CHAPTER 2. THE ALASKA NATIVE POPULATION · any other state, as Table 2-2 shows. But the numbers of...

Status of Alaska Natives Report

2-1

CHAPTER 2. THE ALASKA NATIVE POPULATION Alaska Natives have seen big demographic changes in the past 40 years. The Native population is three times larger; a much bigger share lives in urban areas; households are smaller; and more children are growing up in households without two parents.

In this chapter we examine those and other long-term demographic trends and look particularly at changes between 1990 and 2000. We also compare age and sex distribution, household composition, and other characteristics of Alaska Natives today with those of non-Natives, both statewide and regionally. At the end of the chapter, we talk about the future implications of ongoing demographic trends.

Organization of Chapter Below we first summarize our findings. After that, before we turn to our detailed findings, we discuss how many people we included as Alaska Natives in our analysis—and why. This is important. We relied primarily on data from the U.S. census to show demographic change and to make comparisons—but the 2000 U.S. census counted Alaska Natives differently from earlier censuses, as we’ll explain more below. That change has caused confusion among many Alaskans about which Alaska Native population numbers to use and how to compare them with earlier figures. Still, despite those problems, the U.S. census count every 10 years is by far the best measure of Alaska’s population by race.

Summary of Findings A broader definition of “Alaska Native” in 2000 likely increased the number of people reporting themselves as Native and boosted population growth between 1990 to 2000. Before 2000, people who considered themselves as Alaska Native and some other race had to choose just one race when answering census questions. But in 2000, they could specify more than one race—and about 21,000 people described themselves as Alaska Native and some other race. This analysis counts all those people as Alaska Native, but it’s uncertain whether all of them would have designated themselves as Alaska Native under the old definition.

The Alaska Native population was up about 25 percent between 1990 and 2000, including all those who reported being either entirely or partly Alaska Native. That represented about a third of the overall population growth in Alaska over the decade. Since 1960, the Native population has nearly tripled.

Growth in the Native population was concentrated in urban areas in the 1990s. Part of that urban growth was from natural increase, and part of it was due to thousands of Alaska Natives moving from rural Alaska—especially remote rural areas—to urban areas. By 2000, more than 4 in 10 Alaska Natives lived in the state’s urban areas. That was up from about 3 in 10 in 1990 and 2 in 10 in 1970.

The fastest growing age groups among Alaska Natives in the past decade were children 5 to 14, mature adults (35-64) and elders (65 and over). Each of those groups grew in the range of 40 to 50 percent between 1990 and 2000.

The Alaska Native population is aging, with the median age of Natives increasing from 17 in 1960 to 24 in 2000. Still, Alaska Natives are a young population as compared with other Alaskans and other Americans, who had a median age of about 35 in 2000.


2-2

Younger Alaska Natives are far more likely than older Natives to be of mixed race. In 2000, one in four Native children under 5 were reported as being of more than one race, compared with just one in ten among Natives over 65.

The average Native household was smaller by about two people in 2000 than it was in 1960. Still, in 2000 the average Native household size of 3.63 was about one person larger than the 2.59 average among non-Native households.

Native and non-Native households have seen similar trends for several decades: fewer married couples, more households headed by women or men without spouses, and more non-family households. But the changes among Native households have been more dramatic. By 2000, Native households were about twice as likely as non-Native households to be headed by women or men without spouses and about 25 percent less likely to be married couples.

Just over half of Native children in 2000 lived in married-couple families. Another 21 percent lived in households headed by women and another 10 percent in households headed by men. Most of the rest lived with grandparents or other relatives.

About two thirds of Alaskans over 65, whether Native or non-Native, lived in family households in 2000. Most of the rest lived alone, and relatively few (around 5 percent) lived in nursing homes or other group quarters.

Birth rates among Alaska Natives have fallen by more than half since 1960. But in 2000 they remained about a third higher than rates among non-Natives.

Death rates among Alaska Natives in 2000 remained about 50 percent higher than among non-Natives. Still that was a major improvement since 1960, when Native death rates were more than twice the non-Native rates.

Overall numbers of Alaska Native men and women were about equal in 2000, but Native women outnumbered men in urban areas and men outnumbered women in remote areas. The difference was largest among older, working-age adults.

Significant differences exist between Natives in urban and rural areas, especially remote rural places. Native households in remote rural areas are larger and more likely to consist of married couples. Birth rates in remote areas are higher. Natives in remote areas are far less likely to be of mixed race. Natives in urban areas are more likely to be working-age adults, and those in remote rural areas are somewhat more likely to be children or elders.

The Native share of Alaska’s population increased from 17 to 19 percent in the 1990s and is likely to continue increasing in the next two decades, unless there is a big influx of non-Natives moving in from other states. And if the migration trends of the 1990s continue, the Native population in 2010 will be more concentrated in urban areas than it was in 2000.

The young adult Native population will be the fastest growing part of the Native population between 2000 and 2010, and it will continue to dominate growth in the following decade. And that group is starting to have families—so the number of school-age children will increase rapidly after 2010.

A large number of mature Native adults today will be approaching retirement age in 2010.

The number of Alaska Natives in the labor force will increase by 25 percent or more between 2000 and 2010, and another 11 percent in the following decade.


2-3

How Many People Are Alaska Natives? In this chapter, we use the figure 119,241 for the number of Alaska Natives in the state in 2000. That includes, as Figure 2-1 shows, people who in the 2000 U.S. census described themselves as (1) just Alaska Native; (2) Alaska Native and some other race; and (3) American Indian but not Alaska Native. We include the roughly 11,000 American Indians who weren’t Alaska Natives because most published census information doesn’t distinguish between American Indians and Alaska Natives.1 The number of American Indians in Alaska is small enough that including them doesn’t change our findings; it’s also likely that some have ties to the Alaska Native community.

Figure 2-1. Population Included in Analysis

Alaska Native Mixed Race

16,005 13%

American Indian Single Race

5,861 5%

American Indian Mixed Race

5,193 4%

Alaska Native Single Race

92,182 78%

Source: U.S. Census 100% count data

Total: 119,241

The 2000 Census Count of Alaska Natives The 2000 census was the first time people had the choice of describing themselves as Alaska Native and some other race. So if “Alaska Native” is defined to include people who said they were Alaska Native and some other race—and we think that’s the right definition to use—then the figures from the 2000 census are not directly comparable with those from previous censuses. Essentially, more people would be counted as Alaska Natives under the new definition than would have been under the old definition.

So to do comparisons over time, we adjusted the Native population figures from earlier censuses (as detailed in Appendix A), to include an estimate of the number of people who would have described themselves as Alaska Native mixed race, if they’d had that choice. Clearly, we can’t know for certain how many people would have put themselves in that group, but we think our estimates are reasonable.

1 Most census data is presented for the category “Alaska Native or American Indian” or “Native American.” See Appendix A for more information.


2-4

Also in the 2000 census, people who described themselves as Alaska Native or American Indian could specify a tribe to which they belonged. Some Alaska Natives designated tribes and others didn’t; some designated more than one tribe. Those and other complications make it impossible to use the tribal data to add up to a precise count of Alaska Natives.

And finally, people who didn’t describe their race as either Alaska Native or American Indian could still report having some Native American ancestry. About 14,500 people in Alaska said they had some Native American ancestry but that their race wasn’t Native American. We did not include these people in our analysis.

Table 2-1 below shows some of the possible ways to count Alaska Natives from 2000 census data. As we noted above, we included all groups except those who said they had Native American ancestry but were not of Native American race. Again, we include American Indians living in Alaska because most census data aggregates Alaska Natives and American Indians. Appendix A explains these census issues more fully and provides some detailed tables. The important thing here is for readers to understand which population figures we used and why.

Table 2-1. Possible Counts of Alaska Natives, 2000 Census Alaska Native, Single Race 92,182 Alaska Native, Single and Mixed Race

108,187

Alaska Native and American Indian, Single Race

98, 043

Alaska Native and American Indian, Single and Mixed Race

119,241

Alaska Native and American Indian, Single and Mixed Race, and Native American Ancestry

133,729

How Many Alaska Natives Live Outside Alaska? We estimated, based on tribal identification data from the census, that somewhere about 30,000 Alaska Natives live outside Alaska. This is truly an estimate, because of the complexities of the tribal data (discussed above). A detailed table is included in Appendix A.


2-5

How Does Alaska’s Native Population Compare with That in Other States? Alaska Natives make up a bigger percentage of Alaska’s population than Native Americans do in any other state, as Table 2-2 shows. But the numbers of Native Americans in several other states—including Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Washington, California, North Carolina, Texas, and New York—are larger.

Alaska Natives are much less likely than other Native Americans to report mixed heritage. About 18 percent of Native Americans in Alaska reported mixed racial heritage, whereas about 40 percent of Native Americans nationwide said their heritage was mixed.

Table 2-2. The Native American Population by State, 2000

State Total Population

Native American

Race Alone*

Percent of State

Population

Native American

Race Alone or Mixed

Percent of State

Population

Alaska 626,932 98,043 15.6% 119,241 19.0% Oklahoma 3,450,654 273,230 7.9% 391,949 11.4% New Mexico 1,819,046 173,483 9.5% 191,475 10.5% South Dakota 754,844 62,283 8.3% 68,281 9.0% Montana 902,195 56,068 6.2% 66,320 7.4% Arizona 5,130,632 255,879 5.0% 292,552 5.7% North Dakota 642,200 31,329 4.9% 35,228 5.5% Wyoming 493,782 11,133 2.3% 15,012 3.0% Washington 5,894,121 93,301 1.6% 158,940 2.7% Idaho 1,293,953 17,645 1.4% 27,237 2.1% California 33,871,648 333,346 1.0% 627,562 1.9% North Carolina 8,049,313 99,551 1.2% 131,736 1.6% Texas 20,851,820 118,362 0.6% 215,599 1.0% New York 18,976,457 82,461 0.4% 171,581 0.9% Balance of U.S. 178,664,309 769,842 0.4% 1,606,588 0.9%

U.S. Total 281,421,906 2,475,956 0.9% 4,119,301 1.5%

* American Indian and Alaska Native alone



2-6

What’s the Composition of Alaska’s Entire Population? Figure 2-2 shows Alaska Natives within the entire state population in 2000. Besides the 19 percent of residents who were Alaska Native, 69 percent were white; 12 percent were Black, Asian or Pacific Islander, and mixed race (other than Alaska Native).

