B-1057 October 1966 734!’ V . ;<;"~‘l'\!~k%'£‘ -' W1‘ =1 4 1'.“ 0x156‘ 1* 22 ‘dew. f‘ L ngkcpgi ‘ - NF". ‘ ‘.;.‘~'~"-‘,'": 1 ' u. l. \-». 4 _\\\._,‘J»_ éd~'h\ " 1'4 .. ,4 , J5”. _ V_ s“, _ _ h $0,", y" 4131s!» ' ' ' ~ ":-j¢_¢’»;-,=r-* - - -'(.I r: '~ f1“ _ .> a ' —'. 5-2 Pr)?» i" hS-.-‘~‘--r-v~‘-~"-- -1 v - ¢_-._ __-_,. 5,. .:-?<'5§.'?;;/ " 1q1"t~',;‘_:_.'nf w a ~ ‘w 55;‘ w, -'~ .5: , . ‘Quin?’ '1*\'_~‘.l_'*.§_'§2,5_~‘»".4 '. a‘- vzwx: - _ JP» v. 4* kqliéh": . - ,- ->£-.*'>€z-v dflfl-r ‘ ~, U1 . 1 I‘ vvl ,,a\9‘.: _\ "u, . a ‘wt 146a ti" ‘Pa-v! Wessex.» TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Texas Agricultural Extension Service College Station, Texas Summary THIS PUBLICATION ANALYZES some significant demo- graphic characteristics of the aged population of Texas. It includes projections to 1980, in some in- stances to 1985, and points out some of their impli- cations. Some of the more significant findings follow. The estimated number of aged persons in Texas in 1966 was 851,705, a figure representing 8 percent of the State’s population. The number of older people is increasing at a considerably faster rate than the State’s total population. Projections indicate a 1980 aged population in Texas of 1,141,000. As older people continue their rapid increase in numbers and make up an increasingly larger share of the total population, they will receive wider public attention. Their role in politics will become greater, and more attention will be given to their recreation and housing needs, to different kinds of pension and retirement programs and to medical and welfare services for the aged. The aged, like the general population, are un- evenly distributed in the State. In at least four coun- ties (Hamilton, Comanche, Mills and Bosque) they comprised more than 20 percent of the total popula- tion in 1960. On the other hand, older people made up less than 3 percent of the total population in five Texas counties (Andrews, Ector, Midland, Yoakum and Winkler). In 1960, older people comprised only 7 percent of the total population living in cities, but 10 and 11 percent in rural nonfarm and rural farm areas, respectively. They made up only 4 percent of the population living in fringe or suburban sections sur- rounding larger cities and 6 percent in central cities of urbanized areas. The application of preventive medicine, better diets and control of communicable diseases have re- sulted in larger numbers living to “extremely old” age levels. In 1960, there were 610 persons 100 years of age or older living in Texas, and 43,000 were 85 or older. With current retirement policies in effect, this increasing numbers of Texans will have 35 y more of “doing nothing.” ‘ Since women live on the average 6 years than men, female numerical superiority increa Q age. In 1960, there were 1,150 females per 1,000 65 to 74 years of age; 1,308 women per 1,000 n’ to 84; and 1,521 females per»:1,000 males 85 or? Thus, it is recognized thatlcontrol of property . is increasingly passing into the hands of older j will be largely in the hands of widows. Older i however, are known to be more interested in and less in investing in different kinds of risk v which have been important in the development’: nat1on’s economy. The number of elderly white people is in“ at a faster rate than the number of older no in Texas. In 1900 there were 3,900 aged whi 1,000 aged nonwhites; by 1960 there were 7,5 by 1985 there are expected to be 9,000 aged i per 1,000 aged nonwhites. f With large numbers of young people ente ' labor market annually and the need to a younger workers, a sharp increase in volunt i compulsory retirements has taken place in recen ;_ Consequently, there has been a decided do ' trend in the employment of older people in "f years. In 1960 only 21 percent of all aged w] were in the labor force, and this proportion is 9 in 1966. Thus, while there is growing recogni. the current waste or work skills and experie older people, both voluntary and forced retir’ are occurring faster than ever. The typical older male (75 percent) is _ and the typical older woman (56 percent) is a T Differences in marital status of elderly mal females are a result of the longer life expectan females and their age differentials at marriag- A total of 143,000 older Texans was living in 1960. Of that number, 73 percent were § and 27 percent males. Approximately 6 of l‘ pants of single-person households lived in occupied and the remainder in renter-occupied Also in 1960 there were 11,558 older persons li a homes for the aged in Texas. This number u = edly has increased greatly, since attitudes oft people toward this type living arrangement are ing materially in the l960’s. * Income continues to be a problem for elderly persons. In 1959 the median income» - families where the head of household was an person and both husband and wife were livW less than half the income of all families in Te i both husband and wife living. Older femalesf alone or with nonrelatives had a median inc $745 in 1959, and older males living alone r nonrelatives had a median income of $901. laaracterirtzkr 0f be T exar A ged ' - BANEK, B. E. DICKERSON AND W. K. UPHAM* Contents Summary ............................................ .. 2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Purpose and Scope .......................................................... ........... .. 4 Definition of Aged Population ................................................. .. 4 Sources of Dam .................... .. 4 Numbers of Aged .................... .. 4 Growth Trend... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 Texas Aged in Relation to United States and Other States ............................................. .. 5 Aged in Relation to Younger Age Groups ............................. .. 5 Geographic Distribution of the Aged ............................................... .. 5 Age and Sex Composition of the Aged ............................................. .. 7 Age Composition .... ..1 .................................................................... .. 7 Sex Composition ............................................................................ .. 8 Racial Composition of the Aged ....................................................... _. 9 General Trend ............................................................................... .. 9 Geographic Distribution .............................................................. ..l0 Age and Sex ................................................................................... ..l0 Residential Composition of the Aged ............................................. _.ll General Trend . ............................. _.ll Size of Place .................................................................................... ._l2 Age, Race and Sex ................. ...................................................... ._l2 Selected Socio-economic Characteristics of the Aged ................... __l3 Marital Status ................................................................................. __l3 Employment Status ....................................................................... ..l4 Income Stains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _.l5 Housing. ............................. __l5 GIANT STRIDES HAVE BEEN MADE in the United States in increasing man’s life expectancy. This has been possible through improved arts and techniques by which hazards of-living are reduced and death is delayed. Through increased knowledge and preven- tive medicine, better diets and control of life-taking communicable diseases, man’s chances of living longer have been increased greatly. A baby born in the United States in 1800 had an average life expectancy of around 35 years. By 1900 the average age at death for babies born that year had increased to 48. Youngsters born in 1966, however, have an average life expectancy of slightly more than 70 years. So rapid has been the increase in life expectancy that a baby born in the United States today has a better chance of living to 60 than a youngster born in 1900 had of reaching its fifth birthday. While the increased life expectancy of man has many advantages, it also has caused circumstances which did not exist among previous generations of Americans. One of these has been the development of a society which has relatively large numbers of people