ABSTRACT POPULATION STRUCTURE AND MOBILITY: A STUDY OF ARKANSAS STATE ECONOMIC AREA 7 by David Gordon Bennett Population mobility has resulted, in part, in the net out-migration and depopulation of many areas of the nation. These effects can be caused by internal or ex- ternal forces, or both. Changes in the social and economic characteristics of the population and region occur when such movements take place. An investigation of the population structure and mobility of an area can reveal the forces causing the net out-migration and the social and economic consequences of this movement. The increased understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the region can assist communities in for- mulating rational plans for combating their problems. The purpose of this study is to analyze the popu- lation structure and mobility of Arkansas State Economic Area 7 and their relationship to the economy of the region. The problems associated with population change, mainly since 1950, and the attempts to solve some of these prob- lems, are discussed. Finally, the future of SEA 7 is appraised. David Gordon Bennett SEA 7 is one of the homogeneous socio—economic regions developed by Donald Bogue and Calvin Beale for the U.S. Bureau of the Census. It was chosen as the areal unit for this study because it is a region of recent net out-migration and depopulation. Data concerning pOpula- tion structure, change, and mobility in the Area were ob- tained largely from Bureau of the Census publications for 1950 and 1960, from a book of net migration statistics compiled by Gladys Bowles and James Tarver, from the Arkansas Business Bulletin, from various materials gathered from municipal and county agencies, and from information received during approximately fifty interviews conducted with leading public officials and civic and business leaders. SEA 7 is a twelve-county region located in a pre— dominantly rural, agricultural area in the northeastern part of Arkansas. For several decades out-migration and depopulation increased in SEA 7, reaching a peak in the 1950's. Mechanization, low market prices, and government allotments caused thousands of families to leave the farm. A high proportion of the displaced farmers left the region because of the lack of alternative jobs. Others stayed, thus increasing the unemployment problem and often depend- ing on welfare for subsistence. Since 1960, however, population decline has been arrested in the region, and small increases have occurred David Gordon Bennett in most of the counties. These gains have resulted chiefly from greater industrialization. The increase in industries, however, has not met the needs of all the displaced farmers, and therefore, substantial out-migration has continued. Most of the out-migrants have gone to other parts of Arkan- sas or to California, Missouri, Illinois, Tennessee, Okla- homa, and Michigan. Low levels of education and training among the populace have resulted in primarily low-skill, low-wage in- dustries coming into the region. The low salaries paid by these firms, together with the tax exemptions allowed many of them, have given the towns and counties only a modest improvement in their tax bases. Thus, the needed public and educational improvements have remained difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, a strengthening of the economy has occurred. The incomes of families have risen, and unem- ployment has decreased. The problem of continued movement off the farm still exists, but the rate is declining, and the prospects for more industry offers hope that a greater proportion of the displaced persons will be able to obtain employment. The general outlook for SEA 7 during the next five to ten years is much brighter than it was in the 1950's. POPULATION STRUCTURE AND MOBILITY: A STUDY OF ARKANSAS STATE ECONOMIC AREA 7 BY David Gordon Bennett A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Geography 1968 Approved: Wmflz / x TO Carolyn PREFACE A profound debt of gratitude is hereby expressed to the many individuals in the various counties within Arkansas State Economic Area 7 who gave their assistance and cooperation during the gathering of data for this dissertation. The writer is particularly appreciative of those com- munity leaders and other citizens who graciously consented to be interviewed. Much of the most recent information used in this study and a great deal of the understanding gained about the area would not have been possible had these indi- viduals not given so generously of their time. Particular appreciation is expressed to the following individuals for their personal contribution to the research projects: Mr. Bob Haroldson, director of the Jonesboro Chamber of Commerce; Mr. William R. Halfacre, acting director of the Arkansas Planning Commission; and Mr. Windell R. Adams, research con- sultant for the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission. (Acknowledgment is made in Appendix A to all those interviewed.) I am especially grateful to Dr. Clarence W. Minkel, Professor of Geography at Michigan State University, for the many hours he spent reading the manuscript and for his iii helpful suggestions. In addition, I wish to thank Dr. Paul C. Morrison, Professor of Geography at Michigan State University, for his reading and correcting the manuscript. Appreciation is also expressed to Miss Lanna Fay Collier, my student assistant at Arkansas State College, for typing much of the manuscript in first draft and to Miss Cheryl Ann Miftenberger, an employee of the Aeronauti- cal Chart Center in St. Louis, for drafting the maps. Finally, the writer is especially indebted to his wife for reading the paper and making corrections and for giving encouragement throughout the period of research and writing. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 iii LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O Vii LIST OF FIGURES O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 ix CHAPTER I 0 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O l The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Location and Description . . . . . . . . 7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 II. POPULATION CHANGE AND MOBILITY, 1950-1960 . 14 Urban and Rural Changes . . . . . . . . . 21 Migration Differentials . . . . . . . . . 30 White and Nonwhite . . . . . . . . . . 30 Age and Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Mobility Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 In—migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Out-migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 III. POPULATION STRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Urban and Rural Population . . . . . . . 51 Racial Composition . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Age and Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Labor Force and Income . . . . . . . . . 62 IVS POPULATION AND ECONOMIC CHANGES SINCE 1960. 