Recent figures from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Small Area Health Insurance Estimates (SAHIE) show the number of Americans without health insurance increased from 42.9 million in 2008 to 45 million in 2009.  Similarly, in Oregon (see Table 1), the number of uninsured residents also increased.  In 2008, 579,893 (+/- 14,020) of the state’s residents, or 18 percent (+/- 0.4 percent), were without health insurance.  In 2009, the ranks of the uninsured grew to 628,573 residents (+/- 14,264), or 19.4 percent (+/- 0.4 percent)*.

Males in Oregon were more likely to be uninsured compared with females.  The number of uninsured males increased from 19.3 percent (+/-0.6 percent) in 2008 to 20.9 percent (+/-0.6 percent) in 2009.  The number of uninsured females also increased during the two-year period (16.6 percent [+/-0.6 percent] to 17.8 percent [+/-0.6 percent]).

Table 1: Percentage of Uninsured Oregon Residents by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Income

*These categories indicate ratio between family income level to the federal poverty threshold. Lower ratios define lower income.

SAHIE estimates also demonstrate inequitable rates of health insurance coverage according to race/ethnicity.  In 2009, Hispanics in Oregon had the highest overall rate of uninsured population, at 34 percent (+/- 1.4 percent).  The Black alone, non-Hispanic population had an uninsured rate of 20.4 percent (+/- 1.9 percent); the White alone, non-Hispanic population had an uninsured rate of 17 percent (+/- 0.5 percent).

Every income bracket — which is defined by the ratio of family income to the federal poverty threshold — showed a decrease in Oregonians’ health insurance coverage, the data show. Poorer people, however, were most likely to be uninsured.

Oregon Counties

Across Oregon, the highest proportion of uninsured residents was in Wheeler County (see Table 2), where approximately 31.9 percent (+/- 2.7 percent) of people were uninsured in 2009.

For counties with more than 40,000 residents, Marion County had the highest levels of uninsured people with rates of 22.1 percent (+/- 1.3 percent) and 23.9 percent (+/- 1.3 percent) during 2008 and 2009, respectively.

In the Portland metropolitan area, residents of Multnomah County were more likely to be uninsured compared with their metro neighbors.  What’s more, Multnomah County also experienced the largest gain in the percentage of the uninsured (16.8 percent [+/- 0.8 percent] to 18.9 percent [+/- 0.9 percent])*.

Table 2: 2008 and 2009 Percentage of Uninsured Oregon Residents by County

SAHIE Estimates

Unlike the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), which provides single-year health insurance estimates for populations of at least 65,000, SAHIE produces model-based[i] estimates of health insurance coverage for all counties and states, regardless of population size. What’s more, SAHIE data[ii] provide information about health insurance coverage by sex, age, race/ethnicity, and income at the state level. Health insurance coverage by sex, age and income are available at the county level.

SAHIE 2008 and 2009 estimates include ACS data for the first time. Health insurance coverage and income group distributions (from the ACS) provide significant improvements in the precision of SAHIE estimates. An important caveat, however, is that because SAHIE data from 2008 and 2009 are estimated with a different data source than earlier estimates, SAHIE data from previous years should not be compared with 2008 and 2009 estimates.

To download and view SAHIE estimate data, click here.

*Statistically significant difference at the 90 percent confidence level.

Note: SAHIE data are based on survey estimates.  As such, all data should be interpreted with the corresponding Margin of Error (MOE) estimate.  MOE is the difference between an estimate and its upper or lower confidence bounds.  Confidence bounds can be created by adding the MOE to the estimate (for an upper bound) and subtracting the MOE from the estimate (for a lower bound).  All published MOE values are based on a 90 percent confidence level.

The SAHIE program uses the following data sources to model health insurance coverage: The American Community Survey; demographic population estimates; aggregated federal tax returns; participation records for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp program; county business patterns; Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) participation records; and Census 2000.

All data pertain to those younger than 65 years of age.

Charles Rynerson, Risa Proehl and Michael Burnham contributed to this report.

Where we live and who we live with have a huge influence on our everyday lives. Do we live alone or share a home with family or friends? Do we own or rent? How affordable is our housing when compared to our income and how is the value of our house changing? All of these issues shape how we live our lives.

Similarly, housing and households influence the character of neighborhoods and communities. The share of households with children and seniors, the share of households that rent or own, the size of households, and the cost and supply of housing can affect community resources, demographics and livability.

Every ten years, we get a snapshot of the nation’s households from the decennial census. In between census years, we get an update of that picture plus additional information from the American Community Survey. This article explores changes in the size, structure and financial condition of Oregon’s households, from 2000 to 2010, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2000 and 2010 decennial censuses and the 2005-2009 American Community Survey.

Households are occupied housing units. The type of people who occupy them is changing slowly over time. The composition of households is descriptive of the population in general and is indicative of the dynamics of an area’s demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

Household Type and Average Size

In Oregon and in the United States, the share of households with children has been declining. Conversely, the share of households that are non-family households, including those where the householder lives alone, has been increasing. Contributing to the rising share of one-person households is the increasing share of senior citizens, especially women, who outlive their spouses.

According to the U.S. 2010 Census, roughly two-thirds of all households in Oregon were family households (households with spouses, children, or other relatives). More than a quarter of all households were composed of persons living alone, and the rest were composed of either group-living situations or non-family households (e.g., roommates, boarders). From 2000 to 2010, the percentage of households with people living alone increased by about a percentage point, while there was a decrease among family households and households with children. Counties with student populations or migrant workers generally have the highest percentages of non-family households. As college enrollments have been rising, so has the student resident population living in roommate situations; this is also true of agricultural workers.

Statewide, about a third of households have children, and almost a third of family households with children were headed by single parents. More than two-thirds of these single-parent households were headed by single-mothers; however, nationally and in Oregon, the share that was headed by single-fathers increased, although slightly, from 2000 to 2010.

