Rural areas have been hit hard by the opioid epidemic. The injury is, in part, self-inflicted. Primary care physicians in rural areas are more likely than those in urban areas to prescribe opioids for their patients, reports the CDC in a study of opioid prescribing rates.
CDC researchers examined electronic prescriptions written by 31,422 primary health care providers during the January 2014 to March 2017 time period. Their findings document the big differences in opioid prescription rates by a county's urban-rural status...
Percent of patients receiving opioid prescriptions, January 2014—March 2017 average
9.6% in rural counties
9.4% in micropolitan counties
7.7% in small metro areas
6.7% in medium metro areas
5.6% in large fringe metros
5.2% in large central metros
The CDC undertook the study to determine whether the 2016 release of its Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain had helped to reduce opioid prescriptions. It did. In every type of county, the opioid prescription rate declined over the time period. In rural counties, the percentage of patients who received opioid prescriptions fell from 10.3 percent in 2014 to 9.0 percent during the March 2016 to March 2017 time period. In large central metropolitan counties, the rate fell from 5.4 to 5.0 percent.
"As less densely populated areas appear to indicate both substantial progress in decreasing opioid prescribing and ongoing need for reduction," the researchers conclude, "community health care practices and intervention programs must continue to be tailored to community characteristics."
Source: CDC, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Opioid Prescribing Rates in Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan Counties among Primary Care Providers Using an Electronic Health Record System—United States, 2014–2017
Showing posts with label metropolitan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label metropolitan. Show all posts
Friday, January 18, 2019
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
Baby Bust Is Hurting Rural America
Forty percent of the nation's 3,000-plus counties have experienced more deaths than births since 2010, according to the Census Bureau's latest county population estimates. The aging of the population (more deaths), drug overdoses (more deaths), and the ongoing baby bust (fewer births) has resulted in negative natural increase (births minus deaths) in huge swaths of the country.
Rural areas have been hit particularly hard by the one-two punch of more deaths and fewer births. Negative natural increase is a big reason for the population decline in many rural counties. Nearly half or more of the counties ranking 6, 7, 8, and 9 on the Rural-Urban Continuum experienced more deaths than births in the 2010-to-2017 time period.
The Rural-Urban Continuum (RUC) is the federal government's way of classifying counties by their degree of urbanity. The continuum is a scale ranging from 1 (the most urban counties, in metropolitan areas of 1 million or more) to 9 (the most rural counties, lacking any settlements of 2,500 or more people and not adjacent to a metropolitan area). If you sort the nation's 3,000-plus counties by their rank on the continuum, then measure the percentage of counties in each rank in which deaths outnumbered births from 2010 to 2017, this is the result...
Percent of counties with more deaths than births by RUC rank, 2010-2017
1. 13.2% of counties in metros with 1 million or more people
2. 26.7% of counties in metros of 250,000 to 1 million people
3. 27.5% of counties in metros with less than 250,000 people
4. 34.1% of nonmetro counties with urban pop of 20,000-plus, adjacent to metro
5. 23.9% of nonmetro counties with urban pop of 20,000-plus, not adjacent to metro
6. 48.6% of nonmetro counties with urban pop of 2,500–19,999, adjacent to metro
7. 48.7% of nonmetro counties with urban pop of 2,500–19,999, not adjacent to metro
8. 68.3% of nonmetro counties with urban pop less than 2,500, adjacent to metro
9. 59.1% of nonmetro counties with urban pop less than 2,500, not adjacent to metro
The most urban counties were least likely to have negative natural increase—only 13 percent of big-city counties experienced more deaths than births since 2010.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural-Urban Continuum Codes and Census Bureau, County Population Totals and Components of Change: 2010–2017
Rural areas have been hit particularly hard by the one-two punch of more deaths and fewer births. Negative natural increase is a big reason for the population decline in many rural counties. Nearly half or more of the counties ranking 6, 7, 8, and 9 on the Rural-Urban Continuum experienced more deaths than births in the 2010-to-2017 time period.
The Rural-Urban Continuum (RUC) is the federal government's way of classifying counties by their degree of urbanity. The continuum is a scale ranging from 1 (the most urban counties, in metropolitan areas of 1 million or more) to 9 (the most rural counties, lacking any settlements of 2,500 or more people and not adjacent to a metropolitan area). If you sort the nation's 3,000-plus counties by their rank on the continuum, then measure the percentage of counties in each rank in which deaths outnumbered births from 2010 to 2017, this is the result...
