logo UC Berkeley    Site Map    Contact iurd   
 
PROJECT

Data on Richmond, California

Drawn from the US Census and other sources, the tables and charts below contain some of the more commonly used statistics about Richmond and its neighborhoods. The data cover demographics, housing, and economics.

All numbers are drawn from the 2000 U.S. Census unless otherwise noted. Though this data is now 6 years old, it still conveys a fairly reliable picture of the demographic state of Richmond.

Demographics

  Number Percent
Total Population 99,216   100.0%  
Gender
    Female 50,983   51.4%  
    Male 48,233   48.6%  
Age
    Under 5 Years 7,669   7.7%  
    18 Years and Over 71,722   72.3%  
    65 Years and Over 9,806   9.9%  
Race/Ethnicity
    Black of African American 35,777   36.1%  
    White 31,117   31.4%  
    Asian 12,198   12.3%  
    American Indian and Alaska
    Native
639   0.6%  
    Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 498   0.5%  
    Some other race 13,754   13.9%  
    Two or more races 5,233   5.3%  
    Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 26,319   26.5%  
    The Census Bureau considers "Hispanic/Latino" to be not a race, but an "ethnicity." A Census survey respondent can mark that they are Hispanic or Latino in addition to any of the race categories.  
Households and Families
    Total Households 34,625   100.0%  
 Family Households (families) 23,042   66.5%  
    Married-couple family 14,023   40.5%  
    Female householder, no husband 6,947   20.1%  
 Nonfamily Households 11,583   33.5%  
    Householder 65 years and over 2,552   7.4%  
 Average Household Size 2.82   --  
 Average Family Size 3.44   --  
Educational Attainment (pop. 25 years and over)
    Population 25 years and over 62,662   100.0%  
 Less than 9th grade 6,995   11.2%  
 9th to 12th grade, no diploma 8,451   13.5%  
 High school graduate (or equiv.) 13,672   21.8%  
 Some college, no degree 15,274   24.4%  
 Associate degree 4,252   6.8%  
 Bachelor's degree 8,845   14.1%  
 Graduate or professional degree 5,173   8.3%  
Nativity and Place of Birth
 Native 73,965   74.2%  
 Foreign born 25,751   25.8%  
    Latin America (% of Foreign
    born)
15,289   59.4%  
    Asia (% of Foreign born) 8,630   33.5%  
    Europe (% of Foreign born) 1,101   4.3%  
 Entered between 1990 & 2000 10,996   11.0%  
 Not a citizen 16,299   16.3%  
Language Spoken at Home (pop. 5 years and over)
    Population 5 years and over 92,701   100.0%  
 English only 58,702   63.8%  
 Language other than English 33,369   36.2%  
    Spanish 21,023   22.8%  
 Speak English less than
 "very well"
17,869   19.4%  
Image of up arrow  top

Housing

  Number Percent
Total Housing Units 36,044   100.0%  
Occupancy and Tenure
 Owner-occupied units 18,463   53.3%  
 Renter-occupied units 16,162   46.7%  
 Vacant units 1,419   3.9%  
Units in Housing Structures
 1-unit, detached 20,528   56.8%  
 1-unit, attached 2,937   8.1%  
 2 to 4 units 5,268   14.6%  
 5 to 9 units 2,189   6.1%  
 10 to 19 units 1,733   4.8%  
 20 or more units 3,375   9.3%  
Year Structure Built
 1939 or earlier 3,826   10.6%  
 1940 to 1959 13,675   37.8%  
 1960 to 1969 6,445   17.8%  
 1970 to 1979 3,984   11.0%  
 1980 to 1989 5,116   14.2%  
 1990 to 1994 2,027   5.6%  
 1995 to 2000 1,078   3.0%  
Rooms in Unit
 1 1,178   3.3%  
 2 3,410   9.4%  
 3 4,937   13.7%  
 4 6,975   19.3%  
 5 8,580   23.7%  
 6 6,167   17.1%  
 7 2,622   7.3%  
 8 1,587   4.4%  
 9 or more rooms 695   1.9%  
Substandard and Crowded Units
 Crowded (> 1.0 persons/room) 2,516   7.2%  
 Very Crowded (> 1.5 persons/room) 2,776   8.0%  
 Lacking complete plumbing 254   0.7%  
 Lacking complete kitchen 161   0.5%  
 No telephone service 582   1.7%  
Values, Prices, and Rents
 Median Value (owner-occupied) $171,900   --  
 Median Mortgage Payment $1,332   --  
    Percent change from 1990 --   7.6%  
 Median Gross Rent $764   --  
    Percent change from 1990 --   0.8%  
 % of homeowners paying more than
 30% of income for housing
--   32.5%  
 % of renters paying more than 30% of
 income for housing
--   42.5%  
Image of up arrow  top

