TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW VOL. XL IV, N 0. 7' JULY 1970 
Editor, Stanley A. Arbingast; Associate Editor, Robert H. Ryan; Managing Editor, Graham Blacksi!ock 
Editorial Board: Stanley A. Arbingast, Chairman; John R. Williamson; Joe H. Jones; Graham Blackstock. 
CONTENTS 
ARTICLES 

165: 	THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS, by Robert B. Williamson 
168: 	TEXAS IN THE SEVENTIES: 5. DEMOCRATIC FULFILL­MENT THROUGH EDUCATION-PART ONE: AN EDU­CATED CITIZENRY, by Graham Blackstock 
176: 	CONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS, by Stanley A. Arbingast 
178: 	SOME COMMENTS ON THE PRELIMINARY 1970 CENSUS DATA, by Stanley A. Arbingast 
TABLES 

166: 	
SELECTED BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS 

166: 	
BUSINESS-ACTIVITY INDEXES FOR 20 SELECTED CITIES 



169: 	ENROLLMENT IN TEXAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
170: 	ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS, TEXAS PUBLIC AND PRI­VATE INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION 

175: 	
COLLEGE-GOING RATES FOR SELECTED COUNTIES BEFORE AND AFTER THE OPENING OF A PUBLIC J UNIOR 

COLLEGE 	WITHIN THE COUNTY 


175: 	
ENROLLMENT IN VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL PROGRAMS, TEXAS PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES 



176: 	MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS AUTHORIZED IN SE­LECTED STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS, JANUARY-MAY 1970 AND 1965 
177: 	ESTIMATED VALUES OF BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS 
180: 	LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS 
BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS (inside back cover) 

CHARTS 
165: 	ESTIMATED PERSONAL INCOME, TEXAS 
167: 	INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION-DURABLE MANUFACTURES, 
TEXAS 

169: 	DISTRIBUTION OF TEXAS SCHOOL-AGE POPULATION-­METROPOLITAN AND NONMETREPOLITAN 

169 : 	PROJECTED PUBLIC-SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS 
177: 	TOTAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED, TEXAS 
177 : 	RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED, TEXAS 
177: 	NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED, TEXAS 
MAP 
179: 	TEXAS COUNTIES: POPULATION CHANGE, 1960-1970 

Stockton; Francis B. May; Robert H. Ryan; Robert B. 
BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH 
Directo1·: Stanley A. Arbingast Special Research Associate: Joe H. Jones A ss·istant to the Director: Florence Escott Stati1;tician: John R. Stockton Consulting Statistician: Francis B. May Systems Analysts: Dennis W. Cooper, Richard Scamell Cooperating Faculty: Charles T. Clark, Lawrence L. 
Crum, William T. Hold, Jerry Todd, Ernest W. Walker, Robert B. Williamson Administrative A ssistant: Margaret Robb 
Research Associates: Graham Blackstock, Willetta De­ment, Margaret Fielder, Carolyn Greene, Ida M. Lam­beth, Robert M. Lockwood, Robert H. Ryan, Lamar Smith, Charles P. Zlatkovich 
Statistical Associate: Mildred Anderson 
Statistical Assistants : Constance Cooledge, Glenda Riley Statistical Technicians: Kay Davis, Lydia Gorena 
Computer Assistants : Richard Bernstein, Charles Jordan, 
David King Cartographers: Penelope Lewis, James Weiler Librarian: Merle Danz 
Administrative Secretary : Jeanette Pryor 
Administrative Clerk: Nita Teeters 
Senior Secretary : Susan Murphy Senior Clerk Typist : Deborah Frishman, Stella Saxon Senior Clerk: Salvador B. Macias 
Clerks: Edward Hildebrandt, Karen Schmidt Offset Pres.~ Operators: Robert Dorsett, Daniel P. Rosas 
COVER DESIGN BY CHARLOTTE HAGE 
Published monthly by the Bureau of Business Research, Graduate School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712. Second-class postage paid at Austin, Texas. Content of this pub­lication is not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely, but acknowl­edgment of source will be appreciated. The views expressed by authors 
are not necessarily those of the Bureau of Business Research. Subscrip­
tion, $4.00 a year: individual copies 35 cents. 

The Bureau of Business Research is a member of the Associated University Bureaus of Business and Economic Research. 
THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS 
Robert B. Williamson 
The pace of economic acti\·ity continued to slow do\1·n in Texas and the nation during :\lay and early June. with no conYincing signs of an immediate upturn. 
Texas personal income in :\Iay showed one of its sharpest declines in recent years. Detailed information on national income payments suggests that the estimated 3-percent seasonally adjusted decline in state income from ..\pril to :\Iay was something more than just a random estimation error. The change may h:we been partly ran­dom, but only in the sense that it can be partial!~· ex­plained by special nonrecurring circumstances. Xational personal income has registered a pattern of changes o\·er the past few months similar to that for the state-a sizeable increase in April o\·er the len'l of the first quarter and then a do\1·nward adjustment in :Ila~-. Large lump payments in ..\pril for retroacti,·e increases in social-security benefits and federal-goYernment salaries were largely responsible for these changes at the national le,·el. Were it not for these special payments the na­tional income totals would ha,·e changed little from :\larch through :IIay. The Texas personal-income figures un­doubtedly were influenced significant!~· by these special payments too, but the Texas income drop in :\lay \l"aS relatil-ely sharper and the state·s year-to-year growth of income for the first Ii.Ye months of 1070. at 7 per­cent, was slower than the national g-ro1,·th rate of nearl~­8 percent. 
Texas bank debits, another indicator of general eco­nomic acti\·ity and a series used in c'stimating Texas personal income, also registered a lari;:e seasonally adjusted decline in :\lay. The decrease fro1:1 April "·as G perc«nt. in rnntrast to a national dt•crease in bank debits of only l pprcent. For the first tin• months of 197ll Texas debits sho\\'ed a ~«'ar-to-year gro\\'th rate oi ~) percent. while tlw ccnTesponding national gro1\ih rate was 11 pprcent. 
Industrial production in Texas. after haYing stood on a plateau since January. edged do\nl\rnrd in :\Iay led by dc>creases in durabk-goods manufacturing. It appears that industries producing militar,· aircraft. spacecraft components. and electronics equipment for the defense and space program;; account fo1· a major share of the softness in Texa;; industrial production during the past few months. Tlw national total of industrial output, 5easonally adjusted. also declined during :\Ia,-, to con­tinue the general!~· moderatt> hut persistent downtrend "·hich has been under\\'ay since last summe1·. Capital equipment and building materials account for a major share of the recent declines in national output. Consumer­goods production has hern rising throughout the nation during the past fe11· months. led by upturns in automobile and appliances production. 
Crude-oil prnduction has been a supporting factor in Texas industrial production this year. The seasonal!,· adjusted index of Texas crndc-oil output rose :3 percent in :\Iay and awraged 12 percent higher than a year earlier during the fi.rst fi.,·e months of the year-a gro\1ih rate double that of total industrial production in Texas and more than double that of total minerals production in the nation. :\Iearnl"l1ile. crnde-oil runs to st.ills, an indicator of oil refining and other processing actiYity, han• not sho\\·n an,· gro\\·th thus far this year and in 

ESTIMATED PERSONAL INCOME, TEXAS 
Index Adjuated for Seaaonal Variation -1957-1959= 100 



SOURCE: Quarterly measures ofTexas personal income made by the Office of Business Economics. U.S. Department ofCommerce. Monthly altocauons of quarterly measures. and estimates of most recent months. made by the Bureau of Business Research with regression relationships of time. bank debits. and manufacturing employment. 
16'1
Jl"LY 1970 May were down slightly on a seasonally adjusted basis. The strong growth in Texas crude-oil production was scheduled to be curtailed in June and July, however, because of cuts by the Texas Railroad Commission in maximum permitted production. Future demands for production will be weakened not only by any continuation of the general economic slowdo·wn but also by some re­cently announced increases in oil-import authorizations, which will be supplied mainly from Canada and Venezu­ela. 

The likelihood of further general reductions in indus­trial production is suggested by recent trends in inven­tories and new orders relative to sales and producers' plans. Available national data reveal that manufacturers' inventories rose sharply in April while sales were falling. The rate of inventory accumulation was well above that which surveys show was intended by the manufacturers. Meanwhile, new orders to manufacturers have been run­ning behind current sales, with the result that backlogs of orders have been shrinking. Excessive inventory ac­cumulation and shrinking backlogs generally can be ex­pected to lead to cutbacks in production. 
Building activity, like oil production, has been a major supporting factor in the Texas economy thus far during 1970. Although the value of Texas urban building author­izations was less during the first five months of 1970 than in the same period a year ago, the monthly trend has been upward since February. The nonresidential building trend in the state is expected to receive fur­ther encouragement later in the year from the antici­pated authorizations of some major office buildings which are already in the planning stage. On the other hand, 
SELECTED BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS !Indexes-Adjusted for seasonal variation-1957-1959=100) 
Percent change 
Year-to­date Year-to­average date May 1970 1970 May April average fl'om from Index 1970 1970 1970 April 1970 1969 
Estimated personal 
income . 215.5* 222.4* 219.7 -3 
Crude-petroleum 

production .......125.7• 122.5* 121.9 12 Crude-oil runs to stills .. 136.4 137.3 132.0 -1 Total electric-power 
use . 256.9" 256.8* 254.6 
Industrial electric~power 
use 228.3* 235.6* 231.7 -3 Bank debits .287.0 304.8 295.6 -6 Urban building permits issued . . . 206.2 181.0 179.9 14 -9 New residential .. . ...156.5 134.6 131.3 16 -20 New nonresidential .... 298.5 256.0 261.5 17 Total industrial production ............ 175.5* 180.6* 179.4 -1 Total nonfarm employment 151.0* 150.7'* 150.2 Manufacturing employment . .. .. .... . 152.6* 153.6* 154.4 --1 Total unemployment 97.7 84.8 82.4 15 26 Insured unemployment 68.2 66.7 63.4 2 
52 
Average weekly earnings.­manufacturing ... . .... 149.3* 150.0* ·149.0 •• 5· Average weekly hours-manufacturing 99.0* 99.5
99.6" -1 -2 
" Preliminary. 
** Change is less than one half of 1 percent. 

the national trend of business spending for new plant and equipment appears to be weakening. To the extent that this development influences nonresidential construc­tion demands within Texas, it should serve to slow the growth of nonresidential building authorizations in the state from the high 20-percent growth rate recorded in 1969, even if it does not cause an actual decline in these authorizations. 
The federal government's latest national survey of business capital-spending plans for 1970, released in June, revealed that plans have been scaled back to a 7.8-percent increase over 1969 spending. This is down from an antici­pated increase of 10.6 percent reported three months earlier and an actual growth rate of 11.5 percent dur­ing 1969. Even this latest projection may be high in view of current declines in sales and profits and the low rates of plant utilization. Seasonally adjusted na­tional totals of corporate profits have decreased each quarter since the first quarter of 1969, and the latest available data for the first quarter of 1970 show an acceleration of the decline. Manufacturers throughout the nation are currently using less than 80 percent of their production capacity, the lowest rate since 1961, and they already have made cutbacks in their capital appropri­ations and new orders for machinery which will be re­
flected in future surveys of capital-spending plans. Cap­ital appropriations by oil companies, utilities, and trans­portation companies also indicate a further retrench­ment in capital-spending plans. 
Residential construction, although depressed in com­parison with year-earlier levels, has contributed to the monthly gains in Texas building authorizations during the first part of 1970 and is a sector which is expected to gain strength as the year progresses. The main pro­pelling force behind the expected rise in homebuilding is the large backlog of housing needs. The principal uncertainties surrounding the outlook for homebuilding 
BUSINESS-ACTIVITY INDEXES FOR 20 SELECTED TEXAS CITIES (Adjusted for seasonal variation-1957-1939=100) 
Percent change 
Year-to­
date  
Index  May• 1970  April' 1970  Year-to­date average 1970  May 1970 from April 1970  average 1970 from 1969  
Abilene  ... . . 136.8  148.8  139.6  -8  -1  
Amarillo  ...... . . 186.9  205.4  202.2  -9  7  
Austin  ... ... 338.2.  334.2  336.6  1  -6  
Beaumont  . .........169.5  198.4  181.7  -15  -6  
Corpus Christi  .. 158.1  160.7  161.2  -2  
Corsicana  .. 155.4  182.3  163.9  -15  
Dallas  .. 302.9  333.9  324.6  -9  
El  Paso  .... . ... 141.1  163.5  153.5  -14  
Fort  Worth  196.8  194.9  185.6  
Galveston  .. 122. 7  130.4  132.1  -6  
Houston  . 265.8  281.6  211.a  -6  
Laredo  . 224.8  273.6  249.0  -18  
Lubbock  ........ . . 157 .7  181.()  157.7  -13  -6  
Port  Arthur  . . .... . . 111.2  121.8  117.9  -9  
San Angelo  . .. 165.4  180.7  173.3  -8  
San Antonio  200.8  220.1  211.4  -9  
Texarkana  . . 199.3  228.3  213.1  -13  -15  
Tyler  ......167.0  179.9  174.8  -­7  -2  
Waco  .. 194.4  207.8  196.6  -6  
Wichita Falls  122.0  138.4  127.7  -12  -9  
• Preliminary.  
'  Revised.  

TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

are ( 1) how seriously will the federal government's deficits (which had not been anticipated earlier in the year) affect mortgage-credit supplies, (2) how large will be the actual scope of promised government programs to channel funds into residential mortgages, and (3) how willing will be consumers to commit themseh·es to new home purchases in the face of signs of a continued weak­ening of the general economy. Based on past cyclical patterns of homebuilding influences in relation to broad economic and political developments, it is expected that credit supplies and consumer incomes and confidence will be adequate to support a general uptrend in Texas and national homebuilding during the remainder of the 
year. 
Government and Federal Resern policies at present are moderately expansive. The Federal Reserve has per­mitted the money supply to expand at an average 5.5 percent annual rate in the first five months of 1970 after holding the supply practically le,·el during the last half of 1969. The federal government's budget, accord­ing to official estimates, will show deficits of $1.8 billion for the fiscal year entling June 30 and $1.3 billion for the year starting July 1. This is in contrast to pre,·ious official forecasts of surpluses for these periods and an actual surplus of $3.2 billion in fiscal year 1969. The deficits tend to stimulate general economic activity, al­though they in themseh·es tend •o tighten credit sup­plies and thereby slow residential construction and other acti,·ities heavily dependent upon credit availability. l'n­official forecasts of the go,·ernment's budget balance for the fiscal year beginning July 1 range from a larger deficit of $4.5 billion or more for the year to a fore­cast of steady improvement in rennues relatiYe to spend­ing to bring the balance up to a sizeable surplus in the 
spring of 1971. 
The slowing of growth for many indicators of Texas business acti,·ity has been accompanied by a slight slow­ing in the growth of Texas nonagricultural employment. During the first fi\·e months of 19i0 Texas nonfarm em­ployment grew 4 percent from a year earlier, or only slightly less than the 5-percent gro\\·th recorded during 1969. The seasonally adjusted employment increase in '.\lay was at a still slower pace, however, and the season­ally adjusted level of unemployment increased 15 per­cent in :\lay and averaged 26 percent higher than a year earlier during the first fi,-e months of the year. Despite these adverse trends, the a\·erage unemployment rate in the major labor markets of Texas in }lay was only 3.3 percent, which is significantly less than the comparable seasonally unadjusted rate of 4.1 percent for the nation as a whole. }Ianufacturing has accounted for much of the slowdown in employment gro\\ih in Texas this year. 
Retail sales have reflected a greater slowing of gro\\ih than ha,·e personal-income totals in Texas and the nation, according to available information. For the January­April period gonrnment estimates show that year-to­year growth of retail sales averaged 3 percent for both Texas and the nation, or less than one half the growth rates for personal income. Durable-goods stores reported much smaller gains than did sellers of nondurable goods. Weekly department-store sales data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas indicate that the grO\\ih rate of Texas retail sales during }fay and early June made no 
JULY 19i0 
significant improvement, if any. Government estimates of national retail sales also indicate a continuation of the 3-percent year-to-year gro\\·th rate during }lay. Pre­liminary figures for the first half of June show that the growth rate fell to only 1 percent. One important category of retail sales has begun to register improw­ment, however. From rnid-}Iay to mid-June the season­ally adjusted sales rate for C.S.-made cars rose to the highest le,·el for the year. 
The results of sun·eys of consumer attitudes and buy­ing plans released in late }fay and June portray con­sumers as continuing to be cautious and not planning any significant increases in their purchases of most ma­jor goods. 
Inflation may be finally beginning to slow in the state and the nation. The actual slowing thus far is slight, however, and most analysts have been fooled before dur­ing the past six months by false signs of a slowdown in inflation. The national consumer index rose 0.4 percent in }lay compared \\'ith a 0.6-percent rise the previous month. Helping to slow the increase were price reduc­tions for meats, poultry, and fish. Less detailed consumer price reports for Dallas and Houston for the month of }lay re,·eal a pattern similar to that shown by the na­tional reports. National wholesale price averages during the past fe\\· months indicate an enn greater slowing of prices. Declines in wholesale prices of farm and food products helped to hold the '.\Iay average for all com­modities to only 0.3 percent abow the le\·el of three 
months earlier. Preliminar~· figures for June indicate that wholesale price ad,·ances remained at the moderate pace of the pre,·ious month. In addition, an index of sen­siti,·e prices of raw materials has trended steadily down­ward since February. Furthermore, the a\·erage labor cost per unit of output has le,·eled off since the start of the year. This reflects an impronment in productivity and is an encouraging sign that labor costs are placing less upward pressure on prices. 
For Texas and the nation as a whole the current eco­
nomic picture is one of a general but moderate slow­
down in production, moderate increases in unemployment, 
growing credit supplies, \\·hich are expected to support 
an expansion in the depressed homebuilding industry, 
and evidence of some slowing in the rat€ of inflation. 
_.\. resumption of overall economic gro\\ih without an 
immediate intensification of inflation pressures is gen­
erally expected to occur before the end of the year, but 
trends in leading indicators suggest that major economic 
expansion will not occur until 1971. 
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION 
DURABLE MANUFACTURES, TEXAS 


NOTE: Shaded area• ind1cate peria.d1 of decline o! toa l bu1ine11 •ct-iv1ty in the Uruted S~te1 . SOOaCE: Federal Rt.terve Bank of O.l1a1. 


TEXAS IN 	THE SEVENTIES 


5. DEMOCRATIC FULFILLMENT 	THROUGH EDUCATION PART ONE--AN EDUCATED CITIZENRY 
Graham Blackstock• 
This year's Texas grad will be astounded when he re­visits his alma mater in 1980. The 1970's are a new era in education, a period which will introduce dramatic innovations while adjusting to a dynamically changing society, innovations which will change the physical face of education and will alter its purpose and spirit. Al­though disenchantment with the school system is not new-better education has long been a national obsession -the murmur of discontent has now become a clamor which must be calmed. 
The advances made by technology and other forms of knowledge require more skills and competence in making a living. The avalanche of knowledge accumulating with almost suffocating volume and rapidity means con­stant updating of training for vocational and profession­al workers if their efficiency and competence are to be maintained. The divisive and wracking tensions of our time require higher levels of moral stamina to cope with ruthless competition, war, poverty, racism, inflation and general economic insecurity, crime, the deteriorating quality of the environment, the violation of the majority concept of the democratic process by confrontations, weak­ened American unity, and the general crisis of confidence in the American dream. The schools must develop in their students these needed and ever-changing skills, these competences, and this moral stamina. 
Amidst a continuing turmoil of events and jeopardy of spirit, education during the seventies will quest for '.11eans of saving America, by developing the citizenry mto truly educated individuals. The quest will search for a sy~tem which will provide universally, for all types of children, young folks, and mature adults, an education truly relevant to their needs. The schools must produce social, economic, and human equality for the citizens of America. Texas must provide this new education for Texans. 
<::The author is grateful to numerous t."<lucators for their assistance in the collection of information for this article. Special thankl-;; are due Mr..J · A. Anderson, ch ief <'Onsultant, School Plant Section, and Mr. ~er.ry Barton, <lirector of research, Texas Ed ucation Agency; Dr. E.. lo1se Jones, chief consultant, Instructional Services, and Mr. Don Partridge, director, Division of Special E<lucation, Texas Edu. ~ation Agency; Mr. Ray A. Fowler, deputy commissioner, Coor<linat. 
mg Uoard, Texas 	College and Univernity System: Dr. Clyde c. Col­
Vl'r~, consultant in 	junior-collt•ge administration and prof~ssoi· of e<lu­
~at1onal. administration, Dr. Clark C. Gill, professor of curriculum and 
mstruct'.on, ~nd Dr. Wayne H. Holtzman, <lean, College of Education, 
The U~1v:rs1ty of Texas at Austin. The ri.uthor acknowledges with deep 
ap~reciat1on also the assistance of Mr. Ben McAndrew, re!::icarch as­
socrn.te, _Bureau of 	Business Research, The University of Texas at 
Austin, rn the collection of statistical data. 

Goals for the Seventies--and Problems 
Adequate education for everybody means further de­mocratization of the present system. Texas, conscious of its obligation to Texans, has already made progress in developing adequate educational programs for its citizens. 
Three official bodies have taken major steps forward in the very recent past-the Texas Education Agency, the Texas Governor's Committee on Public School Educa­tion, and the Coordinating Board, Texas College and University System. These three agencies, through sep­arate, though frequently coordinated, exhaustive studies, have reported basic facts relative to the present opera­tion of the education system in Texas, evaluated the re­sponsibilities of Texas education for the decade of the seventies, pointed out inadequacies and inefficiencies in the current system, and suggested reforms and innova­tiqns which would enable Texas educational institutions to produce a truly educated citizenry. 
A staggering and basic fact presented in these various reports is the enormousness of the task ahead. The extension of the educational opportunity to all Texans, regardless of academic or intellectual level and irrespec­tive of age, and the decidedly upward trend of student­age population, especially on the upper levels, throughout the seventies make the problem of numbers of immediate concern. More students require increased facilities and personnel, which require enlarged expenditures. 
A fully democratized educational system means also provision of programs to fit all kinds of needs, so that all citizens can be educated to make a living. It entails, furthermore, a quality education, so that training is rich as well as relevant, preparing individuals to function ef­fectively as human beings. These goals require fluidity and flexibility of planning; greater variety of programs, with opportunity for interrupted but continuing educa­tion, particularly on the secondary and college levels; more sophisticated equipment; better-trained teachers versed in the new techniques; individualized humanized instruction-and additional costs. 
Students as individuals, and as groups of individuals, will present many problems within the coming decade­some repetitive of old and current patterns, some new in form. Activists, dropouts, minorities and otherwise dis­advantaged groups, the huge Texas backlog of under­educated adults-these segments of the potential student population present special problems which must be solved, needs which must be satisfied. 
The new technology, perhaps the greatest cultural force in American society today, must be adapted to the 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW critical needs of education. Automation could effect changes revolutionary in character throughout the most important aspects of education: curriculum, teaching methods and procedures, school-personnel requirements, school plants, school administration and organization, re­lationships between educational institutions and business and industry, and student attitudes and achievement. 

The continuing trend toward urbanization in the Texas economy carries its own peculiar problems and chal­lenges for education, with inevitable innovations and deviations from conventional educational patterns, and with increasing opportunities for satisfying growth in ever-enlarging commitment to the community. 
Most of the ideas which will be explosively influential in the new education of the seventies are not new­except· in their applications and in the extent of their acceptance. The problems, too, existed before the seven­ties, but during the coming decade the rapidly changing world will magnify their importance and increase the urgency of their solutions. 
The New Student Body 
Student Population. Every American a truly edu­cated person. The goal is worthy, but difficult of attain­ment. By 1980 the number of Americans to be made into truly educated persons will be tremendous. 
ENROLLMENT IN TEXAS PL"BLIC SCHOOLS 
Annual High-Annual Ungraded percent school percent Year Grades 1-12 spec. ed. Total change grads change 

1956-1957 through  1968-1969  
195&-57  1,815,509  1,815,509  65,132  
1957-58  1,887,547  8,520  1,896,067  4.4  67,778  4.1  
1958-59  1,960,879  10,519  1,971,398  4.0  71,855  6.0  
1959-60  2,033,409  12,667  2,046,076  3.8  76,500  6.5  
1960-61  2,106,441  14,864  2,121,305  3.7  85,102  11.2  
1961-62  2,184,955  15,231  2,200,186  3.7  '86,518  1.7  
1962-63  2,263,786  18,356  2,282,142  3.7  87,640  1.3  
1963-64  2,343,562  21,420  2,364,982  3.6  97,141  10.8  
1964-65  2,408, 2.8  24,616  2,433,444  2.9  121,759  25.3  
1965-66  2,,465,520  27,870  2,493,390  2.5  121;084  -0.6  
196&-67  2,521,522  32,786  2,954,308  2.4  125,742  3.8  
1967-68  2,578,617•  37,006  2,615,623  2.4  127 ,492  1.4  
1968-69  2,639,769b  41,736  2,682,229  2.5  135,344  6.2  
Estimates 1969-1970 through 1978-1979 


1969-70 2,669,600 50,000 2,719,600 141,100 1970-71 2,691,300 52,700 2,744,000 0.9 148,200 5.0 1971-72 2,690,600 52,000 2,732,600 -0.1 153,200 3.4 1972-73 2,670,900 51,900 2,722,800 -0.7 156,100 1.9 1973-74 2,645,500 51,700 2,697 ,200 -1.0 162,900 
4.4 1974-75 2,612,600 51,200 2,663,800 -1.2 168,000 3.1 1975-76 2,577,500 50,700 2,628,200 -1.3 167 ,800 -0.1 197&-77 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 168,700 0.5 
1977-78 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 172,500 2.3 1978-79 n.a. n.a. n.a-n.a. 173,900 
0.8 
• 	These totals al~ include 369 nongraded students in the first­through the third-grade level. 
b 	These totals also include 724 nongraded students in the first­through the third-grade level. 

n.a. Not available, since births on which estimates are based have not 
occurred. 
Source: Office of Research, Management Information Center, Texas 
Education Agency. 

JULY 1970 
On the elementary and secondary levels the game of catch-up, started as a result of World War II and Korean War population booms, will be played out around 1975. Texas Education Agency officials expect the total en­rollment to stabilize then at about 2.6 million school-age 
(six to seventeen years of age) children, because of a de­clining trend in the birth rate since 1963. 
The i·ising trend of enrollments in Texas public schools from the mid-1950's through 1968-1969 is expected to continue through 1970-1971, after which time estimates by TEA indicate slight decreases through 1975-1976. 
The public-school population will grow more rapidly in metropolitan areas than in nonmetropolitan areas, following a declining rural birthrate and the general movement of Texas population to the cities. Whereas only one half of school-age Texans lived in standard metro­politan statistical areas in 1940, the fraction had grown to more than two thirds by 1960 and is estimated to be about four fifths in 1980. School-age children in the twenty­three Texas SMSA's are expected to increase from 1,642,000 in 1960 to 2,170,000 by 1980, while scholastics in nonurban areas during the samf' twenty years decrf'asf' from 750,000 to 540,000. 
DISTRIBUTION OF TEXAS SCHOOL-AGE POPULATION METROPOLITAN AND NONMETROPOLITAN 
813 

1960 1970 1980 
[jNon metropolitan 
• Metropolitan., SOURCE: Governor'• Commiltee on Public Education, 1968. 
PROJECTED PUBLIC-SCHOOL E:'iROLLME''iTS 
Million•
Million• 
33 
Toul 
2=--se('ond•~-~-------­
___ ----­
Elementary 
OL-~~~,..,.1--:-:-~~-:-::-:-:1:----:::--~~-;-;;-:::--;-;-----;-;:-;;-;;-:;:0

1960-61  1965-66  1970-71  1975-76  1980-81  
School year  Live birtb1  School year  Live birtb1  

1963-64 .............. 239,710

1959-6(1 ................ 253,983 

1964·65 ...............223,584

196~1 ................ 250,603 

1965-66 ............... 209.598

1961·62 ................ 249,936 

1966-67 ............... 204.276 SOt.:RCE: Governor'• CommilU:e on Pub Ii(' Edu('ation, 1968. 
1962-63 ................ 242,278 


The population problem for higher education is dif­ferent. During the seventies colleges and universities will be receiving the flood of students which inundated the elementary and high schools during the sixties. These high-school graduates are estimated to swell enrollments progressively through the seventies, bringing from 1969 to 1980 increases of 131.7 percent for public junior colleges, 17.4 percent for private junior colleges, 43.0 percent for public senior colleges and universities, and 
35.1 percent for private senior colleges and universities -an overall increase in Texas higher-education registra­tions of 64.4 percent. 
The Education Continuum. These enrollments will be swollen further by the manifestations of a new concept which will deeply affect nearly all aspects of education during the coming decade, particularly the nature of the student body-the concept of formal education as a lifelong, continuing process. 
Experience in the schools will begin for very young Texans much earlier in life than it started for their slightly older brothers and sisters. Kindergartens have already been legislated into the Texas public-school system. They are to be gradually introduced for all chil­dren within the next seven years, beginning first with classes for educationally disadvantaged children, to serve as a kind of opportunity equalizer. The Austin Inde­pendent School District, for example, will initiate forty such kindergartens in 1970-1971. 
The determined fight of the seventies to reduce the number of dropouts in the public schools and to lift the educational level of Texas' large number of underedu­cated persons will increase the number of high-school grads, while adding variety to both the character of the student body and the curriculum offerings. 
Increasing acceptance of the idea that every citizen should have two years of college training is resulting in further extension of college, especially junior-college, rolls and further democratization of the college student body. It is highly probable that by the end of the seven­ties compulsory education will be extended through junior college. Whereas in 1800 childhood and youth frequently ended at nine years of age, in 1980 parents will be ac­cepting the idea of the extension of youth to thirty or even thirty-five years, since longer life expectancy will provide sufficient time for a career after thirty, since family incomes will be adequate to this extension of the period of dependency, since national scholarships will provide the needed financial support for those whose parents cannot afford the longer student life. The student population will consist of a much greater mix of genera­tions-including fourteen-and-fifteen-year-old early en­trants, married couples, mothers with grown children thirty-to forty-year-olds updating their training, grand~ parents seeking personal fulfillment. 

