Pittsburgh Economic Quarterly

FALL 2003 University of Pittsburgh

PITTSBURGH ECONOMIC QUARTERLY

University Center for Social and Urban Research

UCSUR INTRODUCES QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY by Scott Beach and Sabina Deitrick UCSUR is pleased to announce its sues. Information can be organized INSIDE THIS ISSUE: new Pittsburgh Quality of Life Survey. along different demographic, economic The Quality of Life survey addresses im- and social variables. The Quality of Life Population Change in the Region 4 portant regional issues and will be con- survey will allow us to analyze trends ducted annually. and changes in many realms in the Pitts- Prescription Drug Coverage 6 The Quality of Life survey will be- burgh region. come an important resource for those The Quality of Life survey fits into a analyzing quality of life issues and long established tradition of research at- trends in the Pittsburgh region. Main tempting to gauge the conditions of a areas of the survey include economic, place and its people. Pittsburgh was environmental, community, political, one of the first cities in the nation to as- transportation, and housing conditions, sess urban life and conditions in the along with health, welfare and safety is- early 20th century. The Pittsburgh Sur- vey was sponsored by the Russell Sage Figure 1. Allegheny County Resident Ratings of SW PA Region Foundation in 1907 and 1908. Its use and Local Community as a Place to Live extended from social reform recommen- 100 dations at that time to benchmarks

90 against which to assess changes in the subsequent years. Its importance can- 80 16.6 not be overstated. As Maurine 21.6 70 Greenwald and Margo Anderson (Pitts- 60 % Excellent burgh Surveyed, University of Pitts- 50 42.2 % Very Good burgh Press, 1996, 10) noted, “(at) the 34.6 40 % Good end of the twentieth century, an elabo-

