The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutH_1975_PopulationWASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION POPULATION TRENDS, CHARACTERISTICS, PROJECTIONS WASHiNGrON COUV-I V Comhya ke"ive Pian - Etwewtita - Compne e.as.ive PPtan A 3ynop6.i6 05 GoaL6 and Ob}ective4, Pubeema and Opponttun tiea, Po&cieA, Action Ham ant, Compoa.ite Paan Mczpa Pian Etemcntd Land Lae Wca.ty, and Tumpoata tion Ho" ing Comr,uns pj FaciZWe5 PanU and Open SOAP -id Waa.te P!' n Srtwv.r.ge Ran Pian and Se&v cm Paan Space. Paan Pian Ptan S ackwwund Studceb Hitt6 ide Histo2icriz rhe Na.tiLuV- CorwutiiLj Deve Dpmemt Pvapectives Environment Babe #?pen Space Lczrtd Fae.%"es EnvZrLonmentat and Sestv.ieea Ana i' j4" WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION POPULATION TRENDS, CHARACTERISTICS, PROJECTIONS The preparation of this report was financed in part through a Comprehensive Planning grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development as administered by the Maryland Department of State Planning WASHINGTON COUNTY POPULATION Trends, Characteristics, Projection Washington County Commissioners Martin L. Snook, President W. Keller Nigh, III, V. President Burton R. Hoffman R. Lee Downey William J. Dwyer Contributors Ronald L. Shives - Project Planner Alan R. Mussel -man - Planning Director Marion L. Snyder - Executive Secretary Verna M. Brown - Secretary Bonnie V. Lewis - Draftsman Planning Commission Donald R. Frush, Chairman William E. Dorsey, V.Chairman W. Keller Nigh, Ex -Officio John C. Herbst Paul W. Hoffman David W. Sowers Barbara B. Whitcomb TELE 791 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COURT HOUSE ANNEX, 24 SUMMIT AVENUE HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND 21740 Honorable Martin L. Snook, President u Washington County Board of County Commissioners Court House Annex I` Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 Dear Commissioner Snook: The Washington County Planning Commission is pleased to submit this report entitled POPULATION - Trends, Characteristics, Pro- jections, to the Washington County Board of County Commissioners as a preliminary phase of the revision of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this document is to provide the background popu- lation information required to update the Plan For The County. This report in conjunction with subsequent reports is designed to be used as a guide for the formulation of programs and policies with which to regulate and encourage future development. Thus ac- complishing a sound basis for Comprehensive Planning in Washington County. Sincerely, Donald R. Frush Chairman DRF :vmb iii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv Page Title Page - ii Letter of Transmittal - iii Table of Contents -- iv List of Tables - vi List of Charts - ix List of Maps a x I. Introduction - 1 II. Population History - 18 III. Trends - 25 IV. The Region - 33 Washington County's -Region - 34 The Eight County Region - 36 V. Urban, Rural Trends - 40 Vi. Ferti-1 i ty, Mortality - 48 Birth Rates _ 49 Death Rates - 52 iv v TABLE OF CONTENTS (con't) Page VII. Social Characteristics - 57 Age Characteristics - 58 Dependency - 59 Age -Sex Profile - 62 Sex Composition - 66 Marital Status - 67 Educational Attainment - 71 Minority Population - 79 VIII. Poverty - 87 IX. Employment - 92 Washington County Employment - 93 Occupation of Employed - 94 Last Occupation of Experienced Unemployed - 98 X. Projections - 101 XI. Appendix - 111 v LIST OF TABLES I--1 Washington County's Growth - I-2 Municipal Population Trends 1900-1970 - I-3 Median Household Income by Election District - I-4,5,6 Population Projections by Election District and Planning Sector II -1 Comparative Growth, United'States, Maryland and Washington County 1790-1970 - III -1 Population Density - IV -1 Comparative Population Growth - Washing- ton County and the Washington County region - IV -2 Population Totals by Decade Bordering Counties, 1900-1970 - V-1 Urban -Rural Trends for Washington County and the State of Maryland - V-2 Urban -Rural Distribution by Sector 1970 - VI -1 Comparison Birth and Death Rates - Wash- ington County, Maryland, the United States - vi Page 6 12 13 15 21 30 35 37 43 45 53 vii LIST OF TABLES (con't) Page VI -2 Cause Specific Death Rates - 56 VII -1 Sex Ratios and Dependency Ratios 1970 Washington County - 60 VII -2 Washington Age -Sex -Date - 1970 - 63 VII -3 Age -Sex Distributions - 64 VII -4 Marital Status 1970 - 68 VII -5 Educational Attainment 1970 - 25 years and older - 72 VII -6 Educational Attainment Male 25 years and older - 73 VII -7 Educational Attainment Female 25 years and older - 74 VII -8 Racial Composition - 77 VII -9 Washington County 1970 Negro Population Distribution - 78 VII -10 Age -Sex Distribution of Washington County Non -White Population 1970 - 79 vii LIST OF TABLES (con't) Page VII -11 Income Less than the Poverty Level for The Negro Population - 82 VII -12 Educational Attainment for the Negro Population 25 years and older 1970 - 84 VII -13 Educational Attainment - Male Negro Population 25 years and older 1970 - 85 VII -14 Educational Attainment - Female Negro Population 25 years and older 1970 - 86 VIII -1 Income Less than the Poverty Level - 88 IX -1 1970 Washington County Employment: By Major Economic Sector - 93 IX -2 Washington County Occupation of Employed 1970 - 95 IX -3 Washington County 1970 percentages employed by Occupation and Sex - 96 IX -4 Last Occupation of Experienced Unemployed 1970 - 99 X-1,2,3 Washington County Population Projections by Planning Sector and Election Districts - 108 viii LIST OF CHARTS Page III -1 Washington County, Maryland and United States _Growth Trends 1790-1970 - 28 III -2 Washington County Population Density Trends - 29 IV -1 Population Trends: bordering counties - 39 V-1 Urban -Rural Trends - - 42 VI -1 Birth Rates and Death Rates - 50 VII -1 Dependency Trends - 61 VII -2 Age -Sex Profile for Washington County - 65 (a) VII -3 Age -Sex Profile for Maryland - 65 (b) VII -4 Age -Sex Profile for Washington County Non -White Population - 80 X-1 Washington County Population Projections 1975-2000 A.D. - 107 X-2 Washington County Population Growth and Current Estimate - 108 ix LIST OF MAPS Map 1 Washington County Planning Sector and Election Districts 2 Percent Population Growth 1950-1960 3 Percent Population Growth 1960-1970 4 Washington County Population Distribution 1970 5 1970 Population Density 6 1970 Median Household Income 7 Urban, Rural Non -Farm, Rural Farm 8 Age -Sex Distribution by Sector, 1970 x iNrRoDucTioN L 0 0 C L INTRODUCTION In developing a Comprehensive Plan, a thorough understanding of the people and the land of Washington County is imperative. The analysis of characteristics, historical and current trends and future population projections play an important role in defining the community and provide a basis on which to establish community goals and needs . Consider the following: - An increasing elderly population may direct the planning process toward addressing appropriate, housing, mass transit, and public facility needs. - The extent to which a declining birth rate is offset by increasing in -migration to the County will affect both short range and long range plans for educational facilities. - Median family income and the analysis of employment by geographic area may lead to economic and community development efforts. - Population projections will provide a basis for establishing land use requirements and the need for new public facilities. These are but a few examples of the utility of the Population study. The findings of this study will affect and aid in the development of Comprehen- sive Planning policies. Much of the data contained in the study has been compiled and analyzed from the 1970 Census of Population and Housing, various publications of the Maryland Department of State Planning and the U.S. Census Bureau - Fifth Count Summaries. In the text of the report, population statistics are organized for comparisons with the State, other counties within the State, non -Maryland counties in the region, and the various geographic areas within the county. The six Planning Sectors of Washington County used in this study were origin- ally established in 1971 by the Plan For The Count . It was then determined that this approach could best evaluate the geographically related areas of the County, and incorporate the established election districts for which data is -3- currently recorded. Specifically, this report attempts to examine and eval- uate the salient,planning related aspects of available population information. Acknowledging that all potential users of this report may not need only the planning data, an appendix is provided which tabulates additional population information but does not evaluate or analyz-e the data. Included for ease of reference in this introductory segment of the report are: 1) Charts and Maps illustrating population growth in the County Election Districts for the past two decades. 2) A tabulation of the growth of the County Municipalities 3) A Table and Map of Median Household Income 4) A tabulation by Planning Sector and Election District of Population Projections to the year 2000, and 5) A Base Map showing the Election District and Planning Sector boundaries -4- 6) A population distribution map of the 1970 Census It is suggested that in order to maximize the usefulness of this report, that it be kept current by periodic updating to include new data as it becomes available. -5- Source: (1) A Summary of the Population Characteristics for Allegany, Garrett, and Washington Counties, 1970. (2) Report Two, Population and Housing Washington County Maryland. 1968. -6- Table I-1 WASHINGTON COUNTY GROWTH 1950 % Change 1960 % Change 1970 Estimated Pop. 1950-1960 Pop. 1960-1970 Pop. 1975 1. Sharpsburg 1652 24.2 2051 0.2 2054 2095 2. Williamsport 3290 7.2 3529 15.0 4057 4212 4. Clear Spring 1985 -3.8 1909 8.5 2071 2111 5. Hancock 2889 12.8 3509 2.1 3583 3683 6. Boonsboro 2531 22.7 3105 9.0 3384 3524 7. Cavetown 2206 11.0 2445 41.0 3454 3574 8. Rohrersville 1432 0.5 1440 9.0 1571 1614 9. Leitersburg 1379 21.6 1677 35.0 2267 2425 10. Funkstown 2317 78.0 4124 15.4 4761 5079 11. Sandy Hook 1218 12.0 1364 3.7 1415 1440 12. Tilghmanton 2185 19.5 2612 29.0 3393 3689 13. Conococheague 2062 65.0 3406 20.6 4107 4505 14. Ringgold 2261 39.5 2876 55.8 4481 4951 15. Indian Springs 1662 -4.2 1592 0.2 1595 1643 16. Beaver Creek 1370 24.0 1700 28.4 2182 2365 18. Chewsville 2758 42.5 3931 30.4 5126 5714 19. Keedysville 1011 -9.1 910 1-1.1 1011 1044 20. Downsville 882 20.6 1064 30.0 1383 1471 23. Wilson 1845 16.2 2143 20.8 2589 2819 24. Cedar Lawn 259 163.3 682 21.3 827 900 26. Halfway 2322 125.0 5236 40.0 7346 8276 27. Fountain Head 2129 53.0 3258 63.0 5310 5875 County (subtotal) 41645 31.0 54536 24.6 67967 73009 Hagerstown 36260 1.1 36660 -2.2 35862 37537 TOTAL 77905 17.1 91223 13.8 103829 110546 Source: (1) A Summary of the Population Characteristics for Allegany, Garrett, and Washington Counties, 1970. (2) Report Two, Population and Housing Washington County Maryland. 1968. -6- Table I-1 WASHINGTON COUNTY ELECTION DISTRICTS PLANNING SECTORS C 2 4 M a p 1 Scale I I I I 121 24 ,Z22 18 s 3 +f 17 26 2 10 r 16 \_ 20 12 43 19 ' 0 11 s 0 7 IV 14 1 13 i 27 r 9 121 24 ,Z22 18 s 3 +f 17 26 2 10 r 16 \_ 20 12 43 19 ' 0 11 s 0 7 IV 14 fffi rf/lfff .1If/Fi//flfffflJ/ff/ fJJf/////t// tCf/FI//J//J//ff -7 J. i- ellJ!/ fF/J ........� . ■_.. fff/.JAfl{/ff{f/JfJfJ llf/J/A /{f/fT///{'/JJf//J!{{/f/ JJAfJ/fffJ//f %////!f//sJJtfJJlJJf////J/ AflJlf////rf - /!!/f/!A/Jf/ /J!////fff/ff////1J/J1fffJ/fff/J///ff! /1f//J/fff//f/f1/{JJf fr/f/fff/J// J ///f JfJflf ffflJ 1f/J//fj/J// ""�J l f JAI//t tJ. JJ/{//Jff /A!l ✓I/JJJJ/fff/f/ Jr - - ---- /T /f - f s /JrlJf{ r/iJ///JJ frf/lfrrrl ifrf//rfJr JJflCfflt JJA/Jr fi. Jf J //f/ /f! J/f/! /r //f!J PERCENT POPULATION GROWTH f /1rl,Jf - rrrf JJ// lrftr{, 1950-1960 <= ❑ 0-24.9 n 25-49.9 Map L ® 50-74.9 EB 75-99 d` GREATER THAN 100 f i 0 POPULATION LOSS 0 Z • Scale I , I , ' WASHINGTON COUNTY E PERCENT POPULATION GROWTH 1960-1970 0 En Scale i , i i WASHINGTON COUNTY 40 5 y • % ti '2'3 WASHINGTON COUNTY Dot Distribution Of 1970 Population --- Election District Boundary 15 Election District Number • Each Dot Equals 250 People ( Hagerstown Population Not Shown) Map • 12x f 14 i • 13 l • • , w w e • • % i 24 • 18 . • i i • f �\ 2 16 J• i • .. ,12 . 6 I _ Prepared By The Washington County Planning ,. d Zoning Commission And POPULATION DENSITY 1970 196 and Greater, Persons/ sq. mi. 141-195 Persons/ sq. mi. 96 -140 Persons/ sq. mi. 51- 95 Persons/ sq. mi. Less than 50 Persons/ sq. mi. Scale i i i ; WASHINGTON COUNTY Source: (1) Master Plan Report Number One for the Washington County Planning and Zoning Commission, 1959. By Fred W. Tuemmler and Associates. (2) Report Two Population and Housing, Washington_ County_ for the Washington County Planning and Zoning Commission 1968. By Baker-Wibberley and Associates (3) 1970 Census of Maryland, Preliminary Report Table I-2 -12- MUNICIPAL POPULATION TRENDS 1900 - 1970 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 Boonsboro 700 759 1044 894 938 ]071 1211 1410 Clear Spring 474 521 538 539 500 558 488 499 Funkstown 559 568 620 700 798 879 968 1051 Hagerstown 13591 16507 28064 30861 32491 36260 36660 35862 Hancock 824 893 972 947 940 963 2004 1832 Keedysville 426 367 394 393 404 417 433 431 Sharpsburg 1030 960 832 818 834 866 861 833 Smithsburg 462 481 586 598 619 641 586 671 Williamsport 1472 1571 1615 1775 1772 1890 1853 2270 Source: (1) Master Plan Report Number One for the Washington County Planning and Zoning Commission, 1959. By Fred W. Tuemmler and Associates. (2) Report Two Population and Housing, Washington_ County_ for the Washington County Planning and Zoning Commission 1968. By Baker-Wibberley and Associates (3) 1970 Census of Maryland, Preliminary Report Table I-2 -12- ED 1 - Sharpsburg 2 - Williamsport 3 - Hagerstown * 4 - Clear Spring 5 - Hancock 6 - Boonsboro 7 - Smithsburg 8 - Rohrersvi11e 9 - Leitersburg 10 - Funkstown 11 - Sandy Hook 12 - Fairplay 13 - Maugansville 14.- Ringgold MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY ELECTION DISTRICTS Median Household Income ED $ 8153 15 - Indian Springs 8245 16 - Beaver Creek 7097 17 - Hagerstown 8028 18 - Chewsville 6841 19 - Keedysville 8955 20 - Bownsville 9194 21 - Hagerstown 7101 22 - Hagerstown 11106 23 - Wilson 10388 24 - Cedar Lawn 7803 25 - Hagerstown 9123 26 - Halfway 8543 27 - Fountain Head 9667 Source: Adapted from a Preliminary draft of a technical report on Housing by Urban Research and Development Corp. 1974 *Note: Election Districts 3,17,21,22, and 25 comprise the City of Hagerstown -13- Median Household Income County wide $ 7696 8741 6980 9627 6138 7068 12502 6832 8293 9448 7076 10472 13744 $8822 Table: I-3 =t $ 7200 $ 7201-8600 $ 8601-10,000 $10,001-11,400 $ 11,401-12,800 ��$12,801 1970 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME Source: Adapted From A Preliminary Report On Housing For Washington County By Urban Research And Development Corp. N Map 6 0 2 4 Scale I i I i I Miles WASHINGTON COUNTY POPULATION PROJECTIONS Planning -Sector I METROPOLITAN ESTIMATED PROJECTED Election - District 1973 1975 1980 1990 2000 Williamsport 2 Leitersburg 9 Funkstown 10 Conococheague 13 Chewsville 18 Cedar Lawn 24 Halfway 26 Fountain Head 27 4119 4212 4367 4677 4987 2360 2425 2588 2914 3240 4952 5079 5668 7545 9460 4345 4505 4900 5693 6486 5475 5714 6953 11510 15246 871 900 1072 1417 1935 7904 8276 9205 11064 12923 5649 5875 6439 7568 8697 Subtotal 35675 36986 41192 52588 62697 Hagerstown 36867 37537 39213 42564 45915 Sector Total 72542 74523 80405 95152 108612 Table: I-4 -15- POPULATION PROJECTIONS Planning Sector II MID COUNTY Estimated PROJECTED Election District 1973 1975 1980 1990 2000 Sharpsburg 1 2078 2094 2134 2215 2295 Boonsboro 6 3468 3524 3663 3942 4221 Tilghmanton 12 3571 3689 3985 4577 5169 Beaver Creek 16 2292 2365 2548 2914 3280 Keedysville 19 1031 1044 1077 1143 1209 Downsville 20 1436 1471 1559 1735 1911 SECTOR TOTAL 180-85 13876 14187 14966 16526 Planning Sector III SOUTHEAST Rohrersville 8 1591 1614 1648 1716 1786 Sandy Hook 11 1430 1440 1466 1516 1568 SECTOR TOTAL 3021 3054 3114 3232 3352 Table: I-5 -16- Planning Sector IV NORTHEAST Election Estimated PROJECTED District 1973 1975 1980 1990 2000 Cavetown 7 3526 3574 3693 3932 4171 Ringgold 14 4763 4951 5420 6459 7398 SECTOR TOTAL 8289 8525 9113 10391 11569 Planning Sector V CENTRAL Clear Spring 4 2096 2111 2151 2231 2311 Indian Springs 15 1624 1643 1691 1787 1883 Wilson 23 2723 2819 3045 3491 3937 SECTOR TOTAL 6443 6573 6887 7509 8131 Planninq Sector VI Hancock County Total 5 3643 WESTERN 3683 3783 3983 4183 107814 110,544 118268 136,744 154219 -17- Table: 1-6 ppF !NW k, otb oo� Igo THE HISTORY OF POPULATION GROWTH IN WASHINGTON COUNTY,- MARYLAND European settlers came to the area, later to be named Washington County, around 1735. They were of German descent, migrating from the eastern portions of the County now known as Boonsboro and Williamsport.