Shared Struggle, Shared Future: Stories and Data from California’s Asian American and Pacific Islander Communities and Beyond

toc

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Methodology

Spotlight: Learn More About a Resource for Disaggregated Data and Research

Spotlight: Find Out How the Census Labels Pacific Islander Communities

AA and PI Demographic Profile

Disaggregated Data Uncovers Inequities Impacting AAPI Subgroups

Spotlight on MOSAIC Partner: Empowering Pacific Islander Communities (EPIC)

Spotlight on Local Community: Los Angeles County

Disaggregated Data Show AAPIs and California’s Other Communities of Color Are Impacted by Inequities

Spotlight: Did You Know? A History of Multi-Racial Solidarity

Recommendations

Conclusion

Appendix

End Notes

Acknowledgements

This report was a collaborative effort between Catalyst California and Movement Solidarity Among AAPI Communities (MOSAIC). 

We would like to thank the Catalyst California staff – Matt Trujillo, Chris Ringewald, Leila Forouzan, Alexandra Baker, Maria T. Khan, Hillary Khan, Alicia Võ, Jennifer Zhang, Jesse Saucedo, and Tessie Borden – for their support in drafting the report and data analysis. 

We would also like to thank Annie Lee, Timmy Lu, Vincent Pan, Karthick Ramakrishnan, and Karla Thomas for their guidance and thoughtful feedback.

Introduction

Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) communities are among the fastest growing populations in California and are central to the state’s cultural, political, and economic future. Yet broad racial categories often obscure the vast diversity within AAPI communities and hide the inequities many communities continue to face. While aggregated data can create the perception that AAPI communities uniformly experience positive outcomes, disaggregated data reveal a far more complex reality.

In this report, we use AAPI as a broad term to refer collectively to Asian American (AA) and Pacific Islander (PI) communities. We recognize, however, that AA and PI communities are distinct racial groups with different histories, identities, and experiences, and that there is significant diversity within each. Where data allow, this report advocates for disaggregating AA and PI communities from one another and further disaggregating into specific ethnic, national origin, and islander subgroups. The term AAPI remains widely used in research, policy, advocacy, and public discourse, but it is not a single Census racial category. The U.S. Census Bureau collects data separately for Asian and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander populations, and Census categories themselves are administrative constructs that may not always align with how individuals or communities identify or prefer to be understood.

The diversity reflected in disaggregated data is rooted in the distinct histories of California’s Asian American and Pacific Islander communities. Migration pathways, refugee resettlement, educational opportunities, language access, and economic conditions have been shaped by different historical experiences—including U.S. immigration policy, wars in Southeast Asia, colonization and militarization across the Pacific, labor recruitment, refugee resettlement, and exclusionary laws. These histories have influenced where communities settled, the resources available to them, and the opportunities and barriers they continue to face today. As a result, AAPI communities do not experience California’s institutions equally, making disaggregated data essential for understanding both shared challenges and important differences across communities.

This report was developed through a partnership between Catalyst California and Movement Solidarity Among AAPI Communities (MOSAIC), a coalition of organizations working to unify, connect, and mobilize AAPI communities to build a more just and humane California. The report uses disaggregated data from the RACE COUNTS platform to examine disparities across several issue areas, including voting, health care access, housing, economic opportunity, and youth outcomes. The findings demonstrate that many inequities facing AAPI communities remain invisible without disaggregated data practices.

