What Do The Numbers Mean - 2010 U.S.Census

  • 47 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
47
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Apportionment data: “The populations of the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico excluded because they do not have voting seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.”

    Redistricting data: “The census data allow state officials to realign congressional and state legislative districts in their states, taking into account population shifts since the last census and assuring equal representation for their constituents in compliance with the “one-person, one-vote” principle of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.”

    Source: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/
  • Not sure why this is so blurry…
  • Growing urban communities accounted for almost half of the state’s population increase. The Inner core grew @ 3.4%, faster than state overall.
    Almost a quarter of the state’s population gains were in five urban communities: Boston, Worcester, Revere, Lawrence, and Quincy. Large gains were also seen in many Regional Urban Centers or “Gateway Cities” such as Lowell, New Bedford, Springfield, Salem, and Lynn.

    Source: K:DataServicesDatasetsU.S. Census and DemographicsCensus ComparisonsNotesforMDD_3_22_11.docx

  • The Lobster cartogram
  • Lawrence, Chelsea, Springfield, and Boston have been Majority Minority communities since 2000. The communities in green are “new” Majority Minority communities (they were not Majority Minority communities in 2000).
  • Racial and ethnic minority group populations increased from 18% to 24%, an increase of 5.7%. In 65 municipalities, the share of this population increased by that amount or more, and not just in urban areas. There were 31 suburban communities where the minority group population grew by 5.7% or more. However, in the vast majority of suburban communities, this population increased less than that amount, which means that, while the state is becoming more diverse, these communities are falling behind with regard to segregation.

    K:DataServicesProjectsCurrent_ProjectsCensus_MappingCensus2010Race_PopulationMaps
  •  If our region were completely integrated, White residents would make up an equal share of the population in every neighborhood, matching the region-wide share of about 75%. Similarly, every neighborhood would include about 25% racial/ethnic minorities. However, such an equal distribution of Whites and minority group populations across neighborhoods is far from our current reality. This segregation is measured by a tool called the Dissimilarity Index. This tool compares two groups, measuring the percentage of the smaller group that would have to move to a different geographic area in order to produce an equal distribution of the smaller group across the area in question. Nearly 62% of all Black/African American residents of Metro Boston would have to move to a new neighborhood in order to achieve complete integration with Whites, translating to a “dissimilarity index” of roughly .62. Values of .6 and greater are generally considered `high.’ Roughly 60% of all Latino residents of Metro Boston would also have to move to a new neighborhood in order to achieve complete integration with Whites, with the region’s Latino-White dissimilarity index equal to .60 in 2010.

    The region has made steady progress towards better Black/African American-White integration since 1980, with the dissimilarity dropping from nearly .75 in 1980. While segregation of the region’s Latino population had risen from 1980 - 2000, 2010 shows improved integration from 2000. Because most major metropolitan areas in the United States grapple with persistent segregation, Metro Boston falls roughly in the middle of the pack of similarly sized urban areas in terms of Black/African American- White segregation.

    Keeping in mind that in an integrated region, each neighborhood would be about 75% White, we can also ask how much exposure residents have to people of different races or ethnicities in their neighborhoods. White residents of Metro Boston live in neighborhoods that are, on average, 83% White and only 4% Black/African American. Black/African American residents, by contrast, live in neighborhoods that average 43% White and 31% Black/African American. Likewise, Latino residents in Metro Boston lived in neighborhoods that were about 31% Latino, while White residents lived in areas that were roughly 6% Latino.
     
  • K:DataServicesProjectsCurrent_ProjectsCensus_MappingCensus2010Race_PopulationMaps

    Munis with highest percentage point change in Latino pop
    Revere
    Lawrence
    Lynn
    Chelsea
    Springfield
    Everett
  • K:DataServicesProjectsCurrent_ProjectsCensus_MappingCensus2010Race_PopulationMaps

    Munis with highest percent change in Latino pop
    Chesterfield
    Monroe
    Mount Washington
    Alford
    New Ashford
    Phillipston
    Hawley
    Nantucket
  • K:DataServicesProjectsCurrent_ProjectsCensus_MappingCensus2010Race_PopulationMaps

    Munis with highest percentage point change in Asian pop
    Acton
    Westborough
    Lexington
    Quincy
    Westford
  • K:DataServicesProjectsCurrent_ProjectsCensus_MappingCensus2010Race_PopulationMaps

    Munis with highest percent change in Asian pop
    Aquinnah
    Monroe
    Bernardston
    Middlefid
    Clarksburg
  • MA Summary: Massachusetts housing units have grown by 7% percent between 2000 (2,621,989 total housing units) and 2010 (2,808,254 total housing units). 9% of Massachusetts’ 2010 housing units were vacant, compared to 7% in 2000.

