A DECADE 0r PIJ/RULATIUN CHANGE TEXAS MM UNIVERSITY A4 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION - - - TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXTENSIIIN SERVICE College Station, Texas Summary and Implications This publication analyzes some of the significant changes in Texas population, particularly from 1950 to 1960. lt includes selected popula- tion projections to 1970 and points out some of their implications. Among the more significant findings are the following: 1. The total population of Texas on April 1, 1960, was 9,579,677, a figure representing 5.3 percent of the nation’s population. The percent- age increase was well above the national average during the last decade, with the increase in numbers larger than during the two previous decades combined. Projections indicate an April 1970 Texas population of 11,- 712,000. A rapidly growing population means more customers for all types of goods and services. Education, health and recreational facilities; religious and welfare services; and highways and communications facilities will have to be expanded to meet the needs of rapidly-growing numbers of people. 2. Population growth and losses are unevenly distributed in the State. Between 1950 and 1960, 143 Texas counties lost in population and 111 had increases. The urban portions of the State grew rapidly while most rural sections declined. Urban residents comprised 75 percent of the total popu- lation, while 25 percent were classified as rural residents in 1960. The trend toward concentration in metropolitan areas is accelerating, with 64 percent of the State’s people residing in 21 standard metropolitan areas in 1960. By 1970, urban areas are expected to have approximately 80 per- cent of the State’s people, with 70 percent of the total population living in standard metropolitan areas. While the urban sections of Texas will need to plan for growing num- bers, most rural areas will be faced with adjustments related to fewer persons in their schools and churches and a different use of community facilities. The political representation of rural dwellers is also likely to be reduced. 3. In 1960, for the first time in history, Texas had more females than males. The projected sex ratio is 96.7 males per 100 females in 1970. A At the same time, younger (under 15 years of age) and older persons (65 years and over) are increasing more rapidly than the population in the more productive ages of life. Continued rapid growth during the current decade is expected, particularly of those between 15 and 24 years of age and of those 65 and over. Persons between 15 and 24 are expected to increase from 1,377,000 in 1960 to 2,050,000 by 1970 and the aged pop- ulation is expected toincrease from 728,000 to 1,015,000. Women can be expected to assume an increasingly important role in business and political affairs, and a larger proportion of the Texas popu- lation in 1970 will consist of persons in those ages that are economically dependent on others. This implies increased financial responsibilities on those in the productive ages of life to. provide expanded school and recrea- tional facilities for the young and health and other programs for the aged. 4. Whites continued to increase their numbers at a faster rate than nonwhites between 1950 and 1960, with whites now comprising 87.4 per- cent of the population. White persons of Spanish surname are the fastest growing ethnic group, with 1,418,000 living in Texas in 1960. The enum- ber of white persons is expected to increase to 10,260,000 and nonwhites to 1,450,000 by 1970. Thus, whites are expected to increase at a faster rate than nonwhites in the future. ' 5. The educational and income levels in Texas have risen substan- tially between 1950 and 1960. The median number of school years com- pleted by the adult population (persons 25 years of age and over) was 10.4 in 1960, and the median family income was $4,884. As incomes have increased, a smaller share has been required for food and’ housing, thus allowing larger shares of income for services and luxuriesghat upgrade the level of living of the population in general. This, in turn, fonds to promote a healthier Texas economy. Also, along with the trend toward more education, is increased pressure on young people to seek increasingly higher educational levels. While larger numbers in school mean higher educational costs, this situation is recognized as yield- ing high economic and social returns for the State in general. 11-156455 Contents Summary and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . 5 Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Population oi the State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Growth Trend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Population Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Sources oi Population Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 County Population Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Migration and Natural Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Factors Related to Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 Farming Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Oil and Gas Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Industrialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 State Economic Area Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 Implications oi Population Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l0 Migration and Natural Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..ll] Rural and Urban Population Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..ll Definition oi Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..ll General Trend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Rural Population Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..ll Rural Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Rural Noniarm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Urban Population Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l3 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l4 Residential Data Adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l5 Change in Urban Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l5 Change in Farm Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l5 Annexations by Municipalities. . . . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Implications oi Residential Composition Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l6 Age and Sex Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l6 Sex Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Sex Ratios at Different Age Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..17 Sex Ratios by Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..17 Balance oi the Sexes by Color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l8 Age Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Dependency Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Index oi Aging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Age Composition by Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..19 Age Distribution in Urban and Rural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Age Composition by Color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..21 Implications oi Changing Age and Sex Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..21 Racial and Ethnic Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..22 General Trend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 White Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 White Persons oi Spanish Surname . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..22 Nonwhite Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Negro Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Residential Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Implications oi Changing Racial and Ethnic Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..23 Selected Social and Economic Aspects oi the Texas Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..24 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Implications oi Changes in Education and Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..26 Population Growth Beyond 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..26 1963 Population Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..27 1970 Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Implications oi Future Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..27 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Related Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 i: POPULATION OF TEXAS, as well as any specific area “thin its boundaries, is constantly changing. These J, tion changes represent changes in human social Tor-behavior patterns that have a profound effect location of schools, farms and ranches, churches, and housing developments, highways, retail and le establishments and all types of facilities and jAlmost any area of human endeavor at some point 9- use population facts. A knowledge of population T: is essential for the successful pursuit of business i? ies of private individuals, corporations, and groups lllso for public programs. For example, educators {Soto be aware of these changes in order to plan for a programs, facilities and teachers. Farmers and V’? ers of manufactured goods need to recognize pop- it changes to plan for the shifts in markets brought I? by changes in the distribution and composition of ‘nu Religious leaders are now using detailed ation characteristics as the basis for planning the 'on of different types of church facilities. Private governmental agencies rely on population data to \ fir» the number of workers available to produce ifferent kinds of goods required for our nation’s ‘creasing population. Public agencies consider tion changes in planning for desired facilities, individuals use similar information to chart their A personal needs and wants. Furthermore, changes l.- population makeup provide a basis for making ~' tions of future populations. These projections, in provide a sounder basis for future planning, Purpose and Scope A is publication is concerned chiefly with the major l_ teristics of the population of Texas, with special i‘ is on changes between 1950 and 1960. In some -~ however, trends are noted for longer periods 1 just the past decade. Estimates of changes since also are included as are projections of certain . to 1970. a re specific characteristics and trends included in ‘ ort are population growth and movement, resi- : composition, age and sex distribution, racial com- ion and levels of income and educational attainment. ‘eral, these characteristics are analyzed in terms of rand urban residence. Since both the rural and ur- fipopulation segments are interrelated and interde- g- such analyses illustrate essential similarities A DECADE 0F POPlIlATION CHANGE IN TEXAS R. l. Shrabaneh, Professor Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology and differences between the two groups. Although the major emphasis is placed on the Texas population, cer- tain comparisons are made with the nation and with other states in order to illustrate their implications for Texas more clearly. Although persons have a high degree of interest in what is happening populationwise in their specific coun- ties, a detailed analysis for each of the 254- counties in Texas is precluded by the large number of units in- volved. Trends discussed in this publication are for the State as a whole, being a composite of population chang- es in all of the counties. Many counties are clearly ex- ceptions to the general population trends analyzed. Therefore, it should not be assumed that any one county fits the general trend occurring in the State as a whole. This report is designed for use by persons primarily in action and planning positions. It concerns people first and statistics second. Consideration of population from this point of View makes it a most important sub- ject in planning the activities of individuals and groups, as well as for private and public facilities and programs. Population of the State Growth Trend Texas, like most other states, has shown a continu- ous population increase since its first census enumeration in 1850 (Table l). There were 9,579,677 persons re- siding in the State on April 1, 1960—an increase of almost two million people during the past decade. The increase in number of persons between 1950 and 1960 was the largest the State has ever experienced, being al- most as great as that of the past two previous decades combined. The rate of population increase in Texas has been consistently high" with one exception. During the 1930- 4~0 decade, the increase was a relatively low 10.1 percent —a rate only half as high as that of the preceding or following decade. The decline in rate of population growth between 1930 and 194-0 was largely caused by a sharp drop in the birth rate, which was national in scope during the depression years. The rate of population growth in Texas is higher than in the nation as a whole. Between 1950 and 1960 Texas had a 24- percent increase in number of people as compared with a nqljbnal increase of 18 percent. The numerical gain of 1,868,483 persons was exceeded in 5 TABLE 1. TOTAL POPULATION OF TEXAS. 1850-1960 Year Population Change in population April 1 Total Years Number Percent 1850 212,592 1860 604.215 1850-60 391.623 184.2 1870 818.579 1860-70 214,364 35.5 1880 1,591,749 1870-80 773.170 94.5 1890 2,235,527 1880-90 643.778 40.4 1900 3,048,710 1890-1900 813,183 36.4 1910 3.896.542 1900-10 847.832 27.8 1920 4.663.228 1910-20 766.686 19.7 1930 5.824.715 1920-30 1.161.487 24.9 1940 6.414.824 1930-40 590.109 10.1 1950 7.711.194 1940-50 1.296.370 20.2 1960 9.579.677 1950-60 1.868.483 24.2 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census. PC (1) 45A——Texas, Table 1. only three states, California, Florida and New York. The state had 5.1 percent of the nation’s people in 1950 and 5.3 percent in 1960. Texas ranks sixth in comparison with other states in total population, the same position it held in 1950. States having larger population in 1960 were New York, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Ohio. Population Density Although Texas ranks sixth in total number of peo- ple, it is one of the less densely populated states in the nation. 1n 1960, the State contained 36 persons per square mile, a density exceeded by 36 other states. Tex- as was also well below the national average of 50 people per square mile in 1960. As in most states, Texas’ population is unevenly distributed, with population densities ranging from 1,065 persons per square mile in Dallas county to 0.3 per square mile in Loving county. Of the 254 counties in the State, 19 have more than 100 persons per square mile while eight have less than one person per square mile. A majority of the counties with sparce popula- tions are in the western portion of the State while the eastern section is more densely populated (Figure 1). Sources of Population Increase The rate of population growth of any given area is determined by three factors: sulting in an increase in population; depending on the direction of their movement. ( 1) people are born, re- (2) persons die, causing a loss in numbers; and (3) people migrate, which results in a decrease or increase in population, When more births than deaths occur in a given area, this is referred to as a natural increase. crease occurs if the opposite is true. A natural de- Further, a gain from net migration occurs when more people move into an area than move out during a given period. Net mi- gration figures may be obtained by subtracting the natural increase which occurred between 1950 and 1960 from the total increase during the same years. A major portion of the population increase in Texas between 1950 and 1960 came from an excess of births over deaths, with net migration playing a lesser role. The total increase between 1950 and 1960 was 1,868,- 483. During this period, an estimated 1,754,652 persons were added through a natural increase. 6 This was the result of 2,441,981 births and 687,329 deaths. only 113,831 persons were added as a result of net mi gration. from natural increase. Since data are not yet available on interstate migra tion, it is not possible to determine the number wh either moved from Texas to another state or from an other state to Texas between 1950 and 1960. However in 1960, 76 percent of all persons living in Texas wer born in the state, and 21 percent were born in a differ ent state. The remaining 3 percent were either bo outside the United States or data were not available o the place of their birth. w County Population Growth Although Texas had a substantial increase in popular tion between 1950 and 1960, the increases were no equally distributed throughout the state. Figure 2 show the counties according to their different rates of growt i Of Texas’ 254 counties, 143 (or 56 percent) lost i population during 1950-60 and 111 (44 percent) ha increases. One of the outstanding features of Texas’ popula tion makeup is the wide variation in the increases an losses in number of people in different counties. Harf county gained 436,457 people during 1950-60; Dall county, 336,728; Bexar, 186,691; Tarrant, 177,242; an El Paso county, 119,102. Other counties with increas ‘ of more than 50,000 between 1950 and 1960 were Jeffe son, Lubbock, Nueces and Travis. 