The lack of disaggregated data contributes to a broader pattern of invisibility. Too often, policy makers and institutions rely on aggregate AAPI statistics that reinforce the harmful “model minority myth”—the false narrative that all Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are universally successful and therefore unaffected by structural racism or economic hardship. This myth has long been used to minimize the barriers AAPI communities face while simultaneously driving wedges between AAPI communities and other communities of color. The model minority myth harms non-AAPI communities of color by inferring that they are “problem” minorities. For example, the myth has been used in attempts to silence civil rights advocacy by Black Americans.^[1]

In reality, many AAPI communities experience significant barriers to health, housing, economic opportunity, and civic participation that reflect the broader impacts of structural racism and inequitable systems affecting communities of color across California. Many AAPI organizations, including Asian Americans Advancing Justice, have long organized alongside Black-led and other racial justice organizations to challenge systemic racism and advance policies that promote equity for all communities. The data in this report tell a different story. They reveal AAPI communities facing high rates of uninsurance, overcrowded housing, low-wage work, and barriers to civic participation. It highlights inequities experienced by California’s AAPI communities that are often masked by aggregate statewide averages. The data also demonstrate that AAPI communities are not isolated in these struggles. Rather, they share common experiences with Black, Latinx^[2], Indigenous, and other communities of color that have also been harmed by structural inequities and exclusionary policies.

Scholars of structural racism have long argued that racial inequities are not simply the product of individual prejudice, but of public policies, institutional practices, and historical decisions that systematically shape opportunity across generations. Researchers have documented how Asian American communities experience racialization through processes such as the model minority myth and the “perpetual foreigner” stereotype, which position AAPI communities as outsiders regardless of citizenship or length of residence.^[3] At the same time, scholars such as john a. powell have emphasized that systems of racial hierarchy are maintained by processes of “othering” that assign different groups unequal access to power, opportunity, and belonging.^[4] The California Reparations Report similarly demonstrates that today’s racial inequities are rooted in the cumulative effects of historical and contemporary public policies rather than individual choices alone.^[5] Understanding these structural dynamics helps explain why disparities persist across communities—and why advancing racial equity requires changing systems rather than simply changing individual behavior.

This report is rooted in the belief that everyone deserves visibility, dignity, and the opportunity to thrive. Data is not neutral; the way data is collected, categorized, and analyzed shapes which communities are seen, whose experiences are validated, and which inequities receive policy attention. Better disaggregated data practices are essential for advancing racial equity because communities cannot advocate for resources and policy change if their experiences remain invisible. It is little surprise, then, that communities of color, including Asian, Pacific Islander, Black, and Latinx communities, have advocated for disaggregated by race and ethnicity for decades: data forms the foundational evidence for improvements in program design, resource allocation, and program evaluation.

At the same time, data alone is insufficient. Transformative change requires organizing, coalition building, and multi-racial solidarity. Throughout California’s history, communities of color have achieved progress by working collectively to challenge systems that concentrate power and opportunity among a select few while excluding others. This report seeks not only to highlight disparities, but also to strengthen understanding of shared struggle and collective solidarity across communities.

The findings and recommendations that follow are intended to support movement organizations, advocates, policymakers, and community leaders working toward a California where all communities—especially those historically rendered invisible—can thrive. By centering disaggregated data, investing in equitable policies, and building deeper multi-racial solidarity, California has the opportunity to move closer to a future rooted in justice, inclusion, and collective well-being.

Back to top

method

Methodology

We developed the findings and recommendations in this report by measuring differences in outcomes for the RACE COUNTS indicators that could be disaggregated by Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups. We analyzed data from four sources to produce the data for this report. There are 18 RACE COUNTS data sources that do not provide any AA and PI disaggregated data or a means to disaggregate. Out of the 47 RACE COUNTS indicators at county and state level, we were only able to disaggregate 19. The list of 19 indicators follows in the Appendix.

After identifying those 19 indicators, we calculated disaggregated AAPI statistics. Our analysis considers AA and PI subgroups that are one subgroup alone or in combination with another race and/or subgroup and that are Latinx-inclusive where available. For the overall PI race data we use this same, more expansive definition. This is based partially on partner feedback. In addition, data for smaller populations often has low data reliability. Using this expansive definition helped us to obtain as many stable estimates as possible in our analysis. This means that in our bar charts below, the bars representing subgroups are not mutually exclusive. The same person could be represented in one or more subgroup bars. The overall AA race data include people who are Asian alone and excludes Latinxs. The methodology for each individual indicator can be found in the Indicator Methodology in the RACE COUNTS Github repository.

