The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFlorida Estimates of PopulationFr7 I- V/11� General Development Corporation February 6, 1976 C. C. Osterbind Director, Bureau of Economic & Business Research College of Business Administration University of Florida 221 Matherly Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 Dear Mr. Osterbind: During an independent study, my attention was drawn to a possible problem in the 1974 estimation of population for the City of Sebastian, within Indian River County. This estimate as you are aware is used for State Revenue Sharing distributions in the fiscal year 1975-1976. Your methodology of estimating the number of housing units (Housing Unit Method) obviously cannot be disputed. However, I have some problems in the second variable you use in determining population, number of persons occupying a housing unit. The essence of this problem, as extracted from the attachment, is that the U.S. Department of Commerce figures"reflect an increase from 2.6084 persons per housing unit in 1960 to 2.6140 in 1970. However, your publications indicate a decrease from 2.6084 to 2.5510 persons in 1970. I am even more concerned that your estimate declined another 8% between 1970's estimate of 2.5510 persons per housing unit and 1973's estimate of 2.3379 persons per housing unit. The impact of this smaller estimated persons per housing unit could be causing Indian River County and their City of Sebastian to be enjoying 12% lesser state revenues than if 2.61 persons per housing unit were used. I would be interested in examining the detailed assumptions justifying this 0.2761 reduction in persons per housing unit. J. Thomas Campbell American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association National Association of Business Economists American Statistical Association American Economics Association cc: Florida Department of Administration City of Sebastian _ Indian River County W. Allen - General Development Corporation C. C. Crump - General Development Corporation JTC/j Id -- 1 ; ! ' nlh Bayshore Drive. Miami, Florida 33131 1 cielOhnn'' " n 1"0 I INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PERSONS PER HOUSING UNIT AND 1974 POPULATION LEVELS , 1960 1970 1973 1974 Population Housing POP./HU Population Housing POP/HU Population Housing POP/HU Population U.S. Department of Commerce Data Data Source County & City Data Book - 1972 Social & Economic Statistics Section Bureau of Census Indian River County 25,309 9,703 = 2.6084 35,992 13,769 = 2.6140 University of Florida Data Data Source Florida Estimates of Population, 1973 & 1974, & Florida's Housing Inventory April 1974. Division of Population Studies Indian River County City of Sebastian (Housing Units Computed) General Development Corporation Computations Population Using Iniversity of Florida Housing Data and 2.610 as Population Per Housing Unit 25,309 9,703 = 2.6084 35,992 14,109 = 2.5510 825 323 = 2.5510 43,383 18,556 = 2.3379 45,038 1,201 514 = 2.3379 1,327 Indian River County 48,431 18,556 = 2.61 50,279 City of Sebastian 1,342 514 = 2.61 1,482 F1 d f 1 , 1 y: ! i r '1 b � 1 r Y• iii/ t t', !�1# . I Y7S 1 5 .y r A f is t , • d - i. prepared by !1BUREAUOF • • AND BUSINESS RESEARCH COLL&GE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION n. �iUNIVERSITY OF •' •A' the I t ' �5•. _ r r ..f .fr. ice' I � h'•. - � • ! ,t `University The Presses of Florida �' 1. '� 1'��'X ak i 1 � � r is � � ��'%` i � �:. �, ,��',��h . t i �,• 1 �t �-i ��. ° � p.,C e I t ��KF�,ti ,J55d.- ��'�b t � i t - t t .. �� •�, �'.5 t �r. , .i •7 ' t Pip i t ' - 1• � , I H fl Y I �' ! •` b t �; a < ' f � ( f 1 '^!' i t r' �., �'� �.� ' � Ja I'Y) � t � II t �. �,�,. y' ��Y� �'I flr . t � ( 6' x . j 2.00H ousing Table 2.10. HOUSING UNITS --HOUSING UNITS IN THE STATE AND COUNTIES OF FLORIDA: 1960, 1970, AND 1973 Average annual percentage Multi -family units iI, change of as percentage housing units of total units Total housing units 4 -i - 6o -1-70 Esti- Census Census Estimate to to Census Census mate County 4-1-60 4-1-70 7-1-73 4-1-70 7-1-73 4-1-60 4-1-70 7-1-73 FLORIDA 1+7769945 2.526.612 3+140+675 4.2 7.5 17.7 23.7 28.6 k, Alachua 21.978 33+538 41+397 5.3 7.2 15.1 23.8 29.5 Baker 19951 2.352 3,204 2.1 11.2 3.0 3.4 2.9 Bay 21,680 269978 319661 2.4 5.3 12.5 13.1 12.9 Bradford 4.019 49626 59236 1.5 4.1 4.2 5.8 6.6 .i Brevard 369852 77,981 889486 11.2 4.1 9.7 21.2 21.9 S Broward 1289559 253+325 330.926 9.7 9.4 19.5 35.2 43.5 'F Calhoun 29403 29710 39038 1.3 3.7 1.5 2.7 2.7 "0 Charlotte 69188 139752 18.839 12.2 11.4 7.6 7.8 10.9 Citrus 49512 99769 17,667 11.6 24.9 4.5 5.3 6.1 Clay 79164 109988 15,291 5.3 12.0 12.2 12.0 15.8 t Collier 59950 179580 28,542 19.6 19.2 11.9 28.9 39.9 ;,; Columbia 6,377 8,450 109014 3.2 5.7 6.3 8.9 8.6 k Dade 348+904 453,908 525,358 3.0 4.8 33.4 41.6 46.8 De Soto 39399 49095 59382 2.0 9.7 4.7 8.6 7.6 Dixie 1,584 1.884 29196 1.9 5.1 0.3 4.0 3.9 Duval 141+252 1749309 193,259 2.3 3.4 16.5 20.7 25.0 e` Escambia 529256 65.141 74,957 2.5 4.6 9.5 12.0 14.2 Flagler 1,696 19867 29493 1.0 10.3 11.8 18.9 21.5 Franklin 39101 39409 3.987 1.0 5.2 15.1 7.4 7.4 Gadsden 9+625 109268 119357 0.7 3.3 3.5 5.3 5.6 Gilchrist 1+024 1,253 1.654 2.2 9.8 52.9 2.8 2.7 Glades 19035 1,443 1+902 3.9 9.8 7.2 11.4 11.4 t Gulf 3,581 39795 4,231 0.6 3.5 9.1 5.0 5.0 Hamilton 2+345 29562 29870 0.9 3.7 3.2 3.3 3.3 Iti.V M Hardee 4.063 49801 6.002 1.8 7.7 3.8 5.2 5.1 ;. Hendry 2,569 3,985 5,234 5.5 9.6 7.0 15.9 15.6' Hernando 49406 79776 139904 7.6 24.2 6.2 5.8 5.7 Highlands 8,584 129547 17,622 4.6 12.5 13.8 13.8 10.4 e �s t Hillsborough 1359406 1689555 2049773 2.4 6.6 14.2 16.5 22.0 it1� Holmes 39473 4+082 4,526 1.8 3.4 3.4 3.9 3.9 �.; r Indian River 99703 149109 189556 4.5 9.7 8.8 15.4 20.3 Jackson 109962 11.379 13.121 0.4 4.7 4.6 4.1 4.0s Jefferson 29831 2.683 39123 -0.5 5.0 0.6 3.0 2.8 ?° Lafayette 19066 1+036 1,152 -0.3 3.4 2.9 1.5 1.5 +1 Lake 219757 289348 36,409 3.0 8.8 8.7 10.7 12.2 See footnote at end of table. continued . . . 45 'E i 1.00 Population Table 1.31. POPULATION --CENSUS, APRIL 1970, AND ESTIMATES, JULY 1974 FOR THE STATE, COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES OF FLORIDA (continued) 20 Area Indian River (cont.) Sebastian Vero Beach Unincorporated Jackson Alford Bascom Cambellton Cottondale Graceville Grand R'dge Greenwood Malone Marianna Sneads Unincorporated 'Jefferson Monticello Unincorporated Lafayette Mayo Unincorporated Lake Astatula Clermont Eustis Fruitland Park Groveland Howey -in -the -Hills Lady Lake Leesburg Mascotte Minneola Montverde Mount Dora Tavares Umatilla Unincorporated Lee Cape Coral' Ft. Myers Unincorporated Leon Tallahassee Unincorporated Census Estimate 4-1-70 7-1-74 825 1,327 11.90R 149758 2.2•362 279276 34,434 40,1?5 ,402 451 87 134 304 326 765 872 29560 2,778 512 565 449 511 667 729 79782. 7,769 11550 1.696 19,856 24,344 A,778 91255 2,473 2,515 69305 61740 7.,892 3,72A 793 R47 21099 71381 69,305 83,473 388 422 3,661 4,496 6,722 7,A56 19359 1,564 19978 2,038 466 5134 392 499 ll,A69 13,765 966 1,627 A79 9R2 308 392. 4,543 5,579 3,761 3,802. 1,600 1,728 30,974 38,639 105,?16 148,495 11,470 191180 77,351 34,240 66,395 95,075 103,047 179,903 77,624 A5,024 30,473 44,A79 continued 1.00 Table 1.31. POPULATI FOR THE STATE, COUA Census Estimate Area 4-1-70 7-1-74 Gulf 10.096 10.647 Port St. Joe 49401 4,536 Ward Ridge R 43 Wewahitchka 1.733 1.958 Unincorporated 3,954 4.160 Hamilton 7.787 A1195 Jasper 2,221 2,234 Jennings 587 617 White Springs 767 All Unincorporated 49217 4.533 Hardee 14,A89 18.074 Bowling Green 1.357 1 .474 Wauchula 3.nn7 3.979 Zolfo Springs 1.117 1.712 Unincorporated 9.408 11.459 Hendry 11.859 15.n9R Clewiston 3,A96 4,733 La Belle 1.823 7.353 Unincorporated 69140 81012 Hernando 17,on4 76.537 Brooksville 4.060 4.765 Weeki Wachee 76 23 Unincorporated 12,R68 21.749 Highlands 29.507 40.659 Avon Park 6,712 7,716 Lake Placid 656 721 Sebring 7.223 8,189 Unincorporated 14.916 24.n33 Hillsborough 490,?65 58A.792 Plant City_ 15,451 15,A93 Tampa 2.77.753 292.109 Temple Terrace 7.347 10.751 Unincorporated 189.714 270.039 Holmes .10.720 12.21334 Bonifay 2,068 7.93()5 Esto 210 274 Ponce de Leon ?RR 4A4 Westville' 766 313 Unincorporated 7.8118 A,9n7 Indian River 35.992 45,n3A Fellsmere 813 992 Indian River Shores 76 664 Orchid A 21 See footnotes at end of table. 20 Area Indian River (cont.) Sebastian Vero Beach Unincorporated Jackson Alford Bascom Cambellton Cottondale Graceville Grand R'dge Greenwood Malone Marianna Sneads Unincorporated 'Jefferson Monticello Unincorporated Lafayette Mayo Unincorporated Lake Astatula Clermont Eustis Fruitland Park Groveland Howey -in -the -Hills Lady Lake Leesburg Mascotte Minneola Montverde Mount Dora Tavares Umatilla Unincorporated Lee Cape Coral' Ft. Myers Unincorporated Leon Tallahassee Unincorporated Census Estimate 4-1-70 7-1-74 825 1,327 11.90R 149758 2.2•362 279276 34,434 40,1?5 ,402 451 87 134 304 326 765 872 29560 2,778 512 565 449 511 667 729 79782. 