B-l059 November 1966 The Nonwhite Population of Texas TEXAS UNIVERSITY TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. E. Patterson, Director, College Station, Texas Summary THIS PUBLICATION ANALYZES some of the more signifi- cant aspects of the nonwhite population of Texas. It includes selected ro'ections for the nonwhite . P 1. . . . population t0 1970 and points out some 1mpl1cat1ons. Amon the more si nificant findin s are the follow- _ g g g 1ng: 1. Approximately 1,205,000 nonwhites were liv- ing in Texas in 1960. Their numbers were estimated to be 1,347,000 in 1966, and projections indicate a 1970 Texas nonwhite population of 1,455,000. Their rate of population growth is slower than that of the white population. In 1940, nonwhites comprised 14.5 percent of the State’s residents, 12.6 percent in 1960 and are expected to comprise 12.4 percent in 1970. 2. Traditionally, East Texas has been more heavily populated by nonwhites than other sections of the State. Although some have migrated to the larger cities in West Texas, they are still highly con- centrated in the eastern section of the state. 3. Between 1950 and 1960, some 28,000 more nonwhites migrated from Texas to other states than moved to Texas from other states. However, an excess of births over deaths (249,000) during the decade per- mitted nonwhites to register an increase of approxi- mately 22 percent. 4. Nonwhites have higher birth and death rates than whites in Texas. In 1960, the birth rates were 30.3 and 25.1, and the death rates were 10.2 and 7.7 for nonwhites and whites, respectively. 5. The residential composition of nonwhites‘ is similar to that of whites. In 1960, 75 percent of all nonwhites in Texas lived in urban areas, and 25 percent were rural residents. The trend toward con- centration of nonwhites in metropolitan areas is accelerating, with 65 percent of the State’s nonwhite population residing in standard metropolitan areas in 1960. By 1970 approximately 80 percent of the State’s nonwhite population is expected to live in urban areas, with 7O percent residing in standard metropolitan areas. 6. In 1960 there were only 94.5 males per 100 females in the nonwhite population of Texas. The projected sex distribution is 94.2 males for every 100 females in 1970. 7. Nonwhites have proportionately more people in the younger ages than whites, and whites have proportionately more in the older ages. Nonwhites have what is referred to by demographers as an un- favorable age distribution. That is, they have rela- tively large numbers in the economically dependent ages compared to the numbers in the economically productive ages. In 1960, Texas nonwhites had 974 persons of dependent age for every 1,000 of productive age. This contrasts sharply with only 780 persons in the dependent ages per 1,000 in the productive ages among whites. By 1970, the nonwhite d’ ratio is expected to increase to a point wl will be 1,061 persons in the dependent ag for every 1,000 in the productive ages. ‘ 8. The median number of years of sc i pleted by the adult nonwhite population of age and older) in Texas was 8.1 in 1960,; median family income was @2591. Appr 3 out of 5 nonwhites who were 14 years ~- older were in the active labor force in 1960 percent of all nonwhites 14 years of age and married. Approximately one-half of all dwel j occupied by nonwhites in 1960 were owner-i and one-half were renter-occupied. Contents Summary ............................................................... .. I Introduction .......................................................... .. Definition of nonwhite population .................. Number and geographic distribution .............. 1960 nonwhite population ........................ .. i Growth trends .................................................. .. 6 Geographic distribution ................................ .. Components of nonwhite population change... f Fertility ............................................................. .. Mortality ............................................................ Migration __________________________________________________________ __ if Residential distribution ...................................... .. i‘ Definition of residential terms ..................... .. 1960 residential distribution .................... .. I; Residential composition changes .................. Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas .... .4; Age and sex composition ..................................... Sex distribution ................................................ .. Age distribution .......................................... .... Dependency ratio .................................. .. Index of aging ............................................ Selected socio-economic characteristics ............... .. Education ............................................................ __ A Occupation ................................................... 1 Income ................................................................. ' Marital status.-. ___________________________________________ __ i’ Housing ............................................................... Projections of the nonwhite population to 197 ‘_VEOPLE OF ANY NATION, state or other political ibdivision may be divided into several different 'ngs because they “belong” together on the basis "ous social, economic or cultural characteristics. * they may be subdivided on the basis of their ce, age, sex, race, marital status, occupational ( religious affiliation and other ways. One of I; important of these groupings is that of race I color. , thropologists and sociologists, using biologic- herited traits, classify people into three more arbitrary categories. These include the Cau- 1 , popularly referred to as the “whites,” Mon- , the “yellow-skinned” people, and Negroids, lack or brown-skinned” people. his publication deals with the demographic j- teristics of the latter two groups in Texas. What Lppening within the nonwhite population in as well as in the nation is important in many _ For example, the nonwhite birth rates, death I illness rates and educational and economic levels 'fferent from whites. In many localities in the V». States, a person’s skin color has been a inant of where he can live, what occupations n enter and the amount of political power he xercise. At the same time, the sphere of influ- of nonwhites has been broadening. While the lation of schools and other public facilities has a fairly new phenomenon in many places over Cation, many facilities which are not integrated ntly will undoubtedly become so in the near lthough nonwhites have been important in s, both numerically and socially, no demographic i s of a general nature have been published which with this particular population of Texas. This 'cation, therefore, is concerned with the major cteristics and trends of the nonwhite people of tate—-their numbers and distribution, residential k sition, age and sex distribution, levels of income ducational attainment. Changes are taking place *1 nonwhite population of Texas which greatly v agriculture, industry, commerce, institutional 2- community life. Information concerning the The Nonwhite Population of Texas R. L. SKRABANEK AND j. S. HOLLINGSWORTHI‘ nonwhite population and the nature of its changes is important in planning public facilities and pro- grams. The activities of private individuals and groups often might be more adequately planned if knowledge of population characteristics are available. This report concerns nonwhite people first and statistics second. Consideration of the nonwhite population from this point of view makes it a most important subject in planning the activities of indi- viduals and groups, as well as for private and public facilities and programs. DEFINITION OF NONWHITE POPULATION 9 The term “nonwhite population,’ as used in this publication is the same as used by the U. S. Bureau of the Census. It includes Negroes, American Indians, japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, Koreans, Asian Indians and Malayans. It should be noted that persons of Mexican birth or ancestry who are not definitely of Indian or other nonwhite race are classified as white. NUMBER AND GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION One of the most important facts about any group is their numbers living in a specific state, county, city or other political subdivision. To leaders such as school administrators, religious leaders, farmers, manu- facturers and businessmen as well as private, public and governmental agencies and large corporations, knowledge of the actual size and growth trends among nonwhites is essential for planning. 