Archive for the ‘Articles’ Category

New Census Data Show Poverty on the Rise in Oregon and Nationwide

Friday, February 8th, 2013

The U.S. Census Bureau’s latest Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE), released in December 2012, show an increase in poverty in Oregon and nationwide from 2010 to 2011. During this period, the nation’s poverty rate rose from 15.3 percent ( +/- 0.1 percent) to 15.9 percent ( +/- 0.1 percent), while the rate in Oregon rose sharply from 15.8 percent ( +/- 0.3 percent) to 17.3 percent ( +/- 0.4 percent)[1]. Both the national and state increases are statistically significant. In 2011, Oregon had the sixteenth highest rate of poverty (tied with Oklahoma) among the fifty states and the District of Columbia (see Figure 1).

The new data also estimate the median household income for 2011.  Among Oregon households, the median income stood at $46,876 ( +/- $676), compared to the national median income of $50,502 ( +/- $73).

Figure 1: Percentage of Americans Living At or Below the Poverty Level, by U.S. State (2011)
Source:  U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE)

Oregon Counties

The 2010 and 2011 SAIPE data for Oregon counties are summarized in Table 1. Three counties experienced statistically significant increases in poverty rates from 2010 to 2011: Washington, Klamath, and Jackson. The only county with a statistically significant decrease was Malheur County, which dropped from 39.5 percent in 2010 ( +/- 3.6 percent) to 24.5 percent in 2011 ( +/- 4.6 percent). Despite this sharp drop, however, roughly 1 in 4 Malheur County residents still live at or below the poverty level — the highest of any county in Oregon. Table 2 shows median household income in Oregon counties for 2010 and 2011. The only Oregon county to experience a statistically significant change in median household income for this period was Multnomah County, which saw median household income fall from $49,534 ( +/- $1,451) to $46,989 ( +/- $1,444) (all values are 2011 dollars).

Multnomah County, at 19.4 percent ( +/- 1.2 percent) in 2011, continues to experience a higher poverty rate than its Portland metro area neighbors. Washington County experienced a statistically significant increase in poverty rates, rising from 9.7 percent ( +/- 1.3 percent) in 2010 to 12.6 percent ( +/- 1.2 percent) in 2011. Clackamas County had one of the state’s lowest poverty rates in 2011, at 11.0 percent ( +/- 1.3 percent). Across the Columbia River in Clark County, Washington, the 2011 poverty rate was 13.7 percent ( +/- 1.3 percent).

About SAIPE

The Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) are produced annually by the U.S. Census Bureau. Combining data from the decennial census and the ongoing American Community Survey, as well as administrative records such as summaries of federal income tax returns and participation counts for programs such as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as Food Stamps), the Bureau estimates poverty rates and household income for school districts, counties, states, and the nation.

Table 1: Percentage Living in Poverty by Oregon County

Source:  U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 and 2011 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE)

Table 2: Median Household Income by Oregon County

Source:  U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 and 2011 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE)


[1] All comparisons and margins of error are reported at the 90% confidence level.


Special thanks to Risa Proehl, Charles Rynerson and Lisa Yarbrough.

Oregon's Health Insurance Coverage Holds Steady, but the State's Uninsured Rate Remains High

Tuesday, November 6th, 2012

Data released in August 2012 from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Small Area Health Insurance Estimates (SAHIE) program show that Oregon continues to have one of highest rates of uninsured residents in the U.S.  According to Census estimates, 639,710 or 19.7 percent[1] of Oregonians under age 65 were without health insurance coverage in 2010. For the under-65 population, Oregon’s uninsured rate ranks as the 15th highest rate in the country (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Percentage of Americans Under Age 65 Without Health Insurance by U.S. State (2010)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s Small Area Health Insurance Estimates (SAHIE), 2010

Compared to 2009, the 2010 data show no statistically significant change in the overall uninsured rate for Oregon[2]. Similarly, there were no statistically significant changes for Oregon between 2009 and 2010 by race/ethnicity or by income (Table 1).  The highest rate of uninsured continue to be observed for Hispanic persons at 34.3 percent ( /- 1.3 percent) and for Oregonians earning 138% of the poverty level or less (34.7 percent [ /- 1.0 percent]).