7,769 11550 1.696 19,856 24,344 A,778 91255 2,473 2,515 69305 61740 7.,892 3,72A 793 R47 21099 71381 69,305 83,473 388 422 3,661 4,496 6,722 7,A56 19359 1,564 19978 2,038 466 5134 392 499 ll,A69 13,765 966 1,627 A79 9R2 308 392. 4,543 5,579 3,761 3,802. 1,600 1,728 30,974 38,639 105,?16 148,495 11,470 191180 77,351 34,240 66,395 95,075 103,047 179,903 77,624 A5,024 30,473 44,A79 continued 1.00 Table 1.31. POPULATI FOR THE STATE, COUA See footnotes at end of Cens Area 4 -1 - Levy 12.'7 Bronson f Cedar Key 7 Chiefland I." Inglis 4 Otter Creeks 2 Suwannee River (part) Williston 1.0 Yankeetown 4 Unincorporated 6.2 Liberty 3.3 Bristol 6, Unincorporated 2.7' Madison 13.4, Greenville Lee 2, Madison 3.7, Unincorporated 8.31 Manatee 97,11 Anna Marla 1.1 Bradenton 21.(),, Bradenton Beach 1,31 Holmes Beach 2. 61, Longboat Key (part) 1,31: Palmetto 7.4; Unincorporated 62.0, Marion 69.0, Belleview 91 Dunnellon 1.14 McIntosh P13 Ocala 2295P Reddick 311 unincorporated 43,79 Martin 28.03 Jupiter Island 2Q Ocean Breeze Park 71 Sewalls Point 214 Stuart 4. h? Unincorporated 21,90 Mon roe 5 2. 5 P Key Colony Beach 37 Key West 29,31 Layton In Munson Island Unincorporated 22,1301 See footnotes at end of U Florida Estimates of Population July 1, 1974 State, Counties and Municipalities prepared for the FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION by the DIVISION OF POPULATION STUDIES BUREAU OF ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS RESEARCH UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA under contractual agreement in accordance with the Florida Statutes, Chapter 23, Section 23.019 January, 1975 This public document was promulgated at an annual cost of $105.71 or $.06 per copy to make available postcensal population estimates for Florida. JAY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Robert F. Lanzillotti, Dean John B. McFerrin, Associate Dean BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANC BUSINESS RESEARCH Carter C. Osterbind, Director DIVISION OF POPULATION STUDIES Madelyn L. Kafoglis, Head Jack D. Doolittle Daphne Y. Bell Abbey H. Frank Bart B. Lewis Felix Muehlner Cheryl M. Stanley Juanita E. Williams ACKNOWLEGEMENTS The Division of Population Studies wishes to thank numerous people in the following agencies for their exceptional interest, cooperation and knowledge which have made the generation of these estimates possible: Department of Administration• and other state agencies Florida League of Cities Officials of local government units Local, county and regional planning groups U. S. Bureau of the Census University of Florida Libraries A 7 Electric and other utility companies Bureau of Economic and Business Resea� and many other groups and persons TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Guidelines and Methodology for Estimation of Population ...................... v Explanation of Terms in the Table ............................................ xi Table 1. Estimates of Population, by County and Municipality, in Florida: July 1, 1974 ................................................. 1 Table 2. Estimates of Population, by County in Florida: July1, 1974.............................................................. 20 Figure 1. Population Growth in Florida: April 1, 1970 toJuly 1, 1974........................................................... 22 Table 3. Components of Population Change, by County, in Florida: April 1, 1970 -July 1, 1974 ...................................... 23 Table 4. Average Yearly Percent Change in Population, by Standard Metroplitan Statistical Area (SMSA) and by County, in Florida: 1960-1970, 1970-1972, 1972-1973, and 1973-1974 ............................ 25 Table 5. Distribution of Population of Florida, by Rank of County on July 1, 1974: April 1, 1960, April 1, 1970 and July 1, 1974 .............. 28 Table 6. Rank in Population on April 1, 1960, April 1, 1970 and July 1, 1974 and Average Yearly Percent Change from 1960 to 1970 to 1974 for Specified Cities of Florida. ................................... 30 Table 7. Population Per Square Mile by Rank of County on July 1, 1974, in Florida: April 1, 1960, April 1, 1970, and July 1, 1974 ................ 31 AppendixI................................................................... 33 AppendixII.................................................................. 35 ideUnes {ion FStunation o4 Poputation The population estimates for the state of Florida, its counties, munic- ipalities, and unincorporated areas have been prepared under a contractual agree- ment between the Florida Department of Administration and the Division of Pop- ulation Studies, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida. These estimates for July 1, 1974, will be used for State Revenue Sharing distri- butions in the fiscal year 1975-76. The basic guidelines for the generation of the population estimates were provided by the 1972 Florida Legislature in Chapter 23, Section 23.019, Florida Statutes titled 'Population census determination," as follows: (1) The population of local govern- ments shall be determined by the depart- ment of administration. For fiscal year 1972-73, the population statistics published by the United States bureau of the census for the nineteen hundred nd seventy decennial census shall be t sed. Beginning with fiscal year there- after, the department of administration shall, either through its own resources or by contract, produce up -dated pop- ulation estimates utilizing accepted statistical practices. r The population of local govern- ments, as determined by the department 1,, of administration, shall apply to any revenue sharing formula with local governments under the provisions of section 218.20-218.26, part II of chapter 218. (2) (a) Population shall be com- as the number of residents em - the same general guidelines used by the United States Bureau of the. Census. (b) Inmates and patients residing l is institutions operated by the federal 'government or by the department of -b"lth and rehabilitative services shall mot be considered to be residents of governmental unit in which in- tltutions are located for the purpose Of. revenue sharing distribution formulas. (c) Nothing herein shall be con - 1"1'.,:'_4 -trued to prohibit the separate deter- v mination of any categories of persons, whether resident or non-resident. (3)In cases of annexation or consoli- dation, local governments shall be re- quired to submit to the department of administration within thirty days follow- ing annexation or consolidation a state- ment as to the population census effect of the action. Bazic Meth.odoZogy o6 Estimation The fundamental approach to estimating population for this program is the Housing Unit Method which is based on the assumption that changes in the number of occupied housing units in an area reflect changes in the population. The Housing Unit Method has been used and tested by the Bureau of the Census in estimating population for substate areas. Population and housing data from the United States Decennial Census of April 1, 1970, are used for the benchmark date. The estimate of change in the number of housing units between 1970 and the postcensal estimate date, July 1, 1974, is derived from data on building permit activity, demolitions, and mobile homes and/or from data on active residential electric customers. The data on building permit activity were provided by the United States Department of Commerce, the Bureau of Economic and Business Research and through the cooperation of the local munic- ipalities and counties. The electric customer data were obtained from the five private companies, the sixteen rural electric authorities, and the thirty-four city -owned companies which service Florida. In areas where either or both of these two main data series (building permits and electric utility connections) were not available or were in- complete or inconsistent, other information, such as residential water customers, garbage collections, or sewer customers, was used to estimate the change in the number of households. In order to apply the Housing Unit Method accurately, a number of problems in both series of base data had to be resolved. The first problem was the compilation of both building permit and electric customer data for each area to be estimated. The data had to be complete for the time period between the 1970 Census and the estimate date, July 1, 1974. 