Oregon counties with the smallest shares of households with children are counties that are popular destinations for retirees and are not necessarily attracting many young families (Figure 1). Thus, the population is aging in place.

The share of households with residents age 65 or older increased slightly faster in Oregon compared with the United States as a whole. From 2000 to 2010, Multnomah and Hood River counties were the only counties in Oregon without an increase in the share of households with persons age 65 or older. This is likely due to a higher rate of young adults moving to Portland for creative and employment opportunities and to Hood River County for recreational and outdoor amenities.

Alternatively, the counties with the largest share of households with one or more persons age 65 or older in 2010 were: Wheeler, Curry, Josephine, Grant, Baker, Coos, Douglas, Lincoln, Sherman, Tillamook, Wallowa, Gilliam, Lake, Crook, Harney, Malheur, Jackson, Wasco, Jefferson and Klamath; all had 30 percent or more households with seniors. Some of these counties are popular destinations for retirees (Curry, Josephine, Coos, Lincoln, Tillamook, Jackson), and others have aging populations.

Figure 1

Source: US Census Bureau

The average number of persons per household (PPH) changes along with shifts in household type. A smaller share of family households and a larger share of one-person households lead to smaller average household sizes.

Generally in Oregon, as in the United States, the PPH has been declining over the past few decades. Typically, the PPH changes slowly over time; it also depends on characteristics of the population and how those characteristics change over time. The PPH is largely influenced by the age structure of the population (e.g., a large number of children implies larger household sizes), and to cultural practices (e.g. fertility levels and the propensity for extended families to live together). The economy affects the PPH to a lesser extent and on more of a temporary basis (e.g., promotes the opportunity to live alone or the need to double-up).

Overall, in the United States, declining fertility rates of the white non-Hispanic majority population contributed to the decline in PPH in recent decades. However, during the 2000s, declining fertility and PPH started to become offset by the changing ethnic make-up of the population. Consequently, the pace at which PPH had been shrinking has decelerated.

Nationally, the average household size barely decreased from 2000 to 2010 (from 2.59 to 2.58). Because of a larger white non-Hispanic population, Oregon’s PPH dropped from 2.51 in 2000 to 2.47 in 2010. Still, the drop was not as great during the previous decade. Additionally, the PPH didn’t change much in the Portland three-county metropolitan area during the decade. The decline that had been occurring previously was likely offset by the increasing share of Hispanic population, particularly in Washington and Multnomah counties. PPH for the three-county Portland area was about the same as for Oregon in 2010.

All counties in Oregon, except Marion and Umatilla, experienced a decline in PPH, however slight (Figure 2). The counties that experienced the greatest decline were those with aging populations where the share of seniors is increasing, or those where fertility rates were lower, or were declining at a faster pace, than other Oregon counties.

The counties with the smallest PPH in 2010 were: Curry, Gilliam, Wheeler, Grant, Lake, Lincoln and Wallowa. These counties have relatively large retirement communities or aging populations.

Figure 2

Source: US Census Bureau

Most families reside in single-family housing units, which means single-family units generally have a higher household size than multi-family units. And since most multi-family units are occupied by persons who rent rather than own their home, renter-occupied households typically have a lower household size than owner-occupied households.

Housing Tenure

In general, most households are occupied by homeowners rather than renters. In 2010, 62 percent of Oregon households were owner-occupied, which is slightly lower than the national percentage (Figure 3). In all but one of Oregon’s counties, the percentage of owner-occupied households declined from 2000 to 2010; Washington County’s share of owner-occupied households was about the same in 2010 as it was in 2000. Counties with the largest share of owner-occupied households were: Columbia, Grant, Wallowa and Crook. Ownership in these counties ranged from 70-75 percent, which means their share of renter-occupied households was lower than the state average of 38 percent.

Figure 3

Source: US Census Bureau

Usually, the highest share of renter households is in more urbanized counties and especially where there is a large college student population. Rental housing must be extensive enough to accommodate the demand from persons who require temporary living situations. Still, in these areas, renter-occupied households consistently represent less than the majority of households.

The disparity between the share of owners and the share of renters was the least in Multnomah County, followed by Benton and Lane counties. According the Census 2010, the share of owner-occupied households was 55 percent while the share of renter-occupied households was 45 percent in Multnomah County.

Housing Affordability

Another difference between renters and owners is housing affordability. Many renters are renting because they cannot afford to purchase their own home. However, this does not necessarily mean that renters can afford their housing expenses.

Housing affordability is measured by the level of cost-burden. A household is considered cost-burdened if 30 percent or more of the household income is spent on housing costs.

According to the 2005-09 ACS, more than a third of households in Oregon were cost-burdened, which is slightly higher than the national figure. Additionally, the share of households, both nationally and in Oregon, that was cost-burdened increased from 2000 to the 2005-09 period by several percentage points (Figure 4). The counties in Oregon that tend to bear the highest share of cost-burdened households were in the most urbanized areas. Oregon counties with the highest shares of cost-burdened households reported in the 2005-09 ACS are: Multnomah, Jackson, Josephine, Lane, Benton, Curry, Lincoln, Clatsop, Marion and Deschutes. Here, approximately 40 percent of the households were reported to be paying 30 percent or more on housing costs. Multnomah County was highest in percent and number: More than 122,000 households were estimated to be paying 30 percent or more of their income on housing costs.

The counties consistently reported in 2000 and in the 2005-09 ACS to have the smallest percentage of cost-burdened households were: Wheeler, Grant, Morrow, Lake, Harney, Gilliam and Sherman.

Figure 4

Source: US Census Bureau

Typically, a larger share of renters than owners is cost-burdened. This is likely due a larger share of lower-income households being renters than owners. Both nationally and in Oregon, about half of renter-occupied households were cost-burdened. Slightly less than one-third of owner-occupied households were cost-burdened, according to the 2005-09 ACS data.

