Series P-25, No. 404 September 27, 1968 ESTIMATES OF THE POPULATION OF COUNTIES: JULY 1, 1966* (Report No.2) (Estimates shown here are generally consistent with those published for metropolitan counties for July 1,1965, shown in Current Population Reports, Series P-25, Nos. 371 and 378.~! They supersede the provisional metropolitan county estimates for ,July 1, 1966, shown in Report No. 378) This report presents estimates of the popu­ County estimates for 1966 for the following 20 lation for July 1, 1966, for 945 counties in 17 States were published earlier in Current Population selec,tedi States. This is the second of three Reports, Series P-25, No. 401: Arkansas, Cali­ reports ,showing population estimates for all the fornia, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, counties' in the United States for July 1, 1966. Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Min­ These estimates relate to the total resident popu­ nesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North lation in each county; that is, the civilian resident Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, population plus members of the Armed Forces Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. stationed in the area<. The States covered in this report are: METHODOLOGY Alabama North Dakota Arizona Oregon Three methods are employed by the Bureau of Colorado South Carolina the Census in developing current county estimates. Georgia South Dakota They are (1) the Bureau's Component Method It, Hawaii Tennessee which employs vital statistics to measure natural Kentucky Utah increase and school enrollment (or school census) Mississippi Washington data as a basis for measuring· net migration; Nevada Wyoming (2) a composite method, in which separate esti­ New Mexico mates are prepared for different segments of the population using different types of current data Estimates are shown for July 1, 1966, for each for each group; and (3) a housing unit method, in county in theSE! States, with the components of which estimated changes in the number of occupied population change (births, deaths, and net migration) housing units are used as the basis for estimating for the period since April 1, 1960. changes in population. * These estimates were prepared in the State and Local Population Estimates and Projections Branch, Population Division, in connection with a contractual arrangement to provide data for metropolitan areas and counties to the following Federal agencies: the Office of Civil Defense, the Economic Development Administration (Department of Conunerce), the Office of Transportation Information Planning (Department of Transportation), and the Defense Communications Agency (Department of Defense). For sale by the Superinteruf.ent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402, 15 cents. Annual subscription (Series P-20, P-23, P-25, P-27, P-28 summaries, P-60, and P'-65, combined), $5 .. 00; foreign mailing, $6.50. 2 The methodology used in developing current counties indicated as metropolitan are whole­ estimates by these three methods is discussed in county approximations to the SMSA's. A detailed Series P-25, No. 371. A detailed step-by-step explanation of the criteria used in establishing outline of Component Method II is presented in SMSA's is given in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Series P-25, No. 339. Areas, Executive Office of the President, Bureau of the Budget, 1967. For tbis report, all three methods were em­ ployed in! developing estimates for metropolitan ROUNDING OF ESTIMATES counties in all States and for the nonmetropolitan counties in Hawaii and Washington. 1 For all Estimates presented in the tables contained in remaining counties, estimates. were developed by this report have been rounded to the nearest Component Method II and the Composite method hundred for counties and to the nearest thousand only. The results of the two or three methods for States without being adjusted to group totals, were then averaged. which are independently rounded. Percentages are based on unrounded numbers. As a final step, the average estimates for the counties in each State were summed and adjusted to an independent State total published in Current FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATIVE PROGRAM Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 380. Ad­ FOR LOCAL POPULATION ESTIMATES ditional adjustments were made as needed in speciaV population groups, such as college and The estimates presented in this report are a institutlonal populations, since the regular esti­ "one-time" set of estimates prepared by the Bureau mating methodology would not be expected to reflect of the Census as a by-product of a larger project fully any large or unusual changes in these groups. now under way for a number of Federal agencies. Preparation of corresponding annual postcensal Spedial estimates for selected areas.