Figure 2-2. Racial Composition of the Alaska Population, 2000

Other Races73,157

12%

White Alone 434,534

69%Native alone

or Native and other race 119,241

19%Source: U.S. Census 100% count


2-7

Growth of the Alaska Native Population, 1960-2000

The Alaska Native population nearly tripled between 1960 and 2000, increasing from 42,522 in 1960 to 119,241 in 2000 (Figure 2-3). This is an average growth rate of 2.6 percent a year—and 29 percent a decade—since Alaska became a state. 2

The Alaska Native share of the population was also at 19 percent in 1960, but then declined to around 17 percent during the 1970s and 1980s, as tens of thousands of non-Natives moved to the state to take advantage of the many new jobs being created at that time. In the 1990s, as the economy slowed and fewer non-Natives moved in, the Native share of the population rebounded to 19 percent.

Figure 2-3. Alaska Native Population, 1960-2000 119,241

94,600

69,983

50,60542,522

Native Population 42,522 50,605 69,983 94,600 119,241

Non-Native Population 183,645 249,777 331,868 455,443 507,691

Total Population 226,167 300,382 401,851 550,043 626,932

Percent Native 18.8% 16.8% 17.4% 17.2% 19.0%

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Source: U.S. Census; IPUMS; 1970 sample data; 1980-90 sample data and ISER estimates; 1960 and 2000 100% count data

The Alaska Native population grew most rapidly during the 1970s (Figure 2-4). Growth slowed after that, but the number of Alaska Natives has continued to increase. Because relatively few Alaska Natives leave Alaska, variation in the growth rate of the Native population over time is primarily due to changes in the rate of births and deaths.

2 Calculating the Native population growth rate is complicated by the change in the 2000 census, which allowed people for the first time to describe themselves as Alaska Native and some other race. To be consistent with the 2000 Alaska Native definition, we adjusted the Alaska Native population numbers for 1980 and 1990, adding an estimate of the number of people who might have described themselves as Alaska Native and some other race, if they’d had that choice. That calculation is detailed in Appendix A.


2-8

Growth in the state’s non-Native population has fluctuated over the decades, but unlike the Native population, the non-Native population tends to fluctuate with economic conditions. When conditions are good and employment opportunities are expanding, the non-Native population grows because more people move to the state. When employment growth is slower, as it was in the 1990s, the non-Native population also grows more slowly. About a third of Alaska’s population growth between 1990 and 2000 was among Alaska Natives (Figure 2-4).

Figure 2-4. Growth in the Alaska Native Population, 1960-2000

+24,641+24,617+19,378+8,083

Increase in Number of Natives 8,083 19,378 24,617 24,641

Increase in Number of Non-Natives

66,132 82,091 123,575 52,248

Native Increase (percent) 19.0% 38.3% 35.2% 26.0%

Non-Native Increase (percent) 36.0% 32.9% 37.2% 11.5%

Native Share of Increase 10.9% 19.1% 16.6% 32.0%

1960-70 1970-80 1980-90 1990-00

Source: U.S. Census; IPUMS; 1960-70 sample data; 1980-90 sample data and ISER estimates; 2000 100% count data

The main driver of Alaska Native population growth has been the high crude birth rate (births per 1,000 population). That rate has fallen sharply since 1960, when it was nearly 50 births per 1,000 Natives. But it has consistently been above the non-Native birth rate—and it remained so in 2000, at about 20 births per 1,000 Natives (Figure 2-5).

This high birth rate is partly due to the high proportion of women of child-bearing age in the population. But the fertility rates (births per 1,000 women 15 to 44) for Alaska Native women—just under 100 per 1,000 women in 2000—has also historically been higher than among non-Natives (Figure 2-6).


2-9

Figure 2-5. Native and Non-Native Crude Birth Rates in Alaska, 1960-2000

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Bir

ths p

er 1

,000

per

sons

Native Birth Rates Non-Native Birth RatesSource: Alaska Vital Statistics; U.S. Census; IPUMS; Rogers (1971); ISER estimates

Figure 2-6. Native and Non-Native Fertility Rates in Alaska, 1960-2000

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Birt

hs p

er 1

,000

wom

en a

ged

15-4

4

Native Fertility Rates Non-Native Fertility RatesSource: Alaska Vital Statistics; U.S. Census; IPUMS; Rogers (1971); ISER estimates

The crude death rate (deaths per 1,000 persons) for Alaska Natives has historically been much higher than for non-Natives. In 1960, the death rate among Alaska Natives was more than twice that among non-Natives. But that rate fell sharply in recent decades, especially from the mid-1960s through the mid-1980s. Native and non-Native death rates are far closer than they used to


2-10

be, but the Native rate of 6 per 1,000 in 2000 was still about 50 percent higher than the rate of 4 per 1,000 among non-Natives (Figure 2-7).

Figure 2-7. Native and Non-Native Death Rates in Alaska, 1960-2000

0.02.0

4.06.0

8.010.0

12.0

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Dea

ths

per

1,00

0 Pe

rson

s

Native Death Rates Non-Native Death RatesSource: Alaska Vital Statistics; U.S. Census; IPUMS; ISER estimates

Together, the high but falling birth rate and the high but falling death rate in recent times mean that the rate of natural increase (births minus deaths) among Alaska Natives has dropped from 40 per 1,000 at the time of statehood to 15 in 2000. (Note the “bubble” in the Alaska Native rate of natural increase, centered around the late 1980s.) Still, that’s considerably above the rate of natural increase in the non-Native population, about 10 per 1,000 in 2000 (Figure 2-8).

Figure 2-8. Crude Rates of Natural Increase, Natives and Non-Natives, 1960-2000

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.0

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Rat

e of

Nat

ural

Incr

ease

per

1,0

00 p

erso

ns

Native Rate of Natural Increase Non-Native Rate of Natural Increase

Source: Alaska Vital Statistics; U.S. Census; IPUMS; Rogers (1971); ISER estimates


2-11

Age and Sex Distribution of the Alaska Native Population The median age of Alaska Natives (meaning half the population was older and half younger) in 1960 was under 17. By 2000, it had increased to just over 24. But Natives remain considerably younger than other Alaskans or other Americans, whose median age in 2000 was about 35.

Table 2-3. Median Age, Alaskans and Other Americans, 1960-2000

Year Alaska Natives Non-Natives U.S. Average

1960 16.8 24.5 29.5 1970 17.5 23.7 28.1 1980 21.4 26.8 30 1990 24.1 30.3 32.9 2000 24.2 34.6 35.3

Source: U.S. census published data, except ISER estimate for 1970

The 2000 age distribution of the Alaska Native population, shown in Figure 2-9, underscores the young average age of the Alaska Native population. About 44 percent of the Native population in 2000 was under age 20, compared with only 31 percent in the non-Native population. By contrast, adults (age 20 to 64) comprise only 50 percent of the Native population, compared with 64 percent among non-Natives. The share of people over 65 is about the same in both groups.

Figure 2-9. Age Distribution, Alaska Natives and Non-Natives, 2000

7.0%7.9%8.3%

7.5%6.2%

7.0%7.6%

9.2%9.8%

9.2%7.2%

4.6%2.9%

2.0%1.6%

1.1%0.6%

0.3%0.1%

10.2%11.6%

12.3%10.1%

6.9%6.4%

6.8%7.7%

7.0%5.8%

4.3%3.2%

2.3%2.0%1.5%

1.0%0.5%0.3%0.1%

Under 5 5 to 9

10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 69 70 to 74 75 to 79 80 to 84 85 to 89

90 +

Age

Gro

up


Alaska Natives Non-Natives


2-12

The Native population pyramid in Figure 2-9 clearly shows two large “bubbles”—one for the age group 35 to 44 and the other, larger bubble, for the age group 5 to 19.3 These correspond to times of large numbers of Alaska Native births. The first was in the period between 1956 and 1965 and the second in the period between 1981 and 1995.

Figure 2-10 shows that the numbers of Alaska Native males and females are close at most ages. But there are somewhat more males through age 34 and somewhat more females after that.

Figure 2-10. Number of Alaska Natives, by Gender and Age, 2000

2,834

17,920

18,205

14,541

6,410

3,520

18,344

17,785

13,944

5,738

0 to 4

5 to 14

15 to 34

35 to 64

65+Male Natives Female Natives


Figure 2-11 compares the Alaska Native and total U.S. population pyramids in 2000. The first bubble in the Alaska Native population pyramid coincides with the later part of the bubble representing the “baby boom” nationwide at that time. However, there is only a faintly detectable bubble in the 5-to-19 age group nationwide, while in the Native pyramid the bubble is pronounced.4

3 These bulges may be accentuated by a modest “depression” in the age group from 25 to 34. 4 An age-adjusted Native count published by the Alaska Department of Labor shows a less-pronounced bubble among the 5-to-19 age group. See Appendix A for a discussion of the MARS estimates.


2-13

18.9%

15.8%12.6%

10.4%

7.1%6.8%

5.9%

5.0%4.0%3.9%

2.7%

2.2%1.4%1.2%

1.0%1.2%

10.2%

11.6%12.3%

10.1%

6.9%6.4%

6.8%

7.7%7.0%

5.8%4.3%

3.2%2.3%2.0%

1.5%1.9%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Under 5 5 to 9

10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24

25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39

40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54

55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 69

70 to 74 75 +

2000 Native Population 1960 Native Population

Source: US Census100% count and sample data for 1960

Figure 2-11. Age Distribution, Alaska Natives and U.S. Population, 2000

6.8%7.3%7.3%7.2%

6.7%6.9%

7.3%8.1%8.0%

7.1%6.2%

4.8%3.8%

3.4%3.1%

2.6%1.8%

1.0%0.5%0.1%

0.3%0.5%

1.0%1.5%

2.0%2.3%

3.2%4.3%

5.8%7.0%

7.7%6.8%

6.4%6.9%

10.1%12.3%

11.6%10.2%Under 5

5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 69 70 to 74 75 to 79 80 to 84 85 to 89

90 +A

ge G

roup

Alaska Native Population All AmericansSource: U.S. Census 100% count data

Figure 2-12 compares the Alaska Native population pyramids in 1960 and in 2000. That comparison makes clear the aging of the Native population.

Figure 2-12. Alaska Native Population Pyramid: 2000 vs. 1960


2-14

An important difference we noted among Alaska Natives of different ages is that younger people are much more likely than older people to be of mixed race. In the 2000 census, one in four Native children under age 5 were reported as being of mixed race, compared with only one in ten among Natives over 65 (Figure 2-13 and Table 2-4).

