Socio-Economic Profile

Figure 1. Project location map.


The purpose of this socio-economic profile is to describe the demographics, jobs and income, housing and commuting patterns, and poverty and schools within the Partnership for Coastal Watersheds (PCW) project area (see Figure 1). The data and analysis presented here will provide a context and a baseline to assess where the PCW is in relationship to its vision, and to evaluate the effects of actions undertaken by the Partnership. Our intent here is to provide a solid foundation for two legs of the triple-bottom line by digging deeply into both the economic and social dimensions of the PCW area. We will start by examining the populous living in the PCW area (ages, family and household composition, and densities of both people and housing). After this, we will consider employment, both in which the job is located within the PCW area as well as those in which residents living in the PCW work outside the area. Closely linked to this will be a discussion of commuting patterns (i.e., distance and directions), and how these have changed over the last decade. The role of housing and its cost within the PCW area in relation to employment opportunities will be discussed. Sources of income and resulting poverty levels in the PCW will be recognized. After a set of concluding observations, the methodology used to develop this profile will be discussed, and data sources and references identified.

Demographics in the PCW Project Area

Population. Based on the 2010 Census, there are 2,521 people who live within the PCW project area (Table 1). The population within the PCW is overwhelmingly white (87%), with 4% Hispanic, 3% Native American, 2% Asian, and less than 1% (9 people) who identified themselves as African-American. Another 4% claimed two or more races. The population is divided almost equally between females (1,230) and males (1,291). The age class structure in the PCW is skewed towards older people, beginning in the 45 – 49 year class and continuing until age 70 (see Figure 2). Once the categories in Figure 3 are equalized, there is a relatively consistent 100 to 150 people in each 5 year age class up to age 50. This bulge in the older age classes reflects a higher proportion of retired persons, and the lower proportion in younger classes is indicative of the dearth of employment for people in the “family formation” stage of life. This is reflected in only 17% of the PCW population is under the age of 17, i.e., school age or soon to be, with the vast majority (83%) over 18.

Figure 2. Population by age classes and gender in the PCW project area (Source: 2010 Census).

Figure 3. Makeup of households within the PCW.
Source: 2010 Census of Population and Housing.

Households. The 2,521 people residing in the PCW form 1,096 households (Figure 3), defined as one or more people sharing living quarters (Census 2010; QTP11:File HD01; Variable S01). Of these households, roughly two-thirds comprise 681 families (defined as related people living together [SO2]), with 69% headed by males [S03] and 31% headed by females [S04]. The other third in 415 non-family households [S05]: with 54% headed by males [S06], of which 76% live alone [S07]; the other 46% of non-family households are headed by females [S08], of which 71% live alone [S09].

Figure 4. Families in the PCW area with children under the age of 18.

The average number of people in a household in the PCW in the 2010 Census was slightly over 2 [S18], while the average size of families was larger at 2.5 persons [S19]. Slightly over a quarter (28%) of households were one person [S11], while just less than one-half (45%) were two person [S12]. Larger households rapidly decline in their percentages of the total: 12% for three person [S13]; 8% for four person; 4% for five person; 2% for six person; and 1% for seven persons.

Of particular importance in the PCW is the presence of children, and the types of family units in which they live (Figure 4). This is important for two reasons: the number of children affects, and is effected by, the school system; and, children in single parent households are more likely to be living in poverty. Of the 681 families in the PCW area, 518 (76%) are husband and wife [S26], of which 23% have children under the age of 18 living with them [S27]. Another 93 families (14%) are headed by females with no husband present [S32], and 56% of these families have children. Husband-wife families are more likely to have older children (almost 3:1 ratio), female households with no husband present have a greater proportion of younger children (about 1:1 ratio).

Figure 5. Age of primary householder by tenure class in occupied PCW housing units.

Housing. There are 1,309 housing units, of which 1,096 (84%) were occupied at the time of the Census. About three-quarters of these units are owner-occupied, with the other 27% occupied by renters (Table 2). Household sizes are in general larger in rental units, i.e., the proportion of one and two person households is lower in rental versus owner-occupied (two-thirds versus three-quarters, respectively), while the proportion of larger households (4+ persons per household) is double in rental versus owner-occupied.

