I M 8-1141}

E POPULATION OF TEXAS A

April 197 
P
09
fi/
\/

   

'0

    
   
     
  
 

   

Y)

(f s

  
   
 
   
 

\

Q

 
  

    
 
 

3 1976

University

A UNIVERSITY SYSTEMITHE TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONQTEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVJCEQCOLLEGE STATlON,TEXAS

  
  
  
  
 
  
   
 
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
   
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  

f». publication analyzes some of the significant
f in Texas population, particularly from 1960 to
A includes selected population projections to 1980
“5- out some of their implications. Among the
i»; ificant findings are the following:

A e total population of Texas on April 1, 1960, was
l? , a figure representing 5.5 percent of the
q people. The percentage increase in population
_ above the national average during the 1960-70
 but it was also smaller than it was in the state
flue previous 10-year period between 1950 and
§Projections indicate a Texas population of
1X10 for June 1, 1980.

rapidly growing population means more consum-
 types of goods, services and resources. Educa-
W th and recreational facilities; religious and wel-
l; "ces; and highways and communications facilities
_' e to be expanded to meet the needs of rapidly-
y; numbers of people.

1 e-Population growth and losses are unevenly distri-
>+'| the State. Between 1960 and 1970, 146 Texas
5a lost in population and 108 had increases. The
l.» rtions of the State grew rapidly while most rural
i. declined. Urban residents comprised 80 percent
Al?- population, while 20 percent were classified as
 idents in 1970. The trend toward concentration in
 litan areas is accelerating, with 73.5 percent of
lte's people living in 24 standard metropolitan
- areas in 1970. By 1980, urban areas are ex-
 to have approximately 82 percent of the State’s
, with 77 percent of the total population living in
 metropolitan areas.

i, ile the urban sections of Texas will need to plan
 ' g numbers, most rural areas will be faced with
 ents related to fewer persons in their schools and
v and a different use of community facilities. The
l- representation of rural dwellers is also likely to be

.,_ ,_
y... ,

1 The trend toward increasing female predominance
_,=bers continued during the last decade with Texas
l; only 95.9 males per 100 females in 1970. The
j ed sex ratio is 93.8 males per 100 females in 1980.
 same time, major changes took place in the age

 MARYANCl implicArious

composition of Texas’ population during the 1960-70 de-
cade. These were (1) a drop in number as well as a decreas-
ing proportion of youngsters under 5 years of age, (2) an
increasing proportion of persons between 5 and 30 years
old, (3) fewer persons and a decreasing proportion bet-
ween the ages of 30 and 40 and (4) a rapid increase in
proportions at all age levels at 55 and above. The aged
population (65 years and over) is expected to increase
from 992,000 in 1970 t0 1,204,000 by 1980.

Women can be expected to assume an increasingly
important role in business and political aflairs, and a
larger proportion of the Texas population in 1980 will
consist of persons in the older ages who are economically
more dependent on others. This implies increased finan-
cial responsibilities on those in the productive ages of life
to provide expanded school and recreational facilities for
the young and health care, medical care and other prog-
rams for the aged.

4. Nonwhites increased their numbers at a slightly
faster rate than whites during the last decade, with whites
comprising 86.8 percent of the State’s people in 1970.
Spanish language and surname persons comprise one of
Texas’ fastest growing ethnic groups, with 2,059,671 liv-
ing in the state in 1970 as compared to 1,399,005 Negro
population. Nonwhites as a whole are expected to com-
prise a slightly higher percentage of the state’s population
in 1980.

5. The educational and income levels in Texas have
risen substantially between 1960 and 1970. The median
number of school years completed by the adult population
(persons 25 years of age and over) was 11.6 in 1970, and
the median family income was $8,490 in 1969.

As incomes have increased, a smaller share has been
required for food and housing, thus allowing larger shares
of income for services and luxuries that upgrade the level
of living of the population in general. This, in turn, tends
to promote a healthier Texas economy. Also, along with
the trend toward more education and higher incomes is
increased pressure on young people to seek increasingly
higher educational levels. While larger numbers in school
mean higher educational costs, this situation is recog-
nized as yielding high economic and social returns for the
State in general.

CONTENTS . . .

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5

PURPOSE AND SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

POPULATION OF THE STATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Growth Trend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Population Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Sources of Population Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

County Population Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Migration and Natural Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Factors Related to Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Implications of Population Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

RURAL AND URBAN POPULATION GROWTH . . . . . . . . . .12

Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

General Trend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Rural Population Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Rural Farm and Nonfarm Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Urban Population Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Implications of Residential Composition Changes . . . . . . .16

SEX AND AGE COMPOSITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Sex Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Sex Ratios at Different Age Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Sex Ratios by Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Sex Ratios of Whites and Nonwhites . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

RACE, COLOR OR ETHNIC COMPOSITION ..

POPULATION GROWTH BEYOND 1970 . . . . . ..

  
    
  
    
   
   
  
 
 
  
    
  
  

Age Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
Dependency Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. i
Index of Aging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Age Distribution in Urban and Rural Areas 
Age Distribution of Whites and Nonwhites .. ‘ I
Implications of Changing Age and Sex p
Compositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*‘

General Trend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ 7
White Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~. l_

Spanish Language or Surname Population. . . . -~
Nonwhite Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. :7

Selected White-Nonwhite Comparisons . . . . . . .

Age-Sex Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Family Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Birth and Death Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 
Implications of Changing Racial and Ethnic
Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1973 Population Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I980 Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; _

Implications of Future Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

REFERENCES AND SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A”

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ȥ

  
 
  
   
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  

In.

id-

_':_
._
\

ilk L. SKRABANEK and W. KENNEDY UPHAM*

v e population of Texas, as well as any specific area
If» its boundaries, is constantly changing. These
Ration changes represent both past and future
es in human social behavi0r—behavi0r patterns
T7} ofoundly affect the location of schools, farms and
j s, churches, houses and housing developments,
vys, retail and wholesale establishments and all
fof facilities and services.

1 e study of almost any area of human endeavor at
Ipoint must use population facts. A knowledge of
 tion trends is essential for the successful pursuit of
 activities of private individuals, corporations and
 and also for public programs. For example,
 I s need to be aware of these changes in order to
Lj r school programs, facilities and teachers. Farmers
poducers of manufactured goods need to recognize
A tion changes to plan for shifts in markets brought
 y changes in the distribution and composition of
‘mers. Religious leaders are now using detailed
 tion characteristics in planning locations of differ-
") l s of church facilities. Private and governmental
x s rely on similar data to determine the number of
A available to produce the different kinds of goods
"ed for our nation’s ever-increasing population.
l - 'vely, professor, Texas Real Estate Research Center and De-
i nt of Sociology and Anthropology, Texas AézM University; and

n. professor,Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural
p. gy, The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.

E POPULATION or TEXAS

ECACIE of chanqe

Public agencies consider changing numbers of people in
planning for desired facilities, and individuals use similar
information to chart their own personal needs and wants.
Furthermore, changes in the population makeup provide
a basis for making projections of future populations. Such
projections, in turn, are used in formulating a sounder
basis for future planning.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This publication is concerned chiefly with selected
characteristics of the population of Texas, with special
emphasis on changes between 1960 and 1970. In many
instances, however, trends are noted for longer periods
than just the past decade. In some cases estimates of
changes since 1970 also are included, as are projections of
the population to 1980.

The specific characteristics and trends included in
this report are population growth and movement, resi-
dential composition, age and sex distribution and racial
composition. Although the major emphasis is placed on
the Texas population, certain comparisons are made with
the nation and with other states in order to illustrate and
clarify their implications for Texas.

Although individuals are especially interested in
what is happening in their specific counties, a detailed
analysis for each of the 254 counties in Texas is precluded
by the large number of units involved. Trends discussed

in this publicationare for the State as a whole, being a
composite of population changes in all of the counties.
Many counties are clearly exceptions to the general popu-
lation trends analyzed. Therefore, it must not be assumed
that any one county fits the general trend occurring in the
State as a whole.

This report is designed primarily for use by persons
in action and planning positions. It is concerned with
people first and statistics second. Consideration of popu-
lation from this point of view makes it a most important
subject 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 had a continuous
population increase since its first census enumeration in
1850, Figure 1 and Table 1. There were 11, 196,730
persons residing in the State on April 1, 1970—an in-
crease of more than one and one-half million people
during the past decade. The increase in population bet-
ween 1960 and 1970 was the second largest gain the State
has ever experienced between succeeding censuses,
being exceeded only bythe 1950- 1960 decade. The major
reason the population increase fell off slightly during the

last 10-year period is the lower birth rate that prevailed
during the 1960-70 decade.

Although the increase in number of persons bet-
ween 1960 and 1970 was the second largest for any
10-year period, it was also the second lowest rate of
population increase for any decade since the census was
taken in 1850. At the same time, the rate of population
growth in Texas has been consistently higher than in the
nation as a whole. Between 1960 and 1970 Texas had a 17
percent increase in number of people as compared with a
national increase of 13 percent. The numerical gain of
1,617,053 persons was exceeded ir1 only two states,
California and Florida. At the other extreme, three

TABLE 1. TOTAL POPULATION OF TEXAS, 1850—l970

Total population Change in population

Year Number Decade Number Percent
1850 212,592

1860 604,215 1850-1860 391,623 184.2
1870 818,579 1860-1870 214,364 35.5
1880 1,591,749 1870-1880 773,170 94.5
1890 2,235,527 1880-1890 643,778 40.4
190() 3,048,710 1890-1900 813,183 36.4
1910 3,896,542 1900-1910 847,832 27.8
1920 4,663,228 1910-1920 766,686 19.7
1930 5,824,715 1920—1930 1,161,487 24.9
1940 6,414,824 1930—1940 590,109 10.1
1950 7,711,194 1940-1950 1,296,370 20.2
1960 9,579,677 1950—1960 1,868,483 24.2
1970 11,196,730 1960—1970 1,617,053 16.9

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population:
1970, “Number of Inhabitants,” Final Report PC(1)—A45, Texas,
Table 1.

Populatnon

(in millions)
U1 O5 \J
I l I

w
l

N
I

1-

O

| ;
1350 1860 1870 1380 1390 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 19601

Year

Figure 1. Total population of Texas, 1850-1970.

states—West Virginia, North Dakota and p
Dakota—lost in population, as did the District of C

bia. Texas had 5.3 percent of the nation’s people in?
and 5.5 percent in 1970. 5'7

Texas ranked fourth among the states in total
tion in 1970. The state ranked sixth in 1960 and su I
Ohio and Illinois during the 1960-70 decade. Stat t
ing larger populations than Texas in 1970 were Cal’
New York and Pennsylvania. Assuming that the
tions of different states continue to grow at abou
present rates, Texas will replace Pennsylvania as th 
most populous state before 1980. '1

Population Density

Although Texas ranks fourth in total number 
ple, it is one of the less densely populated states h»
nation. In 1970, the State contained 42.7 pers ‘
square mile, a population density exceeded by 33;
states. Texas was also well below the national ave _‘
57.3 people per square mile in 1970. New jersey _,
most densely populated state and Alaska the least,‘
953.1 and 0.3 persons per square mile, respectiv,‘

As in most states, Texas’ people are unevenly '
buted, with population densities ranging from 1, ,
sons per square mile in Dallas County to 0.25 per p;
mile in Loving County, Figure 2. Of the 254 court,
the State, only four have more than 500 pers 
square mile; 21 have more than 100; and at the ,
extreme seven have less than 1 person per square 
majority of the counties with sparse populations '1
the western portion of the State while the eastern s _‘
is more densely populated. "-

Sources of Population Increase

The rate of population growth of any given 1
determined by three factors: (1) people are born, ~ l

b
I

PERSONS PER
SQUARE MILE
[:1 UNDER no.0

[I] 10.0 to 24.9
25.0 to 49.9
fi 50.0 w 99.9
_,~ "3 ~ |oo.o m 499.9
 —soo.o ANDOVER

  
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
  

 Population density in Texas counties, 1970.

' increase in population; (2) persons die, causing a
‘l. mbers; and (3) people migrate, which results in
‘i e or increase in population, depending on the
i; of their movement.

5i ‘en more births than deaths occur in a given area,
fomenon is referred to as a natural increase. A
‘ecrease occurs if the opposite situation takes
further, a gain from net in-migration occurs when
 le move into an area than move out during a
g ‘riod. Th figures for net migration employed in
'  ication are estimates made for the 1960-70 de-
"i. e following manner. The births which occurred
A  April 1960 and March 1970 were first added to
‘l lation reported in the 1960 census. Then, all
.__;» the same interval were subtracted from this
in e result was an “expected” pulation for 1970.
j» -. ted 1970 population was tlfgn compared to the
»-| us figure and the difference was assumed to be
 et migration. If the rect census count was greater
 expected population, a net gain by migration is
“a net loss is sustained when the expected figure
 the one in the census.

‘- major portion of the population increase in
Z- tween 1960 and 1970 came from an excess of
‘iver deaths, with net migration playing a smaller
it total increase between 1960 and 1970 was
w . During this period, approximately 1,042,000
I were added through natural increase. This was
erence between nearly 2,246,000 births and
4,000 deaths. Thus, 214,000 persons were
i a result of net’; migration, Table 2. Approxi-
 .13 percent of the total population increase came
_t migration and 87 percent from natural increase.

, ce data are not available at the present time on
"t state migration between 1960 and 1970, it is not
l‘ - to determine the number who either moved from
to each individual state or from another state to

Texas during this period. However, the amount of in-
migration increased considerably during the last decade
over the 1950-60 period, when Texas gained only 114,000
persons by net migration. Furthermore, some clues can
be gained concerning migration flows by comparing state
of residence information for 1965 and 1970. There were
870,000 people in other states on April 1, 1965 who were
living in Texas on the same date in 1970. On the other
hand, there were also 735, 000 persons residing in Texas in
1965 who were living in some other state 5 years later.
Thus, of the total of 1,605,000 who were involved in
changing their locations between Texas and other states at
these two specific points in time, Texas ended up with a
net in-migration of 135,000 persons.

A review of numbers of persons who changed their
residence between Texas and other states between 1965
and 1970 indicates that the net migration exchange fa-
vored 11 other states over Texas. On the other hand,
Texas had a net in-migration from each of the remaining
38 states, Figure 3. More specifically, the state experi-
enced a net out-migration of 20, 000 persons to California;
6,000 to Washington; and 4,000 to Colorado. It also had a
net out-migration of over 1,000 to Alaska and Maryland,

TABLE 2. COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANCE IN
TEXAS, 1950-60 AND 1960-70

Components 1950-60 1960-70
Population at start of decade 7,711,194 9,579,677
Population at end of decade 9,579,677 ll,l96.73()
Births 2,441,981 2,246,292
Deaths 687,329 843,609
Natural increase 1,754,652 1,042,683
Net migration 113,831 214,370

Source: Appendix Table 1 antl R. L. Skrabanek, A Decade of
Population Change in Texas, Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station Bulletin 1000, College Station, 1964.

with lesser numbers to Hawaii, New Hampshire, North
Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island and Virginia.

The largest net in-migration to Texas between 1965
and 1970 was supplied by Louisiana (19,000 persons),
followed by 17,000 from New Mexico and 14,000 each
from Oklahoma and New York. An additional seven
states each supplied a net in-migration of over 5,000
persons to Texas. These were Alabama, Arkansas, Il-
linois, Kansas, Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The
remaining 27 states each supplied a net in-migration of
less than 5,000 persons to Texas between 1965 and 1970.

County Population Growth

Although Texas had a substantial increase in popula-
tion between 1960 and 1970, it was very unequally dis-
tributed throughout the state. Figure 4 shows the coun-
ties according to their different rates of growth. Of Texas’
254 counties, 146 (57.5 percent) lost population during
the decade and 108 (42.5 percent) had increases (Appen-
dix Table 1).

One of the outstanding features of Texas’ population
picture is the wide variation among counties in the gains

7

   

       
  

1x - wagon .j
our; 715 1:s_
\_\'r1 - 1111M;

 

  

.\ m’) w!‘

f‘ Yl 1' lR-“IUKAI iii
J  ~r w: n
‘ _ l

  

Figure 3. Net migration of individuals based on their 1965 and
1970 places of residence, Texas and other states.

or losses in number of people. Harris County added
499,000 people during the 1960-1970 decade; Dallas
County 376,000; Tarrant 178,000; and Bexar County,
143,000.