In all Oregon counties, a greater percentage of renters than owners was paying 30 percent or more of their income on housing. Four of the five Oregon counties with the highest percentage of renter cost-burden were counties with public universities: Multnomah, Lane, Benton and Jackson. The most disparity between renters and owners paying 30 percent or more on housing was in Baker, Gilliam, Wheeler and Benton counties. Home to Oregon State University, Benton County has a large percentage of student population, and the fact that most students don’t work full-time could explain this difference.

Housing Value and Vacancy

Housing costs, coupled with income, contribute to cost-burden and housing affordability. Thus, a high share of cost-burdened households does not necessarily indicate expensive housing. However, in Oregon, the median housing value was approximately 32 percent higher than the national average of $185,400.

According to the 2005-09 ACS, the median housing value for owner-occupied housing units in Oregon was about $244,200. Median housing values in about half of Oregon counties were between $200,000 and $300,000. Counties in Oregon with the highest median housing value were: Clackamas, Deschutes and Washington. The median housing value in these counties was about $300,000 or more.

Counties with the lowest housing values were east of the Cascades; here, the median housing value was $200,000 or lower. Wheeler, Gilliam, Morrow, Lake, Sherman, and Harney counties were most affordable, with values closer to $100,000.

Housing value is affected by the economy, but more so by the demand for housing. The counties with the lowest values are also the counties with the highest vacancy rates (Figure 5). Again, the ACS data show that most of these counties are east of the Cascades.

Figure 5

Source: US Census Bureau

A housing unit is considered to be vacant if it is not anyone’s usual place of residence. Statewide, about 9 percent of housing units were vacant in 2010 (the national vacancy rate was 11 percent). This percentage, however, includes seasonal housing (e.g., vacation homes); when these units are excluded, the Oregon rate is less than 8 percent. This shows that not all vacancy rates reflect a surplus of housing. The share of housing units that is seasonal in Oregon and the United States was reported to be around 3.5 percent. Nationally, the share of seasonal units declined by 3 percentage points from 2000 to 2010. However, the share increased in Oregon by 4 percentage points. The counties in Oregon with the largest share of housing stock in 2010 that is seasonal were: Tillamook, Lincoln and Clatsop on the coast; Wallowa to the east, in the Wallowa Mountains; and centrally located Wheeler, surrounded by the John Day Fossil Beds.

Nationwide, an increase in housing vacancy from 2000 to 2010 was commonplace. Vacancy rates increased in all Oregon counties but one during the same time period. Benton County was the only Oregon county where the vacancy rate actually decreased during the decade, but by a just a fraction of a percent.

Oregon counties where vacancy rates increased the most in the 2000s were Tillamook, Crook, Wheeler, Lincoln and Hood River. Each county’s vacancy rate increased by at least 5 percentage points during the decade. Although the highest vacancy rates were in Tillamook, Lincoln, Wheeler and Clatsop counties, when seasonal housing is factored out, Wheeler is the only county that remains amongst the counties with the rates above 10 percent. The other counties with the highest vacancy rates were Gilliam, Harney, Lake and Grant counties.

Generally in Oregon, regardless of seasonal housing, vacancy rates were lowest in counties along the Interstate 5 and the Interstate 84 corridors. The lowest vacancy rates in Oregon reported by Census 2010 were in the Willamette Valley counties (Benton Washington, Multnomah, Clackamas, Yamhill, Marion, Polk and Lane), Columbia County, Union County, and in the Columbia River area counties of Wasco, Morrow, Umatilla and Hood River.

In conclusion, some of Oregon’s more rural counties, east of the Cascades, tend to have a higher percentage of single-family residences and a greater supply of affordable housing. Conversely, and perhaps not surprising, the most expensive housing in the state is generally in the state’s most-populated counties, and those along the Interstate 5 corridor.

Additionally, over the past decade homeownership in Oregon generally has decreased. This condition is affected by the economy and could turn around as the economy improves over the next several years. Household composition, however, which is not so affected by the economy, is prone to certain trends that are expected to continue over the near future: The share of households with seniors is increasing; the share of children’s households is declining; and, the average household size is stabilizing.

FOOTNOTES:

1 Housing units were living quarters for 97.7 percent of Oregon’s population according to Census 2010; the remaining population, or 2.3 percent (86,600 persons), resided in group quarters facilities (group living situations such as prisons, nursing homes, and student dormitories). Depending on the living situation, the homeless population are included as living in special housing units (classified by the Census Bureau as ‘Other’ housing units, such as tents or vans) or in group quarters facilities such as emergency shelters. The share of population residing in group quarters generally hasn’t changed much throughout recent decades, but it could increase as the share of elderly is on the rise and the demand for nursing homes may become more prominent. Nationally, about 2.6 percent of the population resides in group quarters.

2 Single-family residences can be separate, stand-alone structures or can be attached as long as the separating wall reaches from the ground to the roof. Multi-family residences exist in structures that hold multiple dwelling units such as duplexes, apartments, townhouses, and some condos.

Editing assistance from IMS/PRC Director Sheila Martin, PRC Assistant Director Jason Jurjevich, and graduate research assistants Michael Burnham and Ryan Dann.

The combination of three components: fertility, mortality, and migration, collectively lead to population change. Fertility and mortality events in recent history, including escalated fertility levels associated with the ‘baby boom cohort’ and spikes in mortality linked to the Spanish Flu of 1918 for example, have produced demonstrative demographic effects.

However, both the unpredictability and ability of migration to produce virtually immediate impacts, often enduring for decades across social, cultural, demographic, and economic landscapes, has long captured the attention of scholars and public policy makers alike.

Over the past several decades here in Oregon, migration has undoubtedly shaped the state socially and culturally, but equally pronounced and perhaps more tangible have been the long-term challenges and prospects linked to the reciprocal relationship between migration and economics.

