New State/Local Data for November 2008

Hispanics Account for Half of US Population Growth Since 2000

A new report from the Pew Hispanic Center finds that Hispanics accounted for just over half of the overall population growth in the United States since 2000 - a significant new demographic milestone for the nation's largest minority group. The report includes a series of web-based interactive maps that illustrate the size and spread of Hispanic population growth since 1980, including detailed state- and county-level data.

In the 1990s the Hispanic population also expanded rapidly, but its growth accounted for less than 40% of the nation's total population increase in that decade. From 2000 to 2007, Latinos accounted for 50.5% of the total U.S. population growth, even though, as of mid-2007, they made up just 15.1% of the total population.

There are both continuities and differences in the Hispanic settlement patterns of this decade, compared with the patterns of the 1990s. The dispersion of Latinos in the current decade has tilted more to counties in the West and the Northeast than it had in the 1990s. Despite the new tilt, however, the South still accounted for a greater share of overall Latino population growth than any other region did from 2000 to 2007. Much of the Latino population growth in this decade has taken place in small and mid-sized cities and in suburbs - many of which had relatively few Latino residents until the past decade or two.

The report identifies 676 fast-growing Hispanic counties among the nation's total of 3,141 counties. The Colorado county with the largest percentage increase in its Hispanic population from 2000-2007 was Douglas county with a 116% increase (10,316 individuals). From 1990-2000, the county with the greatest growth in its Hispanic population was in Summit county, with a 614% increase (or 1,983 individuals).

Public Employment and Payroll Data

The US Census Bureau has an online search tool with which users can search for employment and payroll data by state, level of government (i.e. state, local, or state and local combined) and function of government (i.e. education, health, highways) for censuses in 1997, 2002 and 2007. The census of governments is taken at five-year intervals in years ending in 2 and 7. This survey measures the number of government civilian employees and their gross payrolls for one month. Data are for the month of March.

For example, in Colorado, the state had 24,618 full-time employees in education (47% of all state employees, and a 5% increase from 2002). At the local level, there were 91,877 full-time employees in education (53% of all local employees, and a 15% increase from 2002).

Comprehensive Health Insurance Coverage Estimates by County

The U.S. Census Bureau released the most extensive estimates it has ever published on county-level demographic characteristics of people with and without health insurance coverage: Small Area Health Insurance Estimates (SAHIE). The 2005 estimates cover all states and counties across gender, age and income, as well as race and Hispanic origin (for states only).

SAHIE are based on models combining data from a variety of sources, including the Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population Survey, Census 2000, the Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Program, the County Business Patterns data set and administrative records, such as aggregated federal tax returns and Medicaid participation records.

Currently, SAHIE are the only source for county-level estimates of health insurance coverage status. Starting next year the Census Bureau will also release such estimates from its American Community Survey. Single-year estimates will be available for all geographic areas with total populations of 65,000 or more, with three-year estimates being released in 2011 for all areas with total populations of at least 20,000. A health insurance question was added to the 2008 American Community Survey to permit the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to more accurately distribute resources and better understand state and local health insurance needs.

For those under 65 years of age, data for Colorado show that Saguache County has the highest rate of uninsured in the state at 37.8% of its population (with a margin of error of +-4.7%), while Douglas County has the lowest uninsured rate at 10.6% (and a margin of error of +-1.4%). The greatest number of uninsured in the state live in Denver County (estimated at 97,608 individuals, with a margin of error of +-9,591).

Employer-Sponsored Insurance Drops

According to a new report from the Economic Policy Institute, the number of Americans with employer-sponsored health insurance dropped nearly 5% from 2000 to 2007. Over the 2000-2007 period, the trends indicate a significant shift from private to public coverage, especially among children. In particular, since 2006, public insurance was the only reason that more Americans did not become uninsured as coverage through work fell.

Employment-based coverage remains the most prominent form of health insurance in the United States at 62.9% of the under-65 population; however, the rate of this coverage has fallen every year since 2000, when 68.3% had employer-sponsored health insurance. By 2007, this percent had fallen 5.4 percentage points, meaning that over 3 million fewer people under the age of 65 had employment-based insurance in 2007 than in 2000. Because of these large declines in employer-provided health insurance, workers and their families have become uninsured at alarming rates.

In Colorado, the decline was even larger with 6.5% fewer people getting health insurance at work last year than in 2000. The absolute number of Coloradans with employer-sponsored health insurance rose, however, by 4,875.

