SR-0 (36)
INFORMATION
PPD:KW:ps
Council Mtg.: January 25, 1983
APPENDIX D
Santa Mon1ca, Callforn1a
TO: Mayor and C1ty Council
FROM: C1ty Staff
SUBJECT: 1980 Census Data
Introduction
Th1S memorandum provides an overV1ew of recently released maJor 1980
Census measures that have relevance to the Houslng Element. Most of
the data included hereln was not avallable at the tlme the draft
Element was prepared. Various comparisons to the 1970 Census are
included, as are some comparisons to Los Angeles County.
Background
The 1980 Census produced a variety of statlstics describing the C1ty
of Santa Monica. The 1980 data obtained thus far are from Summary
Tape FlIes (STF) I and III, purchased from the southern Callfornia
Assoclation of Governments. STF I 1S based on a one-hundred percent
survey of City households. Much of the STF I data 1S provided in the
"Technical Report" of the Draft Housing Element, primarily ln the
trDemographicslt section, on pages 51-130, but also ln the "Housing"
section on pages 131-201. The STF I data 1S not discussed 1n thlS
memorandum because 1t was included 1n the draft Element.
STF III 1S based on a twenty percent sample survey of households.
The results of the twenty percent sample have been extrapolated to
the entire population. ThlS memorandum d1scusses certa1n of the
Clty-wide STF III 1nformatlon that have most relevance to the Element,
lncluding Percentage of Income Spent for Hous1ng, Income, Poverty,
Very Low-, Low-, and Moderate-Income Households, Employment, and Educat1on.
Mayor and Clty Counell
-2-
January 25, 1983
Whl1e many other data ltems are avallable, thlS report focuses on the
maJor categories WhlCh have greatest relevance to the proposed Houslng
Element. Caples of the raw data printouts, lnc1udlng Census Tract
lnformation, wll1 soon be prlnted and made avallable to lnterested persons.
The Council should he aware that SCAG has lnformed the Clty that there
may be natlon-wide lncons1stencies 1n the income data in STF III. It
appears that a small number of Census questionnaires were lncorrectly
coded resultlng In an overstatement of lncorne. The Census Bureau 1S
researching thlS issue to determlne both the magnitude and geographlc
dlsperslon of the problem. Chances of effects on City data appear
mlnJ.mal.
In add1tlon to the posslble lncorne incons1stencies, the City staff has
dlscovered a verlety of programmlng or typographlcal errors 1n some
STF III printouts. Whl1e each such error has been corrected, there may
be others which have not yet been identlfied. Because of these issues,
the data from STF III should be regarded as interim.
The discusslon below lnc1udes the following maJor topic d1SCUSSlons:
"Percentage of Income Spent For Housing", "Total Incomell, t1poverty",
"Very Low-, Low-, and Moderate-Income Households", "Employment", and
"Education" .
PERCENTAGE OF INCOME SPENT FOR HOUSING
The 1980 Census provided data concernlng the percentage of income spent
for rent or ownership costs. The data is arrayed by various ~ncome ranges.
The table below shows rent payments of Santa Monlca households.
Mayor and C~ty Council
-3-
January 25, 1983
Income
Rent As a Percentage of Household Income
Santa Monica Renter Households, 1980*
I I
Less than I 20-24% 25-34%
20% I I
For
35%+
Total
12.7%
I
- i
92.2% I 100.0% (4,235)
72.4% I 100.Q% (6,093)
~ __ _ L _ _ _ _ __
- i-----T----- - ----
36.7% 132.1% I 100.0% (6,107)
I_____L_
----- - r --- ---- -l- ---- --
3~. 6~__ _ _ 26 . 5 % j 29 . 6 % I 9 . 3 % I 100 . 0 % ( 5 , 2 00 )
I 14.~~~~J 0~4%_ .1~0.0% (1~,_4~9)
35.4% -1-- lJ.~%T-18.:- r 32.~%llOO.0% (33,094)
1.1%
2.1%
4.6%
Less than
$5,000
i
$5,000-9,999 I
r
I
I
$10,000-14,9991
I
4.0%
- I
I
4.6%
19.0%
18.5%
$15,000-19,999
$20,000
77.4%
% of Total
Renters
*
33,094 renter households in data base.