1 Lamar county registered the largest numerical d cline——8,799—and seven other counties had at least 5,0 fewer people in 1960 than 10 years previously. There is also considerable difference in the rate u population change in Texas counties. Four counti more than doubled their population between 1950 an 1960. These were Andrews, Ector, Midland and Randa * all located in the western part of the State. An add tional 13 counties had a population increase of m0 than 50 percent for the decade. At the other extre were 19 counties with population losses of more than 2 percent. Delta county had the highest proportiona loss for the period, losing slightly more than one-thir of its population. Migration and Natural Increase Although population gains and losses in differen counties can be attributed to many different circ 4 stances, in general the basic determining factor was th degree of migration either into or out of a county. A pendix Table 1 contains births, deaths and the amou of net migration on a county basis for the 1950- decade. Every county in the State registered a natur increase between 1950 and 1960 by having more birt than deaths. Thus, had there been no migration, eve county would have gained population. But, as previou ly indicated, 143 had fewer residents in 1960 than ' 1950, with migration accounting for the decreases. Only 48 of the 254 counties had more in-migrati than out-migration (Figure 3). Sixty-three counties 1- a natural increase high enough to register gains in to population in spite of having a net out-migration. I Thus i Approximately 6 percent of the total popula tion increase came from net migration and 94 percen DALLAM HARTLEY M ORE QDHAM POTTER PARM£R nsu a u Au: 1.: mu r ovo noun _ 00m: yum Q-j-j-j-j - o \' fl ‘I’ ¢ ¢ - ~ Q - ¢ .0 . RED; “m” K o K a vs FANNIN m“ w vvm 5"°"5" u sx 1. *""°°"‘ vouu finch": uT OL m H L i w‘LL MORTON :-:-:a:n:o:u:~:I ,,,, __ ' AIN ummou _______________ . ' woo UP u - ~ " PAL RRAN DALLAS U N SMACKEL $1: p“ 5g. ARK; g AWSON aoaozu c a _ FORD F.“ T “U, A" a ,5 u 2m r LU sun newer noun TAY EMT“ u as R "Wu V R" wen L P LOVING wmxt: ceron A $625K?" s": . cox: u “Co? . ocuzs 1.1..1e- z McLENNAN sr a p. wwfl" °"'-°¢"5°" ........... . ~ \ ‘manna: uwron nucm ‘Nqgumt o .......... o I FALLS . . - Q ~ Q . n ‘ o . o .......... IO .._._ __. ecu. ‘"55" "mm! z son , 0 roux T , _ L; w nan w: ' PECOS cnocxzrr m1 m z:- / _ V. E "JACIIY-e‘: RL c ODOR. H '\ ’ _ i 0 SUTTON \ ' I LEE won: RAN » f-J 1 1 _ "rsnaeu. 8A5 o v u T‘ FFERSO _ nmms _ H n; mam“) ‘REWSTER .'.' J. .2. :‘ . . . . - - - - . ' . ' . ' a‘? cuovu “UTE o‘ o Q n | n Q - - - . v ... i ' _ QR FORT s‘; V _____.: 0on2»: LAVA "-1-? runner VA MEN“ wanton R - wntso D WI T ACKSON vuuoono _ K EBERG POPULATION POPULATIQN DENSITY m TEXAS, BY couwrues, ‘ _ HIOALGO ,1; 5.0 TO 9.9 i no.0 TOl9.9 100.0 1'0 499.9 - 500.0 AND oven Figure 1 the other hand the net out mi ration wa ' _ v ' " s so heavy 1n hioher - - . 14,3 countles that they 10st ti - . t, economlc opportunity. Involved 1n this h l _ . _ popu at10n durlnv the d d . . , W O e m splte of the“ naturals} increases. 0 6C3 e ilomplex afre sufch factlors as opportunltles 1n farming, > J oca lon 0 non arm jo s, the development or decline of '1 - . O1 andfgills resources and the locatlon and relative ah- sence o arge populatlon centers. Still another factor Factors Related to Migration There are a number of reasons eo le ' ' m1 t _ 1s the develo m t f t ' 1 - These are usually a series of interrelatled pfactorsgrtzhgt mits metropolitaiilndscenltilalfiggiitciliilon(lsystelns, Whlch per- - - an ' operate elther slmultaneously or separately. In Texas, a place of residence in close ' ‘no Onger requlres as well as 1n other states, people tend to move from areas ployment Example f th pllixlmltyf to place of em- of relatively lower economic o ' i S O e e ects O some Of these pportunlty to areas of factors are briefl d ' ' ' y escrlbed 1n the followmg sections 7 Q ¢ Q ¢ a - ¢ u; 1 0 000 0 O 0 Q O u O 0 . 0 ' 0 . . 0 . . .. Q Q A I I Q Q Q A A .0 H DOME, _co1.uucs- wonm . HALL ' CH|LD' fig. . ‘ RESS ‘ U Q Q Q ..‘.Q‘ »:0t0:0_f0.0.0. RED _ mvea -_ . LAMAR STONE - ' on ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' n o o a a a n no o o u a o Q n 0O Q n u o Q .- n on o o Q o v0 0 an 00000 o Q o n | 0 n o. o ¢ - Q u Q n I0 C. " . r10 FALLS _Mccu1.L0cH_ SAN \ ' .- - ROBERT" .M son ‘ o Q o u o Q n no a Q o o o 0 n - - u I0 ’ . \ ' o ‘o: \ ERR i i‘ ' . K ' EDWARDS \\ . I ......... ' . '.' ' _ t 0 _ .I‘ ' ' ' '. -_ ~ :- . o o, ................ .' _ _ _- REAL Q o o u c0 O O o 0 0 0.0. 0.0.0.0.0.6.0.¢ o o o Q o o 0 0 \\ I 2 ZAVALA‘ g ;__ ,, oouoa 00000 c0000 PERCENT CHANGE a in IN POPULATION o|= \ \ \\ \ PERCENT INCREASE i ES, _ - 45.0 and over t 1 t a 1gp) to 44.9 . A - . to l4.9 PERCENT DECREASE 0.0 to |4.9 l: l5.0 and over lCl \ ‘ E. 9 qaqn. Figure 2 Farming Opportunities local. supply and purchasing services and a general panslon 1n other economic and social areas, all providin i occurred were basically agricultural counties located a means of l-ivelihood for m“? people‘ Among Othe ' baslcally agrlcultural countles in which irrigation 1. some distance from nonfarm 'obs. With r0 ' ‘l . . . . J p gresslve y peared to play a major role 1n population increases but f 1 d dt d ' 1 1 d . fgivrhrgpizifgiiificiurlltetierally ‘lfiifitefi°ecifilltiistufiivf 111333 ‘iii 5231115131? 3331 Balk» Crosby» Culbem lose population. Some exceptions, however, may be noted. One of these is Castro county in the Panhandle section. Local officials in Castro county attribute their Many of the counties in which population losses Oil and Gas Developments population increase (from 5,417 in 1950 to 8,923 in Oil and gas developments have been a major reaso 1960) to the development and expansion of irrigation for rapid population changes in different sections of th i of farmland. This expansion required more labor, more State. Andrews county may be used to illustrate th 8 nu -oom.aanu_mnn.unn "n . , E-kl-LT GMMI 40ml! 5 r MIGRATION OF “ET fi/ XAS coumuzs I950-I96O Figure 3 gnship. ln 1940, Andrews county had 1,277 peo- 7j0il developments in the 1940’s were instrumental acting population to the extent that the-re were persons in Andrews county by 1950. Further ex- ,_l» in oil operations occurred during the next dec- dthe number of people jumped to 13,450 in 1960. iii’ ile population increases have been associated the development of oil and gas operations in some . fes, such operations are being either curtailed or _-oned in other counties. The latter change is nor- followed by declining populations. “ trialization industrialization is another key factor in popula- growth. Many areas are expanding industrially, e fastest growing industrial section of the State is , ulf Coast region. Petro-chemical industries and industrial developments have been moving into turban and rural areas along the coast. Practically the important mineral and fuel resources are _,y available and an ample water supply exists in the Coupled with relatively cheap water transporta- d ready labor supply, this area has all the neces- "elements for further industrialization, which leads o her rapid population increases. As a general rule, counties with large population may be expected to continue to attract migrants it grow. On the other hand, counties without size- population centers may be‘ expected to have a net igration under normal conditions. 3A few counties that do not have large population s may be used to illustrate the effects of industriali- ~l upon migrationi and population growth. Morris , in the northeast section of the State, is surround- a relatively large area which is losing population gh sizeable out-migration. Its largest town is Dain- d, which had 1,688 people in 1950. Since the es- .| ent of an industrial plant in the area, however, j ration in Morris county has increased markedly. i >_ . \ \" ' 4§§§ \\\ \ \ PERCENT OF CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION BY STATE ECONOMIC AREAS. l950-l96O - 30.0 and over I0.0 to 29.9 0.0 to v89 l1 DECREASE Figure 4 The county experienced an estimated net in-migration of 1,076 people between 1950 and 1960. Similarly, rapid industrialization has occurred. in Victoria county, whose largest population center fVic- toria) had only 16,126 people in 1950. Rapiddndus- trialization, however, attracted an estimated net in-migra- tion of 4,532 persons to the county during the 1950-60 decade. Brazoria county, also in the Gulf Coast region, had several small towns, with Freeport and Angleton being the largest in 1950 (6,012 and 3,399, respective- ly). Associated with industrialization, Brazoria county had an estimated net in-migration of 15,225 persons be- tween 19'50 and 1960. 1t can also be demonstrated conversely that the cur- tailment of industrial plant activities may have the oppo- site effect upon migration and population growth. Bowie county, in the northeast corner of the State, can be used as an example of what can happen under such conditions. In 1950, Bowie county had a population of 61,966, with 24,753 residing in the Texas portion of the city of Tex- arkana. The city lies athwart the Texas-Arkansas state line, with an additional 15,875 persons on the Arkansas side of the line. Thus, Texarkana had a combined popu- lation of 40,628. A severe curtailment in activity in two large industrial plants in the area took place between 1950 and 1960. This curtailment cut down not only on the number of people directly employed by these indus- tries, but also affected other businesses. The result was that Bowie county had an estimated net out-migration of 12,062 persons for the decade. Further, the effects of a decline in industrial employment were felt not only in the county in which the plants were located but also in the populations of surrounding counties which were similarly affected. State Economic Area Growth Population growth in the different state economic areas between 1950 and 1960 ranged from an increase of 55 percent in area 5 to a decline of 11 percent in area 6b (Figure 4) . CENTER OF POPULATION FOR TEXAS. l900-l96O Figure 5 Of the 19 State economic areas, five had population losses between 1950 and 1960. Besides area 6b, others that had fewer people at the end of the decade than at its beginning were areas 7a, 9, 10 and 12. Without ex- ception, these are basically agricultural areas which ap- parently have not made the necessary adjustments to attract industry and to hold their populatlons. At the other extreme, five different State economic areas had population increases of more than 30 percent. Besides area 5, these included 1a, 4~, 7b and 14. Of this group, areas 1a, 4~ and 5 are in the Panhandle and ex- treme western sections of the State. Most ‘of the popu- lation increases in these areas may be attrlbuted to the location of major cities (Lubbock, El Paso and Amaril- lo) within their boundaries; oil and gas developments; and increased irrigation of farmland. Area 14, along the Gulf Coast, has such cities as Houston, Galveston and Beaumont. In addition, this section of the State has developed rapidly industrially. Area 7b, 1n the North Central section of the State, include-s Fort Worth and 1s also becoming more industrialized. State economic area 14 had the largest numerical increase between 1950 and 1960, being well over half a million people. Harris county, in which Houston is lo- cated, accounted for a major portion of the increase. All of the seven state economic areas having population gains in excess of 100,000 during the decade had a major p-opulation center which accounted for most of their increases. Migration and Natural Increase The role that net migratio-n and natural increase play in population growth varies from one state economic area to another. In only 7 of the 19 state economic areas did the in-migration of persons exceed the number leaving between 1950 and 1960. All seven registered relatively large population increases, since they also had natural increases. In addition, seven other state eco- nomic areas had net out-migration but still managed to have a small population increase through registering an excess of births over deaths. In five state economic areas, the net out-migration was too great to be over- 10 . will accrue to the State as long as its population is gro come by a natural increase, and they had populatio losses for the decade. ' 1' Implications of Population Growth Population changes have important implications r the State as a whole as well as for the specific areas ' which they take place. t A rapid growth in population has taken place ' Texas, and projections whichappear in another secti . of this report indicate that the population will contin I to grow at a rapid pace. In general, this growth ca for expanded health and recreation facilities; an increa in social, religious and economic welfare services; gno police protection; and an increased use of all of t types of service-s which persons either need or are f pected to want. The increased number of people w' also impose larger responsibilities upon different uni of government, both State and local. There will be m0 consumers to provide goods for; more children a ‘ adults to educate; more houses and business buildin to build, service and protect; more need for recreation and dental and medical facilities, and more mobile w ple for whom to provide a network of highways a‘ a improved communications systems. ' As long as Texas grows at a faster rate than rest of the nation, the State’s proportionate share f. I funds that are allocated on a population basis will . a larger, as will its representation in Congress. As a _ sult of the 1960 census, for example, Texas gained j additional seat in Congress, which some other state -~ to give up because its population growth was relativ j slow. Greater political influence in still other sphe ing rapidly. Also, not to be overlooked is an intangib yet very meaningful “climate” or “tone” that a rapi expanding population gives to a state as a whole. Wh population is growing, so is the economy, with the _ result of people having an over-all forward outlook. J As has been previously pointed out, however, pop lation growth and losses are not equally distributed ov the State. Thus, while certain areas are increasing the spheres of political and economic influence, others a, ‘ declining in importance. The center of population Texas, for example, is moving southward. So rapid the population growth been in the Gulf Coast area th the center of population in Texas is moving toward t, area (Figure 5). In 1900, the center of Texas pop g tion was located in Lime-stone county about 18 mil west of Mexia. By 1930 it had shifted to McLennt county about 10 miles northwest of Waco. The cent of Texas population in 1960 was located near Moor ville in Falls county, approximately 18 miles due sou of Waco and 20 miles northeast of Temple. Thus, while the population of the northern sect has continue-d to grow, it has not kept pace with I v growth in the southern section during the last deca) » Between 1900 and 1930, the population center shif p. about 27 miles due westward, but since 1930, gro particularly in the Gulf Coast area has caused the p0 . lation center to shift about 30 miles in a southerly a 3 miles in an easterly direction. When it is considered that for the past decade ~ a half a majority of the Texas counties have actua declined in population, the importance of this trend p ident for many sections of the State. Many iities, particularly smaller population centers, are fidents through out-migration, usually to metro- - ters. As population declines, these places are to provide certain services desired by the people. g“ and banking facilities are good example-s of ‘(ls of services. The local school district con- 7; with other school districts encompassing more and a wider territory. As time progresses, school enrollment continues to decline because under consolidation is not able to stem the tide igration of people. As some of the key services Jr become available, the community’s residents go ‘T population centers to avail themselves of these While in the larger population centers, they eff-transact an increasing amount of their business mo-re purchases away from their home com- " With less money spent in the community, per- rating service establishments find it more diffi- make improvements, to stock their shelves with w: the bare essentials, and to pay their taxes. 1* ation, in turn, tends to encourage local people an increasingly larger proportion of their pur- §and to seek different services outside- the com- ile communities of declining population are fac- ain problems, those with growing numbers also ing to make certain adjustments. Increases in Qeeded to add schoolroo-ms and to build schools in §locations are a problem constantly facing rapidly -_ areas. Shortage of police and fire protection, ially water shortages in several sections of tax the finances and ingenuity of municipal offi- d agencies». As more and more people migrate to traffic problems. The recent tendency for ' A migrate away from the central portion of a big _ smaller towns and cities in the suburbs increases of automobiles and increases traffic problems central city. At the same time, persons in the 's who use traffic facilities in the central cities ito and from work contribute little through taxes f. the central cities build the network of needed Qoutlets. Some areas are growing so rapidly that g; tstrip the development of new retail and whole- ' ablishments and personal and business services. ,- summary, population growth and decline exert influences upon the areas in which they occur, y meriting thorough study of these trends by all f3; in responsible positions so they can better plan x future. ;Ruro| and Urban Population Growth De finifion of Terms p e terms “urban” and “rural” as used throughout ublication coincide with Bureau of Census defini- of these terms. l 1960 census definition of the urban population ed all persons in (1) incorporated and unincor- p.» places of 2,500 or more; and (2) the densely is metropolitan centers, more attention has to be‘ TOTAL POPULATION OF TEXAS ACCORDING TO URBAN.RURAL NONFARM AND RURAL FARM RESIDENCE. l920-l96O IPgILLIONS OF PEOPLE RBAN ~ RURAL FARM I920 I930 I940 I950 I960 Figure 6 populated urban fringe around cities of 50,000 inhabi- tants or more. The rural population is divided into (a) rural farm and (b) rural nonfarm population. 