California's San Joaquin Valley: A Region in Transition

California's San Joaquin Valley: A Region in Transition

Order Code RL33184
California’s San Joaquin Valley:
A Region in Transition
December 12, 2005
name redacted, Coordinator
Analyst in Rural and Regional Development Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

California’s San Joaquin Valley: A Region in Transition
Summary
CRS was requested to undertake a study of the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) and
a comparison with another U.S. region. The eight-county San Joaquin Valley, part
of California’s Central Valley, is home to 5 of the 10 most agriculturally productive
counties in the United States. By a wide range of indicators, the SJV is also one of
the most economically depressed regions of the United States. This report analyzes
the SJV’s counties and statistically documents the basis of current socioeconomic
conditions. The report further explores the extent to which the SJV shares similarities
with and differs from the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) area and a 68-
county Central Appalachian subregion which contains some of the most
economically distressed counties in Appalachia. The report also examines the role
of federal expenditures in the cities and counties of the SJV.
During the past twenty-five years, population growth rates in the SJV were
significantly higher than for California or the United States and their projected
growth rates over the next 20 years are also significantly higher. In 2000, the SJV
also had substantially higher rates of poverty than California or the United States.
Poverty rates were also significantly higher in the SJV than in the ARC region,
although the rate is somewhat lower than that of the Central Appalachian subregion.
Unemployment rates in the SJV were higher than in California or the United States
and the ARC area. Per capita income and average family income were higher in the
SJV than in Central Appalachia, but per capita income in the SJV was lower than in
the ARC region as a whole. SJV households also had higher rates of public
assistance income than did Central Appalachian households. Madera County ranked
among the 10 lowest per capita income Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in the
United States in 2003, and the other 5 MSAs in the San Joaquin were all in the
bottom 20% of all U.S. MSAs. Other indicators of social well-being discussed in the
report showed that the SJV is a region of significant economic distress.
Data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census’s Consolidated Federal Funds Reports
for 2002 and 2003 showed that every SJV county received fewer federal funds than
the national per capita average or for California. Most SJV counties received
approximately $1,240- $2,800 per capita less than the national per capita rate in
2002. Madera County had $3,176 per capita less than the national per capita rate in
2003. Two rural counties adjacent to the SJV, Mariposa and Tuolomne, received
significantly higher per capita rates of federal funding in 2003 than the SJV. In 2002,
the SJV received $1,559 less per capita in federal funds than the ARC region as a
whole. The SJV also received $2,860 per capita less than the Tennessee Valley
Authority region in 2003. Other federal funds data for 2000 also show that the per
capita rate of federal spending was lower in the SJV than in the generally depressed
Central Appalachian subregion.

In addition to examining socioeconomic conditions in the SJV, the report
provides analysis of water supply and quality issues especially those concerning
agriculture, air quality concerns, and rail and shipping issues.
This report will not be updated.

Contributing Staff
Areas of Expertise
Name
Division
Telephone
Regional Economic
Development,
Agriculture, Federal
(name redacted)
RSI
7-....
Expenditures, and
Project Coordinator
Economic, Social, and
Demographic
(name redacted)
DSP
7-....
Information
Air Quality
James McCarthy
RSI
7-....
Census of Agriculture
and Electronic Data
(name redacted)
KSG
7-....
Resources
Education
David Smole
DSP
7-....
Atilla Akgun
Shelly Butts
Electronic Publishing
Laura Comay
ERPO
7-....
Shelley Harlan
Katie Yancey
Food Stamps
(name redacted)
DSP
7-....
Geographical
Information System
Virginia Mason
GMD
7-....
Cartography
Health Indicators
Pamela Smith
DSP
7-....
Highways Robert
Kirk
RSI
7-....
Medicare Paulette
Morgan
DSP
7-....
Obesity
Donna Porter
DSP
7-....
Teen Births
(name redacted)
KSG
7-....
Transportation
Infrastructure and
(name redacted)
RSI
7-....
Economic Development
Water Supply and
Betsy Cody
RSI
7-....
Infrastructure
Water Quality
(name redacted)
RSI
7-....
All Divisions are CRS except Geography and Maps, a Division of the Library of Congress.
Abbreviations: RSI = Resources, Science and Industry; DSP = Domestic Social Policy; KSG
= Knowledge Service Group; ERPO = Electronic Research Products; GMD = Geography
and Map Division

Contents
Chapter 1 — An Overview of the San Joaquin Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Contemporary Research on the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Demographic Issues and the Role of Farmworkers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Agricultural Immigration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Employment, Poverty, and Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Regional Approaches to Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The Appalachian Regional Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Tennessee Valley Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Delta Regional Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
The United States-Mexico Border Health Commission . . . . . . . . . . . 15
The Northern Great Plains Regional Authority (NGPRA) . . . . . . . . . 16
Denali Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Chapter 2 — The San Joaquin Valley and Appalachia: A
Socioeconomic Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Socioeconomic Indicators in the SJV and Appalachia, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . 25
County and Regional Population Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appalachia’s Demographic Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
County and Regional Poverty Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Other Poverty Measures: Food Stamps, Public Assistance Income,
Health Insurance, and Medicaid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
County and Regional Employment and Income Measures . . . . . . . . . 66
County and Regional Educational Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Health and Disease Rates in the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Age-Adjusted Death Rates from Cancers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Health and Disease Profile of Appalachia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Crimes and Crime Rates in the SJV and Appalachia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Chapter 3 — Federal Direct Expenditures in the San Joaquin Valley
and the Appalachian Regional Commission Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
The Consolidated Federal Funds Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Comparing FY2002 Federal Expenditures in the San Joaquin, the
United States, and California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Federal Funding in the SJV and the TVA for FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Comparing Federal Funding in the Appalachian Regional
Commission Area to Federal Funding in the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Federal Funding in Appalachia and the San Joaquin: The
Economic Research Service Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Geographical Information System Mapping of Federal Funds Data . . . . . 153
Chapter 4 — The Economic Structure of the San Joaquin Valley . . . . . . . . . . 163
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Agriculture in the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Trends in the Structure of SJV Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Agriculture and SJV Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Agricultural Land Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
SJV Farm Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Agricultural Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Agriculture’s Future in the San Joaquin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
The Non-Agricultural Economy of the San Joaquin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
SJV County Employment Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Appalachian State Employment Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
Labor Force Characteristics in the San Joaquin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
Fresno Regional Jobs Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
The Health Care Industry as a Growth Sector for the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Chapter 5 — Selected Natural Resource and Environmental Issues
in the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
Water Resources of the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
Water Supply Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Water Quality Issues in the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Irrigated Agriculture and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Actions to Address Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
A TMDL Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
Financial Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Managing Manure at Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations . . . . . . . . 253
Funding Sources for CAFOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Air Quality Issues in the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Ozone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Particulate Matter (PM and PM ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
10
2.5
Federal Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Chapter 6 — Transportation Investment and Economic Development . . . . . . . 260
The Federal-Aid Highway System and the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
The Obligation of Federal-Aid Highway Funds in the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
The Relation Between Freight Infrastructure and Economic
Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
Supporting the Perishable Goods Delivery Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
Warehouse and Distribution Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
High Speed Rail and Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
APPENDIX A: Reports and Studies on the SJV: 1980-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
Water Resources Management and Geomorphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
Natural Resources: Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
Labor and Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
Poverty and Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
Population and Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Economic Growth and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
Education and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Socioeconomic Surveys of Central Valley Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
Agriculture in California and the San Joaquin/Central Valley . . . . . . . . . 280

Publications of the Center for Public Policy Studies, California
State University-Stanislaus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Public Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
Great Valley Center Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
APPENDIX B: Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
APPENDIX C: San Joaquin Valley Governments and Institutes . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Public Policy Analysis Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
APPENDIX D: Central Appalachian Counties As Defined by USDA’s
Economic Research Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
APPENDIX E: Counties of the Tennessee Valley Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
APPENDIX F: Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations by Individual
Program and San Joaquin Valley County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
List of Figures
Figure 1. The San Joaquin Valley of California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Figure 2. The Appalachian Regional Commission Area and its Distressed
Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 3. Percent Change in Mexican-Born Population by County,
1990-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 4. Percent of Persons Below Poverty Level by County (2000) . . . . . . . . 48
Figure 5. Percent of Households Receiving Public Assistance by County
(2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Figure 6. Median Family Income By County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Figure 7. Percent of Persons with Education Less Than High School by
County (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Figure 8. Percent of Persons with a Bachelors Degree or Advanced
Degree by County (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Figure 9. Total Federal Assistance by County, FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Figure 10. Total Federal Assistance Per Capita, FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Figure 11. Federal Assistance per Capita for Agriculture and Natural
Resources by County, FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Figure 12. Federal Assistance Per Capita for Community Resources . . . . . . . 156
Figure 13. Federal Assistance Per Capita for Defense and Space by County,
FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Figure 14. Federally Owned Land in the SJV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Figure 15. Federal Assistance Per Capita for Human Resource by County,
FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Figure 16. Federal Assistance per Capita for Income Security by County,
FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Figure 17. Federal Assistance per Capita for National Functions by County,
FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Figure 18. Allocation of Federal Assistance by ERS Category in California
and the SJV, FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Figure 19. SJV Land Use/Land Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Figure 20. Average Sales per Farm by County (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Figure 21. Irrigated Farm Acreage by County (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Figure 22. Irrigated Land in Acres by County (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Figure 23. Average Federal Farm Payments per Farm by County (2002) . . . . 185
Figure 24. Number of Migrant Workers on Farms with Hired Labor by
County, (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
List of Tables
Table 1. Appalachian Regional Commission County Economic Fiscal
Status, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 2. Population: United States, California, and Counties of the SJV,
1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 3. Population Density: United States, California, and Counties
of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 4. Population: United States, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West
Virginia, and Central Appalachian Counties of the Appalachian
Regional Commission, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 5. Population Projections: United States, California, and Counties
of the SJV, to 2010 and 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Table 6. Population Projections: United States, Kentucky, Virginia,
Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the Appalachian
Regional Commission, to 2010 and 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Table 7. Estimated Percent of the Population That Moved During the
Previous Year: United States, California, and Metropolitan Statistical
Areas of the SJV, 1989-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 8. Estimates of Where Persons Who Moved During the Previous
Year Lived One Year Earlier: United States, California, and
Metropolitan Statistical Areas ofthe SJV, 1989-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table 9. Percent of the Population Foreign-Born: United States,
California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Table 10. Percent of Population of Hispanic Origin: United States,
California, and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Table 11. Percent of the Population Mexican-Born: United States,
California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Table 12. Distribution of Population by Race: United States, California,
and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 13. Distribution of Population by Gender: United States, California,
and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 14. Distribution of Population by Age: United States, California,
and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table 15. Portion of the Population Below Poverty: United States, California,
and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table 16. Appalachian Regional Commission Poverty Rates, 1980-2000 . . . . . 51
Table 17. Portion of the Population Below Poverty: United States,
Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central
Counties of the ARC, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Table 18. Percent of Households Receiving Food Stamps: United States,
California, and the MSAs of the SJV, 1988-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Table 19. Public Assistance Income: United States, California, and the
Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Table 20. Public Assistance Income: United States, Kentucky, Virginia,
Tennessee, West Virginia,and Central Counties of the ARC,
1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Table 21. Percent of Population Without Health Insurance: United
States, California, and the MSAs of the SJV, 1988-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Table 22. Percent of Population Without Health Insurance: United
States, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central
Counties of the ARC, 1988-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Table 23. Percent of the Population Enrolled in Medicaid: United States,
California, and MSAs of the SJV, 1988-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Table 24. Percent of the Population Enrolled in Medicaid: United States,
Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties
of the ARC, 1988-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 25. Employment in the United States, California,and the Counties
of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Table 26. Employment in the United States, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee,
West Virginia, and Central Counties of the ARC, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . 69
Table 27. Labor Force Participation Rate: United States, California,
and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Table 28. Labor Force Participation Rate: United States, Kentucky,
Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the ARC,
1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Table 29. Civilian Unemployment Rates: United States, California, and the
Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Table 30. Civilian Unemployment Rates: United States, Kentucky,
Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the ARC,
1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Table 31. Per Capita Income: United States, California,and the Counties
of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Table 32. Per Capita Income: United States, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee,
West Virginia, and Central Counties of theARC, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Table 33. Median Family Income: United States, California, and the Counties
of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Table 34. Median Family Income: United States, Kentucky, Virginia,
Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the ARC, 1980-2003 . 82
Table 35. Average Family Income: United States, California,and the Counties
of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Table 36. Average Family Income: United States, Kentucky, Virginia,
Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the Appalachian
Regional Commission (ARC), 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Table 37. Wage and Salary Income: United States, California, and the
Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Table 38. Wage and Salary Income: United States, Kentucky, Virginia,
Tennessee, West Virginia,and Central Counties of the ARC, 1980-2003 . . 86
Table 39. Interest, Dividend, or Net Rental Income: United States,
California,and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Table 40. Retirement Income: United States, California, and the Counties
of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Table 41. Social Security Income: United States, California, and the Counties
of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Table 42. Social Security Income: United States, Kentucky, Virginia,
Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the ARC,
1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Table 43. Supplemental Security Income (SSI): United States, California,
and the Counties of the SJV, 2000-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Table 44. Supplemental Security Income (SSI): United States, Kentucky,
Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the ARC,
2000-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Table 45. Educational Attainment: United States, California, and Counties
of the SJV, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Table 46. Educational Attainment: United States, Kentucky, Virginia,
Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the ARC, 1990-2003 . 98
Table 47. Per Pupil Amounts for Current Spending of Public Elementary
and Secondary School Systems: United States, California, and Counties
of the SJV,1992-1993 and 2002-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Table 48. Percent of Persons Who Speak a Language Other than English at
Home: United States, California, and Counties ofthe SJV, 1980-2003 . . 100
Table 49. Per Pupil Amounts for Current Spending of Public Elementary
and Secondary School Systems: United States,Kentucky, Tennessee,
Virginia, West Virginia, and CentralCounties of the ARC, 1992-1993
and 2002-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Table 50. Educational Attainment of Persons in the Labor Force Who
Moved During the Previous Year: United States, California, and MSAs
of the SJV, 1989-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Table 51. Total Active Doctors Per 1,000 Population: United States,
California, and the Counties of the SJV, 1995-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Table 52. Doctors Engaged in Patient Care Per 1,000 Population: United
States, California, and the Counties of the SJV, 1995-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Table 53. Total Active Doctors Per 1,000 Population: United States,
Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the Central
Counties of the ARC, 1995-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Table 54. Doctors Engaged in Patient Care Per 1,000 Population: United
States, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the Central
Counties of the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), 1995-2001 . 111
Table 55. Teen Birth Rates: United States, California, and Counties
of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Table 56. Infant Mortality Rates: United States, California, and Counties
of the SJV, 1980-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Table 57. Age-Adjusted Prevalence of Obesity and Healthy Weight: United
States, California, and Counties of the SJV, 1992-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Table 58. Age-Adjusted Death Rates from Heart Disease: United States,
California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Table 59. Cancer Deaths: Age-Adjusted Death Rates from Cancers: United
States, California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Table 60. Age-Adjusted Death Rates from Stroke: United States,
California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Table 61. Age-Adjusted Death Rates from All Causes of Death: United
States, California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Table 62. Age-Adjusted Prevalence of Diagnosed Diabetes in Adults: United
States, California, and Counties of the SJV, 2000-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Table 63. Diabetes Deaths — Age-Adjusted Death Rates for Diabetes
Mellitus: United States, California, and Counties of the SJV,
1980-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Table 64. Percent of the Population Covered by Medicare: United States,
California, and MSAs of the SJV, 1988-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Table 65. Percent of the Population Covered by Medicare: United States,
Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties
of the ARC, 1988-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Table 66. Per Capita Monthly Medicare Expenditures for Aged
Beneficiaries in Traditional Medicare: United States, California, and
Counties of the SJV, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Table 67. Per Capita Monthly Medicare Expenditures for Aged
Beneficiaries in Traditional Medicare: United States, Kentucky,
Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties ofthe ARC,
1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Table 68. Number of Crimes and Crime Rate: United States,
California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Table 69. Number of Crimes and Crime Rate: United States, Kentucky,
Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the ARC,
1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Table 70. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations in the SJV, FY2002 . 142
Table 71. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations in the Appalachian
Regional Commission, FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Table 72. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations in the SJV, FY2003 . 144
Table 73. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations in the Tennessee
Valley Authority Area FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Table 74. Per Capita Federal Funds By ERS Function for the SJV, FY2000 . . 151
Table 75. Per Capita Federal Funds for Appalachia by ERS Function and
Region, FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Table 76. Farms by Size, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Table 77. Market Value of Agricultural Product Sales, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Table 78. Leading Commodities for Gross Value of Agricultural Production
by SJV and Adjacent Counties, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Table 79. SJV Commodity Rank and Leading Counties by Gross Value
of Agricultural Production, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Table 80. SJV Irrigated Land, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Table 81. SJV Federal Farm Payments, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
Table 82. SJV Hired Farm Labor, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Table 83. SJV Farm Workers by Days Worked — Less than 150 days, 2002 . 187
Table 84. SJV Farm Workers by Days Worked — 150 Days or More, 2002 . . 188
Table 85. SJV Migrant Farm Labor Valley, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Table 86. Annual Employment and Average Annual Pay of the 20
Largest Industries, United States, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Table 87. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries,
California, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Table 88. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, Fresno
County, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Table 89. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, Kern
County, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Table 90. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, Kings
County, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

Table 91. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, Madera
County, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Table 92. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, Merced
County, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Table 93. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, San
Joaquin County, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Table 94. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries,
Stanislaus County, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
Table 95. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, Tulare
County, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Table 96. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries,
Mariposa County, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Table 97. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries,
Tuolumne County, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Table 98. Percent of Workers Who Usually Worked Full-Timein the
Previous Year: United States, California, and the Counties of the
SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Table 99. Distribution of Employed Persons by the Number of Weeks
Worked in the Previous Year: United States, California, and the
Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Table 100. Class of Worker: United States, California,and the Counties
of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Table 101. Means of Transportation to Work: United States, California,
and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Table 102. Vehicles Available Per Household: United States, California,
and Counties of the SJV, 1990-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Table 103. Ambulatory Health Care Services, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Table 104. Bakersfield MSA Occupational Employment (November 2003)
and Wage (2004 - 3rd Quarter) Data Occupational Employment
Statistics (OES) Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Table 105. Fresno MSA Occupational Employment (November 2003) and
Wage (2004 - 3rd Quarter) Data Occupational Employment Statistics
(OES) Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Table 106. Modesto MSA Occupational Employment (November 2003) and
Wage (2004 - 3rd Quarter) Data Occupational Employment Statistics
(OES) Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Table 107. Stockton-Lodi MSA Occupational Employment
(November 2003) and Wage (2004 - 3rd Quarter) Data
Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . 237
Table 108. Visalia-Tulare-Porterville MSA Occupational Employment
(November 2003) and Wage (2004 - 3rd Quarter) Data
Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . 240
Table 109. Medical Instrument Supply/Equipment, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Table 110. Federal-Aid Highway Obligations: SJV — California — United
States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Table 111. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for Fresno County,
FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
Table 112. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for Kern County,
FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
Table 113. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for Kings County,
FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308

Table 114. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for Madera
County, FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Table 115. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for Merced
County, FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Table 116. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for San Joaquin
County, FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
Table 117. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for Stanislaus
County, FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
Table 118. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for Tulare County,
FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
Table 119. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for Mariposa
County, FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
Table 120. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for Tuolumne
County, FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349

California’s San Joaquin Valley: A Region in
Transition
Chapter 1 — An Overview of the San Joaquin Valley
Introduction. The San Joaquin Valley (SJV), an eight-county region
extending 250 miles from Stockton in the north to Bakersfield in the south (Figure
1), is a rapidly growing area that is also a severely economically depressed region
suffering from high poverty, unemployment, and other adverse social conditions.
The 27,280 square mile SJV, part of California’s Central Valley, is also home to 5
of the 10 most agriculturally productive counties in the United States, as measured
by value of total annual sales. In addition to its socioeconomic condition, the SJV
region faces significant environmental and natural resource challenges. A substantial
body of empirical research over the past 20 years has explored the socioeconomic and
environmental issues facing the SJV, with particular attention to social welfare,
agriculture, air, and water quality issues.
Figure 1. The San Joaquin Valley of California

CRS-2
This report documents the basis of current socioeconomic and environmental
concerns in the SJV and assesses the role of federal assistance to the cities, counties,
residents, and businesses of the SJV. The report also explores the extent to which
the SJV shares similarities with and differs from other economically depressed areas
in the United States. It reviews the role of federal assistance in the SJV relative to the
role of federal assistance in Appalachia, specifically federal funding to the
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) area. The ARC is a federal agency
created in 1965. Its jurisdiction is a 410-county region spread across 13 states from
Alabama to New York.
The report’s major analytical focus is the 8 counties that compose the SJV:
Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare.
Particular data in the report also focus on the SJV’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(MSAs): Stockton-Lodi, Bakersfield, Fresno, Madera, Modesto, and Visalia-
Porterville. A limited, but more detailed comparison is also developed with the
Central Appalachian subregion, a 68-county area in Tennessee, Virginia, Kentucky,
and West Virginia delimited by the USDA’s Economic Research Service and based
on Bogue and Beale’s Economic Areas of the United States.1 Two rural counties
adjacent to the SJV, Mariposa and Tuolumne, are also examined in the report to
provide a further comparison and contrast to the socioeconomic characteristics of the
SJV.
Data discussed in the text occasionally make reference to the Greater Central
Valley of which the SJV composes the southern portion. The Great Valley Center
in Modesto, a regional research institute, divides the Great Central Valley into 3
subregions: the North Valley encompasses 7 counties (Shasta, Tehama, Glenn,
Colusa, Butte, Yuba, and Sutter); the Sacramento Region has 4 counties (Yolo,
Sacramento, Place, and El Dorado); and the San Joaquin Valley. The North Valley
is less urbanized and less developed. The Sacramento Region has had the most
extensive development through its linkages to San Francisco.2

How federal assistance in the SJV and Appalachia is distributed among various
categories and their per capita rates of expenditure are also a focus of the report. A
key consideration is how federal assistance is currently distributed in the SJV and
how it differs from current federal expenditures in Appalachia.
The geography of global economic activity in 2005 is, in significant ways, quite
different from that of 25 years ago. An increasingly complex set of relationships
between local and global scales of economic activity has implications for SJV labor
markets, household consumption, the formation of growth coalitions, technological
innovation and growth, residential and transportation patterns, and human capital
issues. Federal assistance has been important in each of these policy issues in the
past and is likely continue as an important factor in future development and change
in the SJV. Concern with the challenges facing the SJV has led to efforts there to
1 Bogue, Donald J. and Calvin Beale. Economic Areas of the United States. New York:
Free Press. 1961.
2 Great Valley Center. The State of the Great Central Valley of California: Assessing the
Region Via Indicators. Modesto, California. July, 1999.

CRS-3
begin considering a wide range of issues from a regional perspective. The SJV now
has federally recognized regional status: a federal interagency task force on the
economic development of the Central SJV was created in 2000 by Executive Order.3
This chapter reviews the history of regional approaches to socioeconomic
development and discusses the federal role in the creation and support of specific
regional development commissions: the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the
ARC, the Delta Regional Authority, the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission,
the Denali Commission, and the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority. Each of
these federally authorized commissions targeted federal funds to development issues
specific to their geographic regions.
This section selectively surveys contemporary socioeconomic research on the
SJV, drawing on an extensive bibliography of research in Appendix A.
Contemporary Research on the SJV
In his 1987 Carl Sauer Memorial Lecture, Berkeley geographer James J. Parsons
argued that there were at least three categorical ways of approaching the SJV.4 First,
and most common, was to ignore the SJV or to view it as irrelevant to the largely
urbanized character of the state. He noted that in a mid-1980s publication listing the
100 best places in California the refurbished Capitol building in Sacramento was the
only attraction from the entire Central Valley to make the list. A second way of
considering the SJV was as a symbol “of capitalism gone rampant, of all that is bad
about profit-based, large-scale, labor intensive irrigated agriculture.” Here, Parsons
referred to Frank Norris’s Octopus, a story of the role of the railroad in what is today,
Kings County. John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath and Carey McWilliams
Factories in the Field also represented a way of seeing the Valley focused largely on
the social and human effects of agricultural production in the 1930s. In a similar
vein, news and stories of contemporary industrial agriculture in the Valley reinforce
this particular dimension of the SJV. For Parsons, a noted cultural geographer, a
third way of looking at the Valley was actually to see and appreciate the Valley as the
3 Executive Order 13173: Interagency Task Force on the Economic Development of the
Central SJV, October 25, 2000. Executive Order 13359, October 4, 2004, amended the
original Order to designate the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development as the Chair
of the task force.
4 Parsons, James J.. A Geographer Looks at the SJV. 1987 Carl Sauer Memorial Lecture.
[Http://geography.berkeley.edu/ProjectsResources/]
Publications/Parsons_SauerLect.html. While agriculture and the SJV are practically
synonymous, oil production was also an important factor in the development of the SJV.
At the turn of the 20th century, the Kern River Field was producing 70% of California’s oil,
and California was the country’s leading oil producer. Today, Kern County produces 10%
of the United States oil, making it the leading oil producing county in the United States. See
Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, Kern County Petroleum. January 2002.
[http://www.bakersfieldchamber.org/community.asp].

CRS-4
result of a consciously built and cultivated cultural landscape that has made
California agriculture a modern “wonder of the world.”5
Substantial research over the past decade has focused on the SJV in an effort
to describe, analyze, and plan for the challenges facing the region. Population growth
and change, global changes in the organization of agriculture, pressures on natural
resources stemming from population growth and agricultural production, human
resource concerns, environmental issues, employment, growth management concerns,
housing, and transportation represent some of the policy issues on which researchers
have focused particular attention. The general economic growth and development
in the Central Valley as a whole between 1999-2004 has not significantly changed
much of the basic economic distress of the region. Even with an increase in income
over that period, the Central Valley region may have lost ground because incomes in
the state grew faster than they did in the Valley. Between 1997 and 2002, Central
Valley’s per capita income grew by 19% while the state’s per capita income rose
25%.6 An overview of some of the most recent research and key findings is presented
below.
Demographic Issues and the
The SJV Region at a Glance — 2000
Role of Farmworkers. Although
agriculture is perhaps the most
Counties: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera,
significant socioeconomic feature of the
Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and
SJV today, the SJV is undergoing
Tulare
changes that suggest a more diversified
Total area: 27,280 square miles; 17% of
economic base over the next 20 years
the land area of California
Total population: 3.3 million; 10% of
will be necessary to support the region’s
California’s population
growth. The Bureau of the Census, for
Ethnic composition: 53% white, 34%
example, projects the population of the
Hispanic, 8% Asian/Pacific Islander, 4%
San Joaquin to grow by 39% from 2003
African American, and 1% Native
to 2020, with some counties (e.g.,
American
Merced and San Joaquin) projected to
Age distribution: 0-9 years old, 18%;
grow by more than 55%, meaning that
10-19 years old, 16%; 20-44 years old,
1.4 million more people are projected to
36%; 45-64 years old, 19%; 65+ 10%
live in the SJV by 2020.7 In contrast,
Adult educational attainment: 66% are
high school graduates; 14% have
bachelor’s degree
Source: Great Valley Center. The Economic
Future of the SJV: Growing a Prosperous
Economy that Benefits People and Place.
2000
5 Parsons, 1987. Op.Cit., p. 4.
6 Great Valley Center. Assessing the Region Via Indicators: The Economy, 1994-2004.
January. Modesto, California. 2005.
7 Projections of U.S. population growth are from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census, U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, available
(continued...)

CRS-5
the state is projected to grow approximately 24% over that period, with the United
States growing about 15%. The SJV currently attracts a large proportion of lower-
skilled workers from across the state as well as from significant international
migration. At the same time, the South SJV is also losing its higher-skilled workers.8
Between 1995 and 2000, these counties had a net migration increase in the number
of adults without high school diplomas and a net decrease of college graduates.9
Along with the Sacramento metro region and the Riverside-San Bernardino
region, the SJV was among the three fastest growing regions in the state, accounting
for nearly 4 of every 10 new residents of the state during the 1990s.10 While natural
increase was the largest component of population change in the Valley during the
1990s, international migration was also a significant source of the San Joaquin’s
growth, as was migration from coastal areas where housing costs rose significantly
during the decade. Between 1995 and 2000, two of every three international
migrants to the SJV were Latino.11 During that same period, the South SJV
experienced net domestic migration losses for every group except African
Americans. More than half of domestic out-migrants were white.
The high rate of Latino immigration presents several issues. Latino immigrants
tend to: be younger than the state average, have lower high school graduation rates,
lack fluency in English, be disproportionately low-skilled, have higher birth rates and
related family sizes, and higher rates of family poverty.12 In some SJV communities,
as many as two-thirds of the residents have not finished high school and half of the
7 (...continued)
at [http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/popproj.html]. Projections for
California are from the State of California, Department of Finance, Population Projections
by Race/Ethnicity for California and Its Counties 2000-2050, Sacramento, California, May
2004, available at [http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/demograp/dru_publications/
projections/p1.htm].
8 In a study of the Central Valley’s migration patterns, the Southern SJV (Madera, Fresno,
Kings, Kern, and Tulare counties) was distinguished from the Northern SJV (San Joaquin,
Stanislaus, and Merced counties). Johnson, Hans P. and Hayes, Joseph M. The Central
Valley at a Crossroads: Migration and Its Implications. Report. Public Policy Institute of
California, San Francisco, CA. November. 2004.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_1104HJR.pdf]
9 Ibid., p.47.
10 Johnson, Hans P. A State of Diversity: Demographic Trends in California’s Regions.
California Counts: Population trends and Profiles, Vol.3, No.5, May. Report. Public Policy
Institute of California, San Francisco, CA. November. 2002.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/CC_502HJCC.pdf]
11 Ibid.
12 Reed, Deborah, Laura E. Hill, Christopher Jepsen, and Hans P. Johnson. 2005.
Educational Progress Across Immigrant Generations in California. Public Policy Institute
of California, San Francisco. September. [http://www.ppic.org/content/
pubs/R_905DRR.pdf]; Johnson, Hans P. 2001. “The Demography of California
Immigrants.” Paper based on testimony before the Little Hoover Commission Hearing on
Immigrant Integration, March 21, 2001. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco.
March.

CRS-6
households with children under 18 have incomes below the poverty line. Low-skilled,
part-time, seasonal employment is often the norm for many of these immigrants.
Labor intensive agricultural production in the fruit, vegetable, and horticultural
sectors is often the most viable source of employment. As hired farm labor jobs
decline, educating and training the immigrant community for higher-wage jobs will
present the SJV with considerable challenge.13
Predicting future population is a complicated exercise. Domestic and
international immigration, racial and ethnic composition of the population, and birth
rates of different social groups are a complex set of variables that influence
population growth rates. Birth rates are also influenced by personal characteristics
such as educational attainment, marital status, and income level. As educational
attainment and income rise, there tends to be a decrease in average birth rate. Third
and fourth generation immigrants, for example, tend to have lower birth rates on
average than earlier generations. A demographic analysis by the Public Policy
Institute of California concluded that, while second and third-generation Californians
do have lower birth rates than their earlier relatives, the declines are the result of
changing educational levels, income, and other personal characteristics.14 These
personal characteristics, rather than the particular immigrant generation, had
significant direct effects on birth rates.
Lower costs in the SJV compared to the state have attracted businesses to the
region over the past decade. Many businesses are attracted by the low-cost labor and
the relatively low land prices. Between 1990 and 2000, however, overall job growth
still lagged behind population growth in the SJV.15 Unemployment has been a
persistent problem in the Valley, typically at a rate nearly twice the national average
and significantly higher than the state average. In 2000, the SJV had an
unemployment rate of nearly 12%, while the U.S. and California averages were 5.8%
and 7% respectively. Individual counties, (e.g., Madera and Merced), had even
higher unemployment rates. Since 1980, the unemployment rate for the Valley has
ranged from 9.5%-12% (See Table 29, Chapter 2). Agriculture remains the major
economic engine of the regional economy. The agricultural sector offers much
seasonal employment, but pays relatively low average annual wages. For example,
in Parlier, a small community in Fresno County, 29% of the 4,511 labor force was
employed in agriculture in 2000. Median family income there was $24,300 and 33%
of the families in the community fell below the poverty line.16
13 Between 1992 and 2002, hired farm labor in the SJV declined 35.6%, from 377,853 jobs
in 1992 to 243,079 jobs in 2002. National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Census of
Agriculture 1992, 1997, 2002.
14 Hill, Laura E. and Hans P. Johnson. Understanding the Future of Californians’
Fertility: The Role of Immigrants. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, CA.
April, 2002. [http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_402LHR.pdf]
15 Johnson, Hans P. 2002. Op.Cit, p.8
16 Farm Foundation. Immigrants Change the Face of Rural America. Issue Report, January,
2005.

CRS-7
The proportion of the population living in poverty in the SJV is high, nearly
22% in 2002.17 Rural poverty in particular in California may be re-created through
the expansion of low-wage, immigrant-intensive agriculture. The globalization of
agricultural production, particularly as it is affected by the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is considered by many to be a significant factor in the
structure of California agriculture. Poverty in rural Mexico, the demand for low-
wage labor in California’s fruit, vegetable, and horticultural sectors, and the existence
of family and village networks that grew from a history of migration to the United
States help sustain a stream of immigration to the fields of the SJV. This
combination of “push,” “pull,” and “network” effects appears to make both
immigration and the expansion of farm jobs on which immigrants depend
self-perpetuating.18
Agricultural Immigration. Immigration plays a significant role in the
demographic characteristics of the SJV and California, and this is likely to continue.
Since 1995, the Central Valley as a whole has received substantially more migrants
from other parts of California than it sends to the rest of California. The counties of
Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Kern have received the most international
migrants of any area of the Central Valley.19 Economically dominated by industrial
agriculture, these counties also are characterized by very high rates of poverty among
immigrants. This presents challenges to the region’s social services, especially for
health care and education providers. The growth in immigration in rural California
is generally regarded as a phenomenon directly related to the changing structure of
agriculture.20 Greater integration of farms under the control of agribusiness, the
increased use of immigrant farm labor hired through contractors, and a continuing
shift from owner-operated farms to hired-labor corporations characterize
contemporary agricultural production in the SJV.21
Because the economic structure of the rural sector in general is not well
diversified, newly arrived immigrants find very few opportunities outside the
agricultural sector. Immigrants often crowd into rural colonias — incorporated
towns resembling overgrown labor camps — whose population during the harvest
season often surges to several times their normal size. In 1997, California rural
colonias comprised 7 of the 20 U.S. cities in which the highest percentage of people
17 Reed, Deborah . California Counts: Recent Trends in Income and Poverty. Public Policy
In s t i t u t e o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n F r a n c i s c o , C A . F e b r u a r y, 2 0 0 4 .
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/CC_204DRCC.pdf]
18 Ibid.
19 Johnson, Hans and Joseph Hayes. The Central Valley at a Crossroads: Migration and Its
Implications. Public Policy Institute. San Francisco. November 2004.
20 See Krissman, Fred. “Cycles of poverty in rural California towns: Comparing McFarland
and Farmersville in the southern SJV. Paper presented at the conference, Immigration and
the Changing Face of Rural California. Asilomar, California, June12-14, 1995; Palerm,
Juan V. Farm Labor Needs and Farm Workers in California, 1970-1989. California
Agricultural Studies Report #91-2. University of California-Santa Barbara. 1991.
21 These changes in the structure of agriculture are explored in greater detail in the section
of this report concerning the SJV’s economic structure.

CRS-8
in concentrated poverty were foreign-born.22 Unlike the small-scale farming
operations of the Midwest, agriculture in California has long been dominated by large
operations relying on a mobile labor force. Agricultural production in the SJV is,
accordingly, at the center of changes in the structure of agriculture; continuing
immigration into the SJV reflects these changing patterns.
Since the early 1990s, there has been a shift away from migrant labor towards
resident-based labor. Unlike many other farming regions of the United States, the
extended growing season in the SJV permits many workers the opportunity for year-
round farm labor. While harvesting may be seasonal, the great variety of crops in the
region makes it possible for farm workers to reside in one area and find work for
much of the year. A report on farm workers in Kern County, cites a 1995 Kern
County Consolidated Plan that counted 10,240 resident farm workers and 19,570
migrant workers during peak season.23 This study noted that the number of
permanent farm workers had steadily increased and is expected to continue. Some
permanent residents with established networks may move out of farm labor and into
industries such as food packing, processing, transportation, or retail trade. Other
residents may provide food or housing services to newly arrived farm workers. The
young, Hispanic migrant workers, especially those without established networks in
the communities, continue to meet much of the demand for low-skilled labor
intensive agriculture.24 If present trends continue, the newly arrived will become
residents and move out of farm labor to provide opportunities for yet another wave
of agricultural immigrants. For the communities where many farm workers reside,
however, low farmworker earnings limit the potential for significant economic
growth.
Because agriculture in the SJV is so reliant on low-wage, low-skilled farm labor,
and because low-wage, low-skilled labor is attracted to the SJV for employment in
agriculture, some observers believe that the region could be caught in a vicious
22 Taylor, J. Edward, Philip L. Martin, Michael Fix. Poverty Amid Prosperity: Immigration
and the Changing Face of Rural California. Urban Institute Press, Washington, D.C. 1997.
23 Housing Assistance Council. Taking Stock: Rural People, Poverty, and Housing at the
Turn of the 21st Century. December 2002.
24 Beginning in the 1990s, many migrants to Kern County came from areas of Mexico not
traditionally sources of agricultural labor. The Mixtecs, an indigenous group from Oaxaca,
with a distinctive language and culture, are recent settlers. They, along with migrants from
Central America, do not have the support networks that traditional Mexican immigrants
have. Housing Assistance Council. 2002. Op. Cit. According to the 2001-2002 National
Agricultural Workers Survey, Mexico-born crop workers were from almost every state of
their native country. The largest share (46%) were from the traditional sending states of west
central Mexico: Guanajuato, Jalisco, and Michoacan. However, an increasing share were
from non-traditional states. The share from the southern part of Mexico, comprising the
states of Guerrero, Oaxaca, Chiapas, Puebla, Morelos and Veracruz, doubled from nine
percent in 1993-1994 to 19% in 2001-2002. See U.S. Department of Labor, National
Agricultural Workers Survey 2001 - 2002 A Demographic and Employment Profile of
United States Farm Workers. March, 2005. [http://www.doleta.gov/
agworker/report9/toc.cfm]

CRS-9
cycle.25 As long as agriculture dominates the economies of the small towns in the
SJV, farm labor will continue to regard the area as an employment destination. This
can encourage the expansion of agriculture and, with it, the expansion of a low-wage,
low-skilled workforce. As discussed below, there are countervailing forces on an
ever-expanding agriculture. These forces include an increasing substitution of labor
by technology as well as longer standing pressures on smaller, less efficient farming
operations. Still, the many farm workers who immigrate from Mexico to the SJV are
seeking seasonal, minimum wage agricultural jobs. The concern of some observers
is that as poor, immigrant farmworkers move to the SJV, as well as other
agriculturally significant areas, rural poverty may be re-created. Rather than
agriculture being a temporary employment stop for newly arrived immigrants before
moving on to better paying jobs, the rural farmworkers may have no opportunities
beyond low-paying agricultural work. In part, this may occur because there are so
few employment alternatives and the farmworkers themselves are generally poorly
prepared for jobs requiring a more educated employee.
Migrant and resident farmworkers comprise distinct populations whose needs
differ. Migrant workers without networks, at least those studied in the Kern County
case, experience the worst employment, job security, and housing conditions. Farm
workers and recent immigrants tend to live in relative isolation from the mainstream
and middle-class Hispanic population in the county. Consistent with historical
socioeconomic class processes, the county’s Hispanic population that has acquired
some economic success and increased English fluency begins to identify less with
newly arrived immigrants.26
A second important distinction within the farmworker population is that of
farmworker families and single men living by themselves. The case study of Kern
County farm workers pointed to an important transition in the SJV from single
workers remitting wages back to their families in Mexico to farm labor families
moving and residing together in the SJV.
Employment, Poverty, and Income. In a study of the labor markets in
Fresno, Madera, and Tulare Counties, the Fresno Bee examined changes in 600
occupations from the third quarter of 2002 to the first quarter of 2004.27 Its review
found that, in a region dominated by low- wage farm and service-related jobs, the
SJV lagged behind the rest of the state in average job earnings. Population growth,
however, spurred job growth in construction, medical doctors, teachers, and nurses.
Of the 10 occupations in Fresno and Madera counties with the most workers, only 2
— nurses and elementary school teachers — have average wages above $29,000, a
threshold set by the Regional Jobs Initiative.28 In Fresno and Madera counties,
25 Taylor, J. Edward, Philip L. Martin, Michael Fix. 1997. Op. Cit.
26 Housing Assistance Council. 2002, Op. Cit., p.77.
27 Schultz, E.J. “What people earn.” Fresno Bee. November 7, 2004.
28 The Fresno Regional Jobs Initiative (RJI), formed in 2001, is working to create 30,000
jobs in the Fresno Metropolitan Statistical Area by 2009 paying at least $29,000 per year.
The RJI is pursuing an “industrial cluster” strategy based on 8 clusters that build on existing
(continued...)

CRS-10
farmworkers were the largest employment category (20,000 workers) followed by
office clerks (10,000 workers) in 2003. Farmworker jobs, however, are declining.
In 1996, the Fresno Bee reported that the farm industry had a monthly average of
72,800 employees in Fresno and Madera counties, accounting for about 21% of the
work force. In 2003, it reported the monthly farm employment average was 53,800,
or 15% of the work force.
The proportion of the population living in poverty in the SJV is high, nearly
22% in 2002.29 This compares to a rate of approximately 13% for California. The
SJV also had the highest rate of poverty among eight geographic regions in
California.30 During the past three decades, increases in female employment, female-
headed families, immigration, and economic changes that have produced greater
gains for college-educated workers compared to those with a high school diploma
have been especially influential in family income changes.31 For the state as a
whole, poverty was much lower in 2002 than in 1992, and the income levels of low-
income families showed more growth during that decade than did the income levels
of high-income families. These gains in poverty reduction over the past decade,
however, do not overcome the longer term growth in poverty and income inequality
in the state. Poverty and income inequality were higher in California in 2002 than
in 1969.32
Fresno, the largest metropolitan area in the region, has taken steps to begin
changing its economic structure for the future. To reduce persistent unemployment,
the Fresno Regional Jobs Initiative (RJI) aims to create 30,000 net new jobs that pay
at least $30,000 per year. In 2002, the three leading sectors of employment in the
SJV were government (260,000 jobs), agriculture (225,000 jobs), and health services
(85,000 jobs). Manufacturing, especially in California’s smaller metropolitan areas,
however, is also important to the region’s economic health.33 Manufacturing is an
28 (...continued)
and emerging economic sectors in the region.
29 Reed, Deborah . California Counts: Recent Trends in Income and Poverty. Public Policy
Institute of California, San Francisco, CA. February, 2004. The poverty rate is measured
as the share of people who live in families with income at or below the official federal
threshold. For example, in 2000, a family with two adults and two children was considered
poor if its annual income was below $17,463.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/CC_204DRCC.pdf]
30 Ibid., page 11. The eight geographic areas are the Sacramento region, the San Francisco
Bay area, the Central Coast, the SJV, Los Angeles County, the Inland Empire, and San
Diego County.
31 Ibid., page 12.
32 Ibid., page 13.
33 Milken Institute. Manufacturing Matters: California’s Performance and Prospects.
Report prepared for the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Santa
Monica, California. August 2002.

CRS-11
important stage of value-added production and its continued and expanded role in
agriculture is regarded as an important source of future economic growth.34
Regional Approaches to Economic Development
Introduction. There is a resurgence of interest in regional economic
development alliances in many parts of the United States.35 A 2001 statewide survey
of California residents found that a substantial majority believe that local
governments should take a regional approach with respect to land use, environmental,
transportation, and related growth issues that focuses more on public-private
partnerships rather than regional government.36 Proponents of regional approaches
share the view that the historic pattern of community-based economic development
may no longer address the complexity of development issues that can characterize a
larger geography. The fiscal problems in many states are also creating pressures on
many communities to seek new solutions to providing essential community services
through pooling resources.
Congress has had a long history of support for regional authorities based on
federal-state partnerships such as the TVA and the ARC. Both the TVA and the
ARC have continued to support economic development and social change in their
respective regions. A substantial body of literature exists on the impact of these
regional authorities. While there are differences in opinion about the development
successes of these authorities, a 1995 empirical assessment of ARC’s impact over 26
years in the region’s 391 counties, concluded that the programs did produce
significant growth. Using a methodology based on paired communities, the authors
concluded that growth was significantly faster in the 391 Appalachian counties than
it was in the control counties. This also held true for Central Appalachia, the poorest
subregion in the ARC. Another reported result was improved local planning in ARC
counties compared to the control counties.37
Congress has authorized several new regional authorities to deal with common
concerns including the Denali Commission (1998), the Delta Regional Authority
(2002), and the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority (2002). Most recently,
legislation for other regionally based approaches to economic development has been
34 Collaborative Economics. The Economic Future of the SJV. Report prepared for New
Valley Connexion, a partnership of the Great Valley Center and Office of Strategic
Technology, California Trade and Commerce Agency. January 2000.
35 See National Association of Development Organizations Research Foundation. 2003.
Federal State Regional Commission: Regional Approaches for Local Economic
Development. April. Washington, D.C. For a selective overview of 5 case studies of
regional development organizations, see Multi-Region Economic Development Strategies
Guide: Case Studies in Multi-Region Cooperation to Promote Economic Development.
National Association of Regional Councils. 2000.
36 Baldassare, Mark. PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey on Land Use. Public Policy
Institute of Californian, San Francisco, California, 2001.
37 Isserman, Andrew and T. Rephann. “The economic effects of the Appalachian Regional
Commission: An empirical assessment of 26 years of regional development planning.”
Journal of the American Planning Association, 61(3), Summer, 1995.

CRS-12
introduced in the109th Congress. In March, 2005, the Regional Economic and
Infrastructure Development Act of 2005 (H.R. 1349) was introduced. The bill would
organize four regional commissions under a common state-federal framework. It
reauthorizes the Delta Regional Authority and the Northern Great Plains Regional
Authority and creates the two new regional commissions: the Southeast Crescent and
the Southwest Border Regional Commission. Every county or parish that is currently
included in a commission or would be included in the proposed legislation is
similarly included in that same commission under this bill. While the bill follows the
organizational model of the ARC, it does not include the ARC or the Denali
Commission in its framework. The bill has been referred to the Subcommittee on
Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology of the House
Financial Services Committee.
Regional authorities created by Congress share the general economic
development logic that real competitive advantage exists in addressing development
issues in economically distressed areas from a regionally cooperative stance rather
than communities vying in a zero-sum competition. A regional development
approach may contribute to communities regarding themselves as economic partners
with interdependencies rather than simply rivals. Federal regional commissions offer
assistance to the some of the most economically distressed areas largely by providing
a framework for federal and private investment. These federal regional commissions
are generally responsible for developing area-wide planning, establishing regional
priorities, recommending forms of interstate cooperation, and coordinating regional
growth strategies with stakeholders. Local Development Districts (LDD), sub-state
multi-jurisdictional local government-based organizations, are the principal entities
through which development assistance is structured. While each federal regional
commission may have certain distinctive elements, the more recently established
federal regional commissions are organized and structured to build on the strengths
of the ARC model.
The Appalachian Regional Commission. The ARC was created in 1965
in response to the persistent socioeconomic challenges in the Appalachian region:
poverty, isolation and neglect, absence of basic physical infrastructure,
underdevelopment, and stagnation. President Kennedy had earlier formed a cabinet-
level commission, chaired by Franklin Roosevelt, Jr., to study the problems of the
region and to develop a plan for addressing the long-standing problems. That
commission issued its report in 1964.38 The report encouraged a state-federal
partnership to focus on the region in new ways that went beyond the existing
categorical grant programs of state and federal governments. Congress enacted the
38 Appalachia: A Report by the President’s Appalachian Regional Commission.
Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964. Interestingly, the Commission
was immediately confronted by a problem of research strategy: whether to concentrate on
the most distressed part of Appalachia, the largely rural interior area of marginal farms and
coal mining, or concern itself with the entire area from southern New York to Northern
Mississippi. They chose the latter approach, at the same time recognizing that the statistical
case would have been more compelling had the chronically depressed interior been treated
separately. Subsequent analyses of the region have categorized the area in ways that take
into consideration the variance among counties and subregions of Appalachia.

CRS-13
Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (P.L.89-4) to carry out the
Commission’s recommendations through the new ARC.
The ARC was established as a unique organization, with a governing board
comprised of a federal cochair appointed by the President and confirmed by the
Senate, and the Governors of the 13 member states. The regional development
program requires the consensus of both the federal cochair and the majority of
Governors to set programs and policies. The federal co-chair and the Governors
must vote each year to allocate funds for various ARC programs. Between 1965 and
1975, the ARC emphasized environmental and natural resource issues (e.g.,
timbering and mining), as well as basic infrastructure, vocational education facilities,
and health facilities and services. Between 1965 and 2002, Congress appropriated
a total of $9.2 billion for Appalachian programs, with $6.2 billion allocated for the
Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) and $3.0 billion for ARC’s
economic and human development programs.39 The ADHS was a critical component
for the development program of Appalachia for two reasons. First, the new interstate
highway system had largely bypassed Appalachia. Second, a system of reliable roads
would link more isolated parts of Appalachia to potential economic growth centers.40
The Appalachian Regional Development Act has been amended over the years
to expand the number of counties in the program. Today, there are 410 counties
which are classified into four categories of economic development: Distressed,
Transitional, Competitive, and Attainment. Each category is based on three
indicators of economic viability: per capita income, poverty, and unemployment.
Since 1983, the ARC has designated the most distressed counties for special funding
consideration. In 2002, ARC incorporated into its strategic plan an enhanced
program for meeting the needs of distressed counties. In FY2002, there were 118
distressed counties in 10 states, although most were in Central Appalachia
(Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Virginia). The number of distressed
counties increased each year from 1997-2002.
Annual appropriations from Congress permit the ARC to make grants to public
and private non-profit organizations in the region. Each state prepares a four-year
plan and an annual strategy statement to address the five goals in ARC’s strategic
plan: (1) education and workforce training, (2) physical infrastructure, (3) civic
capacity and leadership, (4) dynamic local economies, and (5) health care. LDDs,
39 Appalachian Regional Commission, 2002 Annual Report. Washington, D.C., ARC, 2003.
The Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) and access road construction were
designed to break Appalachia’s isolation and encourage economic development. By
FY2002, approximately 85% of the highway system was either open to traffic or under
construction. See Appalachian Highway Development Program (ADHP): An Overview.
CRS Report 98-973E, December, 1998.
40 Since FY1999, annual funding for completing the ADHS has been provided from the
federal Highway Trust Fund in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L.105-
178). This act provided annual authorization of $450 million per year through FY1999-
2003. Although funds were provided through the Highway Trust Fund, ARC exercised
programmatic control over the funds. The program was reauthorized at $470 million
annually FY2005-2009 with the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation
Equity Act of 2005 (HR3) and signed into public law on August 10, 2005.

CRS-14
governed by local government officials and leaders from the member counties,
typically assist with grant applications consistent with state and regional priorities.
Throughout its 40 years, the ARC has developed a record of helping small,
distressed communities move closer to the economic mainstream. A key element of
the ARC model is the network of 72 multi-county development districts that are
responsible for helping local officials and communities assess, plan, and implement
socioeconomic development initiatives. The ARC structure is unique because it is an
intergovernmental partnership that, while preserving a direct federal role in
investment decisions, also maintains a strong emphasis on state priorities and
decision making.
In 2002, Congress reauthorized the ARC through the Appalachian Regional
Development Act Amendments of 2002. (P.L.107-149). In addition to adding four
counties to the region, the reauthorization also included several new provisions
regarding the ARC’s activities. Among them were:

! The ARC was required to use at least half of its project funds to
benefit distressed counties;
! A new telecommunications program was authorized;
! A new Interagency Coordinating Council on Appalachia was
established to increase coordination and effectiveness of federal
funding in the region;
! An entrepreneurship initiative was authorized to encourage
entrepreneurial education, improve access to debt and equity capital,
develop a network of business incubators, and help small
communities create new strategies for small businesses;
! A new regional skills partnership program was established to
encourage collaboration among businesses, educational institutions,
state and local governments, and labor organization to improve skills
of workers in specific industries.
Tennessee Valley Authority. TVA is a unique federal corporation charged
with responsibility for regional development and power generation in the Tennessee
Valley. It is one of the largest producers of electric power in the United States and
the nation’s largest public power system. Through 158 municipal and cooperative
power distributors, TVA serves about 8.3 million people in an 80,000-square-mile
region covering Tennessee and parts of Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia,
Alabama, and Mississippi. The TVA power system consists of three nuclear-
generating plants, 11 coal-fired plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, six combustion-turbine
plants, a pumped-storage plant, and about 17,000 miles of transmission lines. TVA
also manages the Tennessee River, the nation’s fifth-largest river system, and offers
economic development and environmental assistance throughout the region.
Congress authorized the TVA with the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933
(P.L.73-17). The act created the TVA as a federal corporation to address important
problems facing the valley, such as flooding, providing electricity to homes and
businesses, and replanting forests. Other TVA responsibilities written in the act
included improving navigation on the Tennessee River and helping develop the
region’s business and farming. The establishment of the TVA marked the first time

CRS-15
that an agency was directed to address the total resource development needs of a
major region.
The President appoints three TVA Directors, who are confirmed by the Senate
and serve staggered nine-year terms. That Board of Directors has sole authority for
determining the rates that TVA and its distributors charge for power. Although TVA
was formed to build dams and improve navigation on the Tennessee River, only 11%
of its installed capacity comes from 114 hydropower units. About 65% is provided
by 59 coal-fired power plants. Another 24% percent comes from nuclear reactors.
The small remainder is derived from gas turbines.
Bringing electrical power to the Tennessee Valley was arguably the greatest
contribution to improving the social well-being of TVA residents. Even by
Depression standards, the Valley was a significantly impoverished, underdeveloped
area in 1933. Electrical power not only improved the lives of individuals, the power
attracted industry that brought relatively well-paid jobs to the Valley. Today,
although TVA is still popularly regarded as a multi-purpose agency, the great
majority of its resources are targeted to power-generation and transmission. While
it is beyond the scope of this report to assess the efficiency or effectiveness of TVA
as a regional development agency, TVA today has critics, including Members of
Congress. While Valley residents recall TVA’s role in alleviating poverty during the
Depression, many of the Valley’s contemporary residents have raised concerns about
TVA’s contribution to air pollution through its reliance on coal-fired plants,
perceived mismanagement, and a series of high-profile conflicts with Valley
residents, e.g., the Tellico Dam controversy.41
Delta Regional Authority. The Delta Regional Authority (DRA) was
authorized by the 2002 farm bill, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (P.L.
107-171). The Authority serves 240 counties and parishes in the Mississippi River
delta areas of Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, and Tennessee. Working through State Economic Development Agencies,
DRA targets economically distressed communities and assists them in leveraging
other federal and state programs focused on basic infrastructure development,
transportation improvements, business development, and job training services. The
act requires that at least 75% of funds be invested in distressed counties and parishes
and pockets of poverty, where 50% of the funds are earmarked for transportation and
basic infrastructure improvements.
The United States-Mexico Border Health Commission. In recognition
of the need for an international commission to address dire border health problems,
the Congress enacted the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission Act of
1994 (P.L.103-400). The act authorized the President of the United States to reach
41 For a discussion of critical perceptions of the TVA by Members of Congress,
TennesseeValley residents, and researchers, see Richard Munson. Restructure TVA: Why
the Tennessee Valley Authority Must Be Reformed. Northeast-Midwest Institute, 1997.
[http://www.nemw.org/tvareport.htm]; William. U. Chandler, Myth of TVA: Conservation
and Development in the Tennessee Valley, 1933 — 1983. Ballinger, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 1984.

CRS-16
an agreement with Mexico to establish a binational commission to address the unique
and severe health problems of the border region. In 1997, Congress approved funding
for a commission through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Office of International and Refugee Health. In 2000, the U.S.-Mexico Border Health
Commission (USMBHC) was created through an agreement by the U.S. Secretary of
Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Health of Mexico. In December,
2004, the USMBHC was designated as a Public International Organization by
Executive Order.42
The USMBHC comprises the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and
Mexico’s Secretary of Health, the chief health officers of the 10 border states and
prominent community health professionals from both nations. Each section, one for
the United States and one for Mexico, has 13 members. The Commissioner of each
section is the Secretary of Health from that nation. Each Commissioner may
designate a delegate. The chief state health officer of the 10 border states is a
statutory member of the Commission, and the other 14 members are appointed by the
government of each nation.
The economic burden on the two countries from increased immigration is
significant. Much of the border area is poor and health resources are scarce. Rapid
population growth is putting further pressure on an already inadequate medical care
infrastructure, which further decreases access to health care. The large and diverse
migrant population increases the incidence of communicable diseases such as
HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, as well as chronic illnesses such as diabetes, certain
cancers, and hypertension. The numerous problems and concerns affecting the
border region have broad repercussions for both nations.
The USMBHC was created to serve all the people who reside within 62 miles
on either side of the U.S.-Mexican international boundary line. The border area is
comprised of six Mexican states and four U.S. states. The original agreement was
in effect for five years (1994-1999); it is automatically extended for additional
five-year periods unless either party gives notice of withdrawal.
The Northern Great Plains Regional Authority (NGPRA). The
NGPRA is a newly created federal-state-provincial partnership that includes Iowa,
Minnesota, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, and the Provinces of Manitoba and
Saskatchewan. In 1994, Congress passed the Northern Great Plains Rural
Development Act (P.L. 103-318). The following year, the Northern Great Plains
Rural Development Commission was established. In 1997, the Commission issued
its regional development report to Congress and the Commission was sunset. Later
that year, the Commission set up an operating arm, NGP, Inc., to implement the
Commission’s recommendations. Discussions with the region’s congressional
delegation led to a plan to create a regional development authority similar to the one
Congress created for the Delta Authority. The Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (P.L.107-171, Section 6028) established the NGPRA to implement the
42 Executive Order 13367, United States-Mexico Border Health Commission. December 21,
2004.

CRS-17
Commission’s plan and authorized $30 million to be appropriated each year
(FY2002-2007) to support the Authority’s programs.
At the local level, the NGPRA relies on the existing network of the Economic
Development Administration’s (EDA) designated economic development districts
to coordinate efforts within a multi-county area. These EDA districts, known as
LDDs, are regional entities with extensive experience in assisting small
municipalities and counties improve basic infrastructure and help stimulate economic
growth. They also serve as the delivery mechanism for a variety of other federal and
state programs, such as assistance to the elderly, aging, economic development,
emergency management, small business development, telecommunications,
transportation and workforce development programs.
The NGPRA has identified four areas for its strategic planning: (1) Agriculture
and Natural Resources, (2) Economic and Policy Analysis, (3) Information
Technology, and (4) Leadership Capacity Development. Given the central role of
agriculture in the regional economy, the Authority is integrating into its planning (1)
shifts in consumer demand toward organic foods, (2) a recognition of the shift to
supply-chains in production and the corresponding need to develop identity preserved
commodities, sand (3) the emerging importance of non-food commodities, (i.e., bio-
based industrial commodities). A central objective is to turn the Great Plains into an
internationally recognized center for biomass research and use. These agricultural
plans also are grounded more broadly in transforming the transportation systems of
the region, developing local and regional leadership capacity, and expanding the
availability and use of information technologies within the region.
Denali Commission. The Denali Commission, created by the Denali
Commission Act of 1998 (P.L.105-245), is a federal-state partnership focusing on
development concerns in rural Alaska. The Commission supports job training and
other economic development services in rural communities, particularly distressed
communities, many of which have very high rates of unemployment. The
Commission also promotes rural economic development and provides power
generation and transmission facilities, modern communication systems, water and
sewer systems and other physical infrastructure needs. Project areas include energy,
health facilities, solid waste facilities, elder and teacher housing, and domestic
violence facilities.

The Governor of Alaska and a representative nominated by Congress and
appointed by the Secretary of Commerce serve as co-chairs of the Commission. The
Denali Commission Act also provides for a five member panel of statewide
organization presidents, or their designees, to be appointed by the Secretary of
Commerce. These members include the president of the University of Alaska,
president of the Alaska Municipal League, president of the Alaska Federation of
Natives, president of the Alaska State AFL-CIO, and president of the Associated
General Contractors of Alaska.
In FY2003, appropriations provided nearly $100 million in funding to the
Denali Commission. Funding sources included general appropriations for energy
and water, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability Fund, USDA Rural Utilities, the U.S.

CRS-18
Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.

CRS-19
Chapter 2 — The San Joaquin Valley and
Appalachia: A Socioeconomic Comparison
Overview. The San Joaquin Valley shares certain socioeconomic
characteristics with other U.S. regions where poverty and limited economic
development opportunities have persisted for decades. When the Appalachian
Regional Commission was created in 1965, Appalachia, especially Central
Appalachia, was practically synonymous with U.S. white, rural poverty. Forty years
and billions of public and private dollars later, the region has changed. Appalachia
has cut poverty among its population of 23 million by approximately half and
increased high school graduation rates by 70%. While socioeconomic indicators still
show the region lagging behind the United States as a whole, the deepest poverty,
isolation, and underdevelopment that characterized much of the region in the past has
lessened over the past 40 years.
Like Central Appalachia, with its historic dependence on coal mining, the San
Joaquin is historically tied to a traditional extractive economy. Extractive
economies, whether based on timber, mining, or agriculture, may produce trajectories
of development that differ from industrial forms of economic growth and change.
How that shapes the SJV’s opportunities for creating new competitive advantage is
central to an understanding of the region’s future. Some researchers have suggested
that the effects on the Appalachian region of decades of mining created its own
dynamic of development and underdevelopment.43 Research on the Central Valley
has also suggested that agriculture is producing a “landscape of inequality” there that
will become even more pronounced in the future without concerted efforts to create
new paths of economic mobility for all SJV residents.44
High unemployment and low per capita incomes have long characterized many
Appalachian counties as data in this chapter show (Table 1). Similar patterns are
observable in the SJV. The geographic isolation of Appalachia, however, is one of
the major factors in its development history. While Appalachia saw an outflow of
residents as they searched for economic opportunities that did not exist there, the SJV
has an inflow of residents due to a very high rate of immigration. However, that
immigration is characterized by relatively large numbers of poorly educated,
unskilled workers, many of whom are drawn to the area by the availability of farm
employment. Even those immigrating to the SJV from coastal areas of the state are
not necessarily bringing good jobs with them, as much as they may be seeking the
more affordable housing in the SJV. Many continue to commute significant
distances to jobs outside the SJV. Without significant opportunities for higher wage
employment, young, well-educated people will not relocate to the SJV. Rather, much
like Appalachia, an exodus of the better trained and educated may push the area into
43 Gaventa, John. Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian
Valley. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1982.
44 Taylor, J. Edward. and Philip L. Martin. “Central Valley evolving into patchwork of
poverty and prosperity.” California Agriculture, 54(1), January-February, 2000. See also,
Taylor, J. Edward, P.L. Martin, and M. Fix. Poverty Amid Prosperity: Immigration and the
Changing Face of Rural California Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1997.

CRS-20
a downward spiral. Business, and industries needing trained and educated workers
are reluctant to relocate to an area where such workers are scarce, and the trained and
educated workers that are there leave for opportunities elsewhere reinforcing the
area’s growth of low-skilled labor.
In this portion of the report, we provide a general empirical overview of the
Appalachian region relative to the SJV. We also provide a more focused comparison
between the SJV and a subregion of Appalachia, Central Appalachia, across a range
of socioeconomic indicators. This exercise shows socioeconomic similarities and
differences between two regions where poverty and economic distress have long been
in evidence. Data on variables of concern here for the entire 410 county Appalachian
region as defined by the ARC were, in most cases, not available at a county level.
While the Central Appalachian region is half the population size of the SJV (1.8
million versus 3.5 million people in 2003), for methodological reasons, the scale
between these two regions appears more appropriate than attempting a comparison
of the eight counties of the SJV with the 410 of the ARC defined Appalachian region.
There are counties within the 410 area that are so different across indicators from
more economically distressed Appalachian counties, as well as the SJV, that to
include them in aggregate measures could introduce a degree of bias that would
weaken the validity of the comparison.45
The Appalachian Regional Commission categorizes its 410 counties by
economic development criteria (Distressed, Transitional, Competitive and
Attainment) based on three indicators of economic viability: per capita market
income, poverty, and unemployment. Distressed Counties have poverty and
unemployment rates that are at least 150% of the national averages and per capita
market incomes that are no more than two-thirds of the national average. Counties
are also considered Distressed if they have poverty rates that are at least twice the
national average and they qualify on either the unemployment or income indicator.
Transitional Counties are those ARC counties that are neither Distressed,
Competitive, nor Attainment. Competitive Counties have poverty and unemployment
rates that are equal to or less than the national averages and they have per capita
market incomes that are equal to or greater than 80% percent, but less than 100% of
the national average. Attainment Counties have poverty rates, unemployment rates,
and per capita market incomes that are at least equal to the national rates (Figure 2).
The ARC defined Appalachian area includes large urban populations in metropolitan
counties and small, remote counties with no urban concentrations. In 2002, 60% of
the ARC residents lived in metropolitan counties, 25% in counties adjacent to
45 For example, Knoxville, Tennessee and State College, Pennsylvania are part of the ARC
defined region. Knoxville is the third largest metro area in Tennessee and home to the
Tennessee Valley Authority and the University of Tennessee. State College, Pennsylvania
is the site of Pennsylvania State University. These and other similar metro areas within the
ARC defined region could skew socioeconomic data significantly. While CRS is unable to
remove all potential sources of bias in this comparison, we did strive to match an identified
region in Appalachia that appears to most closely resemble the SJV. A list of the individual
Appalachian counties in our analysis is provided in Appendix D. The ARC’s Central
Appalachian area includes counties in Tennessee, Virginia, Kentucky, West Virginia, and
Ohio. The Central Appalachian region used in our analysis includes 68 of these counties,
but excludes all 29 counties from Appalachian Ohio (See Figure 2 above).

CRS-21
metropolitan counties, with the remainder in more remote rural areas. For analytical
purposes, the ARC also divides the region into three subregions: Northern
Appalachia, Central Appalachia, and Southern Appalachia. The 215-county Central
Appalachian area contains the largest proportion of rural residents of any of the
ARC’s three subregions as well as the largest number of Distressed counties.

CRS-22
Table 1. Appalachian Regional Commission County Economic Fiscal Status, 2004
Three-Year
Per Capita
Unemployment Rate,
Poverty Rate,
Average
Per Capita Market
Poverty Rate
Market Income,
Percent of U.S.
Percent of U.S.
Unemployment
Income 2000a
2000 (%)
Percent of U.S.
Average
Average
Rate 1999-2001(%)
Average
United States
4.3
$25,676
12.4
100
100
100
Appalachian
4.7
$19,736
13.6
108.3
76.9
110.2
Region
Alabama
4.9
$19,574
16.1
113.0
76.2
130.1
Appalachian
4.5
$20,489
14.4
104.5
79.8
115.9
Alabama
Georgia
3.9
$24,727
13.0
89.8
96.3
104.9
Appalachian
3.1
$23,183
9.2
71.3
90.3
74.7
Georgia
Kentucky
4.7
$19,957
15.8
108.3
77.7
127.8
Appalachian
6.3
$13,154
24.4
146.5
51.2
197.4
Kentucky
Maryland
3.8
$30,143
8.5
88.4
117.4
68.6
Appalachian
5.2
$18,381
11.7
120.7
71.6
94.1
Maryland
Mississippi
5.4
$16,915
19.9
125.5
65.9
161
Appalachian
6.1
$15,448
19.4
141.7
60.2
156.9
Mississippi
New York
4.9
$29,436
14.6
112.3
114.6
117.9
Appalachian New
4.8
$18,747
13.6
111.3
73.0
110.1
York

CRS-23
Three-Year
Per Capita
Unemployment Rate,
Poverty Rate,
Average
Per Capita Market
Poverty Rate
Market Income,
Percent of U.S.
Percent of U.S.
Unemployment
Income 2000a
2000 (%)
Percent of U.S.
Average
Average
Rate 1999-2001(%)
Average
North Carolina
4.1
$23,311
12.3
95.2
90.8
99.2
Appalachian North
3.9
$21,548
11.7
90.3
83.9
94.7
Carolina
Ohio
4.2
$23,974
10.6
97.4
93.4
85.6
Appalachian Ohio
5.7
$17,345
13.6
132.3
67.6
109.8
Pennsylvania
4.4
$24,795
11.0
102.4
96.6
88.7
Appalachian
5.0
$21,418
11.4
114.9
83.4
92.1
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
4.6
$20,370
14.1
105.8
79.3
114.0
Appalachian South
3.6
$21,893
11.7
82.8
85.3
94.7
Carolina
Tennessee
4.1
$21,866
13.5
95.7
85.2
108.9
Appalachian
4.2
$19,050
14.2
98.1
74.2
114.4
Tennessee
Virginia
2.8
$28,198
9.6
65.2
109.8
77.5
Appalachian
5.3
$15,939
15.7
122.3
62.1
127.1
Virginia
West Virginia
5.7
$16,772
17.9
131.1
65.3
144.6
Appalachian West
5.7
$16,772
17.9
131.1
65.3
144.6
Virginia
Source: Appalachian Regional Commission
a. Per capita market income (PCMI) is a measure of an area’s total personal income, less government transfer payments, divided by the resident population of the area. The percent
of the U.S. average is computed by dividing the county per capita market income by the national average and multiplying by 100.

CRS-24
Figure 2. The Appalachian Regional Commission Area and its
Distressed Counties
Central Appalachia, as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
Economic Research Service, is a 68 county area in parts of Virginia (7 counties),
Tennessee (9 counties), Kentucky (43 counties), and West Virginia (9 counties).
This particular subregion of Appalachia was used as a case comparison to the SJV
across several socioeconomic variables because 45 (66%) of Central Appalachia’s

CRS-25
68 counties are Distressed counties.46 Because the counties of this subregion are
among the most impoverished of the ARC area, we regard the comparison as a more
reliable contrast to the SJV. The data presented in this chapter are drawn from public
sources, (e.g., Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of
the Census, Census of Agriculture, and ARC). A list of sources and websites can be
found in Appendix B as well as in notes accompanying individual tables. In some
cases, the data were not available because they were not collected at the county level,
or could not be accurately aggregated across the 68-county region. In those cases, we
have used state data as a comparative point. Data for 2003 are from the American
Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long
questionnaire of the decennial census.
Socioeconomic Indicators in the SJV and Appalachia, 1980-
2003
A previous section provided an introduction and overview of contemporary
research on the policy issues facing the SJV. Rapid population growth, high rates of
immigration, low per capita and household income, high unemployment, low
educational achievement, weak economic diversity outside production agriculture,
and urban sprawl are among the central concerns of the SJV. While other regions in
the United States reveal similar distress, (e.g., the Rio Grande area, the Delta South,
and Native American reservations in the Great Plains), the SJV is not an area that
first comes to mind as one of concentrated poverty. This section of the report
provides a detailed examination of the socioeconomic conditions in the SJV over the
past 23 years. These indicators reveal the area as one lagging significantly behind
California, the United States, and, across many variables, the Central Appalachian
region as well. Statistics are presented in tables below based on each of the past three
decennial censuses, 1980, 1990, 2000, and, when available, for 2003-2004. Data
include indicators on labor and employment, poverty and income, disease prevalence,
educational attainment, and crime. For particular variables, geographic information
system maps of these data were created to show the graphic contrast between the SJV
counties and other California counties.
County and Regional Population Characteristics. The SJV population
is growing rapidly. In 2003, over 3.5 million people resided in the SJV, an increase
of 1.5 million since 1980, a population increase of 75.0%. Each of the SJV counties
exceeded the national rate of population growth between 1980-1990, 1990-2000, and
1990-2003 (Table 2). While California has also had relatively higher population
46 The ARC has used the distressed county designation for almost twenty years to identify
counties with the most structurally disadvantaged economies. Up to 30% of ARC’s Area
Development Funds are targeted to distressed counties through allocation of ARC grants to
distressed counties, requiring only a 20% match from the state and/or local government,
which is lower than the state/local match required from non-distressed counties. From 1983,
the inception of the distressed counties program, through 1999 the ARC provided $266
million dollars in single-county grants to distressed counties. This sum constituted 42% of
such single-county grants awarded across Appalachia. See Wood, Lawrence E. and Gregory
A. Bischak. Progress and Challenges in Reducing Economic Distress in Appalachia: An
analysis of National and Regional Trends Since 1960. Washington, DC: ARC, 2000.

CRS-26
growth rates than the national average, each SJV county substantially outpaced the
growth of California between 1980-2000. Madera County alone more than doubled
its population between 1980 and 2003. The adjacent counties of Mariposa and
Tuolumne also have had generally higher growth rates than either California or the
United States from 1980-2000. San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties now have
population densities considerably higher than the California average (Table 3). With
the high proportion of federal land in Mariposa and Tuolumne, these counties have
had relatively stable population densities compared to the SJV.
In marked contrast, Central Appalachia’s population declined 5.7% between
1980-1990, losing 52,000 people during that decade. The SJV grew by 34% in that
decade. Between 1990-2003, Central Appalachia grew by less than 3%, effectively
recovering about 1,000 persons more than it lost the previous decade. This rate is
considerably less than the Appalachian states as a whole, except for West Virginia,
which grew by just under 1% (Table 4).
The SJV population is projected to grow by 14.3% between 2003 and 2010
compared to projected growth rates of 10.6% for California and 6.2% for the United
States (Table 5). Projected population growth for the SJV between 2003 and 2020
is 39.0% compared to a growth rate of 15.5% for the United States and 23.6% for
California. Population growth between 2003-2020 for Mariposa and Tuolumne
counties is projected to be about the same as the national average but less than
California. Table 6 shows that Central Appalachia is projected to grow only 5.5%
between 2003 and 2020 and 2.3% between 2003-2010. If these projections prove
accurate, Central Appalachia will have a net gain of 98,000 people by 2020 and the
SJV a gain of 398,000. With the exception of West Virginia, Central Appalachia is
projected to grow between one-third and one-fourth below its respective state
population growth.
As noted earlier, immigration has been a major source of the population growth
in the SJV. As Table 7 and Table 8 show, California and the SJV’s towns and cities
have highly mobile populations, although they are not substantially different from the
United States as a whole, except for the fact that in the United States as a whole, a
much larger percent of those who moved in the previous year came from a different
state. For the 2002 through 2004 period, over 30% of the SJV metropolitan
population who moved during the previous year either lived in another California
county (16.1%), lived in a different state (8.0%), or lived abroad (6.7%). Most who
moved in the previous year, however, moved within the same county.
Nearly 20% of the SJV’s population in 2000 was foreign born (Table 9).
Almost one-quarter of the population of Merced was foreign born. In 1980, less than
14% were foreign born in that county. While these are relatively high percentages
compared to the United States percent of population that was foreign-born (11.1%),
the SJV had a lower percentage of foreign-born than California (26.2%). Mariposa
and Tuolumne counties had 2.8% and 3.2% respectively who were foreign-born.
Whether foreign-born or not, in 2000 nearly 40% of the SJV population identified
itself as Hispanic in origin, compared to 32.4% of California and 12.5% of the United
States (Table 10). I 2003, over 54% in Tulare County and 46% in Fresno County
identified themselves as Hispanic in origin. Since 1980, all the SJV counties have
increased the proportion of their population who identified themselves as Hispanic

CRS-27
in origin. In 1980, less than 6% of the SJV population was Mexican-born. By 2000,
13.5% were Mexican-born (Table 11). Each of the SJV counties have more than
doubled the percentage of their Mexican-born populations since 1980. This is true
of California as well. The United States more than tripled its Mexican-born
population between 1980 and 2003. Figure 3 shows the percent change in the
Mexican-born population by California county, 1990-2000.
Three additional tables show the distribution of the SJV population by race, sex,
and age, 1980-2003. From 1980-2003, the proportion of those in the SJV who
identified themselves as either Black, American Indian, or Native Alaskan have
remained small and stable (Table 12). Asian and Pacific Islanders more than
doubled from 2.9% in 1980 to 6.3% in 2000. Most of the increases in Asian and
Pacific Islanders were in Fresno, Merced, and San Joaquin counties with Fresno
County seeing the largest increase between 1980 and 2000 (63%) followed by San
Joaquin County (46%). The U.S. Census category of “Other” increased significantly
in the SJV, from 14% to over 23%. The proportion of the SJV population identifying
themselves as White declined from 77.6% in 1980 to 59.1% in 2000. Declines in the
proportion of those identifying themselves as White were evident in half of the SJV
counties between 1980 and 2000. In 2003, Fresno, Kern, San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
and Tulare counties registered increases in the proportion of the population who
identified themselves as White, as did California. Mariposa and Tuolumne counties
have the lowest proportions of their population who identify themselves as Black,
Native American Indian and Native Alaskan, Asian and Pacific Islanders, and Other.
Their population distribution by race was relatively stable between 1980 and 2000.
The distribution of the SJV population by sex in 2000 showed a slight male
bias, 50.2% versus 49.8% (Table 13). The population distribution of males and
females in California is 49.6% and 50.4% respectively. The male bias is very
pronounced in Kings county with 57.4% male and 42.6% female. Tuolumne County
also had a slight distributional bias toward males (52.6%). The sex distribution for
the United States was, like California, biased toward females, 48.9% males to 51.1%
female.
The SJV population is a relatively young population compared to many areas
of the United States, especially most rural areas. In 2000, the proportion of the U.S.
population 65 and older was 12.4%, while in California, that population stratum was
10.6% (Table 14). In the SJV, the proportion aged 65 and older was 9.9%. In Kings
County, the 65 and older accounted for just 7.5% of the population. As Table 13
showed, Kings County also has a high male proportion. That characteristic, along
with the age distribution shown in Table 14, suggest the county has a relatively high
proportion of men, especially in the prime labor cohort of 25-54 years old. The 25-
54 year old cohort in Kings County is the largest in the SJV. While the proportion
of this cohort is the largest in each SJV counties, the proportion is somewhat lower
than that of California, except for Kings County. Mariposa and Tuolumne counties,
in contrast, have very high proportions of their population 65 and older, substantially
higher than the proportions in the United States and California.
Appalachia’s Demographic Structure. In 2000, approximately 31% of
U.S. residents identified themselves as a member of a minority group. In the ARC
region, however, racial and ethnic minorities comprised only about 12% of the

CRS-28
population. Of the 2.8 million minority Appalachians, 66% (1.8 million) were non-
Hispanic black, with Hispanics making up another sixth (465,000).47 In the ARC-
defined Central Appalachian area, only 4% identified themselves as minorities.
Southern Appalachia, with a 19% minority population, was the most diverse region
of the ARC.
In-migration has been a key factor in the ARC’s increase in racial and ethnic
diversity. More than half of Appalachia’s Hispanic and Asian residents and one-third
of its American Indians and multiracial persons had moved since 1995-either into the
region or from another Appalachian county. Among Appalachia’s black population,
just under one-fifth had migrated from another county between 1995 and 2000-only
slightly higher than the percentage for non-Hispanic whites.48
Appalachia has a higher proportion of elderly than either the SJV or the United
States as a whole. In 2000, 14.3% of Appalachian residents were ages 65 and over,
compared with 12.4% of all U.S. residents. In the SJV, just under 10% of the
population in 2000 was age 65 or older. Northern Appalachia had the oldest
population among the ARC subregions, with 16% ages 65 and over. West Virginia,
all of which is in the ARC area, ranked third among states in 2000 in the percentage
of its population ages 65 and over; only Florida ranked higher.49 The “youth deficit”
in the Appalachian region is fairly evenly divided between the school-age and
working-age populations, both of which are slightly lower than the corresponding
national percentages.50 Given current trends, regional demographic projections show
that the ARC area will have over 5 million people ages 65 and over in 2025, nearly
20% of the total population. One of every 40 Appalachian residents will be among
the oldest old, those ages 85 and over, in 2025.51
47 Pollard, Kelvin. Appalachia at the Millennium: An Overview of Results from Census
2000. Population Reference Bureau, June, 2000.
[http://www.arc.gov/images/reports/census2000/overview/appalachia_census2000.pdf]
48 Pollard, Kelvin. A “New Diversity”: Race and Ethnicity in the Appalachian Region.
Population Reference Bureau, September, 2004.
[http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=2310]
49 Haaga, John. The Aging of Appalachia. Population Reference Bureau, April, 2004.
[http://www.arc.gov/images/reports/aging/aging.pdf]
50 Ibid., p.7.
51 Ibid., p.9.

