ML041900209

Social Indicators - 2000, by the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments, June 2003

ML041900209
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	06/01/2003
From:	Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments
To:	Emch R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Emch R, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-1590
References
FOIA/PA-2005-0115
Download: ML041900209 (56)

Text

SOCIAL INDICATORS 2000 SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

SOCIAL INDICATORS 2000 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department ofTransportation, Federal HighwayAdministration, the Federal Transit Administration, and the Connecticut Department of Transportation. The opinions, findings, and conclusions espressed in this publication are those of the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments and do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Connecticut Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Admiinistration or the Federal Transit Administration.

SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 5 Connecticut Avenue, Norwich, Ct. 06360 June, 2003

SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SCCOG)

REPRESENTATIVE:

Paul Eccard, First Selectman, Waterford, Chairman Dennis Popp, Mayor, City of Groton, Vice Chairman Keith Robbins, First Selectman, Bozrah, Secretary Paul Brycki, First Selectman, Griswold, Treasurer Jenny Contois, First Selectman, Colchester Wayne Fraser, First Selectman, East Lyme Richard Matters, First Selectman, Franklin Frank O'Beimne, Mayor, Town of Groton Wesley Johnson, Mayor, Ledyard Thomas Sparkman, First Selectman, Lisbon Howard Beetham, Mayor, Montville Elizabeth Sabilia, Mayor, New London Nicholas Mullane, First Selectman, North Stonington Arthur Lathrop, Mayor, Norwich Robert Congdon, First Selectman, Preston Peter Sielman, First Selectman, Salem Dennison Allen, First Selectman, Sprague Peter Dibble, First Selectman, Stonington Andrew Maynard, Warden, Borough of Stonington Thomas Wilber, First Selectman, Voluntown ALTERNATES:

Mark Oefinger, Town Manager, Groton Sharon Wadecki, Ledyard Joseph Jaskiewicz, Montville Richard Brown, City Manager, New London Mac Turner, North Stonington Richard Podurgiel, City Manager, Norwich Gerald Grabarek, Preston James Fogarty, Salem Joan Charron-Nagle, Sprague George Sylvestre, Stonington Judy duPont, Borough of Stonington SCCOG STAFF James S. Butler, AICP, Executive Director S. Richard Guggenheim, Assistant Director Thomas Seidel, Planner III

• Richard Serra, Planner III

• James Rabbitt, AICP, Planner m Linda Parquette, Planner III Wendy Leclair, Executive Secretary Colleen Bezanson, GIS Specialist

• Principal responsibility for preparing the report.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I.

CENSUS DEMOGRAPHY Population Change...............................................................

1 Population Density and Town Classification................................................................

1 Regional Population Growth...............................................................

6 Components of Population Growth.......................

6 Race and Hispanic Origin Characteristics................................................................

9 Population Age and Sex Characteristics..........................................

1.....................

1 Dependency Ratios...............................................................

19 Birth Rates...............................................................

21 II.

EDUCATION School Enrollment...............

23 Educational Attainment...............

23 mll.

INCOME CHARACTERISTICS Regional Income Statistics.................

27 Poverty Status.................

32 IV.

OCCUPATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT Labor Force Characteristics..................

39 Employment..................

45 Unemployment.........

45

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Location Map........

Frontspiece

1. Population Distribution, 2000.....................................................................

4

2. Age-Sex Distribution, 1990-2000......................

14

3. Age Groups as Percent of Total Population, 1990-2000.................................

15

4. Median Incomes At, or Above, the State and County Average, 1999.............

29

5. Distribution of Non-Farm Jobs as a Percent of Total Workforce, 2000.............

46 LIST OF TABLES Table Page

1. 1990-2000 Population, Area, and Density.

.................................................................... 2

2. Municipal Population and Rank, 1990-2000.....................................................................

5

3. Components of Population Change, 1990-2000.....................................................................

7

4. Index of Town Share Change.....................................................................

0

5. Race Alone or in Combination with One or More Other Races, 2000.............

12

6. Persons of Hispanic or Latino Origin................................

13

7. Age-Sex Composition, 2000....................................................................

16

8. Age and Age Indexes, 2000....................................................................

18

9. School Enrollment, Population 3 years and Over, Enrolled in School.............

24

10. Educational Attainment, Population 25 Years and Over, 2000.25

11. Median Household Income, 1999.28

12. Per Capita Income, 1999.30

13. Poverty Status, 1989 and 1999, Number of Persons.34

14. Poverty Status, 999, Number of Families.36

15. Poverty Status, 1999, Number of Persons by Age Group.37

16. Persons 16 Years and Over in the Labor Force, 2000............................................................

40

17. Employment Participation Rates, 2000, Population 16 Years and Over............

41

18. Women With Dependent Children in the Labor Force, 2000......................

43

19. Location of Non-Farm Jobs, 1990 and 2000.....................................................................

44

20. Industry, 2000, Employed Civilian Population 16 Years and Over...............

47

21. Occupations, 2000, Employed Civilian Population 16 Years and Over.............

48

22. Employment Status, 2000, Population 16 Years and Over....................................................

49

-I Location Map Southeastern Connecticut Planning Regioin NEW LONDON GROTON CITY E

Sca.tem Cala Coarwl of Govxmnt

qG~vwf kowmtm Sym.n 2

0 2

4 Miles

=.._I s

I. 2000 CENSUS DEMOGRAPHY POPULATION CHANGE The population of southeastern Connecticut totaled 242,759 on April 1, 2000, a net increase of 2,327 persons between 1990 and 2000, representing a growth rate of one percent. This growth rate was slower than that of Connecticut's population which grew by 3.6 percent, or 118,449 persons, to a 2000 statewide total of3,405,565 persons. OnlyPennsylvania, West Virginia, and North Dakota had slower rates of growth than Connecticut. The region's increase of 2,237 persons represents two percent of Connecticut's population growth for the decade. At the national level, the country's population grew 13.2 percent, increasing by 32,712,033 persons, to a 2000 total population of 281,421,906.

The region's 2000 population of 242,759 represents 7.1 percent of Connecticut's 2000 population, while 11.5 percent of Connecticut's land area is located in southeastern Connecticut. The region's numerical increase of 2,327 persons was the lowest absolute increase since the decade of 1810 to 1820, while the percentage increase was the slowest ever. During the 2 0 h century, the region grew by 206 percent or a rate of about 2% a year from the 79,307 persons residing here in 1900. The highest decade growth rate of the century occurred between 1950 and 1960 when a regional growth rate of28 percent was experienced. The largest numerical increase occurred between 1960 and 1970 when 41,342 residents were added. The State's population grew by 275 percent during the 20 '

century, adding nearly 21/2 million persons, while the population of the United States grew slightly slower at 270 percent, adding over 205,400,000 persons.

POPULATION DENSITY AND TowN CLASSIFICATION The 2000 population density for the region increased to 434 persons per square mile (one square mile equals 640 acres), compared to 430 persons per square mile in 1990, 404 persons per square mile in 1980, and 394 persons in 1970. This 2000 density figure is over one-third less than Connecticut's density of 703 persons per square mile. Connecticut remained the fourth most densely populated state in the nation after New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. Overall, the population density for the nation in 2000 was 80 persons per square mile making southeastern Connecticut 5Y2 times as dense as the United States.

Table 1 indicates that population densities vary for each of the municipalities comprising the southeastern Connecticut region. At the high end of the range, New London has a density of 4,667 TABLE 1:

1990-2000 POPULATION, AREA, AND DENSITY Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region 1990 Population 2000 Population Percent of Land Percent 2000 Regional Area Land Persons per Percent Change Change Population I Sq. Miles Area Sq. Mile URBAN TOWNS:

Groton New London Norwich URBAN TOTALS SUBURBAN TOWNS:

Colchester East Lyme Griswold Ledyard Lisbon Montville Preston Sprague Stonington Waterford 45,144 39,907

-5,237

-11.6 16.4 29.6 5.3 1,348 28,540 25,671

-2,869

-10.1 10.6 5.5 1.0 4,667 37,391 36,117

-1,274

-3.4 14.9 28.1 5.0 1,285 111,075 101,695

-9,380

-8.4 41.9 63.2 11.3 1,609 10,980 14,551 3,571 32.51 6.0 47.8 8.5 304 15,340 18,118 2,778 18.1 7.5 34.9 6.2 519 10,384 10,807 423 4.1 4.5 35 6.3 309 14,913 14,687

-226

-1.5 6.1 39.2 7.0 375 3,790 4,069 279 7.4 1.7 16.7 3.0 244 16,673 18,546 1,873 11.2 7.6 43.2 7.7 429 5,006 4,688

-318

-6.4 1.9 30.9 5.5 152 3,008 2,971

-37

-1.2 1.2 13.2 2.4 225 16,9191 17,9061 987 5.8 7.4 39.3 7.01 456 573 I 17,9301 19,1521 1,222 6.8 7.9 33.4 6.01 I

t

4.

4 SUBURBAN TOTALS RURAL TOWNS:

Bozrah Franklin North Stonington Salern Voluntown RURAL TOTALS REGIONAL TOTALS 114,9431 125,4951 10,5521 9.21 51.71 333.61 59.71 376 2,297 2,357 60 2.61 1.0 19.8 3.5 119 1,810 1,835 25 1.4 0.8 19.6 3.5 94 4,884 4,991 107 2.2 2.1 55.1 9.9 91 3,310 3,858 548 16.6 1.6 28.5 5.1 135 2,113 2,528 415 19.6 1.0 39.4 7.0 64 14,4141 15,5691 1,155 8.0 6.41 162.4 29.01 100.0 96 434 1/

240,432 242,759 2,327 1.0 100.0 559.2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, SCCOG persons per square mile. At the other end of the range, Voluntown, with more than half of its land area comprised of State Forest, has a density of 64 persons per square mile.

The region's three urban communities, Groton, New London, and Norwich, each had 2000 population densities over 1,000 persons per square mile. These are southeastern Connecticut's primary centers for institutional, industrial, and commercial activities. Their combined population totals 101,695 and resides in a 63.2 square mile area, representing 11 percent of the region's land area. Table 1 also indicates that 42 percent of the region's population now resides in these three urban towns, a drop from 1900 to 1950, when over 60 percent of the region's population resided in these towns. Historically, the population of these urban areas expanded as growth occurred during the late 1 9k" century and then continued into the mid 20 "h century. However, in the earlier part of the 1 9'" century the percentage of regional population residing in these urban areas was much lower. It wasn't until 1870 that at least 50 percent of the region's population resided in urban areas, and indeed, from 1810 to 1840, less than 40 percent of the population lived in these areas. Thus, from an historical perspective, the percentages of persons in these urban areas relative to the rest of the region are returning to their earlier proportions.

