Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697705759520.pdf (Dominica)
------------_._- DOMINICA , l ,, \ \ \ ST. JOHN I, I, "' I .... _-~ ST. PETER ,.

; ' "."

, \ /-- .... , \,/ ST. JOSEPH ST. ANDREW , , \ \ \ "'\ \ I I I I, "'"',, 'I", I I I I / - - / _/7 \ ,, ST. DAVID ST.PAUl ----- ,r..... ../ ___ ~ ST. GEORGE / I " -" ..." I ,..,~------- H<PATR'CK Map outline prepared by the CARICOM secre~ PRE F ACE to a mandate o·f Pur-suant Statisticians, pr-eliminar-y tion Censuses have beer, under-taken.
the Standi ng Com",; ttee of Car-i bbean the 1980/81 Popula analyses of and namely~ done for- have been the Tur-ks St. Vincent These analyses Caribbean countries~ Gr-enada, Guyana, Montser-r-at, St. Chr-istopher-/Nevis, Lucia, Islands, and pr-ocessing of Pr-ocessing Centre The analyses work in clude: population istics, economic activity, education, marriage househol ds.

eleven English-speaking Barbados~ Belize, Dominica, Saint the Gr-enadines, Br-itish Vir-gin whom the a Regional the pur-pose in Bar-bados.
in their Topics which are covered in character religion, and for- census data has been undertaken at ar-e intended for- use by policy maker-s growth, demogr-aphic established for- the various and Caicos fertility, size and Islands, sectors.
housing status, union race and and and to thank Ms. Basia The Caribbean Community wishes Zaba, Demogr-apher- of Centr-o Latin Americano de Demograf{a (CELADE> attached to the ECLAC Car-ibbean Office, who co-or-dinated the some of which she did her-self, pr-oduction of and the British Overseas Development A(jministration which prOVided the Secr-etar-iat servIces of Mr-.

Colin Newell.

by Mr-.

Newell, Mr-s. Olney Daly-Hill The valuable work done and Mr-.
Alison Forte in prepar-ing countr-y analyses is highly appreciated.

to utilize the the analyses, assistance financial enablIng thereby also gr-atitude to the United Nations The Car-ibbean Community r-ecording its Population Activities Technical Co-oper-ation for- Development for to the Statistical pr-ovision of of for and the United Nations Department of support the programme and the (STATIN) processing and printing phases of the actual printing services.
for- financial opportunity of Jamaica Institute takes this Fund the for R. RAINFLJRD SECRETARY-GENERAL Caribbean Community Secr-etariat DOMINICA PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF 1981 CENSUS DATA CONTENTS SECTION A - POULATION SIZE AND GROWTH SECTION B - DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS SECTION C - ECONOMIC ACTIVITY SECTION D - EDUCATION, RACE AND RELIGION SECTION E - MARRIAGE AND UNION STATUS SECTION F - FERTILITY SECTION G - HOUSING AND HOUSEHOLD PAGE 1 5 13 26 36 43 52 COLIN NEWELL, CPS, AND BASIA ZABA, CELADE Port of Spain, January, 1985 SECTION A The population census 1981, was simultaneously with the originally planned other countries participating in the Regional Census the Programme, but widespread destruction and disruption caused by hurricane David in August 1979 forced a postponement for a year.
place in May 1981, of Dominica, 7th April to take held on TABLE Al DOMINICA Population Totals.
1981 Census Enumerated in "Visitation records" Residents abroad on census night Estimated de-facto population Male Fem2.le Total 37327 375~4 74851 226 74625 Non-residents enumerated 46 20 66 Estimated resident population 37281 37504 74785 Institutional population excluded from tables * Refusals, non-contacts, spoilt questionaires 417 347 Total "tabulable" population 36754 37041 73795 f mainly prisoners and hospital patlents Sources, Do.inica ,tatistics Offic, and unpublish,d census taal,s the by the census was 73,795 is partly is derived from a manual to complete questionnaires The population enumerated figure of The difference tabulations of tourists, businessmen by enumerators during than larger are based.
74,851 pe."sons.

This count of the Visitation Records' total, which the three weeks prior to Census Day, is compiled the persons on which somewhat a consequence of the tabulations either because of failure the deliberate exclusion non-contacts or refusals, and partly because of and o~hers temporarily On from the residents of Dominica who were absent ab.-oad on Census the night, and those enumerated in certain institutions such as hospitals and the difference prisons.
between also shows facto and respondent populations.

It approximate should be remembered ine"itably and the enumerated totals, have either (seamen, country of tourist.

: etc.
: etc.

), or bp.cause of diplomats, been omitted from both the tabulations out temporarily contract workers, attempts to describe in more detail number of Domin'cans will for some persons, that a small 'tabulable" they were population enumerated island, of estimates students, Table At because the the and and the de of 2 evasion population will be slightly under estimated.

the extent that and errors.

To this has occurred the resident TABLE A2 DOMINICA Population Size and Growth.
1871 to 1981 Population Male Female Total Sex Ratio Population growth Expontl.
rate % pa. Average annual increase -137 205 497 318 423 878 1030 416 0.37 -0.50 0.74 1.59 0.90 1.00 1.64 1.59 0.57 Census date 1871 1881 1891 01-Apr 1901 03-Apr 1911 24-Apr 1921 09-Apr 1946 07-Apr 1960 07-Apr 1970 07-Apr 1981 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ table Source" 1946, part H, 1B71 - 1946 : We,t rnd i an Cen,u" 1900 : Censu, vol II, 1970 : Cen,u, vol 3, 19B1 : see table Al ,u.
'ary table" table ~, 11 Iresident populatIon) that the between 1871 population together with sex ratios and intercensal growth rates.