- This early migration wave was followed by another, composed primarily of Scotch, Swiss, and French peoples. These people settled in the eastern poritons of the County, with few exceptions. Such an exception was Fort Frederick, a fortification used during the French and Indian War. Much of the remaining portion of the County west of the Conococheague Creek, however, was controlled by the native Indians until the -conclusion of the French and Indian War. In September 1776, only sixty days after Maryland became a state, Washington County was created by an act of the Constitutional Convention of that year. Carved from Frederick County, Washington County of 1776 also in- cluded present day counties of Allegany and Garrett. Thirteen years later in 1789, Allegany County was created and Washington County's boundaries took on the approximate dimensions as exists today. -19- In 1790, the United States federal government conducted the first cen- sus. Washington County was populated by 15,822 people, representing approximately 0.40 % of the United States total population of that year. At the time of the second census in 1800, Washington County contained 5.4% of the population of the State of Maryland and had increased by nearly 18% over the 1790 figure. (Refer- ence Table II -1). Between 1810 and 1820, Washington County's population had increased 23%. This growth from a percentage standpoint, was the largest growth ever experienced in the County. This was due, in part, to the establishment of trading centers along the National Pike, as it was extended as far west as the Conococheague Creek in 1817 and then to Cumberland in 1820. Authorized in 1806 by the federal government, the National Pike (U. S. Route 40) greatly facilitated the westward movement of increasing numbers of people destined to populate portions of the "American Midwest". Up to the mid -1800's, agriculture was the dominant economic activity. Because of the inherent natural fertility of the soils of the Great Valley, farming flourished. To compliment the agricultural activity, small trading centers developed. This provided an opportunity for farm produce to be exchanged for items that could not be grown or made on the farm. Nearly all the towns that exist today in Washington County, originally functioned as agricultural -20- COMPARATIVE POPULATION GROWTH, UNITED STATES, MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON COUNTY: 1790-1970 Table: II -1 -21- United States Maryland Washington County Year Population Percent Increase Population Percent Percent Increase of U.S. _ Population Percent Increase Percent _ Percent of U.S. of Md. 1790 3,929,214 -- 319,728 --- 8.1 15,822 --- 0.40 5.0 1800 5,308,483 35.1 341,548 6.8 6.4 18,659 17.9 0.40 5.4 1810 7,239,881 36.4 380,546 11.4 5.2 18,730 0.4 0.30 5.0 1820 9,638,453 33.1 407,350 7.0 4.2 23,075 23.2 0.20 5.7 1830 12,866,020 33.5 447,040 9.7 3.5 25,268 9.5 0.20 5.7 1840 17,069,453 32.7 470,019 5.1 2.8 28,850 14.2 0.20 6.1 1850 23,191,876 35.9 583,034 24.0 2.5 30,848 6.9 0.13 5.3 1860 31,443,321 35.6 687,049 17.8 2.2 31,417 1.8 0.09 4.6 1870 38,558,371 22.6 780,894 13.7 2.0 34,712 10.4 0.09 4.4 1880 50,155,783 30.1 934,943 19.7 2.0 38,561 11.1 0.08 4.1 1890 62,947,714 25.5 1,042,390 11.5 1.7 39,782 3.2 0.06 3.8 1900 75,994,575 20.7 1,188,044 14.0 1.6 45,133 13.5 0.06 3.8 1910 91,972,266 21.0 1,295,346 9.0 1.4 49,612 9.9 0.05 3.8 1920 1053710,620 14.9 1,449,661 11.9 1.4 59,694 20.3 0.05 4.1 1930 122,775,046 16.1 1,631,526 12.5 1.3 65,882 10.4 0:05 4.0 1940 131,669,275 7.2 1,821,244 11.6 1.4 68,8.38 4.5 0.05 3.8 1950 150,697,361 14.5 2,343,001 28.6 1.6 78,886 14.6 0.05 3.4 1960 178,464,236 18.4 3,100,689 32.3 1.7 91,219 15.6 0.04 2.9 1970 203,184,772 13.8 3,922,399 26.5 1.9 103,829 13.8 0.05 2.6 SOURCE: (1) Report Two Population and Housing, Washington County for the Washington County Planning and Zoning Commission by-Baker-Wibberley and Associates. (2) Maryland Population and Housing Statistics: by Maryland Department of State _1970 Planning. _Census Table: II -1 -21- trading centers. Hagerstown and Williamsport,also grew to become commercial and manufacturing centers. On July 4, 1828, at Georgetown, construction of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal began. It was built westward along the Potomac River to Cumberland by the year 1852. The Canal had considerable impact on Washington County. Freight which had formerly been carried by the National Pike was now carried by canal barges, thus causing a decline in business along the highway. This, also can readily be seen by examining Table II -1, The population percentage of growth for Washington County between 1810 and 1820 was 23%; apparently, the National Pike provided the economic stimulus for population growth. During the next four decades, however, Washington County experienced 9.5, 14.2, 6.9, 1.8 percent growth rates, respectively. This erratic but obvious decline can be attributed to the increasing freight traffic on the Canal and a decline of frei4ht traffic on the National Pike. Probably the most important freight item that was shipped via the C & 0 Canal was coal. The coal shipped eastward was a significant portion of Washington -zv- D. C.'s total supply. This supply route took on major importance during the Civil War, and there were numerous attempts by the Confederacy to cut off Washington's coal supply. Washington County's location was important during the Civil War be- cause of the C & 0 Canal, situated linearly along the County's southern boundary, and because of the Great Valley. This valley was a broad avenue extending northward into Pennsylvania and southward into Virginia. Confed- erate troops made their way northward through this valley. On one occasion, Confederate troops were confronted by Union forces near the town of Sharpsburg. The ensuing battle, the Battle of Antietam, has been termed the "bloodiest single days' battle of the Civil War." Following the Civil War, a national depression occurred. Washington County, like many areas of the nation at this time, watched families leave in search of new opportunities and sources of employment. However, by 1867, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad began to serve the County. By 1872, the Western Maryland Railroad began its operation and complimented the service of the B & 0. -23- The decade from 1890 to 1900 saw further extensions of the railroads, which in turn gave impetus to the manufacturing industry. By 1900, Washington County's population had grown to 45,133. This gro%,th continued into the next two decades as more manufacturing firms located in the County and population continued to increase. As a result of industrialization, the city of Hagerstown began de- veloping as a Regional Center of manufacturing and employment. Although Hagerstown's population was only slightly in excess of 13,000 by 1900, it had more than doubled in size by 1920 with a population of 28,064. The Great De- pression of the early 30's temporarily slowed the population growth of the County. But, during the following three decades, Washington County increased it's population by more than 10% per decade. Although the 1950 - 1960 decade was marked by severe cut-backs in employment in the aircraft industry, which had been a significant aspect of the County's employment base, population growth continued. During the period since 1960, Washington County felt the impact of the highest rate of unemployment in the County's history. However, aggressive industrial promotion coupled with a rising national economy resulted in an es- tablished and expanded local economy. In 1970, the County's population level was 103,829, and is an estimated 108,650 in 1974, with trends of continued growth apparent. -24- C L C L L L r F L L r i TRENDS GROWTH TRENDS In over 180 years since the first Census was conducted in 1790, the Nation, the state and Washington County have seen significant changes in their respective pop- ulations. The population of the United States has increased 52 times the level of its original enumeration -- the Civil War, two World Wars and numerous other military con- flicts notwithstanding. To be sure, vast territorial expansion was an essential component of this growth as well as immigration from all parts of the world. Maryland's population in 1970 was more than twelve (12) times that of the initial 1790 count. Of no small importance in Maryland's growth has been its location. It is part of the "Eastern Megalopolis" which extends from Boston to Washington D.C. Additional stimulus to Maryland's growth was provided by the seaport city of Baltimore with its trade and manufacturing. Maryland, which surrounds the District of Columbia on three sides, also has seen growth stemming from the expansion of the Federal Bur- eaucracy in the National Capital. j -2G- C Washington County's population growth has been comparatively more modest than the Nation and the State, but significant none the less. By 1970 Washington County had a population of 103,829; this was nearly 7 times its first census count of 15,822. Table II -1 and Chart III -1 compare the population levels of the United States, Maryland, and Washington County for each census from 1790 to 1970. Table indicates that the national population grew consistently by more than 30 % per decade for the first 70 years of the nations existence. After 1860, however, the growth fluctuated during the remainder of the 19th century. The national growth rate then P experienced a downward trend through the early 1900's reaching its lowest level in 1940. From 1950 thru 1970 the national rate of population growth was 14.5, 18.4 and 13.8 respectively by decade. Maryland's rate of population growth prior to 1850 was relatively slow ex- ceeding 10% only once during its first 60 years. In Table II -1 the 1840-1850 decade exhibited a 24.0 %growth rate. For the remainder of the 19th century, Maryland's growth rate fluctuated but never fell below 11 % for the next 30 years. The 194u- 1950, 1950-1960, and 1960-1970 decades displayed growth rates of 28.6 %, 32.3 %, and 26.5 % respectively. In each of the census reports from 1950 to 1970 the state's growth M -27- WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND, THE UNITED STATES POPULATION GROWTH 1790-1970 40C M 10( I 2( 0 n r T 40{ h 0 s 10 a n d 2 U.S. Md. Wash. Con 1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1790 1810 1830 1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 CH -ART 111-1 28 K 240 200 120 • .W WASHINGTON COUNTY POPULATION DENSITY TRENDS I I I I E I I I 1 1 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 PERSON 90 10 30 50 70 90 10 30 50 70 SQ. MILE CHART 111-2 29 POPULATION DENSITY, WASHINGTON COUNTY: 1790-1970 J YEAR POPULATION POPULATION/SQ.MI. OF LAND AREA 1790 15,822 34.0 1800 18,659 40.7 1810 18,730 40.9 1820 23,075 50.4 1830 25,268 55.2 1840 28,850 62.9 1850 30-;-848 67.4 1860 31,417 69.0 1870 34,712 75.8 1880 38,651 84.2 1890 39,782 86.8 1900 45,133 98.5 1910 49,612 108.3 1920 59,694 130.3 1930 65,882 143.8 1940 68,838 150.3 I 1950 78,886 172.3 1960 91,219 199.2 1970 103,829 226.7 SOURCE: (1) Master Plan Report Number One, for the Washington County Planning and Zoning Commission, 1959. By Fred W. Tuemmler and Associates. (2) A Summary of the Population Characteristics for Allegany, Garrett, and Washington Counties, 1970. By Tri -County Council for Western Maryland, Inc. Table: III -1 -30- rate was nearly double the national population growth rate. Until about 1950 Washington County's growth rate can best be described as a series of boom and bust periods, (See Table II -1 ). During the last three decades, however, Washington County's population growth rate has apparently sta- bilized. The growth rates for each of these decades were respectively 14.67 15.6 %, and 13.8 %. G Table 3 -II -1 lists the population density of Washington County from 1790- 1970. Chart II -2 plats the number of persons per square mile through time from 1790 to 1970. This density - time curve which illustrates the relative growth in F population, can be separated into two components by examining the general angle of slope of the curve. Specifically, between 1790 and 1890 the curve has a modest overall slope. Whereas between 1890 and 1970 the curve slopes much more sharply. This shift in the rate in which the county's density increased is indicative of another shift that occurred in Washington County. Washington County's economy prior to the turn of the last century was primarily agricultural in character. The turn of the century saw manufacturing and the railroads become an evermore important sector of the local economy. In - I' dustry, employment, -provided the opportunity for citizens to make a livelihood -31- away from the farm. This encouraged t -he growth of the Hagerstown.Metropolitan area as an employment and trade center. The much steeper slope of the time density curve from approximately 1900 to 1970 is reflective of the increasing urbanization associated with indus- trialization. 7 -32- L I L THE REGION } L WASHINGTON COUNTY'S REGION Physiographically, Washington County spans the Great Valley, extends westward into the Ridge and Valley Province and includes the western slope of the Maryland portion of the Blue Ridge. Politically, it is separated from Franklin and Fulton counties of Pennsylvania on the north by the Mason-Dixon Line. On the South, Washington County is separated from Loudon County, Virginia and the West Virginia counties of Morgan, Berkeley, and Jefferson by the "mean low" water level on the southern bank of the Potomac River. Across the Sideling Hill Creek, the County's western boundary, lay Allegany County, Maryland. Frederick County is the eastern neighbor beginning generally at the crest of South Mountain. -34- COMPARATIVE POPULATION GROWTH, WASHINGTON COUNTY REGION AND WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND 1900 - 1970 C L -35- Table: IV -1 Washington County Region Washington County Percent Percent Percent of Year Population Increase Population Increase Region 1900 258,247 --- 45,133 --- 17.4 1910 279,912 8.4 49,617 9.9 17.7 1920 302,689 8.1 59,694 20.3 19.7 1930 325,877 7.7 65,882 10.4 20.2 1940 347,695 6.7 68,838 4.5 19.8 1950 372,862 7.2 78,886 14.6 21.2 1960 406,919 9.1 91,219 15.6 22.4 1970 450,857 10.8 103,829 13.8 23.0 L Source: 1) Report Two: Population and Housing, Washington County, Maryland. Baker Wibberley & Associates, 1969 for the Washington County Planning and Zoning Commission. 