in the older age brackets. Few demographic developments have received such wide public attention in recent years as the rapidly growing numbers of aged people. The general public has had to learn the meaning of gerontology *Respectively, professor, instructor and assistant professor, De- partment of Agricultural Economics and Sociology. (the study of tl1e aged) and geriatrics (the subdivision of medicine which is concerned with old age and its diseases). As the elderly have come t0 represent a larger proportion of the population and will become even larger numerically, the following comparatively new situations in our society may be expected to develop to a fuller extent. More attention will be given directly to recreation, housing and other con- veniences needed to provide the types of facilities demanded by older citizens. Political figures will direct more and more speeches to the aged, and bills introduced in legislative bodies will reflect the numer- ical strength of older people. Pension plans will have to be arranged so that the amount contributed before retirement will be balanced against payments received after retirement. Medical and welfare services for older people will be expanded as will retirement homes for the aged. Means of combating loneliness in the lives of aged persons will receive close study. Much thought will be directed toward keeping larger numbers of older people occupationally active, since many under present retirement policies have 25 to 30 years of living in retirement and feel they have little to contribute to modern society. Purpose and Scope This publication deals with the demographic characteristics of the aged population of Texas—their numbers; geographic distribution; age, sex, residential and racial composition; and other important demo- graphic phenomena. The purpose of the report is to bring together in one publication information on the aged people of Texas in a meaningful and useful form which will be helpful to persons and agencies interested in and working with problems of the aged. Aged persons carry in themselves, as it were, the history of the past, and changes over time are reflected in present differences in the aged and the rest of the population. For example, the schooling of today’s old is considered inadequate by present standards; their occupations and also those of their parents are vastly different from today’s occupations. Their life styles differ greatly from those of the general popu- lation as well as from the life styles of persons con- sidered old during the period in which they were born-before 1900. The needs of older people are different in many respects from those of any other group. Thisholds even for thecustomary essentials of life: food, housing and clothing. Increased activity in recent years in the field of aging has not been confined to the State and Federal governments. Many towns and cities have organized to deal with one or more aspects of older people's problems. Activity centers sponsored by municipali- ties and voluntary organizations have increased greatly in number. Community groups provide older citizens with better housing, recreation facilities, opportunities for adult education, job counseling and opportunities for employment. All segments of society are engaged in this effort—physicians, medical and research per- 4 sonnel, clergymen, educators, social workers, rec specialists, government officials, civic leaders and people from different walks of life. This rel designed for these people as well as agencies prig in positions involving action and planning f‘ older people of Texas. 1 Definition of the Aged Population As used in this publicatioii, the aged popuw includes all persons 65 years of age and older. it is realized that the chronological age of a i. does not automatically qualify an individual ' “old” person, demographers tend to classify .@ sons 65 years of age or older as “aged,” parti since 65 has been accepted as the age of exi retirement. A Sources of Data Information contained in this publication - was obtained directly or derived from primary; contained in various U. S. Bureau of the _ volumes and Texas State Department of f, Annual Vital Statistics releases. Projections for and 1980 are from U. S. Bureau of the Census, C 1 Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 326, “I11us 1 Projections of the Population of States: 1970 to l, February 7, 1966. 3 NUMBERS OF AGED Growth Trend The number of aged persons in Texas .' creased during the first 66 years of the 20th ce TABLE 1. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF AGED PE ', IN TEXAS, 1870-1960, ESTIMATES FOR 1966 AND PR TIONS FOR 1970 AND 1980 Increase in aged Percent aged Aged population since of total Year population preceding census population ‘I; 1870 12,060 1.5 1880 27,709 15,649 1.7 1890 47,229 19,520 2.1 1900 74,037 26,808 2.4 1910 110,801 36,764 2.8 1920 163,046 52,245 3.5 1930 232,459 69,413 4.0 1940 347,495 1 15,036 5.4 1950 513,420 165,925 6.7 1960 745,391 231,971 7.8 Estimate 1966 851,705 106,314 8.0 Projected 1970 928,000 182,609 8.1 1980 1,141,000 213,000 8.4 Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of Pop 1960. Volume I, “Characteristics of the Population,” ,~ Texas, Table 16, and U. S. Census of Population: 1940. “ Series, Texas, Table 8; author’s estimates for 1966 various census publications; projections are the II-B Series, from U. S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population R Series P-25, No. 326, “Il1ustrative Projections of the Pop of States: 1970 to 1985," Table 5. a Q; 74,000, representing 2.5 percent of tl1e total lation, to 852,000, representing 8 percent of the , lation (Table 1). Thus, the number of older vile not only has increased rapidly, but so has their ' rtion of the total population. While the State’s I f population increased 24.2 percent between 1950 p’ 1964, the number of aged persons increased 45.2 I nt.- Older people currently are increasing in number A faster rate than the State’s total population. It i edicted this situation will continue at least until l when the aged are expected to comprise 8.4 nt of all persons residing in Texas. i Texas Aged in Relation to United States i and Other States I The 745,000 older persons in Texas were exceeded erically in only five other states in 1960. These New York, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois and o, in that order. The proportionate share of the l population in Texas is somewhat lower than in f nation or any major geographic region of the i'on (Table 2). While aged persons make up 7.8 _ nt of the State’s total population, some neighbor- " states have higher proportions of aged—l0.9 in nsas and 10.7 in Oklahoma. Texas ranks 38th ‘ng the 50 states in proportion of aged population. a had the highest proportion (11.9 percent) and Ilka the lowest (2.4 percent). Iowa’s high propor- "l of aged results largely from the out-migration of ‘~ omy depends heavily on agriculture. Alaska’s _ proportion is the result of in-migration of younger ple to a new and developing area and also out- tion of older persons. Between 1950 and 1960, e 1,540 more older people moved away from Alaska i moved in. The major reason Texas is well below national average in proportion of aged people is "j combination of less out-migration and more in- i ation of younger people. p. Since the number of aged persons is increasing j ‘a faster rate in Texas than for the nation as a hole, Texas has an increasingly larger share of the LE 2. NUMBER AND PERCENT or AGED POPULA- =0 IN TEXAS, MAJOR REGIONS AND THE UNITED ATEs, 1960 l? Percent aged _(é‘ Total Aged of total population population population _ s 9,579,677 745,691 7.8 heast 44,677,662) 4,496,283 10.1 ' h Central 51,619,139 5,078,462 9.8 th 54,973,113 4,582,014 8.3 t 28,053,104 2,400,821 8.6 (ted States 179,323,175 16,559,580 9.2 p ce: U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of Population: ,~I Volume I, “Characteristics of the Population,” Part I, 'ted States Summary, Table 55. K ger people, which is typical of states where the . Aged per 1,000 young population Aged per 1,000 in productive ages ( IB—64 ) ( under I8 ) I960 205 I43 Projected------------------—---———— 1970 227 I52 I960 257 I57 I I I I I L J I I I ' I I I I 0 50 I00 I50 200 250 300 [l 50 I00 I50 200 250 300 Figure 1. Aged population in relation to the