Sources:
1980 Census STF III; Santa Monica Program and POlicy
Development D1vis1on.
An often-used standard is that households should pay 25-30 percent of
their 1ncome for housing expenses. The table shows that overall,
49.0 percent of renter households paid less than 25 percent of house-
hold income for rent, 18.3 percent pay between 25 and 34 percent, and
32.7 percent of renter households pay 35 percent or more of their
1ncome for rent. Thus, the data indicates that a substant1al port1on
of renter households are paY1ng more than the usual standard.
Mayor and C~ty Council
-4-
January 25, 1983
The table also shows that the low-lncorne renter households are worse
off than h~gher-~ncome households. Over 92 percent of renter
households w~th lncornes of $5,000 or over 72 percent of renter
households w1th incomes between $5,000-$9,999, and over 32 percent
of renter households with ~ncomes between $10,000-$14,999 pa~d
35 percent or more of the~r income for rent.
In contrast, over 34 percent of renter households with incomes
between $15,000-$19,999 and over 77 percent of rent households w~th
~ncomes of $20,000 or more pa~d less than 20 percent of their ~ncoroe
for rent.
Th~s data would tend to ~ndicate that there 15 a 51gn1ficant
affordab~11ty problem, especially among lower-income renter households.
As a consequence, these households may be forced to spend less
income on food, transportation, health care, or other 1tems.
The Census also prov~de5 data on owner costs as a percentage of
household income. Santa Monica data 15 d1splayed below.
Mayor and City Counc~l
-5-
January 25, 1983
I Les s Than I I I
Income 20-24% \ 25-35% 35%+ Total
20% j
,
Less than 3.6% I 11.4% 12.1% 72.9% I 100.0% (280)
$5,000 !
i
$5,000-9,999 39.5% l 10.1% 16.5% 33.9% I 100.0% (437)
I
I
, I I
$10,000-14,999 67.0% 7.6% 9.5% 15.9% I 100.0% (671)
--
$15,000-19,999 68.9% 8.4% I 4.3% I 18.4% \ 100.0% (652)
$20,000+ .. I (4,396)
71.9% 7.5% 11.4% 9.2% 100.0%
% of Total 65.8% 8.0% 10.9% 15.3% 100.0% (6,436)
Owners I
Owner Costs as a Percentage of Household Income for
Santa Monica OWner Households, 1980*
* 9,718 owner households in data base.
Sources: 1980 Census STF III; Santa Monica Program and Pol~cy Development
Divl.sion.
The "OWner Cost" table shows that as a group, over 73 percent of the
owner households paLd less than 25 percent of their lncorne for housing,
over 10 percent pay between 25-34 percent, and over 15 percent pay
35 percent or more. In comparison to the renters, owners as a group
both tend to have hlgher incomes, and pay less of their income for
houslng.
Mayor and Clty Council
-6-
January 25, 1983
However, there is a pattern s~m~lar to the renters of the lower-lncome
owner households paying a higher proportLon of their ~ncorne for
housing. For example, over 72 percent of owner households earnLng
less than $5,000, and over 33 percent of owner households earnlng
$5,000-$9,999 paLd 35 percent or more of lncome for housing. ThlS
would appear to indicate an affordabLllty problem among certain
households In the owner group.
Another noteworthy pattern is observed for owner households earning
$20,000 or more. In comparison to the renter group in this category,
a higher proportion of the owners pay a hlgher percentage of thelr
income for housing.
It is noted that the statistics indicate that of households earnlng
less than $20,000 per year, a total of 16,673 City households
(15,896 renter and 777 owner) pay 25 percent or more of their ~ncome
for housing.
INCOME
The Census provides a variety of ~ncome measures. One of the broadest
measures, med~an household income, showed a 130 percent increase
from 1969 to 1979 for Santa Monica. This compares wlth a 111 percent
increase ~n Los Angeles County median household ~ncome. These
figures tend to indicate that in the last decade the City of Santa
Monica has experienced a sign~ficant shift to higher income households.
