2020 citizenship question

Useful background information for those trying to understand the implications of the April 23, 2019 Supreme Court hearing on the citizenship question and the 2020 Census

• Supreme Court Prepares To Hear 2020 Census Citizenship Question
• New research shows just how badly a citizenship question would hurt the 2020 Census
• Citizenship Question Risks a 2020 Census Undercount in Every State, Especially Among Children
• Questionable? Why an Untested Citizenship Question Threatens the 2020 Census (video)

Data link roundup (week of February 15, 2013)

The week's top data analysis links...

URBAN ANALYSIS

RCLCO's new report highlights growth hotspots around the United States based on job growth, working population, population growth, and income. Austin, TX tops the list for large metro areas, Raleigh-Cary, NC for midsize, and Bismarck, ND for small metros.

Source: RCLCO

And in a new analysis, newgeography.com documents the relative "age" of major metropolitan areas in the United States, using percent of housing built before/after 1940 as an indicator. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Boston and Providence rank as the nation's "oldest," while Las Vegas and Phoenix are the relative newborns of the bunch.


IMMIGRATION IN THE NEWS

A recent article from the Los Angeles Times does an excellent job of explaining the link between sending-country birth rate and immigration... they just forget that citizens are migrants, not immigrants.

The Atlantic Cities piece on Bosnians in St. Louis is a clever blend of demographic concepts, personal anecdote, foreign affairs, public policy, social network theory, and assimilation theory.


BEST CHART OF THE WEEK

And because it bears repeating...

New research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology offers proof that there is more within-group variation between men and women than there is between-group variation.

Source: Science Daily

Fact Check: Citizens can't be immigrants

In what seems like a rather large blunder, the Los Angeles Times forgets a key fact in an otherwise well-written, demographically-focused piece on immigration policy...

Times writer Jonathan Last describes the association between fertility rates and international immigration* by using the flow of people from Puerto Rico to New York City as an example.

This flow, largely taking place between the 1920s and 1940s, does serve as an excellent illustration of the factors that influence population change.

In the 1920s, Puerto Ricans began to trickle into the United States. Their numbers accumulated slowly, and by 1930, there were 50,000 Puerto Ricans living in the U.S. (nearly all in New York City)... But from 1955 to 2010, the number plummeted. Even though the population of Puerto Rico had nearly doubled in that time, the total number of Puerto Ricans moving to the United States in 2010 was only 4,283...What happened is that Puerto Rico's fertility rate imploded.

The problem?

Puerto Rico has been part of the United States since the end of the Spanish-American war, and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. Puerto Ricans couldn't "trickle into the United States" because they were already in the United States.

Despite social commentary to the contrary, Puerto Ricans were migrants, but not immigrants.


*Using the term "international immigration" is redundant, of course, as "immigration" means moving to a foreign country, but I want to be clear in this point.

Nation's largest metros growing, but reasons vary

America's biggest metropolitan areas are growing, but for very different reasons, according to a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Among metropolitan areas of 2.5 million people or larger, only Detroit lost population between July 1, 2010 and July 1, 2011. The other twenty large metro areas all saw population growth. However, drivers of growth varied widely among metropolitan areas.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

DRIVERS OF GROWTH:

Population change occurs because of births, deaths, and migration. Births and deaths, collectively, are referred to as "natural increase."

At the state, county, and local level, migration can measured in a variety of ways, but is often estimated in terms of net international migration (those moving into, or out of, an area from abroad) and net domestic migration (those moving into, or out of, an area from another area within the same nation).

NET DOMESTIC OUT MIGRATION IN THREE LARGEST METROS:

In the nation's three largest metropolitan areas, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, population grew as a result of births, longer life expectancy, and international migration.

However, net domestic migration estimates show that more residents moved out of these areas to other parts of the United States than moved into these areas between 2010 and 2011.

DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS:

The largest metropolitan areas in Texas, however, showed an entirely different pattern, acting as magnets for migration from other parts of the United States.

The Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston metro areas both grew by more than 100,000 during the year with 20 percent or more of that growth coming from net domestic migration.