2) Housing -- A Summary of Characteristics, Needs and Action, Wash - ington County, Maryland. Urban Research and Development Corporation, L 1974. C L -35- Table: IV -1 Washington County is on the western fringe of southern portion of the Megalopolis of the Northeastern United States. Within 100 miles of Washington, Baltimore, and Harrisburg and less than 200 miles from Philadelphia and Trenton; the County has excellent transportation linkages with urban core areas via two In- terstate Highways (I-70 and I-81), rail and air service. Hagerstown, the principal city of the county, began developing as a Regional economic --employment center about 1900. The city continues as a regional center today. THE EIGHT COUNTY REGION Traditionally, Washington County has been considered the hub of a geogra- phic region consisting of eight counties with which it has common boundaries and their respective population levels from 1900 to 1970. Loudon County, Virginia has traditionally not been included in the analysis of the Washington County Region, al- though the two share a common boundary for a distance of approximately two (2) miles. Loudon County is included by the Bureau of the Census in the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area for the City of Washington, D.C. This is indicative of the social and economic ties that binds this county much more closely to the megalo- politan area than to the essentially rural Washington County Region. -36- POPULATION TOTALS BY DECADE: Bordering Counties, 1900 - 1970 Decade Maryland I Pennsylvania 1i West Virginia iTotals Allegany Wash. Co. Frederick Fulton Franklin Berkeley Jefferson Morgan 1900 53,694 45,133 51,920 9,924 54,902 19,469 15,935 7,294 258,271 1910 62,411 49,617 52,673 9,703 59,775 21,999 15,889 7,848 279,915 1920 69,938 59,694 52,541 9,617 62,275 24,555 15,729 8,357 302,706 1930 79,098 65,882 54,440 9,231 65,010 28,030 15,780 8,406 325,877 1940 86,793 68,838 57,312 10,673 69,378 29,016 16,762 8,743 347,515 1950 89,556 78,886 62,287 10,387 75,927 30,359 17,184 8,276 372,862 1960 84,169 91,219 71,930 10,597 88,172 33,791 18,665 8,376 406,919 1970 84,044 103,829 84,927 -- A Summary of 10,802 101,072 36,356 Characteristics, Needs, and Action, 21,280 Washington 8,547 450,857 Source: Housing County, Maryland. Urban Research and Development Corporation, 1974: Table: IV -2 -37- Table IV -2, indicates that Washington County has had the highest total population in the region for the last two decades, taking the lead from Allegany County in 1960. Franklin County, Pennsylvania, though slightly below Washington County in absolute population, has in the past 20 years exhibited a growth trend very similar to that of Washington County. Chart IV -1, shows Frederick County growing at a rate very similar to Washington and Franklin County although in 1970 it had a substantially lower level. Allegany County, Maryland which had contained the largest population consistantly from 1910 through 1950, has shown marked population decline in the past 20 years. The population of Berkeley County, West Virginia has shown steady (if slow) growth nearly doubling its total in 70 years. Jefferson and Morgan County, West Virginia and Fulton County, Pennsylvania have had their population totals remain relatively unchanged in 70 years. (See Table IV -2, and Chart IV -1 ). Considered as a single unit, the region experienced a growth of 75% in approximately 70 years. Washington County during this same period grew 130%. It is apparent then that Washington County remains the hub. It is apparent also that Washington County is becoming ever increasingly the 'central place" of the region. Table IV -1, shows that the county's proportion of the regions has been increasing. L C L L L L POPULATION TRENDS bordering counties 120 t WASHINGTON FRANKLIN 100 0 FREDERICK u ALLEGANY 80 s a 60- n d 40— BERKELEY 20 JEFFFRSON FULTON MORGAN 1910 1430 1950 1970 CHARTIV-1 URBAN, RURAL TRENDS Y 0 a URBAN AND RURAL POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND TRENDS An important consideration in discussing an area's population composi- tion is the number people living in urban and rural environments. Typically, rural residence statistics is further broken down into rural farm and non-farm categories. The rural farm population comprises all rural residents living on farms. Farms are defined as a place of 10 acres or more from which sales of farm products amounted to $50 or more in the preceeding year or a place of less than 10 acres from which sale of farm products amounted to $250 or more in the preceeding year. The rural non-farm population comprises all of the population not classified as rural farm or urban. An urban population is defined (by the U.S. Bureau of Census) as all persons living in urbanized areas and in places of 2500 inhabitants or more outside of urban areas. An urbanized area is said to contain at least one city of 50,000 inhabitants or more and includes a portion of the surrounding territory. For the past 40 years, Washington County has had a declining proportion of urban population. Maryland's urban population has been steadily increasing, re- flecting the spread of the eastern megalopolis which has engulfed many of the 41 URBAN --RURAL TRENDS �I URBAN O I RURAL NON-FARM PERCENT 50 OF 24 URBAN TOTAL 30 POPULATION RURAL NON-FARM I i "",is.rra ' '+r r+r rrfirr 10 � ♦rr ► oil If RURAL FARM 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 MARYLAND lnnnnlWASHINGTOA COUNTY CHART V-1 �I I I i "",is.rra ' '+r r+r rrfirr � ♦rr ► Urban - - Rural Trends for Washington County and the State of Maryland 1930 Urban Rural - Farm - Non -Farm 1940 Urban Rural - Farm - Non -Farm 1950 Urban Rural - Farm - Non -Farm 1960 Urban Rural - Farm - Non -Farm 1970 Urban Rural - Farm - Non -Farm Washington County 46.8 53.2 20.4 32.8 47.2 52.8 18.2 34.6 46.0 54.0 11.3 42.7 44.9 55.1 6,7 48.4 40.4 59.6 2.7 56.9 Source: U. S. BUREAU OF CENSUS -43- Maryland 59.7 40.3 14.5 25.8 59.3 41.7 13.4 27.3 69.0 31.0 7.8 23.2 72.7 27.3 3.6 23.7 76.6 23.4 1.6 21.8 Table: V-1 eastern counties. Chart V-1 , and Table V-1 , indicates a decline in the rural farm population in both the County and the State. In Washington County this decline represented a drop in rural farm population from 20.4% in 1930 to less than 3% in 1970. In somewhat parallel manner, the State also had a significantly less propor- tion of rural farm population in 1970. The increase in rural non-farm population of Washington County since 1940 has been considerable. See Chart V-1 , and Table V-1 . Maryland has had a discernable decline in this category, although Chart V-1 , shows this decline is not as abrupt as for the rural farm. Table V-2 , lists by sector the urban, rural non-farm and rural farm population for Washington County in 1970. Sector I was the only sector having an urban population. Approximately 60% of this sector was classified as urban. The remaining portion of the sector 38.4% was rural non-farm and 1.4% was rural farm. Including all categories, Planning Sector I contained nearly 7 out of every 10 county residents in 1970. Sectors II thru VI were distinctly rural ranging from 92% to over 99% rural non-farm population, with rural farm figures ranging as high as 8% in Sector -44- URBAN - RURAL DISTRIBUTION BY SECTOR, 1970. SECTOR URBAN % OF % OF s RURAL % OF % OF RURAL FARM % OF % OF SECTOR TOTAL % OF SECTOR COUNTY NON FARM SECTOR COUNTY SECTOR COUNTY TOTAL COUNTY I 41,968 60.2 40.4 26,802 38.4 25.9 988 1.4 0.9 69,758 67.2 12,347 92.4 11.9 1,042 7.8 1.0 13,389 12.9 2,674 92.0 2.6 232 8.0 0.2 2,906 2.8 IV - - - 71670 96.7 7.3 265 3.3 0.3 7,935 7.6 V - - l - 5,934 94.8 5.7 324 5.2 0.3 6,258 6.0 VI - - - 3,570 99.6 3.4 13 0.4 ... 3,583 3.5 COUNTY 41,968 i 40.4 58,997 ... 56.9 2,864 ... 2.7 103,829 100% SOURCE: FIFTH COUNT SUMMARY TAPES -45- Table V-2 Scale ii i , 4 WASHINGTON COUNTY Source: TABLE 4 In summary Washington County has a declining farm population, and an urban population that is becoming less significant portion of the county's total population. It may become necessary to provide incentives for the growth of the County's urban area. In this manner services and facilities may be provided more efficiently. It will also become necessary to prevent sprawling development which consumes agricultural land, a once significant sector of the local economy. -47- :A Ll LA FERTILITY AND MORTALITY BIRTH RATES - The national birth rate fell from a high of 30.1 per 1000 per- sons in 1910 to a low of 18.7 per 1000 persons in 1935; then it climbed back to a moderate peak of 25.0 births per 1000 in 1955; then dropped to a low of 18.2 per 1000 persons in 1970. The affects of the depression and World War II are evident in the low birth rates during the 1930's and early 1940'x, when birth were deferred and/or families were separated. In turn, the low number of children born during these years matured to child bearing ages in the 1950's; thus, there were fewer potential young mothers as a percent of the total population in the early 1950's than was true of the years preceeding or -49- P e 2 r 21 1 1; T h 0 u s a n d 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 W ash. Co. M d. U. S. A. CHART VI -1 following the affects of the depression and war. Consequently, there would be less births expected per 1000 population. This is exhibited in the lower birth rates per 1000 found for the period 1960 to 1965. Immediately following the war, however, the period between 1945-1955, exhibited the affects of the past war baby boom; when families who were reunited and/or families who had postponed children combined to produce children resulting in a large number of births, in a short period of time. Past war prosperity also provided a positive atmos- phere which helped stimulate family creation. This accounts for rising bifth rates for the years 1950 to 1955. Because of the children of the baby boom years matured to child bearing ages beginning in the late 1960's and early 1970's, a normally high birth rate per 1000 population would be expected from the disproportionately large numbers of poten- tial mothers. However, the opposite pattern emerged in the Nation and the County since 1965. (see chart VI -1 , and Table VI -1 ) Potential parents have elected to have fewer children than has been true in the past, creating fewer births per 1000 population. The following birth rate pattern per 1000 population is more pronounced in the County than for either the nation or the state. (again see Chart VI -1 ,and Table VI -1 ) This may be due to unique family size preference on the part of young County families. but it is more likely due to the lower percent representation of females age 25-34 of the total County population as compared to the State and Nation. -51- NOTE: The above discussion of birth rates has been adapted from a preliminary draft of a "Technical Report --Housing, Washington County" developed by Urban Research and Dev- elopment Corporation of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. DEATH RATES - Death rates or the probability of deaths per 1000 persons has changed considerably nationwide for all age groups since 1910. The death rate per 1000 persons in 1910, for example, was 14.7 against 9.4 nation wide in 1970. As pointed out in the above discussion of Birth Rates, the decline in the number of persons five (5) years and younger as shown in the age -sex profile (Chart VII -2) is not generally attributed to the infant death rate (probability or infant death). Instead infant death probabilities have declined; additionally survival odds have been increased and the number of unsuccessful pregnancies have been reduced from the traditional pattern. Death rate reductions have also been extended through the prime years of fer- tility, age 15-44, increasing thereby the relative numbers and percent representation of potential child bearers that these age groups are of the total population. Conseq- uently, more births would be expected from a greater number and percent of potential child bearing adults than was found from the depressed age form for young children. Factors other than natural causes, then are affecting the reduced number of and percent representation -52- COMPARISON: BIRTH AND DEATH RATES WASHINGTON COUNTY AND STATE OF MARYLAND AND UNITED STATES. SELECTED YEARS. NOTE: Birth and Death Rates Are Enumerated Per 1000 Population SOURCE: (1)Highligghts of the 1971 Vital SlaiIs%es 0T_Mary and. (2) Master Plan Report_ 1_, 1959. P-25. Table: VI -1 -53- WASHINGTON COUNTY MARYLAND UNITED STATES YEAR BR DR BR DR BR DR 1920 26.7 12.4 25.2 14.7 27.7 13.0 1925 24.2 11.8 22.2 14.1 25.1 11.7 1930 20.2 12.4 18.9 13.3 21.3 11.3 1935 17.9 11.2 16.3 12.2 18.7 10.9 1940 18.4 11.3 18.3 12.1 19.4 10.8 1945 19.8 10.6 20.4 10.7 20.4 10.6 1950 21.4 10.4 23.4 9.6 24.1 9.6 1955 23.3 10.2 25.5 8.9 25.0 9.3 1960 20.7 10.6 24.9 9.0 23.7 9.5 1965 17.6 9.8 21.0 8.8 19.4 9.4 1970 16.7 9.3 17.6 8.3 18.2 9.4 1971 15.7 9.2 16.3 8.1 17.3 9.3 NOTE: Birth and Death Rates Are Enumerated Per 1000 Population SOURCE: (1)Highligghts of the 1971 Vital SlaiIs%es 0T_Mary and. (2) Master Plan Report_ 1_, 1959. P-25. Table: VI -1 -53- of children relative to the total population. Death probabilities for the elderly age 65 to 74 appear to have been consist- ently made since 1930. Rate reductions for the most elderly, age 75 and over, however, appear to have been made since 1950 and in 1970 most specifically for elderly age 85 and over. The trends appears to indicate a continuing reduction through the control of heart and lung ailments which have traditionally been the most fatal causes of death of the elderly. Death rate reductions for elderly age groups has undoubtedly been a major factor affecting the recent increase in elderly age representations in the age form in the County, the State and the Nation. Trends, indicate further reductions will con- tinue to increase the elderly's representation and impact on the population. Life expectancies have also not changed cornsistently between the sexes. For instance, the average male born in 1920 could expect to live to age 53.6. While the average women born in 1920 could expect to live to the age of 54.6. By 1970 the average women born in 1970 can expect to live to the age 74.6 as against 67.1 for mem nationwide; that is, a women born in 1970 can expect to outlive her male counterpart by 7.5 years. In addition, the trends indicate that the differential life expectancy between males and fe- males will continue. -54- Thus, the increasing longevity, particularly between men and women will have profound impacts nationally as well as at the local level. The elderly will represent an ever increasing relative proportion of the total population. Also, the majority of increasing numbers of the elderly will be women who have outlived a male counterpart or spouse. In the future careful consideration will have to be given to the unique health, transportation, housing, recreational and social service needs of the elderly. NOTE: The abrove discussion of death rates was adapted from a preliminary draft of a "Technical Report -- Housing, Washington County" by Urban Research and Development Corporation of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. -55- CAUSE SPECIFIC DEATH RATES FOR 1970 FOR THE STATE, WESTERN MARYLAND, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY. WASHINGTON COUNTY WESTERN MARYLAND STATE OF MARYLAND DISEASES 9.22 9.88 8.06 All causes of death 3.8 4.40 3.16 Heart Disease 1.61 1.76 1.54 Cancer 0.98 0.86 0.64 Cerebro -Vascular Diseases 0.40 0.43 0.42 All Accidents 1.53 0.20 0.19 Motor Vehicle Accidents 0.25 0.23 0.22 All other Accidents 0.13 0.22 0.20 Diabetes Mellitus 0.28 0.26 0.19 Influenza and Pneumonia 0.13 0.11 0.18 Cirrhosis of Liver SOURCE: Highlights of 1971 Vital Statistics of Maryland Western Maryland is here defined as including Frederick, Washington, Allegany and Garrett Counties. Note: These statistics are enumerated in terms of deaths for each specified cause per thousand population Table: VI -2 -56- SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS AGE CHARACTERICS I AGE FORM - Age form is a term used to describe a composite age distribu- tion of a given population and its distribution within age group categories. Shown on Chart VII -2, is an age form bargraph which represents Washington County's popu- lation in 1970. Each bar represents a specific age group and its length corresponds to that age groups proportion of the County's total population. Inspection of the age profile reveals that a large concentration appears in the middle age groups. These are also the most economically productive age groups. In this light, it is necessary to examine the number of people of Washington County's population who are not in the productive age groups. DEPENDENCY - Every member of society is a consumer, but only some members are producers. A study of dependency examines the number of individuals in specified "economically unproductive" age group categories for every 100 individuals in the pro- ductive age groupings. The productive groups in this report will defined as ages 20- 64. The population that is older than 65 and younger than 20 is said to be dependent. This is not to say that all members of the older and younger groups are unproductive, but that their relative contribution to a given area's economy is generally less sig- nificant than the members of the 20-64 age groups. Table VII -1, list Washington County's dependency ratio for each decade from 1930 to 1970. Chart VII -1, plots changes in the total dependency ratio for both the United States and Washington County. The componets of the total dependency ratio are also plotted. They are the youth dependency ratio and aged dependency ratio. The youth dependency ratio measures the number of young people, (under 20 years old) as a proportion of 100 persons in the (20-64) productive age groups. As illustrated on Chart VII -1, the youth dependency ratio for both the County and the Nation dropped from 1930-1940; that is, the number of persons in young age groups decline as a relative proportion the 20-64 age groups. The youth dependency for Wash- ington County continued to drop until the 1950's. The youth dependency ratio showed a rise in 1960 then subsequent drop because of declining birth rates. -59- 1970 SEX RATIOS Maryland Frederick County Washington County Allegany County Garrett County 95.5 Males per 100 Females 96.6 Males per 100 Females 97.0 Males per 100 Females 89.3 Males per 100 Females 97.7 Males per 100 Females 1930-1970 DEPENDENCY: WASHINGTON COUNTY Table: VII -1 -60- Total Dependency