It’s not surprising that the pattern of ownership changes as the primary householder ages (Figure 5). Home ownership increases up to a peak in the 55 to 64 age class, then declines as the owner ages. In contrast, the proportion of renters decreases in every age class after the youngest, and is almost balanced with owners in the 45 to 54 year class. There is clear evidence of the family-forming process, with an increase in home ownership as householders age and accumulate wealth (and needs for stable housing). The decline in home ownership is particularly noteworthy after 85 years, and the scarcity of rental householders in the 75 and older age classes is evidence of the lack of senior housing in the PCW area.

Population and Housing Densities.As described previously, the PCW area has a diversity of land uses, and this diversity results in different densities of houses and residents (see Figure 6). The two maps shown in Figure 6 are based on houses and population reported by the U.S. Census at the Block level. Census Blocks have a minimum area of 0.28 ha., which roughly corresponds to a city block (hence the name). In rural areas, census blocks are bounded by roads and natural features, so densities may vary within the block, being higher along roads (which are likely to be block boundaries) and less dense in their interiors.

Figure 6. Densities of population (above) and housing (below) in the PCW area based on census block data.
Source: 2010 Census of Population and Housing.

There is a close relationship between population densities (Figure 6, top) and housing densities (Figure 6, below), which is not surprising given the fact that the majority of households in the PCW consist of one or two person households. Both population and housing densities are at their highest in the Charleston and Barview areas surrounding the mouth of South Slough. Two other areas of higher housing densities occur along Cape Arago highway west of Charleston before reaching Sunset Bay State Park; and the southern part of the PCW area surrounding Bandon Dunes Golf Resort.

Jobs and Employment in the PCW

Figure 7. Jobs in the PCW, 2002 to 2010.

Jobs and Employment Growth. The U.S. Census Bureau’s OnTheMap web portal provides data from 2002 to 2010 for jobs located in the PCW area as well as people living in the PCW, but working elsewhere. Employment for people living within, but working outside, the PCW area has been relatively stable at between 600-700 jobs from 2002 to 2008. The recession that began in 2008 clearly affected “covered” employment, but was particularly hard for workers living in the PCW who worked outside the project area whose employment halved between 2008 and 2009 before beginning to recover in 2010 (Figure 7). In contrast, jobs within the PCW rose rapidly over the period, largely because of the opening of the Bandon Dunes Golf Resort at the southern end of the PCW, as we’ll see below.

Figure 8. Inflow and outflow of jobs in the PCW

Inflows and Outflows of Employment and Employees. As Figure 7 shows, while employment has grown within the PCW area, and stayed at about the same level for residents working outside the PCW, there have always been comparatively few residents who make their living within the PCW (with the caveat that only “covered” employees are included in this analysis). In 2010, there were 611 persons living in the PCW area that were employed in “covered” jobs. Of these, only 33 worked at the 723 jobs located within the PCW (see Figure 8). There are 692 covered jobs in the PCW, about the same number as residents employed in covered jobs. However, about 95% of residents in the PCW work in jobs located outside the PCW, while 95% of the jobs within the PCW are held by workers living outside the PCW. This mismatch leads to the need for longer commutes between home and employment, reflects a difference in suitable housing for workers within the PCW, and suitable jobs for those living within the PCW.

Employment Sectors. Much of the inflow and outflow of employment is related to the types of jobs available within the PCW as compared to outside it (Figure 9). For example, there are almost seven times as many jobs in Accommodation and Food Services within the PCW (and 70% of total jobs) compared to the number residents working in this sector. No other sector within the PCW area even employs 50 workers. In contrast, there is a higher diversity of jobs, and a better distribution of employment, for residents working outside the PCW area. Outside jobs include some in each of the highest 20 sectors shown in Figure 9, and no one sector employs more than 20% of residents.

With the opening of Bandon Dunes, the Accommodation and Food Services employment grew ten times, from about 50 jobs to over 500 from 2002 to 2010, and from less than 25% of jobs to 70% of within the PCW. Conversely, the construction sector, which comprised about 20% of jobs (and a high of 63 employees in 2006) has withered with the housing bust to represent 3% of jobs with only 20 employees in 2010.

Figure 9. Jobs in the PCW area (“Work”), and jobs held by people living in the PCW area (“Home”). Average annual pay rates for private companies (ex. Public Administration) in Coos Co., 2010.

