Sum
mar
ize
two
way
s la
wye
rs m
ay c
halle
nge
pros
pect
ive
Juro
rs
Inte
rpre
t a b
rief p
hras
e fr
om a
leng
thy
new
s ar
ticle
Leve
l 5
Use
Info
rmat
ion
in ta
ble
to c
ompl
ete
a gr
aph
Incl
udin
g la
belin
gax
es
Use
tabl
e co
mpa
ring
cred
it ca
rds.
Iden
tify
the
two
cate
gorie
sus
ed a
nd w
rite
two
diffe
renc
es b
etw
een
them
Usi
ng a
tabl
e de
pict
ing
Info
rmat
ion
abou
t par
enta
l Inv
olve
men
tin
sch
ool s
urve
y, w
rite
a pa
ragr
aph
sum
mar
izin
g ex
tent
tow
hich
par
ents
and
teac
hers
agr
ee
Leve
l 5
Det
erm
ine
ship
ping
and
tota
l cos
ts o
n an
ord
er fo
rm fo
r ite
ms
In a
cat
alog
Usi
ng In
form
atio
n In
new
s ar
ticle
, cal
cula
te d
iffer
ence
In ti
mes
for
com
plet
ing
a ra
ce
Usi
ng c
alcu
lato
r, d
eter
min
e th
e to
tal c
ost o
f car
pet t
o co
ver
aro
om
SO
UR
CE
: Irw
in S
. Kirs
ch, A
nn J
unge
blut
, Lyn
n Je
nkin
s, a
nd A
ndre
w K
olst
ad. (
1993
) A
dult
Lite
racy
In_A
mer
Ica:
A F
irst L
ook
at th
e R
esul
ts o
f the
Nat
iona
l Adu
ltLi
tera
cy S
urve
y. W
ashi
ngto
n: G
over
nmen
t Prin
ting
Offi
ce. p
. 30.
Leve
l 1
Des
crip
tion
of th
e P
rose
, Doc
umen
t, an
d Q
uant
itativ
e Li
tera
cy L
evel
s
men
titat
ive
Leve
l 1Le
vel 1
Mos
t of t
he ta
sks
in th
is le
vel r
equi
re th
e re
ader
to r
ead
rela
tivel
y sh
ort t
ext t
o lo
cate
a s
ingl
e pi
ece
of in
form
atio
nw
hich
is Id
entic
al to
or
syno
nym
ous
with
the
info
rmat
ion
give
n in
the
ques
tion
or d
irect
ive.
If pl
ausi
ble
but i
ncor
rect
info
rmat
ion
is p
rese
nt In
the
text
, it t
ends
not
to b
e lo
cate
dne
ar th
e co
rrec
t inf
orm
atio
n. Leve
l 2
Tas
ks in
this
leve
l ten
d to
req
uire
the
read
er e
ither
to lo
cate
a pi
ece
of in
form
atio
n ba
sed
on a
lite
ral m
atch
or
to e
nter
info
rmat
ion
from
per
sona
l kno
wle
dge
onto
a d
ocum
ent.
Littl
e, if
any
, dis
trac
ting
info
rmat
ion
Is p
rese
nt.
Tas
ks in
this
leve
l req
uire
rea
ders
to p
erfo
rm s
ingl
e,re
lativ
ely
sim
ple
arith
met
ic o
pera
tions
, suc
h as
add
ition
.T
he n
umbe
rs to
be
used
are
pro
vide
d an
d th
e ar
ithm
etic
oper
atio
n to
be
perf
orm
ed is
spe
cifie
d.
Som
e ta
sks
in th
is le
vel r
equi
re r
eade
rs to
loca
te a
sin
gle
piec
e of
Info
rmat
ion
In th
e te
xt; h
owev
er, s
ever
al d
istr
acto
rsor
pla
usib
le b
ut in
corr
ect p
iece
s of
info
rmat
ion
may
be
pres
ent,
or lo
w-le
vel I
nfer
ence
s m
ay b
e re
quire
d. O
ther
task
s re
quire
the
read
er to
Inte
grat
e tw
o or
mor
e pi
eces
of
info
rmat
ion
or to
com
pare
and
con
tras
t eas
ily id
entif
iabl
eIn
form
atio
n ba
sed
on a
crit
erio
n pr
ovid
ed In
the
ques
tion
ordi
rect
ive.
Leve
l 2
Tas
ks in
this
leve
l are
mor
e va
ried
than
thos
e in
Lev
el 1
.S
ome
requ
ire th
e re
ader
s to
mat
ch a
sin
gle
piec
e of
Info
rmat
ion;
how
ever
, sev
eral
dis
trac
tors
may
be
pres
ent,
orth
e m
atch
may
req
uire
low
-leve
l Inf
eren
ces.
Tas
ks in
this
leve
l may
als
o as
k th
e re
ader
to c
ycle
thro
ugh
Info
rmat
ion
Ina
docu
men
t or
to In
tegr
ate
Info
rmat
ion
from
var
ious
par
ts o
fa
docu
men
t.
Leve
l 2
Tas
ks In
this
leve
l typ
ical
ly r
equi
re r
eade
rs to
per
form
asi
ngle
ope
ratio
n us
ing
num
bers
that
are
eith
er s
tate
d in
the
task
or
easi
ly lo
cate
d In
the
mat
eria
l. T
he o
pera
tion
to b
epe
rfor
med
may
be
stat
ed In
the
ques
tion
or e
asily
dete
rmin
ed fr
om th
e fo
rmat
of t
he m
ater
ial (
for
exam
ple,
an
orde
r fo
rm).
Leve
l 3
Tas
ks In
this
leve
l ten
d to
req
uire
rea
ders
to m
ake
liter
al o
rsy
nony
mou
s m
atch
es b
etw
een
the
text
and
Info
rmat
ion
give
n in
the
task
, or
to m
ake
mat
ches
that
req
uire
low
-leve
lIn
fere
nces
. Oth
er ta
sks
ask
read
ers
to in
tegr
ate
Info
rmat
ion
from
den
se o
r le
ngth
y te
xt th
at c
onta
ins
noor
gani
zatio
nal a
ids
such
as
head
ings
. Rea
ders
may
als
obe
ask
ed to
gen
erat
e a
resp
onse
bas
ed o
n in
form
atio
n th
atca
n be
eas
ily id
entif
ied
in th
e te
xt.
Leve
l 4
The
se ta
sks
requ
ire r
eade
rs to
per
form
mul
tiple
-fea
ture
mat
ches
and
to In
tegr
ate
or s
ynth
esiz
e in
form
atio
n fr
omco
mpl
ex o
r le
ngth
y pa
ssag
es. M
ore
com
plex
infe
renc
esar
e ne
eded
to p
erfo
rm s
ucce
ssfu
lly. C
ondi
tiona
lIn
form
atio
n Is
freq
uent
ly p
rese
nt In
task
s at
this
leve
l and
mus
t be
take
n in
to c
onsi
dera
tion
by th
e re
ader
.
Leve
l 3
Som
e ta
sks
in th
is le
vel r
equi
re th
e re
ader
to In
tegr
ate
mul
tiple
pie
ces
of in
form
atio
n fr
om o
ne o
r m
ore
docu
men
ts.
Oth
ers
ask
read
ers
to c
ycle
thro
ugh
rath
er c
ompl
ex ta
bles
or
grap
hs w
hich
con
tain
info
rmat
ion
that
is ir
rele
vant
or
Inap
prop
riate
to th
e ta
sk.
Leve
l 3
In ta
sks
in th
is le
vel,
two
or m
ore
num
bers
are
typi
cally
need
ed to
sol
ve th
e pr
oble
m, a
nd th
ese
mus
t be
foun
d in
the
mat
eria
l. T
he o
pera
tion(
s) n
eede
d ca
n be
det
erm
ined
from
the
arith
met
ic r
elat
ion
term
s us
ed in
the
ques
tion
ordi
rect
ive.
Leve
l 4
Tas
ks in
this
leve
l, lik
e th
ose
at th
e pr
evio
us le
vels
, ask
read
ers
to p
erfo
rm m
ultip
le-f
eatu
re m
atch
es, c
ycle
thro
ugh
docu
men
ts, a
nd in
tegr
ate
Info
rmat
ion;
how
ever
, the
y re
quire
a gr
eate
r de
gree
of i
nfer
endn
g. M
any
of th
ese
task
s re
quire
read
ers
to p
rovi
de n
umer
ous
resp
onse
s bu
t do
not
desi
gnat
e ho
w m
any
resp
onse
s ar
e ne
eded
. Con
ditio
nal
Info
rmat
ion
is a
lso
pres
ent i
n th
e do
cum
ent t
asks
at t
his
leve
l and
mus
t be
take
n in
to a
ccou
nt b
y th
e re
ader
.