The Beaver State grew by more than 400,000 people during the first decade of this century, and nearly half of the growth was concentrated in Deschutes, Multnomah and Washington counties.

While roughly two-thirds of the state’s population growth was attributable to net in-migration, much of the migration-related growth occurred during the early 2000s. Due to the migration slow-down accompanying the economic recession that began in late 2007, natural increase accounted for a greater share of Oregon’s population growth.

In addition to Deschutes, Multnomah and Washington counties, other counties with significant net in-migration included Clackamas (Portland metro), Lane (Eugene metro), and Jackson (Medford metro). Counties with net out-migration included, from lowest to highest: Wheeler, Wallowa, Sherman, Baker, Harney, Grant, Morrow and Malheur (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Unemployment rates are a lagging indicator of economic performance, but the relationship between net migration and Oregon’s annual unemployment rate is clear: as the state’s unemployment rate climbs, there is a delayed, but pronounced decline in net migration.

Prior to the economic recession that began in December 2007, net migration in Oregon averaged 28,000 people per year. Indeed, Oregon gained the majority of the decade’s 250,000 net in-migrants during this period. From 2008 through the end of the decade, however, net migration averaged slightly more than 16,000 people annually—half of what it was during the beginning-to-middle part of the decade (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Analyzing net migration and other metrics of migration is important for gauging the relative importance of migration, along with fertility and mortality, as components of population change. However, because counties with larger population (often urban counties) will often send and receive greater volumes of migrants compared with their rural counterparts, it is important to consider a migration statistic that summarizes the relative effect of migration across all counties. While it has some pitfalls, the Net Migration Rate (NMR) (Table 1 and Figure 3) provides such comparability.

Table 1

Figure 3

While Washington County recorded the highest level of net in-migration (35,852) of any county in Oregon, the net gain of 35,434 migrants in Deschutes County represented the highest relative gain. Because Washington County is more than three times as large as Deschutes County, Washington County’s net gain of migrants translated to 7.2 net in-migrants per 100 residents while Deschutes County recorded a 25.1 net in-migration rate. Put another way, 84% of Deschutes County’s gain in population was the result of net in-migration, compared to 43% in Washington County.

Polk, Curry, and Josephine counties recorded the next highest net in-migration rates at 15.2, 13.0 and 11.7, respectively.

The largest net out-migration rates were in the Eastern Oregon counties of Sherman, Malheur and Morrow. Sherman County, for example, recorded a marginal net loss of 133 migrants. However, Sherman’s total population of fewer than 2,000 residents makes it one of the least-populated counties in Oregon. As such, the net loss of more than 100 persons translated into a pronounced relative loss.

Disaggregating domestic and international migrant flow data from the U.S. Census Bureau uncovers an interesting trend for Oregon and its counties.

According to U.S. Census Bureau estimates, during the 2000s, approximately two-thirds of Oregon’s net migrants were domestic migrants; one-third were international migrants. In terms of numbers, 165,000 people were net domestic migrants, leaving 85,000 net international migrants.

As the state average suggests, the net migration in the majority of Oregon counties was due to domestic migration flows. However, some counties had considerably different migration patterns.

In the Portland metro area, for example, Clackamas County reflected many counties across Oregon where net in-migration flows were due to domestic migration (80 percent). However, Multnomah and Washington counties were fundamentally different from the larger state pattern (Figure 4). In Washington County, half of net in-migration was due to domestic migrants and the other half was due to international migrants. In Multnomah County, 90 percent of the net migration gains were attributable to international migrants.

Other Oregon counties where international migration accounted for more than half of the gains in net migration included Benton, Marion and Wasco counties.

Figure 4

Figure 5 is illustrative of general age-articulated migration patterns across the life-course. Persons in their first five years of life have moderate mobility levels that decline through age 17, only to increase significantly at age 18 with moving to college, entering the military or moving for employment following high school. Mobility levels generally fall precipitously thereafter as people settle into jobs and communities.

Using the U.S. Census Bureau definition, which classifies a migrant as someone who crosses political (county) boundaries, Figure 5 illustrates a rather significant decline in the propensity to migrate, across almost all age cohorts, between 2005 and 2009. As explained in Figure 1, the economic recession and housing crisis helped to curb migration rates significantly across virtually all age cohorts.

Figure 5

American Community Survey (ACS) estimates for 2005-2007, the three-year period prior to the economic recession, and for the ensuing three years show a 3.3 percent (+/- 0.8 percent) decrease in the number of movers over the period. Comparing the two periods, the number of migrants declined for virtually all types of moves, but most pronounced were individuals migrating across state lines.

Figure 6 underscores a critically important point—the economic recession did not impede migration rates uniformly across the population. In fact, the opposite is true for Oregon interstate migrants. While there was a statistically significant (95%) decline in the number of migrants moving across Oregon county lines between the two periods, there was no statistically significant decline in the number of interstate migrants with at least a Bachelor’s degree during the period. In other words, mobility levels for migrants with higher levels of educational attainment seemed to be somewhat insulated from the economic recession compared to their less educated counterparts.

Figure 6

The largest sources of migrants to Oregon were from California and Washington. In 2005, 39.8percent (+/- 7.5 percent) and 14.1 (+/- 3.5 percent) of migrants were from California and Washington, respectively. In 2009, however, a decline in migrants from California (24.9 percent, +/- 4.8 percent) led to a corresponding increase in the percentage of migrants from Washington (20.2 percent, +/- 3.6 percent).

According to 2009 ACS estimates, fewer than half of Oregon’s residents were born in Oregon and approximately 1 out of every 7 Oregonians was born in California.

Figure 7

One of the seminal laws of migration, developed by Ravenstein (1885), is that for every migrant inflow, there is a counterstream. Migrant exchanges are often a result of physical distance—places in close proximity share a greater degree of interaction. Figures 7 and 8 underscore these principles of migration.

