(Estimates shown here are generally consistent with those published for metropolitan This report presents estimates of the population The States covered in this report are: Arkansas, for July 1, METHODOLOGY Three methods are employed by the Bureau of The methodology used in developing current These estimates were prepared in the State and Local Population Estimates and Projections Branch, For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, 15 cents. For this report, all three methods were employed in developing estimates for metropolitan counties in all States and for the nonmetropolitan counties in California, Maryland, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Virginia.1 For all remaining counties, estimates were developed by Component Method II and the Composite method only. The results of the two or three methods were then averaged. As a final step, the average estimates for the counties in each State were summed and adjusted to an independent State total published in Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 380. Additional adjustments were made as needed in special population groups, such as college and institutional populations, since the regular estimating methodology would not be expected to reflect fully any large or unusual changes in these groups. Special estimates for selected areas.--For a number of areas, additional data are available for use in the preparation of population estimates. Such sources as special censuses conducted by the Bureau of the Census since 1960 and censuses conducted by State or county governments have been drawn upon. Counties where estimates have been prepared using these special data sources are footnoted in the table. Areas particularly affected are Delaware, Rhode Island, and 21 counties in North Carolina, which had special censuses conducted by the Census Bureau, and Massachusetts, which had a State-conducted census. LIMITATIONS A detailed discussion of the limitations of the various methods used in the preparation of metropolitan county estimates and of the relationship of estimates prepared by each method to the published average of methods is contained in report No. 371. A large proportion of the counties for which estimates are presented in this report, however, had a population under 20,000. The estimates for these smaller areas may not have as high a level of accuracy, on the average, as those for large metropolitan areas. DEFINITIONS Metropolitan counties are those counties included in standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA's) as of June 1968. In New England, however, SMSA's are defined in terms of towns and cities, rather than counties. Therefore the New England 1Housing unit estimates were developed for nonmetropolitan counties where evidence indicated that completeness of coverage of areas reporting residential building permits issued was very high. counties indicated as metropolitan are whole-county approximations to the SMSA's. A detailed explanation of the criteria used in establishing SMSA's is given in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Executive Office of the President, Bureau of the Budget, 1967. ROUNDING OF ESTIMATES Estimates presented in the tables contained in this report have been rounded to the nearest hundred for counties and to the nearest thousand for States without being adjusted to group totals, which are independently rounded. Percentages are based on unrounded numbers. FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATIVE PROGRAM FOR LOCAL POPULATION ESTIMATES In The estimates presented in this report are a "one-time" set of estimates prepared by the Bureau of the Census as a by-product of a larger project now under way for a number of Federal agencies. Preparation of corresponding annual postcensal estimates for all the counties in the country is not now part of the Census Bureau's program. recognition of the widespread need for small-area population estimates of uniform quality from State to State, the Bureau of the Census has been developing a cooperative program with the States for the preparation and publication of county population estimates. The ultimate objective of the cooperative program is the development and publication of State-prepared county population figures, by preferred methods, largely standardized for data input and methods mutually agreed upon by the States and the Bureau of the Census. The selection of methods will be made on the basis of a large-scale test and evaluation program to be carried out when the 1970 Census results become available. To date (as of July 1, 1968) 39 States have agreed to participate in the program, working with the Census Bureau to achieve the goals described above. A listing of the States and the agencies designated by State governors to work with the Bureau of the Census on the technical aspects of the program is given in the appendix. 2 During this past year, several States have published county population estimates in consultation with the Bureau of the Census, using methodology largely within the general framework of the 2For a more detailed description of the program, see, Meyer Zitter, "Federal-State Cooperative Program for Local Population Estimates," The Registrar and Statistician, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, January 1968. goals of the Federal-State Cooperative Program. The State-prepared county estimates are contained in the following reports: Population Estimates of Arizona as of July 1, 1967, Research and Reports Section, Unemployment Compensation Division, Employment Security Commission of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona. Forrest H. Pollard, "Preliminary Estimates of the Population of Louisiana Parishes: July 1, 1966," The Louisiana Economy, Volume 1, No. 1, April 1968, Division of Business and Economic Research, School of Business Administration, Louisiana Polytechnic Institute, Ruston, Louisiana. C. Horace Hamilton, Estimates of the Population of North Carolina Counties, 1966 and 1967, Demographic Report H-1, May 1968, Statistical Service Center, Budget Division, State Department of Administration, Raleigh; and Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Leonard M. Sizer, Estimates of the Population of West Virginia Counties, July 1, 1950-1966, November 1967, Office of Research and Development, Center for Appalachian Studies and Development, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia. In general, the State-prepared county population figures differ only slightly from those contained in this report, and the pattern of population redistribution since 1960 is quite similar for both sets. Small differences in the two sets of estimates come about because of differences in data input, differences in the specific methods used in arriving at final "average" estimates, or as is the case in Arizona, a difference in the total State population to which the county estimates were adjusted. In later years, should the objectives of the Federal-State Cooperative Program for Local Population Estimates be realized, the Bureau of the Census would publish State-prepared estimates similar to those published in the above-mentioned reports in lieu of preparing its own estimates. In all such instances, however, the sum of the county estimates would be in agreement with the independently prepared State population estimates regularly published in this series of reports. |