xt70p26q0p1c https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70p26q0p1c/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1956 journals 042 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.42 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.42 1956 2014 true xt70p26q0p1c section xt70p26q0p1c Progress Report 42 October, l956 I
O O ¢
popula hon Eshmcz ies
f-OT KQ7’li`Z/lCé‘y COM7’lh€S  
A I
CIVIC! Economic A TQGS
]u ly 1, 1956
 Q'§Z"TLjf`“`" “`TLZZIZZZ“°I    
  `I p¢;rce::  _I percent  
·. I ·    ‘miml|" ||‘|§§  orfr    
 ***§»».-l!'!!!E¥· =§!ll1‘ re?    lI"?!? *1L };* *i? ii‘; ssrr,s I
    sesrrr  
  ¢,,»   4;z._=     -’-’ Sj§‘?‘?‘£":;?Q?-f;?;}}-Iii   `‘·    3* ‘·‘? igQ _l¥§i·¥If i ._r<  
 lglgllllllll   Ii  
¤lm>~l. _ ‘ _y i _    rrrst   tossr    
Average Annual Population Change by Economic Areas—April, l95O to July, I956_
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON

 Progress Report M2 October 1956
POPULATION ESTIMATES _F_LO§ KENTUCKY COUNTIES ·
A__1;I.p_ ECONOMIC AREAS
Jum g_, l956 .
Thomas R. Ford _
Department of Rurel Sociology J
Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station
O University of Kentucky _
Lexington i

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Vital statistics data used in the preparation of estimates
were supplied by the Division of Statistical Services, Kentucky
State Department of Health, Data on public school membership
‘ used in the estimate of migration rates were provided by the
Kentucky State Department of Education. Enrollment data for -
Catholic schools were supplied by the Catholic school superin-
tendents of the Louisville, Covington, and Owensboro dioceses•

 POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR KENTUCKY COUNTIES AND ECONOMIC AREAS
JULY 1, 1956 .
By Thomas R. Ford
A total population estimate of 2,968,000 for Kentucky as of July 1,
1956, reveals a relatively slow rate of population growth for the state since
the census of 1950. The 1956 estimate includes members of the armed forces
stationed in Kentucky but excludes Kentuckians in military service who were
H stationed outside the state. The comparable state population figure recorded
in the 1950 census was slightly less than 2,9h5,000. The gain of 23,000
represents a growth rate of about eight-tenths of 1 percent from the census
date of April 1, 1950 to the estimate date of July 1, 1956, or an average
annual growth rate of slightly more than one—tenth of l percent during the
period.
During the same 6%—year period, Uiere were more than h83,000 births
and approximately 172,500 deaths of state residents. The difference, or ·
natural increase, was about 310,500. This relatively high rate of natural
increase, which added almost 50,000 new Kentuckians each year, failed to
raise the state population total appreciably because of the heavy migration
of Kentucky residents to other states. The net loss of migrants from the
state during the period was estimated at approximately 288,000. About 10
percent of this loss is attributable to the entrance of Kentuckians into
military service and decreases in military personnel stationed in the state.
However, the net loss of civilian migrants to other states is estimated to
exceed hl,000 ann ally. ,
Loss of population through migration is a long—time trend in Ken»
tucky and is largely attributable to  he attraction of industrial job op-
. portunities in nearby states. During the l0 years between the census of l9h0
and that of 1950, Kentucky lost nearly 373,000 residents in its exchange of
migrants with other states. Data collected in the 1950 census of population ,
revealed that more than 81,000 persons who were living in Kentucky in l9h9
had moved to other states in.which they were residing at the time of the
census. More than 3h,000 of these had moved to the neighboring states of
Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois.
” How the 1956 Population was Estimated
There are various ways of estimating population, but the procedure
used to obtain the figures presented in this report is one developed by the
Population and Housing Division of the United States Bureau of the Census,
and is known as the migration—and-natural-increase method. Reduced to its
lFor details of the method, see the Bureau of Census publication
"Illustrative Example of a Method of Estimating the Current Population of
1 Subdivisions of the United States,“ prepared by Benjamin Greenberg. Current
Population Reports——Po ulation Estimates (Series P-25, No. 133) Washington,
D. C., March l , I956.