1n the 1960 cen- sus, the rural farm population included persons living in rural territory on places of 10 or more acres from which sales of farm products amounted to $50 or more in 1959, or on places of less than 10 acres from which the sales of farm products amounted to $250 or more in 1959. The definition, rural nonfarm population, ap- plied to all other persons in rural territory, including those living in place-s of less than 2,500 and those living on farms and paying rent for the house, but their rent did not include any land used for farming, General Trend One of the more conspicuous changes in the popu- lation of the State has been the movement of people from rural to urban areas. Just 20 years ago Texas had more rural than urban residents, with approximately one-half living on farms and ranches alone as late as 1920. By 1960, however, urban areas held a sizeable majority of the S-tate’s people (Figure 6). The first time in the State’s history the census recorded more urban than rural residents was in 1950. Yet, this trend continued at such an accelerated rate that 75 percent of Texas’ population was classified as urban in 1960 (Table 2). The trend from rural to urban residence occurred earlier in the nation as a whole than in Texas, but the State’s shift from rural to urban residence has taken place at a faster rate than in the nation during the last decade. Nationally there were proportionately more ' urban than rural residents as early as 1920, with 78 per- cent being classified as urban in 1960. Rural Population Changes In past years, the Texas rural population grew steadily in numbers until it reached its peak in 1940, with 3,503,435 people. Since 1940 a decline of 31 per- cent has occurred, with 2,392,207 persons being classi- fied as rural residents in 1960. The two segments of Texas’ rural population experienced quite different pat- ll ,,,, r 117-"1: *1" . won: RURAL. POPULATION g PQPULAT-w cwlwe: CHANGE m TEXAS t-tc-T- -¢- I “CHASE COUNTIES. I950-I960 m °‘°""“°“ can Figure 7 terns of change during the decade, however, with the farm segment declining and the nonfarm segment in- creasing. Although the rural population accounts for a small- er proportion of the State’s people than in previous years, Texas still has a large rural population. For example, 25 of the 5O states that make up the nation have a total population that is smaller than the rural population of Texas. Texas ranks fifth nationally in number of persons classified as rural. States with larger rural populations than Texas are: Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio and North Carolina. In 1960, 58 percent of the counties in Texas (14-7 in number) had more rural than urban population. Also, the entire populations of 71. counties were classi- fied as rural in 1960. While the number of rural residents in Texas as a whole declined between 1950 and 1960, 59 counties reg- istered increases in rural population for various reasons (Figure 7). Of these counties, the largest numerical increases occurred in Calhoun (4,105), Hale (3,896) and Parmer (3,796). The largest percentage increases occurred in Val Verde (14-1), Hemphill (124) and TABLE 2. TEXAS POPULATION CLASSIFIED BY RESIDENCE. 1850-1960 Menard Hale and Parmer counties’ rural popula! tion increase occurred chiefly because of expanded irri i_ gation of farmland. The increase in Menard and Hemp hill counties was largely the result of a population loss in the towns of Menard and Canadian, causing them y v change from an urban to a rural classification betwee f censuses. The increases in Calhoun and Val Verde coun ties were due to increases in the___rural nonfarm popula a tion. -. » a Only area 4 among the 19 state economic areas ha p an increase in rural population between 1950 and 1960i Of the 23 counties comprising area 4, located in th upper Panhandle section, 14 had increases. At the othe - extreme was area 6a, comprising the southeastern‘ sec, ' tion of the Panhandle and extending southward beyon Abilene. This area sustained a decline of one-third i rural population during the decade. Only 2 of the 2 . counties (Cottle and Donley) in area 6 had an increa - g in rural population. Another section, state economi g area 8, sustained a 28-percent loss in rural populatio between 1950 and 1960. This area comprises 19 couni j ties in the Blacklands section of Central Texas. All 1 ' counties had losses during the decade. Rural Farm Although the census did not classify the farm an ; nonfarm segments of the rural population separateli prior to 1920, a continuous increase in Texas’ rur. farm population was evident before that time. T . rural farm population continued to increase to 2.3 m'_' " lion by 1930, reaching its peak numbers around 193 a Since reaching an all-time high in the middle 1930’ ‘ however, the rural farm population has declined rapidl particularly during the past decade. The number in t‘ rural farm population decreased by 46.3 percent in t past decade. Although the reasons for a declining number L people on farms are numerous and complex, the mo important is that with technology and modern mach'_ ery, fewer people are required to produce the raw ag cultural products. Even with fewer people, agricultural production h increased substantially. Farms have become fewer (31 percent decline from 1950 to 1959) but larger (from - average size of 4-38 acres in 1950 to 630 acres in 1959 Modern machinery has increased the amount of Wo - that may be accomplished by the individual farm wor Year Total Urban Rural Rural nonfarm Rural‘ farm Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Perce= 1850 212.592 7.665 3.6 204.927 96.4 ' 1860 604.215 26.615 4.4 577.600 95.6 1870 818.579 54.521 6.7 764.058 93.3 1880 1.591.749 146.795 9.2 1.444.954 90.8 1890 2.235.527 349.511 15.6 1.886.016 84.4 1900 3.048.710 520.759 17.1 2.527.951 82.9 1910 3.896.542 938.104 24.1 2.958.438 75.9 c 1920 4.663.228 1.512.689 32.4 3.150.539 67.6 884.805 19.0 2.265.734 48.6 1930 5.824.715 2.389.348 41.0 3.435.367 59.0 1.092.814 18.8 2.342.553 40.2 1940 6.414.824 2.911.389 45.4 3.503.435 54.6 1.354.248 21.1 2.149.187 33.5 ‘ 1950 7.711.194 4.838.060 62.7 2.873.134 37.3 1.580.867 20.5 1.292.267 16.8 v 1960 9.579.677 7.187.470 75.0 2.392.207 25.0 1.698.467 17.7 693.740 7.3 Source: U.S. Bureau oi Census. Census of Population. 1920-1960. 12 p} yields have increased with the application of fled and tested techniques to farming operations. ‘pita farm income has increased, bringing with it conveniences for farmers and ranchers, such as 1 ity, telephones and automobiles. As a result, the that used to exist between living conditions» of gpeople and their city cousins has been lessened a Jglly. general decline in rural farm population was . It read in Texas between 1950 and 1960, with only _ ties having an increase (Figure 8). Of this , 15 were located in the western part of the State '7 irrigation developments. were the major factor. al farm population makes up more than one-half Itotal population in 6 counties and more than 40 in 21 counties. Those counties with more than ff of their population being rural farm residents Borden, Castro, Kenedy, King, Lynn and Mills. ly area 4 of the 19 state economic areas had an ‘é in farm population during the last decade, lfsix of the 23 counties accounted for all of the is: In twelve of the 19 state economic areas, all lost in farm population. The biggest losses in areas 12 and 13 in the eastern section, with '9; of 68 and 70 percent, respectively. Area 8, the f ds section in Central Texas, declined by slightly an one-half. In addition to mechanization and i gy, the shift from row crop to livestock farming particular sections contributed greatly to the pulation decline. A change in definition of a o had the effect of artificially reducing the farm ion to a greater extent in East and Central Texas did in the western section. v Nonfarm f if rural nonfarm population in Texas has con- to increase since it was first considered as a sep- ‘idence category in the census of 1920. In 1960, a ately 1.7 million people were classified as rural residents, making up 17.7 percent of the State’s \ulation. Rural nonfarm persons made up more ‘Ye-half of the total population in 86 counties. a; ough the rural nonfarm population is increas- u. rate of growth is slowing down. For example, onfarm numbers increased by 261,000 betwee-n if,“ 1940; 2-27,500 during the next decade; and I "between 1950 and 1960. 1960, there were 386,855 persons living in 243 8* ces of under 1,000 population. The total num- f5. in places of less than 1,000 and also places of 2,500 increased slightly between 1950 and 1960. e, there were a number of places that changed ral to urban in designation between censuses. urs when the population of a nucleated settle- iches 2,500 or more; then that settlement is as an urban place and the residents are then t as a part of the iiirban population. Hallettsville, a county may be‘ used to illustrate this situation. _, Hallettsville with 2,000 people was classified as éiBut in 1960, Hallettsville had a population of d was classified as urban. ,.addition to the movement from farms and also fes to places of rural nonfarm residence, chang- m-gunnnlnnueuwl RURALFARM POPULATION "“ "“ w" PbPW-ATW" “AWE CHANGE IN TEXAS g’- CQUNTIES. |950'l96O Figure 8 - INCREASE l3 DECREASE ing the definition of a farm between the 1950 and 1960 census had an over-all increasing effect on the rural nonfarm population. Most of those living on what were formerly classified as farms in the open country but could no longer meet the new requirements in 1960 became rural nonfarm residents by virtue of the change in definition. Approximately two out of three Texas counties had increases in their rural nonfarm population between 1950 and 1960. So widespread were the increases that only five of the 19 state economic areas experienced rural nonfarm decreases. These were areas 1a, 5, 6a, 8 and 15. The locations of the five areas with declines in rural nonfarm population are generally scattered, with no part of the State exhibiting a pattern greatly different from the rest. Urban Population Changes Urbanization has been the dominant population process in Texas during the past decade. The State’s urban population jumped from 4,838,000 in 1950 to 7,187,000 in 1960, an increase of 2,349,000 persons, or 48.6 percent. This is a considerably faster rate of urban population growth than in the nation as a whole, where it increased by only 29.3 percent. The Texas urban population also increased at a much faster rate during the 1950’s than the total population of the State. Qnly four states exceed Texas in total number of persons living in urban areas. These are New York, Pennsylvania, California and Illinois. Texas also ranks ninth among states in the percentage of its people living in urban areas. States with higher proportions of urban population are New Jersey, Rhode Island, California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Connecticut and Hawaii. In 1960, three out of four persons (75 percent) in the State were classified as urban residents as compared with 70 percent of the nation as a whole. Just 20 years previously, urban areas held less than one-half of the State’s people and in 1920 less than one-third. Theur- ban population growth has been so rapid that Texas now has nine cities listed among the 100 large-st cities in the United States. l3 5mm m3! STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS OF TEXAS IN I960 Figure 9 A direct relationship exists between the size of city in 1950 and the proportionate number that increased or decreased in population during the 1950-60 decade. All cities which had 50,000 or more persons in 1950 in- creased in population. In the 10,000-to-5~0,000-size category, 91 percent had population increases. Three of the four places between 10,000 and 50,000 which lost in population were surrounded on all sides by other larger cities, thus preventing any outward growth. In- creases were recorded by 74» percent of the cities be- tween 5,000 and 10,000 and 71 percent between 2,500 and 5,000 population. Within the different size cities, varying rates of growth occurred during the past decade. While some cities which were less than 10,000 in 1950 were losing population, 39 others of the same size more than doubled their numbers during the decade, with four increasing by more than 1,000 percent. These were Irving, Mes- quite, Farmers Branch and Richardson, all in Dallas county. While the number of people living in places of between 25,000 and 50,000 as a whole increased by 264 percent between 1950 and 1960, the population in urban places of other sizes did not increase as rapidly. Persons living in cities of 100,000 or more increased from 2,089,- 000 in 1950 to 3,680,000 in 1960 (Table 3). The 11 cities of 100,000 and over held 38.5 percent of the State’s total population in 1960. TABLE 3. TEXAS URBAN POPULATION IN GROUPS OF PLACES CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO SIZE. 1960 Size oi place Number oi places Population. Number Cumulative 100.000 or more 11 3.680.370 3.680.370 50.000 to 100.000 10 694.450 4.374.820 25.000 to 50.000 19 639.624 5.014.444 10.000 to 25.000 62 940.467 5.954.911 5.000 to 10.000 81 573.254 6.528.165 2.500 to 5.000 137 491.560 7.019.725 Under 2.500 30 40.532 7.060.257 Other Urban 127.213 7.187.470 Source: U.S. Bureau oi Census. PC (1) 45A—Texas. Tables 2 and 3. 14 Although some of the urban growth was obtain p_ through the extension of city limits, a large portion of i represents movement from smaller towns and open coun try areas to the more populous centers. ~ Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas A Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (S.M.A.) as defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, includ a city or cities of 50,000 orl more persons and th contiguous territory which is deemed to be closely int grated economically with these cities. In some instance, only the county in which the central city of 50,000 01 more is located may constitute its S.M.A., while in other it may include more than one county. In 1960, Texaeha 21 S.M.A.’s, which included a total of 30 counties (Fi ure 9). One of the outstanding features of population di tribution in Texas is the concentration of persons ' centralized locations referred to as Standard Metropo tan Statistical Areas. In 1960, a total of 6,1043, persons lived in the State’s 21 S.M.A.’s. F urthermor the trend toward concentration in S.M.A.’s is a celerating. During the last decade, the S.M.A.’s a sorbed more people than the State’s total populati increase. They increased so rapidly that they had _ percent of the State’s people in 1960' as compared wi A. 56 percent in 1950. The concentration of population ' a S.M.A.’s is the net result of the gain in industrial c0 ‘ ' centration and the transference of a portion of the rur’ 1 population to the urban complexes. As might be expected, S.M.A.’s experienced diff a pent rates of growth between 1950 and 1960 (Table 4y The Amarillo S».M.A. as well as Midland, Odessa, i, Paso, Houston and Lubbock had population increases 5 excess of 50 percent. Texarkana was the only S.M. which lost population. TABLE 4. TEXAS POPULATION IN STANDARD METR POLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS. 1950 AND 1960 Standard metropolitan statistical Population Change areas 1950-60 1960 1950 Number Perce Abilene 120.377 85.517 34.860 Amarillo 149.493 87.140 62.353 Austin 212.136 160.980 51.156 Beaumont-Port Arthur 306.016 235.650 70.366 Brownsville-Harlingen- San Benito 151.098 125.170 25.928 Corpus Christi 221.573 165.471 56.102 Dallas 1.083.601 743.501 340.100 E1 Paso 314.070 194.968 119.102 Fort Worth 573.215 392.643 180.572 Galveston-Texas City 140.364 113.066 27.298 Houston 1.243.158 806.701 436.457 Laredo 64.791 56.141 8.650 Lubbock 156.271 101.048 55.223 Midland 67.717 25.785 41.932 Odessa 90.995 42.102 48.893 San Angelo 64.630 58.929 5.701 San Antonio 687.151 500.460 186.691 Texarkana (Tex.-Ark.) 91.657 94.580 —2.923 Tyler 86.350 74.701 11.649 ‘Naco 150.091 130.194 19.897 Wichita Falls 129.638 105.309 24.329 Total 6.104.392 4.300.056 1.804.336 Source: U.S. Bureau oi Census. PC (1) 45A—Texas. Table ' éAlthough the number of people in S.M.A.’s is in- if. at a rapid rate in Texas, the population within of them has become decentralized. That is, within there has been a tendency for larger propor- ill-of the population to be resident in the “rings” or ‘ban parts, rather than in the central city of the I For example, the city of Dallas experienced a V’ tion increase of 56 percent between 1950 and 1960 at least four suburbs in the. Dallas S-.M.A. (located same county as the central city) had phenomenal Irving spiraled in population from 2,6211 in to 45,985 in 1960, an increase of 1,654 percent. eers Branch grew from 915- to- 13,441 (1,639 per- f; Mesquite from 1,696 to~27,526 (1,523 percent); Richardson from 1,289 to 16,810 (1,204 percent). igAnother example that may be used to illustrate the tralization of population within a S.M.A. is the Worth situation. The city of Fort Worth increase-d rcent in population between 1950 and 1960. Dur- " §the same period, Tarrant county (in which the city Worth is located) had a population increase of _rcent, and the Fort Worth S.M.A. as a whole in- by 59 percent. Arlington, a suburb of Fort , increased by 482 percent. during the past decade, the rural-urban mi- 'on was countered by an out-migration from ce-ntral t; to the suburbs. Until fairly recent times it was sary that big population centers be densely popu- Suburban life for a sizeable percentage of urban efiflents, however, has now become a reality with the development of automobiles, good roads and a tele- We network. High proportions of suburban residents f.