Wages Rates in the PCW. The growth of employment in the hospitality sector has led to a tripling of jobs paying less than $15,000/year, and four and a half times increase in those paying between $15,000 and $40,000/year in the PCW (Figure 10, below). The most dramatic change is a halving of the proportion of jobs paying over $3,333/month (41% in 2002 versus 23% in 2010) even while the number of these jobs doubled. The situation has been more stable for those residents working outside the PCW area (with the exception of 2009). Over the last nine years, there has been a gradual decrease in low wage jobs held by residents working outside the PCW. Since the “boom” year of 2005 where 396 PCW residents were employed in blue collar jobs, to the depth of the recession in 2009 where only 123 retained these jobs, there was significant rebuilding by 2010, although employment levels didn’t return to their previous levels. Job losses were particularly high in construction, manufacturing, and retail trade. Higher-paying jobs held by PCW residents increased by 71% between 2002 and 2010, nearly doubling as a percentage of residents’. While these jobs were not immune to the effects of the recession, employment levels have recovered much more rapidly compared to blue collar and low wage jobs.

Figure 10. Annual pay for jobs within the PCW (“Work”) and for residents working outside (“Home”).

Relationship of Gender and Education to Employment Location. OnTheMap also provides data for 2009 and 2010 on two other potential influences on jobs in the PCW and residents’ employment patterns: (a) the level of education for both inflows and outflows of employees; and (b) the ratio between males and females in the labor market. There is not an apparent difference in educational levels for persons (only over 29 years of age) holding jobs within the PCW versus those PCW residents working outside the area. In both cases, about 10% of the jobs are held by people with less than a high school diploma or GED; about 30% are held by high school graduates who have no college; about another quarter are held by people with some college; and only about 10% are held by people with a bachelor’s or advanced degree. In both inside and outside, about 25% of the job holders are younger than 29 years of age and thus are considered to have potentially completed their education.

More interesting is the difference in gender ratios between workers filling jobs within the PCW versus those PCW residents working outside the area in 2009 and 2010. About two-thirds of employees within the PCW are male, while a third are female. In contrast, over half the employed residents of the PCW are female. While only 2009 (depth of recession) and 2010 data are available—so discerning a pattern is hazardous—female stayed relatively the same for jobs within the PCW, while increasing slightly over the two years for PCW residents.

Figure 11. Commuting distances for workers with jobs in the PCW (“Work”) and residents traveling to jobs outside the PCW (“Home”).

Commuting Directions and Distance. The relative lack of job diversity within the PCW, and the particularly the lack of jobs for women, leads to high levels of labor inflow and outflow as discussed above and seen in Figures 8 and 11. Generally, about 50% to 60% of people living in the PCW travel less than 10 miles to work, mostly (two-thirds) towards Coos Bay and North Bend. There are, however, a significant number of residents who travel much further for employment: over the 2002 to 2010 period about 25% of residents traveled more than 50 miles to their jobs, and this increased to over half during the recession year of 2009. Most of these people are traveling to the east, most likely to Winston and Roseburg, or to the I-5 corridor. Meanwhile, the number of residents traveling moderate distances has stayed relatively unchanged (except for 2009): about 10% travel between 10 and 24 miles to work, with another 5% traveling between 25 to 50 miles to their job.

Fewer people travel long distances (over 50 miles) to their jobs in the PCW: about half as many compared to residents, but this percentage (and total number) has risen—doubling since the recession began—from 16 in 2002 to 100 in 2010, (Figure 11). As compared to residents, workers coming to the new jobs in the PCW are more likely to drive from further distances, i.e., only about 50% live within 10 miles of their workplace (and this percentage has been declining over time), about a third live within 10 to 24 miles (doubling as a percentage since 2002), with only from 3% to 6% living between 25 and 50 miles away.

Table 3. Annual income poverty thresholds and family wage jobs in Coos Co.
Sources: 1. U.S. Bureau of the Census (
2. Assumes a single wage earner. Glasmeier, A.K. Living Wage Calculator (

Poverty Thresholds and Family-wage Jobs.

It should be clear from the discussion above that jobs and employment in the PCW, and for residents, are limited and concentrated in a relatively few sectors. Figure 9 provides average pay rates, while Figure 10 shows annual incomes in three different intervals (<$15,000/year, $15,000 – $40,000/year, and above $40,000/year) for jobs in the PCW and residents’ jobs outside the PCW. Putting this employment data in the context of thresholds for poverty and family wage jobs illustrates the challenges facing residents and workers in the PCW. Table 3 shows these thresholds based on family size, with the poverty threshold a national level and the family wage job based on living costs in Coos County (the smallest geographic unit available).

