CARSEY - Farm and Dairy · CARSEY I N S T I T U T E ISSUE BRIEF NO. 44 WINTER 2012 Key Findings • The rural population grew by just 2.2 million between 2000 and 2010—a gain barely

CARSEYI N S T I T U T E

ISSUE BRIEF NO. 44

WINTER 2012

KeyFindings• The rural population grew by just 2.2 million

between 2000 and 2010—a gain barely half as great as that during the 1990s.

• Rural growth diminished because migration slowed; nonmetropolitan counties only gained 1 million net migrants from 2000 to 2010 compared with 2.7 million in the 1990s.

• Rural population gains were largest in high-amenity counties and just beyond the metropolitan fringe.

• Population growth was particularly slow in farming and mining counties and sharply reduced in rural manufacturing counties.

• Diversity accelerated in rural America, with racial and ethnic minorities accounting for 83 percent of rural population growth between 2000 and 2010.

• Children are in the vanguard of the increasing racial and ethnic diversity of rural America in the twenty-first century.

RuralDemographicChangeintheNewCenturySlowerGrowth,IncreasedDiversity

K E N N E T H M . J O H N S O N

RuralAmericaencompassesnearly75percentofthelandareaoftheUnitedStates,anditishometo51millionpeople.Demographictrendsinthisvastareaarefarfrom

monolithic.Someruralregionshaveexperienceddecadesofsustainedgrowth,whilelargesegmentsoftheagriculturalheart-landcontinuetolosepeopleandinstitutions.NonmetropolitanAmericahasalsobeenbuffetedbyavarietyofcyclicalforces,includingtherecenteconomicrecession,newimmigration,andpopulationaging.1PopulationgrowthinruralAmericareflectsabalancingactbetweennaturalincrease(birthsminusdeaths)andnetmigration(in-migrantsminusout-migrants).Bothplayanimportantroleinruralpopulationchange,buttheinfluenceofeachvariesacrosstimeandlocation.

Thisbriefexaminesruraldemographictrendsinthefirstdecadeofthetwenty-firstcenturyusingnewlyavailabledatafromthe2010Census.Thedemographicchangesthatarere-shapingruralAmericaareincreasinglyimportanttopoliciesandplansdesignedtoincreasetheviabilityofruralcommu-nitiesandenhancetheircontributiontothenation’smaterial,environmentalandsocialwell-being.

HistoricalTrendsThehistoryofruralpopulationchangeillustratesthecomplexinterplaybetweenmigrationandnaturalincrease.Thelargesurplusofbirthsoverdeathsthatsustainednonmetropolitanpopulationgrowthduringmuchofthetwentiethcenturyhasdwindled.Asaresult,migration’sebbandflowhascometoplayalargerroleindeterminingwhethernonmetropolitanareasgrowordecline.

Throughoutmostofthetwentiethcentury,nonmetropolitanareasexperiencedwidespreadoutmigration(Figure1).Themagnitudeofthemigrationlossvariedfromdecadetodecade,butthepatternwasconsistent:morepeopleleftruralareasthanarrived.Thesehistoricaltrendschangedabruptlyinthe1970s

Figure 1. Nonmetropolitan Demographic Change, 1930 to 2010

Source: U.S. Census 1930-2010 and FSCPE

whenruralpopulationgainsexceededthoseinmetropolitanareasforthefirsttimeinthetwentiethcentury.Theremark-ableturnaround,however,endedinthe1980saswidespreadoutmigrationandpopulationdeclinereemerged.Trendsonceagainreboundedintheearly1990sbeforeslowingneartheendofthedecade.2Thus,atthedawnofthetwenty-firstcentury,thedemographicimplicationsofnaturalincreaseandnetmigrationforthefutureofruralAmericaareonceagaininquestion.

Some Rural Areas Grow, Others Continue to DeclineInthefirstdecadeofthetwenty-firstcentury,patternsofpopulationgrowthanddeclinevariedwidelyacrossruralAmerica(Figure2).PopulationgainsweregreatestintheWestandSoutheast,aswellasattheperipheryoflarge

Figure 2. Nonmetropolitan population change, 2000 to 2010

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and 2010

urbanareasintheMidwestandNortheast.ScatteredareasofpopulationgainalsowereevidentinrecreationalareasoftheupperGreatLakes,theOzarks,andnorthernNewEngland.Incontrast,populationlosseswerecommonintheGreatPlainsandCornBelt,intheMississippiDelta,inpartsofthenorthernAppalachians,andintheindustrialandminingbeltsofNewYorkandPennsylvania.

Nonmetropolitanpopulationgrowthslowedprecipi-touslyafter2000,tohalfthatofthe1990s.Between2000and2010,ruralcountiesgained2.2millionresidents(4.5percent)toreachapopulationof51millioninApril2010.Duringthe1990s,theruralpopulationgainwas4.1mil-lion.Thepopulationgainsweregreaterinnonmetropoli-tancountiesadjacenttometropolitanareasjustastheywerefrom1990to2000(Figure3).Theseadjacentcoun-tiessawa5.5percentpopulationgainbetween2000and2010,butitwasstilljust57percentofwhatithadbeen

2 C A R S E Y I N S T I T U T E

duringthe1990s.Amongmoreremoteruralcounties,thegainwasconsiderablysmaller(2.7percent),orjust42percentofthegainduringthe1990s.Populationgainsinmetropolitanareasalsodiminished(from14.0percentto10.8percent),butthereductionwasmuchmoremod-est.Akeyquestionishowtheinterplayofmigrationandnaturalincreasecombinedtoproducetheslowernonmet-ropolitanpopulationgrowthafter2000.