'They also had to be broken down accurately by the existing geographical boundaries of the state, county, or incorporated area, including any annexations or consolidations occurring during the period. Before using building permit data as an estimator, several factors had to be examined. The vacancy rates applied to the housing inventory of an area could be computed from Census information but had to be up -dated to account for changes since 1970. Examination of the monthly series of active and inactive residential electric customers was one means of re- vising vacancy rates. Data on demolitions were for the most part both incomplete and inaccurate and had to be carefully evaluated to prevent an over -estimation of the hous- ing inventory. Another critical factor to be considered was the time lag between the issuance of a building permit and the completion and occupancy of the unit. Time lag patterns vary from area to area in Florida and with the type of structure, such as single family unit or multiple unit complex. Patterns are also dependent on economic conditions and thus vary from one time period to another even within the same area. In a few areas, certificates of occupancy are issued upon completion of the housing unit thus alleviating some of the problem. However, the certificate of occupancy only means that the housing unit is ready for occupancy and not that the unit is immediately occupied. The Division of Population Studies has in the past surveyed many of the permit -issuing offices in the state to determine the appropriate time lags for construction of.single and multiple family units. But these survey results have been inadequate because of the substantial in- crease in the construction of large multiple unit apartments and condominiums and also because of the recent shortages of construction materials, the tightening of financial resources, and generally poor economic conditions. In order to improve this factor, the Division contacted deve- lopers and contractors of permitted pro- jects of one hundred units or more. From this information, accurate time lags and completion schedules for these larger projects were individually determined. The lag times for the large projects varied from six months to over five years. For multiple unit permits of less than one vi hundred units, the time lag was assumed to be six months unless other specific information was available. Single-family units were assumed completed in three months, but this lag will also have to be re-examined in the future. Present economic conditions have caused the results of the time-lag survey conducted for the present estimates to differ signi- ficantly from the results in previous years. The number of projects for which permits have been issued, but on which construction had not been started or on which construction had been temporarily or indefinitely delayed, in- creased significantly in 1974. Also, many developers are completing only a portion of the total number of dwelling units which were originally planned and permitted in their larger projects. Therefore, the present economic crunch has created additional pro- blems using building permit activity data in making population estimates. Mobile homes are another factor which must be considered before using building permit data to estimate population. In recent years there has been a tremendous increase in the popularity of mobile home living in Florida, especially as conventional housing costs continue to rise.. Only a few areas in the state issue permits for new so mobile homes and even fewer areas have any information on the removal of deteriorated mobile homes. The U. S. Bureau of the Census in 1970 enumerated 172,100 mobile homes in Florida. The State Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles reported that 180,816 mobile home licenses were sold in the 1969-1970 tag year and that number increased to 335,028 licenses sold in the 1973-1974 fiscal year. However, persons in the Motor Vehicles Division feel that there may be an equal number of mobile homes in the state for which licenses were not purchased; and they estimate that there may be 700,000 to 800,000 mobile homes in Florida at the present time. Also, until 1972-73, tag sales information was available only at the county level. During the 1972-73 fiscal year, revenues from tag sales were distributed both to counties and cities, so that data on the number of mobile home tags sold now are available at both county and city levels, improving the estim�� of the housing inventory at these levels. In an effort to improve the data on mobile homes, the Division of Population Studies with the cooperation of various ounty health departments and mobile home sociations has been conducting surveys of mobile home parks throughout the state. The information from these surveys and from tag revenue distributions combined with building permit data has improved the data available on mobile homes and in turn the population estimates. The Division of Population Studies will be continuing its surveys of mobile home parks and is work- ing in several areas to enumerate mobile homes outside of parks. A final problem occurs in areas that do not issue building permits, or in which accurate data on building permits are not obtainable. In such areas the number of active residential electric customers must be used almost exclusively to estimate the number of households. In view of the current problems in using building permits to estimate the number of households in an area, the Division of Population Studies has relied heavily on data from electric companies Ir the July 1, 1974, estimates. Specifi- lly, the companies provided time series data from 1970 to July 1, 1974 on the number of active residential electric customers served in an area. However, ,a these data still have limitations. First, the data must be carefully examined to in- sure that they include only active resi- dential customers, excluding commercial and inactive accounts, and that the data conform to the specific county and munic- ipal divisions. In some cases, the active residential customer codes include pumps, barns, security lights, and other non- residence meters which must be deleted to avoid overestimation of households. Also, for some companies at any given time, the number of active residential customers may be different than the active residential meter figures. In these cases, one cus- tomer may have several residential coded meters serving the household; such as, one meter for the water heater; another for the security lighting; and another meter for general use. Wherever possible cus- ier data were used instead of meter nts since the number of customers more accurately reflects the number of house- holds in an area. Master meters (one el"ectric meter serving more than one residential unit) are another problem. Master meters may be under residen- tial or commercial codes (depending on the company) and the number of actual units served by such meters is often difficult to obtain. Many companies are phasing out the use of master meters by converting the units to in- dividual meters, a factor which would tend to overstate the change in residential units. Working closely with several electric companies, the Division of Population Studies has found invaluable means of improving the estimates of housing inventories of areas. As mentioned before, vacancy rates for build- ing permit data can be up -dated by examining the monthly series of active and inactive customers. Also, several companies are now classifying their residential customers as to the type of dwelling unit, such as single- family home, apartment or condominium unit, and mobile home, which provides a good check on building permit data. Therefore, build- ing permit information coupled with electric customer data is used to estimate the number of households in an area. Changes in population, however, depend not only on changes in the number of new housing units derived from the two series of basic data but also on the changes in several other factors, such as the number of persons occupying a unit, the seasonal com- ponent of population, the number of persons in group quarters, and annexations. The number of persons per household used to convert the number.of occupied housing units to population in households is one of the most important variables utilized in the Housing Unit Method. Current information on this variable is for the most part not available. However, historical data and recent surveys indicate that in most areas the number of persons per household is de- creasing. Statewide, the average persons per unit decreased from 3.1 in the 1960 Census to 2.9 in the 1970 Census. This factor also varies greatly for different areas and for the different types of dwelling units. According to the 1970 Census, the number of persons per unit for Florida counties varied from a high of 3.73 persons to a low of 2.35 and the variability for cities was even greater. Also, in areas with a proportionally high inmigration of