SUNSHINE STATE:

Miami and Tampa, Florida's largest metropolitan areas, were also net-attractors of residents from other parts of the U.S. Miami showed fairly even population growth across all categories (20,400 natural increase, 35,200 international migrants, 36,200 domestic migrants) for net population growth of more than 92,000.

While Tampa attracted more than 27,000 domestic migrants, net international migration was less than 7,000, and an aging population resulted in net natural increase of only 2,300, the lowest of all 21 large metropolitan areas in the report.

GOLDEN STATE:

As noted above, more residents moved out of the Los Angeles metro area than moved in between 2010 and 2011. However, other large metros in California fared better. As a result of net domestic in-migration San Francisco gained 5,900, Riverside-San Bernardino gained more than 15,000, and San Diego grew by 800.


Methodology and Source Notes:
The figures shown above are from the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates (vintage 2011). Additional information on patterns of migration can be found in the Current Population Survey report on geographic mobility.

The Great Migration

The U.S. Census Bureau analyzed data on population change, by race, for two key periods that characterize The Great Migration (1910-1970) during which blacks residents moved out of the southeast.

The color of map bubbles represents the percentage point change in black population in a given city between 1910-1940 (left) and 1940-1970 (right). Darker orange shows that the black population increased as a share of the city's population. Darker blue shows that the share decreased.

Image source

What I find interesting about the 1940-1970 chart is that New Orleans and Atlanta (and, to a lesser extent, Augusta and Chattanooga) both buck the otherwise nearly universal southern trend. Each city saw an increasing proportion of black residents 1940-1970.

However, it is important to note two key caveats in the data:

• Population shares may have changed due to migration or as a result of natural increase (births, life expectancy), though most of the change is attributable to migration.
• Data are shown only for cities "that were either in the top 100 cities in the country or top 3 of a state and had a Black population of at least 100 people." This means that some change shown on the chart may have been a shift from suburbs-to-cities or vice-versa.

More Americans staying put

In addition to rising unemployment and declining retail sales, the recession also has more people staying put in their current residence. According to statistics from the 2010 American Community Survey, only 15 percent of Americans lived in a different home a year ago, down from more than 16 percent of the population moving in 2005. According to the Brookings Institution fewer U.S. residents moved in 2010 than in any year since 1948.*

The map shows the proportion of population that lived in a different house the prior year (data 2006-2010), with the darkest colors representing areas with the highest proportion of people who stayed in the same house, and lightest colors representing areas with the most movers. Not surprisingly, given the housing bubble, Arizona, Nevada had relatively high rates of movers, while rural areas in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama had few movers.

Percent of the population who reported living in the "same house" the prior year (2008-2010).
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, author's calculations

This changing migration dynamic has important repercussions for states like California, which historically were high in-migration states. Despite California's reputation as being a state of newcomers, in 2010 a majority (54 percent) of residents were California-born. (U.S. Census Bureau, Lifetime Mobility in the United States). As a result of this change, Dowell Myers asks in his article "The New Homegrown Majority in California"

"How is the stance taken by voters with regard to taxation and services different if California is growing because of migration by outsiders rather than growing from California-born residents? What does the shift from a reliance on high migration to a homegrown majority mean for today's taxpayers?"

California is not yet approaching the level of "homegrown" population seen in states like Louisiana (79 percent) or Michigan (77 percent). But neither is it like Florida, Alaska, Arizona, or Washington DC, all of which have 60 percent or more of their population born out-of-state.

*Note: Brookings puts the number of movers at 35.1 million, but I pulled the figures from the American Community Suvey for 2010 and found more than 45 million, so take the "lowest since 1948" quote with the proverbial grain of salt.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2010),
"Selected Social Characteristics in the United States" - downloaded 12/9/11

Demographic trends in San Diego County – new data from Census 2010

Population Growth 1910-2010
In the past 100 years, San Diego county has grown from a small city of 60,000 people to a thriving metropolitan area of more than 3 million. In San Diego’s early years Census figures show that the county’s population nearly doubled every ten years from 1910 to 1960. Between 1960 and 1990 growth slowed to an average increase of approximately 33 percent every decade. Growth slowed again in recent years, with less than a 15 percent increase 1990-2000 and only 10 percent growth from 2000-2010.