Finally, we assessed indicators for inclusion in the report. To do this, we looked at several considerations:

• Representation: At least 80% of subgroups and at least 5 subgroups have reliable data
• Variability: A difference of at least 10 percentage points between highest and lowest subgroup rates 
• Inequities & Value of Disaggregation: At least 1 subgroup rate worse than total rate​ OR at least 1 subgroup rate worse than group (Asian or NHPI) rate​ 
• Multiracial Solidarity: At least 1 subgroup rate worse than or between the worst raced rates
• Breadth: Indicators cut across two or more issue areas​ 
• Relevance to MOSAIC policy platform

The download link for all indicators follows in the Appendix.

Back to top

aapidata

Spotlight: Learn More About a Key Resource for Disaggregated Data and Research

RACE COUNTS is one of many data tools that can help illuminate the diverse experiences of AAPI communities. This report provides only a small selection of the disaggregated AAPI data available and is not intended to provide a comprehensive picture of the experiences of every AAPI subgroup. For those interested in exploring additional disaggregated AAPI data, AAPI Data is an important resource. AAPI Data is a national data and research organization dedicated to making the diverse experiences of Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities more visible through disaggregated data and community-centered research. Its Community Data Explorer and other data resources provide disaggregated information on AAPI communities, including data on demographics, language, education, economic conditions, and other measures of community well-being. The Community Data Explorer allows users to explore data for detailed AAPI communities across geographies and indicators, providing a deeper look at differences that can be hidden by broad racial categories.

AAPI Data also produces and supports leading research on the experiences and needs of AAPI communities, including through its resource guides focused on timely topics and through regular public opinion surveys with Associated Press, the National Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA) and APIA Vote. Together, these data and research resources provide an important foundation for understanding AAPI communities and advancing policies that respond to their diverse experiences. These various resources can be accessed from AAPI Data’s main page at aapidata.com.

census

Spotlight: Find Out How the Census Labels Pacific Islander Communities

The U.S. Census Bureau collects data on Pacific Islander (PI) populations at a detailed level, allowing respondents to report specific subgroups such as Fijian, Native Hawaiian, Samoan, Chamorro, Tongan, and others, rather than only a single broad PI category.^[6] The Census allows people to select more than one race and more than one detailed subgroup and as a result, individuals can be counted multiple times across different tabulations. For example, one individual may be reflected in Samoan and Marshallese counts or Fijian and Asian counts. In addition, the Census provides data points for PI “regional” groups including Melanesian, Micronesian, and Polynesian, as well as for some (but not all) subgroups from those regional groups such as Fijian, Palauan, or Samoan. As a result, the charts in this brief will at times show overlapping data for regional groups (like Polynesian) and some of their subgroups (like Samoan). This dual approach ensures we capture smaller Pacific Islander subgroups that the Census excludes due to small population sizes within the regional groups, while providing the most detailed subgroup information available. However, this means detailed subgroup totals will not sum neatly to broader regional^[7] or Pacific Islander totals.

It is also worth noting that the categories and labels the Census uses are administrative constructs meant to support standardized data collection, and they may not always align with how individuals or communities actually self-identify, nor reflect their preferred terminology. Some may feel the available options are too broad, too narrow, outdated, or otherwise fail to capture the nuance of their identity, so the data should be interpreted with that limitation in mind.

demog

Back to top

Disaggregated Data Uncovers Inequities Impacting AAPI Subgroups

For all charts in this section, click on the Asian or Pacific Islander bar to see data for each subgroup. Click on the Total bar to see data for each race group.

While disaggregated data provides a more accurate picture than broad racial categories, it still summarizes the experiences of entire communities. A subgroup may appear to perform relatively well on one indicator while still containing individuals and families experiencing significant hardship. Likewise, a community facing disparities on one measure may demonstrate important strengths on another. These data are intended to illuminate broad patterns—not define the experiences of every individual—and should always be interpreted alongside community knowledge and lived experience.