Potter County registered the largest numerical
decline—25,000—and seven other counties had at least
4,000 fewer people in 1970 than ten years previously.

A considerable difference in the rates of population
change in Texas counties may be noted, Figure 4. At one
extreme was Montgomery County which had a popula-
tion increase of 84.4 percent, while three others had
increases of over 50 percent between 1960 and 1970.
These were Collin, Denton and Randall counties. An
additional seven counties had a population increase of
more than 40 percent for the decade. At the other ex-
treme were seven counties with population losses of
more than 25 percent. Winkler County had the highest
proportionate decline for the period, losing well over
one-fourth of its population (29.4 percent).

Patterns of population growth and decline have his-
torically varied greatly between individual counties.
Some have experienced continued population growth
ever since their first establishment while others have had
continued losses for several decades. Still others have
had alternate increases and decreases which have lasted
for comparatively short periods.

Harris County is a good example of continued and
rapid population growth which has occurred in several
counties. When the first census was taken in 1850, Harris
County had approximately 4,700 persons. Experiencing
population growth during every decade, there were
64,000 people in Harris County by 1900; 807,000 by
1950; and 1,742,000 in 1970. Thus, the number of per-
sons living in the county has more than doubled in the
last twenty years alone.

While Harris and other counties have experienced
continued and rapid population growth, others have had
population increases up to a certain point followed by
fairly rapid declines. Burleson County can be cited as one
example of this type of situation. Starting with a popula-

  
    
  
   
  
     
   
  
 
   
   
   
 
 
 
   
   
  
    
  
 
  
  

tion of approximately 1,700 in 1850, its inhabitant 5
creased to 13,000 by 1890 and reached a peak of all
20,000 in 1930. Burleson County has since experieng
steady decline in numbers to around 18,000 in _‘
13,000 in 1950; 11,000 in 1960; and 9,999 in 1970. B“
son County currently has fewer people than in 1
situation which is not uncommon in many rural cou :1
which have remained dependent upon agricultu '51
their main economic base. ll‘ 

The disparity of the population developmen 
Harris and Burleson counties is illustrated by the”
that while Burle son County has fewer people today 
in 1890, Harris County experienced an increa 
1,704,000 persons during the same period. d‘

Only 69 Texas counties out of 254 recorded p
largest population at the time of the 1970 census, Fi
5. On the other hand, Texas has 17 counties whic
corded their largest population in 1900 or earlier . if
which reached their peak number of inhabitants in 
or 1920. Another 78 attained their maximum num O - ‘
1930 or 1940, while 51 more have declined since 19_
1960 peak counts. Thus the overall growth of popu I I
in the State since 1960 is far from typical for the 
territory encompassed within the States borders. "

Migration and Natural Increase

Although population gains and losses in oi~'
counties can be attributed to a multiplicity 0f v :11
circumstances, in general the basic determining f 
the degree of migration either into or out of a co 
Appendix Table 1 contains births, deaths and the . u.
of net migration in each county for the 1960-70 de

A fairly new population phenomenon emer -.
Texas during the last decade, that being the su
appearance of a number of counties registering
deaths than births. Every county in the State i5
natural increase during the 1950-1960 decade by r q;
ing more births than deaths, but 29 Texas counties,
the reverse situation to occur—more deaths‘

Figure 5. Census year of maximum population for Te -:
ties.

    
    
     

QRISOOE HALL

HOYLEv

KmG

   

  
  

TNIOCK-
MOR TON

         

     
  

  

STONE-
WLLL

NISKELL

 
 

Lvvm GARZA KENT

      
      
  
     
    
    

$51K?! SCURRV FISHER JONES PM“)

ANDREWS

IINXLEI

SCHLEICNER

SUTTON

Ll Sll-LE

PERCENT OF INCREASE

-45.0 and over
l5.0 to 44.9
@ 0.0 n» |4.s

PERCENT OF DECREASE

0.0 m |4.9
II] I5.0 and over

KIIIEDV

I‘ 4. Percent 0f change in total population of Texas counties, 1960-1970.

births—during the last 10-year period, Figure 6. Thus,

had there been no migration, 225 of Texas’ 254 counties
would have gained in population because they had more
births than deaths. But as previously indicated, only 108
had more residents in 1970 than in 1960. The number of
counties with this unusual situation is increasing. In
1968, for example, there were 68 which had a natural
decrease due to recording more deaths than births in that
particular year.

Only 74 of the 254 counties had a net in-migration of
people between 1960 and 1970, Figure 7. Ten of this
number had a large enough in-migration to counter-
balance their natural decreases and permit the counties
to register total population gains during the decade.
Sixty-three other counties with net in-migration also had
more births than deaths, which enabled them to have a
more substantial population growth. One county (Mills)
had a net in-migration of five persons for the 1960-70
decade but also had 260 more deaths than births, result-
ing in a net decrease in population of 255 persons for the
decade.

A total of 180 counties experienced net out-
migration between 1960 and 1970. Of this group, 126
registered natural increases, but their numbers of out-
migrants were so great that they sustained population
losses during the decade. Another 36 counties with net
out-migration had large enough natural increases to
permit them to have some slight population increase,
and 18 counties experienced both net out-migration and
natural decreases to sustain fairly heavy population losses
during the decade.

Factors Related to Migration

People move from one location to another for a vari-
ety of reasons. These reasons usually involve a series of
interrelated factors that operate either simultaneously or

Figure 6. Texas counties with more deaths than births for the
1960-1970 decade.

l0

     
 
   
   
  
   
  
    
  
   
  
  
   
   
  
   

/ 
usr men V

—| N
Ejour

Figure 7. Net migration of Texas counties, 1960-1970. 

separately. In Texas, as well as in other states, p“
tend to move from areas of relatively lower eco:
opportunity to areas of higher economic opportu '1
volved in this process are such factors as opportu 
farming and ranching, locations of nonfarm jobs, 
velopment or decline of oil and gas resources and  _
trial plants, and the presence or absence of large i
tion centers. Still another factor is the develop 
transportation systems which permit metropolitan =’
tralization and no longer require that the place t *
dence be in close proximity to the play
employment. 

Implications of Population Growth i

Population changes have important implicat'
the State as a whole as well as for the specific - ‘i
which they take place. i"

Texas has consistently had a rapid pop _'
growth. Projections which appear in the latter s Y
this publication indicate that while it is expected =5
down some, it will still continue to grow at a rapi
Population growth is viewed negatively by some
being extolled by others. Regardless of individual *
however, in general more people call for e v J
health and recreation facilities; an increase in ,
religious and economic welfare services; more
protection; and increased demands for all of the '
services which persons either need or are ex J
want. The increased number of people will also a
larger responsibilities upon different units of y‘
ment, both State and local. There will be more"
ers for whom to provide goods; more children and
to educate; more houses and business buildings 
struct, service and protect; expanded needs for 
tional and dental and medical facilities, and more
people for whom to provide a network of highw
improved communications systems.

3

   
 
    
   
   
    
  
   
  
   
  
   
  
   
    
  
    

‘ ' Texas grows at a faster rate than the rest of
 States proportionate share of funds that
 on a population basis will get larger, as will
ytion in Congress. As a result of the 1970
i. . ple, Texas gained an additional seat in
 it did after the 1960 census. Some other
give up these seats because its population
' latively slower or in some cases even de-
“mber. Greater political influence in still
‘fa. will accrue to the State as long as its
A‘ ‘growing rapidly. In addition, a rapidly ex-
,‘ lation gives a state as a whole an intangible,
“ingfi1l“climate" or “tone.” Some contend
ulation is growing so is the economy and
A results in an over-all positive outlook.
 hand, some states have begun to actively
"Apulation growth.

 en pointed out previously, however, popu-
3| and losses are not equally distributed over
us, while certain areas are increasing their
litical and economic influence, others are
 importance. The center of population in
I: ple, is moving southeastward. Since popu-
-s has been the greatest in the Gulf Coast area,
 population for the state as a whole is moving
‘area, Figure 8. In 1900, the center of Texas
. p located in Limestone County about 2O
 Mexia. By 1930 it had shifted to McLennan
u t 10 miles northeast of Waco, and in 1960 it
5;. Falls County, approximately 20 miles due
aco and 20 miles northeast of Temple. The
pulation in 1970 was again located in Falls
 out midway between Rosebud and
ipving moved about 15 miles south and 5 miles

_,,,_---—---—‘

  

-_l.':.\*-"

‘neg.

inter of Texas population, 1930 and 1970.

east of its 1960 location. Thus, while the population in the
northern and western sections of the State has continued
to grow, it has not kept pace with the growth in the
southern and eastern sections during the last decade.

When it is considered that since 1940 a majority of
the Texas counties have actually declined in population,
the importance of this trend becomes evident for many
sections of the State. Many communities, particularly
smaller population centers, are losing residents through
out-migration, usually to metropolitan centers. As their
populations decline, these places are less able to provide
certain services desired by the remaining people. Medi-
cal services, or the lack of them, exemplify the dilemma
faced by some areas. Texas had 22 counties in 1970 in
which no active physician resided. Local school districts
consolidate with other school districts to encompass more
children and a wider territory. Even so, as time passes,
school enrollment continues to decline because the area
under consolidation is not able to stem the tide of out-
migration. As some of the key services become less avail-
able, the community’s residents go to larger population
centers, they tend to transact an increasing amount of
their business and they make more purchases away from
their home community. With less money spent in the
community, persons operating service establishments

find it more difiicult to make improvement, to stock their.

shelves with other than the bare essentials, and to pay
their taxes. This situation, in turn, tends to reinforce the
pattern of local people making increasing proportions of
their purchases and seeking further services outside the
community. '

While communities of declining population are fac-
ing certain problems, those with growing numbers also
have to make certain adjustments. The ever-increasing
amounts OffiJIldS needed to add schoolrooms and to build
schools in newer locations are a problem constantly lacing
rapidly growing areas. InsuHicient police and fire protec-
tion and critical water shortages plague many growing
communities in Texas, severely taxing the finances and
ingenuity of municipal officials and agencies. As more and
more people migrate to the larger metropolitan centers,
increasing attention has to be directed to traffic problems.
The recent tendency for people to migrate away from the
central portion of a big city to smaller towns and cities in
the suburbs magnifies both the flow of automobiles and
the traflic problems of the central city. At the same time,
persons in the suburbs who use traffic facilities in the
central cifies going to and from work contribute little
through taxes to help the central cities build the necessary
network of traflic outlets. Some areas are growing so
rapidly that they outstrip the development of new retail
and wholesale establishments and personal and business
services.

In summary, both population growth and decline exert
significant influences upon the areas in which they occur,
thereby meriting thorough study of these trends by local
persons in responsible positions so they can better plan

for the future.

11

RURAL AND URBAN PQPULATIQN we
GROWTH 900
Definition of Terms 80.
The terms “urban” and “rural” as used throughout ,o_
this publication coincide with their definitions as formu-
lated by the Bureau of the Census. 60- q
The 1970 census definition of urban population in- 0
cludes all persons residing in “urbanized” areas and in $30 °"°"a"
places of 2,500 inhabitants or more outside urbanized ‘e —
areas. More specifically, the urban population of Texas 40- #7
consists of all persons living in: (a) places of 2,500 inhabit-
ants or more incorporated as cities or towns, but exclud- 30-
ing those persons living in the rural portions of extended
cities; (b) unincorporated places of 2,500 inhabitants or 20-
more; and (c) other territory, incorporated or unincorpo-
rated, included in urbanized areas. 10- 
All persons living in areas not classified as urban o 
_ _ _ _ 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1%
constitute the rural population. The rural population is Year n.

further subdivided into farm and nonfarm, based upon Fi 9 Percent of Texas O ulafion living in urbm
whether or not the person lives on a place satisfying the 1856:7970 p p i
census definition of a “farm. ” A farm, for census purposes, 1 '

is a place of 10 or more acres from which 1969 sales of farm

products amounted to $50 or more, or a place of less than by 125,000 or 5-2 Pereent between leee and 1
10 acres with farm produce sales of $250 or more. Exc- two segmeets of Texas reral pepulatlen (farm _,
luded from the farm population are those persons who live farm) expeneneed eppeslte types of Patterns of
in rented houses on farms but who do not themselves have however» as 1119 T11R11 faffft Segment declined ,_
the use of any land for farming. All persons residing in rural nenfarm pepulaeen Increased dunng the

rural areas but not living on farms make up the rural _ eade‘ .
"Onfarm P0P111at1011- Although the rural population accounts fora a
proportion of the State’s people than in previous?
Texas still has a large rural population based on

General Trend

One of the most conspicuous changes in the popula- standards. For example, 23 of the 50 states that
tion of the State has been the rapid shift of people from the nation have total populations that are smal 0
rural to urban residence. Just 30 years ago Texas had theruml population of Texas. Texas ranks sixth
more rural than urban residents, with approximately in number of persons classified as rural. States
one-half living on farms and ranches alone as late as 1920. rural residents than Texas in 1970 were; Penn

By 1970, however, urban areas held asizeable majority of North Carolina, New York, Ohio, and Michiga ‘
the State's people, Figure 9. The first time in the State’s

history the. census recorded more urban than rural resi- TABLE 3' TEXAS POPULATION CLASSIFIED B 
dents was in 1950. Yet, this trend continued at such an DENCE, 13504970 t‘
accelerated rate that 80 percent of Texas’ population was ,0
classified as urban in 1970, Table 3. Year Tee“ Urea“ Rural’
The trend from rural or urban residence occurred Number Percent Number
earlier in. the nziion as .01 wholfi that}; in Texas, buft the 1850 212,592 7,665 36 204,927
State s shift to u an resi ence as ta en place at a aster 1000 004,215 20,015 4A 577,000
rate than in the nation during the last two decades. 1370 313,579 54,521 6,7 764,058
Nationally, there were more urban than rural residents 1880 1,591,749 146.795 9-2 1,444,954
as early as 1920, with 73.5 percent being classified as 1890 22351527 349'?“ lee 1386916
ban in  1900 3,048,710 520,/59 11.1 2,527,951
“r ' 1910 3,890,542 938,104 24.1 2.958.438
1920 4,663,228 1,512,689 32.4 3,150,539
Rural Population Changes 1930 5,824,715 2,389,348 41.0 3,433,367
1940 6,414,824 2,911,389 45.4 3,503,435‘
In past years, the Texas rural population grew stead- 1950 77114194 443384100 62-7 28734134

1960 9,579,677 7,187,470 75.0 2,392,207

ily in numbers until it reached its peak in 1940, when 1970 1U 96,730 8,929,832 797 2,266,898

slightly more than 3.5 million Texans resided in rural
areas’ Slnce 1940’ however’ a declnee 01135 _percent has Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of P
Ocwrred, with 2,207,000 P8100115 belng dasslfied as "IP31 1970, “Number 0f Inhabitants," Final Report PC( 1)-A
residents in 1970. The State s rural population declined Table 1. ~_

12

    
   
  
  
   
   
  
    
  
  
   
   
   
 
    
  
  
   
  
   

 70, over half of the counties (128 in number)
 rural than urban people. Moreover, the entire
l» of 61 counties were classified as rural in

11 the number of rural residents in Texas as a
 been declining for the last three decades, 84
, registered increases in rural population for vari-
is between 1960 and 1970, Figure 10. Three
A Fisher, Reagan and Sutton, showed an increase
' al numbers due to the fact that the largest
, in their boundaries ceased to be counted as
laces in 1970 when they declined to fewer than
p, ed 2,500. Thus their rural gains approximately
j d to the people of Rotan (2,404), Big Lake
W Sonora (2,149), respectively. Another group
l s which gained in rural residents during the
f, lude several metropolitan counties and other
 antly urban counties. Among these were Har-
‘ria, Montgomery, Travis, Orange and Smith
Q An extreme example of this type of situation
l in Montgomery County, just north of the city of
~ where the rural population gained 20,000 per-
 increased 113 percent.

