Chartbook FINAL 1

8/6/2019 Chartbook FINAL 1

1/86

Department of Development SociologyCornell University

Upstate New York in ProleTrends, Projections, and Community & Economic Development Issues

2011 State of Upstate New York Initiative

By Robin Blakely-Armitage, Scott Sanders, Joe Francis, and Jan Vink


2/86


3/86

Upstate New York in Prole:Trends, Projections, and Community & Economic Development Issues

By Robin Blakely-Armitage, Scott Sanders, Joe Francis, and Jan Vink

Department of Development SociologyCornell University

cardi.cornell.edu

Te graphs, tables, and maps contained in this report may be reproduced.Please include proper source and accreditation.


4/86


5/86

on social and economic characteristics that was previouslyound in the decennial census is no longer available. Insteadthis inormation is made available through the ongoingAmerican Community Survey (ACS). One o our missionsis to help individuals and organizations learn how to retrieveinormation rom that venue.

PAD provides demographic inormation to residentso New York State in a variety o ways. One way is via ourweb site (http://pad.human.cornell.edu/ ). Another means isthrough responding to requests rom agencies and media ordata, data analysis and/or data interpretation. We participatein presentations and workshops to organizations on theCornell campus and throughout the state. Likewise, theProgram on Applied Demographics is pleased to participatein the production o this chartbook and we look orward tocontinued participation in the State o Upstate conerence.

AcknowledgementsCaRDI would like to acknowledge numerous individuals

that supported the development o this chartbook. Manyo the key workshop presenters at the State o Upstate NYconerence provided key input in the early stages o thechartbooks development. Several members o the CaRDIteam provided detailed review and suggestions - in particularwe thank David Kay and Heidi Mouillesseaux-Kunzman.Jen Jensen with the Rural Policy Research Institutes RuralFutures Lab also gave o her time to review a dra. SteveKern, graphic designer with the Charles H. Dyson Schoolo Applied Economics and Management, used his talentand skills to give the fnal document its polish. CornellUniversity Press and Communications spurred us on withtheir enthusiasm and support as did Cornell Cooperative

Extension as they celebrate their centennial this year. Tisproject was not done in a vacuum and we greatly appreciatethe breadth and depth o support and input we receivedalong the way.


6/86

Table of Contents

Section I: Introduction ........................................................................................................................................1

Section II: Te Changing Population of Upstate New York.........................................................................6Historical Population rends .........................................................................................................................6

NYS Population Projections ...........................................................................................................................9

Natural Increase ...............................................................................................................................................9

Migration ..........................................................................................................................................................9

Age-Specifc Net Migration ..........................................................................................................................11

Age Structure .................................................................................................................................................12

Household & Family Size .............................................................................................................................14

Race & Ethnicity ............................................................................................................................................14

Section III: Upstate Development Issues

A. Economic Development & Workorce rends ..................................................................................17

B. Income and Poverty ..............................................................................................................................25

C. Local & Regional Government ............................................................................................................29

D. Schools & Youth.....................................................................................................................................35

E. Health rends .........................................................................................................................................44

F. Environment, Land Use & Natural Resources ...................................................................................50

G. Energy .....................................................................................................................................................61

H. Agriculture & Food Systems ................................................................................................................69

Section IV: Final Summary...............................................................................................................................74


7/86

UPSTATE NY IN PROFILE/JUNE 2011

Section I: Introduction

What is this Chartbook all about?Upstate New York, along with much o the NortheasternU.S., has experienced signifcant change over the pastseveral decades. Communities are aced with a seemingly

ever-increasing set o challenges, ranging rom increasedproperty taxes to changing employment opportunities torising energy prices. In this document, we provide data onkey social, economic, demographic trends as well as otherindicators, including public opinion, on various communityand regional development topics. Decision-makers, whetherindividual citizens, leaders o non-proft organizations,business owners, or elected and appointed ocials needinormation in order to make evidence-based decisionsabout the uture. It is hoped that this chartbook will provideuseul data, survey inormation, and links to additionalresources or these stakeholders to make inormed decisions

which result in stronger communities, regions, and anincreased quality o lie or New York State residents.

Goals & AudienceCaRDI organized a State o Upstate New York conerenceor June 2011 in Syracuse, New York. In many ways, this2011 eort is a continuation o a project began in 2005,in collaboration with the NYS Legislative Commission onRural Resources (LCRR) called Te Rural Vision Project(RVP). Te project included a series o listening sessionsheld around NYS, culminating in a conerence held inSyracuse, NY in 2006. Te project helped to identiy the

key challenges, opportunities, and potential policy issueswhich rural communities in NYS ace. Since that time,CaRDIs ocus has expanded to a regional perspective, onethat recognizes that communities, as well as the state, mustconsider local development rom a regional perspective.Tis regional approach is important, whether or economicdevelopment, land use, schools, health care, etc.

Aer the RVP project, CaRDI and the NYS LCRR produceda post-project booklet that captured the main fndings andconclusions o the listening sessions and the conerence(http://devsoc.cals.cornell.edu/cals/devsoc/outreach/cardi/

programs/indicators/rvp/upload/rvp-summary_report.pd ).Many o the issues identifed became legislative agenda

items in Albany in late 2006. New partnerships were createdin many areas o the state to help communities deal withparticular issues. Further research and outreach eorts werespurred on as a result o questions and issues identifed byproject participants.

In 2011, CaRDI continues this work in New York Statesupstate region. Te State o Upstate New York project ocuseson almost identical issue areas as did the RVP project severalyears ago. However, while the ocal areas are similar, ourapproach to this project is somewhat dierent. Just priorto the conerence, CaRDI will release this Chartbook, theState o Upstate New York in Prole. Conerence participantswill have access to the document on-line, and will also

receive a printed copy at the conerence. It is intendedthat the trends and changes portrayed in this chartbookserve as a oundation or much o the discussion at theconerence sessions. Conerence attendees will attend threeo nine workshop sessions to examine and explore the majorchallenges and opportunities acing the region. Te ninesessions include:

EconomicDevelopment WorkforceTrends Local&RegionalGovernment Schools&Youth HealthCare Income&Poverty Environment,LandUse,andNaturalResources CommunityEnergy AgricultureandFoodSystems

Te chartbook covers these nine topic areas, and alsoincludes a detailed section on demographic trends being

experienced by upstate New York. Basic data is presented ineach o these areas to serve as a baseline or more inormeddiscussion, and additional data resources are provided asweb-links in each section. While the data included in thechartbook may highlight some important issues acingthe upstate region, they are intended to be a basis orinitiating inormed discussion at the conerence. Te moredetailed discussions at the conerence will be captured andprocessed, and a post-conerence report will be issued whichrames and discusses the linkages between these nine topicareas, the major challenges and opportunities identifed, andhighlights o key data trends.

Tis Chartbook is designed to be useul or a broad

audience and can unction as a stand alone report, widelydisseminated to individuals, organizations, communitiesand leaders across New York State. It can serve as a useulresource or broader planning and decision-making at thelocal and regional levels. CaRDIs stakeholders includeelected and appointed ocials at the local and state levelCornell Cooperative Extension educators, leaders o non-proft organizations, business owners, economic developersplanners, social service providers, and teachers andadministrators in primary, secondary, and higher educationacross the state. We hope this report will also be o use tocitizens, students, and other individuals who are interested ingaining empirically-based insights about Upstate New Yorkand helping their communities and regions plan eectivelyor the uture.

Data sourcesWe rely on several primary and secondary data sourcesin this document. Data rom the Decennial U.S. Censusare provided or the years 1990, 2000, and 2010, androm the American Community Survey (ACS) (pooledestimates 2005-2009). In addition, we include estimatesand projections through 2035 produced by the Programon Applied Demographics (PAD) at Cornell University (in

collaboration with the NY State Data Center).


8/86

2 UPSTATE NY IN PROFILE/JUNE 2011

Primary data collection was achieved through commissiono a special survey, the State o Upstate Survey. Te surveywas designed by CaRDI and was conducted in January 2011by Cornell Universitys Survey Research Institute (SRI). Tistelephone survey was administered to 600 Upstate New YorkState households using a random sampling ramework. At a95% confdence level, this survey has a confdence intervalo +/- 4%.

For the specifc topic areas covered in this report, inaddition to the data sources discussed above, we include datarom a variety o special sources. For example, in Section 5:Schools and Youth, we incorporate data rom the New YorkState Department o Education, as well as the NationalCenter or Education Statistics. In Section 4: Local andRegional Governance, we reerence data rom the NYS Oceo the Comptroller. In all cases, data sources are supportedby appropriate reerences and weblinks, when available.

How the data are organized & presented

Geography

For much o the chartbook, we are able to present dataor NYS, Upstate, and county type (metropolitan status).However, in some sections such as Energy, and Environment,

Land Use, and Natural Resources, data are not available at allthese levels. We present data or the state as a whole, and iavailable, or the upstate region.

