The Arizona factbook on ethnic minorities

              College of Human Services
IN COLLABORATION WITH
Arizona State University West College of Arts & Sciences
The Arizona Community Foundation
The Arizona
Factbook on
Ethnic
Minorities
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF TABLES..........................................................................................................2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................5
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................6
OVERVIEW....................................................................................................................6
CURRENT POPULATION AND PROJECTIONS .......................................................7
FAMILY STRUCTURE .................................................................................................9
ENGLISH SPEAKING ABILITY................................................................................10
HEALTH...........................................................................................................................11
GENERAL HEALTH...................................................................................................11
FERTILITY...................................................................................................................12
INFANT AND CHILD HEALTH ................................................................................15
MORTALITY ...............................................................................................................21
SEXUAL AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH .................................................................24
SUBSTANCE USE.......................................................................................................29
HEALTH INSURANCE...............................................................................................32
EDUCATION ....................................................................................................................34
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL........................................................34
UNIVERSITY...............................................................................................................39
ECONOMIC SECURITY ................................................................................................40
GENERAL ECONOMIC STATUS..............................................................................40
EARNINGS AND POVERTY......................................................................................41
LABOR MARKET .......................................................................................................44
CRIME AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE .............................................................................48
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................55
2
Table of Tables
Introduction
Current Population and Projections
Table 1: Population projections for the year 2000 7
Table 2: Projected population composition for the year 2000 8
Table 3: Population composition by county 8
Table 4: Projected state population by race and Hispanic origin, 1995-2025 9
Family Structure
Table 5: Percentage of Arizona households that are married or single parent, 1990 10
Table 6: Percentage of married couple and single parent households within each
ethnic/racial group, 1990
10
English Speaking Ability
Table 7: English speaking ability projection for the year 2000 11
Health
General Health
Table 8: Average scores and ranks on 67 health measures, 1997. 12
Fertility
Table 9: Pregnancy rates for all ages by ethnic group, 1998 12
Table 10: Comparison of pregnancy rates (per 1000) by ethnic group among females
aged 19 and younger for select years.
13
Table 11. Number of pregnancies and pregnancy rates by pregnancy outcome and
ethnic group, 1998.
13
Table 12. Births by mother’s ethnic group and county of residence, 1998. 14
Table 13. Percentage of total births by mother’s marital status, 1998. 15
Infant and Child Health
Table 14. Percent of live births classified as low-birthweight births, 1988-1998. 16
Table 15. Changes from 1990 to 1998 in selected characteristics of newborns and
women giving birth.
17
Table 16: Average number of prenatal visits during pregnancy by county of
residence, 1998.
18
Table 17: Children aged 19 to 35 months who are up to date with recommended
vaccinations, 1995-96, United States.
18
Table 18: Number and percentage of children in out-of-home placement, April 1-
September 30, 1999
19
Table 19: Number and percentage of children leaving DES custody for selected
reasons, April 1-September 30, 1999.
20
Mortality
Table 20: Age-adjusted mortality rates for all causes by ethnic group, 1980, 1990,
1998
21
Table 21: Fetal mortality ratios, 1988-1998 21
Table 22: Fetal mortality by county, 1998 22
Table 23: Rate of infant deaths, 1988-1998. 23
Table 24: Infant mortality rates by county of residence, 1998. 23
Table 25: Age adjusted mortality rates for selected causes of death, 1998. 24
Sexual and Behavioral Health
Table 26: Incidence rates for selected sexually transmitted diseases, 1998. 24
Table 27: During the past month, how many times have you driven when you’ve had
perhaps too much to drink? 1997
25
Table 28: How many times during the past month did you have 5 or more drinks on
an occasion? 1997
25
Table 29: During the past month, how many days per month did you drink any
alcoholic beverages, on the average? 1997
26
3
Table 30: During the past month, did you participate in any physical activities? 1998 26
Table 31: Have you ever been tested for HIV? 1998 27
Table 32: At risk for health problems related to lack of exercise (regular and
sustained physical activity) 1998
27
Table 33: At risk for health problems related to being overweight (based on body
mass index) 1998
28
Table 34: Females 40 years old or older who ever had a mammogram, 1998 28
Table 35: How often do you use seatbelts when you drive or ride in a car? 1997 29
Table 36: What is your average frequency of fruit and vegetable consumption per
day? 1998
29
Substance Use
Table 37: Prevalence of recent alcohol/drug use, 1996 30
Table 38: Prevalence of current substance abuse problems, 1996 30
Table 39: Weighted prevalence of drug use and drug problems for 18-64 year olds,
1996
30
Table 40: Percentage of elementary school students who report using substances
ever in life, 1997.
31
Table 41: Percentage of junior high/middle school students who report using
substances ever in life, 1997.
31
Table 42: Percentage of high school students who report using substances ever in
life, 1997.
32
Health Insurance
Table 43: Ethnicity of all KidsCare children who have been approved as of February
29, 2000.
32
Table 44: Do you have any kind of health care coverage? 1998. 33
Table 45: Was there a time during the last 12 months when you needed to see a
doctor but could not because of the cost?
33
Table 46: During the past 12 months, was there any time that you did not have any
health insurance or coverage?
34
Table 47: Persons ages 18 to 64 without health insurance coverage, 1994-1995,
United States.
34
Education
Elementary and Secondary School
Table 48: Enrollment count, dropout count, and dropout rate, 1998-99 school year. 35
Table 49: Percentage of population graduated from high school and college, 1990 36
Table 50: Computer use by children in first through sixth grade, United States, 1993. 36
Table 51: Mathematics scale scores, 1992, 1996. 37
Table 52: Reading scale scores, 1994, 1998 37
Table 53: Percentage of public school students attaining mathematics achievement
levels, Grade 4.
38
Table 54: Percentage of public school students attaining mathematics achievement
levels, Grade 8.
38
Table 55: Percentage of public school students attaining reading achievement levels,
Grade 4.
39
Table 56: Percentage of public school students attaining reading achievement levels,
Grade 8.
39
University
Table 57: Enrollment at Arizona’s state universities, fall semester, 1998. 40
Table 58: Total degrees awarded, August 1995 to May 1996, Arizona university
system.
40
4
Economic Security
General Economic Status
Table 59: Selected economic indicators, 1990. 41
Earnings and Poverty
Table 60: Poverty rates by county, 1990. 41
Table 61: Projections of persons with income below poverty in 2000. 42
Table 62: Female headed households with children living below poverty, 1989. 43
Table 63: Median usual weekly earnings of male and female full-time workers,
1995, United States (reported in 1997 dollars).
43
Table 64: Black and Hispanic male earnings as a percentage of white male earnings,
United States.
44
Table 65: Black and Hispanic female earnings as a percentage of white female
earnings, United States.
44
Labor Market
Table 66: Unemployment rate projection for the year 2000. 45
Table 67: Minority owned firms for all states and Arizona, 1992. 46
Table 68: Occupation by ethnicity, 1989. 47
Crime and Criminal Justice
Table 69: Arrest frequency by offense for adults, 1998. 48
Table 70: Arrest frequency by offense for juveniles, 1998. 49
Table 71: Percent ethnic distribution of inmate population for the quarters ending
selected years.
51
Table 72: Percent of admissions to state prisons coming from each county, 1999. 52
Table 73: New commitments to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections,
fiscal year 1999.
52
Table 74: Juveniles processed in the Arizona court system, fiscal year 1999. 53
Table 75: Homicides per 100,000 resident population, United States. 54
Table 76: Percent of full-time sworn officers who are minorities, United States. 54
Table 77: Perception of whether blacks or whites are treated more harshly by the
criminal justice system, 1997, United States.
54
5
Acknowledgments
This volume, The Arizona Factbook on Ethnic Minorities, is one of several Factbooks
published by Arizona State University West’s Partnership for Community Development
to inform public policy and assist public and community-based organizations as they
develop programs and services to address issues relevant to residents of Arizona. The
Factbook’s intent is not to advocate for particular programs or political agendas, but to
present data and other information that may be used as a basis for decision-making.
While not an exhaustive treatment of ethnic and racial issues (in some instances statistics
that would prove useful have not been compiled), this book attempts to provide a current
examination of the set of issues facing these populations in Arizona today.
I am appreciative of the contributions of Mr. Rudy Navarro, who researched, compiled,
and developed this volume. Professor Alberto Pulido, ASU West College of Arts and
Sciences, provided invaluable suggestions for content as well as editing assistance.
Dr. Mark Searle, Dean of the College of Human Services, ASU West, supported this
undertaking in numerous ways. In addition, Ms. Maria Palacios, Ms. Christine Foster,
Ms. Mary Flores, and Ms. Lisa Iampaglia of the College of Human Services contributed
to the development of this book. Mr. Geoffrey Boyarsky provided design, production,
and layout preparation.
In addition to the individuals who worked to develop and produce The Arizona Factbook
on Ethnic Minorities, it is important to recognize the support of its sponsors. The
Arizona Community Foundation and Dr. Thomas Keil, Dean of the College of Arts and
Sciences at ASU West, provided generous funding and support that made the
development of this volume possible and I am grateful for the value to the State of
Arizona they saw in producing a volume of this nature.
John Hultsman, Re.D.
Director, Partnership for
Community Development
College of Human Services
Arizona State University West
June, 2000
6
Introduction
Overview
This Factbook is about the health and well being of ethnic and racial minorities in
Arizona. Since no one fact or measure can accurately summarize a group’s wellness, this
report relies on multiple indicators to describe the status of ethnic and racial groups.
Indicators have been grouped into themes related to health, education, economic security,
and crime and criminal justice. For most indicators, several measures have been
provided that offer different perspectives on the indicator. Information is provided in
tables and summarized or highlighted in the report’s narrative. At times, additional facts
not present in the table may be provided in the narrative. Information about the majority
White population is also included in almost all cases so that comparisons can be made
with ethnic and racial data.
The themes were developed from a review of other reports, surveys, and Factbooks that
compile similar information. The number of indicators and amount of information on
this topic is too extensive for any one publication. Indicators and data for this report
were selected to provide an overview of the key issues facing ethnic and racial minorities.
All information was derived from existing databases. Most sources are federal and state
agencies responsible for collecting such information. Because of their expertise and
experience in collecting and reporting data, they are considered credible. In most cases,
statistics are presented as they appeared in these primary sources with some formatting
changes. For a few of the tables, percentages had to be computed by the author. Rates or
percentages have been provided when available so that comparisons can be made and
county level data has been offered when possible for a more detailed picture within the
state. For some indicators, state data were unavailable but national data were included
because of the importance of the indicator.
Citations are provided for all tables and information discussed in the narrative. The
Internet has become a valuable source for this material and addresses are provided in the
reference list so that readers can review primary data sources or further investigate the
wealth of information available on this topic.
Interpretation or positions based on the data have been avoided. Analysis has been kept
to simple comparisons and calculations of percent differences between statistics. At
times, positions from other sources are stated so that the relevance of an indicator is more
apparent to the reader.
The relationship of race and ethnicity to health, economic, and social conditions is
complicated. This report is not meant to suggest that the race or ethnicity of an
individual in any way causes or drives the direction of an indicator. In fact, significant
research suggests that ethnic and racial labels are not good predictors of a person’s health
7
and well being. These labels can be quite harmful and can draw attention away from
better and more accurate causes such as poverty, racism, and opportunity.
This report does not take a position on the use or accuracy of ethnic and racial labels for
describing a person’s identity. The reader will note that ethnic and racial labels change
from table to table. This is because all labels used in the tables and narrative are those
provided by the original data source. The placement of a racial or ethnic group’s label in
the table should not be interpreted as a symbol of their relative importance. Again, the
placement of the row or column duplicates the original table or information source.
Current Population and Projections
In 1995, Arizona was the 23rd most populous state in the nation with 4.2 million people
(U.S. Department of Commerce, April 3, 2000c). By 2000, 4.8 to 4.9 million people will
reside in Arizona making it the 21st most populous state. The projected ethnic and racial
breakdown for Arizona and its counties in 2000 is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Population projections for the year 2000
Total Hispanic Non-
Hispanic
White
Non-
Hispanic
Black
Non-
Hispanic
Native
American
Non-
Hispanic
Asian
Non-
Hispanic
Other
Arizona 4,961,953 916,017 3,575,201 139,650 255,619 69,749 5,718
Apache * 14,055 2,316 10,809 17 844 47 22
Cochise 121,837 35,418 76,807 6,009 816 2,631 156
Coconino * 95,978 12,146 71,808 1,669 9,282 1,000 73
Gila * 42,594 8,968 32,937 103 421 129 36
Graham * 30,293 8,785 20,396 614 355 126 17
Greenlee 8,984 3,877 4,905 30 145 17 10
La Paz * 10,364 1,259 8,880 71 110 34 10
Maricopa** 1,632,342 212,794 1,343,242 32,065 15,181 27,529 1,531
Mohave* 144,563 7,426 134,534 455 1,269 807 71
Navajo* 45,858 5,885 34,247 728 4,748 223 26
Pima* 839,764 207,921 582,507 24,902 8,773 14,374 1,287
Pinal* 150,490 46,174 95,490 4,804 3,278 604 140
Santa Cruz 38,225 29,910 7.945 72 37 169 91
Yavapai* 151,838 9,664 139,667 425 1,326 666 91
Yuma* 137,339 55,982 75,001 3,583 980 1,517 276
Navajo
Nation
123,113 1,160 3,920 154 117,725 137 16
Tribal
service
delivery area
85,189 7,951 7,026 206 69,748 173 85
City of
Phoenix
1,289,125 258,379 925,079 63,743 20,581 19,566 1,778
* less reservations
** less reservations and city of Phoenix
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security, Research Administration, February, 2000. Population
Projections, 2000
8
It should be noted that projections are based on the 1990 U.S. census. The decennial
census is the only time that all individuals residing in the United States are counted.
Models are used to estimate future population statistics. This report does not include
information from the 2000 U.S. Census.
As shown in Table 2, the ethnic and racial mix is both similar to and different from that
projected for the United States. The percentage of non-Hispanic Whites in Arizona is
almost the same as that for the rest of the country, 72.1 percent and 71.4 percent
respectively. However, only 2.8 percent of Arizona’s population is comprised of non-
Hispanic Blacks compared to 12.2 percent for the nation as a whole. Arizona’s Hispanic
population is almost 50 percent more than that of the nation and Arizona’s proportion of
Native Americans is more than seven times the national figure.