CRS-29
Table 2. Population: United States, California, and Counties of
the SJV, 1980-2003
Population
(in 1000s)
Percent change
1980- 1990- 1990-
1980
1990
2000
2003
1990 2000 2003
SJV
2,048
2,744
3,303
3,583
34.0
20.4
30.6
Fresno County
515
667
799
850
29.7
19.8
27.4
Kern County
403
545
662
713
35.2
21.4
30.8
Kings County
74
101
129
139
37.6
27.6
36.6
Madera County
63
88
123
133
39.6
39.8
51.5
Merced County
135
178
211
232
32.6
18.0
29.8
San Joaquin County
347
481
564
633
38.4
17.3
31.7
Stanislaus County
266
371
447
492
39.3
20.6
32.8
Tulare County
246
312
368
391
26.9
18.0
25.3
Adjacent counties
Mariposa County
11
14
17
18
28.8
19.8
24.5
Tuolumne County
34
48
55
57
42.8
12.5
17.1
California
23,668
29,758
33,872
35,484
25.7
13.8
19.2
United States
226,542 248,718 281,422 290,810
9.8
13.1
16.9
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and
Housing, United States Summary, PHC-3-1, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2004, p. 44; and U.S.
Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov].

CRS-30
Table 3. Population Density: United States, California, and
Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
(population per square mile)
1980
1990
2000
2003
SJV
75
101
121
131
Fresno County
86
112
134
143
Kern County
50
67
81
88
Kings County
53
73
93
100
Madera County
30
41
58
62
Merced County
70
92
109
120
San Joaquin County
248
343
403
452
Stanislaus County
178
248
299
329
Tulare County
51
65
76
81
Adjacent counties
Mariposa County
8
10
12
12
Tuolumne County
15
22
24
25
California
151
191
217
228
United States
64
70
80
82
Source: Population data are from Table 2. Land area data are from U.S. Department of Commerce,
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Population and Housing
Characteristics, PHC-1-1, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2002, p. 11; U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Population and Housing
Unit Counts, United States, CPS-2-1, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2002, p. 116; and U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of the Population, Characteristics of
the Population, Number of Inhabitants, California, PC80-1-A6, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
1982, p. 6.8, available at [http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1980a_caAB-01.pdf].

CRS-31
Table 4. Population: United States, Kentucky, Virginia,
Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Appalachian Counties of
the Appalachian Regional Commission, 1980-2003
Population
(in 1000s)
Percent change
1980-
1990-
1990-
1980
1990
2000
2003
1990
2000
2003
Central ARC Counties
1,837
1,732
1,783
1,785
-5.7
3.0
2.9
Kentucky
3,660
3,687
4,042
4,118
0.7
9.6
10.5
Tennessee
4,591
4,877
5,689
5,842
6.2
16.7
16.5
Virginia
5,347
6,189
7,079
7,386
15.8
14.4
16.2
West Virginia
1,950
1,793
1,808
1,810
-8.0
0.8
0.9

United States
226,54
248,71
281,42
290,81
9.8
13.1
16.9
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and
Housing, United States Summary, PHC-3-1, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2004, p. 44; and U.S.
Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov].

CRS-32
Table 5. Population Projections: United States, California, and
Counties of the SJV, to 2010 and 2020
Population
Population
projections
(in 1000s)
(in 1000s)
Percent
Percent
change,
change,
2003
2010
2020
2003-2010 2003-2020
SJV
3,583
4,097
4,981
14.3
39.0
Fresno County
850
950
1,115
11.7
31.1
Kern County
713
809
950
13.4
33.2
Kings County
139
156
185
12.8
33.3
Madera County
133
150
184
12.6
37.8
Merced County
232
278
361
19.9
55.8
San Joaquin County
633
747
989
18.1
56.4
Stanislaus County
492
559
654
13.6
32.8
Tulare County
391
447
544
14.5
39.1
Adjacent counties
Mariposa County
18
19
21
4.5
15.8
Tuolumne County
57
60
65
5.5
15.3
California
35,484
39,247
43,852
10.6
23.6
United States
290,810
308,936
335,805
6.2
15.5
Sources: Projections of U.S. population growth are from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census, U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, available at
[http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/popproj.html]. Projections for California are
from the State of California, Department of Finance, Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity for
California and Its Counties 2000-2050, Sacramento, California, May 2004, available at
[http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/demograp/dru_publications/projections/p1.htm].

CRS-33
Table 6. Population Projections: United States, Kentucky,
Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the
Appalachian Regional Commission, to 2010 and 2020
Population
Population
projections
(in 1000s)
(in 1000s)
Percent
Percent
change,
change,
2003
2010
2020
2003-2010 2003-2020
Central ARC Counties
1,785
1,826
1,883
2.3
5.5
Kentucky
4,118
4,326
4,661
5.1
13.2
Tennessee
5,842
6,426
7,195
10.0
23.2
Virginia
7,386
7,893
8,602
6.9
16.5
West Virginia
1,810
1,769
1,826
-2.3
0.9
United States
290,810
308,936
335,805
6.2
15.5
Sources: Projections of U.S. population growth are from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census, U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, available at
[http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/popproj.html]. Projections for Kentucky are
from Kentucky State Data Center and Kentucky Population Research, Population Projections,
available at [ksdc.louisville.edu]. Projections for Tennessee are from Tennessee Advisory
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and the University of Tennessee Center for Business and
Economic Research, Population Projections for the State of Tennessee, 2005-2025, available at
[cber.bus.utk.edu/census/tnpopdat.htm]. Projections for Virginia are from Virginia Employment
C o m m i s s i o n ,
C o u n t y / C i t y / S t a t e P o p u l a t i o n D a t a , a v a i l a b l e a t
[http://www.vec.virginia.gov/pdf/pop_projs.pdf].
Projections for West Virginia are from West Virginia University, Regional Research Institute,
Population Estimates and Projections, available at [http://www.rri.wvu.edu/wvpop4.htm].

CRS-34
Table 7. Estimated Percent of the Population That Moved
During the Previous Year: United States, California, and
Metropolitan Statistical Areas of the SJV, 1989-2004
1989-1991
1999-2001
2002-2004
SJV MSAs
Percent Who Moved
20.0%
19.1% a
18.0%
Percent Who Lived Elsewhere in the
19.2%
17.6%
16.7%
Percent Who Lived Abroad
0.7%
1.5%
1.2%
California
Percent Who Moved
21.6%
17.0%
15.5%
Percent Who Lived Elsewhere in the
20.0%
16.0%
14.6%
Percent Who Lived Abroad
1.5%
1.0%
0.9%
United States
Percent Who Moved
17.5%
15.4%
14.2%
Percent Who Lived Elsewhere in the
16.9%
14.8%
13.7%
Percent Who Lived Abroad
0.6%
0.6%
0.5%
Source: Estimates calculated by CRS from the March Current Population Surveys (CPS) for 1989-
1991, 1999-2001, and 2002-2004.
Notes: In order to increase the sample sizes, all estimates are three-year averages. An MSA consists
of an urban center (or centers) and adjacent communities that have a high degree of economic and
social integration.
a. Data for 1998 and later years may not be comparable to data for 1988-1990. Data for 1998 and
later years include an MSA for Merced County. For 1998 and later, the Fresno MSA includes
both Fresno and Madera counties.

CRS-35
Table 8. Estimates of Where Persons Who Moved During the
Previous Year Lived One Year Earlier: United States, California,
and Metropolitan Statistical Areas of
the SJV, 1989-2004
1989-1991
1999-2001
2002-2004
SJV MSAs
Lived in the same county
72.7%
70.5% a
69.1%
Lived in a different county in California
18.4%
13.3%
16.1%
Lived in a different state
5.2%
8.3%
8.0%
Lived abroad
3.7%
7.9%
6.7%
California
Lived in the same county
64.0%
66.9%
62.1%
Lived in a different county in California
18.9%
18.6%
22.7%
Lived in a different state
9.9%
8.6%
9.7%
Lived abroad
7.2%
5.9%
5.5%
United States
Lived in the same county
60.4%
57.3%
58.0%
Lived in a different county in the
same state
18.7%
19.8%
19.7%
Lived in a different state
17.4%
19.0%
18.9%
Lived abroad
3.5%
3.9%
3.4%
Source: Estimates calculated by CRS from the March Current Population Surveys (CPS) for 1989-
1991, 1999-2001, and 2002-2004.
Notes: In order to increase the sample sizes, all estimates are three-year averages. An MSA consists
of an urban center (or centers) and adjacent communities that have a high degree of economic and
social integration. Details may not sum to 100% because of rounding.
a. Data for 1998 and later years may not be comparable to data for 1988-1990. Data for 1998 and
later years include an MSA for Merced County. For 1998 and later, the Fresno MSA includes
both Fresno and Madera counties.

CRS-36
Table 9. Percent of the Population Foreign-Born: United
States, California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
SJV
10.4%
15.8%
19.8%
Fresno
10.6%
17.8%
21.1%
19.5%
Kern
8.6%
12.2%
16.9%
18.1%
Kings
10.5%
14.1%
16.0%
Madera
9.8%
14.9%
20.1%
Merced
13.8%
19.8%
24.8%
San Joaquin
10.6%
16.4%
19.5%
21.8%
Stanislaus
10.0%
14.3%
18.3%
17.0%
Tulare
11.3%
17.6%
22.6%
23.1%
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
3.1%
2.6%
2.8%
Tuolumne
3.2%
4.0%
3.2%
California
15.1%
21.7%
26.2%
26.5%
United States
6.2%
7.9%
11.1%
11.9%
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of
Population and Housing: Summary Social, Economic and Housing Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off, 1992; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population: General
Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Notes: Foreign-born persons include both naturalized U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens. Non-
citizens include legal permanent residents, non-immigrants who are in the United States temporarily
(e.g., on business or as students), and unauthorized aliens. Data for 2003 are from the American
Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long questionnaire of the
decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all counties.

CRS-37
Table 10. Percent of Population of Hispanic Origin: United
States, California, and the Counties of
the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
SJV
22.9%
29.6%
39.8%
Fresno
29.2%
34.7%
44.1%
46.2%
Kern
21.6%
27.7%
38.4%
41.8%
Kings
NA
33.4%
43.6%
Madera
27.1%
34.2%
44.3%
Merced
25.3%
32.0%
45.4%
San Joaquin
19.2%
22.7%
30.5%
33.5%
Stanislaus
15.0%
21.6%
31.8%
36.2%
Tulare
29.8%
38.2%
50.8%
54.2%
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
4.3%
4.8%
7.5%
Tuolumne
5.2%
8.0%
8.1%
California
19.2%
25.4%
32.4%
34.6%
United States
6.4%
8.8%
12.5%
13.9%
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Notes: A person of Hispanic origin may be of any race. Data for 2003 are from the American
Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long questionnaire of the
decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all counties.

CRS-38
Table 11. Percent of the Population Mexican-Born: United
States, California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
SJV
5.6%
8.8%
13.5%
Fresno
6.0%
9.9%
14.0%
12.3%
Kern
5.2%
8.1%
12.6%
11.8%
Kings
5.5%
9.2%
12.7%
Madera
6.4%
11.6%
17.4%
Merced
7.8%
10.9%
17.3%
San Joaquin
4.0%
6.0%
10.0%
11.2%
Stanislaus
4.3%
6.8%
11.4%
9.9%
Tulare
7.6%
12.5%
18.6%
19.2%
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
0.4%
0.2%
0.6%
Tuolumne
0.5%
1.4%
0.6%
California
5.4%
8.3%
11.6%
11.4%
United States
1.0%
1.7%
3.3%
3.5%
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of
Population: Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1993; U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population: General Social and Economic
Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Note: Data for 2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned
replacement for the long questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover
all counties.

CRS-39
Figure 3. Percent Change in Mexican-Born Population by County,
1990-2000
Data Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census

CRS-40
Table 12. Distribution of Population by Race: United States,
California, and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000 a
2003 a
SJV
White
77.6%
69.6%
59.1%
Black
4.2%
4.4%
4.7%
American Indian and Native Alaskan
1.3%
1.2%
1.4%
Asian and Pacific Islander
2.9%
6.8%
6.3%
Other
14.0%
18.0%
23.3%
Two or more races
5.3%
Fresno County
White
74.8%
63.5%
54.1%
70.9%
Black
5.0%
4.9%
5.1%
5.1%
American Indian and Native Alaskan
1.2%
1.1%
1.6%
1.0%
Asian and Pacific Islander
3.0%
8.6%
8.1%
8.4%
Other
16.0%
21.9%
26.0%
10.5%
Two or more races
5.1%
4.0%
Kern County
White
77.4%
69.8%
61.4%
77.4%
Black
5.2%
5.5%
5.9%
5.4%
American Indian and Native Alaskan
1.7%
1.3%
1.4%
1.3%
Asian and Pacific Islander
2.0%
3.0%
3.4%
3.6%
Other
13.7%
20.3%
23.5%
10.1%
Two or more races
4.5%
2.3%
Kings County
White
75.3%
63.9%
53.5%
Black
4.9%
8.3%
8.1%
American Indian and Native Alaskan NA
1.5%
1.6%
Asian and Pacific Islander
NA
3.6%
3.1%
Other
19.8%
22.7%
28.4%
Two or more races
5.2%
Madera County
White
75.7%
72.2%
62.5%
Black
3.4%
2.8%
3.9%
American Indian and Native Alaskan
1.8%
1.5%
2.6%
Asian and Pacific Islander
1.1%
1.4%
1.5%
Other
18.0%
22.0%
24.3%
Two or more races
5.2%

CRS-41
1980
1990
2000 a
2003 a
Merced County
White
77.9%
67.5%
55.8%
Black
5.0%
4.9%
3.7%
American Indian and Native Alaskan
1.0%
0.9%
1.0%
Asian and Pacific Islander
2.4%
8.3%
7.1%
Other
13.7%
18.3%
26.2%
Two or more races
6.2%
San Joaquin County
White
76.8%
73.5%
57.9%
68.9%
Black
5.6%
5.6%
6.5%
7.0%
American Indian and Native Alaskan
1.3%
1.2%
1.0%
1.2%
Asian and Pacific Islander
6.3%
12.4%
11.9%
14.4%
Other
10.1%
7.2%
16.5%
5.8%
Two or more races
6.2%
2.6%
Stanislaus County
White
88.1%
80.4%
69.1%
80.7%
Black
1.2%
1.6%
2.4%
2.8%
American Indian and Native Alaskan
1.7%
1.2%
1.2%
1.0%
Asian and Pacific Islander
1.7%
5.1%
4.5%
4.8%
Other
7.2%
11.7%
16.9%
8.2%
Two or more races
6.0%
2.5%
Tulare County
White
74.4%
65.9%
57.9%
64.3%
Black
1.5%
1.5%
1.7%
1.5%
American Indian and Native Alaskan
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
0.9%
Asian and Pacific Islander
2.1%
4.4%
3.4%
3.3%
Other
20.8%
27.0%
31.0%
27.2%
Two or more races
4.6%
2.7%
Adjacent Counties
Mariposa County
White
NA
92.4%
88.4%
Black
NA
1.0%
0.6%
American Indian and Native Alaskan NA
4.5%
3.1%
Asian and Pacific Islander
NA
0.9%
0.7%
Other
NA
1.2%
2.9%
Two or more races
4.3%

CRS-42
1980
1990
2000 a
2003 a
Tuolumne County
White
94.7%
90.6%
89.4%
Black
NA
3.1%
2.3%
American Indian and Native Alaskan
1.6%
2.2%
1.8%
Asian and Pacific Islander
NA
0.8%
0.9%
Other
3.7%
3.4%
2.6%
Two or more races
3.0%
California
White
77.0%
69.1%
59.4%
66.2%
Black
7.7%
7.4%
6.6%
6.2%
American Indian and Native Alaskan
1.0%
0.8%
0.9%
0.8%
Asian and Pacific Islander
5.5%
9.6%
11.2%
12.2%
Other
8.8%
13.1%
16.9%
11.6%
Two or more races
5.0%
2.9%
United States
White
83.4%
80.3%
75.1%
76.2%
Black
11.7%
12.0%
12.2%
12.1%
American Indian and Native Alaskan
0.7%
0.8%
0.9%
0.8%
Asian and Pacific Islander
1.6%
2.9%
3.7%
4.3%
Other
2.5%
3.9%
5.5%
4.8%
Two or more races
2.6%
1.9%
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Note: Details may not sum to 100% because of rounding. Data for 2003 are from the American
Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long questionnaire of the
decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all counties.

CRS-43
Table 13. Distribution of Population by Gender: United States,
California, and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
SJV
Male
49.5%
50.0%
50.2%
Female
50.5%
50.0%
49.8%
Fresno County
Male
49.2%
49.4%
49.9%
49.9%
Female
50.8%
50.6%
50.1%
50.1%
Kern County
Male
49.8%
50.3%
51.2%
49.9%
Female
50.2%
49.7%
48.8%
50.1%
Kings County
Male
50.5%
53.7%
57.4%
Female
49.5%
46.3%
42.6%
Madera County
Male
50.5%
50.4%
47.6%
Female
49.5%
49.6%
52.4%
Merced County
Male
50.2%
50.5%
49.6%
Female
49.8%
49.5%
50.4%
San Joaquin County
Male
49.4%
50.6%
49.8%
49.5%
Female
50.6%
49.4%
50.2%
50.5%
Stanislaus County
Male
48.9%
49.0%
49.1%
49.6%
Female
51.1%
51.0%
50.9%
50.4%
Tulare County
Male
49.4%
49.6%
49.8%
50.0%
Female
50.6%
50.4%
50.2%
50.0%
Adjacent Counties
Mariposa County
Male
51.0%
49.2%
50.7%
Female
49.0%
50.8%
49.3%

CRS-44
1980
1990
2000
2003
Tuolumne County
Male
50.8%
53.2%
52.6%
Female
49.2%
46.8%
47.4%
California
Male
49.3%
50.0%
49.7%
49.6%
Female
50.7%
50.0%
50.3%
50.4%
United States
Male
48.6%
48.7%
49.0%
48.9%
Female
51.4%
51.3%
51.0%
51.1%
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Note: Data for 2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned
replacement for the long questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all
counties.

CRS-45
Table 14. Distribution of Population by Age: United States,
California, and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
SJV
Less Than 5
8.6%
9.2%
8.2%
5 to 14
16.3%
17.7%
18.4%
15-24
19.0%
14.6%
15.5%
25-54 (prime age)
36.9%
41.0%
40.9%
55-64
9.0%
7.2%
7.1%
65 and over
10.2%
10.3%
9.9%
Fresno County
Less Than 5
8.3%
9.3%
8.4%
8.2%
5 to 14
15.8%
17.6%
18.4%
17.5%
15-24
19.7%
15.3%
16.3%
16.6%
25-54 (prime age)
37.3%
40.4%
40.3%
40.4%
55-64
8.8%
7.1%
6.8%
7.7%
65 and over
10.0%
10.2%
9.9%
9.5%
Kern County
Less Than 5
8.9%
9.6%
8.3%
8.5%
5 to 14
16.3%
17.6%
18.4%
17.9%
15-24
18.8%
14.1%
15.3%
16.4%
25-54 (prime age)
37.0%
41.8%
41.6%
39.9%
55-64
9.2%
7.2%
7.0%
8.1%
65 and over
9.7%
9.7%
9.4%
9.1%
Kings County
Less Than 5
9.8%
9.3%
7.9%
5 to 14
17.4%
17.1%
16.5%
15-24
20.5%
16.1%
16.1%
25-54 (prime age)
36.4%
43.7%
46.1%
55-64
7.3%
6.1%
5.9%
65 and over
8.6%
7.7%
7.5%
Madera County
Less Than 5
9.2%
8.4%
7.6%
5 to 14
17.4%
18.0%
16.8%
15-24
16.4%
13.4%
14.8%
25-54 (prime age)
36.9%
39.4%
41.8%
55-64
9.2%
8.7%
8.2%

CRS-46
1980
1990
2000
2003
65 and over
10.9%
12.1%
10.7%
Merced County
Less Than 5
9.4%
10.1%
8.7%
5 to 14
17.2%
19.2%
20.2%
15-24
20.4%
15.3%
15.7%
25-54 (prime age)
36.2%
39.1%
39.1%
55-64
8.2%
7.1%
6.9%
65 and over
8.5%
9.2%
9.4%
San Joaquin County
Less Than 5
7.8%
8.6%
7.8%
7.7%
5 to 14
15.7%
16.6%
18.0%
17.2%
15-24
18.4%
14.5%
15.0%
15.7%
25-54 (prime age)
37.1%
41.7%
41.2%
41.7%
55-64
9.7%
7.5%
7.4%
8.4%
65 and over
11.2%
11.1%
10.6%
9.4%
Stanislaus County
Less Than 5
8.2%
9.1%
7.9%
8.0%
5 to 14
16.1%
17.2%
18.2%
16.7%
15-24
18.4%
13.8%
14.7%
15.7%
25-54 (prime age)
37.5%
41.7%
41.5%
42.0%
55-64
9.0%
7.2%
7.3%
8.2%
65 and over
10.9%
10.9%
10.4%
9.4%
Tulare County
Less Than 5
9.2%
9.3%
8.9%
9.1%
5 to 14
17.5%
19.0%
19.3%
18.3%
15-24
18.5%
14.7%
16.2%
17.0%
25-54 (prime age)
35.1%
39.2%
39.0%
38.9%
55-64
9.1%
7.1%
7.0%
7.7%
65 and over
10.7%
10.7%
9.7%
9.1%
Adjacent Counties
Mariposa County
Less Than 5
5.3%
6.3%
4.8%
5 to 14
13.0%
12.8%
13.0%
15-24
16.6%
9.7%
11.0%
25-54 (prime age)
37.4%
41.9%
41.3%
55-64
12.3%
11.4%
12.9%

CRS-47
1980
1990
2000
2003
65 and over
15.4%
17.8%
17.0%
Tuolumne County
Less Than 5
6.5%
5.7%
4.7%
5 to 14
13.7%
13.4%
11.8%
15-24
15.5%
10.7%
12.1%
25-54 (prime age)
38.3%
42.9%
41.6%
55-64
12.4%
10.9%
11.4%
65 and over
13.7%
16.5%
18.5%
California
Less Than 5
7.2%
8.0%
7.2%
7.3%
5 to 14
14.6%
14.2%
15.8%
15.4%
15-24
18.9%
15.0%
14.1%
13.9%
25-54 (prime age)
39.9%
44.8%
44.7%
44.3%
55-64
9.3%
7.5%
7.6%
8.9%
65 and over
10.1%
10.5%
10.6%
10.3%
United States
Less Than 5
7.2%
7.3%
6.8%
7.0%
5 to 14
15.4%
14.2%
14.6%
14.5%
15-24
18.7%
14.6%
13.8%
13.4%
25-54 (prime age)
37.8%
42.8%
43.7%
43.4%
55-64
9.6%
8.5%
8.6%
9.8%
65 and over
11.3%
12.5%
12.4%
12.0%
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983. Data for
2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long
questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all counties
Note: Details may not sum to 100% because of rounding. Data for 2003 are from the American
Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long questionnaire of
the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all counties.
County and Regional Poverty Rates. Socioeconomic conditions in the
SJV as measured by a range of variables (including per capita income, poverty,
unemployment rates, median household income, Medicaid and Food Stamp
participation rates, and sources of personal income) reveal an area that falls
significantly below national and California averages. The 2000 poverty rate for the
SJV (20.5%), for example, was higher than the national rate (12.4%), California
(14.2%), and the 410 county ARC region (13.6%) (Table 15 and Table 16). While
the SJV’s poverty rate was somewhat closer both to the national and California

CRS-48
averages in 1980, the SJV counties saw significant increases in their poverty rates by
1990. These high rates continued to increase during the 1990s and increased between
1990 and 2000. However, in 2003, the rates declined somewhat in the 5 counties for
which there were data, as they did in California. Poverty rates in the United States,
however, rose slightly between 2000 and 2003. The two adjacent counties of
Mariposa and Tuolumne had 2000 poverty rates of 14.8% and 11.4% respectively.
Figure 4 maps county poverty rates for the SJV and other California counties.
Poverty rates for the entire 410 county ARC region, 1980-2000, were significantly
lower than those of the San Joaquin counties, although some Appalachian states had
poverty rates comparable to the SJV. ARC poverty rates were about 2.5 percentage
points higher than the United States during the decades 1980-2000, although ARC
area poverty rates did vary by state (Table 17).
Figure 4. Percent of Persons Below Poverty Level by County (2000)
Data Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
Turning to the 68 counties of Central Appalachia, the picture is different. In
1980, Central Appalachia had a poverty rate of 23.0% compared to a rate in the SJV
of 13.9%. In 1990, poverty rates for both Central Appalachia and the SJV had risen
to 26.9% and 18.3% respectively. Central Appalachia’s poverty rate was also higher
than the rate for all the Appalachian parts of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and
West Virginia in 1980, 1990, and 2000 (Table 16 and Table 17). By 2000, Central
Appalachia’s poverty rate had fallen to 23.2% while the SJV rate had increased to
20.5%. In 2003, some counties of the SJV also had somewhat lower poverty rates

CRS-49
than were evident in 2000. Poverty rates also fell in the four Appalachian states
where the 68 counties are located (Table 17).
For the entire ARC defined region, the 1980 poverty rate was 14.1% (Table 16).
This ARC-wide rate was lower than the rate for all the Appalachian parts of
Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia in 1980. Kentucky’s Appalachian
region alone had a poverty rate of 26%, highest among all 13 state Appalachian
regions (Table 17). The ARC-wide rate, 1990-2000, was always higher than the
U.S. rate, showing that Appalachia today still represents a region that is more
impoverished than the United States as a whole. By 2000, the ARC-wide region’s
poverty rate declined to 13.6%, still lower than the poverty rates for all the
Appalachian parts of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. This
relatively low rate of the ARC-wide region suggests the possible statistical skewing
that this analysis tried to avoid by focusing predominantly on the 68 county Central
Appalachian area.

CRS-50
Table 15. Portion of the Population Below Poverty: United
States, California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
SJV
13.9%
18.3%
20.5%
NA
Fresno
14.5%
21.4%
22.9%
21.8%
Kern
12.6%
16.9%
20.8%
18.1%
Kings
14.6%
18.2%
19.5%
Madera
15.7%
17.5%
21.4%
Merced
14.7%
19.9%
21.7%
San Joaquin
13.3%
15.7%
17.7%
14.2%
Stanislaus
11.9%
14.1%
16.0%
12.9%
Tulare
16.5%
22.6%
23.9%
22.9%
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
11.5%
12.7%
14.8%
Tuolumne
11.9%
9.1%
11.4%
California
11.4%
12.5%
14.2%
13.4%
United States
12.4%
13.1%
12.4%
12.7%
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.

Note: Data for 2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned
replacement for the long questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all
counties.

CRS-51
Table 16. Appalachian Regional Commission Poverty Rates,
1980-2000
Persons for
Persons
Whom
Percent of
Below
Poverty
State
Year
Poverty
U.S.
Poverty
Rate
Status is
Average
Level
Determined
Totals, Appalachian Portion of the State
Alabama
1980
2,421,498
408,883
16.9
136.1
1990
2,510,095
404,533
16.1
122.9
2000
2,767,821
397,223
14.4
115.9
Georgia
1980
1,124,481
140,896
12.5
101
1990
1,520,643
154,611
10.2
77.5
2000
2,169,854
200,543
9.2
74.7
Kentucky
1980
1,081,384
281,333
26
209.7
1990
1,045,741
303,238
29
221
2000
1,109,411
271,113
24.4
197.4
Maryland
1980
211,771
25,296
11.9
96.3
1990
212,688
26,481
12.5
94.9
2000
220,722
25,719
11.7
94.1
Mississippi
1980
542,150
125,151
23.1
186.1
1990
551,305
129,538
23.5
179.1
2000
598,698
116,283
19.4
156.9
New York
1980
1,031,537
124,156
12
97
1990
1,034,063
133,032
12.9
98.1
2000
1,016,532
138,586
13.6
110.1
North
1980
1,187,272
164,175
13.8
111.5
Carolina
1990
1,270,693
158,185
12.4
94.9
2000
1,482,507
173,822
11.7
94.7
Ohio
1980
1,346,905
169,992
12.6
101.8
1990
1,334,561
232,297
17.4
132.7
2000
1,409,519
191,502
13.6
109.8

CRS-52
Persons for
Persons
Whom
Percent of
Below
Poverty
State
Year
Poverty
U.S.
Poverty
Rate
Status is
Average
Level
Determined
Totals, Appalachian Portion of the State
Pennsylvania
1980
5,847,250
586,629
10
80.9
1990
5,593,189
696,729
12.5
95
2000
5,613,487
639,853
11.4
92.1
South
1980
770,339
96,995
12.6
101.5
Carolina
1990
862,416
99,634
11.6
88.1
2000
1,000,780
117,314
11.7
94.7
Tennessee
1980
2,029,828
337,437
16.6
134
1990
2,095,424
337,709
16.1
122.9
2000
2,420,962
342,706
14.2
114.4
Virginia
1980
637,134
99,104
15.6
125.4
1990
614,437
112,245
18.3
139.3
2000
638,257
100,438
15.7
127.1
West
1980
1,914,081
286,995
15
120.9
Virginia
1990
1,755,331
345,093
19.7
149.9
2000
1,763,866
315,794
17.9
144.6
United
1980
220,845,766
27,392,580
12.4
100
States
1990
241,997,859
31,742,864
13.1
100
2000
273,882,232
33,899,812
12.4
100
ARC Region
1980
20,145,630
2,847,042
14.1
113.9
1990
20,400,586
3,133,325
15.4
117.1
2000
20,212,416
3,030,896
13.6
110.2
Source: Appalachian Regional Commission

CRS-53
Table 17. Portion of the Population Below Poverty: United
States, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and
Central Counties of the ARC, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
Central ARC Counties
23.0%
26.9%
23.2%
NA
Kentucky
17.6%
19.0%
15.8%
17.4%
Tennessee
16.5%
15.7%
13.5%
13.8%
Virginia
11.8%
10.2%
9.6%
9.0%
West Virginia
15.0%
19.7%
17.9%
18.5%
United States
12.4%
13.1%
12.4%
12.7%
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder,
available at [http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
1980 Census of Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1983.
Other Poverty Measures: Food Stamps, Public Assistance Income,
Health Insurance, and Medicaid. Poverty rates provide one useful perspective
on socioeconomic well-being. Poverty rates use income thresholds weighted for
different household sizes. Other indicators of a region’s degree of poverty can
include the proportion of the population receiving food stamps, the percent of
households reporting public assistance income, the population without health
insurance, and the percent of the population enrolled in Medicaid. Medicaid, for
example, is consistent with an income maintenance program because payments are
made to households with lower income, or with medical expenses that are beyond the
household’s financial capacity. These can be imperfect regional measures, however,
because the percent of a population receiving assistance from some social welfare
program may be, and often is, lower than the percent of the population that is actually
eligible by income level to receive assistance under the particular program. For
example, immigrants may be unaware of their eligibility for particular programs, or,
if they are knowledgeable, fail to take advantage of the assistance. According to the
Appalachian Service Project in Johnson City, Tennessee, a 1992 survey of a 10-
county area in southwestern Virginia found that of 90,197 families qualified for food

CRS-54
stamps, only 51,649 received food stamp assistance.52 Still, these additional
indicators can serve as supporting evidence about the depth and breadth of regional
poverty.
Food Stamps. The inability to buy sufficient food is a significant indicator
of poverty. Food stamp eligibility indicates an income insufficient to purchase
adequate food. Data on the SJV’s MSAs three-year averages of food stamp use show
that the SJV has a higher percent of households receiving food stamps than either
California or the United States (Table 18). In the period 1988-1990, 12.1% of SJV
households within MSAs received food stamps, compared to 5% of households in
California and 7.2% of households in the United States. Food stamp use increased
to 13% in the period 1998-2000, while the percent of households receiving food
stamps fell in the United States to 5.6% and rose only slightly in California to 5.1%.53
Households receiving food stamps in the SJV fell in the period 2001-2003 to 8.1%,
trending in the same direction as households in the state, which fell to 3.8%. In each
of the three sampling periods, the Visalia-Tulare-Porterville MSA had the highest
proportion of households receiving food stamps. In the period 2001-2003, that MSA
had 15.6% of its households receiving food stamps, down from 19.1% in the 1998-
2000 period. The Merced MSA saw a significant increase in the 1998-2000 period,
rising from 8.2% of households in 1988-1990 to 15.8% of households in 1998-2000.
In the period 2001-2003, however, the percent of households receiving food stamps
fell to 8.1%. The Stockton-Lodi MSA saw a steady decrease in the percent of
households receiving food stamps in the three sampling periods, declining from
10.5% to 8.3% to 3.8% respectively. The Bakersfield MSA also had a significant
decrease in the 2001-2003 period, declining to 6.1% of households in 2001-2003
from 14.0% of households in 1998-2000.
Comparable data on household food stamp participation rates across the 68
Central Appalachian counties were not available. Other data on the ARC-defined
Appalachian region in general, and Central Appalachia especially, indicate an area
where food stamps use is high. Per capita funding for food stamps in the 410 county
ARC area was $120.26 in 1990, declining 36% to a per capita expenditure of $77.34
in 2000. For the United States, per capita food stamp funding was $92.00 in 1990,
52 A 2004 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report discussed state efforts to
increase food stamp participation rates among those who are eligible. See Food Stamp
Program: Steps Have Been Taken to Increase Participation of Working Families, but Better
Tracking of Efforts Is Needed. GAO 04-236, March, 2004.
53 The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act limited
social welfare benefits to three months in three years for able-bodied adults aged 18-50
without dependents (ABAWD). States, however, were permitted waivers for areas of high
unemployment. California did not have an “ABAWD waiver” to help ABAWDs get
assistance and ABAWD participation fell significantly. The state legislature passed SB 68
in July, 2005 which automatically requires the state to seek a waiver for eligible counties
to the extent permitted by federal law. Given the relatively high proportion of single
farmworkers in the SJV, this measure may provide food stamps to thousands of SJV
residents in coming years.

CRS-55
declining to $59.06 in 2000.54 The 215 county Central Appalachian area as defined
by the ARC, which includes th 68 counties profiled in this chapter, had the highest
per capita expenditures for food stamps among the ARC’s three subareas. Per capita
funding on food stamps in the ARC’s Central Appalachian subregion was $199.26
in 1990, declining to $139.25 in 2000.
54 Black, Dan A. And Seth G. Sanders. Labor Market Performance, Poverty, and Income
Inequality in Appalachia. Report prepared by the ARC and the Population Reference
Bureau. September, 2004.

CRS-56
Table 18. Percent of Households Receiving Food Stamps:
United States, California, and the MSAs of the SJV, 1988-2003
1988-1990
1998-2000
2001-2003
SJV
12.1%
13.0% a
8.1%
Bakersfield (Kern County)
9.6%
14.0%
6.1%
Fresno (Fresno County 1989-1991;
Fresno and Madera Counties later years)
14.8%
13.8%
9.1%
Merced (Merced County)
8.2%
15.8%
8.9%
Modesto (Stanislaus County)
NA
8.2%
6.7%
Stockton-Lodi (San Joaquin County)
10.5%
8.3%
3.8%
Visalia-Tulare-Porterville
(Tulare County)
16.3%
19.1%
15.6%
California
5.0%
5.1%
3.8%
United States
7.2%
5.6%
5.7%
Source: Calculated by CRS from the March Current Population Surveys (CPS) for 1989-1991, 1999-
2001, and 2002-2004. The March CPS collects food stamp information for the previous year.
Notes: In order to increase the sample sizes for each Metropolitan Statistical Area all estimates are
three-year averages. An MSA consists of an urban center (or centers) and adjacent communities that
have a high degree of economic and social integration.
a. Data for 1998 and later years may not be comparable to data for 1988-1990. Data for 1998 and
later years include an MSA for Merced County. For 1998 and later, the Fresno MSA includes
both Fresno and Madera counties.
Public Assistance Income. The percentage of households in the SJV
reporting public assistance income is higher than for California and for the United
States (Table 19). Nearly 14% of households in the SJV received public assistance
income in 1980 and received higher average amounts in most of the counties than the
national or state averages. By 2000, the proportion of households receiving public
assistance income had fallen to 7.8%, down from 15.5% in 1990. Average amounts
of assistance received also fell from $6,384 to $4,808. Data from those SJV counties
reported by the U.S. Census in 2003 showed further declines in the proportion of
county households receiving public assistance income, although the average amounts
increased slightly (Note: Tulare County increased slightly from 8.6% to 8.7%).
Figure 5 maps public assistance income data for the SJV in 2000 and contrast it with
other California counties.
The percentage of households reporting public assistance income is higher in
the SJV than the percentage reporting public assistance income in Central Appalachia

CRS-57
(Table 20). In 1980, 12.8% of Central Appalachian households received public
assistance averaging $2,259. By 2000, only 5.9% of Central Appalachian households
were receiving public assistance income, and the average amounts were lower than
they were 20 years earlier, $2,130. In the four Appalachian states, the proportion of
households receiving public assistance income in 2003 was also lower than it was in
the eight counties of the SJV.

CRS-58
Table 19. Public Assistance Income: United States, California,
and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
households with
households with
households with
households with
public assistance
Average
public assistance
Average
public assistance
Average
public assistance
Average
income
amount
income
amount
income
amount
income
amount
SJV
13.7%
$3,096
15.5%
$6,384
7.8%
$4,808
NA
NA
Fresno
13.4%
$3,230
16.5%
$6,636
8.5%
$4,969
5.8%
$5,060
Kern
11.8%
$2,860
13.1%
$5,595
7.5%
$4,471
6.8%
$5,282
Kings
13.8%
$3,060
15.8%
$5,765
7.6%
$4,124
Madera
14.5%
$3,086
14.9%
$5,505
8.0%
$5,024
Merced
14.0%
$3,158
16.7%
$6,714
9.1%
$5,113
San Joaquin
14.1%
$3,172
15.6%
$7,300
7.2%
$4,964
5.4%
$4,527
Stanislaus
13.3%
$2,888
14.2%
$6,260
6.3%
$4,699
3.7%
$3,022
Tulare
16.8%
$3,226
18.2%
$5,967
8.6%
$4,819
8.7%
$5,618
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
10.6%
$2,832
12.2
$5,197
5.0%
$4,476
Tuolumne
8.0%
$2,785
10.6
$5,889
4.3%
$4,156
California
9.6%
$3,036
9.4
$5,972
4.9%
$4,819
3.6%
$4,896
United States
8.0%
$2,518
7.5
$4,078
3.4%
$3,032
2.5%
$3,084
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at [http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
1980 Census of Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Note: Data for 2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover
all counties.

CRS-59
Table 20. Public Assistance Income: United States, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia,
and Central Counties of the ARC, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
households with
households with
households with
households with
public assistance
Average
public assistance
Average
public assistance
Average
public assistance
Average
income
amount
income
amount
income
amount
income
amount
Central ARC Counties
12.8%
$2,259
13.9%
$3,499
5.9%
$2,130
NA
NA
Kentucky
9.7%
$2,038
9.6%
$3,282
3.8%
$2,174
2.0%
$2,363
Tennessee
9.3%
$1,905
8.4%
$3,035
3.5%
$1,984
2.6%
$1,603
Virginia
6.6%
$2,166
5.4%
$3,394
2.5%
$2,242
1.8%
$2,528
West Virginia
8.7%
$2,348
9.7%
$3,545
4.0%
$2,019
3.1%
$2,588
United States
8.0%
$2,518
7.5%
$4,078
3.4%
$3,032
2.5%
$3,084
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at [http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
1980 Census of Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.

CRS-60
Figure 5. Percent of Households Receiving Public Assistance by
County (2000)
Data Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census

CRS-61
Health Insurance. A 2000 study by the Urban Institute found that 14%
percent of U.S. urban residents under age 65 were without health insurance.55 In
2001-2003, 15.2% of the U.S. population were uninsured and 18.7% of the
California population were uninsured. Table 21 shows that the SJV MSAs,
California, and the United States each saw a significant increase in the percent
uninsured between 1988-1990 and 2001-2003. The SJV’s share of its population
without health insurance increased from 12.9% to 20.0% during that time period.
California’s portion of its population without health insurance increased from 14.9%
to 18.7%, while the share of the United States population without health insurance
increased from 10.8% to 15.2%.
Health insurance among low-income individuals is of particular concern in the
SJV. Between 1999 and 2002, public health insurance coverage increased among
two groups of low-income U.S.-citizen children: (1) those with parents who are
native or naturalized U.S. citizens and (2) those with at least one immigrant parent
who is not a U.S. citizen (referred to as mixed-status families). The improvements
in coverage followed efforts on the part of the states and the federal government to
expand coverage of children under Medicaid and the State Children’s Health
Insurance Program (SCHIP) and the introduction of policies directed at improving
Medicaid and SCHIP access for immigrant and non-English speaking families. Still,
nearly 20% of citizen children in low-income mixed-status families remained
uninsured in 2002. This is a rate 74% percent higher than that of children with
citizen parents.56 U.S. Census data in 2003 also showed that 33% of Hispanics
nationally are without health insurance.57
While the percentage of the SJV metropolitan population without health
insurance increased only slightly in the 2001-2003 period, particular MSAs in the
SJV saw larger increases. Fresno’s percent of its population without health insurance
increased to 22.6% in 2001-2003, up from 18.7% in 1998-2000. The percentage of
Modesto residents without insurance also increased, from 15.2% in 1998-2000 to
18.6% in 2001-2003. The percentage without health insurance fell significantly in
Bakersfield, falling from 20.5% in 1998-2000 to 15.7% in 2001-2003.
Data on the percentage of residents without health insurance in the 68 largely
rural Central Appalachian counties were not available. However, rural areas
nationally have rates of uninsured significantly higher than those for urban areas. The
percentage of rural businesses that have health insurance is generally lower than the
rate in urban areas. Table 22 shows that the percentage of the population without
health insurance in each of the four Appalachian states that include the 68 counties
was lower than for both California and the SJV in each three-year sampling period,
55 Ormond, Barbara, Stephen Zuckerman, and Aparna Lhila, “Rural/Urban Differences in
Health Care Are Not Uniform Across States,” Assessing the New Federalism Brief B-11.
Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute. May, 2000.
56 Capps, Randolph, Genevieve M. Kenney, and Michael E. Fix. Health Insurance
Coverage of Children in Mixed-Status Immigrant Families. Washington D.C.: Urban
Institute. November, 2003.
57 U.S. Bureau of the Census. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the
United States: 2003. August, 2004.

CRS-62
1988-2003. In 2001-2003, West Virginia had the highest percentage of uninsured,
14.8% of its population while the SJV in that period had 20.0% of its population
without health insurance. In some cases, the proportion of uninsured in SJV
metropolitan areas was almost double the rate in some Appalachian states. Central
Appalachian counties, being poorer and more rural, likely had insurance rates lower
than for their respective states.
Medicaid. Additional detail on the extent of poverty in a region as measured
by participation in various income maintenance programs can be provided through
indicators of Medicaid enrollment (Table 23). Consistent with poverty indicators
presented earlier, the SJV has a significant proportion of its residents enrolled in
Medicaid. In the three-year sampling period, 2001-2003, the SJV had nearly 23% of
the population enrolled in Medicaid compared to 14.4% of California and 11.7% of
U.S. residents. Some MSAs in the SJV had rates over 25%. The percentage of
Visalia-Tulare-Porterville’s population enrolled in Medicaid was 34% in 2001-2003,
up from 30.4% in 1998-2000, and 21.1% in 1988-1990. With the exception of
Stockton-Lodi, which saw its percentage of Medicaid enrollment decline from 24.4%
in 1988-1990 to 17.8% in 2001-2003, each of the other SJV MSAs saw increases
during that time frame.
County data on Medicaid enrollments were not available for Central Appalachia.
The respective Appalachian states, however, each had Medicaid enrollments
significantly lower than the SJV region.

CRS-63
Table 21. Percent of Population Without Health Insurance:
United States, California, and the MSAs of the SJV, 1988-2003
1988-1990
1998-2000
2001-2003
SJV
12.9%
19.8% a
20.0%
Bakersfield (Kern County)
12.2%
20.5%
15.7%
Fresno (Fresno County 1989-1991;
Fresno and Madera Counties later years)
15.6%
18.7%
22.6%
Merced (Merced County)
NA
21.4%
18.3%
Modesto (Stanislaus County)
8.8%
15.2%
18.6%
Stockton-Lodi (San Joaquin County)
8.4%
19.6%
20.3%
Visalia-Tulare-Porterville
(Tulare County)
17.4%
24.6%
23.6%
California
14.9%
20.3%
18.7%
United States
10.8%
15.3%
15.2%
Sources: Calculated by CRS from the March Current Population Surveys (CPS) for 1989-1991,
1999-2001, and 2002-2004. The March CPS collects health insurance information for the previous
year.
Notes: Beginning in March 2000, the CPS asked respondents who reported that they were not covered
by a health insurance plan whether they were, in fact, uninsured. This verification question lowered
the reported number of uninsured persons. In order to increase the sample sizes for each MSA, all
estimates are three-year averages. An MSA consists of an urban center (or centers) and adjacent
communities that have a high degree of economic and social integration.
a. Data for 1998 and later years may not be comparable to data for 1988-1990. Data for 1998 and
later years include an MSA for Merced County. For 1998 and later, the Fresno MSA includes
both Fresno and Madera counties.

CRS-64
Table 22. Percent of Population Without Health Insurance:
United States, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia,
and Central Counties of the ARC, 1988-2003
1988-1990
1998-2000
2001-2003
Central ARC Counties
NA
NA
NA
Kentucky
10.9%
13.8%
13.3%
Tennessee
10.5%
11.6%
11.8%
Virginia
10.0%
13.7%
12.5%
West Virginia
10.9%
16.1%
14.8%
United States
10.8%
15.3%
15.2%
Sources: Calculated by CRS from the March Current Population Surveys (CPS) for 1989-1991,
1999-2001, and 2002-2004. The March CPS collects health insurance information for the previous
year.
Notes: Beginning in March 2000, the CPS asked respondents who reported that they were not covered
by a health insurance plan whether they were, in fact, uninsured. This verification question lowered
the reported number of uninsured persons. In order to increase the sample sizes for each state, all
estimates are three-year averages.

CRS-65
Table 23. Percent of the Population Enrolled in Medicaid:
United States, California, and MSAs of the SJV, 1988-2003
1988-1990
1998-2000
2001-2003
SJV
20.6%
24.2% a
22.9%
Bakersfield (Kern County)
17.9%
23.9%
20.0%
Fresno (Fresno County 1989-1991;
Fresno and Madera Counties later years)
23.5%
24.0%
25.1%
Merced (Merced County)
25.1%
25.0%
Modesto (Stanislaus County)
14.9%
19.9%
16.2%
Stockton-Lodi (San Joaquin County)
24.4%
22.8%
17.8%
Visalia-Tulare-Porterville
(Tulare County)
21.1%
30.4%
34.0%
California
11.0%
13.2%
14.4%
United States
8.3%
10.3%
11.7%
Sources: Calculated by CRS from the March Current Population Surveys (CPS) for 1989-1991,
1999-2001, and 2002-2004. The March CPS collects health insurance information for the previous
year.
Notes: The estimates from the March CPS of the number of Medicaid enrollees are lower than the
count of Medicaid enrollees from administrative records. In order to increase the sample sizes for
each MSA, all estimates are three-year averages. An MSA consists of an urban center (or centers) and
adjacent communities that have a high degree of economic and social integration.
a. Data for 1998 and later years may not be comparable to data for 1988-1990. Data for 1998 and
later years include an MSA for Merced County. For 1998 and later, the Fresno MSA includes
both Fresno and Madera counties.

CRS-66
Table 24. Percent of the Population Enrolled in Medicaid:
United States, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia,
and Central Counties of the ARC, 1988-2003
1988-1990
1998-2000
2001-2003
Central ARC Counties
NA
NA
NA
Kentucky
9.0%
10.2%
12.7%
Tennessee
11.6%
18.0%
18.0%
Virginia
6.4%
5.1%
7.3%
West Virginia
10.0%
14.4%
16.3%
United States
8.3%
10.3%
11.7%
Sources: Calculated by CRS from the March Current Population Surveys (CPS) for 1989-1991,
1999-2001, and 2002-2004. The March CPS collects health insurance information for the previous
year.
Notes: The estimates from the March CPS of the number of Medicaid enrollees are lower than the
count of Medicaid enrollees from administrative records. In order to increase the sample sizes for
each state, all estimates are three-year averages.
County and Regional Employment and Income Measures. The
number of employed persons 16 and over has increased in the SJV from 813,000 in
1980 to 1.22 million in 2000 (Table 25), an increase of 49.8% and much higher than
for California during that time period (38.3%). The largest absolute increase was in
Fresno County (87,000) and San Joaquin County (83,000), followed by Kern County
(70,000) and Stanislaus County (68,000). Mariposa and Tuolumne counties saw
increased total employment during that time of 3,000 and 8,000 respectively. Those
persons counted as employed may be employed with full or part-time jobs or hold
more than one job. In the 68 Central Appalachian counties, the number of employed
persons 16 and over increased from 562,000 in 1980 to 634,000 in 2000, an increase
of 12.8%, a significantly lower rate than observed in the SJV (Table 26). Most of
that 72,000 increase in employed persons occurred between 1990 and 2000.
The labor force participation rate estimates the number of 16-and-over persons
in the labor force divided by the size of the corresponding population. The labor
force participation rate in the SJV declined from 60.5% in 1980 to 58.6% in 2000
(Table 27). The participation rate declined or increased only sightly in each SJV
county, 1980-2000. Between 1980 and 1990, California’s labor force participation

CRS-67
rate increased somewhat, as did the United States, but both fell between 1990 and
2000. Between 2000-2003, labor participation rates in the SJV increased somewhat,
with Kern and San Joaquin county participation rates increasing the most in
percentage terms. Mariposa County increased from 55.0% to 57.7% between 1980
and 2000. Tuolumne County fell from a rate of 52.0% to 49.4%. In contrast to the
SJV, the Central Appalachia counties saw increases in their labor force participation
rate over the 1980-2000 period, from 47.8% to 49.2% (Table 28). The rates in each
of the respective states also increased during that time frame and from 2000-2003 as
well.
For persons 16 and over, the SJV civilian unemployment rate grew from 9.5%
1980 to 11.9% in 2000 (Table 29). The rate for California over that period increased
from 6.5% to 7.0%. In the United States, the civilian unemployment rate fell from
6.5% in 1980 to 5.8% in 2000, although the rates for both California and the United
States increased from 2000-2003. Each county within the SJV, except Stanislaus
County, saw increases in their unemployment rates between 1980-1990, and 1990-
2000. Stanislaus County saw a decline in its employment rate, from 12.7% in 1980
to 10.0% in 1990, to 11.7% in 2000. Unemployment also fell in Fresno, Kern,
Stanislaus, and Tulare counties between 2000 and 2003. In the Central Appalachian
counties, the unemployment rate fell from 10.6% in 1980 to 8.2% in 2000 (Table
30). Kentucky and West Virginia had the highest unemployment rates in 1980 and,
although they fell between 1980 and 2000, they still had the highest rates among the
four states. Although each of the states also saw increases in their unemployment
rates since 2000, Central Appalachia had higher unemployment rates than any of the
respective states.

CRS-68
Table 25. Employment in the United States, California,
and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
(number of persons 16 and over, in 1000s)
1980
1990
2000
2003
SJV
813
1,082
1,218
NA
Fresno
214
270
301
340
Kern
162
215
232
271
Kings
26
33
40
Madera
24
33
42
Merced
49
66
75
San Joaquin
136
196
219
261
Stanislaus
106
151
174
199
Tulare
95
119
134
152
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
4
6
7
Tuolumne
12
18
20
California
10,640
13,996
14,719
15,638
United States
97,639
115,681
129,722
132,422
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov];U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Notes: Data refer to the number of persons employed. A person may be employed full-time or part-
time or hold more than one job. The Census Bureau considers people over the age of 16 to be
employed if they are either “at work” or “with a job, but not at work.” “At work” refers to people who
did any work during the reference week as paid employees, worked in their own business or
profession, worked on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers on a family farm
or in a family business. “With a job, but not at work” includes people who did not work during the
reference week, but had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent. Excluded from
the employed are people whose only activity consisted of repair work or housework around their
homes or unpaid volunteer work for religious or charitable organizations. Also excluded are people
on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces. The reference week is the full calendar week proceeding the
date on which the respondent completed the census questionnaire. Data for 2003 are from the
American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long questionnaire of
the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all counties.

CRS-69
Table 26. Employment in the United States, Kentucky, Virginia,
Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the ARC,
1980-2003
(number of persons 16 and over, in 1000s)
1980
1990
2000
2003
Central ARC Counties
562
580
634
NA
Kentucky
1,388
1,564
1,798
1,770
Tennessee
1,915
2,251
2,652
2,715
Virginia
2,348
3,028
3,413
3,524
West Virginia
689
671
733
723
United States
97,639
115,681
129,722
132,422
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov];U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Notes: Data refer to the number of persons employed. A person may be employed full-time or part-
time or hold more than one job. The Census Bureau considers people over the age of 16 to be
employed if they are either “at work” or “with a job, but not at work.” “At work” refers to people who
did any work during the reference week as paid employees, worked in their own business or
profession, worked on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers on a family farm
or in a family business. “With a job, but not at work” includes people who did not work during the
reference week, but had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent. Excluded from
the employed are people whose only activity consisted of repair work or housework around their
homes or unpaid volunteer work for religious or charitable organizations. Also excluded are people
on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces. The reference week is the full calendar week proceeding the
date on which the respondent completed the census questionnaire.

CRS-70
Table 27. Labor Force Participation Rate: United States,
California, and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
(persons 16 and over)
1980
1990
2000
2003
SJV
60.5%
61.6%
58.6%
NA
Fresno
61.7%
62.5%
59.8%
63.2%
Kern
60.7%
62.0%
56.2%
63.0%
Kings
60.1%
53.9%
49.3%
Madera
59.0%
59.5%
53.5%
Merced
60.6%
62.2%
59.5%
San Joaquin
58.5%
60.9%
59.8%
64.9%
Stanislaus
61.7%
62.8%
61.2%
61.9%
Tulare
59.3%
61.1%
59.8%
62.6%
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
55.0%
55.5%
57.7%
Tuolumne
52.0%
49.3%
49.4%
California
63.7%
66.6%
62.2%
65.2%
United States
61.6%
64.9%
63.7%
65.9%
Sources:. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Note: The labor force participation rate is the number of persons in the labor force divided by the size
of the corresponding population. The labor force includes all persons classified as being in the civilian
labor force (that is, “employed” and “unemployed” persons), plus members of the U.S. Armed Forces
— people on active duty in the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. Data for
2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long
questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all counties.

CRS-71
Table 28. Labor Force Participation Rate: United States,
Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central
Counties of the ARC, 1980-2003
(persons 16 and over)
1980
1990
2000
2003
Central ARC Counties
47.8%
49.6%
49.2%
NA
Kentucky
56.6%
60.1%
60.7%
61.5%
Tennessee
60.2%
63.8%
63.3%
65.5%
Virginia
62.9%
67.8%
66.0%
67.9%
West Virginia
51.6%
52.9%
54.4%
55.4%
United States
61.6%
64.9%
63.7%
65.9%
Sources:. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Note: The labor force participation rate is the number of persons in the labor force divided by the size
of the corresponding population. The labor force includes all persons classified as being in the civilian
labor force (that is, “employed” and “unemployed” persons), plus members of the U.S. Armed Forces
— people on active duty in the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. Data for
2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long
questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all counties.

CRS-72
Table 29. Civilian Unemployment Rates: United States,
California, and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
(persons 16 and over)
1980
1990
2000
2003
SJV
9.5%
9.8%
11.9%
NA
Fresno
8.9%
9.5%
11.8%
11.0%
Kern
7.7%
9.7%
12.0%
11.0%
Kings
8.8%
10.7%
13.6%
Madera
10.2%
11.9%
13.2%
Merced
11.0%
10.6%
13.1%
San Joaquin
10.2%
8.8%
10.3%
10.4%
Stanislaus
12.7%
10.0%
11.7%
10.5%
Tulare
8.6%
10.7%
12.7%
10.5%
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
8.3%
6.7%
14.1%
Tuolumne
12.5%
7.6%
7.7%
California
6.5%
6.6%
7.0%
8.5%
United States
6.5%
6.3%
5.8%
7.6%
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Note: Employment status is for persons 16 and over and refers to the week preceding the date the
census questionnaire was competed. The Census Bureau classifies civilians 16 years old and over as
unemployed if they (1) were not employed at a job during the reference week, and (2) were looking
for work during the last four weeks, and (3) were available to start a job. Also included as unemployed
are civilians 16 years old and over who did not work at all during the reference week, or who were
waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off, or who were available for work
except for temporary illness. Data for 2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which
is the planned replacement for the long questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not
cover all counties.

CRS-73
Table 30. Civilian Unemployment Rates: United States,
Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central
Counties of the ARC, 1980-2003
(persons 16 and over)
1980
1990
2000
2003
Central ARC Counties
10.6%
11.1%
8.2%
NA
Kentucky
8.5%
7.4%
5.7%
7.5%
Tennessee
7.4%
6.4%
5.5%
6.9%
Virginia
5.0%
4.5%
4.2%
5.7%
West Virginia
8.4%
9.6%
7.3%
8.4%
United States
6.5%
6.3%
5.8%
7.6%
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Note: Employment status is for persons 16 and over and refers to the week preceding the date the
census questionnaire was competed. The Census Bureau classifies civilians 16 years old and over as
unemployed if they (1) were not employed at a job during the reference week, and (2) were looking
for work during the last four weeks, and (3) were available to start a job. Also included as unemployed
are civilians 16 years old and over who did not work at all during the reference week, or who were
waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off, or who were available for work
except for temporary illness.
Per Capita Income. Per capita income in the SJV grew 133% between 1980
and 2000, from $6,780 to $15,798. The SJV’s per capita income rose to 73% of the
national per capita income in 2000 (Table 31). This gain was less than the per capita
income growth during that time for California (174%) and the United States (196%)
(Table 31). (Per capita income among the SJV counties for which there are data
continued to grow between 2000-2003). Kings County’s per capita income growth
was the highest in the SJV, increasing from $5,843 in 1980 to $15,848 in 2000, a
171% increase. Mariposa County’s per capita income growth was 172%, increasing
from $6,676 in 1980 to $18,190 in 2000. Tuolumne County’s growth was even
higher at 212%. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Madera was
among the 10 lowest MSAs in terms of per capita personal income in 2003, ranking
353rd out of a total of 361 MSAs. The other five MSAs in the SJV also ranked low
in per capita personal income compared to other U.S. metropolitan areas: Bakersfield

CRS-74
(338th), Fresno (310th), Modesto (311th), Stockton (304th), Visalia-Tulare-Porterville
(346th).58
For the Central Appalachian counties, per capita income grew from $5,087 in
1980 to $13,911 in 2000, almost 14% less in dollar terms than the SJV, but a total
increase of 173% compared to 133% in the SJV (Table 32). Per capita market
income in the ARC defined area, however, was $19,736 in 2000, about 77% of the
national average (Table 1).
Median Family Income. Family income is the sum of income received by
all family members in a household. In each of the SJV counties, median family
income better than doubled between 1980 and 2000, although all SJV counties, with
a range from $36,297 to $46,919, were below the 2000 national median family
income level ($50,046) and that of California ($53,025) (Table 33). The two
adjacent counties (Mariposa and Tuolumne) also had 2000 median family income
levels lower than both California and the national level. San Joaquin County had the
highest median family income in 2000 ($46,919) followed by Stanislaus County
($44,703). Between 2000-2003, San Joaquin grew to $50,922, still slightly higher
than Stanislaus County ($49,431). California’s median family income grew 146%
between 1980 and 2000, from $21,537 to $53,025. Between 2000 and 2003,
California’s median family income grew to $56,530. On average, median family
income in the SJV in 2000 was approximately $13,000 less than the median family
income of California (Figure 6).
58 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, April, 2005. [http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel]
/MPINewsRelease.htm.

CRS-75
Figure 6. Median Family Income By County
Data Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
Aggregate data on median family income across the 68 Central Appalachian
counties were not available. A 2004 study of health conditions in the ARC, however,
calculated median family incomes for the 410-county Appalachian region.59 For
Appalachian counties, median family income ranged from $11,110 to $48,000 in
1990. The median family income for non-Appalachian U.S. counties ranged from
$10,903 to $65,201. The high end of median family income in the ARC was higher
than for any SJV county, California, or the United States. In 2000 the median family
income for non-Appalachian U.S. counties ranged from $14,167 to $97,225. For
Appalachian counties, median family income ranged from $18,034 to $74,003 in
2000. Given the high proportion of Distressed counties among the Central
Appalachian counties (45 of the 68), median family income is more likely to be at the
lower end of the above ranges for both 1990 and 2000. If so, median family income
in Central Appalachia was likely lower in 1990 and 2000 than it was in the SJV. In
2000, median family incomes for the four Appalachian states ranged from $36,484
to $56,169 (Table 34). For the SJV, median family income ranged from $36,297 to
$46,919 in 2000.
59 Havel, Joel. An Analysis of Disparities in Health Care Status and Access to Health Care
in the Appalachian Region. Washington, D.C.: ARC, September, 2004. Report available
at [http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=2376].

CRS-76
Average Family Income. Median family income measures the point where
50% of the families has a greater amount of income and 50% has a lesser amount of
income. Although a median family income value could not be calculated for the
entire 68-county Central Appalachian area or the SJV, calculating average family
income is possible. If there is high family income variance among families within
a particular geographic area, however, the average family income figure will be
biased, (i.e., a few very high income families in a region of largely poor families
portrays a higher regional family average). Less variance among family incomes will
make an average figure a more accurate portrayal of a region’s family income level.
In 2000, the average family income in the SJV was $52,854, a 144% increase
from 1980 and a 37% increase from 1990 (Table 35). At $63,541, San Joaquin
County had the highest average family income in 2003 of the counties for which data
were available. Average income in each county grew significantly between 1980 and
2000. Income between 1980 and 2000 grew 134% in Fresno County,132 % in Kern
County, 157% in Kings County, 148% in Madera County, 142% in Merced County,
165% in San Joaquin County, 151% in Stanislaus County, and 142% in Tulare
County. During the same time span, average family income grew in California by
182 %, about the same rate as that for the United States (180%) but much higher than
the SJV’s rate of 144%. By 2000, average income for the SJV was 73.4% of
California’s average family income ($52,854 vs. $71,951).
Central Appalachia’s average family income in 2000 was $39,503, about 75%
of the average family income in the SJV (Table 36). In 1980, Central Appalachia’s
average family income was 22.7 % lower than the SJV’s average, and in 1990, it was
31.6 % lower than the average in the SJV. Central Appalachia’s average income
grew 136% between 1980 and 2000, somewhat less than the growth rate for the SJV
(144%). West Virginia, with the lowest per capita income and the lowest median
family income (Table 33 and Table 34), also had the lowest average family income
in 2000 ($46,501). Average family income growth in the state between 1980 and
2000 was 136%, the same rate as the 68-county region as a whole. Kentucky, with
the second lowest growth rate, grew 172%. Virginia and Tennessee both saw rates
of average income growth greater than the United States and California (198% and
186% respectively).
Income Sources. Total household incomes can come from multiple sources,
but wages and salaries comprise the largest source of household income. Over three-
quarters of SJV households have income from wage and salaries (Table 37). Average
wage and salary income in 1980 was $18,009 and increased to an average of $45,904
in the SJV in 2000, an increase of 155%. California had a slightly higher percentage
of its households reporting wage and salary income in 2000 than the SJV, and the
average amounts in 1980-2003 were higher than they were for the SJV. Kings
County had the highest percentage of wage and salary households (80.6%) in 2000,
although San Joaquin County had the highest average amount ($50,694). Tulare had
the smallest average amount of wage and salary income in the SJV in 2000
($41,990), although the percentage of households reporting wage and salary income
was about the same as for the SJV. Both Mariposa and Tuolumne counties had only
about 64% of households reporting income from wages and salaries, averaging
$39,877 and $43,589 respectively in 2000.

CRS-77
In Central Appalachia, far fewer households than in the SJV reported receiving
wage and salary income (Table 38). The percent of households with wage and salary
income fell slightly from 65.1% in 1990 to 63.4% in 2000. The average amount of
wage and salary income in Central Appalachia was $35,815 in 2000, $10,000 less
than the average in the SJV. Of the Appalachian states, only Virginia had a
proportion of households with wage and salary income greater than the United States
between 1980-2003. The four Appalachian states together had an average of $47,330
in wage and salary income compared to an average of $45,326 among the eight SJV
counties. Virginia, with a wealthy northern region lying outside Appalachia, skewed
the income distribution.
Other sources of household income include interest, dividend, or net rental
(IDR) and retirement incomes, (e.g., pensions, Individual Retirement Accounts, and
workers’ compensation). In 2000, 26.2% of SJV households reported income from
IDR (Table 39). The average amount of that income increased to $10,104 in 2000,
rising from $3,237 in 1980. The percent of households reporting IDR income fell
steadily from 1980 to 2003. The Census reported 2003 data for four SJV counties;
each had fallen to less than 20% of households reporting IDR income. The proportion
of California households and United States households reporting IDR income also
fell, although not as much as the SJV. The proportion of households in the SJV who
reported receiving retirement income rose between 1990 and 2000 (Table 40). For
all but one county (Tulare), the SJV counties for which there are 2003 data also saw
increases in the proportion of households with retirement income between 2000 and
2003. Retirement income does not include Social Security, so the sources are from
workers’ compensation, pensions, disability income, and income from an IRA or
similar plan. In 2000, the average amount of income from retirement sources in the
SJV was $15,425. Tulare County had the lowest average amount ($14,558) and San
Joaquin had the highest ($16,502). In 2003, Fresno had the highest average amount
of retirement income among those households who reported receiving retirement
income.
The percentage of SJV households reporting Social Security income remained
fairly stable from 1980-2000, with approximately 25% of households receiving
Social Security income (Table 41). The average amount received in 2000 was
$10,825 compared to $11,331 in California and $11,320 in the United States. The
proportion of California households reporting Social Security income is somewhat
less than for the SJV. The percentage of households in Mariposa and Tuolumne
receiving income from Social Security in 2000 was 37.5% and 38.5% respectively.
The proportions of households in these two counties receiving Social Security is
higher, and for Tuolumne the average amount received is about $1,500 more, than
the average amount received in the SJV. Reflecting the higher proportion of elderly
in rural counties nationally and Central Appalachian particularly, the percent of
households receiving Social Security income in Central Appalachia was nearly 36%
in 2000 (Table 42). Average amounts of Social Security income were lower than
those for the SJV. Average amounts for the four Appalachian states were, with the
exception of Virginia, lower on average than the eight SJV counties.
For those who are at least 65 years old, or blind, or disabled and are U.S.
citizens or one of certain categories of aliens, Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
provides low-income individuals with cash assistance. In 2000, 7.6% of SJV

CRS-78
households had SSI with an average payment of $6,704 (Table 43). This amount is
slightly less than the figure for California, and slightly more than the figure for the
United States. The proportion of households with SSI in California and the United
States is lower than the proportion of households in the SJV, 5.3% and 4.4%
respectively. In 2003, San Joaquin and Fresno counties had 9.5% and 8.2%
respectively of their households receiving SSI. This was an increase from 2000. In
Central Appalachia, the percentage of households receiving SSI in 2000 was higher
than it was in the SJV (Table 44). The proportion of households in the four
Appalachian states receiving SSI was somewhat lower than in the eight counties of
the SJV, but Central Appalachia had 11.6% of its households receiving SSI in 2000.
Average amounts received in Central Appalachia, $5,827, were also lower than the
average amounts received by SJV households.

CRS-79
Table 31. Per Capita Income: United States, California,
and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
SJV a
$6,780
$11,817
$15,798
NA
Fresno
$6,967
$11,824
$15,495
$17,377
Kern
$6,990
$12,154
$15,760
$16,845
Kings
$5,843
$10,035
$15,848
Madera
$6,361
$10,856
$14,682
Merced
$6,267
$10,606
$14,257
San Joaquin
$7,016
$12,705
$17,365
$19,852
Stanislaus
$7,094
$12,731
$16,913
$19,181
Tulare
$6,038
$10,302
$14,006
$15,431
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
$6,676
$13,074
$18,190
Tuolumne
$6,745
$13,224
$21,015
California
$8,295
$16,409
$22,711
$24,420
United States
$7,298
$14,420
$21,587
$23,110
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Note: Data for 2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned
replacement for the long questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all
counties.
a. Per capita income for the SJV was calculated as follows: For each of the eight counties, per capita
income was multiplied by population. The sum of these results was divided by the total
population for the counties.

CRS-80
Table 32. Per Capita Income: United States, Kentucky, Virginia,
Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the
ARC, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
Central ARC Counties a
$5,087
$8,715
$13,911
NA
Kentucky
$5,978
$11,153
$18,093
$18,587
Tennessee
$6,213
$12,255
$19,393
$20,792
Virginia
$7,478
$15,713
$23,975
$26,362
West Virginia
$6,141
$10,520
$16,477
$17,325
United States
$7,298
$14,420
$21,587
$23,110
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Note: Data for 2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned
replacement for the long questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all
counties.
a. Per capita income for the 68 counties in the central ARC was calculated as follows: For each of the
counties, per capita income was multiplied by population. The sum of these results was divided
by the total population for the counties.

CRS-81
Table 33. Median Family Income: United States, California,
and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
SJV
NA
NA
NA
NA
Fresno
$18,396
$29,970
$38,455
$42,079
Kern
$18,780
$31,714
$39,403
$45,801
Kings
$16,164
$27,614
$38,111
Madera
$17,327
$30,246
$39,226
Merced
$16,513
$28,269
$38,009
San Joaquin
$19,116
$34,701
$46,919
$50,922
Stanislaus
$18,652
$32,923
$44,703
$49,431
Tulare
$16,166
$26,697
$36,297
$38,464
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
$15,833
$29,468
$42,655
Tuolumne
$16,907
$31,464
$44,327
California
$21,537
$40,559
$53,025
$56,530
United States
$19,917
$35,225
$50,046
$52,273
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Note: Data for 2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned
replacement for the long questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all
counties.

CRS-82
Table 34. Median Family Income: United States, Kentucky,
Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the
ARC, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
Central ARC Counties
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kentucky
$16,444
$27,028
$40,939
$41,898
Tennessee
$16,564
$29,546
$43,517
$46,654
Virginia
$20,018
$38,213
$54,169
$60,174
West Virginia
$17,308
$25,602
$36,484
$38,568
United States
$19,917
$35,225
$50,046
$52,273
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.

CRS-83
Table 35. Average Family Income: United States, California,
and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
SJV
$21,649
$38,607
$52,854
NAa
Fresno
$22,332
$38,843
$52,247
$53,639
Kern
$22,070
$38,812
$51,273
$53,271
Kings
$19,316
$34,318
$49,728
Madera
$20,642
$35,730
$51,112
Merced
$20,365
$36,059
$49,349
San Joaquin
$21,940
$41,340
$58,108
$63,541
Stanislaus
$22,303
$40,705
$55,910
$60,158
Tulare
$20,042
$34,564
$48,595
$51,052
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
$18,776
$36,197
$52,270
Tuolumne
$19,440
$38,551
$57,064
California
$25,540
$51,198
$71,951
$73,826
United States
$23,092
$43,803
$64,663
$66,920
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Notes: Income consists of money income and includes earnings, interest, dividends, retirement
income, veterans’ payments, public assistance, unemployment compensation, child support, alimony,
and other income.
Data for 2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for
the long questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all counties.

CRS-84
Table 36. Average Family Income: United States, Kentucky,
Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
Central ARC Counties
$16,737
$26,403
$39,503
NAa
Kentucky
$19,192
$33,386
$52,124
$51,783
Tennessee
$19,616
$36,478
$56,166
$58,067
Virginia
$23,443
$46,710
$69,869
$75,763
West Virginia
$19,668
$31,290
$46,501
$48,111

United States
$23,092
$43,803
$64,663
$66,920
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Notes: Income consists of money income and includes earnings, interest, dividends, retirement
income, Veterans’ payments, public assistance, unemployment compensation, child support, alimony,
and other income.
Data for 2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for
the long questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all counties.

