FOREWORD

 

This monograph on the 1980 Census of Guam is a result of many professional contributions. This activity has helped prepare for the 1990 Census of Guam. This monograph attempts to directly interpret 1980 data and to consider the information for the planning process. The monograph is presented by chapters to contain relevant, useful tables.

 

The Interagency Committee on Population and others have prepared the monograph. Supplementary material has been added to aid research projects, grant applications, and other applications for both government and private sectors.

 

In summary, the report identifies what type of census information is available to aid in planning for what our population composition will be like by 1990 and into the future. The presentation of the individual chapters should be helpful to the users of such data.

 

The following individuals were associated with the various chapters:

 

Michael J. Levin Bureau of the Census Introduction, Age and Sex

Distribution, Fertility

Susan Ham Bureau of Planning Geographic Distribution,

Housing Characteristics,

Labor Force

Cynthia L. Naval Department of Commerce Household and Family

Characteristics, Fertility,

Housing Characteristics

Joseph P. Borja Department of Public

Health and Social

Services Marital Status, Mortality

Joseph E. Quinata Department of Commerce Migration

Joseph T. Flores Department of Commerce Ethnicity, Estimates and

Projections

Manuel F.L. Guerrero Department of Education Education

Alan T.K. Wang Department of Labor Labor Force

Yung Brian Suh Department of Commerce Industry, Occupation

and Class of Worker

Peter R. Barcinas Department of Commerce Income

 

The Office of Territorial and International Affairs, Department of Interior, provided funding for Joseph Flores, Department of Commerce, and Susan Ham, Bureau of Planning, to spend two months in Washington at the Census Bureau in 1986 to begin the interpretation and analysis of the 1980 census data; OTIA also paid for Michael Levin's transportation and per diem on Guam in 1987. Population Division, Bureau of the Census, provided Michael Levin's salary, both in Washington and in Guam. The various agencies and departments in the Government of Guam provided individuals as needed to finish the chapters. The Pacific Star Hotel provided work space for Michael Levin at reduced cost when it was badly needed.

 

We wish to extend our sincere appreciation to all who participated in this project.

 

Peter R. Barcinas

Michael J. Levin, Ph.D.

Cynthia L. Naval


CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

 

Guam, an unincorporated territory of the United States, is the largest, most populated, and Southern‑most island in the Marianas archipelago. The island is 30 miles long and 8 miles wide, with a total land area of 209 square miles. The island was formed through an uplift of undersea volcanic activity and is surrounded by coral reefs near the shore. Guam is composed of two distinct geological areas of about equal size: the Northern part of the island is a high coraline limestone plateau rising up to 850 feet above sea level and contains the water lens which is the main source of fresh water on Guam; the Southern region is mountainous. Apra Harbor, one of the largest protected harbors in the Pacific, is located on the central, western side of the island.

 

Guam became a possession of the United States after the Spanish‑American War in 1898, and for the next 40 years remained almost unaffected by the changes occurring in the outside world. Health measures instituted by the U.S. Naval government started a rapid population growth, and between 1898 and 1940 the island's population more than doubled, from 10,000 to more than 22,000. Because of the occupation of Guam by Japanese armed forces during World War II, after the war more attention was paid to the territory. In 1950, Guam became an unincorporated territory of the United States by the Organic Act. Chamorro residents became United States citizens and the Government of Guam was set up with a Legislative Branch elected by Guamanians and an Executive Branch appointed by the President of the United States and directly responsible to the Department of Interior. In 1970, Guam elected its own governor for the first time. Guam is divided into 19 election districts.

 

SPANISH PERIOD

 

Although Guam had been inhabited for more than 3,500 years, it was not officially "discovered" until Magellan came in 1521. Spanish missionaries and administrators came and went over the next three hundred years. Contact during the first two centuries was sporadic, although documented (see Underwood 1973 for recorded contacts). No complete census was taken during this period.

 

Following a long period of native unrest, Don Jose Quiroga arrived in 1680 on Guam and his men "attacked and destroyed native villages and founded 6 'church‑villages' of Pago, Inapsan, Inarajan, Merizo, Umatac, and Agat, and forced the natives to move into one of these centers" (Underwood, 1973, cites Fritz 1904; Corte 1897). Also, Quiroga pursued the natives who fled to Rota after burning the church at Inarajan. Some 150 fugitives were returned to Guam. (Corte 1870, Ibanez 1886).


 

After 1694, when Quiroga became Governor, the inhabitants of all the Mariana Islands were moved to Guam or Saipan, except for a few natives who hid out on Rota to escape resettlement. Natives of Tinian Island were finally defeated on Agrigan and moved to Saipan in 1695. A final resettlement took place when Chamorros residing on Saipan were removed to Guam in 1698, leaving only Guam and Rota occupied at the beginning of the 18th century (Underwood, 1973:17, cites Safford, 1901, 1903; Corte, 1870, Fritz 1904).

 

"On Guam, a native population in the throes of resettlement, having suffered a series of damaging typhoons in 1670 (Ibanez 1886), in 1671 (Corte 1870; Thompson 1946, 1947; Reed 1952) and in 1693 (Thompson 1945; Reed 1952), and engaging in a series of rebellions, would expectably be peculiarly susceptible to disease, whether of introduced or native origins. That population decline began well before the date of the first Spanish census in 1710 seems evident, but the decrease had certainly not proceeded to the level of from 100 to 400 indicated by Dampier, after his visit in 1686, and recorded by Haswell (1917), Safford (1901), and Reed (1952)" (Underwood, 1973:18).

 

The data in Tables 1.1 and 1.2 show the change in composition of the population on Guam and Rota combined from 1710, the first Spanish census, through 1830. Rota could not be disaggregated from Guam in these tabulations; only a few hundred persons were living on Rota during this period. Immigrants, particularly Filipinos, continued to come to the Mariana Islands throughout the period, but since the censuses seem to classify persons in different ways, the population flows cannot be traced very well. The number of pure Chamorros decreased during the 1700s, and then started a very gradual increase during the early 1800s. While the Native population declined steadily, reaching its lowest point in 1786, the "mestizo" population (the progeny of matings between natives and Spanish, Filipino, and other foreigners) grew during the period.

 

Table 1.1 Ethnic Distribution: 1710 to 1830

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Spanish/ Fili‑ Offcls/

Date Total Natives Mixed Mestizo pinos Troops Others

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

1830 6,490 2,652 1,007 5 2,612 70 143

1829 6,480 2,697 1,006 5 2,557 79 136

1828 6,448 2,792 970 2 2,466 78 140

1825 5,901 2,683 3,218 0 0 0 0

1816 5,389 2,559 0 1,109 1,484 147 90

1802 4,149 2,151 0 676 1,156 139 27

1801 4,244 2,142 0 657 1,274 140 31

1800 4,060 2,108 0 542 1,234 139 37

1799 4,001 2,074 0 591 1,164 142 30

1795 3,500 1,894 0 537 898 147 24

1793 3,584 1,766 0 961 710 147 0

1710 3,614 3,143 0 471 0 0 0

_______________________________________________________________________

Notes: Mestizos excluded from Spanish category 1828 to 1830; for 1828

to 1830 census reports, "other" includes English, French,

Mulattos, Malayans, and Pacific Islanders.

Source: Karolle 1978:46‑47 (Karolle cites Underwood 1976: 206, Carano

1964: 199, 323‑324, Statistical Abstract: Guam 1975: 2.

 

The percent native also fluctuated quite a bit during the period, again, attributable to the classification systems used in the various censuses (Table 1.2). The proportion of Filipinos in the population increased between 1710 and 1801, then remained at about 30 percent for several years. These Filipinos were mainly workers brought from the Philippines to serve the Spanish.

 

Table 1.2 Percent Ethnic Distribution: 1710 to 1830

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Spanish/ Fili‑ Offcls/

Date Total Natives Mixed Mestizo pinos Troops Others

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

1830 100.0 40.9 15.5 .1 40.2 1.1 2.2

1829 100.0 41.6 15.5 .1 39.5 1.2 2.1

1828 100.0 43.3 15.0 .0 38.2 1.2 2.2

1825 100.0 45.5 54.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1816 100.0 47.5 0.0 20.6 27.5 2.7 1.7

1802 100.0 51.8 0.0 16.3 27.9 3.4 .7

1801 100.0 50.5 0.0 15.5 30.0 3.3 .7

1800 100.0 51.9 0.0 13.3 30.4 3.4 .9

1799 100.0 51.8 0.0 14.8 29.1 3.5 .8

1797 100.0 37.2 0.0 20.4 0.0 4.8 37.6

1795 100.0 54.1 0.0 15.3 25.7 4.2 .7

1793 100.0 49.3 0.0 26.8 19.8 4.1 0.0

1710 100.0 87.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

________________________________________________________________________

Notes: See Notes to Table 1.1

Source: Karolle 1978:46‑47 (Karolle cites Underwood 1976: 206, Carano

1964: 199, 323‑324, Statistical Abstract: Guam 1975: 2.

 

Between 1800 and about 1856, the population nearly tripled, reaching more than 8,000 before a devastating smallpox epidemic in 1856 reduced the number by about half (Table 1.3). For the rest of the century the population gradually recovered, although a large part of this latter increase was due to migration of Carolinians, brought as a part of a Spanish policy of repopulating the Marianas. Also, a number of people migrated from the Philippines.

 

The rate of natural growth must have been very high, because epidemics continued, and yet the population increased. Safford (1901) has noted that an epidemic killed 194 persons on Guam in January, 1849. An epidemic of whooping cough reportedly resulted in the deaths of at least 200 children in 1855 (Fritz 1904). And two epidemics swept through the survivors of the smallpox epidemic in 1856 ‑ a measles epidemic in which at least 50 died in 1861, while another epidemic of whooping cough caused the deaths of 100 children in Agana, alone, in 1898 (Fritz 1904 from Underwood, 1973:23).

 

"Prior to the time of the decimating smallpox epidemic in 1856, immigration to the Mariana Islands had been minimal, especially in contrast to the rate of population movement into the area which took place after that date. A small Carolinian colony was established on Guam in 1816... This nucleus of Carolinian settlement was augmented somewhat following the great earthquake and tidal wave which apparently hit many Carolinian islands, as well as Guam, in 1849, leading survivors of the calamity to flee their ravaged atoll homes and seek refuge elsewhere in Micronesia...the Mariana Islands were not used extensively as a penal colony prior to the 1870s" (Underwood 1973:23).

 

Table 1.3 Population by Village and Region: 1831 to 1897

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Village 1897 1891 1886 1872 1871 1849 1832 1831

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Guam...................8,698 8,369 8,144 6,248 6,276 7,940 6,310 6,049

North.......................6,324 6,153 5,949 4,972 5,251 6,452 5,065 4,831

Agana.....................5,198 (NA) 4,959 (NA) (NA) 5,620 4,362 4,137

Other North...............1,126 (NA) 990 (NA) (NA) 832 703 694

Anigua.................. (NA) (NA) 169 (NA) (NA) 217 246 234

Asan.................... (NA) (NA) 252 (NA) (NA) 190 155 158

Tepungan................ (NA) (NA) 234 (NA) (NA) 73 57 56

Sinajana................ (NA) (NA) 142 (NA) (NA) 250 177 172

Maria Cristina.......... (NA) (NA) 193 (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA)

Mongmong................ (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) 102 68 74

South.......................2,374 2,243 2,195 1,276 1,025 1,488 1,245 1,218

Agat‑Sumay................1,325 1,151 1,141 641 553 287 218 222

Umatac‑Merizo............. 788 679 664 379 316 582 539 501

Umatac.................. (NA) (NA) 225 (NA) 127 224 220 206

Merizo.................. (NA) (NA) 439 (NA) 189 358 319 295

Inarajan.................. 261 413 390 256 156 346 244 246

Pago...................... (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) 273 244 249

__________ ________________________________________________________________

Source: Underwood 1973:27; 1831 and 1832 from Safford (1901); 1849 from Cox

(1917); 1871 from Corte (1875); 1872 from Ibanez (1886); 1886 from

Noticias (1886); 1891 from Resumen (1891), 1897 Census.

 

The number and the variety of the immigrants increased after 1856. As many as 63 Chinese laborers arrived from Manila aboard the Spanish vessel Denia in 1858 (Safford 1901); and an additional 39 Chinese may have arrived during the 1860s (Fritz 1904). About 35 Japanese agricultural laborers arrived in the Mariana Islands in 1867.

 

Between 1865 and 1869, over 1,000 Carolinians came to the Mariana Islands, in part to develop the copra industry in the area. An earlier complement of some 600 Carolinians were brought to Guam on labor contracts about 1861 (Beers, 1954), and by 1868, when an additional 95 Carolinians were brought to Guam, a total of 430 Carolinians were listed as resident in the community around what is now Tamuning (Ibanez 1886).

 

Table 1.3 and 1.4 show village distributions during the 1800s. Since the various sources did not collect data in comparable manners, Underwood (1973) made broad categories which are repeated here.

 

The population of Guam increased until the 1856 epidemic, and then decreased suddenly. There were also shifts between the North and the South, with increased percentages living in the North until 1871, and then a drifting away from the North to the Southern villages. Immigration could explain some of these differences, of course, particularly the movements of the large numbers of Carolinians. The Agana area continued to have the majority of the population throughout the period.

 

Table 1.4. Percent Population by Village and Region: 1831 to 1897

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Village 1897 1891 1886 1872 1871 1849 1832 1831

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Guam.................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

North...................... 72.7 73.3 73.0 79.6 83.7 81.3 80.3 79.9

Agana.................... 59.8 NA 60.9 NA NA 70.8 69.1 68.4

Other North.............. 12.9 NA 12.2 NA NA 10.5 11.1 11.5

Anigua................. NA NA 2.1 NA NA 2.7 3.9 3.9

Asan................... NA NA 3.1 NA NA 2.4 2.5 2.6

Tepungan............... NA NA 2.9 NA NA .9 .9 .9

Sinajana............... NA NA 1.7 NA NA 3.1 2.8 2.8

Maria Cristina......... NA NA 2.4 NA NA NA NA NA

Mongmong............... 1.2 1.1 1.3 NA NA 1.3 1.1 1.2

South...................... 27.3 26.7 27.0 20.4 16.3 18.7 19.7 20.1

Agat‑Sumay............... 15.2 13.7 14.0 10.3 8.8 3.6 3.5 3.7

Umatac‑Merizo............ 9.1 8.1 8.2 6.1 5.0 7.3 8.5 8.3

Umatac................. NA NA 2.8 NA 2.0 2.8 3.5 3.4

Merizo................. NA NA 5.4 NA 3.0 4.5 5.1 4.9

Inarajan................. 3.0 4.9 4.8 4.1 3.9 4.4 3.9 4.1

Pago..................... NA NA NA NA NA 3.4 3.9 4.1

___________________________________________________________________________

Source: Underwood 1973: 27; 1831 and 1832 from Safford (1901); 1849 from

Cox (1917); 1871 from Corte (1875); 1872 from Ibanez (1886);

1886 from Noticias (1886); 1891 from Resumen (1891), 1897 Census

 

The first full census which was tabulated by age and sex as well as some other characteristics was taken in 1897 (Table 1.5 and Figure 1.1). The results of the census show a slight surplus of females, and a generally youthful population; the median age for Chamorros on Guam was 21.0 years, with 19.9 for males and 21.9 for females. In her work, Underwood (1987) compared the census results with other data she collected, and adjusted the 1897 census counts to make them more accurate. Her adjusted census distributions are also shown in Table 1.5.

 

Table 1.5. Population by Age and Sex: 1897

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Spanish Census Adjusted by Use of Vital Records

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Age Group Total Males Females Total Males Females

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Total.. 8,698 4,137 4,561 9,353 4,409 4,944

Perc. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0 to 4 14.8 15.6 14.0 15.2 15.9 14.5

5 to 9 12.8 14.2 11.5 12.8 14.1 11.6

10 to 14 10.3 10.6 10.0 10.3 10.6 10.1

15 to 19 10.0 9.8 10.1 9.8 9.6 10.1

20 to 24 10.8 10.3 11.2 10.8 10.5 11.0

25 to 29 9.6 9.2 10.0 9.6 9.3 9.9

30 to 34 7.6 7.4 7.8 7.5 7.3 7.6

35 to 39 4.9 5.2 4.6 5.0 4.9 5.0

40 to 44 3.4 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.5

45 to 49 3.6 3.0 4.0 3.7 3.1 4.1

50 to 54 3.6 2.9 4.3 3.6 3.1 4.1

55 to 59 3.0 2.5 3.4 3.0 2.7 3.3

60 to 64 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.7

65 to 69 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.4

70 to 74 .8 .9 .8 .9 1.0 .8

75 + .4 .5 .4 .4 .4 .4

Unknown .1 .1 .1 ... ... ...

___________________________________________________________________________

Source: Underwood, 1987: 14‑15

 

 

 

 

Figure 1.1 Age and Sex Distribution: 1897

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The census results for 1897 by village show that the South was more youthful than the North (Table 1.6). The median ages of the Southern villages were anywhere from 1 to 2 years lower than those for the Northern villages: 18.6 for Merizo, 19.1 for Agat, and 19.9 for Inarajan, compared to 21.7 for Agana and 21.9 for Agana‑Adjacent.

 

Table 1.6. Population of Villages by Age: 1897

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Age Group Total Agana Agana‑Adj Agat Merizo Inarajan

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Total. 8,698 5,198 1,126 1,325 788 261

Perc. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0 to 4 14.8 13.7 13.5 17.4 18.3 18.4

5 to 9 12.8 12.7 11.9 14.5 11.2 13.8

10 to 14 10.3 10.0 10.9 10.3 11.8 8.8

15 to 19 10.0 9.9 9.6 9.4 11.9 9.2

20 to 24 10.8 10.8 10.9 9.8 12.1 11.1

25 to 29 9.6 9.0 10.1 11.4 9.5 10.3

30 to 34 7.6 7.8 7.5 7.8 6.5 6.5

35 to 39 4.9 5.0 5.3 4.5 4.6 4.2

40 to 44 3.4 3.8 3.1 2.5 2.8 3.1

45 to 49 3.6 4.0 4.3 2.4 1.3 3.8

50 to 54 3.6 3.9 5.0 2.8 2.4 1.5

55 to 59 3.0 3.2 2.0 2.7 2.7 5.0

60 to 64 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.0 3.8 1.1

65 to 69 1.6 1.6 2.2 1.3 .8 .8

70 to 74 .8 1.1 .4 .8 .3 .4

75 + .4 .5 .4 .4 .1 .8

Unknown .1 .1 .1 0.0 .1 1.1

Median 21.0 21.7 21.9 19.1 18.6 19.9

___________________________________________________________________________

Source: Underwood, 1973: 28

 

There were 91 males for every 100 females on Guam in 1897 (Table 1.7). Except for the youngest ages, and the 35 to 39 years olds, there tended to be more females than males at each of the age groups. The other important exception occurred for persons 65 years and over in which the males predominated, especially in the village of Merizo; it is unclear whether this is a case of age‑misreporting or real.

 

Table 1.7. Males per 100 Females by Age: 1897

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Age Group Total Agana Agana‑Adj Agat Merizo Inarajan

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Total 90.7 91.6 85.8 90.9 89.9 96.2

0 to 4 100.8 108.8 108.2 90.9 80.0 84.6

5 to 9 111.6 111.9 112.7 111.0 109.5 111.8

10 to 14 95.9 108.0 61.8 78.9 111.4 109.1

15 to 19 87.9 91.4 96.4 89.4 56.7 118.2

20 to 24 83.2 75.3 86.4 97.0 115.9 81.2

25 to 29 84.0 78.0 90.0 101.3 70.5 125.0

30 to 34 86.5 86.2 73.5 63.5 168.4 183.3

35 to 39 100.9 103.1 114.3 96.7 80.0 83.3

40 to 44 84.3 97.0 59.1 57.1 100.0 33.3

45 to 49 68.9 63.3 65.5 113.3 100.0 66.7

50 to 54 60.1 64.8 51.4 42.3 90.0 33.3

55 to 59 67.7 63.7 64.3 100.0 61.5 62.5

60 to 64 94.4 105.5 93.8 92.9 50.0 200.0

65 to 69 104.5 107.3 66.7 112.5 500.0 100.0

70 to 74 108.6 96.4 100.0 266.7 100.0 0.0

75 + 116.7 80.0 300.0 400.0 ... 100.0

___________________________________________________________________________

Source: Underwood, 1973: 28

 

AMERICAN PERIOD

 

At the end of the Spanish‑American War, Guam became a territory of the United States. Censuses were taken by the Naval governor in 1901 and 1910. Guam was not included in the decennial census until 1920.

