prcdc blog

THE 2010 Census

1. On April 1, 2010 there were 308.7 million people living in the United States.

2. In 2010, children under age 18 made up 24 percent of the U.S. population—an all-time low.

3. The decennial census has historically missed a higher percentage of minorities and children,

4. The Latino population increased 43 percent since 2000 and has more than doubled since 1990.

5. Overall, minorities accounted for 92 percent of the total U.S. population growth during the past decade, and Hispanics accounted for over half of the increase.

6. While nearly half of the population under age 18 are racial/ethnic minorities, two-thirds of the voting-age population is non-Hispanic white.

7. Since the 1950s, the population has shifted to the South and West—Areas with the fastest growth included suburbs of metropolitan areas in the South and West,

8. Within metropolitan areas, most U.S. population growth during the past century has taken place in suburban areas, rather than central cities

9. Racial/ethnic diversity is increasing in local areas across the United States. Results from the 2010 Census show that 11 percent (341) of the country's 3,143 counties already have become "majority minority"—less than 50 percent non-Hispanic white.

From the May 2011 issue of Population Connection's The Reporter. See http://www.populationconnection.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id;=8051 to download the full magazine.



Our Profound Choice: 7 Billion Reasons to Invest in Family Planning

By Martha Campbell and Malcolm Potts



As the global human population reaches 7 billion later this year for the first time in world history, there are several simple things we can (and should) be doing to slow population growth and get on a path toward stabilizing our numbers at 8 billion.

Demographic projections are not predictions. They tell us what can happen if we make a variety of policy choices and investments, most of them pertaining to family planning. The UN high variant projection for the world population in 2050 is 10.5 billion. The low variant is 8 billion. The difference between these two numbers - 2.5 billion - is equivalent to the population of the entire world in 1950. With 2.5 billion more people come farms and factories, mines and ports, and schools and hospitals that must be built and maintained-and energy that must be consumed.

It took nearly 130 years for the world population to grow from 1 to 2 billion, but the recent growth from 6 to 7 billion has occurred in only 12 years. Will the next billion be added so quickly or will we slow the tide toward a more sustainable peak figure? Since the mid-1990s, international attention has shifted away from family planning. Unless critical changes are made as rapidly as possible, even the high projection of 10.5 billion people in 2050 could be exceeded. In fact, business as usual has us on track to surpass 11 billion in 2050.

Most specialists outside the population field, such as agriculture and climate change experts, assume that world population will reach 9 billion (the UN medium projection) in 2050 and little or nothing can be done to alter this path. This is the wrong approach and every sensible person must ask: Is human population growth some phenomenon beyond our control, or are there policies and investments that would enable global population to stabilize at the lower projected number?

It is a genuine, dramatic, profound choice. Early in the Second World War, when England stood alone against Nazi Germany, Winston Churchill made his famous "their finest hour" speech. He posed that the world could "move forward into broad, sunlit uplands" or, alternately, that it could "sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age..." Today, Churchill's stirring words apply not to two nations at war, but to a decision about human population that the whole planet must make. A difference of 2.5 billion will have a huge impact on whether we can feed and employ rising numbers of people while also switching to an ecologically sustainable economy. It is a challenge as formidable as any war and the choices are as stark as those between the broad, sunlit uplands of the civilized world and an abyss of a new Dark Age.

Demography is an unforgiving taskmaster. Many of those who will be parents in the next 40 years are already born and enumerated. Even if they have fewer children than their parents, global population will continue to grow. We can see the consequences of this type of demographic momentum in China. Although the average Chinese couple now has fewer than two children, as a result of rapid population growth in the past, China's population continues to increase by 7 million every year. Whatever we do, global population will continue to grow for another generation or two. The key issue is, at what rate?

Fortunately, we know a great deal about how to make family planning available without infringing on any human rights. In nearly every setting where couples, and particularly women, have been provided with the means and correct information they need to manage whether or when to have another child, birth rates have fallen rapidly. There is no reason then - other than lack of political will - that the world population should not stabilize at 8 billion.