Table 2: Projected population composition for the year 2000
Race Arizona (%) United States (%)
White, non-Hispanic 72.1 71.4
Black, non-Hispanic 2.8 12.2
American Indian, non-Hispanic 5.2 0.7
Asian, non-Hispanic 1.4 3.9
Hispanic 18.5 11.8
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, April 27, 2000 and Arizona Department of
Economic Security, Research Administration, February, 2000. Population Projections, 2000
Arizona’s ethnic and racial composition varies greatly across the state as shown in Table
3. Note that individuals claiming Hispanic heritage may also claim identification with
other ethnic and racial groups and be counted in those categories as well. This will cause
population totals to exceed 100 percent. Santa Cruz, Cochise, and Pinal counties have
high concentrations of individuals claiming an Hispanic heritage. Apache, Coconino, and
Navajo counties have the largest proportion of Native Americans. Yavapai and Mohave
counties appear to have the lowest proportion of ethnic and racial minorities.
Table 3: Population composition b y county*
White African
American
Native
American
Asian or
Pacific
Islander
Hispanic
Heritage**
Other
Arizona 88.91 3.4 5.85 1.84 20.21 -
U.S. 82.72 12.67 0.87 3.7 10.86 -
Apache 20.2 0.2 77.6 0.2 4.2 1.8
Cochise 81.7 5.2 0.8 2.3 29.07 10.0
Coconino 64.0 1.5 29.2 0.9 10.04 4.4
Gila 76.6 0.2 13.0 0.3 18.62 9.9
Graham 77.6 1.9 14.9 0.4 25.17 5.2
Greenlee 85.4 0.3 2.3 0.2 43.16 11.8
La Paz 74.6 0.9 17.4 0.7 22.68 6.4
Maricopa 84.8 3.5 1.8 1.7 16.31 8.2
Mohave 95.0 0.3 2.3 0.6 5.27 1.8
Navajo 44.0 1.0 52.0 0.3 7.28 2.7
Pima 78.8 3.1 3.0 1.8 24.49 13.3
Pinal 75.0 3.1 9.3 0.4 29.27 12.2
Santa Cruz 74.7 0.3 0.2 0.6 78.25 24.2
Yavapai 95.7 0.3 1.6 0.5 6.41 1.9
Yuma* Data unavailable
9
*Population composition is based on 1990 census
* *Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, March 18, 2000 and Arizona Department of
Economic Security, March 18, 2000.
The U.S. Bureau of the Census projects significant changes for Arizona’s ethnic and
racial populations in 2025 (U.S. Department of Commerce, April 3, 2000c). Most
notably, non-Hispanic Whites will comprise 57.5 percent of Arizona’s population, down
from 69.6 percent in 1995. The number of persons of Hispanic origin is expected to
increase from 20.6 percent of the population in 1995 to 32.2 percent of the population in
2025. The populations of non-Hispanic Blacks, non-Hispanic American Indians, and
non-Hispanic Asians will remain relatively stable.
During the 30 year period between 1995 and 2025, the largest percent increases in
Arizona’s population will be among the Hispanic population with a 137.9 percent
increase and the non-Hispanic Asian and Pacific Islander population with a 125.8 percent
increase (U.S. Department of Commerce, April 3, 2000c). The non-Hispanic African
American population is projected to grow by 65.7 percent and the non-Hispanic
American Indian population by 34.9 percent. The non-Hispanic White population will
have the smallest increase and will grow by 25.5 percent. This rate of growth will rank
Arizona as 6th largest for non-Hispanic Whites, 12th largest for non-Hispanic African
Americans, 29th largest for non-Hispanic American Indians, and 26th largest for
Hispanics. Table 4 presents actual numbers for these state projections.
Table 4: Projected state population1 by race and Hispanic origin, 1995-2025
July 1, 1995 July 1, 2000 July 1, 2005 July 1, 2015 July 1, 2025
White 3,748 4,252 4,623 5,103 5,599
Black 146 177 203 241 285
American
Indian,
Eskimo, Aleut
244 262 277 304 332
Asian and
Pacific Islander
80 107 129 159 195
Hispanic 868 1,071 1,269 1,641 2,065
Non-Hispanic
White
2,936 3,254 3,441 3,579 3,685
1 Numbers rounded to nearest thousand.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, April 3, 2000a
Family Structure
Family structure can play an important role in the social and economic status of
households. For example, increases in the number of single parent families have been
associated with child poverty (Council of Economic Advisors, 1998). Poverty rates will
be presented later in the Factbook, but Tables 5 and 6 provide percentages of married and
single parent households in Arizona by ethnic group and percentages of married and
single parent households in Arizona within ethnic groups. For all ethnic and racial
groups, the largest percentage of married couple and single parent households are White
at 48.8 percent and 9.7 percent respectively. However, a comparison of households
10
within ethnic groups shows that a larger percentage of Hispanic, Black, and American
Indian households are headed by single parents. Twenty-three percent of Hispanic
households, 28 percent of Black households, and 33 percent of American Indian
households are classified as single parent compared to 11 percent of White households
and 13 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander households.
Table 5: Percentage of Arizona households that are married or single parent, 1990
White Hispanic Black American
Indian/Eskimo
/Aleut
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Other
Married couple 48.4 7.7 1.1 1.8 0.7 3.7
Single parent 9.7 3.1 0.8 1.2 0.1 1.6
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, April 8, 2000.
Table 6: Percentage of married couple and single parent households within each ethnic/racial group, 1990
White Hispanic Black American
Indian/Eskimo
/Aleut
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Other
Married couple 56.4 57.4 40.2 48.1 57.5 57.6
Single parent 11.3 23.5 27.8 32.8 12.5 13.7
Nonfamily
household
32.3 19.1 32.0 19.1 30.0 17.6
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, April 8, 2000
English Speaking Ability
Table 7 contains information about people in Arizona who speak another language at
home. For Arizona, 82 percent of those people who speak another language at home
think they speak English well or very well and 17 percent think they do not speak English
well. Santa Cruz and Yuma counties and the City of Phoenix have higher proportions of
people who think they do not speak English well compared to the state figures.
11
Table 7: English speaking ability projection for the year 2000
Speak other
language at home
Speak English very
well
Speak English well Do not speak
English well
Arizona 749,514 452,777 (60%) 167,633 (22%) 129,105 (17%)
Apache * 1,826 1,305 (71%) 366 (20%) 156 (9%)
Cochise 33,252 21,412 (64%) 6,451 (19%) 5,389 (16%)
Coconino * 14,695 10,004 (68%) 3,164 (22%) 1,527 (10%)
Gila * 6,534 4,746 (73%) 1,214 (19%) 574 (9%)
Graham * 6,163 4,522 (88%) 1,110 (21%) 531 (10%)
Greenlee 2,592 1,976 (76%) 324 (13%) 292 (11%)
La Paz * 1,718 1,186 (69%) 175 (10%) 357 (21%)
Maricopa** 107,584 68,438 (64%) 21,546 (20%) 17,600 (16%)
Mohave* 7,954 5,587 (70%) 1,506 (19%) 861 (11%)
Navajo* 6,915 5,405 (78%) 1,054 (15%) 456 (7%)
Pima* 179,107 116,603 (65%) 36,075 (20%) 26,429 (15%)
Pinal* 34,164 23,374 (68%) 5,605 (16%) 5,184 (15%)
Santa Cruz 26,579 13,364 (50%) 6,668 (25%) 6,547 (25%)
Yavapai* 9,979 7,406 (74%) 1,600 (16%) 973 (10%)
Yuma* 48,767 26,482 (54%) 9,387 (19%) 12,898 (26%)
Navajo
Nation
89,882 43,432 (48%) 29,456 (33%) 16,994 (19%)
Tribal
service
delivery area
42,064 20,995 (50%) 15,454 (37%) 5,614 (13%)
City of
Phoenix
129,740 76,540 (59%) 26,476 (20%) 26,724 (21%)
* less reservations
** less reservations and city of Phoenix
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security, Research Administration, February, 2000. Population
Projections, 2000
Health
General Health
The Arizona Department of Health Services collects substantial information on the health
status of Arizonans. In 1999, the Department synthesized data collected in 1997 and
scored and ranked ethnic and racial groups on 67 health measures. Table 8 presents the
findings of this effort. A score of zero for a group means it is equal to the statewide
average for that measure. A negative score means that it is better than the statewide
average.
Black residents ranked lowest on the overall health score. This is attributed to the fact
that this population ranked 5th or 4th on 52 of 67 measures. American Indians ranked
poorly on measures of maternal lifestyle and health and prenatal care. Hispanics ranked
better than average with low mortality rates for suicide and unintentional injuries, low
alcohol and tobacco use among women giving birth, and total mortality. They ranked
worse than average in teen pregnancy and premature mortality.
Non-Hispanic Whites ranked first or second on 36 of 67 measures including low teen
pregnancy rates, high utilization of prenatal care, and low premature mortality. Asians
12
ranked best on measures of maternal lifestyle and health, cause and age specific
mortality, and incidence of reportable diseases.
Table 8: Average scores and ranks on 67 health measures, 1997
Average Score* Average Rank**
Black +71.9 4.1
American Indians +54.7 3.7
Hispanics +4.8 3.0
Non-Hispanic Whites -7.4 2.1
Asians -42.8 1.5
* The average score based on all 67 measurements (the sum of all scores divided by 67 measurements).
** The average rank based on all 67 measurements (the sum of the ranks divided by 67 measurements.
Ranks range between 1=the highest rank of health indicators and 5=the lowest rank of health indicators).
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1999a. Differences in the Health Status among Ethnic
Group, Arizona, 1997.
Fertility
Pregnancy statistics are provided in the following tables. Of particular importance is the
information presented about teenagers. Research suggests that having a child during
adolescence can result in long term difficulties for the child, the mother, and society
(Bachrach and Carver, 1992; Males, 1997). For example, 8 to 12 years after birth, a child
born to an unmarried, teenage, high school dropout is 10 times as likely to be living in
poverty as a child born to a mother without these characteristics (Annie E. Casey
Foundation, 1993). These children are also more likely to not complete high school and
be dependent on welfare (Garfinkel and McLanahan, 1986).
Table 9 presents data on pregnancy rates for all ethnic groups in 1998. Pregnancy rates
for Hispanics were 1.9 times the rate for non-Hispanic Whites. Approximately one in
every fourteen white non-Hispanic females became pregnant in 1998 compared to one in
every seven Hispanic females (Arizona Department of Health Services, 1999). Black and
Asian pregnancy rates were below the state average.
Table 9: Pregnancy rates for all ages by ethnic
group, 1998*
Hispanic 141.9
American Indian 98.5
All Arizonans 92.2
Black 86.8
Asian 84.4
Non-Hispanic White 73.9
* Total number of pregnancies per 1,000 females 15-44 years old in specified group
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1999. Arizona Health Status and Vital Statistics, 1998
Teenage pregnancy rates have declined from 1990 to 1998 for every ethnic and racial
group except Hispanic females. It should be noted however that a slight increase was
seen for all groups between 1997 and 1998. In 1998, Hispanic pregnancy rates were
almost three times as high as pregnancy rates for non-Hispanic Whites. This information
is presented in Table 10.
13
Table 10: Comparison of pregnancy rates (per 1000) by ethnic group among
females aged 19 and younger for select years.
1990 1997 1998
Asian 21.5 15.8 17.2
American Indian 56.5 34.4 36.4
Black 79.3 41.7 46.7
Hispanic 68.8 67.9 70.0
Non-Hispanic White 39.5 24.5 25.4
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1999. Arizona Health Status and Vital Statistics, 1998
As shown in Table 11, Black women, including those under the age of 19, had the highest
abortion rates even though they had the next to lowest pregnancy rate. American Indians
with the second highest pregnancy rate had the lowest proportion of pregnancies that
terminated with abortion.
Table 11. Number of pregnancies1 and pregnancy rates2 by pregnancy outcome and ethnic group,
1998.
<19 years old All ages
Total Rates Total Rates
White 4,729 25.4 46,679 73.9
Births 3,165 17.0 38,611 61.1
Abortions 1,480 7.9 7,559 12.0
Fetal deaths3 509 0.8
Hispanic 5,793 70.0 32,854 141.09
Births 5,046 61.0 28,824 124.5
Abortions 747 9.0 4,030 17.4
Fetal deaths NA NA
Black 647 46.7 3,376 86.8
Births 493 35.6 2,629 67.6
Abortions 147 10.6 710 18.3
Fetal deaths 37 1.0
American Indian 988 36.4 5,861 98.5
Births 925 34.1 5,460 91.8
Abortions 53 1.9 357 6.0
Fetal deaths 44 0.7
All ethnic groups4 12,630 39.8 93,148 92.2
Births 9,793 30.9 77,940 77.1
Abortions 2,735 8.6 14,606 14.5
Fetal deaths 602 0.6
1 The sum of recorded live births, abortions, and fetal deaths
2 All rates per 1,000 females of childbearing age (15-44 years)
3 For females 19 or less years old, fetal deaths are included in the total counts of pregnancies
4 Includes other and unspecified ethnicity
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1999. Arizona Health Status and Vital Statistics, 1998.
Births in each county are shown in Table 12.
14
Table 12. Births by mother’s ethnic group and county of residence, 1998.
Mother’s ethnicity
All ethnic groups Non-Hispanic
White
Hispanic Black American Indian Asian Unknown
Arizona 77,940 38,611 28,824 2,629 5,460 1,747 669
Apache 1,289 169 38 2 1,077 2 1
Cochise 1,633 781 695 77 30 39 11
Coconino 1,755 774 210 20 731 16 4
Gila 711 376 141 3 186 4 1
Graham 488 296 138 3 50 1 0
Greenlee 141 75 61 1 4 0 0
La Paz 169 7 4 1 4 0 0
Maricopa 49,324 26,021 18,142 737 1,439 1,312 407
Mohave 1,678 1,272 243 9 64 18 72
Navajo 1,769 590 131 10 1,022 10 6
Pima 11,455 5,127 5,122 363 498 283 62
Pinal 2,231 980 834 61 251 13 92
Santa Cruz 773 68 704 0 0 1 0
Yavapai 1,693 1,323 303 8 39 15 5
Yuma 2,815 666 2,003 68 37 33 8
Unknown 16 7 4 1 4 0 0
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1999. Arizona Health Status and Vital Statistics, 1998.
