This brief summarizes recent regional patterns of natural decrease in the United States. Natural decrease occurs when more deaths than births occur in an area in a given year. The growing incidence of natural decrease has gone largely unnoticed, yet natural decrease is no longer an isolated phenomenon occurring in a few remote corners of the country. Last year, 24 percent of all U.S. counties experienced natural decrease. And, for the first time in U.S. history, deaths now exceed births in an entire state. Author Ken Johnson discusses the implications of natural decrease, as well as the impact of the recent influx of immigrants in some regions of rural and urban America—a phenomenon that is impacting natural increase

Johnson, Kenneth M.

English

UNH Scholars' Repository

Carseyi n s t i t u t eIssue BrIef No. 30spring 2011		 Key	Findings• Last year, more people died than were born in nearly a quarter of all U.s. counties.• For the first time in U.s. history, deaths exceed births in an entire U.s. state: West Virginia.• The primary cause of natural decease is an age structure distorted by young adult out-migration and aging in place.• rural areas are much more likely than urban places to experience natural decrease.natural	Decrease	in	america	More	Coffins	than	CradlesK enn e th 	M . 	 J ohn s onBirths	have	always	exceeded	deaths	in	the	united	states	by	a	substantial	margin,	so	little	attention	has	been	paid	to	specific	areas	where	more	people	die	than	are	born.	yet,	in	some	parts	of	rural	america,	deaths	have	ex‑ceeded	births	for	decades.	This	point	was	illustrated	recently	by	a	rural	Kansas	minister	who	said	that	he	officiates	at	four	funerals	for	every	baptism.	This	brief	summarizes	recent	regional	patterns	of	natural	decrease	in	the	united	states.1	natural	decrease	occurs	when	more	deaths	than	births	occur	in	an	area	in	a	given	year.	The	growing	incidence	of	natural	decrease	in	rural	america	has	gone	largely	unnoticed,	yet	natural	decrease	is	no	longer	an	isolated	phenomenon	occurring	in	a	few	remote	corners	of	rural	america.	Last	year,	24	percent	of	all	u.s.	counties	experienced	natural	decrease.	and,	for	the	first	time	in	u.s.	history,	deaths	now	exceed	births	in	an	entire	state.	Between	2000	and	2009,	more	people	in	West	Virginia	died	than	were	born.	and	West	Virginia	may	be	a	harbinger	of	things	to	come.	in	several	other	states,	births	now	outnumber	deaths	by	the	thinnest	of	margins.	For	example,	last	year	in	Maine	there	were	only	106	births	for	every	100	deaths.	overall,	births	exceeded	deaths	in	Maine	by	just	789	according	to	the	latest	Census	Bureau	estimates.	These	margins	may	well	become	even	thinner	in	the	near	future.	The	latest	data	from	the	national	Center	for	health	statistics	reflect	the	adverse	impact	of	the	current	recession	on	u.s.	births.	in	all,	260,000	fewer	babies	were	born	in	the	twelve	months	ending	in	June	of	2010	than	were	born	in	the	twelve	months	ending	in	June	of	2008.	This	represents	a	6	percent	decline	in	just	two	years.	once	rare	Phenomenon	Becoming	More	Widespreadhistorically,	natural	decrease	has	been	unusual	in	the	american	experience.	near	the	end	of	the	Great	Depres‑sion,	natural	decrease	occurred	in	a	few	counties,	but	it	was	short‑lived.	it	occurred	again	in	a	few	places	during	the	1950s,	but	natural	decrease	was	rare	during	the	high	fertility	era	of	the	baby	boom.	natural	decrease	became	more	common	near	the	end	of	the	1960s,	as	fertility	levels	fell.	The	longitudinal	pattern	during	the	1970s	was	differ‑ent	from	the	slow	rise	during	the	1950s	and	1960s.	after	a	brief	respite	in	1970	and	1971,	both	the	number	of	coun‑ties	experiencing	natural	decrease	in	a	given	year	and	the	number	experiencing	it	for	the	first	time	rapidly	rose	to	a	peak	in	1973.	natural	decrease	increased	sharply	during	this	period	because	the	children	of	the	baby	boom	delayed	their	first	births	and	had	fewer	children	than	their	mothers	did.	natural	decrease	diminished	later	in	the	1970s	as	these	delayed	births	began	to	materialize.	