CENSUS Census HA 203 ,1'32 .1111 2 CURRENT POPULATION REPORTS Population Projections for States, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1993 to 2020 P25-1111 by Paul R. Campbell U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration BUREAUOFTHECENSUS
82
Embed
BUREAUOFTHECENSUS.1111 2 CURRENT POPULATION REPORTS Population Projections for States, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1993 to 2020 P25-1111 by Paul R. Campbell U.S. Department
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
CENSUS
Census HA 203
,1'32 .1111 2
CURRENT POPULATION REPORTS
Population Projections for States, by Age, Sex, Race, and
Hispanic Origin: 1993 to 2020
P25-1111
by Paul R. Campbell
U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration
BUREAUOFTHECENSUS
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared under the general direction of Gregory Spencer, Chief of the Population Projections Branch. John f. Long, Assistant Division Chief for Population Estimates and Projections. provided overall direction. The methodological and assumption development was prepared with the assistance of Signe I. Wetrogan, Chief of the Administrative Records and Methodology Research Branch. and Larry D. Sink. Larry D. Sink developed the alternative internal migration scenarios; and provided computer programming and research on the domestic migration models. Rosalyn M. Green provided computer programming of the tabular presentation. Statistical assistance was provided by Barbara E. Brenner, Gloria J. Hampton, and Mary Jane Slagle.
Jennifer Cheeseman Day and frederick W. Hollmann provided professional consultation on the national projections and estimates. respectively. Edwin Byerly, Prithwis Das Gupta, and David Word provided professional consultation. Claudette E. Bennett, Donald C. Dahmann, John F. Long, and Arthur J. Norton provided comments on the draft.
The staff of Administrative and Publications Services Division. Walter C. Odom, Chief. provided publication planning. design. composition, editorial review. and printing planning and procurement. Joan Kinikin provided publication coordination and editing.
CURRENT POPULATION REPORTS
Population Projections for States, by Age, Sex, Race, and
Hispanic Origin~ 1993 to 2020 P25-1111
Issued March 1994
by Paul R. Campbell
U.S. Department of Commerce Ronald H. Brown, Secretary
Economics and Statistics Administration Paul A. London, Acting Under Secretary
for Economic Affairs
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Harry A. Scarr, Acting Director
Economics and Statistics Administration
Paul A. London, Acting Under Secretary for Economic Affairs
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
Harry A. Scarr, Acting Director
William P. Butz, Associate Director for Demographic Programs
POPULATION DIVISION Arthur J. Norton, Chief
SUGGESTED CITATION
Campbell, Paul R., Population Projections for States, by Age, Race, and Sex: 1993 to 2020, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P25-1111, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1994.
For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
Selection of Assumptions, Sensitivity Analysis, and Forecast Error............................ xxxi Selection of Assumptions ..................................................................... " xxxi Forecast Errors in Past Projections ............................................................ xxxii
Summary and Limitations of Projections ......................................................... xxxii Related Reports ................................................................................... xxxiii Availability of More Detailed Data ................................................................ xxxiii State Produced Projections ....................................................................... xxxiii Rounding of Projections ........................................................................... xxxiii Symbols .. , ......................................................................................... xxxiii
TEXT TABLES
A. Comparison of Population Projections, by Region and Series: 1993, 2000, and 2020 ............................................................................ , .......... viii
B. Projections of the Top 10 States, Ranked by Population Size: 1993,2000, and 2020......... ........ .... ........ ....... ...................... .... ..... ......... ...... ..... ix
C. Projections of the 10 Fastest Growing States, Ranked by Percent Growth for Each Series: 1993 to 2020 ..................................................................... x
D. States With the Largest Net Population Change, Ranked by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1993 to 2020. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi
1. Projected Average Annual Percent Change in State Populations: 1993 to 2000 . . . .. . xii 2. Projected Average Annual Percent Change in State Populations: 2000 to 2010 . . . .. . xii 3. Projected Average Annual Percent Change in State Populations: 2010 to 2020 . . . . . . xiii 4. Net Population Change, by State: 1993 to 2020.. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . xv 5. Percentage of Population Under 20 Years of Age, by State: 2020..................... xix 6. Population 65 Years of Age and Over, by State: 2020.................................. xix 7. Percentage of Population 65 Years and Over, by State: 2020.......................... xxi 8. Ratio of Youth and Elderly per 100 Adults, by State: 2020 ............................. xxi
DETAILED TABLES
1. Total Population of Regions, Divisions, and States: 1990 to 2020 Series A (Preferred Series) ............................................................. . 1 Series B ............................................................................... '" 2 Series C ........................................... , ................................... '" 3 Series D ......................................................................... , ........ . 4
2. Components of Population Change, for Regions, Divisions, and States: 1990 to 2020 Series A (Preferred Series) ............................................................. . 5 Series B ................................................................................. . 8 Series C ................................................................................. . 11 Series D ................................................................................. . 14
3. Projections of the Population, by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, for Regions, Divisions, and States; 1993 to 2020 - Series A (Preferred Series) ................... . 17
4. Projections of the Population, by Age and Sex, for Regions, Divisions, and States: 1993 to 2020 - Series A (Preferred Series) ............................................ . 24
5. Comparison of Projections of the Population of Regions, Divisions, and States, by Series: 2000, 2010, and 2020 ............................................................ . 38
6. Comparison of Projections of the Rate of Population Change for Regions, Divisions, and States, by Series: 1990 to 2020 ................................................... . 39
7. State Population Projections Developed by Individual State Agencies; 1990 to 2020. 40
t
APPENDICES
A. 1990 Census Population................................................................... A-1 B. State Agencies Preparing Population Projections.................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 C. Race and Ethnic Definitions and Concepts............................................... C-1
Population Projections for States, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1993 to 2020
This is the first State population projections by the U.S. Bureau of the Census to present data for four race groups (White; Black; American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut; and Asian and Pacific Islander), and the Hispanic origin population. The four race groups sum to the State totals. Projections for Hispanic origin are treated separately and are not additive. 1
Many trends described here are substantially different from those shown in the pre~ious pr~jections. Th~se differences are primarily due to change over to the 1990 census base and to changes In the natIonal populatIon projections used as controls for these projections (see Current Population Reports, P25-1104, for further information).
HIGHLIGHTS fROM PREfERRED SERIES
Short Term Trends - 1993 to 2000
Size and Growth of Regions and States. The South and West regions combined are projected to account for 82 percent of the 18 million persons added to the Nation's population between 1993 and 2000. States in those two regions accounted for 84 percent of growth during the 1980's.
The South is projected to have the largest gains from net internal migration, while the Northeast would have the largest losses during 1993-2000. Net international migration is expected to be high for all regions except the Midwest.
California, the most populous State, contained 12 percent of the Nation's population in 1993. By 2000, it is projected to have 13 percen:t of the Nation's population.
By mid-1994, Texas is projected to replace New York as the Nation's second most populous State.
California is projected to attract 40 percent of the international migrants added to the Nation's population during the 1990's. It attracted 35 percent of the immigrants during the 1980's.
Race Distribution. During 1993 to 2000, the White population is projected to account for 60 percent or more of the absolute increase in the Nation's population in all regions, except the Northeast. The White population is expected to decline in the Northeast.
1 See appendix C for a discussion of race and ethnic definitions and concepts used in this report.
The South is projected to gain more than half (56 percent) of the 3.3 million Blacks added to the Nation's population during 1993 to 2000.
The Nation's third largest race group, the Asian and Pacific Islander population, is projected to be the fastest growing in aI/ regions-with an annual average change of 4 percent or greater.
American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts are projected to be the second fastest growing population in the West between 1993 and 2000. Between 1993 and 2000, California drops from first to third place as the Nation's most populous American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut State, while Oklahoma and Arizona would move to first and second place, respectively.
Hispanic Origin Distribution. The largest share of growth for the Nation's Hispanic-origin population is projected to occur in the West and South. Both regions combined would account for 81 percent of the 6 million Hispanics added to the Nation during 1993 to 2000.
California and Texas are expected to continue to have the greatest share of the Nation's Hispanic population (with 34 and 20 percent, respectively, in 2000).
Age Distribution. The West and Northeast region's outh population (proportion of population under 20 ears of age) is projected to increase, while the South nd Midwest decrease (by less than a percentage point
n a/l regions between 1993 and 2000).
The West region is projected to have the largest roportion of youth (31 percent under age 20 in the year 000), while the Northeast is expected to have the mallest (27 percent). The South and Midwest would be
n the middle (29 percent).
yyai
p2si
vi
Most States (29 including the District of Columbia) are projected to show a decline in the proportion of youth (under 20 year of age) in their populations. Utah, with the largest proportion of youth (39 percent in 1993) among the States, is projected to have the largest decline (1.6 percentage points between 1993 and 2000).
The Northeast is projected to have the largest proportion of elderly (14 percent aged 65 and over) of any region, while the West would have the smallest (11 percent). Both the South and Midwest regions would fall in the middle (with 13 percent). the share of elderly slightly increases in all regions (by less than one-half percentage point) between 1993 and 2000.
Florida is expected to continue to be the State with the highest proportion of elderly (ages 65 and over) in its population (19 percent in 1993 and 20 percent in 2000).
Long Term Trends - 1993 to 2020
Size and Growth of Regions and States. The South is projected to remain the most populous region of the Nation between 1993 and 2020. The Midwest, the second most populated region in the Nation in 1993, is replaced by the West shortly after the year 2000.
After 2015, Florida is projected to replace New York as the Nation's third most populous State, with Texas ranked second and California first.
By 2020, California is expected to account for 15 percent of the Nation's population (up from 12 percent in 1993).
Race Distribution. During 1993 to 2020, the White population is projected to account for more than half of the absolute increase in the Nation's population in only two regions: the West and South.
Among the five most populous States for the White population, California, Texas, and Florida are projected to have large increases (30 percent or more) in the White population, while Pennsylvania would have almost no gain (less than 1 percent) and New York a small loss (-4 percent) between 1993 and 2020.
During 1993 to 2020, New York and California are projected to rank first and second, respectively, with the largest share of the Nation's Black population. Florida would have the largest net population change among the States for Blacks (with an increase of 1.5 million). After 2000, Florida replaces Texas as the third largest State for Blacks.
Between 1993 and 2020, the Nation's Asian and Pacific Islander population for California is projected to more than double (9.7 million in 2020-up from 3.5 million in 1993). In 2020, 43 percent of the Nation's Asian and Pacific Islander population is projected to reside in California. New York and Texas are expected to be the only other States with at least 1 million Asians and Pacific Islanders.
During 1993 to 2020, most of the growth projected for the American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut population is concentrated in the West region. Nearly three quarters (73 percent) of the 0.9 million American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts added to the United States are expected to reside in this region.
The American Indian, Eskimo, ;:tnd Aleut population in Arizona is projected to nearly doJble between 1993 and 2020. After 2000, Arizona is expected to be the most populous State for the Nation's American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut population, followed by Oklahoma and California.
Hispanic Origin Distribution. The Hispanic origin population is projected to comprise a substantially larger share of the total population in all regions by 2020: In the West 29 percent in 2020 versus 20 percent in 1993; in the South 14 versus 9 percent; in the Northeast 12 versus 8 percent; and in the Midwest 6 versus 3 percent.
California's Hispanic origin population is expected to double between 1993 and 2020. In 2020, the 17.5 million HispaniCS projected for California, would account for one-third of the Nation's HispaniCS.
Age Distribution. In 2020, the West is projected to continue as the leader with the greatest proportion of population under 20 years of age (28 percent), while the Northeast would have the smallest (25 percent).
As the Baby Boom generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) reaches retirement age after 2010, the growth of the elderly population is expected to accelerate rapidly in the West and South.
In 1993, only one State is projected to have at least 16 percent of its population in the elderly category (Florida with 19 percent). By 2020 that number would grow to 32 States (Florida, up to 26 percent).
INTRODUCTION
This report presents population projections for the 50 States and the District of Columbia by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin for 1993 through 2020. Projections are given for the White; Black; American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut (AIEA); Asian and Pacific Islander (API); and Hispanic origin populations.
The projections use the cohort-component method.2
The COhort-component method requires separate assumptions for each component of population change: births, deaths, internal migration, and international migration. These components are from various sources. State differentials in fertility are based on 1988 to 1990 births, 1990 census population distribution of females in childbearing ages for States, and 1990 national fertility data.
2For a definition of the cohort-component method see Shryock, Henry S., and Jacob S. Siegel, et aI., The Methods and Materials of Demography, Vol. 2, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1971, p. 778.
State differentials in survival rates are based on 1988 and 1989 deaths, 1990 census population for States, and 1990 national life tables. The projections use Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data on interstate migration flows from 1975-76 through 1991-92. International migration was estimated using State totals of the foreignborn population immigrating during 1980 to 1990 as enumerated in the 1990 census. International migration for States was further disaggregated by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin using the foreign-born population immigrating during 1975 to 1980 as enumerated in the 1980 census.
The April 1, 1990 State populations by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin as enumerated in the census were projected to July 1, 1990, 1991, and 1992. These projected figures were prorated to the independently produced mid-year State estimates by age and sex, and national estimates by age, sex, and race/origin. The national total population is consistent with the middle series of the Census Bureau's national population projections.3 The projections' starting date is July 1, 1993. The July 1, 1992 estimates of State populations by single years of age and sex are consistent with previously released data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census.4 The July 1, 1992 estimates of the United States population by single years of age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin are consistent with released national estimates.5 These estimates are consistent with the 1990 census count, but cannot be directly compared to the published results by age and race because modifications were made to the data to correctly place each person in an appropriate age and race category. This was done to adjust for age misreporting and the reporting of an unspecified race in the 1990 census.6
This set of population projections provides a preferred series with alternative series. Given the sensitivity of internal migration to changes in economic conditions, internal migration changes can be both rapid and sizable. Identifying a preferred series along with alternative series, rather than the equa"y-likely series, reflects a process of evaluating State population projection models used in the last set of population projections. The four sets of projections presented in this report are based on different internal migration assumptions:
3See U.S. Bureau of· the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P25: 1104, Population Projections of the United States, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1993 to 2050, by Jennifer Cheeseman Day, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1993.
4U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P25-1106, State Population Estimates by Age and Sex 1980 to 1992, by Edwin R. Byerly, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1993.
5U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Population Estimates, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1990 to 1992, by Frederick W. Hollmann, 1993.
6U.S. Bureau of the Census, Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin Information from the 1990 Census: A Comparison of Census Results with Results where Age and Race have been Modified, 1990 CPH-L-74, August 1991.
Description of the Projections Models
1) Series A, the preferred series, is a time-series model and uses State-to-State migration observed from 1975-76 through 1991-92;
2) Series B, the economic model, uses the Bureau of Economic Analysis (SEA) employment projections;?
3) Series C, the floating mean model, is the mean of the n most recent years for the n-th projection year;
4) Series 0, the zero net internal migration assumption.
The "Domestic Migration" section gives a detailed description of the four series. A separate set of projections was performed for the Hispanic origin population. The methodology is the same as that used for the total population, except where noted. Only the Series A model is used to project the Hispanic population. It is based on Hispanic migration observed from 1988-89 through 1 990-91 (the only years for which Hispanic migration data are currently available).
These population projections represent the results of assumptions about future trends in the components of population change. They are not intended as a forecast of future population. Unless otherwise noted, the discussion in this report refers to the preferred series.
The projections shown here supersede information contained in the recent set of State population projections in several ways.s First, the earlier set of State population projections used components of change available to derive 1988 State population projection starting pOints. The race projections were limited to Whites, Blacks, and Other races. No projections were prepared for the Hispanic-origin population. Finally, the earlier set of State population projections provided equa"y-likely alternative series.
PROJECTED POPULATION TRENDS
The projections of State population by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin shown in this report result from the methodology and detailed assumptions about each component of population change presented in the methodology section of this report.
7U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, BEA Regional Projections to 2040, Volume 1: States, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1990.
aU.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No.1 053, Projections of the Population of States, by Age, Sex, and Race: 1989 to 2010, by Signe I. Wetrogan, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1990.
viii
Comparison of Series
The summary of regional projections provided in table A shows the range of results when comparing the preferred with the alternative series. The rate of growth in the Northeast and Midwest is below the national level on all four series. The West and South are above the national level on all series, except series D where the South is below the Nation. Under the Series D assumption of no internal migration, the Northeast, Midwest, and South would grow at approximately the same rate. In the West, the rate of growth does not vary much across the four series.
Under all four series, the South would continue to be the most populous region. One-third of the total United States population is projected to reside in the South during 1993 to 2020 under all series. For the South, Series D is at least 7 million persons lower than any other series. Among the four series, the Northeast and Midwest shows the largest net population gains under Series D.
The relative ranking of population size of States varies under the four projection series. Eight of the ten
most populous States are the same under the four series (table 8). California would continue to be the most populous State with over 47 million persons residing there in 2020 under all four projection scenarios.
The rankings of the fastest growing States by series show much variation over the projection periods (table C). Nevertheless, all four series;show Hawaii and California among the top three fastest growing States during the 2010 to 2020 period. Hawaii is the only State projected to be among the top 10 fastest growing in all four projection series during the three periods spanning 1993 to 2020. Although the District of Columbia is projected to be among the 10 fastest growing on Series D during 1993 to 2000, it ranked 51 st (with population loss) on the other three projection series.
Size and Growth of the Total Population
In the following sections projection results are only presented for Series A (labelled preferred series). A brief discussion is first given showing short-term results
Table A. Comparison of Population Projections, by Region and Series: 1993 to 2020
(In thousands. As of July 1. Series A, B, C, and D reflect different interstate migration assumptions. Percent changbeginning population)
Projections Percent of total population Series and region
that cover only the 1990's (starting with 1993), followed Regional Population Growth. Short term trends-1993 by the long term results which cover the 27 years ending to 2000. The West and South are projected in the in 2020. Results are presented for regions, followed by preferred series to be the fastest growing regions in the States. The short term subsections are likely to be more United States (table A). During this short period, the accurate (for a discussion 9n the decline in accuracy West and South will increase by 18 and 13 percent, over the projection horizon, see section on forecast respectively. Although the West is growing the fastest, error in past projections). The long term summary of the South is expected to add more persons (7.9 versus trends is provided for users that need lengthier 7.1 million). projections.
x
Table C. Projections of the 10 Fastest Growing States, Ranked by Percent of Population Growth for Each Series: 1993 to 2020
(Series A, B, C, and 0 reflect different interstate migration assumption)
Period and rank of percent population growth Series A-Preferred Series Series B Series C Series D
1993 TO 2000
1 ...................... Nevada Alaska Nevada California 2 ...................... Idaho Nevada Washington Utah 3 ...................... Alaska Washington Florida Hawaii 4 ...................... Utah California California Alaska 5 ...................... Washington Hawaii Hawaii Texas 6 ...................... Colorado Utah Arizona Nevada 7 ...................... Arizona New Hampshire Oregon New Mexico 8 ...................... New Mexico Colorado Idaho Arizona 9 ...................... Hawaii Georgia Georgia New York 10 ..................... Oregon Florida Utah District of Columbia
2000 TO 2010
1 ...................... California Alaska California California 2 ...................... Hawaii Nevada Hawaii Utah 3 ...................... Washington Hawaii Arizona Alaska 4 ...................... Utah Washington Florida Hawaii 5 ...................... Nevada California Nevada Texas 6 ...................... Arizona Utah Alaska New Mexico 7 ...................... Wyoming Idaho Washington Idaho 8 ...................... New Mexico Oregon Georgia Arizona 9 ...................... Texas Arizona New Mexico Nevada 10 ..................... Oregon Colorado New Hampshire New York
2010 TO 2020
1 ...................... Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii California 2 ...................... California Alaska California Utah 3 ...................... Washington California Arizona Hawaii 4 ...................... Oregon Nevada Florida Alaska 5 ...................... Arizona Washington Nevada Texas 6 ...................... New Mexico Utah Washington New Mexico 7 ...................... Texas Idaho Alaska Arizona 8 ...................... Florida Oregon New Mexico Nevada 9 ...................... Utah Arizona Georgia Idaho 10 ..................... Nevada Montana Oregon New York
Source: Table 1. Based on July 1, 1993, 2000, 2010, and 2020 projections.
During the 1990's international migration is expected of trends during the 1980's when the South and West to play the major role in the population growth of the accounted for 84 percent of the 22 million persons West, while both internal and international migration will added to the Nation's population. 9
be important contributers to growth of the South. The The Midwest is projected to add 7.8 million persons slow population growth of the Northeast and Midwest is during the period 1993 to 2020, which will be almost
attributed to net internal outmigration to other regions double the number added in the Northeast. The average annual growth in all regions except the Northeast is (see section on components of population change expected to decline. below for details).
The South is the most populous region of the United Long term trends-1993 to 2020. The fast growth States. The second most populated region in the Nation
projected for the initial 7 years in the South and West in 1993, the Midwest, is replaced by the West shortly appears also for the long term. During the 1993 to 2020 period, the South and West are each expected to
9Based on 1980 and 1990 census figures reported in U.S. Bureau increase by nearly 28 million persons. The South and of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1992, (112th West combined are projected to account for 82 percent edition), Washington, DC, 1992, table 23, p. 21. For a detailed
of the 68 million persons added to the Nation's popula discussion of past trends _see U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P23, No. 175, Population Trends in the
tion over the 27 years. This is essentially a continuation 1980's, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1992.
•
after the year 2000. Factors that contribute to the rapid growth or decline in regions are discussed below in the components of change section.
State Population Growth. Short term trends-1993 to 2000. During the 1993 to 2000 projection period the most populous State, California is expected to increase its share of the Nation's population (from 12.2 percent in 1993 to 12.6 percent in 2000).
New York is projected to be the second most populated State in 1993 (18.2 million persons), followed by Texas (18.0 million). Both of these States represent about 7 percent of the Nation's population. One year later, the two States will have switched places. By 2000, 7.3 percent of the Nation's population is expected to reside in Texas compared with 6.6 percent in New York. In addition, by the year 2000, Georgia is projected to replace North Carolina as the 10th most populous State (see table B).
Over the 7 year period only three States show a net increase of more than a million persons: California (3.5 million), Texas (2.1 million), and Florida (1.6 million). The only population losses projected are in Massachusetts (-42,000), District of Columbia (-40,000), Connecticut (-7,000), and Rhode Island (-6,000).
Long term trends-1993 to 2020. The State with the largest population, California, is projected to continue to grow rapidly. California accounted for 12 percent of the Nation's population in 1993, by 2020 it is projected to represent 15 percent. Besides natural increase, international migration will contribute to California's rapid growth. Nevertheless, California is projected to have substantial out-migration to other States.
In the year 2020, 8 percent of the Nation's population is projected to reside in Texas (the second largest State after replacing New York in 1994) compared to 6 percent in New York. Florida is projected to replace New York as the third largest after 2015, while Illinois replaces Pennsylvania in fifth place by 2005. Wyoming, with the smallest share of the Nation's inhabitants now (0.2 percent), is replaced by the District of Columbia after the year 2000.
