EC Final Report

8/18/2019 EC Final Report

1/33

The Elizabeth City Micropolitan Statistical Area:

A Demographic and Economic Overview

By:

Dominic MacCormack

Jonathan Meyer

Wesley Norris

Duke University | Sanford School of Public Policy

April 2016

Regional Economic and Social Analysis


2/33

i

Executive Summary

This paper is a regional analysis of the demography, labor market, income, poverty,

health insurance and housing characteristics of the Elizabeth City Micropolitan Statistical Area

(μSA) during the Great Recession. For the purposes of this paper, the Great Recession comprises

the years 2008 – 2014, in which 2008 – 2010 marks the contraction phase and 2010 – 2014

marks the expansion phase.

The Elizabeth City μSA, located along the Northeastern North Carolina coast,

experienced stagnant economic and population growth during the Great Recession. The region

lost residents between 2010 and 2014, and as of 2014, has a predominantly White and African-

American population of 63,015 residents. The unemployment rate jumped from 6.1 percent in

2008, to a peak of 11 percent in 2010, and while the rate has recovered somewhat, it is still above

pre-Recession levels at 8.7 percent. Moreover, while the unemployment rate has recovered, the

labor force has shrunk, and this contraction of the labor force, rather than an expansion of

employment, has primarily driven the unemployment rate recovery.

Even those working in the Elizabeth City μSA are not without problems: median

household income lags behind the state, over 36 percent of the total population is poor or

working poor, and substantial numbers of residents are housing burdened. In addition, inequality

in the region is astound. Black poverty rates are over three times White rates, median household

income for White families is over $20,000 higher than Black families, and individuals making

less than twice the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) have uninsured rates over five times those of

individuals making over 400% of the FPL.

Despite a stagnant economy, lagging behind the state in key economic and demographic

metrics and high levels of inequality, the Elizabeth City μSA is not without hope. The region


3/33

ii

boasts a University in the state system, is ideally situated on the coast, and is within two hours’

drive to multiple metropolitan hubs.


4/33

1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary …..…………………………………………………………………………...i

Section 1 – Geographic Overview and Population Characteristics………………………………...2

Section 1.1 – Geographic Overview ………………………………………………….…...2

Section 1.2 – Population Overview ..………………….…………………………………...3

Section 1.3 – Population Age Structure ……………………………………………...……3

Section 1.4 – Population Racial Composition …………………………………………..…5

Section 1.5 – Population Trends …………………………………………………………..7

Section 1.6 – Household Structure and Information ………………………………………9

Section 2 - Labor Market ………………………………………………………………………...11

Section 2.1 – Regional Labor Force ……………………………………………………..11

Section 2.2 – Payroll Employment (Industry) ……………………………………………13

Section 2.3 – Occupation Data …………………………………………………………...15

Section 3 – Household Income Structure ………………………………………………………. ..17

Section 3.1 – Household Income Structure ……………………………………………...17

Section 3.2 – Poverty ………………………………………………………………… ....19

Section 4 – Health Insurance Coverage, Trends and Disparities …………………………….…..21

Section 4.1 – Health Insurance Coverage and Trends ……………………………….…..21

Section 4.2 – Health Insurance Disparities ………………………………...……….……22

Section 5 – Housing ……………………………………………………………….....…….….…25

Section 6 – Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….….. ...28


5/33


6/33

3

Section 1.2 – Population Overview

Based on data from the 2014 American Community Survey, the Elizabeth City μSA has

63,015 residents. Of the μSA’s 63,015 residents, 47.1 percent are male and 52.9 percent are

female, numbers roughly in line with the larger North Carolina population which is 48.7 percent

male and 51.3 percent female.2 Comparisons to the state of North Carolina will be extensively

used throughout this report to provide regional context for population, economic and other

statistics on the Elizabeth City μSA.

Section 1.3 – Population Age Structure

The Elizabeth City μSA’s age structure is top-heavy, but follows that of North Carolina

(Figure 2). Two exceptions between the Elizabeth City μSA and North Carolina are the μSA’s

lower percentage of working age adults (defined as persons aged 18 – 55) and the somewhat

jagged, disjointed age structure of the μSA compared with that of North Carolina’s as a whole

(Figure 2). The 35 – 44 and 45 – 54 age brackets especially highlight the Elizabeth City μSA’s

jagged age structure. In the 35 – 44 age bracket, the μSA has more males than females, 6.2 to 5.5

percent; but in the 45 – 54 age bracket, the μSA has more females than males, 8.3 to 6.8 percent.

North Carolina’s age structure does not display similar discontinuities (Figure 2).