Figure 12. Household income levels in Census Tract 5.02. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP03, “Selected Economic Characteristics, 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.”

Table 4. Sources of household income for residents of Census Tract 5.02.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP03, “Selected Economic Characteristics, 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.”

Household Incomes and Their Sources. The American Community Survey provides estimates of aggregate family incomes (including various types of benefits) for people residing in Census Tract 5.02 that includes most of the PCW project area (but excludes residential areas surrounding the Bandon Dunes Golf Course). The mean household income in 2010 was $43,914, with the median income $36,448 (ACS-DP03). As Figure 12 demonstrates, almost three-quarters (72%) of residents in the Census Tract have household incomes of less than $50,000 per year, with 18% less than $15,000/year. There are very few households (i.e., less than 11%) making more than $100,000/year.

Household incomes come from a variety of sources beyond just wages and salaries (Table 4), and in general they are complimentary rather than mutually exclusive as evidence by the percentages of households receiving these benefits is greater than 100%. Two-thirds of residents receive income related to employment, almost the same proportion of residents receive Social Security or other retirement income, with mean annual payments of about $15,000 and $18,000 respectively. Food stamps provide additional support to about 13% of the households, although few of these households receive direct public assistance payments.

Table 5. Relationship between family type, age, and poverty levels in Coos Co. Census Tract 5.02, 2006 – 2010.
Sources: 1. U.S. Census Bureau, DP02, “Selected Social Characteristics, 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.”
2. U.S. Census Bureau, DP03, “Selected Economic Characteristics, 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.”
3. U.S. Census Bureau, “Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates” 2010.

Family Types and Poverty Thresholds. Poverty levels for all people in Census Tract 5.02 are similar to those statewide (15.8%) and slightly lower than Coos County overall (Table 5). For families, the rate is lower than the overall rate (10.9%), and drops even more for married couples, even those with children. On the other hand, the 8.4% of families in the Census Tracts that are headed by females (there were only 2 headed by males) are significantly more likely to live in poverty (31.5%), and this essentially doubles to almost 62% if children are present, particularly if there are children over 5 years of age. In contrast, the population in the Census Tract that are over 65 years of age are less likely to be in poverty (6.2%) than any other age group and compare favorably even with married couples.

Table 6. Housing costs in relationship to income in Coos Co. Census Tract 5.02, 2006 – 2010.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP04, “Selected Housing Characteristics, 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.”

Costs Housing Burden.One of the major challenges for residents of the PCW area is finding affordable housing. The standard metric for “affordable” is that a household pays no more than 30% of their income for housing (42 U.S.C. 12745). Table 6 shows data at the Census Tract level for the percentage of a households income spent on housing, and how that differs based on whether the home is owned (with and without a mortgage) versus rented. By the affordable metric, about half the households with mortgages in Census Tract 5.02 are paying more for housing than is considered affordable, and the situation is even worse for renters where two-thirds are paying more than is considered affordable. While over three-quarters of households who own their homes free-and-clear are within the affordability metric, about a fifth of these non-mortgaged owners pay more than 35% of their income for housing.

Table 7. School-aged populations in the Coos Bay and Bandon portions of the PCW area, 2010.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 1.

Schools. Schools are the lifeblood of rural communities: Schools not only prepare students academically, but also are the locus for social networks and community events. The closure of the Charleston Elementary School in 2006 left the community with no local schools. PCW students in the Charleston area attend Coos Bay School District #9 schools, while those on the southern area in Bandon School District #54. Using demographic information (see Figure 2) from the 2010 Census, Table 7 shows the potential student populations by age class based on the Block falling within each District’s boundary.

Table 8. Percent of students meeting state academic standards, 2010-2011 for schools serving PCW area residents.
Source: Oregon Department of Education, 2011. School Report Cards, 2010-2011 (

Given the total number of school-age children (308), and the relative isolation between the Charleston north half and the Bandon Dunes south part in the PCW area, the ability to support any kind of school (even a K-8 as some Districts are doing) is limited. Coos Bay students go to Madison Elementary School for grades K-3 (400 students total in 2012), Sunset Intermediary School for grades 4-7 (461 students total), and to Marshfield High School for grades 8-12 (1,038 students, the largest on the Oregon coast).