Table A2 shows the total populution of Dominica at each census from The the figures no population 28,000.
Thereafter 1.64% per annum during almost 60,000 in 1960. figure rose to over has been a substantial annum, so that 1871 to 1981, basis and reliability of the early CEnsuses is uncertain, but suggest growth, growth was more 1946-1960 During the 70,000 by slowing down in the rate of growth from 1.6% to 0.6% per between 1970 and 1981 the poulation grew by just 4,600 to 74,851. sixties rapid growth continued 1970. there was fluctuating around peak of popUlation reached attainlng a little or the total and 1901 howev9r, and the so that rapid, Since there then, total of these figures reveals, A sex breakdown all of the increase during the overall 4,600 ratio, expressed here as rapidly from 91 in 1970 to 99 in during the first 70 years of the century from 80 in 1901. that nearly the 1970's has been among males.
Only 600 of increase was of females.

This has meant that the sex females, has risen 1981, having increased only very slowly the number of males per 100 remarkably, as Just the past were a consequence of sex-selective emigration, a characteristic of many Caribbean populations, so the dramatic change in the sey ratlo since 1970 is the consequence of changes in the sex composition of net migratIon flows.
low sex ratlos the of 3 TABLE A3 DOMINICA Components of Population Change 1970 to 1981 Males Females Population in 1970 Population in 1981 Inte~censal change Registe~ed bi~ths 1970 Registe~ed deaths 1970 1970 Natu~al increase 1981 1981 1981 Implied net mig~ation 33376 37281 3905 11337 2663 8674 -4769 sources: populations as in table A2 registration data lro.
Dooinica statistical offIce 36838 37504 666 10724 2665 8059 Total 70214 74785 4571 22061 5328 16733 -7393 -12162 note registered e,ents include all those registered in 1~71 to 1~7~ and half of those regIstered in 1970 and 19BI neqativi net .i9ratiDn implies an ~Xte5S of emigrants over immiqrants an de~ives estimate Table A3 of (bi~ths inte~censal mig~ation by subt~acting the natu~al inc~ease from the intercensal increase.
This shows that the~e was a net migration of 12,162 outwards in - equivalent to an average annual net migration the intercensal f~om Dominica has rate of table also shows continued at that is over 50% sex composltion of the higher than migration the 50's and 60's, when it was male dominated.

the net migration figu~e for women thus changed dramatically since interval 1.6% outwa~ds, emigration the 60's.

The that for men (4,769 (7,393 outwa~ds) outwards).
The net deaths) the same high level as in flow has implying that and 1970 than 1970 to 1981 countries fo~ other Table A4 shows the popUlation size and growth rates du~ing roughly the Commonwealth the period Caribbean.

It should be noted that many of the figures in this table use slightly different bases, are of a provisional natu~e or ~elate to yea~s incomplete other the ea~lier and later coverage in one or two count~ies in eithe~ or both censuses.
These facto~s may significantly affect the calculated growth If all the count~ies are ranked acco~ding to growth rate, Dominica rates.

this is true whether one considers all comes mo~e or less in the middle - the counties which took part programme, only the CARICOM the DECS count~ies, St. Lucia, countries, or only the GEeS countries.

St. Vincent had higher growth ~ates than Dominica; Montser~at, St. kitts and G~enada had lowe~ growth rates.
and the British Virgin Islands There may also be problems of in the census 1980.

Of in 4 TABLE A4 DOMINICA Pooulation Size and Growth Rates, Commonwealth Caribbean, 1970 - 1280 Country Population 1970 1980 Growth rate (~ pa. > Notes AntiQua and Barbuda Baham.s BArbados B.lize Bermuda British VirQin Islands CAyman Islands Dominic.
Grenada Guyana Jamaica Montserr"t St, Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St, Vinc",nt Trinidad and Tobago Turks and Cair.os Islands NA 2,14 0,42 1,84 0.08 1.

17 5,23 0.57 -0.38 0,78 1,40 0.09 -0.35 1.35 1,19 1.20 2,98 li> (i 1) li ii > (iii> (iii>.

(i x) liii>.

(iii>.

(vi).

i > li i (vii>.


i > (i i li x) (i i 1> i > Ii i (i1) Ii i i >.

(viii> (iv) (v) (x) lii> (vi i i > ,oureel: 1970 - eenlu' '01.

3, lable A, 'labuhblo' + 'inltitutional' 1990 - pro,i,ion.

: tot.l.

r.J ••••d by censu.

ollic.s relident popul.tions Irol unpublished cen.u.

t.ble, notl' , (i) did not takl • cen,u.

- ollicial ••lllale lor 198& il 75235, ilplyinq a qrolth r.te 01 1.491 liil pro'i.ional total Ii i il resi dent papulation li,l cen.u.
held in No,elber, 1979 (,) cen.ul held 7th April 1981 Ivil cen'ul held 30th April 1991 (,iii cenlUI helG 8t~ June 1982 I,iii) 1970 ce"ul hold 25th October, not April 7th Ii,) tab,latod population - eltilate 01 r••id.ntl not a'ailable \,1 ci'ilian population - elti.at.

of r'lident.
of r'lident.

not a'ailable 5 SECTION B DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS The age and sex distributions of the population in 1960, and the 1981 distribution is al so pyramid in Figure 1970 and shown Bl, and in percentage 1981 are graphically form in table B3.

given in Table Bl, the age in TABLE Bl DOMINICA Population by Sex and Five Year Age Group.

1960.

1970 and 1981 Age group 0- 4 5- 9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ n.s.
1960 1970 1981 Male FeR.ale Total Male Female Total Male Female Total 5713 4287 3555 2566 1988 1565 1278 1222 1185 118:!
Total 28167 31749 59916 32968 36581 69549 36754 37041 73795 ,aurces : 1960 census, val Il, su••ary table' 1970 census vol 3, age tabulations 1981 cen,us, table 1.1 Considering the 1981 figures first, the population aged undercutting of the pyramid i~ a young one 65 or more.
with 40Y.

of 9 age group is a The the birth rate which has taken conseqrlence of the substantial decline in place in Dominica during the 1970's, while the sharp decreases in numbers between ages 15 and 30, are a product of heavy emigration at these ages, though red~ctions in infant and it may also reflect Th~ very slight decreases in the size child mortality during the 1960·s.

under 15 and in the 0 to some extent the the population only 8Y.
aged 4 and 5 - Fig 81: DO~lnlca 1981 age slruclure by F1V~ year age groups.

