xt7nzs2k8125 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7nzs2k8125/data/mets.xml Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1955 journals 031 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.31 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.31 1955 2014 true xt7nzs2k8125 section xt7nzs2k8125 Pr¤gr•u Roport 31 ·I“IY I955
P / t' E { z
{ K t L C t'
Juno 30, 1955
· pOpU|_AT|0N KENTUCKY POPULATION BY ECONOMIC AREAS, I940·I955
Em I
F` LEGEND
=\
:N ` .
.··\ ,·
_ 500,000 Q
A ;s A
g Q I94O I95O I955
is ‘———-V--’ am- gg
I ` · U. $.6c s s m°I° N
400,000 EV; E " “ E
R g
A :Q § _` P `
s000o0 S N I
· ;N
N
L: ' ` I ` 1.4 v: `
¢@ N _ M Q it :§ ¥§
AA A M ¢s¤:·‘¤
2¤¤.¤¤¤ em ia BQ ia N ` w N •: N
;¤N ·§ . zz -=N gv »%§ EN im Am
` :.,1 N ·s;N in § iv; ` ,4 ii N ‘1 ` wi N we N
.• N . . » N N ¢ N s
im 2&§2&§¢zQ§z§E§§$§
sw; ,2pN ;..E%NB%N?%`;•NE·`y`
Anzo §3€N;·•§i§?§;:`E:‘§’?§§$\§•§EE`{N
§%N§¤` MN€*N§!•N€¤N€$•NA¢N5Z·N»vN% 黕N
;%N¤#` m\¢N··¢NmN¢¢N»vNs\¢¢Nv ·s•N
·’: :=* ·· A:. N A ;• N N v ·— N ~ · N
S =2 5- z; 5 , *· A ; •# ·
O ASE
A a c I z Bu au 4 5 6 v a 9
;.Y;_/
METROPOLITAN economic AREAS
AREAS
(For Economic Aran Mop and Index of Counties, Seo Pogo: I3 ond I4)
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION _
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON
PROGRESS REPORT 31 JULY, 1955
ESTIMATED POPULATION `JUNE Q, 1Q§§, NATURAL INCREASE AI_~1_'Q_
% ESTIMATED Nj MIGRATION APRIL _1_, 12jO, TQ
_JU__l)_ jg, 12jj, KENTUCKY, @1 COUNTIES
By Paul D. Richardson
Department of Rural Sociology
Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station
University of Kentucky
J Lexington
The State . U
According to an estimate made by the Department of Rural Sociology,
Kentucky's total population lf as of June 30, 1955, was 3,001,000. The
estimate shows an increase of 56,000 over the 1950 U. S. Census total ‘
population figure, 2,9UM,806. This represents a gain of 2 percent over
the 1950 population.
The net loss through migration for the period of a.litt1e more
than 5 years was 210,000, an annual loss of U0,000 persons. The net loss
through migration, however, was more than offset by the gain in population
through natural increase. The excess of births over deaths amounted to `
266,810 2/ for the period, or 50,800 per year.
lf Includes U. S. Army personnel stationed in Kentucky and excludes
military personnel with preservice residence in Kentucky.
2/ The vital statistics data were provided by the Division of Statistical
Services, Kentucky State Department of Health, 620 South Third Street,
Louisville 2, Kentucky. The data for the first six months of 1955 are
from preliminary reports, with adjustments made to allow for incomplete-
ness of these reports. The State Department of Health will publish
county estimates later based on complete 1955 vital statistics.
- 2 - n
The loss of population through migration is, of course, not a new
o development in Kentucky; rather it is a continuance of a long—time trend, and
is to be explained, for the most part, by familiar factors. There is a con-
tinuing movement from farms to cities, from agriculture,to industry. Because
of Kentucky's relative lack of industrial centers, compared with nearby states,
thousands of Kentuckians have moved to business and industrial jobs outside
the state. This movement has become so great that in spite of a comparative-
ly high rate of natural increase the state's population has declined.
Population Tgggd lQ§QygQjQ
During the last intercensal period, April 1, 19MO to April 1, 1950,
Kentucky's population increased 95,061. if In this decade there were 752,UMO
births and 28M,39l deaths, an excess of births over deaths of U68,0M9. If
Kentucky could have held this natural increase, its population in 1950 would
` have been 3.317.79Q. lf However, the net loss of 372,988 through migration
during the decade drained off most of the gain through natural increase so
that the state's population in 1950 was 2,9MM,806. gf
This represents a gain in Kentucky's population during the intercensal
decade of 3.3 percent, compared with a 2 percent gain during the past 5 years.