Th~s trend lS confirmed by other broad 1ncome measures, as shown ~n
the table below.
Mayor and C~ty Counc11
-7-
January 25, 1983
I Santa Santa i % I L.A. 1 L.A. i %
Jl
Mon1ca Mon1ca i Increase II Coun ty I County Increase
1969 1979 I II 1969 1979
II
Median 11 T
II
Income $7,219 $16,604 +130% II $8,462 I $17,826 +111%
II
All II
, /I
Households ~! I
/I I
Mean II I
Income $9,216 $22,148 +140% II $10,290 $22,621 +120%
II
All ! II I
Households I II
II
Med1an I II
II
Family $10,793 $22,263 +106% II $10,972 $21,334 +94%
II
Income il
! " I
Mean 11 I
Fam~ly $12,725 $28,825 +127% II $12,783 $25,865 +102%
/I j
Income !!
Median II r
II
Unrelated $4,262 $10,503 +146% II $3,817 $8,364 +119%
II I
Ind~vidual II
Income II
II
Mean " I
Unrelated $5,518 $13,149 +138% u I $11,361 +116%
II $5,257 I
Indl.vidual II
U I
Income !! I
Sources: 1970 Census; 1980 Census STF rII; City of Santa Monl-ca
Program and Policy Development Division.
For each of the six income measures, the percentage increase for
Santa Monica is higher than for the County as a whole.
A compar1son of the percentage of famill.es 1n the same 1ncome categor1es
~n 1969 and 1979 for Santa Monica and Los Angeles County aga~n shows
the City losing lower income families and gaining higher income
families as compared to the County.
Mayor and C~ty Counc~l
-8-
January 25, 1983
CHANGE IN PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES
IN INCOME CATEGORIES, 1969-1979
Income Range
$4,999 or less
Santa Mon~ca
1969%. 1979% . Difference
Los Angeles County
1969% . 1979% . D~fferenc
16.1 .
5.3
- 10.8
15.9
7.4
8.5
$5,000-14,999
54.7 .
24.7
- 30.0
55.7
26.3
- 29.4
$15,000-24,999
21.1 .
26.4
+ 5.3
21.3
25.9
+ 4.6
$25,000+
8.0 .
43.6
+ 35.6
7.1
40.5
+ 33.4
Sources: 1970 Census; 1980 Census STF III; City of Santa Mon~ca Program
and POlLCY Development Division.
The above table clearly shows that as compared to the County as a whole
there was a larger decl~ne in lower income groups and a higher increase
in h~gher ~ncome groups ~n Santa Mon~ca froro 1969-1970.
POVERTY
A s~gnificant segment of the City's populat~on ~s below the Census-
def~ned poverty level. In 1980, 8,537 persons ~n Santa Monica were
below the poverty level. Th~s compares with 10,416 persons ~n 1970.
The table below compares City statistics with Los Angeles County.
Mayor and City Council
-9-
January 25, 1983
PERCENT OF PERSONS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL, 1969-1979*
Santa Mon~ca
Los Angeles County
1970
11.8%
10.9%
1980
9.9%
13.4%
Percent Change
- 1.9%
+ 2.5%
* Total data base for 1979 ~ncludes 86,494 persons for Santa Mon~ca,
and 7,338,827 persons for Los Angeles County.
Sources: 1970 Census: 1980 Census STF III: C~ty of Santa Mon~ca
Program and Pol~cy Development D~v~sion.
The data show that the proportion of persons below the poverty level
decreased ~n Santa Monica, but increased in the County. This would
appear to indicate that there are strong soc~o-econQmic forces at
work in Santa Mon~ca which have d~splaced poverty level persons.
In relat~on to household need, ~t is noteworthy that the 1980 Census
found 4,030 Santa Monica households, or 9.2 percent of all households,
below the poverty level. Th~s ~s a relatively substantial number.
In compar~son, 11.9% of Los Angeles County households were below
the poverty level.