Which Asian American subgroups are more or less likely to be engaged in elections?

Researchers have found that while direct contact from community-based organizations, candidates, and political parties increase the likelihood of voting, people of color are less likely to receive direct contact from partisan or non-partisan organizations.^[10],[11] Our analysis of citizen voter engagement in elections shows the otherwise hidden disparities faced by Asian subgroups. The Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean, South Asian, Filipino, and Other Asian subgroups are less engaged than the average Californian. Moreover, four of these groups have the lowest (worst) engagement rates among all subgroups and races. Among Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean, and those in other subgroups not specified (Other Asian) residents, only about half of voters are always or frequently engaged in elections. At the same time, the data also reveal wide variation among Asian subgroups themselves. Subgroup rates range from a low of 48% (Other Asian and Vietnamese) to a high of 71.5% (Japanese).

Which Asian American subgroups are more or less likely to lack health insurance?

Workers of color are more likely to work in low-wage industries that do not provide health insurance. These industries were excluded from the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, which resulted in stronger union rights and employer-sponsored health insurance. Research by AAPI Data indicates that the Affordable Care Act (popularly known as Obamacare) reduced the uninsurance rate from 16% to 6% among Asian Americans nationally, and from 17% to 11% among Pacific Islanders.^[12] Still, significant disparities exist across detailed groups. Indian, Japanese, and Taiwanese Californians are less than half as likely to be uninsured as the average Californian, while Mongolian Californians are more than twice as likely. Ten subgroups, including many Southeast and South Asian subgroups, have uninsured rates higher (worse) than the average Asian rate. Some subgroups are also more impacted based on the number of people affected. Chinese (73k), Filipino (70k), and Korean (38k) Californians have the most uninsured people.

Which Pacific Islander subgroups are more or less likely to lack health insurance?

As a result of HR 1, the federal bill that imposes strict requirements on Medicaid, many Californians will lose health insurance, adding to those who were already uninsured.^[13] Our analysis of those lacking health insurance reveals stark inequities among Pacific Islander communities. All but one PI subgroup is close to or better than the average uninsured rate. However, Palauans stand out with the highest (worst) rate. About one in five Palauans lacks health insurance, making them more than twice as likely to be uninsured as the average Californian. At the same time, Micronesians overall are less likely to be uninsured than average. PI subgroup rates range from 20% to 4.1%, showing some of the inequities that are hidden without data disaggregation. Ideally all people would be insured, so though rates are lower for other PI subgroups, those groups also struggle with this issue. In addition, some subgroups are highly impacted due to having the most uninsured people. On this indicator, the Polynesian (9.9k) subgroup, and Native Hawaiians (4.8k) therein, have the largest number of uninsured people.

Which Pacific Islander subgroups are more or less likely to be paid a living wage?

Although California has one of the highest minimum wages nationwide, it fails to keep up with the rising cost of living. The state offers several public supports to help fill the gap, but more is needed to meet the full need of Californians struggling with cost of living. Our analysis of who is earning a living wage ($15.50/hour) shows there are some disparities within the PI community. Marshallese and Samoan Californians are both less likely than average to be paid a living wage. The disparity is larger for Marshallese people, as their living wage rate is 7 percentage points lower (worse) than the state average. PI subgroup rates range from 73.4% to 85.4%, illustrating the varied outcomes experienced within the community.

epic

Back to top

Spotlight on MOSAIC Partner: Empowering Pacific Islander Communities

Empowering Pacific Islander Communities – also known as EPIC – is a national advocacy organization based on Tongva land in Los Angeles that was established in 2009 to advance social justice through culture-centered advocacy, leadership development, and research. The organization was established by a group of young Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (NHPI) leaders who recognized the urgency to address the growing needs of NHPI families. With experiences ranging from grassroots organizing to higher education administration, these young leaders sought to build political power for NHPIs; to collect data that spoke to the issues impacting NHPIs; and to develop a pipeline of strong leaders who can be advocates and influencers in, and on behalf of, the community. Since its inception, EPIC has centered culture, establishing partnerships within and outside of the NHPI community; creating tools and resources to support organizational and community capacity; and fostering the personal, professional, and political growth of youth.

