POPULATION DISTRIBUTION

INSIDE AND OUTSIDE INCORPORATED PLACES: 2000

by Darryl T. Cohen

Population Division

Working Paper No. 82

U.S. Census Bureau

This report is released to inform interested parties of ongoing research and to encourage

discussion of work in progress. Any views expressed on statistical, methodological, and

technical issues are those of the author and not necessarily those of the U.S. Census

Bureau.
Population Distribution Inside and Outside Incorporated Places: 2000

Darryl T. Cohen, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau.

Abstract:

More than 60 percent of all United States residents live inside incorporated places. As

each state has its own laws governing the establishment and functioning of incorporated

places, the number and nature of incorporated places (and the distribution of population

living inside and outside of them) varies by state and region. Research by Census Bureau

staff has shown that the proportion of population living inside incorporated places in

1990 and 2000 was higher in the Midwest and West regions, and lower in the Northeast

and South regions (Johnson et al., 2004). This paper expands on that previous research by

examining the distribution of population living inside and outside incorporated places, as

well as the number of units of local government, for the United States, metropolitan and

micropolitan statistical areas in aggregate, and individual metropolitan and micropolitan

statistical areas. The statistical tables included show 2000 population data for

incorporated places as of January 1, 2003, and metropolitan and micropolitan statistical

areas as of June 6, 2003.

Keywords: United States, cities, incorporated places, metropolitan statistical areas,

micropolitan statistical areas, urban geography, population geography, local

governments
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2

METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 3

FINDINGS.......................................................................................................................... 4

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................... 6

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 8

FIGURES AND STATISTICAL TABLES

Figure 1. Map of Population Living Inside Incorporated Places by Metropolitan and

Micropolitan Statistical Area: 2000

Figure 2. Census Regions and Divisions of the United States

Table 1. Population Inside and Outside Incorporated Places: 2000

Table 2. Population Inside and Outside Core Based Statistical Areas by Incorporation

Status

Table 3. Population by Incorporation Status: 2000, and Number of Governmental Units:

2003 for Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas

Table 4a. Metro Areas with the Most Governmental Units: 2003

Table 4b. Number of Governmental units for the Ten Largest Metro Areas: 2003

Table 5. Metro Areas With 100 or More Governmental Units: 2003, and More Than 40

Percent Population Outside Incorporated Places: 2000
2

INTRODUCTION

An incorporated place is a geographic area with legally defined municipal boundaries

under the laws of the state in which it is located. The most common legal descriptors for

such places are city, town, borough, and village, though other, less common examples do

exist. Typically, each incorporated place has a set of elected or appointed officials and

legally prescribed powers to levy taxes and raise revenue, and to provide local services

such as water, sewer, sanitation, fire and police protection, schools, and recreational

facilities. In unincorporated areas, such services are typically provided by either the

county or minor civil division government, or sometimes by a nearby incorporated place

(U.S. Census Bureau, 1994).

The laws for establishing an incorporated place vary widely by state, as do the laws

governing how a place can modify its boundaries through annexation, de-annexation,

merging, or other procedures (Palmer and Lindsey, 2001). This variation in the legal

landscape, along with varying rates of growth across incorporated and unincorporated

places by region, results in a varied distribution of population by incorporation status

across states and regions (Johnson et al., 2004).

While the distribution of population inside and outside incorporated places has been

examined at the national, regional, and state levels (Johnson et al., 2004), little research

has focused on this distribution inside and outside metropolitan and micropolitan

statistical areas. Knowledge of how residents are distributed across incorporated and

unincorporated jurisdictions within metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas,

together with data on the number of local government entities in each area, can provide

an opportunity to identify areas where high levels of local geopolitical fragmentation

exist. These are areas where a relatively high number of local government jurisdictions

(typically incorporated suburbs of large cities) exist in close proximity to one another,

often with adjacent territorial boundaries. Such areas may present challenges not only to

the local jurisdictions directly responsible for service provision, but also to state and

federal policies directed towards the provision of local services.
3

This paper seeks to provide a foundation for future research by presenting Census 2000

population data for the area inside and outside incorporated places at the national level, as

well as for individual metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. The number of local

governmental entities (county, governmentally active minor civil division, and

incorporated place) in 2003 is also presented for each metro and micro area.