The greatly accelerated proliferation of new facts and the wonders of technology bring a new responsibility to educators-the provision of educational opportunity for frequent updating by technical and professional person­nel. In the future, education will become continual re­education. 
Increasing affluence, with its resulting increased leisure, is another factor which will bring larger and larger numbers of mature men and women to the campuses as students. They will be seeking courses in the liberal and fine arts-history, languages, sociology, philosophy, psy­chology, art, drama, music, crafts. Education must meet the needs of these students who will be returning to school in search of the ancient values of education­learning for the joy of learning, for the pursuit of truth and beauty. 
In accommodating to infants and oldsters and all those in between, the education system will considerably expand its enrollments, exactly how much cannot yet be measured. 
Student Quality. The new student is much like the youth of any generation; he is also much unlike his predecessors in the public schools and on the campuses. 
He shares with all young people many traits: eager­ness for life, enthusiasm, love of a good time, energy, idealism, impatience with social ills. He shares with them also the difficult problems that accompany the process of growing up: achieving independence from his parents; developing an understanding of the opposite sex and his standards for sexual relationships; choosing a life­work; maintaining his self-esteem; adjusting to his peers in their various groups, to student life; developing an understanding of himself; adjusting to authority; learn­ing the meaning of friendship; arriving at an evaluation of society without becoming cynical toward it or rejecting it. Like all young people, when he comes of age he must face, and prepare to accept, his inevitable social respon­sibilities-vocational, marital, parental, civic. Students of today solve these problems with varying degrees of success-like preceding generations of students, and! like the student generations of the seventies. 
Today's student, however, in some respects seems a new breed. First of all, he is smarter. The education of­fered him is richer, the present high-school curriculum being far broader, more varied, deeper, than that of 
ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 
TEXAS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION 
1970-1980 

Junior colleges 
Senior colleges and universities 

Public Private Public Private
Year 
Percent 

Percent Percent Percent Total
(fall) 

Students of total Students of total Students of total Students of total Students 
1969~ 1970 1975 1980  96,52:4 113,100 193,500 262,000  24.2 26.3 33.3 37.0  9,145 12,100 13,200 14,200  2.3 2.8 2.3 2.0  227,515 241,400 300,200 345,300  57.1 56.1 51.6 48.8  64,948 63,900 75,000 86,300  16.3 14.8 12.9 12.2  398,132 430,500 581,900 707,800  
• Actual data.  
Source: The  Coordinating  Board,  Texas  College  and  University  System.  
170  TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW  

the best colleges a century-fifty years-ago. Today's student has grown up with rapidly evolving and improv­ing information media. He is better informed than his parents and he has wider and d~per understanding of his world. He has m.ore skills. 
He is different, also, because his world is different. Current tensions and conflicts produce more strain; current injustices provide more causes for the reaction of his idealism; the world is more ripe for change than formerly,· and youth is eager to change it. The fast tempo of that change hastens all social movement, moti­vates more reactions. Youth blames all the wrong he sees on the "Establishment," his name for the genera­tion gap, failing to realize that until the world is per­fect in the eyes of all people the young will always be at odds with their elders. This difference in perspective between generations is inevitable. It will be there in 1980. 
The particular issues which are "eating" students are a mixture of the ancient perennial complaints against the dishonesty, hypocrisy, graft, selfishness, senseless con­formity, intolerance of the existing intellectual, moral, social, and political orders, and evils surfacing more ur­gently in our day as personal and national hazards­the Vietnam War, racism, poverty and the ghettos, en­vironmental pollution, resistance to needed changes in business and social organization. Young people generally oppose the impersonality of contemporary life; they op­pose the sacrifice of humane values to the pursuit of wealth, of conscience to status. They resent particu­larly an educational offering which seems unrelated to today's world, which provides only scant preparation for living in it. With an intense desire for greater close­ness to other people and for modification of the existing order, they are confident of their power to effect such changes. 
At that point the unanimity of youth ceases. The specific conditions to be changed and the degree of change desired, and the means of effecting change, are matters of sharp disagreement from individual to indi­vidual and from group to group. The violent few create, among large segments of the public, distrust for all. In many situations the good resulting from student dis­sent-new ideas, values better adapted to the times, and potential action of worth to society-is dissipated by the wrong resulting from immature perspectives and lack of good judgment and common fairness in protests. 
Texas has been lucky. The ferment in student life here has been neither so generally widespread nor so violent in its manifestations as in some other sections. The commendable restraint and wisdom of administra­tors, faculty, and students during recent campus protests have averted serious trouble. 
Hope for the seventies lies in the reconstruction of education for greater adequacy to student needs and in a clearer knowledge of how students develop and a deeper understanding of their motivations and objectives, of differences in their reactions. Educators are realizing more and more that the best thing to do with students is to study them. Such studies have been set up, with others to follow. Psychologists and psychiatrists participating in these student-personality studies see among young people a universal trend toward emphasis of human values rather than material success. Student activism will be flourishing in 1980, but it will be working for humanistic education in more humane ways. In develop­ing truly educated individuals for the future, schools and colleges \Vill be striving for the fullest possible de­velopment of personality, with emphasis, as a Fort Worth educator put it, on more self-discipline, a greater sense of individual responsibility. 
The Xew Tool: Technology 

The Only Ho]Je for Quality Education. Luckily, ad­vanced technology came along just when the swelling demand for a better education for more and more people, combined with an acute financial crisis threatening dis­aster for the taxpayer, had backed our educational sys­tem against the wall. Nobody wanted to abandon the American democratic dream of ::i. universal education of high quality for every individual, tailored to fit his peculiar needs, but the increasing demands seemed im­possible to meet. Only the expansive capacities of tech­nology gave hope of providing the essentials for the reform of education, which is the most urgent demand in this era of change, in our "technocratic" society. 
To the charge that technology is impersonal and de­humanizing, newly trained educators answer that it is a means rather for greater humanizing of education, the only hope for truly individualized teaching, the only means by which the outdated Jock-step self-contained classroom, which prohibits individual progress at a stu­dent's own pace, could be displaced. Technology is a tool; only the uses to which it is put make it good or bad. The beneficence of its functions in education is boundless. 
Individualized Instruction. The computer has made it possible to put the emphasis on the student as learner, rather than on the teacher as imparter of knowledge. The new stress on learning how to learn, rather than on learning a mass of obsolescent information, is made as students work on projects that meet their individual needs, gathering the information, the drills, the problem solutions from technologically manipulated sources of numerous kinds. 
Basic to the new procedures are learning-resource centers, computerized libraries, knowledge banks, capable of sending out to teaching terminals the information and answers requested by the student and of testing his progress. The communications devices are of varying types and complexity. To the long-familiar radio re­ceivers, phonographs, film projectors, television sets, and tape recorders have been added more intricate and more responsive instruments, many of them small devices de­signed for individual use. Most of the devices are not new; the system is new. The terminals are equipped with screens for closed-circuit TV; video-tape; recording play­back features; dictaphones; overhead projectors; picture­phone communication; tape cassettes; typing keyboards for student communication; sensory-motor aids for blind, deaf, physically handicapped persons; various forms of telecommunication. 
Cornponents of the Technological Systern: Hardware. The elements of educational technological systems are all here. Until recently, devices planned for commercial uses had been made to serve in education, but unsatisfactorily. Now devices specifically designed for use in education are being produced, with many more in various stages 
JULY 1970 
of research and development. The great need is for a dialog between educators and manufacturers, channels of communication between the worlds of education and in­dustry. Ahead lies a long road of study and experiment, research and development, before optimum systems can be produced, systems that will meet educators' needs at reasonable prices, systems educationally effective and 
cost effective. 
This need has produced a new industry, with a new national market estimated at $8 billion by 1975, bigger than the combined markets for textiles, paper, and rub­
ber. It has produced also a new human species, the educator-businessman. 
Two trends in educational technology have developed: the trend toward miniaturization in the production of small, easy-to-move devices, which are modest in cost; the trend toward telecommunication in the production of elaborate instructional TV systems, time-shared computer systems, dial-access audio-visual systems-which in many cases are prohibitive in cost for all but the larger institu­tions. 
The smaller, simpler devices are being utilized more 
generally at first. Manufacturers are adapting to the 
needs of their mainly untrained educator customers by 
converting the more familiar commercial instruments 
to teaching purposes, and by keeping costs relatively 
low. One simple device plays back tapes at variable 
speeds-from 50 to 500 words per minute-to fit varying 
abilities of students, to provide opportunity for speed 
listening, and to provide variations for different grades 
of difficulty in the material. 
Components of the Technological System: Software. 
The most formidable task in adapting technology to the needs of an educational system, or an institution, which aims to fit the curriculum to individual levels of interest, ability, and achievement is the design and programing of computer-oriented materials. Units of subject matter in all areas of study must be branched for all the goals of instruction and presented for use by the students in accordance with their interests and needs. Time for re­search and development will be required. Production of high-quality materials is expensive, one three-hour course in high-school mathematics costing about $500,000. Gifted authors, in short supply, are necessary for development of high-quality materials properly exploiting the capa­bilities of a modern computer. 
Many publishers who foresee a rapidly decreasing need 
for conventional textbooks, are staking out positions in 
the incipient market for the technological software which 
is destined to replace books in large measure. Forward­
looking corporations are acquiring such publishers and 
manufacturers of electronic devices and systems for 
educational uses. 
Prominent examples of such firms are Time Incorpo­
rated, IBM, Appleton-Century-Crofts, McGraw-Hill, 
Xerox, RCA, Raytheon Corporation, Corn Products' sub­
sidiary Mind, Inc. 
Westinghouse Learning Corporation, a subsidiary of 
Westinghouse Electric, produces the Program for Learn­
ing in Accordance with Needs (PLAN). This system pro­
vides for student selection of material in assorted small 
packaged guides, to be used by groups around a study 
table or by individuals in separate carrels. Materials 
havP been prepared in Teaching-Learning Units (TLU's) for numerous courses, including reading, mathematics, spelling, and science. After taking diagnostic tests pro­vided by PLAN, students use tape recorders, film projec­tors, workbooks, and other devices for helping to master material, moving from TLU to TLU as their progress war­rants. Each morning every teacher receives a printout indicating the status of each of her students. Westing­house Learning, perhaps the most broadly and deeply involved corporation in the education business, is de­veloping also Educational Advancement Center, for chil­dren and adults of all ages, with special instruction for specific levels, regardless of age, which will enable individuals on their own to do some catch-up work in various fields. 

Special Implications for Higher Education. The tre­mendous impact of the computer on mankind is mani­fested in its dramatic challenge to higher education, which the Coordinating Board for the Texas College and University System defines as the obligation to prepare graduates of the System for the computer age by train­ing them to meet today's technological needs and to be adaptable to change in order to meet tomorrow's chal­lenges. The Texas Board foresees such a rapidly ex­panding impact of technology on all aspects of human life that it has drawn up a list of overall recommenda­tions relating to technology in Texas higher-education institutions. Among the more important of these criteria are provision of computing facilities for all Texas in­stitutions of higher-education, with a formula for state funding of costs; computer networks among institutions, with direct supplemental funding at the state level; use of computers in instruction; establishment of four distinct levels of instruction in computing for both under­graduate and graduate students-to develop computer faculties and courses, to train computer technicians for industry, to educate students in the use of the computer as a tool in key disciplines, and to provide for all stu­dents an understanding of the impact of computers on society; the training of computer technicians in junior colleges; the establishment of departments of computer science in selected four-year institutions and of doctoral programs in selected major institutions; the use of com­puters in routine administrative functions, such as reg­istrations, grade recording, and payroll, and in the management function; the use of computers in processing data for other educational institutions and state agencies. 
The Coordinating Board recommends the network ap­proach for Texas institutions of higher education, as the most efficient method for providing to all institu­tions adequate computer capability for making generally available the full learning resources of the combined institutions. For the near future the Board envisions in Texas several regional centers favorably comparable to the best university centers in the country, a state­wide system to come after more experience. 
The regional system is exemplified in limited degree by TAGER-TV, a network established by four private col­leges in North Texas: Texas Christian University, in Fort Worth; Southern Methodist University, in Dallas; Southwest Center for Advanced Studies, in Richardson; and the University of Dallas, in Irving. The instruc­tors on the program are faculty members from the participating colleges, whose class presentations come through a hook-up of television and "talk-back" tele-
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

phone communication allowing student questions. The questions and answers and teacher reactions to the ques­tions are heard and seen by all the students in all the classes participating on all the campuses. 
Other colleges in the area benefit from the network as receiving classroom stations: Austin College, in Sher­man; The University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, in Dallas; Bishop College, in Dallas; and Texas Wesleyan, in Fort Worth. 
Closed-circuit TV on four channels-two for class­rooms and two for the SMU Institute of Technology­solves the transportation problems. The cooperative pro­grams are enriched by availability of faculties and facili­ties of the four producing colleges. Course materials are distributed and collected by courier three times weekly, daily during examinations, with a coordinator at each station to take care of homework and tests. 
Through the SMU Institute of Technology graduate­

level courses in engineering and related subjects are 
transmitted to thirty-one in-plant classrooms at eleven 
science-oriented industrial locations. During the fall 1968 
semester 846 persons at Texas Instruments (Dallas) 
and 217 persons at General Dynamics (Fort Worth) were 
enrolled, thus exemplifying the feasibility of cooperative 
industry-college education for students of all ages and : academic level. 
Connection of the libraries in North Texas to the 

network is an exciting possible expansion in the near 
future, making available to a much-increased number of 
persons the special collections and other holdings of 
each library. Teletype connections already exist among 
several libraries. 
Varied Uses for Computers in Education. Although 

the most educationally valuable use of advanced tech­
nology is in the individualization and enrichment of 
instruction, other uses in necessary educational pro­
cedures are immeasurably important. These applications 
of the computer include its use in administrative services; 
in education-management services; in management of 
learning resources and individually prescribed instruc­
tion of all kinds; in storage and retrieval of library 
materials; in enlargement of the problem-solving capacity 
of the computer for instructional purposes. 
Tasks for the Immediate Future. Much remains to 

be done if technology is to be an effective tool in a 
democratic system of education whose difficult goal is 
to provide relevant subject matter universally and at 
a cost which will not bankrupt the nation and impover­
ish the taxpayer. Teachers must be trained in the uses 
and techniques of the new devices and systems; new 
kinds of buildings and facilities, new equipment, new 
communications apparatus must be provided; learning­
resources centers must be established and supplied; pro­
grams must be produced in great variety, range, detail, 
and depth; courses in computer science must be set up. 
The task is demanding. 
The Xew Curriculum 

