HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem J • October 25, 1999
STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Attention: Keith R.Till,City Manager
From: Lee Whittenberg,Director of Development Services
Subject: RECEIPT OF ORANGE COUNTY COUNCIL OF
GOVERNMENTS REPORT ON PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS •
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Receive and File Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) Draft Report on Performance
Indicators and Staff Comment Letter. Instruct staff to forward to Planning Commission and
Environmental Quality Control Board for information and to provide additional status reports as
appropriate.
DISCUSSION
The Orange County Council of Governments(OCCOG)received funding from the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) to prepare a pilot report that would develop performance
indicators for the county on a range of issues. OCCOG has prepared a draft report titled "Tracking
Orange County—A Review of Social, Environmental, and Economic Performanc a Indicator?, that
includes data for 15 general indicators, with accompanying discussion regarding the importance of
tracking specific indicators and summaries that explain the appropriate graphs and charts. Also
included is a discussion about what "performance indicators" and "benchmarks" are, and how such
information can be used, or misused, in understanding and addressing issues of concern within the
county.
The report is intended to provide a"snapshot" of various conditions within Orange County, and track
progress or decline in the areas measured. It is recognized that this report can and should be
significantly expanded to include additional variables, but limited funding for this pilot project, and the
uncertainty of additional future funding,limited the amount of information that could be researched and
incorporated into this initial report.
AGENDA ITEM
C:1My Documents\OCCOC\Draft Performance Indicators.CC Staff Report.doc\LW110-18-99
Receive and File—OCCOG Draft Report re:
"Tracking Orange County—A review of Social,
Environmental and Economic Performance Indicators"
October 25, 1999
OCCOG has requested any comments on the subject document by October 22, 1999 regarding the
usefulness of the document as a beginning point for examining progress on issues important to Orange
County, and identifying any additional subject areas to track in the future to provide a better
understanding of the major issues within the County. Staff has provided a comment letter to OCCOG
regarding these requests for comments, and that comment letter is provided as Attachment 2.
Provided as Attachment 1 is the draft report, "Tracking Orange County A Review of Social,
Environmental, and Economic Performance Indicators''.
FISCAL IMPACT
None. City staff currently participates on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Executive
Management Committee of OCCOG,where reviews of this document will continue. Staff will provide
status reports as appropriate regarding this matter as appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and File Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) Draft Report on Performance
Indicators and Staff Comment Letter. Instruct staff to forward to Planning Commission and
Environmental Quality Control Board for information and to provide additional status reports as
appropriate.
NOTED AND APPROVED
/6 4:/\)1.
Wlvttenberg Keith R. Till
Director of Development Services/—
ervi /ZAZ .,,,):,:el
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS: (2)
Attachment 1: Draft "Tracking Orange County — A Review of Social,
Environmental, and Economic Performance Indicators",
Orange County Council of Governments, November 1999
Draft Performance Indic ators.CC Staff Report
2
Receive and File—OCCOG Draft Report re:
"Tracking Orange County—A review of Social,
Environmental and Economic Performance Indicators"
October 25, 1999
Attachment 2: Staff Comment Letter re: Draft "Tracking Orange County—
A Review of Social, Environmental, and Economic
Performance Indicators", Orange County Council of
Governments,November 1999
Draft Performance Indicators.CC Staff Report
3
,
Receive and File—OCCOG Draft Report re:
"Tracking Orange County—A review of Social,
Environmental and Economic Performance Indicators"
October 25, 1999
ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT "TRACKING ORANGE COUNTY - A
REVIEW OF SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND
ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE INDICATORS",
ORANGE COUNTY COUNCIL OF
GOVERNMENTS, NOVEMBER 1999
Draft Performance Indicators.CC Staff Report
4
D
TRACKING ORANGE COUNTY
A Review of Social, Environmental, and Economic
Performance Indicators
November1999
\
/
Pt
t•••4 ƒ` d
/
- «• :
/
,
DRAFT
INTRODUCTION
This is the first of what is hoped will be an annual report measuring a range of social, economic, and
environmental indicators for Orange County. The 798 square mile region comprises 32 cities, and is home
to nearly 2.6 million people. Generally situated south of Los Angeles, Orange County extends north to the
cities of La Habra and Brea, east to the city of Mission Viejo, west to the cities of Los Alamitos and Seal
Beach, and south to the city of San Clemente.
The county's geographically central location in Southern California, its proximity to metropolitan Los
Angeles, regional rail, and air facilities makes it an integral component in the overall success of the
Southern California economy. Its population base of 2.6 million and projected future growth, changing
demographic, ethnic, and economic mix and status, coupled with its mostly developed urbanisuburban
landscape will provide significant opportunities and challenges for its future sustainability and success.
Although the development of a measuring tool such as this report is an important first step toward
assessing the relative socioeconomic, economic, and environmental status of Orange County, it is but one
piece;of a potentially broader program of goal-setting and achievement. Basically, this report serves only
as an initial report for the county in selected areas. It makes no grand pronouncements of what the county
can or should be, and offers no objectives or strategies toward meeting such objectives. Those types of
discussions among decision-makers, constituents, business leaders and other affected interests can occur
around the data presented here, and these data can provide a yardstick to measure decisions as they are
made by public and private entities. As such, this report is intended to be an initial tool to promote
discussion of specific trends taking place in the county. Recognizing the pros and cons of performance
indicators, as discussed in the next section, the reader is invited to reflect upon the report's contents to
gauge.whether or not the selected trends presented are those that should be measured or if other indices
are preferred, whether they are consistent with the jurisdictional and/or subregional goals and community
visions. If goals are absent, or disturbing trends are identified through this initial report or future
iterations, decision-makers can initiate discussions about whether strategies can and should be developed
and implemented throughout the county to address issues and improve conditions.
1
D 1
What are indicators and benchmarks?
Recognizing that there are potentially an infinite number of trends and activities that can be measured and
tracked for a report such as this, the 30 indicators included in this initial report are intended to provide the
reader a basic "snapshot" of Orange County on a range of social, economic, and environmental fronts.
Categories and individual components for future measurement can and should be added or deleted based
on what the community at large sees as the area's most important issues in the future.
Indicators are bits of information that highlight what is happening in a large system. They provide a
glimpse of the "big picture." They tell us which direction a critical aspect of where a community,
economy, or environment is going; forward or backward, increasing or decreasing, improving or
deteriorating, or staying the same. For example, the Dow Jones Industrial Average provides an indication
of the relative health of the stock market. It does not include every stock, but instead covers a
representative sample. Trends in the samples are believed to be closely matched to trends in the stock
market as a whole.
If we pay close attention to indicators we can also identify strategies to improve community standing and
the quality of life. If we ignore them, we turn our backs from important data that can serve as a
community's warning system. The Sustainable Seattle Project states the following about indicators:
Indicators are like the gauges and dials of an aircraft instrument panel. By designing them
carefully, watching them closely, and interpreting them wisely, we know the status of our flight
and can make good decisions about where to go. Without indicators, we're just 'flying by the seat
of our pants. "
Good indicators, according to a benchmark project conducted in Oregon, include the following
components:
• They are bellwether tests of sustainability: They reflect something basic and fundamental to the long-
term social cultural, economic, environmental or social health of a community over generations.
• They are accepted by the community: They are understood to be a valid sign of sustainability
(or symptom of distress).
• They are attractive tolocal media: The press publicizes them and uses them to monitor and analyze
community trends.
• They are statistically measurable: Data exists that is relevant to this geographic area, and preferably
comparable to other cities, counties or communities. If data are not readily available, a practical
method of data collection or measurement exists or can be created.
• They are logically or scientifically defensible: Understandable rationales exist for using the specific
indicator and for drawing general conclusions from it.
"Good" indicators can either be focused or broad in their scope, objective or subjective. As long as they
are consistently measured and tracked over a period of time, they provide perspective and can indicate
positive or negative trends. For example, tracking the number of teenage pregnancies over a five or ten-
year period provides an objective indicator of a focused issue. Tracking residents' "quality of life"
supplies a broad, subjective indicator that, while interesting, requires more detailed analysis (perhaps of
one or more objective indicators) in order to understand the nature of the responses.