The average annual gain through natural increase, l9MO—l950, was u6,8o0,
while during the past 5 years the annual gain was 50,800. The average
annual net loss through migration for the l0—year period was 37,300, and
during the past 5 years it was M0,000.
1/ Based on the adjusted l9M0 population (2,BM9,7U5).
gf Cf. Brown, James S., and Richardson, Paul D,,Ghanges in Kentucgy's
Population by_Counties —— natural lncreaee gpg ygt Migration, RS—5,
Department of Rural Sociology, University of Kentucky, Lexington,
Kentucky.
- 3 -
These comparisons reveal an apparent continuation in the l9MO—l95O migration ‘
trend in the state as a whole.
Developments within the state itself have influenced shifts and changes _
among the various sections. Among these developments are: increasing inportance
of Louisville as an industrial center, the construction of the AEC plant near ,
Paducah and other industrialization in the Purchase, the decline of employment
in coal mining, changes connected with Army camps (Fort Knox, Fort Campbell, U
Camp Breckinridge), the mechanization of agriculture, other changes in agriculture U
(such as the shift to grassland farming, development of new crops and increasing
or decreasing emphasis on old crops), the higher birth rate and the arrival _
at school age of the so—called war babies. The various sections of the state
obviously have been differently affected by these developments, and in the
following discussion of changes in the areas some of these differences will d
be noted. `
Spggestions fp; Inteppreting Thg§g_Estimates l
While these estimates have been prepared as carefully as possible,
it must be emphasized that they are only estimates and as such are subject to V
the limitations of the methods used in reaching them. if The basic data for
these estimates were school membership figures, g! and the basic assumption
lf The procedure followed in making these estimates is basically Method II
as illustrated by Norman Lawrence and Benjamin Greenberg in Current
Population Reports, Series P-25, No, 20, "Population Estimates," Bureau
of the Census, Washington 25, D. 0, For com ents on the procedure and a
brief summary of the method used in arriving at the state population
estimate see page 20,
gf Supplied by the Kentucky State Board of Education, Division of Census and
Attendance, Frankfort, Kentucky.
- 4 -
on which these estimates were made was that the proportion of children 6 - lj,
I or 7 - lb years of age lf in grades 1 — 8 was the same in 1955 as in 1950. This
is probably a safe assumption in the case of large areas (such as the United
States or Kentucky as a whole),but it is less likely to be true when small
populations, such as those of counties, are estimated on that basis because
relatively small population shifts of certain kinds greatly affect estimates
based on school enrollment or membership figures. For example, if a dispro-
_ portionate number of single men, single women, or childless couples enter
or leave a county such migration is not reflected in school enrollment figures.
The estimate of the county's population based on school membership, therefore,
may well not indicate an increase or decrease as great as there actually has
been.
( Persons interpreting these county estimates, then, need to ask them-
selves: Is there anything in the county's situation which might make estimates
based on school enrollment figures less valid than in the usual case?
Economic Areas gf Kentugky 2/
The various sections of Kentucky have been differently affected by
shifts in population during the past 5 years or so, as an analysis of the changes
in the three metropolitan areas and the ten economic areas 3/ shows (Table 1).
1/ The reason for using two age groups is explained in the notes on computation
of the estimates, which can be found on page 20 ff.
gf ”State economic areas are relatively homogeneous subdivisions of States.
They consist of single counties or groups of counties which have similar
economic and social characteristics. ... In the establishment of State
economic areas, factors in addition to industrial and commercial activi-
ties were taken into account. Demographic, climatic, physiographic, and
cultural factors, as well as factors pertaining to the production of agri-
cultural and nonagricultural goods, were considered." Donald J. Bogue,
State Economic Areas, U. S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, 1951, page l.
3/ See Figure l for the Census Bureau's delineation of the metropolitan areas
and non-metropolitan economic areas in Kentucky.
- 5 - »
All 3 metropolitan areas and 6 of the 10 non-metropolitan economic areas
gained in pOp'Ll.].&.‘blOI1. The p€1‘C8I1‘bagB J2! change in e,]_]_ 13 economic e_reg_5
ranged from a gain of l5 percent to a loss of 15 percent,
a. Metropolitan Economic Areas
The 3 metropolitan areas had a combined gain of almost 100,000
in population during the 5-year period. Metropolitan Area A (Jefferson
County) had a larger gain, percentage and numerical, than any other e
economic area in the state. The 15.5 percent gain in this Area amounted A _
to a population increase of 75,000. The percentage gain in Metropolitan
Area B (Canpbell and Kenton counties) was slightly less than 10 percent,
while Metropolitan Area C (Boyd County) gained well over l0 percent.
All 3 metropolitan areas had increases through net migration.
