By: John Besl
On December 1, United Way of Greater Cincinnati hosted a program titled “Demographics Forum: Strategic View of Our Region’s Changing Demographics for Nonprofit and Civic Organizations.” The keynote speaker, Dr. Warren Brown of Cornell University, covered multiple topics related to the demographic composition of the Cincinnati region, including our age composition and how it compares to the United States as a whole. On some comparisons, the population of the 15-county Cincinnati Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is generally younger than the nation at large. The ratio of people at ages 65 or older per 100 children ages 0 to 4, for instance, is lower in our region than the comparable national ratio. The growth of the Medicare-eligible population from 2000 to 2010 was also slower in our region than it was nationally.
In the course of his talk, Dr. Brown went on to display a few charts depicting age composition for the Cincinnati metro area and selected counties from the 2010 Census, as well as the two previous national headcounts. The charts showed a dynamic picture of population change and aging over the past two decades. In this post, I want to review those charts while examining some other jurisdictions in the metro area, and adding some commentary.
Figure 1 below displays the age composition of the 15-county metropolitan area for three different census years, with five-year age groups along the horizontal axis and population counts along the vertical axis. Differences between the curves, both vertical and horizontal, are revealing. The most notable feature of Figure 1 is the shape and spacing of the curves from about ages 30-34 to 55-59. This is clear evidence of a population “aging in place,” where there is minimal in-migration or out-migration, just the same people getting older. To illustrate, the region’s 1990 population at ages 35-39 was 147,044, while 10 years later, the population 10 years older (45 to 49 years of age at that point) was 146,325. In 2010, this population segment – now 55 to 59 – had marginally declined in number to 139,020, with much of the change likely attributable to deaths rather than people moving away from the metro area.
Figure 1. Age Composition of Cincinnati-Middletown Metropolitan Statistical Area (2003 definition, 15 counties): 1990, 2000, and 2010
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
We see a different pattern in Figure 2, which depicts Hamilton County’s age composition in the last three decennial censuses. The picture here is one of aging and population decline. The curves shift not only to the right (evidence of aging in place), but also downward as the county lost population in each of the last two decades.
Figure 2. Age Composition of Hamilton County, Ohio: 1990, 2000, and 2010
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
A more dramatic image of population loss can be seen in Figure 3, where the city of Cincinnati, the urban core of our region, is the geographic focus. For most age groups, the 1990 data point is higher than the 2000 point, which is higher than the 2010 point. The exceptions are the first wave of the baby boom generation, covering ages 40 to 54 in 2000 and 50 to 64 in 2010.
Figure 3. Age Composition of Cincinnati city: 1990, 2000, and 2010
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Boone County stands out among the metropolitan area’s 15 counties on several dimensions of population change over the past two decades, including age composition. Figure 4 showing Boone County’s age distribution in 1990, 2000, and 2010 is remarkable in the context of the Cincinnati MSA. While Hamilton County and Cincinnati experienced aging and population loss, Boone County’s population grew by 49% between 1990 and 2000 and another 38% from 2000 to 2010. The county’s age composition is virtually unchanged from one census to the next; the real difference comes from growth in each age group across the board. When Warren Brown displayed Figure 4 at the December 1 Demographics Forum, he described Boone County as a “life stage” destination that attracts people at the household formation, child-rearing stage of life.
Figure 4. Age Composition of Boone County, Kentucky: 1990, 2000, 2010
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Like Boone County, Warren County in Ohio experienced rapid population growth in the study period, increasing by 39% in the 1990s and 34% between 2000 and 2010. Its population growth, however, was not distributed as evenly by age group as in the case of Boone County (see Figure 5). There was comparatively little growth between census years in the young adult ages, reflecting slower rates of household formation that might be due to higher property values and costs of living in Warren County compared to its fast-growing Kentucky neighbor. The aging-in-place phenomenon, along with some sizable in-migration, is apparent in the shift of the curves up and to the right in the middle and older age groups.
Figure 5. Age Composition of Warren County, Ohio: 1990, 2000, and 2010
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Although in many cases, the charts above only confirm what we may already know about our region and its component areas, it’s a useful tool for tracking population change and the aging trend that will continue to be so important in planning for the future.
Comments