it	remained	at	a	low	ebb	through	1982,	but	then	began	to	rise,	nearly	doubling	by	2000.	The	number	of	natural	decrease	counties	peaked	in	2002	at	985	before	subsiding	somewhat,	as	fertility	levels	rose.	however,	recent	Census	Bureau	estimates	of	births	and	deaths	through	July	of	2009	suggest	the	incidence	of	natural	decrease	is	again	rising.	in	all,	1,621	of	the	3,141	u.s.	counties	(51.6	percent)	experienced	at	least	one	year	of	natural	decrease	between	1950	and	2009.	see	Figure	1	for	an	illustration	of	the	longitudinal	pattern	of	natural	decrease	from	1950	through	2009.		natural	Decrease	is	More	Common	in	rural	areasnatural	decrease	is	common	in	rural	areas;	more	than	90	percent	of	u.s.	counties	with	episodes	of	natural	decrease	are	classified	as	nonmetropolitan.	Between	2000	and	2009,	750	nonmetropolitan	counties	(36	percent)	had	more	people	die	in	them	than	be	born.	This	is	up	from	29	percent	in	the	1990s.	The	incidence	and	severity	of	natural	decrease	is	influenced	by	proximity	to	metropolitan	areas.	nearly	45	percent	of	remote	rural	counties—those	not	adjacent	to	a	metropolitan	area—had	natural	decrease	between	2000	and	2009.	in	contrast,	only	30	percent	of	rural	counties	adjacent	to	metropolitan	counties	experienced	natural	decrease.natural	decrease	is	regionally	concentrated.	the	earli‑est	occurrences	of	it	in	the	1950s	were	in	agricultural	areas	of	the	Great	Plains,	the	Western	and	southern	Corn	Belt,	and	east	and	Central	texas,	as	well	as	in	the	ozark‑ouachita	uplands.	natural	decrease	also	was	observed	early	in	some	mining	and	timber‑dependent	rural	coun‑ties	of	the	upper	Great	Lakes	and	in	Florida	counties	that	were	among	the	first	to	receive	retirement	migrants	(see	Figure	2).	Later,	natural	decrease	spread	to	other	rural	ar‑eas	of	the	south,	new	york	and	Pennsylvania,	the	upper	Great	Lakes,	parts	of	the	West	in	the	1990s,	and	eventu‑ally	to	indiana	and	ohio.	The	heavy	concentrations	of	natural	decrease	counties	in	the	Great	Plains	and	in	the	Corn	Belt	reflect	the	linkage	between	dependence	on	agriculture	and	persistent	out‑migration	and	low	fertility.	Farming	counties	are	the	most	likely	to	suffer	natural	decrease;	nearly	50	percent	expe‑rienced	natural	decrease	between	2000	and	2009.	Many	agricultural	counties	have	sustained	decades	of	outmigra‑tion	by	young	adults,	leaving	behind	fewer	young	families	of	childbearing	age.	natural	decrease	also	is	observed	in	many	rural	counties	classified	as	retirement	destinations	by	the	u.s.	Department	of	agriculture.	retirement	counties	have	received	a	substantial	net	inflow	of	older	adults	for	many	years.	older	migrants	push	up	mortality	rates,	while	obviously	contributing	nothing	to	the	number	of	births	in	counties.	The	retirement	counties	of	Florida	are	the	best	examples	of	this	phenomenon,	but	similar	clusters	exist	in	retirement	destinations	of	the	upper	Great	Lakes,	the	southeast,	ozarks,	and	portions	of	the	West.Figure 1. Natural Decrease in U.S. Counties,  1950 to 2008Source: National Center for Health Statistic and Federal State Cooperative  Population EstimatesFigure 2. Years of Natural Decrease, 1966 to 2009Source: Data from Census Bureau and National Center for Health StatisticsWhat	Causes	natural	Decrease?natural	decrease	is	caused	by	two	interrelated	demographic	factors.	The	most	influential	of	these	factors	is	a	local	age	structure	that	has	few	young	adults	of	child‑bearing	age	and	a	large	surplus	of	older	adults	at	high	risk	of	mortality.	natu‑ral	decrease	is	also	more	likely	when	fertility	levels	are	low	because	women	are	having	relatively	few	children.areas	that	have	both	a	deficit	of	young	adults	and	a	surplus	of	older	adults	are	at	the	greatest	risk	of	natural	decrease.	eventually,	even	with	fertility	rates	at	the	national	average,	diminishing	numbers	of	young	adults	cannot	pro‑duce	sufficient	births	to	offset	the	rising	number	of	deaths	to	the	larger,	older	cohorts.	natural	decrease	counties	have	significantly	fewer	20‑	to	39‑year‑olds	than	the	other	areas	(see	Figure	3).	