Leve
l 4
The
se ta
sks
tend
to r
equi
re r
eade
rs to
per
form
two
or m
ore
sequ
entia
l ope
ratio
ns o
r a
sing
le o
pera
tion
In w
hich
the
quan
titie
s ar
e fo
und
in d
iffer
ent t
ypes
of d
ispl
ays,
or
the
oper
atio
n(s)
mus
t be
Infe
rred
from
sem
antic
info
rmat
ion
give
n or
dra
wn
from
prio
r kn
owle
dge.
Leve
l 5
Som
e ta
sks
in th
is le
vel r
equi
re th
e re
ader
to s
earc
h fo
rin
form
atio
n in
den
se te
xt w
hich
con
tain
s a
num
ber
ofpl
ausi
ble
dist
ract
ors.
Oth
ers
ask
read
ers
to m
ake
high
-le
vel i
nfer
ence
s or
use
spe
cial
ized
bac
kgro
und
know
ledg
e.S
ome
task
s as
k re
ader
s to
con
tras
t com
plex
info
rmat
ion.
Leve
l 5
Tas
ks in
this
leve
l req
uire
the
read
er to
sea
rch
thro
ugh
com
plex
dis
play
s th
at c
onta
in m
ultip
le d
istr
acto
rs, t
o m
ake
high
-leve
l tex
t-ba
sed
infe
renc
es, a
nd to
use
spe
cial
ized
know
ledg
e.
Leve
l 5
The
se ta
sks
requ
ire r
eade
rs to
per
form
mul
tiple
ope
ratio
nsse
quen
tially
. The
y m
ust d
isem
bed
the
feat
ures
of t
hepr
oble
m fr
om te
xt o
r re
ly o
n ba
ckgr
ound
kno
wle
dge
tode
term
ine
the
quan
titie
s or
ope
ratio
ns n
eede
d.
SO
UR
CE
: Irw
in S
. Kirs
ch, A
nn J
unge
blut
, Lyn
n Je
nkin
s, a
nd A
ndre
w K
olst
ad. (
1993
) A
dult
Lite
racy
In_
Am
eric
a: A
TIff
ittoo
k at
the
Res
ults
of t
he N
atio
nal A
dult
Lite
racy
Sur
vey.
Was
hing
ton:
Gov
ernm
ent P
rintin
g O
ffice
. p. 1
1.
COMBINED LITERACY PROFICIENCIES OF U. S. AND NEVADAADULTS 16 YEARS AND OLDER, BY LEVEL OF LITERACY
PROFICIENCY, PERCENT OF POPULATION AND GEOGRAPHICLOCATION, 1994
US[NALS Survey]
Statewide
Clark County
-t-
Washoe & DouglasCounties/
Carson City
Rural Counties
31%
12%
38%
38%
16%
42%
LEVEL OFLITERACY
Level 1
[E3 Level 2
Level 3
Levels4 sic 5
Source: Calculated fronra regression equation derived by Stephen Reder, "Synthetic Estimates of NALS LiteracyProficiencies from 1990 Census Microdata," Uteracy, Language & Communication Program, Northwest RegionalEducational Lab, Portland, OR.
COMBINED LITERACY PROFICIENCIES OF NEVADA ADULTS 16YEARS AND OLDER, BY LEVEL OF LITERACY PROFICIENCY,
NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, 1994
Statewide
Clark County
Washoe & DouglasCounties/
Carson City
Rural Counties
114,380
42,606
49,399
112,151
LEVEL OFLITERACY
Level 1
tV, Level 2
Level 3
IIIVt Levels4 & 5
Source: Calculated from a regression equation derived by Stephen Reder, "Synthetic Estimates of NALS LiteracyProficiencies from 1990 Census Microdata,* Literacy, Language & Communication Program, Northwest RegionalEducational Lab, Portland, OR.
7 1 5
WORKPLACE LITERACY IN NEVADA:
SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS
AND EXTENT OF CURRENT PROGRAMS
'STUDY SPONSORED BY THE NEVADA LITERACY COALITION ANDSTATE JOB TRAINING OFFICE, CARSON CITY, NEVADA
BY VICKY RAMAKKA, WORKPLACE SURVEY COORDINATOR
Our changing economy puts demands on the current workforce to adapt to new proceduresand increase productivity. The "skills gap" is the ever widening gap between the existingworkforce and the education and skills demanded in a highly competitive information basedeconomy. Workplace literacy involves basic reading, writing, computation, speaking andlistening skills which are required for acceptable performance of worksite tasks and the capabilityof using these skills to adapt to changes in the workplace.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether Nevada employers perceived a lackof basic education skills among the adult workforce and whether lack of basic education skillswas a hindrance to their organization's effectiveness. The study focused on currently employedadults in unskilled jobs. An additional objective of this study was to determine the extent ofworkplace literacy programs offered at business sites.
SURVEY
The survey was first mailed in May, 1994 to 2,021 private sector businesses selected atrandom from a database provided by the Employment Security Department. This grouprepresented a 25% sample of employers who had in-state addresses and employed 10 or moreworkers.
Two follow-up mailings were sent to non-respondents. Altogether, 1,163 surveys werereceived accounting for 1,182 businesses in the sample due to some corporate responsesrepresenting more than one site. Of these, 696 respondents reported having one or moreunskilled employees during May, 1994. Since the study focused on unskilled employees, theresults are based on these 696 respondents. Total number of employees represented by thisgroup was 42,137 skilled or semi-skilled workers and 27,211 unskilled workers.
168
RESULTS
While nearly three-quarters of the 696 respondents with unskilled employees agreed thattheir employees' basic education skills were generally adequate for their current jobs, employersidentified several areas where inadequate skills were impacting their companies. Basic educationskills were defined as reading, writing, mathematics, speaking and listening skills in English thatare generally necessary for employees in unskilled jobs to do satisfactory work.
62% of the respondents believed their job training would be more effective ifemployees had better basic skills
47% of the respondents had workers who could not be promoted due to poor basic skills23% of the respondents thought bringing in new equipment would be a problem due to
inadequate basic skills11% of the respondents had difficulty providing safety training because of
employees' limited basic skills15% of the respondents indicated that poor basic skills increased their
operational costs 5% or more
Some businesses have adopted strategies for coping with inadequate basic skills. Morethan a third of the respondents (38%) said their companies required people to completeapplication forms on the premises. Seventy-eight (11%) respondents said their companies testedjob applicants for reading or writing or math. Of these, 35 (45%) said they rejected 30% ormore of the applicants due to inadequate reading or writing or math skills.
Some employers supported employee education. Two percent (15) of the respondentsindicated some type of workplace literacy education taking place at their site. Twenty percentof the respondents reported that their companies would provide some type of incentive forunskilled employees to attend classes either on site or elsewhere in their communities. Half ofthese paid for some or all of the costs of the classes.
Forty-two percent of the respondents said they would be interested in methods toencourage employees to attend adult education or GED classes. Thirty percent indicated interestin information about basic education services available for workplace education. There waslimited interest concerning information about starting a basic education class at the business site,except for those respondents from companies which employed 500 or more workers, in which43% expressed interest in this area.
IMPLICATIONS
Employers who are able to prepare to prepare employees for advancement and offercontinuous job training may be better positioned to adapt to a changing future. In this study,employers expressed concern that inadequate basic skills were detrimental to their promotion andjob training efforts. Half the respondents said they would be interested in learning aboutmethods to encourage employees to attend adult education or GED classes. Thirty percentindicated interest in information about basic education services available for workplace education.
Respondents' written comments on the survey also indicated an unwillingness to allocateadditional public funds for workplace education. These trends lead to the likelihood ofsubstantially increased demand on existing adult education and volunteer literacy programs.Considering that approximately 98% of Nevada businesses have 100 or fewer employees, it islikely that small employers will need to rely on existing volunteer and publicly funded programsto supply workplace education.
9 17
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Organize an informational campaign targeted to employers concerning methods to encourageemployees to attend classes. Information about the types of incentives described by therespondents in this study could be a starting point.
2. Distribute to employers a concise list of education providers, perhaps by county or regionsof the state. The Nevada Literacy Coalition currently has a state-wide directory of providers,which could be used as a base for this.
3. Inform providers of the interest by employers in information about available services.Literacy providers often work with human services agencies, and may be overlooking thebusiness community. Community colleges, public schools and other larger providers should beencouraged to develop lists of employers in their service area for regularly distributing classschedules.
4. Such agencies as the Nevada Literacy Coalition and State Department of Education AdultBasic Education Office might consider focusing on workplace literacy as a theme for its trainingactivities with instructors and literacy volunteers, with emphasis on functional context literacyand methods to work with students on their job-related reading, writing and mathematics tasks.