retirees and with a con- centration of new construction oriented to vii retirees, e.g., condominiums, the persons per household variable is decreasing at a faster rate than in areas oriented to young families. In preparing the population estimates, several different assumptions on persons per household were tested for each area to take into account the considerations mentioned above. Another important factor to be con- sidered in estimating the population of Florida is the part-time, seasonal or tourist component of the population. In many areas this type of population will double or triple the total population at certain times during the year. Every effort has been made to exclude the seasonal component of the population from the esti- mates in accordance with the Florida Statutes which specify, "population shall be computed as the number of residents employing the same guidelines used by the United States Bureau of the Census." The Census Bureau, in the official releases of 1970 population information, states that each person is counted "as an inhabitant of his usual place of residence, which is generally construed to mean the place where he lives and sleeps most of the time. This place is not necessarily the same as his legal residence, voting residence, or domicile." The following estimates of population represent the permanent residents of an area following Census definitions and thus may not represent the total population of many resort communities at any one time. As a result, these estimates may not be appropriate for city planning purposes to provide police, fire fighting and other services during peak vacation periods. A rough estimate of this seasonal component of the population can often be obtained by examining the month by month variation in residential electric customer accounts. This year, in the survey of the con- struction time lags of the larger apartment and condominium projects, the person con- tacted was asked to give estimates of the percentage of units in the project which will. be occupied by permanent and by seasonal residents. Therefore, the results obtained from this question provided addi- tional information on the seasonality of the population living in the new apartment and condominium projects in different areas. Annexation action by municipalities during the estimate period (April 1, 1970 to July 1, 1974) have been taken into account. The memorandum of September 15, 1972, from Secretary L. K. Ireland, Jr., to all munic- palities which specifies the administrative procedures to be followed in reporting annexation appears in Appendix I. The pop ulation effect of the annexation at the time of the action is listed separately in the tables. Another factor which must be taken into account in estimating population of an area is the change in the number of persons living in group quarters, such as hospitals, correctional institutions, military barracks and college dormitories. Two developments, the realignment of many military installations in Florida and the recent legislation in Florida to change the correctional system (the Baker Act), have greatly affected the population of certain areas. Florida Statutes state that "Inmates and patients residing in institutions operated by the federal govern- ment or by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services shall not be con- sidered to be residents of the governmental unit in which the institutions are located for the purpose of revenue sharing dis- tribution formulas." Inmates and patients under the above description are listed in the tables under the heading "Inmates." The population estimates adjusted for these inmates for "revenue sharing distribution purposes are listed"under the heading "Estimate less inmates July 1, 1974." These two columns in the estimate tables are for State Revenue Sharing purposes only and are computed after the estimates of population are determined. The figures listed under the heading "Estimate, July 1, 1974" represent the actual estimates of population which are comparable to the Census enumerations and should be used for most planning and analytical purposes. In general, despite the many problems associated with the Housing Unit Method, it does have advantages over other methods, particularly for small areas such as munic- ipalities. The advantages of the Housing Unit Method are its simplicity in concept and, more important, its utilization of municipal residential building permit and electric customer data. While other census methods and other information sources are used as independent checks, particularly at� the state and county level, most of these methods of estimating population require data inputs which are extremely difficult viii to obtain or are not available for the specific boundaries of municipalities. 4kneAat Procedure o6 the PtLoyLam After collecting, compiling and organizing the residential building permit and electric utility customer data for all governmental units ,in the state of Florida, these data were carefully examined, tested for consistency and verified with the available Bureau of the Census information. Two independent estimates of population for the state, each county, and each munic- ipality were derived wherever possible, one using the building permit data, and the other the utility data. When these two estimates were significantly different, careful re-examination of the two original data sources was made to determine the cause of the discrepancy and the validity of the data sources. Also, in areas of particularly rapid growth and change, several different assumptions with respect to the number of persons per household and vacancy rates were tested in order to re- flect accurately changes since the 1970 - Census. AThrough this procedure, preliminary population estimates, subject to revision, were determined for the state and the individual governmental units. The pre- liminary estimates were compared with estimates provided by the Bureau of the Census, regional, county and city planning groups and private individuals. These July 1, 1974, population estimates were then mailed directly to the counties and municipalities requesting a response as to the "reasonableness" of the estimate for each area. A copy of the cover letter and the estimate form appear in Appendix II. This procedure provided persons within every governmental unit an opportunity to examine and to assess the estimate utilizing their knowledge of local conditions. In some instances government officials were able to provide statistical evidence which this Division felt supported a revision of the preliminary estimate. The final estimates of population for the state of Florida, its counties, municipalities, and unincorporated areas as of July 1, 1974, Oe presented in this report. ix The U. S. Bureau a4 the CenwA B timate6 Since 1967 the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Division of Population Studies, has been working with the U. S. Bureau of the Census in the Federal -State Co- operative Program in the preparation of annual population estimates for Florida counties. Under this program the U. S. Bureau of the Census has published in the Current Population Reports, Population Estimates and Projections, a preliminary population estimate for the state of Florida which is lower than the estimate in this report. Some of the difference between the estimates.in this report and the Census Bureau's estimates can.be explained by differences in the basic methodologies used. The Census Bureau estimate is based on a state control figure which is generated from a , national model used to determine an estimate for every state in the United States. The estimates in'this report, prepared for the Department of Administration, are not held to the state figure of the Bureau of the Census, but using the 1970 U. S. Census as a base, attempt to determine the change in population as accurately as possible, with local and state-wide information. The method takes into account the general social and economic conditions which are peculiar to the state of Florida. This Division is working with the Census Bureau to resolve the major differences in the two sets of estimates and hopes that in the near future the estimates will be in closer agreement. Anatysiz o4 CuA ent Tnends Migration continues to be the most im- portant factor in Florida's population growth. In July 1, 1974, .over 90 percent of the in- crease in the state's population since April 1, 1970, was due to the net migration of persons from other parts of the country. With a current population of just over eight million people, Florida. continues to attract the young and the old from many states in the eastern half of the nation and leads the states in the absolute number of inmigrants. The question most frequently asked is how much adverse economic conditions, such as increased unemployment, will affect this long-term pattern of migration to Florida. Undoubtedly many of the migrants first came to Florida as part of the millions of tour- ists who visit Florida every year and after one or more such trips plan their future move to Florida for employment opportunities or for retirement. Florida's rapid growth of population has meant steadily increasing employment openings in the trades, services and construction. As a result, younger families have moved into Florida for job opportunities, particularly from states in the southeastern part of the country. If employment prospects in the industrial parts of the country become dimmer, more labor force participants may be attracted to Florida, despite the relatively lower pay of trade and service occupations. Retirement decisions also may be affected by adverse national economic conditions. Labor force separations at an earlier age with subsequent migration to Florida may seem more expedient, especially since many of the younger retirees may be able to supplement their retirement income r x with part-time earnings. on the other hand, inflation, high rates of unemployment, and rising costs of housing in Florida may cabse ,,:;` some people to delay their retirement. 