xt7pzg6g363w https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7pzg6g363w/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1953 journals 014 English Lexington : Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.14 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.14 1953 2014 true xt7pzg6g363w section xt7pzg6g363w Progress Regort. I4 i Qdobe,. msi
Population Esti t
for Kentuc kg Counties, Apv¤\ \, \955
Paui D. Richardson
ana
James S. Brown
Department oi Rurai Socipmqg
i +25  
./ i .·
_ / \` i.'
+ 2  /’/ \` I;.
· Met ANG}; \~\· · ''''
3 +     COU\’\Y»*•) ) FI" \
Z _/ ‘· ·\
4 /./ '.' `
5 + IO /_/'  
./'  
5 + 5 _,-’  
3 /_/K - iqgnmucku  
5 O  - __73_-——j_f· "—-"‘ " =‘--““‘°°"i“°..E‘3$»’€§‘.Y€iu€q?3sZ "
V G" " in-"-""""·Purch4se_____
- 5 i \ ~— \ ‘····· ~- --—-· ·
Western C¤a\_Fie\ds
..|O i ~-
l94O I95O I953
Kentucky Agricu\tura\ Experiment Station
Univeijsii ¤¥ Kentugkq
Lexinglon, kg.

    

 Progress Report IU October, 1953
ESTIMATED POPULATION APRIL 1, 1953, AND NATURAL INCREASE
AND ESTIMATED NET MIGRATION, APRIL l, 1950 TO `
APRIL 1, 1953, KENTUCKY BY COUNTIES
Paul D. Richardson and James S. Brown
Department of Rural Sociology
2*-aitéia
According to population estimates made by the Department of Rural Soci- p
ology, 178,000 more people left Kentucky from 1950 to 1953 than came into
the state to live. This net loss of 59,000 people each year is an even
higher rate of loss than from l9¤0 to 1950 when the rate was 37,300 a year
for a total loss in ten years of 373,000,
Because so many people have migrated from the state in the last three
‘ years Kentucky"s population has declined. On April 1, 1953, it was esti-
mated to have been 2,9l3,U78, a decline of 31,328 or 1,1 percent, since
April 1, 1950, This decrease in population has come about in spite of a
continuing high rate of natural increase, for the excess of births over
deaths from 1950 to 1953 was M9,000 per year, compared to U7,000 per year
from l9¤0 to 1950.
There are some very significant shifts and changes in population within
the state, among the various sections, which will be discussed below.
The loss of population through migration is, of course, not a new de-
o velopmentg rather it is a continuance of a long time trend, and is to be
explained, for the most part, by familiar factors. There is a continuing
movement from farms to cities, from agriculture to industry. Because of
Kentucky“s relative lack of industrial centers compared to nearby states,
thousands of Kentuckians have moved to business and industrial jobs outside
the state. This movement has become so great that in spite of a comparative—
ly high rate of natural increase the state“s population has declined.
Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station
University of Kentucky
Lexington

 , 2 -
Developments within the state itself have influenced shifts and changes
among the various sections. Among these developments are: increasing im- ·
portance of Louisville as an industrial center, the construction of the AEC '
plant near Paducah and other industrialization in the Purchase, the decline i
of employment in coal mining, changes connected with Army camps (Fort Knox,
Fort Campbell, Camp Breckinridge), the mechanization of agriculture, other
changes in agriculture (such as the shift to grassland farming, development
of new crops and increasing or decreasing emphasis on old crops), the higher
birth rate and the arrival at school age of the so—called "war babies," The
various sections of the state obviously have been differently affected by T
these developments, and in the discussion below of changes in the areas ‘
some of these differences will be noted,
Qgggestions fg; Inte;preting_Qgggg_§;tgmg;gg
while these estimates have been prepared as carefully as possible,l
it must be emphasized that they are only estimates and as such are subject A
to the limitations of the methods used in reaching them. The basic data
for these estimates were School Census figures supplied by the State De-
partment of Education, and the basic assumption on which these estimates
were made was that the proportion of school children enumerated in the
School Census (children aged 6-17) to the total population was the same
in 1953 as in 1950, This is probably a safe assumption in the case of
large areas (such as the United States or Kentucky as a whole) but it is
less likely to be true when small populations, such as those of counties,
are estimated on that basis because relatively small shifts of certain
kinds greatly affect estimates based on School Census figures. For ex-
ample, if very large numbers of single men and single women enter a
1, For a description of how these estimates were made see page 15,