The average annual rate of change among the 50 States and the District of Columbia will vary greatly during the 1990's (figure 1). Nevada is expected to have the most rapid growth (average annual rate of change at 3.2 percent) with the District of Columbia at the other end of the continuum with population loss (-1.0 percent). After 2000, the average annual rate of change for the States will narrow substantially (figures 1 and 2). California will have the most rapid growth (average annual rate of change at 1.8 percent) compared to West Virginia with the least (zero). Results for the 27-year period suggests that the trend is toward slower growth for most States: For example, during the 1993 to 2000 period, 25 States are projected to have an average
xi
annual rate of change at 1.0 percent or greater, compared with only 15 States during the 2010 to 2020 period.
Besides expecting the most rapid growth during the 1993 to 2000 period, Nevada, the 38th largest State in 1993, will have the greatest drop in the average annual rate of change. The decline of average annual rate of change for Nevada (1.1 perdent during the 2010 to 2020 period) is projected to be due to the decline of internal in-migration.
The District of Columbia with the least growth during the 1993 to 2000 period, is expected to show a reversal of trends (from an average annual rate of change at -1.0 percent during the 1993 to 2000 period to 1.0 percent during 2010 to 2020). The District of Columbia's turnaround in growth is due to the projected decline of internal out-migration.
Even though growth rates for most States are projected to decline, the few States during 1993 to 2000 with negative growth are projected to have a turnaround. For example, during the 1993 to 2000 period, the District of COlumbia and three States, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut are projected to have negative growth rates. However, during the 2010 to 2020 period no negative growth rates are projected. West Virginia (with 0.1 percent during 2010 to 2020) is expected to have the lowest average annual rate of change.
Components of Population Change
Regional Components of Change. Short term trends-1990 to 2000. 10 During the 1990's, the South is expected to have both the largest number of births (14.0 million) and deaths (8.1 million). The least births are expected in the Northeast (7.3 million). The fewest deaths are expected in the West (4.2 million).
During the 1990's, the internal migration component shows a great deal of variation among the regions. The South is expected to have the largest net gain of internal migrants (3.4 million) during the 10-year period. The Northeast will have the largest net loss (-3.3 million). Net internal migration in both the Midwest (-0.3 million) and the West (0.2 million) will be small.
Net international migration is expected to be high for all regions (West 4.0 million, South 2.1 million, and Northeast 2.0 million) except the Midwest (0.7 million).
Long term trends-1990 to 2020. The South is projected to account for more births (44 million) and deaths (29 million) in the population than any of the other three regions. The West ranks second among the regions with the most births (34 million), and at the bottom with the smallest number of deaths (15 million).
10There is a shift in showing results for 1990 to 2000 rather than 1993 to 2000 since the components of population change are only presented quinquennially for comparison purposes.
Figure 1.
Projected Average Annual Percent Change in State Populations: 1993 to 2000
Source: Preferred series, table 1.
Figure 2.
Projected Average Annual Percent Change in State Populations: 2000 to 2010
Source: Preferred series, table 1.
Under 0.5
0.5 to 0.9
0.9 to 1.4
_ 1.4ormore
United States 0.9
Figure 3.
Projected Average Annual Percent Change in State Populations: 2010 to 2020
Source: Preferred series, table 1.
United States 0.8
xiii
Migration plays a major role in regional differences in York (with 1.7 million) will have more deaths than growth during the 30 years. The South is projected to Florida (1.5 million) and Texas (1.4 million) during the have the largest gains from net internal migration, while 1990's. Other States with at least 1 million deaths are the Northeast and Midwest will have the largest losses. Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Ohio. Nevertheless, the large losses through internal out Florida, with a gain of 1.2 million net internal migrants, migration for the Northeast and Midwest are projected is the only State to gain more than 1 million persons to nearly balance out due to gains from immigration. from net internal migration during the 10-year period. In
Over the 1990 to 2020 period, population growth in contrast both California and New York are projected to the South is projected to increase rapidly. The compo lose at least 2 million persons through net internal nents of this rapid change are a high rate of natural migration. increase (many births minus few deaths),11 high net Although California and New York are expected to internal in-migration, and high immigration. Most of the have the largest net internal migration losses in the growth in the West is projected to be due to natural Nation during the 1990's, these States are also proincrease and net immigration. Net internal migration is jected to show the largest gains through international projected to be marginally negative in the West. migration. The two States combined will account for
more than half (52 percent) of the international migraState Components of Change. Short term trends-1990 tion. California will make up for losses in net internal to 2000. Over the 10-year period, 11 States are pro migration by attracting a net of 3.5 million international jected to have 1 million or more births. California, Texas, migrants. Even though New York is expected to have and New York are expected to be the leaders with 6.1, the second largest number of international migrants (1.1 3.3, and 2.8 million births, respectively. Seven States million) in the Nation, this number does not compensate are expected to have at least 1 million deaths. The State for the loss of 2.0 million persons through out-migration with the most deaths is California (with 2.3 million). New to other States.
Long term trends-1990 to 2020. During the 1990 to
11 The surplus of births over deaths in a population for a given time 2020 period, five States are projected to have 5 million period is referred to as "natural increase". or more births: California (20 million), Texas (11 million),
I
xiv
New York (8 million), Florida (6 million), and Illinois (6 million). Three of these States will have 5 million or more deaths: California (8 million), Florida (6 million), and New York (5 million). Among the five States, California and Texas are expected to have twice as many births as deaths. Furthermore, California and Texas alone are projected to account for more t~an one-third of the Nation's growth from the surplus of births over deaths.
During 1990 to 2020, West Virginia (with 2,000 more deaths than births) is expected to be the only State to have a deficit of births. However, examining the three decades separately reveals no States with a deficit of births during 1990 to 2000, but the deficit for West Virginia (with 5,000 more deaths than births) shows during the 2000 to 2010 period. During the 2010 to 2020 decade, Florida jOins West Virginia, and is projected to have 36,000 more deaths than births (compared with 13,000 for West Virginia).
Four States will gain 1 million or more persons over the 30-year period through net internal migration: Florida with nearly 4 million; and Washington, North Carolina, and Georgia with slightly more than 1 million. Four States will lose at least 1 million: New York (5 million), California (4 million), Illinois (2 million), and Michigan (1 million).12
California is prOjected to add the largest number of international migrants (10 million). This would account for more than one-third (39 percent) of the immigrants added to the Nation's population over the 30 year period. Other States prOjected to have major gains of a million or more persons from immigration are New York (3.4 million), Texas (2 million), Florida (2 million), New Jersey (1 million), and Illinois (1 million).
Over the three decades, the net population change13
(figure 4) will be most evident in 8 States (California, Texas, Florida, Washington, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and Arizona). They will account for 60 percent of the net population change in the United States. The net population change for California (i8 million), Texas (9 million), and Florida (6 million) combined is expected to account for 43 percent of Nation's total growth during this period.
Race and Hispanic Origin
Race was classified into four major groups: White; Black; American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut (AIEA); and Asian and Pacific Islander (API). Throughout this report,
12F~r a detailed discussion of past internal migration trends, see Larry Sink, "Trends In Internal Migration in the United States," U.S. Bu~eau of the .Census, Current Reports Series, P25, No. 175, PopulatIon Trends m the 1980's, U.S. Government Printing Office Wash-ington, DC, 1992. '
13Net population change refers to the number of persons added to (subtracted from) the base population (in this instance the July 1, 1990 State population and the ending point July 1, 2020) due to births, deaths, and net internal and international migration.
the term "American Indian" or the abbreviation "AIEA" was used to represent the entire race group American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut. The term "Asian" or the abbreviation "API" refers to the race group Asian and Pacific Islander. These four major groups sum to the State totals, while data for persons of Hispanic origin are treated separately and are not additive. Hispanic origin was considered an ethnicigroup, not a race group. Therefore, persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race (see appendix C for a detailed definition).
Regional Growth of Race Groups. Short term trends-1993 to 2000. The West and South regions (with an average annual change of 1.4 and 1.1 percent, respectively) are projected to experience the fastest growth in the White population. The average annual change for Whites in the Midwest is low (0.4 percent). The White population is projected to decline in the Northeast (-0.1 percent) during the 7 -year period. The average annual change for Whites is relatively low in comparison to the other race groups.
During the 1993 to 2000 period, the White population is projected to increase by 11 million. The South and West combined will account for most of this growth (88 percent of the net population change for Whites), while the Northeast is expected to have a net loss (of nearly 200,000).
In all four regions of the Nation, the Asian population is projected to be the fastest-growing among the race groups. Their average annual change during 1993 to 2000 ranges from 4.0 percent in the Northeast to 6.6 percent in the South. This rapid growth will result in 3.2 million Asians being added to the United States population during this period. More than half (54 percent) of the 3.2 million are projected for the West region.
The Black population is projected to be the second fastest-growing race group in the South and Northeast (with an average annual rate of change of 1.6 and 1.0 percent, respectively), while it is the third fastest growing race in the West (1.8 percent) and Midwest (1.5 percent). The South would gain more than half (56 percent) of the 3.3 million Blacks added to the Nation's population during 1993 to 2000.
During 1993 to 2000, American Indians are the second fastest-growing among the race groups in the West (with an average annual change of 2.0 percent) and Midwest (1.7 percent). The annual average change is low in the South (0.9 percent), and is projected to be negative for the Northeast (-1.7 percent).
Long term trends-1993 to 2020. In all four regions of the Nation, the White population is projected to be the slowest-growing among the race groups during the 1993 to 2020 projection period. During this period, the White population is projected to account for slightly more than half the absolute increase in the Nation's population in only two regions, the West and South. Eighty-nine percent of the 40 million Whites added to
Figure 4.
Net Population Change, by State: 1993 to 2020
West Virginia
District of Columbia
North Dakota 1993 to 2000
Vermont _ 2000 to 2020
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Maine
Delaware
Wyoming
Iowa
Montana
Alaska
Nebraska
New Hampshire
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Idaho
I Kentucky
Kansas
Arkansas
Pennsylvania
Hawaii
New Mexico
Nevada
Indiana
Wisconsin
Oklahoma
Ohio
Louisiana
Utah
Michigan
Missouri
"Minnesota
New York
South Carolina
Alabama
New Jersey
Colorado
Maryland
Oregon
Tennessee
illinois
Arizona
Virginia
North Carolina
Georgia
Washington
Florida
Texas 16.6
California
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Source: Preferred series, table 1. (In millions)
xv
I,
I I,
f I
fi ~
t ! I I I 1-ill
l [ f
•
xvi
the U.S. population will be located in these regions. By 2000, Whites will comprise 80 percent or more of Over the 27-year period, the West will replace the the population in 35 States, down from 39 States in Midwest as the second largest region for the White 1993. In 2000, the greatest proportion of Whites in any population. Although growth in the White population is State are found in Vermont and Maine (98 percent the most rapid in the West, the South will continue to each), compared to the smallest proportion in Hawaii have the largest share of the Nation's White population. (45 percent) and the District of Columbia (33 percent).
Asians are the third largest of the four major- race Among Blacks the largesf~population gains are progroups in the Nation, and the fastest-growing race jected for Florida, California, Texas, and Georgia between group in all regions. The Asian population is projected to 1993 and 2000 (table D). Only the District of Columbia have the greatest gains in the West with an increase of and West Virginia are expected to show a net Black 8 million persons (57 percent of the total added to the
population loss. U.S. Asian population during 1993 to 2020).
In all regions except the West, the Black population is Asians are projected to have the largest net populaprojected to be the second fastest-growing among the tion gains in California (1.4 million, between 1993 and
race groups and have the second largest gain in abso 2000). By 2000, 40 percent of the Nations 12 million
lute population among the four race groups. More than Asians are expected to reside in California.
half the 13 million Blacks added to the United States American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts are projected during 1993 to 2020 will be in the South. to have the largest population gains in the States of
American Indians are projected to be the second Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska, and Oklahoma during the fastest-growing population in the West during 1993 to 1993 to 2000 period. The American Indians, Eskimos, 2020. Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of the 1 million and Aleuts in 21 States are projected to show no growth American Indians added to the Nation's American Indian or net losses. population will be located in the West. Long term trends-1993 to 2020. In 1993, States State Growth of Race Groups. Short term trends-1993 with the largest share of the Nation's White population to 2000. During the 7-year period, States projected to are projected to be California with 25 million Whites have the largest net population gains for Whites are (12 percent of the Nation's total White population), California (1.8 million), Texas (1.6 million), and Florida Texas (7 percent), New York (7 percent), Florida (5 (1.1 million, see table D). Whites are projected to have percent), and Pennsylvania (5 percent), see table E. net population losses during this period in New York, Among these five States in 2020, only New York (with 5 Rhode Island, Connecticut, District of Columbia, and percent of the Nation's White population) and PennsylMassachusetts. vania (4 percent) are projected to have a smaller share
Table D. States With the Largest Net Population Change, Ranked by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1993 to 2020
(In thousands. As of July 1)
Pe- White Black American Indian Asian Hispanic origin 1
riod and Popula- Popula- Popula- Popula- Popula-rank State tion State tion State tion State tion State tion
1993 to
2000
1 California ....... 1,823 Florida ......... 391 Arizona ......... 48 California ....... 1,381 California ....... 1,999 2 Texas .......... 1,618 California ....... 289 New Mexico .... _ 30 New york ....... 182 Texas .......... 1,272 3 Florida ......... 1,089 Texas .......... 261 Alaska .......... 20 Texas .......... 180 Florida ......... 530 4 Washington ..... 637 Georgia ......... 260 Oklahoma ...... 20 Washington ..... 147 Illinois .......... 248 5 Georgia ......... 463 Maryland ....... 211 South Dakota ... 16 Illinois .......... 128 Arizona ......... 230
1993 to
2020
1 California ....... 8,894 Florida ......... 1,522 Arizona ......... 178 California ....... 6,160 California ....... 8,904 2 Texas .......... 5,883 California ....... 1,419 New Mexico ..... 137 New york ....... 751 Texas .......... 5,401 3 Florida ......... 3,808 Texas .......... 1,050 Alaska .......... 93 Texas .......... 676 Florida ......... 2,370 4 Washington ..... 2,024 Georgia ......... 972 California ....... 82 Washington ..... 582 Illinois .......... 1,060 5 Georgia ......... 1,423 New york ....... 854 Oklahoma ...... 79 Illinois .......... 471 Arizona ......... 1,021
1 Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: Series A-Preferred Series, table 3.
xvii
Table E. States With the Largest Population, Ranked by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1993,2000, and 2020
(In thousands. As of July 1)
White Black American Indian Asian Hispanic origin 1 Year and Popula- Popula- Popula- Popula- Popula-rank State tion State tion State tion State tion State lion
.• 1993
1 California ..... 25,164 New York ..... 3,185 California ..... 280 California ..... 3,525 California ..... 8,585 2 Texas ........ 15,330 California ..... 2,430 Oklahoma ..... 270 New York ..... 795 Texas ........ 4,901 3 New york ..... 14,099 Texas ........ 2,175 Arizona ....... 237 Hawaii ........ 686 New York ..... 2,319 4 Florida ........ 11,530 Florida ........ 1,960 New Mexico ... 151 Texas ........ 410 Florida ........ 1,803 5 Pennsylvania .. 10,724 Georgia ....... 1,879 Alaska.· ....... 96 Illinois ........ 348 Illinois ........ 1,016
2000
1 California ..... 26,987 New york ..... 3,391 Oklahoma ..... 290 California ..... 4,906 California ..... 10,584 2 Texas ........ 16,948 California ..... 2,719 Arizona ....... 285 New york ..... 977 Texas ........ 6,173 3 New york ..... 13,819 Texas ........ 2,436 California ..... 276 Hawaii ........ 681 New york ..... 2,498 4 Florida ........ 12,619 Florida ........ 2,351 New Mexico ... 181 Texas ........ 590 Florida ........ 2,333 5 Pennsylvania .. 10,834 Georgia ....... 2,139 Alaska ........ 116 Illinois ........ 476 Illinois ........ 1,264
2020
1 California ..... 34,058 New york ..... 4,039 Arizona ....... 415 California ..... 9,685 California ..... 17,489 2 Texas ........ 21,213 California ..... 3,849 California ..... 362 New York ... " 1,546 Texas ........ 10,302 3 Florida ........ 15,338 Florida ........ 3,482 Oklahoma ..... 349 Texas ........ 1,086 Florida ........ 4,173 4 New york ..... 13,487 Texas ........ 3,225 New Mexico ... 288 Hawaii ........ 875 New york ..... 3,031 5 Pennsylvania .. 10,804 Georgia ....... 2,851 Alaska ........ 189 Washington ... 859 Illinois ........ 2,076
1Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: Series A-Preferred Series, table 3.
of the Nation's White population than in 1993 (com Among the States, the largest share of the Nation's pared to increases for California to i 3 percent, Texas to Asians are prOjected to reside in California in 1993 (40 8 percent, and Florida to 6 percent). percent of the Nation's 8.8 million Asians) . Other States
with high proportions of the Nation's Asian population The State of New York, with 3 million Blacks, is are New York (9 percent), Hawaii (8 percent), Texas (5
projected to have the largest share of the Nation's Black percent), and Illinois (4 percent). In 2020, California
population (10 percent) in 1993. Other States with large (with 43 percent of the Nation's 22.7 million Asians) shares of the Nation's Black population are California (8 remains number 1 with the largest share, followed by percent), Texas (7 percent), Florida (6 percent), and New York (7 percent), Texas (5 percent), Hawaii (4 Georgia (6 percent). By 2020, all of the States with the percent), and Washington (4 percent). Together these largest share of the Nation's Black population in 1993 five States will account for nearly two-thirds (62 percent) are projected to increase their share (California to 9 of the Asian population in 2020. percent, Florida to 8 percent, Texas to 7 percent, and
Growth of Hispanic Origin Population. Short term Georgia to 6 percent), except New York (9 percent). trends-1993 to 2000. The Hispanic-origin population is More than one-third (39 percent) of the Nation's Black projected to account for one-third of the growth in the population is projected to reside in these five States by Nation's population (6 million Hispanics out a total of 18 2020. million persons added to the United States population
During 1993, California, with 280,000 American Indi during 1993 to 2000). The largest share of growth for ans, is projected to have the largest share of the the Nation's Hispanic population will occur in the West Nation's American Indian population (13 percent). The and South. Both regions combined will account for 81 other leading States with the largest proportion of the percent of the 6 million Hispanics added to the Nation Nation's American Indian population are Oklahoma (13 during 1993 to 2000. percent), Arizona (1 i percent), New Mexico (7 percent), In 1993, only five States will have a Hispanic-origin and Alaska (4 percent). By 2020, Arizona with 415,000 population of 1 million or more persons. The States, in American Indians is projected to have the largest share rank order, are California, Texas, New York, Florida, and of the Nation's American Indians (13 percent), followed Illinois. By the year 2000, New Jersey and Arizona are by California (12 percent), Oklahoma (11 percent), New projected to add 200,000 Hispanics each, increasing Mexico (9 percent), and Alaska (6 percent). More than the number of States with 1 million or more HispaniCS to half the American Indian population (52 percent) is seven. In 2000, one-third of the Nation's Hispanic prOjected to reside in these five States by 2020. population will live in Califomia (with 10.6 million persons-up
xviii
from 8.6 million in 1993). Although New York ranks athe State with the third most populous Hispanic-origipopulation, over the 1993 to 2000 period, it will have thsmallest absolute gain in Hispanics among the seveStates with a million or more Hispanics.
Long term trends-1993 to 2020. The Hispanic origipopulation is projected to increase rapidly over the"199to 2020 projection period, accounting for 38 percent othe growth in the Nation's population (26 million Hispanics out of a total of 68 million persons added to theNation's population). Although the rate of populationchange is projected to be high in all regions except theNortheast, the absolute number of Hispanics is projected to increase the most in the West (13 million) andSouth (9 million), and the least in the Northeast andMidwest (2 million each). Even though the Hispanicorigin population growth in the Northeast is the slowestamong the regions, the Hispanic population accountsfor more than half the region's projected absolutepopulation increase (58 percent of the 4 million personsadded to the Northeast during the 1993 to 2020 periodare Hispanic).
The Hispanic-origin population is expected to increase its share of the total population in each region. The Hispanic population comprise a substantially larger share of the total population in 2020 than in 1993 in the West (29 percent in 2020, up from 20 percent in 1993), South (14 percent, up from 9 percent), Northeast (12 percent, up from 8 percent), and the Midwest (6 percent, up from 3 percent).
In 1993, nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of the Nation's Hispanic-origin population will reside in five States. California with 8.6 million will have the largest share of the Nation's Hispanic population (34 percent) followed by Texas (20 percent), New York (9 percent), Florida (7 percent), and Illinois (4 percent). California's Hispanic population will double over the projection period (17.5 million, 34 percent of the total Hispanic population in 2020). While Texas will remain in second place (with 20 percent of the Hispanics in 2020), New York (with 6 percent) will switch from third to fourth place with Florida (8 percent) and Illinois will remain in fifth place (4 percent).
s n e n
n 3 f
Age Distribution
Youth population. Short term trends-1993 to 2000. Throughout the 1993 to 2000 period, the Nation's youth (ages 0 to 19 years of age) are projected to remain about 29 percent of the total population. The regions show some variation over the projection period. In .1993, the West is projected to have the largest proportion of its population under 20 years of age (30 percent) in comparison with the smallest in the Northeast (27 percent). The Midwest and South regions would be in the middle (29 percent). Over the 7-year period, the
overall ran kings by region are not expected to change. By 2000, the proportions under 20 years of age in the West and Northeast are projected to be 31 and 27 percent, respectively.
At the State level, trends appear to vary. Over the 7 -year period starting in 1993, 29 States (including the District of Columbia) are projected to show a decline in the proportion of youth in their populations. In i 993, Utah had the highest proportion of its population under 20 years of age (39 percent) followed by Alaska (35 percent). By 2000, Utah declines to 38 percent, while Alaska remains virtually unchanged. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the 1993 proportion of youth in the District of Columbia (22 percent) and Florida (25 percent) are among the lowest. The percent under 20 years of age is projected to decline slightly by the year 2000 in the District of Columbia (21 percent) and Florida (25 percent-down less than 0.5 percentage points).
Long term trends-1993 to 2020. Over the long term the Nation's youth population is projected to decline as a fraction of the total population. In 2020, the Nation's youth is projected to be 27 percent of the U.S. total. This is a drop of 2 percentage pOints over the 27 year period. During this period all regions are expected to show a decline in the proportion of the population that is under 20 years of age. In 2020, the West will continue as the leader with the greatest proportion of population under 20 years of age (28 percent) while the Northeast will have the smallest (25 percent).
