a demographic profile of allen county, indiana · pdf filea demographic profile of allen...
TRANSCRIPT
A DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
OF ALLEN COUNTY, INDIANA
Prepared for the Foellinger Foundation, Inc.
by
Thomas L. Guthrie, Director and Valerie A. Richardson, Research Associate
of the
Community Research Institute Indiana University Purdue University at Fort Wayne
May 2003
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
POPULATION.......................................................................................................1
Growth Rates and Comparisons.........................................................................................................1 1930-2000........................................................................................................................................1 2010 and 2020 Population Projections..............................................................................................2
Geographic Distribution .....................................................................................................................3 By Township....................................................................................................................................3 By Census Tract...............................................................................................................................5 Blacks by Census Tract ....................................................................................................................8 “Other” by Census Tract ..................................................................................................................8 Hispanic (NOT a Race) ..................................................................................................................13
AGE ....................................................................................................................16
Distribution .......................................................................................................................................16 Baby-boom Bulge...........................................................................................................................17 Decrease in the Younger Population...............................................................................................18 Location of the Younger Population ...............................................................................................18 Growth in the Older Population .....................................................................................................21 Location of the Older Population....................................................................................................21
By Race .............................................................................................................................................24
Dependency Percentage....................................................................................................................24 By Census Tract.............................................................................................................................24 By Race..........................................................................................................................................27
HOUSEHOLDS...................................................................................................28
Non-family Households by Census Tract .........................................................................................28
Different Types of Family Households .............................................................................................31 Female Head of Household with Child(ren) 17 or Under ................................................................31
By Tract ....................................................................................................................................31 Male Head of Household with Child(ren) 17 or Under....................................................................34
By Tract ....................................................................................................................................34 Married with Child(ren) 17 or Under .............................................................................................34 Families Without Child(ren) 17 or Under.......................................................................................34
Older Households (65 or Over) ........................................................................................................37 Living Alone..................................................................................................................................37 Living in Group Quarters (NOT considered to be households)........................................................38
By Race .............................................................................................................................................38 Family Versus Non-family Households...........................................................................................39 Family Households.........................................................................................................................40
Families With Child(ren) 17 or Under .......................................................................................40 Female Head of Household With Child(ren) 17 or Under ......................................................41
iii
Male Head of Household With Child(ren) 17 or Under..........................................................42 Married With Child(ren) 17 or Under ........................................................................................42 Families Without Child(ren) 17 or Under ..................................................................................43
EDUCATION.......................................................................................................44
Less Than a High School Diploma by Census Tract........................................................................44
Bachelor’s Degree or Higher by Census Tract ................................................................................47
Comparison versus U.S. and Indiana ...............................................................................................50
Change in Education Level over Time .............................................................................................50
Change in Education Level Over Time Versus U.S. ........................................................................51
Education by Race/Hispanic Origin.................................................................................................52 Education by Race/Hispanic Origin and Sex...................................................................................53 Change in Education Level over Time by Race/Hispanic Origin.....................................................54
Current High School Graduation Rates...........................................................................................56
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) ........................................................................................................57
INCOME..............................................................................................................58
Loss of Manufacturing Jobs .............................................................................................................59
Relative Increase in Single-person (Living Alone) Households .......................................................60
By Census Tract................................................................................................................................60
By Race .............................................................................................................................................63
POVERTY...........................................................................................................65
Poverty Areas....................................................................................................................................67
By Age...............................................................................................................................................68 Location of Children in Poverty .....................................................................................................69 Location of the Older Population in Poverty...................................................................................72
By Race .............................................................................................................................................75
By Sex................................................................................................................................................76
By Households...................................................................................................................................77 By Age Group................................................................................................................................77 Female Householders with Family, Under 65, No Husband Present by Race and Hispanic Origin...79
Female Head of Household, Children, and Poverty ...........................................................79
iv
SUMMARY..........................................................................................................80
APPENDIX A—RECONCILIATION OF 1990 AND 2000 CENSUS TRACTS ....83
APPENDIX B—CALCULATION OF COMPOSITE RISK FACTORS FOR CENSUS TRACTS..............................................................................................84
1
POPULATION According to the 2000 census, the population of Allen County totaled 331,849. As shown below, the growth of the population has slowed markedly since 1970. The loss of jobs (and job opportunities) during the severe economic recession in the early eighties in both Allen County and Indiana caused an extraordinary population exodus. (The economic downturn was so severe that Indiana and neighboring states were nicknamed the “rustbelt states” because of the large number of facilities that were shuttered.) Consequently, the upturn in the nineties was probably more of a snapback than a change in trend (as the graph suggests).
ALLEN COUNTY POPULATION: 1920-2000
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Tho
usan
ds
Source: Decennial Census Publications, U.S. Dept. of Commerce
Persons 114,303 146,743 183,722 232,196 280,455 294,335 300,836 331,849
1920 1930 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Growth Rates and Comparisons
1930-2000 Assuming the increased growth rate of the population in the nineties was simply a snapback from the depressed eighties, the decennial growth rate in Allen County has been in a secular downtrend since the fifties. (See below.) Prior to 1970, Allen County’s growth rate exceeded that of the United States, but subsequently the population growth rates in Allen County (and Indiana) have lagged.
2
DECENNIAL PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN POPULATION: 1930-2000Allen County, Indiana, and United States
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
20%
24%
28%
32%
Source : Decennia l Census Publ icat ions , U.S. Dept . o f Commerce
Allen 28.4% 5.7% 18.5% 26.4% 20.8% 4.9% 2.2% 10.3%
Indiana 10.5% 5.8% 14.8% 18.5% 11.4% 5.7% 1.0% 9.7%
U.S. 16.2% 7.3% 14.5% 18.5% 13.4% 11.4% 9.8% 13.2%
1920-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-2000
2010 and 2020 Population Projections1 The U.S. Department of Commerce does population projections for the U.S. and each state.2 The Indiana Business Research Center periodically generates individual county population projections consistent with the U.S. Department of Commerce population projection for Indiana.3
DECENNIAL PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN POPULATION (1930-2000) WITH PROJECTIONS (2010-2020)
Allen County, Indiana, and United States
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
20%
24%
28%
32%
Source: Decennial Census Publications, U.S. Dept. of Commerce
Allen 28.4% 5.7% 18.5% 26.4% 20.8% 4.9% 2.2% 10.3% 1.0% 2.5%
Indiana 10.5% 5.8% 14.8% 18.5% 11.4% 5.7% 1.0% 9.7% 3.9% 2.6%
U.S. 16.2% 7.3% 14.5% 18.5% 13.4% 11.4% 9.8% 13.2% 6.6% 8.4%
1920-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-2000 00-10 10-20
1Projections are generated from an analysis of the estimated current demographic characteristics and recent trends (e.g. birth rate and death trends) of the relevant population. That is, the knowledge of the recent past is “projected” into the future. Therefore, projections do not take into account the impact other factors may have on future population change. For example, implementation of an economic development program that proved successful would not be reflected in the population projections. 2 National Population Projections, U.S. Census Bureau Population Projections Program, Population Division, released February 2000 for U.S. and 1996 for state. 3 Preliminary Population Projections for Indiana Counties: 2000—2020, Indiana Business Research Center, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, February 1999.
3
Based on the 2000 census data, the population projections for 2000 (not shown) were extraordinarily low. Given that the projections have not been updated since the 2000 census, they need to be viewed as suspect. Probably, the most to be gleaned from the now outdated projections is the relatively slower growth projected for Allen County and Indiana versus the United States.
Geographic Distribution
By Township In 2000, the City of Fort Wayne had 62.0 percent (205,727) of the total population in Allen County; however, the population of the city has been (and continues to be) bolstered by annexation. Five of the 20 townships in Allen County—Aboite, Adams, St. Joseph, Wayne, and Washington—had 82.0 percent of the population in the county. (See Figure 1.) Wayne Township—which constitutes the central city—has long had the largest percentage of Allen County’s population, but both its population and hegemony have eroded considerably. Population declined from 155,285 in 1960 to 111,117 in 2000. Wayne Township’s share of Allen County’s population declined from 66.9 percent in 1960 to 33.5 percent in 2000.
Conversely, population growth has exploded in the suburban townships. (See Table 1.) Northeast suburbia—Cedar Creek, Milan, and St. Joseph townships—grew from 19,758 in 1960 to 82,067 in 2000. Northwest suburbia—Eel River, Perry, and Washington townships—grew from 18,076 in 1960 to 54,279 in 2000. Southwest suburbia—Aboite, Lafayette, and Pleasant Townships—grew from 6,485 in 1960 to 34,407 in 2000. Essentially all the increase in southwest suburbia occurred in Aboite Township. Southeast suburbia—Adams and Marion townships—grew from 20,754 in 1960 to 34,134 in 1970. There has been no growth in southeast suburbia in the last three decades—the 2000 population was 35,049. Population growth spurts in and around Fort Wayne have occurred in a counterclockwise fashion starting in the southeast quadrant in the early twenties with the development of the “east-end industries.” (Data not shown.) Industrial development never occurred in the northeast quadrant to any extent; however, the quadrant has been a mecca for housing development resulting from the industrial development in the southeast quadrant and later in the northwest quadrant. In the seventies, industrial development in the northwest quadrant quickened, especially along U.S. 30. In 1985, the southwest quadrant came into the spotlight with the building of the General Motors’ light-truck assembly plant. Although speculative at this point, one can envision the spotlight on industrial development returning to the southeast quadrant early in the twenty-first century given the recent completion of the (southern and eastern parts of the) U.S. 469 bypass.
4
FIGURE 1. ALLEN COUNTY TOWNSHIPS
5
TABLE 1. Geographic Distribution of Allen County Population by Township
Township/Area 1950 1960 1970 change from 1960 1980 change from 1970 1990 change from 1980 2000 change from 1990
number percent number percent number percent number percent Central-Wayne 142,650 155,285 149,516 -5,769 -3.7% 127,729 -21,787 -14.6% 116,005 -11,724 -9.2% 111,117 -4,888 -4.2%
Northeast Suburbia: Cedar Creek 2,200 3,579 4,414 835 5,864 1,450 6,688 824 10,288 3,600 Milan 1,623 1,942 2,335 393 3,178 843 3,165 -13 3,503 338 St. Joseph 3,288 14,237 38,094 23,857 55,348 17,254 61,167 5,819 68,276 7,109 TOTAL 7,111 19,758 44,843 25,085 127.0% 64,390 19,547 43.6% 71,020 6,630 10.3% 82,067 11,047 15.6% Northwest Suburbia: Eel River 1,238 1,432 1,622 190 2,423 801 2,576 153 3,004 428 Perry 2,570 4,036 5,768 1,732 8,299 2,531 10,909 2,610 18,170 7,261 Washington 5,868 12,608 20,296 7,688 23,851 3,555 27,416 3,565 33,105 5,689 TOTAL 9,676 18,076 27,686 9,610 53.2% 34,573 6,887 24.9% 40,901 6,328 18.3% 54,279 13,378 32.7% Southwest Suburbia: Aboite 1,427 3,131 6,132 3,001 11,663 5,531 18,490 6,827 28,338 9,848 Lafayette 1,234 1,490 2,035 545 2,389 354 2,530 141 2,707 177 Pleasant 1,340 1,864 2,474 610 3,472 998 3,355 -117 3,362 7 TOTAL 4,001 6,485 10,641 4,156 64.1% 17,524 6,883 64.7% 24,375 6,851 39.1% 34,407 10,032 41.2% Southeast Suburbia: Adams 8,495 18,428 31,034 12,606 31,897 863 31,023 -874 31,394 371 Marion 1,425 2,326 3,221 895 3,600 379 3,529 -71 3,655 126 TOTAL 9,920 20,754 34,255 13,501 65.1% 35,497 1,242 3.6% 34,552 -945 -2.7% 35,049 497 1.4% Other Townships: Jackson Twp. 660 699 661 -38 602 -59 561 -41 498 -63 Jefferson Twp. 1,616 1,895 2,130 235 2,142 12 1,882 -260 1,958 76 Lake Twp. 1,515 1,880 2,061 181 2,184 123 1,914 -270 1,985 71 Madison Twp. 1,360 1,466 1,711 245 1,729 18 1,615 -114 1,796 181 Maumee Twp. 1,305 1,435 1,781 346 2,408 627 2,459 51 2,619 160 Monroe Twp. 1,955 2,158 2,153 -5 2,174 21 1,969 -205 1,963 -6 Scipio Twp. 347 430 409 -21 396 -13 414 18 414 0 Springfield Twp. 1,606 1,875 2,608 733 2,987 379 3,169 182 3,697 528 TOTAL 10,364 11,838 13,514 1,676 14.2% 14,622 1,108 8.2% 13,983 -639 -4.4% 14,930 947 6.8%
GRAND TOTAL 183,722 232,196 280,455 48,259 20.8% 294,335 13,880 4.9% 300,836 6,501 2.2% 331,849 31,013 10.3%
6
By Census Tract A breakout of the population by census tract obviously is possible although it is not shown herein. However, subsets of the population are shown by census tract later in this report. So that readers may identify the geographical location of the 86 census tracts in Allen County as of the 1990 census,4 a census tract map is shown below:
LOCATION OF THE 86 CENSUS TRACTS IN ALLEN COUNTY
AS OF THE 1990 CENSUS
1160211604
11605
11603
11601
11701
10600
10400
10500
11501
702
1069
8701
32
11
21 20
26
22
24 25
11702
19
11304
1150237
23
3902
390138 36
13
4
34
5
1
3303
14
3
12
10301
10702
10302
4102
3301
3302
4101
30
18
4031
17
2897
16
2927
10806
10810
11201
10804
10809
10200
10808
11100
42
10805
35
15
10803
10900
10100
10802
10807
11202
11303
11000
11802 1190011801
I 69
BASS RD
GOSHEN RD
LOWER HUNTINGTON RD
US 30
W JEFFERSON BLVD
I 69
ST
BLUFFTON RD
S LAFAY
ETTE
CO
LD
WA
TE
R
RD
I 69
DUPONT RD
LI
MA
R
D
WASHINGTON CENTER RD N C
LIN
TON
ST
COLISEUM BLVD
AN
TH
ON
Y
BL
VD
I 469
US 27
TILLMAN RD
PAULDING RD
I 469
LAKE AV
I 469
US 24
US 30
4 The census tracts for 1990 have been used in this report so comparisons can be made with the 2000 census. (The 2000 census tracts—OF WHICH THERE ARE 90—in some cases are more detailed than the 1990 census tracts, so 2000 census data are not identical at the tract level to some 1990 census tracts. Appendix A details the 1990 to 2000 equivalencies used in this report. )
7
By Race Trends in Allen County’s population by race are shown below: Race 1970 1980 1990 2000
White 260,088 262,908 264,088 275,697
Black 19,298 26,396 30,102 37,527
Asian 1,286 2,544 4,652
Other5 1,069 3,745 4,102 13,973
TOTAL 282,425 294,335 300,836 331,849
Corresponding percentage changes for the last three decades are shown below:
Race 70-80 80-90 90-00
White 1.1% 0.4% 4.4%
Black 36.8% 14.0% 24.7%
Asian 97.8% 82.9%
Other5 250.3% 9.5% 240.6%
TOTAL 4.9% 2.2% 10.3%
The non-white races have experienced spectacular growth compared to the white race; however, the percentage changes have been from relative small bases (compared to the white race). The overall percentage distribution of the population by race over time shows more clearly the growing impact of the non-white races.
Race 1970 1980 1990 2000
White 92.7% 89.3% 87.8% 83.1%
Black 6.9% 9.0% 10.0% 11.3%
Asian 0.0% 0.4% 0.8% 1.4%
Other5 0.4% 1.3% 1.4% 4.2%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
5“Other” includes American Indian, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, some other race, and (in 2000) “two or more races.”
8
OBSERVATION: Between 1970 and 2000 the non-white population in Allen County increased from 7.3 percent to 16.9 percent. Given that the non-white population is substantially younger than the white population (see below), the percentage of the total population that is non-white will to continue to increase because of a higher birthrate.
Blacks by Census Tract Table 2 shows the percentage of blacks by census tract as of 2000. In 2000, 74.4 percent (27,927) of the black population was located in 17 census tracts. (See Figure 2.) The population in each of the 17 census tracts was at least 30 percent black. Eighty-six percent (32,275) of all blacks in Allen County in 2000 lived in Adams and Wayne Townships.
“Other” by Census Tract6 Table 3 shows the percentage of “other” races by census tract as of 2000. In 2000, eighteen tracts were at least seven percent “other” races. (See Figure 3.) The 18 tracts contained 41.5 percent of the “other” races. In 1990, only one tract was at least seven percent “other.”