Metropolitan Area A, had a net gain of 28,000 through migration. The
other 2 metropolitan areas had a combined gain of only 5,000 through ·
migration. The gain in population through natural increase (i.e., excess
of births over deaths) boosted the percentage gains considerably in all 3
metropolitan areas, Metropolitan Area A had a natural increase of U7,000,
while Metropolitan Areas B and C had a combined natural increase of
approximately 20,000.
b, Non—metropo1itan Economic Areas
Even though 6 of the l0 non—metropolitan economic areas gained
in population during the past 5 years, only 3 of them had net gains
through migration. Gains of this nature in two of the economic areas
lf Throughout this paper percentages are given in terms of the 1950
population.
- 6 -
(3b and M) are attributed to changes in military personnel. The only
other economic area to gain more than it lost through migration was
Economic Area 1. The other 7 economic areas lost more persons through
· migration than they gained.
Economic ggee 1 (The Purchase Area) has increased its population
by lb percent since 1950. Half of this gain (10,700) was through natural
increase and the other half through migration. The total gain in population
F in Economic Area l amounted to more than 21,000, bringing the total popu-
lation to 172,000. The rather remarkable net gain through_migration was
due primarily to the construction of the AEC plant near Paducah.
Four of the 8 counties in Economic Area 1 gained in population
from 1950 to 1955. Three of these U counties gained through migration
` as well as by natural increase. The largest gain in population during
the period (U3 percent) was made by McCracken County. The other 3 counties
increasing in population in the Area were adjacent to McCracken. The
V counties with the greatest losses in population (Calloway, Fulton, and
Hickman) were the most distant from the AEC development project. Calloway
County, with an 18 percent decrease in population, lost heaviest in the
Area, while Fulton and Hickman, with losses of approximately 10 percent,
were next.
Economic Agee g (0wensboro—Henderson Area) made a modest gain in
population from 1950 to 1955, but only because the natural increase more
than offset the net loss of 5,700 through migration. The percentage
increase was a little more than M percent. Although both urban counties
in the Area, Daviess and Henderson, increased in population during the
period, Daviess had a net loss of 2,200 through migration. Henderson
- 7 - · I
County had a slight gain in this respect. McLean County was the only
other county in the Area with a net gain through migration. In other
words, 3 of the 5 counties in the Area have increased in population since
1950, and 2 of these had net gains through migration. ·McLean, with an
increase in population of l8 percent, had the largest increase among the U
counties in the Area.
Economic Aggg_3g (Western Coal Field Area) lost in population
during the 5—year period. There were 3 other economic areas, however, _
which have had greater losses since 1950. Nine of the 12 counties in
the Area decreased in population, This means that the natural increase
in these counties was not great enough to offset the net losses through
migration. More than half (5) of these 9 counties had losses of more
than 15 percent. The 3 counties having an increase in population
(Caldwell, Hopkins, and Lyon) had slight gains through net migration.
Natural increase, however, accounted for the hulk of the gains in these
3 counties. Changes in population in Economic Area 3a ranged from a gain
of 9 percent in Lyon County to a loss of 18 percent in Edmonson County.
The losses in this Area were primarily related to changes in coal mining,
although changes in agriculture were also of some importance.
Economic Arga jh (Eastern Pennyroyal and Knobs Area) had a sub-
stantial gain (9 percent) in population between 1950 and 1955. A major
portion of this gain was due to changes in military personnel stationed
in Hardin County. Including these military changes, Hardin County had
an increase in population of 19 percent. Both Bullitt and Meade counties
had slightly higher gains, which amounted to approximately 20 percent.
- 3 -
Larue County had a substantial gain of 12 percent, while Taylor County
I just about held its own. The other 2 counties, Green and Hart, had rather
heavy losses in population of 19 and 15 percent, respectively. All of
the counties showing increases in population had net gains through migration.
Economic Agga Q_(Pennyroyal Area) had a larger gain (lb.5 percent)
than any other non—metropolitan economic area in the state. Christian
s County, with the spectacular increase of 50 percent in population, was
A largely responsible for the remarkable gain in the Area. The gain in
Christian County, as in Hardin County, was due to changes in military
personnel stationed in the county. Four of the other 6 counties in
Economic Area Ushgwed gains in population. Three of these U counties
(all but Simpson), however, had net losses through migration. In other
words, natural increase in Barren, Logan, and Warren counties offset losses
V through migration during the period. Todd County had a loss of 5 percent,
while Trigg County had a 17 percent loss in population.