CRS-85
Table 37. Wage and Salary Income: United States, California, and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
households with
households with
households with
households with
wage and salary
Average
wage and salary
Average
wage and salary
Average
wage and salary
Average
income
amount
income
amount
income
amount
income
amount
SJV
76.3%
$18,009
75.9%
$33,351
77.0%
$45,904
NA
NA
Fresno
77.6%
$18,167
75.8%
$32,666
77.3%
$44,592
77.8%
$48,379
Kern
76.8%
$19,004
76.9%
$34,718
75.7%
$45,332
76.9%
$48,272
Kings
79.1%
$16,176
78.1%
$29,727
80.6%
$44,849
Madera
74.1%
$17,370
72.6%
$30,651
74.2%
$44,790
Merced
77.5%
$16,317
76.4%
$30,388
77.9%
$42,238
San Joaquin
74.5%
$18,504
75.7%
$35,947
77.2%
$50,694
80.7%
$55,551
Stanislaus
76.0%
$18,408
76.4%
$34,903
77.3%
$48,124
78.1%
$50,873
Tulare
74.5%
$16,334
73.6%
$29,547
76.9%
$41,990
76.5%
$47,151
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
63.8%
$15,242
65.3%
$29,133
63.7%
$39,877
Tuolumne
67.5%
$16,272
66.0%
$31,533
63.6%
$43,589
California
78.4%
$21,283
79.2%
$43,346
78.7%
$61,374
77.6%
$64,351
United States
77.7%
$19,796
77.4%
$37,271
77.7%
$54,358
77.0%
$57,161
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at [http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
1980 Census of Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Note: Data for 2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover
all counties.

CRS-86
Table 38. Wage and Salary Income: United States, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia,
and Central Counties of the ARC, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
households with
households with
households with
households with
wage and salary
Average
wage and salary
Average
wage and salary
Average
wage and salary
Average
income
amount
income
amount
income
amount
income
amount
Central ARC Counties
68.8%
$15,824
65.1%
$24,997
63.4%
$35,815
NA
NA
Kentucky
74.6%
$17,024
73.3%
$29,444
73.6%
$44,638
72.4%
$45,604
Tennessee
77.5%
$17,096
76.5%
$31,457
76.6%
$46,926
76.0%
$48,895
Virginia
82.2%
$19,987
81.9%
$39,615
81.2%
$57,889
80.0%
$63,933
West Virginia
72.5%
$17,793
67.5%
$28,261
68.2%
$39,870
67.1%
$42,785
United States
77.7%
$19,796
77.4%
$37,271
77.7%
$54,358
77.0%
$57,161
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at [http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
1980 Census of Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.

CRS-87
Table 39. Interest, Dividend, or Net Rental Income: United States, California,
and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
households with
households with
households with
households with
interest,
interest,
interest,
interest,
dividend, or net
Average
dividend, or net
Average
dividend, or net
Average
dividend, or net
Average
rental income
amount
rental income
amount
rental income
amount
rental income
amount
SJV
34.3%
$3,237
30.8%
$6,949
26.2%
$10,104
Fresno
35.7%
$3,242
31.7%
$7,478
26.8%
$10,224
17.2%
$10,261
Kern
34.5%
$3,158
28.9%
$6,072
25.0%
$9,507
16.1%
$6,567
Kings
29.9%
$2,667
26.3%
$6,379
24.6%
$11,004
Madera
25.5%
$3,202
31.7%
$6,813
24.9%
$11,549
Merced
34.1%
$3,279
30.3%
$6,282
24.7%
$9,757
San Joaquin
35.4%
$3,191
32.7%
$6,955
28.1%
$10,477
19.8%
$8,409
Stanislaus
36.7%
$3,198
32.2%
$7,382
27.7%
$9,879
18.7%
$8,109
Tulare
30.1%
$3,662
29.2%
$7,225
23.6%
$10,026
13.6%
$12,398
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
40.7%
$3,262
36.7%
$7,343
35.5%
$11,561
Tuolumne
33.9%
$3,287
40.0%
$7,908
40.3%
$12,476
California
41.2%
$3,770
39.8%
$9,021
35.0%
$14,208
25.6%
$13,654
United States
41.4%
$2,994
40.5%
$6,949
35.9%
$10,677
26.3%
$10,184
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at [http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
1980 Census of Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Note: Data for 2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover
all counties.

CRS-88
Table 40. Retirement Income: United States, California, and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1990
2000
2003
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
households with
Average
households with
Average
households with
Average
retirement income
amount
retirement income
amount
retirement income
amount
SJV
14.7%
$8,838
15.7%
$15,425
Fresno
13.2%
$8,906
14.2%
$15,414
17.1%
$17,933
Kern
14.7%
$9,334
15.9%
$15,744
16.3%
$16,697
Kings
14.6%
$9,027
15.3%
$15,607
Madera
17.8%
$9,791
17.5%
$15,533
Merced
15.3%
$9,154
16.4%
$15,703
San Joaquin
16.2%
$8,865
17.1%
$16,052
19.7%
$15,810
Stanislaus
15.2%
$8,109
16.3%
$14,567
18.2%
$17,377
Tulare
13.5%
$8,051
14.6%
$14,558
14.5%
$14,270
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
26.0%
$11,426
24.3%
$19,440
Tuolumne
26.4%
$10,329
29.1%
$18,357
California
14.9%
$10,409
15.4%
$18,826
15.3%
$18,919
United States
15.6%
$9,216
16.7%
$17,376
17.0%
$17,005
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at [http://www.census.gov].
Notes: Retirement income includes pensions and survivor benefits; income from workers’ compensation; disability income; and regular income from an Individual Retirement Account
(IRA) or similar plan. Income from Social Security is not included. Data for 2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for
the long questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all counties.
Data for 2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all
counties.

CRS-89
Table 41. Social Security Income: United States, California, and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
households with
households with
households with
households with
social security
Average
social security
Average
social security
Average
social security
Average
income
amount
income
amount
income
amount
income
amount
SJV
25.0%
$4,063
24.6%
$7,586
24.6%
$10,825
NA
NA
Fresno
23.6%
$4,018
23.9%
$7,548
23.6%
$10,801
25.0%
$11,778
Kern
25.0%
$4,117
23.7%
$7,611
24.8%
$10,877
25.1%
$11,550
Kings
22.5%
$3,981
21.7%
$7,180
22.0%
$10,486
Madera
26.7%
$4,118
29.7%
$7,709
29.0%
$11,041
Merced
22.8%
$3,887
23.4%
$7,466
24.0%
$10,204
San Joaquin
25.9%
$4,132
25.3%
$7,736
24.6%
$11,064
23.2%
$12,480
Stanislaus
25.8%
$4,053
24.9%
$7,627
25.1%
$10,960
25.1%
$11,715
Tulare
27.3%
$4,058
26.9%
$7,465
25.3%
$10,575
26.4%
$11,516
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
35.5%
$4,223
34.4%
$7,556
37.5%
$10,685
Tuolumne
32.1%
$4,387
36.9%
$8,404
38.5%
$12,284
California
22.1%
$4,182
21.9%
$7,957
22.3%
$11,331
23.5%
$12,588
United States
25.9%
$4,094
26.3%
$7,772
25.7%
$11,320
26.6%
$12,651
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at [http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
1980 Census of Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Note: Data for 2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover
all counties.

CRS-90
Table 42. Social Security Income: United States, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia,
and Central Counties of the ARC, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
households with
households with
households with
households with
social security
Average
social security
Average
social security
Average
social security
Average
income
amount
income
amount
income
amount
income
amount
Central ARC Counties
32.4%
$3,779
33.8%
$6,858
35.9%
$10,029
NA
NA
Kentucky
28.5%
$3,765
28.9%
$6,985
28.5%
$10,293
29.7%
$11,498
Tennessee
27.7%
$3,695
27.3%
$7,060
26.5%
$10,655
27.8%
$12,198
Virginia
23.4%
$3,836
22.8%
$7,223
23.4%
$10,868
24.8%
$12,405
West Virginia
32.0%
$4,114
34.4%
$7,533
33.9%
$10,931
35.1%
$12,283
United States
25.9%
$4,094
26.3%
$7,772
25.7%
$11,320
26.6%
$12,651
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at [http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
1980 Census of Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.

CRS-91
Table 43. Supplemental Security Income (SSI): United States,
California, and the Counties of the SJV, 2000-2003
2000
2003
Percent of
Percent of
households
households
with SSI
Average
with SSI
Average
income
amount
income
amount
SJV
7.6%
$6,704
NA
NA
Fresno
7.8%
$6,792
8.2%
$7,310
Kern
7.5%
$6,428
4.7%
$5,446
Kings
7.6%
$6,066
Madera
6.6%
$6,540
Merced
7.7%
$6,616
San Joaquin
7.3%
$7,000
9.5%
$8,435
Stanislaus
7.6%
$7,061
5.8%
$7,345
Tulare
7.9%
$6,392
7.4%
$6,549
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
5.4%
$6,761
Tuolumne
6.6%
$6,241
California
5.3%
$6,990
4.7%
$7,770
United States
4.4%
$6,320
3.9%
$6,731
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov].
Note: Data for 2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned
replacement for the long questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all
counties.

CRS-92
Table 44. Supplemental Security Income (SSI): United States,
Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central
Counties of the ARC, 2000-2003
2000
2003
Percent of
Percent of
households
households
with SSI
Average
with SSI
Average
income
amount
income
amount
Central ARC Counties
11.6%
$5,827
NA
NA
Kentucky
7.2%
$5,809
6.2%
$6,186
Tennessee
5.2%
$5,823
4.1%
$5,992
Virginia
3.5%
$5,770
3.0%
$5,984
West Virginia
6.9%
$5,974
6.3%
$6,182
United States
4.4%
$6,320
3.9%
$6,731
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov].

CRS-93
County and Regional Educational Measures. Human capital refers
generally to the level of education and training of a defined group (e.g., population
or labor force) and is important because of the direct relationship between
educational attainment and earnings.60 The demand for workers with at least some
post-secondary education has been increasing in recent decades and is projected to
rise.61 The SJV has a disproportionate share of low-skilled and poorly educated
workers, a significant percentage of whom are farmworkers. Raising the levels of
training and education is a major challenge facing the SJV. Improvements in
educational attainment and higher-level job skills are a practical necessity for the SJV
if it is to move its economy toward new competitive advantage over the coming
decades.
Table 45 shows that in 2000, 32.8% of those 18 and older in the SJV had less
than a high school education, down slightly from 34.3% in 1990. The proportion of
high school graduates without any post secondary education in 2000 was 25.1%,
higher than the proportion of high school graduates in California, but somewhat
lower than the rate in the United States (28.6%). It is the proportion of the
population with less than a high school education that is most pronounced in the SJV.
In California, 24% had less than high school educations, while most SJV counties
had rates above 30%. Figure 7 maps by county the percentage of Californians with
less than high school and shows that the SJV is overly represented by that category.
Figure 8 further maps by county the percentage of the population with a bachelor’s
or higher degree. In this category, the SJV is under-represented when compared to
California’s other counties. California had nearly 24% of its population 18 and older
with bachelors degrees in 2000. In the SJV, the proportion was less than 12.5%. In
the category of 1-3 years of college, however, the SJV at 39.8% was higher than the
national average of 28.8%. The SJV rate was somewhat lower than the state’s rate
of 1-3 years of college. For Mariposa and Tuolumne counties, the high school
graduate proportions were higher, the less than high school proportions were lower,
and the 1-3 years of college proportion and college graduates were higher than the
SJV.
In Central Appalachia, the proportion of population 18 and older with less than
high school in 2000 was higher than the rate in the SJV (Table 46) (35.4% vs.
32.8%). The proportion of high school graduates in 2000 was higher (34.9%) than
it was in the SJV (25.1%) and the United States (28.6%), but the proportion of 1-3
years of college was much lower in Central Appalachia (20.4%) than it was in the
SJV (29.8%). This may reflect the number and proximity of California institutions
of higher education compared to that of Central Appalachia. If this is a factor, it is
further seen in the proportion of Central Appalachians with a bachelor’s or advanced
degree. While the rate in 2000 in the SJV was 12.4%, in Central Appalachia the
proportion of those with bachelors or advanced degrees was 9.4%, up from 7.6% in
1990. With the exception of Virginia, the Appalachian states each had lower
proportions of their population with a bachelors or advanced degree than the United
States or the state of California.
60 See CRS Report 95-1081, Education Matters: Earnings by Educational Attainment over
Three Decades.
61 See CRS Report 97-764, The Skill (Education) Distribution of Jobs: How Is It Changing?

CRS-94
Table 45. Educational Attainment: United States, California,
and Counties of the SJV, 1990-2003
(persons 18 and over)
1990
2000
2003
SJV
Less than High School
34.3%
32.8%
NA
High School Graduate
24.9%
25.1%
NA
1- 3 Years of College
28.7%
29.8%
NA
Bachelor’s or Advanced Degree
12.1%
12.4%
NA
Fresno County
Less than High School
34.2%
32.9%
26.4%
High School Graduate
21.9%
21.9%
27.0%
1- 3 Years of College
28.9%
29.9%
30.9%
Bachelor’s or Advanced Degree
15.0%
15.3%
15.8%
Kern County
Less than High School
33.5%
32.3%
27.5%
High School Graduate
25.8%
26.4%
29.7%
1- 3 Years of College
29.0%
29.5%
30.4%
Bachelor’s or Advanced Degree
11.8%
11.8%
12.3%
Kings County
Less than High School
35.3%
32.3%
High School Graduate
29.4%
29.8%
1- 3 Years of College
27.7%
29.0%
Bachelor’s or Advanced Degree
7.6%
8.9%
Madera County
Less than High School
37.9%
36.5%
High School Graduate
24.9%
25.7%
1- 3 Years of College
26.8%
27.3%
Bachelor’s or Advanced Degree
10.4%
10.5%
Merced County
Less than High School
36.6%
36.1%
High School Graduate
24.8%
25.0%
1- 3 Years of College
28.1%
29.3%

CRS-95
1990
2000
2003
Bachelor’s or Advanced Degree
10.5%
9.6%
San Joaquin County
Less than High School
31.8%
29.6%
28.7%
High School Graduate
26.3%
25.8%
30.6%
1- 3 Years of College
30.2%
31.7%
29.2%
Bachelor’s or Advanced Degree
11.7%
12.9%
11.4%
Stanislaus County
Less than High School
32.0%
29.9%
24.7%
High School Graduate
27.1%
27.1%
32.2%
1- 3 Years of College
29.4%
30.6%
29.1%
Bachelor’s or Advanced Degree
11.5%
12.4%
14.0%
Tulare County
Less than High School
40.4%
38.7%
33.7%
High School Graduate
23.7%
23.9%
27.2%
1- 3 Years of College
25.7%
27.4%
29.0%
Bachelor’s or Advanced Degree
10.3%
10.0%
10.1%
Adjacent counties
Mariposa County
Less than High School
22.8%
16.4%
High School Graduate
29.1%
27.3%
1- 3 Years of College
32.3%
37.6%
Bachelor’s or Advanced Degree
15.8%
18.7%
Tuolumne County
Less than High School
21.3%
17.5%
High School Graduate
33.6%
30.4%
1- 3 Years of College
31.7%
37.4%
Bachelor’s or Advanced Degree
13.4%
14.7%
California
Less than High School
24.8%
24.0%
20.2%
High School Graduate
23.1%
21.1%
23.3%
1- 3 Years of College
31.3%
31.0%
30.2%

CRS-96
1990
2000
2003
Bachelor’s or Advanced Degree
20.8%
23.9%
26.3%
United States
Less than High School
24.6%
20.3%
17.0%
High School Graduate
30.1%
28.6%
30.3%
1- 3 Years of College
26.7%
28.8%
28.4%
Bachelor’s or Advanced Degree
18.5%
22.3%
24.4%
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov].
Note: Details may not sum to 100% because of rounding. Data for 2003 are from the American
Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long questionnaire of the
decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all counties.
Figure 7. Percent of Persons with Education Less Than High School
by County (2000)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census

CRS-97
Figure 8. Percent of Persons with a Bachelors Degree or Advanced
Degree by County (2000)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census

CRS-98
Table 46. Educational Attainment: United States, Kentucky,
Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of the
ARC, 1990-2003
(persons 18 and over)
1990
2000
2003
Central ARC Counties
Less than High School
44.6%
35.4%
NA
High School Graduate
31.6%
34.9%
NA
1- 3 Years of College
16.1%
20.4%
NA
Bachelor’s or Advanced Degree
7.6%
9.4%
NA
Kentucky
Less than High School
33.9%
25.8%
21.0%
High School Graduate
32.3%
33.4%
35.5%
1- 3 Years of College
21.4%
25.2%
26.4%
Bachelor’s or Advanced Degree
12.4%
15.6%
17.1%
Tennessee
Less than High School
1.9%
24.2%
19.1%
High School Graduate
30.6%
31.8%
34.8%
1- 3 Years of College
23.0%
26.2%
26.2%
Bachelor’s or Advanced Degree
14.5%
17.9%
19.9%
Virginia
Less than High School
24.2%
18.8%
15.8%
High School Graduate
27.7%
26.5%
28.0%
1- 3 Years of College
25.9%
27.7%
26.3%
Bachelor’s or Advanced Degree
22.2%
27.0%
29.9%
West Virginia
Less than High School
32.8%
24.4%
21.5%
High School Graduate
36.5%
38.8%
40.1%
1- 3 Years of College
19.3%
23.1%
22.9%
Bachelor’s or Advanced Degree
11.4%
13.7%
15.6%
United States
Less than High School
24.6%
20.3%
17.0%
High School Graduate
30.1%
28.6%
30.3%
1- 3 Years of College
26.7%
28.8%
28.4%
Bachelor’s or Advanced Degree
18.5%
22.3%
24.4%
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov].

CRS-99
Table 47. Per Pupil Amounts for Current Spending of Public
Elementary and Secondary School Systems: United States,
California, and Counties of the SJV,
1992-1993 and 2002-2003
1992-1993
2002-2003
SJV
$4,889
$7,715
Fresno County
$5,193
$7,772
Kern County
$4,791
$7,757
Kings County
$4,755
$7,587
Madera County
$4,815
$7,645
Merced County
$5,068
$7,687
San Joaquin County
$4,669
$7,345
Stanislaus County
$4,603
$7,698
Tulare County
$5,030
$8,070
Adjacent Counties
Mariposa County
$5,231
$8,554
Tuolumne County
$4,230
$8,326
Californiaa
$4,845
$7,691
United States
$5,177
$8,019
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Census of Governments: Public Education Finances; U.S.
Census Bureau. 1993 Census of Governments: Public Education Finances.
Note: Data presented by counties represent averages of all school districts in each county.
a. Payments made by the California state government into the state retirement system on behalf of
school systems have been estimated for local school systems.

CRS-100
Table 48. Percent of Persons Who Speak a Language Other
than English at Home: United States, California, and Counties of
the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003

SJV
23.7%
30.3%
37.3%
Fresno
27.7%
35.3%
40.8%
38.8%
Kern
20.0%
24.6%
33.4%
35.0%
Kings
27.1%
31.0%
36.7%
Madera
25.7%
29.7%
37.0%
Merced
26.5%
36.0%
45.2%
San Joaquin
21.1%
27.9%
33.7%
35.6%
Stanislaus
18.0%
25.0%
32.4%
37.1%
Tulare
28.4%
35.9%
43.8%
46.5%
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
4.9%
6.6%
5.2%
Tuolumne
4.7%
8.5%
5.8%
California
22.6%
31.5%
39.5%
40.8%
United States
11.0%
13.8%
17.9%
18.4%
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of
Population and Housing: Summary Social, Economic and Housing Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off, 1992; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population: General
Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Note: Data for 2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned
replacement for the long questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all
counties.
While per pupil spending and rates of graduation are related, a high expenditure
is not necessarily a guarantee of a high graduation rate. Per pupil expenditures for
elementary and secondary school systems in the SJV averaged $7,715 in 2002-2003.
Each SJV county had expenditures over $7,000, with Tulare County spending over
$8,000 per pupil (Table 47). Per pupil expenditures also rose significantly from
1992-1993 in all SJV counties.
School systems with high proportions of pupils for whom English is not their
first language may experience higher per pupil costs than other school systems.

CRS-101
Table 48 shows that the SJV has a high proportion of persons who speak a language
other than English at home. In 2000, over 37% in the SJV spoke a language other
than English at home. In Merced County the rate was over 45% and in Tulare
County, the rate was nearly 44%. In 2003, the rate in Tulare County was 46.5%, the
highest of the SJV counties for which there were data. In California, the rate in 2003
was nearly 41%, compared to a national rate of 18.4%. These figures suggest
significant challenges to the SJV school systems.
Per pupil spending in Central Appalachian was $777 lower than spending per
pupil in the SJV (Table 49). Tennessee and Kentucky also spent less per pupil than
the SJV average. West Virginia spends more per pupil than the other states and more
per pupil than the SJV.
Given the high rate of population growth in the SJV from immigration, CRS
sought an indicator of educational attainment of those in the labor force who reported
moving in the previous years. Table 50 shows that for those in the labor force
residing in SJV MSAs who moved, the proportion of those with less than high school
was lower than for the SJV as a whole. Of those who moved, the proportion of high
school graduates was also higher than for the SJV as a whole. For 2002-2004,
however, the proportion of high school graduates who moved in the previous year fell
from 35.9% in 1999-2001, to 28.6% in 2002-2004. These rates were still higher than
for the SJV as a whole.

CRS-102
Table 49. Per Pupil Amounts for Current Spending of Public
Elementary and Secondary School Systems: United States,
Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Central
Counties of the ARC, 1992-1993 and 2002-2003
1992-1993
2002-2003
Central ARC Counties a,b
$4,391
$6,938
Kentucky
$4,825
$6,647
Tennessee
$3,432
$6,201
Virginia
$5,055
$7,832
West Virginia
$5,073
$8,218
United States
$5,177
$8,019
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Census of Governments: Public Education Finances; U.S.
Census Bureau. 1993 Census of Governments: Public Education Finances.
Note: Data presented for Central ARC counties represents the average of all school districts in the
Central ARC counties.
a. Payments made by the Kentucky state government into the state teachers’ retirement system and
for health and life insurance on behalf of Kentucky school systems have been estimated for local
school systems.
b. Payments made by the West Virginia state government into the state teachers’ and public
employees’ retirement funds on behalf of West Virginia school systems have been estimated for
local school systems.

CRS-103
Table 50. Educational Attainment of Persons in the Labor Force
Who Moved During the Previous Year: United States, California,
and MSAs of the SJV, 1989-2004
1989-1991
1999-2001
2002-2004
SJV MSAs
Less than high school
29.1%
23.4% a
25.1%
High school graduate
32.5%
35.9%
28.6%
1-3 Years of College
26.8%
28.9%
32.7%
Bachelor’s or advanced degree
11.5%
11.8%
13.6%
California
Less than high school
22.0%
16.6%
16.1%
High school graduate
25.9%
24.2%
22.8%
1-3 Years of College
27.6%
31.1%
32.2%
Bachelor’s or advanced degree
24.5%
28.2%
29.0%
United States
Less than high school
17.4%
14.7%
14.4%
High school graduate
33.6%
30.8%
29.4%
1-3 Years of College
25.9%
28.8%
28.8%
Bachelor’s or advanced degree
23.1%
25.7%
27.4%
Source: Calculated by CRS from the March Current Population Surveys (CPS) for 1989-1991, 1999-
2001, and 2002-2004.
Notes: In order to increase the sample sizes, all estimates are three-year averages. An MSA consists
of an urban center (or centers) and adjacent communities that have a high degree of economic and
social integration. Details may not sum to 100% because of rounding.
a. Data for 1998 and later years may not be comparable to data for 1988-1990. Data for 1998 and
later years include an MSA for Merced County. For 1998 and later, the Fresno MSA includes
both Fresno and Madera counties.
Health and Disease Rates in the SJV. Disease prevalence, availability
of health professionals, and other health indicators may reveal particular impediments
to human capital development, and, by extension, to economic development.
Disparities in health create significant burdens on health care providers and on
society. The costs to provide health care to a population are directly related to the
general health of the resident population. Poverty is a also a reliable indicator of
health. As we discuss in a later section, the SJV plans to make health care and
related industries a major growth sector for the future. High costs for health care,
large proportions of the regional population without insurance, and high percentages

CRS-104
of Medicaid recipients may be important factors in the eventual success of an
expanding healthcare center in the SJV. The variables examined in this section
characterize some of the challenges the SJV might confront in the coming decade.
Comparable data for the ARC are not available for many of the health variables
presented below.
Physicians per 1,000 Population. The number of doctors per 1,000
population is one indicator of the availability of health care in a region. For the
United States in 2001, there were 2.3 doctors engaged in patient care per 1,000
population. Total active doctors in the United States was 2.6 per 1,000 population.
The latter figure includes physicians engaged in teaching, research, and
administration as well as patient care physicians. In the SJV, there were 1.3
physicians engaged in patient care per 1,000 population and 1.4 active doctors per
1,000 population in 2001 (Tables 51 and 52). Fresno County had 1.7 doctors
engaged in patient care per 1,000 population and 1.9 per 1,000 total. Kings County
and Madera County had fewer than 1.0 physicians engaged in patient care per 1,000
and fewer than 1.0 total active doctors per 1,000 in 2001. California in 2001 had 2.2
doctors engaged in patient care per 1,000 population and 2.5 per 1,000 population
total.
Central Appalachia looked very similar to the SJV in 2001 in distribution of
physicians per 1,000 (Tables 53 and 54). The 68 Central Appalachian counties had
1.3 physicians engaged in patient care per 1,000 population, the same as the SJV,
and 1.3 total active doctors per 1,000 population, one-tenth of a percent fewer than
the SJV. Kentucky and West Virginia each had physician rates lower than the United
States; Tennessee and Virginia had rates equal to or slightly greater than the United
States.
Teen Birth Rates. Birth rates for teenagers aged 15-19 fell significantly
between 1980 and 2003 in the SJV counties (Table 55). Rates in 2003 ranged from
a low of 45.3 teen births per 1,000 population in Stanislaus County to a high of 69.2
per 1,000 in Madera. These rates were down considerably from their high point in
1990 when most of the SJV counties had rates of over 100 per 1,000 population, but
were still significantly higher than the rates for California and the United States. Teen
birth rates in the SJV grew from 1980 to 1990 and then fell in the decade 1990-2000.
Mariposa and Tuolumne counties had rates below California, the United States, and
the counties of the SJV.
Latinas have the highest teen birth rates of any race/ethnic group in California.62
A 2003 report by the California Public Health Institute estimated that the annual net
costs to U.S. taxpayers of births to teenagers in California amounted to
approximately $1.5 billion based on 2000 data. The analysis disaggregated the data
by counties in the various assembly districts in California. For assembly District 17
which included the counties of Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus, the estimated
annual cost to taxpayers associated with births to teenagers was $31 million; for
62 Johnson, Hans B. 2003. Maternity Before Maturity: Teen Birth Rates in California.
California Counts: Population Trends and Profiles, Volume 4(3). Public Policy Institute
of California, San Francisco, February.

CRS-105
assembly District 29 which included the counties of Fresno and Madera, the
estimated annual cost was $23 million; for assembly District 30, which included the
counties of Fresno, Kern, Kings, and Tulare, the annual cost was $39 million; and for
assembly District 31 which included the counties of Fresno and Tulare, the annual
cost to taxpayers was $44 million.63
Infant Mortality Rates. Deaths of infants less than one year of age per 1,000
live births ranged from 12.9 in Kern County in 1980 to a low of 4.9 in Merced
County in 2000. Infant mortality rates rose in five of the eight SJV counties in 2002
(Table 56). Rates were somewhat lower in the SJV compared to the United States
and California in 1980. With the exception of Stanislaus County, rates in 2002 were
lower than the United States, but much higher than the rates for California. A 2002
report presented infant mortality data for 38 of California’s 58 counties, with the
other counties not having enough live births and infant deaths to calculate reliable
mortality rates.64 The 38 California counties accounted for nearly 99% of
California’s live births and infant deaths in 2002. If the 38 counties are ranked from
lowest (best) to highest (worst) for infant mortality rates, 16 counties rank better than
the average for the state and 22 counties rank worse than the average. The eight
counties of the SJV all rank worse than the state average, ranging from Tulare
County at 20th to Stanislaus County at 35th. Two of the eight SJV counties, San
Joaquin County and Stanislaus County, also had worse rates than the U.S. rate of 7.0
per 1,000 live births. The rates and the rankings may vary considerably from one
year to another.
Age-Adjusted Obesity and Healthy Weight.65 Interest in and data
collection on obesity in specific communities is a relatively recent phenomenon. The
California county data presented in Table 57 are taken from the California Health
Interview Survey (CHIS), which was first conducted in 2001. CHIS is a
population-based telephone survey conducted every two years, with more than
55,000 households participating in 2001. For 2003, CHIS surveyed 42,000
households; these data are now being processed and are not yet available. CHIS 2005
is currently being planned.
The survey shows that SJV counties have higher incidences of obesity than California
or the United States.
63 Constantine, Norman A. and Carmen R. Nevarez. No Time for Complacency: Teen Births
in California. California Public Health Institute. March, 2003, pp. 4-5, 28.
64 Ficenec, Sandy. California’s Infant Mortality Rate, 2002. California Department of
Health Services, Center for Health Statistics, Data Summary No. DS04-02000, February
2004.
65 The age-adjusted rate is the hypothetical rate if the population of the county or state were
distributed by age in the same proportion as the 2000 U.S. population. It permits
comparisons between counties without regard for the influence of the actual age distribution
in the various counties.

CRS-106
Age-Adjusted Death Rates from Heart Disease. Heart disease has been
the leading cause of death in the United States for well over 50 years.66 In general,
the age-adjusted death rate for heart disease has decreased significantly and steadily
since 1980 for the United States as a whole and for California (Table 58).
Experience in the counties of the SJV has been more mixed, with some counties
showing a steady decline in the rate (Fresno, Kings, and Tulare), while others have
seen their rates decline and either stabilize or increase again (Kern, Madera, Merced,
San Joaquin, and Stanislaus). In 1980, 5 of the 8 counties of the SJV had
age-adjusted death rates for heart disease that were higher than the average for the
state, but none had rates higher than the U.S. average. In 2002, in contrast, all 8
counties had heart disease death rates higher than the California average, and 7 of the
8 had rates higher than the U.S. average (Kings County was the only exception). The
heart disease death rate for Kern County has been consistently the highest among the
8 counties since 1980.
Age-Adjusted Death Rates from Cancers. In California and in the U.S.,
cancer has long been the second leading cause of death, after heart disease. The
age-adjusted death rate for cancer peaked in California in 1984 (at 209.3 per 100,000
population) and in the U.S. as a whole in 1990 (at 216.0 per 100,000 population), and
both rates have slowly decreased since then (Table 59). The rates for California have
been consistently lower than those for the U.S., with the discrepancy increasing in
recent years. The rates for the counties of the SJV have been more variable, but with
two exceptions, Madera and Merced counties, they have not kept pace with the
decline for California as a whole. In 1980, six of the eight SJV counties had
age-adjusted death rates for cancer that were lower than the state and U.S. rates,
while two of the eight, Kern and Merced counties, had rates higher than the U.S.
average. In 2002, only Kings and Madera counties had rates lower than the state
average, while three of the counties (Kern, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus) had rates
higher than the U.S. rate, and the other three had intermediate rates, which were
higher than the state average, but lower than the U.S. average.
Age-adjusted Death Rates from Stroke. Stroke is the third leading cause
of death in the United States, after heart disease and cancer. In general, the death rate
for cerebrovascular disease has decreased steadily since 1980 for the United States
as a whole and for California (Table 60). Experience in the counties of the SJV has
been more mixed, with some counties showing a fairly steady decline in the rate
(Kings, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare), while others have seen their rates
decline and then increase again (Fresno, Kern, Madera, and Merced). In 2002, six
of the eight SJV counties had age-adjusted death rates for cerebrovascular disease
that were higher than the averages for both California and for the U.S.
Age-Adjusted Death Rates from All Causes. Age-adjusted death rates
per 100,000 population from all causes fell in the SJV counties between 1980 and
2000 (Table 61). Between 1980 and 1990, only San Joaquin saw an increase in the
age-adjusted death rate per 100,000 from all causes (757.9 vs 861.5). Between 2000
and 2002, however, five of the SJV counties had increases in their age-adjusted death
66 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health, United States, 2004, Table 29, p.
146.

CRS-107
rates (Fresno, Kern, Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus). In 2002, all eight of the
SJV counties had age-adjusted death rates higher than the average for the state, and
five of the eight had rates higher than the U.S. average
Age-Adjusted Prevalence of Diabetes in Adults. Estimates of the
age-adjusted prevalence of diagnosed diabetes among adults in the United States
come from the annual National Health Interview Survey conducted by the National
Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC). Among the eight SJV counties, only Stanislaus in 2003 had a
diabetes prevalence rate lower than the state rate (Table 62). All the other counties
had rates higher than the state and U.S. rates in both 2001 and 2003. Consistent with
the state and U.S. rates, rates for six of the eight counties also increased between
2001 and 2003.
Age-Adjusted Deaths from Diabetes. In 2002, all eight of the SJV
counties had age-adjusted death rates for diabetes that were higher than the average
for the state, and they also had rates higher than the U.S. average (Table 63). The
diabetes death rate for Kings County was markedly higher than other counties in both
2000 and 2002.
Health and Disease Profile of Appalachia. Compiling comparable
health data for the 68-county Central Appalachian area was beyond the scope of this
report. A 2004 ARC report, An Analysis of Disparities in Health Status and Access
to Medical Care, however, provides a detailed picture of the health disparities that
are present in the ARC region. Results from that study show that the Appalachian
region, much as the SJV area, suffers from an excess in mortality from leading causes
of death when compared to the non-Appalachian United States. Data in the
Appalachian study also reveal a high degree of variation within the region, with
adverse health outcomes correlating geographically with the poorest and most
isolated areas.67 The low rate of physician access in Central Appalachia noted in
Table 53 and Table 54 below is an important factor in health outcomes and one
shared by the SJV. Major conclusions of the study show:
! While there is significant variation by geography, gender, ethnicity,
and age, Appalachia has higher mortality rates from many of the
major causes of disease relative to the non-Appalachian United
States. The ARC region suffers an excess of premature deaths
(among persons 35-64) from heart disease, all cancers combined,
lung cancer, colorectal cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, diabetes, and motor vehicle accidents;
! High rates of hospitalization, a valid indicator of morbidity, are
concentrated in the Central Appalachian counties of Eastern
Kentucky, Southwest Virginia, and Western Virginia.
67 Halverson, Joel. An Analysis of Disparities in Health Status and Access to Health Care
in the Appalachian Region. Washington, D.C.: ARC, September, 2004.

CRS-108
Table 51. Total Active Doctors Per 1,000 Population: United
States, California, and the Counties of the SJV, 1995-2001
1995
2001
SJV
1.4
1.4
Fresno County
1.9
1.9
Kern County
1.3
1.4
Kings County
0.8
0.8
Madera County
0.7
0.9
Merced County
1.1
1.0
San Joaquin County
1.4
1.4
Stanislaus County
1.5
1.5
Tulare County
1.1
1.1
Adjacent counties
Mariposa County
0.9
0.5
Tuolumne County
1.6
1.8
California
2.5
2.5
United States
2.4
2.6
Source: Calculated by CRS from the Area Resource File (ARF), available from the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Bureau of Health
Professions, February 2003.
Notes: Data are for total active medical doctors, which includes physicians engaged in patient care
as well as teaching, research, and administrative doctors.

CRS-109
Table 52. Doctors Engaged in Patient Care Per 1,000
Population: United States, California, and the Counties of
the SJV, 1995-2001
1995
2001
SJV
1.3
1.3
Fresno County
1.8
1.7
Kern County
1.3
1.3
Kings County
0.8
0.7
Madera County
0.6
0.9
Merced County
1.1
1.0
San Joaquin County
1.3
1.3
Stanislaus County
1.5
1.4
Tulare County
1.0
1.1
Adjacent counties
Mariposa County
0.8
0.5
Tuolumne County
1.5
1.7
California
2.2
2.2
United States
2.2
2.3
Source: Calculated by CRS from the Area Resource File (ARF), available from the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Bureau of Health
Professions, February 2003.
Notes: Data are for medical doctors engaged in patient care. Teaching, research, and administrative
doctors are not included.

CRS-110
Table 53. Total Active Doctors Per 1,000 Population: United
States, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the
Central Counties of the ARC, 1995-2001
1995
2001
Central ARC Counties
1.2
1.3
Kentucky
2.0
2.2
Tennessee
2.3
2.5
Virginia
2.4
2.6
West Virginia
2.0
2.3

United States
2.4
2.6
Source: Calculated by CRS from the Area Resource File (ARF), available from the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Bureau of Health
Professions, February 2003.
Notes: Data are for total active medical doctors, which includes physicians engaged in patient care
as well as teaching, research, and administrative doctors.

CRS-111
Table 54. Doctors Engaged in Patient Care Per 1,000
Population: United States, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, West
Virginia, and the Central Counties of the Appalachian Regional
Commission (ARC), 1995-2001
1995
2001
Central ARC Counties
1.1
1.3
Kentucky
1.8
2.0
Tennessee
2.1
2.3
Virginia
2.2
2.4
West Virginia
1.8
2.1

United States
2.2
2.3
Source: Calculated by CRS from the Area Resource File (ARF), available from the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Bureau of Health
Professions, February 2003.
Notes: Data are for medical doctors engaged in patient care. Teaching, research, and administrative
doctors are not included.

CRS-112
Table 55. Teen Birth Rates: United States, California, and
Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
(per 1,000 population)
1980
1990
2000
2003
Teen birth rate Teen birth rate Teen birth rate Teen birth rate
(ages 15-19)
(ages 15-19)
(ages 15-19)
(ages 15-19)
SJV
Fresno
71.1
102.9
70.4
58.1
Kern
89.1
101.9
74.0
64.0
Kings
94.0
114.6
78.3
67.0
Madera
88.6
101.0
71.8
69.2
Merced
78.4
102.5
66.2
53.4
San Joaquin
68.4
88.4
61.1
48.7
Stanislaus
72.0
89.0
54.9
45.3
Tulare
90.6
105.9
78.5
67.5
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
27.0
58.7
44.3
NA
Tuolumne
38.7
38.6
25.9
23.8
California
52.7
70.6
47.0
38.9
United States
53.0
59.9
47.7
41.7
Sources: Birth data for 1980 were obtained by telephone from the California Department of Health
Services. The population data are from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980
Census of the Population, General Population Characteristics, California, tables 19 and 45. The 1980
birth rates were calculated by the Congressional Research Service. Birth rate data for 1990 are from
the California Department of Health Services, Maternal and Child Health, Epidemiology Section,
prepared by D. Taylor, October 12, 2000, available at [http://www.mch.dhs.ca.gov/documents/pdf/
teenbirthratebycounty1990-98.pdf]. Birth rate data for 2000 are from Hans P. Johnson, “Maternity
Before Maturity: Teen Birth Rates in California,” California Counts — Population Trends and
Profiles, Public Policy Institute of California, vol. 4, no. 3, Feb. 2003, pp. 16-17. Data for 2003 are
from the California Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Health Statistics, Natality:
County Data, Number 18, available at [http://www.dhs.ca.gov/hisp/chs/OHIR/vssdata/
2003data/2003NCountyPDF.htm]. See also: California Health Care Chartbook: Key Trends and
Data (Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and the University of California, Berkeley, Center for Health
and Public Policy Studies), August 2004, p. 9, exhibit 1.3c, available at
[http://www.kff.org/statepolicy/7086/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=4
4213]. See also: Table 2.2, General Fertility Rates, Total Fertility Rates, and Birth Rates by Age of
M o t h e r , Ca l i fo r ni a, 1970, 1975, 1980, 198 5 , 1 9 9 0 -2 0 0 3 , a v a i l a b l e a t
[http://www.dhs.ca.gov/hisp/chs/OHIR/VSSdata/2001data/01Ch2Ex/2_02_2001.xls].

CRS-113
Table 56. Infant Mortality Rates: United States, California, and
Counties of the SJV, 1980-2002
1980
1990
2000
2002
Deaths under one year of age per 1,000 live births
SJV
Fresno
11.1
8.5
7.2
6.9
Kern
12.9
10.3
7.4
6.2
Kings
10.2
12.3
6.0
6.5
Madera
10.8
3.3
5.7
6.1
Merced
8.4
7.6
4.9
6.9
San Joaquin
11.3
8.7
6.9
7.3
Stanislaus
7.6
8.1
7.0
7.8
Tulare
11.5
7.7
6.6
5.7
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tuolumne
NA
NA
NA
NA
California
11.1
7.9
5.4
5.4
United States
12.6
9.2
6.9
7.0
NA - Infant mortality rates were not presented for counties with fewer than the 1,000 live
births and fewer than five infant deaths needed to calculate reliable mortality rates.
Sources: Rates for the United States come from: Kochanek, KD, et al. Deaths: Final Data for 2002.
National Vital Statistics Reports, vol. 53, no. 5, Oct. 12, 2004. Table 30, p. 94. Hyattsville, MD:
National Center for Health Statistics. Available at
[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_05.pdf].
Rates for California and California counties come from a series of reports on California’s infant
mortality rate published by the California Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics.
Reports for 1998 and later are available at
[http://www.dhs.ca.gov/hisp/chs/OHIR/Publication/OtherReports/InfantDeath.htm]. The report for
1990 was obtained from the Department of Health Services.
Rates for 1980 and 1990 come from: Oreglia, Anthony. California’s Infant Death Rate, 1990.
California Department of Health Services, Health Data and Statistics Branch, Data Summary 92-
01002, January 1992. Rates for 2000 and 2002 come from: Ficenec, Sandy. California’s Infant
Mortality Rate, 2002. California Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics, Data
Summary No. DS04-02000, February 2004.

CRS-114
Table 57. Age-Adjusted Prevalence of Obesity and Healthy
Weight: United States, California, and Counties of the
SJV, 1992-2002
(per 100 adults)
1992
2001
2002
Healthy
Area
Obesity
Obesity
weight
Obesity
SJV
Fresno
NA
26.6
33.1
NA
Kern
NA
25.6
37.3
NA
Kings
NA
27.5
35.0
NA
Madera
NA
24.4
34.6
NA
Merced
NA
29.9
30.6
NA
San Joaquin
NA
25.2
32.7
NA
Stanislaus
NA
25.2
36.2
NA
Tulare
NA
24.3
30.0
NA
Adjacent counties combined:
Tuolumne/Calaveras/
Anador/Inyo/Mariposa/
Mono/Alpine
NA
16.6
43.2
NA
California
12 a
19.1
43.0
19 a
United States
13 a
23 b
NA
22 a
U.S. Health Objectives 2010
(15)
(60)
Sources unless otherwise noted: California. Department of Health. Center for Health Statistics.
Prevalence of obesity and healthy weight in California counties, 2001. Prepared by Laura Lund,
Sharon Sugerman and Susan Forster. June 2004. (Adults defined as age 20 and above).
Notes: The data provided in this table are from three different sources because the interest in and data
collection on obesity is only relatively recent in terms of specific communities. While national data
have been collected for years, state-by-state data have only been collected over the past 20 years.
Within state data are even more recent as a result of the recognition that obesity prevention is largely
a health problem needing local solutions.
The California counties data presented in this table is taken from the California Health Interview
Survey (CHIS), which was first conducted in 2001. CHIS is a population-based telephone survey
conducted every two years with more than 55,000 households participating in 2001. CHIS 2003
surveyed 42,000 households; the data are now being processed and are not yet available. CHIS 2005
is currently being planned.
Obesity occurs when individuals consistently consume more calories than they expend in physical
activity. According to the CHIS survey report, obesity is roughly equivalent to an average of 30

CRS-115
pounds overweight. While the table provides data on the self-reported prevalence of obesity and
healthy weight in the selected counties, no information is available on the prevalence of overweight
and underweight in the individuals surveyed.
U.S. Health Objectives are public health goals that have been set every decade since the 1970s. They
are designed as goals for health professionals to work toward in terms of improving the overall health
status of the U.S. population. According to Health People 2010, adults with a body mass index greater
than or equal to 18.5 and less than 25 have a healthy weight, while adults with a body mass index
greater than or equal to 30 are obese.
a. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Trends Data, 1992-2002.(Adults defined as age
18 and above).
b. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity
Among Adults: United States, 1999-2002. (Adults defined as age 20 and above).

CRS-116
Table 58. Age-Adjusted Death Rates from Heart Disease: United
States, California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2002
1980
1990
2000
2002
Age-adjusted deaths per 100,000 population
SJV
Fresno
349.6
309.4
252.4
248.7
Kern
410.2
381.3
313.1
317.7
Kings
380.0
375.1
292.8
238.4
Madera
335.5
295.1
251.3
252.7
Merced
400.7
275.8
222.2
253.2
San Joaquin
378.7
311.2
252.8
256.8
Stanislaus
349.8
253.4
301.3
303.1
Tulare
376.3
350.0
258.0
253.0
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
312.1
273.9
161.9
232.6
Tuolumne
375.2
299.7
286.1
223.6
California
374.6
303.2
239.9
225.9
United States
412.1
321.8
257.6
240.8
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics.
Compressed Mortality File, a database containing mortality and population counts for all U.S.
counties, searchable by cause of death, state, county, age, race, sex, and year. It is available for
queries covering 1979-2002 via the CDC WONDER On-line Database at [http://wonder.cdc.gov].
Underlying cause of death is classified in accordance with the International Classification of Disease.
Deaths for 1979-98 are classified using the Ninth Revision (ICD-9). Deaths for 1999 and beyond are
classified using the Tenth Revision (ICD-10). In this table, heart disease is defined as ICD-9 Codes
390-398, 402, 404, and 410-429 (Compressed Mortality File Groups GR028-GR036), and ICD-10
Codes I00-I09, I11, I13, and I20-I51 (Compressed Mortality File Groups GR049-GR059).
Note: The age-adjusted death rate is the hypothetical rate if the population of the county or state were
distributed by age in the same proportion as the 2000 United States population. It allows comparisons
between counties without regard to the influence of the actual age distribution in the various counties.
The crude death rate (not shown) represents the actual risk of dying in that county or state for the given
year (number of deaths divided by the population of the county or state).

CRS-117
Table 59. Cancer Deaths: Age-Adjusted Death Rates from
Cancers: United States, California, and Counties of the SJV,
1980-2002
1980
1990
2000
2002
Age-adjusted deaths per 100,000 population
SJV
Fresno
190.6
200.9
177.6
176.1
Kern
210.1
217.7
181.9
196.0
Kings
183.3
159.6
162.0
174.5
Madera
192.8
193.0
178.6
151.0
Merced
239.3
227.1
185.4
176.9
San Joaquin
204.8
200.0
193.9
204.1
Stanislaus
200.2
191.0
198.4
197.1
Tulare
193.4
207.1
182.0
180.6
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
173.4*
145.5
290.0
185.1
Tuolumne
222.5
215.8
185.6
218.5
California
204.8
203.5
182.1
175.1
United States
207.9
216.0
199.6
193.5
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics.
Compressed Mortality File, a database containing mortality and population counts for all U.S.
counties, searchable by cause of death, state, county, age, race, sex, and year. It is available for
queries covering 1979-2002 via the CDC WONDER On-line Database at [http://wonder.cdc.gov].
Underlying cause of death is classified in accordance with the International Classification of Disease.
Deaths for 1979-98 are classified using the Ninth Revision (ICD-9). Deaths for 1999 and beyond are
classified using the Tenth Revision (ICD-10). In this table, malignant neoplasms (cancer) includes
ICD-9 Codes 140-208.9 and ICD-10 Codes C00-C97.
Note: The age-adjusted death rate is the hypothetical rate if the population of the county or state were
distributed by age in the same proportion as the 2000 United States population. It allows comparisons
between counties without regard to the influence of the actual age distribution in the various counties.
The crude death rate (not shown) represents the actual risk of dying in that county or state for the given
year (number of deaths divided by the population of the county or state).
* Statistically unreliable rate, because it is based on a death count of 20 or fewer deaths in the county.

CRS-118
Table 60. Age-Adjusted Death Rates from Stroke: United States,
California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2002
1980
1990
2000
2002
Age-adjusted deaths per 100,000 population
SJV
Fresno
101.7
56.5
66.8
65.3
Kern
81.6
60.1
75.0
65.6
Kings
119.3
85.1
65.2
43.5
Madera
141.2
47.7
47.7
55.2
Merced
92.1
53.7
58.5
65.1
San Joaquin
92.8
81.0
75.8
74.4
Stanislaus
109.4
73.9
66.7
59.5
Tulare
114.2
72.9
72.7
68.3
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
58.3*
64.9*
46.1*
40.2*
Tuolumne
82.5
61.6
47.7
53.6
California
99.4
71.0
64.0
58.1
United States
96.4
65.5
60.8
56.2
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics.
Compressed Mortality File, a database containing mortality and population counts for all U.S.
counties, searchable by cause of death, state, county, age, race, sex, and year. It is available for
queries covering 1979-2002 via the CDC WONDER On-line Database at [http://wonder.cdc.gov].
Underlying cause of death is classified in accordance with the International Classification of Disease.
Deaths for 1979-98 are classified using the Ninth Revision (ICD-9). Deaths for 1999 and beyond are
classified using the Tenth Revision (ICD-10). In this table, cerebrovascular disease includes ICD-9
Codes 430-438 and ICD-10 Codes I60-I69.8.
Notes: The age-adjusted death rate is the hypothetical rate if the population of the county or state were
distributed by age in the same proportion as the 2000 United States population. It allows comparisons
between counties without regard to the influence of the actual age distribution in the various counties.
The crude death rate (not shown) represents the actual risk of dying in that county or state for the given
year (number of deaths divided by the population of the county or state).
Stroke is the third leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease and cancer. In
general, the death rate for cerebrovascular disease has decreased significantly and steadily since 1980
for the United States as a whole and for California. Experience in the counties of the SJV has been
more mixed, with some counties showing a fairly steady decline in the rate (Kings, San Joaquin,
Stanislaus, and Tulare), while others have seen their rates decline and then increase again (Fresno,
Kern, Madera, and Merced). In 2002, 6 of the 8 SJV counties had age-adjusted death rates for
cerebrovascular disease that were higher than the averages for both California and for the United
States.
*Statistically unreliable rate, because it is based on a death count of 20 or fewer deaths in the county.

CRS-119
Table 61. Age-Adjusted Death Rates from All Causes of Death:
United States, California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2002
1980
1990
2000
2002
Age-adjusted deaths per 100,000 population
SJV
Fresno
1,002.7
919.0
829.6
843.6
Kern
1,103.5
1,019.0
931.8
962.4
Kings
1,044.3
987.3
870.6
832.9
Madera
1,003.8
890.4
843.7
788.1
Merced
1,090.6
898.4
829.0
864.5
San Joaquin
1,050.4
757.9
861.5
877.8
Stanislaus
991.2
909.2
895.5
917.8
Tulare
1,053.1
997.9
898.7
886.6
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
901.2
817.0
719.2
779.9
Tuolumne
1,088.1
916.3
833.9
817.3
California
995.6
904.3
787.2
758.1
United States
1,038.7
938.0
868.3
845.3
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics.
Compressed Mortality File, a database containing mortality and population counts for all U.S.
counties, searchable by cause of death, state, county, age, race, sex, and year. It is available for
queries covering 1979-2002 via the CDC WONDER On-line Database at [http://wonder.cdc.gov].
Note: The age-adjusted death rate is the hypothetical rate if the population of the county or state were
distributed by age in the same proportion as the 2000 United States population. It allows comparisons
between counties without regard to the influence of the actual age distribution in the various counties.
The crude death rate (not shown) represents the actual risk of dying in that county or state for the given
year (number of deaths divided by the population of the county or state).

CRS-120
Table 62. Age-Adjusted Prevalence of Diagnosed Diabetes in
Adults: United States, California, and Counties of the SJV, 2000-
2003
2000
2001
2002
2003
Age-adjusted rate per 100 adults (age 18 and over)
SJV
Fresno
NA
7.8
NA
8.1
Kern
NA
7.1
NA
7.4
Kings
NA
8.8
NA
9.1
Madera
NA
6.6
NA
9.2
Merced
NA
7.9
NA
10.5
San Joaquin
NA
7.7
NA
7.8
Stanislaus
NA
6.3
NA
5.7
Tulare
NA
10.5
NA
9.4
Adjacent counties
Tuolumne/Calaveras/
Amador/Inyo/Mariposa/
Mono/Alpine
NA
5.1
NA
5.6
California
NA
6.1
NA
6.6
United States
6.0
6.4
6.5
6.5
Sources: Estimates of the age-adjusted prevalence of diagnosed diabetes among adults in California
and California counties have been available since 2001 through the California Health Interview Survey
(CHIS). CHIS 2001 and CHIS 2003 are population-based household telephone surveys of a sampling
of California adults, providing county-specific data on various health measures, including diabetes.
The survey is planned again for 2005. See Laura E. Lund and Gary He, Prevalence of Diabetes in
California Counties, 2001, California Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics,
County Health Facts No. 04-01, January 2004. Also Laura E. Lund, Prevalence of Diabetes in
California Counties: 2003 Update, County Health Facts Update No. 05-A, February 2005. Both are
available at [http://www.dhs.ca.gov/hisp/chs/OHIR/reports/].
Before CHIS, diabetes prevalence for California counties was estimated by extrapolation from state
rates determined by the California Behavioral Risk Factor Survey. The rates are not comparable to
those derived from CHIS. See, for example, the January 2000 report, The Burden of Diabetes in
California Counties, published by the Diabetes Control Program of the California Department of
Health Services. The report is available at [http://www.caldiabetes.org] (click on Data).
Estimates of the age-adjusted prevalence of diagnosed diabetes among adults in the United States
come from the annual National Health Interview Survey conducted by the National Center for Health
Statistics (NCHS) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). They are published
annually in Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Adults: National Health Interview Survey, [year] (see
Table 8), which is a publication in the Vital and Health Statistics Series 10. The most recent
compilation of prevalence rates for diagnosed diabetes, covering 1997-2004, may be found at
[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhis/released200503.htm] in the Early Release of Selected
Estimates Based on Data From the January-September 2004 National Health Interview Survey.
Note: Among the 8 SJV counties, only Stanislaus in 2003 had a diabetes prevalence rate lower than
the state rate. All the other counties had rates higher than the state and U.S. rates in both 2001 and
2003. In company with the state and U.S. rates, rates for 6 of the 8 counties increased between 2001
and 2003.

CRS-121
Table 63. Diabetes Deaths — Age-Adjusted Death Rates for
Diabetes Mellitus: United States, California, and Counties of the
SJV, 1980-2002
1980
1990
2000
2002
Age-adjusted deaths per 100,000 population
SJV
Fresno
15.6
18.3
28.3
27.9
Kern
20.2
15.1
28.4
31.9
Kings
13.3*
29.5*
44.6
65.6
Madera
20.0*
29.0
32.6
30.7
Merced
26.2
23.3
32.9
35.4
San Joaquin
18.2
20.7
25.4
31.9
Stanislaus
17.3
10.3
24.2
29.2
Tulare
14.4
21.1
31.4
32.0
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
15.5*
Suppressed
Suppressed
Suppressed
Tuolumne
2.1*
17.4*
9.5*
16.7*
California
13.8
14.2
21.3
22.2
United States
18.1
20.7
25.0
25.4
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics.
Compressed Mortality File, a database containing mortality and population counts for all U.S.
counties, searchable by cause of death, state, county, age, race, sex, and year. It is available for
queries covering 1979-2002 via the CDC WONDER On-line Database at [http://wonder.cdc.gov].
Underlying cause of death is classified in accordance with the International Classification of Disease.
Deaths for 1979-98 are classified using the Ninth Revision (ICD-9). Deaths for 1999 and beyond are
classified using the Tenth Revision (ICD-10). In this table, diabetes is defined as ICD-9 Codes 250-
250.9 and ICD-10 Codes E10-E14.9.
Notes: The age-adjusted death rate is the hypothetical rate if the population of the county or state were
distributed by age in the same proportion as the 2000 United States population. It allows comparisons
between counties without regard to the influence of the actual age distribution in the various counties.
The crude death rate (not shown) represents the actual risk of dying in that county or state for the given
year (number of deaths divided by the population of the county or state).
For 1989 and later, some death rates are marked “Suppressed” due to confidentiality constraints and
concern for protecting personal privacy in the case of small counties (year 2000 population less than
100,000) with few deaths (5 or fewer deaths from the condition.)
*Statistically unreliable rate, because it is based on a death count of 20 or fewer deaths in the county.

CRS-122
Medicare Enrollment in the SJV and Appalachia. In 2001-2003, 9.8%
of the SJV population was covered by Medicare (Table 64). The proportion of the
region’s population covered by Medicare has been relatively stable and was less than
the rate in California (10.9%) and the United States (13.5%). Data are not available
for Central Appalachia, but the four states containing the 68 counties had higher
proportions of their population covered by Medicare (Table 65). In 2001-2003,
Kentucky had 15.8% of its population covered by Medicare, 13.5% in Tennessee,
13.1% in Virginia, and 20.2% in West Virginia. These rates reflect the fact that
Appalachia’s population has a much higher proportion of elderly. Rural areas in the
United States generally have higher proportions of those 65 and older than the United
States as whole.
In 1988-1990, the Metropolitan Statistical Areas of Modesto and Stockton-Lodi
had greater rates of Medicare coverage than California. Modesto’s proportion was
also greater than that of the United States. In 1998-2000, Stockton-Lodi also has had
the highest proportion of its population covered by Medicare, although the rate
(10.1%) was lower than that of California (10.9%). All other SJV metropolitan areas
had lower Medicare rates than California. In the 2001-2003 period, Modesto’s rate
of Medicare coverage grew to 13.4%, up from 9.1% in 1998-2000. Only Modesto
had higher proportions of its population under Medicare than California.
Table 66 and Table 67 provide data on per capita monthly Medicare
expenditures for aged beneficiaries in traditional medicine for the SJV and Central
Appalachian counties respectively.
Per capita monthly expenditures for aged beneficiaries on traditional medicine in the
SJV was $527 in 2003 (Table 66). This was less than monthly expenditures in
California ($620) and nearly the same as for the United States ($534). The adjacent
counties of Mariposa and Tuolumne had lower monthly expenditures than the SJV.
Monthly expenditures grew by 44% between 1990 and 2003 and 16.5% between
2000 and 2003. Monthly expenditures were highest in Stanislaus County ($680) and
lowest in Fresno County ($459).
In 2003, per capita monthly expenditures for aged beneficiaries on traditional
medicine in the Central Appalachia was $541, slightly higher than the per capita
expenditure rate in the SJV, and generally higher than the monthly rate for most of
the individual SJV counties (Table 67). The monthly per capita rate in Cental
Appalachia was higher than the rate in each of the four states and the United States.
Monthly per capita rates increased by 52.5% between 1990 and 2003 and by 17.6%
between 2000 and 2003.

CRS-123
Table 64. Percent of the Population Covered by Medicare:
United States, California, and MSAs of the SJV, 1988-2003
1988-1990
1998-2000
2001-2003
SJV
9.8%
9.1% a
9.8%
Bakersfield (Kern County)
10.7%
8.9%
7.2%
Fresno (Fresno County 1989-1991;
Fresno and Madera Counties later years)
6.6%
9.3%
10.7%
Merced (Merced County)
8.2%
7.9%
Modesto (Stanislaus County)
14.0%
9.1%
13.4%
Stockton-Lodi (San Joaquin County)
11.4%
10.1%
9.6%
Visalia-Tulare-Porterville
(Tulare County)
8.3%
8.2%
9.9%
California
10.9%
10.9%
10.9%
United States
12.8%
13.3%
13.5%
Sources: Calculated by CRS from the March Current Population Surveys (CPS) for 1989-1991,
1999-2001, and 2002-2004. The March CPS collects health insurance information for the previous
year.
Notes: In order to increase the sample sizes for each MSA, all estimates are three-year averages. An
MSA consists of an urban center (or centers) and adjacent communities that have a high degree of
economic and social integration.
a. Data for 1998 and later years may not be comparable to data for 1988-1990. Data for 1998 and
later years include an MSA for Merced County. For 1998 and later, the Fresno MSA includes
both Fresno and Madera counties.

CRS-124
Table 65. Percent of the Population Covered by Medicare:
United States, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia,
and Central Counties of the ARC, 1988-2003
1988-1990
1998-2000
2001-2003
Central ARC Counties
NA
NA
NA
Kentucky
14.1%
14.0%
15.8%
Tennessee
14.4%
12.6%
13.5%
Virginia
11.2%
13.2%
13.1%
West Virginia
15.8%
19.5%
20.2%
United States
12.8%
13.3%
13.5%
Sources: Calculated by CRS from the March Current Population Surveys (CPS) for 1989-1991,
1999-2001, and 2002-2004. The March CPS collects health insurance information for the previous
year.
Note: In order to increase the sample sizes for each state, all estimates are three-year averages.

CRS-125
Table 66. Per Capita Monthly Medicare Expenditures for Aged
Beneficiaries in Traditional Medicare: United States, California,
and Counties of the SJV, 1990-2003
1990
2000
2003
SJV
$295 $440 $527
Fresno
$260
$391
$459
Kern
$337
$490
$563
Kings
$246
$413
$449
Madera
$266
$409
$474
Merced
$308
$419
$512
San Joaquin
$313
$451
$526
Stanislaus
$293
$501
$680
Tulare
$288
$390
$464
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
$265
$372
$431
Tuolumne
$283
$368
$486
California
$366 $526 $620
United
States
$298 $441 $534
Source: Table created by CRS based on data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Note: Amounts are based on three-year averages ending in the years shown and are weighted by
beneficiary demographics and count.

CRS-126
Table 67. Per Capita Monthly Medicare Expenditures for Aged
Beneficiaries in Traditional Medicare: United States, Kentucky,
Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central Counties of
the ARC, 1990-2003
1990
2000
2003
Central ARC Counties
$257
$446
$541
Kentucky
$244
$399
$493
Tennessee
$258
$407
$488
Virginia
$258
$342
$419
West Virginia
$275
$387
$471
United
States
$298 $441 $534
Source: Table created by CRS based on data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Note: Amounts are based on three-year averages ending in the years shown and are weighted by
beneficiary demographics and count.

CRS-127
Crimes and Crime Rates in the SJV and Appalachia. Although the
crime rate per 100,000 population in the SJV declined from 7,692 in 1980 to 6,812
in 1990, the total number of crimes increased between 1980 and 1990 from 157,530
to 186,889 (Table 68).68 Violent crimes, which include murder and non-negligent
manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, increased from 14,852
incidents in 1980 to 22,391 in 1990. Property crime also increased between 1980 and
1990. The crime rate per 100,000 population in the SJV was slightly less than the
rate for California in 1980 and somewhat higher than California’s rate in 1990.
Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties had rates lower in 1980 than both
California and the SJV rate. Fresno, Kern, Kings, and San Joaquin counties had
rates per 100,000 higher than California and the SJV rate in 1980. Data were not
available for Mariposa County, but Tuolumne County had a crime rate of 3,979 per
100,000 population in 1980, almost half the rate of California and the SJV, and for
1990 its rate of 2,596 was less than half the rate of California or the SJV.
SJV and California’s crime rates declined between 1980 and 1990. Kings
County saw its rate decline from 5,221 per 100,000 population to 3,805 per 100,000,
although the total number of crimes remained about the same. Kings, Madera, and
Merced counties had roughly the same number of total crimes in 1990 as they did in
1980. Kern County’s total number of crimes decreased from 36,144 in 1980 to
34,931 in 1990. San Joaquin County, on the other hand, had a total of 40,006 crimes
in 1990, up from 29,929 in 1980. Tuolumne County had a total of 1,258 crimes in
1990 for a rate per 100,000 of 2,596.
Between 1990 and 2000, the total number of crimes in the SJV decreased from
186,889 to 160,093 and the rate per 100,000 population fell from 6,812 to 4,847.
California’s rate fell as well, to 3,740. With the exception of Kings and Madera
counties, in 2000 the SJV counties each had crime rates per 100,000 population
higher than California. Tuolumne County’s rate fell to 1,644 per 100,000 in 2000.
In 2003, however, the total number of crimes in the SJV increased by over 14,000
crimes and the rate per 100,000 population increased slightly to 4,872. Most of the
increase was attributable to increases in property crimes.
Crime rates and total number of crimes were not calculated for the 68 counties
of Central Appalachia. The rates per 100,000 for the four Appalachian states,
however, were each significantly lower than the rates for the SJV (Table 69). In
some years, the total number of crimes committed in Kentucky and West Virginia
was less than for the eight counties of the SJV. With the exception of Tennessee in
2000 and 2003, the crime rate of the SJV exceeded the rate per 100,000 population
in each Appalachian state (Table 69). Total property crimes in the SJV were almost
as high as the combined property crime total for Kentucky and West Virginia in
2003.
68 Crime data were reported for MSA’s that were contiguous with single counties or the sum
of offences reported by city, county and state law enforcement agencies for the county.

CRS-128
Table 68. Number of Crimes and Crime Rate: United States,
California, and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
Total
Crimes:
Total
Number of
Number of
Rate Per
number of
violent
property
100,000
crimes
crimes a
crimes b
Population
1980
SJV
157,530
14,852
142,678
7,692
Fresno County
43,424
4,688
38,736
8,438
Kern County
36,144
3,286
32,858
8,967
Kings County
3,850
492
3,358
5,221
Madera County
2,920
372
2,548
4,626
Merced County
8,032
587
7,445
5,969
San Joaquin County
29,929
2,567
27,362
8,617
Stanislaus County
20,236
1,514
18,722
7,610
Tulare County
12,995
1,346
11,649
5,288
Adjacent counties
Mariposa County
NA
Tuolumne County
1,350
175
1,175
3,979
California
1,843,332
210,290
1,633,042
7,788
United States
13,408,300
1,344,520
12,063,700
5,919
1990
SJV
186,889
22,391
164,498
6,812
Fresno County
55,036
6,799
48,237
8,245
Kern County
34,931
4,646
30,285
6,410
Kings County
3,861
457
3,404
3,805
Madera County
3,831
458
3,373
4,349
Merced County c
8,266
866
7,400
4,633
San Joaquin County
40,006
3,937
36,069
8,324
Stanislaus County
24,202
2,962
21,240
6,532
Tulare County c
16,756
2,266
14,490
5,372

CRS-129
Total
Crimes:
Total
Number of
Number of
Rate Per
number of
violent
property
100,000
crimes
crimes a
crimes b
Population
Adjacent counties
Mariposa County
NA
Tuolumne County
1,258
70
1,188
2,596
California
1,965,237
311,051
1,654,186
6,604
United States
14,475,613
1,820,127
12,655,486
5,820
2000
SJV
160,093
21,804
138,289
4,847
Fresno County c
48,252
6,042
42,210
6,036
Kern County
25,560
3,240
22,320
3,863
Kings County
3,131
353
2,778
2,418
Madera County
4,595
803
3,792
3,732
Merced County
8,993
1,307
7,686
4,271
San Joaquin County
29,633
4,594
25,039
5,258
Stanislaus County
23,840
3,088
20,752
5,333
Tulare County
16,089
2,377
13,712
4,372
Adjacent counties
Mariposa County
NA
Tuolumne County
896
96
800
1,644
California
1,266,714
210,531
1,056,183
3,740
United States
11,608,070
1,425,486
10,182,584
4,125
2003
SJV
174,538
22,755
151,783
4,872
Fresno County c 47,520
5,055
42,465
5,588
Kern County
33,125
3,742
29,383
4,645
Kings County c
3,917
434
3,483
2,827

CRS-130
Total
Crimes:
Total
Number of
Number of
Rate Per
number of
violent
property
100,000
crimes
crimes a
crimes b
Population
Madera County c
5,022
864
4,158
3,763
Merced County
11,533
1,603
9,930
4,980
San Joaquin County
40,781
5,381
35,400
6,445
Stanislaus County
30,074
3,110
26,964
6,110
Tulare County
2,566
2,566
NA
NA
Adjacent counties
Mariposa County
NA
Tuolumne County
1,640
204
1,436
2,890
California
1,420,637
205,551
1,215,086
4,004
United States
11,816,782
1,381,259
10,435,523
4,063
Sources: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime Statistics in the United
States, various issues. The population estimates used to calculate crime rates are from Table 2 above.

Notes: Data are for (a) metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) that are contiguous with single counties
or (b) the sum of offenses reported by city, county, and state law enforcement agencies for the county.
Data for cities are for cities and towns with populations of 10,000 or more.
a. Violent crimes include murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and
aggravated assault.
b. Property crimes include burglary, larceny theft, and motor vehicle theft.
c. Because of changes in reporting procedures (e.g., a new or separate MSA), data may not be
comparable to data for previous years.

CRS-131
Table 69. Number of Crimes and Crime Rate: United States,
Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Central
Counties of the ARC, 1980-2003
Total
Number of
Number of
Crimes: Rate
Total number
violent
property
Per 100,000
of crimes
crimes a
crimes b
Population
1980
Central ARC Counties
NA
Kentucky
125,039
9,711
115,328
3,416
Tennessee
204,456
20,824
183,632
4,453
Virginia
245,942
16,355
229,587
4,600
West Virginia
49,266
3,547
45,719
2,526
United States
13,408,300
1,344,520
12,063,700
5,919
1990
Central ARC Counties
NA
Kentucky
121,594
14,386
107,208
3,298
Tennessee
246,346
32,698
213,648
5,051
Virginia
274,757
21,694
253,063
4,439
West Virginia
44,891
3,036
41,855
2,503
United States
14,475,613
1,820,127
12,655,486
5,820
2000
Central ARC Counties
NA
Kentucky
119,626
11,903
107,723
2,960

CRS-132
Total
Number of
Number of
Crimes: Rate
Total number
violent
property
Per 100,000
of crimes
crimes a
crimes b
Population
Tennessee
278,218
40,233
237,985
4,890
Virginia
214,348
19,943
194,405
3,028
West Virginia
47,067
5,723
41,344
2,603
United States
11,608,070
1,425,486
10,182,584
4,125
2003
Central ARC Counties
NA
Kentucky
121,195
10,777
110,418
2,943
Tennessee
296,010
40,177
255,833
5,067
Virginia
220,106
20,375
199,731
2,980
West Virginia
47,375
4,661
42,714
2,617
United States
11,816,782
1,381,259
10,435,523
4,063
Sources: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime Statistics in the United
States, various issues. The population estimates used to calculate crime rates are from Table 2 above.
a. Violent crimes include murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and
aggravated assault.
b. Property crimes include burglary, larceny theft, and motor vehicle theft.

CRS-133
Chapter 3 — Federal Direct Expenditures in the San
Joaquin Valley and the Appalachian Regional
Commission Area
Scope. This chapter describes the functional categories and funding levels of
federal direct expenditures and obligations going to the San Joaquin Valley and
compares it to the 410-county ARC area and to Central Appalachia, a 68-county
subregion of the Appalachian Regional Commission area comprised of particular
counties in Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Comparative federal
funds data for FY2003 are also provided for another distinctive economic
development area, the Tennessee Valley Authority, a 186 county area in Alabama,
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia (See
Appendix E for a list of the counties). Data on total direct federal expenditures in
the SJV and Appalachia are provided for the two most recent fiscal years available,
FY2002 and FY2003. Related, but not directly comparable, data on six functional
categories developed by the USDA’s Economic Research Service are provided for
the 68-county Central Appalachia area and for the SJV. A rough gauge of the
importance of federal programs locally can be obtained by computing total federal
funds received in a particular county divided by the county’s population (federal
funds per capita). Per capita data on federal expenditures are also provided in the
tables below. Two non-metro counties adjacent to the SJV, Mariposa and
Tuolumne, are also profiled and compared to the eight county SJV.
Federal expenditures are the obligations made by various federal agencies to
state, county, and subcounty areas of the United States, including the District of
Columbia and U.S. outlying areas. Total federal assistance is larger than total federal
payments. For FY2002, reported amounts for nationwide direct expenditures or
obligations (i.e., payments) totaled $2.1 trillion. However, there was an additional
$966 billion in other federal assistance in FY2002 for direct and guaranteed loans and
insurance programs. These latter programs, while part of federal benefits, are
considered “contingent liabilities” of the federal government. Loans are expected to
be repaid and insurance payments occur only when an insured event occurs, (e.g.,
crop damage or flooding). If a loan is in default or a payment made for insured
damages, only then is there a federal obligation, i.e., a payment. When that happens,
the payment is included in the category of direct expenditures and obligations.
No single data source consistently reports accurate and complete figures on the
geographic distribution of federal funds. The federal government currently has five
major sources that present geographical distribution of federal domestic grants, loans,
salaries and wages, direct payment to individuals, and federal procurement activity.
These five sources are (1) Federal Aid to States, (2) the Consolidated Federal Funds
Report, both published annually by the U.S. Bureau of the Census; (3) the Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-133 audits; (4) the Federal Procurement
Report; and (5) the Analytical Perspectives volume of the U.S. budget documents.69
For comparative purposes, CRS chose the Consolidated Federal Funds Report
because it has the broadest county level coverage. Federal Aid to the States provides
69 See CRS Report 98-79, Federal Funds: Tracking Their Geographic Distribution.

CRS-134
a relatively comprehensive picture of individual federal agencies and functional areas
within those agencies, and the aggregate figures are included in the broad categories
of the Consolidated Federal Funds Report. Readers are encouraged to examine the
data sources for additional perspective on federal funding to particular geographic
areas.
The Consolidated Federal Funds Report.70 Federal funds data reported
below were compiled from the Consolidated Federal Funds Report, State and
County Area (CFFR), an annual compilation of federal expenditures disaggregated
into various categories of funding obligations and outlays to counties and states. The
CFFR is published by the Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Government Division and covers federal government expenditures or obligations.
Generally, federal grants and procurement data represent obligated funds. Direct
payments (e.g., retirement and disability) and salaries and wages represent actual
expenditures or outlays. Data in the CFFR are developed by aggregating available
statistics on federal expenditures and obligations. Primary data sources for the CFFR
are:
! Federal Assistance Awards Data System,
! Federal Procurement Data System,
! Office of Personnel Management,
! Department of Defense,
! U.S. Postal System
For FY2003, the most recent data available, total direct federal expenditures and
obligations to all states and territories presented in the CFFR totaled $2.1 trillion.
This amount, however, excludes expenditures that could not be geographically
distributed, all international and foreign payments, and federal outlay categories not
covered by any of the reporting systems serving as data sources for the CFFR.71 For
some agencies, data for selected object categories could not be obtained. These
include the procurement actions of the judicial and legislative branches of the federal
government. Expenditures other than salaries and wages are not available for the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration , and
the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation.
Many agency grant programs make direct payments to state governments who
administer the programs and then “pass through” the funds to local government (e.g.,
block grants, transportation funds, and other assistance programs). To the extent
possible, data on sub-state grants are provided in the CFFR at the county or county-
equivalent area. Outlays for sub-state programs include the following:
70 Information presented in the section is taken from the Introduction to the Consolidated
Federal Funds Report, 2004 (pp. v-xviii).
71 The largest unreported items were net interest on federal debt (estimated at $153 million
for FY2003) and FY2003 outlays for the international affairs budget (estimated at $21
billion). Expenditures for the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency,
and the National Security Agency are excluded from coverage.

CRS-135
! Food Stamps
! National School Lunch Program
! Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC)
! Handicapped Education-State Grants
! Rehabilitation Services - Basic Support
! Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
! Social Services Block Grant
! Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse.
The CFFR contains detailed methodological information on the availability,
reliability, and coding of federal funds data. Readers are encouraged to review the
CFFR for greater detail on the compiling of federal data for the CFFR for better
understanding of the data presented here. Certain categories of spending are
intentionally excluded in the CFFR, e.g., interest paid on the federal debt,
international payments, and foreign aid, and some agencies do not submit data to any
of the federal statistical reporting systems, (e.g., Central Intelligence Agency,
Defense Intelligence Agency, and National Security Agency). Individual federal
agency expenditures are also provided in CFFR tables. The agency data, however,
are reported only at the state level. As noted above, some of these funds do go to
individual counties and are, to the extent possible, accounted for in the CFFR direct
expenditure data on the counties.
The CFFR also provides state-level data on direct loans, guaranteed loans, and
insurance. These data are, with some exceptions, compiled from the Federal
Assistance Award Data System (FAADS). Data on direct loans, guaranteed loans,
and insurance are reported in the FAADS by state and county area, but are not
disaggregated to the county level in the CFFR. For this report, CRS has not
attempted to reconstruct FAADS and aggregate county level data on individual loan
and insurance programs for the SJV or for Central Appalachia. Nonetheless, federal
funding support for these functions may properly be regarded as part of “total federal
assistance” going to the respective regions. Only data on direct federal expenditures
and obligations are reported in the following tables in this chapter. Appendix F,
however, provides federal direct expenditures and obligation for individual programs
by SJV county. Appendix F also provides funding data for other federal assistance,
(i.e., direct and guaranteed loans and insurance programs).

In the related comparison between the 68 Central Appalachian counties and the
SJV counties also presented here, USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) did
compile data on some direct loans, guaranteed loans, and insurance and include that
in the total figures. However, ERS data exclude programs for which most or all of
their funding is reported only at the state or national level. For example, most of the
large block grant program related to social services, employment, and training were
excluded. Thus, these exclusions tend to understate the actual level of federal
funding received by counties, particularly for the category of Human Resources. For
these reasons, we recognize that the ERS data are not directly comparable to the
CFFR data for the two regions in the following tables, even though the CFFR is the
source for all the tables presented in this chapter.