Where California and Washington were the two greatest sources of migrants to Oregon, these two states were also the top destinations for residents leaving Oregon. In both 2005 and 2009, approximately 40 percent of out-migrants left Oregon for these two states.

Figure 8

Figure 9 assesses the comparability of migration information from three primary sources: the ACS; the number of driver’s licenses surrendered at Oregon Department of Motor Vehicle offices; and, the number of exemptions listed on Internal Revenue Service tax returns for the period.

As Figure 9 illustrates, generally, the data sources confirm the top five origin states for Oregon in-migrants: California, Washington, Arizona, Idaho and Colorado.

Figure 9

Table 2 reports county-specific net migration figures for the three-county Portland region (Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas counties). The largest absolute flow of migrants out of the Portland region is to Clark County, WA. According to 2004 IRS tax return data, there were almost 4,000 more out-migrants to Clark County, WA compared to in-migrants to the Portland region. The largest net flows of in-migrants come from Los Angeles County, CA and Lane County, OR at 1,300 and 700, respectively.

Because counties with larger populations often send and receive greater volumes of migrants, migration streams are often analyzed in terms of relative flow by using a measure of Demographic Effectiveness, or how ‘effective’ migration streams are at redistributing population. Relying on this metric, the most effective county-specific out-migration streams are to Clark, WA and Deschutes, OR. Conversely, the most effective county-specific in-migration streams are all from California—Alameda, Los Angles, and Orange counties.

Table 2

With an increasingly globalized economy dependent on a highly skilled and well-educated workforce, the future may lead to demand for human capital exceeding the state’s supply from institutions of higher learning. If this is the case, Oregon will continue to be dependent on continued importation of human capital through in-migration. What is clear, with history as a guide, is an inextricable link between in and out migration streams and Oregon’s economy—as demography will undoubtedly determine Oregon’s economic destiny.

Sheila Martin, Charles Rynerson, Risa Proehl and Michael Burnham contributed to this report.

Population grew in all regions of Oregon between 2000 and 2010, and the proportion of Oregonians living in the three-county metropolitan Portland region inched up to nearly 43 percent, according to newly released U.S. Census Bureau data.

Central Oregon grew by 30.5 percent during the decade — the fastest growth rate of any region of the state. By 2010, about 5.2 percent of Oregon residents, or just over 200,000 people, lived in the area composed of Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson counties (Table 1).

The three-county Portland metro region grew 13.6 percent during the decade, the second-fastest rate of growth in the state, according to Census 2010. The metro region, composed of Washington, Multnomah and Clackamas counties, grew by nearly 200,000 residents during the past decade— from 1.44 million people a decade earlier to 1.64 million people in 2010.

Other regions in Oregon — including the Valley, Eastern, Northwest and Southwest — saw their share of the total population shrink because their growth rates were below the state’s 12 percent average. A detailed analysis of population change for Oregon and its regions is below.

Table 1: Population Change, 2000-2010

Oregon was home to 3.8 million people in 2010, according to the census, up from about 3.4 million in 2000. At 12 percent, the state’s growth rate is below the West’s regional average, 13.8 percent, but above the national average, 9.7 percent.

Except for the 1950s and the 1980s, population growth in Oregon has outpaced the national average (Figure 1).

In the 1980s, a marked economic decline, particularly in logging and forest products, stemmed the flow of migrants to Oregon and resulted in a slower pace of growth for Oregon (7.9 percent) compared to the nation (10.4 percent). Population growth in the Portland metropolitan area, however, outpaced the national average with 13.6 percent growth during the period.

Bolstered by strong employment growth and amenity-driven migration, both the Portland metro and the State of Oregon sustained impressive population growth during the 1990s. During the 1990s, U.S. population growth stood at 12.5 percent, but even more pronounced was population growth in the metropolitan area (26.5 percent) and the state (20.4 percent).

Figure 1: Growth By Decade

Counties in the Portland metropolitan area and the Willamette Valley are home to more than two-thirds of the state’s population. The Valley, the state’s second-largest region by population, added 107,510 residents between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Regional Population Share

While Central Oregon recorded the highest population growth of any region in Oregon during 2000-2010 (30.5 percent), its growth was primarily concentrated in Deschutes County.

Both working-age and retirement-age migrants poured into Bend during the past several decades, leading Deschutes County to the highest population growth of any county in the state at 36.7 percent. Population growth was less pronounced in Crook and Jefferson counties, which grew by 9.4 percent and 14.3 percent, respectively.

At 3.7 percent, Eastern Oregon had the slowest population growth of any region in the state during the 2000s. The fastest-growing county in this region was Hood River County; the combination of an increasing number of residents commuting to Portland, retirement migration, a growing agricultural employment base, and amenity-based migration in the Columbia River Gorge led to an increase of almost 2,000 county residents during the decade.

Gains in Umatilla (7.6 percent), Lake (6.4 percent), and Wasco (6.0 percent) counties represent the next biggest relative gains in population for the region. Of the 15 counties in this region, more than half (8) experienced a population decline during the decade. Many of these counties are not only losing population through net out-migration, but they are also losing population because of natural decrease (deaths exceeding births).

With the highest absolute growth of any region in Oregon, the Portland metro region added almost 200,000 residents during the 2000s (13.6 percent growth). Washington, Multnomah, and Clackamas counties added approximately 85,000, 75,000, and 38,000 persons, respectively, representing three of the top four absolute increases of population in Oregon.

Following the Portland metro region, counties in the Willamette Valley recorded the second-highest absolute growth by adding 108,000 persons during the decade (11.5 percent growth). With population growth of 20.9 percent, Polk County achieved the second-highest relative growth in the state behind Deschutes County (36.7 percent). Marion, the other county in the Salem metro region, had the largest absolute growth (30,500) of any Valley county.

Population growth in Northwest Oregon, 6.6 percent, was half of the state average. However, while Clatsop, Lincoln, and Tillamook counties experienced near 4.0 percent growth, the proximity of Columbia County to Portland largely resulted in the highest growth in the region at 13.3 percent.