Percent of counties with more deaths than births by RUC rank, 2010-2017
1. 13.2% of counties in metros with 1 million or more people
2. 26.7% of counties in metros of 250,000 to 1 million people
3. 27.5% of counties in metros with less than 250,000 people
4. 34.1% of nonmetro counties with urban pop of 20,000-plus, adjacent to metro
5. 23.9% of nonmetro counties with urban pop of 20,000-plus, not adjacent to metro
6. 48.6% of nonmetro counties with urban pop of 2,500–19,999, adjacent to metro
7. 48.7% of nonmetro counties with urban pop of 2,500–19,999, not adjacent to metro
8. 68.3% of nonmetro counties with urban pop less than 2,500, adjacent to metro
9. 59.1% of nonmetro counties with urban pop less than 2,500, not adjacent to metro
The most urban counties were least likely to have negative natural increase—only 13 percent of big-city counties experienced more deaths than births since 2010.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural-Urban Continuum Codes and Census Bureau, County Population Totals and Components of Change: 2010–2017
Thursday, March 22, 2018
Big-City Counties Still Fastest Growing, but...
The nation's most urban counties continue to grow faster than any other county type according to the Census Bureau's 2017 county population estimates. A Demo Memo analysis of 2010-to-2017 county population trends along the Rural-Urban Continuum documents ongoing metro growth (the bigger, the better) and continuing rural decline. But the 2017 data reveal changing patterns of growth.
The Rural-Urban Continuum is the federal government's way of classifying counties by their degree of urbanity. The continuum is a scale ranging from 1 (the most urban counties, in metropolitan areas of 1 million or more) to 9 (the most rural counties, lacking any settlements of 2,500 or more people and not adjacent to a metropolitan area). If you sort the nation's 3,000-plus counties by their rank on the continuum, then measure population change between 2010 and 2017 for each rank, this is the result...
County population change 2010-2017 by Rural-Urban Continuum Rank
1. 7.1% for counties in metros with 1 million or more people
2. 5.5% for counties in metros of 250,000 to 1 million people
3. 3.5% for counties in metros with less than 250,000 people
4. 0.3% for nonmetro counties with urban pop of 20,000-plus, adjacent to metro
5. 1.6% for nonmetro counties with urban pop of 20,000-plus, not adjacent to metro
6. –1.0% for nonmetro counties with urban pop of 2,500–19,999, adjacent to metro
7. –1.4% for nonmetro counties with urban pop of 2,500–19,999, not adjacent to metro
8. –1.3% for nonmetro counties with urban pop less than 2,500, adjacent to metro
9. –1.7% for nonmetro counties with urban pop less than 2,500, not adjacent to metro
Counties with a rank of 1 on the continuum (the most urban) have grown faster than any other county type in every year since 2010. But the pattern of growth is changing as the decade progresses. Average annual growth rates in smaller metro counties (rank 2 and 3) are increasing, while average annual growth is slowing in the largest urban counties. Some nonmetro counties saw their population losses turn to small gains in 2017 (rank 6 and 8). These emerging trends are signs that the economic recovery is increasingly widespread.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural-Urban Continuum Codes and Census Bureau, County Population Totals and Components of Change: 2010–2017
The Rural-Urban Continuum is the federal government's way of classifying counties by their degree of urbanity. The continuum is a scale ranging from 1 (the most urban counties, in metropolitan areas of 1 million or more) to 9 (the most rural counties, lacking any settlements of 2,500 or more people and not adjacent to a metropolitan area). If you sort the nation's 3,000-plus counties by their rank on the continuum, then measure population change between 2010 and 2017 for each rank, this is the result...
County population change 2010-2017 by Rural-Urban Continuum Rank
1. 7.1% for counties in metros with 1 million or more people
2. 5.5% for counties in metros of 250,000 to 1 million people
3. 3.5% for counties in metros with less than 250,000 people
4. 0.3% for nonmetro counties with urban pop of 20,000-plus, adjacent to metro
5. 1.6% for nonmetro counties with urban pop of 20,000-plus, not adjacent to metro
6. –1.0% for nonmetro counties with urban pop of 2,500–19,999, adjacent to metro
7. –1.4% for nonmetro counties with urban pop of 2,500–19,999, not adjacent to metro
8. –1.3% for nonmetro counties with urban pop less than 2,500, adjacent to metro
9. –1.7% for nonmetro counties with urban pop less than 2,500, not adjacent to metro
Counties with a rank of 1 on the continuum (the most urban) have grown faster than any other county type in every year since 2010. But the pattern of growth is changing as the decade progresses. Average annual growth rates in smaller metro counties (rank 2 and 3) are increasing, while average annual growth is slowing in the largest urban counties. Some nonmetro counties saw their population losses turn to small gains in 2017 (rank 6 and 8). These emerging trends are signs that the economic recovery is increasingly widespread.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural-Urban Continuum Codes and Census Bureau, County Population Totals and Components of Change: 2010–2017
Friday, October 13, 2017
Suicide Rate Highest in Nonmetro/Rural Areas
Yet another study has found a widening health gap between rural and urban areas. In an analysis of suicide rates by urban status over the past decade, the CDC finds much higher suicide rates in nonmetropolitan and rural areas than in metropolitan areas. To make matters worse, suicide rates are rising faster in the hinterlands than in the rest of the U.S.