4,° .. Predictions based on current economi( 5%.. conditions are hazardous. Growth patterns throughout the state are uneven; the upturns and downturns, although responding to the instability of nationwide economic factors 4 are also strongly affected by local 14 decisions and the availability of local`' financial resources. In absolute numbers, Florida's population has grown by almost 1.5 million since 1970, a growth rate of about 5 percent per year. However, as Table 2 shows, this four year growth rate } varies from a high of over 17 percent in. Citrus County to a low of -0.24 percent AN in Gadsden County. The turnaround in slow growth areas of Florida has been dramatic+" over the past four years, while many of the more urban counties which have grown so rapidly in the past are showing the effects of the economic crunch.'t ,• 0 hr' Explanation of Terms in the Tables E April 1, 1970 Census Gives the April 1, 1970 U. S. Census figure. Change due to annexation Includes all reported annexation within the relevant time period (April 1, 1970 - July 1, 1974) showing the population effect at the time of annexation. The population effect due to annexation is included in the total population change. Total change Gives the total change between the April 1, 1970 U. S. Census figure and the estimate for July 1, 1974, including change due to natural increase (or decrease) and net migration. This estimate also includes any population change due to annexation. July 1, 1974 (est.) Gives the actual estimated permanent resident population for July 1, 1974. This figure is comparable to the Census enumerations and should be used for most purposes of planning and analysis. Inmates Gives the inmates and patients in institutions operated by the federal government or by the of Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services �1: as of July 1, 1974, to be excluded as residents for revenue sharing distribution formula. ` Estimate less inmates Gives the population estimate minus inmates July 1, 1974 to be used for State Revenue Sharing in the j 1975-76 fiscal year. This figure should not be used for other purposes. i 11 xi t, County and city HOLMES Bonifay Esto Ponce de Leon Westville* Unincorporated Table 1. Estimates cf Population, by County and Municipality, in Florida: July 1, 1974 (Continued) July 1 1974 12,283 2,305 274 484 313 INDIAN RIVER Change 9,046 April 1 due to 813 1970 annex- Total (census) ationl change 10,720 8 1,563 2,068 Sebastian 237 210 1,327 64 288 2,850 196 266 22,362 47 7,888 1,019 July 1 1974 12,283 2,305 274 484 313 INDIAN RIVER 35,992 9,046 45,038 Fellsmere 813 179 992 Indian River Shores 76 588 664 Orchid 8 13 21 Sebastian 825 502 1,327 Vero Beach 11,908 2,850 14,758 Unincorporated 22,362 4,914 27,276 JACKSON Alford Bascom Cambellton Cottondale Graceville Grand Ridge Greenwood Malone Marianna Sneads Unincorporated t c JEFFERSON Monticello t Unincorporated i I - 1 34,434 402 87 304 765 2,560 512 449 667 7,282 1,550 1 5,691 49 -3 22 107 218 53 62 62 487 146 40,125 451 84 326 872 2,778 565 511 729 7,769 1,696 24,344 8,778 477 9,255 2,473 2 42 2,515 6,305 -2 435 6,740 (8) REVENUE SHARING USE ONL Estimate 2 less inmate Inmates July 1, 197• 12,283 2,305 274 484 313 8,907 2,163 418 1,745 45,038 992 664 21 1,327 14,758 27,276 37,962 451 84 326 872 2,778 565 511 729 7,351 1,696 22,599 9,255 2,515 6,740 It This public document was promulgated at an annual cost ...( $9.00 or $.Ol.per copy to make available information about housing in Florida. C r.X: V R I DAL STUDIES Division of Population Studies Bulletin No. 28 College of Business Administration Apr i 1 , 1974 Florida's Housing Inventory Abbey Frank, Statistician Florida's rapid population growth has created an increased demand for housing throughout the state, as evidenced by an approximate 60 percent increase in build- ing permits issued in 1972 over 1970. A current evaluation of the housing inventory is needed to determine how this increased demand has been met. The 1960 and 1970 censuses of housing provide an in-depth analysis of Florida's housing inventory by type of unit. However, in view of the Population Division's July], 1973 estimates of population which show an average annual rate of growth for the state since April 1, 1970 of 4.78 percent, the importance of updating the 1970 housing inventory is evi- dent. The 1970 Cea6u5 o6 Houzi.ng reported that single family units made up 69.4 per- cent of total housing units as compared with 78.6 percent in 1960. This is a sig- nificant decline in the percentage of single family units over the past decade, indicat- ing the value of updating information on the structural composition of the housing inventory by type of unit. The Population Division has revised Florida's housing inventory by county to coincide with its July], 1973 estimates of population. The housing inventory figures that are presented in the following table are total figures and hence include all vacant, seasonal and second homes as well as all housing units occupied by permane residents. An attempt has also been mad to estimate the percentage of this total, that is single family and multiple family__ Changes in the housing inventory are reflected by changes in such symptomatic variables as building permits, mobile home tag salesand residential electric customers. The Population Division has developed com- prehensive data series for these variables in connection with its population estimation program. However, there are certain limi- tations associated with each series forwhich some compensation must be made. In the evaluation of building permit data three basic problems must be considered: the con- struction time lag (particularly for large developments), the underreporting of demo- litions and the lack of building permit data for some areas. The time lag problem has been minimized by surveying the contractors of multiple family developments of 100 or more units to obtain estimated completion schedules. These surveys have shown wide variation in the time lag from the issuance of the permit to the completion of the pro - ject. In some instances the lag was as long as three and a half years. The building permit data also must be scrutinized to Continued on last page A avoid overestimation due to underreporting of demolitions. Also, in those areas where there is no building -permit reporting system, °me other indicator, usually residential twlectric customers, must be used almost ex- clusively. The use of mobile - home tag sales as an indicator of the number of mobile homes is greatly complicated by the fact that an un- known number of mobile -home owners do not buy tags. In an effort to improve this series, the Population Division, with the cooperationof various county health depart- ments and mobile home associations, has conducted preliminary surveys of mobile home parks in several counties. However, there has been no survey to enumerate untagged mobile homes that are not in parks. The residential electric customer se- ries is also not without problems. Insome instances over -counting may occur because of the difficulty of excluding all commercial and other nonresidential meters. Master meters (one electric meter serving more than one residential unit) also contribute to the problem, However, many of the electric companies have been able to provide data 40 that are reasonably free from these incon- sistencies. The July 1, 1973 estimates of total housing units in the following table were arrived at through a systematic analysis of the three data series mentioned above. The residential electric customer series was weighted the most heavily in the analysis because this data series provides the most reliable indication of the change in the housing inventory. The housing unit esti- mates inmost cases were obtained by adding the change in residential electric customers from April 1, 1970 to July 1, 1973 to the 1970 census housing inventory. Building permit data and mobile home tag sales pro- vided an approximate percentage breakdown of the total figures into the single family, multiple family and mobile home components. Because of the probable underestimation of the mobile home component due to the nature of the mobile home tag data used, the 1973 mobile home and single family components are combined and presented under the head- ing "single family." For comparison, sim- ilar housing inventory figures from the censuses are included for 1960 and.,1970. The Division of Population Studies anticipates the next two forthcoming issues of PopuZati.on Stu.dia will contain: 1. 