Table 1: Percentage of Oregonians Under Age 65 Without Health Insurance by Race/Ethnicity and Income, 2010

Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s Small Area Health Insurance Estimates (SAHIE), 2010

Oregon Counties

In 2010, counties in Oregon with the highest rates of uninsured individuals included: Jefferson (27.7 percent [ /- 2.1 percent]) and Malheur (26.6 percent [ /- 1.9 percent]); the lowest rates of uninsured individuals were in Clackamas (15.5 percent [ /- 1.0 percent]) and Columbia (16.4 percent [ /- 1.4 percent]) counties.

The 2009 and 2010 SAHIE data for Oregon counties are summarized in Table 2. Three counties Und vergessen Sie nicht, dass Sie bei 888casino immer die Moglichkeit haben, Roulette Online kostenlos zu spielen, bevor Sie sich an Spiele um echtes Geld heran wagen. in the state—Baker, Marion, and Wheeler—experienced statistically significant decreases in the rate of uninsured individuals from the previous year, while Multnomah and Benton counties experienced statistically significant increases in the percentage of residents under age 65 without health insurance. Rates for all other Oregon counties were not statistically different from 2009.

In the Portland metro area, Multnomah County continues to experience higher rates of uninsured (20.3 percent [ /- 0.9 percent]) than Clackamas and Washington counties (15.5 percent [ /- 1.0 percent] and 17.2 percent [ /- 1.0 percent], respectively).

Table 2: Percentage Under Age 65 Without Health Insurance in Oregon, by County

Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s Small Area Health Insurance Estimates (SAHIE), 2010


[1] The corresponding margin of error (MOE) estimates are /- 13,880 or /- 0.4 percent

[2] All comparisons and margins of error are reported at the 90% confidence level


Special thanks to Lisa Yarbrough and Charles Rynerson.

Is Portland Really the Place Where Young People Go To Retire? Migration Patterns of Portland’s Young and College-Educated, 1980-2010

Tuesday, September 18th, 2012

Executive Summary

For many metro areas, including Portland, being economically competitive in today’s knowledge and information economy depends on attracting and retaining young, college-educated (YCE) migrants.  On this indicator, Portland has been most successful:  since 1980, the Portland metropolitan region has attracted college-educated individuals under the age of 40 at some of the country’s highest net migration rates in good economic times and bad.

Though not unique to Portland, the resiliency of Portland’s migration streams, even in periods of economic uncertainty, calls attention to an increasingly selective group of YCE migrants who appear to place greater relative value on non-economic factors—from political milieu to access to quality public transportation—compared to employment opportunities.  This trend directly challenges a long-established cornerstone of traditional migration theory suggesting that the decision to move is predicated on benefits exceeding costs, and linked to the importance of jobs and economic opportunity as attractive forces for working-age households.

Reading between the lines of recent media accounts, and in particular the television show Portlandia, the shift from economic to non-economic factors has been portrayed in a most interesting way:  because young migrants to Portland place relatively low value on work and traditional careers, their desire to exchange employment opportunities for quality of life (amenity) factors indeed makes Portland the city “where young people go to retire.”  The question is: in the short and long-term, how sustainable is Portland’s trend of attracting and retaining YCE migrants if labor market outcomes continue to remain worse compared to other metro areas?

What are the facts? In this paper we draw upon U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2000 Census and more recent American Community Surveys from 2005-2007 and 2008-2010, to compare migration patterns in Portland to the other 50 largest U.S. metros.  Our analysis highlights several critical findings:

  • The Portland region has consistently attracted and retained YCE migrants at some of the highest levels of any metro in the U.S.
  • The Portland metro’s migration patterns among YCEs have consistently exceeded the expected rate given the region’s labor market conditions.
  • Portland attracts and retains not only YCEs, but also empty-nester and retirement (age 40 and above) migrants at levels exceeding its metro peers.
  • Unlike most large metros, Portland’s net exchanges of YCE migrants are unusually strong across metropolitan areas of all sizes.
  • In 2008-2010, almost 1 in 7 YCE in-migrants to the Portland metro were immigrants.  Equally important, the Portland region’s foreign-born population has educational attainment levels that rival the region’s native-born population.