30 rate array of knowledge-building profes- sions and institutions all could trace 20 28.2 25.8 some of their roots to the kind of re- 10 search done in the Pittsburgh Survey and 0 the social survey movement more gen- SW PA Region Local Community erally.” Continued on page 2 PITTSBURGH COLLEGE GRADUATES: SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO? by Susan Hansen How do recent graduates decide where an article in Economic Development Quar- Hansen, Ban, and Huggins wanted to to live and work? And how can they be terly: “Explaining the “Brain Drain” find out why so many college graduates persuaded to remain in the region where from Older Industrial Cities: The Pitts- were leaving Western Pennsylvania. They they attended college? These are vital burgh Region” (May 2003). This report asked their respondents about their edu- questions for many states and cities cur- documents the results of a combined tele- cational backgrounds, their value priori- rently experiencing a “brain drain” – a net phone and Internet survey conducted in ties concerning careers and geographic lo- outflow of college graduates, particularly 2001 of 2,131 recent graduates of three cation, their methods of finding jobs, the those in technical and scientific fields. Pittsburgh-area universities —University major reasons they remained in Pittsburgh Susan B. Hansen, Carolyn Ban, and of Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon, and or settled elsewhere, and their future plans. Leonard Huggins have recently published Duquesne. Continued on page 3 PAGE 2 FALL 2003 UALITY OF IFE URVEY CONT Continued from page 1 Q L S ( ) Increasingly, cities and regions vey conducted in 1999 found 73% of with only 42 percent finding road qual- around the world are attempting to link respondents rating regional quality of ity to be good, very good, or excellent. quality of life issues to their own eco- life as ‘good’ or ‘excellent.’ Survey data such as these can serve nomic growth and development. Re- The ratings of the local community not only to inform public policy, but gional surveys provide an important were similar, though slightly lower, as a marketing tool for the region. basis for making informed policy than national findings. The Social UCSUR is currently seeking funding choices and decisions. They have also Capital Community Benchmark Sur- to conduct: (1) 400 additional surveys been used as marketing tools to attract vey conducted in 2000 found that 85% with randomly selected Allegheny investments, businesses, and residents nationally rated their community as a County residents, (2) 500 surveys of to a region. ‘good’ or excellent’ place to live. African Americans in Allegheny UCSUR’s Survey Research Pro- Respondents were also asked to County, and (3) 800 surveys with ran- gram conducted the Pilot Study of the rate various regional quality of life do- domly selected residents from the 5- Quality of Life Survey for Allegheny mains using the same 5-point scale. county region surrounding Allegheny County earlier this year. This is the Once again, ratings fell in the upper County. This would allow for more first piece to report on the preliminary ranges across most categories. sophisticated analyses involving conclusions from the survey. Medical care received in the past breakdowns of the findings by race, A random-digit dialing (RDD) tele- year attained the highest ratings, as 93 sex, age, residence, and so on. The phone survey was conducted between percent of respondents rated medical survey could also be conducted in February and April, 2003 with 443 Al- care received as “good” or higher (Fig- smaller geographic areas, resulting in legheny County residents. RDD sam- ure 2). Cultural, recreational and lei- community-level quality of life pro- pling gives all telephone households sure opportunities, along with recre- files. Individuals or organizations in- (including unlisted numbers) in the ational areas, such as parks, trails and terested in participating or supporting county an equal chance of being se- playgrounds, followed in most favor- such surveys should contact Scott lected. The margin of error for the able ratings, with 87 percent and 85 Beach at UCSUR. overall survey estimates is approxi- percent respectively rating them as Preliminary data from UCSUR’s mately + / - 5%. This article summa- ‘good’ or better. Also rated highly Quality of Life Survey paint a posi- rizes a few of the key basic survey were police in the local community tive portrait of perceived quality of life findings. (Future issues will present and quality of local schools. The pub- in Allegheny County and Southwest- additional data). lic transportation system was found to ern Pennsylvania. The survey finds Respondents were asked to rate the be good or better by 63 percent of re- satisfaction levels high at both the re- Southwestern Pennsylvania region and spondents, while the regional highway gional level and local community level their local community as ‘excellent’ system received the lowest ratings, on important quality of life issues. ‘very good’ ‘good’ ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ places to live. A vast majority – 87 percent — rated the region as a ‘good,’ ‘very good,’ or ‘excellent’ place to live Figure 2. Percent of Allegheny County Residents Rating Various Re- (Figure 1). Satisfaction with local . community was nearly as high, with gional Quality of Life Domains “Good”/ “Very Good”/”Excellent” 82 percent reporting that their community is a ‘good,’ ‘very good,’ or ‘ex- 100 cellent,’ place to live (also Figure 1). 90

Within these ratings, over one-fifth – 80 22 percent – found their local community to be an ‘excellent’ place to live, 70 92.8 compared to 17 percent rating the re- 60 87.2 84.7 83.6 77.6 gion as ‘excellent’. 50 These data show high levels of over- 62.6 40 all perceived quality of life among 41.9 Allegheny County residents. 30 Medical Care Cultural/Leisure Recreational Police in Local Public Schools Public Highway The ratings of the region as a good Received in Opps. Areas Community in Local Transportation System Past Year Community or better place to live compare favor- ably with results from other regions. Similar data from a Phoenix, AZ sur- PITTSBURGH ECONOMIC QUARTERLY PAGE 3