Economic Agea 5 (Eastern Highland Rim or South Central Knobs Area)
had a heavy loss C5 percent) between 1950 and 1955. Lincoln was the only
one of the 12 counties in this Area that had a gain in population during
the period. The gain in Lincoln County was slight (2 percent) and due
to the fact that the natural increase of 1,500 overcame the net loss of
1,200 through migration. Natural increase in the other 11 counties failed
to offset their losses through migration. The losses ranged from 5 percent
in Allen County to 31 percent in Metcalfe County. There were 7 counties
having losses of more than 15 percent during the period.
- 9 - A s A
Economic Arga_Q (Outer Bluegrass Area) gained slightly (2 percent) j
from 1950 to 1955. There was a wide variation in population changes in E
the 26 counties of this large Area. The changes ranged from a 26 percent »
gain in Boone County to a lb percent loss in Marion County. Fourteen of
the 26 counties gained, while 12 lost in population. Of the lb counties
gaining in population, 5 would have lost but natural increase in these
counties was greater than their losses through migration. Six of the
12 counties losing in population had a decrease of more than l0 percent.
Oldham, Shelby, and Trimble counties showed gains of more than 10 percent. r
On the whole, the Outer Bluegrass Area continued its l0ng—time trend of I
relative stability in population size. l (
Economic Arg; 7 (Inner Bluegrass Area) had a substantial increase
during the 5—year period. Six of the 8 counties showed an increase in
population, although the increase in two of the counties (Scott, 2 percent,
and Woodford, 3 percent) was slight. Bourbon County just about held its
own with less than a 1-percent decrease, while Mercer had a 5—percent loss. `
Only half of the counties gained through net migration. Fayette with a
16—percent increase, had the largest gain in the Area. The gain in Clark
was a little less than 10 percent, while Harrison and Jessamine gained a
little more than 10 percent. The same stability in population size, noted
in the Outer Bluegrass Area, is evident in the Inner Bluegrass Area.
Economic Arga Q (Cumberland Plateau Margin Area) had a decrease
of 17,000, amounting to 7 percent of its 1950 population, during the 5—year
period. Only 3 of the 17 counties (Carter, Greenup, and Lawrence) in the
Area gained in population. Losses in the other lb counties ranged from 3
percent in Elliott and Powell to 30 percent in Morgan County. Greenup
- 1Q -
County, with an increase of lh percent in population not only made the
largest gain in the Area but was the only county of the 17 to have a
net gain through migration. The other two counties having gains in
population had natural increases large enough to overcome the net loss
through migration. Nine of the lb counties decreasing in population had}
losses of more than 10 percent.
This Area with a great preponderance of families on small farms
has lost a steady stream of migrants during the past 15 years. Many
of these have probably been lost to the Ashland—Huntington Metropolitan
Area, and more recently, to the AEC development in nearby southern Ohio.
Economic greg 2 (Cumberland Plateau Area) had by far the heaviest
numerical, as well as percentage, loss among the economic areas during
the past 5 years. The Area decreased 76,000 during that time. This heavy
loss in population occurred in spite of the high rate of natural increase.
I There was an excess of births over deaths during the period of 62,000.
The net out—migration not only cancelled out the gain through natural
increase but reduced the 1950 population by another 76,000. In other
words, the net out—migration (138,000) was more than twice the amount of
natural increase for the Area.
Only l of the lb counties in this Area gained in population
during the past 5 years. Even this county, Leslie, had a net loss of
2,500 through migration, but the natural increase of 2,800 was great
enough to more than overcome the loss. In the lj counties losing in
population during the period the losses ranged from 5 percent in Harlan
County to 22 percent in Perry County. Ten of the counties had losses of
more than l0 percent, and 6 of these l0 counties had losses of approximately
20 percent.
- 11 -
Changes ig_Population §y_Counties
The changes in population, including natural increase and net
migration, are set forth in Table 2, Forty—eight of Kentucky's 120
counties, or no percent of the counties in the state, showed gains in ,
total population between April 1, 1950, and June 30, 1955. l! More than
half of these counties (32 counties) made net gains through migration.
Said another way, 32 counties made gains through both migration and i
natural increase.