 

In working with her reconstructed data set, Underwood produced an estimated census for 1918, just prior to the flu epidemic which killed many people on Guam (Table 1.8 and Figure 1.2). By 1918, according to her figures, there were still more females than males, but the population had grown considerably, partly because of increased medical attention provided by the U.S. Naval Administration. The population remained youthful, with the median age for the total being 18.5 years: 17.4 years for males and 19.4 years for females.

 

Table 1.8. Estimated Population by Age and Sex: 1918

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Numbers Percent

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Age Group Total Males Females Total Males Females

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Total........... 15,000 7,134 7,866 100.0 100.0 100.0

Under 5 years........ 2,216 1,112 1,104 14.8 15.6 14.0

5 to 9 years......... 1,915 1,010 905 12.8 14.2 11.5

10 to 14 years....... 1,547 757 790 10.3 10.6 10.0

15 to 19 years....... 1,494 699 795 10.0 9.8 10.1

20 to 24 years....... 1,618 735 883 10.8 10.3 11.2

25 to 29 years....... 1,444 659 785 9.6 9.2 10.0

30 to 34 years....... 1,141 529 612 7.6 7.4 7.8

35 to 39 years....... 735 369 366 4.9 5.2 4.7

40 to 44 years....... 506 231 275 3.4 3.2 3.5

45 to 49 years....... 533 218 315 3.6 3.1 4.0

50 to 54 years....... 546 205 341 3.6 2.9 4.3

55 to 59 years....... 448 181 267 3.0 2.5 3.4

60 to 64 years....... 416 202 214 2.8 2.8 2.7

65 to 69 years....... 233 119 114 1.6 1.7 1.4

70 to 74 years....... 127 66 61 .8 .9 .8

75 years and over.... 67 36 31 .4 .5 .4

Unknown.............. 14 6 8 .1 .1 .1

___________________________________________________________________________

Source: Underwood 1983: 3

 

 

 

 

Figure 1.2 Age and Sex Distribution: 1918

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The population increased from under 10,000 when the U.S. Naval Administration began, to almost 15,000 in 1920. Guam has been included in each of the succeeding decennial censuses after 1920, although with a different questionnaire from that used Stateside, and with different processing.

 

The percentage of natives (meaning Chamorro) decreased from almost 100 percent to 91 percent in 1930, partly because of the varying numbers of naval personnel on island. There were very few other immigrants (unless these were included in the "native" totals). As we will see in later chapters, the proportions changed drastically after World War II when Guam suddenly became strategically important.

 

Table 1.9. Population by Ethnicity: 1901 to 1940

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Ethnicity 1940 1935 1930 1925 1920 1915 1910 1901

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Total......... 23,067 20,899 19,139 16,648 14,724 13,689 11,953 9,676

Percent..... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Natives............ 93.2 93.1 91.1 91.6 93.0 94.7 97.2 99.5

Non‑natives........ 6.8 6.9 8.9 8.4 7.0 5.3 2.8 0.5

Naval personnel.. 3.4 3.3 5.0 5.2 3.2 (NA) 1.0 0.0

Others........... 3.4 3.6 3.9 3.3 3.7 (NA) 1.8 0.5

___________________________________________________________________________

Source: Thompson 1941:32; Thompson cites Annual Reports of the Governor

of Guam.

 

THE DECENNIAL CENSUSES ‑ 1920 TO 1970

 

Beginning in 1920, Guam was included in the population part of the Decennial Census and in 1960 for the Housing census. In the later chapters we will include comparable data from those censuses whenever appropriate in an effort to show population and housing trends over time.

 

THE 1980 DECENNIAL CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING

 

The 1980 decennial census was conducted in conjunction with the 1980 census of the United States. The questionnaire was developed at the Census Bureau but was reviewed by participants from the Pacific Islands areas in May, 1979, at a Pacific‑areas conference in Honolulu.

 

The questionnaire was similar to that used in the States, and was modified to account for different conditions on Guam. Unlike in the States, all housing data was collected for all housing units, and all persons responded to all questions. Also, the census was collected through direct interview. Enumerators visited and listed every housing unit, asking the questions as worded in the questionnaire (or translating into the native language, if necessary), and recording the answers. A single questionnaire was used, which contained all the questions asked of every person and household.

 

Special questionnaires were used for the enumeration of persons in group quarters such as the hospital, the prison, dormitories at the University of Guam, etc. These forms contained the same population questions that appeared on the regular questionnaire but did not include any housing questions.

 

Responses were determined by the questionnaire and the instructions given to the enumerator; these instructions had been adapted from instructions used Stateside, but were modified to account for the differences on Guam from those found in the States. The definitions and explanations for each subject are included in the discussions of these subjects in the later chapters of this monograph, and are drawn largely from various technical materials and procedures used in the data collection.

 

Facsimiles of the questionnaire pages containing the population and housing questions used to produce this report are presented in Appendix A.

 

GENERAL ENUMERATION PROCEDURES

 

Usual Place of Residence. In accordance with census practice, each person enumerated in the 1980 census was counted as an inhabitant of his or her "usual place of residence", which was generally construed to mean the place where the person lived and slept most of the time. This place was not necessarily the same as the person's legal residence or voting residence. In the vast majority of cases, however, the use of these different bases of classification would produce substantially the same statistics, although there might be appreciable differences for a few areas.

 

The implementation of this practice resulted in the establishment of residence rules for certain categories of persons whose usual place of residence was not immediately apparent. Therefore, persons were not always counted as residents of the place where they happened to be staying on Census Day. Persons without a usual place of residence, or persons with no one at their usual place of residence to report them to a census taker, however, were counted where they happened to be staying.

 

U.S. Armed Forces. Members of the United States Armed Forces living on a military installation were counted, as in previous censuses, as residents of the area in which the installation was located; members of the U.S. Armed Forces not living on a military installation were counted as residents of the areas in which they were living. Persons in families with U.S. Armed Forces personnel were counted where they were living on Census Day (i.e., the military installation or "off base", as the case might be).

 

Each U.S. Navy ship was attributed to the geographic area that the Department of the Navy designated as its homeport.

 

Crews of Merchant Vessels were enumerated at the port where they were berthed (if they were berthed), excluding those not flying a U.S. flag.

 

Persons away at school, if college students, were counted as residents of the area in which they were living while attending college. However, children in boarding schools below the college level were counted at their parental home.

 

Persons at institutions were counted as residents of the area where the institution was located. Patients in short‑term wards of general hospitals were counted at their usual place of residence; if they had no usual place of residence or there was no one at their usual place of residence to report them, they were counted at the hospital.

 

Persons away from their residence on Census Day at hotels, motels, etc., on the night of March 31, 1980, having their usual home on Guam and who indicated that no one was at home to report them in the census would be enumerated as residents of the hotel, motel, etc. Information on persons away from their usual place of residence who indicated that someone was at home to report them was obtained from other members of their families, resident managers, neighbors, etc. If an entire household was away during the whole period of the enumeration, information on that household was obtained from neighbors.

 

Residents Abroad. Residents who were abroad for an extended period (in the U.S. Armed Forces, working at civilian jobs, studying at universities outside Guam, etc.) were not included in the population of Guam. On the other hand, residents who were temporarily abroad on vacations, business trips, and the like, were counted at their usual residence on Guam.

 

Persons from Other Areas having their usual residence (legally or illegally) on Guam on Census Day, including those working here and those attending school (but not living at a chancellery or consulate), were included in the enumeration, as were members of their families with them, regardless of citizenship. However, persons from other areas, temporarily visiting or traveling on Guam, were not enumerated in the 1980 census.

 

DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES

 

The 1980 Census of Guam was conducted through direct interview. Beginning on Census Day, April 1, 1980, enumerators visited and listed every household asking the questions as worded on the questionnaire, and recording the answers. A single questionnaire was used, which contained all the questions asked of every person and household.

 

Special questionnaires were used for the enumeration of persons in group quarters such as colleges and universities, hospitals, and prisons. These forms contained the same population questions that appeared on the regular questionnaire but did not include any housing questions.

 

PROCESSING PROCEDURES

 

The 1980 census questionnaires were processed in a manner similar to that for the 1970 census. They were designed to be processed electronically by the Film Optical Sensing Device for Input into Computer (FOSDIC). For most items on the questionnaire, the information obtained by the enumerator was recorded by marking the answers in the predesignated positions that would be "read" by FOSDIC from a microfilm copy of the questionnaire and transferred onto computer tape with no intervening manual processing. The computer tape excluded information on individual names and addresses.

 

The tape containing the information from the questionnaires was processed on the Census Bureau's computers through a number of editing and tabulating steps. Among the products of this operation were computer tapes from which the tables in the reports were prepared on phototypesetting equipment at the Government Printing Office.


 

SOURCES OF ERROR

 

Since the 1980 population and housing data for Guam were tabulated from entries for all persons and housing units on all questionnaires, these data were not subject to sampling error. In any large‑scale statistical operation such as a decennial census, however, human and mechanical errors occur. These errors are commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. Such errors include failure to enumerate every housing unit or person in the population, not obtaining all required information from respondents, obtaining incorrect or inconsistent information, and recording information incorrectly. Errors can also occur during the field review of the enumerator's work, the clerical handling of the census questionnaires, or the electronic processing of the questionnaires. Quality control and review measures were used throughout the data collection and processing phases of the 1980 census to minimize undercoverage of the population and housing units and to keep errors at a minimum.

 

EDITING OF UNACCEPTABLE DATA

 

The objective of the processing operation was to produce a set of statistics that described the population and housing as accurately and clearly as possible.

 

In the field, questionnaires were reviewed for omissions and certain inconsistencies by a census clerk or an enumerator and, if necessary, a followup was made to obtain missing information. In addition, a similar review of questionnaires was done in the central processing office. As a rule, however, editing was performed by hand only when it could not be done effectively by machine.

 

There are two means by which incomplete or inconsistent data on the questionnaires were corrected during the editing process: allocation and substitution. Allocations or assignments of acceptable codes in place of unacceptable entries, were needed most often when there was no entry for a given item or when the information reported for a person on that item was inconsistent with other information for the person. As in previous censuses, the general procedure for changing unacceptable entries was to assign an entry for a person that was consistent with entries for other persons with similar characteristics. The assignment of acceptable codes in place of blanks or unacceptable entries enhanced the usefulness of the data. The allocation technique for unknown age illustrates the process:

 

1. The computer stored ages of persons by selected characteristics, including sex, relationship, marital status, and characteristics of other household members.

 

2. Each stored age was retained in the computer only until a succeeding person having the same set of characteristics and having age reported was processed through the computer during the electronic edit operation. Then the reported age entry of the succeeding person was stored in place of the one previously stored.

 

3. When the age of the person was not reported, or the entry was unacceptable, the age assigned to this person was that which was stored for the last person who otherwise had the same set of characteristics.

 

The 1980 census data on the economic questions such as industry, occupation, class of worker, work experience, and income were processed using an allocation system which assigned values to missing entries in these questions, as necessary, from a single respondent with similar socioeconomic characteristics.

 

Three population and two housing reports were published after the 1980 census. These were:

 

PC80‑1‑A54 Number of Inhabitants

PC80‑1‑B54 General Population Characteristics

PC80‑1‑C/D54 Detailed Social and Economic Characteristics

HC80‑1‑A54 General Housing Characteristics

HC80‑1‑B54 Detailed Housing Characteristics

 

In addition to the printed reports, results of the 1980 census also were provided on computer tape in the form of summary tape files (STFs). These data products were designed to provide statistics with greater subject and geographic detail than was feasible or desirable to provide in printed reports. The STF data were made available at nominal cost. Because of likelihood of incompatible computer systems, the STF data were also provided on microfiche. Recently, the data have also been provided on floppy diskettes which can be read on IBM‑PC compatible equipment.

 

STF 1 provides population and housing data summarized for Guam as a whole, for election districts, for census designated places (villages), and for enumeration districts. The data include those shown in PC80‑1‑A54, PC80‑1‑B54, and HC80‑1‑A54. STF 3 contains data on various population and housing subjects such as education, employment, and income. The areas covered are the same as STF 1.

 

 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

 

The geographic distribution of Guam's inhabitants has been transformed since pre‑contact times, when the Chamorro population lived in small hamlets located both along the coast and in the interior. Early historical accounts relate that along the coast, these hamlets consisted of approximately 50 to 150 huts, while the interior hamlets were smaller, of from 6 to 20 huts (Carano and Sanchez, 1964). By 1681, the Spanish‑Chamorro wars had resulted in the destruction of the smaller villages and the forced relocation of the native people into a few large villages, where the Spanish could control the population.

 

The Spanish established the government in Agana because of its long history as the political and cultural center of Guam. In order to facilitate the affairs of government outside Agana, Spanish authorities divided Guam into municipalities. Each municipality consisted of several villages or pueblos and was under the charge of a native magistrate called a "gobernadorcillo" ("little governor"). This system of municipal government continued under the American authorities after 1898. The gobernadorcillo was renamed as commissioner, and a deputy commissioner position was instituted to assist the commissioner.

 

Municipalities thus became the primary divisions of Guam for census reporting. By the 1920 Census, Guam had 8 separate municipalities, as shown in Figure 1.3. These municipalities were Agana, Asan, Piti, Sumay, Yona, Agat, Inarajan and Merizo. U.S. naval station personnel were not counted as residents of Guam, but were included in the continental United States. The 1920 census report shows population data for each municipality and for rural sections outside of Agana City.

 

The reporting of 1930 census data was similar to that of 1920 except that, in 1930, persons on naval reservations, including U.S. ships stationed on Guam, were counted as residents of Guam. These results were not included in the population of any municipality, but were compiled separately. A greater portion of this naval population should, according to the 1930 census report, have been assigned to the city of Agana, but the exact location of these reservations could not be determined from the information given by the enumerators on the census schedules.

 

Substantial reorganization of the municipalities occurred in 1931 in preparation for Guam's first elected Congress and first elected commissioner system. Executive Order 53 set forth the divisions of the old municipality of Agana into the municipalities of Agana, Barrigada, Dededo, and Yigo, and further subdivided the municipality of Barrigada into Barrigada and Sinajana districts, and Dededo into Dededo and Machanao districts. In addition, Merizo was subdivided into Merizo and Umatac districts, and Inarajan was subdivided into Inarajan and Talofofo districts. Reorganization thus created 7 new municipalities and districts for a total of 15 (See Figure 1.4).

 

The Second Guam Congress was the first elected Congress in the Territory, with the population counts of the 1930 census used for apportionment.

 

The 1940 census presented total counts for all 15 municipalities and districts, as well as for over 100 towns, barrios and districts within the municipalities. Military personnel were included within the municipality, district, or town where the military facility was located, and U.S. naval ships were listed separately as a portion of Sumay. During World War II, most of the towns and cities (including Agana city) were totally destroyed or severely damaged. In the reconstruction process, many of the communities were relocated and the division of municipalities into barrios was abandoned. There was also some reorganization of the municipalities of Agana and Sinajana in 1947, as part of Agana was annexed to Sinajana (Figure 1.5).

 

The 1950 census reported data for the 15 municipalities existing in 1940 and for 20 villages or cities existing as minor subdivisions within the municipalities. For the first time, census reports made no mention of the presence of military quarters, even though Guam's population had more than doubled between 1940 and 1950, almost exclusively as the result of post‑war military activities.

 

One of the provisions of the Organic Act of 1950 caused the organization, authority, and responsibilities of the commissioner system to continue to follow the pattern outlined in Guam Congress Bill No. 16, passed in 1948. However, between 1950 and 1960, Guam's municipalities again underwent extensive reorganization. A local law was enacted to establish the election district boundaries for the purpose of electing the district commissioners, creating 6 new districts and eliminating 2.


 

Figure 1.3 Guam, 1920 and 1930


Figure 1.4 Guam 1940


Figure 1.5 Guam, 1950


Figure 1.6 Guam, 1960


Figure 1.7 Guam, 1970


Figure 1.8 Guam, 1980


 

The 1960 census results were for 19 election districts (Figure 1.6). These districts included the 6 newly created municipalities of Tamuning, Mongmong‑Toto‑Maite, Mangilao, Chalan Pago‑Ordot, Agana Heights, and Santa Rita. Because Sumay and Machanao were claimed by the military and ceased to require elected representation by commissioner, they were incorporated into the boundaries of other districts. Sumay was annexed into Santa Rita, and Machanao into Dededo and Yigo. 1970 and 1980 election district boundaries remained the same as the boundaries used in 1960, so census data for those three periods are comparable (Figures 1.7 and 1.8).

 

Beginning in 1960, the Census Bureau began using a new term, that of "Place", and later "Census Designated Place" to define generally closely settled centers of population without corporate limits. A Place with a population of 2,500 or more is considered urban, and the remaining areas are rural. Places in 1960, 1970, and 1980 are comparable; in 1980, new Places were added in addition to the ones used previously. Although the definition of Place remained the same, the interpretation and application of that definition allowed the addition of military housing areas in 1980 that were not allowed in 1970. Therefore, the expansion of urban areas between 1970 and 1980 was partially the result of including military housing in 1980.

 

POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY BROAD GEOGRAPHIC AREA

 

Although election district boundaries have been altered considerably between 1920 to 1980, the broad areas of Northern, Central, and Southern Guam have remained intact (See Figures 1.3 through 1.8). For the purpose of data analysis, comparability by geographic area over time can be maintained between 1940 and 1980 within these three broad areas. The major disadvantage to this system is the inclusion in the South of the district of Santa Rita, which contains a single large government quarters area that distorts some of the data. Beginning with 1960, the North consisted of Dededo, Tamuning and Yigo. Central Guam consisted of Agana, Agana Heights, Asan, Barrigada, Chalan Pago/Ordot, Mangilao, Mongmong‑Toto‑Maite, Piti and Sinajana. The South was composed of Agat, Inarajan, Merizo, Santa Rita, Talofofo, Umatac and Yona.

 

Prior to World War II, 63 percent of the population was concentrated in Central Guam, primarily in the capital city of Agana; 29 percent lived in the South; and only 8 percent resided in the North. While population increases occurred in each of the three regions between 1940 and 1980, the vast majority of the growth took place in the Northern portion of the island (Table 1.10)

 

Table 1.10 Distribution by Region on Guam: 1940 to 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Numbers Percent

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Region 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Total.. 105,979 84,996 67,044 59,498 22,290 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

North.... 47,583 32,540 18,752 16,147 1,795 44.9 38.3 28.0 27.1 8.1

Central.. 34,526 31,266 25,479 26,495 13,946 32.6 36.8 38.0 44.5 62.6

South.... 23,870 21,190 22,813 16,856 6,549 22.5 24.9 34.0 28.3 29.4

___________________________________________________________________________

Note: See text for inclusion of election districts in regions.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Decennial Reports

 

The proportion of persons living in the North increased steadily from 8 percent in 1940 to 45 percent in 1980, with the Northern population growing by 45,788 persons over the 40 year period. Central Guam showed substantial and steady population growth during the same period, increasing by 20,580 persons; however, the proportion of the population living there declined from 63 percent to 33 percent. In contrast, Guam's Southern area did not show steady growth during the same period. The population of the South grew by 16,264 persons between 1940 and 1960, declined by 1,623 persons during the 1960s, and recovered 2,680 persons during the 1970s. By 1980, the proportion of persons residing in the South dropped to 23 percent.