VERY LOW-, LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
A var~ety of programs and discussions 2n the draft Housing Element
made reference to low- and moderate-income or very lOw-, low- and
moderate-income households in Santa Mon2ca. As discussed on page 127
of the draft Element's "Techn~cal Report," "very low-2ncorne" ~s
Mayor and C~ty Council
-10-
January 25, 1983
def~ned as ~ncomes wh~ch are at or below 50 percent of the County
med~an 1ncorne, "low-income" 1S defined as 51 to 80 percent of the
rned1an income, and "moderate-l.ncome" 1S defined as 81 to 120 percent
of the med~an l.ncorne. The Census does not prov~de a direct measure
of these l.ncome categor1es, so the staff has employed several methods
to develop est~mates.
Technical Report Method
The Techn~ca1 Report on pages 127-128 discussed a method (referred to
here as the IrTechnical Report Method") for analyzing the 1970 Census
l.ncome data to develop estimates of the number of very low-, low- and
moderate-income households in Santa Monica. Table 56, from page 128
of the Techn1cal Report 1.5 the result of that analysis and ~s
reproduced below.
VERY LOW-, LOW- AND MODERAT~-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, 1970
Families
Number Percent
Unrelated Indiv~duals
Number Percent
Total
Number Percent
Very Low
Low
2,613
2,271
11.5%
10,311
47,8%
12,924
29.2%
10.0%
3,535
16.4%
5,806
13.1%
Moderate
5.457
24.0%
4,641
21.6%
10,098
22.8%
Total
10,341
45.5%
18,487
85.7%
28,828
65.1%
As noted in the Techn1.cal Report, the Technical Report Method which
produced the above statistics had several shortcomings 1.n that ~t dld
not account for household size and used unadjusted Census lncome
categories, WhlCh by their form, resulted in an understatement of
Mayor and C~ty Counc~l
-11-
January 25, 1983
households ~n certain ~ncome groups. The Techn~cal Report Method
also d~d not fac~litate compar~son to comparable 1980 Census data.
Other Methods
In the process of analyz~ng the 1980 Census ~ncome data and
revlewlng the methodology employed in the Technlcal Report, the
staff developed two other methods of est~mating very low-, low-,
and moderate-income households. The first of these is called the
Ttlncome Un~t Method" and the other is titled the "Households Method."
Each of the three methods make different assumptions, and each one
has certain strengths and shortcomlngs. The method used in the
Techn~cal Report ~s relat~vely simple and does not require extens~ve
calculat~ons. Another method, the "Income Un~t Method" appear to
be best su~ted to estimating changes ~n ~ncome groups from 1970 to
1980; the third method, the "Households Method" seems to be useful
in analyzing 1980 housing needs, but due to a lack of comparable 1970
data, cannot be used to analyze changes from 1970 to 1980.
Each of the methods is useful in ~ts own way. The staff is carefully
evaluating the alternativenethodo1ogies to assess the~r ut~l~ty ~n
implementat~on of the Hous1ng Element. At th~s p01nt, no final
Judgement between the methods 1S requlred or recolrn~ended. The data
~s simply presented for the Council's lnformation.
Mayor and C~ty Council
-12-
January 25, 1983
Incowe Un~t Method
This method 1) adJusts income threshholds by fam~ly s~ze: 2) ~nter-
palates Census ~ncome data to match defined very low-, low-, and
moderate-~ncorne cutoff po~nts; and 3) allows ready comparison of
1970 and 1980 Census data. Th~s method1s shortcoming is that lt
provldes "lncorne unit" rather than household data. As deflned here,
an lncorne un~t may be, for example, a single person sharing a home
wlth a farnlly but reporting lncorne separately. Because of this,
there are more ~ncome units in the Clty than there are households.
Housing needs are often expressed in terms of households; therefore,
the "Income Unlt Methodll is not ideal 1n relat~on to household need
analysls. However, the method does prOduce useful data and also
provides a baS1S for comparison with data of other methods.
The 1970 results of the Income Unit Method are shown below.