Half the world's women have already reached replacement level fertility, which is an average of 2.1 births. (Demographers use 2.1 because some children die before they are able to reproduce.) Another third of the world's women have between 2.1 and 4 births. These women live mainly in countries where family size has been falling in recent decades. There is reason to believe that they will move to replacement level fertility in a few more decades-provided that population and family planning are given the priority they deserve.

Demographers used to believe that once a country's fertility rate began to decline, it would continue to do so automatically. For example, Kenya made a modest but consistent investment in voluntary family planning in the 1970s and 1980s and as a result, the average family size fell from 8 to 5. Later, the focus was taken off family planning, and the naïve assumption that birth rates would go on declining proved sadly wrong. In 1998, demographers projected that the population of Kenya in 2050 would be 51 million. As a result of the loss of attention to family planning and a consequent stall in fertility decline, the population in 2050 is now projected to be 85 million.

Forty years ago, population growth caught media attention and inspired scientific endeavors the way climate change does today. Why have media voices grown silent on this issue? Why do many people, including those representing a variety of advocacy groups, avoid talking about population?

If people think that bringing down average family size involves telling people what to do, or at worst, coercive family planning, then they are unlikely to want to talk about population. In contrast, when people learn that reducing average family size depends on fulfilling an unmet need for family planning, then suddenly they can see that it's acceptable to talk about population. In short, family planning means listening to what people want, not telling them what to do. The low birth rate in the United States isn't due to someone telling us to have fewer children; rather, we have achieved small families because we could.

In 1994, the UN International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo drew attention to the many needs of women (some of which had been overshadowed by demographic targets), especially in Africa. Unfortunately, coming out of that conference, some groups began to view the issue of 'population' as politically incorrect. Family planning budgets collapsed, while HIV/AIDS budgets ballooned. The term 'family planning' was replaced by the broader phrase 'reproductive health,' triggering numerous pilot projects, few of which were brought to scale. Further hurting the cause, low fertility in countries such as Russia and Japan suggested the 'population explosion is over.'

In virtually all societies couples have sexual intercourse frequently. This means that women cannot limit family size unless they have access to contraception and accurate information about how to use it. The Demographic and Health Surveys, conducted in nearly every developing country, show that 215 million sexually active women do not want another child in the next two years, or ever, yet they are not using a modern method of contraception.

Holding global population at 8 billion depends on a reasonable level of access to a variety of contraceptive methods made available through a range of distribution channels and backed up with reliable information. Making family planning readily available means changing policies, increasing modest budgets to subsidize the very poor, and overcoming bottlenecks in the supply line.

Family planning is a choice, not a diagnosis, and communities must be empowered to help themselves. In Ethiopia, Venture Strategies and the Bixby Center, working with local leaders, have shown that community volunteers (including, in one case, two Ethiopian priests) can safely dispense the injectable contraceptive Depo-Provera. Such task shifting is key to addressing unmet need for family planning because the demand is so great. There is simply no time to wait for doctors and nurses to tackle the problem single-handedly. Other trained community members must be part of the solution.

Over the decades, family planning has been unnecessarily over-medicalized. In Tanzania, women are refused the Pill if they have five children; in Madagascar, if they have none. There is no scientific justification for either rule. Dispelling misinformation is another necessary step. Some clinic providers give misleading advice or are unwilling to prescribe adolescents contraceptives. Perceived dangers of using contraception are highly prevalent and may be one of the most stubborn barriers to family planning. In many countries, women think the Pill is more dangerous than childbirth, whereas the risks are literally a thousand times in the opposite direction. Reliable ways of dispelling misinformation exist, however, such as the use of community theater and popular radio and television soap operas.