r~ 175 I I 70 65 60 55 50 45 79 74 69 64 59 54 49 I I I I 0'\ I I I I I I I 6008 I 4000 1000 Males 40 H 35 30 15 20 15 10 39 34 19 14 19 14 5 9 0t 4 8 I I I I 2000 Females I I I I 4000 &008 7 of age gro~ps between ages 40 and 70 suggest that the higher mortality at these earlier emigration patterns and age exaggeration at older ages may also have some impact.
return migration, balanced though being ages by is TABLE B2 DOMINICA Sex Ratios 1960.
1970. and 1981 Age group 0- 4 5- 9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ n. s. Total Source: Calculated froA Table B1 Sex ratios (males per 100 females) 10' 99 85 82 80 87 81 88 70 66 54 45 123 99 The sex ratios for 1981, given in Table B2 do not show the steady age encountered in most populations which is caused by the decline with Instead generally lighter mortality of The the pattern is irregular, a consequence of sex-selective migration.
relatively heavy emIgration females in their twerties, or possibly lower emigration amcng males, has produced a particlarly marked sex ratios as high as 115 men per 100 women in the 25 distortion, with 29 age group.

The irregular ratios at older ages may be partly caused by small numbers.

females than males at all ages.

rates among Comparing the effect that the The number dramatic age str.lctrue.
3,661, while for females in in the 1981 distribution with that for 1970 emphasises the changes in mIgr~tion patterns have had on the only In contrast, 4,317 in 1970 and twenties in 1970 was of maces 1n their 70Y.

greater at fIgures were range the 6,243. it was same age 1981 8 45% to 50% 5,476 in 1981, an increase of only 27%.

A broader comparison of the age distribution in 1960, 1970 and 1981 is shown in Table B4.
This reveals the population aged under 15 rose between 1960 and that the proportion uf 1970 to 40%.

from age group first fell Correspondingly, 1960 level during the during the 1960's and seventies and the number of has been increasing in size faster than the population potential mothers though still small, is rising slowly.

as a whole.
as a whole.

In 1960 the number over 65 was 3,300 while in 1981 it was, 5,300. then rose to well above the the The number of elderly, the relative size of indicating that dropped the 15 labour force, while both 1981 had 44 by it TABLE B3 DOMINICA Percentage Distribution of the Population by Age, 1981 Age group 0- 4 5- 9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 7)-74 75-79 80-84 85+ n.s.

Males Females Total 11.

4 14.4 15.2 13.0 10.

1 6.9 4.8 3.8 3.


1 2 .. 9 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.3 1.7 1 .. (1 0.5 0.4 0.4 10.8 13.

1 14.8 12 .. 4 8.9 5.9 4.7 3.8 3.6 ~ e -..Jo .. ,J 3.5 3.0 3.2 2.6 2.4 1.6 1.0 0.9 0.3 ~ ~ ........ oJ 11.

1 13.7 15.0 12.7 9 .. 5 6.4 4.8 3.8 - ..., ..).

"'- 3.2 2 .. 8 2.9 '> e~ • ..J 2.0 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.4 Total =100% 36754 37041 73795 Source: calculateD fro.

table BI One ove~all consequence of the 1970's has been a decline in the dependent, as estimated ~y the proportion from 55~ to 47%.
these changes in age st~uctu~e du~ing proportion of th& popula~lon tna~is over, aged under 15 and 65 or ~eveals that Table B5 shows the population by majo~ area populatIon fac~.

despIte inc~eases In through the island.

the in parishes experienced slIght populatIon It unevenly number of In 1960, 1970 and 1981. been spread very a declines between 1970 have the overall growth, 9 TABLE B4 DOMIi~ICA Population by Broad Age Group.

1960.

1970 and 1981 Age group 0 15 45 14 44 64 65+ n .. 5.

Total (:100Y.)
Total (:100Y.)

1960 44.7 36.0 13.7 5.5 0.0 Percent 1970 49.1 32.4 12.6 5.9 0.0 1981 39.8 40.5 12.

1 7.2 0.4 59916 69549 73795 ,ource : calculated fro.

table Bl TABLE B5 DOMINICA Population by Area.


1960, 1970, 1981 Area Numbers Percent I. change 1960 1970 1981 1960 1970 1981 60-70 70-80 Reseau twn St George rem St John St Peter St Joseph St Paul St Luke St Mar-k St Patrick St David St Andrew 10417 6128 4658 1702 5507 4156 1590 1936- 8880 5210 9732 9949 9521 52~7 1701 6362 4456 1633 1961 10095 6706 11937 8279 12222 5412 1601 6606 6386 1503 1921 9780 7337 12748 17.4 10 .. 2 7.8 2 .. 8 9.2 6.9 2 .. 7 ~ ~ ..::.

_J .. 14.8 8.7 16.2 14.3 13.7 7.5 2.4 9.


1 6.4 2.3 2.8 14 .. 5 9.6 17.2 11.2 16.6 7.3 2.2 9 .. 0 8.7 2.0 2.6 13 .. 3 9.9 17.3 -4.5 -16.8 28.4 55 .. 4 12.2 3 .. 5 -5.9 -0.1 3.8 15.5 7.2 43.3 -8.0 2.7 -2.0 1.3 -3.1 13 .. 7 9.4 :<:8.7 6.8 22.7 DOMINICA 59916 69548 73795 100.0 100.0 1::'0.

0 16.
0 16.

1 6.1 sources: 1960 census Yol 11, table i 1970 census, vol 3, seetlon C 1981 census, tanle 1. j note changes In area boundarIes may affect (omparabliity O~2r tlmE Roseau town itself and 1981. of 1,700 or- 17%, but this was more t~an balanced by a substantIal inc~ease in the cue to different boundaries rest of St. George parish.

This is proJably la,"ge 'ncrease of used in 1970 being experIenced a mOI-2 rapId declIne has also been and 1981.

There a 113 over 4070 in neighbouring St. Paul.


St. David and St. Andrew which grew relatively rapidly during experienced substantial population of St. Patrick declined slightly.

