1. Census Trends in North Carolina Diane Cherry Environments Policy Manager Institute for Emerging Issues

2. As the N.C. Census continues to be released, we can begin look at things such as: Population & Migration Ethnicity Age & Gender Income & Poverty Family Structure & Living Arrangements

3. Population & Migration Source: US Census Bureau

4. Population & Migration Source: News & Observer

5. http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/04/ migration-moving-wealthy-interactive- counties-map.html Population & Migration

7. Ethnicity

8. Age & Gender

9. Source: US Census Bureau

10. Age & Gender Source: US Census Bureau

11. Age & Gender

12. Income & Poverty Source: US Census Bureau

13. Income & Poverty Source: USDA

14. North Carolina saw a 33% decrease in homeownership from 2000 to 2010 while renting increased by 200%. Family Structure & Living Arrangements

16. What Will NC Look Like in 2020?

17. Thank You! Diane Cherry www.emergingissues.org @emergingissues institute@ncsu.edu

18. 2011 Redistricting: What it Means to Municipalities Chris Nida Research Analyst, N.C. League of Municipalities NCLM Annual Conference October 24, 2011

19. Agenda What the Census Showed Redistricting Basics Implications of Redistricting for Municipalities

20. N.C. Becoming More Urban 20002010 Municipal Population MunicipalitiesPopulation % of State Pop Municipal Population MunicipalitiesPopulation % of State Pop 100,000+61,534,63819%100,000+92,409,57425% 50,000-99,9999630,4408%50,000-99,9997503,6095% 10,000-49,99947964,76112%10,000-49,999661,382,56814% 5,000-9,99944327,9934%5,000-9,99950351,5974% 1,000-4,999200487,3216%1000-4,999201501,8895% <1000234108,6881%<1,000219100,8211% Municipal total5404,053,84150%Municipal total5525,250,05855% Unincorporated03,995,47250%Unincorporated04,285,42545% TOTAL5408,049,313100%TOTAL5529,535,483100%

21. Redistricting Legally required after completion of decennial census Maps drawn and approved by legislature; no gubernatorial veto Must be approved by U.S. Justice Department or federal courts before going into effect

22. Greater Urban Population Reflected in Redistricting House Year Average Municipal Population per District Average Percent of District Population in Municipal Boundaries 201143,75055.17% 200333,66549.96% Senate Year Average Municipal Population per District Average Percent of District Population in Municipal Boundaries 2011105,00155.17% 200380,81350.31%

23. Population Shifts Leading to Greater Municipal Influence? Mecklenburg and Wake counties added two House seats and one Senate seat each Greater representation in largest urban areas not necessarily signaling greater overall influence of cities and towns

24. Municipalities Split Between Districts Increasing House Year Average Number of Municipalities Per District Number of Municipalities in Multiple Districts 20116.22123 20035.5577 Senate Year Average Number of Municipalities Per District Number of Municipalities in Multiple Districts 201113.2481 200311.7443

25. House Districts 2011 Percent of District Population in Municipal Boundaries Number of Municipalities in District>8050-8020-50<20 111-1 - 2 or 31453 2 4 or 531013 3 6 or more21725 11 Total303242 16 2003 Percent of District Population in Municipal Boundaries Number of Municipalities in District>8050-8020-50<20 183-1 2 or 3126 1 4 or 547143 6 or more-83011 Total24 5616

26. Senate Districts 2011 Percent of District Population in Municipal Boundaries Number of Municipalities in District>8050-8020-50<20 1 to 582-- 6 to 10167- 11 or more-9143 Total917213 2003 Percent of District Population in Municipal Boundaries Number of Municipalities in District>8050-8020-50<20 1 to 5762- 6 to 10-531 11 or more-5174 Total716225

27. Example: House District 74 Percent of District Population in Municipalities' Boundaries Municipality20112003 Winston-Salem31.7% 56.8% Walkertown5.16% 4.3% Rural Hall3.7% 3.9% Tobaccoville3.0% 3.5% King0.8% 1.0% Bethania0.4% 0.2% Kernersville14.0% - Lewisville2.5% - Total 61.1%69.6%

28. Example: Senate District 5 Percent of District Population in Municipalities' Boundaries Municipality20112003 Goldsboro15.7% 23.3% Greenville22.6% 22.1% Winterville2.1% 3.0% Mount Olive1.4% 2.8% Farmville2.6% 2.7% Ayden2.7% 1.8% Snow Hill0.9% Walnut Creek - 0.5% Hookerton0.2% 0.3% Eureka - 0.2% Walstonburg0.1% Seven Springs - 0.1% Kinston9.9% - La Grange1.6% - Bethel0.9% - Grifton0.8% - Fountain0.2% - Falkland0.1% - Grimesland0.0% - Total 61.7%57.9%