5. The Nevada Literacy Coalition and State Department of Education Adult Basic EducationOffice should offer training activities for English as a Second Language instructors andvolunteers in methods to incorporate work-related vocabulary and cultural aspects of theworkplace into their curriculums.
6. Such agencies as the Small Business Development Centers or Economic DevelopmentAuthorities might organize workshops for managers and supervisors focusing on multi-culturalworkplaces and basic ESL teaching techniques that could be carried out in the workplace.
7. Since small employers rely on existing publicly funded programs and certain industries showneed for different types of basic skills (as evidenced by the survey), community colleges andlarger providers may consider coordinating with a group of businesses within the same industryto offer a class at a time and with content that would serve their employees. This approachwould keep the class open to the public, focus on content motivating to the students and fulfillworkplace education needs.
8. An informational campaign should be organized targeted to employers concerning symptomsof illiteracy in the workplace. Illiteracy is an invisible impairment. What may be perceived bysupervisors as a lack of motivation, may be in reality reluctance on the part of an employee toexpose his or her lack of reading, writing or mathematical ability.
io 18
Nevada Literacy AssessmentDepartment Of Human Resources
Staff SurveyAl Glover, J.D.
The Nevada Department of Human Resources (DHR) is the largest state agency directly serving thepublic. A wide range of services are provided by DHR's constituent divisions: Aging Services; Childand Family Services; Health; Indian Commission; Mental Hygiene/Mental Retardation; PublicDefender; and Welke. Many of the clients of these divisions represent disadvantaged populations.
As part of the statewide literacy assessment, a survey instrument was developed and sent to staff ateach of DHR's sites statewide. The survey sought information regarding the level and frequency ofclient problems dealing with literacy issues, such as the client's ability to understand spoken Englishand the requirements for applying for various DHR services and benefits, including the completionof forms. The response rate for the survey was 65%.
The table below shows the results of the survey for eight literacy-related questions. The first fivequestions focused on client difficulties with spoken and/or written English, with the last threefocusing on basic math skills and the ability to understand information tables, maps and directions.
There is anapparentdistinctio nbetween the firstgroup (1-5) ofrespons-esrelated toEnglish languagecommunicatio nskills and thesecond group(6-8), dealingwith math andinterpretiveskills. Whilethe "never"responses forthe basic Englishquestions rangedfrom 5percent to15 percent, thesame response for the second group of questions ranged from 31% to 37%. This result supports aninference that the primary difficulties facing DHR clients are involved with translating orunderstanding basic English as a second language rather than a lack of cognitive or literacy skills inany language.
100%
80%
80%
40%
20%
0%
DHR Client Literacy Survey
01 Q2 Q3 Q4 C15 08 Q7 Q8Framtently 24 N 26 16 14 11 12
Occessloaally N N 07 61 30 31 40
Never 16 14 13 27 31; 31
Not Ripening 1 1 3 7 16
Elliot Rooming ONsver DOccessimuily C3Frequeraiy
C11. Difficulty spulthm English02. Difficulty underst anding agony
requirements (access)Q3. Dilliculty commutating verbally wins
agency staffQ4. Difficulty reading or writing English
126. Nike* completing required forms/application
tat Difficulty with basic mathQT. Difficult usilsrsamding information tablesCIL Difficulty imderetanding scapsidinctions
19BM COPY AMIABLE
This inference is also supported by the many comments from respondents indicating that the primaryliteracy problems they encountered were due to Hispanic clients who simply did not understandEnglish, but were able to understand and communicate orally and in writing in Spanish. Nearly 60%of respondents reported that clients had frequently or occasionally informed them of literacy/language difficulties with other agencies.
The difficulties experienced by such clients are exacerbated by a lack of bilingual agency employees,as only 11 of 140 respondents indicated they were bilingual in Spanish. An encouraging note is foundin the willingness of staff to participate in training to assist them in dealing with these clients, withnearly a third (32%) of all respondents indicating such a willingness.
Additional findings based on the survey and respondent comments include:
DHR staff are frequently hindered by their clients' inability to communicate in English becauseeither the agency did not have bilingual staff or the client did not bring an interpreter. Lackof bilingual staff is even more of a problem when it is necessary to contact a client bytelephone.
DHR staff are impeded by the unavailability of required forms in Spanish.
Nearly all clients who have literacy difficulties were Hispanic, whose literacy issues wererelated to a lack of knowledge of English rather than a lack of any basic literacy skills. Of thevery few non - Hispanic clients with literacy issues, most were identified as mentally retardedor otherwise deficient.
Implications:
Nevada continues to grow at a rapid pace. Many families come to Nevada and obtain employmentin lower-paid service jobs associated with the gaming and tourism industry, and many of thesefamilies are literate in Spanish but not in English. The services provided by DHR's constituentdivisions are intended to help families in need in such a way that they may become self-sufficient andcontributing members of their communities. Language barriers hinder the Department's ability toprovide such services and hinder the families' ability to achieve self-sufficiency as soon as possible.
DEMOGRAPHICSPrepared by Michael B. Mooney & Associates
Education
In 1990, in Nevada:
22% of Nevada adults 18 years and older (200,000) have not completed a highschool education.
21% of Nevada adults 25 years and older (169,000 people) have not completed ahigh school education.
0 19% of Nevada White adults 25 years and older (131,000 people) have notcompleted a high school education.
0 29% of Nevada Black adults 25 years and older (12,000 people) have notcompleted a high school education.
0 31% of Nevada American Indian/Eskimo/Aleut adults 25 years and older(3,500 people) have not completed a high school education.
0 26% of Nevada Asian/Pacific Islander adults 25 years and older (6,000people) have not completed a high school education.
0 54% of Nevada Other race adults 25 years and older (131,000 people) havenot completed a high school education.
Employment and Education
In 1990, in Nevada:
Less than 6% of the Nevada labor force 16 years and older (43,000 people) wasunemployed, as compared to 17% (5,600 people) of all Nevadans 16-19 yearsold.
0 25% of Nevada non-high school graduates 16-19 years old (1,500 people)were unemployed.
0 16% of Nevadans 16-19 years old (3,000 people) enrolled in school wereunemployed.
0 11% of Nevada high school graduates 16-19 years old (800 people) wereunemployed.
In 1992, in the U. S.:
The rate of unemployment for persons 16 years and older is higher for personswith lower educational attainment than for persons with higher levels ofeducation.
0 All persons 16 to 24 years old with less than a high school education had anunemployment rate of 25%, as compared to 9% for all persons with abachelor's degree or higher. All persons 25 years and over with less than ahigh school education had an unemployment rate of 11%, as compared to 3%for all persons with a bachelor's degree or higher.
0 White persons 16 to 24 years old with less than a high school education hadan unemployment rate of 22%, as compared to 6% for such persons with abachelor's degree or higher. White persons 25 years and over with less than ahigh school education had an unemployment rate of 11%, as compared to 3%for such persons with a bachelor's degree or higher.
0 Black persons 16 to 24 years old with less than a high school education had anunemployment rate of 29%, as compared to 8% for such persons with abachelor's degree or higher. Black persons 25 years and over with less than ahigh school education had an unemployment rate of 15%, as compared to 4%for such persons with a bachelor's degree or higher.
0 Hispanic persons 16 to 24 years old with less than a high school education hadan unemployment rate of 20%, as compared to 10% for such persons with abachelor's degree or higher. Hispanic persons 25 years and over with lessthan a high school education had an unemployment rate of 13%, as comparedto 5% for such persons with a bachelor's degree or higher.
Earnings and Education
In 1992, nationally:
Median annual earnings are significantly higher for the managerial andprofessional occupations ($36,000) which generally require higher levels ofeducation than do other occupational specialties ($14,000 to $16,000 in serviceand agricultural occupations) which do not require high educational attainmentlevels.
Median incomes of persons 25 years and older increase with each higher level ofeducation, except for women age 65 and over.
0 Men with less than a 9th grade education had median incomes of at least$12,000. Women with less than a 9th grade education had median incomes ofat least $8,000.
0 Men with a bachelor's or higher degree had median incomes of at least$40,000. Women with a bachelor's or higher degree had a median income ofat least $26,000.
2214
Household Language(s
In 1990, in Nevada:
3% of Nevada households (14,000 households) were linguistically isolated (i.e.,no one in the household spoke English).
0 1.9% of Nevada households (9,000 households) spoke only Spanish.
0 0.6% of Nevada households (2,600 households) spoke only an Asian orPacific Island language.
0 0.5% of Nevada households (2,400 households) spoke some other language.
20% of Nevadans age 5 and over in 1990 (29,000 people) did not speak Englishwell or did not speak English at all.
Citizenship/Civil Status
In 1990, in Nevada:
9% of Nevada residents (105,000 people) were foreign-born.
0 1% of all Nevadans under 18 (11,000 people) were foreign-born.
0 10% of all Nevadans 18 years and older (94,000 people) in 1990 wereforeign-born.