Tl\'l("()Ml;' TTNTT MF.'t"HOD! ESTIMATE OF VERX LOW-,
LOW-, AND MODERATE-INCOME UNITS, 1970*
Farn~lies Unrelated I!ldlVl.cJuals Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Very Low 3,515 7.9% 10,014 22.6% 13,529 30.5%
Low 3,771 8.5% 4 , 046 9.1% 7,817 17.6%
Moderate 5,202 11.7% 3,830 3.6% 9,032 10.4%
Total 12,488 28.2% 17,890 40.3% 30,378 68.6%
'k
Total of 44,311 "income un~tsrr, not households.
Some unrelated
lnd~viduals live in households w~th other persons but report
separate lncomes.
Sources: 1970 Census; Santa Monl.ca Program and Poll.cy Development Dl.VlSl.on.
Mayor and C~ty Counc~l
-13-
January 25, 1983
A summary compar~son of the Techn.l.ca1 Report Method and the "Income
Unlt Method" is shown below.
COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES OF VERY LOW-,
LOW-, AND MODERATE- INCOME UNITS, 1970
Techn.l.ca1 Report Method Income Un.l.t Method
Number Percent Number Percent
Very Low 12,924 29.2% 13,529 30.5%
Low 5,806 13.1% 7,817 17.6%
".-
Moderate 10,098 22.8% 9,032 20.4%
Total
28,828
65.1%
30,378
68.6%
Sources: 1970 Censusj Santa Monica Program and polley Development
D.l.vision.
Use of the Income Unit Method shows absolute and relative lncreases
in the very low-, and low- categorles, but an absolute and relat~ve
decrease .l.n the moderate category. Overall, the Income Unit Method
produces a 1550-unit ~ncrease from the prior method.
ApplYlng the Income UUlt Method to both the 1970 and 1980 Census
produces the fo11owlng estimates.
Mayor and City Counc~1
-14-
January 25, 1983
I~COME UNIT METHOD: ESTIMATE OF VERY LOW-,
LOW- , AND MODERATE-INCOME ur:ITS, 1970-1980
1970 1980 Change
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Very Low 13,529 30.5% 14,232 28.0% + 703 + 5.2%
Low 7,817 17.6% 9,113 17.9% +1,296 + 16.6%
i>1oderate 9,032 20.4% 9,683 19.1% + 651 + 7.2%
Total 30,378 68.4% 32,028 63.1% +1,650 + 5.4%
Sources: 1970 Census; 1980 Census STF 1II7 Santa Mon1ca Program
and Policy Development Divi5~on.
The Income Unit Method shows a 1970 total of 68.4% versus a 1980 total
of 63.1% very low-, low- and moderate-1ncome units. However, in
absolute numbers the method shows an overall ~ncrease, both for the
total and within each category. The tables below compare trends
for families and unrelated indiv2duals and show that very low-,
low- and moderate-~ncome famllies decreased s1gnlf2cantly, apparently
replaced by unrelated lndlV1duals.
Mayor and C~ty Counc~1
-15-
January 25, 19B3
INCOME UNIT METHOD:
ESTIMATE OF CHANGE IN VERY LOW-, LOW- AND
MODERATE INCOME F&~ILY AND INCOME UNITS, 1970-1980
1970
1980
Ch~nge
Number Present
Very Low
3,515
2,818
697
- 19.8%
Low
3,771
3,096
675
- 17.9%
Moderate
5,202
4,508
-1,144
- 22.0%
Total
12,488
9,972
-2,516
- 20.1%
Sources: 1970 Censusi 1980 Census STF; Santa aonica Program and
Pol~cy Development D~vision.
The table clearly shows a loss ~n very 10w-, 1ow-, and moderate-
~ncome families, from 1970 to 1980. The source of the overall
increase in very low-, low-, and moderate-income un~ts was unrelated
~nd~v~dua1s, as shown by the following table.
INCOME UNIT METHOD: ESTIMATE OF CHANGE IN VERY LOW-,
LOW-, AND MODERATE-INCOME UNRELATED INDIVIDUAL INCOME
UNITS, 1970-1980
Change
1970 1980 Number Percent
Very Low 10,014 11,414 +1,400 +14.0%
Low 4,046 6,017 +1,971 +48.7%
Moderate 3,830 5,625 +1,795 +46.9%
Total 17,890 23,056 +5,166 +28.9%
Sources: 1970 Census; 1980 Census STF III; Santa Mon~ca Program and
Policy Development D~v~s~on.