66 Changes in Agriculture . . . . . . . . . 67 Changes in Population and Industry . . . 72 Population Change . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Industrial Change . . . . . . . . . . . 77 V CHAPTER V. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROBLEMS . . . . . Employment Opportunities . . . . . . The Effect of Mechanization . . . . State and Local Attempts to Attract Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Relationship of Education and Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . The Dropouts. . . . . . . . . . . . The Effect of the Tax Structure . . The Education of the Negro . . . . Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . Individual County Problems . . . . . VI. FUTURE PROSPECTS . . . . . . . . . . . Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . Industry and Employment . . . . . . . Population 0 O O O O O O O O O I 0 O VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . APPENDICES O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 vi Page 104 105 105 107 112 112 113 116 118 124 127 129 130 133 133 135 140 142 158 187 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. LIST OF TABLES Page Arkansas-SEA 7: Population change and migration, 1950-60 . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Arkansas-SEA 7: Per cent urban and rural change, 1950-60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Arkansas-SEA 7: Rural—farm and rural- HOHfarm, 1950—60 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 26 Arkansas-SEA 7: Manufacturing employees and professional, technical and kindred workers, 1950-60 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 28 Arkansas-SEA 7: POpulation and density, 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Arkansas-SEA 7: Urban and rural, 1960 . . . 53 Arkansas-SEA 7: Per cent nonwhite . . . . . 56 Arkansas-SEA 7: Age and fertility, 1960 . . 59 Arkansas-SEA 7: Educational level, 1960 . . 61 Arkansas-SEA 7: Labor force, 1960 . . . . . 63 Arkansas-SEA 7: Family income, 1960 . . . . 65 Arkansas-SEA 7: Population change and migration, 1960-65 . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Arkansas-SEA 7: New industries and ex- pansions in Craighead County, 1960-65 . . 78 Arkansas-SEA 7: Major industries in Jonesboro, January, 1967 . . . . . . . . 81 Arkansas—SEA 7: Major industries in Monroe County, March, 1967 . . . . . . 84 vii TABLE Page 16. Arkansas-SEA 7: Major industries in Arkansas County, March, 1967 . . . . . . . 87 17. Arkansas-SEA 7: Major industries in Poinsett County, March, 1967 . . . . . . . 89 18. Arkansas-SEA 7: Major industries in Lonoke County, March, 1967 . . . . . . . . 91 19. Arkansas-SEA 7: Major industries in Cross County, March, 1967 . . . . . . . . 94 20. Arkansas-SEA 7: Major industries in Clay County, May, 1967 . . . . . . . . . . 97 21. Arkansas-SEA 7: Major industries in Lawrence County, March, 1967 . . . . . . . 99 22. Arkansas-SEA 7: Major industries in Greene County, May, 1967 . . . . . . . . . 101 23. Arkansas-SEA 7: Major industries in Jackson County, March, 1967 . . . . . . . 102 viii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1. State of Arkansas: State Economic Areas . . 8 2. Arkansas State Economic Area 7 . . . . . . . 9 3. Arkansas-SEA 7: Population Change, 1950-60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l6 4. Arkansas-SEA 7: Per Cent Population Change, 1950-60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5. Arkansas-SEA 7: Net Migration, 1950-60 . . l9 6. Arkansas-SEA 7: Net Migration Rate, 1950—60 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 20 7. Arkansas—SEA 7: Per Cent Urban Change, 1950-60 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 23 8. Arkansas-SEA 7: Per Cent Rural Change, 1950-60 0 o o o o I. o o o o o o o o o o o 25 9. Arkansas-SEA 7: Net Out-migration Rates, by County, 1950—60 . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 10. Arkansas-SEA 7: Net Out—migration Rates, by Age, 1950-60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 11. State of Arkansas: Total and Nonwhite In— migrants to SEA 7 From Other SEAs, 1955-60 0 O I O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 4O 12. Number of In—migrants to Arkansas-SEA 7 from All States, 1955-60 0 a o o o o o o o 42 13. Number of Out-migrants from Arkansas-SEA 7 to All States, 1955-60 0 o o o o o o o o o 44 14. Arkansas: Population Distribution, 1960 . . 47 15. Arkansas—SEA 7: Total Population, 1960 . . 48 ix FIGURE Page 16. Arkansas-SEA 7: Population Density, 1960 . 50 17. Arkansas-SEA 7: Per Cent Urban, 1960 . . . 52 18. Arkansas-SEA 7: Per Cent Rural-farm, 1960. 54 19. Arkansas-SEA 7: Per Cent Non-white, 1960 . 57 20. Arkansas-SEA 7° Per Cent of Population Change, 1960—65 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 74 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The mobility of large numbers of peOple of the United States has become a significant part of the American way of life. This movement of persons into and out of various areas affects the population structure1 of the areas. Therefore, the decisions of numerous individuals to move not only affects each one of the movers personally, but also results in economic and social changes within the community as a whole. The investigation of the distribution, structure and mobility of the population of an area can lead to a clearer understanding of its economy. Glenn F. Trewartha states that: Population is the point of reference from which all the other elements are observed and from which they all, singly and collectively derive significance and meaning. It is population which furnishes the focus. l I I 0 Population structure refers to the various soc1al and economic characteristics of the persons residing in an area. 2Glenn F. Trewartha, "A Case for Population Geogra- phy," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. XLII, No. 23 June, 1953, p. 83. Esse Lovgren says that: One of the most important sections of pOpulation geography is the study of migrations between countries as well as within countries . . . . The migrations are part of the economic process. Changes in the total pOpulation of an area are the result of births, deaths and migrations. In the United States since World War II large migrations have been the most important variable in the alteration of the distri- bution of persons. Several major movements have been especially significant. These include the rural-urban movement, the westward migration, and the exodus from the South to the North, particularly as it relates to the Negro. A great deal of research has been done concerning in-migration of regions, especially regarding the effect of the influx on their economy. However, very little work has been undertaken regarding the out-migration of regions and the results of this movement on their pOpulation struc- ture and economy. David Lowenthal and Lombros Comitas iterate that: From discussions in the press, and even in scholarly journals, one would have no idea how widespread the phenomenon of decline is. 3Esse Lovgren, "The Geographical Mobility of Labor," Geografiska Annaler, hafte 4 (1956), p. 345. 