Tracking Metropolitan America Into the 21St Century: a Field Guide to the New Metropolitan and Micropolitan Definitions “An Overhaul of William H

Metropolitan Policy Program Tracking Metropolitan America into the 21st Century: A Field Guide to the New Metropolitan and Micropolitan Definitions “An overhaul of William H. Frey, Jill H. Wilson, Alan Berube, and Audrey Singer

the widely-recog- Findings An overhaul of the widely-recognized metropolitan classification system by the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will refashion the way research is conducted and federal dollars nized metropoli- are spent. The new system, designed to capture 21st-century settlement patterns, alters the names, types, and boundaries for metropolitan areas and creates new “micropolitan” areas. A comparison of this new system with its older counterpart, reveals that: tan classification ■ The new classification system positions the Metropolitan Statistical Area as the standard tool for analysis across metropolitan geographies. The old system, by contrast, required system by the fed- users to combine a mix of three categories of metropolitan areas (MSAs and CMSAs or PMSAs) to get complete coverage of metropolitan America. At the same time, the new system provides researchers with more choices for analyzing trends within metropolitan areas. eral government ■ New micropolitan areas, together with their metropolitan area counterparts, increase the reach of OMB’s statistical areas to encompass 93 percent of U.S. population and 46 per- will refashion the cent of its land area. States with the most micropolitan areas are not necessarily the largest: Texas, Ohio, and North Carolina lead all others; South Dakota has more than California; and New Jersey has none. way research is ■ Under the new system, 81 of the nation’s 102 largest metropolitan areas have undergone changes in territory and population. The most common changes involved the addition of conducted and new counties to an existing metropolitan area, and the combination of two or more metro areas to form a new, larger metropolis.

federal dollars ■ Both metropolitan and micropolitan areas contain principal cities, which replace central cities in the new names given to these areas. Roughly 40 percent of the combined metropolitan population lived in principal cities in 2000, compared to 35 percent in central cities. are spent.” ■ The new definitions alter the social and economic attributes of many metropolitan areas, as well as their national rankings on these attributes. For instance, New York has replaced Los Angeles as the nation’s most populous metropolitan area. San Francisco drops from fourth to fourteenth in metropolitan rankings of college degree attainment.

Not simply statistical arcana, OMB-defined metropolitan and micropolitan areas have real-world implications for public- and private-sector research, for federal programs—think Medicare, Sec- tion 8 housing assistance—and for how big-city and small-town residents view the places that they live. This survey provides both casual and expert users with a “field guide” to the new system and its potential impacts in each of these areas.

November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 1 Introduction Figure 1. Old versus New Terminology he term “metropolitan area” is one of the few statistical OLD terms that is also familiar in Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) common conversation. A met- Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) ropolitanT area is not a political juris- Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) diction with a mayor or police Central City department, but rather an economi- New England County Metropolitan Area (NECMA) cally and socially linked collection of large and small communities. Residing NEW in a metropolitan area provides identi- Metropolitan Statistical Area (MetroSA) fication with a well understood Micropolitan Statistical Area (MicroSA) broader community, often eliciting Combined Statistical Area (CSA) civic pride promoted by local cham- Metropolitan Division bers of commerce and economic Principal City development commissions. Regional New England City and Town Area (NECTA) newspapers, sports teams and cultural institutions all serve to reify the exis- Source: OMB tence of the metropolitan area. More- over, the metropolitan designation of an area confers on it something of an OMB initiated a decade-long effort to ties, considered too small to be part of urbane or cosmopolitan status, placing reassess the metropolitan classifica- a metropolitan area, should nonethe- it in a league with other areas as a rec- tion system, in light of the many less be recognized as part of the settle- ognized economic region. changes in U.S. settlement patterns ment system, rather than be omitted Such commonly-held perceptions of that had taken place over the previous completely. metropolitan areas are reflected in rig- 50 years.3 After a series of commissioned stud- orous statistical definitions of the met- The original metropolitan statistical ies, convenings with user communi- ropolitan concept, developed by the area concept was predicated on the ties, and interagency meetings, OMB’s federal government’s Office of Man- model of a large central city of over wide-ranging effort in the 1990s agement and Budget (OMB). Federal 50,000 residents that served as a hub resulted in the adoption of the new agencies such as the U.S. Census of social and economic activity for sur- standards for metropolitan and Bureau use these standards to collect rounding counties. Together, the city micropolitan areas. OMB has urged all and disseminate area-based statistics and counties formed a stand-alone federal agencies that collect and pub- in publications such as the United metropolitan area. Over the past five lish data for these areas to use the States Statistical Abstract. They are decades, however, the decentralization most recent definitions. incorporated into federal and state of both employment and population in The changes are quite significant, policies to allocate public resources to many urban areas have served to dis- not only in terminology, but also in the local areas. They are also used widely perse the “core” well beyond the geographic sweep of classified areas, in the private sector and the research largest city into smaller clusters of pre- (Figure 1). Figure 2 displays the met- community to identify consumer mar- viously “suburban” communities. As ropolitan or nonmetropolitan status of kets, labor markets, and housing mar- metropolitan populations expanded, it U.S. counties according to the old and kets. And OMB-defined metropolitan became evident that hierarchies were new standards. Under the old system, areas are often ranked in the popular forming within metropolitan areas. only 20 percent of the country’s terri- press and publications such as the Large metropolitan areas developed tory was defined. The new standards Places Rated Almanac. somewhat self-contained sub-areas double the coverage, classifying 46 The federal government defined (e.g., Newark or Long Island within percent of U.S. land area. Micropoli- metropolitan statistical areas as early the greater New York region); and tan areas—a new classification— as the late 1940s,1 and has updated existing, neighboring metropolitan account for most of the increased them several times, primarily to take areas became, for some purposes, part coverage and fill in a noticeable por- into account shifts in demographic of a larger super-region (e.g., Washing- tion of the “empty” space across the trends and modest changes in nomen- ton, D.C. and Baltimore). It also country. clature.2 However, in the early 1990s became apparent that many communi- Given these significant changes,

2 November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series many researchers and policy makers Figure 2. County Classifications, Old and New Standards will have to alter the way they think about and use metropolitan area data. This survey provides a “field guide” to help the average consumer of these statistics understand how the new metropolitan and micropolitan areas differ from those used previously, and what they imply for planning, research and policy.4 First, we compare the classification of metropolitan statistical areas under the old and new standards, describing the terminology, criteria, and options for defining a metropolitan area. Second, we intro- duce OMB’s new concept—the micropolitan statistical area—and describe its geographical and demographic scope. Third, we discuss how the transition in standards changes the composition of metropolitan areas, illustrating four main types of change. 1999 County Classifications Fourth, we discuss the new principal Non-metropolitan (2,293) cities and how these affect metropoli- Metropolitan (848) tan area titles. Fifth, we analyze how Source: OMB the change in standards alters the socioeconomic attributes and rankings of metropolitan areas. Finally, we discuss the implications of the new system for research and policy.

Methodology

o elucidate important features of the new metropolitan and micropolitan areas, much of this report contrasts the areas definedT according to the “new standards” (released in June 2003, with updates in December 2003) with comparable areas defined under the previous standards (“old standards” in this survey—published in 1999).5 We draw comparative statistics from the 2000 U.S. Census for areas located in the 6 2003 County Classifications 50 states. Practically all Census 2000 publications and data products to date Non-core-based (1,362) Micropolitan (690) have utilized the old standards for Metropolitan (1,089) metropolitan areas as we employ them here. This also holds for metropolitan Source: OMB statistics distributed by most other federal agencies.

November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 3 The reader should note that metropolitan areas, under both old and new standards, are not, strictly speaking, Figure 3. Metro Area Choices Under the Old and New Standards urban areas; similarly, the metropoli- METROPOLITAN NOT METROPOLITAN tan/non-metropolitan dichotomy is not the same as the urban/rural dichotomy. OMB defines metropolitan CMSAs or OLD and MSAs* Non-metropolitan areas for use by all federal agencies, to PMSAs* represent functional areas. They comprise large statistically linked sub- areas (counties) that form socially and economically integrated regions. OMB determines the composition of metro Micropolitan NEW areas by analyzing commuting patterns Metropolitan Statistical Areas* Statistical and Non-CBSA within a given region, along with pop- Areas ulation and employment levels. In contrast, the Census Bureau defines * The old standards also included the New England Metropolitan Statistical Areas (NECMAs), urban areas, which reflect a physical which could be used in place of CMSAs, PMSAs, and MSAs in the six New England states. The (rather than functional) distinction, new standards created New England City and Town Areas (NECTAs) which can be used in place mostly at a smaller scale, where urban of Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Micropolitan Statistical Areas in New England. or urbanized areas are required to pass Note: See Appendix A for definitions of all terms. population size and density thresholds.7 Most metropolitan areas, then, contain both urban and rural Findings For example, the Washington-Balti- territory, as do most parts of the coun- more, DC-MD-VA-WV CMSA was try that are located outside of metro- A. The new classification system subdivided into the Washington, DC- politan areas. In 2000, approximately positions the Metropolitan Statistical MD-VA-WV PMSA, the Baltimore, 12 percent of the nation’s metropoli- Area as a standard tool for analysis MD PMSA, and the Hagerstown, MD tan population was rural; and approxi- across metropolitan geographies. PMSA. Nationally, the combined pop- mately 41 percent of its nonmetropolitan This section discusses how metropoli- ulation of all CMSAs equaled the population was urban. tan areas, the basic components of combined population of all PMSAs, Nonetheless, practitioners and even OMB’s classification system, differ and when either was added to the federal agencies have commonly between the new standards and the old combined MSA population, the result applied the term “urban” to metropoli- standards, leaving to the next section a equaled the total U.S. metropolitan tan areas and “rural” to all nonmetro- description of the new micropolitan population. politan territory.8 It is likely that this areas. Consumers of these statistics who practice will continue under the new wished to compare among metropoli- standards, although the new micropoli- Metro Area Choices under the tan areas on some measure had a tan areas (designated in this publica- Old Standards choice between analyzing: (a) all tion as MicroSAs) may blur the line In the old system, metropolitan Amer- MSAs and CMSAs; or (b) all MSAs between urban and rural. In like man- ica consisted of individual Metropoli- and PMSAs. In other words, PMSAs ner the term “suburban” is often tan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and and CMSAs could not be used applied to portions of metropolitan another set of areas that could be together in the same analysis (Figure areas that lie outside of major cities defined either as Consolidated Metro- 3). However, consumers of statistics despite the fact that neither the old nor politan Statistical Areas (CMSAs) or for a local CMSA region could choose new OMB standards makes reference their component parts, Primary Met- which level of geography—CMSA or to the terms “suburban” or “suburb.”9 ropolitan Statistical Areas (PMSAs). PMSA—best represented their “metro- Researchers are also likely to use the CMSAs could only be defined for politan area” (e.g., Washington, D.C. new standards—with new “principal areas with more than one million peo- analysts could decide between using cities” defining major cities—to distin- ple, and where additional criteria the Washington-Baltimore CMSA or guish suburban populations. allowed for subdivision of those large the Washington, D.C. PMSA, depend- metro areas into component PMSAs ing on their purposes). (Appendix A and B have further details National rankings of metropolitan on the old and new definition criteria). areas could legitimately employ either