in	2000,	counties	with	extensive	natural	decrease	average	27	percent	fewer	residents	in	their	20s	than	the	united	states	as	a	whole.	Because	this	part	of	the	popula‑tion	is	in	its	prime	child‑bearing	years	and	produces	most	of	the	babies,	a	shortfall	in	this	age	group	significantly	reduces	the	number	of	local	births.natural	decrease	counties	are	also	populated	by	a	dis‑proportionate	share	of	older	adults.	This	surplus	is	great‑est	among	those	over	the	age	of	70.	Counties	with	overall	natural	decrease	between	1990	and	2000	had	59	percent			 2	 C a r s e y 	 i n s t i t u t emore	people	over	the	age	of	70	than	the	united	states	as	a	whole	in	2000.	Because	age‑specific	mortality	rates	are	much	higher	for	older	adults,	their	disproportionate	concentration	in	these	counties	accelerates	natural	decrease	by	increasing	the	number	of	deaths.Prolonged	age‑specific	migration	patterns	produced	the	age	structure	shifts	evident	in	rural	natural	decrease	areas.	For	decades,	migration	drained	young	adults	from	these	areas,	while	the	older	population	remained	(or	grew	through	migration).	The	exodus	of	young	adults	and	retention	of	older	adults	is	not	unique	to	natural	decrease	areas;	in	fact,	it	is	common	in	much	of	nonmetropolitan	america.	What	dif‑fers	is	its	magnitude.	in	natural	decrease	areas,	the	outflow	of	young	adults	(20	to	29)	was	more	substantial.	Counties	that	experienced	overall	natural	decrease	between	1990	and	2000	lost	hundreds	of	thousands	of	20‑	to	29‑year‑olds	between	the	1950s	and	the	1990s	(see	Figure	4).	The	demographic	impact	of	this	young	adult	out‑migration	is	magnified	by	the	aging	in	place	and	by	an	influx	of	older	migrants	in	some	areas.	Thus,	for	several	generations	the	older	population	has	grown	while	the	young	left.Low	fertility	levels	also	impact	the	incidence	of	natural	decrease	and	may	be	of	growing	importance	today.	how‑ever,	the	relationship	between	natural	decrease	and	fertility	is	complex	and	its	overall	impact	is	modest.	The	high	fertil‑ity	of	the	baby	boom	era	postponed	the	onset	of	natural	decrease	in	many	counties,	while	the	rapid	fertility	decline	in	the	early	1970s	contributed	to	its	rising	incidence	at	the	time.	The	ebb	and	flow	of	natural	decrease	roughly	approx‑imates	nationwide	trends	in	fertility	from	1950	to	1980.	however,	natural	decrease	rose	sharply	after	1980	despite	an	upward	trajectory	in	births	in	the	nation	as	a	whole	(data	not	shown).Why	have	births	diminished	so	rapidly	in	nonmetropoli‑tan	natural	decrease	areas	over	the	past	several	decades?	it	is	not	because	women	in	such	areas	are	having	fewer	children	than	their	counterparts	elsewhere	in	the	united	states.	although	the	gap	between	fertility	levels	in	natural	decrease	counties	and	the	united	states	have	diminished	in	recent	decades,	such	counties	still	had	total	fertility	rates	near	the	national	average	in	2000.	however,	a	general	decline	in	nonmetropolitan	age‑specific	fertility	rates	contributed	to	the	diminished	number	of	births	in	natural	decrease	areas	after	1980.	rural	women	have	historically	had	higher	birth	rates	than	urban	women,	but	the	rates	have	been	converg‑ing	for	some	time	and,	by	1990,	the	overall	fertility	rates	of	urban	and	rural	women	were	virtually	equivalent.	so,	both	temporal	variations	and	normative	changes	in	family	size	contributed	to	the	changing	incidence	of	natural	decrease.	For	example,	while	the	baby	boom	and	higher	fertility	among	rural	women	delayed	the	onset	of	natural	decrease	in	many	rural	counties,	the	tendency	of	the	baby	boomers	themselves	to	delay	having	children	coupled	with	converging	rural‑urban	fertility	levels	sharply	increased	the	incidence	of	natural	decrease	more	recently.	The	implications	of	natural	Decreasenatural	decrease	is	the	ultimate	demographic	consequence	of	dwindling	numbers	of	young	adults	and	growing	older	populations,	but	it	has	implications	that	reach	far	beyond	de‑mography	to	institutions	that	are	the	bedrock	of	communi‑ties.	