Mayor and C~ty Counc~1
-16-
January 25, 1983
Household Method
Because the Income Un~t Method does not prov1de d1rect data on
actual C~ty households, the Household Method has been developed
wh~ch prov1des such 1nformat~on. However, the base Census data
used in this method is currently only avallab1e for 1980, so a trend
analysls cannot be performed. S~nce households are the usual basis
of est~mating housing need, the Household Method appears to provlde
a more useful product in relatlon to household need ana1ysls than
the Income Unit Method. Data is displayed 10 the table below.
HOUSEHOLD METHOD: ESTIMATE OF VERY LOW-,
LQW-, AND MODE~TE- INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, 1980
Number Percent
Very Low 10,506 23.9%
Low 7,552 17.2%
Moderate 8,363 19.0%
Total 26,421 60..1%
Sources: 1980 Census STF III; Santa Monica Program and Polley
Development Dlvislon.
ThlS method produces results S11ght1y different than the Income
Unit Method. However, it appears to Y1e1d estlmates which can be
used in connection with implementation of the proposed Housing
Element. Glven the lmportance of thlS data, the staff ~s continulng
to research the issue and the utility of the var20US alternat2ve
methodologies.
~1ayor and Cl. ty CouncJ..l
-17-
January 25, 1983
EMPLOYMENT
The changes J..n the population that the C~ty has experJ..enced from
1970 to 1980 is reflected l.n the changes that have occurred ~n its
labor force and the types of Jobs of its residents.
In general, the City had more adults in the labor force, more
women work1ng and more residents who were whl.te collar workers
and fewer who were blue collar and serVl.ce workers. The change in
the types of occupations of City resl.dents was more dramatic from
1970-1980 than at any time since the 1940's.
The most dramatic change in the City's labor force was the large
~ncrease in the number of 1980 resLdents that were part of that
labor force. (See Table on next page.) In 1970, 82.7 percent of the
population was 16 years old or over and 59.8 percent of these persons were
In the labor force. By 1980, 86.7 percent of the populatlon was 16 years
old or older wlth 65.9 percent of these resJ..dents in the labor force.
ThJ..s indicates that over the decade not only dld the proportJ..on of
people 16 and over 2ncrease ~n the Cl.ty (+4.0 percent) but that the
proport2on of these people who were J..n the labor force increased at
an even faster rate (+6.1 percent).
Another compar~son ~s useful to help assess the changes that have
recently occurred In Santa Monica. Th~s ~s the compar2son of the
labor force to the total population.
Mayor and C~ty Council
-18-
';30
~~ ~
2 I
C
t- H'
e; Cl .
....
...
,~ ;
-'
...
o ~ ~~
-:.::
~~
,. ~
~c:Q ~
I C
~ ~
r-. """
'J Cl
~
~ as
-,
0
- ~ :'< ~
:) to- N Cl
a:i ~~ ~
'- to-
! 00 ~"l 0 <:'<
~ .. ~ ~ .....
~ ~i ..... ~
~ 5 c
-.
3 r +
::;; ~I
... - ~ <1
<: ~ :::1
z. -I <: ~ ""l
<: i ::c ... - ~l
:r.: XI r-. If) -I ~ t'- ~ ~ " tlI<
;:..J C'" 1;0 ~ .n ~
;;z.. ~j - N .. 1C ~
::: <X: ... :0
l.C (t> ~ ~ M'
;.. + '-' M C\l ~ N
=-- (l;: ...1
:-' ~ '-j
~ c::
'"" QQ <"
0 0- :..1
J :;l ~!
~c. ""
:ow 1 O'l - ~ ~ ~
g 0' il ... \0 .... g ;:. Ltl
I 3\ c ~ "" ...
~ .... - ... r-.