2 •
Use-And Misuse- Of Indicators
Regardless of the number of efforts that have been undertaken using performance indicators to measure
and assess the relative social, environmental and economic health of communities, the use of
benchmarking and performance indicators often provide a skewed measure of an area's well-being. As an
example, one common application of performance indicators is the media-popular"best places to live"
listings, where various communities are scored according to a number of selected criteria, ranging from
types of and occurrences of various crimes to price of housing to SAT scores. Communities are then
ranked form "best"to "worst" based on criteria selected and method of measurement. The rankings
provide a sort of psychological boost to the highly ranked communities; remaining areas usually spend
time defending their locales, attacking the surveys, and suggesting that other data be used for future
efforts.
This example is demonstrative of one of the dilemmas related to the use of performance indicators and
benchmark studies. While performance indicators usually provide objective measurements to index
individual categories, some, such as "quality of life" and "standard of living" (which are common
benchmarks) are more subjective and perceptual. Thus, while it may not be mutually exclusive to use •
objective indices to measure the subjective, the potential for a disconnect between the indicators and
objectives is obvious. The trouble with performance indicators is usually not the indicators themselves,
but their application in attempting to gauge a subjective end, that being the overall "quality of life" of a
given place or region.
Whether objective measurements can be used to accurately assess the subjective is difficult to discern, and
current events might lead people to make conclusions on matters that cannot be supported by longer-term
data. For example, a recent crime uncharacteristic of those normally associated with a particular
neighborhood might lead that neighborhood's residents to conclude -for the time being-that a crime
problem exists, when in fact longer-term statistics indicate otherwise. And decision-makers, reacting to
public outcry, might allocate funds for programs that may not be necessary.
Thus, while indictors can provide objective measurements which can be followed over time and used to
gauge progress toward a goal, people, government agencies and businesses often operate in and make
decisions within a more reactive, subjective and perceptual environment. In government, elected officials
operating under term limits and the"we want results now" nature of constituents, often feel pressured to
make decisions that offer-short-term fixes at the expense of longer-term goals and objectives.
The 1996 Orange County-Annual Survey, conducted by the University of California Irvine, provides an
additional example of the temporal nature of quality of life issues perceived by the public. In 1995, the
public's number one policy problem in Orange County was the financial crisis that stemmed by the
county's filing for bankruptcy at the end of 1994. By 1996, the financial crisis has fallen into the
background among issues perceived as a major concern, despite the fact the county at that time had yet to
emerge from bankruptcy. Whether those polled had in fact determined that the fiscal crisis was of no or
only tangential impact, or whether the decline in media coverage, or both, impacted their feelings about
the issue is not clear.
3
.
40,07.
Benchmark Sequencing and Issues to Consider
A typical benchmark sequence (i.e., setting and going from a subjective vision to the final, objective
measurement of performance) might be as follows:
1. Vision: of'where one is headed:
"The right of all citizens to physical, mental and emotional well-being"
2. Goal to implement the vision:
"Value children and help them to achieve their full-potential"
3. Develop Strategic Benchmarks
Reduce rate of teen pregnancy; set targets.
4. Identify Comparative Indicators
Teen pregnancy rate in other cities and counties.
5. Develop Performance/Outcome,Measures
Reduce teen pregnancy rate at high school clinic.
The transition from subjective to objective occurs in this sequence between Steps 2 and 3, with Steps 4
and 5 providing the objective data(performance indicators) needed to measure progress toward the
focused goal, identified in Step 3. Step 1 and 2 are very broad and subjective statements that, realistically,
offer little relation to the benchmarks and indicators listed in Steps 3-5. Unfortunately, many studies and
planning documents are heavy on lofty and subjective goals but provide no explanation of what the goals
really mean, much less how they can be measured.
Although there is strong support for benchmarking in many cities and regions across the country, there is
also considerable skepticism and it is important to consider concerns when proceeding with such
endeavors. Major issues for Orange County to consider(related to this first report and as a pre-cursor for
future report expansion) include the following:
• Measuring outcomes is difficult: Some government activities- for example, efforts aimed at economic
development- defy precise gauging or may be of a very long-term nature. Even when it is possible,
measurement can involve extensive data gathering and require significant expenditure of staff and
financial resources. If-the OCCOG (or other entity in Orange County) desires to pursue the
establishment of a benchmarking and performance indicators program, it should strive to do so in a
cost-effective manner, where financial resources are linked to and can support whatever long-term
level of commitment is determined.
• Establishing cause and effect can be difficult: While developing and tracking performance indicators
can be, from a technical standpoint, a fairly easy task, the underlying problem for measurers is that
often there is no way of understanding the precise relationship between'a governmental intervention
strategy and its practical impact. Take, for example, a transportation performance indicator that relates •
to the safety and security of the transportation system. The method by which the objective (in this
case, a safe transportation network) is assessed might include performance indicators that track
fatalities per million passenger miles and injury accidents. However, there will be no way of
concluding an improvement or worsening.of safety is the result of work of the California Highway
Patrol, highway engineering, driver safety programs, driver characteristics, reduced travel speeds due
to extreme congestion, or other factors.
4
• Assessing whether jurisdictions have any control over the area being tracked or benchmarked: One
goal in the state of Minnesota is to increase the number of songbirds in the state. However, many
studies point to the loss of habitat in tropical regions as the cause of the decline in species diversity in
North America. The difficulties related to how local, regional or state governments can address this
matter are obvious. This does not mean that Orange County should only develop and track indicators
under its direct control, because many issues of importance to the county might be related to actions
taken at the regional, state, and federal levels. In theses cases, the indicators should serve Orange
County leaders with baseline information for purposes of developing strategies for education,
consensus building and lobbying at these levels for programs that will, in time, benefit the subregion.
• "Cooking" the numbers to achieve a desired objective: Data can always be presented or manipulated
to demonstrate the success or failure of a program. Additionally, it is usually preferable to portray data
that provides positive information rather than negative trends about a place or region. However, an
unbalanced presentation of performance indicators can lead to commensurate uninformed perspectives
of the issue being tracked; any actions taken to address a perceived issue may in fact be unnecessary
or.poorly focused. For example, reports of Orange County's booming economy and employment
growth(800,000 new jobs by 2020) are somewhat tempered when recent trends showing that up to
50% of new Orange County jobs pay less than$10.00 per hour are considered.
• Potential for`Benchmarkitis": It is important to consider what level of long-term commitment it can
make to this effort before continuing. The state of Oregon's Benchmark Project constituted a five-year
effort. Although widely acclaimed(praised by the Clinton administration and often imitated around
the nation) for its potential to set targets for the state and then measure the government's progress, the
program ballooned to 272 benchmarks, many which were impractical, unmeasurable or frivolous.
While a number of the Oregon benchmarks (cutting air and water pollution, lowering rates of teen
pregnancy and increasing the percentage of child immunizations) are admirable, several goals (e.g.,
"By 2010, 95% of Oregonians will drink alcohol only in moderation") are subject to skepticism. State
officials have recently acknowledged this problem, and a benchmark reduction effort is now underway
to cut back to approximately 100 benchmarks.
5
eR4p,
MOVING AHEAD: TRACKING AND UNDERSTANDING CONDITIONS
It is hoped that the result of this initial indicator effort for Orange County will help
increase understanding among decision-makers and the public about how the region is doing. While
future efforts can continue to track and present data such as that contained in this report as well as for
other indicators. Orange County may choose to evolve this effort further, as previously discussed, to track
progress toward specific goals and identify critical issues that need to be addressed.
In order to achieve such objectives it will be necessary to more clearly define the focus of this effort, and
develop a process or understanding regarding how conditions can be consistently tracked overtime. A
number of factors should be considered before proceeding.
Factor No. 1: Acknowledge the gap between indicators, responsibilities and implementation of
strategies
Discussion:
OCCOG, as an advisory body to its member agencies, should stress that its role in the development of
benchmarks and performance indicators is focused on provision of information and outreach, rather than
implementation. Others in and outside of the region -both private and public sector interests alike- are
largely responsible for"making things happen", i.e., developing and implementing programs or efforts to
• address identified areas of concern. OCCOG, or any public or private entity for that matter, is not directly
responsible for"raising the standard of living."However, by developing easy-to-use and understandable
performance indicators, OCCOG can provide a valuable service of increasing community understanding
of issues and encourage the development of strategies that might address identified problem areas.
For example, the issue of improving air quality in Southern California is usually viewed from under a
public health umbrella, with commensurate assignment of responsibility for developing air quality
strategies directed to public agencies, such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
However, air quality problems intimate a number of other things about community livability, namely
whether roads are congested, whether communities are designed to provide alternatives to automobiles,
and whether airsheds have capacity to accommodate economic growth. Poor air quality can increase
health care costs, and pollutants in the air provide nuclei upon which condensation can occur, eventually
finding their way from the air to the land and water via precipitation. Poor air quality can also lead to
restrictions on economic development, not to mention that the typical response of the casual observers to
Southern California's smoggy skies does little to promote the desirability of the region to potential
employers and residents.