2 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, One-Year Estimates, 2014


7/33

4

Figure 2. Age Pyramids of the Elizabeth City μSA and the State of North Carolina

El izabeth City µSA

North Carolina

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, One-Year Estimates, 2014

Only 48.4 percent of the Elizabeth City μSA’s population is working age, compared to

49.9 percent of North Carolina and 52.2 percent of the Virginia Beach – Norfolk Combined

Statistical Area (CSA) for which the μSA is a part.3 In contrast, 30.0 percent of the Elizabeth

3 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, One-Year Estimates, 2014

10.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0

Under 5

5 - 9

10 - 14

15 - 17

18 - 24

25 - 34

35 - 44

45 - 54

55 - 64

65 - 74

75 - 8485+

Percentage of Population

A g e

Female Male

8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

Under 5

5 - 9

10 - 14

15 - 1718 - 24

25 - 34

35 - 44

45 - 54

55 - 64

65 - 74

75 - 84

85+

Percentage of Population

A g e

Female Male


8/33

5

City μSA’s population is over 55, compared with 27.2 percent of North Carolina and 25.4

percent of the Virginia Beach – Norfolk CSA’s population.4 Comparison to the CSA provides an

even narrower regional comparison, and is especially relevant for these population groups given

the relative ease in which workers may commute between the Elizabeth City μSA and the larger

Virginia Beach – Norfolk CSA.

The Elizabeth City μSA’s proportionally smaller working age population compared with

the region at large indicates a lack of job opportunities or cultural/lifestyle amenities that would

otherwise attract working-age residents.5 This fact, coupled with Elizabeth City μSA’s relatively

large percentage of the population over 55, paints a bleak picture for future economic and

population growth.

Section 1.4 – Population Racial Composition

Racially, the Elizabeth City μSA’s population is predominantly White and African

American, with a small Hispanic population (Figure 3). Specifically, Elizabeth City is 62.4

percent non-Hispanic White6, 30.8 percent African American, 3.6 percent Hispanic and 3.2

percent other (Figure 3). Compared to the state of North Carolina, Elizabeth City is much more

Black, 30.8% to 21.2%, and less Hispanic, 3.6% to 8.7%.7 These trends are similar, albeit less

pronounced, when comparing the Elizabeth City μSA to the Virginia Beach – Norfolk CSA.

4 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, One-Year Estimates, 20145 Jurjevich, Jason R. and Schrock, Greg, "Is Portland Really the Place Where Young People Go To Retire?Migration Patterns of Portland’s Young and College-Educated, 1980-2010" (2012). Publications, Reports andPresentations. Paper 5.6 For purposes of the Census, Hispanic is an ethnicity while White is a race, thus an individual could be HispanicWhite or non-Hispanic White (often also referred to as White alone). Similarly, a black alone individual is someonewhose identifies as non-Hispanic and whose race is black.7 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Five-Year Estimates, 2010 – 2014


9/33

6

Moreover, the racial composition of the Elizabeth City μSA has been virtually unchanged

since 1980, while North Carolina broadly has experienced a decline in the non-Hispanic White

population and a dramatic rise in the Hispanic population (Figure 4). The lack of growth in the

Hispanic population in the Elizabeth City µSA is reflective of stagnant job growth. In North

Carolina, Hispanic population growth is most pronounced in booming cities, with strong job

growth, such as Durham and Raleigh.8

Figure 3. Elizabeth City μSA Predominantly White and African American

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Five-Year Estimates, 2010 – 2014

8 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Five-Year Estimates, 2010 – 2014and US Census Bureau Decennial Census

62%

31%

4% 3%

White Alone

Black or AfricanAmerican Alone

Hispanic or Latino:

Other


10/33

7

Figure 4. Elizabeth City µSA Racial Composition Virtually Unchanged since 1980, North

Carolina Experienced Sharp Rise in Hispanic Population

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Five-Year Estimates, 2010 – 2014 and US CensusBureau Decennial Census

Section 1.5 – Population Trends

The population of the Elizabeth City uSA declined by 501 residents, or roughly 0.8

percent, between 2010 and 2014. Outmigration to other parts of the United States drove the

modest population decline (Figure 5). While outmigration contributed to population decline,

international immigration and modest natural growth helped to offset this decline (Figure 5).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

White alone Black or AfricanAmerican alone

Hispanic or Latino:

Other:

Elizabeth City µSA

1980 2014

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

White alone Black or AfricanAmerican alone

Hispanic or Latino:

Other:

North Carolina

1980 2014


11/33

8

Figure 5. Domestic Migration out of the Elizabeth City μSA Drove Modest 2010 – 2014

Population Decline

Source: US Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/2014/)

Though Elizabeth City μSA experienced a population decline from 2010 to 2014, the

North Carolina Office of Budget and Management projects the population of the μSA to grow

modestly from an estimated 63,866 residents in July of 2015 to 65,270 residents in July of 2025

and 65,830 residents in July of 2030.9 While these numbers are projections, the projected growth

of the Elizabeth City μSA lags significantly behind North Carolina as a whole. North Carolina’s

population is expected to grow roughly 5 percent every 5 years between 2015 and 2030, whereas

the Elizabeth City μSA’s population is expected to grow just 1 percent every 5 years (Figure 6).