No country has achieved replacement level fertility without access to safe abortion. This is true even of Catholic countries such as the island of Malta, where abortion remains illegal but statistics show many women travel to neighboring countries to terminate unintended pregnancies. The world is most likely to maintain a population of 8 billion if safe abortion is made universally available. This is not because more abortions will be performed, but because those women who have abortions will receive contraceptive counseling. Studies show that after an abortion, a woman is more likely to adopt a method and use it consistently than in any other situation. In Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the TFR is now 1.6. The most plausible explanation for this uniquely low TFR is that Marie Stopes International provided comprehensive abortion care, including postabortion contraceptive care, for well over a decade before the recent liberalization of the abortion law.

Safe abortion (using manual vacuum aspiration, which can be done in low-resource settings by non-physician providers) and medical abortion (using the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol) are transforming women's health. In Tigray, a remote part of Ethiopia, 70 percent of the hospital beds were once given to women suffering from botched abortions. Once community health workers were taught how to provide medical abortion, this suffering was virtually eliminated, and women gained from being exposed to modern contraceptive choices.Without doubt, the greatest challenge of the 21st century will be to move to an ecologically sustainable global economy. If we fail to meet that challenge, then we will irreversibly damage the planet with the most massive extinction of plants and animals since the asteroid that eliminated the dinosaurs.

Some who deny the importance of human numbers point to the Netherlands as a prosperous, small country with almost 17 million people. They ask why the world can't accommodate a few billion more people at the European standard of living? The problem, as ecologist Mathis Wackernagel points out, is our footprint. The Netherlands imports food, timber, and other resources from around the world. The greenhouse gases it puts into the atmosphere spread from the Arctic to the Antarctic. The footprint of the 17 million people in the Netherlands is eight times the actual area of the country.

The exact worldwide figures are open to debate, but there is legitimate concern that by 2050 the planet's water, land, and atmosphere will no longer be able to support the population's needs in a sustainable way. Given time and a great deal of scientific ingenuity, we might still be able to reduce our consumption and create an ecologically sustainable economy. But the more we impoverish the earth in the short term, the more difficult the task will be.Well over 95 percent of the population growth between now and 2050 will be in the least developed countries-those that are also the least able to feed, educate and employ their burgeoning numbers. The poorest 2 billion people on the planet contribute 3 percent of the greenhouse gases responsible for global warming. Cruelly, the adverse impacts of global warming will be greatest on those who have contributed least to the problem. Global warming will increase the number of people exposed to malaria. In a country such as Bangladesh, a small rise in sea level could inundate vast areas of rich agricultural land.

Even at a population of 8 billion, it will be difficult to feed everyone, as nearly all the good agricultural land in the world is already farmed at moderate intensity. As the emerging economies in Asia and Latin America consume more animal protein, that livestock will be fed the same grain that will be needed for African villages facing starvation. The absurdity of converting grain to ethanol will be responsible for leaving more children malnourished in the least developed countries.

Some of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa, especially those making up the Sahel, face particularly grave challenges. They have average family sizes of 5 or more. In Niger, the rate of population growth exceeds the rate of economic growth. More than one quarter of women over age 40 have 10 or more children, and only 1 in 1,000 women completes secondary school. Approximately 10 percent of children under five in Niger suffer from acute malnutrition and 44 percent of children suffer from chronic malnutrition. If the TFR falls from the current 7.4 to 3.8 by 2050, the population will still expand from 16 million today to 58 million by 2050. If the TFR does not fall so fast, then the population could reach a totally unsustainable 80 million.

The history of family planning is one of missed opportunities. When the World Health Organization (WHO) was established in 1948, the first Director General, a Canadian named Brock Chisholm, saw reducing mortality and slowing population growth as synergistic goals. However, the Vatican and some Catholic countries ferociously opposed giving any assistance for family planning to countries such as India and Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), which requested it in the 1950s. The Catholic minority went as far as to threaten to destroy the fledgling WHO and create a new world organization. Chisholm was forced to back down at a time when death rates were falling in a spectacular way. Vaccination, DDT to control malaria, and relative peace in much of the world had a tremendous impact on death rates. It was at this time that a small but sensible investment in family planning in countries such as those lining the Sahara would have had the greatest leverage.

