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

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

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

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

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!!

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

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%

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

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

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

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

..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%

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

Thank you for your time!
hrenski@larp.umass.edu

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

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


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.


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.

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
-

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.

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.

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%

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 2011. https://www.nhgis.org/. Dataset: 2007-2011, ACS 5-year sample. U.S. Census Bureau.

100%

Region of Birth of the Foreign Born in Southern New England in 1900

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 2011. https://www.nhgis.org/. Dataset: 1900 Decennial Census. U.S. Census Bureau.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Educational Attainment: MA Foreign Born vs. U.S. Foreign Born

UMass Donahue Institute. Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates - Public Use
Microdata Sample 2007 - 2011.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

--

--

--

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

--

--

--

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

--

--

--

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

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


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


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


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

Slow Population Growth in
Connecticut, Massachusetts,
& Rhode Island

Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy  www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter

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%

530%

And getting older, faster
99%

149%
135%
113%
149%

113%

0%

“Bimodal” Age Distribution

Aging Baby Boomers


A Dearth of Experienced
Workers


And here come the
Millennials


A Closer Look at Massachusetts
Millennials

Baby Boomers


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

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


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


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

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%


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


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


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


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


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

Housing Developers Respond …

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


2013 (Est)

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
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
343 Holmes Hall
360 Huntington Avenue
Boston, MA 02115
(617) 373-7870
www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter

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

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

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (13)

En vedette

En vedette (7)

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

Similaire à SNEAPA 2013 Thursday b4 10_30_who do we plan for - sneapa (all presentations) (20)

Plus de American Planning Association - Massachusetts Chapter

Plus de American Planning Association - Massachusetts Chapter (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

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