4 November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series the MSA/CMSA combined list (276 Metro Area Choices under the accustomed to employing the areas, including 258 MSAs and 18 New Standards PMSA/MSA definitions under the old CMSAs), which was favored by OMB For those interested in comparing system will find that the number of and the Census Bureau, or the metropolitan areas across the country, metropolitan areas with populations MSA/PMSA combined list (331 areas, there is now really only one choice: exceeding one million drops from 61 including 258 MSAs and 73 PMSAs), the Metropolitan Statistical Area to 49 in the new system. At the same which common practice tended to (designated in this paper as MetroSA). time, the number of metropolitan favor. Statistical rankings including Although the new system allows for areas with populations less than metropolitan growth rates, crime sta- some hierarchical choices for analyses 250,000 rises from 149 to 195. Yet, tistics, employment patterns and qual- of individual areas (discussed below), the 49 large MetroSAs comprise about ity of life indicators in publications inter-metropolitan analyses are best the same share of the U.S. popula- such as the popular The Places Rated conducted using the MetroSA, which tion—53 percent—as the 61 large Almanac used the MSA/PMSA system, now is based exclusively on county- MSAs/PMSAs (Figure 4). At the other as have most publications in Brook- level components in both New Eng- end of the size spectrum, the 195 ings’ Living Cities Census Series. For land and non-New England states. small Metro SAs comprise only a the remainder of this report, we will MetroSAs are defined using somewhat slightly larger share of U.S. population also use MSAs and PMSAs as bench- different criteria than the old MSAs, than the 149 small MSAs/PMSAs (10 marks for comparison with the new CMSAs, and PMSAs. As a conse- percent versus 8 percent). system. quence, both the size and number of Altogether, the new standards An additional choice faced analysts metropolitan areas have changed. describe 361 MetroSAs, compared of metropolitan areas in the six New According to the new standards, to 331 MSAs/PMSAs under the old England states. OMB defined MSAs, metropolitan area central counties, system. PMSAs, and CMSAs for these states, which form the basis for determining As with the previous standards, as well as an alternative set of areas outlying counties via commuting pat- OMB defines an alternative set of known as New England County Met- terns, are now determined exclusively areas in the six New England states. ropolitan Areas (NECMAs). New Eng- by their overlap with urban areas of all Unlike the old standards, however, land MSAs, CMSAs, and PMSAs were sizes so that the more restrictive these alternative areas are defined at based on city and town components “urbanized areas or cities of 50,000 or the city and town level and are called rather than counties, but many ana- more” criterion is no longer part of New England City and Town Areas lysts were unable to obtain relevant their definition.12 The extent of urban (NECTAs). MetroSAs in New Eng- information at the town level. Hence, areas has also changed, due to popula- land are comprised of counties, mak- NECMAs were developed as county- tion growth and new definitional crite- ing counties the basic “building based counterparts to New England’s ria. Together, these changes have blocks” of metropolitan areas both conventional metro areas. Many increased the number of central coun- inside and outside the New England national analyses, therefore, used ties, thus enlarging the potential com- states. MSAs, CMSAs, and PMSAs, outside muting fields of many large Finally, the most recognizable of New England, along with NECMAs metropolitan areas.13 change with the new standards is the inside the region. At the same time, new commuting identification of smaller “metropolitan- Finally, the previous standards did criteria for adding outlying counties to like” communities. These new areas, not define any settlements outside of a region’s central counties are more called micropolitan areas, define mean- the metropolitan areas. All of the resid- restrictive than those used previously. ingful “core-based” areas with cores ual counties in the United States (or Thus, 41 counties which previously too small to qualify as MetroSAs. They towns in New England) were labeled served as outlying counties of metro- are discussed in finding B. “non-metropolitan.” Some analysts politan areas do not qualify as such chose to use individual counties as a under the new rules, but have now The New Hierarchy Options for means of distinguishing areas within become part of new micropolitan Local Areas nonmetropolitan territory.10 Researchers areas. While the new standards provide a sin- at the Department of Agriculture cre- One result of the change in criteria gle unit, the MetroSA, for comparing ated Rural-Urban Continuum Codes for defining metropolitan areas is that metropolitan areas across the country, (“Beale Codes”) to distinguish among the larger MetroSAs are more compa- they provide additional choices when non-metropolitan counties based on rable in size and area to the former the focus turns to local areas (Figure their urban population and adjacency CMSAs than to the former PMSAs.14 5). Combined Statistical Areas to metropolitan areas.11 As a consequence, users who are (CSAs) represent two or more adjoin-

November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 5 ing MetroSAs or MicroSAs. They Figure 4. Number of Metro Areas by Population Size, 2000, range in size from the two-county Clo- (and Share of Population by Metro Size) vis-Portales, NM CSA (population 63,000), which consists of the Clovis 400 MicroSA and the Portales MicroSA, to 361 the 30-county New York-Newark- 331 350 Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA Combined Statistical Area (population 300 21,361,797), made up of six MetroSAs 149 (8.0%) 194 (9.9%) and one MicroSA. OMB designates 250 CSAs where certain cross-area com- 200 muting levels are met, and in specified circumstances where local input favors 150 the designation. There are currently 121 (20.2%) 118 (19.7%) 123 CSAs (those associated with the 100 greater Atlanta area, Dallas–Ft. Worth area, and New York area are illustrated 50 61 (52.2%) 49 (53.0%) below). Just over half (198) of all Met- 0 roSAs are located in a CSA. Old PMSAs/MSAs New MetroSAs These areas are primarily useful for local analyses, as they give users a more expansive way to define their Under 250K 250K to 1 million Over 1 million particular region. CSAs are ill-suited for cross-metropolitan analyses, since they are very different analytic units Source: Authors’ calculations of Census 2000 data and OMB than MetroSAs. The other metropolitan innovation in the new standards that may assist local area analyses is the Metropoli- tan Division. OMB designated Metro- Figure 5. New Hierarchy Options for Local Areas politan Divisions within each of 11 MetroSAs with populations of over 2,500,000, and they reflect single or multi-county areas with close commuting ties. Examples include the METROPOLITAN NOT METROPOLITAN Combined Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, Statistical DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Divi- Areas (two or more metros sion and Bethesda-Frederick-Gaithers- and/or micros) burg, MD Metropolitan Division within the Washington-Arlington- Metropolitan Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro- Statistical Micropolitan Areas Statistical politan Statistical Area, and the Areas Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX Metropolitan Metropolitan Division and Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Divisions Metropolitan Division within the Dal- las-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro- politan Statistical Area. These Metropolitan Divisions, as Note: These options are not available for all 361 metropolitan areas and 573 micropolitan areas. components of MetroSAs, somewhat There are 120 combined statistical areas that encompass 163 metropolitan and 153 micropolitan resemble PMSAs under the old sys- areas. Twenty-nine metropolitan divisions exist within 11 metroplitan areas. tem. However, because only a few very Source: OMB large MetroSAs contain Metropolitan Divisions, while PMSAs were much

6 November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series Table 1. Geographic and Demographic Coverage, Old and New Standards

Number Share of National Population Share of OLD STANDARDS of Counties Land Area in 2000 National Population Metropolitan 848 20% 226,207,070 80.4% Non-metropolitan 2293 80% 55,214,836 19.6%

NEW STANDARDS Metropolitan 1089 25.3% 232,579,940 82.6% Micropolitan 690 20.3% 29,412,298 10.5% Non-core-based 1362 54.4% 19,429,668 6.9%

Source: Census 2000 and OMB more common, Metropolitan Divisions contiguous urban area. MicroSAs and between metropolitan and nonmetro- are less practical geographic units for MetroSAs differ primarily in the popu- politan populations, MicroSAs belong nationwide analyses. The higher lation of their core areas: between to the latter category. However, they metro-wide population threshold to 10,000 and 50,000 for MicroSAs, and represent only part of the nation’s establish Metropolitan Divisions (at at least 50,000 for MetroSAs. Some nonmetropolitan territory. The remain- least 2.5 million) versus that to estab- MicroSAs have larger populations ing portion of nonmetropolitan land lish PMSAs (at least 1 million) means than the smallest MetroSAs, but are assumes the somewhat cumbersome that the new system contains 29 Met- classified as the former because their term, “non-core-based areas.” Because ropolitan Divisions within 11 Met- core urban areas have less than MicroSAs comprise 60 percent of the roSAs, compared to 73 PMSAs within 50,000 people. MicroSAs range in size total non-metropolitan population, it is 18 CMSAs under the old system. Still, from about 13,000 (Andrews, TX) to now less appropriate to think of the Metropolitan Divisions provide over 180,000 (Torrington, CT), and nonmetropolian population as wholly increased flexibility for local analyses. MetroSAs range in size from just over “rural.” In some metropolitan areas, then, 50,000 (Carson City, NV) to 18.3 mil- Researchers from the Census users are able to choose among a met- lion (New York-Northern New Jersey- Bureau and other federal agencies will ropolitan hierarchy that includes all Long Island, NY-NJ-PA). incorporate the new micropolitan area three types of areas: CSAs, Met- The new standards define 573 concept into a range of national statis- roSAs, and Metropolitan Divisions. MicroSAs in addition to the 361 Met- tics, opening up a whole new field of roSAs. The 573 MicroSAs incorporate study for demographers, planners, and B. New micropolitan areas, together 690 counties, indicating that the policy makers. The location and pro- with their metropolitan area coun- majority of these areas include just file of MicroSAs is quite varied. Table terparts, increase the reach of OMB’s one county. Because of the way they 2 shows that states housing the largest statistical areas to encompass 93 were defined, OMB refers to both number of MicroSAs are not the percent of U.S. population and 46 types of areas as core-based statisti- nation’s largest states, but are heavily percent of its land area. cal areas (CBSAs). Together, these concentrated in the Midwest and The micropolitan statistical area core-based areas cover a much larger South, and comprise a larger share of (designated in this paper as MicroSA) share of the nation’s population and overall population there. Texas, Ohio, is perhaps the most innovative concept landmass than metropolitan areas North Carolina, Indiana, and Georgia created with the new standards. OMB alone under the old standards. The lead all other states in the number of developed MicroSAs in response to combined MetroSAs and MicroSAs micropolitan areas, whereas the highly arguments that smaller communities now comprise 93 percent of U.S. pop- urbanized states of Massachusetts, located outside of metro areas ulation and 46 percent of its land area. Rhode Island and New Jersey do not deserved recognition as self-contained In comparison, the old metropolitan have any. Small states with numerous settlements. They are defined in a par- areas comprised 80 percent of the counties like Iowa, Nebraska, and allel manner to MetroSAs in that they nation’s population and just 20 per- South Dakota each have more are core-based, meaning they consist cent of its land area (Table 1). MicroSAs than California. of one or more counties centered on a For analysts used to distinguishing Recent analyses by Lang (2004) and