Recommendation:
OCCOG should, in consultation with affected and interested parties, encourage and develop innovative
private and public education and outreach programs to increase awareness of indicators presented for the
county and Southern California, and encourage private-public partnerships to initiate and expand upon
efforts that can achieve goals and objectives that may be developed.
6
•
Factor No. 2: Avoid Benchmarkidis; start slowly and expand as appropriate
Discussion:
Using the Oregon Benchmark project in which approximately 270 indicators were developed as an
example of what some see as an overly ambitious effort, Orange County should develop and focus on a
few indicators that can be widely agreed to as being critical, gaining credibility for their use before
deciding to expand the nature and scope of the project.
Recommendation:
Develop initial "critical indicators", which may or may not include those presented in this report, and
commit to a review process where expansion will draw from additional input and lessons learned from
prior benchmarking efforts.
Factor No. 3: Commit to the effort over the long-term
Discussion:
It is important to commit staff and fiscal resources to the long-term in order for any indicator/benchmark
effort to succeed. Whether focused on a limited effort, as is recommended here for the short-term, or for
an expanded project over the long-term, it is important that Orange County leaders consider prioritizing in
its annual budget funds to fully accomplish whatever benchmarking work program is desired.
Recommendation:
Seek direction from Orange County leaders regarding a future commitment to benchmarking, and
establish a short- and long-term work program as appropriate.
Factor No. 4: Seek involvement from implementation entities
Recommendation:
Agencies responsible for implementation should be fully consulted to review, comment, and participate in
developing indicators and potential future benchmarks.
Factor No. 5: Have something to compare progress against
Discussion:
An intriguing -but often missing- component of benchmark studies is that they often provide no
•
comparisons to similar areas. Comparability should be viewed as an important component of future
Orange County efforts. Progress made in the Orange County region should be gauged against the success
rates of comparable or"competing" regions, as trends depicting improvement in Orange County might
actually be at rates below the levels of improvement being achieved elsewhere, and thus should not be
viewed as positively as they would when viewed alone.
Recommendation:
Consider whether benchmark/indicator efforts would benefit from also monitoring similar trends in other
selected metropolitan areas.
1
Factor No. 6: Develop indicators that are also benchmarks
Discussion:
Orange County should strive to develop goals (benchmarks) where direct progress can be tracked through
the monitoring of historical data(indicators). Having benchmarks and indicators be the same makes it
easier to measure progress. For example, a benchmark could be to add 5 golf courses in the region by the
year 2010; direct indicators would simply be the number of new courses added each year towards the
2010 date.
Recommendation:
Focus on developing benchmarks that can be directly measured by indicators.
•
•
8
GENERAL FINDINGS
For the most part, the trends as measured for the Orange County region in this report are improving. The
unemployment rate is at its lowest point in seven years. Orange County has one of the lowest poverty
rates.in the nation, and adult residents of the county are generally well educated.
The following is a summary of what was found:
Population and Growth
The population has increased and is expected to continue expanding. It is expected to exceed 2.8 million
next year and reach 3,244,607 by 2020.
Employment
The total employment has increased by 3.9 percent since 1991. It is expected to continue increasing in the
next millennium. Current employment in the region is 1,364,200 and is projected at 2,116,559 by 2020.
Housing
The median home value in Orange County is $264,482. Despite the relatively high cost of housing, a
majority of homes in Orange County are owner occupied. Between 1990 and 1997, 70,000 units have
been added to the county's housing stock. However,the supply of housing is not keeping pace with the
county's growing population.
Housing Construction
Residential building declined slightly at the beginning of the 1990's, but has steadily increased throughout
the last few years. Residential valuation has swelled recently by 30 percent between 1996-98. The
majority of new building permits were for single-family residences.
Unemployment
Orange County has some of the lowest unemployment rates in California and in the entire
nation. The unemployment rate had decreased 18.9 percent from 1991 to 1997.
Poverty
8.5 percent of Orange County residents lived below the poverty level in 1990. This is below the state rate
of an estimated 12 percent in 1990.
Public Safety
The per capita rate of crimes fell for the seventh year in a row, mirroring the state and nationwide trend.
The 1997 FBI crime rate was the lowest in sixteen years.
Family Well Being
The number and rate of reported child abuse incidences in the county has doubled in the past seven years.
The number of elder abuse reports has also increased dramatically since 1990.
High School Graduation •
The high school graduation rate for Orange County is above average statewide rates.
9
College Education of Orange County residents
In total, 61.1 percent of the population 25 years or older had attended or completed a college program.
SAT and ACT Test Scores
Orange County test scores remain above the nationwide criteria and are the highest in the six county
SCAG region.
Retail Sales
Taxable sales are the highest in ten years. A 20 percent increase in retail sales occurred from 1995 to
1998.
Air Quality
The air in Orange County has been cleaner throughout the 1990's than in previous decades. The worst air
quality remains in the county's inland cities.
Water Resources
As part of an arid geographic area, Orange County faces the unique challenge of how to continue to
provide water for a growing population in the years to come.
Waste
The amount of waste sent to landfills has increased 42 percent since 1995, despite recycling and diversion
efforts by the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.
Land Use
The county has lost 18 percent of its vacant land since 1972. A majority of that land has been converted
to residential use. Residential land use has increased 30 percent from 1972 to 1990.
Health Care
Access to service, particularly health care, limits the treatment of diseases and preventive illnesses. Many
residents, the majority which are children, can not afford health care, and therefore are not getting
adequate care.
•
•
•
•
10
•
COMMUNITY INDICATOR: POPULATION
Measures population change throughout
Orange County from 1990 to 1998. Population 1990 - 1998
Additionally, population trends are Orange County
estimated to 2020 and age distribution for 2,800,000
the county is shown.
2,700,000
Why, Is It Important?
Population statistics represent individuals o 2,600,000
who reside in Orange County. Building a a
community that fully serves its residents o 2,500,000
requires reasonable expectations about
future needs and levels of demand. 2 2,400,000
Changing patterns and rates of population
over time provides a solid basis to plan z 2,300,000 111111111
for housing, transit,jobs, public services
and a sustainable environment. Careful 2,200,000 I
planning will assist in accommodating 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
population growth in the county. Year
How Are We Doing?
• Orange County's 1998 population was 2,722,300.
• Although Orange County has lost its 1980's status as the fastest growing county in the United States,
it continues to be a major growth area.
• Since the 1990 Census, Orange County's population grew by nearly 312,000 persons. This is an
addition of 39,000 persons annually or a 1.6 percent annual increase.
• Like California, Orange County's population is relatively young when compared to the rest of the
nation. The median
age is 32.2 years in Age Distribution In Orange County
Orange County and
34 years for the 600,000
United States. -
500,000 — - i■ 1980,-.-
19 19901
y 400,000 — -- ---- --
C
O
a. 300,000 —
3 -
O -
F' 200,000 -- — .. if=
100,000 Ib t4- 7.' _- _.. _..
0-5 0-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 24-34 35-44 45-54 55-59 60-64 65-74 75+
Age
lI -
;That Is The Trend?
The population of the region is expected to reach and surpass three million by the year 2005. Reaching
3,244,607 by 2020. This is an addition of 522,316 people, which is equivalent to adding five cities the
size of Costa Mesa during the next twenty years. Between 1990 and 1997, 85 percent of Orange County's
population growth was due to natural increase (more births than deaths) and 15 percent was due to in-
migration. Most of the county's in-migration can be attributed to immigration rather than domestic
migration. As has characterized Orange County's growth in recent years, natural increase will account for
the majority of the county's future growth.
Population 1990 - 2020 -
Orange County
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
a •
E2,000,000
z
1,500,000
1,000,000 -
1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
12
9
COMMUNITY INDICATOR: PUBLIC SAFETY
Shown here are the overall number of crimes reported by the FBI per 100,000 residents in Orange County
for the years 1982 - 1997. FBI crimes include homicide, robbery, forcible rape, aggravated assault,
burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft.
Why Is It Important?
