Post on 28-Nov-2014
description
transcript
State of Rural Minnesota
Report 2013
Who we are
In 1997, a group of rural Minnesota advocates came together to create a rural policy “think tank” that would provide policy makers, rural advocates and concerned citizens with an objective, unbiased and politically “unspun” examination of contemporary rural issues.
Based in St. Peter, Minn.
Non-partisan, non-profit policy research organization
Dedicated to providing Minnesota’s policy makers with an unbiased evaluation of issues from a rural perspective.
The Center is recognized as a leading resource for rural policy research and development.
Center for Rural Policy & Development, 2013
Growth of Minnesota’s regions, 1900 to 2010
-50.0%
0.0%
50.0%
100.0%
150.0%
200.0%
250.0%
300.0%
350.0%
400.0%
450.0%
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Metroplex
Southeast River Valley
Southwestern Cornbelt
Northwest Valley
Up North
Central Lakes
Center for Rural Policy & Development, 2013
Population change, 1990-2010
!"#$"%&'$()%*"
!"#$%&'()*)+
',*,+&-$&)*,+
(*)+&-$&,*,+
()*)+&-$&.,*,+
/)*)+&012&03$4"
50-0&6$789":;*<*&="1676&!78"07>
?$@7#0-A$1&B6-AC0-"6&?8$D80CE&="1-"8&F$8&G780#&?$#A9H&012&5"4"#$@C"1-
!"#$%&'%()$%*&&+,
-&&.)/.)/01
23$"45"($4
6")0&7$0
*"+$0"
8/0$
-"0"9$.
:/(#/0
6/33$%!".,
;,"0(/
<(($4%="/324&5%*/01
=&++
>4"0(
?($@$0,=4"@$4,$
?5/'(
?($"40,
?)$49A40$
:0&#"-"0+/B&)/6$$#$4
2)/CC$5"*4/1)(
D$33&5%6$+/./0$
!/0.&30 !B&0
8/C$,(&0$
E&.# F&93$,
6A44"B
E$+5&&+
6.!$&+
?/93$B G"#&("?.&((
!$%?A$A4H4&50
*"(&05"0
I".#,&0
*",$."
E/.$
?($$3$ G&+1$<37,($+ */0&0"
J&A,(&0K/337&4$
-/((,&0
23"B H$.#$4
2"43(&0
;(",."
H$3(4"7/
JA99"4+ 2",,
6&44/,&0G&A13",
8&C$
2&((&05&&+
6"4(/0
E&,$"A
6"4,)"33
8&3#
F&47"0
*/3#/0
E$+%!"#$
E$0@/33$
F/.&33$(
K4$$9&40 6&5$4
H3A$%L"4()
J$00$C/0
K"4/9"A3(
>&&+)A$ *"9",)"
2)/,"1&
*",)/01(&0
E"7,M
!"#$
?(M%!&A/,
!".%NA/%8"43$
2&&#
2"4@$4
H/1%?(&0$
H$0(&0
8$00/01(&0
!"#$%&'%(%
From 1990 to 2010, the state’s population grew by nearly 1 million, to 5.3 million. The most dramatic growth was seen in the Twin Cities suburbs, stretching up into the Central Lakes area.
Center for Rural Policy & Development, 2013
Population projections, 2010-2035
25.7%
11.1%
-2.2%
14.3%
9.5%
24.7%
21.5%
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Center for Rural Policy & Development, 2013
Center for Rural Policy & Development, 2013
County Decrease in white population
Increase in minority population
Change in total population
Clearwater -116 502 386
Fillmore -243 332 89
Hennepin -88,200 208,194 119,994
Kandiyohi -1,093 4,571 3,478
Lyon -1,691 2,759 1,068
Mahnomen -1,129 1,498 369
Mower -3,753 5,531 1,778
Nobles -4,953 6,233 1,280
Pennington -175 799 624
Ramsey -80,755 103,630 22,875
Roseau -59 662 603
Sibley -352 1,212 860
St. Louis -6,678 8,691 2,013
Todd -137 1,669 1,532
Waseca -506 1,563 1,057
Fifteen counties that experienced population growth between 1990 and 2010 due to growth in their minority populations (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Twelve of them are not in a Metropolitan Statistical Area.
Workforce in the manufacturing sector, 2011
Percentage of workforce employed in manufacturing
Less than 6.0%
6.0% to 8.9%
9.0% to 11.9%
12.0% to 16.9%
17.0% and above
Data source:U.S. Department of Commerce
Bureau of Economic Analysis© Center for Rural Policy and Development
Lake of the Woods
Koochiching
Clea
rwat
er
Mahnomen
Wad
ena
Pine
Kana
bec
Aitkin
Mille Lacs
Isanti
Otter TailCrow Wing
Todd
Grant
StevensTraverse
Swift
Stearns
Sherburne
AnokaKandiyohiMeeker
ChippewaWright
Yellow Medicine
Lincoln Lyon
Pipe
ston
e
Rock Nobles
Murray
Redwood
McLeod
Sibley DakotaScott
Le SueurBrown
Watonwan
Jackson
Was
eca
Rice
Steele DodgeOlmsted Winona
HoustonFillmore
Kittson
Clay Becker
Carlton
Itasca
Beltrami
Hubbard Cass
MorrisonDouglas
Pope
Cottonwood
Martin
Roseau
Marshall
Polk Pennington
Norman
Wilkin
Red Lake
Renville
Nicollet
Freeborn Mower
Blue Earth
Hennepin
Faribault
Goodhue Wabasha
Chisa
goW
ashi
ngto
n
Ram
s.