4David Lowenthal and Lombros Comitas, "Emigration and Depopulation: Some Neglected Aspects of Population Geography," The Geographical Review, Vol. 52, No. 2, April, 1962, p. 196. In such areas [areas declining in population], or in the social groups and communities they comprise, population decrease may have profound consequences. That emigration . . . is the prime factor in depOpu- lation there is no doubt.5 The dearth of information available regarding the effects of emigration on the regions suffering the de- cline is serious, for only through an understanding of the consequences and changes brought about by such losses in population can rational plans be made to assist these communities. The study of such regions can lead the ge- ographer to a fuller comprehension of the economic and social structure of these areas. Dudley Kirk, past presi— dent of the POpulation Association of America, states that: . . . the study of migration differentials has made very little progress in the past thirty years, despite the face that this, much more than any other demo- graphic variable, is changing the distribution and characteristics of local population. To take a single example, what have been the effects on the State of Arkansas of the fact that close to half the people born in that state have left her boundaries? Who left or stayed? It is possible to judge what some of the social implications are? Therefore, studies of areas which have undergone emigration can be of significant value to the geographer and others in trying to determine the appropriate action 5Ibid., p. 197. 6Dudley Kirk, "Some Reflections on American Demog- raphy in the Nineteen Sixties," POpulation Index, Vol. XXVI, No. 4, October, 1960, p. 307. to be taken for the benefit of both the economy of the region and the people. The Problem The purpose of this study is to analyze the p0pu- lation mobility of Arkansas State Economic Area 7 and its relationship to the population structure and to the economy of this region. Answers will be sought to the following specific questions: 1. What is the present pOpulation structure of the region? What changes in the composition of the pOpulation occurred between 1950 and 1960? What has been the mobility pattern of the pOpula- tion? What relationships exist between population changes in the region and various social and economic characteristics of the peOple? What relationships are there between the popula- tion structure and the economy of the region? What effect did emigration have on the economy? What changes in the population and economy have occurred since the 1960 census? What socio-economic problems have appeared since 1960? 9. What steps are being taken to help solve these problems? 10. What are the future prospects for Arkansas State Economic Area 7? Procedure The areal unit chosen for this study, Arkansas State Economic Area 7, was selected as representative of a regioncnfrecent net out-migration and population de- cline within the rural South. The State Economic Areas were deve10ped by Donald J. Bogue and Calvin L. Beale under the sponsorship of the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Bureau of the Census initiated the work of areal delineation in 1949 and used the system for the first time in 1950 for the Censuses of POpulation, Agriculture, and Housing. The economic areas were deve10ped by dividing the nation into regions of homogenous socio-economic characteristics and livelihood. Counties were used as the individual units to form each economic area. This system of areal classification helps particularly those attempting to better understand the regional problems and internal vari- O I O O 7 ations Within each region. 7Donald J. Bogue and Calvin L. Beale, Economic Areas of the UnitedStates (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961), pp. iii—v, xxix-xlii. Data concerning the pOpulation structure, changes, and mobility were obtained mainly from the Bureau of the 9 Census publications for 19508 and 1960, from a book of net migration statistics compiled by Bowles and Tarver,lo and from the Arkansas Business Bulletin.11 Other materials gathered from various municipal and county agencies were also used. Finally, approximately fifty interviews were conducted with leading public officials, civic and business leaders, and other citizens in the various counties in the region (Appendix A). The field work for this study was conducted during a five-month period from January, 1967 to May, 1967. During this time, the author was living :hi the area while teaching at Arkansas State University at Jonesboro. 8U.S. Bureau of the Census, A Report of the Seven- teenth Decennial Census of the United States: Census of Population: 1950. Vol. I, Part 4. 9U.S. Bureau of the Census, The Eighteenth Decen- nial Census of the United States: Census of POpulation: 1960. Vol. I, Part 5. 10Gladys K. Bowles and James D. Tarver, Net Migra- tion of the_P0pulati9n, 1950-60 by Age, Sex, and Color, I, Part 5, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, May, 1965). 11Arkansas Business Bulletin. Prepared by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research of the University of Arkansas (Fayetteville: University of Arkansas, May, 1966). pp. 5-6. .7 Location and Description Arkansas State Economic Area (SEA) 7 is a twelve- county, predominantly rural and agricultural region located in the north-eastern part of the state (Figure 1). It is elongated in a northeast-southwest direction, ex- tending from the Missouri border to a point near the con- fluence of the Arkansas and Mississippi Rivers (Figure 2). Although a part of the alluvial plain of the Mississippi River Valley, SEA 7 is distinguished from the area to the east because of differences in terrain, soil and economic emphasis. The incomes and living standards for farmers are higher in SEA 7 than in the areas to the east and the west. To the west are the foothills of the Ozark Plateau where small-scale farming is practiced with the major em- phasis on livestock. To the east is a continuation of the fertile Mississippi alluvial plain where sharecropping, although declining in importance, continues to be more ex- tensive than in SEA 7.12 The sharecropper system greatly lowers the per capita income of the plain. Agriculture is the dominant economic activity in the SEA 7 twelve-county area. In 1960,cotton was the pri- mary crop, although rice and soybeans ranked very high in 12Donald J. Bogue and Calvin L. Beale, Economic Areas of the United States (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961), p. 368. ARKANSAS STAY! ECOIOIIC AREA 7 l "1... C__AY .... —1 - "clot K J“ I —- as)" \N— --~ "-7 Gun: .90 u:::n.t..fl:i.?. °. K 1 ‘h."’