November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 7 Frey (2004a) highlight the variations counties retained a comparable classi- Table 2. Number of in micropolitan area demographic pro- fication in the transition to the new MicroSAs by State files. They find that the fastest-grow- standards. ing MicroSAs are located nearby large Other counties changed classifica- Rank State Micros growing MetroSAs, while the more tion due to the introduction of the 1 Texas 41 remote MicroSAs are generally smaller micropolitan concept, new rules for 2 Ohio 29 and slow-growing. Overall, MicroSA defining metropolitan areas, changes 3 North Carolina 26 populations tend to be older, poorer, in commuting patterns, or simple pop- 4 Indiana 25 more conservative, less educated, and ulation growth and decentralization. 5 Georgia 24 less racially diverse than their metro- Counties that changed from non-met- 6 Illinois 23 politan counterparts.15 ropolitan to micropolitan were fairly 7 Pennsylvania 21 common, accounting for 21 percent 8 Missouri 20 C. Under the new system, 81 of the of all counties and nearly 10 percent 9 Mississippi 20 nation’s 102 largest metropolitan of U.S. population. Nine percent of 10 Tennessee 20 areas have undergone changes in U.S. counties jumped from non-met- 11 Michigan 18 territory and population. ropolitan to metropolitan status. Far 12 Minnesota 18 Analysts and even casual observers smaller proportions moved down the 13 Kentucky 17 first encountering the new metropoli- hierarchy from metropolitan to 14 Louisiana 17 tan areas will likely ask: How different micropolitan (1 percent) and from 15 Oklahoma 17 are the new standards from the old metropolitan to non-core-based status 16 Kansas 15 ones? The simple answer is: quite a (just 5 counties). 17 New York 15 bit. The changes are especially pro- As a result of these transitions, a 18 Iowa 15 nounced in the nation’s larger metro- greater share of the nation’s popula- 19 Arkansas 14 politan areas, which form the focus of tion is now considered metropolitan 20 New Mexico 14 many Brookings Metropolitan Policy (83 percent, up from 80 percent). On 21 Oregon 13 Program analyses. This section first net, 242 counties moved from non- 22 South Carolina 13 describes the changes from the old to metropolitan to metropolitan standing 23 Wisconsin 13 new systems at the county level, then (46 from metropolitan to non-metro- 24 Alabama 13 explores how those county transitions politan and 288 from non-metropoli- 25 Florida 11 re-shaped the nation’s largest metro- tan to metropolitan). Some became 26 Nebraska 10 politan areas. part of the 44 new metropolitan areas 27 South Dakota 9 announced under the new system, 28 Washington 9 County Shifts while others were added onto the 29 California 9 Because both the old and new systems fringe of existing metropolitan areas. 30 Idaho 8 are county-based, it is possible to view Of the 46 counties that changed sta- 31 Colorado 7 the extent of change between the two tus from metropolitan to non-metro- 32 Wyoming 7 systems from the county level. Between politan, only five did not become 33 West Virginia 6 the systems, counties could make six part of a MicroSA. The 41 previously 34 New Hampshire 6 possible transitions, shown in Table 3. metropolitan counties that became 35 Arizona 5 Of the 3,141 counties that make up micropolitan did not necessarily shrink 36 Montana 5 the United States, a plurality (43 per- in size, but generally failed to meet 37 North Dakota 5 cent) remained “undefined”—that is, the new more stringent commuting 38 Vermont 5 they were non-metropolitan under the threshold for inclusion in metropolitan 39 Utah 5 old system and are non-core-based areas. 40 Maryland 4 under the new system. They include 41 Nevada 4 the vast number of small, rural coun- Metropolitan Shifts 42 Alaska 3 ties found mostly in the interior states. Despite the fact that a majority of the 43 Hawaii 3 The next largest proportion of counties nation’s counties have effectively the 44 Virginia 3 (26 percent) remained metropolitan same designations under the new sys- 45 Connecticut 2 between the old and new systems, and tem, the county composition of most of 46 Maine 2 of these the vast majority (92 percent) the nation’s largest metropolitan areas 47 Delaware 1 remained within the same metropoli- changed in some way. In fact, 81 of the 48 District of Columbia 0 tan area. So roughly 70 percent of 102 metropolitan areas with popula- 49 Massachusetts 0 50 New Jersey 0 51 Rhode Island 0 Source: OMB The Living Cities Census Series Note: Micropolitan areas that cross state boundaries are counted once in each state. Table 3. County Transitions

Percent of Population Percent of Old Classification New Classification Number Counties in 2000 Population Metropolitan Metropolitan 801 25.5 223,113,722 79.3 Metropolitan Micropolitan 41 1.3 2,856,237 1.0 Metropolitan Non-core-based 5 0.2 105,216 0.0 Non-metropolitan Metropolitan 288 9.2 9,466,218 3.4 Non-metropolitan Micropolitan 649 20.7 26,556,061 9.4 Non-metropolitan Non-core-based 1357 43.2 19,324,452 6.9

Source: Authors’ calculations of OMB and Census 2000 data

Metropolitan Atlanta is undergoing Table 4. Metropolitan Transitions, Metros with 500,000 or rapid population growth, mostly in its Greater Population, 2000 suburbs, which grew by 44 percent in the 1990s. The new definition of Transition Type Number of Metros Percent of Top 102 metro Atlanta reflects this sprawling Geographical Changes: suburban pattern and offers more than Added counties (net) 29 28.4 one choice for delineating the area. Removed counties (net) 13 12.7 Under the old standards, Atlanta was a Split into two or more metros 9 8.8 single MSA made up of 20 counties. Combined into one metro 23 22.5 The new system creates the 28-county Changed in more than one way 7 6.9 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Stayed the same 21 20.6 MetroSA (the original 20 counties Total 102 100.0 plus eight additional ones). It also Population Changes:* gives the option of using the 33- Gained Population 56 54.9 county Atlanta-Sandy Springs- Lost Population 25 24.5 Gainesville Combined Statistical Same Population 21 20.6 Area (CSA), which includes the Total 102 100.0 Gainesville MetroSA (one county), and four MicroSAs (one county each) *As measured by comparing total metro population in 2000 according to the old and new (Figure 6). definitions. Source: Authors’ calculations of OMB data Removing Counties from Metro Areas—Knoxville, Las Vegas, and Washington, D.C. Most of the 13 metropolitan areas that tions of at least 500,000 under the old Adding Counties to Metro experienced a net loss of counties are system are defined somewhat differ- Areas—Atlanta located in the eastern half of the ently under the new system. As a Twenty-nine of the 102 largest metro- United States. In the West, only Las result, two-thirds (56) of the 81 metros politan areas experienced a net addi- Vegas, NV lost counties from its met- gained population, while the rest (25) tion of counties in the transition to the ropolitan definition. lost population. Here, we provide illus- new system. Most of these metro areas As noted earlier, the vast majority trative examples of the several different are located in the middle and southern of counties removed from metropoli- ways in which metropolitan areas have regions of the country, where popula- tan areas became part of micropolitan been redefined by the new standards. tion is growing and spreading out areas, so they do not necessarily rep- Table 4 shows the extent of each of quickly.16 resent areas that are losing popula- these types of changes among the 102 Atlanta offers the most dramatic tion. In almost all cases in which metro areas when we compare the old example of a metropolitan area with micropolitan areas are created on the MSAs/PMSAs to the new MetroSAs. additional counties in its definition. outskirts of metropolitan areas, Com-

November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 9 bined Statistical Areas are also defined, often matching the former Figure 6. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville Combined metropolitan definition. Statistical Area Gainesville MetroSA Knoxville, Tennessee is a typical example. Under the old system the Atlanta-Sandy Springs- Pickens Knoxville, TN MSA consisted of six Marietta MetroSA Dawson Hall counties. Under the new standards, Forsyth Cherokee OMB removed outlying Sevier County Bartow Cedartown from the metropolitan area and named MicroSA Barrow it the Sevierville, TN MicroSA. Gwinnett Together, the metro area and micro Polk Cobb Paulding Walton area form the newly defined Knoxville- De Kalb Haralson Fulton Rockdale Sevierville-La Follette, TN Combined Douglas Newton Statistical Area (Figure 7). Clayton Carroll Not all counties that transitioned Henry Fayette Jasper Butts from metropolitan to micropolitan Coweta Spalding status became part of a Combined Heard Statistical Area. For instance, the Las Valley, AL MicroSA Pike Lamar Vegas, NV-AZ MSA consisted of three Meriwether counties under the old standards Troup Thomaston Upson MicroSA (Mohave County in Arizona and Clark Chambers and Nye counties in Nevada). Under LaGrange the new standards, only Clark County MicroSA Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta MetroSA Old MSA counties (20) remains in the Las Vegas-Paradise, New MetroSA counties (8) NV MetroSA. Nye County becomes Other CSA Components the Pahrump, NV MicroSA, and Source: OMB Metro counties (1) Micro counties (4) together with the Las Vegas metro makes up the Las Vegas-Paradise- Pahrump, NV CSA. Mohave County, Arizona is now the Lake Havasu City- Figure 7. Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette Combined Kingman MicroSA, outside of any Statistical Area CSA. The Washington, D.C. metropolitan area provides a unique example in Knoxville MetroSA Union that two of its counties changed from metropolitan to non-core-based. The Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSA Anderson saw three counties removed in the transition: two in Virginia and one in Sevierville MicroSA West Virginia. While Berkeley Knox County, WV became part of a separate metropolitan area (Hagerstown-

Martinsburg, MD-WV MetroSA), Sevier Culpeper and King George counties Loudon in Virginia became non-core-based Blount areas. These few instances demonstrate the greater simplicity of the new classification system, which Old MSA counties (6) eliminated from some MetroSAs far- New Knoxville MetroSA counties (5) flung counties with little economic Other CSA Components Micro counties (1) relationship to the core.17 Source: OMB

10 November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series Separating a Metro Area into Figure 8. Raleigh-Durham-Cary Combined Statistical Area Two or More New Areas— Raleigh-Durham Of the 102 largest MSAs/PMSAs, nine split into two or more metro areas

Durham under the new system. These metro Person MetroSA Raleigh-Cary areas are scattered around the country. MetroSA Similar to those metro areas that lost counties, the cleaving of these metro areas reflects the stricter commuting Franklin thresholds under the new system, and Orange Durham perhaps an emerging economic inde- pendence separating formerly close- knit neighbors. Wake Under the old standards, the area Chatham of North Carolina known as the “research triangle”—the Raleigh- Durham-Chapel Hill, NC MSA–con- Johnston sisted of six counties. The new Dunn MicroSA Old MSA counties (6) standards split the triangle into two Harnett New Raleigh-Cary MetroSA counties (3) New Durham MetroSA metropolitan areas: the Durham, NC counties (4) Other CSA Components MetroSA and the Raleigh-Cary Met- Micro counties (1) roSA. Together, the two metro areas consist of the same six counties plus one additional county in the Durham Source: OMB metro area. The Raleigh-Durham- Cary, NC CSA combines these two MetroSAs with the new one-county Dunn, NC MicroSA (Figure 8). Like Figure 9. Dallas-Fort Worth Combined Statistical Area Raleigh-Durham, the new standards also split the former Vallejo-Fairfield- Napa, CA PMSA into two MetroSAs, and the Grand Rapids-Muskegon- Gainesville MicroSA Dallas-Fort Worth- Cooke Arlington MetroSA Holland, MI MSA into three Met- roSAs and one MicroSA. Delta Combining Two or More Metro Minerall Wells Wise Denton MicroSA Collin Areas into One Area—Dallas- Hunt Ft. Worth and New York

Rockwall Twenty-three MSAs and PMSAs under the old system combined with neighbor- Palo Pinto Parker Tarrant Dallas ing areas to form new, larger MetroSAs. Kaufman Athens MicroSA In Dallas-Fort Worth, the combina- Hood tion produced a region with several Johnson Granbury Ellis MicroSA different layers. Under the old stan- Somervell Henderson dards, Dallas-Fort Worth, TX was a 12-county CMSA, divided into two Old Dallas PMSA counties (8) Old Dallas- Fort Worth CMSA Old Fort Worth-Arlington PMSA counties (4) PMSAs: Dallas (with eight counties) New Dallas-Fort Worth- Arlington MetroSA counties (12) and Fort Worth-Arlington (with four Other CSA Components counties) (Figure 9). The new stan- Micro counties (5) dards create the unified Dallas-Fort Source: OMB Worth-Arlington, TX MetroSA, comprised of 12 counties (two of which

November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 11 are different from the originals). And because the metro area contains over Figure 10. New York-Newark-Bridgeport Combined 5 million people, OMB further delin- Statistical Area eated two Metropolitan Divisions within the region: Dallas-Plano-Irving Kingston, NY Torrington, CT and Fort Worth-Arlington. These divi- MetroSA MicroSA sions resemble the old PMSAs, and recognize that each of the areas still Bridgeport-Stamford- Poughkeepsie-Newburgh- Ulster Norwalk, CT MetroSA retains some individual economic Middletown, NY MetroSA Dutchess Litchfield character. In addition, the new Dallas- New Haven- Fort Worth, TX CSA includes the Met- Milford, CT MetroSA Putnam roSA and four surrounding Orange New Haven Pike Fairfield micropolitan areas. Westchester Sussex Rockland If the Dallas-Forth Worth changes Passaic are complex, the changes to the New Bergen Morris Bronx Suffolk York metro area might rank as mind- Essex NY Nassau Hudson Queens Union boggling. Yet the new metropolitan Somerset Kings Hunterdon Richmond geography that results is arguably New York-Northern New Jersey- Middlesex more satisfying than the old one.18 The Long Island, NY-NJ-PA MetroSA Mercer old New York PMSA consisted of eight Monmouth New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island counties—the five New York City bor- Trenton, NJ MetroSA oughs and three New York state coun- MetroSA Old PMSA counties (8) Ocean New MetroSA counties (15) ties north of the city. Suburbs just Other CSA Components across the Hudson River in New Jer- Metro counties (6) Micro counties (1) sey, and those just a county or two away on Long Island, occupied different PMSAs altogether. In cross-metropolitan analyses, the New York metro Source: OMB area (PMSA) often seemed an outlier because the city so dominated the area’s demographic and economic characteristics. With the release of the new stan- Figure 11. New York’s Components, Old and New Definitions dards, several former PMSAs in the New York CMSA combined to form the New York-Northern New Jersey- New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA CMSA Long Island, NY-NJ-PA MetroSA, consisting of 23 counties in three states. This expansive new MetroSA incorpo- rates four Metropolitan Divisions. OLD PMSA PMSA PMSA PMSA PMSA PMSA PMSA PMSA PMSA PMSA PMSA PMSA PMSA PMSA PMSA Newark, NJ Newark, Trenton, NJ Trenton, Danbury, CT Danbury, Jersey City, NJ City, Jersey New York, NY York, New Bridgeport, CT Bridgeport, Waterbury, CT Waterbury,