Of the largest 50 U.S. metro areas, only Portland and Seattle ranked in the top 15 metros for each period analyzed, 1980 to 2010, with the highest rate of attracting and retaining YCE migrants. This statistic not only underscores the Portland metro’s competitiveness in attracting and retaining college-educated talent, but also showcases the consistency of Portland’s YCE migration patterns. Other metro areas, including Austin, Denver, and Phoenix, also demonstrated an impressive ability to attract and retain YCE migrants during this period, but also experienced ‘bust’ periods where YCE migration flows ebbed.

In the end, our findings suggest that most Portland college-educated migrants appear to place greater relative value on amenity values compared to economic opportunity. Moving to and remaining in Portland despite less-than-stellar economic opportunities is truly ‘voting with your feet’ for the region’s quality of life.  What’s more, given Portland’s ability to not only attract, but also retain YCEs, amenities will likely remain important for keeping college-educated individuals as residents of Portland.  In addition to YCE migrants, our results suggest that Portland’s urban and natural amenities are also strong pull factors for empty-nester and retired (age 40 and above) college-educated migrants.

Given the strong attractiveness of Portland’s quality of life to both Portland residents and would-be Portlanders, our findings underscore the importance of carefully navigating the ‘amenity paradox’—managing future growth in a way so to avoid eroding the very quality of life that attracts and retains the region’s human capital. We believe addressing this challenge will be essential to ensuring the sustainability of college-educated migration both in the short and long-term, and with definite implications for economic development in the Portland region.

Access to the Executive Summary and full report here:

Is Portland Really the Place Where Young People Go To Retire? Analyzing Labor Market Outcomes for Portland’s Young and College-Educated

Tuesday, September 18th, 2012

Executive Summary

Few segments of the population are more critical to Portland’s future economic vitality than the young and college-educated (YCE).  In the last several decades the Portland metropolitan region has become a magnet for YCEs nationally, boasting one of the country’s highest net migration rates for college-educated individuals under the age of 40, a trend that has continued in good economic times and bad.  The infusion of human capital from other regions has undoubtedly been a benefit to Portland, especially given Oregon’s historically low levels of investment in higher education.

However, in recent years there has been growing concern about the poor labor market prospects for Portland’s YCEs, in particular the problem of underemployment.  The television show Portlandia has amusingly captured this concern, dubbing the city “the place where young people go to retire.”  To the extent that Portland’s YCEs face a chronically difficult job market, there is cause for concern that college graduates will stop moving to Portland, or that those who have moved here won’t stay.

What are the facts? In this paper we draw upon Census Bureau data from the 2000 Census and more recent American Community Surveys from 2005-07 and 2008-10, comparing the labor market outcomes for Portland’s YCE population against those of the other 50 largest metropolitan regions in the United States.   Based on our analysis, we find that:

  • Portland is gaining ground on other metros in the YCE share of the workforce, but remains in the second-tier among metros in adult educational attainment rates.  Portland’s progress on this front can be attributed to attraction and retention of YCE migrants, as well as increased college degree production locally.
  • Contrary to the “Portlandia hypothesis,” Portland’s YCEs are active in the labor market at rates that are comparable to other major metros.
  • However, the unemployment rate for Portland’s YCEs has been among the highest of all major metros in each of the three periods studied.  In the most recent period, 5.4 percent of YCEs were unemployed, more than a percentage point higher than the average for all large metros.
  • Portland’s YCEs experience some of the highest rates of part-time employment and self-employment nationally.  In the most recent period, nearly one in five YCEs was working part-time, and nearly one in ten was self-employed.
  • Portland’s YCEs are somewhat more likely to work in For the American blackjack on line variants, the dealer checks for blackjack any time that the face-up card has a 10 value or higher. “non-college” occupations, especially in service occupations like health care and food service.
  • The typical Portland YCE earns less than what she or he would in other major metros, due in part to the prevalence of part-time employment.  In the most recent period, the typical YCE earned 84 percent of the average for all large metros.