All States follow the national and regional trends during the period. Every State, including the District of Columbia, is projected to show a decline in the proportion of population that is under 20 years of age. In 2020, Utah is the State with the highest proportion of its population under 20 years of age (35 percent), followed by Alaska (34 percent). States projected with the smallest proportion of population under age 20 are the District of Columbia (21 percent) and Florida (22 percent).
Elderly population. Short term trends-1993 to 2000. The proportion elderly (aged 65 years and over) is projected to increase in aI/ regions, by less than 1 percentage point. In 2000, the Northeast is expected to have the largest proportion of elderly at 14 percent of any region, while the West will have the smallest at 11 percent. Both the Midwest and South are projected to have 13 p~rcent.
In 2000, Florida will have the largest proportion of elderly (20 percent, up 1 percentage point since 1993) of any State. Over the 7 year period, Florida will have the greatest increase in its share of elderly. Alaska, the State with the smallest proportion of its population classified as elderly (4 percent), will remain virtually unchanged over the 7 -year period.
Long term trends-1993 to 2020. The size of the elderly population is projected to increase in all States
Figure 5.
Percentage of Population Under 20 Years of Age, by State: 2020
Source: Preferred series, table 4.
Less than 25.0
United States 26.5
Figure 6.
Population 65 Years of Age and Over, by State: 2020 In thousands
Source: Preferred series, table 4.
Under 300
300 to 699
699 to 1200
_ 1200 and over
United States 53,340
xix
xx
over the 27 years. During this period California and Florida would continue to rank 1 st and 2nd, respectively, in having the largest number of elderly (figure 6). While New York and Pennsylvania ranked 3rd and 4th,
. respectively in 1993, by the year 2020 they are expected to drop to 4th and 5th place. Texas would move from 5th place in 1993 to 3rd place by the year 2020.
Although Alaska is projected to have the least elcferly among the States over the 27 -year period, it will have a high average annual rate of change in the elderly population (3.8 percent). In Alaska, the number of elderly persons is expected to double over the 27-year period.
The population 65 plus is expected to double in the top eight States with the fastest-growing elderly population. The States with the most rapid growth of the elderly population in rank order are Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Washington, Georgia, Utah, Alaska, and California. These States are projected to have an average annual rate of change for the elderly that ranges from 4.5 to 3.8 percent between 1993 and 2020. The projections show that more than half the States will have an average annual rate of change at 2 percent or greater during 1993 to 2020.
The aging of the Baby Boom population after 2010 will have a dramatic impact on the growth of the elderly population. By the year 2020, the survivors of the Baby Boom will be between the ages of 56 and 74. The average annual rate of change in the proportion of population 65 years and over for States shows only minor growth or loss during the periods 1993 to 2000 and 2000 to 2010. During the period 2010 to 2020 all States shows a rapid acceleration in the growth of the elderly population. Most of the projected growth of the elderly population is concentrated in the West and South.
In 1993, Florida is expected to have the largest proportion of elderly (19 percent) of any State and Alaska would have the smallest at 4 percent. By 2020, Florida would remain the leading State with one quarter of its population classified as elderly. To further illustrate the rapid growth in elderly populations, in 1993 only five States are projected to have at least 15 percent of their population in the elderly category. By 2020 that number would grow to 41 States.
Dependency ratio. Short term trends-1993 to 2000. The dependency ratio indicates the number of youth (under age 20) and elderly (ages 65 and over) there would be for every 100 people of working ages (20 to 64 years). In 1993 the projected dependency ratio is the highest in the Midwest (73) and the lowest in the Northeast (68), while the South (71) and West (70) fall in the middle. By 2000 all regions show a slight increase in the dependency ratio.
The trend in the dependency ratio varies amon~ the States. In 1993 and 2000, the St[ltes with the highest
dependency ratios will be Utah (87 per 100, down from 93 in 1993) and South Dakota (83 per 100, down from 86). In 2000, Florida, Arizona, and New Mexico will be among the top five States with the highest dependency ratios. These States replaced Idaho, North Dakota, and Mississippi among the top five States in 1993.
Long term trends-1993 to(, 2020. In 1993 the projected dependency ratio for re'gions ranges from 73 to 68 per 100. By 2020 all regions show an increase in the dependency ratio, while the range among the regions narrows. Both the South and Midwest, are projected to have the highest dependency ratio (76 per 100 adults), while the West (75) and Northeast (73) have the smallest.
The States projected to have the highest dependency ratios in 1993 are Utah (93 per 100), South Dakota (86), Idaho (82), North Dakota (79), and Mississippi (79). The lowest dependency ratios are projected for the District of Columbia (54), Virginia (62), Nevada (63), Alaska (63), and Maryland (63). Over the projection period many States switch places. By 2020, States with the highest projected dependency ratios will be Florida (89), Utah (89), Arizona (87), South Dakota (85), and New Mexico (83). The lowest dependency ratios in 2020 will be among the District of Columbia (52), Nevada (65), Alaska (66), Colorado (68), and Virginia (68). Generally, States with the highest dependency ratios have slightly more than half their population in the working age group and the remaining proportion in the youth and elderly categories. In 1993, Utah is expected to have the highest dependency ratio due to its disproportionately large youth population. By 2020, Florida replaces Utah in first place, due to the growth of its elderly population.
METHODOLOGY
Overview
These State population projections were prepared using a cohort-component method by which each component of population change-births, deaths, State-toState migration flows, international in-migration, and international out-migration-was projected separately for each birth cohort by sex, race, and Hispanicorigin.14 The basic framework was the same as in past Census Bureau projections. However, in the absence of detailed components for some race and Hispanic origin groups the necessary starting point components were derived by indirect standardization from the starting pOints used in the national projections.
14The race groups projected were White; Black; American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut; and Asian and Pacific Islander. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race (see appendix C for a detailed definition).
<:b~
HI C>
Figure 8.
Ratio of Youth and Elderly Per 100 Adults, by State: 2020
Source: Number of persons under 20. years of age and age 65 and over per 10.0. persons 20. to 64, table 4.
Under 73.0.
73.0. to 75.0.
Figure 7.
Percentage of Population 65 Years and Over, by State: 2020
Source: Preferred series, table 4.
Less than 15.0.
15.0. to 16.4
16.4 to 16.9
_ 16.9 or over
United States 16.4
xxii
The cohort-component method is based on the traditional demographic accounting system:
P1 = Po + B - D + DIM - DaM + 11M - 10M
where: P 1 = population at the end of the period Po = population at the beginning of the period B = births during the period . D = deaths during the period DIM = domestic in-migration during the period DaM = domestic out-migration during the period (Both
DIM and DaM are aggregations of the Stateto-State migration flows)
11M = international in-migration during the period 10M = international out-migration during the period
To generate population projections with this model, we first created separate data sets for each of these components. The assumptions and procedures by which these data were generated by single year of age, sex, race and Hispanic origin are described in the following sections. In general, the assumptions concerning the future levels of fertility, mortality, and international migration are consistent with the assumptions developed for the national population projections released by the Census Bureau. 15
Once the data for each component were developed, it was a relatively straightforward process to apply the cohort-component method and produce the projections. For each projection year the base population for each State was disaggregated into the four racial categories (White; Black; American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut; and Asian and Pacific Islander), by sex, and single year of age (ages 0 to 85+). The next step was to survive each age-sex-race group forward 1 year using the pertinent survival rate. The internal redistribution of the population was accomplished by applying the appropriate State-to-State migration rates to the survived population in each State. The projected out-migrants were subtracted from the State of origin and added to the State of destination (as in-migrants). Next, the appropriate number of immigrants from abroad were added to each group. The populations under age 1 ~~re .created by applying the appropriate age-race-speclflc birth ~ates to females of childbearing age. The number of births by sex and race were survived forward and exposed to the appropriate migration rate to yield the population under age 1. The final results of the projecti~n process w~re adjusted to be consistent with the national population projections by Single years of age, sex, and race. The entire process was then repeated for each year of the projection. This same process was repeated for t~e HispaniC origin population separately. A complete· diScussion of each component follows.
-15 See U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P25-11 04, op. cit.
Base Population
The base population of these projections is the estimate of the July 1, 1992, resident population of States by sex and single years of age. 16 However, to begin the projection system, the base population of each state must be further disaggregated into the four race categories. Such detailed information was available only for April 1, 1990. The race categorization from the 1990 census used in these projections was different from those used for census publications. The census counts were modified by age, race, and sex (MARS file) to correct for age misreporting and the reporting of an "Other" or unspecified race in the 1990 census. 17
Population projections were prepared for four race groups: White; Black; American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut (AIEA); and Asian and Pacific Islander (API). These four major groups sum to the State totals, while data for persons of Hispanic origin are treated separately and are not additive.
I n order to generate the detailed race and Hispanicorigin information for each State on July 1, 1992, the modified census counts for each race on April 1, 1990 are carried forward to July 1, 1990, 1991, and 1992 with the basic cohort-component approach previously described. ,The appropriate mortality, fertility, international migration and State-to-State migration rates were used. The initi~1 estimates of State populations by race and HispaniC origin for July 1, 1990, 1991, and 1992 were further adjusted to be consistent with both the corresponding mid-year estimates of (1) the resident population of States by sex and Single years of age, and (2) the resident population of the United States by sex, race, Hispanic origin, and single years of age. 18
The population data shown in this report are for the resident population of each State. They include the members of the Armed Forces in the United States where they reside. They exclude Armed Forces overseas and match the published national projection totals. 19
Because of the marked differences in migration behavior exhibited by persons in the military, the projection of the military population was handled separately. Prior to the first step in the projection cycle, the military population in each State by sex, race, and single years of age was subtracted from the resident population. After the
16Consistent with the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports P25-1106 State Population Estimates by Age and Sex: 1980 to 1992, by Edwi~ R. Byerly, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1993.
17U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 CPH-L-74, "Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin Information from the 1990 Census: A Comparison of Census Results with Results where Age and Race have been Modified," August 7, 1991. .
18Consistent with the U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Population Estimates, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1990 to 1992, Frederick W. Hollmann, 1993.
19See U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P25-11 04, op. cit.
application of the appropriate mortality, fertility, international migration and State-to-State migration rates, the military population was added back to the State population. For these projections, the estimates of the military population in each State were assumed to remain constant at the July 1, 1992 levels.20
Fertility
Projections of births occurring in each State arbased upon 1) the projected number of females ochildbearing age in each state, and 2) an assumption onthe rate at which these women will bear children. Thefirst step for each projection year was to develop anapproximation of the female population exposed to thepossibility of childbearing. This population was the average of 1) the female population of each race/ethnicgroup by single years of age from age 14 through 49 atthe beginning of the year, and 2) the same populationprojected for the next year.
The next step in the projection process was thedevelopment of the appropriate age-race/ ethnic-specificfertility rates (ARSFR) for each State. Assumptionsabout future levels of fertility used in these projectionswere consistent with the middle series fertility assump
21 tion used in the national population projections. Ingeneral, the national projections assume a slight increasein the levels of fertility from a total fertility rate of 2.07 in 1993 to an ultimate level of 2.15 children per woman in the year 2050.22 The national projections provide a setof annual age-race/ ethnic-specific birth rates for each projection year. Levels of fertility are assumed to slightlyincrease for Whites (from 1.97 children per woman in 1992 to 2.05 in 2050), and slightly decrease for Blacks (2.47 to 2.45), American Indians ( 2.78 to 2.72), Asians (2.51 to 2.13), and Hispanics (2.90 to 2.47).
State projections require an additional assumption about the differentials in these rates by State. The projected fertility differences across States were based on recent vital statistics for 1988 to 1990 and national fertility patterns. There was considerable variation in the total fertility rates and the age patterns of childbearing
2°Data available were (1) national totals of resident military by branch of service and age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin, and (2) station strength by State (50 States, plus DC) and branch of service. It was assumed that age, sex, and race/ethnic distributions by branch of service at the national level applies to each State branch of service total.
21See U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P25-1104, op. cit., for a complete discussion of the method used to develop these assumptions.
22Total fertility rates are for the twelve months ending on July 1.
e f
xxiii
among States for the different race/ethnic groupS.23Existing differentials in State ARSFR's are assumed toremain constant throughout the projection period.24
The initial number of 1990 total births by State ofresidence were based on the ratio of final 1989 totalbirths by State of residence to provisional 1989 births by State of occurrence. This ratio was multiplied by the provisional 1990 total births by State of occurrence. Thefinal State births were adjusted prorata to the total number of births estimated for the 1990 fertility starting points in the national population projections.
The 1990 pattern of births by age of mother for Whites and Blacks in each State were based on the State distribution of the 1988 births, by age and race. Some race/ethnic groups at the State level do not have readily available detailed births by age of mother (such as, Hispanic origin, American Indian, and Asian). For each of these groups the corresponding 1990 national pattern of ARSFR's were applied to the States 1990 census distribution of females in childbearing ages. The resulting births by age of mother and race for each State were weighted to the 1990 national totals. The final births were divided by the State's 1990 census distribution of females in childbearing ages to obtain the final ARSFA's. More precisely, the Hispanic, AIEA, and API State pattern of fertility were assumed to be identical with the national patterns. The results were starting point 1990 fertility rates by age of mother (in 5-year age groups) for (1) Whites, (2) Blacks, (3) American Indians, (4) Asians, and (5) Hispanic origin. The rates for single years of age were obtained by interpolating between the rates for 5-year age groups.
Furthermore, for the ultimate fertility levels it was assumed that there will be no convergence of State fertility to National levels. The differential by race/ ethnicity for the ultimate fertility level are identical with those made in the national projections.
Detailed Fertility Assumptions. In the absence of detailed fertility data, 1990 starting points were estimated using indirect standardization. Many assumptions were made to approximate 1990 births by age, race/ ethnicity and State of residence in the absence of the complete or final detailed data from the National Center for Health Statistics. The most recent fertility data were 1) 1988 total births for White, Black, American Indian, and Asians, by State of residence; and by
23Historical patterns of age-race-specific birth rates for States can be derived from fertility data published by the National Center for Health Statistics and decennial census data. For Whites, data are available for 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1980; and for Blacks, 1970 and 1980 only.
24See O'Connell, Martin, "Regional Fertility Patterns in the United States, Convergence or Divergence?", International Regional SCience Review, Vol. 6, No.1, 1981
xxiv
age of mother for White, Black, and Other races,25 by State of residence; 2) 1988 total births by Hispanic origin for each of 29 States, plus the District of Columbia, by State of residence and by age of mother for the sum of the 29 States, plus the District of Columbia; 3) 1989 and 1990 total births by State of occurrence, (provisional data); and 4) 1989, total births by State of residence, by 'race of mother' for White, Black, and Other races. 26 Additionally, there were national ARSFR's for 1990, 1992, 1993, and 2020,27
1990 Births for Whites and Blacks. Preliminary 1990 births by State of residence were derived from the ratio of final 1989 births by State of residence to provisional 1989 births by State of occurrence, multiplied by the provisional 1990 births by State of occurrence. The preliminary 1990 State births were adjusted prorata to
1990 28 the estimated national number of total births.The final 1990 total State births for Whites and
Blacks were accepted and distributed using the NCHS 1988 final births by State of residence and age of mother in 5-year age groups.29 The single year of age fertility rates were obtained by applying the Sprague interpolation formula to the 5-year age groups.30
1990 Births for American Indians and Asians. At the State level, AIEA and API births were obtained by indirect standardization using detailed 1990 national AIEA and API births, by age of mother; 1990 national ARSFR's; 1989 State Other race's total births; 1988 State AIEA and API total births; and the 1990 State census distribution of women in childbearing ages.
The 1990 State pattern of ARSFR's for AIEA and API were accepted as identical with the 1990 national AIEA and API patterns. The 1990 national ARSFR's were applied to 1990 State census distributions of females in
25NCHS combines American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut; and Asian and Pacific Islander into the "Other" race category.
26National Center for Health Statistics, Unpublished data, 1992; and National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States 1988, Vol. I, Natality, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1990.
27See U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P25-1092, Population Projections of the United States, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1992 to 2050, by Jennifer Cheeseman Day, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1992; for 1990 data; and Current Population Reports, Series P25-1104; for 1992, 1993, and 2020 data.
28The method of iterative proportions was used to distribute prorata the 1990 State births for Whites, Blacks, and Other races to the corresponding 1990 national births. For details on the method of iterative proportions, see Shryock, Henry S., and Jacob S. Siegel, et aI., 1971, op. cit., table 22-14, p. 708.
29The national total of annual births in 1990 were estimated at 4.2 million. The State births by age were raked to the national level using the method of iterative proportions. .
30The ARSFR's for ages 15 and 16 years of age were obtained by linear interpolation between ages 14 and 17 for the United States. Whenever the Sprague formula resulted in negative interpolated values between ages 42 and 47 years of age, then linear interpolation was used. For a discussion on Sprague interpolation, see Shryock, Henry S. and Jacob S. Siegel, et aI., 1971, op. cit., p. 688.
the childbearing ages. The results were weighted to the 1989 total State Other races births, by State of residence and 1990 national levels of births to API and AIEA. (The proportions of 1989 Other race's births were separated into AIEA and API groups using the 1988 distribution of AIEA and API births). These final births by age of mother for AIEA and AP;I were then applied to the corresponding 1990 State census distribution of females in childbearing ages. The results were the initial point ARSFR's for the AIEA and API populations.31
1990 Births for HispaniC Origin. Similar to the ArEA and API fertility starting pOints, the 1990 State pattern of age-specific fertility rates (ASFR's) for Hispanics were accepted as identical with the 1990 national Hispanic fertility pattern. In other words, the 1990 United States Hispanic ASFRs were applied to 1990 State census distribution of females in the childbearing ages. The results were weighted to both the 1989 total State births, by State of residence (for the 29 States with available data and the remaining total States) and to the 1990 national Hispanic births, by age of mother. States without fertility data were assumed to have the United States pattern for Hispanics. The final 1990 Hispanic births by age of mother were then applied to the 1990 State census distribution of women in the childbearing ages. This produced the starting point ASFR's for the Hispanic-origin population.
Projected Births, by Race/Ethnic Group. To project the State birth rates forward to each year through 2020, annual changes in the projected national birth rates were applied to the individual State rates calculated in 1990. The results were annual projections of the agerace/ ethnic-specific birth rates through the year 2020 for each State. The total number of projected births were calculated as the product of the State age-race/ ethnicspecific birth rates times the appropriate female population. Once the number of births were obtained for each projection year, the national race/ethnic-specific sex ratio at birth was used to divide the births into males and females. This yields births for each race/ethnic-sex group during the projection year. As a final step, the number of births, by sex and race/ethnic group, were survived to the end of the year, and "migrated" from State-to-State and moved between the United States and abroad using the procedures described below. The results were the projected population under age 1 on July 1 of each projection year for every race/ethnic-sex group in every State.
Mortality
In brief, the overall mortality assumptions were similar to those used in the previous set of State population
31The Sprague interpolation formula was used to split the 5-year age groups into single years of age.
I I I r
I I
I I
~
projections.32 First, the initial survival rates were created. Next, the middle series of the national population projections were used to derive future trends in mortality for the States.
Data used to estimate the State survival rates in the State population projections model were as follows: (1) 1988 total deaths for American Indian and Asian populations, by sex and State of residence, and for the Hispanic origin population in each of 29 States, by State of residence from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS);33 (2) 1989 total deaths in 5-year age groups by State of residence, for White, Black, and Other races from NCHS;34 and (3) 1990, 2000, and 2050 unabridged National life tables by sex for the total, White, Black, American Indian, Asian, and Hispanic populations created for the national population projec
35 tions at the U.S. Bureau of the Census.In the absence of 1990 or later State level mortality
data from NCHS a set of survival rates by age, sex, and race/ ethnicity for States were developed by indirect standardization. Basically, the approach used was to assume that the pattern of deaths in 1990 for the States were a weighted combination of 1990 national and 1989 and/or 1988 State mortality patterns, by age, sex, and race/ ethnicity. These weight factors were used to adjust the national survival rates to State levels by age, sex, and race/ethnicity.
A detailed description of how indirect standardization was used to obtain State survival rates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin follows:
1990 Survival Rates for Whites and Blacks. Here are the detailed steps used to develop the initial survival rates for Whites and Blacks:
1. Obtain estimated 1990 State age-sex-race-specific deaths.36 The 1989 distribution of State deaths by age, sex, and race were moved to 1990 by prorating the 1989 State figures proportionately to the 1990 national distribution of deaths by age, sex, and race.
2. Calculate expected 1990 State age-sex-race-specific deaths. The 1990 national age-sex-race-specific death rates (ASRDR's) were multiplied by the corresponding States 1990 census populations (modified age, race, and sex file - MARS file).
3. Prorate expected 1990 State age-sex-race-specific deaths to the 1990 national age-sex-race-specific deaths.
32U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 1053, op. cit., p. 5.
33National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States 1988, Vol. II, Mortality, Part A, 1991, tables 1-22 and 1-34.
34National Center for Health Statistics, unpublished data, 1992. 35For more details on 1990 U.S. life tables, see Current Population
Reports, Series P25-1092, op. cit., 36The initial data are in 5 year age groups which includes under 1,
and 1 to 4 years of age.
xxv
4. Obtain proxy 1990 national ASRDR's as 1 minus the 1990 national age-sex-race-specific survival rates (proxy '1990 national ASRDR's = 1 - 1990 national age-sex-race-survival rates).
5. Final 1990 State ASRDR's obtained by multiplying the proxy 1990 national ASRDR's by the ratio of the estimated 1990 State age-sex-race-specific deaths to the corresponding expected 1990 State age-sexrace-specific deaths.
6. The resulting proxy 1990 State ASRDR's were converted to 1990 State age-sex-race-specific survival rates (1990 State age-sex-race-specific survival rates = 1 - proxy 1990 State ASRDR's). To derive 1990 survival rates for single years of age, each ratio (or weight factor) was applied directly to the center point of the 5 year age groups (i.e., for ages 5 to 9 the center is 7 years of age). The remaining pOints between the center points (i.e., points between 7 and 12 years are 8, 9, 10, and 11) were derived from linear interpolation. The 1990 State survival rates for age 1 were obtained by linearly interpolating the 1990 State survival rates at ages 0 and 2 and using the 1990 National sex-agerace-specific survival rates at ages 0, 1, and 2 (rather than the actual numerical age category). The 1990 State age-sex-race-specific survival rates for ages 83 and 84 years of age were obtained by linearly extrapolating on the 1990 State age-sexrace-specific survival rates for ages 77 and 82.
1990 Survival Rates for American Indians and Asians. In the absence of recent detailed mortality data for the
American Indian and Asian populations, survival rates were created using the following steps:
1. Obtain expected 1990 State age-sex-race-specific deaths. These deaths were calculated by multiplying the 1990 national age-sex-race-specific death rates (ASRDR's) by the corresponding 1990 Census population distributions (MARS files) for States.