‘the other hand the more typical experience was
ties to have declines in the number of rural
‘l some cases this was simply a case of general
5‘. loss. Among counties in this situation the
é; may be viewed as typical cases: Anderson,
 Haskell, Knox, and Willacy. In other cases the
t losses can be accounted for by changes in clas-
 of a residence even though the persons in-
did not move. In some instances rural people
l efined as urban by the annexation of territory by
a‘ 's situation occurred in Nueces County, for
‘ l, when Corpus Christi annexed territory con-
,307 people, only part of which had previously
murbanized" area. Moreover, there were twelve

POPULATION
1 INCREASE
I DECREASE

If l0. Texas counties with rural population increases,

¢

Texas counties which were entirely rural in 1960 and
which had gained an “urban” place by 1970 through
reclassification of a town to urban status. An example
involves the town of Burnet in Burnet County.

Rural Farm and N onfarm Residence

Since 1920 the census has attempted to improve the
statistics for rural residence by distinguishing between
farm and nonfarm households. In 1920 about 72 percent of
all rural Texans lived on farms or ranches. The number of
such persons reached a peak in 1930 at 2.3 million, and
has declined ever since, Table 4. In 1940 about two out of

TABLE 4. TEXAS RURAL POPULATION CLASSIFIED BY
FARM AND NONFARM RESIDENCE, 1920-70’

Year Rural farm Rural nonfarm
Number Percent Number Percent
of total of total
population population
1920 2,265,734 48.6 884,805 19.0
1930 2,342,553 40.2 1,092,814 18.8
1940 2,149,187 33.5 1,354,248 21.1
1950 1,292,267 16.8 1,580,867 20.5
1960 693,740 7.3 1,698,467 17.7
1970 386,174 3.5 1,880,724 16.8

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Censuses of Population,
1920 to 1960, and special release of 1970 data.

every three rural Texans lived on a farm or ranch. By 1970
only about one out of every six rural people resided on a
farm or ranch, and their total numbers had dropped to
386,000. This rapid decline in rural farm population has
been due to the adoption of automation and technology in
agriculture which required progressively fewer people to
produce the raw farm and ranch products. Even though
the decline in rural farm population has been very wide-
spread, there is still an occasional area that registers a
rural farm population increase. This situation occurred in
seven Texas counties between 1960 and 1970—Camp,
Deaf Smith, Glasscock, Hutchinson, Moore, Shackel-
ford, and Winkler. All of these counties are located in
west Texas, with the exception of Camp County, which is
in northeast Texas.

While the number of rural farm residents has been
declining rapidly, the rural nonfarm population has con-
tinued to increase steadily. In fact, the rural nonfarm
population has more than doubled since 1920 in spite of
the fact that cities have been constantly expanding their
borders to encompass people in what was formerly rural
territory. The 1.9 million rural nonfarm population com-
prised about one of every six people in the State in I970.
A total of 158 counties had increases in rural nonfarm
population between 1960 and 1970.

Urban Population Changes

Urbanization has been a dominant population pro-
cess in Texas, especially during the last three decades.
The States urban population jumped from 7,187,000 in
1960 to 8,921,000 in 1970, an increase of 1,734,000 per-

l3

sons, or 24.1 percent. This is a considerably faster rate of
urban population growth than in the nation as a whole,
which had an increase of only 19.6 percent. The Texas
urban population also increased at a much faster rate
during the 1960s than the total population of the State.

Only three states exceed Texas in total number of
persons living in urban areas. These states are New York,
California and Illinois. Texas also ranks eleventh among
the 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, Florida, Utah, Nevada, and
Hawaii.

In 1970, four out of five persons (80 percent) in the
State were classified as urban residents as compared with
73.5 percent of the nation as a whole. ]ust 30 years ago
urban areas held less than one half of the States people,
and less than one-third 50 years ago. The urban popula-
tion growth has been so rapid that Texas had five cities
listed among the 45 largest cities in the United States in
1970. Houston ranked sixth among the nation’s cities;
Dallas eighth; San Antonio fifteenth; Fort Worth thirty-
third; and El Paso forty-fifth.

Patterns of population growth in Texas cities
changed at least slightly in some respects between 1960
and 1970 from what occurred during the preceding de-
cade. For example, all Texas cities which had 50,000 or
more persons in 1950 increased in population during the
following ten-year period. In contrast, three Texas cities
with 100,000 or more persons in 1960 had population
losses by 1970, and six others with between 50,000 and
100,000 persons in 1960 also lost population by 1970.
Such losses were not confined to the largest cities, how-
ever, as three in the 25,000 - 50,0()0 range and 17 in the
10,000 - 25,000 size also lost population between 1960
and 1970. At the same time people tended to concentrate
more in the largest cities as a whole. Persons living in
cities of 100,000 or more increased from 2,680,000 in
1960 to 4,294,000 in 1970, Table 5.

Although some of the urban population growth was
obtained through the extension of city limits, over three-
fourths of it was accounted for by migration from smaller
towns and open country areas to the more populous
centers.

Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas

A Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA),
as defined by the U. S. Bureau of the Census in both 1960
and 1970, requires a city (or twin cities) of 50, 000 or more
persons. The SMSA is made up of counties as units, and
includes the contiguous territory which is deemed to be
closely integrated with the central city or cities. In some
instances, only the one county in which the central city of
50, 000 or more is located constitutes an SMSA, while in
others two or more counties are combined to form a
meaningful metropolitan area. For example, the Bryan -
College Station SMSA included only Brazos County in
1970 while at the other extreme, the Dallas SMSA con-

14

  
 
 
  
   
  

TABLE 5. TEXAS URBAN POPULATION IN PL
CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO SIZE, 1970 r

     
   
      
 

    
 
    
   
   
 
 
  
   
 
  
   
 
  
  
    
  
      
  

Number
Size of place of places Population

Number Cumul v
1,000,000 or more 1 1,231,394 1,231
500,000 to 1,000,000 2 1;_'49s,554 2,729,,
250,000 to 500,000 s 907,545 3,697,
100,000 to 250,000 4 596,555 4,294
50,000 to 100,000 17 1,247,418 5,541,_
25,000 to 50,000 19 664,063 6,205’,
10,000 to 25,000 80 1,201,625 7,407 h
5,000 to 10,000 95 664,635 807K}
2,500 to 5,000 152 524,057 8,595 i
Under 2,500 37 46,499 8,642
Other urban

278,601 8,920 i,

Source; U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Popu 
1970, “Number of Inhabitants,” Final Report PC(1)—A45, p
Table 3. *

sisted of a total of six counties. These counties
Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Kaufman and Roc °

II] 1970, Texas had 24 SMSA’s which encom . . f
total of 40 COllntifis, Figure 11. 1h 1960 the State's
ropolitan areas included 21 S MSA’s and covered 29 _;
ties. The three newly-created S MSA’s during the if
were Bryan-College Station; McAllen-Pharr-Ed”
and Sherman-Denison. The boundaries of the f
Christi, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio SMSA} I
expanded so that they encompassed more coun’ A1
1970 than ten years previously. Since 1970 at 1e,
additional SMSA (Killeen-Temple) has been creat
the boundaries of some have been changed. Since 
lation and other data are for SMSA’s as they were I
tuted at the time each federal census was taken;
areas are synonymous in this publication with 
they were defined in 1960 and 1970 by the Burea f1
Census. f

Amarillo

Sherman-
Denison

Lubbock Wichita
Falls

\
Abilene Dallas r
Tyler 5
Fort Worth i 
Midland 5:

El Paso  San An lo W800 _ ' ',
Odessa 5W3" .
Collage Station ,

Austin Housm»

San Antonio

Corpus
Laredo Christi

 

Brownwille '-
Harlingen ‘
San Benito _

  

McAllen-Pharr
Edinburg

a

Figure 11. Standard metropolitan statistical areas of
1970.

_

  
    
    
   
 
   
  
  
   
   
  
 
     
   
 
    
   
    
  
 

 " of the outstanding features of population dis-
7 changes in Texas has been the rapid movement
if» 1 litan areas. A total of over 8 million persons
‘ls-t e 24 SMSA's and comprised 73. 5 percent of the
fr» ulation in 1970, Table 6. ]ust 2O years prior to
 slightly more than 4 million people lived in
itan areas, comprising about 55 percent of the
'ple, Figure 12. Texas has a higher share of its
 in metropolitan areas than does the nation as a
ihere 68. 6 percent reside in SMSA's. During the
li~ e alone the State’s S MSA’s added over 2 million
 hile the total population increase for Texas as a
‘,3 only 1.6 million. In fact, the four most popul-
 A’s—Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth and San
l ccounted for 98 percent of the State’s popula-
 ‘ase between 1960 and 1970. The concentration
Wtion in SMSA’s is the net result of the gain in
f concentration and the transference of a portion
i? Aral and smaller city population to the bigger
implexes.

g-w ough metropolitan areas as a whole experienced
_‘- pulation increase, a wide range in individual

 TEXAS POPULATION IN STANDARD METRO-
] STATISTICAL AREAS, 1900 AND 1970

iMetropolitan Population Change, 1960-70
:1 Areas
 1970 1960 Number Percent
i 113,959 120,377 -0,41s -5.3
144,396 149,493 —5,097 -3.4
5 295,516 212,136 83,380 39.3
-Port
i irange 315,943 306,016 9,927 3.2
3‘; le-Harlingen-
. ito 140,368 151,098 —10,730 —7.1
101,0 Station 57,973 1 - -
j 1mm 234,332 221,573 03,259 2.3
7 1,555,950 1,083,601 472,349 43.6
p. 359,291 314,070 45,221 14.4
f’ _ h 762,086 573,215 188,871 32.9
-Texas City 109,312 140,304 29,443 21.0
\ 1,985,031 1,243,158 741,873 59.7
72,859 64,791 8,068 12.5
179,295 156,271 23,024 14.7
181,535 ‘ — —
65,433 67,717 —2,284 -3.4
 91 ,805 90,995 810 0.9
“' 10 71,047 64,630 6,417 9.9
l‘ i0 864,014 687,151 176,863 25.7
_Denison 83,225 ‘ — —
051,) 07,313 59,971 7,342 13.1
.3 97,090 30,350 10,740 12.4
 147,553 150,091 -2,53s -1.7
 alls 127,621 129,638 -—2,017 —1.6
8,234,458 6,072,706 2,161,752 35.6

‘l 110a as SMSA in 1900.

i .S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population:
mber of 1nhabitants,” Final Report PC(1)-A45, Texas,

90'
Metropolitan

80"
Nonmetropolitan

70-

60-

one half 

40-

30'

20- ,
31.3 §

   

Year

Figure 12. Percent of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan Texas

population, 1940- 1970.

SMSA growth rates took place during the last decade.
The Houston SMSA had a population increase of 60
percent; Dallas, 44 percent; Austin, 40 percent; and Fort
Worth, 33 percent. At the other extreme, six experi-
enced population losses. These metropolitan areas were
the Abilene, Amarillo, Brownsville-Harlingen-San Be-
nito, Midland, Waco and Wichita Falls SMSA's. Their
declines in numbers were relatively small since they had
a combined population loss of only 29,000 during the last
decade while the two largest SMSA’s (Houston and Dal-
las) had a combined increase of over one million persons.

While population growth is booming in most met-
ropolitan areas of Texas, the number of people residing in
the suburban and urban fringes is increasing much faster
than in their central cities. The horizons of the metropoli-
tan complexes are being extended further out and their
population is becoming more widely dispersed far
beyond the boundaries of the central city. Examples of
this trend may be observed by population developments
particularly in the States larger SMSA’s between 1960
and 1970.

During the last decade, the number of people living
in the central city of Fort Worth increased by 10 percent
while those in the portion of the Fort Worth SMSA
outside the central city increased by 70 percent; the
central city of Dallas gained in population 24 percent but
areas outside the central city increased by 76 percent; the
central city of Houston increased 31 percent while the
remainder of the Houston SMSA experienced a gain of
144 percent; and the central city of San Antonio added
only 11 percent while the rest of the San Antonio SMSA
increased 111 percent. For the State as a whole, the
number of people living in central cities of SMSA’s in-
creased by only 20 percent while their remaining por-
tions increased by 79 percent. In 1960 about three out of
every four SMSA residents lived in central cities, but

15

their proportion declined to about two out of every three
by 1970.

Thus, particularly during the last two decades, the
general rural-to-urban migration has been countered by
a migration from central cities to suburbs and into the
hinterlands. This has occurred to such a degree that the
balance of the S MSA outside the central city often covers
much more land area than the central city. Prior to World
War II it was common for the big population centers t0 be
densely populated. Suburban life for increasing numbers
of urban residents, however, has now become a reality. A
very high proportion of suburban residents commute to
their jobs in central cities daily. At the same time more
commercial and industrial enterprises are being decen-

tralized.

Although on the whole the redistribution of the
population and business firms within metropolitan areas
has been beneficial, it has also created some problems.
For example, the central city is called on to serve not only
its own inhabitants but also a large part of those in the
entire metropolitan area. In most metropolitan areas,
however, there is generally a high positive correlation
between distance from the center and family income.
With the removal of many of its more affluent residents
and also business firms, the central city loses very impor-
tant sources of taxes. On the other hand, many fast-
growing suburban localities are heavily burdened with
the problems of maintaining facilities to match their
rapid growth.

Im lications of Residential
omposition 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
for 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 population
concentration persists. Services and facilities can be ex-
pected to be oriented increasingly to the urban segment
of the population. The outcome of elections may also
become 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
changed balance between people and agricultural land.
The job of producing the greater part of Texas’ raw ag-
ricultural products has been concentrated in fewer, more
efiicient and better-trained farm and ranch operators,
whose levels of living have been increasing steadily. On
the other hand, there are other families living on farms
and ranches whose fortunes have not been much im-
proved.

Farm residences still tend to be in areas of sparser
settlement, but better transportation and communica-
tion, as well as possibly stronger determination on the
part of rural people, have forced adjustments to be made

16

"JQ-i.‘ ii-‘i ‘»_‘_

  
    
   
 
   
   
  
 
   
   
   
   
  
   
    
     
   
   
  
   
   
  
 
    
   
   
  
  
   

in rural institutions such as public schools, churches
trade services. Farmer participation in community;
group activities has increased substantially, an
ganized community activities, churches and schoo»
becoming more centered in small towns. The s I
town has taken on newfound importance for person
ing in rural areas as open country institutions ha ¢
clined. a  ‘

a.

Changes in residential composition have l
brought about mainly through migration. Migration?
one residential area to another in Texas tends to be -_'
selective. Negroes have migrated from farms at
rapid rate than whites. Tenants and operators of
farms have moved to cities more than have the owne i
operators of larger farms. Young people have been_
ing into towns and particularly metropolitan citiesi
completion of their high school or college educatif
the same time, younger married couples are mo f‘
the suburbs from the central city, and older peopl
are retiring from farming are moving to smaller t
The net result is that rural farm areas have relativel 
proportions of their population in the age levels ‘A
they are more likely to be classified as dependents. _
same time, urban areas (and particularly suburbs) p’
lighter load to carry in terms of the ratio of persons y‘
dependent ages to the numbers in the productive 

life.

With the trend toward a larger proportion of I
residing in urban areas, the State will need to look tf
areas more and more as the source of internal pony
growth. Although rural birth rates have been tradi r
higher than in urban areas, they have been declin' _'
taking on more urban-like characteristics. Furth 
this is likely to continue in the future as the State O l
increasingly urban and as rural life becomes l
indistinguishable from urban family life.

The urbanward trend calls for ever increasing]
employment opportunities. Since employment :-
be centered in areas of industrial advancement .-;
kind of employment creates other jobs in the - 
ions, the industrialized areas of the State will need 
for more jobs and for more and larger facilities for ' -'
ingly larger numbers. 1'

SEX AND AGE COMPOSITIONS’

One of the main reasons that almost everyj
document asks for an individuals age and sexist ’
factors are relevant to practically every circu V
The age and sex composition of any state’s po_
vitally affects the over-all health status, producti _
gies, interests and activities of a given area or
These two characteristics also affect all social insti
from the school system to marriage, as well 
phases of social interaction. A

Sex Distribution

Throughout its history, Texas has experil
steady trend from male to female predominance ‘y
bers. In 1920, there were approximately 155,

   
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
   
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
   
 
  
   

males in the State. The margin by which
“i bered females decreased with each suc-
f s until in 1960, for the first time, Texas had
 than men. In 1960, Texas had approxi-
 1 more females than males, and the margin
‘u. ased to 234,000 in 1970.