Figure 2-13. Alaska Natives, Single Race and More than One Race, By Age, 2000

Alaska Native Alone Alaska Native and other Race(s)

Alaska Native and other Race(s) 3,080 6,098 6,048 5,331 641

Alaska Native Alone 9,068 22,387 29,942 30,933 5,713

Mixed Race as a Percentage of Total 25.4% 21.4% 16.8% 14.7% 10.1%

Under 5 5 to 14 15 to 34 35 to 64 65+


Table 2-4. Alaska Natives Reporting More than One Race, by Age, 2000

Age Percent Under 5 years 25.4% 5 to 9 years 22.1%

10 to 14 years 20.8% 15 to 19 years 20.0% 20 to 24 years 16.3% 25 to 29 years 15.6% 30 to 34 years 13.7% 35 to 39 years 14.9% 40 to 44 years 15.6% 45 to 49 years 15.1% 50 to 54 years 15.0% 55 to 59 years 13.1% 60 to 64 years 12.1% 65 to 69 years 10.5% 70 to 74 years 11.3% 75 to 79 years 9.8% 80 to 84 years 8.8% 85 to 89 years 6.3%

90 years and over 5.7% Total Population 17.8%



2-15

The overall Native share of the Alaska population is 19 percent, but that percentage varies considerably by age group because Alaska Natives are on average younger than non-Natives. About 25 percent of the state population under 5 is Alaska Native, while only about 12 percent of the population 50 to 54 is Alaska Native (Figure 2-14 and Table 2-5).

Figure 2-14. Alaska Native Share of the Alaska Population, By Age Group, 2000

25.5%

25.8%

20.1%

14.3%

17.8%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%

Under 5

5 to 14

15 to 34

35 to 64

65+


Table 2-5. Alaska Native Share of the Alaska Population by Age Group, 2000

Age Percentage Under 5 years 25.5% 5 to 9 years 25.8%

10 to 14 years 25.8% 15 to 19 years 24.0% 20 to 24 years 20.7% 25 to 29 years 17.7% 30 to 34 years 17.4% 35 to 39 years 16.4% 40 to 44 years 14.4% 45 to 49 years 13.0% 50 to 54 years 12.4% 55 to 59 years 14.0% 60 to 64 years 16.0% 65 to 69 years 18.8% 70 to 74 years 17.7% 75 to 79 years 16.6% 80 to 84 years 16.1% 85 to 89 years 20.6%

90 years and over 16.4% Total population 19.0%



2-16

Alaska Native Population by Age Group, 1960-2000

Another way to look at demographic changes over time is to look at changes within specific age groups.5 In this section we look individually at changes over time in numbers and percentages of Native infants, children, young men, women of child-bearing age, adults, and people over 65.6

Native Infants (under 5) The number of Alaska Native infants fell between 1960 and 1970, increased sharply from 1970 through 1990, and then fell by about 11 percent in the 1990s (Figure 2-15).

Figure 2-15. Number of Alaska Native Infants (Under 5), 1960-2000

Number 8,032 6,752 8,032 13,613 12,148

Share of Alaska Infants 23.5% 21.1% 20.6% 24.8% 25.5%

10-Year Growth Rate -15.9% 19.0% 69.5% -10.8%

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Source: U.S. census 100% for 2000; 1980 and 1990, ISER estimates using IPUMS; 1970 20% U.S. census sample data

Native Children (5-14) By contrast with the drop in the number of Native children under age five in the past decade, the number of children ages 5 to 14 increased 40 percent between 1990 and 2000—much faster than the overall population (Figure 2-16).

5 See Appendix A for a discussion of the MARS-adjusted age counts, which are slightly different for 2000. 6 Population figures for 1980 and 1990 have been adjusted to match the broader definition of Alaska Native used in the 2000 census. See Appendix A for a detailed explanation.


2-17

Figure 2-16. Number of Alaska Native Children (5-14), 1960-2000

Number 12,077 15,697 15,627 20,319 28,485

Share of Alaska Children 26.2% 22.1% 22.5% 21.4% 25.8%

10-Year Growth Rate 30.0% -0.4% 30.0% 40.2%

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000


Young Adult Men (15-34) The number of young adult men almost doubled between 1970 and 1980, but increased much more slowly in the past two decades.

Figure 2-17. Number of Alaska Native Young Adult Men (15-34), 1960-2000

Number 6,620 7,724 14,088 16,307 18,205

Share of Alaska Young AdultMen

13.4% 12.4% 15.3% 16.1% 19.4%

10-Year Growth Rate 16.7% 82.4% 15.8% 11.6%

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000



2-18

Number 8,152 10,671 15,589 23,765 36,264

Share of Alaska Mature Adults 13.6% 13.5% 14.3% 12.7% 14.3%

10-Year Growth Rate 30.9% 46.1% 52.4% 52.6%

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000


Women of Child-Bearing Age (15-44) The number of Native women of child-bearing age grew nearly 70 percent between 1970 and 1980, helping to explain the bulge in the 2000 Native population pyramid among those 5 to 19 years old. Since then, growth in this group has been much slower—still, the number of women of child-bearing age increased 20 percent in the 1990s.

Figure 2-18. Number of Alaska Native Women of Child-Bearing Age (15-44), 1960-2000

Number 8,026 10,183 17,144 22,280 26,712

Share of Alaska Women 17.9% 15.5% 16.3% 16.2% 18.9%

10-Year Growth Rate 26.9% 68.4% 30.0% 19.9%

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000


Mature Adults (35-64) The number of mature adults increased in every recent decade, but especially in the 1980s and 1990s, when numbers of adults were up more than 50 percent.

Figure 2-19. Number of Alaska Native Adults (35-64), 1960-2000


2-19

People Over Age 65 The population of Alaska Natives over 65, like that of adults 35 to 64, has been growing rapidly for three decades. The number of people over 65 was up 50 percent in the 1990s.

Figure 2-20. Number of Alaska Natives (65 or Older), 1960-2000

Number 1,456 1,926 2,966 4,232 6,354

Share Alaskans over 65 27.0% 28.0% 25.7% 18.9% 17.8%

10-Year Growth Rate 32.3% 54.0% 42.7% 50.1%

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000



2-20

Household Composition Figure 2-21 compares the broad household composition among Native and non-Native households in Alaska in 2000. Most households, whether Native or non-Native, are families—meaning that at least some of the people in the household are related by blood, marriage, or adoption. The percentage of family households is slightly larger among Native households—72 percent, compared with 68 percent. But Native families are less likely to be married couples and more likely to be households headed by women without husbands or men without wives.

About 22 percent of Native households are headed by women, compared with about 9 percent among non-Native households. Many of the households headed by women—whether Native or non-Native—are single women raising their children. But it’s wrong to assume that all households headed by women are the same. Households headed by women could also consist of older women whose adult children live in her house, or sisters or cousins sharing a house. Extended family households are common in the Native community.

The share of households headed by men without wives is also larger among Native households—10 percent, compared with 5 percent among non-Native households. Again, it’s wrong to assume that all households headed by men without wives are single men raising their children alone. Some of them certainly are. But others could include brothers or cousins sharing homes, or divorced men whose children or grandchildren live with them.

Non-family households (households where nobody is related) make up about 28 percent of Native households and 32 percent of non-Native households. About three-quarters of those, among both Natives and non-Natives, are single-person households. The largest single group of households among both Natives and non-Natives are married-couple households, which make up 40 percent of Native households and 55 percent of non-Native households. Figure 2-22 shows numbers of Native households, by type, in 2000.


2-21

Figure 2-22. Number of Alaska Native Households, by Type, 2000

12,618

3,038

7,012

9,007

Married-couplehouseholds

Families headed byMen*

Families headed byWomen*

Non-familyhouseholds

Source: U.S. Census 100% count data *See Figure 2-21 for possible family types

Between 1960 and 2000, overall numbers of Native households grew four times; households headed by women increased nearly 10 times and non-family households more than 10 times. But married-couple families increased only about 2.5 times (Figure 2-23).

Figure 2-23. Number of Alaska Native Households, 1960-2000, by Type

Non-Family Households 896 1,702 3,869 6,606 9,007

Families headed by men* 596 728 1,329 1,465 3,038

Families headed by women* 796 954 2,919 4,226 7,012

Married Couple Families 4,981 6,033 9,053 11,143 12,618

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Source: U.S. Census; IPUMS; 1960-70 sample data; 1980-90 sample data and ISER estimates; 2000 100% count data*See Figure 2-21 for possible family types.

7,8659,417

17,170

23,440

31,675


2-22

Because married-couple households grew more slowly, their share of households dropped from 69 to 40 percent, while other types of households increased their shares (Figure 2-24).

Figure 2-24. Shares of Alaska Native Households, by Type, 1960-2000

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Non-Family Households 12.3% 18.1% 22.5% 28.2% 28.4%

Families headed by men* 8.2% 7.7% 7.7% 6.3% 9.6%

Families headed by women* 11.0% 10.1% 17.0% 18.0% 22.1%

Married Couple Families 68.5% 64.1% 52.7% 47.5% 39.8%

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Source: U.S. Census; IPUMS; 1960-70 sample data; 1980-90 sample data and ISER estimates; 2000 100% count data * See figure 2-21 for possible family types

The same trends toward fewer married-couple families and more of other types of households are evident among non-Native households, but the percentage shifts aren’t as dramatic (Figures 2-25 and 2-26).


2-23

Figure 2-25. Number of Non-Native Households, by Type, 1960-2000

Non-Family Households 9,569 11,339 31,684 48,369 60,256

Families headed by men* 897 1,603 3,040 6,761 9,044

Families headed by women* 697 3,255 7,316 13,066 16,925

Married Couple Families 38,852 53,685 73,299 96,706 103,700

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Source: U.S. Census; IPUMS; 1960-70 sample data; 1980-90 sample data and ISER estimates; 2000 100% count data *See Figure 2-21 for possible family types.

50,015

69,882

115,339

164,902

189,925

Figure 2-26. Shares of Non-Native Households, by Type, 1960-2000

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Non-Family Households 19.1% 16.2% 27.5% 29.3% 31.7%

Families headed by men* 1.8% 2.3% 2.6% 4.1% 4.8%

Families headed by women* 1.4% 4.7% 6.3% 7.9% 8.9%

Married Couple Families 77.7% 76.8% 63.6% 58.6% 54.6%

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Source: U.S.. Census; IPUMS; 1960-70 sample data; 1980-90 sample data and ISER estimates; 2000 100% count data * See Figure 2-21 for possible family types.


2-24

Households With and Without Children Figure 2-27 shows the composition of households, both Native and non-Native, with children in 2000. Native households are considerably more likely than non-Native households to have children—more than 53 percent of Native households have children, compared with 41 percent among non-Native households.

Native households with children are much more likely to be headed by women without husbands and less likely to be married couples. Just over half of Native households with children are married couples and a third are households headed by women. Among non-Native households, about 70 percent of those with children are married-couple families and about 17 percent are households headed by women.

Figure 2-27. Native and Non-Native Households with Children, 2000

8,843

57,070

2,197

6,614

5,647

13,402

1,179177Non-FamilyHouseholds

FamiliesHeaded byWomen*

FamiliesHeaded byMen*

MarriedCoupleHouseholds

Source: U.S. Census SF2 * See Figure 2-21 for possible family types.