6 See footnote 5.
9
Number Percentage Number Percentage17 1632 81.3% 116.01 255 3.2%28 1998 78.2% 108.14 202 3.0%29 1924 70.8% 108.03 163 3.0%30 2771 69.7% 107.06 111 2.8%14 1124 69.0% 115.02 68 2.8%18 820 68.4% 108.08 148 2.7%40 2593 65.8% 108.04 80 2.6%15 684 58.3% 38 80 2.6%27 1341 55.9% 7.01 83 2.6%
113.02 3081 55.9% 103.03 145 2.5%23 3029 55.2% 10 32 2.3%13 861 48.7% 106.02 71 2.3%
113.03 763 41.8% 6 46 2.2%31 1078 35.5% 34 99 2.2%16 820 35.2% 108.13 87 2.1%
113.04 1714 33.1% 9 69 2.1%36 1694 29.5% 116.04 88 2.0%12 188 14.9% 3 68 2.0%20 580 14.1% 108.07 92 2.0%26 447 12.2% 112.01 36 1.7%
39.02 332 11.4% 106.01 43 1.6%42 41 11.3% 116.03 96 1.6%22 471 10.8% 39.01 55 1.6%35 320 8.6% 116.02 112 1.5%32 431 7.8% 37 37 1.4%
33.01 228 7.6% 116.05 23 1.0%41.02 379 7.3% 1 24 0.9%
108.02 445 7.2% 103.04 56 0.9%11 124 7.0% 103.1 50 0.8%
41.01 151 6.7% 112.02 25 0.8%25 246 6.6% 106.03 13 0.7%21 166 6.4% 8 29 0.7%
33.04 245 6.0% 117.01 19 0.7%5 207 5.4% 118.01 24 0.7%
108.05 374 5.2% 105 13 0.7%7.03 132 5.2% 106.04 18 0.6%
108.11 285 4.8% 110 10 0.4%107.04 51 4.4% 111 11 0.4%115.01 178 4.3% 102 33 0.3%
4 113 4.2% 109 17 0.3%107.05 194 3.9% 112.03 12 0.3%108.09 187 3.8% 101 10 0.2%107.03 74 3.4% 119 4 0.2%108.12 139 3.3% 104 4 0.1%117.02 110 3.3% 118.02 1 0.1%
TABLE 2. BLACKS IN ALLEN COUNTY BY TRACTAS OF THE 2000 CENSUS
TractBlacks
TractContinued
10
FIGURE 2. CENSUS TRACTS IN ALLEN COUNTY WITH AT LEAST THIRTY PERCENT BLACK POPULATION
COLISEUM BLVD
BLUF
FTON
RD
S LA
FA
YE
TT
E ST S A
NT
HO
NY
BL
VD
I 469
LAKE AV
TILLMAN RD
PAULDING RD
I 469
Never met criterion
Met criterion in 1990 and 2000
Met criterion in 2000 only
11
Number Percentage Number Percentage27 509 21.22% 115.02 82 3.32%20 724 17.66% 37 86 3.25%21 319 12.29% 8 130 3.20%18 140 11.68% 108.11 188 3.18%26 425 11.61% 3 106 3.12%31 349 11.50% 117.02 102 3.03%23 617 11.24% 107.06 118 3.02%5 356 9.36% 35 109 2.94%
113.02 480 8.70% 108.07 130 2.76%40 332 8.42% 108.09 135 2.73%22 361 8.28% 107.05 134 2.72%
113.03 151 8.26% 119 51 2.60%16 191 8.19% 39.01 88 2.58%15 96 8.18% 108.03 142 2.57%30 310 7.80% 106.01 66 2.52%29 201 7.40% 116.01 202 2.50%17 145 7.22% 108.04 75 2.48%12 90 7.14% 117.01 66 2.44%36 381 6.64% 116.03 143 2.42%6 138 6.51% 108.05 171 2.40%
28 165 6.46% 34 109 2.37%25 237 6.38% 112.02 77 2.34%
113.04 312 6.03% 108.12 96 2.30%4 159 5.93% 118.01 81 2.22%
14 92 5.65% 116.05 49 2.15%32 309 5.57% 107.03 45 2.09%
7.01 169 5.23% 108.08 109 2.01%33.04 211 5.17% 116.04 85 1.96%
10 68 4.97% 106.02 54 1.71%39.02 143 4.90% 108.14 113 1.69%7.03 121 4.78% 116.02 123 1.59%
33.01 142 4.76% 111 47 1.58%11 83 4.66% 107.04 17 1.46%
112.01 94 4.35% 103.03 85 1.46%38 131 4.21% 103.1 85 1.44%
105 82 4.13% 104 41 1.36%13 72 4.07% 102 140 1.36%
106.04 117 4.04% 103.04 73 1.13%115.01 162 3.95% 110 27 1.10%41.02 195 3.77% 106.03 18 1.02%
1 94 3.69% 112.03 45 0.96%9 123 3.66% 101 36 0.88%
41.01 81 3.59% 109 51 0.83%108.13 145 3.54% 118.02 12 0.67%108.02 208 3.38% 42 1 0.28%
AS OF THE 2000 CENSUS
TractOther
TractContinued
TABLE 3. "OTHER" RACES IN ALLEN COUNTY BY TRACT
12
FIGURE 3. CENSUS TRACTS IN ALLEN COUNTY WITH AT LEAST SEVEN PERCENT “OTHER” RACES
GOSHEN RD
WASHINGTON CENTER RD
COLISEUM BLVD
N C
LIN
TON
ST
LOWER HUNTINGTON RD
W JEFFERSON BLVD
I 69
BL
UF
FT
ON
R
D
S LAFAYETTE
ST
S
AN
TH
ON
Y
BL
VD
LAKE AV
TILLMAN RD
PAULDING RD
I 469
Never met criterion
Met criterion in 1990 and 2000
Met criterion in 2000 only
13
Hispanic (NOT a Race) Hispanic is NOT a race, but in the 2000 census a majority of the “other” races in Allen County also consider themselves to be of Hispanic origin. In 2000 there were 13,877 persons who identified themselves as Hispanic. (See below.) Almost 6,000 classified themselves as white,
Race Breakdown of Hispanics 1980 1990 2000 White 2,557 5,965 Black 214 378 Asian 39 55 Other 2,853 7,479
TOTAL 4,743 5,663 13,877* * In the 2000 census, persons for the first time could declare themselves as being “two or more races.” This probably explains a portion of the greater increase in “other” in which “two or more races” have been included in this report. That is, in 1990 (and before), Hispanic persons had to declare themselves as white, black, or just other rather than the specific choice “two or more races.”.
and an additional 7,479 classified themselves as being one of the “other” races. (There were 13,973 “other” in the 2000 census.) Therefore, to analyze Hispanics is equivalent to analyzing a majority (53.5 percent) of the “other” races in Allen County.7 The Hispanic population grew 145 percent in the nineties. Table 4 shows the percentage of persons of Hispanic origin by census tract as of 2000. In 2000, twenty-seven tracts had a Hispanic population of at least five percent. (See Figure 4.) The 27 tracts contained 61.3 percent of the Hispanics in Allen County.
7 Note the similarity between Figure 3 showing the tracts with at least seven percent “other” races and Figure 4 showing tracts with at least a five percent Hispanic population. The lone tract (#21) in 1990 that was at least seven percent “other” races was 6.7 percent Hispanic.
14
Number Percentage Number Percentage27 631 26.30% 115.02 70 2.83%20 890 21.71% 33.01 82 2.75%18 180 15.01% 108.02 169 2.75%5 527 13.85% 117.02 92 2.74%
26 502 13.72% 116.05 61 2.68%21 350 13.49% 8 100 2.46%31 391 12.88% 116.04 106 2.44%16 270 11.58% 106.01 63 2.41%23 584 10.64% 108.09 118 2.39%22 454 10.42% 39.01 80 2.35%28 266 10.42% 116.01 189 2.34%30 410 10.31% 107.05 114 2.31%15 111 9.45% 108.07 106 2.25%29 255 9.39% 34 101 2.20%17 158 7.87% 108.04 66 2.18%10 107 7.83% 112.02 69 2.10%40 306 7.76% 108.12 82 1.96%
113.02 397 7.20% 108.03 106 1.92%25 257 6.92% 119 37 1.88%36 381 6.64% 107.06 72 1.84%14 94 5.77% 108.05 126 1.77%
33.04 235 5.76% 106.03 31 1.76%32 317 5.71% 106.02 55 1.74%12 71 5.63% 108.08 93 1.71%13 99 5.60% 35 63 1.70%
39.02 157 5.38% 118.01 62 1.70%6 109 5.14% 42 6 1.65%
7.01 161 4.98% 116.02 126 1.63%9 160 4.75% 117.01 42 1.55%
112.01 102 4.72% 116.03 89 1.50%113.03 85 4.65% 111 40 1.34%
7.03 108 4.27% 108.14 80 1.20%38 129 4.15% 103.03 66 1.13%4 111 4.14% 103.1 66 1.12%
106.04 116 4.01% 109 68 1.11%113.04 204 3.94% 112.03 46 0.98%
11 67 3.76% 107.03 20 0.93%3 121 3.56% 105 18 0.91%
37 94 3.55% 110 22 0.90%115.01 138 3.37% 103.04 50 0.78%
1 80 3.14% 107.04 9 0.77%41.02 153 2.96% 102 72 0.70%41.01 66 2.93% 104 21 0.70%
108.11 170 2.87% 118.02 12 0.67%108.13 116 2.83% 101 21 0.51%
Hispanic OriginTract
Continued
TABLE 4. PERSONS OF HISPANIC ORIGIN IN ALLEN COUNTY BY TRACT AS OF THE 2000 CENSUS
Tract
15
FIGURE 4. CENSUS TRACTS IN ALLEN COUNTY WITH
AT LEAST FIVE PERCENT OF HISPANIC ORIGIN
US 30
WASHINGTON CENTER RD
COLISEUM BLVD
N C
LIN
TON
ST
LOWER HUNTINGTON RD
W JEFFERSON BLVD
I 69
BLUF
FTON
RDS
LA
FAY
ETTE
S
T
S
AN
TH
ON
Y
BL
VD
LAKE AV
TILLMAN RD
PAULDING RD
Never met criterion
Met criterion in 1990 and 2000
Met criterion in 2000 only
16
AGE Allen County’s population has aged rapidly—an impact of the baby boomers.8 The median age9 increased 8.1 years in three decades—from 26.0 years in 1970 to 34.1 years in 2000. This is a tremendous change in a population of approximately 300,000.
MEDIAN AGE OF POPULATION IN ALLEN COUNTY
As shown above, the non-white population is substantially younger than the white population. For example, the median age of those declaring themselves to be of “two or more races” in the 2000 census (not shown above) was 15.5 years. Many in the classification likely are the children of bi-racial relationships.
Distribution The distribution of Allen County’s population among various age classes by census year is as follows: Continued on next page.
8 Baby boomers are defined as those persons born between 1946 and 1964, inclusive. 9The median age is the age that divides the population in half—half of the population is older than the median age and half is younger.
Year All White Black Asian Hispanic
1970 26.0 25.6M/27.6F 18.2M/20.0F 1980 29.5 29.4 21.6 1990 32.1 33.1 24.8 26.8 23.9 2000 34.1 36.0 26.6 30.6 23.5
Age 1970 1980 1990 2000 0-4 26,336 23,927 23,747 25,440 Pct. Change -9.1% -0.8% 7.1% 5-9 29,768 23,945 23,818 26,195 Pct. Change -19.6% -0.5% 10.0% 10-14 30,085 24,973 22,731 25,487 Pct. Change -17.0% -9.0% 12.1% 15-17 17,109 16,652 12,993 14,829 Pct. Change -2.7% -22.0% 14.1% 18-24 33,093 38,446 29,691 31,193 Pct. Change 16.2% -22.8% 5.1%
17
Continued from previous page. The age distributions are graphed below:
AGE DISTRIBUTION OF ALLEN COUNTY POPULATION1970-2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+
Tho
usan
ds
1970 19801990 2000
Baby-boom Bulge The bulge of baby boomers moving through the age distributions is clearly shown in the graph above—the 0-24 age classes in 1970, the 10-34 age classes in 1980, the 20-44 age classes in 1990, and the 30-54 age classes in 2000.
Age 1970 1980 1990 2000 25-34 35,708 51,043 52,925 47,011 Pct. Change 42.9% 3.7% -11.2% 35-44 31,658 32,647 47,608 52,496 Pct. Change 3.1% 45.8% 10.3% 45 –54 30,441 28,740 28,782 45,188 Pct. Change -5.6% 0.1% 57.0% 55-59 12,061 14,506 12,016 14,974 Pct. Change 20.3% -17.2% 24.6% 60-64 10,322 11,382 12,265 11,276 Pct. Change 10.3% 7.8% -8.1% 65-74 14,686 16,479 20,137 19,631 Pct. Change 12.2% 22.2% -2.5% 75-84 7,291 8,888 10,642 13,383 Pct. Change 21.9% 19.7% 25.8% 85 or over 1,897 2,707 3,481 4,746 Pct. Change 42.7% 28.6% 36.3%
TOTAL 280,455 294,335 300,836 331,849
18
Decrease in the Younger Population After declining in both the seventies and eighties, the younger population grew at the same rate as the overall population in the nineties. That is, the baby boom echo is now creating renewed growth in the younger population.
Age 1970 1980 1990 2000 0-4 26,336 23,927 23,860 25,440 Pct. Change -9.1% -0.2% 6.6% 5-9 29,768 23,945 23,722 26,195 Pct. Change -19.6% -0.9% 10.4% 10-14 30,085 24,973 22,810 25,487 Pct. Change -17.0 -8.7% 11.7% 15-17 17,109 16,652 13,112 14,829 Pct. Change -2.7% -21.3% 13.1%
TOTAL 103,298 89,497 83,504 91,951 Pct. Change -13.4% -6.7% 10.1%
The decreases in the seventies was due largely to the baby boomers moving out of the 5-9 and 10-14 age classes. The decrease in the eighties was aided by the loss of the baby boomers in the 15-17 age class.
Location of the Younger Population Table 5 shows the percentage of people 17 or under in Allen County by census tract in 2000. In 2000, thirteen census tracts had a third of the population 17 or younger. (See Figure 5.) The highest concentrations of younger people are in black dominated tracts, and northeast and southwest suburbia.
19
Number Percentage Number Percentage17 878 43.7% 107.04 318 27.3%29 1011 37.2% 112.02 898 27.3%40 1436 36.4% 108.04 823 27.2%30 1442 36.3% 110 668 27.2%27 859 35.8% 116.03 1606 27.1%23 1958 35.7% 116.04 1167 26.9%28 905 35.4% 36 1538 26.8%
101 1439 35.0% 108.07 1260 26.7%31 1062 35.0% 118.01 967 26.5%
116.02 2613 33.9% 22 1149 26.4%16 776 33.3% 7.01 847 26.2%
102 3418 33.2% 117.01 705 26.0%109 2026 33.1% 34 1187 25.9%
33.01 961 32.2% 111 765 25.7%103.03 1869 32.1% 106.04 735 25.4%
26 1173 32.0% 9 846 25.1%18 383 31.9% 108.05 1746 24.5%15 375 31.9% 108.11 1443 24.4%
113.03 582 31.9% 108.02 1488 24.2%103.04 1994 31.0% 106.02 760 24.1%118.02 547 30.5% 112.03 1130 24.1%108.08 1636 30.1% 14 389 23.9%
6 634 29.9% 39.02 696 23.9%116.01 2405 29.8% 38 736 23.7%
20 1211 29.5% 37 626 23.6%108.13 1207 29.5% 4 627 23.4%103.1 1738 29.4% 106.01 605 23.1%
32 1630 29.4% 1 584 22.9%108.14 1939 29.1% 106.03 399 22.7%113.04 1502 29.0% 107.03 484 22.5%108.03 1600 29.0% 41.01 508 22.5%
104 870 29.0% 8 908 22.4%113.02 1586 28.8% 116.05 503 22.1%
10 393 28.7% 33.04 900 22.0%112.01 618 28.6% 5 817 21.5%
21 741 28.6% 39.01 728 21.3%107.05 1393 28.3% 115.02 516 20.9%108.09 1395 28.2% 35 769 20.8%117.02 948 28.2% 7.03 507 20.0%
25 1042 28.0% 115.01 733 17.9%108.12 1165 27.9% 41.02 792 15.3%
119 546 27.8% 11 256 14.4%3 934 27.5% 12 168 13.3%
105 544 27.4% 13 200 11.3%107.06 1070 27.4% 42 0 0.0%
TABLE 5. SEVENTEEN OR UNDER IN ALLEN COUNTY BY TRACTAS OF THE 2000 CENSUS
Tract17 or Under
TractContinued
20
FIGURE 5. CENSUS TRACTS IN ALLEN COUNTY WITH AT LEAST 33 PERCENT YOUNGER POPULATION (17 OR UNDER)
US 30
GOSHEN RD
DUPONT RD
COLDW
ATER
RDWASHINGTON CENTER RD
LIMA
R
D
I 69
COLISEUM BLVDN
CL
INT
ON
ST
I 469
I 69
BASS RD
LOWER HUNTINGTON RD
W JEFFERSON BLVD
I 69
BL
UF
FT
ON
R
D
S
LA
FA
YE
TT
E
ST
S AN
THON
Y BL
VD
I 469
LAKE AV
US 27
TILLMAN RD
PAULDING RD
US 30
I 469
US 24
Never met criterion
Met criterion in 1990 and 2000
Met criterion in 1990 only
Met criterion in 2000 only
21
Growth in the Older Population There has been persistent and substantial growth (44.5 percent) in the older population—65 or over—in Allen County between 1970 and 2000. (See below.) Super seniors—those 75 or over—essentially doubled—from 9,188 to 18,129.