From the 1970s to the 1990s considerable progress was made in making voluntary family planning available in East Asia and Latin America, but a highly reprehensible episode of coercive family planning in India in the 1970s, the Chinese one-child policy that was initiated in 1980, and Peru's forced sterilizations in the 1990s set progress back a second time. And, as we have mentioned, the ICPD often focused on women's empowerment at the expense of population and family planning.

To keep world population at 8 billion we need a sense of scale and a sense of urgency; the confidence that population growth can be slowed within a human rights framework; the political will to make it happen; the investments necessary to make family planning options universally available; the courage to fight patriarchy so that women are free to make the best decisions for themselves; and a burning desire to bequeath our children and grandchildren a sustainable, peaceful and prosperous world rather than a hungry, angry world riven by conflict over resources and a slew of failed states-some perhaps armed with nuclear weapons. Stabilizing the population at 8 billion requires adopting win-win policies that benefit women and their families and help make the world a safer, less divided, more sustainable place.

Population is only one factor among many in health and development outcomes, educational attainment, food and water security, and political stability. It is only one factor, but it's a critical one. Attention to population will not solve the world's problems alone, but without it, the world's problems will not be solved.

Martha Campbell is a Lecturer in the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley. In the 1990s she directed the population program at the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. In 2000 she founded and became President and CEO of Venture Strategies for Health and Development, a nonprofit organization that works to help facilitate large-scale health and reproductive health change where it is wanted in low resource countries.

Malcolm Potts is an obstetrician and reproductive scientist. He is the first Fred H. Bixby Chair of the Population and Family Planning program in the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley and has developed the Bixby Center with a team of young experts. He was the first Medical Director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, a position he held for a decade. He has published ten books and over 200 scientific p

Thanks to Malcolm Potts and Martha Campbell for this excellent article about the new UN population projections.


From the May/June issue of Foreign Policy Magazine. Seehttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/09/the_myth_of_9_billion.


The Myth of 9 Billion

Why ignoring family planning overseas was the worst foreign-policy mistake of the century.


BY MALCOLM POTTS, MARTHA CAMPBELL | MAY 9, 2011



This week, the United Nations Population Division made a radical shift in its population projections. Previously, the organization had estimated that the number of people living on the planet would reach around 9 billion by 2050 -- and then level off. Now everything has changed: Rather than leveling off, the population size will continue to grow, reaching 10 billion or more at century's end.



Why is this happening? Put simply, fertility rates. Across much of the world, women are having fewer children, but in African countries, the decline is far slower than expected. Part of this shift was supposed to come from preferences about family size and better access to family planning to make that possible. Sadly, however, that access hasn't come. Another factor, many expected, would come from the deleterious impact of high HIV/AIDS rates. But even Uganda -- with one of the highest numbers of AIDS cases in sub-Saharan Africa -- is projected to almost triple its population by 2050. In fact, outside a handful of countries, HIV/AIDS has only a tiny impact on overall population. Consider this: In the first five months of this year, the world population grew by enough to equal all the AIDS deaths since the epidemic began 30 years ago.



Rapid population growth is bad news for the continent, as it will likely outstrip gains in economic development. It's also a wake-up call: If the world doesn't begin investing far more seriously in family planning, much of our progress fighting poverty in sub-Saharan Africa over the last half-century could be lost.



Demographic projections are just that -- predictions. They only tell us what can happen if we make a variety of policy decisions and investments. As is the case with these projections, they include a lower and higher estimate -- and where we end up in that range depends upon what we do in the meantime. Hence, it would be a mistake to focus only on the medium U.N. projection of 9.3 billion people by 2050 as most commentators do. The high projection would take us to 10.6 billion in 2050. The low projection would mean 8.1 billion. (Just for a sense of scale: The difference between these high and low variants is equivalent to the entire global population in 1950.)



That 2050 figure is vital in determining how large the population will grow by 2100 -- either as high as 15.8 billion or as low as 6.2 billion. With so many people reproducing, very small differences in family size have a dramatic impact over time. The difference between a world of 6.2 billion and 15.8 billion will depend on a change in the average number of children that women have -- a change that is so small that demographers are reduced to using the odd image of "half a child" to describe it. Over the coming 40 years, however, if the average woman bears half a child more, on average, it will have an almost unimaginably profound effect on virtually everything else that happens in the 21st century.