1%

33%

13%

53%

1.5%

17%

8.5%

73%

Native Households with children (16,864) Non-Native households with children (78,265)

Figure 2-28 shows the breakdown of Alaska households without children in 2000. About 47 percent of Native households and nearly 60 percent of non-Native households had no children in 2000.

The biggest share—more than half—of both Native and non-Native households without children are non-family households. But non-Native households without children are far more likely to be married couples, with 42 percent of non-Native married couples having no children, compared with 25 percent among Native households.


2-25

Figure 2-28. Native and Non-Native Households without Children, 2000

3,77546,630

8411,365

59,077

2,4303,523

8,830

Native households without children (14,811) Non-Native households without children (111,660)

Non-FamilyHouseholds

FamiliesHeaded byWomen*

FamiliesHeaded byMen*

MarriedCoupleHouseholds

Source: U.S. Census SF2 *See Figure 2-21 for possible family types.

60%

9%6%

25%

53%

3%2%

42%

Average Household Size Figure 2-29 shows that the average size of Alaska Native households has historically been larger than that of non-Native households and remains so, though both have decreased over the last 40 years. Native household size declined steadily from 5.5 persons in 1960 to 3.6 by 2000; non-Native household size dropped from about 3.2 persons to 2.6.

Figure 2-29. Average Household Size (Number of Persons), Native and Non-Native Households, 1960-2000

Native 5.53 4.97 4.21 3.78 3.63

Non-Native 3.18 3.29 2.75 2.64 2.59

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Source: U.S. census sample data and ISER estimates (1980 and 1990); 2000 includes Alaska Natives of both single and mixed race


2-26

Household Status of Native Children and Elders Children and elders are a special responsibility of all societies, and in this section we look at the living arrangements of Native and non-Native children and elders in 2000. Just over half, 53 percent, of the 48,609 Native children under 18 in 2000 lived in married-couple families (Figure 2-30). Another 10,396 Native children (21 percent) lived in households headed by women without husbands; 5,007 (10 percent) lived in households headed by men without wives; and 4,035 (8 percent) lived in households headed by grandparents. The remaining 7 percent or so lived with other relatives and non-relatives or in group quarters (Table 2-6).

Keep in mind that the living arrangements of children are based on who is identified as the “head” of the household. But as we discussed earlier, household composition is complex. So we can’t assume, for example, that all children living with grandparents are being raised by those grandparents. We know that in some cases, grandparents may head households where their grandchildren are living, but the children’s parents are living there also.

Figure 2-30. Living Arrangements of Native and Non-Native Children, 2000

25,997

103,916

22,612

38,192

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Native Children

Non-Native Children

Married Couple Family Other Arrangement

Source: U.S. Census 100% Count data

Table 2-6 Living Arrangements of Alaska Children in 2000*

Native Non-Native Total % NativeChildren Living In 48,609 142,108 190,717 25.5%

Married-couple families 25,997 103,916 129,913 20.0% Families headed by men** 5,007 8,579 13,586 36.9% Families headed by women** 10,396 20,218 30,614 34.0% With grandparents 4,035 4,153 8,188 49.3% With other relatives 1,092 1,528 2,620 41.7% With non-relatives 1,557 2,962 4,519 34.5% Group quarters 483 612 1,095 44.1% Emancipated (householder or spouse) 42 140 182 23.1%

* Determined based on the head of the household. **See Figure 2-21 for possible family types. Source: U.S. Census 100% count data


2-27

Over time, there has been a marked increase in both the number and the share of Alaska Native children not living in married-couple families, as Figures 2-31 and 2-32 show.

The number of Native children more than doubled in the past 40 years, but the number of children living in married-couple families increased by only about two thirds. So over time the share of Native children living in married-couple families dropped from more than 70 percent to just over 50 percent.

The biggest shift in living arrangements of Native children over the past 40 years has been the growing share living in households headed by women, which increased from 8 percent in 1960 to more than 21 percent by 2000.

Figure 2-31. Trend in Living Arrangements of Native Children, 1960-2000,

(Numbers of Children)

HH Head or Spouse 199 75 117 3 42

Group Quarters 1,194 727 200 268 483

Non-Relatives 794 727 866 1,138 1,557

Other Relatives 399 325 900 861 1,092

Grandparents 1,495 1,558 2,266 3,738 4,035

Families headed by men* 596 1,054 1,366 3,161 5,007

Families headed by women* 1,786 1,957 4,097 6,562 10,396

Married Couple Family 15,538 19,501 22,904 23,346 25,997

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Source: U.S. Census; IPUMS sample data for 1960-1990; 1SER Estimates (1980-1990); 100% count data for 2000 *See Figure 2-21 for possible family types.

22,00125,924

32,716

39,077

48,609


2-28

65.6%

69.9%

9.3%

8.9%

16.7%

12.6%

3.8%

2.3%

4.6%

6.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Native

Non-Native

Source: U.S. census SF2

Family households Men alone

Women alone Group Quartrs.

Non-family households

Figure 2-32. Trend in Living Arrangements of Native Children, 1960-2000 (In Percentages)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

HH Head or Spouse 0.9% 0.3% 0.4% 0.0% 0.1%Group Quarters 5.4% 2.8% 0.6% 0.7% 1.0%Non-Relatives 3.6% 2.8% 2.6% 2.9% 3.2%Other Relatives 1.8% 1.3% 2.7% 2.2% 2.2%Grandparents 6.8% 6.0% 6.9% 9.6% 8.3%Families headed by men* 2.7% 4.1% 4.2% 8.1% 10.3%Families headed by women* 8.1% 7.5% 12.5% 16.8% 21.4%Married Couple Families 70.6% 75.2% 70.0% 59.7% 53.5%

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Source: U.S. Census; IPUMS sample data for 1960-1990; 1SER Estimates (1980-19990); 100% count data for 2000 *See Figure 2-21 for possible family types.

Figure 2-33 reports living arrangements of older Alaskans in 2000. About two thirds of Alaskans 65 or older, Native or non-Native alike, live with relatives in family households of some sort. About 13 percent of Native elders are women living alone and 9 percent are men alone. A small share—between 5 and 6 percent—live in group quarters.

Figure 2-33. Living Arrangements of Alaskans 65 and Older, 2000


2-29

Geographic Distribution of the Alaska Native Population In this section we look at the geographic distribution of the Alaska Native population in two ways. First we report population by ANCSA region. Then we look at the distribution between urban and rural areas.

Population by ANCSA Region Map 2-1 shows the regional corporation boundaries and the share of the Native population in each region as of 2000. Table 2-7 provides population detail and compares Native population with total population in each of the regions.

We can see that by far the most populous region is Cook Inlet, where more than 30 percent of all Alaska Natives live and which includes the city of Anchorage and surrounding areas. Next largest is Calista, with 17 percent of the Native population, followed by Sealaska and Doyon, with around 12 percent each of the Native population.

In several regions—Arctic Slope, Bering Straits, Bristol Bay, Calista, and NANA—Natives make up most of the total regional population. In other regions, they make up anywhere from about 10 to 28 percent of total population.

Table 2-7. Native and Non-Native Population, By ANCSA Region, 2000

ANCSA Region Total All NativeaNative Single Raceb

Non-Native Percent Native

Percent of Natives by

Region

Ahtna 3,682 890 707 2,792 24.2% 0.7% Aleut 8,162 2,274 2,150 5,888 27.9% 1.9% Arctic Slope 7,385 5,453 5,050 1,932 73.8% 4.6% Bering Straits 9,196 7,274 6,915 1,922 79.1% 6.1% Bristol Bay 7,892 5,749 5,336 2,143 72.8% 4.8% Calista 23,032 20,353 19,617 2,679 88.4% 17.1% Chugach 12,113 2,165 1,696 9,948 17.9% 1.8% Cook Inlet 364,205 35,972 24,923 328,233 9.9% 30.2% Doyon 97,190 14,128 11,182 83,062 14.5% 11.8% Koniag 13,913 2,452 2,028 11,461 17.6% 2.1% NANA 7,208 6,181 5,944 1,027 85.8% 5.2% Sealaska 71,507 15,059 11,320 56,448 21.1% 12.6% Annette Island Reservec 1,447 1,291 1,175 156 89.2% 1.1%

Total 626,932 119,241 98,043 507,691 19.0% 100.0%

a Alaska Native and American Indian, single and mixed race b Alaska Native and American Indian, single race cAlaska’s only federal Indian reservation. Source: U.S. census, 100% count data


2-30


2-31

Urban and Rural Population Distribution Another useful way to look at the geographic distribution of the Native population is the urban/rural distribution. Map 2-2 on the next page shows the regional breakdown we use in this analysis, as well as numbers of Natives living in each region. Table 2-8 follows with more regional population detail, including the Native share of the total urban and rural populations.

How Many Alaska Natives Live in Urban and Rural Areas? In 2000, 50,426 Alaska Natives, or 42.5 percent of the population, lived in Urban areas, which we define to include Anchorage, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the Kenai Peninsula Borough, Fairbanks, and Juneau.

The other 58 percent of Alaska Natives lived in Rural areas, which we divide into two regions: Remote Rural and Other Rural. In northern and western Alaska there are eight Remote Rural census areas far off the road and ferry systems. In 2000, these Remote Rural census areas were home to 49,344 Alaska Natives, or 41.5 percent of the total. The remaining 16 percent, 19,471, lived in Other Rural areas. These areas are still rural, but are somewhat more accessible by road or ferry than the remote areas. They include southeast Alaska (except for Juneau); southcentral Alaska (excluding the urban areas); the two census areas on the Aleutian chain; and Bristol Bay.

What is the Native Share of Total Urban and Rural Populations? As Table 2-8 shows, Alaska Natives make up only 10 percent of the population in Urban areas, although there are a few predominantly Native communities within those urban areas. In Rural areas overall, Natives account for 48 percent of the population.

But in the Remote Rural census areas, Natives make up 82 percent of the population, as Table 2-9 shows. Within those remote areas are five regional centers—Barrow, Kotzebue, Nome, Bethel, and Dillingham—where the non-Native population is concentrated. Those larger communities serve as trade, transportation, communication and service hubs for the surrounding areas. If you look at the remote population outside the regional centers, 90 percent of the people are Alaska Native, mostly living in 148 small villages with populations of less than 1,000.