29. Select Municipalities’ Senate Representation 20112003 Number of Districts/ Population as % of District Number of Districts/ Population as % of District Municipality 12345 1234 Goldsboro16%4% Goldsboro23%1% High Point33%18%3%0% High Point41%13%0% Rocky Mount16%10%5% Rocky Mount24%11% Wilson15%12% Wilson28%

30. Select Municipalities’ House Representation 20112003 Number of Districts/ Population as % of District Number of Districts/ Population as % of District Municipality 1234 1234 Burlington34%31%1% Burlington55%14% Chapel Hill47%19%4% Chapel Hill72%3%1%0% Kernersville15%14%0% Kernersville27%0% New Bern16%14%6%New Bern24%13% Rocky Mount47%22%5% Rocky Mount32%28%26%1% Salisbury30%13% Salisbury41% Sanford18% Sanford33% Shelby15%12% Shelby29%0% Wilson31%28% Wilson54%15%

31. Select Municipalities’ Legislative Representation 20112003 Number of Districts/Population as % of District House Municipality12341234 Asheville79.8%15.6%6.8%44.5%38.6%17.5% Fayetteville90.3%70.9%69.7%22.5%73.1%55.7%32.7%19.1% Senate Greensboro78.0%31.7%27.9%95.2%36.2%6.0% Durham63.8%53.3%0.0% 80.0%38.3%0.0%

32. Conclusions Mixed bag for municipalities – some benefit, while some see influence potentially diluted Working together crucial for many municipalities sharing districts Subject to change pending final approval

33. Thank You Chris Nida (919) 715-3945 cnida@nclm.org

34. Municipal Estimates: Methods, Data and Changes Jennifer Song, State Demographer, Office of State Budget and Management

35. September 2011 Data Release July 1, 2010 Certified County Estimates July 1, 2010 Certified Municipal Estimates Final 2011-2031 State and County Projection Series

36. 2011 Data Release Highlights July 1, 2010 County and Municipal Estimates incorporate Census 2010 data as the new base. CQR challenges accepted by the Census Bureau will be used as the base in subsequent estimates.

37. Guidelines on Data Usage DO NOT COMPARE: Last year’s 2009 municipal estimates with the current July 1, 2010 municipal estimates. DO COMPARE: July 1, 2010 municipal estimates to Census 2010 and previous Census counts. Smoothed county estimates from 2000-2009 which are consistent with both Census 2000 and Census 2010.

38. Why the difference? 2009 estimates used 2000 Census as base; 2010 estimates use 2010 Census as base Input data – annexation data, housing unit counts The ‘smoothing’ nature of estimates and changing patterns of growth

39. The Municipal Estimates Model Will use Census 2010 as the base Uses data on annexations, group quarters and housing submitted by the municipalities Is a 3-method model

40. Method 1: Municipality Grows Like the County Assumes the non-group quarters population of the municipality grows at the same rate as the county population This was the only method used this year (for the July 1, 2010 estimates)

41. Method 2: Municipality Grows Like it Has in the Past Grows the municipality based on past growth trends. Assumes growth will be different in different parts of the municipality. Separate growth rates for: The muncipal core (area incorporated prior to 2000) The municipal suburban area (area incorporated between the 2000 and 2010 Census) Newly annexed areas

42. Method 3: Population Grows Like Housing Grows the municipality’s population at the same rate as it’s housing unit share As the municipality’s share of the county’s housing stock changes, its share of the county’s population is changed at the same rate Most similar to the Census Bureau’s estimates method

43. Putting it all together Traditionally the 3 methods have been weighted equally (i.e., averaged) After testing with Census 2010, we will be introducing 3 alternative weighting approaches: Equal weights – i.e, all three methods predicted equally well for the muncipality 50%, 25%, 25% - one method predicted particularly well for the municipality 40%, 40%, 20% - two methods predicted about equally well

44. Our Annual Surveys – Boundary and Annexation Survey Asks for annexation data, occupied housing units and land areas This is our main source of data about annexations – if they aren’t reported, they don’t get counted. Important to update occupied housing unit counts to get the most accurate estimate Report all annexations – we also estimate land area, so even commercial annexations should be included

45. Our Annual Surveys – Group Quarters Verify that group quarters facilities are correctly located Inform us about new facilities or missing facilities In a few cases (such as orphanages or monasteries) provides us population counts Only track facilities with 20 or more long-term residents Assisted living facilities and jails are not considered group quarters

46. Our Annual Surveys – Housing Unit Data Effort to improve on Census Bureau housing estimates – will still serve as default The main data that is used for Method 3 Working with the Census Bureau to submit the data to them as well

47. Keep in Touch! Even if you have no changes, return the surveys If your contact information changes, let our office know If you submit a CQR challenge, let us know Our surveys are separate from those sent out by the Census Bureau

48. More Information Website with estimates and projection data: http://demog.state.nc.us OR http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts_and_figures/ socioeconomic_data/population_estimates.shtm Contact information: jennifer.song@osbm.nc.gov 919-807-4756