Five counties in the state have gained 25 percent or more since l
1950; Ballard County gained 25 percent, Boone gained 26 percent, Christian —
gained 51 percent, McCracken gained M3 percent, and Hardin gained 19 ·
percent. 2/ Seventeen of the remaining M3 counties making gains during
the period had population increases of 10 percent or more,
As would be expected, Jefferson County had the highest numerical
increase (75,000) in population during the period. Christian, Fayette,
and McCracken were the only other counties in the state having a popu-
lation increase between 1950 and 1955 of more than 10,000, When increase
in population through migration alone is considered, Jefferson County
with a net gain of 28,000 also had a greater gain in this respect, than
any other county, Christian and McCracken counties, with a net gain
through migration of 17,000 each were the only other counties gaining
more than 10,000 through migration,
1/ See Figure 2 (page 19) for map indicating counties in Kentucky showing
gain, loss, or no change in population during the past 5 years,
2/ The reasons for these gains have been discussed before under Economic
Areas 1, U, and 6,
- 12 -
Among the 72 counties with a loss in population since 1950, more
than half (M6 counties) lost 10 percent or more, 16 lost between 5 and
10 percent, and 10 lost less than 5 percent. Metcalfe County with a
" 31 percent loss in population had the highest percentage loss. Pike
County with a loss of 12,000 had the greatest numerical population
‘ decrease among the counties.
The greatest loss through migration, without considering gains
by natural increase, was also in Pike County (22,000). Other counties
having net losses of over 10,000 in population through migration were:
` Floyd, 17,000; Perry, 16,000; Bell, 15,000; Letcher, 13,000; and Harlan
12,000. It is interesting to note that all 5 of these counties had a large
percentage of employed males, lb years of age and older, engaged in mining
in 1950. Changes in mining undoubtedly accounted for a large part of the
` heavy losses in these counties.
The map on page 19 indicates clearly that for the most part the
i ‘ counties that increased in population during the past 5 years either
contain or are clustered around large population centers. With the
exception of Bell County, all counties having cities of 10,000 or
- more persons gained in population l/ between 1950 and 1955. It is
evident from Figure 2 and the discussion of 1955 population estimates
that the long—time trend of concentration of the state's population in
urban areas is continuing.
1/ The gain in Franklin County was less than 1 percent,
.. .,.,
"' ‘ 7; V V f.CZZj‘ `
V· _
Q`: g ,
O -_‘_ ; -_»· ,;; ‘>Aq 3; In fu
Y V ‘· ¢-.V. .’’. ` “‘ ·¤
"§— A A S `Q ,
\< 1 ·_; ~ si ‘“ "‘ '
· §` \`—·¤‘*7"/ :4, ..,,:,J_ Q) Q
\ \ \§: g, my
T*¥;f’7`T ,’~`_· T » °’ § ,3
. \ \» * . `Yrm ·, · M wz —"¢9 *4. / 5 an
® €0 \@* >““’ze· , ·» 1 ; ;, .yg,¤ / .¤ ··-4
.\· \~\¢g>’.."1. V —r‘,. ` -’`, »’·.ig,, =
` , Z ;"‘ ;
$? § _g E W
ec;. x Y q / ° 13 N
·¢€=E=E* » ~ 1 z` 5 $1 ,
· f * Q @2*
m r Ig \. _ E E &§_ ,
' ·.;:; ;:§:§;Q·Tjf]“: \ , °’ Z
Z§:§:_ · {ifi - V / •· 5 $
q§;§;{;‘ z _ A.# : ;;?{%§g;;;g s. p .... _
\;;#% » . 1, · .A.4 J 2* ’¤ -§ ,
Z `- ‘ I »-lu; E g
<§=t LA ,% $3 EQ O `
.-; ~AA‘W ° ` .`‘ I `14· 6 Q
° ’ »_A-‘·; , ·Q~=lE¥‘,?E§$ ° 3: `
°•· · 3 H V fil E 'E S
) ‘ `;i;¥;i;?;?i¥i?1-‘ ei? .·.`‘ ' ‘ u_· 8 §.E
" .;.;.;._.1.]‘ .‘_r' _ _·____ I -2 ¢"" ` 4 ` _,
·,‘,f·Z·Z·.·"{Q;r VW _·‘-’ [ _- ‘ ,54
"I Q ` ’, »` iii? -3 *’ ‘"’*
° °Z °: ¤ \ s i *.3 .5 .
BQ L Q ` M ~ ,9 gg
9* - . *Li° '}`N ""J 5 8
p••’q . V‘·:;.;§j__ ` . — 2
gig y W * ` "" gn fi 8
tgtgti \ / =;??gF¤ »’’ ·j¤¤ : ————§ 5 $3 8
Hgh :*:3 5 1`Y 2*3 *.3 :
¤.; ···» ¢ » — —# “ JZ!
5 ,_, ~—_ ~ »=»;:>$E> . *’ P
E `-* OI Q O` O` _ 2;:% j : A 0
E O •§ rc O: *5. L\‘;;x,.,,_ i CQ ga g I
gslg · . = g *. =¤ ,,
2 ~• “` O H " B ·$-°·
$*3 i 2 *3 B
_ A., 1 ‘ ad §`§
" JJ $4
* 21 .2*. .5
' — lb - · . '
METROPOLITAN AREA A Economic Area 4 Economic Area 7
· Jefferson - Barren ‘ Bourbon’ ‘
Christian Clark .