Let's imagine how different our world could look, depending upon its population. Already, we face a host of challenges: feeding growing numbers of middle-class meat-eating citizens, lifting the bottom third of the world's people out of poverty, and ensuring that our ever-growing economies are environmentally sustainable. All these necessities will become more urgent and more difficult if the population grows quickly, particularly in poor countries where adequate food supplies and sufficient sources of water often can't be taken for granted.



Some of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa, especially those making up the Sahel bordering the Sahara desert, face particularly somber demographic problems. In Niger, the rate of population growth exceeds economic growth. Twenty percent of women there have 10 or more children, and only one in 1,000 women completes secondary school. Already, one-third of children in Niger are malnourished, and global warming will further undermine agricultural output in the desertifying Sahel. Even if the current birth rate is halved by 2050, the population will still explode -- from 14 million today to 53 million by 2050. If the birth rate continues at current levels, the population could reach a totally unsustainable 80 million. Unless there is an immediate commitment to family planning, the scale of human suffering over the next three decades in the Sahel could equal or exceed that caused by HIV/AIDS in the past 30 years.



Why are some countries having such a difficult time reducing their average family size? Oddly, for a world in which information travels so quickly, access to contraceptives -- and information about family planning -- is extremely hard to come by in large parts of Africa. A poor woman who cannot obtain contraception will have many children, and often not by choice. Often, the contraceptives themselves simply aren't in supply; other times, there are barriers -- such as government or medical regulations and misinformation -- that prevent access.



Ironically, the future problem stems from today's success: Women are not having more children than in the past, but fewer of them are dying. Globally, the number of infant deaths per 1,000 births fell from 126 in 1960 to 57 in 2001.



Persistently high fertility yields some striking statistics, according to Babatunde Osotimehin, the executive director of the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA). Last month he called for urgent action to meet the needs of "some 215 million women in developing countries, who want to plan and space their births, [but] do not have access to modern contraception." He added that "neglect of sexual and reproductive health results in an estimated 80 million unintended pregnancies; 22 million unsafe abortions; and 358,000 deaths from maternal causes -- including 47,000 deaths from unsafe abortion."



That so many women lack access to family planning may come as a surprise to many who have watched women's rights improve throughout the world in recent decades. But after much attention to population control in the 1970s, interest began to wane in the 1990s. Below-replacement fertility levels in countries such as Russia and Japan suggested the much-heralded population explosion was over. Then, in 1994, an influential International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo emphasized the need to focus on the many needs of girls and women, including health care, education, economic opportunity, the ability to own property, and freedom from domestic violence, as well as access to family planning. It was a worthy goal to work towardthese broader needs, but as a result of advocacy, the word "population" became tainted with the idea that improving access to birth control was tantamount to coercion. The term "family planning" was replaced by the broader phrase "reproductive health." In the United States, in particular, passions over abortion eroded support for contraceptives assistance overseas.



That lack of attention may well prove to be one the worst foreign-policy mistakes of recent decades. Budgets for family planning have collapsed -- despite the fact that they were yielding real results. When a modest investment was made in family planning in Kenya in the 1980s, for example, the average family size fell from eight to five. When the focus was taken off family planning, this decline stalled and even started rising again. In 1990, demographers had predicted the population of Kenya in 2050 would be 53 million. But now, the population in 2050 is predicted to be 65 million. This extra 12 million people is equivalent to twice the total population of the whole country in 1950.

In Kenya, the richest economic quintiles have three children, while the poorest have eight. Rich women use contraception more frequently than poor women, but the poor have almost three times the unmet need for family planning -- women who report that they do not want another child in the next two years but are not using contraception. It is not that the poor want more children to help in the fields or look after elders as they age; they simply don't have access to family planning options and information they need and deserve.



