According to the U.S. Census Bureau, <strong>Maricopa</strong> county had a medianhousehold income in 1990 that was greater than that <strong>of</strong> the United Statesand the State <strong>of</strong> Arizona (See Table V-2). Considering the communitiesincluded in this analysis, Tolleson and Avondale had median householdincome levels in 1990, that were significantly less than the United States,Arizona and <strong>Maricopa</strong> county. The city <strong>of</strong> Goodyear had a medianhousehold income in 1990 that was greater than that <strong>of</strong> the UnitedStates, Arizona and <strong>Maricopa</strong> county. Finally, the city <strong>of</strong> Phoenix hada median household income in 1990 that was very close to the averagefor the United States, Arizona and <strong>Maricopa</strong> county.In terms <strong>of</strong> ethnic diversity, <strong>Maricopa</strong> county was less diverse in 1990than both the United States and Arizona (see Table V-2). In 1990,<strong>Maricopa</strong> county had a greater percentage <strong>of</strong> Native Americans than theUnited States, but a smaller percentage than Arizona. Also, <strong>Maricopa</strong>county had a much greater percentage <strong>of</strong> people <strong>of</strong> Hispanic origin thanthe United States, but a slightly smaller percentage than that for Arizona.Similarly, <strong>Maricopa</strong> county had a greater percentage <strong>of</strong> people in the“other race” category than the United States, but a slightly smallerpercentage than for Arizona. In 1990, Phoenix was about average inethnic diversity relative to the United States, Arizona and <strong>Maricopa</strong>county. There was a greater percentage <strong>of</strong> African Americans than in<strong>Maricopa</strong> county, but a lesser percentage than in the United States as awhole. There was a greater percentage <strong>of</strong> American Indian, Eskimo,Aleut than for the United States, but a smaller percentage <strong>of</strong> this groupthan the state <strong>of</strong> Arizona as a whole. The cities <strong>of</strong> Tolleson, Avondaleand Goodyear are significantly more ethnically diverse (to varyingdegrees) than the United States, Arizona, <strong>Maricopa</strong> county or Phoenix.Tolleson is by far the most ethnically diverse, with white peoplerepresenting only 39.0%. <strong>of</strong> the population. The most significant ethnicgroup in Tolleson is persons <strong>of</strong> Hispanic origin and “other” race.Avondale is between Tolleson and Goodyear in terms <strong>of</strong> ethnic diversity,with white people representing 58.6% <strong>of</strong> the population. The mostsignificant ethnic minority groups are persons <strong>of</strong> Hispanic origin and“other” race. Goodyear, has a relatively high degree <strong>of</strong> ethnic diversity,but is less diverse than both Tolleson and Avondale. White peoplerepresent 71.5% <strong>of</strong> the population. Persons <strong>of</strong> Hispanic Origin are avery significant group in Goodyear.Low Income and Ethnic Minority PopulationsBlock groups within the project area are shown in Figure 18. Thisfigure provides the location and block group ID numbers for all <strong>of</strong> theblock groups. The first six digits <strong>of</strong> each ID number refers to the CensusTract number and the last digit <strong>of</strong> the ID refers to the block groupnumber.Significant Block Groups - Low Median Household IncomeThere were twelve (17.6% <strong>of</strong> all block groups) Census Block Groupswithin the project area that were found to be significant for low medianhousehold income (see Table V-3). Figure V-4 shows the geographicaldistribution <strong>of</strong> these block groups within the project area. Twelve <strong>of</strong> thesixty-eight block groups within the project area met the significancecriteria; having a 1990 median household income <strong>of</strong> $15,000 or less.These significant block groups are mostly located in the north-easterncorner <strong>of</strong> the project area, or south-western Phoenix, south <strong>of</strong> Interstate10 and adjacent to Interstate 17. The exceptions are Census Tract/BlockGroup ID number 0614001, which is located in Avondale and CensusTract/Block Group ID number 6232001, which is located along thesouth-central edge <strong>of</strong> the project area, within the Gila River IndianCommunity.Table V-3. Block Groups Significant For Low Median HouseholdIncomeBlock GroupID Number1990PopulationMedian HouseholdIncome0614001 1818 $8,5616232001 2806 $8,5721146002 429 $14,8611145002 1573 $14,0911145003 965 $10,0001128002 104 $6,5811128001 631 $11,7051144004 488 $12,3121144001 1189 $12,4281147003 2957 $13,3331147001 860 $12,3681147002 998 $4,999Source: U.S. Census Bureau - STF3A files, 1990Significant Block Groups - High Proportions <strong>of</strong> Ethnic MinoritiesThere were sixty-one (89.7% <strong>of</strong> all block groups) Census Block Groupswithin the project area that were found to be significant for highproportions <strong>of</strong> ethnic minorities (see Table V-4). These block groupshad ethnic minority populations that were at least 10% greater than thepercentages tabulated for the Nation in 1990 in the decennial Census (see“significance criteria” section). Figure V-4 shows the geographicaldistribution <strong>of</strong> these block groups within the project area. About half <strong>of</strong>the block groups that do not have high proportions <strong>of</strong> ethnic minoritiesare found along the western edge <strong>of</strong> the project area, or north-centralGoodyear. The significant block groups are scattered throughout theproject area. The most significant ethnic minority groups are “other”(with 80.8% <strong>of</strong> all block groups) and Persons <strong>of</strong> Hispanic Origin (with85.3% <strong>of</strong> all block groups). High proportions <strong>of</strong> American Indian,Eskimo, Aleut are found only within the Gila River Indian Community(or Census Tract/Block Group ID number 6232001) on the south-centraledge <strong>of</strong> the project area. There were no block groups within the projectarea with significant populations <strong>of</strong> African Americans or Asian, PacificIslanders.DIBBLE & ASSOCIATES 57 DURANGO ADMPDATA COLLECTION REPORT
R1W R1E R2ET1N061003306100321125062112505111250631126004112600511270051129001061004106100421125052112600706100341126001 1127001082100111270041125064112900311250651125053112600611280021126002 112700611280011125054112600311270021127003112900408200621144004114300106120011145002114600111450010613001 0612003114400108210021144003114300406120041146002 1145004 1145003114400206140031147002R1W R1E R2E061004306140020614001 0822022 0822021112506611470031148001114800311250671147001082201108220120610054115500111570021155003115600111550021157003T1N1125067116601311660217233001 116601662320011166015 1166014116601111660221166021R1W R1E R2EProject BoundaryNBlock Group Numbers0 3 6T1NMilesUTM Zone 12 NAD27MinorityPopulationHispanic Origin: 19.0% or greaterProject BoundaryPROJECT LOCATIONIncomeMedian Household Income < $15,000NArizonaAgeAges 0-5: 18.9% or greater; orAges 5-17: 26.7% or greater; orAges 65+: 22.6% or greaterSource: U.S. Dept. <strong>of</strong> Commerce, 1990 CensusSignificant Block Groups0 3 6MilesUTM Zone 12 NAD27T1N-R1WT1N-R1ET1N-R2EGila and Salt River Meridian<strong>Maricopa</strong><strong>County</strong>FIGURE V-4PROJECT TITLE:DURANGO AREA DRAINAGE MASTER PLANPROJECT NO. FCD 99-41CONSULTANT:EXHIBIT TITLE:BLOCK GROUP NUMBERS/SIGNIFICANT BLOCK GROUPS
Change language