 H in terms of sex ratio (the number of males
, males), the state index was 115 in 1850. By
1 en reduced to 107 and by 1940 t0 101. In
M were almost equally balanced, but by 1960
fell to 98.1 and in 1970 there were only 95. 9
f1 t females, Figure 13.

Ailey the trend in the balance between the sexes
Ye direction in Texas and in the nation as a
‘e were more women than men as early as
V: onwide basis. The sex ratio for the nation in
i ed to be slightly lower than in Texas, the
 ; 94.8 and 95.9 males for every 100 females,

f .1 d toward female predominance in numbers
led as an indication of the stage of population
 e s has reached. Most areas just being settled
 out with a preponderance of males, because
' ly are attracted to new areas more than are
71w as the‘ area develops, the number of
'. “ases at a faster rate than males, tending to
7 differences in their numbers. Moreover,

 - to live longer than men and the range in
'~ - tancies is widening. For example, in 1900
 ld expect to outlive males by about 3 years.

ies born in 1973, the girls can expect to out-
‘J by about 7 years. These factors play an
f~+ tin explaining why there are more females
V in a state such as Texas.

 

  

T I I I I I
100 101 102 103 ‘I04 105 106 107
Males per 100 females

I
99

  
  
 

 a1 as

 Number of males per 100 females in the Texas
,_-, 1920-1970.

More important than the balance between sexes in
the States population as a whole is a comparison of this
ratio in different population situations. For this reason,
data are presented also for different age groups, resi-
dence locations and races.

Sex Ratios at Different Age Levels

The balance between the sexes differs materially at
different age levels. Life in Texas begins with an excess of
males, as it does in the naion as a whole. A consistent
pattern is reflected by the fact that more baby boys than
girls are born in populations throughout the country. In
Texas, for example, there were 104.7 male per 100
female babies born between 1960 and 1970. From the
time of their birth and throughout their life span, how-
ever, males have higher death rates than females at every
age level. Migration from and into the State is also sex
selective and therefore is a factor in the changing balance
between males and females as they advance in age
through their respective life spans.

Thus, the sex ratio declines at each successive age
level, Figure 14 and Table 7. In 1970 there were 103.6
boys per 100 girls under 5 years of age. As death con-
tinues to take its toll of boys at a hster rate than girls,
their predominance in numbers steadily declines until
between the ages of 19 and 20, at which point females
begin to predominate in numbers and by a wider major-
ity at each successive age level. At the time of the 1970
census among 19-year olds, boys still out-numbered girls
by a comparatively small margin (2,550), but at age 20 the
excess favored women, there being 2,532 more females
than males. Women increase their predominance in
numbers with each advance to a successively older age
group and particularly after age 64. For example, the sex
ratio for persons 65 to 69 is 81. 8; 75 to 79 years of age the
ratio is 68. 7; and at 85 and over there are only 54.1 males
per 100 females.

Sex Ratios by Residence

While there are more females than males in the
State as a whole, this is true only in urban areas, with the
opposite situation occurring in the rural sections.

In 1970 urban areas had only 94.8 males per 100
females, while rural areas had 100.1 males for every 100
females. The central cities or urbanized areas in the State
had the lowest sex ratio of any residential group—93. 1,
while the open country areas had the highest—101.9.
These differences are largely due to variations in migra-
tion patterns of the two sexes between the different types
of residential situations.

Sex Ratios of Whites and Nonwhites

The nonwhite population of Texas has slightly lower
sex ratios than whites. In 1970 there were 96.3 white
males for every 100 white females and 93.1 nonwhite
males for every 100 nonwhite females. Furthermore, the
sex ratios are slightly lower for Negroes than for other
nonwhites as a whole, there being 92.7 Negro males per

17

110

103 6 103.5

100-

o
c
l

Mnlux pm lUU Funmlux
W
@
l

60"

I I I I I I I I I
5 1 5 2 5 35 45 55 65 7 5 85

Age

Figure 14. Number of males per 100 females in the Texas
population, by age, 1970.

100 Negro females. Whites have higher sex ratios than
nonwhites at every age level except for those 65 years of
age and over. These differences are due to a combination
of circumstances—a slightly higher sex ratio at birth for
whites, life expectancy differentials, and different migra-
tion patterns in and out of the state at various age levels.

Age Composition

In addition to the changes taking place in the bal-
ance between males and females, the changing age dis-
tribution of Texas’ population is another good indicator of
the State’s maturity. There has been a decided decline in
the proportionates shares in the younger ages since 1880
and an offsetting increase in the older ages. Persons in
what are considered to be the productive ages of life (18
through 64) have retained a fairly constant proportionate
share of the total population throughout the State’s his-
tory. Within the productive ages, the proportions bet-
ween 2O and 3O have declined but there has been an
increase in those between 3O and 64 years of age. The
median age of the Texas population dropped slightly
from 27.0 111.1960 to 26.4 in 1970.

The degree to which the number of births changes
from one year to another, variations in the number of
deaths (and the age at which they occur), and the number
who migrate into or out of a state at any given age are the
three basic factors which cause the age distribution to
change over any given period of time. A wide range of
fluctuations in all three can occur from one period 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 that in 1970 the proportion of persons who were
25 years of age (born in 1945) would be greater than the
proportion that were 35 years old (born in 1935).

18

  
    
   
   
 
  
  
  
   
  
  
   
 
 
    
   
   
    
  
   
   
  
   
  
  

Figure 15 shows the relative importance of 1'1,‘
age groups in Texas since 1920. In general, person
age levels increased their proportions of the total 1 
tion over the 40-year period between 1920 . 1_
except those between 5 and 35 years of age. H ,
several changes have taken place in the age oom @_
of Texas’ population during the last decade whi
different from those occurring during the pr
40-year period.  ~

Major changes took place in the composi
Texas’ population during the 1960- 70 decade at f
ferent levels. These were: (1) an actual drop in nu I‘
well as a decreasing proportion of youngsters '1
years of age, resulting from the combination of a7
birth rate in the 1960’s and smaller numbers-
parental age groups; (2) an increasing proportion r
sons between 5 and 30 years old; (3) fewer person 5
decreasing proportion between the ages of 30 to ' f‘
of which reflect the birth rate differentials du 
years they were born; and (4) a rapid increase in 1,
tions at all age levels beginning at 55 and beyo
latter situation reflects not only the higher bi 1'
during those years when they were born but 
continued decline in mortality. *

TABLE 7. NUMBER OF MALES AND FEMALES IN 
BY AGE GROUPS, 1970 5'

Age group Males Females Sex Ex I __3
ratio nu 1 '
Males s;

509,173 491,336 103.6 17,337 l_
1,134,456 1,143,503 103.5 40,953 f
1,023,264 1,022,995 100.5 5.269 a

Under 5 years
5 to 14 years
15 to 24 years

25 to 34 years 691,014 716,082 96.5
35 to 44 years 620,846 656,739 94.5
45 to 54 years 574,782 608,716 94.4
55 to 64 years 454,364 502,401 90.4
65 to 74 years 277,285 350,473 79.1
75 to 84 years 115,125 175,501 65.6

85 Years and over 25,860 47,815 54.1
All ages 5,481,169 5,715,561 95.9

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Poi
1970, “General Population Characteristics," Final 
(1)-B45, Texas, Table 20. ‘

In 1960, youngsters under 1O years of age 1f)
23 percent of the State’s total population but 
percent in 1970, Table 8. Persons between 10‘;
years of age comprised 3,1 percent of the total in 1 a
36 percent in 1970. On the other hand, those 1i
the ages of 30 and 54 accounted for 31 percel
State’s people in 1960 and 28 percent in 1970. 4
persons 55 years of age and over increased their 
tionate share from 15. 7 percent in 1960 to 17.5p_
1970. *

Several numerical differences in persons at ,7
age levels between 1960 and 1970 are worthy of if
There were about 162,000 fewer children (lesi
years of age) in 1970 than in 1960. Thus, for the i?
in the State’s history there have been fewer y =~l

    
  

30-44 Years

r41 /

Under 5 Years

I I I I I
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

     
  
  
 
  
   
 
 
  
   
 
 
  
 

Years

 15. Age distribution of the Texas population, 1920- 1970.

w» g school each succeeding year for the last three or
 w s. At the same time, schools have continued to
’ their facilities and programs, because there were
_-l I more children between 5 and 18 years of age in
than in 1960. There were approximately 30,000
' ople between 30 and 39 years of age at the end of
< ade than at the beginning while the older popula-
7W years of age and older) increased by 33 percent
umerical increase of around 247,000.

be rapid growth in number of persons 65 and over,
 as their increased proportions, has resulted in
I __j»-- attention to diiTerent types of pension and
 payment plans, to special housing facilities
 aged and to expanded recreational services for this
 Considerable political strength has also been
fl by the older people as a group through their

rapidly expanding numbers. Persons of retirement age
(65 and over) numbered 992,059 in 1970 as compared
with around 232,000 in 1930. Furthermore, the rate of
increase was greater with each advancement in age
among the older population between 1960 and 1970. For
example, the number of persons 65 to 74 years of age
increased by 27 percent during the last decade while
those 75 to 79 increased by 33 percent, 80 to 84 by 51
percent and 85 years and older by 70 percent.

Dependency Ratio

Persons may be viewed as passing through a series of
changing roles and role expectations at various age levels
as they progress through their life spans. One of these
important roles is their labor force status. Thus, indi-
viduals are often referred to as being in the productive
ages of life (normally 18 to 64) and in the dependent ages
(under 18 and 65 years of age and older). The relative
sizes of the dependent and the productive age groups at
any given point in time have important implications in
terms of economic production, tax structure, institu-
tional and governmental needs and other social services.

A ratio has been devised which is a rough measure of
the burden of support borne by the population in the
productive ages. It is obtained by dividing the number of
persons under 18 years of age plus those 65 and over (the
“dependent” population) by the number of persons bet-
ween 18 and 64 years of age (the “productive” popula-
tion). The resulting figure multiplied by 1,000 is referred
to as the dependency ratio of a population. It purports to
indicate the number of dependent persons for every
1,000 in the productive ages.

Texas had 804 persons in the dependent ages for
every 1,000 in the productive ages in 1970. The depen-
dency ratio declined from 1900 to 1940, but the number

8. AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE TEXAS POPULATION, 1960 AND 1970

1970 1960 Change, 1960-70 Percent distribution

Number Percent 1970 1960

1,000,509 1,152,019 -151,510 -18.9 8.9 12.1

1,145,250 1,074,511 70,789 5.5 10.2 11.2

1,182,709 985,704 247,005 27.8 10.5 9.8

1,092,752 745,429 845,828 45.8 9.8 7.8

958,507 525,558 827,849 52.4 8.5 5.5

752,541 524,522 188,019 22.1 5.8 5.5

544,455 551,444 -5,989 -10.7 5.8 5.8

527,844 550,849 -22,505 -8.5 5.5 5.8

549,741 572,545 77,195 18.5 5.8 5.0

580,955 552,978 57,988 12.1 5.5 5.8

~ - 552,582 485,297 55,285 18.5 4.9 5.1

 ,_ 510,475 420,154 90,822 21.5 4.5 4.4

j .1  445,289 881,575 114,714 84.5 4.0 8.5

.159 ‘ 852,048 282,797 79,245 21.9 8.2 8.0

74 255,715 210,552 55,158 25.2 2.4 2.2

1. over 854,801 252,042 112,259 44.5 8.8 2.5

1,. 11,195,780 9,589,577 1,517,058 15.9 100.0 100.0
f. Age 26.4 27.0

  
 
 

2 U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population:
_ Table 21.

1970, “General Population Characteristics,” Final Report PC(l)-B45,

19

 

in the dependent ages in relation to the number in the
productive ages increased from a low 648 in 1940 to a
peak of 844 in 1960. It then declined slightly to 804 in
1970, Figure 16. The low birth rate of the 1960’s was the
major reason for the decline in the dependency ratio
during the last decade.

Index 0f Aging

Although persons in the younger and older age
groups—under 18 and 65 and 0ver—are sometimes
viewed as the dependent o ulation, each of the two
separate groups plays a vastly different role in society and
in the existence of dilterent kinds of problems. Further
insight concerning the relative importance of the
younger and older age groups may be gained through
comparing their rates of growth. Such a comparison may
be made through the construction of a comparatively
simple index. This index is obtained by dividing the
number of persons 65 or more years of age by the number
under 18 years of age. The resulting figure multiplied by
100 is referred to as the index of aging of a population.

The number of persons 65 and over in relation to
those under 18 years of age has increased rapidly since
the first census was taken. In 1920, there was an average
of only about 8 older persons per 100 in the younger ages.
By 1940 the senior citizens increased to 16 for every 100
young and in 1970 there were 25 older persons per 100
under 18 years of age, Figure 17. Thus, older persons
have consistently made up a significantly larger share of
the dependent population each time the census is taken.

Age Distribution in Urban and Rural Areas

The age distribution varies significantly by resi-
dence location in Texas. Urban areas have a higher prop-
ortion of young people and of those in the early produc-

I I I I I I I I I I I I

O ‘IOO ZOO 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000

Dependency Ratios

Figure 16. Number of persons in the dependent ages (under 18
and 65 and over) per 1,000 in the productive ages (18-64) in
Texas, 1920-1970.

20

 

1930 Q

 

   

I T I I I
0 5 1.0 15 20 25
Aged persons per 100 young

    
 
  
   
   
   
 
 
 
  
    
   
  
   
  
 
  
    
  
  

Figure 17. Number of aged persons (65 and over) per 100y
(under 18) in the Texas population, 1920- 1970. 

tive ages of life than rural areas, while rural Texas =1
higher proportion of older persons than do the o;

For example, approximately 39 out of everyfs
persons living in urban areas of Texas in 1970 ' T
between the ages of 20 and 50, while only 33 out of Q
100 in rural areas were at this age level. At the 
extreme, older persons (65 years of age and over) ‘p
up only 8 out of every 100 persons in cities, while th’ 
group comprised 12 out of every 100 in rural are

That the rural areas have proportionately mor
and fewer young persons is reflected in the fact th
median age of rural Texans in 1970 was 30. 4 years w _
was only 25.7 years in the State’s urban areas. i

Age Distribution of Whites and Nonwhites

The white and nonwhite populations of Texas 
contrasting age distribution patterns. Mainly beca i,“
higher birth rates and lower life expectancies, non w“
have proportionately more persons in the younger
and lower proportions in the older ages. In 1970, ap g1
imately 46 out of everv 100 nonwhites were less if‘
years of age as contrasted with only 38 out of every 
whites. At the other end of the age scale, whi 
higher proportions at every age level from 20 years g
than did the nonwhites. Approximately 23 percent 
white population was 50 years of age or older wh‘ 
sons at this age level comprised 19 percent of th
nonwhite population. ' '

Age differentials between the white and non 
populations can be illustrated in additional ways. F1
thing, their median ages in 1970 differed by fouki
one-half years, being 27. 1 and 22.6, respectively, . i
gap between them widened during the 1960-70 a
Their median ages were 27.4 and 24.1 in 1960, a ~i_

  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
   
   
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  

~ 1 ly 3.1 years. The dependency ratios of the two

 e groups are also getting further apart. In 1970
 " s had a considerably less favorable dependency
‘I whites. The nonwhite o ulation had 975 per-
; 1| dependent ages of liild or every 1,000 in the
F e ages while whites had only 781 dependents
T‘! in the productive ages. In 1960 their respec-
Tendency ratios were 965 and 828. The major
 dependency ratio of whites dropped faster
p of the nonwhite population was their sharper
“the birth rate during the 1960’s.

A Implications of Changing
Age and Sex Composition

I : ging social definitions have resulted in chang-
,= roles for individuals at different age levels.

omen are now working outside the home than
" 1 re. The age span when youth are expected to be
IT» has been broadened, and the age range bet-
p (ch people are expected to enter the labor force
1 tire has become more restrictive. In the light of
‘l1: ges in societal roles, a changing age and sex
 has several important implications.

