University of Nebraska at OmahaDigitalCommons@UNO

Publications Archives, 1963-2000 Center for Public Affairs Research

Summer 1982

Demographics for Program Planning at YMCAFacilities: An Analysis of Selected 1980 CensusDataDavid R. DiMartinoUniversity of Nebraska at Omaha

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cparpubarchives

Part of the Demography, Population, and Ecology Commons, and the Public Affairs Commons

This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Center forPublic Affairs Research at DigitalCommons@UNO. It has been acceptedfor inclusion in Publications Archives, 1963-2000 by an authorizedadministrator of DigitalCommons@UNO. For more information, pleasecontact unodigitalcommons@unomaha.edu.

Recommended CitationDiMartino, David R., "Demographics for Program Planning at YMCA Facilities: An Analysis of Selected 1980 Census Data" (1982).Publications Archives, 1963-2000. 174.https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cparpubarchives/174

DEMOGRAPHICS FOR PROGRAM PLANNING

AT YMCA FACILITIES:

AN ANALYSIS OF SELECTED

1980 CENSUS DATA

Summer, 1982

by David R. DiMartino

senior Research Associate

~~u~ Center for Applied Urban Research University of Nebraska at Omaha

The University of Nebraska-An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Educational Institution

Acknowledgements

Rebecca Fahrlander and Tim Himberger assisted with the

research for this project. Peggy Hein was the cartographer

and also assisted with the research.

the report and Joyce Carson typed it.

i

Marian Meier edited

Table of Contents

Page

Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

List of Tables .......................................... iii

List of Maps ............................................ iv

Study Areas and Data Analyzed •••

Population Change, 1970 to 1980. County/City Changes •.•.••••• Change by YMCA Branch Areas. Change by Census Tract •.••••

Race and Ethnicity ••••••............. Race and Ethnicity by City/County.

White •••.• Non-white. Black •• Indian •••. Hispanic .•

Race and Ethnicity by YMCA Branch Areas. White ••••. Non-white. Black •• Indian •••. Hispanic ••

Race and Ethnicity by Census Tracts. White . .... Non-white. Black •• Indian ••. Hispanic.

Sex Composition ....••....•• City/County Composition. YMCA Composition •••••••• Composition by Census Tracts.

Age Composition •..........••••.. Age Cohorts 5 to 13 and 14 to 18. Age Cohort 19 to 34. Age Cohort 35 to 44. Age Cohort 45 to 64.

Household Change, 1970-1980. ............................ Household Composition •.••... ............................

1

2 2 3 4

6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9

10 10 10 10

11 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 17

19

21

Summary ••••••••••.....••••••••..•.......•.•••......••••• 23

Postscript. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II 25

ii

List of Tables

Table Page

1 Population, Population Change, Race and Ethnicity by YMCA Branch Areas .•••••••.• 26

2 Population Change in Douglas County by Census Tract, 1970-1980 •...•••............•... 27

3 The Population of Douglas County by Census Tract, 1980 ...........•...•.••.....••.. 28

4 Population by Sex and Selected Age Groups by YMCA Branch Areas............................. 30

5 Population by Sex and Selected Age Groups by Census Tract .............•.••••............... 31

6A Household Change, 1970 to 1980, by YMCA Branch Areas............................. 33

6B Household Change and Composition by Components of Omaha Metropolitan Area ......... 33

7 Household Change, 1970-1980, by Census Tract ••••• 34

8 Number and Percent of "One-parent" Households by YMCA Branch Areas ............••••.•.••••••.... 35

9 Number and Percent of "One-parent" Households by Census Tracts ••................•••••••••..•••• 36

iii

List of Maps

Map Page

1 YMCA Branch Areas......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

2 1980 Douglas County Census Tracts and Omaha City Limits............................. 39

3 Population Change in Douglas County, by Census Tract, 1970-1980 A. Population Gain by Census Tract ••••..•••••••••• 40

3 Population Change in Douglas County, by Census Tract, 1970-1980 B. Population Loss by Census Tract ....•••••••••••• 41

4 Percent Population Change in Douglas County by Census Tract, 1970-1980 A. Percent Population Gain by Census Tract .••••••• 42

4 Percent Population Change in Douglas County by Census Tract, 1970-1980 B. Percent Population Loss by Census Tract •••••.•• 43

5 Percent Population Change Due to Natural Increase, by Census Tract, 1970-1980 •••••••..•.•••.••...•••• 44

6 Percent Population Change Due to Residential Mobility by Census Tract, 1970-1980 A. Percent Population Gain Due to Residential Mobility.............................. 45

6 Percent Population Change Due to Residential Mobility by Census Tract, 1970-1980 B. Percent Population Loss Due to Residential Mobility...................................... 46

7 Minority Populations in Douglas County, by Census Tract, 1980 A. Percent Non-white............................... 47

7 Minority Populations in Douglas County, by Census Tract, 1980 B. Percent Black .................................• 48

7 Minority Populations in Douglas County, by Census Tract, 1980 c. Percent Indian ••............••••••..•••.......• 49

7 Minority Populations in Douglas County, by Census Tract, 1980 D. Percent Hispanic .•.••.••••••..................• 50

iv

List of Maps - Continued

Map Page

SA Females as a Percent of Total Population by Census Tract ...•.••••••••................••••.. 51

8B Females Aged 5 to 13 Years As a Percent of All 5 to 13 Year Olds ••••••••••••• 52

SC Females Aged 14 to 18 Years As a Percent of All 14 to 18 Year Olds ••.••••••••• 53

9A Persons Age 5 to 13 As a Percent of Total Population by Census Tract .................•••....•.........• 54

9B Persons Age 14 to 18 As Percent of Total Population ••••••••...•..••••.. 55

9C Persons Age 19 to 34 As Percent of Total Population •••....••••.....•••• 56

9D Persons Age 35 to 44 As Percent of Total Population ..•••••••..•••••••.. 57

9E Persons Age 45 to 64 As Percent of Total Population ••••••...••••••••..• 58

10 Household Change in Douglas County by Census Tract, 1970-1980 A. Percent Population Gain •....••.•.......•..••... 59

10 Household Change in Douglas Count; by Census Tract, 1970-1980 B. Percent Household Loss ••••••••.

llA "One Parent Households" (Households with Children and Adul But No Spouse Present), As a Percent of All Households wit by Census Tract .........•.•.......

llB "One Parent Households with Female Householder" (Households with Children and Female Householder

But No Husband Present), As a Percent of All Households with Children, by Census Tract................................... 62

v

1

The 1980 Census of Population and Housing provides a

data base that administrators and planners can use to assess

the current status of their organizations and plan for the

future. This report examines selected census data for the

Omaha YMCA (Young Men's Christian Association). 1 The

demographic information should assist the YMCA in planning

for program offerings at each of its six facilities (or

branches) in Douglas and Pottawattamie Counties.

Study Areas and Data Analyzed

The areas examined in this report include Douglas County

census tracts, YMCA branch areas, and components of the

Omaha SMSA. 2 The YMCA branch areas were created by grouping

census tracts around each facility, using the Thiesson

Polygon method. 3 The assumption was that YMCA members

1Data presently available from the 1980 Census of Population and Housing consist of the 100 percent count data--information requested of all Americans. Additional sample count data are scheduled for release during autumn, 1982.

2The Census Bureau designates the demographic/economic area around each urban center of 50,000 or more residents as a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA). It does so in order to give an accurate portrayal of the socio-economic trends associated with these areas. The Omaha SMSA encom­passes a three county area including two Nebraska counties (Douglas and Sarpy) and one Iowa county (Pottawattamie).

3Thiessen polygons are polygonal areas constructed by connecting each pair of points (facilities) with a shortest­distance line, vertically bisecting the connecting lines, extending the verticle bisectors to where they meet other bisectors (usually in threes), and adapting as market area boundaries the intersecting bisector lines. In this case, boundaries were constructed by grouping census tracts so that the branch areas were delineated by those census tract boundaries which most closely approximated the intersecting bisectors.

2

would use the facility closest to their places of residence.

Thus, the market areas of YMCA branches are defined as

mutually-exclusive groups of census tracts centered on each

facility. (Map 1 demonstrates the dimensions of the YMCA

branch areas, and Map 2 displays the census tracts.)

The data analyzed are arrayed by census tracts, YMCA

branch areas (aggregated census tracts), and parts of the

Omaha SMSA. In addition to the tabular arrays, data are

also displayed by tract on maps of Douglas County in order

to demonstrate the distributional nature of the variables

examined.

Population Change, 1970 to 1980

County/City Changes

The Omaha SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area)

gained nearly 30,000 residents from 1970 to 1980, a 5 per-

cent population increase. Among the three SMSA counties,

Sarpy County experienced the greatest numerical and percen­

tage gains, 19,815 persons and 29.9 percent, respectively.

Douglas County was second with an increase of 7,583

residents, a 1.9 percent increase. Pottawattamie County, by

contrast, experienced a loss of 430 residents for a decrease

of ~ of 1 percent.

Though Douglas and Sarpy Counties each gained population

during the 1970's, the City of Omaha lost 32,674 residents,

or 9.4 percent of its population. Much of that population

loss was due to the movement of residents southward and

westward to locations outside the city limits.

(Subsequently, the city has annexed areas and thus has added

3

residents to the city population.)

The population losses experienced by Council Bluffs were

even greater than those of Pottawattamie County as a whole.

Council Bluffs lost 3,899 people or 6.5 percent of its

residents during the decade.

Change by YMCA Branch Areas

Examination of population change for YMCA branch areas

demonstrated a clear difference between the eastern and

western areas during the decade. (See Table l.) Sizeable

population decreases occurred in the branch areas of eastern

Douglas County. The loss areas, in decreasing order, were

the Downtown, North and Miller Park areas. By contrast,

relative stability was the rule in adjacent branch areas to

the east and west; that is, the Council Bluffs branch area

experienced a modest loss, and the West branch area

experienced a modest gain. Change in the west branch area

was split (see Maps 3 and 4), with gain in the area's north-

west section but loss to the southeast. Meanwhile, sizeable

gains occurred in the South-southwest branch area and in the

remainder of Douglas County to the west.

Areas with the greatest numerical change in population

during the 1970's were not necessarily those with the

greatest rate of change. 1 While the South-southwest branch

area experienced the greatest absolute increase in popula-

1nifferences in the number and percent of change among census tracts are, in part, dependent upon their physical size and upon the population base of the tract in 1970.

4

tion during the decade, the remainder of the county west of

the branch

percent).

areas had the greatest relative increase (100

Similarly, the greatest numerical population loss

occurred in the Downtown branch area, but the greatest rela­

tive loss was in the North area.

Change by Census Tract

A closer examination of population change by census

tract across Douglas County demonstrated that changes were

complex and variable (Table 2 and Maps 3 and 4).

Of the 105 census tracts in Douglas County, 27 gained

population while 78 lost. All but one of the losing census

tracts (Census Tract 7 4. 05 with Boys Town) were within the

city limits while gaining census tracts were both within and

outside. (See Maps 2, 3, and 4.)

Numerically, tracts with the largest population gains

(5,000 or more people per census tract) in Douglas County

were concentrated west of 96th Street, particularly to the

west and southwest of Omaha. (See Map 3.) The greatest

percentage gains (100 percent or more, a doubling of the

population) covered much of the same area but included areas

farther north (Census Tract 73. 06) and northeast (Census

Tract 73.04) and extended less westerly (excluding Census

Tract 75 in the western part of the county). (See Map 4.)