young (under 18) and persons in the productive ages of life (18-64), 1950-60, and projections for 1970 and 1980. nation’s old people. For example, only 2.4 percent of the nation's aged lived in Texas in 1900, compared with 4.5 percent in 1960 and an expected 4.9 percent by 1980. Aged in Relation to Younger Age Groups By dividing the population of Texas into three broad age categories-those considered too young to make their own livelihood; those in the productive years of life; and the aged—comparisons may be made which reveal how rapidly older people are increasing in relation to the other two groups. A ratio has been devised for this purpose. It is obtained by dividing the number of people 65 years of age and over (the aged) by the number of persons in each of the other two age categories: the young (under 18) and persons in the productive ages (18 to 64). The resulting figures multiplied by 1,000 indicate the number of aged people per 1,000 persons in each of the other two broad categories. Texas had 198 older persons for every 1,000 youngsters less than 18 in 1950. By 1980 the number of aged individuals is expected to increase to 257 per 1,000 youngsters (Figure 1). Also, in 1950 there were 112 aged persons per 1,000 in the productive ages of life, but there are expected to be 157 older people per 1,000 in the productive ages by 1980. Thus, the number of aged persons is growing, and is expected to grow, at a faster rate than either the younger or productive-age population of the State. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGED Although Texas has about three quarters of a million older people, they are unequally distributed within the State (Figure 2). Information on the number residing in each county appears in Appendix Table 1. Numerically, they tend to be most important in the most populous counties and also smallest in number in the least populous areas. In 1960, ten counties had more than 10,000 aged persons. Bexar, 46,898; Tarrant, 37,108; Travis, 16,073; Jeffer- l4,964; McLennan, son, Nueces, extreme persons. Kenedy, In general, aged persons make up a smaller share of the total population in.West and South Texas than in the eastern portion (Figure Texas counties in 1960 in which the aged made up more than 20 percent of the total population and five additional counties in which they comprised at least 19 percent of the total. These were Harris, 66,732; Dallas, 61,112; percentages of older citizens were Hamilton, 14,755; El Paso, 14,232; 10,244; and Hidalgo, 10,038. At the other were three counties with fewer than 50 aged These were Loving, 12; King, 26; and 47. Saba, 19.2. All of these are counties with ba Cross-Timbers section near the‘- geographic cen the State. the total population in 1960. These were An 2.0; Ector, 2.4; Midland, 2.8; Yoakum, 2.9; and ler, 2.9. All of these are located in the High and have had oil, gas or irrigation developm recent years which attracted many younger peo There were four DALLAM lawman HANSFORD ocmunzs LIPSCOMB __ __ _---t _| O O q I V I HARTLEY MOORE u_u can», ROBERTS HEMPHILL I 59" 0 O I I "' I U ‘H I I O 01.1mm E cmsou ° sfiq"wu§ct§fl I I I O O O "___ j O O I o , _ DEAF SMITH ‘narfuntu ‘RM looutcv wu-mss , , . smouc WORTH O O U - - n , _, __ ___ ___ Q I I '0 nf - PARMER casino swusuza I annsooe mu. . g 9- I Q o o c o 0 u I a o . ' . ' g . I O 0 0 o ' ‘ amcsv o we | NALE F. ‘,0 MOTLEV c0111.: NWILB I I .0. ‘f. a ' . FOARD 3.55504 cums s. u ' I n o 1 . . ' a -* 01M‘ ' ' 3 a 0 o x: ' 0 ' , . . '- ..t.I'-3' , . unnIum Rifle ?;r 0 - - cocmuu uocxfcv L “a o. cnosav mcxcus xme 1040* . BAVLOR ‘RWER ¢ I [I . i” i. no? f’ Ilx‘ ' - ' o . ' "W53 . all: I o o o 0 . ‘ , 2 . Q o4! a I ‘ t 8 o E ‘f’! Q ' v u o 0 I ' ' . . 0 u n o o x -*: n: ' ' ' o _ o _ o‘ 5,0,,“ NASKIRL meow 0v 01mg‘ ' JA.CK . o m5;- ,Oggfl1'sf( . hi“! I} uh l uowpus. ' é n 5 o 2A5?‘ I. WNW 17$“; Um" GAR“ KENT WALL I a l "Mm" I’ ' . . a . a . . o. o o . 0 I _ 3 - A "‘ 01M‘ f ' , '_'_- o a Li, a L l I IL r ‘ _ _ m» MmSIJ‘. .F‘. n ,6 o I I I ,__ . _ - F‘. - '. . . , q o m‘ woon _uvsuun-. P.°.'LI '_'_' '2'.‘ so-MQKEL- :1....'..,I Pate‘ hmlcn‘ mun ALL ° J.'.', ' . ‘n. e “:55” GAINES yonwsou . B0905" §°U3‘“a Fm“ .I"°'-'Es' mm '7. '7. ' ‘$3330, q ' o KMJFQ, NW win-f '. . .u.0. .I.'. ‘ . , , yo JAAN ZANST I I p o . _ _ a cl 0 V p i’ lr'o o'o'o 0'0 0-0.0 I_"' ' -H00D m3“?! LU q -- - - I.'.'P.AN;LA - " - s1 in ° ° uzuosnsou 0 o ANDREWS umml l,"b!’m9l'$'f0§EL% 20L.“ "L: ciufinb’: Fla‘; 2 o ' '0'. 0 T“: I I ' a - o - .u.I.4.0.',L', o ° l"! I a ere. wk, , , , ‘q. T‘ o 0 ‘T I ' ¢ a I I 1 - I I ' 2"“ ' cm ~ ... . L‘. ‘an; GLASS- SYER- cox: '0.\.0.|. . "Noinso .0. . 0'06: ‘I I ' Low“ - WINKLER fol-OR» Tm} o‘ 006K W6 himucts cotemm .193 n‘ n o ° Pfight’; o o 0 ° ' ' . ‘link-i. ___ o o o o u 0.I ‘Ix. . .' . ' I - _ . - 0 I "uusprm l CULBERSON I mun: l uwron ' REAGAN 1 ' ' ' O 0 ‘gm $510M‘ ' A355“. a _ , ‘ WON eoncno o o n g 0 o - r "“.°"“k°°’.‘l' RML . i "rnntnv I I I ' . . . , , sam- a a 0 o 0 u i‘ g o I I Q 9 F N u ' n L _0 n o o I POLK u‘: YVLSI. n u u I . / SWLUCHER MENARD ,""","E",I ' . o ‘o o o I . "w; cnocxzrr MASON LLANO , _ sun a "___-___. _ _. ncmva Q I 4:5; onvrs ' . I ° ' K o . , , . awn”; /\ | sunou must: "" " - . ' 0° \ ' ' "6 ' q q. T- ‘ - ° » ' - ' n l atnuco ' '*°"l°°“i"" o. u w 0 ‘c Ltgsvv; I I ' “m i ' o ° ' 0km i TERRELL ' ' . .0 o ' ' '.L-: . . ' ' liI . o o I o 0 - - _ . . \ , an.’ w-L! . mi.- _ ' an? i _ . ,/. ~ o umm w. FRESH)“, BREWSTER . n . 0 w“ ‘V305, . sownnos . ~$4< xannntr/Y . 7 y} C:M.L.G>,(‘, FAJUJE /u _ n“ ' . .0.0 "UL snuocmx ' . COWL" ' ' ' ° ' ' ' . ‘r031 a‘; I ~ . o onnoo, ' ' o o ¢_ I - ‘lcuionfw ,','>I.(§: o 'B.Efi%' ° ‘If. o". , “as? 01.09.57’. I uhovxA I./'_'_\, , . o . ° ° 0 I ' s}, O 0 I —QGO§ZMSES h“ no a - o o I - Y'°'zgflm° o KINNE, .UveLDE , wsmuy O o __, . . _ c o‘ .wnARTDN 3X min . _ Q NUMBER PERSONS s5 a OVER L, 1:1 uwosn |,000 _ _ _ i [Ell 1,000 - 4,999 ‘ziiji-Lllili-Ii ~ / m 5.0%- 9,999 ':';'-'-.;E'-,_. H |0,000- |9,999 _.' - 20,000 a oven l’ I "r an . ' 5 A w|\.\.A'cV . \ ALGO u ' CAMERO Figure 2. Number of aged persons in Texas counties, 1960. These counties and; Mills, 20.6; Comanche, 20.3; Bosque, 20.1; Somf 19.6; Delta, 19.4; Erath, 19.3; Rains, 19.2; an rural populations from which young peoplei migrated. All but two of these are located i There were also ‘ffve Texas coun a which older people comprised less than 3 perci PERCENT POPULATION 65 6 OVER IE UNDER 4,8 4.8 '7] m 7.8 ' 10.7 E 10.8 ' 13.7 n 13.8 - l6.‘! - 16.8 6 OVER e 3. Percent of aged population in Texas counties, 1960. Most of the counties with comparatively large I bers of aged persons also had relatively large teases of older people in the last decade. Harris unty, for example, increased its number of aged g,000 between 1950 and 1960. Dallas County experi- ced an increase of 25,000 older persons during the ‘n period. The number of aged more than doubled wever, all counties with a hundred percent increase p aged persons during the decade had relatively all numbers of aged. For example, Andrews County ‘p: an increase of 190 percent between 1950 and I .0, but they increased from only 92 to 267. I 10E AND SEX COMPOSITION or THE AGED One of the main reasons almost every public 1o ument asks for an individuals age and sex is at these factors are relevant to most circumstances jvolving the human ‘being. The average capabilities i a man or woman vary considerably among the aged gut usually become more limited with each advance '4 age level. r.‘ i-nine counties between 1950 and 1960 (Figure 4).