BalancingNaturalIncreaseandNetMigrationTheabsenceofsignificantmigrationgainsafter2000wastheprimarycauseofthesharplycurtailedruralpopulationgrowth.Duringthe1990s,migrationaccountedfornearlytwo-thirdsoftheentirenonmetropolitanpopulationgain.Af-ter2000,itaccountedforlessthanone-halfofthegain.Non-metropolitancountiesgained2.7millionresidentsfrommi-grationduringthe1990s,butonlyabout1.0millionbetween2000and2010.Migrationgainsalsooccurredinfewerruralcounties.Only46percentoftheruralcountiesexperiencedanetmigrationgainbetween2000and2010comparedwith65percentbetween1990and2000.Becausenaturalincrease(morebirthsthandeaths)inruralareasremainedrelativelystableoverthetwodecades,thissignificantreductioninnetmigrationdramaticallyslowedtherateofpopulationincrease.Indeed,theonlytworecentperiodsofsignificantruralpopu-lationincrease(thereboundofthe1990sandtheturnaroundofthe1970s)werefueledbymigration.

Figure 3. Demographic change in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, 1990-2000, 2000-2010

Source: U.S. Census 1990-2010 and FSCPE

Forthosecountiesnotadjacenttometroareas,theirmuchsmallernetmigrationgainssharplyreducedtheirpopula-tiongrowthrate.Migrationgainsinmoreremoteareastotaledonly46,000(0.3percent)andjust35percentofthesecountiesgainedmigrants.Incontrast,duringthe1990s,themigrationgainwas544,000inthesecounties.3Inadjacentruralcounties,themigrationgainwasafarmoresizable3percent(980,000).Overall,53percentoftheadjacentcoun-tiesgainedmigrantsbetween2000and2010.Nonetheless,thisrecentmigrationgainwasconsiderablysmallerthanitwasduringthe1990s,whenadjacentcountiesgained2.4millionmigrants(7.4percent).4

Withlittlegrowthfromnetmigration,naturalincreasebe-camethemajorsourceofnonmetropolitanpopulationgrowthbetween2000and2010,accountingforjustoverhalfofthegainof2.2millionruralresidents.Infact,inremoteruralcounties,thenaturalincreaseof418,000(2.5percent)repre-sented90percentofthepopulationgain.Inadjacentnonmet-ropolitancounties,naturalincreasewas760,000(2.4percent).Herethecontributionsofnaturalincreaseandnetmigrationweremorebalanced,withnaturalincreaseaccountingfor44percentofthepopulationincreaseof1.7million.

Paradoxically,naturalincreasewasresponsibleformostofruralpopulationgrowthbetween2000and2010,eventhoughtherewaslessnaturalincreaseduringthedecadethanduringthe1990s.Inessence,thedemographicim-pactofnaturalincreasegrewbecauseruralnetmigrationdeclinedsharplyafter2000.Becausetherewerefewerbirthsandmoredeathsbetween2000and2010,therewasasharpriseinnaturaldecrease(whenmorepeoplediethanareborn)inruralcounties.Overall,naturaldecreaseisunusualintheAmericanexperience.Yet,inmanyruralcounties,deathshaveexceededbirthsfordecades.5Between2000and2010,nearly750nonmetropolitancounties(36percent)experiencedoverallnaturaldecrease,upfromapproximately29percentinthe1990s.ThisrepresentsthehighestlevelofsustainednaturaldecreaseinU.S.history.6

Theincidenceandseverityofnaturaldecreaseisinflu-encedbyproximitytometropolitanareas.Nearly43percentofremotenonmetropolitancounties—thosenotadjacenttoametropolitanarea—hadnaturaldecreasebetween2000and2010.Incontrast,only30percentofthecountiesadjacenttometropolitancountiesexperiencednaturalde-crease.Therisingincidenceofnaturaldecreasecoupledwithdwindlingmigrationgainsisacauseforsignificantconcerninsomeruralareasbecauseitdrainsthedemographicresil-iencefromthelocalpopulation,leavinglimitedpotentialforfuturepopulationgrowth.7

C A R S E Y I N S T I T U T E 3

DemographicChangeinCountyTypesRuraldemographicchangeishardlyuniform,asisevidentwhencomparingshiftsbyacounty’sdominanteconomy.Farmingandminingnolongermonopolizetheoverallruraleconomy,buttheyhavehardlydisappeared(seeFarming Countiesonpage10).Farmingstilldomi-natesthelocaleconomyofsome403ruralcountiesoutof2,151.Mining(whichincludesoilandgasextraction)isamajorforceinanother113counties.However,thesecountiesarelargelyatademographicstandstillingrowth.Between2000and2010,thepopulationoffarming-dependentcountiesgrewbyjust0.3percent,andonly29percentgainedpopulation(Figure4).Thisminimalpop-ulationgainwasentirelyduetoanaturalincreasegainof3.0percent,whichwaslargeenoughtooffsetamigrationloss.Incontrast,inthe1990s,farmcountiesgrewby5.0percentwithcontributionsfrombothnaturalincreaseandmigration.Miningcountieswerealsoentirelydepen-dentonnaturalincreasefortheirmodestpopulationgainof2.7percent.Inall,just56percentoftheminingcoun-tiesgainedpopulationbetween2000and2010.