OBSERVATION. The older population has experienced persistent and substantial growth in the last two decades. Given that the first baby boomers become 65 in 2011, the older population will continue to grow dramatically. If life expectancy continues to increase, the growth of the older population will be enhanced even more.
Location of the Older Population Table 6 shows the percentage of the older population (65 or over) in Allen County by census tract. Slightly less than a third (32.1 percent or 12,107) of the older population in Allen County is located in 18 census tracts. Each of these tracts contains at least 15 percent older population. (See Figure 6.) The tracts are concentrated in the near northeast and near southwest quadrants of the city.
Age 1970 1980 1990 2000 65-74 14,686 16,479 19,767 19,631 Pct. Change 12.2% 20.0% -0.7% 75-84 7,291 8,888 10,709 13,383 Pct. Change 21.9% 20.5% 25.0% 85+ 1,897 2,707 3,648 4,746 Pct. Change 42.7% 34.8% 30.1%
TOTAL 23,874 27,133 34,124 37,760 Pct. Change 13.7% 25.8% 10.7%
22
Number Percentage Number Percentage35 1305 35.3% 113.04 543 10.5%
41.01 569 25.2% 9 351 10.4%108.05 1377 19.3% 33.01 306 10.3%39.01 658 19.3% 107.04 119 10.2%
115.02 470 19.0% 18 121 10.1%41.02 975 18.8% 109 595 9.7%
8 753 18.5% 104 291 9.7%37 480 18.1% 117.01 255 9.4%1 429 16.8% 3 320 9.4%
12 212 16.8% 116.04 405 9.3%108.11 976 16.5% 16 217 9.3%39.02 475 16.3% 103.04 594 9.2%
106.03 281 16.0% 117.02 310 9.2%113.02 881 16.0% 112.01 199 9.2%116.05 360 15.8% 113.03 168 9.2%115.01 634 15.5% 13 158 8.9%
5 583 15.3% 7.03 223 8.8%34 689 15.0% 28 221 8.7%
112.03 681 14.5% 102 877 8.5%111 421 14.1% 101 343 8.3%32 783 14.1% 40 322 8.2%38 436 14.0% 6 171 8.1%
108.12 577 13.8% 23 440 8.0%108.02 840 13.6% 108.08 430 7.9%
14 216 13.3% 10 107 7.8%33.04 537 13.2% 31 236 7.8%
108.03 721 13.1% 103.1 446 7.5%22 565 13.0% 27 178 7.4%
105 257 12.9% 25 275 7.4%119 253 12.9% 116.01 589 7.3%
106.01 328 12.5% 108.14 485 7.3%110 305 12.4% 21 184 7.1%
108.04 370 12.2% 17 139 6.9%108.07 576 12.2% 107.03 142 6.6%112.02 399 12.1% 11 116 6.5%116.03 713 12.0% 29 171 6.3%108.09 594 12.0% 103.03 365 6.3%107.06 460 11.8% 30 248 6.2%118.01 427 11.7% 107.05 304 6.2%
36 666 11.6% 4 162 6.0%118.02 207 11.5% 20 246 6.0%
15 132 11.2% 26 204 5.6%106.04 314 10.9% 108.13 215 5.3%106.02 335 10.6% 116.02 400 5.2%
7.01 342 10.6% 42 7 1.9%
TABLE 6. SIXTY-FIVE OR OLDER IN ALLEN COUNTY BY TRACTAS OF THE 2000 CENSUS
Tract65 or Over
TractContinued
23
FIGURE 6. CENSUS TRACTS IN ALLEN COUNTY WITH AT LEAST 15 PERCENT OLDER POPULATION (65 OR OVER)
US 30
GOSHEN RD
WASHINGTON CENTER RD
LIM
A
RD
COLISEUM BLVD
N C
LIN
TON
ST
I 469
I 69
BASS RD
LOWER HUNTINGTON RD
W JEFFERSON BLVD
I 69
BLUFFTO
N RD
S LA
FA
YE
TT
E ST S
A
NT
HO
NY
B
LV
D
I 469
LAKE AV
TILLMAN RD
PAULDING RD
Never met criterion
Met criterion in 1990 and 2000
Met criterion in 1990 only
Met criterion in 2000 only
24
By Race The chart below compares the age distribution in 2000 of whites in Allen County to the overall population. The gap between the two lines is the non-white population.10 The non-white population is disproportionately “young” and the white population is disproportionately “old.”
AGE DISTRIBUTION OF ALLEN COUNTY POPULATION in 2000White Population and Total Population
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 - 4 5 - 9 1 0 - 1 4 1 5 - 1 9 2 0 - 2 4 2 5 - 2 9 3 0 - 3 4 3 5 - 3 9 4 0 - 4 4 4 5 - 4 9 5 0 - 5 4 5 5 - 5 9 6 0 - 6 4 6 5 - 6 9 7 0 - 7 4 7 5 - 7 9 8 0 - 8 4 8 5 +
Tho
usan
ds
Note : Whi tes repor ted as one race on ly
Total PopulationWhite Population
Dependency Percentage
Dependency is the percentage of the younger people plus the older people to the remainder of the people in a given population. It is a gross measure of the portion of a designated population most likely in need (according to age only) compared to the portion most likely to be self-reliant. A low percentage is favorable, ceteris paribus.
By Census Tract Table 7 shows dependency percentages by census tract in 2000. Twenty-four tracts had a dependency percentage of at least 70 percent in 2000 as compared with 28 census tracts in 1990. (See Figure 7.)
10 Be reminded that the non-white population in Allen County is predominantly black. (See page 7.)
25
TABLE 7. DEPENDENCY PERCENTAGE IN ALLEN COUNTY BY TRACT AS OF THE 2000 CENSUS
Tract Dependency Percentage
Tract Continued
35 127.4% 108.07 63.8% 17 102.6% 106.03 63.0%
41.01 91.3% 104 63.0% 113.02 80.9% 112.03 62.9%
40 80.5% 103.03 62.4% 28 78.9% 36 62.4%
108.05 78.0% 118.01 61.7% 23 77.5% 108.08 61.4%
229 77.1% 6 61.2% 32 76.9% 116.05 61.2%
101 76.5% 108.02 60.8% 27 76.1% 112.01 60.8% 15 76.0% 38 60.4%
109 74.9% 262 60.3% 31 74.7% 107.04 60.2% 16 74.2% 117.02 59.8% 30 73.9% 14 59.1%
33.01 73.9% 116.01 58.8% 18 72.5% 103.1 58.5%
108.03 72.5% 3 58.5% 118.02 72.4% 5 58.2%
37 71.7% 7.01 58.2% 102 71.6% 10 57.7%
108.12 71.6% 108.14 57.1% 113.03 69.6% 106.04 56.9%
8 69.2% 116.04 56.7% 34 69.1% 21 55.4%
108.11 69.1% 106.01 55.4% 119 68.6% 9 55.2%
39.01 68.4% 20 55.1% 105 67.7% 117.01 55.0%
108.09 67.3% 25 54.9% 103.04 67.3% 33.04 54.3% 39.02 67.1% 108.13 53.3%
115.02 66.4% 106.02 53.2% 111 66.2% 107.05 52.6%
1 66.0% 41.02 51.9% 110 65.6% 115.01 50.0%
113.04 65.3% 12 43.1% 108.04 65.3% 4 41.7% 112.02 65.0% 107.03 41.1%
22 64.8% 7.03 40.6% 116.03 64.4% 11 26.4% 107.06 64.4% 13 25.4% 116.02 64.1% 42 2.0%
26
FIGURE 7. CENSUS TRACTS IN ALLEN COUNTY WITH A DEPENDENCY PERCENTAGE OF AT LEAST SEVENTY PERCENT
US 30
GOSHEN RD
DUPONT RD
COLDW
ATER
RD
WASHINGTON CENTER RD
LIMA
R
D
I 69
COLISEUM BLVD
N C
LIN
TO
N S
T
I 469
I 69
BASS RD
LOWER HUNTINGTON RD
W JEFFERSON BLVD
I 69
BL
UF
FT
ON
R
D
S
LA
FA
YE
TT
E
ST
S AN
THON
Y BL
VD
I 469
LAKE AV
US 27
TILLMAN RD
PAULDING RD
US 30
I 469
US 24
Never met criterion
Met criterion in 1990 and 2000
Met criterion in 1990 only
Met criterion in 2000 only
27
By Race The Asian race had the lowest dependency percentage (47.4%) and the “other” races had the highest (77.3%) as of the 2000 census.
DEPENDENCY PERCENTAGES IN ALLEN COUNTY POPULATION IN 2000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Overall White Black Asian Other Hispanic*
*Not mutually exclusive
28
HOUSEHOLDS Between 1970 and 2000, Allen County’s population increased 18.3 percent; however, the number of households increased 50.2 percent—from 85,720 to 128,745. Family house-
Households11 1970 1980 1990 2000 PCT CHANGE 1970-2000
Family 69,416 76,694 79,899 86,235 24.2% Non-family 16,304 27,709 33,157 42,510 160.7
TOTAL 85,720 104,403 113,056 128,745 50.2 holds increased 24.2 percent and non-family households skyrocketed 160.7 percent. Several factors undoubtedly contributed to the relatively larger increase in households (e.g., increasing divorce rates and later marriage); however, the maturation of the baby boomers was probably the dominant factor. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the largest percentage increase in households (21.8%) occurred in the seventies when the first (oldest) baby boomers entered their twenties or moved through their twenties and established their own households. In the eighties and nineties, households increased 8.3 and 13.9 percent, respectively.
Households Percentage Change From 70-80 80-90 90-2000
Family 10.5% 4.2% 7.9%
Non-family 70.0 19.7 28.2
BOTH 21.8 8.3 13.9
Non-family Households by Census Tract Table 8 shows the percentage of non-family households in Allen County by census tract in 2000. Twenty-three tracks contained at least 40 percent non-family households. (See Figure 8.) They contained 40.7 percent (17,293) of all non-family households.
11Non-family households consist of individual-person households and multiple-person households of unrelated individuals. Family households consist of related individuals. They need not be husband-wife but can be one parent-young child, one parent-grown child, two brothers, etc.
29
Number Percentage Number Percentage12 588 81.9% 23 666 32.6%11 738 73.7% 113.04 631 31.8%13 450 71.4% 41.01 245 30.9%
41.02 1621 60.9% 27 246 30.9%7.03 721 57.2% 30 436 30.6%
4 723 55.9% 107.05 583 30.4%35 855 54.8% 17 202 30.3%
115.01 1083 54.8% 108.07 560 30.0%5 892 54.2% 108.12 467 29.6%
38 745 48.9% 106.02 368 29.3%14 299 48.7% 33.01 334 29.2%36 1301 48.5% 28 243 28.5%
33.04 894 47.4% 106.03 198 27.9%106.04 627 46.7% 112.02 348 27.6%
20 714 46.7% 29 250 27.3%39.02 597 45.2% 106.01 277 26.7%
21 462 44.9% 107.06 403 26.4%8 833 44.4% 119 190 26.3%
108.02 1224 44.3% 116.01 790 26.0%10 245 43.8% 112.03 455 25.3%
7.01 594 43.1% 118.01 347 25.1%6 344 41.3% 116.04 421 25.0%
22 743 40.6% 116.05 227 24.4%1 445 39.5% 108.04 274 23.9%
112.01 344 39.1% 105 169 22.8%34 738 38.7% 108.09 399 22.1%18 175 38.7% 117.01 222 21.7%9 506 38.7% 110 187 21.0%3 533 38.1% 40 282 21.0%
113.03 289 37.6% 116.03 466 20.8%113.02 773 36.3% 108.03 412 20.8%
25 485 35.5% 118.02 125 20.2%26 464 35.5% 108.14 473 19.7%16 299 34.9% 117.02 229 19.4%15 154 34.8% 108.08 312 16.6%
108.05 1000 34.3% 101 198 16.1%108.11 827 34.2% 109 307 15.8%107.03 312 33.8% 103.01 322 15.7%39.01 491 33.3% 102 508 15.3%
115.02 349 33.2% 107.04 63 14.9%111 406 33.0% 104 146 14.4%32 706 32.8% 103.04 312 14.3%31 355 32.8% 103.03 191 10.7%
108.13 517 32.8% 116.02 214 8.7%37 351 32.7%
TABLE 8. NON-FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS IN ALLEN COUNTY BY TRACT AS OF THE 2000 CENSUS
TractNonfamily HH
TractContinued
30
FIGURE 8. CENSUS TRACTS IN ALLEN COUNTY WITH AT LEAST 40 PERCENT NON-FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS
US 30
GOSHEN RD
WASHINGTON CENTER RD
LIMA RD
COLISEUM BLVD
N C
LIN
TON
ST
I 469
LOWER HUNTINGTON RD
W JEFFERSON BLVD
I 69
BL
UF
FT
ON
R
DS
LAFAYETTE ST
S
AN
TH
ON
Y
BL
VD
LAKE AV
TILLMAN RD
PAULDING RD
Never met criterion
Met criterion in 1990 and 2000
Met criterion in 2000 only
31
Different Types of Family Households As noted above, family households increased from 69,416 in 1970 to 86,235 in 2000. The table below shows a breakout among the four types of family households over the last three decades.12
DISTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF FAMILY HOUSEHOLDSIN ALLEN COUNTY, 1970-2000
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Tho
usan
ds
Num
ber
of F
amily
Hou
seho
lds
Married, w /child(ren)<18 36,778 34,356 32,370 31,048
Female Head w /child(ren)<18 3,641 6,907 7,242 10,036
Male Head w /child(ren)<18 481 1,113 1,546 2,800
Without children<18 28,516 34,318 38,741 42,351
1970 1980 1990 2000
Female Head of Household with Child(ren) 17 or Under Female head of households with child(ren) 17 or under increased 175.6 percent in the last three decades—from 3,641 to 10,036.
By Tract Table 9 shows by census tract in 2000 the percentage of female head of households with child(ren) 17 or under to all family households. Thirty-two of the census tracts had at least 15 percent (5,304) female head of households with child(ren) 17 or under to all family households. (See Figure 9.) Tracts with relatively large black and Hispanic populations dominated.13 12Remember that family households consist of related individuals. They need not be husband-wife but can be one parent-young child, one parent-grown child, two brothers, etc. 13 The two characteristics are not mutually exclusive.