Even the Division that includes New NY Dutchess Co., Bergen-Passaic, NJ Bergen-Passaic, Newburgh, NY-PA Newburgh, Nassau-Suffolk, NY Nassau-Suffolk, Monmouth-Ocean, NJ Monmouth-Ocean, Stamford-Norwalk, CT Stamford-Norwalk, York City (the New York-Wayne-White CT Haven-Meriden, New Plains, NY-NJ Metropolitan Division) NJ Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon, contains 11 counties in two states, and is larger than the old PMSA. At the New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA-CSA “macro” level, the New York-Newark- Bridgeport- Kingston, NY New Haven- New York- Trenton- Poughkeepsie- Torrington, Stamford- Metro SA Milford, CT Northern New Jersey- Ewing, NJ Newburgh- CT Micro SA Norwalk, CT Metro SA Long Island, Metro SA Middletown, NY Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA con- Metro SA NY-NJ-PA Metro SA Metro SA tains 30 counties in four states (Figure NEW 10). As in Dallas-Ft. Worth, the New New York- Nassau- Newark- Edison, NJ Wayne- Suffolk, NY Union, Metro Div. White Plains, Metro Div. NJ-PA York region can now be viewed at NY-NJ Metro Div Metro Div. three hierarchical levels of geography (Figure 11). Instead of one CMSA Source: OMB made up of fifteen PMSAs, the new

12 November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series CSA includes six MetroSAs, further D. Both metropolitan and micropoli- area populations and designating the subdivided into four Metropolitan tan areas contain principal cities, result as “suburban.” This fairly crude Divisions, and one MicroSA. which replace central cities in the means of defining the suburbs has fig- National metropolitan analyses are new names given these areas. ured in several Brookings analyses.21 likely to adopt the New York MetroSA, Some of the examples above highlight Although neither the previous nor the and some demographic consequences the implications of another significant new metropolitan standards confer of that transition are explored below. change between the old and new stan- “suburban” status on this residual ter- But those focusing specifically on the dards: the identification of new prin- ritory, it is likely that analysts will con- New York region now benefit from a cipal cities for MetroSAs and tinue to employ a similar technique wider variety of options codified in MicroSAs. These replace the old sys- with principal cities to derive the sub- OMB’s metropolitan definitions. tem’s central cities, and designate urbs.22 As such, the introduction of a prominent places within these areas; new and larger set of cities within Multiple Changes specifically, OMB uses principal cities metropolitan areas may shrink some- The new metropolitan standards and Census-designated places (CDPs) what the differences between “urban” changed some metropolitan areas in to derive the official names for all and “suburban” territories overall.23 more than one way. Detroit provides MetroSAs and MicroSAs.19 On this note, Figure 12 provides a the most complicated example: The While the concept of principal cities comparison of the share of metropoli- old Detroit PMSA gained a county, may seem familiar to most analysts, tan populations residing in central lost a county, and split into two sepa- these places are somewhat different cities and principal cities. Principal rate MetroSAs in the new system. The than central cities. First, the term cities comprise a somewhat larger Detroit, MI PMSA consisted of six “principal” rather then “central” share of metropolitan population than counties: Lapeer, Macomb, Monroe, denotes that these cities are no longer did central cites (39.8 percent versus Oakland, St. Clair, and Wayne. The as fundamental to the identification of 35.5 percent). This owes to the identi- new Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Met- metropolitan areas and their commut- fication of additional principal cities roSA still consists of six counties, but ing fields. The current standards within existing metropolitan areas, and one changed. Livingston County, for- employ urban areas rather than cities to the creation of many smaller metro- merly in the Ann Arbor, MI PMSA, or incorporated places as “cores” to politan areas that now have their own moved into the Detroit metro area. define their central and outlying coun- principal cities. Figure 8 also shows Meanwhile, Monroe County became ties. Nonetheless, most urbanized the share of micropolitan population its own metropolitan area. Besides areas contain recognizable cities living in their principal cities. Princi- Detroit, six other MSAs/PMSAs have which developers of the new standards pal cities’ smaller share of MicroSA new compositions through a mixture determined should be identified since population (33.2 percent) reflects the of county additions and subtractions, their names are well known as impor- more dispersed settlements common or metropolitan splits and combina- tant jurisdictions within MetroSAs and in these smaller areas. tions. MicroSAs. While the population or demo- All of these examples show that the Second, the rules for identifying graphic changes caused by the shift transition to a new classification sys- principal cities are slightly different to principal cities may intrigue tem reshuffled many pieces of the from those used to identify central researchers, these new principal cities metropolitan puzzle. Yet the basic con- cities (Appendix B has a comparison). make even more noticeable changes to tours of most metropolitan areas The principal city(s) of an area always the names of MetroSAs. As with cen- remain largely intact. The streamlined includes the largest incorporated place tral cities, most metropolitan areas rules for defining metropolitan areas or census designated place, as well as titles now incorporate the names of have resulted in some sensible additional cities that meet population the three largest principal cities in changes (a slightly smaller Washington and employment thresholds.20 The new descending population size.24 However, metro area, a larger New York metro standards identify 646 principal cities because some new cities are identified area, a combined Dallas-Forth Worth among the 361 MetroSAs, up from in existing areas, and some metropoli- metropolis), and offer researchers a 554 central cities under the old sys- tan areas split or combined with oth- richer variety of options for analyzing tem. OMB also recognizes 609 princi- ers, title changes are common. Among some of the nation’s largest regions. In pal cities among the 573 Micro SAs. the 102 largest MSAs and PMSAs, a later section, we explore how the As noted earlier, some analysts have two-thirds (67) registered some new metropolitan areas rank on basic used central cities to identify subur- change in their official names in the demographic attributes compared to ban populations, by subtracting cen- transition to MetroSAs. Examples of their previous counterparts. tral city populations from metropolitan these changes appear in Table 5. In

November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 13 most cases, the result is a longer name, sometimes incorporating places Figure 12. Share of Core-Based Population in Central or not well-known to outsiders. The New Principal Cities, 2000 Orleans, LA MSA, for example, is now the New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA Old Metropolitan Areas Metropolitan Statistical Area. A city’s inclusion in its metropolitan 35.5% area’s title may promote name recognition and enhance its status. Scottsdale, Arizona, for example, gained promi- nence by entering the title of the Phoenix-Mesa metropolitan area. While Scottsdale did not meet the old population threshold, its rank as the third 64.5% Central Cities largest principal city in the Phoenix area thrust it into the new metropolitan Suburbs title.25 Places like Naperville and Joliet, Illinois in the Chicago metro area, and Carlsbad and San Marcos, California in the San Diego metro area, realized similar benefits from the change in naming convention. New Metropolitan Areas The order of city names in a metropolitan area title is also significant, 39.8% since sometimes the first-named city is the only one used to refer to a metropolitan area. In the case of the Nor- folk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC MSA, the city of Norfolk has been eclipsed by Virginia Beach, 60.2% switching the order of the two in the Principal Cities new MetroSA title. Without changing its geographical components, the Ven- Suburbs tura, CA PMSA became the Oxnard- Thousand Oaks-Ventura MetroSA. And in Austin, Texas, Round Rock replaced San Marcos as the second- named city in the metropolitan area New Micropolitan Areas title, thanks to the more streamlined rules for defining principal cities (versus central cities).26 33.2%

E. The new definitions alter the social and economic attributes of many metropolitan areas, as well as their national rankings on these attributes. 66.8% The new standards provide one stan- Principal Cities dard choice for analyzing or ranking metropolitan areas across the country, Outlying Areas but several ways for local analysts to define their area. In this section, we Source: OMB and Census 2000 first compare the options available for

14 November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series Table 5. Title Changes for Selected Metropolitan Areas

Former Title Current Title Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA Austin-Round Rock, TX MetroSA Boulder-Longmont, CO PMSA Boulder, CO MetroSA Bryan-College Station, TX MSA College Station-Bryan, TX MetroSA* Chicago, IL PMSA Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI MetroSA Fort Myers-Cape Coral, FL MSA Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL MetroSA* Houston, TX PMSA Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX MetroSA Las Vegas, NV-AZ MSA Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MetroSA Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSA Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA MetroSA Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI MSA Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI MetroSA New Orleans, LA MSA New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA MetroSA New York, NY PMSA New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA MetroSA Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC MSA Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC MetroSA* Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ MetroSA San Diego, CA MSA San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA MetroSA San Francisco, CA PMSA San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA MetroSA San Jose, CA PMSA San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MetroSA Ventura, CA PMSA Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA MetroSA* Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSA Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MetroSA

* Order of place names in the metropolitan area title changed. Source: OMB

Table 6. Comparing “Old” and “New” New York

Population Income Race/Ethnicity Education Households Households with Annual with Annual Asian- Less than BA or Population Income Income Pacific HS Higher (millions) Below $25K Above $75K White Hispanic Black Islander Education Education Old Definition CMSA 21.1 25.5% 32.4% 56.2% 18.2% 16.1% 6.7% 20.7% 30.5% PMSA 9.3 32.7% 25.6% 39.6% 25.1% 22.7% 9.0% 26.0% 29.2%

New Definition CSA 21.3 25.5% 32.3% 56.6% 18.1% 16.0% 6.7% 20.6% 30.4% MetroSA 18.3 26.2% 32.0% 53.4% 19.5% 17.0% 7.3% 21.3% 30.3% Division 11.3 31.0% 27.0% 42.4% 25.0% 20.3% 8.9% 25.2% 29.4%