Growth in Southern Oregon was highly uneven. With considerable population growth in Medford and Ashland, Jackson County was the fastest-growing county in the region at 12.1 percent. Grants Pass also recorded an increase in its population, which led Josephine County to the second-highest growth in Southern Oregon (9.2 percent). Douglas and Curry counties also had modest population increases (7.2 percent and 5.8 percent, respectively), but Coos County’s increase of 264 persons represented the smallest gain of any county in the region— a 0.4 percent increase over its 2000 figure.

Table 2: Population by Oregon County

Population change is the combination of three components: births, deaths, and migration. The excess of births over deaths leads to a natural increase and the excess of deaths over births produces a natural decrease of population. The third component, migration, either adds or subtracts to population based on whether there is a net positive exchange of migrants (net in-migration) or a net negative exchange (net out-migration).

Between 2000 and 2010, Oregon’s population increased by almost 410,000 persons. Underlying this growth is net in-migration of 250,000 persons combined with a natural increase of approximately 150,000 — meaning that net in-migration accounted for 60 percent of the state’s increase in population.
Washington, Deschutes and Multnomah counties had the largest absolute levels of net in-migration in Oregon — each county added approximately 35,000 persons due to net migration.

While net migration was a significant component of population growth in Washington and Multnomah counties, the majority of population growth was actually due to natural increase. In Deschutes County, however, natural increase only accounted for less than 20 percent population change (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Population Change In Oregon

Other counties where population increase was largely due to net migration include: Lane, Jackson, Polk, and Linn counties. As in the case of Deschutes County, natural increase in these counties only accounted for 10-20 percent of population growth, making net migration the primary component of population change.

Net migration explains population growth in a plurality of Oregon counties. In Marion, Umatilla, Hood River, Morrow, and Malheur counties, however, population increased largely due to natural increase. For these counties, natural increase is attributable in part to their growing share of to Latino in-migrants who are generally younger and have higher birth rates compared to their neighbors.

In Southern Oregon, an aging population in Coos, Lincoln, Curry, and Josephine counties led to a natural decrease in population, combined with small levels of net in-migration.

As Table 3 illustrates, Josephine County had a net in-migration of more than 9,000 persons during 2000-2010, but the county’s population grew by just 7,000 residents because of a natural decrease in population (almost 2,500 persons). For Coos County, its net inflow of 2,400 persons was virtually offset with a loss of 2,200 persons due to natural decrease.

Table 3: Net Migration vs. Natural Increase

The Portland Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) consists of five Oregon counties and two counties in Washington State, a more inclusive area than the three-county Metro region reported in the tables above. Between 1980 and 2010, the MSA added approximately 885,000 residents leading to 66 percent growth during the past three decades (Table 4).

The fastest-growing counties in the metro area were Clark and Washington counties. Explosive growth in Clark County (121.3 percent) and Washington County (115.5 percent) resulted in each county adding more than 200,000 residents during the period.
The next-highest absolute gains in population were in Clackamas and Multnomah counties, which added 134,000 and 173,000 residents, respectively, during the past three decades.

Table 4: Oregon Population, 1980-2010

Slower relative growth in Multnomah County (30.7 percent) during the period resulted in population becoming less concentrated in Multnomah County and more evenly dispersed across the seven-county region. In 1980, almost 42 percent of MSA residents lived in Multnomah County, followed by Washington County (18.3 percent). However, in 2010, just 33 percent of metropolitan Portland residents lived in Multnomah County compared to 24 percent and 19 percent living in Washington and Clark counties, respectively.

While the Portland MSA recorded the highest absolute (884,459) and relative (65.9 percent) population growth from 1980 to 2010, other metropolitan regions in Oregon also recorded impressive growth (Table 5). Largely buoyed by growth in Marion County, the Salem metropolitan area recorded the second-highest growth rate (56.4 percent) in Oregon, followed by Medford (53.4 percent).

The Bend metropolitan area is not included in the table below because in 1980, the U.S. Census Bureau did not include Bend as a metropolitan area. Growth in Deschutes County, however, was the highest of any county over the thirty-year period at 153.8 percent.

Table 5: Oregon MSA Population Change, 1980-2010

Institute for Portland Metropolitan Studies graduate research assistant Michael Burnham and Population Research Institute researchers Charles Rynerson and Risa Proehl contributed to this report.

The number of college-educated Oregonians grew steadily during the past two decades — especially in Central Oregon — but there were significant regional disparities across the state, census data show.

The proportion of Oregon residents age 25 and older with at least a bachelor’s degree grew from 20.6 percent in 1990 to 25.1 percent in 2000. The figure climbed to 28.3 percent during the 2005-2009 period, according to newly released American Community Survey (ACS) estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau. The margin of error for the five-year period was plus or minus 0.3 percent.

Average educational attainment in the Portland metropolitan area, which includes Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington counties, was consistently higher than the state average during the past two decades. What’s more, the proportion of college-educated people in the three counties increased more precipitously than any other part of Oregon.

In Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington counties combined, 25.2 percent of residents had at least a bachelor’s degree in 1990. The figure was 31.3 percent in 2000 and 36 percent (+/- 0.3 percent) during the 2005-2009 period. Here’s how the counties changed over time:

• College educational attainment in Washington and Clackamas counties increased by more than 4 percent, with a margin of error of plus or minus 0.3 percent, following Census 2000.
• Multnomah County experienced one of the state’s largest increases in educational attainment during the period, at 6.2 percent (+/-0.6 percent). Portland was a major factor: 25 percent of the city’s residents age 25 or older had at least a bachelor’s degree in 1990; the figure climbed to 43 percent during the 2005-2009 period.

In addition to general increases in educational attainment for residents already residing in the Portland metropolitan area, relatively young college-educated individuals moving to the metroplex contributed to the growth.

