Search

Search Results

• 21. [Article] Forest Grove School District: Enrollment Forecast 2016-17 to 2025-26

  This report presents a series of three scenarios of district-wide enrollment forecasts by grade level for the Forest Grove School District (FGSD) for the 10 year period between 2016-17 and 2025-26. Each ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Forest Grove School District: Enrollment Forecast 2016-17 to 2025-26 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Rynerson, Charles, Stewart, Scott, Chun, Nicholas Year: 2016 This report presents a series of three scenarios of district-wide enrollment forecasts by grade level for the Forest Grove School District (FGSD) for the 10 year period between 2016-17 and 2025-26. Each enrollment forecast scenario is related to population forecasts that incorporate different assumptions about growth within the District, with the primary differences being the contribution of net migration to the District’s population and age distribution. Individual school forecasts consistent with the middle series scenario are also presented for the 10 year period. Title: Forest Grove School District: Enrollment Forecast 2016-17 to 2025-26 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Rynerson, Charles, Stewart, Scott, Chun, Nicholas Year: 2016 This report presents a series of three scenarios of district-wide enrollment forecasts by grade level for the Forest Grove School District (FGSD) for the 10 year period between 2016-17 and 2025-26. Each enrollment forecast scenario is related to population forecasts that incorporate different assumptions about growth within the District, with the primary differences being the contribution of net migration to the District’s population and age distribution. Individual school forecasts consistent with the middle series scenario are also presented for the 10 year period. Close

• 22. [Article] Oregon City School District Enrollment Forecasts 2017-18 to 2026-27

  This report presents a range of three scenarios of district‐wide enrollment forecasts by grade level for the Oregon City School District (OCSD) for the 10 year period between 2017‐18 and 2026‐27. Each ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Oregon City School District Enrollment Forecasts 2017-18 to 2026-27 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Rynerson, Charles, Stewart, Scott, Yang, Xi Year: 2017 This report presents a range of three scenarios of district‐wide enrollment forecasts by grade level for the Oregon City School District (OCSD) for the 10 year period between 2017‐18 and 2026‐27. Each enrollment forecast scenario is related to population forecasts that incorporate different assumptions about growth within the District, with the primary differences being the contribution of net migration to the District’s population and age distribution. Individual school forecasts consistent with the middle range scenario are also presented for the 10 year period. Title: Oregon City School District Enrollment Forecasts 2017-18 to 2026-27 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Rynerson, Charles, Stewart, Scott, Yang, Xi Year: 2017 This report presents a range of three scenarios of district‐wide enrollment forecasts by grade level for the Oregon City School District (OCSD) for the 10 year period between 2017‐18 and 2026‐27. Each enrollment forecast scenario is related to population forecasts that incorporate different assumptions about growth within the District, with the primary differences being the contribution of net migration to the District’s population and age distribution. Individual school forecasts consistent with the middle range scenario are also presented for the 10 year period. Close

• 23. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Jefferson County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065

  Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Jefferson ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Jefferson County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Jefferson County’s total population has grown steadily since 2000, with average annual growth rates of a little more than one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Culver posted the highest average annual growth rate 5.4 percent during the 2000 to 2010 period. Jefferson County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of steady natural increase— the difference between births and deaths—and substantial net in-migration from 2006 to 2008. Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years and a consequent decline in births. The growing number of deaths and shrinking number of births led to declining natural increase. While net inmigration and steady natural increase contributed to population growth during the early and middle years of the last decade, both of these numbers shrank during more recent years—slowing population growth from 2010 to 2013. Total population in Jefferson County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the first 20 years of the forecast period (2015 to 2035) relative to the last 30 years (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to lead to declining natural increase (births minus deaths). As natural increase declines population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Jefferson County’s total population is forecast to increase by more than 5,100 over the next 20 years (2015-2035) and by nearly 11,000 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2015-2065). The Madras UGB will likely show slightly stronger population growth—relative to the 2000s—in the initial 20 year forecast period, but population growth is expected to slow during the last 30 years. Population within the Culver UGB is expected to grow at a much slower rate—relative to the 2000s—in the initial 20-year forecast period. Population growth in Culver is also expected to taper throughout the last 30 years of the forecast period. The area outside UGBs is forecast to grow at a steadier, although lower rate than the UGBs throughout the forecast period. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Jefferson County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Jefferson County’s total population has grown steadily since 2000, with average annual growth rates of a little more than one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Culver posted the highest average annual growth rate 5.4 percent during the 2000 to 2010 period. Jefferson County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of steady natural increase— the difference between births and deaths—and substantial net in-migration from 2006 to 2008. Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years and a consequent decline in births. The growing number of deaths and shrinking number of births led to declining natural increase. While net inmigration and steady natural increase contributed to population growth during the early and middle years of the last decade, both of these numbers shrank during more recent years—slowing population growth from 2010 to 2013. Total population in Jefferson County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the first 20 years of the forecast period (2015 to 2035) relative to the last 30 years (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to lead to declining natural increase (births minus deaths). As natural increase declines population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Jefferson County’s total population is forecast to increase by more than 5,100 over the next 20 years (2015-2035) and by nearly 11,000 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2015-2065). The Madras UGB will likely show slightly stronger population growth—relative to the 2000s—in the initial 20 year forecast period, but population growth is expected to slow during the last 30 years. Population within the Culver UGB is expected to grow at a much slower rate—relative to the 2000s—in the initial 20-year forecast period. Population growth in Culver is also expected to taper throughout the last 30 years of the forecast period. The area outside UGBs is forecast to grow at a steadier, although lower rate than the UGBs throughout the forecast period. Close