In 2013–15, the suicide rate in nonmetro/rural areas (19.74 suicides per 100,000 population aged 10 or older) was 18 percent higher than the rate in medium/small metro areas (16.77), 32 percent higher than the national average (14.98), and 55 percent higher than the rate in large metropolitan areas (12.72). Since 2001–03, the suicide rate has climbed across the nation, but nowhere more so than in nonmetropolitan/rural areas. Between 2001–03 and 2013–15, the suicide rate climbed 14 percent in the largest metros, 19 percent nationally, 25 percent in medium/small metro areas, and 27 percent in nonmetro/rural areas.
The pattern in the suicide rate is the same for both males and females, in every age group, and for every race and Hispanic origin group except Blacks—whose relatively low suicide rate has not increased much and is highest in medium/small metros.
Suicide rates are "consistently higher in rural communities," concludes the CDC. "Findings from this study underscore the need to identify protective factors as part of comprehensive suicide prevention efforts, particularly in rural areas."
Source: CDC, Suicide Trends among and within Urbanization Levels by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, Age Group, and Mechanism of Death—United States, 2001–2015
In 2013–15, the suicide rate in nonmetro/rural areas (19.74 suicides per 100,000 population aged 10 or older) was 18 percent higher than the rate in medium/small metro areas (16.77), 32 percent higher than the national average (14.98), and 55 percent higher than the rate in large metropolitan areas (12.72). Since 2001–03, the suicide rate has climbed across the nation, but nowhere more so than in nonmetropolitan/rural areas. Between 2001–03 and 2013–15, the suicide rate climbed 14 percent in the largest metros, 19 percent nationally, 25 percent in medium/small metro areas, and 27 percent in nonmetro/rural areas.
The pattern in the suicide rate is the same for both males and females, in every age group, and for every race and Hispanic origin group except Blacks—whose relatively low suicide rate has not increased much and is highest in medium/small metros.
Suicide rates are "consistently higher in rural communities," concludes the CDC. "Findings from this study underscore the need to identify protective factors as part of comprehensive suicide prevention efforts, particularly in rural areas."
Source: CDC, Suicide Trends among and within Urbanization Levels by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, Age Group, and Mechanism of Death—United States, 2001–2015
Tuesday, March 07, 2017
Minority Share of 10 Largest Metro Areas, 2015
Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities accounted for 38 percent of the total U.S. population in 2015. Minorities are the majority in 7 of the 10 largest metropolitan areas.
Minority share of 10 largest metropolitan areas
New York: 53.1%
Los Angeles: 70.1%
Chicago: 46.7%
Dallas: 52.3%
Houston: 62.7%
Washington, DC: 53.9%
Philadelphia: 37.4%
Miami: 68.2%
Atlanta: 51.7%
Boston: 28.3%
Note: Minorities are calculated by subtracting non-Hispanic Whites from the total population.
Source: Census Bureau, American Factfinder, 2015 American Community Survey
Minority share of 10 largest metropolitan areas
New York: 53.1%
Los Angeles: 70.1%
Chicago: 46.7%
Dallas: 52.3%
Houston: 62.7%
Washington, DC: 53.9%
Philadelphia: 37.4%
Miami: 68.2%
Atlanta: 51.7%
Boston: 28.3%
Note: Minorities are calculated by subtracting non-Hispanic Whites from the total population.
Source: Census Bureau, American Factfinder, 2015 American Community Survey
Monday, January 16, 2017
Death Rates Higher in Nonmetro Areas
With the Affordable Care Act and expanded access to health care services under threat, the CDC has released a report suggesting any erosion of care will be a bigger problem for the residents of nonmetropolitan America than for those living in metro areas.
The CDC report compares age-adjusted death rates in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas for the five leading causes of death—heart disease, cancer, accidents (including drug poisonings), chronic lower respiratory disease, and stroke. Result: death rates in nonmetropolitan areas are higher for all five causes of death.
What accounts for the higher death rates? A cluster of characteristics, reports the CDC. The residents of nonmetropolitan areas "tend to have less access to health care services and to be less likely to receive preventive services," explains the report. "In addition, they are more likely to be uninsured or underinsured, delay seeking care, live in poverty, and have lower educational attainment."
