Census: Only one Connecticut county grew in population last year

Print More
Population change in Connecticut counties for the last 6 years
County201020112012201320142015Trend
Fairfield919,744929,013935,238941,793945,816948,053
Hartford895,303896,928897,149897,926896,871895,841
Litchfield189,773188,945187,455186,609184,910183,603
Middlesex165,628166,198165,508165,301164,757164,063
New Haven863,401863,977863,921862,515861,238859,470
New London274,067273,211274,394273,716272,743271,863
Tolland153,208153,069151,934151,722151,597151,420
Windham118,593118,418117,942117,586116,830116,573
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, POPULATION DIVISION

Fairfield County's population rose 0.2 percent between July of 2014 and July of 2015, according to estimates the U.S. Census Bureau released Thursday.

As in the previous year, Fairfield was the only county in the state that saw any growth.

Hartford is the only county aside from Fairfield with an increase in population compared to 2010. But after 2013, the county's population has been in sharp decline and is about 500 residents away from shrinking back to its 2010 level.

Litchfield County saw the biggest percent change in population, shrinking 0.7 percent between 2014 and 2015.

New Haven County had the biggest change in total residents — losing about 1,800 residents in that time frame.

Cumulative estimates of the components of population change
Between July 1, 2014 to July 1, 2015
County Births Deaths International migration Domestic migration Total net migration
Fairfield 10,078 6,604 6,673 -6,994 -321
Hartford 9,425 7,945 5,206 -7,292 -2,086
Litchfield 1,419 1,728 189 -1,093 -904
Middlesex 1,384 1,413 447 -1,073 -626
New Haven 8,968 7,596 4,142 -7,257 -3,115
New London 2,715 2,387 1,381 -2,574 -1,193
Tolland 1,104 963 399 -567 -168
Windham 1,132 958 332 -769 -437
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division

According to the census estimates, more residents are leaving Connecticut than are moving in. Even the number of international immigrants aren't making up for the number of those leaving.

In nearly all counties except Litchfield and Middlesex, the number of births outnumbered the number of deaths.

What do you think?

  • fvcarstensen

    Hardly surprising. Look at the numbers since 2010. And if they went back to 1990, they might not be that different. Current employment in CT is basically at the same level is was in February, 1989. That is the worst record among all states. The nation has added nearly 40 million jobs; Connecticut none. Population growth is of course closely connected to the economy; no jobs, no new population. Not only that, but the quality of jobs in Connecticut is now lower that it was in 1989.

    Now a lot of people living in Connecticut work in NY (or even MA and RI). So there isn’t a hard and fast relationship between CT employment and population–but Fairfield County is precisely where we would expect the robust growth in the NYC metro area would generate some growth in resident population. What we would really like to see is the relationship between county level employment and population dynamics.

    A major challenge for Connecticut is its very weak data. For example, because barely a majority of CT households file state tax returns, and those returns provide little information about household characteristics, we simply don’t know what is happening in household dynamics. Other states have developed systems so they can track what is happening–and thus develop policies that are responsive. Connecticut also knows little about business creation and termination; the registration process with the Secretary of State collects no meaningful information about companies. The result is CT can’t tell the different between someone’s personal LLC and UTC.

    We fly blind, and thus we don’t know very much about the dynamics that lie behind these population changes.

    • Joseph Brzezinski

      He is correct about poor public data for Connecticut which besides being inadequate also is much too out of date to provide optimum value. Worse yet, is the insufficient levels of analytic investigation using existing data and augmenting it with new data currently available from commercial sources.
      Commercial sources, such as Equifax and many others have much of the data that could be used. In addition, there is a very dynamic growing usage of big data technology getting data from web and social sites that many companies in the private sector utilize. Where is the state in using such technology? In addition, where is the state in standardizing data content across state agencies and localities and having data available in machine usable format for analysis rather than the opposite?

  • Naro narosky

    The biggest cost for the citizens of CT of the disasterous tax and spend policies of CT politicians is the collapse of property values as more and more productive, working people and retirees are leaving the state to warmer, low cost, low tax states. High taxes, high utility rates, and mass outward migration represent a tactonic shift from a once rich and successful state to a failed and unattractive place to live and conduct business. I suggest repealing the income tax, and tightening welfare and medicaid eligibility. That might move the state upward again.

    • Roger Senserrich

      Connecticut already has one of the tightest TANF eligibility rules in the region, and the feds pay for 90% of Medicaid costs. We are actually below average in terms of percentage of our economy we collect in state and local taxes. CT´s economy is rotten, and we need to change many, many things, but it is not the size of government that is killing us.

      • Naro narosky

        You dont get it. By making welfare and medicaid so readily available we are inviting parasites from other states at the same time that our taxpayers say go to heck CT. This is what has destroyed our state. This exchange of population. Look at our once great cities. they are disgusting

        • Roger Senserrich

          Medicaid eligibility rules are pretty much the same the across the whole region – NY and MA have actually more generous policies than CT. Same with TANF, by the way.
          There is seriously zero evidence that low income people move around looking for good benefits, mainly because our neighbors, which are doing much better, have a better safety net than we do.

          But I guess parasites prefer the suburbs, or something.