The Southern Arizona communities snapshot provides an overview of how the 41 largest cities, towns, and census designated places (CDP) within Cochise, Pima, Pinal, Greenlee, Graham, Santa Cruz, and Yuma counties are performing. Due to the importance of mining in Greenlee County, we also include three nearby communities in New Mexico. Hereafter, when discussing multiple cities, towns, or census designated places, the general term communities will be used. Select measures from MAP’s core indicators were chosen to illustrate the most recent year of data available for the Southern Arizona communities. Special features providing greater detail on select indicators will be published on the MAP Dashboard throughout the year. For example, upcoming special features may include poverty rate explored by race, family type, and age. You can find these special features in the MAP library under the Southern Arizona Communities category.
In 2017, the city of Tucson was the largest Southern Arizona community with a population of 530,905, reflecting a population growth of 9.1% since the year 2000 (see Figure 5). The next four Southern Arizona communities were significantly smaller with populations between 50,000 and 95,000 residents. These communities include the city of Yuma (93,851), Census Designated Places Casas Adobes (68,919) and Catalina Foothills (50,202), and the city of Casa Grande (52,501). The town of Duncan and the Morenci CDP had the smallest populations with 739 and 1,689 residents respectively. Median age varied from place to place, with the city of Somerton posting the lowest median age at 27.5 years and the Green Valley CDP posting the highest at 72.4 years. Green Valley is unique in the sense that it is a retirement community with a median age that is 35.2 years higher than the median age for the state of Arizona. Table 1 displays the population and median age for each Southern Arizona community.
Table 1: Southern Arizona Communities Population and Median Age (2017)
|Population||Median Age||Population||Median Age|
|casa grande||52,501||36.4||Picture Rocks||8,666||46.5|
|Casas Adobes||68,919||40.9||Rio Rico||18,891||33.2|
|Corona de Tucson||7,583||33.9||Silver City, NM||9,882||36.7|
|Drexel Heights||28,187||35.1||South Tucson||5,624||36.3|
How are we doing?
In 2017, the poverty rate for the U.S. was 14.6%. Approximately seven of the Southern Arizona communities had poverty rates that were less than half of the U.S. rate, they include the Census Designated Places Tanque Verde (5.1%), Green Valley (5.5%), and Morenci (5.8%), the towns of Oro Valley (5.8%) and Clifton (5.9%), the Catalina Foothills CDP (6.2%), and the city of Sahuarita (6.5%). The city of South Tucson had the highest poverty rate of the 41 communities in Southern Arizona at 46.2% and the Ajo CDP posted the second to highest poverty rate at 32.8%, 13 percentage points lower than South Tucson’s rate. Figure 1 illustrates these poverty rates as well as those for the other communities.
Figure 1. Southern Arizona Communities Poverty Rate (2017)
Despite posting a low poverty rate in 2017, the Green Valley CDP had a low median household income at $47,583 when compared to the state and the nation. There is often a direct correlation between median household income and the poverty rate, as median household income increases the poverty rate decreases. Green Valley is unique to many of the other communities in Southern Arizona as it has a low median household income and a low poverty rate. The median age of the community may explain the low levels of poverty coupled with a median household income that is below the average. Retirement and social security play a role in Green Valley’s low median income as well. A recent feature on Income and Earnings takes a closer look at this concept and at median household income in other Southern Arizona communities.
The Tanque Verde CDP had the highest median household income at $94,167 in 2017, followed by the Corona de Tucson CDP at $93,017. Just as the city of South Tucson had the highest poverty rate out of the 41 communities, it also posted the lowest median household income at $21,160. The city of Nogales followed with $28,264, over $7,000 more than South Tucson. Figure 2 highlights median household income by place.
Figure 2. Southern Arizona Communities Median Household Income (2017)
An educated workforce is a key component for strong economic growth. Local areas with a high concentration of educated workers tend to generate faster long-run income, population, and job growth. Figure 3 explores each Southern Arizona community’s college attainment rate. During 2017, the Catalina Foothills CDP had the highest percentage of those who were 25 years and older with a bachelor’s degree or better at 66.1%. The Tanque Verde CDP was second at 53.2%, more than 10 percentage points behind Catalina Foothills, but 24.8% higher than the state of Arizona which had a college attainment rate of 28.4%. The city of South Tucson posted the lowest percentage of those with a bachelor’s degree or better that were 25 years and older at 4.2%.
Figure 3. Southern Arizona Communities College Attainment Rate (2017)
Enrollment in a quality early education program is often thought of as a precursor to later success in school. The Catalina Foothills CDP had the highest percentage of three-to-four year olds enrolled in early education with 81.6% and the town of Oro Valley was second with 62.2%. Early education enrollment for the U.S. in 2017 was 47.5%, significantly higher than the state of Arizona’s figure of 38.1%. Out of 41 communities in Southern Arizona, 14 had early education enrollment rates less than the state of Arizona’s rate, the lowest of which being the city of Safford with 11.4%. The city of Eloy followed with only 20.8% of three-to-four year olds enrolled in an early education program. Early education enrollment for each Southern Arizona community is illustrated in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Southern Arizona Communities Early Education Enrollment (2017)
What are the key trends?
The percent change in population between 2000 and 2017 for the 41 Southern Arizona communities is provided in Figure 5. There were 22 Southern Arizona communities out of the 41 that posted population growth rates surpassing the U.S. rate of 14.1% between 2000 and 2017. The city of Maricopa posted a remarkable increase in population at 4,346.9%, by far the fastest increase in population of any of the Southern Arizona communities. The Corona de Tucson CDP and the city of Sahuarita also posted very high population growth rates with 832.7% and 771.6% respectively. The Vail CDP, the town of Marana, and the cities of Somerton, Casa Grande, and San Luis more than doubled their populations, with increases of 372.4%, 207.8%, 113.4%, 108.1%, and 105.6% respectively. Nine places in Southern Arizona decreased in total population between 2000 and 2017. The city of Bisbee posted the largest loss in population at 13.6% and was followed closely by the Morenci CDP at 10.1%. The remaining communities with population losses include the town of Duncan, the Census Designated Places Ajo, Catalina Foothills, and Flowing Wells, and the cities of Willcox, Nogales, and Globe. Decreases in population for several of the places explored here were due to decreases in natural resources & mining employment. Most Southern Arizona communities, as well as the state of Arizona, posted a substantially larger increase in population over this 17-year period than did the U.S.
Figure 5. Southern Arizona Communities Population Growth Rate (2000 - 2017)
How is it measured?
All data provided for the Southern Arizona communities, state of Arizona, and the U.S. come from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is a nationwide rolling-sample survey that produces one and five year estimates on demographic, social, housing, and economic measures. Data is only available as five-year estimate for populations smaller than 20,000. In order to compare the Southern Arizona places with the state of Arizona and the U.S. all data provided in this analysis utilized five-year estimates. Note that the ACS five-year estimates are produced over a five year time period and can only be compared to non-overlapping five-year estimates (for example: 2005-2009 and 2010-2014).