5% of Nevada residents (61,000 people) were not U. S. citizens.
0 1% of Nevada non-citizen residents (9,000 people) were under 18 years ofage.
0 4% of Nevada non-citizen residents (52,000 people) were 18 years or older.
2315
Cou
n
ED
UC
AT
ION
AL
AT
TA
INM
EN
T,
ALL
PE
RS
ON
S 1
8 Y
EA
RS
AN
D O
LDE
R,
BY
GR
AD
E L
EV
EL
AN
D C
OU
NT
Y, N
EV
AD
A, 1
990
9th-
12th
Less
Tha
n<
9th
Gra
deH
igh
Sch
ool
Gra
deN
o D
i lom
aD
I lom
a
Chu
rchi
ll66
82,
080
Cla
rk33
,864
96,6
65D
ougl
as66
22,
245
Elk
o1,
630
3,67
5E
smer
alda
7723
2E
urek
a73
212
Hum
bold
t96
51,
413
Land
er26
388
1Li
ncol
n18
538
5
Lyon
1,12
02,
648
Min
eral
352
938
Nye
899
2,54
6P
ersh
ing
309
514
Sto
rey
8821
5W
asho
e9,
280
27,6
51W
hite
Pin
e46
11,
430
Car
son
City
1.50
04.
331
Tot
al52
,396
148,
061
Per
cent
5.78
%16
.32%
2,74
813
0,52
92,
907
5,30
530
928
52,
378
1144
570
3,76
812
903,
445
823
303
36,9
311,
891
5.83
1
200,
457
22.1
0%
Hig
h S
choo
lG
radu
ate
Som
eC
olle
geN
o D
egre
eA
ssoc
iate
Deg
ree
Bac
helo
rsD
egre
eG
rad/
Pro
fD
egre
eT
otal
4,44
23,
393
718
1,18
933
712
,827
182,
677
146,
972
30,5
8146
,085
24,0
1156
0,85
56,
324
5,94
01,
503
2,61
31,
191
20,4
787,
969
5,22
91,
645
1,98
869
822
,834
357
199
5985
191,
028
395
204
9312
220
1,11
93,
200
1,96
846
275
821
78,
983
1,81
562
517
527
811
44,
151
835
664
122
203
102
2,49
65,
663
3,06
383
993
133
114
,595
1,77
296
723
528
893
4,64
55,
249
3,05
056
783
834
913
,498
1,31
653
412
414
350
2,99
070
949
212
621
510
81,
953
55,2
7055
,298
12,6
2124
,642
11,7
5019
6,51
22,
259
1,46
736
452
020
46,
705
10.0
378.
654
2.21
82.
966
1.69
931
.405
290,
289
238,
719
52,4
5283
,864
41,2
9390
7,07
4
32.0
0%26
.32%
5.78
%9.
25%
4.55
%10
0.00
%
SO
UR
CE
: U. S
. Dep
artm
ent o
f Com
mer
ce. B
urea
u of
the
Cen
sus.
199
0 U
. S. C
ensu
s S
umm
ary
Tap
e F
ile 3
A.
2524
ED
UC
AT
ION
AL
AT
TA
INM
EN
T,
ALL
PE
RS
ON
S 2
5 Y
EA
RS
AN
D O
LDE
R,
BY
GR
AD
E L
EV
EL
AN
D C
OU
NT
Y, N
EV
AD
A, 1
990
Cou
nty
<9t
hG
rade
9th-
12th
Gra
deN
o D
iplo
ma
Less
Tha
nH
igh
Sch
ool
Dip
lom
aH
igh
Sch
ool
Gra
duat
e
Som
eC
olle
geN
o D
egre
eA
ssoc
iate
Deg
ree
Bac
helo
rsD
egre
eG
rad/
Pro
f'
Deg
ree
Tot
al
Chu
rchi
ll62
31,
697
2,32
03,
765
3,09
265
51,
149
337
11,3
18C
lark
31,0
3679
,250
110,
286
156,
127
124,
921
28,3
2343
,492
23,7
5948
6,90
8D
ougl
as57
21,
829
2,40
15,
792
5,49
21,
426
2,58
01,
191
18,8
82E
lko
1,40
02,
788
4,18
86,
660
4,54
81,
522
1,91
768
119
,516
Esm
eral
da61
199
260
307
185
5982
1991
2E
urek
a69
180
249
348
180
9011
620
1,00
3H
umbo
ldt
799
1,09
51,
894
2,70
81,
756
444
726
217
7,74
5La
nder
255
699
954
1,50
754
616
627
111
23,
556
-U
ncol
n17
433
951
374
361
112
020
199
2,28
7-.
4Ly
on1,
050
2,25
73,
307
5,10
82,
854
816
925
323
13,3
33M
iner
al34
676
011
061,
521
883
227
279
934,
109
Nye
879
2,16
93,
048
4,63
52,
907
512
812
349
12,2
63P
ersh
ing
297
413
710
1,15
449
594
141
502,
644
Sto
rey
8819
027
863
643
812
021
010
51,
787
Was
hoe
8,29
721
,364
29,6
6147
,277
45,5
0111
,777
23,4
2911
,696
169,
341
Whi
te P
ine
443
1,16
21,
605
1,99
91,
332
354
484
197
5,97
1C
arso
n C
ity1.
382
maf
f4.
848
Ifiai
LOB
2.9.
912.
8.71
1 69
928
.063
Tot
al47
,771
119,
857
167,
628
248,
968
203,
599
48,8
0379
,693
40,9
4778
9,63
8
Per
cent
6.05
%15
.18%
21.2
3%31
.53%
25.7
8%6.
18%
10.0
9%5.
19%
100.
00%
SO
UR
CE
: U. S
. Dep
artm
ent o
f Com
mer
ce. B
urea
u of
the
Cen
sus.
199
0 U
. S. C
ensu
s S
umm
ary
Tap
e F
ile 3
A.
2627
ED
UC
AT
ION
AL
AT
TA
INM
EN
TN
UM
BE
R A
ND
PE
RC
EN
T D
IST
RIB
UT
ION
OF
ALL
PE
RS
ON
S25
YE
AR
S A
ND
OLD
ER
BY
ED
UC
AT
ION
AL
LEV
EL
AN
D R
AC
E, N
EV
AD
A,
1990
Rac
e/E
thni
city
<9t
hG
rade
9th-
12th
Gra
de
Less
Tha
nH
igh
Sch
ool
Dip
lom
aH
igh
Sch
ool
Gra
duat
eC
olle
geN
o D
egre
e
/
Ass
ocia
teD
egre
eB
ache
lors
Deg
ree
Gra
d/P
rof
Deg
ree
Whi
te31
,814
99,0
0713
0,82
121
9,89
818
1,31
743
,007
71,7
2237
,315
Bla
ck3,
215
9,28
412
,499
13,1
5610
,841
2,48
02,
417
1,42
4A
UE
/A1
1,08
02,
503
3,58
33,
654
2,86
381
663
731
6A
/PI'
2,93
63,
398
6,33
46,
291
4,85
31,
597
3,89
11,
464
Oth
erM
k5.
665
14.3
915.
969
3.72
590
UM
42.4
Tot
al47
,771
119,
857
167,
628
248,
968
203,
599
48.8
0379
,693
40,9
47
His
pani
c'15
,806
13,1
3128
,937
15,4
5610
,893
2,82
23,
088
1,31
1
Per
cent
of R
adal
/Eth
nic
Pop
ulat
ion
Rac
e/E
thni
dty
<9t
hG
rade
9th-
12th
Gra
de
Less
Tha
nH
igh
Sch
ool
Dip
lom
aH
igh
Sch
ool
Gra
duat
eC
olle
geN
o D
egre
eA
ssoc
iate
Deg
ree
Bac
helo
rsD
egre
eG
racU
Pro
fD
egre
e
Whi
te4.
65%
14.4
7%19
.12%
32.1
5%26
.51%
6.29
%10
.48%
5.45
%B
lack
7.51
%21
.68%
29.1
9%30
.73%
25.3
2%5.
79%
5.64
%3.
33%
Al/E
/A1
9.10
%21
.09%
30.1
9%30
.79%
24.1
2%6.
88%
5.37
%2.
66%
A/P
1212
.02%
13.9
1%25
.93%
25.7
5%19
.86%
6.54
%15
.93%
5.99
%O
ther
33.0
0%21
.42%
5442
.447
.22
.57%
14.0
9%3.
42%
3.88
%1.
62%
Tot
al6.
05%
15.1
8%21
.23%
31.5
3%25
.78%
6.18
%10
.09%
5.19
%
His
pani
c'25
.29%
21.0
1%46
.29%
24.7
3%17
.43%
4.51
%4.
94%
2.10
%
SO
UR
CE
: U. S
. Dep
artm
ent o
f Com
mer
ce. B
urea
u of
the
Cen
sus.