Lack of population growth is indicative of the lack of economic growth in the Elizabeth City

µSA. Due to a lack of economic growth, residents with means are simply unlikely to move to or

stay in the Elizabeth City µSA, further limiting the µSA’s tax base and ability to provide

population attracting public services.

9 North Carolina Office of Budget and Management (http://www.osbm.nc.gov/demog/county-projections)

63542

1443407

484

64094

63,000

63,500

64,00064,500

65,000

65,500

P o p u l a t i o n

Population

Increase

Decline

http://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/2014/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/2014/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/2014/http://www.osbm.nc.gov/demog/county-projectionshttp://www.osbm.nc.gov/demog/county-projectionshttp://www.osbm.nc.gov/demog/county-projectionshttp://www.osbm.nc.gov/demog/county-projectionshttp://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/2014/


12/33

9

Figure 6. Budget Office Projects Modest Population Growth for the Elizabeth City μSA,

Sharply behind Projected Growth of North Carolina as a Whole

Source: North Carolina Office of Budget and Management (http://www.osbm.nc.gov/demog/county-projections)

Section 1.6 – Household Structure and Information

The Elizabeth City μSA’s 63,867 residents live in 23,690 households,10 which are

occupied housing units.11 Housing units are designated as either family (related) or non-family

(unrelated).12 The μSA has an aver age household size of 2.6, comparable to North Carolina’s

average of 2.5. There are more family households in the Elizabeth City µSA (71.7 percent) than

in North Carolina (66.4 percent). This is likely reflective of the µSA’s lower proportion of 25 to

34 year-olds when compared to the rest of North Carolina.

10 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Five-Year Estimates, 2010 – 201411 US Census Bureau

12 A family consists of a householder and one or more other people living in the same household who are related tothe householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. All people in a household who are related to the householder areregarded as members of his or her family. A family household may contain people not related to the householder, but those people are not included as part of the householder's family in tabulations. Thus, the number of familyhouseholds is equal to the number of families, but family households may include more members than do families.A household can contain only one family for purposes of tabulations. Not all households contain families since ahousehold may be comprised of a group of unrelated people or of one person living alone - these are callednonfamily households. Families are classified by type as either a "married-couple family" or "other family"according to the sex of the householder and the presence of relatives. The data on family type are based on answersto questions on sex and relationship that were asked of all people.

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

2015 - 2020 2020 - 2025 2025 - 2030

P r o j e c t e d % G r o w t h

North Carolina Elizabeth City μSA

http://www.osbm.nc.gov/demog/county-projectionshttp://www.osbm.nc.gov/demog/county-projectionshttp://www.osbm.nc.gov/demog/county-projectionshttp://www.osbm.nc.gov/demog/county-projections


13/33

10

The Federal Poverty Level (FPL) in 2014 for a 3-person household13 (two adults, one

child) was $19,055.14 The Elizabeth City µSA has a larger proportion of households earning less

than $20,000 per year, roughly the FPL, than North Carolina, 22.2 percent to 20.5 percent,

respectively. The median incomes for both regions are similar, $47,296 in the µSA and $46,693

in North Carolina.

There is a very large disparity in the area median income between African Americans and

Whites in both the Elizabeth City µSA and North Carolina. The disparity is further pronounced

in the µSA though, where African American median income is $33,007 compared to $53,586 for

Whites (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Area Median Income Varies Greatly by Race

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Five-Year Estimates, 2010 – 2014

13 A 3-person household was chosen because this is closest to the Elizabeth City average household size of 2.614 US Census Poverty Thresholds. https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/

https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/


14/33

11

Section 2 – Labor Market

The Great Recession created substantial labor market fluctuations in the Elizabeth City

μSA. The area lost substantial amounts of jobs during the contraction phase, and unfortunately,

the Elizabeth City μSA did not experience the “Carolina Comeback” that some politicians boast

about. Moreover, the recovery that did occur follows similar trends of recipients on public

assistance, where Whites are statistically better off than Blacks.

Section 2.1 – Regional Labor Force

Data provided by the Labor Economic and Analysis Division of the North Carolina

Department of Commerce shows that during the contraction phase, 2008 – 2010, the labor force

grew by 3 percent. Despite this growth, the number of employed persons suffered a 1 percent

decrease, resulting in a jump in the unemployment rate from 6.1 percent in 2008 to a peak of 11

percent in 2010 (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Elizabeth City μSA Labor Force and Unemployment Rate (Great Recession)

Source: North Carolina Department of Commerce (http://d4.nccommerce.com/LausSelection.aspx)

6.1

10.611

10.6 10.5 10.8

8.7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

26,000

26,500

27,000

27,500

28,000

28,500

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Un e m pl o ym e n t ( % )

L a b o r F o r c e

Year

Labor Force Unemployment

http://d4.nccommerce.com/LausSelection.aspxhttp://d4.nccommerce.com/LausSelection.aspxhttp://d4.nccommerce.com/LausSelection.aspxhttp://d4.nccommerce.com/LausSelection.aspx


15/33

12

This trend reverses during the expansion phase, from 2010 – 2014, during which the

labor force contracted by 1,448 workers or by 5 percent. Simultaneously, the unemployment rate

declined to 8.7 percent, compared to an 11 percent rate in 2010. One could surmise that a drop in

the labor force, rather than a growth in jobs may have driven the unemployment rate to decline

(Figure 8). The labor force decrease could be a result of the aforementioned population loss in

Elizabeth City μSA from 2010 – 2014, or simply that unemployed workers in the region stopped

looking for work.