- iAByLE 3. NUMBER AND INCREASE OF AGED PERSONS IN PERCENT INCREASE UNDER I83 [/4 18.9 ' 31.3 m 31.4 ' 438 m 43.9 563 g 564' 6&8 - 6B 9 d uvt R Figure 4. Percent of increase in aged persons in Texas counties, 1950-60. Age Composition The increased average length of life experienced in our nation during the past century has resulted in more persons living to what may be referred to as “extremely old" age. In 1960, for example, there were 610 persons living in Texas who had passed their 100th birthday, and the number 85 years of age or older exceeded 43,000. The 610 centenarians in Texas were exceeded in number in only three other states: New York, 1003; California, 712; and Pennsylvania, 666. Information contained in Table 3 illustrates how persons in the older groups among the aged are in- creasing at a faster rate than those in the younger brackets. All three groups of aged increased their proportions of the total population between 1940 and 1960. The highest rates of increases between 1940 and 1960 occurred among those 85 years of age and over. Their numbers during the same 20-year period in- creased 176 percent, a gain from 16,000 to 43,000. During this period, persons between 75 and 84 years of age increased 157 percent, while the number 65 TEXAS, BY AGE GROUPS, 1940, 1950 AND 1960 Increase Increase Increase a 1940-50 1950-60 1940-60 ge groups 1940 1950 Number Percent 1960 Number Percent Number Percent w t0 74 years 250.703 355,472 104,769 41.8 493,349 137,877 38.8 242,646 96.8 A5 to 84 years 81,146 134,527 53,381 65.8 208,817 74,290 55.2 127,671 157.3 < and older 15,646 23,421 7,775 49.7 43,225 19,804 84.6 27,579 176.3 347,495 513,420 165,925 47.7 745,391 231,971 45.2 397,896 114.5 l ll aged urce: U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census 0f Population: 19.50. Volume II, “Characteristics of the Population,” Part 43, Texas, able 15; and U. S. Census of Population: I960. Volume 1, “Characteristics of the Population,” Part 45, Texas, Table 16. 7 t0 74 increased 97 percent. Although the number 75 years of age and older is still only half as large as those between 65 and 74 years of age, the oldest age groups comprise an increasingly greater share of the elderly population of Texas (Figure 5). Although projections for the elderly are not available by age groups, this trend is expected to continue to 1970 and 1980. Sex Composition There are 105 boys born in Texas for every 100 girls. Thus, life in Texas begins with an excess of males as it does in all other states. From their birth, however, males have a higher death rate than females at all age levels through their life span. At death rates prevailing in Texas in 1960, for example, 33 baby boys per 1,000 born died before reaching their first birthday, while only 26 baby girls per 1,000 bom died during the first year of life. A boy born in 1964 in the United States could expect to live 68 years, while a girl born at the same time could expect to live 74.2 years. Because death takes a heavier toll on males at all ages than females, life starts out with more males but shifts rapidly in favor of females as the two sexes live out their life span. In 1960 there were 8,406 more boys than girls in Texas who were 1 year old or 1940 1950 1960 35-74 7///j 75-34 Figure 5. Percentage distribution of aged persons in Texas, by age, 1940, 1950 and 1960. 8 85 and older portions are expected to increase in the a younger. With each successive age the num which boys outnumber girls gets smaller. At -; there were only 1,630 more boys than girls. A 20 the balance between the sexes shifts in fav females, and they outnumber males 1,812. Fe outnumber males 3,546 at age 26; 4,226 at a i, and maintain their numerical superiority duri _f remaining years of their life.., Thus, women} number men by their widest=ri1argins in their years. There were 71,000 more aged females in than aged males in 1960 (Table 4), and their? dominance increases with each successive age _ Women comprised 53.5 percent of all aged 0a.; 65 to 74 years old in 1960, 56.7 percent of all § 84 and 60.3 percent of those 85 years of age and’ Another way to illustrate the excess in 1g females over males at different ages is to cog the number of women per 1,000 men for eaclif group under consideration. These computatio“ veal thereiare 1,150 females per 1,000 males 65 years of age, 1,308 women per 1,000 men 75 to 84 1,521 females per 1,000 males 85 or older. In the United States, life expectancy for new girls is slightly over 6 years longer than for boys,‘ the gap is widening. In 1900, women could F to outlive men by only about 3 years. Thus, . V years go by women make up an increasingly share of the aged population of Texas, and their '9 I (Figure 6). In 1920 there were only 826 aged fe, per 1,000 aged males. Since immigration to the v States before World War I involved more males 5 females, men tended to predominate by a rela wide margin. By 1980 there will be approxim 1,400 women to 1,000 men in the aged popula Therefore the number of widows is expected t. crease in relation to widowers, and women will ,_ TABLE 4. NUMBER or AGED MALES AND FEMAL,‘ TEXAS, BY AGE GROUPS, FOR 1900 AND PROJEC FOR ALL AGED FOR 1970 AND 1980 _ Female Fern excess in per l,‘ Age groups Males Females numbers mal 03 to 74 years i 229,450 203,899 34,449 1,130 75 to s4 years 90,490 113,327 27,337 1.30s- 85 and older 17,149 26,076 8,927 1,521 All aged 337,039 403,302 71,213 1.211 Projected . All aged (1970) 399,000 529,000 130,000 1,32 All aged (1930) 470,000 033,000 190,000 1,3 ‘E Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Census of Popu . 1960. Volume I, “Characteristics of the Population,” Pa g Texas, Table 16, and U. S. Bureau of the Census, Current ' lation Reports. Series P-25, No. 326, “Illustrative Projecti 1, the Population of States: 1970 to 1985," February 7, 1966, Ta B26 8B3 I103 1211 Projected - - - - - - - - _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ .. _ 1326 1397 300 600 900 1200 1500 ' 6. Females per 1,000 males in the aged population » exas, 1920-60, and projections for 1970 and 1980. iv to control a greater share of the nation's wealth the future. RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE AGED Racial composition of the aged is just as impor- 't in many ways as is the number of aged persons a state. Each racial group has a different set of Ath and illness rates. For example, in the United jtes white boys born in 1964 could expect to live years longer than nonwhite boys born the same i (68.5 and 63.8 years life expectancy, respectively). ite girls born in 1964 were expected to outlive white girls born the same year 6.4 years (75.0 and - years, respectively). Different racial groups also e e different educational and income levels and work different status-level occupations. The degree to 'ch these racial groups differ in their social and nomic characteristics and the degree to which one 'a1 element outnumbers another play an integral I; in such factors as the average income and average g cgtional level of older people in the State. ; {There are three major race classifications recog- A ed by the Bureau of the Census: White, Negro and er nonwhite races. Major elements in the latter up are North American Indians, Japanese, Chinese d Filipinos. All persons of Mexican ancestry who T not definitely Indian or other nonwhite race are < sified white. Since nonwhites other than Negro make up less an 0.2 ercent of the State’s total o ulation and j P _ P P ‘egroes comprise more than 98 percent of all non- whites, the terms “nonwhite” and “Negro” may be used interchangeably in Texas. General Trend Texas always has been peopled predominantly by white persons. In 1960, they comprised 87 percent of the State’s people and 88 percent of all aged persons. Thus, nonwhites made up 13 percent of the State’s population and 12 percent of the older people. The number of aged persons is increasing at a faster rate among both whites and nonwhites than their general populations. In 1900, they each com- prised approximately 2.4 percent of their respective racial groups. By 1960, however, the aged comprised 7.9 percent of the total white and 7.3 percent of the total nonwhite populations residing in the State. The number of nonwhite aged persons is increas- ing at a slower rate than older whites in Texas (Table 5). In 1900, one of every five aged Texans was non- white; in 1960 nonwhites made up approximately one-eighth of the older population; and by 1985 they are expected to comprise only one of 10 aged persons. One of the major factors involved in the higher pro- portionate growth of whites in relation to nonwhite older persons is the difference in death rates of the two racial groups. Only 27 white babies died before reaching their first birthday per 1,000 born in 1960 in Texas. Among nonwhites, however, 44 babies per 1,000 born died during their first year of life. Further- more, nonwhites have higher death rates in Texas than whites at all age levels throughout their life span. In 1900 there were 3,900 aged whites per 1,000 aged nonwhites, but by 1960 there were approximately TABLE 5. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF WHITE AND NONWHITE IN THE AGED POPULATION OF TEXAS, 1900-1960, AND PROJECTIONS FOR 1975 AND 1985 Aged whites Aged nonwhites Total aged Year Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 1900 58,923 79.6 15,114 20.4 74,037 100.0 1910 91,705 82.8 19,096 17.2 110,801 100.0 1920 140,673 86.3 22,373 13.7 163,046 100.0 1930 206,250 88.7 26,209 11.3 232,459 100.0 1940 298,809 86.0 48,686 14.0 347 ,495 100.0 1950 448,537 87.4 64,883 12.6 513,420 100.0 1960 657,589 88.2 87,802 11.8 745,391 100.0 Projected 1975 924,000 89.6 107,000 10.4 1,031,000 100.0 1985 1,114,000 90.3 119,000 9.7 1,233,000 100.0 Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Census of Population.- 1960, Volume I, “Characteristics of the Population," Part 45, Texas, Table 17, and U..S. Bureau of the Census, Current Popu- lation Reports, Series P-25, No. 326, “I11ustrative Projections of the Populations of States: 1970 to 1985,” February 7, 1966, Tables 5 and 7. 1900 389B 1910 4002 l 1920 I 6288 l 1930 Y 7869 1 1940 l 6137 J 1950 l saw l 19am r 1409 J Pruj acted - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 1975 [ B636 J I985 L 9361 l I j J l é! 0 2,000 4,000 0,000 0,000 10,000 Figure 7. Aged whites per 1,000 aged nonwhites in Texas, 1900-60, and projections for 1975 and 1985. 7,500. More than 9,000 whites per 1,000 aged non- whites are expected in 1985, Figure 7. Geographic Distribution Although there are large concentrations of both white and nonwhite elderly persons particularly in counties with big metropolitan centers, older white persons are more equally distributed over the State than nonwhites. The latter group tends to be highly concentrated in East Texas. In 1960, Harris County had the largest number of white older citizens (55,178) and also the largest number of nonwhite older people (11,544). Next in numbers of aged in both groups is Dallas County, with 53,895 white and 7,217 non- white aged, respectively. While Loving County had fewest aged whites (12), there were 29 counties that had no aged nonwhites and 14 others with only one nonwhite aged person in 1960. All 43 counties having fewer than two nonwhite aged persons are located west of Fort Worth. Figures 8 and 9 show the proportions of older persons in the white and nonwhite populations of Texas counties in 1960, excluding those with fewer than 300 aged persons. In six counties, the elderly comprise better than one-fifth of the white population. These are Delta, Mills, Hamilton, Freestone, Bosque and Comanche. Older people did not make up as many as one of five nonwhites in any Texas county. The highest proportion was 17.3 percent in De Witt County. In six other counties older people constituted l0 as much as 15 percent of all nonwhites. These Fayette, Burleson, Lee, Washington, Eastland Rains Counties. Age and Sex Although whites greatly outnumber non all age levels of the aged population, they have ' age distribution patterns (Tablé 6). Both groups approximately the same proportions of aged 65 years old, 75 to 84 and 85 years of age and Although the margin by which women outn men increases among botl1 racial groups with ---- n uuuu u PERCENT wanes as a ovzn Cl LESS 1mm zoo E3 unosn 4.1a 7/4 4.a - 1.1 Q 7.8 - 10.1 ' $ |o.e- 15.1 E |a.a- 1a.? |s.a a oven Figure 8. Percent of aged in the white population of counties, 1960. i nclnu nu m, ti». we w» luau _ M v I ¢ ¢ : = - t = . 1 n minus ---- u». PERCENT NONWHITES es a OVER 1:1 LESS THAN 30o nouwnrrss E3 uuosn 4.a 7/1 4.0 - 1.1 1.a - no.1 |o.a -" |a.7 I 13.8 ' 16.7 K |e.a a oven Figure 9. Percent of aged in the nonwhite population of counties, 1960. LE 6. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF AGED PERSONS AND NUMBER OF FEMALES PER 1,000 MALES, BY AGE UPS, FOR WHITES AND NONWHITES IN TEXAS, 1960 Aged whites Aged nonwhites Females per Females per ,1 oups Number Percent 1,000 males Number Percent 1,000 males F 74 years 433,242 65.9 1,160 60,107 68.5 1,079 n 84 years 186,656 28.4 1,336 22,161 25.2 1,096 h d older 37,691 5.7 1,556 5,534 6.3 1,302 .1 ged 657,589 100.0 1,228 87,802 100.0 1,096 16. anced age level, whites have higher proportions females to males at all levels than do nonwhites. IDENTIAL COMPOSITION or THE AGED Even though behavior patterns of rural and urban ple are becoming more alike, location of residence tinues to have an important bearing upon many inguishing features of man’s life. Agricultural jupations still exert a great deal of influence upon rural resident; a low density of population persists; pulation aggregates are small; and a higher degree ethnic and cultural homogeneity still characterizes ' rural resident as compared with the city dweller. ‘er persons in cities, in some ways, are faced with erent types of problems than older people in rural as. . reau of the Census. The urban population in- 7 .. des all persons in incorporated and unincorporated nters of population of 2,500 or more and the densely spulated fringe around cities of 50,000 inhabitants f more. The rural population is divided into rural rm and rural nonfarm. The rural farm population cludes persons living in rural territory on places of I or more acres from which sales of farm products ounted to $50 or more or on places of less than acres from which the sales of farm products it ounted to $250 or more. The classification, rural nonfarm population, applies to all other persons in l ABLE 7. TOTAL POPULATION AND AGED PERSONS IN EXAS, BY RESIDENCE, 1960 g _ a Total Aged Percent aged of rea"“ population population total population rban 7,187,470 495,829 6.9 ural 2,392,207 249,562 10.4 l Rural nonfarm 1,698,467 172,946 10.2 g Rural farm 693,740 76,616 11.0 i otal 9,579,677 745,991 7.8 urce: U. S. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Census of Population: ' 960, Volume I, “Characteristics of the Population,” Part 45, i-Iexas, Tables 16 and 37 (rural nonfarm and rural farm figures Jdjusted) . ' The terms “urban” and “rural" as used in thisi blication coincide with the definitions used by the : U. S. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Census of Population: 1960, Volume I, “Characteristics of the Population,” Part 45, Texas, rural territory including those living in communities of less than 2,500 and those living in rented farm houses but not leasing farm land. General Trend One of the most conspicuous changes in the popu- lation of Texas has been the movement of people from rural to urban areas. In 1940 the State had more rural than urban residents, with approximately one- half living on farms and ranches as late as 1920. By 1960, however, 75 percent of the State’s population lived in urban areas, with 18 percent classified as rural nonfarm and 7 percent rural farm population. Migration between the open country, small towns and larger cities tends to involve people of certain ages more than others. Younger people tend to move more frequently and particularly from rural to urban areas. The result is that rural and urban areas have dissimilar proportions of older people. In 1920 older persons made up around 3 or 4 percent of the total populations in the rural farm, rural nonfarm and urban areas of Texas. By 1960, the elderly comprised ll percent of all rural farm residents, 10 percent of rural nonfarm residents but only 7 percent of the urban population (Table 7). While the numerical increase of older people is greatest in cities, they still comprise a smaller share of the total population than in rural areas. In 1960, urban areas had three-fourths of the State’s population but only two-thirds of the aged persons, Figure 10. Total Population Aged Popu I atiun Farm Farm 1.1? 10.3) Urban Urban 75.11 56.5 Figure 10. Total and aged population residing in urban, rural nonfarm and rural farm areas of Texas, 1960. 