“ to their jobs in central cities daily. At the time commercial and industrial enterprises have decentralized. Although on the whole the redistribution of the ation and business firms within metropolitan areas 0- iibeen beneficial, it has also created some newer prob- F or example, the central city is called on to serve I only its own inhabitants but also a large part of _ in the whole metropolitan area. In most metro- I n areas, however, there is generally a high positive ilation between distance from the center and family lFn With the removal of such residents and also L» firms, the center loses an important source of 0n the other hand, many fast-growing suburban "ties are burdened heavily with the problems of taining facilities to match their rapid growth. Residential Data Adjustments Although figures for the different residential groups jipgoperly recorded in census volumes, users of this 1' ation need to keep in mind that these data are not ys precisely comparable from one federal census to er. For example, the definition of what constitutes residence was broadened to include more people Teen the 1940 and 19,50 enumerations. This had the it of increasing the size‘ of the urban population by we of a change in definition and reducing the size 'e rural population. The change in definition of residence used in 1950 was continued in 1960 the same resultant net effect. Another definition change in 1960 related to what itutes a farm. The change in definition of a farm resulted in a decrease in number of farms as compared with previous censuses. This resulted in decreasing the rural farm pop-ulation and increasing the rural nonfarm population. Another factor complicating the comparability of rural and urban population data is the annexation of territory by municipalities. Through the process of an- nexation, some areas of rural classification in 1950 changed to urban classification when the census was taken in 1960. While the preceding factors do not officially alter the 1960 population, distribution by urban, rural non- farm and rural farm residence, they should be kept in mind when reviewing residential composition trends. Al- though it is difficultto assess precisely the degree to which changes in definitions and the annexation of land by municipalities have affected residential composition data, some estimates of their net effects may be attempt- ed. Change in Urban Definition In 1940, the Bureau of the Census classified as urban residents those persons living in incorporated places of 2,500 or more. In 1950 and 1960 this classi- fication was expanded to include persons living in unin- corporated, as well as incorporated, places 0-f 2,500 or more and also persons residing in densely settled urban fringes around cities of 50,000 or more. Data taken from recent census publications indicate that had the 1940 census definition not been changed, the 1960 Texas urban population would have been ap- proximately 224,000 smaller than what was recorded and the rural population larger by this same amount. Thus, the rural population would have comprised 27.3 percent of the State’s people in 1960 (had the definition not been changed) as compared with the actual 25.0 percent officially recorded. Change in Farm Definition A new definition of the farm population was adopt- ed by the 1960 census which employed more restrictive criteria than in 1950 in classifying places as farms. These criteria involved land acreage and value of farm products sold. A change in definition of a farm directly affected the number of persons being classified in the rural farm and rural nonfarm populations. By adjust- ing Texas data to regional and national data contained in various census reports, estimates of the effects of changes in definition of a farm have been computed. There were 693,740 persons in the ‘Texas rural farm population in 1960, using the 1960 definition of farm population. Using the 195-0 definition, the rural farm population for 1960 was estimated at 918,860. Thus, the net difference in persons classified as rural farm was approximately 225,000, or almost one-fourth of the rural farm population according to the 1950 definition. Since the definition change reduced the rural farm population by an estimated 225,000 persons, it also had the net effect of increasing the rural nonfarm population by a similar amount. The rural nonfarm population in 1960 was 1,698,467, using the 1960 definition of farm population. The net difference in persons classified in the rural nonfarm population in 1960 was about 15 per- cent higher than if the 1950 definition had been used. 150 Annexations by Municipalities There were 215 places classified as urban munici- palities in 1950 (cities 2,500 or larger) that annexed adjoining territory between 1950 and 1960. Informa- tion on the number of separate annexations and their dates are not available, and some of the annexed areas bore urban designations at the time of their annexation while others bore rural designations. Consequently, it becomes impossible to compute the net effect of these annexations upon rural and urban population data. Nevertheless, some data are available concerning the magnitude of the annexation process. There were 1,596,660 persons in 1960 living in areas that had been annexed by municipalities between 1950 and 1960. It is estimated that at least 585,000 of the 1,596,660 persons were living in what was classified as rural area in 1950 but switched to urban by being added to a city by annexation. On the other hand, about 1,011,000 persons in 1960 lived in territory an- nexed during the _ 1950-60 decade that was probably classified as urban in the 1950 census. These were per- sons residing in the heavily populated fringes around cities of 50,000 or more in 1950 that were annexed to municipalities between the 1950 and 1960 censuses. Implications of Residential Composition Changes The rapid growth that has taken place in urban areas while the rural population has been declining has many important implications for the State as a whole, as well as the specific areas concerned. For one thing, a gradual change in the prevailing attitudes, values and goals of Texans will continue to take place as the shift from rural to urban areas of pop- ulation concentration continues. Services and facilities will be oriented increasingly to the urban segment of the population. The outcome of elections can be expected to be more heavily urban dominated, and programs and policies can be expected to favor the urban populace. The decline in farm population has resulted in a better balance between people and agricultural land. The job of producing raw agricultural products has been left to fewer, more efficient and better trained farm operators, whose levels of living have been increasing SEX COMPOSITION OF THE TEXAS POPULAT|ON.I920-I96O I920 I930 I940 I950 I960 3O 4O I 5O 6O TO 8O 9O IOO -MALES Figure l0 16 “traditionally higher than in urban areas, the rural birt steadily. On the other hand, the location of farm resi f dences, communications and service facilities are no always fitted to sparser populations, and adjustmen have been forced upon rural public schools, church and trade services. Farmer participation in communit and group activities has increased substantially, an well-organized community activities, churches an schools are becoming more centered in small towns. ,7 smaller town has taken on new-found importance f0 persons living in rural areas. . Changes in residential composition have “t i brought about mainly through migration. The migraj tion from one residential area to another in Texas“ been highly selective. Negroes have migrated {fro farms at a more rapid rate than whites. Tenants an operators of smaller farms have moved to cities mores than have the owners and operators of larger farm Young people have been moving into towns and partic . larly bigger cities upon completion of their high scho or college education. At the same time, younger ma ried couples are moving to the- suburbs from the centr city, and older people who are retiring from farmin are moving to smaller towns. The net result is th rural farm areas have relatively higher proportions t their population classified as dependents while urb _: areas (and particularly suburbs) have less load to car ‘ in terms of the ratio of its dependent population to t. ple in the productive ages of life. ‘- With the trend toward a larger proportion of peop Y residing in urban areas, the State will need to lookt * the urban areas more and more as the source of intern population growth. Although rural birthrates have ' rate has been declining and taking on more urbanli characteristics. Furthermore, this is likely to be a co tinuing trend in the future as the State becomes increa ingly urban and as the rural population takes on mo of the characteristics of urban family life. ' The urbanward trend calls for everincreasing urb employment opportunities. Since employment tends . be centered in areas of industrial advancement and th kind of employment create-s other jobs in the same r gions, the industrialized areas of the State will needt plan for more jobs and for more and larger faciliti for increasingly larger numbers. ' Age and Sex Composition One of the main reasons that almost every publ document asks for an individual’s age and sex is th they are relevant to practically every circumstance. T age and sex composition of any state’s population vitall affects the over-all health conditions, productive energi interests and activities of a given area or state. Th’ two factors affect all social institutions, from the scho g system to marriage, as well as other phases of soci .~ interaction. - Sex Distribution For the first time in its history Texas had mo‘ females than males in 1960. The total population ‘ 9,579,677 included 4,744,981 (49.5 percent) male-s an f 4,834,696 (50.5 percent) females, giving a ratio of '1» males to each 100 females (Figure 10). There has been a steady trend from male t0 female minance in numbers in the State. In 18-50 the sex i0 (the number of males per 100 females) was 115. ' 1900 it had been reduced to 107 and by 194-0 t0 101. f5 1950 there were 15,090 more males than females, the ratio being about 100. By 1960, females in the te exceeded the number of males by 89,715, the re- ing sex ratio being 98. The trend toward female predominance in numbers ' an indication of the stage of maturity Texas has ched. Any large area just being settled usually starts i, with a preponderance of males. This is because men ally are attracted to new areas more than are pen. As the population expands, females increase in m ers at a faster rate than males, tending to reduce differences in their numbers. Moreover, women ally live longer than men. These factors play an ’ortant part in explaining why there are more fe- es than males in a state such as Texas. Although the trend in the balance between the sexes fgflin the same direction in the nation as in the State, e were more women than men as early as 1950 on ationwide basis. The sex ratio for the nation in 1960 97 as compared with 9'8 in Texas. More important than the sex ratio in the State’s ulation is a comparison of the sex ratio in various Qups of the population. For this reason, data are pre- itetl for different age groups, residence locations and Ratios At Different Age Levels ' The balance between the sexes differs materially at erent age levels. A Life in Texas begins with an excess of males, as it _ - in other sections of the nation. There were 104.7 born in the State for every 100 girls from 1950’ to . The sex ratio at birth varies little from year to " , ranging from 104.25 to 105.24 during the various s in Texas since 1947. This differential is offset by i higher death rate that exists for males throughout ' span of life, particularly before reaching their first ,day. Migration is also sex selective and therefore factor in the changing sex ratio as people advance it e through their life span. f Thus, life in Texas starts out with a sex ratio of d 105. At death rates prevailing in Texas in 1960, Ever, 33 males per 1,000 and 26 females per 1,000 during their first year of life. As a result, the sex ‘_ drops to 108 among the 2-year-old youngsters. continues to take its toll of boys at a faster rate bi of girls so that at age 20, there are more females - ales (sex ratio of 99), and women continue their iminance in numbers during the remaining years of A Their predominance increases with each advance p successively older age group, particularly after age For example, the sex ratio for persons 65 to 69 is 75 to 79 years of Wage the ratio is 78.8; and at 85 over there are onlyf:65‘.8 males per 100 females. ttTable 5 shows the predominance of males and fe- in numbers at different age levels in 1960. Ratios by Residence fiWhile the State population as a whole has more i es than males, this is true only in urban areas, TABLE 5. NUMBER OF MALES AND FEMALES IN TEXAS BY 10-YEAR AGE PERIODS. 1960 Age group Males Females Excess in numbers Males Females Under 5 years 590.317 571.702 18.615 5 to 14 years 1.020.264 989.951 30.313 15 to 24 years 691.262 680.825 10.437 25 to 34 years 625.957 650.109 24.152 35 to 44 years 601.520 621.375 19.855 45 to 54 years 513.473 525.802 12.329 55 to 64 years 365.099 386.630 21.531 65 to 74 years 229.450 263.899 34.449 75 and over 107.639 144.403 36.764 All ages 4.744.981 4.834.696 89.715 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, PC (1) 45B—Texas, Table 16. with the opposite situation occurring in the rural popu- lation, especially in rural farm areas. 1n 1960, urban areas had only 96 males for every 100 females, while rural areas had 106 males per 100 females. A further breakdown of the rural population indicates that the rural nonfarm population had 105 men per 100 women, and the rural farm population had 107. On the other hand, the central cities inside Standard Metropolitan Areas had a sex ratio of only 9'5. The primary reason for the wide range in sex ratios found in urban and rural areas is that the migration from rural to urban areas involves more women than men. The urban community attracts more females be- cause more employment opportunities are open to women in the city, while farming is mainly a male occupation. The sex ratio in every one of the different residen- tial classifications was lower in 1960 than in 1950. It dropped from 96.3 to 95.8 in urban areas and from 108 to 106 in rural areas. The biggest decrease occurred in the rural farm population, dropping from 111 to 107. 1n both rural and urban areas, life starts with about the same proportionate excess of males over females, but their sex ratios begin to assume different patterns in the late teens and early twenties. The proportion of males at these age levels increases in rural populations, while it decreases in urban populations. Differences in sex ratios in the late teens and early twenties are sig- y nificant, because they fall at a point in life when the mate selection process and marriage are most likely to take place. Among the biggest discrepancies between the numbers of males and females in the marriageable ages are sex ratios of 92 between the age-s of 20 and 24 in cities; 130 also between 20 and 24 in the rural non- farm population; and 120 between 15 and 19' years of age in rural farm areas. The excess of females in urban areas which begins at the teenage level continues throughout the remainder of the life span, being greatest in the older ages. For every 100 women in cities who are 75 years of age or older, for instance, there are only 67 men. The only residential grouping with an excess of males in the older ages is in the rural farm population, where there are 112 men per 100 women 75 years of age or older. The marked excess of o-lder men on farms and of older women in urban areas results mainly from two factors. One is that there was an excessive male migra- tion to farms when today’s older people were young—— 17 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE TEXAS POPULATIONJSZO-IQGO \\ \\ \\\\ PERCENTAGE primarily around the turn of the century and during the preceding decade. 