1
Photo: SDPB
Where people live in South Dakota Where people live in South Dakota
Photo:PBS
RURAL and Urban When the state of South Dakota comes to mind, most people do not think of metropolitan areas, manufacturing hubs, or bioscience establishments. Rather, the stereotype usually includes rolling fields of corn, small towns, wide-open spaces, and the Black Hills surrounding Mount Rushmore. However, the state of South Dakota includes a diverse array of people, landscapes, and economic opportunities. In fact, nearly half of the state’s population lives in urban areas. As depicted in Table 1 below, as of 2019, 884,659 people live in South Dakota. Of this population, an estimated 49.2% of people live in urban areas, with the remaining 50.8% of South Dakotans living in rural areas.
Table 1: Rural and Urban Populations in South Dakota (1980-2019) Year 1980 1990 2000 2010 2019
Rural* 443,676 422,915 435,007 436,918 449,416
Urban* 247,092 273,089 319,851 377,280 435,243
Total 690,768 696,004 754,858 814,198 884,659
Source: USDA ERS State Fact Sheets * The 2013 rural-urban continuum codes classify urban counties (codes 1 through 3) by size of the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), and rural counties (codes 4 through 9) by degree of urbanization and proximity to metro areas.iv A climber inspects Mount Rushmore.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS) classifies rural as nonmetropolitan areas and urban as metropolitan areas on the basis of counties or countyequivalent units.i Metropolitan areas, as defined by the Office of Management and Budget in 2013 are broad labor-market areas that include: ii 1. Central counties with one or more urbanized areas; urbanized areas are densely-settle urban entities with 50,000 or more people. 2. Outlying counties that are economically tied to the core counties as measured by labor-force commuting. Outlying counties are included if 25% of workers living in the county commute to the central counties or if 25% of the employment in the county consists of workers coming out from the central counties – the so-called “reverse” commuting pattern. Nonmetro counties are outside the boundaries of metro areas and are subdivided into two types: 1. Micropolitan areas, which are nonmetro labor-market areas centered on urban clusters of 10,000-49,999 persons and defined with the same criteria to define metro areas. 2. All remaining counties, often labeled “noncore” counties because they are not part of “core-based” metro or micro areas. 2
Quick fact:
19% of graduates in South Dakota’s public university system are pursuing bioscience-related degrees.iii
Where people live in South Dakota
Photo: SDPB
The Badlands, SD.
From 1980 to 2019, South Dakota’s rural areas added less than 6,000 people. It should be noted that part of the population stagnation in rural areas can be attributed to the reclassification of counties from rural to urban. For instance, in 2003, Custer County was reclassified from nonmetro to a metro area as it was included in the Rapid City Metropolitan area. Urban areas, on the other hand, have increased their populations by about 188,000 people over the same period. From 2010 to 2019, the rate of rural population growth was 2.86%, while the rate of urban population growth was 15.36%. The changing distribution in the urban/rural share of the population can also be seen in Figure 1. One of the ways we can better understand the changing demographic patterns in South Dakota is through the application of USDA ERS’s 2013 rural-urban continuum codes.v Each county is assigned a code based upon the population of the county, degree of urbanization, and proximity to metro areas. The distinction between less and more accessible counties is based off of whether or not the county is adjacent to a metro area.
Figure 1: Urban/Rural Share of South Dakota’s Population
Source: US Census Bureau & USDA ERS County Codes
Precise definitions for each continuum code can be found at the end of the report. Figure 1 shows that most of the population growth from 1990 to 2019 has been occurring in metro areas, whereas counties with small or no towns that are less accessible have experienced the largest reduction in their share of the overall population. In 2019, the rural share of the state population was 50.8% and the urban share was 49.2%. 3
Where people live in South Dakota
Table 2: The Rural Continuum in South Dakota Share of Rural Population
Population Growth Rates
Small city, more accessible
0%
0%
Small city, less accessible
23%
6.5%
Big town, more accessible
19%
5.1%
Big town, less accessible
21%
1.8%
Small or no town, more accessible
7%
0.3%
Small or no town, less accessible
30%
0.3%
Quick fact:
South Dakota has the highest concentration of plant, animal and soil scientists in the nation.vi
Source: US Census Bureau & USDA ERS County Codes
Table 2 isolates the rural population and illustrates the share of the population as well as the growth rates in each place on the rural continuum. As seen above, counties with small or no towns that are less accessible hold the largest share of the state’s rural population at 30%. However, these counties have only been growing at 0.3% from 2010-2019. Counties with small cities that are less accessible and counties with big towns that are more accessible have the highest growth rates on the rural continuum at 6.5% and 5.1% respectively. This echoes the state’s overall trend: urban areas are growing faster than the more sparsely populated rural areas. Figure 2 illustrates the broad range of fortunes across the state with respect to population growth. The map highlights the theme that urban counties and counties near urban areas appear to be seeing the most population growth whereas the reverse is occurring in sparsely populated rural counties. Photo: SDPB
Rural Flight Amidst Urban Growth Lincoln County has experienced the most population growth from 2010-2019 at 36.4%. Specifically, the communities of Tea and Harrisburg in Lincoln County have seen their populations increase by 58.7% and 63.1% respectively. Contrarily, Jones County (county seat Murdo) has undergone a 10.2% decline in its population over the same period. Four of the five fastest growing counties are classified as metro areas. All five of the fastest declining county populations are classified as having small or no towns. Overall, the state of South Dakota has experienced an 8.65% growth in population from 2010-2019.
Pictured above is Falls Park in Sioux Falls, SD. Minnehaha County has grown by 14% in the last decade - a result of having a positive migration rate and a high birth rate.