15
As mentioned earlier, child poverty has been associated with the increase in single parent
families. Table 13 presents data on births to married and unmarried mothers. The
proportion of births to unmarried Black and American Indian mothers is more than
double that for White, non-Hispanic mothers.
Table 13. Percentage of total births by mother’s marital status, 1998.
All Groups
Unmarried 38.4%
Married 61.5%
Unknown .2%
White, non-Hispanic
Unmarried 25.0%
Married 74.8%
Unknown .2%
Hispanic
Unmarried 49.7%
Married 50.2%
Unknown .1%
Black
Unmarried 63.1%
Married 36.8%
Unknown .1%
American Indian
Unmarried 68.2%
Married 31.6%
Unknown .2%
Asian
Unmarried 16.4%
Married 83.4%
Unknown .2%
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1999. Arizona Health Status and Vital Statistics, 1998.
Infant and Child Health
Table 14, 15, and 16 provide information about prenatal care and the health of the
newborn. Children born with low-birthweight have a high probability of experiencing
developmental problems (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1998). The percentage of infants
being classified with low-birthweight has increased slightly from 1988 to 1998 for all
ethnic and racial groups with the exception of Black infants. In 1998, Black low-birthweight
infants were born at twice the rate of all the other groups. Black infants have
consistently had the highest low-birthweight rates over the ten-year period shown in
Table 14.
16
Table 14. Percent of live births classified as low-birthweight births, 1988-1998.
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
White 5.9 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.2 6.4 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.6
Hispanic 6.3 5.9 6.4 6.6 6.5 6.6 6.5 6.6 6.4 6.6 6.6
Black 13.9 14.1 11.5 13.0 12.6 13.4 12.8 13.3 12.4 13.6 12.2
American
Indian
5.4 5.7 6.1 6.8 6.1 6.5 5.8 6.2 6.6 6.6 6.6
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1999. Arizona Health Status and Vital Statistics, 1998.
Prenatal care can enhance the chance of giving birth to a healthy infant (Forum on Child
and Family Statistics, 1997). As can be seen in Table 15, the percent of women who
received early prenatal care increased from 1990 to 1998 with Hispanics and American
Indians increasing their use of prenatal care by 39.1 percent and 31.9 percent
respectively. Even with these increases, these two groups had the lowest utilization of
prenatal care. Table 16 lists prenatal care visits by county.
17
Table 15. Changes from 1990 to 1998 in selected characteristics of newborns and women giving birth.
White1 Hispanic Black American Indian
1990 1998 %
Change
1990 1998 %
Change
1990 1998 %
Change
1990 1998 %
Change
Teenage mother2 10.4 8.2 -21.2 20.4 17.5 -14.2 21.9 18.8 -14.2 17.7 16.9 -4.5
Unwed mother 21.0 25.0 +19.0 45.1 49.7 +10.2 61.2 63.1 +3.1 59.9 68.2 +13.9
Early prenatal care3 76.9 83.5 +8.6 48.6 67.6 +39.1 59.6 71.4 +19.8 46.4 61.2 +31.9
0-4 prenatal visits 6.2 3.0 -51.6 19.7 11.3 -42.6 20.0 8.1 -59.5 20.8 13.3 -36.1
LBW rate 6.2 6.6 +6.5 6.4 6.6 +3.1 11.5 12.2 +6.1 6.1 6.6 +8.2
1 Not of Hispanic origin.
2 Less than 20 years old.
3 Entered care in first trimester of pregnancy.
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1999. Arizona Health Status and Vital Statistics, 1998.
18
Table 16: Average number of prenatal visits during pregnancy by county of residence, 1998.
Non
Hispanic
White
Hispanic Black American
Indian
Asian Other
Total 11.8 10.5 11.1 9.5 11.3 10.1
Apache 11.2 10.7 8.5 9.4 8.0 6.0
Cochise 12.6 10.8 12.2 11.8 12.1 12.0
Coconino 12.4 10.6 12.1 9.9 11.1 10.5
Gila 10.9 10.5 10.7 8.7 12.0 10.0
Graham 10.3 9.5 9.7 9.4 3.0 -
Greenlee 9.9 9.1 7.0 9.5 - -
La Paz 9.6 8.6 - 7.3 - -
Maricopa 12.0 10.6 11.2 9.9 11.4 10.4
Mohave 10.4 10.5 11.1 6.6 9.4 9.5
Navajo 10.8 9.8 10.7 8.5 10.1 7.7
Pima 11.8 10.6 10.7 10.7 10.8 10.7
Pinal 10.8 9.7 8.5 9.9 9.7 9.1
Santa Cruz 10.7 10.4 - - 12.0 -
Yavapai 10.5 8.4 9.0 8.4 9.4 5.8
Yuma 12.9 10.8 12.4 11.9 12.1 15.1
Unknown 11.1 10.3 - 7.8 - -
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1999. Arizona Health Status and Vital Statistics, 1998.
Vaccination against infant and childhood diseases is a good indicator of access to and use
of basic medical care (Council of Economic Advisers, 1998). Table 17 presents national
data on the percentages of children who are vaccinated.
Table 17: Children aged 19 to 35 months who are up to date with recommended vaccinations, 1995-96,
United States.
Poor Not poor
White, non-Hispanic 64% 80%
Black 64% 77%
Hispanic 68% 74%
Asian 78% 75%
American Indian 74% 78%
Source: Council of Economic Advisors, 1998. Changing America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-
Being by Race and Hispanic Origin.
Table 18 reports on out-of-home placements, usually as a result of child abuse and
neglect, for children in Arizona. Child abuse may result in poor peer relations and
violent behavior in the short term and criminality, poverty, and violence in the long term
(U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1998). Hispanic and Black children
are disproportionately represented in the out-of-home placement statistics. About one
quarter of all placements are Hispanic and the percentage of Black children that are
placed is almost six times higher than Black’s representation in the general population.
19
Table 18: Number and percentage of children in out-of-home placement, April 1-
September 30, 1999.
Percentage Number
White 48% 3,216
Hispanic 28% 1,855
African American 16% 1,087
American Indian 6% 373
Asian 2% 34
Other 3% 103
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security, 1999. Child Welfare Reporting Requirements: Semi-
Annual Report for the Period of April 1, 1999 through September 30, 1999.
Table 19 presents data that may be indicative of the child welfare system’s ability to
reunite children with their families or find other appropriate permanent placement. Very
small differences are noted among the ethnic and racial groups when comparing the rates
of out of home placements to the rates of case disposition. About equal percentages of
cases within ethnic and racial groups coming into the system are also permanently placed.
20
Table 19: Number and percentage of children leaving DES custody for selected reasons, April 1-September 30, 1999.
Reunification with
parents
Living with relatives Adoption Reaching age of
majority
Runaway
Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number
White 50% 495 53% 27 56% 189 44% 114 43% 3
Hispanic 29% 282 27% 14 22% 75 22% 55 14% 1
African American 12% 124 11% 6 17% 55 15% 37 29% 2
American Indian 5% 53 9% 4 4% 14 14% 36 14% 1
Asian 1% 9 0% 0 1% 2 1% 2 0% 0
Other 3% 25 0% 0 <1% 1 4% 9 0% 0
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security, 1999. Child Welfare Reporting Requirements: Semi-Annual Report for the Period of April 1, 1999 through
September 30, 1999.
21
Mortality
Mortality or death rates can suggest a variety of things when applied to different age
groups. Infant mortality is associated with maternal health, quality and access to medical
care, socioeconomic conditions, and public health practices (Forum on Child and Family
Statistics, 1997). Unintentional injuries account for a large proportion of child and
adolescent deaths with motor vehicle crashes and firearm related injuries of particular
importance for adolescents. For young adults, motor vehicle injuries, homicides,
suicides, and HIV infection are important. Chronic diseases, such as heart disease, are
among the most important indicators of health status for older adults (Council of
Economic Advisers, 1998). Tables 20 through 24 present data on mortality.
As shown in Table 20, mortality rates have decreased for all ethnic and racial groups
from 1980 to 1998. American Indians and Blacks have consistently had the highest
mortality rates even though Blacks showed a 23.1 percent decrease in mortality, the
largest decrease of any ethnic and racial group. Death rates of American Indians are
triple those of Asians who have the lowest mortality rates.
Table 20: Age-adjusted mortality rates1 for all causes by ethnic group, 1980, 1990, 1998.
1980 1990 1998
American Indian 856.2 735.6 771.9
Black 810.9 722.3 623.7
Non-Hispanic White 569.0 517.6 533.7
Hispanic 549.8 451.3 478.2
Asian 323.0 296.3 252.2
1 Number of deaths per 100,000 age-adjusted population in specified group.
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1999. Arizona Health Status and Vital Statistics, 1998.
Fetal mortality trends and actual numbers by county are presented in Tables 21 and 22.
The same information for infant deaths is presented in Tables 23 and 24. Rates for both
fetal and infant deaths have decreased for all groups over the period from 1988 to 1998.
Still, Black infants die at double the rates for U.S. and all Arizona infants. Black infants
and American Indian fetuses have the highest mortality rates of all ethnic and racial groups.
Table 21: Fetal mortality ratios, 1988-1998
All groups White1 Black American
Indian
Other
1998 6.4 6.1 10.1 6.5 9.1
19892 4.4 4.2 7.8 4.6 3.7
1990 4.0 3.6 9.8 4.7 2.1
1991 4.2 4.1 4.8 4.5 7.2
1992 4.2 4.0 7.8 5.5 3.7
1993 4.4 4.0 6.2 6.4 6.7
1994 4.1 3.9 5.5 6.0 4.5
1995 3.8 3.3 7.4 8.0 3.8
1996 3.6 3.3 7.8 5.5 0.7
1997 4.2 4.0 3.5 5.6 1.2
1998 4.2 4.1 4.8 5.2 3.5
1 Include Hispanics
2 Beginning in 1989 excludes fetal deaths of less than 500 grams
22
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1999. Arizona Health Status and Vital Statistics, 1998.
Table 22: Fetal mortality by county, 1998
Total White* Black American
Indian
Asian Unknown
Arizona 602 509 37 44 10 2
Apache 8 3 1 4 0 0
Cochise 14 10 4 0 0 0
Coconino 14 8 2 4 0 0
Gila 4 4 0 0 0 0
Graham 5 4 0 1 0 0
Greenlee 3 3 0 0 0 0
La Paz 1 1 0 0 0 0
Maricopa 370 321 24 15 9 1
Mohave 16 16 0 0 0 0
Navajo 18 8 0 10 0 0
Pima 97 86 4 5 1 1
Pinal 18 15 0 3 0 0
Santa Cruz 7 6 1 0 0 0
Yavapai 16 16 0 0 0 0
Yuma 11 8 1 2 0 0
*Includes Hispanics
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1999. Arizona Health Status and Vital Statistics, 1998.
Table 23: Rate of infant deaths, 1988-1998.
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
U.S. 9.9 9.7 9.1 8.9 8.5 8.3 7.9 7.6 7.3 7.2 7.2
All2 9.7 9.1 8.7 8.6 8.3 7.7 7.9 7.6 7.7 7.2 7.6
White3 9.0 9.0 8.2 7.5 8.0 6.7 7.7 7.8 6.9 6.7 6.9
Hispanic 9.9 8.0 7.8 8.5 7.4 7.5 7.2 6.6 7.5 7.3 7.3
Black 17.9 17.5 16.8 16.3 13.4 17.1 13.2 12.8 15.6 10.4 14.2
American
Indian
9.9 10.5 11.8 12.0 11.2 9.8 10.6 9.7 9.4 8.4 11.5
1 Number of infant deaths per 1,000 live births in specified ethnic group.
2 Includes records with other and unknown ethnic group.
3 Includes only whites of non-Hispanic origin.
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1999. Arizona Health Status and Vital Statistics, 1998.
U.S. rates from the National Center for Health Statistics. The 1998 U.S. rate is provisional.
23
Table 24: Infant mortality rates1 by county of residence, 1998.
Total, all
groups
Non-Hispanic
White
Hispanic American
Indian
Asian
Arizona 7.6 6.9 7.3 14.2 3.5
Apache 7.8 6.8 - - -
Cochise 8.0 8.9 6.6 15.6 -
Coconino 9.7 2.8 23.4 - -
Gila 5.6 8.9 - - -
Graham 4.1 7.7 - - -
Greenlee 7.1 15.9 - - -
La Paz 11.8 - - - -
Maricopa 7.3 6.4 7.7 12.9 3.1
Mohave 11.3 11.6 9.7 - -
Navajo 11.9 9.2 23.5 - -
Pima 6.5 5.8 5.9 15.4 3.8
Pinal 9.9 7.0 9.6 24.4 -
Santa Cruz 6.5 - 7.0 - -
Yavapai 10.6 12.4 4.9 - -
Yuma 7.5 9.1 3.8 45.9 32.2
1 number of infant deaths per 1,000 live (calculated only if at least 10 births recorded in that group in
1998).
- No infant deaths.
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1999. Arizona Health Status and Vital Statistics, 1998
Rates for various causes of death for all ages are presented in Table 25. It is apparent that
causes of death do not affect all ethnic and racial groups the same. For American
Indians, deaths from motor vehicle injuries were more than three times the rate of the
average Arizonan and the homicide rate was double that for all Arizonans. American
Indian deaths from diabetes were four and half times the state rate and deaths from
alcohol were more than six and a half times the state rate. Blacks had the highest rate of
heart disease, more than four times that of Asians who had the lowest. Blacks were also
about three times as likely to die from homicide and HIV infection than the average
Arizonan.
24
Table 25: Age adjusted mortality rates1 for selected causes of death, 1998.
All
Arizonans
Non-
Hispanic
White
Black Hispanic Asian American
Indian
Diseases of Heart 125.8 135.2 174.1 114.5 42.7 130.5
Malignant
neoplasms
114.2 124.5 132.3 89.7 67.5 86.0
Unintentional
injuries
41.8 37.1 41.6 41.8 20.5 127.3
Lung cancer 31.8 36.3 36.8 16.4 16.5 8.5
Motor vehicle-related
injuries
21.0 17.0 22.4 21.5 13.4 79.6
Breast cancer2 18.2 20.1 21.6 13.5 6.6 7.8
Suicide 17.0 19.5 7.2 10.6 8.3 19.1
Homicide 10.4 6.0 28.8 17.5 4.8 22.1
Diabetes 13.5 11.1 19.7 26.7 6.9 61.3
Prostate cancer3 13.0 13.9 32.7 13.7 8.7 12.1
Colorectal cancer 11.1 11.8 15.5 9.4 11.4 7.3
Alcoholism 7.7 6.1 4.8 7.3 1.2 51.5
HIV infection 3.0 2.6 9.7 3.6 0.0 3.4
1 Number of deaths per 100,000 age-adjusted population in specified group
2 Per 100,000 age-adjusted female population.
3 Per 100,000 age-adjusted male population.
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1999. Arizona Health Status and Vital Statistics, 1998.
