REGIONAL. San Joaquin County Population Forecast

EBERHARDT SCHOOL OF BUSINESS BusinessForecasting Center 12 Lodi 99 in partnership with San Joaquin Council of Governments 26 5 4 Stockton Lath...
Author: Joan Goodman
8 downloads 1 Views 1MB Size
EBERHARDT SCHOOL OF BUSINESS

BusinessForecasting Center

12

Lodi 99

in partnership with San Joaquin Council of Governments

26

5 4

Stockton

Lathrop

205

120

Manteca Ripon

Tracy

Escalon

analyst

REGIONAL

j u ly 2 0 0 8

San Joaquin County Population Forecast

Between 2005 and 2030, San Joaquin County’s population will grow an average of 1.9% per year, twice as fast as California and the U.S., and reach the one million milestone by 2030.

San Joaquin County population has been growing faster than the state and the nation. The strongest growth in the county took place in the 1980s and between the years 2000 and 2005. In other periods, San Joaquin County population growth has paralleled state and national trends. As shown in Figure 1, the county has grown more than 2% per year, nearly one and a half times the state and over two times the nation over the past 35 years. However, the last two years have seen a substantial slowdown in population growth. Will the slowdown continue or is it just a temporary pause before another period of rapid growth? This report examines the components of population growth in the county, and projects the county’s population through 2030 under different scenarios.

Figure 1: Current Population of San Joaquin County, California, and the United States, Compared to Their 1970 Population 2.50

San Joaquin County California United States

2.25

2.00

1.75

1.50

1.25

1.00 1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

Births, Deaths and Migration: The Components of Population Growth Figure 2 shows that the general fertility rate for San Joaquin County is well above the state and the nation, exceeding it by about 10 births per 1,000 women that are 15 to 44 years of age. If the county’s fertility rates were at the United States (U.S.) average level, there would be about 1,400 fewer babies born in San Joaquin County each year.

The higher rates in the county are due to several reasons. First, birth rates are typically higher among Hispanic and Asian mothers. In addition, birth rates are higher among households with lower education or income, and San Joaquin County, unfortunately, has relatively more low income and education households. Figure 3 shows death rates in the three regions. Death rates in the county are lower than the nation, but somewhat higher than the rest of California. The San Joaquin County death rate is lower than the U.S. because the county is much younger than the rest of the country. The median age in San Joaquin County in 2004 was 31.6, nearly five years lower than the U.S. median of 36.2. Death rates are somewhat higher than the rest of California due to the impact of lower incomes and education on health. If the county’s death rate were similar to the U.S., there would be about 700 more deaths in San Joaquin County in a typical year. As a result, the rate of natural population increase is much higher in San Joaquin County than in other regions. The county’s population naturally increases by about 6,000 people per year. If birth and death rates were at national averages, natural population growth would be about 4,000 per year. The last component of population growth is migration, where patterns among regions are strikingly different. As shown in Figure 4, San Joaquin County received

2

Regional Analyst | July 2008

a large population boost from domestic migration as it gained 1.5% of total population per year during the 2001 to 2005 period. California, on the contrary, lost 0.4% of its residents to other states during the same period, while the nation, by definition, has zero domestic migration each year. Domestic migration fluctuates greatly over time, rising and falling with local economic conditions. In both good and bad economic times, the county consistently gains more Hispanic population from domestic migration, while the gain of White population is consistently small, if not negative.

Figure 2. San Joaquin County General Fertility Rate is Well Above California and the United States 80

San Joaquin County California United States

70

78.8 69.1

60

50

66.3

1999-2004 Average Rates Note: General Fertility Rates are number of live births per 1000 women age 15-44 years. Sources: Births data are from California Department of Health and Services, while population data are from Bureau of Economic Analysis

Figure 3. Death Rates for San Joaquin County, California and the United States 10

San Joaquin County

California

United States

8

6

In addition to the gain from domestic migration, the county also gained 0.5% of total population from international migration. This was a slightly higher gain than the nation, and is an impressive number considering the absence of big cities in the county. International migration is much more stable than domestic migration, averaging about 3,000 new residents per year. For a more detailed discussion of migration patterns, see the previous issue of Regional Analyst.

