SNEAPA 2013 Thursday b4 10_30_who do we plan for - sneapa (all presentations)

483 views

Published on

Who Do We Plan For? The Demographics of Southern New England

Published in: Real Estate, Technology, Sports
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
483
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
129
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

SNEAPA 2013 Thursday b4 10_30_who do we plan for - sneapa (all presentations)

  1. 1. Who Do We Plan For? The Demographics of Southern New England Presenters: Henry Renski, UMASS Amherst Susan Strate, UMASS Donahue Institute Rachel Franklin, Brown University Barry Bluestone, Northeastern University Moderator: Robert Mitchell, FAICP, Planning Consultant
  2. 2. The Changing Demographic Profile of Southern New England: A Little Bigger, More Diverse, and a Whole Lot Older Dr. Henry Renski Associate Professor Dept. Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning University of Massachusetts Amherst
  3. 3. Today’s Talk A brief note on data, methods, and projections Population Size and Growth: Past, present and future • …A little bigger Race and Ethnicity • …More diverse The Changing Age Profile • …A whole lot older Implications for Planning
  4. 4. Data, Methods, and Projections Historic data collected from U.S. Census Bureau • Decennial Census (100% counts, STF1) • Downloaded from National Historical Geographic Information System State and National Demographic Projections (2010 to 2040) • University of Virginia, Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service • Measure rates from inter-cohort changes between 2000 and 2010 • Insights from Massachusetts Regional Projections w/ Donahue Institute Remember! Nobody can predict the future • Assumes continuation of recent trends in fertility, mortality & migration • A baseline scenario: What we might expect in the absence of dramatic change or policy intervention? • Expect dramatic change!!
  5. 5. The long view: Population change in Southern New England, 1790 to 2010 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 De-industrialization Great Depression 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 Maine splits from Massachusetts 1.1 million additional residents by 2040 2,000,000 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 0
  6. 6. Growing, but not as fast as the nation: Population growth by decade, 1940 to 2040 United States Southern New England 20% 15% 10% 2030 to… 2020 to… 2010 to… 2000 to… 1990 to… 1980 to… 1960 to… 0% 1950 to… 5% 1940 to… 10 yr. growth rate 25%
  7. 7. Southern New England becoming more diverse Share of So. New England Population by Race 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% White 20… Black/African American 20… Asian Other, inc. more than one race 20… Change in Persons 300,000 200,000 White 100,000 Black/African American 0 -100,000 -200,000 Asian 2000 to 2010 to 2020 to 2030 to 2010 2020 2030 2040 Other, inc. more than one race
  8. 8. So. New England looking more like the nation Difference in shares by race 2000 Difference in share (So. NE – U.S.) 0.10 0.08 2010 0.06 2040 0.04 0.02 0.00 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08 -0.10 White Black and African American Asian Other, inc. more than one race
  9. 9. Hispanic population continues to grow… but much slower than nation as a whole Share of So NE population 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2000 Hispanic 2010 Non-Hispanic Change in Persons 2040 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 -100,000 -200,000 -300,000 Hispanic Non-Hispanic Difference in share (So NE – US) 0.10 0.08 2000 0.06 2010 0.04 2040 0.02 0.00 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08 2000 to 2010 to 2020 to 2030 to 2010 2020 2030 2040 -0.10 Hispanic Non-Hispanic
  10. 10. We’re getting a lot older… 2030: 2.45 mil age 65+ 20.4% of population 2010 2020 2030 2040 2010: 1.6 mil age 65+ 14.0% of population 2020: 2.0 mil age 65+ 16.8% of population 0 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 69 70 to 74 75 to 79 80 to 84 85+ Persons 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 2040: 2.49 mil age 65+ 20.3% of population