The most dramatic population increases occurred, therefore,

in the areas immediately west, southwest, and northwest of

the city, areas of relatively recent suburbanization.

The pattern of population losses across Douglas County

was somewhat more variable for the decade. (See Maps 3 and

5

4.) Numerically, census tracts with losses of 1,000 or more

were all located east of 96th Street, and all but four were

located east of 72 Street and north of Pacific Street

(exceptions being three tracts in south Omaha and one in

southwest Omaha). The greatest population losses by tract

occurred in Census Tracts 5, 8, and 60 in northeast Omaha

and Census Tract 69.01 in southwest Omaha. The losses in

northeast Omaha were due to overall population losses,

including whole households. The losses in southwest Omaha

were attributable to the aging of households in older

suburbs with the departure of young people but the continued

residency of older persons.

The greatest percentage losses in population (50 per­

cent or more, a halving of the population) occurred in three

distinct areas--northeast of Carter Lake (Census Tract 5),

north of the Central Business District (Census Tracts 11,

13.01, and 15), and within the commercial/industrial belt

south of Interstate 80 in southwest Omaha (Census Tract

74.10). These were each areas of population displacement,

in part, due to non-residential land use development.

Population losses by census tract of 25 to 50 percent

occurred predominantly along a diagonal area extending

southeast to northwest from the vicinity of Interstate 80 as

it crosses the Missouri River to Fort Street between

Florence Boulevard and 48th Street.

In general, the pattern of total population change by

census tract in Douglas County during the 1970's demon­

strated losses in the east and gains in the west. (See

6

Table 2 and Maps 3 and 4.) By contrast, the pattern due to

natural change alone (computed from birth and death records

unadjusted for tract boundary changes) showed gains in

nearly all census tracts (95 of 104) across the county.

(See Table 2 and Map 5.) The pattern of population change

due to residential mobility (including relocations within

the county and moves into or out of it) demonstrates an

east-to-west pattern similar to total population change but

with greater losses over a greater number of census tracts.

(See Table 2 and Map 6.)

Race and Ethnicity

The 1980 Census asked respondents to identify them­

selves by race and also whether they were of Spanish origin.

Classification of responses resulted in the formulation of

the racial categories: White, Black, Indian/ Eskimo/Aleut,

Asian/Pacific Islander, and "other." Persons of Spanish

origin were subcategorized by their place of ancestry (such

as Mexican), but only the general category is examined in

this report.

Race and Ethnicity by City/County

White. White residents constituted 88 percent of the

Douglas County and 99 percent of Pottawattamie County resi­

dents in 1980 (compared to 95 percent in Nebraska 83 percent

in the U.s.) • (See Tables 1 and 3.) Whites decreased as a

proportion of the total population in both Omaha and Douglas

County between 1970 and 1980. Omaha's white population

experienced a 14 percent loss and Douglas County whites a

0.8 percent loss.

7

Non-white. Non-whites constituted 12 percent of

Douglas County residents but only 2 percent of Pottawatta­

mie County residents in 1980. This compares to a 5 percent

non-white population in Nebraska and 17 percent in the U.S.

as a whole. (See Tables 1 and 3.) Douglas County had 71

percent of the state's non-whites, and two-thirds of all

non-whites in Nebraska lived in Omaha.

Non-whites increased as a proportion of the total popu­

lation in both the city and county during the 1970's with

Omaha's increasing by 24 percent and Douglas County's by 31

percent. These rates compare to a 35 percent gain in non­

whites for Nebraska as a whole.

Black. Blacks were the largest of the non-white

groups in the Omaha area in 1980. Blacks constituted 10

percent of Douglas County residents but only 0.5 percent of

Pottawattamie County's population in 1980. (See Tables 1

and 3.) In Nebraska as a whole, blacks totaled only 3 per-

cent of the population.

tion in the state with

population.

Omaha had the greatest concentra-

78 percent of the total black

Blacks increased as a proportion of the total popula-

tion in both Omaha and Douglas County during the 1970's but

less dramatically than all non-whites. Omaha's black popu­

lation increased 10 percent and Douglas County's 15 percent.

These rates compare to a 21 percent gain in blacks for

Nebraska as a whole.

Indian. The American Indian population in Omaha area

counties was relatively small as a proportion of the total

8

in 1980 (0.5 percent in Douglas County and 0.2 percent in

Pottawattamie County} but was comparable to the proportion

in the state and nation (both 0.6 percent}. (See Tables 1

and 3.} Even so, Omaha had 20 percent of all American

Indians in the state, and Douglas County had 21 percent of

the Nebraska total. Perhaps more importantly, the Indian

population showed dramatic increases during the decade,

increasing 58 percent in Omaha and 63 percent in Douglas

County, as opposed to 39 percent in Nebraska as a whole.

Hispanic. Persons of Spanish origin (Hispanics}

constituted 2 percent of the Douglas county population but 1

percent of Pottawattamie County residents in 1980. This

compares to 2 percent in Nebraska, and 6 percent for the

United States as a whole. (See Tables 1 and 3.) Over one­

quarter of all Hispanics in Nebraska were living in Omaha,

and Douglas County had 29 percent of this ethnic group.

During the 1970's, Hispanics increased as a proportion

of the total population in both Omaha and Douglas County as

did other minorities. Omaha's Hispanics increased by 13

percent, and Hispanics in Douglas County by 17 percent.

This compares to a 35 percent gain in Nebraska and a 6 per­

cent gain in the United States as a whole.

Race and Ethnicity by YMCA Branch Areas

Whites. Whites constituted a majority of residents in

all but one YMCA branch area, the exception being the North

branch area. (See Table 1.} They comprised greater than 90

percent of all residents in five of the seven areas

examined, the exceptions being the North (22 percent white}

9

and Miller Park (73 percent white) areas.

Non-white. Non-whites constituted over three-quarters

of residents (78 percent) in the North branch area, approxi­

mately one-quarter of residents (27 percent) in the Miller

Park area, less than 10 percent of the Downtown and West

areas, and only 2 percent or less in the remaining areas.

Black. Blacks were the largest of the non-white sub­

groups and were clearly concentrated in the North and Miller

Park branch areas (76 and 25 percent, respectively).

Indian. American Indians were a far less numerous

racial subgroup and were most frequently found living in

the North, Downtown, and Miller Park areas (approximately 1

percent of the population in each area).

Hispanic. Persons of Spanish origin also make up a

relatively small ethnic group in Omaha and Council Bluffs.

The Downtown branch area had the greatest number and per­

centage, with over 5,000 persons and 5 percent of the

population. The next highest concentration of persons of

Spanish origin, 2 percent, occurred in the North, Miller

Park, and Council Bluffs branch areas. In the remaining

areas 1 percent or less were of Spanish origin.

Race and Ethnicity by Census Tracts

A closer examination of minorities by census tract in

Douglas County demonstrated substantial areal variations in

race and ethnicity (Table 3 and Maps 7A through 7D).

White. Whites continued to constitute a majority of

residents in 90 of the 105 census tracts (86 percent) in

Douglas County; the 15 census tracts where whites were not a

10

majority were located in northeast Omaha. (See Map 7A.)

Non-white. Non-whites were highly concentrated within

relatively few Omaha/Douglas County census tracts. While

the proportion of non-whites per census tract ranged widely

from 0.0 percent (in Census Tract 74.10) to 97 percent (in

Census Tract 10), 92 percent of all non-whites in Douglas

County were located east of 72nd Street in 1980. (See Map

7A.) Nearly half (47 percent) of Omaha's non-whites and 44

percent of Douglas County's non-whites resided within the 15

census tracts in northeast Omaha where a majority of resi­

dents were non-white.

Black. The distribution of blacks in Omaha/Douglas

County paralleled that for non-whites, since blacks consti­

tuted 83 percent of all non-whites in Omaha/Douglas County.

(See Map 7B.) The black population, however, was even more

concentrated within a relatively few census tracts than were

all non-whites. A full 95 percent of blacks lived east of

72nd Street, and 55 percent of Omaha's blacks and 53 percent

of Douglas County's lived within the 15 census tracts with a

majority of their populations non-white.

Indian. The American Indian population was less con­

centrated than other racial minorities in Omaha and Douglas

County. While 83 percent of American Indians were located

east of 72nd Street, only one census tract had as many as 5

percent of its population identified as American Indian

(Census Tract 14 with 8 percent). (See Map 7C.)

Hispanic. Hispanics were less concentrated in

specific subareas of Omaha/Douglas County than were the

11

racial minorities in 19801 however, Hispanics were rela­

tively more concentrated in southeast Omaha. (See Map 7D.)

Compared to the racial minorities, a smaller proportion (79

percent) lived east of 72nd Street. One-fourth of Douglas

County's Hispanics were located within the five contiguous

census tracts in the southeast corner of the county and 43

percent within 12 contiguous census tracts in that location.

Sex Composition

The balance between males and females in a population

is measured most typically as either the population's "sex

ratio," or as the proportion of one sex compared to the

total population (for example, percent female). The propor­

tional measure is used here in examining the balance between

males and females. The data are presented in Tables 4 and 5

and displayed areally on Map SA.

The number of people of one sex as a percentage of the

total population need not vary greatly from the balance

point of 50.0 percent to yield considerable numerical

imbalances. The numerical magnitude of a single percentage

point difference in sex composition (for example, 51 percent

female) will depend, of course, on the size of the base

population and may involve thousands more females than males

in a given area. Nevertheless, the examination of sex com­

position using females as a percentage of the total popula­

tion is most useful for comparative purposes.

City/County composition

Females normally outnumber males in the populations of

relatively large areas. However, in a mobile society the

12

balance of females to males for relatively small areas can

vary significantly because of a variety of social and

economic conditions. In the three-county Omaha SMSA females

comprised 51.7 percent of the total population for a net

balance of 18,614 more females than males. Douglas and

Pottawattamie Counties had more females than males in 1980

and had nearly the same proportion of females, 52.1 and 51.9

percent, respectively. However, due to differences in size,

population, and economic base, Douglas County had 16,676

more females than males while Pottawattamie County had 3,303

more. Sarpy County atypically had 1,365 more males (50.8

percent of the population) due to the presence of Offutt Air

Force Base.

YMCA Composition

The relatively smaller YMCA branch areas exhibited

relatively greater differences in females as a percent of

the total population. (See Table 4.) While all YMCA branch

areas contained more females than males, the North area had

the greatest proportion of females, nearly 54 percent. The

West, Council Bluffs, Downtown, and Miller Park areas con­

tained nearly as great a proportion of females, at or near

53 percent. By contrast, the South-southwest branch area

and the remainder of Douglas County (the suburbs and beyond)

included a more nearly equal balance of females and males,

or approximately 50 percent of each. Thus, the sex com­

position of YMCA branch areas was more nearly balanced in

the more westerly and easterly (Council Bluffs) branch

areas, and less well balanced in the central locations.

13

Composition by Census Tract

Differences in the percentage of females among the

significantly smaller census tracts of Douglas County

demonstrated considerably more variations. Three distinct

areas of the county stood out as having an atypical minority

of female residents in 19SO, less than 49 percent female

(the line patterns on Map SA). These included the Central

Business District and adjacent area, the sparsely populated

Southwest industrial tract (Census Tract 74.10), and to a

lesser extent an area of North-central Omaha south of I-6SO

(Census Tract 73.04).