Thenetpopulationgainwasonly3.1percentbetween2000and2010,thoughmostmanufacturingcounties(57per-cent)didcontinuetogrow.Againfromnaturalincreaseof430,000accountedfor75percentofthispopulationgaininmanufacturingcounties.Incontrast,migrationcontributedonlymodestlytothepopulationgrowth,andlessthanhalf(47percent)ofthemanufacturingcountiesgainedfrommigration.Theglobalizationofmanufacturingcoupledwiththerecentsevererecessionadverselyimpactedtheruralmanufacturingsector,aslowskill,low-wagejobshaveshiftedoffshoreordisappearedastechnologyhasreplacedlaborontheshopfloor(seeStraddling an Economic Transformationonpage10).9

Thedemographicstorywasquitedifferentinruralcoun-tieswithnaturalamenities,recreationalopportunities,orqualityoflifeadvantages(seeRecreational Counties onpage10).CountiesrichinamenitieshaveconsistentlybeenthefastestgrowinginruralAmerica.MajorconcentrationsofthesecountiesexistinthemountainandcoastalregionsoftheWest,intheupperGreatLakes,incoastalandscenicareasofNewEnglandandupstateNewYork,inthefoothillsoftheAppalachiansandOzarks,aswellasincoastalregionsfromVirginiatoFlorida.10

The277ruralcountiesthataredestinationsforretireesexemplifythisfast-growthtrend,withpopulationgainsof13.4percentbetween2000and2010.The299nonmetropoli-tanrecreationalcountieswereclosebehindat10.7percent.Overall,84percentoftheretirementdestinationcountiesand69percentoftherecreationalcountiesgainedpopula-tionduringthedecade.

Thereisconsiderableoverlapinpatternsbetweenthesetwotypesofcountiesbecausethenaturalandbuiltamenitiesthatattractvacationersandsecondhomeownersalsoattractretirees.Nearly90percentofthepopulationgaininretire-mentcountiesand81percentofthegaininrecreationalcountieswasfueledbymigration.Thesemigrationstreamsincludemigrantsmovingforqualityoflifereasons,aswellasothermigrantsattractedbyeconomicopportunitiesgener-atedbynewgrowth.Yetevenamongthesefast-growingruralcounties,populationgainsslowedbetween2000and2010.Whilestillexceedingthenationalaverage,thegainswereonlyhalfasgreatasthoseduringthe1990sinthesamegroupsofcounties.

Figure 4. Demographic change by nonmetropolitan county type, 1990 to 2010

Source: US Census 1990-2010 and USDA Economic Research Service 2004

Countiesdominatedbymanufacturinghavetradition-allybeenoneofthebrightspotsofruraldemographicchange(seeManufacturing Countiesonpage10).Infact,ruraldevelopmentstrategieshavetraditionallyfocusedonexpandingthemanufacturingbase.8Thereare584ruralmanufacturing-dominantcounties,andtheirpopulationsgrewby8.1percentduringthe1990s,mostlyfrommigration.However,growthsloweddramaticallyinthenewcentury.

4 C A R S E Y I N S T I T U T E

TheDemographicImpactofRacialandEthnicMinoritiesAnyanalysisofrecentdemographictrendsinruralAmericamustrecognizethegrowingimpactofminoritypopulations.Between2000and2010,theminoritypopulation,whichin-cludedeveryoneotherthannon-Hispanicwhites,accountedfor82.7percentofthenonmetropolitanpopulationgain,eventhoughminoritiesrepresentedjust21percentoftheru-ralpopulation.Theminoritypopulationgrewby1.8million(21.3percent)duringthedecadecomparedwithagainofjust382,000(0.95percent)amongthemuchmorenumer-ousnon-Hispanicwhitepopulation.Thus,whilenonmetro-politanAmericaremainslessdiversethanurbanAmerica,

minoritygrowthnowaccountsformostruralpopulationincrease,justasitdoesinurbanareas.

PatternsofracialdiversityhavebeenunevenacrossruralAmerica(Figure5).Manycountiesremainoverwhelminglynon-Hispanicwhite,butracialdiversityissubstantialandincreasingrapidlyinotherareas.LargeconcentrationsofAfricanAmericansremaininruralareasoftheSoutheast,bolsterednowbyarecentinfluxofblackmigrantsfromotherregions,althoughmostcontinuetorelocateinsoutherncities.HispanicsarespreadingoutbeyondtheirhistoricrootsintheSouthwestintotheSoutheastandMidwest.11Aboutone-halfofthenonmetropolitanHispanicpopulationnowresidesoutsidetheruralSouthwest.12TheseresettlementpatternstogetherwithHispanicnaturalincreasehavebeeninstru-mentalinoffsettingnon-Hispanicwhitepopulationdeclines,

Figure 5. Nonmetropolitan minority population distribution, 2010

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010Note: See Data and Methods on page 9 for more information.

C A R S E Y I N S T I T U T E 5

especiallyintheGreatPlains.Over200nonmetropolitancounties—doublethenumberobservedforthe1990s—wouldhaveexperiencedpopulationdeclinebetween2000and2005withoutHispanicsmigrantsandnaturalincrease.13

Figure6showsHispanics’substantialimpactonrecentruraldemographicchange.Duringthe1990s,Hispanicsaccountedfor25percentoftheentireruralpopulationgain,eventhoughtheyrepresentedjust3.5percentoftheruralpopulation.Thiscontributiontoruralgrowthacceleratedafter2000,whenHispanicsaccountedfor54percentoftheruralgain,whilerepresentingonly5.4percentofthepopulationin2000.By2010,theHispanicpopulationinruralAmericastoodat3.8million,againof45percentfrom2000.Hispanicmigrationisnowhavinglargesecondarydemographiceffectsonfertilityandnatu-ralincrease.14Between2000and2005,58percentofthenonmetropolitanHispanicincreasewasduetotheexcessofbirthsoverdeaths.15

Althoughsmallinoverallnumbers,nativepeoplesalsorepresentanimportantelementofmanyruralcommunitiesintheGreatPlainsandinpartsoftheWest.Surprisingly,therearefewmulti-ethniccountiesinruralAmerica.IntheSouthwest,nativepeoplesandHispanicsresidetogetherinafewcounties,andtherearescatteredpocketsofblacksandHispanicsco-residingintheSoutheastandEastTexas.Butingeneral,althoughdiversityisgrowinginruralAmerica,itisdoingsoonamodestscalewithoneoratmosttwominoritygroupsresidinginthesameruralcounty.