The trend of Elizabeth City μSA’s unemployment rate mirrors the rest of North Carolina

(Figure 9); however, it is clear that both the population and the labor force at the state level has

grown during the Great Recession in contrast to the μSA. Therefore, while the unemployment

rate of North Carolina increased since 2008, the net number of persons employed actually grew.

Unfortunately, the Elizabeth City μSA does not share this same positive spin on its higher

unemployment rate, which, as the analysis above explains, has a negative correlation between

population growth and labor force size.

Figure 9. Unemployment Rate of NC and the Elizabeth City μSA (Great Recession)

Source: North Carolina Department of Commerce (http://d4.nccommerce.com/LausSelection.aspx)

6.1

11

8.7

5.3

12

6.9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

U n e m p l o y m e n t ( % )

Year Elizabeth City uSA North Carolina

http://d4.nccommerce.com/LausSelection.aspxhttp://d4.nccommerce.com/LausSelection.aspxhttp://d4.nccommerce.com/LausSelection.aspxhttp://d4.nccommerce.com/LausSelection.aspx


16/33

13

Section 2.2 – Payroll Employment (Industry)

Because payroll employment (industry) is measured at the county level and not the

micropolitan level, industry analysis will be conducted by observing Pasquotank County data.

According to the Quarterly Census Employment and Wages (QCEW), a program that publishes a

quarterly count of employment and wages reported by employers covering 98 percent of U.S.

jobs,15 Pasquotank County lost 53 establishments and average employment dropped 12 percent

during the contraction phase.

While total wages likely dropped as a result of this, weekly wages (In 2014 Inflation

Adjusted Dollars), rose modestly from $600.06 to $628.93. This indicates that the employment

losses which occurred may have been in low-wage jobs. While wage growth is positive, when

compared to the growth in weekly wages across all industries in North Carolina, Paquotank

County average wages continue to be considerably less (Figure 10).

Figure 10. Weekly Wages of North Carolina and Pasquotank County (Great Recession)

Source: North Carolina Department of Commerce (http://d4.nccommerce.com/QCEWSelection.aspx)

15 Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. http://www.bls.gov/cew/

$600.06 $628.93

$832.69$865.79

$-

$200.00

$400.00

$600.00

$800.00

$1,000.00

2008 2014

W e e k l y W a g e s

Year

Pasquotank County North Carolina

http://d4.nccommerce.com/QCEWSelection.aspxhttp://d4.nccommerce.com/QCEWSelection.aspxhttp://d4.nccommerce.com/QCEWSelection.aspxhttp://www.bls.gov/cew/http://www.bls.gov/cew/http://www.bls.gov/cew/http://www.bls.gov/cew/http://d4.nccommerce.com/QCEWSelection.aspx


17/33

14

The Service-Providing Industry provided the most jobs in Pasquotank County during the

Great Recession (Figure 11). The Education and Health Services Industry represented the second

largest jobs provider, but accounted for less than half the number of jobs as the Service-

Providing Industry. The Trade, Transportation, and Utility Industry accounted for the third

largest workforce at the county level. All industries suffered declines in the number of jobs

provided to the labor force during the Great Recession.

Figure 11. Pasquotank County Top Industry and Average Employment (Great Recession)

Source: North Carolina Department of Commerce (http://d4.nccommerce.com/QCEWSelection.aspx)

Specifically, the Service-Providing Industry experienced an estimated 7 percent decline

in employment. The Education and Health Services Industry declined an estimated 16 percent in

employment, and the Trade, Transportation, and Utility Industry had the most dramatic drop in

employment at an estimated 19 percent. It should be noted that despite the lower percentage

decline, the Service-Providing Industry lost the largest net amount of jobs amongst the three top

industries.

16,351

5,809

4,304

14,890

5,508

3,593

13,976

4,853

3,357

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000

Service-Providing

Education and Health Services

Trade, Transportation, and Utilities

Persons Employed

T o p I n d u s t r i e s

2014 2010 2008

http://d4.nccommerce.com/QCEWSelection.aspxhttp://d4.nccommerce.com/QCEWSelection.aspxhttp://d4.nccommerce.com/QCEWSelection.aspxhttp://d4.nccommerce.com/QCEWSelection.aspx


18/33

15

Section 2.3 – Occupation Data16

From 2008-2014, Pasquotank County experienced significant shifts in its occupational

structure. The top three occupations in number of positions are Office and Administration, Food

Preparation and Serving, and Transportation and Movement Operations.