2-32


2-33

Table 2-8. Alaska Native and Non-Native Population, Urban and Rural, 2000

Total Native Non-Native

Percent Native

Share of Statewide Natives

TOTAL ALASKA 626,932 119,241 507,691 19.0% 100%

URBAN ALASKA 482,847 50,426 432,421 10.4% 42.3%

Juneau City and Borough 30,711 5,084 25,627 16.6% Anchorage Municipality 260,283 26,995 233,288 10.4% Kenai Peninsula Borough 49,691 5,065 44,626 10.2% Fairbanks North Star Borough 82,840 8,174 74,666 9.9% Matanuska-Susitna Borough 59,322 5,108 54,214 8.6%

RURAL ALASKA 144,085 68,815 75,270 47.8% 57.7%

Remote Rural Areas 60,119 49,344 10,775 82.1% 41.4%

Wade Hampton Census Area 7,028 6,673 355 94.9% Northwest Arctic Borough 7,208 6,181 1,027 85.8% Bethel Census Area 16,006 13,680 2,326 85.5% Lake and Peninsula Borough 1,823 1,453 370 79.7% Nome Census Area 9,196 7,274 1,922 79.1% Dillingham Census Area 4,922 3,753 1,169 76.2% Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area 6,551 4,877 1,674 74.4% North Slope Borough 7,385 5,453 1,932 73.8%

Other Rural Areas 83,966 19,471 64,495 23.2% 16.3%

Yakutat City and Borough 808 378 430 46.8% Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan Census Area 6,146 2,783 3,363 45.3% Bristol Bay Borough 1,258 567 691 45.1% Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon Census Area 3,436 1,356 2,080 39.5% Aleutians East Borough 2,697 1,042 1,655 38.6% Sitka City and Borough 8,835 2,178 6,657 24.7% Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area 6,684 1,512 5,172 22.6% Aleutians West Census Area 5,465 1,232 4,233 22.5% Ketchikan Gateway Borough 14,070 2,689 11,381 19.1% Kodiak Island Borough 13,913 2,452 11,461 17.6% Valdez-Cordova Census Area 10,195 1,767 8,428 17.3% Southeast Fairbanks Census Area 174 980 5,194 15.9% Haines Borough 2,392 373 2,019 15.6% Denali Borough 1,893 162 1,731 8.6%



2-34

Table 2-9. Alaska Native Population in

Remote Rural Areas, 2000 Native % Native

TOTAL 49,344 82.1%

In 5 Regional Centers 12,577 65.8% Outside Regional Centers 36,767 89.6%

Bethel Census Area Bethel City 3,719 68.0% Outside Bethel City 9,961 94.6%

Dillingham Census Area Dillingham City 1,503 60.9% Outside Dillingham City 2,250 91.6%

Lake and Peninsula Borough 1,453 79.7%

Nome Census Area Nome City 2,057 58.7% Outside Nome City 5,217 91.7%

North Slope Borough Barrow City 2,933 64.0% Outside Barrow City 2,520 89.9%

Northwest Arctic Borough Kotzebue City 2,365 76.7% Outside Kotzebue City 3,816 92.5%

Wade Hampton Census Area 6,673 94.9%

Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area 4,877 74.4%


The scatter graph in Figure 2-34 makes it clear that most of the people in small communities in Remote Rural areas of southwestern and northern Alaska are Native. The horizontal axis shows community population; the vertical axis shows percentage of community population that is Native. So all of the dots clustered in the upper left corner are communities with very small populations that are almost entirely Native.

Figure 2-35, by contrast, shows that in the Other Rural areas there is much more variation in the share of the Native population across communities. But in most places, Alaska Natives are in the minority. That’s illustrated by the cluster of dots in the bottom left corner of the graph, indicating a number of places where Natives make up less than 25 percent of the population. In 2000, Natives were in the majority in only 36 of 118 places in Other Rural areas.7

7 The 2000 Native populations for every community in the state are listed in Appendix B.


2-35

Figure 2-34. Population and Native Share for Remote Rural Alaska

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Community Population

% N

ativ

e

Source: U.S. census

Figure 2-35. Population and Native Share for Other Rural Alaska

0.0%

25.0%

50.0%

75.0%

100.0%

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Community Population

% N

ativ

e

Source: U.S. census


2-36

Growth of Native Population by Region

Growth in Urban Alaska For at least the past 30 years, urban Alaska has seen the fastest Native population growth.8 Figure 2-36 shows the growth since 1970 in the five areas we’ve defined as Urban. Growth was substantial in every decade, but the fastest growth was in the 1970s, when the number of urban Natives more than doubled. Those numbers grew another 66 percent in the 1980s and 45 percent in the 1990s.

The fast growth in the urban Native population means that Natives made up about 10 percent of the urban population by 2000, compared with less than 5 percent in 1970.

Figure 2-36. Numbers of Alaska Natives in Urban Alaska,* 1970-2000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Native total 9,767 20,799 34,659 50,426

Native growth rate 113.0% 66.6% 45.5%

Native share 4.7% 7.1% 8.4% 10.4%

1970 1980 1990 2000

* Cities and boroughs of Anchorage, Juneau, Kenai Peninsula, Fairbanks, and Matanuska-Susitna

Source: U.S. Census 100% count data 2000; ISER estimates 1980-90; sample data for 1970

8 We’re not able to adjust regional Native population numbers before 2000 to be consistent with the broader definition of Alaska Native used in the 2000 census. In this section we use the published counts for each year and contrast historical numbers with 2000 census figures for Native alone as well as Native and some other race.


2-37

Growth in Remote Rural Census Areas The Native population in the remote rural areas hasn’t grown nearly as fast. Figure 2-37 shows growth in the Native population in the eight census areas we’ve defined as Remote Rural. In the 1970s the Native population in remote areas grew close to 20 percent, added 22 percent in the 1980s, and was up another 16 percent in the 1990s.

Alaska Natives have historically been and continue to be the majority population in these remote areas, with the share in 2000 at 82 percent.

Figure 2-37. Number of Alaska Natives in Remote Rural Areas,* 1970-2000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Native total 28,922 34,653 42,380 49,344


Native share 79.1% 79.3% 78.5% 82.1%

1970 1980 1990 2000

*Census areas of Wade Hampton, Bethel, Nome, Dillingham, and Yukon-Koyukuk, and boroughs of North Slope, Northwest Arctic, and Lake and Peninsula. Source: U.S. Census 100% count data 2000; ISER estimates 1980-90; sample data for 1970


2-38

Growth in Other Rural Areas Growth of the Native population in the Other Rural areas has also been slower than in urban Alaska. Figure 2-38 shows that the Native population in these areas grew about 22 percent in the 1970s, about the same amount in the 1980s, and about 11 percent in the 1990s.

Natives make up less than a quarter of the total population in these less remote rural areas, but the share varies substantially among individual communities.

Figure 2-38. Number of Alaska Natives in Other Rural Areas,* 1970-2000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Native total 11,916 14,531 17,560 19,471


Native share 21.0% 21.7% 20.7% 23.2%

1970 1980 1990 2000

*Yakutat, Bristol Bay, Aleutians East, Sitka, Ketchikan, Kodiak, Haines and Denali Boroughs; Prince of Wales, Skagway, Wrangell-Petersburg, Aleutians West, Valdez-Cordova, and Southeast Fairbanks census areas

Source: U.S. Census 100% count data 1980-2000; sample data for 1970


2-39

Growth in Small Native Communities Figure 2-39 shows population growth in the 1990s in small communities with majority Native populations. That growth varied considerably across communities, with little relationship to the size of the Native population. Of 103 smaller places with a majority Native population in 1990, 21 lost Native population between 1990 and 2000; 33 saw growth of less than 20 percent; 40 had growth from 20 to 40 percent; and 9 had growth of more than 40 percent.

Figure 2-39. Growth of Native Population, 1990-2000, Compared to Native Community Population in 1990

Native Population in 1990

-80.0%

-60.0%

-40.0%

-20.0%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Nat

ive

Popu

latio

n G

row

th 1

990-

2000

Source: U.S. census


2-40

Mobility of Alaska Native Population Another measure of demographic change is mobility: how many people move and where they go. Figures 2-40 through 2-43 and Table 2-10 show movement of Native people within the state, and between Alaska and other states, in recent decades.

Movement of Native People between Urban and Rural Alaska, 1970-2000 Figure 2-40 shows movement of Native people into and out of urban and rural areas between 1970 and 2000. In the 1970s, more than 5,000 Natives left Remote Rural areas and about 1,950 left Other Rural areas.9 At the same time, about 7,300 moved into Urban areas. The same pattern held for the next two decades.

Figure 2-40. Movement of Alaska Natives between Urban and Rural Alaska, 1970-2000

-10,000

-5,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

Remote Rural -5,344 -6,342 -7,119

Other Rural -1,948 -2,767 -3,892

Urban 7,292 9,109 11,011

1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000

Source: U.S. Census

As a result of that population movement out of rural areas and into urban areas for the past 30 years, rural areas lost some population. But the rural population still grew, because natural increase—births minus deaths—more than compensated for the people who left.

Still, because the Native population in urban areas grew faster—as a result of both natural increase and people moving in from rural areas—the share of the Native population living in urban areas has grown steadily since 1970, up from 19.3 percent in 1970 to 42.3 percent by 2000 (Figure 2-41). At the same time, the share in remote rural areas dropped from 57.2 percent to 41.4 percent and in other rural areas from 23.5 percent to 16.3 percent.

9 We estimated internal migration by comparing actual population in each region in each census year to what the population would have been, if growth had come only from natural increase. We further assumed that natural increase was the same in each region and that there was no net out migration of Alaska Natives to other states. These assumptions result in a slight overestimate of the migration from Rural to Urban Alaska, because the birth rate for Alaska Natives is somewhat higher in Rural Alaska and because there has been some out migration of Alaska Natives to other states. However, use of these assumptions does not change the overall pattern of movement shown in the figure.


2-41

Figure 2-41. Native Population Shares by Region, 1970-2000

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Urban 19.3% 29.7% 36.6% 42.3%

Other Rural 23.5% 20.8% 18.6% 16.3%

Remote Rural 57.2% 49.5% 44.8% 41.4%

1970 1980 1990 2000

Source: U.S. Census

Recent Arrivals and Long-Time Native Residents, By Region, 1995-2000 Figure 2-42 measures the mobility of Alaska’s Native population in a different way. It shows how many Native residents of various regions were recent arrivals—people who had arrived within the previous five years—and how many were long-time residents in 2000. The results are based on a question in the 2000 census, asking people where they had lived in 1995. 10

The number of “recent arrivals” in urban areas in 2000 indicates a very mobile Native population in those areas. For example, of the 24,812 Alaska Natives living in Anchorage in 2000, 25 percent reported living elsewhere five years earlier. In the Mat-Su and Fairbanks North Star boroughs, half the Native residents were recent arrivals.

In rural areas, mobility was highest in the less remote rural areas, with 26 percent of Native residents being recent arrivals, and lowest in the remote communities outside regional centers, where just 11 percent were recent arrivals. But in the regional centers of the remote areas, nearly 20 percent of Native residents were newcomers.