  11. 11. ..even older the U.S. as a whole 85+ 80 to 84 75 to 79 70 to 74 65 to 69 60 to 64 55 to 59 50 to 54 45 to 49 40 to 44 35 to 39 30 to 34 25 to 29 20 to 24 15 to 19 10 to 14 5 to 9 0 to 4 -1.25% 2010 • Overrepresented in middle aged, near-retirees, and elderly • Underrepresented among young families and children 2030 • Overrepresented in all age cohorts above 60 years • Greatly underrepresented in ages under 30 years 2010 2030 -0.75% -0.25% 0.25% 0.75% Difference in Share, So. NE – U.S. 1.25%
  12. 12. Implications for planning Broad ranging impacts • Increased demand for different forms of housing • Health care services, transit needs, pressure on municipal revenues • Fewer college aged-students in next several decades Trends likely to vary by sub-region • Boston – steady in-migration of college-aged residents • Metro suburbs – gain young families & school-aged children • Berkshires/Cape & Islands – in-migration of retirees Many unknowns in the years ahead • Policy: e.g. Debates on federal immigration/VISA policy • Climate change: Impacts on migration & infrastructure • Economic opportunities in the region
  13. 13. Thank you for your time! hrenski@larp.umass.edu
  14. 14. Who Do We Plan For – The Demographics of Southern New England The Foreign Born Population in Southern New England Presentation to the Southern New England APA Conference (SNEAPA) Thursday, October 17th, 2013 Presenter: Susan Strate, Population Estimates Program Manager http://www.donahue.umassp.edu
  15. 15. Immigration and Population Change Impact of Immigration on Population Change Foreign Born as Percent of Total Population Shifting World Origins Educational Attainment Age Structure of the Foreign Born Implications for Regional Population and Economy
  16. 16. Immigration and Population Change UMass Donahue Institute. Source data: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. Cumulative Estimates of the Components of Resident Population Change for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012 (NST-EST2012-04). December 2012.
  17. 17. Immigration and Population Change UMass Donahue Institute. Source data: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. Cumulative Estimates of the Components of Resident Population Change for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: July 1, 2011 to July 1, 2012 (NST-EST2012-04). December 2012.
  18. 18. Immigration and Population Change UMass Donahue Institute. Source data: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. Cumulative Estimates of the Components of Resident Population Change for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: July 1, 2011 to July 1, 2012 (NST-EST2012-04). December 2012.
  19. 19. State Foreign Born as a Percent of Population by U.S. State UMass Donahue Institute. Source: IPUMS USA. Steven Ruggles, J. Trent Alexander, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Matthew B. Schroeder, and Matthew Sobek. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2010. Dataset: 20072011, ACS 5-year sample. U.S. Census Bureau. California New York New Jersey Florida Nevada Hawaii Texas Massachusetts Illinois Maryland Rhode Island Washington Arizona Connecticut Virginia NewMexico Colorado Georgia Oregon Delaware Utah Minnesota North Carolina Kansas Alaska United States Estimated % Foreign Born 27% 22% 21% 19% 19% 18% 16% 15% 14% 14% 14% 13% 13% 13% 11% 10% 10% 10% 10% 9% 8% 7% 7% 7% 6% 13% Estimated Rank % Foreign Born 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -
  20. 20. Percent Foreign Born By County UMass Donahue Institute. Source: Minnesota Population Center. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 2011. https://www.nhgis.org/. Dataset: 2007-2011, ACS 5-year sample. U.S. Census Bureau.
  21. 21. U.S. percent: 4.7 21
  22. 22. U.S. percent: 6.2 22
  23. 23. U.S. percent: 7.9 23 9
  24. 24. U.S. percent: 11.1 24
  25. 25. U.S. percent: 12.5 25
  26. 26. Long-Term Trend of Attracting Foreign-Born The Foreign Born Population as a Percent of Total Population in MA and the U.S. 1850-2010 35.0% MA, 1910, 31.6% 30.0% 25.0% MA, 16.2% 20.0% CIVICS SLIDE MA, 14.9% 15.0% US, 12.9% 10.0% US, 9.7% 5.0% 0.0% 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 UMass Donahue Institute. Source Data for U.S.: U.S Census Bureau Report Foreign Born 50 Years Growth v4.3. Source Data for MA: Minnesota Population Center. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 2011. https://www.nhgis.org/. Datasets: 1850-2000 Decennial Census Data and 2010 ACS, U.S. Census Bureau.
