As of 2023, 27.3 percent of California's population were born in a country other than the United States. New Jersey, New York, Florida, and Nevada rounded out the top five states with the largest population of foreign born residents in that year. For the country as a whole, 14.3 percent of residents were foreign born.

The United States hosted, by far, the highest number of immigrants in the world in 2020. That year, there were over ** million people born outside of the States residing in the country. Germany and Saudi Arabia followed behind at around ** and ** million, respectively. There are varying reasons for people to emigrate from their country of origin, from poverty and unemployment to war and persecution. American Migration People migrate to the United States for a variety of reasons, from job and educational opportunities to family reunification. Overall, in 2021, most people that became legal residents of the United States did so for family reunification purposes, totaling ******* people that year. An additional ******* people became legal residents through employment opportunities. In terms of naturalized citizenship, ******* people from Mexico became naturalized American citizens in 2021, followed by people from India, the Philippines, Cuba, and China. German Migration Behind the United States, Germany also has a significant migrant population. Migration to Germany increased during the mid-2010's, in light of the Syrian Civil War and refugee crisis, and during the 2020’s, in light of conflict in Afghanistan and Ukraine. Moreover, as German society continues to age, there are less workers in the labor market. In a low-migration scenario, Germany will have **** million skilled workers by 2040, compared to **** million by 2040 in a high-migration scenario. In both scenarios, this is still a decrease from **** skilled workers in 2020.

This chart looks at the U.S. states with the largest number of workers per 100k immigrants, specifically looking at the 10 states with the highest percentage of workers per 100k immigrants.

This graph shows the distribution of nationalities among documented immigrants who arrived in the United States between 1820 and 1870. As we can see, over seven million people arrived in the US in this 50 year period, with the majority coming from Ireland, Germany and Britain. The largest groups, by far, were Irish and German, who together made up roughly two thirds of all immigrants to the US during this time. The reasons for this were because of the Irish Potato famine from 1845 to 1849, which resulted in the death or emigration of twenty to twenty five percent of the total Irish population, and a number of internal factors in Germany such as economic migration for farmers affected by industrialization, political/religious asylum, and in order to avoid conscription. One noteworthy exclusion from the information is of those transported to US as slaves, whose information was not recorded in this statistic (although the slave trade was abolished in 1808, the practice continued in the decades that followed).

This statistic shows the top ten metropolitan areas in the United States with highest unauthorized immigrant populations in 2014. With over one million unauthorized people, New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA had the highest illegal immigrant population in the United States in 2014.

All of the inhabitants in the Holy See, the home of the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, were immigrants in 2020, meaning that they were born outside of the country. Perhaps more interesting are the Gulf States the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait, all with an immigrant population of over ** percent of their total populations, underlining the high importance of migrant workers to these countries' economies. In terms of numbers, the United States had the highest number of immigrants in 2020. Migration to Gulf Cooperation Council states The United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait, all members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), have a significant amount of migrant labor. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar both rank high in quality-of-life rankings for immigrants. A significant number of migrant workers in the GCC originate from Asia, with the most originating from Bangladesh. As of 2022, nearly ***** thousand Bangladeshi citizens expatriated to work in GCC nations. The American melting pot The United States is known for having high levels of diversity and migration. Migration to the United States experienced peaks from the periods of 1990-1999 as well as 1900-1909. Currently, Latin Americans are the largest migrant group in the United States, followed by migrants from Asia. Out of each state, California has some of the highest naturalization rates. In 2021, ******* people in California naturalized as U.S. citizens, followed by Florida, New York, Texas, and New Jersey.

Public use data set on new legal immigrants to the U.S. that can address scientific and policy questions about migration behavior and the impacts of migration. A survey pilot project, the NIS-P, was carried out in 1996 to inform the fielding and design of the full NIS. Baseline interviews were ultimately conducted with 1,127 adult immigrants. Sample members were interviewed at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, with half of the sample also interviewed at three months. The first full cohort, NIS-2003, is based on a nationally representative sample of the electronic administrative records compiled for new immigrants by the US government. NIS-2003 sampled immigrants in the period May-November 2003. The geographic sampling design takes advantage of the natural clustering of immigrants. It includes all top 85 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and all top 38 counties, plus a random sample of other MSAs and counties. Interviews were conducted in respondents'' preferred languages. The baseline was multi-modal: 60% of adult interviews were administered by telephone; 40% were in-person. The baseline round was in the field from June 2003 to June 2004, and includes in the Adult Sample 8,573 respondents, 4,336 spouses, and 1,072 children aged 8-12. A follow-up was planned for 2007. Several modules of the NIS were designed to replicate sections of the continuing surveys of the US population that provide a natural comparison group. Questionnaire topics include Health (self-reports of conditions, symptoms, functional status, smoking and drinking history) and use/source/costs of health care services, depression, pain; background; (2) Background: Childhood history and living conditions, education, migration history, marital history, military history, fertility history, language skills, employment history in the US and foreign countries, social networks, religion; Family: Rosters of all children; for each, demographic attributes, education, current work status, migration, marital status and children; for some, summary indicators of childhood and current health, language ability; Economic: Sources and amounts of income, including wages, pensions, and government subsidies; type, value of assets and debts, financial assistance given/received to/from respondent from/to relatives, friends, employer, type of housing and ownership of consumable durables. * Dates of Study: 2003-2007 * Study Features: Longitudinal * Sample Size: 13,981

