Demographic Trends Impacting the North Allegheny School District

August 17, 2012

Prepared by:

North Allegheny School District Facilities Study Phase 2

Demographic Trends Impacting the North Allegheny School District

Volume

Christopher Briem

Demographic Trends Impacting the North Allegheny School

District

Christopher Briem

August 16, 2012

Executive Summary Demographic Trends Impacting the North Allegheny School District

The communities of the North Allegheny School District have been consistently some of the most stable

areas within Allegheny County and across the Pittsburgh region in recent decades. Both Allegheny

County and the Pittsburgh metropolitan region have experienced nearly continuously declining

populations over the last 50 years whereas the municipalities of Bradford Woods, Franklin Park,

Marshall and McCandless and have all grown substantially over that period.

Nonetheless, the rapid population growth in previous decades has slowed across the district. Between

2000 and 2010 the districts overall population growth of 2.3% was the slowest population growth over

any decade since World War II. This decline in population growth has coincided with an aging of the

district’s population. Whereas earlier growth in these communities was driven by the migration of

younger families with children moving into the district, slower rates of building activity have correlated

with lower rates of migration.

This slower population growth is compounded by the changing demographic composition of the district.

The typical household in the district is likely to have aged in place. Many local families are likely to have

children that have already aged through both primary and secondary school. The result has been a

relatively older population and consequently a lower proportion of families with children. Coupled with

relatively modest rates of building activity these demographic shifts have depressed enrollment trends

within the region in the most recent decades.

With recent building and construction trends across the district showing no new acceleration, in the

near term population gains will be minimal. In the longer term, the district is anticipated to follow the

pattern of both Allegheny County and the greater Pittsburgh region which are both experiencing

significant demographic shifts. The elderly population in both the county and region peaked in the mid

1990s and declined over the subsequent decade. Certain communities that have previously aged in

place over multiple decades are attracting new residents. As a result Allegheny County has experienced

its first population gain in almost a century between 2010 and 2011. While the county‐wide population

gain is minimal, it represents a significant shift in trend compared to the past.

Population projections by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC), the region’s Metropolitan

Planning Organization, forecast a 17 percent growth in Allegheny County’s population between 2010

and 2040. The communities of the North Allegheny School District have consistently fared better than

the county at attracting and retaining residents and as a result the same population forecasts project a

population increase of 25% for the district over that period. However, for the North Allegheny School

District most of this growth is projected to take place only in the latter half of that 30 year period. In the

near term the projected population rise across the district is approximately 5% between 2010 and 2020.

Most of that growth is concentrated in specific communities within the district. Over 60% of net

population growth over the coming decade is projected to be in Franklin Park, with 40% in Marshall.

Minimal growth is projected for Bradford Woods and a decline of 4% over the decade is projected for

McCandless.

Demographic Trends Impacting the North Allegheny School District ‐ August 2012

3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2

Overview ....................................................................................................................................................... 5

Population Change in the Pittsburgh Region ................................................................................................ 7

Demographic Change in Allegheny County ................................................................................................. 10

Current District Demographics ................................................................................................................... 12

Migration and Population ....................................................................................................................... 17

Construction and Real Estate Development Impacts ............................................................................. 21

SPC Population Forecasts ........................................................................................................................ 24

Appendix. District Migration Patterns ........................................................................................................ 28


4

List of Figures

Figure 1. Annual Net Migration into the Pittsburgh MSA, 1990‐2010 ......................................................... 9

Figure 2.Estimated Population Age 25‐64, Allegheny County, 2000‐2011 ................................................. 11

Figure 3. Projected Population Growth for Allegheny County, 2010 ‐ 2040 .............................................. 11

Figure 4. Percentage of Households with Children Under Age 18 ............................................................. 12

Figure 5.Population Density ‐ 2010 ............................................................................................................. 14

Figure 6.Distribution of Population by Age, 2010 ..................................................................................... 15

Figure 7.Youth Population Density ‐ 2010 .................................................................................................. 16

Figure 8. Increase in Population By Birth Cohort between 2000 and 2010 ................................................ 20

Figure 9.New Privately Owned Residential Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits ...................... 23

Figure 10.Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission Long Range Population Forecasts ............................. 26

Figure 11.Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission Long Range Population Forecasts ............................. 27

Figure 12. Census PUMA areas in the North Hills of Allegheny County ..................................................... 29

Figure 13.Age Distribution of New migrants into North Hills communities of Allegheny County .............. 30

Figure 14. Distribution by Age of Children Moving into North Hills communities of Allegheny County ... 31

List of Tables

Table 1. Population Change By Decade and Municipality, 1960‐2010 ......................................................... 5

Table 2. Household Composition By Type, North Allegheny SD Municipalities, 2010 ............................... 13

