OCPB agenda 070214 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

5—5 Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan CHAPTER 5 - Demographics and Driving Factors 5 B. Age, Gender and Racial Composition (cont.) The racial and ethnic distribution of the County population has seen two important changes in the last 20 years:  A marked growth in persons of Hispanic origin  A marked growth in persons of Asian descent Table 5-4 shows the racial and ethnic origin population of Orange County as of the 2012 US Census estimates (county) or the 2010 Census (towns).5 Comparing the 2010/2012 data to that of the 2000 Census, one sees that for Orange County as a whole, the Asian and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander categories (previously one category in the 2000 Census) have increased from 4.1% of the population to 7.4% in only 12 years. In Chapel Hill, the Asian population has grown from 7.6% in 2000 to 11.9% in 2010 (it was 1% in 1980). The Black or African- American and White population percentages of the total population have decreased during the same timeframe. Likewise, the number of persons of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity has grown from 4.5% of the county population in 2000, to 8.2% in 2012. It is important to note that some of the racial categories used by the Census Bureau have changed since the 2000 Census, so comparisons should be drawn carefully to make sure consistent groups are being considered. Table 5-4: Race/Ethnic Origin – 2010 / 2012 Census Estimate Race/Ethnicity Orange County (2012)6 Chapel Hill (2010) Carrboro (2010) Hillsborough (2010) Mebane (2010) Black or African-American (alone) 12.2% 9.7% 10.1% 29.5% 20.4% American Indian or Alaska Native 0.6% 0.3% 0.4% 0.6% 0.5% Asian (alone) 7.3% 11.9% 8.2% 1.7% 1.2% Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (alone) 0.1% 0 0 0 0.1% White (alone) 77.4% 72.8% 70.9% 62.9% 73.5% Two or More Races 2.5% 2.7% 2.9% 2.1% 2.6% Hispanic or Latino7 8.2% 6.4% 13.8% 6.6% 6.0% C. Other Notable Demographic Data and Trends Additional information may be found in Appendix 5-1. Some other items worthy of note for this plan include:  Orange County is among the most highly -educated counties in the United States. Just under 25%, or one in four, of the county’s adult residents hold a bachelor’s degree or higher. When that calculation is changed to include “persons of age 25 and over between 2007 - 2011,” the figure increases to 54.6% with a bachelor’s degree or higher. While such comparative tabulations are no longer kept by the US Census Bureau, in 1990, Orange County was the 8th most-educated county in the U.S. Almost 30% of the adult population of the county has attained a graduate or professional degree (compared to 8.5% of the state’s adult population).  The County also has a higher-than-average median family income. The median household income measured from 2007-2011 in Orange County was $56,055, almost $10,000 (and 22%) higher than the state median house- hold income of $46,291.  However, this high median income figure masks an un- derlying issue - the county also has 16.9% of its persons living below the federal poverty level. It is important to note that this figure is skewed by the presence of large numbers of college students in and around UNC, but it also represents a polarized income structure within the county which includes substantial cohorts of both high income and low income persons and households.  In 2005, private industry employed slightly over half of the Orange County population. The state government generates nearly half of the annual wages in the county, mainly due to the County’s largest employers - University of North Carolina and UNC HealthCare. 61