199
0 U
. S. C
ensu
s S
umm
ary
Tap
e F
ile 3
k'A
mer
ican
Indi
an/E
skim
o/A
leut
2Asl
an/P
acH
ic Is
land
erIn
clud
es p
eopl
e w
ho d
ecla
re th
emse
lves
to b
e of
His
pani
c or
igin
. His
pani
c pe
rson
s m
ay b
e in
clud
ed In
any
oth
er r
acia
l gro
up. H
ispa
nic,
by
itsel
f, is
not a
rac
ial g
roup
.
29
28
COMPARATIVE UNEMPLOYMENT RATES OF PERSONS 16-19YEARS OF AGE, BY SCHOOL ENROLLMENT STATUS, LABOR
FORCE, AND COUNTY, NEVADA, 1990
County
Civilians Enrolled in School High School Graduates Not Enrolled in School
TotalLaborForce
NumberUnemployed
Percentof Labor ForceUnemployed
TotalLaborForce
NumberUnemployed
Percentof Labor ForceUnemployed
Churchill 335 32 9.55% 127 27 21.26%Clark 12,117 2,139 17.65% 4,732 566 11.96%Douglas 568 103 18.13% 77 13 16:88%Elko 606 113 18.65% 182 8 4.40%Esmeralda, 11 0 0.00% 15 6 40.00%Eureka 16 2 12.50% 4 0 0.00%Humboldt 230 42 18.26% 112 8 7.14%Lander 128 9 7.03% 38 2 5.26%Uncoln 42 0 0.00% 25 2 8.00%Lyon 267 24 8.99% 79 14 17.72%Mineral 81 24 29.63% 63 18 28.57%Nye 201 42 20.90% 102 14 13.73%Pershing 99 18 18.18% 21 0 0.00%Storey 36 2 5.56% 19 3 15.79%Washoe 4,698 637 13.56% 1,619 136 8.40%White Pine 107 24 22.43% 29 0 0.00%Carson City art 1116 12.09% 18.4 14 ZIA%
Statewide 20,419 3,317 16.24% 7,424 831 11.19%
Note: Civilians include those persons who are not in the armed forces and who are available for employment.
County
Non-High School Graduates Not Enrolled InSchool
Overall Unemployment of 16 through 19 Year OldPopulation
TotalLaborForce
NumberUnemployed
Percentof Labor ForceUnemployed
Total16- 19 Year Old
Labor Force
Total16 -19 Year Old
Unemployed
Statewide16 -19 Year OldUnemployment
Rate
Churchill 39 12 30.77% 501 71 14.17%Clark 4,231 1,042 24.63% 21,080 3,747 17.78%Douglas 81 5 6.17% 726 121 16.67%Elko 240 75 31.25% 1,028 196 19.07%Esmeralda 13 4 30.77% 39 10 25.64%Eureka 6 0 0.00% 26 2 7.69%Humboldt 74 12 16.22% 416 62 14.90%Lander 16 11 68.75% 182 22 12.09%Uncoln 4 0 0.00% 71 2 2.82%Lyon 38 15 39.47% 384 53 13.80%Mineral 19 19 100.00% 163 61 37.42%Nye 75 31 41.33% 378 87 23.02%Pershing 7 2 28.57% 127 20 15.75%Storey 0 0 0.00% 55 5 9.09%Washoe 1,002 252 25.15% 7,319 1,025 14.00%White Pine 18 5 27.78% 154 29 18.83%Carson City AO 44 30.14% 1.243 164 13.63%
Statewide 6,009 1,529 25.45% 33,852 5,677 16.77%
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 U.S. Census Summary Tape File 3A.
NE
VA
DA
LA
BO
R F
OR
CE
ES
TIM
AT
ES
OF
EM
PLO
YM
EN
T,
UN
EM
PLO
YM
EN
T, A
ND
UN
EM
PLO
YM
EN
T R
AT
ES
FO
RP
ER
SO
NS
16
YE
AR
S A
ND
OLD
ER
, 199
0 A
ND
199
4
Cou
nty
1990
Lab
or F
orce
lU
nem
ploy
men
t19
901
Rat
e19
942
Tot
alE
mpl
oyed
Une
mpl
oyed
Chu
rchi
ll8,
680
8,10
058
06.
60%
7.54
%C
lark
499,
200
471,
430
27,7
705.
60%
6.70
%D
ougl
as16
,380
15,4
9090
05.
50%
4.78
%E
lko
20,3
9019
,300
1,09
05.
40%
5.64
%E
smer
alda
730
680
506.
50%
8.56
%E
urek
a93
085
080
8.60
%3.
69%
Hum
bold
t8,
260
7,86
041
04.
90%
6.53
%La
nder
2,79
02,
540
250
9.10
%7.
10%
Unc
oln
1,54
01,
400
130
8.70
%4.
59%
Lyon
10,3
109,
480
830
8.00
%5.
17%
Min
eral
2,96
02,
710
250
8.30
%8.
15%
Nye
10,7
4010
,100
630
5.90
%5.
35%
Per
shin
g2,
090
1,96
013
06.
10%
7.94
%S
tore
y1,
430
1,37
060
4.10
%6.
11%
Was
hoe
165,
400
156,
700
8,70
05.
00%
5.09
%W
hite
Pin
e3,
480
3,17
031
08.
80%
7.45
%C
arso
n C
ity21
.680
20.3
501.
330
6.10
%5.
06%
Sta
tew
ide
Tot
al77
6,99
073
3,49
043
,500
5.60
%6.
19%
SO
UR
CE
:1
U.S
.D
epar
tmen
t of C
omm
erce
, Bur
eau
of th
e C
ensu
s, 1
990
U.S
. Cen
sus
Sum
mar
y T
ape
File
3k
Labo
r F
orce
Is d
efin
ed a
s al
l per
sons
cla
ssifi
ed in
the
civi
lian
labo
r fo
rce
plus
act
ive
duty
mem
bers
of t
he U
S A
rmed
For
ces.
2 N
evad
aE
mpl
oym
ent S
ecur
ity D
ivis
ion.
31
Unemployment Rate of Persons 16 Years Old and Over, by Age,Sex Race/Ethnicity, and Highest Degree Attained, United States,
1992.
Percent Unemployed)Persons 16 to 24 Years Ole
25 Yearsand OverTotal
16-19Years
20-24Years
All Persons
All Educational Levels 14.3% 21.7% 12.0% 8.1%Less Than HS Graduate 24.9% 27.8% 22.3% 11.4%HS Graduate, No College 13.9% 18.8% 12.5% 6.8%Associate Degree 6.0% 14.6% 5.8% 4.7%Some College, No Degree 9.6% 11.5% 9.3% 6.0%Bachelor's Degree or Higher 8.5% 0.0% 6.5% 3.2%
Men
All Educational Levels 15.1% 22.0% 13.0% 6.4%Less Than HS Graduate 23.6% 26.8% 21.1% 11.4%HS Graduate, No College 14.7% 19.5% 13.5% 7.3%Some College, No Degree 9.4% 10.6% 9.2% 6.1%Bachelor's Degree or Higher 7.7% 0.0% 7.7% 3.3%
Women
All Educational Levels 13.3% 21.4% 10.9% 5.7%Less Than HS Graduate 27.1% 29.3% 24.8% 11.4%HS Graduate, No College 13.0% 18.0% 11.4% 6.2%Some College, No Degree 9.8% 12.2% 9.4% 5.8%Bachelor's Degree or Higher 5.5% 0.0% 5.5% 3.0%
White3
All Educational Levels 12.0% 18.4% 10.0% 5.5%Less Than HS Graduate 21.5% 24.0% 19.2% 10.7%HS Graduate, No College 11.5% 15.6% 10.3% 6.0%Some College, No Degree 7.8% 9.5% 7.5% 5.4%Bachelor's Degree or Higher 6.3% 0.0% 6.3% 3.0%
B adc3
All Educational Levels 28.8% 41.8% 24.8% 10.9%Less Than HS Graduate 44.4% 49.4% 40.1% 15.1%HS Graduate, No College 26.6% 37.2% 24.1% 12.3%Some College, No Degree 21.6% 26.1% 21.0% 10.3%Bachelor's Degree or Higher 7.6% 0.0% 7.6% 4.4%
Hispanic Original
All Educational Levels 16.7% 26.5% 13.7% 9.6%Less Than HS Graduate 20.3% 29.0% 16.5% 12.8%HS Graduate, No College 14.7% 23.2% 12.4% 9.0%Some College, No Degree 11.4% 18.8% 10.5% 84.0%Bachelor's Degree or Higher 10.3% 0.0% 10.3% 5.0%
Source: US Department of labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Employment and UnemploymentStatistics. Unpublished Data. (Table prepared, May 1993.).