lac

Back to top

Spotlight on Local Community: Los Angeles County

In Los Angeles County, which has the largest Asian American and Pacific Islander communities in the state, residents grapple with some of the highest housing costs in the country. As a result, overcrowded housing is a major issue, including for many Asian and PI subgroups. Three of the nine PI regional groups and subgroups, along with nine of the 19 Asian subgroups with data have rates of overcrowded housing that are much higher (worse) than average.

For PI subgroups, there are two subgroups faring worse than the PI average – Samoans and Tongans. Those two subgroups, plus the Polynesian regional group (which includes Samoans and Tongans) and Fijian Californians, have higher (worse) rates than the average Californian. The Polynesian regional group has the most people living in overcrowded housing.

A quarter or more of Nepalese, Bangladeshi, Mongolian, and Samoan county residents live in overcrowded conditions. These groups, plus Tongan and Pakistani residents, have similar or worse rates than people of another race and Latinx residents.

Back to top

Disaggregated data show Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and California’s other communities of color are impacted by inequities

Which Asian American subgroups have employment outcomes similar to Latinx, American Indian / Alaska Native, and Black Californians?

Workplace discrimination perpetuates racial inequities in higher-ranking positions. As a result, workers of color are more likely to end up in lower-paying jobs with poorer benefits and greater job instability. The data on who is employed as an official or manager serve as an example of the inequities faced by both Asian Californians and other communities of color. Employers are less likely to employ people from eleven Asian subgroups in these positions than the average Californian worker. Hmong, Burmese, Cambodian and Laotian workers’ rates are similar to that of Latinxs. Other subgroups like Bangladeshi, Nepali, Filipino, and Punjabi workers face disparities comparable to American Indian / Alaska Native and Black workers.

Which Asian American subgroups face overcrowding comparable to Latinx Californians?

Opposition to high-density housing and the high cost of construction have created the extreme housing shortage and rising housing costs in California. This coupled with lower incomes for people of color mean many live in overcrowded housing to reduce that cost burden. Our analysis of the data reveals that 13 Asian subgroups are more likely to live in overcrowded housing than the average Californian or average Asian resident. Hmong, Nepalese, Bangladeshi, and Mongolian residents have similar overcrowding rates as people of another race who have the highest (worst) rate among all races. Pakistani, Cambodian, and Burmese residents’ overcrowding rates are comparable to those experienced by Latinxs. Other subgroups are affected by overcrowding due to the number of people impacted. Filipino (48k), Chinese (37k), and Indian (25k) Californians have the highest number of people living in overcrowded conditions.

Which Pacific Islander subgroups have connected youth rates similar to that of Black youth in California?

Schools and school districts serving low-income communities often do not receive the funding necessary to retain and effectively educate their students. Furthermore, harsh discipline policies in schools and over-policing push youth of color out of education into the criminal justice system, and damage their future job opportunities. People aged 16 to 24 who are in school and/or employed are often referred to as connected youth. Our analysis of this indicator shows that many PI subgroups share the struggles faced by many Black youth. Polynesian (including Samoan, Tongan, and other Polynesian) and Guamanian youth have rates comparable to or lower (worse) than Black youth on this measure. Moreover, the connected youth rate of Pacific Islander youth overall is very similar to that of American Indian / Alaska Native youth.

Which Pacific Islander subgroups face overcrowding comparable to Latinx Californians?