2. Prorate the expected 1990 State age-sex-racespecific deaths to the 1990 national age-sex-racespecific deaths.
3. Adjust prorata the expected 1990 State age-sexrace-specific deaths to the 1988 State total deaths for each race.
4. Prorate the expected 1990 State age-sex-racespecific deaths to the 1990 State Other race's deaths.3?
5. Obtain expected 1990 State age-sex-race-specific death rates (ASRDR's). These rates were derived from the expected 1990 State age-sex-race-specific deaths divided by the corresponding 1990 census populations distributions for States (MARS file).
371n this instance, the NCHS Other race's category is comprised of American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut; and Asian and Pacific Islander.
xxvi
6. Finally, the expected 1990 State age-sex-racespecific deaths were divided 'Jy the corresponding1990 national age-sex-race-specific deaths to obtainweight factors. The resulting factors were multipliedby the corresponding proxy 1990 national ASRDR's(proxy 1990 national ASRDR's = 1 - 1990 nationalage-sex-race-specific survival rates). The same procedure used to split the five year age groups *intosingle year State survival rates for White and Blackpopulations was applied to the American Indian andAsian populations.
1990 Survival Rates for Hispanic Origin. Using limitedmortality data for Hispanics, survival rates were createdusing the following steps:
1. Calculate estimated 1990 State total Hispanic deaths for each of 29 States (plus the District of Columbia) with Hispanic-origin data. The estimated 1990 State total Hispanic deaths were obtained by prorating the 1988 State total Hispanic deaths for each of 29 States to the 1990 national level using the ratio of the 1990 national total Hispanic deaths to the 1988 State total Hispanic deaths (for 29 States with Hispanic-origin data plus a combined estimate for the remaining 21 States).
2. Obtain expected 1990 State Hispanic age-sex-specific deaths by multiplying the 1990 national Hispanic age-sex-specific death rates (ASDR's) by the corresponding States 1990 Census population distributions (MARS files).
3. Prorate the expected 1990 States Hispanic age-sexspecific deaths to the 1990 national Hispanic agesex-specific deaths.
4. For each of 29 States with Hispanic deaths, obtain a ratio (or weight factor) by dividing the estimated 1990 State total Hispanic deaths by the expected 1990 State total Hispanic deaths.
5. The resulting factors for each State were multiplied by the proxy 1990 national Hispanic ASDR's which yields the proxy 1990 State Hispanic ASDR's (proxy 1990 national Hispanic ASDR's = 1 - 1990 national Hispanic age-sex-specific survival rates for single years of age).
6. Finally, the resulting proxy 1990 State Hispanic ASDR's, for each of 29 States were converted back to 1990 State Hispanic age-sex-specific survival rates (1990 State Hispanic age-sex-specific survival rates = 1 - 1990 State Hispanic ASDR's). The 1990 national Hispanic age-sex-specific survival rates were accepted for the remaining 21 States that did not have Hispanic mortality data.
Projected Survival Rates. The assumptions about future levels of mortality used in these projections are consistent with the middle series mortality assumptions used
in the national population projections.38 Those projections assume an increase in overall life expectancy from 75.9 years in 1993 to 82.6 in 2050. National level projections provide annual estimates of survival rates for 1990 and 1992, and annual projections of the survival rates by single years of age, sex, and race/ ethnicity for each year from 1993 through 2050.
The data sources cited aboye and indirect standardization were used to estimate the base year 1990 survival rates by single year of age and sex for White, Black, American Indian, ASian, and Hispanic origin populations. In terms of future trends, the final step involved projecting the initial sets of State survival rates by single years of age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin to 1992 and each year 1993 to 2020. To project the rates forward, the projected annual change in the national survival rates by single years of age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin for each year 1990 to 2020 was applied to each set of State rates. Throughout the projection period, we assumed that the existing patterns of State differentials in mortality remain unchanged.
International Migration
For this set of State population projections, foreign and domestic migration components were projected separately. In general, assumptions on the overall levels and the age, sex, and race/ ethnicity distribution of the international migration components were consistent with the levels and distributions used in the most rece.nt set of national projections issued by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.39 These projections assumed a constant level of net international migration at an annual level of 880,000 to the end of the projection cycle. The level of net immigration assumed in 1992 by race/ ethnicity comprised 482,000 Whites, 81,000 Blacks, 0 American Indians, 317,000 Asians, and 322,000 Hispanics. These estimates were from the middle series of the national population projections.
The foreign migration component was furtt:rer disaggregated into the following components: total foreign immigration, total emigration, and the flows of migrants between the United States and Puerto Rico. This annual net international migration assumption at 880,000 persons was comprised of 1,040,000 immigrants (which includes 800,000 legal and refugee immigrants, 200,000 undocumented immigrants, 20,000 Puerto Rico immigrants, and 20,000 civilian citizens) and 160,000 emigrants.
The age, sex, and race/ethnic distribution of the various international migration components were based on the most recent data available. For total foreign
38See Current Population Reports, Series P25-11 04, op. cit., for a complete discussion of the methodology used to develop these assumptions.
39U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P25-1104, op. cit.,
immigration, we used the appropriate average age-sexrace/ethnic distribution found in Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) data for the July 1, 1980, toJuly 1, 1985, period.4o The composition of the emigrantpopulation was based on the existing pattern developed at the Census Bureau for the years 1960 to 1970.41
Puerto Rican migrants were distributed accord.ing to the age-sex pattern of net movement from 1975 to 1980. Once the overall level and the age, sex, and race distribution of each international migration component was determined, the components were distributed to each State, as described below.
Emigration. Rates of emigration were applied to the base population of each State to develop the number of emigrants leaving each State. The emigration rates were based on the assumption used in the nationallevel projections of 160,000 emigrants leaving the United States each year. The foreign born population comprises the largest share of the emigrant population.42 To compute the rates for each State, the distribution of 160,000 emigrants by age, sex, and race was allotted to States based on the distribution of the foreign-born population in the 1980 Census. Using this distribution as the numerator and the total 1980 population of each State as the denominator, a rate of emigration was calculated for each State. Although the rates of emigration were assumed to remain constant throughout the projection period, the number of emigrants from each State and the total numbers from the United States changed throughout the projection period because of the projected changes in the base population of each State.
Flows Between United States and Puerto Rico. Another portion of the overall international migration component was the flow of persons between each State and Puerto Rico. For these projections, these flows were projected using sets of State-to-Puerto Rico and Puerto Rico-to-State migration rates based on 1980 decennial census data on residence in 1975. Although the decennial data were for a 5-year migration interval, they were the only data available on the separate flows of migrants between the United States and Puerto Rico. To convert the decennial migration data to a i-year migration interval, we assumed for simplicity that there was no return or repeat migration and obtained the annual flow by dividing the 5-year flow by five. In addition, since there were no current data to update this beginning set of rates, we assumed they remain constant throughout the projection cycle. Even so, the total
4°lmmigration and Naturalization Service, 1985 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, September, 1986.
41Warren, Robert and Jennifer Marks Peck, "Foreign-Born Emigration from the United States: 1960 to 1970", Demography, Vol. 17, No.1, February 1980.
42ibid.
xxvii
number of persons moving between the United States and Puerto Rico changes throughout the projection period because of projected changes in the base population of each State and Puerto Rico.
Total Foreign immigration. The remaining components of international migrationponsist of legal aliens, undocumented aliens, and the net movement of U.S. citizens. For convenience, we refer to this component as total foreign immigration. However, unlike the total emigration and Puerto Rico components of international migration which were sums of the calculations at the State level, the total number of foreign immigrants entering the United States was calculated prior to the distribution to each State. For these projections, the net international migration by age, sex, and race was assumed to equal the numbers used in the national projections. Given the national total and the projected emigrants and net movement between the United States and Puerto Rico already calculated in the model, the total number of foreign immigrants entering the United States was calculated as a residual.
Once the projected foreign immigration to the United States was calculated, it was distributed to each State. Decennial census data includes both legal and undocumented immigrants and provides an adequate basis for distributing foreign immigration to States, by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin in the projection. Unpublished data used to distribute the foreign immigrants were from the 1990 census distribution of total foreign-born migrants by State of residence entering the United States between 1980 and 1990. The results were further disaggregated prorata by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin using 1980 census data on the State of residence of foreignborn persons who entered the United States between 1975 and 1980.
Domestic Migration
Overview and Data Requirements. At the State level, internal migration was the most important and complex component of population change. In general, it was also the component that shows the greatest degree of fluctuation. Unfortunately, migration data are often the least comprehensive of the population data sets. For preparing demographic population projections, a complete migration data set should include timely, up-todate information on in- and out-migration for demographic and geographic disaggregation of the total population. Unfortunately, no single U.S. data source currently meets all these requirements.
In the absence of complete information, there are several choices. One option is to compromise the methodology to accommodate the available data. Another option is to devise techniques to extract and combine the maximum information from available data sets to construct a synthetic data set.
xxviii
Historically, we have prepared State population pro 3. The migration data must be available for a i-year jections using both approaches. In early 1983, detailed migration interval. This is not a general requirement, tabulations of migration from the 1980 decennial census but is necessary for cohort-component projections were not yet available.43 The projections published in done on a yearly basis. 1983 utilized a net migration projection system with data 4. The base data should be available on an annual developed as a residual using the 1970 and 1980 basis for a substantial number of time periods, to decennial censuses population counts and vital statis add a more dynamic element to the projection of tics data. The residual rates of net migration were migration rates. Traditional multi-state models and applied to the base population of each State to develop many former methods used at the Census Bureau the projections of net migration. Using this type of assume that the calculated migra~on rates remain approach, States with net in-migration would continue to constant throughout the projection' period. grow and in future decades automatically receive larger
5. Some procedure to update the rates annually should and larger numbers of inmigrants. However, States with be available.
net out-migration would be either growing very slowly or declining, thus contributing fewer a.nd fewer numbers of 6. The migration data must be consistent with the out-migrants. As a result, the sum of all interstate population base of the projection, which is a census
level population estimate.46 migration eventually becomes unbalanced with this procedure and requires greater and greater adjustments to achieve a national balance. A complete discussion of No single United States data source currently meets the inherent problems in a net migration system are all six of these conditions. In the United States, there
discussed in an earlier publication.44 are three major sources of migration data: national surveys (e.g. March supplements to the Current Popu
In the last two sets of State population projections lation Survey), administrative data sets (e.g., migration
issued by the Census Bureau, we used a modified data developed from matched tax returns),47 and the mUlti-state projection system. Multi-state projection or
decennial census. Each data set provides partial infordemographic accounting systems overcome many of mation and depicts unique characteristics of migration the limitations of a net migration approach.45 State-to
patterns, but no one data set possesses all six desired State migration data were used to model migration flows
attributes. between States explicitly. The-rate of moving from one
For these projections, it was necessary to create a origin State to one destination State was calculated and
synthetic data set incorporating information from the applied to the base population of the origin State. Using
three available data sets.4B The three specific data sets this approach in a projection system, the potential
used in these projections include 1) migration data from number of in-migrants to a State were linked to the
the March supplements of the 1976, 1980, and 1981 geographic as well as the age, sex, and race/ethnic
Current Population Surveys (CPS); 2) State-to-State distribution of the population. The use of State-to-State
migration flows by age, sex and race from the 1980 migration rates also ensured that the total for the nation
decennial census; and 3) annual State-to-State migraof all projected internal out- and in-migration was zero,
tion flows for the period 1975-76 to 1991-92 from a necessary ingredient of any multi-state model.
matched Internal Revenue Services (IRS) tax returns. To be used in multi-state demographic accounting A set of synthetiC data was created that incorporates
methods, a migration data set should meet the following the time trends implied by the administrative data and criteria: the demographic dimensions implied by the decennial
and CPS data. The steps used to develop sets of 1. Migration should be expressed as a destination state-to-state migration rates by single years of age,
specific, out· migration rate. To construct these rates, sex, and race for each year in the prOjection cycle are the data base must use state-to-state migration dfscussed in more detail below. streams applied to a base period population.
2. Each of these streams should be disaggregated by 46Th is is not a general requirement, but must be met for the Census Bureau production framework.
the major demographic dimensions (e.g., age, sex, 47See U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, and race). Series P·25, No. 957, Estimates of the Population of States: 1970 to
1983, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1984; for a more complete discussion of the development of migration data from the tax return data available from the Internal Revenue Service.
43U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports; Series 48Wetrogan, Signe I. and John F. Long, "Creating Annual StateP·25, No. 937, Provisional Projections of the Population of States, by to·State Migration Flows with Demographic Detail by Merging Census, Age and Sex: 1980 to 2000, by Signe I. Wetrogan, U.S. Government Survey, and Administrative Records Tabulations", in U.S. Bureau of Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1983, p. 6. the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 166,
44ibid. Perspectives on Migration Analysis, U.S. Government Printing Office, 45Rogers, Andrei and Frans J. Willekens, Migration and Settle· Washington, DC, 1990, for a complete discussion of the three data
ment, Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1986. sets.
) I): Development of Base Year Migration Data. The first relative sizes of the American Indian and Asian populastep in this process was to develop an appropriate set tions in the origin and destination States. of beginning migration matrices consisting of annual After a matrix of appropriate age-sex-race-specific State-to-State migration rates by age, sex, and race. migration rates was obtained for each State-to-State The 1975-80 decennial migration data provided a good flow, the elements of this matrix were divided by the beginning framework. Although census data provide average crude migration rate for that flow over the good State-to-State information by age, sex, race, and 1975-80 period. This operation produces a migration Hispanic origin, these data cover a 5-year period. The matrix whose elements ar~ the ratios of age-sex-raceprojections model, however, requires the equivalent specific rates to crude rates, which may be thought of as migration rates for a i-year time frame. a matrix which decomposes crude migration rates (such
Given the effects of return and repeat migration, it as those obtained by our migration projections) into
was not appropriate to simply divide the 5-year rates by agesex-race-specific migration rates.
five. 49 Instead, it was nSQessary to develop an empirical Because we did not have the data necessary to
relationship between the i-year and 5-year migration construct beginning migration matrices for Hispanics, the White portion of the matrices for the total population data. The results of the questions on residence 1 year
earlier in the 1976 and 1981 CPS, were used to develop were used in the Hispanic projections.
an estimated average i-year interstate migration rate for 1975-1980 by single years of age. To produce an Projecting State-to-State Migration Rates. The pro
aggregated 5-year cohort migration rate, the estimated jection methodology required projecting the number of people entering and leaving each State by age, sex, and average i-year interstate migration rates for the approrace/ethnicity for each year of the projection period. priate single years of age groups were summed for the This involved a three step process. First, we projected 5 years. A comparison of the aggregated cohort migra
tion rate with the corresponding 5-year interval migra the total State-to-State migration rates using the administrative data on migration from matched tax returns. tion rate for the 1975-1980 period from the 1980 CPS Next, the beginning migration matrices were used to provides information by single years of age on the disaggregate the total migration rates by age, sex, and relationship of i-year and 5-year migration data. race. Finally, the migration flows entering and leaving
Once the relationship between 5-year and i-year each State were summed to produce the total in- and
interstate migration rates was established using the out-migration by age, sex, and race for each State.
CPS data, it was relatively straightforward to apply this The matched IRS tax returns data set contains 17
relationship to the decennial migration data. The ratios annual observations on each of the 2,550 State-to-State
between the 5-year and i-year interstate migration rates migration flows. The size and detail of this data set offer
within a given age group were applied by age to each so many different options for projection models as to
race-sex specific State-to-State migration rate from the create a special type of problem. Because reliable,
decennial data. comprehensive data on migration have been so scarce
For the current round of projections an additional in the past, professional researchers in this area have refinement was required for the beginning migration not yet developed any consensus as to the best method matrices. In previous projections we have used three for projecting migration. Consequently, we were conrace groups, and the beginning migration matrices were fronted with an overwhelming array of possibilities and constructed with this racial division. However, the cur have little guidance from the professional literature on rent set of projections uses four race groups, and since making a selection. In the previous set of projections it was not feasible to go back to the original data and issued by the Census Bureau, we dealt with this problem build a new set of beginning matrices it was necessary by using several different migration projection models to modify the existing set. Specifically, the beginning and presenting the results as equally-likely alternamigration matrices used in the last two sets of projec tives. 50 While this approach served to emphasize the tions were changed from the White-Black-Other race tentative nature of the methodology and offered users breakdown used in those projections to the White-Black the opportunity to select the approach best suited to American Indian-Asian race breakdown used in this set their own needs, it presented a problem for those who of projections. This was accomplished by means of a wished to use these projections as a standard, since we formula which decomposes Other migration rates into effectively presented them with four different standards. American Indian and Asian migration rates based on the In this set of projections we feature a preferred series
(labelled Series A), which was based on the migration model that our research indicated was the best avail
49See Long, John F., and Celia G. Boertlein, "Using Migration Data able (see model definition below for a description of the from Different Intervals," in U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 166, Perspectives on Migration Analysis, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1990; and Rees, Philip, "The Measurement of Migration from Census Data SOSee Current Population Reports, Series P-25, NO.1053, op. cit., and Other Sources," Environment and Planning, Vol. 9, No.3, 1977. pp.9-10.
xxix
xxx
Projection Models for Internal Migration
Model Definitions Series A (Preferred Series) time series model; the first five projection years use the time series projections
exclusively, over the next ten years the projections are interpolated toward the mean of the series, and the last 15 years use the mean exclusively;
Series B economic model; division-to-division migration is regressed against the changes in employment in the origin, the destination, and tile rest of the nation - the regressions ire preformed separately for each origin with indicator variables for the destination, the projected division-to-division flows are allocated to the State-to-State flows based on the State-to-State flows' historic share of the division-to-division flow;
Series C floating mean model; for the first ten projection years the n-th projection is the mean of the n most recent observations, after ten years the projection is the mean of the most recent ten years;
Series D null series; assumes no internal migration.
preferred and alternative series). This migration model but suffers little loss of accuracy as the projection was developed by a research program conducted by the horizon lengthens. Our research indicates that for proCensus Bureau that proceeded in two phases. In the jections ten or more years out the mean predicts more first phase we tested general models suggested by a accurately than our time-series model. Consequently, variety of methodologies to find out what basic type of we varied our migration projection model according to approach seemed most promisrilg~ The results of this the length of the projection horizon. For the first five phase suggested that a time-series approach was best,51 years we used the time series model exclusively, for the Consequently, in the second phase with the assistance next ten years we gradually phased in the mean so that of Edward Frees, we determined the precise form of by fifteen years out we use the mean exclusively. The time-series model best suited for projecting State-to projected rates were held constant at the mean values State migration rates.52 The model we developed can for the rest of the projection period. Simulations suggest be expressed as: that this approach produced reasonably accurate pro
jections for the entire 27 -year projection period. The migration projection model used in Series B is
based upon research conducted for the Census Bureau54, where i, jYi and i, jYt-1 represent, respectively, the first and can be expressed as: differences of the natural logarithms of the migration rates from State i to State j in time periods t and t-1, and b is a constant which is estimated by regression. 53 where:
k,lMt is migration from division k to division I in time We evaluated the performance of these models by period t; withholding the most recent data and using the models
kEMPt is the change in employment in division k to predict the withheld data. Since withholding too much between time periods t-1 and t;
data can adversely affect model performance and thus IEMPt is the change in employment in division I invalidate the comparison, the models of necessity were
between time periods t-1 and t; compared on their short-term performance (Le., their k,lTOT _EMPt is the change in employment in the ability to predict from one to five years out). While the
nation between time periods t-1 and t, time-series model we selected offers the best shortexcluding divisions k and I; term projections, the predictive abilities of time-series
k,l~ is a vector of seven indicator variables which models are known to deteriorate rapidly as the projectogether serve to identify the destination divi-tion horizon lengthens. By contrast, the mean of the sion; time-series (Series B from the last set of State popula
is a vector of seven coefficients corresponding tion projections) does relatively poorly in the short-term to the seven indicator variables in k P; the various kb's are coefficients which are estimated by regression, the subscript k indicates 51Sink, Larry D. "The Efficacy of Economic and Demographic
Models in Predicting Interstate Migration Rates." Paper presented at that the coefficients are estimated separately the Western Regional Science Association Meeting, April 1989. for each origin division.
52Frees, Edward, "Forecasting State-to-State Migration Rates," Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, Vol. 10, No.2, pp. 153-167, 1992. 54Greenwood, Michael J., and Gary L. Hunt, University of Colo
53Differencing and logarithms are standard time-series techniques rado, "Forecasting Interdivisional Migration Flows Using Temporal for reducing the impact of errors in the data. A full description of the Data from the Internal Revenue Service," Unpublished preliminary derivation of this model can be found in Frees, Edward, 1992, ibid. report prepared for the U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992.
The model is expressed in terms of division-todivision migration since previous research focused on using summation restrictions, which is difficult to do at the State level because of the number of State-to-State flows. 55 However, the model used here can be adapted to the State-to-State level, and we plan to investigate this possibility for the next set of projections. The projected division-to-division flows are allocated to the constituent State-to-State flows based on the State-toState flows' historic shares of the division-to-division flow. The employment projections used here are obtained from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
The migration model used in Series C was suggested by research results which showed that the most recent observation i,s a good short-term predictor and the over-all mean is a good longterm predictor. For Series C we generalize this relationship to make the model a function of the projection horizon in the following fashion: for the n-th projection year, the model is the mean of the n most recent observations, where n is an integer from 1 to 10; for projections more than 10 years out, the mean of the 10 most recent observations is used. While it would have been possible to allow n to go to 17, the number of years of data currently available, this would have resulted in the last ten projection years using the mean of the entire time series, the same as is done in Series A. We elected to restrict n to 10 in order to make this series a true alternative. Despite the simplicity of this model, it is a good predictor, and on average it is considerably more accurate than the much more complicated economic model used in Series B.
Adjustment to National Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin
The final step in the projection model involves adjusting the sum of the State populations by age, sex, race and Hispanic origin to the middle series of the national population projections. 56 Although the State projections system was consistent with the projected national trends in fertility and mortality, the State population projections model incorporates State differentials in mortality and fertility. Thus, the total number of births and deaths calculated in the State projections system does not necessarily equal the numbers developed in the national projections system. The State populations by age, sex, and race/ethnic group in each projection series were adjusted to be consistent with the middle series national
55Greenwood, Michael J., and Gary L. Hunt, "Econometrically Accounting for Identities and Restrictions in Models of Interregional Migration," Regional Science and Urban Economies, Vol. 14, 1984, pp.113-128.
56See Current Population Reports, Series P25-11 04, op. cit., for a discussion of the methodology used to develop these projections.
xxxi
projections of the resident population which were censuslevel projections using the inflation-deflation procedure.57 Therefore, the sum of the annual components of change shown in table 2 may not agree with the annual changes in the total population. The difference between the figures represents the adjustment necessary to bring the sum of States into agreement with the projected U.S. total and is gen-arally small.