 l 3 -
county it may well be that estimates of the county“s population based on
School Census data might well not indicate as great an increase as there
has been, if few families with children came inn It is quite possible that p
the population estimates for Ballard and McCracken counties are too low
for these very reasons, since it is likely that a much higher proportion of
the tremendous number of construction workers moving into those counties
did not have families with children of school age than would be expected in
the population of these counties up to that time, We suspect that Hardin
` County“s population, which is estimated to have dropped lO°l percent from
1950 to 1953, may not have declined that much because the migration to and
from this county, which is so greatly affected by personnel changes at Fort
Knox, is not a type of migration reflected in School Census figures in a
way similar to that in other countieso Persons interpreting these county
estimates, then, need to ask themselvesg ls there anything in the county“s
situation which might make estimates based on School Census figures less
valid than in the usual case?
As a test, an estimate of Kentucky“s population on July l, 1952, was
` made by the method described above, and this estimate was compared with the
state estimate published by the Bureau of the Census, Our estimate for that
date was 2,909,6¤§; the Census estimate was 2,916,000, a difference of only
6,000c
V E.s;l¤.s>.nis -ir;s.as of lsrltlaiari
The various sections of Kentucky have been differently affected by
shifts in population of the last three years, as an analysis of the changes
 
l, "State economic areas are relatively homogeneous subdivisions of Statesu
They consist of single counties or groups of counties which have similar
economic and social characteristicso ,3n In the establishment of State
economic areas, factors in addition to industrial and commercial activi~
ties were taken into account, Demographic, climatic, physiographic, and
cultural factors, as well as factors pertaining to the production of agri~
cultural and nonagricultural goods, were considered," Donald J, Bogus,
§jgg§_Economic ggeas, U, S, Bureau of the Census, Washington, 1951, p, l,

 W Q M ·
in the three metropolitan areas and the ten economic areasl delineated by the
Bureau of the Census showss (Table l)¤ All three metropolitan areas gained
in population, but only 3 of the 10 non—metropo1itan economic areas gained. `
The percentage change among the ten economic areas ranged from a gain of 26
percent to a loss of 12 percent in the three-year periodo t
The three metropolitan areas all gained in population, as they did in
the period from 19MO to 1950; furthermore they gained at nearly the same _
rate though Metropolitan Area A (Jefferson County) and Metropolitan Area
B (Kenton-Campbell counties) were growing at a somewhat faster rate than in .
the previous decade, and the rate of growth of Metropolitan Area C (Boyd
county) was somewhat lesss
It is interesting to note that both the Campbell-Kenton county and ' ‘
the Boyd county areas lost more people than they gained through migration,
their modest increases in the last decade being due to the excess of births
over deathsc Jefferson county, however, had a gain through migration as
well as by natural increase and therefore had an impressive increase in its ,
population. The longtime trend, then, of concentration of the state"s popur
lation in urban areas is continuings
The most striking change in the last three years has not been the in-
creases in the metropolitan areas, however, but the 26 percent increase in
the population of the Purchase (Econcmig g;gg_l), an area which for several
decades had a population which not only was not growing but was actually
decreasing so that in 1950 the Purchase had a smaller population than in
1910, This is the only non-metropolitan economic area which gained through
migration in the last three years, the Purchase having a net gain through
1. See Figure l for a delineation of the metropolitan areas and non-
metropolitan economic areass

 . - 5 - A
* migration of more than 3u,o0o during this periodu This remarkable increase,
{ which, as noted above, may underestimate the actual increase because of the
5 limitations of our techniques of estimation, was due primarily to the con-
struction of the AEC plant near Paducah. Five of the eight Purchase coun-
ties gained in population from 1950 to l953¤ Ballard county showed the
’ greatest increase (88 percent), closely followed by McCracken (62 percent);
these two counties had higher rates of increase than any other counties
, in the states The three counties which lost population were those which
, were farthest from the AEC developments Fulton county's population is esti-
A mated to have dropped lh percent in the last three years,
I  
, Economic gggglg (ghg_0wensboro-Henderson arpa) made a modest gain from
Q 1950 to 1953, at a higher annual rate than in the 19¤0“s, There was noth-
$ ing spectacular about this growth; it was apparently due to the continuing, _
J steady development of industry in the urban centersu Daviess and Henderson
_ counties, the two urban counties, made good gainsc Union county made a
E slight gaino But the populations of both McLean and Webster counties, which
are rural counties, declinedo
Not all of Western Kentucky, however, showed gains in population. In
fact the economic area with the greatest percentage loss was the Western
l Qggl Eiglg (Economic ggga Q ) whkh is estimated to have lost 12.2 percent
of its population in the last three years, This area also lost heavily
l from l9¤0 to 1950, but its annual rate of loss has been even greater in the
last three years than in the previous decadeo Every county except Livingston
V (which held its own) lost populations The population of 10 of the l2 counties
declined 9 percent or more, with Muhlenberg and Edmonson counties both losing
_ more than 20 percento Muhlenberg county”s population had the greatest pro-
pcrtionate loss of the state“s 120 countieso Obviously the heavy losses in