• 24. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Klamath County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065

  Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county, and the local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Klamath ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Klamath County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county, and the local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Klamath County’s total population has grown slowly since 2000 with average annual growth rates of less than one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however, some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Malin and the area outside UGBs posted the highest average annual growth rates at 2.4 and 0.7 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Klamath County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was due to the combination of net inmigration and natural increase (births minus deaths). At the same time an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years and a consequent decline in births. The growing number of deaths and shrinking number of births led natural increase—the difference between births and deaths—to decline from 2000 to 2014. While net in-migration and natural increase both contributed to population growth from 2000 to 2010, in recent years (i.e., 2011-2014) these two numbers shrank—slowing population growth. Total population in Klamath County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the first 20 years of the forecast period (2015 to 2035), and more slowly in the last 30 years (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to lead to declining natural increase. As natural increase declines and becomes natural decrease, population growth is expected to become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Klamath County’s total population is forecast to increase by more than 5,100 over the next 20 years (2015-2035), but the county as whole is expected to see population decline over the last 30 years of the forecast period. With the exception of the area outside UGBs most sub-areas that saw population growth in the 2000s are forecast to have growth throughout the forecast period. Some sub-areas that experienced population loss in the 2000s are expected to show population increase throughout the forecast period, but these gains will likely be small. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Klamath County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county, and the local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Klamath County’s total population has grown slowly since 2000 with average annual growth rates of less than one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however, some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Malin and the area outside UGBs posted the highest average annual growth rates at 2.4 and 0.7 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Klamath County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was due to the combination of net inmigration and natural increase (births minus deaths). At the same time an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years and a consequent decline in births. The growing number of deaths and shrinking number of births led natural increase—the difference between births and deaths—to decline from 2000 to 2014. While net in-migration and natural increase both contributed to population growth from 2000 to 2010, in recent years (i.e., 2011-2014) these two numbers shrank—slowing population growth. Total population in Klamath County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the first 20 years of the forecast period (2015 to 2035), and more slowly in the last 30 years (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to lead to declining natural increase. As natural increase declines and becomes natural decrease, population growth is expected to become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Klamath County’s total population is forecast to increase by more than 5,100 over the next 20 years (2015-2035), but the county as whole is expected to see population decline over the last 30 years of the forecast period. With the exception of the area outside UGBs most sub-areas that saw population growth in the 2000s are forecast to have growth throughout the forecast period. Some sub-areas that experienced population loss in the 2000s are expected to show population increase throughout the forecast period, but these gains will likely be small. Close

• 25. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Union County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066