1973 Age and Race Components of Florida Population 2. Population Projections by County Based on 1973 Estimates Division of Population Studies Bureau of Economic & Business Research University of Florida 221 Matherly Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611 Return postage guaranteed Form 3579 Return to University of Florida 221 Matherly Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611 1', TABLL l. -POPULATION AND HOUSING INVENTORY FOR FLORIDA AND ITS COUNTIES: 1960, 1970 AND 1973 :OUNTY CENSUS APRIL 1+ 1960 CENSUS APRIL 19 1970 ESTIMATE JULY 1. 1973 AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENT CHANGEHOUSING COUNTY POPULATION TOTAL HOUSING UNITS PERCENT OF TOTAL HOUSING UNITS POPULATION TOTAL HOUSING UNITS PERCENT OF TOTAL HOUSING UNITS POPULATION TOTAL HOUSING UNITS PERCENT OF TOTAL UNITS POPULATION TOTAL HOUSING UNITS SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY I MOBILE HOME SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOME SINGLE FAMILY• MULTI FAMILY 1960-197011970-197311960-1970 4.5 759283 1970-1973 ' FLORIDA 4+9519560 1,776#945 78.6 17.7 3.7 6,7909929 ALACHUA 74,074 21+978 81.8 15.1 3.1 104,764 BAKER 7,363 1+951 94.1 3.0 2.9 9,242 BAY 679131 219680 83.0 12.5 4.5 759283 BRADFORD 129446 4,019 94.6 4.2 1.2 149625 BREVARD 111,435 36,852 79.7 9.7 10.6 230#006 BROWARD 3339946 128+559 77.7 19.5 2.8 620,100 CALHOUN 79422 2,403 98.3 1.5 0.2 7,624 CHARLOTTE 12,594 69188 82.4 7.6 10.0 27+559 CITRUS 99268 4.512 89.3 4.5 6.2 19,196 CLAY i 199535 79164 83.1 12.2 4.7 329059 y COLLIER 159753 5+950 82.0 11.9 6.1 38.040 COLUMBIA 20+077 6+377 92.3 6.3 1.4 25.250 DADE 9359047 348.904 64.6 33.4 2.0 1+267,792 DESOTO 11,683 3+399 92.2 4.7 3.1 139060 DIXIE 4,479 19584 97.0 0.3 2.7 5,480 DUVAL 4559411 1419252 81.7 16.5 1.8 528,865 ESEAMRIA 173,829 52+256 87.3 9.5 3.2 205,334 FLAGLER 49566 1.696 85.7 11.8 2.5 4.454 FRANKLIN 6#576 3#101 83.5 15.1 1.4 79065 GADSDEN 41,989 9.625 95.8 3.5 0.7 399184 GILCHRIST GLADES GULF HAMILTON HARDEE HENDRY "NDO HERNA1IGHLANDS DO HILLSBOROUGH HOLMES INDIAN RIVER JACKSON JEFFERSON LAFAYETTE LAKE LEE LEON LEVY LIBERTY MADISON MANATEE MARION MARTIN MONROE NASSAU OKAL60SA OKEECHOBEE ORANGE OSCEOLA PALM BEACH i PASCO PINELLAS POLK PUTNAM ST. JOHNS ST. LUCIE SANTA ROSA SARASOTA SEMINOLE SUMTER SUWANNEE **TAYLOR 1141 ON VOLUSIA WAKULLA WALTON WASHINGTON 2+868 1+024 46.2 52.9 0.9 2,950 19035 84.8 7.2 8.0 99937 3,581 88.4 9.1 2.5 7,705 29345 95.5 3.2 1.3 12.370 4.063 94.9 3.8 1.3 8,119 2+569 87.4 7.0 5.6 119205 4,406 87.4 6.2 6.4 21+338 8+584 82.2 13.8 4.0 397#788 1359406 81.6 14.2 4.2 10+844 3+473 96.1 3.4 0.5 25,309 9+703 88.8 8.8 X2.4 36.208 10,962 94.0 4.6 1.4 9#543 2+831 98.3+ 0.6 1.1 2#889 19066 96.2 2.9 0.9 579383 21#757 86.4 8.7 4.9 54.539 21,032 82.3 11.0 6.7 74,225 21+103 82.5 14.8 2.7 10#364 3,622 95.7 2.0 2.3 3,138 990 98.8 0.0 1.2 14,154 4,304 94.5 4.5 1.0 69,168 309309 79.8 9.1 11.1 51#616 17,960 90.0 6.2 3.8 16#932 79473 81.7 9.6 8.7 479921 16+721 55.0 34.1 10.9 17.189 5,344 89.8 7.9 2.3 61#175 17+943 78.3 14.6 7,7 6#424 2,013 81.1 11.4 7.5 2639540 889401 82.6 13.8 3.6 19,029 79906 82.6 12.7 4.7 2289106 89.396 75.0 22.0 3.0 36.785 14,854 88.5 3.2 8.3 374+665 1659823 79.0 15.9 5.1 195#139 64.116 85.3 11.0 3.7 32,212 10,880 89.9 7.7 2.4 309034 10+646 89.4 8.8 1.8 39.294 13.989 79.5 16.3 4.2 29,547 8.673 88.7 7.3 4.0 76,895 34.806 83.3 11.3 5.4 54,947 189212 88.4 7.3 4.3 11.869 4#138 93.3 3.7 3.0 14+961 4#748 93.1 4.8 2.1 139168 4+407 91.5 5.4 3.1 69043 1+298 95.9 2.9 1.2 .125.319 52.351 78.9 18.0 3.1 59257 19918 97.4 0.8 1.8 159576 5,591 95.7 2.7 1.6 11,249 3+723 96.5 1.6 1.9 3,551 3,669 10+096 7+787 149889 11,859 17,004 29,507 490,265 109720 35+992 349434 89778 2,892 699305 105+216 103#047 12,756 3,379 13+481 97,115 69+030 289035 52,586 209626 881187 11+233 344#311 259267 3489993 75,955 522.329 228+026 36+424 31,035 50+836 37,741 120,413 83+692 149839 15,559 13+641 8,112 169,487 69308 16+087 119453 2+526+612 69.4 23.7 6.9 7.845+092 3#1409675 71.4 28.6 3.71 4.78 4.22 7.48 FLORIDA 33,538 68.6 23.8 7.6 120+128 41+397 70.5 29.5 4.14 4.51 5.26 7.21 29352 81.8 3.4 14.8 10+886 3+204 97.1 2.9 2.55 5.47 2.06 11.15 ALACHUA BAKER 269978 77.3 13.1 9.6 84,329 31+661 87.1 12.9 1.21 3.70 2.44 5.34 BAY 49626 85.9 5.8 8.3 159254 59236 93.4 6.6 1.75 1.32 1.51 4.06 BRADFORD 779981 70.9 21.2 7.9 2449744 88+486 78.1 21.9 10.64 1.97 11.16 4.14 BREVARD 253+325 60.8 35.2 4.0 769+419 330,926 56.5 43.5 8.57 7.41 9.70 9.43 BROWARD 29710 88.6 2.7 8.7 7+852 3+038 97.3 2.7 0.27 0.92 1.28 3.72 CALHOUN 13.752 81.6 7.8 10.6 369053 189839 89.1 10.9 11.88 9.48 12.22 11.38 CHARLOTTE 9+769 80.7 5.3 14.0 309253 179667 93.9 6.1 10.71 17.72 11.65 24.88 CITRUS 10+988 76.7 12.0 11.1 41.436 15,291 84.2 15.8 6.41 9.00 5.34 12.05 CLAY 17,580 60.0 28.9 11.1 51s512 28.542 60.1 39.9 14.15 10.90 19.55 19.19 COLLIER 89450 81.1 8.4 10.0 27.093 109014 91.4 8.6 2.58 2.25 3.25 5.70 COLUMBIA 4539908 56.2 41- 2.2 193739609 525,358 53.2 46.9 3.56 2.57 3.01 4.84 DADE 4+095 83.1 8.8 8.1 15+850 5+382 92.4 7.6 1.18 6.57 2.05 9.67 DESOTO 19884 82.3 4.0 73.7 5,885 29196 96.1 3.9 2.23 2.27 1.89 5.10 DIXIE 1749309 75.1 20.7 4.2 558+838 1939259 75.0 25.0 1.61 1.74 2.34 3.35 65,141 82.7 12.0 5.3 218,038 749957 85.8 14.2 1.81 1.90 2.47 4.64 DUVAL ESCAMBIA 1+867 73.2 18.9 7.9 59558 29493 78.5 21.5 -0.25 7.63 1.01 10.32 FLAGLER 3+409 86.0 7.4 6.6 79497 3,987 92.6 7.4 0.74 1.88 0.99 5.22 FRANKLIN 109268 89.9 5.3 4.8 389968 11.357 94.4 5.6 -0.67 -0.17 0.67 3.26 GADSDEN 1+253 80.5 2.8 16.7 4+095 1+654 97.3 2.7 2.38 4.71 2.24 9.85 GILCHRIST 19443 68.6 11.4 20.0 49275 19902 88.6 11.4 2.44 5.08 3.94 9.79 GLADES 3,795 90.9 5.0 4.1 10.445 4#231 95.0 5.0 0.16 1.06 0.60 3.54 GULF 2,562 85.3 3.3 11.4 8+046 29870 96.7 3.3 0.11 1.02 0.93 3.70 HAMILTON 4.801 86.4 5.2 8.4 169983 69002 94.9 5.1 2.04 4.33 1.82 7.70 HARDEE 3,985 67.5 15.9" 16.6 149492 59234 84.4 15.6 4.61 6.83 5.51 9.64 HENDRY 79776 82.0 5.8 12.2 259921 13,904 94.3 5.7 5.18 16.14 7.64 24.25 HERNANDO 12,547 75.6 13.81 10.6 389217 179622 89.6 10.4 3.83 9.08 4.62 12.50 HIGHLANDS 1689555 76.8 16.5 6.7 562+462 204,773 78.0 22.0 2.32 4.53 2.45 6.61 HILLSBOROUGH 4,082 88.2 3.9 7.9 11,813 49526 96.1 3.9 -0.11 3.14 1.75 3.35 HOLMES 14,109 78.5 15.4 6.1 43+383 18,556 79.7 20.3 4.22 6.32 4.54 9.70 INDIAN RIVER 11+379 90.7 4.1 5.2 •37,801 13,121 96.0 4.0 -0.49 3.01 0.38 4.71 JACKSON 2,683 91.1 3.0 5.9 9,076 3#123 97.2 2.9 -0.80 1.04 -0.52 5.05 JEFFERSON 19036 84.6 1.5 13.9 39072 19152 98.5 1.5 0.01 1.92 -0.28 3.45 LAFAYETTE 289348 77.0 10.