 - 6 - in
this area were primarily related to changes of one kind and another in coal l _
mining, though the agricultural situation also no doubt was of some im- Q
portancet
Another Western Kentucky area, the Pengyroyal (Economic égga_ ), also
showed a decline in population (U06 percent), changing from an area of slight {
increase during the 19¤0“s to an area of decreasing population in the early ‘ _
l95O“s0 Apparently this decline is due to the steady movement of people
from the farm as agriculture changes and is influenced by the industrial
development in other areas, Among the 6 counties only Christian County held 1 A
its own; the other five counties all lost population, the losses ranging from l
M percent in Warren County to 11 percent in Simpson Gountys %
Of the four central Kentucky areas 3 lost population, one gainedo The J
population of Economic Arg; jg (§g§tg;n,§gggy;gyal_agQ_Kngg§) declined ¤,? Q ‘
percent, This is a striking change from the period l9¤O to 1950 when the ll
area gained 22¤2 percentu Of the 7 counties in this area Bullitt county,
influenced by the employment opportunities in Louisville, gained 12 percent; I
Taylor and Meade counties made modest gains; and the other four counties lost, I
their losses ranging from 0,M percent in Larue county to 11.1 percent in Hart I V
countyu Undoubtedly developments at Fort Knox have greatly affected the popua
lation of this area, Hardin county, for example, had a net loss through mi-
gration of 7,¤58 from 1950 to 19530 Although the county gained 72,8 percent
from 19U0 to 1950, this loss is not especially striking since in both instances ·
the county“s population is so greatly affected by changes at Fort Knoxo It l
should be noted that from l9U0 to 1953 Hardin County“s population increased
55,9 percento
Economic ggga 5_(Eastern Highland gig og §opth_Central §pp§§_ggga), 5
an area of declining population in the l9¤O*s, again lost from 1950 to `
1953, at an even greater annual rate of loss, From 1950 to 1953 the area“s

 ...'fm
j population dropped ll¤7 percents Only Area ja had a greater proportionate
3 loss. Of the l2 counties in Area 5 only one (Metcalfe) held its own, and 10
B of the ll counties which declined in population had decreases of more than
l0 percent, Clinton county lost most, its population decline being 21 percents
The population of the Qgtg;_Bluegrass (@ggnpm;g_g;gg_Q), declined slight-
, _ ly from 1950 to 1953 (2,1 percent), From 19NO to l950 the area”s population
g had remained virtually stationary, There was a good deal of variation among
{ the 26 counties of this large area, ranging from a l9 percent gain to a 20
? percent losso Only 7 of the counties gained; the other 19 lost population,
E 8 losing less than 5 percent, 5 losing from 5 to 9 percent, and 6 losing more
, than l0 percento The Outer Bluegrass as a whole, then, continued its longe
T time trend of relative stability in population size, declining slightly as
` some people moved off the farms and from other rural areasn
The lppg  Bluegrass (Economic gpg; Z) continued to gain at about the
2 same steady, unspectacular rate as in the l9MO“s, This area’s population
_ increased 2 percent from 1950 to 1953, Fayette and Clark counties (the counw
ties with the largest cities in the area) gained 6 and Q percent respectivelyu
The other 6 counties lost, all of them 5 percent or less except Jessamine which
lost ll percento Obviously the rural areas even in the Inner Bluegrass were
losing populationu
_ Economic gggg §,§Cumberland §lateau.Margin) which had the greatest
relative losses in pcp lation from 19MO to 1950 lost heavily from l95O to
i 1953 (7¤3 percent), at an annual rate nearly double that in the decade of
the l9¤O”s, It was only because of even more spectacular losses in other
regions that this area ranked only Nth among the l0 non—metropol§tan areas
in percentage loss, Of the l? counties in the area, 3 gained and lh lost,
Morgan county gained 6 percent, Lewis county gained 3 percent, and Greenup

 - 3 , .
county held its own0 Undoubtedly the two latter counties are being influenced
by the new AEC development in nearby southern 0hio0 All of the other lh A
counties lost; 2 lost less than 5 percentv U lost from 5 to 9 percent, and
8 lost 10 percent or more. This area with its great predominance of families _ A
on small farms is continuing to respond to the industrial and business oppor-
tunities in other areas by sending out a steady stream of migrants0 1
Economic A;ga_9 (gpg Cumberland Plateau) has experienced great popula? A
tion changes from 1950 to 19530 In spite of heavy migration from 19MO to A
1950, the area"s population increased very slightly (008 percent) because of A
the great excess of births over deaths0 During the first three years of this A
decadev howevero the stream of migration has grown to such proportions that p A
the area"s population decreased 11 percent in the last three years in spite · `
of the continuing high rate of natural increase0 The changes here are sc i
striking that the figures might well be notedg The population on April 19
1950, was 51OU¤¤8; from April 1, 1950 to April ly 1953 there were 35,745 t A
more births than deaths0 But during the same period 9}a0l5 more people left A
the area than migrated into it; this is a net loss through migration of a
number of persons equal to 1§&§ percent of the 1950 population. It must be
remembered that this change came about within a three-year period0 As a re~
sult of this great loss Economic Area 9 has surrendered to Metropolitan Area
A (Jefferson county) its place as the most populous of the metropolitan and
non-metropolitan areas and now contains only 1506 percent of the state“s
population compared to 1703 percent in 1950 and 1708 percent in l9¤O0
Only 1 of the lb counties in this area gained in population--Leslie p
gained 705 percent0 This county, it might be noted,has until relatively
recently been quite isolated; it has been "opened up" so far as economic
development is concerned only in the past few years. The county, therefore?