 

One of the causes for these changes in population distribution was the occupation of the island by the Japanese armed forces during World War II and the continued presence of the United States military after Guam's recapture. World War II had a profound impact on the relocation of the civilian population out of established communities and into areas that were either more convenient to the occupying forces or that were safer for the inhabitants. War activities caused certain villages to cease to be inhabited by civilians, including most of Machanao in the North and Sumay in the South. The village of Agana in Central Guam became nearly deserted.

 

Another cause for the changes in population distribution was Guam's increased strategic value to the United States during and following World War II. In 1944, Guam became the only location in the Western Pacific large enough to hold major U.S. military bases and to be completely under American control when the Philippines gained independence from the United States. As a result, the Navy and Air Force built large military installations on Guam, seizing over one‑third of the island's land and water in the process.

 

Military personnel and their dependents were concentrated into densely settled areas on and near bases, which were primarily in the Northern and Central portions of the island, without regard to the location of established local communities. Because base areas and government quarters areas targeted by the military government for the development of infrastructure, and also because civil service jobs on bases were available to the civilian community, the Northern and Central portions of the island attracted migration by the resident population and new residents.

 

The location of military facilities was determined largely by Guam's geography. The flat limestone plateau of the North became the location of Andersen Air Force Base; Guam's natural deep water port became the center of regional Naval activities; and an airport site in Central Guam already under construction by the Japanese became the Naval Air Station and the civilian air terminal. Southern Guam, with its steep central spine of mountains, was unsuitable for most military activities other than a Naval magazine and watershed. These remain vast, but underdeveloped, holdings.

 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION BY ELECTION DISTRICT

 

There were considerable variations in population growth between the individual election districts of Guam within the regions. Although the total population of the island increased by almost 25 percent between 1970 and 1980, 3 districts more than doubled in population, while several others lost population. Table 1.11 shows growth of each election district from 1960 to 1980. As mentioned earlier, major changes in election district boundaries between 1930 and 1940 and between 1950 and 1960 make district analysis for those decades impossible.

 

Table 1.11 Population by Region and Election District: 1960 to 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Number Percent Percent Change

Region ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Election District 1980 1970 1960 1980 1970 1960 70‑80 60‑80

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Total..........105,979 84,996 67,044 100.0 100.0 100.0 24.7 58.1

 

North............... 47,583 32,540 18,752 44.9 38.3 28.0 46.2 153.7

Dededo............ 23,644 10,780 5,126 22.3 12.7 7.6 119.3 361.3

Tamuning.......... 13,580 10,218 5,944 12.8 12.0 8.9 32.9 128.5

Yigo.............. 10,359 11,542 7,682 9.8 13.6 11.5 ‑10.2 34.8

 

Central............. 34,526 31,266 25,479 32.6 36.8 38.0 10.4 35.5

Agana............. 896 2,119 1,642 .8 2.5 2.4 ‑57.7 ‑45.4

Agana Heights..... 3,284 3,156 3,210 3.1 3.7 4.8 4.1 2.3

Asan.............. 2,034 2,629 3,053 1.9 3.1 4.6 ‑22.6 ‑33.4

Barrigada......... 7,756 6,356 5,430 7.3 7.5 8.1 22.0 42.8

Chalan Pago/Ordot. 3,120 2,931 1,835 2.9 3.4 2.7 6.4 70.0

Mangilao.......... 6,840 3,228 1,965 6.5 3.8 2.9 111.9 248.1

Mong‑Toto‑Maite... 5,245 6,057 3,015 4.9 7.1 4.5 ‑13.4 74.0

Piti.............. 2,866 1,284 1,467 2.7 1.5 2.2 123.2 95.4

Sinajana.......... 2,485 3,506 3,862 2.3 4.1 5.8 ‑29.1 ‑35.7

 

South............... 23,870 21,190 22,813 22.5 24.9 34.0 12.6 4.6

Agat.............. 3,999 4,308 3,107 3.8 5.1 4.6 ‑7.2 28.7

Inarajan.......... 2,059 1,897 1,730 1.9 2.2 2.6 8.5 19.0

Merizo............ 1,663 1,529 1,398 1.6 1.8 2.1 8.8 19.0

Santa Rita....... 9,183 8,109 12,126 8.7 9.5 18.1 13.2 ‑24.3

Talofofo.......... 2,006 1,935 1,352 1.9 2.3 2.0 3.7 48.4

Umatac............ 732 813 744 .7 1.0 1.1 ‑10.0 ‑1.6

Yona.............. 4,228 2,599 2,356 4.0 3.1 3.5 62.7 79.5

__________________________________________________________________________

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Decennial Reports

 

The villages with the greatest increases in population between 1970 and 1980 were Dededo, Piti, and Mangilao, and those showing decreases were Yigo, Agana, Asan, Mongmong‑Toto‑Maite, Sinajana, Agat, and Umatac. There were many factors influencing these variations in population growth, although war and post‑war activities were especially significant.

 

The village of Agana has traditionally been Guam's most important community, possessing a rich history dating back to the pre‑contact era (Sanchez, 1979:9). Its chiefs were the most respected in the Marianas in pre‑contact Guam. The Spanish recognized this and established the seat of government at Agana. The U.S. Navy continued to use Agana as its administrative center when it began its administration of the island.

 

At the beginning of American administration of Guam, Agana's boundaries actually encompassed all of the Northern and most of the Central portions of Guam. By 1930, Agana contained 11,042 persons. The population was so concentrated in one area that urban Agana contained 8,690 persons in 1930, nearly half the island's population. Agana city's population continued to grow until 1940, when it had a population of 10,004 (Table 1.12)

 

Table 1.12 Population of Agana City: 1920 to 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Percent

Number of Total

Year Number Change Population

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

1980..... 896 ‑1223 .8

1970..... 2119 477 2.5

1960..... 1642 842 2.5

1950..... 800 ‑9204 1.3

1940..... 10004 1314 44.9

1930..... 8690 1258 47.0

1920..... 7432 ... 56.0

________________________________________________________

Note: The boundaries of Agana City have remained

constant between 1920 and 1980.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Decennial Reports

 

The Japanese occupied Guam from December 10, 1941 until July 1944. Agana was used as their seat of government and their military headquarters; however, forced relocation of the population left the city virtually deserted, with no more than 200 families. The recapture of the island in 1944 was preceded by American bombardment from shipboard artillery for 13 consecutive days prior to Guam's recapture, totally destroying the city.

 

After Guam's recapture, U.S. military and civilian authorities decided to reestablish the government in Agana. Because of the massive destruction of the city during Guam's recapture, the military government literally bulldozed the remains of the city into the sea, creating a new peninsula of land, and obliterating all remaining streets and property boundary markers.

 

A new system of streets was laid out in Agana, using a different method of surveying from the Spanish system previously used. Later, in the 1950's, the Government of Guam superimposed still another survey methodology on top of the other two. This resulted in a "fractional lot" problem in Agana that is still being resolved in the 1980's. The depopulation of the city during the war and unresolved property disputes after the war caused the number of persons living in Agana to decline from 10,004 persons in 1940 to just 800 persons in 1950. A portion of its pre‑war population was regained by 1970, but the population declined from 2,119 to 896 persons between 1970 and 1980.

 

The most dramatic growth occurred in the Northern district of Dededo, growth which began shortly after the liberation in 1944. From a total population of 5,126 in 1960, Dededo's population increased by more than 360 percent during the next 20 years, reaching 23,644 persons in 1980. This striking increase was fueled by in‑migration of Filipinos, Micronesians, Statesiders and other non‑indigenous people. Private residential and apartment construction, as well as business construction, flourished in the area, making it the largest and fastest growing district in the Territory.

 

The Central, coastal village of Piti experienced the largest percent population increase (123 percent) of any district between 1970 and 1980. However, growth in the civilian, non‑federal lands was 230 persons, or 18 percent between 1970 and 1980. Piti contains part of Apra Harbor, which has been under U.S. Navy control since Guam became a U.S. possession. It was the homeporting of a Navy ship in Apra Harbor between 1970 and 1980, housing 1,352 military personnel, that caused the population of the Piti to double between 1970 and 1980.

 

The Northern district of Yigo showed population growth during the 1960's, but declined by 10 percent between 1970 and 1980. After most of Machanao's land area became occupied by Andersen Air Force Base immediately after World War II, Machanao was annexed to Yigo. The fluctuations in Yigo's population between 1960 and 1980 have been partially the result of changes in the number of persons living on the base and in government quarters near the base. The beginning and ending of the Vietnam Conflict, a war in which Guam's Air Force personnel played a major role, contributed to the growth of the population in Yigo during the 1960's, and the decreased population during the 1970's. The civilian‑held portion of Yigo actually grew in population by 90 percent (2,506 persons) between 1970 and 1980, while the population on federal lands decreased by 42 percent.

 

The Central district of Asan was another area losing population between 1960 and 1980, declining by 33 percent during the period. In the late 1970s, continuing into the 1980s, Asan upgraded and modernized its infrastructure and public utilities under a federally‑supported community redevelopment program. Delays to the urban renewal project caused by archaeological findings and funding problems left the project incomplete prior to the 1980 census. In addition to this, part of Asan was designated as a U.S. War in the Pacific National Park. The limited land area left for redevelopment has contributed to the decline in population.

 

The district of Mongmong‑Toto‑Maite in Central Guam is comprised of three distinct communities. It was established as a single district in 1946. The number of persons living there shrank by 13 percent between 1970 and 1980 solely because of a decline of over 1,600 persons living on federal lands in the community of Mongmong, representing the closure of a Naval Air Station barracks. The civilian, residential portion of the district grew by slightly more than 800 persons, or almost 20 percent.

 

The population of the Central district of Sinajana decreased by 36 percent between 1960 and 1980. The municipality was first organized in 1930. Following World War II, the population of Sinajana grew tremendously with the construction of some 400 new homes. Population growth continued until the housing in the area became saturated, reaching 3,862 persons by 1960. Sinajana was the first district to be completely upgraded and modernized under a Federal renewal program in the mid 1970s. The urban renewal project resulted in the relocation of some residents to other areas of the island and the elimination of substandard housing lots. The decline in population between 1960 and 1980 is therefore not likely to continue into the future.

 

Among the Southern districts, Santa Rita contained the greatest number of persons in 1970 and in 1980. More than 63 percent of its population resided in Navy quarters in 1980, however. Most growth in the South between 1970 and 1980 occurred in Yona, where the majority of commercial and residential housing developments were constructed during the decade. The districts of Agat and Umatac decreased in population. Agat contained no military populations and no obvious development constraints; however, it may be that the district experienced out‑migration by the local resident population, while lacking major housing subdivision development to attract new residents. The situation in Umatac has been compounded by the lack of infrastructure development to support new housing subdivisions.

 

POPULATION ON FEDERALLY OWNED LANDS

 

The federal government owned and controlled one‑third of Guam's land area in 1980, which has not changed since the end of World War II. Military housing on those areas developed independently of the local economy. Defense requirements, the construction of government quarters in new areas, opening or closing of military barracks, and the decision to homeport U.S. Navy ships on Guam are factors that have determined the number and location of active duty military personnel and their dependents, rather than economic conditions and other factors influencing the number and distribution of the civilian population. Census data are available for the population on federal lands for 1970 and 1980, as shown in Table 1.13 The 1960 census gives data on persons living in housing units on federal lands; however, those living in group quarters are not reported for federal lands.

 

Table 1.13 Population Distribution by Non‑Federal/Federal Land Status

and by Urban Designation: 1970 and 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

1980 1970

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Persons Percent Persons Percent

in in in in

Region Total Federal Federal Total Federal Federal

Election District Persons Lands Lands Persons Lands Lands

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Total............ 105979 19550 18.4 84996 20316 23.9

Urban....... 41875 14063 33.6 21671 0 0

Percent........ 39.5 71.9 ... 25.5 0 ...

 

North............ 47583 8699 44.5 32540 10688 52.6

Urban....... 23208 8430 43.1 8230 0 0

Dededo................ 23644 3554 18.2 10780 1697 8.4

Tamuning.............. 13580 69 .4 10218 235 1.2

Yigo.................. 10359 5076 26 11542 8756 43.1

 

Central.......... 34526 5065 25.9 31266 4085 20.1

Urban....... 10126 0 0 10829 0 0

Agana................. 896 0 0 2119 0 0

Agana Heights......... 3284 314 1.6 3156 419 2.1

Asan.................. 2034 417 2.1 2629 535 2.6

Barrigada............. 7756 1716 8.8 6356 1105 5.4

Chalan Pago‑Ordot..... 3120 0 0 2931 0 0

Mangilao.............. 6840 856 4.4 3228 0 0

Mongmong‑Toto‑Maite... 5245 410 2.1 6057 2026 10

Piti.................. 2866 1352 6.9 1284 0 0

Sinajana.............. 2485 0 0 3506 0 0

 

South............ 23870 5786 29.6 21190 5543 27.3

Urban....... 8541 5633 28.8 2612 0 0

Agat.................. 3999 0 0 4308 38 .2

Inarajan.............. 2059 0 0 1897 0 0

Merizo................ 1663 0 0 1529 0 0

Santa Rita............ 9183 5786 29.6 8109 5505 27.1

Talofofo.............. 2006 0 0 1935 0 0

Umatac................ 732 0 0 813 0 0

Yona.................. 4228 0 0 2599 0 0

______________________________________________________________________

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census PC80‑1‑B54 Table 4; PC(1)B54 Table 4

 

Table 1.13 shows that in 1970, 24 percent of the total population of Guam (20,316 persons) lived on federal land areas. Nearly 53 percent of these lived in the North, mostly on Andersen Air Force Base; 20 percent in the Central region, mostly at the Naval Air Station and Naval Regional Medical Center; and 27 percent lived in the South, in Apra Harbor housing. By 1980, the smaller number of persons on federal lands and growth in the civilian population caused the percent of persons living on federal lands to decrease to 18 percent. A larger share resided in Central Guam because of a naval vessel berthed in Piti.

 

Future military population living in federal land areas will be determined by the Defense Department. The 1990 census will probably see some shift in the geographic distribution of the population to Central Guam caused by the homeporting of additional ships in Apra Harbor since 1980. The local names of federal land areas are shown in Table 1.14.

 

Table 1.14 Population on Federal Lands: 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Region Percent Percent

Election District, Federal Land Area Persons Of Total Federal

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Total persons........................... 105979 100 ...

Persons on federal land areas...... 19550 18.4 100

 

North...................................... 8699 8.2 44.5

Dededo, Naval Communication Station............. 3538 3.3 18.1

Dededo, Andersen Air Force Base Northwest Field. 16 0 .1

Tamuning, Harmon Annex.......................... 69 .1 .4

Yigo, Andersen Air Force Base................... 4892 4.6 25

Yigo, Marbo Annex............................... 184 .2 .9

 

Central.................................... 5065 4.8 25.9

Agana Heights, Naval Hospital................... 314 .3 1.6

Asan, U.S. Naval Hospital....................... 417 .4 2.1

Barrigada, Naval Air Station.................... 1650 1.6 8.4

Barrigada, Naval Communication Station.......... 66 .1 .3

Mangilao, Marbo Annex........................... 856 .8 4.4

Mongmong‑Toto‑Maite, Naval Air Station.......... 410 .4 2.1

Piti, Vessel.................................... 1352 1.3 6.9

 

South...................................... 5786 5.5 29.6

Santa Rita, Apra Harbor Naval Reservation....... 5633 5.3 28.8

Santa Rita, U.S. Naval Magazine................. 153 .1 .8

________________________________________________________________________

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Summary Tape File 1A, Table 1; Bureau

of Planning, Government of Guam.

 

POPULATION DENSITY

 

Guam's islandwide population density increased over 368 percent between 1940 and 1980, from 107 persons per square mile in 1940 to 507 persons per square mile in 1980, as shown in Table 1.15. Increases in density were not uniform throughout the island. The Northern portion of the island was the most populated region by 1980, but it was still not the most densely settled. Its density increased from 25 persons per square mile in 1940 to 670 in 1980. The Central region was the area with the highest population density on the island, increasing from 324 to 803 persons per square mile by 1980. At one time, the Southern portion of the island was more densely settled than the North, but by 1980, it had the lowest population density, only 251 persons per square mile. Density in the South increased rapidly between 1940 and 1960, but remained fairly constant between 1960 and 1980, reflecting the slower rate of growth in the South during the period of rapid growth in the North.

 

Table 1.15 Population Distribution and Density by Region: 1940 to 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Year Pcnt

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ Change

Region 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 1940‑80

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Total population.... 105979 84996 67044 59498 22290 373.8

Area in square miles.. 209 209 209 209 209

Population density.... 507 407 321 285 107

 

North Population.. 47583 32540 18752 16147 1795 2580

Area in square miles.. 71 71 71 71 71

Population density.... 670 458 264 227 25

 

Central Population. 34526 31266 25479 26495 13946 147.8

Area in square miles.. 43 43 43 43 43

Population density.... 803 727 593 616 324

 

South Population... 23870 21190 22813 16856 6549 263.8

Area in square miles.. 95 95 95 95 95

Population density.... 251 223 240 177 69

________________________________________________________________________

Note: 1980 population in Central Guam includes 1352 persons living on

board military vessels.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census PC80‑1‑A54 1980 Table 4; PC(1)‑B54

1970 Table 5; P‑B54 1950 Table 34, Bureau of Planning, Government

of Guam.

 

URBAN‑RURAL DISTRIBUTION

 

In order to qualify as urban, an area must first meet the criteria of Census Designated Place (CDP). As discussed earlier, a CDP is a generally closely settled center of population without corporate limits. If the CDP has a population of at least 2,500 persons, it is urban. Rural areas are all areas that are not urban.

 

Although Places have been named by the Census Bureau since 1960, a comparison of urban‑rural distribution is not possible. Census definitions of CDP's have not been applied consistently on Guam for each census period. In 1960 and 1970, 16 CDP's were named. In 1980, an additional 16 CDP's were listed (Table 1.16). Many of those CDP's additionally named in 1980 were existing communities in 1970, and some were existing even in 1960. The inclusion of government quarters especially impacts on urban areas, as government quarters comprised over 34 percent of all urban areas in 1980.

 

Table 1.16 Population of Census Designated Places: 1960 to 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Census Designated Place 1980 1970 1960

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Total................. 69106 35079 28567

 

North....................... 24248 10616 7627

Andersen Air Force Base... 4892 ... ...

Dededo Village............ 2524 2386 2247

Finegayan Station......... 3538 ... ...

Marbo Annex............... 1040 ... ...

Tamuning Village.......... 8862 8230 5380

Yigo Village.............. 3392 ... ...

 

Central..................... 27870 16257 13000

Agana Village............. 896 2119 1642

Agana Heights Village..... 2970 3156 3210

Agana Station............. 2060 ... ...

Asan Village.............. 726 755 543

Barrigada Village......... 3127 1549 1729

Barrigada Hts Subdivision. 1127 ... ...

Chalan Pago Village....... 1921 ... ...

Latte Heights Subdivision. 1056 ... ...

Maina Village............. 891 ... ...

Maite Village............. 419 ... ...

Mangilao Village.......... 4029 ... ...

Mongmong Village.......... 2058 5052 2285

Nimitz Hill Annex......... 417 ... ...

Ordot Village............. 1199 ... ...

Piti Village.............. 737 ... ...

Sinajana Village.......... 1879 2621 2861

Toto Village.............. 2358 1005 730

 

South....................... 16988 8206 7940

Agat Village.............. 2908 2612 2596

Apra Harbor............... 5633 ... ...

Inarajan Village.......... 918 614 761

Merizo Village............ 1500 731 508

Santa Rita Village........ 1264 1976 1630

Santa Rosa Subdivision.... 860 ... ...

Talofofo Village.......... 1470 844 947

Umatac Village............ 487 423 393

Yona Village.............. 1948 1006 1105

_____________________________________________________________________

Note: Symbol "..." indicates an area was not designated a CDP.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census PC80‑1‑A54 1980 Table 9.