Crime is a reflection of the basic social and economic health of a community. Crime and the perception
of crime are often directly linked to residents' feelings of safety and security. Personal safety is crucial for
maintaining a strong sense of community, a high quality of life, and healthy families. High crime rates can
force community leaders to direct resources to law enforcement and detention programs, while depleting
the human and financial resources of governments that might otherwise go for other important programs.
How Are We Doing?
• According to the data from the FBI Crime Index, the number of crimes per 100,000 residents in
Orange County fell for the seventh year in a row.
• There was a 42 percent decrease in crime between 1990 and 1997. The 1997 figure, 3,485 reported
crimes, is the lowest number in sixteen years.
• This decrease is consistent with the state and nationwide trend.
FBI Crime Index
Crimes Per 100,000 Persons*
7000 -
6000
5000 --
N
61
✓ 4000 -
o -
a 3000 --
E
Z
2000 —
•
1000 —
0 I 1 I 4 I ! ! I I ! I I
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
*FBI crimes include homicide, robbery, forcible rape, aggravated Year
assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor whicle theft.
13
•
Arbter
COMMUNITY INDICATOR: LIVING IN POVERTY
Measures individuals who live below the poverty line. The U.S. Census Bureau uses a set of money
income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to detect who is poor. If a family's total
income is less than that family's threshold, than that family and every individual in it is considered poor.
For example, the federal poverty is set at S 16,450 per year for a family of four.
Why Is It Important?
Those living in poverty are unable to develop Percent of Persons Below
and fulfill their potential because their Poverty Level
nutrition, health care, and educational needs 14.0%
are insufficiently met. Social needs multiply o 12.0%
2oio
in areas of concentrated poverty and the costs a
of increased social services impose a heavy ;°, 10°��°
burden on an area's competitive position. The m s.o�ia
number of children living in poverty is an 6.0%
indicator of future costs society will incur in a 4.0%
social services and lost economic potential. 2.0% -
a 0.0%
How Are We Doing? 1970 1980 1990 1993
• The number and proportion of persons Year
below the poverty line has increased over
time in Orange County. Between 1970 and 1993, the rate nearly doubled from 6.5 to 12.6 percent.
• In 1990, over 200,000 persons in Orange County fell below the poverty level. Yet the poverty rate for
Orange County in 1990, at 8.5 percent, was lower than the Los Angeles County poverty rate of 15.07
percent. The number of people living in poverty in the entire state of California was below 13 percent
in- 1990.
• Hispanics recorded the highest poverty rates in Orange County in 1990 at 18.6 percent, followed by
Asian/Pacific Islanders at 12.9 percent, blacks at 9.7 percent, and whites at 6.7 percent.
• Poverty has been
increasing in Orange Poverty Rate by Ethnicity 1990
County, particularly
among those under 18Orange County
years old. In 1993, the
rate for children in 18 0
poverty was 19 percent a 16%
in Orange County. In o 14%
comparison, over one- m 12%
third of all children in
Los Angeles County a 6%
were considered to be = 4°%
living in poverty in 2Au. 0%
1993 and over one- Total White Black American Asian/Pacific Hispanic Other
fourth of all children in Indian& Islander
California in 1993 Eskimo
lived in poverty.
14
COMMUNITY INDICATOR: HOUSING TRENDS
The following were measured: the number of housing units in Orange County and current projected
housing estimates, the housing price index, overcrowding and housing density, housing tenure by
ethnicity in Orange County, and housing cost as a percent of income.
Why Is It Important? _
Residential construction is essential to Total Housing Units 1990 - 1998
accommodate for the projected population Orange County
growth in Orange County. A lack of
affordable housing also prohibits the ability of 960,000
young people to remain in the region after
they enter the workforce and makes it 940,000
difficult for employers to recruit qualified
workers. Thus, a job-housing imbalance can 920,000
occur. Higher housing costs often force ; o
900.000
people to live in adjacent communities, where I
•
they have to commute ling distances to work. Z 880,000
A lack of affordable housing can also push i !
low-income people below the poverty line or 860,000
cause overcrowding of housing units. In
addition, housing affordability may affect the I 840,000 ,
1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
elderly who rely on a fixed income. Year
Existing homeowners benefit from an increase in home values because their equity rises as well. Further
more, as home values rise, property taxes also increase, benefiting schools and municipalities.
How Are We Doing?
• Between 1990 and 1997, approximately 70,000 units have been added to Orange County's stock of
housing units, representing an overall increase of 6.9 percent.
• In 1998, 945,034 housing units existed in Orange County, indicating a 1.1 percent change from
935,097 units in 1997-_
• In 1998, the average price of Orange County homes was $264,482.
•
•
15
/0
• The number and rate of overcrowded housing units has been steadily increasing. 7.2 percent of the
households were overcrowded
(more than 1.51 persons per room) in Overcrowded Housing 1970 - 1990
1990, compared to 2.6 percent in 1980. 1.5+ persons per room
• There is considerable variation in 8.00%-
housing unit population density by racial6.00% V.
and ethnic group. The 1990 density for o o m 4.00 °r°
Whites was 2.47 persons per unit, c� z.00r°
I
o.00r°
followed by Blacks at 2.97, Asians at 1970 1980 1990
2.94 and Hispanics at 4.72. Year
• A majority of the homes in Orange - ---
County are owner-occupied. •
What Is The Trend?
The large growth in Orange County's population -- __
appears to be outpacing the growth of housing. Persons Per Dwelling Unit
The number of housing units in Orange County
is expected to exceed 1 million by 2005 N 4
and reach 1,154,528 by 2020. This demand a 3 ;
in housing units will also likely lead to a 7 0 i ±, .
continued rise in housing costs. The increase Z
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1997 1998
in population density per housing unit will Year
continue well into the 21st century and is _
projected to reach a high of 2.89
(for all ethnic groups combined)by 2000,
holding through 2005 before any declines are expected.
Total Housing Units 1990-2020
Orange County
1,400,000
1,200,000 111111111
1,000,000
A
•
D 800,000
46
d 1117.
1 600,000
z
400,000
200,000
0
1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
16
,
40
COMMUNITY INDICATOR: HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
The report focuses on two trends: the number and type of residential building permits let in Orange
County, and residential permit valuation.
Why Is It Important? - - - - - -
Housing construction is significantly Residential Building Permits
Orange County
linked to housing projections and 30,000
population growth. It is important to
monitor whether new housing
25,000 i�Total
construction is keeping pace with Single
projected growth so that housing is 1--.--Multiple
readily available to the increasing .E 20•000 -""
population. Housing construction is I a + •
also an important source of + 0 1s.000 •
employment and corporate profit in the 1 i •
region. Additionally, the availability of 1 Z 10000 - • + i
reasonably priced housing is one of the • • +
key determinants of the region's
5°9I.
t- + i
•
attractiveness and competitiveness. !
I
I
•
How Are We Doing? 0
r- r c § R W@ i E l W 1 1 § § V i Volr
• Residential building, measured by Year
new building permits issued, has - -
surged upward since 1992. The
total number of permits issued in 1998 was 10,043 compared to only 5,957 new permits in 1992.
• Since 1991, the majority of residential permits have been for the construction of single-family
dwelling units.
• The number of permits for single family Total Residential Valuation
residences almost doubled between 1993 and
1998. 1980 -1997
Orange County
• The number of multiple family building permits 2500 000
decreased from 4,877-in 1994 to 2,245 the
following year. Multiple unit permits increased
again in 1998 to 2,735. 2,000,000 —
• The total 1998 housing permit valuation (the
approximate costs of construction) is the o 1,500,000 — /V ,
highest since 1989. There was a significant 30 H
percent increase in valuations between 1996 ° 1,000,000 -
and 1998 in Orange County reaching N
$1,640,000 million in 1998.
500,000 —
I
0 , i I 1 1 1 1 I
. 1980 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 �
Year
17
What Is The Trend?
Based on current projections for population and employment, it appears that the amount of housing being
constructed in Orange County falls short of what is needed to accommodate this future growth. On the
average, 9,206 residential building permits have been issued each year since 1990. 209,494 dwelling units
are planned to be constructed during the next 20 years. If housing in Orange County is unavailable and/or
unaffordable, many people will continue to look for housing in adjacent counties, making long commutes
into Orange County to work and forcing significant resources to be expended on transportation
infrastructure to support job/housing imbalances.
18
COMMUNITY INDICATOR: EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
The employment growth rate in Orange County is measured. The 1994 labor market estimates by industry
is shown, and employment is projected to the year 2020.