Relevance. The American people will achieve their political dream of social, economic, and human equality through curriculum changes designed to close the re­cently widening gap between lagging curriculum and social change. With human relations the key to solu-
JULY 1970 
ti?n of the most critical of society's problems, and with students clamoring for subject matter ;eievant to their _need_s in. unders~anding themselves and other people, and m nghtmg social wrongs, the curriculum of the next decade will move, inevitably, toward more em­phasis on social studies, the behavioral sciences com­munity affairs, the multidiscipline approach for 'deeper study of problems, contemporary developments, the world view. Traditional subjects will be de-emphasized unless they serve the new curriculum goals. 
To most of today's students, relevance in the curricu­lum means a humane educational environment where the learner can discover the world and create himself. The problem of what to teach is complicated by the explosion of knowledge, which will be accelerating in geometric progression during future decades. The cur­riculum must be sufficiently flexible-and varied-to al­low for individual choice. Even in chosen fields the emphasis must be less on explicit details of information, more on how to learn. 
The Curriculum Continuum. Next to offering students an educational diet which will nourish their growth as effective human beings, the most important obligation of American education is to provide continuing learning opportunity, from infancy throughout life, a "continuous chain of ventures and adventures,'' through college and into later life. Special facilities will be provided for very young children, probably from two years, and for mature adults, as the student population is expanded downward and upward in a universal learning program. 
This continuum of study will replace the now out­;worn arbitrary and disjointed division of education into segments, which are barriers to individual educatonal progress. It will enable a child to enter school when he is ready, not at a legislated age. Assigned to a team of teachers rather than to a class or grade level, he will be encouraged to utilize the school's total re­sources for developing himself without reference to what other students may be doing, to progress in accordance with his own abilities, interests, and needs. 
The school calendar, also, will become a continuum, with the educational program in operation throughout the year, on a quarterly on trimester basis. Teachers will be employed with deliberate overstaffing, five for a four-teacher team, so that they can be off duty-for vacations, study, travel, or rest-at times they prefer. Student vacations can come at any time and for any length of time agreed upon by student, parents, and teachers. 
On college and university campuses the student will find this same freedom and flexibility. He will go and come-register, take leave for various purposes, re­register-as he and his advisors decide, for study at other universities in this country or abroad, for work, for travel, for vacation. The University of Dallas has opened a new campus in Rome, Italy, where students can come into direct contact with the roots of Western culture, thus becoming the only college in Texas with its own facilities outside the country. 
The Personalized Curriculum. The new curriculum will be highly personalized, and quite different in con­tent and purpose from the old concept of individualized instruction, in which the student was given individual attention in order to help him meet group norms in a set curriculum for all. The personalized curriclum will revise the traditional system of forcing every child to fit a Procrustean standardized curriculum bed, allowing him to build his own bed to fit his own capacities, interests, and needs. The educational aim, from infancy, will be to. help the student, guiding him to a knowledge of himself , an orientation to his world, a sense of self­direction, and a wisP self-confidence resulting from the development of skills in social interaction and in be­haviors for coping with social problems. 
Curriculums today are in confusion. The problem of knowing what today's children will need in the twenty­first century, even during the 1980'8 and 1990's, is baffling when knowledge rapidly becomes obsolescent. A personalized curriculum would reduce this problem, by allowing student options in subject matter and full exploitation of all the school's learning resources. 
Changing Policies and Practices. In our world of change the new curriculum will require the adoption of changed policies and changed educational procedures. No longer will elementary, secondary, and college-level programs be so discrete as in the past. Graduations will become of less importance, along with diplomas and degrees, since it is difficult to graduate from a continuum. The student will be a psychologically dif­ferent kind of person, after seven to twelve years in a "seamless" personalized program, with teacher-team guidance and a background widened and deepened by technological aids. Annual promotions will disappear as progress becomes an advance in direction, not an an­nual hurdle over a standard obstacle. 
Dropouts also will disappear in a personalized pro­gram, where the student will have access to appropriate guidance and learning resources, where his study will be in areas of interest and value to him, where the flow of his curriculum continuum will include the work world, where he can resume his in-school experiences at will and without censure 01· stigma, whe.re his re­turn would be encouraged by the absence of formal class assignments and, in most cases, grades. 
Remedial, or compensatory, courses, such as those usually offered in the summer, will end, as the new personalized curriculum continuum maximizes individual talents, minimizes environmental inequities, helps each learner sustain and build on the assets acquired from his special subculture, and allows each student to ad­vaneP at his own rate and in his own direction. 

The increased flexibility and fluidity of the educa­tional process will result in several significant changes: a noticeable decrease in age homogeneity; gradual elimi­~ation of the grading system; greatly increased pupil mterchange-school to school, district to district, countryt? .c?untry; more commonly experienced off-campus ac­tiv1ties, such as work in the Peace Corps, the Youth Corps, local community projects; vastly increased teach­er exchange; wide use of instructional-systems centers almost essential to the curriculum continuum on highe; levels; general use of computerized instruction and in­formation retrieval; an ever-increasing international flavor, with more foreign travel and study and more foreign students and faculty members on every campus. 
As the concept of the curriculum continuum spreads to the secondary-school level it will work drastic changes in the high schools of Texas. The student accustomed to highly effective personalized instruction throughout the grades must have a smooth transition to similar studies on the higher level. He needs an extension of the flexible ungraded structure, in which he can develop during whatever indefinite period he needs in prepara­tion for his choice of numerous postsecondary programs. 
The relationship between high schools and colleges also will be affected by development of the personalized cur riculum continuum. The concept of secondary schools as preparation for college will yield to the concept of high schools as places of real study. Young people who have been exposed since infancy to the maturing in­fluence of personalized instruction and enriched inde­pendent self-development will be ready for college-level study during high school. The college-bound secondary student will be ready for graduate school. 
Vocational Education and the .Junior College 
The People'.~ College. Tailored to the needs of the com­munity where it is located, the junior college is doing much to further the American ideal of full educational opportunity for every citizen. Its unique promise lies in its ability to open college doors for those who might never even knock at a college door outside the local community. Its low costs, community accessibility, variety of programs, and acceptance of students who could not qualify for a four-year institution help to fulfill for every citizen his right to reach his full potential. 
Its diversified functions make it a serviceable insti­tution for all : two-year college-transfer programs, for those planning to complete senior college; vocational­technical programs, for those desiring preparation for making a living; continuing-education programs, for adults desiring to update their training, enter new vo­cations, enrich their intellectual lives, fill their leisure time; remedial and catch-up programs for students who muffed their high-school opportunities; weekend and night programs, for already employed persons. 

Growth of Community Colleges. The rapid growth of junior colleges throughout the nation, from 1 million students in 1964 to an estimated 3 million in 1980, has amounted to a people's renaissance. More than one third (800) of the total number of higher-education in­stitutions in the United States are junior colleges, with an expected rise to 1,200 by 1980. Texas has followed in this growth, though not so dramatically. Nine pub­lic junior colleges have been established in Texas dur­ing the last five years, five in 1965. Although the past few years have been a period of relatively slow growth in the number of junior colleges (through failure of the voters to authorize the necessary bond issues) two more community colleges have been voted this year­Scurry County Junior College, at Snyder, and Wil­barger County Junior College, at Vernon. It is inevitable that junior colleges will multiply in Texas during the 1970's, because they are better suited than any other educational institution to take care of several potential student groups. The trend toward rapid growth is in­dicated by the Texas Coordinating Board figures for increases over the three-year period 1965-1968 in total expenditures for public junior colleges (including capital outlay) : $38,177,123 in 1965; $81,157,319 in 1966; $97,­
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

624,493 in 1967; and $106,983,918 in 1968. It is likely that by 1980 all teachable persons will have a college to attend, and that most eighteen-, nineteen-, and twenty­year-olds will be attending junior colleges. 
Programs. Junior-college preparation for higher­division undergraduate work at four-year colleges is of high quality. The really significant junior-college pro­grams, however, are in vocational education, which in­cludes both trade and technical courses. A recently com­pleted two-year study by the U.S. Department of Labor reveals that by 1980 the American labor force will ex­
perience a sharp decline in the market for unskilled labor, and that job opportunities in the highly skilled and professional areas of teaching, mathematics, ma­chine operation, and construction, for various reasons, will be drastically curtailed in the 1980's. 
By that time one worker out of 6 will hold a college degree and 7 out of 10 will have a high-school educa­tion. In Texas currently 380 out of 500 eighteen-year­olds receive no college training, 200 do not graduate from high school, of the 120 high-school graduates who enter college 45 do not enter the sophomore year, and a large number of adult Texans are even less well prepared for the coming age of skilled workers. Texas must provide vocational training for its untrained citizens, young and not so young, if its workers are to main-
COLLEGE-GOING RATES FOR SELECTED COUNTIES before and after the Opening of a Public Junior College within the County 
(Public colleges only) 
1965 1967 (Pre-junior college) (Post-junior college) Percent change 
in enrollment 
College-College-in state junior
Public going Public going and senior 
college rate* college rate"" institutions, 

County enrollment (percent) enrollment( percent) 1965-1967 
Bell-Coryell 1,866 13.61 3,643 25.88 95.23 
Dallas 18,044 15.33 25,263 19.59 40.00 
Galveston 3,024 17.07 4,373 24 .00 44.61 
McLennan 891 4.86 2,487 12.87 179.12 
Tarrant 10,510 17.05 14,778 23.30 40.61 

Enrollment as percent of 18-24 age population. 
Source: The Coordinating Board, Texas College and University 
System. 

tain position in the labor force. :Hore and more that training is being transferred from the senior colleges and universities to the institutions which are "naturals" for the task-the junior colleges. 
The junior colleges haw taken the lead in the de­velopment of high-quality programs in engineering tech­nology, architectural drafting, law enforcement, com­mercial art, data processing, retailing, pharmaceutical technology, X-ra~-technology, practical and registered nursing, dental-and medical-laboraton· techniques, of­fice management, cosmetology, auto mechanics, the culin­ary arts, hotel and restaurant management, radio and telephone repair, welding, electronics, chemical technology. Texas junior colleges now offer fiye times as many such courses as were offered five years ago, but as many more are needed. These courses are based on sound general educational principles of the future, being de­signed to teach students to think effectiYely, to express themselves clearly, to function maturely, and to follow a lifelong quest for knowledge. 
JULY 1970 
These people's colleges are student-centered, with faculties of full-fledged teachers-no graduate assistants­concerned with fulfilling the democratic promi~e of giYing everyone a chance to develop his potential, \\'ith counseling programs designed to sah·age dropouts, with modern build­ings and up-to-date equipment making possible a high degree of individualized instruction, \\'ith efficient place­ment offices to fit students and jobs, \\'ith opportunity for enrichment of student and community life through genuine and workable relationships with business, industry, labor, and the professions. 
ENROLLMENT IN YOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL PROGRAMS 
TEXAS PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES 

January 1~. 19i0 

Area 
Male Female Total 

Agriculture 439 17 456 Distribution (busir.ess) l,107 148 
1,25ti 

Home economics 75 75 Health 272 2,852 3,124 Office occupations 1,791 3,352 3,143 Technical 9,340 ~.457 11,797 Trades and industry r.,84 4 6~ Ci,912 SUBTOTAL 18,793 8.969 27,762 
Adults enrolled in short-term vocational preparatory courses 4,23:J Adults enrolled in supplemenhll'Y vocational eourses 17,594 
TOTAL ENROLLMENT 49,569 

Source: Division of Vocational Education. TE"'xas Education Ag-ency. 
By 1980 junior colleges will be \\'idely distributed cen­ters of learning throughout the Vnited States, offering educational opportunity to youth and adults, day and night, all the ~·ear round, \\'ith a junior-college campus in ewry major city. The Tarrant County Junior College System is an example of a Texas system which has already achie\·ed most of these goals for 1980. With empha~is on the te11ninal aspects of junior colleges, it has initiated a ne\\' cooperatfre Partners in Education program, of benefit to students, business, and industry, \\'hich guarantees graduation \\'ith a salable skill, and which is intended to encourage the return of dropouts by offering courses in line with their nonacademic in­terests and by paying for apprentice sen·ices a salary sufficient to keep the student in school. 
During the se\·enties junior colleges \\'ill be a major factor in producing educated, self-supporting citizens. 
(Part Two of thi~ article will appea1· in the .411.<11ud 

TEXAS Bl'SI KESS REYIEW.) 
A BROADER ROLE FOR PCBLIC EDCCATIO:\" 
Responsible citizens, politicians and the. \·ictims . of urban blight alike are com·inced that public .educati?n offers the most promising solutions to the city cns1s. But it is clear that traditional forms and methods ha\·e failed to equip the disadvantaged for constructl\·e citizenship in modern complex societ;-·. That failure has contributed heavily to such cr~c1al problems as delinquency, unemployment, and soarmg \\'elfare costs. 
Gorernol'',, Co111111ittee 011 Public School Education 
175 



CONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 

Stanley A. Arbingast 

The seasonally adjusted index for the value of total construction authorized in Texas communities which re­port building-permit data leaped about 25 points and reached the 206.2 level in '.\fay. This was a 14-percent increase over the April value and a 2-percent increase over that of May 1969. The percentage rise in the index of residential construction for the month was 16 per­cent an<l for nonresidential buildings it was 17 percent. Although these increases are encouraging, it should be recognizPd that inflation of construction costs and land prict•s affect the indexes. It should be noted, too, that the average value of the index of total construction authorized for the Iirst five months of 1970 is still 9 percent below that for the same five months in 1969. 
Residential construction for J anuary through '.\1.ay l!J70 averages at 20 percent below the level for the same period of 1969. Unless an upsurge in authorizations for residential building develops during the remainder of the year the value of new residential construction in Texas may not reach much over $900 million, bringing a drop of about $40 million from 1969 and a decline of over $100 million from 1968. This is not conducive to an opti­mistic outlook for homeseekers in Texas' major cities. Among the standard metropolitan statistical areas only Laredo, Lubbock, Odessa, Sherman-Denison, Waco, and Wichita Falls reported increases in the number of dwel­ling units authorized for the first five months of 1970 over the same period for the preceding year. Largest decreases were in Abilene (-86 percent), Austin (-46 percent), Galveston-Texas City (-46 percent), Houston 
(-48 percent), Midland (-48 percent) , and Texarkana 
(-68 percent) . Corpus Christi was down only 4 percent 
and the Dallas decline was merely 3 percent. Laredo led 
in percentage increase of new one-family units; Odessa 
led in duplexes ; and Lubbock was far out in front in 
the number of new apartment units authorized. 
Most people tend to think of Texas suburban com­
munities as being comprised of one-family residences. 
The accompanying table of multifamily dwelling authori­
zations-exclusive of duplexes-in Dallas, Fort Worth, 
and Houston SMSA's for the first five months of' 1970 
indicates that living in residences for three or more 
families is increasing in popularity in certain Dallas 
and Fort Worth suburbs, especially in Arlington, Hal­
tom City, Denton, Duncanville, Garland, Grand Prairie, 
Irving, Lewisville, Mesquite, and Plano. On the other 
hand, Pasadena is the only Houston suburb which shows 
much activity in apartment building. Data for San An­
tonio are not shown because only one four-plex was 
authorized in a suburb of that city from .January through 
May. 
~he . major reason for the increase of multifamily 
umts m Dallas and Fort Worth suburbs is undoubtedly 
the fact that most manufacturing plants employing large 
numbers of workers are located outside the central cities. 
If t~is trend _to expand the number of multifamily 
dwellmg umts m Dallas and Fort Worth suburbs con­
tinues, in accommodation of tenants who spurn the cen­
tral city, those who operate business, particularly retail 
stores, in the central cities cannot expect to increase their volumes of business to any degree; people like to shop and conduct other business transactions close to their homes. 