Figure 12: Pasquotank County Occupations Fluctuate (Great Recession)

Source: NC Department of Commerce, OES (http://d4.nccommerce.com/OESSelection.aspx)

All three sectors experienced a large spike in employment between 2008 and 2010, and

then subsequent declines. With significant overall losses in the maintenance and repair industry,

but slight net gains in Office and Administrative Support and Food Preparation and Serving

Related occupations, the workforce has shifted considerably.17 During the recession, the large

16 This is a section where data was only available by County in the North Carolina Department of Commerce Labor

and Economic Analysis database. Since Pasquotank County is the largest county in the μSA and houses ElizabethCity, we are displaying data from this county only. NC Department of Commerce,http://d4.nccommerce.com/OESSelection.aspx 17 NC Department of Commerce, OES (http://d4.nccommerce.com/OESSelection.aspx)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

2008 2010 2014

Office and Administrative Support OccupationsFood Preparation and Serving Related OccupationsInstallation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations

N u m b e r o f J o b s

http://d4.nccommerce.com/OESSelection.aspxhttp://d4.nccommerce.com/OESSelection.aspxhttp://d4.nccommerce.com/OESSelection.aspxhttp://d4.nccommerce.com/OESSelection.aspxhttp://d4.nccommerce.com/OESSelection.aspxhttp://d4.nccommerce.com/OESSelection.aspxhttp://d4.nccommerce.com/OESSelection.aspxhttp://d4.nccommerce.com/OESSelection.aspxhttp://d4.nccommerce.com/OESSelection.aspxhttp://d4.nccommerce.com/OESSelection.aspxhttp://d4.nccommerce.com/OESSelection.aspx


19/33

16

spike in office/administration jobs may have been for temporary or part-time work because there

was a significant decline by 2014.

Both the Office/Administration and Food Preparation categories have more jobs in 2014

than in 2008. Given the overall contracting labor force in the county, this has led to an even

larger proportion of Pasquotank County residents being employed in these two sectors. This

changing makeup of the area workforce may prove useful when making long-term decisions

about potential sectors to support through public funds, or which industries are “past the point of

saving.”

While both Office/Administration and Food Preparation jobs returned to similar levels as

they held in 2008, the more worrisome industry is Installation, Maintenance, and Operations

(Figure 12). Employment there has fallen below the 2008 level, and there are now less than

1,000 jobs in that sector. In four years, approximately half of the jobs in this sector have

disappeared. This trend may continue, or it could rebound. The client should pay attention to this

industry and reach out to the remaining businesses in this sector to understand what happened to

some of the industry partners. A deeper understanding of why this industry has drastically

declined could be informative to other industries in the region as well.


20/33

17

Section 3 – Household Income Structure and Poverty

Disclaimer: The American Community Survey (ACS) provides 3-year estimates for geographic areas with a population of 20,000 or more. This is the most accurate measurement of age, sex, race, Hispanic origin, household

relationship, place of birth, education, employment status, income, tenure, cost and value of housing and year

structure built for the Elizabeth City µSA. To study the income, poverty and housing trends during the two periods ofthe Great Recession, our team analyzed three time frames. It was necessary to do this to avoid double counting due

to the overlap in years. The time frames are as follows: 2005-2007, 2008-2010, and 2011-2013. The periods only

last until 2013 because the ACS discontinued publishing 3-year estimates after that year.

Section 3.1 – Household Income Structure

The medium household income18 of the Elizabeth City µSA rose during both the

contraction and recovery phases of the Great Recession. In 2007, the estimated medium

household income (In 2013 Inflation Adjusted Dollars) was $47,145. This was less than the

medium household income (In 2013 Inflation Adjusted Dollars) in North Carolina, which was

$49,284, and both were below the national medium household income, estimated at $56,182

(Figure 12). During the contraction phase, medium household income rose to $47,303 in the

Elizabeth City µSA. Growth continued during the recovery phase, and the median household

income rose to $47,560 in 2013 in the µSA. Household income at the state and national level

experienced similar growth (Figure 13).

Figure 14 compares the median household income (In 2013 Inflation Adjusted Dollars)

by race during the Great Recession. It shows a wide disparity between White and Black

household income. There is also a substantially higher Asian and Latino income, but there are so

few people in these categories that their numbers are skewed.

18 The median divides the income distribution into two equal parts: one-half of the cases falling below the medianincome and one-half above the median. For households and families, the median income is based on the distributionof the total number of households and families including those with no income.


21/33

18

Figure 13. Medium Household Income during the Great Depression

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Three-Year Estimates, 2008 – 2010 and 2011 – 2013

Figure 14. Medium Income by Race during the Great Depression in Elizabeth City μSA


Section 3.2 – Poverty

Of the 16,486 families living the in the Elizabeth City µSA in 2007, 2,122 families, or

12.9 percent made incomes below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). In contrast, 11 percent of

North Carolinian families and 9.8 percent of families nationally were poor or below the FPL.