*, 12.3 79.078 369409 87.8 12.2 2.08 4.34 3.03 8.75 43+511 70.6 17.1 12.3 1349925 639364 77.3 22.7 9.29 8.69 10.69 14.04 LAKE LEE 32+576 66.5 23.9 9.6 1229901 42,909 67.4 32.6 3.88 5.93 5.44 9.76 LEON 4+760 82.4 5.8 11.8 139944 6.467 94.0 6.0 2.31 2.87 3.14 11.03 LEVY 1+287 49265 90.1 90.3 2.0 3.8 7.9 5.9 3,748 14,029 1+424 98.0 2.0 0.77 3.36 3.00 3.28 LIBERT; 59002 94.5 5.5 -0.48 1.25 -0.09 5.32 MADISON 42+841 63.7 14.6 7.0 21.7 108,200 529501 77.4 22.6 4.04 3.51 4.13 6.94 MANATEE 269129 81.9 13.9 11.1 83,327 349656 89.9 10.1 3.37 6.37 4.55 10.04 MARION 12.403 209731 67.4 53.1 30.9 18.7 16.0 369719 56.431 19,395 259503 73.2 26.8 6.56 9.53 6.60 17.35 MARTIN 6,785 81.1 7.8 11.1 239126 8s631 68.6 92.3 31.4 7.7 0.97 2.00 2.25 2.40 7.08 MONROE 27#296 70.7 16.3 13,0 959826 321998 830 16&1 4.42 3.73 2.70 8.37 NASSAU 39719 74.7 9.7 15.6 14.712 59464 91.3 8.7 7.49 2667 5.21 6.43 OKAL008A 117+298 76.2 18.9 4.9 4089361 143,695 75.5 24.5 3.06 9.53 8.47 14.44 OKEECH08EE 10+540 72.4 11.6 16.0 35,105 149648 78.6 21.4 3.28 5.72 3.27 6.92 ORANGE 141+232 62.7 32.3 5.0 427,983 1899296 58.3 41.7 5.30 11.98 6.96 3.33 11.99 OSCEOLA 5.80 10.47 PALM BEACH 34,816 77.0 6.0 17.0 110+052 519083 92.7 7.3 10.65 13.81 13.44 14.38 PASCO 228.771 69.5 20.7 9.8 9.5 620+103 285+270 71.6 28.4 3.94 5.76 3.80 7.60 PINELLAS 80.520 78.2 12.3 258,515 97+713 86.7 13.3 1.69 4.11 2.56 6.57 POLK 139010 81.7 7.5 10.8 40.507 16.221 92.3 7.7 1.31 3.45 1.96 7.60 PUTNAM 11,715 82.1 11.3 6.6 35,992 14,044 88.6 11.4 0.33 4.91 1.00 6.12 ST. JOHNS 18.871 72.9 21.2 7.9 5.9 9.7 629180 25+481 79.8 20.2 2.94 3.49 10.78 SLUCIE 129151 82.4 19.3 10.4 449123 16,845 92.4 7.6 2.77 5.87 5.20 4.01 11.89 SANTA TA ROSA 56,242 70.3 12.7 148.072 75,127 76.4 23.6 5.66 7.07 6.16 10.33 SARASOTA 289446 82.3 2.6 5.0 124,069 42,884 80.1 19.9 5.23 14.84 5.62 15.62 SEMINOLE 59285 84.4 13.0 189545 7.265 97.4 2.6 2.50 7.68 2.77 11.53 SUMTER 59227 84.5 86.7 4.3 4.4 11.2 8.9 169561 69268 95.3 4.7 0.40 1.98 1.01 6.13 SUWANNEE 49991 1#745 84.5 5.8 9.7 149177 5+590 93.7 6.3 0.36 1.21 1.33 3.69 TAYLOR 709605 74.8 18.3 6.9 89789 1449522 29059 93.9 6.1 3.42 2.57 3.44 5.54 UNION 2+726 84.8 4.9 10.3 7.436 84+229 77.9 22.1 3.52 4.54 3.49 5.94 VOLUSIA 6.597 89.4 2.9 7.7 16,955 39833 7.361 95.2 97.1 4.8 2.9 2.00 5.50 4.21 12.50 WAKULLA 49237 87.8 4.7 7.5 129796 59080 95.4 4.6 0.33 0.18 1.66 3.61 1.80 3.56 WALTON 1.38 6.12 WASHINGTON • SINGLE FAMILY+MOBILE HOMES Colo. (Pitkin) -Fla. (Jackson) Table 2. -COUNTIES (Minus l-1 denotes decrease) Codes Population, 1970 -- -- -- Change, 1960-1970 Land F - TAS area Per County U.S' Total square Net Female Urban SMSA Sran' t mile' Total migra White tion Items 1-15 Race Age Negro_ 18 65 ---- Under years :VearsMediae Change, 5 and nd ageTotal 1960- years overver 1970 - ... 04 08 125 Yuma ......................... 2 379 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 CONNECTICUT ' Per Per Per- Per- Per- Per Per Per. years 09 The State...................1 4 862 (%) 3 031 709 Sq. mi. 19.6 8.4 51.5 cent cent cent cent 8,3 66.2 cent cent cent cent Fairfield 626 37 792 814 COLORADO -Con. 21.3 11.0 51.9 86.2 733 289 56 326 67.6 7.9 66.1 9.4 (s) C 09 003 ....................... Hartford 739 35 O1 OB 0971 Pitkin • •I 973 2 687 6 185 6 159, 8 136. 1 49, 2 - 6 156 1 B 1 1 B 1 8.0 68.2 3.9 27. 144 091 05 08 099 , Prowers .................... 1 621 1 961 13 258 8 -.3 -12.4 51.1 59.2 13 175 181 IBI 9.2 62.1 11.3 26,6 6560 C O8 101 Pueblo 2 405 302 118 238 49 -•4 -12.3 50.9 87.7 115 871 2 070 -7.9 8.2 63.4 9.4 27.1 12.8 01 08 103 ........................: Rio Blanco ..................... 3 263 a2 831 4 842 1 -6.0 -19.8 48.1 - 4 825 IBI fB1 8.1 63.2 8.2 26.9 B.1 02 08 105 Rio Grande 915 2 213 10 494 11 -6.0 -18.3 50.5 37.1 30 442 IBI IBI B.9 60.6 10.9 27.2 49.9 O1 08 107 ..................... Fault 2 330 2 638 6 592 3 11.7 4.7 49.4 - 6 561 (B) 181 7.5 64.2 9.7 286.5 38.2 02 OB 109 ......................... Saguache 3 144 2 926 3 827 1 -14.4 -30.3 50.7 - 3 812 101 (B) 8.7 60.3 10.8 266 .4 O1 08 111 ....................... San Juan ..................... 391 3 125 -839 2 -2.1 -28.2 55.5 - 839 (B) (B) 8.2 66.5 6.4 27.9 78 305 02 08 113 San Miguel ..................... 1 283 3 073 1 941 2 -33.8 -44.6 43.5 - 1 775 (B) (B) (B1 9.3 5.9 60.4 64.7 8.6 26.2 14.2 36.0 35.9 03 08 115 Sedgwick .................... 544 2 964 3 405 6 -19.7 -25.2 51.2 25.5 3 379 (81 (BI IBI 9.2 61.3 2.9 25.9 ... O1 OB 117 Summit ...................... . 604 3 018 2 665 4 28.6 12.6 48.7 -1.4 2 654 3 257 (B1 lel 7.2 65.9 10.5 30.4 ... 01 08 119 Teller .......................... 553 2 969 2 762 3 316 6 2 32.9 29.5 -21.2 50.9 48.7 =' 5 489 (B) 181 6.2 65.1 13.5 32.7 ... 04 08 121 Washington ..................... 2 526 391 5 550 22 -16.2 23.4 9.5 51.6 46.5 88 305 (B) IBI 8.4 65.4 8.8 24.4 ... 03 08 123 Weld ......................... 4 002 89 297 4 -4 1 -7 2 51 1 - 8 532 (BI IBI 7.1 67.4 16.4 34.9 ... 04 08 125 Yuma ......................... 2 379 2 411 8 544 CONNECTICUT ' - 09 The State...................1 4 862 (%) 3 031 709 624 19.6 8.4 51.5 77.3 2 838 690 181 474 68,9 8,3 66.2 9.e A 09 001 Fairfield 626 37 792 814 1 266 21.3 11.0 51.9 86.2 733 289 56 326 67.6 7.9 66.1 9.4 (s) C 09 003 ....................... Hartford 739 35 816 737 1 105 18.4 6.5 51.7 84.9 759 037 55 036 73.5 8.3 66.3 9.4 (a) (�1 01 09 005 ....................... Litchfield 925 253 144 091 156 20.2 12.0 51.3 48.2 142 735 1 027 21.5 8.4 65.8 11.1 (s) 02 09 007 ....................... Middlesex ...................... 372 309 114 816 309 29.4 17.5 50.8 45.4 111 214 3 295 76.7 8.5 66,0 10.0 (al B 09 009 New Haven ..................... 604 39 744 948 1 233 12.8 3.0 51.8 87.2 685 281 56 954 66.9 8,3 66.9 10.2 8.6 ('+) 02 09 011 New London' .................... 667 168 230 348 346 24.2 B.1 49.8 52.1 221 435 7 193 57.5 9.3 64.9 02 09 013 Tolland 416 338 103 440 249 50.5 33.5 49.9 41.3 101 869 1 149 159.4 9.2 65.3 5.9 (a) ... 02 09 015 ......................... Windham ...................... 514 412 84 515 164 23.3 13.2 51.8 38.2 83 830 494 77.1 8.9 65.7 10,8 DELAWARE 10 The Slate...................i 1 982 (%) 548 301 277 22,8 8.5 51.2 72.1 466 674 78 305 29.0 8.9 64.0 8.0 O1 10 001 Kent 594 426 81 892 138 24.7 4.9 49.5 38.6 67 927 13 006 35.9 9.4 62.8 7.2 ,,, 9160 A,10 003 ........................! New Castle ..................... .µ3B 100 385 856 881 25.5 11.7 51.5 91.2 335 333 48 894 35.7 8.8 64,0 7,5 ... 01130 005 Sussex ........................ 950 436 80 353 85 9.8 -1.4 51.7 14.2 63 414 16 405 8.8 8.5 65.3 11.1 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 11 The District ................. 61 38 756 510 12 402 -1.0 -13.1 53.5 100.0 210 8781 537 570 30.6 7.9 70.2 9.4 FLORIDA 12 The State ................... 54 090 (X) 6 789 412 126 37.1 26.8 51.8 80.5 5 723 988 1 041 966 18.4 7.4 168.8 14.6 2900 03 12 001 Alachua 916334 104 764 114 41.4 22.4 50.2 69.0 82 758 21 566 11.1 8.5 68.5 6.3 03 12 003 ....................... Baker 585 2 345 9 242 16 25.5 10.2 50.9 29.6 7 380 1 850 15.8 8.8 62.7 8.6 ... 01 12 005 ......................... Bay .......................... 747 468 75 283 101 12.1 -5.3 51.0 76.4 65 357 9 643 -2.5 8.8 63.1 7.1 ... 02 12 007 Bradford ........................ 294 1 858 14 625 50 17,5 7.6 46.9 33.3 11 193 3 412 18.6 7.9 65.4 8.6 ... 04 12 009 Brevard ........................ 1 Olt 170 230 006 228 106.4 78.0 49.9 85.1 206 436 20 664 67.5 61.1 5.6 ... 2680 G 12 011 Broward .......................� 1 219 56 620 069 509 85,7 76.7 52.3 99.0 540 763 77 360 41.1 6.8 6.7 71.8 18.0 O1 12 013 Calhoun ..................... 561 2 518 7 624 14 2.7 -7.3 50.5 - 6 494 1 127 -5.2 9.5,63.5 11.0 ... .. 06 12 015 ...................... Charlotte 703 1 153 27 559 39 118.8 129.2 52.2 59.1 26 754 752 4.9 3,8 81.1 35.0 os 12 Ot7 Citrus. ••••-••--• 560 1 519 19 196 34 107.1 105.7 51.6 - 17 364 1 832 11.2 5.4 75.4 26.1' 02 12 019 Clay ........................ 593 1 022 32 059 54 64,1 45.5 50.5 50.2 29 042 2 907 9.6 9.9 59.9 8.6 .. 06 12 021 Collier ........................ 2 006 853 38 040 19 141.5 122.2 50.1 66.1 34 778 3 183 39.6 7.6 69.1 14.0 ... 03 12 023 Columbia ......................II 784 1 239 25 250 32 25.8 11.2 51.6 56.2 18 918 6 312 4.0 9.2 61.8 9.1 5000 C 12 025 Dade ......................... 2 042 17 1 267 792 621 35.6 27.2 52.5 98.4 1 072 795 189 606 38.1 6.8 70.6 13.7 05 12 027 DeSoto ..................... 648 sl 975 13 060 20 11.8 2.8 51.3 43.3 10 392 2 614 3.2 7.3 69.1 15.7 02 12 029 Dixie ....................... 692 2 774 5 480 8 22,3 2.0 50.2 - 4 554 926 42.9 10.6 60.8 8.7 3600 A 12 031 Duval .......................... 766 73 528 865 690 16.1 .3 50.8 97.9 407 420 118 471 12.1 8.6 64.8 7.5 6080 0 12 033 Escambia .....................:I 665 193 205 334 309 18.1 -1.0 50.1 83.9 162 950 40 344 12.5 8.8 63.8 6.4 04 12 035 Flagler ..................... 487 4 2 871 4 454 9 -2.5 -11.5 50.4 - 3 068 1 365 -21.2 8.0 66.3 15.8 01 12 037 Franklin ....................... 536 2 584 7 065 13 7.4 -3.6 51.2 44.6 5 742 1 323 -4.9 8.0 65.1 15.7 ... 03 12 039 Gadsden ....................... 512 835 39 184 77 -6.7 -22.6 52.6 41.6 15 928 23 247 -6.8 .9.0 62.0 11.9 ... 03 12 041 Gilchrist ....................... 346 2 956 3 551 10 23.8 13.1 49.5 - 3 264 (8) (B) 7.9 65.4 11.2 ... 06 12 043 Glades ........................ 753 2 943 3 669 5 24.4 13.1 49.1 - 2 418 893 -11.8 9.5 61.7 9.6 ... 01 12 045 Gulf......... ................. 565 2 246 30 096 18 1.6 -12.8 49.6 43.6 7 699. 2 377 -.3 9.1 61.1 8.2 ... ... 03 12 047 Hamilton ...................... 514 2 496 7 787 15 1.1 -12.4 52.0. - 4 701 3 083 -10.0 9.5 60.7 12.0 05 12 049 Hardee ............ ... ....... 629 1 839 14 889 24 20.4 8.5 49.6 20.3 13 594 1 270 11.6 10.1 61.9 10.0 ... 06 12 051 Hendry ..................... 1 187 2 085 11 8591 0 46.1 22.2 49.2 32.9 9 013 2 600 31.0 10.3 60.1 6.9 ... 05 12 053 Hernando ...................... 484 al 678 17 004 35 51.8 44.1 51.1 23.9 14 590 2 401 2.1 7.1 70.1 20.4 ... OS 12 055 Highlands ...................... 997 1 087 29 507 30 38.3 29.0 51.4 47.2 23 232 5 972 34.0 7.5 69.1 21.1 ... 8280 B 12 057 Hillsborough .................... 