According to figures recently released by the United States Census, America’s largest metro areas are currently gaining population at impressive rates. The growth in these areas is in fact driving much of the population growth across the nation. Upon closer examination of the data, this growth is the result of two very different migrations – one coming from the location choices of Americans themselves, the other shaped by where new immigrants from outside the United States are heading.While many metro areas are attracting a net-inflow of migrants from other parts of the country, in several of the largest metros – New York, Los Angeles., and Miami, especially – there is actually a net outflow of Americans to the rest of the country. Immigration is driving population growth in these places. Sunbelt metros like Houston, Dallas, and Phoenix, and knowledge hubs like Austin, Seattle, San Francisco, and the District of Columbia are gaining much more from domestic migration.This map charts overall or net migration – a combination of domestic and international migration. Most large metros, those with at least a million residents, had more people coming in than leaving. The metros with the highest levels of population growth due to migration are a mix of knowledge-based economies and Sunbelt metros, including Houston, Dallas, Miami, District of Columbia, San Francisco, Seattle, and Austin. Eleven large metros, nearly all in or near the Rustbelt, had a net outflow of migrants, including Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, Philadelphia, and Saint Louis.Source: Atlantic Cities

Immigration to this country has increased significantly in recent years. While Mexican immigrants are the largest population of immigrants in the United States (39 percent), the rest of the population is widely varied, with no one nation accounting for more than 3 percent of all immigrants. Despite the significant benefits quality Early Childhood Education (ECE) programs offer to immigrant children, their rates of enrollment are significantly lower than for comparable children of United States-born parents. In order to better address the needs of these new American families, providers and state policymakers need more in-depth knowledge about the perceptions of these families and the factors that influence their choice of care. This study is an exploratory study in two cities which reflect the diversity of experience with immigration across the country: Denver, Colorado and surrounding areas, where the focus is on Mexican immigrants, and Portland, Maine and surrounding areas, where the focus is on three of the many refugee populations which have newly settled here. The contrasts, not only in the immigrant populations themselves, but also in the political and historical contexts of the communities in which they live, offer an opportunity to enrich the field of research on child care choices for this vulnerable population of children and families.Additional details about this study can be found on the New Americans Web site.

The Asian immigrant population is the fourth largest immigrant population in the United States, and its parenting stress issues have been consistently recognized in previous studies. However, little attention has been paid to neighborhood-level factors and their parenting stress. Using the Study of Asian American Families and 2016 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, this study examined the association between neighborhood structural indexes and Asian immigrant parents’ parenting stress, along with the mechanism driving the relationship. We found that cultural orientation and social support fully mediated the effects of economic disadvantages on parenting stress among Asian immigrant parents. Only cultural orientation mediated the direct effects of ethnic heterogeneity on Asian parents’ parenting stress. Improving Asian immigrants’ living environment, including economic status and ethnic diversity, would be critical to relieve the parenting stress of Asian immigrant families. Interventions and preventions to increase social support, and inform cultural orientation and acculturation are emphasized.

The statistic provides information about the towns with the highest percentage of foreign-born residents in the United States for every state on average between 2008 and 2012. Between 2008 and 2012, Star City was the place with the highest percentage of immigrants in West Virginia. About **** percent of its residents were foreign-born.

The layer was derived and compiled from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2013 – 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates in order to assist 2020 Census planning purposes.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Table B05002 PLACE OF BIRTH BY NATIVITY AND CITIZENSHIP STATUS, 2013 – 2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates

Effective Date: December 2018

Last Update: December 2019

Update Cycle: ACS 5-Year Estimates update annually each December. Vintage used for 2020 Census planning purposes by Broward County.