CRS-136
Comparing FY2002 Federal Expenditures in the San Joaquin, the
United States, and California. Table 70 provides total and per capita amounts
of federal direct expenditures and obligations in FY2002 for the SJV, individual
counties in the SJV, and the two adjacent counties of Mariposa and Tuolumne.
(Table 71) provide data for the ARC region). Table 72 presents total and per capita
federal expenditures in the SJV for FY2003, the most recent available. Analysis of
federal direct expenditures data and various socioeconomic variables reveal several
patterns.
According to a 2002 report, California residents paid over $58 billion more in
federal taxes than the state received back in federal spending.72 There are two
primary reasons why Californians are net tax exporters. First, California’s
above-average income creates above-average federal income tax receipts. Second,
the fastest growing portion of the federal budget is in Social Security and Medicare
payments. California’s population is significantly younger than the U.S. average, and
thus has fewer recipients of payments from these programs. In contrast to
Appalachia, with its higher proportion of those 65 and over, California’s wealth and
youthfulness may constitute positive attributes. A negative balance of payments
could be viewed as one cost of these demographic advantages.73
In FY2002, the SJV received $15.64 billion dollars in federal direct
expenditures and obligations. This was a per capita rate of $4,472. Total amounts
to individual counties ranged from highs of $3.7 billion each in Fresno and Kern
counties to a low of $500.4 million to Madera County. Per capita rates ranged from
a high of $5,403 in Kern County to a low of $3,841 in Madera County. The per
capita rate for the SJV was $2,178 less than the $6,650 per capita federal expenditure
rate for the United States, and $1,406 less than the per capita rate for California
($5,878). The data further showed that each SJV county had a lower per capita rate
of federal expenditure than either the United States or California. Most SJV counties
were substantially below the national per capita rate of $6,650, ranging between
$1,247 to $2,809 per capita lower. Individual SJV counties ranged from $2,037
(Madera) to $475 (Kern) less per capita than the rate for California in FY2002.
In every federal expenditure category (retirement and disability, other direct
payments to individuals and others, grants, procurement contracts, and salaries and
wages), the SJV had a lower per capita federal expenditure and obligation rate than
the per capita rates for the United States and California. With a few exceptions, the
SJV counties had per capita federal expenditure levels below the national per capita
rate and state rates. In the category of retirement and disability spending, several SJV
counties had rates near or slightly above the state average. For wage and salary
expenditures, Kings and Kern counties had higher per capita rates than California or
the United States.
72 See California Institute for Federal Policy Research. Special Report: California’s
Balance of Payments with the Federal Treasury, Fiscal Years 1981-2002. Washington, DC.
2003. [http://www.calinst.org/pubs/balrpt02.htm]
73 Ibid.

CRS-137
Of the total $15.64 billion in federal expenditures going to the SJV in FY2002,
$5.71 billion was for retirement and disability payments. Retirement and disability
programs include federal employee retirement and disability payments benefits,
Social Security payments of all types, selected Veterans Administration programs,
and selected other federal programs. The per capita rate for retirement and disability
payments in the United States in FY2002 was $2,126. In the SJV, it was $1,632 per
capita, with the rate ranging from a high of $1,732 in San Joaquin County to a low
of $1,375 in Kings County. Direct payments to individuals other than for retirement
and disability amounted to $3.41 billion in FY2002 for a per capita rate of $976 for
the region. Other direct payments to individuals include such programs as crop
insurance indemnity payments, legal services, Postal Service operations, food
stamps, Federal Employee Workers Compensation, Unemployment Compensation
Trust Fund payments, and Medicare payments. For the SJV, per capita payment for
these other direct payment programs at $976 were lower than the rate for the United
States ($1,464) and for California ($1,286).
Grants are the second largest category of federal expenditures in the SJV after
retirement and disability. Grant expenditures to the SJV amounted to $3.87 billion
in FY2002 for a per capita rate on $1,107. This rate is 22.5 % less than the rate for
the United States ($1,430) and nearly 20% less than the rate for California ($1,369).
As with virtually all of the CFFR categories, no individual SJV county had a per
capita grant rate that was as high as the grant rate for either the United States or for
California.
Contract procurement expenditures in the United States were $940 per capita.
The per capita rate for the SJV was $260, over 72% less than the U.S. rate, and
ranged from $593 per capita in Kern County to $26 per capita in Madera County.
California has a slightly higher per capita rate for receiving federal contract
expenditures than the United States, $990 per capita in FY2002. Federal salary and
wage expenditures totaled $1.74 billion in the SJV, a per capita rate of $497, lower
than the per capita rate for the United States ($690) and for California ($545). At
$1,574, Kings County was distinctive in the SJV with its per capita rate for federal
wage and salaries being nearly three times the SJV and California rates and more
than double that of the United States.
Adjacent County Comparison. Mariposa especially and Tuolumne to a
lesser extent had higher per capita rates of direct federal expenditure than the SJV.
Mariposa’s per capita rate across all the CFFR categories was $6,123, which was
lower than the United States rate but higher than California’s. Tuolumne’s per capita
rate was $5,317, higher than most SJV counties, but lower than the per capita rates
for the United States and California. Retirement and disability and other direct
payments were the two largest expenditure categories respectively. Federal wages
and salaries are also a federal expenditure in Mariposa, with a per capita rate of
$1,361, nearly twice the national rate and over twice the SJV rate.74 The per capita
74 Mariposa and Tuolumne are, respectively, “government-dependent” and “service-
dependent” counties and are also characterized by large proportions of federal lands.
Government dependent and service dependent counties are two USDA Economic Research
(continued...)

CRS-138
rates for retirement and disability in Mariposa County ($2,823) and Tuolumne
County ($2,998) were also significantly higher than the rates for the SJV, the United
States, and California.
Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan areas.75 With the exception of Kings
County, the eight counties comprising the SJV are metro counties as defined by the
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Metro counties in the United States, on average, receive
higher per capita federal expenditure rates than the national rate. This was not the
case in the SJV. Kern County had the highest per capita rate of federal direct
expenditures ($5,403) followed by Kings County ($5,321), a nonmetro county. Kern
County had the second largest 2002 population after Fresno County, while Kings
County had the second lowest population in the SJV.
Federal Funding in the SJV and the TVA for FY2003. Table 72
presents the most recent CFFR data available for the SJV and Table 73 presents the
same CFFR data for the TVA. These data are directly comparable to the FY2002
data in Table 70.
Population in the SJV grew by nearly 65,000 residents between July 2002 and
July 2003, a 1.8% increase. Total federal expenditures and obligations in the SJV
grew by $908.1 million to $16.55 billion. The per capita rate for FY2003 increased
to $4,619 from $4,472 in FY2002, a $147 increase (3.2%). Individual county per
capita rates rose unevenly, ranging from $5 in Kern County to $284 in Kings County.
Per capita rates rose for each CFFR category except for “other direct payments,”
which fell from $976 in FY2002 to $948 in FY2003. Retirement and disability
payments increased from $1,632 per capita to $1,665.
Grant spending per capita increased for 2003 in Fresno County to $1,340, up
from $1,180 in FY2002. Most expenditure categories rose slightly in each county.
Salary and wages in Kings County increased from $1,574 in FY2002 to $2,051 in
FY2003. Stanislaus County saw a drop of $10 per capita in federal wages and
salaries between FY2002 and FY2003 and Kern County saw a $31 drop in per capita
74 (...continued)
Service designations of non-metro counties based on a county’s dominant economic activity.
A government-dependent county receives at least 25% or more of its income from
government. Service-dependent counties are non-metro counties where at least 50% or more
of total income is from service sector employment (e.g., retail, business and professional,
education, finance, insurance, and real estate).
75 Rural areas are defined in the U.S. Bureau of the Census as places of less than 2,500
people, including rural portions of extended cities and areas outside incorporated places.
Metro and non-metro areas are defined by OMB’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas and
Micropolitan Statistical Areas and are collectively referred to as Core Based Statistical
Areas (CBSAs). Metro areas consist of (1) central counties with one or more urbanized
areas and (2) outlying counties that are economically tied to the core counties as measured
by worker commuting data. Outlying counties are included if 25% of workers living there
commute to the core counties, or if 25% of the employment in the county consists of
workers coming from the central counties. Non-metro counties are outside the boundaries
of metro areas and are further subdivided into micropolitan areas centered on urban clusters
of 10,000-50,000 residents, and all remaining “non-core” counties.

CRS-139
funding for contract procurement. In the category “other direct payments”, Fresno
County’s per capita rate fell by $42, although its rate increased by $268 across all
categories.
Per capita federal expenditure rates for the United States in 2003 across each
CFFR category were substantially higher than the rates in the SJV. The per capita
federal expenditure rate for the United States increased to $7,089 in FY2003 from
$6,650 in FY2002, a 6.6% increase. The gap between per capita federal expenditure
rates for the SJV and the United States increased by $292 over the FY2002
difference. The gap between the SJV per capita rate and the California rate also
increased by $167. While population growth alone does not necessarily mean an
increase in federal dollars going to a region, the population in California grew by 1%
compared to population growth of 1.8% in the SJV between 2002 and 2003.
Per capita federal direct expenditure for FY2003 in the TVA was $7,505 (Table
73). This was $2,886 more per capita more than the SJV, $1,474 per capita more
than the ARC area in FY2002, and $398 more per capita than the United States. In
every CFFR expenditure category, federal funding in FY2003 for the TVA exceeded
that of the SJV. With the exceptions of Alabama and Kentucky, however, the TVA
areas had lower per capita rates of federal direct obligations than their respective
states. Tennessee, all of whose counties are in the TVA, had a lower per capita rate
of federal expenditure that the United States ($206 per capita less).
The 7 TVA states have counties that are also within the ARC area (in some
states, TVA counties and ARC counties overlap). Comparing a state’s ARC region
to its TVA region in FY2002 shows that in all but two states (Mississippi and
Tennessee) the TVA region’s per capita expenditure exceeded the state’s ARC
region.
Comparing Federal Funding in the Appalachian Regional
Commission Area to Federal Funding in the SJV. In FY2002, federal direct
expenditures and obligations in the ARC area amounted to $138.07 billion compared
to the SJV’s total federal expenditure of $15.64 billion (Table 70 and Table 71).
The SJV received $2,342 per capita less (34.3%) than the ARC region in direct
federal expenditures and obligations in FY2002. The ARC region received $783 per
capita less than the national per capita rate in FY2002, while the SJV received $2,178
less than the national per capita rate.76 Only six of the 13 ARC state Appalachian
regions, however, matched or exceeded the ARC region’s (Alabama, Kentucky,
76 The ARC data presented here relied on April 2000 state and county population estimates
in calculating per capita rates for 2002 federal funds data. The data on the SJV in Table 70
used July, 2002 population estimates. If population growth was high in the ARC 2000-2002,
the per capita figures in Table 71 would be lower. Population growth in the ARC region,
however, grew only 9.1% between 1990 and 2000. In the SJV, the population grew 5.6%
between April 2000 and July 2002. Using 2000 population estimates for the San Joaquin
would introduce a significant degree of bias by inflating the actual per capita rates. For
example, using 2000 population estimates raises the per capita rate for federal funding in
the San Joaquin from $4,472 to $4,736. With population growth generally slow in the ARC
region, we judged that whatever bias may occur from using the 2000 estimates is likely to
be relatively insignificant.

CRS-140
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia) per capita rate. Individual
ARC counties within the 13 states that comprise the ARC region may also receive
lower per capita rates than their respective state rates, and some states with few
Appalachian counties may receive disproportionate funding.77 In only one state’s
ARC counties (Georgia) was the per capita rate of direct federal expenditures lower
than that of the SJV.
Direct payments to individuals for retirement and disability is the largest
category of federal spending in the ARC region followed by grants and other direct
payments to individuals and direct payments other than to individuals.78 Per capita
payments in the SJV for retirement and disability averaged $1,632 in FY2002. In the
ARC region, the per capita payment was $6,031, $883 less than the per capita rate
nationally but $1,559 more than the per capita rate in the SJV. The ARC region’s
history of coal mining as well as the age of the ARC population, help explain the
high per capita disability and retirement rates for the ARC relative to the SJV. The
Black Lung Disability Trust fund, for example, is an important source of disability
payments in Appalachia. Per capita grant funding in the ARC area for FY2002 was
$1,229, which is $122 more than the SJV.
While there is significant variation among the Appalachian parts of the 13 states
that comprise the ARC region, in FY2002, per capita federal payments in the ARC
region as a whole ($6,031) exceeded the per capita rate of federal expenditure for
every SJV county. The per capita rates in the ARC region for all CFFR categories
of federal expenditure and obligation also exceeded those of the SJV, most by
substantial amounts. Other patterns in federal funding in the ARC may be seen with
procurement contracts. With the exception of Tennessee and Alabama, federal
spending on procurement contracts is generally low and similar to the SJV. While
the ARC region’s per capita payment for procurement contracts is $644 compared to
$260 in the SJV, Anderson County, Tennessee and Madison County, Alabama are
home to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory and
Marshall Space Center respectively, skewing this category. Without Tennessee and
Alabama’s relatively high per capita rates for federal procurement dollars ($1,626
and $1,757 per capita respectively), the ARC’s per capita rate for that category would
decline, although it would still be higher than the level of the SJV. As discussed
above, the potential for a few counties to skew overall regional per capita payments
77 An Ohio newspaper, the Columbus Dispatch, conducted a review of 22,169 grants
awarded from FY1966-FY1998 and found that none of the five counties receiving the most
funds had ever been considered a Distressed county, the ARC designation for the poorest
of Appalachian counties. Five poverty-stricken counties in Kentucky and West Virginia
finish near the bottom of the study, receiving less than $1.3 million each. Aid to Maryland,
New York, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, states with few if any Distressed counties,
totaled nearly $4.6 billion, more than a fourth of all ARC non-highway spending. See
Ferenchik, Mark and Jill Riepenhoff. “Mountain money: Federal tax dollars miss the mark
in core Appalachia.” Columbus Dispatch, September 26, 1999.
[http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/dispatch/moun_money.htm]
78 The ARC data disaggregated non-retirement direct payments to individuals and “direct
payments other than for individuals.” For the SJV, these two categories were combined into
“Other Direct Payments.”

CRS-141
is increased when examining the entire 410 county ARC region. Below, we examine
a relatively more homogenous group of Appalachian counties.

CRS-142
Table 70. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations in the SJV, FY2002
(thousands of dollars)
Total Federal
Direct
San Joaquin
Population
Per
Retirement and
Expenditures
Other Direct Payments
Grants
Procurement
Salaries and Wages
Counties
(July, 2002)
Capitaa
Disability
and
Obligations
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Capitaa
Capitaa
Capitaa
Capitaa
Capitaa
SJV
3,497,911
15,641,645
4,472
5,708,730
1,632
3,413,141
976
3,872,383
1,107
907,841
260
1,738,552
497
Fresno
834,632
3,775,225
4,523
1,319,908
1,581
791,021
948
985,257
1,180
184,064
221
494,975
593
Kern
694,059
3,749,816
5,403
1,196,532
1,724
766,061
1,104
714,633
1,030
411,451
593
661,139
953
Kings
135,043
718,549
5,321
185,731
1,375
158,826
1,176
135,212
1,001
26,168
194
212,612
1,574
Madera
130,265
500,411
3,841
219,150
1,682
138,267
1,061
124,143
953
3,402
26
14,450
111
Merced
225,398
891,366
3,955
364,412
1,617
206,402
916
251,889
1,118
30,047
133
38,615
171
San Joaquin
614,302
2,557,601
4,163
1,064,242
1,732
538,645
877
654,351
1,065
127,490
208
172,874
281
Stanislaus
482,440
1,889,937
3,917
805,704
1,670
426,606
884
473,185
981
105,400
218
79,042
164
Tulare
381,772
1,558,740
4,083
553,051
1,449
387,313
1,015
533,713
1,398
19,819
51
64,845
170
Adjacent Counties
Mariposa
17,195
105,292
6,123
48,353
2,812
19,802
1,152
10,368
603
3,352
195
23,416
1,362
Tuolumne
55,850
296,938
5,317
163,387
2,925
64,652
1,158
34,849
624
13,509
242
20,540
368
United States and California
U.S.
288,368,698
1,917,637,403
6,650
612,995,927
2,126
422,239,079
1,464
412,371,161
1,430
270,965,430
940
199,065,805
690
California
35,116,033
206,401,495
5,878
59,256,019
1,687
45,165,873
1,286
48,083,694
1,369
34,752,544
990
19,143,365
545
Source: Consolidated Federal Funds Report, FY 2003.
a. Per capita amounts are reported in actual dollars.

CRS-143
Table 71. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations in the Appalachian Regional Commission, FY2002
(thousands of dollars)
Total Federal
Direct
Population
Per
Retirement and
San Joaquin Counties
Expenditures
(April, 2000)
Capitaa
Disabilityb
Other Direct Payments
Grants
Procurement
Salaries and Wages
and
Obligations
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Total
Capitaa
Total
Capitaa
Total
Capitaa
Total
Capitaa
Total
Capitaa
Appalachian Region
22,894,017
138,071,000
6,031
57,864,000
2,527
28,104,000
1,228
28,128,000
1,229
14,749,000
644
9,227,000
403
Appalachian Alabama
2,837,224
20,989,000
7,398
7,363,000
2,595
3,532,000
1,245
3,122,000
1,100
4,985,000
1,757
1,988,000
701
Appalachian Georgia
2,207,531
7,232,000
3,276
3,684,000
1,669
1,474,000
668
1,328,000
602
302,000
137
444,000
201
Appalachian Kentucky
1,141,511
7,223,000
6,328
3,230,000
2,830
1,358,000
1,190
2,242,000
1,964
88,000
77
304,000
266
Appalachian Maryland
236,699
1,163,000
4,913
605,000
2,556
303,000
1,280
116,000
490
66,000
279
73,000
308
Appalachian
615,452
3,450,000
5,606
1,433,000
2,328
793,000
1,288
861,000
1,399
153,000
249
210,000
341
Mississippi
Appalachian New York
1,072,786
6,219,000
5,797
2,530,000
2,358
1,118,000
1,042
1,634,000
1,523
653,000
609
283,000
264
Appalachian North
1,526,207
7,585,000
4,970
3,790,000
2,483
1,480,000
970
1,713,000
1,122
233,000
153
368,000
241
Carolina
Appalachian Ohio
1,455,313
7,106,000
4,883
3,268,000
2,246
1,568,000
1,077
1,794,000
1,233
181,000
124
296,000
203
Appalachian
5,819,800
37,124,000
6,379
15,848,000
2,723
9,041,000
1,553
7,266,000
1,248
2,652,000
456
2,317,000
398
Pennsylvania
Appalachian South
1,028,656
4,450,000
4,326
2,327,000
2,262
852,000
828
851,000
827
217,000
51
203,000
197
Carolina
Appalachian Tennessee
2,479,317
17,808,000
7,183
6,427,000
2,592
3,008,000
1,213
3,012,000
1,215
4,031,000
1,626
1,331,000
537
Appalachian Virginia
665,177
4,362,000
6,558
1,900,000
2,856
796,000
1,197
890,000
1,338
587,000
882
189,000
284
West Virginia
1,808,344
13,361,000
7,389
5,460,000
3,019
2,780,000
1,537
3,298,000
1,824
602,000
333
1,221,000
675
U.S.
281,421,906
1,917,637,000
6,814
612,996,00
2,178
422,239,000
1,500
412,371,000
1,465
270,965,000
963
199,066,000
707
0
Data Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Consolidated Federal Funds Report, 2002 (downloaded from [http://www.census.gov/govs/www/cffr.html] on October
1, 2003).
a. Per capita amounts are reported in actual dollars.
b. Category includes Black Lung Benefits Program payments

CRS-144
Table 72. Federal Direct Expenditures or Obligations in the San Joaquin Valley, FY2003
(thousands of dollars)
San
Population
Total Federal Direct
Per
Retirement and
Other Direct Payments
Grants
Procurement Contracts
Salaries and Wages
Joaquin
(July, 2003)
Expenditures and
Capitaa
Disability
Counties
Obligations
Total
Per
Total Per
Total
Per
Total
Per Capitaa
Total
Per
Capitaa
Capitaa
Capitaa
Capitaa
San
3,582,797
16,549,751
4,619
5,966,870
1,665
3,397,805
948
4,319,021
1,205
957,296
267
1,908,759
533
Joaquin
Valley
Fresno
850,325
4,074,176
4,791
1,372,950
1,615
770,666
906
1,139,360
1,340
251,682
296
539,518
634
Kern
713,087
3,856,033
5,408
1,249,312
1,752
736,277
1,033
768,614
1,078
401,096
562
700,733
983
Kings
138,564
776,751
5,606
199,699
1,441
121,100
874
144,740
1,045
26,959
195
284,254
2,051
Madera
133,463
522,284
3,913
232,627
1,743
128,968
966
138,528
1,038
6,653
50
15,508
116
Merced
231,574
964,503
4,165
386,083
1,667
219,077
946
290,309
1,254
22,694
98
46,339
200
San
632,760
2,675,054
4,228
1,104,466
1,745
568,137
898
730,493
1,154
94,811
150
177,147
280
Joaquin
Stanislaus
492,233
2,046,853
4,158
841,226
1,709
470,565
956
549,591
1,117
109,581
223
75,890
154
Tulare
390,791
1,634,097
4,182
580,507
1,485
383,015
980
557,386
1,426
43,820
112
69,370
178
Adjacent Counties
Mariposa
17,803
134,623
7,562
50,207
2,820
23,120
1,299
15,258
857
19,592
1,100
26,446
1,485
Tuolumne
56,755
332,012
5,850
169,574
2,988
70,706
1,246
58,149
1,025
11,408
201
22,174
391
United States and California
U.S.
290,809,777
2,061,485,972
7,089
636,238,733
2,188
446,119,217
1,534
441,037,633
1,517
327,413,076
1,126
210,677,312
724
California
35,484,453
219,705,707
6,192
61,235,997
1,726
49,480,339
1,394
51,328,805
1,447
37,049,547
1,044
20,611,019
581
Source: Consolidated Federal Funds Report, FY2003 (September 2004).
Note: Some figures in this table were revised in December 2006 from the amounts originally published in December 2005. An error in the SJV July 2003 population figure resulted
in slightly higher per capita federal expenditure rates. Rather than an SJV per capita rate for federal expenditures of $4,645, as originally reported, the revised population figure results
in a per capita rate of $4,619. Total county expenditures were lower than originally reported for Kings and Merced counties, resulting in higher total county per capita rates in the
original figures (e.g., $5,613 vs. $5,606 in Kings County). I am very grateful to Dr. Martha Jones of the California Research Bureau, California State Library, for bringing these errors
to my attention.
a. Per capita amounts are reported in actual dollars.

CRS-145
Table 73. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations in the Tennessee Valley Authority Area FY2003
(thousands of dollars)
Total Federal
Tennessee
Direct
Population
Per
Retirement and
Valley
Expenditures
Other Direct Payments
Grants
Procurement
Salaries and Wages
(July, 2003)
Capitaa
Disability
Authority
and
Obligations
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Total
Capitaa
Total
Capitaa
Total
Capitaa
Total
Capitaa
Total
Capitaa
Tennessee
40,721,886
305,611,715
7,505
94,163,755
2,312
53,831,196
1,322
54,483,644
1,338
62,626,877
1,538
40,533,244
995
Valley
Authority
Alabama
4,500,752
30,870,869
6,859
12,232,032
2,718
7,698,399
1,710
6,649,139
1,477
7,067,435
1,570
3,223,864
716
Alabama TVA
1,008,699
11,073,243
10,978
2,753,696
2,730
1,128,282
1,119
979,344
971
5,098,290
5,054
1,113,632
1,104
Georgia
8,684,715
51,910,196
5,977
16,665,866
1,919
11,426,056
1,316
10,561,235
1,216
5,242,532
604
8,014,506
923
Georgia TVA
388,311
1,582,215
4,075
833,673
2,147
373,533
962
299,709
772
26,210
67
49,089
126
Kentucky
4,117,827
31,153,085
7,565
10,168,614
2,469
6,118,924
1,486
6,634,063
1,611
5,119,069
1,243
3,112,416
756
Kentucky TVA
631,071
5,984,846
9,484
1,557,192
2,468
819,707
1,299
748,566
1,186
1,638,779
2,597
1,220,602
1,934
Mississippi
2,881,281
21,740,611
7,545
6,922,911
2,403
4,903,648
1,702
5,318,478
1,846
2,625,647
911
1,969,926
684
Mississippi
1,073,213
5,673,189
5,286
2,371,279
2,210
1,251,956
1,167
1,451,994
1,353
266,808
249
331,152
309
TVA
North Carolina
8,407,248
51,766,362
6,157
18,805,741
2,237
11,012,283
1,310
11,613,214
1,381
3,794,455
451
6,540,669
778
North Carolina
184,501
947,143
5,134
428,782
2,324
180,863
980
183,547
995
155,176
841
25,775
140
TVA
Tennessee
5,841,748
40,311,139
6,901
13,743,588
2,353
7,039,653
1,205
8,648,710
1,481
7,521,940c
1,288
3,357,249
575
TVAb
Virginia
7,386,330
82,453,984
11,163
19,553,290
2,647
9,420,394
1,275
7,885,964
1,068
30,838,710
4,175
14,755,627
1,998
Virginia TVA
116,942
1,015,702
8,686
359,123
3,071
155,897
1,333
158,820
1,358
299,261
2,559
42,601
364
United States
290,080,977
2,061,485,972
7,107
636,238,733
2,193
446,119,217
1,538
441,037,633
1,520
327,413,076
51
210,677,312
726
Source: Consolidated Federal Funds Report, FY 2003.
a. Per capita amounts are reported in actual dollars.
b. All Tennessee counties are within the Tennessee Valley Authority.
c. Procurement figures for Tennessee are based on FY2000 data. TVA has not reported procurement data since FY2000.

CRS-146
Federal Funding in Appalachia and the San Joaquin: The Economic
Research Service Data. The data for the SJV and the ARC discussed above are
comparable and reveal significant variation both within each region and between the
two regions. In this section, we examine FY2000 federal funding data in the eight-
county SJV region and Appalachia based on data generated by researchers at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (ERS). ERS has studied
federal funding distribution in several regions of the United States using functional
categories developed from the CFFR object codes.79 Appalachia, as ERS has defined
it, is a 246 county area in 12 states, as opposed to the ARC area of 410 counties in
13 states (ERS excluded South Carolina). Central Appalachia as defined by ERS is
a 68-county, largely rural region in Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia
(for a list of the counties, see Appendix D).80 This area comprises the counties for
which certain socioeconomic data are provided in Chapter 2.
Central Appalachia contains some of the poorest counties in the entire ARC
region with 45 of its 68 counties defined by the ARC as Distressed counties (see
description of ARC county categories in Chapter 2). As the data in Chapter 2
demonstrate, there are socioeconomic parallels between the SJV and Central
Appalachia in terms of poverty and unemployment. The area is also heavily
dependent on low-wage, low-skilled service sector employment. Like the SJV,
Central Appalachia has long seen many of its better educated residents leave for more
attractive economic opportunities elsewhere.
79 See Bagi, Faqir S., Richard Reeder, and Samuel Calhoun. “Federal funding’s unique role
in Appalachia.” Rural Development Perspectives, 14(1), May, 1999; Reeder, Richard, Faqir
Bagi, and Samuel Calhoun. Which federal programs are most important for the Great
Plains?” Rural Development Perspectives, 113(1), June, 1998.
80 The Economic Research Service’s Central Appalachian region is smaller by 164 counties
than Appalachia as defined by the ARC (410 counties) and 147 counties smaller than the
ARC defined region of Central Appalachia. ERS defined Appalachia following a modified
version of the counties identified in Donald J. Bogue and Calvin L. Beale’s, Economic Areas
of the United States (Free Press, 1961). The ARC region includes the entire State of West
Virginia, and part of 11 other States (from north to south): New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and
Mississippi. One county in Kentucky and two in Virginia were dropped from the list
identified by Bogue and Beale because these counties are not under ARC’s jurisdiction.
Appalachia is further subdivided into subregions. Northern Appalachia includes 2 counties
in Maryland, 23 in Ohio, 37 in Pennsylvania, and 46 in West Virginia. Of these, 34 are
metro (urban) and 74 non-metro (rural) counties. In other words, almost one-third (32
percent) of counties in this region are urban counties, a nd thus this subregion is the most
urbanized of the three subregions. Central Appalachia includes 43 counties in Kentucky,
9 in Tennessee, 7 in Virginia, and 9 in West Virginia. Of these, only 6 (9%) counties are
metro, and the remaining 62 are non-metro (rural). Thus, Central Appalachia is more rural
than the rest of Appalachia. Southern Appalachia includes 10 counties in Georgia, 16 in
North Carolina, 28 in Tennessee, and 16 in Virginia. Almost one out of every four (24%)
counties in this subregion is urban (metro). So, while southern Appalachia is also
predominantly rural, it is much more urbanized than central Appalachia. See Bagi, Faqir,
Richard Reeder, and Samuel Calhoun. “Federal Funding in Appalachia and its Three
Subregions.” Rural America, Volume 17 (4). Winter 2002.

CRS-147
ERS combined various CFFR categories into 6 broad functional categories of
different types of federal funding. ERS data, however, provide a somewhat different
picture of federal funding because they categorize the data differently. The data for
FY2000 covered 1,165 programs, but the data were not reliable at the county level
for every federal program. ERS excluded federal programs for which 25% or more
of their funding went to state capitals, because the states may redistribute these funds
to some or all counties and Census data do not reveal the amount of this
redistribution. ERS analysts also excluded programs for which most or all of the
funding is reported only at the state or national level. Thus, most of the large block
grant programs related to social services, employment, and training were excluded
from their analyses. Relative to Table 74 and Table 75 below, these exclusions
understate the amount of federal funding received, particularly for human resource
programs. For FY2000, ERS determined that the data were reliable at the county
level for 703 federal programs. These programs, accounted for $1.79 trillion
natiowide, or about 92% percent of the total federal funds reported by the Bureau of
the Census for FY2000.
In the remainder of this chapter, we present data on the SJV and Central
Appalachia based on ERS’s functional categories. Also provided are 10 maps
(Figures 9-18) based on these ERS data. It should be emphasized that Tables 74 and
Table 75 cannot be directly compared to Tables 70 and 71. They provide a different
perspective on similar, but not identical, data. For example, unlike data in Tables
70 and 71, the ERS data exclude large block grant programs. Interpretations of any
of these tables should be made with caution because federal funds data are only as
good as the information each agency supplies to the U.S. Bureau of the Census. In
some cases, as with Medicaid, the data are based not on actual outlays that go to
places, but on estimates based on other information, which may involve errors. In
other cases, like procurement, expenditures may be reported only at the location of
prime contractors or primary subcontractors and ignore further subcontracting that
disperses the impact of expenditures. For example, defense procurement, which
primarily benefitted Appalachian metro areas and government-dependent nonmetro
areas, may involve subcontracting that disperses the benefits broadly to some other
areas.
The ERS functional categories for federal programs include:
! Agriculture and Natural Resources including agricultural assistance,
agricultural research and services, forest and land management, and
water/recreation resources.
! Community Resources include business assistance, community
facilities, community and regional development, environmental
protection, housing, Native American programs, and transportation;
! Defense and Space including aeronautics and space, defense
contracts, and payroll/administration;
! Human Resources including elementary and secondary education,
food and nutrition, health services, social services, training, and
employment;

CRS-148
! Income Security including medical and hospital benefits, public
assistance and unemployment compensation, retirement, and
disability — including Social Security; and
! National Functions including criminal justice and law enforcement,
energy, higher education and research, and all other programs
excluding insurance.
The ERS data show that the SJV received a total of $16.33 billion in federal
expenditures in FY2000 with a per capita rate of $4,944 (Table 74). Income Security
programs represent the largest category of expenditure ($9.48 billion) with a per
capita rate of $2,870. Per capita rates varied slightly in this category, with San
Joaquin County receiving the highest per capita rate in the SJV ($3,093). San
Joaquin County also had a higher per capita rate of Community Resources
expenditure ($1,018) than did the SJV ($862). Human Resources programs received
the lowest level of federal expenditure in the SJV ($600.8 million) with a per capita
rate of $182.
The size of the agricultural sector in the SJV is reflected in federal expenditures
in the SJV. In FY2000, the SJV received $782.4 million in the category of
Agriculture and Natural Resources with a per capita rate of $237. Kern at $420,
Kings at $316, and Fresno at $313 had the highest per capita rates in this category of
expenditure. San Joaquin County and Stanislaus County had the lowest per capita
rates, $64 and $57 respectively.
Defense and Space expenditures were highly localized in Kern and Kings
counties. These two counties received all but $169.6 million of the $1.24 billion
going to the SJV for this category, and thus skew the distribution. The per capita
rate in Kern and Kings counties was $1,189 and $2,196 respectively. The average
per capita rate of expenditure for Defense and Space in the other six SJV counties
was $51. Procurement contracts and wages and salaries associated with Edwards Air
Force Base and the Naval Petroleum Reserve in Kern County and Lenmoore Naval
Air Station in Kings County are the significant factors in these high rates for Kern
and Kings counties. (Figure 14).
Per capita rates of federal expenditure among the six categories were somewhat
lower in the SJV than the per capita rates for California (Table 74). California had
a per capita rate of federal expenditure of $5,340 compared to the SJV’s rate of
$4,944. Income Security per capita in the state and SJV were nearly the same.
Defense and Space payments per capita were over twice as high in California as the
SJV. Agriculture and Natural Resources expenditures per capita were nearly six
times greater in the SJV as the state. Community Resources rate per capita were
nearly the same in the SJV as the state while National Functions were $300 more per
capita in the state than in the SJV.
The per capita federal expenditure rate in Mariposa County was $748 more than
the SJV. Per capita rates in Mariposa County for Income Security and National
Functions were also higher than the rates for the SJV. Income Security per capita in

CRS-149
Mariposa County was nearly $1,000 higher than the SJV and National Functions
brought Mariposa’s per capita rate in that category to $1,505, over three times the
rate in the SJV. The map in Figure 14 shows the federally owned land in Mariposa
and Tuolumne counties which contributes to high federal expenditures for National
Functions in Mariposa. The per capita expenditure rate in Tuolumne County was
$116 higher than the SJV’s rate. Like Mariposa County, Tuolumne County had a
per capita rate of $4,057 for Income Security, which was significantly higher than
that of the SJV. Among other factors, this reflects the higher proportion of those
over 65 in both counties’ population.
Per capita data for Appalachia show distinct differences from those for the SJV
(Table 75). Data are provided for three subregions of Appalachia: North, South, and
Central. These data also reveal distinctive patterns among the three subregions. The
per capita rate for federal expenditure in the smaller Appalachian region that ERS
delimited was $6,044 in FY2002. The 57 metropolitan counties within this region
had a per capita rate of federal expenditure of $6,562 and the 189 non-metropolitan
counties had a per capita rate of $5,416. This is consistent with national patterns of
federal expenditure, which also show generally higher per capita rates in metro areas
as opposed to non-metro areas. Metro, non-metro, and Appalachia as a whole each
had per capita expenditure rates higher than the rate for the SJV ($4,944). By a
significant margin, the highest per capita rate of federal expenditure among the three
Appalachian subregions was in Central Appalachia. Per capita expenditure in that
region was $7,730. Per capita rates in North Appalachia and South Appalachia were
$5,951 and $5,305 respectively. The high rate of Central Appalachia’s metro
counties accounts for the high rate overall. Central Appalachia’s metro rate per
capita was $15,455 compared to its non-metro rate of $6,292. This non-metro rate,
however, is the highest among the three subregions, and is $876 more per capita than
the rate for the Appalachian region as a whole.
As was the case for the United States, Appalachia and each of its subregions had
the highest federal expenditures for Income Security programs. The per capita rate
for Income Security expenditures in Appalachia was $4,239 compared to a rate of
$3,276 in the United States. In the SJV, the Income Security per capita rate was
$2,870. Central Appalachia’s non-metro counties had the highest rate per capita rate
of the three regions for this category, $5,135, substantially higher than the non-metro
rates in the other two regions, as well as the region-wide rate of $4,239.
National Functions, located largely in Central Appalachia’s metro-counties,
account for the disproportionate per capita rate for that subregion. The per capita rate
for National Functions in Central Appalachia was $7,097 compared to a region-wide
per capita rate of $865, a higher rate than that of the United States ($822). If Central
Appalachia’s high rate is discounted, Appalachia’s National Function per capita rate
would fall to $784. West Virginia’s universities and the 1995 completion of a
Federal Bureau of Investigation research center in Clarksburg were major factors in
Central Appalachia’s high metro per capita rate in this category. The 17 metro
counties in South Appalachia also had a per capita rate of expenditures for National
Functions, $1,225. The per capita rate for National Functions in the SJV was $417.
Per capita rates for Human Resources, Defense and Space, and Community
Resources in the SJV were higher than the rates for these categories in Appalachia,

CRS-150
although the rates are significantly different within Appalachia’s metro and non-
metro areas and vary across the three subregions. The per capita federal expenditure
rate for Human Resources was $119 in Appalachia, the same as for the United States.
For the SJV, per capita expenditure was $182 for this category. For Community
Resources, Appalachia had a per capita expenditure rate of $504 compared to the
SJV’s rate of $862. As noted above, just two counties (Kern and Kings) account for
high rates of Defense and Space expenditures in the SJV. The map in Figure 14
shows the sources of federal expenditure for this category. In Appalachia, the rate
for this category is $282 compared to $376 in the SJV. Again, the rate in Central
Appalachia’s metro counties skews the regional rate. Central Appalachia’s 62 non-
metro counties had a Defense and Space expenditure rate per capita of $103. Its 6
metro counties had a per capita rate of $3,655.
Per capita expenditures for Agriculture and Natural Resources are very low
compared to the SJV, although South Appalachia’s per capita rate for this category
was $56 compared to Stanislaus County’s per capita rate of $57. For the
Appalachian region as a whole, the per capita rate for Agriculture and Natural
Resources expenditures was $36 compared to a per capita rate of $237 in the SJV.

CRS-151
Table 74. Per Capita Federal Funds By ERS Function for the SJV, FY2000
(thousands of $)
Population All Federal
Per
Agriculture and
Community
Defense and
Human
Income
National
County /Area
2000
funds
Capita*
natural resources
resources
space
resources
security
functions
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Capita*
Capita*
Capita*
Capita*
Capita*
Capita*
SJV
3,302,792
16,328,050
4,944
782,449
237
2,848,419
862
1,240,550
376
600,761
182
9,478,591
2,870
1,377,275
417
Fresno
799,407
3,844,718
4,809
250,047
313
630,637
789
61,910
77
172,929
216
2,186,739
2,735
542,455
679
Kern
661,645
4,059,857
6,136
277,768
420
647,644
979
786,600
1,189
118,831
180
1,937,870
2,929
291,142
440
Kings
129,461
729,061
5,632
40,875
316
61,494
475
284,262
2,196
23,508
182
299,322
2,312
19,599
151
Madera
123,109
495,802
4,027
26,959
219
83,715
680
1,461
12
16,698
136
350,601
2,848
16,367
133
Merced
210,554
956,131
4,541
55,937
266
166,465
791
8,992
43
44,129
210
599,921
2,849
80,686
383
San Joaquin
563,598
2,697,883
4,787
36,257
64
573,484
1,018
90,602
161
86,303
153
1,743,340
3,093
167,897
298
Stanislaus
446,997
1,968,630
4,404
25,547
57
395,539
885
4,172
9
65,329
146
1,321,930
2,957
156,113
349
Tulare
368,021
1,575,968
4,282
69,059
188
289,441
786
2,551
7
73,034
198
1,038,868
2,823
103,016
280
Adjacent Counties
Mariposa
17,130
97,502
5,692
67
4
3,107
181
310
18
1,783
104
66,456
3,880
25,778
1,505
Tuolumne
54,501
281,308
5,162
101
2
27,144
498
600
11
3,565
65
221,115
4,057
28,783
528
California
California
33,871,648
180,871,138
5,340 1,468,879
43 28,008,452
827 25,518,476
753 4,619,704
136 96,975,231
2,863 24,280,397
717
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service calculations of federal funds data from the U.S. Census Consolidated Federal Funds Report, FY2000.
* Per capita funds reported in actual dollars

CRS-152
Table 75. Per Capita Federal Funds for Appalachia by ERS Function and Region, FY2000
Appalachia and its
Total Federal
Agriculture
Community
Defense and
Human
Income
National
Subregions
funds per
and Natural
Resources
Space
Resources
Security
Functions
(# of counties)
capita
Resources
United States
5,690
116
680
678
119
3,276
822
Metro
5,743
39
728
771
113
3,182
910
Nonmetro
5,481
427
486
303
143
3,656
467
Appalachia (246)
6,044
36
504
282
119
4,239
865
Metro (57)
6,562
32
571
432
104
4,251
1,172
Nonmetro (189)
5,416
40
423
99
138
4,224
491
North Appalachia (108)
5,951
26
546
276
109
4,270
724
Metro (34)
6,325
16
592
370
104
4,445
798
Nonmetro (74)
5,248
45
460
99
118
3,942
585
South Appalachia (70)
5,305
56
467
81
102
3,754
845
Metro (17)
5,742
70
540
68
102
3,736
1,225
Nonmetro (53)
4,807
40
383
97
103
3,773
411
Central Appalachia (68)
7,730
37
401
661
193
4,974
1,465
Metro (6)
15,455
56
413
3,655
128
4,105
7,097
Nonmetro (62)
6,292
33
399
103
206
5,135
416
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service calculations of federal funds data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census’s Consolidated Federal Funds Report,
FY2000.

CRS-153
Geographical Information System Mapping of Federal Funds
Data
Figures 9-18 below map the federal funds data for each of the six ERS
categories in Table 75. Also presented are maps for total federal funds by county
and per capita federal funds by county (Figure 10 and Figure 11). Each map also
provides an inset of the same data to contrast the SJV with California’s other 58
counties. Figure 15 is a map showing federal lands and military installations and
Figure 17 provides a proportional county map for the ERS categories across all
counties in the state.
Figure 9. Total Federal Assistance by County, FY2000
Data Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service calculations of federal
funds data from the U.S. Census Consolidated Federal Funds Report, FY2000.

CRS-154
Figure 10. Total Federal Assistance Per Capita, FY2000
Data Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service calculations of federal
funds data from the U.S. Census Consolidated Federal Funds Report, FY2000.

CRS-155
Figure 11. Federal Assistance per Capita for Agriculture and Natural
Resources by County, FY2000
Data Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service calculations of federal
funds data from the U.S. Census Consolidated Federal Funds Report, FY2000

CRS-156
Figure 12. Federal Assistance Per Capita for Community Resources
Data Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service calculations of federal
funds data from the U.S. Census Consolidated Federal Funds Report, FY2000

CRS-157
Figure 13. Federal Assistance Per Capita for Defense and Space by
County, FY2000
Data Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service calculations of federal
funds data from the U.S. Census Consolidated Federal Funds Report, FY2000

CRS-158
Figure 14. Federally Owned Land in the SJV
Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey

CRS-159
Figure 15. Federal Assistance Per Capita for Human Resource by
County, FY2000
Data Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service calculations of federal
funds data from the U.S. Census Consolidated Federal Funds Report, FY2000

CRS-160
Figure 16. Federal Assistance per Capita for Income Security by
County, FY2000
Data Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service calculations of federal
funds data from the U.S. Census Consolidated Federal Funds Report, FY2000

CRS-161
Figure 17. Federal Assistance per Capita for National Functions by
County, FY2000
Data Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service calculations of federal
funds data from the U.S. Census Consolidated Federal Funds Report, FY2000

CRS-162
Figure 18. Allocation of Federal Assistance by ERS Category in
California and the SJV, FY2000
Data Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service calculations of federal
funds data from the U.S. Census Consolidated Federal Funds Report, FY2000

CRS-163
Chapter 4 — The Economic Structure of the San
Joaquin Valley
Introduction. Identifying the forces that will influence future economic
growth in the SJV is a formidable challenge to policy makers and residents of the
SJV. Projections of population growth presented earlier show the SJV as one of
California’s fastest growing regions. Migration from the coast is a factor in this
growth, yet many of these residents continue to commute to jobs in Los Angeles and
the Bay Area. International migration from Asia and Latin America is also a
significant factor in the population growth. Although agriculture employment as a
proportion of the California economy continues to shrink, wage and salary farm
production employment in the state has grown between 1990 and 2002, from 172,307
jobs in 1990 to 244,525 jobs in 2002. Agricultural service employment and
agricultural processing and marketing employment have also grown between 1990
and 2000, although these categories decreased by approximately 29,000 jobs between
2000 and 2002.81
Agriculture remains the SJV’s dominant economic sector, although hired farm
labor has declined from 377,853 workers in 1992 to 243,079 workers in 2002
(35.6%).82 Between 1997 and 2002, only Kings and Tulare counties saw small
increases in number of hired farm workers. Yet, agricultural development in the SJV
may produce different effects in the SJV from the changes in commodity production
seen in other parts of the United States, (e.g., the Northern Great Plains and
Midwest). As we discuss below, the dynamic agricultural economy of the SJV is
becoming increasingly specialized, vertically integrated, and export-oriented in a
globalized agro-food production system. Although these changes are occurring
throughout large-scale commercial agriculture, their scale and the existence of
agricultural manufacturing and processing sectors in the SJV suggest that the model
of integration is perhaps at its leading edge in the SJV. Agriculture, unlike other
economic sectors, is also vulnerable to changes in water supply and the conversion
of prime farmland to urban uses. Change in availability or cost of these inputs could
significantly alter the role of agriculture in the SJV for the future.
For all its importance to the SJV today, agricultural production will likely exist
alongside an increasing diversification in the Valley’s economy. While no new
economic sector has developed to the point that analysts might credibly point to it as
a main economic engine of the region’s future, information and electronics,
biomedical/health, computers and data processing, in addition to agriculture, have
81 These data were compiled by USDA’s Economic Research Service and are based on the
1997 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Most industry estimates
were developed from an enhanced file of the County Business Patterns, U.S. Bureau of the
Census. Farm proprietors and farm wage and salary workers are from the Bureau of
Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce.
[http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FarmandRelatedEmployment/ViewData.asp?GeoAreaPic
k=STACA_California&YearPick=2002&B1=Submit]
82 National Agricultural Statistical Service. U.S. Census of Agriculture, 1992, 1997, and
2002. It should be noted that these Census of Agriculture data did not include the number
of workers brought to farms by farm labor contractors until the 2002 Census of Agriculture.

CRS-164
been identified as emerging economic “clusters” within the Central Valley during the
1990s.83 In the SJV, computers and data processing services grew strongly in the
early 1990s. This sector, which includes back-office data processing functions,
however, is increasingly vulnerable to off-shoring to sites where labor costs are
lower. The SJV also revealed a nascent biomedical “cluster” which included a
growing medical instrument and supply sector.84 In addition to profiling the
economic structure of the SJV, we also discuss below the potential of an expanding
biomedical and health care industry in the SJV.
Unlike agriculture, which depends in large measure on a less skilled labor pool,
the more technologically advanced production “clusters” will require increased
numbers of more highly skilled workers. A more technologically sophisticated
agricultural industry in the SJV will likely also demand a better trained workforce in
the future. Human capital development in the SJV, (i.e., life-long education and
training, may become a central consideration in the diversification of the Valley
economy into higher wage, higher skilled sectors). The SJV’s capacity to develop
and sustain high quality educational programs and worker training opportunities will
be critical to creating a labor force able to take advantage of new sources of
economic growth over the next two decades.
Agriculture in the SJV
Trends in the Structure of SJV Agriculture. Agriculture defines the
socioeconomic structure of the SJV. The Central Valley, of which the San Joaquin
is part, is the most productive agricultural region in the United States. The SJV
generates half of the state’s gross value of agricultural production and ranks fourth
in the United States in the number of people involved in farming, forestry, and
fishing. Policy issues such as labor, immigration, the environment, water supply, and
land use each affect and are affected by the structure of agriculture in the Valley.
While economic diversification is a goal shared by many citizens of the Valley,
agriculture production and its related industries will likely remain a central pillar of
the economy for the foreseeable future.85 Agriculture in the future, however, will
likely have different characteristics from the agriculture of today. Increasing
technological integration, fewer farm jobs, greater economic scales of production in
some sectors, and more specialization and integration are significant trends that will
shape SJV agriculture in the years ahead.
83 Bradshaw, Ted K. “How will the Central Valley grow?” California Agriculture, 54(1),
January-February, 2000. Industrial “clusters” are agglomerations of interrelated regional
industries that gain advantages because they are co-located and can share supply networks,
research and development, and post-production specialization, e.g., marketing, shipping.
See National Governors Association. A Governor’s Guide to Cluster-Based Economic
Development. Washington, D.C., July, 2002.
[http://www.nga.org/cda/files/AM02CLUSTER.pdf]
84 Ibid.
85 Great Valley Center. The State of the Great Valley Central Valley of California:
Assessing the regional Via Indicators: The Economy, 1999-2004. Modesto: Great Valley
Center, 2005.

CRS-165
The long-standing trend toward fewer, larger, and more specialized commercial
farms and ranches in the U.S. (horizontal integration) is well documented.
Agriculture in the SJV is arguably the model of large-scale, industrial agriculture
today. Not only have these trends been observed for many years, recent data suggest
they may be accelerating as pressures increase from global competitors and as new
agricultural technologies continue to reinforce the substitution of capital for labor to
create even greater scale efficiencies.86 Rapid and increasing consolidation and
coordination (vertical integration) in agriculture are indicators of a more fundamental
restructuring occurring in the food and fiber system today. A growing share of
commodity producers, mostly within animal production currently, are joining “supply
chains.”87 A supply chain is a tightly organized production, processing, and
marketing system formed by agribusiness firms that, in its most coordinated form,
could potentially link each step of food production from proprietary genetic material
to the grocery shelf.
Like previous agricultural changes, technology will play a key role in the
evolution of supply chains. Technology has been a major force in driving the shift
of farm activities off the farm and into the input industries. Advances in agricultural
biotechnology can be expected to do the same, but with a distinct variation. Initial
biotechnology development in agriculture focused on changes in bulk commodities,
(e.g., herbicide resistant soybeans and pesticide resistant corn). Much current
research in biotechnology is focused on the characteristics of farm products, not just
how the products are produced. Proprietary products lend themselves to the structure
of supply chains as the contractor firms target new bio-engineered products to
particular market niches. Some farmers in some regions may choose to continue
producing bulk commodities; other farmers may choose to contract with an
agribusiness firm to produce a value-added bio-engineered product.

Some contract producers might find themselves with decreasing power to
negotiate the terms of their contracts as the relative power of large processors to
determine the conditions of production increases.88 Although some states, (e.g.,
Minnesota), have adopted measures to protect contract producers, some observers
believe that because producers negotiate individually with a processor, often with
contract confidentiality clauses, individual producers can be at a disadvantage.89
86 Approximately half of California’s agricultural sales is in the labor-intensive fruit,
vegetable, and horticultural sub-sector. These farms are heavily reliant on hired labor for
most of the farm’s seasonal work requirements.
87 Drabenstott, Mark. “Rural America in a new century.” Main Street Economist, Federal
Reserve Bank of Kansas City, October, 1999.
88 Some economists have suggested that rapid expansion of consolidation in agriculture has
also exposed agribusiness firms to increased financial pressures. Such stress could leave
producers who are dependent on contracts or marketing agreements with large agribusiness
firms vulnerable. See Kohl, David. “Reflections and perspectives” Ag Lender, June 21,
2001.
89 Etka, Steve. “Contract agriculture: serfdom in our time.” National Campaign for
Sustainable Agriculture, Update, June, 2001.

CRS-166
What is of particular significance, if still poorly understood, are the implications
for areas such as the SJV where agriculture plays such a central role in the region’s
economy. Historically, agricultural production was relatively widely distributed
across the landscape. Supply chains appear to be redrawing the landscape of
dispersed agricultural production. Poultry production and swine production were
once widely dispersed across the country. Today, broiler production, which is almost
exclusively done under producer contracts, is found mostly in the South and
Southeastern U.S. and upper Midwest. Poultry processing plants are even more
concentrated within those regions. Similarly, beef production, with large feed lots
and nearby meat packing plants, suggests a very different agricultural geography, one
with potentially significant social and environmental effects in regions where such
production occurs. Given the SJV’s strong production in dairy, fruits, and
vegetables, the evolution of supply chain production in those sectors is likely to hold
significant implications for agriculture in the Valley.
Agriculture and SJV Communities. Some research has suggested that
farm scale and other management characteristics are associated with certain
community characteristics. This research has been controversial since Walter
Goldschmidt’s pioneering 1944 research on two San Joaquin farming communities
conducted for the USDA’s Bureau of Agricultural Economics.90 A substantial body
of evidence has shown that communities characterized by large-scale, especially
industrial, farm structures are often associated with adverse community
socioeconomic conditions, e.g., lower community standards of living, less economic
diversity, fewer community services, less vibrant retail trade, etc., than communities
with other types of farming enterprises.91 The direction of that statistical association,
however, remains unclear as does the strength of the relationship and, even more
important, the processes that underlie it.
Research conducted as part of the Office of Technology Assessment’s (OTA)
1986 report, Technology, Public Policy, and the Changing Structure of American
Agriculture, supported the relationship reported by Goldschmidt between industrial
farming and community quality of life in its analysis of Florida and several Western
states.92 Farms dominated by manager-worker relations and dependent on large,
mostly unskilled labor forces can be associated with adverse socioeconomic effects.93
Because a significant portion of SJV agriculture does exhibit some of the
characteristics of industrialized agricultural, the relation between agriculture and
90 Walter F. Goldschmidt. As You Sow: Three Studies in the Social Consequences of
Agribusiness. Montclair, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun and Co., 1978.
91 Counties with the most industrialized agriculture are found in California, Arizona, Texas,
and Florida. Of these, California and Texas are among the top 10 states with the most
agricultural workers.
92 MacCannell, Dean and Edward Dolber-Smith. “Report on the Structure of Agriculture and
Impacts of New Technologies on Rural Communities in Arizona, California, Florida, and
Texas. Report prepared for the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, 1985.
93 California has more farm workers than any other state. The Central Valley of California,
the richest agricultural area in the world, however, has an unemployment rate three times
the national average (New York Times, June 18, 2001, A1, A14).

CRS-167
community demonstrated by Goldschmidt is arguably a factor in the current
socioeconomic structure of the SJV. However, large-scale, owner-operated farms,
which also characterize farming in the San Joaquin, generally show positive effects.
As these observations might suggest, any association between farm organization and
various community characteristics appears to be mediated by the size and economic
diversity of the community, the region, the kinds of agricultural commodities
produced, and a rural area’s proximity to urban-suburban areas.
The social organization of the local and regional non-farm economy also exerts
important effects on the surrounding area suggesting that newly created opportunities
in the non-farm economy may have significant impact on the farm economy and the
rural economy more generally. As supply chains and other forms of vertical
integration and coordination come to characterize various production sectors, the
kinds and degree of impact in the SJV may vary considerably depending on the
broader characteristics of the regional economy and on the existence of local
capacities for generating innovative alternatives or complements to these forms of
production.
Agricultural Land Conversion. Given the population growth projected for
the SJV, pressures to convert productive agricultural acreage to housing and other
urban needs will become increasingly important issues for planners and economic
development officials.94 The conflict between agriculture and the need to manage the
tremendous population growth that the SJV will experience over the next 20 years
indicate significant planning challenges to the region.95 From 1990-2002, 283,277
acres of irrigated farmland in the Central Valley were converted, mostly to urban
uses. The SJV experienced the greatest amount of farmland loss.96 An analysis of
the Central Valley by the American Farmland Trust (AFT) estimated that low-density
urban sprawl would consume over 1 million acres of farmland by 2040,
approximately 60% of which would be prime farmland and farmland of state
importance.97 In addition, growth pressures on agricultural land within a one-third
mile zone around urban areas would involve another 2.5 million acres. While the
AFT report recognized that a “no-growth” future was unrealistic, the loss of prime
farmland, reduced agricultural production, and related income loss over the next 35
years could be attenuated by more compact growth scenarios as opposed to low-
density sprawl. The AFT report estimated that a compact pattern of urban growth
could also result in saving Central Valley agriculture about $72 billion between
1992-2040. Figure 19 is a map showing the land use in the SJV.
94 Great Valley Center. Can City and Farm Coexist? The Agricultural Buffer Experience
in California. January, 2002.
95 Great Valley Center. Agriculture and New Housing. January, 2001.
96 Great Valley Center. The State of the Great Valley Central Valley of California: Assessing
the regional Via Indicators: The Economy, 1999-2004. Modesto: Great Valley Center,
January, 2005, p. 33.
97 American Farmland Trust. Alternatives for Future Urban Growth in California’s Central
Valley: The Bottom Line for Agriculture and Taxpayers. Washington, D.C. October, 1995.

CRS-168
Figure 19. SJV Land Use/Land Cover
Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey
SJV Farm Characteristics. Table 76 shows SJV county farms by size. The
Valley as a whole has nearly 10 million acres of farmland and over 28,000 farms.
Fresno and Tulare Counties have the largest number of farms while Kern County has
the largest acreage in farmland. Kern and Fresno Counties also have the largest
number of farms of 1,000 acres or more, although the average size farm in the Valley
is 436 acres. This is approximately the average size farm in the United States, but
somewhat larger than the average size California farm. While Mariposa and

CRS-169
Tuolumne Counties also have large average sized farms, they have significantly
fewer farms and less acreage in farmland than the eight counties of the SJV.
Value of Products. California produces a significant proportion of higher-
valued agricultural products, (e.g., fruits, vegetables, tree crops, dairy). The average
market value of agricultural product sales per farm in 2002 in the United States and
California was $94,245 and $323,205 respectively according to data from the most
recent Census of Agriculture (Table 77). For the SJV, the average agricultural
market value per farm of the eight counties was $494,892, with over 9,000 farms
producing sales of $100,000 or more. The total market value of crops in the SJV was
$8.1 billion and the total market value of livestock was $4.4 billion. Over 42% of the
market value of crops and 67% of the market value of livestock in California come
from the SJV. As Figure 20 shows, the SJV is in the top quartile of average sales
per farm for the state.
Table 78 provides more detailed data from California’s County Agricultural
Commissioners’ Reports on the gross value of the SJV’s leading commodities.
Again, the data in Table 78 show that Mariposa and Tuolumne counties stand in
marked contrast to the agricultural character of the SJV with very little agricultural
production in comparison. Table 79 shows the 5 leading counties by commodity
rank and the percentage of California’s total gross value of agricultural production
for that commodity. With the exception of nursery products, flowers and foliage, and
strawberries, at least one SJV county is within the top 5 among California’s 10
highest value commodities.
Irrigation. Much of SJV agricultural production is based on irrigation. Of the
total 28,357 farms in the SJV, over 80% (23,482) have some portion of their farm
under irrigation (Table 80). Of the 1.44 million acres of total farm land on which
some portion is irrigated, 76% of that acreage is irrigated. Over 10% of the farms
that irrigate are 500 to 2,000 acres or more. Fresno and Tulare counties have the
largest amounts of irrigated acreage, 1.1 million and 652,000 respectively. Mariposa
and Tuolumne counties have only about 5,200 acres in irrigated land between them,
while the SJV counties have a total of 4.73 million acres of irrigated farmland. The
eight SJV counties represent about 54% of California’s total irrigated acreage (See
Figure 21 and Figure 22). Of that amount, 72% is located on farms of 500-2,000
acres or more.
Direct Subsidies to Agriculture. Another characteristic of U.S. agriculture
is federal subsidies to certain crops. Grains, cotton, rice, soybeans, peanuts, and
barley are subsidized by direct federal payments to the farmers who grow these crops.
The SJV, with its high production in unsupported fruits and vegetables, does not
receive commodity support payments per farm to the same extent as other parts of the
United States where production of supported crops is much higher. In 2000, direct
government payments to California amounted to $667 million out of total federal
direct agricultural payments of $22.9 billion, about 3% of all direct federal payments

CRS-170
for agriculture.98 In contrast, Iowa received about 10% of U.S. payments and Texas
received about 7%.99
The federal farm payments received in SJV are mostly for cotton, rice, wheat
and feed grains. Table 81 provides 2002 data on federal farm payments showing
that, while the number of farms growing supported crops is small relative to the total
number of farms in the SJV, the average subsidy per farm is substantially higher than
for the United States as a whole (See Figure 23) Approximately 33% of U.S. farms
and 9% of California farms receive federal subsidies. Led by Kings, Fresno, and
Kern Counties, the average federal agricultural support payment to farms receiving
payments in the SJV was nearly $29,000 compared to a national average of $9,251
and a California average of $23,340. Mariposa County received about one-fourth the
average of federal farm payments ($7,333) that SJV farms received, while Tuolumne
County’s farms received much less on average ($3,727). Total federal payments to
the SJV in 2002 were $85.3 million, slightly more than 1% of the total for the United
States, but 51% of the total for California.
Agricultural Labor. Farmworkers are a marginalized population, often
isolated from the communities in which they live and work. One consequence of this
isolation is the lack of reliable information on farmworker demographics and
economic conditions. Although there are no current reliable statistics for the total
number of farmworkers, the National Agricultural Workers Survey, conducted by the
U.S. Department of Labor, estimated that in 1995, there were approximately 1.6
million agricultural workers in the United States.

Hired Farm Labor. Hired labor is an important characteristic in the structure
of large-scale agricultural production. While smaller-scale family-run operations
may also regularly hire farm labor, the scale and intensity of agricultural production
in the SJV make hired farm labor a dominant feature of production, especially on the
largest farms. There were 243,079 hired farm workers in the SJV in 2002 accounting
for about 8% of the hired farm workers in the United States and 45% of California’s
hired farmworkers (Table 82). Of the total 28,357 farms in the SJV, 50% rely to
some extent on hired farm labor (14,135 farms).100 Of those farms employing hired
labor, one-third have 10 or more hired workers with an average of 45 hired workers
on those farms employing 10 or more workers. Table 82 shows that farms with 5-9
hired workers employed an average of 6.5 in 2002. Mariposa and Tuolumne also had
a few farms (17) with 10 or more hired workers, averaging between 25-30 workers
per farm.
Hired farm labor in the SJV had a $1.68 billion payroll in 2002. This amounts
to an average worker wage of approximately $6,900. This wage may or may not
represent full-time farm labor over the course of a year. This average wage, however,
98 Johnston, Warren E. and Alex F. McCalla. Whither California Agriculture: Up, Down,
or Out? Some Thoughts about the Future. Giannini Foundation Special Report 04-1,
August 2004.
99 Ibid., p. 62.
100 The category of hired farm labor includes paid family members of farm owners.

CRS-171
reflects some variation among individual counties, suggesting that labor on different
farms is paid differently and/or that the wages reflect differing total days worked.
The average county wages for hired farm labor ranged from a high of $9,492 in Kern
County to a low of $5,058 in Fresno county.
Two additional tables (Table 83 and Table 84 ) provide a more detailed look
at the labor structure of SJV farms. Generally, hired farm workers are concentrated
on larger farms that are more dependent on hired labor, (i.e., those with 10 or more
hired workers). Table 83 shows that of the total 28,357 farms in the SJV, 37.7%
(10,677) employed hired labor for 150 days or fewer per year in 2002. Fresno and
Tulare counties have the highest number of hired farm workers working 150 days or
fewer. In Fresno County, nearly 90% of hired farm workers working 150 days or
fewer did so on farms with 10 or more hired workers. Fresno County farms with 10
or more hired workers working 150 days or fewer had an average of about 38
workers per farm. In the other SJV counties, most of the hired workers working
fewer than 150 days per year also worked on farms with 10 or more hired workers.
For the SJV, 86% of the workers working 150 days or fewer worked on farms with
10 or more hired workers. The average number of hired workers in the SJV working
on farms with more than 10 hired workers was 42 workers. For the United States as
a whole, 54% of hired farm workers working 150 days or fewer worked on farms
with 10 or more hired workers. In California, that figure was 83% in 2002 with an
average of 41 workers per farm. Mariposa and Tuolumne counties had very small
numbers of hired farm labor compared to the SJV.
Table 84 provides data on farms where labor is retained over longer periods.
While most farms in the SJV employing hired workers retain these workers for 150
days or fewer, about 30% of SJV farms (8,665) employ hired farm workers for 150
days or more. In 2002, there were 77,683 hired workers who worked 150 days or
more. Fresno and Tulare counties also had the most hired workers working 150 days
or more. As was the case with workers who worked 150 days or fewer, most workers
working 150 days or more worked on farms with more than 10 workers. The average
number of workers per farm, however, was somewhat less than for farms with hired
labor working 150 days or fewer (34 versus 42 workers per farm respectively). For
those farms that hire few workers on average, those with fewer than nine workers,
the average was approximately four workers per farm. The data show that the
majority of hired farm labor in the SJV works on a relatively concentrated group of
larger, more industrially managed operations within each of the SJV counties.
Migrant Farm Labor. A particular class of hired farm labor is migrant labor.
In a case study of farmworkers in Kern County, the Housing Assistance Council
noted that migrant and resident farmworkers constitute distinct populations, each
with its own special needs.101 Information on U.S. farm migrant labor, however, was
collected for the first time in the 2002 Census of Agriculture. To gauge the extent
to which SJV farms were reliant on migrant labor, farm operators were asked
whether any hired or contract workers were migrant workers, defined as a farm
worker whose employment required travel that prevented the migrant worker from
101 Housing Assistance Council. Taking Stock: Rural People, Poverty, and Housing at the
Turn of the 21st Century. Washington, D.C. 2002.

CRS-172
returning to his/her permanent place of residence the same day. Table 85 provides
2002 data on farm migrant labor. Of the 243,079 hired farm workers, 3,994 were
officially counted as migrant workers. This official tally categorizes 1.6% of all SJV
hired farm labor as migrant labor. An additional 820 migrant farmworkers worked
on SJV farms as contract labor. Based on these 2002 Census of Agriculture data,
45% of California’s migrant farm labor force and 54% of migrant contract labor work
on farms in the SJV. These data further show that approximately 10% of U.S.
migrant farm labor and 12% of U.S. migrant contract labor work on farming
operations in the SJV.
A 1997 U.S. Department of Labor report based on 1994-1995 data from the
National Agricultural Workers Survey, showed that 94% of all U.S. foreign born
farm workers were Mexican.102 Nearly 56% of the farmworkers surveyed were
migrants. While migrant workers are a sub-category of farmworkers, the conclusions
of the Department of Labor report are significant for the SJV:
! Over time the farmworker population has become increasingly male
(currently 80%).
! Over time the population has become increasingly foreign born
(currently70%).
! Farmworkers are generally young (66% are younger than 35) and
almost 20% are in their first year of U.S. farm work.
! Most adult foreign farmworkers are married and have children.
! Most foreign-born farm workers with families live and work
separately from their spouses and children.
! Most foreign farmworkers live with non-relatives.
! Most (60%) farmworkers are poor; and the proportion seems to be
increasing over time.
! Despite their poverty, few use social services, although Food
Stamps, Medicaid, and to a lesser extent the WIC programs were
used.
! The proportion of unauthorized farm workers rose quickly as
citizens and the newly legalized population left farm work. In the
1994-1995 period, 37% of farmworkers were unauthorized, up from
7% in 1989.
102 U.S. Department of Labor. 1997. A Profile of U.S. Farm Workers: Demographics,
Household Composition, Income, and Use of Services. Report prepared for the Commission
on Immigration Reform. Washington, D.C.

CRS-173
Table 76. Farms by Size, 2002
Land in
Average
Farms by size
Farms
SJV Counties
farms
size of farm
(Number)
10 to 49
50 to 179
180 to 499
500 to 999
1,000 acres
(Acres)
(Acres)
1 to 9 acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
or more
Fresno
6,281
1,928,865
307
965
2,682
1,360
552
359
363
Kern
2,147
2,731,341
1,272
345
437
443
346
220
356
Kings
1,154
645,598
559
198
364
237
139
100
116
Madera
1,780
682,486
383
208
596
460
279
107
130
Merced
2,964
1,006,127
339
333
1,150
757
370
160
194
San Joaquin
4,026
812,629
202
876
1,644
781
396
153
176
Stanislaus
4,267
789,853
185
949
1,883
777
399
125
134
Tulare
5,738
1,393,456
243
1,218
2,295
1,178
566
243
238
Total SJV Counties
28,357
9,990,355
436
5,092
11,051
5,993
3,047
1,467
1,707
Adjacent Counties
Mariposa
284
219,133
772
22
86
73
44
23
36
Tuolumne
358
149,767
418
89
117
63
35
20
34
California and the United States
California
79,631
27,589,027
346
21,827
27,307
14,356
7,741
3,604
4,796
United States
2,128,982
938,279,056
441
179,346
563,772
658,705
388,617
161,552
176,990
Source: 2002 Census of Agriculture, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service

CRS-174
Table 77. Market Value of Agricultural Product Sales, 2002
Market value
Market
Number of Farms by value of sales
Average
Market value
SJV
of agricultural
value of
Market
of Livestock
Counties
products sold
Crops
Less
$5,000
$25,000
$50,000
Value
($1,000)
$2,500 to
$10,000 to
$100,000 or
($1,000)
($1,000)
than
to
to
to
$4,999
$24,999
more
$2,500
$9,999
$49,999
$99,999
Fresno
2,759,421
439,328
2,150,938
608,483
1,063
280
424
786
749
922
2,057
Kern
2,058,705
958,875
1,783,418
275,288
617
122
101
121
121
138
927
Kings
793,061
687,228
394,674
398,387
250
74
71
108
91
69
491
Madera
710,433
399,120
505,071
205,363
400
100
91
150
178
211
650
Merced
1,409,254
475,457
597,577
811,677
560
131
193
365
326
322
1,067
San Joaquin
1,222,454
303,640
907,837
314,617
942
227
322
461
443
398
1,233
Stanislaus
1,228,607
287,932
567,965
660,643
1,075
271
395
624
457
394
1,051
Tulare
2,338,577
407,560
1,194,237
1,144,340
1,068
312
405
683
653
684
1,933
Total SJV
12,520,512
3,959,140
8,101,717
4,418,798
5,975
1,517
2,002
3,298
3,018
3,138
9,409
Counties
Adjacent Counties
Mariposa
6,285
22,130
470
5,815
144
28
38
40
11
9
14
Tuolumne
23,569
65,836
1,134
22,435
198
42
47
19
28
10
14
California and the United States
United States
200,646,355
94,245
95,151,954
105,494,401
826,558
213,326
223,168
256,157
157,906
140,479
311,388
California
25,737,173
323,205
19,152,722
6,584,451
23,362
6,038
7,262
9,455
7,131
6,798
19,585
Source: 2002 Census of Agriculture, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service

CRS-175
Figure 20. Average Sales per Farm by County (2000)
Source: 2002 Census of Agriculture, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service

CRS-176
Table 78. Leading Commodities for Gross Value of Agricultural
Production by SJV and Adjacent Counties, 2003
Fresno
$1,000
Kern
$1,000
Grapes
$400,842
Grapes
$402,80
Tomatoes
$384,290
Almonds and By-Products
$280,50
Cotton
$341,666
Citrus
$278,01
Cattle and Calves
$263,510
Carrots
$269,13
Poultry
$246,520
Milk
$230,30
Milk
$221,199
Cotton and Cottonseed
$176,68
Oranges
$215,349
Alfalfa Hay
$115,69
Almonds
$201,596
Nursery Crops
$100,70
Onions
$164,766
Potatoes
$83,241
Peaches
$158,470
Cattle and Calves
$67,868
Kings
$1,000
Madera
$1,000
Milk, All
$325,412
Almonds
$154,98
Cotton, All
$200,071
Milk, Market
$126,95
Cattle and Calves
$103,683
Grapes, Wine
$87,991
Alfalfa Hay
$45,807
Cattle, Replacement
$47,025
Pistachios
$37,744
Grapes, Table
$34,158
Turkeys
$30,117
Pistachios
$31,891
Tomatoes, Processing
$26,495
Alfalfa Hay
$29,409
Corn Silage
$26,460
Cattle and Calves
$29,185
Wheat
$22,525
Grapes, Raisin
$26,111
Peaches, All
$22,121
Poultry
$22,125
Mariposa
$1,000
Merced
$1,000
Cattle and Calves
$9,736
Milk, Market
$552,61
Pasture, Range
$7,058
Chicken
$230,06
Livestock and Poultry
$1,236
Almonds
$211,86
Poultry, All
$974
Cattle and Calves
$168,66
Forest Products
$644
Potatoes, Sweet
$89,186
Fruit and Nut Crops
$451
Tomatoes, Fresh Market
$81,298
Honey
$213
Alfalfa Hay
$68,986
Sheep and Lambs
$189
Cotton, Lint
$68,218
Nursery Stock
$160
Eggs, Chicken
$48,484
Livestock, Misc.
$119
Turkeys
$48,436

CRS-177
San Joaquin
$1,000
Stanislaus
$1,000
Milk, All
$256,633
Milk, Market
$424,98
Grapes, All
$175,156
Almonds
$239,90
Almond Meats
$125,977
Chickens
$104,55
Tomatoes, All
$118,380
Nursery, Fruit, Vine, Nuts
$71,282
Cherries, All
$109,869
English Walnuts
$59,046
English Walnuts
$96,386
Cattle, Fed Heifers and
$42,235
Nursery, Woody
$59,585
Peaches, All
$39,477
Apples
$53,550
Corn Silage
$38,312
Eggs, Chicken
$51,558
Alfalfa Hay
$36,410
All hay
$50,467
Chicks
$31,672
Tulare $1,000
Tuolumne
$1,000
Milk
$1,067,797
Livestock
$11,958
Oranges, Navel and
$442,504
Cattle and Calves
$5,594
Grapes
$378,511
Pasture, Range
$2,030
Cattle and Calves
$372,863
Forest Products, Firewood
$1,041
Plums
$85,500
Apiary Products
$367
Alfalfa Hay and Silage
$84,019
Pasture, Irrigated
$209
Peaches, Cling and
$70,092
Fruit and Nut Crops
$170
Walnuts
$68,970
Other Hay
$1,133
Nectarines
$66,474
Sheep and Lambs
$92
Corn Grain and Silage
$66,008
Livestock Products
$85
Source: Summary of County Agricultural Commissioners’ Reports: Gross Values by Commodity
Groups — California 2002-2003. September, 2004.