Bozrah, Franklin, North Stonington, Salem, and Voluntown have 135 or fewer persons per square mile and are classified as rural. These municipalities total 15,569 persons, representing six percent of the region's population. Together their land area totals 162.4 square miles, which represents 29 percent of the region's land area. The remaining ten communities listed in Table I have densities ranging from 152 to 573 persons per square mile and are classified as suburban. Fifty-two percent of the region's population now reside in these towns. These 125,495 persons live on 333.6 square miles which represents 60 percent of the region's land area.

Figure 1 depicts the distribution of the 2000 regional population, the data for which was recorded by census block. Historically, the population distribution of the southeastern Connecticut region consisted of an urbanized core along the Long Island Sound coastline and along both sides of the Thames River extending from Norwich to Groton and New London. Comparisons of the 2000 map with earlier versions reveal that this basic concentration still exists, although it has shifted somewhat reflecting population losses in the urban areas and gains in the suburban and rural areas. Pockets of concentrated population reflect villages, large subdivisions and the population associated with development along river valleys and highway corridors. Most of the recent population growth in the rural/suburban areas is scattered and at lower densities, reflecting the large lot zoning that prevails in these areas. In many cases, it reveals an infilling among existing developed areas.

SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT REGION Population Distribution, 2000 N

W+

E 1 Dot = 50 Persons 2

0 2

4 eFIGURE

TABLE 2:

MUNICIPAL POPULATION AND RANK, 1990-2000 Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region 2000 1990 Municipality Population Rank Population Rank Grotont 39,907 1

45,144 1

Norwich 36,117 2

37,391 2

New London 25,671 3

28,540 3

Waterford 19,152 4

17,930 4

Montville 18,546 5

16,673 6

East Lyme 18,118 6

15,340 7

Stonington2 17,906 7

16,919 5

Ledyard 14,687 8

14,913 8

Colchester 14,551 9

10,980 9

Griswold 10,807 10 10,384 10 North Stonington 4,991 11 4,884 12 Preston 4,688 12 5,006 11 Lisbon 4,069 13 3,790 13 Salem 3,858 14 3,310 14 Sprague 2,971 15 3,008 15 Voluntown 2,528 16 2,113 17 Bozrah 2,357 17 2,297 16 Franklin 1,835 18 1,810 18 Regional Totals:

242,759 240,432 Source: U.S. Census Bureau I Includes City of Groton.

2. Includes Borough of Stonington.

REGIONAL POPULATION GROWTH Table 2 shows that the urban towns of Groton, Norwich, and New London remained, respectively, the region's I", 2nd, and 3rd most populated towns. This is true despite the population loss experienced over the last decade. Waterford, as a suburban community, remains the 4 th most populated community. Population shifts resulted in Montville and East Lyme becoming the region's 5t and 6' most populated towns with Stonington dropping to 7t' position. The rankings of the other municipalities remained similar to 1990 with two exceptions: North Stonington replaced Preston as the 1 1t most populated town and Voluntown replaced Bozrah as the region's 16"h most populated town. Franklin, with 1,835 persons, remains the town with the least population.

Colchester experienced both the largest numerical increase at 3,571 persons, and the highest rate of growth at 32.5 percent. Voluntown had the second highest growth rate at 19.6 percent, followed by East Lyme at 18.1 percent. East Lyme had the second largest numerical increase with 2,778 persons added. Salem experienced the fourth highest growth rate at 16.6 percent followed by Montville at 11.2 percent. Montville's growth rate resulted in the third largest numerical increase with 1,873 persons added. Franklin had the smallest numerical increase with 25 persons. Franklin also had the slowest growth rate at 1.4 percent. Sprague, Ledyard, Norwich, Preston, New London and Groton all experienced population losses ranging from minus 1.2 percent to 11.6 percent. These relationships are shown in Table 1.

COMPONENTS OF POPULATION GROWTH Population growth results from natural increase and migration. Natural increase is the difference between births and deaths, while migration is the movement of persons into or out of a community.

Natural increase recognizes that at numerous points during the decade there were birth and death events, and although regarded as separate from migration as a component oftotal population growth, it can be interrelated with migration. A birth or death can readily precede, or follow, a migration event i.e., during the decade a person could move into a community and then later die there, or a child born in a particular community could move out later in the decade. Each event would be recorded as part of natural increase, but each would also be part of a migration event. Migration measures net migration which is the difference between those that moved into a community and those that moved out. From a practical point of view, net migration is actually computed as the difference between natural increase and total population change.

Table 3 indicates that from 1990 to 2000, the region grew by 2,327 persons. The natural increase for this period was 14,160 persons which results in a net out-migration of 11,833 persons for the decade. This represents an out-migrationrate of minus 4.9 percent, which is also the rate experienced TABLE 3:

COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANGE, 1990-2000 Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region 1990 2000 Natural Increase Net Migration Total Change Population IPopulation I Number I Percent Number Percent Number I Percent Colchester 10,980 14,551 1,476 13.4%

2,095 19.1%

3,571 32.5%

Voluntown 2,113 2,528 250 11.8%

165 7.8%

415 19.6%

East Lyme 15,340 18,118 520 3.4%

2,258 14.7%

2,778 18.1%

Salem 3,310 3,858 328 9.9%

220 6.6%

548 16.6%

Montville 16,673 18,546 996 6.0%

877 5.3%

1,873 11.2%

Lisbon 3,790 4,069 176 4.6%

103 2.7%

279 7.4%

Waterford 17,930 19,152

-52

-0.3%

1,274 7.1%

1,222 6.8%

Stonington 16,919 17,906 36 0.2%

951 5.6%

987 5.8%

Griswold 10,384 10,807 406 3.9%

17 0.2%

423 4.1%

Bozrah 2,297 2,357 92 4.0%

-32

-1.4%

60 2.6%

N. Stonington 4,884 4,991 282 5.8%

-175

-3.6%

107 2.2%

Franklin 1,810 1,835 51 2.8%

-26

-1.4%

25 1.4%

Sprague 3,008 2,971 130 4.3%

-167

-5.6%

-37

-1.2%

Ledyard 14,913 14,687 1,097 7.4%

-1,323

-8.9%

-226

-1.5%

Norwich 37,391 36,117 1,394 3.7%

-2,668

-7.1%

-1,274

-3.4%

Preston 5,006 4,688 111 2.2%

-429

-8.6%

-318

-6.4%

New London 28,540 25,671 1,735 6.1%

-4,604

-16.1%

-2,869

-10.1%

Groton 45,144 39,907 5,132 11.4%

-10,369

-23.0%

-5,237

-11.6%

Regional Totals 240,432 242,759 14,160 5.9%

-11,833

-4.9%

2,327 1.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Connecticut Dept. of Public Health from 1970 to 1980 when 10,894 persons left southeastern Connecticut. At minus 1.3 percent, the out-migration rate between 1980 and 1990 represented an exodus of2,832 persons, which was about 500 more people than the decade just passed.

Colchester, East Lyme, and Stonington experienced population gains of which net in-migration accounted for more ofthe total population increase than did natural increase. Waterford experienced negative natural increase (more deaths than births) but experienced a net in-migration to give it a total population gain. In Griswold, Lisbon, Montville, Salem and Voluntown, natural increase accounted for more of the increase than did net migration. Bozrah, Franklin, and North Stonington experienced net out-migrations but had sufficient natural increase to give them a total population gain. Groton, Ledyard,New London, Norwich, Preston and Sprague experienced net out-migrations which were not met, or exceeded by, natural increase, thereby giving them net population losses for the decade.

The figures for Preston can be misleading without consideration of the effect of Norwich Hospital which closed during the decade. When one isolates the institutional population in Preston, the non-institutional population data for Preston for 1990 and 2000 are, respectively, 4,450 and 4,688, resulting in a non-institutional population increase of 238 persons, or 5.3 percent, for the decade.

This places Preston in the category of towns which grew more from net in-migration than from natural increase.

Overall, from a regional perspective, the population is continuing the move from the urban to the suburban and rural areas. Table 1 shows that while the overall growth rate was only one percent, the suburban areas actually grew by a rate of over nine percent, the rural areas grew by eight percent and the urban areas lost minus 8.4 percent. Thus, the suburban and rural towns accounted for 100 percent of the region's growth from 1990 to 2000, which was also the case between 1970 and 1980 decade.

For the decade of 1980 to 1990, theurban areas contributed 21 percent of the region's increase. For the last three decades the numerical population growth figures for the suburban and rural areas have increased as is shown in the following summary:

POPULATION GROWTH 1970-2000 BY TOWN CLASSIFICATION SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT 1 1990-2000 1 1980-1990 1 1970-1980 Suburban/Rural Areas 11,707 11,669 8,899 Urban Areas

- 9,380

+ 3,097

- 3,635 Net Gain 2,327 14,766 5,264 Another way to examine patterns of growth is by use of a regional index rate. An index was developed to compare a town's, or class of town's, percentage of total population. It is depicted in Table 4. An index of greater than one indicates that a town increased its share of total population from 1990 to 2000 and grew faster than the regional rate. An index of less than one indicates that a municipality decreased its share of regional population in the preceding decade and grew slower than the regional rate. An index of one indicates that a community maintained its 1990 share of the region's total population in 2000. Table 4 reveals that the urban areas decreased their share of regional population while the suburban and rural communities increased their share. These same relationships of declining urban and increasing suburban and rural growth rates also existed for the previous two decades of 1970-1980 and 1980-1990.

RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN CHARACTERISTICS The question on race for the 2000 Census has undergone a significant change from the 1990 and earlier Censuses. To better reflect the nation's growing diversity, respondents were given the option of selecting one or more race categories to indicate their racial identities. In 2000, 2.8 percent or 6,817 persons of southeastern Connecticut's total population of 242,759 selected between two to five races. While an overwhelming majority of 6,201 (91 percent) selected two races, a total of 14,296 racial selections were made by these 6,817 persons. The balance of the population, 97.2 percent, representing 235,942 persons, chose one race. This multi-racial selection percentage of2.8 was slightly higher for southeastern Connecticut than Connecticut at 2.2 percent, and the nation at 2.4 percent. The Census Bureau stresses that because of these significant changes, the Census 2000 data on race are not directly comparable with any previous Census data. Therefore, caution must be used when interpreting changes in racial compositions. The following summary shows the composition of the population for whites and non-whites in 1990 and 2000. The year 2000 numbers are presented for those who responded to the single race question (235,942 persons) and those that reported single race or combination race category (242,759 persons).

