Data based on student reports of parent education level youth sexual orientation , and transgender status come from the California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS); depending on the indicator, estimates are available by grade level (7, 9, 11, and/or non-traditional), gender, level of school connectedness, parent education level, and sexual orientation.***California data from CDPH and CDC should not be compared due to potential differences in race/ethnicity coding.**State-level CHKS estimates, although derived from the Biennial State CHKS, may differ from data published in Biennial State CHKS reports due to differences in grade-level classification of students in continuation high schools. Levels of school connectedness are based on a scale created from responses to five questions about feeling safe, close to people, and a part of school, being happy at school, and about teachers treating students fairly.

Demographic factors also matter because the circumstances in which children are born and grow up—as well as larger structural forces such as economics, institutions, and policies—strongly influence their health and well being. Decades of research demonstrate inequities in children's well being by race/ethnicity, parent education level, socioeconomic status, and other social characteristics. In addition, factors such as youth sexual orientation and gender identification are important, as LGBTQ youth are at increased risk for bullying victimization, substance abuse, child maltreatment, and other negative health and social outcomes. The demographic composition and circumstances of children, youth, and families can provide critical insight into population needs.For more information, see kidsdata.org’s Research & Links section. Also see the following topics on kidsdata.org: Student Demographics Family Structure , and Immigrants Sources for this narrative:1. Myers, D. (2017). The new importance of children in America. Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health & Children's Hospital Association. Retrieved from: https://www.lpfch.org/publication/new-importance-children-america 2. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2019). Demographic background. In America's children: Key national indicators of well-being, 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/demo.asp 3. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America. (2014). Time to act: Investing in the health of our children and communities. Retrieved from: https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2014/01/recommendations-from-the-rwjf-commission-to-build-a-healthier-am.html 4. Helping parents, helping children: Two-generation mechanisms. (2014). The Future of Children, 24(1). Retrieved from: https://futureofchildren.princeton.edu/resource-links/helping-parents-helping-children-two-generation-mechanisms 5. Flores, G., & American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Pediatric Research (2010). Racial and ethnic disparities in the health and health care of children. Pediatrics, 125(4), e979-e1020. Retrieved from: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/4/e979 6. Burwick, A., et al. (2014). Human services for low-income and at-risk LGBT populations: An assessment of the knowledge base and research needs. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Retrieved from: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/resource/human-services-for-low-income-and-at-risk-lgbt-populations-an-assessment-of-the-knowledge-base-and-research-needs 7. Choi, S. K., et al. (2017). LGBTQ youth in California's public schools: Differences across the state. Williams Institute. Retrieved from: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgbtq-youth-ca-public-schools

Child and family demographic trends help project potential needs for education, child care, health care, and other services. Demographic projections point to an overall shortage of children relative to older populations, which will lead to workforce and taxpayer shortages in the coming decades (1, 2) . This means each child is more important to the future of California and the U.S. than ever before (1) . It also means that leaders need to invest in programs and policies that nurture children and help them reach their potential, and they need to align service systems with shifting demographics. For example, leaders can ensure that culturally appropriate services are available for families and that communities with higher concentrations of children have adequate resources in place to support them.

The number of children in California has declined since the mid-2000s, from an estimated 9.6 million in 2004 to 9 million in 2020. Population projections indicate this figure will fall to 8.3 million by 2035. The proportion of children in the state's total population also is decreasing, from 28% in 1995 to 23% in 2020, with a projected drop to 18% by 2045. In line with these trends, California's birth rate has declined in recent decades, from 76 births per 1,000 women in 1995 to 59 per 1,000 in 2017, the most recent year available.



Population structure and dynamics vary widely at the local level. According to 2020 estimates, five Southern California counties are home to more than half of the state's child population—Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino—with nearly one in four children living in Los Angeles County alone. By contrast, counties in the Central Valley have among the highest birth rates and proportions of children within the population; e.g., the birth rate in Kings County in 2017 was 83 per 1,000 women (compared with 54 per 1,000 for Los Angeles and 46 per 1,000 for San Francisco), and the percentage of children in Kings County relative to the population overall in 2020 was 29% (compared with 22% for Los Angeles and 15% for San Francisco).



In 2020, Hispanic/Latino children made up nearly half (48%) of the state's child population, up from 41% in 1995, and white children made up less than one-third (29%), down from 40% in 1995. At the county level, estimates of the proportion of Hispanic/Latino children in the total child population ranged from 15% to 88%, while the proportion of white children ranged from 9% to 76%. Statewide, 13% of California children were Asian American, 5% were African American/black, 4% were multiracial, and less than 1% were American Indian/Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.

Estimates of parent education levels, available from 2015-2017 surveys of public school students, indicate that between 37% and 40% of California 7th, 9th, and 11th graders had parents who completed at least a 4-year college degree, while 9% to 19% had parents who did not finish high school. Students in non-traditional programs, those with low levels of school connectedness, gay/lesbian/bisexual students, and Hispanic/Latino youth were more likely to have parents who did not finish high school than their peers in other groups.



Statewide estimates of youth sexual orientation from the same surveys show that 10% of 11th grade females and 3.9% of 11th grade males identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, while 3.3% of all 11th graders were unsure about their sexual orientation. In addition, an estimated 1.6% of 11th graders identified as transgender.