State of Rural Minnesota 2013-preview

State of Rural Minnesota

Report 2013

Who we are

In 1997, a group of rural Minnesota advocates came together to create a rural policy “think tank” that would provide policy makers, rural advocates and concerned citizens with an objective, unbiased and politically “unspun” examination of contemporary rural issues.

 Based in St. Peter, Minn.

 Non-partisan, non-profit policy research organization

 Dedicated to providing Minnesota’s policy makers with an unbiased evaluation of issues from a rural perspective.

 The Center is recognized as a leading resource for rural policy research and development.

Center for Rural Policy & Development, 2013

Growth of Minnesota’s regions, 1900 to 2010

-50.0%

0.0%

50.0%

100.0%

150.0%

200.0%

250.0%

300.0%

350.0%

400.0%

450.0%

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Metroplex

Southeast River Valley

Southwestern Cornbelt

Northwest Valley

Up North

Central Lakes


Population change, 1990-2010

!"#$"%&'$()%*"

!"#$%&'()*)+

',*,+&-$&)*,+

(*)+&-$&,*,+

()*)+&-$&.,*,+

/)*)+&012&03$4"

50-0&6$789":;*<*&="1676&!78"07>

?$@7#0-A$1&B6-AC0-"6&?8$D80CE&="1-"8&F$8&G780#&?$#A9H&012&5"4"#$@C"1-

!"#$%&'%()$%*&&+,

-&&.)/.)/01

23$"45"($4

6")0&7$0

*"+$0"

8/0$

-"0"9$.

:/(#/0

6/33$%!".,

;,"0(/

<(($4%="/324&5%*/01

=&++

>4"0(

?($@$0,=4"@$4,$

?5/'(

?($"40,

?)$49A40$

:0&#"-"0+/B&)/6$$#$4

2)/CC$5"*4/1)(

D$33&5%6$+/./0$

!/0.&30 !B&0

8/C$,(&0$

E&.# F&93$,

6A44"B

E$+5&&+

6.!$&+

?/93$B G"#&("?.&((

!$%?A$A4H4&50

*"(&05"0

I".#,&0

*",$."

E/.$

?($$3$ G&+1$<37,($+ */0&0"

J&A,(&0K/337&4$

-/((,&0

23"B H$.#$4

2"43(&0

;(",."

H$3(4"7/

JA99"4+ 2",,

6&44/,&0G&A13",

8&C$

2&((&05&&+

6"4(/0

E&,$"A

6"4,)"33

8&3#

F&47"0

*/3#/0

E$+%!"#$

E$0@/33$

F/.&33$(

K4$$9&40 6&5$4

H3A$%L"4()

J$00$C/0

K"4/9"A3(

>&&+)A$ *"9",)"

2)/,"1&

*",)/01(&0

E"7,M

!"#$

?(M%!&A/,

!".%NA/%8"43$

2&&#

2"4@$4

H/1%?(&0$

H$0(&0

8$00/01(&0

!"#$%&'%(%

  From 1990 to 2010, the state’s population grew by nearly 1 million, to 5.3 million. The most dramatic growth was seen in the Twin Cities suburbs, stretching up into the Central Lakes area.


Population projections, 2010-2035

25.7%

11.1%

-2.2%

14.3%

9.5%

24.7%

21.5%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%



County Decrease in white population

Increase in minority population

Change in total population

Clearwater -116 502 386

Fillmore -243 332 89

Hennepin -88,200 208,194 119,994

Kandiyohi -1,093 4,571 3,478

Lyon -1,691 2,759 1,068

Mahnomen -1,129 1,498 369

Mower -3,753 5,531 1,778

Nobles -4,953 6,233 1,280

Pennington -175 799 624

Ramsey -80,755 103,630 22,875

Roseau -59 662 603

Sibley -352 1,212 860

St. Louis -6,678 8,691 2,013

Todd -137 1,669 1,532

Waseca -506 1,563 1,057

Fifteen counties that experienced population growth between 1990 and 2010 due to growth in their minority populations (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Twelve of them are not in a Metropolitan Statistical Area.

Workforce in the manufacturing sector, 2011

Percentage of workforce employed in manufacturing

Less than 6.0%

6.0% to 8.9%

9.0% to 11.9%

12.0% to 16.9%

17.0% and above

Data source:U.S. Department of Commerce

Bureau of Economic Analysis© Center for Rural Policy and Development

Lake of the Woods

Koochiching

Clea

rwat

er

Mahnomen

Wad

ena

Pine

Kana

bec

Aitkin

Mille Lacs

Isanti

Otter TailCrow Wing

Todd

Grant

StevensTraverse

Swift

Stearns

Sherburne

AnokaKandiyohiMeeker

ChippewaWright

Yellow Medicine

Lincoln Lyon

Pipe

ston

e

Rock Nobles

Murray

Redwood

McLeod

Sibley DakotaScott

Le SueurBrown

Watonwan

Jackson

Was

eca

Rice

Steele DodgeOlmsted Winona

HoustonFillmore

Kittson

Clay Becker

Carlton

Itasca

Beltrami

Hubbard Cass

MorrisonDouglas

Pope

Cottonwood

Martin

Roseau

Marshall

Polk Pennington

Norman

Wilkin

Red Lake

Renville

Nicollet

Freeborn Mower

Blue Earth

Hennepin

Faribault

Goodhue Wabasha

Chisa

goW

ashi

ngto

n

Ram

s.