The quality of the schools available to residents in the PCW is important. Just as the economy has been struggling these past years, so have the schools. With the No Child Left Behind Act, and additional state-wide efforts in standards and testing, it is possible to determine how well our local schools are serving students in the PCW area (Table 8). In general, the Bandon schools at all levels exceed the percentages of students meeting state standards, sometimes by significant amounts for the reading and science standards. In other areas, such as mathematics and writing, students in the Bandon schools meet state standards in about the same percentages as the state-wide averages.

In contrast, Coos Bay schools serving PCW area residents are less successful in terms of educational achievement. Students in the elementary grades are passing the state standards at approximately the same rate as state-wide averages, but as student progress into higher grades their performance generally decreases. With the exception of science, students in the Intermediate grades (5th grade at Sunset, and 8th grade at Marshfield) lag state-wide averages by 10 percentages for reading and 2 percentage for math. This pattern continues at Marshfield High School, with significantly fewer students passing the math standards compared to state-wide averages, and from 3% to 8% fewer students passing the reading, science, and writing standards.

This socio-economic profile of the Partnership for Coastal Watersheds project area has uncovered a rich and deep set of data, primarily from national 2010 Decennial Census along with the annual American Community Survey sampling. Applying analysis routines such as OnTheMap and GIS has allowed for a fine scale look at the PCW area. Our analysis shows that there are significant social and economic challenges that will need to be faced for the PCW area to meet its visions. The most significant of these are:

1. There is a significant disparity between places of employment and workers’ residences, with most people who live within the PCW working at jobs outside the area; and conversely, most people who work in the PCW reside outside the area. This effect has a number of impacts in the PCW: (a) increases commuting costs and reduces commuting options (such as walking or bicycling to work); (b) leads to congestion on the roads during commuting periods, increasing traffic hazards; and (c) reduces the amount of free time that residents and workers have for other activities, including spending time with families and participating in community affairs.

2. While there has been a large growth in jobs within the PCW area since 2002, these have been almost entirely in the accommodation and hospitality sector which pays comparatively low wages. The good news is that these jobs have been relatively stable during the recession, and in contrast to other sources of employment that residents of the PCW hold which declined substantially in 2008 and 2009 and have only recently begun to recover. The combination of high levels of unemployment and partial employment, with stagnant and relatively low wages, leads to about 16% of PCW residents having incomes below the poverty threshold. Low incomes are especially a concern for female-headed households with children, where almost 62% of these households are living in poverty.

3. There is clearly an imbalance in the availability and affordability of housing for residents and workers in the PCW area. We estimate that over 50% of the residents in the PCW are spending greater than 30% of their income on housing – the threshold for affordability – which in combination with long commutes further increases the “housing burden,” i.e., the amount of expenditures for housing plus the cost of commuting to a job. Part of this problem can be ascribed to the housing bubble and recession that made it difficult both to find work (thereby likely increasing commuting distances) while at the same time making it more difficult to sell and purchase housing close to their jobs. Additionally, there is almost a complete absence of multi-family housing (including Section 8 low income housing) in the PCW area.

4. Finally, the community of Charleston has lost its school, and thereby its direct link to education. This leads to longer bus rides for students, makes it more difficult for parents to play an active role in their children’s education, and stresses the social networks among students, parents, and teachers. While the Bandon schools have high levels of student achievement in all areas at all grades, most students residing in the PCW area attend Coos Bay schools which are almost uniformly below state-wide averages for student achievement. The No Child Left Behind Act set extremely high standards for schools to meet Annual Yearly Progress (AYP); Coos Bay schools meet AYP goals for most students (with the exception of disabled students in math), all levels of Bandon schools are rated “Outstanding” in the Oregon Report Card Overall ratings, while the Coos Bay Schools serving the PCW area students are rated only “Satisfactory” with scores decreasing as students progress through elementary, intermediate and into high school. Working to improve schools in Charleston would clearly have social multiplier effects in the PCW area.

Figure 13. Relationship among the PCW project area, 2010 Census Tracts, Barview CDP, and Census Blocks.

Assessment Approach

We are fortunate that we have results from the most-recent Decennial Census (2010) available for this assessment. However, obtaining socio-economic data for the Partnership project area is still challenging because its boundaries were not designed to coincide with standard U.S. Census reporting areas (Figure 13). We will use the finest level of Census data, the Block, to build the demographic characteristics of the PCW area, then use another Census tool, called OnTheMap, that also uses Block-level data to identify employers and home-work travel patterns. In 2002 the U.S. Census Bureau shifted from their traditional decennial “long form” detailed survey questions to a sample approach called the American Community Survey (ACS). Since these samples are taken annually from a smaller sample of the population the finest detail available from the ACS is at the Census Tract scale. At this scale, estimates are based on five years of samples, in our case from 2006 to 2010.