Sexual and Behavioral Health
Table 26 presents statistics for sexually transmitted diseases. Blacks are consistently
above the state average for contracting every disease that is reported. Blacks are eight
times more likely to be diagnosed with syphilis, seven times more likely to contact
chlamydia and over two and a half times more likely to have genital herpes. They have
the highest incident rates for AIDS at almost three times the state average. Asian’s rates
are the lowest for all diseases reported.
Table 26: Incidence rates1 for selected sexually transmitted diseases, 1998.
All
Arizonans
Non-
Hispanic
White
Black Hispanic Asian American
Indian
Early syphilis 8.3 3.0 66.5 14.9 1.0 9.0
Gonorrhea 88.3 32.6 620.5 142.1 22.6 91.8
Chlamydia 241.0 91.7 666.5 373.0 77.4 677.7
Genital Herpes 22.4 16.3 37.3 18.6 7.5 25.5
Acquired
Immunodeficiency
Syndrome (AIDS)
5.6 5.5 13.4 6.0 1.0 4.3
1 Number of reported cases per 100,000 population in specified group.
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1999. Arizona Health Status and Vital Statistics, 1998.
The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is a federally sponsored study
that regularly monitors health behaviors in all fifty states and the District of Columbia.
Arizona data from the BRFSS are shown in Tables 27 through 36. The reader should
25
interpret findings with caution. In some cases, the number of people who answered a
question is too small to credibly represent the entire ethnic or racial subgroup.
Table 27: During the past month, how many times have you driven when you’ve had perhaps too much to
drink? 1997
None 1 time 2 times 3 times 4 times 5 or more
times
White %
CI
n
97.0
(95.0-99.0)
573
1.6
(0.4-2.8)
9
0.5
(0.0-2.4)
1
1.0
(0.0-2.4)
3
0.0 0.0
Black %
CI
n
98.0
(93.9-100.0)
9
2.0
(0.0-6.1)
1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hispanic %
CI
n
98.2
(95.7-100.0)
80
0.7
(0.0-2.1)
1
0.0 0.0 1.1
(0.0-3.3)
1
0.0
Other %
CI
n
84.0
(63.4-100)
27
16.0
(0.0-36.6)
2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%=Percentage, CI=Confidence Interval, n=Cell Size.
Percentages are weighted to population characteristics.
Use caution in interpreting cell sizes less than 50.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System,
1997.
Table 28: How many times during the past month did you have 5 or more drinks on an occasion? 1997
None 1 time 2 times 3 times 4 times 5 or more
times
White %
CI
n
80.4
(75.5-85.3)
488
6.6
(3.9-9.3)
38
7.7
(3.6-11.8)
26
1.5
(0.5-2.5)
10
2.3
(0.7-3.9)
10
1.4
(0.4-2.4)
12
Black %
CI
n
69.9
(35.2-100.0)
7
30.1
(0.0-64.8)
3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hispanic %
CI
n
70.2
(58.0-82.4)
60
17.1
(6.3-27.9)
10
8.2
(0.8-15.6)
5
0.2
(0.0-0.6)
1
0.8
(0.0-2.0)
2
3.5
(0.0-7.6)
4
Other %
CI
n
67.7
(44.6-90.8)
18
13.5
(0.0-29.4)
4
4.3
(0.0-10.6)
2
2.6
(0.0-6.5)
2
0.0 0.0
%=Percentage, CI=Confidence Interval, n=Cell Size.
Percentages are weighted to population characteristics.
Use caution in interpreting cell sizes less than 50.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System,
1997.
26
Table 29: During the past month, how many days per month did you drink any alcoholic beverages, on the
average? 1997
1-5 days 6-10 days 11-15 days 16-20 days 21-31 days
White %
CI
n
50.8
(45.1-56.5)
279
24.0
(19.1-28.9)
147
11.3
(7.6-15.0)
63
4.7
(2.5-6.9)
27
9.2
(6.5-11.9)
63
Black %
CI
n
86.5
(69.4-100.0)
7
6.0
(0.0-17.8)
1
7.5
(0.0-19.5)
2
0.0 0.0
Hispanic %
CI
n
46.5
(33.8-59.2)
42
24.2
(13.6-34.8)
21
17.4
(7.2-27.6)
11
3.1
(0.0-8.0)
2
8.8
(1.7-15.9)
7
Other %
CI
n
72.3
(49.4-95.2)
22
15.0
(0.0-30.9)
4
0.0 1.6
(0.0-4.7)
1
11.1
(0.0-31.1)
1
%=Percentage, CI=Confidence Interval, n=Cell Size.
Percentages are weighted to population characteristics.
Use caution in interpreting cell sizes less than 50.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System,
1997.
Table 30: During the past month, did you
participate in any physical activities? 1998
Yes No
White %
CI
n
51.8
(48.1-55.5)
776
48.2
(44.5-51.9)
703
Black %
CI
n
26.6
(5.6-47.6)
8
73.4
(52.4-94.4)
20
Hispanic %
CI
n
33.0
(25.2-40.8)
119
67.0
(59.2-74.8)
206
Other %
CI
n
80.3
(66.8-93.8)
48
19.7
(6.2-33.2)
25
%=Percentage, CI=Confidence Interval, n=Cell Size.
Percentages are weighted to population characteristics.
Use caution in interpreting cell sizes less than 50.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System,
1998.
27
Table 31: Have you ever been tested for HIV?
1998
Yes No
White %
CI
n
35.8
(31.3-40.3)
294
64.2
(59.7-68.7)
453
Black %
CI
n
45.2
(15.8-74.6)
9
54.8
(25.4-84.2)
10
Hispanic %
CI
n
31.9
(24.5-39.3)
88
68.1
(60.7-75.5)
151
Other %
CI
n
30.3
(9.5-51.1)
17
69.7
(48.9-90.5)
39
%=Percentage, CI=Confidence Interval, n=Cell Size.
Percentages are weighted to population characteristics.
Use caution in interpreting cell sizes less than 50.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System,
1998.
Table 32: At risk for health problems related
to lack of exercise (regular and sustained
physical activity) 1998
At Risk Not at Risk
White %
CI
n
85.9
(83.2-88.6)
1275
14.1
(11.4-16.8)
204
Black %
CI
n
82.7
(62.3-100.0)
25
17.3
(0.0-37.7)
3
Hispanic %
CI
n
88.6
(83.3-93.9)
285
11.4
(6.1-16.7)
40
Other %
CI
n
92.9
(86.0-99.8)
66
7.1
(0.2-14.0)
7
%=Percentage, CI=Confidence Interval, n=Cell Size.
Percentages are weighted to population characteristics.
Use caution in interpreting cell sizes less than 50.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System,
1998.
28
Table 33: At risk for health problems related
to being overweight (based on body mass
index) 1998
At risk Not at risk
White %
CI
n
16.2
(13.5-18.9)
259
83.8
(81.1-86.5)
1185
Black %
CI
n
48.1
(23.8-72.4)
8
51.9
(27.6-76.2)
19
Hispanic %
CI
n
41.0
(30.8-51.2)
113
59.0
(48.8-69.2)
188
Other %
CI
n
43.4
(15.0-71.8)
30
56.6
(28.2-85.0)
42
%=Percentage, CI=Confidence Interval, n=Cell Size.
Percentages are weighted to population characteristics.
Use caution in interpreting cell sizes less than 50.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System,
1998.
Table 34: Females 40 years old or older who
ever had a mammogram, 1998
Yes No
White %
CI
n
87.4
(83.5-91.3)
481
12.6
(8.7-16.5)
75
Black %
CI
n
79.2
(52.2-100.0)
8
20.8
(0.0-47.8)
4
Hispanic %
CI
n
58.2
(29.6-86.8)
65
41.8
(13.2-70.4)
28
Other %
CI
n
73.6
(51.8-95.4)
17
26.4
(4.6-48.2)
5
%=Percentage, CI=Confidence Interval, n=Cell Size.
Percentages are weighted to population characteristics.
Use caution in interpreting cell sizes less than 50.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System,
1998.
29
Table 35: How often do you use seatbelts when you drive or ride in a car? 1997
Always Nearly Always Sometimes Seldom Never
White %
CI
n
81.4
(78.7-84.1)
1243
11.4
(9.0-13.8)
161
3.5
(2.1-4.9)
49
1.1
(0.5-1.7)
20
2.6
(1.4-3.8)
34
Black %
CI
n
82.5
(70.0-95.0)
23
12.7
(1.5-23.9)
6
0.0 4.9
(0.0-12.0)
2
0.0
Hispanic %
CI
n
77.6
(71.1-84.1)
181
13.5
(8.4-18.6)
41
2.6
(0.0-5.3)
7
2.5
(0.1-4.9)
5
3.8
(0.7-6.9)
10
Other %
CI
n
73.5
(60.4-86.6)
82
7.2
(0.0-14.5)
8
9.2
(0.0-18.4)
9
1.3
(0.0-3.3)
3
8.8
(0.0-18.2)
6
%=Percentage, CI=Confidence Interval, n=Cell Size.
Percentages are weighted to population characteristics.
Use caution in interpreting cell sizes less than 50.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System,
1997.
Table 36: What is your average frequency of fruit and vegetable consumption per day? 1998
Never or <1 a day 1 or 2 times a day 3 or 4 times a day 5+ times a day
White %
CI
n
3.6
(2.4-4.8)
57
51.6
(48.1-55.1)
717
34.7
(31.2-38.2)
567
10.1
(7.6-12.6)
138
Black %
CI
n
1.9
(.0.-5.6)
1
45.9
(22.6-69.2)
14
47.8
(24.1-71.5)
11
4.4
(0.0-10.9)
2
Hispanic %
CI
n
14.0
(8.1-19.9)
39
53.6
(44.6-62.6)
175
26.1
(18.5-33.7)
86
6.3
(2.8-9.8)
26
Other %
CI
n
0.4
(0.0-1.2)
1
32.0
(11.4-52.6)
31
58.7
(33.8-83.6)
31
8.9
(1.3-16.5)
10
%=Percentage, CI=Confidence Interval, n=Cell Size.
Percentages are weighted to population characteristics.
Use caution in interpreting cell sizes less than 50.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System,
1998.
Substance Use
Tables 37 and 38 present data compiled by the Arizona Department of Health Service’s
1996 Telephone Household Survey. In Arizona, recent alcohol and drug use by adults
does not differ significantly by ethnic or racial group. Whites are more likely than
Hispanics or other ethnic and racial groups to have used alcohol or drugs but the
difference is minimal. The pattern is similar for clinically defined substance abuse
problems with Whites more likely to have a diagnosable substance abuse problem than
other racial or ethnic groups. Again, the difference is small.
30
Table 37: Prevalence of recent alcohol/drug use, 1996
Alcohol Any illicit drug Marijuana
White 74.2% 8.2% 6.8%
Hispanic 66.8% 7.2% 5.5%
Other 63.6% 7.9% 7.4%
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1998. Substance Abuse in Arizona: Final Report of the
1996 Telephone Household Survey.
Table 38: Prevalence of current substance abuse problems, 1996
Any problem Alcohol problem Drug problem
White 10.6% 10% 1.7%
Hispanic 9.3% 8.6% 1.6%
Other 8.2% 7.3% 2.4%
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1998. Substance Abuse in Arizona: Final Report of the
1996 Telephone Household Survey.
Table 39 provides summary data from the survey and prevalence of specific drug use.
Information in these tables for Black, Asians, or Native Americans is combined into the
“Other” category.
Table 39: Weighted prevalence of drug use and drug problems for 18-64 year olds, 1996
White Hispanic Other
Recent use
Alcohol 74.2 66.8 63.6
Drugs 8.2 7.2 7.9
Weighted Total:
Alcohol and drugs
74.7 67.3 64.7
Recent use of specific drugs
Marijuana 6.8 5.5 7.4
Cocaine 1.2 1.4 1.9
Stimulants 1.7 1.6 1.5
Hallucinogens 0.9 1.2 1.0
Heroin <.01 0.1 0.3
Opiates (includes
heroin)
0.6 0.8 0.9
Sedatives 1.0 1.0 0.3
Inhalants 0.1 0.3 0
Tobacco 28.6 21.9 21.0
Current problems
Alcohol 8.9 7.7 5.8
Alcohol & drugs 1.1 0.9 1.5
Drugs 0.6 0.7 0.9
Weighted total 10.6 9.3 8.2
Sampling error: Ethnicity +/-<2.1%
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1998. Substance Abuse in Arizona: Final Report of the
1996 Telephone Household Survey.
31
In 1997, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission conducted a drug prevalence survey
using a random sample of Arizona schools. Statistics from the study for elementary,
junior high, and high school student drug use is presented in Tables 40, 41, and 42. As
can be expected, drug use increases in the later school years. American Indian
elementary school students are almost three times as likely to use cigarettes or smokeless
tobacco than are White students. They are also most likely to use cigarettes and
smokeless tobacco in junior high and high school. Cocaine use for Blacks and Hispanics
at the three grade levels is double or triple that of White students.
Table 40: Percentage of elementary school students who report using substances ever in life, 1997.
Substance White Black Hispanic American
Indian
Asian Other
Cigarettes 13.8 12.2 15.1 37.3 0.0 19.5
Smokeless tobacco 4.7 6.0 3.9 12.3 4.4 7.9
Alcohol 16.9 25.0 18.5 28.1 8.9 20.6
Marijuana 3.3 8.8 5.4 26.9 4.7 8.5
Cocaine 1.3 2.7 3.0 10.2 7.0 3.3
Meth/Amphetamine 2.0 4.7 2.2 5.9 4.7 2.4
Depressants 1.8 3.4 1.6 4.8 2.4 2.4
Inhalants 7.3 10.1 8.4 24.1 7.0 9.2
Hallucinogens 1.1 4.3 2.2 6.5 0.0 2.4
Narcotics 1.2 2.7 1.8 5.4 0.0 2.4
Steroids 1.2 4.7 2.0 5.0 7.0 1.9
Source: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, 1997. Substance Abuse and Public School Students:
Arizona, 1997.