32
TABLE 9. FEMALE HH WITH CHILD(REN) 17 OR UNDER IN ALLEN COUNTY BY TRACT AS OF THE 2000 CENSUS
Female HH with Child Continued Tract Number Percentage
Tract Number Percentage
17 242 52.16% 1 77 11.29% 30 348 35.12% 107.06 126 11.22%
113.03 165 34.38% 41.01 61 11.13% 23 470 34.13% 32 157 10.87% 29 204 30.58% 111 87 10.55% 11 78 29.66% 34 117 10.03% 28 173 28.36% 108.05 186 9.72% 27 154 27.95% 37 64 8.86% 40 289 27.21% 106.02 76 8.57% 16 149 26.75% 107.05 112 8.41% 18 74 26.71% 108.12 88 7.91% 15 75 25.95% 119 42 7.88% 36 354 25.65% 108.09 100 7.10%
113.02 334 24.61% 108.04 61 7.00% 13 43 23.89% 39.01 63 6.41% 14 73 23.17% 116.04 81 6.40% 21 131 23.06% 108.11 102 6.40% 20 184 22.58% 112.03 85 6.34% 31 162 22.28% 108.07 81 6.20% 10 68 21.59% 107.03 36 5.90% 6 105 21.47% 117.02 55 5.78%
33.01 174 21.45% 108.03 90 5.73% 4 119 20.84% 118.01 59 5.71%
106.04 142 19.86% 115.02 40 5.69% 12 25 19.23% 116.01 120 5.32% 26 158 18.72% 109 85 5.18% 38 146 18.72% 117.01 40 4.98%
39.02 132 18.21% 105 28 4.90% 7.01 138 17.62% 108.08 76 4.86%
35 118 16.74% 116.03 81 4.58% 5 125 16.60% 103.01 75 4.33%
33.04 161 16.25% 102 116 4.11% 25 130 14.77% 106.03 21 4.11%
108.02 226 14.69% 108.14 75 3.89% 22 158 14.56% 116.05 25 3.55%
112.01 76 14.21% 101 36 3.49% 113.04 187 13.84% 103.04 64 3.42%
9 105 13.09% 110 24 3.41% 115.01 113 12.65% 106.01 23 3.03%
8 132 12.63% 104 26 3.01% 3 107 12.37% 103.03 47 2.96%
7.03 65 12.04% 118.02 13 2.63% 108.13 123 11.59% 116.02 50 2.23% 41.02 120 11.52% 107.04 7 1.95%
112.02 103 11.31%
33
FIGURE 9. CENSUS TRACTS IN ALLEN COUNTY WITH AT LEAST 15 PERCENT FEMALE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILD(REN) 17 OR UNDER TO ALL FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS
US 30
GOSHEN RD
WASHINGTON CENTER RD
LIM
A RD
COLISEUM BLVD
N C
LIN
TON
ST
I 469
LOWER HUNTINGTON RD
W JEFFERSON BLVD
I 69
BL
UF
FT
ON
R
D
S
LA
FA
YE
TT
E
ST
S AN
THON
Y BL
VD
LAKE AV
TILLMAN RD
PAULDING RD
Never met criterion
Met criterion in 1990 and 2000
Met criterion in 2000 only
34
Male Head of Household with Child(ren) 17 or Under Male head of households with child(ren) 17 or under increased from 481 in 1970 to 2,800 in 2000.
By Tract Table 10 shows by census tract in 2000 the percentage of male head of households with child(ren) 17 or under to all family households. Twenty-four of the census tracts had at least five percent male head of households with child(ren) 17 or under to all family households. (See Figure 10.)14
Married with Child(ren) 17 or Under Intact family households with child(ren) 17 or under decreased 15.5 percent between 1970 and 2000. The changes were relatively evenly spread over the three decades.
Families Without Child(ren) 17 or Under Families without child(ren) 17 or under increased 48.5 percent. The changes were relatively evenly spread over the three decades.
14 Note that the minimum criterion for female households in Figure 9 was 15 percent, so Figure 9 and Figure 10 are not comparable in terms of the criterion.
35
TABLE 10. MALE HH WITH CHILD(REN) 17 OR UNDER IN ALLEN COUNTY BY TRACT AS OF THE 2000 CENSUS
Male HH with Child Continued Tract Number Percentage
Tract Number Percentage
21 49 8.63% 107.03 20 3.28%10 27 8.57% 108.07 42 3.22%12 11 8.46% 37 23 3.19%5 60 7.97% 106.02 28 3.16%
20 64 7.85% 113.04 42 3.11%6 37 7.57% 33.01 24 2.96%
112.01 40 7.48% 32 39 2.70%9 56 6.98% 116.05 19 2.70%
18 18 6.50% 108.11 43 2.70%31 46 6.33% 34 31 2.66%
106.04 45 6.29% 41.01 14 2.55%113.03 30 6.25% 14 8 2.54%
23 86 6.25% 106.01 19 2.50%26 52 6.16% 107.06 28 2.49%29 41 6.15% 117.01 20 2.49%16 34 6.10% 119 13 2.44%
108.13 64 6.03% 107.05 32 2.40%27 32 5.81% 108.03 37 2.35%
7.03 31 5.74% 116.04 29 2.29%36 78 5.65% 110 16 2.28%
7.01 44 5.62% 115.02 16 2.28%11 14 5.32% 105 13 2.27%40 56 5.27% 39.01 22 2.24%38 39 5.00% 106.03 11 2.15%
39.02 36 4.97% 108.09 29 2.06%4 28 4.90% 101 21 2.03%
113.02 65 4.79% 118.02 10 2.02%115.01 42 4.70% 112.03 27 2.01%
28 28 4.59% 108.04 17 1.95%22 49 4.52% 104 16 1.85%15 13 4.50% 103.01 31 1.79%
118.01 43 4.16% 116.01 39 1.73%13 7 3.89% 117.02 16 1.68%17 18 3.88% 103.03 26 1.64%30 38 3.83% 108.12 18 1.62%25 33 3.75% 108.14 31 1.61%
33.04 37 3.73% 102 44 1.56%8 39 3.73% 109 23 1.40%
112.02 33 3.62% 103.04 25 1.34%3 30 3.47% 108.05 21 1.10%
41.02 36 3.45% 108.08 17 1.09%35 24 3.40% 116.03 19 1.07%
111 28 3.39% 116.02 23 1.02%108.02 52 3.38% 107.04 2 0.56%
1 23 3.37%
36
FIGURE 10. CENSUS TRACTS IN ALLEN COUNTY WITH AT LEAST FIVE PERCENT MALE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILD(REN) 17 OR UNDER TO ALL FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS
US 30
WASHINGTON CENTER RD
COLISEUM BLVD
N C
LIN
TON
ST
LOWER HUNTINGTON RD
W JEFFERSON BLVD
I 69
BL
UF
FT
ON
R
D
S LAFAYETTE
ST
S
AN
TH
ON
Y
BL
VD
I 469
TILLMAN RD
PAULDING RD
LAKE AV
Never met criterion
Met criterion in 1990 and 2000
Met criterion in 1990 only
Met criterion in 2000 only
37
Older Households (65 or Over) Consistent with the fact that the older age classes have grown dramatically, the number of older households—both family and non-family—has also grown dramatically—from 14,740 in 1970 to 24,374 in 2000.
HOUSEHOLDS 65 OR OVER IN ALLEN COUNTY 1970-2000
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Num
ber
of H
ouse
hold
s
Nonfamily 6,603 8,823 10,819 11,671
Family 8,137 9,199 11,805 12,703
1970 1980 1990 2000
OBSERVATION: The number of older households will continue to grow, especially starting in 2011 when the first baby boomers become 65.
Living Alone The table below shows a breakout by age and sex of older non-family households living alone.
Age 1980 1990 2000 65-74, living alone Female 3,618 Male 1,063 TOTAL 4,025 4,681 4,568 Pct. change 16.3% -2.4% 75 or over, living alone Female 4,695 Male 932 TOTAL 4,362 5,627 6,731 Pct. change 29.0% 19.6%
GRAND TOTAL 8,387 10,308 11,299
38
Practically all—95 percent—of the older non-family households in 1990 were living alone and most of the older non-family households (80.6%) were female. Thirty percent of the total older population lived alone in 2000.
Living in Group Quarters (NOT considered to be households) Older persons living in group quarters (e.g., nursing homes, VA hospital, and prison) are not counted as households—the category being analyzed here; however, this is an appropriate place to consider those living in group quarters.
Older Persons Living in Group Quarters
Age 1980 1990 2000 65-74 435 430 Pct. change -1.1% 75-84 767 85 or over 1,045 TOTAL 75 or over 1,532 1,812 Pct. change 18.3%
GRAND TOTAL 1,967 2,242 2,444
The number of older people living in group quarters increased 14 percent between 1980 and 1990, and all of the increase consisted of persons 75 or older.
By Race Consistent with the increasing percentage of the minority population in Allen County, black households increased 170.5 percent between 1970 and 2000, and “other” races households increased from 275 to 3,669. (See below.)
The increase in non-white households in the nineties (7,062) came close to equaling the increase in white households (8,627), although non-whites constituted only 12.2 percent of the population in 1990.
Hispanic (NOT a race) households more than doubled between 1990 and 2000, increasing from 1,654 to 3,704.
39
HOUSEHOLDS BY RACE OVER TIME
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
* Asian included in "Other" before 1990
1970 80,418 5,027 275
1980 94,929 8,139 1,335
1990 101,355 9,818 670 1,213
2000 109,982 13,598 1,496 3,669
White Black Asian* Other
OBSERVATION: Between 1970 and 2000 the number of non-white households increased 354 percent—from 5,302 to 18,763. Given the relative youth of the non-white population, the percentage increase in the number of non-white households will continue to overwhelm the percentage increase in white households.
Family Versus Non-family Households Below is a breakdown of households between family and non-family households by race over the last three decades. All races have tended toward more non-family households the last three decades. However, the non-family white households are predominantly “old” and the non-family black households are predominantly “young.” Of the 3,704 Hispanic (NOT a race) households in 2000, 75.6 percent were family households.
40
DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILY AND NONFAMILY HOUSEHOLDS BY RACE OVER TIME
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
WhiteBlack
Asian*Other
70 80 90 2000 70 80 90 2000 -- -- 90 2000 70 80 90 2000
family non family
* Asian included in “Other” before 1990.
Family Households The distribution of the different types of family households by race in 2000 is shown below: White Black Asian Other TOTAL Hispanic
(NOT a Race) Married, w/child(ren)<17
27,431 1,992 574 1,051 31,048 1,205
Female Head w/child(ren)<17
6,262 3,250 61 463 10,036 408
Male Head w/child(ren)<17
2,107 473 40 180 2,800 197
Without child(ren)<17 37,601 3,379 434 937 42,351 989 TOTAL 73,401 9,094 1,109 2,631 86,235 2,799
Families With Child(ren) 17 or Under As of the 2000 census, less than half of white families had a child(ren) 17 or under. Approximately 63 percent of both black and “other” families had a child(ren) 17 or under.
41
PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES WITH CHILD(REN) 17 OR UNDER TO TOTAL FAMILIES OVER TIME
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
*Asian included in "Other" before 1990
1970 58.1% 71.1% 70.3%
1980 53.6% 71.6% 72.5%
1990 49.9% 65.4% 71.6% 63.4%
2000 48.8% 62.8% 60.9% 63.3%
White Black Asian* Other
Female Head of Household With Child(ren) 17 or Under
Over time the percentage of black families with child(ren) 17 or under who have a female head of household has been three to four times that of the white race.
PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD WITH CHILD(REN) 17 OR UNDER TO TOTAL FAMILIES BY RACE OVER TIME
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
* Asian included in "Other" before 1990. ** Hispanic not a race.
1970 4.2% 22.1% 8.6%
1980 6.9% 32.6% 9.6%
1990 6.8% 32.5% 0.9% 7.1% 10.7%
2000 8.5% 35.7% 5.5% 14.0% 14.6%
White Black Asian* Other Hispanic**
42
Male Head of Household With Child(ren) 17 or Under
Although still small relative to the other types of families, the number of male head of households with child(ren) 17 or under is growing.
PERCENTAGE OF MALE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD WITH CHILD(REN) 17 OR UNDER TO TOTAL FAMILIES BY RACE OVER TIME
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
* Asian included in "Other" before 1990. **Hispanic is not a race.
1970 0.6% 2.1% 0.5%
1980 1.2% 3.8% 2.1%
1990 1.7% 4.1% 3.9% 4.3% 5.7%
2000 2.9% 5.2% 3.6% 5.9% 7.0%
White Black Asian* Other Hispanic**
Married With Child(ren) 17 or Under As of 2000, just over a fifth of black households with child(ren) 17 or under have a traditional family. This contrasts with 37.4 percent for whites and 43.4 percent for “other” races.
PERCENTAGE OF MARRIED FAMILIES WITH CHILD(REN) 17 OR UNDER TO TOTAL FAMILIES BY RACE OVER TIME
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
* Asian included in "Other" before 1990. **Hispanic is not a race
1970 53.3% 46.9% 61.3%
1980 45.4% 35.3% 60.8%
1990 41.5% 28.8% 66.8% 52.0% 46.4%
2000 37.4% 21.9% 51.8% 43.4% 43.1%
White Black Asian* Other Hispanic**
43
Families Without Child(ren) 17 or Under As of 2000 over 50 percent of white families are without child(ren) 17 or under compared with approximately 35 percent of non-white families. This is consistent with the fact that the white population is disproportionately “old” and the non-white population is disproportionately “young.”15
PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES WITHOUT CHILD(REN) 17 OR UNDER TO TOTAL FAMILIES BY RACE OVER TIME
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
* Asian included in "Other" before 1990. **Hispanic is not a race.
1970 41.9% 28.9% 29.7%
1980 46.4% 28.4% 27.5%
1990 50.1% 34.6% 28.4% 36.6% 37.2%
2000 51.2% 37.2% 39.1% 36.7% 35.3%
White Black Asian* Other Hispanic**
15 See page 24.
44
EDUCATION NOTE: All the educational data apply to the population 25 years or older unless otherwise noted. As of the 2000 census, 85.7 percent of all adults in Allen County had at least a high school education, and 22.7 percent had completed a bachelor’s degree or more.
EDUCATION LEVELS: AGE 25 AND OVERAllen County: 2000 Census
Highest Level Attained
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Per
cent
Atta
inm
ent
2000 4.2% 10.1% 32.0% 22.9% 8.1% 15.0% 7.7%
< 9th Grade 9-12 Grade High School College Associate Bachelor Grad, PhD
No Diploma Graduate No Degree Degree Degree Prof. Degree
Less Than a High School Diploma by Census Tract Table 11 shows by census tract the number and percentage of the 14.3 percent of Allen County adults�29,885�who had not completed a high school degree as of the 2000 census. Figure 11 shows that 20 of the census tracts had 25 percent or more of the population without a high school diploma in 2000. Since 1990, ten census tracts had a sufficient increase in at least a high school education to escape the 25 percent criterion. Of the 20 census tracts having 25 percent or more of the population without a high school diploma in 2000, only three did not reduce (improve) their percentage of non-high school graduates: census tract 112.01, which increased from 29.6 percent to 31.7 percent; census tract 23, which increased from 28.2 percent to 30.7 percent; and census tract 27, which increased from 40.5 percent to 41.7 percent.
45
TABLE 11. ADULTS WITH LESS THAN A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA IN ALLEN COUNTY BY CENSUS TRACT AS OF THE 2000 CENSUS
Tract Number Percentage Tract Number Percentage 18 323 45.0% 110 220 14.0% 16 511 44.6% 113.04 449 13.9% 27 474 41.7% 119 173 13.9% 14 330 38.3% 7.03 225 13.8% 20 887 36.9% 8 376 13.5% 15 232 33.1% 41.02 473 13.5%
112.01 465 31.7% 25 282 13.4% 28 409 31.5% 115.01 349 13.3% 12 307 31.4% 107.06 334 13.0% 23 888 30.7% 118.01 294 12.4% 17 293 30.1% 106.02 255 12.4% 6 347 29.5% 4 198 11.8%
21 408 29.0% 34 346 11.5% 101 655 28.7% 32 392 11.0% 13 303 27.0% 117.01 194 10.9% 29 393 26.5% 39.01 258 10.7% 30 552 26.0% 1 185 10.7% 10 212 25.9% 112.03 335 10.6% 35 697 25.9% 102 650 10.5% 9 495 24.9% 107.05 308 10.0%
113.03 259 24.0% 117.02 206 9.6% 5 596 24.0% 108.02 339 8.9%
109 857 23.9% 107.03 126 8.8% 113.02 773 22.9% 115.02 153 8.7% 106.03 284 21.2% 104 157 8.3%
38 431 21.2% 118.02 86 8.0% 22 616 20.5% 108.07 231 7.6% 26 442 19.6% 108.11 298 7.5%
7.01 392 19.5% 103.03 267 7.3% 31 329 18.9% 108.12 198 7.3%
105 252 18.8% 108.03 257 7.3% 112.02 379 18.4% 108.04 139 7.0% 106.04 344 17.9% 108.05 318 6.7% 33.01 320 17.7% 103.01 241 6.4% 39.02 339 17.6% 108.14 272 6.2%
37 336 17.3% 3 129 6.0% 40 351 16.6% 108.09 182 5.8%
33.04 429 16.2% 108.08 167 4.9% 111 325 15.4% 116.03 173 4.4% 11 175 15.0% 107.04 30 3.6%
108.13 364 14.3% 116.01 169 3.2% 41.01 229 14.2% 116.05 53 3.1%
106.01 251 14.1% 116.02 115 2.4% 36 497 14.0% 116.04 67 2.4%
103.04 63 1.6% STARTING WITH TABLE 11, CENSUS TRACT 42 (FORT WAYNE STATE DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER) WAS EXCLUDED. CONSEQUENTLY, 89 (NOT 90) YEAR 2000 CENSUS TRACTS ARE LISTED.
