Every County in State Has Some Rural Population

• August 20th, 2019

Is Alabama a rural state or an urban state? The answer may surprise you. The Census Bureau recently provided some information about the urban and rural population in Alabama.

“Every county in Alabama has some rural population, even the most densely settled counties,” says Annette Jones Watters, manager of the Alabama State Data Center at the Center for Business and Economic Research at The University of Alabama. “But some sparsely settled counties have no urban population at all.”

In recent decades Alabama has seen an increased number of people moving from rural to urban settings. Twelve Alabama counties had smaller populations in 2000 than in 1990. All of these but Calhoun County (home of Anniston) are counties people think of as rural. But the government’s definition of “rural” has changed.

The Census Bureau has classified urban and rural population after each decennial census, Watters said. “This process began with the 1950 census. Since the 1950 census, the Census Bureau has revised these criteria for each decennial census, taking advantage of improvements in data collection, reporting methodologies and advancements in technology.”

The Census Bureau identifies and tabulates data for the urban and rural population solely for presenting census statistical data, Watters said. “The Bureau does not take into account any non-statistical uses that may be made of the data and it does not attempt to meet the requirements of any federal or state program. Nevertheless, the Census Bureau recognizes that some federal and state agencies are required by law to use urban and rural classification defined by the Census Bureau to allocate program funds, set program standards and implement aspects of the their programs.”

Watters stressed that the urban and rural designations “represent people who live, work and raise their families. People have a considerable amount of pride about where they are and have strong opinions about the concepts or rural and urban.”

With this series of definitional revisions, Watters said, “the Census Bureau tried hard to make all the decisions about urban/rural designation to be equitable, uniform and objective for the entire nation.”

Watters pointed out that the Census Bureau’s urban and rural statistics refer to “people, not to land area.” For example, a county will be classified as urban if most of its people live in areas that are densely settled. “That same county might have most of its territory taken up by things we think of as rural features–forests, farms, pastures and so on. Colbert County in north Alabama is a good example of an urban county by Census Bureau standards, but most of its land area is not part of any city or town.”

The urban population of a county, Watters said, lives in densely settled areas that meet minimum population density requirements. “The rules about what is ‘densely settled’ are very exact and the Census Bureau examined every block in the country to determine its urban status. ‘Rural’ is everything else that doesn’t fit the strict rules for ‘urban.’”

The new government urban/rural classification system produces some unexpected results in Alabama. For instance, Lauderdale County, home of Florence, is now a rural county. Although Florence is one of Alabama’s largest cities, there are enough people in Lauderdale County who do not live in Florence to make the population mix in that county 48 percent urban and 52 percent rural.

Another surprising outcome of the new urban/rural standards is that Macon County, home of Tuskegee, is now an urban county. Tuskegee is a much smaller town than Florence, but half of the people in Macon County live inside the city limits of Tuskegee, officially tipping the status of Macon County from rural to urban.

The Census Bureau says that 55 percent of Alabama’s population lives in an urban setting and 45 percent lives in rural areas. So, according to the Census Bureau’s definition, Alabama is an urban state.

Tax Package Macroeconomic Impact

• August 20th, 2019

Tax Package Effect on Alabama Citizens 50+

• August 20th, 2019

Effects of Sales and Cigarette Taxes on Households

• August 20th, 2019

Latest Census Numbers Show County Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin

• August 20th, 2019

The U.S. Census Bureau today issued its first county population estimates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin since Census 2000, pinpointing at the county level where increases and decreases in various population groups are occurring.

The estimates for the state’s 67 counties are as of July 1, 2002, said Annette Watters, manager of the Alabama State Data Center at The University of Alabama. “The race data and the Hispanic origin data cover two distinctly different concepts. The federal government considers Hispanic origin to be an ethnicity rather than a race. Hispanic persons may be of any race,” Watters explained.

The following findings highlight some of the changing demographics in Alabama:

Total Population
Counties in Alabama that were population gainers in the 20th century continue to be the hot counties in the 21st century. Between 2000 and 2002 Shelby County gained 10,539 people, the biggest gain of any county in the state. Madison County took the second spot with 9,200 additional people between the date of the 2000 Census and July 1, 2002. Growth was very uneven across the regions of the state and also uneven within specific demographics. Jefferson County had an overall population loss but a big gain within the African American population. Baldwin County had fewer than 400 additional school-aged children in that time period but more than 1,500 new residents over the age of 65.