4
Where people live in South Dakota
Figure 2: Population change (2010-2019)
Source: US Census Bureauvii
the age breakdown One reason rural areas are experiencing declining populations is because their population is on average, older. As a consequence, the death rate exceeds the birth rate and the population is unable to replace itself naturally. According to the 2018 American Community Survey, the median age in South Dakota is 36.8 years and as seen in Figure 3, 16% of South Dakotans are at least 65 years old.viii Evidence of aging rural communities can be found by combining US Census Bureau data with ruralurban continuum codes. For instance, about 62% (21) of counties with small or no towns that are less accessible have 20 to 29% of their population over the age of 65. Urban areas, on the other hand, have a lower percentage of people age 65 and older.
Figure 2: Age of south dakotans (2018)
Source: 2018 American Community Survey, 5-year estimates
5
Where people live in South Dakota
An audience at an event in Sioux Falls.
Despite rural areas being older on average than urban areas, the median age for a South Dakotan is actually less than the national average. This is shown in Table 3 which displays a regional comparison of age demographics. According to the 2019 American Community Survey, the median age in South Dakota is 1 year less than the national average. A likely contributing factor to South Dakota’s low median age is the relatively high percentage of people living in South Dakota under 18 years. Only Nebraska has a higher percentage of people under 18 years than South Dakota in the region. South Dakota’s low median age and high percentage of people under the age of 18 are predominantly driven by counties with large Native American populations.
Table 3: Regional Comparison of Population Age State/Geography
Population (2019)
Population Change (2010-19)
Persons under 18 years
Persons 1864 years
Persons 65 years and over
Median Age
Iowa Kansas
3,155,070 2,913,314
3.6% 2.1%
23.0% 24.0%
59.5% 59.7%
17.5% 16.3%
38.1 37.1
Minnesota
5,639,632
6.3%
23.1%
60.6%
16.3%
38.2
Missouri
6,137,428
2.5%
22.3%
60.4%
17.3%
38.8
Nebraska
1,934,408
5.9%
24.6%
59.2%
16.2%
36.7
North Dakota
762,062
13.3%
23.6%
60.7%
15.7%
35.4
South Dakota United States
884,659 328,239,523
8.7% 6.3%
24.5% 22.3%
58.3% 61.2%
17.2% 16.5%
37.2 38.2
Source: US Census Bureau & American Community Survey
Photo: SD Tourism
A Native American dancer at Falls Park in Sioux Falls.
6
Rural population loss is also a consequence of more people moving out of rural places than moving in during every decade since 1950 (Cromartie, Reichert, & Arthun, 2015.)ix Cromartie and company posits that stemming rural population loss and spurring economic development may depend on attracting young adults back as they settle down to start careers. The researchers found that people who return to their rural communities do so to be closer to family, for quality schools, and for communities that invest in themselves. The primary deterrents were low wages and career limitations.
Where people live in South Dakota
net migration Figure 4 provides a county-by-county overview of the average yearly net migration over the period 2011-2019 in South Dakota. Net migration is calculated by subtracting the number of people moving out of a county from the number of people that moved into the county. Over this period, counties surrounding the two major urban centers (Rapid City and Sioux Falls) experienced significant positive net migration. In contrast, the more sparsely populated middle of the state has experienced negative net migration (more people are moving out than moving in). Another interesting trend visualized in Figure 4 is the relationship between counties that share geography with the tribal nations and average net migration. All of the counties that share geography with the tribal nations have a negative average net migration over the period 2011 to 2019. Of the 8 counties with the lowest net migrations, seven of them share geography with the tribal nations. Most notably, Corson, Todd, Buffalo, and Bennett Counties had net migration rates below -10. This means that for every thousand citizens living in these counties, on average, 10 more people migrated out of the county than into the county each year.
Quick fact:
All of the counties that share geography with the tribal nations have a negative average net migration over the period 2011 to 2019.
Figure 4: Average Yearly Net Migration (2011-2019)
Source: USDA ERS County Codes
7
The people of south Dakota Photo: PBS
race and origin in south dakota
the people of south dakota
Despite having a fairly homogeneous population in terms of race, the lived experiences of South Dakotans differ greatly throughout the state. As can be seen in Table 4, South Dakota is predominantly white (84%). American Indians and Alaska Natives make up the next highest proportion of people in the state at 8.8% of the population. Hispanics or Latinx make up 3.9% of the populations while Black or African Americans and Asians comprise of only 2.2% and 1.7% of the state’s population respectively. It should be noted that these proportions vary widely across the state. For instance, in Todd County, American Indians and Alaska Natives make up 86.8% of the population.
Children at a planetarium.