 - fact that females now predominate in numbers
 is a good indication that the State’s population is
‘in in composition and that industrialization is
modifying what used to be a predominantly rural
 women continue to increase their proportionate
 the total population, they can be expected to
 an increasingly important place in the political
. iness affairs of their communities as well as in the
i, fIn 1970, there were over 300,000 more women of
;age (18 and over) than there were men of voting
 e changing sex ratio has also affected the social
,1- since women have traditionally been among
‘w e staunch supporters and promoters of schools,
_s, health clinics and other types of social, educa-
jand cultural organizations.

 ile the marriage rate has remained relatively
{the birth rate fell to its lowest point in the 1960’s

the depression years. At the same time that the
 o ulafion was growing rapidly, the number of
iters under 5 years of age declined by 160,000
5- the last decade. If the lower birth rate continues,

Q effects may be expected in several situations in
1| run. Since fewer youngsters will be entering
pat the lower grade levels than previously, this will
 = ly result in cutting back on the number of per-
 - ded in the teaching profession. It will also vitally
I e demand for goods manufactured for youngsters
9' different types of facilities and programs to serve
_eeds. In the short run, however, even with the
"t low birth rates, the unusually large number of
women entering the child bearing ages (the result
pipost-World War II baby boom) promises at least a
i; » riod of increased numbers of births.

I; p ause of the high birth rates in the late 1940's and
 950s the number of young persons ready to enter

the job market has been increasing. Provisions will need
to be made for more highly skilled jobs for young people
since the number at this age level preparing to enter the
labor force is not only larger but also better trained. With
the upsurge in numbers of young adults entering the
labor force, more pressure will be brought to bear on the
mandatory retirement of older people from jobs before
they reach their sixty-fifth birthday. In 1970, there were
1,093, 000 young persons between 15 and 19 years of age,
a group that is expected to enter the labor force between
1970 and 1975. At the same time there were only 446, 000
persons between 60 and 64 years of age in 1970, which
constitutes the group that is expected to retire between
1970 and 1975. Thus, there are approximately 2.5 per-
sons ready to enter the job market for onlyone who will
be retiring during the next few years, thereby causing a
severe job “squeeze” for young persons at these age
levels.

The decline in the proportion of people in the pro-
ductive age groups during the last several decades im-
plies added financial burdens on those who are in these
age levels. This is particularly true for nonwhites since
their dependency ratio has increased rapidly.

The increase in aged persons has been so rapid in
Texas as well as in the nation that a comparatively new
field of study, gerontology, has recently developed. This
field is devoted to the problems associated with aging and
the aged. Concern for the older population in the recent
decade was marked by the establishment of the
Covernofs committee on Aging and a great deal of local
effort to improve facilities and opportunities for older
people in Texas.

The increasing proportion of older persons has re-
sulted in increased burdens on health facilities and in
shifts in the production of more goods for elderly people.
The number of persons 65 years of age or older increased
by 247,000 during the last decade alone, and their prop-
ortionate share of the total population increased from one
out of every 42 in 1900 to one out of 11 in 1970. Older
persons often have more leisure time for such activities as
reading, using parks and more sedentary kinds of recrea-
tional activities, all of which will need to be expanded to
meet the needs of this group. The accumulation of people
in the older ages is also likely to lead to modifications and
expansion of retirement systems and payments. Older
people tend to be more conservative, while at the same
time becoming a more powerful force politically because
of their increased numbers. Finally, the longtime down-
ward trend in the death rate has been slightly reversed.
An aging population is more susceptible to sickness and
death, and this has contributed to an increase in the
state’s overall death rate, from 8.0 deaths per 1,000
population in 1960 to 8.4 in 1970.

RACE, COLOR OR ETHNIC
COMPOSITION

Of all the features that distinguish one population
from another, or different segments of a given population
from one another, the characteristics variously known as

21

race, color or ethnic affiliation are among the most obvi-
ous. Furthermore, the degree to which any one racial or
ethnic group forms a predominant or minor share of an
area’s or states population is not reflected in the overall
statistics quoted for that area or state as a whole since
each group is known to have different birth rates, death
rates, migration rates, levels of education, and economic
and occupational situations.

Although table headings published by the Bureau of
the Census clearly refer to people by race, closer inspec-
tion of their contents reveals that populations are nor-
mally divided by color. The two major classifications of
people distinguished by the Bureau of the Census based
on color are (1) white and (2) nonwhite. The major ele-
ments in the latter group are Negroes, North American
Indians, Japanese, Chinese and Filipinos. All persons of
Mexican birth or ancestry who are definitely not of In-
dian or other nonwhite race are classified as white.

Another way of classifying people is by forming eth-
nic subgroups within the white and nonwhite popula-
tions. Although they cannot be found in this form in
Bureau of Census publications, a four-way ethnic divi-
sion commonly used in Texas includes Anglos (all whites
excluding Mexican-Americans); persons of Spanish lan-
guage or Spanish surname (or Mexican-Americans); Neg-
roes; and Other N onwhites. The numbers and propor-
tions of each of these groups for Texas in 1970 are pre-
sented in Table 9. Anglos make up more than two-thirds
of the States population; nearly one out of every five are
Spanish language or surname persons; one out of every
eight are Negroes; and all other nonwhites comprise less
than one percent of the total population.

General Trend

Texas has always had a predominantly white popula-
tion. Although data for diiferent racial and ethnic groups
are not precisely comparable from one census to another
because of changes made in definitions for the classifica-

TABLE 9. RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF THE
TEXAS POPULATION, 1970

Racial or ethnic

category Number Percent
Total population 11,196,730 100.0
White population £1,717,128 86.8
“Anglo” 7,694,288 68.7
Spanish language or surname 2,022,840 18.1
Nonwliite population 1,479,602 13.2
Negro 1,399,005 1 12.5
Spanish language or surname
(non-Negro) 14,177 0.1
Other 66,420 0.6

‘This figure includes 22,654 Spanish language or surname per-
sons who are also Negro.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population:
1970, “General Population Characteristics,” PC(l)-B45, Texas,
Table 17 and “General Social and Economic Characteristics,”
PC(l)-C45, Texas, Table 49.

22

  
   
  
   
 
 
 
   
 
   
    
   
   
  
 
     
 
  
  
 
   

tion of persons and the way information was ob - l
the Bureau of the Census in past years, whi
clearly made up an increasingly larger proporti
total population through the years up to 1960. H
during the last decade the nonwhite population r
increased at a slightly faster rate than whites. A

In 1850 when the first census was taken, whi 
up 72 percent of the total population and non 
percent. Their proportionate share increased 
ceeding census until in 1960 when they comp :11
percent and nonwhites 12.6 percent. During the 
decade, however, the long-time trend was reve 
in 1970 whites comprised 86.8 and nonwhites 1 i1
cent of the states population. F

Thus, nonwhites as a whole had a faster.
growth in Texas during the last 10-year per
whites, the growth rates being 22.8 and 16.0 I
respectively, while Negroes registered an incre 
percent. The higher growth rates for nonwhites 
and for Negroes during the last decade than for 
due largely to their having higher birth rates,
slowing of out-migration from Texas by the 
groups. In 1890, there were 357 whites per 100a,
in Texas. The ratio of whites increased steadily r:
100 nonwhites in 1960 but fell to 657 in 1970, 

1970 1:111

1960 -:-:-

1950 +1-

Year

1940 $1:

I I I
1930 .:.;.;

I I I
1920 3.;

 

I
500 600
Whites per 100 Nonwhntes

Figure 18. Number of whites per 100 nonwhites in’:
population, 1920-1970. ..

White Population F

There were 9,717,128 whites enumera 5-.
Texas population in 1970. Their numbers in,
1,342,000 (16 percent) during the 1960-70 dec I
is about 306,000 below the increase of 1,648, I l‘
preceding 10-year period. This slowdown in f
growth of whites is largely due to the lower f
during the last decade. 

Approximately 97 percent of the 1970 T0
population was born in the United States, -’_

  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
    

 inatives of Texas. Only 3 percent of the state’s
‘ft-lation was born outside the United States,
, of every three in this group being born in
R one out of 20 in another North or South
5iwuntry.

_ = ite population of Texas is made up of numer-
(‘ethnic backgrounds. Some information is av-
fi eir derivations, but only for first and second-
‘ t ericans. Therefore, those of third and sub-
‘_ erations are not included in the figures cited
'_ ' gparagraph. Nevertheless, the data quoted
 Second-generation Americans provide a good
of the relative numerical strength of different
l groups in the Texas white population.

_ A were 1,169,861 white first and second-
f‘ mericans in Texas in 1970 whose origin was
if ock, Table 10. Of this group, 6O percent were
stock; 9 percent, German; 4 percent, United
 percent, Canadian; 2.5 percent, Czechos-
d2.3 percent, Italian stock. The derivation of
1T. 19 percent was distributed among many
 tions.

lnguage 0r Surname Population

Y» ‘cated previously, all persons of Mexican birth
k v who are definitely not of Indian or other
i e are classified by the Bureau of the Census
 nder this classification scheme, 98. 2 percent of
x -Americans living in Texas in 1970 were white
 .8 percent nonwhite.

ureau of the Census has encountered consider-
}~ lty in enumerating what is commonly referred
 as the Mexican-American population. This is

l has been difficult to reach agreement on an
l,“ 'terion to identify members of this group. In
iveral censuses, persons whose family names
 = anish origin were identified by special examina-
w original census forms for Texas and four other
 em states. Limited information about these
= published in a special report. This procedure
 ly counted the majority of the Mexican-
p ethnic group, but it also was frequently criti-

70 the Census Bureau attempted to develop a
uate way of identifying Mexican-Americans
' h-speaking persons. For this census, a new
 was employed to count “persons of Spanish
‘l or Spanish surname.” Included in the new
 ere: (1) all persons of Spanish mother tongue
_ ‘ o reported speaking Spanish as the usual lan-
jtheir home as ._a child); (2) other members of a
A related to a ‘family head or his wife who re-
-== ish as his or her mother tongue; and (3) addi-
ons not qualifying under the Spanish language
 tpossessing a Spanish surname. Since this is a
more inclusive definition, data derived on this
i 0t be compared to those from previous cen-
3. figures presented in Table 9 are based on the

l! 1111011.

\

TABLE 10. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OF TEXAS POPULA-
TION OF FOREIGN STOCK, BY COLOR, 1970

White population Nonwhite population

Country of
origin Number Percent Number Percent

Total 1,169,861 100.0 29,157 100.0
Mexico 705,264 60.3 5,794 19.9
Germany 104.147 8.9 579 2.0
United Kingdom 48,884 4.2 301 1.0
Canada 35,553 3.0 347 1.2
Czechoslovakia 29,451 2.5 85 0.3
Italy 26,795 2.3 91 0.3
Other Europe 128,396 11.0 559 1.9
Other America 26,998 2.3 2,051 7.0
Asia (except

China and Japan) 15,353 1.3 6,331 21.8
China 1,389 0.1 6,217 21.3
japan 4,151 0.4 4,237 14.5
A11 other 5,608 0.5 447 1.5
Not reported 37,872 3.2 2,118 7.3

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population:
1970, “General Social and Economic Characteristics,” Final Re-
port PC(1)-C45, Texas, Table 45.

There were 2,059,671 Spanish language or surname
persons living in Texas in 1970. Thus, they constituted
18.4 percent of the state’s total population in 1970 and
20.8 percent of the white population. Their numbers
included 1,793,462 persons who reported that Spanish
was their mother tongue, another 188,399 persons who
were members of households and related to heads (or
wives) of Spanish mother tongue, and 77,810 persons not
included in the two Spanish language categories but who
had Spanish surnames. A total of 2,022,840 Spanish lan-
guage or surname persons are classified as white (98.2
percent) and 36,831 (1.8 percent) as nonwhite. Approxi-
mately two-thirds (22,654) of the latter group are also
classified as Negroes and are represented largely by such
groups as Puerto Ricans and Cubans.

Since the new definition is not comparable to any
statistics from prior censuses, the Census Bureau pre-
pared a special news release giving their preliminary
count based on one criterion only—persons of Spanish
surname. In 1970 Texas had 1,663,567 such persons,
comprising 14.9 percent of the state’s population. This
compares to 1,422,787 persons with Spanish surnames
counted in 1960 and represents a gain of some 240,780
people for a 16.9 percent increase over the decade. This is
the same growth rate as the total population growth for
the state as a whole between 1960 and 1970.

The tabulation limited to persons of Spanish surname
has traditionally been made only for five southwestern
states, and this practice was followed in the latest census
also. In 1970 Texas had 35.6 percent of the Spanish sur-
name persons in these five states, down from 40.5 percent
in 1960. The numbers for the five states are shown in
Table 11. California had the largest number in 1970, and
its Spanish surname population grew three times as fast as
it did in Texas between 1960 and 1970. Although Col-
orado had the fewest in number, its Spanish surname

23

 

U
|
I
i
I
I
I
l
I
I
l
l

TABLE 11. PERSONS OF SPANISH SURNAME IN FIVE
SOUTHWESTERN STATES, 1960 AND 1970

Persons of Spanish surname Percentage
1970 1960 mcrease’

State Number Percent Number Percent 19604970
Arizona 246,390 5.3 206,904 5.9 19.1
California 2,222,185 47.6 1,456,223 41.4 52.6
Colorado 211,585 4.5 152,039 4.3 39.2
New Mexico 324,248 6.9 275,731 7.8 17.6
Texas 1,663,567 35 .6 1,422,787 40.5 16.9
Five states 4,667,975 100.0 3,513,684 100.0 32.9

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, “Census Bureau An-
nounces Preliminary 1970 Census Spanish Surname Population
Totals.” Processed news release, June 1972.

population increased twice as rapidly as it did in Texas
during the last decade.

Geographically, the Spanish language or surname
population of Texas is concentrated in the southern and
western sections of the state and also in metropolitan
centers. In 1970 there were 79 counties with 2,500 or
more persons of Spanish language or surname, Figure 19.
Bexar County, with 376,000, had the largest number,
followed by El Paso County (204,000) and Harris County
(186,000). Three additional counties, Hidalgo, Cameron
and N ueces, each had over 100,000. There were 29 coun-
ties in which persons or Spanish language or surname
made up half or more of the entire population. All of these
are located in the southern and western parts of Texas,
Figure 20.

No matter whether the new or old definition is used
for approximating the number of Mexican-Americans or
persons of Spanish heritage in Texas, they are clearly the
state’s largest minority group. If the single criterion is
applied—Spanish surname on1y——then Texas had 218,000
more Mexican-Americans than nonwhites in 1970. On the
other hand, if the Spanish language or Spanish surname

 
   
 
 

m-

  

‘M-

POPULATION

- 100,000 AND OVER
i 50,000 TO 99,999
E 10,000 TO 49,999
2,500 T0 9,999
1:1 UDER 2,500

Figure 19. Spanish language and surname population in Texas
counties, 1970.

24

    
  
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
    
   
 
    
  

criterion is used, then Mexican-Americans out-nu 
nonwhites by slightly more than 577,000.

N onwhite Population

Texas had a total nonwhite population of 1,479, _
1970, comprising 13.2 percent of the state’s peop J
number of nonwhites increased by 275,000 (23 o >1,
during the 1960-70 decade, which is about 1H.
the increase of 220,000 between 1950 and 1960. ' a
cated previously, their numbers grew at a faster ra _
that of the white population during the last dec
1960, nonwhites comprised only 12.6 percent '
state’s total population. ~

Texas has a slightly higher proportionate s,
nonwhite people than does the nation as a whole. “_‘_
whites comprised 12. 5 percent and whites 87.5 per y
the total population in the United States in 1970.
were 15 other states with higher percentages of non
than Texas. These states were all in the South wi
exception of Illinois, Alaska and Hawaii. i

Negroes make up an overwhelming proporti
state’s nonwhite population. There were 1,399, 1 
sons classified in the Negro population in 1970, wh a
comprised 12. 5 percent of the state’s total populatir,
96.5 percent of all nonwhites. i

All other nonwhites combined numbered 80,
1970, of which the American Indian populati‘
17,957; Chinese, 7,635; Japanese, 6,537; F ilipino,‘
and all other nonwhites, 45,026. Thus, nonwhites

than Negroes comprised only 0.7 percent of the
total population in 1970. 4

Texas had slightly higher proportions of bo
whites and Negroes than did the nation as awhole ' l‘
Nonwhites comprised 13.2 percent of the state'_
population as contrasted with 12.5 percent in the a
States. Also, while Negroes made up 12.5 percent“;

Figure 20. Percent of Spanish language and surname l:
tion in Texas counties, 1970. 