Upstate New York

Data in each section are frst reported or New York State asa whole. Tese state-level data are then compared to data orUpstate New York, which is an aggregation o data rom the53 counties north o Westchester and Rockland Counties.We recognize that the term upstate may be defned andoperationalized dierently in dierent contexts.

Figure 1.1: Upstate New York Counties


9/86


County

Individual county statistics will not be presented in thisreport. However, we present county-level data categorizedby metropolitan status. For this Chartbook we use threecategories: Metropolitan, Micropolitan, and Non-CoreBased statistical areas. Counties all into one o thesethree categories depending upon the presence and size ourbanized areas, as well as the degree o social and economicintegration with adjacent counties as measured through

commuting. Metropolitan statistical areas are comprised o acentral county or counties containing a core place, includingat least one urbanized area that has a population o at least50,000, plus adjacent counties meeting the commutingcriterion. Micropolitan statistical areas are nonmetropolitancounties that are also considered core areas, but where theurban cluster has a population between 10,000 and 50,000people. Non-core based nonmetropolitan counties lack anurban cluster o at least 10,000 people (Federal Register,2010).

Time Period

For our secondary data sources, we present data rom 19902000, 2010 and the latest 5-year (2005-2009) estimates romthe American Community Survey (ACS). In addition, wepresent projections whenever possible. In many cases, andor non-Census data sources, the data may not be availableor the same time periods. In these cases, we attempt toobtain data or at least the last decade in order to trackgeneral trends.

Presentation o Data

In this report out goal is to present the data in a clear, conciseand interesting manner. While the actual numeric data wilbe provided in tables, we also provide maps and graphswhenever possible. In the reports on-line version, thesegraphics are available or copying and pasting into otherdocuments and presentations, with proper accreditationShort text narratives, and links to additional data andinormation sources or each topic accompany the datapresentations.

Figure 1.2: Upstate New York State Counties, by Metropolitan Status

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010


10/86


Figure 1.4: Most important issue acing yourcommunity, by upstate county type.

Source: SOUS Survey, 2011

Not surprisingly, employment and other economic issueswere ront and center in peoples minds, whether they werecommenting on issues acing the state as a whole (Figure1.5), or their communities (Figure 1.3). One in threerespondents identifed employment as the most importantissue at the state level, and one in our cited it as the mostimportant issue in their community. axes were cited byup to one quarter o respondents, and economic growth byone in seven. Te responses in these categories were similarat both the state and community level, although peopleliving in micropolitan counties were more concerned with

employment(35%) in their communities than those living inmetropolitan or non-core counties (Figure 1.4).

Q: In your opinion, what do you think is the single most

important issue acing New York State as a whole?

Figure 1.5: Single most important issue acingNew York State as a whole.

How the Chartbook Sections are organizedEach section starts with a brie overview identiying themajor issues acing Upstate NY in that particular topicalarea. Survey and secondary data are then presented ingraphs and charts with brie analyses. Because these sectionsonly provide basic indicators or each area, we oer links toadditional resources aer each section. It is our intentionaer the State o Upstate New York Conerence, to publish apost-conerence report that provides more in-depth analysis,detail and narrative o these issues, the linkages across topicalareas, across the region, and over time, as well as identiyingpotential policy implications and areas or uture research.

Opinions on General Upstate Issueso set the stage or the Chartbook, we report responsesrom Upstate New Yorkers to a series o general questionsabout the most important issues acing the state and theircommunity, and general levels o satisaction with various

community characteristics. Tese overall responses arereported here to provide a general context or more specifctopical area discussions.

Q: In your opinion, what do you think is the single most

important issue acingyour communityas a whole?

Figure 1.3: Single most important issue acingyour communityas a whole.




11/86


Figure 1.6: Single most important issue acingNew York State, by upstate county type.


Concern over state and local municipal governments andbudgets was also apparent, although signifcant dierencesemerged. While 13% o respondents identifed the NYSbudgetas the most important issue acing the state (Figure1.5), only 4% identifed municipal budgets as the mostimportant issue acing their community (Figure 1.3). In asimilar vein, upstate New Yorkers view NYS governmentas a relatively more pressing issue (9%) or the state, thanare localgovernments (4%) an issue or their communities.Respondents living in non-core counties were more likelythan others to identiyeconomic issues (Figure 1.6).

Q: Every community has good points and bad points

about living within it. Please tell me, or your local

community, how satised or dissatised you are with

the ollowing issues and characteristics:

Figure 1.7: Levels o satisaction or variouscommunity issues & characteristics.


While more than two-thirds o Upstate New Yorkers reportsatisaction with access to health care (Figure 1.7) locallythis sentiment was particularly strong among those living inmetropolitan counties (see Figure 3E.2 in health care section)

A solid majority (59%) o Upstate New Yorkers are satisfedwith the quality o public education in their communitieswhile less than 20% expressed some level o dissatisaction.

More than hal o respondents indicate satisaction withlocal eorts to preserve the local natural environmentin their community, while just over one quarter expressdissatisaction with those same eorts. Respondents livingin metro counties were more likely to express dissatisactionand less likely to express satisaction than their non-metrocounterparts (see Figure 3F.2 in environment, land use andnatural resource section).

Upstate New Yorkers are evenly split in their attitudesabout the suciency o land use planning in theircommunities. Slightly more expressed levels o satisaction

versus dissatisaction (39% versus 32%), while 29% wereneutral on the issue. Tose living in metro counties were

slightly more likely to be dissatisfed than their non-metrocounterparts (see Figure 3F.7 in environment, land use andnatural resource section).

Opinions on the value o local services were also almostevenly split, with 38% indicating some level o satisactionand 40% voicing dissatisaction. However, the verydissatisfed outnumbered the very satisfed by 2 to 1indicating more emphasis on dissatisaction or Upstate NewYorkers with regard to local service value. In addition, thoserespondents living in non-core based counties were muchless likely to be satisfed compared to their micropolitanor metropolitan counterparts (see Figure 3C.2 in local andregional government section.

Upstate New Yorkers are almost evenly divided betweenbeing satisfed, dissatisfed, or neither dissatisfed norsatisfed with the eectiveness o their local city or towngovernment. Tere was not a signifcant variance betweenmetro and non-metro respondents.

More than two-thirds o respondents expressdissatisaction with the quality and availability o jobs locallywhile only 12% were satisfed. About one in fve were neithersatisfed nor dissatisfed.

Other Surveys On NYS IssuesCornell Survey Research Institutes Empire State Poll:https://sri.cornell.edu/sri/esp.reports.cm

Siena College Research Institute Polls:http://www.siena.edu/sri

Marist Poll, NYS Archives:http://maristpoll.marist.edu/politics-section/new-york-state-

poll-archive/


12/86


13/86


can actually be attributed to counties being re-classifed aseither metro or nonmetro due to population increases ordecreases. As micropolitan counties grow past a thresholdpopulation, they then are re-classifed as metropolitanshowing increases in the metropolitan category, anddeclines in the micropolitan category. Similarly nonmetrocounties can become metropolitan i their commutingto metro areas exceeds a threshold level (25%). It is alsopossible or previously metro counties to drop out o themetro category. Counties categorized as non-core continuedto increase in population during these two decades. Figure2.5 shows the adjusted metro status o NYS counties aer the2000 decennial census results were completed.

Figure 2.4: Total Population, New York State andUpstate County Types, 1990 2010

1900 2000 2005* 2010

New York 17,990,455 18,976,457 19,330,891 19,378,102

Upstate 6,918,338 7,004,054 7,015,218 7,109,287

Metropolitan 5,244,549 5,320,737 5,342,153 5,546,068

Micropolitan 1,146,161 1,141,592 1,128,501 1,015,680

Non-Core 527,628 541,725 544,564 547,539

Source: Population Census, 1990, 2000 and 2010 Census Population otals

and the 2005 American Community Survey

Figure 2.3: New York State, Downstate andUpstate Historical Population Trends, 1940 - 2010

Source: US Population Census

In the last two decades, NYS and the upstate region havecontinued to grow, but growth is not even across the Upstateregion (Figure 2.4). Metropolitan Counties in Upstate havegrown between every census year. Micropolitan counties, onthe other hand, declined during both decades but at a muchaster rate in the last ten years. Much o these changes

Figure 2.5 Changing metro status o NYS Counties


14/86


Figure 2.6: Total Population by County, New York State, Census 2010

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 2.7: Percent Change in Population by County, 2000 to 2010, New York State

Source: U.S. Census Bureau


15/86


Figure 2.6 shows the relative population size in NYScounties, according to the 2010 Census. In the upstateregion, population size is greatest in those counties with largemetro areas and smallest in the non-core counties, as wouldbe expected. Te next map, Figure 2.7, shows populationchange between 2000 and 2010 or each NYS county.Hamilton County, shown in dark purple, experienced a 10%or more population loss over the decade, and large areas oupstate, particularly in the central and western part o thestate, experienced a loss o population o up to 5%. Amongupstate counties posting population gains, Ontario, Saratoga,Orange and Duchess Counties had the most signifcant (6%-9.5%).