Table 3. Residence and Migration by Municipality ..................................................................................... 17

Table 4.Comparison of 2000 and 2010 Population By Single Year of Age .................................................. 19

Table 5. Comparative Age Cohort Analysis ‐ North Allegheny School District ........................................... 19

Table 6.Total Housing Units by Decade and Municipality .......................................................................... 21

Table 7.Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission Long Range Population Forecasts ................................ 25


5

Overview

The North Allegheny School District comprises 4 municipalities in the Northwest quadrant of Allegheny

County, Pennsylvania: Bradford Woods, Franklin Park, Marshall and McCandless. Since the end of

World War II these communities have sustained a stable or growing population base despite what has

been an enduring population loss for Allegheny County. These communities have been able to maintain

their population because they attracted a significant level of migration and relocations from within

Allegheny County along with new residents moving into the Pittsburgh region from elsewhere in the

nation. The rapid growth of these communities was fastest over the decades immediately following

World War II. Population growth has continued for the district into the 21st century, but at declining

rates. Population growth for the district between 2000 and 2010 was 2.3% making it the lowest rate of

growth over any of the previous 5 decades.

Table 1. Population Change By Decade and Municipality, 1960‐2010

Total Population

Municipality 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Bradford Woods 866 970 1,264 1,329 1,149 1,124

Franklin Park 3,935 5,310 6,135 10,109 11,364 12,858

Marshall 2,528 2,907 2,594 4,010 5,996 6,643

McCandless 14,582 22,404 26,191 28,271 29,022 28,008

District Total: 21,911 31,591 36,184 43,719 47,531 48,633

Decade change:

44.2% 14.5% 20.8% 8.7% 2.3%

Future demographic change in the communities that comprise the North Allegheny School District will

be driven by fundamental demographic and economic changes happening not only within Allegheny

County but also across the Pittsburgh region. Population change is the result of two factors: natural

population change and migration. Natural migration results from the difference between the number

of deaths and the number of births a region experiences.

Some migration is between the greater Pittsburgh region and other regions within the nation. This inter‐

regional migration is primarily driven by employment decisions of individuals and their families.

Workers relocated for new jobs, or as the result of job loss or to optimize their job search. A significant

factor impacting any particular school district is intra‐regional migration reflecting the movement of

individuals and families within the Pittsburgh region. Intra‐regional migration is much more determined

by housing and quality of life decisions. . Households typically have significant flexibility as to within

which specific community they choose to reside ‐ and within the broader region ‐ can vary significantly


6

from municipality to municipality. Overall, the difference between the flows of population moving into

the district and those moving out, or net migration, will add to natural population change and determine

future population levels for the district.

For the communities of the North Allegheny School district the key question is whether the population

trends over the last half century are expected to continue. Demographic forecasting techniques do not

perform particularly well for small areas and may be particularly unhelpful for subareas within the

Pittsburgh region. For the North Allegheny communities, the slowing rate of population growth over

previous decades, if projected out, would imply that future population is likely to experience minimal

growth. Extrapolation of past trends are not particularly helpful for communities in the Pittsburgh

region, which has seen structural shifts in its economic base in recent decades. How those trends have

evolved, and are expected to evolve in the future will be a driving factor in projecting future

demographic shifts and resulting enrollment trends. In addition, the overall population counts to not

fully reflect regional economic shifts taking place nor demographic changes taking place within each

community. Regional communities are experiencing demographic shifts that are unlike that which is

typical elsewhere in the nation. School enrollment patterns depend as much on the composition of

resident households as it they do on overall population counts.

Small area demographic forecasts are particularly difficult because they depend significantly on

migration flows within the county and metropolitan region. These intra‐regional migration flows can

vary significantly over time and are impacted by more than core demographic factors. Development

and real estate construction, zoning and land use and, in particular‐ popular perception of the quality of

individual communities as places to live ‐ all impact these migration flows over time. Indeed the quality

of local schools is itself a major factor impacting future population growth. Population trends for

individual municipalities will be determined by the continuing ability of North Allegheny communities to

continue to attract new residents and retain existing families. The composition of these migration flows,

and specifically the prevalence of young families with children to relocate to communities within the

district will be the factor that determines future enrollment for the district.

This report will provide an overview of the demographic and economic changes taking place in the

Pittsburgh region. The population trends impacting Allegheny County and its constituent municipalities

will be described leading up to the trends impacting the County’s northern suburbs. The specific

demographic trends for the municipalities of the North Allegheny School district will be described along

with the key factors impacting future growth of its constituent municipalities. These factors include the

demographics of the respective municipalities, but also recent and anticipated trends in residential

construction and development.