A near balance of males and females, 49 to 51 percent

female, dominated the census tracts at the northern,

western, and southern margins of the city and beyond (the

tracts with no patterning on Map SA). These were predomi­

nantly the newer suburban areas of the county in 19SO, and

represent a greater proportion of married couples with

families.

Most census tracts lying within the city of Omaha con­

tained a majority of females (52 or more percent) in 1980.

In particular, several areas of the central city contained a

markedly greater proportion of females (56 percent or more)

(the denser dot pattern on Map SA). These were in the areas

of North Omaha east and south of Adams Park (Census Tracts

10 and 52), southeast of the main Mutual of Omaha office

complex (Census Tract 40), in Dundee east of Memorial Park

(Census Tract 4S), and near the University of Nebraska

Medical Center (Census Tracts 43 and 44).

14

Maps 8B and 8C are included in this report to

demonstrate the fact that sex composition may vary substan­

tially among age groups for specific areas. The age groups

displayed include school age populations, significant users

of YMCA programs. Within these school age groups greater

numbers of tracts with majorities of male residents were

found. The existence of a male majority at younger ages

reflects such varied factors as improved post-natal health

care experienced by these young males and their pre-military

service ages.

Age Composition

The most widely used overview figure of age composition

is median age--the midpoint age, that is, the point at which

half the population is younger and half is older. The

median age of the population living in the three-county

Omaha SMSA was 28.3 in 1980 (2.5 years older than in 1970).

Sarpy County, which includes the Offutt and Capehart areas,

had the youngest of the three county populations in 1980

with a median age of 25.3. Douglas County had the next

oldest population with a median age of 28.7, and Pottawat­

tamie County had the oldest population, with a median of

29.5. The cities of Omaha and Council Bluffs had relatively

older and comparable median ages, 29.4 and 29.1, respec­

tively.

In addition to median age, the proportion of the popu­

lation within various age groups or cohorts (such as high

schoolers, young adults, elderly, etc.) can be used to

describe the age composition of a population. Knowledge of

15

age composition, in turn, can assist in planning for an

organization's program offerings.

Age Cohorts 5 to 13 and 14 to 18

Douglas and Pottawattamie Counties had comparable pro­

portions of school age children in their populations in

1980. (See Table 4.) Douglas County school age population

included 14 percent in the 5 to 13 age cohort and 9 percent

in the 14 to 18 age cohort. Pottawattamie County's school

age population included 15 percent of the total in the 5 to

13 age cohort and 10 percent in the 14 to 18 cohort.

Examination of the proportion of school age children in

the several YMCA branch areas demonstrated only moderate

variation among areas. (See Table 4.) The 5 to 13 year old

age cohort as a proportion of total population was largest

in 1980 in the South-southwest area (18 percent), and nearly

as large in both the North area and the remainder of Douglas

County north and west of Omaha (17 percent each). The 5 to

13 year old group by contrast constituted the smallest pro­

portion of the population in the Downtown branch area (10

percent), which includes South Omaha. The 14 to 18 year old

age cohort comprised a more uniform proportion of the popu­

lations in branch areas, though this group was proportion­

ally greatest in the North area (11 percent) and smallest in

the Downtown area (8 percent).

Examination of the school age population among the

relatively smaller census tracts for 1980 yielded even

greater variations by area. (See Table 5 and Maps 9A and

9B.) The greatest concentration of 5 to 13 year olds as a

16

proportion of the total population (more than 20 percent)

occurred in sections of North Omaha and the southwest

suburbs. The smallest percentages of 5 to 13 year olds (5

percent or less) occurred in census tracts within and west

of the Central Business District.

The 14 to 18 year old cohort was far more evenly

distributed as a proportion of the total population in 1980

than were the younger school age children. (See Map 9B.)

Except for the two areas of highest concentration of 14 to

18 year olds (one northwest of downtown corresponding to the

Creighton University area, and the other Boys Town in Census

Tract 74.05), relatively greater concentrations of 14 to 18

year olds (11 to 15 percent) occurred in sections of North

Omaha, the older suburbs of southwest Omaha and Millard, and

a section of northern Douglas County around and north of

I-680. Most other areas had 6 to 10 percent of their popu­

lations in the 14 to 18 age cohort. Very few had 5 percent

or less in this range. These were within and west of the

Central Business District and an area northwest of I-680 (no

patterning on Map 9B).

Age Cohort 19 to 34

Douglas County had a somewhat greater proportion (29

percent) of persons in the 19 to 34 age group than did

Pottawattamie County (25 percent) in 1980. (This age group

includes persons born from 1946 to 1961, the so-called baby

boom generation.) This may be attributable, in part, to

greater opportunities for early career development in Omaha,

particularly in white-collar occupations. (See Table 4.)

17

The proportion of 19 to 34 year olds among YMCA branch

areas was greatest (32 percent) in the Downtown area,

including south Omaha. (See Table 4.) Proportions were

nearly as great (30 percent) in the West and South-southwest

areas where young professionals and/or young families

reside. The 19 to 34 age group was the smallest proportion

of the total population (approximately 25 percent) in the

North and Miller Park office areas.

Closer examination of the 19 to 34 age cohort by census

tract showed three areas of particularly significant concen­

tration, 40 percent or more. (See Table 5 and Map 9C.) The

first was an area west-northwest of downtown, an area of

young white-collar residents which includes Creighton

University, Mutual of Omaha headquarters, and many multiple­

family housing units. The second area was a recently

developed tract northwest of I-680 with young families,

relatively higher concentrations of apartment structures,

and relatively fewer teenagers. The third includes an area

of relatively recent young families and relatively recent

development west of Ralston and south and east of I-80.

Conversely, a sizeable area of relatively smaller pro­

portion of 19 to 34 year olds (20 percent or less) was

found north of the industrial tract (Census Tract 74.10)

astride I-80. This area includes the Regency development

(Census Tract 67.02) and other well-established, relatively

expensive residences with housing costs out of reach of most

young career people. Additional areas of low concentration

of 19 to 34 year olds included Boys Town (Census Tract

74.05) and several census tracts in North Omaha.

Age Cohort 35 to 44

18

Age cohort 35 to 44 constituted approximately the same

proportion (around 10 percent) of the populations in Douglas

and Pottawattamie Counties as did the 14 to 18 age group.

(See Table 4.) Part of the explanation for the relatively

smaller size of the older group is that these people were

born during the period of the world depression and World War

II (1936-1945), a time of lower birth rates.

This age group (like the teenage group) exhibited a

relatively narrow range of variation by YMCA branch areas.

(See Table 4.) The greatest proportions of age cohort 35 to

44 occurred in the South-southwest branch area and in the

remainder of Douglas County (each at 14 percent of these

populations). These people represent families with older

children in newer suburban housing areas.

portions of this age group occurred

The smallest pro­

in the North and

Downtown areas (each constituting 8 percent of these popu­

lations).

By census tract, 35 to 44 age cohort was generally less

represented (10 percent or less of the populations) east of

72nd Stre~t and more concentrated (11 percent or more) west

of 72nd Street, particularly in the suburbs southwest of

Omaha (16 percent or more). (See Table 5 and Map 9D).

Age Cohort 45 to 64

Age cohort 45 to 64 traditionally include those persons

who may have well-developed careers, have raised families,

and may be moving toward retirement. Douglas and Pottawat-

19

tamie Counties had comparable proportions of their popula­

tions in this age group, 18 and 20 percent, respectively.

(See Table 4.)

Though variations were small in the percentages of this

age group among branch areas (as with the 14 to 18 age

group), the greatest percentages occurred in the Downtown,

West, and Council Bluffs areas ( 20 percent) . (See Table 4.)

The smallest percentages were found in the south-southwest

area (16 percent) and in the remainder of Douglas County (17

percent).

Age cohort 45 to 64 as a percentage of the total popu­

lation varied more widely by census tract across Douglas

County than did other age groups. (See Table 5 and Map 9E.)

Census tracts with the largest of these concentrations (26

to 30 percent) included part of east Omaha, a small area

west of the Central Business District, another northwest of

the Stockyards, one east of Hillcrest Cemetery, the

industrial tract (Census Tract 74.10), and an extensive area

of older suburbs between Dodge and Center and 72nd and 120th

Streets. Other than a single tract northwest of downtown

(Census Tract 16) and Boys Town (Census Tract 74.05), the

smallest proportions of this age group (6 to 10 percent)

occurred in an arc of suburban tracts west and southwest of

Omaha which includes new housing and young families.

Household Change, 1970-1980

An additional consideration useful for program planning

is the number and character of households. The Omaha SMSA

gained over 38,000 households from 1970 to 1980, a 23 per-

20

cent increase (far greater than the 5 percent gain in popu­

lation over the decade). Among the three SMSA counties,

Douglas experienced the greatest numerical gain in house­

holds (nearly 24,000), while Sarpy underwent the greatest

percentage gain (65 percent). (See Table 6B.) Even the

cities of Omaha and Council Bluffs, which lost population

during the decade, increased in number of households (7 and

10 percent, respectively).

The pattern of household change for YMCA branch areas

paralleled the direction of population change over the

decade. (See Table 1 and GA.) The number of households

decreased in eastern Douglas County. These include the

North, Downtown, and Miller Park branch areas, in decreasing

order of numerical loss. Other branch areas gained house-

holds. In decreasing order of numerical gain, these were

the South-southwest, the West, ·the remainder of Douglas

County, and the Council Bluffs area.

Areas with the greatest numerical change in households

are not necessarily those with the greatest rate of change.

For example, while the West branch area had the second

highest absolute gain, it had the third highest rate of

change. Likewise, while the Downtown area had the second

greatest numerical loss, it had the third greatest rate of

loss.

A closer examination of household change by census

tract across Douglas County demonstrated that losses

occurred predominantly in the east while gains were

experienced to the west. (See Table 7 and Maps lOA and

21

lOB.) Loss was particularly pronounced in the area north of

the Central Business District and east of 30th Street.

Greatest gains were experienced at the western edge of Omaha

and beyond, an area of housing construction and new family

formation.

Household Composition

Much has been written recently of the changing nature

of the American household and family. The non-traditional

household had increased at a rate greater than the tradi­

tional household, the family. The resulting smaller propor­

tion of family households is due, in part, to delayed

marriage and child-bearing and divorce.

Comparison of rates of change

families, and families with children

among

during

households,

the decade

suggests that the Omaha area is following recent national

trends in household composition. (See Table 6B.) For

example, while total households in the Omaha SMSA increased

by 23 percent from 1970 to 1980, families increased by only

11 percent and families with children an even smaller 10

percent. The differences between household and family

change were more dramatic by city areas. Total households

in Omaha and Council Bluffs increased by 7 and 10 percent,

respectively, while families with children decreased in

Omaha and Council Bluffs by 10 and 3 percent, respectively.

Similarly, each of the components of the Omaha SMSA

(cities and counties) experienced a decrease during the

decade in the proportion of households that are also

families. (See Table 6B.) Thus, the Omaha area does seem

22

to be experiencing a change in household composition toward

less traditional household forms. However, the trend seems

to be progressing slowly, and the family households continue

to dominate.

An additional significant consideration in household

character is the growing proportions of those with children

but only one adult parent, the product of increased divorce

rates in recent years. (See Tables 8 and 9.) In Douglas

County, 22 percent of all households with children had an

adult householder but no spouse present in 1980; in

Pottawattamie County the percentage was somewhat lower at 18

percent. In both Pottawattamie and Douglas Counties females

headed 88 percent of all one-parent households with

children.

