[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Coastal Zone Information Center COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER k,,ELAWARE POPULATION e e1WTH 1975 E STIMATES AND PROJECTIONS TO 1"5 FOR THE STATE AND MAJOR CIVIL DIVISIONS Prepared for Delaware Population Consortium by Norfleet W. Rives, Jr. and C. Harold Brown HB 3525 .D3 R55 1975 Division of Urban Affairs University of Delaware November 1975 COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER DELAWARE POPULATION GROWTH: 1975 ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS TO 1995 FOR THE STATE AND MAJOR CIVIL DIVISIONS Prepared For Delaware Population Consortium US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBESON AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 by Norfleet W. Rives, Jr. and C. Harold Brown Division of Urban Affairs University of Delaware October 1975 Property Of CSC Library This report was prepared by the Division of Urban Affairs under contract with the Delaware State Planning Office and was financed in part through a comprehensive planning grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.(Contract No. CPA-DE-03-26-1010/1101/2). It is the policy of the University of Delaware that no person shall be'subjected to discrimination on the grounds of race, color, creed, sex or national origin. FOREWORD The Delaware Population Consortium was formed during August 1.975 with the purpose of providing a continuing forum for debate and discussion on matters relating to state and local population growth. This report represents the first installment in what will hopefully be a series of efforts by Con- sortium members to achieve greater coordination between consumers and producers of demographic information. The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation and support of the following Consortium members who participated in the development of the projection assumptions. State of Delaware Office of State Planning David Keifer, Director Helen Gelof Benjamin Coston State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Division of Environmental Control N. C. Vasuki, Director James Pase State of Delaware Department of Community Affairs and Economic Development John D. Daniello State of Delaware Department of Highways and Transportation Charles Workman Rama Singh Hammer, Siler, George Assoc. Praful Shah Kent County Planning Office Robert O'Brien, Director Dale Herbert City of Newark Planning Department William J. Cohen, Director Annette G. Mehan New Castlg County Department of Planning Richard M. Bauer., Director Edward J. O'Donnell Paul G. Dentiste Sussex County Planning and.Zoning Commission Roland Derrickson City of Wilmington- Department of Planning and Development Patricia Schramm,, Director Arnold Budin Donn Devine WILMAPCO James H. Tung, Director Christine Gudell 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Program Merna Hurd, Program Administrator Darryl Goehring Bernard Dworsky Norfleet W. Rives, Jr. C. Harold Brown Edward C. Ratledge Division of Urban Affairs, University of Delaware iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii INTRODUCTION . . . . . METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Population Estimates . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 2 Population Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Household Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 10 ASSUMPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Population Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Household Projections . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 19 LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 v LIST OF TABLES Table Page A. Summary of Assumptions for Mortality, Fertility, and Net Migra- tion for New Castle County, Kent County, Sussex County, Wil- mington, Newark, and Dover: 1980-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 1. Total Population of Delaware and Major Civil Divisions, by Sex: July 1, 1975, and Midyear Projections, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 22 2. Occupied Housing Units for the State of Delaware and.Major Civil Divisions: July 1, 1975, and Midyear Projections, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3. Estimates of the Total Population of New Castle County and Component Planning Districts and Civil.Divisions, and Related Statistics: July 1, 1975 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4. 'Female Population of Delaware, by Age: July 1, 1975, and Midyear Projections, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5. Male Population of Delaware, by Age: July 1, 1975, and Midyear Projections, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6. Total Population of Delaware, by Age: July 1, 1975, and Midyear Projections, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995,'. .1 . . . . . . . . . . 27 7. Female Population of New Castle County, by Age: July 1, 1975, and Midyear Projections, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 .. . . . . . 28 8. Male Population of New Castle County, by Age: July 1, 1975, and Midyear Projections, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 . . . . . . . . 29 9. Total Population of New Castle County, by Age: July 1, 1975, and Midyear Projections, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 . . . .. . . 30 10. Female Population of Kent County, by Age: July 1, 1975, and Mid- year Projections, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 . . . . . . . . . 31 11. Male Population of Kent County, by Age:, July 1, 1975, and Mid- year Projections, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 . . . . . . . . . 32 vii Table Page 12. Total Population of Kent County, by Age: July 1, 1975, and Mid- year Projections, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 33 1995 . . . . . . . . . 13. Female Population of Sussex County, by Age: July 1, 1975, and Midyear Projections, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 @ . . . . . . . 34 14. Male Population of Sussex County@, by Age: July 1, 1975, and Midyear Projections, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 . . . . . . . 35 15. Total Population of Sussex County, by Age: July 1, 1975, and Midyear Projections, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 . . . . . . . 36 16. Female Population of Wilmington, by Age: July 1, 1975, and Mid- year Projections, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 . . . . . . . . . 37 17. Male Population of Wilmington, by Age: July 1, 1975, and Mid- year Projections, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 . . . . . . . . . 38 18. Total Population of Wilmington, by Age: July 1, 1975, and Mid- year Projections, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 . . . . I . . . . . 39 19. Female Population of Newark, by Age: July 1, 1975, and Midyear Projections, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . 40 20. Male Population of Newark, by Age: July 1, 1975, and Midyear Projections, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . 41 21. Total Population of Newark, by Age: July 1, 1975, and Midyear Projections, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . 42 22. Female Population of Dover, by Age: July 1, 1975,.and Midyear Projections, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . 43 23. Male Population of Dover, by Age: July 1, 1975, and Midyear Projections, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . 44 24. Total Population of Dover, by Age: July 1, 1975, and Midyear Projections, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 . . . . . . . . . 45 25. Female Migration Ratios, by Age, for the Population of New Castle County: 1975-1980 to 1990-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 26. Male Migration Ratios, 'by Age,'for the Population of New Castle County: 1975-1980 to 1990-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 27. Female Migration Ratios, by Age, for the Population of.Kent County: 1975-1980 to 1990-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 48 viii Table Page 28. Male Migration Ratios, by Age: for the Population of Kent County: 1975-1980 to 1990-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 29. Female Migration Ratios, by Age, for the Population of Sussex County: 1975-1980 to 1990-1995, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 30. Male Migration Ratios, by Age, for the Population of Sussex County: 1975-1980 to 1990-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 31.. Female Migration Ratios, by Age, for the Population of Wilming- ton: 1975-1980 to 1990-1995 . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 52 32. Male Migration Ratios, by A ge, for the Population of Wilmington: 1975-1980 to 1990-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 33. Female Migration Ratios, by Age, for the Population of Newark: 1975-1980 to 1990-1995 . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 34. Male Migration Ratios, by Age, for the Population of Newark: 1975-1980 to 1990-1995 . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . o 55 35., Female Migration Ratios, by Age, for the Population of Dover: 1975-1980 to 1990-1995 . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 36. Male Migration Ratios, by Age, for the Population of Dover: 1975- 1980 to 1990-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 37. Female Survival Ratios, by Age: 1975-1980 to 1990-1995 . . . . . 58 38. Male Survival Ratios, by Age: 1975-1980 to 1990-1995 . . . . . . 59 39. General Fertility Rates: 1975-1980 to 1990-1995 . . . . . . . . 