cameron county/matamoros - blue - The University of Texas at ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

UTB-CBIRD Report: “At the Crossroads” Demographics 17 Current employment statistics show the South Texas’ border region has consistently higher unemployment than the State of Texas. Hidalgo and Willacy Counties have well over twice the state rate, while Starr County has over three times the state employment rate, with 21.8%, Table 2.2. Table 2. 2. Unemployment Statistics December 2002 Labor Force Employment Unemployment Percentage Texas 10,715,009 10,103,679 611,330 5.7% Cameron County 135,879 121,955 13,924 10.2% Hidalgo County 223,438 193,815 29,623 13.3% Willacy County 5,919 5,006 913 15.4% Starr County 22,856 17,874 4,982 21.8% Source: Texas Workforce Commission The disparities in income and employment rates are linked to the corresponding statistics of poverty, Figure 2.18. 1999 U.S. census data shows that the poverty level in Cameron County is 33%, over twice the state rate of 15%; and the poverty rate increases for Hidalgo, Willacy, and Starr Counties. Figure 2.18. Population in Poverty Estimate, 1999 1 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 15% 32% 1The 1999 poverty estimates were released in September 2002. This is the most recent data published for U.S. population in poverty by county which includes those with population under 250,000. The poverty rankings published in November 2002 referenced 2001 census data for counties with population 250,000 or more. This data shows that Hidalgo’s population living in poverty has fallen to 32% while Cameron’s has risen to 33%. The fact that these two counties consistently run neck-and-neck for “last place” overshadows the smaller cross-county differentials. 34% 35% 45% Texas Cameron Co Hidalgo Co Willacy Co. Starr Co. Source: U.S. Census Bureau One Region -- One Future National rankings show Cameron and Hidalgo counties are not merely “lagging” statewide. They rank worst and secondworst in the nation for a range of key indicators. In poverty-related questions, these counties rank worse than “inner city” counties such as Bronx County, New York; Orleans Parish, Louisiana; Los Angeles County, California. Furthermore, “inner city” counties are surrounded by more prosperous counties in their direct vicinity while Cameron and Hidalgo are side by side and share borders with rural counties that are statistically worse than they are.
UTB-CBIRD Report: “At the Crossroads” Demographics 18 The U.S. Census Bureau recently published national rankings of critical statistics (November 2002) for counties with populations of over 250,000. Out of these 220 counties, Cameron and Hidalgo Counties repeatedly ranked, side-by-side, as the worst AND second worst nationwide in ten poverty-related issues, indicated in blue in Table 2.3. In another five criteria, they both ranked in the worst ten. Table 2.3. National Rankings: U.S. Counties (Population 250,000 or more – 220 Total) Poverty Rankings Cameron Hidalgo Percent of People Below Poverty Level 1 2 Percent under 18 below Poverty Level 1 Percent 65+ Below Poverty Level 2 1 Education Rankings Less Than a High School Diploma 2 1 Percent of High School Graduate or Higher 219 220 Percent of People with a Bachelor's Degree or More 212 217 Economy Rankings Percent in Labor Force 219 220 Median Household Income 220 218 Median Family Income 220 219 Median Value 218 219 Other Related Issues Fertility of Unmarried Women: All women with Birth 134 182 Fertility: Rate per 1,000 Women 15 to 19 Years Old 44 1 Percent of Children Under 6 with All Parents in Work Force 220 219 Speaking a Language Other than English 2 1 Speaking Spanish at Home 2 1 Percent Owner-Occupied Housing Units 114 179 Median Monthly Housing Cost for Renters 219 220 Median Monthly Housing Cost for Mortgaged Owners 219 217 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Demographic Surveys Division, Continuous Measurement Office IF CURRENT TRENDS CONTINUE, WHAT’S AHEAD FOR CAMERON COUNTY AND THE SOUTH TEXAS BORDER REGION ⇒ A growing unskilled, under-educated population that cannot meet the demands of a technology-based workplace ⇒ Lost ground in the highly competitive global marketplace ⇒ Average household income will decline by $4,000 in constant dollars by 2030 ⇒ More public spending on prisons, welfare, Medicaid Adapted from Steve Murdock, Chief Demographer Texas State Data Center, Texas A&M University 2001 3 Una Region -- Un Futuro The future of Texas is tied to its minority population. How well they do is how well Texas will do. We have a demographic window of opportunity that we need to take advantage of now to face these challenges. If we don’t, that window will remain closed for several decades. Steve Murdock Chief Demographer Texas State Data Center Texas A&M University “Minorities Might Becomes State’s Majority by 2005,” Amarillo Globe News web stite
Page 1 and 2: CAMERON COUNTY/MATAMOROS AT THE CRO
Page 3 and 4: For George and Ronya Kozmetsky Dedi
Page 5 and 6: There is no choice in whether this
Page 7 and 8: University of Texas at Brownsville;
Page 9 and 10: SECTION 4. EDUCATION & TRAINING INT
Page 11 and 12: SECTION 6. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDA
Page 13 and 14: Tables 3. 1. Respondents' Professio
Page 15 and 16: SECTION 6 Figures 6. 1. Border Secu
Page 17 and 18: Cross-Border Patient Needs: Develop
Page 19 and 20: UTB/TSC Student Profile Wage Compar
Page 21 and 22: UTB-CBIRD Report: “At the Crossro
Page 35: UTB-CBIRD Report: “At the Crossro
Page 59 and 60: ⇒ EDUCATION & TRAINING INTRODUCTI
Page 61 and 62: UTB-CBIRD Report: “At The Crossro
Page 67 and 68: Percentage UTB-CBIRD Report: “At
Page 87 and 88:
UTB-CBIRD Report: “At The Crossro
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
⇒ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT This secti
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
UTB-CBIRD Report: “At the Crossro
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
APPENDICES
Page 185 and 186:
APPENDIX B. SURVEY INSTRUMENT Pleas
Page 187 and 188:
QUESTION 3: Please circle your best
Page 189 and 190:
APPENDIX C. CLUSTER ANALYSIS METHOD
Page 191 and 192:
APPENDIX D. SHIFT-SHARE ANALYSIS Sh
Page 193 and 194:
APPENDIX E. TRANSPORTATION INFRASTR
Page 195 and 196:
Table E.3 indicates that while sout
Page 197 and 198:
volumes. The Port of San Diego also
Page 199 and 200:
The Port of Brownsville has over 33
Page 201 and 202:
cargo operation and continued devel
Page 203 and 204:
⇒ Top Five User Requirements 1. I
Page 205 and 206:
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Page 207 and 208:
Duca, John V. and Mine K. Yucel.
Page 209 and 210:
Rylander, Carol Keeton. Texas Regio
Page 211 and 212:
PROJECT PARTNERS
Page 213 and 214:
UTB-CBIRD The Cross Border Institut
Page 215 and 216:
IC² Institute, The University of T
show all

cameron county/matamoros - blue - The University of Texas at ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?