The	viability	of	local	schools	becomes	precarious	as	the	student	and	parent	populations	diminish.	With	fewer	births	and	children,	the	delivery	of	obstetric	and	pediatric	services	by	local	hospitals	and	physicians	also	becomes	increasingly	problematic—leaving	the	few	remaining	prospective	parents	to	travel	to	distant	hospitals	and	physicians	for	prenatal	and	well‑baby	care	that	reduces	the	risks	to	vulnerable	mothers	and	children.	The	provision	of	daycare	and	family	services	is	also	difficult	when	families	with	children	are	few	and	scattered.	and,	the	needs	of	families	and	children	may	get	less	attention	in	the	political	arena	than	those	of	the	growing	senior	population.Figure 3. Age Structure Difference between Natural Decrease and all U.S. Counties, 1960 to 2000Source: U.S. Census 1950 to 2000Figure 4. Net Migration in Natural Decrease Counties, 1950 to 2000Source: Johnson, et.al. 2005. Demography 44(4): 791-812	 C a r s e y 	 i n s t i t u t e 	 3Firms	planning	to	open	or	expand	facilities	may	be	reluctant	to	consider	areas	with	a	declining	young	adult	population.	staffing	voluntary	organizations	is	challenging	when	fewer	young	and	middle	aged	adults	reside	in	the	area.	Who	will	staff	volunteer	fire	departments	and	emergency	medical	services	when	there	are	few	working	age	adults	and	those	that	remain	commute	long	distances	to	jobs?	The	tax	base	is	also	likely	to	stagnate	in	communities	with	declining	working	age	population.	and,	with	protracted	population	decline,	the	political	clout	of	natural	decrease	communities	is	diminishing.	Will	natural	Decrease	Continue?The	recent	rise	in	natural	decrease	may	be	a	harbinger	of	future	trends.	once	natural	decrease	begins	in	a	county,	it	is	likely	to	reoccur.	nearly	90	percent	of	the	counties	that	have	experienced	natural	decrease	once	experience	reoccurrences	of	it.	The	demographic	forces	stimulating	natural	decrease	also	increase	the	likelihood	of	it	in	the	future.	The	cohorts	reaching	retirement	age	in	the	last	decade	and	a	half	were	small	because	they	were	born	during	the	low	fertility	era	of	the	1930s	and	early	1940s.	now,	that	the	large	baby	boom	era	cohorts	are	poised	for	retirement,	the	number	of	older	adults	at	high	risk	of	mortality	will	grow	dramatically	over	the	next	several	decades.	The	recent	decline	in	fertility	associated	with	the	Great	recession	also	increases	the	likelihood	of	more	natural	decrease	in	the	near	term.Predicting	the	demographic	future	is	always	perilous.	not	all	natural	decrease	areas	face	a	bleak	future.	although	natu‑ral	decrease	will	likely	continue	in	many	areas	and	appear	for	the	first	time	in	others,	this	is	not	a	demographic	certainty	everywhere	given	the	recent	influx	of	immigrants	into	some	regions	of	rural	and	urban	america.	new	immigration	has	brought	significant	increases	in	the	number	of	hispanic	births,	which	are	impacting	natural	increase.	hispanics	represent	only	16.4	percent	of	the	u.s.	population,	but	they	produced	26	percent	of	all	births	last	year.	This	influx	of	immigrants	and	new	minority	groups	to	america	is	having	a	profound	impact	on	natural	increase	and	the	age	structure	of	the	u.s.	population.2in	sum,	the	ebbs	and	flows	of	natural	decrease	over	the	last	half	century	have	gone	largely	unnoticed.	yet,	the	pro‑nounced	spatial	clustering	of	natural	decrease	coupled	with	its	protracted	incidence	in	some	rural	areas	underscores	the	significant	implication	it	has	for	the	future	of	these	regions.	With	few	young	adults	and	a	growing	older	population,	the	future	viability	of	many	natural	decrease	areas	is	not	encour‑aging.	Demography	is	not	destiny,	but	one	ignores	it	at	their	peril.	economic	development,	an	influx	of	minorities,	high	levels	of	civic	engagement	and	community	cohesion	have	broken	the	downward	spiral	of	natural	decrease	in	some	areas,	but	many	remain	at	risk.	Examples of Counties with Sustained  Natural Decrease	over	time,	the	effect	of	age	structure	distortions	result‑ing	from	the	protracted	outflow	of	young	adults	from	an	area	combined	with	declining	fertility	can	have	a	sub‑stantial	impact	on	an	area’s	population.	