Nonresidential construction in the state is holding up better than residential authorizations. The index is up 4 percent for the first five months of the year and is down only a slight amount in comparison with May 1969. This index can be expected to surge upward later this year when anticipated authorizations for several large new office projects in Houston and Dallas are granted. Some of these authorizations are expected to he for multistructure projects. 
Nonresidential construction strength in Texas in com­parison with other states for January through April was highlighted in a recent issue of Engineering News­R ecord, which listed Texas as leading all the states in new investment for government service buildings and for hotels and motels. It was ranked fourth in amount of expenditures for new office buildings and for new 
Ml LTUAMILY DWELLING UNI'.~ ~"GTHORIZED IN SELECTED STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS!t 
January-;\fay 1 70 and 1963 
Values :n ic 
January-May 1970 1965 
Area Value Units Value Units 
Dallas SMSA Dallas ... 22,147,250 3,526 8,778,850 1,847 Suburbs .. .. 30,136,521 3,640 2,559,482 566 
Addison 2,400,000 200 De Soto 640,000 60 Denton 4,114,000 364 802,000 94 Duncanville 2,568,500 248 144,000 28 Frisco 80,000 8 Garland 2,187,753 261 Grand Prairie 2,717,000 318 Hutchins 65,000 8 Irving 7,167,748 833 1,338,482 376 Lancaster 104,000 16 Lewisville 329,810 240 30,000 12 Mesquite 5,325,210 680 99,000 24 Midlothian 22,000 Plano 2,437,500 404 124,000 28 
Fort Worth SMSA Fort Worth 5,472,300 632 2,167,850 321 Suburbs 5,949,500 687 563,520 123 
Arlington 3,709,500 391 217,520 44 Euless 250,000 64 Grapevine 115,000 16 Haltom City 2,060,000 268 Richland Hills 40,000 4 Saginaw 25,000 8 White Settlement 96,000 15 
Houston SMSA Houston ........ . . 40,943, 729 5,235 13,872,342 2,051 Suburbs 7,026,470 627 2,069,770 370 
Alvin azo.ooo 40 Angleton 79,600 16 Baytown 725,000 90 82,770 13 
Cleveland 15,000 Conroe 36,000 4 40,000 Freeport 65,000 14 Katy 47,000 10 Lake Jackson 150,000 16 Pasadena 5,760,470 469 1,693,900 296 Richmond 21,500 South Houston 20,000 40,000 10 
# 	Cities for which multifamily units were not authorized are not shown. Duplexes are excluded. 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

manufacturing plants. These rankings are encouraging during this period of tight money. 
Surprisingly, the year-to-date value of authorizations for additions, alterations, and repairs of Texas homes is down 5 percent for this year from the first fi\·e months of 1969. Some cities report a brisk business in author­izations for remodeling of residences. Data gathered from sources located around the state, howe\'er, do not indi­cate that activity in this important category is wide­spread. Evidently, the decline in the amount of money aYailable for construction has adYersely affected also this segment of building actiYity. Normally, during periods when mortgage money to buy new homes is hard to come by, the value of authorizations for remodeling increases. 
TOTAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED, TEXAS• uo 300 2SO 200 ISO 100 so  uo 300 250 200 150 100 50  

 uo 300 250 200 ISO 100 50  

 *  

 '50 <00 sso 300 250 200 150 100 50  
• £xc:h.1.dNOTE:  •1 addihon1, alteration1, arM:i r epair• ShadC'd are.a• indicate. per1od1 o( dechne of total b1u1ne11 ac:bv1ty 1n the United State•  

JULY 1970 

While the outlook for nonresidential com:truction in the state during the seeond half of 1910 appears bright, the prospect for a continued up\\'ard trE:nd in the index of \'alue of total construction is less promising. RPsi­dential construction i~ the ke>" Pri\·ate housing starts in the l.'nited States and Texas han he<'n running about 20 percent belo\\' 1969 starts, but prrssurE:s for new housing at the national lewl are accelrrating because a larger number of persons than E'\·er before are reach­ing marriageable age. Texas feels the same pressures as those on the nation. 
:\Iost economists concur in the belief that any im­proYement in the rate of new housing starts during the second half of the year "·ill be moderate. Three ad\·erse factors \\'Ork against gro\\'th: mortgage funds are still scarce; the cost of labor is increasing sharply; and prices for materials are rising. On the other hand, if the f!O\\' of prirnte funds into the mortgage market regains some of its former momentum and if federal and state go\'ernment agencies continue to push housing pro­grams effecth·ely, residential acth·ity should pick up by late summer 01· early fall. 
's ID! G HT 
Percent change 
Jan-May May Jan-May 1970 1970 1970 May 1970 from 
from Jan-May Classification (thousands of dollars) April 1970 1969 
ALL PERMITS ..... . 215,459 939,517 12 9 
New construction . 194,764 843,165 14 -9 
Residential 
(housekeepinJ<) rn -o~

tf(\/"\ iti.7 
on...family dwellings 221,747 3 -17 Multipl"'family dwellings 45,631 187,390 38 -24 Nonresidential buildings 97,955 434,02.8 16 Hotels, motels, and 
tourist courts 12,120 20,263 416 53 Amusement buildings 1,206 33,836 -73 242 Churches 3,826 17,712 -46 3 Industrial buildings 8,101 49,044 -39 Garages (commercial and 
private) 2,357 5,776 160 -32 Service stations 497 5,878 -58 -30 Hospitals and 
institutions 29,516 48,077 408 66 Offic"'bank buildings 11,025 92,572 -23 80 Works and utilities 3,063 18,545 -27 -4 Educational buildings 6.216 49,427 -23 -50 Stores and mercantile 
buildings 17,982 81,407 -13 Other buildings and structures 2,046 11,491 -16 -65 Additions, alterations, and repairs 20,695 96,352 -2 
SMSAt vs. NON-SMSAt 
Total SMSA 192,040 827,515 

12 -11 
Central cities 143,42.8 618,152 18 -6 Outside central cities 48,612 209,363 -2 -24 Total non-SMSA 23,419 112,002 14 13 
10,000 to 50,000 population 13,853 58,461 12 Less than 10,000 population 9,566 53,541 17 35 

:t;: Only buildings for which permits were issued within the incol'J)orated area of a city are included. . t Standard metropolitan statistical area as defined m 19&0 Census and 
revised in 1968. 
Source: Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the Bu­
reau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. 

177 
SOME COMMENTS ON THE 
PRELIMINARY 1970 
CENSUS DATA 


Stanley A. Arbingast 
The preliminary 1970 Census count indicates that on April 1 Texas had 10,981,447 people. This number is somewhat below the projection of 11,187,000 for July 1, 1969, and of 11,399,000 for July 1, 1970, published pre­viously by the Bureau of the Census, and it is approximate­ly one million below the projection of 12 million for De­cember 1970 made by the Bureau of Business Research in the mid-1960's.·:· Preliminary figures for many com­munities in the state were far below local expectations; in fact, several cities of substantial size lost population. Final revisions, after a thorough recheck by Census personnel, will probably bring these disappointing figures to a total in excess of 11 million. 
In contrast to some local forecasts, the annual esti­mates made by the Population Research Center and published each spring in the Texas Business Review appear to have been remarkably accurate, in view of the Census counts. Fortunately for the staff of the Center, they have confined their activity to estimating current population and have stayed away from the pre­carious business of forecasting. 
A number of reasons explain why forecasters at state and local levels were too high in their predictions. First and foremost, the decline in the birth rate had a greater effect than was anticipated. Second, the assumption in general use by forecasters that a utility meter con­nection serves an average of from 3.0 to 3.5 persons clearly appears too high. Obviously, many more dwellings are occupied by only one or two persons than was the case when the 1960 Census was taken. T,hird, auto­mation of agriculture, of mineral production and explora­tion, and of manufacturing has proved to be more of a loss factor than was assumed generally. Most counties in which the economy is more dependent on agriculture and mineral production than on other activities show population declines. People leave the farm as agricul­tural procedures are further mechanized. Farms become larger. A loss occurred even in Hale County, for many years one of the leading counties in agricultural in­come in the nation. Declines in mining activity and automation of production facilities in place were the major causes for declines in counties such as Andrews, Crane, Ector, Scurry, and Midland, all of which gained population rapidly in the forties and fifties. Unlike the pine trees of East Texas, minerals are not a re­newable resource. Most astonishing, however, was the decline of almost 3,000 in Jefferson County, where the huge Beaumont-Port Arthur chemical and refining com­plex is located and where impressive amounts of new capital were invested in manufacturing facilities dur­ing the decade of the sixties. 
Forecasters, particularly those working at local levels, have been too optimistic for other reasons. In some 
*The Bureau did no.t assume a decline in the birth rate or shortages of water. 
instances they failed to consider the effects of demoli­tions of dwellings to make way for expressways, parking lots, new commercial structures, and convention and civic centers. In other cases the predictors were overly im­pressed by the substantial rises in the number of em­ployed persons in a community, neglecting to correlate growth in jobs to the expansion in the number of fam­ilies in which the husband and wife are both wage earners. New jobs mean that more money circulates within a community but do not always imply propor­tional immigration into the area. Importantly, some fore­casters failed to take into consideration that, although most Texans claim to abhor commuting to work, many in fact do commute. Some agricultural counties lost fewer people than might have been anticipated, or they gained slightly, because their residents prefer to com­mute to work rather than move to the job site in a nearby county. For example, many employees of The University of Texas at Austin commute from locations as far away as Taylor in Williamson County. Journey-to­work data for Texas to be included in final 1970 Census tabulations will provide some interesting information on commuting-to-the-job trends. 
Other forecasters neglected to remember that college and university students are considered residents of the community where they attend school unless they drive to classes each day from out of the city where the institution is located. All but three counties where state­supported four-year institutions of higher education are located had substantial population gains. Exceptions were Jefferson (Lamar State College of Technology) , Hidalgo 
(Pan American College), and Wichita (Midwestern Uni­
versity) Counties. 
Several significant population-distribution trend·s in Texas worth studying during the seventies can be identi­fied on the map on the facing page. They include: 

1. 
Far more counties served by Interstate Highways 35 (Dallas-Fort Worth to San Antonio) and 45 (Houston to Dallas) gained than lost. This development tends to confirm the forecast that the Dallas and Fort Worth­San Antonio-Houston triangle is where a high proportion of the economic growth in the state will take place during the next few decades. 

2. 
More coastal counties gained than lost. The coastal area is attractive not only to investors in industrial activities but also to the investors in recreational facili­ties. These counties will continue to grow rapidly dur­ing the seventies. 

3. 
Construction of new reservoirs and development of residential, resort, and recreational facilities along shorelines of inland lakes is contributing to growth in several areas, particularly in the Hill Country ·west of Austin and San Antonio, where all counties except Blanco increased in population. 

4. 
Deficiencies in water would seem to be affecting the growth potential of West Texas adversely. The area to the east of Fort Worth and San Antonio contains most of the counties which gained residents; this is the portion of the state which has the most rainfall and! the most dependable water supply. 


5. 
Texans are continuing to crowd into the state's major urban centers-Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Fort Worth, El Paso, and Austin-at the expense of other 


TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

parts of the st3te. Among these six urban arMs ..\ustin had the largest percentage gain-32.3 percent. Three standard metropolitan statistical areas-Houston, Dallas, and Fort Worth-account for almost 40 percent of the population. If the population of the San Antonio S:\ISA is added to that of these three, the total approaches 50 percent. Some suburban communities, such as Pasa­dena in the Houston S:\IS . .\, Ining and Garland in the Dallas SMSA, and Arlington in the Fort Worth S:\IS . .\. a.re now larger than the central cities of some SMSA's­
for example, Odessa, Laredo, San . .\ngelo, :\Iidland. and Tyler. Forecasters for the four largest cities didn't realize that the rate of gro\\'th of their suburbs is out­stripping the gro\\'th rah' of tlw crntral city. Ry J!lSll or 1990 population in thr largPst of tlw central citiPs may eYen decline. 
It is clear that by 1!180 the statisticall,· larger stand­ard metropolitan areas \\'ill haYe much stronger influence on politics, on decision making relati,·e to social prob­lems, and on the economy than they han• had in the past. 




TEXAS COUNTIES 
POPULATION CHANGE 1960-1970 

(PRELIMINARY 1970 CENSUS REPORTS ]• 

JULY 1970 
LOCAL BUSINESS CON DITIONS 

Stal'istical datn compiled by Mildred Anderson, statistical associate, Con.qtan<:e Cooled,qe and Glenda Riley, statistical assistant:;, and Kay /irwig and Lydia. Gorena, statistical technicians. 
The indicators of business conditions in Texas cities which are included in this table are statistics on banking debits, building permits, and employment. 
The cities have been grouped according to standard metropolitan statistical areas. In Texas all twenty-three SMSA's are defined by county Jines; the counties included are listed under Pach SMSA. An area already functioning in many ways as an S'.\1SA, but not yet so designated ofiicially, has been added-the Longview-Kilgore-Glade­water Metropolitan Area. The populations shown for the SM SA's and for the counties are preliminary estimates of the 1970 census. The population shown after the city name is the 1960 Census figure, unless otherwise indicat­
ed. Cities in S'.\lSA's are listed alphabetically under their appropriate SM SA 's; al I other citiPs are listed alpha­betically as main entries. 
Symbols used in this table include: 
(a) 
Separate employment data for the Midland and Odessa S'.\1SA's are not available, since employment figures for Midland and Ector Counties, composing one labor­market area, are recorded in combined form. 

(b) 
Data restricted to Gregg County. 

(p) 
Preliminaary 1970 Bureau of Census estimates. 



(r) 
Estimates officially recognized by Texas Highway Department. 


(§) Since the Texarkana SMSA includes inhabitants of Arkansas, the data given here include the population of both Bowie County, Texas, and Miller County, Arkansas. 
C:"') Change is less than one half of 1 percent. 
(x)  Sherman-Denison  SMSA :  a  new  standard  metro­ 
politan  statistical  area,  for  which  not  all  categories  of  
data  are  now available.  
n.a.  Not available.  

ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF SMS ND ( TIES 
£" S'VJ '

Percent change Percent change 
Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions 
May 1970 May 1970 May 1970 May 1970 M•.lY from from May from from City and item 1970 Apr 1970 May 1%9 City and item 1970 Apr 1970 May 1U69 
ABILEJ'li.I' '; \ AUS l a (.Jc ~e ·•nd 1'· :)I 1 ') 1611 Tr v · p1 I ~89.490 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 652,793 -16 -49 Building permits less federal contracts $16,669,996 79 17 Bank debits (thousands) . s 175,007 ¢0 6 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 739,675 -4 Non farm employment (area). 41,000 :)(':: Nonfarm employment (area) . 127,600 :::::: 
Manufacturing employment (area) 5,475 12 Manufacturing employment (area) 11.775 ¢(':: 15 Percent unemployed (area) 3.2 19 28 Percent unemployed (area) . 1.9 i::.::: 19 
ABILENE (pop. 88,433 I') 
AUSTIN (p-0p. 246,799 P) 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 652,793 16 -49 Building permits less federal contracts $16,669,996 80 17 
Bank debits (thousands) . $ 142,251 6 (':::) Bank debits (thousands). S 839,119 22 8 
-<LU .. :s 
I l , 101 Building permits less federal contracts $ 1,258,457 -37 
-75 Bank debits (thousands) . S 482,946 Duilding permits less federal contracts $ 2,041,964 37 -3~ 
3 10 Nonfarm employment (area) . 63,400 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 495,546 -5 3
4 37
Manufacturing employment (area) ~.~20 Nonfarm employment (area) . 119,800 Percent unemployed (area) . 3.4 Manufacturing employment (area) 38,000 
13 -13 Percent unemployed (area) . 4.6 18 64 
AMARILLO (pop, 123,973 P) 
Building permits less federal contracts S 1,213,957 -39 BEAUMONT (pop. 115,716P) 

-76 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 436,918 77
-7 Building permits less federal contracts $ 1,546,280 49 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 305,545 -l& -12 Canyon (pop. 9,296 ') Building permits less federal contracts S 
44,500 985 -28 
Groves (pop. 18,012 P) 
Bank debits (thousands) . $ 
9,745 14 Building permits less federal contracts $ 158,141 95 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 14,018 7 
For an explanation of symbols see p. 180. 
180 

TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 
Percent change
Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions Percent change 
May 1970 May 1970 May 1970 May 1970
May from from 
May from from
City and item 1970 Apr 1970 May 196~ City and item 1970 Apr 1970 May 1969 
Nederland (pop. 16,647 P) Bishop (pop. 4,180 ')
Bank debits (thousands) \l,802 
Building permits less federal contracts S 10,000 !lank debits (thousands) $ 2,962 19 
ORANGE (pop. 24,112 ") 
Building permits less federal contracts 133,537 -7 83 Bank debits (thousands) . 44,485 -fi CORPUS CHRISTI (pop. 205,548 ") NonfRrm placements 97 -5f) -45 Building permits less federal contracts $ 1,128,669 -59 -69 
Bank debits (thousands) 343,052 -5 -1 
PORT ARTHUR (pop. 56,552 P) 
Huilding permits less federal eontracts s 116,766 11 -88 

Port Aransas (pop. 824) 
Bank llebits (thousands) . 87,223 2 Bank debits (thousands) . l,UOa l fi :l 
Port Neches (pop. 10,611 P) Building permits less federal con tracts s 87 ,240 -22 --26 Robstown (pop. 11,047 ") llank debit.< (thousands). . s 18,060 2 13 Building permits less federal contracts S 162,485 27 64 Bank debits (thousands) . S 12,886 3 1 
BROW.·svILLE-HARLii\GE.·-sA•• BE.. TO SMSA 
(Cameron; pop. 137 ,506 ") 

Sinton (pop. 5,085 ") 
lluilding permits less federal contracts S 485,529 16 42 

Building permits less federal contracts S l ,078,l4f! 
Bank debits (thousands) .. S 145,898 --10 7 

Bank debits (thousands) . S 6,84 I l:l 
Nonfarm employment (area) . 39,900 3 
Manufacturing employment (area) 6,370 13 
Percent unemployed (area) . 6.5 6 DALLAS S:\ISA 
(Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Kaufman and Rockwall; 
pop. 1,539,350 ')

BROWNSVILLE (pop. 51,080 P) 
Building permits less federal contracts ' 63,846,505 l::!
Building permits less federal contracts s 210,600 10 -67 Bank debits (thousands) $ ".377,67G 12Bank debits (thousands) . 51, 181 -14 7 
Nonfarm employment (area) . 727,900 10Nonfarm placements 272 8 -59 l\fanufaeturing employment (area) 164,525 2 
Perc.ent unemployed (area) . Z.:l 67 
HARLINGEN (pop. 34,005 ") 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 161,650 -3 
Bank debits (thousands) . :>6,717 Carrollton (pop. 13,701 P) 
Nonfarm placements 292 13 30 Building permits less federal contracts S 192,911 -86 G2 

Bank debits (thousands) S 9,768 -14 
La Feria (pop. 3,740 ') 
Uuilding permits less federal contracts 7,000 -76 -74

s DALLAS (pop. 836,093 P) 
::':¢
Bank debits (thousands) . s 3,405 9 Building permits less federal contracts f IO,H97,!.147 74 lfi Bank debits (thousands) . S 8,708,298 7 
Los Fresnos (pop. 1,289) 
Bank debits (thousands) . 1,596 li 
Denton (pop. 38,865 ") 
Building permits less federal contracts 704,000 65 -38 

Port Isabel (pop. 3,575) Bank debits (thousands) . 44,571 7 -12 
Huilding permits less fed~rnl contracts 31,300 il20 18 Nonfarm placements 83 -8 -2iJ 
!lank debits (thousands) . 2,386 -15 32 

Ennis (pop. 10,904 P) SAN BE ITO (pop. 14,909 P) 
Building permits less federal contracts 61,100 -49 14
Building permits less federal contracts 75,179 345 306 
Bank: debits (thousands) . 8,252 -19

Bank debits (thousands) . 7,830 -9 
CORPUS CHRISTI S:\ISA Farmers Branch (pop. 27,177 ") (Nueces and San Patricio; pop. 278,410 •) Bank debits (thousands) . $ 18,036 8 44 
Building permits less federal contracts S 1,472,427 52 63 
Bank debits (thousands).. 415,128 2 
Nonfarm employment (area) . 90,900 Garland (pop. 80,659 ") 

¢¢ 
Manufacturing employment {area) 11,650 5 Building permits less federal contracts S 2,305,909 -57 10 Percent unemployed (area) . 4,2. 14 20 Bank debits (thousands) . S 60,906 -9 
Aransas Pass (pop. 6,956) Grand Prairie (pop. 52,409 ") 
Building permits less federal contracts 107,600 67 124 Building permits less federal contracts S 1,485,789 -43 -10
Bank debits (thousands) . . .. $ 7,486 10 -4 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 28,727 -10 -15 
For an explanation of symbols see p, 180. 
JllLY 1970 
Percent change Local Business Conditions Percent change
Local Business Conditions 
May 1970 Ma y 1970 May 1970 May 1970 May from from May from from 
Apr 1970 May 1969 City and item 1970 Apr 1970
City and item 1970 	May 1969 
EL PASO (pop. 317,462 P)
Irving (pop. 97,457 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ 7,416,995 ­
17 337 	Building permits less federal contracts $ 4,988,270 -33 48 Bank debits (thousands). $ 554,241 -4 
3 
Justin (pop. 622) FORT WORTH SMSA Building permits less federal contracts (Johnson and Tarrant; pop. 757,105 P) Bank debits (thousands) . 1,146 Building permits less federal contracts $11,998,317 -35 
-29 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 2,203,657 23 32 Nonfarm employment (area) . 305,200 •• Lancaster (pop. 10,612 1') Manufacturing employment (area) 93,125 « Building permits less federal contrads $ 189,268 -75 69 Percent unemployed (area) . 3.1 11 48 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 8,378 --5 Arlington (pop. 88,385 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ 2,796,180 -29 -GS Lewisville (pop. 3,956) Bank debits (thousands). S 111,733 -1 Building permits less federal contracts $ 1,194,935 22 Bank debits (thousands) $ 11,202 -4 Cleburne (pop. 16,950 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ 648,285 907 384 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 21,349 -6 McKinney (pop. 14,773 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ 393,680 329 100 Euless (pop. 18, 771 P) Bank debits (thousands) . $ 13,015 -22 19 Building permits less federal contracts $ 204,913 -33 21 Nonfarm placements 32 18 79 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 11,251 -23 -17 
FORT WORTH (pop. 388,225 P)
Mesquite (pop. 55,101 P) 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 4,699,63U -34 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 1,698,110 -50 -87 
Bank debits (thousands). $ 1,701,098 7 14 
Bank debits (thousands) . $ 21,269 -13 -3 Grapevine (pop. 4,659 ') Midlothian (pop. 1,580 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 131,604 38 --25 Building permits less federal contracts 8,000 60 -81 
Bank debits (thousands) $ 7,633 
Bank debits (thousands) . 1,982 13 
North Richland Hills (pop. 16,365 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ 154,900 lri -42
Pilot Point (pop. 1,603 ') 
Bank debits (thousands). $ 16,539 14 Building permits less federal contracts $ 
Bank debits (thousands) . $ 
2,386 -9 -11 White Settlement (pop. 11,513) Building permits less federal contracts $ 36,308 -87 --84 Plano (pop. 17,600 P) Building permits less federal contracts 2.871.594 102 354 
GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA (Galveston; pop. 165,669 P)
Richardson (pop. 47,596 P) 	-85
Building permits less federal contracts $ 692,505 -47 Building permi'ts less federal contracts $ 1,181,897 20 12
Bank debits (thousands) $ 228,161 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 50,667 
-2 17 Nonfarm employment (area) 66,000 17 Manufacturing employment (area) 12,000 13 Percent unemployed (area) . 4.2 31 --19 
Seagoville (pop. 4,253 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ 97,032 -52 577 Dickinson (pop. 4,715) Dank debits (thousands) . $ 8,640 24 Bank debits (thousands) . 13,405 -5 
GALVESTON (pop. 60,714 P) Terrell (pop. 13,985 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ 349,655 -58 -90 Bank debits (thousands) . 16,821 12 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 132,691 -6 
La Marque (pop. 15,984 P) 
Waxahachie (pop. 13,147 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ 43,100 -23 	11 25
Building permits less federal contracts $ 40,000 -94 -49 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 18,653 -6 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 16,347 Nonfarm placements -2 TEXAS CITY (pop. 38,393 P)
58 14 -43 
-71
Building permits less federal contracts $ 299,750 -30 
-
Bank debits (thousands) . S 38,833 5 
EL PASO SMSA (El Paso; pop. 347,103 P) HOUSTON SMSA 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 	(Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty, and Montgomery;
4,989,220 -33 -48 
Bank debits (thousands) . . .. $ 
545,953 -7 11 
Nonfarm employment (area) . 115,500 Building permits less federal contracts $iil,!i55,410 13 4~ Manufacturing employment (area) 23,950 2 Bank debits (thousands) $ 8,285,531 3 15 Percent unemployed (area). 4.8 41 Nonfarm employment (area) 868,100 8 
Manufacturing employment (area) 147,000 
Percent unemployed 	(area) . 2.4 14 •• 
For an explanation of symbols see p, 180. 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 
Percent change
Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions Percent change 
City and item  May 1970  May 1970 from Apr 1970  May 1970 from May 1969  City and item  May 1970  May 1970 from Apr 1970  May 1970 from May 1969  
Angleton (pop. 9,131) Building permits less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . $ 25,000 16,779  -82 -5  -88 -10  Tomball (pop. 2,707 •) Building permits less federal contracts Bank debits (thousands) .  $ $ 72,500 13,951  - 196 2  - 60 10  
Baytown (pop. 43,606 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . $ Bellaire (pop. 18,978 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . $ 637,945 51,391 45,025 50,226  65 -10 -43 -5  -61 -11 108 2  LAREDO Sl\ISA (Webb; pop. 69,024 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ 2,167,165 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 69,142 Nonfarm employment {area) . 25,000 Manufacturing employment {area) 1,530 Percent unemployed (area) . 9.6  497 -12  - 94 6 1 15 52  
Clute (pop. 4,463 ') Building permits less federal contracts Bank debits (thousands) . Conroe (pop. 10,931 P)  $ $ 91,678 3,863  - 7  36  LAREDO (pop. 65,491 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ 2,167,165 Bank debits {thousands). $ 73,765 Nonfarm placements . . . . . . . . . . . 31&  497 -13 -29  938 4 -23  
Building permits less federal contracts $ 114,000 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 37,285  4 5  -62 41  LONGVIEW-KILGORE-GLADEWATER  
Dayton (pop. 3,367) Building permits less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . $ Deer Park (pop. 12,690 P) Building permits Jess federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . $ 1,375 6,595 292,655 9,909  -89 2 22 -14  - 3 20 12  METROPOLITAN AREA'' (Gregg; pop. 73,510 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . $ Nonfarm employment (area) . Manufacturing employment (area) Percent unemployed (area) . 1,030,150 108,925 35,400 10,045 3.5  -29 -8 .. 21  38 9 35  
Freeport (pop. 11,953 P) Building permits less federal contracts Bank debits (thousands) .  $ $ 21,000 25,048  -55 -7  - 198 4  GLADEWATER (pop. 5,290 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . $ 65,600 5,914  221 -10  70 -14  
HOUSTON (pop. 1,212,928 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ 45,233,331 Bank debits (thousands). $ 7,401,486  9 8  79  KILGORE (pop. 10,500 ') Building permits less federal contracts Bank debits (thousands) .  $ $ 105,050 16,023  -79 -17  -12 -10  
Humble (pop. 1,711) Building permits less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) $ Katy (pop. 1,569) Building permits less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ 91,200 8,559 4,200 4,069  592 -6 -56 -6  -67 25 -90 -29  LONGVIEW (pop. 44,397 P) Building permits less federal contracts Bank debits {thousands) . 859,500 86,988 LUBBOCK SMSA (Lubbock; pop. 175,757 •)  -,  6  - 46 8  
La Porte (pop. 6,152 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . $ Liberty (pop. 6,127) Building permits less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . $ Pasadena (pop. 89,291 P) 3,060 5,613 51,775 12,299 Building permits less federal contracts $ 3,569,219 Bank. debits (thousands) . $ 103,462 Pearland (pop. 1,430) Building permits less federal contracts $ 277 ,000 Bank debits {thousands) . . . $ 6,955 Richmond (pop. 4,500 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ Bank debits {thousands) . . $ Rosenberg (pop. 11,960 P) Building permi1ts less federal contracts $ 66,500 9,180 92,267  -70 27 -21 747 -3 -28 -6 -55 14  -89 13 -20 -20 6 -28 -8 -31 16 -40  Building permits Jess federal contracts $ 3,242,841 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 344,587 Nonfarm employment (area) . 63,300 Manufacturing employment {area) 7,210 Percent unemployed (area) . 5.S LUBBOCK (pop. 146,379 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ 3,242,841 Bank debits {thousands) . $ 296.550 Slaton (pop. 6,568) Building permits less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . $ 5,131 -24 8 -1 -2 43 -23 -10 -11 McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA (Hidalgo; pop. 172,469 •) Building permits less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . . $ Nonfarm employment (area). Manufacturing employment {area) Percent unemployed (area) . 741,558 137,102 45,600 4,680 5.7 11 4  23 3 -2 66 26 -7 -3 -17 5 -3 -10 6  
South Houston (pop. 11,465 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ 27,100 Bank debits (thousands).. $ 13,700  -80  15  Alamo (pop. 4,121) Bank debits (thousands) .  3,292  -11  -14  
For an explanation of symbols see p. 180. JULY 1970  183  