Source: Census 2000 and OMB

November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 15 analysis in one large region, New York, National Changes—Metropolitan towns are among the highest-ranked and compare the region’s attributes Rankings metro areas under both the old and under the old and new systems. We New York presents one of the more new systems, but some ordering did then contrast demographic rankings of extreme examples of how the new clas- change. The Ann Arbor MetroSA metropolitan areas using the MetroSA sification system may alter our under- retained only the one county from its concept to those provided by the old standing of who lives in particular old PMSA that contains the University MSAs and PMSAs. metropolitan areas. But significant of Michigan, elevating it from nine- changes are also evident in other parts teenth to second in the ranking. Iowa Local Choices and Changes— of the nation, where new metro areas City, meanwhile, added another New York were created, expanded, or combined. county outside the University of Iowa, As was the case under the old stan- The demographic consequences of dropping it from second to eighth. dards, the choice a user makes in the new system are apparent across Likewise, Bloomington, IN, and Madi- defining a local area for study can sig- the nation’s largest metro areas, too. son, WI, each added two counties to nificantly affect the results. For New Table 7 presents rankings of old and their metropolitan definitions, causing York, there are now three ways to new metro areas (MSAs/PMSAs/NEC- them to fall out of the top 15. And define the metro area, rather than two MAs vs. MetroSAs) by population, Ithaca, NY, one of the 49 new metro- (Finding C). Table 6 compares popula- income, and educational attributes politan areas and home to Cornell tion sizes and socio-economic attrib- using Census 2000 data. One immedi- University, now ranks third. Perhaps utes for the former New York CMSA ately apparent change is that New York the most notable change in the educa- and PMSA with the new CSA, Met- replaces Los Angeles as the most pop- tional rankings is the drop San Fran- roSA, and Metropolitan Division con- ulated metropolitan area in the coun- cisco takes from fourth to fourteenth, taining New York City. The former try, with nearly 6 million more people due to its combination with Oakland. CMSA and the current CSA are simi- than its West Coast counterpart. Dal- In summary, these examples demon- lar in size, while the former PMSA is las, meanwhile, jumps from tenth to strate that the rules governing metro- similar to the current metro division. fifth, due to its combination with Fort politan area definitions may greatly Interestingly, the current MetroSA, Worth. Although Detroit’s population influence our understanding of which the geography likely to be used most increases slightly, its rank declines regions are biggest, richest, or brightest. often, has no parallel in the old stan- from sixth to ninth. Miami makes it dards. Whereas the former PMSA into the top ten (from twenty-fourth), comprised only 44 percent of the thanks to its new grouping with Fort Discussion and Implications CMSA’s population, the current Met- Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, roSA accounts for 86 percent of the while Atlanta just misses the top ten, he real-world implications of CSA. Even the smaller geographical falling to eleventh in rank. the new metropolitan classifi- unit, the division, makes up more than The new system also alters rather cations discussed here have half of its CSA’s population. significantly the list of wealthiest yet to be realized, in large part It is not surprising then, that there metro areas, as measured by the share becauseT many individuals and organi- are noticeable differences between the of households with annual income zations are still relying on the old (and profile of the “new” New York (Met- above $75,000. Formerly, half of the in some cases, even earlier) definitions roSA) and the “old” New York top 12 metro areas were in the greater in research and practice. Brookings’ (PMSA). The MetroSA is wealthier, New York region, but since four of own studies that use Census 2000 whiter, more educated, and has a these are now incorporated into the data still employ the older definitions higher percentage of its population in New York MetroSA, they leave room that were in effect at the time of the married-couple households. These dif- for other metro areas to move up the census. The slow pace at which the ferences reflect the new area’s reach list. Hartford and Anchorage, for new definitions are being put to use into the far suburbs of northern and instance, now break into the top 15. reflects in part OMB’s adoption of central New Jersey, Long Island, and Simultaneously, the combination of novel concepts like micropolitan sta- even eastern Pennsylvania. By far, the former PMSAs into the New York- tistical areas, metropolitan divisions, greatest disparity between the two Northern New Jersey-Long Island and combined statistical areas. Revi- metropolitan area definitions appears MetroSA moved New York up in the sions during the 1990s, by contrast, in race and ethnicity attributes. wealth rankings from fifty-one to merely updated existing concepts with The new MetroSA is majority non- twelve. new population data. In any case, Hispanic white (53 percent), while the On the share of adults with at least whatever effects the new classifica- old PMSA was only 40-percent white. a bachelor’s degree, many college tions have, they are likely to occur

16 November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series Table 7. Rankings of Old and New Metropolitan Areas, 2000

OLD (MSAs/PMSAs/NECMAs) NEW (MetroSAs) Rank Name Total Population (thousands) Rank Name Total Population (thousands) 1 Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSA 9,519 1 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 18,323 2 New York, NY PMSA 9,314 2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 12,366 3 Chicago, IL PMSA 8,273 3 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI 9,098 4 Boston, MA-NH NECMA 6,058 4 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 5,687 5 Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMSA 5,101 5 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 5,162 6 Detroit, MI PMSA 4,442 6 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL 5,008 7 Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSA 4,923 7 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 4,796 8 Houston, TX PMSA 4,178 8 Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX 4,715 9 Atlanta, GA MSA 4,112 9 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 4,453 10 Dallas, TX PMSA 3,519 10 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 4,391 11 Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMSA 2,754 11 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 4,248 12 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA PMSA 3,255 12 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 4,124 13 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI MSA 2,969 13 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 3,255 14 San Diego, CA MSA 2,814 14 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 3,252 15 St. Louis, MO-IL MSA 2,604 15 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 3,044

Rank Name Households with Income over $75K (%) Rank Name Households with Income over $75K (%) 1 San Jose, CA PMSA 49.6 1 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 49.3 2 Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMSA 45.0 2 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 43.6 3 Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon, 43.6 3 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 40.7 NJ PMSA 4 San Francisco, CA PMSA 42.3 4 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 39.9 5 Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSA 40.1 5 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 37.8 6 Bergen-Passaic, NJ PMSA 38.9 6 Trenton-Ewing, NJ 36.1 7 Oakland, CA PMSA 38.1 7 Boulder, CO 35.3 8 Ventura, CA PMSA 37.8 8 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA 34.6 9 Orange County, CA PMSA 37.4 9 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 34.3 10 Newark, NJ PMSA 37.0 10 Ann Arbor, MI 32.8 11 Bridgeport, CT NECMA 36.2 11 Anchorage, AK 32.1 12 Trenton, NJ PMSA 36.1 12 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 32.0 13 Boulder-Longmont, CO PMSA 35.3 13 Vallejo-Fairfield, CA 31.8 14 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA PMSA 34.6 14 Napa, CA 31.8 15 Monmouth-Ocean, NJ PMSA 34.4 15 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 31.7

Rank Name Bachelor’s Degree or Higher (%) Rank Name Bachelor’s Degree or Higher (%) 1 Boulder-Longmont, CO PMSA 52.4 1 Boulder, CO 52.4 2 Iowa City, IA MSA 47.6 2 Ann Arbor, MI 48.1 3 Corvallis, OR MSA 47.4 3 Ithaca, NY 47.5 4 San Francisco, CA PMSA 43.6 4 Corvallis, OR 47.4 5 Lawrence, KS MSA 42.7 5 Ames, IA 44.5 6 Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSA 41.8 6 Lawrence, KS 42.7 7 Columbia, MO MSA 41.7 7 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 42.5 8 Madison, WI MSA 40.6 8 Iowa City, IA 42.0 9 San Jose, CA PMSA 40.5 9 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 39.9 10 Charlottesville, VA MSA 40.1 10 Columbia, MO 39.9 11 Santa Fe, NM MSA 39.9 11 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 39.8 12 Bloomington, IN MSA 39.6 12 Fort Collins-Loveland, CO 39.5 13 Fort Collins-Loveland, CO MSA 39.5 13 Durham, NC 38.8 14 Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC MSA 38.9 14 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 38.8 15 Gainesville, FL MSA 38.7 15 Charlottesville, VA 38.3

Source: Census 2000 and OMB over time as users gradually adapt to 1. As a basis for reporting infor- encompasses the remainder of the this new system. mation—Home Mortgage United States. A review of the Moving to the new classification Disclosure revised metropolitan standards by scheme is, at its root, a statistical pol- Under the regulations that imple- the FSC in December 2003 recom- icy change—not a programmatic one. ment the Home Mortgage Disclo- mended that locality pay areas use In fact, in its guidance announcing the sure Act (HMDA), federally-insured the new metropolitan standards, revised definitions, OMB cautions depository institutions must collect and where available, the combined government agencies against employ- information on applications for statistical area. Micropolitan areas ing the definitions to develop and home mortgage loans. In addition to will not be used unless they are part implement “nonstatistical programs characteristics of the applicant, the of a combined metropolitan statisti- and policies without full consideration institution must collect information cal area. As a result of boundary of the effects of using these definitions about the property to which the changes to several metropolitan for such purposes.” Yet as the new sys- application relates, including its areas under the new standards, the tem gains acceptance and wider use, location by metropolitan area, state, number of federal employees sub- policymakers, researchers, and even county, and census tract. Institu- ject to locality pay adjustments may the man on the street may confront a tions must compile and report this change. Final regulations on imple- new way of looking at the world—or at information to the appropriate menting the new locality pay areas least their particular corners of it. banking regulators (e.g., the Federal will be issued by OPM in January Below we discuss the effects that Reserve, the Comptroller of the 2005. these new metropolitan standards will Currency, etc.) annually. Metropoli- have on federal policy, research, and tan areas typically represent the 3. To set program features— the public at large. marketplaces within which banks Medicare and thrifts operate, and thus serve Perhaps no federal program attracts Federal Policy as important geographic frames for more attention to OMB’s metropoli- The federal government’s use of the evaluating lending performance tan definitions than Medicare. This metropolitan area concept for pur- under other laws related to HMDA, is largely because many of the pay- poses other than mere statistical such as fair lending laws and the ments made to providers under reporting is widespread. This should Community Reinvestment Act. As Medicare rely on cost data specific not be surprising, since the distinct metropolitan areas change and grow to the geography in which a economic character metro areas are in size, banks and thrifts must provider is located. A hospital’s loca- designed to exhibit makes them good therefore change their information tion inside or outside a metropolitan approximations for labor markets, and reporting procedures to bring area is used as an eligibility crite- commuter sheds, and air-quality their data—and lending practices— rion for various special Medicare regions. The U.S. Code alone—the into line with the new metropolitan designations that can raise reim- federal government’s body of law— definitions. bursement rates.28 The most notable contains over 60 unique mentions of example of metro area usage within the phrase “metropolitan statistical 2. To establish program eligibility Medicare policy derives from pro- area.” or applicability—Locality Pay gram reimbursement for hospitals’ Policymakers really put the concept Program operating costs based on prospec- to work, though, in the implementa- U.S. law requires federal pay rates tively set rates specific to each tion of federal laws through regula- to be comparable with non-federal patient diagnosis. In making pay- tion. Nearly every major federal pay rates for the same level of work ments to a particular hospital, the agency—from those involved in agri- within the same local area, and for Center for Medicare and Medicaid culture to homeland security to educa- any existing pay disparities between Services (CMS) adjusts each diag- tion—oversees one or more programs federal and non-federal employees nostic rate by a wage index applica- that make use of OMB-defined metro- to be eliminated. “Locality pay ble to the area in which the hospital politan areas. Federal agencies typi- areas” are places where the Federal is located, in order to account for cally use the metropolitan area Salary Council (FSC) has deter- geographic differences in the labor concept as a basis for reporting infor- mined that wage rates should be costs hospitals bear. CMS defines mation, to establish program eligibility, adjusted. There are a total of 32 these areas using OMB metropoli- and/or to set program features; an locality pay areas, 31 of which coin- tan areas (MSAs, PMSAs, and example of each is offered here.27 cide generally with metropolitan NECMAs), and uses survey data to area definitions, and one that update the index annually for all

18 November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series metropolitan areas and statewide gram and then indexes pay levels non-metropolitan areas. Generally, according to local wages. the wage index is higher in urban Nonetheless, the decision to change areas and lower in rural ones, so metropolitan definitions can have far- whether a hospital is located in a reaching consequences for these types metropolitan area receives a great of programs, and, as a result, some deal of scrutiny.29 agencies are cautious about adopting Recognizing the significant the new standards. The Department of impact that the new metropolitan Housing and Urban Development standards will have on the calcula- (HUD), for example, is responsible for tion of the wage index, CMS has annually publishing “Fair Market already analyzed the changes to Rents” (FMRs) or payment standards each hospital’s wage index that for their major housing assistance pro- would result from: (a) constructing gram (commonly known as Section 8). separate indexes for hospitals When HUD announced the proposed located in each MetroSA, metro FY2005 FMRs, which used the new division, MicroSA, and statewide metropolitan standards, they received non-CBSA; and (b) leaving hospitals public comments from key interest in MicroSAs as part of a generalized groups expressing concern that the statewide rural index.30 The pro- new definitions produced drastic posed rule opts for considering changes in FMRs in some communi- MicroSAs and statewide non- ties. As a result, HUD decided not to CBSAs together, in large part switch immediately to the new OMB because moving to MicroSA-specific metropolitan definitions. indexes could result in large one- The impacts that the new defini- time changes to many hospitals’ tions will have on federal programs are payments, and because many still unclear overall, and will depend MicroSAs are home to only one not only on the particular characteris- hospital, thus limiting the averaging tics of the metropolitan areas undergo- effect of the index across providers. ing changes, but also on how Whichever path CMS eventually lawmakers and rulemakers integrate adopts, OMB’s metropolitan stan- the new concepts into existing sys- dards will continue to play a high- tems. In this regard, OMB recently profile role in shaping the details of offered more explicit guidance to fed- Medicare program operations. eral agencies that use metropolitan areas for nonstatistical purposes.32 Among these three types of usages, OMB urges agencies that had used federal policymakers employ metro PMSAs to now consider using Metro areas most often in the same manner Divisions, which it describes as the as the “locality pay program” exam- “comparable geographic units of clas- ple—to establish whether, by virtue of sification.” In addition, it suggests that its location, an individual or commu- in cases where old metro areas divided nity is eligible for a particular pro- into more than one new metro area, gram, or certain regulations apply to the CSA may form a “more appropri- individuals, businesses, or govern- ate geographic unit for analytic and ments. Programs that use metro-area program purposes.” Whether agencies characteristics in formulas, as with will take these suggestions to heart, or Medicare, are rarer.31 However, some will opt for more straightforward usage agencies use the standards in more of MetroSAs alone, may in the end than one of these ways. In fact, the dictate the pace at which the new defi- locality pay program uses metro area nitions are adopted, and the extent to definitions to designate whether a which programmatic changes result. metropolitan area is part of the pro-