Why Is It Important? — —
Diversity of employment is Employment Growth 1990 - 2020
important to a region. When a I Orange County
community is dependent on only a i 2,500,000
few large industries or companies,
it becomes vulnerable to sudden
changes in the market. In order to 2,000,000
develop a strong economic base, it
is most desired to have numerous 2 1,500,000
medium and small sized
businesses, widely distributed 1,040,000
among several industries. It is also
vital for a region to have types of
businesses with high growth I 500,000
potential and benefits. For
example, many jobs in the retail o
and service sectors are low paying, 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
less secure, and offer few or no Year
benefits. -- -=- - --I
How Are We Doing?
• The number of employed residents increased by 141,100 or more than 4 percent between 1991 and
1998.
• The total number of employees in Orange County was 1,223,100 in 1990 and has increased steadily to
1,364,200 in 1998.
—
• The service sector is the largest Components of Orange County
employment sector in Orange Employment
County, accounting for over 30
percent of the jobs. This is followed
by the trade sector at 25 percent, 7°i° 4%
which consists of both wholesale
and retail trade. Almost two-thirds 57° 30% ■Services
of the trade-sector jobs are in retail ❑Trade
employment. Manufacturing 11% • i Manufacturing
accounts for 18 percent of the total ❑Government
industry, followed government, ■Construction I
finance, insurance,,real estate and ■Real Estate ;
construction. There is also a fairly ®Other
large self-employed market 18%
(approximately 10 percent). 25%
19
/1Q!,41.7.
• There are several major employers in Orange County. The largest employer is Boeing, employing
over 15,700 residents. Disneyland Park and Hotel and the University of California Irvine both employ
over 10,000 residents.
•
Gfhat Is The Trend?
Over the next five years, an additional 165,000 jobs are expected to be added to the county's employment
base.Increases are expected in each of the employment sectors, with the largest job growth projected to
occur in the service and trade sectors. The total employment for the entire county is expected to reach 2.1
million in the year 2020. Since employment levels and poverty levels are both projected to increase, this
suggests a greater number of working poor.
•
•
•
20
COMMUNITY TREND: THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
Measures the percent of the labor force in Orange County that is unemployed. The labor force is defined
as the number of residents in the region who want to work and are currently seeking employment. The
labor force does not include individuals who are homeless, transient, or institutionalized.
Why Is This Important?
The extent to which the labor force in the region is employed is directly linked to an important element of
the quality of life. The unemployment rate is a measure of the current loss of productive potential in the
region. While there will always be some unemployment, it is generally agreed that economic growth
utilizing existing labor resources in a community is preferable. A reduction in the unemployment rate
raises both production and employment in the regrion, stimulating income growth among its residents.
Being jobless brings a lot of emotional and financial stress to individuals and families. High
unemployment in a region can induce crime, and the need for additional social service expenditures
among local governments.
How Are We Doing?
• Unemployment for Orange County was at the lowest rate of the decade in 1998 with a 3.1 percent
rate.
• The number of unemployed residents in Orange County averaged 45,200 during 1997, down from
55,700 in 1996. Mid-year figures for 1998 indicated that 44,500 residents were unemployed.
• Orange County's unemployment rate has consistently registered below the state and the nation; the
state unemployment rate averaged 6.3 percent for 1997 while the United States unemployment rate
averaged 4.9 percent for the year.
What Is The Trend?
The unemployment rate in Orange County has remained below both the state and national averages for the
past 10 years and this trend is expected to continue in the future.
Unemployment Rate 1991-1997
Orange County •
- 8.0
7.0 -
6.0 -
0/)
a 5.0
.
4.0 -
3.0 -
m
C
2.0 -
1.0 -
0.0 ! t
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Year
21
COMMUNITY INDICATOR: TAXABLE SALES
Measures the number of retail sales and taxable transactions per year in Orange County. Retail sales
includes sales that occur through retail outlets. Taxable transactions include both retail and non-retail
sales.
Why Is It Important?
Changes in taxable sales are a measure of changes in local government revenues and changes in the
economic health of the consumer sector. They are one of the major revenue generators for local and state
governments.
How Are We Doing?
• A 20 percent increase in taxable sales occurred from $28,276,259 in 1994 to $37,095,966 in 1998.
• In 1998, the total gross county product(GCP) for Orange County was $100.1 billion. An increase of
12 percent from the 1997 GCP.
Taxable Transactions, 1994-1998
Orange County
$38,000,000
$36,000,000 -
E
$34,aoo,000
0
0
0
0
$32,000,000 -
C
co
y
O• $30,000,000 -
H
$28,000,000 —
$26,000,000
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Year
22
4,041::ty.
COMMtiNITY INDICATOR: EDUCATION
Measures the percentage of the adult population 25 years and older who have completed public high
school, and the percentage of those who have less than a high school education in Orange County. The
percentage of adult 25 years and older who have pursued further academic studies at a college level is also
measured. In addition, the Orange County K-12 enrollment rate by ethnicity is discussed.
------------------------------- ---- ------
The ACT and SAT test
I SAT & ACT Tests
scores for 1998 in Orange
g I Percent of Students Meeting State Performance Criteria
County are shown. The SAT 30%
(Scholastic Aptitude Test) •1993
and the ACT (American ' II 311997
25%
College Test) are ----.-a ■ 998
administered to high school :'__
students for admission into a 20% .TA =
ekt
How Are We Doing?
• In total, 61.1 percent of the population 25 years and older had attended or completed a college
program
• Orange County's population is generally well-educated. In 1990, 24.4 percent of the population 25
years or older had some — — - ___.._..-__.-_--------------___--- -_----
college or a four year degree, K-12 Enrollment by Ethnicity
8.8 percent hada two year Orange County
degree, and 18.7 percent had j 60%
a bachelor's degree. Another
9.1 percent had attended or 50%
completed a graduate
program. • I a 40% _ •1990
• Of the population 25 years of a I
®1997
age and older, 18.8 percent 9 30% - I
•
had not completed high
school. i 20%
• The overall level of high a •
_
school dropouts in both 10%
Orange County and the State -
•
of California has been o% '
White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific
declining. The reported Islander
dropout rate for Orange __
County has been consistently
below the statewide level.
• Between 1990 and 1997, K-12 enrollment in public schools has increased by 22.7 percent. Enrollment
in grades 7-8 has been the most rapid at 26.1 percent, followed by K-6 at 24.9 percent and 9-12 at 17.3
percent.
• The K-12 population has become more racially and ethnically diverse. In 1990, 53.4 percent of the K-
12 students were white, 32 percent Hispanic, 13.4 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 2.1 percent
were Black. In 1997, 44.5 percent of K-12 students were White, 39.8 percent were Hispanic, 13.9
were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 2.2 percent were Black.
• Data on Orange County high school graduates indicate that approximately one-fourth of all students
taking the SAT and ACT exams have consistently'met the nationwide criteria. Nationwide criteria for
SAT test scores are a score of 1000 or better on the total test and a score of 21 or better on the
composite ACT tests.
• In 1998, Orange County had the highest percentage in the six county Southern California Association
of Governments(SCAG) region of students meeting the nationwide criteria. Average total SAT scores
for public schools in Orange County was 1069 according to 1998 tests.
•
What Is The Trend?
The overall school dropout rate has been declining. However, challenges remain for districts with rising
and ethnically diverse enrollments. There is a need for adult education for the large percentage of people
over 25 who have not completed high school.
24 •
COMMUNITY INDICATOR: AIR QUALITY
Indicates the number of days per year that air quality climbs above federally established clean air
standards. Three main pollutants are measured: ozone, carbon monoxide, and PM 10 (particulate matter).
Ozone is best known as a beneficial layer in the upper stratosphere, which protects the earth from harmful
ultra-violet rays. When present at lower levels, however, ozone can irritate eyes and damage lungs.
Carbon monoxide is a byproduct of the combustion of gasoline. Suspended particle material is another
indicator of air quality. It is commonly measured as PM 10 (particulate matter of size 10 microns in
diameter or smaller). PM 10 is composed of dust, ash and smoke. PM 10 is considered a telling indicator
of air quality and is thought to be damaging to human health.
Why Is It Important?
Clean air is essential to building and maintaining healthy communities. The overall quality of air we
breathe is fundamental to the health and welfare of a community. Air quality is affected by a wide range
economic, environmental, and social decisions. Air pollution affects people's health. In fact, the rise in
asthma and other respiratory illnesses are believed to be directly related to the increase in air pollution.