So, how did other parts of the state stack up?

Central Oregon, including Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson counties, was second to only the Portland metropolitan region in terms of educational attainment. Along with the Portland metropolitan area, Central Oregon had one of the state’s largest increases in educational attainment during the past 20 years (Figure 1, below).

In 1990, 16.9 percent of residents in Central Oregon had at least a bachelor’s degree. In 2000 and during the 2005-2009 period, the figure increased to 22.1 percent and 26 percent (+/- 0.9 percent), respectively. From 2000 to the 2005-2009 period, the region’s largest increases in educational attainment were in Deschutes and Crook counties, at 3.9 percent (+/- 1.1 percent) and 3.2 percent (+/- 2.2 percent), respectively. Population in Deschutes and Crook grew at 48 percent and 42 percent, respectively, during the period — the fastest relative population growth in the state. Ample recreational opportunities, real estate and rural amenities helped lure well-educated migrants.

The Upper Willamette Valley, including Benton, Lane, Linn, Marion, Polk and Yamhill counties, followed Central Oregon. In 1990, 20.6 percent of residents in Upper Willamette Valley counties had at least a bachelor’s degree. The proportion increased to 23.7 percent in 2000 and 24.8 percent (+/- 0.4 percent) in 2005-2009.

In 1990 and 2000, these counties exceeded or kept pace with Oregon’s average educational attainment levels. During the 2005-2009 period, however, buoyed by considerable increases in educational attainment in the Portland metro area and Central Oregon, levels dipped below the state average.

While the Willamette Valley region is the home of several major educational institutions, including the University of Oregon (Lane County), Oregon State University (Benton County) and Willamette University (Marion County), many college-educated individuals seeking employment after completing their degree leave the region, the data show.

Increases in educational attainment after 2000 were greatest in Yamhill and Linn counties, at 2.4 percent (+/- 1.2 percent) and 2.2 percent (+/- 1 percent), respectively. Benton County, with 47.7 percent (+/-1.8 percent) of residents possessing at least a bachelor’s degree, had the highest educational attainment of any county in Oregon.

Benton stood in stark contrast with the Northwest, Southwest, and Eastern counties, which had the lowest levels of educational attainment in Oregon. On average, 14 percent of residents in these counties possessed a bachelor’s degree or higher in 1990; the percentage increased to 17 percent in 2000 and 19.5 percent in 2005-2009. Here’s how the regions compared:

Northwest Oregon, including Clatsop, Columbia, Lincoln and Tillamook counties, experienced a modest increase in educational attainment, from 14.5 percent in 1990 to 20.5 percent (+/- 0.8 percent) in 2005-2009. The largest increases were in Clatsop and Columbia counties, both averaging a 3 percent (+/- 1.5 percent) increase in educational attainment.

Southwest Oregon, which includes Douglas, Jackson, Josephine, Coos and Curry counties, had a modest increase in educational attainment allowing the region to keep pace with Northwest Oregon, albeit at slightly lower levels.,Largely boosted by Coos, Jackson and Josephine counties, 14.1 percent of Southwest Oregon residents had at least a bachelor’s degree in 1990, 17.4 percent in 2000, and 19.7 percent (+/- 0.5 percent) in 2005-2009.

Sparsely populated Eastern Oregon was last among regions in terms of educational attainment. Fourteen percent of the region’s residents had at least a bachelor’s degree in 1990; the figure climbed to 17.9 percent (+/- 0.6 percent) during the 2005-2009 period.

While counties east of the Cascades — excluding Central Oregon — had the lowest levels of educational attainment in Oregon in the latest ACS period, educational attainment rose significantly in some Columbia River counties. Since 2000, educational attainment increased 4.1 percent (+/- 2.7 percent) and 5.5 percent (+/-2 percent) in Hood River and Wasco counties, respectively. In addition to increased commuting from Hood River County to the Portland metropolitan area, recreation, tourism, retirement migration, and technical jobs contributed to increases in this area.

Figure 1: Educational Attainment By Region

We live in the Silicon Forest, but the landscape of educational attainment in the Portland region varies greatly from east to west and north to south.

Consider Orenco Station, a transit-oriented development midway between downtown Beaverton and downtown Hillsboro. According to newly released 2005-2009 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, about 39 percent of residents of the census tract that includes Orenco Station had at least a bachelor’s degree. Not bad — when you consider that just 27.5 percent of the U.S. population and 32.9 percent of the metropolitan area had a bachelor’s or better — but this corner of Washington County is Intel Corp. country, after all.

So where are the metroscape’s best and brightest? Go east of Hillsboro, but not too far.

Census tracts with the highest educational attainment — where upward of 75 percent of residents age 25 and older had a bachelor’s degree or higher — were exclusively on the City of Portland’s west side. This belt includes the West Hills neighborhoods, stretching from Forest Park to Hillsdale, as well as the southern edge of downtown near Riverplace/South Auditorium, and the Northwest District, west of NW 23rd Avenue.

Other census tracts with relatively high educational attainment — where 65 to 75 percent of residents had a bachelor’s degree or higher — were found in Southwest and Northwest Portland, including the Pearl District. Similar percentages were found amid the Raleigh Hills/West Slope area of Washington County, Lake Oswego, and several Portland neighborhoods within one-to-three miles east of the Willamette River.

In Clark County, census tracts with the highest educational attainment were east of Interstate 205 in Fishers Landing and Camas. Between 50 and 55 percent of residents here had a bachelor’s or better, according to ACS population and housing data collected between Jan. 1, 2005, and Dec. 31, 2009. Keep in mind that these survey data are estimates and carry margins of error (MOEs) that vary by census tract, with most MOEs within the range of 4 to 8 percent.

Washington County was a land of sharp contrasts. In the tract south of the Max line that passes Orenco Station in Hillsboro, just 11.9 percent of residents had a bachelor’s degree or higher. North of Orenco, the percentage increased to 51.7. Head a few miles west of Hillsboro to Forest Grove, and the number dipped to 10.2 percent.

