Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
State of Rural  Minnesota    Report    2013
Who we are                                              In 1997, a group of rural Minnesota advocates                     ...
Growth of Minnesota’s regions,               1900 to 2010  450.0%  400.0%  350.0%  300.0%                                 ...
Population change, 1990-2010                                                                                              ...
Population projections,                                        2010-2035                                         30.0%    ...
Decrease in       Increase in         Change in       County               white             minority            total    ...
Workforce in the    manufacturing sector, 2011                                                                            ...
Average earnings in farming,    2011           -/((,&0                     E&,$"A                                         ...
Health                                              Percent of       Region                                 population enr...
Graduation Rates, 2009-2010                                                                                        To cal...
Free lunch eligibility, 2010-2011                                                                                        ...
Thank You!Atlas of Minnesota      Onlinewww.ruralmn.org
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

State of Rural Minnesota 2013-preview

231

Published on

A dozen slides previewing the Center for Rural Policy and Development's State of Rural Minnesota 2013. View maps and charts on population, education, health, poverty, income, and more.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
231
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "State of Rural Minnesota 2013-preview"

  1. 1. State of Rural Minnesota Report 2013
  2. 2. Who we are In 1997, a group of rural Minnesota advocates came together to create a rural policy “think tank” that would provide policy makers, rural advocates and concerned citizens with an objective, unbiased and politically “unspun” examination of contemporary rural issues.  Based in St. Peter, Minn.  Non-partisan, non-profit policy research organization  Dedicated to providing Minnesota’s policy makers with an unbiased evaluation of issues from a rural perspective.  The Center is recognized as a leading resource for rural policy research and development.Center for Rural Policy & Development, 2013
  3. 3. Growth of Minnesota’s regions, 1900 to 2010 450.0% 400.0% 350.0% 300.0% Metroplex 250.0% Southeast River Valley Southwestern Cornbelt 200.0% Northwest Valley 150.0% Up North Central Lakes 100.0% 50.0% 0.0% 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 -50.0%Center for Rural Policy & Development, 2013
  4. 4. Population change, 1990-2010 !"#$%&%(% -/((,&0 E&,$"A !"#$%&% ()$%*&&+, 6"4,)"33 ?(M%!&A/, H$3(4"7/ 8&3# 8$00/01(&0 2&&# !"#$ -&&.)/.)/01 E$+%!"#$ ;(",." 23$"45"($4   From 1990 to 2010, the state’s F&47"0 6")0&7$0 JA99"4+ 2",, 23"B H$.#$4 population grew by nearly 1 :/(#/0 million, to 5.3 million. The most 24&5%*/01 2"43(&0 dramatic growth was seen in the *"+$0" <(($4%="/3 Twin Cities suburbs, stretching up */3#/0 8/0$ =&++ 6/33$% into the Central Lakes area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enter for Rural Policy & Development, 2013
  5. 5. Population projections, 2010-2035 30.0% 25.7% 24.7% 25.0% 21.5% 20.0% 14.3% 15.0% 11.1% 9.5% 10.0% 5.0% -2.2% 0.0% -5.0%Center for Rural Policy & Development, 2013