Table 4: Regional Population Demographics by Race and Hispanic Origin (2018) Race and Hispanic Origin
IA
KS
MN
MO
NE
ND
SD
USA
White alone
90.2%
84.0%
82.5%
82.2%
86.4%
85.7%
84.0%
72.2%
Black or African American alone (a)
3.6%
5.9%
6.6%
11.5%
4.7%
3.4%
2.2%
12.7%
American Indian and Alaska Native (a)
0.4%
0.9%
1.1%
0.5%
1.0%
5.4%
8.8%
0.9%
Asian alone (a)
2.5%
2.8%
4.9%
2.0%
2.4%
1.8%
1.7%
5.6%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (a)
0.1%
0.1%
0%
0.1%
0.1%
0%
0%
0.2%
Two or More Races
2.2%
3.7%
3.1%
2.8%
3.1%
2.3%
2.7%
3.4%
Hispanic or Latino (b)
6.1%
12.0%
5.5%
4.1%
11.1%
3.6%
3.9%
18.3%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino
85.4%
75.6%
79.4%
79.3%
78.5%
83.8%
81.5%
60.2%
Source: US Census Bureau, 2018 American Community Survey Notes: (a) Includes persons reporting only one race (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories
As depicted in Table 4, South Dakota’s population with respect to race and Hispanic origin is quite similar to its neighbors – an overwhelming majority of the people are white. However, there are some notable differences between these states and with the national average. For instance, South Dakota has a much higher proportion of American Indian and Alaska Natives than the national average and its neighbors. On the other hand, the percent of Black or African American people living in South Dakota is much lower than the national average (-10.5%) and the lowest in the region. The current composition of South Dakota’s population although, is likely to change in the coming years. Recent trends in population growth indicate South Dakota will become a more diverse state in coming years. 8
Race and Hispanic Origin
IA
KS
MN
MO
NE
ND
SD
USA
White alone
-1.7
-1.1
-4.1
-1.2
-1.9
-4.8
-2.6
-1.8
Black or African American alone (a)
+0.2
+0.1
+1.7
0
+0.4
+2.3
+1.1
+0.2
American Indian and Alaska Native (a)
+0.1
0
0
+0.1
+0.1
+0.1
+0.3
+0.1
Asian alone (a)
+0.9
+0.4
+1
+0.4
+0.8
+0.9
+0.8
+0.9
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (a)
0
0
0
0
0
-0.1
0
0
Two or More Races
+1
+0.8
+1
+0.7
+1
+0.7
+0.8
+1
Hispanic or Latino (b)
+2.6
+2.2
+1
+0.7
+2.7
+1.6
+1.3
+2.6
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino
-4.5
-3.5
-4.5
-2.1
-4.6
-5.6
-3.9
-4.5
the people of south dakota
Table 5: Regional Changes in Population Shares (Percentage Points) (2010-18)
Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 & 2018 American Community Survey Notes: (a) Includes persons reporting only one race (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories
Table 5 above summarizes the overall change in each race category’s population share over the period 2010 to 2018 in percentage points. It should be noted that a decline in the population share does not indicate negative population growth for that race category. Rather, a declining population share reveals that the rate of growth of that race category did not add enough people for its share of the population growth to be proportionate to the previous overall race composition. For instance, in Table 5, the “white alone” population share in South Dakota declined by 2.6 percentage points when in fact, as seen in Table 6, the white alone population grew by 7% over this same period. Overall, South Dakota’s population shares reflect the trends seen across the region and the nation. The white alone Quick fact: (not Hispanic or Latino) The population of Black or population share is in decline, while Hispanics African American people are seeing a marked living in South Dakota increase in their overall is 10.5% lower than the share of the population (+1.3 percentage points national average and is in South Dakota).
the lowest in the region.
Photo: SDPB
An audience at the SDPB screening event for Ken Burns: Country Music in Sioux Falls (2019).
9
the people of south dakota
Photo: SD Tourism
The Needles rock formations at sunrise.
hispanic population in south dakota Table 6 compares population growth rates by race and Hispanic origin between the United States and South Dakota. As seen below, Black or African Americans and Asians are the two race categories growing the fastest at 114.8% and 110.8% respectively. Part of the reason these two groups are growing so quickly in South Dakota is because they comprised so little of the state’s population. However, as seen in Table 5, above, they have both increased their share of the population by around 1 percentage point which indicates these groups are slowly becoming significant minorities in South Dakota.
Table 6: SD and US Population Growth Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin (2010-18) Race and Hispanic Origin
SD
USA
White alone
7.0%
5.0%
Black or African American alone (a)
114.8%
9.6%
American Indian and Alaska Native (a)
14.4%
12.9%
Asian alone (a)
110.8%
29.8%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (a)
-78.8%
27.3%
Two or More Races
50.4%
53.9%
Hispanic or Latino (b)
66.2%
25.2%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino
5.3%
0.2%
Photo: PIxabay
Stairs in the Black Hills National Forest lead up to Black Elk Peak.
10
income factors in south dakota
As mentioned above, one of the primary reasons people resist moving back to their rural communities is the lack of good paying jobs. Table 7 captures the reality of this situation: in 2018, people living in urban areas made nearly $11,000 more per capita than people in rural areas. One promising sign for rural areas is rural per capita incomes grew by 7% from 2017 to 2018 while urban per capita incomes grew at a slower rate of 3.9%. Overall, per capita incomes in South Dakota grew by 5.4% from 2017 to 2018. Compared to the national average, rural South Dakotans made $11,000 more per capita than other rural Americans. In addition, per capita incomes in rural South Dakota grew by 2.6% more than the national average for rural areas. Per capita incomes for urban South Dakotans remained higher than the national average in 2018, however, SD urban incomes grew 1% slower than other urban areas in the US.
Quick fact:
Manufacturing accounts for 1 out of every 10 jobs in South Dakota.xiii
income factors in South Dakota
city money, country money
Table 7: Rural and Urban Per Capita Incomes and Poverty Rates SD Per Capita Income
Rural
Urban
Total
2017
43,815
55,672
49,554
2018
46,875
57,832
52,216
Percent Change
7.0
3.9
5.4
2017
34,267
53,903
51,885
2018
35,765
56,567
54,446
Percent Change
4.4
4.9
4.9
1979
20.3%
10.8%
16.9%
1989
19.6%
10.1%
15.9%
1999
16.7%
8.5%
13.2%
2018
16.0%
9.6%
12.9%
1979
16.0%
11.6%
12.4%
1989
17.5%
12.3%
13.1%
1999
14.9%
11.9%
12.4%
2018
16.1%
12.6%
13.1%
National Per Capita Income
SD Poverty Rates
National Poverty Rates
A mural of 2 people sharing a milkshake done in corn at the Corn Palace in Mitchell, SD.
A broad range of fortunes In 2018, Todd and Oglala Lakota Counties in South Dakota reported the lowest median household incomes at $24,257 and $30,347 respectively. In contrast, Lincoln and Stanley Counties reported the highest median household incomes at $81,422 and $71,763 respectively.x In Oglala Lakota County, 54% of people live below the poverty line. In Todd County, 48.4% of people live below the poverty line. xi
Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2019xii
11
food security
income factors in South Dakota
Food security in states with low population densities such as South Dakota depends upon income as well as the ability to traverse long distances to access a supermarket. As shown in Table 8, household-level food insecurity has actually increased in 2016-18 from their 2006-08 levels. Food insecurity is the limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways (Life Sciences Research Office, 1990).xiv From 2016 to 2018, an average of 10.9% of households were food insecure. Additionally, 4.8% of all households over this same period were considered very low food secure households. This means that at some point during the year, these households were food insecure to the extent that eating patterns of one or more household members were disrupted and their food intake was reduced because they could not afford enough food (USDA).