Projection Results From the above discussion, it should be no surprise that San Joaquin County is

7.4

4

8.4

6.7

2

0

1999-2004 Average Rates Note: Death Rates are number of deaths per 1,000 population. Sources: Death data are from California Department of Health and Services, while population data are from Bureau of Economic Analysis

Figure 4. Average Share of Domestic and International Migration of Total Population, 2001-2005 Averages 2.0%

San Joaquin County California United States

1.5%

1.0%

1.5% 0.5%

0.0%

0.0%

0.5%

0.7% 0.4%

-0.4% -0.5%

Domestic Migration Source: Population Estimates, U.S. Census Bureau

International Migration

expected to continue growing at a rapid rate as a result of both natural population increase and strong in-migration. The growth takes place in part because of the high shares of young population, as well as Hispanic and Asian population. The methodology behind these projections is discussed in Appendix 1. Figure 5 shows that from 2005 forward, San Joaquin County population growth is expected to continue to outpace the state and the nation. Between 2005 and 2030, the San Joaquin County population will grow averaging 1.9% per year, well above the state’s 1.0% and the nation’s 0.8% projected growth rates. The county population will triple its 1970 population in 2020 and reach the one million milestone in 2030. The model also predicts that the average annual growth slows slightly after 2015 as the share of population age 25-39 continues to decline, lowering the general fertility rates and in-migration rates. Figure 6 shows a summary of the projection results. For a complete result of the population projection by age, sex, and race, please contact the San Joaquin County Council of the Governments.

Changes in Racial Composition Along with strong total population growth, the county’s racial composition is expected to gradually shift. In general, the share of the White population will gradually shrink and that of other major races including Hispanic, Asian,

Figure 5: Projected Population of San Joaquin County, California, and the United States, Compared to Their 1970 Population 4.0

FORECAST

ACTUAL / ESTIMATES 3.5

3.0

San Joaquin County California United States

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0 1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

Sources: Population data prior to 2010 are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, population forecast for San Joaquin County is from the Business Forecasting Center, and for the U.S. and California are from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Figure 6. Summary of San Joaquin County Population Projection Characteristics

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

By Age (thousands) 0-19

214.9

225.7

250.7

280.5

306.6

331.3

20-39

190.0

205.0

230.1

245.9

261.1

274.2

40-59

163.0

175.9

190.7

202.8

215.4

232.2

60+

89.9

105.3

128.9

156.8

185.6

210.0

Total

657.7

711.8

800.4

886.0

968.8

1,047.8

By Race (thousands) Hispanic

218.4

251.8

301.9

351.3

400.9

451.8

Non Hispanic

439.3

460.1

498.5

534.8

567.9

596.0

White

269.7

266.5

268.1

268.2

266.6

262.2

Asian

85.1

100.6

122.5

144.3

166.1

187.4

Black Hawaiian / Pacific Islanders American Indian / Alaska Native Others

56.6

62.6

75.4

87.2

97.7

106.2

2.2

2.5

3.0

3.4

3.9

4.3

3.6

3.5

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.2

22.2

24.3

26.2

28.2

30.3

32.6

657.7

711.8

800.4

886.0

968.8

1,047.8

Total

Source: University of the Pacific, Business Forecasting Center

If the county’s fertility rates were at the U.S. average level, there would be about 1,400 fewer babies born in San Joaquin County each year. Regional Analyst | July 2008

3

Figure 7. San Joaquin County Population, Changes in Racial Composition 100

80

Percent Share

60

3.4%

3.4%

3.3%

3.2%

3.2%

3.1%

8.7%

8.9%

9.5%

9.9%

10.2%

10.2%

13.1%

14.3%

15.4%

16.4%

17.3%

18.0%

33.5%

35.7%

38.0%

40.0%

41.7%

43.4%

40

by the Asian population, with their share rising by five points from 13% to 18%. The Black population follows with about 1.5% rise in share. The White population held the largest share of more than 40% in 2005. However, with their lower rates of natural increase, and little if any gain from migration, the White population share will eventually shrink to 25% in 2030.