Table 41: Percentage of junior high/middle school students who report using substances ever in life, 1997.
Substance White Black Hispanic American
Indian
Asian Other
Cigarettes 40.8 42.3 49.4 67.6 32.8 52.0
Smokeless tobacco 8.9 11.1 9.3 25.3 13.1 14.5
Alcohol 51.4 55.7 60.6 56.8 44.3 58.2
Marijuana 17.2 26.8 32.2 57.8 16.4 32.7
Cocaine 3.0 8.2 8.0 12.8 16.4 9.9
Meth/Amphetamine 4.7 9.3 6.3 5.8 9.8 8.8
Depressants 6.2 9.1 5.9 4.7 13.1 7.1
Inhalants 17.9 15.5 26.7 24.2 23.3 22.5
Hallucinogens 6.0 10.1 5.8 9.2 10.0 9.3
Narcotics 4.1 6.1 7.7 5.1 11.5 8.8
Steroids 2.2 6.1 4.8 4.7 13.1 4.6
Source: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, 1997. Substance Abuse and Public School Students:
Arizona, 1997.
32
Table 42: Percentage of high school students who report using substances ever in life, 1997.
Substance White Black Hispanic American
Indian
Asian Other
Cigarettes 56.9 60.0 76.0 81.1 52.5 69.0
Smokeless tobacco 22.7 25.0 22.4 37.7 18.8 26.4
Alcohol 70.6 81.3 85.4 79.2 58.8 78.5
Marijuana 40.2 57.9 62.8 68.1 35.4 56.5
Cocaine 8.2 19.7 19.1 17.7 12.5 17.8
Meth/Amphetamine 14.3 19.7 23.4 17.7 20.0 21.5
Depressants 9.4 15.8 14.5 14.2 15.0 13.7
Inhalants 19.9 29.7 37.2 40.6 22.5 31.0
Hallucinogens 16.0 20.0 20.9 23.0 25.0 25.2
Narcotics 8.3 14.5 14.9 12.6 12.5 18.0
Steroids 1.9 10.5 3.0 3.5 6.3 5.2
Source: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, 1997. Substance Abuse and Public School Students:
Arizona, 1997.
Health Insurance
KidsCare, Arizona’s Children’s Health Insurance Program, is a federal and state program
for providing health care services for children under the age of 19. Families must also
have a gross income at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level guidelines. It is
an important program for families that do not qualify for Medicaid but are unable to
afford private health insurance. Table 43 presents the ethnic and racial breakdown for
children enrolled in KidsCare.
Table 43: Ethnicity of all KidsCare children who have been approved as of February
29, 2000.
Number %
Hispanic 32,877 51.3%
White 19,996 31.2%
Native American 5,650 8.8%
Black 2,712 4.2%
Other 1,826 2.8%
Asian/Pacific Islander 404 0.6%
Total 64,080
Source: Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, Office of Policy Analysis and Coordination.
Personal communication.
Tables 44, 45, and 46 provide Arizona data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance
System on health care coverage and cost barriers. Because of the number of people who
answered the questions, findings for Black respondents should not be considered
representative. Table 44 suggests that Hispanics have health care coverage less
frequently than Whites. According to Table 45 they also appear to have a harder time
seeing a doctor because they are unable to afford it.
33
Table 44: Do you have any kind of health care
coverage? 1998.
Yes No
White %
CI
n
93.3
(91.5-95.1)
1367
6.7
(4.9-8.5)
111
Black %
CI
n
88.4
(73.7-100.0)
24
11.6
(0.0-26.3)
3
Hispanic %
CI
n
66.5
(58.5-74.5)
221
33.5
(25.5-41.5)
104
Other %
CI
n
68.2
(39.4-97.0)
58
31.8
(3.0-60.6)
14
%=Percentage, CI=Confidence Interval, n=Cell Size.
Percentages are weighted to population characteristics.
Use caution in interpreting cell sizes less than 50.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System,
1998.
Table 45: Was there a time during the last 12
months when you needed to see a doctor but
could not because of the cost?
Yes No
White %
CI
n
26.7
(23.4-30.0)
350
73.3
(70.0-76.6)
1127
Black %
CI
n
26.8
(7.0-46.6)
9
73.2
(53.4-93.0)
19
Hispanic %
CI
n
33.7
(25.9-41.5)
103
66.3
(58.5-74.1)
223
Other %
CI
n
4.9
(0.2-9.6)
8
95.1
(90.4-99.8)
65
%=Percentage, CI=Confidence Interval, n=Cell Size.
Percentages are weighted to population characteristics.
Use caution in interpreting cell sizes less than 50.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System,
1998.
34
Table 46: During the past 12 months, was
there any time that you did not have any health
insurance or coverage?
Yes No
White %
CI
n
8.6
(5.7-11.5)
67
91.4
(88.5-94.3)
835
Black %
CI
n
8.8
(0.0-20.2)
4
91.2
(79.8-100.0)
17
Hispanic %
CI
n
13.3
(6.6-20.0)
27
86.7
(80.0-93.4)
159
Other %
CI
n
9.8
(0.0-21.4)
5
90.2
(78.6-100.0)
47
%=Percentage, CI=Confidence Interval, n=Cell Size.
Percentages are weighted to population characteristics.
Use caution in interpreting cell sizes less than 50.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System,
1998.
Table 47 presents national data about health insurance coverage for Whites, Blacks, and
Hispanics.
Table 47: Persons ages 18 to 64 without health insurance coverage, 1994-1995, U.S.
White, non-Hispanic Black Hispanic
All incomes 15% 21% 34%
Poor 35% 32% 52%
Near poor 30% 28% 45%
Middle income 11% 12% 19%
High income 5% 7% 8%
Source: Council of Economic Advisors, 1998. Changing America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-
Being by Race and Hispanic Origin.
Education
Elementary and Secondary School
Educational attainment is an important indicator of future employment status, wage
levels, family income, and health status (Council of Economic Advisers, 1998). Two
measures of educational attainment, dropout and graduation, are shown in Tables 48 and
49. For all measures shown, American Indians appear to be the least advantaged.
American Indian dropout rates are the highest of all ethnic groups and are more than
double the rates for Whites. Hispanics have the next highest high school drop out rate
followed by Blacks. Asian rates are the lowest and are similar to those for Whites.
35
Table 48: Enrollment count, dropout count, and dropout rate, 1998-99 school year.
White Black Hispanic American Indian Asian
Grade/Category Enroll. Drops % Enroll. Drops % Enroll. Drops % Enroll. Drops % Enroll. Drops %
Grade 7 39,255 637 1.6 3,147 114 3.6 21,965 800 3.6 5,162 303 5.9 1,210 9 0.7
Grade 8 38,478 630 1.6 3,035 98 3.2 20,372 834 4.1 4,899 355 7.2 1,277 13 1.0
Total
Elementary
77,733 1,267 1.6 6,182 212 3.4 42,337 1,634 3.9 10,061 658 6.5 2,487 22 0.9
Grade 9 40,275 2,786 6.9 3,260 372 11.4 23,131 3,647 15.8 6,264 1,424 22.7 1,390 121 8.7
Grade 10 37,958 3,035 8.0 2,938 439 14.9 19,287 3,352 17.4 4,626 853 18.4 1,409 93 6.6
Grade 11 33,396 2,663 8.0 2,381 348 14.6 15,223 2,634 17.3 3,350 559 16.7 1,245 100 8.0
Grade 12 30,694 2,429 7.9 2,184 352 16.1 13,542 2,307 17.0 3,244 445 13.7 1,197 89 7.4
Ungraded
secondary
5,320 1,618 30.4 1,424 368 25.8 5,556 1,574 28.3 7,32 202 27.6 100 34 34.0
Total High
School
147,643 12,531 8.5 12,187 1,879 15.4 76,739 13,514 17.6 18,216 3483 19.1 5341 437 8.2
Total All
Grades
225,376 13,798 6.1 18,369 2,091 11.4 119,076 15,148 12.7 28,777 4141 14.6 7828 459 5.9
Source: Arizona Department of Education, 2000. Dropout Rate Study, 1998-99 School Year
36
The picture is almost the same for high school graduation rates. Eighty-two percent of
Whites and 80 percent of Asian Americans graduated from high school according to the
1990 census. Almost half of all American Indians and Hispanics do not graduate from
high school. College graduation rates differ from high school rates in that Asian
Americans are the most likely of all ethnic groups to have completed college. Again,
American Indians have the lowest college graduation rates.
Table 49: Percentage of population graduated from high school and college, 1990
White Hispanic Black Asian
American
American
Indian
High school graduate 82% 52% 75% 80% 51%
College graduate 22% 7% 14% 37% 4.6%
Source: Arizona Community Foundation, (not dated). Arizona: The Challenge of Diversity…A
Demographic Profile of Arizona’s Ethnic and Racial Minorities.
Computing skills is a valuable and necessary asset in today’s and the future’s labor
market. Information presented in Table 50 is not available for Arizona but may provide a
glimpse of how exposure to such technology is being distributed across the population.
White children were six times more likely to have used a computer at school. Over half
of Black and Hispanic children have used computers at home.
Table 50: Computer use by children in first through sixth grade, United States, 1993.
White, non-
Hispanic
Black, non-
Hispanic
Hispanic
Used a computer at home 75% 57% 58%
Used a computer at school 30% 5% 4%
Used a computer at home or at school 80% 59% 60%
Source: Council of Economic Advisors, 1998. Changing America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-
Being by Race and Hispanic Origin.
Math and reading scores can be good measures of students’ knowledge and their overall
achievement in school (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 1997).
It is has also been found that students with higher achievement scores will earn more and
will be unemployed less than students with lower scores (Decker, Rice, Moore, and
Rollefson, 1997). Tables 51 and 52 show mathematics and reading scale scores on the
National Assessment of Educational Progress, a nationally representative and continuing
assessment of student’s knowledge and skills in reading, mathematics, science, writing,
history, geography, the arts, and other fields. The scale ranges from 0 to 500.
White student’s average scores for mathematics and reading are higher than those of
Black, Hispanic, and American Indian students. In general, Arizona student’s scores are
similar to national scores with some exceptions. Mathematics scores for Black students
in the eighth grade are higher than the nation’s average. Mathematics scores for
American Indian students in the 4th and 8th grade are lower than the national average.
37
Table 51: Mathematics scale scores, 1992, 1996.
Average scale score
Grade 4 Grade 8
White
1992 Arizona 226 276
Nation 227 277
1996 Arizona 228 278
Nation 231 281
Black
1992 Arizona 199 252
Nation 192 237
1996 Arizona 200 254
Nation 200 242
Hispanic
1992 Arizona 203 248
Nation 201 245
1996 Arizona 203 251
Nation 205 250
American Indian
1992 Arizona 193 252
Nation 210 255
1996 Arizona 201 254
Nation 216 263
Source: National Center for Education Statistics. The NAEP 1996 State Assessment in Mathematics.
Table 52: Reading scale scores, 1994, 1998.
Average scale score
Grade 4 Grade 8
White
1994 Arizona 220
Nation 175
1998 Arizona 174 272
Nation 181 270
Black
1994 Arizona 183
Nation 186
1998 Arizona 190 246
Nation 193 241
Hispanic
1994 Arizona 188
Nation 188
1998 Arizona 186 245
Nation 195 243
American Indian
1994 Arizona 181
Nation 200
1998 Arizona 202 243
Nation 200 248
Source: National Center for Education Statistics. NAEP 1998 Reading State Report
Achievement levels attained by Arizona students are presented in Tables 53 through 56.
When compared to Black, Hispanic, and American Indian students, a greater proportion
38
of White students performed at or above the proficient level. No significant changes over
time can be seen in achievement levels for any group.
Table 53: Percentage of public school students attaining mathematics achievement levels, Grade 4.
Advanced At or above
proficient
At or above
basic
Below basic
White
1992 Arizona 1 20 69 31
Nation 2 22 69 31
1996 Arizona 2 22 72 28
Nation 3 26 74 26
Black
1992 Arizona 0 3 28 72
Nation 0 2 22 78
1996 Arizona 0 4 28 72
Nation 0 5 32 68
Hispanic
1992 Arizona 0 4 36 64
Nation 0 5 33 67
1996 Arizona 0 6 37 63
Nation 0 7 40 60
American Indian
1992 Arizona 0 3 25 75
Nation 2 10 42 58
1996 Arizona 0 4 32 68
Nation 1 8 52 48
Source: National Center for Education Statistics. The NAEP 1996 State Assessment in Mathematics
Table 54: Percentage of public school students attaining mathematics achievement levels, Grade 8.
Advanced At or above
proficient
At or above
basic
Below basic
White
1992 Arizona 2 22 68 32
Nation 4 26 68 32
1996 Arizona 3 25 72 28
Nation 5 30 73 27
Black
1992 Arizona 0 4 31 69
Nation 0 2 20 80
1996 Arizona 0 5 34 66
Nation 0 4 27 73
Hispanic
1992 Arizona 0 5 32 68
Nation 0 6 32 68
1996 Arizona 1 6 35 65
Nation 1 8 37 63
American Indian
1992 Arizona 0 6 39 61
Nation 0 7 38 62
1996 Arizona 0 9 40 60
Nation 2 14 50 50
Source: National Center for Education Statistics. The NAEP 1996 State Assessment in Mathematics
39
Table 55: Percentage of public school students attaining reading achievement levels, Grade 4.
Advanced At or above
proficient
At or above
basic
Below basic
White
1994 Arizona 9 32 65 35
Nation 9 35 69 31
1998 Arizona 7 32 67 33
Nation 9 38 72 28
Black
1994 Arizona 2 10 31 69
Nation 1 8 30 70
1998 Arizona 3 10 30 70
Nation 1 9 35 65
Hispanic
1994 Arizona 3 13 34 66
Nation 2 12 33 67
1998 Arizona 1 8 32 68
Nation 2 12 38 62
American Indian
1994 Arizona 1 10 27 73
Nation 3 18 47 53
1998 Arizona 1 15 46 54
Nation 1 12 45 55
Source: National Center for Education Statistics. NAEP 1998 Reading State Report
Table 56: Percentage of public school students attaining reading achievement levels, Grade 8.