 a 9 -
though it did lose through migration didn”t lose very much, And the ex-
cess of births over deaths was so great during the three-year period
(1,635 in a county which in 1950 had only 15,537 people) that the net ·
result was a gain of 7¤5 percentq
All the other 13 counties in Economic Area 9 lost in populationo One
_ (Martin County) lost less than 5 percent; M lost from 5 to 9 percent (Brea,
thitt, Knott, Pike and Whit1ey)g and 8 lost 10 percent or more (Bell, Floyd,
p Harlan, Johnson, Knox, Letcher, McCreary, Perry), Four of the five counties
with the largest proportions of males employed in mining are estimated to
have lost ten percent or more of their populations during this period,

  
j"___§____  
E Y ‘
I" ·—· `
ux *v
L, ° • S 3 V
*<<=i2:2‘ ¥·1`.1€;j}·Z*é?[€]?.¥;». \O 9
g v -44J;_5_§_€g=;.1.};.;; ..=    xD ¤• P, ¢•· E
•’“ •  ’   °. 0 O -
¤ ,  •°•• •* '°,`‘’ f 1 v=-=~=V 1   V *=   \ •·; lg cz
°•=°e•.•:¢   »‘‘v‘ 5  " ` ‘"`   Q   ?%€¥%?i?%€¥i.i¥e%z%=%=2:a E
W 3)••••*• -6 , ```‘     ’ °• » §E§E§§2§E§EEEEQEEEEEEEQE _
0. • •• 0... Q • ..-;£i·.·:`:i;1;·:-2-zi: \ * ` ·:1;1-:f:Z;Z¢:i;:¤1¤;1*:¥:l ’ Q*•v
0 >,•:w:••:•:   “ \ `iiiEiiéfééiiiiiéiiiéiiééii f•:••$ 03
· • • %‘   .AA,   T . = 2%%%;é%&i2ée2%2%;e€;%%2i2 ·
E" •.••• • ••:••:Q   ¤~ .   .;§§2§2gi2;;§%;§a§ggiagégia €••:Q .
Vé ¢°•••• ••••   " Q  ‘=’*%=%¥5f€i2¥§5i2i§2i2%§ \•°••-
5) •••• + ~•.•,•‘ "  .;..4. é1’.i==2€¢€¤%é%v%=`.    . ” ‘'‘' * •• ••
E? 2$•Z•:Z•!$:3   ‘‘‘‘ `   g m !•!!e£  
° ••:•°••:•°•¢   »’'V     · E |
.· *°••°••.•°••   .;== .    ‘ ¤· ~¤
•- 5+ •°••••°{ `.V Q; .='.. 2   ·-·_¤‘° ‘     . ~. ‘ F S`
0  i,•°$‘• •% @2 ’_.—   W   \` ` ° *0 • -
¤ .i,•’••,·?;‘, `‘’`· ? - ·‘V‘     ' ...... .  3 *0
• { .*.4 $••• •*•. "    ..2.; v..._ ;  
0‘Q { 0 Q •••Q •! ;:‘_:¢;=_;:4:;1;j; ;.,     ·‘·’-‘·‘ ·¥:2c;:j:3;..._  .;a·¤;:;:;·3.=-ger;:¢·‘ H
rn . .-:A.-.4.  *j¤:•°••,•°••     IS, ‘
w  ·=•,•:••.•$¢ ¥Ei*2.ii  ‘‘°e   A·.4‘; ·     zl.  
¤ §:;i.;&i2;§2l2§i:§2;;`    {L   _,,.·  
£Egjj.g§.§i_  `•;• ··~;2;:=¤><;.=== .·-· ••• ••(_ "••••• ·
$-` ‘E`E;i§iE3;3ii¤;_ ••0 •••0•Q·T '•0•Q •V‘ %Q••0 é•.•••0 4
U ·;=;2*e2i_§·;i2;2;.: — •••• • •4· • • •• • ·•_•• • •••• 0
¤   . V::»-. -  ,  ·•·•.¢ ¢••.•:•%-.~°• •••,+°¢~ =>
° ;§¥€ié_i{i€§i§;.`§’2iei? .z3;QE§}Q{.§;;ili .,`;V. 3;;.;   !•:•••Q»••€;9Q••••°••••:¢*_ J
B ‘5Z§E=§1=;2.¤%a&   5*  *?2§·5i%éeiigéaiéaiaiiiieii; ` ¢‘• 9 • 5• • é 0 •• • z ••   .
    _ .._.   .v..`.   _ pQ•0Q a.•§•&’••Q•§ . ·> _
5 QjQ:_._gt .».· .5; ‘-·’ Q_g‘;i‘i-iggijjgi;&:2€¢‘;:Eg‘., %:•:•::•:;••••g•g'¢6 {•:•:•q ·¤·:  
