Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Estimated and proiected Total Fertilitv Rates bv Count v Group <br /> <br />COUNTY GROUP <br /> <br />~, <br />'...) <br /> <br />(::.:';. <br /> <br />w <br /> <br />COUNTIES <br /> <br />1980 <br /> <br />TOTAL FERTILITY RATES <br /> <br />2010 <br /> <br />1. 5 Urban Counties Boulder, Denver, <br />Larimer, Pueblo, Weld <br /> <br />1778 <br /> <br />"""' <br /> <br />2. 5 Suburban Counties Adams, Arapahoe, Douglas <br />EI Paso, Jefferson <br /> <br />1867 <br /> <br />3. 8 Rural Counties <br />(high fertility) <br /> <br />4. 19 Rural Counties <br /> <br />5. 20 Rural Counties <br />(low fertility) <br /> <br />6. 2 Ski Counties <br /> <br />7. 4 Ski/Rural Cnties <br /> <br />STATE TOTAL <br /> <br />Alamosa, Archuleta, Conejos, 2700 <br />Costilla, Kiowa, Prowers, <br />Rio Grande, Saguache. <br /> <br />Chaffee, Cheyenne, Crowley, 2378 <br />Clear Creek, Delta, Dolores, <br />Huerfano, Kit Carson, Lake, <br />Las Animas, Lincoln, Moffat, <br />Montezuma, Montrose, Morgan, <br />Otero, Park, Rio Blanco, Yuma. <br /> <br />Baca, Bent, Custer, Elbert, 2049 <br />Fremont, Garfield, Gilpin, <br />Gunnison, Hinsdale, Jackson, <br />La Plata, Logan, Mesa, Mineral, <br />Ouray, Phillips, San Juan, <br />Sedgwick, Teller, Washington. <br /> <br />Pitkin, Summit. 1048 <br /> <br />Eagle, Grand, Routt, 1699 <br />San Miguel. <br /> <br />All 63 counties. 1778 <br /> <br />1820 <br /> <br />1912 <br /> <br />2879 <br /> <br />2536 <br /> <br />2201 <br /> <br />1173 <br /> <br />1848 <br /> <br />1915 <br /> <br />Miaration. As described above, the current application of the model sets future <br />net migration levels for each geographic unit -- except counties in the Denver <br />metropolitan area (CMSA) -- such that the supply of labor is equal to the demand <br />for labor forecast by the econometric model. For the estimate years 1981 - 1990, <br />the total net migration for each unit for each year was estimated by subtracting <br />"natural inc'reasett -- the increase due to births minus deaths -- from total <br />change. The resulting difference was regarded as the increase (or decrease) due <br />to migration. <br /> <br />The assumed age-sex distribution of migrants were estimated by surviving forward <br />from the 1970 Census population (adjusted for suspected undercount), subtracting <br />actual deaths (by age and sex), and adding actual births (by sex, and by year of <br />birth) to create an expected 1980 population by age and sex. The difference <br />between the expected (survived plus born) population and the population <br />enumerated in the 1980 Census was assumed to represent net migration by age and <br />sex for the decade. This distribution was scaled to the appropriate net migra- <br />tion total to achieve the projection year age-sex specific migration pattern. <br /> <br />Treatment of Denver-Metro Area Counties. Net migration and population for the <br />six counties within the Denver metropolitan area -- Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, <br />Denver, Douglas, and Jefferson -- were calculated differently. First, assumed <br />future levels of net migration for the metropolitan area as a whole were <br />calculated in the same manner as described above. Then, the future populations <br />