In short, we find relatively little evidence that young people come to Portland to retire – but they probably are not coming here to get rich either.  What is striking about our findings is their consistency.  While most of the indicators worsened somewhat during the recent recession, Portland’s YCEs have faced a consistently tough job market for at least the past decade, suggesting that this is not simply a short-run phenomenon.  But almost equally striking is that the fact these poor labor market outcomes do not seem to be causing a wave of outmigration to other metros– at least not yet.

So is this really a problem? On one hand, one could interpret the findings as compelling evidence of the region’s high quality of life and amenity value, for which Portland’s YCEs are willing to forego more lucrative opportunities elsewhere.  And indeed, the region’s high rate of self-employment suggests that Portland’s YCEs are highly entrepreneurial – whether by choice or by necessity.  But if this trend continues, Portland may become a place that is only accessible to an increasingly self-selected group of individuals who are “willing to pay” for the region’s distinctive quality of life – which could cause Portland to become less diverse of a place over time.  At the same time, we are concerned that a consistently poor job market for young college graduates will have negative effects on the job prospects for workers without a college degree, and lessen their incentives to pursue a college education at a time when the costs of doing so continue to go up.

The bottom line is that Portland needs to find ways to capitalize better upon its “brain gain.” To the extent that Portland has a talent pool that is willing to accept lower wages than other regions like the Bay Area or Seattle, Portland’s employers benefit from this, making it an especially attractive place for businesses in search of college-educated workers – something that economic development officials could do more to communicate to prospective employers.  But the region’s high rate of self-employment suggests that at least some share of Portland’s YCEs are attracted to less traditional career paths, and so efforts to promote entrepreneurship – whether in high-tech sectors like software, cultural and “artisan” products like apparel, beer, or arts, or local-serving retail like food carts – would contribute to the region’s economic vitality.  Creating good work for Portland’s entire workforce is absolutely critical, but we hope that this report will call attention to the particular challenges and opportunities facing this important segment of the workforce.

Access the Executive Summary and full report here:

In Search of Opportunity: Foreign-Born Residents in Oregon

Wednesday, June 13th, 2012


Highlights

Important highlights specific to the foreign-born population include:

• Since 1970, foreign-born persons, as a percent of the total U.S. population, have increased from 4.7 to 12.9 ( /- 0.04) percent;
• In 2010, Oregon’s proportion of foreign-born persons is 9.8 percent ( /- 0.3 percent);
• Slightly more than one-half (53.2 percent; /-0.2 percent) of immigrants to the United States were from Latin America, compared to 46.6 percent ( /-1.9 percent) of immigrants to Oregon;
• Almost half of foreign-born individuals in the Portland metro area are naturalized U.S. citizens;
• In the Portland metro area, foreign-born persons in Washington County have the highest level of educational attainment at 38 percent ( /- 3.2 percent) (measured as the number of persons with a bachelor’s degree or higher);
• Because naturalized U.S. citizens have higher levels of formal job training and higher levels of educational attainment than non-citizens, employment occupation among foreign-born persons differs considerably [see Table 2];
• Households headed by foreign-born naturalized persons earn roughly $10,000 more than their native-born counterparts and about $24,000 more than households headed by foreign-born non-citizens.

Introduction

From our earliest beginnings and to present day, the social fabric of the United States continues to be shaped by immigration. Americans are generally aware of their families’ personal stories and the inextricable link to immigration, but they are likely less familiar with historical and current trends. Focusing in Oregon and more specifically, the Portland metropolitan area, we provide a statistical portrait of the foreign-born population by examining recent growth patterns, identifying geographic origins, and describing individual-level characteristics.