 - 2 -
fundamentals, the method involves the addition of births to and the sub- .
traction of deaths from the latest census population, and the addition or
subtraction of migrants, depending upon whether they have been gained or
lost. Migration is estimated from a comparison of the reported number of ‘
elementary school children on the estimate date and the expected number of
children of elementary school age surviving from Une appropriate age group
of the last decennial census. The difference between reported and expected
numbers of school children (with allowances made for nonattendance of some) ‘
is attributed to migration and allows the computation of a migration rate
for this age group, or cohort, which is converted through a correction factor
into a migration rate for the total population.
Known limitations of this method of estimate require that a note
of caution be introduced with respect to the interpretation of estimate
figures p esented in this report. At best, population estimates are approx-
imate calculations which are based on certain assumptions and which utilize
available data. How closely the estimates approximate the “true" situation
depends, therefore, upon both the soundness of the gssumptions and the ac-
curacy of the data used in preparing the estimates. As a general rule, the
larger the unit the more reliable the estimate, since local deviations from
assumed conditions tend to “average out.“ Following this rule, greater re-
liance can be placed on the population estimate for the entire state than on
the estimates for economic areas and counties. By the same token, estimates
for state economic areas are probably more reliable than those for individual
counties, although care has been exercised to take into account local condi-
tions affecting population estimatesa
Population Changes in State Economic Areas
State economic areas are groupings of counties which have similar
social and economic characteristics. The boundaries of these areas within
each state were drawn by the U. S. Bureau of the Census after careful study
of such factors as population characteristics, industrial and commercial ac-
tivity, cultural features, climate, land use, soil types, and other gactors °
related to the production of agricultural and nonagriculuirel goods., The
lThe migration rate of the school age group is multiplied by the
factor 1.2, which is recommended by the Bureau of the Census on the basis
of its research in developing the procedure.
2Because of differences in assumptions and procedures, estimates
presented in this report are not directly comparable to estnnates pre-
sented in earlier reports prepared by the Department of Rural Sociology.
3For further discussion and materials pertaining to state economic
areas, see U. S. Bureau of the Census, State Economic Areas, by Donald Jo
Bogue, Washington, D. C., l9Sl

 - 3 -
grouping of counties into a relatively few such areas greatly facilitates
analysis of changes taking place within the state. Kentucky's 120 counties, I
for example, were grouped in 1950 into 3 metropolitan areas and 10 non-
metropolitan areas, if areas 3a and 3b are separately considered. (See cover
for the boundaries of Kentucky state economic areas.) '
Of Kentucky's three metropolitan areas, two--Jefferson County and the
Campbell-Kenton area-have had substantial population gains since 1950, The
population of the third designated metropolitan area, Boyd County, was approx- ·
imately the same in mid-1956 as in 1950, Only 3 of the state's 10 non-metro-
politan areas gained population during the 1950-56 period, and none of these
had growth rates averaging more than 1 percent per year. The three nonmetro-
politan areas gaining population were the Purchase Area (Economic Area 1), the
Owensboro-Henderson Area (Economic Area 2), and the Inner Blue Grass Area
(Economic Area 7). Three other areas had relatively slight losses, amounting
to less Haan 1 percent per year: The Eastern Pennyroyal and Knobs (Economic
Area 3b), the Pennyroyal (Economic Area h), and the Outer Blue Grass (Economic
Area 6). The four remaining nonmetropolitan areas-the Western Coal Fields,
the South Central Knobs, the Cumberland Plateau Margin, and the Cumberland
Plateau--all sustained relatively heavy population losses.
Metropolitan Economic Areas
The highest area population gains within Kentucky were registered by
the counties most directly influenced by the economic growth of the cities
of Louisville and Cincinnati. The 6%—year growth of Louisville and Jefferson
county (Metropolitan Area A) since 1950 resulted in a population gain of more
than 135,000. At the time of the decennial census in 1950 the population of
Jefferson county was approximately h85,ooo. As of July 1, 1956, the popula-
tion exceeded 620,000, an average growth rate of nearly M.5 percent annually
since 1950. About 60 percent of the gain can be attributed to an excess of
in-migrants over out-migrants. However, there was also a substantial natural
increase during the period, the number of births being approximately 90,000
compared with only 33,000 deaths,
Kenton and Campbell counties (Metropolitan Area B) have been greatly
affected socially and economically by their proximity to Cincinnati. Their
combined population gain from April, 1950, to the middle of 1956 approached
2h,000, which raised the population of the two—county area to more than
20h,000. Most of the increase, nearly 15,000, was registered in Kenton coun-
ty, which also had the higher average yearly rate of increase, 2.3 percent
V compared to 1.9 percent for Campbell county,
Boyd county, which constitutes Metropolitan Area C, has undoubtedly
been influenced by the nearness of Huntington, W. Va., but this influence
does not appear to have resulted in any net population increase during the
period. The estimated county population as of July 1, 1956 was approximate-
ly the same as that recorded in the 1950 census, slightly below 50,000.
Nonmetropolitan Areas
The outstanding characteristic of population change in the nonmetro-
politan areas of Kentucky is the consistent loss through migration. None of
the 10 nonmetropolitan areas in Kenticky gained more migrants than they lost,