60 ix INTRODUCTION Information concerning the future course of population growth is essen- tial to the formation of rational plans.for economic and social development. An increasing number of civil servants engaged in the planning function have begun to realize that responsible public programming depends upon an adequate knowledge of the demographic situation. Program planning and budgeting for public goods and services. cannot be done in aneffective and realistic man- ner without the use of demographic estimates and projections. This report presents estimates for July 1, 1975, and midyear projections to 1995 for the population of the State of Delaware and the population of major civil divistons. These include New Castle County, Kent Co unty, Sussex Countyj and the.cities of Wilmington, Newark, and Dover. Separate p opulation estimates for July 1, 1975., are presented for the component planning districts of New Castle County. The reader should note that all estimates and projec- tions for New Castle County include the City of Wilmington. METHODOLOGY The following discussions concern the methodology used to assemble the statistical information presented in this report. The first discussion focuses on the population estimates, the second on.the population projections, and the third on the household projections. All estimates and projections were prepared using conventional techniques of demographic and statistical analysis. Population Estimates. The population estimates presented in this report are dated July 1, 1975. The estimates for New Castle County and component civil divisions, including Wilmington, Newark, and the county planning districts, were prepared using a survey variant.of the housing unit method for small-area population estimates. The estimates for Kent County, Sussex County, and the City of Dover are derived from estimates prepared by the Census Bureau in conjunction with the Federal-State,Cooperative Program for Population Estimates. The different methods can be summarized in the.following manner. The housing unit method makes use of electric utility data or residential building permits and demolition data to gauge postcensal change in the local housing stock. The estimated current number of occupied units is then trans- lated into an estimate of population, using current information on average houseIhold size.1 The accurscy of the method depends to a large extent on two factors: (1) how precisely current population per household can be estimated, and W how precisely the local stock of housing can be monitored. Neither factor should be a major concern in this particular study. The Census iSee P. Morrison, Demographic Information for Citiesf A ManUal fnr Estimating and Projecting Local-PoRulation Characteristics (Santa Monica, California: RAND Corporation, 1971), pp. 22-23, 138-141. 2 and Data System ofthe Division of Urban Affairs provides for continuous monitoring of the housing stock of New Castle County. The various geographic base files are updated at regular intervals, making.current estimates of the number of housing units accurate within a relatively small margin of error. The current population per household for any geographic area within New Castle County.can be measured with predetermined precision using the house- hold survey. the housing unit method is based on the equation P = A(H)(1 - V)/(l - G), where P is the estimated population, A is average household size, H is-the number of housing units, V is the household vacancy rate, and G is the pro- portion of the population in group quarters (population outside households). To estimate the current population of New Castle County and component civil divisions, information on A and V was developed from a series of household surveys. A systematic random sample of 100 households was drawn for each of the county planning districts and respondents were asked to provide information on the number of persons, as of September 1, 1975, who usually resided in the household. Three 100-household samples were drawn for each of the cities of Wilmington and Newark. With the excepti on of Newark, all surveys were conducted by personal interview to insure reason- able response rates; in all cases, nonresponse was negligible. The Newark survey was conducted on a mail basis several weeks prior to the other surveys and as part of another project. In the case of each survey, the list of residential addresses (sampling frame) from which the sample units were drawn was based on the corresponding geographic base file monitored by the Census and Data System of the Divisi.on of Urban Affairs. Each sample survey provided information on the population per occupied housing unit (A) and the household vacancy rate (V). The returns from the three samples in Wilmington and Newark were averaged to produce single esti- mates for A and V in each area. The data collected from the various surveys are shown in table 3. The reader should note that the household counts have been adjusted forerrors referred to as frame specification errors. These include allowances for 'Ono-such-address" housing units, commercial properties which were residential at the time of the most recent update of the geographic 3 base file, and housing units under construction at the time of the survey, .even though these units may have already been added to the list of residential addresses. No correction for frame specification errors exceeded two percent. Household counts adjusted in this manner are.considered better estimates of the current local housing stock than unadjusted counts. The computational procedure for the current.population estimate can be illustrated with anexample. Consider the case of the Brandywine planning dis trict. According to the sample survey, the average househo ld cont.ains 1 3.46 persons and five percent of the housing units are vacant. According to the Census and Data System, the geographic base file for the Brandywine district contains 26.403 housing units, following a 0.2 percent adjustment for'frame specification errors. The number of occupied housing units is given by the expression: occupied housing units = (H@(l V) = (26,403)(0.95) = 25,083. If the average household size is 3.46, then the estimated population in households is found by the expression: estimated population in households (A)(H)(1 -V) 3.46(25,083) 86,787. The difference between the total population of the district and the popula- tion in households is the population in group quarters. An estimate of the fraction of total population in group quarters was prepared for each geo- graphic area of New Castle County using information from the 1970 census, 2 the most recent source,of information available for this particular variable. According to the 1970 census, 1.1 percent of the population in the Brandywine 1Since both of these figures are survey estimates, there will be some discrepancy between these figures and the true figures, owing tothe random nature of sampling variation. The extent to which this discrepancy is significant depends on the size of the sample. Samples of 100 households each are sufficiently large to keep the error.due to sampling variation well within tolerable limits. For a further discussion of this point, see L. Kish, Survey Sampling (New Yo;k: Wiley, 1965), pp. 49-53. 2See U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970, General Population Characteristics, Final Report, iC-(l)-B9 Delaware, 1971, Table 33, p.49. 4 census county division (an area generally comparable to the planning district) resided in group quarters. This means that the estimate of population in households should be inflated by 1.1 percent to produce an estimate of total population. Performing this calculation yields the final population estimate (87,724) for the Brandywine planning district. Total population estimates @for the other planning districts, Wilmington and Newark, were assembled in an identical manner. The population estimates for Kent County, Su ssex County, and Dover were derived from estimates prepared by the Census'Bureau as part of the Federal- State Cooperative Program for.Pop ulation Estimates. The base data for Kent County and Sussex County are dated July 1, 1974, and the base estimate for Dover, developed or iginally for the current entitlement period of General 2 Revenue Sharing, is dated July 1, 1973. The 1975 midyear population estimates for Kent County and Sussex County were computed by exponential extrapolation using the average annual growth rate for the period from the 1970 census (April 1, 1970) to July 1, 1974. The 1975 estimate for Dover was obtained in a similar manner, but in this case, the extrapolation wasImade from July 1, 1973, to July 1. 1975, at the average Annual growth rate for the period from the 1970 census to midyear 1973. The reader should note that prior to the extrapolation and to insure a correct estimate of the growth rate, the 1970 census count for Dover was adjusted to allow for postcensal annexation. The population estimates for New Castle County and component civil divisions are considered better estimates than those prepared for the down- state areas, because the household survey approach represents a substantial refinement over methods involving extrapolation. This is not,meant to sug- gest., howevers that the downstate estimates are serious distortions of reality. iReports of the Federal-State Cooperative Program for Population Estimates are contained in Current Lo2ulation Reports, Series P-26. See especially Report No. 21. Ail reports are available from the P opulation Division, Bureau of the Census. 2See U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports. Series P-26 No. 111, May 1975, which contains estimates of Delaware counties and metropolitan areas for July 1, 1973 and 1974, and Series P-25, No. 553, May 1975, which contains midyear 1973 population estimates for incorporated places. in Delaware. 5 The time period over which the population counts are extrapolated is too short to permit the incurrence of significant estimation errors. In any event, the greater reliability of population estimates derived from the house- hold survey approach underscores the need to construct and monitor geographic base fil es for Kent County and Sussex County. Population Projections. @The population projections presented in this report were prepared using conventional techniques of demographic analysis. The particular method chosen for this report is component project. 1 The component method pr .ojects population by projecting the separate components of growth--fertility, mortality, and migration. The basic projection mechanism is given by the expression: P1 P0 + B D M, where P1 is the projected population, P 0 is the initial population, B is the number of intervening births, D is the number of intervening deaths, and M is the number of intervening net migrants; the number of net migrants equals the number of.inmigrants minus the number of outmigrants. The following discussion summarizes the actual computational procedure. The point of departure for all component projections is an initial age distribution. The initial age distributions for the three counties and the three metropolitan areas were derived from the 1970 census. 