7

Population Change in the Pittsburgh Region

The Pittsburgh region is one that has experienced significant and continued population decline since

World War II. Population change for Allegheny County and its municipalities must first begin with an

analysis of the trends impacting the Pittsburgh region as a while. Past economic changes, including the

large scale decline in heavy industry in the region had profound demographic impacts on the region. A

loss of nearly half of the region's manufacturing employment in the early years of the 1980's, coupled

with slower but ongoing jobs losses in subsequent years begat a significant outmigration of population

from the region. That population loss was even more significant to local school districts and their future

enrollments because of the composition of those migration flows. Younger workers were far more likely

than older workers to leave the region. Net migration out of the region was predominantly made of

young working age workers who took with them their families and their future families as well. Across

the region the loss of those families has impacted the demographic trends in nearly all communities and

school districts in subsequent decades.1

Currently, the Pittsburgh Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), is defined as seven counties in

Southwestern Pennsylvania: Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington and

Westmoreland. MSA's are defined by the existence of significant commuting flows between counties.

Between each of the counties that comprise the Pittsburgh MSA are significant and ongoing commuting

flows. These commuting flows demonstrate that individuals and workers have a broad flexibility on the

location they can reside and where they choose to work within the region. Because of this flexibility in

residential location the population trends of individual municipalities within the region will first be

impacted by the regional economic and population trends.

The Pittsburgh MSA has experienced ongoing population losses over the last 25 years because of two

factors. Natural population change in the Pittsburgh region had been positive, resulting from a greater

number of births than deaths annually, through most of the 20th century until the mid‐1990s. From the

mid‐1990s forward, natural population change in the Pittsburgh region has been negative. The

Pittsburgh MSA is the only large metropolitan region in the United States to currently be experiencing

natural population decline. This rare example of natural population decline results mostly from the age

of the population that migrated out of the region in the early 1980's and earlier. Past migration was

very age‐selective with younger workers more likely to leave the region than older workers or those who

had already retired from the workforce. Those workers leaving would typically take with them their

families and their future families. This natural population decline peaked between 2000 and 2005 and

has generally been declining since. Natural population change remains negative for the region, but at

levels which have been declining over the last decade.

The shifting trends in natural population change for the Pittsburgh region will have a significant impact

on the region's future population trends. Natural population change is coincident to other changing

1 For more on the demographic trends impacting the Pittsburgh region see: A Demographic Overview of the Metropolitan Pittsburgh, by Peter A. Morrison. The RAND Corporation. Santa Monica, CA, 2004.


8

demographic patterns within the population. For the Pittsburgh region, the population of age 65 and

over peaked in the mid‐1990s, just as population decline became negative. The proportion of the

region’s population of elderly peaked at that time. Many local communities have large proportions of

their resident households that have resided in their current location for multiple decades. This has

resulted in an “aging in place” demographic. For many Pittsburgh region communities and

neighborhoods there is a demographic shift taking place as these long tenured housing units come back

on the market and are replaced by residents significantly younger than what was typical in the past.

The Pittsburgh region has also been impacted by continued net migration of the population. Over the

last 25 years, other than for a brief period between 1991 and 1992, population outflows from the region

have exceeded the flow of population into the region. This ongoing outmigration has had an extended

impact on the region's population. Regional migration flows are mostly an economic phenomenon.

Most long distance migration flows (migration between metropolitan regions) in the US are the result of

employment related decisions. The net outmigration from the Pittsburgh region in recent decades has

reflected the overall level of job growth and relative job opportunity in the region compared to other

regions across the nation.

Population migration trends for the region are shifting. For the Pittsburgh region, recent shifts in the

region's economy are having impacts on migration flows into the region. Significantly, the Pittsburgh

MSA has begun to experience positive net migration for the first time in decades. Figure 1. shows the

trend in net migration flows impacting the population of the Pittsburgh region. While the rate of net

migration into the Pittsburgh region is relatively low, it represents a significant change in trend

compared to the past. This particular migration data is derived from change of address information

distributed by the Internal Revenue Service. When international immigration and college matriculant

migration is factored in, the overall rate of net migration into the region is even larger.

Past population trends for most communities in the Pittsburgh region have to be considered in light of

what has been the significant loss of population resulting from the long term and sustained out‐

migration of population. The rate of net migration into the region is only at a moderate level, but the

switch from net out‐migration to net in‐migration will have a broad impact on local municipalities going

forward.

The changing trend in migration flows is particularly important to projecting school enrollments. While

some migration is retirement related, most population migration in the United States is caused by

employment decisions. Trends for retirement migration flows are relatively stable over time, so

changing trends in regional migration flows are more likely to be caused by changes in economic

migration flows of the working age population. Employment induced, or economic, migration is

comprised of working age cohorts in the population which are also more likely to be part of households

with children. Whereas retirement migration is mostly of households without school age children,

employment migration can be expected to have greater impacts on the future population of school age

children.