Advanced At or above
proficient
At or above
basic
Below basic
White
Arizona 2 38 86 14
Nation 3 38 81 19
Black
Arizona 0 11 43 57
Nation 0 11 32 68
Hispanic
Arizona 0 13 55 45
Nation 0 14 52 48
American Indian
Arizona 0 11 49 51
Nation 0 18 61 39
Source: National Center for Education Statistics. NAEP 1998 Reading State Report
University
Information on ethnic and racial minority participation in higher education is provided in
Tables 57 and 58. A comparison of enrollment in state universities to the state’s ethnic
composition in Table 2 shows that Hispanic students are underrepresented and Asians
over-represented in the university system. A similar pattern exists for degrees awarded.
40
Table 57: Enrollment at Arizona’s state universities, fall semester, 1998
Arizona State University Northern Arizona
University
University of Arizona
African American 1,268 (2.9%) 337 (1.7%) 863 (2.5%)
American Indian 919 (2.1%) 1,216 (6.1%) 762 (2.2%)
Asian American 1,960 (4.5%) 325 (1.6%) 1,718 (5%)
Hispanic 4,325 (9.9%) 1,950 (9.8%) 4,424 (12.9%)
White 31,304 (71.6%) 15,626 (78.4%) 23,499 (68.5%)
International 2,764 (6.3%) 340 (1.7%) 2,269 (6.6%)
Unknown 1,192 (2.7%) 146 (0.73%) 792 (2.3%)
Total 43,732 19,940 34,327
Source: Arizona State University, Office of Data Administration and Institutional Analysis; Northern
Arizona University, Office of Planning and Institutional Research; University of Arizona, Decision and
Planning Support
Table 58: Total degrees awarded, August 1995 to May 1996, Arizona university system.
Baccalaureate Master’s Doctorate Professional Total
Race/ethnicity # % # % # % # % # %
African
American
251 1.8 81 1.7 11 1.5 12 2.6 355 1.8
Asian
American
496 3.5 124 2.5 31 4.1 23 5.1 674 3.3
Hispanic 1,361 9.7 324 6.7 40 5.3 56 12.3 1,781 8.8
Native
American
276 2.0 89 1.8 2 0.3 15 3.3 382 1.9
Total Minority 2,384 17.0 618 12.7 84 11.1 106 23.3 3,192 15.8
White, Non-
Hispanic
10,983 78.1 3,599 73.9 458 60.6 308 67.8 15,348 76.2
International 497 3.5 588 12.1 186 24.6 10 2.2 1,281 6.4
Race/ethnicity
unknown
198 1.4 67 1.4 28 3.7 30 6.6 323 1.6
Total 14,062 100.0 4,872 100.0 756 100.0 454 100.0 20,144 100.0
Source: Arizona Board of Regents, 1996. Minority Student Progress Report
Economic Security
General Economic Status
Economic well being is thought to be closely related to achievement, opportunity, and
status (President’s Initiative on Race, 1998). While no single indicator can adequately
capture an entire population’s economic status, measures in this section are often used to
describe how well a person or group is doing.
Table 59 presents poverty rates, unemployment rates, and median family incomes in
1990. Ethnic and racial minority populations, with the exception of Asian Americans,
consistently fare worst than their White counterparts on these measures. The poverty
rates for American Indians are almost six times higher than rates for Whites and
41
Hispanics and African Americans are almost three times as likely to be poor. American
Indians also rank the worse for unemployment and median family income. Asian
American median family income is slightly better than that of White families.
Table 59: Selected economic indicators, 1990
White Hispanic American
Indian
African
American
Asian
American
Poverty rate 7.8 25.2 46.2 22.8 14.3
Unemployment rate 5.9 10.9 22.9 12.2 6.5
Median family income $34,735 $22,328 $14,015 $24,120 $34,898
Source: Arizona Community Foundation. Arizona: The Challenge of Diversity…A Demographic Profile of
Arizona’s Ethnic and Racial Minorities.
Earnings and Poverty
Poverty rates for Arizona counties in 1990 are displayed in Table 60. In Apache, Gila,
Navajo, Pima, and Pinal counties, over half of American Indians live in poverty.
Table 60: Poverty rates by county, 1990.
White Hispanic
origin
Black American
Indian/Eskimo
/Aleut
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Other
Apache 10.8 49.7 8.9 56.4 0.0 26.2
Cochise 17.2 35.5 21.1 21.8 2.0 35.8
Coconino 10.7 19.5 33.5 44.4 35.6 22.6
Gila 12.9 14.5 7.3 50.7 11.8 14.7
Graham 17.9 27.7 15.8 60.3 26.9 24.7
Greenlee 12.9 15.4 0.0 4.5 0.0 12.7
La Paz 24.0 35.5 84.2 37.3 29.9 45.1
Maricopa 9.3 27.1 26.3 33.8 14.5 29.4
Mohave 13.3 19.1 19.9 33.9 21.4 20.1
Navajo 13.5 24.8 19.7 52.4 11.5 23.2
Pima 12.5 27.7 25.9 51.1 19.6 31.8
Pinal 15.8 27.4 31.9 58.7 14.9 33.3
Santa Cruz 24.6 31.4 53.0 21.4 6.4 31.6
Yavapai 12.8 16.8 36.1 32.8 12.6 19.6
Yuma 16.0 32.7 14.0 39.4 5.8 32.3
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, April 8, 2000.
Table 61 shows the projections for people living in poverty in the year 2000. Percentages
of individuals within a racial or ethnic group living below poverty are also shown.
Again, over half of the people on reservations will be living in poverty. This is four
times the state average. After the reservations, La Paz and Santa Cruz counties have the
largest proportion of people living in poverty with Hispanics and Blacks constituting a
large portion of that statistic.
42
Table 61: Projections of persons with income below poverty in 2000.
All persons Hispanic Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black
Total % Female Total % Female Total % Female Total % Female
Arizona 605,394 12.2 327,805 195,689 21.4 105,143 254,421 7.1 141,246 24,888 17.8 13,621
Apache * 1,763 12.5 995 505 21.8 255 1,091 10.0 652 0 0.0 0.0
Cochise 23,364 19.2 13,310 12,287 34.7 6,880 9,400 12.2 5,468 1,146 19.1 612
Coconino * 13,137 13.7 6,982 2,320 19.1 1,196 7,476 10.4 4,046 498 29.8 241
Gila * 5,586 13.1 3,379 1,254 14.0 815 4,214 12.8 2,491 8 7.8 0
Graham * 5,612 18.5 3,142 2,337 26.6 1,343 3,051 15.0 1,662 78 12.7 42
Greenlee 1,133 12.6 624 591 15.2 315 534 10.9 305 0 0.0 0.0
La Paz * 2,881 27.8 1,676 667 53.0 407 2,095 23.6 1,246 47 66.2 13
Maricopa** 89,331 5.5 48,926 27,536 12.9 13,963 53,949 4.0 30,711 3,402 10.6 1.937
Mohave* 19,405 13.4 10,190 1,263 17.0 671 17,723 13.2 9,290 38 8.4 19
Navajo* 7,585 16.5 4,265 1,331 22.6 804 4,385 12.8 2,390 129 17.7 50
Pima* 134,188 16.0 73,339 56,562 27.2 31,381 64,590 11.1 35,346 6,431 25.8 3,242
Pinal* 29,360 19.5 16,252 12,398 26.9 6,644 13,595 14.2 7,686 1,533 31.9 856
Santa Cruz 10,042 26.3 5,523 9,270 31.1 5,141 745 9.4 356 0 0.0 0.0
Yavapai* 19,730 13.0 10,885 1,581 16.4 907 17,636 12.6 9,662 111 26.1 77
Yuma* 26,105 19.0 13,969 18,847 33.7 9,871 6,424 8.6 3,618 398 11.1 249
Navajo
Nation
66,290 53.8 33,680 468 40.3 188 195 5.0 96 26 16.9 0
Tribal
service
delivery area
44,188 51.9 23,030 3,613 45.5 1,737 856 12.2 426 69 33.5 16
City of
Phoenix
105,694 8.2 57,645 42,858 16.6 22,624 46,463 5.0 25,794 10,974 17.2 6267
* less reservations
** less reservations and city of Phoenix
*** data not available
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security, Research Administration, February, 2000. Population Projections, 2000
43
Households with children headed by single women may be particularly vulnerable to
poverty and its effects. Table 62 presents the number of female-headed households with
children that were living below poverty in 1989.
Table 62: Female headed households with children living below
poverty, 1989..
White Black American Indian Asian Other
Arizona 23,269 4,003 7,759 514 8,112
Apache 135 0 1,765 0 22
Cochise 1,150 72 36 37 386
Coconino 368 53 852 9 81
Gila 285 0 210 0 72
Graham 315 6 152 0 33
Greenlee 71 0 3 0 17
La Paz 159 0 137 7 14
Maricopa 12,163 2,976 1,210 324 3,898
Mohave 480 0 64 0 26
Navajo 326 16 1,479 0 26
Pima 4,634 641 1,025 122 2,400
Pinal 1,100 184 696 15 386
Santa Cruz 348 7 0 0 142
Yavapai 901 0 66 0 28
Yuma* 834 48 64 0 543
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Tables 63, 64, and 65 show national data comparing the earnings of ethnic and racial
minority males and females to White males and females. Black males’ median weekly
earnings is about 30 percent less and Hispanic males’ earning are about 40 percent less
than their White counterparts. The gap in median weekly earning for females is a little
smaller with Black females earning about 13 percent less and Hispanic females earning
about 26 percent less. Uneducated Black male earnings as a percentage of White male
earning decreased slightly from 1979 to 1997. However a decrease of eleven percentage
points was noted for Black males with a bachelor’s degree or higher. Uneducated
Hispanic males had a decrease of twelve percentage points. Minority females’ earnings
were much closer to their white female counterparts although a decrease in the earning
ratio occurred between 1979 and 1997.
Table 63: Median usual weekly earnings of male and female full-time workers, 1995, United States
(reported in 1997 dollars).
Male Female
White 600 440
Black 425 380
Hispanic` 375 325
Source: Council of Economic Advisors, 1998. Changing America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-
Being by Race and Hispanic Origin.
44
Table 64: Black and Hispanic male earnings as a percentage of
white male earnings, United States.
1979 1997
Black 75% 74%
Hispanic 74% 64%
Black with
bachelor’s degree
or more
84% 73%
Hispanic with
bachelor’s degree
or more
85% 83%
Source: Council of Economic Advisors, 1998. Changing America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-
Being by Race and Hispanic Origin.
Table 65: Black and Hispanic female earnings as a percentage
of white female earnings, United States.
1979 1997
Black 92% 83%
Hispanic 84% 70%
Black with bachelor’s degree or more 98% 90%
Hispanic with bachelor’s degree or more 92% 91%
Source: Council of Economic Advisors, 1998. Changing America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-
Being by Race and Hispanic Origin.
Labor Market
The labor market is the primary source of income for the majority of families (Council of
Economic Advisers, 1998). Unemployment rates are one measure of the potential for
earnings from the labor market. Unemployment rate projections for the year 2000 are
displayed in Table 66. As in the previous two tables, some of the highest unemployment
rates will be found on Indian tribal lands. The Navajo Nation’s rate is almost five times
as high as the state’s average and rates for other tribal lands are three and a half times as
high. Native Americans are projected to have the highest unemployment rate in 2000
followed by Hispanics and then Blacks.
45
Table 66: Unemployment rate projection for the year 2000.
All persons Hispanic Non-Hispanic
White
Non-Hispanic
Black
Non-Hispanic
Native American
Non-Hispanic
Asian
Non-Hispanic
Other
Total Female Total Female Total Female Total Female Total Female Total Female Total Female
Arizona 4.3% 4.2% 8.3% 9.0% 2.9% 2.8% 6.2% 6.3% 15.4% 13.4% 3.6% 4.4% 7.0% 6.0%
Apache * 6.4% 6.9% 7.7% 11.1% 5.9% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 12.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Cochise 6.5% 6.3% 11.3% 11.2% 4.1% 3.8% 8.9% 9.6% 13.0% 11.7% 14.0% 13.5% 26.7% 30.2%
Coconino * 5.1% 5.2% 6.6% 7.6% 4.4% 4.3% 10.0% 13.0% 9.6% 8.5% 5.5% 8.7% 0.0% 0.0%
Gila * 6.3% 6.1% 7.5% 8.9% 6.1% 5.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 12.6% 0.0%
Graham * 7.7% 7.0% 12.6% 9.4% 5.9% 6.1% 4.0% 0.0% 7.2% 9.7% 9.9% 19.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Greenlee 8.1% 13.2% 10.1% 14.3% 7.1% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
La Paz * 6.9% 6.5% 5.6% 7.7% 7.4% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Maricopa** 2.6% 2.5% 4.0% 4.3% 2.3% 2.2% 5.1% 5.8% 6.1% 4.4% 2.8% 3.0% 8.9% 13.1%
Mohave* 4.3% 4.3% 6.0% 7.9% 4.2% 4.1% 0.0% 0.05 4.1% 1.0% 2.1% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0%
Navajo* 6.8% 7.0% 7.3% 8.4% 5.0% 5.7% 4.2% 5.9% 20.3% 14.2% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Pima* 2.9% 2.8% 4.6% 4.4% 2.3% 2.2% 4.6% 4.2% 4.8% 5.2% 1.8% 2.4% 5.2% 8.1%
Pinal* 3.7% 4.1% 5.3% 6.5% 2.9% 3.2% 5.1% 5.1% 9.6% 6.3% 0.9% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0%
Santa Cruz 17.8% 18.1% 22.0% 22.8% 5.7% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Yavapai* 3.4% 3.6% 5.0% 7.6% 3.3% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% 2.4% 3.0% 7.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Yuma* 28.5% 31.8% 41.7% 47.5% 16.2% 18.3% 21.6% 26.2% 27.3% 17.5% 32.8% 44.6% 83.9% 0.0%
Navajo
Nation
20.8% 19.2% 26.0% 16.2% 2.9% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 22.3% 20.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tribal
service
delivery area
15.4% 13.2% 11.7% 11.0% 3.4% 2.9% 31.5% 0.0% 17.9% 15.3% 3.8% 6.1% 12.8% 0.0%
City of
Phoenix
3.1% 2.9% 4.6% 4.7% 2.5% 2.3% 6.5% 6.0% 7.3% 6.1% 2.7% 2.1% 0.2% 0.6%
* less reservations
** less reservations and city of Phoenix
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security, Research Administration, February, 2000. Population Projections, 2000
46
Business owned by minorities is another indication of minority group participation in the
state’s economy. As shown in Table 67, Arizona’s minority owned firms constituted 1.3
percent of all minority owned firms in the nation in 1992. Hispanics owned the largest
proportion of these businesses.