The U.S. Census defines Asian Americans as individuals having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent (U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 1997). As a broad racial category, Asian Americans are the fastest-growing minority group in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). The growth rate of 42.9% in Asian Americans between 2000 and 2010 is phenomenal given that the corresponding figure for the U.S. total population is only 9.3% (see Figure 1). Currently, Asian Americans make up 5.6% of the total U.S. population and are projected to reach 10% by 2050. It is particularly notable that Asians have recently overtaken Hispanics as the largest group of new immigrants to the U.S. (Pew Research Center, 2015). The rapid growth rate and unique challenges as a new immigrant group call for a better understanding of the social and health needs of the Asian American population.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Migration (EQ4)

FULL MEASURE NAME Migration flows

LAST UPDATED December 2018

DESCRIPTION Migration refers to the movement of people from one location to another, typically crossing a county or regional boundary. Migration captures both voluntary relocation – for example, moving to another region for a better job or lower home prices – and involuntary relocation as a result of displacement. The dataset includes metropolitan area, regional, and county tables.

DATA SOURCE American Community Survey County-to-County Migration Flows 2012-2015 5-year rolling average http://www.census.gov/topics/population/migration/data/tables.All.html

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) Data for migration comes from the American Community Survey; county-to-county flow datasets experience a longer lag time than other standard datasets available in FactFinder. 5-year rolling average data was used for migration for all geographies, as the Census Bureau does not release 1-year annual data. Data is not available at any geography below the county level; note that flows that are relatively small on the county level are often within the margin of error. The metropolitan area comparison was performed for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, in addition to the primary MSAs for the nine other major metropolitan areas, by aggregating county data based on current metropolitan area boundaries. Data prior to 2011 is not available on Vital Signs due to inconsistent Census formats and a lack of net migration statistics for prior years. Only counties with a non-negligible flow are shown in the data; all other pairs can be assumed to have zero migration.

Given that the vast majority of migration out of the region was to other counties in California, California counties were bundled into the following regions for simplicity: Bay Area: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma Central Coast: Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz Central Valley: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Tulare Los Angeles + Inland Empire: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura Sacramento: El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba San Diego: San Diego San Joaquin Valley: San Joaquin, Stanislaus Rural: all other counties (23)

One key limitation of the American Community Survey migration data is that it is not able to track emigration (movement of current U.S. residents to other countries). This is despite the fact that it is able to quantify immigration (movement of foreign residents to the U.S.), generally by continent of origin. Thus the Vital Signs analysis focuses primarily on net domestic migration, while still specifically citing in-migration flows from countries abroad based on data availability.

Abstract (en): IIMMLA was supported by the Russell Sage Foundation. Since 1991, the Russell Sage Foundation has funded a program of research aimed at assessing how well the young adult offspring of recent immigrants are faring as they move through American schools and into the labor market. Two previous major studies have begun to tell us about the paths to incorporation of the children of contemporary immigrants: The Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS), and the Immigrant Second Generation in New York study. The Immigration and Intergenerational Mobility in Metropolitan Los Angeles study is the third major initiative analyzing the progress of the new second generation in the United States. The Immigration and Intergenerational Mobility in Metropolitan Los Angeles (IIMMLA) study focused on young adult children of immigrants (1.5- and second-generation) in greater Los Angeles. IIMMLA investigated mobility among young adult (ages 20-39) children of immigrants in metropolitan Los Angeles and, in the case of the Mexican-origin population there, among young adult members of the third- or later generations. The five-county Los Angeles metropolitan area (Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside and San Bernardino counties) contains the largest concentrations of Mexicans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Filipinos, Chinese, Vietnamese, Koreans, and other nationalities in the United States. The diverse migration histories and modes of incorporation of these groups made the Los Angeles metropolitan area a strategic choice for a comparison study of the pathways of immigrant incorporation and mobility from one generation to the next. The IIMMLA study compared six foreign-born (1.5-generation) and foreign-parentage (second-generation) groups (Mexicans, Vietnamese, Filipinos, Koreans, Chinese, and Central Americans from Guatemala and El Salvador) with three native-born and native-parentage comparison groups (third- or later-generation Mexican Americans, and non-Hispanic Whites and Blacks). The targeted groups represent both the diversity of modes of incorporation in the United States and the range of occupational backgrounds and immigration status among contemporary immigrants (from professionals and entrepreneurs to laborers, refugees, and unauthorized migrants). The surveys provide basic demographic information as well as extensive data about socio-cultural orientation and mobility (e.g., language use, ethnic identity, religion, remittances, intermarriage, experiences of discrimination), economic mobility (e.g., parents' background, respondents' education, first and current job, wealth and income, encounters with the law), geographic mobility (childhood and present neighborhood of residence), and civic engagement and politics (political attitudes, voting behavior, as well as naturalization and transnational ties). ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Performed consistency checks.; Standardized missing values.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. Young adults aged 20-39 from six foreign-born and foreign-parentage groups: Mexican, Vietnamese, Filipino, Korean, Chinese, and Central American (Guatemalan and Salvadoran), as well as native-born and native-parentage Mexican-Americans, and non-Hispanic Whites and Blacks, in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Multistage random sampling. 2008-07-01 Edits were made to the metadata record. Funding insitution(s): Russell Sage Foundation. telephone interview Data collection for IIMMLA was subcontracted to and carried out by the Field Research Corporation, San Francisco, CA.