CRS-178
Table 79. SJV Commodity Rank and Leading Counties by Gross Value of Agricultural Production, 2003
Five Leading Counties by Rank and Percentage of State Total
Commodity
Value
State Rank
1
2
3
4
5
$000
Milk and Cream
1
$4,112,479
Tulare
Merced
Stanislaus
San Bernardino
Kings
26.0%
13.5%
10.4%
9.2%
7.9%
Grapes
2
$3,022,439
Kern
Fresno
Napa
Tulare
Sonoma
13.3%
13.3%
12.7%
12.5%
10.5%
Nursery Products
3
$2,654,394
San Diego
Orange
Riverside
Monterey
Los Angeles
19.1%
8.0%
7.7%
7.5%
6.6%
Cattle and Calves
4
$1,996,552
Tulare
Fresno
Imperial
Merced
Kings
18.7%
13.2%
11.9%
8.4%
5.2%
Lettuce
5
$1,634,171
Monterey
Fresno
Imperial
Santa Barbara
San Benito
63.2%
10.3%
8.9%
5.8%
4.3%
Almonds
6
$1,501,592
Kern
Stanislaus
Merced
Fresno
Madera
17.7
15.9%
14.1%
12.6%
10.3%
Strawberries
7
$973,233
Ventura
Monterey
Santa Barbara
Santa Cruz
Orange
30.9%
26.0%
22.7%
12.5%
6.0%
Oranges
8
$949,358
Tulare
Kern
Fresno
Ventura
San Bernardino
46.6%
22.9%
22.7%
2.2%
1.66%
Alfalfa Hay
9
$782,186
Kern
Imperial
Tulare
Merced
Fresno
14.8%
12.4%
10.2%
8.8%
8.3%
Flowers and Foliage
10
$778,087
San Diego
Santa Barbara
San Luis Obispo
Ventura
Monterey
53.6%
11.6%
5.8%
5.7%
5.4%

CRS-179
Five Leading Counties by Rank and Percentage of State Total
Commodity
Value
State Rank
1
2
3
4
5
$000
Cotton Lint
11
$774,208
Fresno
Kings
Kern
Merced
Tulare
37.9%
21.9%
18.8%
8.8%
6.7%
Rice
12
$638,046
Colusa
Sutter
Butte
Glenn
Yuba
25.2%
20.0%
17.6%
16.7%
6.8%
Broccoli
13
$592,357
Monterey
Santa Barbara
Fresno
San Luis Obispo
Imperial
47.3%
19.8%
13.1%
8.1%
5.3%
Tomatoes, Processing
14
$571,113
Fresno
Yolo
San Joaquin
Colusa
Merced
47.6%
10.7%
10.1%
5.7%
5.2%
Salad Greens, Misc.
15
$440,817
Monterey
Imperial
—
—
—
99.3%
0.7%
English Walnuts
16
$433,800
San Joaquin
Tulare
Stanislaus
Butte
Tehama
22.2%
15.9%
13.6%
11.0%
6.5%
Peaches
17
$416,165
Fresno
Tulare
Stanislaus
Sutter
Kings
38.1%
16.8%
9.5%
7.8%
5.3%
Avocados
18
$402,160
San Diego
Ventura
Riverside
Santa Barbara
Orange
36.3%
25.1%
14.9%
13.8%
4.9%
Chickens
19
$379,399
Merced
Stanislaus
San Bernardino
San Joaquin
San Diego
60.8%
35.9%
2.0%
1.1%
0.2%
Silage
20
$325,852
Tulare
Merced
Stanislaus
Kern
Kings
26.7%
18.0%
14.3%
10.0%
9.8%
Onions
21
$306,095
Fresno
Imperial
Los Angeles
Kern
San Joaquin
53.8%
18.9%
5.9%
5.5%
4.8%

CRS-180
Five Leading Counties by Rank and Percentage of State Total
Commodity
Value
State Rank
1
2
3
4
5
$000
Tomatoes, Fresh Market 22
$305,546
Fresno
Merced
San Joaquin
San Diego
Stanislaus
36.3%
26.6%
19.9%
8.7%
7.1%
Eggs, Chicken
23
$302,524
Riverside
San Joaquin
San Diego
Merced
San Bernardino
24.5%
17.0%
17.0%
16.9%
12.9%
Lemons
24
$278,081
Ventura
Kern
Riverside
Tulare
San Diego
53.4%
9.6%
9.4%
8.3%
6.2%
Celery
25
$270,041
Ventura
Monterey
Santa Barbara
San Luis Obispo
San Benito
42.0%
39.1%
12.5%
3.2%
1.8%
Source: Summary of County Agricultural Commissioners’ Reports: Gross Values by Commodity Groups — California 2002-2003. September, 2004.

CRS-181
Table 80. SJV Irrigated Land, 2002
Irrigated acres by size of farm
Irrigated
Total land in
Irrigated
1 to 69 acres
70 to 179 acres
180 to 499 acres
500 to 2,000 acres or
SJV Counties
land
irrigated
land (acres)
more
(farms)
farms (acres)
Farms
Acres
Farms
Acres
Farms
Acres
Farms
Acres
Fresno
5,405
1,442,088
1,098,941
3,455
72,535
830
78,961
489
125,712
631
821,733
Kern
1,408
1,543,013
811,672
470
8,003
271
28,389
245
65,700
422
709,580
Kings
909
482,753
407,031
430
7,666
156
15,085
132
34,383
191
349,897
Madera
1,260
503,402
317,241
618
15,632
266
25,184
209
54,200
167
222,225
Merced
2,569
803,965
518,538
1,459
32,995
477
45,873
325
79,216
308
360,454
San Joaquin
3,428
749,595
520,172
2,260
39,743
479
45,540
377
94,424
312
340,465
Stanislaus
3,764
702,692
401,439
2,672
46,135
484
45,480
376
87,818
232
222,006
Tulare
4,739
1,036,279
652,385
3,108
59,090
727
69,538
511
134,554
393
389,203
Total SJV
23,482
7,263,787
4,727,419
14,472
281,799
3,690
354,050
2,664
676,007
2,656
3,415,563
Counties
Adjacent Counties
Mariposa
60
42,196
1,541
30
123
15
440
2
0
13
531
Tuolumne
142
59,628
3,738
86
502
22
567
13
125
21
2,495
California and the United States
California
55,596
17,587,694
8,709,353
36,220
517,570
7,620
633,966
5,833
1,295,449
5,923
6,262,368
United States
299,583
243,442,396
55,311,236
146,894
1,594,890
41,218
2,278,774
39,367
5,802,407
72,104
45,635,165
Source: 2002 Census of Agriculture, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service

CRS-182
Figure 21. Irrigated Farm Acreage by County (2000)
Data Source: 2002 Census of Agriculture, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service

CRS-183
Figure 22. Irrigated Land in Acres by County (2002)
Source: 2002 Census of Agriculture, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service

CRS-184
Table 81. SJV Federal Farm Payments, 2002
Number of Farms Receiving
Government payments
Average Payment per
SJV Counties
Number of Farms
Payments in 2002
($1,000)
farm
Total SJV Counties
28,357
2,958
$85,346.0
$28,852
Fresno 6,281
534
$18,898.0
$35,390
Kern 2,147
362
$13,248.0
$36,597
Kings 1,154
290
$10,038.0
$34,614
Madera 1,780
127
$3,160.0
$24,882
Merced 2,964
454
$11,479.0
$25,284
San Joaquin
4,026
333
$7,118.0
$21,375
Stanislaus 4,267
331
$8,589.0
$25,949
Tulare 5,738
527
$12,816.0
$24,319
Adjacent Counties
Mariposa 284
9
$66.0
$7,333
Tuolumne
358
11
$41.0
$3,727
California and the United States
California
79,631
7,228
$168,698
$23,340
United States
2,128,982
707,596
$6,545,678
$9,251
Source: 2002 Census of Agriculture, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service

CRS-185
Figure 23. Average Federal Farm Payments per Farm by County
(2002)
Source: 2002 Census of Agriculture, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service

CRS-186
Table 82. SJV Hired Farm Labor, 2002
# of
Farms with 1
Farms with 2
Farms with 3 or 4
Farms with 5 to 9
Farms with 10
Farms
Payroll of
# of Hired
worker
workers
workers
workers
workers or more
SJV
with
Hired
farm
Counties
Hired
farm labor
laborer
farm
($1,000)
Farms
Workers
Farms Workers
Farms
Workers
Farms
Workers
Farms
Workers
labor
Fresno
3,413
69,991
354,051
443
443
378
756
437
1,533
693
4,428
1,462
62,831
Kern
1,183
31,521
299,204
199
199
248
496
231
845
167
1,049
338
28,932
Kings
573
10,269
86,254
44
44
74
148
99
335
128
903
228
8,839
Madera
925
19,131
97,123
179
179
92
184
106
354
156
1,078
392
17,336
Merced
1,495
19,727
178,581
244
244
224
448
270
916
376
2,589
381
15,530
San
1,761
30,957
209,676
252
252
289
578
292
1,009
349
2,302
579
26,816
Joaquin
Stanislaus
1,795
19,293
167,804
528
528
273
546
287
972
312
1,993
395
15,254
Tulare
2,990
42,190
286,657
845
845
354
708
491
1,720
366
2,453
934
36,464
Total SJV
14,135
243,079
1,679,350
2,734
2,734
1,932
3,864
2,213
7,684
2,547
16,795
4,709
212,002
Counties
Adjacent Counties
Mariposa
35
193
549
0
0
14
28
7
28
11
65
3
72
Tuolumne
72
582
1,831
19
19
5
10
22
75
12
81
14
397
United States and California
California
34,342
535,256
4,317,078
8,012
8,012
4,988
9,976
5,632
19,421
5,723
37,166
9,987
460,681
United
554,434
3,036,470
18,568,446
208,224
208,224
112,722
225,444
104,232
354,400
73,825
467,084
55,431
1,781,318
States
Source: 2002 Census of Agriculture, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service

CRS-187
Table 83. SJV Farm Workers by Days Worked — Less than 150 days, 2002
# of Farms
# of
with
Farms with 2
Farms with 3 or 4
Farms with 5 to 9
Farms with 10
Workers
Farms with 1 worker
Workers
workers
workers
workers
workers or more
Who
SJV
Who
Worked
Counties
Worked
Less than
Less than
150 days
150 days
Farms
Workers
Farms Workers
Farms
Workers
Farms
Workers
Farms
Workers
(workers)
(farms)
Fresno
2,870
51,240
375
375
312
624
411
1,409
568
3,500
1,204
45,332
Kern
810
18,338
185
185
176
352
151
517
107
661
191
16,623
Kings
391
6,013
53
53
77
154
49
161
90
615
122
5,030
Madera
739
15,139
145
145
71
142
66
208
138
903
319
13,741
Merced
1,087
12,044
242
242
88
176
270
879
248
1,495
239
9,252
San Joaquin
1,370
22,634
216
216
210
420
233
814
287
1,877
424
19,307
Stanislaus
1,296
12,073
403
403
251
502
225
746
182
1,158
235
9,264
Tulare
2,114
27,915
614
614
236
472
355
1,219
278
1,742
631
23,868
Total SJV
10,677
165,396
2,233
2,233
1,421
2,842
1,760
5,953
1,898
11,951
3,365
142,417
Counties
Adjacent Counties
Mariposa
21
103
0
0
8
(D)
0
0
12
74
1
(D)
Tuolumne
70
520
21
21
4
8
22
75
9
54
14
362
California and the United States
California
25,984
333,404
6,925
6,925
3,829
7,658
4,292
14,574
4,112
26,068
6,826
278,179
United
455,669
2,108,762
193,688
193,688
92,695
185,390
79,961
269,149
51,000
319,676
38,325
1,140,859
States
(D) =Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual farms.
Source: 2002 Census of Agriculture, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service

CRS-188
Table 84. SJV Farm Workers by Days Worked — 150 Days or More, 2002
# of
# of
Workers
Farms with 3 or 4
Farms with 5 to 9
Farms with 10
Workers
Farms with 1 worker
Farms with 2 workers
Who
workers
workers
workers or more
Who
SJV
Worked
Worked
Counties
Workers
150 days
150 days
or more
or more
Farms
Workers
Farms Workers
Farms
Workers
Farms
Workers
Farms
Workers
(farms)
(workers)
Fresno
1,849
18,751
585
585
250
500
311
1,065
316
1,981
387
14,620
Kern
844
13,183
181
181
217
434
125
430
92
629
229
11,509
Kings
441
4,256
51
51
109
218
88
301
89
603
104
3,083
Madera
555
3,992
195
195
113
226
89
297
84
527
74
2,747
Merced
1,061
7,683
291
291
171
342
230
821
199
1,272
170
4,957
San Joaquin
1,057
8,323
278
278
178
356
234
799
191
1,236
176
5,654
Stanislaus
1,016
7,220
313
313
158
316
185
617
183
1,159
177
4,815
Tulare
1,842
14,275
643
643
303
606
276
912
239
1,523
381
10,591
Total SJV
8,665
77,683
2,537
2,537
1,499
2,998
1,538
5,242
1,393
8,930
1,698
57,976
Counties
Adjacent Counties
Mariposa
16
90
0
0
7
(D)
7
28
0
0
2
(D)
Tuolumne
10
62
5
(D)
1
(D)
0
0
3
20
1
(D)
California and the United States
California
19,950
201,852
5,757
5,757
3,456
6,912
3,535
11,937
3,261
20,650
3,941
156,596
United States
214,631
927,708
98,128
98,128
42,992
85,984
36,422
122,828
21,463
133,993
15,626
486,775
(D) =Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual farms.
Source: 2002 Census of Agriculture, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service

CRS-189
Table 85. SJV Migrant Farm Labor Valley, 2002
Migrant farm labor on farms
Migrant farm labor on farms
SJV Counties
with hired labor
reporting only contract labor
Fresno
1,382
206
Kern
302
46
Kings
52
30
Madera
379
35
Merced
348
62
San Joaquin
525
118
Stanislaus
311
81
Tulare
695
242
Total SJV
3,994
820
Counties
Adjacent Counties
Mariposa
8
0
Tuolumne
7
0
California and the United States
California
8,787
1,521
United States
40,848
6,536
Source: 2002 Census of Agriculture, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service
Notes: Information on migrant workers was collected for the first time in the 2002 census. Operators
were asked whether any hired or contract workers were migrant workers, defined as a farm worker
whose employment required travel that prevented the migrant worker from returning to his/her
permanent place of residence the same day.

CRS-190
Figure 24. Number of Migrant Workers on Farms with Hired Labor by
County, (2002)
Data Source: 2002 Census of Agriculture, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service
Agriculture’s Future in the San Joaquin. As an economic driver in the
regional economy and as a factor in the socioeconomic structure of the SJV,
agriculture will likely continue to play a decisive role as it adapts to changing market,
technological, and regulatory forces.103 Increased public concerns about clean water,
pesticide use, groundwater contamination, air quality, food safety, and long-term
impacts on ecosystems will likely increasingly shape the future role of agriculture in
the SJV. Intensification of production in fruits and nuts and vegetables and
movement away from field crop acreage is likely to continue in coming years. In
1980, field crops used 72% of cropland in California, but accounted for only 43% of
the value. Fruits and nuts and vegetables grown on 28% of the acreage contributed
57% of the value of agricultural products.104 By 1997, these higher-valued, higher-
risk crops accounted for 78% of the value from cropland, but used only 45% of the
103 Johnston, Warren E. and Alex F. McCalla. Whither California Agriculture: Up, Down,
or Out? Some Thoughts about the Future. Giannini Foundation Special Report 04-1,
August 2004.
104 Johnston, Warren E. And Harold Carter. “Structural adjustment, resources, global
economy to challenge California agriculture.” California Agriculture, 54(4), July-August
2000.

CRS-191
acreage. Such specialization of production and related processing and marketing are
likely to become even more important to agriculture in the SJV in the future.
However, this will likely occur with the continuing decline in the number of farms
and the increasing size of those that remain. As the discussion above on supply
chains indicated, structural changes in agriculture will likely make the sector more
technological, managerial, and information intensive.

Research sponsored by the Great Valley Center and the California Trade and
Commerce Agency has pointed to the dynamics underlying this changing agro-food
system and their implications for the SJV.105 This study identified five major forces
that are driving change in SJV agriculture:
! (1) the segmentation of mass markets;
! (2) consolidation of the food distribution chain;
! (3) globalization of markets;
! (4) technology;
! (5) environmental challenges.
Mass market segmentation can open new niche markets responding to new
products, new uses for products, health/nutrition, and convenience. Supply chains
will likely further consolidate the agro-food system creating a dual system of fewer
but larger buyers and sellers and smaller niche actors. New global production and
marketing strategies and partnerships can open new growth opportunities as well as
new competitors. An increasing technologically driven market place (e.g., Internet
sales) will likely require advanced telecommunication infrastructure.106 Farm-to-
retailer partnerships supported by the Internet may create new opportunities both for
the smaller, niche oriented producer as well as for the largest producers and retailers.
In the area of environmental challenges, water-related drainage and issues and non-
point pollution concerns will likely become more important to producers and
residents of the SJV alike. Precision agricultural technologies could become an
essential part of SJV agriculture in the future.107 This suite of technologies holds
105 Great Valley Center. Producing a Competitive Advantage: Agri-Tech in the SJV.
Modesto, California. December 2000.
106 The Great Valley Center has published a series of studies on the importance of advanced
telecommunications to the future of the SJV. In early 2000, the Center published individual
assessments of each county in the SJV identifying strengths and weaknesses in each
county’s capacity for building greater connectivity to advanced telecommunications. See
Connecting (County): Assessing Our Readiness for the Networked World. See also two
other Center reports that examine the SJV’s advanced telecommunication capacity: Bridging
the Digital Divide in the SJV: The Digital Divide Education Project of New Valley
Connexions. January 2000, and Connecting to Compete in the New Economy. May 2000.
107 The expansion of precision irrigation technologies beyond agricultural production has
been identified as a potential growth area that might be exploited as a driver for new
economic opportunities in the SJV. See Great Valley Center. The Economic Future of the
SJV: Growing a Prosperous Economy that Benefits People and Place. January, 2000.
(continued...)

CRS-192
considerable promise for lessening the environmental impact of agricultural
production.108
Other observers see the structure of California agriculture as a major factor in
the SJV’s continuing poverty and lack of new economic opportunity. During the
1980s, an analysis using the Urban Institute Underclass Database found that 100
additional farm jobs contributed to an increase of 136 immigrants, 139 poor
residents, and 79 welfare recipients.109 The newly arrived immigrants were not
welfare recipients, but their presence helped to depress wages. This perspective on
SJV agriculture might be seen as falling in the stream of research discussed earlier
about the relation between community well-being and the presence of large,
industrially managed farming operations. Mexican immigrants comprise the largest
proportion of U.S. farmworkers (77%), and San Joaquin agriculture creates a steady
demand for low-wage, low-skilled employment. Opportunities remain limited in the
SJV to move out of agricultural labor and into other sectors. The steady demand for
jobs encourages immigration and the absence of alternatives reinforces the expansion
of agriculture. Efforts to raise farmworker incomes and educational levels can be
hindered when there is a ready supply of new immigrant labor. If the SJV is unable
to create new opportunities for resident immigrants, the poverty that so many
Mexican immigrants are fleeing in their own county may be reproduced within the
SJV.110
The Non-Agricultural Economy of the San Joaquin
Overview. Although farm jobs accounted for 17% of the employment in the
Central Valley in 2000, other economic sectors, particularly the service sector, are
growing. The service sector accounted for about 77% of the jobs in the Central
Valley in 2003.111 Agricultural employment actually declined in the Central Valley
by 10,000 jobs between 1994-2003, with 85% of these jobs losses occurring in
Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, and Tulare counties.112 The three leading sectors of
employment in the eight-county SJV are government, agriculture, and health services.
The SJV led the greater Central Valley in retail sales from 1998-2002, averaging
nearly $24 billion per year. Growth in retail sales suggests that such expenditures are
likely benefitting the SJV, with spending occurring within the region rather than
leaking outside to other areas. While this increased spending is indicative of
107 (...continued)
Modesto, California.
108 See CRS Report RL30630, Precision Agriculture and Site-Specific Management: Current
Status and Emerging Policy Issues.
109 Immigration and the Changing Face of Rural California and Rural America. Urban
Institute Conference, March 24, 1998.
110 Kasler, Dale. “Central Valley mired in grinding poverty.” Sacramento Bee, January 24,
2000.
111 Great Valley Center. Assessing the Region via Indicators: The Economy, 1999-2004.
Modesto, California, January 2005.
112 Ibid., p.22.

CRS-193
economic vitality, retail service jobs generally pay lower wages relative to other jobs
in the service sector.
Throughout the 1990s, job growth in the Central Valley as a whole generally
lagged behind growth in the size of the available labor force. Between 1988-1997,
the labor force grew 21% in the Central Valley versus 13% in the state.113 Between
1998-2003, the Central Valley labor force growth still outpaced job growth, 11.1%
versus 10.5% respectively. Between 1991-1997, new business formation remained
unchanged in the SJV, although the region led in the number of corporate
headquarters (18) with 400 or more employees. Of the three subregions of the
Central Valley (North Valley, Sacramento, and the SJV), the SJV consistently had
the highest unemployment rate. Five of the ten highest annual U.S. unemployment
rates for MSAs in 2003 were in the SJV .
As noted in Chapter 1, the FJI aims to create 30,000 net new jobs paying at least
$30,000 each annually. The Initiative would aim to reduce Fresno county’s
unemployment rate to the statewide average by creating jobs in health care, advanced
manufacturing, and distribution. Despite high unemployment rates, some SJV
employers report shortages of workers. Hospitals, for example, say they cannot find
Registered Nurses despite offering entry-level salaries of $45,000 to $55,000 a
year.114 Many residents are poorly educated. A third of SJV adults do not have a
high-school diploma. As with many rural areas in the United States, SJV cities have
also sought prisons as an economic stimulus. New prison jobs, however, do not
necessarily go to local residents. Some observers believe that prisons, instead of
creating jobs, may discourage investors from moving to the SJV.

SJV County Employment Profiles. Tables 86-97 provide data from the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages on the
annual employment and pay of the 20 largest industries in each of the San Joaquin
counties, Mariposa and Tuolumne counties, and California and the United States
from 1990-2003.115
For comparative purposes, we have also included the same data for the four
Appalachian states containing the 68-county Central Appalachian area: Kentucky,
Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. While the Appalachian state data are not
comparable to Central Appalachia or the individual SJV counties, a comparative
113 Great Valley Center. Assessing the Region via Indicators. Modesto, California, July
1999.
114 Rural Migration News. “California: SJV, Refugees.” Rural Migration News, 10(3), July
2004.
115 There are many sources for employment numbers. Those from the decennial census count
the number of people with jobs at the time of enumeration. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) estimates people working (employed) or looking for work (unemployed) and
estimates the number of jobs by industry based on covered employment. The Bureau of
Economic Analysis estimates the number of jobs by industry (by place of work) and also
includes sole proprietors (which BLS does not). Caution is urged when “mixing” sources,
since each agency uses different estimation methods and therefore have somewhat different
numbers.

CRS-194
view may offer some insight into California and the SJV’s relative standing within
the same employment categories and average annual pay.
Fresno County. Average annual pay grew 54% from $19,603 in 1990 to
$30,196 in 2003. The total employment increased by over 45,000 jobs. In 1990,
crop production was the largest source of employment, accounting for just under
10% of county annual employment. Total county employment was 283,020 workers.
Crop production was followed by support activities for agriculture (8.5%),
educational services (8.2%), food services and drinking establishments (5.1%), and
food manufacturing (3.4%). Of these employment sectors, food manufacturing paid
the highest annual wages ($23,009) in 1990 followed by educational services
($21,353). Reflecting the generally low wage rate in most food service employment,
annual wages in that sector were $7,780. By 2003, educational services had the
largest proportion of county jobs (9.3%) followed by support services for agriculture
(8.2%), food services (5.7%), crop production (5.3%), and hospitals (3.8%). Of these
top 5 employers, hospitals paid the average highest wages ($43,683) in 2003, up from
$25,456 in 1990. In addition to hospital employment, ambulatory health care
services also rose from 12th highest employer in 1990 to 9th in 2003.
Kern County. The average annual pay in Kern County increased by 44%
between 1990-2003 compared to 60% for the United States and 62.8% for California.
As with the United States as a whole and California, educational services was the
largest employer category in Kern County in both 1990 and 2003, although in 2000,
support services for agriculture was the leading employer. Total employment grew
by about 45,000 jobs 1990-2003. Crop production fell from second place in 1990
to third in 2003, while food services were the third largest employment category in
1990 and 2003. Total county employment increased from 202,355 workers in 1990
to 247,760 workers in 2003. Educational services at 10% of county employment in
2003 was followed by support activities for agriculture (9.5%), crop production
(6.9%), food services and drinking establishments (5.8%), and administrative and
support services (3.6%). Of these employment sectors, educational services paid the
highest annual wages ($36,044) in 2003 followed by administrative and support
services ($21,247). With the presence of military bases in the county (Edwards Air
Force Base and the Naval Petroleum Reserve), national security and international
affairs employed over 6,000 persons at an annual wage of $68,324, which along with
mining support activities ($51,312), were the highest paying employers in Kern
County. Food services and agricultural support were the lowest paying jobs in the
county. Ambulatory health care services in Kern County rose from 12th highest
employer in 1990 to 6th in 2003.
Kings County. Average annual pay was $28,559 for Kern County compared
to $42,592 for California and $37,765 for the United States. Crop production and
support activities for agriculture and forestry were the leading employers in 1990,
2000, and 2003. Total employment in the county in 2003 was 38,112, up from
30,460 in 1990. Kings County, along with Madera and Merced counties, had the
lowest annual employment numbers. In 2003, agricultural support activities, food
manufacturing, and crop production were the top three employers and together
accounted for 21.6% of total county employment. Average annual pay grew 36.2%
from 1990 to 2003 ($20,967 and $28,559 respectively) compared to 62.8% for
California as a whole and 60% for the United States. Total employment increased in

CRS-195
the county by just under 8,000 jobs. Food services and ambulatory health care
services ranked fourth and fifth respectively in employment. Ambulatory services,
with 952 employees, has an average annual wage of $40,481, the third highest annual
pay after heavy and civil engineering construction ($49,516) and national security
and international affairs ($45,263). The latter category likely reflects the presence of
Lemoore Naval Air Station. In 2003, nursing and residential care facilities employed
592 persons, ranking 10th in employment. In 1990, that category was not among the
20 largest industries in the county.
Madera County. Average annual pay in Madera County increased from
$23,961 in 2000 to $27,877 in 2003, a 16.3% increase. Between 1990 and 2003,
average annual pay increased 54.5% compared to California’s 62.8%. With a total
of 40,465 employees in the county in 2003, crop production and agricultural support
activities accounted for 18.1% of county employment and paid an average of about
$15,000 annually. Crop production and agricultural support activities were also the
top two employers in 1990, paying an average of about $10,500. In 2000 and 2003,
justice, public order, and safety activities became the third largest employer with
slightly over 1,900 jobs. No such employers were among the top 20 employers in
1990 and likely reflect the operation of two prisons in Madera County. Jobs in this
sector paid an average of $41,432, third in ranking after non-metallic mineral product
manufacturing ($58,535) and telecommunications ($51,007). Ranking 20th among
employers in Madera County, telecommunications employed 434 persons in 2003.
Madera County was the only SJV county where telecommunications ranked among
the top 20 employers.
Merced County. Average annual wages increased 13.5% between 2000 and
2003 and 58.7% between 1990 and 2003. Food manufacturing and crop production
are ranked first and second respectively in Merced County, the same as 1990,
accounting for 17.1% of total employment in 2003. Total employment in the county
grew by nearly 10,000 jobs 1990-2003. Employment growth in food manufacturing
grew by 847 jobs between 1990 and 2003, while annual wages in the sector increased
by 38.5%. Crop production employment, however, fell by over 1000 jobs between
1990 and 2003, although average pay for crop production jobs increased 53.5% in the
county, somewhat lower than the average growth in pay for all job categories
(58.7%). In 1990 and 2000, animal production was ranked fourth in total
employment. By 2003, that category had disappeared from the top 20 employers and
was replaced by agricultural support activities. Specialty trade contractors and
ambulatory health care services were ranked fifth and sixth respectively.
Management of companies and enterprises was also among the top 20 employers in
2003, accounting for over 1,000 workers and paying the highest average annual
wages in the county ($49,873). This was not a top 20 category in 1990.
San Joaquin County. In 2003, San Joaquin County employees had the
highest average annual pay of any of the 8 counties in the SJV ($32,956), increasing
by 12.2% between 2000 and 2003. It also has a relatively diverse employment base
with significant employment in hospitals, ambulatory health care services,
professional, scientific, and technical services, and merchant wholesalers In 1990,
crop production was the leading employment category in the county, accounting for
5.6% of total employment. By 2003, crop production had fallen to fourth place,
losing 1,776 jobs. Food services became the leading employment category in 2003

CRS-196
with over 13,000 employees and accounting for 6.1% of the total county employment
of 211,582. Crop production jobs in 2003, however, paid an annual average of
$20,775 compared to $12,454 for food service jobs. This low annual wage is
consistent with many jobs in the expanding service sector. While many service
sector jobs are among the highest paying, these tend to be in business and
professional services. Administrative and support services were ranked second after
food services. These jobs tend to pay better wages than food service employment,
but they are also low relative to manufacturing and fabrication employment.
Warehousing and storage employment provided 4,187 jobs in 2003, ranking 15th in
the county and paying an average annual wage of $43,254. This category was not
among the top 20 in 1990.
Stanislaus County. Average annual pay in Stanislaus County increased
from $28,160 in 2000 to $31,926 in 2003, a 13.4% increase. Like San Joaquin
County in 2003, the food service industry was the largest employer in Stanislaus
County. In 1990 and 2000, food manufacturing was the leading sector in the county,
accounting for 14,475 jobs, 10.5% of the total of 138,212 jobs. Food manufacturing
employment fell by nearly 5,000 jobs between 1990 and 2003. This sector paid
average annual wages of $37,047 in 2003 while food service employment paid
$11,602 on average annually. Support services for agriculture ranked fifth in county
employment and paid slightly more than food service employment. Ambulatory
health care services and hospitals ranked sixth and seventh respectively and were the
two highest annual paying categories. Average annual wages across the top 20
employers in the county increased 57.9% between 1990 and 2003, somewhat lower
than California’s growth rate (62.8%) and that of the average income growth
nationally (60%). Stanislaus County had the third highest average annual pay
($31,926) after San Joaquin and Fresno counties.
Tulare County. Tulare County in 2003 had the lowest average annual pay
among the 8 SJV counties ($26,637). Average annual pay, however, increased
11.9% between 2000 and 2003 and 52.2% between 1990 and 2003. Support
activities for agriculture and forestry is the leading employment category with
average annual pay of $15,250. Support activities for agriculture was also the
leading sector in 1990. Educational services ranked second in 2003. In 1990, crop
production ranked second with 10,574 workers; in 2003, crop production ranked
third, having lost about 125 jobs over that time. By 2003, food services had
increased employment by about 2,500 workers over that of 1990, but the category
was still ranked the second largest employer. Hospital employment accounted for
6,243 workers in 2003 and ranked fifth in the county. In 1990, hospital employment
was not among the top 20 employers and ranked only 14th in 2000. Total
employment in the county rose from 111,085 in 1990 to 135,547, an increase of 18%.
Animal production rose from 11th place in 1990 to 7th place in 2003, more than
doubling employment in that area.
Mariposa County. Mariposa County’s average annual pay in 2003, at
$25,653, was lower than any SJV county, about $1,000 less than Tulare County.
Annual pay also increased only 3.9% between 2000 and 2003 and 52.8% between
1990 and 2003. Reflecting the tourist destination that it is, the leading employment
sector in 2003 was in hotels/motels and similar accommodations. This sector
accounted for 30.8% of employment, 1,551 jobs out of a county total of 5,027.

CRS-197
While accommodations also ranked first in 1990, the sector has lost about 400 jobs
since 1990. Museums, historical sites, and similar institutions rank second in the
county, the same as 1990. This sector grew by about 100 jobs between 1990 and
2003 to 627 jobs. Aside from 146 jobs in ambulatory health care services, most of
the other 17 sectors each had fewer than 60 jobs each.
Tuolumne County. Annual pay across the county’s top 20 categories
averaged $29,535 in 2003, an increase of 15.9% over 2000 and a 50.2% increase
between 1990 and 2003. Tuolumne County also had about three times the total
employment of Mariposa County (17,510) in 2003. Food services was the leading
employment category, paying an average annual wage in of $10,522. The sector
added fewer than 100 jobs between 1990 and 2003. Average pay in the sector
increased by 41.7 % between 1990 and 2003. The second largest employment
category was justice, public order, and safety activities with somewhat under 1,200
jobs. The highest average paying categories were ambulatory health care services
($44,906) and professional, scientific, and technical workers ($43,253).

CRS-198
Table 86. Annual Employment and Average Annual Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, United States, 1990-2003
1990
2000
2003
Average
Average
Annual
Average
Annual
annual
Annual
annual
Rank
Industry
employment annual pay
Industry
employment
pay
Industry
employment
pay
All 108,603,565
$23,605 All
129,879,584
$35,331 All
127,795,827
$37,765
1 Educational Services
8,491,193
$23,223 Educational Services
10,554,237
$31,957 Educational Services
11,293,097
$35,009
2 Food Services and Drinking Places
6,321,450
$8,371 Food Services and Drinking Places 8,179,177
$11,882 Food Services and Drinking Places
8,593,004
$12,726
Professional, Scientific, and
Administrative and Support
Administrative and Support
3 Technical Services
4,991,097
$34,892 Services
7,760,581
$22,413 Services 7,287,734
$25,356
Professional, Scientific, and
Professional, Scientific, and
4 Hospitals 4,592,588
$24,130 Technical Services
6,919,298
$57,955 Technical Services
6,744,928
$59,869
Administrative and Support
5 Services 4,304,726
$15,336 Hospitals
5,070,038
$34,754 Hospitals 5,393,226
$40,410
6 Ambulatory Health Care Services
3,045,160
$32,275 Ambulatory Health Care Services
4,397,005
$41,068 Ambulatory Health Care Services
4,875,481
$44,491
7 Specialty Trade Contractors
3,027,590
$25,065 Specialty Trade Contractors
4,170,355
$35,117 Specialty Trade Contractors
4,216,229
$36,913
Merchant Wholesalers, Durable
Executive, Legislative, and Other
8 Food and Beverage Stores
2,712,706
$13,760 Goods
3,135,258
$50,116 General Government Support
3,098,922
$37,363
Executive, Legislative, and Other
Nursing and Residential Care
9 General Government Support
2,646,022
$23,276 Food and Beverage Stores
2,990,519
$17,907 Facilities
2,991,712
$23,044
Executive, Legislative, and Other
Merchant Wholesalers, Durable
10 General Merchandise Stores
2,633,741
$12,329 General Government Support
2,947,306
$33,452 Goods
2,929,332
$51,713
Merchant Wholesalers, Durable
11 Goods
2,599,521
$31,780 General Merchandise Stores
2,862,087
$16,259 Food and Beverage Stores
2,864,053
$19,812
Credit Intermediation and Related
Nursing and Residential Care
12 Activities
2,548,473
$25,737 Facilities
2,794,034
$20,781 General Merchandise Stores
2,852,423
$18,457
Transportation Equipment
Credit Intermediation and Related
Credit Intermediation and Related
13 Manufacturing
2,251,045
$34,771 Activities 2,551,316
$43,134 Activities
2,791,388
$52,341
Nursing and Residential Care
Insurance Carriers and Related
14 Facilities
2,141,231
$13,865 Activities 2,102,099
$48,448 Social
Assistance
2,173,977
$20,807
Insurance Carriers and Related
Transportation Equipment
Insurance Carriers and Related
15 Activities
1,949,731
$30,503 Manufacturing
2,083,748
$49,812 Activities
2,147,820
$55,419
Computer and Electronic Product
Merchant Wholesalers,
Merchant Wholesalers,
16 Manufacturing
1,891,514
$34,986 Nondurable Goods
2,006,512
$42,373 Nondurable Goods
1,998,438
$46,800
Merchant Wholesalers,
17 Nondurable Goods
1,702,214
$27,976 Social Assistance
1,972,690
$18,835 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
1,878,753
$38,138
18 Accommodation
1,625,572
$12,940 Accommodation 1,875,478
$19,914 Accommodation
1,804,429
$21,580
Fabricated Metal Product
Transportation Equipment
19 Manufacturing
1,615,042
$26,747 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
1,851,378
$35,379 Manufacturing
1,784,938
$55,968
Computer and Electronic Product
Justice, Public Order, and Safety
20 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
1,537,525
$23,842 Manufacturing
1,806,140
$71,168 Activities
1,722,726
$47,563
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), available at [http://www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm].
Note: Data refer to the average pay of employers to workers. An individual worker may work for more than one employer during the year or hold more than one job at the same time.

CRS-199
Table 87. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, California, 1990-2003
1990
2000
2003
Average
Average
Average
Annual
annual
Annual
annual
Annual
annual
Rank
Industry
employment
pay
Industry
employment
pay
Industry
employment
pay
All
13,262,696
$26,162 All
14,905,055
$41,263 All
14,807,656
$42,592
1 Educational Services
988,983
$24,283 Educational Services
1,222,682
$34,850 Educational Services
1,302,061
$39,360
Administrative and Support
2 Food Services and Drinking Places
770,684
$9,392 Services
964,186
$24,539 Food Services and Drinking Places
971,410
$14,420
Professional, Scientific, and
Professional, Scientific, and
Professional, Scientific, and
3 Technical Services
758,264
$37,125 Technical Services
959,261
$69,577 Technical Services
935,474
$67,814
Administrative and Support
Administrative and Support
4 Services
627,830
$16,890 Food Services and Drinking Places
922,592
$13,139 Services
898,902
$27,261
Computer and Electronic Product
5 Manufacturing
471,439
$40,526 Specialty Trade Contractors
479,027
$37,557 Specialty Trade Contractors
518,395
$38,119
6 Hospitals
437,507
$28,274 Ambulatory Health Care Services
465,532
$42,327 Hospitals
497,947
$48,417
7 Specialty Trade Contractors
419,729
$27,028 Hospitals
450,210
$39,883 Ambulatory Health Care Services
495,932
$45,563
Computer and Electronic Product
Merchant Wholesalers, Durable
8 Ambulatory Health Care Services
378,291
$35,821 Manufacturing
430,785
$104,900 Goods
343,121
$54,899
Merchant Wholesalers, Durable
Merchant Wholesalers, Durable
Computer and Electronic Product
9 Goods
342,919
$34,049 Goods
366,793
$52,027 Manufacturing
324,545
$87,273
Credit Intermediation and Related
Management of Companies and
10 Activities 334,124
$28,409 Enterprises
331,180
$68,091 Food and Beverage Stores
321,053
$26,374
Credit Intermediation and Related
11 Food and Beverage Stores
300,204
$19,452 Food and Beverage Stores
301,074
$25,478 Activities
294,116
$63,535
Transportation Equipment
Justice, Public Order, and Safety
Justice, Public Order, and Safety
12 Manufacturing
282,031
$38,743 Activities
257,511
$52,071 Activities
277,213
$58,825
13 General Merchandise Stores
280,067
$14,715 General Merchandise Stores
246,584
$18,085 General Merchandise Stores
264,868
$20,212
Insurance Carriers and Related
Credit Intermediation and Related
Management of Companies and
14 Activities 216,425
$33,967 Activities
236,432
$48,742 Enterprises
255,557
$65,005
Merchant Wholesalers,
Merchant Wholesalers,
15 Crop Production
202,659
$13,469 Nondurable Goods
223,880
$42,507 Nondurable Goods
231,025
$47,079
Justice, Public Order, and Safety
Nursing and Residential Care
Nursing and Residential Care
16 Activities 202,086
$38,278 Facilities 208,601
$21,192 Facilities
226,691
$24,084
Insurance Carriers and Related
Insurance Carriers and Related
17 Accommodation 201,437
$13,744 Activities
201,969
$51,294 Activities
220,886
$62,339
Merchant Wholesalers,
Amusement, Gambling, and
18 Nondurable Goods
192,398
$30,163 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
200,181
$39,913 Recreation Industries
217,196
$21,598
Executive, Legislative, and Other
Executive, Legislative, and Other
19 General Government Support
186,540
$29,730 Crop Production
198,087
$19,226 General Government Support
209,625
$48,655
20 Food Manufacturing
184,942
$23,738 Accommodation
197,772
$20,745 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
206,425
$42,794
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), available at [http://www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm].
Note: Data refer to the average pay of employers to workers. An individual worker may work for more than one employer during the year or hold more than one job at the same time.

CRS-200
Table 88. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, Fresno County, 1990-2003
1990
2000
2003
Average
Average
Average
Annual
annual
Annual
annual
Annual
annual
Rank
Industry
employment
pay
Industry
employment
pay
Industry
employment
pay
All
283,020
$19,603 All
324,397
$26,169 All
328,131
$30,196
Support Activities for Agriculture
1 Crop Production
26,529
$10,199 and Forestry
34,536
$12,052 Educational Services
30,621
$34,195
Support Activities for Agriculture
Support Activities for Agriculture
2 and Forestry
24,206
$10,554 Educational Services
29,415
$31,169 and Forestry
26,986
$15,774
3 Educational Services
23,173
$21,353 Crop Production
19,666
$16,205 Food Services and Drinking Places
18,678
$11,552
4 Food Services and Drinking Places
14,667
$7,880 Food Services and Drinking Places 19,281
$10,006 Crop Production
17,286
$17,449
Administrative and Support
5 Food Manufacturing
9,563
$23,009 Services
12,112
$18,608 Hospitals
12,730
$43,683
6 Specialty Trade Contractors
9,484
$22,606 Food Manufacturing
11,277
$26,728 Food Manufacturing
12,368
$28,383
7 Hospitals
8,708
$25,456 Ambulatory Health Care Services
10,006
$44,429 Specialty Trade Contractors
11,806
$32,181
Administrative and Support
8 Food and Beverage Stores
8,186
$17,027 Hospitals
9,920
$35,357 Services
11,552
$22,097
Executive, Legislative, and Other
9 General Government Support
8,012
$21,153 Specialty Trade Contractors
9,886
$29,562 Ambulatory Health Care Services
10,373
$47,917
Professional, Scientific, and
Professional, Scientific, and
Professional, Scientific, and
10 Technical Services
7,334
$28,525 Technical Services
8,160
$36,810 Technical Services
9,162
$39,247
Administrative and Support
Executive, Legislative, and Other
Executive, Legislative, and Other
11 Services
7,298
$13,626 General Government Support
7,842
$33,816 General Government Support
8,670
$38,440
12 Ambulatory Health Care Services
7,265
$35,460 General Merchandise Stores
6,164
$15,772 General Merchandise Stores
6,832
$18,014
13 General Merchandise Stores
6,376
$12,941 Food and Beverage Stores
6,053
$22,503 Food and Beverage Stores
6,474
$23,899
Merchant Wholesalers, Durable
Merchant Wholesalers, Durable
Nursing and Residential Care
14 Goods
6,151
$25,265 Goods 5,965
$34,752 Facilities
6,096
$21,299
Merchant Wholesalers,
Nursing and Residential Care
Merchant Wholesalers, Durable
15 Nondurable Goods
4,927
$28,098 Facilities
5,891
$18,390 Goods
5,918
$38,676
Credit Intermediation and Related
16 Activities
4,877
$22,665 Private Households
5,261
$9,850 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
5,373
$36,259
Merchant Wholesalers,
Merchant Wholesalers,
17 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
4,200
$25,925 Nondurable Goods
5,230
$39,812 Nondurable Goods
5,310
$40,927
Insurance Carriers and Related
Management of Companies and
18 Activities
4,038
$28,555 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
5,039
$33,439 Enterprises
4,575
$39,699
Insurance Carriers and Related
Credit Intermediation and Related
19 Construction of Buildings
3,855
$24,429 Activities 4,974
$38,782 Activities
4,422
$43,522
Management of Companies and
20 Truck Transportation
3,760
$23,468 Enterprises
4,290
$36,095 Construction of Buildings
4,334
$40,154
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), available at [http://www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm].
Note: Data refer to the average pay of employers to workers. An individual worker may work for more than one employer during the year or hold more than one job at the same time.

CRS-201
Table 89. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, Kern County, 1990-2003
1990
2000
2003
Average
Average
Average
Annual
annual
Annual
annual
Annual
annual
Rank
Industry
employment
pay
Industry
employment
pay
Industry
employment
pay
All
202,355
$22,481 All
239,696
$28,410 All
247,760
$32,352
Support Activities for Agriculture
1 Educational Services
17,470
$23,742 and Forestry
25,056
$11,748 Educational Services
25,198
$36,044
Support Activities for Agriculture
2 Crop Production
14,954
$14,884 Educational Services
23,491
$32,660 and Forestry
23,649
$13,818
Support Activities for Agriculture
3 and Forestry
14,228
$10,796 Crop Production
17,443
$18,777 Crop Production
17,187
$21,781
4 Food Services and Drinking Places 10,710
$7,743 Food Services and Drinking Places 13,519
$10,182 Food Services and Drinking Places
14,288
$11,665
National Security and International
Administrative and Support
Administrative and Support
5 Affairs
8,224
$35,035 Services
9,629
$19,642 Services
8,989
$21,247
Professional, Scientific, and
6 Technical Services
7,891
$29,645 Ambulatory Health Care Services
7,710
$38,014 Ambulatory Health Care Services
8,767
$42,034
Professional, Scientific, and
7 Specialty Trade Contractors
7,670
$27,194 Technical Services
6,940
$38,867 Specialty Trade Contractors
8,299
$31,810
Administrative and Support
Professional, Scientific, and
8 Services
6,642
$15,221 Specialty Trade Contractors
6,892
$30,356 Technical Services
8,218
$42,729
National Security and International
9 Oil and Gas Extraction
5,981
$44,190 Affairs
6,032
$59,354 Hospitals
6,610
$42,726
National Security and International
10 Support Activities for Mining
5,572
$32,133 Hospitals
5,351
$31,388 Affairs
6,332
$68,324
11 Food and Beverage Stores
5,528
$17,269 Food and Beverage Stores
5,196
$24,123 Food and Beverage Stores
5,333
$22,665
Management of Companies and
Justice, Public Order, and Safety
12 Ambulatory Health Care Services
5,248
$30,439 Enterprises
5,061
$35,344 Activities
5,142
$39,012
13 Hospitals 4,716
$22,807 General
Merchandise
Stores
4,895
$15,313 General Merchandise Stores
4,868
$17,305
14 General Merchandise Stores
4,398
$11,618 Support Activities for Mining
4,543
$43,968 Food Manufacturing
4,655
$32,229
Heavy and Civil Engineering
Justice, Public Order, and Safety
15 Construction
3,254
$29,771 Activities
4,490
$35,100 Support Activities for Mining
4,144
$51,312
Executive, Legislative, and Other
16 General Government Support
3,121
$26,860 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
3,729
$31,759 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
4,066
$34,475
Credit Intermediation and Related
Executive, Legislative, and Other
17 Activities 3,024
$23,592 Food
Manufacturing
3,434
$29,291 General Government Support
3,513
$38,956
Merchant Wholesalers, Durable
Nursing and Residential Care
18 Goods 2,987
$26,538 Truck
Transportation
3,421
$32,054 Facilities
3,473
$19,519
Executive, Legislative, and Other
Merchant Wholesalers, Durable
19 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
2,882
$23,449 General Government Support
3,336
$35,360 Goods
3,308
$40,319
Nursing and Residential Care
20 Truck Transportation
2,724
$24,323 Facilities
3,285
$17,311 Truck Transportation
3,193
$36,016
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), available at [http://www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm].
Note: Data refer to the average pay of employers to workers. An individual worker may work for more than one employer during the year or hold more than one job at the same time.

CRS-202
Table 90. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, Kings County, 1990-2003
1990
2000
2003
Average
Average
Average
Annual
annual
Annual
annual
Annual
annual
Rank
Industry
employment
pay
Industry
employment
pay
Industry
employment
pay
All
30,460
$20,967 All
36,464
$25,436 All
38,112
$28,559
Support Activities for Agriculture
Support Activities for Agriculture
1 Crop Production
3,273
$14,282 and Forestry
3,988
$12,774 and Forestry
2,922
$17,842
2 Food Services and Drinking Places
1,633
$11,298 Crop Production
2,642
$20,942 Food Manufacturing
2,675
$35,460
Support Activities for Agriculture
3 and Forestry
1,510
$11,509 Food Manufacturing
2,140
$29,916 Crop Production
2,646
$22,552
4 Food Manufacturing
1,375
$22,608 Food Services and Drinking Places
1,962
$9,701 Food Services and Drinking Places
2,132
$10,827
National Security and International
5 Affairs
1,004
$19,360 General Merchandise Stores
971
$13,966 Ambulatory Health Care Services
952
$40,481
6 Ambulatory Health Care Services
801
$28,832 Ambulatory Health Care Services
918
$36,673 General Merchandise Stores
881
$15,781
National Security and International
7 Food and Beverage Stores
648
$14,621 Affairs
749
$40,427 Specialty Trade Contractors
795
$25,936
8 General Merchandise Stores
626
$12,253 Food and Beverage Stores
668
$18,287 Food and Beverage Stores
754
$21,873
National Security and International
9 Specialty Trade Contractors
462
$17,435 Specialty Trade Contractors
588
$23,909 Affairs
741
$45,263
Executive, Legislative, and Other
Executive, Legislative, and Other
Nursing and Residential Care
10 General Government Support
429
$24,275 General Government Support
549
$31,696 Facilities
592
$18,510
Merchant Wholesalers,
Nursing and Residential Care
Executive, Legislative, and Other
11 Nondurable Goods
423
$41,592 Facilities
485
$18,464 General Government Support
577
$30,565
12 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
406
$21,047 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
440
$28,983 Rental and Leasing Services
500
$18,791
Credit Intermediation and Related
Professional, Scientific, and
13 Activities
390
$16,696 Gasoline Stations
394
$32,994 Technical Services
482
$35,117
Professional, Scientific, and
Professional, Scientific, and
Merchant Wholesalers,
14 Technical Services
344
$21,991 Technical Services
391
$33,484 Nondurable Goods
414
$26,383
Credit Intermediation and Related
15 Educational Services
332
$10,116 Truck Transportation
346
$29,794 Activities
384
$39,247
Merchant Wholesalers,
16 Construction of Buildings
289
$21,574 Nondurable Goods
346
$33,918 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
376
$32,997
Building Material and Garden
Heavy and Civil Engineering
Building Material and Garden
17 Equipment and Supplies Dealers
286
$17,392 Construction 336
$44,922 Equipment and Supplies Dealers
372
$21,049
18 Truck Transportation
283
$20,547 Rental and Leasing Services
331
$19,270 Truck Transportation
353
$25,876
Clothing and Clothing Accessories
Credit Intermediation and Related
Heavy and Civil Engineering
19 Stores
227
$10,137 Activities
327
$26,705 Construction
300
$49,516
Religious, Grantmaking, Civic,
Professional, and Similar
Building Material and Garden
20 Organizations
226
$10,340 Equipment and Supplies Dealers
248
$21,069 Repair and Maintenance
282
$26,280
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), available at [http://www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm].
Note: Data refer to the average pay of employers to workers. An individual worker may work for more than one employer during the year or hold more than one job at the same time.

CRS-203
Table 91. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, Madera County, 1990-2003
1990
2000
2003
Average
Average
Average
Annual
annual
Annual
annual
Annual
annual
Rank
Industry
employment
pay
Industry
employment
pay
Industry
employment
pay
All
26,559
$18,048 All
39,016
$23,961 All
40,465
$27,877
Support Activities for Agriculture
Support Activities for Agriculture
1 Crop Production
4,234
$10,443 and Forestry
6,147
$10,833 and Forestry
3,806
$13,555
Support Activities for Agriculture
2 and Forestry
2,370
$9,688 Crop Production
4,778
$15,993 Crop Production
3,511
$16,529
Justice, Public Order, and Safety
Justice, Public Order, and Safety
3 Food Services and Drinking Places
1,437
$7,014 Activities
1,904
$37,185 Activities
1,926
$41,432
4 Food Manufacturing
968
$20,050 Food Services and Drinking Places 1,746
$9,943 Food Services and Drinking Places
1,677
$11,370
Nonmetallic Mineral Product
5 Manufacturing
727
$34,172 Ambulatory Health Care Services
948
$44,688 Specialty Trade Contractors
1,350
$27,342
Professional, Scientific, and
6 Food and Beverage Stores
713
$16,906 Specialty Trade Contractors
845
$28,864 Technical Services
1,343
$16,166
7 Machinery Manufacturing
679
$31,370 Food and Beverage Stores
815
$21,273 Ambulatory Health Care Services
1,063
$48,608
Nursing and Residential Care
8 Specialty Trade Contractors
635
$21,277 Facilities
746
$17,665 Food and Beverage Stores
988
$24,498
Beverage and Tobacco Product
Nonmetallic Mineral Product
9 Manufacturing
609
$32,539 Manufacturing
657
$47,753 Animal Production
850
$22,867
Administrative and Support
10 Ambulatory Health Care Services
552
$27,376 Machinery Manufacturing
635
$41,484 Services
724
$18,071
Nursing and Residential Care
11 Construction of Buildings
546
$21,245 Animal Production
592
$20,820 Facilities
718
$22,042
Administrative and Support
Nonmetallic Mineral Product
12 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
489
$21,086 Services 514
$13,280 Manufacturing
663
$58,535
13 Animal Production
446
$15,400 Accommodation
503
$14,591 Machinery Manufacturing
652
$41,136
Executive, Legislative, and Other
14 General Government Support
410
$22,229 General Merchandise Stores
492
$13,559 Construction of Buildings
613
$28,155
Building Material and Garden
Executive, Legislative, and Other
15 Equipment and Supplies Dealers
372
$20,482 Construction of Buildings
452
$25,258 General Government Support
548
$37,747
Nursing and Residential Care
16 Facilities
304
$12,955 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
436
$24,375 Accommodation
544
$15,774
Credit Intermediation and Related
Executive, Legislative, and Other
17 Activities
275
$18,554 General Government Support
435
$35,072 General Merchandise Stores
531
$16,820
18 Repair and Maintenance
258
$19,063 Private Households
385
$9,386 Food Manufacturing
514
$30,478
Administrative and Support
19 Services
253
$12,298 Telecommunications
381
$41,159 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
470
$27,146
20 Accommodation
251
$12,075 Food Manufacturing
353
$29,772 Telecommunications
434
$51,007
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), available at [http://www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm].
Note: Data refer to the average pay of employers to workers. An individual worker may work for more than one employer during the year or hold more than one job at the same time.

CRS-204
Table 92. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, Merced County, 1990-2003
1990
2000
2003
Average
Average
Average
Annual
annual
Annual
annual
Annual
annual
Rank
Industry
employment
pay
Industry
employment
pay
Industry
employment
pay
All
56,613
$17,731 All
64,611
$24,796 All
66,250
$28,152
1 Food Manufacturing
5,993
$21,352 Crop Production
5,682
$17,034 Food Manufacturing
6,840
$29,570
2 Crop Production
5,624
$12,892 Food Manufacturing
5,511
$26,875 Crop Production
4,560
$19,791
3 Food Services and Drinking Places 3,000
$7,654 Food Services and Drinking Places
3,609
$9,637 Food Services and Drinking Places
3,782
$11,202
Support Activities for Agriculture
4 Animal Production
2,200
$15,220 Animal Production
2,595
$21,808 and Forestry
3,187
$15,535
Insurance Carriers and Related
Executive, Legislative, and Other
5 Activities
1,404
$23,296 General Government Support
1,815
$30,786 Specialty Trade Contractors
2,016
$27,034
6 Food and Beverage Stores
1,345
$16,886 Ambulatory Health Care Services
1,712
$35,206 Ambulatory Health Care Services
1,940
$38,542
Executive, Legislative, and Other
7 Ambulatory Health Care Services
1,340
$28,926 General Merchandise Stores
1,615
$15,791 General Government Support
1,715
$39,124
8 General Merchandise Stores
1,203
$11,014 Food and Beverage Stores
1,488
$21,564 General Merchandise Stores
1,643
$17,791
Administrative and Support
9 Specialty Trade Contractors
1,164
$17,664 Services
1,471
$14,997 Food and Beverage Stores
1,534
$22,030
Administrative and Support
10 Services
1,122
$11,252 Specialty Trade Contractors
1,429
$23,083 Hospitals
1,519
$44,854
Executive, Legislative, and Other
Administrative and Support
11 General Government Support
1,092
$23,063 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
1,246
$27,084 Services
1,443
$17,601
Nursing and Residential Care
12 Truck Transportation
1,072
$22,968 Facilities
1,073
$16,112 Truck Transportation
1,249
$31,850
Fabricated Metal Product
Professional, Scientific, and
Nursing and Residential Care
13 Manufacturing
944
$16,216 Technical Services
978
$32,791 Facilities
1,234
$19,749
Management of Companies and
Merchant Wholesalers,
14 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
859
$21,466 Enterprises
924
$71,835 Nondurable Goods
1,065
$39,657
Nursing and Residential Care
Insurance Carriers and Related
15 Facilities
847
$11,904 Activities
923
$36,455 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
1,059
$31,074
Merchant Wholesalers,
Merchant Wholesalers,
16 Nondurable Goods
837
$22,269 Nondurable Goods
898
$30,567 Private Households
1,010
$9,764
Professional, Scientific, and
Management of Companies and
17 Technical Services
789
$24,108 Truck Transportation
708
$28,349 Enterprises
1,006
$49,873
Credit Intermediation and Related
Professional, Scientific, and
18 Activities
654
$18,067 Repair and Maintenance
668
$25,586 Technical Services
904
$39,326
19 Construction of Buildings
579
$18,282 Private Households
609
$9,688 Construction of Buildings
765
$31,764
Building Material and Garden
Building Material and Garden
20 Gasoline Stations
564
$11,769 Equipment and Supplies Dealers
597
$27,655 Equipment and Supplies Dealers
761
$23,605
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), available at [http://www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm].
Note: Data refer to the average pay of employers to workers. An individual worker may work for more than one employer during the year or hold more than one job at the same time.

CRS-205
Table 93. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, San Joaquin County, 1990-2003
1990
2000
2003
Average
Average
Average
Annual
annual
Annual
annual
Annual
annual
Rank
Industry
employment
pay
Industry
employment
pay
Industry
employment
pay
All
169,650
$21,576 All
200,996
$29,355 All
211,582
$32,926
1 Crop Production
9,531
$11,778 Food Services and Drinking Places
11,497
$10,369 Food Services and Drinking Places
13,004
$12,454
Administrative and Support
Administrative and Support
2 Food Services and Drinking Places
9,432
$8,269 Services
10,510
$18,321 Services
9,811
$21,431
3 Food Manufacturing
8,526
$25,538 Crop Production
9,498
$18,993 Specialty Trade Contractors
9,519
$34,719
Administrative and Support
4 Services
5,719
$17,658 Specialty Trade Contractors
7,490
$32,505 Crop Production
7,755
$20,775
Support Activities for Agriculture
Support Activities for Agriculture
5 and Forestry
5,563
$7,531 Food Manufacturing
6,932
$34,886 and Forestry
6,811
$16,495
Support Activities for Agriculture
6 Specialty Trade Contractors
5,435
$23,205 and Forestry
6,506
$15,598 Hospitals
6,527
$45,123
7 Ambulatory Health Care Services
4,813
$32,816 Ambulatory Health Care Services
5,739
$40,359 Ambulatory Health Care Services
6,009
$41,434
Credit Intermediation and Related
Justice, Public Order, and Safety
8 Activities
4,456
$26,335 Truck Transportation
5,563
$35,109 Activities
5,665
$47,722
9 Hospitals
4,250
$24,796 Food and Beverage Stores
5,530
$25,096 Food and Beverage Stores
5,628
$25,076
Justice, Public Order, and Safety
10 Food and Beverage Stores
3,784
$18,464 Activities 5,498
$42,300 Truck
Transportation
5,345
$37,312
Justice, Public Order, and Safety
11 Activities
3,759
$36,459 Hospitals
5,214
$34,758 General Merchandise Stores
5,220
$18,380
12 Truck Transportation
3,707
$24,726 General Merchandise Stores
4,662
$17,355 Food Manufacturing
5,148
$37,675
Nursing and Residential Care
Nursing and Residential Care
Professional, Scientific, and
13 Facilities
3,498
$12,843 Facilities
4,655
$19,272 Technical Services
5,043
$49,468
Professional, Scientific, and
Nursing and Residential Care
14 General Merchandise Stores
3,267
$11,770 Technical Services
3,610
$38,867 Facilities
4,553
$22,101
Professional, Scientific, and
Fabricated Metal Product
15 Technical Services
3,227
$25,319 Manufacturing
3,583
$37,478 Warehousing and Storage
4,187
$43,254
Merchant Wholesalers, Durable
16 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
3,077
$22,861 Warehousing and Storage
3,552
$36,446 Goods
3,859
$41,457
Merchant Wholesalers, Durable
Merchant Wholesalers, Durable
17 Goods
3,018
$26,955 Goods
3,243
$38,611 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
3,845
$38,447
Credit Intermediation and Related
18 Construction of Buildings
2,966
$26,034 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
3,232
$35,515 Activities
3,817
$42,371
Merchant Wholesalers,
19 Nondurable Goods
2,617
$30,490 Educational Services
3,087
$21,666 Educational Services
3,499
$22,577
National Security and International
Merchant Wholesalers,
20 Affairs
2,527
$25,860 Social Assistance
2,981
$19,518 Nondurable Goods
3,344
$43,202
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), available at [http://www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm].
Note: Data refer to the average pay of employers to workers. An individual worker may work for more than one employer during the year or hold more than one job at the same time.

CRS-206
Table 94. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, Stanislaus County, 1990-2003
1990
2000
2003
Average
Average
Average
Annual
annual
Annual
annual
Annual
annual
Rank
Industry
employment
pay
Industry
employment
pay
Industry
employment
pay
All
138,212
$20,222 All
162,674
$28,160 All
166,988
$31,926
1 Food Manufacturing
14,475
$22,390 Food Manufacturing
11,772
$32,817 Food Services and Drinking Places
11,779
$11,602
2 Food Services and Drinking Places 7,797
$7,875 Food Services and Drinking Places
10,481
$9,933 Food Manufacturing
9,688
$37,047
Administrative and Support
3 Specialty Trade Contractors
6,092
$24,203 Services
8,460
$18,554 Specialty Trade Contractors
8,526
$32,184
Support Activities for Agriculture
Administrative and Support
4 Crop Production
5,614
$13,151 and Forestry
7,815
$9,842 Services
6,978
$22,205
Support Activities for Agriculture
Support Activities for Agriculture
5 and Forestry
5,608
$8,488 Specialty Trade Contractors
7,051
$29,751 and Forestry
6,489
$13,714
6 Ambulatory Health Care Services
4,227
$32,892 Ambulatory Health Care Services
6,017
$38,348 Ambulatory Health Care Services
6,460
$44,421
7 Hospitals
4,166
$24,763 Crop Production
5,192
$18,656 Hospitals
6,076
$46,820
Management of Companies and
8 Food and Beverage Stores
3,776
$18,403 Enterprises
4,916
$59,510 Food and Beverage Stores
4,706
$25,793
Professional, Scientific, and
9 General Merchandise Stores
3,493
$11,463 Food and Beverage Stores
4,661
$24,351 Technical Services
4,591
$36,024
10 Animal Production
3,413
$16,986 Hospitals
4,320
$35,765 Crop Production
4,565
$20,065
Professional, Scientific, and
11 Technical Services
2,974
$25,307 General Merchandise Stores
4,209
$15,480 General Merchandise Stores
4,418
$18,057
Administrative and Support
Nursing and Residential Care
Merchant Wholesalers,
12 Services 2,830
$13,287 Facilities
3,924
$19,375 Nondurable Goods
3,725
$39,269
Executive, Legislative, and Other
Professional, Scientific, and
Executive, Legislative, and Other
13 General Government Support
2,796
$26,021 Technical Services
3,851
$33,536 General Government Support
3,549
$43,171
Executive, Legislative, and Other
Nursing and Residential Care
14 Truck Transportation
2,209
$23,661 General Government Support
3,243
$38,096 Facilities
3,323
$23,627
Merchant Wholesalers,
15 Nondurable Goods
2,141
$26,704 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
2,921
$35,135 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
3,242
$38,816
16 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
2,090
$24,815 Animal Production
2,824
$21,602 Animal Production
2,934
$22,858
Fabricated Metal Product
Merchant Wholesalers,
Building Material and Garden
17 Manufacturing
2,046
$30,999 Nondurable Goods
2,819
$35,132 Equipment and Supplies Dealers
2,363
$28,851
Fabricated Metal Product
Fabricated Metal Product
18 Construction of Buildings
2,012
$24,539 Manufacturing
2,552
$40,130 Manufacturing
2,239
$44,244
Nursing and Residential Care
Merchant Wholesalers, Durable
19 Facilities
1,956
$13,168 Goods
2,336
$38,401 Truck Transportation
2,218
$36,237
Credit Intermediation and Related
Building Material and Garden
Credit Intermediation and Related
20 Activities 1,943
$20,953 Equipment and Supplies Dealers
2,057
$24,442 Activities
2,192
$49,067
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), available at [http://www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm].
Note: Data refer to the average pay of employers to workers. An individual worker may work for more than one employer during the year or hold more than one job at the same time.

CRS-207
Table 95. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, Tulare County, 1990-2003
1990
2000
2003
Average
Average
Average
Annual
annual
Annual
annual
Annual
annual
Rank
Industry
employment
pay
Industry
employment
pay
Industry
employment
pay
All
111,085
$17,506 All
132,816
$23,799 All
135,547
$26,637
Support Activities for Agriculture
Support Activities for Agriculture
Support Activities for Agriculture
1 and Forestry
17,750
$9,712 and Forestry
18,905
$13,178 and Forestry
17,511
$15,250
2 Crop Production
10,574
$11,867 Educational Services
12,926
$33,082 Educational Services
13,729
$36,221
3 Educational Services
9,897
$24,112 Crop Production
11,589
$16,490 Crop Production
10,423
$17,187
4 Food Services and Drinking Places 4,682
$7,121 Food Services and Drinking Places 5,891
$10,568 Food Services and Drinking Places 6,362
$11,036
Administrative and Support
5 Food Manufacturing
4,332
$22,192 Services
5,280
$15,179 Hospitals
6,243
$34,536
Administrative and Support
6 Food and Beverage Stores
3,041
$15,471 Animal Production
4,304
$21,936 Services
5,070
$17,515
7 Specialty Trade Contractors
2,677
$19,818 Food Manufacturing
4,003
$36,229 Animal Production
4,877
$23,981
8 Ambulatory Health Care Services
2,495
$29,799 General Merchandise Stores
3,214
$18,998 Food Manufacturing
4,511
$40,515
Administrative and Support
9 Services
2,145
$12,337 Ambulatory Health Care Services
3,190
$36,023 Specialty Trade Contractors
3,853
$29,462
Executive, Legislative, and Other
10 General Government Support
2,126
$21,862 Specialty Trade Contractors
3,118
$27,548 Ambulatory Health Care Services
3,752
$40,427
Executive, Legislative, and Other
Executive, Legislative, and Other
11 Animal Production
2,032
$16,154 General Government Support
3,061
$30,189 General Government Support
3,074
$36,825
12 General Merchandise Stores
1,996
$11,123 Food and Beverage Stores
2,679
$20,445 General Merchandise Stores
2,878
$17,680
Nursing and Residential Care
13 Truck Transportation
1,954
$21,720 Facilities
2,268
$17,251 Food and Beverage Stores
2,832
$21,328
Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable
Nursing and Residential Care
14 Goods
1,899
$23,344 Hospitals 1,888
$27,699 Facilities
2,586
$18,822
Professional, Scientific, and
Professional, Scientific, and
Professional, Scientific, and
15 Technical Services
1,806
$22,338 Technical Services
1,859
$30,459 Technical Services
2,142
$33,173
Printing and Related Support
16 Activities
1,719
$24,538 Truck Transportation
1,858
$28,546 Warehousing and Storage
1,961
$32,179
Merchant Wholesalers,
Insurance Carriers and Related
17 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
1,679
$20,768 Nondurable Goods
1,857
$33,934 Activities 1,852
$35,917
Merchant Wholesalers,
18 Hospitals
1,529
$29,829 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
1,816
$29,112 Nondurable Goods
1,786
$38,050
Nursing and Residential Care
19 Facilities
1,468
$11,082 Warehousing and Storage
1,683
$24,679 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
1,781
$32,393
Insurance Carriers and Related
Insurance Carriers and Related
20 Activities 1,401
$21,857 Activities 1,523
$31,591 Truck
Transportation
1,714
$31,340
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), available at [http://www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm].
Note: Data refer to the average pay of employers to workers. An individual worker may work for more than one employer during the year or hold more than one job at the same time.

CRS-208
Table 96. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, Mariposa County, 1990-2003
1990
2000
2003
Average
Average
Average
Annual
annua
Annual
annual
Annual
annual
Rank
Industry
employment
pay
Industry
employment
pay
Industry
employment
pay
All
5,504
$16,787 All
4,815
$24,694 All
5,027
$25,653
1 Accommodation
1,907
$12,603 Accommodation 1,547
$20,376 Accommodation
1,551
$21,716
Museums, Historical Sites, and
Museums, Historical Sites, and
Museums, Historical Sites, and
2 Similar Institutions
524
$24,592 Similar Institutions
551
$41,836 Similar Institutions
627
$34,901
3 Food and Beverage Stores
139
$10,467 Ambulatory Health Care Services
108
$24,564 Ambulatory Health Care Services
146
$27,407
4 Construction of Buildings
132
$18,046 Food and Beverage Stores
105
$17,497 Private Households
108
$12,865
5 Ambulatory Health Care Services
61
$15,318 Private Households
67
$11,065 Construction of Buildings
90
$21,695
Justice, Public Order, and Safety
Justice, Public Order, and Safety
6 Activities 60
$41,770 Activities
63
$37,569 Food and Beverage Stores
67
$20,002
7 Gasoline Stations
50
$12,761 Miscellaneous Store Retailers
49
$16,328 Specialty Trade Contractors
64
$23,880
Justice, Public Order, and Safety
8 Miscellaneous Store Retailers
36
$12,894 Gasoline Stations
43
$11,445 Activities 61
$33,912
Building Material and Garden
Publishing Industries (except
9 Equipment and Supplies Dealers
30
$12,508 Construction of Buildings
35
$25,812 Internet) 48
$23,033
Building Material and Garden
Building Material and Garden
10 Postal Service
26
$26,205 Equipment and Supplies Dealers
33
$18,434 Equipment and Supplies Dealers
42
$17,722
Religious, Grantmaking, Civic,
Professional, and Similar
Heavy and Civil Engineering
11 Organizations
21
$7,927 Social Assistance
29
$13,553 Construction
41
$30,617
12 Social Assistance
16
$9,821 Postal Service
25
$34,371 Gasoline Stations
40
$12,446
Administration of Environmental
Administration of Environmental
13 Quality Programs
12
$22,569 Quality Programs
20
$30,126 Health and Personal Care Stores
32
$21,698
Religious, Grantmaking, Civic,
Professional, and Similar
14
Organizations
18
$11,609 Social Assistance
29
$15,464
Administration of Economic
Administration of Environmental
15
Programs
16
$21,243 Quality Programs
24
$46,559
16
Postal Service
22
$37,370
Religious, Grantmaking, Civic,
Professional, and Similar
17
Organizations
20
$16,144
18
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
17
$14,278
19
Repair and Maintenance
16
$22,178
Insurance Carriers and Related
20
Activities 16
$44,124
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), available at [http://www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm].
Note: Data refer to the average pay of employers to workers. An individual worker may work for more than one employer during the year or hold more than one job at the same time.

CRS-209
Table 97. Annual Employment and Pay of the 20 Largest Industries, Tuolumne County, 1990-2003
1990
2000
2003
Average
Average
Average
Annual
annual
Annual
annual
Annual
annual
Rank
Industry
employment
pay
Industry
employment
pay
Industry
employment
pay
All
13,812
$19,669 All
15,514
$25,490 All
17,510
$29,535
1 Food Services and Drinking Places
1,220
$7,424 Food Services and Drinking Places
1,313
$8,830 Food Services and Drinking Places
1,308
$10,522
Justice, Public Order, and Safety
Justice, Public Order, and Safety
2 Food and Beverage Stores
555
$18,159 Activities 828
$37,327 Activities 1,181
$40,522
3 Construction of Buildings
530
$17,231 Food and Beverage Stores
556
$21,557 Ambulatory Health Care Services
749
$44,906
4 Specialty Trade Contractors
463
$17,955 Ambulatory Health Care Services
554
$44,210 General Merchandise Stores
549
$17,079
Administrative and Support
Professional, Scientific, and
5 Services
453
$12,646 General Merchandise Stores
550
$14,253 Technical Services
534
$43,253
Justice, Public Order, and Safety
Amusement, Gambling, and
6 Activities 444
$44,916 Recreation Industries
514
$12,260 Food and Beverage Stores
525
$24,514
Professional, Scientific, and
Amusement, Gambling, and
7 Accommodation
441
$8,376 Technical Services
427
$31,823 Recreation Industries
485
$15,837
Administrative and Support
8 Ambulatory Health Care Services
431
$27,638 Services
409
$17,908 Specialty Trade Contractors
479
$27,310
Administration of Environmental
9 Quality Programs
414
$25,233 Specialty Trade Contractors
409
$22,079 Construction of Buildings
439
$26,716
Amusement, Gambling, and
Administrative and Support
10 Recreation Industries
357
$10,865 Construction of Buildings
383
$22,552 Services
373
$19,897
Professional, Scientific, and
11 Technical Services
328
$19,661 Accommodation 359
$10,423 Accommodation 371
$11,951
Religious, Grantmaking, Civic,
Religious, Grantmaking, Civic,
Credit Intermediation and Related
Professional, and Similar
Professional, and Similar
12 Activities
321
$17,105 Organizations
295
$16,702 Organizations
339
$19,119
Insurance Carriers and Related
Executive, Legislative, and Other
13 Activities 265
$20,772 Machinery
Manufacturing
262
$38,352 General Government Support
325
$37,720
Religious, Grantmaking, Civic,
Professional, and Similar
Executive, Legislative, and Other
14 Organizations
242
$11,683 General Government Support
254
$33,072 Miscellaneous Store Retailers
271
$13,162
Executive, Legislative, and Other
Administration of Environmental
15 General Government Support
223
$21,743 Repair and Maintenance
247
$22,702 Quality Programs
242
$44,719
Building Material and Garden
16 Equipment and Supplies Dealers
220
$19,123 Miscellaneous Store Retailers
211
$11,811 Repair and Maintenance
235
$25,574
Nursing and Residential Care
17 General Merchandise Stores
193
$11,877 Real Estate
208
$19,599 Facilities
234
$22,663
Nursing and Residential Care
Building Material and Garden
18 Repair and Maintenance
181
$18,280 Facilities
206
$18,843 Equipment and Supplies Dealers
232
$24,399
Administration of Environmental
19 Forestry and Logging
171
$31,194 Quality Programs
191
$39,274 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
215
$29,804
20 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
163
$23,187 Gasoline Stations
189
$12,877 Real Estate
207
$24,187
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), available at [http://www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm].
Note: Data refer to the average pay of employers to workers. An individual worker may work for more than one employer during the year or hold more than one job at the same time.

CRS-210
Appalachian State Employment Profiles. Similar data are not provided
on each of the 68 Central Appalachian counties. Data on the four Appalachia states
where the 68 counties are located reveal some similarities and differences with the
San Joaquin. Like the United States and California, the largest industry in Kentucky,
Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia in 2003 was educational services. Education
services was also the largest industry in 1990 and 2000 for each state, with the
exception of professional, scientific and technical services in Virginia in 1990. In
2003, educational services was also the largest industry in Fresno and Kern counties
and the second largest industry in Tulare County. Food services, hospitals, and
ambulatory health care services were also among the top six to eight industrial
sectors in each of the states. Were the SJV not so heavily represented in crop
production and agricultural services in their top five sectors, the SJV counties would
look somewhat similar to West Virginia in terms of sectoral ranking. Average annual
wages in West Virginia for all 20 sectors in 2003 was $29,284. The average annual
wage for all 20 industrial categories for Fresno, Kern, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus
counties was higher in 2003 than that of West Virginia. For Kings, Madera, Merced,
and Tulare counties, the average wage was lower. In hospitals, ambulatory health
care, professional, scientific, and technical services, food services, and government,
average annual wages in the SJV tended to be higher than the same categories in
West Virginia. Among the top 20 categories in West Virginia, chemical engineering
and mining (except oil and gas) were the highest paying sectors in 2003, $68,494 and
$55,330 respectively. National security and international affairs (military bases),
support activities for mining, and non-metallic mineral product manufacturing were
the highest paying sectors in the SJV.
Labor Force Characteristics in the San Joaquin. The preceding tables
provide data on employment and wages. The data on average annual wages,
however, may not reliably serve as an indicator of individual earning. The data in the
preceding tables are average annual wages paid in an employment. That figure may
or may not be for full-time employment. Even though a worker actually works full
time, at least 35 hours per week, she may not work full-time year-round. Much work
in the SJV may be seasonal agricultural work or other part time work. By examining
the distribution of those employed workers by the number of weeks they actually
work, we might get a better understanding of the structure of employment in the SJV.
Table 98 provides data on the percent of workers who usually worked full-time
in the previous year. This could be full-time in a single employment sector, or full-
time in several sectors. These data are quite stable over the 1980-2003 period,
showing that over three-fourths of workers in the SJV usually worked full-time in
the previous years. There was some reduction in the percent of workers working
full-time in Madera County between 1980-2000. Fresno also had a reduction in
percent of workers who usually worked full-time between 2000 and 2003, but other
SJV saw some increase in the percent working full-time. Mariposa and Tuolumne
counties showed a lower percent of workers who usually worked full-time between
1980-2000. The data on the SJV are also quite consistent with that for California
and the United States as a whole.