1960 Nonwhite Population There were 9,579,677 people living in Texas on April l, 1960. Of this number, 1,204,846 were classi- fied as nonwhites, constituting 12.6 percent of the State’s total population. Of the nonwhite population 1,187,125 were Negroes. Thus, 17,721 nonwhites were classified as persons referred to in census volumes as “other races.” Since Negroes comprise 98.5 percent of all nonwhite *Respectively, professor and research associate, Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology. persons in Texas, the terms “nonwhite” and “Negro” may be used for all practical purposes as synonymous terms in the State. Other than Negroes, persons in Texas in 1960 classified as nonwhites included 5,750 Indians, 4,053 Japanese, 4,172 Chinese, 1,623 Filipinos TABLE 1. STATES RANKED BY NONWHITE POPULA- TION, 1960 Percent Percent nonwhite of all Numerical of total nonwhites rank State Number population in U. S. 1 New York 1,495,233 8.9 7 .3 2 California 1,261,974 8.0 6.2 3 TEXAS 1,204,846 12.6 5.9 4 North Carolina 1,156,870 25.4 5 .6 5 Georgia 1,125,893 28.6 5.5 6 Illinois 1,070,906 10.6 5.2 7 Louisiana 1,045,307 32.1 5.1 8 Alabama 983,131 30.1 4.8 9 Mississippi 920,595 42.3 4.5 l0 Florida 887,679 17.9 4.3 1 1 Pennsylvania 865,362 7.6 4.2 12 South Carolina 831,572 34.9 4.1 13 Virginia 824.506 20.8 4.0 14 Ohio 796,699 8.2 3.9 15 Michigan 737,329 9.4 3.6 16 Tennessee 589,336 16.5 2.9 17 New Jersey 527,779 8.7 2.6 18 Maryland 526,770 17.0 2.6 19 Hawaii 430,542 68.0 2.1 20 District of Columbia 418,693 54.8 2.0 21 Missouri 396,846 9.2 1.9 22 Arkansas 390,569 21.9 1.9 23 Indiana 273,944 5.9 1.3 24 Oklahoma 220,384 9.5 1.1 25 Kentucky 218,073 7.2 1.1 26 Arizona 132,644 10.2 0.6 27 Massachusetts 125,434 2.4 0.6 28 Connecticut 111,418 4.4 0.5 29 Washington 101,539 3.6 0.5 30 Kansas 99,945 4.6 0.5 31 Wisconsin 92,874 2.4 0.5 32 West Virginia 90,288 4.9 0.4 33 New Mexico 75,260 7 .9 0.4 34 Delaware 61,965 13.9 0.3 35 Colorado 53,247 3.0 0.3 36 Alaska 51,621 22.8 0.3 37 Minnesota 42,261 1.2 0.2 38 Oregon 36,650 2.1 0.2 39 Nebraska 36,566 2.6 0.2 40 Iowa 28,828 1.0 0.1 41 South Dakota 27,416 4.0 0.1 42 Montana 24,029 3.6 0.1 43 Nevada 21,835 7 .7 0.1 44 Rhode Island 20,776 2.4 0.1 45 Utah 16,799 1.9 0.1 46 North Dakota 12,908 2 .0 0.1 47 Idaho 9,808 1.5 * 48 Wyoming 7,144 2.2 * 49 Maine 5,974 0.6 * 50 New Hampshire 2,587 0.4 * 51 Vermont 789 0.2 * U. S. Total 20,491,443 11.4 100.0 *Less than .05 percent. Combined, they account for slightly more than one-tenth of one percent. Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of Popula- tion: 1960. Volume I, “Characteristics of the Population,” Part 1, United States Summary, Table 56. 4 and 2,123 other nonwhites which represent smaller groups} * In 1960, Texas ranked third in nonwhi lation, being exceeded by New York and ~ One of every 17 nonwhites in the nation Texas, and the nonwhite population of s-ép larger than the total population in each of T states. ‘H Seven states, when combined, held more percent of the nation’s nonwhites; each had u‘ one million nonwhites in 1960. Ranked to their numbers, these states were New Y fornia, Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, 111' Louisiana, Table 1. Slightly more than on all nonwhites in the nation resided in the “i 1960, with approximately 12 percent of all n, living in the South residing in Texas. Growth Trends p, There were more nonwhites residing t‘ in 1960 than at any previous time, (Table .1 there were an estimated 1,347,000 nonwhites,’ Their numbers have increased steadily since , War, with the greatest increase occurring d A most recent decade (Table 2). Between l9 nonwhite population of the State increased 1. 200,000 or 22.4 percent. Their growth rate d ‘For more detailed information concerning characteris , group within the nonwhite classification, see U. S. Population: 1960. Special Report PC (2) 1C, “Nonwi lation by Race.” a TABLE 2. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF NONWH; NEGRO POPULATION IN TEXAS, 1850-1960, ES FOR 1966, AND PROJECTIONS FOR 1970 Increase since Perce -, Population preceding census p0 - g Year Nonwhite Negro Nonwhite Negro Nonw- 1850 58,558‘ 58,558‘ 27.5 " 1860 183,324 182,921 124,766 124,363 30.3.3 1870 253,879 253,475 70,555 70,554 31.04 1880 394,512 393,384 140,633 139,909 24.8: 1890 489,592 488,171 95,080 94,787 21. ‘ 1900 622,041 620,722 132,449 132,551 20.4f 1910 691,694 690,049 69,666 69,627 17.6 1920 745,063 741,694 53,369 51,645 16.0; 1930 857,543 854,964 112,480 113,270 14.71’- 1940 927,279 924,391 69,7 36 69,427 143 , 1960 984,660 977,466 67,661 66,067 12.8. 1960 1,204,846 1,187,125 220,186 209,667 12.6 Estimated i 1966 1,647,000 1,626,000 142,164 166,676 125. Projected ,7 1970 1,455,000 1,426,000 250,154 238,875 12.4; Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of 1940. Second Series, Texas, “Characteristics of the P g Table 4; and U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. g Population: 1960. Volume I, “Characteristics of the P l, Part 45, Texas, Table 15. i ‘Figures for and prior to 1850 were not reported races.” Therefore, the 1850 census recorded the sa for the nonwhite and Negro populations in 1850. I decade was only slightly slower than that of the e population. Since the whites in Texas have been increasing rapidly than nonwhites the proportion of non- es in the State’s total population has been getting iler, being reduced from 31 percent in 1870 to percent in 1966 (Figure l). Geographic Distribution The nonwhite population is more highly concen- in certain portions of Texas than the white. eneral, they are densely populated in the eastern i» but sparsely populated in the western and south- sections. For example, no county west of Bexar i ty had more than 20,000 nonwhites in 1960 _ re 2), and none west of Travis County had more y’ l5 percent of their total population who were white, (Figure Traditionally, East Texas has more heavily populated by nonwhites than have or sections of the State. This is because they were ught into the region to provide much of the labor ' ected with a cotton culture. Since agriculture in 0r sections of the State did not require as much r, few nonwhites settled outside of East Texas. th the advent of agricultural mechanization and nology and a major change from cotton farming the livestock industry and other types of agricul- a in East Texas, many nonwhites have migrated y from the area. Furthermore, because agriculture ighly mechanized in Texas and fewer farm workers required, nonwhites have migrated to counties large cities or to other states in search of occu- ional opportunities. ‘j The distribution of nonwhites among counties Texas varies considerably. For example, in 1960 ('3 counties had more than 100,000 nonwhite resi- ts (Harris—249,473 and Dallas—140,266). At the er extreme are 120 counties, each having fewer y 500 nonwhite residents, and three (Borden, i edy and McMullen) with no nonwhite residents. i Texas also has great variations in proportions nonwhite population in different counties. In 1960, whites constituted a majority of the residents in ‘ee counties (Marion, San Jacinto and Waller), but i- made up less than l percent of the populations 62 counties. In 35 counties, more than one of four were nonwhite persons. Widely divergent gains and losses in nonwhite pulation were experienced by Texas counties during - 1950-60 decade (Figure 4). As a general rule, unties wtih the smallest number of nonwhites had Se greatest proportionate increases of nonwhites ring the past decadlgfl At the same time, most unties in the eastern section of the State, heavily pulated by nonwhites, lost in nonwhite population tween 1950-60. Slightly more than half of the State’s unties experienced a net loss of nonwhites during e last census decade. A total of 132 counties lost ' nonwhite population, and in 16 their numbers 2 . 