46
FIGURE 11. CENSUS TRACTS IN ALLEN COUNTY WITH AT LEAST TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF ADULTS WITHOUT A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA
I 69
BASS RD
US 30
GOSHEN RD
E DUPONT RD
LOWER HUNTINGTON RD
W JEFFERSON BLVD
I 69
COLDW
ATER
RDCOLISEUM BLVD
AN
TH
ON
Y
BLV
D
LI
MA
R
D
WASHINGTON CENTER RD
N C
LIN
TO
N S
T
I 469
I 69
I 469
US 27
TILLMAN RD
MAPLES RD
S
PAULDING RD
LAKE AV
NEW HAVEN AV
US 30
US 24
I-469
Excluded
Never met criterion
Met criterion in 1990 and 2000
Met criterion in 1990 only
47
In the nineties, no census tract below the criterion reverted to having more than 25 percent without a high school diploma; however, nine of those census tracts did experience an increase of two or more percentage points of the population without a high school degree. Those nine tracts are shown below.
US 30
GOSHEN RD
DUPONT RD
WASHINGTON CENTER RD
LIM
A
RD
COLISEUM BLVD
I 469
N C
LIN
TON
ST
W JEFFERSON BLVD
I 69
LOWER HUNTINGTON RD
BLU
FFTO
N
RD
AN
TH
ON
Y
BL
VD
ST
LAKE AV
S
LA
FA
YE
TT
E
S
TILLMAN RD
PAULDING RD
NEW HAVEN AV
Bachelor’s Degree or Higher by Census Tract Table 12 shows by census tract the number and percentage of people of the 22.7 percent of Allen County adults—47,392—with a bachelor’s degree or higher in 2000. Figure 12 shows that 19 census tracts had at least 25 percent with a bachelor’s degree or higher in both 1990 and 2000. Five tracts had a sufficient percentage increase in college graduates in the nineties to meet or exceed the criterion.
48
TABLE 12. ADULTS WITH A BACHELOR’S DEGREE OR HIGHER IN ALLEN COUNTY BY CENSUS TRACT AS OF THE 2000 CENSUS
Tract Number Percentage Tract Number Percentage 116.02 2793 57.9% 33.01 291 16.3% 116.01 2484 47.4% 1 280 16.2% 116.05 712 41.8% 115.01 419 15.9% 108.08 1433 41.8% 36 551 15.6% 107.04 344 41.7% 7.01 303 15.1% 116.03 1640 41.5% 12 141 14.4% 103.04 1665 41.0% 117.02 308 14.4% 116.04 1145 40.7% 110 227 14.4% 103.03 1366 37.5% 5 355 14.3% 108.14 1560 35.6% 8 397 14.3% 108.09 1114 35.4% 101 318 14.0%
3 761 35.2% 118.01 326 13.7% 108.05 1630 34.2% 31 227 13.4%
32 1206 33.9% 118.02 141 13.1% 115.02 560 31.9% 111 256 12.8% 41.02 1115 31.9% 10 96 11.8%
107.05 936 30.5% 106.01 208 11.7% 107.03 436 30.5% 105 151 11.4% 108.12 809 29.8% 109 406 11.3%
25 625 29.8% 119 141 11.3% 108.11 1179 29.7% 35 276 10.3%
102 1824 29.4% 113.04 325 10.1% 103.01 1103 29.2% 106.03 123 9.9% 107.06 707 27.6% 40 166 8.2% 108.02 1037 27.2% 14 70 8.1% 41.01 429 26.8% 112.01 119 8.1%
11 300 26.3% 113.02 266 8.1% 4 427 25.4% 37 147 7.7%
34 716 23.7% 9 152 7.7% 108.04 473 23.7% 38 152 7.5% 108.03 831 23.5% 20 179 7.4%
104 398 21.1% 106.04 128 6.9% 108.13 510 21.1% 30 135 6.4%
22 601 20.7% 112.02 127 6.3% 39.02 388 20.2% 29 86 5.8%
108.07 585 19.3% 23 164 5.7% 7.03 313 19.2% 21 78 5.5%
112.03 601 19.0% 27 51 4.5% 39.01 446 18.6% 17 37 3.8% 33.04 467 18.1% 113.03 40 3.7%
106.02 356 17.3% 15 25 3.6% 26 369 17.1% 28 44 3.4% 13 191 17.0% 18 24 3.3%
117.01 292 16.3% 6 32 2.7% 16 27 2.4%
49
FIGURE 12. CENSUS TRACTS IN ALLEN COUNTY WITH AT LEAST TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF ADULTS WITH A BACHELOR’S DEGREE OR HIGHER
BASS RD
US 30
GOSHEN RD
DUPONT RD
LOWER HUNTINGTON RD
W JEFFERSON BLVD
I 69
BL
UF
FT
ON
R
D
WASHINGTON CENTER RD
LIM
A RD
COLDWATER
RD
I 69
AN
THO
NY
B
LVD
LAKE AV
N C
LIN
TO
N S
T
COLISEUM BLVD
I 469
MAPLES RD
S
LA
FA
YE
TT
ES
T
PAULDING RDS
TILLMAN RD
NEW HAVEN AV
I-469
US 30
US 24
Excluded
Never met criterion
Met criterion in 1990 and 2000
Met criterion in 2000 only
50
Comparison versus U.S. and Indiana Allen County has a substantially higher percentage of its adult population with at least a high school diploma than does the U.S. and a slightly lower percentage with at least a Bachelor’s degree. As of the 2000 census, 85.7 percent of Allen County adults had completed at least high school, compared with 82.1 percent in Indiana (including Allen County), and 80.4 percent in the U.S. In Allen County, 22.7 percent had at least a Bachelor’s degree, compared with 19.4 percent in Indiana (including Allen County), and 24.4 percent in the U.S.
COMPARISON OF CURRENT EDUCATION LEVELS ALLEN COUNTY, INDIANA, AND UNITED STATES
2000 Census
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Allen 4.2% 10.1% 32.0% 22.9% 8.1% 15.0% 7.7%
Indiana 5.3% 12.6% 37.2% 19.7% 5.8% 12.2% 7.2%
U.S. 7.5% 12.1% 28.6% 21.0% 6.3% 15.5% 8.9%
< 9th Grade 9-12 Grade
No Diploma
High School
Graduate
College
No Degree
Associate
Degree
Bachelor
Degree
Grad, PhD
Prof. Degree
Change in Education Level over Time The level of education of the population has been rising as the older and less educated cohort is replaced by a younger and more educated cohort. In Allen County, adults with at least a Bachelor’s degree have risen from 10.2 percent in 1970 to 22.7 percent in 2000.
51
EDUCATION LEVELS: AGE 25 AND OVERAllen County
1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 Census
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Perc
ent A
ttain
men
t
1970 22.1% 18.5% 37.6% 11.6% 6.0% 4.2%
1980 12.2% 14.5% 41.2% 17.0% 8.2% 6.8%
1990 6.3% 12.6% 33.5% 28.7% 12.1% 6.9%
2000 4.2% 10.1% 31.9% 31.0% 15.0% 7.7%
< 9th Grade 9-12 Grade High School Associate Bachelor Grad, PhD
No Diploma Graduate or some college Degree Prof. Degree
Change in Education Level Over Time Versus U.S. However, the growth in Allen County’s educational attainment has lagged U.S. growth. In 1970, Allen County had 0.5 percentage points fewer college graduates than the U.S.—10.2 percent versus 10.7 percent. By 2000 the gap had widened to 1.7 percentage points—22.7 percent in Allen County versus 24.4 percent in the U.S. At the low end of educational attainment, Allen County had (a favorable) 7.1 percentage points less of its population lacking at least a high school diploma in 1970—40.6 percent for Allen County versus 47.7 percent for the U.S.. By 2000, the desirable spread had shrunk to 5.3 percentage points—14.3 percent for Allen County versus 19.6 percent for the U.S.
52
EDUCATION LEVELS: AGE 25 AND OVERU.S.
1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 Census
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Per
cent
Atta
inm
ent
1970 28.3% 19.4% 31.1% 10.6% 6.1% 4.6%
1980 18.3% 15.3% 34.6% 15.7% 8.6% 7.6%
1990 10.4% 14.4% 30.0% 24.9% 13.1% 7.2%
2000 7.5% 12.1% 28.6% 27.4% 15.5% 8.9%
< 9th Grade 9-12 Grade High School Associate Bachelor Grad, PhD
No Diploma Graduate or some college Degree Prof. Degree
Education by Race/Hispanic Origin As of the 2000 census, 43.6 percent of Hispanics in Allen County—2,770 adults—had not graduated from high school versus just 12.4 percent of whites. The “other” races had 35.7 percent—2,267 adults—who had not graduated from high school.16 Almost twice the percentage of blacks—4,451 adults—had not graduated from high school as whites—23.5 percent versus 12.4 percent. Over 21 percent of Asians—607 adults—had not graduated from high school. But almost two of every five Asians in Allen County had at least a Bachelor’s degree versus just over one of every five whites. With respect to education, the Asian race in Allen County is significantly more bifurcated then whites, blacks, or “other.”
16 It should be remembered that many Hispanics (not a race) are included in the “other” race classification. See p. 13.
53
COMPARISON OF CURRENT EDUCATION LEVELS IN ALLEN COUNTY BY RACE and HISPANIC ORIGIN
2000 Census
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
White 3.5% 8.9% 31.9% 22.9% 8.5% 16.0% 8.2%
Black 5.7% 17.8% 36.1% 24.8% 6.0% 6.1% 3.5%
Asian 8.5% 12.7% 18.9% 14.5% 5.7% 23.4% 16.4%
Other 18.2% 17.5% 25.6% 22.9% 4.9% 7.7% 3.2%
Hispanic 22.8% 20.8% 27.1% 17.9% 3.6% 5.3% 2.5%
Less than 9th grade
9th-12th grade, no
High school graduate
Some college, no degree
Associate degree
Bachelor's degree
Grad or prof. degree
Education by Race/Hispanic Origin and Sex Some aspects of the educational differences among the races in Allen County are even more dramatic when viewed by sex. Two anomalies stand out. Over half (50.7 percent) of male Hispanics (not a race) in Allen County have not graduated from high school versus just over a third (35.0 percent) of female Hispanics. Almost one half (48.1 percent) of male Asians in Allen County have at least a Bachelor’s degree versus less than a third (31.9 percent) of female Asians.
54
COMPARISON OF CURRENT EDUCATION LEVELS of FEMALES IN ALLEN COUNTY BY RACE and HISPANIC ORIGIN
2000 Census
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
White 3.4% 9.4% 34.3% 22.9% 9.0% 13.9% 7.2%
Black 5.3% 17.7% 35.3% 25.7% 6.1% 5.9% 4.0%
Asian 12.4% 11.0% 21.5% 16.9% 6.3% 21.1% 10.8%
Other 15.9% 16.7% 27.1% 26.6% 4.2% 7.3% 2.1%
Hispanic 18.1% 16.8% 30.1% 21.0% 4.6% 6.8% 2.6%
Less than 9th
grade
9th-12th
grade, no
High school
graduate
Some college,
no degree
Associate
degree
Bachelor's
degree
Grad or prof.
degree
COMPARISON OF CURRENT EDUCATION LEVELS of MALES IN ALLEN COUNTY BY RACE and HISPANIC ORIGIN
2000 Census
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
White 3.7% 8.5% 29.3% 22.9% 7.9% 18.4% 9.3%
Black 6.2% 17.9% 37.1% 23.7% 5.8% 6.3% 3.0%
Asian 4.3% 14.5% 16.1% 11.9% 5.1% 25.8% 22.3%
Other 20.3% 18.1% 24.2% 19.6% 5.5% 8.0% 4.2%
Hispanic 26.6% 24.1% 24.5% 15.4% 2.9% 4.0% 2.4%
Less than 9th
grade
9th-12th
grade, no
High school
graduate
Some college,
no degree
Associate
degree
Bachelor's
degree
Grad or prof.
degree
Change in Education Level over Time by Race/Hispanic Origin Generally, the educational level of all races in Allen County increased in the nineties; however, those persons of Hispanic origin (not a race) declined. Hispanic adults having not graduating from high school increased from 36.1 percent to 43.6 percent. The number of Hispanic adults who had not graduated from high school as of the 2000 census totaled 2,770. Hispanic adults having graduating from college decreased from 9.5 percent to 7.8 percent between 1990 and 2000.
55
EDUCATION ATTAINMENT 1990-2000 Race=White
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Less than 9thgrade
9th-12thgrade, nodiploma
High schoolgraduate(includes
equivalency)
Somecollege, no
degree
Associatedegree
Bachelor'sdegree
Grad or prof.degree
1990 (white) 2000 (white)
EDUCATION ATTAINMENT 1990-2000 Race="Asian"
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Less than 9thgrade
9th-12thgrade, nodiploma
High schoolgraduate(includes
equivalency)
Somecollege, no
degree
Associatedegree
Bachelor'sdegree
Grad or prof.degree
1990 (asian) 2000 (asian)
EDUCATION ATTAINMENT 1990-2000 Race=Black
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Less than 9thgrade
9th-12thgrade, nodiploma
High schoolgraduate(includes
equivalency)
Somecollege, no
degree
Associatedegree
Bachelor'sdegree
Grad or prof.degree
1990 (black) 2000 (black)
EDUCATION ATTAINMENT 1990-2000 Race="OTHER"
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Less than 9thgrade
9th-12thgrade, nodiploma
High schoolgraduate(includes
equivalency)
Somecollege, no
degree
Associatedegree
Bachelor'sdegree
Grad or prof.degree
1990 (other) 2000 (other)
EDUCATION ATTAINMENT 1990-2000 Hispanic
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Less than 9thgrade
9th-12thgrade, nodiploma
High schoolgraduate(includes
equivalency)
Somecollege, no
degree
Associatedegree
Bachelor'sdegree
Grad or prof.degree
1990 (hispanic) 2000 (hispanic)
56
Current High School Graduation Rates The graduation rates at the high schools in Allen County for the last three academic years available are shown below. The state average has been approximately 90 percent for the past three years. Five Allen County schools are below that rate. GRADUATION RATES FOR SCHOOLS IN ALLEN COUNTY
District High School 99-00 00-01 01-02 Average M S D Southwest Allen Homestead Senior High School 97.3% 96.0% 95.2% 96.2%
Northwest Allen Carroll High School 99.4% 99.7% 99.3% 99.4%
Fort Wayne Community Elmhurst High School 93.1% 94.9% 93.8% 93.9%
North Side High School 86.9% 84.2% 84.4% 85.2%
R Nelson Snider High School 98.8% 97.4% 97.5% 97.9%
South Side High School 92.6% 88.2% 79.3% 86.7%
Wayne High School 92.4% 86.3% 79.3% 86.0%
Northrop High School 87.7% 86.8% 90.8% 88.4%
Richard Milburn High School17 73.2% 28.3% 68.0% 56.5%
East Allen County New Haven 93.4% 94.5% 95.3% 94.4%
Leo Junior/Senior High School 99.3% 99.4% 100.0% 99.6%
Heritage Jr/Sr High School 92.6% 97.5% 94.0% 94.7%
Paul Harding High School 88.8% 86.7% 90.1% 88.5%
Woodlan Jr/Sr High School 86.4% 95.1% 98.3% 93.3%
Diocese of Fort Wayne Bishop Dwenger High School 99.6% 100.0% 100.0% 99.9%
Bishop Luers High School 98.0% 98.5% 100.0% 98.8% *
Lutheran Schools of Indiana Concordia Lutheran High School 100.0% 99.4% 100.0% 99.8%
Non Public Blackhawk Christian Jr-Sr High Sch 100.0% 100.0% 98.1% 99.4% *
Canterbury18 unknown
* graduation rates are for the years 98/99 through 00/01.
17 Richard Milburn (an alternative school within FWCS) is not the “typical” high school, but data are included for informational purposes. 18 The graduation rate of Canterbury—a prestigious, private school—was not reported; however, it likely is near or equal to 100 percent.