As discussed earlier, overcrowding is just one of the housing challenges impacting most Californians. The analysis on this indicator shows that several PI subgroups face similar inequities to other groups. Marshallese and Tongan people have the highest (worst) rates followed by people of another race, Latinxs, and Samoans. All of their rates are between two and four times higher than the state average rate. Pacific Islanders overall, American Indian / Alaska Native, and Polynesian Californians have rates between three and four percentage points higher (worse) than the average rate. In addition, some subgroups are highly impacted due to having the most people living in overcrowded housing. The Polynesian (4.7k) regional group, including the Samoan (2.1k), and Native Hawaiian (~1.7k) subgroups therein, have the largest number of people experiencing overcrowded housing.

solidarity

Back to top

Spotlight: Did You Know? A History of Multi-Racial Solidarity

California’s communities have a long history of multi-racial solidarity. In 1965, Filipino farmworkers, led by the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee, launched the Delano Grape Strike. Recognizing that growers had long exploited divisions among workers, Filipino and Mexican farmworkers united with the National Farm Workers Association, creating one of the most successful interracial labor movements in U.S. history. Just a few years later, students at San Francisco State College and the University of California, Berkeley formed the Third World Liberation Front, bringing together Black, Asian American, Latinx, and American Indian / Alaska Native organizations to demand educational equity and the creation of Ethnic Studies. These historic strikes not only transformed higher education but also gave rise to the term “Asian American” as a political identity rooted in coalition building and collective liberation rather than ethnicity alone.

This legacy continues today. AAPI organizations across California continue to partner with Black, Latinx, American Indian / Alaska Native, and other communities to build a California where every community has the opportunity to thrive.

Back to top

Recommendations

The findings in this report demonstrate that aggregate racial categories are insufficient for understanding the realities facing California’s diverse Asian American and Pacific Islander communities. Disaggregated data reveals significant disparities in health care access, housing stability, economic opportunity, civic participation, and youth outcomes that would otherwise remain hidden. Furthermore, the data highlight that California’s AAPI communities are not alone in experiencing these disparities as they also impact many of California’s other communities of color. Addressing these inequities would benefit vulnerable Californians across race and ethnicity and would require both improved data practices and bold policy solutions.

The following recommendations draw from the findings in this report and the 2026 MOSAIC Policy Platform.

Expand and improve data collection through an equity lens

California should strengthen and standardize disaggregated data collection practices across state agencies, public institutions, and publicly funded programs. Many communities – including AIAN communities, AAPI communities, Southwest Asian or North African communities, and diverse Latinx and Black communities such as Indigenous and Afro-Latinx communities, specific national origin groups, African immigrants, and Afro-Caribbean communities – remain statistically invisible because data systems either aggregate diverse communities into broad racial categories or fail to collect subgroup information altogether. Improved data collection and disaggregation would benefit all communities by providing a more complete and accurate picture of who is experiencing inequities, where disparities exist, and which communities may be overlooked by broad racial categories. Better data can help policymakers and community organizations target resources more effectively, identify disparities earlier, and develop solutions that respond to the needs of communities across California.  

Improved disaggregation practices should:

• Expand collection of subgroup data across public systems.
• Ensure Pacific Islander communities are recognized and analyzed separately from Asian American populations.
• Include language access and limited English proficiency indicators whenever possible.
• Invest in culturally competent community outreach and research partnerships to improve participation and data quality.
• Support community-based organizations to help interpret and contextualize data findings.

Expand language access and civic participation

The report findings on voter engagement demonstrate the need for stronger investments in language access and civic inclusion. Many AAPI communities continue to face barriers to voting due to limited English proficiency, inconsistent translation practices, and insufficient outreach.

California should:

• Expand translated ballots and election materials in languages other than English.
• Establish statewide standards for in-language voter outreach and education.
• Invest public funding in trusted community-based organizations that conduct multilingual voter engagement and civic education efforts.
• Increase outreach to immigrant and refugee communities that have historically faced barriers to political participation.

Strengthening civic participation is essential not only for improving voter turnout, but also for ensuring that vulnerable communities have meaningful representation in decision-making processes.

Protect access to health care and other safety net programs

Disaggregated health data reveals that some AAPI communities experience disproportionately high rates of uninsurance. Immigrant communities and communities with limited English proficiency are especially vulnerable to losing access to care and public benefits.