Clickable Map of Census Tracts

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey. 2005-2009.

The census data also show major change over time in some tracts.

Several census tracts with the largest increases of educational attainment are in North Portland, including Central St. Johns, where the share of residents with a bachelor’s degree or higher increased from 5 percent in 1990, to 15 percent in 2000, to 36 percent within the five-year ACS period. In four contiguous tracts along I-5 and the Interstate Avenue MAX line in the Overlook, Arbor Lodge and Kenton neighborhoods, the population with a bachelor’s degree or higher did not exceed 13 percent in 1990 and 19 percent in 2000. But according to 2005-2009 ACS estimates, the ranks of the college-educated living within this area is now about 40 percent.

Though not as dramatic as the growth in North Portland, several census tracts in Southeast Portland — areas between 39th and 82nd Avenues that once had relatively low levels of educational attainment — have recently made significant gains. Amid the Mt. Scott-Arleta, Foster-Powell, and Creston-Kenilworth neighborhood tracts, between 8 and 12 percent of residents age 25 and older had a bachelor’s degree or higher in 1990. The figure surpassed 30 percent during the ACS period.

Large increases in educational attainment also occurred amid census tracts that include Portland’s Pearl District and Vancouver’s Esther Short Park. Both of these areas have benefited from high-density residential development since the 2000 census.

Most census tracts with the lowest levels of educational attainment — where the share of residents age 25 and older with a bachelor’s degree or higher was 12 percent or less — were clustered in four distinct areas: a crescent-shaped area in outer Southeast Portland, including portions of Portland’s Brentwood-Darlington, Lents and Powellhurst-Gilbert neighborhoods, as well as Clackamas County’s unincorporated Southgate community; a roughly four-square-mile-area east of 162nd Avenue that encompasses Gresham’s Rockwood and North Gresham neighborhoods and portions of the Centennial neighborhoods along the Portland-Gresham border; the Central Vancouver neighborhoods of Harney Heights and Bagley Downs; and portions of East Vancouver and Orchards near Fourth Plain Road east of I-205. The share of residents in each of these areas with a bachelor degree or higher has changed very little since the 1990 and 2000 censuses.

Other census tracts with similarly low educational attainment — where the share of residents age 25 and older with a bachelor’s degree or higher was 12 percent or less — include portions of Battle Ground (Clark County), Cornelius and Hillsboro (Washington County), St. Helens and Goble (Columbia County), Molalla (Clackamas County), Willamina/Sheridan (Yamhill County), Wood Village (Multnomah County), and in a downtown Portland census tract where a majority of “residents” are inmates of the Multnomah County Detention Center.

Educational attainment correlates with income, and it’s interesting to view the relationships between educational attainment and poverty. To view the latest census data on poverty rates for the region, refer to the related article here.

Poverty is not only the province of Portland — Oregon’s largest city and cultural capital.

An estimated 30 percent or more of the population lives at or below the federal poverty level in 20 metropolitan Portland census tracts, including some amid outlying suburbs, according to recently published U.S. Census Bureau data.

Several of the tracts are clustered in downtown Portland, as well as North and Northeast Portland neighborhoods with comparatively high minority populations. Perhaps less predictably, the cities of Forest Grove and McMinnville, as well as North Portland’s University Park neighborhood, include tracts with similarly high poverty rates. These tracts include concentrations of college students, who typically have low incomes.

The American Community Survey (ACS) population and housing data were collected by the U.S. Census Bureau between Jan. 1, 2005, and Dec. 31, 2009. The estimated poverty rate for the Portland metro area — which includes Washington, Multnomah, Yamhill, Clackamas and Columbia counties in Oregon and Clark and Skamania counties in Washington — was 11.7 percent, with a margin of error of plus or minus 0.3 percent. For these 20 high-poverty tracts, the margins of error ranged from 5 to 15 percentage points.

The federal poverty level for a family of four is income of $22,050 annually for all states, except Alaska and Hawaii, according to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services guidelines. The federal poverty rate for an individual is $10,830 annually.

Tracts 33.01 and 34.01, which overlay parts of Portland’s Humboldt and King neighborhoods, marked a notable concentration of poverty. More than a third of individuals within these tracts lived at or below the poverty line. Non-whites constituted about half of the population, including persons identifying as African-American, who represented about one third of the population of each tract; roughly half of the households in each tract were renters.

Tract 76, which is part of Northeast Portland’s Cully neighborhood, was another notable poverty pocket. More than 38 percent of individuals here lived at or below the federal poverty level. Nearly half of the tract’s residents were non-white; about 40 percent of the tract’s residents were renters. The data underscore that poverty is not just an urban problem. Indeed, more than a third of individuals lived at or below the poverty line in four census tracts clustered around Portland’s eastern border with Gresham. These tracts also had a comparatively high percentage of renters.

Census tract 40.02 in North Portland’s University Park neighborhood, which includes the University of Portland, also had a high poverty rate compared to other parts of the metropolitan area. Nearly 34 percent of individuals lived at or below the federal poverty level. The tract had slightly higher shares of white residents and homeowners than the metro area overall, but about 41 percent of its residents were college students.

The outlying suburbs of McMinnville and Forest Grove, which include higher-education institutions, also contained census tracts with comparatively high poverty rates. Nearly 42 percent of individuals in Yamhill County tract 308.02, which includes McMinnville’s Linfield College, lived at or below the poverty line. Thirty-five percent of the tract’s residents were students.

In Washington County’s census tract 332, the home of Pacific University in Forest Grove, more than 32 percent of individuals lived at or below the poverty line. The tract is notable for its 31 percent Latino population share and more than 1,000 college students, 17 percent of all residents. Seventy-two percent of households are renters.

Clickable Map of Census Tracts

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey. 2005-2009.