Continued from page 1 They surveyed two groups of graduates Leavers earned more money at com- The lack of opportunities for two- to compare graduates with degrees from parable educational levels than stayers. career couples ranked second only to 1994 with more recent graduates from For African Americans, the differences salary as the reason previous Pittsburgh 1999. are greater than for whites, with two- job holders gave for leaving the area, and All three universities have been at- thirds of leavers earning more than this issue was far more important for tracting more students from outside the $50,000 per year, compared to only 41 women. Pittsburgh region in the last few years. percent of stayers. The study suggested several policy Students are attracted here by the qual- Both men and women who leave the recommendations to help retain recent ity of education offered as well as by the region earn more than those who stay at area graduates and to attract more highly cultural and economic opportunities they comparable educational levels. Women skilled workers to the region. These in- perceive in the Pittsburgh region. The earn less than men, on average, but the clude keeping higher education afford- results indicated that 1999 graduates difference in earnings between women able, addressing salary inequities (espe- were more likely to stay in the region leavers and stayers is much greater than cially for women and minorities), high- than 1994 graduates, due in part to an men. The region is losing many female lighting the area’s cultural and recre- improving area economy. graduates who expressed concerns with ational opportunities, improving career To assess the factors that most di- low salaries, the “glass ceiling,” and in- counseling by universities in the region, rectly influenced career choice, the adequate child care. and creating a climate more welcoming sample was divided into 821 Stayers — of cultural and ethnic diversity. working in Pittsburgh at the time of the survey — and 969 Leavers employed elsewhere. A logistic regression analysis of these Predictors of Staying or Leaving the Pittsburgh Region two groups showed that Duquesne graduates and those who placed a high value on closeness to family in the area, Duquesne grad

low housing costs, or ample opportuni- Graduate degree ties for continuing education were more Housing, living costs likely to remain in the Pittsburgh region after graduation. CMU graduates and Continuing education those who strongly valued high salaries, Year of graduation chances for advancement, or amenities, Closeness to family

including cultural activities, ethnic di- Advancement opportunities versity, nightlife, and participatory Technical job sports, were more likely to leave (see graph). Sex (male) The study also found that the re- Minority gion is losing disproportionate num- Chance to do good

bers of minorities and graduates in Challenging job high-tech fields, and is attracting few Amenities immigrants. The major competition for area graduates was from neighboring Salary is important states, rather than the Sun Belt. Low CMU grad

salaries and lack of advancement oppor- HS l ocat ion tunities, especially for women, minori- 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 .0 .2 .2 .0 ties, and two-career couples, were the -1 -0.7 -0.5 -0 0.0 0 0.5 0.7 1

primary reasons respondents gave for More likely to leave | More likely to stay leaving. PAGE 4 FALL 2003

POPULATION CHANGE IN THE PITTSBURGH REGION, 2000-2002 BY PAUL FLORA The Pittsburgh region’s population Fayette, Washington, and or a 0.4 percent decrease per year. (See has fallen in each of the past four de- Westmoreland). graph and table.) Butler County’s cades. Since 2000, the downward trend The 2000 decennial census re- growth regis- has continued at the same pace as in ported the region’s population decline tered 1.0 per- the 1990s, according to annual popu- as 0.2 percent per year during the ...Pittsburgh’s cent per year lation estimates by the U.S. Census 1990s, compared to the nation’s annual population from 2000 to Bureau. 1.2 percent population increase. For decline 2002. It now Whether the current decade ends Pittsburgh, this represents an improve- has company continues... in another loss depends upon future ment from the 0.4 percent and 0.7 per- in the region, changes in the region’s number of cent annual declines in the 1970s and as Washing- births, deaths, in-migrants, and out-mi- 1980s, respectively. ton County grants (both domestic and interna- Between 2000 and 2002, the Pitts- grew 0.3 percent per year over the tional). This article reviews recent burgh MSA’s population declined by same two years. trends in total population change and just over 11,100 people. Population Demographers refer to the typical in the components of population grew in Butler and Washington coun- pattern of population growth from change for the recently redefined Pitts- ties, while it fell in the remaining five births outweighing deaths as “natural burgh MSA and its seven counties (Al- counties in the region. Allegheny increase.” But in 1996, with a popula- legheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, County’s total population fell by tion heavily laden with elderly resi- 10,096 residents from 2000 to 2002, dents and lower than average fertility