Childrenareinthevanguardofthisgrowingdiversityinnonmetropolitanareas.Nationwide,minoritychildrenrepresented46percentoftheU.S.populationunderage18in2010.Incontrast,only33percentoftheadultpopu-lationisminority.PatternsaresimilarinruralAmerica,

wherenearly28percentofthechildpopulationisminor-itycomparedwith18percentoftheadultpopulation(Figure7).Atmorethan12percentin2010,Hispanicsrepresentthelargestshareofthisminorityyouthpopula-tioninruralareas.16

Theconventionalwisdomisthatthisgrowingracialandethnicdiversityislargelyabig-cityphenomenon.However,theabsolutegrowthofminoritychildren—especiallyHis-panicchildren—isalsoevidentinruralareas,evenastheoverallchildpopulationtheredeclinedbynearly515,000

Figure 6. Percentage of nonmetropolitan population and population change by race and hispanic origin, 2000 to 2010

Source: US Census 2000 and 2010

Figure 7. Nonmetropolitan population by race and hispanic origin, 2010

Source: U.S. Census 2010

Figure 8. Absolute and percent change in child population by race/hispanic origin, 2000 to 2010

Source: U.S. Census 2000 and 2010

6 C A R S E Y I N S T I T U T E

(-4.2percent)between2000and2010(datanotshown).Figure8reflectsboththeabsoluteandpercentagechangeinthechildpopulationbetween2000and2010.Itshowsthatthenumberofnon-Hispanicwhitechildrendeclinedby940,000(-10.0percent)inruralareas,whilethenum-berofblackchildrendeclinedby11.6percent.TheoveralllossofchildreninruralareaswascushionedbyaHispanicchildpopulationgainof434,000children(45.1percent).Thesignificantlossofwhitechildrencoupledwithagrow-ingHispanicchildpopulationacceleratedthediversifica-tionoftheruralchildpopulation.

Today,591countieshavemoreminoritythanwhitechil-dren(so-called“majority-minority”counties)andanother300are“near”majority-minority,withbetween40and50percentminorityyouthpopulations(Figure9).Ofthese,356majority-minorityyouthcountiesarenonmetropolitanasare178ofthenearmajority-minoritycounties.Theseruralmajority-minoritycountiesareconcentratedintheMissis-sippiDelta,theRioGranderegion,theSoutheast,andintheNorthernGreatPlains.Youngpeopleclearlyareaharbingeroffutureracial-ethnicchangeanddiversityinruralAmerica,asdeathsamongtheolderlargelywhitepopulationarereplaceddisproportionatelybyminoritybirths.

Figure 9. Nonmetropolitan minority child population concentration, 2010

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010

C A R S E Y I N S T I T U T E 7

DiscussionandPolicyImplicationsThestoryofdemographicchangeinruralAmericainthefirstdecadeofthetwenty-firstcenturyisastoryofslow-inggrowthasaresultofslowingmigration,coupledwithgrowingdiversity.Ruralpopulationgainswereconsiderablysmallerthantheyhadbeenduringtheruralreboundofthe1990s.Nonmetropolitanareasgrewbyjust2.2millionpeoplebetween2000and2010,barelyhalfthegrowthofthe1990s.TheslowerpopulationgrowthinruralAmericaoccurredbecausemigrationcontributedfarlesstotheruralpopulationincreasethanithadduringthe1990s.Paradoxically,naturalincrease(morebirthsthandeaths)re-emergedastheprimarydemographicforcefuelingruralgrowthnotbecauseofasurgeinruralbirths,butbecausemigrationtoruralAmericahassharplydiminished.

Thefirstdecadeofthetwenty-firstcenturyalsohighlightsnewpatternsofracialandethnicdiversityinruralAmerica.Hispanicsinparticularrepresentanewsourceofdemograph-icvigorinpartsofruralAmerica,especiallyintheMidwestandSoutheast.Theminoritypopulationrepresentsjust21percentoftheruralpopulation,butminoritiesproducednearly83percentoftheruralpopulationincreasebetween2000and2010.Hispanicsaccountedformorethanhalfoftheruralpopulationgaininthelastdecade,thoughtheyrepresentjust7.5percentoftheruralpopulationin2010.

TwopowerfuldemographicforcesplaceyoungpeopleinthevanguardofAmerica’snewdiversity.Thefirstistheincreaseinthenumberofminoritychildren.AsecondandevenmoredramaticforceinruralAmericaistheabsolutedeclineinthepopulationofnon-Hispanicwhiteyouth.TheproportionofminoritychildrenisnowgrowingrapidlyinmanypartsofruralAmerica.Yet,therearestillbroadruralregionswhereinteractionbetweenyoungpeoplefromdiffer-entrace-ethnicbackgroundsislimited.