Table 8: Average Household-level Food Insecurity 2006-08
2013-15
2016-18
Food insecure households
10.3%
11.5%
10.9%
Very low food secure households
4.1%
4.5%
4.8%
Photo: SDPB
Frybread featured on SDPB’s program Savor Dakota.
healthcare in south dakota
Photo: Pixabay
A patient in the Labor & Delivery ward of a hospital.
Quick fact:
In 2017 the employee total potential out-of-pocket medical costs was $8,286. This is 12% of the state’s median income. 12
Similar to food security, healthcare within the state of South Dakota contends with the same issue of limited accessibility due to geographic constraints. According to data from The Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation which researches healthcare issues, in 2018, 13% of adults age 19-64 were uninsured while 6% of children age 0-18 were uninsured.xv Additionally, in 2017, the employee total potential out-of-pocket medical costs (premium contribution + deductible) was $8,286. In comparison to other states, South Dakota has the second highest healthcare burden in nominal terms. This is 12% of the state’s median income. The Commonwealth Fund evaluates the health system performance of each state and gave South Dakota the following rankings in 2019: • Overall System Performance – 23rd • Access and Affordability – 28th • Prevention and Treatment – 16th • Healthy Lives – 20th • Avoidable Hospital Use and Cost – 15th • Disparity – 32nd
The homeless in south dakota Photo: Pixabay
Panhandler with a sign that reads “Once I was like you.”
income factors in South Dakota
According to the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, South Dakota has only 0.18% of the nation’s total homeless population. xvi However, when adjusted for population, this translates to 11.4 in every 10,000 people in the state experiencing homelessness at a point-in-time in 2019. Per this metric, South Dakota has the 19th highest homelessness population in the United States. As seen in Figure 5, in 2019 there were 995 people that were homeless. Of these 995 people, 761 of them were sheltered (76.5%) and 234 (23.5%) were unsheltered. Sheltered homelessness refers to people who are staying in emergency shelters, transitional housing programs, or safe havens while unsheltered homelessness refers to people whose primary nighttime location is a public or private place not designated for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation (the streets, vehicles, parks, etc.).xvii
Figure 5: Homelessness in South Dakota (2013-2019)
Source: United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, South Dakota Homelessness Statistics xvi
Figure 5 reveals that the homelessness situation in South Dakota has not improved over the past 6 years. In fact, the argument could be made that conditions have worsened over this period. While total homeless people has mostly plateaued since 2013, the number of unsheltered people has increased dramatically over the past 5 years. As a result, in 2014, only 6.2% of homeless people were unsheltered, but in 2019, that number grew by 17.3% to include 23.5% of all homeless people. One possible explanation for the rise in unsheltered homeless people is geography. 13
Photo: Pixabay
A doll sits on a windowsill.
As seen in Figure 6, in 2013, Rapid City and Sioux Falls had 304 and 618 homeless people respectively. This made up 84.3% of the state’s total homeless population. However, the two largest South Dakotan cities’ share of the total homeless population has decreased in the past 6 years to 65.9% in 2019. It should also be noted that both Sioux Falls and Rapid City have decreased the overall number of homeless people in their cities as well. Sioux Falls and Rapid City decreasing their overall share of the homeless population at the same time that statewide trends indicate a plateau in the fight against homelessness could suggest a rising rural homeless population. This could explain the recent rise in unsheltered homeless people as access to emergency shelters and transitional housing are likely harder to access in rural South Dakota. Alternatively, both these cities could be responsible for this rise in unsheltered homeless people. An investigation on homelessness could provide some context to this recent development in South Dakota.
income factors in South Dakota
Figure 6: Homelessness in Rapid City and Sioux Falls (2009-2019)
Source: South Dakota Housing for the Homeless Consortiumxviii The Needles covered in fog.
Photo: SD Tourism
14 14
Education in south dakota School systems in South Dakota South Dakota is home to 22 universities and colleges as well as 697 operating public elementary and secondary schools. Table 9, below, compares characteristics of South Dakota’s school system with other state school systems in the region. Within the region, South Dakota has the second lowest student membership at 136,302 students. South Dakota also has the second lowest number of teachers in the region, but has a pupil to teacher ratio of 13.9, 2.1 below the national average yet third highest in the region.
Table 9: Regional Comparison of School Systems (2016-17) State or Jurisdiction
Number of operating schools
Number of operating districts
Student Membership
Number of teachers
Pupil/ Teacher Ratio
Iowa
1,328
342
509,831
35,808
14.2
Kansas
1,318
317
494,347
36,193
13.7
Minnesota
2,513
567
875,021
56,715
15.4
Missouri
2,424
566
915,040
67,926
13.5
Nebraska
1,095
284
319,194
23,611
13.5
North Dakota
519
222
109,706
9,265
11.8
South Dakota
697
167
136,302
9,777
13.9
United States
98,331
18,344
50,587,859 3,169,499
Photo: PBS
education spending Table 10 displays financial figures for state school systems within the region. The state of South Dakota ranked 47th in the nation in 2017-18 for average public school teacher salary. The average public school teacher in South Dakota in 2017-18 made $47,631. This is markedly lower than other states in the region. In addition, when considering the cost-of-living index from the Council for Community and Economic Research, South Dakota’s public school teacher salary ranking worsens to 49th out of 50 states and the District of Columbia.xx
16.0
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data.
Education in south dakota
Students in a classroom.