Demographic Components of Population Change July 1, 2000 through July 1, 2002

Net Net Natural Domestic International Other Region July 1 2002 Births Deaths Change Migration Migration Adjustments July 1 2000 Allegheny 1,269,904 28,563 30,326 -1,763 -12,278 4,654 -709 1,280,000 Beaver 179,351 3,628 3,937 -309 -1,520 128 -99 181,151 Butler 178,078 4,062 3,242 820 2,563 179 -55 174,571 Fayette 146,654 2,965 3,607 -642 -1,174 40 -70 148,500 Washington 204,110 4,219 4,952 -733 1,771 116 -57 203,013 Westmoreland 368,428 7,073 8,923 -1,850 505 239 -230 369,764 Old 6-County MSA 2,346,525 50,510 54,987 -4,477 -10,133 5,356 -1,220 2,356,999 Armstrong 71,673 1,410 1,797 -387 -188 16 -76 72,308 New 7-County MSA 2,418,198 51,920 56,784 -4,864 -10,321 5,372 -1,296 2,429,307 Greene 40,520 860 917 -57 -117 34 -26 40,686 Indiana 88,780 1,565 1,769 -204 -682 156 -30 89,540 Lawrence 94,104 2,051 2,203 -152 -336 37 -57 94,612 10-County SWPA 2,641,602 56,396 61,673 -5,277 -11,456 5,599 -1,409 2,654,145 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates Program

Natural Change -- Births minus deaths. Net Domestic Migration -- The difference between internal in-migration to an area and internal out-migration from the same area, where both the origin and the destination are within the United States. Net International Migration -- The difference between immigration to an area and emigration from the same area, where either the origin or the destination is outside of the United States. Total Fertility Rate -- The sum of age-specific birth rates for a population of women in a period of time, most often a year. The TFR may be interpreted as the average number of lifetime births women may be expected to have if they bore children at the rates that women of all ages did in the given year or other period. The TFR can be expressed for 1,000 females during childbearing lifetimes. PITTSBURGH ECONOMIC QUARTERLY PAGE 5