By YMCA

children as a

varied widely

branch areas, one-parent households with

proportion of all households with children

(See Table 8.) The area with the greatest

proportion of these households (62 percent) was the North;

no other area came close to that high percentage. Next, in

descending order, were the Miller Park (32 percent),

Downtown (26 percent), Council Bluffs (23 percent), and West

(19 percent) areas. The areas of notably lesser proportions

were the South-southwest branch area and the remainder of

Douglas County (each 12 percent).

Households with children headed by a female parent with

no spouse paralleled and dominated the pattern for all

single parent households. Women headed roughly the same

proportion o~ all one-parent households (88 or 89 percent)

23

with the exceptions being the North area (93 percent) and

the South-southwest area and remainder of Douglas County

with smaller proportions (86 and 82 percent, respectively).

A very regular pattern of census tracts with one-parent

households (as a percent of all households with children)

was evident in the 1980 Census data. (See Table 9 and Maps

llA and llB.) From the area of greatest concentration in

north Omaha, the proportion of one-parent households

decreased generally in all directions. The proportions

decreased most rapidly to the west and less to the north and

south. The resulting pattern was a "ridge" of relatively

greater percentages of single parent households extending

south to north through the eastern third of Omaha. Other

areas of relatively greater proportion of one-parent house­

holds did occur in west Omaha and beyond, but the western

suburbs generally contained the lowest percentages.

Summary

Results of the 1980 Census confirmed the continued

population growth of the Omaha metropolitan area. Also

demonstrated was a continuing dispersion of the population

away from older residential areas within the city to more

westerly and recently developed locations outside the city

limits.

Whites continued to constitute the majority of the

population in most areas but minorities (both racial and

Hispanic ethnic) increased in number and as a proportion of

the total population. Minorities continued to be relatively

more concentrated/segregated within the eastern area of

24

Omaha/Douglas County.

The sex composition of the population in the Omaha

metropolitan area was typical of most places--females tended

to outnumber males. An exception in the Omaha area was

Sarpy County with Offutt Air Force Base and its population

of servicemen. (The typical pattern of females outnumbering

males was reversed within specific age cohorts, particularly

for smaller subareas such as census tracts.)

Age composition varied greatly across the subareas

within the Omaha metropolitan area. Youth (age cohort 5 to

13) were found proportionally more numerous in north Omaha

and the western suburbs, age cohort 14 to 18 was more evenly

spread across the area, age cohort 19 to 34 was more con­

centrated northwest of downtown and in the northwest

suburbs, age cohort 35 to 44 was proportionally more

numerous west of 72nd Street, and age cohort 45 to 64 was

concentrated in several city areas, particularly the older

suburbs of southwest Omaha.

Household growth exceeded population growth over most

parts of the Omaha metropolitan area from 1970 to 1980.

However, the rate of change for families did not keep pace

with that of households indicating a changing household com­

position. Finally, one-parent households comprised a

significant proportion of all households with children in

the Omaha area, and were particularly concentrated in the

eastern area of Douglas County.

25

Postscript

The YMCA will find the demographic information included

in this report to be a useful starting point for program

planning. The YMCA should also consider examining the

sample count census data when they become available this

autumn. These data will include variables such as income,

occupation, place of work, and education. A more sophisti­

cated analysis of the relationships among demographic varia­

bles will provide a more precise understanding of service

users and market areas for purposes of program planning.

Census data can be correlated with other data already

gathered from "Y" members, or with data gathered specific­

ally for such an analysis. For a more exact computation of

the dimensions of each branch area, existing "Y" data or a

special survey could be used to determine the true dimen­

sions of each branch's market area; that is, where members

live, which facility is used by each member, when it is

used, and other pertinent factors associated with members

usage.

The Center for Applied Urban Research is prepared to

work with the YMCA in determining the direction of any

further analysis and in implementing such a study.

26

TABLE 1 POPULATION, POPULATION CHANGE, RACE AND ETHNICITY

BY YMCA BRANCH AREAS

Population Race Ethnicity Total Change

YMCA Branch Population 1970-1980 White Non-white Black Indian Spanish Origin Areas 1980 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Miller Park 34,616 -8,108 - 19 25,386 73 9,230 27 8,632 25 290 0.8 521 2 North 26,517 - 11,888 - 31 5,854 22 20,663 78 20,058 76 359 1.0 391 2 Downtown 111,590 - 24,699 - 18 102,664 92 8,926 8 4,107 4 B82 1.0 5,068 5 West 106,264 1,501 1 98,663 93 7,601 7 6,192 6 212 0.2 1,053 1 South-southwest 100,740 42,978 74 98,793 98 1,947 2 726 1 167 0.2 1,087 1 Remainder of

Douglas County 17,311 8,637 100 17,099 99 212 1 117 1 35 0.2 118 1 Council Bluffs 56.449 3,899 7 55,303 98 1,146 2 415 1 140 0.2 987 2

Douglas County 397,038 7,583 2 348.459 88 48,578 12 39,832 10 1,945 0.5 8,236 2 Pottawattamie County 86,561 -430 -0.5 85,256 99 1,002 1 443 0.5 171 0.2 1,207 1

27

TABLE 2 POPULATION CHANGE IN DOUGLAS COUNTY BY CENSUS TRACT, 1970-1980

Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

Population Population Population Population

Change Change Change Change

Population 1970-1980 1970-1980 Population 1970-1980 1970-1980

Total Change Due to Due to Total Change Due to Due to

Census Population 1970-1980 Natural Residential Census Population 1970-1980 Natural Residential

Tracts 1980 No. % Change Moves Tracts 1980 No. % Change Moves

2 4,814 -723 -13.1 2.6 -15.7 54 3,836 -54~ -12.4 12.0- -24.4

3 2,727 -527 -16.2 8.4 -24.6 55 5,466 -948 -14.8 6.1 -20.9

4 2,513 -527 -17.3 5.2 -22.5 56 4.413 -962 -17.9 5.5 -23.4

5 678 -1,620 -70.5 2.9 -73.4 57 4,679 -948 -16.8 9.5 -23.0

6 2,232 -1,341 -37.5 5.6 -43.1 58 4,819 -963 -16.7 10.7 -27.3

7 1,697 -1 ,445 -46.0 4.5 -50.4 59.01 2,997 -474 -13.7 13.0 -26.6

8 2,354 -1,650 -41.2 10.6 -51.8 59.02 3,043 -811 -21.0 10.5 -31.6

9 1,1~5 ·794 -40.5 9.0 -47.0 60 4,439 -1,533 -25.7 5.0 -30.7 10 1,555 -622 -28.6 9.1 -37.6 61.01 3,051 -399 -11.6 16.0 -27.6

11 1,238 -1,300 -51.2 -0.4 -50.8 61.02 4,876 -1,290 -20.9 10.6 -31.6

12 1,424 -817 -36.5 14.3 -50.7 62.01 524 -386 -42.4 3.3 -45.7 13.01 593 -855 -59.0 5.6 -64.6 62.02 5,133 -997 -16.3 6.8 -23.0 13.02 589 -131 -18.2 3.4 -21.5 63 9,746 380 4.1 10.4 -6.3 14 363 -290 -44.4 8.2 -52.5 64 5,659 -1,293 -18.6 7.2 -25.7 15 523 -689 -56.8 1.9 -58.7 65.01 7;262 219 3.1 5.8 -2.7 16 2,113 -642 -23.3 -6.1 -17.3 65.02 5,554 153 2.8 11.7 -8.9 17 876 -690 -44.1 -19.1 -25.0 66.01 7,356 -655 -8.2! 7.6

! -10.5

18 1,134 -566 -33.3 -20.3 -13.0 66.02 4,729 282 6.3 19 1,817 -591 -24.5 -7.0 -17.6 67.01 3,843 -759 -16.5 3.0 -15.9 20 2,675 -694 -20.6 3.4 -24.0 67.02 5,983 2,617 106.1 11.3 94.8 21 2,213 -435 -16.4 2.3 -18.7 68.01 5,978 -755 -11.2 1.7 -12.9 22 1,815 -727 -28.6 1.8 -30.4 68.02 3,818 -231 -5.7 3.5 -9.1 23 2,211 -812 -26.9 13.7 -40.5 69.01 6,273 -1,510 -19.4 12.9 -32.0 24 3,154 -528 -14.3 3.1 -17.4 69.02 7,993 -861 -9.7 6.7 -16.4 25 2,431 -424 -14.9 2.2 -17.1 70 9,504 -571 -5.7 9.7 ~15.3

26 1,992 -367 -15.6 4.7 -20.2 71 7,025 -619 -8.1 10.7 -18.8 27 2,007 -533 -21.0 3.7 -24.6 73.03 2,023 392

24.0} } 28 2,882 -746 -20.6 4.7 -25.2 73.04 1,606 843 110.5 29 4,331 -1,077 -19.9 8.4 -28.3 73.05 3,333 1,357 68.7 19.0 61.7 30 6,212 -1,369 -18.1 4.0 -22.0 73.06 2,369 2,222 1,511.6 31 3,397 -804 -19.1 5.4 -24.5 73.07 2,146 314 17.1 32 1,970 -721 -26.8 -0.2 -26.7 74.03 3,770 -419 -10.0 12.5 -22.4 33 2,200 -622 -22.0 7.8 -29.8 74.04 5,315 2,201 70.7 8.9 61.8 34.01 3,449 -1,173 -25.4 7.5 -32.9 74.05 627 -365 -36.8 8.2 -45.0 34.02 2,642 -600 -18.5 4.5 -22.9 74.06 5,428 3,703 214.7 30.1 184.6 35 4,728 -773 -14.1 4.1 -18.1 74.07 3,905 636 19.5 17.0 2.5 36 4,690 -786 -14.4 4.7 -19.0 74.08 5,192 845 19.4 21.0 -1.6 37 2,832 -641 -18.5 1.2 -19.7 74.09 1,644 116 7.6 19.6 -12.0 38 4,480 -977 -17.9 3.4 -21.3 74.10 47 -88 -65.2 11.9 -77.0 39 2,306 -450 -16.3 7.0 -23.2 74.11 5,689 1,476 35.0 20.3 14.8 40 2,040 -533 -20.7 -9.7 -11.0 74.14 12,422 2,180 21.3! 24.5

! 43.0

41 783 -543 -41.0 -10.0 -31.0 74.15 7,469 5,837 357.7 42 1,550 -344 -18.2 4.8 -22.9 74.16 6,067 5,347 742.6) } 43 2,755 -493 -15.2 -0.9 -14.3 74.17 9,626 9,147 1,909.6 f 88.8 1,007.0 44 1,940 -261 -11.9 5.4 -17.3 74.18 6,226 5,592 882.0 45 3,415 -497 -12.7 0.2 -12.9 74.19 6,632 4,449 203.8! 23.1

! 47.6

46 2,609 -204 -7.3 6.9 -14.1 74.20 6,281 898 16.7 47 2,483 -318 -11.4 2.1 -13.5 74.21 8,213 6,907 528.9! 41.5

! 111.5

48 4,674 -848 -15.4 4.8 -20.1 74.22 6,681 2,099 45.8 49 4,858 -1,001 -17.1 8.9 -26.0 75 12,776 5,420 73.7 11.7 71.3 50 4,097 -1,076 -20.8 4.9 -25.7 51 3,066 -1,013 -24.8 10.1 -34.9 Omaha 314,255 -32,674 -9.4 NA NA 52 2,826 -584 -17.1 20.3 -37.4 Douglas Co. 397,038 7,583 1.9 8.9 -6.8 53 2,314 -883 -27.6 10.8 -38.4 Nebraska 1,569,825 84,492 5.7 NA NA

Source of data is STF 1A computer tape for Nebraska, U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Source of birth and death statistics is Omaha/Douglas County Health Department.