  27. 27. Foreign Born Population in CT-MA-RI: World Area of Birth by Decade of Entry Europe Asia Caribbean Mexico Other Central America South America Other World Areas 2000 or later 1990s 1980s Before 1980 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% UMass Donahue Institute. Source: Minnesota Population Center. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 2011. https://www.nhgis.org/. Dataset: 2007-2011, ACS 5-year sample. U.S. Census Bureau. 100%
  28. 28. Region of Birth of the Foreign Born in Southern New England in 1900 UMass Donahue Institute. Source: Minnesota Population Center. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 2011. https://www.nhgis.org/. Dataset: 1900 Decennial Census. U.S. Census Bureau.
  29. 29. Region of Birth of the Foreign Born in Southern New England, 2007-2011 UMass Donahue Institute. Source: Minnesota Population Center. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 2011. https://www.nhgis.org/. Dataset: 2007-2011, ACS 5-year sample. U.S. Census Bureau.
  30. 30. Region of Birth for the Foreign Born in Southern New England Compared to the U.S. 2007-2011 UMass Donahue Institute. Source: Minnesota Population Center. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 2011. https://www.nhgis.org/. Dataset: 2007-2011, ACS 5-year sample. U.S. Census Bureau.
  31. 31. Educational Attainment by Country of Birth: US Foreign Born Educational Attainment by Nativity and Country of Birth, Population 25 years and over. : 2009 5.2 27.9 28.1 6.1 11.2 26.8 22.5 13.7 49.5 48.7 23.1 18.7 28.9 74.5 30.8 13.4 22.2 27.4 28.5 61.2 29.7 15.9 57.0 9.3 15.3 32.3 8.5 21.2 14.7 11.4 Total Native 8.6 Foreign born Mexico China 7.7 Philippines India El Salvador Less than high school diploma High school graduate (includes equivalency) Some college or associate's degree Bachelor's degree or higher Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey.
  32. 32. Shifting Educational Attainment of Foreign Born Population in MA UMass Donahue Institute. Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011 Public Use Microdata Sample Data. U.S. Census Bureau.
  33. 33. Educational Attainment: MA Foreign Born vs. U.S. Foreign Born UMass Donahue Institute. Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates - Public Use Microdata Sample 2007 - 2011.
  34. 34. Educational Attainment: MA Foreign Born vs. U.S. Foreign Born Educational Attainment of the Native Born and Foreign Born Populations aged 25 and over in the United States and Massachusetts U.S. Population Years 25+ All Ages Native Foreign 25+ Born Born MA Population 25 Years + All Ages Native Foreign 25+ Born Born No HS Diploma 15% 11% 32% 11% 8% 24% HS Graduate 29% 30% 22% 26% 27% 24% Some College, Including Associates 29% 30% 18% 24% 25% 17% Bachelor's Degree 18% 18% 16% 22% 23% 17% Advanced Degree 10% 10% 11% 17% 16% 18% Bachelor's Degree or Higher 28% 28% 27% 39% 40% 35% UMass Donahue Institute. Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates - Public Use Microdata Sample 2007 - 2011 UMass Donahue Institute. Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates - Public Use Microdata Sample 2007 - 2011.
  35. 35. Age Profile of the Foreign Born The Foreign Born and Native Born Populations by Age Group in MA, CT, RI 2007-2011 UMass Donahue Institute. Source: IPUMS USA. Steven Ruggles, J. Trent Alexander, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Matthew B. Schroeder, and Matthew Sobek. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0 [Machinereadable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2010. Dataset: 2007-2011, ACS 5-year sample. U.S. Census Bureau.
  36. 36. Age Distribution of the Foreign Born and Native Born UMass Donahue Institute. Source: IPUMS USA. Steven Ruggles, J. Trent Alexander, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Matthew B. Schroeder, and Matthew Sobek. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2010. Dataset: 2007-2011, ACS 5-year sample. U.S. Census Bureau.