The east coast parishes of St.Patrick, the 1960's and the slowing 1970's, during down the a TABLE B6 Area St George St John st Peter St Joseph St Paul St Luke st Mark St Patrick St David St Andrew DOMINICA Popul~tion Density by Area, 1981 Land area (km) Population Density DOMINICA 59.1 62.2 36.0 124.6 69.9 11.
4 14.2 91.2 132.3 189.1 790.0 20501 5412 1601 6606 6386 1503 1921 9780 7337 12748 73795 347 87 44 53 91 132 135 107 55 67 93 Sources: 1981 census, table 1.1 and DOlinica statistical office Population uensities of the major areas are shown in table B6.

With the exception areas with the highest populatio~ densities (100+) have lost population, and those with lower densities havQ had increases in p~pulatiDn since 1970. of St, George, St. Paul and St. Peter, the The proportion of shown in Table B7.
persons resident in each area who were also born therE are biggest intercensal ~rowth, st, George and St. Paul, shcw th8 largest proportions of "in-migrants", as might be expected, but of the other areas with large of pp.rsons born outside: Roseau town, St. John, St. Joseph proportions - have actually declined in and St. Luke; internal migration patterns in size Dominica are ~omplex and changing.
two - Roseau tDwn and St. Luke areas which 1970, Thi" showed the indicates The two since that born is the overall The proportion total population.
of very smail, population of Dominica that is shows, has declined in foreign 1,757 persons In 1981, just 0.4% of absolute numbers ~ince 1960 to just the includes ~el-sons of Dominican origin This figure born abroad and it should be rC?membered that -these figures cannot be used immigration bec~use they exclude both immigrants who directly to meaaure subsequently left and Dominican born the census, persons who left Dominica but subsequently returned.
and, as Table B8 died before again or 11 TABLE B7 DOPtINICA Population by A..ea of Residence and A..ea of Bi .. th A,,'ea of .._idence Re-eau t_ St Geo.. ge ..em St John St Pete.. St Joseph St Paul St Luke St Ma .. k at Pat.. ick St David st And..ew DOI'IINICA A..ea of ..esidence A..ea of bi .. th Elsewhe..e in count .. y Outside count .. y Total numbe.. s (=10010 66.
" Source: 1981 census, table 4.1 TABLE B8 DOMINICA Fo..eign Bo.. n Population by Sex, 1960 to 1981 Yea.. 1960 1981 males females both sexes 1178 893 1221 864 2399 1757 sources, 19bO Census, vol 11, table 7 1981 Census, table 3.1 of immig.. ants A b.. eakdown of of 867 pe.. sons we.. e bo.. n in A total numbe.. USA and Canada questionnai .. e to .. eco.. d to include these with 1980 a .... ivals, which is one immig.. ant the la.. ge compa.. ed with figu .. es fo .. ea.. lie.. yea.. s. the fo .. eign bo.. n by bi .. thplace is given in Table B9.
and the f .. om the met .. opolitain count .. ies: United Kingdom, census no inst .. ucted of the ..easons why the census appea .. so space the.. e was immig.. ants in 1981, enume.. ato.. s othe.. Ca.. ibbean count.. ies half befo.. e the a .. ivals fo .. yea.. and a on we..e Since 450. the is The age structure of the fo..eign bo.. n is distinctly olde.. of the .. est of aged under 15 compared with 40Y.

the population.

Table 810 shows that in the population as a whole.
than that only one qua.. te.. is 12 TABLE B9 DOMINICA Fo..eign Bo.. n Population by Count.. y of Bi ..th and Yea.. of Immig..ation Count.. y of bi .. th Befo..e 1970 1970 -72 1973 -74 1975 -76 1977 -78 1979 1980 not -81 stated Total Yea.. of immig..ation Antigua Montse....at F... ..est Indies Othe.. Ca.. ibbean u. K. u. S. A. Canada Else..he..e Not stated Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ source: 1981 Census, t.ble 3.3 TABLE BI0 DOMINICA Fo..eign Bo.. n Population by Sex and Age G..oup pe..centage dist .. ibution Age g ..oup Males Females Total o - 14 15 - 44 45 - 64 65+ not stated 22.7 50.B 17.9 B.2 0.4 Total no.
(=100%) 893 25.2 42.8 16.7 14.6 0.7 864 24.0 46.9 17.3 11.3 0.5 1757 ------------------------------------------------ SDurc, : 1981 c,nsus, table 3.1 13 SECTION C ECONOMIC ACTIVITV the week All persons aged 15 and their economic activity during both the during attending school full-time have been eHcluded from all tabulations.

15 or over who full-time and all tables are based on this population.
over were asked a series of question about the census and those economic activity to those aged are not currently attending primary or secondary school The term "adult" in this section thus refers the enumeration.
However, immediately preceding 12 month before TABLE Cl DOMINICA Economic Activity During the Week Before the Census, 1970 and 1981 Week's activity Males Females number percent number percent 1970 1981 1970 1981 1970 1981 1970 1981 Economically active Worked With job not working Looked for work Economically inactive Home duties Student Retired Disabled 1.
1 3.7 607 1443 5.1 0.4 3.2 7.7 Other and not stated 524 1372 3.5 6.7 481 720 2.6 3.4 Total 15012 20455 100.0 100.0 18795 21014 100.0 100.0 Soure.s : 1970 C.nsus, Vol 4, part 6, tabl.

1 1981 Census, tabl.

2,1 the adult shows features, Table Cl its broad the week before the census.
population classified by the economic Table C2 which, activity engaged in during to Table Cl, shows the main in In comparing activity carried out during these tables it is important table based on the previous week's activity may be substantially affected by seasonal the year's employment Secondly, activity table.
previous twelve months categorises the the activity they were engaged in for the population the previous week greatest part of similar the year before the to realise, firstly, fluctuations, unlike asking according about to which census.

that th2 year, while the question about question very that the is 14 these precise ....orked .. , "With instructions were job not working" and gives prioriy to the categories the Explanatory Notes, Sections 4.6).
The extent "Looked for ..ork" (See followed by enumerators is to which For example, it is probable that some persons who .impossible to assess.

two days per ..eek during the whole year would state that worked for say this and similar their lIIain activity during be ways the under-estimated.
It should al~o be cautioned that comparison of the 1981 figures with earlier censuses may be affected by changing perceptions of ..hat constitutes economic activity, or different instructions being given to enumerators.

precisely what constitutes economic activity, is notoriously difficult, particularly for f .