0T1 the other hand, girls tended t0 migrate from farms t0 cities moreso than did boys in the days of their youth, and women who became widows in farm communities tended to move to towns and cities after the death of their husbands. Balance of the Sexes by Color Nonwhites in Texas have lower sex ratios than whites. In 1960 there were 99 white males for every 100 white females, and 95 nonwhite males for every 100 nonwhite females. The sex ratio of whites was lower than 10 years previously but remained virtually un- changed among nonwhites. The balance between the sexes in Texas for both whites and nonwhites was essen- tially the same as it was for the nation in 1960. The white population at birth has a higher propor- tion of males to females than doe-s the nonwhite popula- tion. Whites had 105 boys born to every 100 girls from 1950 to 1960. During the same period, nonwhites had 103 boys born to every 100 girls. The proportion of males to females remains higher for whites than for non- whites at all age levels until age 55, but from that point the proportion of males to females becomes lower for whites than nonwhites throughout the remainder of the life span. Age Composition In addition to the change that takes place in the balance between males and females, the changing age distribution of Texas’ population is a good indicator of the State’s maturity. Since 1880 there has been a de- cided decline in the proportion of persons in the younger age groups and a similar increase in proportions in the older age groups. The productive age groups have re- mained relatively more constant in their proportion to the total throughout the State’s history. Within the pro- ductive age groups, the proportions between 20 and 30 years of age have declined, but have increased for those between 30 and 64 years of age. The median age of the Texas population increased from 18 years in 1880 to 27 years in 1960. The degree to which the number of births varies from one year to another, variations in the number of 18 deaths (and the age at which they occur) and the num-y. ber who migrate into or out of a state at any given age. y are the three basic factors which cause the age distribu- tion to change over any given period of time. Fluctuav tions in all three occur from one year to another. For; example, the birth rate in Texas was low in 1935, as it was in the remainder of the nation. Since the birth rate; was much higher in 1945, it would be logical to expect a, relatively lower proportion of persons who were 25 years of age in 1960 in relation to the‘; proportion that were i 15 years old. a I The peak in the birth rate between 1950 and 1960 was reached in 1954, when the State had 28.4 live births per 1,000 population. The birth rate during the decade was at its lowest point (26.3) in 1950 and again in 1959.9 The largest number of live births was 249,863 in 1957. On the other hand, the death rate also has fluc- tuated slightly during the decade from a high of 8.2 deaths per 1,000-population in 1950-51 to a low of 7.5 deaths per 1,000 population in 1955. Figure 11 shows the relative importance of different age groups in Texas since 1920. In general, all age, groups increased their proportions of the total over the 40-year period except those from ages 5 through 34. The primary changes in age composition of Texas’. ' population during the 1950-60 decade reveal three essen- _ tial trends. The first is the increasing proportion 1_, - younger people under 15» years of age, resulting from the higher birth rate since around 1944. The second is = the increasing proportion of older people resulting from a continue-d decline in mortality. In 1950, persons under . 15 years of age made up 29 percent of the State’s total i- population and 33 percent in 1960. Those who were 50‘ years of age or older comprised 19 percent of the total in 1950 and 21 percent in 1960. The third trend was a declining proportion of persons from 20 to 45 years of age. In 19'50, they accounted for 38 percent of the total population and only 33 percent in 1960. The highest rates of increases for different age"- groups between 1950 and 1960 occurred among the youth and the aged. The number of youngsters (age o g through 17) during the decade increased by 46 percent. ‘ As a result of this growth, school facilities and program have experienced a rapid expansion. The numerical in crease of youngsters between 6 through 17 is notable There were about 701,500 more children in these ag levels in 1960 than in 1950. The older population (6 years of age and older) increased by 41.8 percent. Thi was a numerical increase of around 215,000. - The increased number of persons 65 and over, well as their increased proportions, has resulted in in y creased attention being given to different types of pen sion and retirement payment plans, to special housin facilities and institutional facilities for the aged and o" i expanded recreational services for this group. Consid erable political strength has been gained by the olde y‘ » people as a group through their rapidly expanding num- Z bers. Persons 65 years of age or older numbered 728, 033 in 1960 as compared with around 232,000 in 1930 There were approximately 29,000 fewer people b, tween 20 and 30 years of age at the end of the decad than at the beginning. a iency Ratio ‘spite of any change in roles, a population may Aided on the basis of stage o-f life into two large These two broad groups are the economically _nt and the economically productive. The rela- gar of the economically dependent and the economi- ioductive groups at any give-n point in time have t implications in terms of economic production, cture, institutional and governmental needs and f?» ial services. erally speaking, those persons under 15 and and over may be regarded as dependent in the t they are not expected to be economically pro- Conversely, persons between 20 and 64 years g by and large, may be classified as economically ve and therefore as nondepe-ndent. A ratio has evised which indicate-s the burden of support {lay the productive members of a. population. 1t is l by dividing the number of persons under 15 jbf age and 65 years and over (the “dependent” Ton) by the number of persons 20 to 64- years of 5,; “productive” p-opulation) . The resulting figure "ed by 1,000 is referred to as the dependency ratio ipulation. 1t purports to indicate the number of t people for every 1,000 persons in the wage- ,,;_ ages. Hxas had 792 persons in the dependent ages for ,;'1,000 in the productive ages in 1960. The de- icy ratio has tended to decline from 1880 to 1940. largely because in earlier years young children such large proportions of the total populatio n. I ber in the dependent ages in relation to the iof s90 in 194.0 to 635 in 1950 and 792 in 1960i 12). of Aging though persons in the two extreme age groups— 9,15 and 65 and over——are normally classified as nomically dependent population, each of the two plays a different role in society and in the exist- ", different kinds of problems. Further insight ing the relative importance of the younger and oups may be gained through comparing their growth. Such a comparison may be made Athe construction of an index. This index is Ti by dividing the number of persons 65 years of liolder by the number under 15 years of age. The g figure multiplied by 100 is referred to as the f aging of a population. e number of persons 65 years of age and over in A to those less than 15 years of age has increased fsince the first census. In 1880 there- were only persons per 100 youngsters in Texas. By 1900 reased to 6 older persons per 100‘ youngsters, in 1920, 12 in "1930, 20 in 1940 and 2-3 in both "d 1960. Thus, f-older persons now make up a tly larger share of the dependent population did around the turn of the century. some interest is the fact that as the result of Jairth rates and further gains in life expectancy, H and theyoung had about the same proportion- iases between 1950 and 1960. Thus, the term, ‘ff in the productive ages has climbed steadily from , DEPENDENCY RATIO FOR THE TEXAS POPULATION. l920-I96O I920 I930 I940 I950 I |oo 20o 30o i 40o soo A soo I ‘roe aoo I 96o A |o'oo ospsuoencv nmo I960 °l Figure 12 “younging” might well be added to references being made in popular writings today to the “aging” of the population. Age Composition by Sex The distribution of a population by age and sex together may be presented in a special type of graphic illustration, referred to as the age-sex pyramid. The pyramid is constructed by placing the youngest age group at the bottom with each succeeding older group being superimposed upon the preceding one. 1n a population in which the birth rate and death rate are static and there is also no in or out-migration, the proportion o-f persons in various age groups may be expected to decline as the person passes from the bottom of the pyramid to the top. However, because mortality rates are higher for infants and small children and also in the advanced ages, decreases in size of these groups are expected to be more pronounced than at other age levels. Thus, a hypothetical age-sex pyramid may be constructed for an imaginary population in which the births and deaths have been constant and in which no migration took place. Deviations from what would be expected in such an age-sex pyramid may be used to more clearly describe ag_e-sex variations in Texas. Age-sex pyramids have been constructed for the Texas population for 1920 and 1960 (Figure 13). In general, the pyramid for 1960 shows an excess of both AGE-SEX PYRAMIDS FOR THE mo TEXAS POPULATIONJSZO-ISGO Iss0 AGE PERIOD i 75 AND OVER __ 7O TOTQYEARS ___. ___ ssrossvsnnsa ___ soroeavuns ___ ___. ssrossvsm _. ___ sorouvnas _ _ 45T049v£ARS._ _ aomuvems __ ___ SBTOSD YEARS ___ lllgllllllll J_)|‘J.lllllllll _._ BOTOSO YEARS i L i HSTO 29 YEARS L _ ___ 2O TO Z4 YEARS i J __I5TOI9 YEARS__. ___ L fi _ _lO YEA $__. ___ L _5 TO 9 YEARS __ _. q?‘- g T uuosn 5 v5"; ,_v__ I4 IZ IO I S 4 2 Z 4 S O IO I2 l4 l4 I2 PERCENT MALE PERCENT FEMALE PERCENT MALE PERCENT FQMAgE Figure 13 19 PERCENTAGE AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE URBAN. RURAL NONFARM. AND RURAL FARM POPULATIONS OF TEXA$. I960 Figure 14 males and females less than 15 years of age. This re- sults largely from the increased birth rate, particularly since 1947. It also shows an excess among both sexes of persons 60 years of age and over, which is primarily because of lower death rates at all age levels. Persons of both sexes between 15 and 34 years of age are short of their expected proportions. This shortage can be explained by fluctuations in the birth rate between 1926 and 1941. Disregarding differences that occurred on a year-to-year basis from 1926 to 1936 (when persons who were between 24 and 34 years of age in 1960 were born) the birth rate was falling. It reached a low point in 1936. Birth rates climbed from 1936 to 1945 (when persons 15 to 24 years of age in 1960 were born). From that point forward, relatively higher birth rates have been main- tained, never dropping as low as the 1945 level during any single year. Since more boys than girls are born and since fe- males have a longer life expectancy, a comparison of their age distributions points up the resulting effects of these differences. Males have higher proportions in the younger ages than female-s, and females have higher pro- portions in the later years of life than males. Some differences in age-sex distributions may be noted by comparing the pyramids in Figure 13 for 1920 and 1960. Youngsters less than five made up smaller proportions of both sexes in 1920 than in 1960. How- ever, with this one exception, the 1920 pyramid is broad- er at the base and tapers more rapidly to the peak than does the 1960 pyramid. Age Distribution in Urban and Rural Areas The age distribution varies significantly among dif- ferent residential groups in Texas. In general, cities have relatively more persons in the productive ages and fewer in the dependent ages than rural areas (Figure 14). For example, only about 24 out of 100 people on farms are between 20 and 44 years old. This group makes up 29 out of every 100 in the rural nonfarm population and 34 out of every 100 in urban areas. The tendency for cities to have higher proportions in the early productive ages is more pro- nounced as the size of the cities increases. Their pro- 20 proportionate shares of the total population at a much portions are also higher in suburban sections than in the inner areas. a Important differences also appear at the older age; levels. Approximately 1 out of 9 persons in the rural farm p-opulation is 65 years of age or older. The elderly make up 1 out of 10 in rural nonfarm areas and only 1 out of 14 in cities. Older persons are particularly lacking in the fast-developingsliburbs of larger cities. i‘ The differences in age distributions found in urban and rural areas are reflected in their dependency ratios.» In urban areas there were only 774 persons in the de-g, pendent ages for every 1,000 in the working ages in 1960, but 847 in the dependent ages per 1,000 in th working ages in the rural population. Of particular interest is the trend in the young pop- ulation. For the first time in the State’s history, urban ' areas now have a higher proportion of youngsters les than 15 years of age than do rural areas. This is an indication of a sharply different pattern than what ex isted before World War II. Texas cities, like most othe " cities in the nation, are now producing more than enoug youngsters in terms of the present birth rate to maintain or more than maintain, population size through a bal ance of births over deaths. Cities used to depend 0 migrants from rural areas for their population growth because they did not reproduce enough of their own This is not so presently. The highest birth rates are 0c curring in the suburbs of cities rather than in the centr " . areas of the cities. I Youngsters less than 15 years of age increased theif faster rate in cities between 1950 and 1960 than they di in rural nonfarm are-as. On the other hand, persons no yet 15 years old decreased in relative importance in rur farm areas in the past decade. Since urban areas had a higher proportion 0i youngsters less than 15 years of age than did rural are for the first time in the S-tate’s history, this finding lea to the question of whether cities now have higher bi rates than do rural people. Qbviously, the crude bir rate is now higher in cities than in rural areas. crude birth rate is determined by the number of births i any given area in any year per 1,000 population. H0 1 ever, this is not the best measure that can be used t compare the fertility of urban and rural residents sin v there is a definite shortage of women of child-bearin ages in rural areas and an excess in cities. Therefor fertility ratios (the number of children under 5 years ._ age per 1,000 females aged 20 to 44) were computed f0 the different residential classifications as a more sati factory measure of the differences in fertility. In 1960, the fertility ratio was still lower in urb ' areas than in either the rural farm or rural nonfa I71 populations. The computed ratios were 716, 731 an s 809, respectively. Although urban populations in '0 , still had lower fertility ratios than did rural people, th _ gap between the two has been narrowing rapidly. F0 example, the fertility ratio increased by 28 percent ' cities, 14 percent in rural nonfarm areas and only 3 pe cent in rural farm areas between 1950 and 1960. Although an increase in older people occurr among all residential classes during the last decade, the rates of increase were highest in the rural farm are a fiwed by the rural nonfarm population, with cities the smallest proportionate increase. The concen- on of older people in various counties is also related factor of general population growth and decline. ineral, counties which had population increases be- 1950 and 1960 also had smaller percentages of i persons. Counties experiencing population losses higher percentages of older inhabitants. Thus, , younger people are moving into new areas of in- and population development, older people appar- remain behind in rural areas. Composition by Color QThe age trend between 1950 and 1960 for the white ignonwhite populations of Texas differed from that of _ gtotal "population. illhe proportionate increase in the number of chil- under 15 was larger for nonwhites than white-s while jsiincrease among the older age groups was slightly r for whites. On the other hand, the proportions of ins 20 to 64 years of age declined more among non- The result is that the age pyramid for nonwhites ues to be broader at the base and narrower at the a greater degree than does the pyramid for whites. - White persons were older on the average than non- persons in 1960, their median ages being 27 and ears, respectively. The median ages declined for , groups between 1950 and 1960, with the decline greater among the nonwhite population. The dif- rates of decline may be explained by higher birth and a shorter life expectancy for nonwhites. Al- whites and nonwhites had higher fertility ratios ul than 1950, fertility ratios increased more rapidly there were 605 children under 5 per 1,000 women 44 years of age in the white population and 612 000 women of childbearing age among nonwhites. i, 960, their fertility ratios had jumped to 709 for f“- and 885 for nonwhites. iWith comparatively more younger and more older ‘e relative to the number of persons in the produc- ages of life, the dependency ratios increased to 921 onwhites and 775 for whites in 1960. A larger ‘lie of the total increase in dependency ratios for the f; must be attributed to an increase in younger per- more than to an increase in older individuals. ilmplications of Changing Age and Sex Composition anging social definitions have resulted in chang- __cial roles for individuals at different age levels. women are now working outside the home than ‘fore. The age span when youth are expected to j school has been broadened, and the age at which be are expected to enter the labor force and retire fl- ome more restrictive. In the light of such chang- societal roles, a clifariging age and sex composition Qseveral important implications. liThe fact that females now predominate in numbers xas is a good indication that the State’s