  37. 37. Projected Dependency Ratios Inverse Dependency Ratios in Massachusetts Independent workers per dependent person 6 MA 5 MA - Child MA - Old age 4 3 2 1 0 1980 1990 2000 2009 2015 Year UMass Donahue Institute, March 2011 2020 2025 2030
  38. 38. Summary: International migration is a significant contributor to population growth and maintenance, particularly in the Northeast as our region continues to lose domestic population to the South and West. The US, and Northeast States in particular, together with border states like California and Texas, have a long history as a destination for the Foreign Born; however immigration is starting to disperse to other parts of the Unites States in more recent years. Place of Birth of the Foreign Born population is also shifting over time, with a smaller percentage immigrating from Europe, and increasing percentages immigrating from Asia and Latin America, including South and Central America. As these origins also tend to have lower median ages than European countries, recent immigrants contribute to a younger population in the region. The profile of the Foreign Born in the MA, CT, and RI region differs from the national profile in many significant ways. The Foreign Born in our region tend to have higher levels of educational attainment than the U.S. Foreign Born, particularly at the Advanced Degree level. Place of birth for the Foreign Born in this region also varies substantially from the U.S. profile, with a higher percentages originating in Europe, South America, the Caribbean, and other world regions, and a drastically smaller percentage (10 times smaller) originating in Mexico. For both the US and the region, the percentage of foreign born from Latin America and Asia has been increasing over time. A younger age profile together with increasing levels of educational attainment among the foreign born serve to revitalize the regions workforce and also to off-set the age-dependency ratio issues looming ahead for the ageing New England region.
  39. 39. Thank you for your interest! Susan Strate, Manager Population Estimates Program sstrate@donahue.umassp.edu UMass Donahue Institute Economic and Public Policy Research Office of the President 100 Venture Way, Suite 9 Hadley, MA 01035 413-575-0753 www.donahue.umassp.edu
  40. 40. College Student Migration in Southern New England: Who Comes, Who Goes, and Why We Might Care Rachel S. Franklin Spatial Structures in the Social Sciences (S4) Population Studies and Training Center (PSTC) Brown University Providence, Rhode Island Who Do We Plan For – The Demographics of Southern New England Southern New England Planning Conference October 17, 2013
  41. 41. Background • Students who go to college and, especially, who graduate from college have a highly desirable attribute: human capital – In general, states and cities would like to attract—and keep—these individuals • When students stay put after graduation, they not only work, but also form households, buy homes, and consume • I’ll do three things in the next several minutes: – In-, Out-, and Net migration of college students for Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island – The ―quality‖ of schools involved on both sides Franklin | Who Do We Plan For – The Demographics of Southern New England | SNEAPA 2013
  42. 42. Basic Data • Integrated Post Secondary Education Database (IPEDS), for 2008 – Tabulates state of residence for college freshmen at time of application – All two- and four-year public and private (non-profit) schools offering at least an associate’s degree and having ―full-time, first time undergraduates‖ – Institution-level data are aggregated by state to produce state-tostate flows of college freshmen • Unit of observation is the institution, not the student – We don’t observe any attributes of actual students – But we can make use of information about the quality/characteristics of the school Franklin | Who Do We Plan For – The Demographics of Southern New England | SNEAPA 2013