! w‘ - _ —I i Lawns“ II |_ -1— ..I Cancun!) | I . hunt". I ,r A _ _ 8. __ .3 - human 5 Poms"? c . «use. I - nowpflt _.l ,__ L _JA¢KION +— _ .5:— ;"13"” 3 l_.. ACI0385 . ”7.0-“ I - august. I I . "’00. ' Wooolwn 1‘— _-,co:ton' plant L’~\.r’ \J— 1...... L ... , J l. ' -| Panning! {I ' brink!” buck. ° . - Oman } 'cullolo .L n a u 3. all” LOIOKI ’\ ' elm-MIMI . c ‘ I. I _ ..l'l b.er mm... Animus“ C—ll- ° c can Ionics. II... In.“ .0 nun FIGURE 2 . 10 several of the counties. Even though manufacturing in- dustries are becoming increasingly important in certain parts of this region, they still reflect to a high degree the agrarian influence, being characterized largely by cotton gins and rice, soybean and cottonseed mills. Differences between the counties in the northern and southern parts of the region are often significant. Variations in the soil and topography early influenced the settlement pattern and historical development to a great extent. Consequently, the present socio-economic characteristics reflect these physical and cultural dif- ferences. Since the land on Crowley's Ridge is better drained, safer from floods and easier to travel on, this was the first section of SEA 7 to be settled. Although cotton was initially grown on the ridge, production soon spread to the fertile alluvial soils after the forests had been cut and transportation improved.13 However, in 1903 and 1904, William H. Fuller, who had brought rice from Louisiana, began growing it commercially near Carlisle in Lonoke County. During the past five decades rice farm- ing has been generally successful, while cotton production has experienced alternate surpluses and failures. l3Ibid., p. 368. 11 The success of rice growing is related to three major factors. The last fifty years have proved to be economically favorable to the sale of rice. Also, the land is underlain with a heavy, limy clay subsoil that is well adapted to holding water. Finally, in part because of the lateness of deve10pment, the rice farms have been characterized mainly by independent white farmers, leaving them free from the unstable economy of sharecropping.l4 The part of the region where rice has been domi- nant over cotton is the three-county area situated be- tween the White River and Arkansas River in the south. These counties are Arkansas, Lonoke, and Prairie. The remaining nine counties to the northeast still had cotton as their major crop in 1960. The relationships between these different agricultural systems and population struc— ture and mobility of SEA 7, and the effect of both on the economy of the region,have been substantial. Conclusions For several decades out-migration and depopulation increased in SEA 7. Mechanization, low market prices, and government allotments caused thousands of families to 14John Gould Fletcher, Arkansas (Chapel Hill: ghe University of North Carolina Press, 1947), pp. 355- 61. 12 leave the farm. A high percentage of the displaced farm- ers were forced to leave the region because of the lack of sufficient alternative sources of employment. Other displaced farmers and their families remained in the Area, thus increasing unemployment or underemployment problems and frequently depending on welfare for survival. The 1950‘s were the peak decade for out-migration and loss of p0pulation. Most observers predicted that this region would continue to suffer a considerable pOpu- lation decline during the 1960's. However, the first six or seven years of this decade have witnessed a reversal of many previous trends. Population decline has ceased throughout most of the region and small gains have general- ly been made. The recent increase in residents has resulted pri- marily because of greater industrialization. This growth of industries, however, has not met the needs of all of the displaced workers, and therefore substantial out- migration has continued. Although most of the peOple have gone to other parts of Arkansas, interstate migration has also been important, especially to California, Missouri, Illinois, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Michigan. Low levels of education and training in the region have resulted in mainly unskilled, cheap-labor industries being attracted into SEA 7. The low wages paid by these firms, together with the tax exemptions allowed many of l3 them, have given the towns and counties only a modest in- crease in tax base for the present and immediate future. Thus, rapid educational and other public improvements are still difficult or impossible to obtain. Nevertheless, a general strengthening of the economy has occurred. The incomes of families have risen, and unemployment has dropped substantially. The problem of continued movement off the farm still exists, but the rate is declining, and the prOSpects for new and expand- ing industries offer hOpe that a greater proportion of the displaced persons will be able to obtain employment locally. The general outlook for SEA 7 during the next five to ten years is much brighter than it was in the late 1950's. Industrialization and population should continue to increase, and out-migration to slowly decrease. Thus, the farm p0pu1ation should stabilize by 1972. Many prob- lems still beset the region, but the standard of living promises to increase for most of the peOple. CHAPTER II POPULATION CHANGE AND MOBILITY, 1950-1960 The changes in the pOpulation of Arkansas State Economic Area 7 between 1950 and 1960 correlated with several of the national movements that occurred during that decade. These included the rural-urban movement, the emigration from the South, and the Negro exodus to the city and to the North and West. Between 1950 and 1960, SEA 7 declined in pOpula- tion from 320,804 to 273,956, a loss of 46,848 persons, or 14.6 per cent. During this period, the natural in— crease was 53,000. If natural increase had been the only factor controlling pOpulation change, SEA 7 would have had 373,804 residents in 1960, instead of the 273,956 which the Census Bureau recorded. Therefore, a net out- migration of 99,805 persons occurred during that decade. The proportion of net out-migrants to the 1950 population shows a net out-migration rate of 31.1.15 15U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Re orts, Series P-23, No. 7, Components of POpulation CEange, 1950 to 1960, for Counties, Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, State Economic Areas, and Economic Subregions, p. 69. l4 15 This decrease in pOpulation was given earlier impetus by the Second World War. Patriotic feelings and higher wages attracted many people off the farms and into factories manufacturing wartime goods. Although some plants of this type were located in Arkansas, this state had never been an industrial area. Since there were few plants which could be converted from peacetime to wartime production, many of the peOple left Arkansas to find work in factories elsewhere, mainly in the states of Michigan and California. Ten of the twelve counties in SEA 7 ex— perienced a decline in population between 1940 and 1950,16 whereas only three had done so during the previous decade.17 Many of the people who left during the 1940's never re- turned. In numerous instances, entire families emigrated to join a husband, father, or son who had been able to make a new start in an industrial state. Every county in this Area lost population during the 1950's (Figures 3 and 4). Poinsett County had the greatest numerical loss (8,477), and Woodruff the greatest percentage decrease (26.4%). These two counties held the l . 