 - LL -
although individual ctunties did have net gains of migrants. In three of
the areas, however, natural increase more than offset migration losses, re-
sulting in net gains of population for the 1950-56 period. ,
_T_1le Purchase (Economic Area 1).-- .
The combined population of the eight coun-
ties of the Purchase increased by some 6,100
during the 1950-56 period. The estimated M
total population for the area as of Jul.y 1,
1956,. was more than 156,000, representing a_ c
total gain of slightly more than L; percent
over the 1950 population. Only four coun-
ties in the area actually gained population--
Ballard, Carlisle, Marshall, and McCracken--while Calloway, Fulton, Graves,
and Hickman counties lost population during the period. Percentage gains
for the period ranged from 21.6 percent for McCracken county to L;.6 percent
for Carlisle county. Losses ranged from h.9 percent for Graves county to
19.8 percent for Fulton county. .
The gains in Ballard, Marshall, and McCracken counties stem in part
from migration to the area as a result of the construction of the Atomic
Energy Commission plant near Paducah. However, comparisons of the 1956 esti-
mates with those of earlier years indicate a heavy outflow of migrants since
plant construction was completed. Carlisle county gained population despite .
a net loss: nf migrants, but the net migration losses from counties in the
southern half of the area were not compensated for by natural increase.
Owensboro-Henderson Area (Economic
Area Q) .--The population of Economic Area
2 increased by slightly more than 5 percent
from 1950 to midyear 1956, when the esti-
mated area population exceeded 135,000. How-  
ever, Daviess and Henderson were the only 4
counties of the five comprising the area that
gained population. Daviess county had the
greatest gain, nearly 8,000, a lh-percent increase over 1950. Unlike Daviess
county, Henderson county suffered a slight net migration loss and hence gained
population only through natu.ral increase. The population of McLean and Union
counties decreased by 5 to 6 percent, while Webster county lost nearly lh per-
cent of its 1950 population.
Western Coal Field (Eco- ‘
nomic Area la).--The Western-- % _
Coal Field Eunties comprise "°°'“"”`°°°
one of the areas of heavy pop-
ulation loss in the state. All  
12 counties of the area have lost 6 %
population since 1950, the losses
ranging from less than l percent f
(Livingston county) to nearly 22
percent (Ohio county). The loss
for the total. area was 10.8 per-
cent, or more than 20,000 persons,
which reduced the population from
about 189,000 in 1950 to about
169,000 in 1956. In adchtion to Livingston county, Hopkins, Grayson, and