9

Figure 1. Annual Net Migration into the Pittsburgh MSA, 1990‐20102

2Migration Trends in the Pittsburgh Region: Update Through 2010. University Center for Social and Urban Research. December 2010.

‐10,000

‐8,000

‐6,000

‐4,000

‐2,000

0

2,000


10

Demographic Change in Allegheny County

Allegheny County is the largest county in Southwestern Pennsylvania, with approximately half of the

population in the seven‐county Pittsburgh MSA. Allegheny County has suffered population loss resulting

from both overall migration from the region, but also from the movement of population within the

Pittsburgh region. Suburbanization of residential population is a national phenomenon that has

impacted the Pittsburgh region similarly to other metropolitan regions. As a result, Allegheny County

has experienced net migration of population across every decade going back to the 1920s.

Like the Pittsburgh region, Allegheny County experienced disproportionate outmigration of population

in the 1980's. The younger age composition of those migration flows also resulted in a comparatively

older population and natural population decline from the mid‐1990s onward. One corollary of the

natural population decline impacting both Allegheny County and the Pittsburgh region has been a

decline in the level of the elderly population (age 65 and over). There have also been changes to the

college age population in the county that are reflective of changes in enrollment at local institutions of

higher education. As shown in Figure 2, the Census Bureau estimates that the population trend for the

population of age 25‐64 in Allegheny County has actually been positive since 2008. This reversal of

trend is one part of what is anticipated to be continued population increases in Allegheny County, and in

particular, increase in the population most likely to comprise families with school age children.

Long range forecasts for both the Pittsburgh region and Allegheny County show that Allegheny County

will continue to experience moderate population growth over the coming decades. While the overall

rate of population growth is moderate it reflects a significant turnaround from the net migration

experienced prior. Figure 3 shows the current long range population forecast for Allegheny County

produced by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC), the Federally designated Metropolitan

Planning Organization (MPO) for the Pittsburgh region. Between 2010 and 2040 the county's population

is projected to increase by an annual average of 1.6%. While this reflects a moderate growth, it

represents a significant turnaround from population declines in previous decades. SPC forecasts of the

population specific to the North Allegheny School District and its constituent municipalities are provided

in a subsequent section of this report.


11

Figure 2.Estimated Population Age 25‐64, Allegheny County, 2000‐2011

Source: U.S. Census Bureau ‐ Population Estimates Program

Figure 3. Projected Population Growth for Allegheny County, 2010 ‐ 2040

Source: Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission

640,000

650,000

660,000

670,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010^ 2010* 2011

‐

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040


12

Current District Demographics

Population trends for the communities of the North Allegheny School District are a hybrid of two

competing factors. The four communities of Bradford Woods, McCandless, Marshall and Franklin Park

are located within Allegheny County, the urban core of the Pittsburgh region which has experienced the

most decline since World War II. They are also suburban areas that have been able to attract new

residents relocating from elsewhere within the county and new residents moving into the region. The

ability to attract new residents has over time resulted in a comparatively younger population when

compared to other municipalities within Allegheny County, though generally not as young as

municipalities in other counties within the region. Figure 4 compares the percentage of households with

children under 18 in each of these communities to the average for Allegheny County. Each of these

communities has a greater proportion of households with children than the county as a whole. Franklin

Park and Marshall have significantly more households with children than is typical across the county.

Table 2 gives some further detail on the household composition of each municipality.