Table 67: Minority owned firms for all states and Arizona, 1992.
All firms Firms with paid employees
Firms
(number)
Sales and
receipts (in
thousands)
Firms
(number)
Sales and
receipts (in
thousands)
Employees
(number)
Minority owned
firms in all states
1,965,565 $202,011,421 311,695 $158,806,430 1,872,870
Minority owned
firms in Arizona
26,185
(1.3%)
$2,341,653
(1.2%)
4,658
(1.5%)
$1,827,459
(1.2%)
28,447
(1.5%)
Hispanic owned
firms for all states
771,708 $72,824,270 115,364 $57,187,370 691,056
Hispanic owned
firms in Arizona
17,835
(2.3%)
$12,980,084
(1.8%)
2,989
(2.6%)
$989,049
(1.7%)
16,559
(2.4%)
Black owned firms
for all states
620,912 $32,197,361 64,478 $22,589,676 345,193
Black owned firms
in Arizona
2,936
(.47%)
$137,721
(.43%)
328
(.51%)
$99,734
(.44%)
1,264
(.37%)
Asians/Pacific
Islander/American
Indian and Alaskan
Native owned firms
for all states
606,438 $100,043,585 136,363 $81,417,970 861,026
Asian/Pacific
Islander/American
Indian and Alaskan
Native owned firms
in Arizona
5,852
(.96%)
$942,949
(1.0%)
1,434
(.48%)
$770,795
(.95%)
11,024
(1.3%)
Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, April 3, 2000.
Occupation accounts for some of the wage differences across ethnic and racial groups
(Council of Economic Advisers, 1998). It can also serve as an alternative socioeconomic
status indicator and capture aspects of status not contained within employment or wage
data. Nationally, Asian and White workers are more likely than Blacks, Hispanics, or
American Indians to be employed in professional and managerial occupations. A larger
percentage of Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians are to be found in lower-paying,
lower-skilled occupations of operators, fabricators, and laborers. Arizona’s occupational
statistics are similar to the national picture as shown in Table 68.
47
Table 68: Occupation by ethnicity and percentage within occupation category, 1989.
Total Employed
16+
Managerial &
Professional
Specialty Occs.
Technical Sales
& Admin.
Support Occs.
Service Occs. Farming,
Forestry, &
Fishing Occs.
Precision
Production,
Craft, and Repair
Occs.
Operators,
Fabricators, &
Laborers Occs.
Total All Races 1,603,896 430,772 532,119 236,320 36,624 182,952 185,109
Hispanic Origin 258,070 34,640 (8.0%) 69,250 (13.0%) 51,455 (21.8%) 16,858 (46.0%) 35,676 (19.5%) 50,191 (27.1%)
White not
Hispanic
1,234,028 372,111 (86.4%) 430,725 (80.9%) 161,871 (68.5%) 17,233 (47.1%) 135,471 (74.0%) 116,617 (63.0%)
Black not
Hispanic
39,668 8,178 (1.9%) 12,658 (2.4%) 8,382 (3.5%) 554 (1.5%) 3,394 (1.9%) 6,502 (3.5%)
American Indian
not Hispanic
46,877 7,592 (1.8%) 12,401 (2.3%) 10,468 (4.4%) 1,738 (4.7%) 6,307 (3.4%) 8,371 (4.5%)
Asian/PI not
Hispanic
24,200 7,973 (1.9%) 6,869 (1.3%) 3,875 (1.6%) 173 (0.5%) 2,021 (1.1%) 3,289 (1.8%)
Other not
Hispanic
1,053 278 (0.1%) 216 (0.04%) 269 (0.1%) 68 (0.2%) 83 (0.04%) 139 (0.1%)
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security. 1990 Census Summary Tape File 4B.
48
Crime and Criminal Justice
The issues of race and justice are closely related and receive much attention in the
criminal justice system. According to the President’s Initiative on Race, “Minorities and
people of color often absorb a disproportionate amount of the social, economic, and
personal costs of crime” (1999, p.75). Minorities are victimized at greater rates than
Whites and have less confidence and trust in law enforcement. Issues such as racial
profiling and differential rates of arrest, conviction, and sentencing for minorities are
prominent within the criminal justice system.
Tables 69 and 70 present arrest information for adults and juveniles in 1998 and
percentages of arrests in each category by ethnic and racial group.
Table 69: Arrest frequency by offense for adults, 1998.
Offense White Black Indian Asian Hispanic Not
Hispanic
Total
Murder/nonneg
manslaughter
196
(80.7%)
35
(14.4%)
12 (4.9%) 0 (0.0%) 96
(39.5%)
147
(60.5)
243
Forcible rape 143
(77.7%)
30
(16.3%)
11 (6.0%) 0 (0.0%) 66
(35.9%)
118
(64.1%)
184
Robbery 826
(71.1%)
285
(24.5%)
45 (3.9%) 6 (0.5%) 439
(37.8%)
723
(62.2%)
1,162
Aggravated assault 4,245
(81.6%)
560
(10.8%)
374
(7.2%)
26 (5.0%) 1,590
(30.5%)
3,615
(69.5%)
5,205
Burglary 2,900
(85.4%)
341
(10.0%)
130
(3.8%)
24 (0.7%) 1,190
(35.1%)
2,205
(65%)
3,395
Larceny-theft (non-vehicles)
21,426
(81.5%)
2,977
(11.3%)
1,673
(6.4%)
214
(0.8%)
7,711
(29.3%)
18,579
(70.7%)
26,290
Motor vehicle theft 1,586
(81.9%)
279
(14.4%)
65 (3.4%) 6 (0.3%) 718
(37.1%)
1,218
(63%)
1,936
Arson 130
(90.3%)
10 (6.9%) 4 (2.8%) 0 (0.0%) 28
(19.4%)
116
(80.6%)
144
Manslaughter by
negligence
25
(80.6%)
2 (6.5%) 4 (12.9%) 0 (0.0%) 9 (29.0%) 22
(71.0%)
31
Other assaults 19,128
(80.9%)
2,559
(10.8%)
1,809
(7.7%)
142
(0.6%)
7,293
(30.9%)
16,345
(69.1%)
23,638
Forgery and
counterfeiting
1,461
(86.7%)
195
(11.6%)
19 (1.1%) 11 (0.7%) 518
(30.7%)
1,168
(69.3%)
1,686
Fraud 1,550
(81.3%)
270
(14.7%)
64 (3.4%) 22 (1.2%) 307
(16.1%)
1,599
(83.9%)
1,906
Embezzlement 167
(87.4%)
21
(11.0%)
1 (0.5%) 2 (1.0%) 47
(24.6%)
144
(75.4%)
191
Stolen property 1,920
(87.0%)
225
(10.2%)
52 (2.4%) 11 (0.5%) 729
(33.0%)
1,479
(67%)
2,208
Vandalism 5,197
(83.4%)
572
(9.2%)
418
(6.7%)
44 (0.7%) 1,733
(27.8%)
4,498
(72.2%)
6,231
Weapons-carrying,
possessing
2,547
(85.5%)
381
(12.8%)
36 (1.2%) 14 (0.5%) 1,268
(42.6%)
1,710
(57.4%)
2,978
Prostitution and
commercial vice
1,766
(78.1%)
385
(17.0%)
88 (3.9%) 23 (1.0%) 506
(22.4%)
1,756
(77.6%)
2,262
Sex offenses 1,456
(81.6%)
122
(6.8%)
198
(11.0%)
18 (1.0%) 438
(24.4%)
1,356
(75.6%)
1,794
49
Table 69: Arrest frequency by offense for adults, 1998.
Offense White Black Indian Asian Hispanic Not
Hispanic
Total
Drugs (sale or mfg)
Opium, cocaine
derivatives
1,312
(81.9%)
257
(16.1%)
28 (1.7%) 4 (0.2%) 953
(59.5%)
648
(40.5%)
1,601
Marijuana 734
(89.2%)
64 (7.8%) 20 (2.4%) 0 (0.0%) 309
(37.5%)
509
(61.8%)
823
Synthetic narcotics 592
(85.4%)
94
(13.6%)
6 (0.9%) 1 (0.1%) 179
(25.8%)
514
(74.2%)
693
Other dangerous
nonnarcotics
1,539
(94.6%)
69 (4.2%) 17 (1.4%) 1 (0.1%) 322
(19.8%)
1,304
(80.2%)
1,626
Drugs (possession)
Opium, cocaine
derivatives
3,080
(79.6%)
686
(17.7%)
92 (2.4%) 13 (0.3%) 1,616
(41.7%)
2,255
(58.3%)
3,871
Marijuana 8,646
(87.3%)
827
(8.4%)
399
(4.0%)
30 (0.3%) 2,705
(27.3%)
7,197
(72.7%)
9,902
Synthetic narcotics 1,760
(87.9%)
214
(10.7%)
26 (1.3%) 2 (0.1%) 565
(28.2%)
1,437
(71.8%)
2,002
Other dangerous
nonnarcotics
2,400
(81.4%)
468
(15.9%)
78 (2.6%) 4 (0.1%) 669
(22.7%)
2,281
(77.3%)
2,950
Bookmaking-horse,
sport book, number
and lottery
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
All other gambling 18 (90%) 2 (10.0%) 0 0 5 (25%) 15 (75%) 20
Offenses against
family
1,883
(87.1%)
108
(5.0%)
155
(7.2%)
15 (0.7%) 452
(20.9%)
1,709
(79.1%)
2,161
Driving under
influence
29,200
(89.1%)
942
(2.9%)
2,495
(7.6%)
141
(0.4%)
10,548
(32.2%)
22,230
(67.8%)
32,778
Liquor laws 17,182
(66.9%)
864
(3.4%)
2,246
(8.7%)
76 (0.3%) 5,319
(20.7%)
20,368
(79.3%)
25,687
Drunkenness/
Disorderly conduct
12,688
(80.6%)
1435
(9.1%)
1,530
(9.7%)
86 (0.5%) 3,897
(24.8%)
11,842
(75.2%)
15,739
Vagrancy 497
(55.2%)
106
(11.8%)
296
(32.5%)
0 (0.0%) 105
(11.7%)
794
(88.3%)
899
All other (non traffic) 46,527
(81.2%)
6,290
(11.0%)
4,320
(7.5%)
194
(0.3%)
16,393
(28.6%)
40,938
(71.4%)
57,331
Curfew and loitering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Run-aways 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Arizona Department of Public Safety, 1999. Annual Statistical Crime Review, 1998.
Table 70: Arrest frequency by offense for juveniles, 1998.
Offense White Black Indian Asian Hispanic Not
Hispanic
Total
Murder/nonneg
manslaughter
28
(90.3%)
2 (6.5%) 1 (3.2%) 0 (0.0%) 16
(51.6%)
15
(48.4%)
31
Forcible rape 32
(94.1%)
2 (5.9%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 11
(32.4%)
23
(67.6%)
34
Robbery 320
(78.8%)
74
(18.2%)
11 (2.7%) 1 (0.2%) 195
(48.0%)
211
(52.0%)
406
Aggravated assault 1,223
(83.3%)
178
(12.1%)
62 (4.2%) 6 (0.4%) 495
(33.7%)
974
(66.3%)
1469
Burglary 2,045 151 101 0 (0.0%) 860 1,453 2313
50
Table 70: Arrest frequency by offense for juveniles, 1998.
Offense White Black Indian Asian Hispanic Not
Hispanic
Total
(88.4%) (6.5%) (4.4%) (37.2%) (62.8%)
Larceny-theft (non-vehicles)
8,757
(83.3%)
974
(9.3%)
700
(6.7%)
83 (0.8%) 3,157
(30.0%)
7,357
(70.0%)
10,514
Motor vehicle theft 1,039
(86.7%)
87 (7.3%) 70 (5.8%) 3 (0.3%) 526
(43.9%)
673
(56.1%)
1199
Arson 170
(93.9%)
7 (3.9%) 3 (1.7%) 1 (0.6%) 42
(23.2%)
139
(76.8%)
181
Manslaughter by
negligence
3 (50%) 1 (16.7%) 2 (33.3%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (16.7%) 5 (83.3%) 6
Other assaults 4,365
(84.5%)
4,930
(95.4%)
224
(4.3%)
13 (0.3%) 1,660
(32.1%)
3,507
(67.9%)
5167
Forgery and
counterfeiting
118
(87.4%)
14
(10.4%)
2 (1.5%) 1 (0.7%) 45
(33.3%)
90
(66.7%)
135
Fraud 115
(88.5%)
10 (7.7%) 1 (0.8%) 4 (3.1%) 31
(23.8%)
99
(76.2%)
130
Embezzlement 23
(95.8%)
1 (4.2%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 8 (33.3%) 16
(66.7%)
24
Stolen property 500
(82.0%)
73
(12.0%)
36 (5.9%) 1 (0.2%) 278
(45.6%)
332
(54.4%)
610
Vandalism 2,879
(89.5%)
184
(5.7%)
141
(4.4%)
14 (0.4%) 1,136
(35.3%)
2,082
(64.7%)
3218
Weapons-carrying,
possessing
614
(83.9%)
97
(13.3%)
18 (2.5%) 3 (0.4%) 349
(47.7%)
383
(52.3%)
732
Prostitution and
commercial vice
16
(69.6%)
4 (17.4%) 2 (8.7%) 1 (4.3%) 10
(43.5%)
13
(56.5%)
23
Sex offenses 278
(88.0%)
27 (8.5%) 10 (3.2%) 1 (0.3%) 87
(27.5%)
229
(72.5%)
316
Drugs (sale or mfg)
Opium, cocaine
derivatives
159
(90.9%)
12 (6.9%) 4 (2.3%) 0 (0.0%) 81
(46.3%)
94
(53.7%)
175
Marijuana 228
(85.7%)
14 (5.3%) 22 (8.3%) 2 (0.8%) 97
(36.5%)
169
(63.5%)
266
Synthetic narcotics 58
(86.6%)
6 (9.0%) 2 (3.0%) 1 (1.5%) 29
(43.3%)
38
(56.7%)
67
Other dangerous
nonnarcotics
84
(93.3%)
6 (6.7%) 1 (1.1%) 0 (0.0%) 39
(43.3%)
51
(56.7%)
90
Drugs (possession)
Opium, cocaine
derivatives
184
(84.8%)
18 (8.3%) 14 (6.5%) 1 (0.5%) 96
(44.2%)
121
(55.8%)
217
Marijuana 3,222
(87.7%)
208
(5.7%)
225
(6.1%)
19 (0.5%) 1,260
(34.3%)
2,414
(65.7%)
3674
Synthetic narcotics 201
(91.0%)
8 (3.6%) 11 (5.0%) 1 (0.5%) 90
(40.7%)
131
(59.3%)
221
Other dangerous
nonnarcotics
660
(90.7%)
31 (4.3%) 35 (4.8%) 2 (0.3%) 261
(35.9%)
467
(64.2%)
728
Bookmaking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
All other gambling 6
(100.0%)
0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (66.7%) 2 (33.3%) 6
Offenses against
family
246
(93.9%)
12 (4.6%) 2 (0.8%) 2 (0.8%) 48
(18.3%)
214
(81.7%)
262
Driving under
influence
455
(91.4%)
11 (2.2%) 32 (6.4%) 0 (0.0%) 176
(35.3%)
322
(64.7%)
498
Liquor laws 5,804 112 679 18 (0.3%) 1,821 4,792 6613
51
Table 70: Arrest frequency by offense for juveniles, 1998.