2 An analysis of 1975 population data generated by the Census and Data System for selected school districtsin New Castle County indicated only very minor changes in the age-sex structure of population between 1970 and 1975. On the basis of this finding, the age-sex distributions for July 1, 1975, were constructed For an excellent discussion of component projection, with illustrated examples, see N. Keyfitz, Introduction to the MAthematica of PoRulatign (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968), pp. 27-37. 2See U S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970,*General Population Characteristics, Final Report PC(l)-B9 Delaware, 1971, Tables 24, 28, and 77- 6 by applying the 1970 census proportionate age-sex distributions to the 1975 midyear population estimates. The assumption of an unchanged age-sex structure is less consequential when the assumption'is made for a shorter time period and involves a relatively slowly growing population. The time period, 1970- 1975, is not long by projection standards, and during this period, most of the populations under consideration were not characterized by rapid growth, with the possible exceptions of Kent County and the City of Dover. In any event, the use of the 1970 census statistics to construct age-sex dis tributions for 1975 should not create any serious problems for the actual projections. The age-sex structure of a population changes significantly only over longer time periods, even when the population is growing rapidly. The estimated popula- tions, for July 1, 1975, classified by sex and five-year age groups, are shown in the series of tables immediately following the text (see LIST OF TABLES). Projecting future population growth involves a mechanically simple proce- dure. This procedure can be summarized in the following manner. Consider an initial population distributed by age and sex. The time interval'between the date of this population and the first projection, and the time interval sepa- rating all subsequent projections, is called the projection period. The length of this period will be usually either one year or five years, depending on the age convention. Populations distributed by single years of age will produce annual projections, while populations arrayed by five-year age groups will produce quinquennial projections. Suppose now, that an initial population distributed by quinquennial age groups and sex is to be projected for one projection period; according to the equation previously presented describing the basic projection mechanism, the projected population will require estimates of the number of births, deaths, and net migrants during the projection period. The number of deaths.occurring during the period is determined by the. particular schedule of mortality. A mortality schedule consists of a series of age-sex specific survival ratios derived from the appropriate set of life tables. If P(x,t) is the population cohort aged x at time t, and S(x,x+n) is the expected proportion of any cohort surviving n years (based on the life table), then the expression: P(x+n,t+n) S(x,x4-n) P(x,t) 7 yields the expected population cohort aged x+n at time t4-n. This equation is used to determine the number of deaths occurring during the period to the pop-, ulation alive at the beginning of the period. The result of this calculation, using five-year age groups, is the projected population aged five and over on the,basis of mortality alone. The second step in the projection procedure is to determine the number of births during the interval. There are several ways in which this can be done, but the most common method involves the use of a general fertility rate. The general fertility rate is the ratio of the numb&r of births during a year to the number of women of childbearing age at the midyear date. For example, if there are 3,689 women of childbearing age (usually ages 15 to 49) in a par- ticular population at the midyear date, and these women produce 267 births during the year, then the general fertility rate would equal 0.072, or 72 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age. To project the number of births, the estimated general fertility rate is multiplied by the average number of women of childbearing age during the projection interval, and this product is then multiplied by the number of years in the projection period (in the present case, five years). The latter step is necessary because the general fertility rate@is only an annual rate, and the period over which the births occur con- sists of several years (in the example, five years). The reader should note that the average number of women of childbearing age is obtained by averaging the female cohorts aged 15 to 49 in the initial and projected populations. The number of births produced in the preceding step,can now be survived using the appropriate survival ratio from the mortality schedule.to yield.the projected population under age five. Since the projections are made by sex, owing to significant differences in the age structure of female and male mortality, the projected birth cohort is usually divided into female and male births, using a predetermined sex ratio at birth, and then the appropriate sex-specific survival ratios are applied. The final step in the projection procedure concerns the adjustment of IT the projected age-sex cohorts for the effect of net migration. There are several different adjustment methods, but in principle, they are all designed to produce the same result. The particular method chosen for this report is based on the net migration ratio. This ratio measures the proportionate 8 change in cohort size, during the projection period, attributable to net migration. The ratios can be estimated for any population for each age-sex cohort using two consecutive age-sex distributions which are n years apart. For example, if P(x,t) is the cohort aged x at time t, and S(x,x+n) is the n-year survival ratio, then, as before, the expected population surviving to age group x+n at time t+n is given by the equation: P(x+n,t+n) = S(x,x+n) P(x,t). This population will, of course, be n years older at time t+n. Finally, if the known population estimate for the cohort aged x+n at time t+n is C(x+n,t+n), then the net migration ratio is defined by the equation: R(x+n) = C(x+n,t+n)/P(x+n,t4-n). Values of the net migration ratio greater than one indicate a net increase.in cohort size due to net migration, while values less than one indicate a net loss. To adjust the projected population for net migration, each age-sex cohort is multiplied by the estimated net migration ratio. When the net migration ratio method is used, the adjustment to the very youngest cohort in the projected population represents not only an adjustment for net migra- tion of births, but also an adjustment for the additional births of migrant women. The reader may recall that no allowance was made for this additional source of fertility in the previous calculations. To summarize the procedure for component projection: 1. An initial population classified,by age and sex is constructed. 2. Survival ratios are applied to the age-sex cohorts at the begin- ning of the period to determine the number of survivors to the end of the period. 3. A general fertility rate is applied to the female population of childbearing age to determine the number of births during the period, and this number is then multiplied by the appropriate survival ratio to determine the projected population under age. five. 4. The projected age-sex cohorts are adjusted for net migration. This completes the computational procedure for population projections based on the component method. 9 Household Projections. The purpose of a household projection is to project the number of occupied housing units (dwelling units) in a particular geographic area. The house- hold projections presented in this report were assembled using the equation: Ho = (1 - G) P/A, where, in this case, H is the projected household count for occupied units, .0 G is the proportion of population in group quarters, P is the projected total population, and A is the average household size. The product (1 - G)P is the projected population in households which, when divided by the population per household, yields the projected household count. The total number of housing units, occupied plus vacant, can be projected by applying a forecasted vacancy rate to values of H . The projection is based 0 on the formula: Ht = H0/(1 - V), where Ht is the projected total number of housing units and V is the projected vacancy rate. The household projections presented in this report are for occupied housing units only. 10 ASSUMPTIONS An initial age distribution combined.with a mechanically simple procedure will not produce a population projection. Certain assumptions about the behavior of fertility, mortality, and migration during the projection period must be made before any projection can be assembled. These assumptions are central to a projection, because they determine the particular form that a projection will take. Different assumptions will produce different projec- tions, given the same initial age distribution. The credibility of a popula- tion projection depends on the plausibility of each assumption at a given point in time. If the assumptions are not plausible at this point in time, then the projection will find difficulty gaining acceptance, even though the passage of time may show the assumptions to have been correct. The following discussions summarize the assumptions made for both the population and household projections. The population assumptions are presented first. Population Projections. Since component projections were prepared for three counties and three metropolitan areas, decisions had to be made regarding six sets of assump- tions, each set,containing