“Presentation to Hannibal CHART Partnership”
by Dr. Daryl J. Hobbs
September 15,2004
http://www.oseda.missouri.edu
CHART PartnershipHannibal, MO
“Livable communities don’t just happen.They are created by the people who live in them.”
We can no longer pretend not to know…
What we know
Collaboration
…No longer merely a tactic for improving employee morale..it has become
…the defining principle of organization in a global economy
Number of Missouri Local Governments Number of Missouri Local Governments by Type - States: 1997by Type - States: 1997
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2000
Missouri U.S. MissouriNational Rank
All Governmental Units 3,416 87,453 6thCounties 114 3,043 4thMunicipalities 944 19,372 5thSchool Districts 537 13,726 9thSpecial Districts 1,497 34,683 6th
Community Development can’t travel very far onignorance of the locality and how it operates.
The key to Rural Development is a more informedlocal leadership.
~Glen Pulver
Population Change 2000-2003
Source: USDC, Census Bureau, Decennial Census 1990 and 2000, Federal State Cooperative for Population Estimates
Prepared by: Univ of Mo Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis (OSEDA)
CountyPopulation
2000
Population 2003
estimate
Percent Change,
2000-2003Marion 28,289 28,289 0.0Clark 7,416 7,420 0.1Lewis 10,494 10,226 -2.6Monroe 9,311 9,396 0.9Ralls 9,626 9,653 0.3Shelby 6,799 6,702 -1.4
Total Population and Components of Change, 1990-2000
Source: 1990 and 2000 Decenial Census / Federal State Coop for Population Estimates - Prepared by: Univ of Mo Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis (OSEDA)
Total Population
2000Marion 28,289 607 2.2 3,993 3,638 355 1.3 252 0.9Clark 7,416 -131 -1.7 820 941 -121 -1.6 -10 -0.1Lewis 10,494 261 2.6 1,242 1,264 -22 -0.2 283 2.8Monroe 9,311 207 2.3 1,047 1,059 -12 -0.1 219 2.4Ralls 9,626 1,150 13.6 956 900 56 0.7 1,094 12.9Shelby 6,799 -143 -2.1 840 1,103 -263 -3.8 120 1.7
Net MigrationChange, 1990-2000 Natural Increase
Number Percent Births RateDeaths Number Rate Number
Population and Components of Change, 2000-2003
Source: 1990 and 2000 Decenial Census / Federal State Coop for Population Estimates - Prepared by: Univ of Mo Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis (OSEDA)
PopulationChange
Marion County 0 1,367 1,085 282 1.0 -282 -1.0Clark County 4 274 256 18 0.2 -14 -0.2Lewis County -268 334 356 -22 -0.2 -246 -2.3Monroe County 85 383 362 21 0.2 64 0.7Ralls County 27 261 332 -71 -0.7 98 1.0Shelby County -97 276 285 -9 -0.1 -88 -1.3
RateBirths Deaths
Natural Increase Net Migration
Number Rate Number
Population Change 1-Jul-90 to 1-Jul-03Marion County
Source: USDC, Census Bureau, Decennial Census 1990 and 2000, Federal State Cooperative for Population Estimates
Prepared by: Univ of Mo Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis (OSEDA)
Source:/popests/sct99_MO.txt and http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/cities/tables/SUB-EST2002-07-29.xls
-7
264
21
-69
136118
-203
1549
210
-20
-131
133
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
Net P
opul
atio
n Ch
ange
Population Change 1-Jul-90 to 1-Jul-03Clark County
-72
3015
-22
82
-107
88
1710
-12
-36
-66
-30
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
Net
Pop
ulat
ion
Cha
nge
Source: USDC, Census Bureau, Decennial Census 1990 and 2000, Federal State Cooperative for Population Estimates
Prepared by: Univ of Mo Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis (OSEDA)
Source:/popests/sct99_MO.txt and http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/cities/tables/SUB-EST2002-07-29.xls
Population Change 1-Jul-90 to 1-Jul-03Lewis County
9
-30
43
-30
127
-78
-119
-9-4
-158
92
76
79
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Net
Po
pu
lati
on
Ch
ang
e
Source: USDC, Census Bureau, Decennial Census 1990 and 2000, Federal State Cooperative for Population Estimates
Prepared by: Univ of Mo Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis (OSEDA)
Source:/popests/sct99_MO.txt and http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/cities/tables/SUB-EST2002-07-29.xls
Population Change 1-Jul-90 to 1-Jul-03Monroe County
55
77
73
134
6776 46
5
76
-61
-134
-45
-95
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
Net
Pop
ulat
ion
Cha
nge
Source: USDC, Census Bureau, Decennial Census 1990 and 2000, Federal State Cooperative for Population Estimates
Prepared by: Univ of Mo Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis (OSEDA)
Source:/popests/sct99_MO.txt and http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/cities/tables/SUB-EST2002-07-29.xls
Population Change 1-Jul-90 to 1-Jul-03Ralls County
152
293
132
69
19
78
-17
120
66
186
35
79
-25
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Net
Pop
ulat
ion
Cha
nge
Source: USDC, Census Bureau, Decennial Census 1990 and 2000, Federal State Cooperative for Population Estimates
Prepared by: Univ of Mo Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis (OSEDA)
Source:/popests/sct99_MO.txt and http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/cities/tables/SUB-EST2002-07-29.xls
Population Change 1-Jul-90 to 1-Jul-03Shelby County
-19
-53
-13
21
-62
-33
-41
23
64
-11
-19
0
-77
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
Net
Po
pu
lati
on
Ch
ang
e
Source: USDC, Census Bureau, Decennial Census 1990 and 2000, Federal State Cooperative for Population Estimates
Prepared by: Univ of Mo Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis (OSEDA)
Source:/popests/sct99_MO.txt and http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/cities/tables/SUB-EST2002-07-29.xls
Missouri Transfer Payments by Type, 2000
Other8%
Medicare21%
Medicaid19%
Unemployment benefits
1%
Social Security41%
Veterans benefits2%
Income Maintenance
8%
Source: USDC, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information SystemPrepared by: University Outreach and Extension, Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis - (OSEDA)
Kids Count – ClarkCounty
Kids Count – Lewis County
Kids Count – Marion County
Kids Count – Monroe County
Kids Count – Ralls County
Kids Count – Shelby County
REGIONALIZATION WORK RETAIL TRADE HEALTH CARE IMPLICATIONS
Community Public Finance
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING REGIONS
› All Economies are Regional› Regional Centers are vital to regional viability:
They are essential to growth but not necessarily the location of growth. The population of a place is not necessarily the determining factor in
whether it is a regional center or not.
› Missouri is one of the most economically, geographically and culturally diverse states in the U.S It would facilitate planning and delivery of services if regional boundaries
were drawn so that counties within a region were relatively homogeneous while the differences between regions would be relatively great. That would facilitate more effective targeting of training and educational services.
Ironically regional centers are more alike than the regions they serve.
› Transportation routes are a consideration in establishing regional boundaries. A concern is accessibility and it is easier to get to some regional centers from one direction than another.