5~j2;;;{;  ;=‘ ··1   ‘·V:.   od Q ~ •• •• •.
0 ·~‘-E=1Z’¤ ‘»‘.* ¢· ·’‘·v` ` : I-i =.=¢Z=""i=¢¤¥—‘  {0%*:0.6* ••*'v5•• ` 0. *4 ‘ ·i=;·
 ij.; *2.. ;, .;?_€QE‘;:§E¤2.§Z·E‘QZ;Z1:: _ { •' 1 Q `• • • O ` •• ' ; L"°—;:,;;: `·; 
r;  `éiiié-Q1.E¤i%l;. · i%  $:Z;2:°Z:2::Z€Z$-     `
0 4.,` 1&iE?¥€;‘?iz2?’i; ’'»—· * ¤f‘€?%QC;’€i  ·=‘- ?;€=€¥i;  $••••°»•:•°•••$q»••¢•` F · ',;,@°§
:  if ¥== { 1.=Zi=·V_fg;jjg§gg;=iég§;,;;.;gfj¥1ei,;;Q;i;§§€%» _   
‘ fir;   £‘1¥1~ ¥»e.i.%éi;%;%e?;é;2e.*·_L ;;_   zi. Li   5• • ·+> • • ‘ .•· • , • • • ,, ,¢ Q • ••‘•
• '  .— ._.·   ,. ‘·‘-=E:`:‘E.E:` .-·=;F:‘r%¤¤.‘;·¤= *13 ‘Zé*1-¤- .·4v. * {Q. Q••• x? ` 0@• Q••• bf. we • 0.;
-:_..;':Ev4 .;-;.,-:1: J   , 2 . :_..—»--..2 .-$::2-_.  E'.; -.-,.;_-:.,_;E>;.:;  , g ‘•‘•   • •• ••{1• •• ¢0•§•¢ .
  ·=1=‘ ai ·»_·—‘ 2. =¤V· 5 -»;-;V-·:»   ,-A’=   »V,V:V·`     .»V¤. =T=i‘ 6°§ . *6%*6%* •°••¢b• •°•* 7*
,g   `     ¢·-: ;;;:3 " ·‘·* ·~ '.`·;;‘_j·if ., 3 ,_,.   .3;.;.  P Q   V , \ .0 Q_—0 Q .0 1, .0 Q ,6) Q
.  . -=..: ..   -·=2:¢-\.f\;2 ·=¢=·-.;· ·a .‘·.   .. $.04 · - 3 ·—» ••gNf~•.•€ 0•••0 •9•¢
H  Yi ``-.. jj;_ “‘-Zif .”-` 1 -»`‘ { .·Ei=:.;;·   ji} _‘·‘' ¤3¢;§‘ ";,·*;1¤1i;i;`i&;.  4;.'@•'•v•Q\••• K? $4;*
-;:;.   .»,; . ‘ .—.:   ··»;—;» A --~··»,~»·A.-i=A       .-»··-, · ¢.    ·- — ~. M- •• 1-• ·’> ’•• 
*,3   .4,;      _ VVV_ -; V»__:·   z..—;j·g§;_;     
q,·».;.,·   · ·     ‘ - .* ~·, Q_ •
.1 »’.· 2-.* -».4 Q ___»V,·‘   2 `‘.. ij;·';Q;;°_v¢`€i·`_;:_1.     1§r ‘—_·=’= ;i;;~l3‘;·j2i—‘ •• 0* 5 —-,’ ·. ’ .  ,·§.¢¤5• •¤ ,•·q
rl      _- _->‘   _   ’   Q . `JQ   I ·     O Q • I
H tg      .V_.. 2.;. :_   `— ij Ztz z;Z.2-{gg.};4jig·j;;;;__ pf,:•:‘•:•s   ..vg•::•:•$v¥;::•:•:: ·,•• .`, K; _ r\ ‘ ` •   `I 5r••‘•·6`X
·lf·:;`¤:     ' •° • \ I O `- ( '•` » Q'•’Q*·" `
,8* ; , v_ ¤ . ·   _ . : g , : ; { : ; V- _ p:•:••_§f;•:•••g3§•,j 9;:4- ¤J
g   __ l »-*   H • : • • ’ •   _ ‘  
»-• . » ii _»‘;= I 1.  e;.-za; ·v.»..... .   —..,. ,_...·.. ci -.».._ _ ’•*•¢•°,,•°••••°?••••°••
· V »··» , ·.·_       *•9• b* •°•• @3* •°
,.» · V .v.·‘;‘ 2 2; .1%* ·.`` ¥Eé¤  ‘;‘‘     V 9:•:•::+° ‘°• 
  ;   ‘1· _.__   »—¤;··j¤§.jg; ._;‘E;;"Ej1·§iE*§};.§g§Z{· ;;. · •
'   .`_" _ ’ ° Y   ‘V»· ifi;.     Ezfi lm Z: EE ti )
S \.··_: »__.      gi.  "*:§Sg{
’f"j - · " "`*`-,.;:}·i·.;> 7. • •
x   —_ _. x   - , . -;_ _.-   , • °• ,_
{   ·.  · »   ir;   ~*E‘i ..“·-».‘·» 5. »    E.;.1Zié?E.a.¥*¥* . ::1 · · 5 :::5::. ·
.   .   .. .· · 1 ·. »1 · _ _;I·.;,:;Z;'·;~' 9 . • ·~ | ' ‘
{ .\V__i :.» __   —..»   ;·_ _..    ._,. ::;::__: , _  :: • :3
\•       .•',•°:• _.;.l‘. •
&•  
I
OI I