population turing in composition and that industrialization is l! modifying what used to be a predominantly _'State. As women continue to increase their pro- "; the nonwhite population during the decade. In ' portionate share of the total population, they can be expected to assume an increasingly important place in the political and business affairs of their community as well as in the State. The changing sex ratio has also affected the social structure since women have tradi- tionally been among the more staunch supporters and promoters of schools, libraries, health clinics and other types of social, educational and cultural organizations. Although the median age of the Texas population is increasing, the number of younger and older people is increasing at a considerably faste-r rate than persons in the productive ages of life. The rapid rate of growth in younger people means that a larger proportion of the typical family budget will go for food, clothing and edu- cating the young. lt-also leads to increased demands on the school system. For example, public’ school enroll- ment increased from 1,350,000 pupils in the 194-9-50 school year to 2,046,000 in 1959-60. This is an increase of 52 percent as compared with the State’s total popula- tion increase of only 24- percent. Based on the number ot actual and expected live births and survival rates, public school enrollment is expected to reach at least 2,588,000 during the 1969-70 school year. Thus, public school facilities will have to be expanded for an addi- tional half million children by 1970*. The marriage rate, formation of new families and the birth rate can be expected to remain at a high level since these factors depend on the number of persons entering these age levels. Increased emphasis will be placed on recreational and other programs for youth. Provisions will have to be made for more higher skilled jobs for younger people since the number at this age level preparing to enter the labor force will be larger and better trained. With the upsurge in numbers of young people entering the labor force, more pressure will be brought to- bear on the forced retirement of older people from jobs before they reach their sixty-fifth birthday. The decline in the proportion of people in the pro- ductive age groups implies added financial burdens on those who belong to this class. These burdens assume considerable importance since a pronounce-d increase in both the younger and older populations is taking place. The increase in aged persons has been so rapid in Texas as well as in the nation that a new field of study, gerontology, has recently been developed. This field is devoted to the “problems” of aging and the age-d. An increasing proportion of older persons results in increased burdens on health facilities and in shifts in the production of more goods for elderly people. Older persons also have more leisure for such activities as reading, using parks and more sedentary kinds of recre- ational activities, all of which will need to be expanded to meet the needs of this group. The piling up of people in the older ages is also likely to lead to modifications and expansion of retirement systems and payments. Old- er people tend to be more conservative, while at the same time becoming a more powerful force politically because of their increased numbers. Finally, the long- time downward trend in the death rate can be expected to take an upturn because an aging population which is more susceptible to sickness and death will eventually lead to an increase in the State’s over-all death rate. 21 RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE TEXAS POPULATION. I920-I96O I920 I930 I940 I950 I960- 0 ' |'0 2'0 ' 3'0 ' 4'0 ' 5'0 ' 6'0 7'0 9'0 ' 9'0 I00 -w+|m:s Figure 15 Rociol and Ethnic Composition Three major race classifications are distinguished by the Bureau of the Census: White, Negro and other nonwhite races. In the latter group the major elements are North American Indians, Japanese, Chinese and Fili- pinos. All persons of Mexican birth or ancestry who are not definitely of Indian or other nonwhite race are classified as white. NONWHITES General Trend Texas has always been peopled predominantly by white persons. Although data for different racial groups are not precisely comparable because of changes made in classification of certain persons by the Bureau of Census, whites obviously make up an increasingly larger propor- tion of the total population. In 1850, when the first census was taken, whites made up 72 percent of the total population and non- whites 28 percent. In 196-0, they comprised 87 and 13 percent, respectively (Figure 15). Whites continued to increase their numbers at a slightly faster rate during the last decade than did non- whites in the State. The increase-s were 24 and 22 per- cent, respectively. This slightly faster rate of growth resulted in the white population comprising 87.4 percent of the total population in 1960 as compare-d with 87.2 percent in 1950. Thus nonwhites comprised 12.6 per- cent of the total in 1960 as contrasted with 12.8 percent in 1950. Texas had a slightly higher percentage of non- whites than did the nation as a whole in 1960'. Non- whites comprised 11 percent and whites 89 percent of the total population in the United States. There were 14 states with higher percentages of nonwhites than Texas. These were all in the South except Alaska and Hawaii. White Population There were 8,374,831 whites enumerated in the Texas population in 1960. Of this number 96 percent were born in the United States and 4 percent were for- eign-born. Of the foreign-born whites living in Texas, 69 percent were born in Mexico. 22 NUMBER‘ WHITE PERSONS OF SPANISH SURNAME IN TEXAS COUNTIES. BY NUMBER. I960 I |00,00o mo oven 90.000 1'0 99.999 s % 10.00010 49,999 f 2,000 ‘r0 9,999, [:1 uuoea 2,500 Figure 16 g The white population of Texas is made up of many ' diverse ethnic backgrounds. Some information is avail-f able on their nationality derivations, but only for first and second-generation Americans. Therefore, those of third and subsequent generations are not included in the , figures cited. Nevertheless, available data for first and i second generation Americans give a good indication '7 the relative numerical strength of different nationality _ groups in the Texas white population. " ' There were 1,070,270 white first and second-genera tion Americans in Texas in 1960 whose origin was '1 foreign stock. Of this group, 61 percent were of Mexi can stock; 10 percent, German; 4 percent, United King" dom; 3 percent, Czechoslovakian; 3 percent, Canadian, and 3 percent, Italian stock. The derivation of the r, maining 16 percent was distributed among many differ ent nations. White Persons 0]‘ Spanish Surname Data are not available relating to the ethnic grou composition of all white persons in Texas. However, - special census publication contains information on whit persons of Spanish surname. According to this publ' cation, there were 1,417,811 white persons of Spanis surname living in Texas in 1960. Thus, they constitut 15 percent of the State’s total population in 1960, an 17 percent of the white population. White persons of Spanish surname outnumber tli total nonwhite population of the State by over IIIY Furthermore, their numbers are growing at a much fas 1 er rate than is the State’s total population. During th last decade, white persons of Spanish surname increas by 37 percent while the State’s total number of peop was increasing by only 24 percent. There were 67 counties having more than 2,5 ' white persons of Spanish surname in 1960 (Figure 16) Bexar county had the largest number (257,090), f0 lowed by El Paso county (136,993) and Hidalgo coun " (129,092). As may be noted in Figure 16, white pe sons of Spanish surname are considerably more nume ous in the extreme southern and western sections I _ Texas than they are in the eastern and northern section They made up better than one-half of the total popul NUMBER I 20,000 AND oven |s,oo0 TO |9,999 |0,00o T0 14,999 5,000 TO 9,999 [:1 unosa 5,000 HITE POPULATION I‘ AEXAS coumuzs UMBER. |9s0 Figure 17 14 Texas counties, all of these counties being in the southern portion of the State. g3 A Nonwhite Population ‘e principal nonwhite group in Texas is the Negro, makes up more than 98 percent of the State’s total ,te population. All othe-r nonwhites combined w only 17,721 in 1960, of which the Indian pop- was 5,750; Japanese, 4,05-3; Chinese, 4,172; 1,623; and all other nonwhites combined, 2,123. ("all nonwhites other than Negro comp-rised only nt of the State’s total population in 1960. s p ‘Population 1960, the Negro population in Texas was 1,187,- glmprising 12 percent of the State’s total people. the Negro population increased by 209,667 between 1950 and 1960, it is not keeping pace more rapid growth of whites. At the same e rate of growth for Negroes was faster between 1960 than during the previous decade. This rate of growth resulted largely from a further I’; of the death rate and a slowing down of the fout-migration from the State which occurred the 1940-50 decade. Negro population of Texas is highly concen- L. the eastern section of the state, Figure 17. No jvest of Bexar county had more than 20,000 Ne- 1960. of the counties in which Negroes comprised ’ 15 percent of the total population are located Travis county. They made up more than 40 30f the total population in tive Texas counties in ‘agure 18. These counties and their percentage y population werea Waller, 54; Marion, 52; San 1:52; Harrison, 4B;“‘and Robertson, 41. counties had more than 20,000 Negroes in These were Harris, 291,851; Dallas, 137,954; 59,026; Jefferson, 57,171; Bexar, 45,314; Gal- 9,846; Travis, 26,863; McLennan, 24,036; and ,341. Thus, almost 60 percent of the State’s “pulationlresides in these 9 counties. 3n‘ an“ PERCENT - 40.0 m0 oven * 25.0 1'0 39.9 \ \‘~: |s.0 TO 24.9 PERCENT OF NONWHITE POPULATION OF TEXAS COUNTIES. I960 >{\§\ [:1 unosn 15.0 Figure 18 Residential Changes Important shifts have taken place in the residential location of the different racial elements in Texas be- tween 1950 and 1960. Of particular importance are two major trends. One of these is the relatively greater losses of Negroes in the rural farm population. During the past decade, the number of whites residing on farms in the rural areas of Texas declined by 42’ percent, but the Negro rural farm population declined by 70 percent. At the same time, Negroes experienced much greater proportionate increase-s in the rural nonfarm are-as of the State. The number of Negroes classified as rural nonfarm residents increased by 32 percent between 1950 and 1960, while the number of whites living in rural nonfarm are-as in- creased by only 4 percent. Negroes and whites increased their numbers in cities at about the same rate during the past decade. The urban areas had an increase of 49 percent for whites and 45 percent for Negroes. Of particular interest, how- ever, is the degree to which different racial elements are concentrated in different sections of large cities. Ne- groes and other nonwhites tend to be concentrated in the central sections of cities, with relatively few living in suburbs or fringe areas. On the other hand, whites have been moving out of the central sections of cities and have become more concentrated in the suburbs or fringe areas. As a result of the different rates of growth occurring among the racial groups, some change has taken place in their relative numerical strength in different residen- tial areas of Texas. For example, Negroes made up one out of seven persons in the rural farm population in 1950 but only one out of eleven in 1960. On the other hand, Negroes increased their proportionate share of the total rural nonfarm population from 11 percent in 1950 to 14 percent in 1960. Implications of Changing Racial and Ethnic Composition The kind of people is more important in many ways than is the number of people a State has. Racial and 23; MEDIAN YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED BY THE TEXAS POPULATION 25 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER. BY RACE AND RESIDENCE. I960 MEDIAN l2 77/7 ,7, ..,, ////., 4// .// /( // I TOTAL l: NONWHITE 9' §$ URBAN RURAL NONFARM Figure 19 ethnic composition, for example, has many far-reaching implications for the Texas population. Each racial and ethnic group has different sex ratios, birth rates, death rates and illness rates. They also have different educational and income levels and work in different status-level occupations. At the same time, all of the racial and ethnic groups combine t0 make up the total population of the State and to play an inte- gral part in such factors as the average income and average educational level of people in the State. Thus, the different rates of growth of various racial and ethnic groups have an important bearing upon the rate of progress that any given state is able to make. Since whites are increasing at a faster rate than nonwhites, they are increasing their predominance in numbers. This should result in more relaxed attitudes toward different racial and ethnic groups, since normally when a group becomes proportionately smaller, persons have more relaxed attitudes toward that group as a whole. On the other hand, the rapid growth of certain groups can result in the creation of new problems. The Spanish-speaking element, which is the fastest growing group in the State, can be used as an illustration. 1n the past, Spanish-speaking and nonwhite groups in gen- eral have mainly been in unskilled or semi-skilled jobs. However, new generations of these groups will be mov- ing into an economy where automation is lesse-ning the number of these types of 'WOI‘l(6I‘S needed. Farm auto- mation has hit these groups the hardest, and many seg- ments of industry are becoming highly automated. As these groups continue to increase, vocational and other training programs will be necessary to qualify a larger number for jobs requiring a higher degree of skills. Selected Social and Economic Aspects of the Texas Population Among the more important social and economic characteristics for which data are available for the Texas population are education and income. 24 Education __ There were 2,269,120 Texans 5 to 34- years of age ~ enrolled in a regular public or private school or college at the time of the 1960 census. This is approximately 67 percent of the State’s population 5 to 34~ years of age. . It is probably an underestimate, since enrollme-nt figures are for the spring of the year (when the census was, taken) which are generally lowerj. than in the fall of the ' same school year. 7 3'1 Enrollment rates continued their sharp increase be- . tween 1950 and 1960 in all school-age groups. The pro-- portion of youngsters 5 and 6 years old enrolled in school increased from 32 percent in 1950 to 39 perxftitent. in 1960. Only 66 percent of the 16 and 17-year “olds-j were enrolled in 1950 as comp-ared to 76 percent in 1960. The percentage of youth 18 to 21 years of age en- rolled in school is generally a valid index of the ten-i dency to continue academic work through high school and to enter college. 1n 1950, only 28 percent of the 18 and 19 year olds were enrolled in school, but 4-2 per- cent were enrolled in 1960. Also, the proportion of per- sons 20 and 21 years old enrolled in school increased from 13 percent in 1950 to 20 percent in 1960'. A The median number of years of school completed. ‘ by the adult population of Texas (persons 25 years of age and over) was 10.4» in 19'60. This was slightly. more than a 1-year increase from 1950, when the median number of years of school completed was 9.3. The amount of school completed varies greatly by counties and geographic regions. Other than those with ' metropolitan centers and with colleges or universities, counties in the Panhandle and western section of the State generally had the highest median years of school-l ing. At the other extreme, the South Texas area ha, fewer years of education completed by its adult popula tion. 1 Urban residents went to school about 2 years longed on the average than persons residing in rural areas There was little difference in the length of time tha l rural farm and rural nonfarm people went to schoo . (Figure 19). In general, whites completed about 2 year more than did nonwhites, and females about one-hal , year more than males. The advancement in number 0 ' years of schooling occurred at about the same rate be tween 1950 and 1960 for all race and residential groups Consequently, differences existing between residenti and racial groups in 1950 neither narrowed nor widene , during the following 10-year period. In 1960, whit ‘A urban females had gone to school longer than any grou in the adult population in the State—11.5 years "of schoo completed. At the other extreme were nonwhite far , males, who averaged completing only 5.8 years of schoo “ The adult population of Texas has completed almo l“ the same number of years of school as the nation’s adul a population——10.4~ years for the State and 10.6 for i nation. Both the urban and rural farm populations, A a whole, have gone to school about the same length o time as their U.S. counterparts, but the rural nonfa r I population of the State completed only 8.9 years as com, pared with 9.5 years for the nation’s rural nonfa u ' population. The latter difference is» due to the marg' that the nation’s white rural nonfarm adults had 0v. the State’s White rural nonfarm people——9.9 years an f rs of school completed, respectively. On the other nonwhite adults in both rural nonfarm and rural gareas of Texas went to school longer than their 'te US. counterparts. For example, adults in the flIIODWIIIIB rural farm population completed 6.8 , of school, but the nation’s nonwhite rural farm ion completed only 5.7 years. The number of l 10f school completed by nonwhite rural nonfarm in 1960 was 6.9 in Texas but only 6.4 in the or further comparison on differentials in the edu- of various elements of the Texas population, data btained on the proportions completing different .301 schooling. These appear in Table 6. 