two	counties—	republic	County	in	Kansas	and	ontonagon	County	in	Michigan—illustrate	the	demographic	processes	that	cause	natural	decrease	and	suggest	the	significant	im‑plications	that	prolonged	natural	decrease	can	have	for	rural	areas.	republic	County,	a	farm	county	in	north	Central	Kansas,	experienced	decades	of	young	adult	outmigra‑tion	leaving	it	with	27.4	percent	of	its	population	over	65	(the	united	states	has	13	percent	over	65)	and	only	10.4	percent	of	its	population	between	20	to	34	(the	u.s.	statistic	is	20.4	percent).	as	a	result,	republic	County	experienced	natural	decrease	in	each	of	the	last	42	years.	it	had	roughly	twice	as	many	deaths	as	births	between	2000	and	2009	(812	deaths	and	437	births).	such	natural	decrease	combined	with	protracted	outmigration	mean	that	only	4,960	people	lived	in	republic	County	in	2010,	compared	to	17,447	in	1910.	The	story	is	similar	in	ontonagon	County	located	in	Michigan’s	western	upper	Peninsula	where	mining	and	timber	were	once	the	dominate	industries.	For	decades,	young	adults	left	for	jobs	in	the	booming	metropolitan	areas	of	the	Midwest.	as	a	result,	some	21.8	percent	of	the	county’s	population	is	65	or	more,	and	only	11	percent	is	between	20	and	24.	here	there	were	just	44	births	for	every	100	deaths	between	2000	and	2009	(1,014	deaths	and	448	births).	Like	republic	County,	the	population	of	ontonagon	County	has	diminished	from	a	peak	of	12,428	in	1920	to	6,780	in	2010.			 4	 C a r s e y 	 i n s t i t u t ee nDnot e s1.	This report summarizes and updates my article, “The Continuing Incidence of Natural Decrease in American Counties,” published in Rural Sociology in March of 2011. For information about the data and methods used in this re-port, reference the article. My Rural Sociology article is one of several published to commemorate the work of Calvin L. Beale, Senior Demographer at the Economic Research Service of the USDA. With more than fifty years of exper-tise gleaned from pouring over data and his travels to nearly every corner of rural America, Mr. Beale was considered the Dean of Rural Demography, and he was respected and honored by the demographic and rural research community. 2.	For more information about the influence of minorities on U.S. demographic trends, see the following recent Carsey publications by Kenneth Johnson and Daniel Lichter: “The Changing Faces of America’s Children and Youth” (at www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/CarseySearch/search.php?id=50) and “Population Growth in New Hispanic Destinations” (at www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/CarseySearch/search.php?id=19). a B ou t 	 t h e 	 au thorKenneth	M.	Johnson	is	senior	demographer	at	the	Carseyinstitute	and	professor	of	sociology	at	the	university	of	newhampshire	(ken.johnson@unh.edu).aC KnoWL eD GMen t sThanks	to	allison	Churilla	for	research	assistance,	Barbara	Cook	for	Gis	support,	and	Curt	Grimm,	Laurel	Lloyd		earnshaw,	Beth	Mattingly,	and	amy	sterndale	for	their		comments	and	suggestions.	 C a r s e y 	 i n s t i t u t e 	 5Building	knowledge	for	families	and	communitiesThe	Carsey	institute	conducts	policy	research	on	vulnerable		children,	youth,	and	families	and	on	sustainable	community		development.	We	give	policy	makers	and	practitioners	timely,		independent	resources	to	effect	change	in	their	communities.	This	work	was	supported	by	the	annie	e.	Casey	Foundation,	the	W.	K.	Kellogg	Foundation,	the	Ford	Foundation,	and	by	the	northern	research	station	of	the	u.s.	Forest	service	and	the	economic	research	service	of	the	usDa.huddleston	hall73	Main	street	Durham,	nh	03824(603)	862‑2821		 6	 C a r s e y 	 i n s t i t u t e

Natural decrease in America: more coffins than cradles

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1137&amp;context=carsey

Natural decrease in America: more coffins than cradles

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNH Scholars' Repository