1 1860 1880 1900 1.920 1940 1960 19K) Q White Nonwhite Figure 1. Percent distribution of population by color, Texas, 1860-1960, and projection for 1970. declined one-half or more (Appendix Table l). On the other hand, of the 122 counties which experienced net gains within this period, 32 counties more than doubled their numbers of nonwhites. and 52 increased by at least 50 percent. COMPONENTS OF NONWHITE POPULATION CHANGE The rate of population growth or decline of any given group is determined by three basic factors: births, deaths and migration. Bewteen 1950-60, nonwhites in Texas increased by 220,186. They had 248,613 more births than deaths and should have increased by this number had no migration taken place. Some 28,000 more nonwhites moved from Texas than into the State during the decade. The number of nonwhite births, deaths and their net migration between 1950-60 for each county in the State are given in Appendix Table 1. Fertility There are a number of ways in which demogra- phers compute fertility rates for different populations. Two of the most widely used indexes of fertility are the crude birth rate and the fertility ratio. The crude birth rate is the number of births for any group during a specific year per 1,000 persons in the group for which the birth rate is being computed. The 1960 crude birth rates of nonwhites and whites in Texas indicate that nonwhites have the higher birth rates, 30.3 and 25.1, respectively. Furthermore, crude birth rates have been consistently higher for nonwhites in Texas throughout the years. Although crude birth rates are widely used, the fertility ratio is a better measure of fertility when comparing two populations. The fertility ratio is derived by computing the number of children under 5 years of age per 1,000 women of childbearing age (in this case, 15 to 49 years of age). It is superior to the crude birth rate because it eliminates extreme situations, such as different populations having differ- ent proportions of males and different proportions of persons physically immature or past the age where they can have children. In 1960 there were 625 nonwhite children under 5 years of age per 1,000 nonwhite women of child- bearing age in Texas, Figure 5. This is somewhat higher than it is for whites, who had a fertility ratio of 504. The nonwhite ratio of 625 was only s higher than for nonwhites in the nation, whic 612. The Texas nonwhite fertility ratio was _ in 1960 than any time since 1890. Between 19 the nonwhite fertility ratio increased from 445 t' an increase of 40 percent. i Differences in fertility patterns of nonwhites be noted according to theiriplace of residence. tility ratios for nonwhites in 1960 were 610 in u 682 in rural nonfarm and 667 in rural farm ar Mortality Computed death rates (number of deathsfi ring during a given year per 1,000 population) in that nonwhites have higher death rates than w BREWSTER NUMBER i 20,000 AND OVER it |5,000 TO 19,999 |0,000 TO |4,999 5,000 TO 9,999 [I UNDER 5,000 Figure 2. Nonwhite population of Texas counties by number, 1960. VAL VERDE l EDWARDS ' w“ - ' . nun. li Anon,‘ 2 oALLm snznlun mnsroan oca-nunzz LIPSCOMB HARTLEY moons nurcnln- noaenfs rznwnnu. son OLDHAM cnnson mm wnzzLzn our snrm RANDALL "M DONLEV °°‘-‘-'"°5' smone woRTn vmnzn CASTRO swusnza umscoe MALL ‘Frag- . _l ‘a BAILEY LAMB HALE _rLovv norm com: \"- vnLnm- 13* romo can _ ._. c“, ‘ xnox uvusn Ancnzn cocmm NOCKLEY CROSBY Plan's "m5 sronc- “m; TWW" vounc JACK voAnun ‘rznnv . Lvnn . “Ill ""7 “LL " “Qpfon SMACKEL- ____ PALO vnnxcn amines onwsun aonocn scunnv rusnen mes m“ "m . no Annnzws nmnn nonmu nnenzLL NOLAN TAYLOR CALLANAN EASTLR/l EMT" {i '\ 1” _ . 6Ll55- 5""- coxs ‘connncrié-A \-°‘""° . “MKL” ' coca LING RUNNELS coLznAn. unown -/ _ l ' "flmnuon nuosvcrn I cuLnznson I "Mo" RUM" XCORYELL M" TOM COMM, ~ - . “alas |-|\ l. GREEN mum“ _l ‘ ’ SCHLEICNER “m” . "Co, cnocuzrr ouson Jen DAVIS - . .$ sunon KIMBLE ' \ ' GILLESPIE . _ TERRELL l M's . . _/ -/ ADA- _ KINNEY UVALDE '>._Q>Lonaloo _ LUPE / j _ ' eonzALixLlVlfil WILSON _ / T \_ - / oewn - JACKSON ZAVALK 1 05A xmnss‘ “Sc vmonu l~ GOLIAD MAVERWK sum» ' as: unnn’ LA SALLE my; \ _ REFWIQ oax - ‘ Mt MULLEN i j-q j...’ n" PATRICK) v ‘T’ / _ KLEBERG 4"‘ gunooxs mcnzov now _\ flIBB DUVIL JIM WELLS ZAPATA <1. - I . "m _ a l WILLACV NIDALGO l l CAMERON anon znnauv PERCENT - 40.0 AND OVER 25.0 TO 39.9 |s.o TO 24.9 [:1 uuosn |s.o nun ”" 3. Percent of nonwhite population of Texas counties, 7.7 respectively, in 1960. The gap in death rates whites and nonwhites is narrowing, however, of the advances resulting in lower death rates earlier in point of time among whites. Since now have considerably larger proportions of population in the older ages, nonwhite death will continue to decline faster than among whites next two decades. One measure of mortality often used by demogra- is the infant mortality rate. The infant mor- rate is defined as the number of infants (children — INCREASE l: DECREASE 4. Changes in the nonwhite population of Texas counties, exas. The two groups had death rates of 10.2 _ under 1 year of age) dying in a given year per 1,000 live births during that same year. In Texas in 1960, infant mortality rates were 44.2 and 26.5 for non- whites and whites, respectively. These differences largely reflect differences in pre-natal and post-natal care, the degree to which babies are born in hospitals and in private homes and socio-economic differences. More boys than girls die during the first year of life among botl1 color groups, but the difference is greater among nonwhites than among whites. For example, the nonwhite infant mortality rates in Texas in 1960 were 49.3 for boys and 39.0 for girls. Among whites, the rates were 29.6 and 23.2, respectively. The leading reported causes of death among non- whites are heart disease, vascular lesions and cancer, in that order. Among whites the leading causes are the same, except that there are more deaths due to cancer than vascular lesions. These three accounted for 65 percent of all nonwhite deaths and 62 percent of all deaths of whites occurring in Texas in 1960. The fourth most important cause of death for both whites and nonwhites was accidents. Accidents of all kinds accounted for 6.4 percent of all nonwhite deaths in Texas in 1960 and 5.8 percent of all deaths of whites. Migration Between 1950-60, approximately 28,000 more non- whites migrated from Texas than moved into the State. For two census decades in succession (1940-50 and 1950-60) Texas has had a net out-migration of nonwhites. During these same years, the state regis- tered net in-migration of whites, and this is the major reason whites make up an increasingly larger share of the State’s total population. Distinct migration patterns of nonwhites may be noted by comparing state of birth and state of resi- dence information. According to the census, a total of 1,255,948 nonwhites who were born in Texas were I50 600 450 0 0’0'0. Q . 0.30.0.0: o o 300 .... 0 0.0.0.0 oo.oooooooooo .0 u...‘ 0 .0 o 000a 150 000000 000000 .....’ 00o. u.» 00 .0 ~ 0 . .3» . 