|
|
|
CENTER FOR COMMUNITY INNOVATION
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% |
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% |
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% |
top
|
|
 |
|
| 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. |
|
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? |
|