Population ProjectionsPopulation projections produced by Cornell UniversitysProgram on Applied Demographics (PAD) indicatecontinued slow population growth in New York State overthe next two and a hal decades. According to PAD, the State

will add close to a million people by the year 2035 (Figures2.8 and 2.9). However, this rate o growth is likely to be slowerthan that experienced by other regions o the U.S. Hence,NYS share o the U.S. population is expected to declineover this time, an issue that o course has major politicalimplications, since a states congressional apportionment isbased on its share o the nations population.

Figure 2.8: New York State Population estimatesand projections, 1990-2035

Source: Cornell Program o Applied Demographics

In contrast to the entire state, the Upstate region, regardlesso county type, is projected to decline, relative to current

2010 Census numbers (Figure 2.10).

Figure 2.10: New York State Counties, Populationestimates and projections, 2010-2035

Source: Cornell Program o Applied Demographics

Natural IncreasePopulation size is aected by the net eects o three eventsbirths, deaths, and migration. Te term Natural Increasereers to the net dierence between the number o birth

and the number o deaths in a population. New York Statexperienced a decline in the rate o natural increase in thfrst several years o the past decade, but rates increasedaer 2005 and 2006. Tis is also true or the Upstate regionUpstate non-core based counties in particular experienceda steady increase in the natural rate o increase aer 2004(Figure 2.11).

Figure 2.11: New York State and Upstate County Rateso Natural Increase (Births-Deaths), 20012009

Source: US Census Bureau

MigrationAside rom natural increase, net migration is the othecomponent o population change. Migration can be rominternational or domestic origins, and can be entering place (in-migration) or exiting a place (out-migration)Net reers to the ending result o the dierences in thesprocesses. A trend line that sits above the 0 o the Y-axiindicates a positive net change (gain), a trend line belowthe 0 indicates a negative net change (loss). In additionmigrants can come rom or go to domestic or internationaorigins or destinations.


16/86


Figure 2.12 illustrates the net eects o both domestic andinternational net migration ows. Examining the net eectshows NYS experiencing higher rates o out-migration thanin-migration, and while Upstate New York also had a netout-migration result, it was not as signifcant in the middleo the decade. However, these rates between the upstateregion and the State as a whole converged by 2009.

Figure 2.12: NYS and Upstate County Types Rateso Net Migration, 2001 2009


Figure 2.13 shows the upstate county-level variation inthese net migration rates. Only those counties coloredgreen experienced even modest net in-migration duringthe period. Tose counties in red experienced the mostsignifcant rates o out-migration.

Figure 2.13: New York State 2009 Net MigrationRates


Upstate New York experienced lower, but airly steadyrates o net international migration (people moving rom aoreign country, or moving to a oreign country) during the2000s, compared to the State as a whole which experienceda signifcant decline (Figure 2.14). Te rates or the non-corebased counties appear to vary dramatically in the year 2003,but because o their relatively smaller population bases,small numeric variations in net international migration canresult in large rate changes.

Figure 2.14: NYS and Upstate County Types Rateso Net International Migration, 2001 2009


With regard to net domestic migration, the Upstate regionhad signifcantly dierent rates than did the State as a whole.While New York State as a whole experienced signifcant netout-migration, Upstate New York experienced much moremoderate loss (Figure 2.14).

Figure 2.15: NYS and Upstate County Types Rateso Net Domestic Migration, 2001 2009



17/86

UPSTATE NY IN PROFILE/JUNE 2011 1

Although migration is an important component o overallpopulation change, not all age groups are equally mobile.In the ollowing fgures, we examine net migration ratesor age groups in each decade rom the 1950s through the1990s. We can see a sharp peak in net migration into NYSor age groups 25-29 through 30-34 (trend lines are abovezero on the Y-axis). For people aged older than 30-34, thetrend changes to one o out migration (trend lines are belowzero on the Y-axis). Tis trend was dramatically dierent,however, during the 1970s where the State experienced outmigration or every age group (Figure 2.16).

Age Specic Migration

Figure 2.16: New York State Net Migration Ratesby Age, 1950s 1990s

Source: U.S. Decennial Censuses

urning to Upstate New York (Figure 2.17), we seesignifcantly dierent trends compared to the state levelshown in the previous graph. For the Upstate region, outmigration is especially notable or the age groups 25-29

through 30-34. Tis trend was increasingly true over the lastthree decades shown.

Figure 2.17: Upstate New York Net Migration Rateby Age, 1950s 1990s


Te next three graphs (Figures 2.18-2.21) examine theage specifc net migration trends among dierent types oupstate counties. Te more recent decades examined areparticularly noteworthy in the signifcant out-migration o20-24 and 25-29 year olds, especially in the micropolitan andnon-core based counties (note that the Y-axis in these twographs runs to -30 per 1000). In the non-core based countieswe see evidence o positive net in-migration o people age 50and above, perhaps retiring to more rural settings and smaltowns.

Figure 2.18: Upstate New York Metropolitan TypeCounty Net Migration Rate by Age, 1950s 1990s


Figure 2.19: Upstate New York Micropolitan TypeCounty Net Migration Rate by Age, 1950s 1990s


Figure 2.20: Upstate New York Non-Core TypeCounty Net Migration Rate by Age, 1950 1990



18/86


Age StructureChanges in age structure, whether due to births, deaths,and/or net migration, can have important implications orcommunity and regional development. In New York State,the median age has increased rom 35.9 years in the year 2000to 37.7 years in 2009, a dierence o 1.8 years (Figure 2.21).Te upstate micropolitan and non-core counties aged morerapidly than the rest o the state. Tey began the decade withthe oldest median ages (37.3 and 37.1 years, respectively)and both increased by 2.6 years in just nine years.

Population pyramids are another tool to help visualizea populations age structure and how it changes over time.Figure 2.22 shows the changes in NYS age structure over thepast decade. On the le side o the graphic, the grey shadingreers to the age structure in 2000 and the dark blue outline

reers to the age structure a decade later, allowing us to moreclearly see how NYS age structure has changed in just onedecade. Between 2000 and 2010, NYS lost population inthe 0-14, 30-44, and 70-79 year old age groups, and gainedpopulation in the 15-29, 45-69, and 80+ year old age groups.

Figure 2.23 provides population pyramids or 1990through 2030, projecting age structure two decades into theuture. In general, the age structure o NYS is projected tocontinue to age, with a larger relative share o the populationreaching the older age groups. Te baby boom generation,seen most clearly in the frst pyramid as the middle bulge,moves up the pyramid over time, resulting in a much largernumber o senior citizens in the uture.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

NY State 35.9 35.9 35.9 36.2 36.4 36.7 36.9 37.3 37.5 37.7

Upstate 36.9 36.9 37 37.3 37.6 37.9 38.2 38.6 38.9 39.2

Metropolitan 36.9 36.9 36.9 37.2 37.5 37.7 38.1 38.4 38.8 39

Micropolitan 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.7 38.1 38.4 38.8 39.2 39.6 39.9

Non-core 37.1 37.1 37.2 37.6 38 38.4 38.9 39.1 39.5 39.7

Figure 2.21: Median Age o New York State, Upstate, and Upstate County Populations, 2000-2009

Source: US Census, USA Counties Data

Figure 2.22: Change in NYS age structure, 2000-2010

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Cornell University Program on Applied Demographics


19/86


Upstate New Yorks age structure diers rom the State asa whole due to the relative concave shape o the pyramidin year 2010 around the age groups 25-29 through 40-44.Over time the upstate region is projected to become muchmore uniorm in size across the fve year age groupings,experiencing decreases in the number o pre-school andschool age children and young adults, while the middle-agedand older age groups become more uniorm (Figure 2.24).

In general, an important trend to take rom thesepopulation pyramids is not only the relative size o thepopulation aged 65+ increasing across the Upstate region,but the actual number o people in these older age groups

is also increasing, presenting particular challenges andopportunities or communities and the region. Tis overallprojected trend is almost identical to that expected or theUnited States as a whole.