57
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) The SAT is one of the college entrance examinations offered nationwide on a voluntary basis. It measures verbal and mathematical reasoning abilities. The scores for the three most recent years available and the average for the high schools in Allen County are shown below. Given that there is an inverse relationship between the percentage of students taking the SAT and the score, the percentage of students taking the test is also shown. SCOLASTIC APTITUDE TEST (SAT) SCORES FOR SCHOOLS IN ALLEN COUNTY
DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL
SAT TOTAL
BATTERY 99-00
SAT TOTAL
BATTERY 00-01
SAT TOTAL
BATTERY 01-02
SAT AVERAGE
% of 12th grade taking the test*
Southwest Allen Homestead 1,071 1,079 1,078 1,076 73%
Northwest Allen Carroll 1,047 1,054 1,022 1,041 80%
FWCS Snider 1,016 1,025 997 1,013 57%
Northrop 1,007 1,009 1,007 1,008 63%
Elmhurst 971 936 998 968 39%
South Side 972 967 961 967 51%
North Side 982 928 941 950 44%
Wayne 876 892 876 881 48%
East Allen Woodlan 1,039 1,081 1,026 1,049 56%
Leo 1,010 1,051 1,080 1,047 77%
New Haven 1,004 1,030 991 1,008 57%
Heritage 1,014 984 988 995 57%
Harding 842 823 819 828 49%
Diocese of FW-SB Bishop Dwenger 1,017 1,043 1,052 1,037 90%
Bishop Luers 1,017 1,034 1,022 1,024 81%
Lutheran Concordia 1,045 1,089 1,071 1,068 81%
Non Public Canterbury 1,252 1,266 1,240 1,253 100%
STATE AVG 999 1,000 1,001 1,000 55%
US AVERAGE 1,019 1,020 1,020 1,020 46%
* percentage of students for the 2001-02 year
58
INCOME According to the 2000 census, 199919 median household income20,21,22 in Allen County was $42,671. It still exceeds the median income of the state and of the nation, but growth has been slower. Between 1989 and 1999, Indiana increased 44.3 percent, the U.S. 39.7 percent, while Allen County’s increase was only 34.0 percent. In 1969, Allen County’s median household income was 16.8 percent greater than that of the U.S.; in 1999 it was 1.6 percent greater.
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME: 1969-1999Allen County, Indiana, United States
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
S o u r c e s : C e n s u s 2 0 0 0 : S u m m a r y F i l e 3 ; O the r yea rs : " Tab le C1 . M e d i a n H o u s e h o l d Income by County : 1969, 1979, 1989 " U .S . C e n s u s .
H t tp :www.census .gov/h h e s /inco m e /hist inc/co u n t y /county1.html . R e f r e s h e d a c c e s s 5 /6 /03.
Allen County $9,911 $19,090 $31,835 $42,671
Indiana $8,921 $17,582 $28,797 $41,567
United States $8,486 $16,841 $30,056 $41,994
1969 1979 1989 1999
19 The Census 2000 data were collected in spring 2000 relative to 1999 income. This is comparable to previous censuses. 20 Income includes not only wage, salary, farm, or self-employment income, but interest, rental or royalty income, social security and other retirement income, disability, child and alimony support, unemployment compensation, military allotments, and welfare or public assistance payments. 21 Household income is the combined income of all persons 15 years and over in the household. 22 The median divides the income distribution into two equal parts, one having incomes above the median, and the other having incomes below the median. The median income also includes households with no income. (Note: Personal median income includes just persons with income. This report does not analyze personal median income.)
59
Reasons for the relative loss in household income include but are not limited to the following:
Loss of Manufacturing Jobs The major component of income is earnings. As the County’s job base has continued its secular shift from manufacturing to services, the traditionally higher-paying manufacturing jobs have been replaced by lower-paying service jobs.23 Given that Allen County is still highly concentrated in manufacturing jobs relative to the U.S., the shift continues. The Fort Wayne Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)24 has experienced a long-term deterioration in earnings when compared to the United States. In 2001, the Fort Wayne MSA pay was 82.8 percent of the average United States pay (see chart), and the area’s manufacturing base was 23.5 percent of all jobs. In 1979, when the area’s manufacturing base accounted for almost 37 percent of all jobs, the ratio was over 103 percent.
AVERAGE ANNUAL PAY Fort Wayne MSA and all US Metro Areas
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
Ave
ga
ge
An
nu
al P
ay
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
105%
110%
Rat
io
Fort Wayne
U.S. metro areas
Ratio--F.W./U.S.
23 Naively assuming that manufacturing jobs are “higher paying” than service jobs obviously is wrong. Many service jobs are well paid. For example, relatively high-paid health-care jobs are included in services. Conversely, some manufacturing jobs are relatively low paid. However, many of the manufacturing jobs lost in Allen County have been union jobs which are historically relatively high paid. In 2001, the average manufacturing job in Allen County paid $44,765 and the average services job paid $29,091 (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Average Annual Pay 2001 for “Manufacturing” and “Service-Providing”). From this perspective, trading one manufacturing job for one service job causes average annual pay to fall. 24 The Fort Wayne MSA currently consists of six counties: Adams, Allen, DeKalb, Huntington, Wells, and Whitley. Over 70 percent of employment and approximately two-thirds of the population of the MSA are in Allen County.
60
Relative Increase in Single-person (Living Alone) Households The percentage of single-person households in Allen County has increased more than either Indiana or the U.S. Given that single-person households typically have less income than multiple-person households, this is another reason household income in Allen County has declined relative to Indiana and the U.S. Change In Single-person Households
1990-2000 Allen 25.8% Indiana 22.7% U.S. 21.4%
By Census Tract The 1999 median household income by census tract is shown in Table 13. It shows 21 census tracts had median household incomes below 70 percent of Midwest median household income—$30,000.25 Figure 13 shows that 12 census tracts were below the criterion in both 1989 and 1999. (The equivalent dollar cutoff in 1989 was $20,000.) Ten additional tracts had sufficient deterioration in household income in the nineties to meet the criterion in 1999. One improved sufficiently in the nineties to exceed the minimum criterion.
25 U.S. Census Bureau, Money Income in the United States, 1999, Current Population Reports, p. 60-209. The Midwest includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.
61
TABLE 13. 1999 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN ALLEN COUNTY BY CENSUS TRACT AS OF THE 2000 CENSUS
Tract Median HH Income
Tract Median HH Income
116.02 $112,810 25 $39,929 103.04 $78,002 1 $39,831 107.04 $75,989 3 $39,746 103.03 $74,130 111 $39,353 116.03 $69,886 41.02 $38,587 116.05 $69,708 115.01 $37,221 108.08 $68,704 39.02 $36,914 108.14 $66,310 108.02 $36,768 116.01 $66,284 112.02 $36,689 116.04 $65,115 26 $36,250 103.01 $64,391 112.01 $35,703
102 $62,539 8 $35,380 104 $57,120 22 $34,519
108.09 $55,841 7.03 $33,140 108.12 $55,690 7.01 $33,134 117.01 $55,119 9 $33,092 117.02 $53,432 4 $32,219 108.03 $53,100 33.01 $31,468 112.03 $52,577 40 $31,458
101 $52,398 106.04 $31,438 107.03 $52,130 36 $31,309
110 $52,045 33.04 $31,292 109 $51,638 38 $30,957
108.07 $51,475 113.02 $30,833 115.02 $50,692 28 $28,542 107.05 $50,518 20 $28,333 118.01 $50,068 31 $28,291 108.05 $49,982 30 $28,125 108.04 $49,810 21 $27,526 108.11 $49,704 16 $27,043 118.02 $49,591 23 $26,578 106.01 $48,866 5 $26,045 106.03 $48,281 10 $26,021
105 $48,110 6 $26,011 107.06 $46,895 29 $25,688
32 $46,763 15 $25,500 39.01 $44,764 113.03 $25,404
113.04 $44,401 27 $24,894 41.01 $43,264 14 $24,485
106.02 $42,321 35 $24,423 108.13 $42,258 13 $24,152
34 $40,873 11 $24,095 119 $40,833 18 $21,250 37 $40,722 17 $16,989
12 $12,734
62
FIGURE 13. CENSUS TRACTS IN ALLEN COUNTY BELOW SEVENTY PERCENT OF MIDWEST MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
US 30
WASHINGTON CENTER RD
N C
LIN
TON
ST
COLISEUM BLVD
W JEFFERSON BLVD
I 69
LOWER HUNTINGTON RD
BL
UF
FT
ON
R
D
AN
TH
ON
Y
BL
VD
ST
LAKE AV
S LAFAYETTE
S
TILLMAN RD
MAPLES RD
PAULDING RD
NEW HAVEN AV
Excluded
Never met criterion
Met criterion in 1990 and 2000
Met criterion in 1990 only
Met criterion in 2000 only
63
By Race Median household incomes by race/Hispanic origin in Allen County for 1989 and 1999 are shown below.
1989 1999 Pct. Change White $32,791 $45,186 37.8% Black $21,282 $28,004 31.6% Asian $35,217 $44,196 25.5% Hispanic $25,774 $36,325 40.9%
“Other” not available
In 1999 the median Hispanic household income was over $8,000 higher than the median black household income. During the nineties, the ratio of black and Asian median household incomes to whites in Allen County declined, and the ratio of Hispanics rose.
HOUSEHOLD MEDIAN INCOME in Allen County Ratio of Black, Asian, and Hispanic Households to White Households
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%
Rat
io H
H In
com
e to
Whi
te H
H In
com
e
1989 64.9% 107.4% 78.6%
1999 62.0% 97.8% 80.4%
Black Asian Hispanic
Comparable data for the United States are shown below. Note that for the U.S. the median household income of blacks in the nineties rose relative to that of whites. As noted above, in Allen County the ratio decreased. This is probably primarily a result of the decreased job opportunities in manufacturing in Allen County in the nineties. Conversely, the ratio of the median household income of Hispanics to whites in the U.S. in the nineties decreased, but in Allen County it increased.
64
HOUSEHOLD MEDIAN INCOME in UNITED STATES Ratio of Black, Asian, and Hispanic Households to White Households
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
Rat
io H
H In
com
e to
Whi
te H
H In
com
e
1989 62.9% 117.7% 76.8%
1999 65.8% 116.2% 75.4%
Black Asian Hispanic
Income Distributions Less Than $30,000 by Race/Hispanic Origin Below is a table of income distributions less than $30,000 by race/Hispanic origin. The number of white households in the “Less than $10,000” distribution is more than two-thirds of all households in that category; however, the percentage of black households who fall into that category is almost 19%. That is, almost one of every five black households has an income less than $10,000.
HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTIONS LESS THAN $30,000 IN ALLEN COUNTY BY RACE/HISPANIC ORIGIN IN 1999
Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $19,999 $20,000 to $29,999 Total
Number of HH
Pct of that race/ group
Pct with < $10,000
Number of HH
Pct of that race/ group
Pct bet $10,000 - $19,999
Number of HH
Pct of that race/ group
Pct bet $20,000- $29,999
Number of HH
Pct of that race/ group
White 6,336 5.8% 68.0% 12,467 11.3% 81.3% 14,251 12.9% 81.1% 33,054 30.0% Black 2,464 18.5% 26.4% 2,156 16.2% 14.1% 2,417 18.2% 13.8% 7,037 53.0% Asian 88 5.9% 0.9% 147 9.9% 1.0% 177 11.9% 1.0% 412 27.7% Other 432 10.9% 4.6% 556 14.0% 3.6% 724 18.2% 4.1% 1,712 43.0%
TOTAL 9,320 100.0% 15,326 100.0% 17,569 100.0% 42,215 32.8%
Hispanic 378 10.3% 4.1% 429 11.7% 2.8% 668 18.2% 3.8% 1,475 40.2%
65
POVERTY According to the 2000 census, 9.1 percent of Allen County residents were living in poverty.26 That was up from the 7.8 percent in 1990 despite a decade of relatively strong employment growth in the Fort Wayne metropolitan area.27 The number of persons in poverty increased 27.3 percent—from 23,409 to 29,807. The increase in population in the nineties was 10.3 percent.28 According to the 2000 census, the poverty rate for the U.S. and Indiana (including Allen County) were 12.4 percent and 9.5 percent, respectively. Persons in poverty were located overwhelmingly within the City of Fort Wayne: 25,204 of the 29,807 Allen County residents in poverty. That was 12.25 percent of the City’s population. In the 1990 census, 11.5 percent of the City’s residents lived in poverty.29, 30 In 2000, the poverty rate in Allen County outside the City was 3.5 percent. Table 14 shows the number and percentage by census tract of the population in Allen County in poverty as of the 2000 census. 26 The Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine poverty. If a family's total income is less than that family's threshold, then that family, and every individual in it, receives the poverty designation. Since some persons are excluded from the poverty universe (see paragraph below), the arrival of a poverty percent is not simply the number of people meeting the definition divided by the population of Allen County.
The basis for the poverty series has been the classification of income data collected by the Bureau of the Census in accordance with a definition of poverty developed by the Social Security Administration and revised by Federal Interagency Committees. (Office of Management and Budget Statistical Policy Directive No. 14) The official poverty definition counts money income before taxes and does not include capital gains and noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps). Poverty is not defined for people in military barracks, institutional group quarters, or for unrelated individuals under age 15 (such as foster children). They are excluded from the poverty universe--that is, they are considered neither as "poor" or "nonpoor." The poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). 27 It should be remembered that poverty statistics are based on income data for the year prior to the census. After the 1990-1991 national economic recession, the Fort Wayne MSA (measured in terms of payroll employment) grew until March 2000. 28 See page 2. 29 The City annexed aggressively in the nineties. Without annexation of relatively higher-income areas, the increase in the percent of persons in poverty would have been greater. 30 As of the 1980 census, the City of Fort Wayne ranked twelfth lowest among the largest 100 cities in terms of poverty (10.98 percent). As of the 1990 census, it ranked eighth (11.53 percent). These rankings are from Population Characteristics, City Group Comparison by Social/Health Indicator by Dennis P. Andrulis and Nanette J. Goodman, National Public Health and Hospital Institute. Chicago, 1999. Publication is available on the web at SUNY Downstate Medical Center. A ranking as of the 2000 census has not been published.
66
TABLE 14. PERSONS IN POVERTY IN ALLEN COUNTY BY CENSUS TRACT AS OF THE 2000 CENSUS Tract Number Percentage Tract Number Percentage
17 1,007 51.0% 101 298 7.3% 12 381 29.4% 110 175 7.3% 15 318 28.9% 37 183 7.0% 27 644 28.7% 105 135 6.9% 29 791 28.7% 111 201 6.7% 20 1,151 28.5% 108.02 404 6.6% 28 703 28.3% 32 349 6.3% 16 646 27.8% 8 222 5.5% 14 404 27.1% 108.05 361 5.2% 13 290 26.4% 106.02 160 5.1% 18 299 24.8% 115.02 126 5.1% 23 1,326 24.4% 109 305 5.0% 30 953 24.1% 107.04 52 5.0% 6 499 23.6% 118.02 92 4.9%
11 413 23.1% 108.09 240 4.9% 40 842 22.7% 39.01 161 4.8% 10 283 21.7% 118.01 168 4.7% 31 639 21.3% 108.07 205 4.4% 21 499 20.0% 3 151 4.4% 5 682 19.1% 106.03 75 4.3%
113.02 982 18.7% 107.05 211 4.3% 106.04 528 18.0% 34 155 3.4% 113.03 343 17.9% 116.01 266 3.3% 33.01 490 16.5% 112.03 147 3.3%
26 621 16.5% 117.02 98 2.9% 36 884 15.5% 102 298 2.9% 22 660 14.9% 108.12 116 2.8% 35 403 13.1% 108.04 84 2.8%
112.01 271 12.5% 107.03 53 2.5% 4 323 12.2% 1 62 2.5%
33.04 481 11.9% 108.11 142 2.4% 7.01 370 11.6% 106.01 62 2.4%
108.13 469 11.6% 117.01 63 2.3% 38 345 11.1% 116.04 93 2.2%
41.02 505 10.2% 108.03 117 2.1% 39.02 289 10.1% 107.06 69 1.8% 7.03 237 9.6% 103.01 89 1.5%
9 290 9.2% 103.03 77 1.4% 115.01 343 8.8% 108.08 75 1.4%
119 163 8.4% 104 41 1.4% 41.01 184 8.2% 103.04 76 1.2%
113.04 404 7.8% 116.03 62 1.1% 112.02 245 7.5% 116.02 79 1.0%
25 256 7.4% 108.14 60 0.9% 116.05 11 0.5%
67
Poverty Areas Poverty areas are census tracts in which at least 20 percent of residents are in poverty.31 Figure 14 shows that 19 census tracts were poverty areas as of the 2000 census. This compares with 11 census tracts in 1990. All 11 census tracts in poverty in 1990 remained in poverty in 2000. FIGURE 14. POVERTY IN ALLEN COUNTY BY CENSUS TRACT AS OF THE 2000 CENSUS
US 30
GOSHEN RD
WASHINGTON CENTER RD
LIM
A
RD
COLISEUM BLVDN
CLI
NTO
N S
T
W JEFFERSON BLVD
I 69
LOWER HUNTINGTON RD
BLU
FFTO
N
RD
AN
TH
ON
Y
BL
VD
ST
LAKE AV
S LAFAYETTE
S
TILLMAN RD
MAPLES RD
PAULDING RD
NEW HAVEN AV
I-469
Excluded
Never met criterion
Met criterion in 1990 and 2000
Met criterion in 2000 only
31 U.S. Census Bureau Statistical Brief Poverty Areas, June 1995.
68
An extreme poverty area has at least 40 percent of its residents in poverty. In 2000, tract 17 was in extreme poverty. Fifty-one percent�1,007 persons�in the tract were living in poverty
By Age The distribution of those in poverty by age class and the respective changes from the 1990 census are shown below. Almost two of every five persons in poverty (38.9 percent) of those living in poverty are children (17 or under). Children (17 or under) constituted 27.8 percent of the population in 2000; so poverty among children was proportionally greater than among adults.32 POVERTY IN ALLEN COUNTY BY AGE CLASS
Age Class 1990 Census
2000 Census Changes
Number Percent
Under 5 years
3,006 12.8% 4,006 13.4% 1,000 33.3%
5 years
524 2.2% 799 2.7% 275 52.5%
6 to 11 years
2,894 12.4% 3,859 12.9% 965 33.3%
12 to 17years
2,223 9.5% 2,937 9.9% 714 32.1%
18 to 24 years
3,677 15.7% 4,560 15.3% 883 4.0%
25 to 34 years
3,978 17.0% 4,233 14.2% 255 6.4%
35 to 44 years
2,146 9.2% 3,244 10.9% 1,098 51.2%
45 to 54 years
1,272 5.4% 2,168 7.3% 896 70.4%
55 to 64 years
1,073 4.6% 1,730 5.8% 657 61.2%
65 to 74 years
1,331 5.7% 1,068 3.6% -263 -19.8%
75 years and over
1,285 5.5% 1,203 4.0% -82 -6.4%
Total
23,409
100.0% 29,807
100.0% 6,398 27.3%
As of the 2000 census, 12.9 percent of children in Allen County�11,601 children (17 or under)�lived in poverty. This compares with 10.5 percent—8,647 children—in 1990. The percentage increase in the number of children living in poverty between 1990 and 2000 was 34.2 percent. According to the 2000 census, the poverty rates for children (17 or under) in the U.S. and Indiana (including Allen County) were 16.6 percent and 12.2 percent, respectively.