11 TABLE 8. TOTAL AND AGED POPULATION IN STAND- ARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS OF TEXAS, 1960 Standard Percent Metropolitan aged of Statistical Total Aged total Area population population population Abilene 120,377 9,012 7.5 Amarillo 149,493 8,092 5.4 Austin 212,136 16,073 7.6 Beaumont- Port Arthur 306,016 17,667 5.8 Brownsville- Harlingen 151,098 8,093 5.4 San Benito Corpus Christi 221,573 10,244 4.6 Dallas 1,083,601 76,596 7.1 El Paso 314,070 14,232 4.5 Fort Worth 573,215 41,656 7.3 Galveston- Texas City 140,364 9,034 6.4 Houston 1,243,158 66,732 5.4 Laredo 64,791 4,188 6.5 Lubbock 156,271 7,837 5.0 Midland 67,717 1,897 2.8 1 Odessa 90,995 2,202 2.4 San Angelo 64,630 5,749 8.9 San Antonio 687,151 46,898 6.8 Texarkana 91,657 9,589 10.5 Tyler 86,350 7,707 8.9 Waco 150,091 14,755 9.8 Wichita Falls 129,638 9,616 7.4 Total 6,104,392 387,869 6.3 Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Census of Population: 1960, Volume I, “Characteristics of the Population,” Part 45, Texas, Table 20. Size of Place Comparisons between different size population centers and location in and around the largest cities reveal older people in Texas are most attracted to smaller population centers and least to fringe or sub- urban areas. In 1960, aged persons made up only TABLE 9. AGE, RACE AND SEX COMPOSITION OF THE AGED POPULATION OF TEXAS, BY RESIDENCE A OF PLACE, 1960 4.3 percent of the total population of fringe y urban sections of urbanized areas (cities of inhabitants or more and the surrounding ~ settled areas); 6.4 percent of all persons in the _ cities of urbanized areas; 7.9 percent in cities 1" 10,000 and 50,000; 10.4 percent in cities between, and 10,000; and 12.1 percent in towns 1,000 to‘; in population. 1 I The proportions that aged make up of th’ population of Standard Metropolitan Statistical’, in Texas have been computed for 1960 and f in Table 8. A Standard Metropolitan Statisti w (S.M.S.A.) as defined by the Bureau of the 0f includes a city or cities of 50,000 or more per 1 the contiguous territory deemed closely in -, economically with these cities. In some instanc the county in which the central city of 50,000 i is located constitutes its S.M.S.A. (Tyler S. embraces only Smith County). In others it U‘ more than one county (Dallas S.M.S.A. includes‘ Collin, Denton and Ellis Counties). ' Older people comprise 6.3 percent of the, lation in Texas metropolitan areas but range proportionate shares from a high of 10.5 pe f, the Texarkana S.M.S.A. to a low of 2.4 percent a Odessa S.M.S.A. Age, Race and Sex By dividing the older population in gories when considering their age, race and sex v sition separately, ratios may be computed to ill a group’s predominance for each characterist‘ sidered. These ratios appear in Table 9. “A There are more of the younger aged (65- years of age) than older aged (75 years and ol_ all residence categories in Texas. The greatest 1.’ of difference exist in rural farm areas and in the? fringe of urbanized areas. The male spouse g Younger aged Aged fe (65-74 years) Aged whites Percent aged per 1,000 per 1,000 per IL of total older aged aged agedg Area population (75 years and older nonwhites males S.M.S.A.’s 0.3 2,000 7.78s 1,289; Urban 0.9 1,980 7,583 . 1,3281‘ Rural 10.4 1,902 7,310 1,010 ’ Urban fringes of urbanized areas 4.3 2,156 16,076 1,3351, Central cities of urbanized areas 6.4 2,088 7,030 1,3417’ Cities 10,000 to 50,000 7.9 1,877 7,499 1,308‘ Cities 2,500 to 10,000 10.4 1,755 7,959 1,303 Towns 1,000 10 2,500 12.1 1,020 10,030 1,287 Rural nonfarm 10.2 1,799 5,820 1,108 Rural farm 11.0 2,382 12,430 844‘ Total 7.8 1,957 7,489 1,211 A Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Census of Population: I960, Volume I, “Characteristics of the Population," Part 4 Tables l6, 20 and 37. l2 if first. Widows tend to move from farms in their age and to smaller towns. They especially avoid -l in suburban or urban fringe areas. The margin hich the younger aged outnumber the older aged ected by this situation. The margin of predomi- ce of the younger aged declines progressively from _ largest (central cities of urbanized areas) centers ' pulation to the smallest (towns between 1,000 - ‘ 2,500 population). Y Older whites are approximately 7.5 times more erous than older nonwhites in Texas. The elderly tes outnumber elderly nonwhites by the largest Tins in urban fringes of urbanized areas (16,067 tes per 1,000 nonwhites); rural farm areas (12,430 1,000); and in small towns between 1,000 to 2,500 isize (10,036 per 1,000). Their predominance in “bers is the smallest in rural nonfarm areas (5,820 whites per 1,000 older nonwhites) and in the itral cities of urbanized areas (7,030 aged whites ‘ 1,000 aged nonwhites). Because of longer life expectancies, females out- 3r ber males in the older population of Texas in ,, residence categories, except in rural farm areas. e women tend to migrate from farms when they , widowed while widowers tend to remain on farms, are only 844 females per 1,000 men in the older ulation of rural farm areas. The balance between les and females is almost even in rural areas (1,010 >0 females per 1,000 aged males), and the greatest a areas (1,341 aged women per 1,000 aged men). SELECTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AGED 4 Older people have always been a part of society, o. it was not until they more than doubled in ,lute numbers within the last 20 years and their portion of the total population increased steadily t they attracted the general public’s attention. blic awareness of the growing importance of older 'zens has led to elaborate research programs in the blems of aging, and considerable publicity is being en to these problems. Among problems most fre- ntly cited are inadequate incomes; suitable hous- i; and living arrangements; unemployability; dis- ilities and handicaps; and a changing role from pugcted elder in the past to a role in modern society ith values highest the young, active and dynamic. any of these factors, however, cannot be quantified. is section, therefore, includes only those socio- nomic characteristics for which the U. S. Bureau V the Census has gathered and published information. Marital Status Information on the marital status of persons in -- United States is limited to the population 14 years age and older and is divided into four categories: gle, married, widowed and divorced. erence in numbers is in the central cities of urban- Aged Population Younger Population (14-64) Single 4.6 Iidowed 38.8 Divorced 2.4 Figure ll. Marital status of younger persons (14-64 years of age) and of the aged population of Texas, 1960. A small proportion of the total population lives without once marrying. For example, in 1960 only 4 percent of all people in Texas who had reached the age of 85 had never married. The average person’s marital status depends largely upon his age, and the proportions single, married and widowed are de- termined to a large extent by the age distribution of populations being compared. By age 15, significant numbers begin to marry. At marriage, the bride is, on the average, 3 to 4 years younger than the groom. Differences in marriage rates of males and females, in their age at marriage and life expectancies result in some basic differences in distributions of the two sexes based on marital status. In Texas, by the time women are 20 years old, wives outnumber unmarried women; husbands exceed single males at 22. Females reach their maxi- mum proportions married (89.7 pecent) between 30 and 35, but males reach their maximum proportions married (90.9 percent) between 40 and 45. There are more widowed than single females between 40 and 45, but this point is not reached among males until they are between 60 and 65. By the time women are 70, widows outnumber married women, but widowers do not outnumber married men until they have passed their 85th birthday. A comparison of the older population with younger persons considered eligible for marriage (14 to 65 years of age) indicates larger proportions of young people are both married and single while a larger proportion of the elderly are widowed (Figure ll). Although the proportions single and divorced remain fairly constant at all age levels throughout adult life, marital status changes rapidly among the aged as they advance in years (Table l0). From 46 percent at ages 65 to 74, the proportion of married women declines to 8 percent at age 85 and over. At the same time, the proportion of widowed women increases from 47 percent before their 75th birthday to 87 percent after they are 85. While four of five males are married at age 65 to 74, the proportion 13 U Hales Females 1 ltd Percentage m _ 9.9 75 4.1 ' a; m... 0 14-64 All 65-74 75-84 B5 and older Younger population Aged population Figure 12. Percentage of younger persons (14-64 years of age) and of the aged population in the labor force in Texas, by sex, 1960. married falls to less than one-half at age 85. From 12 percent before their 75th birthday, the proportion of widowed men increases