 

Urban areas on Guam contained 40 percent of the population in 1980 or 41,875 persons (Table 1.17). The North was the most densely urban, with half of its population residing in urban areas. The population of the village of Tamuning was 65 percent urban. The federal land areas of Andersen Air Force Base in Yigo and Finegayan Station in Dededo contributed to the urban density. Nearly 36 percent of the population of Southern Guam resided in urban areas, exclusively in Agat (73 percent urban) and Santa Rita (61 percent urban). In contrast, only 29 percent of the population of Central Guam lived in urban areas, 90 percent in Agana Heights, 40 percent of Barrigada, and 59 percent of Mangilao. The larger percent urban in the South as opposed to Central Guam is the result of military housing in Santa Rita.

 

Table 1.17. Urban and Rural Residence by Election District: 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Number Percent

Region ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑Percent

Election District Total Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Urban

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Total.......... 105,979 41,875 64,104 100.0 100.0 100.0 39.5

 

North............... 47,583 23,208 24,375 44.9 55.4 38.0 48.8

Dededo............ 23,644 6,062 17,582 22.3 14.5 27.4 25.6

Tamuning.......... 13,580 8,862 4,718 12.8 21.2 7.4 65.3

Yigo.............. 10,359 8,284 2,075 9.8 19.8 3.2 80.0

 

Central............. 34,526 10,126 24,400 32.6 24.2 38.1 29.3

Agana............. 896 0 896 .8 0.0 1.4 0.0

Agana Heights..... 3,284 2,970 314 3.1 7.1 .5 90.4

Asan.............. 2,034 0 2,034 1.9 0.0 3.2 0.0

Barrigada......... 7,756 3,127 4,629 7.3 7.5 7.2 40.3

Chalan Pago/Ordot. 3,120 0 3,120 2.9 0.0 4.9 0.0

Mangilao.......... 6,840 4,029 2,811 6.5 9.6 4.4 58.9

Mong‑Toto‑Maite... 5,245 0 5,245 4.9 0.0 8.2 0.0

Piti.............. 2,866 0 2,866 2.7 0.0 4.5 0.0

Sinajana.......... 2,485 0 2,485 2.3 0.0 3.9 0.0

 

South............... 23,870 8,541 15,329 22.5 20.4 23.9 35.8

Agat.............. 3,999 2,908 1,091 3.8 6.9 1.7 72.7

Inarajan.......... 2,059 0 2,059 1.9 0.0 3.2 0.0

Merizo............ 1,663 0 1,663 1.6 0.0 2.6 0.0

Santa Rita....... 9,183 5,633 3,550 8.7 13.5 5.5 61.3

Talofofo.......... 2,006 0 2,006 1.9 0.0 3.1 0.0

Umatac............ 732 0 732 .7 0.0 1.1 0.0

Yona.............. 4,228 0 4,228 4.0 0.0 6.6 0.0

________________________________________________________________________

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census PC80‑1‑A54 1980, Table 4.

 

 

SUMMARY

 

For the purpose of population analysis, Guam can be divided into Northern, Southern, and Central areas for census periods between 1940 and 1980. The smaller geographic units of election districts are comparable between 1960 and 1980, having undergone extensive reorganization on several occasions prior to 1960.

 

Prior to World War II, nearly half of Guam's population lived in the one square mile village of Agana, in Central Guam. Military occupation during and after the war dispersed the indigenous population into other areas of the island. Fractional lot problems in Agana contributed to the difficulty of repopulating the village after the war. In other parts of the island, families gave up their inherited lands to the U.S. government, which seized over one‑third of Guam's land for defense purposes.

 

The decades 1940 through 1980 thus became a period of rapid growth in the North. New inhabitants included both indigenous residents and new off‑island migrants from the United States and Asia. The population of the North increased a remarkable 45,788 persons, from 1,795 in 1940 to 47,583 in 1980. Growth in the other regions did not match the population increase of the North. The Central region, the most populated area in 1940, added 20,580 persons, while the South grew by 17,321 persons.

 

In the Southern region, the villages of Merizo, Umatac, and Inarajan have retained their rural character, with interior mountainous areas not suited for housing development. Some new development has occurred during the 1980's in the more gently sloping areas of Yona and Talofofo, as improved roads shorten travel time to the commercial further North, and generally improved infrastructure opens the area for development.

 

Of the individual election districts showing decreases and large increase in population between 1960 and 1970, the number of military personnel living on federal lands was often the source of the change. The population living on federal lands should be taken into account in analyzing the growth trends of election districts. Growth caused by the homeporting of military vessels and declines caused by the closure of military barracks are significant in that they do not affect future birth rates, education needs, or housing markets, nor do fluctuations in the number of military personnel necessarily mean that a trend has been established.

 

In 1980, 40 percent of the population lived in urban places. Of that 40 percent, one‑third lived on military reservations. It is probable that more and more places in the civilian portions of Northern and Central Guam will meet the 2,500 and over resident criterion for urban places in the future as the regions become more populated. The military will probably not contribute greatly to the development of additional urban areas until new government quarters are built.

 


[1]!B!

˂

J

EB_

EEEG

G?#‑ÝCHAPTER 2

# AGE AND SEX CHARACTERISTICS


? U

The age and sex composition of a population provides information

necessary to plan for community development and for determining changing

social and economic characteristics. Age is the crucial factor for

determining various potential populations for schooling, manpower, and

voting. Sex is important in understanding social perspective and trends in

a community and a population's potential economic activity.

 

The data on sex were derived from answers to question 3. At the time

of field review, most cases in which sex was not reported were resolved by

determining the appropriate entry from the person's given name and household

relationship. When sex remained blank, it was allocated according to the

relationship to the householder and the age and marital status of the

person.

 

The data on age were derived from answers to question 5. Only the

information in items 5b and 5c (on month and year of birth) was read into

the computer. Answers to questions 5a (on age at last birthday) were used

during field review to fill any blanks in question 5c. The age

classification was based on the age of the person in completed years as of

April 1, 1980. The data on age represent the difference between date of

birth and April 1, 1980.

 

In Chapter 1 we discussed historical statistics for Guam, including age and sex distributions, starting with information from the 1700s. In this, and subsequent chapters, we will be discussing recent statistics for Guam, with a view for the potential use of the data for planning purposes.

 

The population of Guam has been aging in recent years, partly because

of reduced fertility (which will be described in Chapter 5), partly as a

result of even more drastic decreases in mortality (as described in Chapter

6), and partly because of the unusual migration situation, with large

numbers of relatively "middle-aged" migrants (discussed in detail in Chapter 7).

 

AGE AND SEX CHARACTERISTICS

 

The median age of Guam's population in 1980 was 22.2 years, compared to 30.0 in the United States (Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1). The median age is

that age which is the exact mid-point of all ages, that is, half the people

were older and half the people were younger. The median had decreased

slightly from 18.1 in 1920 to 17.9 in 1940, partly due to the influenza

epidemic's remains in 1919 having affected fertility, and the whooping cough epidemic in the 1930s. The median increased by 5 years in 1950 because of relatively large numbers of military stationed on Guam. When many of these persons in the Armed Forces were gone in 1960, the median decreased again, and only increased for the 1980 census, probably as a result of decreased fertility and migration.

U [1]

"

In most populations, the median for females is higher than for males,

but the military on Guam affects those figures as well. In the early

decades of the century, before the Armed Forces were on Guam in any

significant numbers, females generally were older than males (with the

exception of 1930). In 1950, the median for males was 3 years older than

for females because of the Armed Forces and contract workers sent to support

the military. Males were more than 6 years older than females in 1960, and

3 years older in 1970. Partly because of the reduction in the military and

a change in their age and sex structure, and because of the increase in the

local populations, by 1980 the median age for males and females was the

same.

UU

Table 2.1. Median Age: 1920 to 1980

---------------------------------------------------------

Census

Year Total Males Females

---------------------------------------------------------

 

1980 22.2 22.2 22.2

1970 20.4 21.6 18.2

1960 20.8 22.9 16.5

1950 22.8 23.3 20.3

1940 17.9 17.3 18.5

1930 18.8 19.1 18.6

1920 18.1 17.3 18.9

_________________________________________________________

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Decennial Reports

U U

 


UG'ÝFigure 2.1 Median Age: 1920 to 1980


G U
The median age of the population by region varied over time (Table

2.2). In 1930, the Central region had the lowest median age (16.4 years),

followed by the North (17.7 years); by 1950, the Central region had the

highest median age (23.3 years), with the North second highest (23.2 years).

These fluctuations between regions could be a result of regional migration

and the presence of the military in certain regions.

 

UUTable 2.2 Median Age by Region: 1930 to 1980

------------------------------------------------

Year

Region 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 1930

------------------------------------------------

 

Guam... 22.2 20.4 20.8 22.8 17.9 18.8

North....... 22.9 22.1 21.6 23.2 18.3 17.7

Central..... 22.5 20.0 18.9 23.3 17.7 16.4

South....... 20.5 18.7 23.4 21.9 18.3 18.1

________________________________________________

Source: Bureau of the Census Decennial Reports

U U

The effect of the Armed Forces on the sex distribution is more clearly

seen in Table 2.3 (and Figure 2.2). As noted previously, in most

populations there are more females than males. In fact, on Guam in 1920,

there were 295 more females than males, but that was the last census to show

a surplus of females. The sex distributions in 1930 and 1940 were not

abnormal, but by 1950, a change had occurred. In 1950 there were 21,472

more males than females, and the number of males per 100 females doubled,

from 103 in 1940 to 213 in 1950. In 1950, there were more than 2 males for

every female on the island. With decreased military activity, the number of

males per 100 females decreased, until it reached 109 in 1980, more than any

State except Alaska, which had a surplus of males for other reasons.

 

U
UTable 2.3.
Males per 100 Females: 1920 to 1980

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Census Surplus of Males per

Year Males Females Males 100 Females

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

1980 55,321 50,658 4,663 109.2

1970 47,362 37,634 9,728 125.8

1960 39,211 27,833 11,378 140.9

1950 40,485 19,013 21,472 212.9

1940 11,294 10,983 311 102.8

1930 9,630 8,879 751 108.5

1920 6,490 6,785 -295 95.7

_______________________________________________________________________

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Decennial Reports


U U

UG'ÝFigure 2.2 Males per 100 Females: 1920 to 1980


G U

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The distribution by age has changed somewhat since 1940, the first

decennial census to display 5 years age groups for ages up to 75 years

(Table 2.4). Between 1940 and 1950, the percentages of persons under 5

decreased, probably partly because of residual reduced fertility following

the war, but primarily because of increased migration of Armed Service

personnel and contract workers. The change in the 5 to 14 year olds was

even greater, decreasing by 7 percentage points for the 5 to 9 years olds

and 6 percentage points for the 10 to 14 year olds. Much of this decrease

must be attributed to many women not having children during the war years.

 

This group which would normally have created an unusual effect in the

age distribution over time, much as the baby boomers has created a bulge

which is gradually working its way through the age distribution in the

United States, cannot be seen for later censuses because of the great

influx of military personnel and contract workers, starting in the 1940s.

Hence, although this decrease is seen for 5 to 14 year olds in 1950, by 1960

when this group was 15 to 24, the number of Armed Forces personnel in this

same age group was so great, that the Natives have to be disaggregated to

see the affects on that segment of the population. (We have disaggregated

the population by ethnicity in Chapter 8).

 

U

UTable 2.4. Population by Age and Sex: 1940 to 1980

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Numbers Percent

------------------------------------ -----------------------------

Age Group 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Total.105,979 84,996 67,044 59,498 22,290 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0 to 4. 13,002 11,635 10,824 7,568 3,746 12.3 13.7 16.1 12.7 16.8

5 to 9. 12,632 11,762 9,164 4,453 3,261 11.9 13.8 13.7 7.5 14.6

10 to 14. 11,338 10,304 7,254 4,084 2,827 10.7 12.1 10.8 6.9 12.7

15 to 19. 10,993 8,049 4,994 7,162 2,228 10.4 9.5 7.4 12.0 10.0

20 to 24. 11,108 10,270 6,744 11,378 1,870 10.5 12.1 10.1 19.1 8.4

25 to 29. 10,324 6,406 5,572 7,275 1,719 9.7 7.5 8.3 12.2 7.7

30 to 34. 9,289 6,171 6,617 5,452 1,455 8.8 7.3 9.9 9.2 6.5

35 to 39. 6,246 5,474 5,151 4,044 1,203 5.9 6.4 7.7 6.8 5.4

40 to 44. 5,049 4,792 3,403 2,761 946 4.8 5.6 5.1 4.6 4.2

45 to 49. 4,189 3,530 2,631 2,014 812 4.0 4.2 3.9 3.4 3.6

50 to 54. 3,983 2,305 1,736 1,216 599 3.8 2.7 2.6 2.0 2.7

55 to 59. 2,914 1,748 1,171 810 501 2.7 2.1 1.7 1.4 2.2

60 to 64. 1,927 1,070 695 483 435 1.8 1.3 1.0 .8 2.0

65 to 69. 1,418 689 478 346 291 1.3 .8 .7 .6 1.3

70 to 74. 809 351 271 204 210 .8 .4 .4 .3 .9

75 + .... 758 440 339 248 174 .7 .5 .5 .4 .8

___________________________________________________________________________

Note: 1940 includes 13 persons of unknown age.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Decennial Reports

U U

The military influence is clearly seen in the 1950 census results,

since almost 1 in every 5 persons on Guam was between 20 and 24 in that

year, up from only 1 in 12 in 1940. The proportion decreased to about 1 in

10 in 1960 and subsequent years. About 1 in every 8 persons on Guam in 1950

was between 15 and 19, and about the same proportion were between 25 and 29.

Altogether about 43 percent of the population in 1950 was between 15 and 29.

 

About 16 percent of the 1960 population were under 5, and another 14

percent were 5 to 9, showing the effects of the baby boom on Guam. By 1970,

fertility had begun to decrease, with only 14 percent of the population less

than 5 years old, and by 1980 the decrease continued, to 12 percent of the

population.

 

The proportion of the population which was elderly remained low

throughout the period, partly because of the influence of the presence of

the military (which decreased the percentage of youth as well as elderly),

and partly because the birth rate was high, and continued to be fairly high

even in 1980 (although very low compared to the developing world). Just

over 3 percent of the population in 1940 was 65 years and over. The

proportion of elderly decreased to between 1 and 2 percent from 1950 to

1970, and increased to 3 percent again in 1980. As will be shown in Chapter

8 on ethnicity, most of the elderly were Chamorro, so that as the rest of

the population ages, the percentage of elderly will increase, as will the

need to provide housing and other services for these persons.

Traditionally, Chamorro culture has made provisions for its elderly, with

specific roles within the extended family context. As the society has

"Westernized" many of these roles have changed, resulting in the likelihood

of new mechanisms being needed to care for the elderly, particularly as

non-Chamorros become part of this group.

 

DEPENDENCY RATIO

 

The dependency ratio is derived by dividing the sum of persons under 15

(the pre-labor force youth) and the elderly (those over 64), by the persons

generally included in the potential labor force (those 15 to 64), and

multiplying by 100. A dependency ratio of 100 would mean that there is

exactly one dependent for each potential worker; a higher number would mean

that there are more dependents than workers, and a lower number means that

there are more workers than dependents.

 

In 1940, before the military "invasion", the population was closest to

a dependency ratio of 100, with a figure of 89 (89 dependents for every 100

potential workers) (Table 2.5). The dependency ratio in 1950 was only 40,

less than half of the ratio for 1940, showing both greatly reduced fertility

in the war years and the huge influx of military personnel in the late

1940s. This value is unlikely to occur in any "natural" environment, and is

due to the large numbers of young and middle-aged adults on island in

connection with the Armed Forces. This kind of figure makes analysis of the

dependency ratios fairly useless since some segments of the population were

still living at subsistence levels, and other segments were living off an

artificially constructed economy, including PXs and other imported goods and

materials.

 

The dependency ratios in 1960, 1970, and 1980, continued to show the

influence of the military. After a jump in 1960 because of proportionally

fewer military on island however, the ratio continued to decrease to 60 in

1980. The decrease in the 20 years before the 1980 census was due both to

increased immigration of aliens in the middle years (as well as

Statesiders), and decreased fertility (which was far greater than the slight

increase in the elderly population.)

 

U
UTable 2.5.
Dependency Ratios: 1940 to 1980

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Age Group 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Total..... 105,979 84,996 67,044 59,498 22,2771

0 to 14..... 36,972 33,701 27,242 16,105 9,834

15 to 64..... 66,022 49,815 38,714 42,595 11,768

65 +......... 2,985 1,480 1,088 798 675

Dependency

Ratio...... 60.5 70.6 73.2 39.7 89.3

____________________________________________________________________

1) Excludes 13 persons of unknown age.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Decennial Reports


U U

The male population has shown the fluctuations in the age distribution

more dramatically than the female population, because most of the early

military personnel were males (Table 2.6). Again, the age distribution for

1940 was fairly "normal" because most of the residents were Chamorros and

were living without military activity. In 1950, all of this had changed.

 

In 1950, almost 1 in every 4 males was between 20 and 24, another 14

percent were between 15 and 19, and another 13 percent were between 25 and

29. Hence, more than half the males were in this 15 year age range. Most

of these males were military personnel. The proportion of males in this age

range has remained large throughout the rest of the period because of

continued military activity on island.

 

U

UTable 2.6. Males by Age and Sex: 1940 to 1980

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Numbers Percent

------------------------------------ -----------------------------

Age Group 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Males. 55,321 47,362 39,211 40,485 11,300 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0 to 4. 6,620 5,962 5,614 3,885 1,945 12.0 12.6 14.3 9.6 17.2

5 to 9. 6,458 6,054 4,593 2,286 1,734 11.7 12.8 11.7 5.6 15.4

10 to 14. 5,835 5,362 3,685 2,129 1,463 10.5 11.3 9.4 5.3 13.0

15 to 19. 5,849 4,148 3,053 5,583 1,092 10.6 8.8 7.8 13.8 9.7

20 to 24. 6,019 6,642 4,527 9,613 885 10.9 14.0 11.5 23.7 7.8

25 to 29. 5,194 3,569 3,386 5,231 897 9.4 7.5 8.6 12.9 7.9

30 to 34. 4,854 3,538 4,526 3,812 748 8.8 7.5 11.5 9.4 6.6

35 to 39. 3,386 3,267 3,440 2,850 621 6.1 6.9 8.8 7.0 5.5

40 to 44. 2,650 3,038 2,172 1,859 504 4.8 6.4 5.5 4.6 4.5

45 to 49. 2,171 2,192 1,684 1,380 402 3.9 4.6 4.3 3.4 3.6

50 to 54. 2,238 1,334 1,036 793 300 4.0 2.8 2.6 2.0 2.7

55 to 59. 1,634 1,015 642 482 231 3.0 2.1 1.6 1.2 2.0

60 to 64. 1,008 577 367 243 199 1.8 1.2 .9 .6 1.8

65 to 69. 729 324 223 157 119 1.3 .7 .6 .4 1.1

70 to 74. 392 160 117 84 83 .7 .3 .3 .2 .7

75 + .... 284 180 146 98 71 .5 .4 .4 .2 .6

___________________________________________________________________________

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Decennial Reports

U U

The female population on Guam has not seen the tremendous fluctuations

the male age distribution experienced (Table 2.7). Some of this anomaly in

the 15 to 29 years old females in the 1950 census can be attributed to wives

who accompanied their husbands for military duty on island.

 

The increase in percentage of females in the 0 to 4 age group between

1940 and 1950 (from 16 to 19 percent) probably reflects real growth in this

age group, and, if the military were excluded from the male distribution,

males also would probably exhibit the same pattern. The late 1940s saw the

beginning of the baby boom on Guam as elsewhere, so that the high rates of 0

to 4 years olds in 1950 and 1960 reflect this higher fertility; almost 1 in

every 5 females in those two censuses were less than 5 years old. After the

1960 census, the percentage of these females decreased, partly as a result

of the baby bust, and partly because of increased migration of aliens and

persons from the States (including increased numbers of female military

personnel).