Children under 5
Babies are more popular in some Alabama counties than others. In 38 of Alabama’s 67 counties, the number of children under the age of 5 either stayed about the same or declined in the time between 2000 and 2002. Jefferson County, which already had the biggest number of infants and toddlers, is the county that also gained the most over the 2000-2002 period.

Children 5 to 17
Between 2000 and 2002 Alabama lost 19,000 school-aged children. Some large counties (Shelby, Madison, St. Clair, Elmore, Baldwin, and Blount) included in a metro area were part of a contrary trend and gained in number of children between the ages of 5 and 17. All other counties in the state held about steady in number of residents in that age range, or they lost in that demographic. Metro status did not guarantee population gain among children. Some counties that lost the most number of school-aged children are also metro counties (Calhoun, Montgomery, Mobile, Jefferson).

People age 65 and over
Twenty-four of the 67 Alabama counties gained 100 or more persons aged 65 or older between 2000 and 2002. Most counties held about steady in that population group, gaining or losing less than 100 over the two-year period. Exceptions were Madison, Baldwin and Shelby Counties, which each gained more than 1,300 seniors, and Jefferson County, which lost more than 1,000.

People age 85 and over
In two years time, Alabama gained more than 4,000 persons who are older than 85 years old. Some might have moved to the state, but most are long-time residents who simply aged into this category. Nearly every county has more and more very elderly residents. Only some rural counties have fewer people 85 and older now than they did at the time of the 2000 census.

Blacks
Jefferson County had the largest population of Black people in 2000 (260,608) and 2002 (266,481), and also the largest numerical increase (5,873). Other counties with a gain of more than 1,000 African Americans over the two-year period were Montgomery, Mobile, Madison, Tuscaloosa, Shelby, and Lee.

Hispanics
Jefferson and Marshall Counties showed increases in their Hispanic population of more than 1,000 each, followed closely by DeKalb County, which gained about 975 Hispanics between 2000 and 2002. Shelby, Madison, Marshall, and Baldwin each gained more than 500 persons of Spanish origin. Several counties showed little or no change in their Hispanic population, although 16 counties showed a gain of between 100 and 500. Some counties believe their Census 2000 count of Hispanics was artificially low, making comparisons of change within the decade a little problematic.

Tables for every county in the state may be found on the CBER website. The Census Bureau makes county population estimates using administrative records in “a demographic-change model.” The estimates of population changes since the most recent census use data on births, deaths, and migration.

Alabama’s Population Tops 4.5 Million in 2003, According to Census Bureau

• August 20th, 2019

Alabama’s population grew by 21,856 people between 2002 and 2003, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s most recent population estimates. Alabama ranks 30th of 51 (including the District of Columbia) in number of residents added during that time period.

According to Annette Watters, manager of the Alabama State Data Center and a member of the National Steering Committee of the Census Bureau’s State Data Center organization, the South had the largest numerical increase in population (1.3 million), while the West recorded the fastest rate of growth (1.5 percent). Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia rank in the top 10 states for population growth, she said.

“Although Alabama is not one of the nation’s fastest growing states, it has netted more than 53,600 additional people since the Census was taken in 2000,” Watters said. “Population will increase when people move to the state or are born here. Population is subtracted when people move away or die. Most of Alabama’s population growth comes from natural increase. That is, there are more people born in Alabama than people who die in any given year.”

According to Watters, for two of the last three years, Alabama has had negative internal migration numbers.

“In other words, more people have moved away from Alabama than residents of other states have moved in,” she said. “We do not yet have new figures estimating the age, race, or educational attainment of these movers.”

From April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2003, Alabama’s net internal migration was a negative 9,826. The trend began to reverse itself between 2002 and 2003. “Last year we had 4,525 more people who moved here from other states than Alabamians who left,” Watters noted.

International migration is important to the state’s population growth, but it does not contribute as much to Alabama’s increase as it does to some other states, Watters noted. She said Alabama ranked 34th of 51 in 2003 for population change attributed to international migration.