SELECTION Of ASSUMPTIONS, SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS, AND fORECAST ERROR
While population projections depend on the mathematical (or judgmental) extrapolation of historical events, i.e., births, deaths, and movement of migrants, in reality these natural and manmade events always deviate from the past patterns and result in forecasting errors. In this section an attempt is made to identify information the users should take into account when judging the validity of these projections. The user is not limited to using the preferred or alternative series. There are other public and private agencies active in the creation of State projections with more or less detailed State results, i.e., some State agencies produce projections using economic or labor force models at the county level. Furthermore, once the 1993 State population estimates are available, there will be an additional source to evaluate the projections in this report.
Selection of Assumptions
The preferred projection series was chosen based on evaluation of selected projections models with different approached to projecting internal migration.58 By withholding the more recent data points in the projections of the internal migration component, the subsequent data points were used to evaluate the projected data points. The accepted time series model appeared to be the most promising.
The alternative series were created to show "reasonably different or likely" projection scenarios. This approach was necessary to maximize variation between the series. 59
57For a discussion of the inflation-deflation methodology, see U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 1045, United States Population Estimates, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1980 to 1988, by Frederick W. Hollmann, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, January 1990.
5BSink, Larry D. op. cit.; and Frees, Edward, op. cit. 591nitially we considered an alternative series that would be
sensitive to internal migration turnaround. Essentially, that model regresses each state-to-state flow against time, test for the presence of a quadratic term , and uses this term in projecting those flows for which it is statistically significant. However, the results did not show much variation from. the time-series model and was not accepted.
xxxii
Forecast Error in Past Projections
The evaluation of past State population projections in reports P-25, No. 1017 and P-25, No. 105360 may provide some indication of the accuracy of the projections.61 To evaluate the projections, we compared the projections of total State populations for midyear 1987, 1988, and 1989 with the independent estimates developed for those dates at the Census Bureau. To summarize the results of the comparisons for each series, we used the mean absolute percent error (or MAPE); where;
We developed the overall MAPE's for the United States where n equals 51 and for each census region where n equals the number of States in each region.
In general, projections for Series A and C in report No. 1053 and the projections in report No.1 017 appear to track close to the actual data. For all these series, the mean absolute percent errors were close to 0.5 percent per year. The most important finding was that Series A (which is very similar to our preferred series) in report No. 1053 tracked closest to the estimates' one year ahead of the base population.
As expected, some regional differences were found for the three projections series developed in report No. 1053. The MAPE's calculated for the West (ranging from 0.6 to 1.1) are larger than any other region, while MAPE's for the Midwest (ranging from 0.2 to 0.3) are consistently the smallest.
In this evaluation, the State population projections appear to approximate the population estimates. As expected, the errors in our projections increase with the projection horizon. For the 1989 (3 years ahead) projections in report No. 1017, the MAPE is 1.6 percent.
Earlier sets of State projections also track reasonably well. For example, for State projections prepared in 1965, the MAPE's are 9 percent for the 15 years ahead projection and about 11 percent for the 20 years ahead projection.62
The 1990 age distribution of State population projections in report No. 1053 has been evaluated using the
60U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No.1 017, Projections of the Population of States, by Age, Sex, and Race: 1988 to 2010, by Signe I. Wetrogan, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1988; and Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 1053, op. cit.
61Campbell, Paul R., "Evaluation of Recent State Population Projections," Federal Forecasters Conference 1990: Proceedings, 1990; and Wetrogan, Signe I. and Paul R. Campbell, "Evaluation of State Populations Projections," Presented at the Population Association of America, Toronto, Canada, May 3-5, 1990.
62U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Revised Projections of the Population of States: 1910 to 1985, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 375, 1967; and Wetrogan, Signe I., and Paul R. Campbell, 1990, op. cit.
1990 census. 63 This evaluation was limited to identifying dissimilarities between the overall age structure in the projections and census using the Index of Dissimilarity (D). The results suggest that age distributions in the State population projections are not markedly dissimilar for Whites from the 1990 census (mean D values for the States equal less than 2.0 percent for either sex). In comparison, the results wer~ twice as high for Blacks and 3 times higher for Other races.
No attempt was made in the age study to evaluate methodological sources of error affecting this comparison. For instance, the starting points of the projections (1988 population estimates) are grounded in the 1980 census rE)sults. Consequently, coverage differences in the 1980 and 1990 census results complicate the comparison of the projections with the 1990 census. Besides enumeration errors, any comparison may be further complicated by the quality of administrative records, as well as variation in procedures used to up-date the 1980 census to the 1988 starting point.
Evaluation of the internal migration components of past projections have been undertaken using the 1975-85 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data.64 The six models tested were the Time-Series model; Straight Regression model; Last Period (constant) model; and Series A, B, and C from report No.1 053. MAPE's were computed for these models as follows: 1) the one year ahead uses 1975-85 data to forecast 1986; 2) the two years ahead uses 1975-85 data to forecast 1987; and 3) the five year ahead uses 1975-82 data to forecast 1987. Comparison of the one-, two-, and five-year ahead MAPE's shows that while predictive power decreases over time as expected, the decrease is fairly gradual. Among the six models the Time-Series appears to be the best, performing slightly better than the Last Period model. Series B appeared to be the worst.. Among the three models used in report No.1 053, Series A appears to be the best.
SUMMARY AND LIMITATIONS OF PROJECTIONS
The State population projections in this report represent wha.t the future population by age, sex and race/ethnic group would be, given the stated assumptions about fertility, mortality, international migration and internal migration trends. They are updates to the projections published in January, 1990 and represent a continuation of our research efforts to use an enhanced methodology that incorporates the annual State-to-State flows of
63Campbell, Paul R., "Evaluating the Age Distribution in State Populations," Federal Forecasters Conferencel1991, Papers and Proceedings of the Conference, Washington, DC, 1991.
64Sink, Larry D., "Evaluating Migration Projections," Paper Presented at Federal-State Cooperative Programs for Population Projections Conference, May 1990.
migrants from matched IRS tax returns together with the demographic detail from the Current Population Survey (CPS) and Decennial Census. Since the CPS and census information are derived from sample data, they are subject to sample variability.65 Much of the methodology and assumptions are in early stages of development. We plan to develop an extensive evaluation of the methods, assumptions, and results of these projections when additional results of the 1990 census are available.
RELATED REPORTS
The table below lists other Current Population Reports containing estimates and projections related to those in this report and specifies the years for which consistent data are provided.
Type of population estimate Years Series or projection covered number
State Estimates By Component ................... 1991 to 1992 CD92·276 By Age and Sex, and Component .. 1980 to 1992 P25·1106 By Age and Component ........... 1970 to 1979 P25-9~8
U.S. Projections By Age, Sex, and Race
Hispanic Origin and Component .. 1993 to 2050 P25-1104
U.S. Estimates By Age, Sex, and Race
Hispanic Origin and Component .. 1990 to 1992 (X) By Age, Sex, and Race
Hispanic Origin and Component .. 1980 to 1991 P25-1095
X Not applicable.
AVAILABILITY OF MORE DETAILED .DATA
The basic product of our methodology was a set of unrounded population data by single years of age, sex, and race for each year, 1993 to 2020, for each state. Due to limited publication space, only a limited amount
65Estimated standard errors and a detailed discussion of the accuracy of the data can be found in U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P·20, No. 377, Geographical Mobility: March 1980 to March 1981, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1983, Appendix B; and U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population, Detailed Population Characteristics, PC80-1-0, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
xxxiii
of age data were included in this publication. However, more detailed age, sex, and race/origin data are available from the Bureau of the Census in machine-readable form. Selected age data are also available in tabular form. Further information may be obtained by writing to the Chief, Population Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, 20~93.
STATE PRODUCED PROJECTIONS
If one's interest is in projections for a single State rather than a consistent set of projections for all States, it may be useful to examine population projections prepared by State agencies. Most States have at least one public agency that prepares population projections at that level; most of these agencies are members of the Federal State Cooperative Program for Population Projections. These State-produced projections represent an alternative to the projections developed by the Census Bureau. Because each State is not required to produce a set of projections consistent with projections for other States, the individual State projections can be based on an assortment of models that incorporate a wider range of variables and data.
Table 7 in this report presents the State population projections that were prepared by each of the partiCipating agencies listed in appendix B. Each of these projections were prepared using the State's own methodological approach and set of assumptions. Therefore, the results presented for one State may not be comparable to the projections presented for an9ther State. In addition, the sum of the State agency produced State population projections are not consistent with the national projections published by the Bureau of the Census. Before using or evaluating the projections shown in table 7, users should contact the individual State agencies to obtain a complete explanation of their methods and assumptions.
ROUNDING OF PROJECTIONS
The population projections in the tables have been rounded to the nearest thousand without being adjusted to group totals, which are independently rounded.
SYMBOLS
In this report, a dash (-) means zero or rounds to zero. A minus sign preceding a figure denotes decrease. NA refers to not available. X refers to not applicable.
Table 1. Total population of Regions, Divisions, and States: 1990 to 2020 - Series A (Preferred Series)
[Numbers in thousands. Resident population. As of July 1. Series A, B, C, and D reflect different interstate migration assumptions See text for explanations J
Projections Estimates
Region, division, and State 2015 2020 1999 2000 2005 2010 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Table 1. Total Population of Regions, Divisions, and States: 1990 to 2020 - Series 8-(on. [Numbers in thousands Resident population As of July 1 Series ABC and D reflect different interstate migration assumptions See text for explanations 1
Projections Estimates
Regfon, division, and State 2015 2020 1999 2000 2005 2010
Table 1. Total Population of Regions, Divisions, and States: 1990 to 2020 - Series C-Con. [Numbers in thousands. Resident population. As of July 1. Series A, B, C, and D reflect different interstate migration assumptions. See text for explanations 1
Projections Estimates --:-r-" Region, division, and State
Table 1. Total Population of Regions, Divisions, and States: 1990 to 2020 - Series D-con. [Numbers in thousands. Resident population. As of July 1. Series A, S, C, and D reflect different interstate migration assumptions, See text for explanations J
'Totals may be different from those in the national population projections report (Current Population Reports P25·1104) due to rounding.
Table 2. Components of Population Change, for Regions, Divisions, and States: 1990 to 2020 - Series A (Preferred Series)
[Numbers in thousands. Resident population Series A, B C, and D reflect different interstate migration assumpt'lons. See text for explanations 1 July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1995 July 1, 1995 to July 1, 2000
Net change1 Components of change Net change Components of change
' Net migration
Net migration Region, division, and State
Net Net internal International
• internal International Net Percent Net Percent migration Births Deaths migration2
Hawaii _______________________ _ 4 39 109 9.8 102 35
5
6
Table 2. Components of Population Change, for Regions, Divisions, and States: 1990 to 2020 - Series A (Preferred Series)-con.
[Numbers in thousands. Resident population. Series A, B, C, and D reflect different interstate migration assumptions. See text for explanations 1 July I, 2005 to July I, 2010
July I, 2000 to July I, 2005 Components of change
Components of change Net change' Net change'
Net migration Net migration Region, division, and State
Net Net internal International
International Net Percent Net Percent • internal migration Births" Deaths migration'
United States ________________ 12,011 4.3 19,907 12,614
REGION AND DIVISION
Northeast _____________________ _ 581 New England _________________ _ 188 Middle Atlantic ________________ _ 393
Mldwllst _______________________ _ 1,347 East North CentraL ____________ _ 808 West North Central ____________ _ 539
South _________________________ _ 5,112 South Atlantic ___ ~ _____________ _ 2,698 East South Central ____________ _ 619 West South Central ____________ _ 1,795
Naw England • Maine ________________________ _ 25 New Hampshire _______________ _ 50 Vermont ______________________ _ 14 Massachusetts ________________ _ 41 Rhode Island ____________ • ____ _ 11 Connecticut ______________ -- ---- 47
2.0 4.3 2.4 0.7 1,1 1.4
69 67 37
343 59
199
81 49 26
286 51
156
13 27
1 ·140
·14 ·47
1 3
113 16 46
44 64 17
106 24 93
3.5 5.3 2.7 1.8 2.4 2.8
71 70 38
338 59
199
63 53 27
291 52
161
32 42
4 ·66
·1 1
1 3
115 16 46
Middle Atlantic New York _____________________ _ 109 202 82 ~:~n~~~:k==================
0.6 2.5 0.7
1,243 508 728
887 400 676
·818 ·118
·46
559 200
57
198 224
58
1.1 2.7 0.5
1,230 50-7 719
898 413 685
·720 ·88 ·60
567 200
57
Eaat North Central Ohio _________________________ _ 132 Indiana _____________________ --- '144 illinois __________ -----~---- ----- 248
137 147 W\~~~~~n-=================:===
1.2 2.4 2.0 1.4 2.7
747 407 884 710 347
556 279 561 440 236
·94
·257 ·170
12
26 12
178 33 18
71 94
233 134 100
0.6 1.5 1.9 1.4 1.8
741 406 893 713 351
574 290 573 453 244
·140 ·43
·279 ·173 ·34
26 12
178 33 18
Weill North central Minnesota ___________________ .- 162 Iowa ____ " ____________________ _ .34 Missouri ______________________ _ 154
13 North Dakota South Dakota ------------------_________________ _ 25 Nebraska ________ , ___ ~ ________ _ 48 Kansas ______________ ________ _ c 103
3,4 1.2 2.8 2.1 3.2 2.8 3.8
322 1'89 364
42 57
119 206
192 142 273
28 33 78
121
·24 43 ·2 ·1
25 9
14 1 1 4
17
140 15
167 19 19 41 96
2.8 0.5 3.0 3.0 2.4 2.3 3.4
332 189 372
44 60
122 212
200 143 282
28 34 80
126
·25 ·43 54
1 ·9 ·8
·10
24 9
14 1 1 4
17
South Atlantic Delaware _____________________ _ 30 Maryland _____________________ _ 225 District of Columbla ____________ _ 11 VIrginia _______________________ _ 350 West Vlrglnla __________________ _ 3 North Carolina __ ------------~-- 384 South Carolina ________________ _ 189
Table 2. Components of population Change, for Regions, Divisions, and States: 1990 to 2020 - Series A (Preferred Series)-con.
{Numbers in thousands. Resident population. Series A, B, C, and D reflect different interstate migration assumptions. See text for explanations J July 1,2010 to July 1, 2015 July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2020
Net change' Components of change Net change' Components of change
Net migration Net migration Region, division, and State
Net Net Internationa International Net Percent internal Net Percent ~ internal migratior migration change change Births Deaths migration'
change change Births Deaths migration'
4.1 22,585 14,586 4,396 United States _______________ _ 4,396 12,845
12,690 4.2 21,662 13,882
REGION AND DIVISION
Northeast _____________________ _ New England -----------------Middle Atlantic -----------------
Midwest _______________________ _ East North Central _____________ _ West North Central ____________ _
968 377 592
1,287 741 546
1.8 2.7 1.5
1.9 1.6 2.7
3,371 822
2,548
4,569 3,197 1,371
2,680 664
2,016
3,103 2,185
918
-830 7
-838
-650 ·625
·24
1,016 183 833
339 268
71
1,089 397 692
1,370 805 566
2,0 3,502 2.8 865 1.7 2,637
2.0 4,667 1.7 3,270 2.7 1,397
2,718 682
2,035
3,178 2,232
946
-798 1,026 3 184
·801 842
-572 340 -570 269
-1 71
South _________________________ _ South Atlantic _________________ _ East South Central ____________ _ West South Central ____________ _
5,099 2,658
574 1,868
4,8 4.8 3.2 5.5
7,559 3,612 1,202 2,744
5,290 2,889
925 1,477
1,582 1,205
225 152
1,038 605
32 401
5,017 2,633
565 1,819
4.5 7,849 4.5 3,759 3.1 1,232 5.1 2,858
5,655 3,091
978 1,585
1,594 1,034 1,240 606
246 32 107 396
West __________________________ _ Mountain _____________________ _
Pacific __________ - - - -- - -- - - - - ---
5,335 1,029 4,306
7,3 5.4 7.9
6,164 1,509 4,655
2,809 745
2,064
·99 87
·186
2,004 138
1,866
5,368 1,026 4,342
6.8 6,567 5.1 1,570 7.4 4,997
3,035 801
2,234
-222 1,996 83 137
·305 1,859
STATE
New England Maine ________________________ _ New Hampshire _______________ _ Vermont ______________________ _ Massachusetts ________________ _ Rhode Island - ________________ _
Connecticut __ - - _ - - - - - - -- - - - - - --
46 62 17
125 27
100
3.5 4.8 2.8 2.0 2.7 2.9
75 76 40
357 63
213
66 56 26
297 52
165
33 37
4 ·60 ·1 ·2
1 3
116 16 46
45 58 17
142 29
106
3.3 77 4.3 80 2.7 41 2.3 376 2.8 66 3.0 226
69 61 29
303 52
168
33 1 33 3
4 -57 118
-2 16 ·5 46
Middle Atlantic New YorL ____________________ _ New Jersey ___________________ _ Pennsylvania ________ --- -- -- ----
260 239 93
1.4 2.8 0.7
1,275 536 737
906 424 686
-701 ·91 -43
574 200 58
309 258 125
1.6 1,319 2.9 566 1.0 752
914 434 687
·689 581 ·89 201 ·22 59
East North Central Ohio _________________________ _ Indiana _______________________ _ Illinois ___________ -------- ------
X!i~~~~~n -=====================
97 100 273 163 107
0.8 1.6 2.2 1.6 1.9
752 415 931 741 358
585 300 584 463 253
·119 -39
-270 -164
·29
27 12
178 33 18
115 103 295 182 110
1.0 760 1.6 422 2.3 962 1.8 765 1.9 362
595 309 595 472 261
·95 27 -33 12
·262 179 ·155 33
·21 18
West North Central Minnesota ____________________ _
South Atlantic Delaware _____________________ _ Maryland _____________________ _ District of Columbia ____________ _ Virginia _____________________ ---West Virginia __________________ _ North Carolina ________________ _ South Carolina ________________ _
Pacific Washington ___________________ _ Oregon _______________________ _ California _____________________ _ Alaska _______________________ _ Hawaii _______________________ _
466 243
3,430 41
127
6.6 6.3 8.3 5.3 8.2
496 272
3,679 83
125
269 167
1.561 15 53
162 100
-431 -32 17
62 30
1,729 5
39
470 249
3,444 43
137
6.3 522 6.0 287 7.7 3,964 5.3 88 8.1 135
291 177
1,693 16 57
162 62 101 30
-554 1,723 ·34 5 21 40
8
Table 2. Components of Population Change, for Regions, Divisions, and States: 1990 to 2020 - Series B-Con.
[Numbers in thousands. Resident population. Series A, S, C, and D reflect different interstate migration assumptions. See text for explanations 1 July 1, 1995 to July 1, 2000
July 1,1990 to July 1,1995 Components of change
Components of change Net change' Net change'
Net migration Net migration
Region, division, and State Net
Net Internal International internal International Net Percent
Table 2. Components of Population Change, for Regions, Divisions, and States: 1990 to 2020 - Series B-con.
[Numbers In thousands. Resident population. Series A, B, C, and D reflect different Interstate migration assumptions. See text for explanations J July 1. 2005 to July 1, 2010
July 1, 2000 to July 1. 2005 Components of change
Components of change Net change' Net change'
Net migration Net migration
Region, division. and State Net
Net internal International • internal International Net Percent migration Net Percent change Births I'r Deaths migration'
Table 2. Components of Population Change, for Regions, Divisions, and States: 2020 - Series B-con.
[Numbers in thousands. Resident population. Series A, B C, and D reflect different Interstate migration assumptions. See text for explanations J July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2020
July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015
Net change' Components of change Net change' Components of change
Net migration Net migration Region, division, and State
Net Net internal International International Net Percent Net Percent Internal
Northeast _____________________ _ 618 New England _________________ _ 6 Middle Atlantic ________________ _ 612
Midwest _______________________ _ 2,201 East North Central _____________ _ 1,526 West North Central ____________ _ 675
South _________________________ _ 5,968 South Atlantic _________________ _ 3,334 East South Central ------------- 786 West South Central ____________ _ 1,848
New England Maine ________________________ _ 13 New Hampshire _______________ _ 20 Vermont ______________________ _ 16 Massachusetts - _______________ _ ·39 Rhode Island ------------------Connecticut _______________ ----- ·2
1.0 1.8 2.9
·0.7
·0.1
80 79 41
425 71
252
57 44 24
274 49
145
·14 ·13
·1 ·320
·42 ·143
1 3
110 16 45
47 76 25 58 19 70
3.7 6.7 4.4 1.0 1.9 2.1
75 72 40
385 65
225
59 47 25
280 50
151
28 46
9 ·165
·13 ·53
1 3
112 16 46
Middle Atlantic New York _____________________ _ 179 New Jersey ___________________ _ 190 Pennsylvania ________ ---- -- - - - -- 243
1.0 2.5 2.0
1,436 591 815
864 368 636
·1,011 ·195
·13
540 198
56
136 239 194
0.7 3.0 1.6
1,337 547 773
874 384 658
·877 ·130
9
549 199
56
East North Central Ohio _________________________ _ 336 Indiana _______________________ _ 263 Illinois ________________________ _ 403
272 ~~~~~~n-======::::::::::::::: 252
3.1 4.7 3.5 2.9 5.1
800 420 945 783 350
508 253 528 404 218
·12 82
·225 ·166
95
26 13
178 33 18
227 211 297 242 171
2.0 3.6 2.5 2.5 3.3
773 416 912 745 346
532 266 545 423 226
·45 47
·247 ·112
27
26 13
178 33 18
West North Central 231 Minnesota ---------------------Iowa _________________________ _ 78
Missouri ______________________ _ 163 North Dakota ·3 South Dakota ------------------_________________ _ 34 Nebraska _____________________ _ 62 Kansas _______________________ _ 112
5.3 2.8 3.2
·0.7 4.9 3.9 4.5
333 191 384
44 53
117 203
176 138 257 28 32 75
114
42 13 11
·22 11 14 5
25 9
14 1 1 4
17
196 26
171 ·11 18 37 91
4.2 0.9 3.2
·1.9 2.4 2.3 3.5
323 189 370
41 54
116 200
183 139 264
28 32 76
117
24 ·35 46
·26 ·5 ·8
·11
25 9
14 1 1 4
17
South Atlantic Delaware _____________________ _ 50 Maryland _____________________ _ 292 District of Columbia ____________ _ ·44 Virginia _______________________ _ 438 West Virglnia __________________ _ 24 North Carolina ---------------- 493
242 South Carolina -----------------591
~~7;;p~a _: ::::: :=::::: ::: =:::::: 1,249
7.5 6.1
·7.5 7.1 1.3 7.4 6.9 9.1 9.6
53 418
51 486 110 506 287 564 963
31 199 36
246 100 299 154 272 700
24 15
·87 118
263 97
240 691
3 78 18 87
1 28
8 49
336
51 331
·9 462 ·35
472 232 565
1,374
7.0 6.5
·1.8 6.9
.2.0 6.6 6.2 8.0 9.6
53 401 45
474 106 496 283 565 955
34 217
35 271 101 332 172 302 798
28 66
-36 168 ·43
277 112 254 859
3 78 18 87
1 27 8
49 335
East South Central Kentucky _____________________ _ 151 328 Tennessee --------------------222
~:s:'i~pi::::::=:::::::::::::: 85
4.1 6.7 5.5 3.3
279 362 339 215
182 235 200 128
34 185 78
·13
7 13
9 4
85 292 199 60
2.2 5.6 4.7 2.2
272 360 333 208
188 252 212 134
·7 169 69
·17
7 13
9 4
West South Central Arkansas _____________________ _ 107 Louisiana _____________________ _ 120
Table 2. Components of Population Change, for Regions, Divisions, and States: 1990 to 2020 - Series C-Con.