 

The proportion of female elderly has remained low, but, once again,

this may change as the general population ages.

 

U

UTable 2.7. Females by Age and Sex: 1940 to 1980

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Numbers Percent

------------------------------------ -----------------------------

Age Group 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Fmles. 50,658 37,634 27,833 19,013 10,990 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0 to 4. 6,382 5,673 5,210 3,683 1,801 12.6 15.1 18.7 19.4 16.4

5 to 9. 6,174 5,708 4,571 2,167 1,527 12.2 15.2 16.4 11.4 13.9

10 to 14. 5,503 4,942 3,569 1,955 1,364 10.9 13.1 12.8 10.3 12.4

15 to 19. 5,144 3,901 1,941 1,579 1,136 10.2 10.4 7.0 8.3 10.3

20 to 24. 5,089 3,628 2,217 1,765 985 10.0 9.6 8.0 9.3 9.0

25 to 29. 5,130 2,837 2,186 2,044 822 10.1 7.5 7.9 10.8 7.5

30 to 34. 4,435 2,633 2,091 1,640 707 8.8 7.0 7.5 8.6 6.4

35 to 39. 2,860 2,207 1,711 1,194 582 5.6 5.9 6.1 6.3 5.3

40 to 44. 2,399 1,754 1,231 902 442 4.7 4.7 4.4 4.7 4.0

45 to 49. 2,018 1,338 947 634 410 4.0 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.7

50 to 54. 1,745 971 700 423 299 3.4 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.7

55 to 59. 1,280 733 529 328 270 2.5 1.9 1.9 1.7 2.5

60 to 64. 919 493 328 240 236 1.8 1.3 1.2 1.3 2.1

65 to 69. 689 365 255 189 172 1.4 1.0 .9 1.0 1.6

70 to 74. 417 191 154 120 127 .8 .5 .6 .6 1.2

75 + .... 474 260 193 150 103 .9 .7 .7 .8 .9

___________________________________________________________________________

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Decennial Reports

U U

UG'ÝFigure 2.3 Age and Sex Distribution: 1940


 

 

'ÝFigure 2.4 Age and Sex Distribution: 1950

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'ÝFigure 2.5 Age and Sex Distribution: 1960


 

 

'ÝFigure 2.6 Age and Sex Distribution: 1970

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'ÝFigure 2.7 Age and Sex Distribution: 1980



G USEX RATIO

 

As noted earlier, the number of males per 100 females increased from

103 to 213 between 1940 and 1950 because of the influx of military

personnel, and then decreased first to 141 in 1960, then to 126 in 1970, and

109 in 1980 (Table 2.8 and Figure 2.8). As would be expected, the

proportions for young ages were closer to even numbers of males and females

(although we do not expect a figure of 100, because, world-wide, there are

about 106 males born for every 100 females).

 

The coming of the military to Guam also affected the proportion of

males and females in the military ages. In 1950, for example, there were

354 males for every 100 females aged 15 to 19, 545 males per 100 females

aged 20 to 24, 256 for those 25 to 29, with diminishing proportions after

that. As time has gone by, these proportions have decreased, but in some

ages have remained high, especially compared with similar populations in the

States and elsewhere. By 1960, only 20 to 24 and 30 to 39 year olds had

more than 2 males for each female, and none of the age groups in 1960 had

this disparity (although there were 183 males 20 to 24 years old for every

100 females in that age group).

 

There were more females than males 65 years and over (except for those

65 to 69 in 1980) for each of the censuses, showing increased male mortality

in the older age groups.

 

U

UTable 2.8. Males per 100 Females by Age: 1940 to 1980

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surplus of Males Males Per 100 Females

------------------------------------ -----------------------------

Age Group 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Total. 4663 9728 11378 21472 310 109.2 125.8 140.9 212.9 102.8

0 to 4. 238 289 404 202 144 103.7 105.1 107.8 105.5 108.0

5 to 9. 284 346 22 119 207 104.6 106.1 100.5 105.5 113.6

10 to 14. 332 420 116 174 99 106.0 108.5 103.3 108.9 107.3

15 to 19. 705 247 1112 4004 -44 113.7 106.3 157.3 353.6 96.1

20 to 24. 930 3014 2310 7848 -100 118.3 183.1 204.2 544.6 89.8

25 to 29. 64 732 1200 3187 75 101.2 125.8 154.9 255.9 109.1

30 to 34. 419 905 2435 2172 41 109.4 134.4 216.5 232.4 105.8

35 to 39. 526 1060 1729 1656 39 118.4 148.0 201.1 238.7 106.7

40 to 44. 251 1284 941 957 62 110.5 173.2 176.4 206.1 114.0

45 to 49. 153 854 737 746 -8 107.6 163.8 177.8 217.7 98.0

50 to 54. 493 363 336 370 1 128.3 137.4 148.0 187.5 100.3

55 to 59. 354 282 113 154 -39 127.7 138.5 121.4 147.0 85.6

60 to 64. 89 84 39 3 -37 109.7 117.0 111.9 101.2 84.3

65 to 69. 40 -41 -32 -32 -53 105.8 88.8 87.5 83.1 69.2

70 to 74. -25 -31 -37 -36 -44 94.0 83.8 76.0 70.0 65.4

75 + .... -190 -80 -47 -52 -32 59.9 69.2 75.6 65.3 68.9

___________________________________________________________________________

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Decennial Reports

U U


UG'ÝFigure 2.8 Male/Female Ratio by Age: 1980


G U

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AGE DISTRIBUTION

 

Table 2.9 shows the distribution by age for the election districts on

Guam. The overall median age for Guam was 22.2 years, with the North and

Central regions having higher median ages, and the South being younger.

 

Umatac had the lowest median age at 17.4 years, followed by Inarajan

(17.9 years), and Talofofo (18.2). Other villages with low median ages were

Merizo (18.5), Yona (18.6), and Chalan Pago-Ordot (19.0); only the last

village was not in the Southern region. The percentage of persons less than

18 years old also reflects the relative youth in these villages. Overall,

41 percent of Guam's population was less than 18 years old. Central and

Northern regions had slightly smaller percentages of persons in this age

group (40 percent for each), compared to the 45 percent for South. Both

Umatac and Inarajan had more than half their populations under 18 years old,

the result of high fertility, and probably less migration of young adults to

these southern villages.

 

About 3 percent of the population was 65 years or older. More than 6

percent of those living in Agana were 65 years or older, as were more than 5

percent of those in Agana Heights. Sinajana, Agat, and Inarajan each had

slightly less than 5 percent of their populations being elderly.

 

These data seem to show that the South remains somewhat more

traditional than the Central and Northern regions, with higher fertility,

and less military and other in-migration. The villages in the extreme South

seem even more traditional in age structure than the others.

 

U
UTable 2.9.
Age by Region and Election District: 1980

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number Percent

------------------- -------------------

Popula- Under 18 to 65 + Under 18 to 65 + Median

Election District tion 18 yrs 64 yrs years 18 yrs 64 yrs years Age

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Total.......... 105979 43604 59390 2985 41.1 56.1 2.8 22.2

 

North............. 47583 19241 27156 1198 40.4 57.1 2.5 22.9

Dededo.............. 23644 10640 12437 567 45.0 52.6 2.4 20.9

Tamuning............ 13580 4549 8555 475 33.5 63.0 3.5 26.4

Yigo................ 10359 4040 6164 155 39.0 59.5 1.5 22.2

 

Central........... 34526 13633 19765 1128 39.5 57.2 3.3 22.5

Agana............... 896 275 566 55 30.7 63.2 6.1 27.4

Agana Heights....... 3284 1261 1855 167 38.4 56.5 5.1 23.7

Asan................ 2034 775 1170 92 38.1 57.5 4.5 23.3

Barrigada........... 7756 3017 4506 233 38.9 58.1 3.0 22.2

Chalan Pago-Ordot... 3120 1498 1507 115 48.0 48.3 3.7 19.0

Mangilao............ 6840 2859 3837 144 41.8 56.1 2.1 22.3

Mongmong-Toto-Maite. 5245 2229 2874 142 42.5 54.8 2.7 21.6

Piti................ 2866 616 2190 60 21.5 76.4 2.1 23.6

Sinajana............ 2485 1103 1260 122 44.4 50.7 4.9 20.6

 

South............. 23870 10728 12481 659 44.9 52.3 2.8 20.5

Agat................ 3999 1848 1964 188 46.2 49.1 4.7 20.2

Inarajan............ 2059 1038 924 97 50.4 44.9 4.7 17.9

Merizo.............. 1663 812 790 62 48.8 47.5 3.7 18.5

Santa Rita.......... 9183 3600 5446 138 39.2 59.3 1.5 22.3

Talofofo............ 2006 991 953 62 49.4 47.5 3.1 18.2

Umatac.............. 732 378 342 12 51.6 46.7 1.6 17.4

Yona................ 4228 2063 2063 101 48.8 48.8 2.4 18.6

__________________________________________________________________________

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census PC80-1-B54, Table 14.


U U

MILITARY AND CIVILIAN POPULATIONS

 

The special tabulations developed to disaggregate military households

from civilian households provide data on age and sex of the civilian

population, as well as those households having one or more military

personnel. Persons on active-duty military status are called "military

persons", households with one or more military persons residing there are

"military households".

 

Altogether, there were 83,226 persons (78 percent) living in households

or group quarters which contained only civilians. Of these, 42,056 (51

percent) were males, compared to 58 percent of males in military households

or in group quarters (Table 2.10).

 

The median ages for the two populations did not differ significantly,

but the distributions were significantly different. Although the median for

the whole population was 22.3 years, the median for civilians was slightly

less (21.8 years) and the median for the military was slightly more (22.9

years). The median for males in the military was about a year older than

for females, while the median for female civilians was about a half year

older than for males.

 

Once the military are disaggregated from the rest of the population,

the civilian age and sex distribution looks much more "normal". Military

personnel seem to have higher fertility than civilians, since 14 percent

were children less than 5 years old in military households, compared to 12

percent in civilian households. On the other hand, because they are in the

military, more than 1 in 5 of all military persons were 20 to 24 compared to

only 8 percent of the civilians. The percentage of military in the 25 to 29

year age group was double that of the civilians. More than 12 percent of

the military population was 30 to 34 years old compared to only 8 percent of

the civilian population.

 

On the other hand, slightly larger proportions of persons in the 35 to

44 year old age group were civilian than were military, partially because of

large numbers of immigrants in this age group (see Chapters 7 and 8). And,

larger proportions of persons older than 44 were civilian than were

military. More than 9 percent of the civilian population was 45 to 54 years

old, compared to less than 2 percent of the military population. And only

about 1 percent of the military population was 55 years old and over,

compared to more than 9 percent of the civilian population.

 

UUTable 2.10. Age and Sex by Military Household Status: 1980

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Civilians Military

------------------------------------------------------

Age Group Total Males Fmles Total Males Fmles Total Males Fmles

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Total....105979 55321 50658 83226 42056 41170 22753 13265 9488

Percent. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0 to 4.... 12.3 12.0 12.6 11.7 11.9 11.6 14.2 12.1 17.1

5 to 9.... 11.9 11.7 12.2 12.4 12.7 12.2 10.1 8.5 12.3

10 to 14.... 10.7 10.5 10.9 12.0 12.3 11.8 5.8 5.0 7.0

15 to 19.... 10.4 10.6 10.2 11.1 11.1 11.1 7.7 8.8 6.1

20 to 24.... 10.5 10.9 10.0 7.5 6.6 8.5 21.3 24.4 16.9

25 to 29.... 9.7 9.4 10.1 8.0 7.2 8.7 16.3 16.3 16.3

30 to 34.... 8.8 8.8 8.8 7.8 7.6 7.9 12.4 12.4 12.4

35 to 44.... 10.7 10.9 10.4 11.0 11.1 10.9 9.4 10.3 8.3

45 to 54.... 7.7 8.0 7.4 9.4 10.0 8.7 1.7 1.5 2.0

55 to 59.... 2.7 3.0 2.5 3.4 3.8 3.0 .4 .3 .5

60 to 64.... 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.3 2.2 .2 .2 .3

65 and over. 2.8 2.5 3.1 3.4 3.2 3.7 .5 .3 .8

Median.... 22.3 22.4 22.1 21.8 21.5 22.0 22.9 23.2 22.2

___________________________________________________________________

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census PC80-1-C/D54, Table 19;

Unpublished tabulations.

U U

The percentage distribution by age group also shows differences (Table

2.11). Altogether females were 48 percent of the population on Guam in

1980; while females constituted almost half of the civilian population, they

were only about 4 in every 10 of the military population (and, of course,

many of these were dependents). Among the civilians, in the young ages

females were just slightly less than half of all persons and were more than

half of those 20 to 35 years old. For ages 35 to 64, however, there were

more males than females in the civilian population, probably because of the

selective nature of international migration, with larger numbers of male

immigrants than females. For the elderly, females were a larger percentage

of the civilian population than were males.

 

The military population showed a very different pattern. More than 2

of every 3 military persons between 15 and 24 were male, and while the

proportions decreased to below 6 in 10 for persons 25 to 34, more than 6 in

10 of those 35 to 44 were males. More than half of the persons 55 years and

over in military households, however, were female.

 

There is some evidence from these data that there is a discrepancy

between the military and civilian data for persons 20 to 29 which show

surpluses of civilian females. Military males who were on ships and left

their families behind would have been recorded as civilian since no one in

the household would have been identified as military; hence, this surplus of

civilian females in the age group was probably at least partially explained

by the fact that many of these women were married to military personnel who

were on ships and left their families behind. (Their children are less

easily disaggregated from all children.)

 

UUTable 2.11. Percent Age and Sex by Military Household Status: 1980

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Civilians Military

------------------------------------------------------

Age Group Total Males Fmles Total Males Fmles Total Males Fmles

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Total.... 100.0 52.2 47.8 100.0 50.5 49.5 100.0 58.3 41.7

0 to 4.... 100.0 50.9 49.1 100.0 51.3 48.7 100.0 49.7 50.3

5 to 9.... 100.0 51.1 48.9 100.0 51.6 48.4 100.0 49.1 50.9

10 to 14.... 100.0 51.5 48.5 100.0 51.7 48.3 100.0 50.0 50.0

15 to 19.... 100.0 53.2 46.8 100.0 50.6 49.4 100.0 66.8 33.2

20 to 24.... 100.0 54.2 45.8 100.0 44.4 55.6 100.0 66.9 33.1

25 to 29.... 100.0 50.3 49.7 100.0 45.9 54.1 100.0 58.2 41.8

30 to 34.... 100.0 52.3 47.7 100.0 49.6 50.4 100.0 58.3 41.7

35 to 44.... 100.0 53.4 46.6 100.0 51.1 48.9 100.0 63.4 36.6

45 to 54.... 100.0 54.0 46.0 100.0 54.1 45.9 100.0 50.9 49.1

55 to 59.... 100.0 56.1 43.9 100.0 56.4 43.6 100.0 47.3 52.7

60 to 64.... 100.0 52.3 47.7 100.0 52.5 47.5 100.0 44.4 55.6

65 and over. 100.0 47.1 52.9 100.0 47.5 52.5 100.0 37.4 62.6

___________________________________________________________________

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census PC80-1-C/D54, Table 19;

Unpublished tabulations.

U U

Table 2.12 further disaggregates the military data into persons who

were actually in the military in 1980 and those who were civilians but

living in military households. There were 10,125 persons (10 percent of

Guam's total population) on active-duty status in the military in 1980:

9,224 males and 901 females. The median age of these persons was 26.5

years, more than 4 years more than for the rest of the population in

military households (because so many of the other people in military

households were children), and about 4 years more than for the general

population of Guam.

 

Military persons constituted more than half of all persons 20 to 24

years old (67 percent of the males and 33 percent of the females in that age

group), and were 49 percent of the persons 25 to 29 years old. Of course,

for planning and other policy purposes, military households and families,

and not only the military persons must be considered, so the analysis in

this report for military-civilian differences focuses on the whole

household, and not merely the military person himself or herself.

 

UUTable 2.12. Median Age by Sex and Military Status: 1980

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Military

------------------------------

Total Civilians Households Persons

------------------------------------------------------

Age Group Males Fmles Males Fmles Males Fmles Males Fmles Total

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Total.... 55321 50658 42056 41170 13265 9488 9224 901 10125

0 to 4.... 6620 6382 5017 4758 1603 1624 0 0 0

5 to 9.... 6458 6174 5333 5007 1125 1167 0 0 0

10 to 14.... 5835 5503 5176 4843 659 660 0 0 0

15 to 19.... 5849 5144 4685 4565 1164 579 843 119 962

20 to 24.... 6019 5089 2782 3485 3237 1604 3149 460 3609

25 to 29.... 5194 5130 3038 3583 2156 1547 2094 214 2308

30 to 34.... 4854 4435 3204 3256 1650 1179 1622 64 1686

35 to 44.... 6036 5259 4673 4472 1363 787 1336 26 1362

45 to 54.... 4409 3763 4212 3573 197 190 152 15 167

55 to 59.... 1634 1280 1590 1231 44 49 17 3 20

60 to 64.... 1008 919 984 889 24 30 7 0 7

65 and over. 1405 1580 1362 1508 43 72 4 0 4

Median.... 22.4 22.1 21.5 22.0 23.2 22.2 26.5 22.2 26.1

____________________________________________________________________

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census PC80-1-C/D54, Tables 19 and 36

U U

There were more than 10 active-duty military males for every military

female in 1980 (Table 2.13). None of the age groups showed anything like

equal proportions. Although there were fewer than 10 males per female for

persons less than 29 and more than 55, there were 25 males for every female

30 to 34, and 51 for those 35 to 44 years old.

 

Table 2.13 also shows that for all military households, there were more

females than males under 15 and over 55, but that males predominated in the

middle years, with more than 2 males per female 15 to 24 years old. The

problem with the ratio of males to females 20 to 29 in the civilian

population is also seen here, since there is a great surplus of females

here, once again indicating that some of these females should more properly

have been placed in the military category.

 

UUTable 2.13. Males per 100 Females by Age and Military Status: 1980

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Military Military

Age Group Total Civilians Households Persons

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Total.... 109.2 102.2 139.8 1023.8

0 to 4.... 103.7 105.4 98.7 ...

5 to 9.... 104.6 106.5 96.4 ...

10 to 14.... 106.0 106.9 99.8 ...

15 to 19.... 113.7 102.6 201.0 708.4

20 to 24.... 118.3 79.8 201.8 684.6

25 to 29.... 101.2 84.8 139.4 978.5

30 to 34.... 109.4 98.4 139.9 2534.4

35 to 44.... 114.8 104.5 173.2 5138.5

45 to 54.... 117.2 117.9 103.7 1013.3

55 to 59.... 127.7 129.2 89.8 566.7

60 to 64.... 109.7 110.7 80.0 ...

65 and over. 88.9 90.3 59.7 ...

______________________________________________________________

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census PC80-1-C/D54, Table 19 and

Table 36.

U U

SUMMARY

 

While the median age in 1980 was less than that of the U.S., Guam's

population is aging. Median age was higher for civilian females than for

civilian males; the opposite was true for the military, and the overall

median age for the military was higher than that of civilians. The

proportion of the total population less than 5 years old was 12 percent; the

proportion over 65 years was 3 percent. The dependency ratio in 1980 was

60.5.

 

From 1930 onward, the sex ratio of the population was greater than 103;

it was 109 in 1980. The sex ratio was higher for both military persons and

military households.

 

The military dominated in the age groups less than 5 years and 20 to 34

years; civilians did so in all other age groups. Due to definitions of

military households used in special retabulations of the 1980 census, some

military dependent spouses were put into the civilian category, causing

surpluses of female civilians in certain age groups.

 

We have briefly presented data on the age and sex distribution of the

population on Guam for 1940 through 1980. It is clear that because of the

military presence and the large amount of immigration, Guam will not show a

"normal" population distribution for the foreseeable future.