CRS-211
Table 98. Percent of Workers Who Usually Worked Full-Time
in the Previous Year: United States, California, and the
Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
SJV
78.6%
78.6%
78.6%
Fresno
77.7%
77.2%
77.0%
75.7%
Kern
80.1%
80.2%
80.3%
80.1%
Kings
79.2%
80.1%
80.5%
Madera
82.2%
78.3%
78.0%
Merced
78.9%
78.7%
78.7%
San Joaquin
77.9%
79.1%
78.9%
78.4%
Stanislaus
78.8%
79.1%
77.8%
80.9%
Tulare
77.9%
77.2%
79.2%
79.9%
Adjacent counties
Mariposa
76.7%
77.8%
74.0%
Tuolumne
78.3%
73.2%
72.1%
California
78.2%
79.1%
78.6%
78.1%
United States
79.1%
78.3%
79.0%
78.4%
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Notes: A person who usually works 35 or more hours a week is a full-time worker. A person who
worked full-time during the weeks worked may or may not have worked year-round. Data for 2003
are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long
questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all counties.
Another way to look at regional labor data is the distribution of employed
persons by the number of weeks worked in a year. Table 99 breaks down
distribution of employed persons by the number of weeks worked in the previous
year. Here, the data reflect the relatively high proportion of SJV employed workers
who work seasonal jobs. The data, however, do not tell us the number who worked
full-time and year-round, 35 or more hours per week, 52 weeks per year.
In 2003, 55.7% of employed persons in the SJV worked 50-52 weeks in the
previous year, up from 53.5% in 1990. An additional 16.6% worked 40-49 weeks
during the previous year.116 For California, nearly 70% worked 50-52 weeks the
116 It is important to note, however, that “employed” does not necessarily mean employed
full-time. An employed person, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, includes
all persons who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid
(continued...)

CRS-212
previous year, and the number working 40-49 weeks and 27-39 weeks, fell. For the
United States as a whole, 67.8% of those employed worked 50-52 weeks in the
previous year. Fresno, Kern, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare have seen
increases between 1990 and 2003 in the percent of persons employed year-round.
Most of the SJV counties saw reductions in the percent of employed persons
working 1-13 and 14-26 weeks in the previous year. Mariposa and Tuolumne
counties have higher percentages of employed persons working 50-52 weeks per
year. Both counties saw increases in the percent of employed persons working 50-52
weeks per year between 1990 and 2000.
116 (...continued)
employees, worked in their own business or profession or on their own farm, or worked 15
hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family, or (b)
were not working but had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent
because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave,
labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not
they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs.

CRS-213
Table 99. Distribution of Employed Persons by the Number of
Weeks Worked in the Previous Year: United States, California, and
the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
SJV
1-13 Weeks
11.4%
10.4%
9.5%
14-26 Weeks
11.1%
10.8%
9.9%
27-39 Weeks
9.8%
9.0%
9.2%
40-49 Weeks
15.3%
15.0%
16.6%
50-52 Weeks
52.5%
54.7%
54.7%
Fresno County
1-13 Weeks
11.0%
10.2%
9.5%
8.5%
14-26 Weeks
11.2%
10.9%
10.2%
9.7%
27-39 Weeks
10.4%
9.5%
9.0%
6.5%
40-49 Weeks
15.4%
15.3%
17.3%
12.3%
50-52 Weeks
52.2%
54.1%
54.0%
63.1%
Kern County
1-13 Weeks
10.7%
9.9%
9.6%
7.5%
14-26 Weeks
10.8%
11.0%
9.4%
6.9%
27-39 Weeks
9.8%
9.2%
9.5%
8.4%
40-49 Weeks
15.0%
14.2%
16.6%
12.5%
50-52 Weeks
53.7%
55.6%
54.9%
64.7%
Kings County
1-13 Weeks
12.3%
11.9%
10.0%
14-26 Weeks
10.8%
10.3%
10.6%
27-39 Weeks
9.0%
8.7%
12.1%
40-49 Weeks
14.6%
14.8%
20.4%
50-52 Weeks
53.3%
54.4%
47.0%
Madera County
1-13 Weeks
11.3%
12.2%
11.0%
14-26 Weeks
10.2%
12.1%
10.8%
27-39 Weeks
10.4%
9.8%
10.4%
40-49 Weeks
14.1%
15.9%
16.5%
50-52 Weeks
54.0%
50.1%
51.3%
Merced County
1-13 Weeks
12.6%
10.6%
9.8%
14-26 Weeks
11.0%
10.6%
10.3%

CRS-214
1980
1990
2000
2003
27-39 Weeks
9.6%
9.8%
9.7%
40-49 Weeks
13.8%
14.2%
17.5%
50-52 Weeks
53.1%
54.8%
52.7%
San Joaquin County
1-13 Weeks
11.5%
10.2%
9.5%
7.4%
14-26 Weeks
11.3%
10.3%
9.1%
10.4%
27-39 Weeks
9.2%
8.2%
8.1%
6.0%
40-49 Weeks
15.5%
14.9%
15.1%
11.6%
50-52 Weeks
52.5%
56.4%
58.3%
64.6%
Stanislaus County
1-13 Weeks
12.7%
10.9%
9.1%
8.2%
14-26 Weeks
11.6%
10.7%
9.7%
8.4%
27-39 Weeks
9.1%
7.9%
8.4%
6.1%
40-49 Weeks
15.8%
14.2%
15.1%
10.9%
50-52 Weeks
50.8%
56.3%
57.8%
66.4%
Tulare County
1-13 Weeks
11.1%
10.7%
9.3%
8.8%
14-26 Weeks
10.9%
11.5%
10.6%
8.0%
27-39 Weeks
10.0%
9.7%
10.5%
8.5%
40-49 Weeks
16.3%
16.9%
17.8%
12.0%
50-52 Weeks
51.8%
51.1%
51.7%
62.7%
Adjacent counties
Mariposa County
1-13 Weeks
13.2%
10.1%
8.2%
14-26 Weeks
11.2%
11.3%
13.1%
27-39 Weeks
12.8%
7.3%
7.6%
40-49 Weeks
14.6%
13.9%
14.0%
50-52 Weeks
48.2%
57.4%
57.2%
Tuolumne County
1-13 Weeks
12.5%
12.3%
10.9%
14-26 Weeks
13.6%
10.2%
9.9%
27-39 Weeks
11.2%
9.4%
7.2%
40-49 Weeks
13.1%
13.5%
15.9%
50-52 Weeks
49.6%
54.6%
56.1%

CRS-215
1980
1990
2000
2003
California
1-13 Weeks
8.7%
7.9%
7.0%
7.6%
14-26 Weeks
9.5%
8.7%
7.8%
6.9%
27-39 Weeks
8.5%
7.4%
7.1%
5.8%
40-49 Weeks
15.9%
15.6%
16.9%
12.8%
50-52 Weeks
57.3%
60.4%
61.2%
66.9%
United States
1-13 Weeks
8.9%
8.2%
6.6%
7.6%
14-26 Weeks
9.4%
8.6%
7.5%
6.6%
27-39 Weeks
8.5%
7.5%
6.7%
6.1%
40-49 Weeks
13.5%
12.8%
12.9%
11.9%
50-52 Weeks
59.7%
62.8%
66.2%
67.8%
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Note: A person may be employed full-time (35 or more hours a week) or part-time. Details may not
sum to 100% because of rounding. Data for 2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS),
which is the planned replacement for the long questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS
did not cover all counties.
Table 100 describes SJV workers on the basis of whether their income is earned
through private wages and salaries, public employment, self-employment, or unpaid
family work. The SJV has a lower percentage of workers earning private wages and
salaries than does either California or the United States. In 2000, the United States
as a whole had 78.5% of workers receiving private wages. In the SJV, 73.6% were
similarly employed. The SJV counties also had higher percentages of workers self-
employed and unpaid family members than either the United States or California.
The SJV also had higher percentages of public employees than either the United
States or California. Mariposa and Tuolumne counties had lower percentages of
private wage and salary workers and higher percentages of self-employed and public
employees than the SJV, California, or the United States.

CRS-216
Table 100. Class of Worker: United States, California,
and the Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
SJV
Private Wage and Salary
71.5%
73.5%
73.6%
Public Employee
19.0%
17.7%
18.3%
Self-Employed
8.8%
8.3%
7.6%
Unpaid Family Worker
0.7%
0.5%
0.5%
Fresno County
Private Wage and Salary
70.9%
72.6%
72.4%
74.2%
Public Employee
20.2%
18.7%
19.7%
18.1%
Self-Employed
8.3%
8.2%
7.4%
7.3%
Unpaid Family Worker
0.7%
0.5%
0.5%
0.4%
Kern County
Private Wage and Salary
71.4%
72.5%
71.2%
72.9%
Public Employee
19.9%
19.5%
20.6%
19.7%
Self-Employed
8.1%
7.6%
7.8%
7.1%
Unpaid Family Worker
0.6%
0.4%
0.5%
0.2%
Kings County
Private Wage and Salary
68.5%
68.0%
65.8%
Public Employee
20.9%
23.3%
26.6%
Self-Employed
9.6%
7.8%
7.0%
Unpaid Family Worker
1.0%
0.8%
0.6%
Madera County
Private Wage and Salary
69.5%
71.5%
72.2%
Public Employee
18.7%
16.4%
17.8%
Self-Employed
11.2%
10.9%
9.6%
Unpaid Family Worker
0.7%
1.2%
0.5%
Merced County
Private Wage and Salary
70.3%
72.7%
75.0%
Public Employee
19.0%
17.3%
16.8%
Self-Employed
9.9%
9.2%
7.7%
Unpaid Family Worker
0.9%
0.8%
0.6%
San Joaquin County
Private Wage and Salary
71.4%
74.6%
77.4%
77.1%
Public Employee
19.9%
17.4%
15.8%
15.5%
Self-Employed
8.3%
7.5%
6.5%
7.1%
Unpaid Family Worker
0.4%
0.5%
0.3%
0.3%
Stanislaus County
Private Wage and Salary
75.2%
77.5%
76.7%
80.1%

CRS-217
1980
1990
2000
2003
Public Employee
15.3%
13.7%
14.7%
12.4%
Self-Employed
8.9%
8.4%
8.1%
7.0%
Unpaid Family Worker
0.6%
0.4%
0.5%
0.4%
Tulare County
Private Wage and Salary
71.0%
72.6%
72.8%
74.1%
Public Employee
17.8%
17.1%
18.4%
17.7%
Self-Employed
10.3%
9.6%
8.3%
7.8%
Unpaid Family Worker
0.9%
0.6%
0.5%
0.3%
Adjacent Counties
Mariposa County
Private Wage and Salary
57.9%
59.9%
60.5%
Public Employee
29.3%
25.8%
25.1%
Self-Employed
11.3%
13.8%
13.9%
Unpaid Family Worker
1.5%
0.5%
0.5%
Tuolumne County
Private Wage and Salary
63.2%
66.8%
63.5%
Public Employee
23.1%
19.4%
21.6%
Self-Employed
12.9%
13.4%
14.5%
Unpaid Family Worker
0.8%
0.4%
0.4%
California
Private Wage and Salary
75.5%
76.7%
76.5%
75.3%
Public Employee
16.4%
14.5%
14.7%
15.1%
Self-Employed
7.6%
8.4%
8.5%
9.3%
Unpaid Family Worker
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
United States
Private Wage and Salary
75.6%
77.4%
78.5%
77.5%
Public Employee
17.1%
15.2%
14.6%
15.2%
Self-Employed
6.8%
7.0%
6.6%
7.1%
Unpaid Family Worker
0.5%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Note: An unpaid family worker is a person who works 15 or more hours a week without pay on a
family farm or business. Details may not sum to 100% because of rounding. Data for 2003 are from
the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long questionnaire
of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all counties.

CRS-218
Transportation to Work. In most areas of the United States, especially rural
areas and other regions with little access to public transportation, the availability of
a motor vehicle is a crucial asset for commuting to work, shopping, and getting to
health care providers. With limited public transportation available in the SJV,
approximately 95% of SJV workers in 2000 used private transportation to work
(Table 101). Most private transportation is by motor vehicle, and availability of
vehicles in the SJV very closely matches that of California, and the percentage of
those without access to vehicles is lower than for the United States (Table 102). The
percentage of workers using private transportation in each of the eight SJV counties
fell somewhat between 1980 and 2000. Some 1.3% used public transport to work in
the SJV in 2000, although 3.3% of Kings County and 2.2% of Fresno County
workers used public transportation in 1980. In 2000, 4.7% of U.S. workers and 5.1%
used public transportation to work.

CRS-219
Table 101. Means of Transportation to Work: United States, California,
and Counties of the SJV, 1980-2003
1980
1990
2000
2003
Private
Public
Other
Private
Public
Other
Private
Public
Other
Private
Public
Other
SJV
95.4%
1.3%
3.3%
94.9%
1.0%
4.1%
94.6%
1.3%
4.0%
Fresno County
94.5%
2.2%
3.2%
94.5%
1.5%
4.0%
94.2%
1.7%
4.1%
94.7%
1.7%
3.6%
Kern County
96.5%
1.2%
2.3%
95.8%
1.0%
3.3%
94.9%
1.4%
3.7%
91.5%
2.1%
6.4%
Kings County
92.8%
3.3%
3.8%
94.3%
1.5%
4.1%
94.5%
1.6%
3.9%
Madera County
95.0%
0.4%
4.7%
93.7%
0.2%
6.1%
94.2%
0.7%
5.1%
Merced County
95.0%
0.5%
4.5%
95.0%
0.3%
4.6%
95.2%
0.7%
4.1%
San Joaquin
96.0%
1.1%
2.9%
94.8%
1.2%
4.0%
94.8%
1.4%
3.8%
95.4%
1.6%
3.0%
Stanislaus County
95.7%
0.6%
3.6%
95.2%
0.6%
4.2%
95.1%
1.0%
3.9%
94.7%
0.9%
4.4%
Tulare County
95.3%
0.2%
4.5%
94.6%
0.6%
4.7%
94.2%
0.9%
4.9%
94.9%
0.7%
4.3%
Adjacent counties
Mariposa County
90.6%
2.5%
6.9%
93.6%
0.6%
5.8%
91.9%
1.4%
6.7%
Tuolumne County
95.1%
0.6%
4.3%
94.6%
0.2%
5.3%
93.0%
0.6%
6.4%
California
91.5%
5.8%
2.7%
91.1%
4.9%
4.0%
90.3%
5.1%
4.6%
90.1%
5.0%
4.9%
United States
90.6%
6.4%
3.0%
91.1%
5.3%
3.7%
91.3%
4.7%
4.0%
91.0%
4.8%
4.2%
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at [http://www.census.gov]; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
1990 Census of Population: Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1993; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population:
General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Note: Details may not sum to 100% because of rounding. Data for 2003 are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long questionnaire
of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all counties.

CRS-220
Table 102. Vehicles Available Per Household: United States,
California, and Counties of the SJV, 1990-2003
1990
2000
2003
SJV
None
8.9%
10.0%
One
33.7%
33.5%
Two or more
57.4%
56.5%
Fresno County
None
10.2%
11.2%
9.0%
One
35.7%
35.7%
33.0%
Two or more
54.1%
53.1%
58.0%
Kern County
None
8.5%
10.4%
10.9%
One
34.3%
33.9%
31.1%
Two or more
57.3%
55.7%
58.0%
Kings County
None
8.6%
9.3%
One
34.1%
34.9%
Two or more
57.4%
55.8%
Madera County
None
7.7%
8.1%
One
28.4%
30.2%
Two or more
64.0%
61.7%
Merced County
None
8.4%
10.4%
One
33.2%
31.9%
Two or more
58.5%
57.7%
San Joaquin County
None
9.5%
9.5%
4.6%
One
33.0%
32.2%
29.7%
Two or more
57.5%
58.3%
65.8%
Stanislaus County
None
7.0%
8.6%
6.4%
One
31.3%
32.1%
29.4%
Two or more
61.6%
59.3%
64.2%

CRS-221
1990
2000
2003
Tulare County
None
8.7%
9.7%
8.7%
One
34.1%
33.3%
34.4%
Two or more
57.2%
57.0%
57.0%
Adjacent counties
Mariposa County
None
5.3%
5.7%
One
29.1%
28.9%
Two or more
65.6%
65.4%
Tuolumne County
None
4.4%
5.5%
One
27.7%
29.7%
Two or more
67.9%
64.8%
California
None
8.9%
9.5%
7.8%
One
33.2%
34.1%
32.5%
Two or more
57.9%
56.4%
59.7%
United States
None
11.5%
10.3%
9.0%
One
33.8%
34.2%
33.3%
Two or more
54.7%
55.5%
57.6%
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, available at
[http://www.census.gov].
Notes: A household includes all persons who occupy a housing unit. A household may consist of one
or more families or unrelated individuals sharing living arrangements or a combination of families and
unrelated persons living together. Details may not sum to 100% because of rounding. Data for 2003
are from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the planned replacement for the long
questionnaire of the decennial census. The 2003 ACS did not cover all counties.
Fresno Regional Jobs Initiative. The lack of diversity in employment in
the SJV is a major concern of the region’s residents and civic leaders. The data
presented above demonstrate that the SJV has not been able to attract the kinds of
high-wage jobs on which the region can build. As discussed earlier, the ability to
attract highly educated workers will be an important challenge in the future. To do

CRS-222
so will require developing those employment sectors that tend to offer good wages
and salaries, training, and advancement. It will also be necessary to retain many of
the educated SJV residents moving into the area today. If the economic structure of
the SJV continues to offer largely unskilled and low-wage employment, the better
educated SJV workers will likely leave for opportunities elsewhere. Losing college
graduates and attracting workers without high school diplomas is not a recipe for
long-term success.
Region-wide efforts to diversify local economies have much to recommend
them. Regional approaches reduce jurisdictional competition in favor of combining
resources in more efficient ways to make more effective use of public and private
investments. By acting in concert, public-private partnerships in the counties of the
SJV may be able to guide the region toward a more prosperous future. The Fresno
Regional Jobs Initiative (RJI) is one such effort. The Fresno RJI has developed
specific steps to achieve a goal of 30,000 net new jobs paying at least $30,000 in the
Fresno and Madera area by 2008. While there are distinctive parts to the RJI
strategy, the steps are based on the logic of identifying and cultivating centers of
excellence for “economic clusters”, developing a medical school in the region,
establishing a metropolitan area network among the region’s cities, and establishing
a capital fund for industrial development. Centering on the Fresno-Madera
metropolitan area, the objective is to create cluster-based economic development that
will act as a catalyst for economic diversification throughout the SJV region.
The RJI has recognized that a significant number of businesses in the region are
in a position to grow in the coming years. If these firms conclude that the SJV can
support their expansion, they are more likely to expand from their current location
rather than seek other areas for growing. The RJI is organized around the idea that
cultivating these potentially expanding sectors is a viable development strategy. This
regional effort to spur economic development through developing endogenous
resources, as opposed to recruiting businesses through various incentives to relocate
to the area, recognizes that the historical patterns of economic change that every
region has can be a source of creating new competitive advantage. The RJI has
already begun developing its first industrial cluster based on water and irrigation
technologies. Other clusters include food processing, health care, information
processing, agile manufacturing, tourism, advanced logistics and distribution,
construction, innovative energy, and tourism.117 The strength of the cluster model is
that it uses geographic proximity of key actors in a production sector to further
develop the sector. By expanding research that supports a particular sector,
improving training, and developing new infrastructure, a local cluster builds on the
interactions from ancillary and supporting firms. Developing successful clusters in
rural or impoverished areas, however, may face particular obstacles that better
capitalized urban regions avoid. Historic under-investment in a less-favored region
stemming from weak infrastructure, low educational levels, low-skilled labor, lack
of access to capital, regional isolation or insularity, and social exclusion, can work
against developing new competitive advantage.118
117 Regional Jobs Initiative: Final Implementation Plan. Fresno, CA. October, 2003.
118 Rosenfeld, Stuart A. “Creating smart systems: A guide to cluster strategies in less
(continued...)

CRS-223
The Health Care Industry as a Growth Sector for the SJV
CRS was asked to examine the potential of health care as an economic driver
for the SJV economy. While a comprehensive industrial analysis of such a plan is
well beyond the scope of this report, CRS analysts have assessed the basis of the
RJI’s identification of health care as a regional industrial cluster.119 According to
analysis in the RJI Implementation Report, Fresno County is increasingly becoming
a hub for the delivery of health services in the Central California region. A range of
local institutions currently exists in the Fresno area, including
! Kaiser Permanente
! Community Medical Centers
! St. Agnes Medical Center
! Children’s Hospital Central California
! Fresno Surgery Center
! Fresno Heart Hospital
! California State University-Fresno
! University of California-San Francisco Fresno120
! Fresno City College121
The Fresno RJI Implementation Plan identified two objectives for positioning health
care as an expanding industrial cluster over the next five years (2004-2008).122 First,
the RJI intends to create the Valley Training and Education Consortium for
Healthcare (VTECH), a multipartner healthcare professional training institute.
Second, the RJI implementation plan calls for completing some of the substantial
planning necessary for establishing a regional medical school and related biomedical
research institutes.
The RJI Implementation Plan also points to the Fresno region’s medical related
expertise and specialized infrastructure as the basis of collaborative action in the
health care cluster. Some of these identified capacities include:

! Expanded and enhanced health professions education and training;
118 (...continued)
favored regions.” Paper presented at the European Union-Regional Innovation Strategies
Conference, April, 2002. Paper available from Regional Technology Strategies, Carrboro,
North Carolina. [http://www.rtsinc.org].
119 Like the Fresno RJI, a report by the Great Valley Connexions also regarded health
services as a source of economic growth in the SJV. That report also recognized the
importance of raising the educational and training quality of the local population to take
advantage of the growing health care industry in the SJV. See New Valley Connexions:
Good Medicine: Making Health Services an Economic Priority for the SJV. Modesto, CA.
December, 2003.
120 The UCSF-Fresno Medical Education Program is the largest source of doctor training in
the SJV .
121 Fresno City College is the largest trainer of nurses in the SJV .
122 Ibid., p. III.5

CRS-224
! Increased healthcare infrastructure development, including specialty
facilities;
! Systematic expansion of the health supplier/medical equipment base;
! Promotion of increased biomedical research;
! Enhanced public health programs and initiatives;
! Development of a full-scale graduate medical school.
Population growth, which is
Four factors have been identified by researchers as
expected to be significant in the SJV
important to the development of a successful
over the next 20 years, will likely
industrial cluster:
play an important role in creating
! Factor Conditions: Highly
trained or trainable labor;
opportunities for pursuing the kinds
capital tailored to the needs of
of collaborative actions above. As
p a r t i c u l a r i n d u s t r i e s ;
Tables 86-97 above showed,
infrastructure;
ambulatory health care services and
! Demand Conditions: Pressure
hospitals appear to be a growing
from the area to create and
i mp r o v e t h e e c o n o mi c
employment sector throughout the
environment; sophisticated
SJV region. Population growth
customers;
alone can have a stimulating effect
! Context for Firm Strategy and
on the demand for professional
Rivalry: Rules and incentives
governing type and intensity of
medical care services. Table 103
local rivalries influence
shows 2002 data on the number of
productivity policies that
ambulatory healthcare firms in the
encourage investment;
SJV and the size of their annual
! Related-Supported Industries:
payroll.
Local sourcing from capable
regional suppliers.
Source: National Governor’s Association and the
Council on Competitiveness. Clusters of
Innovation: Regional Foundations of U.S.
Competitiveness, December, 2001.

CRS-225
Table 103. Ambulatory Health Care Services, 2002
Number of
Receipts/Revenue
Annual Payroll
SJV Counties
Establishments
($1,000)
($1,000)
Fresno 1,365
1,261,571
515,842
Kern 907
899,441
325,693
Kings 131
103,793
41,339
Madera 137
104,900
49,336
Merced 285
213,017
78,862
San Joaquin
788
728,244
286,885
Stanislaus 717
940,242
373,396
Tulare 469
406,859
145,344
Total SJV Counties
4,799
4,658,067
1,816,697
Adjacent Counties
Mariposa 14
D
D
Tuolumne
121
74,528
31,996
California and the United States
California
63,903
60,317,860
22,485,566
United States*
488,551
493,192,661
203,716,176
Source: 2002 Economic Census, Health Care and Social Assistance, U.S. Census Bureau.
Note: Ambulatory health care services include offices of physicians, dentists, other health
practitioners; outpatient care centers; medical and diagnostic laboratories; home health care services;
other ambulatory health care services; and hospitals.
D = Withheld to avoid disclosing data of individual companies; data are included in higher level totals.
* United States data are preliminary and will be superseded by data released in Fall 2005.
The siting and expansion of a graduate medical center, along with the attendant
medical care services and specialized technical support industries in the SJV, could
serve as a major source of regional economic growth and employment in the region.
In this view, a well-trained and educated regional population would potentially
benefit from the demand for employment in a large, regional biomedical complex.
Such a complex would also attract educated employees and health services firms
from other locations. Predicting the variables that may ultimately go into the
decision to develop a graduate medical complex in the region, however, is very
difficult. The recent establishment of the new University of California-Merced
campus, the first U-Cal campus since 1969, could reasonably be considered a first
step in the region’s plans to develop such a graduate medical complex.

CRS-226
Building on existing strengths and developing new opportunities based on those
strengths is the logic of cluster-led industrial development. An expanding health care
employment sector, the location of new medical supply industries, a pool of potential
health-related collaborative organizations, and research and higher education
facilities are arguably key ingredients in a health care industrial cluster. The Fresno
region seemingly has some of the basic building blocks for creating and nurturing a
health care cluster. The existence of growing health care employment could provide
a foundation for expanding the range of support services that such employment may
demand.
Poverty in the SJV, however, may be an important factor in predicting how a
health care cluster might develop. Many SJV residents are MediCal (the state’s
Medicaid program) recipients or medically indigent according to one market study.123
Like many rural areas in the United States, many residents in the SJV have been
historically underserved. Low rates of insured residents and market forces can push
smaller medical providers and public facilities to close, perhaps undermining some
of the collaboration that cluster development needs. A report by the Great Valley
Center also regarded health services as a source of future economic growth in the
SJV. That report examined public health and access to health care in the Cental
Valley and concluded that strategies to boost economic well-being, including
economic development and workforce investment, can increase access to health
care.124 While the concern of the report was access to health care and health care
outcome among SJV residents, the socioeconomic profile of the SJV is likely to
play a subtle but influential role in the success of a health care cluster.
Tables 104-108 provide detailed data on health-related employment and wages
for the SJV’s five MSAs. Because the Fresno RJI is intended to stimulate economic
growth and change throughout the entire SJV, we have examined the health-related
employment and wages for each of the region’s MSAs.
The data in the tables below were compiled from the April 2005 Occupational
Employment Statistics survey and are based on three of the U.S. Department of
Labor’s Standard Occupational Classification codes (SOC) related to healthcare
employment: (1) medical and health service managers (SOC 11-9111), (2) health care
practitioners and technical occupations (SOC 29-000), and (3) health care support
services (SOC 31-000). The data provide employment estimates, entry-level hourly
wages, mean hourly wage, and mean annual wage based on wage data from the third
quarter 2004.
A brief overview of the data for the San Joaquin Valley and each MSA is
provided below.
San Joaquin Valley. The 5 MSAs together had a total of 74,410 health care
workers in 2004. Of these, 1,300 were medical managers, 45,130 were health
123 Shinkman, Ron. “A different California: in SJV, healthcare presents challenges.”
Modern Healthcare, 28(19), May 11, 1998.
124 Great Valley Center. Assessing the Region via Indicators: Public Health and Access to
Care. January 2003.

CRS-227
practitioners, and 27,980 were health care support service employees. The average
annual wages in 2004 for medical managers was $79,298; for health practitioners,
$74,382; and for healthcare support services, $23,079. These wages compare
relatively favorably to the entire state of California. While the average annual wage
for medical managers and health support services were higher for California than for
the SJV, healthcare practitioners and technical occupations wages averaged $67,502
in the SJV. The Fresno MSA had the highest average annual healthcare practitioners
wages ($63,244) and the Visalia-Tulare-Porter MSA had the lowest estimated
average annual wages in the SJV for each SOC code ($57,708). The total number of
registered nurses, which the RJI has identified as being in short supply compared to
demand, was 18,840, 25% of the total estimated healthcare employment in the 5
MSAs.

Bakersfield MSA. Of the 15,090 healthcare workers in the Bakersfield MSA,
registered nurses and licensed practical nurses accounted for about 28% of the
MSA’s total health care employment. Registered nurses comprised about 22% of
the health care employment. In California, registered nurses comprised 23.7% of
estimated health care employment in 2004. The average annual wages of the SOCs
range from a high of $83,876 for medical managers to a low of $22,802 for health
care support. Average annual wages for health care practitioners were $61,355.
Fresno MSA. The Fresno MSA had the highest estimated health care
employment (23,800), the highest average annual wages, and the largest number of
medical and health service managers. These characteristics, plus its population size
in the SJV, make it a center of a health care. There were an estimated 15,060 health
practitioners, 530 medical managers, and 8,210 health care support workers for a
total of 23,800. Within the practitioner SOC, there were 5,760 registered nurses,
over 38% of total estimated health practitioners, considerably higher than the
estimated proportion of registered nurses for California. The average annual health
practitioner’s wage was $63,244.
Modesto MSA. The Modesto MSA had an estimated 12,500 health care
employees in 2004. There were 140 medical managers, 7,460 practitioners, and
4,900 health care service workers. Wages for practitioners and health care support
workers compare favorably to those of California. This suggests that some portion
of health care professionals who are employed in more competitive markets in the
state might find the SJV an attractive place to relocate their practices. Average annual
health worker wages for Modesto were $74,572 for medical managers, $67,829 for
practitioners, and $25,720 for health service workers.
Stockton-Lodi MSA. After the Visalia-Tulare-Porter MSA, the Stockton-Lodi
MSA had the lowest annual wages for health care employment, although it had the
second highest number of medical and health service managers of any SJV MSA.
There were 410 managers with an average annual wage of $74,272. Medical
management wages were the highest of the three SOCs in the other four MSAs, but
were lower in the Stockton-Lodi MSA. The Stockton-Lodi MSA also had the third
highest number of practitioners, and their estimated average annual wage was higher
than that of Fresno MSA practitioners.

CRS-228
Visalia-Tulare-Porterville MSA. The Visalia-Tulare-Porterville MSA had
the smallest number of health care employees (9,050) and the lowest annual average
wages for health care practitioners ($57,708). Mean wages for MDs were generally
higher in the other MSAs which biased that SOC’s average annual wage level. There
were also fewer practitioners in most of the individual specialties. Over 30% of the
MSA’s health practitioners were registered nurses.
Table 104. Bakersfield MSA Occupational Employment
(November 2003) and Wage (2004 - 3rd Quarter) Data
Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey Results
Geography: Bakersfield MSA
County: Kern
November
2004 - 3rd Quarter Wages
SOC
2003
Occupational Title
Code
Employment Entry-Level
Mean
Mean
Estimates
Hourly
Hourly Annual
Wagea
Wage
Wage
Medical and Health
11-9111
140
21.02
40.32
83,876
Services Managers
Healthcare Practitioners
29-0000 and Technical
8,860
15.45
29.50
61,355
Occupations
29-1011 Chiropractors
c
19.00
38.42
79,926
29-1020 Dentists
120
37.43
62.21 129,397
29-1031 Dietitians and Nutritionists
c
20.02
26.79
55,704
29-1041 Optometrists
c
36.93
55.37 115,159
29-1051 Pharmacists
340
40.61
50.11 104,221
Family and General
29-1062
150
49.45
76.64 159,419
Practitioners
29-1063 Internists, General
c
58.85
75.85 157,779
29-1065 Pediatricians, General
c
63.11
73.77 153,449
29-1066 Psychiatrists
c
46.60
73.52 152,920
29-1067 Surgeons
60
54.32
69.53 144,627
Physicians and Surgeons,
29-1069
50
57.55
84.25 175,253
All Other
29-1071 Physician Assistants
100
32.03
37.89
78,810
29-1111 Registered Nurses
3,360
23.80
31.20
64,890
29-1121 Audiologists
c
25.72
33.24
69,146
29-1122 Occupational Therapists
c
23.90
29.75
61,864
29-1123 Physical Therapists
140
24.24
33.98
70,692
29-1124 Radiation Therapists
20
24.18
31.32
65,143
29-1126 Respiratory Therapists
250
19.76
24.89
51,778

CRS-229
Geography: Bakersfield MSA
County: Kern
November
2004 - 3rd Quarter Wages
SOC
2003
Occupational Title
Code
Employment Entry-Level
Mean
Mean
Estimates
Hourly
Hourly Annual
Wagea
Wage
Wage
Speech-Language
29-1127
190
22.42
30.51
63,457
Pathologists
29-1131 Veterinarians
60
31.26
47.62
99,041
Medical and Clinical
29-2011
190
22.61
27.20
56,570
Laboratory Technologists
Medical and Clinical
29-2012
260
10.84
15.30
31,829
Laboratory Technicians
29-2021 Dental Hygienists
70
25.50
30.90
64,269
Cardiovascular
29-2031 Technologists and
c
15.86
19.82
41,235
Technicians
Diagnostic Medical
29-2032
60
10.63
22.84
47,504
Sonographers
Nuclear Medicine
29-2033
40
25.05
28.13
58,510
Technologists
Radiologic Technologists
29-2034
310
15.91
21.77
45,278
and Technicians
29-2051 Dietetic Technicians
20
10.22
14.77
30,716
29-2052 Pharmacy Technicians
320
12.68
15.50
32,232
29-2053 Psychiatric Technicians
40
17.77
21.07
43,814
29-2055 Surgical Technologists
170
14.38
19.64
40,856
Veterinary Technologists
29-2056
c
10.51
13.82
28,752
and Technicians
Licensed Practical and
29-2061
840
15.42
18.81
39,116
Licensed Vocational Nurses
Medical Records and
29-2071 Health Information
350
7.91
11.83
24,627
Technicians
29-2081 Opticians, Dispensing
160
10.74
14.18
29,495
Occupational Health and
29-9010 Safety Specialists and
70
17.75
29.08
60,474
Technicians
All Other Health
29-9199 Professionals and
320
11.47
16.27
33,826
Technicians
Healthcare Support
31-0000
6,080
8.05
10.97
22,802
Occupations

CRS-230
Geography: Bakersfield MSA
County: Kern
November
2004 - 3rd Quarter Wages
SOC
2003
Occupational Title
Code
Employment Entry-Level
Mean
Mean
Estimates
Hourly
Hourly Annual
Wagea
Wage
Wage
31-1011 Home Health Aides
890
7.49
8.64
17,959
Nursing Aides, Orderlies,
31-1012
2,030
8.45
9.96
20,723
and Attendants
Occupational Therapist
31-2011
40
10.19
19.51
40,584
Assistants
Physical Therapist
31-2021
c
18.47
20.94
43,550
Assistants
31-2022 Physical Therapist Aides
80
7.47
9.37
19,479
31-9011 Massage Therapists
c
15.31
16.03
33,353
31-9091 Dental Assistants
580
7.67
10.42
21,680
31-9092 Medical Assistants
1,380
9.05
12.14
25,260
Medical Equipment
31-9093
60
8.23
11.22
23,329
Preparers
31-9094 Medical Transcriptionists
210
13.22
15.33
31,896
31-9095 Pharmacy Aides
60
8.35
11.80
24,532
Veterinary Assistants and
31-9096 Laboratory Animal
100
7.76
9.85
20,503
Caretakers
Healthcare Support
31-9099
490
9.45
12.20
25,391
Workers, All Other
a. The mean of the first third of the wage distribution is provided as a proxy for entry-level wage.
b. For some occupations, workers may not work full-time all year-round. For these occupations it is
not feasible to calculate an hourly wage.
c. An estimate of employment could not be provided.
d. An estimate of wage could not be provided.
Source: (Released April 2005) These survey data are from the 2003 Occupational Employment
Statistics (OES) survey. The wages have all been updated to the third quarter of 2004 by applying
the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment Cost Index to the 2003 wages. Occupations are
classified using the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes. For details of the
methodology, see the Overview of the OES Survey at [http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/occup$/
oeswages/oestechnotes.htm].

CRS-231
Table 105. Fresno MSA Occupational Employment (November
2003) and Wage (2004 - 3rd Quarter) Data Occupational
Employment Statistics (OES) Survey Results
Geography: Fresno MSA
County: Fresno and Madera
November
2004 - 3rd Quarter Wages
SOC
2003
Occupational Title
Code
Employment Entry-Level
Mean
Mean
Estimates
Hourly
Hourly Annual
Wagea
Wage
Wage
Medical and Health
11-9111 Services Managers
530
28.37
42.46
88,323
Healthcare Practitioners
29-0000 and Technical Occupations
15,060
15.60
30.40
63,244
29-1011 Chiropractors
20
25.28
25.29
52,616
29-1020 Dentists
c
48.37
65.98 137,250
29-1031 Dietitians and Nutritionists
130
20.19
25.75
53,563
29-1041 Optometrists
40
26.38
42.62
88,642
29-1051 Pharmacists
560
32.73
46.97
97,697
Family and General
29-1062 Practitioners
120
47.27
71.48 148,673
29-1063 Internists, General
c
44.46
71.03 147,738
29-1065 Pediatricians, General
c
55.08
79.93 166,255
29-1066 Psychiatrists
60
>$70.01
84.55 175,855
29-1067 Surgeons
c
>$70.01
87.90 182,830
Physicians and Surgeons,
29-1069 All Other
520
20.67
64.07 133,253
29-1071 Physician Assistants
120
27.95
36.41
75,728
29-1081 Podiatrists
c
41.49
48.42 100,702
29-1111 Registered Nurses
5,760
21.80
30.31
63,042
29-1121 Audiologists
c
28.00
30.75
63,964
29-1122 Occupational Therapists
90
25.24
31.60
65,731
29-1123 Physical Therapists
160
25.33
31.23
64,956
29-1125 Recreational Therapists
40
9.10
14.91
31,002
29-1126 Respiratory Therapists
400
18.61
22.73
47,285
Speech-Language
29-1127 Pathologists
c
21.23
27.64
57,496
29-1131 Veterinarians
20
26.87
35.35
73,520
Medical and Clinical
29-2011 Laboratory Technologists
260
22.93
28.14
58,526

CRS-232
Geography: Fresno MSA
County: Fresno and Madera
November
2004 - 3rd Quarter Wages
SOC
2003
Occupational Title
Code
Employment Entry-Level
Mean
Mean
Estimates
Hourly
Hourly Annual
Wagea
Wage
Wage
Medical and Clinical
29-2012 Laboratory Technicians
160
11.81
18.78
39,053
29-2021 Dental Hygienists
650
18.39
24.53
51,036
Diagnostic Medical
29-2032 Sonographers
70
18.54
24.73
51,443
Nuclear Medicine
29-2033 Technologists
20
25.68
29.61
61,598
Radiologic Technologists
29-2034 and Technicians
390
16.72
22.95
47,735
Emergency Medical
29-2041 Technicians and Paramedics
500
8.95
14.97
31,131
29-2052 Pharmacy Technicians
470
12.31
15.29
31,813
29-2055 Surgical Technologists
c
14.81
19.39
40,338
Veterinary Technologists
29-2056 and Technicians
c
9.47
11.37
23,644
Licensed Practical and
29-2061 Licensed Vocational Nurses
1,250
14.79
17.92
37,269
Medical Records and Health
29-2071 Information Technicians
390
9.22
13.82
28,748
29-2081 Opticians, Dispensing
200
9.49
13.43
27,922
Occupational Health and
29-9010 Safety Specialists and
Technicians
50
16.30
23.55
48,979
29-9091 Athletic Trainers
c
b
b
31,783
All Other Health
29-9199 Professionals and
Technicians
600
11.39
15.63
32,511
Healthcare Support
31-0000 Occupations
8,210
8.03
10.93
22,736
31-1011 Home Health Aides
1,000
7.62
8.44
17,547
Nursing Aides, Orderlies,
31-1012 and Attendants
3,080
8.19
10.18
21,166
Occupational Therapist
31-2011 Assistants
30
15.93
19.65
40,853
Occupational Therapist
31-2012 Aides
30
8.14
9.42
19,581

CRS-233
Geography: Fresno MSA
County: Fresno and Madera
November
2004 - 3rd Quarter Wages
SOC
2003
Occupational Title
Code
Employment Entry-Level
Mean
Mean
Estimates
Hourly
Hourly Annual
Wagea
Wage
Wage
Physical Therapist
31-2021 Assistants
50
16.60
22.36
46,514
31-2022 Physical Therapist Aides
140
9.09
10.40
21,641
31-9011 Massage Therapists
c
10.51
12.92
26,883
31-9091 Dental Assistants
870
10.67
14.27
29,682
31-9092 Medical Assistants
1,210
8.50
11.52
23,981
Medical Equipment
31-9093 Preparers
100
8.89
12.61
26,216
31-9094 Medical Transcriptionists
230
10.59
13.82
28,726
31-9095 Pharmacy Aides
c
7.95
9.13
18,995
Veterinary Assistants and
31-9096 Laboratory Animal
Caretakers
c
7.69
7.98
16,590
Healthcare Support
31-9099 Workers, All Other
850
9.50
11.87
24,692
a. The mean of the first third of the wage distribution is provided as a proxy for entry-level wage.
b. For some occupations, workers may not work full-time all year-round. For these occupations it is
not feasible to calculate an hourly wage.
c. An estimate of employment could not be provided.
d. An estimate of wage could not be provided.
Source: (Released April 2005) These survey data are from the 2003 Occupational Employment
Statistics (OES) survey. The wages have all been updated to the third quarter of 2004 by applying
the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment Cost Index to the 2003 wages. Occupations are
classified using the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes. For details of the
methodology, see the Overview of the OES Survey at [http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/occup$/
oeswages/oestechnotes.htm].

CRS-234
Table 106. Modesto MSA Occupational Employment (November
2003) and Wage (2004 - 3rd Quarter) Data Occupational
Employment Statistics (OES) Survey Results
Geography: Modesto MSA
County: Stanislaus
2004 - 3rd Quarter Wages
November
SOC
2003
Occupational Title
Code
Employment Entry-Level
Mean
Mean
Estimates
Hourly
Hourly Annual
Wagea
Wage
Wage
Medical and Health
11-9111
140
21.49
35.85
74,572
Services Managers
Healthcare Practitioners
29-0000 and Technical
7,460
15.82
32.60
67,829
Occupations
29-1011 Chiropractors
c
25.55
28.76
59,829
29-1020 Dentists
150
48.97
57.89 120,406
29-1031 Dietitians and Nutritionists
60
18.63
25.26
52,548
29-1041 Optometrists
c
38.32
62.98 131,003
29-1051 Pharmacists
300
42.15
49.58 103,131
Family and General
29-1062
c
>$70.01
85.05 176,917
Practitioners
29-1063 Internists, General
50
39.65
75.17 156,361
Obstetricians and
29-1064
c
>$70.01
d
d
Gynecologists
29-1065 Pediatricians, General
30
40.79
58.72 122,133
29-1067 Surgeons
30
>$70.01
93.31 194,097
Physicians and Surgeons,
29-1069
120
42.34
77.74 161,702
All Other
29-1071 Physician Assistants
c
22.03
50.33 104,681
29-1111 Registered Nurses
2,930
24.43
34.51
71,770
29-1122 Occupational Therapists
70
24.24
33.13
68,914
29-1123 Physical Therapists
130
28.09
38.78
80,676
29-1125 Recreational Therapists
c
15.74
21.53
44,774
29-1126 Respiratory Therapists
270
21.35
26.92
55,983

CRS-235
Geography: Modesto MSA
County: Stanislaus
2004 - 3rd Quarter Wages
November
SOC
2003
Occupational Title
Code
Employment Entry-Level
Mean
Mean
Estimates
Hourly
Hourly Annual
Wagea
Wage
Wage
Speech-Language
29-1127
60
24.51
34.24
71,227
Pathologists
29-1131 Veterinarians
60
24.07
44.04
91,607
Medical and Clinical
29-2011
80
25.07
30.81
64,082
Laboratory Technologists
29-2021 Dental Hygienists
270
47.33
50.24 104,506
Diagnostic Medical
29-2032
60
24.11
28.65
59,579
Sonographers
Nuclear Medicine
29-2033
20
23.90
30.64
63,744
Technologists
Radiologic Technologists
29-2034
180
18.42
25.46
52,961
and Technicians
29-2051 Dietetic Technicians
30
9.02
12.55
26,116
29-2052 Pharmacy Technicians
310
12.19
14.94
31,083
Veterinary Technologists
29-2056
130
9.63
11.58
24,084
and Technicians
Licensed Practical and
29-2061
750
16.96
20.13
41,885
Licensed Vocational Nurses
Medical Records and Health
29-2071
200
8.03
12.12
25,221
Information Technicians
29-2081 Opticians, Dispensing
40
11.62
15.03
31,261
Occupational Health and
29-9010 Safety Specialists and
20
15.26
21.72
45,179
Technicians
Healthcare Support
31-0000
4,900
9.00
12.36
25,720
Occupations
31-1011 Home Health Aides
390
7.61
8.94
18,598
Nursing Aides, Orderlies,
31-1012
1,500
9.03
11.10
23,089
and Attendants
Physical Therapist
31-2021
80
20.75
24.31
50,564
Assistants

CRS-236
Geography: Modesto MSA
County: Stanislaus
2004 - 3rd Quarter Wages
November
SOC
2003
Occupational Title
Code
Employment Entry-Level
Mean
Mean
Estimates
Hourly
Hourly Annual
Wagea
Wage
Wage
31-2022 Physical Therapist Aides
60
8.03
10.82
22,503
31-9091 Dental Assistants
620
11.65
14.08
29,275
31-9092 Medical Assistants
1,330
10.56
13.33
27,724
31-9094 Medical Transcriptionists
130
9.80
14.79
30,755
31-9095 Pharmacy Aides
100
9.00
11.66
24,245
Veterinary Assistants and
31-9096 Laboratory Animal
c
7.98
8.89
18,486
Caretakers
Healthcare Support
31-9099
510
9.34
12.41
25,809
Workers, All Other
a. The mean of the first third of the wage distribution is provided as a proxy for entry-level wage.
b. For some occupations, workers may not work full-time all year-round. For these occupations it is
not feasible to calculate an hourly wage.
c. An estimate of employment could not be provided.
d. An estimate of wage could not be provided.
Source: (Released April 2005) These survey data are from the 2003 Occupational Employment
Statistics (OES) survey. The wages have all been updated to the third quarter of 2004 by applying
the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment Cost Index to the 2003 wages. Occupations are
classified using the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes. For details of the
methodology, see the Overview of the OES Survey at [http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/occup$/
oeswages/oestechnotes.htm].

CRS-237
Table 107. Stockton-Lodi MSA Occupational Employment
(November 2003) and Wage (2004 - 3rd Quarter) Data
Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey Results
Geography: Stockton-Lodi MSA
County: San Joaquin
November
2004 - 3rd Quarter Wages
SOC
2003
Occupational Title
Code
Employment Entry-Level
Mean
Mean
Estimates
Hourly
Hourly Annual
Wagea
Wage
Wage
Medical and Health
11-9111 Services Managers
410
24.08
35.71
74,274
Healthcare Practitioners
and Technical
29-0000 Occupations
8,130
16.41
30.81
64,065
29-1011 Chiropractors
30
26.94
61.70 128,345
29-1020 Dentists
120
43.14
71.32 148,339
29-1031 Dietitians and Nutritionists
140
21.26
25.07
52,142
29-1051 Pharmacists
490
27.47
42.38
88,167
Family and General
29-1062 Practitioners
140
25.55
64.75 134,675
29-1063 Internists, General
c
60.50
75.48 156,998
29-1065 Pediatricians, General
c
44.93
53.95 112,219
Physicians and Surgeons,
29-1069 All Other
c
>$70.01
d
d
29-1071 Physician Assistants
70
32.73
48.20 100,259
29-1111 Registered Nurses
3,350
24.37
30.63
63,718
29-1122 Occupational Therapists
50
23.17
29.49
61,346
29-1123 Physical Therapists
110
21.75
30.31
63,052
29-1125 Recreational Therapists
20
10.30
17.55
36,500
29-1126 Respiratory Therapists
200
18.94
22.13
46,015
29-1131 Veterinarians
c
31.59
36.50
75,914
Medical and Clinical
29-2011 Laboratory Technologists
210
21.34
28.06
58,363
Medical and Clinical
29-2012 Laboratory Technicians
160
11.16
16.27
33,845
29-2021 Dental Hygienists
c
23.26
33.82
70,332

CRS-238
Geography: Stockton-Lodi MSA
County: San Joaquin
November
2004 - 3rd Quarter Wages
SOC
2003
Occupational Title
Code
Employment Entry-Level
Mean
Mean
Estimates
Hourly
Hourly Annual
Wagea
Wage
Wage
Cardiovascular
Technologists and
29-2031 Technicians
60
12.92
19.72
41,021
Diagnostic Medical
29-2032 Sonographers
30
21.43
26.30
54,710
Nuclear Medicine
29-2033 Technologists
c
25.90
28.03
58,302
Radiologic Technologists
29-2034 and Technicians
130
19.23
22.20
46,173
Emergency Medical
Technicians and
29-2041 Paramedics
70
7.88
10.32
21,464
29-2051 Dietetic Technicians
50
9.96
13.44
27,958
29-2052 Pharmacy Technicians
290
12.66
15.75
32,770
29-2055 Surgical Technologists
100
12.65
17.27
35,939
Veterinary Technologists
29-2056 and Technicians
80
8.43
11.97
24,896
Licensed Practical and
Licensed Vocational
29-2061 Nurses
830
15.46
18.94
39,388
Medical Records and
Health Information
29-2071 Technicians
190
10.18
14.45
30,042
29-2081 Opticians, Dispensing
210
12.75
15.78
32,839
Occupational Health and
Safety Specialists and
29-9010 Technicians
50
16.22
25.35
52,724
All Other Health
Professionals and
29-9199 Technicians
290
13.16
18.05
37,540
Healthcare Support
31-0000 Occupations
5,440
8.50
10.96
22,791
31-1011 Home Health Aides
1,020
7.69
9.57
19,898

CRS-239
Geography: Stockton-Lodi MSA
County: San Joaquin
November
2004 - 3rd Quarter Wages
SOC
2003
Occupational Title
Code
Employment Entry-Level
Mean
Mean
Estimates
Hourly
Hourly Annual
Wagea
Wage
Wage
Nursing Aides, Orderlies,
31-1012 and Attendants
1,960
8.73
10.41
21,661
31-2022 Physical Therapist Aides
50
8.27
10.69
22,237
31-9011 Massage Therapists
c
8.16
10.36
21,556
31-9091 Dental Assistants
580
9.21
10.92
22,716
31-9092 Medical Assistants
900
9.41
12.06
25,081
Medical Equipment
31-9093 Preparers
70
10.51
13.83
28,764
31-9094 Medical Transcriptionists
120
13.90
16.70
34,740
31-9095 Pharmacy Aides
200
7.82
10.44
21,727
Veterinary Assistants and
Laboratory Animal
31-9096 Caretakers
70
7.15
9.46
19,663
Healthcare Support
31-9099 Workers, All Other
380
9.78
12.76
26,542
a. The mean of the first third of the wage distribution is provided as a proxy for entry-level wage.
b. For some occupations, workers may not work full-time all year-round. For these occupations it is
not feasible to calculate an hourly wage.
c. An estimate of employment could not be provided.
d. An estimate of wage could not be provided.
Source: (Released April 2005) These survey data are from the 2003 Occupational Employment
Statistics (OES) survey. The wages have all been updated to the third quarter of 2004 by applying
the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment Cost Index to the 2003 wages. Occupations are
classified using the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes. For details of the methodology,
see the Overview of the OES Survey at [http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/occup$/oeswages/
oestechnotes.htm].

CRS-240
Table 108. Visalia-Tulare-Porterville MSA Occupational
Employment (November 2003) and Wage (2004 - 3rd Quarter)
Data Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey Results
Geography: Visalia-Tulare-Porterville MSA
County: Tulare
2004 - 3rd Quarter Wages
November
SOC
2003
Occupational Title
Code
Employment Entry-Level
Mean
Mean
Estimates
Hourly
Hourly Annual
Wage a
Wage
Wage
Medical and Health
11-9111 Services Managers
80
24.20
36.28
75,447
Healthcare Practitioners
29-0000 and Technical Occupations
5,620
15.64
27.74
57,708
29-1020 Dentists
90
37.31
57.84 120,294
29-1031 Dietitians and Nutritionists
50
17.30
23.85
49,610
29-1051 Pharmacists
180
38.19
50.45 104,955
Family and General
29-1062 Practitioners
c
61.81
68.37 142,197
29-1063 Internists, General
20
53.17
66.19 137,670
Obstetricians and
29-1064 Gynecologists
c
38.40
62.94 130,908
29-1065 Pediatricians, General
30
41.59
64.06 133,233
Physicians and Surgeons,
29-1069 All Other
50
37.67
69.94 145,477
29-1071 Physician Assistants
50
36.16
40.55
84,352
29-1111 Registered Nurses
1,720
25.03
30.23
62,886
29-1121 Audiologists
c
25.86
28.31
58,878
29-1122 Occupational Therapists
50
20.61
27.49
57,181
29-1123 Physical Therapists
100
21.84
30.49
63,422
29-1125 Recreational Therapists
40
15.81
20.57
42,802
29-1126 Respiratory Therapists
120
16.60
20.90
43,477
Speech-Language
29-1127 Pathologists
120
14.54
26.29
54,697
29-1131 Veterinarians
40
32.73
39.98
83,157

CRS-241
Geography: Visalia-Tulare-Porterville MSA
County: Tulare
2004 - 3rd Quarter Wages
November
SOC
2003
Occupational Title
Code
Employment Entry-Level
Mean
Mean
Estimates
Hourly
Hourly Annual
Wage a
Wage
Wage
Medical and Clinical
29-2011 Laboratory Technologists
70
24.75
26.97
56,097
29-2021 Dental Hygienists
140
31.87
34.56
71,890
Cardiovascular
Technologists and
29-2031 Technicians
20
15.43
20.55
42,762
Diagnostic Medical
29-2032 Sonographers
c
19.33
24.99
51,966
Radiologic Technologists
29-2034 and Technicians
100
17.18
22.58
46,970
Emergency Medical
29-2041 Technicians and Paramedics
130
7.95
11.91
24,762
29-2052 Pharmacy Technicians
220
12.04
14.47
30,098
29-2055 Surgical Technologists
50
16.00
17.97
37,391
Veterinary Technologists
29-2056 and Technicians
c
11.58
12.60
26,193
Licensed Practical and
29-2061 Licensed Vocational Nurses
630
15.56
18.49
38,445
Medical Records and Health
29-2071 Information Technicians
150
9.63
13.13
27,315
29-2081 Opticians, Dispensing
c
11.57
16.76
34,862
All Other Health
Professionals and
29-9199 Technicians
80
12.78
19.50
40,542
Healthcare Support
31-0000 Occupations
3,350
7.94
10.27
21,348
31-1011 Home Health Aides
390
7.85
9.32
19,370
Nursing Aides, Orderlies,
31-1012 and Attendants
1,310
7.85
9.44
19,636
31-1013 Psychiatric Aides
90
9.81
10.94
22,756
Physical Therapist
31-2021 Assistants
c
18.89
20.93
43,541

CRS-242
Geography: Visalia-Tulare-Porterville MSA
County: Tulare
2004 - 3rd Quarter Wages
November
SOC
2003
Occupational Title
Code
Employment Entry-Level
Mean
Mean
Estimates
Hourly
Hourly Annual
Wage a
Wage
Wage
31-2022 Physical Therapist Aides
90
8.99
10.57
21,990
31-9011 Massage Therapists
c
11.81
16.29
33,890
31-9091 Dental Assistants
330
9.47
11.89
24,725
31-9092 Medical Assistants
550
8.63
10.14
21,079
31-9094 Medical Transcriptionists
60
10.48
14.12
29,387
31-9095 Pharmacy Aides
50
9.30
11.23
23,363
Veterinary Assistants and
Laboratory Animal
31-9096 Caretakers
80
8.94
10.02
20,829
Healthcare Support
31-9099 Workers, All Other
320
7.92
10.91
22,684
a. The mean of the first third of the wage distribution is provided as a proxy for entry-level wage.
b. For some occupations, workers may not work full-time all year-round. For these occupations it is
not feasible to calculate an hourly wage.
c. An estimate of employment could not be provided.
d. An estimate of wage could not be provided.
Source: (Released April 2005) These survey data are from the 2003 Occupational Employment
Statistics (OES) survey. The wages have all been updated to the third quarter of 2004 by applying
the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment Cost Index to the 2003 wages. Occupations are
classified using the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes. For details of the
methodology, see the Overview of the OES Survey at [http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/occup$/
oeswages/oestechnotes.htm].
In addition to the health care related employment discussed above, Fresno
County, and to some extent, San Joaquin County, are also home to a burgeoning
medical supply industry. This is also a regional resource that can contribute to an
expanding a health care industrial cluster. As Table 108 shows, while the number
of firms is currently small, these firms did make over $36.8 million in sales and
supported a $4.2 million annual payroll in 2002.

CRS-243
Table 109. Medical Instrument Supply/Equipment, 2002
Number of
Annual Payroll
SJV Counties
Sales ($1,000)
Establishments
($1,000)
Fresno 13
36,856
4,210
Kern 0
0
0
Kings 0
0
0
Madera 0
0
0
Merced 0
0
0
San Joaquin
5
D
D
Stanislaus 0
0
0
Tulare 0
0
0
Total SJV Counties
18
36,856
4,210
Adjacent Counties
Mariposa 0
0
0
Tuolumne
0
0
0
California and the United States
California
1,060
10,534,288
1,284,922
United States*
7,800
79,754,180
7,560,852
Source: 2002 Economic Census, Wholesale Trade, U.S. Census Bureau.
D = Withheld to avoid disclosing data of individual companies; data are included in higher level totals.
* United States data are preliminary and will be superseded by data released in September 2005.

CRS-244
Chapter 5 — Selected Natural Resource and
Environmental Issues in the SJV
Water Resources of the SJV125
The economic development of the SJV is tightly linked to the surface and
ground water resources of the San Joaquin River and Tulare Basins.126 The San
Joaquin River drains the southern part of California’s Great Central Valley — a large
area (13,536127 to 32,000128 square miles, depending on which tributaries are
included). The San Joaquin River is one of the state’s longest rivers, extending 300
miles129 north from its beginnings in the Sierra Nevada Mountain range to its delta
confluence with the Sacramento River and San Francisco Bay (Bay-Delta). The
basin includes several large rivers originating in the southern portion of the Sierra
Nevada mountain range on the eastern edge of the SJV and smaller, east-flowing
streams from the Diablo Mountains to the west. The largest direct tributaries to the
San Joaquin include (from north to south) the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced
Rivers. The San Joaquin hydrologic region appears to extend slightly north of the
eight- county area that is the subject of this report and it does not include the Tulare
basin, which is included in the eight-county area.130 Major rivers draining into the
Tulare basin include the Kings, Kaweah, Tule, and Kern Rivers. Today, waters from
the Tulare basin only flow into the San Joaquin River during exceptionally wet
periods.131 All of the rivers named above originate in the Sierra-Nevada, and all have
at least one dam or impoundment structure.132
Precipitation varies significantly in the SJV from the northern part of the SJV
to the southern part, and from west to east as one comes out of the SJV and enters its
eastern barrier, the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The average annual precipitation in
125 Section written by Betsy Cody, Specialist in Natural Resource Policy, Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
126 Groundwater resources are not discussed in this report; however, groundwater
withdrawals make up a significant portion of water use in the SJV, particularly during dry
or drought years. The California Department of Water Resources estimates groundwater
supplied 33% of the San Joaquin hydrologic region’s water supplies in 2000 (an average
water year).
127 Frits van der Leeden, Fred L. Troise, and David Keith Todd, The Water Encyclopedia,
Second Ed. (Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers, 1990), p. 133. Hereafter referred to as
Water Encyclopedia.
128 California Department of Water Resources, California Water Plan Update 2005, public
review draft, p. 7-1, available August 3, 2005 at [http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/
cwpu2005/index.cfm]. Hereafter referred to as the California Water Plan.
129 California Water Plan, p. 7-1.
130 California Water Plan, p. 7-1.
131 Arthur C. Benke, and Colbert F. Cushing, Rivers of North America (San Diego, CA:
Elsevier Academic Press), p. 553. Hereafter referred to as Rivers of North America.
132 Rivers of North America p. 555.

CRS-245
the Sierra Nevada is approximately 35 inches; however, precipitation in the SJV
itself ranges from 22.5 inches in the northern portions and approximately 11.1 inches
in the southern portion, to 6.5 inches near the southwestern corner of the hydrologic
region.133 The San Joaquin River’s natural flow is highly variable, depending on
snowfall in the northeastern mountain ranges and rainfall in the southeastern Sierra
Nevada foothills; however, numerous flood control and water supply dams and
reservoirs on San Joaquin and Tulare Basin tributaries regulate the river’s flow.
Even so, the observed discharge of the river ranged from a low of 241 cubic feet per
second (cfs) to 99,900 cfs in the period from 1930 to 1983; the average discharge was
4,783 cfs.134 The SJV once supported vast Tule marshes, riparian corridors, and other
wetlands; however, development of the area largely for farming, and the taming of
rivers, has changed the ecological character of the SJV dramatically. Not only has
the land base been transformed, but the hydrology of the river as well: “It is difficult
to imagine a river that is more hydrologically modified by humans than the San
Joaquin... The basin has experienced a long history of flow and capture and
diversion; almost all the surface-water flow of the basin had been diverted by as early
as 1910.”135 Today, most of the river’s supply is diverted for agricultural and
municipal and industrial (M&I) uses. Consequently, the San Joaquin River has
experienced a significant decline in fish populations and water quality The latter
topic is discussed below.
In addition to captured and stored surface waters, the SJV benefits from
significant groundwater resources, and canals and aqueducts that bring water south
from the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento and San Joaquin River’s Delta. The latter
facilities are discussed below.
Water Supply Infrastructure. Residents of California, and of the SJV in
particular, benefit from significant federal and state investment in water supply
infrastructure. Federal involvement has largely been in the investment in
construction of dams and related facilities to provide water for irrigation under the
Reclamation Act of 1902, as amended.136 Under this authority, and other, specific
project legislation (together known as Reclamation Law), the Bureau of Reclamation
in the Department of the Interior constructed the Central Valley Project (CVP).137
The CVP provides water to farmers in 35 counties throughout the Central Valley of
California — from the upper reaches of the Sacramento Valley in the north, south to
the Kern River area near Bakersfield. Some CVP water is also supplied to local
133 California Water Plan, p. 7-1.
134 Water Encyclopedia, p. 133.
135 Rivers of North America, p. 555.
136 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also has several facilities in the SJV, some of which
may be used to supply water to irrigators and M&I users; however, the Corps facilities are
typically built to provide flood control benefits, and as with Reclamation, M&I use is an
incidental project purpose.
137 The CVP was initially authorized by a finding of feasibility by the Secretary of the
Interior under then-existing Reclamation Law; funds were first provided under the
Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935 (49 Stat. 115). Many of the CVP units were
authorized under separate project- (unit-) specific statutes.

CRS-246
jurisdictions for M&I use; however, this use is typically incidental to the original
purposes for which the Reclamation facilities were constructed (i.e., irrigation
supply, hydro power production, flood control).
To date, the federal government has invested a total of approximately $3.36
billion in the CVP. Most of this investment (84%) is to be repaid via long-term water
service contracts.138 The remaining 16% is considered nonreimbursable and will not
be repaid. Nonreimbursable project costs generally include capital costs attributable
to flood control and other public purposes, sometimes including fish and wildlife,
and other environmental costs. Slightly more than half of the $2.83 billion to be
repaid by 2030 is allocated to irrigation contractors for repayment, and approximately
35% is to be repaid by M&I and commercial contractors. The remaining costs are
allocated to deferred use and other purposes. As of September 2002, irrigators had
repaid approximately 11% of costs allocated to irrigation. M&I contractors had
repaid 41%. Because of Reclamation’s past CVP fixed repayment rates, significant
portions of the repayment did not occur as originally scheduled, and some contractors
were incurring operations and maintenance cost deficits. This situation was
addressed in the mid-1990s; however, most of the project capital costs remain to be
repaid, and under current law must be repaid by 2030.
CVP water deliveries typically range from six to seven million acre-feet (maf)
annually; it appears approximately 48% of these deliveries are made to contractors
in the SJV; approximately 1.9 maf are imported via the Bay-Delta and CVP
annually, while another 1.5 maf are diverted from the San Joaquin River via the
Friant-Kern and Madera Canals.139 In total, approximately 44% of the San Joaquin
hydrologic region’s developed supply came from local surface sources, 23% from
imported surface supplies (CVP and the State Water Project), and 33% from
groundwater sources in 2000 (an average water year).
The federal water supply infrastructure in the SJV has been the topic of many
controversies. Because water supplied by the federal facilities is sometimes used to
raise cotton and other commodity crops, environmental and taxpayer groups have
accused SJV growers of “double dipping” in federal programs with “subsidies” for
irrigation water as well as for agricultural commodities. The most recent controversy
stems from an August, 2005 report of the Environmental Working Group.140 While
some farmers maintain they are paying “full cost” for their water, full cost rates as
defined by reclamation law were not required until 1982 and under the prior law,
Bureau of Reclamation irrigation contract rates did not, and do not (for contractors
opting to remain under prior law), include interest. On the other hand, farmers argue
that most of that “interest subsidy” has been capitalized in land values, and only the
original landowners benefitted directly from the interest subsidy. Regardless of the
nature of the subsidy and the extent to which it exists, project water rates appear to
138 While the CVP contains many divisions and subunits, its operation is interconnected,
thus making it difficult to discuss issues associated with certain subunits without
considering the system as a whole.
139 California Water Plan, p. 7-3.
140 Environmental Working Group, Double Dippers, How Big Ag Taps Into Taxpayers’
Pockets — Twice, accessed August 4, 2005, at [http://www.ewg.org/reports/doubledippers/].

CRS-247
be well below the market value for water in the Central Valley as measured by the
value of recent water transfers.141
The operation of the CVP, and particularly projects in the SJV, such as Friant
Dam, have also been criticized for their impact on fisheries and water quality in the
Bay-Delta and in the San Joaquin River itself. Project operations have been the
subject of numerous lawsuits and ultimately resulted in the development of the
CALFED program, to address the water quality, water supply reliability, and
ecosystem needs of the California Bay-Delta and its major tributaries. CALFED was
started as a way to forestall what many believed could have resulted in significantly
reduced water supplies due to possible non-compliance of the CVP and the parallel
State Water Project (SWP) with Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act (ESA)
requirements. Implementation of these laws combined with the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act (Title 34, P.L.102-575) (which included a dedication of 0.8
maf of CVP water supplies to fish and wildlife) have resulted in reduced water
deliveries to agricultural contractors in some cases and remain an ongoing tension for
water management and water supply reliability in the SJV.
Numerous water supply issues have arisen in the SJV. Growing urbanization
and population increases have resulted in new demand for water for M&I purposes.
However, even though the SJV enjoys significant natural and imported water
supplies, these supplies are already allocated, and in some cases, are over-allocated,
making it difficult to accommodate new demands. Further, this over-allocation
(often via diversions from the San Joaquin River) has resulted in reduced flows that
have contributed to the decline of natural fish species in the San Joaquin River and
the San Joaquin/Sacramento Bay-Delta, some of which have been listed as threatened
or endangered under the federal ESA.142 To meet environmental requirements, some
water has been dedicated to environmental purposes that were not addressed when
the CVP was constructed. Other water demands have been met with voluntary water
transfers from agricultural to urban uses.
The extent to which water delivered via federal facilities is available to be used,
or chosen to be used, by agriculture is an issue of utmost concern in the SJV, and
critical to the long-term development and vision for the Valley. Generally speaking,
water allocation decisions (water rights decisions) are made by the state. However,
significant quantities of water are governed by federal contracts, and deliveries in
certain circumstances might be reduced in cases where project operations must meet
certain federal environmental regulations (e.g., reductions in Delta outflows during
certain periods). The contractual obligations of the federal government to deliver
water must be considered in contemplating any changes in project water use.
141 While water transfer transactions may not operate in a true “free-market,” they do give
some indication of buyer’s willingness-to-pay for water from existing sources.
142 See generally: U.S. District Court, Eastern Division of California, decision of August 27,
2004 in Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Roger Patterson, etc., et al. (No. Civ.
S-88-1658 LKK). This case discusses the Bureau of Reclamation’s operation of Friant Dam
and its effects on fish species and habitat below the dam, including the extirpation of spring
chinook salmon in the late 1940s when river flows from Friant Dam were halted in most
years.

CRS-248
Further, the state’s ability to reallocate water without compensating water rights
holders has been called into question.143 Consequently, any change in overall water
use in the short term (at least as a practical matter) is likely to occur only between
willing sellers and willing buyers, except for cases where project operations are
found to violate state and/or federal law. How public (and private) entities plan for
future growth and development when water rights are already allocated and owned
by hundreds if not thousands of public and private parties is perhaps one of the most
difficult challenges facing the region.
Water Quality Issues in the SJV144
Overview. The SJV has experienced several significant environmental and
natural resource challenges over the past two decades, most notably issues
surrounding water supply and quality, air quality, and growth and urban sprawl.
While significant progress has been achieved in addressing some of these issues, the
SJV continues to face major environmental issues that are closely related to existing
economic sectors and can affect economic development planning for the future. The
geography and climate of the SJV make the basin vulnerable to air pollution from
Los Angeles and the area’s rapid growth over the past decade has increased air
pollution problems. Particulate pollution is a significant concern, with some SJV
cities among the worst in the United States.
Irrigated Agriculture and Water Quality. In 1991, the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) began an assessment of trends in quality of the nation’s water
resources through a series of intensive sampling and analytic projects within major
river basins and aquifer systems. One of the studied systems is the San Joaquin-
Tulare Basins, comprising the eight-county area discussed in this report. The SJV
produces about 5% of the total value of agricultural production in the United States.
The valley’s highly productive agricultural economy results from factors that include
abundant water and the long growing season. Consequently, agriculture is both the
major user of the region’s water resources (90% of the nearly 17 million acre-feet
per year in offstream water use in this area is for irrigated agriculture) and the major
influence on the quality of those resources.
A number of regulated point sources discharge treated wastewater into the
region’s surface waters (including municipal sewage treatment plants, and food
processing, manufacturing, and oil and gas facilities). However, changes in water
quality in the San Joaquin-Tulare Basins are primarily due to the large amount of
irrigated agriculture, which affects the quality of both surface and groundwater in the
valley, according to USGS.145 Large quantities of agricultural chemicals are used.
143 See, for example, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District v. United States (49 Fed. Cl.
313 (2001). Subsequent opinions addressed the amount of compensation owed, 59 Fed. Cl.
246 (2003), and the interest rates that should be applied, 61 Fed. Cl. 624 (2004).
144 Section written by (name redacted), Specialist in Environmental Policy, Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
145 Irrigation return water may reach surface water as direct runoff, as water from subsurface
(continued...)

CRS-249
USGS reported that agriculture in the study area used 597 million pounds active
ingredient of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers in 1990, and 79 million pounds
active ingredient of pesticides in 1991. During the subsequent decade (1991 to
1999), pesticide use reportedly increased 43% to 114 million pounds In addition,
the livestock industry contributed 318 million pounds active ingredient of nitrogen
and phosphorus from manure in 1987 — an amount that has undoubtedly increased
as a result of more intensive livestock operations in the valley. For example, from
1987 to 1996, the number of dairy cattle in the SJV increased 46% from 582,000 to
850,000.146
Several water quality issues are of concern in the valley region.147
! Increased salinity in the lower San Joaquin River. This issue is
considered by most agencies to be the most serious water quality
issue in the area. The problem results from an increase in the
volume of saline water from agricultural areas and a decrease in the
volume of low-salinity runoff from the Sierra Nevada into the river.
! Elevated concentrations of naturally occurring trace elements,
including arsenic, boron, molybdenum, chromium, and selenium.
Accumulation of trace elements including selenium and mercury
have been identified in waterfowl and aquatic organisms.
! Increased pesticide contamination of both ground and surface water.
USGS sampling detected 49 pesticides in the San Joaquin River and
its tributaries, some at concentrations high enough to adversely
impact aquatic life. USGS also found long-banned organochlorine
insecticides, such as DDT, in river and stream sediments and biota.
! Increased nitrate concentrations in groundwater. Fertilizers, manure
from livestock, and septic systems throughout the valley are sources
of nitrate in ground water. USGS found nitrates at levels that
violated drinking water standards in 25% of residential wells that
were tested. At high concentrations, nitrates in drinking water can
cause a fatal lack of blood oxygen in infants called
methemoglobinemia, or blue baby syndrome.148
145 (...continued)
drainage systems installed to control the water table, or as ground water discharged through
riverbeds.
146 Gronberg, J.M., C.R. Kratzer, K.R. Burow, J.L. Domagalski, S.P. Phillips. “Water-
Quality Assessment of the San Joaquin-Tulare Basins — Entering a New Decade.” U.S.
Geological Service. Fact Sheet 2004-3012, April 2004.
147 U.S. Geological Survey. “Environmental Setting of the San Joaquin-Tulare Basins,
California.” Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4205, National Water-Quality
Assessment Program. 1998. Pp. 39-40.
148 Ibid.