Census Tracts

2 2.99 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13.01 13.02 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34.01 34.02 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59.01 59.02 60 61.01 61.02 62.01 62.02 63 64

Total Population

4,814 20

2,727 2,513

678 2,232 1,697 2,354 1,165 1,555 1,238 1,424

593 589 363 523

2,113 876

1,134 1 ,817 2,675 2,213 1,815 2,211 3,154 2,431 1,992 2,007 2,882 4,331 6,212 3,397 1,970 2,200 3,449 2,642 4,728 4,690 2,832 4,480 2,306 2,040

783 1,550 2,755 1,940 3,415 2,609 2,483 4,674 4,858 4,097 3,066 2,826 2,314 3,836 5,466 4,413 4,679 4,819 2,997 3,043 4,439 3,051 4,876

524 5,133 9,746 5,659

!!_/ * Less than .05%.

TABLE 3 THE POPULATION OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, BY CENSUS TRACT, 1980

White No. %

4,517 18

1,454 2,382

656 939 159 265 103

49 55 69

199 354 143 103

1,913 755 926

1,639 2,498 2,011 1,692 2,099 2,977 2,316 1,827 1,663 2,590 2,481 5,974 3,290 1,778 2,036 3,350 2,587 4,683 4,616 2,787 4,310 2,148 1,898

710 1,449 2,580 1,876 3,367 2,554 2,476 4,537 4,327 3,711 1,783

312 785

2,045 5,316 4,360 4,446 3,454

812 401

2,456 1,452 3,207

510 4,360 6,740 5,480

93.8 90.0 53.3 94.8 96.8 42.1

9.4 11.3

8.8 3.2 4.4 4.8

33.6 60.1 39.4 19.7 90.5 86.2 81.7 90.2 93.4 90.9 93.2 94.9 94.4 95.3 91.7 82.9 89.9 57.3 96.2 96.9 90.3 92.5 97.1 97.9 99.0 98.4 98.4 96.2 93.1 93.0 90.7 93.5 93.6 96.7 98.6 97.9 99.7 97.1 89.1 90.6 58.2 11.0 33.9 53.3 97.3 98.8 95.0 71.7 27.1 13.2 55.3 47.6 65.8 97.3 84.9 69.2 96.8

Race

I Non-white

No. %

297 2

1,273 131 22

1,293 1,538 2,089 1,062 1,506 1,183 1,355

394 235 220 420 200 121 208 178 177 202 123 112 177 115 165 344 292

1,850 238 107 192 164 99 55 45 74 45

170 158 142 73

101 175 64 48 55

7 137 531 386

1,283 2,514 1,529 1,791

150 53

233 1,365 2,185 2,642 1,983 1,599 1,669

14 773

3,006 179

6.2 10.0 46.7

5.2 3.2

57.9 90.6 88.7 91.2 96.8 95.6 95.2 66.4 39.9 60.6 80.3

9.5 13.8 18.3 9.8 6.6 9.1 6.8 5.1 5.6 4.7 8.3

17.1 10.1 42.7

3.8 3.1 9.7 7.5 2.9 2.1 1.0 1.6 1.6 3.8 6.9 7.0 9.3 6.5 6.4 3.3 1.4 2.1 0.3 2.9

10.9 9.4

41.8 89.0 66.1 46.7

2.7 1.2 5.0

28.3 72.9 86.8 44.7 52.4 34.2

2.7 15.1 30.8

3.2

Non-white Subgroups

Black No. %

252 2

1 ,211 73 11

1,220 1,498 2,039 1,030 1,476 1,176 1,326

374 204 190 396

84 69

168 66

5 13 20 22

4 4

14 5

47 1,266

63 20 20 23 38

1 3 3 3

53 21 64 49 39 79 31

8 16

57 354 194

1,101 2,470 1,464 1,669

91 16

179 1,261 2,146 2,600 1 ,891 1,533 1,588

8 699

2,879 51

5.2 10.0 44.4

2.9 1.6

54.7 88.3 86.7 88.4 94.9 95.0 93.1 63.1 34.6 52.3 75.7

4.0 7.9

14.8 3.6 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.2 1.6

29.2 1.0 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.1 I .... 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.9 3.1 6.3 2.5 2.9 1.6 0.2 0.6

1.2 7.3 4.7

35.9 87.4 63.3 43.5

1.7 0.4 3.8

26.2 71.6 85.4 42.6 50.2 32.6

1.5 13.6 29.5

0.9

I Indian

No. %

24

39 20

9 48 25 22 23 28

5 23 18 23 28 19 11 18 12 62 40 29 13 16 37 11 16 24

9 91 16 17 13 64

7 10

3 11 2

30 68 24 13 19 26

7 1 1 1

11 27 33 62 23 39 30 12

9 17 19 34 42 37 26

4 34 22 16

0.5

1.4 0.8 1.3 2.2 1.5 0.9 2.0 1.8 0.4 1.6 3.0 3.9 7.7 3.6 0.5 2.1 1.1 3.4 1.5 1.3 0.7 0.7 1.2 0.5 0.8 1.2 0.3 2.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 2.9 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 '0.7 2.9 1.2 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.8 2.0 ... 0.8 1.7 0.8 0.2

0.2 0.4 0.6 1.1 1.0 1.2 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.3

Ethnicity:

Spanish-origin No. %

52

41 67

2 32 19 53 17 19

5 4 6 7

12 4

39 27 45 71

219 233 176 124 238 161 255 425 363 601 294 156 219 140

69 48 37 44 37

106 104 69 16 36 43 16 17 47 11 41 97 76 90 40 42 95 47 26 68 60 32 36

111 44 84

7 54 93

115

1.1

1.5 2.7 0.3 1.4 1.1 2.3 1.5 1.2 0.4 0.3 1.0 1.2 3.3 0.8 1.8 3.1 4.0 3.9 8.2

10.5 9.7 5.6 7.5 6.6

12.8 21.2 12.6 13.9

4.7 4.6

11.1 6.4 2.0 1.8 0.8 0.9 1.3 2.4 4.5 3.4 2.0 2.3 1.6 0.8 0.5 1.8 0.4 0.9 2.0 1.9 2.9 1.4 1.8 2.5 0.9 0.6 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.2 2.5 1.4 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.0 2.0

28

.

29

TABLE 3- Continued THE POPULATION OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, BY CENSUS TRACT, 1980

Race Non-white Subgroups Ethnicity:

Census Total White T Non-white Black I Indian Spanish-origin Tracts Population No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

65.01 7,262 7,117 98.0 145 2.0 78 1.1 12 0.2 57 0,8 65.02 5,554 4,891 88.1 663 11.9 595 10.7 22 0.4 13 0.2 66.01 7,356 7,223 98.2 133 1.8 61 0.8 16 0.2 74 1.0 66.02 4,729 4,552 96.3 177 3.7 71 1.5 13 0.3 32 0.7 67.01 3,843 3,757 97.8 86 2.2 33 0.9 6 0.2 23 0.6 67.02 5,083 5,013 98.6

-70 1.4 10 0.2 5 0.1 45 0.9

68.01 5,978 5,870 98.2 108 1.8 47 0.8 7 0.1 55 0.9 68.02 3,818 3,791 99.3 27 0.7 2 0.1 1 0.0 10 0.3 69.01 6,273 6,185 98.6 88 1.4 14 0.2 12 0.2 59 0.9 69.02 7,993 7,895 98.8 98 1.2 33 0.4 10 0.1 44 0.6 70 9,504 9,164 96.4 340 3.6 129 1.4 27 0.3 195 2.1 71 7,025 6,853 97.6 172 2.4 24 0.3 13 0.2 182 2.6 73.03 2,023 1,963 97.0 60 3.0 40 2.0 6 0.3 14 0.7 73.04 1,606 1,490 92.8 116 7.2 106 6.6 1 0.1 13 0.8 73.05 3,333 3,123 93.7 210 6.3 152 4.6 13 0.4 46 1.4 73.06 2,369 2,248 94.9 121 5.1 101 4.3 10 0.4 19 0.8 73.07 2,146 2,135 99.5 11 0.5 - - 6 0.3 5 0.2 74.03 3,770 3,610 95.8 160 4.2 106 2.8 11 0.3 40 1.1 74.04 5,315 5,192 97.7 123 2.3 61 1.1 5 0.1 53 1.0 74.05 627 494 78.8 133 21.2 86 13.7 9 1.4 42 6.7 74.06 5,428 5,376 99.0 52 1.0 8 0.1 2 0.0 43 0.8 74.07 3,905 3,846 98.5 59 1.5 19 0.5 3 0.1 48 1.2 74.08 5,192 5,031 96.9 161 3.1 76 1.5 15 0.3 67 1.3 74.09 1,644 1,610 97.9 34 2.1 4 0.2 17 1.0 34 2.1 74.10 47 47 100.0 0 0.0 - - - - - -74.11 5,689 5,624 98.9 65 1.1 5 0.1 2 0.0 89 1.6 74.14 12.422 12,073 97.2 349 2.8 200 1.6 16 0.1 121 1.0 74.15 7,469 7,084 94.8 385 5.2 299 4.0 7 0.1 84 1.1 74.16 6,067 5,895 97.2 172 2.8 109 1.8 9 0.1 73 1.2 74.17 9,626 9,484 98.5 142 1.5 50 0.5 13 0.1 46 0.5 74.18 6,226 6,113 98.2 113 1.8 29 0.5 9 0.1 76 1.2 74.19 6,632 6,510 98.2 122 1.8 22 0.3 10 0.2 92 1.4 74.20 6,281 6,216 99.0 65 1.0 23 0.4 13 0.2 46 0.7 74.21 8,213 7,979 97.2 234 2.8 104 1.3 13 0.2 123 1.5 74.22 6,681 6,492 97.2 189 2.8 71 1.1 19 0.3 97 1.5 75 12,776 12,698 99.4 78 0.6 14 0.1 19 0.1 90 0.7

Omaha 314,255 265,225 84.4 45,610. 14.5 37,852 12.1 9,195 0.6 7,300 2.3 Douglas Co. 397,038 348,459 87.8 48,579 12.2 39,832 10.0 1,940 0.5 8,236 2.1 Nebraska 1,569,825 1,490,381 94.9 79,437 5.1 48,390 3.1 9,195 0.6 28,025 1.8

Source of data is STF 1A computer tape for Nebraska, U.S. Bureau of the Census.

