County of Los Angeles Estimated Population by Census Tract, City Name, Ethnicity, Gender & Age Group: CY 2016

Population with Census Tracts FIPS and City Names CY 2016. Data Source: Population and Poverty Estimates, prepared by Hedderson Demographic Services and Los Angeles County Internal Services Department Social Services Division, 2017.

Los Angeles County City and Community Health Profiles 2018

The City and Community Health Profiles include local level data for 86 Los Angeles County cities and communities for over 60 health indicators, including demographics, social and economic characteristics, health conditions and health behaviors for each city and community. “Health indicators” are characteristics that are known to impact health and well-being. The 86 cities and communities include 62 incorporated cities, the 15 Los Angeles City Council Districts, and 9 unincorporated Census designated communities.

A Portrait of Los Angeles County using the Human Development Index

A Portrait of Los Angeles County, a report by Measure of America, is an in-depth look at how residents of America’s most populous county are faring in three fundamental areas of life: health, access to knowledge, and living standards. The Human Development Index – a composite measure of health, education and income – is the featured measure and is disaggregated by gender, race and ethnicity, gender by race and ethnicity, major Asian and Latino subgroups, and nativity at the county level. The index is also presented for 106 cities and unincorporated areas within the county, 35 City of Los Angeles Community Plan Areas and 15 City Council Districts. This dataset and the accompanying report is intended for policymakers, planners, service providers, advocates, journalists, students and anyone with an interest in exploring well-being outcomes among the many communities that make up Los Angeles County.

A Portrait of Los Angeles County using the Human Development Index: GIS Data

A Portrait of Los Angeles County, a report by Measure of America, is an in-depth look at how residents of America’s most populous county are faring in three fundamental areas of life: health, access to knowledge, and living standards. The Human Development Index – a composite measure of health, education and income – is the featured measure and is disaggregated by gender, race and ethnicity, gender by race and ethnicity, major Asian and Latino subgroups, and nativity at the county level. The index is also presented for 106 cities and unincorporated areas within the county, 35 City of Los Angeles Community Plan Areas and 15 City Council Districts. This dataset and the accompanying report is intended for policymakers, planners, service providers, advocates, journalists, students and anyone with an interest in exploring well-being outcomes among the many communities that make up Los Angeles County.

County of Los Angeles Estimated Population by Census Tract, City Name, Ethnicity, Gender & Age Group: CY 2015

County of Los Angeles Estimated 138 FPL and 200 FPL Population by Census Tract, City Name, Ethnicity, Gender & Age Group: CY 2013

County of Los Angeles Estimated 138 FPL and 200 FPL Population by Census Tract, City Name, Ethnicity, Gender & Age Group: CY 2015

County of Los Angeles Estimated Population by Census Tract, City Name, Ethnicity, Gender & Age Group: CY 2014

County of Los Angeles Estimated 138 FPL and 200 FPL Population by Census Tract, City Name, Ethnicity, Gender & Age Group: CY 2014

Concentrations of Protected Classes from Analysis of Impediments

A new component of fair housing studies is an analysis of the opportunities residents are afforded in “racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty,” also called RCAPs or ECAPs. An RCAP or ECAP is a neighborhood with significant concentrations of extreme poverty and minority populations. HUD’s definition of an RCAP/ECAP is: • A Census tract that has a non‐white population of 50 percent or more AND a poverty rate of 40 percent or more; OR • A Census tract that has a non‐white population of 50 percent or more AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the metro/micro area, whichever is lower. Why the 40 percent threshold? The RCAP/ECAP definition is not meant to suggest that a slightly‐lower‐than‐40 percent poverty rate is ideal or acceptable. The threshold was borne out of research that concluded a 40 percent poverty rate was the point at which a neighborhood became significantly socially and economically challenged. Conversely, research has shown that areas with up to 14 percent of poverty have no noticeable effect on community opportunity. (See Section II in City of Austin’s 2015 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice: http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/NHCD/Reports_Publications/1Analysis_Impediments_for_web.pdf) This dataset provides socioeconomic data on protected classes from the 2008-2012 American Community Survey on census tracts in Austin’s city limits and designates which of those tracts are considered RCAPs or ECAPs based on these socioeconomic characteristics. A map of the census tracts designated as RCAPs or ECAPs is attached to this dataset and downloadable as a pdf (see below).