32 See p. 16.
69
The three age groups between 35-64 years all experienced over 50 percent increases in the number of people living in poverty. These three groups contain the baby boomer cohort, and they will all become seniors in the next three decades. Older people (65 years or above) were the only ones to experience a decrease in poverty. The number of older people (65 or older) living in poverty decreased 13.2 percent between 1990 and 2000—from 2,616 to 2,271. This occurred despite the fact that the population of older people increased 10.7 percent.33 Consequently, the percentage of older people in poverty fell from 8.1 percent in 1990 to 6.4 percent in 2000.
Location of Children in Poverty Table 15 shows the number and percent of children (17 and under) in poverty by census tract. Figure 15 shows that 26 of the census tracts in 2000 had at least 20 percent of children living in poverty versus 20 in 1990.34 During the nineties, four census tracts exited poverty: three were on the fringes of the city, and one was in the inner city. Ten census tracts entered poverty during the nineties. All but one were contiguous to tracts that were in poverty in 1990. Six of the 26 tracts in poverty in 2000 were in extreme poverty—at least 40 percent of children in poverty.
33 See p. 21. 34 Remember, a poverty area is one with at least 20 percent of persons in poverty.
70
TABLE 15. CHILDREN (17 AND UNDER) IN POVERTY IN ALLEN COUNTY BY CENSUS TRACT AS OF THE 2000 CENSUS Tract Number Percentage Tract Number Percentage
17 588 74.6% 9 75 8.8% 11 161 53.5% 108.13 238 8.2% 15 145 48.7% 106.03 27 7.7% 16 386 43.9% 32 121 7.6% 29 436 43.0% 109 151 7.6% 10 116 42.8% 113.04 108 7.3% 28 367 42.3% 111 53 7.1% 18 115 38.7% 107.04 15 7.0% 27 325 38.1% 107.05 100 6.9% 20 434 36.7% 25 69 6.7% 23 711 36.0% 108.09 92 6.7% 30 507 36.0% 108.05 109 6.4% 40 452 35.5% 108.07 79 6.4% 13 46 34.6% 41.02 47 6.1% 31 333 32.5% 1118.02 37 6.0% 6 204 30.3% 118.01 52 5.8%
106.04 233 29.9% 39.01 39 5.5% 113.02 425 27.5% 112.03 55 5.4%
5 210 27.5% 3 49 5.2% 14 121 27.4% 12 8 4.7% 21 204 26.7% 115.02 21 4.2% 26 299 26.4% 34 48 4.0%
33.01 209 22.0% 108.02 56 3.7% 113.03 140 21.5% 8 33 3.7%
22 230 21.2% 117.02 33 3.6% 36 303 20.2% 108.11 52 3.5% 35 115 17.3% 102 113 3.3% 4 100 15.8% 116.01 74 3.1%
38 113 15.6% 108.12 36 3.1% 33.04 139 15.6% 108.04 21 2.6%
112.01 81 14.7% 108.03 37 2.3% 7.01 125 14.6% 107.03 13 2.1% 110 96 14.4% 103.01 31 1.8%
106.01 21 14.2% 116.04 21 1.8% 112.02 123 13.8% 117.01 12 1.7% 39.02 87 13.6% 107.06 18 1.7% 7.03 55 13.5% 116.02 33 1.3%
115.01 97 13.2% 104 11 1.2% 101 176 12.3% 103.03 33 1.2% 105 58 10.9% 108.14 16 .8%
41.01 64 10.9% 108.08 12 .7% 119 58 10.9% 103.04 14 .7%
106.02 71 10.2% 116.03 5 .3% 37 55 9.0% 1 0 0%
116.05 0 0%
71
FIGURE 15. CHILDREN (17 AND UNDER) IN POVERTY IN ALLEN COUNTY BY CENSUS TRACT AS OF THE 2000 CENSUS
GOSHEN RD
WASHINGTON CENTER RD
LI
MA
R
D
N C
LIN
TON
ST
COLISEUM BLVD
W JEFFERSON BLVD
I 69
LOWER HUNTINGTON RD
BLU
FFTO
N
RD
AN
TH
ON
Y
BL
VD
ST
LAKE AV
S LAFAYETTE
S
TILLMAN RD
MAPLES RD
PAULDING RD
NEW HAVEN AV
I-469
Excluded
Never met criterion
Met criterion in 1990 and 2000
Met criterion in 1990 only
Met criterion in 2000 only
72
Location of the Older Population in Poverty Table 16 shows the number and percent of the older population (65 or over) in poverty by census tract as of the 2000 census. Figure 16 shows that eight of the census tracts in 2000 had at least 20 percent of the older population living in poverty versus six in 1990. Three tracts “moved out” in the nineties and three “moved in.” No tracts were in extreme poverty—40 percent or more older persons in poverty—as of 2000.
73
TABLE 16. OLDER POPULATION (65 OR OVER) IN POVERTY IN ALLEN COUNTY BY CENSUS TRACT AS OF THE 2000 CENSUS Tract Number Percentage Tract Number Percentage
28 63 33.2% 39.02 24 5.8% 12 61 29.8% 106.03 18 5.6% 14 47 25.7% 6 7 5.3% 13 43 24.0% 33.01 16 5.3% 27 28 23.9% 108.09 31 5.1% 18 30 23.8% 108.02 42 5.1% 17 39 22.9% 117.02 15 5.0% 21 43 20.2% 116.01 29 4.8% 15 36 19.4% 115.01 25 4.7% 16 39 18.5% 112.03 28 4.6% 20 38 18.0% 106.01 12 4.2% 22 94 17.5% 110 13 4.0%
113.02 90 13.6% 112.01 9 3.9% 111 55 13.5% 108.04 13 3.5% 119 34 13.5% 102 29 3.5% 30 29 12.9% 108.12 16 3.2%
113.04 75 12.9% 39.01 21 3.1% 113.03 23 12.8% 108.13 7 2.8%
7.03 27 11.9% 103.01 10 2.3% 41.01 65 11.2% 108.07 13 2.2%
26 24 11.1% 108.05 25 2.1% 36 74 11.0% 116.02 7 1.9% 23 47 10.6% 108.14 9 1.8% 38 45 10.5% 108.11 14 1.5% 37 47 10.4% 107.06 5 1.3% 25 29 10.0% 116.03 9 1.3% 31 23 9.8% 7.01 4 1.1% 8 67 9.0% 115.02 5 1.1%
29 15 8.6% 108.03 7 1.0% 33.04 40 7.8% 32 5 0.6%
35 59 7.8% 3 0 0.0% 117.01 19 7.6% 4 0 0.0%
105 20 7.5% 9 0 0.0% 112.02 29 7.4% 10 0 0.0%
34 50 7.3% 11 0 0.0% 40 21 7.2% 103.03 0 0.0%
118.01 32 7.0% 103.04 0 0.0% 5 30 6.9% 104 0 0.0%
106.04 19 6.4% 106.02 0 0.0% 101 22 6.3% 107.03 0 0.0%
41.02 51 6.1% 107.04 0 0.0% 116.04 20 6.1% 107.05 0 0.0%
109 35 5.9% 108.08 0 0.0% 1 26 5.8% 116.05 0 0.0% 118.02 0 0.0%
74
FIGURE 16. OLDER POPULATION (65 OR OVER) IN POVERTY IN ALEN COUNTY BY CENSUS TRACT AS OF THE 2000 CENSUS
COLISEUM BLVD
W JEFFERSON BLVD
I 69
LOWER HUNTINGTON RD
BL
UF
FT
ON
R
D
AN
TH
ON
Y
BL
VD
ST
LAKE AV
S
LA
FA
YE
TT
E
S
TILLMAN RD
MAPLES RD
PAULDING RD
NEW HAVEN AV
Excluded
Never met criterion
Met criterion in 1990 and 2000
Met criterion in 1990 only
Met criterion in 2000 only
75
By Race
More than one in every four blacks and almost one and in every five Hispanics in Allen County lived in poverty as of the 2000 census. (See below.) Almost half of each group are children (17 or under). Although only 6.4 percent of whites were in poverty, the number of whites in poverty exceeded that of all other races combined—17,414 to 12,393. Undoubtedly, many of the 2,610 Hispanics (not a race) in poverty are part of the 17,414 whites in poverty.35 Poverty among older people (65 or above) is predominantly among whites. In Poverty White Black Asian Other TOTAL Hispanic
Under 5 years 1,738 1,528 51 689 4,006 499
5 years 394 293 12 100 799 132
6 to 11 years 1,922 1,559 42 336 3,859 348
12 to 17 years 1,385 1,300 28 224 2,937 223
18 to 64 years 10,272 4,260 240 1,163 15,935 1,361
65 to 74 years 728 304 0 36 1,068 5
75 years and over 975 177 11 40 1,203 42
TOTAL below poverty level 17,414 9,421 384 2,588 29,807 2,610
Total Population: 271,410 35,977 4,447 14,626 326,460 13,662
Percent within race/ethnic group 6.4% 26.2% 8.6% 17.7% 19.1%
Percent in Poverty 9.1%
35 See p. 13.
76
By Sex
The distribution of those in poverty by age group and sex and the changes from the 1990 census are shown below. In 1990, females constituted 59.1 percent of those in poverty. In 2000, it fell to 57.3 percent. In 2000, females constituted 54.7 percent of persons living alone, so that partially explains the dominance of poverty among females. Another reason is that the average income of females is below that of men. However, the percentage increase in poverty was greater for males in the nineties than for females—32.8 percent versus 23.5 percent. The greatest increase in poverty among females was among children (17 or under). Poverty among female super seniors (75 or older) declined 15 percent while that among male super seniors increased 33.9 percent. FEMALE Change
1990 Census 2000 Census By Number By Percent
Under 5 years 1,430 10.3% 1,926 11.3% 496 34.7%
5 years 222 1.6% 407 2.4% 185 83.3%
6 to 11 years 1,386 10.0% 1,940 11.4% 554 40.0%
12 to 17years 1,116 8.1% 1,460 8.5% 344 30.8%
18 to 64 years 7,614 55.1% 9,703 56.8% 2,089 27.4%
65 to 74 years 1,000 7.2% 747 4.4% -253 -25.3%
75 years and over 1,058 7.7% 899 5.3% -159 -15.0%
Total 13,826 17,082 3,256 23.5%
MALE Change
1990 Census 2000 Census By Number By Percent
Under 5 years 1,576 16.4 2,080 16.3% 504 32.0%
5 years 302 3.2% 392 3.1% 90 29.8%
6 to 11 years 1,508 15.7% 1,919 15.1% 411 27.3%
12 to 17years 1,107 11.6% 1,477 11.6% 370 33.4%
18 to 64 years 4,532 47.3% 6,232 49.0% 1,700 37.5%
65 to 74 years 331 3.5% 321 2.5% -10 3.0%
75 years and over 227 2.4% 304 2.4% 77 33.9%
Total 9,583 12,725 3,142 32.8%
77
By Households In 2000, 8.6 percent of all households in Allen County were in poverty compared with 7.6 percent in 1990. The number of households in poverty increased 28.2 percent�from 8,637 to 11,071. The majority of households in poverty (57.0 percent or 6,310) have only a female head. Only 2.6 percent of married couples were in poverty as of the 2000 census�1,718 of the 67,154 married-couples.
HOUSEHOLDS IN POVERTY
1,395
1,648
1,718
2,703
3,607
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000
Female HH w /Family, nohusband present
Female HH, living alone
Married Couple
Male HH, living alone
Other
By Age Group Consistent with poverty among individuals, poverty among households has increased dramatically (45.3 percent) among those households under 65 and decreased (-19.7 percent) among households 65 or over. Nationally, the percent of seniors living alone in poverty decreased 19 percent—from approximately 2.2 million to 1.8 million. Consistent with the analysis of household poverty above, poverty among households under 65 is primarily (54.6 percent) among females—either living alone or with family ( a child{ren} in most cases). Poverty among households 65 or above consists predominantly (63.4 percent) of females living alone.
78
POVERTY IN ALLEN COUNTY BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE AND AGE Household Type 2000 Census 1990 Census Pct. Change
1900-2000 15-64 years Family Married couple 1,434 1,227 16.9% Female householder, no husband present 3,501 2,563 36.6% Male householder, no wife present 467 232 101.3% Nonfamily Female householder living alone 1,547 Not avail. Male householder living alone 1,419 Not avail. Householder living alone (1990 census) 1,669 77.7% Other nonfamily not living alone 880 675 30.4% TOTAL 15-64 YEARS 9,248 6,366 45.3% 65 or more years Family Married couple 284 301 -5.6% Female householder, no husband present 106 86 23.3% Male householder, no wife present 0 31 -100.0% Nonfamily Female householder living alone 1,156 Not avail. Male householder living alone 229 Not avail. Householder living alone (1990 census) 1,810 -23.5% Other nonfamily not living alone 48 43 -11.6% TOTAL 65 OR MORE YEARS 1,823 2,271 -19.7% GRAND TOTAL 11,071 8,637 28.2%
79
Female Head of Household Under 65 with Family by Race and Hispanic Origin The largest category of households in poverty is families with a female head (that is, no husband present) under 65. Of the 3,501 families under 65 with a female head living in poverty, 3,389 have a child(ren) 17 years or under. The breakdown of these 3,389 families by race and Hispanic origin is shown below. Poverty Among Female HH Under 65 With Child(ren) 17 or Under
Number of Female HH Under 65 With
Child(ren) In Poverty
Percent of Total Number of Female HH of that Race/Origin with
Child(ren) Race White 1,607 25.7% Black 1,509 46.4% Asian 0 0% Other 273 59.0%
Total 3,389
Hispanic 267 65.4% The number of white and black female head of households under 65 with child(ren) 17 years or under in poverty is almost equal. However, almost half (46.4 percent) of all black female head of households with child(ren) 17 or under are in poverty, compared with 25.7% of all white female head of households with child(ren) 17 or under. Hispanics had an even higher percentage (65.4 percent) of female head of households with child(ren) 17 or under in poverty. The Asian race had no female head of household with children in poverty.