Aged Dependency Youth Ratio Ratio Dependency Ratio 1930 85.5 11.4 74.1 1940 75.0 13.0 62.1 1950 74.0 15.2 58.8 1960 87.6 17.5 70.1 1970 83.8 18.1 65.8 Table: VII -1 -60- 8C R 70 A T 60 1 50 0 S 40 3C DEPENDENCY TRENDS 90 80 70 r 60 150 40 30 20 10 Total ____Youth eoe,p ..Aged 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 U. S. Washington County NOTE: These Charts Were Prepared From Material Adapted From POPULATION PROBLEMS By Warren and Lewis, 1965 and 1970 Census Publications CHART SII- I PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF MAJOR AGE GROUP BY PLANNING SECTOR Less Than 15 65 and Over MAP 8 Scale i I i i WASHINGTON COUNTY The aged dependency ratio for both the nation and Washington County plotted in Chart VII -1 , indicates a relatively constant upward trend. This can be explained by the fact that death rates for the aged continue to decline as medical techno1ogia1 advances pro- long life expectancy. The end result is that the number of elderly people continues to grow as a proportion of the County's and the nation's total population. AGE-- SEX PROFILE - Age -Sex profiles have been typically called Population pyramids when plotted graphically to exhibit the form of a pyramid. This occurs when a population produces more children than is necessary to replace the preceeding age group. Neither Washington County nor Maryland exhibit pyramid age form Tabl-e VII -3, aFid Chart VII-2,3,portr,ay,theage distributions of the populations of Maryland and Washing- ton County. Both Maryland and the County show distinctive depressions in the age groups from 25 to 45. This shows the "depressive effect"which the depression of the late 1920 and early 1930's and World War II had upon the apparent fertility of the p-Up-ulation. A second depression occurs in the age groups under 10 for both age forms-. This exhibits the declining fertility (birth rates) of the County and the State in recent years. Although the age form of Washington County and Maryland are similar, there are significant differences. As relative proportions of their total population, Washington County has more people in the older age groups than Maryland. Inspection of the each pro- file indicates that on the "MALE" side, Washington County exceed Maryland beginning at age -62- 1970 WASHINGTON COUNTY AGE AND SEX DATA AGE NO. OF SEX NO. OF GROUP MALES RATIO* FEMALES a!!85 305 53.8 567 80-85 402 51.5 780 75-79 741 63.9 1160 70-74 1114 69.7 1598 65-69 1573 80.2 1962 60-64 2088 87.8 2378 55-59 2512 92.1 2727 50-54 2881 94.5 3050 45-49 3227 94.7 3408 40-44 3216 97.5 3298 35-39 2897 92.9 3116 30-34 2873 98.6 2913 25-29 3360 100.6 3340 20-24 4615 120.7 3822 15-19 4872 110.3 4418 10-14 5023 100.4 5002 5-9 5082 104.2 4878 <5 4355 101.8 4276 * Sex Ratio is defined as the number of males per 100 females for each age category. Source: 1970 Census, Population Characteristics of Maryland, Table 35. Table: VII -2 -63- AGE -SEX DISTRIBUTIONS Table: VII -3 64 WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MARYLAND Age Groups Male % Female % Male % Female % < 5 4.2 4.1 4.5 4.3 5-9 4.9 4.7 5.2 5.1 10-14 4.8 4.8 5.3 5.1 15-19 4.7 4.3 4.5 4.5 20-24 4.4 3.9 4.0 4.3 25-29 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.7 30-34 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.1 35-39 2.8 3.0 2.9 2.9 40-44 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.2 45-49 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.3 50-54 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.8 55-59 2.5 2.6 3.2 2.3 60-64 2.0 2.3 1.7 2.0 65-69 1.5 1.9 1.2 1.6 70-74 1.1 1.5 0.9 1.2 75-79 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.9 80-84 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.5 85 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.4 Table: VII -3 64 AGE - SEX PROFILE WASHINGTON COUNTY 1970 TOTAL POPULATION 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% MALE 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 C 5 (CHART VII -2) 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% FEMALE Om:19 0 MIEV Isola imilim lives $own luv I ATIC 50. On the "FEMALE" side Washington County exceeds Maryland beginning at age 55. This substantial number of aged or aging people in the County will have to be carefully con- sidered in the provision of services for the special needs of the aged. Maryland, in 1970, had more people in the younger age groups, as a proportion of the total population, than did Washington County. All age groups up to age 34 on the "FEMALE" side of the profile show Maryland's proportion greater than Washington County. The "MALE" age groups Maryland's percentage was greater than Washington County in the age groups from 0-14 and from 25 to 39. The ages 15-24 of the males show that Washington County exceed the state. This is probably because of concentrations of young males in group quarters at Fort Ritchie and the Maryland Correctional Institution. SEX COMPOSITION - In 1970 females out numbered males in Washington County. For every 100 females there were approximately 97 males. Table VII -1 , lists the sex ratios for the State of Maryland and the four western counties of the State. Of these four, Wash- ington, Frederick, and Garrett have very similar male-female ratios. The State as a whole had a somewhat lower ratio of 95.5. Allegany County had an extremely low ratio of 89.3 males for every 100 females. Typically, there are more males born than females. However, males tend to have higher death rates at every age. The initial excess of males over females at birth is progressively cut down until in the older ages females out number males. Washington County is no exception. Table VII -2, shows sex ratios for each age group level. The age groups ranging up to 29 years old all have sex ratios greater than 100. Whereas those age group categories that are 30 years and older shows ratios less than 100. It is significant to note that at about age 65 the sex ratio drops dramatically. That is easily explained since a female could expect to outlive her male counterpart by approx- imately 7.5 years. Therefore, one can expect to have the number of elderly females to increase as a proportion of the total population. MARITAL STATUS Information regarding the number of people who are married, single, divorced or widowed is a very significant aspect of how population is structured. This kind of information can lend insights to a fiven population's fertility and mortality. For instance, a community in which a high proportion of females is married typically will have a crude birth rate. Also men and women who are married generally have lower death rates than single, widowed, and divorced persons of the same age.l 1 Thompson and Lewis, Population Problems - 1965 -67- MALE - Now Married - Widowed - Divorced - Never Married FEMALE MARITAL STATUS 1970 Western Md. Counties 67.1 3.3 2.1 26.1 Allegany Frederick Garrett Washington State 68.0 66.2 67.4 66.8 63.6 3.4 3.0 3.7 3.2 2.6 2.3 1.8 1.9 2.5 2.3 25.1 27.5 26.1 25.8 28.7 - Now Married 62.8 60.3 62.1 65.1 63.7 59.0 - Widowed 12.8 14.1 11.2 13.2 12.7 11.1 - Divorced 2.7 3.2 2.5 1.9 3.4 3.3 - Separated 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.0 2.1 3.7 - Never Married 20.0 20.6 22.5 18.8 18.1 22.8 Source: 1970 U. S. Census of Population "Characteristics of Population: Maryland" Tables 22 and 37. Note: The statics shown on this page are percentages of the total Male or Female population over the age of 14 years old. Table: VII -4 am Similarly, marital status statistics can also act as a housing needs indi- cator. There is an obvious difference in the housing requirements and capabilities between a single individual, a married couple, and a divorced or widowed individual with children. Furthermore, if there are large numbers of divorced or separated mothers with young children in a community, it may be necessary to provide additional services such -as day care centers so that the mother (in this case a female family -head) would then be able to work. In 1970 approximately 65% of all Washington Countians over the age of 14 were married. In that same year 25.8% of all males had never married as opposed to 18.1% of all females. This is typical. There is generally a greater percentage of single men as a proportion of all men than is the case for women. Conversely, there is typically a larger percentage of men in a married state than women as shown on Table VII -4, and page 141. However, there is a much higher percentage of women who are widows. Essen- tially these disparities occur because of differential life expectancies between the sexes. That is, a female can expect to live longer than a male, and in 1970 the life expectancy for a female was 7.5 years longer than for males - nationally. Additionally, the males that have been widowed or divorced have a greater tendency to remarry than is true of females, and therefore they are less likely to remain widowed or divorced for a long period of time. Table VII -4, compares Washington County to other counties of Western Mary- land and the State as a whole. Washington County exhibits a greater percentage of both married males and married females than the State. Interestingly, the county's percentage of married males was slightly lower than the average for all of the western counties listed, while the county's percentage of married females was higher than for the western counties. Washington County had the lowest percentage values recorded on Table VII -4, in the category of never married's for both males and females. Possibly this can be ex- plained by the fact that the never married's tend to be, for the most part, young peo- ple in their late teens and early twenties. Since Washington County has a relatively small proportion of it's total population in these ages when'compared to the State and other Maryland Counties, the percentage of never marrieds tends to somewhat smaller also. Of those separated, Washington County occupied a middle position. Both the male and female figures were lower than the State and higher than the Western Maryland average. -70- SUMMARY Washington County has a high percentage of widowed females. This repre- sents a potential future demand for specialized services such as housing, job trainning, etc. Washington County has a low proportion of never marrieds. The Age -Sex profile (chart VII -2 ) indicates a low percentage of persons in the late teens and early twenty age groups. These two items suggest young adults who have grown up in Washington County tend not to remain here. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Typically, there is a high correlation between income and education. That is, the more education one has the higher income that person makes. Therefore, to gain insights of Washington County's Income propensities and social well being the following discussion examines the educational attainment data for adults over 25 years old a-nd older. Measures of an areas educational attainment include: 1) the number of years of school completed, 2) median years of school, and percentage of high school graduates. Table VII -5, compares Washington County's educational attainment to that of three other counties of western Maryland and the State as a whole. Of the four counties; Washington County had the second highest median years of schooling completed. Additionally, Washington County had the lowest percent of in- dividuals having completed no school, although only very small fractions of percentage -71- EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 1970 25 YEARS OLD AND OLDER Years of School Complete Allegany Frederick Garrett Washington Maryland None 0.82 0.82 1.35 0.7 1.1 Elementary 1-4 3.7 3.0 4.8 3.0 3.5 5-7 13.3 22.6 25.3 12.8 13.1 8 13.6 7.8 13.2 15.9 9.7 High School 1-3 19.8 23.2 19.2 21.7 20.3 4 34.9 25.3 21.2 32.2 28.5 College 1-3 7.2 7.2 3.9 7.2 9.9 Cor more) 6.7 10.0 3.9 6.6 13.9 Median Years of Schooling 11.8 11.0 9.8 11.4 12.1 High School Graduates 48.6 42.6 35.9 45.9 52.3 Number of Persons 49,094 45,081 11,784 57,605 2,082,549 Source: Adopted from U. S. Census of Table: VII -5 Maryland 1970, Tables 120 and 148. -72- EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 1970 -- MALE 25 YEARS OLD AND OLDER Table: VII -6 -73- Allegany Frederick Garrett Washington State Of Maryland None 0.9 1.2 1.5 0.6 1.1 Elementary 1-4 4.4 3.7 6.6 3.3 4.0 5-7 13.9 23.3 26.6 13.2 13.9 8 14.1 8.0 14.1 16.2 9.7 High School 1-3 19.2 22.7 3.0 20.8 19.0 4 33.0 22.5 26.2 30.4 24.0 College 1-3 6.4 6.2 3.0 6.7 9.9 4 or'more 8.2 12.4 4.2 8.7 18.5 Median Years Schooling 11.6 10.8 9.2 11.4 12.1 Percent High School Grad.47.6 41.1 33.4 45.8 52.4 Number of Persons 22,578 21,568 5,689 27,273 991,982 Table: VII -6 -73- College 1-3 7.8 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 7.6 9.9 4 or more 5.3 1970 -- FEMALE 4.6 9.8 Median Years School 11.9 25 YEARS OLD AND OLDER 11.5 12.1 Percent High School Allegany Frederick Garrett Washington State of Maryland None 0.8 0.5 1.2 0.7 1.0 Elementary 1-4 3.2 2.3 3.2 2.7 2.9 5-7 12.8 21.9 24.2 12.5 12.5 8 13.6 7.6 12.4 15.5 9.8 High School 1-3 20.4 23.8 20.5 22.5 21.4 4 5.3 27.9 30.0 33.8 32.5 College 1-3 7.8 8.2 4.8 7.6 9.9 4 or more 5.3 7.8 3.5 4.6 9.8 Median Years School 11.9 11.2 10.3 11.5 12.1 Percent High School Grad49.6 43.9 38.4 46.1 52.3 Number of Persons 26,516 23,513 6,095 30,332 1,090,565 Table: VII -7 -74- points separate Allegany, Frederick, and Washington Counties in this category. The figure for Maryland was 1.1%. Curiously, Washington County again ranked second to Allegany County in terms of percent high school graduates of the total population 25 years old and older. Mary- land in 1970 had over 52% high school graduates, approximately 6% greater than Washington County. Only 6.6% of all Washington County residents over the age of 25 in 1970 had completed four (4) years of college or more. This compares only slightly to the 10% figure for Frederick, and to the 13.9% for the State of Maryland. Washington County, which has the largest population of all the western Mary- land Counties, was not a leader in educational attainment in 1970. In areas such as the percentage of high school graduates, Washington County is clearly below the Maryland ratio. If Washington County is to continue to grow and prosper, as more and newer industries locate here, special steps will be necessary to provide the opportunity for additional education and increased training. -75- MINORITY POPULATION Approximately 3.4% of Washington County's population was non-white in 1970. The total number was 3577. Table VII -8, shows that all except 220 were Negro. The remainder was distributed in the following groups: Indian, Japanese, Chinese, Filipina, etc. Detailed statistics were published only for the Negro Population. Negro Population Distribution The Negro population of Washington County was con- centrated in the City of Hagerstown. Approximately 52% of the total Negro population lived there. Other areas having a high proportion of the Negro population were Planning Sectors II and IV, respectively 37.4% and 8.2%. (See Table VII -9) However, even Hagerstown and Planning Sector II where the highest Negro con- centrations occur, the Negro population. In Hagerstown only one person in every 20 was Negro. For both sectors II and IV, the figure was one of 10. These sectors have the highest proportion of their total population that was Negro. Sector VI proportion was approximately 2 of every 100 persons, while all remaining areas had less than 1 of every 100. -76- RACIAL COMPOSITION Washington County Population Washington County White Population Non -White Population Negro Population Non -White -- Non -Negro Population 103,829 100,252 3,577 3,357 ** 220 The Non -White and Non -Negro Population consists of: - Indian - 42 - Japanese - 34 - Chinese - 16 - Filipino - 32 - All other - 96 220 * 96.6% of Total County Population - 1970 ** 93.8% of County Non -White Population Source: Characteristics of Population: by U.S. Bureau of Census -77- Maryland 1970 Table: VII -8 Washington County 1970 Negro Population Distribution of Total County Negro Planning Population that resides Sectors in this Sector I * 0.9* II 37.4 -- IV 8.2 V ---- VI 1 .7 City of Hagerstown 51.7 %_of Sector Population that is Negro * Excludes City of Hagerstown ---- indicates that data was not tabulated, to avoid disclosure. Table: VII -9 'm 0.1%* 9.4% 9.5% 1.6% 4.8% WASHINGTON COUNTY NON-WHITE POPULATION AGE -SEX DISTRIBUTION 1970 Table: VII -10 -79- of % of Age Male Total Female Total 54 102 2.9 126 3.5 5-9 125 3.5 128 3.6 10-14 122 3.4 141 3.9 15-19 566 15.8 111 3.1 20-24 833 23.3 92 2.6 25-29 151 4.2 84 2.3 30-34 64 1.8 72 2.0 35-39 77 2.2 68 1.9 40-44 59 1.6 61 1.7 45-49 47 1.3 46 1.3 50-54 48 1.3 65 1.8 55-59 42 1.2 55 1.5 60-64 41 1.1 42 1.2 65-69 34 0.9 42 1.2 70-74 19 0.5 36 1.0 75-79 9 0.3 22 0.6 80-84 9 0.3 16 0.4 jw: 85 11 0.3 11 0.3 Table: VII -10 -79- AGE- SEX 1970 NON-WHITE WASHINGTON 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0 PROFILE POPULATION COUNTY 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 5 0 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% MALE FEMALE Acme An age comparison of specified age group distributions for the non-white population and the total county population reveals two interesting facts. The first was that the non-white population age -sex profile, with the exception of the male 15-24 age groups, was more nearly a pyramidal slope than that of the total county population. Thus, while the percentage concentrations in the younger age groups of the non-white population are similar to those of the total population, the concentrations in the middle and older age groups were much less. The heavy concentration of males in the 15 to 24 age groups is attributable to the p population of the Maryland Correctional Institution and Ft. Ritchie. Consequently, the age form is skewed in these age groups and not really representive of the county's non-white population age grouping. See Chart VIII -4 The second fact concerning the age -sex profile comparisons was the apparent uni- versal applicability of declining birth rate to both non-white and white populations. This shows that there is a. -decline in the number of persons in the youngest age grouping from the next youngest grouping. Income Less than The Poverty Level Table VII-II,lists for the negro population information regarding its poverty status, specifically, less than the poverty level. In a subsequent section of this report reference will be made to the U.S. Bureau of the Census definition of the poverty level that same definition applies here also. Table VII -II, shows INCOME LESS THAN THE POVERTY LEVEL FOR THE NEGRO POPULATION -82- Table: VII -2 Allegany Frederick Washington Families 47 281 119 % of All Negro Families 19.0 24.6 26.9 Mean Family Income .... $2509 $2263 Mean Income Deficit .... $1593 $1419 % P-ublically Assisted .... 