Migration Patterns
Migration was the primary driver of population growth at the beginning of the last century, but that trend has shifted considerably in recent decades. Until the late 1990s, most growth in Southern California was a result of in-migration from other parts of the United States and from other countries around the world.

However, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey and a study by the University of Southern California Population Dynamics Research Group, that trend has shifted statewide, with most of the population now being, in the words of the study authors, “homegrown” (i.e. born in California).

Aging Population
As San Diego grows, it is growing older. The very first trickle in the aging wave of the Baby Boomers just turned 65 this past January. Because the Baby Boom is just now reaching this milestone, the proportion of the population age 65 and older had remained constant at 11 percent over the past two decades. However, that will shift dramatically in the next two decades.

On the younger end of the spectrum, the share of San Diego's population under the age of 18 is shrinking, from 26 percent in 2000 to 23 percent in 2010. As a result of these shifts the median age (the point at which half of the population is younger and half older) increased from 31.0 years in 1990 to 34.6 today.

Race and Ethnicity
One of the biggest demographic shifts highlighted by the 2010 Census is confirmation that San Diego is now a “majority-minority” county. This means that no single race or ethnic group accounts for more than half of the region’s population.

The Asian population, which grew fastest, increased by 34 percent (to 328,000 residents) between 2000 and 2010. The Hispanic/Latino population increased by 32 percent over the decade, and now accounts for approximately one third of the county’s total population (991,000 residents).

Conversely, the non-Hispanic White, Black, and American Indian populations all declined slightly during the decade (by 3, 5, and 8 percent, respectively)

Housing - Occupancy and Household Size
While much talk about the Census revolves around the demographic characteristics of the population, the 2010 Census also provides valuable information about neighborhood housing characteristics including occupancy rates and average household size.

In 1950, the average household size in San Diego was more than 3.1 persons per household. This decreased steadily as birth rates and average family size fell during the 1960s and 1970s, so by 1980, the region hit a low of 2.6 persons per household. However, birth rates began to rise starting in the mid-1970s, and a similar upward trend can be seen in average household size.

San Diego's lowest residential vacancy rates, not surprisingly, were during the housing boom in the early 2000s, and have risen considerably – back to rates reminiscent of the 1970s and 1980s – in the past three years. Data from the 2010 Census shows a residential vacancy rate of 6.7 percent for San Diego county.

2010 and Beyond
The demographic characteristics of the San Diego county will continue to evolve over time. San Diego is transitioning from a history of high-volume in-migration, to a more “homegrown” population, and from a relatively "young" area to a metropolitan area with an aging population.


Source data:
U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Redistricting Files
California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit

Go West, Americans! (Or maybe South?)

Since the Census Bureau started keeping score in 1790, the nation's population has grown fastest in the western and southern regions, shifting the nation's "mean center of population" in a steady march across the continent.

According to the Census Bureau:

The center is determined as the place where an imaginary, flat, weightless and rigid map of the United States would balance perfectly if all residents were of identical weight.

Tracking the mean center of population tells a story of the nation's growth, conflicts, and social change. This interactive map from the U.S. Census Bureau shows the shifting mean center of population over time:


Today's mean center is in Texas County, Missouri - more than 1,000 miles from the first recorded center in Kent County, Maryland (1790). Some of the biggest shifts over time show the nation's development, and at times, growing pains.

Major shifts over time:
1790: First mean center is calculated as falling about 23 miles east of Baltimore, MD.

1810: The Louisiana Purchase (1803) doubled the land area of the nation, and the mean center shifted into Virginia.

1860: The center shifted by more than 80 miles (biggest shift on record) thanks to rapid growth in the nation's western states, driven in large part by the Gold Rush.