Lake

St. Louis

Lac Qui Parle

Cook

Carver

Big Stone

Benton

No Data

Title here

  Despite losing nearly 50,000 manufacturing jobs between 2005 and 2009, Minnesota still has a number of counties—mostly rural—where employment is concentrated in manufacturing.


Average earnings in farming, 2011

!"#$%#!&'&&&

!("'"""#$%#!(&'&&&

!)"'"""#$%#!*+'&&&

!*,'"""#$%#!,&'&&&

!-"'"""#./0#.1%23

4%#5.$.

5.$.#6%7893:;<=<#53>.8$?3/$#%@#A%??3893B783.7#%@#C9%/%?D9#E/.FG6D6

H#A3/$38#@%8#I78.F#J%FD9G#./0#5323F%>?3/$

!"#$%&'%()$%*&&+,

-&&.)/.)/01

23$"45"($4

6")0&7$0

*"+$0"

8/0$

-"0"9$.

:/(#/0

6/33$%!".,

;,"0(/

<(($4%="/324&5%*/01

=&++

>4"0(

?($@$0,=4"@$4,$

?5/'(

?($"40,

?)$49A40$

:0&#"-"0+/B&)/6$$#$4

2)/CC$5"*4/1)(

D$33&5%6$+/./0$

!/0.&30 !B&0

8/C$,(&0$

E&.# F&93$,

6A44"B

E$+5&&+

6.!$&+

?/93$B G"#&("?.&((

!$%?A$A4H4&50

*"(&05"0

I".#,&0

*",$."

E/.$

?($$3$ G&+1$<37,($+ */0&0"

J&A,(&0K/337&4$

-/((,&0

23"B H$.#$4

2"43(&0

;(",."

H$3(4"7/

JA99"4+ 2",,

6&44/,&0G&A13",

8&C$

2&((&05&&+

6"4(/0

E&,$"A

6"4,)"33

8&3# 8$00/01(&0

F&47"0

*/3#/0

E$+%!"#$

E$0@/33$

F/.&33$(

K4$$9&40 6&5$4

H3A$%L"4()

J$00$C/0

K"4/9"A3(

>&&+)A$ *"9",)"

2)/,"1&

*",)/01(&0

E"7,M

!"#$

?(M%!&A/,

!".%NA/%8"43$

2&&#

2"4@$4

H/1%?(&0$

H$0(&0

!"#$%&#'#%$()(&*'+#$',%$-'./$0#$

  Farming has had a strong presence in Minnesota historically and continues to do so today. The distribution of wealth from farming is apparent.


Health


Region Percent of population enrolled in MinnesotaCare

Metroplex 1.7%

Southeast River Valley 2.1%

Southwestern Cornbelt 2.5%

Northwest Valley 3.1%

Up North 3.2%

Central Lakes 4.4%

Minnesota 2.1%

Percent of population enrolled in MinnesotaCare, based on average monthly enrollment for 2009 (Minnesota Department of Human Services, 2011)

Graduation Rates, 2009-2010

  To calculate the graduation rate here, the number of graduates was divided by the number of ninth-graders four years earlier, adjusting for students dropping out or leaving the district.

  Districts with graduating classes under 40 were not included.


!"#$%&%

!"#$%#&'()*+#&,

'()*+#,#-(+

-().+#,#-*+

-*).+#,#/(+

/().+#,#/*+

/*).+#,#.((+

0%&%#1"23456789951"&%#05:%3&;59&#"<#=$24%&8"9

>#?59&53#<"3#@23%A#B"A84C#%9$#05D5A":;59&

Free lunch eligibility, 2010-2011

!"#$%&%

!"#$"%&'(")*+),&-."%&,)"/0(01/")+*#)+#"")*#)#".-$".)/-%$2

'()*#+#,-(,*

,-(.*#+#./('*

./(0*#+#1'*

1'(2*#+#/3(0*

/3()*#+#233*

4%&%#5"6789:;<==95"&%#49>%7&?9=&#"@#A$68%&<"=

B#C9=&97#@"7#D67%E#F"E<8G#%=$#49H9E">?9=&

  For the state of Minnesota, 37.2% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in the 2010-2011 school year. Since recipients’ families must meet certain income guidelines to qualify, free and reduced-price lunch can be a good proxy for poverty rates.


Thank You!

Atlas of Minnesota Online

www.ruralmn.org

State of Rural Minnesota 2013-preview

Documents

Transcript of State of Rural Minnesota 2013-preview