 - 5 -
Breckinridge counties had relatively small losses, averaging less than 1 per-
cent per year. Lyon and Edmonson counties had average annual loss rates of
1 to 2 percent, while the losses for Hancock, Butler, Muhlenberg, Caldwell,
and Hopkins counties ranged between 2 and 3 percent annually, _
Eastern Penpyrgyal and Knobs (Economic
» Area 3b).--The Eastern Pennyroyal is an area of
considerable variation and fluctuation so far Z
as population changes are concerned. Two major
factors seem to be responsible for the wide
· differences in population growth within the
area: (1) the presence of Fort Knox with its
large military population, in Hardin county;
(2) the growth and attraction of the Louis- W
ville-Jefferson county Metropolitan Area,
which adjoins the northern boundary of Bul-
litt county.
( Although four of the seven counties in
the area gained population, the area as a whole
lost about 1.5 percent of its population between 1950 and mid—l956. Bullitt
county had the greatest increase during the p riod (30 percent), followed
by Taylor (17 percent), Meade (9 percent), and Larue (2 percent), The gain
‘ registered by Bullitt county seems clearly related to the expanding metro-
politan influence of neighboring Jefferson county.
Green, Hardin, and Hart counties lost population, with Hart sus-
taining the greatest loss, 17 percent. Green county‘s loss was approximate-
ly 9 percent, while that of Hardin county, which reflects shifts in mili-
tary personnel, was 10.5 percent.
Pennyroyal (Economic Area H).--
The population of the Pennyroyal de-
clined h percent from 1950 to mid-1956,
with all but one of the seven counties
in the area sustaining losses. Christian
county had a population gain of 9 per-
cent over its 1950 population, but this E
can be attributed to military personnel
stationed at Camp Campbell, since the
county had a small loss of civilian population during the period. The eastern-
most counties of the area, Barren and Warren, had relatively low loss rates,
averaging less than 1 percent per year. Average annual loss rates for Trigg,
Todd, Logan, and Simpson counties ranged from 2 to 3 percent.
South Central Knobs, or Eastern
Highland Him (Economic Area 57t--The
loss of population from the Eouth Cen-
tral Knobs was the second largest of @
all state areas, measured both in num-
bers and percentages. From 1950 to
. the magna of 1956 tha area had a net A°*'*
population loss of more than 25,000,
or 13 percent of its 1950 population.
While all counties in the area lost °°C,:$ w
population, the losses were consider- @
ably heavier in some counties than in

 .. 6 -
others. The average annual loss rate for Pulaski county was less than 2*
percent, and nine other counties had loss rates averaging between 2 and 3 ‘
percent per year.) Russell county lost population at an average rate of
more than 3 percent per year. Future population changes in this area will
be of particular interest as indications of the social effects of the Lake
Cumberland development project. A
Outer Blue Grass (Economic Area
6).--Of the 26 counties included in the Oc,
`Guter Blue Grass, only 6 gained in pop- 42*
ulation from 1950 to mid-1956. Even so, l
the loss for the area during the period   » °""‘“" ,
was only 3 percent, or less than one-   @
half of 1 percent per year on the average. ® Q
0f the counties that gained pop- (¢ @
ulation, Boone county had by far the ,, 
greatest percentage increase, nearly Lt? 0%.,,
percent above the 1950 population. This   ° A
was also the highest percentage gain of
any county in the state, although nu- @ ·
merically amounting to only about 6,000. @
Nearly L;,?00 of the net gain represented w
an excess of in—migrants over out-mi- l
grants. Since Boone county is adjacent
to Metropolitan Area B (Campbell and Kenton counties), the rapid increase of
population may be interpreted as further expansion of the Cincinnati metro- '
politan fringe. Similarly, the high rate of increase in Oldham county--a
l2 percent gain during the period--may be viewed as the expansion of the
Louisville-Jefferson county metropolitan fringe. More modest gains, rang-
ing from 2 to 7.5 percent, were recorded for Boyle, Franklin, Madison, and
Mason counties.
At the other extreme, highest loss rates for the 6%;-year period
were observed for Bath county (38 percent), Robertson county (30 percent),
and Owen county (20 percent). Average annual loss rates in excess of 2 per- ‘
cent were also sustained by Bracken, Fleming, Garrard, and Henry counties.
The remaining counties lost population at average rates lower than 2 per-
cent per year, and six of them--Carroll, Marion, Montgomery, Nelson, Pendle-
ton, and 'h·imble—-lost less than l percent annually. on the average.
Inner Blue Grass (Economic Area 7).--The
lnner Blue Crass was one of the three nofmetro-
politan areas that gained population during the W
postcensal period. The numerical gain was high-
er than for the other two (Area 1 and 2), but %
the percentage gain was lowest of the three
areas. Actually, only three of the eight coun-
ties in the area contributed to the 3 percent  
gain. Fayette county accounted for most of the
numerical increase, but the percentage increase
of population in Clark county was equally great--10.7 percent. The Mercer
county population increased some J.; percent over 1950.