specific statements regarding the projected future course of fertility, mortality, and migration. Mortality. The mortality assumption for each area presents the least problem. Continuous improvements in disease control technology and preventive medicine have been responsible for more than a century of declining mortality in the United States. There is no evidence to suggest that D elaware.has not been a party to these fortunate circumstances. The most recent life tables constructed for the State, based on mortality registration statistics for the period 1969-1971, place the mean expectation of life at birth at 70 years for the total population, with the female figure slightly higher, at 74 years, and the male figure slightly lower, at 66 years. The scientific community has forecasted further'improvements in disease control technology and preven- tive medicine through the year 2000, but most experts-agree that the incre- mental change in mortality will be smaller than before and more difficult to achieve. Under these circumstances, it would not be unreasonable to assume that mortality levels observed for the period 1969-1971 will continue at least through 1995. The assumption of unchanging mortality was applied to each of the six geographic areas. The state life tables were used to project mortality .in each case, because life tables for counties and metropolitan areas.are rarely constructed, owing to their methodological awkwardness.. Survival ratios by age and sex, derived from the 1969-1971 Delaware life tables are shown in tables 37 and 38.. Fertility. Births were projected for each population for each time period using the general fertility rate. Changes in the rates between 1975 and 1995 were made by altering the rates reported for the period 1969-1971, the most recent period for which complete information on state and local birth registration is available. The 1969-1971 rates are: Area Rate New Castle County 0.0674 Kent County 0.0877 Sussex County 0.0715 Wilmington 0.0914 Newark @0.0172 Dover 0** 0677 The reader will note that.Wilmington and the two downstate counties have the highest fertility. The metropolitan area has experienced high fertility for at least,two decades, however, and this would suggest that Wilmington fertil- ity has possibly,stabilized. The two downstate counties, conversely, are largely,rural areas, where fertility is traditionally higher than in urban centers. Kent County, however, is a rapidly.urbanizing nonmetropolitan Area, 1see N.. W. Rives, Jr., Delaware Abridged Life Tables:. 1969-1971 (Newark: Division of Urban Affairs, University of Delaware)., pp. 8-10.1 12 and under these circumstances, fertility is likely to decline slightly during the next several decades; declining fertility is a characteristic demographic response to urbanization. The impact of any urbanization on fertility in Sussex County is not.likely to be significant prior to the end of the century, because the prospects for rapid urbanization in this area would seem more remote. Consequently, the assumption was made that fertility in Kent County will decline by 20 percent between 1975 and 1995, while S.ussex fertility will remain constant at its present (1969-1971) level. The three remaining areas, New Castle County, Newark, and Dover, are each characterized by relatively low general fertility rates. The Newark rate is suspiciously low, but there is really no evidence of any statistical irregularity. If the level of Newark fertility is actually as low as the rate indicates, then future population growth should be accompanied by slight gains in reproductive behavior. Specifically' the assumption was made that the 1995 be 10, percent higher than the figure level of Newark fertility would reported for the base period. Part of the problem with the depressed Newark fertility rate is the relatively large-female population of childbearing age which resides in group quarters, principally university dormitories. From the standpoint of demographic methodology, these women are technically part of the childbearing population, and as usual residents of Newark, they must be counted as part of the Newark population of childbearing age. In practice, however, they do not bear children at the higher.rates experienced by the average female of the same age, because their decision'to attend college on a regular basis, to live in group quarters, and to delay marriage and family formation for significant periods, effectively constrains their reproductive behavior. Dover, the other major urban place in Delaware, grew quite rapidly during the decade from 1960 to 1970, but fertility was never a major source of growth. The 1969-1971 general fertility rate is highest among the areas with lower fertility. Since Dover will continue urbanizing through the end of the century, it is not unreasonable to assume that fertility will decline slightly by 1995. Accordingly, the assumption was made that Dover fertility will decrease by 10 percent, a modest reduction, by the end of the projection period. 13 The fertility assumption for New Castle County was the most difficult to make, because the county is highly urbanized and densely populated, with gen- erally low fertility. The next stage in the.fertility evolution of this area would seem to be a slight increase in the level of reproductive behavior. County fertility declined rapidly between 1960 and 1970) following a well- known national trend, but the current philosophy of family formation suggests that part of the fertility decline reported for many urban areas between 1960 and 1970 may be due, in fact, to a change in the structure of child spacing. This means that some women may actually be planning on generally the same completed family size as the previous childbearing generations, but the method to achieve this goal involves a different.time distribution of births over the family life cycle. If child spacing patterns for the immediate future are to favor births later in marriage, implying longer first- and second-order birth intervals, then present fertility rates will be somewhat lower than the rates one or two decades from now. Since it is not unreasonable that such behavior may affect fertility in New Castle County, the 1995 county fertility rate was assumed to be five percent higher than the figure for the base period. The general fertility rates used to project each population to 1995 are shown in table 39. For areas where fertility was assumed to increase or decrease, the change was assumed to occur between 1980 and 1995. In these areas, the general fertility rates for each quinquennial projection period following 1980 were obtained by linear interpolation. The interpolation in each case was made to the midpoint of the interval. The decision to confine projected changes in fertility to the last three projection periods, rather than allowing the change to occur routinely over the full 20-year interval, is based on the well-documented conviction that present economic and social conditions have reduced household planning horizons to the extent that most plans for household expansion including childbearing, are simply either being held in abeyance or pursued with extreme caution. Since this mode of behavior is characteristic of the period following 1970, the two quinquennial periods from 1970 to 1980 are quite likely to exhibit similar patterns of demographic change, especially change involving fertility. 14 Migration. The projected future course of migration is difficult to establish for any population, because unlike fertility and mortality where general fertility rates and expectations of life are conveniently available for analysis, the migration variable has no easily interpreted summary measure. The net migration ratios used to project the populations in this report permit the distinction between two types of cohorts--cohorts which have been losing population on balance, and cohorts which have been gaining. The net migration ratios for each population for each age-sex cohort were estimated for the period 1970-1975, using the 1970 midyear age-sex distribu- tions, derived from census statistics, and the age-sex population estimates for July 1, 1975. These calculations established the age-sex patterns of net migration for each geographic area for the five-year time interval immediately preceding the first projection period. Projected net migration ratios for each population were obtained by making specific assumptions about the future course of migration for age-sex cohorts experiencing net outmigration during the base period (1970-1975), and cohorts experiencing net inmigration. This distinction between cohorts losing population due to net outmigration and cohorts gaining population due to net inmigration facilitated considerably the difficult task of making assumptions. The migration variable contributed significantly to the rapid growth of New Castle County during the 1960-1970 decade, but recent evidence coupiled by the Census and.Data System suggests that the county has actually been losing population due to net outmigration during the period since 1970. This can almost certainly be attributed to current economic conditions, however, and it is not considered indicative of any emerging trend. During the next several decades, as the regional economy undergoes what may.be considered a transitional period of rehabilitation, population losses due to net outmigration should tend to decrease, while gains due to net inmigration should tend to i-acrease but not to pre-1970 levels. This projected outcome will permit a modest amount of growth due to net migration. Specifically, net losses are assumed to decline by '30 percent by 1995, measured from the base period, and net gains are assumed to increase by 10 percent. The two major urban areas of New Castle County, Wilmington and Newark, have contributed in quite different ways to county growth through net 15 migration. Newark grew very rapidly prior to 1970, almost doubling in size between the two most recent censuses. Most of this growth can be attributed to net migration. Conversely, Wilmington has been steadily declining in population since 1950, owing to substantial net outmigration. The Newark situation is