  43. 43. Measuring ―Quality‖ • Following e.g. Carnevale & Rose (2004), Hoxby and Avery (2013), we use Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges (2009) to classify schools as: – High quality (n=181): Barron’s most and highly competitive categories • e.g. Wesleyan, Amherst College, or Tufts, Smith College, Boston Univ. – Medium quality (n=270): Barron’s very competitive category • e.g. Fairfield University, Salve Regina University – Lower quality (n=828): Barron’s competitive and less competitive categories • e.g. Umass Dartmouth, Central Connecticut State Univ., URI, Rhode Island College – Other (n=529): Non-competitive or special schools – Community colleges (n=1,022): This comes from IPEDS State Connecticut N 35 High 0.17 Medium 0.03 Low 0.31 Other 0.14 CC 0.34 Massachusetts Rhode Island 91 11 0.22 0.18 0.04 0.18 0.40 0.36 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.09 Franklin | Who Do We Plan For – The Demographics of Southern New England | SNEAPA 2013
  44. 44. Measuring Flow v. Counterflow • Could use net migration, but resulting values are dependent on population size (and by extension size of geographic unit) • An alternative is demographic effectiveness or efficiency (as used by e.g. Plane or Shryock): E j =100(Net j / Gross j ) • This measure captures the extent to which all the movement in and out actually results in redistribution of population – Values close to zero suggest inefficiency; higher values (- and +) indicate efficiency: migration results in population change – Of course, compositionally, the population could change substantially, even if there’s no net redistribution of people Franklin | Who Do We Plan For – The Demographics of Southern New England | SNEAPA 2013
  45. 45. State-Level Student Migration, 2008 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Ins Outs Net 8,395 203 7,151 4,033 10,080 6,610 8,627 3,054 7,518 7,859 6,942 1,083 3,042 9,622 12,319 8,408 4,849 5,950 4,795 3,030 7,067 22,515 5,715 7,423 3,698 2,633 1,477 3,298 1,907 21,981 6,835 13,849 1,832 1,876 10,921 10,086 2,738 2,403 23,963 4,723 3,193 2,946 2,756 2,437 2,992 15,240 17,823 7,487 12,282 1,413 5,762 -1,274 3,853 2,126 -11,901 -225 -5,222 1,222 5,642 -3,062 -3,144 -1,655 639 -14,341 7,596 5,215 1,903 3,194 2,358 38 -8,173 4,692 -1,772 -4,859 2,285 Effectiveness State 52.25 -75.83 36.87 35.79 -37.12 -1.67 -23.23 25.01 60.06 -16.30 -18.46 -43.31 11.74 -42.70 44.57 44.95 24.41 36.69 32.61 0.63 -36.64 11.63 -13.42 -24.66 44.71 Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Missouri Ins Outs Net Effectiveness 7,592 1,779 2,828 1,016 5,363 3,248 1,940 26,328 11,756 3,244 11,698 4,406 5,755 27,663 8,159 7,960 2,098 7,224 6,174 6,009 4,580 11,785 4,794 4,986 8,631 7,592 6,444 1,356 2,506 2,279 5,084 30,872 1,711 28,516 5,419 1,293 12,398 2,318 4,014 15,932 2,665 2,310 1,473 5,621 17,310 1,360 2,404 9,842 6,785 1,031 7,501 6,444 1,148 423 322 -1,263 279 -27,624 229 -2,188 6,337 1,951 -700 2,088 1,741 11,731 5,494 5,650 625 1,603 -11,136 4,649 2,176 1,943 -1,991 3,955 1,130 1,148 8.18 13.49 6.04 -38.33 2.67 -80.96 6.27 -3.99 36.90 43.00 -2.91 31.05 17.82 26.91 50.76 55.01 17.50 12.48 -47.42 63.09 31.16 8.98 -17.19 65.73 7.00 8.18
  46. 46. Student Migration for Southern New England State In-State Net Migration Effectiveness (proportion) Out-migrants In-migrants 13,849 8,627 -5,222 -23.23 0.55 High Quality 5,086 4,818 -268 -2.71 0.37 Medium Quality 3,025 653 -2,372 -64.49 0.07 Low Quality 5,004 3,118 -1,886 -23.22 0.54 Other 588 9 -579 -96.98 0.67 Community College 146 29 -117 -66.86 0.98 17,823 22,515 4,692 11.63 0.68 High Quality 6,461 14,504 8,043 38.36 0.44 Medium Quality 4,499 655 -3,844 -74.58 0.13 Low Quality 5,968 5,600 -368 -3.18 0.75 Other 628 1,279 651 34.14 0.67 Community College 267 477 210 28.23 0.98 2,665 8,159 5,494 50.76 0.66 High Quality 878 2,105 1,227 41.13 0.17 Medium Quality 470 1,151 681 42.01 0.26 1,097 4,178 3,081 58.41 0.69 125 95 614 111 489 16 66.17 7.77 0.66 0.96 Connecticut Massachusetts Rhode Island Low Quality Other Community College
  47. 47. -- -- -- 76 5 00 -7 0 -2 5 -5 -1 51 26 1 -0 25 50 -2 4 -4 9 -7 4 75 5 0 Connecticut Effectiveness Medium -- -7 -5 -2 5 76 5 5 0 00 -7 -5 -2 -1 51 26 1 -0 25 50 75 4 -- -- -- 5 0 00 -7 -5 -2 5 -0 25 -1 51 -2 -4 9 -7 4 1 26 76 -8 1 -- 50 75 -- -- -2 4 -4 9 -7 4 -1 00 Connecticut Effectiveness All -1 00 51 26 1 -0 25 50 75 -- -- -2 4 -4 9 -7 4 -1 00 Quality Migration – Connecticut Connecticut Effeciveness High Connecticut Effectiveness Low