Figure 4. Percentage of Households with Children Under Age 18

25.227.6

43.9

28.0

44.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

Allegheny County Bradford Woods Frankin Park McCandless Marshall


13

Table 2. Household Composition By Type, North Allegheny SD Municipalities, 2010

Allegheny Bradford Franklin

County Woods Park McCandless Marshall

Total households 533,960 100 474 100 4,723 100 11,659 100 2,415 100

Family households 308,009 57.7 359 75.7 3,883 82.2 7,709 66.1 1,994 82.6

With own children 123,389 23.1 123 25.9 2,020 42.8 3,113 26.7 1,046 43.3

Husband‐wife family 222,332 41.6 323 68.1 3,530 74.7 6,647 57 1,817 75.2

With own children 81,706 15.3 111 23.4 1,842 39 2,651 22.7 963 39.9

Male householder, no

wife present 20,406 3.8 15 3.2 126 2.7

297 2.5 61 2.5

With own children 8,559 1.6 5 1.1 59 1.2 136 1.2 25 1

Female householder, no

husband present 65,271 12.2 21 4.4 227 4.8

765 6.6 116 4.8

With own children 33,124 6.2 7 1.5 119 2.5 326 2.8 58 2.4

Nonfamily households 225,951 42.3 115 24.3 840 17.8 3,950 33.9 421 17.4

Householder living alone 186,958 35 100 21.1 710 15 3,337 28.6 358 14.8

Male 79,382 14.9 32 6.8 285 6 1,295 11.1 144 6

65 years and over 18,970 3.6 11 2.3 93 2 352 3 42 1.7

Female 107,576 20.1 68 14.3 425 9 2,042 17.5 214 8.9

65 years and over 50,691 9.5 32 6.8 210 4.4 971 8.3 121 5

Households with

individuals under 18 134,539 25.2 131 27.6 2,072 43.9

3,263 28 1,068 44.2

Households with

individuals 65+

150,500 28.2 161 34 1,033 21.9

3,251 27.9 480 19.9


14

Figure 5.Population Density ‐ 2010 Population per square mile by Census Block


15

Figure 6.Distribution of Population by Age, 2010 North Allegheny School District and Allegheny County

Source: Compiled from U.S. Census Bureau ‐ Decennial Census 2010 (Summary File 1)

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%Under 1 4 8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

44

48

52

56

60

64

68

72

76

80

84

88

92

96

100

North Allegheny Allegheny County


16

Figure 7.Youth Population Density ‐ 2010 Population Under Age 18 per square mile by Census Block


17

Migration and Population

The cross section of population in 2010 gives only a starting point for projections of future population

for municipalities in Allegheny County. Dynamic communities such as those of the North Allegheny

School District are continually impacted by migration. Table 3 shows the most recent data available on

migration flows at the municipal level which impact the North Allegheny School District. This data from

the American Community Survey is derived from a specific question as to where each respondent lived

one year prior. The results are that on average 8.2% of the district's population lived in a different

municipality just one year earlier. While comparable data is not available for the proportion of the

population that moved out over the same year, the scale of new residents is a sign of continued

attraction and competiveness of each of these communities.

Table 3. Residence and Migration by Municipality North Allegheny SD Municipalities, American Community Survey, 2006‐2010

Bradford Woods

Franklin Park

McCandless MarshallNA

School District

Total Population 1,124 12,858 28,008 6,643 48,633 Same house 1 year ago 1,016 11,825 25,353 6,181 44,375 Different house in US 1 year ago: 108 987 2,532 407 4,034 Same city or town: 0 25 11 0 36 Same county 0 25 11 0 36 Different county (same state) 0 0 0 0 0 Elsewhere: 108 962 2,521 407 3,998 Same county 90 562 1,672 369 2,693 Different county: 18 400 849 38 1,305 Same state 8 127 366 18 519 Different state: 10 273 483 20 786 Northeast 0 41 73 0 114 Midwest 0 96 159 5 260 South 10 136 251 0 397 West 0 0 0 15 15 Abroad 1 year ago: 0 46 123 55 224 Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 0 U.S. Island Areas 0 0 0 0 0 Foreign country 0 46 123 55 224

Percentage who moved into the municipality over previous year

9.6% 7.5% 9.0% 6.1% 8.2%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau ‐ American Community Survey 2006‐2010


18

Migration, especially migration of households with young school age children, is the primary reason for

the increase in population for specific age cohorts. Table 4 compares the population by single year of

age between 2000 and 2010 for the North Allegheny School District. While for many of the specific ages

the overall number of children in the district has decreased over the decade, a comparison of what has

happened to each birth cohort over that time gives a stronger indication of what can be anticipated in

the future.

Table 5 is the same population by single year of age data except it is matched to consistent birth year

cohorts. For each cohort there is a significant increase in the population over the decade, which results

from migration of households with children. The trend in this relative gain in birth cohorts is compiled in

Figure 8 and shows a steadily increasing gain in population. Only the earliest birth cohort in the range

shown (children born in 1992‐1993) is likely to be impacted by migration related to college matriculation

or post high school relocation. These recent migration trends will be incorporated into the enrollment

projections described in a subsequent section.

Note, all the year groups are shown as ranges, but nonetheless reflect single year periods. The

decennial census reports data as of April 1 of each year. As a result, birth cohorts reflect births

between successive Aprils.


19

Table 4.Comparison of 2000 and 2010 Population By Single Year of Age North Allegheny School District3

Age Birth Range

Population 2000

Birth Range

Population 2010

Under 1 1999-2000 539 2009-2010 458

1 1998-1999 600 2008-2009 512

2 1997-1998 575 2007-2008 583

3 1996-1997 633 2006-2007 601

4 1995-1996 673 2005-2006 649

5 1994-1995 657 2004-2005 657

6 1993-1994 678 2003-2004 683

7 1992-1993 669 2002-2003 687

8 1991-1992 703 2001-2002 708

9 1990-1991 808 2000-2001 736

10 1989-1990 761 1999-2000 725

11 1988-1989 722 1998-1999 727

12 1987-1988 807 1997-1998 734

13 1986-1987 794 1996-1997 752

14 1985-1986 763 1995-1996 742

15 1984-1985 741 1994-1995 744

16 1983-1984 741 1993-1994 751

17 1982-1983 710 1992-1993 722

Source: U.S. Census Bureau ‐ Decennial Census 2000 and 2010 (Summary File 1)