... ; - =- ~ ... ..... 0 ~. ""
i ~ ~ ~ .... ~ <:!' -.
~ ... t'- ..:')
t"-~ 0-
2:. ~ Q
'<;; <!'i! - {O ...
..,
~I :::
~ \:~ .....
..; <::c "" ...
-j ..: N => -
... . -I- -' (0
~ 'Xl - "" .... - .... ".'
co to- '<I' o:.c 0 ...
- .... r;l ..... z ;z: :o;j ~
:., ~ 0':-";
-~ z::: <: ~5
0 ::) :z::: Eo- ;z:
;.. <; ~.... c
,.. ... ~ 5::: ...
J' ;j' ~ ~~ ;;j ...
;z: l., ... ..... - -. <:
0 >- >- ~~ ,.... 2 325 ;:;..
'0' ;;:; ;: J::.<;
.~ -
<: - - - ....J- -
..... ;.. ~ ;.: ...
..... ~~ z ~ ..:z ~
3 ~ :.::.,,; <: <<:
...J :::=::: ~ ~-: <::
~ -:::: <: - """- .....
... - .::;: :::s- .:: ... ...-
~ ~= ;:. ::.. > .
... ~<; -= ~::- ..:; --
~ <: <:: ~ <:: <:; <:
..... '- - '- 1
2 z ^ ~z <: '"' ~::
E- - g:: ~- .::;: ...
January 25, 1983
Mayor and C~ty Councll
-19-
January 25, 1983
In 1970, almost half (49.5 percent) of the population was 16 and
older and in the labor force. By 1980, that proportion had grown
to 57.2 percent. ThlS lS a slgnlficant1y greater proportlon than
the slml1ar statist1c for Los ~~geles County ln 1980 (49.6 percent).
From 1970-1980, the number of women in the labor force ~ncreased
dramatlcally. ThlS LS illustrated by the labor partic1patlon rate
for women. In 1980, 58.2 percent of the women who were 16 years old
and older were in the clvllian labor force. In 1970, only 47.5 percent
of the women 16 and over were ~n the civilian labor force. This
was an lncrease of +10.7 percent. Slmilar stat1st2CS for men showed
less change. The 1980 male partlcipatlon rate was down .1 percent
from 1970 figures.
Employment MlX
The compos~tion of the labor force In the Clty also changed
slgnlflcantly by 1980. About 43.5 percent of the work1ng Santa
Monicans in 1980 were In professional and managerial occupatlons
WhlCh was a 10.8 percent lncrease from the percent worklng ln this
occupation category in 1970. (See Table on next page.) The other
three occupat~on categorles reduced their share of residents working
~n them wlth the greatest percent decrease occurr~ng in supervisory
and labor categor~es. These trends have been occurrlng since 1940
(except for clerical and sales occupations). However, from 1970-1980
these trends were dramatically more pronounced. In the 30 year perlod
from 1940 to 1970, the percentage of professional and managerial
Mayor and city Counc~l
-20-
January 25, 1983
PERCENT OF TOTAL R~PLOYMENT BY OCCUPATION 1940-1980
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
1950 and 1970
Change Change
OccuJ;>at.Lon 1940 1950 1970 1980 1940-1970 1970-1980
Professional and
Manager.Lal ( a) 23.6 27.9 32.7 43.5 + 9.1 + 10.8
Cler~ca1 and
Sales 22.3 26.3 31.8 31. 2 + 9.5 0.6
Superv~sor and
Labor~ng (b) 37.2 30.3 23.1 14.4 - 14.1 8.7
Domestl.c and
Service (c) 15.6 14.0 12.4 9.9 3.2 2.5
Others and not
Reported ( d) 1.3 1.5 1.0 1.1
(a) Includes professional, technical, managers, officials, and
proprietors.
(b) Includes craftsmen, foremen, operatives, and laborers.
(c) Includes private household workers and serv~ce workers.
(d) Includes foremen, managers, and laborers, and occupat.Lons
not reported.
Sources: U.s. Census of Population and Housing, 1950 and
1970; 1980 Census STF III, Santa Monica Program
and PolLcy Development.