 - ll -
A Table 1 ·
ESTIMATED POPULATION APRIL 1, 1953, AND NATURAL INCREASE AND ESTIMATED
NET MIGRATION, APRIL 1, 1950 TO APRIL 1, 1953, KENTUCKY
METROPOLITAN AND EOONOMIO AREAS
Excess of births Net Change Estimated Percent
Area Popiigzion o;;gO·<-izgths throwimggor-oiggration Popjixgeggion  
State 2,999,806 196,839 -178,167 2,913,978 - 1.1
Metropolitan
A 989,615 25,083 29,090 538,738 11.2
D 180,950 7,539 - 1,221 186,768 5.8
0 99,999 2,552 - 1,570 50,927 2.0
Economic Area
1 150,232 5,275 39,380 189,887 26,9
2 128,925 5,899 - 1,806 132,963 3.1
Ba 189,995 6,990 - 29,979 166,965 -12.2
3b 122,029 5,686 - 11,366 116,399 - 9.7
0 170,169 7,783 - 15,572 162,375 - 0.6
5 193,608 9,687 - 32,381 170,919 -11.7
‘ 6 326,191 13,266 - 20,176 319,281 - 2.1
7 209.586 7,607 — 3.599 208.599 2.0
8 239,619 19,328 - 31,903 217,599 - 7.3
9 510.998 35,795 -— 93,015 953,178 -11.2

 - 12 - ,
Table 2
ESTIMATED POPULATION APRIL 1, 1953, AND NATURAL INCREASE .
AND ESTIMATED NET MIGRATION, APRIL 1, 1950 T0 ,
APRIL 1, 1953, KENTUCKY BY COUNTIES
 
1950 Excess of births Net Change Estimated Percent
County PO mation over deaths, through migration Population Change
P 1950·53 1950~53 1953 1950~53 r
stone 2,9MM,806 1Q6,839 -178,167 2,913,M78 - 1,1
Adn1r 17,603 790 - 3,016 15,377 -12.6
Allen 13,787 M01 - 2,366 11,822 -1M,3
Anderson 8,98}+ 332 - 1,}+58 7,858 -12.5
Ballard 8,5M5 379 7,159 16,083 88,2 I
Barren 28,461 1,097 - 2,797+ 26,76i+ - 6,0
Bonn 10,UlO 562 - 2,116 8,856 -1M,9 ,
Bell M7,602 3,1MO - 10,M88 M0,25M -15,U
Boone 13,015 569 1,83M 15,M18 18,5
Bourbon 17,752 560 - 965 17,3b7 - 2,3
Boyd 99,999 2,552 ~ 1,575 50,927 2.0 »
Boyle 20,532 683 - 183 21,032 2,M
Bnnokon 8,M2M 203 - BM5 8,282 - 1,7 ,
Broozniut 19,96M 1,UlU - 3,123 18,255 - 8,6 ‘
Breckinridge 15,528 706 ·— 2,102 lil-,132 - 9.0
Bn111tt 11,3M9 529 810 12,688 11.8
Butler 11,309 M03 - 2,220 9,M92 -16,1
Co1owo11 13,199 383 - 1,668 11,91U - 9,7
Calloway 20,1Q7 5M6 - 1,076 19,617 - 2,6 »
Campbell 76,196 2,9U1 - 2MM 78,893 3,5 A
Carlisle 6,206 IU5 281 6,632 6.9
Carroll 8,517 212 - 1,006 7,723 - 9,3 ,
Carter 22,559 1,329 - 3,132 20,756 - 8.,0
Casey 17,MM6 990 - 2,899 15,537 210,9
cnr1ot1on U2,]59 3,0MM - 3,022 U2,381 0.1
01ork 18,898 873 - 93 19,678 M.1
Clay 23,116 1,881 - M,732 20,265 ~12,3
Clinton 10,605 5U2 - 2,732 8,M15 -20,7
Cr1zton8en 10,818 237 - 1,251 9,80M - 9,M
Cumberland 9,309 M2M - 2,110 7,623 -18,1
Dov1ooo 57,2Ul 2,985 886 61,112 6,8
Eomonoon 9,376 337 - 2,289 7,M2M -20,8
E111oct 7,085 537 — 605 7,017 - 1,0
Eo¤111 IM,677 636 - 2,133 13,180 —10,2
Fayette 100,7M6 Q,011 2,387 107,1MM 6,M
F1om1ng 11,962 977 - 2,180 10,259 —1M,2
Floyd 53,500 @.135 - 11,905 M5,730 -1M,5
Franklin 25,933 877 - 1,090 25,720 - 0,8
Fulton 13,668 581 - 2,553 11,696 ~lQ,b
Ca11o¤1n 3,969 67 - 315 3,721 - 6,2
Garrard 11,029 M16 - 1,1M3 10,302 - 6,6