Table 5. Comparative Age Cohort Analysis ‐ North Allegheny School District

Population Increase

Birth Range 2000 2010 Number Percent

1998‐1999 600 727 127 21.2%

1997‐1998 575 734 159 27.7%

1996‐1997 633 752 119 18.8%

1995‐1996 673 742 69 10.3%

1994‐1995 657 744 87 13.2%

1993‐1994 678 751 73 10.8%

1992‐1993 669 722 53 7.9%

3 Birth range will generally reflect an age between April 1 of each year. This is because the decennial census collects data for a reference data of April 1 each decade. As a result the self‐reported age of children will be as of that date.


20

Source: U.S. Census Bureau ‐ Decennial Census 2000 and 2010 (Summary File 1)

Figure 8. Increase in Population By Birth Cohort between 2000 and 2010 North Allegheny School District

+7.9%

+10.8%

+13.2%

+10.3%

+18.8%

+27.7%

+21.2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1992‐1993 1993‐1994 1994‐1995 1995‐1996 1996‐1997 1997‐1998 1998‐1999


21

Construction and Real Estate Development Impacts

A major factor impacting the projected population growth of many communities is projected real estate

investment and the development of new residential housing. For the communities in the North Hills of

Allegheny County, the large scale development of new residential housing was a major factor in the

population growth the communities experienced in the decades following World War II. New

residential construction in these communities has continued, but at significantly slower rates than in

earlier decades. Table 6 shows the trend in the number of housing units for municipalities within the

North Allegheny School District. While the growth between 2000 and 2010 of 11% was significantly

slower than the rate between 1980 and 1990 (+30.9%) it is only slightly slower than the change between

1990 and 2000 ( +12.1%).

In contrast, Allegheny County experienced only a 1% increase in the total number of new housing units

over the period 2000‐2010. The continuing building activity of North Allegheny School District

communities reflects on their ability to continue to attract new residents within the county. Remarkably

the 4 municipalities of the school district recorded 1,103 new housing units between 2000 and 2010,

which accounts for just under 20% of all net new housing units in Allegheny County over the decade.

This is despite the fact that the district accounts for just under 4% of the county's total population in

2010.

Table 6.Total Housing Units by Decade and Municipality North Allegheny School District and Municipalities

1980 1990 2000 2010

Bradford Woods 419 476 478 497

Franklin Park 1,972 3,420 3,973 4,882

Marshall 900 1,382 2,018 2531

McCandless 9,093 10,933 11,697 12,307

District total: 12,384 16,211 18,166 20,217

Growth over decade: 30.9% 12.1% 11.3%

Near term population projections will be impacted by any recent deviation in building activity within the

district. Figure 9 shows the recent trends in approved building permits by year for private residential

housing units in each of the municipalities of the North Allegheny School District. Building permits

generally reflect a leading indicator to future construction and population trends. The timeline to actual

construction and new sales resulting can vary from as short as 6 months to several years, with larger

projects taking longer to complete and take in new residents.

Recent trends in new housing unit construction can be expected to impact future migration and

population trends for each of the district's municipalities. Most of the migration generated by recent

building permit activity over the recent decade is captured via the cohort migration analysis in the


22

previous section. Looking forward, the only anticipated deviation from those trends will likely come

from any recent deviation in the patterns of new housing unit construction within the district.

For 2011 total building permits across the 4 municipalities of the district were recorded at 151 which is

in line with both a 5 year and 10 year average for the number of private residential building permits

across the district. The only anomaly in recent years derives from a significant spike in building permits

recorded in McCandless for 2009. Compared to an average of under 35 new residential housing units in

the municipality annually over the preceding decade (1999‐2008), 180 were recorded in McCandless for

2009. That year 57 units were recorded for single family housing units, a number in line with what was

normal for McCandless over the decade, while 123 units were in multiple unit structures of 5 or more

units which was highly atypical of new housing construction for the municipality.

With other building permits activity in the district are generally reflecting a steady state trend for the

region, the additional 123 new housing units can be expected to induce new population moving into the

district beyond that which is expected from recent migration patterns. For McCandless in 2010, the

average population per housing unit was 2.43 ‐ which would mean that the 123 units would induce

additional new population of approximately 299 moving into the district. This ratio may not reflect the

population moving in this type of multi‐unit development. Average household size ranges from 1.71

people per household for rental units in McCandless in 2010 to 2.55 people per household for owner

occupied housing units in the municipality. Depending on the mix of rental and owner occupied status

for these new units, the anticipated additional population moving into the district is between 210 and

314. A large multi‐unit development is anticipated to attract residents more similar to rental housing

than single family housing units.