30

TABLE 4 POPULATION BY SEX AND SELECTED AGE GROUPS

BY YMCA BRANCH AREAS

Females Population by Age Groups As a

Percent of Ages 5 to 13 Ages 14to 18 Ages 19 to 34 Ages 35 to 44 Ages 45 to 64 YMCA Branch Total

Areas Population Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Miller Park 52.5 5,411 16 3,576 10 8,730 25 3,325 10 6,582 19 North 53.9 4,473 17 3,007 11 6,316 24 2,197 8 4,777 18 Downtown 52.6 11,299 10 9,020 8 35,313 32 8,800 8 22,262 20 West 53.0 13,604 13 9,241 9 31,662 30 11 ,454 11 20,712 20 South-southwest 50.5 17,624 18 10,137 10 30,142 30 14,475 14 15,789 16 Remainder of

Douglas County 50.4 2,882 17 1,691 10 4,690 27 2,382 14 2,866 17 Council Bluffs 52.9 7,815 14 5,362 10 15,102 27 5,415 10 11,286 20

Douglas County 52.1 55,296 14 36,676 9 116,864 29 42,636 11 72,993 18 Pottawattamie County 51.9 12,609 15 8,582 10 21,905 25 9,276 11 17,334 20

31

TABLE 5 POPULATION BY SEX AND SELECTED AGE GROUPS

BY CENSUS TRACT

Females Population by Age Groups As a

Percent of Census Total Ages 5 to 13 Ages 14to 18 Ages 19 to 34 Ages 35 to 44 Ages 45 to 64 Tracts Population Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

2 54 664 14 392 8 1,182 25 390 8 913 19 2.99 0 0 0 1 5 17 85 2 10 0 0 3 53 457 17 348 13 671 25 267 10 437 16 4 50 274 11 197 8 589 23 230 9 644 26 5 51 83 12 70 10 157 23 55 8 147 22 6 54 344 15 281 13 495 22 205 9 409 18 7 55 226 13 180 11 327 19 117 7 430 25 8 52 352 15 330 14 504 21 181 8 602 26 9 52 166 14 129 11 251 22 96 8 255 22

10 56 256 16 142 9 344 22 101 7 291 19 11 54 166 13 128 10 240 19 78 6 235 19 12 55 298 21 169 12 289 20 104 7 196 14 13.01 55 69 12 47 8 127 21 41 7 132 22 13.02 51 83 14 52 9 139 24 54 9 119 20 14 51 62 17 24 7 84 23 35 10 77 21 15 52 69 13 47 9 109 21 46 9 122 23 16 50 9 0.4 440 21 1,348 64 31 1 98 5 17 41 8 0.9 20 2 409 47 48 5 152 17 18 28 9 0.8 53 5 336 30 100 9 288 25 19 45 87 5 80 4 460 25 145 8 539 30 20 53 304 11 189 7 723 27 205 8 568 21 21 53 227 10 167 8 562 25 153 7 447 20 22 54 176 10 165 9 765 42 102 6 290 16 23 53 248 11 160 7 721 33 180 8 424 19 24 53 375 12 247 8 851 27 233 7 650 ?1 25 52 282 12 208 9 629 26 207 9 483 20 26 52 272 14 186 9 516 26 178 9 428 21 27 50 224 11 147 7 556 28 163 8 391 19 28 52 288 10 210 7 776 27 220 8 693 24 29 54 782 18 451 10 1,102 25 306 7 745 17 30 52 711 11 573 9 1,534 25 501 8 1,546 25 31 52 371 11 301 9 818 24 264 8 903 27 32 54 175 9 143 7 496 25 131 7 427 22 33 50 277 13 181 8 615 28 174 8 474 22 34.01 54 353 10 251 7 959 28 287 8 787 23 34.02 51 317 12 249 9 746 28 213 8 555 21 35 53 390 8 378 8 1,180 25 381 8 1.420 30 36 54 470 10 291 6 1,288 27 450 10 986 21 37 53 307 11 263 9 707 25 255 9 575 20 38 52 453 10 375 8 1.436 32 356 8 826 18 39 55 245 11 137 6 759 33 171 7 457 20 40 57 76 4 74 4 599 29 111 5 341 17 41 51 8 1 19 2 277 35 68 9 215 27 42 54 77 5 72 5 765 49 110 7 217 14 43 56 107 4 115 4 1,288 47 165 6 423 15 44 58 172 9 124 6 750 39 123 6 319 16 45 55 406 12 248 7 918 27 318 9 514 15 46 52 338 13 238 9 787 30 308 12 492 19 47 52 409 16 248 10 483 19 337 14 553 22 48 56 436 9 279 6 1,931 41 394 8 609 13 49 55 416 9 294 6 2,223 46 310 6 650 13 50 55 328 8 289 7 1,891 46 273 7 547 13 51 50 328 11 267 9 1,293 42 233 8 423 14 52 58 620 22 342 12 722 26 192 7 314 11 53 53 401 17 237 10 578 25 174 8 437 19 54 53 659 17 480 13 1,123 29 359 9 525 14 55 53 629 12 326 6 1,698 31 516 9 973 18 56 54 429 10 272 6 1,286 29 320 7 907 21 57 55 557 12 309 7 1.408 30 319 7 832 18 58 52 628 13 445 9 1,539 32 399 8 803 17

32

TABLE 5 - Continued POPULATION BY SEX AND SELECTED AGE GROUPS

BY CENSUS TRACT

Females Population by Age Groups As a

Percent of Census Total Ages 5 to 13 Ages 14 to 18 Ages 19 to 34 Ages 35 to 44 Ages 45 to 64 Tracts Population Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

59.01 52 538 18 378 13 774 26 337 11 460 15 59.02 54 510 17 322 11 705 23 282 9 582 19 60 54 711 16 451 10 1.212 27 339 8 777 18 61.01 54 649 21 382 13 823 27 318 10 410 13 61.02 51 880 18 497 10 1,313 27 497 10 882 18 62.01 51 57 11 44 8 145 28 48 9 108 21 62.02 54 766 15 486 9 1,389 27 447 9 961 19 63 53 1.407 14 894 9 2,702 28 974 10 1,899 19 64 51 639 11 551 10 1,613 29 499 9 1,354 24 65.01 54 991 14 776 11 1,521 21 860 12 1,640 23 65.02 53 931 17 632 11 1,403 25 718 13 942 17 66.01 55 722 10 621 8 2,134 29 728 10 1,740 24 66.02 54 437 9 332 7 1,552 33 469 10 1,051 22 67.01 53 379 10 370 10 742 19 432 11 1,142 30 67.02 54 668 13 481 9 1,020 20 617 12 1,364 27 68.01 55 644 11 557 9 1,257 21 640 11 1,657 28 68.02 50 556 15 447 12 637 17 545 14 1,149 30 69.01 51 1,032 16 748 12 1,657 26 784 13 1,320 21 69.02 51 1,288 16 1.147 14 1,607 20 1,184 15 2,023 25 70 54 996 10 853 9 3,154 33 860 9 2,049 22 71 51 1,025 15 800 11 1,861 26 775 11 1 ,412 20 73.03 50 287 14 232 11 417 21 280 14 510 25 73.04 48 239 15 196 12 337 21 249 16 384 24 73.05 50 571 17 306 9 1,167 35 468 14 404 12 73.06 51 315 13 130 5 1 ,115 47 227 10 206 9 73.07 51 342 16 227 11 555 26 276 13 414 19 74.03 51 494 13 320 8 1,380 37 402 11 649 17 74.04 50 838 16 631 12 1,262 24 840 16 1,304 25 74.05 20 133 21 279 45 107 17 25 4 36 6 74.06 51 1,067 20 620 11 1,169 22 1,055 19 914 17 74.07 51 581 15 398 10 1,136 29 575 15 790 20 74.08 52 937 18 569 11 1,654 32 629 12 720 14 74.09 51 347 21 220 13 444 27 259 16 184 11 74.10 26 5 11 0 0 15 33 7 15 13 28 74.11 51 906 16 556 10 1,698 30 745 13 1,055 19 74.14 53 1,915 15 1.194 10 4,011 32 1,690 14 2,056 17 74.15 51 1,048 14 571 8 3,048 41 981 13 1,009 14 74.16 51 924 15 284 5 2,501 41 609 10 631 10 74.17 49 2,167 23 706 7 2,986 31 1,661 17 761 8 74.18 50 1,341 22 515 8 2,076 33 918 15 453 7 74.19 50 1,294 20 525 8 2,485 37 798 12 541 8 74.20 52 1,202 19 740 12 1,484 24 1,017 16 1,063 17 74.21 49 1,354 16 622 8 3,518 43 1,217 15 687 8 74.22 51 984 15 749 10 2,686 40 990 15 781 12 75 50 2,225 17 1,333 10 3,003 24 1,877 15 2,246 18

33

TABLE 6A HOUSEHOLD CHANGE, 1970 TO 1980,

BY YMCA BRANCH AREAS

Number of Change in Households YMCA Branch Households 1970 to 1980

Areas in 1980 Number Percent

Miller Park 11,716 -858 -6.8 North 9,235 - 2,779 -23.1 Downtown 46,015 -2,571 -5,9 West 40,278 8,511 26.8 South-southwest 33,178 18,474 125.6 Remainder of Douglas County 5,707 2,892 102.7 Council Bluffs 20,872 1,924 10.2

TABLE 68 HOUSEHOLD CHANGE AND COMPOSITION

BY COMPONENTS OF OMAHA METROPOLITAN AREA

Change in Families Change in Change in Number of Families As a

Number of Households, Number of Families, Families with Children, Percentage of

Households, 1970 to 1980 Families, 1970 to 1980 with Children, 1970to 1980 Households Areas 1980 Number Percent 1980 Number Percent 1980 Number Percent 1970 1980

Douglas County 146,129 23,669 19.3 100,771 6,080 6.4 56,541 2,492 4.6 77 69 Omaha 118,465 7,242 6.5 78,984 - 5,541 -6.6 42,199 • 4,888 - 10.4 76 67

Sarpy County 26,303 10,323 64.6 22,089 7,425 50.6 15,282 4,455 41.1 92 84 Pottawattamie County 30,803 4,027 15.0 23,372 1,508 6.9 12,975 483 3.9 82 76

Council Bluffs 20,872 1,924 10.2 15,127 13 0.1 8,320 -296 -3.4 80 72

Total SMSA 203,235 38,019 23.0 146,232 15,013 11.4 84,798 7,430 9.6 - -

34

TABLE 7 HOUSEHOLD CHANGE, 1970-1980, BY CENSUS TRACT

Total Household Change Total Household Change Census Households 1970 to 1980 Census Households 1970 to 1980 Tracts 1980 Number Percent Tracts 1980 Number Percent

2 1,660 -58 -3.4 52 893 -40 -4.3 2.99 - - 53 790 - 121 -13.3 3 B86 - 109 -11.0 54 1,299 -49 -3.6 4 1,036 -24 -2.3 55 2,237 -40 - 1.8 5 260 -449 -63.3 56 1,768 - 13 -0.7 6 791 -281 -26.2 57 1,931 +91 4.9 7 666 -313 -32.0 58 1,851 -84 -4.3 8 760 -354 -31.8 59.01 960 -59 -5.8 9 422 -221 -34.4 59.02 1,057 - 118 -10.0