to 49 percent for males 85 and older. Employment Status There is much evidence that aging and even aged people wish to continue gainful employment. Self- employed business and professional workers, especially farmers, like to continue as long as possible. The majority of wage earners resist retirement as long as their good health continues, and many work even longer. Women who worked while their children were growing up tend to keep working, and increasing numbers who did not work are seeking jobs in their newly freed time. However, a combination of circum- stances are causing increasingly larger numbers of qualified workers to drop out of the labor force at younger ages than in the immediate past. During World War II, the employment of older workers was at its peak, since there was an acute shortage of workers in a number of occupations. Never before, however, has the nation had so many TABLE l0. MARITAL STATUS OF THE AGED POPULATION IN TEXAS, BY AGE AND SEX, 1960 young individuals annually reaching age levels w they are ready to enter the labor market as in 1960’s. At the same time, new sources of produ energy and newer types of machines have displ many jobs through automation and other te logical advances. The reluctance of employe hire older workers long before age 65 is based a variety of beliefs, manyoif which are unpri Among these are that older people are less produ than young people; they are harder to get along V; they have higher rates of absenteeism from more ill and age-connected reasons; their job accident, are higher; there is more labor turnover amon» workers; and, particularly in retail establishm customers prefer to deal with young people, espec younger as opposed to older women. i Retirement should not be determined by i alone and ability and desire to work should be » into account. But with large numbers of well-trad young people entering the labor market annually the need to advance younger workers, a sharp in in both voluntary and compulsory retirementsi taken place in recent years. Consequently, there been a decided downward trend in the employ; of older persons in Texas as well as in the na particularly since 1960. The proportion of people who were unemployed increased from 75" cent in 1940 to 79 percent in 1960; the proporti’ ‘ aged males not in the labor force increased fro a percent in 1940 to 65 percent in 1960. While p‘ is growing recognition of the current waste of 5 and experience and of the individual problems frustrations brought on by retirement at a fixed ; both voluntary and forced retirements are occu at younger ages and at a faster rate than ever b In general, higher proportions of males the labor force than females, and smaller propo t of both sexes are in the labor force as they ad A in age (Figure 12). All persons in the labor force belong in o two categories: the Armed Forces or the civilian a force. Among the aged, of course, few are in‘ Armed Forces. Unemployment rates (technically unemployed person is defined as one who is i work but is actively looking for work) are abou Age groups Marital Aged 65 - 74 75 - 84 85 and older status population Males Females Males Females Males — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ——Percent———————------- Single 4.8 4.7 5.1 4.7 5.0 4.2 Married 54.0 80.4 45.6 67.1 _ 22.7 45.5 Widowed 38.8 11.9 46.6 26.2 71.0 48.7 Divorced 2.4 3.0 , 2.7 2.0 1.3 1.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Census of Population: I960, Volume I, “Characteristics of the Population,” Part 45, Table 105. " 14 for the elderly as they are for younger people i e labor force. ; Only 35 percent of the aged males and l0 percent i e aged females in Texas were in the labor force 960. The occupations of older males and females shown in Table 11. Among elderly males, almost " 0f those in the labor force are in professional pations, and about one-fifth are in unskilled jobs. yng older women in the labor force, about two ive are in unskilled work, and three of ten are in essional and managerial occupations. Income Status ?' Obtaining incomes sufficent for shelter, food, I ing, increased medical needs and active living is rded as one of the most pressing needs of older ple. Considerable progress has been made, par- f arly in the past 20 years, in providing basic in- e to aged people. Other than money received l, employment, many older people receive income ugh different private retirement, social security old age pension payments. As of December 31, t‘ there were 441,968 recipients of OASI retirement .1 ents in Texas, and in June 1966, there were ,614 Texans receiving Old Age Assistance pay- ‘ ts. Despite this progress, income continues to be roblem for many aged. In 1959 the median income of all families where head of household was an aged person and both ‘I10 and wife were living was $2,434. This was " than half the income of all families in Texas with husband and wife living. The amount of family Al. gets progressively smaller as the age of the sehold head increases (Figure 13). Almost 40 percent of the families where husband wife were living together and the head was an er person had money incomes of less than $2,000 i 1959, and 15 percent received less than $1,000 ,= 'ng the year. i Older females living alone or with nonrelatives is» a median income of $745 in 1959, and elderly LTEXAS, BY SEX, 1960 $7,000 - $5,411 5m” ' $4.5m 4,000 - Median income 3,000 ' $2,434 2,000 - 1,000 - 35-44 45-64 Aled All fanilies Age of household head Figure l3. Median incomes of families with husband and wife living, by age of family head, in Texas, 1959. males living alone or with nonrelatives had a median income of $901. Housing Retirement from family duties and from work creates problems of living arrangements for many older persons. As children leave home, less space is needed, and reduced incomes sometime make it essen- tial to seek less expensive housing. Most elderly people prefer to live in their own homes even when the house is too large for them and the neighborhood has under- gone radical changes. Unless the death of one spouse, economic reverses, or physical reverses force them to accept other living arrangements, they do not willingly change their domestic status. On the other hand, a new acceptance of homes for the aged is developing. BLE ll. OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF YOUNGER PERSONS AND OF THE AGED IN THE LABOR FORCE Males Females ' a? 3 4* 14-64 years of age Aged population 14-64 years of age Aged population ‘p pation Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent, Number Percent ifcssional and Managerial 578,702 28.2 47.929 45.6 185,386 19.4 9,928 28.2 -=ite collar 279,526 13.6 14,168 13.5 384,795 40.2 8,276 23.5 led 410,670 20.0 12,208 11.6 10,221 1.1 358 1.0 ' iskilled 400,057 19.5 7,219 6.9 92,368 9.6 3,095 8.8 ~. illed 386,094 18.7 23,469 22.4 284,622 29.7 13,596 38.5 - 1 2,055,049 100.0 104,993 100.0 957,392 100.0 35,253 100.0 g ‘le 12s. A rce: U. S. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Census 0f Population: 1960, Volume I, “Characteristics of the Population,” Part 45, Texas, 15 Many still look upon homes for the aged as an admission of defeat and withdrawal or rejection from the community, relinquishment of total assets and a vegetative existence. However, many improvements in these homes are changing attitudes toward this type of living arrangement. Particularly since 1960, homes for the aged are no longer being established in isolated locations; excellent medical, rehabilitation and food services are being offered; and programs have been developed for purposeful activity and main- tenance of community "contacts. The number of elderly people living in facilities planned for this particular age group has increased materially since 1960, and undoubtedly more older people will con- tinue to choose this form of living arrangement in the future. Despite a wider acceptance of living in homes for the aged, most elderly people still want to continue as families and do not voluntarily change residence just because of age. In Texas, most old people are able to follow this choice, and 87 percent of the aged '16 were living in their own households in 1960. Q living in their own households, 79 percent 4' homes they owned, and 21 percent lived in“ quarters. More than 584,000 older persons in Te in households comprised of two or more peop 143,000 were living alone in a household in l‘, the number, living alone, 7 3 percent were fe l.