METROPOLITAN AREA B Logan Fayette -
’ Campbell Simpson Harrison
. _ Kenton Todd Jessamine
• · Trigg Mercer l
ol M TROPOLITAN AREA C Warren Scott
. ‘ Boyd _ Woodford
_ A Economic Area 5 4
‘ Economic Area l Adair -
l Ballard A Allen .
s Calloway Casey Economic Area 8
A Carlisle Clinton Carter
- Fulton Cumberland Clay
Graves Lincoln Elliott
Hickman Metcalfe Estill
A Marshall Monroe Greenup
i McCracken Pulaski Jackson
- Rockcastle laurel
Economic Area 2 Russell lawrence `
r Daviess Wayne lee
H€¤d€TSO¤ Economic Area 6 · Lewis
‘ . McLean Anderson nagorrin
Union Bath Menifee
Webster Boone Morgan
Boyle Owsley
B¤¤¤¤mi¤ AF€& Bs A Bracken Powell
` Breckinridge Corroll Rowan
Butler Fleming wolfg
K Caldwell Franklin
‘ Crittenden Gallatin
Edmonson Garrard ·
Grayson Grant Economic Area 9
Eancoc: Eenry Bell
Hopkins Madison Breathitt
Livingston Marion Floyd
Lyon Mason Harlan
Muhlenberg Montgomery Johnson
Ohio Nelson Knott
Nicholas Knox
Economic Area Bb Oldhwn Leslie
Bullitt Owen Letcher
_ ‘ Green Pendleton McCreary
Hardin Robertson Martin
_ A Hart Shelby Perry
Larue Spencer Pike
Meade Trimble Whitley
Taylor Washington
Counties of Kentucky Listed According
to Economic Areas
- l5 - -
Table 1.-Estimated Population June 30, 1955, and Natural Increase '
and Estimated Net Migration April 1, 1950 to o
June 30, 1955, Kentucky Metropolitan and
Economic Areas ·
1950 Excess of Net Change Estimated Change in
Area Total Births over Through Total Population
Population Deaths Migration Population n{1{§g-673O{j5 -
1950-1955 1950-19558 June 30, 1955° Number. Percent
State 2,900,806 266,810 - 210,000b 3,001,000b 56,000b 1.9 l
Metropolitan A
Area _ V
A 080,615 06,880 28,088 559,587 70,587 15.0 -
B 180,050 10,356 3,389 198,195 17,705 9.8
0 09.909 0,702 1,783 56,070 6,525 13.1
Economic Area ‘
1 150,232 10,690 10,713 171,635 21,003 10.2
2 128.025 11,307 - 5,671 130,061 5,636 0.0
30 189,095 11,090 - 21,850 179,135 — 10,360 — 5,5
3b 122,020 12, 581 — 2,103 132,062 10,038 8. 6
0 170,160 12,858 11,780 190,802 20,638 10.5
5 193,608 16,600 - 03,790 166,022 — 27,186 - 10,0 o
6 326,191 23,908 - 18,697 331,002 5,211 1.6
7 200, 586 10, 310 6, 306 225,206 20, 660 10. 1
8 230,619 25,237 - 02,192 217,660 - 16.955 - 7.2
9 510,008 61,839 · 138,032 030,255 — 76,193 — 10.9
a. Including those away in the Armed Forces and military personnel change in Kentucky.
b. Rounded to the nearest thousand.
