Brief 1
December 2011
Changes in Prince George’s County: 2000 through 2010
Figure 1. Prince George’s County Districts
NeighborhoodInfo DC, an Urban Institute project, has
amassed a data warehouse measuring the health and vitality
of Washington, DC neighborhoods. This fact sheet is the
first publication in our effort to extend our analysis to the
council districts in Prince George’s County, Maryland.
The following information summarizes selected population
and socioeconomic changes in Prince George’s County
between 2000 and 2010 using the latest tract-level 2010
U.S. Census population data and the 2005–2009 American
Community Survey. We provide countywide averages, as
well as the individual changes in the county’s nine districts
(figure 1).
Summary of Findings
During the last decade, the following occurred in Prince George’s County:

Moderate population growth

The Hispanic population more than doubled, the black population increased by 10 percent, and the white
population declined

Fewer children live in the county

Education levels rose across the county

Incomes remained flat
http://www.neighborhoodinfodc.org/
Population Grew Moderately Over the Last Decade

The population of Prince George’s County grew 7.7 percent between 2000 and 2010, from 801,515 to
863,420 people, respectively (figure 2). In comparison, the Washington metropolitan area’s population
grew 16.4 percent.

All districts but one experienced population growth between 2000 and 2010. The largest gain was in
District 6, which grew 17.6 percent over the decade. Other areas with above average growth included
District 1 (13.6 percent), District 3 (11.6 percent), District 9 (10.7 percent), and District 4 (10.3 percent).
The only district that saw a decrease in the overall population was District 7, which lost 2.1 percent of its
population.
Figure 2. Total Population, 2000 to 2010, by District
120,000
2000
2010
105,336
100,000
99,076
98,324
86,84 8
92,075
88,773
88,099
94,154
85,346
94,170
91,201
89,549
90,586
88,659
100,928
90,698
89,946
91,168
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
District
Source: U.S. Decennial Census 2000 and 2010.
2
Hispanic Population More than Doubled and White Population Declined
Prince George’s County remains a predominantly African American county; however, the number and share of
Hispanic residents increased substantially over the decade (figure 3).

The Hispanic population increased by 127 percent (or 72,159 people) and the non-Hispanic black
population increased more modestly by 10 percent (or 50,365 people) (figure 3).

Meanwhile, the non-Hispanic white population fell by 34 percent (or 66,369 people).
Figure 3. Prince George’s
County
2000-2010
by Race/Ethnicity
Prince
George'sPopulation
County Population,
2000 - 2010,
by Race/Ethnicity
548,439
African-American
498,074
128,853
White
195,222
2010
2000
128,972
Hispanic
56,813
57,156
Other
51,406
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
Source: U.S. Decennial Census 2000 and 2010.
3
Hispanic Population More than Doubled, White Population Declined (continued)

The non-Hispanic black population increased from 62 percent of the total county population in 2000 to 64
percent in 2010.

The Hispanic population grew from 7 percent of the total county population in 2000 to 15 percent in 2010.

The share of non-Hispanic whites fell from 24 percent to 15 percent.

The share of other races increased from 6 percent to 7 percent.
Figure 4. Race/Ethnicity, as a Percentage of the Total County Population, 2010
7%
Black
15%
White
Hispanic
15%
64%
Other
Source: U.S. Decennial Census 2000 and 2010
4
Hispanic Population More than Doubled, White Population Declined (continued)
In each district, the Hispanic population increased, mirroring the overall county trend.

Changes in the non-Hispanic black population fluctuated across the districts, with the strongest
growth in Districts 1, 4, and 9.