Percent change Local Business Conditions Percent change
Local Business Conditions 
May 1970 May 1970 May 1970 May 1970 May fr0m f:rnm May from from 
City and item 1970 Apr 1970
197() Apr 1970 May 1969 	May 1960City and item 
SAN ANGELO SMSA
Donna (pop. 7,612 ') Building permits less federal contracts 62,300 844 (Tom Green; pop. 70,852 ") 
Bank debits (thousands) . 4,034 -12 19 Building permits less federal contracts $ 379,687 116 -54 Bank debits (thousands) . . . .. ... . . . .. $ 102,155 14 Nonfarm employment (area). 23,900 
8 EDINBURG (pop. 16,748 ") Manufacturing employment (area) 3,940 -2 10 Building permits less federal contracts $ 245,350 12 25 Percent unemployed (area). 3.6 16 24 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 23,922 
8 -3 
Nonfarm placements 290 -8 14 	SAN ANGELO (pop. 63,928 1') Building permits less federal contracts $ 379,687 116 -54 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 100,372 -2 5
Elsa (pop. 3,847) Building permits less federal contracts $ 1,100 -94 77
-
SAN ANTONIO SMSA 
Bank debits (thousands) . $ 3,717 -23 -7 
(Bexar and Guadalupe; pop. 863,669 ") 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 8,173,590 -16 54 
McALLEN (pop. 36,761 1') Bank debits (thousands) . $ 1,398,563 -2 12 
Ilui1ding permits less federal contracts 225,650 -15 -39 Nonfarm employment (area). 291,900 "" 
Bank debits (thousands) . 51,142 -12 -4 Manufacturing employment (area) 34,950 -2 13 
Nonfarm placements Percent unemployed (area) . 4.5 13 22

242 -28 -52 
SAN ANTONIO (pop. 648,189 ") Mercedes (pop. 11,843 ') 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 7,599,663 -18 71Building permits less federal contracts 40,961 -47 161 
Bank debits (thousands) . $ 1,352,118 -6 
Bank debits (thousands) . . . 7,941 12 9 
Schertz (pop. 2,867 ') 
Mission (pop. 12,065 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ 287,875 -22 193 

Building permits less federal contracts $ 79,915 472 216 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 840 10 19 
Bank debits (thousands) . $ 17,069 -10 2 

Seguin (pop. 15,569 ") Building permits less federal contracts $ 166,615 535 28 
PHARR (pop. 15,269 P) Bank debits (thousands) $ 18,925 -11 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 12,800 -44 -93 
Bank debits (thousands) . $ 6,301 -11 -3 SHERMAN-DENISON SMSA x 

(Grayson; pop. 80,847 I>) 
San Juan (pop. 4,371) 

Building permits less federal contracts $ 675,803 10 Bank debits (thousands) $ 87,681 9
Building permits less federal contracts $ 21,825 16 
Bank debits (thousands) . $ 2,889 16 -21 

DENISON (pop. 24,436 P) 
·Building permits less federal contracts $ 90,287 -25 -74 

Weslaco (pop. 14,562 P) Bank debits (thousands) . $ 29,526 -9 4 Building permits less federal contracts 51,657 -38 -41 Nonfarm placements 79 13 -46 Bank debits (thousands) 14,843 -12 6 
SHERMAN (pop. 28,352 ") 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 555,516 147

MIDLAND SMSA 
Bank debits (thousands) . $ 52,087 -10 6 
(Midland; pop. 64,168 ") 
Nonfarm placements 64 68 -59 Building permits less federal contracts $ 644,478 86 17 
Bank debits (thousands) . $ 153,985 4 
TEXARKANA SMSA
Nonfarm employment (area) ". 62,300 
3 (Bowie, Texas, and Miller, Ark.; pop. 100,000 §)
11
Manufacturing employment (area) 5,090 7 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 174,688 -89 -71 3 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 116,731 -7 
Nonfarm employment (area) 40,950 -4 MIDLAND (pop. 58,199 P) Manufacturing employment (area) 11,270 4 -25 Building permits less federal contracts $ 644,478 86 17 Percent unemployed (area) . 6.9 8 130 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 154.721 11 10 Nonfarm placements 733 2 TEXARKANA (pop. 50,006 ') 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 137,688 -91 Percent unemployed (area) " . 3.2 
-76 
-11
Bank debits (thousands). $ 104,365 -5
ODESSA SMSA 
(Ector; pop. 90,132 ") 

TYLER SMSA 
Building permits less federal contracts $. 1,307,919 241 576 
(Smith; pop. 93,081 P)
Bank debits (thousands) $ 127,751 
7 9 88
Nonfarm employment (area) ". 62,300 	Building permits less federal contracts $ 1,138,880 -27
2 Manufacturing employment (area) • 5,090 7 Bank debits (thousands) $ 18~.4ao ¢¢ -1 
t,:¢ 8
Percent unemployed (area) •. 3.2 	Nonfarm employment (area). 40,200
7 3 Manufacturing employment (area) 13,050 ~I 
Percent unemployed (area) . 2.5 
14 
ODESSA (pop. 76,617 ") 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 1,307,919 241 576 TYLER (pop. 56,301 ") 
Bank debits (thousands) . $ 128,&02 -10 -1 .Building permits less federal contracts $ 1,057,880 -31 

77 
Nonfarm placements 494 -23 -48 	Bank debits (thousands) . $ 168,665 -4 -9 
Nonfarm placements 312 43 -14 

For an explanation of symbols see p, 180. 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 
P ercent change

Local Business Conditions 	Local Business Conditions Percent change 
May 1970 May 197(• May 1970 May 197~May frO!'U from May from from City and item 1970 Apr 1970 May 1969 City and item 1970 Apr 1970 May 1969 
WACO Sl\ISA WICHITA FALLS Sl\ISA (:.IcLennan ; pop. 142,772 ") (Archer and Wichita; pop. 124,238 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ 617,529 66 Building permits less federal contracts $ 6,749,942 0 285 
Bank debits (thousands) $ 184,756 6 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 242,989 8 9 
Nonfarm employment (area) . 47,900 -4 :-lonfarm employment (area) . 59,700 2 
Manufacturing employment (area) 5,380 7 Manufacturing employment (area) 12,380 
Percent unemployed (area) s.o 11 43 Percent unemployed (area) 4.1 2 
Burkburnett (pop. 7,621) Building permits less federal contracts $ 28,399 -75 
McGregor (pop. 4,642) Building permits less federal contracts $ 0 Iowa Park (pop. 5,152 ') BRnk debits (t housands) $ 4,502 7 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 27,213 -49 157 Bank debits (thousands) . $ S,799 -12 
WACO ( pop. 92,600 P) WICHITA FALLS (pop. 94,599 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ 6,721,242. 86 295 Building permits less federal contracts $ 561,917 -69 -69 Bank debits !thousands) $ 218,481 -14 6 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 160,419 -4 -1 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF NON-SMSA CITIES, WITH DATA 
ALBANY (pop. 1,959 P) Shackelford Co. (pop. 3,233 P) BONHAM (pop. 9,506 ') Fannin Co. (pop. 22,018 ") Building permits less federal contracts $ Building pnm1ts less federal contracts $ 126,800 34 Bank debits (thousands) $ 3,302 -l Bank debits (thousands) S 11,365 -8 -G 
ALICE (pop. 20,861) Jim Wells Co. (pop. 32,12i ") BORGER (pop. 13,928 •) Hutchinson Co. (pop. 23,980 •) Building permits less federal contracts $ 2,011,589 .Building permits less federal contracts $ 25,481 -7 -28 Bank debits (thousands) $ 46,432 19 43 Nonfarm placements 46 -13 46
-
ALPINE (pop. 4,740) Brewster Co. (pop. i,534 ") BRADY (pop. 5,571 P) McCulloch Co. (pop. 8,422 •) Building permits less federal contracts S 14,332 17 Building permits less federal contracts $ 49,550 106 47 Bank debits (thousands) $ 4,773 -4 -5 Bank debits (thousands) $ 9,254 -11 -6 
A~DREWS (pop. n.a.) Andrews Co. (pop. 10,217 P) BRECKE RIDGE (pop. 5,873•) Stephens Co. (pop. 8,205") Building permits less federal contracts $ 189,350 347 684 Building permits less federal contracts $ 182.800 402 -18 Bank debits (thousands) . 7, 74 -11 
BRENHA~l (pop. 7,740) Washington Co. (pop. 18,378 •) ATHENS (pop. 9,554 ") Henderson Co. (pop. 25,703 ") 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 175,277 -73 200 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 315,500 274 

Bank debits (thousands) . $ 18,686 -9 
BRnk debits (thousands) 14,124 -4 6 

BROWNFIELD (pop. 10,286) Terry Co. (pop. 14,239 P) BARTLETT (pop. 1,540) 
Bank debits (thousands) . $ 21,849 -24 17 Bell Co. (pop. 117,242 P)-Williamson Co. (pop. 36,020 P) Bank debits (thousands) $ 1,067 -17 
BROWNWOOD (pop. 16,974) Brown Co. (pop. 24,397 •) 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 133,900 221 57 BAY CITY (pop. 12,196 •) ~Iatagorda Co. (pop. 27,630 •) Nonfarm placements 113 24 -;) Building permits less federal contracts $ 32,750 -69 -l Bank debits (thousands) $ 20,774 -4 BRYAN (pop. 32,489 •) Brazos Co. (pop. 56,079 •) Nonfarm placements 43 -16 -25 Building permits less federal contracts $ 408,240 -59 -81 
Bank debits (thousands) $ 64,782 -6 3 BEEVILLE (pop. 13,080 •) Bee Co. (pop. 22,161 P) Nonfarm placements 226 -13 -29 
Building permits less federal C'ontrart~ : 14,935 -86 -1 Bank debits (thousands) 16,448 -11 -5 CALDWELL (pop. 2,204 ' ) Burleson Co. (pop. 9,721 ") Bank debits (thousands)
Nonfarm placements 72 -6 -27 	$ 3,766 -8 -6 
BELLVILLE (pop. 2,218) Austin Co. (pop. 13,243 P) CAMERO (pop. 5,640) Milam Co. (pop. 19,600 P) $ 6,334 -9 2 Building permits less federal contracts $
Bank debits (thousands) 	74,000 -75 
Bank debits (thousands) . . $ 6,677 -14 2 BELTON (pop. 10,000 ') Bell Co. (pop. 117,242 •) Building permits less federal contracts $ 30,065 278 -63 CARTHAGE (pop. 5,389 P) Panola Co. (pop. 15,554 •) 
Building permits less federal contracts S 239,000 752 311 BIG SPRI G (pop. 28,165 •) Howard Co. (pop. 37,136 P) Bank debits (thousands) . $ 4,939 -18 2 Buildi ng permits less federal contracts s 12,937 -48 -68 
CASTROVILLE (pop. 1,800 ') :\ledina Co. (pop. 19,123 •) 
Bank debits (thousands) $ 44,455 -12 -14 
30,640 43

Nonfarm placements . . . . . . . . . . 138 co -25 	Building permits less federal contracts Bank debits (thousands) . 
1.362 -6 -3 
For an explanat ion of symbols see p. 180. 185
JULY 1970 

Percent change
Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions Percent change 
May 1970 May 1970 May 1970 May 1970
May from ft om May from from City and item 1970 Apr 1970 May 196~ City and item 1970 Apr 1970 May 1969 
HUNTSVILLE (pop. 15,367 •) Walker Co. (pop. 24,885 •) LUFKIN (pop. 23,739 •) Angelina Co. (pop. 49,153 P) Building permits less federal contracts S 485,230 498 257 Building permits less federal contracts 212,380 -SS Bank debits (thousands) . $ 30,867 24 51 Nonfarm placements 77 26 67 
McCAMEY (pop. 2,589 P) Upton Co. (pop. 4,564 ") JACKSONVILLE (pop. 9,411 P) 
Bank debits (thousands) . 1.851 -14 -9
Cherokee Co. (pop. 31,041 •) Building permits less federal contracts $ 382,852 136 
MARBLE FALLS (pop. 2,161) Burnet Co. (pop. 10,655 P)
Bank debits (thousands) $ 21,685 -12 •• Bank debits (thousands) . . . . $ 5,415 -3 40 
JASPER (pop. 5,120 ') Jasper Co. (pop. 24,149 •) MARSHALL (pop. 22,656 •) Harrison Co. (pop. 44,073 P)
Building permits less federal contracts $ 57,100 175 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 52,354 -16 -86Bank debits (thousands) . $ 14,759 -9 -4 
Bank debits (thousands) . S 27,460 -15 3 Nonfarm placements . . . 173 122 -14 
JUNCTION (pop. 2,654 •) Kimble Co. (pop. 3,845 •) 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 280,0-00 MEXIA (pop. 7,621) Limestone Co. (pop. 17,581 •) 
Bank debits (thousands) . $ 2,696 2 •• Building permits less federal contracts S 27,415 234 136 

Bank debits (thousands) . $ 9,933 12 82 
KARNES CITY (pop. 3,000 ') Karnes Co. (pop. 13,147 •) 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 15,800 131 MINERAL WELLS (pop. 17,109 •) 
Bank debits (thousands) . S 4,271 -18 11 Palo Pinto Co. (pop. 28,505 P) 

Building permits less federal contracts $ 801,018 14 -46 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 32,062 6 6
KERMIT (pop. 7,685 •) Winkler Co. (pop. 9,453 •) 
Nonfarm placements 77 -14 -28 Building permits less federal contracts $ 925 32 -92 
MONAHANS (pop. 9,476 ') Ward Co. (pop. 13,056 ") KILLEEN (pop. 34,953 P) Bell Co. (pop. 117,242 •) 
Building permits less federal contracts 15,500 68 -11 Building permits less federal contracts $ 574,339 66 7 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 36,833 
MOUNT PLEASANT (pop. 8,027) Titus Co. (pop. 16,486 ") KINGSLAND (pop. 1,200 ') Llano Co. (pop. 6,583 ") Building permits less federal contracts $ 79,305 -15 223 Bank debits (thousands) 4,450 70 
Bank debits (thousands) . S 18,621 -2 
K1Nli~vtLL~ (pop. 31,160 ') MUENSTER (pop. 1,190) Cooke Co. (pop. 22,856 P) Kleberg Co. (pop. 32,172 •) Building permits less federal contracts S 0 Building permits less federal contracts S 266,830 18 72 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 3,360 -10 Bank debits (thousands) $ 22,396 -6 13 MULESHOE (pop. 4,945 ') Bailey Co. (pop. 8,172 ") KIRBYVILLE (pop. 2,021 ') Jasper Co. (pop. 24,149 P) Bank debits (thousands) . S 11.772 -6 •• !lank debits (thousands) 2,786 -9 -1 
NACOGDOCHES (pop. 22,316 •) LAMESA (pop. 12,348 •) Dawson Co. (pop. 16,231 P) Nacogdoches Co. (pop. 35,693 ") 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 83,450 365 Building permits less federal contracts $ 340,334 7 28 Bank debits (thousands) . S 18,519 2 14 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 33,312 Nonfarm placements 84 -20 -36 11
Nonfarm placements 59 
LAMPASAS (pop. 5,773 •) Lampasas Co. (pop. 9,140 ") EW BRAUNFELS (pop. 17,610 ") 
Building permits less federal contracts S 61,350 88 -42 Comal Co. (pop. 23,601 •) 
Bank debits (thousands) . $ 12,423 26 12 