 .. 7 -
Harrison, Jessamine, and Scott counties each lost more than 10 per-
cent of their 1950 populations, and the Woodford county loss almost reached
the 10 percent level, The Bourbon county population has remained relatively ·
stable, its trend since 1950 being slightly downward at an average annual
loss rate of less than 1 percent,
Cumberland Plateau Margin (Economic Area _
8),--The Cumberland Plateau Margin had a moderate
· loss of population during the period from 1950
to mid-1956., The net loss approached 19,000, or
approximately 8 percent of the 1950 population. °"T"
Of the 17 counties making up the area, only Clay @
and Greenup gained population. Both of these w
counties lost in the exchange of migrants with mumcs
other areas but offset their losses through @
natural increasea Laurel county's population
remained relatively stable, its 1950 and 1956   M“‘°#»,,'
populations being almost identical, Losses from B
the remaining lh counties ranged from less than
6 percent in Lewis county to more than 23 percent %
in Rowan county. _
In general the area reveals a typical Q
pattern of high fertility and heavy loss of mi-·
grants found in areas of small-·scale agriculture
and little industry,
Cumberland Plateau (@22-
nomic Area 25.--This area of
Eastern Kentucky has a. long tra- l
dition of high fertility and a  
somewhat shorter tradition of `
heavy out-migration, During the
past several decades population
changes in the area have been "“”“"‘n
closely associated with the eco- W
nomic conditions of the area's '
coal mining industry, 'I'here.can
be little doubt that the decline _
in mining employment is largely
responsible for the fact that mi·-· W
gration from the Cumberland Pla-»
” teau during the 1950-56 period  
was by far the heaviest in the
state, Under such circumstances,
migration is a way of maintaining
a relative balance between popu-
lation and economic opportunity.,
During the period from 1950 through mid-1956, the net loss of pop-
ulation from the 1}.; counties of the area exceeded 73,000. This decrease
amounted to about 1}.; percent of the 1950 census population for the area.,
All of the counties lost population through the exchange of migrants, yet
A two counties--Leslie and Martin;-·-had sufficiently high rates of natural

 - 8 - _
increase to compensate for their migration losses and thus gained popula- - .
tion. Leslie county had an ll percent gain in population during the
period, which was remarkably high-—considering its net migration loss-- ·
and justifies its reputation of having one of the highest fertility rates 1
in the nation. The gain in Martin county was about 2 percent over 1950, V
Six of the counties in the area lost more than 15 percent of
their 1950 population, and three others lost more than 10 percent, Only
3 of the 12 counties losing population had losses of less than 10 percent,
and those 3--Breathitt, Knox, and Johnson--all lost population at an average
rate of more than 1 percent per year, .
Counties with Rapidly Qhagging Populations (
Population statistics are useful not only because they provide needed
information about the numbers and characteristics of the residents, but also
because they reflect the social and economic conditions of a given areas Our
social institutions must constantly adjust to population changes if serious
problems are to be avoided, and a careful study of population trends may in-
dicate what kinds of adjustments should be made. Without adequate prepara-
tion, the social institutions in an area that is rapidly gaining population -
may be unable to meet the increased demand for services, On the other hand,
institutions in areas losing population at a rapid rate frequently face
critical problems of financing or staffing programs designed to meet the
needs of a larger population.
Figure 1 shows a classification of Kentucky counties into two major ·
groups: those that gained and those that lost population during the 1950-
56 period. Each of the two major groups has been sub-classified according
to whether the gain or loss averaged more or less than l percent per year.
The counties gaining or losing population at the higher rates are those most
likely to be faced with problems of social and economic adjustment. In Table
2 population changes and change rates are given for all counties, , . (
Counties with higg rates gf gain.-The four fastest growing counties
in Kentucky during the 19 0-56 period were Boone, Bullitt, Jefferson, and
McCracken, in order of rate of growth. These were also the only counties
whose populations increased at an average annual rate of more than 3 per-
cent. Five other counties grew at rates averaging 2 to 3 percent per year;
—-these were Taylor, Marshall, Kenton, Daviess, and Ballardo
Measured in absolute numbers of persons gained per year, Jefferson
county was far ahead, with an average annual increase of nearly 22,000 new
residents, Other counties with average gains of more than 1,000 residents
per year were Kenton (2,h00), Fayette (1,700), McCracken (1,700), Campbell
(l,hO0) and Daviess (1,300). (The figures shown in parentheses are average
annual gains rounded to the nearest 100.) All these counties either con-
tained large urban centers or were near expanding metropolitan regions, sub-
stantiating the observed trend toward urban concentration of Kentucky's pop-
ulation.