1870: Just ten years later the mean center of population experienced it's biggest shift to the north, as Northeastern and Midwestern cities experienced rapid post-Civil War growth as people fled the war-ravaged South. Also during this time Alaska became a U.S. territory (1867).

1920: The smallest shift on record was between 1910 and 1920. The nation's current territory had already been acquired, slowing the rate of westward expansion. The Northeast and Midwest saw large inflows of international migrants. And last, but certainly not least, there was substantial migration of black/African American population out of the South and into the Northeast and Midwest, precipitated by the intense racism that spawned the Jim Crow laws.

1950: After six decades in Indiana (the longest in any one state), the center finally crossed state lines into Illinois.

2010: The center has its biggest recorded shift to the south, as Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas record rapid population growth.

Demographic Trends in San Diego: What Planners Can Expect in 2010

... article originally appeared in The Planning Journal, Spring 2010

Population Growth 1910-2010
In the past 100 years, the San Diego Region (18 cities and unincorporated county) has grown from a small city of 60,000 people to a thriving metropolitan area of 3 million. In San Diego’s early years, Census figures show that the county’s population nearly doubled every ten years from 1910 to 1960. Between 1960 and 1990 growth slowed to an average increase of approximately 33 percent every ten years. Growth slowed again in the 1990s, with increases averaging less than 15 percent in each of the past two decades.

Migration Patterns
Migration was the primary driver of population growth in San Diego’s early years. Historically, most growth in Southern California was a result of in-migration from other parts of the United States and from other countries around the world. However, according to a recent study released by the University of Southern California Population Dynamics Research Group, that trend has shifted statewide, with most of the population now being, in the words of the study authors, “homegrown” (i.e. born in California). San Diego, however, lags behind the state in this trend, with 52 percent of residents having been born outside of California, according to 2008 data from the American Community Survey.

The 2010 Census short-form does not include a question about place of birth or place of residence five years ago, as prior long-form survey questionnaires did. However, information on 2010 population characteristics provides concrete data against which migration trends can be measured. For example, knowing the 2000 Census population characteristics of a region, and the survival rate and fertility rate of the population, demographers can determine what the population in 2010 could look like in the absence of any migration. Comparing that 2010 hypothetical projection against actual 2010 Census data provides useful insights into which groups moved into or out of a community during the decade. Thus, the 2010 Census population data will provide a key benchmark for measuring migration trends.

With respect to local planning, the key point to note in migration trends is that "the future is us." The people we are planning for are ourselves, our neighbors, and our children. The years of double-digit population growth due to large in-flows of migrants appear to be over, at least for now.

Age StructureThe median age in San Diego increased from 31 years in 1990 to 33 years in 2000 and is estimated to be 35 years in 2009. 2010 Census data will likely show a median age in the mid-30s. While this may not sound like much of a change, the underlying age structure changes are dramatic. Between 1990 and 2000 the county's young population (residents under age 18) grew by 112,700, compared with population growth of only 40,600 in the population age 65 and older. This means that there were nearly three additional children in the county for every additional senior during the 1990s. In the ten years since the 2000 Census all indicators point to a reversal of that trend, with slightly more growth in the senior population than in the population under age 18.

The population is growing across all age groups, but this trend toward an aging population is here to stay. An aging population will result in changing needs and preferences for the local population. For example, older residents may have different residential structure type preferences than college students or families with children. With respect to transportation planning, traffic patterns may change as a result of more off-peak travel by retired residents. These are just a few specific examples of a much broader issue. Planners should be aware of their community's aging population needs as they update public facilities plans, transportation plans, zoning ordinances, and other plans.

2010 and Beyond
The demographic characteristics of the San Diego Region will continue to evolve over time. San Diego is transitioning from a history of high-volume in-migration, to a more “homegrown” population. The future we plan for is our own. Each generation of residents living here today enjoys longer life expectancy Longer life expectancy means that much of the region’s future population growth will be in the oldest age groups. The 2010 Census will provide a clear snapshot of the region’s changing demographic characteristics and will provide planners with plenty of food for thought for the decade ahead.