The population of non-Hispanic whites decreased consistently across all districts.
Figure 5. Race, as a Percentage of the Total District Population, 2000
100%
11%
7%
9%
9%
90%
80%
4%
10%
7%
2%
1%
4%
3%
1%
4%
6%
12%
7%
2%
5%
2%
13%
11%
30%
34%
70%
60%
36%
46%
51%
14%
50%
93%
40%
83%
79%
78%
30%
58%
48%
20%
45%
36%
36%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
African-American
5
District
White
6
Hispanic
7
8
9
2%
5%
2%
7%
6%
Other
Figure 6. Race, as a Percentage of the Total District Population, 2010
100%
5%
13%
9%
9%
90%
8%
80%
4%
3%
5%
16%
8%
7%
24%
19%
4%
6%
5%
17%
47%
70%
34%
60%
26%
26%
50%
91%
87%
10%
40%
77%
74%
72%
30%
20%
43%
49%
38%
41%
2
3
10%
0%
1
4
African-American
5
District
White
6
Hispanic
7
8
9
Other
Source: U.S. Decennial Census 2000 and 2010
5
Fewer Children Lived in the County
As a result of an aging population, an increase in the number of childless adults, or both, the population 18
years of age or older increased by 12 percent between 2000 and 2010 (or 70,428 people), while the child
population (under age 18) decreased by 4 percent (or 8,523 people) (figure 7).
Figure 7. Prince George’s County Population, 2000 to 2010, by Age
900,000
623,085
800,000
586,993
700,000
600,000
Population 18 Years or Older
Population Under 18 Years Old
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
214,522
211,901
2000
2010
100,000
0
Source: U.S. Decennial Census 2000 and 2010
6
County Home to Fewer Children (continued)

While the county had fewer children by 2010, not all districts experienced the same trend (figure 8).
Declines were concentrated in four districts: 2, 5, 7, and 8. The change in the child population in the
remaining districts was flat or grew, however, with substantial growth in Districts 1, 3, and 4.

No districts experienced a decrease in the adult population. Districts 6 and 9 saw significant increases.
Figure 8. Percent Change in Adult and Youth Population, 2000 to 2010, by District
20.0%
Population Under 18 Years Old
Population 18 Years or Older
16.4%
15.0%
10.0%
12.9%
9.6%
8.9%
7.8%
6.1%
6.2%
4.9%
5.0%
6.1%
5.2%
3.2%
3.1%
1.9%
0.6%
-0.3%
0.0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
County Total
-1.2%
-5.0%
-7.3%
-8.3%
-10.0%
-11.2%
-10.2%
-15.0%
Source: U.S. Decennial Census 2000 and 2010
7
Education Levels Rose across the County
Between 2000 and 2005-2009, Prince George’s County experienced modest, statistically significant gains in its
residents’ education levels. This could be due to an increase in the education levels of existing residents or to
higher education levels of new residents, or both. The data available for this analysis did not permit a more in
depth look at this issue.

The county experienced a decrease in the percentage of residents ages 25 and older without a high school
diploma (15 percent to 14 percent) and without a college degree (58 percent to 56 percent), while the
percentage of those with a college degree increased from 27 to 30 percent.
Figure 9. Population Change, 2000 to 2005-2009 by District and Education Level (Age 25+)
60.0%
57%
56%
50.0%
40.0%
27%
30.0%
20.0%
15%
29%
2000
2005-2009
13%
10.0%
0.0%
No High School Diploma*
High School Diploma, but no
Bachelors*
Bachelors or Above*
Source: U.S. Decennial Census 2000, American Community Survey 2005-2009 5-Year Estimates
*Statistically significant differences at a 95 percent confidence level (p<.05).
8
Education Levels Rose across the County (continued)

While the majority of districts fit this mold, Districts 2 and 3 saw increases in the population without a
high school diploma (18 percent and 20 percent, respectively), while the percentage of people age 25 and
older with a high school diploma or college degree remained flat.