Historical and Recent Growth Trends

Figure 1 shows that during the late 1800s, foreign-born persons comprised around 13 percent of the U.S. population, and peaked at 14.6 percent in 1890. Beginning with the implementation of more restrictive immigration policies in the 1920s, the share of the foreign-born population dropped precipitously through 1970 to around 5 percent.

Figure 1: Foreign-born as a Percent of U.S. Population (1850-2010)

Source: Decennial U.S. Census (1850-2000) and American Community Survey (ACS) 2010 1-year estimates

During the most recent period, 1970 to 2010, foreign-born persons are again making up a greater proportion of the total U.S. population—from 4.7 to 12.9 percent ( /- 0.04 percent), during the 40-year period.

Similar to national trends, foreign-born individuals are increasingly calling Oregon and the Portland metropolitan area home. As Figure 2 shows, the number of foreign-born individuals in Oregon increased from just over 50,000 in 1970 to almost 375,000 (with a /- 10,484 margin of error) in 2010. The largest relative increase in Oregon’s foreign-born population occurred during the 1990s, when the state saw a 108 percent increase. In the most recent decade, 2000 to 2010, Oregon’s foreign-born population increased by 30 percent.

Figure 2: Foreign-born as a Percent of Oregon”s Population (1970-2010)

Sources: Decennial U.S. Census (1970-2000) and American Community Survey (ACS) 2010 1-year estimates

Oregon’s proportion of foreign-born persons (9.8 percent; /- 0.3 percent) was lower than the U.S. average (12.9 percent; /- 0.04 percent) in 2010. However, sizable foreign-born populations in California, New York, and New Jersey skew the U.S. average. Oregon has a larger foreign-born population than most states, both in relative and absolute terms, at 9.8 percent ( /- 0.3 percent) (18th) and 375,743 ( /- 10,484) (21st), respectively.

Counties within Oregon have considerably different shares of foreign-born persons. According to the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS), Washington County had the highest percentage of foreign-born residents in the three-county Portland metro area, at 16.4 percent ( /-0.9 percent), followed by Multnomah County (14.2 percent; /-1.1 percent) and Clackamas County (8.8 percent; /-1.2 percent).

Much of the difference in the size of the foreign-born population across counties is driven by fundamentally different immigration patterns. For example, Figure 3 shows that between 2000 and 2010, about 90 percent of net migration to Multnomah County was attributable to international migration, compared to nearly 50 percent in Washington County and only 20 percent in Clackamas County. However, immigration patterns have changed considerably following the recent economic recession. Between 2010 and 2011, only 30 percent of net migration in Multnomah County was attributable to international migration.

Figure 3: Components of Net Migration for Oregon and Selected Counties (2000-2010)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates (2000-2010)

A number of factors explain the variability of foreign-born populations across Oregon counties; but to a large degree, the most significant factors driving migration patterns of the foreign-born, include: low- and high-skill employment opportunities; size of established communities; housing access and affordability; and access to transportation. Also, the primary factors influencing initial settlement are often replaced by other factors after residents gain familiarity with their surroundings.

Geographic Origins

Table 1 compares the geographic origin of immigrants, by continental area, in 2010 for the United States and Oregon. Slightly more than one-half (53.2 percent; /-0.2 percent) of immigrants to the United States were from Latin America, compared to 46.6 percent ( /-1.9 percent) of immigrants to Oregon. An important difference, however, is that compared to the U.S., few Caribbean and South American immigrants settle in Oregon. The state however, attracts a higher share of immigrants from Central America compared to the United States as a whole.

Table 1: Geographic Origin (by Continent Area) of the Foreign-Born Population, United States and Oregon, 2010

Note: ACS data contain corresponding margins of error (MOE), which are not reported in the above table.

Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 2010 1-year estimates

As demonstrated in Figure 4, in both the nation and Oregon, a large share of recent immigrants are from Mexico. Given that Oregon has a greater share of foreign-born immigrants from Central America, it is little surprise that Mexican immigrants represent 40.5 ( /-1.9 percent) percent of all immigrants to Oregon, which is considerably higher than the U.S. average of 29.5 percent ( /-0.2 percent). Foreign-born immigration flows from Vietnam and Canada are the second and third highest relative flows, respectively, to Oregon. However, Vietnamese and Canadian immigrants rank lower among relative U.S. immigration flows.

Figure 4: Geographic Origin (by Country) of Foreign-Born Persons, United States and Oregon (2010)

*Figure Excludes Hong Kong and Taiwan

Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 2010 1-year estimates

Shares of Chinese and Korean immigrants in the U.S. and Oregon are comparable. Oregon has greater shares of immigrants from the United Kingdom, Germany, and Ukraine, and lower shares of immigrants from the Philippines and India compared to the U.S. average.

Citizenship

While the size of the foreign-born population varies across individual counties, Figure 5 underscores an important point: Almost half of foreign-born individuals in the Portland metro area are naturalized U.S. citizens. As we explain below, individuals born abroad often have radically different levels of job training and educational attainment, which has important implications for employment occupation and income.

Figure 5: Three-County Portland Metro Area Foreign-Born Population by Citizenship Status (2010)

Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year esitmates

Individual Level Characteristics

Age and Sex

In the United States in 2010, foreign-born residents were 6 years older than native-born persons with median ages of 41 and 35 years, respectively. In Oregon, however, native-born persons are more than 3 years older than the national average, while foreign-born Oregon residents are 2.3 years younger.

Figure 6 represents the age and sex structure for Oregon’s native-born (bars) and foreign-born (dashed line) population in 2010. Most interesting is that while the native and foreign-born populations have similar median ages, their age and sex structure vary considerably.

Figure 6: Foreign-Born as a Percent of Oregon Population (2010) [Native-Born indicated by bars and Foreign-Born indicated by dashed line]

Source: American Community Survey (ACS) (2006-2010) 5-year estimates

Beginning at birth and continuing through age 44, each five-year cohort of Folgend die Prozentsatze, die vom Gesamteinsatz bei den bekannten Glucksspielen wieder zur Auszahlung kommen:Inzwischen hat auch die breite Offentlichkeit erkannt, dass roulette online das fairste und ertragreichste Glucksspiel ist. male and female native-born Oregonians represents approximately 7 percent of the total native-born population. The largest percentage of population is among ages 45-64, which represents the Baby Boom cohort. Foreign-born persons, on the other hand, are disproportionately represented in ages 20-54, with the largest shares in the 30-to-44 year old age groups.

Educational Attainment

A key indicator of Oregon’s long-term economic competitiveness is educational attainment, which represents the levels of formal training and individual skills.

As illustrated in Figure 7, there are significant disparities in educational attainment according to nativity. The largest disparity is among individuals with less than a high school education. In Oregon, 8 percent ( /-0.4 percent) of native-born persons have less than a high school education, compared to more than one-third of the foreign-born population. The share of foreign-born persons with only a high school diploma is marginally lower than for native-born persons, but foreign-born persons are at a disadvantage in terms of post-high school education. Here, more than one-third of native-born persons have some college education, compared to 20 percent ( /-1.8 percent) of the foreign-born population. In terms of persons with a bachelor’s degree and higher, the native and foreign-born population have comparable attainment rates at 30 ( /-0.6 percent) and 24 ( /-1.2 percent) percent, respectively.

One of the major limitations of the statewide data shown in Figure 7, however, is that it does not reveal how immigrants differ in terms of geographic origins. These differences almost always lead to fundamentally different social and economic indicators of foreign-born persons across counties.

Figure 7: Oregon Educational Attainment* by Nativity (2010)

*For the population 25 years and older

Source: American Community Survey (ACS) (2010) 1-year estimates

Consider then, Figure 8, which shows the educational attainment of the foreign-born population in the three-county Portland metro area. On balance, foreign-born persons in Multnomah County are more likely to have less than a high school education (33 percent, /- 5.2 percent). However, the lowest share with only a high school education is among foreign-born persons in Washington County (17 percent, /- 4 percent).