Changes in age Distribution 41.4%

20

37.8%

Others 0

2005

33.8%

30.5%

Black

2010

Asian

2015

Hispanic

2020

27.7%

White

2025

25.2%

2030

Note: American Indian and Pacific Islanders are not included in this graph because their share is less than 1%. Source: University of the Pacific, Business Forecasting Center

Figure 8. San Joaquin County Population, Changes in Age Composition 100 13.7%

14.8%

16.1%

17.7%

19.2%

20.0%

24.8%

24.7%

23.8%

22.9%

22.2%

22.2%

80

Percent Share

60

28.9%

28.8%

28.8%

27.8%

27.0%

26.2%

32.7%

31.7%

31.3%

31.7%

31.7%

31.6%

2025

2030

40

20

60+ 0

2005

2010

40-59 2015

20-39 2020

0-19

Source: University of the Pacific, Business Forecasting Center

and Black will increase. During the projection period, Figure 7 shows that the Hispanic population is expected to increase the most, with their share rising from about

4

Regional Analyst | July 2008

34% in 2005 to 44% in 2030. The Hispanic population will grow at an average rate of 3.0% per year, and will surpass the White population somewhere between 2010 and 2015. The second largest increase is made

In absolute terms, the total population in all age-groups increases over time. High birth rates bring more young people, high migration rates bring more workingage population, and a growing elderly population follows national trends. Compared to the other age groups, Figure 8 shows that the population under 20 years remains the largest in the county. The already high birth rates, combined with the rising share of Hispanics and Asians in the county, will keep the share of this young population at above 30% through 2030. Figure 8 also shows that the population 60 years of age or older grows slightly faster than the other three age-groups. Yet, even in 2030, the share of the over-60 population remains the smallest in the county. Although the county will increase in average age, its population will still be considerably younger than other regions in the country.

Different Migration Scenarios The baseline projection described above is based on the assumption that in-migration and out-

Figure 9. Projection of San Joaquin County Total Population Under Different Migration Scenarios 1,200

1,100 1 million

Thousands

1,000 Average Rate Low Migration High Migration No Migration

900

800

700

600 2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

Source: University of the Pacific, Business Forecasting Center

Figure 10. San Joaquin County Population Projection Under Different Migration Scenarios Scenarios / Characteristics

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

886.0 280.5 156.8 351.3 268.2

968.8 306.6 185.6 400.9 266.6

1,047.8 331.3 210.0 451.8 262.2

930.9 293.4 159.6 366.8 269.0

1,028.3 323.5 190.9 419.9 267.1

1,119.2 350.5 218.8 472.4 262.4

839.8 267.0 154.0 334.0 267.1

906.4 288.5 180.2 378.6 265.2

972.3 310.4 201.0 425.9 260.8

765.8 231.8 145.2 287.7 267.3

801.1 239.9 166.9 312.1 264.9

835.1 248.4 182.8 338.1 260.3

Average Rate (Baseline) Total Population Pop. 0-19 Years Pop. 60 Years or Older Hispanic White non-Hispanic

711.8 225.7 105.3 251.8 266.5

Total Population Pop. 0-19 Years Pop. 60 Years or Older Hispanic White non-Hispanic

717.1 227.2 105.0 253.8 265.8

Total Population Pop. 0-19 Years Pop. 60 Years or Older Hispanic White non-Hispanic

706.6 224.1 105.5 249.7 267.2

800.4 250.7 128.9 301.9 268.1

High Migration 827.3 258.5 129.8 312.1 268.6

Low Migration 773.3 242.8 128.0 291.5 267.5

No Migration Total Population Pop. 0-19 Years Pop. 60 Years or Older Hispanic White non-Hispanic

692.9 216.8 105.0 241.1 269.3

729.4 220.8 123.5 264.2 268.5

migration rates remain at the average rate of 1995-2005, which includes periods of relatively low (1995-2000) and high (2000-2005) domestic migration. Because migration rates are more volatile than the other components of population growth, we have forecast population under different migration scenarios. We look at a high migration scenario that assumes migration occurs at 2000-2005 rates, a low migration scenario that assumes migration at the 1995-2000 rates, and a no-migration scenario that assumes both domestic and international migration cease and growth is driven by natural increase alone. Because migration has been low in 2006 and 2007, in all scenarios we assume a gradual increase from 2008 to 2010 to the level defined in the scenario, and then the assumed migration rate holds constant from 2010 to 2030. The results of the scenarios are displayed in Figures 9 and 10. Under the high migration scenario, population growth will average 2.1% per year and the one million population milestone will be reached even before 2025. Under the low migration scenario, population will grow more modestly at 1.6% per year and does not reach one million in 2030.

