Demographic changes between 2010 and 2013 (Baltimore: transplants, how much, elementary schools)

[baltplanner]

The Census has just come out with their latest figures on population. Here's how it looks:

2010
Non-Hispanic White: 174,639
Non-Hispanic Black: 393,764
Hispanic: 25,960
Asian: 14,608
2 or more Races: 9,878

TOTAL: 620,961

2013
Non-Hispanic White: 176,176
Non-Hispanic Black: 389,201
Hispanic: 28,440
Asian: 15,643
2 or more Races: 10,577

TOTAL 622,104

Change between 2010 and 2013
Non-Hispanic White: 1,537....+.9%
Non-Hispanic Black: (4,563)....-1.2%
Hispanic: 2,480...+9.6%
Asian: 1,035...+6.6%
2 or more Races: 699...+7.1%

TOTAL: 1,143...+.2%


*Note: the sum of each column will not equal the "TOTAL" shown. This is due to the exclusion of both the Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander and Native American categories (I decided to just focus on the major demographic groups).


TAKE AWAY: The city's population was essentially stagnant (we've been hoovering between 619,000 and 622,000 since 2005), which is actually an improvement over previous decades where we experienced regular annual losses (as a point of reference during the Schmoke administration we lost close to 10K people a year). However, a new dynamic is occurring where the Black population is the only major demographic group which continues to decline, albeit at a relatively slowly pace (in 2010 non-Hispanic blacks made up 63.4% of the population as compared to 62.6% of the population in 2013). If this rate continues (a straight linear projection) the demographics for 2020 will be as follows:

2020 Projection
Non-Hispanic White: 179,877 (28.8%)
Non-Hispanic Black: 378,569 (60.6%)
Hispanic: 34,218 (5.5%)
Asian: 18,055 (2.9%)
2 or more Races: 12,206 (2.0%)

TOTAL: 624,767... +.6% increase over 2010

*Note: Again the sum of each column will not equal the "TOTAL" shown. See above for explanation.

Source: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/...xhtml?src=bkmk

[picardlx]

What's the sampling error on these estimates, as full counts are only conducted every ten years.

I'm more interested in the income and education trends. If locals are moving up the economic ladder and we are attracting above average income transplants, then that would most likely be more informative in predicting the future health of Baltimore.

[baltplanner]

So I'll have to do some more digging on the sampling error and the education trends but here's a start:

Over the last two fiscal years we've recorded an average annual increase of 3.8% in local income tax receipts. In the same time the city's piggyback income tax rate has been held constant and the population has grown less than .5% (I would consider these to be the controlling variables).

This 3.8% annual increase (totaling 7.6% over the two years) compares to a national median income which has grown less than 1% over the last two years. The take away is that although Baltimore is still a poor city, wealth is starting to concentrate within city limits much faster than within the country at large.


Source: http://dls.state.md.us/data/polanasu...iscal-2013.pdf (page 24)

[james777]

It would be interesting to know how they come up with these population figures when the Baltimore City school system does not even know how many students will be attending its elementary schools until after the school year begins and the parents bring the kids in to register.

[gwillyfromphilly]

Seems that every racial group is growing in population except for the Black population. It wouldn't surprise me if Baltimore's Black population continues to steadily shrink similarly to how Washington DC's Black population has shrunk over the years. Sadly, I think a lot of people would be happy to see Baltimore's Black population decrease in the city.

[mapmd]

Originally Posted by james777

It would be interesting to know how they come up with these population figures when the Baltimore City school system does not even know how many students will be attending its elementary schools until after the school year begins and the parents bring the kids in to register.

Speaking of schools:
Per pupil State funding in fiscal 2013 averaged $7,033 statewide, ranging from $3,653 in Talbot County to $12,017 in Baltimore City.

http://dls.state.md.us/data/polanasu...s-WEB-COPY.pdf

Keep in mind this is STATE funding for schools and does not include local. So why is it that the citizens of other counties are paying disproportionate amounts of money into the state just to fund Baltimore City (which costs greater than $16k total per pupil per year)?

Total costs range from 11k to 16k+. But it doesn't seem like money solves the problems since districts on the higher end of the scale seem to have more problems. The problems are likely structural, rather than due to a lack of funding.

By the way...that's a lot of money. I'm not sure I even paid 16k in taxes last year across every branch of government. A lot of people in B-more don't even make that much. How much does it cost citizens to put someone with, say, 3 or 4 kids through eighteen years of schooling?

And in the end, is it worth the cost? How can we reign in government spending while increasing quality? We already know it's not a money issue, the problems lie elsewhere. How can we reign in the bloated teacher's unions? How can we cap the salaries of administrators, guidance counselors, principles, and especially superintendents and....ALL THE REDUNDANT STAFF personnel that these folks keep in their offices just so they can be in charge of more personnel?

[baltplanner]

I have to say, with all the changes going on in this town I'm surprised this thread didn't get more traction.

[Zea mays]

Originally Posted by baltplanner

with all the changes going on in this town, I'm surprised this thread didn't get more traction.

I don't see many changes in this town on my infrequent returns to the city. More disparity in wealth these days, but that is to be expected throughout the US.

[Infinite_heights77]

I thought you left us!??

Originally Posted by baltplanner

So I'll have to do some more digging on the sampling error and the education trends but here's a start:

Over the last two fiscal years we've recorded an average annual increase of 3.8% in local income tax receipts. In the same time the city's piggyback income tax rate has been held constant and the population has grown less than .5% (I would consider these to be the controlling variables).

This 3.8% annual increase (totaling 7.6% over the two years) compares to a national median income which has grown less than 1% over the last two years. The take away is that although Baltimore is still a poor city, wealth is starting to concentrate within city limits much faster than within the country at large.


Source: http://dls.state.md.us/data/polanasu...iscal-2013.pdf (page 24)