CHAPTER 3

HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS

 

class=Section3>

 

 

Characteristics of the households of Guam reflect many of the sociological and economic changes that have taken place over the years. For many years, extended family households, consisting of parents, children, grandparents, grandchildren, siblings, and other relatives were considered to be the norm. By 1980, extended families were the exception, as fertility and family size declined, and more people were employed in the cash than the subsistence economy. The decline of household size and changes in its composition can be seen in the Census data from 1940 to 1980.

 

The first question asked in the 1980 Census that was used in determining household status and relationships was Question 1: "What is the name of each person who was living here on Tuesday, April 1, 1980, or who was staying or visiting here and had no other home"?. The second was Item B: Type of unit or quarters, which was to be filled in by the enumerator or a Census office clerk. Question 2: "How is ___ related to ___(the person named in column one)?" was used to obtain the household relationships and helped to delineate family units. Possible responses fell into categories of being related to the person in column one (the householder), such as a spouse, child, sibling, parent, or other relative, and not being related to that person, such as boarder, roommate, paid employee, or other nonrelative. Several other questions in the household section of the questionnaire probed to determine if anyone was not listed, and whether they should be added to the list of household members.

 

The 1920 and 1930 Censuses did not have household or family questions. In the 1940 Census, the classification of household members was less detailed than in subsequent years. The term "private family" was used to designate everything from a person living alone to an extended family with others living in the home, such as employees and boarders, as long as they made up a single household. The only collection of persons residing together not considered a "private family" was a group of persons living in a hotel, a lodginghouse with five or more lodgers, a school dormitory, prison or jail, hospital or other institution where they were likely to remain for considerable periods of time, the personnel of a military post or a naval station, or the members of a camp or barracks of laborers. These persons were designated as "quasi-family groups". When tabulated, however, distinctions were made between heads of "private families", wives and children, other relatives, other members of private families, and members of "quasi-family groups".

 

The definitions used for households in the 1950 Census were similar to those used in the 1940 Census, with a change in terminology from "private families" to household. A household (in 1950) included all persons who occupied a house, an apartment, or other group of rooms, or a room that constituted a dwelling unit. In general, a group of rooms occupied a separate living quarters was a dwelling unit if it had separate cooking equipment or if it constituted the only living quarters in the structure. A household included both related family members and unrelated persons, such as lodgers and employees, as it did in 1940. A person living alone in a dwelling unit, or a group of unrelated persons sharing a dwelling unit as partners, was counted as a household. The number of "private families" in 1940 may be regarded as comparable to the number of households in 1950. Quasi-households were not counted as households in 1950.

 

In 1960, a household was defined as all persons who occupied a housing unit. A


house, apartment or other group of rooms, or a single room was a housing unit when it was occupied or intended for occupancy as a separate living quarters; that is, when the occupants did not live and eat with any other persons in the structure and when there was either direct access from outside or through a common hall, or a kitchen or cooking equipment for the exclusive use of the occupant. Groups of 5 or more persons living together, who were unrelated to the person in charge, were designated as living in group quarters.

 

The 1960 definition of a household differed slightly from that of 1950: the change arose as a result of the shift from a dwelling unit to a housing unit as the basis of enumeration. The number of households in 1960, however, is considered comparable to the number of households in 1950.

 

In the 1970 Census, substantial changes were made to the definition of a family, with families, households and group quarters being differentiated. According to the new definitions, a family consisted of a household head and one or more other persons living in the same household who were related to the head by blood, marriage, or adoption. All living arrangements other than households were classified as either "institutional" or "other" group quarters. Separate living quarters were group quarters if there were 5 or more persons unrelated to the head, or, if there was no designated head, 6 or more unrelated persons in the unit. Places that fell into this category were rooming and boarding houses, communes, worker's dormitories and convents. Military barracks and ships were regarded as group quarters regardless of the number or relationship of people in the unit.

 

In 1970, single persons living alone were considered single person households rather than families. Groups consisting of less than 5 unrelated persons living together (that were not in barracks, institutions, hotels, or dormitories) were "unrelated person" households rather than "quasi-families". "Subfamilies", married couples with or without children, or 1 parent with 1 or more single children under 18 years old, that were living in a household and related to, but not including, the head of household or his wife, was a new definition that began with the 1970 Census.

 

The 1980 Census continued with the subfamily designation and the differentiations between family- and non-family households. However, no designation of head of household was made in the 1980 questionnaire. The definition of group quarters was changed from 5 or more persons unrelated to the head of household (now called householder), to 9 or more persons unrelated to householder. If there were no head of household, 10 or more unrelated persons in a unit made it group quarters, instead of the previous requirement of 6 or more unrelated persons. This change in definition made some units that were group quarters in 1970 into households in 1980. The definition did not change for certain types of living arrangements, such as military barracks or ships.

 

HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS

 

Households with 2 or more persons made up 91 percent of all households on Guam in 1980 (Table 3.1). Single person households made up the remaining 9 percent.

 

Of those households with 2 or more persons, 82 percent were married couple families, 15 percent were other family households, and 4 percent were non-family households. Other family households were more often headed by females with no husband present (73 percent) than by males with no wife present (27 percent.) The opposite was true of non-family households: 73 percent of these were headed by male householders and 27 percent by female householders. More males lived in single person households (64 percent) than did females (36 percent.)

 

 

class=Section5>

 

Table 3.1 Households by Persons in Household and Household Type: 1980

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number Percent

------------------------ -----------------------

Total North Cntrl South Total North Cntrl South

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Total Households.. 24834 11595 8070 5169 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 

1 person................... 2246 1061 896 269 9.0 9.2 11.1 5.2

Male householder......... 1415 698 545 172 5.7 6.0 6.8 3.3

Female householder....... 811 363 351 97 3.3 3.1 4.3 1.9

 

2 or more persons.......... 22608 10534 7174 4900 91.0 90.8 88.9 94.8

Married couple family.... 18473 8696 5597 4180 74.4 75.0 69.4 80.9

Other family............. 3307 1413 1251 643 13.3 12.2 15.5 12.4

Male householder, no

wife present.......... 892 435 320 137 3.6 3.8 4.0 2.7

Female householder, no

husband present....... 2415 978 931 506 9.7 8.4 11.5 9.8

Nonfamily household...... 828 425 326 77 3.3 3.7 4.0 1.5

Male householder....... 602 314 236 52 2.4 2.7 2.9 1.0

Female householder..... 226 111 90 25 .9 1.0 1.1 .5

 

___________________________________________________________________________

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census Summary Tape File 1A, 1980, Table 16.

 

class=Section6>

 

There were slight differences in type of household by region: the Central region had a greater proportion of single person households than the other 2 regions, with the majority of single householders being male. The South had the smallest proportion of single female-headed households. The South claimed the highest percentage of households with 2 or more persons, followed by the North. The South also had the highest proportion of married-couple family households. The Central region had the highest percentage of female-headed family households.

 

Tables 3.2 through 3.4 show household and family composition from 1940 through 1980 as percentages of persons in each category. In 1940, 98 percent of the population of Guam lived in households. This proportion dropped to 62 percent in 1950, then steadily rose to 95 percent in 1980. The decrease in the proportion living in households from 1940 to 1950 can be attributed to an influx of military personnel and alien laborers after the end of World War II, most of whom lived in barracks-style housing. Their proportion of the population rose from 2 percent in 1940 to 38 percent in 1950. From 1950 to 1980, the increase in the proportion of persons living in households, from 62 percent to 95 percent, was paralleled by a decrease in the proportion living in non-institutional group quarters, which fell from 38 percent to 5 percent.

 

 

class=Section7>

Table 3.2 Percent Household Type: 1940 to 1980

---------------------------------------------------------

Persons in Households 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940

---------------------------------------------------------

Total persons.....105979 84996 67044 59498 22290

Percent..... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

In households.............. 95.3 88.5 82.2 61.9 97.7

In families.............. 91.2 85.5 80.1 NA NA

In nonfamily households.. 4.1 2.9 2.1 NA NA

In group quarters.......... 4.7 11.5 17.8 38.1 2.3

_________________________________________________________

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census Summary Tape File 1A,

Table 17; Decennial Census Reports.

 

class=Section8>

 

Most (97 percent) households were family households, and were composed of a head, spouse of the head, and other relatives of the head, primarily the own children of the head (Table 3.3). The proportion of the population in families increased slightly in each of the last 3 censuses, as did the proportion who were heads and spouses of heads of families. Single females as heads of families increased by 44 percent between 1970 and 1980. The proportion of children of family heads increased by 9 percent between 1960 and 1970, then decreased by 13 percent between 1970 and 1980. It would seem from the increase in families, heads of families, and spouses of family heads, and the decrease in own children of heads of families, that many of these family households in 1980 were married couples with no children who began new family homes between 1970 and 1980.

 

 

class=Section9>

Table 3.3 Percent Family Composition: 1960 to 1980

--------------------------------------------------------

Persons in Families 1980 1970 1960

--------------------------------------------------------

Total persons............. 105979 84996 67044

 

In households...................... 101000 75333 55140

Percent....................... 100.0 100.0 100.0

In families...................... 95.7 96.5 97.4

Head of family.................. 21.6 19.0 18.5

Female, no husband present1... 2.4 1.8 NA

Male, no wife present......... .9 NA NA

Spouse.......................... 18.3 16.0 16.1

Other relatives................. 55.0 61.6 62.8

Own child of head under 18 yrs. 39.1 48.6 48.1

Other relative of head......... 15.9 12.9 14.7

Not related to head2........... .8 NA NA

Not in families................... 4.3 3.5 2.5

____________________________________________________________

1For 1960, it is not specified whether husband is present.

2For 1960 and 1970, it is not indicated whether unrelated

individuals are in family or nonfamily households.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census Summary Tape File 1A Table 17;

Decennial Census Reports.

 

class=Section10>

 

The population that resided in either nonfamily households or in group quarters steadily decreased between 1960 and 1980 (Table 3.4). Of that population, the majority were in group quarters, though this proportion also decreased. The proportion of those in group quarters who were inmates of institutions remained constant at 1 percent for the period; the greatest changes were for those in "Other" group quarters: military or construction barracks. In nonfamily households, both the percentage who were head of households and those not related to the head increased. The greatest amount of this increase was contributed by male householders, whose proportion increased by 232 percent between 1970 and 1980. Some of these male householders were men who separated or divorced between 1970 and 1980 and began new households; some were military personnel who chose not to live in group quarters on base, and rented a house off base.

 

 

class=Section11>

Table 3.4 Percent Nonfamily and Group Quarters:

1960 to 1980

------------------------------------------------------

Persons 1980 1970 1960

------------------------------------------------------

Total persons........ 9359 12270 13342

Percent........... 100.0 100.0 100.0

 

In nonfamily households.... 46.8 20.4 10.6

Head of household........ 32.6 10.2 4.5

Male householder....... 21.6 6.5 NA

Female householder..... 11.1 3.7 NA

Not related to head...... 14.2 10.2 6.0

 

In group quarters.......... 53.2 79.6 89.4

Inmate of institution.... 1.5 1.1 1.0

Other.................... 51.7 78.5 88.4

________________________________________________________

For 1960 and 1970, it is not indicated whether unrelated

individuals are in family or nonfamily households.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census Summary Tape File 1A Table 17;

Decennial Census Reports.

 

class=Section12>

 

HOUSEHOLD SIZE

 

The average size of households on Guam steadily decreased from 1940 to 1980. In 1940, the average size of a household was 5.57 persons, decreasing to 4.99 persons in 1950. By 1980, household size had further decreased to an average of 4.07 persons. The civilian community of Guam in 1980 had a larger average household size than did the military, 4.25 persons and 3.41 persons, respectively. The average number of persons per household in the United States in 1980 was 2.75 persons, only two-thirds the size of Guam's average household.

 

Household size also changed within regions over the years, with Southern villages almost always having larger households than any other region. Table 3.5 shows the average household size by region from 1940 to 1980. In 1940, the region with the largest average number of persons per household was the South, with 6.66 persons; the region with the smallest average was the North, with 4.47. In 1950, the region with the most persons per household was the Central region, which had 5.34 persons per home on the average; the North had the smallest average household size, with 4.06.

 

 

class=Section13>

Table 3.5 Average Number of Persons per Household by Region: 1940 to 1980

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Persons per Household

--------------------------------------------------

Region 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total............. 4.07 4.83 5.09 4.99 5.57

 

North...................... 3.96 4.59 4.63 4.06 4.47

Central.................... 3.98 4.91 5.24 5.34 5.74

South...................... 4.43 5.11 5.45 5.22 6.66

________________________________________________________________________

Note: For 1940 and 1950, "regions" are municipalities.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census Decennial Census Reports.

 

class=Section14>

 

By 1960, tabulations of average household size were computed by election district (used interchangeably with "village" in this monograph) as well as by geographical region (Table 3.6). In that year the village with the highest number of persons per household was Talofofo, with an average of 7.01 persons. The lowest average household size was in Santa Rita, with 4.25 persons. Both of these villages were in the Southern region, the region with the largest average household size, which had an average of 5.45 persons per home. The region with the smallest household size was the North, with 4.63 persons.

 

In 1970, Umatac claimed the largest average household size, with 6.25 persons, and Agana had the smallest, with 3.99. The region with the largest average household size was again the South, with 5.11 persons per household. The region with smallest average was the North, with 4.59. This distribution was true again in 1980: Umatac had the largest households, with 5.63 persons per household, Agana the smallest with 3.01. The South was the region with the largest households, having an average of 4.43 persons, and the North had the smallest, with 3.96.

 

 

class=Section15>

Table 3.6 Average Number of Persons per Household by

Election District: 1960 to 1980

------------------------------------------------------

Persons per Household

----------------------

Election District 1980 1970 1960

------------------------------------------------------

Total............. 4.07 4.83 5.09

 

North...................... 3.96 4.59 4.63

Dededo................... 4.57 4.81 4.89

Tamuning................. 3.25 4.44 4.70

Yigo..................... 3.87 4.48 4.35

 

Central.................... 3.98 4.91 5.24

Agana.................... 3.01 3.99 4.51

Agana Heights............ 3.81 4.62 4.88

Asan..................... 3.80 4.72 4.81

Barrigada................ 4.10 5.06 5.32

Chalan Pago-Ordot........ 4.71 5.64 6.09

Mangilao................. 3.87 4.64 5.04

Mongmong-Toto-Maite...... 3.97 4.75 5.00

Piti..................... 3.61 5.28 5.41

Sinajana................. 4.34 5.52 6.10

 

South...................... 4.43 5.11 5.45

Agat..................... 4.66 5.39 5.85

Inarajan................. 5.21 6.12 6.68

Merizo................... 4.70 5.71 6.26

Santa Rita............... 3.90 4.18 4.25

Talofofo................. 4.97 5.85 7.01

Umatac................... 5.63 6.25 6.83

Yona..................... 4.62 5.95 5.70

____________________________________________________________

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census Decennial Census Reports.

 

class=Section16>

 

Not only has the size of households changed over the years, the number and distribution have as well. Tables 3.7 and 3.8 show the number and proportion of households per region and village for 1940 through 1980. In 1940, the Central region had the highest number and, accordingly, the greatest proportion of households. The region with the smallest number of households was the North. In 1950 this had changed only slightly: Central again had the largest number of households, and the Northern region the smallest.

 

 

class=Section17>

Table 3.7 Households per Region: 1940 to 1980

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Number | Percent

-----------------------------|-----------------------------

Region 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940| 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940

---------------------------------------|-----------------------------

Total.. 24834 15569 10807 7373 3913|100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

|

North.... 11595 6052 3309 1792 402| 46.7 38.9 30.6 24.3 10.3

Central.. 8070 5751 4539 3453 2398| 32.5 36.9 46.8 46.8 61.3

South.... 5169 3766 2959 2128 1113| 20.8 24.2 27.8 28.9 28.4

_____________________________________________________________________

Note: For 1940, households are private families.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Decennial Census Reports.

 

class=Section18>

 

In 1960, the Central region had the largest number of households, and the South had the smallest. The village with the largest number of households overall was Santa Rita, with 1241 or 11.5 percent of the total number of households; the smallest was Umatac, with only 109, or less than 1 percent of the total households (Table 3.8).

 

In 1970, the North had become the largest region, which contained 6052 households or 38.9 percent of the total number of homes. This was an 83 percent increase in the number of homes in that region (Tables 3.8 and 3.9). By comparison, the number of households had only increased by 27 percent in both the Central and Southern regions. One village even had a decrease in the number of households reported between the 1960 and 1970 Censuses: Piti reported 3 homes less in 1970 than it had in 1960.

 

By 1980 the Northern region had increased its number of households by another 92 percent over 1970 levels, while the Central region had increased by 40 percent and the South had grown by 37 percent. However, these increases were not uniform: Agana, Asan, and Sinajana had each lost households in the Central region, and Umatac, in the South, had not changed at all from 1970.

 

 

class=Section19>

Table 3.8 Households per Village and Region: 1960 to 1980

---------------------------------------------------------------

Number Percent

------------------- ----------------

Village 1980 1970 1960 1980 1970 1960

---------------------------------------------------------------

Total.............24834 15569 10830 100.0 100.0 100.0

 

North.............11595 6052 3309 46.7 38.9 30.6

Dededo.......... 5104 2067 948 20.6 13.3 8.8

Tamuning........ 4067 2039 1159 16.4 13.1 10.7

Yigo............ 2424 1946 1202 9.8 12.5 11.1

 

Central........... 8070 5751 4562 32.5 36.9 42.1

Agana........... 294 453 318 1.2 2.9 2.9

Agana Heights... 827 625 615 3.3 4.0 5.7

Asan............ 526 552 539 2.1 3.5 5.0

Barrigada....... 1747 1230 1020 7.0 7.9 9.4

Chalan Pago-

Ordot......... 660 512 285 2.7 3.3 2.2

Mangilao........ 1709 667 304 6.9 4.3 2.8

Mongmong-

Toto-Maite...... 1312 843 586 5.4 5.4 5.4

Piti............ 422 236 262 1.7 1.5 2.4

Sinajana........ 573 633 633 2.3 4.1 5.9

 

South............. 5169 3766 2959 20.8 24.2 27.3

Agat............ 853 780 529 5.0 4.9 4.9

Inarajan........ 392 307 259 1.6 2.0 2.4

Merizo.......... 351 266 222 1.4 1.7 2.0

Santa Rita...... 2131 1529 1241 8.6 9.8 11.4

Talofofo........ 398 322 193 1.6 2.1 1.8

Umatac.......... 130 130 109 .5 .8 1.0

Yona............ 914 432 406 3.7 2.8 3.7

_______________________________________________________________

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census Decennial Census Reports.

 

class=Section20>

 

The shift in household and population location is even more visible when comparing the differences over a 20-year span than over 10 year increments (Table 3.9). From 1960 to 1980, the Central and Southern regions had increased their numbers of households by 77 and 75 percent, respectively, while the Northern region grew by 250 percent. Some of this growth can be attributed to the opening of military housing areas in Dededo in the 1970's, but the majority is due to new civilian low cost housing tracts, which began being built in that village and Yigo in the 1970's, and the proliferation of apartment units in Tamuning.

 

 

class=Section21>

Table 3.9 Percent Change in Households per Region: 1940 to 1980

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Percent Change from Previous Census

------------------------------------------------------

1970- 1960- 1960- 1950- 1940-

Region 1980 1970 1980 1960 1950

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total............. 59.5 43.8 129.3 46.9 88.4

 

North............. 91.6 82.9 250.4 84.6 345.8

Central........... 40.3 26.1 76.9 31.4 44.0

South............. 37.2 27.3 74.7 39.0 91.2

________________________________________________________________________

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census Decennial Census Reports.

 

class=Section22>

 

FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS

 

One measure of "family health" is the change in the proportion of the population under 18 years of age living with two parents, which is affected by the amount of divorce; another measure is the increase in the proportion of female heads of households who have no husband present, which is affected by both divorce and out-of-wedlock births. On Guam, many unmarried women with children choose to apply for welfare assistance, including subsidized housing, and set up their own households, rather than remain with their parents or other relatives.