  
 
  
   
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
    
  

f:- the state, they were only 11.l percent of the
p‘, population.

970, Texas’ nonwhite population ranked fourth in
ilhe nation, being exceeded only by New York,
 and Illinois. The state also had the fourth
h~ egro population, behind the same three states.
p ore, the nonwhite population of Texas was
;-“= 1970 than the total number of people living in
__~?15 other states.

 nonwhite population of Texas is highly concen-
f?» the eastern section of the state, Figure 21. In no
iwest of Bexar County were there more than 15, 000
_ tes-in 1970. Two metropolitan counties had more
=1 ,000 nonwhites in 1970. These were Harris
U and Dallas (229,000), which combined make up
 1 percent of the state’s nonwhite population. An
‘J al seven counties had 20,000 or more nonwhites.
nclude: Tarrant (84,000); Bexar (62,000); Iefferson

8); Galveston (34,000); Travis (33,000); McLennan

j ; and Smith (24,000). These nine counties con-

f» thirds of Texas’ nonwhite population.

; the other extreme 17 Texas counties recorded no
,"te population in 1970, while an additional 35 coun-
 fewer than 50 nonwhites and still another 15 had
‘ 50 and 99 nonwhites.

 . e relative significance of a given group is an area’s
p pulation is an important aspect of population com-
 . With regard to color, therefore, it is valuable to
fr the proportions of whites and nonwhites in a
- a.

l; w 1970 all of the counties in which nonwhites com-
 as much as 15 percent of the total population were
f1 east of Bexar County, Figure 22. Waller is the
m nty in which nonwhites constituted a majority of
pulation, where they comprised 52.8 percent. This
unted for in great measure by the fact that the

1111-3?‘

NU ll BER
20,000 m0 oven
10,000 10 20,000
5,000 r0 10,000
‘ Ii] uuocn 5,000

 21. Nonwhite population in Texas counties, 1970.

h“...

     

PERCENT
_4o AND OVER
— 25 TO 40
Q I5 TO 25
II UNDER |5

Figure 22. Percent of nonwhite population in Texas counties,
1970.

county is the location of Prairie View A&M College, a
predominantly Negro instituiton. The 2,516 Negro col-
lege students recorded by the census constituted 17.6
percent of the county’s population. Three other counties
had 40 percent or more nonwhites—Marion (45.0); San
Iacinto (42.3); and Houston (41.0). An additional nine
counties had between 30 and 39 percent nonwhites. On
the other hand, there were 81 Texas counties in which
nonwhites made up less than 2 percent of the total popula-
tion in 1970.

A higher proportion of Texas’ nonwhite population is
native American than is true for whites. Approximately 99
percent of the state’s nonwhites living in Texas in 1970
were born in the United States, and at least 80 percent of
these were native to Texas with 20 percent born in
another state or with their state of birth not being re-
ported. Nonwhite persons of foreign stock (foreign born
or of foreign or mixed parentage) were predominately of
Asian descent (57.6 percent), with Mexican (19.9) and
other American (7.0) origins being the other important
areas of origin, Table l0.

Selected White-Nonwhite Comparisons

All of the different racial and ethnic groups combine
to make up the total population of Texas, or any smaller
geographic area, and they each play an integral part in the
“average” statistics quoted for the state or smaller area as a
whole. At the same time, there are wide differences that
exist between various ethnic groups, but these tend to be
obscured by the single figure which is normally quoted.
Yet, these differences can be very meaningful in several
ways. For this reason, a few comparisons are briefly pre-
sented on an ethnic basis in this section in regard to
selected demographic and socio-economic characteris-
tics.

25

Age-Sex Distributions

It has been previously pointed out that whites had
higher sex ratios than nonwhites in 1970, with Negroes
having the l0west——0nly 92.7 males per 100 females. The
sex ratio of Spanish language or surname persons is very
nearly the average for other whites, 96.1 males per 100
females.

There are major differences in the age distribution
patterns of various ethnic groups. For example, in 1970
persons less than 18 years of age made up 34.8 percent of
the white population of Texas; 41.5 percent of the non-
white; 41. 8 percent of the Negro; and 47.5 percent of the
Spanish language or surname populations. At the other
end of the age scale, aged persons (65 years old and over)
comprised 1 out of every 11 whites; 1 of 13 nonwhites; 1 of
12 Negroes; but only 1 out of 22 Spanish language or
surname persons. Thus, the latter group has unusually
high proportions of young and low proportions of older
persons when compared to the other racial and ethnic
groups.

Residence

Comparable data are not available for all of the vari-
ous ethnic groups by different residence categories in
1970, but some differences may be noted for whites and
nonwhites. In general, whites outnumber nonwhites by
their widest margin in suburban areas of the bigger
cities—by a ratio of about 23 to 1, Figure 23. They also
predominate in number in rural areas of the state by a
margin of about 8 to 1. On the other hand, the ratio of
whites to nonwhites is a great deal lower in the central city
sections of the larger cities where their margin is less than
5 to 1.

Important shifts took place in residential locations of
whites and nonwhites during the last decade. Of particu-
lar interest is the degree to which each of these two groups
increased their relative numbers in the two separate sec-
tions of the States metropolitan areas. Nonwhites in-
creased their concentration within the central cities at a
much faster rate than whites, while the reverse was true
in the suburban or fringe areas. The net result is that the
State’s larger cities are changing to larger proportions of
nonwhites while their suburbs are occupied by an increas-
ingly larger margin of whites. For example, while non-
whites made up 13.2 percent of the State’s total popula-
tion in 1970, they comprised only 4.1 percent of all urban
fringe residents but 17.4 percent of all persons residing in
the central cities.

Some cities have higher concentrations of certain
minorities than others. A major racial and ethnic trans-
formation is taking place particularly in the central cities
of a number of the state’s larger metropolitan centers. For
example, Anglo enrollment in the Dallas School District
dropped below the 50 percent mark in 1973 for the first
time in history. UnoHicial figures released by the district
show that Anglo pupils made up 49.2 percent of their
enrollment in 1973, with 38.8 percent being blacks; 11.2

26

  
 
     
 
      
  
 
   
 
 
  
   
    
  
  

percent Mexican-Americans; and American Indian
other minorities 8 percent. ‘

A comparision of enrollment figures for the H0 »
School District for 1971 and 1973 also reveals that a,
able racial and ethnic transformation is taking place A
the districfs boundaries. The number of black i;
increased by 2,300 between the fall terms of 1971?
1973 while Spanish-speaking pupils increased by
and Indians by 40. At the same time, the num -.0
oriental students declined by 70 and other white stu
declined by 19,900. As proportionate shares of the _
ton School Districfs total enrollment, black studen i
counted for 41.2 percent in 1973 compared to 37.6
cent in 1971; Spanish-speaking students increased to;
percent in 1973 from 15.6 percent in 1971; and .'
white students declined to 40.4 percent in 1973 as a‘
pared with 46.4 percent in 1971. I

Family Size

The average size of family is larger for nonwhit - ,
for whites. In 1970 the nonwhite population of Te - _
4.09 persons per family as compared with only 3.54 "
sons per family for whites. h

E ducation

The median number of years of school completf.
the adult population of Texas (persons 25 years of ag é!
over) was 11.6 in 1970. This is an increase of 1.2 years, '
1960, when the median number of years of school‘
pleted was 10.4. At the same time, Texans do not ,
school quite as long as does the nation’s adult popul,
which completed 12.1 years in 1970. Whites in the 
went to school 2.1 years longer on the average thani p“

 
    
 
   

Illlllllllllillllllllllllllllll 
llIllllllllilllllllllllllllll ,
lllllllllllllllllllllll t
lllllllllllfilllllIIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIllllllllllr
llIIllllIllilllIlllllllllllllllllllllll i
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 
lllllllllllililllllllllllllllllllllllllllll f$a$3§€r§o25°°
llllllllll||l||Illlllllllllllllllllllllllll 
IllIIllllIlllllIIIIIIIIllIllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllll

Urbanized Areas

Central Cities

Other Urban

Places of 1,000
to 2,500

Other Rural

Total

I I I I
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Number

Figure 23. Number of whites per 100 nonwhites, by res,
categories, in Texas, 1970. -»

W

i 4.6 years longer than Spanish language or
persons, Figure 24. The advancement in
jjyears of schooling occurred at about the same
I n 1960 and 1970 for whites and nonwhites.
ltly, differences existing between these two
_l 960 neither narrowed nor widened during the

l period.

‘l
er noteworthy difference between various
 ps is their income levels. Various types of
" res are published in census volumes. How-
bf the best measures of income distribution to
g mparing various groups is the median family
is is that level at which one-half of the families
l incomes and the other half smaller incomes.
rmation for 1969 was collected for families
S were enumerated for census purposes in 1970.

 edian 1969 income of the 2,818, 123 families in
\§$8,490, Figure 25. This is an increase of 74
T r the 1959 figure when it was $4,884. How-

 apart of this increase represents a gain in real

' power since prices also rose during this
V median income of Texas families was $1,100
nation’s families which was $9,590 in 1969.

g rable difference exists in family incomes of
l ps in Texas. The median income of all white
r example, exceeded that of nonwhite families

‘ Negro families by $3,569; and Spanish lan-
 mame families by $3,033 in 1969. Futher-
\ increase in dollars per family was greater for
nonwhites between 1959 and 1969. The me-

n

f‘ Language

 

 

 

I I I I I I I
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1O 11 12

Years Completed

 Median years of school completed by the Texas

l 25 years of age and older, by ethnic groups, 1970.

dian family income of white families increased by $3,691
while it was increasing by $2,801 for nonwhite familes
during the decade.

Another way of illustrating income differences for
ethnic groups is by noting the proportionate shares of
their families with incomes below what the Bureau of the
Census defines as the poverty level. In 1969, 12.4 percent
of all white families had incomes below the poverty level
as contrasted with 32.7 percent of all Negro and 31 per-
cent of all Spanish language or surname families with
incomes below the poverty level.

Birth and Death Rates

The Texas State Department of Health annually pub-
lishes vital statistics including information on births,
deaths, marriages and divorces. The racial and ethnic
classifications used by this agency are not precisely the
same as those used by the U. S. Bureau of Census. The
State Department of Health collects and publishes infor-
mation for two groups only—whites and Negroes. Such
groups as Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos and North Ameri-
can Indians are recorded as whites in State Department of
Health statistics but are considered as nonwhites by the
Bureau of the Census. However, these differences have
little effect on the computed white birth and death rates
since the groups previously listed are so small in number
that they have little influence on the statistics for the
white population as a whole.

Based on vital statistics data contained in annual
Texas State Department of Health reports, the white
population has lower birth and death rates than does the
Negro population. There were 20.2 babies born to white

Spanish Language
or Surname

 

 $555? 

Negro

'-.-_"~.-j~._=._'-.-_I.-_I,§g;3_s.;. 

 
 
  
  
 

Nonwh ite

 
 

Efééfalsiii‘;

White

   
  

Total

f M.

\\

' I I I I I I I I I
0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000
Median Income

Figure 25. 1969 median incomes of Texas families, by ethnic
groups.

27

parents per 1,000 persons in the white population of the
State in 1970 as contrasted to 24.7 births per 1,000 in the
Negro population. During this same year there were 8.3
deaths per 1,000 white population and 9.9 deaths per
1,000 Negro population. The drop in the birth rate was
substantial for both groups during the last decade, being
25.1 for whites and 30.7 for Negroes in 1960. The death
rate declined among Negroes during the last 10-year
period from 10.4 to 9. 9 per 1,000 population. However, it
increased for whites from 7.7 in 1960 to 8.3 in 1970. This
increase is chiefly due to the larger numbers of aged in the
white population who are more susceptible to death.

Implications of Changing Racial and Ethnic
Compositions

The kind of people can be more important in some
ways than is the number of people a State has. Changes in
racial and ethnic composition,therefore, have many far-
reaching implications for the Texas population.

It has been demonstrated that each racial and ethnic
group has different birth rates, death rates, sex ratios, and
residential and age distribution patterns. They also have
different educational and income levels and work in dif-
ferent status-level occupations. At the same time, all of
the racial and ethnic groups combine to make up the
population of the State and to play an integral 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 impor-
tant bearing upon the rate of progress that any given state
can expect to make.

Since whites have been increasing at a faster rate
than nonwhites they have also been steadily increasing
their predominance in numbers. However, a reversal of
this long-standing trend took place during the last decade
as nonwhites grew at a faster rate than whites, and
Spanish language or surname persons increased at a
faster rate than the remaining white population. It re-
mains to be seen what the influences of these new trends
might be, particularly if the Negro and Spanish language
or surname populations continue to grow faster than
other whites. However, it should be remembered that in
1970 other whites still outnumbered Spanish language or
surname persons by a ratio of almost 4 to 1 and the Negro
population by a ratio of slightly more than 5 to 1.

The remaining concentration of nonwhites in the
central city portion of big metropolitan centers and of
whites in the suburban fringes has several implications.
On the one hand, because of the lower educational and
income levels of central city residents the ability of the
central cities to obtain the tax revenue to operate desira-
ble public services will be strained. On the other hand, if
public policy continues to support racial integration in
schools it would appear that busing of students from cen-
tral cities to suburbs and vice versa will be increased if the
current racial and ethnic migration patterns between
these two areas continue.

28

   
   
  
   
   
  
   
  
   
   
   
   
  
 
 
 
   
  
   
   
  
   
   
    
 
  
    
   
  

If efforts are increased to mobilize public r j
to improve opportunities of minority groups th l
variety of educational and employment programs, f
is conceivable that this might be more efficiently -‘
out in the big city setting to which these ~-
migrating. At the same time there is the real n f_
that such success would tend to increase the migr A
such persons from rural areasiand smaller towns
metropolitan centers and also tend to further imp'
the fiscal problems of the big cities. At any rate, it g
a long time for the educational, occcupatio‘,
economic levels of minority groups to rise to the
that there will not be major differences between th]
that portion of the white population of Texas s;
relative absence of persons belonging to minority 

POPULATION GROWTH BEYOND

The needs and demands for estimates and 11'
tions of present and future population of states . w‘
ler areas have increased greatly during the past U
Persons in leadership positions are constantly _;_
information about Texas’ newest and future if"
trends and are using this information as a basis f
ning needs for housing, educational programs, ch
hospitals, facilities for the aged, public utilities, u
tation facilities and other important social and -~'
services. Accordingly, an estimate of the J
population for 1973 and projections of various I r a
aspects are provided for 1980. Demographers "_
compute at least three separate series of 68:1 
projections (usually high, medium and low) for 1
year. Each series is based on a different comb‘
assumptions regarding expected birth, death A
tion rates. However, to avoid confusion that l
create in the minds of users of this type of info _
single population estimate for 1973 and only Q;
projected figures for each aspect of population co t,
for 1980 are presented in this publication. 

1973 Population Estimate

The Bureau of the Census has published J
for the population of the nation through July 1, 
for individual states through July 1, 1972. The f
prepared each year in response to requests fors _ "
lation estimates that would be consistent with th _
estimates. The estimates of Texas population, I A
by the Bureau of the Census for July 1, 1971 . 
1972 were obtained by: (1) carrying forward i,
census data for each age cohort; (2) allowing l’
deaths, and net civilian international and inters
ration; (3) allowing for the net movement i
civilians and the Armed Forces; and (4) distribJ
Armed Forces by state, on the estimate date.‘ 

The July 1, 1972 Texas population estimat
tended to July 1, 1973 based on (1) July 1, 1973 _'
the Census U. S. population estimate, and (2) the)
tion that the ratio of population change for Te 
nation as a whole between July 1, 1971 and 1972 
unchanged between July 1, 1972 and 1973. f

  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  

Ton of this particular method resulted in a
* ‘on estimate of 11,782,000 for Texas as of ]uly
if g reflects a gain of approximately 585, 000 over
v ~ period since April 1, 1970. The annual
since 1970 is slightly lower than the average
 1960 and 1970. This is caused largely by a
her of births 0n an annual basis than occured
A- eceding decade.