0'0 0o o o o o O 531 _ 0.0 Rural nontarm Rural fann Nonwhite E White Figure 5. Number of children under 5 years of age per 1,000 women ages 15-49, by color and residence, Texas, 1960. alive in 1960. Approximately 20 percent of the Texas- born nonwhites were living in other states in 1960. Twelve different states had in excess of 5,000 non- whites who had been born in Texas living within their boundaries in 1960. In order of their attraction, the leading states were California, 130,000; Oklahoma, 18,000; Arizona, 11,000; Illinois, 9,000; Louisiana, 9,000; and Michigan, 7,000. Figures 6 and 7 show the state of residence in 1960 of nonwhites born in Texas and the state of birth of nonwhites living in Texas in 1960. l Approximately 147,000 nonwhites living in Texas in 1960 were born in other states. Five different states had 5,000 or more nonwhites born within their boundaries that were living in Texas. These were Louisiana, 83,000; Arkansas, 12,000; Oklahoma, 9,000; Mississippi, 7,000; and Alabama, 5,000. In general, nonwhite migrants to Texas are largely from con- tiguous states and to a lesser degree from the areas of dense nonwhite populations in southeastern states. On the other hand, nonwhite outmigrants from Texas tend to move further and particularly to the western, northern and northeastern cities of the nation. RESIDENTIAL DISTRIBUTION During the entire period for which data are available, a trend toward urbanization has character- ized the nonwhite population of Texas, and this trend has been accelerated in recent years. The traditional economic heritage of nonwhites in Texas, and particularly the Negro, has been agri- cultural. Their traditional experiences have had their roots in small rural population aggregates. The cultural heritage of nonwhites has been rural, and their institutions and value systems have had their origin in local experience. Yet, nonwhites have be- come increasingly urban and, like the whites, metro- politan. The implications of these changes are far- reaching to all phases of their behavior patterns. Thus, changes taking place among nonwhites in re- gard to their residential composition constitute an important part of their demographic makeup. Definition of Residential Terms Three major types of residence are defined in the 1960 census. Those persons who live in popu- lation centers of 2,500 or more are classified as urban. According to the Bureau of the Census, the rural farm population includes 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 places of less than 10 acres from which sales of farm products amounted to $250 or more in 1959. Those persons whose residential status is not defined specif- ically as being either urban or rural farm are classified as rural nonfarm residents. 8 TABLE 3. NONWHITE POPULATION OF TE CORDING TO PLACE OF RESIDENCE, 1920-60 Residence 1920 1930 1940 1950 Urban ‘ Number 224,502 331,395 421,820 616,467 f. Percent 30.1 38.6 45.5 62.6 P Rural X L. Number 520,561 526,148 505,459 868,193 Percent 69.9 61.4 54.5 37.4 Rural nonfarm Number 104,157 115,601 150,298 180,107 Percent 14.0 18.5 16.2 18.8 Rural farm ' Number 416,404 410,547 355,161 188,086 _; Percent 55.9 47.9 38.3 19.1 Total a Number 745,068 857,548 927.279 984,660 Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 l Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of P 7 1960. Volurre I, “Characteristics of the Population,” Texas, Table 15, and U.S. Census of Population: 1940. Series, Texas, Table 5. . 1960 Residential Distribution In 1960, 75 percent of the Texas nonwhit lation resided in cities; 20 percent lived it nonfarm areas; and 5 percent were rural fa dents (Table 3). Their residential distribu M, ‘ essentially the same as the white population,‘ had 75 percent in cities, 18 in rural nonf j ,5 7 in rural farm areas. Residential Composition Changes Changes of major proportions have bee place in the residential composition of nonw Texas since 1920. The major shift has be’ rural farm to rural nonfarm and particularly and metropolitan residence (Table 3). v approximately 56 percent of all nonwhites we I farm residents, but by 1960 only 5 percent; in rural farm areas. On the other hand, 75 l’ of all nonwhites lived in cities in 1960 as with only 30 percent in 1920. These chanl certain extent parallel the rural to urban l the white population and the trend that place in the nation as a whole. As fewer r: needed on farms because of technology and A nization, they have moved to urban areas. Nonwhites tend to concentrate in tli cities in Texas to a greater extent than wh 1960 more than half (51 percent) of the en white population lived in eight counties wh tain some of the largest cities in the State. Th Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, Jefferson, Travis, , McLennan and Galveston counties. By com only slightly more than one-third of Texas’, (35 percent) were living in these larger cities. , same time, three of the larger Texas cities A tively low proportions of nonwhites as A These cities—-San Antonio, Corpus Christie. Paso -— also have relatively large populations -___..-__._.____ '\ . 0 . \,. L (_ t \- jsdcTrT-|'T>'I»'_v_.l IOWA ' iEbfiSTfi<-'*ks< M ~ J kx 1 J l \ \\ I il-~--—7{ o! 0 \0 ? ~—-_,_._J l, , l t. \. -/MISSISSIPPI\_ ,_--~ \ toJ-fihTg \ ' Ftomw 90,000 \ ,\_ ) ' 62,500, \_/ \, 40,000 \ 22,500 \ 10,000 \ 2,500 \\ Figure 6. State of residence, excluding Texas, of nonwhites born in Texas, 1960. I QNTA-NA >_§_V§_%- r l |NO§1TT>‘E-T_A___-T-i‘“\r§q’ . o n‘ i k _ , o j i 0- \_I__IJTWR,IR_ ‘‘‘‘‘ ‘Jsoum omen —i_! . qL/F°\§\' O '\' ' ”" 7IiIRAF.LDAHQ .7 , . §l£~2§£e_. , * I IOWA ' _r~- .\_ _ ____ —- . - K ousgn ./ ,0: , ~\\ _ / ~—-~. _ | 0 \_ ./ Foam; ———— _-__ g ¢ I - ._.__._\ ' \ ’~ O . iizfias________§vussounl “ \ \ I -' . j ,- . I \. '\_ g 4)\~~'\-) v f’ I j |" I 1 Q 7 $4M. \ .2 . /-Fl'z?~'4\-'\.\I ' i /v\\§gr4 \ ~ .~*E»~..,~m-,___._|__|_,___ _____ __ ~ 1-1 §__s_v4j_\J_¢_"_"_..---4"“}@T““°‘“ \-{ - fisifiifli innate-is"? ""'fi"issee /'/ 7 . l’ i "I v ?~-~-~."a:.;rve.zag?»'C/si;i}“"""\~ ‘T; 0 \'\ \\_ I- ; 1_.._._.{ ' \_' \___J_J__ --_.______] \\ SIPPI \\ ‘x- 62,500 \_/ \\ 40,000 \ 22,500 \ 10,000 '\ 2,500 \ Figure 7. State of birth, excluding Texas, of nonwhites residing in Texas, 1960. 1 I persons of Spanish surname. In general, "nonwhites and Spanish-surname populations are found in differ- ent geographic areas of Texas. For example, there is not one county in Texas in which nonwhites com- prise 25 percent of the population and Spanish sur- name persons 25 percent. This is probably the result of competition for the same type of jobs by the two groups. Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas In addition to the urban, rural nonfarm and rural farm classifications, the Bureau of the Census desig- nates cities of 50,000 inhabitants or more and the contiguous territory deemed closely integrated eco- nomically with these cities as Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA’s). The boundaries of SMSA’s are county boundaries and in some instances include more than one county. Texas had 21 such areas in 1960. These 21 SMSA’s contained 779,429 nonwhites in 1960, which was 65 percent of the State’s nonwhite population (Table 4). Similarly 64 percent of the Texas white population lives in SMSA’s. Five of the SMSA’s in East Texas have 20 percent or more of their total population who are nonwhite. These are Beaumont-Port Arthur, Galveston-Texas City, Hous- ton, Texarkana and Tyler. TABLE 4. NONWHITE POPULATION IN TEXAS STAND- ARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS, 1950 AND 1960 Percent Standard nonwhite Metro olitan 0f 1950 Statistical Chamge 1950__'6° total Areas 1960 1950 Number Percent population Abilene 5,869 3,932 1,937 49.3 4.9 Amarillo 8,059 3,675 4,384 119.3 5.4 Austin 27,224 22,651 4,573 20.2 12.8 Beaumont- Port Arthur 63,401 48,660 14,741 30.3 20.7 Brownsville- Har1ingen- San Benito 1,221 943 278 29.5 0.8 Corpus Christi 10,393 8,072 2,321 28.8 4.7 . Dallas 157,981 100,372 57,609 57.4 14.6 El Paso 10,515 4,694 5,821 124.0 3.3 Fort Worth 61,436 41,668 19,768 47 .4 10.7 Galveston- Texas City 30,067 23,822 6,245 26.2 21.4 Houston 249,473 150,452 99,021 65.8 20.1 Laredo ' 281 114 167 146.5 0.4 Lubbock 12,469 7,937 4,532 57.1 8.0 Midland 6,313 2,193 4,120 187.9 9.3 Odessa 4,875 1,583 3,292 208.0 5.4 San Angelo 3,203 3,031 172 5.7 5.0 San Antonio 47,395 33,551 13,844 41.3 6.9 Texarkana (Tex.