1960, among the population 25 years of age and percent had no schooling; 41 percent had fin- high school; and 18 percent had attended college. ‘ere were fewer whites with no schooling, 4 per- jhan nonwhites, 5 percent. A much higher pro- i?» of whites than nonwhites had attended college, l» 8 percent, respectively. The urban population lower proportion with no schooling than the rural Ition. Also, approximately one out of every five adults had attended college as compare-d to only rét of ten in rural areas. Although women have a over-all educational attainment than men in Tex- ijlihigher prop-ortion of male-s than females went to .;_I at the people of Texas are placing more emphasis 410811011 is borne out by a comparison of 1960 in- 'on with that of previous years. In 1940, 5 per- the adult population had no schooling. The pro- T» with no schooling had been reduced to slightly percent by 1950 and to 4 percent in 1960. At the gextreme, only 11 percent of the State’s adults had college in 1940. The proportion who had at- '9 college increased to 15 percent by 1950 and to - tin 1960. f 1960, Texas had a higher percentage of its adults 0 schooling than the nation as a whole, 4 and 2 respectively. Although about the same propor- '1 Texas adults finished high school as in the na- i a whole, a slightly higher proportion had attend- I ~-_ than in the United States, 18 and 17 percent, 'vely. I959 MEDIAN INCOMES OF TEXAS FAMILIES. BY RACE AND RESIDENCE. I960 MEDIAN nucous $6.000 - $5.000 - $4.000 - 53.000 - \\\ \\\\‘ $2.000 1 \§ 5 1.000 — . \‘“ - ronu. \\§ \ o _ \ l:l uonwmrc nuant nunnt u 0 n FA a m FA a m Figure 20 Income Different kinds of income figures are publishe-d in census volumes. However, one of the best measures to use of income distribution is the median family income, which has one-half of the families with larger and one-- half with smaller incomes. Income data were collected for 1959 for families enumerated in the 1960 census. The median 1950 income of the 2,392,564 families in Texas in 1960 was $4,884, Figure 20. This is an increase of 82 percent over the median family income of Texans in 1949, when it was $2,682. However, only part of the increase represented a gain in real purchasing power since prices also rose during this period. Underlying the rise in median family income has been a major upward shift along the entire income scale. The proportion of families with incomes less than $5,000 declined from 83 percent in 1949 to 51 percent in 1959. In contrast, the proportion receiving incomes between $5,000 and $10,000 increased from 14 percent in 1949 to 37 percent in 1959, and the proportion of families with incomes of $10,000 and above rose from 3 percent to 12 percent during the decade. Despite the marked rise in incomes, about 3 out of every 10 families report- ed less than $3,000 in money income in 1959. .6. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE TEXAS POPULATION 25 YEARS OLD AND OVER ACCORDING TO YEARS 1 OF SCHOOL COMPLETED, BY RACE AND RESIDENCE. 1960 _'on None Elementary school High school College lto4 5and6 7cmd8 1to3 4 lto3 4 4.1 9.3 9.5 17.9 19.6 21.8 9.8 8.0 3.9 8.1 8.8 17.4 19.7 23.0 ' 10.5 8.6 - '10s 5.4 18.2 15.0 21.5 19.0 12.5 4.4 4.0 3.7 8.3 8.5 16.3 19.4 23.3 11.1 9.4 3.6 . 7.2 7.8 15.7 19.3 24.5 11.9 10.0 i‘ bites 4.1 16.0 14.0 21.2 20.7 14.0 5.1 4.3 oniarm 5.3 12.5 12.1 22.0 19.9 17.7 6.0 4.5 I r 4.9 10.7 11.2 21.9 20.8 19.2 6.6 4.7 iThites 7.9 25.1 17.8 22.3 14.0 7.7 2.3 2.9 arm 4.5 11.7 12.7 24.3 20.5 16.9 6.0 3.4 ‘ ‘ 4.3 10.7 12.2 24.1 21.2 17.7 6.3 3.5 ‘tes 6.8 26.2 19.0 25.1 12.3, 6 1 2.1 2.4 j us. Bureau OI Census, PC (1) 45C—Texas. Table 47. N U1 Family incomes varied widely in Texas counties in 1959. At one extreme were 14- counties with a median family income of more than $6,000. At the other ex- treme were 5 counties with a median family income of less than $2,000, and an additional 1'7 counties with less than $2,500. Midland county was the highest—$6,936. Aside from the metropolitan areas, counties with higher incomes tended to be concentrated in the western portion of the State and in the Gulf Coast area. In general, the lower income counties were those where the economy was based heavily on the production of agricultural prod- ucts. Considerable difference exists in family incomes of various racial and residential groups in the State. Ur- ban families have higher incomes than rural, and white families higher than nonwhite. The highest incomes were among white urban families, a median of $5,693, and the lowest among nonwhite rural farm families, $1,430. In 1959, the median income of all families in the U.S. was about $670 higher than the median income of Texas families. Approximately the same difference ex- isted in median incomes of both white and nonwhite families when compared with their U.S. counterparts as a whole. Implications of Changes in Education and Income Changes in educational and income patterns affect the State’s population in many ways. For example, an increase in the proportion of persons attending school to higher levels results in higher educational attainment and greater skills. At the same time, higher educational costs are incurred, but higher incomes accrue to those with more education. National studies show that college graduates earn more than twice as much in their lifetime as do grade school graduates, even though they work 8 years less. As schools impart an ever-increasing body of knowledge and skills, more persons in school means more intelligent participation of people in solving prob- lems for constructive living in the home, community and nation. As a result of the increase in education, the entrant into the labor force will need to be at least a high school graduate, with increased pressure to have some college education. This will tend to cut off the workers at the lower end of the scale, leaving as their only outlet the unskilled and semi-skilled occupations. At the same time, automation is replacing more obs manned by un- skilled workers than at those levels that require more skill and training. I ' Another implication of the trend toward more edu- cation is increased pressure upon young people to seek increasingly higher educational levels. This will increase the pressure upon high schools and colleges to provide facilities and equipment for larger numbers going to school for longer periods of time. Since the costs of education are increasing rapidly, one of the questions of our day is whether television will help enlarge the teacher-pupil ratio, thereby making it possible for fewer teachers to handle more pupils. This is followed by the question of how our schools can handle the increased numbers and at the same time improve the quality of education. Since educational status is employed as a 26 relatively sure proof of the quality of a population, ho I - a ever, there is little doubt that such questions will recei ’ increased attention in the future. Y In addition to education, another measure of t: general welfare of a given population is its level of ' come. Income is a particularly important consideratij in determining the general level of living of a pop A tion, since most indexes of levels of living involve t presence of material goods, which can be bought o A with money. Income levels have been shown in num ous studies to be related to such factors as the birth ra death rate and levels of education. Although it is recognized that a part of the incire in incomes in recent years does not represent a gain real purchasing power since prices also rose during t period, there is considerable evidence that real incom have increased and that this change has brought abo modifications in social class structure. Some consum goods previously beyond the reach of most pocketboo, because of low family income have become more of reality for greater numbers. These included such it _ as home conveniences, medical care, education and rec ation. As families have emerged from the lower inco groups and are concentrated in middle groups, th habits of consumption follow definite patterns of c0 sumer spending. In general, there is a smaller prop tion of income required for food, housing and oth minimum essentials. This allows larger shares of inco for service-s and luxuries which tend to upgrade the lev. of living of the population in general. ‘ “ Population Growth Beyond I960 The needs and demands for estimates of present a, future populations of states and smaller areas have ' creased greatly during the past decade. Persons in sponsible positions are constantly requesting informati about Texas population trends and are using this inf mation as a basis for planning needs for housing, ed cational programs, churches, hospitals, public utiliti transportation facilities and other important social a economic services. While there is great demand for population foreca and projections, the exact size of populations beyond latest federal census cannot be predetermined accurat because of the human element involved in the three tors used to compute estimates and projections—birt deaths and migration. While past and most rec trends provide clues to the expected behavior of futui populations, sudden and often unpredicted economic p social changes can establish new trends or reverse o ones, particularly in births and migration. At the sa ' time, demographers have developed refined statisti i methods for estimating and projecting the future popu I tion of a given area. Government agencies—feder ._ state and local—both the production and sale-s divisio a of corporations; and college, church and other insti I tional representatives consider such estimates and proj tions extremely useful in future planning. Accordingl. an estimate for 1963 and a projection of the 1970 Tex population have been prepared. Demographers often compute three or four separa series of estimates (usually high, medium and low) f 'ven year. Each series is based on a different combi- Ton of assumptions regarding expected birth, death migration rates. However, to avoid confusion that creates in the minds of users of estimates and projec- li only one estimate based on what is thought to be ' sonable set of assumptions is given for 1963 and for 0. i‘ A 1963 Population Estimate - ‘t The method used to compute the 1963 estimated as population varies only slightly from a component ~ Pod used by the Bureau of the Census. The method i; ribed in Current Population Reports, Series PC-25, .133 and 258, dated March 16, 1956 and November ,'_ 1962. It involves computing the natural increase , net migration over a given period and adding these ' es to the total population obtained in the last fe-d- , census. g Birth and mortality data were obtained from the State Department of Health and were corrected for pér-registration of births. Birth registration tests com- Li‘ in 1955, based on 1950 data, reported a percent pleteness of 96.0 percent for Texas as a whole, of percent for whites and 88.8 percent for nonwhites. aimprovement in birth registration completeness was 6d to have taken place by 1960. The distinguishing feature of this particular method procedure by which net migration is estimated scholastic population data. The net migration fig- Lfis based on a comparison of the scholastic population for 1963 and the expected scholastic population (giving from the appropriate age groups in the 1960 ylnial census. Net migration of the- scholastic popu- is then converted by a multiplier factor in order - _-mpute net migration for the total population. A gApplication of this particular method resulted in a population estimate of 10,192,000 for Texas as of " 1963. This reflects a gain of approximately 620’,- gover the 3-year period. The annual growth in num- since 1960 is slightly higher than the ave-rage an- growth between 1950 and 1960. This is caused 1y by more births on an annual basis than occurred the preceding decade. I 9 70 Projections §P0pulation projections for 1970 were prepared by y e general method as that outlined by CI. H. Ham- “and Josef Perry in Social Forces (December 1962 . This method uses a basic formula for projecting i tions by sex for all age groups except those born 11-1960. Projections for the latter age groups are "u by application of different formulae using age- birthrates. projections based on these formulae- indicate an .1970 total population for Texas of 11,712,000. an estimated increase of 2,132,000 between 1960 970. The expectedlf. rate of population increase is lightly smaller than the growth rate experienced l; the past decade. ,_ though the total population is expected to increase apid rate in Texas to 1970, different age and sex Q racial elements and different residential compo- (“are expected to change at varying rates. In many ways these differential rates of growth are more impor- tant in planning for specific programs than the growth in total numbers. The trend in female predominance. in numbers is expected to continue, with a projected sex ratio of 96.7 males per 100 female-s in 1970 as compared to 98.1 males per 100 females in 1960. Projections for different age groups indicate that major changes will take place by 1970. Texas high schools and colleges can expect to feel the greatest im- pact of these changes, with the number of persons be- tween 15 and 24- years of age increasing from 1,377,000 in 1960 to 2,050,000 by 1970. At the other extreme is an expected continued rapid increase in the older popu- lation. Projections for persons 65 years of- age and over indicate an increase from 728,000 in 1960 to 1,015,000 by 1970. The number of youngsters less than 10 years of age and persons between 30 and 64- are expected to grow at a slower pace than the remainder of the population. Be- cause of the declining proportion of persons in the pro- ductive ages (20 to 64L) to persons in the dependent ages (under 15 and 65 and over) the dependency ratio for the Texas population is expected to increase from 792 in 1960 to 846 by 1970. A further indication of the antici- pated growth in older persons (65 and over) in relation to the younger population (under 15 years of age) can be obtained through the index of aging. There will be 26 aged persons per 100 youngsters in Texas in 1970 as compared with 23 older persons per 100 youngsters in 19'60. The white population is expected to continue to grow at a more rapid rate than nonwhites during the current decade and will consequently comprise a slightly higher percentage of the State’s population in 1970. Whites are expected to number about 10,260,000 and nonwhites 1,450,000 by 1970. A large part of the population growth taking place in Texas between 1960 and 1970 is expected to occur in the urban and especially metropolitan areas. Projec- tions for 1970 by residence are based chiefly on trends occurring between 194-0 and 196-0 and upon the assump- tion that the migration pattern of the immediate past will continue through 1970. This pattern has been one of migration of rural young people to the central parts of cities, and after acquiring a family moving to the suburbs. Although little change is expected in the num- ber of persons living in rural areas as a whole, the rural farm population is expected to decline further. By 1970, urban areas are expected to have approximately 80 per- cent of the State’s population, with 70 percent of the total pop-ulation residing in standard metropolitan areas. Implications of Future Growth The implications of specific population trends oc- curring during the past decade have been discussed in separate sections dealing with these trends. Since most of the projections to 1970 indicate a continuation of the trends that occurred during the past decade, their impli- cations have been previously touched upon. However, there are a few broad implications that remain to be pointed o-ut. First, there will be a rapidly growing number of customers for all types of goods and services in Texas. 27 At the same time, the continued growth in population will eventually have an effect upon the cost of government in Texas, for more people require more governmental serv- ices. One of the problems of Texas government in the next few years will be in the field of high school and higher education which is related to increased enroll- ments. While greater needs will exist for school build- ings and teachers in cities, and particularly metropolitan areas, pressure-s for consolidation will be increased in rural areas. Considerable planning will have to be done by rap- idly-growing metropolitan areas. New streets, schools, expressways, water lines, hospitals, parks, teachers and policemen will have to be considered in the planning process. Particularly the suburbs are expected to de- velop around the corporate limits of the central cities and reach farther out into the rural hinterlands, and the large cities will continue to be encircled by rapidly ex- panding satellite communities. The political power of rural dwellers is likely to be reduced, and while fewer persons might be using rural roads they will have to be well maintained for continued productive efficiency of farms. Finally, a larger proportion of the population of Texas in 1970 will consist of persons who are economi- cally dependent upon others. This implies increased fi- nancial burdens upon those in the productive ages of life to provide for expanded school, health and welfare pro- grams for rapidly-expanding numbers of youngsters and persons in the older age brackets. Acknowledgments The author is indebted to Harold M. Clements, for- mer graduate student, Texas A&M University, for compu- tational and cartographic work contained in this publica- tion. The data used for this report are fro-m various Bureau of the Census volumes and special releases; Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture pub- lications issued separately or cooperatively; and from Texas State Department of Health reports. Population estimates and projections are those of the author. 