Offense White Black Indian Asian Hispanic Not
Hispanic
Total
(87.8%) (1.7%) (10.3%) (27.5%) (72.5%)
Drunkenness/
Disorderly conduct
3,285
(86.2%)
326
(8.6%)
184
(4.8%)
17 (0.4%) 1,337
(35.1%)
2,475
(64.9%)
3812
Vagrancy 45 (75%) 1 (1.7%) 14
(23.3%)
0 (0.0%) 30 (50%) 30 (50%) 60
All other (non traffic) 6,262
(91.2%)
340
(5.0%)
233
(3.4%)
28 (0.4%) 1,894
(27.6%)
4,969
(72.4%)
6863
Curfew and loitering 6,773
(91.8%)
387
(5.2%)
171
(2.3%)
46 (0.6%) 3,415
(46.3%)
3,962
(53.7%)
7377
Run-aways 6,164
(88.3%)
509
(7.3%)
243
(3.5%)
66 (0.9%) 1,783
(25.5%)
5,199
(74.5%)
6982
Source: Arizona Department of Public Safety, 1999. Annual Statistical Crime Review, 1998.
Tables 71, 72, and 73 show statistics on commitments to the Department of Corrections
and the Department of Juvenile Corrections, the two state agencies responsible for
incarceration of criminal offenders. Racial and ethnic minorities are incarcerated at
greater rates than their occurrence in the general population. Incarceration percentages
for Blacks are three to five times higher than their representation in the general
population. Hispanic representation in correctional facilities is double their presence in
the general public.
Table 71: Percent ethnic distribution of inmate population for the quarters ending selected years.
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Caucasian 47.4% 46.9% 46.4% 46.5% 45.7%
African
American
15.9% 15.3% 15.0% 14.7% 14.7%
Native
American
3.8% 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.4%
Mexican
American
21.7% 21.9% 22.1% 22.8% 23.5%
Mexican
National
10.0% 10.5% 10.8% 10.4% 10.3%
Asian/other 1.2% 1.3% 1.2% 1.3% 1.4%
Source: Arizona Department of Corrections, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000a. Who Is in Prison? Inmate
Population Status Report, 1995,1996, 1997, 1998, 1999
52
Table 72: Percent of admissions to state prisons coming from each county, 1999.
Caucasian Black Native
American
Spanish
origin
Asian/Pacifi
c Islander
Other
Apache .19 .01 .11 .10 0.0 0.0
Cochise .53 .10 .04 .66 0.0 .01
Coconino .98 .17 .92 .59 0.0 .36
Gila .95 .05 .16 .37 0.0 0.0
Graham .24 .01 .02 .33 0.0 0.0
Greenlee .02 0.0 0.0 .04 0.0 0.0
La Paz .37 .02 .04 .19 0.0 .01
Maricopa 25.13 8.78 2.73 20.11 .13 .73
Mohave 4.40 .08 .14 .54 0.0 .03
Navajo .51 .05 .46 .21 .01 .01
Pima 6.15 2.27 .82 7.61 .03 .31
Pinal 1.51 .40 .22 1.62 0.0 .03
Santa Cruz .03 0.0 0.0 .29 0.0 0.0
Yavapai 2.35 .08 .22 .54 .01 .01
Yuma 1.11 .15 .15 2.79 0.0 .05
Source: Department of Corrections, 2000. Admissions for the Year 1999.
Table 73: New commitments to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections, fiscal year 1999.
Hispanic 41.9%
Caucasian 37.8%
African American 10.2%
Native American 5.2%
Mexican National 3.7%
All Others 1.2%
Source: Arizona Department of Corrections, 1999. New Commitment Profile: Fiscal Year 1999.
The Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts maintains a statewide
database, the Juvenile On-Line Tracking System (JOLTS), on juveniles who have come
in contact with the juvenile justice system. Statistics from JOLTS for the fiscal year 1999
are presented in Table 74. Again, Hispanics and Blacks are processed at greater rates
than their occurrence in the population. These rates are even higher for more severe
penalties such as incarceration or transfer to adult court.
53
Table 74: Juveniles processed in the Arizona court system, fiscal year 1999.
Hispanic African
American
Anglo Native
American
Asian/
Pacific
Islander
Other Unknown
Referred 34.8% 6.53% 51.33% 5.67% 0.50% 0.66% 0.51%
Diverted 34.08% 5.70% 53.25% 5.29% 0.61% 0.61% 0.47%
Filed petitions1 37.38% 8.19% 47.82% 5.92% 0.34% 0.28% 0.07%
Dismissed 35.07% 9.22% 48.41% 5.93% 0.23% 0.37% 0.15%
Disposition:
Penalty2
37.59% 7.71% 48.31% 6.39% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Disposition:
Standard
Probation
35.12% 7.0% 50.67% 6.48% 0.40% 0.29% 0.03%
Disposition: JIPS3 41.56% 8.51% 44.95% 4.55% 0.27% 0.12% 0.04%
Disposition:
ADJC4
44.98% 10.93% 39.18% 4.54% .022% 0.07% 0.07%
Direct filed adult
court
47.46% 12.35% 35.76% 3.77% 0.52% 0.13% 0.0%
Transferred to
adult court
44.74% 17.54% 32.46% 4.39% 0.0% 0.88% 0.0%
Detained 38.71% 8.39% 44.54% 7.10% 0.48% 0.60% 0.18%
Source: Arizona Supreme Court, 2000. Juveniles Processed in the Arizona Court System, FY 99.
1 Petition is a legal document filed in the court alleging delinquency, incorrigibility, or dependency and
requesting the court to assume jurisdiction over the youth.
2 Penalties are assigned at the court���s discretion and may include monetary fines, community service, or
participation in treatment programs.
3 JIPS is Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision and is a consequence used for youth who are in need of
frequent supervision and a highly structured program.
4 A disposition of ADJC means the youth has been committed to the Arizona Department of Juvenile
Corrections.
54
Nationally, racial and ethnic minorities are also overrepresented as victims of crime as
shown in Table 75. In 1995, Blacks were murdered at seven and a half times the rate of
Whites even though they comprise only about twelve percent of the population.
Hispanics were three times more likely to be murdered than Whites and American Indian
homicide rates were more than double those of Whites.
Table 75: Homicides per 100,000 resident population, United States.
1950 1960 1970 1980 1985 1990 1995
White, non-
Hispanic
3 3 5 7 5 5 4
Black 29 23 39 38 29 40 30
American
Indian
16 12 11 10
Asian 6 5 6 5
Hispanic 17 19 12
Note: Data include deaths from “legal intervention” (use of police force). Prior to 1985, data for whites
include Hispanic whites. Prior to 1970, data include nonresidents.
Source: Council of Economic Advisors, 1998. Changing America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-
Being by Race and Hispanic Origin.
In addition to perceptions of discrimination in the criminal justice system, the ethnic and
racial composition of the criminal justice workforce may contribute to the perceived
fairness of the system (Council of Economic Advisers, 1998). Table 75 displays national
statistics on the racial and ethnic composition of law enforcement officers. The
proportion of Black officers nears the proportion of Blacks in the general population and
for large cities, exceeds general population figures. Hispanics are also equally
represented in large cities but are disproportionately represented in the whole law
enforcement system.
Table 76: Percent of full-time sworn officers who are minorities, United States.
1987 1993 Large cities, 1993
All minorities 15% 18% 30%
Black 9% 11% 16%
Hispanic 4% 6% 12%
Other minority 2% 1% 2%
Source: Council of Economic Advisors, 1998
Note: Large cities are those with police or sheriffs’ departments serving a population of one million or
more.
National data on the perception of differential treatment in the criminal justice system is
presented in Table 77.
Table 77: Perception of whether blacks or whites are treated more harshly by the criminal justice system,
1997, United States.
White Black
Blacks treated more harshly 44% 72%
Both treated the same 45% 24%
Whites treated more harshly 4% 2%
Source: Council of Economic Advisors, 1998. Changing America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-
Being by Race and Hispanic Origin.
55
Reference List
Annie E. Casey Foundation (1993). KIDS COUNT Data Book: 1993.
Annie E. Casey Foundation (1998). KIDS COUNT Data Book: 1998.
Arizona Board of Regents (1996). Minority Student Progress Report. [On-line, April 28,
2000]. Available: http://www.abor.asu.edu/3_for_students/minority/progress.html.
Arizona Community Foundation. Arizona: The Challenge of Diversity…A Demographic
Profile of Arizona’s Ethnic and Racial Minorities.
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (1997). Substance Abuse and Public School
Students: Arizona, 1997.
Arizona Department of Corrections (1996). Who Is in Prison: Inmate Population Status
Report for the Quarter Ending December 31,1995.
Arizona Department of Corrections (1997). Who Is in Prison: Inmate Population Status
Report for the Quarter Ending December 31,1996.
Arizona Department of Corrections (1998). Who Is in Prison: Inmate Population Status
Report for the Quarter Ending December 31,1997.
Arizona Department of Corrections (1999). Who Is in Prison: Inmate Population Status
Report for the Quarter Ending December 31,1998.
Arizona Department of Corrections (2000a). Who Is in Prison: Inmate Population Status
Report for the Quarter Ending December 31,1999.
Arizona Department of Corrections (2000b). Admissions for the Year 1999.
Arizona Department of Economic Security (1999). Child Welfare Reporting
Requirements: Semi-Annual Report for the Period of April 1, 1999 through September
30, 1999.
Arizona Department of Economic Security. (March 18, 2000). [On-line]. Available:
www.azcommerce.com/county
Arizona Department of Economic Security, Research Administration, February, 2000.
(March 18, 2000). Population projections, 2000. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.de.state.az.us/links/economic/webpage/lmi.html
Arizona Department of Education (2000). Dropout Rate Study, 1998-99 School Year.
56
Arizona Department of Health Services (1998). Substance Abuse in Arizona: Final
Report of the 1996 Telephone Household Survey.
Arizona Department of Health Services (1999). Arizona Health Status and Vital
Statistics, 1998.
Arizona Department of Health Services (1999a). Differences in the Health Status among
Ethnic Groups, Arizona, 1997.
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (1999). New Commitment Profile: Fiscal
Year 1999.
Arizona Department of Public Safety (1999). Annual Statistical Crime Review, 1998.
Arizona State University, Office of Date Administration and Institutional Analysis (April
13, 2000). Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.asu.edu/Data_Admin/MainFact.html
Arizona Supreme Court (2000). Juveniles Processed in the Arizona Court System, FY 99.
Bachrach, C. A. and Carver, K. (1992). Outcomes of Early Childbearing: An Appraisal of
Recent Evidence. Summary of a Conference. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1997. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance
System, 1997. [On-line]. Available: http://www2.dcd.gov/nccdphp/brfss/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance
System, 1998. [On-line]. Available: http://www2.dcd.gov/nccdphp/brfss/
Council of Economic Advisers (1998). Changing America: Indicators of Social and
Economic Well-Being by Race and Hispanic Origin. [On-line] Available, April 15,2000:
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/eop/ca
Decker, P. T., Rice, J. K., Moore, M. T., and Rollefosn, M. (1997). Education and the
Economy: An Indicators Report. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.
Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics (1997). America’s Children:
Key national Indicators of Well-Being.
Garfinkel, I and McLanahan, S. S. (1986). Single Mothers and Their Children. The Urban
Institute, Washington, DC.
Males, M. (1997). Women’s health: Adolescents. Lancet, 349, (supplement I, 13-16).
57
National Center for Education Statistics (1998). National Assessment of Education
Progress 1998 Reading State Report. [On-line]. Available, April 15, 2000:
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/stt1998/99460az.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics (1996). The National Assessment of Education
Progress 1996 Mathematics State Reports. [On-line]. Available, April 15, 2000:
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/96state/97974az.pdf
Northern Arizona University, Office of Planing and Institutional Research (April 13,
2000). [On-line]. Available: http://www.nau.edu/upa/statprofile/98-99/c6.html
President’s Initiative on Race (1998). One American in the 21st Century: Forging a New
Future. [On-line, April 29, 2000]. Available:
http://www2.whitehouse.gov/Initiatives/OneAmerica/PIR.pdf
University of Arizona, Decision and Planning Support (April 13, 2000). [On-line].
Available: http://daps.arizona.edu/daps/sro/f99/CurrentEnrollment/enr-5.html
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (March 18, 2000). [On-line].
Available: http://www.azcommerce.com/datapages/demograp.htm
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (April 3, 2000a). [On-line].
Available: http://www.census.gov/population/projections/state/stpjrace.txt
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (April 3, 2000b). [On-line].
Available: http://www.census.gov/csd/mwb/1992/view/
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (April 3, 2000c). State Population
Rankings Summary. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.census.gov/populations/projections/state/9525rank/azprsrel.txt
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (April 8, 2000). [On-line].
Available: http://venus.census.gov/cdrom/lookup/955231900
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (April 27, 2000). Projections of the
Resident Population by Race, Hispanic Origin, and Nativity: Middle Series, 1999 and
2000. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/summary/np-t5-a.txt.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1998). Trends in the Well-Being of
America’s Children and Youth, 1998.