Districts 5, 6, 7 and 9 experienced the most dramatic changes in education levels in the county. Each of
these districts saw an increase of 25 percent or more of the population age 25 and older with a bachelor’s
degree, accompanied by decreases of more than 10 percent of the population without a high school diploma.
Figure 10. Population Change, 2000 to 2005-2009, by District and Education Level (Age 25+)
40%
*
*
*
30%
Total Population 25+
No High School Diploma
*
High School Diploma, but no Bachelors
District
20%
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
10%
*
*
*
*
*
* *
*
*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Total
*
0%
Bachelors and Above
-10%
*
* *
-20%
-30%
*
Source: U.S. Decennial Census 2000, American Community Survey 2005-2009 5-Year Estimates
*Statistically significant differences at a 95 percent confidence level (p<.05).
9
Incomes Remained Flat
At the county level, average household income remained flat from 2000 to 2005-2009 at just under $84,000
per household (figure 11). Average household incomes for each period were adjusted to constant 2009 dollars
using the consumer price index.
A few individual districts saw significant changes. Districts 5 and 9 experienced gains and Districts 3 and 8
experience losses, while the remainder moved little in either direction.
Figure 11. Change in Real Average Household Income, 2000 to 2005-2009, by District
$120,000
$104,239
$102,398
$100,441
$100,000
$98,220
$96,087
$97,905
$92,615
$83,710
$83,820
$86,056
$83,803
$83,185
$81,902
$77,668
$80,000
$75,836
$72,111
$64,784
$62,486
$63,108
$62,371
$60,000
2000 (2009$)
2005-2009 (2009$)
$40,000
$20,000
$0
County Average
1
2
3*
4
5*
6
7*
8*
9*
District
Source: U.S. Decennial Census 2000, American Community Survey 2005-2009 5-Year Estimates
* District-level change is statistically significant at a 95 percent confidence level (p<.05).
10
Change by District Type
We categorized the nine districts into
four distinct groupings based on the
population and socio-economic
demographic changes that occurred
between 2000 and 2010. Indicators were
created from the 2000 and 2010 US
Census population data and tract-level
data from the 2005-2009 American
Community Survey.
Figure 12: Prince George’s County
District Groupings
We recognize that these categorizations
ignore some differences between the
individual districts, but they do provide a
useful framework for describing and
analyzing the changes in Prince George’s
County over the past decade.
Group 1: Districts 1, 4, and 6

Large increases in the overall
population, mostly due to the adult
population, although District 1 also
experienced a large increase in
numbers of children under 18 years
old.

Significant increase in both the
African-American and Hispanic
populations; decrease in the white
population.

No change in real income.

Increase in resident education levels.
11
Group 2: Districts 2 and 3

Moderate to large increases in the population, due almost entirely to increases in the adult population.

Population increases driven by large increases in the Hispanic population and corresponding decreases (or
no change) in the African-American and white populations.

Small to moderate decrease in real income.

Decrease in resident education levels.
Group 3: Districts 5 and 9

The overall population increased slowly in District 5 and at a faster pace in District 9. The adult
population increased significantly, while the child population decreased.

Moderate to large increases in the Hispanic population; no change in the African-American population in
District 5, but a large increase in District 9.

Positive changes in real income.

Increase in resident education levels.
Group 4: Districts 7 and 8

Stagnant overall population with small increases in the adult population counterbalanced by large
decreases in the child population.

A moderate decrease in the white and African-American populations, with a small increase in the
Hispanic population.

Moderate declines in real income.

Increase in resident education levels.
Neighborhood Info DC—a project of the Urban
Institute and the Washington DC Local
Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC)
(202) 261-5760 / info@neighborhoodinfodc.org
Jennifer Comey, Graham MacDonald, and Zach
McDade contributed to this fact sheet. Copyright ©
December 2011, The Urban Institute. All rights
reserved. The views expressed are those of the
authors and should not be attributed to the Urban
Institute, LISC, their trustees, or their funders.
NeighborhoodInfo DC works to support community organizations, neighborhood
residents, and government as they work to improve the quality of life for people
throughout the District of Columbia. NeighborhoodInfo DC receives funding from
local and national sources, who provide general support and fund specific
projects and products. Current and previous funders include the Annie E. Casey
Foundation, DC Action for Children, Fannie Mae, the Meyer Foundation, the
Morris & Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, the Washington Area Women's
Foundation, and the World Bank.