For comparison, Figure 2-43 shows mobility of the non-Native population in the late 1990s. It’s clear that the non-Native population is extremely mobile. Numbers of non-Natives living in the remote census areas and the regional centers in those remote areas are relatively small, but the figure shows that in 2000 half of them were recent arrivals to remote areas. Also, half the non-Native residents of the Fairbanks and Mat-Su boroughs were also recent arrivals, as were more than one quarter of Anchorage residents.

10 Residents who moved from one community to another in the same census area are not counted as recent arrivals. However, recent arrivals could include persons returning after an extended stay outside the census area.


2-42

Figure 2-42. Recent Arrivals and Long-Term Native Residents, by Region, 2000

8,975

29,571

18,671

3,695 2,098

19,9422,018

3,529

6,141

3,5542,362

6,976

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

num

ber o

f peo

ple

Long Term Residents Recent Arrivals

Regional Centers **

Remote CensusAreas (w/oRegional Centers)

Anchorage FairbanksNorth StarBorough

Mat-SuBorough

Other Rural

% Recent: 18% 11% 25% 49% 53% 26%

** Regional Centers: Barrow, Bethel, Dillingham, Kotzebue, Nome

Figure 2-43. Recent Arrivals and Long-Term Non-Native Residents, by Region, 2000

159,049

32,307 26,828

80,546

56,766

36,64423,882

45,759

3,290 1,836

3,000 2,176

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Regional Centers**

Remote CensusAreas (w/o

RegionalCenters)

Anchorage Fairbanks NorthStar Borough

Mat-Su Borough

Other Rural

Number of people Long-Term Residents Recent Arrivals

% Recent: 48% 54% 26% 53% 48% 34%

** Regional Centers: Barrow, Bethel, Dillingham, Kotzebue, Nome

Source: U.S. census


2-43

Movement of Alaska Native Population Between Alaska and Other States Numbers of people moving between Alaska and other states is another measure of mobility. Table 2-10 shows estimated numbers of Alaska Natives (including only those of Native race alone) who moved into and out of Alaska from the 1960s through the 1990s. The last column of the table shows net migration—the difference between the number of people who moved in and the number who moved out.

In every period except the 1960s, more Alaska Natives left Alaska than moved in, and numbers leaving the state increased in the most recent decades.

In the last half of the 1960s, relatively small numbers of Natives moved between Alaska and other states, with about 326 more moving into Alaska from other states than moving out. By contrast, between 1995 and 2000, more than 7,000 Alaska Natives moved out of Alaska, while about 5,600 moved in from other states—so overall, nearly 1,500 more Natives left Alaska than moved in during the late 1990s.

Table 2-10. Movement of Native People between Alaska and Other States

Out-migration In-Migration Net Migration

1965-70 1,281 1,607 326

1975-80 2,233 1,899 -334

1985-90 5,860 4,809 -1,051

1995-2000 7,070 5,598 -1,472 Sources: U.S. census IPUMS data and ISER estimates


2-44

Differences in Native Demographics by Place In this section we compare the characteristics of the Alaska Native population living in different parts of the state, using the same regional designations as in the previous sections: Urban, Remote Rural, and Other Rural (see Map 2-2 and Table 2-8).

Age Distribution of Remote Rural and Urban Natives Figure 2-44 looks at the age distribution among Native people living in Remote Rural areas and in Urban areas in 2000.11 Children and elders over age 65 make up a slightly larger share of the Native population in remote areas. Children make up 36 percent of Natives in remote areas, compared with 33 percent in urban areas. Elders account for 6 percent of the remote Native population but just 4 percent of the urban.

By contrast, the working-age population of young and mature adults is more concentrated in urban areas.

Figure 2-44. Age Distribution of Alaska Natives,

Urban and Remote Rural Areas, 2000

10.3%12.5%

13.6%10.5%

6.8%5.8%

6.5%7.3%

6.5%5.3%

3.8%3.1%

2.2%2.0%

1.6%1.1%

0.6%0.5%

0.4%

1.2%0.7%

1.7%

3.1%2.1%

4.4%6.1%

7.3%

7.1%8.1%

7.4%7.3%

9.8%

10.5%

11.2%11.4%

0.3%

Under 5 years5 to 9 years

10 to 14 years15 to 19 years20 to 24 years25 to 29 years30 to 34 years35 to 39 years40 to 44 years45 to 49 years50 to 54 years55 to 59 years60 to 64 years65 to 69 years70 to 74 years75 to 79 years80 to 84 years

85 years and

Urban Areas Remote Rural Areas

Source: U.S. Census 100%

11 See Appendix A for a discussion of the MARS-adjusted age counts, which are slightly different from the numbers reported here.


2-45

Growth in Native Population by Age Group and Region The next set of graphs, from 2-45 to 2-50, compares growth over time in specific age groups in remote rural and in urban areas. But as we’ve noted throughout this chapter, the definition of “Alaska Native” used in the 2000 census is more inclusive than the one used in previous censuses, because it allowed people, for the first time, to describe themselves as Alaska Native and some other race. We can’t eliminate this problem, but we’ve taken it into account by breaking the 2000 numbers in each graph into “Native race alone” and “Native race in combination.” The figure for Native race alone sets the lower boundary on our estimates of growth from 1990-2000, and the total Native race alone or in combination sets the upper.

Growing Number of Infants The number of Native infants (under age 5) in urban areas tripled between 1970 and 1990, and at the upper boundary may have grown another 50 percent in the 1990s. In remote rural areas, the number of infants changed little in the 1970s and then surged 50 percent in the 1980s. Under either the old or the new definition of Alaska Native, the number of infants in remote areas fell at least 20 percent in the 1990s. By 2000, the number of Native infants in urban and in remote rural areas was just about equal. But those infants made up 89 percent of all infants in remote areas and only about 15 percent of infants in urban areas.

Infants in urban areas were far more likely to be of mixed race—42 percent of urban Native infants were of mixed race, compared with about 8 percent of infants in remote rural areas.

Figure 2-45. Number of Alaska Native Infants (Under 5), Urban and Remote Rural Regions, 1970 to 2000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1,2151,770

3,539

5,311*

4,026 4,062

6,437

5,097*415Native racein combination

4,682Native racealone

2,223Native race in combination


1970 1980 1990 2000 1970 20001980 1990

Growth rate of infants**

Native share of infants in region***

45.6% 99.9% -12.7% to 50.1% 0.9% 58.5% -27.3% to -20.8%

5.6% 6.4% 8.9% 8.5% - 14.7% 84.5% 84.7% 86.2% 82.1% - 89.4%

* 2000 total is a more inclusive definition of Native than earlier years.** The growth rate from 1990 to 2000 is a range with Native race alone as the lower bound and with the addition of Native race in combination as the upper bound.*** The 2000 share estimates are bounded by the Native race alone and the broader definition of Native race alone or in combination.

Urban Remote Rural


2-46

The number of Native children (5 to 14) in remote rural areas is still larger than in urban areas, but the increase in urban areas in the past 30 years has been dramatic (Figure 2-46). The number of Native children in urban areas was up 23 percent in the 1970s and 56 percent in the 1980s. In the 1990s, growth was at least 25 percent and possibly as much as 100 percent, under the most inclusive definition.

In remote areas, the number of children was down in the 1970s and then rebounded in the 1980s. But the fastest growth was in the 1990s, with numbers of children up anywhere from 30 to nearly 40 percent, depending on the definition used.

Native children make up 91 percent of all children in remote areas and about 14 percent of children in urban areas. Also, as was true among infants, Native children in urban areas are much more likely to be of mixed race than children in remote areas. About 38 percent of children in urban areas are of mixed race, compared with less than 7 percent in remote areas.

Figure 2-46. Number of Native Children (5-14), Urban and Remote Rural Regions,

1970 to 2000

2,9483,624

5,662

11,401*

9,2907,878

9,297





1970 1980 1990 2000 1970 20001980 1990Growth rate of Native children**Native share of childrenin region***

22.9% 56.2% 25.6% to 101.4% -15.2% 18.0% 29.0% to 38.1%

6.2% 7.4% 8.1% 8.6% - 13.8% 87.0% 86.0% 83.9% 84.6% - 90.6%


Urban Remote Rural

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

15000


2-47

Numbers of young adult Native men (15 to 34) in urban areas also grew quite rapidly from 1970 through 1990, especially in the 1970s (Figure 2-47). Growth continued in the 1990s—as much as 53 percent under the most inclusive definition.

Numbers of young Native men also grew sharply in remote areas in the 1970s, but haven’t changed much since. By 2000, there were just about the same number of young men in urban and in remote areas. But young Native men made up around 85 percent of all young men in remote areas, compared with about 11 percent of all young men in urban areas.

Again, the share of young Native men of mixed race is much larger in urban areas—nearly 30 percent, compared with only about 4 percent in remote areas.

Figure 2-47. Number of Young Adult Native Men (15-34), Urban and Remote Rural Regions, 1970-2000

1,529

3,101

5,041

7,695*

4,335

6,972 7,0577,703*

329Native racein combination




1970 1980 1990 2000 1970 20001980 1990

Growth rate of young Native males**

Native share of young males in region***

102.8% 62.6% 7.9% to 52.6% 60.8% 1.2% 4.5% to 9.2%

3.6% 4.7% 6.8% 7.4% - 10.5% 66.1% 71.6% 74.3% 81.1% - 84.7%


Urban Remote Rural

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000


2-48

Numbers of Native women of child-bearing age (15 to 44) grew very sharply in urban areas from 1970 to 1990 and continued to grow substantially in the 1990s, under either the old or the new definition of Alaska Native (Figure 2-48).

Numbers of Native women also grew in remote areas in every decade, especially in the 1970s, but not nearly as fast as in urban areas. By 2000, Native women ages 15 to 44 had become the most urban of all age groups, with 20 percent more living in urban than in remote areas. Even though Native women of this age are the most urban, they make up only about 11 percent of all women that age in urban areas, compared with 82 percent in remote areas.

And once again, women in urban areas are far more likely to be of mixed race—about 27 percent, compared with less than 4 percent in remote areas.

Figure 2-48. Number of Native Women of Child-Bearing Age (15-44),

Urban and Remote Regions, 1970 to 2000

1970 1980 1990 2000 1970 20001980 1990

Growth rate of young Native females**

Native share of young females in region***

97.1% 58.1% 17.7% to 60.6% 41.0% 15.0% 12.3% to 16.3%

5.2% 6.2% 7.3% 8.2% - 11.1% 81.0% 76.3% 75.9% 79.2% - 82.0%


0

3000

6000

9000

12000

15000

2,482

4,892

7,734

12,421*

5,400

7,6138,754





Urban Remote Rural


2-49

The number of mature Alaska Native adults (35-64) in both urban and remote areas grew from 1970 to 1990, but growth was much faster in the urban areas, where numbers of mature adults nearly doubled in both the 1970s and the 1980s (Figure 2-49). That fast growth continued in the 1990s.