[Numbers In thousands. Resident population. Series A, B, C, and D reflect different interstate migration assumptions. See text for explanations J July 1. 2010 to July I, 2015 July I, 2015 to July I, 2020
Components of change Components of change Net change'
Net change' Net migration
Net migration Region, division, and State
Net Net internal International
International Net Percent Net Percent Internal migration Births Deaths migration'
South AtlantIc Delaware _____________________ _ Maryland _____________________ _ District of Columbia ____________ _ Virginia. __ ._: ___________________ _ West Vlrgmla __________________ _
North Carolina ----------------South Carolina -----------------
Table 2. Components of population Change, for Regions, Divisions, and States: 1990 to 2020 - Series D-con.
[Numbers in thousands. Resident population. Series A. B. C. and D reflect different interstate migration assumptions. See text for explanations J July 1. 2015 to July 1. 2020
July 1. 2010 to July 1. 2015
Components of change Components of change Net change'
Net change' Net migration
Net migration Region. division. and State
Net Net internal International
International Net Percent Net Percent internal Births Deaths migration" migration
United States ______________ .. _ 12,693 4.2 21,726 13,936
REGION AND DIVISION
Northeast _____________________ _ 1,825 New England - ________________ _ 363 Middle Atlantic ________________ _ 1,462
Midwest _______________________ _ 1,845 East North CentraL ____________ _ 1.292 West North Central - ___________ _ 553
South _________________________ _ 3,541 South Atlantic _________________ _ 1.502 East South Central - ___________ _ 327 West South Central ____________ _ 1.712
South Atlantic Delaware _____________________ _ 15 Maryland _____________________ _ 221 District of Columbia ------------- 29 Virginia _________________ ------- 214 West Vlrginia __________________ _ -5 North Carolina ________________ _ 116 South Carolina ________________ _ 87
the net sum of the components will not equal "The Internal migration components f
the net sum of Internal migrations which Is ze
66 66 233 3.7 420 267
4.0 413 250 31 31 105 3.0 229 164
3.2 227 157 1,724 1.730 4.349 9.0 4.379 1.744
9.3 3.951 1.596 5 5 56 6.8 76 27
7.4 72 22 41 40 117 7.2 130 56
7.2 120 52
e adjustments to bring the sum of the State projections by age, sex, and race Into agreement with the nallonal populatlon projeCllons. Thus,
the net change In population. or regions, divisions, and States Includes the net movement of persons to the Armed Forces. For the U.S. total this component reflects only
ro.
.~'
Table 3. Projections of the Divisions, and Stat
[Numbers in thousands. Resident population. Series A, B
Total
Date, region, division, and State
Total
JULY 1, 1993
Populaes: 19, C, and D refle
Female
tion, b93 to 2020 ct different Int
White
Total
y Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, for Regions, - Series A (Preferred Series)
erstate migration assumptions. See text for explanations 1 Hispanic origin'
Race
American Indian, Asian and Pacific Black Eskimo, and Aleut Islander
Female Total Female Total Female Total Female Total
East North CentraL ___________ _ 43.D48 West North Central ____________ _ 18,101
26,549 6,814
19,735
31,397 22,132
9,265
43,417 12,215 31,201
53,769 37,069 16,700
22,443 6,307
16,136
27,521 18,978 8,543
6,132 683
5,449
6,065 5,118
946
3,260 353
2,906
3,207 2,716
491
123 33 90
369 161 207
63 17 46
186 81
105
1,555 269
1,286
946 699 247
784 137 647
484 357 127
4,069 640
3,429
1,956 1,621
335
2,069 323
1,746
942 780 162
South _________________________ _ 89,362 South Atlantic _________________ _ 45,720 East South Central ____________ _ 15,695 West South Central ____________ _ 27,947
west Minnesota North Central ____________________ _ 4,527 Iowa _________________________ _ 2,828 Missouri _________________ ------ 5,224 North Dakota _________________ _ 636 South Dakota _________________ _ 719
New England Maine ________________________ _ New Hampshire -- _____________ _ Vermont ______________________ _ Massachusetts ________________ _ Rhode Island _________________ _ Connecticut ________________ ----
1,236 1,132
579 5,976 1,001 3,274
633 577 295
3,098 519
1,686
1,217 1,109
570 5,445
927 2,915
624 565 291
2,822 482
1,499
5 7 2
340 44
293
2 3 1
176 22
154
6 2 2
11 4 7
3 1 1 6 2 3
8 14 4
180 25 60
4 7 2
92 13 30
9 13 4
342 58
258
4 7 2
172 29
131
Middle Atlantic New York _____________________ _
~:;;';,t0~s:~a=================== 18,178
7,931 12,134
9,442 4,091 6,300
14,025 6,405
10,768
7,246 3,294 5,577
3,249 1,156 1,167
1,743 608 622
57 14 15
29 7 7
846 358 185
424 182
94
2,372 898 297
1,220 450 147
East North Central Ohio _________________________ _
~~~i~~~~=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 11,203 5,820
11,853 9,575 5,159
5,788 2,990 6,079 4,916 2,628
9,806 5,275 9,603 7,958 4,750
5,049 2,704 4,893 4,061 2,416
1,253 476
1,843 1,417
288
666 251 978 753 151
22 14 23 61 45
11 7
11 31 23
122 55
383 140 76
62 28
196 72 39
170 122
1,086 242 118
85 60
516 120
57
west Minnesota North Central ____________________ _ Iowa _________________________ _ Missouri ______________________ _
New England Maine ________________________ _ 1,240 1,165 New Hampshire ----------------Vermont __ ~ ___________________ _ 592 5,950 Massachusetts -----------------Rhode Island _________________ _ 998
Connecticut ___________________ _ 3,271
634 593 302
3,073 515
1,682
1,220 1,137
582 5,373
917 2,891
625 579 297
2,775 474
1,483
5 8 3
352 46
304
2 4 1
182 23
161
6 3 2
10 4 6
3 1 1 5 2 3
9 18
5 215
31 70
5 10
3 111
16 35
11 16 5
394 70
300
5 8 3
199 35
153
Middle Atlantic New YorL ____________________ _ 18,237 8,135 New Jersey ------------------- 12,296 Pennsylvania __ -- - --- - --- - - - ----
9,469 4,191 6,367
13,819 6,445
10,834
7,127 3,306 5,593
3,391 1,242 1,219
1,824 655 649
50 13 14
26 6 7
977 435 229
493 223 117
2,498 1,037
359
1,287 522 178
East North Central Ohio _________________________ _ 11,453 Indiana _______________________ _ 6,045
New England Maine ________________________ _ New Hampshire _______________ _ Vermont ________ ---------------Massachusetts ________________ _ Rhode Island _________________ _ Connecticut _______ -- -- - --- -----
1,265 1,215
607 5,991 1,009 3,319
646 618 309
3,087 519
1,704
1,243 1,180
594 5,355
919 2,908
636 600 303
2,757 473
1,488
5 9 3
369 48
322
2 4 2
192 24
171
6 3 2
10 4 6
3 1 1 5 2 3
12 24
7 257
38 83
6 13 4
133 19 41
13 20
7 452
82 342
6 10 3
228 41
175
Middle Atlantic New york _____________________ _ New Jersey ___________________ _
Pennsylvania ____ - - - - - - - -- -- - ---
18,348 8,338
12,380
9,524 4,291 6,395
13,647 6,480
10,626
7,027 3,316 5,574
3,541 1,333 1,267
1,909 705 675
46 12 13
24 6 7
1,114 513 273
564 254 140
2,622 1,164
423
1,353 587 209
East North Central Ohio _________________________ _ Indiana _______________________ _
Table 3. Projections of the Population, by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, for Regions, Divisions, and States: 1993 to 2020 - Series A (Preferred Series)-Con.
[Numbers in thousands. Resident population, Series A, B, C, and 0 reflect different interstate migration assumptions, See text for explanations J Hispanic origin 1
Race Total
American Indian, Asian and Pacific White Black Eskimo, and Aleut Islander
Date, region, division, and State
Femal' Total Female Total Total Female Total Female
West North Central Minnesota ____________________ _ Iowa _________________________ _ Missouri ______________________ _ North Dakota _________________ _ South Dakota _________________ _ Nebraska _____________________ _ Kansas _______________________ _
5,127 2,981 5,760
676 815
1,793 2,922
2,601 1,522 2,958
339 412 910
1,476
4,699 2,841 4,970
622 702
1,669 2,588
2,382 1,450 2,540
312 355 846
1,306
122 78
664 5 4
76 198
62 40
353 2 2
39 99
74 8
21 37 97 16 33
37 4
11 19 49 8
17
232 53
105 11 11 31
103
120 27 54
6 6
16 53
116 75
108 8
11 93
190
57 37 53
4 5
45 93
South Atlantic Delaware _____________________ _ Maryland _____________________ _ District of COlumbia ____________ _ Virginia _______________________ _ West Virginia __________________ _
North Carolina -----------------South Carolina ________________ _
~1~~;Jl~a _= == = = === = == = = = == = = = = = = = East South Central Kentucky _____________________ _
Northeast _____________________ _ 54,267 New England _________________ _ 14,131 Middle Atlantic ________________ _ 40,136
27,958 7,231
20,727
43,498 12,641 30,857
22,267 6,456
15,811
7,653 865
6,788
4,095 454
3,641
97 32 64
49 16 33
3,019 593
2,426
1,547 305
1,242
6,011 1,158
. 4,853
3,072 588
2,484
Midwest _______________________ _ 67,619 East North CentraL ____________ _ 46,998 West North Central - ___________ _ 20,621
34,496 24,013 10,483
56,968 38,504 18,464
28,913 19,545 9,368
7,981 6,774 1,207
4,212 3,584
628
486 176 310
246 89
157
2,183 1,543
640
1,125 795 330
3,731 3,044
687
1,829 1,491
338
South _________________________ _ 112,485 South Atlantic _________________ _ 57,979 East South Central ------------- 18,514 West South Central ____________ _ 35,992
Table 3, Projections of the Population, by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, for Regions, Divisions, and States: 1993 to 2020 - Series A (Preferred Series)-Con,
[Numbers in thousands. Resident population, Series A, B, C, and D reflect different interstate migration assumptions, See text for explanations 1 Hispanic origin' Race Total
American Indian, Asian and Pacific White Black Eskimo, and Aleut Islander Date, region, division, and State
Female Total Female Total Female Total Female Total
New England Maine ________________________ _ New Hampshire _______________ _ Vermont ______________ -- - - -----Massachusetts ________________ _ Rhode Island _________________ _ Connecticut ___________ ---------
1,400 1,399
658 6,363 1,090 3,617
713 710 335
3,262 556
1,849
1,368 1,338
639 5,501
966 3,081
697 679 325
2,814 493
1,567
6 12
4 441
57 400
3 6 2
230 29
213
6 4 3
10 5 6
3 2 1 5 2 3
20 46 12
411 62
130
10 20 10 24 31 15
7 10 5 213 632 320
32 123 62 65 467 240
Middle Atlantic New York _____________________ _ New Jersey ___________________ _ Pennsylvania __________ -- -- - - ---
19,111 9,058
12,656
9,911 4,651 6,504
13,487 6,659
10,804
6,920 3,390 5,527
4,039 1,645 1,438
2,183 873 764
39 11 13
20 6 6
1,548 743 402
788 3,031 1,568 383 1,539 782 207 620 308
East North Central Ohio _________________________ _ Indiana _______________________ _ Illinois ______________ - - -- -------
~ii~~~~n -::::::::::::::::: ::::
11,870 6,488
13,218 10,377 5,846
6,085 3,312 6,735 5,302 2,967
9,944 5,691 9,944 7,990 5,133
5,070 2,895 5,014 4,047 2,598
1,643 652
2,434 1,988
465
871 343
1,287 1,051
243
21 14 21 66 !;i5
11 7
11 34 28
261 131 819 334 192
134 344 171 67 257 127
424 2,076 1,011 171 481 239 98 266 132
west Minnesota North Central ____________________ _
~~:ouri:::::: :::::::: ::: :::::: North Dakota _________________ _ South Dakota _________________ _ Nebraska _____________________ _ Kansas _______________________ _
5,426 3,038 6,123
719 863
1,885 3,130
2,751 1,547 3,137
360 435 955
1,577
4,889 2,873 5,234
653 722
1,744 2,735
2,476 1,461 2,668
327 364 881
1,376
132 91
727 6 5
84 221
68 47
385 3 2
43 112
84 8
22 44
122 18 36
43 4
11 22 61
9 18
320 67
140 16 15 40
138
165 153 76 34 97 48 73 137 68
8 10 5 8 14 7
21 122 60 71 246 121
~~1~!~:~~1~ __________________ _ Maryland _____________________ _ District of Columbia ____________ _
~~~~i~irgiiiia::::::::::::::: :::: North Carolina ________________ _ South Carolina ________________ _ Georgia ______________________ _ Florida _______________________ _
871 6,289
636 8,388 1,852 9,014 4,685 9,426
19,449
448 3,250
328 4,246
956 4,632 2,411 4,852
10,030
616 3,749
210 6,084 1,771 6,517 3,115 6,306
15,338
314 1,901
97 3,045
913 3,312 1,578 3,201 7,881
215 2,052
404 1,808
50 2,122 1,486 2,851 3,482
113 1,093
220 943
27 1,125
790 1,509 1,817
3 14 1
15 3
118 10 12 44
2 7 1 7 2
60 5 6
22
37 474
21 481
27 257
73 257 585
20 51 26 249 313 156
11 39 19 251 392 193
14 20 10 135 216 105 38 86 41
136 304 148 310 4,173 2,130
East South Central Kentucky ___________ -----------Tennessee ___________________ _
~~~~~i~pT:::::: :::::: :::::::::
4,313 6,434 5,231 3,100
2,205 3,329 2,707 1,613
3,869 5,189 3,766 1,957
1,974 2,667 1,927 1,005
387 1,125 1,359 1,091
201 600 724 581
6 11 20 10
3 6
10 5
51 109 86 41
27 43 20 57 86 42 46 63 31 22 32' 16
West South Central Arkansas _____________________ _ Louisiana _____________________ _ Oklahoma ____________________ _ Texas ________________________ _
'Totals may be different from thosa in the national population projections report (Current Population Reports, P25-1104) due to rounding.
24
Table 4. Projections of the Population, by Age and Sex, for Regions, Divisions, and States: 1993 to 2020 - Series A (Preferred Series)
[Numbers in thousands. Resident population. Series A, S, C, and D reflect different interstate migration assumptions. See text for explanation J
July 1, 1993
85 years 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84 Region, division, and State o to 4 5t09 10to14 15to19 20 to 24 25 to 34 and over years years years years years years years years years years All ages years
New England Maine __________________ __ 1,236 New Hampshire _________ __ 1,118 Vermont _________________ _ 573 Massachusetts __________ __ 5,992 Rhode Island --- ________ __ 1,004 Connecticut __________ ----- 3,278
82 82 40
432 71
241
87 82 41
395 66
221
87 77 41
364 63
203
82 69 38
347 60
189
88 81 47
464 82
221
194 192
91 1,069
167 549
203 191
97 946 155 528
138 126 65
652 106 385
106 86 45
488 82
283
94 74 38
459 85
255
56 43 22
279 51
153
19 14 8
96 17 50
Middle Atlantic New York ________________ _ 18,140 New Jersey _________ .. ____ _ 7,836 Pennsylvania _____ - - - - - - - -- 12,050
1,383 587 821
1,226 524 802
1,172 497 793
1,146 477 759
1,324 515 871
3,077 1,313 1,845
2,810 1,254 1,855
2,036 909
1,315
1,589 696
1,098
1,349 617
1,081
776 347 625
252 100 184
East North Central Ohio ____________________ _ 11,080 Indiana __________________ _ 5,717 Illinois ___________________ _ 11,708 Michigan ________________ _ 9,485 Wisconsin _______________ _ 5,058
803 416 919 742 363
784 401 840 699 380
796 416 835 697 386
759 409 783 662 353
825 453 865 715 366
1,745 906
1,961 1,518
810
1,209 624
1,256 1,028
528
965 483 965 775 415
852 413 825 673 364
470 235 488 372 229
148 76
155 115
78
West North Central Minnesota ______________ __ 4,527 Iowa ___________________ __ 2,828 Missouri ________________ __ 5,224 North Dakota ____________ _ 636 South Dakota ___________ __ 719 Nebraska _______________ __ 1,619 Kansas _________________ __ 2,548
337 195 380
44 56
120 192
348 203 378
48 58
124 193
348 217 386
51 60
128 196
304 200 356
46 54
116 177
315 208 372
49 51
117 187
755 416 819
97 104 246 398
730 421 786
97 105 245 392
475 291 561
60 68
162 259
350 244 451
51 59
133 205
300 227 402
47 55
119 187
192 148 246 33 36 77
119
72 57 87 12 14 30 45
South Atlantic Delaware ________________ _ 699 Maryland _______________ __ 4,966 DiSt~f Columbia _______ _ 577 VirgInIa _________________ __ 6,468 West Virginia ____________ __ 1,816 North Carolina ----------- 6,946 South Carolina ------------ 3,647
6,871 13,730 ~1~~~1a _ = ==== = == ===== = ====
54 396
38 479 111 503 280 544 954
49 355
31 443 113 463 258 504 890
47 330
28 429 130 456 264 503 848
44 296 29
410 138 463 262 482 791
55 344
53 516 140 570 302 545 869
121 891 118
1,155 252
1,165 598
1,203 2,088
108 826 92
1,062 283
1,083 562
1,104 1,989
76 580
63 746 205 775 396 764
1,444
60 402 48
518 170 604 300 527
1,309
53 328 43
422 158 513 259 408
1,447
26 168 25
221 90
272 131 221 859
8 50
8 66 27 79 35 64
243
East South Central Kentucky _______________ __ 3,787 Tennessee ______________ _ 5,093 Alabama ________ -- -------- 4,182 Mississippi ______________ __ 2,632
265 . 359
311 207
259 342 292 199
279 353 306 217
279 352 308 212
297 394 329 219
601 820 648 392
584 796 626 375
417 581 452 266
325 448 367 216
274 373 313 185
156 210 176 109
50 65 54 35
West South Central Arkansas ________________ _ 2,422 Louisiana ________________ _ 4,312 Oklahoma ____ -- -- -- -- - --- 3,231 Texas __________________ __ 17,983
New England Maine ___________________ _ 633 New Hampshire __________ _ 570 Vermont ______________ ---- 292 Massachusetts ___________ _ 3,108 Rhode Island ____________ _ 521 Connecticut ______________ _ 1,689
40 40 20
211 34
118
42 40 20
192 32
108
42 38 20
177 31 99
40 34 18
170 29 92
44 41 23
234 41
109
98 97 46
537 84
275
102 96 49
481 78
268
69 62 32
336 54
197
55 44 23
258 44
147
52 41 21
260 48
143
34 27 14
179 33 96
14 11 6
72 12 37
Middle Atlantic New York ________________ _ 9,426 New Jersey ______________ _ 4,045 Pennsylvania _____________ _ 6,264
674 287 399
598 255 390
572 242 387
561 232 372
659 255 436
1,556 660 934
1,442 640 939
1,069 469 679
847 366 585
768 348 612
493 218 395
185 73
135
East North Central Ohio ____________________ _ 5,731 Indiana ___ , ______________ _ 2,940 Illinois _______ . ____________ _ 6,010
4,873 2,578 Wi~~~~~n-================
392 203 449 362 177
383 195 409 341 185
388 202 408 340 187
371 200 379 324 172
416 226 423 360 183
889 459 983 772 407
878 446 920 757 392
624 318 646 524 266
508 253 506 404 213
479 233 464 375 199
296 148 309 231 141
109 56
114 82 56
West North Central Minnesota _______________ _ 2,303 Iowa ____________________ _ 1,454 Missouri _________________ _ 2,701 North Dakota ____________ _ 319
South Atlantic Delaware ________________ _ 359 Maryland ________________ _ 2,555 District of Columbia -------- 305 Virginia __________________ _ 3,295 West Virginia _____________ _ 942 North Carolina ___________ _ 3,574 South Carolina ___________ _ 1,880
3,532 7,084 ~1~kP~a_==================
26 193 19
234 54
247 137 265 465
24 174 15
216 55
226 127 246 434
23 161 14
209 63
223 129 246 414
22 145 15
200 67
227 128 235 385
28 172 27
247 70
273 149 270 428
61 453
61 576 130 582 301 608
1,039
55 424
47 538 143 550 286 565
1,004
39 296 33
378 104 399 204 390 745
32 209 26
271 91
323 161 279 703
29 184 26
238 89
291 148 235 801
16 106 16
140 57
175 83
144 503
6 37 6
49 20 59 26 48
162
East Kentucky South yentral ________________ _ 1,951 Tennessee ______________ _ 2,638 Alabama _________________ _ 2,175 Mississippi _______________ _ 1,373
129 175 151 101
126 166 143
97
135 172 150 106
136 171 151 104
147 197 166 111
306 419 331 204
297 407 321 193
214 299 235 139
171 239 197 117
154 212 179 106
99 134 112
69
36 48 39 25
West South Central 1,253 2,234 t~~~~:~~ Oklahoma ================= _______________ _ 1,655
South Atlantic Delaware ________________ _ 718 Maryland ________________ _ 5,078 Dist~i~t of COlumbia _______ _ 559 Virginia __________________ _ 6,646 West Virginia _____________ _ 1,824 North Carolina ___________ _ 7,150 South Carolina ___________ _ 3,732
Pacific Washington ______________ _ 5,497 Oregon __________________ _ 3,141 California ________________ _ 32,398 Alaska __________________ _ 634 Hawaii __________________ _ 1,221
411 224
2,917 62
101
409 224
2,510 58 86
414 230
2,340 54 83
372 218
2,116. 44 74
373 210
2,279 50 94
870 461
5,653 113 208
948 522
5,293 120 201
662 408 386 245
3,548 2,319 71 34
138 93
351 212 68 229 146 46
1,969 1,111 342 19 7 2 86 44 13
27
Table 4. Projections of the Population, by Age and Sex, for Regions, Divisions, and States: 1993 to 2020 - Series A (Preferred Series)-con.