characteristic of rapid urbanization, and the assumption was made that losses due to net outmigration (very few cohorts are in this cate- gory) will remain unchanged through 1995, while net gains will decline by 30 percent from the base period. This means that the net migration ratios showing a population gain for the base period are reduced by a factor of 0.70 for the projection from-1990 to 1995, while the,base-period ratios showing a net Pop- ulation loss remain unchanged during the final projection period. The migra- tion growth rate produced by this particular scheme will be somewhat lower than the overall rate due to net migration prior to 1970. The Wilmington situation merits somewhat different assumptions. In this case, net losses were reduced by 90 percent between 1975 and 1995, while net gains were increased by 50-percent from the base period. The principal justification for this assumption is the increasingly plausible speculation that the city will not continue to lose population through net outmigration indefinitely. The migration assumptions for Newark provide a useful precedent for the assumptions to be made for Kent County and Dover. Both areas grew at impres- give rates between 1960 and 1970, and like Newark, much of this growth can be attributed to net migration. Furthermore, like Newark, the two downstate areas ar e quite likely to grow less by net migration in the immediate future, as the process of .urbanization fully matures. Consequently, the assumption was made that the rate of population gain through net migration will decline for Kent County and Dover by 50 and 70 percent, respectively, between the base period and 1995. Net population losses will remain unchanged at the base- period level for the entire projection period. Sussex County is the most rural county in the S.tate, and as such, the county least affected by urbanization. Between 1960 and 1970, the county lost population through net outmigration, but there is no evidence to, suggest that this continues to be a major problem. It is not unreasonable to assume that some form of urbanization will ultimately affect county growth, possibly prior to the end of the century. During the projection period from 1975 to 1995, 16 however, the pr os pects for a significant-and-sustained type of urbanization, 1 generating unprecedented rates of county growth, are considered remote. Under these circumstances, the gradual rehabilitation of the regional economy should at least reduce the pace of net outmigration from the county. The assumption was made that during the projection period, net losses will decline by 10 percent over base-period losses, while net gains will remain unchanged from the 1970-1975 levels. Combined with the assumption of no change in fertility through 1995, the migration assumption will permit.s. modest county growth rate over the projection period. This completes the discussion of the projection assumptions. The. various assumptions for the six populations under consideration are summarized for the convenience of the reader in table A. The reader should note that the effect of the migration assumptions, like the effect of the fertility assump- tions, is confined to the period 1980-1995. All changes during this period are assu@ed to occur in linear fashion, proceeding from the base-period ratios which, by assumption, are the same ratios used to project the six populations from 1975 to 1980. The rationale given to confine the projected changes in net migration to the period 1980-1995 is the same rationale presented in the case of projected fertility changes. The projected net migration ratios, classi- fied by age and sex, are shown for each population in ta bles 25 through,36. IThis does not take into consideration the po ssible effects of off- shore oil exploration and drilling. If such an event were to occur, it would obviously affect the rate of county urbanization, but under the circumstances, it is impossible to specify the particular impact of such an event on regional migration. 17 TABLE A SUMMARY OF ASSUMPTIONS FOR MORTALITY, FERTILITY, AND NET MIGRATION FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY, KENT COUNTY, SUSSEX COUNTY, WILMINGTON, NEWARK, AND DOVER 1980 -.1995 New Castle Kent Sussex Wilmington Newark Dover Mortality no change 5% 20% 10% lot Fertility increase reduction no change no change increase reduction Migration 00 1 30% 10% 90% Net Losses reduction no change reduction reduction no change no change 10% 50% 50% 30% 70% Net Gains increase reduction no change increase reduction reduction The projected population s, by age and sex, for each geographic area are shown in tables 4 through 24. The first three tables contain the projections for the State. These were obtained simply by adding the corresponding fig- ures for the three counties. At this point, the reader is reminded that the projections for New Castle County include Wilmington.. The total populations for each projectionrate have been computed for the entire projection period to summarize the overall growth pattern. Area Percent Rate Delaware 1.4 New Castle County 0.9 Kent County 2.5 Sussex County 2.1 Wilmington 0.6 Newark 1.9 Dover 2.4 These rates are a direct reflection of the particular assumptions made for each geographic area.. Household Projections. The household projections assembled for this report are presented primar- ily for purposes of illustration. They are intended to depict the future housing situation through 1995, assuming no change in present (1975) levels of average household size and the proportion of the total population in group quarters. Table 39 presents projected occupied housing units (households) through 1995, assuming the following household sizes and group-quarter rates for the entire projection period. Area A G_ New Castle County 3.15 0.052 Kent County , 3.29 0.062 Sussex County 3.07 0.019 Wilmington ?.91 0.018 Newark 2.94 0.268 Dover 3.17 0.082 19 The symbols presented above are the symbols used to describe the household projection methodology. In the absence of more recent information, the average-household-size.figures for Kent County, Sussex County, and Dover were derived from the 1970 census. The same source was used for the group-quarter 1 rates. Since the data shown in table 39 are based on the projected popula- tions and the information presented above, the reader can readily make alter- native household,projections by simply changing one or more projection parameters--average household size or group-quarter rate. Projections can also be assembled for-itotal housing units by assuming a forecasted vacancy rate. 1See U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970, General Population Characteristics, Final Report PC(1) B9 Delaware, 1971, Tables 29:, 36. 20 LIMITATIONS The population projections presented in this report are subject.to cer- tain limitations. The reader should recognize these limitations and appreciate the restrictions they impose on interpretation. Two limitations deserve comment in the present context. The first involves the general assumption that there will be no disas- trous war, widespread epidemic, major economic depression, or similar catastrophe during the period under consideration. This assumption represents. standard procedure in demographic analysis. Although extraordinary and unusual events can have a pronounced effect on population growth, the fore- casting problem becomes sufficiently complex to render the task of prediction impractical. The particular assumptions regarding the behavior of fertility, mortality, and migration during the projection period collectively represent the second. limitation to which the projections are subject. The point cannot be over- emphasized that a population projection is'simply 'a mathematical statement of future population growth based on specific assumptions about the components of growth. If one or more assumptions are changed for whatever reason, then the projected.populations will change. The reader is admonished always to recog- nize assumptions, appreciate them for their complexity, and judge them strictly on the basis of their plausibility. The credibility of a projection depends on the plausibility of each assumption at a given point in time. If the assumptions are not plausible at this point in time, then the projection will find difficulty gaining acceptance, even though the passage of time may show the assumptions to have been correct. 21 TABLE I TOTAL POPULATION OF DELAWARE AND MAOOR CIVIL DIVISIONS-BY SEX:. JULY 1. 1975 AND MIOYEA@ PROJECTIONS. 1�80. 1985. '1900. 1995 AREA 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 DELAWARE FEMALE. 294255 313791 336912 362470 390249 MALE 280437 299157 320826 344702 370307 ALL CLASSES 574692 612948 657738 707172 760555 NEW CASTLE COUNTY F EMA L E 202745 208982 217885 229450 243865 MA L E t9O9O3 196796 205293 216434 230350 ALL CLASSES 393648 405778 423178 445884 474215 KENT COUNTY F ENIA L E 46071 54502 63184 71024 77526 MA L E 46959 55250 63252 70170 75401 ALL CLASSES 93030 109752 126436 141194 152927 SUSSEX COUNTY FEMALE 45439 50307 55843 61996 68857 MALE 42575 471il 52281 58 0 92% 64556 ALL CLASSES 68014 97418 108124 120094 133413 WILMINGTON CITY -FEMALE 41402 40560 41133 42943 46274 MA L E 35252 34756 35518 37424 40754 .ALL CLASSES 76654 75316 76651 80367 87028 NEWARK CITY F EMA L E 12643 .14955 16949 18704 18743 MALE 14543 16442 18013 18141 ALL CLASSES 25353 29498 33391 36717 36884 DOVER CITY FEMALE 12173 14409 16580 18332 19553 MA L E 11044 13100 15077 16612 17676 ALL CLASSES 23217 27509 31657 34944 37229 The housing unit files maintained by the City of Wilmington contain more units than those main- tained by the Division of Urban Affairs. Work is presently under way to resolve this discrepancy. The estimates and projections are based on the Division of Urban Affairs files. aw W Aw" Sol 0") aw" 416" OR" 410 limit 60,1 ask 1100,@ 010 TABLE 2 OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE AND MAJOR CIVIL DIVISIONS: JULY 1, 197% AND MIDYEAR PROJECTIONS, 1980, 1985, 1990, AND 1995 Area 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 Delaware 173,189 184,607 198,031 212,906 229,090 New Castle County 118,485 122,120 127,356 134,190 142,716 Kent County 26,580 31,358 36)125 40,341 43,693 Sussex County. 