Source: CDC, Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, Leading Causes of Death in Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan Areas—United States, 1999–2014
The CDC report compares age-adjusted death rates in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas for the five leading causes of death—heart disease, cancer, accidents (including drug poisonings), chronic lower respiratory disease, and stroke. Result: death rates in nonmetropolitan areas are higher for all five causes of death.
What accounts for the higher death rates? A cluster of characteristics, reports the CDC. The residents of nonmetropolitan areas "tend to have less access to health care services and to be less likely to receive preventive services," explains the report. "In addition, they are more likely to be uninsured or underinsured, delay seeking care, live in poverty, and have lower educational attainment."
Source: CDC, Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, Leading Causes of Death in Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan Areas—United States, 1999–2014
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Why Ohio Is Not a Bellwether
Once upon a time, the preferences of Ohio's voters might have been predictive of election results. Not this time. Ohio's demographics differ from the nation's demographics in three important ways, disqualifying the state from being a predictor of the 2016 election outcome...
1. Less diverse: 79 percent of Ohio's population is non-Hispanic White, much greater than the 61 percent for the nation as a whole. Ohio is as diverse as the United States was way back in 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected president. Only 3 percent of Ohio residents are Hispanic versus 18 percent nationally.
2. Less urban: 76 percent of Ohio's population lives in a metropolitan area, well below the 86 percent share nationally. Ohio is as metropolitan as the United States was in 1980, when the rural renaissance was in full swing and inner cities were actually struggling. Now nonmetro areas are losing population and cities are resurgent.
3. Less educated: Only 26 percent of Ohio residents aged 25 or older have a bachelor's degree, substantially lower than the 33 percent for the nation as a whole. Ohio is as educated as the U.S. population was in 2000, when George Bush was elected president. With education dividing voters more than ever, Ohio's lower level of education is yet another reason the state is not a bellwether this election year.
Source: Demo Memo analysis of Census Bureau data
1. Less diverse: 79 percent of Ohio's population is non-Hispanic White, much greater than the 61 percent for the nation as a whole. Ohio is as diverse as the United States was way back in 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected president. Only 3 percent of Ohio residents are Hispanic versus 18 percent nationally.
2. Less urban: 76 percent of Ohio's population lives in a metropolitan area, well below the 86 percent share nationally. Ohio is as metropolitan as the United States was in 1980, when the rural renaissance was in full swing and inner cities were actually struggling. Now nonmetro areas are losing population and cities are resurgent.
3. Less educated: Only 26 percent of Ohio residents aged 25 or older have a bachelor's degree, substantially lower than the 33 percent for the nation as a whole. Ohio is as educated as the U.S. population was in 2000, when George Bush was elected president. With education dividing voters more than ever, Ohio's lower level of education is yet another reason the state is not a bellwether this election year.
Source: Demo Memo analysis of Census Bureau data
Monday, May 16, 2016
Trends in Economic Status by Metropolitan Area
Are you in the upper, middle, or lower class in your metropolitan area? You can find out with this nifty calculator created by Pew Research Center. Choose your metropolitan area, input your household income and size, and determine your economic status—in your city.
If you find yourself in the middle class, you're part of a shrinking majority. Nationally, the percentage of Americans living in middle-income households fell from 55 to 51 percent between 2000 and 2014, according to Pew. Middle income is defined as having a household income ranging from two-thirds to twice the overall median after adjusting for household size. In its analysis of 229 individual metropolitan areas, Pew documents a decline in the middle-income share of households in 203 metro areas (89 percent). As the middle class shrinks, the upper or lower classes (or both) have to grow. In 160 metro areas, the lower class increased as a share of the total. In 172 metro areas, the upper class share grew.
Nationally, the percentage of adults in the upper class climbed from 17 to 20 percent between 2000 and 2014, and the percentage in the lower class climbed from 28 to 29 percent.
Source: Pew Research Center, America's Shrinking Middle Class: A Closer Look at Changes within Metropolitan Areas
If you find yourself in the middle class, you're part of a shrinking majority. Nationally, the percentage of Americans living in middle-income households fell from 55 to 51 percent between 2000 and 2014, according to Pew. Middle income is defined as having a household income ranging from two-thirds to twice the overall median after adjusting for household size. In its analysis of 229 individual metropolitan areas, Pew documents a decline in the middle-income share of households in 203 metro areas (89 percent). As the middle class shrinks, the upper or lower classes (or both) have to grow. In 160 metro areas, the lower class increased as a share of the total. In 172 metro areas, the upper class share grew.
Nationally, the percentage of adults in the upper class climbed from 17 to 20 percent between 2000 and 2014, and the percentage in the lower class climbed from 28 to 29 percent.