METHODOLOGY

April 1, 2000 population data tabulated for all incorporated places as of January 1, 2003

were obtained via the Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Program. These data

provided a record for each place-county part, thereby identifying the county or counties

in which each place was located. The county information for each place was then

matched against the list of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical area component

counties as of the June 6, 2003 Office of Management and Budget definitions of those

statistical areas. Finally, population data for incorporated places (as well as the

unincorporated balance of each county, where applicable) were aggregated for all

metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas, and for United States as a whole. Data

used were from the 2003 vintage of the April 1, 2000 estimates base – a re-tabulation of

Census 2000 population data in 2003 geography, including corrections to the census

processed through the Count Question Resolution Program, as well as postcensal

administrative updates, and geographic updates. The places included reflect the universe

of places for which the Census Bureau publishes postcensal population estimates,

including all actively functioning incorporated places, plus the census designated places

of Honolulu, HI, and Arlington, VA (under special agreements between the Census

Bureau and the states of Hawaii and Virginia). The number of counties, functioning

minor civil divisions (MCDs), and incorporated places in 2003 was also aggregated for

each metro and micro area to provide a total number of local governmental entities for

each area.
4

FINDINGS

Most people lived in incorporated places.

There were 19,450 incorporated places in the United States as of January 1, 2003. These

places included more than 175 million people – just over 60 percent of the total

population of the United States in Census 2000 (Table 1). The majority of the

incorporated place population (over 153 million, or about 88 percent) lived inside

metropolitan statistical areas (Table 2). Nearly 14 million persons (about 8 percent of the

incorporated place population) lived inside incorporated places located within

micropolitan statistical areas. Almost 8 million persons lived inside incorporated places

that were not located in any metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area (outside corebased statistical areas (CBSAs)). These persons accounted for less than 5 percent of the

total incorporated place population (Table 2).

Most people living in metropolitan statistical areas lived in incorporated places.

About 66 percent of the metropolitan population lived inside incorporated places (Table

1). The majority of residents in many large metropolitan statistical areas lived in

incorporated places, with a few noteworthy exceptions, including the Atlanta, Baltimore,

Boston,1 Philadelphia, and Washington metropolitan statistical areas,2 where most

residents lived in unincorporated areas (Table 3). The largest percentages of residents

living inside incorporated places tended to be found in metropolitan statistical areas in the

Midwest and West regions (Figs. 1 and 2). These included the Carson City, NV

Metropolitan Statistical Area, which was completely incorporated, as well as the

Minneapolis, Chicago, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Phoenix, and San Francisco

metropolitan statistical areas (Table 3).

1

In the New England states, only cities and boroughs are recognized as incorporated places by the Census

Bureau. Towns in New England are recognized as minor civil divisions (largely due to the rural character

of many New England towns) and are not treated as incorporated places in Census Bureau data products.

2 For readability, titles of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas may be abbreviated in the text

(showing the first-named city only). Full titles are shown in Tables 3-5.
5

Most people living in micropolitan statistical areas lived in unincorporated areas.

About 48 percent of the population inside micropolitan statistical areas lived in

incorporated places, while about 52 percent lived in unincorporated areas (Table 1).

Micropolitan statistical areas with the highest percentages of residents living in

incorporated places tended to be located, again, in the Midwest and West (Figs. 1 and 2).

These included the Butte-Silver Bow, MT and Juneau, AK areas, which were completely

incorporated. Areas with the lowest percentages tended to be located in the Northeast and

South regions. Noteworthy exceptions were the Hilo, Kahului-Wailuku, and Kapaa, HI;3

Gardnerville Ranchos and Pahrump, NV; and Los Alamos, NM micropolitan statistical

areas, which were completely unincorporated (Table 3).

Most people living outside CBSAs lived in unincorporated areas.

About 40 percent of the population outside CBSAs lived in incorporated places, while

about 60 percent lived in unincorporated areas (Table 1). The largest incorporated places

outside CBSAs included: Carroll, IA (pop. 10,098), and Baker, OR (pop. 9,896).4 Of the

3,141 counties in the United States, 77 had no incorporated places. Of these, 35 were

outside CBSAs.

Areas with large populations had more governmental units.

Metropolitan statistical areas with the highest numbers of governmental units tended to

be located in the Northeast and Midwest, where most states have functioning MCDs (i.e.,

towns and townships). This is in contrast to areas in the South and West, where

governmentally active MCDs are uncommon. Metro areas with large numbers of

governmental units also tended to be large in population size (Table 4a). Four of the ten

metro areas with the largest numbers of governmental units (New York, Chicago,

Philadelphia, and Detroit) were also among the 10 most populous metro areas (Table 4b).