Air pollution also affects the environment. Plants rely on sunlight and carbon dioxide to produce energy.
If the air isn't pure enough, a plant can not produce enough energy, and it's oxygen production decreases.
How Are We Doing?
• The air in Orange County has been cleaner throughout the 1990's than in the previous decade. The
worst air quality in the region is usually measured in inland areas that do not benefit from the ocean
breeze. The poorest ozone concentrations are measured near the city of La Habra.
• For the past 9 years, none of the cities in Orange County had days exceeding federal carbon monoxide
standards. The measuring station located in La Habra has recorded a decrease in ozone concentrations
from 49 days in 1986 to 5 days in 1998. The receptor area in Costa Mesa has reported zero days
exceeding federal standards for ozone and carbon monoxide in 6 out of the last 8 years.
• Receptors in Central Orange County(Anaheim/Los Alamitos) and El Toro are the only ones that
measure PM 10 samplings for Orange County. These stations measure the percentage of days
exceeding federal and state standards due to the fact that samples were not taken daily and the number
of samples varies per receptor. Since 1996, there have been no days which have exceeded federal
standards. The number of days exceeding the state standards near the measuring station located in
Anaheim/Los Alamitios has decreased over 50 percent from a high of 45 percent(19 days out of 58
samples) in 1986 to a low of 19.7 percent in 1998 (12 days out of 61 samples).
What Is The Trend?
Air Quality is expected and required to be cleaner in the next millennium. Sweeping measures requiring
cleaner fuels, vehicles, industrial operations, and consumer products will be needed to successfully reduce
air pollution even as the region's population grows.
25
Q.?.4,1,
Number of Days ExceedingFederal Standards
I - iI 19-8-81 19871 1988 19891 19901 19911 19921 19931 19941 199 -19961 19971 19981
La Habra Ozone 49 41 . 33 36 35 28 31 13 9 4 5 1 5
CO 1 2 2 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Anaheim Ozone 28 25 19 13 11 11 3 3 5 2 1 0 2
CO 1 0 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Los Alamitos Ozone 5 4 17 11 10 10 4 4 5 0 1 0 0
CO n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Costa Mesa Ozone 10 2 2 0 3 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
CO 3 2 2 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
El ToroOzone 12 18 18 7 11 10 7 7 5 1 2 2 2
CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM 10 SAMPLING DAYS EXCEEDING FEDERAL AND STATE STANDARDS*
19861 19871 1988 r 1989 j 19901 1991F 1992 1993 1994 1995 19961 1997[ 19981
Anaheim FED n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
STATE n/a n/a n/a n/a 33.9% 23.7% 19.6% 21.3% n/a 23.3% 10.0% 18.3% 19.7%
Los Al FED 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
STATE 45.6% 35.6% 26.3% 38.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 23.3% 10.0% 18.3% 19.7%
El Toro FED 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
STATE 13.1% 24.6% 18.0% 33.3% 29.1% 15.3% 8.3% 11,5% n/a 18.3% 6.6% 7.1% 10.2%
*Samples were not taken every day. The number of samples varies per receptor. Thus the data is shown as
percentage of days measured.
•
•
•
•
26
e
COMMUNITY INDICATOR: REAL PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME
Measures the average income of residents in Orange County. Total personal income is the sum of all
wages and salaries, transfer payments, property and asset income and self employed income. It does not
include contribution for social security. Orange County median family income is also measured.
Why Is This Important? - -
Personal income is an indirect measure
for the quality of life. It enables Per Capita Income -Selected Counties `I
individuals and families to make both
necessary and discretionary $29,000 -
ex enditures on goods and services.
$27,000
Growth in real per capita income is
more important as a regional target than 0 $25,000
growth of jobs alone. • $23,000 -
a
o o I
How Are We Doing? • $21;000
• At$30,280 per person average a $19,o00 - �rx
income in 1997, Orange County's
$17,000 -
per capita income is higher than
that for Los Angeles, San Diego, $15,000
and Riverside counties. Per capita 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
income has increased by$10,390 Orange County a Los Angeles County
between 1990 and 1997. —.—San Diego County —x—Riverside County J
• Orange County's per capita income
is ranked seventh in the state.
• Income levels, based on median family income, have increased from 1980 to 1998. In 1980, the
Orange County median family income was $42,290, increasing to $53,000 in 1990, falling during the
early 1990's due to the recession, and rising again and reaching$61,812 in 1998.
Megan Family Income
Orange County
70,a0o -
eo,000-
mcco
a0.wo-
3:1,000 .
CCO
10,000
0
1981 1982 1983 1584 1985 1966 1987 '988 '989 1990 1991 1992 1S93 1994 1996 1596 1997 1998
Year
27 •
l
DRAFT
COMMUNITY INDICATOR: LAND USE
Indicates the change in land use within Orange County between the years 1972 and 1990.
Why Is It Important?
A community's character is determined by land use choices made over time. A healthy and sustainable
community provides for all the community's needs- housing, business, services, agriculture, and open
space for recreation and habitat preservation. To accomplish this a region must provide for a balance of
land uses.
How Are We Doing?
• Approximately 42 percent of the county's land was uncommitted/vacant in 1990, with percent being
set aside as regional, state, or federal open space. In 1972, 201,283 acres were vacant and in 1990,
168,441 acres remain undeveloped. That is an 18 percent reduction of uncommitted land since 1972.
• A majority of the vacant land has been converted to residential use. In 1990, 24 percent of the total
land in Orange County was utilized for residential purpose. This indicates an increase of over 30
percent for residential land use since 1972.
• Orange County has a sufficient amount of open space for purposes of outdoor recreation. 18 percent
of the total land use in 1990 was devoted to open space. The amount of open space has actually
increased by almost 32,000 acres between 1972 and 1990.
What Is The Trend?
Much of the county's vacant land and biological diversity have been lost during the past several decades.
Future development as a result of the projected population growth will place additional demands on the
remaining resources.
Orange County Land Use Inventory
250,000
■1972
•
200,000 01980
❑1985
111.11
■1990
150,000
co
f�
Q
100,000 ,
•
50,000 •
•rs
Residential Commercial Industrial Open Space Extractive Vacant Public
Land Use
28
\DRAFT)
% Change % Change
Land Use 1972-1980 1985-1990
Residential 22.9 8.7
Commercial/Office 47.2 29.1
Industrial 44.4 -5.9
Open Space 17.7 -5.2
Extractive -21.8 -27.8
Vacant -13.6 -4.9
Public 29.9 3.1
Total -0.02 1
•
29
COMMUNITY INDICATOR: FAMILY WELL BEING
The number of reported child abuse and neglect incidences were measured for calendar years 1990-1997.
It is important to note that the true number of child abuse incidences can not be shown here since an
unknown number of cases go unreported or/either are not prosecuted.
Why Is This Important?
Normal childhood development requires a safe, nurturing environment free of physical or verbal abuse. A
sustainable community must monitor the incidence of child abuse and take sufficient measures to prevent
further abuse. Intervening early in a child abuse cases leads to fewer physical, psychological, and
emotional problems in the lives of the children that are affected and helps reduce the continuation of
abuse to future generations of children. An increase in the number of child abuse reports reflects a more
volatile community, and therefore a greater need for child services and early intervention, as well as
prevention and education programs for adults.
How Are We Doing?
• The number and rate of reported child abuse incidences has been on the increase. In 1990, the rate of
child abuse and neglect was 47.8 per 1000 youth. In 1997 that figure had increased to 70.16 per 1000
youth.
• A large increase of reported child abuse could possibly due to better reporting, greater awareness,
and/or more incidences.
• A slight majority of the cases involve females, and a majority of the cases also involve children under
the age of 13.
• The most common type of abuse is physical abuse, followed by neglect and sexual abuse.
Child Abuse Rate
(Child Abuse Reports per 1000 Youth)
80
70 —
N
V _
a 60 --
1529
E 50
• o 40 —
a
.80 30 -
CD
41 20 --
10 --
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Year
30
• The number of reported elder abuse occurrences have doubled in the past ten years. In 1990, the
number of reported cases was 1,615 and in 1998 that figure increased to 3,421 reports of abuse.
What Is The Trend?
The large increase in the rate of child abuse(possibly due to better reporting, greater awareness, and/or
more incidences) suggests a growing need for attention and services. Due to some legislation passed last
year(SB 2199), a 42 percent increase in elder abuse reports is projected within the next few years. Senate
Bill 2199 required counties to provide specific programs for elder abuse (e.g. 24 hour hotline, and
emergency shelter), and these programs are now funded by the government.
