Numbers Prove: Powell Butte Is Special

By Scott R. Cooper, Crook County Judge
Published in the Powell Butte View, August 2003

Every 10 years, the United States undertakes an exhaustive information-gathering process in the form of the decennial census. Between January and April of years ending in “00,” thousands of temporary federal workers swarm the country gathering information about everything from where each of us was born, how many rooms our houses contain, our income and our education. All this information is transmitted to Washington, D.C., where 57,885 people spend nearly $2.8 billion to formulate a collective picture of America at the local, state and federal level.

Given the amount of data collected, it’s no surprise that task of turning all this data into a useable composite picture doesn’t happen overnight. In fact, the census data trickles out at an agonizingly slow pace over the course of several years, with state data arriving first, then county-level data, then city-level data and finally tract- and block-level data.

As a result, anyone who is interested in obscure information—such as the demographics of Powell Butte--just has to wait.

The good news is, the wait is over. Census data for the Powell Butte tract is now readily available and posted on the internet for all to see. Rather than put you through the agony of looking it up, however, I thought I would use this month’s column to share with you some of the key findings about this unique community.

One word of caution before we get to the details: the federal government defines Powell Butte a little differently than the citizens of Crook County might. The federal definition incorporates an area lying roughly east-west between Prineville and Deschutes County and north- south from Jefferson County to Deschutes County. The resulting inclusion of the Lone Pine Valley slightly distorts the numbers but enough to make a difference in the community’s demographic profile. With that disclaimer, let’s look at the numbers:

In 2000, Powell Butte had 1998 residents. Exactly 999 were male and 999 were female. The median age of Powell Butte residents was 45, substantially higher than the countywide median of 38.7.

In terms of age, 22.9 percent of the population was under 18. At the opposite end of the scale, only 10.1 percent of Powell Butte resident were over 65, compared with 14.5 percent countywide. As is the case throughout the county, the gender breakdown of the senior population in Powell Butte is lopsided with 89 men and 112 women.

The 1998 people who live in the Powell Butte community reside in a total of 735 households of which a hair under a third (235) consist of children under the age of 18. For the most part Powell Butte folks are the marrying type with 82.6 percent of households identifying themselves as families including a married couple. By comparison, only 62 percent of family households countywide contained a married couple.

The average family in Powell Butte is 2.85 members—slightly smaller than the average family countywide.

While a full quarter of the homes countywide are rented dwellings, only 12.5 percent of Powell Butte residents rent. Some 15.8 percent of the dwelling units in Powell Butte are mobile homes.

Turning to the economic side of the equation, 985 people in Powell Butte consider themselves in the labor force. Of those, 919 are employed and 66 wish they were. Powell Butte’s effective unemployment rate at the time of the census was 6.7 percent. The biggest employment sector for Powell Butte residents is “Education, health and social services” which employed 174 people. “Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting and mining” followed with 140 people. “Construction” was third with 102 people and “Manufacturing” was fourth with 89. These four sectors account for over 50 percent of the employment base. Just under a quarter of workers are employed by government institutions, while 18.9 percent were self-employed. The average commute for a Powell Butte resident is 22.9 minutes.

Money: Powell Butte residents are relatively affluent, compared to the rest of the county. The median household income was $50,327, compared to $35,186 countywide. A total of 5.4 percent of households in Powell Butte reported family income below the federal poverty level, compared with 19.7 percent countywide. Only 8 Powell Butte households (1.1 percent) reported any income from public assistance (not including Social Security). Compared to 4.6 percent of households countywide.

As usual, affluence and educational attainment go hand in hand. A total of 93.1 percent of Powell Butte residents aged 25 and over report having at least a high school diploma, while 18.7 percent hold a bachelor’s degree and 4.2 percent hold a graduate or professional degree. Countywide, those numbers are 80.5 percent, 12.6 percent and 4.5 percent respectively.

Some other numbers:
15.9 percent of Powell Butte residents 15 and older have never been married. 4.4 percent are divorced, while 0.8 percent are widowed.
Grandparents are living with their grandchildren in 30 households in the community.
345 individuals in Powell Butte report some form of disability.
20.7 percent of the population of Powell Butte residents are veterans, (compared to 17.1 percent countywide.)
Only 3.1 percent of the population, or 62 people, were foreign-born, all in North America or Latin America. Of that number, 42 entered the United States between 1990 and 2000.

These are just a few of the numbers that detail the lives of Powell Butte residents. The census contains plenty more data to educate and entertain sociologists, bureaucrats and the just plain nosy. For more information, go to at www.factfinder.census.gov.

Library Filters: What’s The Big Deal?

By Scott R. Cooper, Crook County Judge
published in the Central Oregonian, August 2003

A recent 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court’s to uphold the right of the federal government to require filtering of library computers as a condition of receiving federal funds provoked screams of outrage from some segments of society. The American Library Association denounced the decision, warning that libraries will now have to make a choice between freedom and funding. The ACLU said the decision was akin to allowing the government to burn every 10th book at Barnes and Noble.

I say that sounds a lot like overreaction.

The Supreme Court’s decision will have no impact in Crook County, which made the decision a year ago to filter all of the computers in the library. To the best of our knowledge, that decision has had no resulting negative consequences for the reading public, mainly because even though library directors hate to admit it, censorship was a fact of life in libraries years before anyone ever heard of the internet.

In truth, librarians censor materials every day.

Last year, the library ordered 2,846 new items to stock library shelves. By contrast, just over 150,000 new books were published in 2002, according to the publisher’s bible, Books In Print. That means that for every two books Crook County library purchased in 2002, it chose not to purchase 98. Such selectivity—based on library staff’s knowledge of reader interest, the need to balance out weak areas of the collection, the ability of staff to process new material and yes, community values—is a form of benign censorship in and of itself.

Besides, when did public libraries acquire the responsibility to provide patrons with any type of literature or information they might desire, regardless of content? No library in the country allows children access to pornographic magazines. Nor do most libraries keep materials on hand which describe how to commit certain violent acts of political protest. Every library keeps a part of its collection—rare books and books likely to be stolen—behind locked doors and requires patrons to ask for the book by name and even (gasp!) show I.D. before they can obtain a copy.

The situation with filters on the internet is no different. Only certain content is available to the general public. By special request, unfiltered access to content can be made available if the purpose of such a request is legitimate research. To me that seems logical and a reasonable way to balance patrons’ need to know against community values and “fringe” interests.
To quote from the Supreme Court opinion authored by Chief Justice Rehnquist: “Public libraries pursue the worthy missions of facilitating learning and cultural enrichment…The librarian's responsibility ... is to separate out the gold from the garbage, not to preserve everything; it is the aim of the selector to give the public, not everything it wants, but the best that it will read or use to advantage.”
Well said. I couldn’t agree more.