Geography of U.S. Census Data in the Partnership for Coastal Watersheds Project Area. Census data is tabulated and reported at different geographic scales from the finest level of Census Block (minimum size 0.28 ha.), to the larger aggregated Block Group, and up to the relatively coarser Census Tract (average of 4000 people) (Census Bureau, 1984). Portions of two Census Tracts (Coos County 5.02 and 10) are contained within the PCW (Table 1), however, neither of these two tracts is exclusive to the PCW.

There are all or portions of 231 Census Blocks in the PCW project area, excluding most (but not all) the Blocks that are entirely water. These Blocks are located in three Block Groups, of which none are entirely contained within the PCW area. The Barview Census Defined Place (CDP) within Block Group 1 in Tract 5.02 is also sub-divided by the PCW boundary.

Block Level Census Data. The U.S. Census Bureau provides basic demographic data tabulated for each block in their “Summary File 1” (SF1) series. This Block-level data includes basic demographic data (age, sex, race) as well as information on housing and household characteristics. We used data for all blocks in Tracts 5.02 and 10, downloaded in “comma separated values” (.cvs) format and concatenated the two tract files in Excel. The Excel file was converted to Database IV format and the resulting table added to the ArcGIS layout containing the PCW Block layer. The rows within the SF1 table were “joined” to the PCW Block layer using the “keep only matching records” option to segregate those Block records in the two Tracts that are within the PCW project area.

Generally, we aggregated the Block-level data into the entire PCW to create the demographic profile. Specific SF1 summary reports that were downloaded and processed include: P10, Population by Race; P12, Population by Age and Sex; H10, Occupied Housing; H11, Housing by Tenure; and QTP11, Household characteristics. However, in some cases—such as population densities—we further manipulated data to create additional information.

Block-level Employment Data. The U.S. Census Bureau in cooperation with the Oregon Employment Department has a web-based interface called OnTheMap that provides “Local Employment Dynamics” data based on Census blocks. By using Census blocks, information can be retrieved specific to the PCW area and compatible with the Population and Housing data provided above. The data provided is culled from the Census’s “Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics” (LEHD) that includes jobs by industry sector, worker characteristics (age, sex, race, education), work location, worker’s home location, and pay rates. While this is an extremely powerful tool, one significant limitation is that only “covered” employees (i.e., those qualifying for unemployment insurance) and non-uniformed Federal employees (2010 only) are included. This leaves out some significant employment in the PCW: most fishermen, independent contractors and the self-employed (including caddies at Bandon Dunes), and the Coast Guard.

Census Tract-Level Social Data. The U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) provides estimates of economic and social conditions at the Census Tract scale based on five-year estimates (2006 – 2010). The ACS data represent questions historically asked in the “long-from” decennial Census, which dropped in favor of a 20% sample/year. The ACS provides reasonable quality data at the Census Tract scale using five years of consecutive samples. While Census Tract 5.02 does not include all the PCW area (see Figure 1), and does include areas outside the PCW (principally, parts of Empire and Barview), it is more representative of conditions here than simply pro-rating Coos County data. It’s important to recognize that the five years (2006 – 2010) covering the estimates provided here cover the peak of employment in real estate-related business sectors, as well as the trough of the recession as the housing bubble burst. Because of this, the ACS estimates have relatively high margins of error (5% – 10%) for household incomes, and even greater (10% – 50%) for some of the poverty indices.

Data Sources and References.
Oregon Housing & Community Services. 2011. 2011 Report on Poverty. Salem, OR (unpaged).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. OnTheMap Application. Longitudinal-Employer Household Dynamics Program (accessed 9/24/2012)

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. LODES Data. Longitudinal-Employer Household Dynamics Program (accessed 9/24/2012)

U.S. Census Bureau (2011). 2010 Census Summary File 1 Oregon [machine-readable data files].

U.S. Census Bureau (2011). 2010 Census Summary File 1— Technical Documentation. SF1/10-3 (RV)

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1984). Geographic Areas Reference Manual (accessed 3/29/2012)