Table 10: Regional Comparison of School System Financial Figures State or Jurisdiction
Average Public School Teacher Salary (2017-18)
Teacher Salary Rank
Elementary and Secondary Ed. Budget Proportion (2019)
Per Pupil Expenditures (2018)
Iowa
$57,018
21
16.5
11,732
Kansas
$49,754
41
29.6
11,653
Minnesota
$57,782
20
24.9
12,975
Missouri
$49,304
43
22.6
10,810
Nebraska
$54,213
25
13.7
12,491
North Dakota South Dakota United States
$52,850
29
17.8
13,758
$47,631
47
16.3
10,073
---
19.5
12,612
$60,477
Source: National Education Association ; 2018 Annual Survey of School System Financesxxii; National Association of State Budget Officersxxiii xxi
15
It should be noted that there is wide variation in the costs of living within states that may not be accurately captured by the aforementioned index. Nonetheless, as shown in Figure 7, the average South Dakota public school teacher salary has been increasing steadily over the past 10 years, increasing nearly $10,000 over that period.
Photo: SDPB
A child and her parent vists an SDPB booth at an event for an educational activity.
Figure 7: South Dakota Average Public School Teacher Salary (2009-10 - 2018-19)
Education in south dakota
Source: South Dakota Department of Education
Figure 8: South Dakota Budget Expenditures Fiscal 2019
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers
16
Within the region, South Dakota spends the second smallest portion of their state budget on elementary and secondary education at 16.3% (3.2% below the national average). Figure 8 depicts the 2019 Fiscal Budget for the State of South Dakota. Elementary and secondary education comprised of the fourth largest portion of expenditures in the state. On a per pupil basis, South Dakota spends $10,073 per pupil, the lowest in the region and well below the national average of $12,612
South dakota educational performance Despite lower levels of funding, South Dakota students consistently outperform the national average in standardized tests such as the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) test and the ACT. This is depicted below in Table 11 which compares South Dakota students’ performance on these tests with the national average as well as other states in the region. For example, South Dakota students in 4th and 8th grades scored higher on each section of the 2019 NAEP than the national average. In 2018, South Dakota students who took the ACT scored higher than any other state in the region, and on average, they scored 1.1 points better than the national average. However, when comparing test score results with other states, it is important to note the percentage of students who took the ACT. South Dakota has the second lowest percentage of students who take the ACT within the region, therefore, there may be some selection bias occurring which is slightly inflating South Dakota’s average ACT composite score. This is because students who self-select to take the ACT will likely score higher than students who had no intention of taking the test but are required to such as in the states of Nebraska and Missouri.
Table 11: Regional Comparison of 2019 NAEP and 2018 ACT Scores Reading
4th Grade
8th Grade
4th Grade
8th Grade
2018 ACT Composite Score
Percent Taking ACT
Iowa
241
282
221
262
21.8
68%
Kansas
239
282
219
263
21.6
71%
Minnesota
248
291
222
264
21.3
99%
Missouri
238
281
218
263
20.0
100%
Nebraska
244
285
222
264
20.1
100%
North Dakota South Dakota United States
243
286
221
263
20.3
98%
241
287
222
263
21.9
77%
240
281
219
262
20.8
52%
Quick fact:
South Dakota students consistently outperform the national average in standardized tests such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) given in 4th & 8th grade, and the ACT taken in high school.
Education in south dakota
Mathematics
State or Jurisdiction
Source: The Nation’s Report Card; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statisticsxxv Children at school.
Photo: Getty Images
17
educational attainment Figure 9 depicts South Dakotans’ educational attainment over the period 1980 to 2018 for persons 25 and older. In 1980, 32.1% of South Dakotans had not completed high school and only 14% completed college. Over the next three decades, South Dakotans’ educational attainment increased dramatically. Between 2014 and 2018, an average of 28.5% of South Dakotans age 25 and older received a college degree. Those who completed some college also rose to 32.7%. In contrast, those who did not complete high school decreased to only 8.3%.
Figure 9: South Dakotans’ Educational Attainment (1980-2018)
Source: USDA ERS State Fact Sheets
Education in south dakota
In addition to educational attainment changing over time, the educational attainment of persons 25 and older differs based on whether they live in a rural or urban county. As, shown in Figure 10 below, people living in urban areas are 6.3% more likely to have completed college and 2.5% more likely to have completed some college in comparison to people living in rural areas. Whereas people living in rural areas are 2.7% more likely to not have completed high school than people living in urban areas. The difference in educational attainment provides further evidence of career limitations and an opportunity gap between rural and urban South Dakota. However, the educational attainment gap between rural and urban people in South Dakota is much smaller than the national average. For instance, over the period 2014 to 2018, 13.9% more urban people completed college than people living in rural areas.xxvi
Figure 10: (2014-2018) Educational Attainment (% of Persons 25 and Older)
Source: USDA ERS State Fact Sheets
18
The Tribal nations Geography There are nine federally recognized tribes which share geographical borders with the state of South Dakota. A federally recognized tribe is a tribal entity that is recognized as having a government-to government relationship with the United States, possess certain inherent rights of self-government (i.e., tribal sovereignty), and are entitled to receive certain Federal benefits, services, and protections because of their special relationship with the United States.xxvii Figure 11, below, depicts the location of these tribal nations.
Figure 11: Tribal Nations and South Dakota
Dignity statue in Chamerlain, SD.
Photo: SDPB
The tribal nations
Because there is a lack of specific tribal nation data, it should be noted that the information provided in this report is based upon Census data and other available data consistent with Census data. According to the US Department of the Interior Indian Affairs’ 2013 American Indian Population and Labor Force Report, in 2010, there were 71,095 American Indians and Alaska Natives who reside on reservations that share geography with South Dakota or live in counties in the vicinity of the tribe in South Dakota.xxviii
19 19
Tribal demographics Of the nine tribes, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe is the largest in terms of enrolled members who live on the reservation, with approximately 21,245 members. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe’s neighbor to the west, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, is the second largest in terms of enrolled members living on the reservation, with 19,639 members. Two of the tribes who share geography with South Dakota - Standing Rock Sioux and Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Tribes, also share geography with the state of North Dakota. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe is the largest of the nine tribes in terms of land area covering over 1.4 million acres with approximately 8,000 enrolled members living on the reservation. Separated by the Missouri River in Central South Dakota, the Lower Brule Sioux and Crow Creek Sioux Tribes have 1308 and 1230 enrolled members living on their reservations respectively. The Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe is the smallest of all nine tribes both in terms of land area and membership covering only 2356 acres with 726 enrolled members. The Yankton Sioux Tribe borders the state of Nebraska and has a membership of 3500. Table 12, below, summarizes additional demographic data for the tribal nations which share geography with South Dakota.