 1 13 -
Table 2 {Continued)
1950 Excess of births Net Change Estimated Percent
County PO ulation over deaths through migration Population Change
P l950~53 l950—53 l953 1950-53
Grant 9,809 271 e 484 9,596 — 2,2
3 Graves 31,36U 883 1,256 33,503 6,8
Greyeen 17,063 691 - 2,336 15,418 ~ 9,6
Green 11,261 @#6 ~ 1,132 10,575 — 6,1
Greenup 24,887 1,352 ~ 1,169 25,070 0,7
Hancock 6,009 156 — 799 5,366 ~10,7
Hardin 50,312 2,392 · 7,458 45 246 ~10,1
_ Her1an 71,751 @,783 ~ 12,113 64,421 -10,2
Harrison 13,736 208 - N11 13,533 ~ 1,5
Here 15,321 668 - 2,374 13,615 -11,1
Henderson 30,715 1,286 1,253 33,254 8,3
Henry 11,394 352 — 1,704 10,042 —1l,9
Hickman 7,778 206 - 771 7,213 M 7,3
Hopkins 38,815 1,389 ~ 3,056 37,148 M 4,3
Jackson 13,101 882 S 3,193 10,790 ~l7,6
Jefferson 484,615 25,083 29,040 538,738 11,2
Jeesamine 12,458 473 4 1,835 11,096 —10,9
Johnson 23,846 1,435 2 4,673 20,608 B13.6
Kennen 104,254 4,598 — 977 107,875 3,5
Knott 20,320 1,518 e 3,296 18,542 ~ 8.8
Knox 30,409 1,637 e 6,892 25,154 -17,3
Lerue 9,956 420 - 462 9,914 ~ 0,4
Le¤xe1 25,797 1,494 4 3,061 24,230 H 6.1
Lawrence 14,418 585 ~ 1,816 13,187 m 8,5
Lee 8,739 590 e 1,467 7,862 H10,0
Leeue 15,537 1,635 .. 472 16,700 7,5
Letcher 39,522 2,872 4 8,551 33,843 414,4
Lewis 13,520 775 ~ N11 13,884 2,7
Lincoln 18,668 873 e 2,991 16,550 ~;1,B
Livingston 7,184 211 — 156 7,239 008
Logan 22,335 743 e 1,866 21 212 4 3,0
Lyon 6,853 87 ~ 823 6,117 e10,7
McCracken 49,137 1,998 28,342 79,477 61,7
McCrea y 16,660 1,103 ~ 4,227 13,536 —18,8
McLean 10,021 393 ~ 923 9,U91 ~ 5,3
Madison 31,179 1,292 4 1,704 30,767 ~ 1,3
Magoffin 13,839 1,174 ~ 3,196 11,817 ~14,6
. Marion l?,212 1,182 ~ 615 17,779 313
Marshall 13,387 537 1,742 15,666 17.0
Martin 11,677 916 ~ 1,361 11,232 ~ 3,8
Mason 18,486 761 4 952 18,295 » 1,0
Meade 9,422 602 e 312 9,712 3,1
Menifee 4,798 233 2 328 4,703 2 2,0
Mereer 14,643 454 - 863 14 234 - 5,P
Metcalfe 9,851 377 Q 284 9,944 3,3
Monroe 13,770 685 M 2,079 12 376 »1;,1
Montgomery 13,025 627 4 441 13 211 1,4
Morgan 13,624 749 71 14,444 6,0
Mub1enburg 32,501 1,268 W 8,774 24,995 423,;

 , In -
Table 2 (Continued)
 
1950 Excess of births Net Change Estimated Percent
County P ul ti n over deaths, through migration Population Change
°P 3 ° 1950-52 1950-52 1952 1950-52
 
Nelson 19,521 1,366 - 621 20,266 3,8
Nicholas 7,532 167 — U25 7,27Q - 3.b
Ohio 20,8uo 576 — U,000 17,U16 -16.b
Oldham 11,018 925 1,02U 12,U67 13,2 ‘
Owen 9,755 300 - 1,617 8,¤38 -13»5 _
Owsley 7,32N 5UO — 1,017 6,8M7 — 6,5
Pendleton 9,610 2Uu - 88 9,766 1,6
Perry M6,566 3,830 — 9,810 U0,586 -12,8
Pike 81,15U 5,906 — 11,592 75,U68 - 7,0
Powell 6,812 M07 — 1,099 6,120 -10,2
Pulaski 38,U52 1,965 — 5,85% 3U,563 -10,1
Robertson 2,881 53 - 616 2,318 -19,5
Rockcastle 13,925 791 - 1,3M3 13,373 - U,0
Rowan 12,708 692 ~ 2,380 11,020 -13,3 `
Russell 13, 717 636 -— 3.337 ll ,016 -19,7 ‘
Scott 15,1¤1 551 — 736 19,956 - 1,2
shswy 17,912 604 - 1,350 17,166 .. M.,2 _
Simpson 11,678 U05 - 1,682 10,MOl -10,9
Spencer 6,157 310 — 7U3 5,72U — 7,0
Taylor 19,903 629 - M38 1U,59U 1,3 . `
Todd 12,890 M86 — 1,600 11,776 — 8,6
Trigg 9,683 365 — 1,363 8,685 -10,3
Trimble 5,108 236 - 358 5,026 — 2,U
Unlon lh,893 839 - 621 15,111 1,5
Warren @2,758 1,6U3 — 3,2Q5 bl,l56 - 3,7
Washington 12,777 678 — 1,U80 11,975 - 6,3 1
Wayne l6,¤75 1,213 " 3,370 l¤,3l8 -13,1
Webster 15,555 3¤1 — 2,¤01 13,U95 -13,2
Whitley 31,9UO 1,921 - U,512 28,8¤9 — 9,7 ‘
Wolfe 7,615 072 -— 1,735 6,352 -16,6
Woodford 11,212 477 — 1,083 10,606 - 5,Q
 