CRS-250
! Reduced concentrations of dissolved oxygen in the San Joaquin
River attributed to discharge of wastewater from municipal sewage
treatment plants. Low dissolved oxygen is detrimental to fisheries
and other aquatic resources.
In addition to impacts of degraded water quality, waterfowl and aquatic
resources are affected by reduced habitat, including wetlands. As agricultural
activities expanded in the valley, wetlands and riparian forests were drained, cleared,
and converted to agricultural land. The remnant wetlands are less than 8% of the
wetland acreage before settlement of the SJV in the 19th century. Wetland areas now
include public lands managed by state and federal agencies, as well as privately-
owned duck clubs.
The water quality of the San Joaquin River is of critical interest because it flows
to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Both the Delta-Mendota Canal, which
supplies irrigation water to farms in the western SJV, and the California Aqueduct,
which supplies part of the drinking water for 15 million people in southern
California, originate in the delta.
Actions to Address Impaired Waters. The federal Clean Water Act
(CWA) takes a cooperative federalism approach in which states that have been
approved by the federal government to administer their own CWA programs,
including California, take the lead in keeping their own waters clean, and the federal
government serves in a strong supervisory capacity to ensure the job gets done
properly. Section 303 of the act requires states to establish water quality standards
for the waters within their boundaries that are subject to CWA jurisdiction. Water
quality standards consist of designated beneficial uses for a waterbody (for example,
recreation, drinking water, industrial use) and criteria specifying how clean it must
be to support the designated use. While water quality standards by themselves do not
clean up any water, they are a necessary part of the process. Under Section 303(d),
waters that fail to meet standards after application of appropriate pollution control
technology are identified as impaired and are prioritized for cleanup.
The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) provisions in Section 303(d) of the
act provide the process for states to analyze and quantify how much additional
pollutant control is needed and how to allocate additional controls among the various
dischargers to a waterbody. A TMDL is a quantification of pollutant loading that a
waterway can tolerate without violating water quality standards, as well as reductions
needed to achieve standards. Under the law and Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) regulations, carrying out the TMDL requirements begins with states
identifying waters that have not yet achieved applicable standards. States are
required to identify the pollutants causing violations of applicable standards and
include a priority ranking of TMDLs to be developed for waters identified in the list
of impaired waters. These lists are submitted to EPA for review and approval.
Thereafter, the state is to establish TMDLs for each pollutant contributing to a
standards violation in the waterbodies identified in the 303(d) list, in accordance with
the approved priority ranking.
The TMDL consists of wasteload allocations (WLAs, the portion of the
waterbody’s loading capacity allocated to industrial and municipal point sources of

CRS-251
pollution) and load allocations (LAs, the portion attributed to nonpoint sources of
pollution — rainfall or snowmelt runoff from diffuse sources such as farms, forests,
or urban areas — or natural background sources), plus a margin of safety, necessary
to achieve and maintain the applicable standards. The TMDL is not a self-enforcing
document. Once WLAs/LAs are quantified, states are responsible for translating
allocations among point sources (through more stringent controls incorporated into
discharge permits) and nonpoint sources. For waters impaired by nonpoint source
runoff, because there are no federal controls over these sources under the Clean
Water Act, the primary implementation measures are state-run nonpoint source
management programs coupled with state, local, and federal land management
programs and authorities and financial assistance programs. For example, farmers
and ranchers may be asked to use alternative methods in their operations to prevent
fertilizers and pesticides from reaching streams. States may require cities to manage
or control runoff from streets. The TMDL process allows for states to make point
source/nonpoint source control tradeoffs. EPA may approve or disapprove TMDLs
developed by the state; if EPA disapproves a TMDL, it is then required to establish
a TMDL.
In California, the authority and responsibility to develop TMDLs rests with the
Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). Through the Regional Boards,
the state has identified and listed 687 impaired water segments in the state; since
many waters are impaired by more than a single pollutant, the list identified 1,774
total impairments for waters of the state. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality
Control Board, with jurisdiction over the entire Sacramento, San Joaquin River, and
Tulare Lake Basins stretching from the Oregon-California border to the Tehachapi
Mountains in the south, is responsible for developing and implementing TMDLs to
address these impairments. Within each of the eight counties discussed in this report,
the Central Valley RWQCB has identified impairments from a number of pollutants,
including pesticides, trace elements, salinity, bacteria, and pathogens, and has
established a phased schedule for the several required TMDLs. One of the listed
waters is the San Joaquin River, and according to the state’s analysis, it is impaired
for multiple pollutants, including salinity, boron, selenium, the pesticides diazinon
and chlorpyrifos, other pesticides, and other substances of unknown toxicity. The
Central Valley RWQCB is currently developing TMDLs for several high priority San
Joaquin River impairments (selenium, organophosphorus pesticides such as diazinon,
low dissolved oxygen, and mercury), a process likely to take 10 years or more.149
TMDLs for other contaminants and for medium and low priority waters will be
developed thereafter. Once completed and approved by EPA, the TMDLs will be
incorporated in the water quality control plans (Basin Plans) which contain
California’s administrative policies and procedures for protecting state waters.
Implementation of TMDLs could have implications for point source and nonpoint
source dischargers throughout the watersheds of the impaired waters, although the
precise requirements cannot be easily foretold.
149 For information, see California Environmental Protection Agency, Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control Board. “Impaired Waterbodies 303(d) List and TMDLs.”
[http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/programs/tmdl/index.htm]

CRS-252
A TMDL Example. The complexity of the TMDL process is illustrated in the
Lower San Joaquin River Salinity and Boron TMDL, adopted by the regional board
in September 2004. The TMDL describes the magnitude and location of the sources
of salt and boron loading to the river and divides the watershed into seven component
sub-areas to identify differences between geographic areas.
Approximately 67 percent of the LSJR’s total salt load and 85 percent of the
boron load originates from the west side of the San Joaquin River (Grasslands
and Northwest Side Sub-areas). Agricultural drainage, discharge from managed
wetlands, and groundwater accretions are the principle (sic) sources of salt and
boron loading to the river. Additionally, large-scale out-of-basin water transfers
have reduced the assimilative capacity of the river, thereby exacerbating the salt
and boron water quality problems. At the same time, imported irrigation water
from the Delta has increased salt loading to the basin. Salts in supply water from
the Delta account for almost half of the LSJR’s mean annual salt load.150
To address these problems, the TMDL proposes salt waste load reductions for
the City of Turlock and the City of Modesto wastewater treatment plants, the two
point sources that discharge directly to the waterbody. The analysis considers the
many complexities of sources in the watershed, with water being both imported and
exported, as well as the need to account for background salt loading and groundwater
contributions, plus accounting for a consumptive use allocation due to
evapoconcentration of salts in supply water. The TMDL states that the river’s
salinity problem is not conducive to establishing a simple fixed load allocation for
nonpoint sources, and the plan would divide required allocations among agricultural
and other sources in the seven geographic sub-areas (load allocations to the sub-areas
are proportional to the quantity of nonpoint source land use, which is the sum of
agricultural lands and managed wetlands, within the sub-area).
The allocation includes giving responsibility to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
to reduce salt loadings in CVP water that is delivered to the project area of the
TMDL, because the CVP has had a large impact on flow and salt loading and
contributed to degradation of the LJSR’s water quality. Wetland discharges from
sources owned and managed by a number of entities in two sub-areas (Grasslands
and San Joaquin River upstream of Salt Slough) also are identified as one of the
sources of salinity problems in the watershed and consequently are included in the
load reductions to implement the TMDL. Load allocations to nonpoint sources vary
by month and water-year type (higher during wet months and years), since they are
dependent on background levels, groundwater loads, and wasteload allocations to
point sources. These complexities generated considerable controversy and debate
during review of the plan, regarding a large number of technical issues, economics,
and timeline (the TMDL proposes an 8-20 year schedule for compliance with load
allocations).
150 Staff Report of the California Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Central Valley Region. “Total Maximum Daily Load for Salinity and Boron
in the Lower San Joaquin River.” January 2002. Text available at
[ h t t p : / / w w w . s w r c b . c a . g o v / r w q c b 5 / p r o g r a m s / t m d l / s a l t _ b o r o n /
SaltandBoronTMDL.Jan2002.pdf]]

CRS-253
Financial Assistance. Some financial assistance for TMDL development
and implementation is available, but most is not specifically targeted to TMDLs.
Costs incurred by states to develop TMDLs are one type of activity for which states
may utilize grant funds provided under CWA Section 106. These grants help states
in implementing numerous CWA programs, including standard setting, water quality
planning, monitoring, and enforcement. Funding for sources to implement TMDLs
is limited. Low-interest loans under the federal Clean Water Act State Revolving
Fund program may be used to construct municipal sewage treatment plants and
implement nonpoint source management activities under an approved state plan.
TMDL projects could be eligible, if included in such a plan. Grants under CWA
Section 319 assist states in implementing EPA-approved nonpoint source
management programs; these funds are used specifically for on-the-ground projects,
not state administrative costs. Since FY2001, $100 million of Section 319 grant
funds (which total $207 million in FY2005, for example) is being devoted annually
to implementing nonpoint source TMDLs. Grants provided under the federal
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), administered by the USDA
Natural Resource Conservation Service, can be used for conservation and
environmental management projects, which may include projects to implement
TMDLs.
Managing Manure at Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations
According to EPA, the release of waste from animal feeding operations to
surface water, groundwater, soil, and air is associated with a range of human health
and ecological impacts and contributes to degradation of the nation’s surface waters.
The primary pollutants associated with animal wastes are nutrients (particularly
nitrogen and phosphorus), organic matter, solids, pathogens, and odorous/volatile
compounds. Animal waste also contains salts and trace elements, and to a lesser
extent, antibiotics, pesticides, and hormones. Pollutants in animal waste can impact
waters through several possible pathways, including surface runoff and erosion,
direct discharges to surface waters, spills and other dry-weather discharges, leaching
into soil and groundwater, and releases to air (including subsequent deposition back
to land and surface waters).
Recent changes to federal and California laws and regulations are changing the
way that large-scale livestock operations are regulated. These changes are of interest
in the Central Valley because of the importance of livestock operations to the
region’s agricultural economy. In February 2003, EPA adopted final regulations for
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), which now require all large
animal feeding operations to apply for a Clean Water Act discharge permit.151 The
rules established performance expectations for existing and new sources to ensure
they store manure and wastewater properly and utilize proper land applications at
CAFOs. Under the rules, which apply to about 15,500 livestock operations across
151 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs); Final Rule.” 68 Federal Register 7175-
7274, Feb. 12, 2003.

CRS-254
the country, all large CAFOs are required to apply for a permit, submit an annual
report, and develop and follow a plan for handling manure and wastewater. In
addition, the rules also control land application of manure and wastewater.
In California, implementation of the EPA CAFO permit requirements is the
responsibility of the Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The Central Valley
RWQCB has initially focused on procedures to regulate dairies, which represent over
90% of the confined animal facilities in the region There are approximately 1,650
dairy operations within the region, the majority of them located in San Joaquin,
Stanislaus, Merced, and Tulare counties.152 Of these, approximately 1,000 are of
sufficient size to meet the federal definition of a large CAFO, based on a threshold
of 700 mature dairy cows, thus requiring them to seek a Clean Water Act permit.
Historically, most dairies in the region operated under a waiver of waste discharge
requirements; this waiver expired in January 2003. The Central Valley RWQCB is
developing a general permit to implement both the federal rules and state regulations
which prescribe minimum standards for discharges of animal waste at confined
animal facilities to protect both surface water and groundwater, including monitoring
requirements.153 The draft permit has been controversial, and dairy farmers believe
that the requirements will be too costly to implement, putting their operations at a
competitive disadvantage compared with dairies in other states. According to an
analysis by Western United Dairymen (WUD), the cost to comply with the permits
will be $40,000 initially and $30,000 annually. Staff of the regional board
acknowledge that the WUD’s overall estimate appears reasonable. Costs would be
phased in over two to four years, depending on the herd size, and roughly half of the
costs are associated with installation of groundwater monitoring wells, which initially
would apply only to dairies with 1,300 or more mature dairy cows.
Funding Sources for CAFOs. There are several federal, state, and local
programs that can provide financial assistance to dairymen conducting projects to
address environmental concerns. These include:
! The federal Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).
EQIP provides technical assistance, cost sharing, and incentive
payments to assist livestock and crop producers with conservation
and environmental improvements using land management and
structural practices, such as site-specific nutrient management or
animal waste management facilities. Sixty percent of the available
funding is to be targeted at practices relating to livestock production.
152 Approximately 98% of the California dairy facilities impacted by the CAFO rules are
located in the Central Valley and Santa Ana Regions. In addition, approximately 250 dairies
in the region are subject to stormwater runoff permit rules issued by EPA in 1990. The
Central Valley RWQCB issued a stormwater general permit covering these facilities as part
of a general industrial storm water permit in 1997.
153 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. “Administrative Draft National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements
General Order for Existing Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Milk Cow Dairies).”
September 2004. For information, see:
[http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/available_documents/index.html#confined].

CRS-255
EQIP funds can be used to cover 75% of the cost of measures to
control manure runoff, and, under the 2002 farm bill amendments
(P.L. 107-171), livestock operators of all sizes including large
CAFOs are eligible to receive funding.
! The federal Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund. This is a low-
interest program funded by federal grants and state bond funds
which provides loans for projects that address point and nonpoint
sources of water pollution.
! USDA, EPA, and federal agencies such as the Small Business
Administration (SBA) administer a number of other assistance
programs, which EPA summarized in a 2002 report.154 The SBA,
for example, administers a pollution control loan program that can
be used by small and large animal feeding operations that are small
businesses.
! The California Dairy Water Quality Improvement Grant Program
will provide $5 million from Proposition 50 to fund regional and on-
farm dairy projects to address water quality impacts from dairies.
! The California County EQIP Program provides funds to counties
allowing local concerns to be addressed according to local priorities
and ranking criteria. All of the Central Valley counties discussed in
this report have identified CAFOs as a concern in their EQIP
program description.
Compliance assistance also is available from a number of sources, including the
University of California Cooperative Extension, USDA Natural Resource
Conservation Service, and California Dairy Quality Assurance Program. The latter
is a voluntary partnership among federal and state agencies, academia, and the dairy
industry to assist dairy producers in meeting regulations relating to manure and
nutrient management.
154 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Financial Assistance Summaries for AFOs.”
2002. Available at [http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/financial_assistance_summaries.pdf].

CRS-256
Air Quality Issues in the SJV155
Ozone. The SJV156 has some of the worst air quality in the nation. The district
is one of only two in the United States classified by EPA as “extreme
nonattainment” for ozone — the other being Los Angeles. In 2004, the area failed
to meet the 8-hour standard for ozone on 104 days (versus 88 days in L.A.).
Ozone is regulated primarily because of its health effects. It aggravates lung
conditions such as asthma, and recent research has linked it to increases in mortality.
For each 10 part per billion (ppb) increase in ozone, mortality increases by 0.52% in
the following week, according to a recent study of 95 U.S. cities. While seemingly
small, a 10 ppb increase in ozone would cause an estimated 3,767 annual premature
deaths in the cities studied.157 The premature death rate from ozone in the SJV would
be expected to exceed that in most U.S. cities, because the ozone concentrations are
substantially higher in the Valley, frequently reaching levels that are 30-60 ppb above
EPA’s standard.158
Ozone also causes crop damage, by interfering with photosynthesis. According
to the SJV Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), “Studies have shown
reductions of up to 20 percent in yields of grapes, cotton, oranges, alfalfa, and
tomatoes due to ozone exposure.”159 The California Air Resources Board estimated
in 2003 that agricultural crop losses exceeding $150 million in the SJV due to ozone
exposure.160
In many respects, the Valley’s ozone problem is similar to that in Los Angeles.
Ozone forms in the atmosphere from chemical reactions involving volatile organic
compounds and nitrogen oxides. Warm sunny days, abundant both in L.A. and the
Valley, contribute to ozone formation. Once formed, ozone remains trapped in the
Valley and in L.A. by the surrounding mountains. As in Los Angeles, the Valley’s
155 Section written by James McCarthy, Specialist in Environmental Policy, Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
156 The SJV Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), which is the source of many of the
data presented in this section, corresponds to the SJV area identified elsewhere in this
report. It includes the counties of Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
and Tulare and the western and central portions of Kern County.
157 See “Researchers Link Short-Term Spike in Ozone to Thousands of Deaths in United
States,” Daily Environment Report, November 18, 2004, p. A-7. The article reports on
research covering 95 U.S. cities over a 14-year period. Four of the 95 cities (Stockton,
Modesto, Fresno, and Bakersfield) were in the SJV. The research (“Ozone and Sort-term
Mortality in 95 U.S. Urban Communities, 1987-2000,” by Michelle L. Bell, et al.) appeared
in JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, November 17, 2004, pp. 2372-
2378.
158 David L. Crow, “Trends in Ozone Air Quality by County for the SJV Air Basin,”
SJVAPCD Board Briefing Report, April 15, 2003, pp. B-3 through B-10, available at
[http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/docs/O3AQReportBrdBried%20report.pdf].
159 Ibid., p. 6.
160 Ibid.

CRS-257
main local source of pollution is a category labeled “mobile sources” — principally
cars and trucks. Mobile sources accounted for about 55 percent of the emissions of
ozone-forming gases in the SJV in 2004, according to the SJVAPCD.161
Compared to Los Angeles (and most U.S. areas), the Valley has made less
progress in improving its air quality. In many of the eight SJV counties,
concentrations of ozone and the number of days on which those concentrations
exceed air quality standards are little changed from the early 1980s.162 In Los
Angeles, by contrast, concentrations of ozone and the number of days on which the
standard is exceeded have both been cut in half since 1980.163 In part, the Valley’s
lack of progress may be due to the importance of air pollutants transported into it
from outside — principally from the Bay area. Another factor may be the more
significant role of agriculture as an emissions source in the Valley. Agricultural
sources of emissions have been subject to few air quality regulations — until the last
year, they were exempt from permit requirements under the state’s air pollution
control laws.
Under EPA regulations promulgated in the spring of 2004, the SJV has until
June 2013 to achieve compliance with the ozone standard. Doing so will involve
reductions in emissions from numerous sources, including cars and trucks, industry,
and agriculture. To attain the standard, the Valley is expected to need reductions of
at least 342 tons per day of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides
(NOx).164
Most of these reductions will come from the mobile source category. State and
federal regulations on vehicle emissions and fuels will reduce VOCs and NOx by
over 225 tons per day between 2000 and 2010.165 Nineteen other statewide pollution
control measures (many of them addressing the evaporation of fuel from storage and
distribution systems and emissions from non-road engines) are expected to contribute
an additional 35 tons per day of reductions.166 For the remainder, the Valley’s air
pollution control district plans to implement controls on concentrated animal feeding
operations (CAFOs) — most likely controls on emissions from feedlots and waste
treatment lagoons — by January 1, 2007. A reduction of 15.8 tons of VOCs per day
161 SJVAPCD, Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan, October 8, 2004, p. 4-53.
Available at [http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/AQ_plans_Ozone_Final.htm].
162 This is true for Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Stanislaus, and Tulare Counties. Merced
County has only measured ozone since 1991, but in that period, it too shows little or no
improvement. Only San Joaquin County’s ozone levels appear to have improved. See
David L. Crow, “Trends in Ozone...,” previously cited.
163 For L.A. data, see South Coast Air Quality Management District, “Historic Ozone Air
Quality Trends,” at [http://www.aqmd.gov/smog/o3trend.html].
164 The 342 ton figure is actually the amount that pollution will need to be reduced in order
to meet EPA’s old 1-hour standard for ozone. See Extreme Ozone Attainment
Demonstration Plan, previously cited. A plan to meet the 8-hour standard has not been
developed yet.
165 SJVAPCD, Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan, previously cited, p. 4-53.
166 Ibid., pp. 4-53 through 4-55.

CRS-258
(about 25% of the projected uncontrolled emissions from CAFOs) is anticipated.
Other agricultural sources projected for new controls include stationary internal
combustion engines (such as those used in agricultural irrigation), open burning, wine
fermentation and storage, and commercial dryers (including those used to remove
moisture from fruits, nuts, vegetables, and cotton).167
Particulate Matter (PM and PM ). EPA has also designated the SJV a
10
2.5
“serious” nonattainment area for particulates (PM ) — one of only 9 such areas in
10
the country. In December, 2004, EPA classified the Valley as nonattainment for the
new fine particulate (PM ) standard. The pollutants covered by these two standards
2.5
are closely related: PM and PM refer, respectively, to particles smaller than 10 or
10
2.5
2.5 micrometers in diameter. The PM category includes the smaller PM particles
10
2.5
— the latter group is simply a subset that is believed to cause the most harmful
effects and, therefore, has been given its own standard. The PM standard is
10
expressed as both an annual and a 24-hour limit. The Valley exceeds both.
Like ozone, particulate emissions are regulated primarily because of their health
effects. PM , and to a lesser extent PM , can lodge deep in the lungs, where they
2.5
10
may aggravate asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, and pneumonia. Research has
associated PM with tens of thousands of premature deaths annually in the United
2.5
States.168
Particles of either size category come from a variety of sources, including smoke
from open burning and wood burning, diesel exhaust, tire and brake wear, sulfates
(principally from fuel combustion), nitrates (both from fuel combustion and from
agricultural sources), industrial emissions, and geological sources (principally, wind
blown dust from farm operations, construction, and unpaved roads). In the Valley,
the highest concentrations of particles occur during the fall and winter, when
ammonium nitrate, geologic material, and carbon particles from woodstoves and
fireplaces account for the largest share of the particles.169
In June 2003, the SJVAPCD gave final approval to its plan to achieve the PM10
standard. (There is, as of yet, no PM plan.) The plan requires 66.4 tons per day of
2.5
reductions in direct PM emissions.170 Since agriculture-related sources account for
10
more than half of all directly emitted PM in the Valley, growers will be required to
10
participate in a Conservation Management Practices Program to reduce emissions.
The growers will, however, by their own choosing, select measures most appropriate
for their operation. The source categories include (1) unpaved roads, (2) unpaved
vehicle/equipment traffic areas, (3) land preparation, (4) harvest, and (5) other -
including windblown PM from open areas, and agricultural burning. Practices that
10
167 Ibid., pp. 4-2 through 4-27.
168 For additional information, see CRS Report RL31531, Particulate Matter Air Quality
Standards: Background and Current Developments.
169 SJVAPCD, 2003 PM Plan, as amended December 18, 2003, p. ES-10, available at
10
[http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/AQ_plans_PM_2003PlanTOC.htm]. Click on
Executive Summary.
170 Ibid., p. ES-14.

CRS-259
reduce pesticide application may be added at a later date. Growers must select at least
one management practice from each of the five categories, but have no specific
emission reduction target.171
CAFOs will also participate in the program. Two other fast growing emission
sources targeted by the plan are residential wood combustion and paved road dust.
Federal Assistance. Federal assistance to improve air quality is limited.
The EPA provides air pollution control program support to states, tribes, municipal
governments, or other agencies with legal responsibility for air pollution planning,
and development and establishment of air pollution control activities. The total
amount provided in FY2003 was $180.5 million. The largest grant (most likely to
the State of California) was $7 million under this program. EPA also has some
smaller programs for specific purposes (e.g., clean school buses, interstate ozone
transport, and surveys, studies, investigations, and demonstrations). Most of these
grants are less than $1 million.
A far larger grant program, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Management Program (CMAQ), is administered by the Department of
Transportation. It provides funds to states to improve air quality by reducing traffic
congestion. Grants to the states are based to a large extent on the severity of the
state’s air pollution problem, including the number of people living in nonattainment
or former nonattainment (maintenance) areas. Eight categories of transportation
projects can qualify for funding: (1) mass transit; (2) traffic flow improvements; (3)
rideshare programs; (4) traffic demand management programs; (5) bicycle and
pedestrian projects; (6) public education; (7) vehicle inspection and maintenance
programs; or (8) conversion of vehicles to burn alternative fuels. California
received $340 million under this program in FY2003.
171 Ibid., p. 4-25.

CRS-260
Chapter 6 — Transportation Investment and
Economic Development
There is a broad range of opinion within the planning or transportation
community as to the significance of the role of spending on transportation
infrastructure in promoting or triggering regional economic development. A
Department of Transportation study, covering 1950 to 1989, concluded that, at the
national level, industries realize a cost savings of 24 cents annually for every dollar
increase in the value of nonlocal road work (for all roads the return was calculated
to be 18 cents on the dollar).172 Regional economic development proponents see
transportation infrastructure improvement projects as leading to an increased regional
productivity for businesses operating in the region. They see this productivity
improvement as giving the region a critical advantage in attracting firms to the
region. Some research assigns a lesser role to transportation, especially highway
construction, arguing that transportation infrastructure is just one of many influences
and is most likely to have an impact in places that are already major natural growth
centers or where the project improves the connection of smaller urban areas to larger
more diversified economies. Critics of many transportation based economic
development plans see most of them as based on a “build it and they will come”
attitude when, unless other business factors are in place, a great deal of money can
be spent on transportation infrastructure with few, if any, firms relocating because of
it. A statement that most would agree with is that good transportation is a necessary
although not a sufficient condition for increased economic development.173
The Federal-Aid Highway System and the SJV174
The vast majority of federal funding that can be spent on federal-aid highways
is apportioned to the state departments of transportation through five large formula
programs: Interstate Maintenance Program (IM), National Highway System (NHS),
Surface Transportation Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program (CMAQ), and the Highway Bridge Replacement and
Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP). In the case of California and the SJV, the funds
are under the control of the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). In
addition, during the reauthorization of federal highway and mass transit programs,
representatives of some state departments of transportation may make contact with
members of a state’s congressional delegation to discuss which projects the DOT
wants Members to put forward in legislation. It is also the opportunity for the
172 U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Summary: Economic Impacts of Federal-Aid Highway
Investment. Available at [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/empl.htm] .
173 Texas Transportation Institute. State Highway Investment and Economic Development:
State-of-the-Art Review. College Station, Texas, The Texas Transportation Institute. 1990.
63 p.
174 Section written by Robert Kirk, Specialist in Transportation Policy, Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.

CRS-261
Members to impress on the state DOT what their priorities are.175 During times of
deficit constrained budgets, these formula programs are where the vast majority of
the federal highway money is and this money is under the control of the state, not the
federal government.
Most of the remaining programs (referred to as discretionary or allocated
programs) are under the nominal control of the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). In recent years, nearly all these funds have been earmarked by Congress.
Historically, in surface transportation reauthorization bills congressional project
designations (earmarks) have been restricted to the High Priority Projects Program;
other allocated programs have been earmarked in the annual appropriations bills.176
The recently enacted surface transportation reauthorization act, the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU; P.L. 109-59) includes a number of provisions that could be of
importance to the SJV. The act designates state route 99 from Bakersfield to
Sacramento as High Priority Corridor 54, the “California Farm-to-market Corridor,”
on the National Highway System. The act also designates Corridor 54 as a future
Interstate System highway. The corridor designation does not provide funding for
the route but makes it eligible for funding in future highway reauthorization bills
under the National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program (NCIIP). All
NCIIP money in SAFETEA-LU was earmarked in the bill; further funding under the
program will either have to wait for the next reauthorization bill or additional funding
during the annual appropriations process.
The High Priority Corridors are also authorized on a “such sums as may be
necessary” basis under section 1304, but SAFETEA-LU does not provide funding.
This means that appropriators would have to appropriate funds from the Treasury
general fund (as opposed to the highway trust fund) during future annual
appropriations bills to provide funds under section 1304. The future Interstate
System highway designation for state route 99 also does not provide access to any
new funds. The state, however, is required to bring the highway up to Interstate
System standards within 25 years. This could lead to more state spending of federal-
aid highway formula funds on route 99 in the future. It also allows the state to add
future interstate placards to the route and some feel this, along with the designation
itself, could have a positive impact on economic development in the SJV.
Several SJV projects were earmarked in the act. The vast majority of federal-aid
highway funding for California, however, is provided to the California Department
175 Because of the recent passage of the Safe, accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: a Legacy for Users (P.L. 109-59), which funds surface transportation through
FY2009, it will probably be FY2007 or FY2008 before the reauthorization debate will be
reactivated by stakeholders. During the interim, however, some funding may be made
available for earmarking during the annual appropriations process.
176 SAFETEA-LU expanded authorizations earmarking beyond the High Priorities Program,
completely earmarking the Projects of National and Regional Significance Program, the
National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program, and all of the funds provided under
the “Transportation Improvements” authorization.

CRS-262
of Transportation (CalTrans) via formula driven programs. SAFETEA-LU provides
California with $17.1 billion in High Priority Project and formula program
apportionments for FY2005 through FY2009. According to FHWA data this is
134.3% of the annual average that California received under the previous
authorization bill. Whether this increase will be reflected in spending on highways
in the SJV will be determined by CalTrans.
SAFETEA-LU also authorizes two SJV New Fixed Guideway Capital transit
projects for preliminary engineering: the San Joaquin, California — Regional Rail
Commission Central Valley Rail Service and the San Joaquin Regional Rail
Commission Commuter Rail (Altamont Commuter Express). Surface transportation
authorization bills authorize far more New Fixed Guideway projects than there is
money for, consequently these listings do not guarantee that any money will be
provided.
The Obligation of Federal-Aid Highway Funds in the SJV
The Federal Highway Administration provided information on the obligation
of federal-aid highway funds by the state of California to the eight counties in the
SJV for the years 1995 through 2004 (see Table 110). The totals obligated over this
ten year period varied greatly from county to county and from year to year. This is
not unusual at the local level where the cycle of project initiation and completion can
make funding look erratic. It also makes it difficult to draw conclusions from annual
comparisons. For the ten year period as a whole obligations to SJV counties were
just over 9.3% of California’s total obligations. This percentage varied from year to
year from a low of just 4% in 1995 to a high of 15.5% in 1998. These variations
reflect project construction cycles.
Based on statistics from the 2000 Census the eight SJV counties’ population
(3.303 million) was roughly 9.8% of California’s population (33.872 million). For
2000 these eight counties received 10.7% of California’s federal aid-highway
obligations. Population estimates for the population of the eight SJV counties for
2003 indicate the SJV population was 10.1% of California’s total population. In
2003 the SJV counties received 10.2% of California’s total federal-aid highway
obligations. As mentioned earlier, the construction cycle has an impact on these
comparisons. The SJV population percentage would exceed the obligation
percentage for fiscal years 1995, 2001 and 2004, while the obligation percentage
would greatly exceed the population percentage in 1998 when obligations hit an all
time high for the valley. The eight SVJ counties, however, according to 2003 FHWA
data, account for 9, 670 miles (or 17%) of California’s 54,389 miles of federal-aid
highway system miles.

CRS-263
Table 110. Federal-Aid Highway Obligations: SJV — California — United States
(Fiscal Years 1995-2004, in $1,000s)
County
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Totals
SJV
Fresno
$23,171
$10,557
$92,230
$52,565
$47,043
$45,751
$30,499
$62,509
$69,823
$82,547
$516,696
Kern
11,673
53,518
39,246
65,294
55,164
50,656
41,981
122,636
48,480
22,706
511,354
Kings
1,059
17,683
9,011
7,612
8,311
1,916
7,409
4,550
10,022
10,350
77,922
Madera
585
5,605
2,215
22,703
18,236
16,230
5,170
3,406
10,556
6,173
90,879
Merced
33,291
16,243
4,508
35,357
3,449
2,202
10,608
26,577
18,621
6,299
157,155
San Joaquin
5,038
44,046
22,496
26,921
47,997
15,132
16,809
16,163
22,690
15,094
232,387
Stanislaus
8,975
18,466
12,086
20,788
14,154
20,276
9,382
13,096
36,005
7,889
161,117
Tulare
3,097
15,262
16,278
81,853
15,512
8,333
15,192
32,335
16,259
19,514
223,635
Total:
86,889
181,381
198,069
313,094
209,866
160,497
137,049
281,272
232,457
170,571
1,971,145
Adjacent Counties
Tuolumne
(71)
(2,953)
2,292
22,637
2,370
2,928
2,357
8,899
22,505
14,242
75,207
Mariposa
19
85
5,069
1,149
3,078
(633)
706
3,775
1,205
(600)
13,854
California
Total
2,158,295
1,793,450
1,996,472
2,019,670
2,396,076
1,495,081
2,191,152
2,368,622
2,270,903
2,467,074
21,156,795
United States
Total
19,909,520
19,050,063
20,759,129
20,447,459
24,877,630
25,098,109
28,444,162
30,802,021
29,846,126
30,642,573
249,876,792
Source: County data provided by the Federal Highway Administration. California and United States figures taken from Highway Statistics, various years.
Totals may not add due to rounding.

CRS-264
The Relation Between Freight Infrastructure and Economic
Development177
Improvements to freight infrastructure in a region can help retain and attract new
businesses to an area because as transportation costs decline, the customer base of
local businesses expands. In other words, local businesses can reach markets that
were once unobtainable because the cost of transportation kept them from being price
competitive. Transportation improvements can also lower the cost of inputs for local
businesses. Conversely, infrastructure constraints that cause congestion delays can
be damaging to businesses especially those that place a high value on reliability and
transit time. In recent years, many industries have improved their productivity by
reducing inventory levels and increasing their reliance on “just-in-time” deliveries.
Because economic development, including job retainment and creation, can be aided
by freight transportation facilities, public officials often express interest in using
public funds to finance freight improvements, particularly in distressed areas.

An issue policymakers confront is whether it is appropriate to use public funds
to assist a largely private enterprise. Cargo owners, trucking firms, vessel operators,
port and rail terminal operators, and railroads are all for-profit, privately owned
businesses. In the case of railroads, the right-of-ways, in addition to the rolling stock,
are privately owned. An issue that follows from private control of freight operations
is investment risk. Typically, a proposed transportation project involves a fixed
infrastructure segment whose potential economic benefit depends on the intensity of
its use by privately controlled mobile assets. The physical life of a freight facility
may outlive its economic life if (or when) freight flow patterns or logistics strategies
change. This danger may be most pronounced for projects involving connections to
rail lines, many of which have been abandoned in recent years. A third issue
policymakers may confront when considering public investment in freight facilities
is community opposition. A distressed community usually wants more jobs, but they
may not want more trucks.178
Supporting the Perishable Goods Delivery Network. With fruit and
vegetable production central to the SJV economy, a discussion of how freight
transportation could be linked to economic development in the region can begin with
support for this commodity’s delivery system. Nationally, about 95% of perishable
product appears to move by truck because of its relatively high value and its
requirements for tight temperature control, atmospheric control, and fast transit.179
In California, the California Trucking Association estimates that in 1997, 98% of
177 Section written by (name redacted), Specialist in Transportation Policy, Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
178 U.S. DOT, FHWA, Talking Freight Seminar Series, “Tying Freight to Economic
Development,” February 18, 2004 and January 19, 2005. An audio recording of this seminar
along with presentations is available at [http://talkingfreight.webex.com].
179 “Railroads Target Cool Cargo,” Journal of Commerce, August 26- September 1, 2002,
p. 21.

CRS-265
California’s fresh fruits and vegetables was hauled by truck.180 Because perishables
transport is mostly a truck-based delivery system, the discussion above related to
federal support of highway improvements in the SJV is highly relevant.
Port Connections. Perishable products accounted for about 20% of total
U.S. food and agricultural exports in 2000.181 Reportedly, roughly 14% of SJV
perishables production is exported, with some of that portion destined for Asia.182
The truck routes to the Ports of Oakland, Stockton, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and
Hueneme are therefore important infrastructure links in the perishables export
delivery network. The Port of Oakland generally draws from origins further south
than merely the halfway point to Los Angeles, because trans-Pacific container ships
generally call at Los Angeles or Long Beach first before proceeding to Oakland.
Thus, Oakland often offers a later sailing date and a shorter ocean transit to Asia than
does Los Angeles or Long Beach (the San Pedro ports).
Landside access to California ports have been a long standing issue and these
ports have received federal funding for improving road and rail links to the ports.183
The ports are studying further landside access improvements.184 The Maritime
Administration (MARAD) has surveyed the condition of truck and rail routes
connecting with seaports and published its findings in a report entitled Intermodal
Access to U.S. Ports: Report on Survey Findings, dated August 2002.185
A Rail Alternative. Railroads capture roughly 5% of the perishables transport
market. Their perishable cargo mix tends to favor “hard products” such as onions,
potatoes, and carrots. Railroads generally offer a cheaper alternative than trucks for
long distance transport. Thus, railroads compete mostly for SJV produce bound for
the eastern United States or Canada. The Union Pacific Railroad has teamed up with
the CSX Railroad and the SJV Railroad to offer “Express Lane Service” for SJV
produce moving to the East Coast.186 The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and
Swift Transportation (a trucking firm) have also teamed up to compete for long-haul
180 California’s Produce Trucking Industry: Characteristics and Important Issues, Center
for Agricultural Business, California Agricultural Technology Institute, March 1999.
181 USDA, Economic Research Service, Changing Structure of Global Food Consumption
and Trade, May 2001, p. 31.
182 “Trouble on the Waterfront,” Los Angeles Times, October 3, 2002.
183 For a listing of federal funding for landside access improvements at California ports, see
U.S. DOT, FHWA, Compendium of Intermodal Freight Projects, 2002, available at
[http://ntl.bts.gov/card_view.cfm?docid=5194] (Viewed 1/24/05).
184 An inventory of California’s Intermodal Connectors is provided at
[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/nhs/intermodalconnectors/california.html].
185 This report is available at
[http://www.marad.dot.gov/Publications/01%20IAccess%20Report%20pub.doc] (viewed
1/24/05).
186 “Cold Competition,” Sacramento Bee, January 20, 2002, p. D1.

CRS-266
perishable cargo.187 The railroads have an economic incentive to “win back” from
trucks as much of the perishables market as possible because refrigerated cargo is one
of the most profitable cargos surface modes carry. The railroads are investing in new
refrigerated railcar technology to improve their reliability in maintaining proper
temperature control.188
Freight rail infrastructure issues confronting the SJV region are a microcosm of
national rail infrastructure issues. One of the bottlenecks that the main line railroads
face that is particularly relevant to the SJV is the Tehachapi Pass which connects the
Central Valley and the Los Angeles area. The railroads would like to add a second
track over the pass to accommodate increased freight traffic but to do so will require
building tunnels and bridges because of the difficult terrain. Short line railroads in
the SJV face a similar situation as do other short line railroads in other parts of the
country. They need to upgrade their track to handle the larger 286,000 pound railcars
that the main line railroads are increasingly using. Short line railroads typically
operate on routes that were formerly part of a main line railroad’s network but were
abandoned by the main line railroad due to low profitability on that route. Before
abandonment, the main line railroad often deferred maintenance on these sections of
track, focusing their resources on their trunk lines.
The federal role in funding rail infrastructure is limited largely because the
railroads are for-profit corporations with exclusive access to their privately owned
right-of-ways. Congress has reauthorized a program called the Railroad
Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program (RRIF, P.L. 109-59) which
provides loans and loan guarantees for rail infrastructure improvements. However,
no funds have been appropriated to the RRIF program in recent years. As part of the
American Jobs Creation Act (P.L. 108-357 which was signed into law on October 22,
2004), Congress enacted the Local Railroad Rehabilitation and Investment Act
which provides tax credits to short line railroads, such as the SJV Railroad, for track
rehabilitation or maintenance.189 In the FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act
(P.L. 106-554), Congress provided the SJV Railroad a $3 million Economic
Development Initiative grant to upgrade a 45 mile section of track between Huron
and Visalia.
Warehouse and Distribution Employment. Improving the infrastructure
that supports the perishables delivery network in the SJV would most directly benefit
the producers of these goods, increasing the value of their land, but may do little to
improve the economic welfare of non-landowners in the area. Another issue is
whether or how freight transportation might be used as a means to diversify the
employment base. For example, could the Valley capitalize on its location next to
two of the most prominent gateways for U.S. trade? The United States is the largest
maritime trading nation and the marine container shipping business is growing.
From 1995 to 2001, merchandise imported and exported through U.S. seaports in
187 “Alliance Means Fresher Fruit,” Modesto Bee, January 29, 2002, p. D1.
188 “Reefer Marketing,” Traffic World, May 5, 2003, p. 22.
189 For further discussion of the federal role in funding freight rail infrastructure, see CRS
Report RL31834, Intermodal Rail Freight: A Role for Federal Funding?

CRS-267
marine containers increased by 36%. At Los Angeles, it increased by 85%, at Long
Beach it increased by 50%, and at Oakland it increased by 5%.190 At the ports of
Los Angeles and Long Beach, container trade is expected to triple over the next two
decades.191 Combined, the ports of Oakland, Los Angeles, and Long Beach handle
more than 40% of the nation’s total marine container volume.192
The Inland Port Concept. General cargo shipped in marine containers
requires a large staging area at the port where containers can await transfer to ship
(for export) or truck pick-up (for import).193 However, while container ports face a
pressing need for more waterfront land, other interests in the port city may view
waterfront property as more valuable for residential, office, or retail development.194
(The additional space requirements of container terminals led to the shift of cargo
handling from San Francisco to Oakland). With a space crunch at the urban
waterfront, container ports are looking inland for more land.195 They are looking
beyond the immediate urban area in search of less expensive land in semi-rural or
suburban areas beyond city limits. These so-called “inland ports” (a.k.a. satellite or
feeder ports) could serve as container sorting facilities where local cargo moving by
truck could be separated from long-distance cargo moving by rail. The inland port
could be connected with the waterfront port by a rail link, which would shuttle
containers between the two ports. To the extent that a rail shuttle displaced container
movement by truck, it would have the potential to mitigate road congestion and air
pollution in a port community. The downside of the inland port concept is that it
inserts an extra link in the container supply chain, increasing transport costs and
transit time compared to a direct truck or rail move to the seaport. Whether the inland
port concept is economically viable for a given container port largely depends on the
spread between real estate costs and transportation costs in the area. In essence, the
inland port concept substitutes expensive urban waterfront real estate with less
expensive rural or suburban real estate plus the cost of a short-haul shuttle train.
The San Pedro ports are examining the “Inland Empire,” an area east of the city
of Los Angeles centered around the town of Ontario, and the Port of Oakland is
190 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S.
International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends, Washington, D.C. 2003, p. 30.
191 California Department of Transportation, Global Gateways Development Program,
January 2002, p. 8.
192 California Department of Transportation, Global Gateways Development Program,
January 2002, p. 11.
193 The most efficient way to store a container awaiting truck pick up is on a chassis (a steel
frame with wheels). Due to space constraints at many ports, containers may be stacked up
to six high, requiring unstacking and re-stacking when the trucker arrives for pick up. The
additional time required may cause truck back ups at the port’s entrance gate.
194 John Buntin, “Pier Pressure: Ports are struggling to balance the need to expand with the
public’s newfound interest in urban waterfronts,” Governing, October 2004, p. 28.
195 “Inland Handoff,” Journal of Commerce, February 14, 2005, p. 31.

CRS-268
examining Stockton, as potential cites for their inland ports.196 While both these
areas already are clusters of cargo activity, a rail shuttle linking them to their
respective seaports does not exist, but is being studied by both ports. While the
Inland Empire is not located in the SJV, the Stockton area is located at the northern
end of the Valley and thus may have the potential for freight related employment as
a means of diversifying the employment base in the northern end of the Valley. The
Port of Oakland has also entered into an arrangement with the City of Shafter as an
inland port location.197 Although Shafter (located near Bakersfield) is only about 100
miles from Los Angeles, it has teamed up with the Port of Oakland, nearly 300 miles
to the north. The strategy is to route containers of imported merchandise destined for
the Los Angeles market through the Port of Oakland and on to Shafter by rail shuttle.
In Shafter, the imported containers will be unloaded at retailers’ warehouses located
in the area. Some large retailers have located their distribution centers in the Shafter
- Bakersfield area to supply the Los Angeles market. Once unloaded, the empty
containers will then be available for the export of SJV produce back through the Port
of Oakland. As mentioned above, the San Pedro ports are generally the first port of
call for container ships arriving from Asia but due to congestion at these ports, the
Port of Oakland believes it can capture some of the imported cargo bound for Los
Angeles. Northwest Container Services will provide the rail shuttling of marine
containers between Oakland and Shafter.198
The Logistics Park Concept. In the container shipping business, it is often
said that the commodity most often shipped is air. Merchandise imported in
containers is heavily skewed toward consumer products and thus destined for urban
areas. In contrast, U.S. goods exported in containers are heavily skewed toward
agricultural products and thus originate in rural areas. Container shippers must pay
for the cost of moving empty containers from urban, surplus areas to rural, deficit
areas. Locating importers where the exporters are in order to reduce empty container
repositioning costs is a strategy being pursued by at least one firm.199 The concept
of building a “logistics park” (as opposed to an “industrial park”) is gaining attention
as an economic development tool.200 A logistics park would facilitate the distribution
of consumer goods to major retail markets. The SJV’s mid-state location could offer
big box retailers the option of locating one mega-sized warehouse to serve both Los
Angeles and San Francisco, rather than building separate warehouses on the fringes
of these cities. Although trucking costs would be greater with one warehouse serving
both markets, overhead costs would be less than operating two warehouses and land
is less expensive in the central SJV than at the periphery of Los Angeles and San
Francisco. The cost equation would involve substituting more transportation for less
expensive real estate. However, rising fuel prices, rising truck insurance costs, and
truck driver labor shortages could alter the cost equation as could changes in the real
estate market. Wal-mart, Target, Best Buy, Ikea, The Gap, and Sears are among the
196 Ibid.
197 Port of Oakland, Press Release dated October 28, 2004.
198 “Port to Distribution Center by Rail,” Journal of Commerce, June 21, 2004, p.1.
199 Ibid.
200 Ken Cottrill, “Developers Target Logistics,” Traffic World, November 24, 2003.

CRS-269
retailers that apparently have decided that a regional distribution center located in the
central SJV makes economic sense. These retailers import much of their product
from Asia and have recently built regional distribution centers in the SJV area
between Madera and Porterville. United Parcel Service (UPS) has built a distribution
center in Visalia, from which it can reach most of California in 24 hours by ground
transportation. However, distribution centers are land intensive, and in the case of
the SJV, the best use of prime agricultural soil is also a consideration.
The federal government funds surface transportation infrastructure through the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA, P.L.
109-59) which the 109th Congress recently enacted.201 Among federal funding
programs that can assist in the development of inland ports or logistics parks is one
program administered by the FHWA. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program (CMAQ) can be used to improve rail links to ports where
truck traffic and their emissions are reduced and the region is in an air quality non-
attainment area. In addition, the Public Works and Development Facilities Program
administered by the Economic Development Administration of the Department of
Commerce is also relevant to freight transportation projects. This program can be
used to improve access roads to industrial parks, make port improvements, and build
business incubator facilities if they are located in distressed communities.202
High Speed Rail and Economic Development
California is studying the feasibility of building a high speed rail line connecting
the San Francisco Bay Area, through the Central Valley, to Los Angeles and San
Diego. The network would be approximately 700 miles in length, with exclusive
tracks that are fully grade separated for most of the system, and with trains capable
of traveling up to speeds of 220 mph. The projected cost to construct the system is
$33 to $37 billion (in 2003 dollars).203 California voters will decide on a bond
measure in 2006 to pay for part of the project.
If approved, the economic growth potential of the train on the SJV will depend
on whether and how often the train will stop in the Valley. Reportedly, at a
November 2004 meeting, the California High-Speed Rail Authority is proposing only
one stop in the SJV — at Fresno.204 There would be no stops along the 120 mile
section between Fresno and Bakersfield.
The most direct economic development benefits that could be linked to a high-
speed rail line require station stops in the SJV. Station development effects could
201 For a summary of provisions in this act, see CRS Report RL33119, SAFETEA: Selected
Major Provisions.
202 Examples of how these federal programs were used to fund specific freight related
projects are contained in U.S. DOT, FHWA report Funding and Institutional Options for
Freight Infrastructure Improvements, 2002, available at [http://ntl.bts.gov/
card_view.cfm?docid=11125] (Viewed 1/24/05).
203 Brochure of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, n.d.
204 “No easy route to picking best line for bullet train,” The Fresno Bee, Nov. 11, 2004.

CRS-270
include office, retail, hotel, and some housing that may gravitate around the vicinity
of a station. The immediate beneficiaries would be property owners that could
expect the value of their land to increase. Development around the station could also
generate jobs and diversify the employment base. However, station development
effects are probably most applicable to a commuter rail line and could be minimal in
the case of an intercity rail line. In order for transportation improvements to generate
economic activity, economic developers stress that “something else must be
happening,” by which they mean that the infrastructure improvement must facilitate
connection to a center of economic activity. Simply connecting “nowhere to
nowhere” will not generate development.205 Increasing the number of station stops
in the SJV greatly adds to travel time for the passengers traveling between the San
Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles or San Diego. Thus, as stops are added
between these rail line end points, the economic rationale for the additional cost of
purchasing high-speed train sets and building and maintaining high speed track is
greatly undermined. Station development aside, economic development impacts
could also be linked to the construction and maintenance of the track in the SJV as
well as employment associated with running the trains. A high-speed rail line may
also stimulate a train equipment and repair supply industry although these suppliers
need not necessarily locate in the SJV.
Perhaps the biggest potential economic impact that a high-speed rail line could
have on the SJV would be its impact on the California state budget. The United
States’ experience with Amtrak and its predecessors, as well as the experience of
foreign countries that have built high-speed rail lines suggest that intercity passenger
rail is almost always a money-losing operation. Although originally envisioned as
a for-profit corporation, Amtrak has failed to achieve a profit or even operational
self-sufficiency. It has continued to rely on annual (and increasing) federal subsidies
to recoup its losses. Likewise, in foreign countries that have built state of the art
high-speed rail infrastructure (namely Japan and France) it is the exception rather
than the norm for a given route to achieve operational self-sufficiency. A huge drain
on government resources has prompted many countries to experiment with new ways
of organizing and financing their intercity railroads in recent years. To generate
sufficient fare revenue to at least cover operating costs (i.e. the cost of running the
trains, not building and maintaining the track), intercity railroads require enough
passengers to run nearly full trains repetitively. Put simply, traffic density is key.
Moreover, the potential to reach sufficient traffic density has a lot to do with factors
external to the railway, such as city landscape, population densities, distances
between cities and their configuration with respect to one another, and the prices of
alternative modes, to name just a few. Rail passenger service can become a
significant drain on public resources, thereby impacting other state programs that also
have a bearing on the economic welfare of the SJV.
The federal government supports high-speed rail development through the
Federal Railroad Administration’s Next Generation High-Speed Rail Research and
Development program. This program supports work on high-speed train control
205 U.S. DOT, FHWA, Talking Freight Seminar Series, “Tying Freight to Economic
Development,” February 18, 2004 and January 19, 2005. An audio recording of this seminar
along with presentations is available at [http://talkingfreight.webex.com].

CRS-271
systems, track and structures technology, corridor planning, grade crossing hazard
mitigation, and high-speed non-electric locomotives. Congress appropriated about
$20 million for this program in FY2005. The FRA has awarded grants to the
California High-Speed Rail Authority through this program for completion of its
environmental impact report and statement which was released in November, 2005.206
2 0 6 A listing of these grants is available on FRA’s website at
[http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/409].

CRS-272
APPENDIX A: Reports and Studies on the SJV:
1980-2005
This appendix of citations is illustrative and by no means exhaustive. For
example, there are hundreds if not thousands of citations in the published research
literature on the ecology, water resources, geology, and air quality that rely on San
Joaquin and/or Central Valley data for their analyses. The citations here are listed
in reverse chronological order.
Water Resources Management and Geomorphology
Hanak, Ellen. 2005. Water for Growth: California’s New Frontier. Public Policy
Institute of California, San Francisco. July.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_705EHR.pdf]
Hanak, Ellen and Antonina Simeti. 2004. Water Supply and Growth in California:
A Survey of City and County Land-Use Planners. Public Policy Institute of
California, San Francisco. Occasional Paper. March.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/OP_304EHOP.pdf]
Hanak, Ellen. 2003. Who Should Be Allowed to Sell Water in California?
Third-Party Issues and the Water Market. Report. Public Policy Institute of
California, San Francisco. July.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_703EHR.pdf]
Hanak, Ellen. 2002. California’s Water Market, By the Numbers. Public Policy
Institute of California, San Francisco.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/OP_1002EHOP.pdf]
Edminster, Robert J. 2002. Streams of the San Joaquin: Valley of the Tules:
Geographic and Ecological Considerations of California’s SJV. Los Banos,
California. Quercus Publications.
California. Department of Water Resources. San Joaquin District. 2002.
Preliminary Westside Groundwater Basin Assessment Report: Integrated Storage
Investigations Conjunctive Water Management Program. Division of Planning and
Local Assistance. Sacramento.
California Department of Water Resources, Division of Flood Management. 1999.
The Hydrology of the 1997 New Year’s Flood, Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins.
Sacramento.
California Department of Water Resources. 1995. San Joaquin River Management
Plan. Report prepared for the Resources Agency by an Advisory Council established
by Assembly Bill 3603, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. Sacramento.
U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Service. 1993. Numerical
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow in the Central Part of the Western SJV.
Washington, D.C., U.S. G.P.O.

CRS-273
California Dept. of Water Resources, San Joaquin District, 1992. Historical
Unconfined Ground Water Trends in the SJV. Sacramento.
U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Service. 1991. The Cenozoic
Evolution of the SJV. Washington, D.C, U.S. G.P.O.
U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Service. 1990. Character and
Evolution of the Ground-Water Flow System in the Central Part of the Western SJV,
California. Report prepared in cooperation with SJV Drainage Program.
Washington, D.C. : U.S. G.P.O.
United States. Bureau of Reclamation. 1990. Emerging Technologies and Research
Needs. Proceedings from the 1989 seminar, Sacramento, California,
November15-16, 1989 / co-sponsored by U.S. Committee on Irrigation and Drainage
and Bureau of Reclamation.
California. Dept. of Water Resources. San Joaquin District. 1989. Ground Water
Study, SJV : Fourth Progress Report. District Report. Fresno.
Davis, George H. and Tyler B. Coplen. 1989. Late Cenozoic Paleohydrogeology
of the Western SJV, California, as Related to Structural Movements in the Central
Coast Ranges. Boulder, Colorado. Geological Society of America.
Dale, Larry L. and Lloyd S. Dixon. 1988. The Impact of Water Supply Reductions
on SJV Agriculture during the 1986-1992 Drought. Santa Monica, CA : Rand
Corporation.

California Dept. of Water Resources, San Joaquin District, 1985. Ground Water
Study, SJV : Third Progress Report. California Department of Water Resources, San
Joaquin District. District Report. Fresno.
U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Service. 1984. Tertiary Stratigraphy
of the Southeastern SJV, California. Washington, D.C : U.S. G.P.O.
California Department of Water Resources, San Joaquin District. 1984. Irrigation
Water Management in the Southern SJV. District Report. Fresno.
U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Service. 1983. The Kern River
Formation, Southeastern SJV, California Washington, D.C : U.S. G.P.O.

California. Dept. of Water Resources. 1982. The Hydrologic-Economic Model of the
SJV. Sacramento.
California Department of Water Resources, San Joaquin District in cooperation with
University of California Cooperative Extension. 1981. Crop Water Use : A Guide for
Scheduling Irrigations in the Southern SJV.
California Dept. of Water Resources, San Joaquin District, 1981. Ground Water
Study, SJV : Second Progress Report. Fresno.

CRS-274
California Department of Water Resources, San Joaquin District and U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1981. Irrigation Water
Management in the Southern SJV. District Report. Fresno
California Department of Water Resources, San Joaquin District. 1980. Ground
Water Study, SJV : First Progress Report. Fresno.
Water Quality
California. Department of Water Resources. San Joaquin District. Division of
Planning and Local Assistance. 2004. Selenium Removal at Adams Avenue
Agricultural Drainage Research Center: Agricultural Drainage Program, Drainage
Treatment, Sacramento.
U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Service. 2003. Evaluation of
Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos Concentrations and Loads, and Other Pesticide
Concentrations, at Selected Sites in the SJV, California, April to August, 2001.
Report prepared in cooperation with the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation. Sacramento.
U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Service. 1998. Nitrate and
Pesticides in Ground Water in the Eastern SJV, California: Occurrence and Trends.
Washington, D.C., U.S. G.P.O.
U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Service. 1997. Calculation of a
Water Budget and Delineation of Contributing Sources to Drainflows in the Western
SJV. Report Prepared in Cooperation with the Panoche Water District and the
California Department of Water Resources.
United States Congress. House. Committee on Natural Resources. Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations. 1994 Agricultural Drainage Issues in the Central
Valley, California: Oversight Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations of the Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives,
One Hundred Third Congress, First Session. Hearing Held in Washington, Dc,
October 26, 1993. Washington, D.C., U.S.G.P.O
U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Service. 1997. Pesticides in Surface
and Ground Water of the San Joaquin-Tulare Basins, California: Analysis of
Available Data, 1966-1992. Report prepared in cooperation with the National
Water-Quality Assessment Program. Washington, D.C., U.S. G.P.O.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1991. Geochemical Relations and Distribution of Selected
Trace Elements in Ground Water of the Northern Part of the Western SJV,
California. Washington, D.C. U.S.G.P.O.
Bradford, David F. 1989. Evaluation of Methods to Minimize Contamination
Hazards to Wildlife Using Agricultural Evaporation Ponds in the SJV, California.
Report prepared for the California Department of Water Resources.

CRS-275
National Research Council. 1989. Committee on Irrigation-Induced Water Quality
Problems. Irrigation-Induced Water Quality Problems: What Can Be Learned from
the SJV Experience? Committee on Irrigation-Induced Water Quality Problems,
Water Science and Technology Board, Commission on Physical Sciences,
Mathematics, and Resources, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.,
National Academy Press.
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources. 1987. Implementations of the
Coordinated Operations Agreement: Implications for Water Quality in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay :Oversight Hearing Before the
Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources of the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundredth Congress, First Session
Hearing Held in Concord, California, April 3, 1987, Washington, D.C., U.S.G.P.O
SJV Drainage Program. Agricultural Water Management Subcommittee. 1987. Farm
Water Management Options for Drainage Reduction. Report Prepared for the SJV
Drainage Program by the Agricultural Water Management Subcommittee. Fresno.
Latey, John. 1986. An Agricultural dilemma : Drainage Water and Toxics Disposal
in the SJV. Oakland, Calif. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
University of California.
United States Congress. House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources. 1985. Agricultural Drainage in the
SJV, California: Oversight Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Water and Power
Resources of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of
Representatives, Ninety-ninth Congress, First Session. Hearing Held in Washington,
Dc, June 4, 1985. Washington, D.C.,U.S.G.P.O.
California Legislature. Assembly. Office of Research. 1985. Agricultural Land
Ownership and Operations in the 49,000 Acre Drainage Study Area of the Westlands
Water District: a Report to the Assembly Office of Research. Sacramento.
California Legislature. Assembly. Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife. 1984.
Joint Hearing of the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee and Senate
Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee on SJV Agricultural Drainage and
Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge, November 16, 1984. Sacramento.
Natural Resources: Ecology
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the SJV,
California. Portland, Oregon Region 1, United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Williams, Daniel F., Sheila Byrne, and Theodore A. Rado (Eds). 1992. Endangered
and Sensitive Species of the SJV, California: Their Biology, Management, and
Conservation. Sacramento: California Energy Commission.

CRS-276
Moyle, Peter B. (Ed). 1982. Distribution and Ecology of Stream Fishes of the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Drainage System. Berkeley, California: University of
California Press.
Labor and Employment
Deborah Reed. 2004. Women, Work, and Family in California. Report. Public
Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, November.
[Http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cc_1104drcc.pdf]
Rhode, Paul W. 2001. The Evolution of California Manufacturing. Report. Public
Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, October.
[Http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/r_1001prr.pdf]
Californian Department of Employment Development. 1992. Agricultural
Employment Pattern Study. SJV, North Coast, Sacramento Valley, Central Coast,
South Coast, Desert. Sacramento. Labor Market Information Division. Special
Projects Unit.
Shimamoto, Chiyo Mitori. 1990. To the Land of Bright Promise: The Story of a
Pioneer Japanese Truck Farming F.amily in California’s San Joaquin Valley. Lodi,
California, San Joaquin County Historical Society & Museum.
Poverty and Income
Reed, Deborah. 2004. California Counts: Recent Trends in Income and Poverty.
Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, February.
[Http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cc_204drcc.pdf]
Mysyk, Avis. 2002. Cycles of Deepening Poverty in Rural California : the SJV
Towns of Mcfarland and Farmersville. In Jill L. Findeis (Ed)., the Dynamics of
Hired Farm Labor: Constraints and Community Responses. New York, CABI
Publications.
Public Policy Institute of California. 2002. Welfare and Poverty Trends in California.
San Francisco, April.
[Http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/op_402xxop.pdf]
Reed, Deborah. 2002. Poverty in California. Public Policy Institute of California,
San Francisco, December.
[Http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/op_1202drop.pdf]
Reed, Deborah and Richard Van Swearingen. 2001. Poverty in California: Levels,
Trends, and Demographic Dimensions. Public Policy Institute of California, San
Francisco, November.
[Http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cc_1101drcc.pdf]

CRS-277
MaCurdy, Thomas, David Mancuso, and Margaret O’Brien-Strain. 2000. The Rise
and Fall of California’s Welfare Caseload: Types and Regions, 1980-1999. June.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_600TMR.pdf]
Population and Demography
Johnson, Hans P. and Joseph M. Hayes. 2004. The Central Valley at a Crossroads:
Migration and Its Implications. Report. Public Policy Institute of California, San
Francisco, November.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_1104HJR.pdf]
Hill, Laura E. 2004. The Socioeconomic Well-Being of California’s Immigrant
Youth. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, July.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_704LHR.pdf]
Public Policy Institute of California. 2004. How Is Migration Changing the Central
Valley? San Francisco,
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/RB_1104HJRB.pdf]
Public Policy Institute of California. 2004. How Are Immigrant Youth Faring in
California? San Francisco, July.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/RB_704LHRB.pdf]
Hill, Laura E., Hans P. Johnson, and Sonya M. Tafoya. 2004 California’s Multiracial
Population. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, August.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/CC_804LHCC.pdf]
Public Policy Institute of California.2004. California’s Central Valley. San
Francisco, November.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/JTF_CentralValleyJTF.pdf]
Johnson, Hans P. and Joseph M. Hayes. 2003. California Counts: California’s
Newest Neighborhoods. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco,
August.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/CC_803HJCC.pdf]
Hill, Laura E. and Joseph M. Hayes. 2003. California’s Newest Immigrants. Public
Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, November.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/CC_1103LHCC.pdf]
Johnson, Hans P. 2003. California’s Demographic Future. Public Policy Institute
of California, San Francisco, December.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/OP_1203HJOP.pdf]
Johnson, Hans P. 2003. Maternity Before Maturity: Teen Birth Rates in California.
California Counts. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, February.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/CC_203HJCC.pdf]

CRS-278
Johnson, Hans P. 2002. California Counts: A State of Diversity: Demographic
Trends in California’s Regions. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco,
May.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/CC_502HJCC.pdf]
Hill, Laura E. and Hans P. Johnson. 2002. Understanding the Future of Californians’
Fertility: The Role of Immigrants. Public Policy Institute of California, San
Francisco, April.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_402LHR.pdf]
Public Policy Institute of California. 2002. San Francisco, Immigrants in California.
July.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/JTF_ImmigrantsJTF.pdf]
Sandoval, Juan Onésimo, Hans P. Johnson, and Sonya M..Tafoya. 2002. Who’s
Your Neighbor? Residential Segregation and Diversity in California. Public Policy
Institute of California, San Francisco, August.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/CC_802JSCC.pdf]
Reed, Deborah and Amanda Bailey. 2002. California Counts: California’s Young
Children: Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions. Public Policy Institute
of California, San Francisco, November.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/CC_1102DRCC.pdf]
Johnson, Hans P. 2001. The Demography of California Immigrants. Public Policy
Institute of California, San Francisco, Occasional Paper. March.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/OP_301HJOP.pdf]
Johnson, Hans P., Belinda I. Reyes, Laura Mameesh, and Elisa Barbour. 1999.
Taking the Oath: An Analysis of Naturalization in California and the United States.
Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, September.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_999HJR.pdf]
Yoshino Tajiri Hasegawa and Keith Boettcher (eds.). 1980. Success Through
Perseverance : Japanese-Americans in the SJV. Japanese-American Project, SJV
Library System, Japanese-American Project. Fresno, CA
Ybarra, Lea and Alex Saragoza. 1980. Nuestras Raices: The Mexican Community
in the Central SJV. TEACH Project, La Raza Studies, California State University,
Fresno.
Economic Growth and Development
Teitz, Michael B., Charles Dietzel, and William Fulton. 2005. Urban Development
Futures in the SJV. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, February.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_205MTR.pdf]
Shatz, Howard J. and Luis Felipe López-Calva. 2004. The Emerging Integration of
the California-Mexico Economies. Public Policy Institute of California, San
Francisco, August. [http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_804HSR.pdf]

CRS-279
Johnson, Hans P., Rosa M. Moller, and Michael Dardia. 2004. In Short Supply?
Cycles and Trends in California Housing. Public Policy Institute of California, San
Francisco, March.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_304HJR.pdf]
Dowall, David E. and Jan Whittington. 2003. Making Room for the Future:
Rebuilding California’s Infrastructure. Report. March.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_303DDR.pdf]
Lewis, Paul G. and Max Neiman. 2002. Cities Under Pressure: Local Growth
Controls and Residential Development Policy. Report. Public Policy Institute of
California, San Francisco, January.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_102PLR.pdf]
Barbour, Elisa. 2002. Metropolitan Growth Planning in California, 1900-2000.
Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, December.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_1202EBR.pdf]

Lewis, Paul G. and Max Neiman. 2000. Residential Development and Growth
Control Policies: Survey Results from Cities in Three California Regions. Public
Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, Occasional Paper. July.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/OP_700PLOP.pdf]
Orfield, Myron. 2000. Central Valley Metropatterns: Regional Challenges in
California’s Central Valley. A Report of the Metropolitan Area Research
Corporation and the Great Valley Center. Minneapolis, MN and Modesto,

Lewis, Paul G. and Mary Sprague. 1997. Federal Transportation Policy and the Role
of Metropolitan Planning Organizations in California. Report. Public Policy Institute
of California, San Francisco, April.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_497PLR.pdf]
Education and Training
Reed, Deborah, Laura E. Hill, Christopher Jepsen, and Hans P. Johnson. 2005.
Educational Progress Across Immigrant Generations in California. Public Policy
Institute of California, San Francisco. September.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_905DRR.pdf]
Gill, Andrew M. and Duane E. Leigh. 2004. Evaluating Academic Programs in
California’s Community Colleges. Public Policy Institute of California, San
Francisco, August.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_804AGR.pdf]

Danenberg, Anne, Christopher Jepsen, and Pedro Cerdán. 2002. Student and School
Indicators for Youth in California’s Central Valley. Report. Public Policy Institute
of California, San Francisco, September.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_902CJR.pdf]

CRS-280
Public Policy Institute of California. 2002. Students, Teachers, and Schools in
California’s Central Valley. San Francisco, Research Brief. September.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/RB_902CJRB.pdf]
Tafoya, Sonya M. 2002. The Linguistic Landscape of California Schools. Public
Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, February.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/CC_202STCC.pdf]
Socioeconomic Surveys of Central Valley Residents
Baldassare, Mark. 2004. PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey of the Central
Valley. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, April.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/S_404MBS.pdf]
Baldassare, Mark. 2004. PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey on Californians and
the Environment. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, July.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/S_704MBS.pdf]
Baldassare. 2003. PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey on Californians and the
Environment. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, July.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/S_703MBS.pdf]
Baldassare, Mark. 2003. PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey of the Central
Valley. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, April.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/S_403MBS.pdf]
Baldassare, Mark. 2002. PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey of the Central
Valley. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, April.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/S_402MBS.pdf]
Baldassare, Mark. 2001. PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey of the Central
Valley. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, March.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/S_301MBS.pdf]
Baldassare, Mark. 1999. PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey of the Central
Valley. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, November.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/S_1199MBS.pdf]
Agriculture in California and the San Joaquin/Central Valley
California Agricultural Statistics Service. Summary of County Agricultural
Commissioners’ Reports. Annual.
Arax, Mark and Rick Wartzman. 2003. The King of California : J.G. Boswell and
the making of a secret American empire. New York : Public Affairs.
Worcester, Donald. 1985. Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity and Growth of the
American West. New York: Pantheon Books.

CRS-281
American Farmland Trust. 1985. Eroding Choices, Emerging Issues: The Condition
of California’s Agricultural Land Resources. San Francisco.
Pisani, Donald J. 1984. From Family Farm to Agribusiness: The Irrigation Crusade
in California and the West, 1850-1931, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
Stein, Walter J. 1983. California and the Dust Bowl Migration. Westport, CT. and
London: Greenwood Press.
Scheuring, Anne Foley(ed.). 1983. A Guidebook to California Agriculture, Berkeley
and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Liebman, Ellen. 1983. California Farmland: A History of Large Agricultural
Holdings, Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allenheld.
Preston, William. 1981. Vanishing Landscapes: Land and Life in the Tulare Lake
Basin, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA : University of California Press.
Villarejo, Don. 1981. Getting Bigger: Large-scale Farming in California. Institute
for Rural Studies,. Davis.
McWilliams, Carye. 1971. Factories in the Field. Santa Barbara: Peregrine Smith,
(originally published 1935).
Goldschmidt, Walter. 1978. As You Sow: Three Studies of the Social Consequences
of Agribusiness, Montclair, NJ: Allenheld Osmun. (originally published in1947).
Publications of the Center for Public Policy Studies,
California State University-Stanislaus
MacDonald, Susan, (name redacted) and Ken Entin. 2002. Visioning Progress: A
Changing Stanislaus County. Center for Public Policy Studies, California State
University-Stanislaus, Turlock.
[http://www.csustan.edu/cpps/publications/Indicators.pdf]
Entin, Kenneth, Michael Schmandt, (name redacted), Stacie Bradford, Kelvin
Jasek-Rysdahl and Margaret Tynan. 2002. Getting To Work: An Assessment of the
Mobility and Transportation Needs of Stan WORKS WtW Customers. Center for
Public Policy Studies, California State University-Stanislaus, Turlock.
[http://www.csustan.edu/cpps/publications/Mobility%20Study.pdf]
Hughes, Steven, Kelvin Jasek-Rysdahl, and Judith J. Hendricks. 2000. Mobilizing
Resources for Healthy Communities and Neighborhoods. Center for Public Policy
Studies, California State University-Stanislaus, Turlock.
[http://www.csustan.edu/cpps/publications/MobilResources.pdf]

CRS-282
Hughes, Steve, Kenneth Entin, and Kelvin Jasek-Rysdahl. 2000. Welfare and Work
in Merced County: Perspectives and Assessments. Center for Public Policy Studies,
California State University-Stanislaus, Turlock.
[http://www.csustan.edu/cpps/publications/WelfareandWork.pdf]
Jasek-Rysdahl, Kelvin. 2000. Roots of Performance: An Examination of Merced
County’s Economic Base. Center for Public Policy Studies, California State
University-Stanislaus, Turlock.
[http://www.csustan.edu/cpps/publications/ROOTS.pdf]
Entin, Kenneth, Steve Hughes, Kelvin Jasek-Rysdahl, Margaret Tynan, Randall
Harris, and Michael Schmandt. 2000. Strategic Choices: Creating Opportunity in
Merced County. Center for Public Policy Studies, California State University-
Stanislaus, Turlock.
[http://www.csustan.edu/cpps/publications/Strategic%20Choices.pdf]
Entin, Kenneth and Kelvin Jasek-Rysdahl. 1999. Agriculture: The Engine of Our
Economy. Center for Public Policy Studies, California State University-Stanislaus,
Turlock.
[http://www.csustan.edu/cpps/publications/AGengine.PDF]
Jasek-Rysdahl, Kelvin. 1999. A Job Is Not a Job: An Input-Output Analysis of the
Stanislaus County Economy. Center for Public Policy Studies, California State
University-Stanislaus, Turlock.

Entin, Kenneth, Kelvin Jasek-Rysdahl, (name redacted), Nael Aly, Paul O’Brien, John
Sumser, Randall Harris, Michael Schmandt, and Larry Giventer, 1998. Critical Links:
Employment Growth, Unemployment and Welfare-to-Work in Stanislaus County.
Center for Public Policy Studies, California State University-Stanislaus, Turlock.
[http://www.csustan.edu/cpps/publications/CRITLINK.pdf]
Hughes, Steven, Kenneth Entin, Paul O’Brien, John Sumser, Kelvin Jasek-Rysdahl,
Julie Smulson. 1998. Stanislaus County Employer Survey: Perspectives and
Assessments. Center for Public Policy Studies, California State University-
Stanislaus, Turlock.
[http://www.csustan.edu/cpps/publications/Employer.pdf]
Hughes, Steven, Kelvin Jasek-Rysdahl, John Sumser, Julie Smulson 1998.
Workforce Preparation for the 21st Century: A Survey of Employer Needs in
Stanislaus County. Center for Public Policy Studies, California State University-
Stanislaus, Turlock.
[http://www.csustan.edu/cpps/publications/Workforce.pdf]
Jasek-Rysdahl, Kelvin. 1998. Study of the Impact of New Firms and Firm Expansion
on the Stanislaus County Economy. Center for Public Policy Studies, California
State University-Stanislaus, Turlock.

CRS-283
Morgan, Stephen, Robert Fisk, Paul O’Brien, Elaine Peterson. 1998. Emergency
Response: Stanislaus County Emergency Medical Services. Center for Public Policy
Studies, California State University-Stanislaus, Turlock.
[http://www.csustan.edu/cpps/publications/EMS.pdf]
Hughes, Steven, Kenneth Entin, Paul O’Brien, John Sumser. 1998. Getting Back to
Work: A Survey of the Unemployed, Welfare Recipients, and Service Providers in
Stanislaus County. Center for Public Policy Studies, California State University-
Stanislaus, Turlock.
[http://www.csustan.edu/cpps/publications/Back2wk.pdf]
Public Finance
Ransdell, Tim. 2004. Factors Determining California’s Share of Federal Formula
Grants, Second Edition. February.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/FF_204TRFF.pdf]
Gordon, Tracy and Fred Silva. 2003. Understanding California’s Property Tax Roll:
Regions, Property Types, and Sale Years. Occasional Paper. September.
[http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/OP_903TGOP.pdf]
Great Valley Center Publications
While this organization is concerned with the entire California Central Valley,
many of its analyses focus specifically on the SJV. Reports are listed in reverse
chronological order. The following is not an exhaustive list of the Center’s
publications. All of the following reports are available for downloading in PDF at
[http://www.greatvalley.org/publications/]
Corridor of Opportunity: Highway 99 as a Catalyst for Economic and Community
Progress. March 2005.
The State of the Great Central Valley: Assessing the Region Via Indicators - The
Economy (2005). January 2005.
Great Valley Rural Telecommunications: Designing Regulatory, Economic and
Policy Recommendations for Rural Highspeed Access. January 2004.
The Entrepreneurial Sacramento Valley: Regional Economic Development Impacts
and Implications. October 2004
Ethanol in California: A Feasibility Framework. May 2004.
State of the Great Central Valley: Assessing the Region via Indicators - Education
and Youth Preparedness. February 2004.
Population Projections for the SJV by County (2000-2050). January 2004.

CRS-284
Good Medicine: Making Healthcare an Economic Priority for the SJV. December
2003.
Job Creation: Enhancing Opportunities with New Technologies. December 2003.
Renewable Energy: Strategic Opportunities for the Great Central Valley. March
2003.
ACCESS I - Connecting the SJV: Advanced Communications Connectivity for
E-Commerce Strategic Success. September 2002.
Student and School Indicators for Youth in California’s Central Valley. September
2002
Connecting Madera County: Assessing Our Readiness for the Networked World.
May 2002.
Statistical Abstract of the SJV: Selected Statistics on Population, Economy and
Environment. May 2002.
Connecting San Joaquin County: Assessing Our Readiness for the Networked World.
April 2002. State of the Great Central Valley: Assessing the Region via Indicators
- Community Well-Being March 2002.
Connecting Tulare County: Assessing Our Readiness for the Networked World.
February 2002
Connecting Fresno County: Assessing Our Readiness for the Networked World.
January 2002
Connecting Kings County: Assessing Our Readiness for the Networked World.
January 2002.
Connecting Mariposa County: Assessing Our Readiness for the Networked World.
January 2002.
Connecting Merced County: Assessing Our Readiness for the Networked World.
January 2002.
Can City and Farm Coexist? The Agricultural Buffer Experience in California.
January 2002.
Out of Sight Out of Mind: Central SJV Delinquents and the California Youth
Authority. September 2001.
Connecting Kern County: Assessing Our Readiness for the Networked World. July
2001.
State of the Great Central Valley: Assessing the Region via Indicators - The
Environment April 2001.

CRS-285
Agriculture and New Housing. January 2001.
Connecting Stanislaus County: Assessing Our Readiness for the Networked World.
December 2000.
Producing A Competitive Advantage: Agri-Tech in the SJV. December 2000.
Central Valley Metropatterns: Regional Challenges in California’s Central Valley.
May 2000.
Connecting to Compete in the New Economy. May 2000.
Bridging the Digital Divide in the SJV: The Digital Divide Education Project of New
Valley Connexions. March 2000
Economic Future of the SJV: Growing a Prosperous Economy That Benefits People
and Place. January 2000.
State of the Great Central Valley: Assessing the Region via Indicators - Supporting
the Economic, Social, and Environmental Wee-Being of California’s Great Central
Valley. July 1999.
Agricultural Land Conservation in the Great Central Valley. October 1998.
A Landscape of Choice: Strategies for Improving Community Patterns of Growth.
April 1998

CRS-286
APPENDIX B: Data Sources
Air Quality: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Management Program, U.S.
Department of Transportation: [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqpgs/]
Employment and Wages: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
[http://stats.bls.gov/cew/home.htm]
Agricultural Production: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural
Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture: [http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/]

Social Data: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact
Finder: [http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en]
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980-2000 Census of
Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
1983. [http://www.census.gov]

CRS-287
APPENDIX C: San Joaquin Valley Governments and
Institutes
Fresno County
County Seat: Fresno
County Information: 1110 Van Ness, Fresno 93721.
Telephone: (209)488-3033
Fax: (209)488-3279
County Government Website: [http://www.co.fresno.ca.us]
Kern County
County Seat: Bakersfield
County Information: 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield 93301.
Telephone: (661)868-3140 or (800)552-5376
Fax: (661)868-3190
County Government Website: [http://www.co.kern.ca.us]
Kings County
County Seat: Hanford
County Information: Kings Government Center, 1400 West Lacey Boulevard,
Hanford 93230
Telephone: (209)582-3211
Fax: (209)583-1854
County Government Website: [http://www.countyofkings.com]
Madera County
County Seat: Madera
County Information: 209 West Yosemite Avenue, Madera 93637
Telephone: (209)675-7703 Administration Office; (209)675-7700 Board of
Supervisors
Fax: (209)673-3302
County Government Website: [http://www.madera-county.com]

Merced County
County Seat: Merced
County Information: 2222 M Street, Merced 95340
Telephone: (209)385-7434
Fax: (209)385-7375
County Government Website: [http://www.co.merced.ca.us]

Mariposa County
County Seat: Mariposa
County Information: Hall of Records, 4582 10th Street, Mariposa 95338
Telephone: (209)966-2007
Fax: (209)966-6496
County Government Website: [http://www.mariposacounty.or]

CRS-288
San Joaquin County
County Seat: Stockton
County Information: 222 East Weber Avenue, Room 704, Stockton 95202
Telephone: (209)468-3417
Fax: (209)468-3694
County Government Website: [http://www.co.san-joaquin.ca.us]
Stanislaus County
County Seat: Modesto
County Information: , Modesto
Telephone: (209)525-6333
Fax: (209)521-0692
County Government Website: [http://www.co.stanislaus.ca.us]
Tulare County
County Seat: Visalia
County Information: 2800 Burrel Avenue, Visalia 93291-4582
Telephone: (209)733-6531
Fax: (209)730-2621
County Government Website: [http://www.co.tulare.ca.us]
Tuolumne County
County Seat: Sonora
County Information: 2 South Green Street, Sonora 95370
Telephone: (209)533-5511
Fax: (209)533-5510
County Government Website: None available
Public Policy Analysis Groups
Public Policy Institute of California
500 Washington Street
San Francisco, CA 94011
Telephone: (415)291- 4400
Fax: (415)291- 4401
Website: [http://www.ppic.org]
Great Valley Center
911 13th Street
Modesto, CA
Telephone: (209)522-5103
Fax: (209)522-5116
Website: [http://www.greatvalley.org]

CRS-289
Center for Public Policy Studies
California State-Stanislaus
801 West Monte Vista Avenue
Turlock, California 95382
Telephone: [redacted]
Fax: [redacted]
Website: [http://www.csustan.edu/cpps/]

CRS-290
APPENDIX D: Central Appalachian Counties As
Defined by USDA’s Economic Research Service
Kentucky
Adair, Allen, Bell, Breathitt, Boyd (metro), Carter (metro), Clay, Clinton,
Christian(metro), Cumberland, Elliott, Estill, Floyd, Greenup (metro), Harlan,
Jackson, Johnson, Knott, Knox, Laurel, Lawrence, Lee, Leslie, Letcher, Lewis,
Lincoln, McCreary, Magoffin, Martin, Menifee, Monroe, Morgan, Owsley, Perry,
Pike, Powell, Pulaski, Rockcastle, Rowan, Russell, Wayne, Whitley, Wolfe.
Tennessee
Anderson (metro), Campbell, Claiborne, Cumberland, Fentress, Hancock,
Morgan, Scott, Van Buren.
Virginia
Buchanan, Dickenson, Lee, Russell, Scott(metro), Tazewell, Wise.
West Virginia
Lincoln, Logan, McDowell, Mercer, Mingo, Monroe, Raleigh, Summers,
Wyoming.