During the contraction phase, families living in poverty climbed to 13.6 percent, in conjunction

$47,145 $47,303 $47,560

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

2007 2010 2013

I n c o m e

Year

Elizabeth City µSA North Carolina USA

$ 5 6 , 4 1 9

$ 2 7 , 5 8 3

$ 5 0 , 9 9 6

$ 3 4 , 8 7 5

$ 5 8 , 3 2 4

$ 2 9 , 4 1 1

$ 6 9 , 1 9 6

$ 6 6 , 9 5 0

$ 3 6 , 2 9 2 $

5 4 , 9

6 1

$ 2 6 , 2 6 5 $ 4

0 , 8 0 9

WH ITE B LA C K O RA F R I C A N

A M E R I C A N

A S IAN H IS P AN IC O RLATINO

T W O O R M O R ER A C E S

2007 2010 2013


22/33

19

with state and national trends. This number declined only slightly to 13.5 percent in the

expansion phase (See Figure 15).

Figure 15. Poverty Rates during the Great Depression


Of the families living in the Elizabeth City µSA in 2007, the largest sub-population of the

poor were single-parent, female-headed households. Single-parent, female-headed households

continued to be the largest sub-population of the poor through both the contraction and

expansion phases. In 2007, the Elizabeth City µSA suffered from a 23.5 percent poverty rate

among children under the age of 18, which was 3 percentage points higher than the state level

and over 5 percentage points higher than the national level. The percent of children living in

poverty grew nationally, state-wide and regionally during the contraction phase, climbing to 25

percent in the Elizabeth City µSA in 2010. This trend continued during the expansion phase,

reaching a 26.8 percent child poverty rate in 2013.

Similarly, the poverty rate amongst the elderly at 11.6 percent was higher than both the

state and national levels in 2007, but this rate fell during the contraction phase of the recession.

12.9%

13.7%

13.5%

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0%

2007

2010

2013

Poverty Rate

Y e a r

USA North Carolina Elizabeth City (mSA)


23/33

20

The poverty rate amongst the elderly dropped to 8.5 percent during the expansion period, below

both state and national levels. During both the contraction and expansion phases, over 36 percent

of the total population would be considered either “poor”19 or “working poor.”20

Perhaps most alarming is the discrepancy between the poverty rates among Whites and

Blacks, which had a 9.5 percent and 29.5 percent rate in 2007, respectively. Unfortunately, these

numbers are more extreme examples of the state and national levels. Expectedly, these numbers

rose during the contraction phase to 11.1 percent and 30.7 percent, respectively. The rate of

White unemployment dropped to 10.5 percent in the expansion phase, but rose to over 31 percent

for the Black community.

19 "Below 100% of poverty" is the same as "in poverty."20 "Below 200% of poverty" includes all those described as "in poverty" under the official definition, plus some people who have income above poverty but less than 2 times their poverty threshold.


24/33

21

Section 4 – Health Insurance Coverage, Trends and Disparities

Section 4.1 – Health Insurance Coverage and Trends

As of 2014, approximately 17 out of every 100 residents in the Elizabeth City µSA were

without health insurance, compared to 13 out of every 100 North Carolina residents.21 Despite

lagging behind North Carolina in the percentage of overall residents insured, the Elizabeth City

µSA experienced greater growth than the state in the number of insured residents over the

entirety of the Great Recession, 2008 – 2014. While the overall percentage of insured North

Carolinians declined during the contraction phase of the recession, 2008 – 2010, the percentage

of insured in the Elizabeth City µSA increased (Figure 16). While insured growth rates in North

Carolina overall slightly outpaced the µSA during the expansion, 2010 – 2014,22 both rates were

positive and approximately 1 percent (Figure 16).

Figure 16. Growth Rates of Insured in the Elizabeth City µSA Outpaces North Carolina

during Contraction, Lags Slightly Behind during Expansion

Source: Small Area Health Insurance Estimates (SAHIE); https://www.census.gov/did/www/sahie/index.html

21 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, One-Year Estimates, 201422 Note: Data only available for comparison through 2013.

-2.5%

-2.0%

-1.5%

-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2008-2010 2010-2013

G r o t h R a t e o f I n s u r e d

Elizabeth City µSA North Carolina

https://www.census.gov/did/www/sahie/index.htmlhttps://www.census.gov/did/www/sahie/index.htmlhttps://www.census.gov/did/www/sahie/index.htmlhttps://www.census.gov/did/www/sahie/index.html


25/33

22

Section 4.2 – Health Insurance Disparities

Despite overall declines in the number of uninsured during the Great Recession, huge

disparities remain in the Elizabeth City µSA along socioeconomic lines. Though the number of

uninsured residents in the µSA with household incomes less than twice the federal poverty line

(FPL, $23,550 for a family of 4 in 201323) declined from over 30 percent in 2008 to 27 percent in

2013, such growth is tempered by the fact that this rate remains over five times the rate for those

in households with incomes greater than four times the FPL (Figure 17).