  48. 48. -- -- -- 76 5 0 00 -7 -5 -2 5 -1 51 26 1 -0 25 50 -2 4 -4 9 -7 4 75 00 5 0 Massachusetts Effectiveness Medium -- -1 -7 -5 -2 5 76 5 5 0 00 -7 -5 -2 -0 25 -1 51 26 1 5 50 4 -- -- 5 0 00 -7 -5 -2 -1 -2 -4 9 -7 1 76 51 26 1 -0 25 50 4 -- -- -2 -4 9 -7 2 Massachusetts Effectiveness All -1 00 76 51 26 1 -0 25 50 75 -- -- -2 4 -4 9 -7 4 -1 00 Quality Migration – Massachusetts Massachusetts Effectiveness High Massachusetts Effectiveness Low
  49. 49. -- -- -- 76 5 0 00 -7 -5 -2 5 -1 51 26 1 -0 25 50 -2 4 -4 9 -7 4 75 00 5 0 Rhode Island Effectivenes Medium -- -1 -7 -5 -2 5 76 5 5 0 00 -7 -5 -2 -0 25 -1 51 26 1 5 50 4 -- -- 5 0 00 -7 -5 -2 -1 -2 -4 9 -5 7 76 51 26 1 -0 25 50 4 -- -- -2 -4 9 -6 7 Rhode Island Effectiveness All -1 00 76 51 26 1 -0 25 50 75 -- -- -2 4 -4 9 -7 4 -1 00 Quality Migration – Rhode Island Rhode Island Effectiveness High Rhode Island Effectiveness Low
  50. 50. Interstate Student Trading in Southern New England • 24 percent of Connecticut’s out-migrating freshmen head to Massachusetts, which is the most popular state to go to (only 9 percent to Rhode Island) • 10 percent of students leaving Massachusetts go to Connecticut and 15 percent to Rhode Island – Actually New York is the most popular destination of all the states • When students leave Rhode Island, 37 percent go to schools in Massachusetts and 10 percent to Connecticut Franklin | Who Do We Plan For – The Demographics of Southern New England | SNEAPA 2013
  51. 51. Interstate Student Trading in Southern New England Percent Incoming to Destination Origin State Destination State High Quality Medium Quality Low Quality Connecticut Massachusetts 0.40 0.04 0.49 Massachusetts Connecticut 0.56 0.11 0.32 Connecticut Rhode Island 0.16 0.21 0.55 Rhode Island Connecticut 0.51 0.05 0.41 Massachusetts Rhode Island 0.17 0.19 0.52 Rhode Island Massachusetts 0.33 0.06 0.48 Franklin | Who Do We Plan For – The Demographics of Southern New England | SNEAPA 2013
  52. 52. Conclusions (Why Should We Care?) • Whether students stay or go can matter (or at least be interesting) for a few reasons: 1. 2. Students often stay put in the area in which they went to college (although New England is so small, who knows what the impact for us really is) If students—especially the brightest—are leaving because they have to and not because they want to, that’s a shame • 3. When states exchange students of the same quality (so, low effectiveness), what’s actually accomplished? • 4. i.e., is migration a function of home state school quality and/or capacity? For CT, MA, and RI, migration effectiveness between these states for high quality schools is relatively low (circa 16-18 effectiveness) Highly efficient flows indicate redistribution of high quality (or low quality) students • We see this for low quality schools Franklin | Who Do We Plan For – The Demographics of Southern New England | SNEAPA 2013
  53. 53. The Impact of the Coming Demographic Revolution on the Southern New England Housing Market SNEAPA Conference Worcester, MA October 17, 2013 Barry Bluestone, Director Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy Northeastern University School of Public Policy & Urban Affairs www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter A ―Think and Do‖ Tank
  54. 54. Demographic Revolution
  55. 55. Slow Population Growth in Connecticut, Massachusetts, & Rhode Island Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy  www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
  56. 56. D.C. Nevada Utah Texas Idaho Oregon Arizona North Carolina Washington Maryland California Florida Georgia Minnesota Virginia New Hampshire U.S. Total New Jersey Tennessee Delaware Louisiana Vermont South Carolina Alaska Michigan Rhode Island Arkansas Wisconsin Mississippi Montana Colorado Maine Missouri Massachusetts Kentucky Indiana New Mexico Hawaii Connecticut Kansas Pennsylvania Illinois Alabama Oklahoma Wyoming New York Ohio West Virginia Iowa South Dakota Nebraska North Dakota 600% 500% 400% 300% 200% 100% Proportion of State's Household Growth accounted for by those Age 55+ 2007-2020 U.S.: Conn: Mass: R.I.: 135% 99% 93% 106% Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy  www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter 530% And getting older, faster 99% 149% 135% 113% 149% 113% 0%
  57. 57. “Bimodal” Age Distribution
  58. 58. Aging Baby Boomers Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy  www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