[Numbers in thousands. Resident population. Series A, B, C, and D reflect different interstate migration assumptions. See text for explanation 1 July 1, 1995
85 years Region, division, and State 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84 and over o to 4 5 to 9 years years years years years years years years years
All ages years years
FEMALES
United States' ---------- 134,749 9,837 9,321 9,233 K
New Hampshire -----------Vermont _______ -----------Massachusetts ___________ _ Rhode Island ____________ _ Connecticut _____ - ____ -- ---
633 577 295
3,096 519
1,686
39 39 20
203 33
116
41 41 20
199 32
111
43 39 21
185 31
103
40 35 19
172 30 92
41 37 20
202 34 97
93 92 46
514 81
257
104 100 49
492 80
275
76 70 35
364 59
211
54 45 23
251 43
144
52 41 21
255 47
140
35 27 14
182 34
100
15 12 6
78 13 40
Middle Allantlc New York ________________ _ New Jersey ______________ _ Pennsylvania _____________ _
9,442 4,091 6,300
669 289 397
619 271 398
588 251 397
562 230 375
609 241 404
1,495 629 909
1,472 666 968
1,137 503 730
831 361 566
766 346 602
499 226 408
195 78
146
East North Central Ohio ____________________ _ Indiana _____ c ____________ _ Illinois ___________________ _
Wi~~~~~n -== = == = == == =: = == = West Minnesota North Central _______________ _
~::ciurf================== North Dakota ____________ _ South Dakota ____________ _ Nebraska ________________ _
Kansas ___ --- -- --- -- -- - ---
5,788 2,990 6,079 4,916 2,628
2,348 1,469 2,730
320 372 840
1,321
393 208 454 368 177
164 95
184 21 27 58 96
387 200 421 348 185
170 98
185 23 28 60 94
392 204 415 345 193
175 106 191 25 30 63 97
375 203 387 327 180
158 103 180 23 28 59 91
401 218 410 343 178
155 99
180 22 26 59 89
863 453 948 744 396
362 206 396 46 50
119 192
903 462 953 776 409
380 216 417
48 54
126 202
671 343 692 565 292
262 160 311
33 37 89
143
500 251 500 398 212
181 126 237
25 30 68
106
479 235 462 373 201
165 124 225
25 29 65
103
307 153 314 239 143
120 93
156 20 22 48 74
117 60
122 89 60
55 44 68
9 10 23 34
South Atlantic Delaware ________________ _ Maryland ________________ _ District of Columbla _______ _ Virginia __________________ _ West Virginia _____________ _ North Carolina ___________ _ South Carolina ___________ _
~I~~;p~a_================== East South Central Kentucky ________________ _
Pacific Washington ______________ _ Oregon __________________ _ California ________________ _
~~!~f; ===================
2,764 1,592
16,184 302 602
200 109
1,420 30 49
199 109
1,225 28 42
201 112
1,140 26 40
180 106
1,025 21 36
182 104
1,066 23 43
430 229
2,711 54 99
473 261
2,615 57 98
329 193
1,790 33 68
206 127
1,198 16 49
191 125
1,093 9
46
124 86
663 4
23
47 32
239 1 8
28
Table 4. Projections of the Population, by Age and Sex, for Regions, Divisions, and States: 1993 to 2020 - Series A (Preferred Series)-con.
[Numbers in thousands. Resident population. Series A, B, C, and D reflect different interstate migration assumptions. See text for explanation J
July 1, 2000
65 to 74 75 to 84 85 years Region, division, and State 55 to 64 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 o t04 5 to 9 10to 14 15 to 19 and over years years years years
years years years years All ages years years years
New England Maine ____________________ 1,240 New Hampshire ___________ 1,165 Vermont __________________ 592 Massachusetts ____________ 5,950 Rhode Island _____________ 996 Connecticut _______________ 3,271
75 162 205 180 72 81 68 68
69 154 208 170 71 61 86 83
38 82 97 84 38 41 43 45
351 834 1,015 808 362 408 413 397
60 137 162 136 60 67 66 69
174 417 563 459 211 236 230 205
114 103
51 521 67
305
91 74 38
416 73
234
61 23 48 19 25 9
306 120 57 21
173 65
Mlddlfl Allantlc New York _________________ 18,237 New Jersey _______________ 8,135 Pennsylvania ______________ 12,296
1,123 2,551 2,976 2,413 1,249 1,333 1,286 1,235
1,105 511 443 1,076 1,404 544 612 579
738 1,617 1,960 1,665 755 841 852 840
1,645 749
1,116
1,279 586 971
846 301 396 128 706 236
East North Central Ohio _____________________ 11,453 Indiana ___________________ 6,045 Illinois ____________________ 12,168 Michigan _________________ 9,759 Wisconsin ________ ~ _______ 5,361
751 1,566 1,831 1,526 761 827 815 821
414 851 962 791 413 446 429 444
798 1,723 1,991 1,564 881 935 677 857
640 1,325 1,549 1,265 718 761 728 715
366 726 866 706 352 365 400 414
1,006 523
1,028 627 453
810 406 786 636 365
551 186 271 95 534 193 427 146 250 97
West North Central Minnesota ________________ 4,624 Iowa _____________________ 2,930 Missouri __________________ 5,437 North Dakota _____________ 643 South Dakota _____________ 770 Nebraska _________________ 1,704 Kansas ___________________ 2,722
South Atlantic Delaware _________________ 759 Maryland _________________ 5,322 District of Columbia ________ 537 Virginia ___________________ 7,048 West Virginia ______________ 1,840 North carolina - ___________ 7,617 South Carolina ------------ 3,932 Georgia __________________ 7,637 Florida ___________________ 15,313
49 110 125 98 52 56 52 53
307 737 941 726 387 412 367 356
43 97 92 70 28 25 27 34
445 1,049 1,237 963 463 503 492 479
123 246 281 260 109 121 120 129
486 1,093 1,252 1,019 487 534 529 524
262 556 634 519 272 290 282 287
510 1,113 1,304 1,016 546 581 570 559
631 1,766 2,334 1,981 907 976 964 959
66 466
47 613 174 694 348 640
1,555
54 327 37
435 144 544 265 446
1,525
35 10 209 66 26 10
277 91 96 35
339 114 164 52 263 69
1,103 372
East South Central Kentucky _________________ 3,969 Tennessee _______________ 5,538 Alabama __________________ 4,485 Mississippi ________________ 2,750
Pacific Washington _______________ 6,070 3,404 Orero;n ---Cali ornia ----------------_________________ 34,886
Alaska ___________________ 699 Hawaii ___________________ 1,327
400 848 1,038 842 420 449 451 446
227 460 542 479 231 245 245 247
2,312 5,175 5,845 4,366 2,649 2,843 2,593 2,489
53 119 127 88 65 64 59 54
90 214 216 163 106 101 66 85
500 294
2,711 41
104
347 216
1,980 20 86
244 84 162 56
1,306 418 9 2
55 18
29
Table 4. Projections of the Population, by Age and Sex, for Regions, Divisions, and States: 1993 to 2020 - Series A (Preferred Series)-con.
[Numbers In thousands. Resident population. Series ABC, and D reflect different interstate migration assumptions See text for explanation J
July 1, 2000
85 years 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84 Region, division, and State 15to19 20 to 24 25 to 34 and over o to 4 5t0910to14 years years years years years years years years All ages years years years
South Atlantic Delaware ________________ _ Maryland ________________ _ District of Columbla _______ _ Virginia __________________ _ West Virginia _____________ _
North Carolina ------------South Carolina ___________ _
~I~~~~a_::::::::::::::::::
390 2,743
279 3,580
954 3,916 2,025 3,924 7,914
25 189
14 226
53 238 133 266 442
27 201
12 245 59
261 142 283 475
26 190
14 240 58
258 138 278 479
26 176
17 233
63 256 141 273 467
24 154
20 216
61 240 129 253 410
56 381
48 517 126 544 280 566 897
63 482
47 621 144 632 322 664
1,174
50 377
37 491 132 524 268 525
1,016
34 242
26 317
91 367 185 335 822
29 178
21 239 80
304 149 248 842
21 127
17 169
61 209 101 165 639
8 48
7 66 25 83 38 66
250
East South Central Kentucky ________________ _ Tennessee ______________ _ Alabama _________________ _ Mississippi _______________ _
2,048 2,866 2,328 1,433
130 170 158
98
137 184 167 104
134 187 157 102
142 191 160 108
136 181 148
95
280 393 313 192
326 468 359 215
273 390 298 180
187 270 213 126
152 218 181 106
106 151 125 74
45 62 50 32
~t South Central Arkansas ________________ _ Louisiana ________________ _ Oklahoma _______________ _ Texas ___________________ _
Northeast ________________ _ New England _________ • __ _
Middle Atlantic ------------
Midwest __________________ _ East North Central ________ _ West North Central --------
South ____________________ _ South Atlantic ____________ _ East South Central __ - - - - --West South CentraL ______ _
West _____________________ _ Mountain ________________ _
Paclfic ___________ -- - --- ---
52,472 13,406 39,065
65,193 45,621 19,572
102,366 52,709 17,384 32,274
68,255 18,089 50,167
3,176 764
2,412
4,321 3,039 1,282
6,707 3,219 1,116 2,372
5,129 1,322 3,806
3,412 834
2,578
4,504 3,184 1,320
6,867 3,350 1,171 2,346
5,015 1,318 3,697
3,820 948
2,872
4,861 3,433 1,428
7,480 3,709 1,288 2,482
5,281 1,408 3,873
3,734 965
2,769
4,763 3,311 1,452
7,342 3,652 1,260 2,430
5,033 1,378 3,655
3,379 878
2,501
4,596 3,171 1,425
7,007 3,415 1,194 2,398
4,934 1,331 3,603
6,354 1,586 4,76B
8,359 5,884 2,475
12,887 6,407 2,203 4,277
9,192 2,370 6,822
8,033 2,096 5,937
9,488 6,699 2,789
15,244 7,926 2,566 4,752
10,309 2,621 7,688
7,732 2,030 5,702
9,348 6,543 2,B05
14,687 7,645 2,507 4,534
9,452 2,519 6,933
5,534 1,444 4,090
6,443 4,515 1,928
10,523 5,686 1,802 3,035
6,369 1,721 4,649
3,549 BB2
2,667
4,180 2,894 1,286
7,007 3,904 1,197 1,906
3,888 1,082 2,806
2,689 682
2,007
3,086 2,121
965
4,819 2,761
789 1,269
2,670 742
1,928
1,060 298 762
1,243 825 418
1,797 1,034
290 472
982 276 705
STATE
New England Maine ___________________ _ New Hampshire __________ _ Vermont _________________ _ Massachusetts ___________ _ Rhode Island ____________ _ Connecticut ________ ---- ---
1,265 1,215
607 5,991 1,009 3,319
70 69 37
334 57
197
76 76 39
364 61
217
87 86 43
419 70
243
90 90 46
436 74
227
83 81 43
405 69
197
152 143 75
723 119 372
189 193
92 953 152 518
197 194
91 887 151 510
142 134 64
633 108 363
88 75 3B
392 67
223
64 51 27
308 57
175
27 22 10
138 24 77
Middle Atlantic New York ________________ _ New Jersey ______________ _
Pennsylvania ________ - - -- --
18,348 8,338
12,380
1,181 515 716
1,228 572 778
1,357 638 876
1,320 573 877
1,218 484 800
2,318 983
1,467
2,795 1,321 1,822
2,610 1,241 1,850
1,889 884
1,318
1,216 565 886
878 413 715
337 150 275
East North Central Ohio ____________________ _ Indiana __________________ _ Illinois ___________________ _ Michigan ________________ _ Wisconsin _~_~ ___________ _
11,587 6,190
12,417 9,898 5,528
736 403 859 693 348
777 426 886 727 368
845 461 948 777 402
828 450 883 737 413
794 436 860 663 399
1,478 Bl1
1,648 1,246
701
1,694 910
1,859 1,426
810
1,687 883
1,754 1,414
805
1,180 616
1,195 974 550
773 397 761 603 360
576 288 548 446 263
218 lOB 217 173 109
West Minnesota North Central _______________ _ Iowa ____________________ _ Missouri _________________ _ North Dakota ____________ _ South Dakota ____________ _ Nebraska ________________ _ Kansas _______ ------- - - - --
4,986 2,965 5,592
657 796
1,752 2,825
321 187 356
41 58
119 201
333 195 370
43 59
122 200
362 211 406
47 64
130 208
371 217 407
51 63
133 211
365 215 389
52 59
133 211
636 380 685
87 99
230 358
743 413 802
91 105 240 396
737 415 812
94 109 240 398
488 293 577
60 73
167 270
309 205 391
41 50
113 177
223 161 284
33 40 87
137
98 73
114 17 18 38 59
South Atlantic Delaware ________________ _ Maryland ________________ _ Dist:'~t of Columbia _______ _ Virginia __________________ _ West Virginia _____________ _ North Carolina --_________ _
South Carolina ------------
~I~~;p~a _ = == ===== === ==== === East South Central Kentucky ________________ _
Northeast ________________ _ New England ____________ _ Middle Atlantic ___________ _
Midwest __________________ _ East North CentraL _______ _ West North Central _______ _
South ____________________ _ South Atlantic ____________ _ East South Central __ - - - - --West South CentraL ______ _
West _____________________ _ Mountain ________________ _ Pacific ___________________ _
27,093 6,883
20,210
33,334 23,361 9,974
52,520 27,112 8,989
16,419
34,218 9,108
25,110
1,548 372
1,176
2,106 1,482
625
3,272 1,571
544 1,156
2,499 645
1,854
1,661 406
1,255
2,195 1,552
643
3,348 1,634
571 1,143
2,441 642
1,799
1,859 461
1,397
2,369 1,673
696
3,644 1,808
627 1,210
2,570 686
1,884
1,817 469
1,349
2,319 1,613
707
3,576 1,780
613 1,184
2,449 671
1,778
1,676 434
1,242
2,267 1,566
701
3,455 1,684
591 1,180
2,410 656
1,754
3,234 803
2,431
4,227 2,961 1,246
6,499 3,227 1,122 2,150
4,532 1,187 3,345
4,089 1,059 3,030
4,810 3,406 1,405
7,731 4,018 1,318 2,394
5,072 1,303 3,769
3,987 1,037 2,950
4,753 3,340 1,413
7,538 3,931 1,298 2,308
4,748 1,266 3,482
2,925 749
2,176
3,337 2,347
990
5,508 2,980
950 1,578
3,258 877
2,381
1,940 475
1,465
2,246 1,558
688
3,824 2,128
664 1,032
2,055 569
1,486
1,596 403
1,193
1,812 1,251
561
2,864 1,635
480 749
1,529 421
1,107
760 215 545
892 592 301
1,261 717 211 334
656 186 470
STATE
New England Maine ___________________ _ New Hampshire __________ _ Vermont _________________ _ Massachusetts ___________ _ Rhode Island ____________ _ Connecticut ______________ _
646 618 309
3,087 519
1,704
34 34 18
163 28 96
37 37 19
177 30
106
42 42 21
203 34
119
44 44 23
212 36
111
41 40 21
200 34 97
76 73 38
367 60
187
96 98 47
482 76
261
100 98 46
455 77
261
72 68 32
331 56
189
47 39 20
212 37
119
38 30 16
183 34
102
19 15 8
100 18 55
Middle Atlantic New york ________________ _
New Jersey ---------------Pennsylvania _____________ _
South Atlantic Delaware ________________ _ Maryland ________________ _ District of Columbia _______ _ Virginia __________________ _ West Virginia _____________ _
North Carolina ------------South Carolina ___________ _
~1~~i;Jl~a _==== ==============
406 2,862
284 3,752
955 4,113 2,122 4,169 8,450
25 185
14 221 50
233 131 268 444
26 192
12 235
56 247 136 276 455
28 208
13 259
62 279 149 302 507
27 193
18 253
61 280 148 295 505
27 179
23 243
59 262 141 282 468
52 354
45 481 119 504 264 545 862
62 461
46 606 136 622 316 652
1,118
58 427
40 561 142 599 305 609
1,192
41 297
29 391 106 447 226 422
1,020
29 179 20
244 75
312 153 263 854
22 132
16 180
61 227 108 179 711
9 56 8
79 29
100 46 76
314
East South Central Kentucky ________________ _ Tennessee - _____________ _
Table 4. Projections of the population, by Age and Sex, for Regions, Divisions, and States: 1993 to 2020 - Series A (Preferred Series)-con.
[Numbers in thousands. Resident population. Series A, 8, C, and D reflect different interstate migration assumptions. See text for explanation 1 July 1, 2010
85 yean Region, division, and State 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84 and ove o to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 years years years years years years years years
south Atlantic Delaware ________________ _ 419 Maryland ________________ _ 2,985 District of Columbia -------- 298 Virginia __________________ _ 3,915 West Virginia _____________ _ 953
New England Maine ____________________ 1,355 New Hampshire ___________ 1,341 Vermont __________________ 641 Massachusetts ____________ 6,221 Rhodr, Island _____________ 1,061 Connecticut _______________ 3,512
77 78 40
354 62
215
79 83 87 79 81 89 39 40 46
347 363 415 60 63 73
214 221 231
89 94 47
468 79
236
174 166 190 177 162 196 86 78 87
855 737 891 139 120 149 440 421 509
190 188 83
810 144 466
124 117 55
535 94
302
63 33 53 28 27 13
280 166 48 29
162 95
Middle Atlantic New York _________________ 18,804 New Jersey _______________ 8,800 pennsylvania ______________ 12,531
East North Central Ohio _____________________ 11,756 Indiana ___________________ 6,385 Illinois ____________________ 12,924
South Atlantic Delaware _________________ 842 Maryland _________________ 6,032 District of Columbia -------- 607 Virginia ___________________ 8,060 West Virginla ______________ 1,845 North Carolina ____________ 8,661 South Carolina ____________ 4,501
West South Central Arkansas _________________ 2,893 Louisiana _________________ 5,001 Oklahoma ________________ 3,852 Texas ____________________ 24,247
New England Maine ___________________ _ 1191 New Hampshire ----------- 681 Vermont ____________ ------ 326 Massachusetts ___________ _ 3,154 Rhode Island ____________ _ 542 Connecticut ___ - - - - - - --- --- 1,797
37 38 111
172 30
105
fi 36 19
188 2lI
104
40 39 20
176 31
108
42 43 U
202 35
113
44 46 23
231 39
1 ...
87 89 43
430 69
222
83 82 39
375 80
213
97 100 44
456 76
259
98 96 42
421 75
241
65 60 28
286 50
160
35 29 15
159 28 91
23 19 9
116 20 65
Middle Atlantic New YorL _______________ _ 9,755 4,522 New Jersey ---------------Pennsylvania _____________ _ 6,450
East North Central Ohio ____________________ _ 6,034 Indiana __________________ _ 3,262 Illinois ___________________ _ 6,591
5,213 2,912 ~i~~~~~n - = = = = = = = === ==== ==
596 268 356
364 201 445 35S 175
575 272 359
3S5 262 430 349 177
593 264 376
_7 373
430 353 182
639 291 407
3111 221 441 3G7 191
11$7 292 424
41'0 23'11 4flS 312 197
1,300 557 782
7&4 415 664 668 374
1,190 562 783
742 406 819 628 353
1,349 651 907
824 442 877 685 396
1,236 598 893
788 413 806 647 383
836 400 600
516 271 515 411 250
473 221 352
304 158 295 230 144
281 125 231
191 95
181 147 89
West North Central Minnesota _______________ _ 2,675 Iowa ____________________ _ 1,533 Missouri _________________ _ 3,046 North Dakota ____________ _ 349 South Dakota - ___________ _ 423 Nebraska ________________ _ 932 Kansas ______________ -- --- 1,526
1&7 91
HI5 22 30 61
lOS
166 83
184 22 30 61
101
168 95
189 23 3\!) 81
100
173 101 1M
24 3\!) 1!3
105
181 W3 282
25 29 ee
109
356 195 380
48 52
124 1116
326 186 360 42 48
111 178
359 199 410 44 52
114 195
346 195 407
42 52
115 190
222 132 274
27 33 77
124
128 85
161 17 21 48 74
84 58 98 13 15 31 49
South Atlantic Delaware ________________ _ 433 Maryland ________________ _ 3,116 Dist:i~t of Columbia -------- 313 V,rglnoa __________________ _ 4,081 West Virginia _____________ _ 953
4,460 North Carolina ----------- 2,316 South Carolina Georgia ------------_________________ _ 4,626 Florida __________________ _ 9,500
27 206
16 24G 49
250 141 296 493
26 1IIe
13 2fi
52 247 lfi 287 475
26 199
13 246
56 258 142 294 4117
28 204
18 2811!
61 284 153 310 515
30 213
27 260
81 fil 158
*' 531
57 412
56 535 111 543 286 808 979
53 389
42 521 120 532 280 682 973
60 445
42 697 134 633 322 654
1,243
56 396
38 630 134 610 310 593
1,436
38 252
25 345
91 428 212 385
1,200
21 130
14 183 53
239 112 197 726
13 72
9 105 33
135 62 99
448
East South Central Kentucky ________________ _ 2,167 3,220 Tennessee Alabama ---------------_________________ _ 2,611
Mississippi _______________ _ 1,566
128 17S 165 97
127 176 164 IJI
132 184 17Q 103
143 202 180 l'M
1041$ 215 17'8 lOS
2tI6 396 310 182
267 400 313 189
301 466 352 215
292 445 340 208
197 302 235 138
108 168 134
79
59 89 70 43
West Soutlh Central Arkansas ________________ _ 1,492 Louisiana ________________ _ 2,575 Oklahoma _______________ _ 1,958 Texas ___________________ _ 12,260
Pacific Washington ______________ _ 3,752 Oregon __________________ _ 2,078 California ________________ _ 22,296
402 833 ~~.!~~ ===================
240 133
1,724 39 81
236 131
1,563 36 56
242 134
1,51-3 32 §4
241 137
1,539 30 5~
2511 142
1,641 34 58
503 275
3,149 71
123
479 259
2,748 58
114
511 269
2,858 48
102
487 269
2,556 34 89
305 181
1,656 15 63
151 92
876 6
36
89 54
475 2
23
36
Table 4. Projections of the Population, by Age and Sex, for Regions, Divisions, and States: 1993 to 2020 - Series A (Preferred Series)-Con.