Figure 17. Percentage of Uninsured North Carolinian’s Declining, but Huge Disparities by

Income Remain

Source: Small Area Health Insurance Estimates (SAHIE); https://www.census.gov/did/www/sahie/index.html

The primary driver of this disparity is likely the absence of publicly provided health

insurance for poor, young, childless adults. Despite extremely low uninsured rates for children

under 17 and adults over 65, the number of uninsured adults aged 25 – 34 is nearly 45 percent

23 https://aspe.hhs.gov/2013-poverty-guidelines

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2008 2010 2013

P

e r c e n t a g e U n i n s u r e d

< 200% FPL 200 - 400% FPL > 400%FPL

https://www.census.gov/did/www/sahie/index.htmlhttps://www.census.gov/did/www/sahie/index.htmlhttps://www.census.gov/did/www/sahie/index.htmlhttps://aspe.hhs.gov/2013-poverty-guidelineshttps://aspe.hhs.gov/2013-poverty-guidelineshttps://aspe.hhs.gov/2013-poverty-guidelineshttps://aspe.hhs.gov/2013-poverty-guidelineshttps://www.census.gov/did/www/sahie/index.html


26/33

23

(Figure 18). The relative good health of young adults likely partly drives this high number, but

North Carolina’s Medicaid Policies are most culpable for this disparity.

Unlike the majority of states, North Carolina declined the Medicaid Expansion as part of

the 2010 Affordable Care Act. As a result, despite having a higher Medicaid participation rate

than the United States average,24 North Carolina’s growth rate in enrollment in Medicaid and

CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) lags significantly behind the United States

overall.25 North Carolina’s Medicaid and CHIP policies extensively cover children in households

with income below 200 percent of the FPL, but childless adults are entirely uncovered, and

adults with children must have household incomes below 45 percent of the FPL to be covered

(Table 1). The lack of Medicaid coverage for childless adults thus stands as a driver for the high

insurance rates among individuals aged 18 – 34 in North Carolina (Figure 18).

Table 1. North Carolina Medicaid and CHIP Enrollment RequirementsState Medicaid

Expansion

Children – Medicaid Separate

CHIP

Pregnant Women Parents Other

AdultsAges

0 – 1

Ages

1 – 5

Ages

6 – 18

Medicaid CHIP

North

Carolina

N 210% 210% 133% 211%

(6 – 18)

196% N/A 45% 0%

Note: Percentages refer to the household income as a percentage of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) that an

individual must be below to qualify.

Source: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by-state/north-carolina.html

24 https://www.insurekidsnow.gov/about/participation-rates/index.html 25 https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by-state/north-carolina.html

https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by-state/north-carolina.htmlhttps://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by-state/north-carolina.htmlhttps://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by-state/north-carolina.htmlhttps://www.insurekidsnow.gov/about/participation-rates/index.htmlhttps://www.insurekidsnow.gov/about/participation-rates/index.htmlhttps://www.insurekidsnow.gov/about/participation-rates/index.htmlhttps://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by-state/north-carolina.htmlhttps://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by-state/north-carolina.htmlhttps://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by-state/north-carolina.htmlhttps://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by-state/north-carolina.htmlhttps://www.insurekidsnow.gov/about/participation-rates/index.htmlhttps://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by-state/north-carolina.html


27/33

24

Figure 18. Young Adults Dominate the Elizabeth City µSA’s Uninsured Population

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, One-Year Estimates, 2014

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Under 17: 18 to 24: 25 to 34: 35 to 64: 65 or older:

P e r c e n t a g e U n i n s u r e d

Age


28/33

25

Section 5 – Housing

In 2013, there were 27,529 housing units in Elizabeth City µSA, 17.2 percent of which

were vacant. This is a striking difference from Durham, a growing and urban North Carolina

city, which has a vacancy rate of 8.4 percent.26 North Carolina as a whole has a vacancy rate of

14.8 percent.27 71 percent of µSA households are occupied by homeowners, and 29 percent are

occupied by renters. This proportion of homeowners is also quite different from Durham, which

has 49 percent homeowner households, and 51 percent renter households. The median value for

owner-occupied housing units in the µSA has increased from $169 thousand in 2007 to $180

thousand in 2013 (In 2013 Inflation Adjusted Dollars). Median Gross Rent has also increased

from $751/month in 2007 to $887/month in 2013 (In 2013 Inflation Adjusted Dollars).

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) classifies any

household paying over 30 percent of their income on housing (mortgage or rent) as “cost-

burdened.” If a household is paying over 50 percent of their income on housing they are

classified as “severely cost-burdened.”28 While there is a greater percentage of severely cost-

burdened renters than homeowners in the Elizabeth City µSA (Figure 19), due to the higher

percentage of cost-burdened homeowners, on aggregate more homeowners are burdened than

renters — 54.6 to 49.7 percent (Figure 20).