Figure 2.25: Percentage o Population Aged 65and Over Upstate New York and United States,1980-2030

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial censuses

Population Estimates Program, and Population Projections Program; Cornel

University, Program on Applied Demographics (PAD); economy.com (rom

Fed Reserve article by Dietz and Garcia, Vol 2, Issue 1, 2007)

Figure 2.24: Upstate New York Projected Age Structure Changes, 1990-2030

Source: Cornell Program on Applied Demographics (PAD)

Figure 2.23: New York State Projected Age Structure Changes, 1990-2030

Source: Cornell Program on Applied Demographics (PAD)


20/86


Household and Family SizeWhile national data suggests that average household andamily size has increased over the last several years, we donot see that same trend in NYS. Since 1940 the averagehousehold size in NYS has declined rom 3.54 persons to2.57 persons in 2010. Average amily size declined rom 3.53persons in 1970 to 3.2 persons in 2010 (Figure 2.26). Much

o this decline has to do with lower birth rates as well as theincrease in single-amily headed households and individualsliving on their own.

Figure 2.26: Historic Average Family andHousehold Size, NYS, 1940-2010

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Cornell University Program on Applied

Demographics

Household size and amily size are not uniorm across thestate. As Figure 2.27 shows, average amily size in NYSranges between 2.91 persons in the Southern ier to 3.37in Long Island. Western New York has the ewest numbero persons per household (2.34) while Long Island has themost (2.93).

Race and EthnicityAnother dimension o population and population changeis race and ethnic composition. In New York State in 1990,over 69% o the population was White, Non-Hispanic(Figure 2.28). By 2009 this number had decreased to justover 60%. Te largest percentage increases were amongAsian and Pacifc Islanders (increasing rom 3.8% to 7.3%)and Hispanics (increasing rom 12.4% to 16.8%). WhileArican Americans (non-Hispanic) increased as a percent othe total population rom 14.4% in 1990 to 15.2% in 2009,Hispanics became the largest ethnic minority in the state.Tese state-level patterns, weighted heavily by the downstate

region, dier markedly rom those experienced in theupstate region. In 2009 Upstate New York was 84.7% White(non-Hispanic), with Arican-Americans (non-Hispanic)comprising 7.8% o the population and Hispanics only 4.9%.

Te map in Figure 2.29 shows county-level populationgrowth among Hispanics. Many o the counties whichexperienced signifcant percentage increases, however, stillhave relatively small Hispanic populations. Nonetheless,communities experiencing changes in their population,whether it be age structure, size, and/or race/ethniccomposition, oen ace new challenges and opportunities.

Figure 2.27: Average Household and Family Size, 2010, by NYS Economic Region

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Cornell University Program on Applied Demographics


21/86


White African American Asian and PI AIAN (American Indian &

Alaskan Native)

Hispanic

1990 2000 2009 1990 2000 2009 1990 2000 2009 1990 2000 2009 1990 2000 2009

New York 69.3 63.0 60.5 14.4 15.6 15.2 3.8 6.0 7.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 12.4 15.2 16.8

Upstate 90.6 87.3 84.7 5.9 7.1 7.8 1.1 1.6 2.1 0.4 0.2 0.5 2.3 3.6 4.9

Metro 91.2 85.4 82.6 7.3 8.5 9.2 1.3 1.9 2.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 2.5 3.9 5.3

Micro 95.8 93.9 92.5 1.7 2.4 2.8 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.6 2.3 2.9

Non Core 93.7 91.6 90.0 3.4 3.9 4.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.4 2.4 3.4 4.4

Figure 2.28: NYS and Upstate County Type Percentage Race and Ethnicity, 1990, 2000, 2009

Source: Center or Disease Control, Race and Ethnicity dataset

Figure 2.29: NYS County Percentage Change in Hispanic Pop., 1990-2009

Source: Center or Disease Control, Race and Ethnicity dataset


22/86


23/86


Section III. Upstate DevelopmentTrends

A. Economic Development & Workorce Trends

Changing demographic and employment structures in upstate New York

communities require a ocus on workorce development and retentionissues, including associated structural impediments. To remain competitive,

communities and regions require access to essential services, resources, andinrastructure supportive o economic development.

A Vision for Rural New York, Fall 2006

Te economy has been the topic receiving the most attentionin Upstate New York in recent years. When people reerto the economy it oen means a collection o concepts,

including the availability o well-paying jobs, job growth,low unemployment, a reasonable cost o living, low rateso poverty, and employment across a diverse group oindustrial sectors. In this section we ocus on many o theseconcepts to provide a brie overview o the trends in UpstateNew York in recent years.

We asked people in our survey what the main goal olocal economic development should be (Figure 3A.1). Asolid majority (62%) specifed that creating local jobs wasmost important. Te other three choices (increasing the taxbase, reducing poverty, and improving the quality o lie)were each cited as most important by slightly less than 10%o respondents.

Q:There are many goals o local economic development.

O the ollowing our goals, please rank these in terms

o importance:

Figure 3A.1: Ranking o local economicdevelopment goals


While the majority o upstate New Yorkers are in agreementthat creating local jobs should be the most important goao local economic development eorts, this sentiment isparticularly strong among those living in micropolitancounties (70%), and somewhat less important in non-corecounties (59% (Figure 3A.2)). In contrast, reducing povertywas seen as more important by non-core county residentsthan in other types o upstate areas.

Figure 3A.2: Most Important Goal o localeconomic development, by county type


We examine job growth in New York State in recent yearsTe ollowing graphs show the percent change rom 12months earlier or the U.S. NYS, and both upstate anddownstate regions (Figures 3A.3 & 3A.4). Te trends showa signifcant drop in job growth between 2006 and the endo 2008, when job loss (negative growth) was the trenduntil mid-2010 when payroll began moving in the positivegrowth direction. Te trends or Upstate and Downstate

New York during the last couple o years have been quitesimilar although Upstate had not posted a positive changein payroll by March 2011, compared to the 1% increaseexperienced in the Downstate region.

Figure 3A.3: Payroll Job Growth: U.S. and NewYork State. Percent changes rom 12-monthsearlier

Source: Bureau o Labor Statistics, NY Department o Labor, Economy.com

March 9, 2011

%


24/86


Figure 3A.4: Payroll Job Growth: U.S., NYDownstate and Upstate. Percent changes rom12-months earlier

Upstate NY includes: Albany, Binghamton, Bualo, Glen Falls, Ithaca, Rochester,

Syracuse, Utica-Rome metro areas. Downstate NY includes: NYC, Dutchess,

Nassau, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Suolk, Ulster, and Westchester counties.

Source: Bureau o Labor Statistics, NY Department o Labor, Moodys Economy.

com. March 9, 2011.

Te industrial structure o New York State has shieddramatically over the past several decades. Tere has beenmuch discussion about the general decline in manuacturingemployment and the rise in employment in the service sector.Te ollowing graphs show the percent o total employmentin each industrial sector or the years 2000-2009.

For the State as a whole, Health Care and Social Assistanceis the major employment sector, with over 16% o the totallabor orce employed in this area in 2009 (Figure 3A.5). Tishas increased rom 14% in just the past decade. Educationalservices and retail trade have remained airly steady in recentyears, employing between 10% and 11% o the labor orce.

Manuacturing continues to employ a smaller share o the

labor orce as time goes on, declining rom 8.6% in 2000 to5.9% by 2009. rends or employment in all sectors are notedin Figure 3A.5.

In Upstate New York, the pattern has been somewhatdierent. While Health Care and Social Assistance employedabout 16% o the labor orce by the year 2009, at the beginningo the decade Manuacturing was still the largest employerin the upstate region (Figure 3A.6). In 2000 manuacturingemployed 14.5% o the labor orce, but by 2009 this haddropped to 10.2%. Educational services have a slightlystronger presence in the Upstate labor orce compared to thestate as a whole, and Retail trade is marginally greater as well.

Figure 3A.5: Employment by Sector, as percentage o total, New York State, 2000-2009

Source: Local Employment Dynamics, U.S. Census Bureau, 2000-2009


25/86


Te next several graphs show how employment in the top sixsectors in Upstate New York vary across the dierent countytypes o metropolitan, micropolitan, and non-core based.We compare these fgures to those or the Upstate region asa whole and or the State.

Manuacturing as a percent o total employment inUpstate New York has declined almost across the board(Figure 3A.7). Micropolitan counties had 18% o their labororce in manuacturing in 2000, but this had dropped to justbelow 13% by 2009. Metropolitan counties also experienceda signifcant decline, rom 13.9% in 2000 to 9.7% in 2009.While non-core counties also experienced an overall declinein manuacturing, it was much less steep and seemed to even

be leveling out around the 12%-13% range in the latter yearso the decade.

Figure 3A.7: Manuacturing as a percent o totalemployment, or NYS, Upstate, and Upstatecounty types, 2000-2009


Figure 3A.6: Employment by Sector, as percentage o total, Upstate New York State, 2000-2009



26/86


Health Care & Social Assistance increased across the board inupstate New York, and makes up the relatively largest shareo employment in micropolitan upstate counties, and thesmallest in non-core based counties. While upstate countiesdepend less on employment in this sector than NYS overall,micropolitan areas are more dependent than the state as awhole (Figure 3A.8).