TABLE 4:

INDEX OF TOWN SHARE CHANGE REGIONAL POPULATION Index of Town Share Change 1990 Population Percent of Region 2000 Population Percent of Region URBAN TOWNS:

Groton New London Norwich URBAN TOTALS SUBURBAN TOWNS:

Colchester East Lyme Griswold Ledyard Lisbon Montville Preston Sprague Stonington Waterford SUBURBAN TOTALS RURAL TOWNS:

Bozrah Franklin North Stonington Salem Voluntown 45,144 18.8%

39,907 16.4%

0.88 28,540 11.9%

25,671 10.6%

0.89 37,391 15.6%

36,117 14.9%

0.96 111,075 46.2%

101,695 41.9%

0.91 10,980 4.6%

14,551 6.0%

1.31 15,340 6.4%

18,118 7.5%

1.17 10,384 4.3%

10,807 4.5%

1.03 14,913 6.2%

14,687 6.1%

0.98 3,790 1.6%

4,069 1.7%

1.06 16,673 6.9%

18,546 7.6%

1.10 5,006 2.1%

4,688 1.9%

0.93 3,008 1.3%

2,971 1.2%

0.98 16,919 7.0%

17,906 7.4%

1.05 17,930 7.5%

19,152 7.9%

1.06 114,943 47.8%

125,495 51.7%

1.08 2,297 1.0%

2,357 1.0%

1.02 1,810 0.8%

1,8351 0.8%

1.00 4,884 2.0%

4,991 2.1%

1.01 3,310 1.4%

3,858 1.6%

1.15 2,113 0.9%

2,528 1.0%

1.18 RURAL TOTALS REGIONAL TOTALS 14,414 240,432 6.0%

15,569 6.4%

1.07 100%

242,759 100%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau RACIAL COMPOSITION, SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT White Non-White Total 1990-one race 219,989 20,443 240,3432 persons reported one race, 100% of total population 240,432 91.5%

8.5%

100%0 2000-one race 209,527 26,415 235,942 persons reported one race, 97.2% of total population of 242,759 88.8%

11.2%

-100%

2000-one or more races 214,780 35,458 250,238 responses, exceeds population of 242,759 because individuals may report more than one race.

85.8%

14.2%

100%

With either case in 2000, the percentage of population reported as white has decreased while the non-white percentage of total population has increased, a trend that has been occurring for 30 years.

Table 5 summarizes the 2000 racial selections of those that chose one or more races. For example, the table includes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin who may be of any of several race(s). It is important to note that under federal guidelines, race and Hispanic origin are two separate and distinct concepts. Table 6 indicates that persons of Hispanic or Latino origin increased by 56 percent for the decade, with the highest rates of growth occurring in the suburban and rural communities. This regional growth rate was more than that of Connecticut which experienced a 50.3 percent increase in Hispanic persons over the decade, but less than that of the United States which grew by 58 percent.

POPULATION AGE AND SEX CHARACTERISTICS Population age and sex characteristics are displayed in Figures 2 and 3 and in Table 7. The age categories depicted in these references generally coincide with the stages of one's life cycle and correspond to similar categories utilized in previous SCCOG/SCRPA reports, thereby facilitating comparisons with earlier censuses. The region's net population growth was accounted for by three demographic categories: children, mature workers and retired persons. Most growth occurred in the mature workers category which increased by 11,089 persons. This resulted in a growth rate of 26 percent in this category since 1990. This category now accounts for 22.4 percent of the region's population, compared to 18 percent in 1990. The retired category had the second largest change, in the past decade increasing by 2,858 persons for a ten percent growth rate. Persons 65 and older now TABLE 5:

RACE ALONE OR IN COMBINATION WITH ONE OR MORE OTHER RACES, 2000 Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region Am. Ind Al. Native Native Hawaiian Pacific Isind Total Responses White Black Asian Other URBAN TOWNS:

Groton New London Norwich URBAN TOTALS SUBURBAN TOWNS:

Colchester East Lyme Griswold Ledyard Lisbon Montville Preston Sprague Stonington Waterford SUBURBAN TOTALS RURAL TOWNS:

Bozrah Franklin North Stonington Salem Voluntown 34,490 3,350 801 1,685 141 954 41,421 17,342 5,597 589 747 84 2,947 27,306 30,983 3,253 872 924 51 1,5671 37,650 82,815 12,200 2,262 3,356 276 5,468 106,377 14,062 274 137 118 10 162 14,763 16,077 1,276 187 603 20 311 18,474 10,356 186 223 126 5

104 11,000 13,236 535 734 415 21 173 15,114 4,004 33 48 38 3

20 4,146 16,392 1,217 495 458 28 543 19,133 4,526 57 61 67 2

36 4,749 2,872 37 37 44 5

24 3,019 17,369 186 169 290 17 145 18,176 17,968 534 199 558 12 212 19,483 116,862 4,335 2,290 2,717 123 1,730 128,057 2,295 21 32 24 1i 15i 2,388 1,818 16 8

3 17 9J 1,855 4,784 47 165 73 0

18 5,087 3,734 41 51 72 0

18 3,916 2,472 16 41 15 1

134 2,558 4

t I

+

RURAL TOTALS 15,103 141 297 187 3

73 15,804 REGIONAL TOTALS REGIONAL PERCENTS 214,780 16,676 4,849 1.9%

6,260 2.5%

402 0.2%

7,271 2.9%

250,238 100.0%

85.8%

6.7%

Source: U.S.Census Bureau Note: The six race categories add to more than the region's population of 242,759 because individuals may report more than one race.

TABLE 6:

PERSONS OF HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN Southastern Connecticut Planning Region Percent Change 1990 2000 Change URBAN TOWNS:

Groton New London Norwich URBAN TOTALS 1.649 2.001 21.3%

3,459 5,061 1,602 46.3%

1,161 2,208 1,047 90.2%

6,269 9,270 3,0011 47.9%

SUBURBAN TOWNS:

Colchester East Lyme Griswold Ledyard Lisbon Montville Preston Sprague Stonington Waterford 118 280 162 137.3%

365 832 467 127.9%

102 210 108 105.9%

230 401 171 74.3%

43 23

-20

-46.5%

435 1,010 575 132.2%

93 65

-28

-30.1%

38 33

-5

-13.2%

220 233 13 5.9%

310 459 149 48.1%

1-

-1*

I SUBURBAN TOTAL RURAL TOWNS:

1,954 3,546 1,592 81.5%

Bozrah Franklin North Stonington Salem Voluntown 23 42 19 82.6%

12 22 10 83.3%

39 72 33 84.6%

40 47 7

17.5%

9 30 21 233.3%

4-

4.

I RURAL TOTALS REGIONAL TOTAL 1231 8,346 2131 13,029 90 73.2%

4,683 56.1%

Source: U.S.Census Bureau Age-Sex Distribution 1990 - 2000 Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region Males Femql Age es 65 and Over (Retired) 45 to 64 i (Mature Workers) 25 to 44 (Prime Workers) 15 to 24 (Student-Young Workers) 0 to 14 (Children) 45,000 12,930 11,393 18,539 17,218 I

I I

I m '.

I 27,007 21,241 27,426 22,103

!~.

38,547 37,732 43,299 39,147 16,391 21,066

.i 14,526 16,547

• 25,157 24,504 j j

1 124,713 23,705 I 5,000 15,000 35,000 25,000 15,000 5,000 25,000 35,000 45,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 0

20,000 30,000 40,000

=

2000 Population 12,930 Population 1990 Population 11,393 Data Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing Graphics By: Center for Population Research, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT Figure 2

Age Groups As Percent of Total Population 1970 - 2000 Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region 1970 Population 220,096 1980 Population 225,666 1 990 Population 240,432 2000 Population 242,759 100% -

8 6 80% -187%

19.3%

18%

60%

2 6 40% -

18.6%

20% 2L20.9%

20%

Data Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing Graphics By: Center for Population Research, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 65 and Over (Retired) 45 to 64 (Mature Workers) 25 to 44 (Prime Workers) 15 to 24 (Student-Young Workers) 0 to 14 (Children)

Figure 3

TABLE 7:

AGE-SEX COMPOSITION, 2000 Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region Children Student/Young Worker Prime Workers Mature Workers Retired 14 and Under 15 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 64 65 and Over

-epl X I n

c n.1 l

IX1 C>Ir, 1

l-C IAI

-f t-1 CgBAE -1,

-- F UI Male to Female Total Total Total

-l - I

- 1. M~o^IA Groton New London Norwich URBAN TOTALS SUBURBAN TOWNS:

Colchester East Lyme Griswold Ledyard Lisbon I

Montville As Preston a'

Sprague Stonington Waterford reuMale Mal.

,uv-ljwwl rad-e yale bLuds r......

o ra l

relelarm VaC OUt*a remade vale ruultauvI' Matleo 4,295 4,381 8,676 2,389 3,556 5,945 6,165 6,9961 13,161 3,734 3,562 7,296 2,910J I,919 4,829 19,493 20,414 39,907 104.7 2,468 2,547 5,015 26751 2,675 5350 37421 3,8621 7,604 2,349 2,246 4,595 1,894 1,213 3,107 13 128 12 543 25,671 95.5 3,591 3,684 7,275.

2,235 4638

,981 5,403 10901 3,994 3,764 7,758 3,472 2,07 5,545 18,958 17,1 7

7 90.5 10,354 10,612 20,966 7,467 8,466 15,933 15,4051 16,261 31,666 10,077 9,572 19,649 8,276 5,205 13,481 51,579 50,116 101,695 97.2 1,876 1873 3749 642 6481 1,290 2744 7

5,311 1,419 1449 2868 803 530 1333 7,484 7067 14,551 94.4 1*637 1'657 3,294 843 981 1,824 3,230 2,818 6,048 2'409 2,259 4,668 23 1,001 2,284 9,402 8276 18,118 92.7 1,144 1,140 2,284 586 642 1,228 1,824 1,816 3,640 1,173 1,260 2,433 720 502 1,222 5,447 5,360 10.807 98.4 1,690 1,700 3,390 833 856 1,689 2,323 2,235 4,558 1,881 1,849 3,730 715 605 1,320 7,4421 7,45 14,687 97.4 410 458 868 200 240 440 648 590 1,238 521 537 1,058 269 196 465 2,048 2,021 4,069 98.7 1,719 1,892 3,611 915 1,441 2,356 2,690 3.651 6,341 2,067 2,159 4226 1,147 865 2,012 8,538 10,008 18,546 117.2 415 418 833 231 263 494 691 687 1,378 664 663 1327 342 314 656 2,343 2,345 4,688 100.1 342 306 648 156 163 319 468 492 960 358 337 695 215 134 349 1,539 1,432 2,971 93.0 1,581 1.663 3244 799 806 1 605 2575 2528 5,103 2469 2,360 4829 1,781 1 344 3,125 9,205 8,701 17906 94.5 1690 1760 3450 1053 1,046 2;099 2630 2,463 5093 2,441 2,425 4866 2

1487 3644 9,971 91181 19,15 2 1 92.1 12,504 12,867 25,371 6,258 7,0861 13,344 19,823 19,847 39,670 15,402 15,298 30,700 9,432 6,978 16,410 63,419 62,076 125,4951 97.9 SUBURBAN TOTALS Bozrah Franklin North Stonington Salem Voluntown RURAL TOTALS 225]

231 4561 116 1201 236 3501 360 7101 299 325 6241 184 1471 331 1,174 1,183 2,357 100.8 161 189 3501 95 107 202 2761 270 546 241 262 503 127 107 234 900 935 1835 103.9 498 495 993 278 303 581 743 745 1,488 702 708 1410 261 258 519 2,482 2,509 4,991 101.1 487 481 968 191 181 372 663 603 1,266 456 543 999 138 115 253 1935 1 923 3858 99.4 275 282 557 121 128 249 472 461 933 249 299 548 121 120 241 1,238 1 290 2528 104.2 1,646, 1,678 3,324 801 839 1,640 2,504 2,439 4,943 1,941 2,137 4,084 831 747 1,578 7,729 7,840, 15,569 101.4 REGIONAL TOTALS 24,504 25,157 49,661 14,526 16,391 30,917 37,732 38,547 76,279 27,426 27,007 54,433 18,539 12,930 31,469 122,727 120,032 242,759 97.8 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

/.

account for 13 percent of the region's population, compared to 8.6 percent in 1970. The children category increased by 1,243 persons, for a 2.6 percent growth rate. Children now account for 20.5 percent of the region's population, up slightly from 20.1 percent in 1990. This is the first time since 1970 that this category did not decline.