CRS-291
APPENDIX E: Counties of the Tennessee Valley
Authority
Alabama
Cherokee, Colbert, Cullman, DeKalb, Franklin, Jackson, Lauderdale, Lawrence,
Limestone, Madison, Marshall, Morgan, and Winston.
Georgia
Catoosa, Chattooga, Dade, Fannin, Gordon, Murray, Towns, Union, Walker, and
Whitfield.
Kentucky
Allen, Barren, Butler, Caldwell, Calloway, Carlisle, Christian, Cumberland,
Edmondson, Fulton, Graves, Grayson, Hickman, Lyon, Logan, Marshall,
McCracken, Metcalfe, Monroe, Muhlenberg, Ohio, Todd, Trigg, Simpson, and
Warren.
Mississippi
Alcorn, Attala, Benton, Calhoun, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Clay, De Soto, Grenada,
Itawamba, Kemper, Lafayette, Leake, Lee, Lowndes, Marshall, Monroe, Neshoba,
Newton, Noxubee, Oktibbeha, Pontotoc, Panola, Prentiss, Quitman, Rankin,
Scott, Tallahatchie, Tate, Tippah, Tishomingo, Tunica, Union, Webster, Winston,
and Yalobusha.
North Carolina
Avery, Burke, Cherokee, Clay, and Watauga.
Tennessee
Anderson, Bedford, Benton, Bledsoe, Blount, Bradley, Cannon, Campbell Carroll,
Carter, Cheatham, Chester, Claiborne, Clay, Cocke, Coffee, Cumberland,
Davidson, Crockett, Decatur, DeKalb, Dickson, Dyer, Fayette, Fentress, Franklin,
Gibson, Giles, Greene, Grainger, Grundy Hamblen, Hamilton, Hancock,
Hardeman, Hawkins, Haywood, Hardin, Henderson, Henry, Hickman, Houston,
Humphreys, Jackson, Jefferson, Knox, Lake, Lauderdale, Lawrence, Lewis,
Lincoln, Loudon, Macon, Madison, Marion, Marshall, Maury, McMinn, McNairy,
Meigs, Monroe, Montgomery, Moore, Morgan, Obion, Overton, Perry, Pickett,
Polk, Putnam, Rhea, Roane, Robertson, Rutherford, Scott, Sequatchie, Sevier,
Shelby, Smith, Stewart, Sullivan, Sumner, Tipton, Trousdale, Union, Unicoi, Van
Buren, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Weakley, White, Williamson, and Wilson.
Virginia
Lee, Washington, and Wise.

CRS-292
APPENDIX F: Federal Direct Expenditures and
Obligations by Individual Program and San Joaquin
Valley County
Table 111. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for
Fresno County, FY2003
County Summary
Amount in Dollars
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations
4,074,176,353
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals
1,372,950,287
Other Direct Payments for Individuals
686,344,573
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals
84,321,698
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
1,139,360,214
Procurement Contracts
251,681,526
Salaries and Wages
539,518,055
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations — Defense
210,314,708
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations — Non-Defense
3,863,861,645
Other Federal Assistance*
Direct Loans
403,474,275
Guaranteed/Insured Loans
489,500,081
Insurance
723,234,554
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals
Livestock Compensation Program
3,152,709
Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Program
521,139
Coal Mine Workers’ Compensation
43,477
Federal Employees Compensation
7,165,250
Social Insurance for Railroad Workers
14,478,614
Social Insurance for RR Workers - Unemployment & Sickness
Benefits
152,126
Compensation for Service-connected Deaths for Veterans’ Dependents
1,544
Pension for Non-service-connected Disability for Veterans
5,975,715

CRS-293
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Pension to Veterans Surviving Spouses and Children
1,327,950
Veterans Compensation for Service-connected Disability
37,444,081
Veterans Dependency & Indemnity Compensation for SVC-connected
Death
6,504,995
Pension Plan Termination Insurance
644,331
Social Security Disability Insurance
146,079,494
Social Security Retirement Insurance
637,215,795
Social Security Survivors Insurance
214,895,268
Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners (Black Lung)
73,814
Supplemental Security Income
162,764,740
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Military
40,883,000
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Civilian
92,431,658
Retirement and Disability Payments-coast Guard/Uniformed
Employees
738,276
Retirement and Disability Payments — Foreign Service Officers
315,946
Retirement and Disability Payments — NOAA Commissioned Officer
Corps
22,916
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Public Health Service
117,449
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals Total
1,372,950,287
Other Direct Payments for Individuals
Rural Rental Assistance Payments
2,537,209
Food Stamps
74,795,246
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
395,226
Rent Supplements Rental Housing for Lower Income Families
52,986
Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled Veterans
74,907
Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans
230,525
Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance
544,585
Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance
969
All Volunteer Force Educational Assistance
3,327,534
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants
2,386,858
Federal Work Study Program
4,100,920
Federal Perkins Loan Program-federal Capital Contributions
340,644
Federal Pell Grant Program
68,077,807

CRS-294
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Medicare-hospital Insurance
261,745,749
Medicare-supplementary Medical Insurance
267,733,408
Other Direct Payments for Individuals Total
686,344,573
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals
Commodity Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments
150,966
Dairy Indemnity Programs
5,309,613
Production Flexibility Payments for Contract Commodities
26,359,170
Crop Insurance
35,626,022
Market Access Program
6,626,266
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program
6,750
Lamb Meat Adjustment Assistance Program
62,881
Public and Indian Housing
4,589,686
Public Housing Drug Elimination Program
292,128
Consolidated Tribal Government Program
173,601
Indian Self-determination Contract Support
59,987
Services to Indian Children, Elderly and Families
50,000
Refugee and Entrant Assistance-State Administered Program
491,487
Flood Insurance
21,219
U.S. Postal Service — other Expenditures
(Non-salary/non-procurement)
1,847,851
Legal Services Corporation Payments
2,654,071
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals Total
84,321,698
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
Agricultural Research-Basic and Applied Research
116,582
Plant and Animal Disease, Pest Control and Animal Care
1,300,122
Crop Disaster Program
847,850
Hispanic Serving Institutions Education Grants
299,822
Community Food Projects Program
200,000
Very Low-Income Housing Repair Loans and Grants
71,500
Rural Housing Preservation Grants
100,000
Housing Application Packaging Grants
15,000

CRS-295
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers &
Ranchers
100,000
Direct Housing-Natural Disaster Loans and Grants
7,500
National School Lunch Program
42,453,698
Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children
31,143,892
Emerging Markets Program
331,300
Water and Waste Disposal System for Rural Communities
3,087,000
Community Facilities Loans and Grants
81,922
Rural Business Enterprise Grants
140,217
Quality Samples Program
50,000
Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops
561,025
Grants for Public Works & Economic Development Facilities
1,886,000
Economic Development-Technical Assistance
110,000
Educational Partnership Program
299,646
Public Telecommunications Facilities - Planning and Construction
60,000
Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants
13,247,738
Emergency Shelter Grants Program
708,827
Shelter plus Care
90,443
Home Investment Partnerships Program
2,565,756
Opportunities for Youth-Youthbuild Program
98,764
Rural Housing and Economic Development
172,254
Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) Private Enforcement
Initiative
70,000
Indian Community Development Block Grant Program
574,550
Demolition and Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing
42,023
Indian Housing Block Grants
1,244,450
Resident Opportunity and Supportive Services
114,120
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
56,145,400
Public Housing Capital Funds
2,148,005
Recreation Resource Management
5,000
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Facilities
308,000
San Luis Unit, Central Valley Project
40,670

CRS-296
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Central Valley Project Improvement Act-Title XXXIV Pub. L.
102-575
331,657
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Pub. L. 85-624
22,000
Wildlife Management (Other than Sikes Act)
5,000
Soil, Water, and Air Resources
60,000
Cooperative Ecosystem System Studies Unit Awards
30,000
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
14,782
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Special Emphasis
99,350
Gang-free Schools and Communities-community Based Gang
Intervention
102,786
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program
1,031,140
Executive Office for Weed and Seed
800,000
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
737,301
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program
37,490
Community Prosecution and Project Safe Neighborhoods
400,000
Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Grants
-287,329
Drug-Free Communities Support Program Grants
100,000
Airport Improvement Program
14,043,599
Highway Planning and Construction
84,874,626
Federal Transit Formula Grants
8,595,525
Low-income Taxpayer Clinics
60,000
Labor Management Cooperation
70,801
Promotion of the Arts-Grants to Organizations and Individuals
116,000
Promotion of the Arts-Leadership Initiatives
50,000
Promotion of the Arts-Challenge America Grants
25,000
IMLS National Leadership Grants
894,150
Geosciences
198,106
Education and Human Resources
54,000
Microloan Demonstration Program
192,646
Air Pollution Control Program Support
1,992,920
Surveys, Studies Investigations & Special Purpose Relating Clean Air
Act
232,650
Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment Works
454,700

CRS-297
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Water Pollution Control-state and Interstate Program Support
100,000
Nonpoint Source Implementation Grants
30,000
Training and Fellowships for the Environmental Protection Agency
41,500
Indian Environmental General Assistance Program
273,437
Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies
50,847,823
Special Education-Grants to States
25,892,749
Higher Education-Institutional Aid
2,685,470
Impact Aid
177,288
Trio-Student Support Services
1,005,344
Trio-Talent Search
673,757
Trio-Upward Bound
1,677,249
Indian Education-Grants to Local Educational Agencies
307,031
Trio-Educational Opportunity Centers
319,014
Rehabilitation Long-Term Training
200,000
Centers for Independent Living
272,760
Migrant Education - High School Equivalency Program
515,250
Migrant Education Program-College Assistance Migrant Program
899,003
Business and International Education Projects
164,400
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities-National Programs
3,317,047
Bilingual Education-Professional Development
696,939
Fund for the Improvement of Education
2,581,559
Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement
262,797
Rehabilitation Services Demonstration & Training-Special Demo
Programs
100,000
Rehabilitation Training-Experimental and Innovative Training
100,000
21st Century Community Learning Centers
1,735,915
Bilingual Education Development & Implementation Grants
168,408
Foreign Language Assistance
172,931
Parental Assistance Centers
593,941
Special Education-Parent Information Centers
181,235
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs
1,193,874
Arts in Education
250,000

CRS-298
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Rural Education Achievement Program
275,799
Literacy Through School Libraries
118,586
Aids Education and Training Centers
600,000
Coordinated Services & Access to Research for Women Infants
Children
435,047
Community Health Centers
5,410,003
Indian Health Services Health Management Development Program
421,136
Mental Health Research Grants
357,131
Health Centers Grants for Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers
5,481,209
Community Access Program
978,140
Mental Health National Research Service Awards for Research
Training
209,139
Advanced Education Nursing Traineeships
38,839
Minority Biomedical Research Support
437,782
Education & Prevention to Reduce Sexual Abuse of Runaway
Homeless and Street Youth
100,000
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
128,443,971
Child Support Enforcement
18,588,953
Low Income Home Energy Assistance
3,316,485
CSBG Discretionary Awards-community Food and Nutrition
50,000
Head Start
27,940,471
Runaway and Homeless Youth
135,000
Social Services Block Grant
4,233,902
State Children’s Insurance Program (CHIP)
26,990,435
State Survey and Certification of Health Care Providers and Suppliers
1,076,829
Medical Assistance Program
528,606,518
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism Research
552,720
Scholarships Health Professions Students Disadvantaged Background
110,613
Healthy Start Initiative
1,399,566
Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse
6,623,594
Special Minority Initiatives
100,000
Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP)
182,596
Foster Grandparent Program
360,629

CRS-299
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Senior Companion Program
737,508
Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program
1,012,464
Assistance to Firefighters Grant
420,452
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
Total
1,139,360,214
Procurement Contracts
Procurement Contracts — Dept. of Defense
119,790,708
Procurement Contracts — All Fed Govt Agencies Other than Defense
& USPS
100,732,851
Procurement Contracts — U.S. Postal Service
31,157,967
Procurement Contracts Total
251,681,526
Salaries and Wages
Salaries and Wages — Dept. of Defense (Active Military Employees)
5,233,000
Salaries and Wages — Dept. of Defense (Inactive Military Employees)
30,890,000
Salaries and Wages — Dept. of Defense (Civilian Employees)
13,518,000
Salaries and Wages — All Fed Govt Civilian Emp Except Defense &
USPS
374,682,338
Salaries and Wages — U.S. Postal Service
115,041,293
Salaries and Wages — U.S. Coast Guard (Uniformed Employees)
153,424
Salaries and Wages Total
539,518,055
Direct Loans
Commodity Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments
377,981,399
Emergency Loans
270,420
Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants
846,080
Farm Operating Loans
255,000
Farm Ownership Loans
375,000
Very Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans
3,121,625
Very Low-income Housing Repair Loans and Grants
3,121,625
Water and Waste Disposal System for Rural Communities
1,058,500
Intermediary Relending Program
750,000
Federal Direct Student Loans
18,816,250
Direct Loans Total
406,595,899

CRS-300
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Guaranteed/Insured Loans
Farm Operating Loans
968,580
Farm Ownership Loans
3,080,500
Very Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans
679,900
Business and Industry Loans
2,497,000
Rehabilitation Mortgage Insurance
992,322
Mortgage Insurance Homes
407,112,411
Mortgage Insurance Purchase of Units in Condominiums
1,895,712
Property Improvement Loan Insurance for Improving Existing
Structure
214,087
Small Business Loans
30,084,989
Certified Development Company Loans (504 Loans)
19,372,000
Veterans Housing Guaranteed and Insured Loans
22,602,580
Guaranteed/Insured Loans Total
489,500,081
Insurance
Crop Insurance
478,365,700
Bond Guarantees for Surety Companies
999,455
Flood Insurance
243,869,399
Insurance Total
723,234,554
Source: Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2003. U.S. Census Bureau, Governments
Division, Federal Programs Branch. September, 2004.
* Other federal assistance includes direct and guaranteed loans and insurance programs. These
programs are considered “contingent liabilities” of the federal government and are not
necessarily direct expenditures or obligations. Only when a loan is in default or an insurance
payment is made is there a federal obligation, i.e., a payment. When that occurs, those payments
are counted within “direct expenditures and obligations.”

CRS-301
Table 112. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for
Kern County, FY2003
County Summary
Amount in Dollars
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations
3,856,032,890
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals
1,249,311,839
Other Direct Payments for Individuals
686,720,853
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals
49,556,643
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
768,614,402
Procurement Contracts
401,096,196
Salaries and Wages
700,732,957
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations - Defense
849,866,064
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations - Non-Defense
3,006,166,826
Other Federal Assistance*
Direct Loans
311,530,161
Guaranteed/Insured Loans
702,041,520
Insurance
822,248,836
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals
Livestock Compensation Program
2,613,645
Coal Mine Workers’ Compensation
83,694
Federal Employees Compensation
9,596,537
Social Insurance for Railroad Workers
19,734,579
Social Insurance for RR Workers - Unemployment & Sickness
354,264
Benefits
Compensation for Service-Connected Deaths for Veterans’
1,698
Dependents
Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans
5,539,603
Pension to Veterans Surviving Spouses and Children
1,228,626
Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability
37,533,941
Veterans Dependency & Indemnity Compensation for Service-
6,378,586
Connected Death
Pension Plan Termination Insurance
645,363
Social Security Disability Insurance
179,157,371

CRS-302
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Social Security Retirement Insurance
522,106,273
Social Security Survivors Insurance
186,299,772
Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners (Black Lung)
71,814
Supplemental Security Income
114,278,631
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Military
53,695,000
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Civilian
109,018,505
Retirement and Disability Payments-Coast Guard/uniformed
582,838
Employees
Retirement and Disability Payments — Foreign Service Officers
361,231
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Public Health
29,868
Service
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals Total
1,249,311,839
Other Direct Payments for Individuals
Rural Rental Assistance Payments
4,983,691
Food Stamps
49,366,382
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
110,349
Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled
17,411
Veterans
Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans
96,305
Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance
421,196
Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance
1,042
All Volunteer Force Educational Assistance
4,410,861
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants
803,022
Federal Family Education Loans
585
Federal Work Study Program
1,124,767
Federal Perkins Loan Program-Federal Capital Contributions
30,921
Federal Pell Grant Program
24,184,979
Medicare-Hospital Insurance
310,513,804
Medicare-Supplementary Medical Insurance
290,655,538
Other Direct Payments for Individuals Total
686,720,853
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals
Commodity Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments
259,202
Dairy Indemnity Programs
2,152,281

CRS-303
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Production Flexibility Payments for Contract Commodities
19,242,275
Conservation Reserve Program
35,192
Crop Insurance
23,039,507
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program
31,563
Lamb Meat Adjustment Assistance Program
272,772
Public and Indian Housing
2,293,482
Public Housing Drug Elimination Program
141,333
Flood Insurance
2,603
U.S. Postal Service — Other Expenditures (Non-salary/non-
1,238,109
procurement)
Legal Services Corporation Payments
848,324
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals Total
49,556,643
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
Plant and Animal Disease, Pest Control and Animal Care
3,139,250
Crop Disaster Program
1,890,527
Very Low-Income Housing Repair Loans and Grants
20,357
National School Lunch Program
25,963,128
Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and
25,593,084
Children
Rural Business Enterprise Grants
182,302
Basic and Applied Scientific Research
150,000
Housing Counseling Assistance Program
25,000
Multifamily Housing Service Coordinators
9,710
Community Development Block Grants/entitlement Grants
8,688,324
Emergency Shelter Grants Program
820,878
Shelter Plus Care
19,674
Home Investment Partnerships Program
1,120,090
Community Outreach Partnership Center Program
11,713
Resident Opportunity and Supportive Services
68,435
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
33,580,844
Public Housing Capital Funds
1,284,731
Recreation Resource Management
120,902

CRS-304
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Urban Interface Community and Rural Fire Assistance
8,000
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Facilities
38,070
Central Valley Project Improvement Act-Title XXXIV Pub L.
2,101,000
102-575
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Pub. L. 85-624
90,000
Soil, Water, and Air Resources
61,250
Crime Lab Improvement-Combined Offender DNA Index
237,699
System Backlog
Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program
-24,000
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program
519,246
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
489,179
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program
13,874
Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Grants
-42,108
Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers
2,047,047
Airport Improvement Program
12,091,183
Highway Planning and Construction
54,572,960
Federal Transit Formula Grants
3,153,121
Research Grants for the Space Program
60,000
Geosciences
125,877
Brownfields Assessment and Cleanup Cooperative Agreements
1,000,000
Fossil Energy Research and Development
1,467,034
Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies
36,086,843
Special Education-Grants to States
16,487,977
Higher Education-Institutional Aid
1,489,369
Impact Aid
6,712,921
Trio-Student Support Services
506,287
Trio-Talent Search
338,603
Trio-Upward Bound
290,192
Centers for Independent Living
308,334
Migrant Education - High School Equivalency Program
479,440
Migrant Education Program-College Assistance Migrant
465,000
Program

CRS-305
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities-National
421,427
Programs
Bilingual Education-Professional Development
181,782
Fund for the Improvement of Education
1,093,625
Ronald E. Mcnair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement
220,000
Bilingual Education Development & Implementation Grants
99,890
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate
820,115
Programs
Child Care Access Means Parents in School
65,046
Rural Education Achievement Program
340,796
Literacy Through School Libraries
220,336
Aids Education and Training Centers
353,851
Health Center Grants for Homeless Populations
563,114
Nursing Workforce Diversity
174,298
Community Health Centers
3,994,249
Indian Health Services Health Management Development
202,928
Program
Special Diabetes Program for Indians-Diabetes Prev and Treat.
59,472
Projects
Health Centers Grants for Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers
2,488,216
Advanced Education Nursing Traineeships
34,113
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
75,605,940
Child Support Enforcement
10,942,010
Low Income Home Energy Assistance
2,300,144
Head Start
21,315,432
Social Services Block Grant
3,397,208
State Children’s Insurance Program (Chip)
19,054,442
State Survey and Certification of Health Care Providers and
760,209
Suppliers
Medical Assistance Program
373,180,438
Medical Library Assistance
216,854
Grants for Residency Training in General Internal Med And/or
103,793
Gen Pediatrics
Scholarships Health Professions Students Disadvantaged
67,596
Background

CRS-306
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse
5,544,093
Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP)
56,986
Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program
612,610
Assistance to Firefighters Grant
260,042
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative
768,614,402
Agreements) Total
Procurement Contracts
Procurement Contracts — Dept of Defense
262,661,064
Procurement Contracts — All Fed Govt Agencies Other than
117,558,468
Defense & USPS
Procurement Contracts — U.S. Postal Service
20,876,664
Procurement Contracts Total
401,096,196
Salaries and Wages
Salaries and Wages — Dept of Defense (Active Military
160,815,000
Employees)
Salaries and Wages — Dept of Defense (Inactive Military
3,696,000
Employees)
Salaries and Wages — Dept of Defense (Civilian Employees)
368,849,000
Salaries and Wages-All Fed Govt Civilian Emp Except Defense
90,292,239
& USPS
Salaries and Wages — U.S. Postal Service
77,080,718
Salaries and Wages Total
700,732,957
Direct Loans
Commodity Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments
277,599,119
Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants
3,250,000
Farm Operating Loans
143,960
Very Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans
2,854,250
Physical Disaster Loans
317,600
Federal Direct Student Loans
27,365,232
Direct Loans Total
311,530,161
Guaranteed/Insured Loans
Farm Operating Loans
14,000
Farm Ownership Loans
650,000
Very Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans
132,000

CRS-307
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Business and Industry Loans
1,582,000
Rehabilitation Mortgage Insurance
1,474,396
Mortgage Insurance Homes
623,903,367
Mortgage Insurance Purchase of Units in Condominiums
861,179
Property Improvement Loan Insurance for Improving Existing
-56,968
Structure
Small Business Loans
15,027,143
Certified Development Company Loans (504 Loans)
13,478,000
Veterans Housing Guaranteed and Insured Loans
44,976,403
Guaranteed/Insured Loans Total
702,041,520
Insurance
Crop Insurance
391,299,868
Bond Guarantees for Surety Companies
232,330
Flood Insurance
430,716,638
Insurance Total
822,248,836
Source: Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2003. U.S. Census Bureau, Governments
Division, Federal Programs Branch. September, 2004.
* Other federal assistance includes direct and guaranteed loans and insurance programs. These
programs are considered “contingent liabilities” of the federal government and are not
necessarily direct expenditures or obligations. Only when a loan is in default or an insurance
payment is made is there a federal obligation, i.e., a payment. When that occurs, those payments
are counted within “direct expenditures and obligations.”

CRS-308
Table 113. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for
Kings County, FY2003
County Summary
Amount in Dollars
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations
776,751,231
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals
199,698,601
Other Direct Payments for Individuals
88,326,136
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals
32,774,010
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
144,740,233
Procurement Contracts
26,958,698
Salaries and Wages
284,253,553
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations - Defense
303,643,643
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations - Non-Defense
473,107,588
Other Federal Assistance*
Direct Loans
2,004,602
Guaranteed/Insured Loans
91,770,792
Insurance
109,310,283
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals
Livestock Compensation Program
3,517,799
Coal Mine Workers’ Compensation
6,344
Federal Employees Compensation
803,974
Social Insurance for Railroad Workers
688,913
Social Insurance for RR Workers - Unemployment & Sickness
12,252
Benefits
Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans
696,321
Pension to Veterans Surviving Spouses and Children
184,666
Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability
9,725,806
Veterans Dependency & Indemnity Compensation for Service-
1,537,627
Connected Death
Pension Plan Termination Insurance
75,440
Social Security Disability Insurance
21,928,239
Social Security Retirement Insurance
73,885,320

CRS-309
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Social Security Survivors Insurance
28,590,757
Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners (Black Lung)
7,980
Supplemental Security Income
17,017,268
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Military
27,809,000
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Civilian
13,138,723
Retirement and Disability Payments-Coast Guard/uniformed
72,172
Employees
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals Total
199,698,601
Other Direct Payments for Individuals
Rural Rental Assistance Payments
1,898,520
Food Stamps
7,970,926
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
269,188
Indian Education Assistance to Schools
8,075
Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled Veterans
19,225
Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans
132,154
Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance
188,754
Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance
252
All Volunteer Force Educational Assistance
1,557,680
Medicare-Hospital Insurance
41,459,698
Medicare-Supplementary Medical Insurance
34,821,664
Other Direct Payments for Individuals Total
88,326,136
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals
Commodity Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments
680,249
Dairy Indemnity Programs
7,922,344
Production Flexibility Payments for Contract Commodities
15,299,105
Conservation Reserve Program
8,512
Wetlands Reserve Program
1,405,600
Crop Insurance
6,857,763
Lamb Meat Adjustment Assistance Program
21,852
Public and Indian Housing
461,931
U.S. Postal Service — Other Expenditures (Non-salary/non-
116,654
procurement)

CRS-310
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals
32,774,010
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
Plant and Animal Disease, Pest Control and Animal Care
146,069
Crop Disaster Program
248,919
Very Low-Income Housing Repair Loans and Grants
93,695
National School Lunch Program
3,905,335
Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and
3,882,437
Children
Community Facilities Loans and Grants
18,000
Grants for Public Works & Economic Development Facilities
2,080,000
Military Medical Research and Development
98,000
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
4,184,565
Public Housing Capital Funds
160,093
Outdoor Recreation-Acquisition, Development and Planning
102,000
Gang-Free Schools and Communities-Community Based Gang
123,686
Intervention
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program
22,168
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
110,378
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program
3,568
Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Grants
260,657
Airport Improvement Program
150,000
Highway Planning and Construction
9,435,558
Water Pollution Control-State and Interstate Program Support
39,640
Surveys, Studies Demos & Special Purpose Grants
35,100
Indian Environmental General Assistance Program
75,000
Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies
6,890,156
Special Education-Grants to States
4,538,098
Impact Aid
5,459,863
Indian Education-Grants to Local Educational Agencies
37,417
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities-National Programs
967,810
21st Century Community Learning Centers
719,362
Arts in Education
315,000

CRS-311
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Rural Education Achievement Program
204,479
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
17,300,615
Child Support Enforcement
2,503,818
Low Income Home Energy Assistance
579,493
Head Start
5,753,885
Social Services Block Grant
342,502
State Children’s Insurance Program (Chip)
3,532,168
State Survey and Certification of Health Care Providers and Suppliers
140,922
Medical Assistance Program
69,177,363
Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse
980,484
Foster Grandparent Program
-654
Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program
122,584
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
144,740,233
Total
Procurement Contracts
Procurement Contracts — Dept of Defense
1,916,643
Procurement Contracts — All Fed Govt Agencies Other than Defense
23,075,054
& Usps
Procurement Contracts — U.S. Postal Service
1,967,001
Procurement Contracts Total
26,958,698
Salaries and Wages
Salaries and Wages — Dept of Defense (Active Military Employees)
244,908,000
Salaries and Wages — Dept of Defense (Inactive Military
1,368,000
Employees)
Salaries and Wages — Dept of Defense (Civilian Employees)
27,544,000
Salaries and Wages — All Fed Govt Civilian Employees Except
3,171,000
Defense & USPS
Salaries and Wages — U.S. Postal Service
7,262,553
Salaries and Wages Total
284,253,553
Direct Loans
Commodity Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments
1,001,602
Farm Operating Loans
544,000
Very Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans
459,000

CRS-312
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Direct Loans Total
2,004,602
Guaranteed/Insured Loans
Farm Operating Loans
1,860,150
Business and Industry Loans
5,186,600
Rehabilitation Mortgage Insurance
217,255
Mortgage Insurance Homes
62,277,036
Small Business Loans
3,064,525
Certified Development Company Loans (504 Loans)
669,000
Veterans Housing Guaranteed and Insured Loans
18,496,226
Guaranteed/Insured Loans Total
91,770,792
Insurance
Crop Insurance
88,171,523
Bond Guarantees for Surety Companies
67,255
Flood Insurance
21,071,505
Insurance Total
109,310,283
Source: Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2003. U.S. Census Bureau, Governments
Division, Federal Programs Branch. September, 2004.
* Other federal assistance includes direct and guaranteed loans and insurance programs. These
programs are considered “contingent liabilities” of the federal government and are not
necessarily direct expenditures or obligations. Only when a loan is in default or an insurance
payment is made is there a federal obligation, i.e., a payment. When that occurs, those payments
are counted within “direct expenditures and obligations.”

CRS-313
Table 114. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for
Madera County, FY2003
County Summary
Amount in Dollars
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations
522,283,699
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals
232,626,631
Other Direct Payments for Individuals
114,296,819
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals
14,670,723
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
138,528,339
Procurement Contracts
6,652,940
Salaries and Wages
15,508,247
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations - Defense
8,732,221
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations - Non-Defense
513,551,478
Other Federal Assistance*
Direct Loans
2,263,010
Guaranteed/Insured Loans
69,353,344
Insurance
207,437,128
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals
Livestock Compensation Program
1,639,727
Federal Employees Compensation
1,127,614
Social Insurance for Railroad Workers
2,014,416
Social Insurance for RR Workers - Unemployment & Sickness
6,904
Benefits
Compensation for Service-Connected Deaths for Veterans’
552
Dependents
Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans
910,016
Pension to Veterans Surviving Spouses and Children
188,534
Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability
9,933,019
Veterans Dependency & Indemnity Compensation for Service-
1,641,479
Connected Death
Pension Plan Termination Insurance
75,155
Social Security Disability Insurance
28,854,386
Social Security Retirement Insurance
116,539,214

CRS-314
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Social Security Survivors Insurance
33,824,347
Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners (Black Lung)
10,974
Supplemental Security Income
14,399,805
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Military
7,353,000
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Civilian
13,763,145
Retirement and Disability Payments-Coast Guard/uniformed
120,836
Employees
Retirement and Disability Payments — Foreign Service Officers
205,495
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Public Health
18,013
Service
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals Total
232,626,631
Other Direct Payments for Individuals
Rural Rental Assistance Payments
2,002,473
Food Stamps
7,504,001
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
99,435
Indian Social Services-Welfare Assistance
9,500
Indian Education Assistance to Schools
9,000
Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled Veterans
4,217
Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans
33,911
Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance
149,155
Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance
44
All Volunteer Force Educational Assistance
625,252
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants
5,431
Federal Pell Grant Program
79,660
Medicare-Hospital Insurance
52,315,653
Medicare-Supplementary Medical Insurance
51,459,087
Other Direct Payments for Individuals Total
114,296,819
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals
Commodity Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments
39,365
Dairy Indemnity Programs
2,826,756
Production Flexibility Payments for Contract Commodities
4,203,025
Crop Insurance
6,658,507

CRS-315
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Lamb Meat Adjustment Assistance Program
44,623
Public and Indian Housing
398,138
Public Housing Drug Elimination Program
41,630
Aid to Tribal Governments
1,114
Consolidated Tribal Government Program
5
Indian Self-Determination Contract Support
279,142
Services to Indian Children, Elderly and Families
50,000
U.S. Postal Service-Other Expenditures (Non-salary/non-
128,418
procurement)
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals Total
14,670,723
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
Crop Disaster Program
23,603
National School Lunch Program
3,880,499
Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and
3,601,585
Children
Rural Business Enterprise Grants
50,000
Community Development Block Grants/entitlement Grants
1,023,103
Rural Housing and Economic Development
51,615
Indian Community Development Block Grant Program
33,553
Indian Housing Block Grants
375,831
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
2,676,617
Public Housing Capital Funds
102,402
Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program
200,727
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program
110,249
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program
3,003
Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Grants
-1
Airport Improvement Program
315,000
Highway Planning and Construction
10,283,491
Native American Library Services
8,000
Water Pollution Control-State and Interstate Program Support
47,500
Nonpoint Source Implementation Grants
30,000
Brownfields Assessment and Cleanup Cooperative Agreements
199,555

CRS-316
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Indian Environmental General Assistance Program
195,000
Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies
6,756,520
Special Education-Grants to States
3,032,497
Indian Education-grants to Local Educational Agencies
76,289
Even Start-Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations
194,832
Bilingual Education Development & Implementation Grants
174,038
Rural Education Achievement Program
57,865
Special Program For the Aging-Title VI, Grants to Indians Tribes &
76,780
Hawaii
Nutrition Services Incentive Program
1,804
Community Health Centers
1,972,208
Health Centers Grants for Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers
1,723,344
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
13,331,210
Child Support Enforcement
1,929,349
Low Income Home Energy Assistance
579,493
Child Care and Development Block Grant
33,530
Child Care Mandatory & Matching Funds of the Child Care & Dev.
23,059
Fund
Head Start
3,087,922
Native American Program
84,273
Social Services Block Grant
349,611
State Children’s Insurance Program (Chip)
3,902,121
State Survey and Certification of Health Care Providers and
155,682
Suppliers
Medical Assistance Program
76,422,868
Health Care and Other Facilities
147,535
Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse
1,009,558
Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program
129,162
Assistance to Firefighters Grant
65,457
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
138,528,339
Total
Procurement Contracts
Procurement Contracts-Dept of Defense
355,221

CRS-317
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Procurement Contracts — All Fed Govt Agencies Other than
4,132,365
Defense & USPS
Procurement Contracts — U.S. Postal Service
2,165,354
Procurement Contracts Total
6,652,940
Salaries and Wages
Salaries and Wages — Dept of Defense (Inactive Military
451,000
Employees)
Salaries and Wages — Dept of Defense (Civilian Employees)
573,000
Salaries and Wages — All Fed Govt Civilian Employees Except
6,489,335
Defense & USPS
Salaries and Wages-U.S.Postal Service
7,994,912
Salaries and Wages Total
15,508,247
Direct Loans
Commodity Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments
730,280
Emergency Loans
67,630
Farm Operating Loans
1,293,100
Farm Ownership Loans
172,000
Direct Loans Total
2,263,010
Guaranteed/Insured Loans
Farm Operating Loans
174,000
Farm Ownership Loans
2,179,000
Very Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans
140,000
Business and Industry Loans
6,300,000
Rehabilitation Mortgage Insurance
524,094
Mortgage Insurance Homes
50,367,760
Mortgage Insurance Purchase of Units in Condominiums
78,120
Property Improvement Loan Insurance for Improving Existing
7,450
Structure
Small Business Loans
5,179,090
Certified Development Company Loans (504 Loans)
1,343,000
Veterans Housing Guaranteed and Insured Loans
3,060,830
Guaranteed/Insured Loans Total
69,353,344

CRS-318
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Insurance
Crop Insurance
110,076,905
Flood Insurance
97,360,223
Insurance Total
207,437,128
Source: Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2003. U.S. Census Bureau, Governments
Division, Federal Programs Branch. September, 2004.
* Other federal assistance includes direct and guaranteed loans and insurance programs. These
programs are considered “contingent liabilities” of the federal government and are not
necessarily direct expenditures or obligations. Only when a loan is in default or an insurance
payment is made is there a federal obligation, i.e., a payment. When that occurs, those payments
are counted within “direct expenditures and obligations.”

CRS-319
Table 115. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for
Merced County, FY2003
County Summary
Amount in Dollars
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations
964,502,592
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals
386,083,265
Other Direct Payments for Individuals
180,445,040
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals
38,631,815
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
290,308,653
Procurement Contracts
22,694,398
Salaries and Wages
46,339,421
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations - Defense
48,324,933
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations - Non-Defense
916,177,659
Other Federal Assistance*
Direct Loans
16,009,304
Guaranteed/Insured Loans
117,124,228
Insurance
787,709,951
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals
Livestock Compensation Program
7,890,240
Coal Mine Workers’ Compensation
8,481
Federal Employees Compensation
1,699,561
Social Insurance for Railroad Workers
1,861,268
Social Insurance for RR Workers - Unemployment & Sickness Benefits
46,179
Compensation for Service-Connected Deaths for Veterans’ Dependents
816
Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans
831,887
Pension to Veterans Surviving Spouses and Children
267,427
Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability
13,838,992
Veterans Dependency & Indemnity Compensation for Service-
3,204,545
Connected Death
Pension Plan Termination Insurance
128,317
Social Security Disability Insurance
43,405,055
Social Security Retirement Insurance
156,576,496

CRS-320
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Social Security Survivors Insurance
53,100,523
Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners (Black Lung)
11,969
Supplemental Security Income
42,830,634
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Military
42,486,000
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Civilian
17,758,672
Retirement and Disability Payments-Coast Guard/uniformed Employees
68,232
Retirement and Disability Payments — Foreign Service Officers
67,971
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals Total
386,083,265
Other Direct Payments for Individuals
Rural Rental Assistance Payments
1,196,506
Food Stamps
22,333,356
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
532,375
Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled Veterans
2,410
Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans
63,939
Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance
178,820
Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance
118
All Volunteer Force Educational Assistance
878,856
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants
438,670
Federal Family Education Loans
17
Federal Work Study Program
464,548
Federal Pell Grant Program
6,655,879
Medicare-Hospital Insurance
77,057,486
Medicare-Supplementary Medical Insurance
70,642,060
Other Direct Payments for Individuals Total
180,445,040
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals
Commodity Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments
3,165,160
Dairy Indemnity Programs
16,478,391
Production Flexibility Payments for Contract Commodities
11,554,604
Conservation Reserve Program
147,121
Wetlands Reserve Program
598,000
Crop Insurance
5,652,826

CRS-321
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program
45,015
Lamb Meat Adjustment Assistance Program
87,615
Public and Indian Housing
231,468
Public Housing Drug Elimination Program
45,173
Refugee and Entrant Assistance-State Administered Program
350,000
U.s. Postal Service — Other Expenditures (Non-salary/non-
276,442
procurement)
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals Total
38,631,815
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
Plant and Animal Disease, Pest Control and Animal Care
381,872
Crop Disaster Program
276,671
Very Low-Income Housing Repair Loans and Grants
27,140
National School Lunch Program
11,542,157
Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children
8,543,397
Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants
18,000
Community Facilities Loans and Grants
50,000
Rural Cooperative Development Grants
134,120
Community Development Block Grants/entitlement Grants
565,551
Home Investment Partnerships Program
877,263
Opportunities for Youth-YouthBuild Program
91,612
Community Outreach Partnership Center Program
57,741
Resident Opportunity and Supportive Services
19,993
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
7,062,555
Public Housing Capital Funds
270,199
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Facilities
90,000
Soil and Water Conservation
60,000
O & M of Irrigation Facilities
314,844
Central Valley Project Improvement Act-Title XXXIV Pub L 102-575
6,588,482
Gang-free Schools and Communities-Community Based Gang
19,810
Intervention
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program
233,833
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
103,398

CRS-322
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program
21,614
Community Prosecution and Project Safe Neighborhoods
200,000
Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Grants
15,000
Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers
1,872,136
Airport Improvement Program
3,915,323
Highway Planning and Construction
18,605,288
Federal Transit Formula Grants
1,079,570
Mathematical and Physical Sciences
251,365
Polar Programs
197,936
Surveys, Studies, Investigations and Special Purpose Grants
500,000
Office of Science Financial Assistance Program
175,000
Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies
14,985,795
Special Education-Grants to States
8,334,484
Higher Education-Institutional Aid
379,162
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education
496,750
Rehabilitation Services-Service Projects
160,000
21st Century Community Learning Centers
387,926
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs
626,324
Child Care Access Means Parents in School
51,947
Rural Education Achievement Program
211,717
Early Reading First
2,437,019
Health Center Grants for Homeless Populations
539,104
Community Health Centers
1,945,207
Health Centers Grants for Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers
2,503,831
Community Access Program
964,088
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
35,125,494
Child Support Enforcement
5,083,510
Low Income Home Energy Assistance
882,614
Head Start
7,840,929
Social Services Block Grant
944,369
State Children’s Insurance Program (Chip)
6,800,834

CRS-323
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
State Survey and Certification of Health Care Providers and Suppliers
271,331
Medical Assistance Program
133,194,038
Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse
1,629,927
Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program
230,683
Assistance to Firefighters Grant
119,700
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
290,308,653
Total
Procurement Contracts
Procurement Contracts — Dept of Defense
5,470,933
Procurement Contracts — All Fed Govt Agencies Other than Defense &
12,562,167
Usps
Procurement Contracts — U.S. Postal Service
4,661,298
Procurement Contracts Total
22,694,398
Salaries and Wages
Salaries and Wages — Dept of Defense (Active Military Employees)
120,000
Salaries and Wages — Dept of Defense (Civilian Employees)
248,000
Salaries and Wages — All Fed Govt Civilian Emp Except Defense &
28,761,000
USPS
Salaries and Wages — U.S. Postal Service
17,210,421
Salaries and Wages Total
46,339,421
Direct Loans
Commodity Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments
6,396,705
Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants
3,000,000
Farm Operating Loans
2,338,960
Farm Ownership Loans
200,000
Very Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans
3,568,543
Very Low-Income Housing Repair Loans and Grants
32,996
Community Facilities Loans and Grants
439,400
Physical Disaster Loans
32,700
Direct Loans Total
16,009,304
Guaranteed/Insured Loans
Farm Operating Loans
2,068,120
Farm Ownership Loans
2,342,000

CRS-324
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Very Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans
954,603
Rehabilitation Mortgage Insurance
228,660
Mortgage Insurance Homes
95,530,551
Mortgage Insurance Purchase of Units in Condominiums
332,796
Small Business Loans
4,644,975
Certified Development Company Loans (504 Loans)
524,000
Veterans Housing Guaranteed and Insured Loans
10,498,523
Guaranteed/Insured Loans Total
117,124,228
Insurance
Crop Insurance
127,164,642
Flood Insurance
660,545,309
Insurance Total
787,709,951
Source: Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2003. U.S. Census Bureau, Governments
Division, Federal Programs Branch. September, 2004.
* Other federal assistance includes direct and guaranteed loans and insurance programs. These
programs are considered “contingent liabilities” of the federal government and are not
necessarily direct expenditures or obligations. Only when a loan is in default or an insurance
payment is made is there a federal obligation, i.e., a payment. When that occurs, those payments
are counted within “direct expenditures and obligations.”

CRS-325
Table 116. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for San
Joaquin County, FY2003
County Summary
Amount in Dollars
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations
2,675,054,152
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals
1,104,466,265
Other Direct Payments for Individuals
531,503,300
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals
36,633,614
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
730,493,373
Procurement Contracts
94,810,923
Salaries and Wages
177,146,677
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations - Defense
152,029,525
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations - Non-Defense
2,523,024,627
Other Federal Assistance*
Direct Loans
76,290,537
Guaranteed/Insured Loans
566,037,372
Insurance
1,060,457,574
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals
Livestock Compensation Program
4,207,415
Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation
7,172
Coal Mine Workers’ Compensation
44,376
Federal Employees Compensation
6,640,733
Social Insurance for Railroad Workers
16,214,281
Social Insurance for RR Workers - Unemployment & Sickness
354,165
Benefits
Compensation for Service-Connected Deaths for Veterans’
435
Dependents
Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans
3,737,297
Pension to Veterans Surviving Spouses and Children
951,696
Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability
31,443,143
Veterans Dependency & Indemnity Compensation for Service-
5,401,739
Connected Death
Pension Plan Termination Insurance
513,414

CRS-326
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Social Security Disability Insurance
140,628,615
Social Security Retirement Insurance
482,281,934
Social Security Survivors Insurance
162,261,936
Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners (Black Lung)
59,832
Supplemental Security Income
117,581,751
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Military
35,331,000
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Civilian
95,522,841
Retirement and Disability Payments-coast Guard/uniformed
1,171,689
Employees
Retirement and Disability Payments — Foreign Service Officers
108,909
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Public Health
1,892
Service
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals Total
1,104,466,265
Other Direct Payments for Individuals
Food Stamps
40,654,992
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
372,897
Indian Education Assistance to Schools
2,550
Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled
16,755
Veterans
Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans
205,846
Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance
470,995
Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance
698
All Volunteer Force Educational Assistance
2,189,741
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants
1,691,560
Federal Family Education Loans
2,179
Federal Work Study Program
2,370,816
Federal Perkins Loan Program-Federal Capital Contributions
255,896
Federal Pell Grant Program
20,714,962
Medicare-Hospital Insurance
241,723,897
Medicare-Supplementary Medical Insurance
220,829,516
Other Direct Payments for Individuals Total
531,503,300
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals
Commodity Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments
226,842

CRS-327
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Dairy Indemnity Programs
7,295,516
Production Flexibility Payments for Contract Commodities
3,683,379
Wetlands Reserve Program
501,000
Crop Insurance
18,564,534
Market Access Program
244,922
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program
25,000
Lamb Meat Adjustment Assistance Program
74,583
Wool and Mohair Loss Assistance Program
8,668
Public and Indian Housing
3,943,022
Public Housing Drug Elimination Program
184,149
Indian Self-Determination Contract Support
79,191
Refugee and Entrant Assistance-State Administered Program
500,000
U.S. Postal Service — Other Expenditures (Non-salary/non-
1,302,808
procurement)
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals Total
36,633,614
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
Plant and Animal Disease, Pest Control and Animal Care
326,022
Crop Disaster Program
1,482,838
Rural Self-Help Housing Technical Assistance
480,000
National School Lunch Program
16,623,024
Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and
12,106,420
Children
Emerging Markets Program
20,000
Rural Cooperative Development Grants
834,900
Housing Counseling Assistance Program
11,866
Community Development Block Grants/entitlement Grants
10,171,758
Emergency Shelter Grants Program
1,721,484
Shelter plus Care
477,667
Home Investment Partnerships Program
2,386,497
Community Development Block Grants/economic Development
500,000
Initiative
Community Outreach Partnership Center Program
55,407
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
25,405,791

CRS-328
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Public Housing Capital Funds
971,972
Outdoor Recreation-Acquisition, Development and Planning
51,000
Youth Programs
187,500
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Facilities
933,000
Central Valley Project Improvement Act-Title XXXIV Pub L 102-
15,013
575
California Bay Delta Environmental Enhancement, Pub.L. 104-333
-444,044
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
243,202
Gang-Free Schools and Communities-Community Based Gang
74,800
Intervention
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program
709,558
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
180,995
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program
52,456
Community Prosecution and Project Safe Neighborhoods
567,000
Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Grants
-175,000
Airport Improvement Program
1,750,000
Highway Planning and Construction
24,715,983
Federal Transit-Capital Investment Grants
3,941,245
Federal Transit Formula Grants
9,946,568
Promotion of the Arts-Leadership Initiatives
10,000
Museum Assessment Program
1,775
Imls National Leadership Grants
99,350
Biological Sciences
398,651
Education and Human Resources
490,544
Surveys, studies, investigations and Special Purpose Grants
1,925,400
Surveys, Studies, Investigations, Demo Ed Outreach & Special
49,000
Projects
Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies
25,806,660
Special Education-Grants to States
17,587,579
Impact Aid
32,386
Trio-Student Support Services
263,167
Indian Education-Grants to Local Educational Agencies
435,496
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education
397,400

CRS-329
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Migrant Education - High School Equivalency Program
389,024
Even Start - Migrant Education
250,932
Fund for the Improvement of Education
843,806
21st Century Community Learning Centers
354,619
Bilingual Education: Systemwide Improvement Grants
630,150
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate
708,896
Programs
Transition to Teaching
316,430
Arts in Education
205,004
Rural Education Achievement Program
135,655
Aids Education and Training Centers
449,360
Health Center Grants for Homeless Populations
508,250
Community Health Centers
3,075,822
Health Centers Grants for Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers
1,514,658
Community Access Program
128,334
Transitional Living for Homeless Youth
400,000
Educ & Prev to Reduce Sexual Abuse of Runaway Homeless and
100,000
Street Youth
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
93,206,134
Child Support Enforcement
13,489,184
Low Income Home Energy Assistance
1,961,363
Head Start
20,630,705
Runaway and Homeless Youth
160,000
Social Services Block Grant
2,743,968
State Children’s Insurance Program (Chip)
20,306,172
State Survey and Certification of Health Care Providers and
810,150
Suppliers
Medical Assistance Program
397,695,508
Heart and Vascular Diseases Research
200,000
Allergy, Immunology and Transplantation Research
122,024
Grants for Residency Training in General Internal Med And/or Gen
146,800
Pediatrics
Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse
4,495,574

CRS-330
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP)
56,668
Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program
484,256
Assistance to Firefighters Grant
151,597
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative
730,493,373
Agreements) Total
Procurement Contracts
Procurement Contracts — Dept of Defense
44,876,525
Procurement Contracts — All Fed Govt Agencies Other than
27,966,792
Defense & USPS
Procurement Contracts — U.S. Postal Service
21,967,606
Procurement Contracts Total
94,810,923
Salaries and Wages
Salaries and Wages — Dept of Defense (Active Military
1,686,000
Employees)
Salaries and Wages — Dept of Defense (Inactive Military
781,000
Employees)
Salaries and Wages — Dept of Defense (Civilian Employees)
69,355,000
Salaries and Wages — All Fed Govt Civilian Employee Except
24,215,988
Defense & USPS
Salaries and Wages — U.S. Postal Service
81,108,689
Salaries and Wages Total
177,146,677
Direct Loans
Commodity Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments
1,199,721
Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants
750,000
Farm Operating Loans
1,259,500
Farm Ownership Loans
561,000
Federal Direct Student Loans
72,520,316
Direct Loans Total
76,290,537
Guaranteed/Insured Loans
Farm Operating Loans
6,139,115
Farm Ownership Loans
1,265,400
Business and Industry Loans
9,277,000
Mortgage Insurance Homes
483,761,258

CRS-331
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Mortgage Insurance Homes for Low and Moderate Income
660,228
Families
Mortgage Insurance Purchase of Units in Condominiums
7,195,131
Small Business Loans
18,236,068
Certified Development Company Loans (504 Loans)
19,726,000
Veterans Housing Guaranteed and Insured Loans
19,777,172
Guaranteed/Insured Loans Total
566,037,372
Insurance
Crop Insurance
261,467,988
Bond Guarantees for Surety Companies
80,748
Flood Insurance
798,908,838
Insurance Total
1,060,457,574
Source: Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2003. U.S. Census Bureau, Governments
Division, Federal Programs Branch. September, 2004.
* Other federal assistance includes direct and guaranteed loans and insurance programs. These
programs are considered “contingent liabilities” of the federal government and are not
necessarily direct expenditures or obligations. Only when a loan is in default or an insurance
payment is made is there a federal obligation, i.e., a payment. When that occurs, those payments
are counted within “direct expenditures and obligations.”

CRS-332
Table 117. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for
Stanislaus County, FY2003
County Summary
Amount in Dollars
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations
2,046,853,140
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals
841,225,932
Other Direct Payments for Individuals
442,504,442
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals
28,060,609
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
549,591,183
Procurement Contracts
109,581,064
Salaries and Wages
75,889,910
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations - Defense
41,098,521
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations - Non-Defense
2,005,754,619
Other Federal Assistance*
Direct Loans
5,721,089
Guaranteed/Insured Loans
266,351,310
Insurance
276,608,317
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals
Livestock Compensation Program
6,467,450
Coal Mine Workers’ Compensation
59,232
Federal Employees Compensation
4,079,549
Social Insurance for Railroad Workers
6,161,239
Social Insurance for RR Workers - Unemployment & Sickness
78,426
Benefits
Compensation for Service-Connected Deaths for Veterans’
816
Dependents
Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans
2,570,332
Pension to Veterans Surviving Spouses and Children
522,024
Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability
25,577,702
Veterans Dependency & Indemnity Compensation for Service-
4,188,539
Connected Death
Pension Plan Termination Insurance
402,245
Social Security Disability Insurance
126,034,794

CRS-333
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Social Security Retirement Insurance
397,421,808
Social Security Survivors Insurance
128,454,209
Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners (Black Lung)
77,805
Supplemental Security Income
76,432,654
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Military
22,654,000
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Civilian
39,029,972
Retirement and Disability Payments-Coast Guard/uniformed
816,135
Employees
Retirement and Disability Payments — Foreign Service Officers
146,883
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Public Health Service
50,118
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals Total
841,225,932
Other Direct Payments for Individuals
Rural Rental Assistance Payments
648,661
Food Stamps
29,354,371
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
438,869
Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled Veterans
40,665
Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans
158,592
Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance
388,528
Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance
190
All Volunteer Force Educational Assistance
1,743,031
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants
470,673
Federal Work Study Program
741,618
Federal Perkins Loan Program-Federal Capital Contributions
-9,283
Federal Pell Grant Program
18,786,916
Medicare-Hospital Insurance
218,641,670
Medicare-Supplementary Medical Insurance
171,099,941
Other Direct Payments for Individuals Total
442,504,442
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals
Commodity Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments
2,742
Dairy Indemnity Programs
14,826,051
Production Flexibility Payments for Contract Commodities
3,744,727
Wetlands Reserve Program
37,869

CRS-334
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Crop Insurance
7,542,255
Public and Indian Housing
793,215
Public Housing Drug Elimination Program
128,402
Flood Insurance
1,135
U.S. Postal Service — Other Expenditures (Non-salary/non-
984,213
procurement)
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals Total
28,060,609
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
Agricultural Research-Basic and Applied Research
5,000
Plant and Animal Disease, Pest Control and Animal Care
647,992
Crop Disaster Program
15,524
National School Lunch Program
12,970,181
Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and
10,350,010
Children
Emerging Markets Program
139,000
Community Facilities Loans and Grants
31,275
Rural Business Enterprise Grants
75,000
Quality Samples Program
10,000
Multifamily Housing Service Coordinators
28,063
Community Development Block Grants/entitlement Grants
5,427,640
Emergency Shelter Grants Program
106,894
Shelter plus Care
146,467
Home Investment Partnerships Program
1,611,822
Community Outreach Partnership Center Program
33,762
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
22,144,917
Public Housing Capital Funds
847,218
San Luis Unit, Central Valley Project
135,019
California Bay Delta Environmental Enhancement, Pub.L. 104-333
25,620
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
1,881,760
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program
503,464
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
199,912
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program
8,451

CRS-335
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Grants
-90,228
WJA Incentives Grant-Section503 Grants to States
-7,673
Airport Improvement Program
4,041,114
Highway Planning and Construction
39,730,608
Federal Transit-Capital Investment Grants
689,130
Dot Miscellaneous Grant Awards
62,500
Education and Human Resources
163,144
Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies
20,292,215
International:Overseas-Group Projects Abroad
60,000
Special Education-Grants to States
11,976,129
Higher Education-Institutional Aid
1,041,792
Impact Aid
24,302
Trio-Student Support Services
600,349
Trio-Talent Search
304,709
Trio-Upward Bound
267,481
Indian Education-Grants to Local Educational Agencies
64,441
Centers for Independent Living
491,131
Bilingual Education-Professional Development
250,000
21st Century Community Learning Centers
569,789
Spec Ed-Personnel Preparation to Improve Services & Results for
199,996
Children
Community Technology Centers
484,042
Rural Education Achievement Program
133,233
Transitional Living for Homeless Youth
199,930
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
55,946,149
Child Support Enforcement
8,096,762
Low Income Home Energy Assistance
1,346,207
Family Violence Prevention & Services/grants for Battered Womans
238,496
Shelter
Head Start
33,914,523
Runaway and Homeless Youth
199,880
Social Services Block Grant
2,400,013

CRS-336
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
State Children’s Insurance Program (Chip)
14,741,887
State Survey and Certification of Health Care Providers and Suppliers
588,153
Medical Assistance Program
288,719,223
Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse
3,492,591
Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program
434,573
Assistance to Firefighters Grant
579,601
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
549,591,183
Total
Procurement Contracts
Procurement Contracts — Dept of Defense
14,974,521
Procurement Contracts — All Fed Govt Agencies Other than Defense
78,011,000
& USPS
Procurement Contract-U.S. Postal Service
16,595,543
Procurement Contracts Total
109,581,064
Salaries and Wages
Salaries and Wages-Dept of Defense (Active Military Employees)
178,000
Salaries and Wages — Dept of Defense (Inactive Military
2,750,000
Employees)
Salaries and Wages — Dept of Defense (Civilian Employees)
542,000
Salaries and Wages — All Fed Govt Civilian Employees Except
11,145,927
Defense & USPS
Salaries and Wages — U.S. Postal Service
61,273,983
Salaries and Wages Total
75,889,910
Direct Loans
Commodity Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments
148,485
Farm Operating Loans
2,813,220
Farm Ownership Loans
400,000
Federal Direct Student Loans
2,359,384
Direct Loans Total
5,721,089
Guaranteed/Insured Loans
Farm Operating Loans
1,225,540
Farm Ownership Loans
818,450
Very Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans
373,626

CRS-337
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Business and Industry Loans
5,070,000
Mortgage Insurance Homes
218,182,849
Mortgage Insurance Purchase of Units in Condominiums
1,439,738
Property Improvement Loan Insurance for Improving Existing
-24,362
Structure
Small Business Loans
9,339,444
Certified Development Company Loans (504 Loans)
11,237,000
Veterans Housing Guaranteed and Insured Loans
18,689,025
Guaranteed/Insured Loans Total
266,351,310
Insurance
Crop Insurance
103,376,729
Bond Guarantees for Surety Companies
1,179,940
Flood Insurance
172,051,648
Insurance Total
276,608,317
Source: Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2003. U.S. Census Bureau, Governments
Division, Federal Programs Branch. September, 2004.
* Other federal assistance includes direct and guaranteed loans and insurance programs. These
programs are considered “contingent liabilities” of the federal government and are not
necessarily direct expenditures or obligations. Only when a loan is in default or an insurance
payment is made is there a federal obligation, i.e., a payment. When that occurs, those payments
are counted within “direct expenditures and obligations.”

CRS-338
Table 118. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for
Tulare County, FY2003
County Summary
Amount in Dollars
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations
1,634,097,217
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals
580,506,578
Other Direct Payments for Individuals
336,045,303
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals
46,969,593
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
557,386,006
Procurement Contracts
43,819,753
Salaries and Wages
69,369,984
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations - Defense
33,388,323
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations - Non-Defense
1,600,708,894
Other Federal Assistance*
Direct Loans
37,593,507
Guaranteed/Insured Loans
318,367,898
Insurance
1,268,258,576
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals
Livestock Compensation Program
5,853,035
Coal Mine Workers’ Compensation
32,700
Federal Employees Compensation
1,522,683
Social Insurance for Railroad Workers
2,436,304
Social Insurance for RR Workers - Unemployment & Sickness
53,016
Benefits
Compensation for Service-Connected Deaths for Veterans’
1,830
Dependents
Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans
2,039,053
Pension to Veterans Surviving Spouses and Children
483,866
Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability
16,435,586
Veterans Dependency & Indemnity Compensation for Service-
2,684,117
Connected Death
Pension Plan Termination Insurance
233,349
Social Security Disability Insurance
74,712,528

CRS-339
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Social Security Retirement Insurance
279,204,749
Social Security Survivors Insurance
99,064,623
Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners (Black Lung)
11,969
Supplemental Security Income
58,563,764
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Military
14,932,000
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Civilian
21,878,702
Retirement and Disability Payments-Coast Guard/uniformed
208,851
Employees
Retirement and Disability Payments — Foreign Service Officers
74,444
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Public Health
79,409
Service
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals Total
580,506,578
Other Direct Payments for Individuals
Rural Rental Assistance Payments
4,810,913
Food Stamps
33,383,659
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
324,150
2000 Quality Loss Program
5,492
Indian Social Services-Welfare Assistance
5,792
Indian Education Assistance to Schools
18,600
Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled
1,424
Veterans
Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans
100,227
Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance
204,955
Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance
619
All Volunteer Force Educational Assistance
980,140
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants
496,548
Federal Family Education Loans
201
Federal Work Study Program
368,384
Federal Pell Grant Program
17,700,558
Medicare-Hospital Insurance
147,004,549
Medicare-Supplementary Medical Insurance
130,639,092
Other Direct Payments for Individuals Total
336,045,303

CRS-340
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals
Commodity Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments
82,742
Dairy Indemnity Programs
16,057,718
Production Flexibility Payments for Contract Commodities
12,318,626
Wetlands Reserve Program
710,700
Crop Insurance
15,968,222
Market Access Program
316,958
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program
10,000
Lamb Meat Adjustment Assistance Program
270,399
Wool and Mohair Loss Assistance Program
137,233
Public and Indian Housing
23,000
Aid to Tribal Governments
167,509
Indian Self-Determination Contract Support
173,070
Indian Adult Education
22,460
Indian Community Fire Protection
77,400
Road Maintenance-Indian Roads
31,791
Agriculture on Indian Lands
15,800
Forestry on Indian Lands
56,481
Indian Rights Protection
8,400
Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Programs on Indian Lands
3,400
Reclamation Act/sec. 2/Pub L. 93-638 Awards
25,000
Flood Insurance
54,494
U.S. Postal Service — Other Expenditures (Non-salary/non-
438,190
procurement)
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals Total
46,969,593
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
Agricultural Research-Basic and Applied Research
136,585
Plant and Animal Disease, Pest Control and Animal Care
2,580,112
Crop Disaster Program
796,803
Hispanic Serving Institutions Education Grants
79,760
Secondary Agriculture Education Grants
40,000
Very Low-Income Housing Repair Loans and Grants
152,665

CRS-341
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Rural Self-Help Housing Technical Assistance
3,995,000
Rural Housing Preservation Grants
100,000
National School Lunch Program
17,308,062
Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and
6,682,942
Children
Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants
504,600
Community Facilities Loans and Grants
354,243
Rural Cooperative Development Grants
80,579
Economic Adjustment Assistance
150,000
Multifamily Housing Service Coordinators
8,545
Community Development Block Grants/entitlement Grants
2,275,655
Emergency Shelter Grants Program
590,571
Home Investment Partnerships Program
170,418
Opportunities for Youth-YouthBuild Program
41,400
Community Development Block Grants/economic Development
92,261
Initiative
Rural Housing and Economic Development
48,201
Indian Community Development Block Grant Program
987,277
Indian Housing Block Grants
519,472
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
12,423,989
Public Housing Capital Funds
475,316
Indian Education-Higher Education Grant Program
26,880
Indian Child Welfare Act - Title II Grants
41,714
Urban Interface Community and Rural Fire Assistance
14,000
Youth Programs
20,000
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Facilities
81,949
San Luis Unit, Central Valley Project
1,446,000
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
104,404
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program
406,397
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
495,203
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program
50,649
Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Grants
50,000
Wia Youth Activities
13,633

CRS-342
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Employment and Training Administration Pilots, Demos &
-2,130
Research
Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers
3,834,584
Native American Employment and Training
95,372
Airport Improvement Program
1,898,000
Highway Planning and Construction
15,934,960
Federal Transit Formula Grants
9,809,149
Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment Works
-29,124
Water Pollution Control-State and Interstate Program Support
46,457
Nonpoint Source Implementation Grants
30,000
Indian Environmental General Assistance Program
119,982
Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies
27,372,331
Special Education-Grants to States
11,563,137
Higher Education-Institutional Aid
856,002
Impact Aid
137,095
Trio-Student Support Services
240,677
Indian Education-Grants to Local Educational Agencies
125,972
Migrant Education - High School Equivalency Program
397,100
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities-National Programs
609,026
Bilingual Education-Professional Development
194,860
Fund for the Improvement of Education
149,072
21st Century Community Learning Centers
919,031
Bilingual Education: Comprehensive School Grants
215,572
Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants
467,433
Community Technology Centers
475,850
Rural Education Achievement Program
721,968
Special Program. For the Aging-Title VI, Grants to Indians Tribes
76,780
& Hawaii
National Family Caregiver Support
14,180
Nutrition Services Incentive Program
3,043
Community Health Centers
2,309,374
Indian Health Services Health Management Development Program
186,981
Special Diabetes Program for Indians-Diabetes Prev and Treat.
186,981

CRS-343
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Projects
Health Centers Grants for Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers
2,188,553
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
69,576,938
Child Support Enforcement
10,069,468
Low Income Home Energy Assistance
1,979,194
Head Start
16,721,088
Child Welfare Services State Grants
6,821
Social Services Block Grant
2,322,164
State Children’s Insurance Program (Chip)
15,441,218
State Survey and Certification of Health Care Providers and
616,053
Suppliers
Medical Assistance Program
302,415,587
Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse
2,762,516
Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP)
124,975
Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program
504,587
Assistance to Firefighters Grant
351,844
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative
557,386,006
Agreements) Total
Procurement Contracts
Procurement Contracts — Dept of Defense
12,023,323
Procurement Contracts — All Fed Govt Agencies Other than
24,407,777
Defense & Usps
Procurement Contracts — U.S. Postal Service
7,388,653
Procurement Contracts Total
43,819,753
Salaries and Wages
Salaries and Wages — Dept of Defense (Active Military
70,000
Employees)
Salaries and Wages — Dept of Defense (Inactive Military
5,757,000
Employees)
Salaries and Wages — Dept of Defense (Civilian Employees)
606,000
Salaries and Wages — All Fed Govt Civilian Employees Except
35,656,635
Defense & USPS
Salaries and Wages — U.S. Postal Service
27,280,349
Salaries and Wages Total
69,369,984

CRS-344
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Direct Loans
Commodity Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments
152,882
Farm Operating Loans
859,710
Very Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans
6,113,341
Rural Rental Housing Loans
500,000
Very Low-Income Housing Repair Loans and Grants
38,120
Water and Waste Disposal System for Rural Communities
3,000,000
Intermediary Relending Program
500,000
Federal Direct Student Loans
26,429,454
Direct Loans Total
37,593,507
Guaranteed/Insured Loans
Farm Operating Loans
1,936,540
Farm Ownership Loans
1,852,000
Very Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans
220,542
Business and Industry Loans
5,315,000
Rehabilitation Mortgage Insurance
494,786
Mortgage Insurance Homes
267,659,610
Mortgage Insurance Purchase of Units in Condominiums
120,050
Small Business Loans
14,766,129
Certified Development Company Loans (504 Loans)
10,024,000
Veterans Housing Guaranteed and Insured Loans
15,979,241
Guaranteed/Insured Loans Total
318,367,898
Insurance
Crop Insurance
309,589,670
Bond Guarantees for Surety Companies
1,713,240
Flood Insurance
956,955,666
Insurance Total
1,268,258,576
Source: Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2003. U.S. Census Bureau, Governments
Division, Federal Programs Branch. September, 2004.
* Other federal assistance includes direct and guaranteed loans and insurance programs. These
programs are considered “contingent liabilities” of the federal government and are not
necessarily direct expenditures or obligations. Only when a loan is in default or an insurance
payment is made is there a federal obligation, i.e., a payment. When that occurs, those payments
are counted within “direct expenditures and obligations.”

CRS-345
Table 119. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for
Mariposa County, FY2003
County Summary
Amount in Dollars
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations
134,623,027
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals
50,206,943
Other Direct Payments for Individuals
23,097,349
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals
22,546
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
15,258,119
Procurement Contracts
19,592,384
Salaries and Wages
26,445,686
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations - Defense
3,634,897
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations - Non-Defense
130,988,130
Other Federal Assistance*
Direct Loans
6,200,000
Guaranteed/Insured Loans
3,270,869
Insurance
0
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals
Coal Mine Workers’ Compensation
9,516
Federal Employees Compensation
982,710
Social Insurance for Railroad Workers
277,616
Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans
140,333
Pension to Veterans Surviving Spouses and Children
32,781
Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability
2,186,769
Veterans Dependency & Indemnity Compensation for Service-
338,813
Connected Death
Pension Plan Termination Insurance
21,412
Social Security Disability Insurance
6,071,842
Social Security Retirement Insurance
24,615,577
Social Security Survivors Insurance
6,340,812
Supplemental Security Income
1,086,033
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Military
2,457,000

CRS-346
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Civilian
5,571,818
Retirement and Disability Payments-Coast Guard/uniformed
73,911
Employees
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals Total
50,206,943
Other Direct Payments for Individuals
Rural Rental Assistance Payments
1,688,094
Food Stamps
851,616
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
48,895
Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans
9,156
Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance
30,948
Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance
37
All Volunteer Force Educational Assistance
24,183
Medicare-Hospital Insurance
11,175,695
Medicare-Supplementary Medical Insurance
9,268,725
Other Direct Payments for Individuals Total
23,097,349
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals
U.S. Postal Service — Other Expenditures (Non-salary/non-
22,546
procurement)
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals Total
22,546
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
National School Lunch Program
217,308
Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and
678,845
Children
Water and Waste Disposal System for Rural Communities
1,800,000
Advanced Technology Program
231,741
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
553,422
Public Housing Capital Funds
21,173
Law Enforcement Cooperative Agreements (Leca)
5,000
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program
24,741
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
16,134
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program
3,400
Airport Improvement Program
137,064
Highway Planning and Construction
1,205,218

CRS-347
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Research Grants for the Space Program
86,546
Surveys, Studies, Investigations and Special Purpose Grants
242,500
Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies
583,131
Special Education-Grants to States
342,801
Impact Aid
63,552
Indian Education-grants to Local Educational Agencies
48,435
Rural Education Achievement Program
15,175
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
1,872,362
Child Support Enforcement
270,906
Low Income Home Energy Assistance
579,493
Social Services Block Grant
93,690
State Children’s Insurance Program (Chip)
273,623
State Survey and Certification of Health Care Providers and
10,916
Suppliers
Medical Assistance Program
5,358,899
Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse
473,300
Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program
8,829
Assistance to Firefighters Grant
39,915
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative
15,258,119
Agreements) Total
Procurement Contracts
Procurement Contracts — Dept of Defense
1,177,897
Procurement Contracts — All Fed Govt Agencies Other than
18,034,311
Defense & USPS
Procurement Contracts — U.S. Postal Service
380,176
Procurement Contracts Total
19,592,384
Salaries and Wages
Salaries and Wages — All Fed Govt Civilian Employee Except
25,042,000
Defense & USPS
Salaries and Wages — U.S. Postal Service
1,403,686
Salaries and Wages Total
26,445,686

CRS-348
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Direct Loans
Water and Waste Disposal System for Rural Communities
6,200,000
Direct Loans Total
6,200,000
Guaranteed/Insured Loans
Very Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans
769,500
Mortgage Insurance Homes
1,592,885
Small Business Loans
483,875
Veterans Housing Guaranteed and Insured Loans
424,609
Guaranteed/Insured Loans Total
3,270,869
Source: Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2003. U.S. Census Bureau, Governments
Division, Federal Programs Branch. September, 2004.
* Other federal assistance includes direct and guaranteed loans and insurance programs. These
programs are considered “contingent liabilities” of the federal government and are not
necessarily direct expenditures or obligations. Only when a loan is in default or an insurance
payment is made is there a federal obligation, i.e., a payment. When that occurs, those payments
are counted within “direct expenditures and obligations.”

CRS-349
Table 120. Federal Direct Expenditures and Obligations for
Tuolumne County, FY2003
County Summary
Amount in Dollars
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations
332,011,658
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals
169,573,623
Other Direct Payments for Individuals
70,214,468
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals
491,400
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
58,149,499
Procurement Contracts
11,408,204
Salaries and Wages
22,174,464
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations - Defense
7,369,698
Total Direct Expenditures or Obligations - Non-Defense
324,641,960
Other Federal Assistance
Direct Loans
25,350
Guaranteed/Insured Loans
13,432,874
Insurance
5,986,381
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals
Livestock Compensation Program
151,199
Coal Mine Workers’ Compensation
7,009
Federal Employees Compensation
520,318
Social Insurance for Railroad Workers
1,109,989
Social Insurance for RR Workers - Unemployment & Sickness
2,275
Benefits
Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans
602,936
Pension to Veterans Surviving Spouses and Children
126,439
Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability
6,659,927
Veterans Dependency & Indemnity Compensation for Service-
1,295,690
Connected Death
Pension Plan Termination Insurance
141,654
Social Security Disability Insurance
19,310,319
Social Security Retirement Insurance
91,997,343

CRS-350
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Social Security Survivors Insurance
22,478,487
Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners (Black Lung)
3,989
Supplemental Security Income
5,778,962
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Military
6,174,000
Federal Retirement and Disability Payments — Civilian
12,950,013
Retirement and Disability Payments-Coast Guard/uniformed
153,055
Employees
Retirement and Disability Payments — Foreign Service Officers
110,019
Retirement and Disability Payments for Individuals Total
169,573,623
Other Direct Payments for Individuals
Rural Rental Assistance Payments
844,047
Food Stamps
2,367,437
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
9,149
Indian Social Services-Welfare Assistance
2,550
Indian Education Assistance to Schools
3,000
Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans
26,208
Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance
93,102
Post-vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance
191
All Volunteer Force Educational Assistance
302,484
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants
80,396
Federal Work Study Program
65,018
Federal Perkins Loan Program-Federal Capital Contributions
-244
Federal Pell Grant Program
1,205,573
Medicare-Hospital Insurance
33,877,278
Medicare-Supplementary Medical Insurance
31,338,279
Other Direct Payments for Individuals Total
70,214,468
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals
Commodity Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments
250
Production Flexibility Payments for Contract Commodities
3,667
Aid to Tribal Governments
23,702
Consolidated Tribal Government Program
177,391
Indian Economic Development
37,150

CRS-351
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Agriculture on Indian Lands
135,527
U.S. Postal Service — Other Expenditures (Non-salary/non-
113,713
procurement)
Direct Payments Other than for Individuals Total
491,400
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements)
Plant and Animal Disease, Pest Control and Animal Care
129,943
Crop Disaster Program
85,714
National School Lunch Program
879,580
Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and
727,594
Children
Economic Development-Support for Planning Organizations
56,000
Indian Community Development Block Grant Program
99,897
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
1,955,921
Public Housing Capital Funds
74,829
Indian Education-Higher Education Grant Program
7,000
Indian Child Welfare Act - Title Ii Grants
83,362
Urban Interface Community and Rural Fire Assistance
5,000
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program
45,398
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
4,996
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program
7,445
Indian Country Alcohol and Drug Prevention
350,031
Airport Improvement Program
450,000
Highway Planning and Construction
22,472,750
Indian Environmental General Assistance Program
-19,896
Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies
1,838,542
Impact Aid
57,985
Indian Education-Grants to Local Educational Agencies
7,483
Child Care Access Means Parents in School
10,000
Rural Education Achievement Program
129,723
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
5,691,978
Child Support Enforcement
823,767
Low Income Home Energy Assistance
579,493

CRS-352
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Social Services Block Grant
221,050
State Children’s Insurance Program (Chip)
1,008,468
State Survey and Certification of Health Care Providers and
40,234
Suppliers
Medical Assistance Program
19,750,803
Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse
498,382
Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program
24,178
Assistance to Firefighters Grant
51,849
Grants (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative
58,149,499
Agreements) Total
Procurement Contracts
Procurement Contracts — Dept of Defense
1,190,698
Procurement Contracts — All Fed Govt Agencies Other than
8,300,093
Defense & USPS
Procurement Contracts — U.S. Postal Service
1,917,413
Procurement Contracts Total
11,408,204
Salaries and Wages
Salaries and Wages — Dept of Defense (Inactive Military
5,000
Employees)
Salaries and Wages — All Fed Govt Civilian Employee Except
15,090,000
Defense & USPS
Salaries and Wages — U.S. Postal Service
7,079,464
Salaries and Wages Total
22,174,464
Direct Loans
Farm Operating Loans
20,000
Very Low-Income Housing Repair Loans and Grants
5,350
Direct Loans Total
25,350
Guaranteed/Insured Loans
Very Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans
542,000
Business and Industry Loans
5,000,000
Mortgage Insurance Homes
4,818,499
Small Business Loans
1,959,165
Veterans Housing Guaranteed and Insured Loans
1,113,210
Guaranteed/Insured Loans Total
13,432,874

CRS-353
Program Name
Amount in Dollars
Insurance
Flood Insurance
5,986,381
Insurance Total
5,986,381
Source: Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2003. U.S. Census Bureau, Governments
Division, Federal Programs Branch. September, 2004.
* Other federal assistance includes direct and guaranteed loans and insurance programs. These
programs are considered “contingent liabilities” of the federal government and are not
necessarily direct expenditures or obligations. Only when a loan is in default or an insurance
payment is made is there a federal obligation, i.e., a payment. When that occurs, those payments
are counted within “direct expenditures and obligations.”

EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to al Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentional y made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.