80
SUMMARY A simplistic, composite rating of census tracts by risk was generated.36 The factors used in determining risk were as follows:
1. percentage of bachelors’ degrees 2. lack of high school diplomas 3. median household income 4. percentage of persons of poverty 5. percentage of children in poverty 6. percentage of older population in poverty 7. percentage of children 8. percentage of older population 9. dependency percentage37 10. percentage of female head of household with children 11. percentage of male head of household with children
A percentile ranking for each risk factor for each census tract was determined.38 A composite ranking for each census tract was determined by adding the percentile rankings for the 11 risk factors for each census tract. (The percentile rankings of each census tract on each risk factor are shown in Appendix B.) Results are shown below. Figure 16 shows all census tracts grouped into four categories of risk.
36 It should be noted that the composite ranking presented as a summary has many shortcomings. Undoubtedly, there is high correlation among many of the risk factors; therefore, one may be multiple counting the same phenomenon. The color coding of risk ought to be absolute, not relative. That is, below what composite ranking is a census tract considered to be in a high risk status (color red)? These are just two examples of why the composite ranking should be viewed with trepidation. The authors offer no solution to that type of problem. 37 See p. 24. 38 For each factor, the highest ranked (least risky) census tract was assigned the 100th percentile and the lowest ranked (most risky) census tract was assigned the 0th percentile. Relevant percentiles for all the remaining census tracts were determined.
81
COMPOSITE RISK RANKING (HIGHEST TO LOWEST) OF CENSUS TRACTS IN ALLEN COUNTY (1,100 MAXIMUM POSSIBLE)
Tract Composite Score
Tract Composite Score
116.02 983.3 105 720.2 103.04 922.9 115.01 719.4 108.08 908.2 7.03 715.4 116.03 897.9 101 698.5 116.05 893.2 119 693.2 116.01 888.7 8 691.5 107.04 885.0 113.04 690.9 103.03 883.8 33.04 687.6 108.14 878.0 111 684.1 116.04 877.8 11 676.2 107.03 860.4 37 674.3 103.01 857.3 41.01 670.8 107.05 841.2 112.02 670.7
104 838.7 7.01 668.7 102 821.6 39.02 659.9
108.09 818.8 9 656.5 108.12 812.1 33.01 630.9 115.02 811.9 38 617.1
3 809.5 22 616.2 108.04 806.7 13 611.8 108.11 804.3 36 606.9 117.01 803.5 26 606.4 108.03 802.1 106.04 601.2 117.02 801.6 112.01 597.2 108.05 798.6 5 569.7 107.06 792.1 10 545.7 112.03 791.1 31 543.5 108.07 783.0 40 533.6 118.02 781.3 113.02 523.3 106.01 769.1 6 520.5 106.02 766.9 12 507.2
32 766.5 113.03 507.2 41.02 764.1 14 506.2 39.01 763.8 35 504.3
108.02 756.7 30 502.9 110 753.6 21 492.5
108.13 750.6 29 468.6 34 748.2 20 466.9 25 744.9 23 457.1 4 744.9 15 433.1
118.01 744.0 28 401.8 1 740.4 16 401.3
106.03 737.6 27 400.5 109 725.1 18 394.0
17 253.1
82
FIGURE 16. CENSUS TRACTS IN ALLEN COUNTY GROUPED BY RISK CATEGORY
AS OF THE 2000 CENSUS
I 69
BASS RD
US 30
GOSHEN RD
E DUPONT RD
LOWER HUNTINGTON RD
W JEFFERSON BLVD
I 69
COLDWA
TER RD
COLISEUM BLVD
AN
TH
ON
Y
BLV
D
LIM
A
RD
WASHINGTON CENTER RDN
CLI
NT
ON
ST
I 469
I 69
I 469
US 27
TILLMAN RD
MAPLES RD
S
PAULDING RD
LAKE AV
NEW HAVEN AV
US 30
US 24
I-469
Excluded
Highest risk
Relatively risky
Relatively unrisky
Lowest risk
83
APPENDIX A—Reconciliation of 1990 and 2000 Census Tracts Using Census 2000 data in census tracks with the 1990 census tract map:
• 1990 tracks 19 and 20 were combined into a single tract known as tract 20 in 2000. Data from tract 20 in 2000 is mapped into both tracts 19 and 20 when using the 1990 census tract map.
• 1990 tracks 22 and 24 were combined into a single tract known as tract 22 in 2000. Data from tract 24 in 2000 is mapped into both tracts 22 and 24 when using the 1990 census tract map.
• 1990 tract 28.97 became tract 28 in 2000. • 1990 tract 28.98 was added to tract 30 in 2000. Data from tract 30 in 2000 is mapped
into both tracts 28.98 and 30 when using the 1990 census tract map. • 1990 tracts 33.02 and 33.03 were combined to form track 33.04 in 2000. Data from
tract 33.04 in 2000 is mapped into both tracts 33.02 and 33.03 when using the 1990 census tract map.
• 1990 tract 103.02 was split into 2 tracts in 2000, 103.03 and 103.04. • 1990 tracts 7.02, 106, 107.01 and 107.02 and parts of surrounding tracts were
remapped in 2000. 7.02 for the most part became tract 7.03 in 2000. Note: Part of the land in
1990 tract 107.01 is also included in 7.03, but just 7.02 data are compared to 7.03.
106 became 106.01, 106.02, and parts of 106.03 and 106.04. In the analysis, the data from the total of these four tracts are being compared to the 1990 106 census track. 107.01 became 107.03 and 107.06, plus parts of 106.03 and 106.04. In the analysis, just the data from the total of 107.03 and 107.06 are being compared to the 1990 tract 107.01. 107.02 became 107.04 and 107.05, plus parts of 107.03 and 107.04. In the analysis, just the data from the total of 107.04 and 107.05 tracts are being compared to the 1990 tract 107.02 • 1990 track 108.06 was split into 2 main tracts known as 108.13 and 108.14 in 2000.
Note: Part of the land in 1990 tract 108.06 was also used to form new tracts 107.04 and 107.05, but just 108.13 and 108.14 are being used for comparison purposes.
• 1990 track 108.10 split into 2 main tracts known as 108.11 and 108.12 in 2000.
84
APPENDIX B—Calculation of Composite Risk Factors for Census Tracts TRACT Bachelor's High School Median Poverty Childre n Older Younger 65 or Dependency Female Male TOTAL
De g re e s Diploma Income in Poverty Population Population Older Ratio HH HHin Poverty W/Childre n W/Childre n
1 24.90 78.99 27.08 96.07 100 82.54 64.2 61.24 58.93 81.4 65.11 740.43 59.20 89.83 26.99 92.32 93.04 100 50.18 85.95 68.8 79.25 63.93 809.54 41.50 76.45 19.47 76.76 78.8 100 62.76 97.14 83.47 62.37 46.14 744.95 21.50 48.43 13.3 63.27 63.16 79.25 68.65 66.27 66.94 70.82 8.16 569.76 0.70 35.67 13.27 54.18 59.44 84.13 42.69 90.43 65.84 61.11 13.14 520.5
7.01 23.00 58.62 20.38 78.06 80.5 96.6 54.08 82.06 69.36 68.78 37.27 668.77.03 30.20 71.91 20.39 81.96 81.89 64.13 73.09 87.93 88.2 79.91 35.76 715.4
8 21.50 72.48 22.63 90.08 95.05 72.95 65.95 55.59 55.99 78.72 60.66 691.59 9.60 46.18 20.34 82.71 88.23 100 57.35 82.55 71.38 77.81 20.38 656.5
10 16.90 43.91 13.28 57.96 42.64 100 46.21 91.21 72.02 60.89 0.69 545.711 43.10 68.27 11.35 55.26 28.32 100 90.57 95.58 97.97 44.81 40.94 676.212 21.70 31.33 0 42.85 93.73 10.26 93.82 61.33 84.56 65.58 2.05 507.213 26.40 41.54 11.41 48.76 53.65 27.55 100 87.5 100 56.3 58.71 611.814 10.40 15.55 11.74 47.32 63.31 22.54 61.24 73.14 67.86 57.72 75.43 506.215 2.20 27.37 12.76 43.88 34.79 41.63 36.36 79.85 50.89 52.19 51.16 433.116 0.00 0.97 14.3 46 41.15 44.26 32.2 86.28 54.25 50.6 31.26 401.317 2.60 34.34 4.25 0 0 30.81 0 94.22 28.01 0 58.83 253.118 1.80 0 8.51 51.91 48.11 28.19 36.36 83.68 58.38 50.67 26.38 39420 9.20 18.71 15.59 44.6 50.75 45.69 43.78 97.29 72.78 58.92 9.59 466.921 5.70 36.85 14.78 61.46 64.26 39.12 46.81 93.66 71.85 57.95 0 492.522 32.90 54.88 21.77 71.4 71.62 47.31 53.59 74.13 62.7 74.88 50.94 616.223 6.00 32.88 13.83 52.67 51.8 68.08 24.89 90.59 50.96 35.9 29.51 457.125 49.30 72.69 27.17 86.41 90.99 69.94 48.4 92.63 72.48 74.46 60.43 744.926 26.50 56.46 23.5 68.41 64.63 66.49 36.03 98.7 68.5 66.6 30.55 606.427 3.80 7.81 12.15 44.24 48.94 27.83 24.43 92.56 55.6 48.21 34.94 400.528 1.90 31.12 15.8 45 43.27 0 25.58 88.46 53.24 47.39 50.02 401.829 6.20 42.64 12.94 44.24 42.38 74 20.06 96.3 56.13 42.96 30.73 468.630 7.28 43.71 15.38 53.3 51.81 60.96 23.01 96.5 57.68 33.94 59.39 502.931 19.90 58.84 15.55 58.74 56.46 70.36 26.98 91.39 57.24 59.5 28.49 543.532 56.80 78.24 34 88.5 89.78 98.07 44.3 70.32 50.84 82.23 73.43 766.5
33.01 25.10 62.33 18.72 68.26 70.49 84.13 35.45 83.1 51.93 61.15 70.23 630.933.04 28.40 65.32 18.54 77.38 79.09 76.35 66.91 73.5 70 71.52 60.64 687.6
34 38.50 77.19 28.12 94.27 94.63 78.08 55.13 67.32 57.09 83.91 73.99 748.235 14.20 44 11.68 75 76.82 76.46 70.83 0 0 70.55 64.72 504.336 23.90 71.17 18.56 70.36 72.97 66.79 52.22 78.64 62.68 52.79 36.86 606.937 9.60 63.1 27.97 87.11 87.98 68.64 62 56.98 57.25 86.23 67.43 674.338 9.20 54.85 18.21 78.99 79.08 68.22 61.95 70.64 64.41 66.6 44.94 617.1
39.01 29.20 78.88 32.01 91.54 92.69 90.56 69.07 53.08 56.5 91.12 79.17 763.839.02 32.20 62.95 24.16 80.89 81.73 82.6 61.3 63.08 58.04 67.62 45.37 659.9
40 10.50 63.79 18.71 56.15 52.38 78.38 22.55 90.08 49.79 49.68 41.56 533.641.01 44.00 70.7 30.51 84.76 85.41 66.26 65.44 33.36 33.43 81.71 75.25 670.841.02 53.10 72.49 25.83 80.76 91.79 81.62 87.69 54.57 71.22 80.95 64.09 764.1
101 20.90 37.49 39.63 86.57 83.49 80.88 26.91 89.49 54.55 96.94 81.69 698.5102 48.70 79.46 49.77 95.19 95.56 89.39 32.44 88.9 58.9 95.7 87.58 821.6
103.01 48.30 88.9 51.62 97.96 97.57 93.16 35.76 96.37 67.74 95.25 84.71 857.3103.03 66.50 86.72 61.35 98.18 98.36 100 39.31 86.54 62.17 97.98 86.6 883.8103.04 66.50 100 65.22 98.61 99.05 100 44.27 92.17 69.67 97.07 90.35 922.9
104 33.80 84.42 44.35 98.27 98.36 100 45.56 85.02 67.07 97.9 83.98 838.7105 16.20 60.01 35.35 87.34 85.36 77.24 50.36 74.18 61.28 94.13 78.74 720.2
106.01 16.90 66.01 36.1 96.28 80.96 87.43 63.62 75.57 72.44 97.86 75.92 769.1106.02 16.80 75.12 29.56 90.79 86.35 100 60.59 81.93 71.1 86.82 67.79 766.9106.03 16.80 51 35.52 92.49 89.66 83.04 64.93 64.11 64.07 95.7 80.23 737.6106.04 16.80 61.21 18.69 65.41 59.97 80.84 56.53 81.14 67.33 64.33 28.91 601.2107.03 47.30 77.07 39.37 96.02 97.24 100 65.4 95.25 84.34 92.13 66.27 860.4107.04 55.00 83.59 63.21 91.1 90.58 100 50.55 83.21 67.81 100 100 885107.05 55.00 80.48 37.76 92.53 90.71 100 47.67 96.72 76.08 87.14 77.13 841.2107.06 47.20 73.59 34.14 97.37 97.67 96.02 50.42 78.08 60.02 81.54 76.01 792.1108.02 44.80 83.09 24.02 87.88 95.04 84.67 60.31 71.84 65.41 74.62 65.01 756.7108.03 38.10 86.86 40.34 96.75 96.89 97.05 45.55 73.83 56.52 92.48 77.74 802.1108.04 38.50 87.53 37.05 95.45 96.48 89.37 50.86 76.51 62.29 89.95 82.74 806.7108.05 57.30 88.23 37.22 90.57 91.4 93.74 59.34 52.99 49.99 84.53 93.31 798.6108.07 30.50 86.03 38.71 92.3 91.43 93.24 52.48 76.62 63.05 91.53 67.05 783108.08 71.00 92.37 55.93 98.21 99 100 41.96 90.9 71.19 94.21 93.44 908.2108.09 59.50 90.27 43.07 91.32 91.03 84.65 47.84 77.27 62.72 89.75 81.4 818.8108.11 49.30 86.51 36.94 96.13 95.33 95.45 59.72 62.42 57.89 91.14 73.47 804.3108.12 49.20 86.79 42.92 95.33 95.83 90.37 48.8 71.27 56.61 88.12 86.84 812.1108.13 50.60 82.06 29.5 78.06 88.97 91.62 43.91 99.77 73.17 80.79 32.15 750.6108.14 50.70 89.28 53.54 99.17 98.89 94.43 45.25 93.07 70.58 96.14 86.98 878
109 16.20 48.56 38.87 91.07 89.83 82.29 32.81 84.92 57.54 93.56 89.52 725.1110 21.70 71.49 39.28 86.6 80.68 87.9 51 75.94 63.24 97.08 78.7 753.6111 18.70 66.34 26.6 87.74 90.49 59.24 55.63 70.21 61.4 82.88 64.85 684.1
112.01 10.40 30.64 22.95 76.24 80.3 88.3 46.68 86.61 65.29 75.59 14.25 597.2112.02 7.10 60.35 23.94 86.07 81.46 77.8 50.78 76.94 62.85 81.36 62.01 670.7112.03 29.90 79.24 39.81 94.44 92.75 86.22 60.61 68.97 65.91 91.25 81.93 791.1113.02 10.30 49.58 18.09 63.93 63.16 58.94 46.2 64.12 46.57 54.86 47.55 523.3113.03 2.40 48.38 12.66 65.47 71.18 61.46 36.63 86.66 57.49 35.41 29.45 507.2113.04 13.90 71.55 31.64 85.43 90.15 61.2 45.42 82.36 64.53 76.31 68.38 690.9115.01 24.40 73.06 24.47 83.57 82.29 85.72 79.76 65.81 72.96 78.68 48.62 719.4115.02 53.20 83.52 37.93 90.85 94.35 96.75 70.49 53.98 59.63 92.55 78.7 811.9116.01 81.14 96.15 53.51 94.43 95.82 85.4 43.12 93.01 67.4 93.28 85.46 888.7116.02 100.00 98.08 100 98.92 98.29 94.42 30.43 100 69.47 99.45 94.21 983.3116.03 70.40 93.51 57.11 98.87 99.58 96.2 51.21 77.18 65.48 94.77 93.6 897.9116.04 69.05 98.09 52.34 96.69 97.59 81.72 52.03 86.23 74.41 91.13 78.49 877.8116.05 71.02 96.41 56.93 100 100 100 66.67 64.59 67.33 96.81 73.46 893.2117.01 25.19 78.59 42.35 96.33 97.68 77.17 54.56 85.91 75.75 93.96 76.04 803.5117.02 21.70 81.38 40.67 95.14 95.21 85.07 47.92 86.57 69.5 92.36 86.05 801.6118.01 20.50 75.07 37.31 91.66 92.26 78.84 53.29 78.39 68.81 92.52 55.37 744118.02 19.30 85.26 36.83 91.25 92 100 40.94 78.91 56.44 98.64 81.82 781.3
119 16.10 71.62 28.08 84.44 85.44 59.31 49.1 74.38 59.86 88.19 76.68 693.2