Population growth in the above three categories was offset by losses in the student-young workers and prime workers categories. The students-young workers category decreased by 6,696 persons, or 17.8 percent from 1990. This category now accounts for 12.7 percent of the region's population compared to 15.7 percent in 1990 and 20.9 percent in 1980. Since 1990, the prime workers category also experienced a decline totaling 6,167 persons, representing minus 7.5 percent. This category accounts for 31.4 percent of the region's population, down from 34.3 percent in 1990, but still remains the region's largest age group. This is the first time since 1970 that this category did not increase its share of regional population.

For the first time during the course of the previous three decades, females now outnumber males by 122,727 to 120,032. During the decade of 1990-2000, the female population increased by 4,006 while the male population decreased by 1,680 persons, resulting in the regional net growth of 2,327 persons. Viewed from the perspective of age groups, males outnumber females in the children, student-young workers and prime workers age group, as is shown in Figure 2 and Table 7. The largest difference occurs in the student-young workers category where there are 1,865 more males than females. This is attributable to the Naval Base located in the area which traditionally has had more men than women in uniform. Females outnumber men in the mature workers and retired groups, which is explained by the greater longevity experienced by women. This longevity is most pronounced in the retired category where women outnumber men by 5,609. The male/female ratio is defined as the number of males per 100 females. Table 7 shows that at the regional level in 2000, there were 97.8 males for each 100 females, down from 1990 when there were 102.5 males per 100 females. This decrease may reflect, in part, a decrease in the number of military personnel stationed in the region. In 2000, Montville had the highest male/female ratio at 117.2 males per 100 females, while Norwich ranked the lowest with only 90.5 males per 100 females. The Montville ratio can be explained, in part, by the presence of the State Prison for males within the municipality. In terms of class of towns, the rural towns were the most balanced with 101.4 males per 100 females while the urban and suburban municipalities had respective ratios of 97.2 and 97.9. Overall, Connecticut had a lower ratio with 93.9 males per 100 females while the United States had a ratio of 96.3.

During the most recent decade, the population of the region continued to age. The county median age in 2000 was 37.0, compared to 32.5 in 1990. For each decade since 1970, when the median age was 26.4, the median age has increased, resulting in a 30 year aging rate of 40 percent. Stonington and Waterford had the highest median age at 41.7 years followed by Preston at 41.0. New London TABLE8:

AGE AND AGE INDEXES, 2000 Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region URBAN TOWNS:

Groton New London Norwich Population 14 and Under 15 to 64 65 and Over Total Index Dependency Ratios Median Number I Percent Number I Percent Number Percent Population of Aging Childhoodl Elderly Total Age 8,676 21.7%

26,402 66.2%1 4,829 12.1%1 39,907 55.7 32.9 18.3 51.2 32.5 5,015 19.5%

17,549 68.4% 1 J17 12.1%

25671 62.0 28.6 17.7 46.3 31.2 7,275 20.1%

23,297 6415%

,5 15.4%

36,117 76.2 31.2 23.8 55.0 36.9 20,966 20.6%

67,248 66.It 13,481 13.3%

101,695 64.3 31.2 20.0 51.2 URBAN TOTALS SUBURBAN TOWNS:

I1 Colchester East Lyme Griswold Ledyard Lisbon Montville Preston Sprague Stonington Waterford SUBURBAN TOT 3.749 25.8% I 9.469 65.1%

1.333 I 9.2%1 14.551 35.61 39.6 14.1 53.7 3,294 18.2%

12,540 69.2%

2,284 12.6%

18, 118 69.3 26.3 18.2 44.5 39.0 2,284 21.1%

7,301 67.6%.

1222 11.3%

10,807 53.5 31.3 16.7 48.0 36.7 3,390 23.1%

9,977 67.9%

1,320 9.0%

14,687 38.9 34.0 13.2 47.2 37.1 868 21.3%

2,736 67.2%

465 11.4%

4,069 53.6 31.7 17.0 48.7 39.0 3,61 1 19.5%

12,923 69.7%

2,012 10.8%

18,546 55.7 27.9 15.6 43.5 36.5 833 17.8%

3,199 68.2%

656 14.0%

4,688 78.8 26.0 20.5 46.5 41.0 648 21.8%

1,974 66.4%N 349 11.7%

2,971 53.9 32.8 17.7 50.5_

37.1 3,244 18.1%

11,5371 64.4%1 3,1125 17.5%

17,906 96.3 28.11 27.11 55.2 41.7 3,450 18.0%

1l2058 63.0%

3,6441 19.0%

19 152 105.61 28.6 30.2 58.8 41.7 3.31 I

25,371 20.2% I 83,714 66.7%

66.6%

16,41011 13.1%1 125,495 64.7 72.6 30.3 29.0 19.6 21.1 49.9 50.1 Bozrah Franklin North Stonington Salem Voluntown RURAL TOTALS 45(

19.3%1 1.570 331 14.0%

2,357 40.1 350 19.1%

1,251 68.2%

234 12.8%

1,835 66.9 28.0 18.7 46.7 39.9 993 19.9%

3,479 69.7%

519 10.4%

4,991 52.3 28.5 14.9 43.5 39.6 968 25.1%

2,637 68.4%

253 6.6%

3,858 26.1 36.7 9.6 46.3 37.1 557 22.0%

1,1730f 68.4%

241 9.5%

2s28 43.3 32.2 13.9 46.1 36.3 3,324 21.4%1 10,667 68.5%

1,578 10.1%

15,569 47.5 31.2 14.8 46.0 REGIONAL TOTA 49,661 20.5%

161,629 66.6%

31,469 13.0%

242,759 63.4 30.7 19.5 50.2 37.0*

• New London County median Source: U.S.Census Bureau

I ; !

had the lowest median age at 31.2 followed by Groton at 32.5 years. Connecticut's 2000 median age was higher than the region at 37.4 while the United States was lower at 35.3. Median ages for the region's municipalities are listed in Table 8.

This increase in median age is reflected in the index of aging presented in Table 8. This index is defined as the number of persons 65 and older per 100 children less than 15 years of age. For each decade since 1970, when the index was 29.1, the regional index of aging has increased and is now at 63.4 retired persons per 100 children, a 118 percent increase over the past 30 years. In 2000, Connecticut had an even higher figure of 66.3 retired persons per 100 children while the United States was at 58.1. Generally, the communities with the highest percentages of retired persons and the lowest percentages of children have the largest indexes of aging. Waterford and Stonington had the highest indexes, with respective figures of 105.6 and 96.3 retired persons per 100 children.

Table 8 shows that Salem and Colchester have the lowest indexes of aging with respective figures of 26.1 and 35.6 retired persons per 100 children. In Salem only 6.6 percent of the population is 65 and older and in Colchester only 9.2 percent is 65 and older. Colchester has the highest percent of children among the region's towns at 25.8 percent of town population. This is followed by Salem at 25.1 percent and Ledyard at 23.1 percent. In terms of town classification, the suburban communities had a slightly greater index of aging than the urban towns, while the rural towns had the lowest index of aging. This is the same relationship that existed in 1990 among the classes of towns.

DEPENDENCY INDEX Children and retired age categories may also be compared both separately and together in terms of the aggregate of the three middle age categories comprised of the population ages 15 to 64. This aggregate group may be regarded as the economic producers who support both dependent young children under age 15 and dependent older persons ages 65 and over. A dependency index can be developed using the number of persons 65 and over and the number of persons 14 and younger per 100 persons ages 15 to 64. This is a broad economic dependency index and it must be recognized that some persons in the dependent age categories are producers and that other persons in the economicallyproductive age category are dependent. Childhood, elderly, and total dependencyratios are displayed in Table 8.

Colchester, at 39.6 and Salem at 36.7, had the highest childhood dependency ratios in the region, while Preston, at 26.0 and East Lyme at 26.3, had the lowest childhood dependency ratios. Region wide, the rural and urban towns were tied for the highest childhood dependency ratios at 31.2, with the suburban towns at 30.3. In 1990 the rural towns were higher than the urban towns.

In terms of elderly dependency ratios, Waterford, at 30.2 retired persons per 100 adults, had the highest dependency ratio followed by Stonington at 27.1. Norwich was third at 23.8. At the other end of the range, Salem had only 9.6 older persons per 100 working adults while Ledyard had 13.2 older persons per 100 working adults. Overall, the urban towns had slightly greater elderly dependency ratios than the suburban towns followed by the rural towns. This was the same relationship that existed in 1980 and 1990 among these three classes of towns.

In terms of a total dependency index, the urban towns had the highest dependency, followed by the suburban towns and rural towns. This was also the same relationship that existed in 1990. Total dependency ratios were highest in Waterford at 58.8 elderly and children per 100 adults followed by Stonington at 55.2 and Norwich at 55.0. Municipalities with the lowest total dependency ratios were Montville and North Stonington, which were both at 43.5 elderly and children per 100 persons ages 15 to 64. It is important to note that the index was influenced by the fact that these latter two communities had the highest regional percentages of residents ages 15 to 64.