.ales.

that year was "Worked".
The definition of employment may unemployment extent under and of In TABLE C2 Dor.INlCA Economic Activity During the Year Before the Cttnsu•• 1970 and 1981 Males Females Main activity number percent number percent 1970 1981 1970 1981 1970 1981 1970 1981 Economically active Worked Seeking first job Others seeking work Wanted work 8- avlble Economically inactive Home duties student Retired Disabled 13210 16602 88.0 81.2 7961 715c;' 81.9 12293 13961 1299 460 4.1 1.3 514 192 150 0.7 828 68.3 6.4 2.5 4.0 614 193 110 8921 6816 1027 359 719 42.4 38.1 2.4 1.0 0.8 42.~ Other and not stilted 306 1595 2.0 7.8 227 838 1.2 4.0 Total 15012 20455 100.0 100.0 18795 21014 100.0 100.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sources: 1970 Census, Vol 4, part 6, table 2 1981 Census, table 2,2 If the looked the census, worked, before two-thirds overall population previous census same definition, was 4,898 or thus economically Active population job but did size for ~ork, or had then its total arp male a~d one-third female.
of Domini~a and in 1970 the economically a is defined as those Mho not work during the week is 25,333 persons, of which the constitutes 34% of the adult population.

At using the The increase during the period 1970-81 was tines greater than the overall active population, 61% of the s",veral This 20,435.
24%, which is 15 is rapid to the increase 6.6%, but identical of working ages, 15 increase population growth of in the size of the population implies that the comparatively size of the economically active population changing age structure This conclusion rather than a rise in labour force participation rates.
is broadly confirmed by Table Cl which shows that the participation rate slightly from 85.8% in 1970 to among adult males 81.67. in a very slight derived from the increase question on years rather than weeks activity are very similar.

1981, while from 40.2% to 41.11.. has actually declined among females to 64 years.

This consequence of predominantly Comparable there has only been in the figures a 4,627. constitutes Alternatively, This active of 18.3%.
figure excludes those who only worked in 1981 stated that they looked for work The number of persons who, overall an the previous week was during It should be unemployment rate among the economically the noted that this on main activity during the week.

as those previous 12 months are others seeking work, and those who wanted work seeking their first job, and were available, at 4,746 Dr 18.6% of those economically active.
The very small difference between the two figures suggests that seasonal factors have probably not affected though the substantially the differences mentioned questions complicate such a comparison.

then their total number is slightly greater previous week, weekly relating to the the unemployed yearly and for part of are defined the data used, and between figures above based if TABLE C3 DOMINICA Percent Unemployed Among the Ecpnomically Active.
1970 and 1981 Based on Previgus Week's Activity All adults Males Females Both Sexes 1970 1981 7.5 16.1 10.3 22 .. 4 8.5 18.3 BaseQ on Main Activity in Previous Year All adults Heads of households Non-household heads 1970 1981 1970 1981 1970 1981 Saurce : calculated Ira.
tables CI, C2, and 68 Males Females Both Se~es 6.9 15.9 1.1 4.8 14.9 28.4 10.1 23.6 2.6 9.2 14.3 30 .. 2 8.1 18.6 1.6 5.9 14.6 29.2 16 it by sex, that rates shows Secondly, A breakdown unemployment is roughly 5070 higher than that this is in part because the female the together with of 1970 are given in Table C3,;t reveals, firstly, comparable figures for among males.
that unemployment among females economically It is shown later active population is concentrated in the age groups where unemployment is unemployment has more than doubled highest.

1981; and that this increase has since 1970 from about 870 to over 1870 in shown in the and females.

Also been experienced equally by both males lower part of Table C3 are unemployment rAtes separately for those adults heads of ho~seholds and those who are not.
Whiie the proportion who are of heads of same as for a substantially higher proportion year was "worked".

stated that Consequently the 1981 unemployment rate among heads of hoseholds is only those who are not heads of households.

5.970 This big differer.tial remains when but it already noted, where is interesting to note confined to females have highp.r unemployment heads of have ~imilar levels of unemployment.
Th~se coments apply to 1970 figures as much as to rate of heads those for 1981, but it is noteworthy that the unemployment of households has roughly quadrupled since 1970, while amongst non-heads it has only doubled, hoc~eholds.
Amongst non-heads males and females though admittedly from a much higher initial their main activity duri"g the previous households who are economically the figures are split by sex, adults (see Tables C2 and C8l compared with 29.270 amongst active is much the sex differential is a phenomenon than males, that the level.
all the same someone to be retired~ disabled, and Turning to consider the economically inactive population, it should be remembered that categorlslng the population, particularly the elderly, into the economic activity classes used in the census is often difficult, affected greatly by differing instructions and the distribution may be It can be argued for ~xample, that to, or interpretation by enumerators.

it is possible for engaged in home time.


However the figures given in Tables Cl and duties all at C2 clearly ~how the in the proportions females are so ..ngaged "Home duties".

is an increase since o~ males.

classi~ied, but though the figure remains below 1.5%.
1970 in the proportion of stUdents, It excludes full-time school this children and that Dominicans have to go abroad for a university education There and many will are no substantial differentials or changes 1n the numbers of retired or since 1970 disabled.

This can so In 1981 be attributEd to differing editing procedures inconsister.t in general recoded to "Not stated ll expected big difference between in only 2X in 1981 they constitute 5% of males and 3% of females.

being adopted.
being adopted.

stated" ~ave increaesed greatly conseque~tly be omitted entirely from the economic activity questions were, Also apparent The numbers remembered the sexes responses 40% of census.

to the should figure Over that that "Not be • One important extremely economic activity and o~ unemployment rates is the way they vary by age.

The distribution of main activity by age g.-oup in 1981 is glven in Table C4.