November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 19 Research Others may work with MetroSAs As OMB’s suggestions indicate, one alone, or in combination with implication of the new metropolitan MicroSAs. Rural experts may focus classification system is that only on non-CBSAs, or on non-CBSAs researchers now have more choices. together with MicroSAs. This flexibility Under the old system, metropolitan can enrich the field of inquiry, but it researchers typically analyzed MSAs will become even more important for together with either CMSAs or researchers to state their methodology PMSAs. The new system offers clearly and explain why they have cho- researchers, at the local level, the sen their particular geographic frame. opportunity to examine MetroSAs, As discussed above, it is advised that metro divisions, CSAs, and MicroSAs. national rankings of metropolitan areas In addition, the growth of metropoli- and micropolitan areas employ the tan America has produced a greater MetroSAs and MicroSAs, rather than number of MetroSAs than MSAs and CSAs or metropolitan divisions. PMSAs, and more metropolitan prin- Regardless of their views on the cipal cities than central cities. classification system itself, researchers A potentially expansive research should welcome the new metropolitan community, including federal and state definitions for their basis in up-to-date agencies, nonprofit research organiza- census data on population, urbaniza- tions, and private-sector market tion, and commuting patterns. These researchers, will use the new metro- new areas likely exhibit a greater politan classifications. The federal sta- degree of economic and social cohe- tistical agencies themselves will sion today than do the old metropoli- influence the speed at which other tan definitions, which were rooted researchers move towards the new sys- primarily in 1990 census data. The tem, and the choices that researchers new methods for defining metropoli- make within that system. Some agen- tan areas and principal cities are also cies like the Bureau of Economic simpler than under the old system, Analysis have already begun to release and help resolve some of the odder data that conform to the new metro- outcomes apparent in the 1999 defini- politan and micropolitan definitions. tions (like King George County, VA Many, like the Bureau of Labor Statis- appearing in the Washington, DC tics and the National Center for metro area). Health Statistics, have yet to make the What changes might the new sys- transition, in part because their most tem produce in actual research recent data releases pre-date the June results? In this survey, we offer a look 2003 announcement of the new classi- at how certain demographic and eco- fication system. nomic indicators at the metropolitan The greater number of choices avail- level differ when viewed through the able to researchers under the new sys- old and new lenses. For the most part, tem may carry both advantages and the notable differences are limited to a disadvantages. On the one hand, few large metropolitan areas that researchers may now have access to underwent significant definitional data that conform more closely to their changes, like New York, San Fran- geographic areas of interest. On the cisco, Dallas, and Raleigh-Durham. In other hand, as different metropolitan many other areas like Atlanta, Port- researchers choose to focus on differ- land, Wichita, and Washington, the ent classifications, it may become more addition, subtraction, or “relegation” difficult to compare across their find- to micropolitan of smaller counties at ings. Some, as OMB suggests, may the metropolitan fringe does not do choose to work with metropolitan divi- much to influence the overall empiri- sions for comparability with PMSAs.33 cal picture.

20 November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series Popular Usage only Los Angeles County, now takes in play in bridging the gap between the The new system may, at least over the Orange County as well, better reflect- statistical versions of metropolitan long run, exert as much influence on ing the economic ties between these areas and the popular notions of the our popular understanding of metro- two jurisdictions. regions in which metropolitan resi- politan areas as on our research Names, however, seem to carry even dents live. To the extent that research understanding. Popular notions of more weight than geographic composi- can narrow this gap over time, metro- metropolitan areas are shaped not only tion in the public eye. The status of politan-level research will provide by what geographies they contain, but suburban places like Sandy Springs, greater insights for government and also by name recognition. Both may GA (Atlanta), Sugar Land, TX (Hous- business decisions. OMB’s new metro- contribute to the economic and social ton), Edison, NJ (New York), and politan classification system thus pres- identity of local residents, businesses, Naperville, IL (Chicago) was thus ents both a unique challenge and a and governments. immediately elevated when they each fresh opportunity for metropolitan With respect to their geographic found a spot in their respective metro research to make a real-world impact. makeup, it is not surprising that the area’s name.34 While some of those new metropolitan definitions are still places might earn greater acceptance “off the radar” in large swaths of met- as a result—Sandy Springs is currently ropolitan America, given that the pol- in a pitched battle to incorporate as a icy and research communities have yet city—others caused confusion and dis- to completely embrace the changes. In may. Consultations with local officials part, this is because institutions like resulted in OMB changing the New regional media and chambers of com- York-Newark-Edison, NY-NJ-PA Met- merce mediate between what the fed- roSA to the New York-Northern New eral government decides is a Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Met- metropolitan area, and what average roSA in December 2003. Public opin- citizens consider to be their region. ion simultaneously dislodged Newspaper “Metro” sections, for Cheektowaga and Tonawanda, NY, instance, typically report on jurisdic- both principal cities in the Buffalo tions in which they have a substantial metro area, from that area’s name in subscriber base. Thus, news in The favor of the fourth-largest principal Washington Post covers roughly 14 city, Niagara Falls, which is both a counties, rather than the 18 that make tourist destination and source of up the Washington-Arlington-Alexan- regional identity. dria, DC-MD-VA-WV Metro SA. The Of course, the power of a name is Mid-America Regional Council, the even more evident in micropolitan metropolitan planning organization for areas, and new metropolitan areas. greater Kansas City, is composed of Hundreds of smaller counties and eight counties, while the new Kansas towns formerly part of “rural America” City, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical suddenly acquired their own identity, Area contains 15 counties. and increased attention from At the same time, several of the researchers and businesses.35 Even metro areas that underwent significant counties that formerly resided at the changes might find more local recep- fringe of large metropolitan areas, like tivity than their older versions. The old Ashtabula, OH (formerly in the Cleve- New York PMSA, consisting of the five land metro area) and Nye, NV (for- city boroughs and three upstate NY merly in the Las Vegas metro area), counties, bore little relation to the may gain more stature from a microp- average citizen’s conception of the olitan label than they lost in separating metro area. The revised New York from a metropolitan center. Metro SA, which captures suburban These examples of definitional Long Island and much of northern changes demonstrate that federal sta- New Jersey, probably comes much tistical policy can impact how we live closer. Similarly, the Los Angeles and work. In the end, both research metro area, which before included and policy have an important role to

November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 21 Appendix A. Definitions of Metropolitan Concepts

Old Standards

Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) contained cities or urbanized areas with at least 50,000 people. Counties were included or excluded in the MSA based on employment, commuting, and population density criteria. There were 258 MSAs in effect for Census 2000.

Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas (PMSAs) consisted of those counties or groups of counties within a large metropolitan area (at least one million people) that contained at least 100,000 people and met criteria for separate designations. There were 73 PMSAs in effect for Census 2000.

Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSAs) consisted of a metropolitan area with at least 1 million people in which two or more primary metropolitan areas (PMSAs) had been identified. There were 18 CMSAs in effect for Census 2000.

New England County Metropolitan Areas (NECMAs) were defined as county-based alternatives to the standard city- and town-based metropolitan areas in the six New England states (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hamp- shire, Rhode Island, and Vermont). There were 12 NECMAs in effect for Census 2000.

Central cities were defined for each MSA and CMSA. The largest incorporated place (or, in a few cases, Census designated place) in a metropolitan area was automatically designated a central city. Additional cities were included if they met population and employment criteria. There were 554 central cities in effect for Census 2000.

New Standards

Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) contain a substantial population nucleus (the “core”) together with adjacent communities having a high degree of social and economic integration with that core. CBSAs are defined as metropolitan or micropolitan depending on the size of their core.

Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MetroSAs) contain at least one urbanized area with at least 50,000 people (the “core”). Counties are included or excluded in the metro based on commuting criteria. There are 361 MetroSAs.

Metropolitan statistical areas of 2.5 million or more may be divided into metropolitan divisions. Metropolitan divisions consist of one or more counties that represent an employment center plus adjacent counties with strong commuting ties to the core. There are eleven MetroSAs with divisions, for a total of twenty-nine divisions.

Micropolitan Statistical Areas (MicroSAs) contain at least one urban cluster with between 10,000 and 50,000 people (the “core”). Counties are included or excluded in the micropolitan area based on commuting criteria. There are 573 micros.

New England City and Town Areas (NECTAs) are defined as conceptually similar to the county-based metropolitan and micropolitan areas, but with cities and towns as the building blocks rather than counties. There are 21 metropolitan NECTAs and 22 micropolitan NECTAs.

Metropolitan statistical areas and micropolitan statistical areas may be joined to form combined statistical areas (CSAs). CSAs consist of two or more adjacent CBSAs (metropolitan or micropolitan or a combination of both) that meet employment interchange criteria. There are 120 CSAs.

Principal cities are defined for each CBSA. The largest city in a CBSA is automatically designated a principal city. Other cities may be designated if they meet certain criteria for population and employment. There are 1255 principal cities.

22 November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series Appendix B. Comparing Old and New Standards*

Old Standards New Standards

Levels/Categories and Metropolitan statistical areas based on total populations of at least Metropolitan statistical areas based around at least one Census Bureau Terminology 1,000,000 (level A), 250,000 to 999,999 (level B), 100,000 to 249,999 defined urbanized area of 50,000 or more population, and micropolitan (level C), and less than 100,000 (level D), respectively. Metropolitan statistical areas, based around at least one urban cluster of 10,000 to statistical areas of 1,000,000 or more population can be designated as 49,999 population. A metropolitan statistical area with a single core of consolidated metropolitan statistical areas if local opinion is in favor at least 2,500,000 population can be subdivided into component metro- and component primary metropolitan statistical areas can be identified. politan divisions. Collectively, the metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas are termed Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs). Building Blocks Counties and equivalent entities throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico, Counties and equivalent entities throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico. except in New England, where cities and towns are used to define met- City and town based areas, conceptually similar to the county based ropolitan areas. County based alternative provided for the New Eng- areas, provided for the New England states. land states. Qualification of Areas City of at least 50,000 population, or Census Bureau defined urbanized Census Bureau defined urban area of at least 10,000 population and area of at least 50,000 population in a metropolitan area of at least less than 50,000 population for micropolitan statistical area designa- 100,000 population. tion. Census Bureau defined urbanized area of at least 50,000 for metropolitan statistical area designation. Qualification of Central Any county that includes a central city or at least 50% of the popula- Any county in which at least 50% of the population is located in urban Counties tion of a central city that is located in a qualifier urbanized area. Also areas of at least 10,000 population, or that has within its boundaries a any county in which at least 50% of the population is located in a quali- population of at least 5,000 located in a single urban area of at least fier urbanized area. 10,000 population. Qualification of Outlying Combination of commuting and measures of settlement structure: Commuting ties: Counties 50% or more of employed workers commute to the central At least 25% of the employed residents of the county work in the cen- county/counties of a metropolitan statistical area and: 25 or more per- tral county/counties of a CBSA; or at least 25% of the employment in sons per square mile (ppsm), or at least 10% or 5,000 of the population the county is accounted for by workers residing in the central lives in a qualifier urbanized area; OR county/counties of the CBSA. 40% to 50% of employed workers commute to the central county/coun- A county that qualifies as outlying to two or more CBSAs is included in ties of a metropolitan statistical area and: 35 or more ppsm, or at least the area with which it has the strongest commuting tie. 10% or 5,000 of the population lives in a qualifier urbanized area; OR 25% to 40% of employed workers commute to the central county/counties of a metropolitan statistical area and: 35 ppsm and one of the following: (1) 50 or more ppsm, (2) at least 35% urban population, (3) at least 10% or 5,000 of population lives in a qualifier urbanized area; OR 15% to 25% of employed workers commute to the central county/counties of a metropolitan statistical area and: 50 or more ppsm and two of the following: (1) 60 or more ppsm, (2) at least 35% urban population, (3) population growth rate of at least 20%, (4) at least 10% or 5,000 of population lives in a qualifier urbanized area; OR 15% to 25% of employed workers commute to the central county/counties of a metropolitan statistical area and less than 50 ppsm and two of the following: (1) at least 35% urban population, (2) population growth rate of at least 20%, (3) at least 10% or 5,000 of population lives in a qualifier urbanized area; OR at least 2,500 of the population lives in a central city located in a qualifier urbanized area of a metropolitan statistical area. If a county qualifies as outlying to two or more metropolitan areas, it is assigned to the area to which commuting is greatest; if the relevant commuting percentages are within 5 points of each other, local opinion is considered. *Source: Michael R. Ratcliffe, U.S. Census Bureau