18.3 45.4 Mean size of Family .... 4.55 4.30 With Related Children Under 18 37 246 83 Mean number of Children Under 18 .... 3.23 .... Families with Female Head 42 165 76 With Related Children Under 18 32 156 56 Family Heads 47 281 119 Civilian Male Head under 65 Years .... 79 17 Percent in Labor Force ... .. Unrelated Individuals 109 216 152 Percent of All Unrelated Individuals 66.9 44.3 56.5 Mean Income $922 $749 $1099 Mean Income Deficit $950 $1081 $724 Publically Assisted 29.4 6.9 26.3 Persons '288 1495 664 Percent of all Persons 29.4 27.1 32.9 % Receiving Social Security Income 23.6 13.9 22.9 % 65 Years and Over 17.7 12.7 18.4 % Receiving Social Security Income .... 75.8 95.9 Related Children Under 18 Years 82 775 267 % Living with Both Parents 30.1 15.4 Households 140 370 203 % of All Households 39.5 28.3 35.7 In Owner Occupied Housing Units 55 89 13 Mean Value of Unit .••• •• In Renter Occupied Housing Units 85 281 190 Mean Gross Rent .... $59 $54 Percent Lacking Some or All Plumbing Facilities 15.0 29.5 23.2 -82- Table: VII -2 that all of Washington County Negro families approximately 27% were below the establish- ed poverty threshold. The mean family income for Negro families of Washington County which were below the poverty threshold was $2263; the mean income deficit was $1419. Comparatively, Frederick County Negro family population below the poverty level had a mean income of $2509 and a mean income deficit of $1593. Interestingly, Washington County had a larger percentage of Negro families below the poverty level than Frederick County but a smaller income deficit. Similarly, in the unrelated individials category Washington County had a higher percentage of persons below the poverty level, but again a smaller mean income deficit than Frederick. Educational Attainment In a previous section of this report educational attain- ment was discussed for the total County population. This also serves as a basis for com- parison of the statistics for the Negro population. In regard to median years of schooling, the negro population was slightly lower than was true for the total county population. (see Tables VII,12, 13, 14) Inspection of these Tables also shows that the percentage of high school graduates for the negro population was substantially lower than for the total population. IRM EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR THE NEGRO POPULATION TOTAL POPULATION 25 YEARS AND OVER SOURCE: Characteristics of Population: Maryland, 1970. By the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Adapted from 51 and 125. Table: VII -12 sum Allegany Frederick Washington State Of Maryland None 0.5 2.0 1.3 2.1 Elementary 1-4 9.0 8.1 3.3 9.2 5-7 10.8 31.5 17.2 21.1 8 10.4 5.4 12.6 9.7 High School 1-3 29.5 26.7 28.4 25.8 4 34.2 20.2 31.3 20.7 College 1-3 1.1 3.0 3.9 5.5 4 4.6 3.2 2.2 5.9 Median School Years completed 11.0 9.3 9.9 9.9 High School Graduates 39.9 26.4 37.4 32.1 Number of Persons 567 2534 1992 322508 SOURCE: Characteristics of Population: Maryland, 1970. By the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Adapted from 51 and 125. Table: VII -12 sum No. -School Completed Elementary 1-4 5-7 8 High School 1-3 4 College Allegany 1.1 10.3 6.9 12.6 31.3 35.1 EDUCATION ATTAINMENT FOR THE NEGRO POPULATION MALE 25 YEARS OLD AND OVER Frederick Washington 2.4 1.2 State of Maryland 8.8 1.5 11.5 33-.6 23.1 22.7 6.5 14.6 9.7 23.9 23.2 23.9 18.7 29.7 18.8 1-3 - 3.3 2.5 5.3 4 or more 2.7 2.7 4.3 5.5 Median School Years Completed 10.8 8.8 10.3 9.5 % High School Graduates 37.8 24.8 36.5 30.0 Total Number 262 1174 603 151524 Source: Characteristic of Population: Maryland, 1970 By the U.S. Bureau of the Census Tables 51 and 125 Table: VII -13 No school Completed Elementary 1-4 5-7 8 High School 1-3 4 College EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF THE NEGRO POPULATION FEMALE 25 YEARS OLD AND OVER Allegany Frederick Washington 1.7 1.4 9.9 14.1 8.5 27.9 33.4 7.5 29.6 4.4 29.0 21.4 5.1 11.2 10.5 33.6 32.9 State of Maryland 1.8 1-3 2.0 2.8 5-3 4 or more 6.2 3.6 - Median Schools years Completed 11.1 9.7 9.5 High School Graduates 41.6 27.8 38.2 Total Numbers 305 1360 589 Source: Characteristics of Population: Maryland, 1970 By the U.S. Bureau of the Census Tables 51 and 125. s 7.2 19.6 9.8 27.4 22.3 5.7 6.2 10.3 34.2 170984 Table: VII -14 POVERTY i BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL Of major importance in any discussion of a jurisdiction's population is the characteristic of poverty. The U.S. Census definition of a poverty income level is complex. It involves the consideration of such factors as family size, sex of the family head, the number of children under 18 years old that is dependent upon a family head, the age of the family head (older or younger than 65 years old), and farm versus non-farm residence. One of the most significant of these is the question of farm or non-farm re- sidence because of the direct bearing that this has upon "a nutritionally adequate food plan." It can generally be said that farm residents are able to spend less for food than the non-farm resident for the same basic food plan. The poverty status index used by the Census Bureau allows for differences in the cost of living between farm and non-farm fam- ilies and individuals to be incorporated into the poverty status definition. Family size and number of children under 18 years old are also importnat con- siderations. Obviously, the more mouths there are to feed the more income is necessary to sustain a family even at the poverty level. Also, children under the age of 18 years, typically, are not able to contribute substantially to:a family's income. -87- INCOME LESS THAN THE POVERTY LEVEL State of Allegany Frederick Garrett Washington Maryland Families below the Poverty Level 2576 1489 1223 2544 74601 % if All Families 11.4 7.0 22.2 9.4 7.7 Mean Family Income $1984 $2120 $2156 $2060 $1934 Mean Income Deficit $1233 $1367 $1382 $1347 $1654 % Publically Assisted 14.6 9.5 11.0 15.1 21.8 Mean Size of Family 3.37 3.85 3.98 3.71 3.97 With Related Children Under 18 2.70 3.07 3.05 2.88 3.01 % of Femailies with Female Head 32.0 31.4 20.2 31.1 32158 Related Children Under 18 21.4 25.4 13.7 23.5 27.804, Family Heads 2576 1489 1223 2544 74601 Civilian Male Head Less than 65 1050 675 680 1100 29408 % In Labor Force 67.4 78.2 77.2 80.4 73.5 Unrelated Individuals 3430 2698 736 3070 90661 % of All Unrelated Individuals 53.7 45.7 62.7 42.7 32.1 Mean Income $943 $874 $750 $931 $831 Mean Income Deficit $862 $957 $1056 $876 $1005 Percent Receiving Public Assistance 11.0 3.3 11.8 9.3 11.9 Persons 12110 8438 5606 12498 386579 Percent of All Persons 14.7 10.3 26.5 12.5 10.1 Percent Receiving Social Security 29.6 23.3 20.8 23.8 16.2 Percent 65 years and.over 28.1 23.1 18.5 23.5 16.2 Percent Receiving Social Security82.9 80.0 76.3 80.7 74.3 Related Children under 18 3465 2778 2148 4514 156120 Percent Living with Both Parents 56.7 55.8 78.2 58.6 41.7 Households 4586 2339 1131 3953 114883 Percent of All Households 18.6 11.4 27.9 14.3 10.7 41180 In Owner Occupied Housing Units 2049 $9867 1264 $13363 714 $8581 1530 $11162 $13951 Mean Value of Unit In Renter Occupied Housing Units 2537 1075 417 2423 73703 Bean Gross Rent Percent Lacking Some or All Plumbing $60 15.6 $74 23.1 $46 31.4 $60 20.4 $95 11.1 Facilities Source: U.S. CrInsus of Population; Maryland 1970 Table: VIII -1 Families having a female head or family head older than 65, generally, are poverty prone. Typically, they have fixed incomes or they are unskilled and there- fore in a poor bargaining position in the job market. These also then are necessarily and appropriately considered in the formula for establishing poverty level threshold. As indicated on Table VIII -1, approximately 9.4% of Washington County's fam- ilies were below the poverty level in 1970. The average income deficit was $1347. This means that the typical below poverty level family would have to earn $1347 additionally to achieve their respective poverty level thresholds. Only Frederick County, of Maryland's Western Counties had a smaller proportion of families than Washington County earning less than a poverty level income with a 7% figure. Allegany and Garrett, respectively, had 11.4 and 22.2 percentages in 1970. Maryland as a whole had 7.7% of its families below the poverty level. Table VIII -1, item 3 compares unrelated individuals 14 years old and older which are below the poverty level for the four Western Maryland Counties. Of these four Counties, Washington County had the lowest proportion below the poverty level with nearly 43% of all unrelated individuals. This compares with over 60% in Garrett County, and only 32% for the State of Maryland. The mean income deficit for unrelated persons below poverty level in Washington County was $876. Garrett County had the highest mean income deficit, over $1000 per person. Allegany and Frederick County respectively, had mean income deficits of $943 and $874 for unrelated individuals below the poverty level. Although the State of Maryland had a proportionately less number of unrelated individuals existing at a sub - poverty level, the State's mean income deficit was $1005. Washington County, then, seems to occupy a unique position. The county has proportionately more families and individuals below their established poverty threshold than the state, but those that are typically have less of a deficit than is true state wide. EMPLOYMENT WASHINGTON COUNTY EMPLOYMENT People engaged in the activities of producing goods and services are termed the employment force. Generally, the employment force is broken down into two components, basic industries and supporting industries. Basic industries are goods producing and are involved in the production, modification, and refinements of objects and materials. Examples of basic industries include agriculture, mining, forestry, fishing, construction, manufacturing, and transportation. Supporting industries are involved in providing a form of service for its clientele. These industries include wholesale -retail trade, personal business services, fin- ance, insurance, real estate, public utilities, and civilian government. Comparative employment between basic industries and supporting industry employment for Washington County and the State of Maryland is listed on Table IX -1 • Washington County had nearly as many people employed in basic industry as in supporting industry: the respec- ive percent of total employment was 48.8 and 50.7. Employment statistics for the State, on the other hand, show that the supporting industries employ more than twice as many people as the basic industries. Further examination of Table IX -1 , also shows that both the State and Washington County had the same five industries as the highest ranked employers, however; these were ranked in substantially different order. In ranked order of percent of total employment, the five leading employers were Manufacturing, Retail Trade, Civilian Government, Personal and Miscellaneous Services, andContract Construction. For the State, They were: Civilian Govern- -92- WASHINGTON COUNTY 1970 EMPLOYMENT BY MAJOR ECONOMIC SECTORS State Of Washington County Maryland Basic Industries (Goods Producing) 48.8% 31.7% - Agriculture, Forests, and Fishing 3.1 2.1 - Mining (0) .1 - Contract Construction 4.7 6.3 - Manufacturing 36.0 19.7 - Transportation 5.0 3.5 Supporting Industries (Service Producing) 50.7 68.1 - Whole sale trade 4.2 4.2 - Retail Trade 15.7 17.4 - Personal and Miscellaneous Services 10.7 12.3 - Business Services 1.3 4.9 - Finance, Insurance, etc., 2.3 4.9 - Community and Public Utility 3.4 2.2 - Civilian Government 13.1 22.2 - total may not add to 100% because of rounding - Source: Extracted from a preliminary draft of a 1974 report by the Department of State Planning concerning population projec- tions and employment projections at 5 year intervals to 1990. Table: IX -1 -93- ment, Manufacturing, Retail Trade, Personal and Miscellaneous services, and Contract Con- struction. The high percent of persons employed in Civilian Government for the State is reflective of the large numbers of persons employed by the Federal Government in the Washington Metropolitan area. The high employment concentration in the manufacturing industry in Washington County is largely attributable to the manufacture of transportation equipment by Mack Truck and Fairchild Industries. Such a heavy dependence on one sector of the local economy can have severe repercussions. Potentially, a downward trend in the demand for the goods pro- duced by these firms could result in high unemployment and instability of the local economy. Occupation of Employed - The employment force of a given locality can also be examined in terms of its occupational distribution. In this report the occupational div- isions were derived from the U. S. Bureau of Census The occupational divisions are White Collar, Blue Collar, Farm Workers and Service Workers Neither the names given to these occupational categories nor the sequence in which they appear in this text and the accom- panying tables is intended to imply that any division has a higher social or skill level than another. In Washington County the comparative percentage of persons employed in White Collar and Blue Collar types of jobs was nearly the same. Approximately 41% of all personsare employed in White Collar jobs while nearly 44% are employed at Blue Collar occupations. -94- WASHINGTON COUNTY OCCUPATION OF EMPLOYED 1970 Table: IX -2 -95- Male Female Total White Collar 8715 7211 15926 - Professional, Technical, and Kindred Workers 2787 1681 4468 - Managers and Administrators, except farm 2513 416 2929 - Sales Workers 1384 1007 2391 - Clerical and Kindred Workers 2031 4107 6138 Blue Collar 13753 3365 17118 - Craftsman, Formen, and Kindred Workers 6630 463 7093 - Operatives, except transport 3909 2618 6527 - Transport equipment operatives 1734 134 1868 - Laborers, except farm 1480 150 1630 Farm Workers 1205 144 1349 - Farmers and Farm Managers 635 56 691 - Farm Laborers and Foremen 570 88 658 Service Workers 1777 3029 4806 - Service Workers, except Private Households 1769 2501 4270 - Private Household Workers 8 528 536 TOTAL (ALL OCCUPATIONS) 25450 13749 39199 Source: The above data was extracted from Table 122 of the Characteristics of Population: Maryland; 1970 by the U. S. Bureau of the Census. Table: IX -2 -95- WASHINGTON COUNTY 1970 Percentage Employed By Occupation and By Sex Note: The figures shown here are percentages of the total County Employment