rates, the Pittsburgh region began reg- Population Change: July 1, 2000 through July 1, 2002 istering more deaths than births—a (percent change per year) “natural decrease.” Among the seven counties in the Pittsburgh MSA, only Butler County registered more birthsthan deaths. The other five outlying counties had annual natural decreases that exceeded Al- legheny County’s -0.1 percent per year. The Pittsburgh region may not see a return to natural increases until the baby boom generation has passed on. Meanwhile, as the baby boom cohort ages into retirement, other metropoli- tan areas will likely join Pittsburgh with natural decreases. Relatively low fertility rates also contribute to the decreases. According Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates Program to the Allegheny County Health De- partment, Allegheny County’s total fertility rate has been below the re- percent of the net 8,961 estimated be- level data reveals the rivalrous nature placement rate – 2100 — for decades. tween 1990 and 1999. of regional development as Armstrong, In 2000, the rate was 1729.7, below Within the Pittsburgh MSA, Al- Butler, Washington, and the U.S. rate of 2,130, the first time legheny County attracted 87 percent Westmoreland Counties all recorded the U.S. reached the replacement level of the net foreign immigrants; net gains in domestic migration from in three decades. Westmoreland County was a distant 1990 to 1999, certainly at the expense Fertility rates in the region have second with just 4 percent. Despite of Allegheny County, which experi- consistently fallen below U.S. rates. its preeminence within the region, enced losses of 90,356 persons. The Even during the “baby bust” decade Allegheny’s net international migra- net gains continued from 2000 to 2002 of the 1970s, when the U.S. nadir was tion pales compared to most large U.S. for Butler, Washington, and 1774.0 in 1975, Allegheny County fell counties. Westmoreland Counties. lower, to In recent decades, the largest con- Overall, population losses have 1376.9 in tributor to Pittsburgh’s population been slower in the Pittsburgh MSA ...Low fertility 1978. The losses has been net domestic migra- since 1990. Turning the tide to expe- rates contribute to City of tion—more people moved away to rience population gains is difficult in the decreases... Pittsburgh other parts of the country than moved the face of slowly changing natural de- fell even to the region from within the country. mographic forces that suggest future lower, to Relative advantages among regions, decreases. The possibility for growth 1265.6 in e.g. job opportunities, wage rates and largely depends upon in-migration, the same year. living costs, are among the key fac- and upon creating an economic climate Foreign immigration also contrib- tors that determine the direction of do- of better job opportunities relative to utes to population growth. The net in- mestic migration. other regions. flow of foreign immigrants may have Since the 2000 Census, the Pitts- increased slightly in recent years. burgh MSA lost an estimated net From 2000 to 2002, the Pittsburgh 12,659 domestic migrants. This is a MSA attracted an estimated, net 6,048 slightly slower pace than was reported international migrants—more than 60 from 1990 to 1999. Examining county PAGE 6 FALL 2003 DIFFERENCES IN PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE BY RACE AMONG OLDER ADULTS IN ALLEGHENY COUNTY BY DON MUSA Elderly residents of Allegheny Figure 1. Health Insurance Coverage Medicare Enrollees 65+ in County often have no or limited insurance or financial assistance to pay for Allegheny County their prescription drugs. A survey conducted recently by UCSUR and the Graduate School of Public Health at the University of Pittsburgh indicates White that a significant proportion of Medi- care enrollees age 65 and over in Al- African American legheny County do not have prescription drug coverage, and that elderly Af- 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% rican Americans are less likely to have drug coverage than whites. Percent The survey revealed that, overall, an estimated 28% of the elderly in the No Supplemental Insurance to Medicare County do not have drug coverage as Supplemental Insurance without Prescription Drug Coverage part of their health insurance package. Of these, almost 12% have no health Supplemental Insurance with Prescription Drug Coverage insurance to supplement Medicare, which does not include prescription lead to both poorer health and greater coverage, while serious for all groups, drug coverage. An additional 16% economic hardship. The same study is more severe for older African have supplemental insurance which found that nationally (in 1999), 31% Americans. The Allegheny County does not include drug coverage. overall and 30% of African Americans survey of the elderly also revealed that Supplemental insurance includes had no prescription drug coverage. older African Americans here are more Medicare + Choice (Medicare Lack of prescription drug coverage likely to have a greater number of HMOs), Medicaid, employer spon- among African Americans therefore chronic conditions and have worse sored health plans, and both private appears to be a greater problem in Al- self-assessed health than whites (Fig- and public supplemental plans. legheny County than nationally. ure 2). This means that they are more Among older African Americans in The implications of a lack of drug likely to require a greater number of the County, lack of prescription drug coverage is more common, with an es- Continued on page 7 timated 26% having no insurance Figure 2. Health Characteristics Medicare Enrollees 65+ in supplemental to Medicare and an ad- Allegheny County ditional 12% having supplemental in- 60 surance without drug benefits for a total of 38% of elderly African Ameri- 50 cans in Allegheny County lacking any drug coverage (Figure 1). A recent 40 analysis by the Kaiser Family Foun- 1 30 dation of data from the 1999 Medi- Percent care Current Beneficiary Survey conducted by the Centers for Medicare 20 and Medicaid Services found that those lacking prescription drug cover- 10 age fill fewer prescriptions and yet

0 have higher out-of-pocket drug costs 3 o r M o re C h r o n ic C o n d itio n s 4 o r M o re C h r o n ic C o n d itio n s P o o r o r F a ir S e lf- A sse sse d H e a lth than those with drug coverage. Thus, lack of prescription drug coverage may White African American PITTSBURGH ECONOMIC QUARTERLY PAGE 7 Differences in Prescription Drug Coverage (Cont) Continued from page 6 prescription drugs. At the same time, Figure 3. Income Below $15,000 Medicare Enrollees 65+ in Allegheny they have significantly lower incomes County (Figure 3) and are therefore less able to afford the out-of-pocket costs of 56 drugs. Putting these findings together points to a significant vulnerability of