November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 23 Appendix B. Comparing Old and New Standards (continued)

Old Standards New Standards

Merging Statistical Areas If a county qualifies as a central county of one metropolitan statistical Two adjacent CBSAs are merged to form one CBSA if the central area and as an outlying county on the basis of commuting to a central county/counties (as a group) of one CBSA qualify as outlying to the county of another metropolitan statistical area, both counties become central county/counties (as a group) of the other. central counties of a single metropolitan statistical area. Central Cities/Principal Central cities include the largest city in a metropolitan statistical Principal cities include the largest incorporated place with a population Cities area/consolidated metropolitan statistical area AND each city of at least of 10,000 or more or, if no incorporated place of at least 10,000 is pres- 250,000 population or at least 100,000 workers AND each city of at ent, the largest incorporated place or census designated place in the least 25,000 population and at least 75 jobs per 100 workers and less CBSA AND each place of at least 250,000 population or in which at than 60% out commuting AND each city of at least 15,000 population least 100,000 persons work AND each place with a population of at that is at least 1/3 the size of largest central city and meets employment least 50,000, but less than 250,000 in which employment meets or ratio and commuting percentage above AND the largest city of 15,000 exceeds the number of employed residents AND each place with a pop- population or more that meets employment ratio and commuting per- ulation that is at least 10,000 and 1/3 the size of the largest place, and centage above and is in a secondary noncontiguous urbanized area in which employment meets or exceeds the number of employed resi- AND each city in a secondary noncontiguous urbanized area that is at dents. least 1/3 the size of largest central city in that urbanized area and has at least 15,000 population and meets employment ratio and commuting percentage above. Primary Metropolitan Sta- Primary metropolitan statistical areas outside New England consist of Metropolitan divisions consist of one or more counties within metropol- tistical Areas/Metropolitan one or more counties within metropolitan areas that have a total popu- itan statistical areas that have a single core of 2.5 million or more popu- Divisions lation of 1 million or more. Specifically, these primary metropolitan sta- lation. tistical areas consist of: (A) One or more counties designated as a standard metropolitan statistical area on January 1, 1980, unless local opinion does not support continued separate designation. (B) One or more counties for which local opinion strongly supports A county is identified as a main county of a metropolitan division if 65 separate designation, provided one county has: (1) at least 100,000 percent or more of its employed residents work within the county and population; (2) at least 60 percent of its population urban; (3) less than the ratio of its employment to its number of employed residents is at 35 percent of its resident workers working outside the county; and (4) least .75. less than 2,500 population of the largest central city in the metropolitan statistical area. (C) A set of two or more contiguous counties for which local opinion A county is identified as a secondary county of a metropolitan division strongly supports separate designation, provided at least one county if 50 percent or more, but less than 65 percent, of its employed resi- also could qualify as a primary metropolitan statistical area in section dents work within the county and the ratio of its employment to its (B), and (1) each county meets requirements (B)(1), (B)(2), and (B)(4) number of employed residents is at least .75 . and less than 50 percent of its resident workers work outside the county; (2) each county has a commuting interchange of at least 20 percent with the other counties in the set; and (3) less than 35 percent of the resident workers of the set of counties work outside the area. Each county in the metropolitan area not included within a central A main county automatically serves as the basis for a metropolitan divi- core under sections (A) through (C), is assigned to the contiguous pri- sion. For a secondary county to qualify as the basis for forming a metro- mary metropolitan statistical area to whose central core commuting is politan division, it must join with either a contiguous secondary county greatest, provided this commuting is: (1) at least 15 percent of the or a contiguous main county with which it has the highest employment county’ s resident workers; (2) at least 5 percentage points higher than interchange measure of 15 or more. the commuting flow to any other primary metropolitan statistical area central core that exceeds 15 percent; and (3) larger than the flow to the county containing the metropolitan After all main counties and sceondary counties have been identified area’s largest central city. and grouped (if appropriate), each additional county that already has qualified for the metropolitan statistical area is included in the metro-

24 November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series Appendix B. Comparing Old and New Standards (continued)

Old Standards New Standards

Primary Metropolitan Sta- politan division associated with the main/secondary county to which the tistical Areas/Metropolitan county at issue has the highest employment interchange measure. Divisions Counties within a metropolitan division must be contiguous. If a county has qualifying commuting ties to two or more primary metropolitan statistical area central cores and the relevant values are within 5 percentage points of each other, local opinion is considered. Combining Statistical Two adjacent metropolitan statistical areas are combined as a single Two adjacent CBSAs are combined if the employment interchange rate Areas metropolitan statistical area if: (A) the total population of the combina- between the two areas is at least 25. The employment interchange rate tion is at least one million and (1) the commuting interchange between is the sum of the percentage of employed residents of the CBSA with the two metropolitan statistical areas is equal to at least 15% of the the smaller total population who work in the CBSA with the larger total employed workers residing in the smaller metropolitan statistical area, population and the percentage of employment in the CBSA with the or equal to at least 10% of the employed workers residing in the smaller smaller total population that is accounted for by workers residing in the metropolitan statistical area and the urbanized area of a central city of CBSA with the larger total population. Adjacent CBSAs that have an one metropolitan statistical area is contiguous with the urbanized area employment interchange rate of at least 15 and less than 25 may com- of a central city of the other metropolitan statistical area or a central bine if local opinion in both areas favors combination. The combining city in one metropolitan statistical area is included in the same urban- CBSAs also retain separate recognition. ized area as a central city in the other metropolitan statistical area; AND (2) at least 60% of the population of each metropolitan statistical area is urban. (B) the total population of the combination is less than one million and (1) their largest central cities are within 25 miles of one another, or the urbanized areas are contiguous; AND (2) there is definite evidence that the two areas are closely integrated economically and socially; AND (3) local opinion in both areas supports combination. Titles Titles of metropolitan statistical areas include the names of up to three Titles of CBSAs include the names of up to three principal cities in central cities in order of descending population size. Local opinion is order of descending population size. considered under specified conditions. Titles of primary metropolitan statistical areas include the names of up Titles of metropolitan divisions include the names of up to three princi- to three cities in the primary metropolitan statistical area that have pal cities in the metropolitan division in order of descending population qualified as central cities. If there are no central cities, the title will size. If there are no principal cities, the title includes the names of up include the names of up to three counties in the primary metropolitan to three counties in the metropolitan division in order of descending statistical area in order of descending population size. population size. Titles of consolidated metropolitan statistical areas include the names Titles of combined statistical areas include the name of the largest prin- of up to three central cities or counties in the consolidated metropoli- cipal city in the largest CBSA that combines, followed by the names of tan statistical area. The first name will be the largest central city in the up to two additional principal cities in the combination in order of consolidated metropolitan statistical area; the remaining two names descending population size, or a suitable regional name, provided that will be the first city or county name that appears in the title of the combined statistical area title does not duplicate the title of a compo- remaining primary metropolitan statistical area with the largest total nent metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area or metropolitan divi- population and the first city or county name that appears in the title of sion. Local opinion will be considered when determining the titles of the primary metropolitan statistical area with the next largest total pop- combined statistical areas. ulation. Regional designations can be substituted for the second and third names if there is strong local support.

November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 25 Appendix C. Metropolitan Statistical Areas with Populations of 500,000 or Greater, New Standards, 2000

Rank Metropolitan Statistical Area Population in 2000 1 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 18,323,002 2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 12,365,627 3 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI 9,098,316 4 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 5,687,147 5 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 5,161,544 6 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL 5,007,564 7 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 4,796,183 8 Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX 4,715,407 9 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 4,452,557 10 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 4,391,344 11 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 4,247,981 12 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 4,123,740 13 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 3,254,821 14 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 3,251,876 15 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 3,043,878 16 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 2,968,806 17 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 2,813,833 18 St. Louis, MO-IL 2,698,687 19 Baltimore-Towson, MD 2,552,994 20 Pittsburgh, PA 2,431,087 21 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 2,395,997 22 Denver-Aurora, CO 2,157,756 23 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH 2,148,143 24 Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN 2,009,632 25 Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA 1,927,881 26 Kansas City, MO-KS 1,836,038 27 Sacramento—Arden-Arcade—Roseville, CA 1,796,857 28 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 1,735,819 29 San Antonio, TX 1,711,703 30 Orlando, FL 1,644,561 31 Columbus, OH 1,612,694 32 Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 1,582,997 33 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 1,576,370 34 Indianapolis, IN 1,525,104 35 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 1,500,741 36 Las Vegas-Paradise, NV 1,375,765 37 Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC 1,330,448 38 New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 1,316,510 39 Nashville-Davidson—Murfreesboro, TN 1,311,789 40 Austin-Round Rock, TX 1,249,763 41 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 1,205,204 42 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 1,170,111 43 Louisville, KY-IN 1,161,975 44 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 1,148,618 45 Jacksonville, FL 1,122,750 46 Richmond, VA 1,096,957 47 Oklahoma City, OK 1,095,421 48 Birmingham-Hoover, AL 1,052,238

26 November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series Appendix C. Metropolitan Statistical Areas with Populations of 500,000 or Greater, New Standards, 2000 (continued)

Rank Metropolitan Statistical Area Population in 2000 49 Rochester, NY 1,037,831 50 Salt Lake City, UT 968,858 51 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 882,567 52 Honolulu, HI 876,156 53 Tulsa, OK 859,532 54 Dayton, OH 848,153 55 Tucson, AZ 843,746 56 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 825,875 57 New Haven-Milford, CT 824,008 58 Fresno, CA 799,407 59 Raleigh-Cary, NC 797,071 60 Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA 767,041 61 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 753,197 62 Worcester, MA 750,963 63 Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI 740,482 64 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ 740,395 65 Albuquerque, NM 729,649 66 Baton Rouge, LA 705,973 67 Akron, OH 694,960 68 Springfield, MA 680,014 69 El Paso, TX 679,622 70 Bakersfield, CA 661,645 71 Toledo, OH 659,188 72 Syracuse, NY 650,154 73 Columbia, SC 647,158 74 Greensboro-High Point, NC 643,430 75 Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY 621,517 76 Knoxville, TN 616,079 77 Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR 610,518 78 Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA 602,964 79 Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL 589,959 80 Wichita, KS 571,166 81 McAllen-Edinburg-Pharr, TX 569,463 82 Stockton, CA 563,598 83 Scranton—Wilkes-Barre, PA 560,625 84 Greenville, SC 559,940 85 Charleston-North Charleston, SC 549,033 86 Colorado Springs, CO 537,484 87 Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA 509,074 88 Madison, WI 501,774