1 The unemployment rate is the percent of individuals In the labor force who are not working and who madespecific efforts to find employment sometime during the prior 4 weeks. The labor force includes both employedand unemployed persons.
2 Excludes persons enrolled In school.3 Included persons of Hispanic origin.4 Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
21 3 3
Med
ian
Wee
kly
and
Ann
ual'
Ear
ning
s of
Yea
r-R
ound
Ful
l-Tim
e W
age
and
Sal
ary
Wor
kers
16
Yea
rsO
ld a
nd O
ver,
by
Prin
cipa
l Occ
upat
iona
l Cat
egor
y, U
nite
d S
tate
s, 1
994
Occ
upat
ion
Bot
h S
exes
Men
Wom
enN
umbe
r of
Wor
kers
[thou
sand
s]
Med
ian
Wee
kly
Ear
ning
s
Med
ian
Ann
ual
Ear
ning
s
Num
ber
ofW
orke
rs[th
ousa
nds]
Med
ian
Wee
kly
Ear
ning
s
Med
ian
Ann
ual
Ear
ning
s
Num
ber
ofW
orke
rs[th
ousa
nds]
Med
ian
Wee
kly
Ear
ning
s
Med
ian
Ann
ual
Ear
ning
s
Tot
al, 1
6 Y
ears
and
Ove
r87
,379
$467
$24,
284
40,9
92$5
22$2
7,14
437
,386
$399
$20,
748
Man
ager
ial &
Pro
fess
iona
l25
,208
$683
$35,
516
13,0
21$8
03$4
1,75
612
,187
$592
$30,
784
Pro
fess
iona
l Spe
cial
ty12
,875
$706
$36,
712
6,23
8$8
09$4
2,06
86,
839
$823
$42,
796
Tec
hnic
al, S
ales
, Adm
inis
trat
ive
Sup
port
25,7
18$4
20$2
1,84
09,
764
$549
$28,
548
15,9
14$3
78$1
9,65
6S
ales
Occ
upat
ions
8,47
0$4
50$2
3,40
04,
836
$576
$29,
952
3,63
3$3
24$1
6,84
8A
dmin
istr
ativ
e su
ppor
t14
,074
$392
$20,
384
3,28
0$4
82$2
5,06
410
,785
$374
$19,
448
Ser
vice
Occ
upat
ions
9,48
6$2
94$1
5,28
84,
784
$350
$18,
200
4,70
2$2
57$1
3,36
4S
ervi
ce O
ccup
atio
ns e
xcep
t priv
ate
HH
& p
rote
ctiv
e7,
211
$271
$14,
092
3,09
6$2
93$1
5,23
64,
115
$258
$13,
416
Pre
cisi
on p
rodu
ctio
n, c
raft
& r
epai
r10
,795
$504
$26,
208
9,82
4$5
15$2
6,78
097
0$3
70$1
9,24
0O
pera
tors
, fab
ricat
ors,
and
labo
rers
14,7
45$3
73$1
9,39
611
,333
$406
$21,
112
3,41
2$2
93$1
5,23
6T
rans
port
atio
n &
mat
eria
ls M
ovin
g4,
095
$461
$23,
972
3,85
4$4
89$2
5,42
824
2$5
1$2
,652
Han
dler
s, e
quip
men
t dea
ners
and
Lab
orer
s3,
617
$311
$16,
172
3,01
0$3
19$1
6,58
880
8$2
79$1
4,50
8F
arm
ing,
fore
stry
, and
Fis
hing
1,42
6$2
82$1
4,66
41,
266
$290
$15,
080
161
$234
$12,
168
Sou
rce:
Bur
eau
of L
abor
Sta
tistic
s, E
mpl
oym
ent a
nd E
arni
ngs,
Jan
uary
, 199
5.'A
nnua
l Inc
ome
calc
ulat
ed o
n a
52-w
eek
year
.
3435
Med
ian
Ann
ual M
oney
Ear
ning
s of
Per
sons
25
Yea
rs O
ld a
nd O
ver,
by
Edu
catio
nal A
ttain
men
t, G
ende
ran
d A
ge, U
nite
d S
tate
s, 1
992
Gen
der,
Ear
ning
s, a
nd A
geT
otal
Less
Tha
n9t
h G
rade
Som
e H
igh
Sch
ool
(No
Dip
lom
a)
Hig
h S
choo
lG
radu
ate
(Inc
lude
sE
quiv
alen
cy)
Som
eC
olle
ge(N
o D
egre
e)A
ssoc
iate
Deg
ree
Bac
helo
r's D
egre
e or
Mor
e
Tot
alB
ache
lor's
Deg
ree
Mas
ter's
Deg
ree
Pro
fess
iona
lD
octo
r'sD
egre
eD
egre
e
VV
ith E
arni
ngs
25,7
6660
,356
3,23
04,
983
Tot
al77
,644
7,30
27,
820
$26,
472
$12,
206
$15,
928
$21,
692
$10,
235
$13,
449
$30,
306
$14,
366
$16,
606
$32,
817
$15,
317
$20,
674
$26,
703
$15,
917
,$2
0,35
2$9
,093
$4,8
17$6
,941
All
Age
s, 2
5 an
d O
ver
25 to
34
Yea
rs35
to 4
4 Y
ears
45 to
54
Yea
rs55
to 6
4 Y
ears
65 Y
ears
and
Ove
r
Tot
alW
ith E
arni
ngs
All
Age
s, 2
5 an
d O
ver
25 to
34
Yea
rs35
to 4
4 Y
ears
45 to
54
Yea
rs55
to 6
4 Y
ears
65 Y
ears
and
Ove
r
85,1
81I
7;68
296
I9,
246
I
51,2
483,
507
$16,
277
$16,
022
$17,
286
$17,
977
$14,
017
$6,2
92
$7,9
42$7
,503
$8,3
92$9
,846
$7,9
06$4
,665
$9,7
84$9
,205
$9,5
58$1
1,39
5$1
0,06
4$4
,993
Men
[Num
ber,
in th
ousa
nds]
II
20,2
6810
,831
Med
ian
Ear
ning
s
$22,
785
$26,
873
$20,
016
$21,
537
$25,
587
$30,
536
$26,
084
$34,
243
$23,
934
$29,
633
$8,3
07$9
,257
12,9
204,
601
I
19,2
3412
,154
4,36
8I
1,06
04,
072
,75
46
$30,
052
$40,
590
$36,
691
$25,
489
$31,
973
$31,
119
$31,
270
$44,
211
$40,
903
$36,
542
$48,
783
$41,
898
$30,
482
$42,
344
$40,
467
$11,
247
$19,
554
$16,
333
Wom
en
[Num
ber,
In th
ousa
nds]
31,8
2314
,175
5,75
518
,882
9,91
84,
391
Med
ian
Ear
ning
s
$13,
266
$12,
261
$14,
145
$15,
240
$12,
805
$6,7
68
$16,
611
$15,
588
$17,
174
$19,
324
$16,
825
$6,0
10
$19,
642
$18,
427
$20,
415
$21,
112
$20,
227
$8,8
94
I12,
898
I11
4:54
I
$26,
417
$24,
748
$27,
551
$30,
464
$27,
240
$7,8
07
$24,
126
$23,
604
$25,
245
$25,
818
$21,
757
$6,5
93
8
$43,
371
$70,
726
$35,
555
$39,
342
$45,
831
$86,
870
$51,
104
$78,
822
$37,
429
$80,
185
$12,
406
$48,
318
3::'2
1;I
`511
91
$30,
934
$27,
088
$30,
850
$34,
669
$33,
037
$9,0
87
$37,
249
$35,
667
$40,
000
$44,
824
916
$62,
285
$36,
485
$64,
527
$59,
155
$55,
179
$37,
440
I
368
329
$39,
901
$40,
218
$41,
490
Sou
rce:
US
Dep
artm
ent o
f Com
mer
ce, B
urea
u of
the
Cen
sus,
Cur
rent
Pop
ulat
ion
Rep
orts
, Ser
ies
P-6
0, M
oney
inco
me
of H
ouse
hold
s, F
amili
es, a
nd P
erso
ns in
the
Uni
ted
Sta
tes:
1992
(pre
pare
d A
ugus
t 199
4).
Incl
udes
full-
time
and
part
tim
e w
orke
rs-
Dat
a no
t ava
ilabl
e.N
ote:
Bec
ause
of r
ound
ing
deta
ils m
ay n
ot a
dd to
tota
ls.