28,124 31,129 34,550 38,375 42,681 Wilmington 25,855 25,416 25,866 27,12C 29,368 Newark 6,307 7,344 8,314 9,142 9,183 Dover 6,723 7,966 9,168 10,119 10,781 Note: Number of housing units is number of household addresses. The housing unit files maintained by the City of Wilmington contain more units than those maintained by the Division of Urban Affairs. Work is presently under way to resolve this discrepancy. The estimates and projections are based on the Division of Urban Affairs files. TABLE 3 ESTIMATES OF THE TOTAL POPUIATION OF NEW CASTLE COUNTY AND COMPONENT PLANNING@DISTRICTS AND CIVIL DIVISIONS, AND RELATED STATISTICS: JULY 1, 1975 Average Vacancy Household Population in Group Quarters Total Area Household Size Rate ..Count* 'Households. Adjustment Population Planning District Brandywine 3.46 0.050 26,403 86,787 0.011 87,724 Piedmont 3.20 0.022 4,879 15,269 0.034 15,808 Pike Creek-Central Kirkwood 3.21 0.030 9,895 30,810 0.002 30,874 Greater Newark 3.25 0.015 15,656 50,119 0.119 56,865 Lower Christina 3.15 0.057 14,500 43,072 0.019 43,910 New Castle-Upper Christina 3.37 0.090 20,345 62,525 0.025 64,139 Central Pencader, 3.07 0.031 1,752 5,212 5,212 Red Lion 3.24 0.051 1,135 3,490 0.094 3,852 Middletown-Odessa-Townsend 2.97 0.031 2,937 8,452 0.018 8,608 Wilmington 2.91 0.090 28,412 .75,238 0.018 76,655 New Castle County 3.15 0.059 125,914 373,228 0.052 393,647 Newark @2.94 0.031 6,509 18,553 0.268 25,353 The household count is a count of dwelling units'derived from the-geographic base file of the Division of Urban Affairs. This count does not necessarily conform to the adjusted dwelling unit count of the .1970 United States Census. The housing unit files maintained by the City of Wilmington contain more units than those maintained by the Division of Urban Affairs. Work is presently under way to resolve this discrepancy. The estimates and pro- jections are based on the Division of Urban Affairs files. aW, awl sz > C- C) c @4 cn Ln Ln it. J@- LI) w K) M -4 Ul 0 I ? 1? T 1@ T 1@ 1@ . , 0 + (n Ln Yl rl I, w W tj tj m -9@ ID Xb ED (D -r@ LO 4@ 0 -t@ w p, a c Ln > z rn -4 00 @j _n co -4 0 -4 a t@ -4 0 w b, W 4D OD 0 m w " h. 0 w -4 00 @j 0 m " m LO -.4 -4 0 @4 M to t. rl) 0 0 0 m w 44 -th ED Ln rn 0 M@c -W M M m 13 03 Ln co 0 m a) -4 w m 13 0 co -4 -1 - pb 1@- t. LO K) (D (D 0- " 0) co N) co f_n (D S@ m 1@ W K) a 0 w (n cc C- 0 .4 Ul -4 - - - Oo (D 13 (1) Lrl -4 -4 t. 0 m z rid z 0 - - - - - - - - ul m ID K) X@ -4 @o %D co ID 0) 0 @o K3 W to K) (n D, CO -4 0) W CO Co 0 r@ 0 w 0 0) ko @o -4 " -4 - - 0 - (D - @4 a) a) (D w w c. - 1), co ts (n - 0 co C) to 13 Ln to > W ;o rn CO tj K) @j tj b b ci (D -< 00 0 0 (r) 0 C@ CO - - 0 W 00 0) Ln t@ CO -4 CO W 0 0) 0) b LD w Ln > M. -3 m 0 41 w w -r@ w w w W . 0 co K) Co (_n 0 M -4 W AN b m to ID m 0 0 w tj 0) w 41 m 0 w a m 0 (D to ti pi -4 Pi co tj 1 0 Z@ w (D W 0 K) m 0 0 (.3 a) Ln 0 W TABLE 5 MALE POPULATION OF DELAWARE. BY AGE: JULY 1. 1975 AND MIDYEAR PROJECTIONS.,1980. 1985. 1990. 1995 AGE GROUP 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 0-4 26032 .31804 3j3O7 34958 37429, 5-9 30747 32305 39414 41024 42834 10-14 31742 33359 34989 42621 44143 15-19 26708 28045 29802 31589 38897 20-24 21855 23147 24695 26554 28345 25-29 19524 20506 21594 23032 24790 30-34 16557 17398 18501 19719 21239 35-39 16905 17791 @18636 19722 20898 40-44 16956 17763 le683 19578 20730 45-49 17005 17800 18658 19624 20561 50-54 15423 16158 16988 17878 18871 55-59 12376 12972 13746 14610 15527 60-64 9870 10369 10952 11679, 12477 65-69 7033 7399 7879 8425 9084 70-74 5203 5475 5757 6120 6532 75+ 6501 6866, 7225 -7569 7950 Alt owl cow TABLE 6 TOTAL POPULATION OF DELAWARE. BY AGE: JULY 1. 1975 AND MIDYEAR PROJECTIONS. 1980, 1985. 1990, 1995 AGE GROUP 1975 1960 1985 1990 1995 0-4 50851 62758 65684 68892 73714 5-9 60516 63602 78433 81508 84970 10-14 62116 65266 68479 84311 87229 15-19 53782 56450 59820 63280 78540 20-24 46068 48570 51545 55097 58616 25-29 40017 42003 44405 47369 50901 30-34 33825 35547 37816 30487 43651 35r39 33830 35579 37310 39553 42164 40-44 34842 36507 38411 40324 42800 45-49 35061 36698 38472 40479 42487 50-54 31234 32709 34459 36346 38457 55-59 25528 26753 28340 30182 32149 60-64 20944 21990 23245 24807 26590 65-69 15962 16786 17842 19073 20554 70-74 12584 13240 13946 14834 15858 75+ 17532 18490 19531 20630 21875 TABLE .7 FEMALE POPULATION OF NEW CASTLE COUNTY, BY AGE: JULY 1. 1975 AND MIDYEAR PROJECTIONS. 1980, 1985. 1990. 1995 AGE GROUP 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 0-4 16688 19377 20288 21419 23037 5-9 20183 20589 25038 26590 10-14 20911 21333 21803 25215 26612 15-19 18935 19318 19665 20468 23857 00 20-24 16836 17176 17696 18382 19123 1 25-29 14417 14708 15214 15897 16735 30-34 11831 12070 12544 13220 14061 35-39 11573 11807 12047 12522 13198 40-44 12610 12864 13171 13490 14072 45-49 12935 13196 13489 13840 14202 50-54 11223 11449 11795 12178 12615 55-59 9185 9370 9697 10136 10611 60-64 7546 7698 7946 8322 8799 65-69 5880 5999 6209 6504 6907 70-74 4794 4890 5011 5211 5483 75+ 6998 7138 7344 7608 7963 NOTE: Figures include City of Wilmington. so, A owl ua w* TABLE 8 MALE POPULATION OF NEW CASTLE COUNTY. BY AGE: JULY 1. 1975 AND MIDYEAR PROJECTIONS, 1980. 1985, 1990, 1995 AGE GROUP 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 0-4 17731 20131 21074 22245 23923 5-9 21058 21483 24535 25839 27433 10-14 21672 22110 22594 25847 27265 15-19 18491 18864 19520 20235 23468 20-24 13548 13821 14556 15547 16604 25-29 13481 13753 14 042 14800 15821 30-34 11372 11602 12013 12452 13314@ 35-2,9 11347 11576 11821 12253 12712 40-44 12079 12323 12611 12921 13434 45-49 12184 12430 12705 13028 13373 50-54 10838 11056 11636 11985 55-59 8594 8767 9067 9,422 9805 60-64 66,25 6759 6974 7297 766B 65-69 4550 4641 4813 5049 5367 70-74 3348 3415 3484 3613 3791 75+ 3985 4065 4154 4250 4387 NOTE: Figures include City of Wilmington. TABLE 9 TOTAL POPULATION OF NEW CASTLE COUNTY. BY AGE: 'JULY 1. 1975 AND MIDYEAR PROJECTIONS. 1980. 1985. 1990. 1995 AGE GROUP 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 0-4 34619 39508 41362 43664 46960 5-9 41241 42072 48301 50877 54023 ..10-14 42583 43443 44397 51062 53877 15-19 37426 38182 39385 40703 47325- 20-24 30384 30997 32252 33929 35727 25-29 27898 28461 29256 30697 32556 30-34 23203 23672 24557 25672 27375 35-39 22920 23383 23868 24775 25910 40-44 24689 25187 25782 26411 27506 45-49 25119 25626 26194 26868 27575 50-54 22061 22505 23125 23814. 24600 55-59 17779 18137 18764 19558 20416 60-64 14171 14457 14920 15619 16467 65-69 10430 10640 11022 11553 12274 70-74 8142 8305 8495 8824 9274 75+ 10983 11203 11498 11858 12350 NOTE: Figures include City of Wilmington. (Y) a) Ln -4 L" 0 o M L" t. b Ca CJ K) tj to .9% CD -j V > z 0 Ln u - m (A) LTI (D 0 (.) 13 1 K) Ln w @n Zn to') 204 - 'a Cl .4 to .4 OD K) a) .4 to .4 Lq 00 rnc m 0 0 w w M. -4 m 0 w w 0 to 0 z 0 4 w 0 w -4 14 w m w & 0 0 b w C. j-3 -b th - 4 - 0 0 W 0 w 4D 0 rn 0 0 -n t4 0 rn tis z z I.- @j tj K) (A) W w b Ln (A C) %D 13 . J.@0 K) -4 w w w Ln Un K) 0 (D 0 OD w a) 0 h3 lb M M -4 K) -j b 0 W OD 0 0 -4 W .-4b th C.) Ln to 0 c Oo z 0-1 K) IQ K) w W J@. J@l 4Cb Ln 0 Co 0 co sl & -j C) n. -4 (13 4m - -4 CD 0 w 0 Ln 0 " 0 -j a Ln w ih @4 'm w 'n , n o 0 Ln K) 0 0 0 0 4b Ln (A ED Ln -b 0) K) 0 K) PI) (1) rl) Z. ih X. Ln m (D to co -3 0 w w t. -Al w 0 to to S@. @; 0 0 to w 0 (.n L" C. @4 0 Ln h ca (1) k) K3 c m Ln + -4 (3) (7) Ln Ln tb tl (1) G) tj K) C) .4 (D & (D t. to t. 0 -b ;o 0 c 13 Ln Z (n b. (.n Ln b 0rn K3 is to w G3 1%) th to -0 0) -3 C@ w 00 0 0 a) (D 00 -4 K) C.) CD 0 - 4, 0 C.) 0) Ln c M r- m z to K) Ln -4 K) 3 (A) 0 0 (D M -4 43, -L. -j (D to (P a) (31 M C- 0 (D (D -4 t. M 0 0 OC) -4 0 W - 0 m -n x m 0 z z --q (A w w & 0) kn cn 00 w -4 w w -4 -4 w 0 0 K) 0 b. 0) K) C) Xk C) C@ tn (.n M 00 fln 03 c Ln -4 CD K) Ln -4 W w 4b Ln Ul -4 M Ln z 00 --4 0 -< OD -< K) K) (a 4. t. -4 a) (D 03 -4 ca K) CD rl) Al w " a) w w (D ()) 0 @n > -4 8 0 0 w 0 0 0 .4 ;@ w tD G) a) Ln - (D w 00 CA) -4 o 01 0 rn (D (D (A) CA) Ln 13 (.0 (D OD -4 LTI Ln Ln r4 -j -4 0 0 M fl) w (D to OD (1) Ul " K) .-4 03 -b C) 0 0) (.0 m (D (D co h) w 0 -4 m w 0 w 0 Ln Ul C. C: m r- -4 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +-4 0)m (.n Ln m .4 W -b W 4LO 4@ (D p. @o -P@wCb 0 '0 Ln -4 0 > -4 z > ?Q Ww 4% Z. 0) Ul Im (0 C@W - 0 r- m:4 W Ili co0w iz m LnW (D il. (T)0C) @n (00 Sol '83 P'Jl UT (-Jj T) t-D4 ;o Co0 Z@ P. @4w -j 11) .4 Ln (D -4 (.30(.n m r- m G) POw Wt.0 0 m 0) -4 ;o z N 0) `0 , tj K) @; .4 0)w w -4 (_nw :10 .N -i w (n to @; lc@ co -4 Lilwco co0co C-0 (7)0 03 (A) K3-(3) -4 (D0 0 0 M 'n m w11) t@ 1@ Ln0-1 -1w C) M" 00 (3) towX). -jm0 0@jw 0 (D 0 00 cl" 0 Li 0) 10 (D (3)0-4 CC) C: Lp t. w(D cnw (" J@. OLI (0 Ln Ln 1@z 0) --q 'I 0 -< CD wro (1) 4@ pb Ul a) -3 0) co (c) 1@ co (D [email protected] 0Ln Ul0 ul C)@ t."fn (D J@ (D (D (.n > 12, Ln co (D 4. 'D a, (0 l'i0-4 -4 CC) to.m 1, C.) 0) Ln0 w w (7) 03 -4wLn--4 0 m (D .b w ZN Lin 0) -.4 -3 to00D.mw0t@ @J (3) 4. 4@WIj fl) Li 4),W j0) Ln 0) -4 0) CO J@- CO0 t- ID (D o(D -4 Ln pa 03 K) a) (P Ln Ln TABLE 13 FEMALE POPULATIONOF SUSSEX CCUNTY. BY AGE: JULY 1. 1075 ANO MIDYEAR PROJECT.1ONS. 1980, 1985. 1990. 1995 AGE GROUP 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 0-4 3727 4628 5072 5564 6192 5-9 4424 4845 6017 6594 7234 10-14 4309 4719 5168 6419 7034 1 15-19 3870 4238 4644 5089 6323 LJ 20-24 3250 3559 3909 4296 4720 25-29 2765 3028 3324 3659 4030 30-34 2371 2597 2850 3135 3458 35-39 2380 2606 2855 3133 3446 40-44 2,748 3009 3296 3611 3963 45-49 2802 3068 3361 3681 4033 50-54 2694 2951 3232 3540 3877 55-59 2308 2527 2770 3036 3328 60-64 2081 2279 2496 2736 2999 65-69 1823 1996 2186 2394 2624 70-74 1568 1718 1881 266, 2256 75+ 2319 2539 2782 3048 3340 NOTE: Figures refer to permanent residents of the county and do not include seasonal population. AW '00, ow owl C- -4 m a) (.n Ln t@ tk (i G) KI JQ rn r- -1 0 0 < ()I T 1@ T 1@ T I? T T C) + M (n r@ [@ (11 w tj K) (D ;o t. ED X@ (D D. (D -C@. 