With housing unit vacancy rates across the district minimal, the 123 additional units can be expected to

generate net gain in population within the district. A supplemental analysis of migration patterns into

the district is included here as an appendix of this report. That analysis estimates that the population

recently moving into the northern suburbs of Allegheny County is 25% comprised of children under age

18. Based on an expectation that new population resulting from this development will be 210, the total

number of new children that can be expected to move into the region would be approximately 52 when

the development is fully occupied. Any new children will be distributed across age ranges detailed in

the appendix for an average of 3 children per single year of age. If the anomalous construction is more

marketed toward older households, it is less likely to have school age children and the anticipated

enrollment impacts will be lower.


23

Figure 9.New Privately Owned Residential Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits North Allegheny School District Municipalities, 1996 ‐2010

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

3501996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

McCandless

Marshall

Franklin Park

Bradford Woods


24

SPC Population Forecasts

Population forecasts of population for local municipalities and school districts within the Pittsburgh

region have also been produced by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC). SPC is the

Federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) responsible for transportation planning

for 10 counties of Southwestern Pennsylvania. As part of SPC's long range transportation improvement

plan, population forecasts for the region and all local municipalities are developed. SPC population

forecasts incorporate regional population and economic trends, but also local development factors and

transportation access factors that are likely to impact the distribution of future population growth or

decline within the region.

While these forecasts are not directly used in the enrollment projections developed in the next section,

they are provided here to provide additional context for what patterns of population change are

anticipated within Allegheny County. SPC utilizes both a regional population projection for their

projections and an intra‐regional model for the allocation of growth or decline to specific municipalities

and school districts. The regional population projections are developed from the REMI model, an

economic model developed by Regional Economic Models Inc. of Amherst, MA. This regional model

incorporates a detailed demographic mode of the Pittsburgh region and an economic model that allows

for the projection of future population trends. The REMI model provides detailed projections for the 1‐

county region within Southwestern Pennsylvania and for specific counties or groups of counties within

the region. Allegheny County is one of the model regions for which the REMI provides detailed

population projections.4

SPC has developed a model of population and economic growth within the Pittsburgh region that it uses

to develop specific population projections for individual school districts and municipalities. SPC’s

MERLAM model (Mature Economic Region Land Allocation Model) is used to allocate the REMI regional

population and employment projection to municipalities and traffic zones. The allocation is based on

local data for relative tax rates, accessibility to transportation facilities, proximity to jobs, existing

development density, and other factors that measure each area’s relative capacity to attract and retain

people and jobs. The MERLAM model also develops the projection of households based on the

population forecast and the region’s reported 40‐year Census trend in household size. The MERLAM

model is intended to capture the fundamental trends that impact the relative competitiveness of

specific communities as the region’s population changes in the future.

4 The REMI model is purchased jointing between the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission and the University of Pittsburgh where the author works. This report did not develop any separate REMI forecasts beyond what is distributed by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission. For more on the REMI model and Allegheny County population projections see: Housing and Social‐Demographic Trends. A report for Allegheny Places: the Allegheny County Comprehensive Plan, Prepared by the University Center for Social and Urban Research ,Sabina Deitrick, Christopher Briem, & Angela Williams Foster in cooperation with McCormick Taylor, Inc. Engineers and Planners. December 2005.


25

The SPC population forecasts for the North Allegheny School District and its constituent municipalities

are included in table 7 and figure 10. These forecasts show moderate population growth in each

municipality. Overall the district is projected to increase from a population of 46,262 in 2010 to 58,139

in 2040.

Table 7.Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission Long Range Population Forecasts North Allegheny School District and Municipalities

Municipality 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Bradford Woods 1,222 1,242 1,273 1,307 1,354 1,414 1,475

Franklin Park 12,446 13,123 13,887 14,755 15,735 16,795 17,943

McCandless 25,831 25,659 25,732 26,036 26,722 27,466 28,279

Marshall 6,763 7,232 7,755 8,344 8,993 9,693 10,442

District 46,262 47,256 48,647 50,442 52,804 55,368 58,139

5‐year Growth

2010‐15 2015‐20 2020‐25 2025‐30 2030‐35 2035‐40

Bradford Woods 1.6% 2.5% 2.7% 3.6% 4.4% 4.3%

Franklin Park 5.4% 5.8% 6.3% 6.6% 6.7% 6.8%

Marshall 6.9% 7.2% 7.6% 7.8% 7.8% 7.7%

McCandless ‐0.7% 0.3% 1.2% 2.6% 2.8% 3.0%

Source: Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Also presented here in Figure 11 is a comparison of school district population projections also prepared

by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission. The North Allegheny School District is projected to have

the 10th highest rate of population increase between 2010 and 2040 among the 43 school districts

within Allegheny County. Regardless of whether the specific amount of population gain is achieved, the

distribution of future growth within Allegheny County is more likely to match these patterns.