3736
HO
US
EH
OLD
LA
NG
UA
GE
AN
D L
ING
UIS
TIC
ISO
LAT
ION
,B
Y L
AN
GU
AG
E A
ND
CO
UN
TY
, NE
VA
DA
, 199
0
Cou
nty
Spe
ak O
nly
Eng
lish
Spa
nish
Lan
guag
eA
/PI L
angu
age
Oth
er L
angu
age
Tot
alH
ouse
hold
sLi
ngui
stic
ally
Isol
ated
Not
Isol
ated
Ling
uist
ical
lyIs
olat
edN
otIs
olat
edLi
ngui
stic
ally
Isol
ated
Not
Isol
ated
Chu
rchi
ll5,
998
4122
210
111
724
46,
633
Cla
rk23
6,85
65,
901
20,1
341,
956
6,80
41,
488
14,5
4528
7,68
4D
ougl
as9,
266
4457
40
3463
613
10,5
94E
lko
9,70
534
61,
092
857
6570
711
,980
Esm
eral
da52
212
294
53
1158
6E
urek
a54
014
320
24
2761
9H
umbo
ldt
3,69
221
936
60
1556
246
4,59
4La
nder
1,87
941
187
012
1987
2,22
5Li
ncol
n1,
258
672
02
831
1,37
7Ly
on6,
851
9644
37
4834
208
7,68
5M
iner
al2,
221
813
78
2513
128
2,53
8N
ye6,
045
1835
60
3030
247
6,72
6P
ersh
ing
1,34
824
154
62
089
1,62
3S
tore
y92
33
300
43
3399
6W
asho
e87
,121
1,90
25,
422
539
2,17
752
84,
741
102,
430
Whi
te P
ine
2,92
822
202
010
1419
63,
372
Car
son
City
14.0
1318
1Z
234f
iLI
81za
15.8
51
Sta
te T
otal
391,
166
8,88
230
,175
2,58
69,
414
2,40
222
,888
467,
513
SO
UR
CE
: U. S
. Dep
artm
ent o
f Com
mer
ce. B
urea
u of
the
Cen
sus.
199
0 U
. S. C
ensu
s S
umm
ary
Tap
e F
ile 3
A.
FIL
E N
AM
E: P
029.
DO
C
LAN
GU
AG
E D
EF
INIT
ION
S
Lang
uage
Spo
ken
at H
ome
In h
ouse
hold
s w
here
one
or
mor
e pe
rson
s ag
e 5
year
s or
ove
r sp
eak
a la
ngua
ge o
ther
than
Eng
lish,
the
hous
ehol
d la
ngua
ge a
ssig
ned
to a
ll ho
useh
old
mem
bers
isth
e no
n-E
nglis
h la
ngua
ge s
poke
n by
the
first
per
son
with
a n
on-E
nglis
h la
ngua
ge in
the
follo
win
g or
der
hous
ehol
der,
spo
use,
par
ent,
sibl
ing,
chi
ld, g
rand
child
, oth
erre
lativ
e, s
tepc
hild
, unm
arrie
d pa
rtne
r, h
ouse
mat
e or
roo
mm
ate,
roo
mer
, boa
rder
, or
fost
er c
hild
, or
othe
r no
nrel
ativ
e. T
hus,
per
sons
who
spe
ak o
nly
Eng
lish
may
have
a n
on-E
nglis
h ho
useh
old
lang
uage
ass
igne
d to
them
in ta
bula
tion
of p
erso
ns b
y ho
useh
old
lang
uage
.
Ling
uist
ic Is
olat
ion
A h
ouse
hold
in w
hich
no
pers
on a
ge 1
4 ye
ars
or o
ver
spea
ks o
nly
Eng
lish
and
no p
erso
n ag
e 14
yea
rs o
r ov
er w
ho s
peak
s a
lang
uage
oth
er th
an E
nglis
h sp
eaks
Eng
lish
'ver
y w
ell'
is c
lass
ified
as
'ling
uist
ical
ly Is
olat
ed.'
All
the
mem
bers
of a
ling
uist
ical
ly is
olat
ed h
ouse
hold
are
tabu
late
d as
ling
uist
ical
ly Is
olat
ed, I
nclu
ding
mem
bers
und
er a
ge 1
4 ye
ars
who
may
spe
ak o
nly
Eng
lish.
3839
EN
GLI
SH
SP
EA
KIN
G A
BIL
ITY
OF
NE
VA
DA
NS
AG
E 5
AN
D O
LDE
RW
HO
SE
PR
INC
IPA
L LA
NG
UA
GE
SP
OK
EN
AT
HO
ME
IS N
OT
EN
GLI
SH
, 199
0
Prin
cipa
lLa
ngua
geS
poke
nat
Hom
e
Spe
akE
nglis
hV
ery
Wel
l
Spe
akE
nglis
hW
ell
Spe
akE
nglis
hN
ot W
ell/
Not
at A
ll
Tot
alF
orei
gn L
angu
geS
peak
ers
Per
cent
For
eign
Lan
guge
Spe
aker
s
Spa
nish
44,4
0119
,188
21,8
8585
,474
58.4
8%A
/PI'
12,7
907,
874
4,40
625
,070
17.1
5%O
ther
26.7
936.
415
2.4.
4435
.608
24.3
6%
Tot
al83
,984
33,4
7728
,691
146,
152
100.
00%
SO
UR
CE
: U. S
. Dep
artm
ent o
f Com
mer
ce. B
urea
u of
the
Cen
sus.
199
0 U
. S. C
ensu
s S
umm
ary
Tap
e F
ile 3
k
1A/P
1=A
slan
/Pad
fic Is
land
lang
uage
.
LAN
GU
AG
E D
EF
INIT
ION
S
Abi
lity
to S
peak
Eng
lish
Per
sons
5 y
ears
old
and
ove
r w
ho r
epor
ted
that
they
spo
ke a
lang
uage
oth
er th
an E
nglis
h w
ere
also
ask
ed to
indi
cate
thei
r ab
ility
to s
peak
Eng
lish
base
d on
one
of t
he fo
llow
ing
cate
gorie
s: 'V
ery
Wel
l,' W
ell,"
'Not
Wel
l,"N
ot a
t All'
The
dat
a on
abi
lity
to s
peak
Eng
lish
repr
esen
t the
per
son'
s ow
n pe
rcep
tion
abou
t his
or
her
own
abili
ty o
r, b
ecau
sece
nsus
que
stio
nnai
res
are
usua
lly c
ompl
eted
by
one
hous
ehol
d m
embe
r, th
e re
spon
ses
may
rep
rese
nt th
e pe
rcep
tions
of
anot
her
hous
ehol
d m
embe
r. T
he In
stru
ctio
n gu
ide
and
ques
tionn
aire
s th
at w
ere
mai
led
to h
ouse
hold
s di
d no
t inc
lude
any
Info
rmat
ion
on h
ow to
Inte
rpre
t the
res
pons
e ca
tego
ries.
ti
Per
sons
who
rep
orte
d th
at th
ey s
poke
a la
ngua
ge o
ther
than
Eng
lish
at h
ome
but w
hose
abi
lity
to s
peak
Eng
lish
was
not
repo
rted
, wer
e as
sign
ed th
e E
nglis
h-la
ngua
ge a
bilit
y of
a r
ando
mly
sel
ecte
d pe
rson
of t
he s
ame
age,
Spa
nish
orig
in,
nativ
ity a
nd y
ear
of e
ntry
, and
lang
uage
gro
up.
The
que
stio
n on
abi
lity
to s
peak
Eng
lish
was
ask
ed fo
r th
e fir
st ti
me
in 1
980.
In ta
bula
tions
from
198
0, th
e ca
tego
ries
'Ver
y W
ell'
and
'Wel
l' w
ere
com
bine
d. D
ata
from
oth
er s
urve
ys in
dica
ted
a m
ajor
diff
eren
ce b
etw
een
the
cate
gory
'Ver
yW
ell'
and
the
rem
aini
ng c
ateg
orie
s. In
tabu
latio
ns s
how
ing
abili
ty to
spe
ak E
nglis
h, p
erso
ns w
ho r
epor
ted
that
they
spo
keE
nglis
h 'V
ery
Wel
l" ar
e pr
esen
ted
sepa
rate
ly fr
om p
erso
ns w
ho r
epor
ted
thei
r ab
ility
to s
peak
Eng
lish
as le
ss th
an 'V
ery
Wel
l.'