10 582 - 168 -22.4 60 1,535 -208 - 11.9 11 499 -409 -45.0 61.01 908 +5 0.6 12 511 -275 -35.0 61.02 1,580 - 114 - 6.7 13.01 248 -281 -53.1 62.01 220 -92 -29.5 13.02 231 -43 - 15.7 62.02 1,685 -28 - 1.6 14 121 - 128 -51.4 63 3,432 +636 22.7 15 196 -200 -50.5 64 2,165 +126 6.2 16 329 -419 -56.0 65.01 2,546 +654 34.6 17 511 -502 -49.6 65.02 1,592 +305 23.7 18 464 -460 -49.8 66.01 3,013 +609 25.3 19 1,207 -376 -23.8 66.02 2,120 +807 61.5 20 1,126 -77 -6.4 67.01 1,450 -3 -0.2 21 992 +41 4.3 67.02 1,997 +1 ,309 190.3 22 588 -57 -8.8 68.01 2,153 +145 7.2 23 852 - 61 -6.7 68.02 1,257 +159 14.5 24 1,273 -96 -7.0 69.01 1,965 +81 4.3 25 954 •a 0.8 69.02 2,531 +262 11.5 26 721 -58 - 7.4 70 3,549 +755 27.0 27 788 -154 -16.3 71 2,287 +249 12.2 28 1,169 -35 -2.9 73.03 638 +181 39.6 29 1,492 -233 -13.5 73.04 517 +319 161.1 30 2,295 - 19 -0.8 73.05 1,117 +609 119.9 31 1,278 +12 0.9 73.06 931 +883 1,840.0 32 975 - 161 - 14.2 73.07 687 +168 32.4 33 799 -90 - 10.1 74.03 1,502 +393 35.4 34.01 1,455 +62 4.5 74.04 1,792 +1,086 153.8 34.02 961 - 16 -1.6 74.05 43 - 21 -32.8 35 1,959 +171 9.6 74.06 1,630 +1 ,181 263.0 36 1,985 - 10 -0.5 74.07 1,373 +530 62.9 37 1,081 - 13 -1.2 74.08 1,686 +687 68.8 38 1,863 -52 -2.7 74.09 491 +109 28.5 39 1,125 -106 -8.6 74.10 29 -6 - 17.1 40 1,222 -120 -8.9 74.11 1,946 +755 63.4 41 530 -321 -37.7 74.14 4,372 +1 ,556 55.3 42 872 -52 -5.6 74.15 2,896 +2,490 613.3 43 1,548 +57 3.8 74.16 1,935 +1 ,778 1,132.5 44 771 -56 -6.8 74.17 2,745 +2,619 2,078.6 45 1,488 +5 0.3 74.18 1,760 +1 ,605 1,035.5 46 984 +145 17.3 74.19 2,143 +1 ,511 239.1 47 815 -3 -0.4 74.20 1,918 +556 40.8 48 2,334 +88 3.9 74.21 3,302 +2,944 822.3 49 2,323 - 1 -0.04 74.22 2,635 +1 ,329 101.8 50 1,905 -196 -9.3 75 4,089 +1,841 81.9 51 1,278 -190 -12.9 Total 146,129 23,669 19.3

35

TABLE 8 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF "ONE-PARENT" HOUSEHOLDS,

BY YMCA BRANCH AREAS

Households with Households with Children and Adult Children and Female

Households Householder but no Householder but no YMCA Branch Total with Children.f!./ Spouse Present Husband Present

Areas Households Number Percent Number Percent12/ Number Percent..9/

Miller Park 11 ,716 5,234 45 1,693 32 1,499 29 North 9,235 4,186 45 2,578 62 2,400 57 Downtown 46,015 12,659 2B 3,301 26 2,891 23 West 40,278 14,716 37 2,801 19 2,457 17 South-southwest 33,178 17,229 52 2,010 12 1,730 10 Remainder of Douglas County 5,707 2,949 52 355 12 291 10 Council Bluffs 20,872 8,387 40 1,959 23 1,744 21

Douglas County 146,129 56,977'<1 39 12,739£/ 22 11 ,269'<1 20 Pottawattamie County 30,803 13,067 42 2,394 18 2,099 16

J!l "Children""" less than 18 years of age

_Q/Percent of households with children

.£1 Figures for branch office areas may not total to Douglas County figure due to suppression.

36

TABLE 9 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF "ONE-PARENT" HOUSEHOLDS

BY CENSUS TRACTS

Households with Households with Children and Adult Children and Female

Census Total Households Householder but Householder but Tracts Households with Children£/ No Spouse Present No Husband Present

Number Number Number Percent_Q/ Number Percent.t!/

2 1,660 650 120 1S 105 16 2.99 0 0 0 - 0 -3 S86 435 208 4S 1S9 43 4 1,036 317 9S 31 S4 27 5 260 93 27 29 23 25 6 791 333 180 54 161 48 7 666 213 131 62 121 57 8 760 356 181 51 163 46 9 422 157 107 68 102 65

10 582 244 18S 77 175 72 11 499 157 122 7S 116 74 12 511 245 210 86 205 84 13.01 248 75 49 65 47 63 13.02 231 85 50 59 43 51 14 121 57 46 S1 45 79 15 196 61 37 61 35 57 16 329 11 4 36 4 36 17 511 16 10 63 7 44 18 464 17 9 53 6 35 19 1,207 113 54 48 41 36 20 1,126 345 114 33 96 28 21 992 262 87 33 73 28 22 584 206 72 35 64 31 23 S52 326 75 23 71 22 24 1,273 3S7 122 32 110 2S 25 954 306 74 24 66 22 26 721 2S6 S6 30 71 25 27 78S 237 62 26 53 22 2S 1,169 369 94 25 S3 22 29 1,492 712 3S1 54 352 49 30 2,295 777 127 16 106 14 31 1,278 429 117 27 107 25 32 975 192 61 32 56 29 33 799 302 94 31 82 27 34.01 1,455 432 119 2S 100 23 34.02 961 358 54 15 43 12 35 1,959 497 46 9 40 s 36 1 ,9S5 543 so 15 67 12 37 1,085 335 39 12 34 10 38 1,863 491 127 26 119 24 39 1,125 273 123 45 111 41 40 1,222 103 44 43 37 36 41 530 22 11 50 10 45 42 872 120 50 42 44 37 43 1,548 137 32 23 27 20 44 771 1S6 33 18 32 17 45 1,488 403 57 14 52 13 46 984 343 53 15 43 13 47 S15 34S 30 9 25 7 48 2,334 461 92 20 S2 18 49 2,323 495 175 35 156 32 50 1,905 345 11S 34 105 30 51 1,278 335 166 50 149 44 52 893 571 457 so 434 76 53 790 384 212 55 194 51 54 1,299 600 275 46 252 42 55 2,237 699 125 18 105 15 56 1 ,76S 536 10S 20 92 1 7 57 1,931 626 166 27 147 23

37

TABLE 9- Continued NUMBER AND PERCENT OF "ONE-PARENT" HOUSEHOLDS

BY CENSUS TRACTS

Households with Households with Children and Adult Children and Female

Census Total Households Householder but Householder but Tracts Households with Ch ildreni!.l No Spouse Present No Husband Present

Number Number Number Percent_Q/ Number Percent.Q/

58 1,851 69a 248 36 226 33 59.a1 96a 492 237 48 214 44 59.a2 1,a57 4B9 276 56 254 52 6a 1,535 68a 33a 49 297 44 61.a1 9as 591 275 47 254 43 61.a2 1,5Sa sa4 241 3a zas 26 62.a1 22a 62 15 24 12 19 62.a2 1,685 746 172 23 152 za 63 3.432 1,549 512 33 464 3a 64 2,165 779 159 za 138 18 65.a1 2,546 1 ,a21 98 1a 85 8 65.a2 1,592 91a 154 17 131 14 66.a1 3,a13 891 161 18 139 16 66.a2 2,12a 5a2 11a 22 95 19 67.a1 1,45a 4a8 46 11 4a 1a 67.a2 1,997 618 7a 11 56 9 68.a1 2,153 694 86 12 73 11 68.a2 1,257 568 53 9 43 8 69.a1 1,965 1,a31 145 14 121 12 69.a2 2,531 1,239 115 9 1a2 8 7a 3,549 1,186 216 18 181 15 71 2,287 1,1a5 168 15 136 12 73.a3 638 288 17 6 7 2 73.a4 517 235 1a 4 7 3 73.a5 1 ,117 589 89 15 7a 12 73.a6 931 422 95 23 79 19 73.a7 687 358 27 8 24 7 74.a3 1,5a2 537 111 21 1 a1 19 74.a4 1.792 794 65 8 48 6 74.a5 43 14 a - a -74.a6 1 ,63a 956 88 9 7a 7 74.a7 1,373 627 93 15 88 14 74.a8 1,686 958 216 23 206 22 74.a9 491 31a 42 14 34 11 74.10 29 3 1 33 a a 74.11 1,946 919 116 13 102 11 74.14 4,372 1,955 253 13 231 12 74.15 2,896 1,178 zaa 17 170 14 74.16 1,935 1,122 84 7 72 6 74.17 2,745 1.964 78 4 59 3 74.18 1,760 1,3a7 103 8 91 7 74.19 2,143 1,309 157 12 134 1a 74.20 1,918 1 '116 163 15 140 13 74.21 3,302 1,333 220 17 190 14 74.22 2,635 1,041 201 19 174 17 75 4,a89 2,169 233 11 188 9

!!I Children"" less than 18 years of age

REMAINING AREA OF COUNTY

• SOUTH-SOUTHWEST,

MAP 1 YMCA BRANCH AREAS

• Branch Office - Boundaries between

branch areas (based on midpoint distances between offices)

1 2 miles

w co

75

73.07

MAP 2 1980 DOUGLAS COUNTY CENSUS TRACTS

AND OMAHA CITY LIMITS

73.06

73.03

-,~ : 62.01

.• ··1·······-~·6·3::"-t...~ . l;_. . . 4

0

... ··Generalized City Limits

!'--5

, I , ~", 7""1~: ········:::::::·'

74.lti

m I"' n ,__r-;--­~2

j56J_ 60 '-...J 6 j__e 1:1:---ri 58 159.01 159.02 I 7 1 8

57

I

74.05

74.17

i4.06

10 66.01

74.04 174.03 • : 166.02 \ 11

.. .. ....... 15 14 13.02

:... ....... ... 16 17

:. 67.~2 • ••• • 67.01 . ... 43 1 18 46 ~ 40 m \

39 ~

74.07 68.02 68.01 70

74.08 69.02 69.01 ... f-----------1 74.; 0 ...

74.18 ... : : : . .. .. . . ...,.,. ....... ,---,.......~......,~--------! : : : 74.19 74.20 : 74.21 .. 74.22:.. 74.11 : 71

:. ·::::.. .. ...... : ... : .. : : I

. . . .. : .. ) : : .. : : : ....... : ;_------:-1~_.;;2

• • 0

• •• 0 • 0. 0

.. .. : _ :_ •• _._ .. :. .·._ ... ..:______ ____ ;J_H m 1les

... ' . . :

.: .L •

Notes: Census Tract 2.99 is not shown on this map. Census Tract 75 extends to the western edge of Douglas County; its entirety is not shown on this map.

w \!)

MAP 3 POPULATION CHANGE IN DOUGLAS COUNTY,

BY CENSUS TRACT, 1970- 1980

A. Population Gain by Census Tract ........................................... .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' .... ' ........................................... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

........ --.' ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ . .. .. . ....... . ... .. ... .. . ... ..... ········ ........... . ... . .. . . ........................... ······ .......... . .. ... . .............................. ' ................. . .. .. ... ... ... . .. . ... .. ... .. . .. .. . ... ... ......... . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ ' ..... .

. ..... ' .. . - ........ .

• Greater than 5000 • 2501 - 5000 !ii? 1001 - 2500 • .... 501 - 1000

1 - 500

"" 0

MAP 3 POPULATION CHANGE IN DOUGLAS COUNTY,

BY CENSUS TRACT, 1970- 1980

B. Population Loss by Census Tract

.....