0 m Ul z rn m :j N) K) IQ K.) W rt w Ln CO C) Ln t. w K) a) -4 a) co 0 -4 w 1@ z -,j W -4 co (D Ln .4 -4 a) -j 'D K) to co 0 -4 03 OD Z@ to, 0) -4 -4 m Ln (.n c m 0) m ;o 'az rt Ln N) 0) 0 J@. co 00 0) 0) Ul (D tD to -4 ID 00 0 tb VI K) (11 0) 0 0 cn -4 - pli 0 00 C- tj -4 Q0 w - 0 IQ Ln L" 2@1 LJ w @j 0 rn (n bd 0 t-4 txj ct z m P, (1)X 4- m - - - to " w G) K) to w Li b. (-n Ul 0 0) o) 0 @c m -4 o Cyl (D (D 0 -t- m " 0 r@ fli 8 IL 0 a) o 0) 0) (_n tj Ln -3 01 -j K) (n AD C. 0:z k4 K) fj w (1) !2 w (1) w L@ (n a) 01 ca -< 41 (.1 1) a Ln (3) (.0 CD (-n 0) Ln rL 0 1.0 (D K) (i co 0 w - -4 11 --l (.r (Y) -1 (D . I r@ w 0) 0 -4 -j D, X@ Ln Ln to Ln (3) -4 0 C) 0. m 0 0 0 ct W LJ w Cl) r@ 0) -j 0) C@ (.n 1@ w (D 0 (1) -4 Ln (D (3) o - w (1) C) S. (D LO Ln W 0 to ul 0 (D 0) -3 a) -4 0 ri -4 Ln ul 0 co rt TABLE 15 TOTAL POPULATION OF SUSSEX COUNTY, BY AGE: JULY 1. 1975 AND MIDYEAR PROJECTIONS. 1980, 1985. 1990. 1995 AGE GROUP 1975 1980 1985 199b 1995 0-4 7592 9350 10247 11241 12509 5-9 8902 9748 12009 13160 14437 10-14 .8986 9842 10778 13274 14546 15-19 7627 8352 9171 10068 12433 20-24 5966 6534 7194 7941 8762 25-29 5464 5983 6561 7234 7997 30-34 4655 5098@ 5595 6149 6794 35-39 4758 5210 5707 6264 6883 40-44 51-86 5679 6221 6815 7479 45-49 5379 5890 6453 7068 7742 50-54 5306 5811 6365 6972 7637 55-59 4528 4958 5433 5953 6523 60-64 3929 4302, 4712 5163 5658 65-69 3338 3655 4003 4384 4803 70-74 2707 2965 3247 3557 3895 75+ 3691 4041 4428 4851 5315 NOTE: Figures refer to permanent residents of the county and do not include seasonal population. I" low, LE m M, w 0 C- 0 0 0 cn S@@b w to N) m -4 o (.n 0 0 0 cn 0 0 0 Qq 0 Ln . rt + --j @n m w D. LO IN U) -r@ (D D, 0 41 1-1 c C. m Ln > m z m to K) t) rl) -w. N) (i Cj W u W, a (Y)z (f Ln Lyl I's fD CO W K) 0 W (;I C) 0 W 91.m @j 0 LI) -4 (7) -4 0) Lrl (@n Z. (D (.n a v -3 rL -4 K) Un LO 0 - - Z. a) 0) W w Ln m > 0 M z 0 Pi fl) K) K3 fl) M W Ci (Iiw m rt rt Ln 0 W r@ J@. (.) OD -4 co (D " w P. ko w 00 :r 0 t-j fl) (D - Ln t. -13 -j (5) 0 0 w (I.)W m C- -n o) m 0:) w -4 Ln c) (D cn (0 Ul. pi -4 t@ W co N co 0 m OQ Pi 09 m m 0 c til m 0 z @; 00 Ul I.- 1@ " 11) @; K) N3 PI) K) @J LJ 11 W lb fil 0 K.) W. w W " 0) . PI) f-q (D rt 03 --30 co 0 0 W M -,'- @C 0 00 CO VI xj 0 N Lf) 03 cm (Y) 0 M ID w Cx) co (1) w 11) to (.n 4.)z on V lb rt 00 Pj - K) P,3 G) Z. jr@ J@l m m (1) 0) (D w @j -1 OD (.n to - " (3)0 (D m a] Ln ko ID (D Li K) 0) (D 0 w 0 w 0) -j N3 (o. (D K) (D 0 0) Ln Ln 0:) co -rh K) 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 m tD m 0 0.- rt 0 '1 0 @-h K) - - K) K) " - K) 03 -j (D - K) N) fl) 00 - 44 (M - -r@l Ln 0) Ln (D iD 1:7^ rt - - 03 K) - 'o 0) C@ 0 @o co 0 K) -D (7) JIN w U) 0 03 0 0 Ln Ui co J@- a) PJ (D 0 0 W K) Ul Ul m C6 tv 0 m 0 0) 0 m :j 0 -4 C) OD TABLE 17 MALE POPULATION OF WILMINGTON CITY. BY AGE: JULY 1, 1975 AND MIDYEAR PROJECTIONS. 1980, 1985. 1990. 1995 AGE GROUP 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 0-4 4125 4077 4205 4661 5-9 3638 3469 4657 4682 4908 10-14 3726 3553 3410 4608 4662 15-19 3159 3013 3070 3141 4501 or) 20-24 2284 2177 2347 2675 3019 1 25-29 1945 1855 1884 2158 2601 30-34 17.16 1635 1642 1754 2105 35---9 1675 1550 1586 1723 40-44 1779 1696 1626 1586 1630 45-49 2032 1937 1880 1836 1822 50-54 2078 1981 1897 1850 1814 55-59 21,48 2047 1973 1910 1882 60-64 1864 1778 1725 1693 1667 65-69 1452 1384 1360 1358 1370 70-74 1172 1117 1069 1055 1058 75+ 1459 1391 1351 1327 1331 NOTE: Household counts are derived from the geographic base file of the Division of Urban Affairs, University of Delaware, and may not agree with updated counts based on the 1970 census. man'", M"04 owl 'am, 6C C-- :30 mm w0 C- 00 0 c 1, -j (7) a) (.n (.n tb Z. W (.3 K3 -4 ? ? ? ? C) rt + -j m 0 Ln r. I, W, G) ti m mrn tk (D D. W r. Ln -1 > z 010 F-6 w rl C@ w t@ (.n 0) -4 -4 Q .4 (.0 Ul LI) a) (3) It. -4 - w Ln K3 Pi (D 0.m @4 -j -4 CO Ln (D Ln w -4 @D (1) rl) -4 rl -j -j IN to (D 0) W -4 0 0) 0 C) 0 Ln (D 0 00 Ul m r1t rtw 00 1. D. t- 0 W t@ 0 0 0, (D (D 0 -n :r co r@ o) t, Go -4 -j to M NJ Z. 0 K) co C. 03m (D 0 0 w -j 0 m iz OQ H m m t2l m0 0 (IQ z V) C) b 11 (1 w G) (.n (3) 0) ID co -4 00 1-4 P) (D -j w 0 D. Fj Ln 0) " 0 Q rt P. C) N) M @j K3 @o (i LI) co oa co (D Ul N) 0 (7) ID (D m (.n (o cn n 03 P) rt cn Cj PI) w (1) w t, (11 (7) (D (D OD co w mm to -4 (0 m W --4 0) w 0 (o to (D L" -< In, -j Ln 1. 0) r@ -j 0 Ln LO 0) 0 0 -j 0 0 to P. co ID W D. co Ln - co (.n Ln L) 0H (@Om 0m ID :3 0 rt0 co t"b Fla (i w Z@ lb 11 Ln 0) co (D Lo ID -j w -,a 0 8 !- m L. ID " -4 ". LD -D -j Ln a) (D -4 K3 0 co N) Ln -4 0 w (D 0) 0 -4 -4 (D' 0 -r@ 01 - w 00 N) - w Ln Ln EOm m I:L rt H- 0 m:3 0 %.0 I-h -j o ncr m rh ot - C- a) (.n C@ G) C.) rl) m o 0 Ln 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 -4 1@ OM 4. w t@ w X. W J@ to 14 (D sh CD Z@ 0 rn > rn m Ul OD (A)M 03 (D Co. K) CY) to -3 0 14 k) ol wul (Oxo) @j 0 0 (a LWI 03 '0 rn. c M r. -4 V 0 C"o -h (D 0 z w 0 w w 0 -b N) w w N) 0 -4 13 w C- m 0 0 0 0 @4 "4 0 0 w 0 w Ln tn 0 m 0 0 0 rn M z X > m %0 -b 0) -4 m w @4 w 0 x 0 m w k) 0 -j m K3 OD -b (D 0 14 m G) K) fl) W 0 M, M 0 0 0 - tn to n C)J (D U3 00 Ln w -1 a) -4 03 (T) .4 cn o 8 M W Zn co W W. Ln w 0 w w t. w 4 w w -4 -4 w w ID > U) (0 OD L) K3 -4 Ul -3 0 0 Ln 0 m LO m 0 w -4 co a) K) 0 " to -4 -3 -4 (D Ln (D 00 0 (D (D Im -4 CZ) (1) 00 030 w -b -4 Db -4 -j -4 Ln aw, aw" TABLE 20 MALE POPULATION OF NEWARKCITY, BY AGE: JULY 1. 1975 AND MIDYEAR PROJECTIONS. 1980. 1985. 1990, 1995 AGE GROUP 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 0-4 879 486 585 683 711 5-9 931 1124 608 716 816 10-14 961 1162 1376 729 840 15-19 2304 .2784 31 50 3463 1697 20-24 2505 3029 3572 3937 4217 25-29 954 1153 1395 1645 1813 30-34 684 827 1000 1209 1426 35-39 541 654 791 956 1157 40-44 546 660 782 927 1099 45-49 579 .700 825 954 1102 50-54 511 617 738 984 55-59 365 441 534 638 744 60-64 280 338 407 489 582 65-69 175 211 255 307 369 70-74 133 161 191 226 267 75+ 162 196 233 273 317 TABLE 21 TOTAL POPULATION OF NEWARK CITY. BY AGE: JULY 1. 1975 AND MIDYEAR PROJECTIONS. 1960, 1985. 1990. 1995 AGE GROUP .1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 0-4 1740 961 1156 1348 1402 5-9 1862 2249 1214 1427 1623 10-14 1849 2235 2656 1409 1627 15-19 4914 594.0 6695 7357 3594 20-24 4840 5852 6960 7712 8331 25-29 1853 2239 2709 3222 3570 30-34 1247 1507 1823 2204 2620 35-39 1060 1281 1541 1853 2230 40-44 1164 1407 1657 1940 2269 45-49 1163 1405 1666 1926 2210 50-54 1033 1247 1493 1752 2002 55-59 792 958 1157 1381 1617 60-64 610 736 889 1070 1275 65-69 423 511 617 745 897 70-74 328 397 474 565 674 75+ 475 573 684 806 943 > C. C) c M Ln 44 J4 w C.) N) fla 0 0 r" Lrl ? ? T ? T -@ T ? 0 + @4 0 Lrl 41. -b w (A) m " (D Z@ ;o .4 to -b CD b W .4 w r. w 4 0 c UI r'. m z --- I ! a > K) w -cl Qn Ol 0) 4 OD 4@ w pj to w rn ,4 i (D (3) 0 K) W m m m w w 4 Is K) 0 0 b 4@ G) -4 00 cr) m w ul < 0 M 4, K) (i @b U 0) 0 -4 00 CD (j, -4 Ln Ln ID 00 Z@ W 4 0) w 0 to w -4 a) 0 0 K) m to OD C. z -4 G) w to Un K3 @4 K3 W co m co 4 0 rn n 0 z 0 < tn w fl) Ln Ln a) -i co to ID 0 (-,) " 0 w w (.0 (7) 03 Ln to t@ m m t_n M 0 M -DA " (.n W 0 m w -4 L" (D n co 0 a) 0) Ln w r. Ln 0) -4 co (D 0 U 0) (0 41@ a (,n LO Ln M JI -4 .91 -3 ID -4 0) N) PJ NJ Q M :@ (0 10 00 0 Al t. Ln 0 00 w 0) N) 0 0 N) @j 0 C) Lo LO co (1 0) 0) a) co (13 0) m -4 co w (D -4 a) 0) w (0 co -4 w m -4 0 w .9@ Ln Ln 17 V C. C) c -4 a) M Ln 'b K) -4 @no %n %n %n (? (n + -j (3) q) (.n @nb o w K3 K) to z, m *A (D -A (D A:i (D -b (D M. tD Z. 0 > z rn W W Ln L" a) @4 (Y) -4w K) (D (D 0 (A)0 A -4 M (A) 000 -4 K) rl) (1)wco .4 M 0 -b0 -4 -4 fl)W - (1)& W N3 C.) Ln Ln Ul 0 'o m c > M > m 0 0 0 -4 co -4w m (D 0 z K) Ln tj (0 CJw 0 w b co co co C- m 0 z < V) m .91M -40 W co a-) @n 112 -b cn Gj to (7) 4."0 Ln 0 0.w Ln Ln CD (.nW - ID th (D w Ln Ln 2 co --4 CD (A -4 00w a 0 (A 0 (D (0 Ln (Y) co -4 0 w CA) CO -4 (n 6D a) w qD .> Ln CD -40 W - M N) -j (D P. M 0 a to w V w 0 0 w w 0 "b 0" -C@ .4 -. - - 0 -1w -4- C@ 14 sh co 4. U) (D W -4 m b. Z. W CD -4 -4 0 0 (0 -3 0) M (D Ln Ln mw as TABLE 24 TOTAL POPULATION OF DOVER CITY. BY AGE: JULY 1. 1975 AND MIDYEAR PROJECTIONS. 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995 AGE GROUP 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 0-4 1928 3212 3272 3230 3223 5-9 2447 2793 4322 4048 3657 10-14 2521 2879 3172 4726 4259 15-19 2813 3212 3483 3629 5104 20-24 2269 2590 2957 3207 3344 25-29 1897 2167 2474 2683 30-34 1410 1608 1837 2098 2396 35-39 1544 1763 19i6 2074 2243 40-44 1327 1515 1720 1860 2004 45-49 1194 1362 1538 1726 1845 50-54 1041 1188 1344 1506 1677 55-59 Bil 925 1057 1,197 1342 60-64 759 864 954 1050 1146 65-69 505 578 659 727 800 70-74 394 448 505 566 612 75+ 592 675 754 826 894 947 m -4 M CD M Ul .4 b w (4 rn -1 En If I? T z + a) 0 LM tn 4 b w w pa w ;o u to b w b w D. w .4 w -h 0 m c P v -4 0 o o o m 0 0 w w w w 0 ;D CO CD W W 0 0 m 0 & .4 a &a tA U3 -4 -4 -4 m 0 0 -4 co 0 0 a 0 z (0 (D W 0 W (D o o w co w to 0' ;j K) ? (D m 0 w m 0 0 w E, w m ta 0 0 Ln 0 g b 0 5 m -4 4% -4 %D " 0 0 0 @4 -4 0 M W w 0 0 w co Ln rn IE to o o - - - o o o o co M OD SD co W 00 W 0 co (D (0 w 0 w ch ED to " (D W 0 -4 0 K) -b a) 0 0 13 00 -4 OD t@, 4b w @4 0 K3 c a) 0 Ln 4*@ to z 0 -4 to Ln (D (D (D CD LO W 0 0 co (D to (D 0 K) Xb M " : (A) -4 W 0 W - W -b 0 J@ - - OD w Ln M 0 cr) t@ u, c,) M .., .1, Ln 00 (D 0 Un cn 'o M M 0 M M -91@ M to Ln -4 0 Ln m C) M C) 0 z I? C) 0 Ln Z@ J@ G) (A) F13 K) 4. m m .9% UD X@w-9@ to il to P. (D Xb 0 .00- - - 0 0 0 - - - 4 M . . . . . . . LP w 0 0 w w 0 0 0 w 0 *4,w 0 w a 0 w .4 Ln 0)0(11 (3) K) Lq -4 (.n K)0 -40 w m 0 Ul0 w 0 C@ Z." ?Q rn (1) 03wU - co t.- W - " C@ K) Ul K) 03 0 M 0 m c r- (D 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 0 0 0 - - - 00 z txj to0 co to (D0 --0 OD,0-4 co0 0 OD0 -4a (D 0) 0)0w w to -4w 0 (W0 0 a 0 " M @;V M M W W aD ID W W 0) w 0 (D Ln 00w0 0 W z m :E (D m 0 0 0 0 - - - 0 0 - - - co 0 0 0 w 0 w w 0 0 0 w w 0 0 OD0 co- 0 0) 0) W kO K30 (D0 W 0 C: Ln0 M 3 fl) J@ J@ N) Ul C)wwn z (DW Ul w co (n (m3 -4 -< (D .4 4D 0 0 0 0 (0 a 0 0 0 w w 0 K) I? co 0 0 (00 0 030 0 K) 0) (3) w 0 " tj Lnw 0 .40 0 .4 tom Ln (A) co -4 11 ;@j @4 co tD D. G) Ln A. (Y)wto to K) 0) to to --4 (n 0 (D (0 (D -4 (Y) (P 0-bb K) rn -4 0 ul 0 Ul . T 1@ T ? 9 T ? 0 0 0) (P Lnb& W w Pi tl) CM, to tb (D b. to b(D .9@ (D -b 0 (A co C) m C) 0 C) 0 - - - 4, 0 0 0 0 0 .00 (D 0 (D W (A) o (.n 0 -b (A) (D -4 @; co Pi 0 Pi (Db -4 (D co (D (D (D a)011) 0 0 c 0 0 f- CD 0 0 0 0 0 iD '0 'too 0 *0 'D :@ @jw ? CD -4 t@ -bw(n Ul -4 (D b.-00 Z, G)8 -4W w 0 -4 th z ow ;0 Ln -4 -4 00 coo-030(J!