. F.

1980 Projections

lreau of the Census has published projections
7__- o ulation of states for five-year intervals to
jltemative series of projected figures were
 each of these years, based on assumptions
‘t ffierent future fertility and interstate migra-
i: but only one assumption concerning future
 nds. The projections were also predicated on
'0 assumption that there will be no severe
 - ression, major war, or other similar catas-

‘j- 'es I-E projection was selected for use in this
l" because it appeared to be the most reasonable
 lar time to use in planning for the future.

l, assumes a slightly decreasing birth rate and
 of interstate migration as occurred bet-
and 1970. It indicates a total population for
July 1, 1980 of 12,812,000. This is a projected
 about 1,569,000 people between ]uly 1, 1970
Tand is about 48,000 below the increase of
 rsons experienced in the state between April
7- 1970. The rate of projected population in-
l» rcent) is lower than the growth rate experi-
pg the past decade (17 percent). The slowdown
j population growth is largely due to the ex-
 tinuation of the present low birth rate.

‘ gh the total population is expected to increase
irapid rate in Texas to 1980, the age and sex
r as well as the racial and ethnic and residential
S». patterns are expected to change at varying
any ways these differential rates of growth
jvarious component parts are more important
-_ for specific programs than the growth in total

‘i: end in increasing female predominance in
 expected to continue, with a projected sex
y‘ males per 100 females in 1980 as compared to
iper 100 females in 1970. The projected num-
“te that females will outnumber the male popu-
 -s by about 410, 000 in 1980 as contrasted with
 234,000 in 1970.

‘ 'ons for Texaspopulation by different age
al that some major changes can be expected
 ucers and manufacturers of different types
j and businesses which provide specialized
' vices aimed at specific age groups will be
fly affected by these changes. The public
u e state will feel a major impact of these shifts
4i at different grade levels. For example, the

number of youngsters 5 to 14 years of age is projected to
decrease from 2,327,000 in 1970 to 2,153,000 in 1980.
Thus the number enrolled in the elementary and middle
grade levels will be approximately 174,000 fewer in 1980
than in 1970. Another age group at which there will be
approximately 75,000 fewer in 1980 than 1970 includes
those persons 40 to 49 years old. On the other hand, the
numbers enrolling at the high school level and in colleges
and universities should become considerably greater, be-
cause the number of persons 15 to 19 years of age is
expected to increase by about 99,000 and those 20 to 24
years old by 271,000. Projections for persons 65 years of
age and over indicate a continued rapid increase in the
state’s aged population from 992,000 in 1970 to 1,204,000
by 1980. This is an increase of 212,000 aged persons from
the beginning point to the end of the 1970-80 decade.

Based on the assumptions that the nonwhite popula-
tion of Texas will continue to have higher birth rates than
whites and that their interstate migration patterns will
remain at about the same level as those established bet-
ween 1960 and 1970, the nonwhite population is expected
to grow at a slightly faster rate than the white population
during the current decade. Consequently, nonwhites will
comprise a slightly higher percentage of the States popu-
lation in 1980. Whites are expected to number about
11,082,000 and nonwhites 1,730,000 by Iuly of 1980.

A large part of the population growth taking place in
Texas between 1970 and 1980 is expected to occur in the
urban and especially metropolitan areas. Projections for
1980 by residence are based chiefly on trends occurring
between 1950 and 1970 and upon the assumption that
migration patterns of the immediate past will continue to
1980. This pattern has been one of migration of rural
young people to urban areas but being at least partially
offset by some migration of families from the larger cities
to the outer fringes and commuting to work. By 1980,
urban areas are expected to have approximately 82 per-
cent of the State’s population, with 77 percent of the total
population residing in standard metropolitan statistical
areas.

Implications of Future Growth

The implications of specific population trends occur-
ring during the past decade have been previously dis-
cussed in se arate sections dealing with these trends.
Since most o the projections to 1980 indicate a continua-
tion of these trends, their implications have been previ-
ously touched upon. However, there are a few broad
implications that remain to be pointed out.

First, the number of customers for all types of goods
and services in Texas will continue to grow. 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 services.
Among the problems of Texas government in the next few
years will be the changing enrollments of both secondary
and higher education. While greater needs will exist for
school buildings and teachers in cities, and particularly

29

metropolitan areas, pressure for consolidation will be in-
creased in rural areas.

Considerable planning will have to be done by
further expanding 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 continue to develop beyond the corporate limits of the
central cities and reach further out into rural hinterlands,
and the big cities will continue to be encircled by rapidly
expanding satellite communities. The political power of
rural dwellers is likely to be reduced and while rural roads
may not be increasing in use they will have to be well
maintained for continued productive efiiciency of farms
and ranches. At the same time, the continued concentra-
tion of people in huge metropolitan centers should pro-
vide impetus for planning at the national level for some
type of population redistribution program.

Finally, a larger proportion of the population of Texas
in 1980 will consist of older persons who will be more
economically dependent upon others. The lowering of
age limits for eligibility for retirement, social security and

REFERENCES AND SOURCES

Skrabanek, R. L., A Decade of P0 ulation Change in
Texas. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull 1000. College Sta-
tion, 1963and 1964 (revised).

Texas State Department of Health, Texas Vital Statistics.
Reports for 1940-1970. Austin, various dates.

University of Texas at Austin, Population Research

Center, Population Projections for Texas Counties:
1975-1990. Austin, periodically.

United States Bureau of the Census, U. S. Census of
Population: 1970, “Number of Inhabitants,” Final
Report PC(1)-A45, Texas. Washington, 1971.

United States Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of
Population: 1970, “Number of Inhabitants,” Final
Report PC(1)-A1, United States Summary.
Washington, 1971.

United States Bureau of the Census, U. S. Census of
Population: 1 970, “General Population Characteris-
tics,” Final Report PC(1)-B45, Texas. Washington,
1971.

United States Bureau of the Census, U. S. Census of
Population: 1 970, “General Population Characteris-
tics,” Final Report PC(1)-B1, United States
Summary. Washington, 1972.

United States Bureau of the Census, Current Population
Reports: Population Estimates and Projections,
“Preliminary Projections of the Population of
States: 1975 to 1990,” Series P-25, No. 477, March,

1972.
30

' United States Bureau of the Census, U. S. C‘

  
  
  
  
   
  
   
   
 
   
  
  
    
   
  
  
 
   
    
   
 
  

other programs as well as granting tax and other j_
to this increasingly larger group implies incre,
dens upon those in the productive ages of life. ;

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are appreciative of the assist K
Leonard Copeland and Fredrick A. Maddox, f
associate and research assistant, respectively, for
paration of some of the tables and maps used in th,

The data used in this report are largely 
the printed volumes of the U. S. Bureau of t a;
which are listed among the references. However
data not available in print were derived by com 0 __ '
magnetic summary tapes of the 1970 census bel
the Texas A&M University Library. The assis . if
library in acquiring the summary tapes and a s e
of computer programs from DUALabs is very |~
preciated. Preparation of special tabulations by ='
State Department of Health, through the assis - H
D. Carroll, State Registrar, is also acknowle ;_’
gratitude. l

' l

Population: 1970, “General Social and 
Characteristics," Final Report PC(1)-C4S
Washington, 1972. '1

United States Bureau of the Census, U. S. 
Population: 1970, “General Social and 
Characteristics,” Final Report PC(l)-C1'
States Summary. Washington, 1972.

United States Bureau of the Census, "Fourtlj
Summary Tape, Population File C: 1970 
of Population and Housing.” Washingto 

United States Department of Commerce, A
Bureau Announces Preliminary 1970K
Spanish Surname Population Totals.” 
news release, June, 1972. A

United States Bureau of the Census, Current '.
Reports: Population Estimates and P S‘
“Estimates of the Population of States, by“
1, 1971 and 1972," Series P-25, No. 500, 

United States Bureau of the Census, C urrentP _
Reports: Population Estimates and Pr v
“Estimates of the Population of the Unitedg
July 1, 1973,” Series P-25, N0. 504, Au ~-

1. POPULATION GAINS AND LOSSES, BY COUNTIES, 1960-70

Population Net change, 1960-70 Components 0f change, 1960-70
Natural Net

1970 1960 Number Percent Births Deaths increase migration
11,196,730 9,579,677 1,617,053 16.9 2,246,292 843,609 1,402,683 214,370
27,789 28,162 -373 —1.3 4,573 3,677 896 —-1,269
10,372 13,450 —3,078 —22.9 2,319 579 1,740 —4,818
49,349 39,814 9,535 23.9 9,237 3,973 5,264 4,271
8,902 ‘ 7,006 1,896 27.1 1,423 773 650 1,246
5,759 6,110 —351 —5.7 1,005 524 481 -—832
1,895 1,966 -71 -2.s 241 ‘ 25s -17 -54
18,696 18,828 — 132 —0.7 4,179 1,764 2,415 —2,547
13,831 13,777 54 0.4 1,998 1,803 195 — 141
8,487 9,090 —603 —6.6 2,228 671 1,557 ——2,160
4,747 3,892 855 22.0 513 544 —31 886
17,297 16,925 372 2.2 2,846 2,381 465 —-93
5,221 5,893 —672 —-11.4 898 686 212 —884
22,737 23,755 -1,018 —4.3 6,068 1,760 4,308 —5,326
124,483 94,097 30,386 32.3 30,817 7,676 23,141 7,245
830,460 687,151 143,309 20.9 184,445 55,7 85 128,660 14,649
3,567 3,657 —-90 —2.5 570 539 31 —121
888 1,076 — 188 — 17.5 96 63 33 -221
10,966 10,809 157 1.5 1,229 1,746 —517 674
67,813 59,971 7 ,842 13.1 12,139 6,249 5,890 1,952
108,312 76,204 32,108 42.1 17,758 5,305 12,453 19,655
57,978 44,895 13,083 29.1 11,643 3,630 8,013 5,070
7,780 6,434 1,346 20.9 1,559 549 1,010 336
2,794 3,577 —783 -21.9 713 329 384 —1,167
8,005 8,609 —604 —7 .0 2,237 609 1,628 — 2,232
25,877 24,728 1,149 . 4.6 4,080 3,358 722 427
9,999 11,177 —1,178 -—10.5 1,667 1.432 235 —1,413
11,420 9,265 2,155 23.3 1,477 1,289 188 1,967
21,178 17,222 3,956 23.0 3,255 2,137 1,118 2,838
17,831 16,592 1,239 7.5 4,647 1,030 3,617 —2,378
8,205 7,929 276 3.5 1,030 1,122 — 92 368
140,368 151,098 — 10,730 — 7.1 43,952 10,090 33,862 — 44,592
8,005 7,849 156 2.0 1,478 1,035 443 — 287
6,358 7,781 -1,423 — 18.3 1,352 582 770 —2,193
24,133 23,496 637 2.7 3,987 2,755 1,232 -— 595
10,394 8,923 1,471 16.5 2,729 568 2,161 —690
12,187 10,379 1,808 17.4 1,968 871 1,097 711
32,008 33,120 -—1,112 —3.4 4,902 3,813 1,089 —2,201
6,605 8,421 —1,816 —21.6 1,213 1,098 115 —1,931
8,079 8,351 —272 —3.3 959 963 ——4 -268
5,326 6,417 —1,091 -17.0 1,681 419 1,262 —2,353
3,087 3,589 — 502 -14.0 482 380 102 -— 604
10,288 12,458 —2,170 -17.4 1,514 1,809 —295 — 1,875
66,920 41 ,247 25,673 62.2 10,704 5,060 5,644 20,029
4,755 6,276 — 1,521 —24.2 874 741 133 —1,654
17,638 18,463 —825 —4.5 3,020 2,025 995 — 1,820
24,165 19,844 4,321 21.8 4,149 1,934 2,215 2,106
11,898 11,865 33 0.3 1,588 1,949 — 361 394
2,937 3,672 —735 —20.0 530 356 174 —909
23,471; 22,560 911 4.0 3,709 2,673 1,036 — 125
35,3111 23,961 11,350 47 .4 5,512 1,877 3,635 7,715
3,204 4,207 — 1,003 —23.8 748 498 250 —1,253
4,172 4,699 —-527 —11.2 848 264 584 —1,111
3,885 4,209 —324 ——7.7 990 269 721 — 1,045
9,085 10,347 -—1,262 -— 12.2 2,843 885 1,958 — 3,220
3,429 2,794 635 22.7 850 184 666 -—31

--_,__

31

APPENDIX TABLE 1. POPULATION GAINS AND LO"SES, BY COUNTIEQ, 1960-70 (Continued)

County Population Net change, 1960-70 Components of change, 1960-70 ji
Natural
1970 1960 Number Percent Births Deaths increase
Dallam 6,012 6,302 —290 -4.6 1,249 602 647
Dallas 1,327,321 951,527 375,794 39.5 253,512 81,242 172,270
Dawson 16,604 19,185 —2,581 -- 13.5 4,912 1,478, f‘ 3,434
Deaf Smith 18,999 13,187 5,812 44.1 5,039 1,123 ' "i 3,916
Delta 4,927 5,860 —933 —- 15.9 660 871 —211
Denton 75,633 47,432 28,201 59.5 10,610 4,521 6,089
Dewitt 18,660 20,683 —2,023 —9.8 3,304 2,573 731
Dickens 3,737 4,963 — 1,226 —24.7 828 557 271
Dimmit 9,039 10,095 — 1,056 -10.5 2,556 739 1,817
Donley 3,641 4,449 —808 — 18.2 555 685 -130
Duval 11,722 13,398 — 1,676 — 12.5 3,077 1,046 2,031
Eastland 18,092 19,526 — 1,434 —7.3 2,286 3,109 —823
Ector 91,805 90,995 810 0.9 20,066 4,643 15,423
Edwards 2,107 2,317 —210 —9.1 500 218 282
Ellis 46,638 43,395 3,243 7.5 8,261 5,079 3,182
E1 Paso 359,291 314,070 45,221 14.4 94,376 19,409 74,967
Erath 18,141 16,236 1,905 11.7 2,057 2,496 —439
Falls 17,300 21,263 —3,963 — 18.6 2,832 2,840 -8
Fannin 22,705 23,880 — 1,175 —4.9 2,959 3,359 —400
Fayette 17,650 20,384 —2,734 -13.4 2,123 2,869 -746
Fisher 6,344 7,865 — 1,521 — 19.3 1,330 838 492
Floyd 11,044 12,369 — 1,325 — 10.7 3,171 1,089 2,082
Foard 2,211 3,125 —914 —29.2 412 372 40
Fort Bend 52,314 40,527 11,787 29.1 9,961 3,141 6,820
Franklin 5,291 5,101 190 3.7 621 617 4
Freestone 11,116 12,525 — 1,409 -11.2 1,410 1,756 —346
Frio 11,159 10,112 1,047 10.4 2,966 892 2,074
Gaines 11,593 12,267 —674 A —5.5 3,059 840 2,219
Galveston 169,812 140,364 29,448 21.0 30,961 12,709 18,252
Garza 5,289 6,611 — 1 ,322 —20.0 1,363 584 779
Gillespie 10,553 10,048 505 5.0 1,522 1,274 248
Glasscock 1,155 1,118 37 3.3 207 55 152
Goliad 4,869 5,429 —560 -10.3 840 622 218
Gonzales 16,375 17,845 —1,470 —8.2 3,154 2,183 971
Gray 26,949 31,535 —4,586 -14.5 5,111 2,336 2,775
Grayson 83,225 73,043 10,182 13.9 14,205 8,617 5,588
Gregg 75,929 69,436 6,493 9.4 14,009 6,700 7,309
Grimes 11,855 12,709 —854 —6.7 2,153 1,866 287
Guadalupe 33,554 29,017 14,537 15.6 6,229 2,871 3,358
Hale 34,137 36,798 —2,661 —7.2 9,651 2,954 6,697
Hall 6,015 7,322 — 1,307 — 17 .9 1,308 878 430
Hamilton 7,198 8,488 —- 1,290 -15.2 764 1,347 —583
Hansford 6,351 6,208 143 2.3 1,308 382 926
Hardeman 6,795 8,275 —1,480 -17.9 1,327 1,048 279
Hardin 29,996 24,629 5,367 21.8 5,151 2,333 2,818
Harris » 1,741,912 1,243,158 498,754 40.1 329,452 102,193 227,259
Harrison 44,841 ' 45,594 ——753 — 1.7 7,250 4,533 2,717
Hartley 2,782 2,171 611 28.1 398 226 172
Haskell 8,512 11,174 —2,662 —23.8 1,803 1,225 578
Hays 27,642 19,934 7 ,7 08 38.7 4,777 1,866 2,911
Hemphill 3,084 3,185 -101 -3.2 556 331 225
Henderson 26,466 21,786 4,680 21.5 3,769 2,920 849
Hidalgo 181,535 180,904 631 0.3 54,864 11,319 43,545
Hill 22,596 23,650 -- 1,054 -—4.5 3,017 3,672 —655
Hockley 20,396 22,340 — 1,944 —8.7 5,361 1,450 3,911
Hood 6,368 5,443 925 17.0 821 818 3
Hopkins 20,710 18,594 2,116 11.4 2,939 2,547 392
Houston 17,855 19,376 — 1,521 -—7.8 2,531 2,252 279
Howard 37,796 40,139 —2,343 —5 8 10,164 2,800 7,364