Force in 1970. Source: The Above Date was Extracted from table 122 of the Characteristics of Population: Maryland; 1970 by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Table: IX -3 -96- Male Female Total White Collar 22.2 18.4 40.6 - Professional, Technical, and Kindred Workers 7.1 4.3 11.4 - Managers and Administrators, except farm 6.4 1.1 7.5 - Sales Workers 3.5 2.6 6.1 - Clerical and Kindred Workers 5.2 10.5 15.6 Blue Collar 35.1 8.6 43.7 - Craftsman, Foremen, and Kindred Workers 16.9 1.2 18.1 - Operatives, except transport 10.0 6.7 16.7 - Transport equipment operatives 4.4 0.3 4.7 - Laborers, except farm 3.8 0.4 4.2 Farm Workers 3.1 0.3 3.4 - Farmers and Farm Managers 1.6 0.1 1.8 - Farm Laborers and Foremen 1.5 0.2 1.7 Service Workers 4.5 7.7 12.2 - Service Workers, except private household 4.5 6.4 10.9 - Private Household - 1.3 1.3 Note: The figures shown here are percentages of the total County Employment Force in 1970. Source: The Above Date was Extracted from table 122 of the Characteristics of Population: Maryland; 1970 by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Table: IX -3 -96- Farm worker and Service worker accounted for 12.2 and 3.4 percent, respectively, of all persons employed. See Table Of the White Collar group, female clerical and kindred workers had the largest percentage of all employed with 10.5% and the second largest were Professional, Technical, and Kindred workers with 7.1%. The distribution of employment between the sexes for the White Collar group was only a slightly higher percentage of males than females: 22.2 and 18.4, respectively. The Blue Collar employment of Washington County in 1970 showed a much higher percent of males than females. Only 8.6% of all employed were female Blue Collar workers. The figure for males was 35.1%. Occupationally, with the Blue Collar group craftsman and non -transport operatives held the highest percentages. Non-farm laborers and transport operatives accounted for significantly smaller proportions. Farm worker employment use evenly split between Farmer - Farm Managers and farm labor - foremen occupations. Respectively, their percentages were 1.6 and 1.5. Service Worker employment was concentrated in the non -private household area and employed 12.2% all Washington County's total employment force. Approximately 8 of every 10 Service Workers were women. Also the Service Worker non -private household occupational grouping was only slightly behind none -transport operatives which ranked second to Clerical and Kindred workers as a source of female employment. -97- Last Occupation of Experienced Unemployed Table IX -3, tabulated by occupa- tion and by sex the ratio of the number of unemployed per 1000 employed for each occupation and the four major occupational groups. From highest to lowest the unem- ployment ratio per 1000 for these major occupational groups were in 1970: Blue Collar 55.4, White Collar 31.1, Service Workers 29.5, and Farm Workers 11.1. According to Table IX -3, in every case where a direct male-female comparison of occupational unemployment was possible, Female unemployment was much higher than male unemployment. Female unemployment was highest in the Blue Collar operative group. The area of lowest female unemployment was the Professional -technical managerial group. Male unemployment was highest in the group termed Blue Collar non-farm laborers. The lowest male unemployment was listed for Farmworkers, although this category was closely followed by the Professional -Technical -Managerial group. Stated previously in this re- port was the fact that Washington County has an increasing female population. Thus, the potential for increased female participation in the labor force is apparent. The increased female participation potential plus the propensity for females to have higher unemployment rates than males could have a resultant negative impact on Washington County. Special educational and training programs may be necessary for the resultant increase of female labor force participants. Thus, high female unemployment may be avoided. LAST OCCUPATION OF EXPERIENCED UNEMPLOYED FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY 1970 Male White Collar 13.8 - Professional, Technical, and Managerial workers 11.1 - Sales Workers 21.0 - Clerical and Kindred Workers 15.8 Blue Collar 48.5 - Craftsman, Foremen, and Kindred Workers 41.0 - Operatives, including transport 39.9 - L-aborers, except farm workers 114.9 - Other Blue Collar Workers Female 52.0 15.7 69.5 54.1 83.5 ** 39.0 ** 40.8 Farm Workers 9.1 27.8 - Farmers, Farm Managers, Farm Laborers and Farm Foremen 9.1 27.8 Service Workers 21.9 34.0 - Service Workers, including private household 21.9 34.0 Total 31.1 12.4 41.4 49.5 55.4 41.0+ 57.3 114.9+ 40.8# 11.1 29.5 29.5 Note: The figures show here represent a ratio by sex the number of persons unemployed per 1000 employed in each occupation. * Male data included in other categories ** Female data included in other categories + These ratios were computed using male data only # This ratio was computed using female data only Source: Raw data was extracted from Characteristics of Population: Maryland 1970, Table 123, by the U. S. Bureau of Census. Table: IX -4 -99- PROJECTIONS At the root of almost all of an area's planning decisions is a consideration of current population and population levels at some future time. Population data and projections are valuable because: They are indicators of local change, they serve as a basis for the planning and programming specialized local facilities, and they provide a frame of reference for the assessment of the adequacy of essential services. It must be recognized, however, that population projections have inherent limitations. A recurrent problem of predictive models is that they frequently use only a limited number of variables. That is, the mathematical formulas used to predict future population levels can not incorporate all of the factors which may affect pop- ulation growth. Fu-rther, it must be recongized that to continue its value, projections must be frequently updated to include considerations of changing or unforeseeable events. -102- To this end, the following discussion of population projections attempts to include the best of currently available population data. Sev- eral projections are included as points comparison and evaluation. Interest- ingly, these projections for Washington County range in modes of growth_ from being explosive to almost no growth at all. (see cart X-1) Projection lines 1 and 2 (the two highest) were computed by the Employment Base Technique. This method attempts to evaluate the economic health of local employment centers and the degree to which the local economy can attract new employers to locate here. Also assessed is the distribution of employment between goods producing and service producing industries. After examining these indicator variables, projections are made of probable future employment levels and the accompanying population. Other projection techniques (lines 4 and 6 of hart X-1 ) use the Natural Increase and Net Migration method. Users of this method make assumptions about the rate of natural increase (births in excess of deaths) -103- 240,000 200,000 160,000 120,000 80,000 40,000 WASHINGTON COUNTY PROJECTIONS 1975 thru 2000 (2) (3) (5) 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 CHART .X -1 / / - / - - -- `- (6) (2) (3) (5) 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 CHART .X -1 WASHINGTON COUNTY POPULATION GROWTH AND CURRENT ESTIMATE ( 1975 ) 200,000 160,000 120,000 .• ••• 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 CHART X-2 .F Sources for the Projection Lines 1. Employment Base Technique, By Urban Research and Development Corp. 1974 2. Employment Base Technique By Baker-Wibberly and Associates 1968-1969 3. Trends Extension By the Planning Commission Staff 1974 4. Natural Increase Method By The Maryland Department of State Planning 1974 5. Trends Extension By Baker-Wibberly 1968-1969 6. Natural Increase Method By The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene 1974 -105-a- and the rates of net migration (in migration in excess of out migration). For example, the proponents of this method might assume-. that birth rates over the projection period would remain constant and that death rates would continue to decline. It is also possible to make similar assumptions about the rates of migration. Then one can project future population levels based on these assumed rates of natural increase and migration. Projection lines 3 and 5 (chart X=1 ) illustrate still another projection technique, that of trends extension. The assumption here being simply that past rates of growth will continue into the future. Although projection line 3', the planning staff projection, was developed essentially by one of 'th-e simplest- method discussed above, its actural derivation was more complex. Projection line 3 was not just a simple extension of past County growth rates. It was developed by consid- ering each election district individually. Mindful of the historic growth of the election districts, each was examined in light of its development -106- potentials. Factors used for evaluating development potential included highway access, proximity of existing major population centers both within the County boundaries and beyond, growth area -- new Community designations from the County Plan, natural physical assets and limitations, and planned public utilities. After having determined whether an extension of past trends is logical given its development potential, a projection was made for each election district. The districts were then grouped into the planning sec- tors established in the Plan For The County, 1971, and their population combined. As might be expected, there were several election districts for which an extension of past growth trends was not appropriate. Essentially, these areas were East and South of Hagerstown in the election districts 10 and 18. In these areas projections were based upon the indications of the growth potential parameters. -107- POPULATION PROJECTIONS Planning Sector I 36986 METROPOLITAN 52588 62697 Hagerstown 36867 37537 39213 42564 45915 Sector Total 72542 ESTIMATED 80405 PROJECTED 108612 Election District 1973 1975 1980 1990 2000 Williamsport 2 4119 4212 4367 4677 4987 Leitersburg 9 2360 2425 2588 2914 3240 Funkstown 10 4952 5079 5668 7545 9460 Conococheague 13 4345 4505 4900 5693 6486 Chewsville 18 5475 5714 6953 11510 15246 Cedar Lawn 24 871 900 1072 1417 1935 Halfway. 26 7904 8276 9205 11064 12923 Fountain Head 27 5649 5875 6439 7568 8697 Subtotal 35675 36986 41192 52588 62697 Hagerstown 36867 37537 39213 42564 45915 Sector Total 72542 74523 80405 95152 108612 Table: I-4 POPULATION PROJECTIONS Planning Sector II 1591 1614 1648 1716 1786 Sandy Hook 11 1430 MID COUNTY 1466 1516 1568 Estimated PROJECTED Election 3021 3054 3114 3232 3352 District 1973 1975 1980 1990 2000 Sharpsburg 1 2078 2094 2134 2215 2295 Boonsboro 6 3468 3524 3663 3942 4221 Tilghmanton 12 3571 3689 3985 4577 5169 Beaver Creek 16 2292 2365 2548 2914 3280 Keedysville 19 1031 1044 1077 1143 1209 Downsville 20 1436 1471 1559 1735 1911 SECTOR TOTAL 3876 14187 14966 16526 18085 Planning Sector III SOUTHEAST Rohrersville 8 1591 1614 1648 1716 1786 Sandy Hook 11 1430 1440 1466 1516 1568 SECTOR TOTAL 3021 3054 3114 3232 3352 Table: I-5 -109- Planning Sector IV NORTHEAST Election Estimated PROJECTED District 1973 1975 1980 1990 2000 Cavetown 7 3526 3574 3693 3932 4171 Ringgold 14 4763 4951 5420 6459 7398 SECTOR TOTAL 8289 8525 9113 10391 1`1569 Planning Sector V CENTRAL Clear Spring 4 2096 2111 t2151 2231 2311 Indian Springs 15 Wilson 23 1624 1643 1691 1787 1883 2723 2819 3045 3491 3937 SECTOR TOTAL 6443 6573 6887 7509 8131 Planning Sector VI WESTERN Hancock 5 3643 3683 3783 3983 4183 County Total 107814 110,544 118268 136744 154219 -110- Table: I-6 L L APPENDIX L D APPENDIX A tabulation of various kinds of population data is herein provided for those with informational needs which are specifically not discussed in text of this report. Unless otherwise indicated the data source for this section of the Report is the Fifth Count Summary Tapes as published by the U. S. Bureau of Census. -112- SOURCE: These percentages were computed from data extracted from the Fifth Count Summary Tapes, U. S. Census 1970. -113- PERCENT DISTRIBUTION IN SELECTED AGE CATEGORIES BY PLANNING SECTOR, THE CITY OF HAGERSTOWN, AND THE TOTAL FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY Sector I City of Sector Sector Sector Sector Sector County Age (Less City) Hagers- II III IV V VI (All Sec.) town -54 8.3 8.4 8.1 6.1 9.3 9.5 9.4 8.4 5-9 9.2 8.4 9.7 11.1 12.1 11.4 10.5 9.4 10-14 10.1 8.5 9.8 10.5 9.9 10.1 10.5 9.5 15-19 8.8 8.9 8.3 10.9 8.6 8.8 8.8 8.8 20-24 5.8 7.4 13.8 6.4 12.3 5.9 7.2 7.9 25-34 12.5 11.4 12.6 10.1 15.8 13.8 11.8 12.3 35-44 13.5 10.7 11.7 13.1 12.1 12.0 11.5 12.0 45-54 13.8 12.4 10.2 12.8 8.7 11.8 10.4 12.2 55-64 9.1 11.3 8.1 7.6 6.2 7.8 10.5 9.5 65-74 5.3 8.1 4.8 7.3 2.3 5.2 5.1 6.0 X75 3.6 4.7 2.9 4.1 2.7 3.6 4.3 3.9 SOURCE: These percentages were computed from data extracted from the Fifth Count Summary Tapes, U. S. Census 1970. -113- PERCENT POPULATION DISTRIBUTION FOR MAJOR AGE GROUPS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY AND THE .STATE OF MARYLAND BY SELECTED YEARS AGE GROUPCO. 1950 1960 19 MARYLAND' WASH CO. MARYLAND � 4 10.2 11.0 10.2 11.8 8.3 8.8 5-14 16.4 15.7 19.0 20.2 19.3 20.8 15-24 15.2 14.7 14.0 13.4 17.0 17.4 25-44 29.7 32.4 26.9 28.4 24.1 25.4 45-64 19.7 19.2 20.5 18.9 21.5 20.0 X65 8.8 7.7 9.4 7.3 9.8 7.6 SOURCE: (1) Maryland Population and Housing Statistics: 1970 Census. By the Maryland Department of State Planning 1971. (2) Report Two, Population and Housing; Washington County, Maryland. 1968. -114- PERCENT POPULATION DISTRIBUTION IN MAJOR AGE GROUP CATEGORIES BY PLANNING SECTOR, CITY OF HAGERSTOWN AND WASHINGTON COUNTY. Age Sector I Hagers town Sector. II Sector III Sector IV Sector V Sector VI All Sectors X14 27.6 25.2 27.6 27.7 31.3 31.0 30.4 27.3 15-34 27.1 27.7 34.7 27.4 36.7 28.5 27.8 29.1 35-64 36.4 34.4 30.0 33.5 27.0 31.6 32.4 33.7 -!-.65 8.9 12.7 7.7 11.4 5.0 8.8 9.4 9.9 SOURCE: Thesepercentages %vere computed from data extracted from The Fifth Count Summary Tapes, U. S. Census 1970. -115- AGE GROUPS BY SEX FOR ELECTION DISTRICTS IN PLANNING SECTOR I MALE ED 2 9 10 13 18 l 24 26 27 Total 4 159 83 192 198 233 31 273 202 1371 5-9 209 53 248 231 319 59 361 218 1698 10-14 204 136 207 187 302 14 390 270 1710 15-19 190 93 212 231 217 37 295 265 1540 20-24 95 63 131 117 109 25 153 131 824 25-34 190 109 301 208 397 57 500 255 2017 I` 35-44 299 129 316 249 336 44 469 354 2196 45-54 223 178 276 260 308 46 523 455 2269 55-64 184 100 231 179 202 33 349 243 1521 65-74 114 22 185 74 167 22 131 134 849 75 62 19 50 82 29 15 113 47 412 FEMALE ED 2 9 10 _ 13 18 24 26 27 Total 4 175 94 231 167 228 55 256 193 1399 5-9 126 83 217 242 300 82 366 252 1398 10-14 192 110 229 203 275 53 307298 1667 15-19 177 116 198 187 190 47 250 243 1408 20-24 1 112 99 168 137 192 29 256 125 1118 25-34 253 118 310 277 417 74 507 220 2176 35-44 242 129 348 224 342 72 529 455 2341 45-54 247 169 314 271 340 34 549 448 2372 55-64 169 105 242 174 183 39 341 295 1548 65-74 137 30 145 130 151 23 199 111 926 75 228 1 36 110 56 72 20 1 158 101 _7.81 * Excludes the City of Hagerstown. -116- AGE GROUPS BY SEX FOR ELECTION DISTRICTS IN THE CITY OF HAGERSTOWN MGI F -- I City E. D. 3 17 21 22 25 Total I 4 376 256 195 224 401 1452 5-9 383 255 167 254 453 1512 10-14 412 272 266 209 437 1596 15-19 383 201 251 145 420 1406 20-24 s 300 189 197 268 324 1278 25-34 526 368 291 346 541 2072 35-44 463 239 343 268 481 1794 45-54 537 280 350 337 565 2069 55-64 403 219 396 283 491 1792 65-74 I 294 171 2349 259 1147 L: 75 149 58 146L784 149 586 FEMALE E.D. 3 17 21 22 25 City Total �4 386 270 210 288 394 1548 5-9 435 202 240 211 407 1495 10-14 354 260 236 165 420 1435 15-19 586 248 245 257 432 1768 20-24 375 242 189 211 375 1392 25-34 509 318 312 327 534 2000 35-44 495 323 353 326 535 2032 45-54 635 351 394 331 649 i 2360 55-64 489 359 506 404 497 2255 65-74 482 230 360 342 348 1762 75 285 170 230 219 207 1111 -117- AGE GROUPS BY SEX FOR ELECTION DISTRICTS IN PLANNING SECTOR II MALE E.D. 1 6 12 16 19 20 Total -<4 128 126 138 70 56 45 563 5-9 125 150 102 123 63 35 598 10-14 152 189 142 128 30 29 670 15-19 57 150 170 115 40 39 571 20-24 52 99 1171 46 39 33 1440 25-34 134 217 295 121 48 66 881 35-44 169 226 112 136 59 58 760 45-54 72 211 135 134 34 61 647 55-64 132 154 50 89 66 52 543 65-74 28 124 20 45 37 41 295 75 18 40 30 7 4 7 106 FEMALE E.D. 1 6 12 16 19 20 Total 4 124 121 109 44 50 36 484 5-9 127 162 147 