Economics

  Number Percent
Population 16 years and over 75,004   100.0%  
Labor Force Participation
 In labor force 46,412   61.9%  
    Employed 42,769   57.0%  
 Not in labor force 28,592   38.1%  
 Females in labor force 22,765   57.9%  
    Females employed 21,014   53.4%  
Major Employment Categories
 Major Occupations --   --  
    Management, professional, and related
    occupations
14,088   32.9%  
    Sales and office occupations 11,296   26.4%  
    Service occupations 7,748   18.1%  
    Production, transportation, and material
    moving occupations
5,690   13.3%  
 Major Industries --   --  
    Educational, health, and social services 8,757   20.5%  
    Professional, scientific, management,
    administrative, and waste management
    services
5,519   12.9%  
    Retail trade 4,458   10.4%  
Income
 Median Household Income $44,210   --  
 Percent of households earning less than
 $25,000 per year
--   27.0%  
 Median Family Income $46,659   --  
 Percent of families earning less than
 $25,000 per year
--   23.7%  
 Median earnings, male full-time, year-
 round workers
$37,389   --  
 Median earnings, female full-time, year-
 round workers
$34,204   --  
 Per capita income $19,788   --  
Poverty
 Families below poverty level 3,141   13.4%  
    With related children under 18 1,482   32.1%  
    Female householder, no husband 1,658   24.8%  
 Individuals below poverty level 15,873   16.2%  
    18 years and over 9,597   13.5%  
Image of up arrow  top

 

Image of logoImage of logoImage of logoImage of logo

Image of monitor with statistics on it
CCI is a core partner in the Richmond Equitable Development Initiative (REDI), a 4-year initiative in Richmond to support a coalition of organizations committed to the principles of equitable development. The partners' vision for Richmond is a community in which every resident has access to affordable housing, and safe, reliable public transit that connects them to living-wage jobs, quality education, a clean environment, health care and other essential services. The lead partners include Urban Habitat, Contra Costa FaithWorks! and the East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, and the initiative is funded by The Ford and The San Francisco Foundations. Initially, CCI received a Community Outreach Partnership Centers New Directions (COPC) grant from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development to study whether and how revitalization is possible without significant displacement in communities such as Richmond, California and to provide technical assistance. CCI is concentrating research and technical assistance on REDI's housing, economic and land use goals in ways that help partners focus on implementation and strategically developing relationships. In August 2006, we hosted Equitable Development and Mixed-Income Communities: Best Practices and Scenarios, a symposium to inspire Richmond policy makers and stakeholders. We also participate regularly in The REDI Leadership Institute for city and county policymakers.

Arts and Community

In recent years, there has been growing interest in the arts, culture, and community revitalization among city planners, policy makers, funders, and scholars from a range of disciplines. A number of scholars have argued that the arts are correlated to gentrification ­the displacement of lower-income residents in urban neighborhoods caused by increases in rent. However, a considerable body of new research suggests that cultural institutions based in low-income neighborhoods, including a host of non-arts amenities that allow for cultural participation and creative expression, such as community centers, churches, and parks, enhance community stability and are catalysts for change without displacement. CCI is researching the relationship between the arts and neighborhood change. We started by creating a database of non-profit arts organizations, artists, and art-related events in two low-income Oakland neighborhoods. Through secondary sources, observation, and interviews, we are learning about their activities, audiences, and networks and beginning to identify ways in which the local arts ecology helps strengthen the community. How do community-based arts organizations and events help shape neighborhood consciousness and subsequent change? What makes them effective agents for community building? What kind of relationships enable them to thrive and what types of facilities do they use? How do their activities relate to the city's “official” arts and culture policies? And finally, how might funders, government officials, developers, and city planners think about and support the arts in the context of sustainable and equitable neighborhood revitalization?

© 2012 Center for Community Innovation at the Institute of Urban & Regional Development at UC Berkeley