In the past four centuries, the population of the Thirteen Colonies and United States of America has grown from a recorded 350 people around the Jamestown colony in Virginia in 1610, to an estimated 346 million in 2025. While the fertility rate has now dropped well below replacement level, and the population is on track to go into a natural decline in the 2040s, projected high net immigration rates mean the population will continue growing well into the next century, crossing the 400 million mark in the 2070s. Indigenous population Early population figures for the Thirteen Colonies and United States come with certain caveats. Official records excluded the indigenous population, and they generally remained excluded until the late 1800s. In 1500, in the first decade of European colonization of the Americas, the native population living within the modern U.S. borders was believed to be around 1.9 million people. The spread of Old World diseases, such as smallpox, measles, and influenza, to biologically defenseless populations in the New World then wreaked havoc across the continent, often wiping out large portions of the population in areas that had not yet made contact with Europeans. By the time of Jamestown's founding in 1607, it is believed the native population within current U.S. borders had dropped by almost 60 percent. As the U.S. expanded, indigenous populations were largely still excluded from population figures as they were driven westward, however taxpaying Natives were included in the census from 1870 to 1890, before all were included thereafter. It should be noted that estimates for indigenous populations in the Americas vary significantly by source and time period. Migration and expansion fuels population growth The arrival of European settlers and African slaves was the key driver of population growth in North America in the 17th century. Settlers from Britain were the dominant group in the Thirteen Colonies, before settlers from elsewhere in Europe, particularly Germany and Ireland, made a large impact in the mid-19th century. By the end of the 19th century, improvements in transport technology and increasing economic opportunities saw migration to the United States increase further, particularly from southern and Eastern Europe, and in the first decade of the 1900s the number of migrants to the U.S. exceeded one million people in some years. It is also estimated that almost 400,000 African slaves were transported directly across the Atlantic to mainland North America between 1500 and 1866 (although the importation of slaves was abolished in 1808). Blacks made up a much larger share of the population before slavery's abolition. Twentieth and twenty-first century The U.S. population has grown steadily since 1900, reaching one hundred million in the 1910s, two hundred million in the 1960s, and three hundred million in 2007. Since WWII, the U.S. has established itself as the world's foremost superpower, with the world's largest economy, and most powerful military. This growth in prosperity has been accompanied by increases in living standards, particularly through medical advances, infrastructure improvements, clean water accessibility. These have all contributed to higher infant and child survival rates, as well as an increase in life expectancy (doubling from roughly 40 to 80 years in the past 150 years), which have also played a large part in population growth. As fertility rates decline and increases in life expectancy slows, migration remains the largest factor in population growth. Since the 1960s, Latin America has now become the most common origin for migrants in the U.S., while immigration rates from Asia have also increased significantly. It remains to be seen how immigration restrictions of the current administration affect long-term population projections for the United States.

Many studies suggest that stringent labor protection and higher labor costs in host countries can limit foreign direct investment. This implies that foreign firms are sensitive to the flexibility of the labor market in the U.S. The U.S. has experienced increasing immigrants, which have preserved the stable labor supply in the U.S. market. The U.S. is a good case to test the relationship between immigration and FDI because the U.S. is not only the largest host and home country of FDI but also the country that has one of the highest immigrant populations and experiences a significant reduction in labor supply and an increase in the minimum cost of labor. Utilizing a time-series analysis from 1970 to 2016, this study suggests that the expansive immigration policies directly increase FDI inflows in the U.S., and indirectly increase FDI inflows throughout lowering potential labor costs and securing a stable labor supply.