Source: University of the Pacific, Business Forecasting Center

The Hispanic population is expected to rise from about 34% in 2005 to 44% in 2030 and will surpass the White population between 2010 and 2015. Regional Analyst | July 2008

5

The four different scenarios predict the same patterns of shifts in the county’s racial and age composition. First, the share of the White population falls while shares of the Hispanic and Asian populations rise over time. Second, the share of the young gradually declines, and the elderly share gradually rises. These shifts occur faster in the high growth scenarios and viceversa. All scenarios see the Hispanic population surpassing White population before 2015, except the no-migration scenario, which will see it after 2015. In addition to comparing projections among different migration scenarios, we also compare the baseline projection to the population projection released by the California Department of Finance. The result is discussed in Appendix 2.

Appendix 1: Methodology The projection is conducted using our inter-regional cohort component model. The model defines how births, deaths, and migration, affect each population cohort. In this model, a cohort represents population of a specific age group, sex, and race. Each cohort of the base population is projected forward according to their specific survival and migration rates. The cohort

6

Regional Analyst | July 2008

Figure 11. Projection of San Joaquin County Total Population Under two Different Models 1,300 California Department of Finance Projection Business Forecasting Center Projection

1,200 1,100

Thousands

Under the zero migration scenario growth will slow considerably to 1.0% per year and population will still be well below 900,000 in 2030. It should be noted that under the unrealistic no-migration scenario, the county will still grow as fast as the state and faster than the nation.

1,000 900 800 700 600 2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

Sources: University of the Pacific, Business Forecasting Center and California Department of Finance

of a newly born population is computed based on the age-specific birth rates applied to the female population of childbearing age. Unlike the regular cohort component model, this interregional model distinguishes between domestic in-migration and domestic out-migration. Instead of estimating migration based on netmigration rates as the regular model does, it uses both in-migration and out-migration rates. This model is less likely to overestimate growing places or underestimate declining places than the regular model 1 (Isserman, 1993 ). This model recognizes two sets of migration rates: the 1995-2000 rates, generated based on the 1995-2000 County-to-County Migration files, and the 2000-2005 1 Isserman, A., “The Right People the Right Rates,” Journal of the American Planning, Vol. 59, No. 1, Winter 1993.

rates generated based on the 2000 to 2005 IRS migration files. The 1995-2000 rates more or less represent a period of low migration, while the 2000-2005 rates represent a period of extremely high migration, occurring during the period of housing market boom. This method uses the average of these two as they are considered a better representation of the normal migration rates in San Joaquin County. Finally, two types of benchmarking are applied. First, the distribution of the base population is benchmarked by age, sex, and race to the 2000 Census population. Second, after projecting the 2005 population using the 2000-2005 migration rates, the model benchmarks the 2005 total population to the 2005 population estimate produced by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Figure 12. San Joaquin County Population Projections Compared Characteristics