  6. 6. Decrease in Increase in Change in County white minority total population population population Clearwater -116 502 386 Fillmore -243 332 89 Hennepin -88,200 208,194 119,994 Kandiyohi -1,093 4,571 3,478 Lyon -1,691 2,759 1,068 Fifteen counties that experienced population growth Mahnomen -1,129 1,498 369 between 1990 and 2010 due to growth in their minority Mower -3,753 5,531 1,778 populations (U.S. Census Nobles -4,953 6,233 1,280 Bureau, 2010). Twelve of them are not in a Metropolitan Pennington -175 799 624 Statistical Area. Ramsey -80,755 103,630 22,875 Roseau -59 662 603 Sibley -352 1,212 860 St. Louis -6,678 8,691 2,013 Todd -137 1,669 1,532 Waseca -506 1,563 1,057Center for Rural Policy & Development, 2013
  7. 7. Workforce in the manufacturing sector, 2011 Title  here Kittson Roseau Lake of the Woods Marshall St. Louis Beltrami Polk Pennington Cook Lake Koochiching Red Lake Itasca Clearwater   Despite losing nearly 50,000 Norman Mahnomen Hubbard Cass Clay Becker manufacturing jobs between 2005 Aitkin and 2009, Minnesota still has a Crow Wing Carlton number of counties—mostly rural— Wadena Otter Tail where employment is concentrated in Wilkin Pine Percentage of workforce Todd Mille employed in manufacturing. Grant Morrison Lacs Kanabec manufacturing Douglas Benton Less than 6.0% Stevens Pope Stearns Isanti Traverse 6.0% to 8.9% Washington Chisago Big Sherburne Stone Swift Kandiyohi Anoka 9.0% to 11.9% Meeker Chippewa 12.0% to 16.9% s. Wright Ram Lac Qui Parle McLeod Hennepin 17.0% and above Renville Carver Yellow Medicine Sibley No Data Lincoln Lyon Scott Dakota Redwood Nicollet Rice Le Sueur Goodhue Wabasha Brown Pipestone Steele Dodge Waseca Murray Watonwan Olmsted Winona Cottonwood Blue Earth Rock Nobles Houston Jackson Martin Faribault Freeborn Mower Fillmore Data source: U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis © Center for Rural Policy and DevelopmentCenter for Rural Policy & Development, 2013
  8. 8. Average earnings in farming, 2011 -/((,&0 E&,$"A !"#$%&% ()$%*&&+, 6"4,)"33 ?(M%!&A/, H$3(4"7/ 8&3# 8$00/01(&0 2&&# !"#$ -&&.)/.)/01 E$+%!"#$ ;(",." 23$"45"($4 F&47"0 6")0&7$0 JA99"4+ 2",,   Farming has had a strong 23"B H$.#$4 presence in Minnesota historically :/(#/0 and continues to do so today. The 24&5%*/01 2"43(&0 distribution of wealth from *"+$0" <(($4%="/3 */3#/0 8/0$ farming is apparent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enter for Rural Policy & Development, 2013
  9. 9. Health Percent of Region population enrolled in MinnesotaCare Percent of population enrolled in MinnesotaCare, Metroplex 1.7% based on average monthly enrollment for 2009 Southeast River Valley 2.1% (Minnesota Department of Human Services, 2011) Southwestern Cornbelt 2.5% Northwest Valley 3.1% Up North 3.2% Central Lakes 4.4% Minnesota 2.1%Center for Rural Policy & Development, 2013
  10. 10. Graduation Rates, 2009-2010   To calculate the graduation rate here, the number of graduates was divided by the number of ninth-graders four years earlier, adjusting for students dropping out or leaving the district. !"#$%#&()*+#&, !"#$%&%   Districts with graduating classes ()*+#,#-(+ under 40 were not included. -().+#,#-*+ -*).+#,#/(+ /().+#,#/*+ /*).+#,#.((+ 0%&%#1"23456 789951"&%#05:%3&;59&#"<#=$24%&8"9 >#?59&53#<"3#@23%A#B"A84C#%9$#05D5A":;59&Center for Rural Policy & Development, 2013
  11. 11. Free lunch eligibility, 2010-2011   For the state of Minnesota, 37.2% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in the 2010-2011 school year. Since recipients’ families must meet !"#$"%&(")*+),&-."%&,) "/0(01/")+*#)+#"")*#) certain income guidelines to #".-$".)/-%$2 qualify, free and reduced-price !"#$%&% lunch can be a good proxy for ()*#+#,-(,* poverty rates. ,-(.*#+#./(* ./(0*#+#1* 1(2*#+#/3(0* /3()*#+#233* 4%&%#5"6789: ;<==95"&%#49>%7&?9=&#"@#A$68%&<"= B#C9=&97#@"7#D67%E#F"E<8G#%=$#49H9E">?9=&Center for Rural Policy & Development, 2013
  12. 12. Thank You!Atlas of Minnesota Onlinewww.ruralmn.org
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×