Rapid population growth inhibits many of the factors of development from proceeding apace -- including education and health. In all our research, we have not found any country, with the exception of a few oil-rich states, that has developed or extricated itself from poverty while maintaining high average family size. Countries with high birth rates tend to find it difficult or impossible to expand their education systems or their health systems adequately to keep up with the need.



This matters beyond any one country or region. If we want to live in an ecologically sustainable world, we'll have to meet the needs of the present without compromising the natural resourcesand services our children and grandchildren will need. Given time, and a great deal of scientific ingenuity, we might still be able to reduce our consumption and pull a world of 8 billion people back to a biologically sustainable economy by the end of the century. But a world of 10 billion more in 2050 could do irreversible damage to the planet. It's just too many people.



We've now been warned. If measures are taken now, we could still keep the 2050 world population at around 8 billion. We have to ensure that the population can be slowed by purely voluntary means and within a human rights framework. We need to galvanize the political will to make it happen and invest now so that family planning options are universally available. Fail to do so, and we may give birth to a new, difficult era of poverty instead.

" My country in 1900 is something totally different from my own country in 1860. I am wholly a stranger in it. Neither I, nor anyone else, understands it" Henry Adams

The 1900's were a period of great change in our nation's history. Rapid urbanization as rural American migrated to the city while simultaneously millions of immigrants from other nations flocked to our shore. The immigrants, particularly, were different that the Anglo-Saxon's who had initially settled this country. At least the Irish did speak English. Instead, the new immigrants came from Italy, Russia, Poland and Eastern Europe. And while the nation did not have a national religion, the predominate religion prior to 1890 was overwhelmingly Protestant. The new immigrants were Catholic and Jewish.

The 2010 Census is again documenting a rapidly changing country. Driven by a combination of high rates of Hispanic and Asian immigration and lower fertility among native born ( both black and white) Americans the composition of our nation is rapidly changing. Population changes very slowly but the future shape of our country can be seen in our children., those under 20.

Hispanics, Asians, and other groups apart from whites, blacks, and American Indians—account for all of the growth among the nation’s child population. From 2000 to 2010, the population of white children nationwide declined by 4.3 million, while the population of Hispanic and Asian children grew by 5.5 million. One of the major reasons was that the women of the Echo Baby Boom ( children born from 1970-1990 to Baby Boomers) had passed their peak child bearing years.

Foreshadowing our future nation, new data on school enrollment from the Census Bureau showed that fewer than half of all the children (49.9 percent) in the youngest age group shown, three-year-olds, were white. While it will take a long time, this change in our nation's children means that slowly but surely the United States will become a minority-majority country... no one racial or ethnic group will be a majority of the nation's population.

Currently white's dominate the 40 and older age group but the change is rapid among the under 30. The educational levels of the majority (black and Hispanic) children presents real challenges to our nation's future productivity which should concern everyone. More on that later.

WHAT WILL TEXAS DO?

Texas will be the state that will confront the growing Hispanic population in very dramatic way. During the first decade of the 21st century, Texas’ population increased by 20.6 percent or almost 4.2 million people.. More than 80% of that growth was among minorities, Hispanics accounted for two-thirds of the growth in the state of Texas and nearly 45 percent of that growth was from migration. In 2010, Hispanics comprised 38 percent of the states 25.1 million people. Non-Hispanic whites make up only 45 percent of the population. (U.S. Census Bureau)

This is a dramatic change in 20 years both in terms of population growth and composition. In 1980, Texas had 14 million people with approximately 3 million Hispanics (20%) and 9.3 million non-Hispanic whites (66%). Demographic change usually occurs through the process of a population aging. However, Texas and parts of the United States are experiencing dramatic demographic change because of immigration, differential fertility and stark age differences in the Hispanic and non-Hispanic women of child bearing years.

Grappling with this change will create new political challenges in the state as the legislature undertakes redistricting both Congressional and legislative districts.