-Ark.) 22,541 15,216 7,325 48.1 24.6 Tyler 23,384 22,341 1,043 4.7 27.1 Waco 24,221 22,381 1,840 8.2 16.1 Wichita Falls 9,108 6,369 2,739 43.0 7.0 Total 779,429 501,316 278,113 55.5 12.8 Source: U. S .Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of Population: 1960. Volume I, “Characteristics of the Population,” Part 45, Texas, Table 21. 10 STABLE 5. SEX DISTRIBUTION OF THE TEXAS- ’ at a faster rate than whites. WHITE AND WHITE POPULATIONS, 1900-1960 Nonwhite White Year S ex Males Fefr ales ratio Males Females * 1900 505,471 019,575 94.5 4,159,510 4,215,521 § 1950 479,992 504,668 95.1‘ 43,383,150 3,343,384 1940 452,044 474,455 95.4 ‘ 2,700,259 2,719,200 . 1950 424,294 455,249 97.9 2,541,700 2,425,472 1920 575,705 571,500 100.0 2,055,519 1,002,040 1910 540,109 545,505 100.2 1,071,457 1,555,411 g 1900 511,250 510,011 100.1 1,207,070 1,150,999“, Fource: U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of P0' I960. Volume I, “Characteristics of the Population,” Texas, Table 95; and U. S. Census of Population: 1950. II, “Characteristics of the Population,” Part 43, Texas, T1 All of the SMSA’s in Texas increased in non“ population during the 1950-60 decade but by dif v rates. For example, they had increases varying less than 5 percent in the Tyler SMSA to an inf‘ of 208 percent in Odessa. This rapid incre Odessa parallels the city’s growth which has result of oil and gas developments. Nonwhites s: greater proportionate increases than whites in 21 Texas SMSA’s. Texas SMSA’s increased be/l 1950-60 by 56 percent in total numbers of non but only 42 percent for whites. Thus, durin; 1950-60 decade, nonwhites migrated to Texas S AGE AND SEX COMPOSITION Among the most significant aspects of any population are its age and sex composition. Q two distinguishing characteristics determine mu, the role an individual plays in social and econ: life. Age and sex distributions in a modern are dynamic and continuously changing in res”, to different rates of birth, death and migration. " these three forces are in turn responses to de I ments and changes in social and economic life age and sex distributions of nonwhites reflect history of that population from as far back, at as its oldest resident. Sex Distribution The balance between males and females of; population in a given area is one of its most impo demographic features. It affects the people who; in the area according to the degree of imbalance W exists between the sexes. For example, an excl nonwhite males in a given area means that so, them must either remain unmarried or seek a A from outside the area. i’ As a measure of sex balance in a populatio A sex ratio is used. This ratio is obtained by div' the number of males in a population by the n ' of females and multiplying the result by 100. I 000000000 00000 ..0.o.0.00 1o;----- 96 . 2 05 . 2 92 . Urban ural nonfarm Rural farm ',' Total gNonwhite G White i re 8. Plumber of males per 100 females in Texas by color J residence, 1960. sex ratio of 100 indicates a perfect balance or 100 ‘Ales per 100 females. Ratios above 100 indicate re males than females, while those under 100 indi- ite more females than males in the population. The high ratio of females to males is one of the i.» important features of Texas’ nonwhite popu- l ion (Table 5). In 1960 there were only 91.5 non- - ite males per 100 nonwhite females in the State. * is ratio is substantially higher for whites (98.7) in xas but about the same as for the nation’s non- ites (94.3). From 1900 to 1920, males outnumbered females the nonwhite population, but since 1920 females ve outnumbered males by an increasingly wider @rgin. The major reasons for increasing female edominance in numbers are the longer life expec- BLE 6. AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE TEXAS NON- HITE AND WHITE POPULATIONS, 1960 a Nonwhites Whites Age Number Percent Number Percent ‘air 5 172,719 14.8 989,800 11.8 . w 14 272,649 22.6 1,787,666 20.7 L to 19 94,096 7.8 652,884 7.8 16 29 158,767 12.8 1,096,618 18.1 1 to 49 278,842 :1 28.2 2,148,475 25.8 r6 64 144,972 ‘i 12.0 1,098,054 18.0 ' and 616m 87,802 7.8 667,689 7.8 otal 1,204,846 100.0 8,874,881 100.0 urce: U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of Population: 60. Volume I, “Characteristics of the Population,” Part 45, xas, Table 17. tancies of women and different migration rates by the two sexes into and out of the State. Life among nonwhites in Texas begins with an excess of males, as it does elsewhere in the nation. There were 102.8 nonwhite boys born in the State for every 100 nonwhite girls between 1950 and 1960. The difference in numbers of baby boys and girls at birth is offset by higher death rates for males at all age levels throughout their life span and through higher out-of-state migration for males. Thus, starting out with a sex ratio of 102.8 at birth, it drops to 100.4- at ages 15 to 19. Then at ages 20 to 24 there are more nonwhite females than males, and women predominate in numbers during the remaining years of life. This predominance increases with each ad- Vance to a successively older age group so that finally there are only 77.1 males per 100 females that are 85 years of age and older and 57 .8 men per 100 women 100 years of age and over. Beginning with the census of 1850, sex ratios have always been higher for whites than nonwhites in Texas, but the gap between the two broad racial categories is narrowing. While the nonwhite popu- lation as a whole l1as more females than males, this is true only in urban areas, with the opposite situation occurring in the rural nonwhite population. In 1960, nonwhites in Texas had only 92 males per 100 females in urban areas while there were 101 and 102 males per 100 females in rural nonfarm and rural farm areas, respectively (Figure 8). The primary reason for the wide difference in sex ratios found in the different residential areas is that migration from rural to urban areas involves more women than men. Age Distribution Age distributions of the nonwhite and white populations of Texas are different in some respects. Nonwhites have proportionately more young people, and whites have higher proportions of older people. For example, approximately 45 percent of all non- white persons in Texas in 1960 were under 20 years of age while only 40 percent of all whites were less than 20 years old (Table 6). On the other hand, only 1960 1900 D Under 30 30-49 Figure 9. Age distribution of the nonwhite population of Texas, 1900 and 1960. Q 50 and older ll l9 percent of all nonwhites were 50 years of age or older while 21 percent of all whites were past 50. As a result of these different age distributions, the median age of all nonwhites in Texas in 1960 was 24.1 years as contrasted t0 27.4 for all whites. Increasing median age of the State’s nonwhite population is an important trend taking place among this particular group. The median age of nonwhites increased from 18.0 in 1900 t0 24.1 in 1960. The proportions found in all age groups under 30 were substantially larger in 1900 than in 1960. Approxi- mately three-fourths of all nonwhites were under 30 years of age in 1900 as contrasted with less than three- fifths in 1960 (Figure 9). Also, persons 50 years of age and over made up approximately 1 out of 12 in the nonwhite population in 1900 but 1 out of 5 in 1960. This general trend in aging is largely due to increases in life expectancies. In general, nonwhites have higher proportions of older persons in rural than in urban areas. In 1960 the median ages for the nonwhite populations in Texas were 20.5 years in rural farm areas, 22.4 in rural nonfarm and 24.7 in urban areas. To evaluate consequences of the changing age distribution among nonwhites, two different indexes may be used which show the growth of persons in certain age groups