November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 27 7. The US Census Bureau defines as urban Endnotes any densely settled area that has a population of at least 2,500. All territory not 1. In 1947, the Bureau of the Budget (prede- included in an urbanized area of 50,000 or cessor of the current Office of Manage- more people or an urban cluster of 2,500 ment and Budget), in coordination with to 49,999 people (the two types of urban the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor areas) is considered rural. Statistics and other agencies coordinated 8. See, for example, Brown and Swanson, efforts to define the initial Standard Met- 2004. ropolitan Areas (SMAs). They were formed on the basis of a large population nucleus 9. See, for example, Frey and Berube, 2002. together with adjacent components (counties, or in New England, towns). Prior to 10. Johnson, 1999. this time, metropolitan-like entities were 11. “Measuring Rurality: Rural-Urban Contin- defined variously by different agencies with uum Codes.” USDA Economic Research names such as “metropolitan districts,” Service, www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/rural- “industrial areas,” “labor market areas,” ity/RuralUrbCon/ (accessed August 2004). and “metropolitan counties” (Fitzsimmons and Ratcliffe, 2004). 12. While the existence of an urbanized area over 50,000 is required for each MetroSA, 2. Subsequent to the identification of Stan- the central counties are defined in terms of dard Metropolitan Areas (SMAs) in 1949, more expansive urban populations, includ- different terms and slight changes in defi- ing both urbanized areas and smaller urban nitions were incorporated to establish the clusters. Central cities are no longer part basic areas as Standard Metropolitan Sta- of the new definitions. tistical Areas (SMSAs) in 1958, and Metro- politan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in 1983 13. The previous criteria for adding outlying (Frey and Speare, 1995). Concepts associ- counties included both density and com- ated with larger metropolitan regions muting requirements. The new criteria (groupings of metropolitan areas) identified have dropped the density requirements but for use in previous censuses included: the made the commuting requirements more Standard Consolidated Area, used in the stringent. (See Appendix B for details.) A 1960 Census; the Standard Consolidated consequence of the more stringent com- Statistical Area (SCSA), identified in 1975 muting requirements was the elimination for use in the 1980 Census; and the Con- of outlying counties that would have quali- solidated Metropolitan Statistical Area fied under the old system; however, in (CMSA) in 1983 (see Frey and Speare, some cases new counties with low popula- 1995). tion densities now qualify as outlying counties under the new standards where they 3. Fitzsimmons and Ratcliffe, 2004. would have been omitted under the previ- 4. This survey does not attempt to review all ous ones. of the substantive and technical decisions 14. The new system does not define a PMSA made during this extensive effort (see counterpart for large areas with popula- Office of Management and Budget, 2000a; tions exceeding one million (as was the Fitzimmons and Ratcliffe, 2004; and U.S. case for CMSAs in the old system). How- General Accounting Office, 2004). ever, for 11 MetroSAs, with populations 5. Note that we are comparing metro areas exceeding 2.5 million, the new system cre- where old metropolitan standards were ates “metropolitan divisions,” which in used to define areas with pre-2000 popula- some cases approximate the former tion and commuting data; to the new stan- PMSAs. These are discussed later in the dards which were used to define areas with text. 2000 Census commuting data and 2000 15. Frey, 2004a. Census and 2002 population estimate data. Thus, some changes to metro areas 16. Springfield, MA and Providence, RI were result solely from changes to OMB’s classi- the only New England metros to experi- fication system; others reflect population ence a net addition of counties. and economic dynamics taking place over the course of the 1990s. 17. For instance, the county seat of fully rural King George County, VA, is a full 70 miles 6. Metropolitan areas have also been defined from the District of Columbia. In 2000, for the territory of Puerto Rico, but they only 3 percent of the county’s workers will be omitted from our comparisons. commuted to D.C.

28 November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 18. Of the 22 metro areas under the old sys- 25. According to the old standards, metropoli- 34. Haya El Nasser, “Metro area’s suburbs tem that have combined in the new system, tan area names included the largest central make name for themselves.” USA Today, fully seven are located in the New York city and each additional city with at least July 22, 2003, p. A3. region. 250,000 persons. Under the new standards, the names of the second and third 35. Laurent Belsie, “Small rural towns get new 19. This change has brought recognition to largest principal cities are included in met- name—and new attention.” Christian Sci- large suburban economic centers and has ropolitan area titles. ence Monitor, June 20, 3003, p. 2. brought places into titles that never would have been able to qualify in the past (for 26. Under the old standards, Austin and San instance, Paradise, NV; Sandy Springs, GA; Marcos were the two central cities in the and Towson, MD). Austin, TX MSA. Round Rock was not a central city because it did not have an 20. Additional principal cities within a metro- employment/residence ratio of at least 0.75 politan area include any with more than and at least 40 percent of its employed res- 250,000 people or 100,000 workers. Places idents working within the city. Under the with more than 50,000 can also be princi- new standards, Round Rock qualifies as a pal cities if the number of jobs located principal city because its population is over there meets or exceeds the number of 50,000 and its employment/residence ratio employed residents. Finally, principal cities is at least 1.0. Because San Marcos’ popu- also include places with more than 10,000 lation is less than 50,000, and it does not people that are at least one-third the size of have both an employment/residence ratio the largest place in the metro area, and of at least 1.0 and a population of at least that have at least as many jobs as employed one-third that of Austin’s, it did not qualify residents. as a principal city and was thus dropped from the metropolitan area title. 21. See, e.g., William H. Frey, “Melting Pot Suburbs: A Census 2000 Study of Subur- 27. State laws and regulations make use of ban Diversity” (Washington: Brookings OMB-defined metropolitan areas as well, Institution, 2001); Alan Berube and but we focus on federal policy here to keep William H. Frey, “A Decade of Mixed the scope reasonable, and to comment on Blessings: Urban and Suburban Poverty in policies potentially applicable to all metro Census 2000” (Washington: Brookings areas. Institution, 2002); Audrey Singer, “The Rise of New Immigrant Gateways” (Wash- 28. Many of these special designations afford ington: Brookings Institution, 2004). rural hospitals additional reimbursement.

22. See Frey 2004b for a critique of employing 29. In fact, CMS oversees a Medicare Geo- this practice to designate the suburban graphic Classification Review Board to population. consider special circumstances under which hospitals designated as “rural” can 23. At the same time, many Brookings analyses petition to receive an “urban” designation, have employed a modified set of central and vice versa. cities in the largest metropolitan areas, recognizing only cities that appear within the 30. Federal Register 69 (96) (May 18, 2004): metropolitan area name—and in some 28249–28252. cases, only those that exceed certain population thresholds. See, e.g., William H. 31. This is somewhat at odds with the notion Frey and Alan Berube, “City Families, Sub- that as metro areas grow larger, they urban Singles: An Emerging Household become eligible for more federal funds. Story from Census 2000” (Washington: See, e.g, Chris Poynter, “Louisville makes Brookings Institution, 2002); Roberto Suro gains on federal map; Area’s growth open and Audrey Singer, “Latino Growth in Met- doors for more funding, businesses.” ropolitan America: Changing Patterns, Louisville Courier-Journal, June 10, 2003, New Locations” (Washington: Brookings p. 1A. Institution, 2002). This approach dis- 32. Office of Management and Budget, counted small employment centers in large “Update of Statistical Area Definitions and regions, such as Frederick, MD (Washing- Additional Guidance on Their Uses.” OMB ton–Baltimore CMSA) and Port Huron, Bulletin No. 04-03 (February 18, 2004). MI (Detroit CMSA); future Brookings analyses may employ a similar approach 33. One private-sector firm, ACCRA, has with principal cities. already adopted Metropolitan Divisions to analyze cost-of-living differences among 24. There are some exceptions to this rule, U.S. metropolitan areas. ACCRA and where local opinion favored a different Fargo Cass County Economic Develop- name. See Discussion. ment Corporation, 2004. “ACCRA Cost of Living Index.”

November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 29 References Frey, William H. and Alden Speare, U.S. General Accounting Office, 1995. “Metropolitan Areas as Func- 2004. Metropolitan Statistical Areas: Brown, David L. and Louis E. Swan- tional Communities” in Donald C. New Standards and Their Impact on son, eds., 2004. Challenges for Rural Dahmann and James D. Fitzsimmons, Selected Federal Programs. June, America in the Twenty-First Century. eds., Metropolitan And Nonmetropooli- 2004. Report GAO-04-758. Available University Park: Pennsylvania State tan Areas: New Approaches To Geo- at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ University Press. graphic Definition. Working Paper No. d04758.pdf. 12. Washington DC: US Census Fitzsimmons, James D. and Michael Bureau. R. Ratcliffe, 2004. “Reflections on the Review of Metropolitan Area Stan- Johnson, Kenneth M., 1999. “The dards in the United States, 1990- Rural Rebound.” PRB Reports on 2000” in Tony Champion and Graeme America. Washington, DC: Population Hugo, eds., New Forms of Urbaniza- Reference Bureau. tion: Beyond the Urban-Rural Dichotomy. Burlington, Vermont: Ash- Lang, Robert E. and Dawn Dhavale. gate Publishing. 2004. “Micropolitan America: A Brand New Geography.” Census Note 05:01. Frey, William H. 2003. “Metro Mag- Metropolitan Institute at Virginia nets for International and Domestic Tech. Migrants.” Washington: Brookings Institution. Savageau, David. 2000. Places Rated Almanac. Foster City, California: IDB ——. 2004a. “Micropolitan America: Books Worldwide. Small is Interesting.” Charticle, Milken Institute Review, Second Office of Management and Budget, Quarter, April. 1998. “Alternative Approaches to Defining Metropolitan and Nonmetro- ——. 2004b. “The Fading of City-Sub- politan Areas.” Federal Register. Vol. urb and Metro-Nonmetro Distinctions 63, No. 244, December 21. in the United States.” in Tony Cham- pion and Graeme Hugo, eds., New Office of Management and Budget, Forms of Urbanization: Beyond the 1999. Bulletin 99–04. June 30. Urban-Rural Dichotomy. Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing. Office of Management and Budget, 2000. “Standards for Defining Metro- Frey, William H. and Alan Berube, politan and Micropolitan Statistical 2002. “City Families and Suburban Areas.” Federal Register. Vol. 65, No. Singles: An Emerging Household 249, December 27. Story” in Bruce Katz and Robert E. Lang, eds., Redefining Urban and Sub- Office of Management and Budget, urban America: Evidence from Census 2003. Bulletin No. 03–04. June 6. 2000, Volume 1. Washington: Brook- ings. Office of Management and Budget, 2004. Bulletin 04–03. Feb. 18.

30 November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series Acknowledgments The authors express their gratitude to Michael Ratcliffe, Elizabeth Grieco, and Amy Liu for their comments on earlier drafts of the paper and to Cathy Sun for her technical assistance.

For More Information: William H. Frey Visiting Fellow The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program (202) 797-6292

Frey’s co-authors, also with the Metropolitan Policy Program, are Research Analyst Jill H. Wilson, Fellow Alan Berube, and Immigration Fellow Audrey Singer.

For General Information: The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program (202) 797-6139 www.brookings.edu/metro

November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 31 About the Living Cities Census Series

Census 2000 provides a unique opportunity to define the shape of urban and metropolitan policy for the coming decade. With support from Living Cities: The National Com- munity Development Initiative, the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program has launched the Living Cities Census Series, a major three-year effort to illustrate how urban and suburban America has changed in the last two decades. As a part of this effort, Brookings is conducting comparative analyses of the major social, economic, and demographic trends for U.S. metropolitan areas, as well as a special effort to provide census information and analysis in a manner that is tailored to the cities involved in the Living Cities initiative.

Living Cities: The National Community Development Initiative is a partnership of leading foundations, financial institutions, nonprofit organizations, and the federal government that is committed to improving the vitality of cities and urban communities. Living Cities funds the work of community development corporations in 23 cities and uses the lessons of that work to engage in national research and policy development. Visit Living Cities on the web at www.livingcities.org

55 West 125th Street • 11th Floor • New York, NY 10027 Tel: 646-442-2200 • Fax: 646-442-2239 www.livingcities.org

The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW • Washington D.C. 20036-2188 Tel: 202-797-6000 • Fax: 202-797-6004 www.brookings.edu

Direct: 202-797-6139 • Fax/direct: 202-797-2965 www.brookings.edu/metro