Participation rates.


adult popUlation that is economically that For males the rates a~e active, are shown in the fi~st row of the table.

close to Dr over 80% for all ages from 15 to 64 and nearly 90% for those Even at ages ove~ 65 some 44X are still economically active.

aged 25-54. ages.
aged 25-54. ages.

Among females participation rates are substantially lower at all the proportion of aspect the is rate the pattern of is quite different from that of males, with the Moreover, the figure highest labour force to raise declining families.

engaged in home duties which rises with age from 32% among 15-19 year Oids to over 50% in the 45-64 age groups.
steadily thereafter This is echoed in the proportions of females 20-24 leave the 57% occuring as they amongst olds, year TABLE C4 DOMINICA Percentage Distribution of Main Activity by Broad Age Group and Sex Males Females 15-19 20-24 25-44 45-64 65+ 15-19 20-24 25-44 45-64 65+ Ec.Active 79.4 86.5 89.8 84.1 43.8 52.0 57.0 49.2 36.9 12.1 worked skg 1st jb other skrs wnt wk avl 39.9 26.2 4.6 8.7 69.3 7.4 3.9 5.9 83.3 0.9 2.4 3.2 81.8 0.1 0.7 1.5 42.9 .0 0.3 0.6 17.3 24.0 3.4 7.3 39.7 7.2 3.6 6.5 43.4 1.0 1.6 3.2 34.9 0.1 0.6 1.3 11.8 0.1 0.2 Inactive 8.9 4.0 3.3 10.3 52.2 40.9 37.5 46.8 60.5 86.6 home duty student retired disabled 3.0 4.6 1.3 1.0 1.9 0.1 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.1 1.8 1.
1 4.1 5.1 1.5 .0 26.4 24.3 31.

7 8.0 1.2 35.3 1.2 .0 1.0 45.1 0.2 0.1 1.4 51.

1 3.9 5.5 29.9 .0 25.8 30.9 Other & ns 11.7 9.5 6.9 5.6 4.0 7.1 5.5 4.0 2.6 1.3 Total no.

(=100%) 3658 3667 6804 4013 2180 2986 3251 6678 4887 3104 Source: 1981 Census, table 2.2 by rates olds who 15-19 year Unemployment 1970 and 1981. in Table C5 for seeking their first also vary markedly the under-20's than any other ag~ group.
each sex and for stated that age, being very much The figures are higher amongst In 1981 over presented they were economically active half of were unemp:oyed, mostly another way over half of the total unemployed (2,482 out of 4,746) are aged under 20.

Unemployment rates are among 20-24 and they continue to decline steadily therea~ter with age.
year olds, implications when interpreting This of the higher overall overall male rates among females observed for example in Table C3, is a reflection of of the female economically active the populations is highest.

However, under 25 where unemployment this does not explain entirely the differential since, as Table C5 shows, than male ones female has and female unemployment rates.

also substantially higher unemployment rates are lower, but stil.

high, steep age gradient job.


Putting this proportion important somewhat is aged higher Part fact that a 18 within unemployment is 50 percent while for females it is 67 percent.

example ~roup.

each amon~ For a~e 15-19 year olds the male TABLE C5 DOMINICA Percent Unemployed by Age and Sex , based on Main Activity.
1970 and 1981 Total Male 1981 Female Total Age group 14 19 24 34 44 54 64 15 20 25 35 45 55 65+ Not stated Male 54.4 29.4 5.9 2.2 1.4 1.2 0.6 0.3 1970 Female 44.8 32.2 11.6 4.2 2.1 0.7 1.5 1.6 51.5 30.6 8.2 2.9 1.7 1.0 0.9 0.7 All ages 6.9 10.
1 8.1 49.8 19.9 8.8 4.6 2.7 2.9 2.2 8.5 15.9 66.7 30.4 15.0 7.2 7.2 2.7 2.7 11.4 23.6 55.7 23.8 10.9 5.6 4.3 2.8 2.3 9.5 18.6 Total number- unemployed ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 50urce, : 1970 cen,u', volu.e 4, part 9, table 2 4746 2105 1719 2641 917 802 1981 cen,u" taDle 2.2 Comparing the 1970 unemployment rates by level times those in the other age the +igures at a substantially lower are several levels among those aged over higher than male rates at all ages.
h~s affected all age groups the 1970's course~ it is the under-20's and, to a who are most affected.

age with those for 1981, +rom the ear1ier census generally show similar patterns, but the under-20's groups and decline to very low though, consistently The increase in unemployment during though of 20-24 approximately equally, lesser extent, those aged than in 1981.

Rates among Female rates are, 35.

Turning once more to consider the the population, the unexceptional.
females are These are 26% for both males and females.

categorised as are roughly similar to the However, in the 65 age patterns "Disabled".

observed economically inactive members of in Table C4 are generally and over age group more than 30% of 24%.
The figures for males is proportions classed as "Retired" which Table C6 considers a number of months worked the interpretation of unclear whether those who did the "Not code as "Under different aspect of economic activity, namely The that it is no work in the year were given code '0' or added by the labelling of the '0' 1" in the tabulations.

Comparison with the 1970 figures stated" code.

Confusion is year before complicated the census.


during the the fact table this by is "Not stated" "Under 2" and tabulations.

categories have the former category In Table C6, been left the.first two codes on the 1970 questionnaire are is also problematic as has been omitted entirely "None" and "Under 1" the therefore, from the pUblished out entirely so that only and The table reveals those who did some work during the year no great differences between and 1981.
About two-thirds of the persons included in the table worked for the whole year It should be and only about 10 percent worked for less than for half of mentioned that i t is unclear whether persons who worked, say, every week or for only half of the year.

are classed as working for all the sexes or between 1970 during the year are included.

six months.