  Union County’s total population has grown slowly since 2000, with an average annual growth rate of half percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). However, some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Union County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 Union County’s total population has grown slowly since 2000, with an average annual growth rate of half percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). However, some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Summerville posted the highest average annual growth rate of 1.4 percent, and Imbler and Union were close behind with average annual growth rates of about 1.2 percent each. Union County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the combined result of a consistent natural increase and a net in-migration. The larger number of births relative to deaths has led to a natural increase (more births than deaths) in every year from 2000 to 2015 (Figure 12). While net in-migration fluctuated dramatically during the early years of the last decade, the number of in-migrants has been slightly more stable during recent years, accounting for the majority of Union County’s population increase. Total population in Union County as a whole as well as within some of its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the nearer-term (2016 to 2035) compared to the longer-term (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to contribute to natural decrease (more deaths than births). As natural decrease occurs, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Steady increase in net in-migration is expected to offset the growing natural decrease, leading to relatively steady population growth over the forecast period. However, an aging population is expected to not only lead to an increase in deaths, but a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years will likely result in a long-term stabilization in the number of births. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Union County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 Union County’s total population has grown slowly since 2000, with an average annual growth rate of half percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). However, some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Summerville posted the highest average annual growth rate of 1.4 percent, and Imbler and Union were close behind with average annual growth rates of about 1.2 percent each. Union County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the combined result of a consistent natural increase and a net in-migration. The larger number of births relative to deaths has led to a natural increase (more births than deaths) in every year from 2000 to 2015 (Figure 12). While net in-migration fluctuated dramatically during the early years of the last decade, the number of in-migrants has been slightly more stable during recent years, accounting for the majority of Union County’s population increase. Total population in Union County as a whole as well as within some of its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the nearer-term (2016 to 2035) compared to the longer-term (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to contribute to natural decrease (more deaths than births). As natural decrease occurs, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Steady increase in net in-migration is expected to offset the growing natural decrease, leading to relatively steady population growth over the forecast period. However, an aging population is expected to not only lead to an increase in deaths, but a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years will likely result in a long-term stabilization in the number of births. Close

• 26. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Harney County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066

  Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Harney ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Harney County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Harney County’s total population has slowly declined since 2000, with an average annual rate of negative 0.2 percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). Burns is accountable for the county’s overall declining population. All other sub-areas experienced very slight population growths during the 2000 to 2010 period, increasing by a total of 32 persons. Harney County’s population decline in the 2000s was the direct result of frequent net out-migration. The county’s aging population has contributed to an increase in deaths, however, a larger number of births relative to deaths caused a natural increase for 8 out of the 15 years between 2000 and 2015 (Figure 12). Even so, net out-migration outweighed these slight natural increases, causing a slow decrease in the Harney County’s population since 2000. Total population in Harney County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas are forecast to all decrease at a slightly faster rate in the near-term (2016 to 2035) compared to the long-term (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to contribute to a natural decrease (more deaths than births). As natural decrease occurs, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Harney County’s total population is forecast to decrease by more than 500 persons over the entire 50-year forecast period (2016-2066), a loss in population mostly happening in areas outside the UGBs. Sub-areas are expected to generally follow historical patterns of population decrease over the forecast period. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Harney County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Harney County’s total population has slowly declined since 2000, with an average annual rate of negative 0.2 percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). Burns is accountable for the county’s overall declining population. All other sub-areas experienced very slight population growths during the 2000 to 2010 period, increasing by a total of 32 persons. Harney County’s population decline in the 2000s was the direct result of frequent net out-migration. The county’s aging population has contributed to an increase in deaths, however, a larger number of births relative to deaths caused a natural increase for 8 out of the 15 years between 2000 and 2015 (Figure 12). Even so, net out-migration outweighed these slight natural increases, causing a slow decrease in the Harney County’s population since 2000. Total population in Harney County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas are forecast to all decrease at a slightly faster rate in the near-term (2016 to 2035) compared to the long-term (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to contribute to a natural decrease (more deaths than births). As natural decrease occurs, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Harney County’s total population is forecast to decrease by more than 500 persons over the entire 50-year forecast period (2016-2066), a loss in population mostly happening in areas outside the UGBs. Sub-areas are expected to generally follow historical patterns of population decrease over the forecast period. Close

• 27. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Wasco County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066

  Wasco County’s total population has grown slowly since 2000, with average annual growth rates of less than one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). The Dalles UGB and the area outside UGBs posted ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Wasco County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 Wasco County’s total population has grown slowly since 2000, with average annual growth rates of less than one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). The Dalles UGB and the area outside UGBs posted the highest average annual growth rates, both at about 0.6 percent during the 2000 to 2010 period. Wasco County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of a substantial net in-migration and periods of small natural increases and decreases (Figure 12). While net in-migration fluctuated dramatically during the early years of the last decade, the number of in-migrants has been more stable during second half of the decade and the recent years, contributing to a population increase. Total population in Wasco County as a whole as well as within some of its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the near-term (2016 to 2035) compared to the long-term (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to contribute to a natural decrease (more deaths than births)—as well as a decline in net in-migration toward the end of the forecast. Even so, Wasco County’s total population is forecast to increase by nearly 4,400 over the next 19 years (2016-2035) and by more than 10,500 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2016-2066). The Dalles, Mosier, and the area outside UGBs are expected to grow the most of all of Wasco County’s sub-areas. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Wasco County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 Wasco County’s total population has grown slowly since 2000, with average annual growth rates of less than one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). The Dalles UGB and the area outside UGBs posted the highest average annual growth rates, both at about 0.6 percent during the 2000 to 2010 period. Wasco County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of a substantial net in-migration and periods of small natural increases and decreases (Figure 12). While net in-migration fluctuated dramatically during the early years of the last decade, the number of in-migrants has been more stable during second half of the decade and the recent years, contributing to a population increase. Total population in Wasco County as a whole as well as within some of its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the near-term (2016 to 2035) compared to the long-term (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to contribute to a natural decrease (more deaths than births)—as well as a decline in net in-migration toward the end of the forecast. Even so, Wasco County’s total population is forecast to increase by nearly 4,400 over the next 19 years (2016-2035) and by more than 10,500 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2016-2066). The Dalles, Mosier, and the area outside UGBs are expected to grow the most of all of Wasco County’s sub-areas. Close