Lake
St. Louis
Lac Qui Parle
Cook
Carver
Big Stone
Benton
No Data
Title here
Despite losing nearly 50,000 manufacturing jobs between 2005 and 2009, Minnesota still has a number of counties—mostly rural—where employment is concentrated in manufacturing.
Center for Rural Policy & Development, 2013
Average earnings in farming, 2011
!"#$%#!&'&&&
!("'"""#$%#!(&'&&&
!)"'"""#$%#!*+'&&&
!*,'"""#$%#!,&'&&&
!-"'"""#./0#.1%23
4%#5.$.
5.$.#6%7893:;<=<#53>.8$?3/$#%@#A%??3893B783.7#%@#C9%/%?D9#E/.FG6D6
H#A3/$38#@%8#I78.F#J%FD9G#./0#5323F%>?3/$
!"#$%&'%()$%*&&+,
-&&.)/.)/01
23$"45"($4
6")0&7$0
*"+$0"
8/0$
-"0"9$.
:/(#/0
6/33$%!".,
;,"0(/
<(($4%="/324&5%*/01
=&++
>4"0(
?($@$0,=4"@$4,$
?5/'(
?($"40,
?)$49A40$
:0&#"-"0+/B&)/6$$#$4
2)/CC$5"*4/1)(
D$33&5%6$+/./0$
!/0.&30 !B&0
8/C$,(&0$
E&.# F&93$,
6A44"B
E$+5&&+
6.!$&+
?/93$B G"#&("?.&((
!$%?A$A4H4&50
*"(&05"0
I".#,&0
*",$."
E/.$
?($$3$ G&+1$<37,($+ */0&0"
J&A,(&0K/337&4$
-/((,&0
23"B H$.#$4
2"43(&0
;(",."
H$3(4"7/
JA99"4+ 2",,
6&44/,&0G&A13",
8&C$
2&((&05&&+
6"4(/0
E&,$"A
6"4,)"33
8&3# 8$00/01(&0
F&47"0
*/3#/0
E$+%!"#$
E$0@/33$
F/.&33$(
K4$$9&40 6&5$4
H3A$%L"4()
J$00$C/0
K"4/9"A3(
>&&+)A$ *"9",)"
2)/,"1&
*",)/01(&0
E"7,M
!"#$
?(M%!&A/,
!".%NA/%8"43$
2&&#
2"4@$4
H/1%?(&0$
H$0(&0
!"#$%&#'#%$()(&*'+#$',%$-'./$0#$
Farming has had a strong presence in Minnesota historically and continues to do so today. The distribution of wealth from farming is apparent.
Center for Rural Policy & Development, 2013
Health
Center for Rural Policy & Development, 2013
Region Percent of population enrolled in MinnesotaCare
Metroplex 1.7%
Southeast River Valley 2.1%
Southwestern Cornbelt 2.5%
Northwest Valley 3.1%
Up North 3.2%
Central Lakes 4.4%
Minnesota 2.1%
Percent of population enrolled in MinnesotaCare, based on average monthly enrollment for 2009 (Minnesota Department of Human Services, 2011)
Graduation Rates, 2009-2010
To calculate the graduation rate here, the number of graduates was divided by the number of ninth-graders four years earlier, adjusting for students dropping out or leaving the district.
Districts with graduating classes under 40 were not included.
Center for Rural Policy & Development, 2013
!"#$%&%
!"#$%#&'()*+#&,
'()*+#,#-(+
-().+#,#-*+
-*).+#,#/(+
/().+#,#/*+
/*).+#,#.((+
0%&%#1"23456789951"&%#05:%3&;59&#"<#=$24%&8"9
>#?59&53#<"3#@23%A#B"A84C#%9$#05D5A":;59&
Free lunch eligibility, 2010-2011
!"#$%&%
!"#$"%&'(")*+),&-."%&,)"/0(01/")+*#)+#"")*#)#".-$".)/-%$2
'()*#+#,-(,*
,-(.*#+#./('*
./(0*#+#1'*
1'(2*#+#/3(0*
/3()*#+#233*
4%&%#5"6789:;<==95"&%#49>%7&?9=&#"@#A$68%&<"=
B#C9=&97#@"7#D67%E#F"E<8G#%=$#49H9E">?9=&
For the state of Minnesota, 37.2% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in the 2010-2011 school year. Since recipients’ families must meet certain income guidelines to qualify, free and reduced-price lunch can be a good proxy for poverty rates.
Center for Rural Policy & Development, 2013
Thank You!
Atlas of Minnesota Online
www.ruralmn.org