California should:

• Restore and protect Medi-Cal, California’s version of Medicaid, access for immigrants regardless of immigration status.
• Protect and expand culturally and linguistically competent health care services.
• Restore funding for community health navigators and enrollment assistance programs.
• Invest in bilingual and bicultural health care workers who reflect the communities they serve.
• Expand culturally responsive mental health and domestic violence prevention programs for vulnerable communities.
• Ensure seamless access to food assistance and other safety net programs for immigrant households.

These investments are especially critical as federal funding cuts and anti-immigrant policies continue to threaten vulnerable communities.

Strengthen housing protections and housing affordability

The report’s findings on overcrowded housing underscore the growing housing crisis facing many AAPI households, particularly immigrant and low-income communities. Housing instability, overcrowding, and rising rents threaten community health and economic security.

California should:

• Strengthen tenant protections and anti-displacement policies.
• Expand access to permanently affordable and social housing.
• Increase emergency rental assistance for low-income households.
• Strengthen language access protections for tenants navigating eviction proceedings and housing systems.
• Narrow exemptions to just-cause eviction laws to increase housing stability.
• Invest in community-based anti-displacement strategies in neighborhoods experiencing rapid gentrification.

Housing policy must account for the realities facing multigenerational households, immigrant families, and communities disproportionately burdened by rising housing costs.

Protect low-income workers and expand economic opportunity

Disaggregated labor and wage data reveal significant inequities within AAPI communities, particularly among immigrant workers and Pacific Islander communities. Many workers face unsafe working conditions, wage theft, language barriers, and limited access to economic mobility.

California should:

• Strengthen enforcement of workplace protections through multilingual complaint systems and outreach.
• Increase protections against retaliation for immigrant workers reporting labor violations.
• Expand workforce development and career pipeline programs for historically underserved communities.
• Invest in youth employment and connected youth programs that support long-term economic mobility.
• Increase pathways into leadership and management positions for communities underrepresented in decision-making roles.

Economic justice policies should recognize that many AAPI workers are concentrated in low-wage industries despite the persistence of stereotypes suggesting universal economic success.

Invest in multi-racial solidarity and community power building

The inequities highlighted in this report are not unique to AAPI communities alone. They reflect broader systems that have historically excluded many communities of color from equitable access to resources, opportunity, and political power. Lasting change requires coalition building and solidarity across communities.

California should:

• Invest in community-based organizing and leadership development programs.
• Support cross-racial coalition building and solidarity efforts among communities of color.
• Fund culturally rooted programs that strengthen community resilience and collective power.
• Include impacted communities directly in policy development and implementation processes.

Multi-racial solidarity is essential for challenging the systems and narratives that divide communities and perpetuate inequity.

Back to top

conclusion

Conclusion

This report demonstrates the importance of disaggregated data in understanding the realities facing California’s Asian American and Pacific Islander communities. While aggregate statistics often portray AAPI communities as universally successful, the data presented throughout this report reveals deep disparities across health care access, housing, economic opportunity, civic participation, and youth outcomes. Without disaggregation, many of these inequities would remain hidden.

The findings also challenge the harmful “model minority myth” that has long been used to obscure structural inequities and divide communities of color. AAPI communities are not immune from the impacts of racism, economic inequality, housing insecurity, or exclusionary public policies. In many cases, specific AA and PI subgroups experience disparities comparable to or worse than those faced by other marginalized communities throughout California.

At the same time, this report is not solely about inequity. It is also about resilience, community power, and the possibility of transformation. Across California, AAPI communities are organizing, advocating, and building coalitions to advance racial equity and collective well-being. Community-based organizations, advocates, and movement leaders continue to fight for language access, affordable housing, health care access, worker protections, and inclusive democracy—not only for AAPI communities, but for all Californians.

The data and stories in this report make clear that visibility matters. Communities cannot advocate for resources, protections, and policy change if their experiences are erased from public data systems. Better disaggregated data collection practices are therefore essential tools for equity and accountability. California has the opportunity to lead the nation by investing in more inclusive and community-informed data systems that reflect the full diversity of its population.