in relation to other age levels. These are the dependency ratio and index of aging. Dependency Ratio: Dependency ratios compare the proportion of a population in the nonproductive ages with those of working age. It may be generally assumed that the most productive years in the United States are the 45 years that include the ages 20 to 65. The number of persons under 15 plus those 65 and over per 1,000 persons in the most productive years indicates the burden of support borne by the produc- tive members of a given population. Texas nonwhites had 974 persons in the depend- ent ages for every 1,000 in the productive ages in 1960. This figure contrasts rather sharply with only 780 persons in the dependent ages for every 1,000 in the productive ages among whites during the same year. Furthermore, the dependency ratio is increasing among nonwhites at a rapid rate, there being only 686 persons in dependent ages per 1,000 in the pro- ductive ages in 1950. Index of Aging: Although persons in the two extreme age groups—under 15 as opposed to those 65 years of age and over-make up the economically dependent, they nevertheless represent different kinds of populations. In order to compare the relative importance of these two age groups, an index of aging may be constructed which indicates the number of aged persons (65 years old and over) per 1,000 in the young (under 15) ages. In 1960, there were 197 persons 65 years of age and older per 1,000 under 15 years of age in the non- white population of Texas. By comparison, whites 12 had 241 aged persons per 1,000 in the younger _ Thus, it may be noted again that nonwhites hav comparatively younger population than do whites SELECTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Among the most important social and econo characteristics for which data? are available on I nonwhite population of Texas are education, occ A tion, income and housing. Education Nonwhites in Texas who were 25 years of‘ and older in 1960 had completed 8.1 years of schoo v (Figure l0). This is considerably below the me of 10.8 years of school completed by whites in T” but essentially the same as for nonwhites in the na g as a whole (8.2 years). '9 Approximately one-fourth of the adult nonw in Texas in 1960 had not attended school beyond fourth grade; 60 percent attended no more th years; about one-fifth graduated from high school; Q 4 percent were college graduates. By comparison, _ proportionate shares of white adults who had fini r_ high school and college were more than twice as ; i p as among nonwhite adults. ' Some improvement is being made in the ed _ - tional attainment levels of nonwhites in the S f i They increased the number of years of school " pleted an average of 1 year each during the last p, decades. The gap in educational levels bet whites and nonwhites has remained virtually 12 l0 tuuooooooovtvQvu 0'0E’o'o'ooo'o‘o’o'o'o.o'o.o o 0 ‘.2 . . . - - 0.0.Q.Q.0.0.0‘0.o.0.0.0.O AA Rural nonfarm Rural‘ ' 1:1 white Qltonwhfi l A Figure 10. Median years of school completed by pe Texas 25 years and older, by color and residence, 1960-1 Total hanged, however, with whites completing 2.8 years ore of education than nonwhites in 1940 and 2.7 ears more in 1960. a Nonwhite females have completed more years of hooling than males (8.5 and 7.6 years of school ttendance, respectively). Further, a differential in 1 umber of school years attended exists based on resi- ence. In 1960, nonwhite adults residing in rural '_ rm areas had completed a median of 6.8 years of i hool as contrasted with 6.9 years in rural nonfarm _ 9 eas and 8.5 years for urban residents. Occupation l In 1960 almost three-fifths (57 percent) of the onwhite population in Texas 14 years of age and lder were in the labor force. The proportion of hites in the labor force was approximately the same percent). However, there was considerable differ- nce in the occupational distribution patterns of hites and nonwhites. Texas nonwhites were heavily concentrated in _ur occupational categories in 1960: service workers, Faaftsmen and operatives, private household workers d laborers (Table 7). Approximately 87 percent =1 all employed nonwhites were in these four occupa- '0nal categories. On the other hand, almost 80 per- I nt of all employed whites were in professional and ‘anagerial, clerical and sales and craftsmen and Operative occupations in 1960. Comparisons of occupations of nonwhites and hites by sex reveal some major differences. Approxi- ately one-half of the nonwhite employed females i ere private household workers, and an additional ne-fourth were service workers. Among white emales, the leading occupations were clerical and . ABLE 7. OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF EM- LOYED PERSONS IN TEXAS, BY COLOR AND SEX, 1960 V Nonwhites Whites ccupation Total Males Females Total Males Females —————Percent-———-—— .' rofessional and managerial 7.1 5.6 9.2 23.4 24.5 20.8 A armers and farm managers 2.1 3.3 0.4 4.9 6.7 0.7 lerical and sales 4.0 4.2 3.7 24.2 14.7 40.2 rafgsmen and , ’ operatives 21.6 31.6 7 .4 30.8 39.2 11.3 rivate household workers 21.4 0.9 50.3 1.6 0.1 5.1 ~ rvice workers 22.8 20.2 26.8 7 .3 4.5 14.0 arm laborers _ and foremcn 5.1 i: 7.7 1.5 3.5 4.3 1.5 aborers, other than farm 15.9 26.5 0.7 4.3 6.0 0.4 i otal 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ource: U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of Population: 960, Volume I, “Characteristics of the Population,” Part 45, Texas, Table 58. 6,000 5,000 _ 4,000 3,000 = Median income, dollars 2,000 1,000 ;..- ; _: .0...» 5...‘. .;. +~ »_._._. Rural nonfarm Rural farm GWhite ENonwhite Figure ll. Median incomes, 1959, of Texas families, by color and residence, 1960. sales workers (46 percent) and professional and mana- gerial positions (21 percent). Nonwhite males were chiefly employed as laborers, craftsmen and operatives and service workers, with approximately 86 percent being in these occupations. By comparison, white males were mainly employed as craftsmen and opera- tives and in professional and managerial positions. Income The median income of Texas nonwhite families in 1959 was $2,591 (Figure ll). This was slightly less than half the median income of white families in the State but also slightly above the family incomes of nonwhite families in the South as a whole. Despite the marked increase in incomes between 1949-59, approximately 6 out of every l0 nonwhite families had less than $3,000 in money income in 1959. By comparison, fewer than 3 out of l0 white families had less than $3,000 in money income during the same year. Median family incomes for nonwhites varied a great deal by residence classification, being $1,430 in rural farm areas, $1,684 in rural nonfarm and $2,915 in urban areas. Marital Status In 1960, approximately 62 percent of all non- whites 14 years of age and older in Texas were married, 22 percent single, ll percent widowed and 5 percent divorced. By comparison, whites had a higher proportion married but smaller proportions in the other three categories. Approximately 70 per- cent of the whites 14 years of age and over were married, 20 percent single, 7 percent widowed and 3 percent divorced. 