 - 15 -
Notes on Computing Net Migration April 1, 1950 to April 1, 1953,
and Estimating Population as of April l, 1953 for Counties
and Economic Areas of Kentucky 4
w * * » » * A * * * s * * # * * s * * * x w » s w * » * u u * *
I, General Procedure
The net migration from April l, 1950 to April 1, 1953 was
determined by comparing the 1950 School Census plus natural in-
, crease with the 1953 School Censuso This migration figure for
each co nty was then multiplied by a migration factor (1.U2688),
The migration correction factor was calculated by comparing the
migration during the decade l9¤0~l950 as shown by the School
Census method with the migration shown by a population study
for the l9¤0~l950 decade, The migration estimate for each
county was added to or subtracted from the April 1, 1950 popup
lation plus the excess of births over deaths, which resulted
in the estimated population as of April 1, 1953,
II, Computation of the Migration Correction Factor
The migration correction factor was computed only for
the state as a whole and not for each individual countyt The
procedure was as followsz
Adds
School Census April l, 19UO 778,¤29
Registered births affecting 1950 School Census 273,601
Correction for underregistration 27,722
Number of persons under 6 years in l9M0 3Mb,l23
Total l,M23,875
LessS
Deaths M/1/¤0¤M/l/50 affecting 6ul7 age
group in 1950 23,187
Number in 19NO School Census over 17 in
1950 659,582
. Estimated number of persons 6~l? years of
age April l, 1950 according to School
Census and nat ral increase 7Ul,l06
Percent of population 6-17 years of age
according to 1950 U, S, Census 2202%
Estimated Kentucky population as of April 1,
1950 according to 19UO School Census,
natural increase and U, S, Census ratio,
P
Z`-Q-gg?   2,228,212

 ~ 16 ~ I
School Census April 1, 1950 683,075 .
Population of Kentucky according to
1950 School Censusz 68g§3Z5 E 39076,9lu
Estimated population according to 1900
School Census and natural increase 3,338,315
Estimated population according to 1950
School Census 3,026,91U
Net migration according to School Census » 261,bOl
Net migration according to Population
Studs! ·— 372,988
jzgeggg-= l,¤2688 migration
261,}+01 _
correction factor
III. Estimation of population as of April 1, 1953 (computed for each
county by following method) .‘
A. Estimated population based on 1950 UO S, Census and natural _
increases
April l, 1950, Kentucky population, Us S, Census 2,9H4,806 . `
Registered Births M/1/50 ~ #/1/53 217,930
Correction for underregistration 11,9jQ
3917%,690 -
Less deaths 1+/1/50 - L1/1/53 83,0}+3
Estimated population based on 1950 UO S, Census
and natural increase 3,09l,6¤7
B, Estinated population based on 1950 School Census
and natural increase ·
School Census, April 1, 1950 683,075
Those not in 1950 School Census that
should be in 1953 1 1 6 O
87*+9765
Less deaths affecting 6»l? age group in 1953 1,632
Less those in 1950 School Census over 17
in 1953 1 682
Estimated number of 6~l7 year olds based
on 1950 School Census and natural increase 7l5,U5l
C, Net migration April 1, 1950 to April 1,
1953 according to School Census
Estimated population April 1, 1953 by 1950
School Census and natural increase
$@2151. = 3,222,752
,222
Estimated population April l, 1953 by 1953
School Census
68 1 _ ,
  "'  

 - 17 -
Net migration April 1, 1950 to April 1, _
1953 according to School Census - l2M,865
Multiply by migration correction factor 1,M2688
Estimated net migration April 19 1950
to April 1, 1953 -· 178,167
Estimated population of Kentucky as of
April 1, 1953, based on Ua Su Census
and natural increase (See III-A above) j,091,6M7
Estimated net migration April lg 1950 —
April 19 1953 - 128,162
Estimated population, April 19 1953 2,913,UBO
IVQ Additional notes on methods
Ao The 1950 ratio of 6»17 year-olds to the total population
had to be used for 1953 alsoo The ratio was computed
for each individual countyc ‘
BD Data were not available by county from the l9U0 School
Census to determine the number in each county that would
be over 17 years of age in the 1950 School Census. The
figures were ava