Source: Pew Research Center, America's Shrinking Middle Class: A Closer Look at Changes within Metropolitan Areas
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Automobile Alternatives
The five metropolitan areas with the lowest rate of commuting to work by automobile and their second most common mode of commute...
1. New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA
Automobile: 56.9%
Subway or elevated rail: 18.9%
2. Ithaca, NY
Automobile: 68.7%
Walk: 17.5%
3. San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA
Automobile: 69.8%
Bus or trolly bus: 7.6%
4. Boulder, CO
Automobile: 71.9%
Work at home: 11.1%
5. Corvallis, OR
Automobile: 72.6%
Bicycle: 8.8%
Source: Census Bureau, Who Drives to Work? Commuting by Automobile in the United States: 2013
1. New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA
Automobile: 56.9%
Subway or elevated rail: 18.9%
2. Ithaca, NY
Automobile: 68.7%
Walk: 17.5%
3. San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA
Automobile: 69.8%
Bus or trolly bus: 7.6%
4. Boulder, CO
Automobile: 71.9%
Work at home: 11.1%
5. Corvallis, OR
Automobile: 72.6%
Bicycle: 8.8%
Source: Census Bureau, Who Drives to Work? Commuting by Automobile in the United States: 2013
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Fewer Jobs Near Average Metro Resident
Residents of the nation's major metropolitan areas live near fewer jobs than they did in 2000, according to a study by the Brookings Institution. Using census tract data for the 96 largest metro areas, the Brookings researchers compared the number of jobs within the typical commute for each metro in 2000 and 2012. Of the 96 metro areas analyzed, only 29 gained jobs during those years within the metro's typical commuting distance. The typical commuting distance ranged from a low of 4.7 miles in Stockton, California, to a high of 12.8 miles in Atlanta.
The average city resident was within typical commuting distance of 605,367 jobs in 2012, according to the analysis. This was 3.5 percent fewer jobs than in 2000. The average suburban resident was within typical commuting distance of 207,158 jobs—7.3 percent fewer than in 2000. The Brookings report includes details for each of the 96 metro areas.
The loss in job proximity was worse for some than for others. Hispanics saw the number of jobs within their metro's typical commute decline by 17 percent. The loss was 14 percent for Blacks and 6 percent for Whites.
Source: Brookings Institution, The Growing Distance Between People and Jobs in Metropolitan America
The average city resident was within typical commuting distance of 605,367 jobs in 2012, according to the analysis. This was 3.5 percent fewer jobs than in 2000. The average suburban resident was within typical commuting distance of 207,158 jobs—7.3 percent fewer than in 2000. The Brookings report includes details for each of the 96 metro areas.
The loss in job proximity was worse for some than for others. Hispanics saw the number of jobs within their metro's typical commute decline by 17 percent. The loss was 14 percent for Blacks and 6 percent for Whites.
Source: Brookings Institution, The Growing Distance Between People and Jobs in Metropolitan America
Wednesday, April 01, 2015
Households with Pets in Austin, Baltimore, Boston...
The 2013 American Housing Survey includes a set of questions about household emergency preparedness. Some of the questions are about pets—whether households have pets and whether they would need help evacuating or sheltering pets during an emergency. Overall, 48 percent of households have pets, and a substantial 27 percent of pet-owning households say they would need help evacuating or sheltering their pets in case of an emergency.
The pet questions and hundreds of others—ranging from housing tenure to type of structure and year built, property taxes and insurance costs, underwater homeowners, sidewalks or bike lanes in neighborhood, and relationship with neighbors—are available for the nation as a whole and for 25 metropolitan areas. The metros included in the 2013 survey are: Austin, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Hartford, Houston, Jacksonville, Las Vegas, Louisville, Miami, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Nashville, New York City, Northern New Jersey, Oklahoma City, Orlando, Philadelphia, Richmond, Rochester, San Antonio, Seattle, Tampa-St. Petersburg, Tucson, and Washington, DC.
Source: Census Bureau, Metropolitan Summary Tables - AHS 2013
The pet questions and hundreds of others—ranging from housing tenure to type of structure and year built, property taxes and insurance costs, underwater homeowners, sidewalks or bike lanes in neighborhood, and relationship with neighbors—are available for the nation as a whole and for 25 metropolitan areas. The metros included in the 2013 survey are: Austin, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Hartford, Houston, Jacksonville, Las Vegas, Louisville, Miami, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Nashville, New York City, Northern New Jersey, Oklahoma City, Orlando, Philadelphia, Richmond, Rochester, San Antonio, Seattle, Tampa-St. Petersburg, Tucson, and Washington, DC.