Spiraling Health Insurance Premiums for Colorado's Workers and Employers (2000-2007)

This report, from Families USA, a non-profit advocacy organization for health care consumers, analyzes trends in employment-based health insurance premiums and workers’ earnings from January 2000 to December 2007. Findings indicate that, over the past eight years, Colorado’s working families have seen their health care costs go up faster than their earnings. As a result, the cost of health insurance premiums now imposes a greater burden on family budgets than ever before. Specific findings include:

  • Health insurance premiums for Colorado’s working families skyrocketed over the last eight years, increasing by 74.8% from 2000 to 2007.
  • For family health coverage in Colorado, the average annual premium (employer and worker share of premiums combined) rose from $6,797 to $11,878, an increase of $5,081.
  • For family health coverage in the state, the employer’s portion of annual premiums rose from $5,261 to $8,849 (a difference of $3,588), while the worker’s portion rose from $1,536 to $3,029 (a difference of $1,493).
  • For individual health coverage in Colorado, the average annual premium (employer and worker share of premiums combined) rose from $2,450 to $4,269, an increase of $1,819.
  • For individual health coverage in the state, the employer’s portion of annual premiums rose from $2,041 to $3,509 (a difference of $1,469), while the worker’s portion rose from $409 to $760 (a difference of $351).
  • Between 2000 and 2007, the median earnings of Colorado’s workers increased from $26,390 to $30,476—a mere $4,086, or 15.5%.
  • Health insurance premiums for Colorado’s families rose 4.8 times faster than median earnings from 2000 to 2007.

America's Uninsured Children: Colorado

This report by Families USA presents data generated by the U.S. Census Bureau from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a national survey of health insurance coverage that is performed annually. Families USA contracted with the Census Bureau to provide detailed national and state-level data about health insurance coverage for children between the ages of 0 and 18. (For state-level estimates, a three-year data merge [2005-2007] was used to improve data reliability.)

This report finds that Colorado is home to an estimated 170,000 uninsured children and has the 7th highest rate of uninsured children in the nation, and ranks 13th in the nation for the number of uninsured children. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of uninsured children in Colorado (93.9%) come from families where at least one parent works, and more than two-thirds of uninsured children (71.3%) live in a home where at least one parent works full-time, year-round. Uninsured children tend to come from low-income, working families that are trying to make ends meet, but coming up short when it comes to health coverage.

Children's Health: State by State Profiles

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation assessed children’s health and healthcare across the US. The report looked at infant mortality and children’s health. Nationwide, 6.5 out of 1,000 infants die before their first birthdays, a problem that is most severe in Mississippi, which has the highest overall infant mortality rates: 9.9 deaths every 1,000 live births. Massachusetts has the lowest level: 4.6 deaths per 1,000 infants. The report also correlated these rates to how many years of schooling the mother completed. In Tennessee, for example, the infant mortality rate for mothers with less than a high school education was 11.7 deaths per 1,000 infants; that rate fell to 4.9 deaths for mothers who at least had a bachelor’s degree.

Nationwide, 15.9% of children aren’t in optimal health. Among the states, Texas has the biggest percentage of children with less-than-optimal health — 22.8% — followed closely by California (22.5%) and Nevada (20.4%). In Colorado, 13.4% of all children were judged to be not in optimal health, which increases to 33.4% among Hispanics, 38% among households whose income is less than 100% of the Federal Poverty Level, and 51.9% among those whose parents have less than a high school education. A Snapshot of Colorado finds that:

  • Colorado ranks 23rd among states based on the size of the gap in infant mortality by mother’s education, when comparing the current overall state rate of 5.5 deaths per 1,000 live births with the lower rate—3.3 deaths per 1,000 live births—seen among infants born to the state’s most-educated mothers.
  • Colorado ranks 33rd among states based on the size of the gap in children’s general health status by family income, when comparing the current overall rate of 13.4% of children in less than optimal health with the lower rate—5.1%—seen among children in higher-income families.

National Reports with Local Relevance:

Growth of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Slows

The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that there were 11.9 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States in March 2008. The size of the unauthorized population appears to have declined since 2007, but this finding is inconclusive because of the margin of error in these estimates. However, it is clear from the estimates that the unauthorized immigrant population grew more slowly in the period from 2005 to 2008 than it did earlier in the decade. It also is clear that from 2005 to 2008, the inflow of immigrants who are undocumented fell below that of immigrants who are legal permanent residents. That reverses a trend that began a decade ago. The turnaround appears to have occurred in 2007.

This report also finds that inflows of unauthorized immigrants averaged 800,000 a year from 2000 to 2004, but fell to 500,000 a year from 2005 to 2008 with a decreasing year-to-year trend. By contrast, the inflow of legal permanent residents has been relatively steady this decade. Although the growth of the unauthorized population has slackened, its size has increased by more than 40% since 2000, when it was 8.4 million. In 2005, the Pew Hispanic Center estimated there were 11.1 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. The most recent estimate, 11.9 million, indicates that unauthorized immigrants make up 4% of the U.S. population.

These estimates are based mainly on data from the 2000 Census and the March Current Population Surveys for the years since then. Because the Census Bureau does not ask people their immigration status, these estimates are derived using a widely accepted methodology that essentially subtracts the estimated legal-immigrant population from the total foreign-born population. The residual is treated as a source of data on the unauthorized immigrant population.