6Ken Parker, "Arkansas Is G01ng to Town," Arkansas Gazette (Little Rock), Sunday, October 29, 1950, p. I-F. 17U.S. Bureau of the Census, Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940, Population, Vol. II, Part 1 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1943), PP. 418-422. l6 ARKANSAS -- SEA 7 POPULATION CHANGE, 1950-IO 43:329.". ' 1 t23:25:32»:33:55:53;;. IE4. 5:5. : 3.355245. : Céfififfff?232§2it'fa-i:"::§' ,9 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO :-:-:-: I. a w r o n c o :-:.:-:1-:~:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:.:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-' :323:3:3:3:3:1:3:3:313:1$223123:323:3:313:i$:1" .' huh—ad" E :1 ooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooo .............................. .w—IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIZIIZchkgonII L I B E N D NUNIRICAL CHANCE an - 4,0" 4,100 - 4,3» 4,40. - 4,0” 4,10. - 4.1” IEHD 4,000 - 4,4" 1. o I. a all“ I— L L .1 tea I. I k4”) SOURCE: II. I. In... 0! Conan —_- FIGURE 3 . l7 ARKANSAS—SEA 7 PER CENT POPULATION CHANGE,1950-IO ........ ........ LEGEND ;:;. nu CENT CHANGE E 4.3 - 4.2 -6.3 - -n.2 41.3 - 46.2 83—5; - 46.3 - -21.2 41.3 - d“ L—V j 1. C ‘0 2. MHOI L_____A__l tfii cam AA} SOURCE: U.S. lune-u of Camus FIGURE 4 . 18 same respective positions for net loss through migration, being -l6,598 and -45.7 per cent (Figures 5 and 6). Arkansas County experienced the smallest number and per cent of pOpulation decline and of net out-migration, being -310, -l.3 per cent and -4,969, -21.0 per cent, respectivelyu3(Table 1). Generally, the counties with higher rates of net out-migration tend to have lower edu- cational and income levels and lower prOportions of resi- dents in the professional, technical and kindred workers occupation group. TABLE 1. Arkansas-SEA7E Population change and migration, 1950-60 Change Migration County Number Per Cent Number Rate Arkansas -310 -1.3 -4,969 -21.0 Clay -5,293 -l9.9 —8,155 -30.7 Craighead -3,310 -6.5 -10,948 -21.6 Cross -5,206 -21.0 -9,565 -38.6 Greene -3,951 -13.6 —7,641 -26.2 Jackson -3,069 -ll.8 -7,075 -27.3 Lawrence -4,036 -18.9 -7,183 -33.7 Lonoke -2,727 -10.0 -7,502 -27.5 Monroe -2,213 -11.3 ' -6,456 -33.0 Poinsett -8,477 -21.6 -l6,598 -42.2 Prairie -3,253 -23.6 -5,048 -36.7 Woodruff -5,003 -26.4 -8,665 -45.7 SEA 7 -46,848 -l4.6 —99,805 -31.1 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census. 18 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Op. cit. l9 ARKANSAS-SEA 7 NET MIGRATION. 1950-CO NISSOIIRI l" ’K I k .... __ 1 l l- I'" on c' .................. l— ...-. .5423235:3:3:3:3:3:3:1$23:35:3:3:3:}:E:E2323333333333335333. fl;— Tet-‘0'" .9932:33333332333351 £8 3:;:;:;:;:;:;:;Z;:;§;§:§:§:§:§:§2335;323:323:;:;:;:;I:I:I:I:3:3:3:3:3$235: l E:- 4J a c It s o :1 7—1 .§§§§§::::::::::::::::'] ::::::l..... 333335533555555335335 :1—161 ((‘7333353353333313333353333355333533353‘ L E S E N 0 NET .ISRATION .‘pm . .72” I uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 1 El ............... .7300. .9'”, 4,700 - 41,099 42,100- 44,499 - -u,5oo- 45,590 0 10 20 miles L.____.l__l SCALE SOURCE: 0.8. In... OI Como. FIGURE 5 . 20 ARKANSAS — SEA 7 NET NIGRATION RATE. 1950-60 NISSOURI (st....”........::::.:::::::. ‘IIIIIIIIII:I::IIZII.""’I.‘2 .'.‘.'.'.'.'.'.'.'}..".WH.do........7 ' ‘ ' GI..n.-‘ : : : 2 : : not...oocoouooucooo-counuuaoou.......--......o... oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo I.I...IIOIOOOOIIIOIOIOIUIIOO """""""""‘ [noon-u.cool-looocoouooalooof........-......--. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Clo-con.Inoooonooooccooonno """""""""" 0"...u.uaooouaoooooo0.00.0...I.o.0.0......n.....-....... 1 .'.'.'.°ALIWIOI'ICC ......... f ::::::::: """"" ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo I ...................................................... bid—H's.“ --’-—J I N ................................................... Craighead l 5232522533.322:3:Izisiéi5iéil O 1 ..;:-:o:-.-.-.-:;:-.-.;. [3 i 5 2 § E E i i 5 3E:-:3:§:;:§:§:§:;:3:§:§ . ''''''''''''' I . L a s s u o S 5 E 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 zE3E3E:5:5:E:Soft-23:3:322323332432? u e 'r :1 I6 I: AT ION a AT E If E E S E 3 2 3 5 5 3 3 3 5 3 -. P v.9 . r i. ;.; .3:5;:;:;:;:;:-:-:-:-:-:-:- LonOk. 0.0.5.000. -2I.O - 45.9 -26.0 - -30.9 -31.0 - -35.9 -36.0 - -40.9 -4LO - -45.7 N f “:15" V; can M) SOURCE: U. S. In"... OI Con-III FIGURE 6 . 21 Urban and Rural Changes From 1950 to 1960, SEA 7 lost 22.6 per cent of its 1950 rural population}9 Since there was an increase in rural-nonfarm residents during this time, the loss can be attributed entirely to rural-farm population de- cline. The greater decrease in the rural pOpulation than in the total indicates an increase in urban inhabitants. This increase was created by the same phenomenon that caused the accelerated decline of pOpulation of the total area. The attraction of the industrial North and West was felt most in the more rural areas. Although the number of persons living in urban areas increased during the 1940's, a gain in the percentage of the pOpulation classified as urban would still have occurred anyway since the decline in rural pOpulation was so great. The attraction of industry from outside of Arkansas was the primary force behind the initial widespread appearance of abandoned farmhouses in the study area.20 Only Poinsett County had an increase in its rural pOpulation between 1940 and 1950.21 l9Ibid. 20Parker, op. cit. 2J'U.S. Bureau of the Census, A Report of the Seven- jggenth Decennial Census of the UnitedIStates: Census of Pepulation: 1950, pp. 4-9, and 4-10. 22 Many struggling small farmers who had been fight- ing the boll weevil and the weather for years were sus- ceptible to the "call" of the factory. Consequently, during the 1940's farms began increasing in size, and farmers started using more machinery. Throughout the 1950's, the importance of the in- dustrial attraction declined, and the significance of the "push" off the farm became dominant. The push of small farmers off the land was a result mainly of mechanization on cotton plantations in the area and the inability of the smaller farmers and share-crOppers to compete success- fully in the changing agrarian economy. Paralleling the decline of the rural, particularly rural-farm, pOpulation,has been a continued increase in number of urban people. Indeed, all counties with an urban p0pulation in 1950, except Monroe, had a growth in number of urban residents by 1960 (Figure 7 and Table 2). Craighead, the county with the most urban inhabitants in 1950, experienced the greatest percentage increase (31.3%). Monroe County, on the other hand, had a decrease of 31.0 per cent in urban pOpulation. However, this figure is not truly representative of the urban change since it was obtained partly as the result of the town of Clarendon dropping below the minimum urban figure of 2,500 in 1960. The decrease in Claredon was from 2,547 to 2,293, or ten per cent. In 1960, Lonoke County recorded its first urban pOpulation. 