• 28. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Malheur County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066

  During the 2000s, Malheur County, as a whole, experienced population decline (Figure 1); however three of its sub-areas recorded a slight population increase. Adrian grew at an average annual rate of nearly ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Malheur County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 During the 2000s, Malheur County, as a whole, experienced population decline (Figure 1); however three of its sub-areas recorded a slight population increase. Adrian grew at an average annual rate of nearly two percent, while Ontario and the area outside UGBs saw more modest growth rates. Even so the population loss recorded by Vale, Nyssa, and Jordan Valley totaled nearly 600, leading the countywide population to decrease. Malheur County’s population decline in the 2000s was the combined result of a diminishing natural increase and periods of substantial net out-migration (Figure 12). The larger number of births relative to deaths has led to a natural increase (more births than deaths) in every year from 2000 to 2015. Net out-migration slowed toward the end of the last decade (2000-2010) combining with a relatively steady natural increase for moderate population increase in four out of the five years since 2010. Malheur County’s total population is forecast to grow by a little more than 400 persons (1.3 percent) from 2016 to 2066, which translates into a total countywide population of nearly 32,000 in 2066 (Figure 1). Population growth is forecast to be modest, becoming increasingly so as time progresses through the forecast period. Forecasting modest population growth is driven by both an aging population—contributing to a steady increase in deaths over the entire forecast period—as well as diminishing net out-migration. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Malheur County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 During the 2000s, Malheur County, as a whole, experienced population decline (Figure 1); however three of its sub-areas recorded a slight population increase. Adrian grew at an average annual rate of nearly two percent, while Ontario and the area outside UGBs saw more modest growth rates. Even so the population loss recorded by Vale, Nyssa, and Jordan Valley totaled nearly 600, leading the countywide population to decrease. Malheur County’s population decline in the 2000s was the combined result of a diminishing natural increase and periods of substantial net out-migration (Figure 12). The larger number of births relative to deaths has led to a natural increase (more births than deaths) in every year from 2000 to 2015. Net out-migration slowed toward the end of the last decade (2000-2010) combining with a relatively steady natural increase for moderate population increase in four out of the five years since 2010. Malheur County’s total population is forecast to grow by a little more than 400 persons (1.3 percent) from 2016 to 2066, which translates into a total countywide population of nearly 32,000 in 2066 (Figure 1). Population growth is forecast to be modest, becoming increasingly so as time progresses through the forecast period. Forecasting modest population growth is driven by both an aging population—contributing to a steady increase in deaths over the entire forecast period—as well as diminishing net out-migration. Close

• 29. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Grant County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066