1 03B 79 490 265 472 23.2 11.8 51.5 81.2 422 205 66 729 20.2 8.2 66.4 10.5 O3 12 059 Holmes ........................ 4B2 2 192 10 720 22 -1.1 -5.4 50.8 - 30 387 (el (BI 7.7 67.9 14,5 ,,. 04 12 061 Indian River .................... 506 907 35 992 71 42.2 30.5 52.2 69.6 29 451 6 517 21.1 7.6 66.7 37.3 . .. ... 03 12 063 Jackson ....................... 935 951 34 434 37 -4.9 -13.0 50.1 27.3 24 462 9 954 -11.4 7.4 64.4 11.0 - Represents zero. B Data not shown where population is leas than 400. X Not applicable. 111. ed on corrected population totals shown in Appendix B. 'Rio Blanco County, Colo, and Presidio County, Tex. are identical in rank -2831. 3De Soto County, Fla. and Marshall County, Minn. are identical in rank -1975. 4Flagler County, Fla. and Miner County, S. Dak. are identical in rank -2871. °Hernando County, Fla. and Wayne County, Ill. are identical in rank -1678. 78 9.5 9.9 0.9 9.7 6.4 4.2 B.9 ~, Colo. (Pitkin) -Fla. (Jackson) County COLORADO -Con Pitkin .............. ....... . Prower, ................. Pueblo ........................ Rio Blanco ..................... Rio Grande .................. Routt......................... Saguache ....................... SanJuan ....................... San Miguel ..................... Sedgwick ...................... Summit ....................... Teller ......................... Washington ..................... Weld......................... Yuma ......................... CONNECTICUT - The State ................... Fairfield ...................... Hartford ....................... Litchfield ...................... Middlesex ...................... New Haven ..................... New London .................... Tolland ........................ Windham ...................... DELAWARE The State ............ . Kent ............... New Castle ............... Sussex ................. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA The District ........... FLORIDA The State .............. Alachua .................. Baker .................... Bay..................... Bradford .................. Brevard ................... Broward .................. Calhoun .................. Charlotte ............. . . . . Citrus .... Clay ..... Collier . Columbia Dade.... De Soto . . Dixie ... Duval .... E,cam61. . Flagler ... Franklin . Gadsden . Gilchrist (,led" .. Gulf ..... Hamilton . Hardee ........................ Hendry ........................ Hernando ...................... Highlands ...................... Hillsborough .................... Holmes ........................ Indian River .................... Jackson ....................... - Represent. zero. 'Includes children and parents or c migratory unite, see Appendix B. from 1,307 families. 82 Social Security IOASDH0 monthly benefits, Dec. 1971 Table 2. -COUNTIES (Minus 1-) denotes decrease] Public assistance, Feb, 1972 Recipients of- Payments for month Families with RecipientsPayments Aver age re Wee Old age assist- Aid to families with depend- Total Old- age assist- dependent children' Aver- bene- fits ance ant children' ante Total age per family 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 $1,000 DoL $1000 Per. Per Do% cent cent 284 33 139 16 25 3 40.9 43.5 169 1 934 191 118 452 1 007 92 36.6 51.3 189 15 137 1 628 130 2 157 10 653 830 20.3 64.1 179 553 59 125 73 101 12 44.8 44.4 190 1 592 156 120 315 626 65 38.7 43.2 166 853 90 119 114 119 16 51.9 34.4 146 598 55 114 166 259 31 43.9 36.1 136 88 9 139 5 19 1 13.9 67.7 118 244 26 120 35 34 6 41.1 28.8 126 526 56 126 76 42 9 63.6 18.7 138 136 15 127 15 15 2 54.9 38.8 100 540 60 127 76 156 14 33.0 57.8 203 788 63 124 120 121 18 55.4 28.9 150 9 904 1 046 127 1 565 5 466 454 26.8 59.4 186 1 530 156 118 272 107 32 68.6 14.2 145 Items 68-84 Housing, 1970 -Year-round units vacancy rates In In Median In strut strut Change, num- one- tures tures Totals 7960- ber unit built built Home- Rental 1970 of struc- 1960 prior owner rooms tures or to later 1950 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 Per. Per. Per- Per- cent cent cent cent 2. 696 217.6 4.7 60.7 59.5 25.7 1.6 10.1 4 578 4.0 4.9 85.0 18.7 69.0 1.3 10.1 37 436 9.8 4.7 79.7 19.6 55.2 1.0 7.9 1 881 8.0 4.4 77.1 14.7 69.9 2.3 17.9 3 348 -.7 4.9 86.3 13.9 76.3 1.1 5.0 2 899 32.1 4.6 79.0 22.4 68.6 2.6 15.2 1 493 -9.0 4.7 87.6 11.0 78.6 2.7 12.7 310 -3.7 5.2 75.5 7.4 91.0 4.3 12.6 941 -8.4 4.5 88.7 13.2 77.3 2.5 16.9 1 286 -11.1 5.1 88.7 6.1 80.8 1.4 11.7 1 852 171.2 4.1 70.5 63.7 19.3 .9 13.2 1 809 50.0 4.6 88.6 30.8 52.6 4.5 18.9 2 116 -7.3 5.1 90.1 12.0 71.9 1.4 11.6 28 037 25.0 4.9 72.9 26.0 58.2 .8 4.0 3 507 8.3 5.1 90.4 12.3 75.9 2.4 6.5 84 360 6711 46 3121 1471 8 1301 '107 0541 89 7791 8.61-79.311260 1 968 8151 22.61 5.21 59.1 1 23.1 1 55.61 .81 4.4 90 139 11 688 149 1 764 25 015 2 233 8.8 79.3 259 252 334 24.0 5.4 61.7 22.3 54.5 .8 3.2 97 870 12 707 149 2 324 35 185 3 149 6.9 82.2 264 262 133 22.3 5.1 54.0 23.8 53.7 .6 3.8 19 831 2 533 146 288 1 832 187 22.4 58.9 213 48 947 23.9 5.4 70.9 19.6 61.9 .9 5.0 13 368 1 705 145 391 2 501 284 17.7 60.2 228 36 591 31.5 5.3 72.1 27.0 52.4 1.1 4.5 95 886 12 348 147 2 241 33 300 3 046 7.0 82.1 269 240 628 16.1 5.1 55.0 20.8 59.0 .B 5.0 24 040 2 940 141 bll 5 515 522 11.6 72.3 247 71 639 26.3 5.3 62.4 26.5 54.8 .9 7.1 8 010 1 004 142 155 1 451 149 11.7 68.3 236 28 951 52.6 5.4 72.4 36.8 39.8 1.0 4.7 11 527 1 387 137 356 2 255 210 20.7 63.5 216 27 592 24.2 5.3 57.4 21.2 64.3 .9 5.7 62 838 8 389 40 833 13 616 79 355 1 264 558 10 823 189 9 593 2 053 23 216 141 814 1 338 10 013 7 173 4 056 7 756 3 546 192 772 2 524 854 59 129 20 211 1 043 1 470 5 950 648 486 1 337 1 170 2 279 1 426 4 704 7 860 71 983 2 225 8 745 5 662 sretakers in For vacant ye 7 372 914 4 992 1 466 8 163 146 197 1 037 103 965 189 2 637 17 961 114 1 279 875 417 955 315 22 931 258 75 6 120 1 949 111 142 477 58 50 129 94 218 146 519 904 7 705 179 1 031 468 Families wh sr -round un 136 124 143 124 120 133 115 106 120 110 131 143 107 142' 136 121 144 106 135 120 110 121 113 127 113 99 109 119 118 96 115 123 128 131 123 98 136 100 its fo 2 806 532 1 648 626 4 086 55 719 1 226 158 840 336 688 2 217 260 134 183 230 202 528 6 951 195 142 5 726 2 353 54 145 1 301 100 41 192 243 245 105 186 334 4 505 573 282 1 233 -ds of adul r sale only 30 617 4 247 22 524 3 846 88 550 312 856 6 370 339 2 391 773 6 204 24 421 422 555 576 1 039 1 603 1 708 53 755 856 349 33 134 10 965 428 237 3 710 137 197 629 555 955 743 789 1 390 25 302 506 2 428 1 906 to were consi and for rent 1 797 254 1 301 242 6 754 12 916 289 20 126 51 222 870 33 27 28 46 66 85 2 147 35 20 1 388 487 14 16 132 13 9 31 30 44 27 34 63 1 061 65 89 143 lered in de see Apper 13.9 16.1 11.7 23.1 6.0 25.4 28.4 47.7 38.2 43.6 18.0 15.9 47.7 30.7 35.5 30.7 18.4 38.6 19.7, 26.2 40.5 25.3 29.1 24.0 45.4 31.3 57.3 28.9 35.7 49.1 33.4 21.5 32.6 31.4 24.4 56.5 20.1 52.3 termini dix'C. 59.0 55.2 61.2 50.9 73.4 59.5 53.8 34.9 43.7, 34.5 69.2 71.7 23.1 51.6 45.7 52.2 62.1 41.2 67.9 57.1 34.7 59.2 52.6 62.9 29.4 51.8 20.1 48.3 46.4 35.9 51.5 62.7 51.2 51.6 59.4 17.1 64.4 25.1 ag amou boa 123 120 123 128 198 89 85 89 82 74 87 94 65 92 81 82 97 77 104 89 77 87 81 77 66 75 70 81 76 76 94 84 77 82 89 71 86 67 tt of not 174 990 27.1 25 037 30.0 120 646 27.8 29 307 22.0 278 390 75.4 2 490 838 45.4 33 519 55.0 2 324 23.9 26 742 32.8 4 591 17.2 77 871 116.9 245 799 99.6 2 710 15.4 13 046 135.4 9 707 151.5 10 445 64.2 16 081 204.9 8 446 33.8 450 119 32.1 4 041 22.6 1 875 27.1 174 149 24.3 65 085 26.2 1 841 23.8 3 017 23.0 10 000 7.7 1 249 27.7 1 392 35.8 3 725 9.4 2 557 11.0 4 697 20.1 3 969 60.8 7 578 83.0 12 309 54.7 168 292 26.1 4 062 23.0 i13 769 53.8 11 375 6.2 tid. ,For total i .ncl.d. AFDC foster 5.7 5.4 5.9 5.4 3.9 4.7 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.9 5.2 4.5 4.9 4.5 4.3 5.1 4.3 5.1 4.2 4.8 4.8 5.2 5.1 4.5 4.5 5.1 4.7 4.1 4.9 5.1 4.9 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.9 4.9 4.7 5.0 mLts i care r 75.5 69.8 74.8 83.2 36.8 69.4 68.6 81.8 77.3 85.8 70.9 60.8 88.6 81.6 80.7 76.7 60.0 81.1 56.2 83.1 82.3 75.1 82.7 73.2 86.0 89.9 80.5 68.6 90.9 85.3 86.4 67.5 82.0 75.7 76.7 88.2 78.5 90.7 ncludir f $375, 29.9 35.0 30.2 24.4 15.8 41.2 47.4 31.7 34.2 29.4 64.9 55.8 35.6 63.5 66.4 47.0 70.6 34.4 33.3 29.2 34.7 30.9 31.8 32.6 25.3 20.8 39.4 45.7 33.2 27.8 29.4 43.4 51.4 43.2 35.5 29.5 42.7 25.9 g vacan 719.73 45.0 42.0 42.7 56.7 67.9 27.3 28.8 40.1 36.0 42.2 9.2 9.9 4 5.9 11.6 14.5 28.1 8.2 44.3 30.2 48.7 35.6 38.5 38.3 33.7, 54.2' 57.8 41.3 29.6 35.3 50.4 45.5 35.4 21.2 33.5 35.3 52.3 22.3 52.9 t seaso For 2,4 1.3 1.7 1.1 1.8 1.2 1.8 2.2 1.1 1.9 1.0 3.9 1.71 2.0 1.6 3.6 2.1 4.7 1.3 1.2 1.6 .4 2.3 1.7 1.1 5.5 1.0 .6 1.7 1.1 .9 .5 2.7 2.7 1.5 1.6 2.4 1.4 sal an 13 chi 6.4 7.8 5.8 8.1 5.3 10.7 8.6 6.0 12.8 10.5 21.0 12:4 8.6 21.2 19.9 9.6 17.9 10.0 5.2 8.6 7.9 11.5 11.5 15.3 13.7 10.9 1.6 15.8 18.1 4.5 8.0 9.6 14.1 17.0 9.7 15.4 14.1 11.1 1 ldren