Source: Census Bureau, Metropolitan Summary Tables - AHS 2013
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
The Geography of Debt
In a first-of-a-kind analysis, the Urban Institute examines how debt varies by state and metropolitan area. The researchers examined 2013 credit bureau data from TransUnion, which has files on almost every American adult (91 percent)—whether they have debt or not. Most do have debt. Of the 91 percent of Americans with a credit file, fully 80 percent have debt.
The Urban Institute researchers looked at the geographic variation in the percentage of Americans with a nonmortgage bill past due (between 30 and 180 days late) and/or in collections (more than 180 days late). Debt in collections could be credit card, medical, or utility bills, even a parking ticket or club membership. They can remain on a credit file for as long as seven years. While only 5 percent of Americans with a credit file have a bill past due, a much larger 35 percent have debt in collections (median amount owed = $1,349). The percentage with debt in collections varies greatly by state and metro area and is concentrated in the South, the Urban Institute reports.
Among states, Nevada is the worst—fully 47 percent of the state's residents with a credit file have debt in collections. In 12 other states (11 of them in the South), the figure is more than 40 percent. At the other extreme, a smaller 20 percent of the residents of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota have debt in collections.
Among the 100 largest metro areas, the percentage of residents with debt in collections ranges from a low of 20.1 percent in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, to a high of 51.7 percent in McAllen, Texas. Other metros with at least 45 percent of residents having debt in collections are Las Vegas (49.2 percent), Lakeland, Florida (47.3 percent), Columbia, South Carolina (45.2 percent), and Jacksonville, Florida (45.0 percent).
Source: Urban Institute, Delinquent Debt in America
The Urban Institute researchers looked at the geographic variation in the percentage of Americans with a nonmortgage bill past due (between 30 and 180 days late) and/or in collections (more than 180 days late). Debt in collections could be credit card, medical, or utility bills, even a parking ticket or club membership. They can remain on a credit file for as long as seven years. While only 5 percent of Americans with a credit file have a bill past due, a much larger 35 percent have debt in collections (median amount owed = $1,349). The percentage with debt in collections varies greatly by state and metro area and is concentrated in the South, the Urban Institute reports.
Among states, Nevada is the worst—fully 47 percent of the state's residents with a credit file have debt in collections. In 12 other states (11 of them in the South), the figure is more than 40 percent. At the other extreme, a smaller 20 percent of the residents of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota have debt in collections.
Among the 100 largest metro areas, the percentage of residents with debt in collections ranges from a low of 20.1 percent in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, to a high of 51.7 percent in McAllen, Texas. Other metros with at least 45 percent of residents having debt in collections are Las Vegas (49.2 percent), Lakeland, Florida (47.3 percent), Columbia, South Carolina (45.2 percent), and Jacksonville, Florida (45.0 percent).
Source: Urban Institute, Delinquent Debt in America
Friday, June 13, 2014
Mapping Metro and County Population Change
There's a demographic drama unfolding. See it here, in the Census Bureau's Story Maps—two interactive maps of population trends by metropolitan area and county. These maps reveal the surprising changes in population trends that have demographers abuzz.
The first Story Map shows population change in metropolitan and micropolitan areas, comparing trends in 2012-13 with those a decade earlier in 2002-03. The shift from green (growth) to purple (decline) in so many metros/micros between the two time periods tells an important story. The interactive feature of the map allows you to zero in on a particular metro/micro area and, using the swipe bar, see trends for the area in each time period.
The second Story Map shows 2012-13 population growth by county. On one side of the map you can see which counties grew in 2012-13 (green) and which did not (white). Swipe to the other side of the map to see which component of population change (births, deaths, domestic migration, and international migration) was most important for county growth.
Source: Census Bureau, Story Maps Illustrate Metro Area and County Population Change
The first Story Map shows population change in metropolitan and micropolitan areas, comparing trends in 2012-13 with those a decade earlier in 2002-03. The shift from green (growth) to purple (decline) in so many metros/micros between the two time periods tells an important story. The interactive feature of the map allows you to zero in on a particular metro/micro area and, using the swipe bar, see trends for the area in each time period.
The second Story Map shows 2012-13 population growth by county. On one side of the map you can see which counties grew in 2012-13 (green) and which did not (white). Swipe to the other side of the map to see which component of population change (births, deaths, domestic migration, and international migration) was most important for county growth.
Source: Census Bureau, Story Maps Illustrate Metro Area and County Population Change
Friday, March 21, 2014
Play the Game: Population Bracketology
This one is for all you March Madness fans who also happen to be armchair demographers: Population Bracketology, brought to you by the Census Bureau. It's an interactive chart (a game!) that tests your knowledge of population data. Guess which state or metro in each match-up has the larger population, round by round. A perfect score is 63.