    Community Type Summary: Regional urban centers (869,278 housing units) had the most housing units in 2010, followed by developing suburbs (715,012 housing units), the inner core (603,970 housing units), maturing suburbs (558,955 housing units), and rural towns (61,039 housing units).

    The percentage change in housing unit growth/decline between 2000 and 2010 ranged from 36% to -10%. Communities with housing unit growth of 25% or more include: Upton (36%), Montgomery (33%), Berlin (33%), Middleton (30%), Uxbridge (30%), Erving (28%), Douglas (27%), Nantucket (25%), Leverett (25%), Rutland (25% ), and Northbridge (25%).

    8 communities lost housing units between 2000 and 2010 [Lincoln (-10%), Harvard (-8%), North Adams (-5%), Nahant (-2%), Marblehead (-1%), Swampscott (-1%), Wendell (-1%), and Hopedale (-0.2%)]
    are falling behind with regard to segregation.
  • MA Summary: Massachusetts housing units have grown by 7% percent between 2000 (2,621,989 total housing units) and 2010 (2,808,254 total housing units). 9% of Massachusetts’ 2010 housing units were vacant, compared to 7% in 2000.

    Community Type Summary: Regional urban centers (869,278 housing units) had the most housing units in 2010, followed by developing suburbs (715,012 housing units), the inner core (603,970 housing units), maturing suburbs (558,955 housing units), and rural towns (61,039 housing units).

    The percentage change in housing unit growth/decline between 2000 and 2010 ranged from 36% to -10%. Communities with housing unit growth of 25% or more include: Upton (36%), Montgomery (33%), Berlin (33%), Middleton (30%), Uxbridge (30%), Erving (28%), Douglas (27%), Nantucket (25%), Leverett (25%), Rutland (25% ), and Northbridge (25%).

    8 communities lost housing units between 2000 and 2010 [Lincoln (-10%), Harvard (-8%), North Adams (-5%), Nahant (-2%), Marblehead (-1%), Swampscott (-1%), Wendell (-1%), and Hopedale (-0.2%)]
    are falling behind with regard to segregation.
  • MA Summary: Massachusetts housing units have grown by 7% percent between 2000 (2,621,989 total housing units) and 2010 (2,808,254 total housing units). 9% of Massachusetts’ 2010 housing units were vacant, compared to 7% in 2000.

    Community Type Summary: Regional urban centers (869,278 housing units) had the most housing units in 2010, followed by developing suburbs (715,012 housing units), the inner core (603,970 housing units), maturing suburbs (558,955 housing units), and rural towns (61,039 housing units).

    The percentage change in housing unit growth/decline between 2000 and 2010 ranged from 36% to -10%. Communities with housing unit growth of 25% or more include: Upton (36%), Montgomery (33%), Berlin (33%), Middleton (30%), Uxbridge (30%), Erving (28%), Douglas (27%), Nantucket (25%), Leverett (25%), Rutland (25% ), and Northbridge (25%).

    8 communities lost housing units between 2000 and 2010 [Lincoln (-10%), Harvard (-8%), North Adams (-5%), Nahant (-2%), Marblehead (-1%), Swampscott (-1%), Wendell (-1%), and Hopedale (-0.2%)]
    are falling behind with regard to segregation.
  • MA Summary: Massachusetts housing units have grown by 7% percent between 2000 (2,621,989 total housing units) and 2010 (2,808,254 total housing units). 9% of Massachusetts’ 2010 housing units were vacant, compared to 7% in 2000.

    Community Type Summary: Regional urban centers (869,278 housing units) had the most housing units in 2010, followed by developing suburbs (715,012 housing units), the inner core (603,970 housing units), maturing suburbs (558,955 housing units), and rural towns (61,039 housing units).

    The percentage change in housing unit growth/decline between 2000 and 2010 ranged from 36% to -10%. Communities with housing unit growth of 25% or more include: Upton (36%), Montgomery (33%), Berlin (33%), Middleton (30%), Uxbridge (30%), Erving (28%), Douglas (27%), Nantucket (25%), Leverett (25%), Rutland (25% ), and Northbridge (25%).

    8 communities lost housing units between 2000 and 2010 [Lincoln (-10%), Harvard (-8%), North Adams (-5%), Nahant (-2%), Marblehead (-1%), Swampscott (-1%), Wendell (-1%), and Hopedale (-0.2%)]
    are falling behind with regard to segregation.
  • there are a lot of poor reporters, but not necessarily b/c they are only doing 6 months out of the year- More often, they report 12 months a year for a few years, then there is no reporting for a few years
  • MA Summary: Massachusetts housing units have grown by 7% percent between 2000 (2,621,989 total housing units) and 2010 (2,808,254 total housing units). 9% of Massachusetts’ 2010 housing units were vacant, compared to 7% in 2000.