The following summary shows the changes in regional dependency ratios for the past 40 years:

SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT PLANNING REGION DEPENDENCY RATIOS I Childhood I Elderly I Total 2000 30.7 19.5 50.2 1990 29.6 17.5 47.1 1980 32.0 14.9 46.9 1970 47.7 13.9 61.6 1960 50.0 115.5 I 65.5 Overall, the total regional dependency ratio increased 6.6 percent from 47.1 elderly and children per 100 adults in 1990 to 50.2 in 2000. However, the two components of the index changed independently during the decade. The childhood ratio increased 3.7 percent from 29.6 children per 100 adults in 1990 to 30.7 children in 2000. This is the first time that the children portion of the ratio showed an increase, having been declining since 1960. (In these earlier decades, children accounted for over 30 percent of the region's population). The elderly portion of the ratio increased 11.4 percent, from 17.5 retired persons per 100 adults in 1990 to 19.5 retired persons in 2000. This is a continuation of the trend of an increasing elderly population which began in 1970. The total dependency index decreased until 1980, primarily reflecting a dramatic decrease in the children dependency portion of the ratio, and has increased since that time primarily due to the increase in the elderly dependency ratio. Although the total dependency index has increased since 1980, it has not increased dramatically and is almost 25 percent lower than the 1960 index of 65.5.

There are numerous implications related to the increase in the regional median age, and the elderly dependency index, not the least of which suggests that there will be an increase in demands for services and programs to serve the elderly. The increase in the mature workers category also indicates that, barring any substantial changes in migration, this trend will continue for the next decade when a large portion ofthis age category will shift into the retired category. After forty years of decreasing, the children dependency ratio slightly increased as well as the percentage of the region's population accounted for by this category. This could be signaling a stabilization, or even increase, of this category.

BIRTH RATES The following summary shows selected annual birth rates for women of child bearing ages for 5 years between 1960 and 2000. The 5 years selected for this analysis coincides with the years in which the census is taken. It is based on two data sources: women of child-bearing age is derived from the U.S. Census Bureau and births is derived from the Connecticut Department of Public Health.

SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT PLANNING REGION COMPARISON OF RATES OF BIRTH FOR FIVE SELECTED YEARS Women Births Ages 15 to 44 Births Per 1000 Women 2000 52,258 2,937 56.2

- 1990 55,694 3,855-69.2 1980 51,254 3,408 66.5 1970

.45,196

4,200 92.9 1960 35,735 4,677 130.9 Source

State of Connecticut Department of Public Health.

The above table shows that while the number of women of child bearing age was less in 2000 than in 1990. The number of women in this age group is still consistently greater in 2000 than in 1960.

This pattern, coupled with a 37 percent decrease in the number of births since 1960 has resulted in a birth rate of 56.2 births per 1,000 women in the year 2000, compared to 130.9 births per 1,000 women in 1960, a 57 percent decline. The overall birth rate declined from 1960 to 1980, then reversed itself and increased by four percent from 1980 to 1990 and then declined nearly 20 percent from 1990 to 2000. This analysis of birth data, which depicts both the decrease in absolute births and the birth rate, tends to reinforce the discussion in the previous section as to the decrease in the children dependency ratio over past decades.

The above table is presented for illustrative sampling purposes only and is not meant to represent a comprehensive analysis of all of the factors surrounding birth rates for every year from 1960 through 2000. It is recognized that the 5 years chosen for the sample might not be typical for years other than those selected and that a different sample might lead to different conclusions.

Nevertheless, the sample chosen strongly suggests a significantly declining birth rate.

II. EDUCATION SCHOOL ENROLLMENT Table 9 shows the 2000 Census analysis of school enrollment by the following categories: Pre-school, Elementary School, High School, and College orGraduate. This category structure is a slight departure from theprevious Census counts in 1990 which combined the Elementaryand High School categories. Accordingly, comparisons between 1990 and 2000 are made by combining the 2000 Elementary and High School enrollments. All of the enrollment figures include both private and public schools.

The 1990 Census depicted a significant increase in preschool enrollment compared with the 1980 enrollment. The 2000 Census figures confirm that this group has continued onto High School. In fact, at 27.4 percent, the Elementary or High School category is the only category to have experienced an increased since 1990.

With generally declining birth rates as indicated above, a question arises as to the source of the school age enrollment increase. Further complicating the matter, the 2000 Census shows that preschool enrollment has decreased by 21.8 % and College or Graduate enrollment has decreased by 20.9 percent. Even with these declining enrollments, the increase in the Elementary or High School category has resulted in an increase in total school enrollment figures for southeastern Connecticut. Overall, this increase in enrollment is 8.4 percent. This trend of decreased Pre-School and College or Graduate enrollment, coupled with increased Elementary and High School enrollment, is uniform throughout the region regardless of urban, suburban, or rural municipal classification.

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Table 10 shows educational attainment for the region's population 25 years and older in 2000. For this age group, 85.7 % have completed high school. This proportion of high school students is 1.7%

higher than the state population and is very similar to the percentage difference recorded in 1990.

The region continues to lag behind the state in percentage of population completing college. The 2000 Census indicates that 25.3% of the region's population are college graduates as compared to 31.4% for the overall state population. A ten year comparison of educational attainment at the college graduate level between the state and the region shows that the region is falling further behind by a margin of 6%.

TABLE 9:

SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, Population 3 years and over Enrolled in School, 2000 Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region Pre-School, Nursery Elementary K thru 8 High School 9 thru 12 College or Graduate Total Enrolled URBAN TOWNS:

Groton New London Norwich URBAN TOTALS SUBURBAN TOWNS:

Colchester East Lyme Griswold Ledyard Lisbon Montville Preston Sprague Stonington Waterford SUBURBAN TOTALS RURAL TOWNS:

Bozrah Franklin North Stonington Salem Voluntown RURAL TOTALS 901 5,038 1,518 1,838 9,295 433 3,242 1,075 3,413 8,163 501 4,633 2,169 1,611 8,914 1,835 12,913 4,762 6,862 26,372 269 2,240 883 558 3,950 338 2,252 1,260 1,196 5,046 151 1,529 684 367 2,731 219 2,230 1,075 542 4,066 26 577 259 248 1,110 201 2,377 1,195 719 4,492 39 588 280 226 1,133 60 446 135 116 757 277 2,061 869 947 4,154 368 2,292 1,033 1,429 5,122 1,948 16,592 7,673 6,348 32,561 22 292 132 104 550 30 231 117 94 472 103 627 336 164 1,230 97 656 290 169 1,212 391 3511 1621 1251 677 291 2,1571 1,037 656 4,141 REGIONAL TOTALS 4,074 31,662 13,472 13,866 63,074 Source: U.S. Census Bureau TABLE 10:

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT, Population 25 years and Over, 2000 Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region URBAN TOWNS:

Groton New London Norwich URBAN TOTALS Populationl 25 & Overl 25,503 15,348 24,125 64,976.

Completed High School or Higher SUBURBAN TOWNS:

Colchester East Lyme Griswold Ledyard Lisbon Montville Preston Sprague Stonington Waterford SUBURBAN TOTALS Completed Bachelor's I

Degree or Higher I

9,576 12,991 7,283 9,510 2,765 12,591 3,370 2,010 13,102 13,623 86,821 Number Percent 22,439 88.0 12,030 78.4 19,167 79.4 53,636 82.5 8,562 89.4 11,631 89.5 6,054 83.1 8,884 93.4 2,301 83.2 10,562 83.9 2,882 85.5 1,678 83.5 11,558 88.2 11,818 86.8 75,930 87.5 1,465 87.8 1,142 89.1 3,118 91.0 2,314 93.5 1,475 86.1 9,514 90.1 Number Percent 6,620 26.0 3,008 19.6 4,558 18.9 14,186 21.8 3,022 31.6 4,605 35.4 1,100 15.1 3,121 32.8 542 19.6 2,216 17.6 763 22.6 294 14.6 4,533 34.6 3,832 28.1 24,028 27.7 3121 18.7 294 22.9 1,002 29.3 1,007 40.7 290 16.9 RURAL TOWNS:

Bozrah Franklin North Stonington Salem Voluntown RURAL TOTALS 1,669 1,282 3,425 2,475 1,714 10,565 2,905 27.5 REGIONAL TOTALS 162,362 139,080 85.7 41,119 25.3 Source: U.S. Census Bureau The differences in educational attainment that exist between the region's eighteen towns in 2000 are very similar to those recorded in 1980 and 1990. As a group, the urban towns are below both attainment averages for the region and state. Within this group, the Town of Groton's population age 25 and older who have completed high school exceeds both the region and state, while the percentage who have completed college is slightly higher than that of the region but still below the state. While suburban towns, as a group, are above the regional average in educational attainment, there continues to be striking extremes in this group of 10 towns. On the one hand, Colchester, East Lyme, Ledyard and Stonington exceed the educational attainment levels of both the state and the region. In contrast, Griswold, Lisbon, Montville and Sprague's population were below the regional and state averages. The only rural town which exceeds the educational attainment levels of both the state and region is the Town of Salem.

The reconciliation of generally declining birth rates and minimal population growth with a selected increase in elementary and high school age students presents a challenge of interpretation. Part of the explanation is suggested in the small increase in birth rate identified in 1990. Assuming a greater growth in birth rate in any of the years immediately before or after 1990 would help explain the growth bubble in school age children. Beyond this, the only plausible explanation to account for the larger number of school age children is to impute a pattern of in-migration during this period which saw families with children in this age bracket move into the region.

In summary, all of the region's municipalities continue to record improvements in educational attainment levels. In 1970 the attainment levels for the region were 54% high school and 11%

college; in 1980, 70% high school and 16% college; in 1990,80.5% high school and 21.8% college; and in 2000, 85.7% high school and 25.3% college.

III. INCOME CHARACTERISTICS REGIONAL INCOME STATISTICS For this report income information is provided in two forms: Median Household Income and Per Capita Income.

Median household information as opposed to median family, is a commonly favored data format because it encompasses everybody in a household whether or not they are related.

Per capita income is the total personal income divided by the estimated population of the area. Per capita income is also a common indicator of financial standing. In general, the higher the per capita income, the more money is put into the local economy and the greater the economic vitality of the region.

Table 11 and Figure 4 show median household income forNew London County. In 1999, this figure was $50,646, which lagged behind Connecticut's median household income of $53,935 by 6.5 percent.

In 1989, the gap in median household income between New London County and Connecticut was even greater at 11 percent.

The latest median household income figures show that twelve towns in the region had a median above the statewide median. This represents an increase of two towns when compared to 1989 income figures.

Median household income for towns in southeastern Connecticut ranged from a high of $68,750 in Salem to a low of $33,809 in New London. The Salem median is 203% greater than the New London median. Regionally, this gap continues to grow indicating an increasing separation between the towns with the highest and lowest median household income. Specifically, in 1979, this gap was 171 % which grew to 189% in 1989 and as noted is presently 203% based on the 1999 figures.