  @..\
J? / L'-   \
Y ·\   "`5 I \»`
4 _ _ p ~_   ,; fz   \.»\
-22%**2 *“'• x ···— f ‘ JP — . .
.gi=;   . Q/Wv   \ ·
+2*: » -V_i   al , q» $ •I& ».·¤s!: “  --`
  ,.V»-».¤-     :, -   ·i ; a ·--n¤=·.I·(• :4- -¤     —» ·-
    ,D`.  ;  Q lt ,t`>:   Q!  3 — ·
•;_;..E_E..._2_....;.v_ -_  v) v&J  g§__ f us Q Q! X ,
· .  ‘·=   ·’Iu·   ~< ‘—;   R `—   3 Q  -
  uq §,{\   Q ` § Q  W __  \> ,..  .`,q ·
  I- Ng —?!?I.¥ , \
  ,   • W x, `\ __5_ E` *
,..._._`_._:_. i ._ _ Q _- ini`.! . V K   ·“€
{XK `_   K   4  a ;1*;.,_";· L {_     ~
‘ >"*"  *°~ ‘""" ` *~   ‘·~‘=" `»· ‘    '`‘< >  gf-“ ‘
n) `/f·. ~ ¤ ;____ ¤ f » ;·/V".;   ’ ` ·
   §;—Jy.;<;—,;  '&s!$?&  .;
  , —»“ */Ys. ;P:·~\ W3 -     * · c
= (IS _ §I. ·R;¤·s. (_5f   _   ._/  \§ ` ¢\" 
iz ·. ‘· *`¤'_§§`·.,.  `~=‘ · ZT ·  "·/ *¤·x_•s\.._
=  `*?@`¥€#§ -»A ; »        E  
"· ‘· . ' . Z-:-"?·`·€— .   *=¤ ~ ,» /», ' ` '· _ §§:T3·L_· 'xg; 2 ·I 
 ,>1~a =s:§.§-=·‘ QR  ·.= .··v _ ‘V=‘ .   :'$$•‘•·   §7~$·:! 
.•I     » Rn .   - .#·,;7< ·—/~ 1    I- .`• 2.
Jl-}; 5.     . ` \   v' V   ‘       J' ._J' (Q
“ I ,_. - .;  Q   .,··- I . .    `° ¤=¥>¤i    ‘°  >~
·'·~»,···;v_· ::1  ·Q,.;¤ L ~`j_ Q/<.`¥ ` ` ` ~.`` . I : ¢¥¤· ·` ‘-•\ ,, *; ;" ""
      I  ’‘»           2
;>¢<5$¤"é°" ‘ a·-E ’ E'! .7 at iv in   · $31* ` *“‘·· "` ’ •.·é'¤v(s~' .•..
z;§'      3  ~Ag$   , ._ ·€*—°*>§;% ·*é:`\g g;
"‘”  ’* ·’;· $*0   I   4,%%* ~ ·A‘‘ “   ‘ ` ·w  `  O
  . - I -. . _: ·‘ ·- _ ,_ ’  ,; . ·   '• gii x ·
Yang; .:z;:5§ir%·¤» .      \“ LO I
4¤  ·“..     ·::.—             °”
*~.-;?.’a; S 1   ’·-.   I °" {$4} '·&§·- # .4 » ..
  ;:;_·;j.- Q ;   *1¢4&@.¢ ·   —
· ..rv .;::;*5  V x   . ·' ;‘ .  ~ -
  " · G ‘- b' —    .. , ..·. ...... —. .......  5 ‘:
      ._. J j U
,` _ ; .6- -·’ » 2:,     gf E I
 Y   ·_ gx 1]  "'i~Z· ‘   _)-‘_<‘ . g. >`
C  2 3‘-¢’,” J  >“° ¤¢?"
.— \··*~· -  1 * , #1; C
° ` -.·.2=·,,·*  "T* s/f°," · C
2   5;*42   ¤
0 : -%/,4/   d. 4 ·
~ 0 *· '°" ` .5 J B  **2:;; ¤’
5 5 5 q; g ¢z¤?*z __; ¤~
¤ 0 <> 5 ·· =   E
¤ m » ~— E [   m
IZ cn ¤·> ‘;_ ,.   >
S fi Q - 5 /   ;I‘    4
_ E 5 5 $0*   ·
Q, I I \   a rgl 4
g.   ..\ :5,% ;:},_
E.) lc ` I n.,} »_ Zélfj   LLJ
s ¤ I ‘ J “
(D I . _.i,   Z)
  u.