  59. 59. A Dearth of Experienced Workers Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy  www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
  60. 60. And here come the Millennials Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy  www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
  61. 61. A Closer Look at Massachusetts Millennials Baby Boomers Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy  www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
  62. 62. What will this mean for Housing? Massachusetts exemplifies the new Demographics of Southern New England What are the implications of this Demographic Revolution on Housing Demand? Let’s take a look at regional housing projections for Greater Boston … under TWO Economic Growth Projections
  63. 63. Greater Boston - Housing Production 2000-2005 vs. Current Trend Projection Housing Demand 2012-2020 Annual Production/Annual Projection 14,000 12,000 12,000 10,998 Slight Shift toward Multifamily Housing 10,000 8,000 54% 51% 49% 6,100 5,929 6,000 46% 5,900 5,069 4,000 2,000 0 All Housing Single-Family 2000-2005 Multi-Family 2012-2020 Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy  www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
  64. 64. Greater Boston - Housing Production 2000-2005 vs. Faster Economic Growth Projection Housing Demand 2012-2020 Annual Production/Annual Projection 25,000 20,000 19,100 15,000 If Greater Boston’s economy grows faster and attracts more younger workers, need to DOUBLE housing production rate and shift toward Multi-Family Housing 54% 10,998 46% 10,000 10,300 8,800 46% 5,929 5,069 5,000 0 All Housing Single-Family 2000-2005 Multi-Family 2012-2020 Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy  www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
  65. 65. Other Factors that Could Affect Housing Demand Decline in Young Household Income Increase in College Debt Increased Desire for City/Village Living Decreased Tolerance for Commuting
  66. 66. Demographic Data for Greater Boston 1990 - 2010 % % Change, 199 Change, 200 0-2000 0-2010 1990 2000 2010 $67,010 $86,225 $43,787 $69,784 $90,460 $43,312 $68,802 $93,484 $39,208 4.1% 4.9% -1.1% -1.4% 3.3% -9.5% 39.2% 50.1% -5.9% 27.7% 28.3% 26.7% 39.5% -5.7% 47.8% Average Household Size 2.59 2.51 2.48 -3.0% -1.2% Average Household Size, Owner-Occupied Units 2.86 2.76 2.70 -3.6% -2.2% Average Household Size, Renter-Occupied Units 2.22 2.17 2.18 -2.3% 0.7% 26.3% 28.2% 28.9% 7.1% 2.5% Median Household Income (2010 $)a Median Homeowner Income (2010 $)a Median Renter Income (2010 $)a Renter-Occupied Households Paying More Than 30% of Income on Rent Owner-Occupied Households w/ Mortgage Paying More than 30% of Income on HH Costs Percent of Households with One Person 41.7% Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy  www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
  67. 67. Median Household Income by Age of Householder in Five-County Greater Boston Region 2010 Dollars 2000 2010 Percent Change 2000-2010 Householder under 25 years $38,357 $26,380 -31.2% Householder 25 to 44 years $78,295 $77,692 -0.8% Householder 45 to 64 years $86,687 $84,296 -2.8% Householder 65 years and over $36,388 $38,043 4.5% Note: These figures represent averages (weighted by number of households in each age group) of the age specific median household incomes of Essex, Middlesex, Norfolk, Plymouth, and Suffolk Counties. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, 2010 ACS 1-Year Estimates Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy  www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
  68. 68. Average College Debt Massachusetts 4-Year College and Univesity Students $30,000 $25,541 $25,000 66% Increase $20,000 $15,417 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 2000-2001 2009-2010 Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy  www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
  69. 69. Shift in Housing Demand Young Households All of these trends suggest that future demand for housing may require a greater supply of multiunit housing – both condo and rental – and less single-family housing Younger households may also wish to live closer to the city or in village centers – less so in farflung suburbs Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy  www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