Table 12 shows per capita income for New London County. In 1999, this figure was $24,678, which lagged behind Connecticut's $28,766 by 16.5 percent. This gap has decreased since 1989 when it was 20.8 percent. In 1989 and 1999, only one town in the region had a per capita income which exceeded that of the state.

Per capita income for towns in southeastern Connecticut ranged from a high of $29,653 in Stonington, to a low of $18,437 in New London. This represents a 60 percent difference. This is the same percentage gap that existed in 1989. The change in per capita income for towns in the region ranged from an increase of 34 percent to an increase of 68 percent or an average of 47.8 TABLE 11:

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 1999 Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region 1999 Median Household Town Income $

1989 Median Household Income $

Rank in 1989 Percent Change

1. Salem

2. East Lyme

3. Colchester

4. Ledyard

5. Franklin

6. N. Stonington

7. Bozrah

8. Voluntown

9. Waterford

10. Lisbon

11. Montville

12. Preston

13. Stonington

14. Griswold

15. Groton

16. Sprague

17. Norwich

18. New London New London County Connecticut United States 68,750 66,539 64,807 62,647 62,083 57,887 57,059 56,802 56,047 55,149 55,086 54,942 52,437 50,156 46,154 43,125 39,181 33,809 50,646 53,935 41,994 49,278 46,979 46,389 49,811 41,780 47,070 43,553 35,699 44,167 38,192 42,140 42,823 39,651 32,904 33,967 38,247 29,354 26,336 2

4 5

10 3

7 14 6

13 9

8 11 16 15 12 17 18 39.5 41.6 39.7 25.8 48.6 23.0 31.0 59.1 26.9 44.4 30.7 28.3 32.2 52.4 35.9 12.8 33.5 28.4 37,488 35.1 41,721 30,056 29.3 39.7 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and 1990.

Southeastern Connecticut Region Median Incomes At, or Above, The State and County Average, 1999 New London County

$50,646*

"M.

lState of Conn GRTO

$53,935

• T)

LONDONl Legend

=

Towns Below Median Income El]

Towns Above Median Income

• County median Includes the Towns of Lebanon, Lyme and Old Lyme.

ci o.w.-.w. I

TABLE 12:

PER CAPITA INCOME, 1999 Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region 1999 1989 Rank Per Capita Per Capita in Percent Town Income $

Income $

1989 Change

1. Stonington 29,653 20,808 1

42.5

2. East Lyme 28,765 20,004 2

43.8

3. Salem 27,288 17990 6

51.7

4. Colchester 27,038 17,143 8

57.7

5. Waterford 26,807 19,537 3

37.2

6. Bozrah 26,569 15,814 10 68.0

7. N. Stonington 25,815 18,019 5

43.3

8. Franklin 25,477 16,756 9

52.0

9. Ledyard 24,953 18,557 4

34.5

10. Preston 24,752 17,643 7

40.3

11. Groton 23,995 15,454 12 55.3

12. Voluntown 23,707 14,766 15 60.6

13. Lisbon 22,476 14,917 13 50.7

14. Montville 22,357 15,743 11 42.0

15. Griswold 21,196 13,703 17 54.7

16. Sprague 20,796 14,531 16 43.1

17. Norwich 20,742 14,844 14 39.7

18. NewLondon 18,437 12,971 18 42.1 New London County 24,678 16,702 47.8 Connecticut 28,766 20,189 42.5 United States 21,587 14,420 49.7 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and 1990.

percent. This average increase is slightlyhigherthan Connecticut's whichwas42.5 percent overthe same time period. The ranking of southeastern Connecticut towns byper capita income shows many changes between 1989 and 1999. Five towns did not experience a ranking change. These include Stonington and East Lyme which ranked first and second. Lisbon, Sprague and New London also maintained the same rank at 13, 16, and 18, respectively. The two towns which experienced the largest ranking change are Bozrah, which increased from IO" to 6" and Ledyard which decreased from 4' to 9th in ranking.

In summary, the latest income data indicates a continuing yet closing income gap between New London County and the rest of Connecticut. The closing ofthis gap indicates a comparative increase in the economic vitality of the region.

POVERTY STATUS Families and unrelated individuals are classified as above, or below, the poverty level by comparing the total 1999 income to an income cutoff, or "poverty threshold." The income cutoffs vary by family size, number of children and age of the family household or unrelated individual. Poverty status is determined for all families (and by implication, all family members). Poverty status is also determined for persons not in families, except for institutionalized persons, persons in military group quarters, persons in college dormitories and unrelated individuals under 15 years old.

The "poverty thresholds" for 1999 income used in the poverty statistics in the 2000 Census are presented in the following chart:

Poverty Threshold in 1999, by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years Old (Dollars)

Weighted Related Children under 18 years old Size of Family Unit Average threshold Eight or None One Two Three Four Five Six Seven More One person (unrelated individual)...

8501 Under 65 years old....................

8667 8667 65 years and over......................

7990 7990 Two people....................

10869 Householder under 65 years old.....................

11214 11156 11483 Householder 65 years old and over.........

10075 10070 11440 Three people..............

13290 13032 13410 13423 Four people.......................

17029 17184 17465 16895 16954 Five people...............

20127 20723 21024 20380 19882 19578 Six people.............

22727 23835 23930 23436 22964 22261 21845 Seven people.......................

25912 27425 27596 27006 26595 25828 24934 23953 Eight people.......................

28967 30673 30944 30387 29899 29206 28327 27412 27180 Nine people or nore.....................

34417 36897 37076 36583 36169 35489 34554 33708 33499 32208 SOURCE: U.S. Census As shown above, the "poverty threshold" for a family of four, with two related children, was S 16,895 in 1999.

The term "poverty" connotes a complex set of economic and social conditions. The standard statistical definition provides estimates of economic poverty based on income before taxes.

Excluded from the income formula is money received from selling property (unless selling property is your vocation), the value of in-kind services such as food stamps, public housing subsidies, medical care, employer contributions, withdrawal of bank deposits, money borrowed, tax refunds, exchange of money between relatives in the same household and lump-sum receipts such as inheritances and insurance payments.

Table 13 compares the number of individuals within southeastern Connecticut below the poverty level in 1989 and 1999. In 1999, 15,349 persons were classified as living below the poverty threshold, an increase of 2.6% from 14,954 in 1989. This increase, although slight, represents a significant change from the previous decade. Between 1979 and 1989, the number of persons classified as living below the poverty threshold dropped by 18.2 percent.

The towns of Ledyard, Bozrah, and North Stonington all experienced significant percentage increases in the number of people living at poverty levels. Persons in the poverty level increased 230.2% in the town of Ledyard, 63.5% in the town of Bozrah and 59.5% in the town of North Stonington.

The largest absolute increase in poverty level population occurred in Groton with an increase of 516 people, followed by Ledyard with an increase of 412 people and then Waterford with an increase of 206 people.

Decreases in the percentage of persons in the poverty level also occurred. The towns of Sprague, Griswold, and Salem experienced decreases in their poverty levels of 41.5%, 39.4%, and 24.5%

respectively. The largest absolute decrease in poverty level population was experienced bythe towns of Griswold, Norwich, and Sprague, at 364, 262, and 135 respectively.

In 1999, the greatest concentration of low income population continues to be in the three urban towns. These three towns collectively accounted for about two-thirds of the region's poverty population while containing less than half of the region's population. New London, with 14.2%,

continues to have the region's highest concentration of low income population. This represents a decrease of 1.6%, in the number of persons, living below the poverty level in 1989. The City of Norwich had the second highest concentration of low income population with 11.3 % of residents having incomes below the poverty level. Norwich also experienced a 6% decrease in the number of persons living below the poverty level between 1989 and 1999.

Proportionally, the suburban towns had less than half as many low income residents as the urban towns. Sprague with 6.4%, continues to have the highest percentage oftotal population living below the poverty level of all the suburban communities. Yet this represents a decrease of 41.5% in the number of persons living below the poverty level between 1989 and 1999. The second highest concentration of low income population in suburban towns was Griswold, with 5.2% of its residents TABLE 13:

POVERTY STATUS, 1989 AND 1999 (Number of Persons)

Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region Percent Change 1989 1999 Change URBAN TOWNS:

Groton New London Norwich URBAN TOTALS SUBURBAN TOWNS:

Colchester East Lyme Griswold Ledyard Lisbon Montville Preston Sprague Stonington Waterford SUBURBAN TOTALS RURAL TOWNS:

Bozrah Franklin North Stonington Salem Voluntown RURAL TOTALS 1.755 2,271 516 29.4 3,702 3,643

-59

-1.6 4,338 4,076

-262

-6.0 9,795 9,990 195 2.0 457 383

-74

-16.2 476 451

-25

-5.3 925 561

-364

-39.4 179 591 412 230.2 111 128 17 15.3 731 696

-35

-4.8 201 156

-45

-22.4 325 190

-135

-41.5 756 886 130 17.2 583 789 206 35.3 4,744 4,831 87 1.8 52 85 33 63.5 52 45

-7

-13.5 148 236 88 59.5 53 40

-13

-24.5 110 122 12 10.9 I__

_ j I __

_ I _

415 528 113 27.2 REGIONAL TOTALS Connecticut 14,954 15,349 259,514 395 2.6 217,347 42,167 19.4 Source: U.S. Census Bureau having incomes below the poverty level. Griswold also experienced a decrease in the number of persons below the poverty level between 1989 and 1999 at 39.4 percent.

As a group, the region's rural towns contained approximately 3.5% of the total number of persons in the region living below the poverty level. Of the rural towns, Voluntown with 4.8%, has the highest percentage of its population living below the poverty level. This was followed by North Stonington at 4.7% and Bozrah at 3.6 percent. These same three towns have also experienced increases in the number of persons living below the poverty level between 1989 and 1999.

Table 14 shows the number of families within southeastern Connecticut living below the poverty level in 1999. The 2,943 families in this category represent a continuing decrease from previous Census counts. In 1989, there were 3,116 families living below the poverty level. In 1979, the number of families living below the poverty level was 3,831.

Since 1979, the percentage of families with related children living below the poverty level has been in flux, going from 81.2% in 1979 to 84.6% in 1989, back to 82.8% in 1999. The percentage of poverty level families with children within the region continues to be the lowest in suburban towns, followed by rural and then the urban towns. This gap has closed since 1989, especiallybetween rural and urban towns where the difference has decreased from 7.5 % to 1.3 percent.

The percentage of female-headed households living below the poverty level has continued to increase. As a percentage of all families living below the poverty line female-headed households accounted for 55.9% of poverty level families in 1979, 62.3% in 1989 and 64% in 1999. The highest percentage of families headed by females is in the urban towns followed by suburban and rural towns. These percentages are 70%, 53.7% and 32.6% respectively. While the percentages in this category for urban and suburban towns has remained fairly consistent since 1989, rural towns have experienced a significant decrease, going from 56.3% in 1989 to 32.6% in 1999.