[Numbers in thousands. Resident population. Series A, 8, C, and D reflect different interstate migration assumptions. See text for explanation 1 July 1,2020
55 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84 Region, division, and State 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54
o to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 years years years :~l~~~~ years years years years years years
Northeast _________________ 55,352 3,452 New England _____________ 14,527 863 Middle Atlantic ____________ 40,824 2,589
Midwest ___________________ 68,984 4,610 East North CentraL ________ 47,799 3,228
1,382 West North Central -------- 21,185
South _____________________ 117,498 7,574 South Atlantic _____________ 60,610 3,654 East South Central ________ 19,078 1,193 West South CentraL _______ 37,809 2,727
New England Maine ___________________ _ 713 New Hampshire __________ _ 710 Vermont _______ ---- - - - ---- 335 Massachusetts ___________ _ 3,262 Rhode Island ____________ _ 556 Connectlcut ______________ _ 1,849
38 40 20
180 31
111
40 41 20
178 31
111
42 41 20
178 31
111
42 42 22
193 34
109
42 44 22
215 36
110
91 95 46
458 74
239
87 87 41
390 62
223
88 90 40
400 67
230
102 103 43
444 78
255
78 74 34
331 59
183
40 35 18
178 31
103
24 20 10
116 19 65
Middle Atlantic New York ________________ _ 9,911 New Jersey ______________ _ 4,651 Pennsylvania _____________ _ 6,504
617 282 382
597 287 370
597 289 376
618 283 389
650 278 396
1,376 604 814
1,216 574 759
1,215 587 820
1,290 639 920
940 458 700
515 246 376
281 125 223
East North Central Ohio ____________________ _ 6,085 Indiana __________________ _ 3,312
6,735 5,302 W~~~~~~=::::::=::::::::: 2,967
367 204 458 366 177
374 208 449 364 182
375 208 439 359 184
379 215 433 358 188
386 218 447 357 187
786 431 930 702 378
735 401 835 631 360
754 410 802 628 359
812 431 846 662 402
600 317 597 478 301
326 173 322 251 159
190 96
180 147 90
West Minnesota North _______________ Central _ 2,751 Iowa ____________________ _ 1,547 Missouri _________________ _ 3,137 North Dakota - ___________ _ 360 South Dakota ____________ _ 435 Nebraska ________________ _ 955 Kansas ___ ---- ----- ------- 1,577
170 91
189 22 31 62
108
172 94
192 23 31 63
105
173 96
194 24 31 63
103
172 99
195 24 31 63
106
173 98
194 25 28 63
106
360 196 392
48 54
126 203
342 189 372
44 50
115 186
322 183 374
41 48
106 179
366 199 432 44 54
118 200
269 156 325
33 41 93
151
145 89
177 17 22 51 82
87 58
100 14 15 32 49
South Atlantic Delaware ________________ _ 448 Maryland ________________ _ 3,250 District of Columbia _______ _ 328 Virginia __________________ _ 4,246 West Vlrginia _____________ _ 956 North Carolina ___________ _ 4,632 South Carolina ___________ _ 2,411
4,852 10,030 ~I~~~~a_==================
28 216
17 249
49 257 145 307 511
27 211
14 251
52 260 145 304 503
27 208
14 253
55 264 146 305 506
27 203
19 259
58 279 151 310 514
29 206
27 269
57 286 152 316 512
60 446 60
570 114 579 303 648
1,037
54 408 45
534 116 536 283 598
1,007
55 402 40
548 125 583 300 608
1,134
60 430 40
579 135 660 335 652
1,555
44 296
29 411 106 511 255 467
1,438
24 150
15 212 56
271 128 231 836
13 75 9
111 33
145 66
106 477
East South Central Kentucky ________________ _ 2,205 Tennessee : _____________ _ 3,329
Pacific Washington ______________ _ 3,986 Oregon __________________ _ 2,202
24,028 California -----------------424 901 ~~!~~ :====::==:====:====
'Totals may be different from those In
252 140
1,846 41 66
the national
252 140
1,709 37 61
population
255 141
1,633 35 58
projections repo
254 141
1,600 31 55
rt (Current
256 141
1,650 33 61
Population
536 293
3,439 76
134
Reports, P25-1
511 277
3,009 62
123
1 04) due to
484 258
2,737 46
104
rounding.
524 282
2,823 36 98
383 224
2,032 18 76
183 110
1,037 7
41
94 55
513 3
25
38
Table 5. Comparison of Projections of the Population, for Regions, Divisions, and States: 2000, 2010, and 2020
[Numbers in thousands. Resident population. Series A, B, C, and D reflect different interstate migration assumptions. See text for explanations J 2020 2010 2000
Series A Region, division, and State Series A Series A (preferred (preferred (preferred Series D series) Series B Series C
series) Series B Series C Series D series) Series B Series C Series D
United States' ____________________ 276,241 276,241 300,431 300,431 325,942 325,942
276,241 276,241 300,431 300,431 325,942 325,942
REGION AND DIVISIOIII
Northeast _____________ -------------- 51,885 53,210 New England _______________________ 13,217 14,025 Middle Atlantic ______________________ 38,668 39,185
Midwest _________________ ---- -------- 63,837 62,609 East North Central ___________________ 44,806 44,013 West North Central __________________ 19,031 18,596
South _______________________________ 97,241 96,576 South Aflantic _______________________ 50,004 50,014 East South Central __________________ 16,762 16,357 West South Central __________________ 30,476 30,204
West ________________________________ 63,277 63,846 Mountain ___________________________ 16,889 16,339
Middle Atlanllc New York ___________________________ 18,237 18,504 New Jersey _________________________ 8,135 8,267 Pennsylvania ________________________ 12,296 12,414
South Atlantic Delaware ___________________________ 759 757 Maryland ___________________________ 5,322 5,334 District of Columbia __________________ 537 545 Virginia ________________________ ----- 7,048 7,060 West Virglnia ________________________ 1,840 1,811
7,617 7,588 North Carolina ----------------------South Carolina ______________________ 3,932 3,924
projections report (Current Population Reports, P25·1104) due to rounding.
7,770 6,479 4,155 3,574
48,945 52,516 849 882
1,835 1,743 I:
I~
Table 6. Comparison of the Rate of population Change, for Regions, Divisions, and States,
by Series: 1990 to 2020 [Numbers in thousand. Resident population. Series A. B, C, a nd D reflect different interstate migration assumptions. See text for explanations 1
2010 to 2020 2000 to 2010 1990 to 2000
Series A Series A Region, division, and State Saries A (preferred (preferred Series C Series D (preferred Series D series) Series B Series D series) Series B Series C
Northeast _______________ ------------ 2.1 New England ______________________ _ 0.1 Middle Atlantic _____________________ _ 2.8
Mldwest ____________________________ _ 6.8 East North CentraL. ________________ _ 6.4 West North Central _________________ _ 7.6
South ______________ ----------------- 13.4 South Atlantic - _____________________ _ 14.3 East South Central _________________ _ 10.2 West South Central _________________ _ 13.8
west North Central Minnesota __________ ---------------- 10.0 Iowa ______________________________ _ 5.4 Missouri ___________________________ _ 6.1 North Dakota ______________________ _ 0.8 South Dakota ______________________ _ 10.5
Pacific 24.0 Washington ------------------------- 19.1 g~f;~~~ia::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 16.7
26.2 ~~!~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 19.1
'Totals may be different from those In the nation
23.1 16.9 20.7 32.1 21.0
al population
23.7 18.8 18.8 18.8 19.1
projections
13.1 10.2 22.8 20.3 18.1
report (Curre
15.7 13.9 17.8 11.8 16.9
nt Population
17.6 14.1 17.2 20.1 18.5
Reports, P25
13.9 10.5 18.6 14.5 17.7
-1104) due t
8.4 6.6
20.1 15.4 15.3
o rounding.
13.3 12.7 16.7 10.8 17.0
14.2 13.0 15.1 15.2 16.6
12.6 10.7 16.3 12.6 17.6
7.9 6.4
19.1 14.7 14.9
39
40
Table 7. State Population Projections Developed by Individual State Agencies: 1990 to 2020 [Numbers in thousands]
State Date of publication 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2020
Alabama _______________________________ November 1993 4,041 4,114 4,182 4,241 4,335 NA Alaska November 1991 554 637 717 796 868 NA
February 1993 NA 4,135 4,633 5,133 5,653 6,812 Arizona = = Arkansas = = = = = = = = = = ==== = === = = = = == = = = === ______________________________ May 1993 2,351 2,404 2,450 2,495 2,548 NA California ______________________________ May 1993 29,976 NA 36,444 Colorado ______________________________ NA 42,408 48,977
November 1993 3,294 3,685 3,912 4,108 4,307 4,717 Connecticut ____________________________ April 1991 3,287 3,394 3,451 3,480 3,495 3,627 Delaware ______________________________ January 1993 666 702 731 758 783 833 District of Columbiat ____________________ February 1988 628 631 634 NA NA NA Florida ________________________________ February 1993 12,938 14,275 15,574 16,806 17,969 20,158
May 1992 NA NA 7,703 NA 8,663 NA November 1988 1,137 1,225 1,285 1,351 1,436 NA ~:';iJI~ _ Idaho === == = = = ===== = === === = == == = = = == = _________________________________ NA NA NA NA NA NA Illinois _________________________________ October 1990 11,689 11,800 11,857 11,895 11,931 11,960 Indiana ________________________________ October 1993 NA 5,626 5,703 5,776 5,838 5,915 Iowa ___________________________ • ______ June 1992 2,779 2,823 2,858 2,894 2,935 NA
Kansast _______________________________ September 1992 2,478 2,527 2,563 2,605 2,646 2,724 June 1992 3,685 3,765 3,825 3,872 3,904 3,928
1992 4,220 4,296 4,388 4,488 4,589 NA r~~i~~~~ Maine ============================== _________________________________ April 1991 NA 1,251 1,252 1,259 NA NA
Maryland ______________________________ December 1992 4,781 5,056 5,326 5,547 5,745 6,060 Massachusetts _________________________ March 1992 6,Q16 6,128 6,239 NA NA NA Mlchigan _______________________________ NA NA NA NA NA NA Minnesota _____________________________
AUjUst 1993 4,375 4,528 4,649 4,757 4,861 5,055 Mississippi _____________________________ pril 1991 NA 2,657 2,711 2,781 2,860 3,019 Missourit ______________________________ Montana _______________________________ August 1993 NA 5,206 5,295 5,359 5,422 5,552 Nebraska ______________________________ NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA Nevada ________________________________ December 1993 1,202 1,501 1,770 NA NA NA New Hampshire ________________________ April 1993 1,109 1,124 1,175 1,233 1,282 NA
New Jerseyt ___________________________ New Mexico ___________________________ September 1993 7,730 7,812 8,093 8,345 8,527 8,941
November 1993 1,520 1,644 1,764 New VorL _____________________________ 1,880 1,997 2,234 April 1991 18,178 18,470 18,706 18,865 18,984 NA
\lorth Carolina 1993 6,632 7,Q42 7,382 7,709 8,020 8,639 January 1993 639 628 614 Jhio __________________________________ 598 583 NA 'Jorth Dakota _========================= January 1993 10,847 11,045 11,188 11,345 11,522 NA Jklahoma _____________________________
Jregon ________________________________ April 1993 3,146 3,299 3,426 3,532 3,620 3,718 July 1993 2,842 3,125 3,350 3,575 3,775 NA 'ennsylvanla ___ • _______________________ NA NA NA NA NA NA 'lhode Island ___________________________ September 1989 1,003 1,022 1,037 NA NA NA
,outh Carolina _________________________ October 1993 3,487 3,742 3,977 4,218 4,487 NA louth Dakota __________________________ November 1993 103 107 111 115 NA NA r ennessee ___ _____ ________ __ ___________ exast ________________________________ September 1992 4,893 NA 5,179 NA 5,428 NA
February 1992 16,987 18,278 19,514 20,729 21,957 Jtah __________________________________ 24,537 1992 1,723 1,879 1,992 2,172 2,408 2,774 lermontt ______________________________ June 1993 NA 585 605 622 634 NA lirginia ________________________________ May 1993 6,189 6,552 6,897 NA 7,451 8,006
February 1993 4,867 5,431 5,790 6,118 6,449 7,122 July 1992 1,794 1,790 1,787 1,788 1,793 1,804
June 1993 4,892 5,125 5,288 5,410 5,512 5,677 Vyoming ______________________________ ~~~~~~~~:~=========================== October 1993 454 472 478 NA NA NA
NA No projection is available for that data. Projections published before 1988 are not shown. tFigures shown are for the middle or preferred series. Alternative series are available from the State agency. Note: These projections were prepared by the individual State agencies shown in appendix B. Each State employs its own methodology and data; thus these individual State projections are
ot necessarily consistent with each other, a July 1 date, or with Census Bureau methods. For information on methodology and for more detailed results, contact the State agency shown in ppendix B.
A-1
Appendix A. 1990 Census Population
(,(,. \'
Table A-i. 1990 Census (Modified Race) by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, for Regions, Divisions, and States l> Total population •
Region, division, and State White 1'1.) Black American Indian Asian Hispanic Origin 1 Total Female Total Female Total Female United States ________________ Total Female Total Female 248,709,873 127,470,525 Total 208,704,165 Female 106,561,348 30,483,281 16,062,950 REGION AND DIVISION 2,064,668 1,040,878 7,457,759 3,805,349 22,353,999 10,965,939 Northeast ______________________ New England __________________ 50,809,229 26,373,520 43,411,168 Middle Atlantic _________________ 13,206,943 22,484,547 5,904,530 6,826,958 12,269,447 3,140,779 6,345,994 131,560
27,947 20,213 10,982 10,538 5,470 17,803 2,590 8,245 695,564 354,670 , Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race< 81,396 39,877
Source: U$< Bureau of the Census, 1990 CPH-L·74, "Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin Information from the 1990 Census: A comparison of Census Results where Age and Race have been Modified: 1991<
• .. ..
Appendix B. State Agencies Preparing Population Projections
ALABAMA CONNECTICUT
Center for Business and Economic Research Office of Policy and Management The University of Alabama Policy Development & Planning Division Box 870221 80 Washington Street Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0221 Hartford, CT 06106-4459 (205-348-2953) FAX: 205-348-2951 (203-566-8285) FAX: 203-566-1589
ALASKA DELAWARE
Research and Analysis Section Delaware Development Office Alaska Department of Labor 99 Kings Highway P. O. Box 25501
P. O. Box 1401 Juneau, Alaska 99802-5501 Dover, Delaware 19903 (907-465-6029) FAX: 907-465-4506 (302-739-4271) FAX: 302-739-5749
ARIZONA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Arizona Dept. of Economic Security Population Statistics Unit Data Services Division
(602-542-5984) FAX: 602-542-6474 Washington, District of Columbia 20004 (202-727-6535) FAX: 202-727-6964
ARKANSAS FLORIDA
Research and Public Services University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bur. of Economic & Bus. Research Ottenheimer Library Room 509A 221 Matherly Hall 2801 South University Avenue University of Florida Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Gainesville, Florida 32611-2017 (501-569-8573) FAX: 501-569-8538 (904-392-0171) FAX: 904-392-4739
CALIFORNIA GEORGIA
Demographic Research Unit Governor's Office of Planning & Budget California Department of Finance 270 Washington Street, SW, Room 608 915 L Street, 8th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30334-8501 Sacramento, California 95814-5790 (404-656-0911) FAX: 404-656-3828 (916-323-4080) FAX: 916-327-0222
COLORADO HAWAII
Department of Local Affairs Dept. of Business, Economic Colorado Div. of Local Government Development & Tourism 1313 Sherman Street, Room 521 P. O. Box 2359 Denver, Colorado 80203 Honolulu, Hawaii 96804 (303-866-2156) FAX: 303-866-2803 (808-586-2481) FAX: 808-586-2452
B-1
B-2
IDAHO MAINE
Boise State University Statistical Services Unit Department of Economics Office of Data, Research, and College of Business Vital Statistics 1910 University Drive Maine Dept. of Human Services Boise, Idaho 83725 State House Station 11 (208-385-1158) FAX 208-385-1857 35 Anthony Avenue
Augusta, Maine 04333-0011 ILLINOIS (207-624-5445) FAX: 207-624-5470
1!linois State Data Center Cooperative Illinois Bureau of the Budget MARYLAND William Stratton Building, Room 605 Springfield, IL 62706 Department of State Planning (217-782-1381) FAX: 217-524-4876 Office of State Planning Data
301 W. Preston Street INDIANA Baltimore, MD 21201-2365
(410-225-4450) FAX: 41 0-225-4480 Population Studies Division Indiana Business Research Center Indiana University School of Business MASSACHUSETTS 801 W. Michigan Street, Room 4003 Indianapolis, Indiana 46202-5151 Massachusetts Inst. for Social and (812-855-5507) FAX: 317-274-3312 Economic Research (MISER)
128 Thompson Hall
IOWA University of Massachusetts Amherst, Massachusetts 01003
State Data Center of Iowa (413-545-6660) FAX: 413-545-3686 State Library East 12th and Grand Des Moines, Iowa 50319 MICHIGAN (515-281-4350) FAX: 515-281-3384
Michigan Dept. of Management
KANSAS and Budget Lewis Cass Building, First Floor
Division of the Budget Post Office Box 30026 Statehouse, Room 152-E Lansing, Michigan 48909 Topeka, Kansas 66612 (517-373-7910) FAX: 517-335-2355 (913-296-2436) FAX: 913-296-0231
MINNESOTA KENTUCKY
Population Studies Program Minnesota State Planning Agency Center for Urban and Economic Research 300 Centennial Office Bldg. 3rd Floor University of Louisville 658 Cedar Street 426 West Bloom Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Louisville, Kentucky 40292 (612-296-3539) FAX: 612-296-3698 (502-588-6626) FAX: 502-588-7386
MISSISSIPPI LOUISIANA
Louisiana State Planning Office Center for Policy Research and Planning Division of Administration Mississippi Inst. of Higher Learning P.O. Box 94095 3825 Ridgewood Road, # 427 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 Jackson, Mississippi 39211-6453 (504-342-7410) FAX: 504-342-7220 (601-982-6576) FAX: 601·982-6610
MISSOURI NEW YORK
Office of Administration NY State Dept. of Economic Div. of Budget and Planning Development P.O. Box 809, Room 124 Capitol
One Commerce Plaza, Room 905 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Albany, New York 12245 (314-751-9325) FAX: 314-751-9347 (518-474-1141) FAX: 518-473-9748
MONTANA NORTH CAROLINA
Census and Economic Information Center Montana Department of Commerce 1424 9th Avenue Office of State Planning Helena, Montana 59620 Office of the Governor (406-444-2896) FAX: 406-444-1518 116 West Jones Street, Room 5062G
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 (919-733-0769) FAX: 919-715-3562
NEBRASKA
Center for Public Affairs Research NORTH DAKOTA Peter Kiewit Conference Center
University of Nebraska at Omaha Omaha, Nebraska 68182 ND State Census Data Center (402-595-2311) FAX: 402-595-2366 ND State Univ. of Agriculture
and Applied Science
NEVADA P. O. Box 5636 Fargo, North Dakota 58105
Bur. of Business and Economic Research (701-237-8621) FAX: 701-237-8520
College of Business Admin. University of Nevada-Reno, Room BB415 Reno, Nevada 89557-0016 OHIO (702-784-6877) FAX: 702-784-4337
Ohio Data Users Center NEW HAMPSHIRE Department of Development
P. O. Box 1001 Office of State Planning Columbus, Ohio 43266-0101 2 112 Beacon Street (614 -466-2115) FAX: 614-644-5167 Concord, New Hampshire 03301 (603-271-2155) FAX: 603-271-1728
OKLAHOMA NEW JERSEY
Research and Planning Division Division of Labor Market Oklahoma Dept. of Commerce & Demographic Research
P. O. Box 26980 NJ Department of Labor
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73126-0980 CN 388, Room 200A (405-841-5184) FAX: 405-841-5199 Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0388 (609-292-0076) FAX: 609-984-6833
OREGON NEW MEXICO
Bur. of Business & Economic Research Center for Pop. Research and Census University of New Mexico Portland State University 1920 Lomas, N.E. P. O. Box 751 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131-6021 Portland, Oregon 97207-0751 (505-277-2216) FAX: 505·277-7066 (503-725-3922) FAX: 503-725-5199
If
(t ie'
((j
B-4
PENNSYL VANIA VERMONT
Pennsylvania State Data Center Office of Policy Research and Inst. of State and Regional Affairs Coordination Olmstead Building-Room E310
Pavilion Office Building Penn State-Harrisburg 777 W. Harrisburg Pike 109 State Street Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057-4898 Montepelier, VT 05602 (717-948-6178) FAX: 717-948-6306 (802-828-3326) FAX: 802-828-3339
RHODE ISLAND
RI Department of Administration ViRGINIA Office of Municipal Affairs One Capitol Hill, 3rd Floor Virginia Employment Commission Providence, Rhode Island 02908-5873 703 E. Main Street (401-277 -6493) FAX: 401-277-6006 Richmond, VA 23219
(804-786-8026) FAX: 804-371-0412 SOUTH CAROLINA
Office of Demographic Statistics WASHINGTON
Div. of Research and Statistical Svcs. Rembert C. Dennis Building 1000 Assembly Street, Room 442 Forecasting Division Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Office of Financial Mgmt. (803-734-3782) FAX: 803-734-3619 Insurance Building
P.O. Box 43113
SOUTH DAKOTA Olympia, Washington 98504-3113 (206-586-2804) FAX: 206-664-8941
State Data Center University of South Dakota 414 East Clark Street WEST VIRGINIA Patterson Hall Vermillion, South Dakota 57069
Regional Research Institute (605-677-5287) FAX: 605-677-5427 West Virginia University 511 North High Street
TENNESSEE Morgantown, West Virginia 26506 (304-293-2896) FAX: 304-293-6699 Tennessee State Planning Office
309 John Sevier State Office Building 500 Charlotte Avenue Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0001 WISCONSIN (615-741-1676) FAX: 615-741-2883
Wisconsin Dept. of Administration TEXAS 101 East Wilson Street
P.O. Box 7868 Department of Rural Sociology Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7868 Texas A & M University System (608-266-1624) FAX: 608-267-6931 Special Services Building, Room 138 College Station, Texas 77843-2125 (409-845-5332) FAX: 409-845-8529 WYOMING
UTAH Division of Economic Analysis
Demographic and Economic Analysis State Dept. of Administration Office of State Planning and Budget and Information 116 State Capitol Building 327E Emerson Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002-0060 [801-538-1 027) FAX: 801-538-1547 (307-777-7221) FAX: 307-777-6725
(t
C-"
Appendix e .. Race and Ethnic Definitions and Concepts
The racial classification used by the Census Bureau includes, for example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the generally adheres to the guidelines in Federal Statistical Philippine Islands, and Samoa. The term "Asian" or abbreDirective No. 15, issued by the Office of Management and viation "API" refers the race group Asian and Pacific Budget, which provides standards on race and Hispanic Islander. origin categories for statistical reporting to be used by all Federal agencies. The race and Hispanic origin categories are defined as follows: Black. A person having origins in any of the Black racial
groups of Africa. American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America, who maintains cultural identifications through tribal affiliation or Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, community recognition. The term "American Indian" or Central or South American or other Spanish culture or abbreviation "AIEA" refers to the race group American
origin, regardless of race. Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut.
Asian and Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, White. A person having origins in any of the original the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.
·U.S. Government Printing Office: 1994 - 300-557100017