Thesedemographicchangeshaveimportantpolicyimplica-tions.First,asruralAmericabecomesmoreraciallyandeth-nicallydiverse,ruralinstitutionsthatserveyoungpeople,suchaseducationandhealthcare,willbethefirsttofeeltheimpactandnewchallengesofthisgrowingdiversity.Suchinstitutionsareamongthemostexpensiveforlocalgovernments.Adjust-ingtogrowingdiversityisafinancialchallengeforcommuni-tiesduringthebestoftimes,muchlesswhentheyfacetheworstrecessioninageneration.Norarefinancialproblemstheonlychallengesruralcommunitiesfaceindealingwithdiversity.Hispanicsaretransformingthesocialfabricofmanysmalltowns,whileraisingimportantpolicyquestions(suchasschooling,politicalparticipation,andracialtensions)abouttheirsuccessfulincorporationintoAmericansociety.17

Thesecondpolicyimplicationstemsfromafamiliarproblem:highandpersistentchildpoverty.RecentresearchbytheCarseyInstitutedocumentsthestubbornpersistenceofchildpovertyinlargeareasofruralAmerica.18Bydefinition,

persistentpovertyishighlevelsofchildpovertyforatleastthirtyyears.Inall,571ofthe706U.S.countieswithpersistentchildpoverty(81percent)areinruralAmerica.Morethan26percentoftheruralchildpopulationresidesinthesecountieswithpersistentpoverty.Thiscompareswithjust12percentofurbanchildren.Therecessionhasonlyworsenedthissitua-tionwiththeproportionofchildreninpovertyrisinginthesealreadydisadvantagedcounties.Norispersistentchildpovertylimitedtoafewisolatedpocketsortominoritychildren.ItiswidespreadinlargelywhiteareasofAppalachiaandtheOzarks,justasitisinblackareasoftheMississippiDelta,NativeAmericanareasoftheGreatPlains,andinHispanicenclavesintheRioGrandeValley.ThedemographicchangesthatruralAmericahasexperiencedoverthelastdecadehavedonenothingtoalleviatepersistentpoverty.Thesocialandeconomicisolationfosteredbydistanceandlimitedtranspor-tationthatmanyoftheruralpoorfaceareamongthereasonswhywelfarereform,expansionofgovernmenthealthinsur-ance,andeducationreformsaffectchildrendifferentlyinruralareasthanincitiesandsuburbs.Inthefaceofgovernmentspendingcutbacksandtwodecadesofshiftingpolicy-makingresponsibilityfromthefederaltostateandlocalgovernments,itisimperativethatpolicymakersbecognizantofthecontinu-ingvulnerabilityoftheruralchildpopulation.

Afinalpolicyimplicationstemsfromthevariedpat-ternsofpopulationchange.AlthoughpopulationgrowthisslowingoverallinruralAmerica,somecommunitiesarethriving.Forfast-growingruralcounties,includingthosejustbeyondtheurbanedgeaswellasinamenity-richareas,programsandexpertiseareneededtoaddressthecomplexissuesofmanaginggrowthanddevelopment.Theseneedsareparticularlyacuteincommunitieswithrecreationalandnaturalamenities.Insuchareas,rapidpopulationincreaseputsadditionalpressureontheenvironmentallysensitiveriparian,forest,historical,andscenicareasthatoriginallyattractedmigrants,butnowmaybeoverwhelmedbythem.Managingrapidgrowthrepresentsaseriouschallengethatmanyruralgovernmentsaresimplynotpreparedtomeet,especiallyduringamajorrecessionthatisstretchingtheirlimitedresourceseventhinner.

Incontrast,inremoteruralagriculturalareas,thepopula-tionslowdownhasbeenprofound.Inhundredsofthesecoun-ties,morepeoplearenowdyingthanbeingbornandyoungadultscontinuetoleave,astheyhavefordecades.Hereruralpolicymustamelioratetheadverseimpactsofadiminishingpopulationontheprovisionofcriticalservicesandsupportprogramsaswellasprovideaccesstotheresources(internet,capital,andexpertise)neededtoexpandthelocalinfrastruc-tureandenhancefuturedevelopmentopportunities.

Inallcases,policymakersmustunderstandthevariedpatternsofdemographicchangeinruralcommunitiesanddesignpoliciesthatarecomprehensiveenoughtoaddressthemulti-facetedchallengesthesecommunitiesface.

8 C A R S E Y I N S T I T U T E

The2003NewHomesteadAct,whichwassponsoredbyabipartisangroupoffarm-statesenators,exemplifiesthekindofcomprehensivelegislationneededtoaddressthecomplexneedsofruralareas.Designedtostempopulationloss,thebilltargetednonmetropolitancountiesthatlostmorethan10percentoftheirpopulationfromoutmigrationduringthepasttwentyyears.Some698countiesqualifiedforthepro-gram,includingthefourfarmcountieswehighlight—Jewell,Osborne,Republic,andSmith.ModeledontheoriginalHomesteadActof1862,whichofferedgovernmentlandtoanyonewillingtosettleonandworkitforfiveyears,theNewHomesteadActofferedincentivestoindividualsandbusinessestoencouragethemtostayinormovetocountieswithhistoriesofmigrationloss.Forindividuals,incentivesincludedrepaymentofcollegeloans,taxcreditsforhomepurchases,protectionofhomevalues,andtax-freeaccountstobuildsavingsandincreaseaccesstocredit.Forbusinesses,incentivesincludedinvestmenttaxcredits,micro-enterprisetaxcredits,andaventurecapitalfund.

Unfortunately,thelegislationnevermadeitoutofcom-mittee.Nonetheless,theNewHomesteadActexemplifiesthetypeofcomprehensive,multifacetedbillneededtoaddressmanyofthechallengesthatcausedpopulationloss.

ThefatesofruralandurbanAmericaareincreasinglylinkedinthenewcentury.19However,policiestoaddresstheneedsofAmerica’s100largestmetropolitanareasmaynotyieldsimilarsuccessesinruralAmerica,wheredistancesaregreater,isolationiscommon,andagglomerationadvantagesarefewerandfartherbetween.Onlycomprehensivepolicies,suchastheNewHomesteadAct,thatarefullycognizantofthespecialneedsofruralcommunitiesandinformedbyinputfromlocalruralleaderscanaddresstheemergingde-mographic,economic,andspatialchallengesthatmanyruralcommunitiesface.Improvingtheopportunities,accessibility,andviabilityofruralareasiscriticalbothtothe51millionruralresidentsandtothelargernationthatdependonthecontributionsruralAmericamakestothematerial,environ-mental,andsocialwell-beingofthenation.