104 56 50 646 10-14 88 124 162 77 103 37 591 15-19 87 147 83 106 56 14 493 20-24 56 120 31 57 24 44 332 25-34 154 227 148 115 39 51 734 35-44 127 235 119 155 62 52 750 45-54 92 243 100 109 50 72 666 55-64 122 156 41 94 32 53 498 65-74 45 100 51 59 51 15 321 '— 75 19 53 10 146 21 23 272 -118- AGE GROUPS BY SEX FOR ELECTION DISTRICTS IN PLANNING SECTORS III AND IV Mair sFcrnR TIT SECTOR IV -119- Sector Sector E.D. 8 1 11 Total 7 14 Total `4 27 50 77 156 224 380 5-9 79 90 169 221 285 506 10-14 55 84 139 169 212 381 15-19 89 59 148 99 190 289 20-24 44 32 76 138 494 632 25-34 67 93 160 204 395 599 35-44 i 88 81 169 236 272 508 45-54 73 109 182 188 171 359 55-64 71 59 130 117 80 197 65-74 77 40 117 14 55 69 75 35 12 47 28 36 64 FEMALE Sector Sector E.D. 8 11 Total 7 14 Total :54 49 50 99 145 200 345 5-9 87 68 155 163 275 438 10-14 87 79 166 222 173 395 15-19 97 71 168 125 257 382 20-24 74 37 111 116 209 325 25-34 73 60 133 270 368 638 35-44 91 121 212 225 210 435 45-54 116 73 189 175 149 324 55-64 53 39 92 165 122 287 65-74 44 50 94 67 44 111 � 75 63 10 73 83 60 143 -119- AGE GROUPS BY SEX FOR ELECTION DISTRICTS IN PLANNING SECTORS V AND VI MALE SECTOR V SECTOR VI Sector Sector E.D. 4 15 23 Total 5 Total :54 114 81 121 316 178 178 5-9 121 63 178 363 179 179 10-14 120 41 172 333 196 196 15-19 83 112 72 267 165 165 20-24 40 1 40 66 146 110 110 25-34 147 118 188 453 194 194 35-44 106 110 148 364 196 196 45-54 117 100 160 377 186 186 55-64 84 52 7-5 211 197 197 65-74 44 46 67 157 53 53 f75 29 32 57 118 83 83 FEMALE E.D. 4 15 23 11 Sector 5 Sector Total Total t 4 84 75 117 276 160 160 5-9 94 96 157 347 198 198 10-14 79 67 150 296 179 179 15-19 80 90 108 278 148 148 20-24 76 56 89 221 145 145 25-34 133 89 181 403 228 228 35-44 115 113 152 380 217 217 45-54 119 F 85 152 356 188 188 55-64 105 75 95 275 179 179 65-74 78 24 64 166 131 131 > 75 62 15 30 167 1 70 70 -120= YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED 25 YRS. OF AGE AND OLDER. SECTOR I II III IU V VI ALL SECTORS 25-44 33 - - - 9 - 42 No School 58 9 13 - 23 14 117 Elementary 1-7 740 151 61 129 88 42 1211 8 1004 327 112 161 187 117 1908 High School 1-3 3992 682 235 440 475 249 6073 4 7059 1241 214 1018 714 343 10589 College 1-3 1280 101 19 244 85 35 1764 4 1210 87 20 188 28 35 1568 -total 1 L15343 2598 674 2180 1600 835 23230 45-54 No School 33 - - - 9 - 42 Elementary 1-7 1239 182 74 102 165 108 1870 8 1330 283 122 113 167 105 2120 High School 1-3 1960 225 106 155 140 73 2659 4 2578 265 59 191 198 74 2365 College 1-3 535 56 10 91 31 7 730 4 450 59 - 31 23 10 573 Total 8125 1070 371 683 733 377 11359 55+ No School 127 25 10 5 47 15 229 Elementary 1-7 3979 629 215 258 291 260 5632 8 3078 451 218 304 311 248 4610 High School 1-3 2385 253 59 184 166 90 3137 4 2624 112 45 107 141 45 3074 College 1-3 744 82 6 81 45 31 1019 4 799 47 - 56 23 24 949 Total 13766 1599 553 995 1024 713 18650 Grand Total 37234 5267 1598 3858 3357 1925 52239 -121- PERSONS 25+ BY YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED City of Haqerstown Carf— r E.D. Non City J Sector r 3 17 21 22 25 Total City of Haq, Total 25-44 * * * * * * * * * * 825 414 825 1239 No School 11 12 - 9 16 48 10 48 58 Elementary 1-7 168 56 8 182 146 480 260 ' 480 740 8 142 1 78 30 94 172 516 488 516 1004 High School 1-3 663 373 192 434 680 2342 1650 2342 3992 4 848 581 581 505 914 3429 3630 3429 7059 College 1-3 114 68 213 61 106 562 718 562 1280 College 4 47 80 275 62 57 521 689 521 1210 Total 1993 1248 J1299 11267 2091 7898 7445 17898 15343 45-54 No School No School 9 8 - - 11 28 5 28 33 Elementary 1-7 217 146 22 169 271 825 414 825 1239 8 170 91 66 105 265 697 633 697 1330 High School 1-3E 392 164 119 193 294 1162 798 1162 1960 4 271 171 312 147 322 1223 1355 1223 2578 College 1-3 55 35 62 27 47 226 309 226 535 C 4 58 16 163 27 4 268 222 228 450 Total 1172 631 744 668 1214 4429 3736 4429 8165 55+ No School 12 12 12 1 6 43 85 42 85 127 Elementary 1-7 662 362 225 533 797 2579 1400 2579 3979 8 512 294 260 351 470 1887 1191 1887 3078 High School 1-3 380 212 314 272 339 1517 868 1517 2385 4 375 222 549 265 213 1624 1000 1624 2624 College 1-3 101 68 189 68 53 479 295 479 774 4 60 37 325 26 36 484 315 484 799 Total 2120 1207 1844 1521 1951 8655 5111 8655 13766 GRAND TOTAL 16292 0982 37274 -122- PERSONS 25+ BY YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED SECTOR I E.D. 2 9 10 13 18 24 26 Total 25-44 - - - - - 5 - 5 No School - - 5 - - - 5 10 Elementary 1-7 83 9 47 28 39 16 38 260 8 75 45 92 94 114 30 38 488 High School 1-3 275 73 256 324 308 87 327 1650 4 419 225 626 401 774 82 1103 3630 College 1-3 64 45 124 68 149 10 258 718 4 68 88 124 43 108 22 236 689 otal 984 4851274 9 58 1492 247 2005 7445 5-54 io School - - - - - 5 - 5 lementary 1-7 106 45 45 82 49 26 61 414 8 88 38 67 170 99 8 163 633 high School 1-3 97 49 134 85 168 27 238 798 4 135 127 254 166 250 5 418 1355 :ollege 1-3 21 32 50 24 52 5 125 309 4 23 54 40 4 30 4 67 222 otal 470 345 590 531 648 80 1027 3736 55+ No School 9 4 4 7 7 - 11 42 Elementary 1-3 294 46 302 202 218 73 265 140U 8 198 102 181 238 181 19 272 1191 High School 1-3 154 52 148 129 176 23 186 868 4 143 57 183 93 162 32 330 1000 College 1-3 38 41 64 9 33 - 110 295 College 4 58 10 81 17 27 5 117 315 Total 894 1 312 1 963 1 695 804 152 1291 5111 (Excludes Hagerstown) SOURCE: Fifth County Summary Tapes. -123- PERSONS 25+ BY YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED SECTOR II SECTOR III E.D. 1 6 12 19 20 Total 8 11 Total 25-44 - - - - - - - - Elementary 1-7 :No School 6 - - 3 - 9 8 5 13 (Elementary 1-7 7 65 51 17 11 151 34 27 61 8 86 67 106 46 22 327 45 67 112 High School 1-3 272 164 130 63 44 682 99 136 235 4 187 520 321 73 140 1241 104 110 214 College 1-3 10 40 35 6 10 101 15 4 19 4 16 49 22 - - 87 14 6 20 Total 584 905 674 208 227 2598 319 355 674 45-54 No School - - - - - - - - - Elementary 1-7 36 58 42 9 37 182 40 34 74 8 79 83 46 31 44 283 66 56 122 High School 1-3 39 86 61 24 15 225 42 64 106 4 10 169 55 8 23 265 41 18 59 College 1-3 - 34 9 4 9 56 - 10 10 4 - 24 22 8 5 59 - - - Total 164 454 235 84 133 1070 189 182 371 55+ r No School - 4 16 5 - 25 10 - 10 Elementary 1-7 158 .240 70 63 98 629 132 83 215 8 102 162 50 66 71 451 144 74 218 High School 1-3 63 90 40 50 10 253 27 32 59 4 22 58 18 8 6 112 24 21 45 College 1-3 19 37 6 20 - 82 6 - 6 4 - 36 5 - 6 47 - - - Total 364 627 205 212 19111 1599 343 210 553 SOURCE: Fifth Count Summary Tapes -124- PERSONS 25+ BY YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED SECTOR IV SECTOR V SECTOR VI E.D. 7 j 14 Total 4 15 23 Total 5 Total 25-44 - - - 4 5 - 9 - - No School - - - - - 23 23 14 14 Elementary 1-7 89 40 129 i0 56 22 88 42 42 8 72 89 161 38 71 78 187 117 117 High School 1-3 205 235 440 129 143 203 475 249 249 4 392 626 1018 275 141 298 714 343 343 College 1-3 86 158 244 40 10 35 85 35 35 4 91 97 188 9 9 10 28 35 35 Total 935 1 1245 2180 1501 430 669 1600 835 835 45-54 No School - - - 4 5 - 9 - - Elementary 1-7 77 25 102 42 38 85 165 108 108 8 44 69 113 42 63 62 167 105 105 High School 1-3 79 76 155 41 20 79 140 73 73 4 106 85 191 84 37 77 198 74 74 College 1-3 47 44 91 14 17 - 31 7 7 4 10 21 31 9 5 9 23 10 10 Total 363 320 683 236 185 312 73311 377 377 55+ No School - 5 5 16 13 18 47 15 15 Elementary 1-7 146 112 258 118 110 63 291 260 260 8 172 132 304 146 47 118 311 248 248 High School 1-3 130 54 184 64 50 52 166 90 90 4 54 53 107 38 17 86 141 45 45 College 1-3 51 30 81 13 - 32 45 31 31 4 45 11 56 7 7 9 ti 23 11 24 24 Total 598 397 995 402 244 1 378.11. 1024 1 713 713 SOURCE: Fifth Count Summary Tapes. -725- PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS IN VARIOUS INCOME CATEGORIES BY PLANNING SECTOR SECTOR I II III IV V VI Al I Sectors *INCOME OF FAMILIES $ X2000 4.4 6.3 11.7 4.9 6.1 8.8 5.2 2000-3999 9.5 7.8 10.2 9.6 11.7 11.8 9.5 4000-5999 12.3 13.9 12.6 15.0 13.6 32.2 13.2 6000-7999 16.4 20.3 15.6 18.9 19.4 14.5 17.1 8000-9999 11.3 15.6 17.5 16.3 17.2 18.7 12.9 10000-14999 30.0 24.3 26.4 24.3 21.6 16.5 27.8 15000-24999 12.8 10.9 4.7 9.7 9.0 6.0 11.6 25000 3.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.4 0.4 2.7 INCOME OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 14+ $ -<2000 44.5 50.1 70.2 36.9 66.7 51.2 45.5 2000-3999 21.8 30.7 - 35.7 19.0 22.1 24.1 4000-5999 14.5 10.0 26.0 15.1 4.7 17.9 13.8 6000-7999 8.9 4.2 3.8 4.9 2.2 7.4 7.7 8000-9999 4.6 - - 2.7 3.9 - 3..7 10000-14999 4.1 5.0 - 3.7 3.6 1.4 4.0 15000-24999 1.3 - - 1.0 - - 1.0 25000 0.3 - - - - - 0.2 * Percentages were calculated as a proportion of all families in a specified Sector: These do not include Unrelated Individuals. **Percentages were calculated as a proportion of all un- related inficiduals 14 years of age and older: These do not include families. SOURCE: Fifth Count Summary Tapes. -126- INCOME OF FAMILIES __ _ All CIF TnD T* TT TTT TIt 1l IIT c--4 * Data for the City of Hagerstown was included in the Sector I tabulation -127- — 2000 787 186 90 93 99 82 1337 2000-3999 1675 229 79 181 192 110 2466 4000-5999 2184 409 97 282 222 216 3410 6000-7999 2902 598 120 356 318 135 4429 8000-9999 1994 460 135 307 282 174 3352 10000-14999 5318 718 203 459 353 153 7204 15000-24999 2268 322 36 183 147 56 3012 y2500 528 30 10 25 23 4 680 INCOME OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 14+ X2000 2543 342 92 329 186 146 3638 2000-3999 1244 210 34 318 53 63 1922 4000-5999 828 68 5 135 13 51 1100 6000-7999 511 29 - 44 6 21 611 8000-9999 264 - - 24 11 - 299 10000-14999 237 34 - 33 10 4 318 15000-24999 72 - - 9 - - 81 �-- 25000 19 - - - - - 19 * Data for the City of Hagerstown was included in the Sector I tabulation -127- INCOME OF FAMILIES SECTOR I FAMILIES INCOME ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED TOTAL 2 9 10 13 18 24 26 27 $ - 2000 43 15 35 61 36 5 43 33 271 $ 2000 - 3999 89 33 100 88 124 24 97 67 622 $ 4000 - 5999 169 41 162 121 136 31 115 56 831 $ 6000 - 7999 149 91 178 1102 193 43 287 123 1256 $ 8000 - 9999 211 72 220 178 257 40 373 207 1558 $10000 - 14999 237 156 465 345 474 51 813 444 2985 $15000 - 24999 103 104 240 65 175 27 340 394 1448 $ -' 25000 10 43 35 18 33 9 43 167 11 358 UNRELATED 14+ INCOME ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED TOTAL 2 9 10 13 18 24 26 27 - 2000 98 33 124 73 140 15 113 74 670 $ 2000 - 3999 49 21 47 11 29 9 44 35 245 $ 4000 - 5999 62 23 49 31 12 - 35 40 252 $ 6000 - 7999 7 7 - 15 20 16 45 20 130 $ 8000 - 9999 - - 4 - 20 - 20 19 63 $10000 - 14999 7 6 12 - 16 - 23 20 84 $15000 - 24999 - - - - - - 4 11 15 5 25000 6 - - - - i - - 4 10 -128- INCOME OF FAMILIES AND UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS CITY OF HAGERSTOWN FAMILIES INCOME ED ED ED ED ED ED TOTAL 25 3 17 21 22 25 $ - 2000 144 17 24 100 161 $ 2000 - 3999 358 203 29 ;1111 216 246 $ 4000 - 5999 423 245 170 17T 338 $ 6000 - 7999 491 244 184 320 407 $ 8000 - 9999 k 226 317 232 251 410 $10000 - 14999 537 288 543 341 624 $15000 - 24999 125 100 352 126 117 $ � 25000 30 - 1 171 8 21 UNRELATED 14+ 2333 820 230 i INCOME ED 3 ED 17 ED 21 ED 22 ED TOTAL 25 $ 2000 593 266 96 373 545 1873 f$ 2000 - 3999 233 166 138 236 226 999 $ 4000 - 5999 186 59 89 111 131 576 $ 6000 - 7999 135 43 81 52 70 381 $ 8000 - 9999 63 12 46 33 47 201 '$10000 - 14999 45 26 37 30 15 153 $15000-24999 6 13 19 11 8 57 S !-- 25000 - - 9 - - 9 -129- INCOME OF FAMILIES SECTOR II FAMILIES INCOME ED 1 ED 6 ED 12 ED 16 ED 19 ED 20 TOTAL $ - 2000 21 43 16 41 49 16 186 $ 2000 - 3999 20 89 21 33 31 35 229 $ 4000 - 5999 96 90 70 67 35 51 409 $ 6000 - 7999 126 162 119 99 52 40 598 $ 8000 - 9999 114 114 72 91 14 55 460 $10000 - 14999 110 285 116 121 38 48 718 $15000 - 24999 45 136 52 57 18 14 322 $ 25000 10 3 5 6 6 1 - 30 UNRELATED 14+ INCOME ED 1 ED 6 ED 12 ED 16 ED 19 ED 20 TOTAL 2000 76 74 45 101 33 13 342 $ 2000 - 3999 24 92 23 38 5 28 210 $ 4000 - 5999 10 26 6 16 5 5 68 $ 6000 - 7999 - 9 9 11 - - 29 $ 8000 - 9999 _ _ $10000 - 14999 5 14 5 - - 10 34 $15000 - P4999 _ _ _ _ _ _ - $ �: 25000 -130- INCOME OF FAMILIES FAMILIES SECTOR III SECTOR IV INCOME JD DD TOTAL ED 14 TOTAL $ ---2000 47 43 90 38 55 93 �$ 2000 — 3999 61 18 79 a 68 113 181 $ 4000 — 5999 54 43 97 105 177 282 $ 6000 — 7999 N 76 44 120 147 209 356 $ 8000 — 9999 78 57 135 162 145 307 $10000 — 14999 79 124 203 252 207 459 $15000 — 24999 14 22 36 116 67 183 S = 25000 5 5 10 21 4 25 UNRELATED 14+ INCOJ"E ED 8 ED 11 TOTAL ED 7 ED 14 TOTAL $ — 2000 58 34 92 64 265 329 $ 2000 — 3999 16 16 32 36 282 318 $ 4000 — 5999 — 5 5 24 111 135 $ 6000 — 7999 — — — 18 26 44 $ 8000 — 9999 — — — 5 19 24 $10000 — 14999 — — — 14 19 33 $15000 — 24999 — — — 4 5 9 S x25000 — — — 11 — — 11 —131— INCOME OF FAMILIES PAMTT TLC rrrTnD v crrTnD uT UNRELATED 14+ INCOME INCOME ED 4 ED 15 ED 23 TOTAL ED 5 TOTAL J $ 2000 17 40 42 99 82 82 $ 2000 - 3999 68 65 59 192 110 110 $ 4000 - 5999 73 75 74 222 216 216 $ 6000 - 7999 87 82 149 i 318 135 135 $ 8000 - 9999 87 29 ;166 282 174 174 $10000 - 14999 97 196 160 353 153 153 +, $15000 - 24999 83 19 45 147 56 56 { $ ' 25000 E 5 14 4 23 4 4 UNRELATED 14+ INCOME ED 4 ED ED 15 23 TOTAL ED 5 TOTAL --c2000 94 50 42 1186 146 146 $ 2000 - 3999 24 5 24 53 63 63 $ 4000 - 5999 ff 6 4 - 9 13 51 51 $ 6000 - 7999 R 6 - - 6 21 21 $ 8000 - 9999 11 - - 11 - - $10000 - 14999 - 7 3 10 4 4 $15000 - 24999 �$ =25000 i. -132- POVERTY STATUS; BY VARIOUS FAMILY CLASSIFICATIONS SECTOR I Families C Y Above Poverty Level I with Public Assistance 21 5� 46 14 5 - 13 - without Public Assistance 890 530 1343 935 1340 209 2041 1411 Below Poverty Level with Public Assistance without Public Assistance 14 76 - 20 - 46 4 115 - 83 11 - 56 6 74 Families with Female Head Above Poverty Level with related children 27 - 48 14 42 5 58 20 without related children 29 8 41 22 37 10 42 28 Below Poverty Level with related children 13 - 11 15 19 - 12 13 without related children 5 - 6 10 - - 9 - Families Above Poverty Level with related children 516 330 758 578 762 118 1129 754 without related children 395 205 631 371 583 91 925 657 Below Poverty Level with related children 66 13 17 59 55 11 31 55 without related children 24 7 29 60 28 - 25 25 Unrelated Individuals Above Poverty Level 131 53 120 57 102 25 177 170 Below Poverty Level 98 33 116 73 173 15 107 53 Poverty Status of Persons by Age Above Poverty Level Greater than 65 246 71 277 214 302 71 454 290 Less than 65 3132 1889 4248 3330 4546 768 6498 4615 Below Poverty Level Greater than 65 79 36 113 109 117 6 126 41 Less than 65 367 73 109 397 341 73 176 291 SOURCE: Fifth Count Summary Tapes, U.S. Census -133- PROVERTY STATUS: BY VARIOUS FAMILY CLASSIFICATIONS HAGERSTOWN Families 3 Total Above Poverty Level with public assistance 88 33 33 40 68 212 without public assistance 2068 1265 1640 1327 1993 8293 Below Poverty Level with Public assistance 56 69 10 34 85 254 without Public assistance 212 127 22 138 179 678 Families with Female Heas Above Poverty Level with related children 125 105 63 50 104 447 without related children 100 87 72 90 110 459 Below Poverty Level with related children 136 57 4 68 111 376 without related children 40 17 6 6 35 104 Families by Poverty Status Above Poverty Level with related children 1064 675 821 688 '1133 4381 wvthout related children 1042 623 852 679 928 4124 Below Poverty Level with related children 234 125 8 121 182 670 without related children 94 71 24 51 82 322 Unrelated individuals 14+ Above Poverty Level 712 337 423 501 512 2485 Below Poverty Level 417 248 92 345 530 1632 Persons by Poverty Status Age Above Poverty Level Greater than 65 869 391 767 550 629 3206 Less than 65 6555 4136 4912 4240 7068 26911 Below Poverty Level Greater than 65 310 236 93 284 334 1257 Less than 65 1346 722 110 588 1229 3995 SOURCE: Fifth Count Summary Tapes, U.S. Census -134- POVERTY STATUS: BY VARIOUS FAMILY CALSSIFICATIONS SECTOR II Families Above Poverty Level with Public Assistance without Public Assistance Below Poverty Level with Public Assistance without Public Assistance Families with Female Head Above Poverty Level with related children without related children Below Poverty Level with related children without related children Families by Poverty Status Above Poverty Level with related children without related children Below Poverty Level with related children without related children Unrelated 14+ Above Poverty Lovel Below Poverty Level Persons By Poverty Age Above Poverty Level Greater than 65 Less than 65 Below Poverty Level Greater than 65 Less than 65 -135- 16 1 19 1 20 5 45 7 6 - - 488 792 423 449 167 240 - 7 3 - 8 4 49 78 38 60 68 25 19 21 9 25 19 14 8 24 6 16 I 10 I 4 4 1 4 14 - 275 477 320 261 104 91 218 360 110 194 63 149 44 44 28 25 47 24 5 41 13 35 29 5 44 144 43 75 10 43 71 71 45 91 33 13 79 228 61 84 49 73 1695 2807 1676 1562 638 717 31 89 53 43 70 13 304 240 204 247 264 110 POVERTY STATUS: BY VARIOUS FAMILY CLASSIFICATIONS SECTuk III SECTOR IV I ED 1 8 1 11 a 7 1 14 Families Above Poverty Level with Public Assistance 24 6 16 9 without Public Assistance 284 263 860 856 Below Poverty Level with Public Assistance 71 4 6 11 without Public Assistance 95 73 87 101 Families with Female Head Above poverty Level with Related Children 9 8 34 6 without Related Children 5 5 14 16 Below Poverty Level with Related Children 11 9 5 23 without Related Children 5 - 4 20 Families by Poverty Status Above Poverty Level with Related Children 195 162 504 617 without Related Children 113 107 312 248 Below Poverty Level with Related Children 44 48 54 65 without Related Children 62 29 39 47 Unrelated Individuals 14+ Above Poverty Level 16 25 109 36 Below -Poverty Level 58 30 56 20 Persons by Poverty Status Age Above Poverty Level Greater than 65 101 37 169 131 Less than 65 1020 956 2799 3276 Below Poverty Level Greater than 65 118 75 101 60 Less than 65 296 , 299 321 343 -136- POVERTY STATUS: BY VARIOUS FAMILY CLASSIFICATIONS -137- SECTOR V SECTOR VI EO 4 15 23 5 Families Above Poverty Level with Public Assistance 5 16 8 16 without Public Assistance 470 339 630 763 Below Poverty Level with Public Assistance - 22 3 26 without Public Assistance 42 43 58 125 Families with Female Head Above Poverty Level with related children 5 14 15 38 without related children 34 - 14 25 Below Poverty Level with related children - 5 13 28 without related children - - - i 16 Families by Poverty Status Above Poverty Level with related children 298 224 433 463 without related children 177 131 205 316 Below Poverty Level with related children 29 25 20 89 without related children 13 40 41 62 Unrelated Individuals 14+ Above Poverty Level 45 12 36 151 Below Poverty Level 95 50 42 134 Persons by Poverty Status Age Above Poverty Level !