It's not as easy as it sounds. In my first game of metro match-up, I scored a 54. In my second attempt, a 55. Some of the match-ups are hard to call, such as Rochester vs. Honolulu. The state game isn't any easier. I scored a 53 on my first round, then a 55. Which is larger: Wisconsin or Missouri? See if you can beat my score.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Why Metros Are Growing
Metropolitan areas, particularly urban cores, are the powerhouses of the post-Great Recession era. In the past year, 77 percent of the nation's metros gained jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In contrast, employment growth in nonmetro areas has been zero, says the USDA's Economic Research Service.
The lack of economic opportunity in nonmetro areas explains why they lost population between 2010 and 2012—the first loss ever recorded. The greater opportunity in metropolitan areas, and in particular central cities, explains why their populations are growing. Now a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland shows that metropolitan populations are not only growing but changing in unexpected ways. Urban cores are attracting and retaining highly skilled residents (defined as those with a four-year college degree), a reversal of the pattern in past decades. "As a result of these trends," says economist Kyle Fee, "in many metro areas the residents of neighborhoods close to the central business district are now more educated than those in farther-away suburbs."
What explains the rising educational level of urban cores? Central cities have been able to attract and retain college graduates for a number of reasons, says Fee. One of those reasons is the growing preference for an urban lifestyle.
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Population Distribution and Educational Attainment within MSAs, 1980-2010
The lack of economic opportunity in nonmetro areas explains why they lost population between 2010 and 2012—the first loss ever recorded. The greater opportunity in metropolitan areas, and in particular central cities, explains why their populations are growing. Now a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland shows that metropolitan populations are not only growing but changing in unexpected ways. Urban cores are attracting and retaining highly skilled residents (defined as those with a four-year college degree), a reversal of the pattern in past decades. "As a result of these trends," says economist Kyle Fee, "in many metro areas the residents of neighborhoods close to the central business district are now more educated than those in farther-away suburbs."
What explains the rising educational level of urban cores? Central cities have been able to attract and retain college graduates for a number of reasons, says Fee. One of those reasons is the growing preference for an urban lifestyle.
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Population Distribution and Educational Attainment within MSAs, 1980-2010
Tuesday, August 06, 2013
61 Million Do Not Speak English at Home
Fully 61 million Americans aged 5 or older speak a language other than English at home—a substantial 21 percent of the population. A new Census Bureau report (Language Use in the United States: 2011) analyzes the languages Americans speak at home, which range from Spanish and Chinese to Arabic, Hebrew, and Navajo. The report also looks at the English-language ability of those who speak other languages at home.
Among those who do not speak English at home, nearly two out of three (38 million) speak Spanish. Among Spanish speakers, the 56 percent majority speak English "very well." Other languages spoken in the home by at least 1 million Americans are Chinese (2.9 million), Tagalog (1.6 million), Vietnamese (1.4 million), French (1.3 million), Korean (1.1 million), and German (1.1 million). Most of those who speak Tagalog, French, or German at home also speak English very well. Most of those who speak Chinese, Vietnamese, or Korean at home do not speak English very well.
The report includes statistics for states and selected metropolitan areas. The Census Bureau also created an interactive language mapper that zooms in on areas as small as census tracts where at least 10 people speak one of 15 languages other than English at home.
Among those who do not speak English at home, nearly two out of three (38 million) speak Spanish. Among Spanish speakers, the 56 percent majority speak English "very well." Other languages spoken in the home by at least 1 million Americans are Chinese (2.9 million), Tagalog (1.6 million), Vietnamese (1.4 million), French (1.3 million), Korean (1.1 million), and German (1.1 million). Most of those who speak Tagalog, French, or German at home also speak English very well. Most of those who speak Chinese, Vietnamese, or Korean at home do not speak English very well.
The report includes statistics for states and selected metropolitan areas. The Census Bureau also created an interactive language mapper that zooms in on areas as small as census tracts where at least 10 people speak one of 15 languages other than English at home.
Monday, August 05, 2013
Job Growth along the Rural-Urban Continuum
The more urban the county, the greater the population growth during the 2010-to-2012 time period, according to my analysis of the Census Bureau's county population estimates by county rank on the Rural-Urban Continuum. But what about job growth along the Rural-Urban Continuum? Not surprisingly, the pattern is the same...
- The number of employed grew the fastest in the most urban counties between 2010 and 2012, up 2.9 percent. These are counties in metropolitan areas of 1 million or more people (a 1 on the Rural-Urban Continuum).
- In smaller metros (2 or 3 on the continuum), the number of employed grew between 1.4 and 1.9 percent during those years.
- In small-town America (nonmetropolitan counties ranking 4 to 7 on the continuum), the number of employed grew by only 0.8 percent.