--For a estimates for all the counties in the country is not number of areas, additional data are available for now part of the Census Bureau's program. In use in the preparation of popUlation estimates. recognition of the widespread need for small-area Such sources as special censuses conducted by the popUlation estimates of uniform quality from State Bureau of the Census since 1960 and the censuses to State, the Bureau of the Census has been de­ conducted by State or county governments have veloping a cooperative program with the States been drawn upon. Counties where estimates have for the preparation and publication of county popu­ been prepared using these special data sources lation estimates. The ultimate objective of the are footnoted in the table. cooperative program is the development and publi­ cation of State-prepared county population figures, LIMITATIONS by preferred methods, largely standarized for data input and methods mutually agreed upon by the A detailed discussion of the limitations of the States and the Bureau of the Census. various methods used in the preparation of metro­ politan county estimates and of the relationship of The selection of methods will be made on the estimates prepared by each method to the published basis of a large-scale test and evaluation program average of methods is contained in report No. 371. to be carried out when the 1970 Census results A large proportion of the counties for which esti­ become available. To date (as of September 1, mates'are presented in this report,however, 1968) 40 States have agreed to participate in the had a population under 20,000. The estimates for program, working with the Census Bureau to these smaller areas may not have as high a level achieve the goals described above. A listing of of accuracy, on the average, as those for large the States and the agencies designated by State metropolitan areas. governors to work with the Bureau of the Census on the technical aspects of the program is given DEFINITIONS in the appendix. 2 Metropolitan counties are those counties in­ During this past year, several States have cluded in standard metropolitan statistical areas published county population estimates in consul­ (SMSA's) as of June 1968. In New England, how­ tatioH with the Bureau of the Census, usmg ever, SMSA's are defined in terms of towns and Cities, rather than counties. The New England 2 For a more detailed description of the pro­ gram, see, Meyer Zitter, "Federal-State Cooperative 1 Housing unit estimates were developed for non­ Program for Local Population Estimates," The Regis­ metropolitan counties where evidence indicated that trar and Statistician, U.S. Department of Health, completeness of coverage of areas reporting resi­ Education, and Welfare, Vol. 33, No.1, January dential building permits' issued was very high. 1968. 3 methodology largely within the general framework Leonard M. Sizer, Estimates of the Population of the goals of the Federal-State Cooperative of West Virginia Counties, July 1, 1950-1966, program.···TheStaie~preparea~county-estfmates November 1967, Office of Research and De­ are contained in the following reports: velopment, Center of Appalachian Studies and Development, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia. Population Estimates of Arizona, July 1, 1967, In general, the State-prepared county population Research and Reports Section, Unemployment figures differ only slightly from those contained Compensation Division, Employment Security in this report, and the pattern of population re­ Commission of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona. distribution since 1960 is quite similar for both sets. Small differences in the two sets of esti­ mates come about because of differences in data Forrest H. Pollard, "Preliminary Estimates of input, differences in the specific methods used in the Population of Louisiana Parishes: July 1, arriving at final "average" estimates, or as is the 1966." The Louisiana Economy, Volume 1, case in Arizona, a difference in the total State No.1, April 1968, Division of Business and population to which the county estimates were Economic Research, School of Business Admin­ adjusted. istration, Louisiana Polytechnic Institute, P.O. Box 5796, Tech Station, Ruston, Louisiana. In later years, should the objectives of the Federal-State Cooperative Program for Local Population Estimates be realized, the .Bureau of C.Horace Hamilton, Estimates of the Popu­ the Census would publish State-prepared estimates lation of North Carolina Counties, 1966 and 1967, similar to those published in the above-mentioned Demographic ReportH-l, May 1968, Statistical reports in lieu of preparing its own estimates. Service Center, Budget Division, State Depart­ In all such instances, however, the sum of the ment of Adminlstrat:l.()n, Raleigh; and Carolina county estimates would be in agreement With the Population Center, University of North Carolina independently prepared State population estimates at Chapel Hill, North Carolina. ' regularly published in this series of reports. 4 ESTIMATES OF THE POPULATION OF COUNTIES, JULY 1, 1966, AND COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANGE SINCE APRIL 1,1960 (Asterisk (*) indicates metropolitan county. State estimates are shown to the nearest thousand, county estimates to the nearest hundred) Change, Components of change Population 1960 to 1966 state and county Net July 1, Percent Births Deaths 1966 migratIon ------l------,- -----1--'---- ALABAMA:..••....•.....•..••.•.•.