“ 27 percent males. Approximately 6 of l0 .5 of single-person households lived in owner f units, and 4 of 10 lived in rented units. In 1960 there were 11,558 older people l‘ homes for the aged in Texas, and an additio p were in institutions (tubercular, chronic di ff mental hospitals; homes and schools for up‘, handicapped; and correctional institutions). less than 1 percent (0.8) of the elderly popul Texas was in institutions in 1960; 1.6 perc, in homes for the aged; 19.2 percent were livi ;N_ and 78.4 percent were living in households c0’: of two or more people. ’ Appendix T able I! .5‘: 35-3 APPENDIX TABLE 1. THE AGED POPULATION OF TEXAS, BY COUNTIES, 1950 AND 1960. Percent aged r Per Aged Net change, of total Aged Net change, of] County population 1950-60 s population County population 1950-60 -' 1960 1950 Number Percent 1960 1960 1950 Number Percent I Anderson 4,002 2,960 1,042 35.2 14.2 Donley 737 641 96 15.0 1' Andrews 237 92 175 190.2 2.0 Duval 935 713 .. 222 31.1 j Angelina 3,731 2,606 1,125 43.2 9.4 Eastland 3,668 2,916 ‘ 752 25.8 Aransas 659 362 297 82.0 9.4 Ector 2,202 797 1,405 176.3 Archer 600 471 129 27.4 9.8 Edwards 225 184 41 22.3 Armstrong 280 223 57 25.6 14.2 Ellis 5,451 4,421 1,030 23.3 Atascosa 1,683 1,280 403 31.5 18.9 El Paso 14,232 9,032 5,200 575 Austin 2,223 1,681 542 32.2 6. Erath 3,127 2,842 785 335 Bailey 498 315 183 36.7 5.5 Fans 3,343 2,793 550 197 Bandera 618 500 118 23.6 15.9 Fannin 4,274 3,675 59g 16.3 Bastrop 2,650 2,145 505 23.5 15.7 Fayette 3,581 2,922 659 22.6 Baylor 842 601 241 40.1 14.3 Fisher 924 757 167 22.1 Bee 1,445 1,200 245 20.4 6.1 Floyd 1,039 814 225 27.6 Bell 6,990 4,788 2.202 46.0 7.4 F oard 466 395 71 18.0 Bexar 46,898 30,150 16,748 55.6 6.8 Fort Bend 2,846 1,873 973 51.9 Blanco 600 458 142 31.0 16.4 Franklin 869 685 184 26.9 Borden 63 48 15 31.3 5.9 Bosqne 2,173 1,520 353 43.2 20.1 Qfgsmn‘? 251g LE7’; BOWIC. 6,187 4,373 1,814 41.5 10.3 Gaines 512 377 135 353 BYawna 34/28 2236 14492 55-7 4-9 Galveston 9,034 5,933 3,033 51.4 Brazos 3,202 2,151 1,051 48.9 7.1 Garza 507 415 92 22.2 Brewster 518 408 110 27 .0 8.1 Gillespie 1,640 1,205 435 36.1 Briscoe 320 252 68 27.0 9.0 Glasscock 69 56 13 23.2 Brooks 514 380 134 35.3 6.0 Goliad 661 527 134 25.4 Brown 4,128 2,954 1,174 39.7 16.7 Gonzales 2,480 2,014 466 23.1 Burleson 1,729 1,429 300 21.0 15.5 Gray 1,924 1,163 761 65.4 Burnet 1,372 1,009 363 36.0 14.8 Gnu/Son 97093 7,152 1,941 27.1 Caldwell 2,234 1,819 415 22.8 13.0 Gregg 5,367 37261 2,106 646 Calhoun 669 505 164 32.5 4.0 (kimfis 1,968 1,746 222 I27 Callahan 1,396 1,141 255 22.4 17.6 Guadalupe 2,842 2,048 794 387 Cameron 8,093 5,604 2,489 44.4 5.4 Hale 2,681 1,723 958 55.6 Camp 1,089 920 169 18.4 13.9 Hall 994 830 164 19.8 Carson 512 375 137 36.5 6.6 Hamilton 1,748 1,397 351 25.1 Cass 2,907 2,407 500 20.8 12.4 Hansford 295 209 86 41.2 Castro 303 240 63 26.3 3.4 Hardeman 1,168 963 205 21.3 Chambers 714 447 267 59.7 6.9 7 Hardin 2,095 1,422 673 47.3 Cherokee 4,439 3,555 884 24.9 13.4 Harris 667732 37,918 28,814 7&0 Childress 1,143 932 134 13.7 13.3 Harrison 4,607 3,710 897 242 Clay 1,235 1,087 148 13.6 14.8 Hartley 163 123 40 325 Cochran 351 220 _ 131 59.5 5.5 Haskell 1,366 1,177 189 16.1 Coke 421 353 68 19.3 11.7 Hays 1,886 1,433 453 31.6 Coleman 2,153 1,704 449 26.4 17.3 Hemphill 332 242 90 37.2 Collin 5,435 4,224 1,211 28.7 13.2 Henderson 3,094 2,230 864 38.7 Collingsworth 901 721 180 25.0 14.4 Hidalgo 10.038 6,853 3,185 46.5 Colorado 2,225 1,802 423 23.5 12.1 Hill 4,139 3,392 747 22.0 Comal 1,999 1,377 622 45.2 10.1 Hockley 1,200 687 513 74.7 :12 77°"; ° 2 640 2 765 475 27-9 n7 Hopkins 2,993 2,553 442 17.3 C00 e ' ’ 6 7705 367 J 2l'2 877 Houston 2,620 2,283 337 14.8 “"11 24° 6 r - - Howard 2,332 1,431 s51 57.5 Cottle 478 373 105 28.2 11.4 Hudspeth 133 101 32 31.7 Crane 154 67 87 129.9 3.3 Hunt 5,408 4,473 935 20.9 Crockett 210 159 51 32.1 5.0 Hutchinson 1,213 776 437 56.3 Crosby 840 648 192 29.6 8.1 Irion 144 122 22 18.0 Culberson 115 68 47 69.1 4.1 Jack 1,039 804 235 29.2 Dallam 665 513 152 29 .6 10.6 Jackson 1,123 891 232 26.0 Dallas 363717395 24,272 75-‘: Jasper 2,335 1,323 712 43.9 1331f?‘ 7h 757 482 275 57-1 5-7 Jeff Davis 130 125 35 23.0 ea m‘ 7 176 939 197 21-0 19-4 Jefferson 14,934 9,083 5,831 34.3 D61“ 4 ~ ~ Jim Hogg 315 270 45 13.7 Denton 4,598 3,392 1,206 35 .6 9.7 Jim Wells 1,768 1,071 697 65.1 DeWitt 2,888 2,322 566 24.4 14.0 Johnson 4,548 3,520 1,028 29.2 Dickens 706 546 160 29.3 14.2 Jones 2,421 1,866 555 29.7 Dimmit 638 553 85 15.4 6.3 Karnes 1,393 1,203 190 15.8 18 111x TABLE 1. CONTINUED Percent aged Percent aged Aged Net change, of total Aged Net change, of total population 1950-60 population County population 1950-60 population 1960 1950 Number Percent 1960 1960 1950 Number Percent 1960 4,273 3,469 804 23.2 14.3 Reagan 158 8O 78 97.5 4.2 877 635 242 38.1 14.9 Real 254 213 41 19.3 12.2 Red River 2,553 2,240 313 14.0 16.3 219 192 26 11114771 12:2 Reeve? 712 473 233 ‘19-3 ‘1-9 9,999 1,995 1,997 149.9 19.9 Refuglo 725 518 207 40.0 6.6 560 688 172 44.6 14.2 R°be1es 122 92 3° 32-6 11-‘1 96 97 11 99.7 4.1 Robertson 2,312 2,028 284 14.0 14.3 999 915 19 9 4 995 Rockwall 787 676 111 16.4 16.4 1,9 4 4 94 9 499 47 4 45 Runnels 1,971 1,602 669 26.0 16.1 964 788 176 22.6 12.3 Rusk 4,129 3,124 1,005 32,2 113 5,094 4,137 957 23.1 14.9 Sabine 960 776 184 23.7 13.2 1,632 1,034 598 57 .8 7 .4 San Augustine 946 794 152 19.1 12.3 19941 1,965 976 959 14.2 San jacinto 930 756 174 23.0 15.1 59 4 499 91 99 8'8 San Patncio 2,442 1,615 827 51.2 5.4 3,149 9,973 797 999 159 San Saba 1,224 973 251 25.8 19.2 1,97 9 1,999 997 298 15.9 Schlelcher 260 205 55 26.8 9.3 1,949 1,449 999 199 165 Scurry 1,360 927 433 46.7 6.7 9,7 49 1,799 991 555 87 Shackelford 566 462 101 21.9 14.1 9,995 9,947 979 9_ 4 199 Shelby 2,927 2,258 669 29.6 14.6 677 618 59 18.6 11.1 Sherman 189 124 65 52.4 7.6 676 576 97 16.8 8.6 Smith 7,707 5,266 2,471 47,2 89 876 644 262 66.0 16.7 Zomervell 506 647 159 45.8 19.6 IHTT 972 697 275 39.5 5.7 7,997 4,1 9g 9,799 99g 2:9 Stephens 1,687 967 420 46.4 15.6 860 676 154 22.8 7.6 392111112 119 91 28 311-8 10-1 1,449 1,199 949 99.9 194 Stonewall 325 294 31 10.5 10.8 14,755 9,947 4,808 48.6 9.8 3111.1” 239 133 77 ‘12-1 7° 119 91 99 99.9 197 Swlsher 786 548 238 43.4 7.4 1,994 944 149 149 19.1 Tarrant 37,108 22,907 14,201 62.0 6.9 1,045 980 65 6.6 13.0 Taylor 6,591 4,369 2,222 50.9 6.5 656 286 70 24.7 7.0 - Terrell 174 149 25 16,8 6,7 670 549 121 22.0 17.8 iflrryk 969 660 660 52.4 5.9 ,_ roc morton 6 371 93 25.1 16,8 279g 22:9 Titus 2.001 1,460 571 69.9 11.9 .44 1,791 1,999 499 914 95 Tom_ Green 5,749 6.661 2,088 57.0 8.9 9 rd 479 491 99 91 15.9 Trav-rs 16,073 10,531 5,542 52.6 7.6 n4 1,997 759 1,141 1599 99 Tr1n1tY 1,179 1,111 68 6.1 15.6 H 9,991 9,719 6n 999 149 Tyler 1,400 1,061 669 65.8 16.1 918 759 159 21.0 20.6 Upehu’ 26423 14993 43° 21-6 12-2 9 hell 1,193 873 320 36.7 10.6 Upton 279 150 129 861) 45 ,1 tague 2,515 1,856 659 35.5 16.9 Uvalde 1,520 1,189 331 27.8 9.0 2_ tgomery 2,737 1,909 828 43.4 10.2 Val Verde 1,224 980 244 24.9 5.0 T. Van Zandt 2,926 2,353 573 24.4 15.3 1919,34’ 1,292; 9419 Victoria 2,818 1,780 1,068 58.6 6.1 a Icy 994 999 55 197 194 Walker 1,981 1,516 465 30.7 9.2 * . doches 6,420 2,612 808 60.9 12.2 Wane’ 11233 977 273 23-3 19-‘1 we 5,146 4,219 924 21.9 14.9 W319. 921 433 189 434 ‘1-2 ‘ ton 1,149 997 995 959 11.9 Washlngton 3,043 2,313 730 31.6 15.9 - an 1,919 1,999 487 999 99 Webb 4,188 2,916 1,272 9 46.6 6.5 " s 10,244 5,814 4,430 76.2 4.6 Wharton 3,433 2,449 984 40.2 9.0 9 7' tree 476 320 156 48.8 5.1 Wheeler 1,080 796 284 35.7 13.6 9 , am 138 98 40 40.8 7.2 Wichita 9,016 5,688 3,328 58.5 7.3 * Wilbarger 2,325 1,482 843 56.9 13.1 216 :62 12;: 26 .6 W111?” a 01a 1,998 1,449 495 94.9 1L5 W4l11ams0n 4,674 3,722 952 25.6 13.3 rker 6,049 2,445 604 24.7 16.6 W113” 1327 11273 234 29° 11-5 .- rmer 515 ,9 94 4 171 497 4 4 W1nk1er 695 226 172 77.1 2.9 Os 548 ~. 984 194 497 49 W1se 2,666 1,919 414 21.6 16.7 ~_ 1,7 4 4 1,971 979 979 199 Wood 2,641 1,981 660 66.6 15.0 _tter 6,700 6,915 2,785 71.1 5.8 Yoakum 262 161 101 77.1 2.9 .esidi0 492 457 65 7.7 9.0 Young 2,084 1,568 516 62.9 12.1 ' ins 575 439 136 31.0 19.2 Zapata 342 243 99 40.7 7 .8 1,392 685 707 103.2 4.1 Zavala 713 541 172 31.8 5.6 9 . ndall 19 Texas Agricultural Experinlent Station, R. E. Patterson, Director, College Station, Texas