13 Housing Another important socio-economic characteristic of any group which is related to their status position in society is their housing. There is considerable information on housing of nonwhites, but a limited number of approaches will be used to illustrate their overall housing situation. In 1960, nonwhites in Texas lived in 324,933 dwelling units. Approximately one-half (50.2 per- cent) of these dwelling units were owner-occupied, and the other half (49.8 percent) were renter-occupied. Among whites in the State, two-thirds of their dwell- ing units were owner-occupied and one-third renter- occupied. When the census is taken, the census enumerator rates every dwelling unit according to three categories. These are sound (housing which has no defects or only slight defects which normally are corrected during the course of regular maintenance), deteri- orating (housing that needs more repair than would be provided in the course of regular maintenance. Such housing has one or more defects of an inter- mediate nature that must be corrected if the unit is to continue to provide safe and adequate shelter) and dilapidated (housing that does not provide safe and adequate shelter and its present condition endangers the health, safety or well-being of the occupants). In 1960, approximately one-half of the dwelling units occupied by nonwhites were classified as sound. Three out of l0 were deteriorating, and 2 out of 10 were dilapidated. Approximately four-fifths of the dwelling units occupied by whites were considered sound; 1 out of 6 were deteriorating, and 1 out of 16 were dilapidated. When a dwelling unit has more than one person per room it is regarded by housing authorities as being “overcrowded,” and “severe overcrowding” exists where there are more than 1.5 persons per room. In 1960, 27 percent of all dwellings occupied by nonwhites in Texas were considered overcrowded, and 13.4 percent had severe overcrowding. By com- parison, only 14.8 percent of all dwellings occupied by whites were overcrowded, and 5.8 percent had severe overcrowding. PROJECTIONS OF THE 'NONWHITE POPULATION TO 1970 Demographers often compute several projections for a given year. These are usually referred to as high, medium and low projections, with each using a different combination of assumptions regarding birth, death and migration rates. However, to avoid confusion created in the minds of persons when they view a whole series of projections involving the same population, only one projection based on what is thought to be a reasonable set of assumptions is given for 1970. The method used for computing projec- 14 ‘a relatively large increase in aged nonwhites. Proj tions of the nonwhite population is similar to i outlined by C. H. Hamilton and Josef Perry in Si, Forces (December 1962 issue). This method inv the application of basic formulae for projecting O q lations by sex and for all age groups except g born since 1960. Projections for the latter age ; f are obtained by the application of different form using age-specific birth and death rates. a Projections based on these formulae indicate April 1970 nonwhite population for Texas of app i mately 1,455,000. This is an increase of app mately 250,000 between 1960-70. The expected! of population increase for Texas nonwhites is percent as compared to 22.4 percent for the 19 v decade. Correspondingly, white Texans are expe to increase from 8,375,000 in 1960 to 10,257,000? 1970. This expected increase of 22.5 percent is gre than the expected nonwhite percentage increg Thus, nonwhites are expected to constitute 12.4 i; cent of the 1970 Texas population as compared-s 12.6 percent in 1960. ‘ Projections for different age levels indicate ti major changes will have taken place in the nonw age distribution by 1970. Texas high schools colleges can expect to feel the greatest impact ; these changes, with the number of nonwhites betw the ages of 15 and 25 increasing from approxima ‘ ' 171,000 in 1960 to 255,000 in 1970. This repre a 49 percent increase. There is also expected to tions for nonwhites 65 years of age and older indical an increase from 88,000 to 121,000—a 38 percent crease by 1970. Slower than the average rate " growth for all nonwhites between 1960-70 are expec ,9 for persons at all age levels between 30 and 60 ye of age and also for youngsters less than 5 years oldQ Because of the expected different rates of gro of nonwhite persons in the productive years of (20-64) relative to the expected increases for per o") in the dependent ages (under 15 and 65 years of and over), the dependency ratio is expected to incre, from 974 in 1960 to 1,061 in 1970. Thus, Texas n' whites are expected to have 1,061 persons in i dependent ages of life for every 1,000 in the prod tive ages in 1970. i The current trend toward increased predo nance in numbers of females over males is expec i‘ to continue to 1970. In 1960, there were 94.5 m per 100 females in the Texas nonwhite populati. By 1970 there are expected to be 94.2 males per 1 females among the nonwhites. _, . A large part of the nonwhite population gro p, taking place in Texas between 1960 and 1970 is pected to occur in the urban and metropolitan arej By 1970 approximately 80 percent of the State's ll white population is expected to live in urban are with 70 percent residing in standard metropoli areas. Appendix Table APPENDIX TABLE 1. NONWHITE POPULATION GAINS AND LOSSES IN TEXAS COUNTIES, 1950-60 County Population Net change, 1950-60 Components of change, 1950-60 1960 1950 Number Percent Births Deaths Natural increase Net m THE STATE 1,204,846 984,660 220,186 22 360,183 111,570 248,613 — 71 Anderson 8,365 9,872 - 1,507 _ 15 2,506 1,059 1,447 -- 1i Andrews 286 38 248 653 65 12 a 53 1 Angelina 7,083 5,953 1,130 19 2,137 616 ‘ $1,521 -- Aransas 287 107 180 168 34 21 13 Archer 28 20 8 40 6 4 2 1 Armstrong 5’ 10 _ 5 _ 50 0 0 0 _ Atascosa 188 247 - 59 - 24 62 16 46 - Austin 2,958 3,019 - 61 - 2 856 383 473 - 7 Bailey 372 240 132 55 98 37 61 Bandera 19 16 3 19 3 1 2 . Bastrop 5,293 6,200 _ 907 _ 15 1,667 738 929 - Baylor 233 108 125 116 73 20 53 i Bee 639 473 166 35 118 61 57 Bell 11,398 8,825 2,573 29 3,593 804 2,789 - Bexar 47,395 33,551 13,844 41 13,183 3,997 9,186 4, Blanco 10s 106 _ 3 __ 3 34 14 20 _ Borden 0 25 - 25 - 100 0 0 0 - Bosque 368 375 — 7 — 2 97 63 34 - Bowie 14,396 15,216 - 820 -- 5 4,691 1,684 3,007 - Brazoria 9,150 6,848 2,302 34 2,261 778 1,483 - Brazos 9,485 9,212 273 3 3,109 1,067 2,042 — Brewster 49 40 9 23 2 6 __ 4 Briscoe 194 98 96 98 66 11 55 Brooks 12 40 - 28 - 70 2 1 1 -_ Brown 761 914 _ 153 _ 17 370 87 283 — Burleson 3,498 4,203 _ 705 -_ 17 1,061 508 553 - Burnet 171 221 - 50 - 23 66 22 44 _ Caldwell 2,604 3,073 _- 469 -- 15 7 89 458 331 - Calhoun 822 714 108 15 u 286 72 214 - Callahan 8 9 - 1 _ 11 1 0 1 - Cameron 1,221 943 278 30 224 91 133 Camp 2,986 3,479 _ 493 - 14 964 412 552 — Carson 27 12 15 125 0 3 - 3 Cass 6,984 8,662 _ 1,678 - 19 2,364 819 1,545 — Castro 373 64 309 483 65 22 43 Chambers 2,293 1,554 739 48 676 190 486 Cherokee 8,530 10,648 - 2,118 - 20 2,478 878 1,600 - Childress 527 842 - 315 - 37 213 88 125 — Clay 83 90 _ 7 _ 8 15 18 - 3 - Cochran 293 1 165 128 7 8 96 25 71 Coke 5 5 0 0 3 1 2 — Coleman 324 405 - 81 _ 20 102 43 59 - Collin 4,461 3,828 633 17 1,306 395 911 - Collingsworth 536 677 - 141 - 21 203 76 127 — Colorado 4,595 4,437 158 4 1,280 652 628 - Comal 423 284 139 49 114 36 78 Comanche 17 12 5 42 0 0 0 Concho 3 10 _ 7 -- 70 4 2 2 — Cooke ' 861 _972 — 111 _ 11 282 132 150 - Coryell 1,454 429 1,025 239 105 29 76 Cottle 344 388 - 44 -_ 11 135 46 y _ 89 _- Crane 227 105 122 116 85 11 74 Crockett 126 107 19 18 33 11 22 -- Crosby 881 829 52 6 308 87 221 — Culberson 14 5 9 180 3 2 1 Dallam 59 35 24 69 22 9 13 _ Dallas 140,266 83,352 56,914 68 41,019 10,615 30,404 26,5 Dawson 1,081 1,095 _ 14 _ 1 473 89 384 _ " 1 Deaf Smith 266 7 259 3700 62 7 55 Delta 860 934 _ 74 -_ 8 260 103 157 - Denton 2,986 2,339 647 28 751 267 484 DeWitt 2,7 87 3,207 - 420 - 13 808 524 284 _ Dickens 261 392 — 131 -- 33 132 25 107 _ Dimmitt 55 68 _ 13 - 19 24 5 19 _- 16 Population Net change, 1950-60 Components of change, 1950-60 1960 1950 Number Percent Births Deaths Natural increase Net migration 221 253 - 32 - 13 75 33 42 — 74 7 24 - 17 - 7 1 1 4 _ 3 - 14 346 327 19 6 73 65 8 11 4,875 1,583 3,292 208 1,141 229 912 2,380 8 13 _ 5 - 39 0 0 0 - 5 10,268 10,853 - 585 _ 5 3,166 1,185 1,981 - 2,566 10,515 4,694 5,821 124 2,422 488 1,934 3,887 141 160 _ 19 _ 12 28 25 3 - 22 6,957 8,603 _ 1,646 _ 19 2,439 1,026 1,413 - 3,059 2,507 - 3,323 _ 816 - 25 622 411 211 - 1,027 2,880 3,938 _ 1,058 - 27 873 515 358 - 1,416 377 562 _ 185 _ 33 145 41 104 - 289 893 391 502 128 344 49 295 a - 207 278 436 _- 158 _ 36 101 21 80 _ 238 8,127 