The estimates are not designed to explain why the net growth rate has declined. There could be a number of possible causes, including a slowdown in U.S. economic growth that has had a disproportionate impact on foreign-born Latino workers, at the same time that economic growth in Mexico and other Latin American countries has been stable. Another factor could be a heightened focus on enforcement of immigration laws, which a recent Pew Hispanic Center survey indicates has generated worry among many Hispanics.

Sharp Decline in Income for Non-Citizen Immigrant Households, 2006-2007

A new report from the Pew Hispanic Center outlines recent trends in the incomes of non-citizen immigrant households in the U.S. and identifies who among them experienced the largest losses from 2006 to 2007. Of a total 116.8 million households in the U.S., 15.7 million are headed by immigrants. The majority of these immigrant households--8.2 million--are headed by immigrants who are not U.S. citizens.

The report includes the analysis of estimates of household income from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Pew Hispanic Center's estimates of the income of non-citizen households by principal characteristics. The analysis is based on data from the Current Population Survey, a monthly survey of about 55,000 U.S. households conducted by the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The estimates in this report are from the surveys conducted in March which typically feature a larger sample of households.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, the current economic slowdown has taken a far greater toll on non-citizen immigrants than it has on the United States population as a whole. The median annual income of non-citizen immigrant households--a group that accounts for 7% of all U.S. households and 52% of all immigrant households--fell 7.3% from 2006 to 2007. In contrast, the median annual income of all U.S. households increased 1.3% during the same period.

Consolidated Federal Funds Report: 2007

Federal Aid to States for Fiscal Year 2007

The federal government allocated $2.56 trillion in domestic spending for fiscal year 2007, up 4.4% from the prior year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The Consolidated Federal Funds Report: 2007 provides a broad overview of how and where the federal government distributes funds. Statistics are broken out by federal department and agency, as well as by state, county and subcounty area. The second report, Federal Aid to States for Fiscal Year 2007, contains data on federal grants to state and local governments. Highlights from these reports include:

  • Retirement and disability payments to individuals accounted for $783 billion (more than 30%) of total federal spending. Of that amount, 80%, or $623 billion, went to Social Security recipients. Social Security was composed of retirement insurance payments ($369 billion), survivors insurance ($113 billion), disability insurance ($105 billion) and supplemental security income payments ($36 billion).
  • Nearly half of all domestic government spending (excluding interest on the federal debt) went to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, accounting for $1.22 trillion. The one-year increase in spending for these three programs was approximately $198 for every person in the United States.
  • Grants accounted for $496 billion (20%) of all federal spending. Medical assistance programs under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services made up 41% of that amount, followed by highway planning and construction grants (12%).
  • Procurement contracts accounted for $440 billion (17%) of total federal spending. Of this, defense contracts made up 67%, followed by other federal agency contracts (30%) and the U.S. Postal Service (3%).
  • Salaries and wages accounted for $253 billion (10%) of total federal spending. Department of Defense payrolls made up 38% of that amount, followed by federal government civilian payrolls (37%) and the U.S. Postal Service payroll (25%).

Simulated Effects of Changes to State and Federal Asset Eligibility Policies for the Food Stamp Program

This USDA ERS study uses a micro-simulation model to assess the effect of changes to state-level Food Stamp Program (FSP) asset rules on household eligibility and on the benefits that eligible households would receive. The findings show that 7% of households eligible in 2006 were eligible only through expanded categorical eligibility rules that exempted the households from the standard Federal FSP asset rules and that 1% of eligible households were eligible because of state rules that counted fewer vehicle assets toward the asset limits. The number of eligible households would increase by about 3% if asset limits were raised by $2,000, by 22% if the asset test were eliminated, by 2% if retirement accounts were excluded, and by less than half of 1% if all vehicles were excluded. Eligibility across states varied widely, with 32% of households eligible in at least one state but not eligible in all States. The Food Stamp Program was renamed to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in October 2008.

Rural America at a Glance, 2008 Edition

The 2008 edition of this USDA ERS report highlights the most recent indicators of social and economic conditions in rural areas for use in developing policies and programs to assist rural areas. The report focuses on employment, poverty, population change, and demographic characteristics of nonmetro areas. Charts and maps from this document may also be downloaded.

Are Energy Prices Threatening the Farm Boom?

The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City released an article analyzing the impact of energy prices on the US farm economy. Energy prices have driven up input costs associated with fertilizer, fuel, seed, and chemicals. Although rising input costs coincided with record crop prices, farm income expectations have been revised downward as profit margins have decreased. Therefore, the sustainability of the farm boom will depend on future production costs and crop prices. While higher crop prices could sustain record profits, the combination of high input costs and weaker crop prices are a risk to the booming farm economy.