DataandMethodsCountiesaretheunitofanalysis.Theyhavehistoricallystableboundariesandareabasicunitforreportingfertility,mortality,andcensusdatabythefederalgovernment.Coun-tiesarealsoappropriateunitsofanalysisbecausemetropoli-tanareasarebuiltupfromthem(county-equivalentsareusedforNewEngland).Wedesignatecountiesasmetropoli-tanornonmetropolitanusingcriteriadevelopedbytheU.S.OfficeofManagementandBudget.Weuseaconstant2004metropolitan-nonmetropolitanclassification.Suchafixed

definitionofnonmetropolitanandmetropolitanremovestheeffectofreclassificationfromthecalculationoflongitudinalpopulationchange.

Metropolitanareasincludecountiescontaininganurbancoreof50,000ormorepopulation(orcentralcity),alongwithadjacentcountiesthatarehighlyintegratedwiththecorecountyasmeasuredbycommutingpatterns.Thereare1,090metropolitancounties.Theremaining2,051countiesareclassifiedasnonmetropolitan.Foreaseofexposition,weusetheterms“metropolitan”and“urban”(and“nonmetro-politan”and“rural”)interchangeably.Insomeanalyses,wehavefurtheridentifiedlargemetropolitancorecountiesinmetropolitanareasof1millionormore,andconsiderthemseparatelyfromallothermetropolitancounties.

WealsoclassifycountiesusingatypologydevelopedbytheEconomicResearchServiceoftheU.S.DepartmentofAgriculturethatgroupsnonmetropolitancountiesalongeconomicandpolicydimensions.20Countypopulationdatacomefromthedecennialcensusfor1990,2000,and2010.TheyaresupplementedwithdatafromtheFederal-StateCooperativePopulationEstimatesprogram(FSCPE),whichprovidesinformationonbirthsanddeathsineachcountyforApril2000toJuly2009.21WeestimatedbirthsanddeathsfromJuly2009tothecensusinApril2010at.75oftheamountfromJuly2008toJuly2009.Wederivedtheesti-matesofnetmigrationbytheresidualmethod,wherebynetmigrationiswhatisleftwhennaturalincrease(birthsminusdeaths)issubtractedfromtotalpopulationchange.

DatafortheracialandHispanicoriginofthepopula-tionarefromthe2000and2010census.Fiveethnoracialgroupsareidentified:(1)Hispanicsofanyrace,(2)non-Hispanicwhites,(3)non-Hispanicblacks,(4)non-HispanicAsians,and(5)allothernon-Hispanics,includingthosewhoreportedtwoormoreraces.Insomeanalyses,NativeAmericansarereportedseparately.Toexaminethespatialdistributionofdifferentracialandethnicchildpopulations,weestimatedthenumberandpercentageofmajority-minor-ity counties—thosehavingatleasthalftheirchildpopulationfromminoritygroupsin2010—andnear majority-minoritycounties—thosewithbetween40percentand50percentoftheirchildrenfromminoritypopulations.

Wealsoclassifiedcountiesashavingminorityconcentra-tionsifmorethan10percentofthepopulationwasfromaspecificminoritygroup.Black,Hispanic,Asian,andNativeAmericanwerethefourminoritygroupsthatreachedthe10percentthresholdinatleastonecounty.Weclassifiedcoun-tiesthathadtwoormoreminoritygroupsreachingthe10percentthresholdasmulti-ethnic.

C A R S E Y I N S T I T U T E 9

CountySnapshots

Farming Counties

RuralAmericawasoriginallysettledbypeoplewhoselivelihooddependedontheirabilitytowrestlefood,fiber,andmineralsfromtheland.TheUSDAdefines403farm-dependentcountiesthatrepresentthistraditionalruralsec-tor.AmongthemareJewell,Osborne,Republic,andSmithcountiesinKansas.SituatedalongtheNebraska-Kansasborderandstraddlingtheboundarybetweenthecornandwheatbelts,thesecountieshaveaverylargeproportionoftheirlaborforceengagedinagricultureandarefarremovedfromtheurbanscene.

In1900,nearly66,000peoplelivedandfarmedinthesefourcounties.Thepopulationhasdeclinedeversince.By1990,only20,700peopleremained.Thepopulationdroppedanother24percentinthenexttwentyyears,leavingjust15,800peoplein2010.Youngadultshavehistoricallyleftthesefarmcountiesinlargenumbers.Incontrast,theolderpopulationstays.Asaresult,allfourcountiesexperiencedoverallnaturaldecreaseineachofthelastfourdecades.

Thesefarming-dependentcountiesdoenjoysignificantadvantages.Unemploymentandpovertylevelsarelow.Incomesandhousingpricesaremoderate,producinganaffordablestandardofliving.Residentsfindthesefarmcountiesappealingbecausetheybelievetheirneighborswillhelpoutwhenneeded,peoplegetalong,andresidentsworktogetherwellintheircommunities.22Thecontinuinglossofpeopleandjobsdespitestronglocalsocialandcommunitycapitalreflectsthedilemmafacingmanyruralfarmcoun-ties.Addressingthisrequirescomprehensivepolicyinitia-tivesthatcapitalizeonlocalsocialandcommunitycapitaltoencouragepeople,business,andinstitutionstostayintheregionaswellasattractnewresidents.