Table 12: Tribal Nation Demographic Data
The tribal nations
Name of Tribe
% Population Under 20*
Unemployment Rate***
% Population with at least High School Diploma**
Median Family Income**
Cheyenne River
39.6%
88%
75.6%
$22,917
Crow Creek
43.7%
58%
64.8%
$13,750
Flandreau Santee
34.8%
38%
69.5%
$35,500
Lower Brule
43.7%
52%
75.9%
$20,263
Oglala Sioux
42.4%
89%
69%
$20,477
Rosebud Sioux
43.6%
83%
73%
$18,673
Sisseton Wahpeton
30.9%
---
74%
$33,693
Standing Rock
39.1%
86%
77.3%
$23,922
Yankton
34.7%
86%
72.9%
$27,576
* Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 Census, 2010 Demographic Profile Data ** Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census *** Source: US Department of the Interior, 2005 American Indian People and Labor Force Reportxxx
20
In 2010, an estimated 23% of all Native American families in the United States earned incomes that are below the poverty rate. The highest estimated rate of poverty belongs to the tribes that share geography with South Dakota - an estimated 43 – 47 percent of Native American families in 2010 earned incomes below the poverty line.xxxi As seen in Table 12, in 2000, the average median family income for the tribal nations which share geography with South Dakota range from as low as $13,750 to $35,500. The average median family income across the tribal nations was $24,085. High unemployment rates are a likely a contributing factor to these low incomes. For instance, the Cheyenne River Sioux and Oglala Sioux Tribes have unemployment rates of 88% and 89% respectively. In addition to high unemployment rates, the tribal nations also have a high percentage of their population under the age of 20. For reference, according to the 2000 Census, the state of South Dakota had 28% of its population under the age of 20. In 2000, the tribal nations have anywhere from 30.9% to 43.7% of their populations under the age of 20. The percent of the Tribal Nations’ populations with at least a high school diploma is also much lower than the state of South Dakota ranging anywhere from 64.8% to 77.3%.
The hutterites The Hutterites are a communal people originating from the Anabaptist movement during the 16th Century Protestant Reformation in Europe.xxxii Religious prosecution forced the Hutterites to migrate throughout Eastern Europe, until they finally resettled in South Dakota in in the late 19th century forming the Bon Homme Colony. xxxii Hutterites live on bruderhöfe (colonies) scattered throughout the prairies of North America. On average, 15 families live and work on each colony where they farm, raise livestock, and produce manufactured goods for sustenance.xxxiii
Photo: SDPB
There are three denominations of Hutterites in North America: Schmiedeleut, Dariusleut, and Lehrerleut. Hutterite colonies in South Dakota are of the Schmiedeleut denomination and inhabit the eastern half of the state. As of 2010, there were approximately 54 to 61 Hutterite colonies in South Dakota. These colonies make up 0.7% of South Dakota’s population (roughly 5,700 people).xxxiv There are four counties in South Dakota in which the Hutterite population makes up more than 10% of the total population: Faulk (19.8%), Hanson (15.6%), McPherson (12.1%), and Clark (11.3%).xxxiv A series of investigations on the Hutterite Colonies would be very alluring as well as revealing given the complete lack of publicly available data on these communities in North America.
Members of the Platte Hutterite Colony take a walk.
Meridian highway bridge. Photo: SDPB
Quick fact:
The Hutterites
There are about 5,700 Hutterites in South Dakota. Hutterites make up over 10% of the population in 4 counties in South Dakota: Faulk (19.8%), Hanson (15.6%), McPherson (12.1%) and Clark (11.3%).xxxiv 21
THE economy of south dakota Economy of south dakota Photo: SDPB
A irrigation pivot at sunset.
South Dakota GDP (Gross Domestic product) Historically, the economy of South Dakota has been dominated by the agriculture industry. However, with the expansion of other industries in the state, agriculture no longer dominates the economy as it once did. In fact, in 2015, the financial services industry boasted the largest share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at 15.5%. The agriculture industry was the second largest contributor at 13.7% of South Dakota’s GDP. Other major contributors to the state’s overall GDP include manufacturing, education and health, and retail. South Dakota’s GDP per capita has been trending upwards since the 1980s. Figure 12 depicts this trend over the past twenty-two years. GDP per capita appears to have started to level off in recent years despite favorable labor-market conditions. For instance, in 2019 the unemployment rate was 3.6% in rural areas and only 3.0% in urban areas. Today, labor-market conditions have deteriorated under the disruptive effects of COVID-19. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate in South Dakota has risen to 7.2% as of June, 2020.xxxv
Figure 12: South Dakota GDP Per Capita (1997-2019)
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (CPI from US BLS)xxxvi
22
Economy of south dakota
industry diversity and distribution Figure 13 below delineates what the county industry compositions look like for all of South Dakota as well as just rural South Dakota. Each county is assigned a certain industry-dependence (manufacturing, agricultural, etc.) if it derives a certain percentage of its earnings or employment from that industry, in other words, it is dependent on that industry. If it does not meet any of the industry dependence thresholds it is considered diverse or nonspecialized. Dependence thresholds for each of these industries can be found at the end of the report. Surprisingly, 59.7% of South Dakotans live in a county that is considered to be diverse or not dependent on any single industry. Rural South Dakotans live in counties with economies more dominated by the agriculture industry at 32.7%. Nonetheless, 32% of rural South Dakotans live in counties that are not specialized or dependent on a single industry. County industry compositions are shown in Figure 14.