TABLE C6 DOMINICA Percentage Distribution of the Population by Number of Months Worked in Year before Census.
1970 ~ 1981 Months worked Males Females 2 4 6 8 10 1 * 3 5 7 9 11 12 total * number • see text lor det'lls 01 c.tegor.es used In the t,o II not stated ll catl?gory censuses and for treatment of sources: 1970 c.ensus, vol 4, part 9, 1981 census, table 2.2.1 table 4 of have beeen omitted.
the data categories A more detailed analysis economic status, 1" consequence ensured that those who stated that was months.

very Clearly most all.

activity did no work economically inactive.

this time split by of months worked, is shown in Table C7.
Again the "Not stated" and "Under are partly a for example, it was duri ng the year than four is the and inactive who reported working at main same is true of the of at all during the year and the not also state that of thei r mai n acti vi·ty they worked empty cells as, unemployment was the editing procedures The major feature in the last line, the table, seen small numbers of unemployed "Worked" did for less those whom The for 20 TABLE C7 DOMINICA Percentage Distribution of the Adult Population by Number of Months Worked, by Sex and by Economic Activity Months worked 2 4 6 8 10 1 * 3 5 7 9 11 12 Total no.
(=100%) Male Female Working Unemployed Inactive Working Unemployed Inactive 18.5 46,3 35.2 9,1 54.5 36.4 5,3 8,5 9.3 9.5 67,4 13035 108 22 15,3 38,9 45,8 20.4 37.0 42.6 72 54 4.9 8.4 8.2 7,8 70.7 6381 -------------~------------------------------------------------------- t see text for details of categories used ~ for treatment of ~n.s.
'1 sources: 1981 cens,s, table 2.2.1 TABLE C8 DOMINICA Percent Unemployed by Highest School Attended Type of school Males Females None Nursery or Infant Primary Secondary / Comprehensive Multi-high Other secondary University Other Not stated All schools 8,4 12.5 17.3 12.3 9.2 8.3 2.2 6.6 18.2 15.9 10,3 (26.7) 26.1 18.8 17.5 17.8 3.7 14.5 26 .. 1 23.6 source: 1981 cenSU5 1 table 2.2.2 not.

: figur., in brackets bas.d on f•••r than 20 ca,es Table C8 this time according to of school attended.
educational attainment, as measured by highest Once rates than males in all have education categories but, considering both sexes, unemployment is highest unemployment, unemployment explores females further higher again type 21 reached primary Figures for ~hose wi~h no schooling for ~hose who only ••ongst around 18Y.. ~hough this may only be an age age groups.
are in ~he older those with numbers of very much is s~ill high school those with secondary education, particularly females where it is are lower, below lOX, effect as more of ~hose wi~h no schooling high unemploymen~ among in part the large category.

University graduates have young persons the in that unemployment Similarly, ~he secondary education probably reflects and it lowest rates.
level Figures for 1970 comparable to those not available, but Table C9 shows unemployment rates for the adult population categorised by highest examina~ion passed.

This shows a very different just pa~tern from the 1981 figures, with those with no qualifications or School LeaVing Cer~ificate having the highest unemployment rates.

Whether It may be an this artefact and increases unemployment among the young during the 1970's.

is a real difference from 1981 is difficult to tell.
for 1981 in Table C8 are the overall education caused both by in TABLE C9 DOMINICA Percen~ Unemployed by Highest Exam Passed.

1970 Exams passed Male Female leaving certificate levels levels levels or 1 .

A' levels .
0' None School 1 or 2 GCE '0 ' 3 or 4 GCE '0' => 2 or more • A' Diploma Degree Other Not stated level Total Snurce : 1910 census, Yol 4, part 9, table 1 ~igure5 in brackets ire b~sed Dn less than 20 cas~s 7.4 5.8 2.9 0.0 0.6 <0.0) 0.0 0.0 2.4 (20.0) 6.9 10.9 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 (0.0) 0.0 0.0 2.9 10.1 they about As well had worked asking as the Census their main ac~ivi~y during the adults also aSked respondents who had worked during previous year, for; or the year Whether they had paid help whether they worked for themselves and, if so, Whether active or not.
adul~ population (as defined in Table C2) according to this occupational status classification, in 1981 nearly half of economically active males worked for others, one-third had Among females a higher their own business or farm, for themselves.

proportion (567.)

worked Table CI0 gives the distribution of and 157. did no work.

the economically only 18% worked for othe-s and for others shows that for both 1970 and so, who and, if 1981.

It 22 for short from 74% to 56% for females.


figures have changed substantially since 1970. drop in the proportions who worked for others These has been the 49X among males and only by the substantial proportions working working category there Government from 17Y.

to 187.

In absolute terms the increase in Government was from 3,551 to 4,816, rates unfortunately, be produced one labelled during the year was unemployment gave this response.
The biggest change from 67X to This is balanced not increase in unemployment, but also rises in the only actually be for others" proportions who worked for among males and from 17% to 20Y.

for females.

the rise of some 36%.

Unemployment cannot, categories included almost all of those whose main activity for themselves, many of periods each weel:.
Within the number of persons working for because the occupational "Did no work" and occupational the "Worked different whom may classes status rises have been the the for in a TABLE CI0 DOMINICA Occupational status of the Econgm~cal1y Active Population Occupational status Worked for others in government in I'lrivate enterprise i., a private household as an unpaid wC"'rker Has own bu~sEness or far·m with paid help without paid help ,)id no work Not stated Males Females 1970 66.5 16.6 48.3 1.6 26.8 5.7 21.1 1981 1970 1981 48.9 18.3 24.2 4.5 1.9 34.6 7.6 27.0 73.8 17.1 54.0 2.7 16.4 3.2 13.2 55.9 20.u 25.4 8.6 1.9 19.2 3.9 15.3 6.7 14.8 9.8 22.3 .0 1.7 .0 2.6 Total number (=1007.)
13210 16602 7961 8921 -_._---------------------------------------------------------------- sources: 1970 "nsus, vol 4, part 9, table 2 1981 census, table 2.3 adult economically The distribution ~f the by occupational group's shown for both 1970 and 1981 in Table Cl1.