Hudspeth 2,392 3,343 —951 —28:4 730 167 563

32

1. POPULATION GAINS AND LO".SES, BY COUNTIE8, 1960-70 (Continued)
"Population Net change, 1960-70 Corrponents of change, 1960—70
Natural Net

1970 1960 Number Percent Births Deaths increase migration
47,948 39,399 8,549 21.7 6,896 4,766 2,130 6,419
24,443 34,419 —9,976 -29.0 5,235 1,800 3,435 -— 13,411
1,070 1,183 -113 —9.6 148 114 34 —147
6,711 7,418 —707 —9.5 899 783 116 —823
12,975 14,040 — 1,065 ——7 .6 2,599 1,177 1,422 — 2,487
24,692 22,100 2,592 11.7 4,700 2,269 2,431 161
1,527 1,582 —55 —3.5 256 115 141 —196
244,773 245,659 —886 —0.4 48,590 19,734 28,856 —29,742
4,654 5,022 —— 368 —7.3 1,178 376 802 -— 1,170
33,032 34,548 — 1,516 —4.4 8,296 2,381 5,915 v —7,431
45,769 34,720 11,049 31.8 6,630 4,240 2,390 8,659
16,106 19,299 — 3,193 -16.5 3,094 2,245 849 —4,042
13,462 14,995 —1,533 —10.2 3,153 1,529 1,624 —3,157
32,392 29,931 2,461 8.2 5,009 3,720 1,289 1,172
6,964 5,889 1,075 18.3 1,018 786 232 843
678 884 —206 —23.3 157 40 117 —323
1,434 1,727 —293 — 17.0 241 143 98 — 391
19,454 16,800 2,654 15.8 2,750 2,248 502 2,152
3,904 3,943 — 39 —1.0 780 476 304 -— 343
464 640 — 176 —27.5 82 32 50 —226
2,006 2,452 —446 —18.2 533 228 305 —751
33,166 30,052 3,114 10.4 8,429 1,859 6,570 —3,456
5,972 7,857 - 1,885 —24.0 1,352 793 559 —2,444
36,062 34,234 1,828 5.3 6,518 4,809 1,709 1 19
17,770 21,896 —4,126 —18.8 5,257 1,732 3,525 —7,651
9,323 9,418 —95 -1.0 1,631 1,229 402 —497
5,014 5,972 —958 —16.0 1,342 485 857 1,815
17,903 20,174 —2,271 —11.3 2,674 2,527 147 —2,418
8,048 8,949 —901 —‘l0.1 1,099 1,117 -—18 —883
8,738 9,951 —1,213 —12.2 1,229 1,358 —129 -—1,084
33,014 31,595 1,419 4.5 6,315 3,238 3,077 —1,658
18,100 20,413 ——2,313 —11.3 2,182 2,767 —585 —1,728
3,486 3,406 80 2.3 467 302 165 —85
6,697 7,846 — 1 ,149 — 14.6 1,396 624 772 — 1,921
6,979 5,240 1,739 33.2 676 903 — 227 1,966
164 226 —62 —27.2 12 16 -4 -58
179,295 156,271 23,024 14.7 44,572 10,596 33,976 — 10,952
9,107 10,914 —1,807 — 16.6 2,684 876 1,808 —3,615
8,571 8,815 —244 —2.8 1,419 1,253 166 -410
147,553 150,091 —2,538 —1.7 28,627 15,189 13,438 —15,976
1,095 1,116 ~21 —1.9 175 97 78 —99
7,693 6,749 944 14.0 1,092 956 136 808
8,517 8,049 468 5.8 1,230 1 ,018 212 256
4,774 5,068 —294 —5.8 1,130 296 734 — 1,028
3,356 3,780 —424 -11.2 547 541 6 —430
27,913 25,744 2,169 8.4 6,033 2,390 3,643 — 1,474
18,093 14,508 3,585 24.7 6,043 987 5 ,056 — 1,471
20,249 18,904 1,345 7.1 4,119 1,718 2,401 ——1,056
2,646 2,964 — 318 -10.7 492 404 88 —406
65,433 67,717 —2,284 —3.4 13,471 3,375 10,096 — 12,380
20,028 22,263 —2,235 —- 10.0 3,273 2,812 461 —2,696
4,212 4,467 —255 —5.7 417 677 —260 5
9,073 lj . 11,255 —2,182 —19.4 2,280 1,181 1,099 —3,281
15,326 " 14,893 433 2.9 1,995 2,125 —130 563
49,479 26,839 22,640 84.4 5,196 2,976 2,220 20,420
14,060 14,773 ——713 —4.8 2,870 765 2,105 —2,818
12,310 12,576 —266 —2.1 1,941 1,209 732 —998
2,178 2,870 —692 —24.1 409 329 80 —772
. 36,362 28,046 8,316 29.7 5,331 3,264 2,067 6,249
31,150 34,423 —3,273 —9.5 4,889 4,422 467 —3,740

33

APPENDIX TABLE 1. POPULATION GAINS AND LOSSES, BY COUNTIES, 1960-70 (Continued)

County Population Net change, 1960-70 Components of change, 1960-70
Natural
1970 1960 Number Percent Births Deaths increase
Newton 11,657 10,372 1,285 12.4 1,948 1,047 901
Nolan 16,220 18,963 -—2,743 — 14.5 3,371 1,927 1,444
Nueces 237,544 221,573 15,971 7.2 57,400 14,763 I" 42,637
Ochiltree 9,704 9,380 324 3.5 2,215 627 "i 1,588
Oldham 2,258 1,928 330 17.1 423 147 276
Orange 71,170 60,357 10,813 17.9 14,095 4,204 9,891
Palo Pinto 28,962 20,516 8,446 41.2 5,856 2,577 3,279
Panola 15,894 16,870 -97 6 —5.8 2,009 1,737 272
Parker 33,888 22,880 11,008 48.1 4,074 2,715 1,359
Parmer 10,509 9,583 926 9.7 2,347 588 1,759
Pecos 13,748 11,957 1,791 15.0 3,130 748 2,382
Polk 14,457 13,861 596 4.3 2,535 1,779 756
P6tter 90,511 115,580 —25,069 -21.7 25,465 8,525 16,940
Presidio 4,842 5,460 —6 1 8 -—11.3 1,240 434 806
Rains 3,752 2,993 759 25.4 325 460 —~ 135
Randall 53,885 33,913 19,972 58.9 8,122 1,981 6,141
Reagan 3,239 3,782 —543 — 14.4 638 201 437
Real 2,013 2,079 —66 —3.2 424 205 219
Red River 14,298 15,682 —1,384 —8.8 2,316 2,165 151
Reeves 16,526 17,644 — 1,1 18 —6.3 4,846 1,137 3,709
Refugio 9,494 10,975 — 1,481 -13.5 2,242 881 1,361
Roberts 967 1,075 — 108 — 10.0 136 104 32
Robertson 14,389 16,157 1,768 -10.9 2,895 2,040 855
Rockwall 7,046 5,878 1,168 19.9 1,076 692 384
Runnels 12,108 15,016 ——2,908 -19.4 2,446 1,680 766
Rusk 34,102 36,421 —2,319 —6.4 5,113 4,159 954
Sabine 7,187 7,302 —115 —1.6 1,301 915 386
San Augustine 7,858 7,722 136 ’ 1.8 1,419 783 636
San jacinto 6,702 6,153 549 8.9 797 681 116
San Patricio 47,288 45,021 2,267 5.0 11,743 3,305 8,438
San Saba 5,540 6,381 —841 —-13.2 889 884 5
Schleicher 2,277 2,791 —5 14 — 18.4 426 246 180
Scurry 15,760 20,369 —4,609 — 22.6 3,250 1,433 1,817
Shackelford 3,323 3,990 -67 7 — 16.7 429 472 —43
Shelby 19,672 20,479 —807 ——3.9 3,430 2,624 806
Sherman 3,657 2,605 1,052 40.4 481 222 259
Smith 97,096 86,350 10,746 12.4 17,768 8,299 9,469
Somervell 2,793 2,577 216 8.4 336 367 —31
Starr 17,707 17,137 570 3.3 5,169 1,058 4,111
Stephens 8,414 8,885 —471 —5.3 1,230 1,171 59
Sterling 1,056 1,177 —121 —10.3 222 113 109
Stonewall 2,397 3,017 ——620 —20.6 414 327 87
Stilton 3,175 3,738 —563 ——15.1 819 283 536
Swisher 10,373 10,607 —234 —2.2 2,855 887 1,968
Tarrant 716,317 538,495 177,822 33.0 126,473 47,175 79,298
Taylor . 97,853 101,078 —3,225 —3.2 23,062 7,077 15,985
Terrell 1 ,940 t 2,600 — 660 — 25 .4 378 174 204
Terry 14,118 16,286 —2,168 -— 13.3 4,440 1,250 3,190
Throekmorton 2,205 2,767 —562 —-20.3 319 a 359 ~40
Titus 16,702 16,785 —83 —0.5 2,883 1,975 908
Tom Green 71,047 64,630 6,417 9.9 14,723 6,173 8,550
Travis 295,516 212,136 83,380 39.3 53,483 16,652 36,831
Trinity 7,628 7,539 89 1.2 1,085 1,038 47
Tyler 12,417 10,666 1,751 16.4 1,971 1,313 658
Upshur 20,976 19,793 1,183 6.0 3,073 2,303 770
Upton 4,697 6,239 — 1,542 — 24.7 1,104 349 755
Uvalde 17,348 16,814 534 3.2 4,048 1,628 2,420
Val Verde 27,471 24,461 3,010 12.3 8,849 1,827 7,022
Van Zandt 22,155 19,091 3,064 16.0 2,556 2,541 15
Victoria 53,766 46,475 7,291 15.7 11,883 3,720 8,163

34

' ' 1. POPULATION GAINS

AND LOSSES,

BY COUNTIES, 1960-70 (Continued)

Population Net change, 1960-70 Components of change, 1960-70
Natural Net
1970 1960 Number Percent Births Deaths increase migration

27,680 21,475 6,205 28.9 3,091 1,846 1,245 4,960

14,285 12,071 2,214 18.3 2,196 1,262 934 1,280

13,019 14,917 —- 1,898 — 12.7 3,008 933 2,075 — 3,973

18,842 19,145 -303 — 1.6 2,951 2,540 411 —714

72,859 64,791 8,068 12.5 22,485 4,757 17,728 —9,660
36,729 38,152 — 1,423 -3.7 7,650 3,480 4,170 —5,593

6,434 7,947 —1,513 —19.0 1,116 899 217 —1,730
121,862 ' 123,528 —2,965 ~2.4 25,955 9,374 16,581 —-18,247
15,355 17,748 —2,393 -13.5 2,786 1,987 799 —3,192
15,570 20,084 —4,514 —-22 .5 5,085 1,219 3,866 — 8,380

i 37,305 35,044 2,261 6.5 6,403 4,087 2,316 —55
ll 13,041 13,267 —226 —1.7 2,582 1,349 1,233 —1,459
1 9,640 13,652 —4,012 —29.4 2,375 715 1,660 ——5,672

1 . 19,687 17,012 2,675 15.7 2,926 2,101 825 1,850
18,589 17,653 936 5.3 2,327 2,521 — 194 1,130

i _ 7,344 8,032 —668 —8.6 1,675 435 1,240 — 1,928
 * 15,400 17,254 —l,854 —10.7 2,135 1,847 288 —2,l42
,  4,352 4,393 —41 —0.9 974 297 677 —-7 18
 11,370 12,696 — 1,326 —- 10.4 3,660 875 2,785 —4,1 ll

. ,

  
  
  

,:
‘v

11,111. S. Census of Population:

nil-r of the Census, U.S. Census of Population: 1960, Volume 1, Characteristics of the Population. Part 45, Texas,
1970, Advance Report PC(V1)—45, Texas.

‘te Department of Health, Texas Vital Statistics, 1961 . . . 1968, and advance copies of final 1969 figures. Appreci-
I i: expressed to W. D. Carroll, State Registrar, for providing data for April-December 1960, and for provisional
w -r~ for January-March 1970.

 

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 0 THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY S '

l

 

a 4

 
 
    
  
     
   
   
  

.i
‘t

‘I

MAIN STATION UNlTS—COLI.EGE STATION i

COLLEGE or AGRICULTURE COLLEGE or VETERINARY MED"

Agricultural Economics Veterinary Medicine and Surgery I
Agricultural Engineering Veterinary Microbiology i
Animal Science Veterinary Parasitology 
Biochemistry and Biophysics Veterinary Pathology f‘;
Consumer Research Center Veterinary Physiology and Pharm‘

Entomology Veterinary Public Health

Forest Science AGRICULTURAL ANALYTICAL
Plant Science STATE CHEMIST .,
Poultry Science AGRICULTURAL COMMUNICATI
Range Science FEED AND FERTILIZER CONTR "
Recreation and Parks SERVICE y 
Rural Sociology FOUNDATION SEED SERVICE f,
Soil and Crop Sciences POULTRY DIAGNOSTIC LABORA-

Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences TEXAS WATER RESOURCES ms I

I
~;
w
a .

RESEARCH CENTERS AND STATIONS _

Texas AScM University Agricultural Research and Extension Center at AMARILLO

Texas A8¢M University Agricultural Research and Extension Center at BEAUMONT
Texas AScM University Agricultural Research Station at ANGLETON

Texas AScM University Agricultural Research and Extension Center at CHILLICOTHE-_
Texas A8cM University Agricultural Research Station at IOWA PARK I‘
Texas A8cM University Vegetable Station at MUNDAY I
Texas A8cM University Agricultural Research Station at SPUR ,
Texas Experimental Ranch, THROCKMORTON "

Texas A8cM University Agricultural Research and Extension Center at CORPUS CHRI
Texas A8cM University Agricultural Research Station at BEEVILLE ii

I
Texas A8¢M University Research and Extension Center at DALLAS 3 ~

Texas A8cM University Agricultural Research Center at EL PASO i
Texas A8cM University Agricultural Research Station at PECOS 

Texas A8¢M University Agricultural Research and Extension Center at LUBBOCK j;
Texas AScM University-Texas Tech University Cooperative Research Unit at LUBBOCKQ
Texas AScM University Agricultural Research Center at McGREGOR l
Texas A8¢M University Agricultural Research and Extension Center at OVERTON

Prairie View-Texas A8¢M University Research Center at PRAIRIE VIEW 

Texas A8cM University Agricultural Research and Extension Center at SAN ANGELO
Texas AScM University Agricultural Research Station at SONORA
Texas Range Station, BARNHART

Texas A8cM University-Tarleton Experiment Station at STEPHENVILLE
Texas A8cM University Fruit Research-Demonstration Station at MONTAGUE

Blackland Research Center at TEMPLE

Texas AScM University Agricultural Research and Extension Center at UVALDE 
Texas A8cM University Agricultural Research and Extension Center at WESLACO 
Texas A8eM University-Texas A&I University Cooperative Research Unit at WESLACO _’
Texas A8cM University Plant Disease Research Station at YOAKUM I

i‘
\
N

l

The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, ]. E. Miller, Director, College Station, Texas

12M—4-74