28 10. 11. 12. Related literature Barnes, Alan E.., “People and Texas Governmen Texas Research League, October, 1962. ' Beale, C. L., and Bowles, Gladys K., “The 1960 nition of Farm Residence and Its Marked Effects i Farm Population Data,” ‘Agricultural Market Service, U.S.D.A., Washington, D.C., F ebrua 1961. Hamilton, C. H., and Josef Perry, “A Short Met A of Projecting Population by Age From One D a. nial Census to Another,” Vol. 41, No. 2, S0 Forces, December, 1962. Skrabanek, R. L., “Characteristics and Changes.‘ the Texas Farm Population,” Texas Agricul 1 Experiment Station Bulletin 825, 1955. a Skrabanek, R. L., and Bowles, Gladys K., “Mi_ tion of the Texas Farm Population,” Texas Agri ' tural Experiment Station Bulletin 847, 1957. Talbert, Robert H., “Some Demographic Charac i” istics of the Nonwhite Population of Texas,” Te Western College, February, 1962. T Tarver, James D., “A Component Method of mating and Projecting State and Subdivisional P ulations,” Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment tion, Miscellaneous Publication MP-54, 1959. Various articles in Texas Business Review, The ' versity of Texas, 1950-1962. ‘ Texas State Department of Health, Vital Statist 1940-1961. United S-tates Census of Population, 1950, Te '_ “Characteristics of the Population,” Vol. II, P‘ 43. l United States Census of Population, 1960, Uni States, Vols. PC (1)—1A; 1B; 1C. , United States Census of Population, 1960, Vols. l- (1) 45A, “Number of lnhabitantsf’ 45B, “Gent Population Characteristicsf’ 45C, “General S0 and Economic Characteristicsf’ 45D, “Deta' Characteristics.” a y APPENDIX TABLE 1. POPULATION GAINS AND LOSSES. BY COUNTIES. 1950-60 Population Net change, 1950-60 Components oi change. 1950-60 Natural Net 1960 1950 Number Percent Births Deaths increase migration RTE 9.579.677 7.711.194 +1.868.483 + 24.2 2.441.981 687.329 1.754.652 +113.831 28.162 31.875 — 3.713 — 11.6 6.271 3.321 2.950 -— 6.663 13.450 5.002 + 8.448 +168.9 2.810 395 2.415 + 6.033 39.814 36.032 + 3.782 + 10.5 8.800 3.080 5.720 — 1.938 V? 7.006 4.252 + 2.754 + 64.8 1.369 508 861 + 1.893 f; 6.110 6.816 — 706 — 10.4 1.442 447 995 — 1.701 '9 1.966 2.215 — 249 — 11.2 361 193 168 —- 417 18.828 20.048 -— 1.220 — 6.1 5.438 1.673 3.765 -—— 4.985 13.777 14.663 — 886 — 6.0 2.691 1.615 1.076 — 1.962 9.090 7.592 + 1.498 + 19-.7 2.405 515 1.890 — 392 3.892 4.410 — 518 — 11.7 657 415 242 — 760 16.925 19.622 — 2.697 — 13.7 4.015 2.102 1.9'13 — 4.610 5.893 6.875 —— 982 — 14.3 1.256 ‘ 574 6'82 — 1.664 23.755 18.174 + 5.581 + 30.7 7.036 1.778 5.258 + 323 94.097 73.824 + 20.273 -|- 27.5 25.875 5.684 20.191 + 82 687.151 500.460 -|- 186.691 -|- 37.3 190.398 46.015 144.383 + 42.308 3.657 3.780 -— 123 - 3.3 722 402 320 — 443 1.076 1.106 — 30 - 2.7 116 43 73 — 103 10.809 11.836 — 1.027 — 8.7 1.795 1.449 346 — 1.373 59.971 61.966 -— 1.995 — 3.2 15.359 5.292 10.067 — 12.062 76.204 46.549 + 29.655 + 63.7 18.193 3.763 14.430 + 15.225 44.895 38.390 + 6.505 + 16.9 13.411 3.010 10.401 — 3.896 6.434 7.309 — 875 — 12.0 1.954 538 1.416 — 2.291 3.577 3.538 + 49 + 1.4 828 289 539 — 490 8.609 9.195 — 586 — 6.4 2.765 572 2.193 — 2.779 24.728 28.607 — 3.879 —- 13.6 4.817 2.882 1.935 — 5.814 11.177 13.000 —— 1.823 — 14.0 2.728 1.354 1.374 — 3.197 9.265 10.356 — 1.091 — 10.5 1.898 999 899 — 1.990 17.222 19.350 — 2.128 - 11.0 5.018 2.159 2.859 — 4.987 16.592 9.222 + 7.370 -|- 79.9 4.767 798 3.969 + 3.401 7.929 9'.087 — 1.158 — 12.7 1.225 909 316 — 1.474 151.098 125.170 -|— 25.928 + 20.7 60.242 11.016 49.2.26 — 23.298 7.849 8.740 -— 891 — 10.2 2.070 962 1.108 — 1.999 7.781 6.852 + 929 + 13.6 1.715 448 1.267 -— 338 23.496 26.732 — 3.236 — 12.1 5.777 2.434 3.343 — 6.579 .;, 8.923 5.417 + 3.506 + 64.7 2.106 427 1.679 +. 1.827 *_ r5 10.379‘ 7.871 + 2.508 + 31.9 2.348 683 1.665 -|— 843 i. 33.120 38.694 -— 5.574 -— 14.4 7.319 3.369 3.950 — 9.524 8.421 12.123 — 3.702 — 30.5 1.918 993 925 — 4.627 8.351 9.896 -—— 1.545 -—— 15.6 1.512 844 668 — 2.213 6.417 5.928 + 489 + 8.2 1.907 367 1.540 — 1.051 3.589 4.045 — 456 — 11.3 891 321 570 — 1.026 _ 12.458 15.503 — 3.045 — 10.6 2.653 1.522 1.131 — 4.176 41.247 41.692 — 445 — 1.1 9.232 4.269 4.963 -— 5.408 i orth 6.276 9.139 — 2.863 — 31.3 1.859 762 1.097 -— 3.960 ~. 18.463 17.576 + 887 + 5.0 4.739 1.881 2.858 -— 1.971 19.844 16.357 + 3.487 + 21.3 5.063 1.591 3.472 + 15 .. e 11.865 15.516 — 3.651 - 23.5 1.779 1.565 214 — 3.865 3.672 5.078 —- 1.406 - 27.7 901 357 544 — 1.950 22.560 22.146 + 414 + 1.9 5.078 2..0-24 3.054 — 2.640 23.961 16.284 + 7.677 + 47.1 4.460 1.458 3.002 -|- 4.675 4.207 6.099" — 1.892 - 31.0 1.242 521 721 — 2.613 4.699 . 3.965 + 734 -|- 18.5 1.317 213 1.104 — 370 4.209 3.981 + 228 + 5.7 1.096 224 872 —— 644 10.347 9.582 -|- 765 + 8.0 3.100 769 2.331 —— 1.566 n 2.794 1.825 + 969 -|- 53.1 755 176 579 -|— 390 6.302 7.640 — 1.338 -— 17.5 1.531 520 1.011 — 2.349 951.527 614.799 + 3.36.728 + 54.8 210.756 56.667 154.089 +182.639 19.185 19.113 + 72 + 0.4 6.772 1.460 a 5.312 — 5.240 1h 13.187 9.111 -|- 4.076 + 44.7 3.476 763 2.713 + 1,363 5.860 8.964 -- 3.104 — 34.6 1.056 843 213 —- 3.317 47.432 41.365 -|— 6.067 -|- 14.7 8.784 3.550 5.234 + 833 20.683 22.973 — 2.290 -— 10.0 5.556 2.445 3.111 — 5.401 4.963 7.177 — 2.214 — 30.8 1.455 530 925 — 3.139 10.095 10.654 -— 559 -- 5.2 3.220 828 2.392 — 2.951 4.449 6.216 — 1.767 — 28.4 875 624 251 - 2.018 13.398 15.643 -— 2.245 — 14.4 4.405 1.039 3.366 —— 5.611 —;= 19.526 23.942 — 4.416 — 18.4 3.868 2.594 1.274 — 5.690 90.995 42-102 + 43-393- +116.1 21.415 3.082 18.333 + 30.560 2.317 2.908 -— 591 — 20.3 589 202 387 — 978 43.395 45.645 — 2.250 — 4.9 10.962 4.636 6.326 — 8.576 314.070 194.968 + 119.102 -|- 61.1 105.163 16.715 88.448 + 30.654 16.236 18.434 — 2.198 -— 11.9 2.543 1.930 613 — 2.811 21.263 26.724 — 5.461 - 20.4 5.659 2.825 2.834 — 8.295 23.880 31.253 — 7.373 —- 23.6 4.527 3.237 1.290 — 8.663 20.384 24.176 — 3.792 — 15.7 4.086 2.586 1.500 — 5.292 7.865 11.023 — 3.158 -—— 28.6 1.840 747 1.093 — 4.251 29 APPENDIX TABLE 1. POPULATION GAINS AND LOSSES, BY COUNTIES. 1950-60 (CONTINUED) 30 County Population Net change, 1950-60 Components oi change, 1950-60 Natural Net I 1960 1950 Number Percent Births Deaths increase migration ; Floyd 12,369 10,535 + 1,834 + 17.4 3,436 92.3 2,513 - 679 Foard 3,125 4,216 — 1,091 — 25.9 665 363 302 - 1,39. Fort Bend 40,527 31,056 + 9,471 + 30.5 11,676 2,899 8.777 + 6 4 Franklin 5.101 6,257 - 1,156 — 18-5 827 574» 253 _ 1.40 Freestone 12.525 15.696 - 3.171 — 20.2 2,807 1,659 1,148 - 4.31. Frio 13,112 13,357 _ 245 — 2.4 3,255 853 2,402 — 2,64 Gaines 12.267 6.909 + 3.356 + 87.7 8-674 661 8,018 + 8 ‘ Galveston 140.364 113.066 + 27.296 + 24-1 85,252 11,008 24,249 + 8,04 Garza 6.611 6.261 + 330 + 5-8 1-744 485 1.259 — < Gillespie 10.048 10.520 -— 472 — 4-5 1,961 1,084 877 — 1534 Glasscock 1,118 1,089 + 29 + 2-7 195 47 149 —- ‘£12 Goliad 5.429 6.219 - 790 — 12-7 1,523 596 927 — 1,71 Gonzales 17.645 21.164 _ 3.319 — 15-7 4,870 2,118 2-252 — 5,57 Gray 31.535 24.726 + 6.607 + 27-5 7,861 1,876 5-485 + 1,82, Grqysgn 73,343 73,457 + 2,575 + 3.7 16,864 7.459 9.405 - 6.82 Gregg’ 59,435 51,253 + 3,173 + 13.4 17.362 5,266 12.096 - 3.91 Grimes 12.709 15.135 - 2.426 - 16-0 8,412 1,868 1,549 — 8,97 Guadalupe 29,017 25.392 —|— 3.625 + 14-3 9,357 2,494 5,363 — 2,23 Hale 36.796 26.211 + 6.567 + 80-4 10,807 2,878 7,929 + 5 . H511 7,322 13,933 _ 3,533 - 33.0 2,055 847 1,208 - 4.81 Hamilton 8,488 10,660 — 2.172 — 211-4 1,350 1-142 208 — 2,3 Hansiord 6.206 4.202 + 2.006 + 47-7 1,276 287 989 + 1,01 Hardeman 8.275 10.212 —— 1.937 — 19-0 1,951 922 1,039 — 2,97 Hardin 24.629 19.535 + 5.094 + 26-1 5,561 1,755 8,806 + 1,2 Han-is 1,243,153 335,731 + 435,457 + 54.1 297.085 72.657 224,428 +212.0 . Harrison 45.594 47.745 — 2.151 — 4-5 11-361 4,273 7.088 — 9.23 Hartley 2.171 1.913 + 256 + 18,5 571 186 885 — . Haskell 11.174 13.736 - 2.562 — 18-7 2.910 1,102 1,808 — 4,8 Hays 19,934 17,343 _|_ 2,394 + 11.7 6,693 1,711 4.982 - 2,8 ‘ Hemphill 3.165 4.123 _ 936 — 22.8 658 224 484 — 1,0 Henderson 21,786 23,405 — 1,619 — 5-9 4,449 2,274 2,175 — Hidalgo 180.904 160,446 + 20.458 + 12-3 71-241 12,736 58,505 — 38, H111 23,553 31,232 _ 7,532 - 24.4 4,855 3.208 1.647 - 9,2 Hockley 22.340 20.407 + 1,933 + 9-5 6,978 1,285 5,693 — 3,7 Hood 5.443 5.267 + 156 4+ 8-0 974 619 355 - Hopkins 18,594 23.490 - 4.896 — 20.8 3.476 2,367 1.109 - 60 Houston 19.376 22.825 —— 3.449 — 15-1 4,542 1,955 2,587 — 6,0 y Howard 40.139 26.722 + 13.417 + 50.2 11,362 2,298 9,064 + 4,3 Hudspeth 3.343 4.298 - 955 — 22.2 1.392 226 1,166 - 2,1 Hunt 39.399 42.731 — 3.332 - 7.8 7.607 4.2.89 3.318 - 6.6 Hutchinson 34.419 31.580 + 2,839 + 9.0 9,875 1,719 8,156 - 5,31 Irion 1,183 1.590 — 407 — 2.5.6 273 117 156 — 5 Iack 7.418 7,755 — 337 - 4.3 1,423 746 677 — 1,01 Iackson 14.040 12.916 + 1,124 + 8.7 3,965 1,135 2,830 - 1.7‘ 7 Iasper 22.100 20.049 + 2.051 + 10.2 5.343 1,870 3.473 — 1.4 left Davis 1,582 2.090 — 508 — 24.3 585 122 463 - 9 Ieilerson 245.659 195.083 + 50.576 + 25.9 59,160 16,011 43.149 + Iim Hogg 5.022 5.389 — 367 — 6.8 1.396 401 995 -- Iim Wells 34.548 27.991 + 6.557 + 23-4 10,626 2,110 8,516 — Iohnson 34.720 31.390 + 3.330 + 10.6 6,696 3.520 3.176 + Iones 19.299 22.147 - 2.848 — 12.9 4,459 1,859 2.600 - Karnes 14.995 17.139 - 2.144 —- 12.5 4.909 1,524 3.385 - - Kaufman 29.931 31.170 — 1,239 — 4.0 7.003 3.274 3,729 _ Kendall 5,889 5.423 + 466 + 8.6 1.283 586 697 - 1' Kenedy 884 632 + 252 + 39.9 238 34 204 + Kent 1,727 2.249‘- — 522 — 23.2 440 144 296 - 8 Kerr 16.800 14.022 + 2.778 + 19.8 2.992 1.639 1.353 + 1.4 Kimble 3.943 4.619 — 676 — 14.6 869 382 487 —- 1.l King 640 870 - 230 26.4 124 51 73 —- 3, ' Kinney 2.452 2.668 - 216 — 8.1 711 248 463 - 6 Kleberg 30.052 21.991 + 8.061 + 36.7 10.040 1.727 8,313 - ‘ Knox 7,857 10.082 — 2.225 — 22.1 2.358 o 751 1.607 — 3.8 Lamar 34.234 43.033 - 8.799 - 20.4 8.265 4.366 3.899 - 12.6 Lamb 21.896 20,015 + 1.881 + 9.4 6,363 1.487 4.876 - 2,9 Lampasas 9.418 9.929 — 511 — 5.1 2,322 1.015 1,307 —— 1.8 La Salle 5.972 7.485 — 1.513 20.2 2.014 604 1.410 - 2.9 Lavaca 20.174 22.159 - 1.985 - 9.0 4,609 2.384 2.225 - 4.2 Lee 8,949 10.144 — 1,195 — 11.8 1.999 1.022 977 _ 2.1 Leon 9.951 12.024 - 2.073 - 17.2 2.473 1,353 1.120 - 3.1, Liberty 31.595 26,729 + 4.866 + 18.2 8,574 2.643 5.931 — Pr Limestone 20.413 25.251 - 4.838 - 19.2 4,192 2.544 1.648 - ~11. Lipscomb 3.406 3.658 - 252 - 6.9 746 300 446 — 6 Live Oak 7,846 9.054 — 1,208 — 13.3 2.181 660 1.521 - 2.7 Llano 5.240 5.377 -_ 137 - 2.5 919 576 343 - - Loving 226 227 - 1 — 0.4 50 10 40 - Lubbock 156.271 101.048 + 55,223 + 54.7 42.926 7,678 35.248 + 19. Lynn 10.914 11.030 - 116 - 1.1 3.090 809 2.281 - 2. APPENDIX TABLE 1. POPULATION GAINS AND LOSSES. BY COUNTIES. 1950-60 (CONTINUED) "County Population Net change, 1950-60 Components of change, 1950-60 Natural Net 1960 1950 Number Births Deaths increase migration ulloch 8.815 11.701 — 2.886 — 24.7 2.114 1.188 9'26 — 3.812 llan 150.091 130.194 + 19.897 + 15.3 36.806 12.188 24.618 — 4.721 ullen 1.116 1.187 — 71 — 6.0 265 99 166 — 237 fon 6.749 7.996 — 1.247 — 15.6 1.509 846 663 — 1,910 n 8.049 10.172 — 2.123 —- 20.9 2.228 1.047 1.181 — 3.304 . -- 5.068 5.541 — 473 —— 8.5 1.691 393 1.298 — 1.771 n 3.780 4.945 — 1.165 — 23.6 757 445 312 — 1.477 25.744 21.559 + 4.185 + 19.4 7.090 2.102 4.988 —— 803 erick 14.508 12.292 + 2.216 + 18.0 6.351 1.017 5.334 -— 3,118 l _'a 18.904 17.013 + 1.891 + 11.1 5.259 1.548 3.711 — 1.820 ard 2.964" 4.175 — 1.211 -— 29.0 668 352 316 — 1.527 ‘f! 67.717 25.785 + 41.932 +162.6 16.105 2.292 13.813 + 28.119 22.263 23.585 -— 1.322 — 5.6 5.323 . 2.614 2.709 — 4.031 . 4.467 5.999 — 1.532 — 25.5 680 533 147 - 1.679 ell 11.255 14.357 — 3.102 — 21.6 3.496 1.072 2.424 — 5.526 tague 14.893 17.070 — 2.177 — 12.8 2.874 1.628 1.246 -— 3.423 gomery 26.839 24.504 + 2.335 + 9.5 6.071 2.463 3.608 — 1.273 14.773 13.349 + 1.424 + 10.7 4.349 584 3.765 —- 2.341 "' 12.576 9.433 + 3.143 + 33.3 2.933 866 2.067 - 1.076 ey 2.870 3.963 —— 1.093 — 27.6 707 328 379 - 1.472 .doches 28.046 30.326 — 2.280 —- 7.5 6.586 2.628 3.958 -— 6.238 ; -. o 34.423 39.916 — 5.493 -— 13.8 7.772 4.401 3.371 - 8.864 I on 10.372 10.832 — 460 -— 4.2 2.410 822 1.588 -— 2.048 y». 18.963 19.808 — 845 — 4.3 4.869 1.609 3.260 — 4.105 es 221.573 165.471 + 56.102 + 33.9 68.232 12.074 56.158 — 56 _ tree 9.380 6.024 + 3.356 + 55.7 1.664 445 1.219 -|- 2.137 1.928 1.672 + 256 + 15.3 420 106 314 -— 58 ge 60.357 40.567 + 19.790 + 48.8 15.081 2.988 12.093 + 7.697 Pinto 20.516 17.154 + 3.362 + 19.6 5.721 2.258 3.463 -— 101 16.870 19.250 — 2.380 — 12.4 4.078 1.455 2.623 -— 5.003 22.880 21.528 + 1.352 + 6.3 4.573 2.159 2.414 — 1.062 7 er 9.583 5.787 + 3.796 + 65.6 2.076 398 1.678 + 2.118 i - 11.957 9.939 + 2.018 + 20.3 3.296 696 2.600 —— 582 A 13.861 16.194 — 2.333 -— 14.4 3.546 1.571 1.975 -— 4.308 fr 115.580 73.366 + 42.214 + 57.5 26.488 6.845 19.643 + 22.571 i 5.460 7.354 — 1.894 — 25.8 1.846 405 1.441 — 3.335 2.993 4.266 — 1.273 — 29.8 447 359 88 -— 1.361 33.913 13.774 -|- 20.139" +146.2 5.532 844 4.688 -|- 15.451 3.782 3.127 -|— 655 + 20.9 1.481 216 1.265 -— 610 a 2.079 2.479 - 400 -— 16.1 474 194 280 — 680 {River 15.682 21.851 - 6.169 — 28.2 4.054 2.132 1.922 —- 8.091 17.644 11.745 + 5.899 + 50.2 5.731 1.201 4.530 + 1.369 10.975 10.113 + 862 + 8.5 3.062 842 2.220 - 1.358 = 1.075 1.031 + 44 + 4.3 205 66 139 —— 95 son 16.157 19.908 — 3.751 — 18.8 4.449 2.080 2.369 — 6.120 tall 5.878 6.156 —— 278 - 4.5 1.423 635 788 — 1.066 15.016 16.771 — 1.755 — 10.5 3.519 1.506 2.013 — 3.768 ' 36.421 42.348 -— 5.927 — 14.0 8.578 3.430 5.148 — 11.075 _~ 7.302 8.568 —— 1.266 — 14.8 2.040 678 1.362 -— 2.628 ilugustine 7.722 8.837 — 1.115 —- 12.6 2.009 823 1.186 — 2.301 ‘Iacinto 6.153 7.172 — 1.019 — 14.2 1.145 601 544 — 1.563 Patricio 45.021 35.842 + 9.179 + 25.6 15.945 3.255 12.690 — 3.511 aba 6.381 8.666 — 2.285 — 26.4 1.570 811 759 — 3.044 i. her 2.791 2.852 — 61 — 2.1 625 197 428 — 489 1 ' 20.369 22.779 — 2.410 — 10.6 6.032 1.311 4,721 — 7.131 f liord 3.990 5.001 — 1.011 — 20.2 812 438 374 — 1.385 20.479 23.479 — 3.000 — 12.8 5.153 2.274 2.879 — 5.879 n 2.605 2.443 + 162 + 6.6 457 170 287 — 125 ‘ 86.350 74.701 + 11.649 + 15.6 19.368 6.795 12.573 - 924 ell 2.577 2.542 -|- 35 + 1.4 363 309 54 -— 19 17.137 13.948 -|- 3.189 -|- 22.9 5.638 920 4.718 — 1.529 “ins 8.885 10.597 — 1.712 — 16.2 1.806 1.004 802 — 2.514 1.177 1.282 -— 105 —— 8.2 291 112 179 -— 284 tall 3.017 3.679 — 662 — 18.0 628 276 352 -— 1.014 f 3.738 3.746 -— 8 — 0.2 1.087 279 808 —— 816 "1- 10.607 8.249 -|- 2.358 + 28.6 2.704 646 2.058 + 300 ‘t 538.495 361.253 + 177.242 + 49.1 125.784 34.783 91.001 + 86.241 1' ~_101.078 63,370 + 37.708 + 59.5 21.298 5.142 16.156 + 21.552 2,600 3.189 -— 589 — 18.5 699 179 520 —— 1.109 8 l‘ 16.286 13.107 + 3.179 + 24.3 5.111 1.059 4.052 —- 873 g- orton 2.767 3.618 — 851 — 23.5 477 265 212 — 1.063 16.785 17.302 — 517 — 3.0 3.710 1.589 2.121 — 2.638 reen 64.630 58.929 + 5.701 + 9.7 17.036 4.82.0 12.216 — 6,515 it 212.136 160.980 + 51.156 + 31.8 44.644 12.528 32.116 + 19.040 7.539 10.040 — 2.501 — 24.9 1.897 973 924 — 3.425 10.666 11.292 — 626 — 5.5 2.556 1.038 1.518 - 2.144 19.793 20.822 — 1.029 -— 4.9 4.107 1.955 2.152 -— 3.181 APPENDIX TABLE 1. POPULATION GAINS AND LOSSES. BY COUNTIES, 1950-60 (CONTINUED) County Population Net change, 1950-60 Components of change, 1950-60 Natural Net 1960 1950 Number Percent Births Deaths increase migratio _ Upton 6.239 5.307 + 932 + 17.6 2.097 335 1.762 -- 8 Uvalde 16.814 16.015 + 799 + 5.0 4.993 1.504 3.489 — 2.6 Val Verde 24.461 16.635 + 7.826 + 47.0 7.927 1.725 6.202 + 1.6 Van Zandt 19.091 22.593 — 3.502 —- 15.5 3.465 2.247} 1.218 — 4.7 Victoria 46.475 31.241 + 15.234 + 48.8 13.796 3.094 .1. 10.702 + 4.5 Walker 21.475 20.163 + 1.312 + 6.5 3.304 1.541 1.763 — 4 Waller 12.071 11.961 + 110 + 0.9 2.445 1.059 1.386 — 1.2 Ward 14.917 13.346 —|- 1.571 + 11.8 4.029 872 3.157 — 1.5 Washington 19.145 20.542 — 1.397 — 6.8 4.041 2.289 1.752 — 3.1 Webb 64.791 56.141 + 8.650 + 15.4 24.283 4.685 19.598 — l0. ~ Wharton 38.152 36.077 + 2.075 + 5.8 10.660 2.972 7.688 —, 5.61 Wheeler 7.947 10.317 — 2.370 -— 23.0 1.836 808 1.028 —“ 3.3 Wichita 123.528 98.493 + 25.035 + 25.4 28.749 7.363 21.386 + 3.6 Wilbarger 17.748 20.552 — 2.804 — 13.6 4.081 1.575 2.506 — 5.3 Willacy 20.084 20.920 -— 836 — 4.0 8.559 1.520 7.039 —- 7.8. Williamson 35.044 38.853 — 3.809 — 9.8 8.311 3.813 4.498 —— 8.3 Wilson 13.267 14.672 — 1.405 -— 9.6 3.524 1.267 2.257 -— 3.6 Winkler 13.652 10.064 + 3.588 + 35.7 3.648 576 3.072 + 5 Wise 17.012 16.141 + 871 + 5.4 3.242 1.721 1.521 —- ~' Wood 17.653 21.308 — 3.655 — 17.2 3.369 2.016 1.353 — Yoakum 8.032 4.339 + 3.693 + 85.1 1.822 308 1.514 + Young 17.254 16.810 + 444 + 2.6 3.436 1.576 1.860 -— Zapata 4.393 4.405 -— 12 -— 0.3 1.248 166 1.082 — Zavala 12.696 11.201 -|- 1.495 + 13.3 4.301 919 3.382 —- Source: Bureau oi Census. Current Population Reports. Series P-23. No. 7. November. 1962. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, R. E. Patterson, Director, College Station, Texas