Figure 3A.8: Health Care & Social Assistance as apercent o total employment, or NYS, Upstate,and Upstate county types, 2000-2009


Educational Services employment remained relatively steadyover the decade or all county types in the upstate region(Figure 3A.9). Employment dependence on educationalservices in the upstate region was ar greater than the stateaverage.

Figure 3A.9: Educational Services as a percent ototal employment, or NYS, Upstate, and Upstate

County types, 2000-2009


Retail rade also remained relatively steady over the periodin the state, and in the upstate region, with virtually nodierence among county types (Figure 3A.10). Onceagain, the upstate region is more dependent on retail tradeemployment than is NYS as a whole.

Figure 3A.10: Retail Trade as a percent o totalemployment, or NYS, Upstate, and UpstateCounty types, 2000-2009


Public Administration has a strong presence in non-coreupstate counties compared to the rest o the region and thestate as a whole (Figure 3A.11). Tis is especially true onon-core counties.

Figure 3A.11: Public Administration as a percento total employment, or NYS, Upstate, andUpstate County types, 2000-2009


Accommodation & Food Service has slowly increased as apercentage o total employment in NYS as a whole and ormuch o the upstate region, but has declined since 2000in non-core counties (Figure 3A.12). However, non-corecounties still show a slightly higher percent o their labororce employed in this sector compared to the rest o Upstate.

Figure 3A.12: Accommodation & Food Service asa percent o total employment, or NYS, Upstate,

and Upstate County types, 2000-2009



27/86


It is not surprising that job creation emerged as a majorconcern among Upstate New Yorkers in our survey (Figures3A.1 and 3A.2). Unemployment rates have increasedsignifcantly in recent years or the State, although the rate o8.2% or New York State is less than the national rate o 8.9%(Figure 3A.13).

Figure 3A.13: Unemployment Rates, SeasonallyAdjusted, or NYS, NYC and New Jersey, 1992-2011

Source: Bureau o Labor Statistics, NY and NJ Departments o Labor, MoodysEconomy.com. March 9, 2011.

Unemployment has risen across the state, but showssignifcant variation by region. Among the Upstate regions,the North Country posts the highest unemployment as oJune 2010, while the Capital Region shows the lowest (Figure3A.14).

Figure 3A.14: Unemployment Rates by NYSRegion, June 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Source: NYS Department o Labor, Local Area Unemployment Statistics

Note: Data are not seasonally adjusted

Unemployment in recent years has not varied much between

dierent upstate county types as this next graph shows(Figure 3A.15).

Figure 3A.15: Unemployment Rates, Upstate NewYork County Types, 1990-2009

Source: Bureau o Labor Statistics (Local Area Unemployment Statistics), 1990

2009.

As jobs and job creation are a major ocus o economicdevelopment, we asked respondents to our survey theollowing question:

Q: How satised are you with the quantity and qualityo jobs in your local community?

Figure 3A.16: Levels o satisaction with quantityand quality o jobs in local community.


Only 14% expressed satisaction with the quantity andquality o jobs in their local community, while 69% weredissatisfed (Figure 3A.16). Almost hal o those living innon-core counties, however were very dissatisfed, comparedto 35 and 26 percent or micropolitan and metropolitanresidents, respectively (Figure 3A.17). Tis is interestingbecause as shown in Figure 3.15 unemployment is nohigher in non-core counties than in other parts o UpstateOne might speculate that the deep dissatisaction reectsunderemployment rather than unemployment.


28/86


Figure 3A.17: Levels o satisaction with local jobs,by county type


o explore potential barriers to fnding jobs, we asked theollowing question:

Q:O the ollowing, which do you believe is the biggest

challenge or people nding jobs in your community?

Figure 3A.18: Biggest challenge to nding jobs incommunity


Figure 3A.19: Biggest challenge to nding jobs incommunity, by county type


Tree quarters (73%) o respondents cited the lack o available jobs as the biggest challenge, distantly ollowed by 14% orespondents who elt that more education and training wereneeded (Figure 3A.18). People living in non-core countieswere less likely (65%) than their more metro counterparts toidentiy lack o jobs as the main challenge, and more likely toidentiy inadequate transportation (Figure 3A.19).

While education and training was not cited as the mostimportant reason that people were challenged in fnding

jobs locally, education attainment and specialized trainingare critical pieces o workorce and economic development.

With regard to education, we examine the trends ineducational attainment among Upstate New Yorkers. In1990, one in our New Yorkers above the age o 25 lackeda high school diploma. By the latter part o the 2000s thisnumber had dropped to about 13%. Tis pattern was similaror Upstate New Yorkers (rom 22.5% without a high schooldiploma in 1990 to just over 9% in the later 2000s) (Figure3A.20).


29/86


Te percent o the population with a high school diplomaor some college education increased among the Upstatepopulation rom almost 58% in 1990 to about 62% in 2005-2009. Tese rates are highest among upstate micropolitanand non-core counties with about 68% o their populationhaving at least a high school or some college education(Figure 3A.21).

While just under 20% o the Upstate population had aBachelors degree or higher in 1990, this fgure had increasedto almost 29% by 2005-2009. Upstate metropolitan countieshad the highest percentage in this category, with 31.5% othe population over the age o 25 in the years 2005-2009with at least a our year degree in 2005-2009.

Figure 3A.20: Educational Attainment, New YorkState and Upstate New York, 1990-2005/2009

Source: US Census 2000, American Community Survey, 2005-2009

Figure 3A.21: Educational Attainment, Upstate

New York Metro, Micro and Non-Core Counties,1990-2005/2009

Source: US Census 2000, American Community Survey, 2005-2009

Te changing role o Community Colleges in local andregional economic development has attracted more attentionrecently because o their role in workorce preparation. Inour survey we asked the ollowing question:

Q: A major goal o most Upstate Community Colleges

is to help their students go on to 4 year colleges

Some argue that Community Colleges should play a

bigger role in training students or jobs in advanced

manuacturing industries. Which o these two goals do

you eel it is most important or upstate NY communitycolleges to ocus on?

Figure 3A.22: Most important goal or upstate NYcommunity colleges


Relatively more respondents think community collegesshould prepare students or jobs in advanced manuacturingbut the dierence is not great, 42 versus 36% (Figure 3A.22)Tere were no signifcant dierences in responses by countytype (not shown). As traditional manuacturing employmen

opportunities have dried up in the Upstate region, manyeconomic development experts are ocused on newlyemerging technologies and the higher tech manuacturingopportunities that may accompany them. Having anadequately trained labor orce is one key component to beingable to attract and retain such industries. In turn, manybusinesses who consider locating to an area are very ocusedon the availability o educated and well-trained labor. Tereis some concern that Upstate New York aces the additionalchallenge o attracting this sort o labor to the area in orderto encourage this type o economic development.

%

%


30/86


In our survey we asked respondents the ollowing question:

Q: There has been a lot o discussion about how best

to attract young, educated workers to the upstate New

York region. What do you think is Upstates greatest

asset in attracting people who want to relocate here?

Figure 3A.23: Regions assets or attracting peopleto upstate New York

Source: 2010 SOUS Survey

Almost hal o upstate New Yorkers believe the environmentand natural resources o the region is the biggest asset orattracting young educated workers (Figure 3A.23). Tissentiment was particularly strong among people livingin non-core counties. One in fve upstate New Yorkersidentifed quality o lie as a major eature, but this was onlyechoed by 8 percent o non-core residents (Figure 3A.24).Interestingly, ten percent, overall, identifed the economyand jobs as an asset or the region. Other characteristicsmentioned included education, the diversity o people, andculture/arts, although these last two characteristics were notidentifed as important by non-core county residents.

Figure 3A.24: Upstates greatest asset or attractingyoung, educated workers, by county type.


Summary

Te economy has been the topic receiving the most attentionin Upstate New York in recent years. New Yorkers believe themain goal o local economic development should be creatinglocal jobs (62%) as trends show signifcant drops in jobgrowth and relatively high rates o unemployment, althoughthe rate o 8.2% or New York State is less than the nationalrate o 8.9%. Te industrial structure o New York State hasshied dramatically over the past several decades with HealthCare and Social Assistance as the major employment sector.Educational services and retail trade employment haveremained airly steady in recent years, but Manuacturingcontinues to employ a smaller share o the state labor orce astime goes on, declining rom 8.6% in 2000 to 5.9% by 2009. InUpstate New York, the pattern has been somewhat dierent.While Health Care and Social Assistance employed about16% o the labor orce by the year 2009, at the beginning othe decade Manuacturing was still the largest employer inthe upstate region. In 2000 manuacturing employed 14.5%

o the labor orce, but by 2009 this had dropped to 10.2%.Educational services have a slightly stronger presence in theUpstate labor orce compared to the state as a whole, and

Retail trade is marginally greater as well.Education attainment and specialized training is a critical

piece o workorce and economic development. In 1990, onein our New Yorkers above the age o 25 lacked a high schooldiploma. By the later part o the 2000s this number haddropped to about 13%. Tis pattern was similar or UpstateNew Yorkers (rom 22.5% without a high school diplomain 1990 to just over 9% in the later 2000s). Te percent othe population with a high school diploma or some collegeeducation increased among the Upstate population rom

almost 58% in 1990 to about 62% in 2005-2009. While justunder 20% o the Upstate population had a Bachelors degreeor higher in 1990, this fgure had increased to almost 29% by2005-2009.