Recreational Counties

Michigan’sGrandTraverseCountyexemplifiesthefastgrow-ingrecreationalandretirementdestinationsdiscussedinthisreport.SituatedonabeautifulLakeMichiganbayinMichi-gan’sLowerPeninsula,thecountyiswellknownforitscrystalclearlakes,skislopes,golfcourses,restaurants,andlodging.Ithasawell-earnedreputationasayear-roundrecreationalcenter,butitseconomyisactuallyquitediverse.

GrandTraverseamenitiesattractretireesandthecreativeclassesseekinganalternativetothehecticpaceofurbanlife.Theresulthasbeenrapidpopulationincrease,from39,175in1970to64,273in1990,a64percentgaininjusttwentyyears.Growthcontinuedinthe1990swithagainof20.8percent.Mostofthegrowthcamefrommigration,withasubstantial

flowfromthemetropolitanareasofsouthernMichiganandChicago.Growthslowedtojust12percentafter2000,asithasinmanyrecreationalareas,asaresultofslowingmigration,especiallyastherecessionhasdeepened.Eventhefastgrowingamenityregionsarenotimmunetoeconomicforces.

GrandTraverse’shistoryofgrowthhasexpandedemploy-mentopportunities,makingiteasierforresidentstostayandforworkersfromsurroundingareastomovein.Butthisgrowthhashadnegativeconsequencesaswell,withsomeconcernedabouttheimpactthatsomuchgrowthwillhaveontheenvironmentandqualityoflifeinthecommunity.

Manufacturing Counties

SurryCountyinNorthCarolinaisnestledagainsttheVir-giniaborderinthescenicfoothillsoftheSmokeyMoun-tains.Thecountyhasalonghistoryasacenterofruralmanufacturingmostlyinfurnituremakingandtextiles,butbothofthosesectorsarefadingandjobsaredisappearing.23Poultryprocessingisgrowinginthecounty,asitisinmuchoftheruralSoutheast,butjobsarestillscarce.Tourismisalsoontherisebecauseofthecounty’sbeautyanditsprox-imitytothegrowingurbanareastotheSouth.

Thecountyhashaditsdemographicupsanddowns.Surry’spopulationgrewby15.6percentduringtheruralturnaroundofthe1970sandby15.4percentduringthereboundofthe1990s.Migrationfueledalmostallofthisgrowth.Growthhasdiminishedsharplysince2000,withthecountygrowingbyjust3.5percentbecausenetmigrationfelltolessthan20percentofits1990slevel.SurryCounty’srecentdemographicchangeillustratesthegrowingdiversityofruralAmericaaswell.Hispanicsaccountedforvirtuallyalloftherecentpopulationgain,growingbymorethan50percentbetween2000and2010andnowrepresentingnearly10percentofthepopulation.PriorresearchbytheCarseyInstitutehighlightsthechallengesthatSurryandmanyotherruralcountiesfaceastheirpopulationsbecomemorediverse.24

Straddling an Economic Transformation

InNewHampshire’snorthernmostcounty,CoösCounty,adecliningmanufacturingandresourceextractionbasecoupledwithgrowingrecreationalactivity,hasproducedanunusualdemographicprofile.Formorethan100years,woodandpaperproductswereamainstayoftheeconomy,withlargemillsemployinggenerationsofresidentsprocess-ingthetimberofthevastnorthernforests.Today,onlyonemillremainsanditsfutureisprecarious.Yet,CoösCountyisalsosituatedinascenicregionwithskiareasandgrandoldresortsthathavewelcomedgenerationsofvacationersandnowamenitymigrants.

10 C A R S E Y I N S T I T U T E

CoösCountycurrentlyhas33,100residents,roughly1,200fewerresidentsthanithadin1970,andithaslostpopulationineachofthelastthreedecades.Therewere3,000birthsinCoösCountybetween2000and2010,butmorethan4,100deaths.Thisproducedanaturalpopulationlossof3.3percent.Coösalsoexperiencednaturaldecreaseinthe1990s.Yetbetween2000and2010,CoösCountygainedmigrantsbecauseofitsrecreationalappeal.Thismigrationgainoffsetmostofthenaturaldecreaseresultinginapopu-lationdeclineofjust56people(.2percent),aconsiderableimprovementoverthelossofnearly1,700duringthe1990s.

Thedifferinginfluenceofmanufacturingandrecreationisevidentinlocalmigrationpatterns.CoösCountyisstilllosingmanyofits20-to39-year-olds,whichiscommontomanyextractive-basedcounties(forestry,farming,andmining).Working-agedadultsmustoftenleavetoseekopportunitieselsewhere.Atthesametime,themodestinfluxofthoseaged50to59iscommoninrecreation-basedcounties.25

CoösCountyisseekingtocapitalizeonitsgrowingrecreationalappealthroughacounty-wideefforttocreateacommonbrand.Theeffortmustovercomethefierceinde-pendenceoflocalcommunitiesinthe“livefreeordie”state,however.26Suchrebrandingandregionalcooperationisanimportantstrategyforruralcommunitiestoconsiderastheyattempttoadapttotheeconomicanddemographictransfor-mationfacingruralAmericainthenewcentury.