Business Forecasting Center 2010

2020

CA Department of Finance 2030

2010

2020

2030

By Age (thousands) 0-19

225.7

280.5

331.3

267.7

360.0

445.2

20-39

205.0

245.9

274.2

197.3

273.8

345.9

40-59

175.9

202.8

232.2

171.1

177.9

216.5

60+

105.3

156.8

210.0

105.4

153.4

197.6

Total

711.8

886.0

1,047.8

741.4

965.1

1,205.2

By Race (thousands) Hispanic

251.8

351.3

451.8

265.0

380.1

512.9

Non Hispanic

460.1

534.8

596.0

476.4

585.0

692.3

White

266.5

268.2

262.2

293.9

322.2

344.5

Asian

100.6

144.3

187.4

107.3

163.1

222.4

62.6

87.2

106.2

51.3

71.4

92.1

2.5

3.4

4.3

2.1

2.4

2.8

3.5

3.4

3.2

4.8

6.4

7.5

24.3

28.2

32.6

17.0

19.5

23.1

711.8

886.0

1,047.8

741.4

965.1

1,205.2

Black Hawaiian / Pacific Islanders American Indian / Alaska Native Others Total

Source: University of the Pacific, Business Forecasting Center

Appendix 2: Comparison to California Department of Finance Projections Figures 11 and 12 compare our population projection with the projection released by the California Department of Finance in July of 2007. In general, our projection calls for a considerably more moderate growth of 1.9% annually through 2030, compared with 2.4% growth estimated by the Department of Finance. The state’s estimates predict nearly 80,000 more residents in 2020, and exceed our 2030 projections by more than

150,000 residents. Even our high-rate migration scenario still calls for a slower annual growth of 2.1%. Consequently, while our model predicts the county population reaches one million in 2030, the other model predicts the milestone is already reached in 2025. In terms of shift in the racial and age distributions, the two models predict the same trends: The White population will shrink, while the Hispanic, Asian, and Black populations will gradually rise.

Both predict that Hispanic population will surpass the White population between 2010 and 2015. Both models predict that old population will grow slightly faster than the other age groups, and thus their share will rise in 2030. The notable difference in this respect is that our model predicts the share of those 20 to 34 years of age will gradually decline over time. This contributes to the expected gradual declines in the county’s general fertility rates, and partially accounts for the difference in our projections. As discussed above, our lower estimates are also explained by a slightly different methodological approach. For a more complete description of the California Department of Finance projections, please visit: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Research/ Research.php.

San Joaquin County will triple its 1970 population in 2020

For questions or comments about this article, please contact:

Business Forecasting Center Eberhardt School of Business 3601 Pacific Avenue Stockton, CA 95211 Phone: 209.946.7385

Director, Jeffrey Michael E-mail: [email protected] Regional Economic Analyst, Christiadi E-mail: [email protected]

Regional Analyst | July 2008

7

San Joaquin County Teen Birth Rates

state, San Joaquin County teen birth rates are tenth out of 58 counties as most areas in the Central and Southern Central Valley (including Kern, Fresno, and Merced), have rates exceeding 60.

Figure 13 shows the teen birth rate rose to 56.3 per 1,000 females age 15-19 in 2006. In 2006, nearly 1,500 babies were born to teen mothers in San Joaquin County, an increase of about 200 from recent years. Figure 14 shows that San Joaquin County birth rates exceed the neighboring counties. Across the

The “No Time for Complacency” report by California Public Health Institute found that the declining trend in teen birth rates stopped in 2006 as teen birth rates rose in the U.S., California, and San Joaquin County. The report documents how teen births are correlated with higher rates of negative health, social and economic Figure 13. Teen Birth Rates in San Joaquin County and California outcomes for both teen 65 mothers and their children. Given the relatively high 55 share of teens San Joaquin County and teen birth rates in San Joaquin County, these changing 45 trends have California disproportionate impact on the 35 region. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

60

Figure 14. Teen Birth Rates San Joaquin and the Surrounding Counties 56.3

48.6

50

40.5

40

California 37.8 30.0

30

26.1

18.4

20

10

0

San Joaquin

Alameda

Contra Costa

Calaveras

Sacramento

Stanislaus

Note: Teen Birth Rates are number of live births per 1,000 women age 15-19 years. Source: "No Time for Complacency" report by California Public Health Institute.

2006

Note: Teen birth rates are number of live births per 1,000 women age 15 to 19 years. Sources: Births data are from California Department of Public Health and population data are from the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates

San Joaquin County Council of Governments 555 E. Weber Avenue Stockton, CA 95202 PH: 209.468.3913

INSIDE THIS ISSUE Births, Deaths and Migration: The Components of Population Growth....................Page 1 Projection Results.............................................Page 2 Changes in Racial Composition........................Page 3 Different Migration Scenarios...........................Page 4

Presort Standard U.S. Postage Paid Stockton, CA Permit #383

Suggest Documents