The highest level of educational attainment among the foreign-born population in the Portland metro area is in Washington County, where 38 percent ( /- 3.2 percent) of foreign-born persons have a bachelor’s degree or higher. Clackamas and Multnomah county foreign-born residents with a bachelor’s degree or higher have slightly lower rates of achievement at 27 ( /- 7.3 percent) and 24 percent ( /- 2.9 percent), respectively.

Employment

While county-specific metrics such as those shown in Figure 8 provide additional insight relating to the educational attainment of foreign-born individuals, further disaggregation of foreign-born persons by citizenship status reveals more detailed information. More often that not, naturalized U.S. citizens have higher levels of formal job training and higher levels of educational attainment, both of which are represented in Figure 9.

Figure 8: Three-County Portland Metro Area Educational Attainment* for the Foreign-Born Population (2006-2010)

*For the population 25 years and older

Source: American Community Survey (ACS) (2006-2010) 5-year estimates


Figure 9: Educational Attainment* for Portland Metro Area Foreign-Born Residents (2010)

*For the population 25 years and older.

Source: American Community Survey (ACS) (2010) 1-year estimates

Because of the differences in formal training, naturalized U.S. citizens are more likely to work in primary labor markets, which provide higher-paying jobs and greater long-term employment security. Alternatively, foreign-born non-citizens are more likely to be employed in secondary labor markets. Jobs in secondary labor markets, in contrast, are lower-paying, less-secure, and provide workers with little upward mobility.

Table 2 illustrates the differences in employment for Oregon residents by nativity for the 2006-2010 period. Where approximately one-quarter of foreign-born non-citizen Oregonians are employed in Farming, Fishing, and Forestry or Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Operations occupations, only 8.5 and 4.9 percent of foreign-born naturalized citizens and native-born citizens worked in these industries, respectively.

Table 2: Employment Occupation for Oregon Residents by Nativity (2010)

Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 2010 1-year estimates

Conversely, occupations requiring formal education, such as Management, Business, Science, and Arts occupations, employ a small number of foreign-born non-citizens (2.8 percent, /- 0.7 percent), but a much higher percentage of naturalized citizens (6.8 percent, /- 0.9 percent). These differences in employment are not only strong predictors of personal and household income, but also represent the ability to achieve upward social mobility.

Household Income

Educational attainment is a strong predictor of income—both per capita and household income — so Figure 10 might come as no surprise. Across Oregon in 2010, both native and foreign-born households achieved a median household income of around $60,000. Of critical importance, however, is the difference in income among foreign-born persons by citizenship. As Figure 10 illustrates clearly, households headed by foreign-born naturalized persons earn roughly $10,000 more than their native-born counterparts and about $24,000 more than households headed by foreign-born non-citizens.

Figure 10: Median Household Income (MHI) for Oregon Residents by Nativity

Source: American Community Survey (ACS) (2010) 1-year estimates


Michael Burnham, Charles Rynerson, Lisa Yarbrough, and Sheila Martin also contributed to this report.

Health insurance coverage dipped along with the state, U.S. economy

Tuesday, November 1st, 2011

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.

Who’s Home? – A Look at Households and Housing in Oregon

Wednesday, September 28th, 2011

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.

A Pivot Point? Economic Slow-down Affects Oregon’s Migration Flows

Monday, May 16th, 2011

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.


Central Oregon, Metropolitan Portland are state's fastest-growing areas

Friday, April 8th, 2011

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 Beim Roulette hat die Vergangenheit absolut keinen Einfluss auf zukunftige Ergebnisse. 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.


College-educated flock to Central Oregon, metropolitan Portland

Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011

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

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

Interactive Map: Use zoom and pan to customize view, click on counties to highlight numbers in table. Click in table to highlight map entity.