In remote areas, the growth in numbers of mature adults was especially fast in the 1990s—around 40 percent. Still, by 2000 there were about 13 percent more Native adults in urban than in remote rural areas. These mature Native adults make up about 8 percent of the urban population of mature adults, but about 70 percent of mature adults in remote areas.

Urban adults of this age are still more likely to be of mixed race, but the share isn’t as large as it is among children. About 24 percent of mature adults in urban areas are of mixed race, compared with about 3 percent in remote areas.

Figure 2-49. Number of Mature Native Adults (35-64),

Urban and Remote Regions, 1970-2000

1970 1980 1990 2000 1970 20001980 1990

Growth rate of Native mature adults**

Native share of mature adultsin region***

96.9% 99.5% 58.1% to 109.2% 19.1% 34.6% 38.0% to 42.8%

3.5% 4.7% 5.3% 6.0% - 8.0% 73.0% 71.0% 64.0% 68.0% - 70.3%


1,912

3,764

7,509

15,711*

6,0597,218

9,719

13,881* 470Native racein combination




Urban Remote Rural

0

5000

10000

15000

20000


2-50

The Native elder population (those 65 and older) in both urban and remote areas was up sharply in the past 30 years. But again, growth was fastest in urban areas, where numbers of Native elders virtually doubled in every decade, even if we use the narrower definition of Alaska Native in the 1990s (Figure 2-50).

By 2000, there were still more elders in remote rural areas, but the gap was shrinking. Those elders made up about 8 percent of all those over 65 in urban areas, but about 89 percent of all elders in remote rural areas.

Very few Native elders in remote regions are of mixed race, compared with about 20 percent in urban areas.

Figure 2-50. Number of Natives 65 and Older, Urban and Remote Regions, 1970-2000

1970 1980 1990 2000 1970 20001980 1990

Growth rate of Native seniors**

Native share of seniorsin region***

93.6% 95.0% 79.9% to 125.6% 54.3% 36.5% 25.7% to 28.6%

6.9% 6.8% 5.8% 6.2% - 7.8% 88.8% 89.8% 89.6% 86.5% - 88.5%


248481

938

2,116*

1,061

1,637

2,235

2,875* 66Native racein combination


429Native race in combination


Urban Remote Rural

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000


2-51

Sex Distribution of Natives in Urban and Remote Rural Areas Again in this section, we use the regional breakdowns shown in Map 2-2 and in Table 2-8. Figure 2-51 shows that statewide, the numbers of Native males and females are just about equal, but that women outnumber men in the urban areas and men outnumber women in the rural areas, especially the remote areas. Figure 2-52 shows the distribution of Native men and women in urban areas, and we can see that women outnumber men at ages 20 and older, especially between 35 and 54. For example, in 2000 there were 20 percent more women than men ages 50 to 54.

Figure 2-51. Alaska Native Population, by Sex and Region, 2000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Native Male 24,120 25,881 9,909 59,910

Native Female 26,306 23,463 9,562 59,331

Percent Female 52.2% 47.5% 49.1% 49.8%

Urban AreasRemote Rural

AreasOther Rural

AreasTotal Population

Source: U.S. Census 100% count data Figure 2-52. Age Distribution of Native Men and Women, Urban Areas, 2000

5.5%5.7%

5.6%5.0%

3.5%3.4%3.3%

3.7%3.4%

2.8%2.0%

1.4%1.0%

0.7%0.5%

0.3%0.1%0.1%

5.0%5.7%5.7%

4.8%3.8%3.9%3.8%

4.4%4.0%

3.3%2.5%

1.7%1.1%1.0%

0.7%0.5%0.2%0.2%



85 years and over

Urban Female Urban Male

Source: U.S. census 100% count data


2-52

By contrast, in remote rural areas in 2000, males outnumbered females at every age up to 65, with the most pronounced difference among those 50 to 54.

Figure 2-53. Age Distribution of Native Men and Women, Remote Rural Regions, 2000

5.6%6.5%

7.1%5.5%

3.6%3.0%

3.5%3.9%

3.4%2.8%

2.1%1.6%

1.2%1.0%

0.8%0.5%

0.3%0.2%

4.8%5.9%

6.5%5.0%

3.2%2.8%

3.1%3.4%

3.1%2.4%

1.7%1.5%

1.0%1.1%0.8%

0.6%0.3%0.3%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



85 years and over

Remote Female Remote Male

Source: U.S. Census 100% count data Comparing Native women in urban and remote rural areas, we see that urban Native women are more heavily concentrated in the working-age cohorts (ages 20 to 54) than is the case in remote rural areas. In those places, more of the female population is made up of children or elders.

Figure 2-54. Native Female Population, By Age, Urban and Remote Rural Regions, 2000

10.0%12.5%

13.7%10.6%

6.7%5.9%

6.5%7.2%

6.6%5.1%

3.6%3.1%

2.1%2.2%

1.7%1.2%

0.7%0.6%0.4%

0.5%0.9%

1.3%1.8%

2.2%3.2%

4.7%6.3%

7.6%8.5%

7.3%7.4%7.3%

9.1%10.8%10.9%

9.6%Under 5 years5 to 9 years


85 years and over

Urban Female Remote Rural Female



2-53

The same age pattern in evident among Native males. In urban areas, men are more concentrated in the working-age groups, while in remote areas children and elders make up bigger shares.

Figure 2-55. Alaska Native Male Population By Age,

Urban and Remote Rural Regions, 2000

10.6%12.4%

13.4%10.5%

6.9%5.7%

6.6%7.4%

6.4%5.4%

4.0%3.1%

2.2%1.9%

1.5%1.0%

0.5%0.4%0.1%

0.2%0.6%

1.0%1.5%

2.0%2.9%

4.1%5.8%

7.0%7.7%

6.9%7.1%

7.4%10.5%

11.6%11.9%11.5%Under 5 years

5 to 9 years10 to 14 years15 to 19 years20 to 24 years25 to 29 years30 to 34 years35 to 39 years40 to 44 years45 to 49 years50 to 54 years55 to 59 years60 to 64 years65 to 69 years70 to 74 years75 to 79 years80 to 84 years

85 years and over

Urban Male Remote Rural MaleSource: U.S. Census 100% count data


2-54

Regional Household Composition Figure 2-56 shows the composition of Native households by region. Native households in urban areas are less likely than those in remote areas to be married-couple families and more likely to be non-family households. Households headed by women make up a substantial share of all Native households, but the proportion is highest in urban areas. The share of households headed by men without wives is significantly higher in remote rural areas than anywhere else.

Figure 2-56. Number of Alaska Native Households, By Type and Region, 2000

Non-family households 4,471 1,965 2,571

Families headed by women* 3,308 1,161 2,543

Families headed by men* 1,048 474 1,516

Married-couple households 4,755 2,570 5,293

Urban Areas Other Rural Areas Remote Rural Areas

Source: U.S. Census 100% count data *See Figure 2-21 for possible family types.

13,582

6,170

11,923

33%

24%

8%

35%

32%19%8%42%

22%

21%13%

44%

Figure 2-57 compares Native and non-Native households, by type and region, in 2000. Alaska Native households throughout the state are less likely than non-Native households to be married-couple families and more likely to be headed by men or women without spouses. (Again, as we noted earlier in this chapter, keep in mind that households headed by men or women without spouses don’t all consist of single parents raising children; Figure 2-21 shows possible other family composition.) The non-Native households in remote rural regions are also more likely to be non-family households.


2-55

Figure 2-57. Native and Non-Native Households, By Type and Region, 2000

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Non-family households 32.9% 21.6% 31.8% 31.3% 39.9% 32.7%

Families headed by women* 24.4% 21.3% 18.8% 9.3% 5.1% 6.9%

Families headed by men* 7.7% 12.7% 7.7% 4.8% 5.8% 4.6%

Married-couple households 35.0% 44.4% 41.7% 54.6% 49.2% 55.9%

Urban Native

Remote Rural Native

Other Rural Native

Urban Non-Native

Remote Rural Non-

Native

Other Rural Non-Native

Source: U.S. Census 100% count data *See Figure 2-21 for possible family types.

Native household size varied considerably among regions in 2000, with the largest in remote areas. Native households were larger than non-Native households in all regions, but the gap was widest in the remote rural areas, where average Native households were nearly twice as large.

Figure 2-58. Average Household Size by Location, 2000 (Number of Persons)

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Native 3.48 3.10 4.07

Non-Native 2.62 2.54 2.15

Urban Other Rural Remote Rural

Source: U.S. census


2-56

Household Status of Children By Region Native children living in rural areas (both remote and other) in 2000 were more likely than children in urban areas to be in married-couple families (Figure 2-59). A bigger share of children in urban areas lived in households headed by women without husbands. Native children in rural areas were more likely than those in urban areas to live with grandparents or in households headed by men without wives. Very few children in rural areas lived in group quarters or with people who weren’t relatives.

Figure 2-59. Living Arrangements of Alaska Native Children (Under 18), By Region, 2000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Urban Areas

Remote Rural Areas

Other Rural Areas

Nonrelatives 967 413 177

In group quarters 368 99 16

Other relatives 444 513 135

Grandparent 1,188 2,276 571

Families headed by women* 5,079 3,654 1,663

Families headed by men* 2,025 2,273 709

In married-couple family 9,783 12,187 4,027

Householder or spouse 26 9 7

Urban Areas Remote Rural Areas Other Rural Areas

Source: U.S. Census 100% count data *See Figure 2-21 for possible family types. **Too small to display.

Numbers of children living with:

Married couple familiesFamilies headed by men*

Families headed by women*

Grandparent

Other relatives Nonrelatives

In group

**


2-57

Fertility Rates Among Alaska Natives By Region Fertility rates are births per 1,000 women of child-bearing age (15 to 44). Figure 2-60 compares fertility rates among Native women statewide and by region in 1990 and 2000 and looks at the averages over the decade of the 1990s.

Fertility rates among Native women statewide and in all regions declined significantly between 1990 and 2000. The statewide rate in 1990 was 141 births per 1,000 women; by 2000 it had dropped to 93 per 1,000. That’s a drop of one-third, and the decline was similar in all regions.

Still, in 2000 there remained substantial regional differences. Native fertility rates were significantly higher in remote rural areas, having averaged 139 births per 1,000 women (15-44) from 1990-2000, compared with about 81 per 1,000 in other rural areas.

Figure 2-60. Fertility Rates (Births Per 1,000 Women 15-44), Alaska Natives, By Region, 1990-2000

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

Other Rural Areas 109.7 72.6 80.9

Remote Rural Areas 174.8 121.3 138.6

Urban Areas 117.0 77.0 87.9

State Total 141.0 93.2 107.3

1990 2000 1990-2000 avg.