  Grant County’s total population has declined since 2000, losing an average of about 50 persons per year between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). With the exception of minimal population increase among three small ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Grant County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 Grant County’s total population has declined since 2000, losing an average of about 50 persons per year between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). With the exception of minimal population increase among three small UGBs, every sub-area recorded population loss during the 2000s. Prairie City and the area outside UGBs posted the largest losses, losing on average about 17 and 19 persons per year, respectively. Grant County’s population decline in the 2000s was the result of a consistent natural decrease as well as relatively steady net out-migration (Figure 12). The smaller number of births relative to deaths led to a natural decrease (more deaths than births) in nearly every year from 2000 to 2015. While net out-migration was common during the last decade (2000-2010), in recent years (2010-2015) net in-migration has occurred. Even so, natural decrease has persisted and generally exceeded net in-migration, leading to continued population decline. Grant County is expected to experience population decline over the 50-year forecast period. This population loss will likely occur at a relatively uniform rate among the county’s sub-areas, with losses occurring at an increasing rate as time progresses. For Grant County as a whole, increasing natural decrease and relatively steady net in-migration are expected to lead to population decline. An aging population is expected to not only lead to an increase in deaths, but a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years will likely result in a long-term decline in births. Net in-migration is expected to persist throughout the entire forecast period, but will not fully offset the natural decrease, leading to population decline. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Grant County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 Grant County’s total population has declined since 2000, losing an average of about 50 persons per year between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). With the exception of minimal population increase among three small UGBs, every sub-area recorded population loss during the 2000s. Prairie City and the area outside UGBs posted the largest losses, losing on average about 17 and 19 persons per year, respectively. Grant County’s population decline in the 2000s was the result of a consistent natural decrease as well as relatively steady net out-migration (Figure 12). The smaller number of births relative to deaths led to a natural decrease (more deaths than births) in nearly every year from 2000 to 2015. While net out-migration was common during the last decade (2000-2010), in recent years (2010-2015) net in-migration has occurred. Even so, natural decrease has persisted and generally exceeded net in-migration, leading to continued population decline. Grant County is expected to experience population decline over the 50-year forecast period. This population loss will likely occur at a relatively uniform rate among the county’s sub-areas, with losses occurring at an increasing rate as time progresses. For Grant County as a whole, increasing natural decrease and relatively steady net in-migration are expected to lead to population decline. An aging population is expected to not only lead to an increase in deaths, but a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years will likely result in a long-term decline in births. Net in-migration is expected to persist throughout the entire forecast period, but will not fully offset the natural decrease, leading to population decline. Close

• 30. [Article] Methods and Data for Developing Coordinated Population Forecasts

  This document is to accompany the coordinated population forecasts and their corresponding reports prepared by the Population Research Center (PRC). Developing long-term coordinated population forecasts ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Methods and Data for Developing Coordinated Population Forecasts Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center Year: 2015 This document is to accompany the coordinated population forecasts and their corresponding reports prepared by the Population Research Center (PRC). Developing long-term coordinated population forecasts for a county and its sub-areas (UGBs and areas outside UGBs are referred to sub-areas in this document), requires these main stages: 1) compiling and evaluating historical and recent data to ascertain demographic characteristics and trends in the study area and to obtain a population base from which the forecasts may be launched; 2) making assumptions about the future and adjusting the data or rates in the forecasting models (calibrating the models) to incorporate predicted rates or trends; and 3) reconciling, or adjusting the forecasts so the sum of the sub-area forecasts is consistent with the forecast for the county total. We first develop population projections and then we make adjustments to these projections in order to produce population forecasts. Population projections are developed by extending historical and current demographic and housing trends into the future. Forecasting population requires that assumptions be made about future population change, and adjusting the projection models to account for circumstances that perhaps skewed past trends or may affect future change. Such circumstances in the past could be a building moratorium or the opening of a new group quarters facility. Events affecting future change would be, for example, planned future housing development that is higher than usual, a foreseen change in an area’s physical ability to accommodate growth (buildable land available is approaching capacity or improvements to infrastructure are underway), anticipated changes in the economy (the location of a new employer or the upswing or downturn of the economy in general), or an expected change in the local population and household composition (age, ethnicity, and average household size). Title: Methods and Data for Developing Coordinated Population Forecasts Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center Year: 2015 This document is to accompany the coordinated population forecasts and their corresponding reports prepared by the Population Research Center (PRC). Developing long-term coordinated population forecasts for a county and its sub-areas (UGBs and areas outside UGBs are referred to sub-areas in this document), requires these main stages: 1) compiling and evaluating historical and recent data to ascertain demographic characteristics and trends in the study area and to obtain a population base from which the forecasts may be launched; 2) making assumptions about the future and adjusting the data or rates in the forecasting models (calibrating the models) to incorporate predicted rates or trends; and 3) reconciling, or adjusting the forecasts so the sum of the sub-area forecasts is consistent with the forecast for the county total. We first develop population projections and then we make adjustments to these projections in order to produce population forecasts. Population projections are developed by extending historical and current demographic and housing trends into the future. Forecasting population requires that assumptions be made about future population change, and adjusting the projection models to account for circumstances that perhaps skewed past trends or may affect future change. Such circumstances in the past could be a building moratorium or the opening of a new group quarters facility. Events affecting future change would be, for example, planned future housing development that is higher than usual, a foreseen change in an area’s physical ability to accommodate growth (buildable land available is approaching capacity or improvements to infrastructure are underway), anticipated changes in the economy (the location of a new employer or the upswing or downturn of the economy in general), or an expected change in the local population and household composition (age, ethnicity, and average household size). Close