 - 1O - n
Counties with high rates 9; loss.-In contrast to only four counties ,
that gained population at an average annual rate of 3 percent or more, 13
counties had average loss rates greater than 3 percent per year. These 1
counties are listed below, with their average annual loss rates expressed
as a percent of their 1950 populations:
1. Bath (-6.1) 8. McCreary (-3.3)
2. Robertson (-M.?) 9. Owen (-3.3)
3. Rowan (-3.7) 10. Magorrin (-3.2) p
J1. Russell (-3.6) ~ll. 1»161~g..¤ (-3.2)
5. Bell (-3.6) 12. mma (-3.2)
6. Ohio (-3.5) 13. Harlan (-3.1)
7• L€'bCl'1€I‘ ("’3•)-L)
Since most of these counties had relatively small populations, high 1
loss rates did not necessarily mean heavy numerical losses of population. ,
Only five counties, all in the Cumberland Plateau mining area, had net
losses averaging more than l,OOO residents per year during the period: Har-
1an (2,200), Bell (1,700), Pike (1,600), Letcher (1,300), and Fieya (1,300).
(The figures in parentheses are average annual losses rounded to the nearest
lOO). Pike and Floyd Counties, it will be noted, were not included among the
counties with highest annual loss rates (in excess of 3 percent). .
Although a few exceptions may be noted, the estimates for 1956 bear
out the long-time trend of population change within Kentucky. Coal mining
regions, and areas of small-scale agriculture, both in Eastern and Western
Kentucky, are losing population rapidly--despite the high rates of natural
increase characteristic of these areas. Many of  he migrants from the farms
and mining towns appear to be moving to urban centers within the state, to 3
judge from the rapid growth of such centers in recent years. The relative-
ly slow growth rate of the state as a whole--far below what might be expected _
from natural increase alone--indicates that thousands of native Kentuckians
are leaving each year for what must appear to them to be greener economic
pastures in other states.

 Table 1.-·-Estimated Population Changes in Kentucky Metropolitan
and Economic Areas, April 1, 1950 to July 1, 1956
Census Estimated - Average
Ama Population, Population, Ni; ix`; ggggggtl Annual
Aprnl 1, July 1, l95O_l956 19504]-956 Change ~
1950 1956 (Percent)
Kenmmcy 2,9141;,806 2,967,520 + 221,71}.1 + .8 4+ .13
Metropolitan Area
A. Jefferson
County 11811,615 620,1186 +135,871 -1+28.,0 +11,1,8
B. Kenton-Campbell
Counties 180,1,50 201;,107 + 23,657 ++13.1 +2,10
C. Boyd County 119,9119 119,856 -=· 93 - .2 48
Economic Area
1. The Purchase 150,232 156,338 + 6,106 +» 11.1 + .,66 ·
2. Owensboro- `
Henderson 128,1125 135,130 + 6,705 + 5.,2 + ,83
3. Western Coal
Fields 189,1195 169,037 - 20,}.158 -10.8 -1.73
3b. Eastern Penny- _
royal & Knobs 122,0211 120,1112 ·- 1,882 — 1.5 - .211
L1. Pennyroyal 170,1611 163,3113 - 6,821 ~ -· 11.0 - .611
5. South Central
Knobs 193,608 168,1113 — 25,1165 -13.2 -2.3.1 .
6., Outer Blue Greee 326,191 316,2116 - 9,9115 — 3.0 - .118
7, Inner Blue Grass 201;,586 211,1131 + 6,8115 + 3.3 + .53
8. Cumberland
Plateau Margin 231;,619 215,919 - 18,700 - 8.0 -1.28
9. Cumberland -
Plateau 510,14118 1137,3112 - 73,106 -1},1.3 -2.29
%Less than 0.05 percent.