Ultimately, the report affirms that the path toward racial equity requires more than data collection alone. It requires systems change, sustained public investment, and deeper multi-racial solidarity. The inequities highlighted throughout this report stem from systems that have historically concentrated opportunity and power among a select few while marginalizing others. Building a more equitable California will require communities working together across racial, ethnic, and cultural differences to challenge these systems collectively.

appendix

appendix

Appendix

Indicator Methodology

Data Download in Excel Format

endnotes

End Notes

^[1] Wu, Ellen D. The Color of Success: Asian Americans and the Origins of the Model Minority. Princeton University Press, 2014.

^[2] For the purposes of this report we use the term Latinx. We recognize that there is no consensus on the preferred term for this community and that others may use alternative terms such as Latine or Latino/Latina.

^[3] Kim, Claire Jean. “The racial triangulation of Asian Americans.” Politics & society 27, no. 1 (1999): 105-138; Huynh, Q.-L., Devos, T., & Smalarz, L. (2011). Perpetual Foreigner in One’s Own Land: Potential Implications for Identity and Psychological Adjustment. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 30(2), 133–162.; Ruiz, Neil G, Carolyn Im, and Ziyao Tian. Asian Americans and the “forever foreigner” stereotype. Pew Research Center. Accessed July 22, 2026. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2023/11/30/asian-americans-and-the-forever-foreigner-stereotype/.

^[4] powell, john a., & Menendian, Stephen. (2024). Belonging without Othering: How We Save Ourselves and the World. Stanford University Press.

^[5] State of California Department of Justice, “California Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans Final Report”, Accessed May 1, 2026, https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/full-ca-reparations.pdf.

^[6] For the full list of Census PI detailed groups, including clarification on which subgroups fall within regional groups, see here: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/09/2020-census-dhc-a-nhpi-population.html  

^[7] Unless otherwise stated, regional groups in this brief refer to the entire regional group (like Polynesian) and not the remainder of the regional group minus subgroups charted or discussed.

^[8] US Census American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates 2024, Table DP05. https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDP1Y2024.DP05?q=dp05&g=040XX00US06, comprise the fastest-growing population in California, and the state’s second largest community of color. There are many subgroups within the broader AA community – including Chinese Americans, Filipino Americans, Hmong Americans, Japanese Americans, Khmer Americans, Korean Americans, Indian Americans, and Vietnamese Americans – each with varied and nuanced experiences. In fact, California is home to some of the largest AA subgroups in the country. Of the AA community, the majority live in the Southern California and the Bay Area regions, though for particular communities like Hmong Americans the Central Valley contains the largest proportion of residents. AA residents also make up one of the state’s largest immigrant populations, and the number of AA naturalized citizens is comparable to that of Latinx naturalized citizens.

^[9] Ibid.

^[10] Maxwell, Connor. “5 Ways to Increase Voter Turnout in African American Communities.” Center for American Progress, July 18, 2018. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/5-ways-increase-voter-turnout-african-american-communities/.

^[11] Ramakrishnan, Karthick, Janelle Wong, Jennifer Lee, and Taeku Lee. Rep. 2016 Post-Election National Asian American Survey, May 16, 2017. http://naasurvey.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/NAAS16-post-election-report.pdf.

^[12] Michele Wong, Karthick Ramakrishnan, Katie Windham, and Jamie Noh, “By the Numbers: AAPIs and Health. AAPI Data Guide on Timely Policy Issues.” Berkeley, CA: AAPI Data, 2025. https://aapidata.com/featured/by-the-numbers-aanhpis-and-health/

^[13] “California at a Crossroads: Creating Long-Term Stability After H.R. 1 | Catalyst California,” Catalyst California, May 21, 2026. https://www.catalystcalifornia.org/campaign-tools/publications/california-at-a-crossroads-creating-long-term-stability-after-h.r.-1

Back to top