Building permits less federal contracts $ 304,605 -34 33 
Bank debits (thousands) . S 20,106 -3 -2 LEVELLAND (pop. 11,386 •) Hockley Co. (pop. 20,199 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ 28,405 -63 -64 NIXON (pop. 1,751) Gonzales Co. (pop. 16,766 ") Bank debits (thousands) . S 18,016 9 Building permits less federal contracts S 15,650 -32 401 
OLNEY (pop. 4,200 ') Young Co. (pop. 15,343 ") LITTLEFIELD (pop. 7,236) Lamb Co. (pop. 17,427 •) 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 10,300 119 930Building permits less federal contracts 2~Q 494 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 4,929 -17 -25
Bank debits (thousands) . 8,035 -10 -19 
pALESTINE (pop. 14,518 •) Anderson Co. (pop. 26,593 ") LLANO (pop. 2,575) Llano Co. (pop. 6,583 ") 
.J3.uilding permits less federal contracts $ 108,850 -27 -16Building permits less federal contracts 
Bank-debits (thousands) . $ 18,690 -7Bank debits (thousands) . 5,427 12 -4 
40 471 -25
Nonfarm placements 
LOCKHART (pop. 6,084) Caldwell Co. (pop. 20,694 P) Gray Co. (pop. 26,273 P)P Al\fP A (pop. 21,239 ") 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 36,750 583 566 35,188 -12 -3Bank debits (thousands) . $ 7,297 -6 2 Bank debits (thousands) . 
84 -19 -40
Nonfarm placements 
For an explanation of symbols see p. 180. 187 
JULY 1970 
Percent change Local Business Conditions Percent changeLocal Business Conditions 
May 1970 May 1970 !\fay 1~70 May 1970 May from from May from from
City and item 1970
Apr 1970 May 1969 	Apr 1970 May 1969City and item 1970 
SMITHVILLE (pop. 2,935 ") BastM~ Co. (pon. 16,828 ")PARIS (pop. 23,194 ") Lamar Co. (pop. 35,564 P) 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 16,875 -1~ 838
Building permits less federal contracts $ 284,062 -83 44 
Bank debits (thousands) . $ 2.562 -J!I 19
Nonfarm placements 	147 63 2 
SNYDER ( pop. 13,850) Scurry Co. (pop. 15,115 •) PECOS (pop. 12,492 1') Reeves Co. (pop. 16,263 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ 99,550 298 305 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 19,689 -11 -5 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 15,660 -9 15 
76 *~~ -28
Nonfarm placements SONORA (pop. 2,076 P) Sutton Co. (pop. 3,051 •) Building permits less federal contracts $ 250 -97 PLAINVIEW (pop. 18,664 ") Hale Co. (pop. 33,374 P) Bank debits (thousands) . $ 2,748 -13 -11 
f.!f.:
Bank debits (thousands) . 51,155 -11 Nonfarm placements 208 -29 9 
STEPHENVILLE (pop. 7,359) Erath Co. (pop. 17,527 •) Bank debits (thousands) . $ 14,303 -1 
PLEASANTON (pop. 6,000 ') STRATFORD (pop. 2,500 ') Sherman C1>. (pop. 3,603 •)Atascosa Co. (pop. 18,360 P) 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 0 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 45,500 19 -65 

Bank debits (thousands) . $ 12,335 8 -26 
Bank debits (thousands) . $ 5,352 -13 -1 

SULPHUR SPRINGS (pop. 10,447 ") Hopkins Co. (pop. 20,334 1')QUANAH (pop. 4,564 ") Hardeman Co. (pop. 6,649 P) 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 276,085 -75 521
Building permits less federal contracts $ 31,500 21 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 23,663 -2 3Bank debits (thousands) . $ 5,557 -12 
SWEETWATER (pop. 11,317 ") Nolan Co. (pop. 15,403 ") RAYMONDVILLE (pop. 9,385) Building permits less federal contracts $ 3,066 -38 -94 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 15.867 -4 -2
Willacy Co. (pop. 15,432 ") 
Nonfarm placements 	73 30 -16
Building permits less federal contracts $ 6,500 442 -68 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 9,336 6 7 NonfRrm placements 55 8 -10 TAHOKA (pop. 3,600 ') Lynn Co. (pop. 8,829 •) 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 0 Bank debits (thousands) $ 4,974 14 17 REFUGIO (pop. 4,944) Refugio Co. (pop. 9,089 ") Building permits less federal contracts $ 12,200 TAYLOR (pop. 9,434) Williamson Co. (pop. 36,020 •) Bank debits (thousands) . $ 4,462 -4 -6 
Building permits less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . $ 12,516 -6 -3 Nonfarm placements 8 -11 -64
ROCKDALE (pop. 4,481) Milam Co. (pop. 19,600 ") 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 72,350 424 76 

Bank debits (thousands) 8,117 6 26 	TEMPLE (pop. 32,645 ") Bell Co. (pop. 117,242 1') Building permits less federal contracts $ 856,943 -35 144 Bank debits (thousands) $ 55,692 -6 17 Nonfarm placements 161 -23 -33
SAN MARCOS (pop. 18,566 P) Hays Co. (pop. 26,977 ") 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 996,025 320 264 

Bank debits (thousands) S 13,360 -2 	UVALDE (p1>p. 10,403 P) Uvalde Co. (pop. 16,619 •) Building permits less federal contracts 1,488,880 720 Bank debits (thousands) . 22,25& -1 2 
SAN SABA (pop. 2,529 ") San Saba Co. (pop. 5,431 P) 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 14,100 -6 -26 VERNON (pop. 11,204 ") Wilbarger Co. (pop. 15,051 ") 
Hank debits (thousands) S 8,930 15 11 Building permits less federal contracts $ 32,950 -69 128 

Bank debits (thousands) . $ 20,611 -7 -2 
Nonfarm placements 43 43 -61 SEAGRAVES (pop. 2,307) Gaines Co. (pop. 11,575 P) Building permits less federal contracts $ 10,000 245 -88 
VICTORIA (pop. 39,349 ") Victoria Co. (pop. 52,776 ")
H.ank debits (thousands) 2,612 4 Building permits less federal contracts $ 261,922 -10 24 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 90,476 --13 6 Nonfarm placements 410 -8 -2 
SEMINOLE (pop. 5,737) Gaines Co. (pop. 11,575 P) 
Building permits less federal contracts 

$ 13,025 -58 
WEA.THERFORD (pop. 12,742•) Parker t;o. lPOp. <S~,:>4~")
Hank debits (thousands) . 
$ 5,848 Building permits less federal contracts $ 346,600 87 107 Bank debits (thousands) ............ .$ 24,997 
SILSBEE (pop. 8,447 ') Hardin Co. (pop. 28,618 ") YOAKUM (pop. 5,761)
Hank debits (thousands) . 

9,818 -12 -4 
Lavaca Co. (pop. 17,483 ")-De Witt Co. (pop. 17,872 ") Building permits less federal contracts $ 132,525 7 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 10,071 -4
For an explanation of symbols see p. 180. 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 
BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS 

(All figures are for Texas unless otherwise indicated.) 
All indexes are. based on the average .m~nths for 1951-1959 except where other specification is made; all except annual indexes are adJu.st~d f?r seasonal. vana~10n unless otherwise noted. Employment estimates are compiled by the Texas Em­ployment C?mm1ss10n 1;i co~peratio1~ ":1th the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. The snnholR used below impose quahficat10ns as md1cated here: '''-preliminary data subject to reYision; r-reYised data; ;±__:_dollar totals for the calendar year to date; §-dollar totals for the fiscal year to date; t-employment data for wage an(I salary workers only. . 
May  April  May  Year-to-date average  
1970  1970  1969  1970  1969  

GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY 
l•:stimates of personal income (millions of dollars, seasonally adjusted) . $ 3,093* $ 3,191 * $ 2,998' $ 3,153 $ 2,957 Income payments to individuals in U.S. (billions, at 
seasonally adjusted annual rate) . $ 793.5* $ 801.3* $ 740.0' $ 786.1 $ 729.7 Wholesale prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) . 116.8* 116.6' 112.8 116.5 111.6 Consumer prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) . 134.6 134.0 126.8 133.2 125.5 Business failures (number) .. 29 63 28 42 28 Business failures (liabilities, thousands) . $ 2,494 $ 8,682 $ 9,641 $ 4,767 $ 4,767 Newspaper linage (index) . 127.7 132.6 128.1 121.1 126.1 
PRODUCTION 
Total electric-power use (index) . 256.9* 256.8* 236.4' 254.6 234.5 Industrial electric-power use (index) . 228.3* 235.6* 217.2' 231.7 214.3 Crude-oil production (index) ... 125.7* 122.5* 118.0' 121.9 108.6 Average daily production per oil well (bbl.) 17.1 17.3 15.8 17.1 15.1 Crude-oil runs to stills (index) . 136.4 137.3 139.2 132.0 131.5 Industrial production in U.S. (index) .. 169.0* 170.4* 172.5' 170.3 171.0 Texas industrial production-total (index) . . .. 
179.5* 180.6* 172.5' 179.4 168.9 Texas industrial production-total manufactures (index) . 200.4'' 202.6* 194.5' 201.4 191.6 Texas industrial production-durable manufactures (index) 212.2* 216.3* 216.0' 218.7 214.4 Texas industrial production-nondurable manufactures (index) 192.6* 193.5* 180.2' 190.0 176.5 Texas industrial production-mining (index) 135.0* 134.6* 128.7' 133.0 122.5 
242.3
Texas industrial production-utilities (index) 257.2* 257.3* 236.9' 258.9 Urban building permits issued (index) .. 206.2 181.0 202.9 179.9 196.7 New residential building authorized (index) .. 156.5 134.6 152.8 131.3 164.9 
298.5 256.0 300.5 261.5 251.9
New nonresidential building authorized (index) . 

AGRICULTURE 
Prices received by farmers (unadjusted index, 1910-14=100) ... 267 274 269 276 258 Prices paid by farmers in U.S. (unadjusted index, 1910--14=100) 388 388 375 386 369 Ratio of Texas farm prices received to U.S. prices paid 
by farmers 69 71 72 72 70 

FINANCE 
272.2
Bank debits (index) .. 287.0 304.8 275.0 295.6 
307.1
Bank debits, U.S. (index) .. 345.3 350.3 316.9 340.6 
Reporting member banks, Dali~~ F~d~~·~i R~~~rve District 
Loans (millions) $ 5,926 $ 5,978 $ 6,042 $ 5,987 $ 6,044 
Loans and investments (millions) . . . . $ 8,467 $ 8,607 $ 8,538 $ 8,568 $ 8,746 
3,346Adjusted demand deposits (millions) . $ 3,296 $ 3,294 $ 3,358 $ 3,280 $ 
$381,685 $263,791 $352,830 $ 278,924 $ 247,941Revenue receipts of the state comptroller (thousands) $6,711,511§ $5,879,164§Federal Internal Revenue collections (thousands) $917,967 $707,868 $769,374 
Securities registrations-original applications 
$ 33,282 $ 29,491 $ 291,251§ $ 302,811§Mutual investment companies (thousands) $ 26,748 
All other corporate securities $ 0 $ 7,458 $ 22,793 $ 100,188§ $ 198,368§Texas companies (thousands) $ 51,632 $ 93,219 $ 246,091§ $ 387,332§
Other companies (thousands) $ 9,782 
Securities registrations-renewals 

285,661§ 249,456§
Mutual investment companies (thousands) $ 39,833 $ 32,911 $ 30,310 $ $ 
2,744 20,113§ $ 9,745§Other corporate securities (thousands) . $ 9,913 $ 4,311 $ $ 

LABOR 
144.1
Total nonagricultural employment in Texas (index)t ... 151.0* 150.7* 145.6' 150.2 
154.4 152.1
Manufacturing employment in Texas (index)t ........ 152.6* 153.6* 154.4' 

101.2 99.5 101.1
Average weekly hours-manufacturing (index)t 99.0* 99.6* 
144.9' 149.0 142.5
AYerage weekly earnings-manufacturing (index)t 149.3* 150.0* 
3,539.2
Total nonagricultural employment (thousands)t .... 3,730.3* 3,719.9* 3,595.7' 3,689.9 
745.2 734.2
Total manufacturing employment (thousands) t 736.7* 742.4* 745.6' Durable-goods employment (thousands)t .... 407.6* 413.2* 422.3' 415.6 416.4 . ~ondurable-goods employment (thousands)t 329.1 * 329.2* 323.3' 329.6 317.8 Total CIVIiian labor force in selected labor-market 
3,465.7 3,265.7
a1'€as (thousands) .............................. -· 3,512.1 3,486.9 3,303.1 
Nonagricultural employment in selected labor-market 

3,114.8 3,282.1 3,089.7
areas (thousands) ........................... 3,301.5 3,293.9 

Manufacturing employment in selected labor-market 635.1 611.6 637.0 612.8 
areas (thousands) ....................... 631.6 

Total unemployment in selected labor-market areas 88.5 101.8 81.8
(thousands) ...... ...................... 116.9 99.4 
Percent of labor force unemployed in selected 

3.3 2.8 2.7 2.9 2.5 
labor-market areas 

BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH  
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN  RETURN  REQUESTED  
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712  SECOND-CLASS  POSTAGE  PAID AT  AUSTIN,  TEXAS  


DIRECTORY OF TEXA8 MANUFACTURERS, 1970 
The 1970 Directory of Texas Manufacturers, in its twenty-first edition, is off the press and ready for distribution. The most complete and authoritative source of information on manufacturing plants in Texas, the Directory pro­vides the following information for over 12,200 plants: name and complete address, name of executive officer, date of establishment, number of employees, description of products manufactured, and, where applicable, name and main office address of parent company. In compiling, editing, and publishing the Directory the Bureau of Business Research at The University of Texas at Austin makes use of data obtained principally from the manufacturers them­selves, with supplementary information from Texas chambers of commerce. 
The varied uses of this two-volume reference work include its functions as a sales-management aid, as a source of information for purchasing agents, as a plant-location tool, as a useful classification for mailing lists. 
The Directory consists of four helpful sections: a convenient alphabetical listing of all plants by firm name with city location and home office; a geo­graphical listing of plants according to city of location, with both cities and plants in alphabetical order, and with the detailed information for each plant; a product section in which all products manufactured in Texas are listed under at least the first four digits of their Standard Industrial Classification number, in arithmetical order and geographical suborder for each number; an excellent product index, on the basis of alphabetical name order. 
$22.50 per set 848 pp. 
(Texas residents pay 4.25-percent sales tax.) 
BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH 
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN