POPULATION MATTERS Issue Paper Highlighting the Policy Relevance of Demographic Research A Demographic Overview of Metropolitan Pittsburgh Peter A. Morrison The consequences that accompany demographic • As Pittsburgh’s college graduates move away, change typically are diffuse and emerge only gradually. expanding businesses may look beyond this region for Cumulatively, they may shape a region’s future, widening a workforce suited to their future needs. or narrowing margins for policy action. The Pittsburgh • Fluctuating enrollment levels in the public schools region (like metropolitan Cleveland and Cincinnati) is in will leave particular schools underutilized or under- the process of transforming itself from an older industrial staffed. region to one with an increasing presence of new high- • Retirees on fixed incomes may pressure local govern- tech industry. However, a distinctive combination of ment to cap or reduce local property taxes even as the demographic influences operating over several decades local tax base itself shrinks. has left an enduring imprint on the Pittsburgh regional economy. • Elderly family members who strive to continue living independently may need assistance to do so. This issue paper surveys the local demographic land- scape in the Pittsburgh region and its variations across Such demographically driven concerns are not con- communities. It examines the tensions and imbalances fined to Pittsburgh; they are unfolding across the country. that arise and identifies avenues for further focused The following demographic realities are fundamental to research into the questions they pose. For the general understanding Pittsburgh’s demographic situation. reader, the paper assembles and interprets current data and locally conducted research touching on key influences 3,000 affecting the region. 2,500 Any longtime resident of Pittsburgh knows that the gradual exodus of people from the region has long been a 2,000 fact of life. The population has been shrinking for decades 1,500 (see Figure 1), narrowing the region’s internal demo- graphic capacity for future population growth. 1,000 Today, many Pittsburgh residents are older and (thousands) Population 500 retired, and many young people have left. The prospect of continuing population decline—across much of the region 0 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 and in many of its communities—has important conse- quences: SOURCE: Federation for American Immigration Reform, 2001, www.fairus.org. • As older workers retire, the number of young workers to replace them in the labor force may prove Figure 1—Historical Trend in Metropolitan Pittsburgh’s insufficient. Population RAND issue papers explore topics of interest to the policymaking community. Although issue papers are formally reviewed, authors have substantial latitude to express provocative views without doing full justice to other perspectives. The views and conclusions expressed in issue papers are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of RAND or its research sponsors. © Copyright RAND 2003. FOUR DEMOGRAPHIC TRUTHS ABOUT THE FUTURE 280 Ages 65–84 260 Further Population “Aging” Is in Store 240 220 The first—and surest—demographic truth is that the 200 population will grow older. Nationally, the number of 180 people over age 55 will swell, whereas the number of peo- 160 ple in their 30s and 40s will shrink. The age distributions 140 Population (thousands) Population shown in Figure 2 illustrate these points. 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 The top panel in Figure 2 shows how the U.S. popula- 39 tion was distributed by age in 2000, with children (0–4) at Ages 85+ 37 the base and the elderly (85+) on top. Today’s population 35 is characterized by a striking unevenness that is attrib- 33 utable to the 1950s baby boom being followed by the 1970s 31 baby bust—the familiar “pig passing through the python.” 29 Viewed over time, that legacy of unevenness translates 27 Population (thousands) Population 25 Year 2000 0 85+ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Male80–84 Female 75–79 SOURCE: Center for Social and Urban Research, University of Pittsburgh. 70–74 65–69 60–64 Figure 3—Projected Future Number of Younger and Oldest 55–59 50–54 Elderly, Allegheny County 45–49 40–44 35–39 30–34 into a dynamic process of expanding and contracting 25–29 20–24 numbers within different age ranges. By 2020 (Figure 2, 15–19 10–14 bottom panel), the process will have reached the stage 5–9 shown in the white outline. Notice the increases under age 0–4 35, the absolute declines in the 35–49 age range, and the 14121086420 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 massive increase above age 55. Population (in millions) SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, International Data Base (based on In metropolitan Pittsburgh, the aging of the popula- national data). tion is more advanced than in most other regions. NOTE: Arrows indicate the approximate age range of large baby boom cohorts born after 1946. Presently, 18 