E N D N O T E S1.Weusethetermsmetropolitanandurban(andnonmetro-politanandrural)interchangeably.2.KennethM.Johnson,“DemographicTrendsinRuralandSmallTownAmerica,”Reports on Rural America,vol.1,no.1(Durham,NH:CarseyInstitute,2006),pp.1-35.3.KennethM.JohnsonandJohnB.Cromartie,“TheRuralReboundandItsAftermath:ChangingDemographicDy-namicsandRegionalContrasts.”InPopulation Change and Rural Society,editedbyW.KandelandD.L.Brown(Dordre-cht,Netherlands:Springer,2006).4.Immigrationcontributedmoretoruralmigrationgainsbetween2000and2010thanitdidduringthe1990s.Nodefinitiveimmigrationdataarecurrentlyavailablefortheperiod,butestimatesfrom2000to2009suggestasubstan-tialinflowofimmigrantstobothadjacentandnonadjacentcounties.However,evenwithimmigrationontherise,over-allmigrationgainsweresignificantlysmallerinruralareasduringthefirstdecadeofthetwenty-firstcentury. 5.KennethM.JohnsonandCalvin.L.Beale,“NaturalPopu-lationDecreaseintheUnitedStates,”Rural Development Perspectives,vol.8(1992):8-15.6.KennethM.Johnson,“TheContinuingIncidenceofNatu-ralDecreaseinAmericanCounties,”Rural Sociology,vol.76,no.1(2011):74-100.7.Ibid.8.Manufacturingisanimportantcomponentoftheruraleconomyemployingalargerproportionoftherurallaborforcethanitdoesinurbanareas.SeeJohnson,“Demograph-icTrendsinRuralandSmallTownAmerica.”9.Johnson,“DemographicTrendsinRuralandSmallTownAmerica”;andJohnsonandCromartie,“TheRuralReboundandItsAftermath.”10.KennethM.JohnsonandCalvinL.Beale,“NonmetroRecreationCounties:TheirIdentificationandRapidGrowth,”Rural America 17(2002):12-19;David.A.McGranahan,“NaturalAmenitiesDrivePopulationChange,”AgriculturalEconomicsReportno.718(Washington,DC:EconomicRe-searchService,U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,1999);Eco-nomicResearchService,“MeasuringRurality:2004CountyTypologyCodesMethods,DataSources,andDocumentation”(Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture),availableonlineathttp://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/Typology/Methods(retrievedJuly15,2011).11.WilliamKandelandJohnCromartie, New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America,RuralDevelopmentResearchReportno.99(Washington,DC:EconomicRe-searchService,USDA,2004);KennethM.JohnsonandDan-ielT.Lichter,“NaturalIncrease:ANewSourceofPopulation

C A R S E Y I N S T I T U T E 11

Buildingknowledgeforfamiliesandcommunities

TheCarseyInstituteconductspolicyresearchonvulnerablechildren,youth,andfamiliesandonsustainablecommunitydevelopment.Wegivepolicymakersandpractitionerstimely,independentresourcestoeffectchangeintheircommunities.

ThisresearchwassupportedbyagrantfromAGree,aprojectoftheMeridianInstitute.

HuddlestonHall73MainStreetDurham,NH03824

(603)862-2821

www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu

inEmergingHispanicDestinationsintheUnitedStates,”Population and Development Review,vol.34(2008):327-346.12.JohnsonandLichter,“NaturalIncrease.”13.KandelandCromartie, New Patterns of Hispanic Settle-ment in Rural America;JohnsonLichter,“NaturalIncrease.”14.JohnsonandLichter,“NaturalIncrease”;KennethM.JohnsonandDanielT.Lichter,“TheGrowingDiversityofAmerica’sChildrenandYouth:SpatialandTemporalDimen-sions,”Population and Development Review, vol.31,no.1(2010):151-176.

15.JohnsonandLichter,“NaturalIncrease.”16.JohnsonandLichter,“TheGrowingDiversityofAmeri-ca’sChildrenandYouth.”17.DouglasS.Massey,New Faces in New Places: The Chang-ing Geography of American Immigration(NewYork:RussellSageFoundation,2008).18.MaryBethMattingly,KennethM.Johnson,andAndrewP.Schaefer,“MorePoorKidsinMorePoorPlaces,”CarseyInstitutePolicyBrief(Durham,NH:CarseyInstitute,Uni-versityofNewHampshire,2011).19.DanielT.LichterandDavid.L.Brown,“RuralAmericainanUrbanSociety:ChangingSpatialandSocialBoundar-ies,”Annual Review of Sociology, vol.37(2011):565-592.20.EconomicResearchService,“MeasuringRurality.”21.U.S.CensusBureau,“AnnualCountyResidentPopula-tionEstimatesbyAge,Sex,Race,andHispanicOrigin:April1,2000toJuly1,2009”(Washington,DC:U.S.CensusBureau,2010),availableathttp://www.census.gov/popest/counties/counties.html(retrievedAugust30,2011).22.LarryC.Hamiltonetal.,Place Matters: Challenges and Opportunities in Four Rural America. A Carsey Institute Report on Rural America(Durham,NH:CarseyInstitute,UniversityofNewHampshire,2008).23.Johnson,“DemographicTrendsinRuralandSmallTownAmerica.”24.Ibid.25.KennethM.Johnsonetal.,“TemporalandSpatialVaria-tioninAge-SpecificNetMigrationintheUnitedStates,”Demography, vol.42,no.4(2005):791-812.26.MicheleDillon,“StretchingTies:SocialCapitalintheRebrandingofCoösCounty,NewHampshire,”NewEnglandIssueBrief (Durham,NH:CarseyInstitute,UniversityofNewHampshire).

A B O U T T H E A U T H O R SKennethM.JohnsonisseniordemographerattheCarseyInstituteandprofessorofsociologyattheUniversityofNewHampshire(ken.johnson@unh.edu).

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T SThisresearchwassupportedbyagrantfromAGree,aprojectoftheMeridianInstitute.ResearchassistancewasprovidedbyLukeRogersandBarbCookoftheCarseyInstitute.ThankstoLeifJensenatPennsylvaniaStateUniversity;DanielLichteratCornellUniversity;BarbaraRayatHiredPen;andBruceMallory,CurtGrimm,AmySterndale,andLaurelLloydattheCarseyInstitutefortheirhelpfulcommentsandsuggestions.

12 C A R S E Y I N S T I T U T E