Table 15 reviews the poverty status of various age groups in the region's population. The largest segment of the poverty level population is adults 18 years and older at 68 percent. Of this group, 13.3% are elderly. In 1989, this age group represented 62.7% of the total poverty level population of which 13% were elderly. In this age group, in 1999 42.9% were in the urban towns, followed by suburban and rural towns, at 22.5% and 2.3% respectively. The percentage of this age group that were elderly, 65 years and older, was highest in the suburban towns, at 15.9%. This was followed by rural and urban towns, at 13.1 % and 12% respectively.

The level of poverty for children under 5 years old has basically remained the same from 1989 to 1999, at 11.7% and 11.6% respectively. The rate of urban children in this category remains at close TABLE 14:

POVERTY STATUS, 1999 (By Families)

Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region Poverty Families With Related Children under 18 With Female Householder, No Husband Present URBAN TOWNS:

Groton New London Norwich URBAN TOTALS SUBURBAN TOWNS:

Colchester East Lyme Griswold Ledyard Lisbon Montville Preston Sprague Stonington Waterford SUBURBAN TOTALS RURAL TOWNS:

Bozrah Franklin North Stonington Salem Voluntown Number Percent Number Percent 496 429 86.5 299 60.3 725 628 86.6 538 74.2 765 662 86.5 553 72.3 1,986 1,719 86.6 1,390 70.0 85 51 60.0 41 48.2 77 52 67.5 52 67.5 121 110 90.9 51 42.1 121 99 81.8 69 57.0 21 15 71.4 15 71.4 146 104 71.2 99 67.8 22 11 50.0 0

0.0 18 15 83.3 11 61.1 142 111 78.2 77 54.2 109 70 64.2 48 44.0 862 638 74.0 463 53.7 15 15 100.0 12 80.0 6

3 50.0 2

33.3 47 42 89.4 14 29.8 6

6 100.0 0

0.0 21 15 71.4 3

14.3 RURAL TOTALS REGIONAL TOTALS 95 81 2,438 85.3 82.8 31 32.6 2,943 1,884 64.0 Source: U.S. Census Bureau TABLE 15:

POVERTY STATUS, 1999 (Number of Persons by Age Group)

Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region Povertyl Under 5 Years l

5 to 17 Years 18 to 64 Years J 65 Years and over D.-rnn-l N.Jm-1r-PD.-re]nt N?,hrIPprrent I NXmnher I PArptni NM,,mhlr Prpent I

URBAN TOWNS:

Groton New London Norwich 2,271 4571 20.11 3461 15.2 12001 52.8 2681 11.8 3.643 4981 13.71 8441 23.2 19721 54.1 3291 9.0 4,076 4321 10.61 8251 20.2 2,213 54.3 6064 14.9 URBAN TOTALS 9,990 1,3871 13.91 2,0151 20.21 5,3851 53.91 1,203 12.0 SUBURBAN TOWNS:

Colchester East Lyme Griswold Ledyard Lisbon Montville Preston Sprague Stonington Waterford 383 I 29 7.6 I 841 21.91 2171 56.7 I 5:31 13.8 451 18 4.0 107 23.7 251 55.7 75 16.6 561 29 5.2 155 27.6 289 51.5 88 15.7 591 83 14.0 113 19.1 360 60.9 35 5.9 128 17 13.3 11 8.6 84 65.6 16 12.5 696 58 8.3 152 21.8 400 57.5 86 12.4 156 0

0.0 25 16.0 95 60.9 361 23.1 190 7

3.7 31 16.3 89 46.8 63 33.2 886 80 9.0 138 15.6 496 56.0 1721 19.4 789 40 5.1 193 24.5 410 52.01 1461 18.5 I

I I

I

.1.

4

+

4 4

4

.4 4

SUBURBAN TOTAL 4,831 I 361 7.5 I 1,0091 20.91 2,6911 55.XrI 7701 15.9 RURAL TOWNS:

Bozrah Franklin North Stonington Salem Voluntown 85 4

4.7 261 30.6 401 47.1 isi 17.6 45

-3 6.71 71 15.61 211 46.71 141 31.1 236 16 6.81 601 25.41 1521 64.41 8

3.4 40 9

22.51 61 15.01 181 45.0j 7

17.5 122 0

0.04 38 31 94 48.44 25 20.5

+

4 4

t l

RURAL TOTALS REGIONAL TOTAL 528 15,349 321 6.11 1,780 11.6 1371 25.91 2901 54.9 3,161 20.6 8,366 54.5

-691 13.1 2,042 13.3 Connecticut 259,514 24,620 9.5 61,288 23.6 142,788 55.0 30,818 11.9 Source: U.S. Census Bureau to double that of children in suburban or rural towns.

The age group of 5 to 17 year olds living at the poverty level has decreased from 25.5% to 20.6%

between 1989 and 1999. In this age group, rural towns have the highest percentage at 25.9 percent.

Suburban and urban towns follow at 20.9% and 20.2% respectively.

Taking an overall look at the poverty level data, several conditions are noteworthy. First, the distribution of people living below the poverty line has remained more or less the same between urban, suburban, and rural towns. Second, there has been an increase in the number of persons at the poverty level in the 18 years and older age group since 1989. Finally, the continuing decline in the number of families living below the poverty level is of greatest interest. This trend suggests that economic growth efforts at the regional level are having a positive effect across all socioeconomic groups.

IV. OCCUPATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS The 2000 Census reported that the region's population of those 16 years and older was 190,089.

Of this group, 128,677 were in the combined civilian and military labor force. This represents a labor force participation rate of 68%, a small decline from participation rate of 70% in 1990.

Table 16 shows the distribution ofthe civilian and military labor force among the region's towns and cities. The total civilian labor force of 121,900 is comprised of employed and unemployed males and females. The distribution of the total civilian labor force is roughly proportionate to the distribution ofthe total population by municipal classification (urban, suburban, rural). It should be noted that data provided in the Census on the labor force are by place of residence, not by place of employment.

Approximately 3.6% of the region's labor force consisted of military personnel. This represents 6,777 persons residing throughout the region. About two-thirds of these military people reside in Groton. As in previous Census counts,86% of the military population resides in the towns of Groton, New London, and Ledyard.

The Armed Forces category of the region's labor force has experienced a significant decline during the past decade with 48% fewer people in the military sector of the region's labor force. In 1990, 13,080 people, or about 10% of the region's labor force, consisted of military personnel. In 2000, the number of military personnel decreased to 6,777, or about 3.6% of the region's labor force.

Table 17 shows the town-by-town participation of population 16 years and over participating in the civilian labor force in 2000. Two-thirds of the region's towns have labor participation rates that exceed the regional participation rate. The exceptions are the urban towns of Groton and New London and the suburban towns of East Lyme, Montville and Waterford.

The proportion of males and females in the civilian labor force has changed during the past decade.

In 1990, males comprised 54% ofthe civilian labor force and females 46 percent. The 2000 Census shows that males comprise 51.5% and females 48.5% of the civilian labor force. Interestingly, a shift also occurred in the Armed Forces category. In 1990, the proportion ofmale militarypersonnel was 96.5% compared to 3.5% females. In 2000, male military personnel dropped to 90% while female military personnel increased to ten percent.

The decline of defense related private sector TABLE 16:

PERSONS 16 YEARS AND OVER IN THE LABOR FORCE, 2000 Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region FEMALES MALES In Armed Civilian Civilian Forces I Employed I Unemployed In Armed Civilian Civilian Forces I Employed Unemployed Total Labor Force URBAN TOWNS:

Groton New London Norwich URBAN TOTALS SUBURBAN TOWNS:

Colchester East Lyme Griswold Ledyard Lisbon Montville Preston Sprague Stonington Waterford SUBURBAN TOTALS RURAL TOWNS:

Bozrah Franklin North Stonington Salem Voluntown RURAL TOTALS 316 8,333 400 4,157 8,341 392 21,939 246 5,820 386 810 5,649 527 13,438 23 8,578 554 275 8,999 497 18,926 585 22,731 1,340 5,242 22,989 1,416 54,303 6

3,727 104 19 4,059 126 8,041 0

4,038 143 55 4,213 114 8,563 15 2,879 72 55 3,030 176 6,227 22 3,479 122 295 3,784 160 7,862 0

1,066 35 7

1,096 51 2,255 5

4,270 78 138 4,675 226 9,392 0

1,152 43 20 1,239 42 2,496 0

714 37 4

822 40 1,617 2

4,365 134 76 4,660 156 9,393 22 4,417 159 90 4,827 184 9,699 72 30,107 927 759 32,405 1,275 65,54 5

553 0

16 683 33 1,290 0

472 0

0 525 19 1,016 10 1,337 35 21 1,405 72 2,880 7

1,012 19 31 1,140 21 2,230 0

611 8

29 738 27 1,413 3,985 62 97 4,491 172 8,829 REGIONAL TOTALS 679 56,823 2,329 6,098 59,885 2,863 128,677 Source: U.S. Census Bureau TABLE 17:

EMPLOYMENT PARTICIPATION RATES, 2000 Population 16 Years and Over Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region Total Population 16 and Over In Civilian Labor Force Percent in Labor Force In Armed Forces Percent in Armed Forces URBAN TOWNS:

Groton New London Norwich URBAN TOTALS SUBURBAN TOWNS:

Colchester East Lyme Griswold Ledyard Lisbon Montville Preston Sprague Stonington Waterford SUBURBAN TOTALS RURAL TOWNS:

Bozrah Franklin North Stonington Salem Voluntown RURAL TOTALS 30,935 l 17,466 56.5l 4,473 14.5 20,410 12,382 60.7 1,056 5.2 28,462 18,628 65.4 298 1.0 79,807 48,476 60.7 5,827 7.3 10,630 8,016 75.4 25 0.2 14,514 8,508 58.6 55 0.4 8,319 6,157 74.0 70 0.8 11,052 7,545 68.3 317 2.9 3,129 2,248 71.8 7

0.2 14,726 9,249 62.8 143 1.0 3,782 2,476 65.5 20 0.5 2,290 1,613 70.4 4

0.2 14,450 9,315 64.5 78 0.5 15,425 9,587 62.2 112 0.7 98,317 64,714 65.8 831 0.8 1,863 1,269 68.1 21 1.1 1,444 1,016 70.4 0

0.0 3,921 2,849 72.7 31 0.8 2,808 2,192 78.1 38 1.4 1,929 1,384 71.7 29 1.5 11,965 8,7101 72.8 119 1.0 REGIONAL TOTALS 190,089 121,900 64.1 6,777

3.6 Source

U.S. Census Bureau businesses in southeastern Connecticut could account for some of the decrease of men to women in the civilian labor force.