Metro areas with larger populations, but relatively fewer governmental units, tended to be

in the South and West. These included areas such as Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles,

3

There are no incorporated places in the state of Hawaii. Places appearing in titles of metropolitan and

micropolitan statistical areas in Hawaii are Census Designated Places.

4 A number of places that were at or near 10,000 population in 2000 and were outside CBSAs as of June

2003 have subsequently been added to new micropolitan areas in updates to the OMB definitions.
6

Miami, and Washington (Table 4b). Smaller metro areas with relatively large numbers of

governmental units, tended to be located in the Northeast and Midwest. The Duluth, MN

area, for example, had 183 units of local government serving a population of 275,486

(Table 3).

Table 5 shows metro areas that had at least 100 governmental units, and that also had at

least 40 percent of their population in unincorporated areas. Research has suggested that

these areas may be susceptible to problems associated with urban sprawl, as the number

of local governments presents a challenge for comprehensive, regional land use planning

efforts. This is compounded by the paucity of local land use regulations in unincorporated

areas, which can exacerbate the outward expansion of urban development (Carruthers,

2003). Areas where such conditions exist vary greatly in population size, ranging from

about half a million (Harrisburg, PA), to more than 5 million (Philadelphia). With the

exceptions of Atlanta and Washington, these areas are mainly located in the Northeast

and Midwest, where many states have multilateral annexation policies that inhibit the

ability of large cities to expand their boundaries (Rusk, 2006).

CONCLUSION

The aggregate findings are generally consistent with data published in the previous study

conducted by Census Bureau staff on annexation between 1990 and 2000 (Johnson et al.,

2004). Metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas with the largest percentages of their

populations living inside incorporated places tended to be located in the Midwest and

West regions, while areas with lower percentages tended to be located in the Northeast

and South. The proportion of population living inside incorporated places in aggregate

was higher in metropolitan statistical areas, lower in micropolitan statistical areas, and

lowest in areas outside CBSAs. Areas typically associated with urban sprawl (e.g.,

Atlanta) were often found to have higher percentages of their populations living in

unincorporated areas, as well as higher numbers of governmental units.
7

Future research needs include an examination of more recent population trends inside and

outside incorporated places using the latest intercensal population estimates, as well as an

analysis of the change over time of the distribution of the incorporated place population

within metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. Also, an exploration of data on the

distribution of population inside principal cities versus other incorporated places could

provide additional insights on the extent of political fragmentation within each

metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area. Finally, a statistical exploration (e.g.,

regression analysis) of the potentially explanatory relationship between the number of

governmental units, the percent of population in unincorporated areas, and conditions

associated with urban sprawl may prove interesting, provided an acceptable quantitative

measure of sprawl can be reached.
8

REFERENCES

Carruthers, J., 2003, “Growth at the fringe: The influence of political fragmentation in

United States metropolitan areas.” Papers in Regional Science, v.82, 475-499.

Johnson, R., Perry, M., and Lollock, L., 2004, “Annexation and Population Growth in

American Cities, 1990-2000” in The Municipal Yearbook 2004. Washington, DC:

International City/County Management Association.

Palmer, J., and Lindsey, G., 2001, “Classifying State Approaches to Annexation.” State

and Local Government Review, v.33, n.1, 60-73.

Rusk, D., 1993. Cities Without Suburbs. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center

Press.

Rusk, D., 2006. Annexation and the Fiscal Fate of Cities. Internet report. The Brookings

Institution, Washington, DC.

Website: http://www.brookings.edu/metro/pubs/20060810_fateofcities.htm

Accessed October, 2006.

U.S. Census Bureau, 1994, Geographic Areas Reference Manual. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Commerce.

U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 2003, Bulletin No. 03-04: “Revised

Definitions of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, New Definitions of Micropolitan Statistical

Areas and Combined Statistical Areas, and Guidance on Uses of the Statistical

Definitions of These Areas.”

U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 2004, Bulletin No. 04-03: “Update of

Statistical Area Definitions and Additional Guidance on Their Uses.”

U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 2005, Bulletin No. 05-02: “Update of

Statistical Area Definitions and Guidance on Their Uses.”
9

Figure 1
10

Figure 2