26 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Three-Year Estimates, 2011 – 201327 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Three-Year Estimates, 2011 – 2013 28 HUD. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_092214.html

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_092214.htmlhttps://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_092214.htmlhttps://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_092214.htmlhttps://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_092214.html


29/33

26

Figure 19. Majority of the Elizabeth City µSA homeowners cost-burdened and almost half

of renters cost-burdened

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Three-Year Estimates, 2011 – 2013

Figure 20. The Elizabeth City µSA owners becoming more burdened than renters


In addition, Elizabeth City µSA homeowners are far more burdened than the rest of North

Carolina, 54.6 to 43.1 percent respectively (Figure 21). In contrast, the µSA’s proportion of

burdened renters is similar to the rest of North Carolina, 49.7 to 45.8 percent, respectively

(Figure 22). Perhaps the increases in property values (and subsequent property taxes), combined

with relatively stagnant wages has increased the burdens on homeowners. Alternatively, the

median property values gathered during the period could be undervalued and real property values

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Cost-burdened

Severely cost-burdened

2011-13 Housing Cost as Percentage of Income

Homeowners Renters

51.349.7

45.4

54.6

20

2530

35

40

45

50

55

60

2007 2013Renters Homeowners

P e r c e n t a g e


30/33

27

(and taxes) are even higher. Worth investigating further are the reasons renters are not becoming

more burdened over time.

Figure 21. Elizabeth City µSA homeowners more burdened than North Carolina as a whole


Figure 22. Elizabeth City µSA renters approximately equally burdened as North Carolina

as a whole


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Elizabeth City North Carolina

Cost-burdened and severely cost-burdenedhomeowners 2011-2013

P e r c e n t a g e

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Elizabeth City North Carolina

Cost-burdened and severely cost-burdened renters2011-2013

P e r c e n t a g e


31/33

28

Section 6 - Conclusion

While this report paints a bleak picture for the Elizabeth City µSA: a declining

population with minimal projected growth, stagnant real wages, lost jobs, high levels of

inequality along racial and socioeconomic lines, higher rates of unemployment and more

uninsured, housing burdened residents than in the state and nation, the area is not without hope.

The Elizabeth City µSA is ideally situated on the North Carolina coast, is home to a state

University, a respected community college and large Coast Guard base, enjoys a temperate

climate, resides in a state with favorable business laws, and is within reach of nearby

metropolitan hubs: Raleigh/Durham, Richmond and Virginia Beach/Norfolk. With these

characteristics in mind, there are several areas for further insight that may hold promise for the

Elizabeth City µSA.

First, regional leaders should conduct a thorough educational analysis of the area,

including both the level of educational attainment of current residents, as well as educational

characteristics of international migrants that moved to the area. Regional leaders will then have

an accurate picture of the capabilities of current residents. Leadership must focus on providing

more amenities and services that can increase the quality of life in the region for all residents, but

especially amenities that encourage educated residents to stay or return to the region.

Second, regional leaders should analyze broadband access in the area and look to increase

the regional digital connectivity. Industries and businesses are increasingly reliant on information

technology, which is especially dependent on connectivity and widespread broadband access.29

29 Kahn, Matthew. (2013). Cities, economic development, and the role of place-based policies: Lessons for

Appalachia. University of Kentucky Center for Poverty Research.


32/33

29

Increased connectivity will allow workers to live in the µSA and work from home for part of the

week, while also being able to commute when needed to work in one of the several metropolitan

hubs near the µSA. In addition, research by Jed Kolko has found a strong positive relationship

between broadband expansion and economic growth, particularly in low population density areas

such as the Elizabeth City µSA.30

Third, in conjunction with studying broadband connectivity in the region, the Elizabeth

City µSA should analyze commuting patterns and transportation infrastructure to nearby regional

metropolitan hubs. The µSA’s close proximity to booming cities, such as Durham and Virginia

Beach/Norfolk, could allow the µSA to capitalize on growth in these cities if necessary

infrastructure is in place to allow residents to easily commute to these areas. Appalachian

counties near Atlanta, employed a similar strategy to cultivate growth in the 1980s and 1990s.31

Fourth, regional leaders should lobby the University of North Carolina Board of

Governors to increase investment in the local University, Elizabeth City State University

(ECSU). Investing in ECSU provides a host of complementary benefits. Investment will help

attract highly-skilled faculty and students, who in turn will attract more firms that grow jobs,

subsequently encouraging educated students to remain in the area upon graduation. The

Elizabeth City µSA could look to cities such as Ann Arbor, Michigan as a model for how to

grow via University investment.

Lastly, regional leaders should further investigate why there has been an increasing trend

in housing burdened homeowners, in addition to why there is such a large proportion of housing

burdened homeowners in the region compared to the rest of North Carolina. Affordable housing

30 Kolko, Jed. (2010). Does Broadband Boost Local Economic Development. Public Policy Institute of California.31 Glaeser, Edward and Kahn, Matthew. (2004). Sprawl and Urban Growth. Handbook of Urban Economics.


33/33

Date post:	07-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	wes-norris
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

EC Final Report

Documents