Elder Abuse Rate
4000
3500
•
3000 -
2500 -
a
c
0 2000 -
L.m
1500
1000 -
500 -
0
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Year
•
31
1341.117
COMMUNITY INDICATOR: WATER RESOURCES
Measures the historical and estimated water consumption for Orange County and Indicates the water
demand for Orange County(in acre-feet) within the Metropolitan Water District service area. Estimates of
future reclaimed water supplies within the Orange County Water District are also measured.
Why Is This Important?
Maintaining water quality and ensuring reliable water sources are important goals in Southern California.
Orange County has a population of approximately 2.7 million and continues to grow faster than most
counties. With this "need" (i.e., demand) for more water, there is unfortunately a corresponding decline.
(i.e., supply) of available water. As part of an arid geographic area, Orange County faces a unique
challenge: how to continue to provide water for a growing population in the years to come. In the past
this need could largely be met through, water purchased outside of Southern California has been the
answer. In the years ahead, however, Orange County may not be able to continue to rely on imported
sources to satisfy the growing demand for water.
Current plans call for a reduction in the state's use of Colorado River water. The crux of the dilemma is
this: California has used as much as 5.2 million acre-feet annually - 800,000 acre-feet more than its basic
apportionment of Colorado River water—by relying on water not utilized by Arizona and Nevada. But
with Arizona and Nevada requiring more water to supply their needs, California- and Orange County-
must find a suitable replacement for this watersource.
How Are We Doing?
• Between 1990 and the current Past and Projected Water Consumption
year, water consumption for Orange County -
Orange County was the lowest in i.000.000
1992. In 1998, a total of 607,251 900,030 --13—Total Consumption
acre-feet of water were - 800.0x, t Net anport
consumed(one acre-foot of water 700000 Net Local _ -
is estimated to supply a family of - F
four with water for one year). 600'00° + . ,
This total was lower than the 1 500'333
previous three years and also 400,333 ,
lower than the total water 300,000 .1116.
consumed in 1990 despite the 200,000
growth in population. ,33 000
• Net imported water has o I , + + It Itl
decreased over the decade,while 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2010 2020
the use of water derived from • Year
local sources has increased. This _
is due to the adoption of the
California 4.4 Plan, which reduces the state's use of the Colorado River's water. Total water
consumption in Orange County is expected to increase 25%by the year 2020.
• Currently,the county's water supply is 60% groundwater and 40% purchased imported water. The
projected water demand for the year 2020 for Orange County is 847,000 acre-feet, compared to
current consumption of about 666,000 acre-feet per year.
32
r -
• In 1997, urban uses accounted for 95 Water Demand
percent of the Metropolitan Water Metropolitan Water District Service
District's retail demand, while- Area for Orange County
agriculture accounted for 5 percent of 700 -
the demand. --
• Between 1980 and 1997, there was a 600 —i Agricultural Use —
i p Urban Use =
48 percent decrease in the demand for 500 -
agricultural use in the Orange County
area served by the MWD, while the 0 400 --
demand for urban use increased by 42 2 _
a 300 - —
percent during the same period. -
• Most of the increased demand.for 200 — -_ _
urban use occurred between 1980
100 --
(463,600 acre-feet)and 1990 (653,000
acre-feet), since urban water use o , IM'- '. , I = ' , �,
increased by only .3 acre-feet from 1980 1990 1997
1990 to 1997. Year
• Annual pumping from the groundwater
basin is expected to reach a historic high this year of 375,000 acre-feet. With reasonable investments
in the basin, annual pumping can reach 466,000 acre-feet in the year 2020.
What Is The Trend?
These projections indicate,that future water demand will far outweigh available supply, even if there is no
decrease in available water. This imbalance of supply and demand could become even more pronounced
in an.extended drought. Faced with this problem, Orange County must secure a safe and adequate
alternative source of water for the years ahead. An
obvious answer would be to increase the ---
percentage of purchased water, but projections Estimate of Future Reclaimed
and recent events indicate that counting on Water Supplies
increased purchases of water may not be Orange County
economically feasible or wise, since the available 50,000
supply is continuing to decrease. Water agencies 45,000
must explore a variety of-alternatives, including 40,00011111
conservation. m 35,000
i. 30,0001
Reclaimed water has long been regarded as an 25,000 ■ti
attractive, cost-effective water supply alternative if 20,000
because it involves using existing planned m
u 15,000
II
wastewater resources that are locally controlled a 10,0001111
and highly reliable. These essentially drought- 5,000 IIproof supplies are expected to play a significant 0U
role in meeting the increasing needs of Orange 2000 2010 2020
County residents and employers. Year
33 .
deitipt
COMMUNITY INDICATOR: SOLID WASTE
This information reflects the amount of waste that is landfilled, or disposed in Orange County rather than
the total amount of waste generated in the county.
Why Is This Important?
The amount of solid waste deposited at landfills is important as a simple, measurable indicator of waste
generated. A sustainable society recycles or reuses the waste generated as much as possible, minimizing
the amount of waste sent to landfills.
The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 requires cities and counties to divert waste from disposal
at landfills. The law required that cities and counties divert 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill
disposal by 1995, and 50 percent of all solid waste by 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and
composting activities. In addition to saving material resources, reducing the amount of solid waste
deposited at local area landfills will extend the life of such sites, possibly helping to maintain lower
disposal costs for area residents and employers.
How Are We Doing?
• The amount of waste sent to landfills in the county has increased since 1990 from 4,046,306 tons of
waste per year to 4,670,966 tons of waste in 1998.
• The implementation of the recycling program did reduce waste for a limited time,but in 1995 the
amount of waste aky-rocketed again despite recycling efforts.
• As of December 30, 1998,. 92 percent of the jurisdictions in Orange County reviewed by the
California Integrated Waste Management Board met the solid waste diversion rate of 25%. This
measurement is above the total diversion rate being met among cities throughout the entire SCAG
region(85 percent)as well as the rate for Los Angeles(70%) and San Bernardino (67%)counties.
What Is The Trend? Solid Waste Disposal at Orange County Landfills
According to the Integrated Waste (Tonnage)
Management Board, California leads 5,000,000
the nation in recycling. Since the 4,500,000
implementation of source reduction I
and recycling legislation in 1990, an 4,000'000 ' I
estimated 100 million tons of wastes 3,500,003
have been kept out of landfills in the
3,000,000 I
state. tin I
2,500,000
In Orange County, however, a 42 11111 '
percent increase in the amount of - 2,000,000
waste being sent to landfills 1,500,000 111111 I
occurred between 1996 and 1998.
lull '
The question remains: why do we 1,000,000
see such an increase despite 500,000
recycling efforts, and where are we I II 1 III '
going to dispose the waste in the 0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1998 1997 1998
future? Year •
34
COMMUNITY INDICATOR: HEALTH CARE
The percentage of Orange County adult residents without health insurance was measured by ethnicity and
estimates for lack of health care coverage by racial categories for the county's children is shown. The
number of AIDS cases between 1989-1998 is also reported. As well as statistics about behavioral/mental
health for the county.
Why Is This Important?
Poverty in Orange County is obscured by the relative affluence of many residents. What is considered a
livable wage elsewhere is low income here, and cannot be relied on to provide adequately for a family of
four. So when a family struggles to.meet basic needs and feed their children, purchasing health care
coverage is often not affordable. Considering the federal poverty level is set at$16,450 per year for a
family of four, some Orange County residents cannot afford to buy their own health care coverage yet are
ineligible for public assistance programs such as Medi-Cal.
Approximately 5 million adult Americans suffer from severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia,
bipolar disorder, panic disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Because society fears and
misunderstands mental disorders there is a stigma attached to those who suffer from these afflictions. This
stigma limits their access to social support, services, and resources.
How Are We Doing?
• Nearly 17 percent(335,000)of Orange County adults are without any type of health care coverage.
• Almost 52 percent of those without any health care coverage are from Latino/Hispanic and
Vietnamese populations, representing 150,000, or one in four adults within these subpopulations.
• Almost 13 percent(89,840) children in Orange County are without any health coverage.
• 57 percent of children without any healthcare coverage are Latino/Hispanic; more than 50,000 (22%)
Latino/Hispanic children are without any coverage. Just over 8 percent of Vietnamese children have
no source of health care coverage.-More than 7 percent of white children are without any health care
coverage.