 

Children under the age of 18 were present in 68 percent of all households in 1980 (Table 3.10). These children in households represented over 99 percent of all children under 18 (Table 3.11). In 1970, 81 percent of children lived in a married-couple family. By 1980, this figure was down to 79 percent.

 

 

class=Section23>

Table 3.10 Households with One or More Persons Under 18 Years

By Household Type: 1980

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number Percent Percent

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total households........... 24834 100.0 (X)

 

Total households with children...... 16974 68.3 100.0

Married couple family............. 14316 57.6 84.3

Other family...................... 2587 10.4 15.2

Male hholder, no wife present... 574 2.3 3.4

Female hhldr, no husband present 2013 8.1 11.9

Nonfamily household............... 71 .3 .4

________________________________________________________________________

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census Summary Tape File 1A, Tables 3 and 19.

 

class=Section24>

 

Nearly 12 percent of children under 18 years were living in other family households in 1980 (Table 3.12), with the majority, 83 percent, living in their mother's household rather than their father's. Another 9 percent lived with other relatives or nonrelatives: one parent may have resided with them, but not as householder.

 

class=Section25>

Table 3.11 Persons Under 18 by Household Type and Relationship:

1970 and 1980

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number Percent

----------------- --------------

1980 1970 1980 1970

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Persons under 18 years 43604 38574 100.0 100.0

 

In household........................ 43549 NA 99.9 NA

Householder or spouse............. 48 NA .1 NA

Own child of householder.......... 39490 36642 90.6 95.0

In married couple family........ 34330 31117 78.7 80.7

In other family................. 5160 5525 11.8 14.3

________________________________________________________________________

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census Summary Tape File 1A 1980 Table 17;

PC80-1-B54 1980 Table 15; PC(1)-B54 1970 Tables 5 and 11.

 

class=Section26>

 

 

 

class=Section27>

Table 3.12 Persons Under 18 By Household Type and Relationship: 1980

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1980 Percent

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Persons under 18 years..... 43604 100.0

 

In households....................... 43549 99.9

Householder or spouse............. 48 .1

Own child of householder.......... 39490 90.6

In married couple family........ 34330 78.7

In other family................. 5160 11.8

Female householder............ 4294 9.8

Male householder.............. 866 2.0

Other relatives................... 3771 8.6

Nonrelative....................... 240 .6

 

In group quarters................... 55 .1

Inmate of institution............. 16 0.0

Other............................. 39 .1

________________________________________________________________________

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census Summary Tape File 1A 1980 Table 17;

PC80-1-B54 1980 Table 15; PC(1)-B54 1970 Tables 5 and 11.

 

class=Section28>

 

In 1970, there were 12,021 husband/wife families (out of 14,315 total families), and 1,354 female-headed families (Table 3.13). Husband/wife families represented 84 percent of total families; female-headed families were 10 percent of the total. The proportion of married-couple families stayed nearly constant in 1980, at about 85 percent of all families. The proportion of female-headed families, however, had risen to 11 percent; the proportion of male householders with no wife present decreased from 7 percent in 1970 to 4 percent in 1980.

 

 

class=Section29>

Table 3.13 Own Children Under 18 Years By Family Type: 1970 and 1980

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number Percent Percent

------------ ------------ ------------

Persons 1980 1970 1980 1970 1980 1970

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Families................... 21780 14315 100.0 100.0 (X) (X)

With own children under 18 yrs.. 15913 10895 73.1 76.1 (X) (X)

Married couple families.......... 18473 12021 84.8 84.0 100.0 100.0

With own children under 18 yrs. 13770 9413 63.2 65.8 74.5 78.3

Female hhldr, no husband present. 2415 1354 11.1 9.5 100.0 100.0

With own children under 18 yrs. 1727 919 7.9 6.4 71.5 67.9

Male hhlder, no wife present..... 892 940 4.1 6.6 100.0 100.0

With own children under 18 yrs. 416 563 1.9 3.9 46.6 59.9

___________________________________________________________________________

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census PC80-1-B54 1980 Table 15; PC(1)B54 1970

Table 11

 

class=Section30>

 

Of married-couple families in 1970, 9,413, or 78 percent, had children under 18 years living with them, compared to 68 percent of the female-headed families. These percentages changed to 75 percent and 72 percent, respectively, in 1980.

 

Persons 65 years and over made up almost 3 percent of the population in 1980 (Table 3.14). Over 88 percent of Guam's elderly lived in family households, with 52 percent being the householder or their spouse.

 

 

class=Section31>

Table 3.14 Persons 65 and Over By Household Type and Relationship: 1980

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Numbers Percent

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Persons 65 and over..... 2985 100.0

 

In family households............. 2638 88.4

Householder.................... 1106 37.1

Spouse......................... 444 14.9

Other relative................. 1069 35.8

Nonrelative.................... 19 .6

 

In nonfamily households.......... 290 9.7

Male householder............... 121 4.1

Female householder............. 153 5.1

Nonrelative.................... 16 .5

 

In Group quarters................ 57 1.9

Inmate of institution.......... 2 .1

Other.......................... 55 1.8

________________________________________________________________________

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census Summary Tape File 1A 1980, Table 15

and Table 20.

 

class=Section32>

 

In 1980, 36 percent of the elderly lived with relatives and just less than 1 percent stayed with nonrelatives in family households. Of the remaining elderly, 10 percent were residing in nonfamily households, and 2 percent were institutionalized. There are no statistics about the elderly for Census years prior to 1980, so it is not known whether these figures reflect large increases in the proportions of the population over 65 who are living outside the family household, or who have been institutionalized. Local experts in the area of gerontology expect the proportions of elderly who have been institutionalized to increase by 1990, after the opening of the island's first senior care home (St. Dominic's) in 1987 (Guam Health Planning and Development Agency 1985: 227-37; 1987). St. Dominic's has a capacity of 60 beds, 36 of which were immediately filled with elderly needing constant care when the Intermediate Care Facility of the Guam Memorial Hospital was closed in 1987; an additional 4 beds have been filled in 1988.

 

SUMMARY

 

Guam is an island with households in transition. The average household size has decreased from over 5 persons per household to just over 4 persons over the last 40 years, and the distribution of those households has moved from the Central region to the North. The southernmost area has consistently had the largest average size of households, but the proportion of households located there has been steadily decreasing since 1960.

 

Household and family composition has also changed over the years. Comparisons made with data from the last 2 censuses show that the proportion of female headed families is increasing, while the proportion of married couple families is decreasing. The percentage of married couple families with children under the age of 18 years has decreased slightly, and a parallel increase of female headed families with children under 18 has occurred. This change seems to show a shift from the island tradition of an extended family to one that, whether by divorce or premarital childbearing, is headed by a single female. The great majority of Guam's elderly were living in family households in 1980, either in their own household or with relatives.

 

Should patterns in household size, composition and distribution be consistent, the island may expect in the future to have smaller households, with more single female heads of households, and a continued shift to residences located in the Northern region. The next Census will allow us to see if these patterns continued from 1980 to 1990.

 

 


CHAPTER 4

MARITAL STATUS

 

Marriage is an important indicator of socio‑cultural patterns in a society, particularly because the age pattern of marriage affects fertility. Usually, there is a relationship between age at first marriage and the number of children a woman will have, partly because earlier marriage gives more time for births and younger women tend to be more fertile than older women.

 

The data on marital status were derived from answers to question 6. The marital status classification referred to the status at the time of enumeration. Persons classified as "now married" included those who had been married only once and had never been widowed or divorced and those currently married persons who remarried after having been widowed or divorced. Consensually married persons were those living in a marital union without a civil or religious matrimonial contract and were included with those classified as now married; they were reported separately as "consensually married". Persons reported as "separated" were those living apart because of marital discord, with or without a legal separation. Persons whose only marriage had been annulled, and all persons under 15 years old were classified as "never married." All persons classified as "never married" are shown as "single" here.

 

When marital status was not reported, it was allocated according to the relationship to householder and sex and age of the person.

 

CHARACTERISTICS OF MARITAL STATUS

 

Between 1930 and 1980 the percentage of males who were never married decreased, but most of the decrease came between 1940 and 1960, and the data are obscured, once again, by the presence of the military and their dependents on island (Table 4.1). Between 1960 and 1980 there was almost no change in the proportion of males 15 years and over who had never married, about 1 in 3 males. The data for 1950 are clearly affected by the huge presence of the military in that year, many of whom had never married.


 

The percentage of married males showed the same fluctuations as the never married, but in the opposite direction. Between 1960 and 1980 about 6 in every 10 males were married. The percentage divorced remained small, but has been increasing with each census. On the other hand, the percentage of widowers, which was about 5 percent in 1930 and 1940, decreased to about 1 percent in 1960, and has remained there.

 

Table 4.1. Marital Status for Males: 1930 to 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Marital Status 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 1930

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Males, 15 yrs & over.. 36,408 30,978 25,319 32,572 6,158 5,673

Percent............. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Never married........... 33.3 34.1 34.4 55.1 42.4 46.9

Now married............. 62.2 61.7 61.9 39.7 51.6 47.8

Consensually married.. 1.6 .8 ... ... ... ...

Separated............... .9 .6 .6 (NA) (NA) (NA)

Divorced................ 2.3 2.2 1.5 (NA) .4 .4

Widowed................. 1.4 1.3 1.4 (NA) 5.6 4.8

___________________________________________________________________________

Note: 1970 and 1950 data for persons 14 years and over; for 1930 to

1950 "separated" included in "now married"; for 1950, 1698

widowed/divorced males included in total.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Decennial Census Reports

 

The percentage of never married females has not seen the dramatic changes the males experienced because few of the females were in the military (Table 4.2). For all censuses through the years, the percentage of never married females has been less than comparable males, partly because of the large number of single males in the military. There has been a general downward trend in the percentage of never married females, with glitches in 1940 and again in 1970.

 

The "now married" segment shows the inverse trend, as with the males. The percentage of divorced females remained at 1 percent or less until 1980 when it jumped to more than 3 percent; the percentage of widows also decreased from more than 10 percent in 1930 and 1940 to about 5 percent in 1970 and 1980.

 

Table 4.2. Marital Status for Females: 1930 to 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Marital Status 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 1930

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Females, 15 yrs & over 32,599 22,241 14,483 11,561 6,298 5,065

Percent............. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Never married........... 26.2 29.6 23.1 31.5 39.0 35.7

Now married............. 63.4 63.4 67.7 59.0 50.3 53.0

Consensually married.. 1.6 .7 ... ... ... ...

Separated............... 1.3 .9 1.1 (NA) (NA) (NA)

Divorced................ 3.5 1.1 1.1 (NA) .3 .4

Widowed................. 5.5 4.9 6.8 (NA) 10.3 10.8

___________________________________________________________________________

Note: 1970 and 1950 data for persons 14 years and over; for 1930 to

1950 "separated" included in "now married"; for 1950, 1091

widowed/divorced females included in total.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Decennial Reports.

 

Tables 4.3 and 4.4 show more the recent trends by sex. For males, the percent change for separated and consensually married persons has been much greater than the change for all males. Some of the change may be due to different interpretations for these categories, and the definitions for separated and consensually married may be ambiguous to some respondents.

 

Table 4.3. Marital Status for Males: 1970 and 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Percent

Number Change Percent

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ 1970 to‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Marital Status 1980 1970 1980 1980 1970

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Males, 15 yrs & over.. 36,408 30,978 17.5 100.0 100.0

Never married........... 12,122 10,559 14.8 33.3 34.1

Now married............. 22,637 19,120 18.4 62.2 61.7

Consensually married.. 581 252 130.6 1.6 .8

Separated............... 320 190 68.4 .9 .6

Divorced................ 825 697 18.4 2.3 2.2

Widowed................. 504 412 22.3 1.4 1.3

________________________________________________________________________

Note: 1970 data are for persons 14 years and over.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census PC80‑1‑B54 1980, Table 15, PC(1)‑B54,

Table 6

 

The percentage changes for females were larger than for males between 1970 and 1980. Although the number of females 15 years and over increased by about one‑third between 1970 and 1980, the percent divorced jumped by 78 percent, and consensually married females increased by more than 70 percent. Also, separated females increased by about 50 percent.

 

Table 4.4. Marital Status for Females: 1970 and 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Percent

Number Change Percent

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ 1970 to‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Marital Status 1980 1970 1980 1980 1970

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Females, 15 yrs & over 32,599 22,241 46.6 100.0 100.0

Never married........... 8,553 6,593 29.7 26.2 29.6

Now married............. 20,670 14,093 46.7 63.4 63.4

Consensually married.. 529 151 250.3 1.6 .7

Separated............... 414 208 99.0 1.3 .9

Divorced................ 1,155 252 358.3 3.5 1.1

Widowed................. 1,807 1,095 65.0 5.5 4.9

________________________________________________________________________

Note: 1970 data are for persons 14 years and over.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census PC80‑1‑B54 1980, Table 15,

PC(1)‑B54, Table 6

 

There was very little difference in the distribution of civilian and military persons (defined on the basis of a military person in the household) in 1980. The percentage of never married military males was insignificantly higher than for civilians. A higher percentage of civilians than military males were consensually married, and a larger percentage were widowed. Although 73 percent of the adult male population was civilian, 93 percent of the consensually married males were civilian, as were 94 percent of the widowers.

 

Table 4.5. Marital Status of Males by Civilian/Military Dependent Status:

1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Numbers Percent

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ Percent

Civi‑ Mili‑ Civi‑ Mili‑ Civi‑

Marital Status Total lian tary lian tary lian

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Males, 15 yrs & over.. 36,408 26,530 9,878 100.0 100.0 72.9

Never married........... 12,122 8,746 3,376 33.0 34.2 72.1

Now married............. 22,637 16,483 6,154 62.1 62.3 72.8

Consensually married.. 581 538 43 2.0 .4 92.6

Separated............... 320 221 99 .8 1.0 69.1

Divorced................ 825 605 220 2.3 2.2 73.3

Widowed................. 504 475 29 1.8 .3 94.2

___________________________________________________________________________

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census PC80‑1‑C/D54 1980, Table 19.

 

The marital distribution by civilian and military status for females differed somewhat from the males (Table 4.6). Military females were more likely to be married than civilian females, probably because females in military households are more likely to be the wives of military men than males are to be the husbands of military females. For all other categories, civilian females were present in larger percentages than for the whole population (with more than 90 percent).

 

Table 4.6. Marital Status of Females by Civilian/Military Dependent Status:

1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Numbers Percent

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ Percent

Civi‑ Mili‑ Civi‑ Mili‑ Civi‑

Marital Status Total lian tary lian tary lian

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Females, 15 yrs & over 32,599 26,562 6,037 100.0 100.0 81.5

Never married........... 8,553 7,806 747 29.4 12.4 91.3

Now married............. 20,670 15,581 5,089 58.7 84.3 75.4

Consensually married.. 529 488 41 1.8 .7 92.2

Separated............... 414 396 18 1.5 .3 95.7

Divorced................ 1,155 1,068 87 4.0 1.4 92.5

Widowed................. 1,807 1,711 96 6.4 1.6 94.7

___________________________________________________________________________

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census PC80‑1‑C/D54 1980, Table 19.

 

Data on marital status by age were not tabulated in 1970. When compared to the 1960 data, the 1980 data show that males tended to get married at slightly younger ages than in the earlier census (Table 4.7). The Singulate Mean Age at Marriage (SMAM) (Hajnal 1954) is derived by an indirect technique to obtain the average age at first marriage for a population or group. The average age at first marriage for males on Guam in 1980 was 24.5 years (about the same as the 24.9 years reported for the 1960 census).

 

The number of single males between 30 and 49 years old decreased between 1960 and 1980, while the number of younger and older males increased. Much of this decrease can probably be attributed to military males leaving the island, and not being replaced.

 

Table 4.7. Percent Never Married by Age for Males: 1960 and 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Percent Percent of all

Number Change Persons this Age

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ 1960 to‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Age Group 1980 1960 1980 1980 1960

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Males, 15 yrs & over.. 12,122 8,715 39.1 33.3 34.4

15 to 19 years.......... 5,667 2,920 94.1 96.9 95.6

20 to 24 years.......... 3,774 3,036 24.3 62.7 67.1

25 to 29 years.......... 1,319 989 33.4 25.4 29.2

30 to 34 years.......... 554 876 ‑36.8 11.4 19.4

35 to 39 years.......... 251 381 ‑34.1 7.4 11.1

40 to 44 years.......... 156 172 ‑9.3 5.9 7.9

45 to 49 years.......... 110 113 ‑2.6 5.1 6.7

50 to 54 years.......... 106 93 14.0 4.7 9.0

55 to 59 years.......... 80 50 60.0 4.9 7.8

60 years and over....... 105 85 23.5 4.4 10.0

SMAM.................... ... ... ... 24.5 24.9

________________________________________________________________________

Source: 1980 Unpublished data and 1960 Census, Table 13.

 

The Singulate Mean Age at Marriage for females in 1960 was 20.5 years, which increased to 22.1 years in 1980 (Table 4.8). Unlike the males, the percentage of never married females increased for all ages. As the singulate mean age of first marriage indicates, it is likely that females are delaying first marriage to finish schooling or to enter the labor force because the proportions never married have changed considerably. While only 32 percent of the 20 to 24 year old females in 1960 had never married, this percentage had increased to 40 percent in 1980.

 

Table 4.8. Percent Never Married by Age for Females: 1960 to 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Percent Percent of all

Number Change Persons this Age

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ 1960 to‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Age Group 1980 1960 1980 1980 1960

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Females, 15 yrs & over 8,553 3,351 155.2 26.2 23.1

15 to 19 years.......... 4,635 1,690 174.3 90.1 87.1

20 to 24 years.......... 2,039 713 186.0 40.1 32.2

25 to 29 years.......... 780 266 193.2 15.2 12.2

30 to 34 years.......... 344 175 96.6 7.8 8.4

35 to 39 years.......... 169 123 37.4 5.9 7.2

40 to 44 years.......... 159 112 42.0 6.6 9.1

45 to 49 years.......... 94 80 17.5 4.7 8.4

50 to 54 years.......... 98 69 42.0 5.6 9.9

55 to 59 years.......... 66 41 61.0 5.2 7.8

60 years and over....... 169 82 106.1 6.8 8.8

SMAM.................... ... ... ... 22.1 20.5

________________________________________________________________________

Source: 1980 Unpublished data and 1960 Census Report, Table 13.

 

 

Using vital statistics data to compute mean age at first marriage for the years 1981 through 1985 yields slightly higher results (Table 4.9). The mean age at first marriage for females was 24.1 years in 1981, decreased to 23.9 years in 1982, then increased and decreased again in 1983 and 1984. In 1986, it was 24.3 years. The mean age at first marriage for males was 26.3 years in 1981, decreased to 25.7 years in 1982, rose to 26.7 years in 1983, then steadily decreased to 25.9 years in 1985.

 

Table 4.9. Mean Age at First Marriage by Sex: Guam, 1981 to 1985

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

1981‑

Sex 1985 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Male 26.4 26.3 25.7 26.7 26.4 25.9

Female 24.4 24.1 23.9 24.6 24.3 24.3

______________________________________________________________________

Source: Annual Statistical Reports, Office of Vital Statistics, DPHSS.

 

CONSENSUAL MARRIAGE

 

Use of "consensually" married on the questionnaire is somewhat problematic because there is no generally agreed upon definition of what constitutes a consensual union. As noted previously, for 1980, the Census Bureau defined a consensual marriage as a couple who were "living in a marital union without a civil or religious matrimonial contract". It is likely, however, that respondents and enumerators did not always use this definition to decide on marital status of individuals in the census.

 

In traditional Micronesian societies, marriage was not necessarily formalized by a religious ceremony, and persons sometimes moved into and out of unions over the years. Although many marriages among Chamorros were formalized after Hispanization by the Catholic Church, not all marriages were then or are now formalized. Nonetheless, it is not clear that the Census is the best instrument for collecting data on this subject.