The largest increases in the Hispanic population were in the states’ urban areas’, districts where many of the black and Asian residents of Texas live. Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio have experienced significant growth. among all minorities. The white population has shrunk in many counties including Dallas and Harris (Houston). Many of the rural counties in West Texas lost population and the farming communities throughout the state continue to decline

Grappling with this change will create new political challenges in the state as the legislature undertakes redistricting both Congressional and legislative districts.
The Texas Congressional delegation has only 6 Hispanic members, a far cry from the 12 that their share of the population would suggest. The Texas State Senate has 4 Latino members among the 31 Senators and 21 of 150 members of the House are Hispanic.

In 2008 only 50% of the eligible Hispanics were registered to vote and only 2/3 of the Hispanic population were eligible to vote. Many were either undocumented or under 18. In contrast 83% of eligible white voters are registered. This suggest that even if district are drawn to encourage the election of Hispanic representatives, low voter turnout may result in whites or African-Americans being elected in what are predominately Hispanic districts.

BIRTH RATE CONTINUES TO DECLINE

Reflecting the continuing economic distress in the country, the preliminary 2009 estimates for registered births was 3 percent less than 2008. Rates based on early birth counts through June 2010 suggest a continued decline. This decrease is a reversal of the increases in fertility that occurred between 2006 and 2008.

The rates declined for all race and Hispanic origin. Non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black and Asian women rates declined between 2 and 3 percent. Among Hispanic women the birth rate declined 6 percent.

The birth rate for U.S. teenagers fell 6 percent in 2009 according to the preliminary data. This was the lowest rate in the seven decades of tracking teenage childbearing. The rate for 2009 was 37 percent lower than in 1991.

Women 4044 were the only age group experience an increase in the birth rate to 10.1, the highest rate since 1967. The Total Fertility Rate for the country was 2.0, 4 percent below the 2008 rate. The United States TFR was below replacement for the second year in 2009 and appears it will be below replacement in 2010. The TFR in the United States has been below replacement since 1972 with the exception of 2006 and 2007.

Although the number of births to unmarried women declined for the first time since 1996, the proportion of all births to unmarried women increased to 41 percent. This proportion increased for all race and Hispanic origin groups except Asian women.

The cesarean delivery rate continued it increase to 32.9 percent of all births, an increase of 2 percent. This rate has increased 60% since 1996. The number of births that had complete less than 37 weeks of gestation declined for the third straight year to 12.18 percent of all births. This is the first time that there has been a sustained decline (more than two years) since data was collected. Blacks continued to have the highest number of pre-term births (17.5%). The low birth weight rate (less than 5lbs, 8oz) also declined to 8.16 percent. Blacks also have the highest rate of low birth weight (13.61).

Source: Births: Preliminary Data for 2009, National Center for Health Statistics, Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

THE 2010 CENSUS


POPULATION PROJECTIONS


Every decade the nation is enumerated by the Census Bureau. During the following decade the Bureau estimates the population by using government data, birth and death certificates, immigration estimates, tax returns on people who have changed residence.

These population projections are very important because they are used to distributing billions of dollars in federal funds and they are used as the denominator rates in most federal surveys including the American Community Survey.

The 2010 national count reflected well on the population projections and on the estimates that are derived from a technique called demographic analysis. The 2010 Census counted 308,745,538 while the national population estimate was 308,977,944 only 200,000 more than the official 2010 count.

Further work indicates that the state estimates were also quite good. In only six states – Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming – did the count and estimates differ by more than 2%. Arizona, a state that has a lot of controversy over immigration, has the largest numerical and percentage difference. The population estimates had almost 300,000 more people living in Arizona than were counted on Census Day, a difference of 4.6%. This difference can probably be explained by the fact that many undocumented residents did not respond to the Census or to follow-up enumeration.

This was a remarkable improvement over the 2000 Census where the population estimates were 7 million people (2.44%) under the actual county. This was largely attributed to the underestimates of immigrants during the decade.

The remarkable similarity between the official count and the population projections means that we will be able to use the inter-decennial population projections with confidence. It also means that the American Community Survey will become more useful at all levels of government.