23 ARKANSAS — SEA 7 PER CENT URIAN CHANGE. 1050-0. % .............. .............. ................. L E 6 E N 0 HI curt can"! -u.9 2.9 - 9.9 19.9 - no.9 ".9 - 29.9 20.0 - 31.: um urban pop-Incl": «OIEEID "' "NI population O I. I. 3. DIN. I—A_A__J SOURCE: U.S. Nun-u 0! Conan FIGURE 7 . 24 TABLE 2. Arkansas-SEA7: Per cent urban and rural change, 1950-60 Per Cent Change Per Cent Change County Urban Rural Arkansas 25.3 -21.2 Clay 8.5 -23.4 Craighead 31.3 -24.5 Cross 18.8 -29.0 Greene 2.9 -21.7 Jackson 12.0 -19.4 Lawrence 14.2 -24.6 Lonoke * -20.5 Monroe -31.0 -1.0 Poinsett 16.7 -29.3 Prairie ** -23.6 Woodruff ** -26.4 SEA 7 18.4 -23.1 *First urban population. **No urban population Source: U.S. Bureau of Census. During the 1950's, Poinsett County had the great- est per cent rural decline (-29.3%), and Monroe, the least (-1.0%). (See Figure 8 and Table 2.) The very low percentage decrease of the rural pOpulation in Monroe County was the result of the same occurrence which caused the peculiar change in the urban population of that county. Actually, approximately 4,500 persons left areas which were rural in 1950. This would represent a decrease of about thirty-five per cent. A more complete understanding of the gradual change of the area from a traditional rural-agrarian society to an evolving urban—industrial one is gained 1950-00 7 25 ARKANSAS-—-SEA PER CENT RURAL CHANGE. LEGEND PER czar CHANCE "90 420 - 444 -zL5--aos -21.o - 49.3 19 29 SCALE I: 49.4 - -2I.9 . . E33 - 0 SOURCE: U.S. Imus a! Canon e ulnxnufixu. IV m Rummmflmmflfl n .3”3153.3323325fl ....u..umumu_ o mfixxx “Nurtuxxflnpé . PD!‘ M ........ ......... ........ J .mfifiwflxfifldflfl .xuxnnnuxxuxnxwfiw unuuuuununu” .I ”nuuunnuunuoun“: H H H” H k HHHHHHHHH ”wwwwwm.""wwwmuwwwwfUHH .H r ”UNTIL .- ~. ” H H m . m H. ..A... H M H WV . .......... mfiflfifififinnxfl%lkakz qlnlu ....L ..... mmmmmmmmm FIGURE 8. 26 when the rural-farm and rural-nonfarm categories are ex- amined more closely for the 1950's. During that decade much more socio-economic reorientation was undergone than the overall rural-urban trends indicate. The rural-farm and rural-nonfarm changes were, in fact, much more pro- nounced than the general rural change. While only Arkan- sas and Craighead Counties had less than fifty per cent of their residents classified as rural-farm in 1950, no county had a rural-farm percentage that high in 1960 (Table 3). Indeed, only Greene and Clay Counties re- tained over forty per cent in the rural-farm division. TABLE 3. Arkansas SEA h Rural-farm and rural-nonfarm, 1950-60 Per Cent Rural-farm Per Cent Rural-nonfarm County 1950 1960 1950 1960 Arkansas 40.1 21.4 17.1 24.3 Clay 54.3 41.6 36.1 45.4 Craighead 47.6 31.1 20.2 23.6 Cross 64.5 32.6 18.8 42.2 Greene 52.6 41.7 14.3 18.9 Jackson 54.4 29.4 21.5 40.0 Lawrence 56.2 32.0 29.2 47.5 Lonoke 63.5 36.3 36.5 52.1 Monroe 52.1 34.7 13.5 38.5 Poinsett 60.6 36.0 22.5 39.0 Prairie 52.8 33.5 47.2 66.5 Woodruff 61.8 38.2 38.2 61.8 SEA 7 54.8 34.9 24.8 36.8 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census. 27 The change from a high percentage of rural-farm persons to a predominantly urban and rural-nonfarm pOpu- lation is reflected by changes in the importance of agri— culture and manufacturing in the counties. Between 1950 and 1960, the percentage of the labor force engaged in agriculture drOpped from fifty to thirty-four per cent, while the proportion working in manufacturing grew from nine to fifteen per cent.22 Moreover, in 1960, in eight of the counties the percentage employed in manufacturing was nearly twice or more that of 1950 (Table 4). Only Prairie County had a lower percentage in 1960 than in 1950. In addition, the professional, technical and kin- dred workers occupation group showed gains for all counties except Prairie (Table 4). Accompanying the trend away from a predominantly rural-farm economy has been a decrease in the percentage of tenant-Operated farms. Between 1954 and 1959, the pro- portion of this kind of farm in SEA 7 decreased from fifty-one to forty—two per cent.213 Every county in the region experienced a decline in this type of farming. The same forces which caused many of the small independent farmers to quit farming were also responsible for the de- crease in number of tenant farmers. 22Grant Bogue and Byron Walker, The Changing Face of Arkansas: Popglation Information for Mental Health Pianfiin (Little Rock: Arkansas State Board of Health, , pp. 16, 17. 23Ibid., p. 48. 28 TABLE 4. Arkansas-SEAUh Manufacturing employees and professional, technical and kindred workers, 1950-6O Per Cent of Per Cent of Employed as Employed in Professional, Technical County Manufacturing and Kindred Workers 1950 1960 1950 1960 Arkansas 13.4 15.0 4.2 6.7 Clay 7.0 14.4 4.2 6.4 Craighead 10.1 19.3 6.3 7.9 Cross 3.0 5.8 4.2 5.7 Greene 9.3 21.1 4.7 6.3 Jackson 9.8 12.9 4.3 5.6 Lawrence 7.7 14.3 5.6 6.9 Lonoke 5.6 12.1 3.8 6.8 Monroe 6.7 13.5 4.5 6.3 Poinsett 9.3 20.2 3.7 4.7 Prairie 9.7 8.9 4.6 4.0 Woodruff 6.7 8.4 4.8 7.0 SEA 7 9.0 15.2 * 6.4 *Not Available Source: U.S. Bureau of Census. The increase in urban occupations and the decrease in number of tenant and small-owner farmers helped to raise the income levels in these counties. Although the counties did experience a net out-migration and a net loss of 46,848 persons between 1950 and 1960, the per capita income in each increased by from forty per cent in Monroe County to seventy-seven per cent in Woodruff County. Although these counties lost many of their better edu- cated young peOple, most still had an increase in the percentage of high school and college graduates. All of 29 the counties had a higher percentage of college graduates in the population in 1960 than in 1950, and only Prairie County had the reverse situation for high school graduates. This change represents, of course, the general trend in the United States for young peOple to obtain more years of education. Nevertheless, between 1950 and 1960, the State of Arkansas lost more than fifty per cent of its college graduates. However, the in-migration of other graduates reduced the net loss to slightly over forty per cent.24 This occurred despite the fact that per capita income in— creased 86.4 per cent (1950-1962) in Arkansas, while only 58.7 per cent for the nation as a whole, and manufacturing employment rose 32.4 per cent in the state, whereas it gained only 19.3 per cent for the United States.25 The migration of college graduates varies substantially by major fields of study, being much more pronounced in fine and applied arts, social science, engineering, biological and physical science, and mathematics than in agriculture, 26 health, law and education. This shows that the economy 24Charles E. Venus, Arkansas College Graduate Emi- gration (Little Rock: Industrial Research and Extension Center, College of Business Administration, University of Arkansas, July, 1965), p. 7. 