Mayor and CLty Council
-21-
January 25, 1983
workers Lncreased 9.1 percent but th1S category lncreased by 10.8
percent 1n Just the 10 years from 1970-1980. Sim1lar exaggerat10ns
of long terms trends occurred 1n the proportlons of residents w1th
supervLsory and 1abor1ng occupations. Here a 14.1 percent drop
1n the proport1on of persons in that occupation occurred during the
30 year per10d 1940-1970 but there was an 8.7 percent drop 1n one-
th1rd the tLffie from 1970-1980. The proportlon of persons who had
domestic and serV1ce occupations dropped 3.2 percent from 1940 to
1970 but dropped almost as much, 2.5 percent, in just the 10 years
from 1970 to 1980.
The 30 year trend of lncreases 1n the percentage of clerical
and sales (+9.5 percent from 1940-1970) was reversed for the f1rst
time during the decade, 1970-1980 (-0.6 percent).
These trends indicate that the City's resident mix is shift1ng from
blue collar and service occupat1ons toward professional and
managerlal occupations at a faster rate than at any tlme 1n the
City's history since 1940.
Mayor and C~ty Counc2l
-22-
January 25, 1983
EDUCATION
Santa Mon~can's ~n 1980 were generally more highly educated than
their counterparts in 1970 and this trend toward more highly
educated resldents livlng ln the City was more dramatic than lt
was for the Los Angeles County as a whole.
In 1980, 82.0 percent of the resldents over 24 years old were hlgh
school graduates (those who completed 4 years of high school or at
least one year of college). In 1970, the figure was 68.9 percent.
The 13.1 percent increase in the proportlon of the City's adult residents
who had at least a high school education exceeded the County's
increase of only 7.8 percent. (See Table on next page.)
At the opposite end of the scale, about 9.9 percent of the City's
population over 24 year old had completed only an elementary school
educatlon as compared wlth 16 percent of thlS populatlon in 1970.
The City's 6.1 percent decrease in the proportion of adult residents
who possessed only an elementary school education was greater than
the decrease experienced by L.A. ~ounty which was only 1.2 percent.
The proport~on of the City's adult populat~on w~th the hlghest
educat~on (4 or more years of college) ~ncreased s~gnlficantly
over the decade from 1970 to 1980. In 1970, about 19.5 percent of the
adults over 24 years old had completed four or more years of college
but in 1980 this proportlon soared to 33.6 percent. The 14.1 percent
lncrease in the proport~on of highly educated adults in the C1ty
far exceeded the 5.8 percent increase experienced by the County.
Mayor and City Counc11
-23-
January 25, 1983
YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED FOR CITY RESIDENTS
OVER 24 YEARS OLD
1970-1980
Years Santa Mon1ca L.A. County
Comflleted 1970 1980 Change 1970 1980 Change
0 1.0% N. I. 1.5% N. I.
Elementary 16.0% 9.9% 6.1% 18.2% 17.0% 1.2%
HJ..gh School
1-3 years 14.2% 8.1% 6.1% 18.3% 13.2% 5.1%
4 years 30.4% 24.1% 6.3% 32.7% 30.2% 2.5%
College
1-3 years 18.9% 24.3% + 5.4% 16.6% 21.2% + 4.6%
4 years or
more 19.5% 33.6% + 14.1% 12.7% 18.5% + 5.8%
Percentage
High School 68.9% 82.0% + 13.1% 62.0% 69.8% + 7.8%
Graduates
* Includes persons who completed 1 or more years of college.
N.l. No 1nformation g1ven.
Sources: 1970 Census; 1980 Census STF IIIi Santa MonJ..ca Program and
Policy Development.
Mayor and C1ty Counc1l
-24-
January 25, 1983
The large 1ncrease in the proportion of highly educated persons and
the decrease in the proportion of less educated residents in the
City 1n the 1970's ~s cons1stent w1th the not1on that Santa ~onica
has begun to attract more and more res1dents who are h1ghly
educated adults work1ng in professional occupations.
Prepared by: Kenyon Webster
Chr1stopher Rudd