The enrollment forecasts developed in the following section are not directly derived from these SPC

population forecasts for the municipalities of the North Allegheny School District. The forecasts of

elementary school enrollments developed here focus on younger age cohorts and anticipated

enrollment change in the term. Nonetheless the SPC forecasts provide a broader insight into the longer

term trends that are likely to impact population trends across the Pittsburgh region and the patterns of

anticipated growth or decline between subareas of Southwestern Pennsylvania.


26

Figure 10.Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission Long Range Population Forecasts North Allegheny School District and Municipalities


0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Bradford Wood

Franklin Park

McCandless

Marshall

District


27

Figure 11.Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission Long Range Population Forecasts North Allegheny School District and Municipalities


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Carlynton Sto‐Rox

Keystone Oaks Allegheny Valley

Penn Hills McKeesport Area

Wilkinsburg Borough Steel Valley

Elizabeth Forward Woodland Hills

Riverview Pittsburgh

Baldwin‐Whitehall Northgate

East Allegheny North Hills

Duquesne City Highlands

Brentwood Borough Cornell

Bethel Park Upper Saint Clair South Allegheny

Shaler Area West Mifflin Area

Gateway Mt Lebanon Clairton City South Park

Plum Borough Fort Cherry

West Jefferson Hills Quaker Valley

Hampton Township North Allegheny Chartiers Valley

Moon Area Fox Chapel Area

Deer Lakes Avonworth

West Allegheny Montour

South Fayette Township Pine‐Richland


28

Appendix. District Migration Patterns

An important factor in determining future enrollment patterns for the district comes from the migration

of families with school age children.

Only limited data is directly available via the Census Bureau or other sources on the demographic

composition of recent migration flows at a municipal or school district level. Census data available via

the Public Use Microsample Data (PUMS) distributed for the American Community Survey (ACS) can be

used to compile the demographic profile of recent migrants into smaller geographic areas, though not

for areas as small as specific municipalities. PUMS data is identified to geographic areas ('PUMA' areas)

with populations of approximately 100 thousand. Within Allegheny county, PUMS area '01801' covers

an area of the North Hills of Allegheny county including all of the municipalities of the North Allegheny

school district. The geographic description of PUMA areas in the North Hills areas of Allegheny County is

shown in figure 12. With North Allegheny’s 2010 population of 48,633, it constitutes roughly half of the

PUMA area. The analysis here infers that general population migration impacting the larger North Hills

area covered by PUMA area '01801' is generally consistent with migration trends impacting the

communities of the North Allegheny School District.

Using PUMS data, a breakdown of recent migrants moving into the North Hills of Allegheny County can

be compiled and compared to the migration flow into other parts of the county. Here in figure 13, is a

breakdown by age group of new migrants moving into district. This figure describes the population that

moved from another PUMA area over the last year and may include some intra‐regional and inter‐

regional migration. In almost all cases, this means that a new migrant is someone who moved at least

between municipalities over the most recent year, but could also include population that moved into

the region from elsewhere in the country.

What this shows is that recent migrants into the North Hills are far more likely to include children

under age 18 compared to new migrants in the county as a whole. 25% of new arrivals in the North Hills

are children under 18, compared to just over 16% for Allegheny County as a whole. Elsewhere in

Allegheny County, there is a greater proportion of new arrivals between the ages of 18 and 24 reflecting

the concentration of college matriculants mostly in the City of Pittsburgh.

Of the new arrivals who are under age 18, figure 14 further breaks down this migration flow by single

year of age. This figure is the breakdown of recent arrivals solely among the population that is under age

18. While new children moving into the North Hills are spread across all age groups, there is a particular

concentration of new arrivals age 1 or less. This concentration of migration for younger children is

consistent with the growth of younger age cohorts shown earlier.


29

Figure 12. Census PUMA areas in the North Hills of Allegheny County


30

Figure 13.Age Distribution of New migrants into North Hills communities of Allegheny County

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Under 18 Age 18‐24 Age 25‐34 Age 35‐54 Age 65+

North Hills Communities Remainder of Allegheny County


31

Figure 14. Distribution by Age of Children Moving into North Hills communities of Allegheny County

9.4%

8.9%

6.3% 6.5%

5.4%

6.6%

4.6%5.0% 4.8%

4.4%

5.9%

4.7% 4.9%5.3%

5.0%

5.8%6.3%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Demographic Trends Impacting the North Allegheny School District

Documents

Transcript of Demographic Trends Impacting the North Allegheny School District