25 Ibid., p. 5. 26Ibid., p. 6. 30 of Arkansas does not supply adequate employment Opportuni- ties in certain fields, resulting in high out-migration rates of college graduates. Arkansas must acquire more industries requiring highly trained persons if the state is to retain its college graduates. Migration Differentials The percentage of net migration during the 1950-60 decade for SEA 7 is given by Bowles and Tarver as -26.7 per cent.27 Although this percentage is different from the U.S. Bureau of the Census figure of —31.1 per cent,28 the book by Bowles and Tarver is used as the source for this section because of the data available being in more comprehensive form. In addition, the data for age, sex, and white-nonwhite migration differentials are probably consistent for all cases. White and Nonwhite Between 1950 and 1960, the prOportion of nonwhites in SEA 7 dropped from 17.9 per cent to 15.4 per cent. This, of course, means that this group experienced a 27Gladys K. Bowles and James D. Tarver, Net Migra— Eion of the Population, 1950-60 by Age, Sex, and Color, 1, Pt. 5, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agri- culture (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, May, 1965), p. 786. 28U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current POpulation Reports, Series P-23, No. 7, Components of POpulation Change, 1950 to 1960, for Counties, Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, State Economic Areas, and Economic Sub— regions, p. 69. 31 greater percentage decrease in population than did the whites. They also had a greater net out-migration rate than did the whites, since they have had a higher rate of natural increase. In fact, the net out-migration rate was 31.2 per cent for nonwhites and 25.8 per cent for whites. The nonwhite net out-migration rate is available only for SEA 7 as a whole and those counties within it having more than 5,000 nonwhites in 1950. Thus, the data is not available for seven counties in this region. Six of these seven counties are located in the northernmost part of SEA 7 and the seventh (Prairie) had the smallest total pOpulation of the Area in 1950. In the other five counties, namely Arkansas, Cross, Lonoke, Monroe, and Wood- ruff, where comparisons can be made between white and non- white migration characteristics, the net out-migration rate of the nonwhites was from nearly six to over eleven per cent higher than that of the whites (Figure 9). Moreover, in the individual age groupings the nonwhite rate was greater in nearly eighty-five per cent of the 306 cases listed in the statistical tables of Bowles and Tarver. Age and Sex For the decade beginning in 1950, SEA 7 experienced a net out-migration of nearly 100,000 persons, or 26.7 per cent.29 The age groups with the highest rates of net ‘— 29Bowles and Tarver, op. cit. . m mmeHm .zo_h<._:n.on_ m1... ...0 zo_._.¢<.—. oz< mmJBOm ”womsom .mCIBZOz oz< PEI; mo... m.._m<.=<>< hoz zoz m._.__.;> 45.0... omm_uomm_ .>._.z:Oo >0 .wm._.¢<.—. oz< mm43om "mew—30w 53 Eu 2. mix pzmo mun. z. ES. 53 «ma 2. mix om .. o . o ov o..r .o..o.o.¢.ow.orou.ow.omyr rowLowmeobwbwpow. llll - . . . . . . . . mm: .12 c -o a -o c. -o. a. .m. cm -ou am .. mu cm - on an - an I. - 2. 2. .. 2. c... - on an - mm co - om mo - no 2. - 2 55 o 2. mixm... mi: mizu... 35... 35:3 35.. 9213202 mt...) ..(hoh. 00m. ucmm. .m0< >0 .wmhkm 20.53.923.50 ...wz 35 sixty-nine, seventy to seventy-four, and seventy-five and over). This same pattern was true for the white pOpula- tion. However, nonwhite females experienced a greater net out-migration rate than nonwhite males in all age groups, except zero to four, and from twenty—five to forty-four years of age (i.e., twenty-five to twenty-nine, thirty to thirty-four, thirty-five to forty, and forty to forty-four). (See Appendix B.) Females move away from home somewhat earlier than males. The females are most often seeking a husband. Females marry at an earlier age than males and by the time the former have reached their early or middle twenties, most of them have married and settled down while the latter group at the same age has a higher prOportion of single members, many of whom are in the armed forces or the college. Greater occupational opportunities for men also contribute to their higher migration rates after the middle twenties. Overall, males have a higher net out-migration rate than females for the total and white pOpulations (26.9% txa 26.5% and 26.2% to 25.5%, respectively), while the Opposite is true for the nonwhite group (31.0% to 31.3%). However, the differences in migration rates between males and females for all ages can be judged as negligible since the vari- ation is less than one per cent in all three cases. The most significant differences in migration rates are those based on age selectivity, age selectivity by sex, racial 36 selectivity, and racial selectivity by age and sex. For both sexes, nonwhites have higher net out-migration rates than do whites. The counties in SEA 7 with the greatest net out- migration rates in the twenty to twenty-four year age group were Lonoke, Arkansas, Jackson, Poinsett, Prairie, Clay and Greene. The other five counties experienced the highest rate of decrease in the twenty-five to twenty- nine year group. In the five counties which had over 5,000 nonwhites in 1950, whites in all cases had the high- est net out—migration rate in the twenty to twenty-four year age group, while the nonwhite rate of decline was always greatest in the twenty-five to twenty-nine year age group. Thus, whites migrate at younger ages than non- whites. This could be due to the white person being able to more quickly save enough money to move and to more readily learn about outside opportunities than does his nonwhite counterpart. For the five counties with over 5,000 nonwhites in 1950, in every case, except for males in Woodruff County, nonwhites had a higher net out-migration rate than did whites. Of these five counties, only Lonoke had a higher rate for white females than white males, and only Cross showed the same phonomenon significantly for nonwhites. When considering all counties and races, only Lawrence and Lonoke had a greater rate of decrease for fe- males than for males. 