In 1990, five out of ten females in the labor force had children under 17 years old. At that time, suburban towns, with 515, had the lowest rate of female labor force participants with children under 17 years of age. This was followed by urban towns, with 55%, and rural towns, with 57%. The 2000 Census shows that this has changed significantly. The 2000 figures indicate that approximately 3 out of 10 females in the labor force had children under 17 years of age. In this category, the urban towns had the lowest rate with 30%, followed by the suburban towns, with 33%, and the rural towns, with 34%. These numbers seem to follow the continuing decline in household size reported by the U. S. Census. This information is shown in Table 18.

Employment data from the Connecticut Labor Department shown on Table 19 and Figure 5 has been utilized to study the distribution of employment by job location throughout the region. This information is compared to the distribution of population, which is useful in identifying to what extent each individual municipality contributes to the overall regional economy.

Table 19 shows that in 1990, the three urban municipalities were the only ones among the region's eighteen communities to have a higher share of the region's employment Gobs) compared to their share of total population. The urban towns had 46.3% of the region's population while providing 64.5% of the region's jobs. Suburban towns had 47.9% of the region's population and provided 32.1% of thejobs. The rural towns had 6.1% of the region's population and provided 3.4% of the region'sjobs. According to the 2000 data this employment distribution has experienced significant change. The 2000 data from the Connecticut Labor Department, while still showing that the three urban towns continue to have a higher share of the region's employment as compared with their share of the region's population, shows that this share has decreased significantly.

The urban towns, as a group, experienced a decrease of 4.4% in their share ofthe region's population as population shifted to suburban and rural towns. The urban towns also experienced a decrease of 14% in the number of civilianjobs that they provide to the region. The actual number of urban jobs decreased from 70,940 in 1990 to 59,550 in 2000.

Suburban towns had a different experience during the past decade. I n 1 990, suburban towns accounted for 47.9% of the region's population and provided 32.1% of the region's jobs. The 2000 data indicate that suburban towns now account for 51.7% of the region's population, and provide 45.9% of the region's jobs, a 13.8% increase from 1990. The actual number ofjobs increased from 35,290 to 54,120.

TABLE 18:

WOMEN WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN IN THE LABOR FORCE, 2000 Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region Total Female Labor Force With Children Under 6 years only With Children 6 to 17 only

+

Number l Percent Numberl Percent URBAN TOWNS:

Groton New London Norwich URBAN TOTALS SUBURBAN TOWNS:

Colchester East Lyme Griswold Ledyard Lisbon Montville Preston Sprague Stonington Waterford SUBURBAN TOTALS RURAL TOWNS:

Bozrah Franklin North Stonington Salem Voluntown RURAL TOTALS 9.049 975 10.8 1.845 20.4 6,452 583 9.0 1,106 17.1 9,155 846 9.2 2,038 22.3 24,656 2,404 9.8 4,989 20.2 3,837 482 12.61 942 24.6 4,181 339 8.11 1,037 24.8 2,966 209 7.01 759 25.6 3,623 234 6.5 1,145 31.6 1,101 60 5.41 283 25.7 4,353 314 7.2 1,075 24.7 1,195 61 5.1 336 28.1 751 53 7.1 207 27.6 4,501 342 7.6 986 21.9 4,598 261 5.71 1,143 24.9 31,106 2,355 7.6 7,913 25.4 558 40 7.2 120 21.5 472 44 9.3 114 24.2 1,382 115 8.3 338 24.5 1,038 102 9.8 310 29.9 619 58 9.4 152 24.6 4,069 359 8.8 1,0341 25.4 REGIONAL TOTALS 59,831 5,118 8.6 13,936 23.3 Source: U.S.Census Bureau TABLE 19:

LOCATION OF NON-FARM JOBS Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region 2000 Jnhb 1990 sTnh 12000 PnnnIltinn URBAN TOWNS:

Groton New London Norwich URBAN TOTALS SUBURBAN TOWNS:

Colchester East Lyme Griswold Ledyard Lisbon Montville Preston Sprague Stonington Waterford SUBURBAN TOTALS RURAL TOWNS:

Bozrah Franklin North Stonington Salem Voluntown RURAL TOTALS Percent Percent 1 Percent Number of Total Number of Total Number I of Total 26,630 22.6 34,040 30.9 39,907 16.4 15,150 12.9 18,400 16.7 25,671 10.6 17,770 15.10 18,500 16.8 36,117 14.9 59,550 50.5 70,940 64.5 101,695 41.9 3,500 3.0 3,050 2.8 14,551 6.0 5,200 4.4 4,640 4.2 18,118 7.5 1,620 1.4 1,610 1.5 10,807 4.5 12,920 11.0 2,040 1.9 14,687 6.1 600 0.5 440 0.4 4,069 1.7 8,890 7.5 3,880 3.5 18,546 7.6 760 0.6 1,670 1.5 4,688 1.9 800 0.7 1,030 0.9 2,971 1.2 7,230 6.1 6,920 6.3 17,906 7.4 12,600 10.7 10,010 9.1 19,152 7.9 54,120 45.9 35,290 32.11 125,495 51.7 860 0.7 530 0.5 2,357 1.0 960 0.8 720 0.7 1,835 0.8 1,380 1.2 1,870 1.7 4,991 2.1 710 0.6 470 0.4 3,858 1.6 280 0.2 180 0.2 2,528 1.0 4,190 3.6 3,770 3.4 15,569 6.4 REGIONAL TOTALS 117,860 100%

110,000 100%

242,759 100%

Source: CT Dept of Labor, US Census Bureau, SCCOG The rural towns remained fairly stable with regard to their share of the region's population and employment. In 1990, the rural towns had 6.1 % of the region's population and provided 3.4% of the region's jobs. In 2000, rural towns had 6.4% of the region's population and provided 3.6% of the region's jobs.

The downsizing ofthe defense industry during this past decade and the emergence ofboth Foxwoods and Mohegan Resort Casinos is clearly reflected in this latest data. The past trend of slow decentralization of employment seems to have been accelerated in the region and will continue to make planning for infrastructure and public transportation a complex task.

EMPLOYMENT Tables 20 and 21 review the occupational skills of employed persons age 16 or more in 2000. The data is represented by place of residence rather than place of employment.

The profile of southeastern Connecticut's employed labor force is similar to that of the state as a whole, with a few exceptions. One of the exceptions is in the Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Rental Leasing category.

The region had 4.1% of its workers in this category versus 9.8% of state workers. Another exception, not surprisingly, is that 15.9% of regional workers are in the Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation, Food Service category. This percentage far exceeded the state as a whole, which is 6.7%. The region's expanding tourism industry would account for this difference.

This service category was second only to Education, Health, Social Services, which accounted for 20.7% of regional workers. This same category was also the top employment sector for state workers, at 22 percent.

The top employment categories in southeastern Connecticut were: Education, Health, Social Services, at 20.7%; Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation, Food Service, at 15.9%;

Manufacturing, at 14.3%; and Retail Trade, at 11.5 percent. These four categories accounted for 62.4% of employment in the region. The top employment categories in the state were: Education, Health, Social Services, at 22%; Manufacturing, at 14.8%; Retail Trade, at 11.2%; and Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative, Waste Management, at 10.1 percent. These four categories accounted for 58.1 % of state-wide employment.

UNEMPLOYMENT Unemployment statistics from the 2000 Census as shown in Table 16 indicates that 5,192 individuals or4.3% ofthetotal civilian labor force 16 years and olderin the region were unemployed. Previous Censuses reported higher regional unemployment percentages. In 1990. the unemployment rate was 5.9% and the 1980 rate was 5.6 percent.

Southeastern Connecticut Region Distribution of Non-Farm Jobs as a Percent of the Total Workforce - 2000 Legend czz c.z Greater than 5% less than 15%

Greater than 15% less than 25%

N S

0 Co.s d Go Vmri.X GIS D.Ihlb...

Figure 5

TABLE 22:

EMPLOYMENT STATUS, 2000 Population 16 Years and Over Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region Total Population 16 and Over Not in Labor Force Total Labor Force Civilian In Armed Labor Forces Force Civilian I Civilian Percent Unemploved Emploved I Unemploved URBAN TOWNS:

Groton New London Norvich URBAN TOTALS SUBURBAN TOWNS:

Colchester East Lyme Griswold Ledyard Lisbon Montville Preston Sprague Stonington Waterford SUBURBAN TOTALS RURAL TOWNS:

Bozrah Franklin North Stonington Salem Voluntown RURAL TOTALS 30,935 8,996 21,939 4,473 17,4661 16,674 792 4.5 20,410 6,972 13,438 1,056 12,382 11,469 913 7.4 28,462 9,536 18,926 298 18,628 17,577 1,051 5.6 79,807 25,504 54,303 5,8271 48,476 45,720 2,756 5.7 10,630 2,589 8,041 25 8,016 7,786 230 2.9 14,514 5,951 8,563 55 8,508 8,251 257 3.0 8,319 2,092 6,227 70 6,157 5,909 248 4.0 11,052 3,190 7,862 317 7,545 7,263 282 3.7 3,129 874 2,255 7

2,248 2,162 86 3.8 14,726 5,334 9,392 143 9,249 8,945 304 3.3 3,782 1,286 2,496 20 2,476 2,391 85 3.4 2,290 673 1,617 4

1,613 1,536 77 4.8 14,450 5,057 9,393 78 9,315 9,025 290 3.1 15,425 5,726 9,699 112 9,587 9,244 343 3.6 98,317 32,772 65,5451 831 64,714 62,5121 2,202 3.4 1,863 573 1,290 21 1,269 1,236 33 2.6 1,444 428 1,016 0

1,016 997 19 1.9 3,921 1,041 2,880 31 2,849 2,742 107 3.8 2,808 578 2,230 38 2,192 2,152 40 1.8 1,929 516 1,413 29 1,384 1,349 35 2.5 11,965 3,136 8,829 1191 8,7101 8,476 234 2.7 REGIONAL TOTALS 190,089 61,412 128,677 6,777 121,900 116,708 5,192

4.3 Source

U.S. Census Bureau As Table 22 shows, many of the individual towns did not deviate significantly from the regional unemployment percentage of 4.3. As a group, the rural towns had the lowest unemployment rate, at 2.7 percent. Salem, with an unemployment rate of 1.8%, had the lowest unemployment percentage, both in the rural town category and in the region. The urban towns, as a group, had the highest unemployment rate, at 5.7 percent. New London had the highest unemployment rate both in this group and in the region, at 7.4 percent. The suburban towns in southeastern Connecticut had an unemployment rate of 3.4 percent. Within this group oftowns, Colchester's 2.9% was the lowest and Sprague's 4.8% was the highest rate of unemployment.