-Greater than 65 113 62 139 167 Less than 65 1651 1288 2201 2666 Below Poverty Level Greater than 65 100 55 79 170 Less than 65164 233 144 567 -137- MARITAL STATUS COUNTY -WIDE -138- No. Male % No. Female % Now Married 24,926 66.2 24,923 62.4 Widowed 1,105 2.9 5,030 12.6 Divorced 968 2.6 1,244 3.1 Separated 647 1.7 860 2.1 Never Married 10,037 26.6 7,892 19.8 Totals 37,683 100.0 39,949 100.0 -138- MARITAL STATUS SECTOR I (Includes Hagerstown) SECTOR II No. Male % No. Female % Now Married 16,998 69.6 17,332 61.0 Widowed 784 3.3 3,750 13.2 Divorced 648 2.6 1,044 3.7 Separated 439 1.8 678 2.4 Never Married 5,548 22.7 5,596 19.7 Totals 24,417 100.028,400 4,195 j 100.0 SECTOR II SECTOR III No. Male I % No. Female % Now Married 3,026 51.3 2,789 66.5 Widowed 120 2.0 498 11.9 Divorced 145 2.5 75 1.7 Separated 108 1.8 67 1.6 Never Married 2,505 42.4 766 18.3 Totals 5,900 100.0 4,195 100.0 SECTOR III -139- No. Male % No. Female % Now Married 690 64.7 681 62.1 Widowed 51 4.8 109 10.0 Divorced 37 3.5 12 1.1 Separated 4 0.4 14 1.3 Never Married 284 26.6 280 25.5 Totals 1,066 100.0 1,096 100.0 -139- MARITAL STATUS SECTOR IV SECTOR V No. Male % No. Female % Now Married 1,886 64.7 1,813 67.3 Widowed 71 2.4 257 9.5 Divorced 54 1.8 29 1.1 Separated 31 1.1 13 0.5 Never Married 874 30.0 583 21.6 Totals 2,916 100.0 2,695 100.0 SECTOR V SECTOR VI No. Male % No. Female % Now Married 1,513 70.3 1,526 68.8 Widowed 57 2.6 197 9.0 Divorced 23 1.1 34 1.5 Separated 41 1.9 38 1.7 Never Married 518 24.1 419 19.0 Totals 2,152 100.0 1 2,214 100.0 SECTOR VI -140- No. Male % No. Female % Now Married 813 66.2 782 58.0 Widowed 22 1.8 219 16.2 Divorced 61 5.0 50 3.7 Separated 24 1.9 50 3.7 Never Married 308 25.1 248 18.4 Totals 1,228 100.0 1,349 100.0 -140- MARITAL STATUS CITY OF HAGERSTOWN MALE E.D. 3 17 21 22 25 Total Now Married 2043 i204 1601 1354 1944 8148 Widowed 122 28 99 84 163 496 Divorced 125 64 47 71 182 489 Separated 95 39 25 72 114 345 Never Married 743 445 473 376 912 2946 FEMALE E.D. 3 17 21 22 25 Total Now Married 2025 1226 1606 1333 1934 8133 Widowed 674 301 438 413 525 2351 Divorced 212 159 106 137 162 776 Separated 117 100 33 97 196 543 Never Married 891 505 475 483 823 3177 SOURCE: Fifth Count Summary Tapes. Item 11. -141- MARITAL STATUS SECTOR I* MALE 2 9 10 13 18 24 26 27 Total E.D. 2 9 10 13 18 24 26 27 Total Now Married 939 547 1337 1091 1359 199 1999 1451 8850 Widowed 90 6 25 45 29 6 52 35 288 Divorced 20 - 18 20 35 10 30 26 159 Separated 8 - 43 - 5 - 38 - 94 Never Married 338 1 209 320 356 395 1 64 1 514 406 1 2620 FEMALE E.D. 2 9 10 13 18 24 26 27 Total Now Married 936 536 1318 1036 13,42 213 2001 1417 9199 Widowed 322 64 208 113 158 39 316 179 1399 Divorced 9 6 43 23 66 5 83 33 268 Separated 18 - 25 26 29 - 18 19 135 Never Married 292 215 289 314 356 106 448 399 L2419 * This tabulation excludes data for the City SECTOR II of Hagerstown MALE II 1 1 E.D. 1 1 6 12 16 19 20 Total Now Married 483 901 670 504 221 247 3026 Widowed 28 38 27 7 14 6 120 Divorced 22 1952 8 67 18 11 23 145 Separated 11 19 59 6 8 5 108 Never Married 188 286 1692 179 68 88 2501 jFEMALE II 1 1 6 12 lE 19 20 Total !jE.D Now Married 481 892 449 497 215 255 2789 Widowed 86 108 55 169 48 32 498 Divorced 18 28 3 10 16 - 75 Separated 8 25 8 9 9 8 67 !Never Married 114 249 125 160 77 41 766 -142- MARITAL STATUS SECTOR III SECTOR IV MALE E.D. 8 11 Total 7 14 Total Now Married Widowed 373 34 317 17 690 51 851 50 1035 21 1886 71 Divorced - 37 37 39 15 54 Separated Never Married - 149 4 135 4 284 16 226 15 648 31 847 Separated 4 10 14 5 8 13 FEMALE E . 8 11 Total 7 14 Total Now Married 372 309 681 881 932 1813 Widowed 68 41 109 135 122 257 Divorced - 12 12 19 10 29 Separated 4 10 14 5 8 13 Never Married 177 103 280 231 352 583 SECTOR V SECTOR VI MALE E.D 4 15 23 Total 5 Total Now Married 465 401 647 1513 813 813 Widowed 22 14 21 57 22 22 Divorced 8 10 5 23 61 61 Separated 17 11 13 41 24 24 Never Married 146 198 1,74 518 308 308 FEMALE ED. 4 15 23 Total 5 Total Now Married 504 410 612 1526 782 782 Widowed 117 18 62 197 219 219 Divorced 9 5 20 34 50 50 Separated Never Married 14 129 5 113 19 177 38 419 50 248 50 248 -143- TOTAL AND NON-WHITE FAMILIES BY SPECIFIC FAMILY UNIT SIZE % OF SECTOR TOTALS Sffl(bA ALL FAMILIES f II III IY V VI All ectors Hager- stown Unrelated 14+ 58.9 46.4 100 59.3 - 30.8 58.3 Unrelated 14+ 23.2 1&:-7 14.5 32.1 14.6 23.5 22.7 30.7 2 Person 48.7 27.6 26.4 19.2 25.4 26.2 27.5 27.9 3 Person 18.5 18.1 20.3 14.7 20.1 17.4 18.3 17.0 4 Person Families 14.2 13.8 16.3 15.2 16.7 13.7 14.4 11.3 5 Person 8.1 10.6 8.7 9.6 10.5 7.6 8,6 6.5 6 Person 7.4 11.2 13.8 9.2 12.7 11.7 8.5 6.7 NON-WHITE Unrelated 14+ 58.9 46.4 100 59.3 - 30.8 58.3 41.8 2 Person 22.5 35.7 - 18.0 - 21.3 16.1 3 Person 18.6 - - 4.7 - 46.2 15.0 17.3 4 Person Families - 17.9 - 12.7 - - 3.7 7.6 5 Person - - - - - - - 10.0 6 Person - - - 5.3 - 23.0 1.7 13.5 * Data for the City of Hagerstown listed in a separate column SOURCE: Fifth Count Summary Tapes -144- TOTAL AND NON-WHITE FAMILIES BY SPECIFIC FAMILY UNIT SIZE SECTOR I ALL FAMILIES II III IVI V VI 11 Total Unrelated 14+ 270 13 5 89 Unrelated 14+ 5673 683 129 892 279 285 7941 2 Person 7034 1007 235 533 486 318 9613 3 Person 4518 658 180 408 385 211 6360 4 Person families 3470 502 145 421 320 167 5025 5 Person 1978 387 77 268 201 92 3003 6 Persons 1805 408 123 256 244 142 2978 Total 24478 3645 889 2778 1915 1 12151 34920 NON-WHITE Unrelated 14+ 270 13 5 89 - 4 381 2 Person 103 10 - 27 - - 140 3 Person 85 - - 7 - 6 98 4 Person families - 5 - 19 - - 24 5 Person - - - - - - 6 Person - - - 8 - 3 11 Total 458 1 28 5 1 1501 0 1 13 654 SOURCE: Fifth Count Summary Tapes this data was computed by subtracting "white" population values from the "total" population values as enumerated in the Fifth Court Summary Tapes. -145- FAMILY STATUS AND SIZE OF FAMILY BY RACE ITEM 21 - FIFTH COUNT SUMMARY TAPES* CITY OF HAGERSTOWN ED TOTAL FAMILIES I 3 17 21 22 25 Total Unrelated 14+ 12 7 5 Unrelated 14+ 1216 585 515 846 1042 4204 2 Person 1000 608 743 661 808 3820 3 Person 588 375 398 388 575 2324 4 Person Families 364 221 309 234 422 1550 5 Person -241 152 139 _12E 237 887 6 Person 241 138 120 134 283 916 NON-WHITE I Unrelated 14+ 12 7 5 9 227 260 2 Person - - - - 100 100 3 Person 10 - 11 4 45 70 4 Person 4 - - 4 38 46 5 Person Families 18 9 - - 35 62 6 Person 3 3 4 5 74 84 -146- FAMILY STATUS AND SIZE OF FAMILY BY RACE ITEM 21 - FIFTH COUNT SUMMARY TAPES* SECTOR I ED TOTAL FAMILIES 2 9 10 13 18 24 26 27 Total Unrelated 14+ - - 5 - Unrelated 14+ 229 90 236 130 237 40 284 223 1469 2 Person 315 143 549 334 509 74 754 536 3214 3 Person 262 159 346 247 307 35 494 344 2194 4 Person families' 196 148 293 202 264 36 493 288 1920 5 Person 113 57 145 146 196 21 232 181 1091 6 person 115 48 102 139 152 54 137 142 889 **NON-WHITE Unrelated 14+ - - 5 - - - - 5 10 2 person - - 3 - - - - - 3 3 person - - - - 7 - 8 - 15 4 person families - - - - - _ - - _ 5 person - - - - - - 6 6 6 person - - 4 - 7 - - - 11 Signifies "0" ** This data was computed by substracting "white" population values from "total` population values as enumerated in the 5th Count Summary Tapes. -147- *FAMILY STATUS AND SIZE OF FAMILY BY RACE ITEM 21 - FIFTH COUNT SUMMARY TAPES: U,.S. CENSUS E Jt�, E UK 1I SECTOR III 1 6 12 16 19 20 8 11 5 2 Person 6 - - - 4 - TOTAL FAMILIES Unrelated 14+ 115 215 88 166 43 56 74 55 2 Person 1 196 315 107 199 75 115 118 117 3 Person 85 262 94 113 32 72 136 44 4 Person families 105 162 106 64 39 26 72 73 5 Person 85 97 57 70 41 37 37 40 6 Person 71 86 107 69 56 19 51 72 NON-WHITE Unrelated 14+ - - 7 6 - - - 5 2 Person 6 - - - 4 - - - 3 Person - 4 Person families 5 - - - - - - - 5 Person - 6 Person signifies "0" ** - This data was computed by subtracting "white" population values from the "total" population in item 21 of the Fifth Count Summary Tapes. -148- *FAMILY STATUS AND SIZE OF FAMILY ITEM 21 FIFTH COUNT TAPES SECTOR IV SECTOR V SECTOR VI E� D 9 TOTAL FAMILIES W 7 14 4 15 23 5 Unrelated 14+ - 89 - Unrelated 14+ 165 727 139 62 78 285 2 Person 280 253 145 147 194 318 3 Person 210 198 133 81 171 211 4 Person families 193 228 9g 77 145 167 5 Person 107 161 84 26 91 92 6 Person 119 I 137 51 89 98 142 NON -WHITE Unrelated 14+ - 89 - - - 4 2 Person - 27 - - - - 3 Person - 7 - _ - 6 4 Person families - 19 - - - - 5 Person - - - ' - 6 Person - 8 - 3 ** This data was computed by subtracting "white" population data from "total" population data; item 21, Fifth Count Summary Tapes U.S. Cehsus -149- INCOME OF FAMILIES AND UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS No. of All Families Median Income Mean Income Families with Female Head Mean Income All Families and Unrelated Individuals Median Income Mean Income All unrelated Individuals Median Income Mean Income Female Unrelated Individuals Mean Income Percapita Income Wash- State of Allegany Frederick Garrett ington Maryland 22686 21158 5508 26979 974143 $ 8036 $ 9550 $ 6023 $ 8778 $11063 $ 8707 $ 10514 $ 6785 $ 9676 $12682 2503 1821 488 2508 111124 $ 5437 $ 6900 $ 3540 $ 5739 $ 7031 30190 28670 6681 34965 1301499 $ 6620 $ 7757 $ 5193 $ 7465 $9130 $ 7183 $ 8561 $ 6001 $ 8231 $ 10632 7504 7512 1173 7986 327356 $ 1581 $ 1785 $ 1366 $ 2326 $ 3099 $ 2575 $ 3061 $ 2316 $ 3347 $ 4532 5180 4258 700 4938 172572 $ 2168 $ 2731 $ 1760 $ 2690 $ 3954 $ 2584 $ 2900 $ 1868 $ 2795 $ 3540 Source: Census: Population Characteristics of Maryland. Tables 57, 124. -150- Student' Enrollment Public Schools January 1974 Elementary Number High School Number Kindergarden 1533 Grade 7 1958 Grade 1 1702 8 1909 2 1747 9 1894 3 1731 10 1811 4 1886 11 1669 5 1930 12 1521 6 1946 Special Ed. 218 Subtotal 10762 Subtotal 10942 Grand Total 21,905 Source: Washington County Board of Education, 1974. -151- STUDENT ENROLLMENT Persons 3-34 School Enrollment enrolled 3-4 year County School Enrollment County Total Non -White -Nursery 293 26 -Kindergarten 1694 21 -Elementary 15728 395 -High School 6968 134 -College 1471 23 School Enrollment enrolled 3-4 year olds 8 16.5 5-13 year olds 93.3 83.2 14-17 year olds 90.8 49.4 18-21 year olds 27.7 7.1 22-34 3.5 2.9 Source: Educational Characteristics, Maryland 1970 social indicator series, Volume I, by the Department of State Planning -152- URBAN - RURAL DISTRIBUTION PLANNING SECTOR I E.D. URBAN RURAL NON-FARM RURAL FARM 2 3,956 101 9 1,935 139 10 4,817 44 13 3,868 216 18 5,111 208 24 816 105 26 6,106 1,169 --- 27 5,135 175 Hagerstown City 35,862 Sector I Total 41,968 26,797 988 PLANNING SECTOR II E.D. 1 1,981 153 6 3,091 283 12 3,717 146 16 1,798 284 19 925 96 20 833 80 Sector II Total 12,347 1,042 PLANNING SECTOR III E.D. 8 1,341 198 11 1,333 34 Sector III Total 2,671 232 PLANNING SECTOR IV E.D. 7 3,276 178 14 4,394 87 Sector IV Total 7,670 265 -153- URBAN - RURAL DISTRIBUTION. CONTD: PLANNING SECTOR V E.D. URBAN RURAL NON-FARM RURAL FARM 15 1,571 67 23 2,497 92 4 1,863 165 Sector V Total 5,931 324 PLANNING SECTOR VI E. D. 5 3,570 13 SOURCE: Fifth Count Summary Tapes, U. S. Census 1970. -154- POVERTY STATUS BY VARIOUS FAMILY CLASSIFICATIONS All Sectors I II III IV V VI Sectors Families Above Poverty Level - with Public Assistance - without Public Assistance Below Poverty Level - with Public Assistance - without Public Assistance Families with Female Head Above overty Level -with related children -without related children Below Poverty Level -with related children -without related children Families Above Poverty Level -with related children -without related children Below Poverty Level -with related children -without related children Unrelated Individuals Above overty!Level Below Poverty Level Poverty Status of Persons by Age Above Poverty Level -Greater than 55 yrs. -Less than 65 yrs. Below Poverty Level -Greater than 65 yrs. -Less than 65 yrs. 316 63 30 25 29 16 479 16992 2559 547 1656 1439 763 23976 278 22 75 17 25 26 443 1159 318 168 188 143 125 2101 661 63 17 40 34 38 853 676 74 10 30 48 25 863 459 46 11 28 18 28 590 134 14 5 24 - 16 193 9326 1528 195 1121 955 463 13588 7982 1094 113 56.0 513 316- 10578 977 212 44 119 74 89 1515 520 128 62 86_ 94 62 952 3320 359 16 145 93 151 4084 2300 324 58 76 187 134 3079 5131 574 101 300 3314 167 6589 55937 9095 1020 6075 5140 2666 79933 1884 299 118 161 234 170 2886 5822 1369 296 664 541 567 9259 Source: Fifth County Summary Tapes, U. S. Census -155- BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY 1) "Population -- Past, Present, Future -- Washington County, Maryland." 1959 by Fred W. Tuemmler and Associates for the Washington County Planning Com- mission. 2) Population Problems, Thompson and Lewis, 1965. McGraw-Hill. 3) Report Two, Population and Housing, Washington County, Maryland. December 1968. By Baker-Wib- berley and Associates, for the Washington County Planning and Zoning Commission. 4) Characteristics of Population - Maryland 1970 by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. 5) "A Summary of Population Characteristics for Alleghany, Garrett, and Washington Counties 1970." by Tri -County for Western Maryland, Inc. 6) "The Fifth Count Summary Tapes" 1970. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 7) Highlights of the 1971 Vital Statistics of Maryland. Center for Health Statistics, Maryland State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. 8) Housing -- A Summary of Characteristics Needs and Action, Washington County, Maryland. 1974. by Urban Research and development Corporation for the Washington County Planning and Zoning Commission. -157- 9) Maryland Population and Housing Statistics 1970 Census. by. the Maryland Department of State Planning, August 1971. 10) Maryland 1970 Social Indicator Series, Volumes I, II, III and IV. -158- Title: Author: Subject: Name of Planning Agency: Name of Local Agnecy: Sources of Copies POPULATION: Trends, Characteristics, Projections Washington County Planning Commission Review, Analysis, and Update of Population data for a revision of the Comprehensive Plan Maryland Department of State Planning Washington County Planning Commission Maryland Department of State Planning Washington County Planning Commission State Office Building Court House Annex, 24 Summit Avenue Baltimore, Maryland Hagerstown, Maryland U. S. Department of Housing and ABSTRACT Urban Development Regional Office Baltimore, Maryland HUD Project No.: MD. P-1013 Series Number: Pages: Abstract: This report evaluates the population characteristics of Washington County in terms of historical trends, regional importance, distribution density, socio-economic, and future population levels. The intent of the report is to provide local decision makers population information with which to evaluate existing and future programs and policies for community development. An attempt is made in this report to avoid technical discourse, and instead use rayman's language. The primary concern here is that the information contained in the report may be understood by as many citizens as possible. Thereby increasing opportunities for citizen understanding and, hope- fully, participation.