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties..Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Technical Documentation section.Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see ACS Technical Documentation). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables..The 2021 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the March 2020 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delineations of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. In certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB delineations due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities..Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..Explanation of Symbols:- The estimate could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations. For a ratio of medians estimate, one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution. For a 5-year median estimate, the margin of error associated with a median was larger than the median itself.N The estimate or margin of error cannot be displayed because there were an insufficient number of sample cases in the selected geographic area. (X) The estimate or margin of error is not applicable or not available.median- The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "2,500-")median+ The median falls in the highest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "250,000+").** The margin of error could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations.*** The margin of error could not be computed because the median falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution.***** A margin of error is not appropriate because the corresponding estimate is controlled to an independent population or housing estimate. Effectively, the corresponding estimate has no sampling error and the margin of error may be treated as zero.

California is home to 12 percent of the nation's population yet accounts for more than 20 percent of the people living in the nation’s hardest-to-count areas, according to the United States Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau). California's unique diversity, large population distributed across both urban and rural areas, and sheer geographic size present significant barriers to achieving a complete and accurate count. The state’s population is more racially and ethnically diverse than ever before, with about 18 percent of Californians speaking English “less than very well,” according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates. Because the 2020 Census online form was offered in only twelve non-English languages, which did not correspond with the top spoken language in California, and a paper questionnaire only in English and Spanish, many Californians may not have been able to access a census questionnaire or written guidance in a language they could understand. In order to earn the confidence of California’s most vulnerable populations, it was critical during the 2020 Census that media and trusted messengers communicate with them in their primary language and in accessible formats. An accurate count of the California population in each decennial census is essential to receive its equitable share of federal funds and political representation, through reapportionment and redistricting. It plays a vital role in many areas of public life, including important investments in health, education, housing, social services, highways, and schools. Without a complete count in the 2020 Census, the State faced a potential loss of congressional seats and billions of dollars in muchneeded federal funding. An undercount of California in 1990 cost an estimated $2 billion in federal funding. The potential loss of representation and critically needed funding could have long-term impacts; only with a complete count does California receive the share of funding the State deserves with appropriate representation at the federal, state, and local government levels. The high stakes and formidable challenges made this California Complete Count Census 2020 Campaign (Campaign) the most important to date. The 2020 Census brought an unprecedented level of new challenges to all states, beyond the California-specific hurdles discussed above. For the first time, the U.S. Census Bureau sought to collect data from households through an online form. While the implementation of digital forms sought to reduce costs and increase participation, its immediate impact is still unknown as of this writing, and it may have substantially changed how many households responded to the census. In addition, conditions such as the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, a contentious political climate, ongoing mistrust and distrust of government, and rising concerns about privacy may have discouraged people to open their doors, or use computers, to participate. Federal immigration policy, as well as the months-long controversy over adding a citizenship question to the census, may have deterred households with mixed documentation status, recent immigrants, and undocumented immigrants from participating. In 2017, to prepare for the unique challenges of the 2020 Census, California leaders and advocates reflected on lessons learned from previous statewide census efforts and launched the development of a high-impact strategy to efficiently raise public awareness about the 2020 Census. Subsequently, the State established the California Complete Count – Census 2020 Office (Census Office) and invested a significant sum for the Campaign. The Campaign was designed to educate, motivate, and activate Californians to respond to the 2020 Census. It relied heavily on grassroots messaging and outreach to those least likely to fill out the census form. One element of the Campaign was the Language and Communication Access Plan (LACAP), which the Census Office developed to ensure that language and communication access was linguistically and culturally relevant and sensitive and provided equal and meaningful access for California’s vulnerable populations. The Census Office contracted with outreach partners, including community leaders and organizations, local government, and ethnic media, who all served as trusted messengers in their communities to deliver impactful words and offer safe places to share information and trusted messages. The State integrated consideration of hardest-to-count communities’ needs throughout the Campaign’s strategy at both the statewide and regional levels. The Campaign first educated, then motivated, and during the census response period, activated Californians to fill out their census form. The Census Office’s mission was to ensure that Californians get their fair share of resources and representation by encouraging the full participation of all Californians in the 2020 Census. This report focuses on the experience of the Census Office and partner organizations who worked to achieve the most complete count possible, presenting an evaluation of four outreach and communications strategies.

The layer was derived and compiled from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2013 – 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates in order to assist 2020 Census planning purposes.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Table B05002 PLACE OF BIRTH BY NATIVITY AND CITIZENSHIP STATUS, 2013 – 2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates

Effective Date: December 2018

Last Update: December 2019

Update Cycle: ACS 5-Year Estimates update annually each December. Vintage used for 2020 Census planning purposes by Broward County.