percent of the area’s residents are 65 or older (compared with 12 percent nationally); and 30 percent of Year 2020 all area households have at least one member who is 65 or 85+ older (compared with 23 percent nationally). Male80–84 Female 75–79 In the future, the number of seniors in certain age 70–74 65–69 groups will fluctuate markedly and in opposite directions, 60–64 55–59 echoing out-migration flows in prior decades (see Figure 50–54 3). Allegheny County exemplifies the distinctive pattern 45–49 40–44 ahead. In just the next ten years, the number of persons 85 35–39 30–34 or older—the “oldest old”—will increase, from about 25–29 20–24 28,000 to 33,000. During that same period, though, the 15–19 number of persons 65 to 84 years old will decline notice- 10–14 5–9 ably, only to rise thereafter. In short, demographic forces 0–4 will push in opposite directions: The “oldest old” will 14121086420 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 become more numerous even as persons ages 65 to 84 Population (in millions) become less numerous. SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, International Data Base (based on national data). The demographic peaks and valleys apparent in NOTE: Arrows indicate the approximate age range of baby Figure 3 foreshadow peaks and valleys of need—for home boom–induced growth, 2000–2020. health care, assisted living, and other locally delivered ser- Figure 2—A Maturing Age Distribution vices—as these future trends unfold. Within the entire 2 elderly population, the small but expanding number of population in the Central Lawrenceville, Oakwood, persons over age 85 will accentuate distinctive types of Swisshelm Park, and Windgap neighborhoods. needs in particular places. In many of Allegheny County’s • While 16 percent of households in metropolitan 128 municipalities, elderly couples and surviving spouses Pittsburgh have at least one member aged 75 or older, living on fixed retirement incomes will intensify social ser- that percentage reaches 25–28 percent in the boroughs vice needs; particular communities may lack the scale and of Braddock Hills, Versailles, and Bridgeville the fiscal capacity to meet those needs. The recent closure (Allegheny County) and in the townships of Harmony of several large nursing and senior care homes in the area and Vanport (Beaver County). (reportedly prompted by declining admissions) only com- plicates matters.1 One distinctive aspect of this phenomenon is the way As the needs of the elderly and their family caregivers older persons in Pittsburgh have come to be concentrated find political expression, public budgetary priorities will in neighborhoods over time. Most of Pittsburgh’s elderly be affected.2 For health care especially, the expanding 85- persons have grown old here, not moved here in old age (as and-older segment of the age distribution will intensify in, say, Phoenix). After World War II, the settlement of demands on public spending. At those ages, per-capita new neighborhoods typically was “lumpy.” That is, neigh- expenditures on health care by all levels of government borhoods tended to fill up with new residents over rela- combined are two to three times what they are for persons tively brief time spans, so that particular generations hap- in their late 60s and early 70s (see Figure 4). pened to predominate within particular neighborhoods. Suburbs that housed newly settled young families in the late 1940s and 1950s are still inhabited by some of the 18,000 same family members who have aged in place. Such 15,266 16,000 neighborhoods retain some of their original “single- 14,000 generation” look to this day, and as younger people have 12,000 moved away, the older ones who remain account for a 10,000 9,463 gradually increasing percentage of all neighborhood 8,000 inhabitants. 5,836 6,000 A new visible manifestation of such aging in place is 4,000 the “naturally occurring retirement community” 2,000 990 532 404 694 746 (NORC)—existing buildings and neighborhoods not Health care dollars spent per capita 0 0–19 20–34 35–44 45–54 55–6465–74 75–84 85+ planned or intended for older people, but where older Age adults have stayed on after younger people left. A NORC may refer to a specific apartment building, or a street of NOTE: Data based on Diane Lim Rogers, Eric Toder, and Landon Jones, Economic Consequences of an Aging Population, Washington, old single family homes. What defines a NORC is residen- D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2000, Table 5. tial persistence: that is, residents who have stayed in their homes or apartments for many years, and evolved into a Figure 4—Government Health Care Expenditures Per Capita senior community. Incipient NORCs are now discernible in 1997 in particular locales—for example, a six-block neighbor- The first demographic truth, then, is that large cohorts hood in the Bethel Park area, where 41 percent of the 748 of future elderly—notably persons 85 or older—figure residents are 65 or older.3 NORCs offer novel opportuni- prominently in Pittsburgh’s future.