Figure 13: Industry compositions by where south dakotans live
Sources: US Census Bureau & USDA ERS County Codes
Figure 14: county industry compositions
Sources: USDA ERS County Codes
23
south dakota agriculture production South Dakota’s agriculture industry is still a pivotal piece of the state’s economy. The industry has the ability to produce a variety of crops and livestock as well as process many of the commodities produced in the state. In addition to ranking #1 in the U.S. for bison inventory and sunflower production, according to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, South Dakota is currently ranked in the top 15 nationally for many other categories including:xxxviii South Dakota agriculture
• Proso millet (#3) • Honey production (#3) • Oat production (#4) • Flaxseed production (#5) Spring wheat (excluding durum) production (#5) • Sorghum production (#6) • Cattle and calves sales (#7) • Other animals and animal products sales (#7)
• Beef cow inventory (#5) • Grains, oilseeds, dry beans & dry peas sales (#8) • Sheep, goats, wool, mohair, milk sales (#8) • Hay & haylage production – tons, dry basis (#11) • Hogs and pigs sales (#12) • Total Sales (#12)
Photo: SDPB
Harvest in South Dakota.
Quick fact:
On average, each South Dakota producer raises enough food to feed 155 people annually.xxxvii
demographics and economics of South dakota Farms The US Census of Agriculture defines a “farm” as an operation producing for sale at least $1,000 worth of agricultural commodities in a normal year. Figure 15 displays South Dakota farm operations by size as a percent of total farms. In 2017, there were 29,968 farms in South Dakota. Of these 29,968 farm operations, 28% (8391) were under 100 acres in size, 27% (8091) were between 100 and 500 acres in size, 12% (3,596) were between 500 and 1,000 acres in size, 13% (3,896) were between 1,000 and 2,000 acres in size, and 20% (5,994) were over 2,000 acres in size. Despite smaller sized farms, generally hobby or specialty farms, making up a large portion of overall farm operations in South Dakota, farm operations larger in size make up the majority of farm sales. As can be seen in Figure 16, 34% of farm operations had sales less than $10,000. In contrast, 16% of farming operations had sales more than $500,000 in 2017. 24
Figure 15: SD Farm Operations by Size (% of total farms)
Source: USDA ERS State Fact Sheets
Figure 16: Farms by Sales (% of total farms)
Source: USDA ERS State Fact Sheets
Table 13 provides an overview of historical census agriculture data for the state of South Dakota. The number of farms has been steadily decreasing in the state of South Dakota, declining by 9.7% from 1997 to 2017. Conversely, the average size of South Dakota farms has been trending upwards over this same period. Nearly every category of livestock inventory has been on the rise, as well as soybean and corn production. Wheat and oat production in the state has fluctuated over the past two decades, however production in 2017 is markedly down from their levels in 1997.
1997
2002
2007
2012
2017
33,191
31,736
31,169
31,989
29,968
1,330
1,380
1,401
1,352
1,443
Land and Buildings ($)
$473,015
$618,651
$1,255,332
$2,281,026
$2,984,426
Machinery and Buildings ($)
$89,285
$107,376
$155,652
$241,388
$282,162
Farm Products Sold ($)
$110,395
$120,829
$210,801
$317,929
$324,397
Cattle and Calves
3,710,629
3,695,877
3,687,728
3,893,251
3,988,183
Beef Cows
1,662,162
1,694,091
1,649,492
1,610,559
1,799,801
Milk Cows
96,712
84,080
86,243
91,831
127,325
Hogs and Pigs
1,394,357
1,375,506
1,490,034
1,191,162
1,560,522
Laying Chickens
2,180,516
2,226,368
2,920,799
2,450,780
2,708,331
Broiler Chickens
291,387
321,260
272,986
144,015
146,197
Cattle and Calves Sold
2,449,587
2,707,872
2,745,227
2,567,027
2,752,025
Hogs and Pigs Sold
2,610,493
3,773,503
4,487,708
3,914,312
5,359,357
Corn for Grain
302,695,636
295,166,830
518,552,101
480,330,680
768,250,076
Wheat for Grain
88,644,257
42,413,607
141,003,068
100,675,153
45,137,278
Oat for Grain
13,387,804
5,717,330
8,758,284
4,525,084
4,474,218
Soybeans
110,801,775
126,607,265
130,377,538
130,534,273
240,114,687
Number of South Dakota Farms Average South Dakota Farm Per Size
South Dakota agriculture
Table 13: Historical Census of Agriculture Data (USDA)
Market Value (Per Farm)
Livestock Inventory (number)
Production (bushels)
Source: USDAxxxix
Quick fact:
South Dakota is the largest US producer of sunflowers, followed by North Dakota and Texas. Over 2 billion pounds of sunflowers are produced in the US annually with over 800 million of those grown in South Dakota.xxxviii 25 25
south dakota politics Historically, South Dakota politics have been dominated by the Republican Party. Since statehood, a Democratic presidential candidate has carried the state’s electoral votes in only five elections. This trend seems likely to continue as according to the Office of the South Dakota Secretary of State, Republicans hold a 19.75% voter registration advantage over the Democrats.xl It should be noted that only Republicans are able to vote in the Republican primary, whereas Democrats and registered voters with no party affiliation are allowed to vote in the Democratic Primary. This may provide a bigger incentive for people to register as Republicans.
Photo: SDPB
Mount Rushmore.
2016 presidential election South Dakota politics
Figure 17 depicts the election results from the 2016 Presidential Election on a county-by-county basis. The map shows Trump’s margin over Clinton in percentage points in each county. Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton only managed to win five of the 66 counties in the state: Oglala Lakota, Todd, Buffalo, Clay, and Dewey. With the exception of Clay County (a universitycounty with the highest percentage of people holding a bachelor’s degree or higher in the state), each of these counties Clinton carried had populations that were over 70% American Indian and Alaska Native. Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump on the other hand, won 61 counties with margins as high as 89.6 percentage points in some counties. Interestingly, Trump also won all counties designated by the USDA as metropolitan areas.