•
Estimates for Lack of Health Care Coverage by
_ Racial Categories for Orange County's Children •
25.0% -
X"
$ 20.0%
•0 15.0%
a
a 10.0%
El
5.0°,6 Tit_ nu
a
0.0% - I I I I
All Races White Hispanic Vietnamese Other All Other
Asians or Races
Pacific
Islanders
Ethnic Category
35
• 5 percent of all Orange County Health Needs Assessments survey respondents reported having a
mental disorder, with a significantly higher percentage (9.1 %) reporting in the low income category.
• According to the Mental Health Association, one-third of all people seeking treatment
reported having been turned down for health insurance coverage because of their mental
condition.
• Nearly one-fourth of all respondents reporting having a mental disorder are not receiving
treatment.
• In Orange County, between 1994 and 1996,
there was an average of 8.6 deaths by suicide
Average Number of Suicides
per 100,000 people. This is below the state 1994-1996
suicide rate of 10.7 deaths per 100,000.
Orange County California United States
• The National Center for Health Statistics showed
8.6 10.7 11.2
that from 1950-1995, no progress was made in
reducing the incidence of suicide. During the same •
period the total number of deaths by any cause
decreased 40 percent, while deaths by suicide
remained constant.
• The number of reported AIDS cases has decreased since a high of 597 cases in 1992.
Yet the number of reported cases (287) in 1998 remains higher than the 1989 report(262 cases).
AIDS Cases Reported 1989 through 1998
Orange County
700
600 —
500 —
co
Gl
N _
✓ 400
0
E300
200 —
100 —
0 - ! 1 ! t I
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Year
• 36
. Y
Appendix A
Sources for Graphs and Charts
Description Date Source
Population 1990-1998 1998 State Department of Finance
Age Distribution 1995 Center for Demographic Research, CSUF
Population 1990-2020 1996 Center for Demographic Research, CSUF
FBI Crime Index 1997 California Department of Justice
Poverty Level 1990 US Census
Poverty Rate by Ethnicity 1990 US Census
Total Housing Units 1990-1998 1998 State Department of Finance
Overcrowded Housing 1990 US Census
Persons per Unit 1998 Center for Demographic Research, CSUF
Total Housing Units 1990-2020 1996 Center for Demographic Research, CSUF
Residential Building Permits 1998 Economic Science Corporation
Total Residential Valuation 1998 State Department of Finance
Employment Growth 1990-2020 1997 Center for Demographic Research, CSUF
Components of Employment 1994 Center for Demographic Research, CSUF
Unemployment Rate 1997 California State Employment Development Department
Taxable Transactions 1998 California State Board of Equalization
SAT & ACT Tests 1998 California Department of Education
Educational Attainment 1998 California Department of Education
K-12 Enrollment by Ethnicity 1997 California Department of Education
Air Quality Ozone&CO 1998 South Coast Air Quality Management District
Air Quality PM 10 1998 South Coast Air Quality Management District
Per Capita Income 1998 Center for Economic Research, Chapman University
Median Family Income 1998 Center for Economic Research, Chapman University
Land Use Inventory 1990 Orange County Administrative Office, Environmental
Systems Research Institute
Land Use Change 1990 Southern California Edison, Land Cover Survey
Child Abuse Rate 1997 Orange County Social Services Agency
Elder Abuse Rate 1998 Adult Protective Services, Orange County Superior
Court
Water Consumption 1998 Municipal Water District of Orange County
Water Demand 1997 Metropolitan Water District
Future Reclaimed Water Supplies 1997 Metropolitan Water District
Solid Waste Disposal 1998 California Integrated Waste Management Board
Lack of Health Care Coverage 1998 Orange County Health Care Agency
Suicide Rate 1996 Mental Health Association of Orange County
AIDS Cases 1998 National Center for Disease Control&Prevention
y Y
Receive and File—OCCOG Draft Report re:
"Tracking Orange County—A review of Social,
Environmental and Economic Performance Indicators"
October 25, 1999
ATTACHMENT 2
STAFF COMMENT LETTER re: DRAFT
"TRACKING ORANGE COUNTY — A REVIEW OF
SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND ECONOMIC
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS", ORANGE
COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS,
NOVEMBER 1999
•
Draft Performance Indicators.CC Staff Report
5
j
72-2,-;:::,:;5'._-1.1- ,,:::-f:I-is:4:f-:- -':‘::'''''"."---:--.
,- -;.;-:::',.:;-.:7 ::=1 -'-:::::::7:::. --- -t � r r �- - tz � � tf•-.y. �� _ "r � L- ` ^r _ ;-....1
c 1
ft
4--4N
5 ��£> n :-.7,-.:',•1:.;� r S'i'n u 3.: '4, '� •-4 ` ', '�'-_ `
,- y -`7;:,-...:- .+es , ( -» xwr :-,ta is' -.aA..+ '3
"e- ..2“7:::C
..r;'�•::--:''',
t s N a. r y Z - tf�••``�/ 1 1 ,� i t1 -e a k 1 r• s
`t-7.* .,2.---`6-;---1.:'`-'::`::::"r ~ r Y1 �7 ;k-'-(7;-'4,-.s < T,:-.7,,,,i-•:-..:-,----,:,--,,-.,:_-_-;7,...1:.fi \6.1 fir, 1:-*ei4 „'7'r.',.Lt 'c�`f A9..;
--:.-..•=-"''.'.. .. •+' . r... . --r: � .. t." .-.1:'. . � `t yT,{fin 1� 3 .~ 35 .5-:i''''f _ I _ 3'3 '^_ � � - .t •-R .0
October 12, 1999
Orange County Council of Governments
Attn: Rick Bishop
600 West Santa Ana Boulevard, Suite 214
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Dear:
SUBJECT: COMMENTS RE: DRAFT "TRACKING ORANGE COUNTY—A
REVIEW OF SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND ECONOMIC
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS", prepared by ORANGE
COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS,dated NOVEMBER
1999
The Department of Development Services of the City has reviewed the above-referenced report
and finds the document most helpful in achieving a broad-based overview of various issues of
concern within the County. It is understood the document is a pilot report, and is therefore
limited in its scope of identification of issues of concern that can be looked at on a countywide
basis. The format and information presented is helpful, concise, and easy to understand. It is
being presented to our City Council, Planning Commission, and Environmental Quality Control
Board to provide our local decision-makers additional information sources regarding the major
issues within Orange County at the present time.
The discussion as to what are "indicators" and "benchmarks", the use and misuse of indicators,
and the sequencing of benchmarks is very helpful in understanding the process in determining
appropriate and relevant indicators and benchmarks to be utilized on a county-wide basis.
In dealing with the issue of how to sustain this type of an effort over the long-term, I would
suggest initiating discussions with the educational and institutional members of the COG to
determine if they have an interest in maintaining and funding this type of a program in the long-
term, along with SCAG. It would seem this program could be incorporated into the ongoing
"quality of life" identification efforts currently being undertaken by the University of California,
Irvine. A cooperative effort among the universities and the institutional members of the COG,
and SCAG, may be a productive avenue of discussion.
C:\My Documents\OCCOGTerformance Indicators.Staff Comment Letter.doc\LW\10-12-99
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:OCCOG Draft Report re:
"Tracking Orange County—A review of Social,
Environmental and Economic Performance Indicators"
October 12 1999
The community indicators presented in the draft report provide a basic overview of the general
issues of importance within the county. It would be helpful in determining appropriate
additional areas or issues to be included to provide a listing of additional areas of concern
assessed by either the City of Seattle or the State of Oregon, allowing for a better understanding
of the other types of benchmarks or indicators being utilized on other regions. It would seem
appropriate to tailor the final set of"Community Indicators" to be as comparable as possible to
other sets of indicators being developed within the region, such as SCAG. SCAG has recently
issued a "State of the Region" document, and there should be some consistency between the
indicators utilized by SCAG and OCCOG.
I hope these comments are helpful, and commend the COG's efforts in producing this
information document. In the future, this type of information will become more relevant to the
decision's made by each governing jurisdiction within the SCAG and OCCOG region. These
initial steps will hopefully lead to a successful and long-term commitment to produce useful and
helpful "quality-of-life" indicators for the OCCOG region. If you have any questions of myself,
please contact me (562) 431-2527, extension 313. I will be most happy to answer any questions
or provide clarification regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
Whittenberg
Director of Development Service
•
Performance Indicators.staff Comment Letter
2