some older adults in Allegheny 54 County, and to a potentially greater health and economicproblems for Af- rican Americans here than nationally. 52 The Allegheny County survey of the elderly, one of the most comprehen- sive studies of its kind ever carried out 50 locally, interviewed 5,094 Medicare enrollees age 65 and older about their Percent 48 health, health care and related issues. The survey was part of a National In-

stitute on Aging funded research study 46 of self-care for chronic disease (Myrna Silverman, GSPH, Principal Investiga- tor), and also received support from 44 UCSUR, the Center for Minority Health, the Department of Psychiatry, the University of Pittsburgh Institute 42 White African American on Aging, the University of Pittsburgh Income Below $15,000 Medical Center, and the Area Agency on Aging of Allegheny County. The survey randomly sampled Medicare enrollees in the County and was limited to those for whom a telephone UCSUR is a hub for interdisciplinary research and collaboration. We number could be found. The margin maintain an infrastructure that is available to faculty and the community of error for the survey estimates by with the capacity to: race is at least + 2%. -Carry out all types of survey research. 1Kaiser Family Foundation, “How Do Patterns of -Conduct regional econometric modeling. Prescription Drug Coverage and Use Differ for White, African American, and Latino Medicare -Obtain, format & analyze spatial data and integrate it with other types Beneficiaries Under 65 and 65+?” July 2003. of data (GIS). -Acquire, manage & analyze large data sets including Census data. A detailed report describing the find- -Conduct evaluation research. ings of the survey can be found at: http://www.ucsur.pitt.edu/ publications.htm VISITING SCHOLARS RECENT SPEAKERS ONGOING RESEARCH

This fall we welcomed Katrin Estelle Richman, Secretary of Penn- Regional Economic Modeling with Grossmann to the Center. Katrin is sylvania Department of Public Wel- REMI. completing her doctorate in urban so- fare, October 3. ciology at the Chemnitz University of Women’s Benchmarks for the City Technology and conducting compara- Stephen M. Schmerin, Secretary of of Pittsburgh. tive research on Pittsburgh and Ger- Pennsylvania Department of Labor and many. Industry, November 21. PAGE 8 FALL 2003

UCSUR University of Pittsburgh 121 University Place Pittsburgh, PA 15260 Phone: 412-624-5442 Fax: 412-624-4810 Email: [email protected] TO:

On the Web www.ucsur.pitt.edu

Pittsburgh Economic Quarterly

Editor Sabina Deitrick

Assistant Editors Anna Aivaliotis ITTSBURGH CONOMIC UARTERLY Monique Constance-Huggins P E Q Recent Publications by the Center for Social and Urban Research University Center for Social African American and Women Board Members in and Urban Research Diversity Within and Among Nonprofit Boards in Allegheny County (10/03) the Pittsburgh Region (11/01) Director The State of Aging and Health in Pittsburgh and The State of the Environment in Allegheny County: Richard Schulz Allegheny County (05/03) Land, Water and Air (3/01) Urban and Regional Analysis Diversity Among Elected Officials in the Pittsburgh The State of the Region Report: Economic, Demo- Region in 2002 (2/03) graphic, and Social Conditions in SWPA (9/99) Co-Directors Ralph Bangs 2002 User Survey For The Pennsylvania Allegheny Pittsburgh REMI Model: Long-Term REMI Model Sabina Deitrick Trail Alliance (3/03) Forecast for Allegheny County and the Pittsburgh Socio-Economic Data and Rankings for City of Pitts- Region and Policy Simulation Methods (3/99) burgh Neighborhoods and Allegheny County Mu- nicipalities (2002) Economic Benchmarks: Indices for the City of Pitts- burgh and Allegheny County (9/98) Black Papers on African American Health in Allegh- eny County (9/02)

Subscription Form Please send me the Pittsburgh Economic Quarterly

Mail to: PEQ Name c/o UCSUR Address 121 University Place Pittsburgh, PA 15260 Or Fax: 412-624-4810 E-mail