Figure 17: Trump’s Margin Over Clinton in 2016 Presidential Election
Source: South Dakota Secretary of State
26
2018 gubernatorial election In fact, Trump received a larger percentage of the vote in every single county than Noem. There were 16 counties in which Noem received 40 percentage points less of the vote than Trump. Notably, all of the counties were designated as rural by the USDA, and 13 of these counties were counties with small or no towns that were less accessible according to the 2013 rural-urban continuum codes.
With the exception of counties with large Native American populations, every “west river” county in South Dakota was won by Noem. Sutton, on the other hand, did much better in the slightly more urban eastern side of the state. In addition, the Democratic candidate appeared to perform better in counties with more diverse populations. Photo: SDPB
The 2018 Gubernatorial Election provides several insights into the political climate in South Dakota. For instance, there is a clear distinction between the western and eastern portions of South Dakota.
South Dakota politics
The 2018 South Dakota Gubernatorial Election between Republican Candidate Kristi Noem and Democratic Candidate Billie Sutton was decided by a margin of only 3.37 percentage points. This was the closest margin of victory in a South Dakota Gubernatorial Election since 1986. Republican Candidate Kristi Noem won the election capturing 50.97% of the total vote (172,912 votes) whereas her main opponent, Democratic Candidate Billie Sutton received 47.6% of the vote (161,454 votes). As can be seen in Figure 18, the 2018 South Dakota Gubernatorial Election was won by a much narrower margin than the 2016 Presidential Election.
The ceiling of the Capitol rotunda in Pierre, SD.
Figure 18: Noem’s Margin Over Sutton in 2018 Gubernatorial Election
Source: South Dakota Secretary of State
27
Definitions FIGURE 1: Urban/Rural Share of Population Metro: has at least one urbanized area of 50,000 or more population, plus adjacent territory that has a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured by commuting ties Small city, more accessible: Nonmetro county with urban population of 20,000 or more, adjacent to a metro area Small city, less accessible: Nonmetro county with urban population of 20,000 or more, not adjacent to a metro area Big town, more accessible: Nonmetro county with urban population of 2,500 to 19,999, adjacent to a metro area Big town, less accessible: Nonmetro county with urban population of 2,500 to 19,999, not adjacent to a metro area Small or no town, more accessible: Nonmetro county completely rural or less than 2,500 urban population, adjacent to a metro area Small or no town, less accessible: Nonmetro county completely rural or less than 2,500 urban population, not adjacent to a metro area
Figure 13: Economy Typologies Farming-dependent: Either twenty-five percent or more of total county earnings were derived from farming or sixteen percent of employed residents worked in farm occupations during 2010-12. Mining-dependent: Thirteen percent or more of total county earnings or eight percent or more of total county employment were derived from mining during 2010-12. Manufacturing dependent: Twenty-three percent or more of total county earnings or sixteen percent or more of total county employment were derived from manufacturing during 2010-12. Federal/State government-dependent: Fourteen percent or more of total county earnings or nine percent or more of total county employment were derived from Federal and State government during 2010-12. Recreation: This type is calculated in three parts: percent employment in the recreation industry (entertainment and recreation, accommodations, eating and drinking establishments, and real estate); percent of total personal income from the recreation industry; and percent of vacant housing units intended for seasonal or occasional use. Diverse: Did not meet the dependence threshold for any one of the above industries.
28
refrences United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Rural Classifications. Office of Management and Budget, Standards for Delineating Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas iii South Dakota Governor’s Office of Economic Development, Key Industries: Bioscience. iv United States Department of Agriculture, Rural-Urban Continuum Codes. v US Census Bureau, Metropolitan and Micropolitan Areas. vi South Dakota Governor’s Office of Economic Development, Key Industries: Bioscience. vii US Census Bureau, QuickFacts South Dakota. viii US Census Bureau, 2018 American Community Survey. ix Cromartie, Reichert, & Arthun, Why Some Return Home to Rural America and Why it Matters. x US Census Bureau, QuickFacts. xi US Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts. xii US Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts. xiii South Dakota Governor’s Office of Economic Development, Key Industries: Manufacturing. xiv Life Sciences Research Office, S.A. Andersen, ed., “Core Indicators of Nutritional State for Difficult to Sample Populations xv The Commonwealth Fund, South Dakota Performance Data. xvi United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, South Dakota Homelessness Statistics. xvii The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress. xviii South Dakota Housing for the Homeless Consortium, Point-in-Time Homeless Counts. xix US Department of Education, Common Core of Data, Table 2. xx Council for Community and Economic Research, Cost of Living Index. xxi National Education Association, Rankings of the States 2018. xxii US Census Bureau, 2018 Annual Survey of School System Finances, 2018 Public Elementary-Secondary Education Financial Data. xxiii National Association of State Budget Officers, 2019 State Expenditure Report xxiv The Nation’s Report Card, NAEP Report Card. xxv US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, ACT Scores. xxvi USDA ERS State Fact Sheets, State Fact Sheets: United States. xxvii US Department of the Interior, Indian Affairs, Frequently Asked Questions. xxviii US Department of the Interior, Indian Affairs, 2013 American Indian Population and Labor Force Report. xxix South Dakota Department of Tribal Relations, Oglala Sioux Tribe. xxx US Department of the Interior, Indian Affairs, 2005 American Indian Population and Labor Force Report. xxxi US Department of the Interior, Indian Affairs, 2013 American Indian Population and Labor Force Report. xxxii Hutterian Brethren, Hutterite History Overview. xxxiii Hutterian Brethren, The Hutterites. xxxiv South Dakota Census Data Center, Hutterite Data. xxxv US Bureau of Labor Statistics, State Unemployment Rates, Seasonally Adjusted. xxxvi US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index. xxxvii South Dakota Governor’s Office of Economic Development, Key Industries: Value-Added Ag. xxxviii USDA, Census of Agriculture. xxxix USDA, Historical Agriculture Census. xl South Dakota Secretary of State, Voter Registration Totals. i
ii
29
Report was written and supported by the Chiesman Center for Democracy for the benefit of South Dakota Public Broadcasting. Booklet design by Matti Smith, SDPB Marketing
30