  70. 70. Shift in Housing Demand – Aging Baby Boomers Aging Boomers may wish to “age in place” but not in their current homes They may wish to remain near friends and familiar local community amenities As such, they may give up their large single family homes for smaller multi-family housing … but in the communities where they now live Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy  www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
  71. 71. Shift in Housing Demand – Need for More Affordable Units Declining incomes for renter households means we need to find more affordable units or they will face ever larger housing hurdles This means we need to free up rental housing for low and moderate income families And it means we need to build more affordable units as part of new developments Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy  www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
  72. 72. Housing Developers Respond …
  73. 73. Number of Housing Permits Issued in Greater Boston, 2000-2013 16,000 Huge Increase in Permits Up 114% since 2011 15,107 14,000 12,713 12,332 12,000 11,270 11,120 10,000 9,772 9,563 8,929 8,558 7,966 8,000 6,529 5,823 6,000 5,275 4,714 4,000 2,000 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy  www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter 2013 (Est)
  74. 74. Proportion of Housing Permits by Type of Structure Greater Boston Single Family 2-4 unit 5+ Unit 2000-2002 64.7% 7.4% 27.8% 2011-2013 41.0% 4.2% 54.7% 2013 (Est) 34.0% 3.9% 62.2% Major Shift to the Production of the Multi-Unit Housing we need for aging boomers and young Millennials Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy  www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
  75. 75. Thank You
  76. 76. Northeastern University Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy Policy Focus Areas:  Economic Development  Housing The Kitty and Michael Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy conducts interdisciplinary research, in collaboration with civic leaders and scholars both within and beyond Northeastern University, to identify and implement real solutions to the critical challenges facing urban areas throughout Greater Boston, the Commonwealth, and the nation. Founded in 1999 as a “think and do” tank, the Dukakis Center’s collaborative research and problemsolving model applies powerful data analysis, multidisciplinary research and evaluation techniques, and a policy-driven perspective to address a wide range of issues facing cities, towns, and suburbs, with a particular emphasis on the greater Boston region. The Dukakis Center works to catalyze broadbased efforts to solve urban problems, acting as both a convener and a trusted and committed partner to local, state, and national agencies and organizations. In November 2008 the Center was renamed in honor of Kitty and Michael Dukakis for the extraordinary work that both of them have done to make the City of Boston, the Commonwealth, and the nation a better place to live and work. A ―Think and Do‖ Tank  Labor/Management Relations  Program Evaluation  State and Local Public Finance  Transportation  Workforce Development Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy Northeastern University 343 Holmes Hall 360 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115 (617) 373-7870 www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
  77. 77. GRADUATE PROGRAMS School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs: MS in Urban & Regional Policy Master of Public Administration Online option available. MS in Law & Public Policy Focus areas in Sustainability, Climate Change and Environmental Policy; Health Policy; Crime and Justice and Urban Policy. PhD in Law & Public Policy All courses are offered in the evenings in order to accommodate students who are working full-time during the day. The masters programs have admissions cycles for starting in either the Fall or Spring Semester. ● Fosters interdisciplinary social science research on critical public policy issues ● Provides professional training for tomorrow’s leaders ● Energizes sustained community involvement through collaborations with local and regional institutions

×