c. Including military personnel stationed in Kentucky and excluding those in the
Armed Forces with pre—service residence in Kentucky,
- 15 -
_ ESTIMATED POPULATION JUNE 30, 1955, AND NATURAL INCREASE
AND ESTIMATED NET MIGRATION, APRIL 1, 1950 TO
JUNE 30, 1955, KENTUCKY BY COUNTIES
:::::::::::::::::Z::::::::i::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::;::2:2
County 1950 Excess of N60 change Estimated Change in
Population births thT0U£h Total Population
` over deaths, migP&t10¤a Population q{l£5O_6{3O{55
· 1950-1955 1950-1955 June 30, 1955° Number percent
State 2,900,806 266,810 -210,000b 3,001,000b 56,000b l“9
Ada1r* 17,603 1,0624 - 0,013 10,652 - 2,951 - 16.8
Allen 13,787 605 — 1,366 13,066 - 721 - 5,2
`Andorson 8,980 560 * 1,606 7,898 1 1,086 — 12.1
.Ba11ard 8,505 810 1,278 10,637 2,092 20.5
`Barren* 28,061 2,010 — 658 29,817 1,356 0.8
Bath 10,010 1,005 — 1,930 9,085 ~ 925 — 8.9
Bell 07,602 5,506 - 15,003 38,105 — 9,097 ·- 20.0
Boone 13,015 1,183 2,150 16,308 3,333 25¤6
B0urb0n* 17,752 1,095 — 1,228 17,619 M 133 ~ 0,7
B0yd* 09,909 0,702 1,783 56,070 6,525 13,1
Boy1o* 20,532 1,163 1 58 21,637 1,105 5.0
Bracken 8,020 025 382 9,231 807 0.6
Breathitt 19,960 2,533 — 0,306 18,151 ~ L,813 — 9.1
Breck1nridge* 15,528 1,221 - 2,290 10,059 ~ 1,069 — 6.9
Bullitt · 11,309 1,028 1,209 13,586 2,237 19.7
Hutlor 11,309 600 ~ 2,505 9,000 ~ 1,905 — 16,8
Caldwell 13,199 618 60 13,881 682 5.2
»&110W&y* 20,107 902 — 0,500 16,505 — 3,602 — 17,9
Jampb811* 76,196 5,587 2,169 83,952 7,756 10,2
arlisle 6,206 292 — 393 6,105 - 101 - 1.6
arroll 8,517 350 1 226 8,601 120 1,5
arter 22,559 2,397 1 868 20,088 1,579 6.8
assy* 17,006 1,606 — 0,032 10,660 ~ 2,786 16.0
hriSt1&H* A 02,359 0,093 17,001 63,893 21,530 50.8
1ark* 18,898 1,600 110 20,656 1,758 9.3
lay 23,116 3,210 - 6,267 20,003 - 3,053 — 13.2
linton 10,605 831 - 3,006 7,990 ~— 2,615 - 20.7
rittsnden 10,818 017 - 2,358 8.877 .- 1,901 1 17.9
umberland 9,309 738 » 1,850 8,193 ~ 1,116 ·— 12,0
•av1ess* 57,201 5,891 1 2,216 60,916 3,675 6.0
dmonson 9»376 568 — 2,255 7,689 — 1,687 — 18.0
1110tt 7,085 881 » 1,110 6,852 ~ 233 · 3,3
sti11* 10,677 1,110 1 0,211 11,576 _ 3,101 - 21.1
ayette* 100,706 7,659 8,323 116,728 15,982 15,9
leming 11,962 771 - 2.302 10,031 — 1,531 — 12.8
10yd* 53,500 7,232 - 17,052 03,680 — 9,820 — ”°.0
ank11n* 25,933 1,590 - 1,350 26,173 200 0,9
t0n* 13,668 1,006 1 2,337 12,377 ~ 1,291 — 9.0
allatin 3,969 125 - 358 3,736 — 233 ~ 5.9
arrard 11,029 700 106 11,919 890 8,1
- 17 - · 1
Table 2 (Continued) _
Excess of Net change Estimated Change in
County 1950 births through Total Population
Popu ation over deaths, migration population _7 75 _ 7 {55
1950 — 1955 1950-19558 June 30, 1955° guibeg 6P;gcent ,
i
‘ Grant 9,809 083 39 10,331 522 5,3
Graves* 31,360 1,703 · 86 32,981 1,617 5,2 V
Grayson 17, 063 1 , 209 - 1,910 16, 358 - *705 ·— 0. 1
Green 11,261 710 · 2,883 9.092 - 2,169 - 19.3 ’
Greenup* 20,887 2,555 923 28,365 3,078 10.0 ‘
Hancock 6,009 351 7 1,263 5,097 — 912 — 15,2 .