Resources For Employment, Workorceand Economic Data

Bureau o Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/

NYS Department o Labor, Labor Statistics:http://www.labor.ny.gov/stats/index.shtm

U.S. Census, Local Employment Dynamics:

http://lehd.did.census.gov/led/index.php


31/86


B: Income and PovertyTe current fscal crisis has sharpened the ocus on the relatedissues o income and poverty or people across the state andnation. When incomes remain stagnant or decline in realdollars and poverty remains high, it not only has negativeimpacts on individuals and amilies but on communities,regions and entire societies.

Declining household incomes and the increasingprevalence o poverty are two outcomes o the economicdownturn o the last ew years. New York State has largelyollowing the trend o the U.S. as a whole over the last twodecades (Figure 3B.1).

Figure 3B.1: Personal Income: Percent Changesrom 4-Quarters Earlier, U.S., NYS, and New Jersey.1992-2011

Source: Bureau o Economic Analysis, Moodys Economy.com

While median individual income in upstate NYS hasincreased by about $3,300 between 1990 and 2005-07, upstate

micropolitan counties increased by $6,254, but medianincomes in upstate non-core counties only increased by$2,580 (Figure 3B.2). Te median income o emales in non-core counties was only 57 percent that o males in 2005-07.

In real terms, when using adjusted dollars, medianhousehold income in NYS has declined over the past decade,by 0.8% between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 3B.3). Household

income in the upstate region dropped a greater percentage1.2%, and this was particularly elt in the metropolitancounties where household incomes dropped by 2.2%Median household incomes in upstate non-core countieswere relatively stable compared to other areas o the region.

Figure 3B.3: New York State Median HouseholdIncome

Source: U.S Census Bureau.

*Adjusted to 2007 constant US dollars

In the SOUS survey, we asked the ollowing question:

Q: The current economic crisis has impacted a lot o

people. In the past ew years, have you encountered

diculty in meeting your basic needs or covering al

o your expenses? Have you encountered diculty in

paying or any o the ollowing specic expenses?

About a third o respondents to our survey indicated thatthey had experienced diculty in meeting their basic needsor covering their expenses in recent years (Figure 3B.4)O those that expressed diculty in covering some o theirexpenses, more than hal identifed utilities, transportation

1990 2000 2005-2007

Total

MedianEarnings -

16+

Median

Earnings -Males 16+

Median

Earnings- Females

16+

Total

MedianEarnings -

16+

Median

Earnings -Males 16+

Median

Earnings- Females

16+

Total

MedianEarnings -

16+

Median

Earnings -Males 16+

Median

Earnings- Females

16+

New York $25,116 $33,442 $16,790 $29,062 $29,062 $22,894 $27,263 $33,228 $21,449

Upstate $23,740 $31,781 $15,702 $27,398 $34,495 $21,199 $27,054 $33,167 $20,998

Metro $25,956 $34,839 $17,075 $29,469 $37,254 $23,108 $27,673 $33,949 $22,314

Micro $21,791 $29,126 $14,456 $25,714 $32,409 $19,778 $28,045 $34,547 $22,300

Non Core $21,378 $28,473 $14,284 $25,017 $31,128 $18,837 $23,958 $29,065 $16,518

Figure 3B.2: New York State Median Individual Income, 1990, 2000, & 2005-2007

Source: U.S. Bureau o the Census adjusted to 2007 constant dollars.

New York State Median Household Income

1990 2000 2010 1990-

2000

2000-

2010

New York $50,387 $50,174 $49,785 -0.4% -0.8%

Upstate $47,642 $47,680 $47,116 0.1% -1.2%

Metro $52,732 $52,197 $51,042 -1.0% -2.2%

Micro $43,096 $43,635 $42,993 1.3% -1.5%

Non Core $42,300 $42,950 $43,086 1.5% 0.3%


32/86


1990 2000 2005-2009

New York State 11.2 10.6 11.4

Upstate 9.1 7.3 10.5

Metro 8.6 7.0 10.2

Micro 10.7 8.3 11.7

Non Core 11.1 8.2 11.4

and recreation as being dicult to pay or. Paying or ood,mortgages, health care, and clothing were also identifed byat least a third o these respondents as challenging.

Figure 3B.4: In recent years, have you haddiculty paying or any o the ollowing

expenses?


Poverty has increased across the board in New York State.Upstate New Yorks poverty rate increased rom about 11percent in the year 2000 to about 13 percent in 2008. Non-core and micropolitan counties posted higher increasesin poverty rates (Figure 3B.5) although poverty rates inmicropolitan counties exceeded 14.6% by 2008, the highestamong all upstate county types.

Figure 3B.5: People o all ages in poverty - percent2000-2008

Source: U.S Census Bureau

Te percent o children in poverty in Upstate NY has alsoincreased since 2000. Children living in non-core andmicropolitan counties are at a higher risk o being poorthan their upstate metro counterparts. About 18 percento children in Upstate New York were poor in 2008, while20 percent o children were poor living in non-core andmicropolitan counties were poor (Figure 3B.6).

Figure 3B. 6: People under age 18 in poverty -percent 2000-2008, by upstate county type

Source: U.S Census Bureau

While the percentage o people age 65 and older in povertydeclined between 1990 and 2000, the fgures increasedlater in the decade according to the fve year ACS estimates

(2005-2009). More than ten percent o those aged 65 andolder in Upstate New York were poor in 2005-09. Figureswere highest or micropolitan and non-core counties (Figure3B.7). Higher taxes and housing costs in NYS may presentchallenges to amilies and households with older individualswho live on a more fxed income.

Figure 3B.7: Percent o the population age 65+ inpoverty, NYS and Upstate NY Counties

Source: U.S Census Bureau, Decennial Census 1990, and 2000, and 2005-2009

ACS.

Public policies or assisting lower income individuals andamilies are received with varying degrees o support. Publicsentiment towards whether poor people are deservingor not o government assistance oen weighs heavily into

these levels o support or opposition. In the SOUS survey, weasked the ollowing question:

%

%


33/86


Q: Which is the bigger cause o poverty today: people

not doing enough or circumstances beyond their

control?

A majority (55%) elt that poverty was caused bycircumstances beyond peoples control, but more than athird (37%) elt that poor people did not do enough to help

themselves (Figure 3B.8).

Figure 3B.8: Which is the bigger cause o povertytoday?


O those that elt poverty was caused by people not doingenough, about a third said that by this they meant thatpoor people were lazy. Tis sentiment was particularlystrong among non-core county residents in upstate (43.5%).Another third elt that poor people abused governmentprograms. Te lack o education and unwillingness to takeavailable jobs were also cited as examples o what some

people elt explained poor peoples poverty status (Figure3B.9).

Figure 3B.9: Respondents examples o poorpeople not doing enough, by county type


O the fy-fve percent o respondents who elt that povertywas caused by circumstances beyond peoples control, thelack o jobs was cited as the major reason (more than 50%)and this sentiment did not vary across county types in upstate(Figure 3B.10). While poor economic conditions was alsocited by a signifcant number, those living in micropolitancounties were most likely to cite this as a reason (26.7%).

Figure 3B.10: Respondents examples o whypoverty is beyond peoples control, by county type


o ollow the line o questioning around why some peopleend up in poverty, we asked the ollowing question on theSOUS survey ( a question that has appeared on many sociasurveys in the past):

Q: Do poor people have higher, lower, or the same

moral values as other Americans?

Figure 3B.11: Do poor people have higher, loweror the same moral values as other Americans?


%


34/86


A solid majority (69%) elt that poor people had the samemoral values as other Americans (Figure 3B.11). Almost onein fve, however, elt they had lower moral values. Five percentelt they had higher moral values. Eight percent respondedthat they did not know. Among those respondents oeringan opinion, micropolitan county residents were more likely(27.5%) to eel that poor people had lower moral values thanother Americans (Figure 3B.12).