Source: Alaska Vital Statistics; U.S. Census 100% data count; ISER estimates

Table 2-11 shows the number of births per region every year from 1990 through 2000, as well as the percentage distribution of births among the regions. Nearly 28,000 babies were born to Native women over the 1990s—a little over half in remote rural areas, more than a third in urban areas, and the balance in other rural areas of the state.


2-58

Table 2-11. Alaska Native Births by Region, 1990-2000 Number of Native Births Percent of Native Births

Other Rural Areas

Remote Rural Areas

Urban Areas

Total Births

Other Rural Areas

Remote Rural Areas Urban Areas

1990 384 1,530 905 2,819 13.6% 54.3% 32.1% 1991 348 1,491 946 2,785 12.5% 53.5% 34.0% 1992 338 1,438 919 2,695 12.5% 53.4% 34.1% 1993 294 1,315 848 2,457 12.0% 53.5% 34.5% 1994 279 1,234 831 2,344 11.9% 52.6% 35.5% 1995 311 1,126 866 2,303 13.5% 48.9% 37.6% 1996 307 1,248 851 2,406 12.8% 51.9% 35.4% 1997 307 1,278 812 2,397 12.8% 53.3% 33.9% 1998 254 1,278 880 2,412 10.5% 53.0% 36.5% 1999 265 1,264 927 2,456 10.8% 51.5% 37.7% 2000 298 1,235 957 2,490 12.0% 49.6% 38.4% Total

Decade 3,385 14,437 9,742 27,564 12.3% 52.4% 35.3%

Source: Alaska Vital Statistics

Alaska Natives of More than One Race, By Region As we saw in the graphs of the Native population by age and by region, Natives in urban areas are far more likely to be of mixed race. Figure 2-61 adds to that picture, by showing the shares for the entire Native population by region. More than 30 percent of Natives in urban areas in 2000 reported they were of more than one race, compared with less than 5 percent in remote rural areas and 18 percent in other rural areas.

Figure 2-61. Share of Alaska Natives Reporting More Than One Race, 2000

19,471

49,34450,426

Percent reporting Nativeand other race

30.3% 4.8% 18.1%

Native and other race 15,298 2,382 3,518

Alaska Native race only 35,128 46,962 15,953

Urban Areas Remote Rural Areas Other Rural Areas


Native and other race

Native race alone


2-59

Implications of Demographic Trends for 2010 and Beyond During the 1990s Alaska Natives increased their share of the state population, up from about 17 percent in 1990 to 19 percent in 2000. We expect that trend toward a growing Native share of the population to continue in the coming decades.

The rate of natural increase among Alaska Natives fell in the last decade, but in 2000 it was still about 50 percent higher than the rate among non-Natives. Unless substantial numbers of non-Natives move into the state—as they did in the decades after statehood—the faster growth rate among Natives means that their share of the population will continue to increase.

For example, if the Native and non-Native populations continue to grow at the rates they did during the 1990s—2.3 percent and 1.1 percent annually—then the Native share of total Alaska population will be 20 percent by 2010 and 22 percent by 2020. That growth would translate into a Native population of 140,000 in 2010 and 165,000 by 2020.

Native population growth will be concentrated in certain age groups as three population “bubbles” age over time.12 Two bubbles are currently centered in Natives who were 35 to 39 and 10 to 14 in 2000 (Figure 2-62). As these Natives get older, these bubbles will move up the age ladder. By 2010, they will be centered in Natives ages 45 to 49 and 20 to 24 (Figure 2-63). In 2020, they will be in Natives ages 55 to 59 and 30 to 34. Yet another bubble, centered in Native children under 5, will appear in 2020 (Figure 2-64). This bubble represents the large number of children we can expect to be born to those who will be in the 30-to-34 year bubble in 2020.

Figure 2-62. Age Distribution of Alaska Native Population, 2000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

> 5 5-910-1

415-1

920-2

425-2

930-3

435-3

940-4

445-4

950-5

455-5

960-6

465-6

970-7

475-7

980-8

485-8

990-9

495-9

9100

Source: U.S. census

12 These projections of population assume that current age-specific birth and death rates continue through 2020 and that Natives neither move into nor out of the state.


2-60

Figure 2-63. Projected Age Distribution of Alaska Native Population, 2010

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

Under 5 5-9

10-1415-1

920-2

425-2

930-3

435-3

940-4

445-4

950-5

455-5

960-6

465-6

970-7

475-7

980-8

485-8

990-9

495-9

9100

Source: ISER projections

Figure 2-64. Projected Age Distribution of Alaska Native Population, 2020

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

Under 5 5-9

10-1415-1

920-2

425-2

930-3

435-3

940-4

445-4

950-5

455-5

960-6

465-6

970-7

475-7

980-8

485-8

990-9

495-9

9100



2-61

These population bubbles have several important implications:

(1) The young adult Native population will be the fastest growing part of the Native population between 2000 and 2010, and it will continue to dominate growth in the following decade.

(2) A large number of mature Native adults will be approaching retirement age in 2010, and most will be senior citizens by 2020.

(3) The young adult Native population is starting to have families, and therefore the number of school-age children—which will drop between 2000 and 2010—will rebound after 2010 and increase rapidly.

Figure 2-65 shows growth in the Native population by age in the 1990s. Figure 2-66 then shows projected growth between 2000 and 2010, and Figure 2-67 shows projected growth between 2010 and 2020.

Figure 2-65. Alaska Native Population Growth by Age, 1990 to 2000

-3,000

-2,000

-1,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Growth -2,616 1,760 6,248 4,190 -112 -1,884 -630 1,905 3,006 2,870 2,091 1,101 607 808 755 320 307 240 87 33 3

% -4.6% 21.3% 52.0% 45.8% 2.8% -13.9 -7.4% 26.4%66.9% 56.1%77.7% 23.5%32.5% 37.3%58.8% 43.2% 48.1% 121.5 -34.0 0.0% 0.0%

0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94 95-99 100

Source: U.S. census


2-62

Figure 2-66. Projected Native Population Growth by Age, 2000 to 2010

-3,000

-2,000

-1,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Change 3,230 -900 -2,573 1,732 6,109 4,053 -113 -1,820 -611 1,819 2,851 2,666 1,863 902 434 511 358 70 82 31 0

% 26.6% -6.5% -17.6 14.4% 74.0% 53.2% -1.4% -19.9 -7.3% 26.1% 55.5% 69.3% 67.3% 38.1% 24.9% 44.8% 60.3% 19.1% 81.2% 94.9% 16.4%

> 5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94 95-99 100


Figure 2-67. Projected Native Population Growth by Age, 2010 to 2020

-3,000

-2,000

-1,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Change 2,501 4,344 3,204 -892 -2,532 1,679 5,905 3,898 -109 -1,742 -584 1,701 2,563 2,269 1,484 627 220 203 111 13 4

% 16.3% 33.5% 26.6% -6.5% -17.6 14.4% 74.0% 53.1% -1.4% -19.8 -7.3% 26.1% 55.3% 69.3% 68.1% 38.0% 23.1% 46.6% 60.7% 19.7% 105.3

> 5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94 95-99 100



2-63

One important implication of the projected growth among Alaska Natives is that the size and composition of the Native labor force—the working-age population—will be changing. In 2000, there were about equal numbers of Natives in their 20s, 30s, and 40s, as Figure 2-68 shows. We project that by 2010, the number of Natives in their 20s in the labor market will increase dramatically, as will the number in their 50s (Figure 2-69).13 By 2020, the labor market will be dominated by Natives in their 20s and 30s (Figure 2-70).

Figure 2-68. Native Labor Force by Age, 2000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79

Source: U.S. census

Figure 2-69. Projected Native Labor Force by Age, 2010

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79


13 We assume the current age- and sex-specific labor force participation rates will remain unchanged in the future.


2-64

Figure 2-70. Projected Native Labor Force by Age, 2020

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79


Between 2000 and 2010, 11,700 Natives will join the labor force—a 26 percent increase—and the new workers will be concentrated in age groups from 20 to 30, as Figure 2-71 shows. However, the average age of the Native labor force, currently about 36.5 years, will not change.

Between 2010 and 2020, the labor force won’t grow as fast, adding about 6,700 workers—11 percent—and the average age will increase only slightly. The 20-to-30 age group will get smaller, while the main growth will be among those 30 to 40 years old (Figure 2-72).

Figure 2-71. Projected Native Labor Force Growth by Age, 2000 to 2010

-2,000

-1,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Change 689 4,220 3,017 -81 -1,297 -434 1,261 1,976 1,411 708 160 35 5

% 20.9% 74.2% 53.4% -1.4% -19.9% -7.3% 26.1% 55.4% 69.2% 69.5% 38.1% 25.9% 46.7%

15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79



2-65

Figure 2-72. Projected Native Labor Force Growth by Age, 2010 to 2020

-2,000

-1,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Change -424 -1,739 1,241 4,210 2,780 -77 -1,211 -405 895 900 403 112 -4

% -10.7%-17.6% 14.3% 74.0% 53.2% -1.4% -19.9% -7.3% 25.9% 52.1% 69.3% 65.5% -21.9%

15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79


Finally, we can demonstrate, without making a prediction, that if the migration trends of the last 10 years continue, the Alaska Native population in 2010 will continue to concentrate in urban Alaska. Figure 2-73 shows the continued pattern of migration from rural to urban areas.

Figure 2-73. Historical and Projected Alaska Native Migration Within Alaska

-10,000

-5,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

Remote Rural -5,344 -6,342 -7,119 -4,745 -5,949

Other Rural -1,948 -2,767 -3,892 -2,953 -3,539

Urban 7,292 9,109 11,011 7,698 9,488

1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2020

Sources: U.S. census and ISER projections, if current migration trends continue


2-66

Figure 2-74 shows how continuation of the current migration patterns will boost the share of the Native population in urban areas, from 42 percent in 2000 to 53 percent in 2020. At the same time, the share in remote areas would fall from 41 percent in 2000 to 35 percent by 2020. In other rural areas, the share would drop from about 16 to 12 percent.

Figure 2-74. Historical and Projected Native Population Shares

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Urban 19.3% 29.7% 36.6% 42.3% 47.8% 52.7%

Other Rural 23.5% 20.8% 18.6% 16.3% 14.2% 12.4%

Remote Rural 57.2% 49.5% 44.8% 41.4% 38.0% 34.9%

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Sources: U.S. census and ISER projections, if current migration trends continue

CHAPTER 2. THE ALASKA NATIVE POPULATION · any other state, as Table 2-2 shows. But the numbers of...

Documents

Transcript of CHAPTER 2. THE ALASKA NATIVE POPULATION · any other state, as Table 2-2 shows. But the numbers of...