Hard1n* 50.312 6,508 3,053 59,873 9,561 19.0 »
Har1an* 71,751 8,567 — 12,327 67,991 — 3,760 — 5.2 ,
Harrison 13,736 059 1,108 15,303 1,567 11.0
H¤rt* 15,321 1,096 - 3,331 13,086 — 2,235 — 10,6
Henderson* 30,715 2,529 723 33,967 3,252 10.6
Henry 11,390 653 - 891 11,156 — 238 — 2.1
H1¤kman 7,778 386 — 1,203 6,921 - 857 — 11,0
H¤pk1¤,* 38,815 2,669 103 01,627 2,812 7.2
Jackson 13,101 1,006 · 3,507 11,000 — 2,101 — 16.0
Jef1`erson* 080, 615 06,880 28,088 559, 587 70,972 15., 5
Jessamine 12,058 800 755 10,053 1,595 12,8
Johnson* 23,806 2,310 · 7,212 18,900 - 0,902 - 20.6
Kenton* 100,250 8,769 1,220 110,203 9,989 9.6 `
Knott 20,320 2,070 · 5,855 16,935 - 3,385 ~ 16.7
Knox 30,009 2,860 · 6,730 26,503 — 3,866 — 1217
Larue 9,956 785 052 11,193 1,237 12.0
Laurel 25,797 2,570 · 3,928 20,039 - 1,358 — 5,3
Lawrence 10,018 1,060 · 259 15,219 801 5.6
Lee 8,739 1,030 · 2,020 7,709 7 990 — 11.3
Leslie 15,537 2,780 · 2,071 15,806 309 2,0
Letcher 39,522 0,793 7 13,068 31,207 — 8,275 - 20,9
Lewis* 13,520 1,562 · 2,173 12,909 - 611 — 0.5
Lincoln* 18,668 1,503 - 1,213 18,958 290 1.6
Livingston 7,180 060 " 519 7,129 7* 55 " O·8
Logan* 22,335 1,290 ~ 185 23,000 1,105 0.9
Lyon 6,853 166 031 7,050 597 8.7
McCracken* 09,137 0,306 17,021 70,060 21,327 03,0
M6¤,~,,,,·y 16,660 1,876 — 0,969 13,567 — 3,093 18,6
McLean 10,021 809 1,007 11,837 1,816 18,1
Mad1son* 31 , 179 2 . 037 188 33 , 800 2 , 625 8.0
Magoffin 13,839 2,100 7 0,339 11,600 — 2,195 ~ 15.9
Marion 17,212 2,037 — 0,013 10,836 — 2,376 ~ 13,8
Marshall 13,387 1,201 1,017 15,605 2,218 16.6
Martin 11,677 1,607 — 2,511 10,773 · 900 — 7,7
- 18 -
Table 2 (Continued)
Excess of Net change Estimated Change in
County 1950 births through Total Population
Population over deaths, migrationa population o{1£5O_6{3Ol55
1950 — 1955 1950-1955 June 30, 1955c Number Percent
Mas0n* 18,486 1,386 ‘ 136 20,008 . 1,522 8.2
Meade 9 , 422 1 , 360 537 11, 319 1,897 20. 1
LMenifee 4,798 382 — 1,539 3,641 — 1,157 “ 24.1
Mercer* 14,643 804 — 1,566 13,881 — 762 " 5.2
Metcalfe 9,851 657 · 3,764 6,744 * 3,107 ` 31-5
Monroe 13,770 1,208 - 3,521 11,457 — 2,313 ' 16.8
5Montgomery* 13,025 1,098 - 1,925 12,198 — 827 ‘ 6.3
M0rgan* 13,624 1,335 — 5,367 9,592 — 4,032 ” 29.6
Muhlenburg* 32,501 2,153 ~ 5,048 29,606 ~ 2,895 ' 8.9
Ne1s0n* 19,521 2,378 — 1,914 19,985 464 2.4
.11161161ee 7,532 327 - 985 6.87*+ ~ 658 · 8-7
0hio* 20,840 1,014 — 4,296 17,558 — 3,282 ” 15.7
`•1dham 11,018 902 229 12,149 1,131 10.3
Owen 9,755 516 — 1,515 8,756 — 999 " 10.2
Owsley 7,324 910 — 1,913 6,321 - 1,003 ' 13.7
Pendleton 9,610 482 — 408 9,684 74 0.8
Perry 06,5661 6,430 — 16,473 36,523 — 10,043 ' 21.6
Pike 81,154 10,561 — 22,327 69,388 - 11,766 — l4.5»
Powell 6,812 720 - 895 6,637 — 175 * 2.6
Pulaski 38,452 3,456 - 8,197 33,711 - 4,741 ‘ 12.3
Robertson 2,881 88 — 231 2,738 — 143 ‘ 5.0
Rockcastle 13,925 1,343 — 3,848 11,420 — 2,505 “ 18.0
Rowan 12,708 1,134 - 2,121 11,721 ~ 987 ‘ 7.8
Russell 13,717 1,148 — 4,116 10,749 — 2,968 ‘ 21.6
cott 15,141 931 " — 634 15,438 297 2.0
She1by* 17,912 1,123 1,730 20,765 2,853 15.9
Simpson 11,678 641 679 12,998 1,320 11.3
Spencer 6,157 564 — 1,184 5,537 ·· 620 " 10,1
Tay1or* 14,403 1,090 — 1,180 14,313 — 90 “ 0.6
Todd 12,890 817 — 14,12 12,295 — 595 “ 4.6
rigg 9,683 633 — 2,269 8,047 ~ 1,636 “ 16.9
rimble 5,148 439 179