 - 12 ..
Table 2.-Es’c.i.1na·bed Populafcion Changes in Kentucky Counties, April 1, 1950 ‘
16 July 1, 1956 6
Census Estimated Net gain Percent Agiiiii 1
Counigy population popu1a“c;i.on or 1oss change change
April 1, 1950 July 1, 1956 1950-1956 1950-1956 (Percent)
`I
A11 counties 2,911,806 2,967,520 +22,711 + .8 + .1
Adair 17,603 11,681 - 2,919 -16.6 -2.7
A11en 13,787 11,827 - 1,960 -11.2· -2.3
Anderson 8,981 7,961 - 1,020 -11.1 -1.8
Ballard 8,515 9,616 +~1,10l +12.9 +2.1
Barren 28,161 27,611 - 817 - 3.0 - .5
Bath 10,110 6,112 - 3,968 -38.1 -6.1
2611 17,602 37,028 -10,57h -22.2 -3.6
Boone 13,015 19,073 + 6,058 +16.5 +7.1
Bourbon 17,752 16,812 ·-· 9}.10 - 5.3 - .8
Boyd 19,919 19,856 - 93 - .2 -
Boyle 20,532 21,353 +- 821 + 1.0 +-.6
Bracken 8,12}.1 7,015 ·==· 1,379 -16.1 -2.6 l
Brsscnitt 19,961 18,261 - 1,700 - 8.5 -1.1
Breckinridge 15,528 1}.1,71}.; ··· 81}.1 - 5.2 - .8
Bullitt ll,3h9 lh,792 + 3,bbB *30.3 +1.8
Butler 11,309 9,672 - 1,637 -11.5 -2.3
Caldwell 13,199 11,186 - 1,713 -13.0 -2.1
Calloway 20,117 17,607 - 2,510 -12.6 -2.0 ·
Campbell 76,196 85,033 + 8,837 +11.6 +1.9
css11s1s 6,206 6,192 + 286 +—1.6 + .7
Carroll 8,517 8,200 - 317 — 3.7 - .6
csrcsr 22,559 19,779 - 2,780 -12.3 -2.0
Casey 17,116 15,213 - 2,203 -12.6 -2.0
c1s;k 18,898 20,915 + 2,017 +10.7 +1.7 ,
Clay 23,116 21,111 +-1,295 + 5.6 + ,9
c11u+6u 10,605 8,781 - 1,821 -17.2 -2.8
crinnsuusu 10,818 8,980 - 1,838 -17.0 -2.7 `
Cumberland 9,309 9,100 - 209 - 2.2 — .1
Daviess 57,211 65,122 +·7,881 +13.8 +2.2
Edmonson 9,376 8,130 - 916 -10.1 -1.6
1111616 7,085 6,083 - 1,002 -11.1 -2.3
Estill 11,677 12,615 - 2,032 -13.8 -2.2
Fayette 100,716 111,557 +10,811 +10.7 +1.7
Fleming 11,962 9,811 - 2,118 -17.7 -2.8

 - 13 -
Table 2`(C0nt1nued) »
Census Estimated Net gain Percent Averaii
County population population 5 _or 1oss change agnu
April 1, 1950 Joiy 1, 1956 1950-1956 1950-1956 ° ang';
{percent} ·
Fl¤y0 53,500 115,229 -· $,271 -15.5 -2.5
Frankiin 25,933 27,860 + 1,927 *·7·h *1.2 ,
Fulton 13,668 10,956 - 2,712 -19.8 -3.2
Gallatin 3,969 3,587 — 382 - 9.6 -1.5
Garrard 11,029 9 ,3611 - 1,665 -15.1 -2.11
Grant 9,809 8,851 - 958 - 9.8 -1.6 ‘
Graves 31.3611 29,816 ·- 1, 51.8 ·· 11.9 - .8
Grayson 17,063 l6,h30· — 633 - 3·7 · -6
Green 11,261 10,236 - 1,025 - 9.1 -1.5
Greenup 2h,887 27,7h6 + 2,859 +11.5 +1.8
Hancock 6,009 h,986 ~ 1,023 -17.0 -2.7
Hardin 50,312 1