Figure 3B.12: Do poor people have higher, loweror the same moral values as other Americans? Byupstate county type


SummaryMirroring national trends, household income and povertyrates uctuated across Upstate NY throughout the last twodecades. Median income in micropolitan counties increasedby over $6200 but only $2580 in non-core counties. Adjustingor ination, this results in a decline in real dollars o nearly1%. Metropolitan counties have the highest householdincomes o the three county types. Moreover, a substantialgender gap exists with women earning only 57% to that omen in non-core counties. Te recent recession has causedmore than hal o all respondents to report diculty incovering their utilities, transportation, and recreation costs,

and at least a third o respondents had diculty payingor ood, mortgage, healthcare, and clothing. Poverty rateshave steadily increased across Upstate rom just over 11% tonearly 13% with micropolitan counties having the highestrates o over 14.5% poverty. Te rates or children are higher,with 18% o all children living in Upstate living in povertyand 20% o children living in micro and non-core counties.Among those over the age o 65, poverty rates upstate are justunder 8% with those living in micro and non-core pushing9%. When asked about the central cause o people living inpoverty in Upstate NY, more than hal o respondents agreed

that it was due to circumstances beyond the control o poorpeople such as lack o jobs and poor economic conditions.Tirty-seven percent o respondents suggested poor peopleare not doing enough because they are lazy o abusinggovernment programs with these responses most prevalentin non-core counties.

Resources For Data On Income and PovertyU.S. Census: http://www.census.gov/

Census Poverty data:http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty.html

Bureau o Economic Analysis

2010 NYS Poverty Report-Nyscaahttp://www.nyscommunityaction.org/poverty_reports.cm?location=nystate&section=2010


35/86


C: Local & Regional GovernanceNew York States local governments are generally perceived as being accessibleand responsive to public input, but their traditional structure, unctions and

nancing may also be less ecient and efective in providing the public servicesand community development capacity required in the 21stcentury.

A Vision or Rural New York, Fall 2006

In general, the major issue or local and regional governmentsin Upstate New York is the tension between revenues andexpenditures, and the mismatch that oen results in taxincreases and/or cuts in services. We begin this section with aquestion we asked on the SOUS survey:

Q: Every community has good and bad points about

living within it. Please tell me, or your local community

how satised or dissatised you are with the value o

local government services.

About 40% o upstate New Yorkers are dissatisfed with thevalue o local services, while 38% are satisfed (Figure 3C.1).wenty-two percent are neither satisfed now dissatisfed.However, the proportion o very disastisfed outweighs theproportion o very satisfed by almost two to one, suggestingmore dissatisaction that may appear at frst glance.

Figure 3C.1: Satisaction with the value o localgovernment services

In general, non-core county residents are the least satisfed oall upstate New Yorkers with the value o their local services(Figure 3C.2).

Figure 3C.2: Satisaction with the value o localgovernment services, by county type

Additional concern over proposed property tax caps, service-sharing, consolidation, and overall budget pressures are

currently overwhelming many local governments. We nowhighlight data ound in the Comptrollers annual report. Formore detailed trend data, please reer to the 2010 ComptrollersAnnual Report which can be accessed at:

www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/datanstat/annreport/10annreport.pd

While revenues in upstate New York counties have increasedover the decade, so too have expenditures, with expenditureoutpacing revenues in 2009 by more than $360 million in theupstate region (Figures 3C.3 and 3C.4).

Figure 3C.3: Total County Government Revenues,

Upstate New York, 2000-2009

Source: NYS Oce o the Comptroller

Figure 3C.4: Total County GovernmentExpenditures, Upstate New York, 2000-2009


%


36/86


Figure 3C.5 shows more clearly the mismatch betweenexpenditures and revenues or upstate NY counties. In2000, expenditures totaled about 97% o revenues acrossupstate. Tis increased to a high o 107.5% in 2003, but eventhough this percentage has dropped since 2003, the fgureis still above 100%, indicating expenditures have outpacedrevenues. Tis is true or all county types across upstate,

although more so or metropolitan counties.

Figure 3C.5: Ratio o Expenditures to Revenues,Upstate NY Counties, 2000-2009


RevenuesLooking at change in total revenues since 2000 by localgovernment type, City revenues increased the most (35%),while County revenues increased by 25% (Figure 3C.6).

Figure 3C.6: Change in total Revenues rom 2000levels, Upstate New York, 2000-2009

Source: New York State Comptroller Local Government Data, 2000-2009

Source o revenues is an important issue to examine. Bothproperty and sales tax revenues grew signifcantly or localgovernments over the decade, with upstate NY counties

experiencing a massive jump in sales tax revenues. Cities inUpstate New York received the largest percentage change instate aid over the decade, increasing by almost 50 percenttheir aid rom the state, compared to increases o about 20percent or County and village governments. Federal aid tolocal governments varied signifcantly over the decade bylocal government type. Cities in the Upstate region receivedalmost steady increases over 2000 levels o ederal unding,while the amount that villages received rom ederal sources

varied tremendously rom year to year, with overall declinesrelative to 2000 levels (Figure 3C.7-3C.9).

Figure 3C.7: Average CountyRevenues, by source,Upstate New York, 2000-2009


Cities in upstate NY have maintained a airly steadydistribution o revenue sources over the decade, althoughproperty and sales tax revenues dropped in 2009 (Figure3C.8).

Figure 3C.8: Average CityRevenues, by source,Upstate New York, 2000-2009


Local sources o revenues (property and sales taxes)continue to make up a large share o total revenues or townsin Upstate (Figure 3C.9).

Figure 3C.9: Average Town Revenues, by source,Upstate New York, 2000-2009



37/86


Villages in upstate New York receive a signifcant share otheir total revenues through charges or services (Figure3C.10).

Figure 3C.10: Average Village Revenues, by source,Upstate New York, 2000-2009


ExpendituresAs with revenues, total expenditures have also increased orall local government types in Upstate New York over thedecade (Figure 3C.11).

Figure 3C.11: Change in total Expenditures rom2000 levels, Upstate New York, 2000-2009


Counties have spent an increasing proportion o theirbudgets on items listed as general government and a

decreasing share on social services. Employee benefts havealso increased as a share o total expenditures over thedecade (Figure 3C.12).

Figure 3C.12: Average CountyExpenditures, bysource, Upstate New York, 2000-2009


City governments in upstate have experienced signifcantincreases in the relative share o their budget allocatedto employee benefts, while most other categories haveremained steady (Figure 3C.13).

Figure 3C.13: Average CityExpenditures, bysource, Upstate New York, 2000-2009


ypes o town and village government expenditures haveremained airly steady on a relative basis over the decadealthough employee benefts have increased to some exten(Figures 3C.14 and 3C.15).

Figure 3C.14: Average Town Expenditures, by

source, Upstate New York, 2000-2009



38/86


Figure 3C.15: Average Village Expenditures, bysource, Upstate New York, 2000-2009


While taxes are obviously a major revenue source or localand regional governments, New Yorkers have one o thehighest tax burdens in the country. In one o our lead-inquestions to the SOUS survey, we asked what people thought

was the most important issue acing the State. About one-quarter identifed taxes (Figures 1.5 and 1.6). We askedthem to speciy which specifc tax they were reerring to(Figure 3C.16). Te most requently cited tax was propertytax, particularly in non-core counties. Non-core countyresidents were also more likely to identiy the gas tax as themost important issue, perhaps since commuting distancestend to be longer in these non-core counties, and thereoregas expenses become a major actor or some residents.Interestingly, non-core county respondents did not identiyschool taxes as a major concern.

Q: In your opinion, what do you think is the single mostimportant issue acing New York State as a whole? (For

those who identied taxes as the most important

issue, we asked them to speciy which specic tax they

were reerring to.)

Figure 3C.16: Specic tax identied as mostimportant issue acing NYS


Given the relative importance o property tax revenuesto local government budgets, particularly towns and

villages, the possibility o a property tax cap has signifcantimplications. Almost three-quarters (72.5%) o Upstate NewYorkers support property tax caps, but this support dropsto less than two-thirds (61%) i local governments can nolonger aord to provide the same level o services. Amongthe three county types there was virtually no dierence whenasked about support or property tax caps in general, butwhen the possibility o reduced services was raised, about25 percent o those living in micropolitan counties wereopposed, compared to 16 and 11 percent o metropolitanand non-core county residents, respectively (Figure 3C.17).

Q: Governor Cuomo has proposed a property tax cap. I

enacted, the cap would limit annual increases in local

property taxes to a maximum o 2%.

Do you support or oppose such a property tax cap?Would you support or oppose this property tax cap i

it meant your local government could not aord to

provide you with the level o services you are currently

receiving?

Figure 3C.17: Levels o support or proposedproperty tax cap, alone and i local governmentwould need to reduce current level o services


Tere has been increased attention given to the notion oincreasing local government eciency and eectivenessthrough the consolidation o services and even merging olocal government units. With the increasing pressure onsmaller local governments to provide services with limitedrevenue, this scenario becomes a real possibility. We askedthe ollowing question on the SOUS survey:

%


39/86


Q: What would be most important to you when

deciding whether to support or oppose the merging o

some o your city, town, or villages services with those

o another city, town or village?