    Community Type Summary: Regional urban centers (869,278 housing units) had the most housing units in 2010, followed by developing suburbs (715,012 housing units), the inner core (603,970 housing units), maturing suburbs (558,955 housing units), and rural towns (61,039 housing units).

    The percentage change in housing unit growth/decline between 2000 and 2010 ranged from 36% to -10%. Communities with housing unit growth of 25% or more include: Upton (36%), Montgomery (33%), Berlin (33%), Middleton (30%), Uxbridge (30%), Erving (28%), Douglas (27%), Nantucket (25%), Leverett (25%), Rutland (25% ), and Northbridge (25%).

    8 communities lost housing units between 2000 and 2010 [Lincoln (-10%), Harvard (-8%), North Adams (-5%), Nahant (-2%), Marblehead (-1%), Swampscott (-1%), Wendell (-1%), and Hopedale (-0.2%)]
    are falling behind with regard to segregation.

Transcript

  • 1. The 2010 Census: What the Numbers Mean Using and Interpreting the Data Holly St. Clair, Director of Data Services, Metropolitan Area Planning Council May 2, 2011
  • 2. Population 2000 2010 % Change 2000-2010 Massachusetts 6,349,097 6,547,629 3.1% MAPC 3,066,394 3,161,712 3.1% Community Type Inner Core 1,345,647 1,391,210 3.4% Regional Urban Centers 2,020,632 2,056,093 1.8% Maturing Suburbs 1,231,842 1,251,848 1.6% Developing Suburbs 1,643,739 1,738,502 5.8% Rural Towns 107,237 109,976 2.6%
  • 3. 2010 “Majority Minority” Communities Rank City or Town Racial/Ethnic Minority Population (%), 2000 Racial/Ethnic Minority Population (%), 2010 1. Lawrence 65.9% 79.5% 2. Chelsea 61.7% 74.8% 3. Springfield 51.2% 63.3% 4. Randolph 38.5% 60.9% 5. Brockton 41.8% 57.1% 6. Holyoke 46.0% 53.2% 7. Boston 50.5% 53.0% 8. Lynn 37.5% 52.4%
  • 4. Dissimilarity Index
  • 5. Total Population Over 18 Under 18 Non-Hispanic White (%) Minorities (%) Non-Hispanic White (%) Minorities (%) Non-Hispanic White (%) Minorities (%) Massachusetts 76% 24% 79% 21% 67% 33% MAPC 72% 28% 74% 26% 64% 36% Community Type Inner Core 59% 41% 62% 38% 42% 58% Regional Urban Centers 67% 33% 72% 28% 52% 48% Maturing Suburbs 87% 13% 89% 11% 82% 18% Developing Suburbs 91% 9% 92% 8% 88% 12% Rural Towns 96% 4% 96% 4% 92% 8% Population Under and Over 18 Years of Age, 2010
  • 6. Housing Units 2000 2010 % Change 2000-2010 Massachusetts 2,621,989 2,808,254 7% MAPC 1,240,698 1,321,784 7% Community Type Inner Core 570,003 603,970 6% Regional Urban Centers 830,956 869,278 5% Maturing Suburbs 520,507 558,955 7% Developing Suburbs 645,700 715,012 11% Rural Towns 54,823 61,039 11%
  • 7. U.S. Census & Federal Funding • From these seven programs Massachusetts received over $8.2 billion in FY2007 and over $6.3 billion in FY2006. • Medicaid • Highway Planning and Construction • Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies • Foster Care • Federal Mass Transit Grants • Community Development Block Grants • Nutrition Program to Women, Infants, and Children
  • 8. Census = $2000 per person •Schools •Medicaid •Health Centers •Food Stamps - WIC •Roads •Housing •Used a dominator for health statistics, crime statistics, etc.
  • 9. Examples of State Programs •40 B •Consolidate Plan - DHCD •Annual Qualified Allocation Plan process for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program •Funding to local Council’s on Aging- Total Population
  • 10. •We are getting older •We are growing more diverse •Our children are increasingly of color •Promote the American Community Survey in your Community •Report Building Permits every month Take Away’s
  • 11. Holly St. Clair, Director of Data Services Metropolitan Area Planning Council hstclair@mapc.org www.mapc.org www.metrobostondatacommon Questions