. .

. ........... .

1 IIIII Greater than 1500 I. .gr; 1001 - 1500 I H 501 - 1000 I ::: 1- 500

"" f-'

,. ,. MAP 4

·~ . .; ·· .. .;;... ,~::;.·

PERCENT POPULATION CHANGE IN DOUGLAS COUNTY BY CENSUS TRACT, 1970 • 1980

A. Percent Population Gain by Census Tract

1 • 14.9% 15. 24.9%

-·~ 25 . 49.9% • 50.99.9% .100 or more %

..... ; _,, l'

. ··:-!!

""' N

':'; ,,: ··--:. ,·,;-·>-;,·''.~·.· •• , .• c;• t ..,.-,.:;· ,. , .• . ......

MAP4·-- ···-··········· PERCENT POPULATION CHANGE IN DOUGLAS COUNTY

BY CENSUS TRACT, 1970- 1980

B. Percent Population Loss by Census Tract

--: ,. ,~,-- -:~;!;,;1~-.i-•?>.~J';_';;

::: 1 - 14.9% HIT' 15 - 24.9% 1$25 - 49.9% .50- 100%

./ ---~··

... w

·!!':·:· ~--· I

' ' ,t. ·; -''·I

-~~ -·<. 34111 .. ' /,~-· ~:: .,.#-- ._.;f/'

....... .,<..

MAP 5 PERCENT POPULATION CHANGE DUE TO NATURAL INCREASE,

BY CENSUS TRACT, 1970-1980

i- -I 1-

tB

0 ...

::::

•

' ·--1---

10» • '"·""} 5.0 - 9.9%

0.0 • 4.9%

0.0. 4.9%

5.0 - 9.9% \

10.0 • 19.9%

20.0 -100.0%

Loss

Gain

"" ""

"':\·.~· ~;-~> ,:\~' · ... -_. •-. "" '· ·" ., :··~- ,:t.'?i.'f""?· ·cor ,;;_:.:·.J",. ·-..;-...2:;;:·r:'/";-·"!·:il--. ~ .... _ .... • ·~'"" , .. , - ~ .. MAP 6

PERCENT POPULATION CHANGE DUE TO RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY BY CENSUS TRACT, 1970- 1980

A. Percent Population Gain Due to Residential Mobility

r-: ..

::: 1 - 15% i :g:~ 25 - 49.9% ' iii! 50 - 99.9% .100 or more %

I (no census tracts recorded from 15.1 to 24.9 gain)

.... U1

'-·'· -.. ---·.-· ~ ..... . .... ·-"· ...... ~ ~ ... ...._ .~ .. -_,..... .... .,.. .. · . """. :·r:·-;,-"·~·~;::--:;:-.-~-·.· ~.:...,..~,·-:-~--- ,..........._____ -. :-:--'~ ... -. ,-.~-

MAP 6 PERCENT POPULATION CHANGE DUE TO RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY

BY CENSUS TRACT, 1970- 1980 B. Percent Population Loss Due to Residential Mobility

::: 1 - 14.9% H:~ 15 - 24.9% ilil 25 - 49.9% • 50 -100%

,:,~,

... "'

47

--.!,

-o o' q

mcna>cnm 0

oaiaioia5cri l!l .... ., Or"lt)M ... 0 ~

";" 0 "' E <1>

00 00 01!) ~ ~ oow '<tN ... <l: 0 .. :::: * I ....

' ~ 2 ;:) 0 tJ w <l:o ..leo ~en

.~ ;:) ... 0 ' .c ct- :sr tJ c ,...z<l: 0 -a: 2 o..wt- ... <l:zw c

::!:o:J ~ -en 1-z "' <l:w 0..

..Ju <i. ;:)

.,

0..> * Om 0..

~ a: 0 * 2 ::!:

.. ;,

MAP 7 MINORITY POPULATIONS IN DOUGLAS COUNTY,

BY CENSUS TRACT, 1980 ··-·· "'

B. Percent Black j. 80 -100 • 60- 79.9

. Eli 40- 59.9 m~ 20 - 39.9 ::: 10 - 19.9 * 5 - 9.9 - Area of 50.0%

or more

... 0>

... ~

000 !DN~

"li!. ""; ... : •• !!E! :::

:::::::::::::::::.

49

......

50

•• 1"1 "'" .n. ~:!::

'

z~~: ·~~ ~ ( 2:

::l '~ 0

0 (I)

<Co a&! :;:) ... .. 0· '2 ot- !1 0 .!!! ,....z<C :I: -cr:

tl..(/)1- ... <CzCil c

2! :Eo::l ... -(I) .. 1-z D. <Cw ...Jo ci ::l D.> Om D.

~ cr: 0 ~ :E

. : : : : : : : 1: : : : : : : :1: ::

"-r. ...... l::::::::l::::::::c: '----,----'---------,----+ .. -.-.. -. -1 .. ::::::::::: :~ ., : : :• ...

::::::: :~::::::::::: ....... - ..

MAP SA FEMALES AS A

PERCENT OF TOTAL POPULATION,

BY CENSUS TRACT

39% or less 40to 44% == 45to48%

0 49 to 51% ··· 52 to 55% ;;;;; 56% or more

1 2

ic

lJ1

miles f-'

-

MAP 88 FEMALES AGED 5 TO 13 YEARS

AS A PERCENT OF ALL , 5 TO 13 YEAR OLDS

0 39%or less :: 40 to 44%

·::m 45 to 48% mii 49to51% ~ :ss 52 to 55% iii 56% or more

1 2 miles

(ll

IV

MAP 8C FEMALES AGED 14 TO 18 YEARS

AS A PERCENT OF ALL 14 TO 18 YEAR OLDS

' 0 39% or less '::: 40to44%

%!) 45 to 48% m-:: 49 to 51% ::::::. 0 ;;m: 52 to 55 Yo . iii 56% or more

1 2 miles V1

w

D• 'oooolllooo

. " ·::::''Iiiii ::::1:::!

54

N

VI Q)

E

. . ' . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ' ..... . . . . . . . ' .. . . . . ' . . . ' . . ' .. ' ..... . ' . . . . . . . '

::::::::::::::: :~~~~~:

...............

. ... ' ... ' ...... '' ................. . . . . . . . . ' .............. ' . . ' ... ' ................. ' .. . ' ..................... ' ..

. ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ........ .

55

N

Ill ,.....!!!

E

............ . . .. ....... . . . . ... ... .. . ..... ...... . ..... ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... .. . ...

. . . . . . . . . . . . ............

: : : : : : : : : : : : :J: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

~~~~ ~~ :~ ~ :~ :J~ ::: ~~ :~ ~=~ ~~ ~~

:::::::::::: :'.' .- ...... t: ..................... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ' .... .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . .

....

:::::::::::::w::::H:::i:::i:::::::::::

' ........... .

• • • • • • • • J • • •

..............

.. .

, : , , : :, ; IHiiHHm

:::::: :;:::::: :::::::::: f: ::s .... -............ ~ .......... . ..... ··~ .. ~ ............... . . ......... .., .............. . . . . . . . . . . . -............. .

• • • • .... • • • + ............... . ................................. ......... ·- .............. . ·-···~·····-·············· . ·-·~ .................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . -........... . ......... ~- ............. . .. .. .... ...... ..... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... -· ............. .

'

················ ................ . . . . .. . .. ... . . .. . . ....... .. ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ . .............. . ...............

MAP 9C PERSONS AGE

19 TO 34 AS PERCENT OF

TOTAL POPULATION

0 less than 20% :;: 21 to 30% mm 31 to40% ll1ft More than 40%

1 2 miles

U'\ 0'>

57

N

Ill Cll ..... E

-- ...... - ............... . -....... ---.- ... -

-...... -.-- -· .. . . . .. . . . . .. . - ... . . . . - ....... .

. . . . . . . . . ---, ·:::::::::::~

...... -...... ' .......... ·t::: -- ....... - .. - ...... ' .... .

::::::::::::::::::::: ••• ,!• •••••.•

. . - . . . . . . . . - ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MAP 9E PERSONS AGE

45 TO 64 AS PERCENT OF

.TOTAL POPULATION

· P. 0 to5% :::6to10% Hi 11 to 15% gm 16 to 2o% ifiiii21 to 25% .26to 30%

1 2 miles

U1 co

·:"(':··· -:"'!i"' ->::.- - - ·- • • ~'"".,..-""'"il.~ ,., .. _,. ... _,_ -~ Mjiji 1 0 .......... , -·---:-~;..............,~~7 -.- --p .. '\. ~-,...~:_·-4~..,-"""' .... ~.+:.y-.-: ...

HOUSEHOLD CHANGE IN OOUGLAS. COUNTcV .. BY CENSUS TRACT,

1970-1980

A. Percent Population Gain

:!:\::,::[:::::~mmm";;,,,,,,,;"'"'""";;;;f;;;,,,,,

I . * Less than 1% change

I :;: 1-19.9% "= 20 A9 9°' I ~~'!:l' -. . '" I····· 50999"' ; :::::. - • lO

, 1100-999.9% I 1,000 or more%

- 1 2 miles

U1

""

, " ,'

----- -· ------. .. -·-. MAP 10

HOUSEHOLD CHANGE IN DOUGLAS COUNTY '­BY CENSUS TRACT,

1970,1980

B. Percent Household Loss

* Less than 1% change ::: 14.9% HW 5-9.9% i§f: 10-19.9%

'12049.9% · 50 or more%

l 2 miles

"' 0

. . . . . . ~- .... . . . . . ... . . . . .

············ ...... ······

.............. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . ' .............. . .. . .. . ........... . ::::: .::::·. ·:: :::::: ~---------.--__J

............

............

............. : : : : : : : : : : : : : f-------------------

.. _, .... ·,, , .. ·

................ . ....... ...... .. .

~: ~ ~ !,SiliJJJ ~~: ~ ~::

. . f ....... I .... . . . . ............ . . . . ............. . . . . ....... •· .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. ::::::::::::: : ......... ~ ...... .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. .

................... . . . .. ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................

4~.. ~~-:: · .. :· .

/MAP 11A . "ONE PARENT

/ HOUSEHOLDS" (HOUSEHOLDS WITH

. CHILDREN AND ADULT HOUSEHOLDER BUT NO

SPOUSE PRESENT), AS A PERCENT OF ALL HOUSEHOLDS

\ WITH CHILDREN, . BY CENSUS TRACT

O.oto10% ::: 11 to20"~

· HH 21 to 30% Em 31 to 50% 11;;.; 51 to 75% Ill 76 to 1 00%

1 2 miles

"' f-'

"''·"'"

········0:::::::-j::::::::'""""'"''' -·····--······-....... .

..............

,_. ·: T::::::::::H d:: ::: ·: .... · · t;; ;:; :::::::::::::: ··· ...... - ... -.- ...... .

. . : : : : : : : : : : : 1: : : : : : : : : : : : : t : : : : : : : !: : : : : : : :I: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : -"

MAP 118 . "ONE PARENT

HOUSEHOLDS WITH FEMALE HOUSEHOLDER"

(HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN AND FEMALE HOUSEHOLDER BUT NO

HUSBAND PRESENT), AS A PERCENT OF ALL HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN,

BY CENSUS TRACT

P. 0 to 10% ::: 11 to 20% ::m 21 to 30% !i!l' 31 to 500,(. !iii,~ 51 to 75% !176 to 1 000,(.

1 2 miles

"' N