 

Altogether 581 of the 22,637 (3 percent) of the married males in 1980 were in consensual unions (Table 4.10). Although more than 11 percent of the married males 15 to 19 years old and 5 percent of those 20 to 24 were married consensually, the percentages dropped off after that. Males in consensual unions, then, tended to be younger than those who were in regular unions, that is, the younger the male, the more likely he was to be consensually married.

 

These data indicate that there may be problems in interpreting "consensual" marriage. Since these unions do not seem to persist into middle age, consensual union might be better classified as "trial" marriage. If "consensual" marriage is fully categorized by the Census Bureau definition, then it is very different from non‑consensual unions, at least in terms of age. If the government of Guam is to use the data on consensual marriage for planning and policy use, a re‑definition may be necessary, or at least a more thorough evaluation by a survey may be required.

 

Table 4.10. Consensually Married Males by Age: 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Number Percent Percent

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ Consen‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

All Consen‑ sually All Consen‑

Age Group Married sually Married Married sually

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Males, 15 yrs & over.. 22,637 581 2.6 100.0 100.0

15 to 19 years.......... 176 20 11.4 .8 3.4

20 to 24 years.......... 2,142 113 5.3 9.5 19.4

25 to 29 years.......... 3,653 118 3.2 16.1 20.3

30 to 34 years.......... 4,087 93 2.3 18.1 16.0

35 to 44 years.......... 5,302 122 2.3 23.4 21.0

45 to 54 years.......... 3,921 65 1.7 17.3 11.2

55 to 59 years.......... 1,453 24 1.7 6.4 4.1

60 to 64 years.......... 856 19 2.2 3.8 3.3

65 years and over....... 1,047 7 .7 4.6 1.2

________________________________________________________________________

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census PC80‑1‑C/D54 1980, Table 19.

 

The data for females in consensual unions were similar to the data for males (Table 4.11). Again, about 3 percent of the marriages were consensual, and the trend by age was similar to that found among the men.

 

Table 4.11. Consensually Married Females by Age: 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Number Percent Percent

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ Consen‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

All Consen‑ sually All Consen‑

Age Group Married sually Married Married sually

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Females, 15 + years... 20,670 529 2.6 100.0 100.0

15 to 19 years.......... 490 56 11.4 2.4 10.6

20 to 24 years.......... 2,866 168 5.9 13.9 31.8

25 to 29 years.......... 4,034 100 2.5 19.5 18.9

30 to 34 years.......... 3,740 77 2.1 18.1 14.6

35 to 44 years.......... 4,405 70 1.6 21.3 13.2

45 to 54 years.......... 3,003 35 1.2 14.5 6.6

55 to 59 years.......... 935 12 1.3 4.5 2.3

60 to 64 years.......... 608 5 .8 2.9 .9

65 years and over....... 589 6 1.0 2.8 1.1

________________________________________________________________________

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census PC80‑1‑C/D54 1980, Table 19.

 

 

 

 

More than half of the consensual unions for males were of males born on Guam, compared to only 3 in 10 of all marriages, although these were only 4 percent of all the marriages for males born on Guam (Table 4.12). Micronesians were more likely to be in consensual unions than Asians or persons born in other places, with Palauans and Other Micronesians having more than 5 percent of their marriages being consensual. On the other hand, males born in the United States and Philippines had very low rates of consensual unions; in fact, although marriages to males born in the U.S. were 30 percent of all marriages, they were only 16 percent of the consensual unions.

 

Table 4.12. Consensually Married Males by Birthplace: 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Number Percent Percent

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ Consen‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

All Consen‑ sually All Consen‑

Birthplace Married sually Married Married sually

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Males, 15 yrs & over.. 22,637 581 2.6 100.0 100.0

Guam.................... 6,738 306 4.5 29.8 52.7

Northern Mariana Is..... 409 19 4.6 1.8 3.3

Palau................... 206 11 5.3 .9 1.9

Other Micronesia........ 99 5 5.1 .4 .9

Asia.................... 7,237 134 1.9 32.0 23.1

Japan and Okinawa..... 296 4 1.4 1.3 .7

Philippines........... 6,104 66 1.1 27.0 11.4

United States........... 6,725 91 1.4 29.7 15.7

Elsewhere and N.S....... 1,223 15 1.2 5.4 2.6

________________________________________________________________________

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census PC80‑1‑C/D54 1980, Table 24.

 

Finally, 61 percent of all of the female consensual marriages were of females born on Guam, compared to 37 percent of all marriages for females born on Guam (Table 4.13). Once again, Palau (8 percent) and Other Micronesia (6 percent) had the highest percentage of consensual unions, while United States and Asia had the lowest percentages. Although Asians made up 32 percent of all marriages, they were only 12 percent of the consensual unions.

 

Table 4.13. Consensually Married Females by Birthplace: 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Number Percent Percent

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ Consen‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

All Consen‑ sually All Consen‑

Birthplace Married sually Married Married sually

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 

Females, 15 + yrs..... 20,670 529 2.6 100.0 100.0

Guam.................... 7,658 325 4.2 37.0 61.4

Northern Mariana Is..... 463 25 5.4 2.2 4.7

Palau................... 275 23 8.4 1.3 4.3

Other Micronesia........ 107 7 6.5 .5 1.3

Asia.................... 6,725 62 .9 32.5 11.7

Japan and Okinawa..... 707 6 .8 3.4 1.1

Philippines........... 4,882 22 .5 23.6 4.2

United States........... 4,759 69 1.4 23.0 13.0

Elsewhere and N.S....... 683 18 2.6 3.3 3.4

________________________________________________________________________

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census PC80‑1‑C/D54 1980, Table 24.

 

MARITAL STATUS BY REGION

 

For 1980, the Northern and Southern regions had basically similar percentages of single persons, 27.3 and 29.4 percent, respectively (Table 4.14). Piti, with 40.8 percent, and Umatac, with 38.0 percent, had the highest percentages of single persons in relation to their respective election district populations. These election districts had relatively small populations: Piti had a total population of 2,368 and Umatac had the island's lowest population with 405.

 

Similar population composition is seen in the "now married" category with the Northern region showing 66.6 percent and the Southern area with 65.1 percent of their respective total populations currently married. The election district of Santa Rita in the South had the highest percentage of married persons with 73.4 percent of its total. Sinajana, a moderately populated village in the Central region, had the lowest with 52.7 percent.

 

Table 4.14. Marital Status of Persons 15+ Years by Election District

Guam: 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Percent

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Now

Election District Total Total Single Marrd Widwd Divrcd

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Guam................. 69007 100.0 30.0 63.8 3.3 2.9

 

North................. 31166 100.0 27.3 66.6 3.0 3.1

Dededo................... 14591 100.0 27.8 66.6 3.2 2.4

Tamuning................. 9768 100.0 26.8 65.2 3.3 4.6

Yigo..................... 6807 100.0 27.0 68.8 1.9 2.2

 

Central.............. 23167 100.0 33.8 59.2 3.7 3.2

Agana.................... 673 100.0 33.9 57.2 4.0 4.9

Agana Heights............ 2244 100.0 34.8 56.0 5.1 4.1

Asan..................... 1389 100.0 28.9 63.6 4.4 3.1

Barrigada................ 5176 100.0 34.2 60.1 3.4 2.3

Chalan Pago‑Ordot........ 1878 100.0 32.6 60.8 4.4 2.2

Mangilao................. 4412 100.0 30.1 63.7 2.7 3.4

Mongmong‑Toto‑Maite...... 3450 100.0 33.9 58.1 3.6 4.4

Piti..................... 2368 100.0 40.8 54.8 1.9 2.6

Sinajana................. 1577 100.0 36.8 52.7 7.1 3.4

 

South................ 14674 100.0 29.4 65.1 3.6 2.0

Agat..................... 2477 100.0 33.2 59.3 5.0 2.5

Inarajan................. 1206 100.0 36.3 57.5 5.1 1.1

Merizo................... 998 100.0 33.4 58.4 5.7 2.5

Santa Rita............... 5934 100.0 23.5 73.4 1.8 1.4

Talofofo................. 1183 100.0 34.4 59.6 3.8 2.2

Umatac................... 405 100.0 38.0 53.1 7.4 1.5

Yona..................... 2461 100.0 31.2 62.1 4.0 2.6

_____________________________________________________________________

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Summary Tape File 3A 1980 Table 26.

 

All three regions had about the same percentages for those widowed: North had 3.0 percent, Central 3.7 percent and South 3.6 percent. The village of Umatac had the highest percentage with 7.4 percent of its total being widowed.

 

Divorces were low in 1980 with an overall of 3 percent for all districts. The village of Agana with the second lowest population of 673 showed the highest rate of divorced persons at 5 percent, followed by Tamuning, the second highest in population at 9,768, with 5 percent divorced.

 

So far, in this chapter, we have given a brief overview of marriage patterns from recent decennial censuses. These data will now be analyzed with reference to vital statistics.

 


VITAL STATISTICS

 

Data obtained from vital statistics are shown for the six year period 1980 through 1985 for the following section of this chapter. In the later portion, a five year period, 1978 through 1982, is discussed.

 

Chamorro grooms comprised between 19 percent and 25 percent of the cohort totals for the years 1980 to 1985 (Table 4.15). Their numbers rose slightly between 1980 and 1982 (a total of 32), and then increased dramatically in 1983 by 48. However, the following year there was a sharp decrease from 390 to 313. In 1985, their numbers increased again considerably, from 313 to 359, a gain of 46 grooms.

 

Table 4.15. Marriage by Race of Groom: 1980 to 1985

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Race 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Total........ 1498 1382 1653 1393 1480 1636

Chamorro.......... 359 313 390 342 308 310

Caucasian......... 401 293 287 274 264 284

Filipino.......... 221 229 152 147 204 216

Micronesian....... 36 36 28 30 30 26

Negro............. 79 70 66 55 56 40

Japanese.......... 279 320 598 429 492 670

Chinese........... 10 11 8 4 8 10

Other Asian....... 20 17 13 15 15 4

All Others........ 93 93 111 97 103 76

________________________________________________________________________

SOURCE: Annual Statistical Reports,Office of Vital Statistics, DPH&SS.

 

Table 4.16. Percent Marriage by Race of Groom: 1980 to 1985

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Race 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Total........ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Chamorro.......... 24.0 22.6 23.6 24.6 20.8 18.9

Caucasian......... 26.8 21.2 17.4 19.7 17.8 17.4

Filipino.......... 14.8 16.6 9.2 10.6 13.8 13.2

Micronesian....... 2.4 2.6 1.7 2.2 2.0 1.6

Negro............. 5.3 5.1 4.0 3.9 3.8 2.4

Japanese.......... 18.6 23.2 36.2 30.8 33.2 41.0

Chinese........... .7 .8 .5 .3 .5 .6

Other Asian....... 1.3 1.2 .8 1.1 1.0 .2

All Others........ 6.2 6.7 6.7 7.0 7.0 4.6

________________________________________________________________________

SOURCE: Annual Statistical Reports,Office of Vital Statistics, DPH&SS.

 

The percentage of Chamorro brides, as compared to Chamorro grooms, showed even greater stability over the six‑year period (Table 4.17). There was a gain of 4 percentage points, from 26 in 1980 to 30 in 1981. There was a slight increase of 2 percentage points the following year. In 1983, the percentage dipped slightly to 28, only to rise again in 1984 to 29 and then to 30 in 1985. Chamorro brides appeared to follow a trend similar to that of Chamorro grooms. With the exception of 1981, where the number of grooms was less than that of 1980, brides showed a steady increase to a peak in 1982 and 1983. Both showed their highest count in 1983: 462 Chamorro brides and 390 Chamorro grooms.

 

Table 4.17. Marriage by Race of Bride: 1980 to 1985

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Race 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Total........ 1498 1382 1653 1393 1480 1636

Chamorro.......... 442 406 462 444 436 418

Caucasian......... 206 161 180 193 184 181

Filipino.......... 332 284 208 153 195 198

Micronesian....... 63 46 62 46 41 47

Negro............. 34 34 26 29 19 14

Japanese.......... 300 349 605 442 496 683

Chinese........... 9 7 8 2 10 7

Other Asian....... 12 8 5 9 9 0

All Others........ 100 87 97 75 90 88

________________________________________________________________________

SOURCE: Annual Statistical Reports, Office of Vital Statistics, DPH&SS.

 

 

Table 4.18. Percent Marriage by Race of Bride: 1980 to 1985

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Race 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Total........ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Chamorro.......... 29.5 29.4 27.9 31.9 29.5 25.6

Caucasian......... 13.8 11.6 10.9 13.9 12.4 11.1

Filipino.......... 22.2 20.5 12.6 11.0 13.2 12.1

Micronesian....... 4.2 3.3 3.8 3.3 2.8 2.9

Negro............. 2.3 2.5 1.6 2.1 1.3 .9

Japanese.......... 20.0 25.3 36.6 31.7 33.5 41.7

Chinese........... .6 .5 .5 .1 .7 .4

Other Asian....... .8 .6 .3 .6 .6 0.0

All Others........ 6.5 6.1 5.7 5.4 6.1 5.1

________________________________________________________________________

SOURCE: Annual Statistical Reports, Office of Vital Statistics, DPH&SS.

 

 

Caucasian grooms outnumbered any other race in 1985 with a total of 401. However, prior years showed considerably lower totals; the next greatest total was 293 in 1984, and the lowest was 264 in 1981 for this racial group. Caucasian brides also showed their highest total in 1985 with 206, although they were the fourth highest ethnic group reported.

 

The Office of Vital Statistics does not report military marriages specifically, although some tables in the Annual Statistical Report indicate marriages that took place in a military area. One explanation for the large increase in Caucasian marriages might be that Guam became a homeport for a few Naval vessels and, conceivably, marriages occurred to military personnel while they were homeported here. The effect of the military ‑ including reservists ‑ on marriage cannot be ascertained without more specific data. Perhaps the inclusion of specified tables on military marriages in the Annual Statistical Report will help.

 

There was a greater number of Filipino brides than Filipino grooms in 1985. In 1980, the situation was reversed, with Filipino grooms slightly exceeding the number of Filipino brides: 216 grooms in 1980 as compared to 198 brides, whereas in 1985 there were 332 Filipino brides compared to 221 grooms. A plausible explanation for the relatively low number of marriages in these groups is that there is probably a high degree of selective female migration to Hawaii and the U.S. mainland, where migrants acquire jobs as nurses, domestic laborers, farm helpers, etc.

 

The other racial groups had fewer brides and grooms, except for Japanese, who showed consistently higher figures than most ethnic groups in the six‑year period. The Japanese, however, have very little impact on the population of Guam, since they come here to marry, honeymoon, and then return to Japan.

 

For both sexes, all of the large racial groups (Chamorro, Filipino, and Caucasian) showed tremendous increases in the number of divorces in 1985 as compared to 1984 (Tables 4.19 through 4.22), or any previous year.

 

Table 4.19. Divorces by Race of Husband: 1980 to 1985

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Race 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Total........ 899 622 617 508 382 521

Chamorro.......... 202 133 125 103 100 103

Micronesian....... 20 14 15 11 7 14

Caucasian......... 305 170 184 191 132 180

Filipino.......... 203 125 121 112 98 165

Negro............. 53 29 17 16 8 18

Japanese.......... 10 6 4 3 3 2

Chinese........... 4 2 8 2 1 6

Other Asian....... 32 26 42 42 18 25

All Others........ 48 49 32 13 11 6

Not Reported...... 22 68 69 15 4 2

________________________________________________________________________

SOURCE: Annual Statistical Reports, Office of Vital Statistics, DPH&SS.

 

Caucasian husbands had the highest divorce totals ‑ both in numbers and percents ‑ consistently throughout the five year period. However, Caucasian wives ranked second to Chamorro wives for the same period.

 

Table 4.20. Divorces by Race of Wife: 1980 to 1985

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Race 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Total........ 899 622 617 508 382 521

Chamorro.......... 232 180 178 138 122 132

Micronesian....... 22 16 17 15 10 16

Caucasian......... 227 140 122 147 94 133

Filipino.......... 212 108 108 96 87 152

Negro............. 36 18 13 14 4 7

Japanese.......... 20 10 14 3 5 5

Chinese........... 4 3 4 1 1 7

Other Asian....... 41 33 56 66 47 60

All Others........ 81 50 38 10 8 7

Not Reported...... 24 64 67 18 4 2

________________________________________________________________________

SOURCE: Annual Statistical Reports, Office of Vital Statistics, DPH&SS.

 

Filipino husbands and wives tended to parallel each other over the five year period. Both sexes showed a drop in divorces between 1980 and 1981, and then a gradual increase afterward.

 

Table 4.21. Percent Divorces by Race of Husband: 1980 to 1985

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Race 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Total........ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Chamorro.......... 22.5 21.4 20.3 20.3 26.2 19.8

Micronesian....... 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.2 1.8 2.7

Caucasian......... 33.9 27.3 29.8 37.6 34.6 34.5

Filipino.......... 22.6 20.1 19.6 22.0 25.7 31.7

Negro............. 5.9 4.7 2.8 3.1 2.1 3.5

Japanese.......... 1.1 1.0 .6 .6 .8 .4

Chinese........... .4 .3 1.3 .4 .3 1.2

Other Asian....... 3.6 4.2 6.8 8.3 4.7 4.8

All Others........ 5.3 7.9 5.2 2.6 2.9 1.2

Not Reported...... 2.4 10.9 11.2 3.0 1.0 .4

________________________________________________________________________

SOURCE: Annual Statistical Reports, Office of Vital Statistics, DPH&SS.

 

Again, due to the transitory nature of the Japanese ‑ that is, they merely marry on Guam and then go elsewhere ‑ their divorce rate remained quite low, as was the case with the other Asians, particularly Chinese.

 

Table 4.22. Percent Divorces by Race of Wife: 1980 to 1985

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Race 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Total........ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Chamorro.......... 25.8 28.9 28.8 27.2 31.9 25.3

Micronesian....... 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 2.6 3.1

Caucasian......... 25.3 22.5 19.8 28.9 24.6 25.5

Filipino.......... 23.6 17.4 17.5 18.9 22.8 29.2

Negro............. 4.0 2.9 2.1 2.8 1.0 1.3

Japanese.......... 2.2 1.6 2.3 .6 1.3 1.0

Chinese........... .4 .5 .6 .2 .3 1.3

Other Asian....... 4.6 5.3 9.1 13.0 12.3 11.5

All Others........ 9.0 8.0 6.2 2.0 2.1 1.3

Not Reported...... 2.7 10.3 10.9 3.5 1.0 .4

________________________________________________________________________

SOURCE: Annual Statistical Reports, Office of Vital Statistics, DPH&SS.

 

In this segment of the discussion on marriage, data obtained from the Office of Vital Statistics will cover the five year period between 1978 and 1982.

 

From 1978 to 1980 (Table 4.23), more Caucasian grooms chose brides of other races. In the following two years, 1981 and 1982, the "Other" racial grooms exceeded Caucasians by a discernably small percentage: 16.0 percent in 1981 and 7.2 percent in 1982.

 

Table 4.23. Marriages by Race of Bride and Race of Groom : 1978 to 1982

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Groom's Race

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Bride Same Bride Not Same

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Year Total Total Cham Fil Cauc Other Total Cham Fil Cauc Other

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

1982... 1393 999 277 84 146 492 394 65 63 128 138

1981... 1480 1054 249 115 137 553 426 59 89 127 151

1980... 1634 1221 248 118 136 719 413 62 98 148 105

1979... 1766 1319 258 148 147 766 447 67 112 142 126

1978... 1767 1423 284 150 153 836 344 47 74 140 83

 

Percent

1982... 100.0 27.7 8.4 14.6 49.2 100.0 16.5 16.0 32.5 35.0

1981... 100.0 23.6 10.9 13.0 52.5 100.0 13.8 20.9 29.8 35.4

1980... 100.0 20.3 9.7 11.1