Last year, Alabama picked up about 5,000 new residents from outside international borders, but other states in the South gained many more. For example, Florida gained 107,300 from net international migration; Georgia added 38,900; and Texas 135,000.

In recent years, Watters said, Shelby, Madison, and Baldwin Counties have been the primary recipients Alabama’s population increase. The county-by-county statistics for 2003 will be released in the spring of 2004.

Information about any county in Alabama can be obtained at http://cber.cba.ua.edu.

The University of Alabama’s Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration, founded in 1919, first began offering graduate education in 1923. Its Center for Business and Economic Research was created in 1930, and since that time has engaged in research programs to promote economic development in the state while continuously expanding and refining its base of socioeconomic information.

Alabama Metropolitan Areas: Working Toward a Strong 2004

• August 20th, 2019

Census Bureau Boundary and Annexation Survey

• August 20th, 2019

UA’s State Data Center Looks at the Latest Census Estimated Breakdown for the State

• August 20th, 2019

The U.S. Census Bureau has just released its estimated breakdown of Alabama’s population and some interesting numbers have emerged, says a University of Alabama census expert.

Boys outnumber girls in the state’s schools, but that number reverses dramatically when looking at the state’s senior citizen population. Males make up 51.3 percent of school-aged children, but men are only 40.5 percent of the population aged 65 and over. The difference is even more striking when looking at the very elderly. Men make up only 28 percent of the over-85 population.

“These new estimates have important uses for policy-makers, planners, government officials, and agencies whose clients include special age groups, such as schools, health-care providers or employers,” said Annette Jones Watters, manager of the State Data Center at The University of Alabama and a member of the Census Bureau’s National Steering Committee of the Census Bureau’s State Data Center, whose nine-member board serves as an advisory group to the Census Bureau.

In 2003, Watters said, there were nearly 3.9 million people in Alabama aged 18 and over. There were more than 592,000 people aged 65 and over.

“But the number of school-aged children is far greater than the number of seniors. There were 810,609 children in the state between the ages of 5 and 17,” Watters said. “School-aged children represent 18.0 percent of the state’s total population. Persons aged 65 and over represent 13.2 percent of the population.”

Watters also pointed out that the number of women of child-bearing age has actually been decreasing in Alabama throughout the decade.

In 2000 there were more than 970,000 women in Alabama between the ages of 15 and 44. By 2003, that number was 952,087. The number of men in that age group has been declining as well, she said.

“There are also fewer high school aged students in Alabama now than there were in 2003,” Watters said. “These are the ages of people who are finishing their education, entering the labor force, and moving into their prime earning years.”

The State Data Center is part of the Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration’s Center for Business and Economic Research. The Center was created in 1930, and since that time has engaged in research programs to promote economic development in the state while continuously expanding and refining its base of socioeconomic information.

Guidance on Uses of Statistical Area Definitions

• August 20th, 2019

All Agencies Should Use the Most Recent Definitions. All agencies that conduct statistical activities to collect and publish data for Metropolitan, Micropolitan, and Combined Statistical Areas, and New England City and Town Areas should use the most recent definitions of these areas established by OMB.

The Definitions Are for Statistical Purposes Only. OMB establishes and maintains the definitions of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas, Combined Statistical Areas, and New England City and Town Areas solely for statistical purposes. This classification is intended to provide nationally consistent definitions for collecting, tabulating, and publishing federal statistics for a set of geographic areas.

Inquiries. Inquiries concerning the Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Area Standards and the statistical uses of their definitions should be directed to Suzann Evinger (202-395-3093) at OMB. Inquiries about uses of the statistical area definitions in program administration or regulation should be directed to the appropriate agency.

Metropolitan Is Not the Same as Urban. The Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Area Standards do not equate to an urban-rural classification; many counties included in Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and many other counties, contain both urban and rural territory and populations.

Nonstatistical Program Uses of the Statistical Area Definitions. In periodically reviewing and revising the definitions of these areas, OMB does not take into account or attempt to anticipate any nonstatistical uses that may be made of the definitions, nor will OMB modify the definitions to meet the requirements of any nonstatistical program. Thus, OMB cautions that Metropolitan Statistical Area and Micropolitan Statistical Area definitions should not be used to develop and implement federal, state, and local nonstatistical programs and policies without full consideration of the effects of using these definitions for such purposes.

Metro and Micro Areas May Not be Suitable for Program Funding Formulas. These areas are not intended to serve as a general-purpose geographic framework for nonstatistical activities, and they may or may not be suitable for use in program funding formulas. OMB recognizes that some legislation specifies the use of Metropolitan Statistical Areas for program purposes, including the allocation of federal funds, and will continue to work with the Congress to clarify the foundations of these definitions and the resultant, often unintended consequences of their use for nonstatistical purposes.

It Is the Sponsoring Agency’s Responsibility to Know What Is Appropriate. In cases where there is no statutory requirement and an agency elects to use the Metropolitan, Micropolitan, or Combined Statistical Area definitions in nonstatistical programs, it is the sponsoring agency’s responsibility to ensure that the definitions are appropriate for such use. When an agency is publishing for comment a proposed regulation that would use the definitions for a nonstatistical purpose, the agency should seek public comment on the proposed use.

An agency using the statistical definitions in a nonstatistical program may modify the definitions, but only for the purposes of that program. In such cases, any modifications should be clearly identified as deviations from the OMB statistical area definitions in order to avoid confusion with OMB’s official definitions of Metropolitan, Micropolitan, and Combined Statistical Areas.

In addition, in light of recent changes to the statistical area definitions, OMB urges federal agencies that use the statistical areas for allocating program funds to provide information to the public on their plans and schedules for using the new definitions.

New Terminology—Be Careful! The 2000 standards changed the terminology used for classifying the areas. Under the 1980 and 1990 standards there were two types of areas:
(1) Metropolitan Statistical Areas and
(2) Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas that consisted of Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
The terms “Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area” and “Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area” are now obsolete.

“Metropolitan Division” Replaces “Primary Metropolitan Statsitical Area.” Under the 2000 standards, “Metropolitan Statistical Area” and “Micropolitan Statistical Area” are the terms used for the basic set of county-based areas defined under this classification. In addition, the term “Metropolitan Division” is used to refer to a county or group of counties within a Metropolitan Statistical Area that has a population core of at least 2.5 million. A Metropolitan Division is most generally comparable in concept, and equivalent to, the now obsolete Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area.

While a Metropolitan Division is a subdivision of a larger Metropolitan Statistical Area, it often functions as a distinct social, economic, and cultural area with the larger region. Metropolitan Divisions retain their separate statistical identities. Federal agencies will continue to provide detailed data for each Metropolitan Division, just as they did in the past for the Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas.

If federal agencies have been using the Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area for program administrative and fund allocation purposes, they should now consider using the Metropolitan Division definitions, the comparable geographic units of the classification based on the 2000 standards. Research and analyses that previously used data for Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas should now use data for Metropolitan Divisions. Data users and analysts interested in demographic and economic patterns, trends, and processes within large Metropolitan Statistical Areas should consider data for specific Metropolitan Divisions when conducting analyses.

Be Careful When Comparing to 1990 Data. Users making comparisons with areas defined under the 1990 standards should note that when the 2000 standards were applied, the result, in some cases, was to create several areas from an existing Metropolitan Statistical Area. The resulting reconfigured areas may also qualify under the 2000 standards to form a complementary Combined Statistical Area, while retaining their separate designations as Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Areas. In these situations, the Combined Statistical Area may be the approximate geographic equivalent of the previous Metropolitan Statistical Area, and thus may be the more appropriate geographic unit for analytic and program purposes.

Sometimes the Combined Statistical Area Will Be the Only Geography Reported for Data Tabulations. Federal agencies will be making economic and demographic data available for Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas, Metropolitan Divisions, New England City and Town Areas, and Combined Statistical Areas. Because of sample sizes and associated data quality and confidentiality issues, there may be instances where agencies will produce data only at the level of Combined Statistical Areas.

Electronic Links to Useful Sites. The OMB bulletin from which this report was taken is available electronically from the OMB website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins/fy04/b04-03.html

The 2000 Standards for Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas are available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/metroareas122700.pdf.

Other background documents are available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/statpolicy.html#ms

Historical definitions of Metropolitan Statistical Areas are available from the Census Bureau’s web site at: http://www.census.gov.