4041
Cou
nty
Chu
rchi
llC
lark
Dou
glas
Elk
oE
smer
alda
Eur
eka
Hum
bold
tLa
nder
Linc
oln
Lyon
I.)M
iner
alN
yeP
ersh
ing
Sto
rey
Was
hoe
Whi
te P
ine
Car
son
City
Tot
al
LIM
ITE
D E
NG
LIS
H A
ND
NO
N-E
NG
LIS
H S
PE
AK
ER
S A
GE
5 Y
EA
RS
AN
D O
LDE
R,
BY
PR
INC
IPA
L LA
NG
UA
GE
SP
OK
EN
AN
D B
Y C
OU
NT
Y, N
EV
AD
A, 1
990
Nev
ada
Pop
ulat
ion
5 Y
ears
Old
and
Old
er
All
For
eign
Lan
guag
e S
peak
ers
Spa
nish
Lan
guag
eS
peak
Eng
lish
Not
Wel
l/Not
at A
ll
Spe
aker
sP
erce
ntof
Cou
nty
A/P
I Lan
guag
e S
peak
ers
Spe
ak E
nglis
hN
ot W
ell/N
ot a
t All
Per
cent
of C
ount
y
Oth
er L
angu
age
Spe
ak E
nglis
hN
ot W
ell/N
ot a
t All
Spe
aker
sP
erce
ntof
Cou
nty
Spe
ak E
nglis
hN
ot W
ell/N
ot a
t All
Per
cent
of C
ount
y
16,4
1617
71.
08%
138
0.84
%24
0.15
%15
0.09
%68
5,29
419
,768
2.88
%14
,984
2.19
%3,
220
0.47
%1,
564
0.23
%25
,579
290
1.13
%21
80.
85%
00.
00%
720.
28%
30,2
6364
72.
14%
551
1.82
%18
0.06
%78
0.26
%1,
263
393.
09%
393.
09%
00.
00%
00.
00%
1,41
124
1.70
%18
1.28
%0
0.00
%8
0.43
%11
,743
575
4.90
%51
74.
40%
00.
00%
580.
49%
5,67
012
62.
22%
121
2.13
%0
0.00
%5
0.09
%3,
471
320.
92%
240.
69%
00.
00%
80.
23%
18,4
3230
61.
66%
278
1.51
%5
0.03
%23
0.12
%5.
925
350.
59%
140.
24%
140.
24%
70.
12%
16,5
1011
40.
69%
880.
53%
4-
0.02
%22
0.13
%3,
904
115
2.95
%10
82.
77%
00.
00%
70.
18%
2,36
08
0.34
%5
0.21
%0
0.00
%3
0.13
%23
5,99
05,
671
2.40
%4,
147
1.76
%1,
078
0.46
%44
60.
19%
8,58
446
0.54
%24
0.28
%0
0.00
%22
0.26
%37
635
Z1
1.91
%fil
l1.
62%
434.
11%
fel
2.17
Ift
1,11
0,45
028
,691
2.58
%21
,885
1.97
%4,
406
0.40
%2,
400
0.22
%
SO
UR
CE
: U. S
. Dep
artm
ent o
f Com
mer
ce. B
urea
u of
the
Cen
sus.
199
0 U
. S. C
ensu
s S
umm
ary
Tap
e F
ile 3
A.
44
NE
VA
DA
PO
PU
LAT
ION
BY
CIT
IZE
NS
HIP
, AG
E A
ND
CO
UN
TY
, 199
0
Cou
nty
Per
sons
Und
er 1
8 Y
ears
of A
cre
18 Y
ears
of A
ge &
Ove
rT
otal
Pop
ulat
ion
Nat
ive'
Nat
ural
ized
Citi
zen'
Not
AI
Citi
zen'
Tot
alU
nder
18
Nat
ive'
Nat
ural
ized
Citi
zen'
Not
AC
itize
n'T
otal
18 &
Ove
r
Chu
rchi
ll5,
003
1692
5,11
112
,157
376
294
12,8
2717
,938
Cla
rk17
3,66
21,
036
5,90
618
0,60
449
7,46
427
,660
35,7
3156
0,85
574
1,45
9
Dou
glas
6,95
851
150
7,15
919
,285
625
568
20,4
7827
,637
Elk
o10
,420
9917
710
,696
21,1
2878
392
322
,834
33,5
30E
smer
alda
309
25
316
964
1648
1,02
81,
344
Eur
eka
425
03
428
1,04
025
541,
119
1,54
7H
umbo
ldt
3,69
341
127
3,86
17,
830
395
758
8,98
312
,844
Land
er2,
061
477
2,11
53,
830
181
140
4,15
16,
266
Linc
oln
1,24
327
91,
279
2,42
238
362,
496
3,77
5
Lyon
5,30
235
695,
406
13,6
6243
849
514
,595
20,0
01M
iner
al1,
818
120
1,83
04,
517
8939
4,64
56,
475
Nye
4,21
910
544,
283
12,9
8025
526
313
,498
17,7
81
Per
shin
g1,
300
343
1,34
62,
740
7617
42,
990
4,33
6
Sto
rey
568
05
573
1,88
929
351,
953
2,52
6W
asho
e55
,573
433
2,14
958
,155
175,
730
9,38
611
,396
196,
512
254,
667
Whi
te P
ine
2,55
30
62,
559
6,48
612
297
6,70
59,
264
Car
son
City
8.704
it
Ion
29.0
701.056
1.271
31.4
0540.443
Tot
al S
tate
283,
811
1,82
39,
125
294,
759
813,
194
41,5
5052
,330
907,
074
1,20
1,83
3
SO
UR
CE
: U. S
. Dep
artm
ent o
f Com
mer
ce. B
urea
u of
the
Cen
sus.
199
0 U
. S. C
ensu
s S
umm
ary
Tap
e F
ile 3
A.
'Nat
ive
incl
udes
per
sons
bor
n in
the
Uni
ted
Sta
tes,
Pue
rto
Ric
o, o
r an
out
lyin
g ar
ea o
f the
Uni
ted
Sta
tes.
The
sm
all n
umbe
r of
per
sons
who
wer
ebo
rn in
a fo
reig
nco
untr
y bu
t hav
e at
leas
t one
Am
eric
an p
aren
t als
o ar
e in
clud
ed in
the
cate
gory
.'N
atur
aliz
ed c
itize
n is
a fo
reig
n-bo
rn p
erso
n w
ho h
ad c
ompl
eted
the
natu
raliz
atio
n pr
oces
s at
the
time
of th
e ce
nsus
and
upo
n w
hom
the
right
s of
citi
zens
hip
had
been
con
ferr
ed.
'Not
a c
itize
n is
a fo
reig
n-bo
rn p
erso
n w
ho is
not
a c
itize
n, in
clud
ing
a pe
rson
who
had
beg
un b
ut n
ot c
ompl
eted
the
natu
raliz
atio
n pr
oces
s at
the
time
of th
ece
nsus
. Citi
zens
are
per
sons
who
indi
cate
that
they
wer
e na
tive-
born
and
fore
ign-
born
per
sons
who
indi
cate
d th
at th
ey h
ave
beco
me
natu
raliz
ed.
45
NE
VA
DA
FO
RE
IGN
-BO
RN
RE
SID
EN
TS
BY
AG
E G
RO
UP
AN
D C
OU
NT
Y, 1
990
Cou
nty
Und
er 1
8F
orei
gn-
Bor
n18
and
Ove
rF
orei
gn-
Bor
nT
otal
For
eign
- B
orn
Tot
alP
opul
atio
n
Per
cent
of S
tate
Pop
ulat
ion
Per
cent
of C
ount
yP
opul
atio
n
Chu
rchi
ll10
867
077
817
,938
1.49
%4.
34%
Cla
rk6,
942
63,3
9170
,333
741,
459
61.6
9%9.
49%
Dou
glas
201
1,19
31,
394
27,6
372.
30%
5.04
%E
lko
276
1,70
61,
982
33,5
302.
79%
5.91
%E
smer
alda
764
711,
344
0.11
%5.
28%
Eur
eka
379
821,
547
0.13
%5.
3%H
umbo
ldt
168
1,15
31,
321
12,8
441.
07%
10.2
8%La
nder
5432
137
56,
266
0.52
%5.
98%
Linc
oln
3674
110
3,77
50.
31%
2.91
%
Lyon
104
933
1,03
720
,001
1.66
%5.
18%
Min
eral
1212
814
06,
475
0.54
%2.
16%
Nye
6451
858
217
,781
1.48
%3.
27%
Per
shin
g46
250
296
4,33
60.
36%
6.83
%
Sto
rey
564
692,
526
0.21
%2.
73%
Was
hoe
2,58
220
,782
23,3
6425
4,66
721
.19%
9.17
%W
hite
Pin
e6
219
225
9,26
40.
77%
2.43
%C
arso
n C
ity2M
2.33
52.
669
40.4
413.
37%
6.6%
Tot
al10
,948
93,8
8010
4,82
81,
201,
833
100.
00%
8.72
%
Per
cent
of S
tate
0.91
%7.
81%
8.72
%10
0.00
%P
opul
atio
n
SO
UR
CE
: U. S
. Dep
artm
ent o
f Com
mer
ce. B
urea
u of
the
Cen
sus.
199
0 U
. S. C
ensu
s S
umm
ary
Tap
e F
ile 3
k
46
(9192)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
NOTICE
REPRODUCTION BASIS
I ERICI
This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.
This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Releaseform (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").