@) 0")0Ww0OD Ul 0 m z --I OD 0 c 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 (D0 w 0 K) z 0) Lnw (1) K)ww-4 -4 (1) ;:0.1hw0z -.4 .h -4 (3) -4 CY)w(0 0) OD -4 ri0Ln (r) -< 0 tj -4 CD (D -4 co 03 @30to- to 0 zo, W - - - 0.- 10 0 0 0 a 0 (D 0 fn 0 0 w 0 (D 0 b m -4 Ln K)-Ul 41 a) (D OD w --4 m b w b .0 " w w 0 (D 0 0) Ln K) -4 to co0(n (D Ln00M0 (D Zn (D 0 m > C) 14 ci a) Ln Ln A w w K) m 0 0 ? ? ? T @? 1@ 0 8 C) + -4 0) m un Ln C@ J@l (1) CA) K) - - m 4 (D t. (D L. 0 r, to (D k, 4D -t@ 0 z c m > 0 lp co 0 m to 0 C) 0 -4 i Ln cD (D 0 0 OD Pi (1) (TI tb W (A) 0 (n 0) -4 run -4 en (n 0 OD w D. w ;o CD 0 w co m K) -4 0) (D Ul (3) -4 w (ri to w LO w Z@ 0 -4 (D 03 0 - 0 M co 0 co 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - CD 0 K3 (D 0) -j J.% 0) co LD co m P. OD 0) z 'o w K) M 41. X@ 0) Ul 0) D. w m (i ID co N o 0 0 0 0 w C) - X 00 13 -4 Oo 0 LTI m z -4 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 z 'Lo '(D '0 to K) K) -4 -j -4 0) 0 -4 w Ch co 0 co to 4. " 0 -< OD ID LO (fl 0) t-n C) I'll (P 0 (.) a) 00 Ln w 4. 0 a 1@ QD co 0 - C) 00 L 0 - kD 0 (D i Ln OD 0 0 0 to 0 0 0 LD 0 (D 0 0 03 In 0) rl) LO -4 0 m -4 -4 K) w co to co - b COK) @n 0 .r. ID w W 0) a) ca CF) (D Ln 0 m w CO (D a) (D (D tn TABLE 29 FEMALE MIGRATION RATIOS. BY AGE. FOR THE POPULATION OF SUSSEX COUNTY: 1975-1980 TO 1990-1995 AGE GROUP 1975-1980 1980-1985 1985-1990 1990-1995 0-4 1.2781 1.2781 1.2781 1.2781 5-9 1.3042 1.3042 1.3042 1.3042 10-14 1.0684 1.0684 1.0684 1.0684 15-19 0.9853 0.9858 0.9863 0.9868 20-24 0.9220 0.9246 0.9272 0.9298, 25-29 0.9352 0.9373 0.9395 0.9417 30-34 0.9443 0.9461 0.9480 0.9499 35-39 1.1062 1.1062 1.1062 1.1062 40-44 1.2785 1.2785 1.2785 1.2785 45-49 1.1358 1.1358 1.1358 1.1358 50-54 1.0827 1.0827 1.0827 1.0827 55-5b 0.9810 0.9816 0.9823 0.9829 60-64 1.0531 1.0531 1.0531 1.0531 65-69 1.0520 1.0520 1.0520 1.0520 70-74 1.0839 1.0839 1.0839 1.0839 75+ 0.9942 0,9944 0.9946 0.9948 m C) > -j M a) Ln Ln -b w CJ K) K) rn Ul ? T ? 1@ ? ? T ? T ? C) 0 + -j (7) 0) Ln Ul t, D. W G) K3 N) ID m z (D t@ (D J@ (D Z@ UD D. (D Z. 0 c m > 0 Ln Im 0 m 0 0 0 -n 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D a "Co N) rl) m T 0 (0 W M (D J:b U) W W (D CO Pb -j b -4 W a) (D W w Lrl 00 w w a) w CD (D w Ln rl) cr) -4 Ln -4 (o 0 m 0 w -C@ co 0 m V 0 'o c (D -q - - - - - - - - - 0 0 - - - CD . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 M M, - U " I z T (0 (D (J 8 (,) (D 0 00 Z, -3 b - w -4 10 co .4 -4 00 (_n -4 e) C.) w LD 0 G) Ln w co (1) -.1 Ul 00 w (3) 0) Ln LD Z@ co 'n Ln m -- - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 00 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ln c 0 0 0 0 0 (D 0 CD M - K3 @j z T -j 'Do w(n 8 O(D) Lwo Lz Ln to t' a w 0) w a) ID -< w Ln w co w -j (11 0 kD 0 0 un (D 4@ @D (D -- - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 w 1@1 tD (D -4 b -4 -4 (D m 0 0 w w 4b " co w w OD (D 0 w 0 w 03 w -4 0 - - - to to xb (D Ul LO CD rn m -4 (1) M Ln Ln t.N(A) (a K) -4 C? 0 M 0 o m I T ? T T . I 1@ @) I I C) 0 + -4 m 0 Ln t@ D. C.) (A) K) K) w 4@m z X. to t:lW (D (DN 0 c :0 13 > cl) -< C) 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 '(D 'M 0' W, '0 0' '(D @4 '03 (D (D m 0 0) m 0 '3" " j; , , 0 .4 0 Ln -4 to -400 (.n K) CD ul --I 0 (D b 0 0 -jM M 0 (D0 - 0 W 03, T 0 rn 2 .0 0 0 0 0 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 OD tij tD tDo (oo fo o tD a) -j tD (D tD z W Ln 0 ODw -N N)w m (D0 (1) LA m Ln K) Ln -c@ kD -D@ LnWtD0W0 Ln IE z (D -4 0 0 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 co 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. L" z ID 4D (D0w 0 " 0 0 w 00w (D a)- - cn -4 Ln W W M " 0 W M Z.0 -j -4 4. 0 (1) X@ K) -4 -40 W W 0 " --4 W 0 0 0 0 co (D N) ul) c. (1)0 -4 0 0 (D (0 tO0(D0 (a 0 w w (DW W 0 0 o -4w co W 0)0 C. N) co ID t. 1%) Ln Z600to K3 4. tj OD Ul Ln K) co 03 (D Ln 0 (D Ln m C) m C) 11 a) 0) Ln Ln J@b J@lwwK3 K) rn -4 In 0 Un , ? 0 z +-4 m a) Ln Ln w K) (D ZA m b, I'D b, (D t.wN(D t. 0 > -4 0 m M 0 0 - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 (D0 0 0 0 a W, M, 'M W* t. K)0J,.% 0) K) K) (1) Z. 4@ ri (0 0Ul (DW (D -j fli0Iliw0 0 r) C-DI t. OK) tjw (JI (3) r. 03 Ln0 K3 a)w -4 cr)W 00 m 0 '0 0 m C: to 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OD . . . . . . . . . . . . to0 V) to C.)0 0 0 m w -j m W ? (P 01)w0) 03 (13w Un to -4w m w co @O00 fl)0 ID w w m m 0 w -4 ko 00 4. (D cylwm 0 0 0 w 0 co Ln :E z (D 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 OD z to0 w 0 0 0 0 w 0 w 0 0 w i(i a) -4 LDwa) Z@ -4 -b K) -4 K) (D Ln K) cr) C.) -4"m (.1) -j @D CU (D (.n Liw (4 ca Ln (Dm -j C@ fli Ln 0 IQ to 0 (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 03 (Da (D to- 0 - C) (D to to (0 (D to- 0 (D (A) @DW0C.W t.W M M 0 W W -4W -P,m. Z, b. w 0)b t." W z -4 M CD -4 00 0 (A) -b to piw w 0 m (D Ln W 0 En (D tD 0 ED m o 0 -4 al 0) (A L" -D, ZA li (A) Pi rn 13 W (4 K3 0 0 V 0 CD C) (0, m 0 0- - - - - -4 '0 *0 'W *0 i@ 'Z i@ '-) 0' w 0 wC.) (Y) Ln m 0) (.n OD LVI -4 t. a)0-0 410 Ul lt@ ro 0 0) 1@Wco t. -4 K3 Z. 44w w 0 m 'o 0 IA c 0 0- - - - - 0 o- w 0 (D w0 0 -4 J@-0w to LA.) 03 (D (Dw(D 0 0) -40J4 a) Ul W o) (n -4 b. K) ID UI.T-4 0) -400cl z 0 mm -b cow a)w h)-0 0 r@ -4 co Ln 0 -n z m lz 0 0- - - - - 0 0 w 03 '0 -*w '0 K3 K) 9!@0 -4 ED LD @jw11)m(Dm (3) 0) S@ ki r@ -4 w Cj) LO rl) -i -j (Du00 -4 PO a) 0 0- - - - - - K) co 0 0 w (000 J@l -0 .-4 co -j -4 C, (-n -4wLnT-i Lo tjw(D (D 0 0 00 co h3w K3 w -1 w (D Ul I? to Ln m C) C) -4 0) (7) Ln Ln thN(1)wPi m ,4 Ul I? +-4 a)m 0 W, X, X, ciw Z. to -th to .4 to Z.WZ, (D (D 4b 0 z m > --4 0 Lq 03 -< C) m 0 0 0 a 0 -n ('D (*0 i- W, 'Pi '(D C,)D J@l W, 'to K') @,j 'M0 4 Pi EnW@j K) r@ 0) -4 0) @nW 0 m w tD -bo co co Ul Ln C) b 'D 0 w @4 0 4@0 00 CD m 0 m 0 (D > 0 0 - - - 0 0 0 to OD 0 i K) ;D0 @o K) (0 co t@ -j K) ri 0 -4m " m w I 0 IQ t@w w :@ a) z t_n [@ @D co 10 m cn0 m 0)w @o co Ln LTI0-1Ww (D0 b 0 rl 0 co 0 Ln -n z m .2E M 0 - - - a 0 0 co 0 (D0 w 0 (0 OD -tl k) .91 co fli iswwLn (0 0) -4mm0 0 Ci" z (n cc -jwLO (P Ln -j -4 t1io1@0 Ln co LO0 (D0 (D a) r@ W - Ln " w w 00 tj m -4 0) w -4 LO co 0 Ln (D 1:. 00mmw(D 0:)00m --A a)w 4-4 Ln -4 -4 Ln tow0-C@0co 0)0Pb (D - Ln CD LO 0 fill"' (D Ln 99 m m -4 (p cft ts (n Ch -C,ww C) c" o m .4 m M Ln (A 4. J@lwci -4 to 41 w wt@ w "Ch c z m OD -< C) rn 0 0 0 co Ln n Z@ !j0 -2 W -4 -4M '4 -Al L" to -b 0 -4 co w Z. K) w w cn tj0 0 Ul0 w -4 - -4 m 0 m 0 - - - - 0 0 - - - - CD 0 0 w '0 '0 '- '(D w w " 8 W w14 0 -4 0 0 .4 Ln co w "-4 co %D to Ij 0 aw)0 9. C. CD L" CD00 CO, z Ln 0 0 rn m 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - co . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ul 0 0 0 w 0 w 0 0 0 0 w 0 M ;: -@ " " @. " m " 0 m 0 M W'130 -4 Lnw t, LI)w (11 cl cl t@ -4w w Ln (D Ln 0) (D -C@0 0w Un 0) -4 Ln C) ID 0 4 to w 0 to 0 0 a 0w m w 0 0 0 -D@, 0 0 @; b-4 W -JM -4 Zi W -4 w o w 0 w w (D -4 -4 co (D"co 0 -4 14 w 0) w LA0 -4 (D0 a)w co ID to L9 m C) 0 -40 0) Ln Ln 9b r@ww ;o -j ix "I m L@ I? 1> Ul C) + -4 0) cn Ln Ln XN h.ww@j" 1@ m 4'. kobw 1@ to b. to X. to Z. to S. z 0 co C) m 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 0 w 0 0 @ow 0 -4 (D 0 z b. -J0 -4 M 0 W 0 0 ;o CD Ln 0@ Www -4 co -4 rn C: 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - CD -M :n 'D 'D @j '-o0 Ka0 W -W 0) 0 0 J@ cl"w -4w -4 - -4W 0 w m 0 @o 0) X. N)w"1@ co -4 t@ 0)w@o co 0) cc -4 Ln 0)a ko 0) -4- 0 co rn 0 0 0 0' 'a) 'a 0' 0 0 0 (1)bJ@l0-4 @c -1 (1 'o co jl@wN@ Jl@ N) N) PQ '" Cl) LOQ (D jhw0 Lil fl, co ():)w(L) (7) -4 to0co LO 0 0 - C) 0 --0 0 0 . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 0 C) Oo0(D (D C, -4W 0 0 --4 --j (D0M0 (D -3w " N> 0 0 L9M 0) (Du (31 N) D, co S@-m @j Lnw 00 OD cn K)0w(1) to CT) -4 -4 (D Ln to- Ln LO Ln -4 0) 0) Ln ul X. J@ w w Ln ? T ? T, 1@ T 1@ T ? + -j 0) 01 Ln LFf C@ r- (.3 w t1i N) @O b. to t@ ID X@ U:) p. 1 0 c m rn U) < 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 %n 0) (.0 0) (A) Ln -4 00 00 to (D to 0 (D (0 03 N -4 (D li (3) N3 Li to w r, (3) -4 03 03 0) @j > K) o) a) 00 0 w to rl) PQ 00 to w cn w Ln 03 0 a) 0 Ul 01 -< to > t74 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) C) t2l ;D m 0 -4 00 to Q (0 (D to to to to (D to :D I? w a) to 0) w t_n -4 Co Co (D to (D W @D to (D CO - -4 K) a) a) CD (0 w to co to w m w Ln co 0 co Ln -4 %n 03 (D 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 00 Ln -3 03 to to to (D (D (D to to (D (D to to to (0 m to m w Ln -j CD GO 0 w to to w (D (D 03 NJ -3 to -4 ey). N) w @O w 4% 0) -j M w G) to @j 0) 0) 00 to LO (D w 0) w (D ID to 0 to 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 (D 0 Ul -4 00 (D to to (D (D to to to (D tlo to to (D to 0) to (3) Cl) (D -4 03 CD (D LO to (D (D to LD m N) -4 (D li 0) " w to w 11 0) -11 G) OD 0) KI to on 0) 0) to w to pi 00 (D Li cn w (_n CD 0 (D Ul 6S C) -4 -j 0) 0) Ln Ln X@ r@ ci w K) Cn 03 rn 1@ T ? T ? T I? T ? Ul + -4 a) LT) ul rl Z, w w " @j ll (D X, ar- tD t@ x 0 C: 'a m (n C: > 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 Ln -4 co co ID LO ID @o @o (D @o (0 (D (D (D (D -4 cn LP ;; -3 t! ID, -4 w w @o W 0 0 (D w -j -4 0 -j I'D 0 " co 0 0 Ln -4 m 0) (D .r. Ln w (_n D. Ln pi fn w 0 W 0 (D co 0 Ln cu t7i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 r@ (7) 10 00 (1) 10 (D -,o @D @o (JO 0 @o (D 0 @O -j (7) ul -j 12 rl -j w co (o (D w (D @D -1 W -4 0 0 to Oo 0 C LTI -4 G) (3) 00 4@ (.n (r tn X, - Ul to (.n LI) Ln (D 0 iD m (D Ln -4 Ln (D co 0 LD 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0) -j a) CC) Lo (D Im LD tD LO (r) (D (0 (D (D (D 0) (.n -4 -C, --J W M ID 10 W @D (D ID -,I ol C) (D W L. Ul 0) @j Ul w J) w 0 @D Q0 0 ID Ul rD 0 0 0 0 0 0 C") 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO J% m -4 cr) Cn (D 0 (.0 (D @o (0 @o 'D (,C) (D Lo (D a) Ul L@ -4 @j 4a -4 CO CO W 0 U:l (D (D LD -j -4 0 -4 , (D. 0 fli 03 0 (D W -4 (T) (3) Q .91 Ln 03 Ln 4@ 0 K3 Ln Li Ln @D 0 @o (D (n TABLE 39 GENERAL FERTILITY RATES: 1975-19,80 TO 1990-1995@ Area 1975-1980 1980-1985 1985-1990 1990-1995 New Castle County 67.4 68.5 69.7 .70.8 Kent County 87.7 81.9 75.9 70.2 Sussex County 71.5 71.5 71.5 71.5 0 Wilmington City 91.4 91.4 91.4 91.4 Newark City 17.2 17.8 18.4 18.9 Dover City 67.7 65.5 63.2 60.9 Note: Rates are average annual births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 49. COASTAL ZONE 0 R ER 3 6668 00002 9340