37 Only in a few cases was there an apparent net in- migration. These increases occurred only in the age groups of zero to four, sixty-five to sixty-nine, seventy to seventy-four, and seventy-five and over. The gain in the first age group was undoubtedly the result of natural increase more than offsetting out-migration, while the gains in the older age groups reflect the settling of elderly persons who retire to this area, as well as the lesser prOpensity of older natives to move. The highest net in-migration rate was l4d5per cent for white males in the seventy-five and over age group in Lonoke County. However, this accounted for only a net in-migration of fifty-three persons. Many elderly and retired peOple are living in nursing homes. There are ten such homes located in the county.30 Mobilitpratterns Patterns of population mobility are among the most difficult information to obtain for an area. However, data was collected by the U.S. Census in 1960 for move— ments of persons between 1955 and 1960.31 The discussion 30Overall Economic Development Program for Lonoke County Arkansas. Compiled by the Lonoke County DevelOp- ment Council, January, 1966, p. 18. 31U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Popu- lation: 1960. Subject Reports. Mobility for States and State Economic Areas. Final Report PCI2)-ZB (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963). .III'IIII 7111‘]. I n..III1| 38 of mobility patterns for SEA 7, therefore, is based upon this survey. (See Appendix C for detailed statistics.) The major disadvantage in using reports such as this one is that the exact number of moves and the destinations of each are not given. Nevertheless, the disadvantage of not knowing the precise number of moves made by persons during the five-year period does not prohibit the deter- mining of the basic mobility trend patterns. Of the total number of persons five years old and over living in SEA 7 in 1960, 52.5 per cent moved at least once during the five preceding years. During the same period, only 46.4 per cent of the 1960 nonwhite pOpu- lation moved. However, of those who moved, 68.8 per cent of the total pOpulation moved within the same county, while 79.1 per cent of the nonwhites did so. This shows that nonwhites have higher intracounty mobility rates than whites. Whereas 23.5 per cent of all those who moved entered SEA 7 from another state, only 16.4 per cent of the nonwhite movers represented interstate in-migrants. This demonstrates that although both whites and nonwhites showed some in-migration to the region, nonwhites had a lower rate of entry. Between 1955 and 1960, SEA 7 had 30,161 in-migrants and 51,369 out-migrants for a net migration decrease of 21,208 persons. Although this covered one-half of the ten-year period between the 1950 and 1960 censuses, the 39 net out-migration was only slightly over twenty per cent of the total for that period. Since only about 21,000 of the nearly 100,000 net out-migrants left during the latter half of the decade, the rate of departure from the region appears to have diminished substantially during the late 1950's. Whereas the net out-migration rate for SEA 7 was 31.1 per cent for the entire decade, the rate for the last five years of it was only 8.0 per cent. This suggestion of a decline in net out-migration is dis- cussed further in Chapter IV. During the last half of the 1950's, the age group with the largest number of out-migrants was that of twenty to twenty-four years of age for males and females in both the total and nonwhite population. The out-migration rates for the various age groups were not compiled for this study. Nevertheless, computations reveal that 65.7 per cent of the out-migrants for the total population over five years of age were under the age of thirty. In-migration Although 30,161 persons resided in SEA 7 in 1960 who had not done so in 1955, 41.4 per cent of these peOple came from other parts of Arkansas. However, of the 2,727 nonwhite in-migrants to SEA 7 during the period, 61.2 per cent were from other SEAs in the State, but mostly from SEA 8 (Figure 11). Altogether, SEA 8, bordering SEA 7 on \\ 41 the east, contributed 47.3 per cent of the in-migrants from the State, while SEA 3, to the west, and SEA A (the Little Rock SMSA) supplied 18.9 per cent and 17.3 per cent, respectively. There was some in-migration from all states ex- cept Vermont and North Dakota (Figure 12). ‘The five states from which the largest numbers came were Missouri (3,568), Michigan (2,670), Illinois (1,970), California (1,521), and Tennessee (1,484). In-migration from other SEATsin Arkansas and from these five states accounted for nearly eighty per cent of the total. Most nonwhite in-migrants from other states came from Mississippi (278), Illinois (153), Missouri (136), Tennessee (118), and Mich- igan (107). In-migration from other SEA's in Arkansas and from these five states accounted for over ninety per cent of the nonwhite total. Much of both the white and nonwhite in-migration represents individuals and families who left Arkansas at an earlier time, returning because of disenchantment with their new environment or because of hearing about a job opportunity in their home area. Out-migration Although a moderate in-migration occurred in SEA 7 between 1955 and 1960, over 51,000 persons moved out of the region during that time. Whereas many of these peOple left the State of Arkansas, 32.7 per cent of the total 42 .NH mmDOHh ECU . non.» . can. I 00. . 990 ill U4¢0fi 1'] 30:... 0.» CON .0- . 2.233.: .2. no cunts: 0235.. ....L..I;....I.L,.I 82.32 .i;/,./; 35.5 .:< :2: h «3632:: / or 32:21.2. .6 535: 43 moved to another part of the state. Among nonwhites, however, 43.8 per cent of the out-migrants moved to another SEA in Arkansas. This indicates that nonwhites tend to move shorter distances than whites. PeOple who left SEA 7 moved to all states in the United States, except Vermont (Figure 13). Most of the out-migrants went to California (5,875), Missouri (5,575), Illinois (4,720), Tennessee (2,512), Texas (2,310), and Michigan (2,281). SEA 7 out—migrants who moved to other SEA's in Arkansas and to these six states comprised 78.0 per cent of the total. Most nonwhite out-migrants to other states went to California (699), Illinois (684), Missouri (551), Indiana (173), and Michigan (163). Non- white out-migration to other Arkansas SEA's and to these five states accounted for 83.3 per cent of this movement. From the preceding discussion of in-migration and out-migration patterns, several states seem to be key re— ciprocators for Arkansas-interstate migration. These are primarily Missouri, Michigan, Illinois, California, and Tennessee, and secondarily Mississippi, Texas, and Indiana. The overall and nonwhite pOpulations have similar interstate in-migration and out-migration patterns. The strong migratory movement of both whites and nonwhites to California, with a lesser reverse flow, corresponds with the general westward movement of the pOpulation of the United States. The primary importance of the states of 44 .MH mmDOHm as... . on... 3..- . 0.... III nflu o...— . o: a l nutuu a o: . :- HHHU AN \ oo. . a U . _ _ . 95.3.2! :50 so 53qu 1 3.5.5 43¢ o... »