Figure 3C.18: What is important when supporting/opposing mergers o local government service


Figure 3C.19: What is most important whensupporting/opposing mergers...by upstate countytype


Forty-one percent o Upstate New Yorkers are mostconcerned about the impact service sharing andconsolidation would have on their taxes, while 36% areconcerned about the impact on the quality o servicesdelivered (Figure 3C.18). Fewer than one in fve respondents

expressed concern about the impact such a move wouldhave on their local governments inuence on the service.Tose living in micropolitan counties were more concernedabout the impact on their taxes (48 percent) that thoseliving in metropolitan or non-core counties (40% and 40%respectively) (Figure 3C.19).

Given the rise in expenditures relative to revenues, thereis increased concerned over local and state budgets. Peoplehave varying opinions about how our government leadersshould go about balancing these budgets. On our SOUSsurvey, we asked the ollowing question:

Q: Some people have said New York State will not

have enough money soon to balance the state budget

and pay or all its existing programs. In addition

many municipalities across the state are struggling

to balance their budgets and pay or all their existing

programs. In order to balance state and local budgets,i you had to choose among the ollowing things, what

would you preer?

Figure 3C.20: Preerred actions or balancing localand state budgets


Upstate New Yorkers indicate a strong preerence or cuttingboth local and state programs in order to balance municipaand state budgets (Figure 3C.20). A preerence or cuttingspecic programs was noted over a uniorm cut, particularlyat the state level. Less than one in fve respondents preerredto either raise taxes or borrow money at the local or statelevel, although there was slightly more willingness to do

either o these two things at the local level compared to thestate. Tere was no signifcant dierence in responses orbalancing the state budget, according to what county typepeople lived in, but variation emerged when reerring tolocal budgets. Upstate metropolitan residents were muchmore likely to choose cutting local programs uniormly (40percent) while non-core upstate residents preerred cuttingspecic local programs. Micropolitan residents (20 percent)were more likely than others to preer raising local taxes inorder to balance local budgets (Figure 3C.21).

Figure 3C.21: Preerence or actions to balancelocalbudget, by county type


%


40/86


While upstate New Yorkers have clear preerences or budgetpriorities, they must put their aith in their local and stateelected leaders to make the fnal decisions. Te level oconfdence we place in our elected ocials is oen relatedto how prepared we eel they are or the job. On our SOUSsurvey, we asked the ollowing question:

Q: In terms o your local elected leaders skills andknowledge, how well prepared do you think they are

to eectively serve your community?

Figure 3C.22: How prepared are local electedleaders?


About two-thirds (64%) o Upstate New Yorkers eel theirlocal leaders are somewhat to very prepared to eectivelyserve their communities (Figure 4.22). However, slightlymore than a third (36%) eel their leaders are unprepared.Tere were virtually no dierences in responses among

residents o dierent county types.

Summary

In general, the major issue or local and regional governmentsin Upstate New York is the tension between revenues andexpenditures, and the mismatch that oen results in taxincreases and/or cuts in services. Additional concern overproposed property tax caps, service-sharing, consolidation,and overall budget pressures are currently overwhelmingmany local governments. While revenues in upstate NewYork counties have increased over the decade, so too haveexpenditures, with expenditures outpacing revenues by

2009 by more than $360 million in the upstate region. In2000, expenditures totaled about 97% o revenues acrossupstate. Tis increased to a high o 107.5% in 2003, but eventhough this percentage has dropped since 2003, the fgureis still above 100%, indicating expenditures have outpacedrevenues.

While taxes are obviously a major revenue source or localand regional governments, New Yorkers have one o thehighest tax burdens in the country. Almost three-quarters

(72.5%) o Upstate New Yorkers support property tax caps,but this support drops to less than two-thirds (61%) i localgovernments can no longer aord to provide the same levelo services.

People have varying opinions about how our governmentleaders should go about balancing local and state budgets.Upstate New Yorkers indicate a strong preerence or cutting

both local and state programs in order to balance municipaland state budgets rather than increasing taxes. A preerenceor cutting specifc programs was noted over a uniorm cut,particularly at the state level.

Resources or NYS Local & RegionalGovernment Data

NYS Oce o the Comptroller: http://www.osc.state.ny.us/

Local Government & School Accountability Data:http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/datanstat/index.htm


41/86


D. Schools & YouthSchools ll an integral role as centers o the community and as a bridge or youth

to connect with the broader society in ullling their dreams and ambitions.

A Vision or Rural New York, Fall 2006

School districts in New York State, as in most o the country,

have experienced signifcant changes in the past decade.Enrollment patterns have shied over time, with many ruraland central city districts experiencing declining enrollment,and many suburban or mid-sized districts showing stabilityor sometimes slight increases in enrollment. Prior to 2010,there were dramatic increases in revenues, particularly romstate and local sources, allowing or a substantial increase indistrict expenditures. In the 2009/10 school year, total local,state, and ederal general and special aid und expendituresor New York State was $55.7 billion. Starting in the springo 2010 and most recently in April o 2011, the state enactedcuts in state aid, ranging rom $600/pupil in the lowest needdistricts, $900/pupil in NYC, $1100/pupil in the Big 4, andover $1300/pupil in the Average need and high need ruraldistricts. Tis results in $19.6 billion o general NY Stateaid to public schools or the 2011/2012 school year, whichrepresents a 3.3% reduction rom the previous school year.As a result o state aid cuts and general fscal constraint,school districts put up budgets or public approval withaverage expenditure increases o 1.25% and an averageincrease in the local tax levy o 3.43%. In late May o 2011,the Governor, Senate, and Assembly reached agreement ona bill that would implement a cap on increases in the localschool property tax levies beginning with the 2011/12 budgetseason. Tis tax levy would be capped at 2% or the national

Consumer Price Index, whichever is less. Sixty percent ovoters would need to approve an override to the cap, but ithe votes alls short o the 60% then the mandated cap isreduced to 0%. Governor Cuomo described the cap as thetightest and best property tax cap in the nation and statedI think this is the single most important developmentor the economy o the state o New York. (http://www.capitaltonight.com/stateopolitics/)

Tis is a critical time or Upstate NY schools and thecommunities they serve. For the frst time in decades we arewitnessing a combined set o pressures that include dropsin enrollment, multi-year state aid cuts, and the soon-to-be-enacted local property tax cap. Moreover, the state Board o

Regents continues it long-term plan to heighten academicexpectations and rigorous evaluation o schools, students,and teachers and the Federal government is in the process oreauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,more commonly known as No Child Le Behind. Tis is asqueeze that ew in NYS have experienced. Change is certainand views are divided as to whether and how this will help orhurt the schools and youth in Upstate NY.

In general, Upstate New Yorkers are quite satisfed withthe public education in their local community. On ourSOUS survey, we asked the ollowing question:

Q: Every community has good points and bad points

about living within it. Please tell me, or your loca

community, how satised or dissatised you are with

the public education.

Fiy-nine percent indicate being either satisfed or very satisfed

while only nineteen percent indicated being dissatisfedMore than one in fve (22%) however indicated being neithersatisfed nor dissatisfed with the public education in their localcommunity (Figure 3D.1). Tere was virtually no dierence inopinion by residents county type (not shown).

Figure 3D.1: Satisaction with Public Education inLocal Community


Enrollment Trends

Enrollment in public elementary and secondary schoolshas decreased in the past decade at the state level, as well as

in the upstate region (Figures 3D.2 & 3D.3). Between 1997and 2007 enrollment in Upstate public schools declinedby 8% (a decline o more than 92,000 students), comparedto a loss o 3.5% or the state as a whole (a decline o morethan 98,000 students). Non-core counties lost over 11,000public school students during this period, a loss o 12.6%Metropolitan counties lost 55,000 students or a decline o6.2%. As a percentage, declines were even more signifcantamong districts in micropolitan counties, with enrollmentdeclining by 14.6%, a loss o 26,300 students.

Figure 3D.2: Enrollment in Public Elementary and

Secondary Schools, NYS by County Type: 1997-2007

Source: 2009 New York State Statistical Yearbook


42/86


Figure 3D.3: Percent Change in Enrollment inPublic Elementary and Secondary Schools, NYS byCounty Type: 1997-2007 (1997 as base year)

Source: 2009 New York State Statistical Yearbook

Enrollment losses were experienced by private schools acrossthe state as well (Figures 3D.4 & 3D.5). otal private schoolenrollment dropped 7.6% state-wide, a loss o almost 37,000students. Upstate the losses were much more

Chartbook FINAL 1

Documents

Transcript of Chartbook FINAL 1