7,527 600 8 2,552 1,049 1,503 _ 903 395 424 - 29 - 7 104 44 60 _- 89 4,921 6,319 _ 1,398 — 22 1,473 642 831 - 2,229 61 99 -_ 38 _ 38 19 50 - 31 - 7 365 120 245 204 126 21 105 140 30,067 23,822 6,245 26 9,522 2,797 6,725 _- 480 321 244 77 32 84 30 54 23 18 15 3 20 3 3 0 3 13 1 1 2 18 1 1 0 2 628 639 -_ ll - 2 161 88 v73 _ 84 3,257 3,932 -— 675 -_ 17 1,009 448 561 _ 1,236 943 662 281 42 266 78 188 93 6,530 6,218 312 5 1,933 932 1,001 _ 689 15,930 14,990 940 6 5,163 1,576 3,587 — 2,647 4,850 6,119 _ 1,269 — 21 1,717 791 926 — 2,195 3,312 3,623 _ 311 _ 9 947 481 466 - 777 2,016 1,085 931 86 714 126 588 343 965 988 - 23 — 2 411 87 324 _ 347 13 6 7 117 1 1 0 7 24 6 18 300 2 0 2 16 992 822 170 21 313 78 235 _ 65 4,020 3,085 935 30 897 366 531 404 249,473 150,452 99,021 66 73,926 17,944 55,982 43,039 19,796 24,743 __ 4,947 — 20 6,199 2,291 3,908 - 8,855 2 12 -- 10 - 83 2 1 1 _ 1 1 643 908 _ 265 - 29 261 54 207 _ 472 1,132 1,146 - 14 _ 1 376 185 191 _ 205 2 1 1 100 0 0 0 1 4,523 4,772 -— 249 - 5 1,243 445 798 _ 1,047 676 1,411 - 735 _ 52 97 50 47 _ 782 3,691 4,679 - 988 - 21 1,206 515 691 _ 1,679 1,274 947 327 35 433 85 348 - 21 52 32 20 63 2 14 _ 12 32 2,320 2,638 - 318 _ 12 754 256 498 _ 816 7,458 8,919 _ 1,461 _ 16 2,088 795 1,293 - 2,754 1,771 895 876 98 551 114 437 439 14 27 -- 13 - 48 2 2 0 - 13 a 6,465 6,313 152 2 1,695 685 1,010 - 858 762 562 200 36 264 64 200 0 1 1 14 - 3 — 21 0 1 _ 1 _ 2 86 74 12 16 22 8 14 - 2 1,693 1,714 - 21 - 1 555 239 I 316 - 337 5,502 5,306 196 4 1,739 538 1,201 _ 1,005 2 27 - 25 - 93 29 2 27 - 52 5732362 44,225 13,137 30 16,721 4,811 11,910 1,227 l‘ 6 16 _ 10 - 62 1 1 0 -_ 10 397 409 -_ 12 - 3 101 36 65 - 77 1,688 1,770 - 82 - 5 569 199 370 _ 452 1,120 1,337 - 217 - 16 501 146 355 - 572 425 670 - 245 - 37 140 78 62 - 307 8,966 8,912 54 1 2,646 997 1,649 - 1,595 40 63 - 23 - 37 3 13 _ 10 _ 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 18 County Population Net change, 1950-60 2 Components of change, 1950-60 1960 1950 Number Percent Births Deaths Natural increase Net migra, Kent 47 48 _-_ 1 _ 2 20 3 17 - l. Kerr 716 568 148 26 170 74 96 5 Kimble 9 5 4 80 0 1 _ 1 King 58 62 _ 4 _ 6 9 6 3 _ I’ Kinney , 19o 225 _ 55 _. 15 77 51 .. 46 _ 7. Kleberg 1,134 812 322 40 290 98 ‘ "5 192 '1, Knox 585 614 _ 51 _ 5 251 65 166 __ 197 Lamar 6,435 8,001 -_ 1,566 - 20 2,320 940 1,380 - 2,946, Lamb 1,679 1,330 349 26 701 134 567 - 218; Lampasas 290 202 88 44 69 41 28 a 60 La Salle 7 15 _ 8 _ 53 3 1 2 - is 1 Lavaca 2,112 2,280 _ 168 _ 7 645 335 310 _ 47 1 ‘i. Lee 2,141 2,695 - 554 - 21 725 313 412 _ 966% Leon 3,798 4,738 __ 940 - 20 1,103 521 582 _ 1,522, Liberty 7,413 6,076 1,337 22 2,470 738 1,732 - 395: Limestone 5,807 7,520 _ 1,713 — 23 1,656 798 858 - 2,571" Lipscomb 28 2 26 1300 0 0 0 26 , Live Oak 19 32 - 13 _ 41 1 1 0 _ 13 Llano 46 54 _ 8 __ 15 9 5 4 _ 12 Loving 10 1 9 900 0 0 0 9*» Lubbock 12,469 7,937 4,532 57 4,473 863 3,610 922 ~; Lynn 669 596 73 12 197 59 138 _ 65 i. McCulloch 328 371 _ 43 _ 12 98 42 56 _ McLennan 24,221 22,381 1,840 8 7,919 2,584 5,335 _ 3,495: McMullen 0 5 _ 5 _ 100 0 0 0 _ 5 9 Madison 2,246 2,625 _ 577 _ 14 714 277 457 _ 8144 Marion 4,221 5,784 - 1,563 — 27 1,324 581 743 - 2,3061 Martin 211 263 - 52 - 20 121 24 97 — 149 Mason 23 67 _ 44 _ 66 17 7 10 _- 54? Matagorda 5,327 4,818 509 11 1,718 581 1,137 _ 628 i * Maverick 34 42 -- 8 _ 19 1 3 — 2 - 6g Medina 180 225 _ 45 - 20' 64 36 28 _ 73; Menard 38 32 6 19 7 2 5 l1 Midland 6,313 2,193 4,120 188 1,552 340 1,212 2,908; Milam 4,032 5,156 -- 1,124 - 22 1,379 618 761 -_ 1,885? Mills 4 3 1 33 0 0 0 1< Mitchell 832 905 - 73 - 8 322 90 232 - 305 Q Montague 2 6 _- 4 _ 67 0 0 0 _ 4" Montgomery 6,146 6,154 _ 8 0 1,783 728 1,055 __ 1,063 "’ " Moore 64 28 36 129 2 1 1 35 1 Morris 3,400 3,130 27 0 9 856 261 595 _ 325 Motley 266 259 7 3 103 20 83 - 76i Nacogdoches 7,529 i 8,666 _ 1,137 _ 13 2,421 687 1,734 — 2,871 Navarro 8,567 9,897 _ 1,330 - 13 2,620 1,172 1,448 — 2,778’ Newton 3,447 3,825 - 378 _ 10 1,057 335 722 _ 1,100 Nolan 752 787 _ 35 _- 4 211 78 133 _ 168; Nueces 10,393 8,072 2,321 29 2,984 727 2,257 64 i‘ Ochiltree 21 6 15 250 0 0 0 15 » Oldham 4 1 3 300 4 0 4 _ 1‘ Orange 6,039 4,435 1,604 36 1,991 474 1,517 871 Palo Pinto 933 677 256 38 484 98 386 _ 130 Panola ' 5,179 6,651 _ 1,472 — 22 1,223 453 770 ~ _ 2,242 Parker 467 266 201 76 103 38 65 136i‘ Parmer 245 19 226 1,190 80 12 v 68 1584 s Pecos 94 156 _ 42 _ 51 51 9 22 _ 64. Polk 4,451 4,799 - 348 _ 7 1,485 540 945 _- 1,293; Potter 7,987 3,626 4,361 120 2,114 537 1,577 2,784- Presidio 5 77 - 72 _ 94 6 5 1 - 73* ~ Rains 507 426 __ 119 _ 28 85 28 57 _ 176? Randall 72 49 i 23 47 6 1 5 18 s Reagan 262 141 f 121 86 81 15 66 55 Real 4 8 _; 4 _ 50 0 1 _ 1 _ 51 Red River 5,828 5,255 _; 1,405 - 27 1,248 591 657 - 2,0624 Reeves 654 278 f; 556 128 547 64 285 75‘, Refugio 1,032 1,127 —' 95 _ 8 398 128 270 _ 365? Roberts 12 0 12 0 0 0 12° Robertson 6,545 8,215 ._ 1,670 _ 2o e 2,557 956 1,581 .. 5051 l, County Population Net change, 1950-60 Components of change, 1950-60 1960 1950 Number Percent Births Deaths Natural increase Net migration _ wall 1,415 1,690 - 275 __ 16 427 166 261 - 536 [nnells 408 513 _ 105 _ 21 136 59 77 - 182 10,613 12,639 - 2,026 __ 16 2,980 1,102 1,878 - 3,904 ine 1,898 2,240 _ 342 _ 15 729 156 573 _ 915 H _ Augustine 3,009 3,064 _ 55 - 2 1,017 333 684 - 739 - jacinto 3,209 3,767 - 558 _ 15 782 314 468 _ 1,026 - . Patricio 858 729 129 18 301 104 197 _- 68 ,1 Saba 50 72 - 22 _ 31 10 8 2 - 24 ‘leicher 80 99 _ 19 _- 19 28 4 24 _ 43 rry 576 344 232 67 210 46 164 68 Q 4611616 12s 13s _ 10 _ 7 41 s 33 _ 43 5,261 5,989 _ 728 _ 12 1,432 518 914 _ 1,642 7 prman 1 2 _ 1 _ 50 0 ' 0 0 _ 1 “th 23,384 22,341 1,043 5 7,437 2,152 5,285 __ 4,242 crvell 3 2 1 50 0 0 0 1 i 15 8 7 88 1 1 0 7 ' phens 398 360 38 11 106 51 55 _ 17 p ling 10 13 _ 3 - 23 0 0 0 _ 3 newall 119 102 17 17 41 18 23 _ 6 tton 32 33 _ 1 __ 3 22 2 20 - 21 i‘ ‘sher 434 106 328 309 108 27 81 247 f- rrant 59,748 39,898 19,850 50 17,808 5,470 12,338 7,512 ylor 4,749 2,595 2,154 83 1,083 319 764 1,390 , rrell 9 13 _ 4 -_ 31 3 1 2 - 6 p 605 384 221 58 245 50 195 26 1 rockmorton 28 1 27 2,700 0 0 0 27 tus 2,942 3,205 - 263 - 8 803 338 465 - 7 28 om Green 3,203 3,031 172 6 983 317 666 _ 494 i vis 27,224 22,651 4,573 20 7,605 2,314 5,291 - 718 >3 ‘nity 2,035 2,692 -_ 657 -- 24 639 358 281 _ 938 yler 2,251 2,233 18 1 652 214 438 _ 420 pshur 5,128 6,013 — 885 _ 15 1,613 524 1,089 _ 1,974 pton 272 207 65 _ 31 95 25 70 _ 5 valde 167 196 _- 29 _ 15 41 23 1s _ 47 al Verde 800 371 429 116 247 49 198 231 ~ an Zandt 1,435 1,548 - 113 _ 7 354 160 194 - 307 ictoria 4,019 3,086 933 30 1,186 492 694 239 ,1‘ 311m 7,034 7,503 _ 469 _ 6 1,6ss 694 994 _ 1,463 aller 6,481 6,329 152 2 1,491 518 973 _ 821 i ard 389 325 64 20 94 49 45 19 iashington 6,120 7,000 _- 880 _ 13 2,115 968 1,147 _ 2,027 ebb 2s1 114 167 146 74 9 65 102 1harton 7,808 7,849 -- 41 _ 1 2,434 819 1,615 _ 1,656 l, heeler 299 297 2 1 94 26 68 - 66 . ichita 9,080 6,349 2,731 43 2,342 683 1,659 1,072 ‘ ilbarger 1,675 1,764 -_ 89 _ 5 568 131 437 _ 526 illacy 107 1 18 _ 1 1 _ 9 35 15 20 - 31 ’ illiamson 4,889 5,874 _ 985 _ 17 1,820 729 1,091 - 2,076 _ ilson 260 319 _ 59 _ 19 77 45 32 - 91 \ inkler 439 181 258 143 139 25 114 144 ise 145 140 5 4 49 12 37 - 32 i ood 2,745 3,126 _ 381 - 12 620 314 306 _ 687 oakum 84 15 69 460 25 10 15 54 f ourig 279 144 135 94 43 22 21 114 ' pita 19 1 1s 1,s00 3 1 2 16 vala 67 100 _ 33 _ 33 23 3 20 _ 53 urce: U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of Population: 1960, Volume I, “Characteristics of the Population,” Part 45, Texas, able 27; U. S. Census af Population: 1950, Volume II, “Characteristics of the Po _ pulation,” Part 43, Texas, Table 41; and Texas te Department of Health, Texas Vital Statistics: 1960, Section IB. 7 Texas FAG-M University Texas Agricultural Experiment Station College Station, Texas 77840 flfizzw~ Director Publication—Annual Report or Bulletin or Report of Progress Permit 1105 OFFICIAL BUSINESS Penalty tor private use l payment oi postage