- In rural counties (8 or 9 on the continuum), employment climbed just 0.7 percent.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Location Matters
Fascinating article in the New York Times: In Climbing Income Ladder, Location Matters. The article describes a study that maps intergenerational economic mobility by metropolitan area. The finding: location matters. Economic mobility is low in Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, and other southeastern metros and in midwestern metros such as Indianapolis, Columbus, and Cincinnati. Economic mobility is high in a number of metros in the Northeast and West such as New York, Boston, Pittsburgh, and Seattle.
The differences are not negligible, as the Times' David Leonhardt reports: "Parts of the country with the highest mobility rates—like Pittsburgh, Seattle, and Salt Lake City—have rates roughly as high as those in Denmark and Norway, two countries at the top of the international mobility rankings. In areas like Atlanta and Memphis, by comparison, upward mobility appears to be substantially lower than in any other rich country."
It would be interesting to see these findings overlaid with the Census Bureau's database on metro density moving outward from city hall. The Times article suggests that economic mobility is more difficult in sprawling metros. And what about the geography of metros themselves? Do flat metros encourage sprawl and hilly metros encourage density, boosting opportunity?
The differences are not negligible, as the Times' David Leonhardt reports: "Parts of the country with the highest mobility rates—like Pittsburgh, Seattle, and Salt Lake City—have rates roughly as high as those in Denmark and Norway, two countries at the top of the international mobility rankings. In areas like Atlanta and Memphis, by comparison, upward mobility appears to be substantially lower than in any other rich country."
It would be interesting to see these findings overlaid with the Census Bureau's database on metro density moving outward from city hall. The Times article suggests that economic mobility is more difficult in sprawling metros. And what about the geography of metros themselves? Do flat metros encourage sprawl and hilly metros encourage density, boosting opportunity?
Rental Vacancy Rates by Metro
Among the nation's 75 largest metropolitan areas, rental vacancy rates are highest in Orlando, Florida. In 2012, 18.5 percent of rental units in Orlando were vacant—more than twice the 8.6 percent rate for all metro areas. Three other metros had vacancy rates above 15 percent in 2012: Richmond, Virginia; Dayton, Ohio; and New Orleans.
Source: Census Bureau, Housing Vacancy Survey, Annual Statistics: 2012
Source: Census Bureau, Housing Vacancy Survey, Annual Statistics: 2012
Friday, May 24, 2013
Population Change along the Rural-Urban Continuum
The nation's urban areas are growing, and rural areas are losing people. This is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the post-Great Recession era. An analysis of county population change along what is called the Rural-Urban Continuum shows the draw of cities and the abandonment of rural outposts.
The Rural-Urban Continuum is the federal government's way of classifying counties by their degree of urbanity. The continuum is a scale ranging from 1 (the most urban counties, in metropolitan areas of 1 million or more) to 9 (the most rural counties, lacking any settlements of 2,500 or more people and not adjacent to a metropolitan area). If you sort the nation's 3,143 counties by their rank on the continuum, then measure population change between 2010 and 2012 for each rank, this is the result...
County population change 2010-2012 by Rural-Urban Continuum Rank
1: 2.2%
2: 1.7%
3: 1.2%
4: 0.2%
5: 0.8%
6: -0.4%
7: -0.2%
8: -0.9%
9: -0.5%
The most urban counties (a 1 on the scale) grew faster than any other type of county between 2010 and 2012. The most rural counties (8 and 9 on the scale) experienced the biggest declines. This is an interesting twist in the age of the Internet, when location is supposed to be increasingly irrelevant.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural-Urban Continuum Codes and Census Bureau, American Factfinder, County Population Estimates
The Rural-Urban Continuum is the federal government's way of classifying counties by their degree of urbanity. The continuum is a scale ranging from 1 (the most urban counties, in metropolitan areas of 1 million or more) to 9 (the most rural counties, lacking any settlements of 2,500 or more people and not adjacent to a metropolitan area). If you sort the nation's 3,143 counties by their rank on the continuum, then measure population change between 2010 and 2012 for each rank, this is the result...
County population change 2010-2012 by Rural-Urban Continuum Rank
1: 2.2%
2: 1.7%
3: 1.2%
4: 0.2%
5: 0.8%
6: -0.4%
7: -0.2%
8: -0.9%
9: -0.5%
The most urban counties (a 1 on the scale) grew faster than any other type of county between 2010 and 2012. The most rural counties (8 and 9 on the scale) experienced the biggest declines. This is an interesting twist in the age of the Internet, when location is supposed to be increasingly irrelevant.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural-Urban Continuum Codes and Census Bureau, American Factfinder, County Population Estimates
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)