Because numbers in the "Not of the bi~ diff~rences between 1970 and 1981 in the stated/Not the consists excluded from the percentage distributions.
unemployed these in 1981 are given in Details The categories used in 1970 are not the Explanatory Notes, Section 4.6. identical and In particular, "Labourers and others not.

elsewhere classified ll were Communications" and the classificat.ion o-f occupations used active population category, which primarily of applicable" "Transport to those ha~e been 1981. used in of 23 categories in not affect some comparisons.
Additionally, when comparing the distributions of males and females by occupational to remember the substantially younger age structure of the female economically active population.

and other differences may or industrial group it is important These 1981.

TABLE Cll DOMINICA Occupational Grouping of Economically Active Population.
]970 & 1981 Males Females percent number percent number 1970 1981 1981 ]970 1981 1981 Professional and technical Administrative and managerial Clerical Transport and communications Sales Services Agriculture and related Production and related Labourers and others n.e.c.

4.2 ].0 3.4 ].3 3. ]

4.3 48.7 26.2 7.8 5.9 1.]

4.0 0.0 2.6 5.6 44.0 36.9 0.0 807 155 553 358 764 6049 507] ] ] ,2 0.3 8.9 0.5 ]2.6 23.0 29.7 9.]

4.7 17.0 0.8 15.5 0.0 12.7 19.4 20.4 14.3 0.0 Total number (=1007.)
12311 13757 7]7] Not stated / not applicable 899 2845 790 1097 49 1006 824 1252 1319 923 6470 2451 source: 1970 census, vol ~, part 16, table 1 1981 census, table 2.~ note: categories used in 1970 are not Identical to th05~ u5ed in 19Bi.

In particular 'transport' and ·labour.rs~ were not used in 1981, the largest of males employs 447.

Nevertheless, occupational and 207. important category is "Production agriculture which most other groups are, small, agriculture and to be correspondingly higher.
services, in this last group, which numerous than rales (],097 as compared with 807).

in 1981 was The next of females.

and relat~d".

Amongst males the in comparison to the two already mentioned, relatively smaller propor~ions engaged in both females in the other groups Significa:)t numbers are engaged in sales, Indeed, includes teachers and nur~es, females are more "Production" causes the proportions and technica:l occupation!'.
clerical and professional the much group but for Considering now the ct.anges since economically 497. of males to 447. and from 307. of females active population engag~d in ]970, th9 proportion of the agriculture has de~:ined from in absol ute to 20%.

However", 24 though, terms th~ decline has been about 970, has been an increase of over 5070 in and related" activities from 3.900 to 6,000 persons.

noted, that used in 1981 and some of be partly spurious.

impossible occupational group simply occupation.


from 8,100 to 7,400.

Balancing this the numbers occupied in "Production It should again b. the classification used in 1970 Has different from the changes mentioned here may consequently occupational status figures, it is each unemployed gave an because very few among the the meaningful unemployment calculate As with rates that for to TABLE C12 DOMINICA Industrial Grouping of Economically AC';;,ive Population.
1970 8c 1981 Males Females Industrial group percent ~umber percent number 1970 1981 1981 1970 1981 1981 Agriculture, forrestry etc.
Mining, refinir.g and quar-ying I'lanufacturi"g Electricity, gas and Hater Construction and installation Commerce Transpt, stora9~ & communicatn insurnce 8c real estate Finance, Bavernment Community ser"ices Other services Total number (=10070) :<'7.4 9.7 0.6 2.1 21.1 0.6 38.5 24.0 .0 10.1 0.4 1.9 16.9 1.8 2.5 6.5 19.0 17.1 13315 7147 1503 1 631 27 120 1057 110 156 405 1189 1069 6268 Not statp.d / not applicable 2653 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ source: 1970 census, vol 4, p.rt lb, t.bie 2 3287 814 966 19~1 c.nsus, table 2.5 note, ,ahqorie.
used in 1970 are not idenli"l to tho.e used in 1961. weollunity 5erVlce5~ Mefe classified toqether with "other 5er\-i~~5w I and the Inot stated- cateqory included those not classified else.here.

In particular "finance", "qovern..nt' & As well classifying the adult ropulation by occupation, the as active census also collected informatior.

As with t~e.occupational accordin~ to the industry ~h~y are employed in.
not classification, cla=sification are iden~ical to that used in given The figures are shoHn in Table C12.

Again the "Not stateo"/Not arplicable" c:ategory has been left out of 1970.

Details of the 1981 S~cticn 4.6. to classify the economically the percentage distributions.

in the Explanatory Notes, classification used industrial 1981 the is in 25 and the and, serVices adult populatiDn eCDnDmically active The distributiDn Df industry is, as Dne might expect, females.
commerce, higher prDpDrtions Df males are engaged in agriculture, cDnstruction installatiDn and electricity, gas active males and Dne quarter Df fishing predDminates, decline Df in p~rhaps surprisingly, been nD great changes in the of there have been small though sectDrs.

dramatic rise in the numbers unemployed, particularly among th.

younQ.
younQ.

by substantially different fDr males and Females tend to be more concentrated in the tertiary sectors of to a lesser extent, manufacturing, while and Nearly half Df eCDnDmically females are emplDyed in the agricultur~ sectDr 1970, apart from.

there have industrial breakdDwn rises in the service by cDmparison with th.

the labour fDrce, The numbers ~ngaged in cDmmerce, are particularly small femal~s th~ Since emplDying fDrestry industri~s.

serv;ce changes 457.

Df tDtal.

abDut etc.


407. the FDr th~ Dr 26 SECUON D SOCXO-ECONOMXC CHARACTERXSTICS and age, here being education are mainly topics though religion are covered race the questions were directed to all persons, and details were attended, This was measured attended, as the Th.

training, education first, of currently attainment.

university ever and Rducation full-time, while those currently at school full-time.

both sets of tabulations.

vocational and also discussed.


Considering irrespective type of school or university highest educational as highest school or years spent at school relating to current persons currently attending school or university population exclude those at university are thus included in collected on any, if in total number of about three ways: relating to the adult examination as highest Tabulations include all passed.
Those and TABLE D1 DOMINICA Population at School or University by Sex and Age, 1970 & 1981 Male Female Age percent number percent number under 5 lU l ' and over Not stated Total number- (=1007.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- source : 1970 ,ensus, vol 6, part 3, table 1 & vol 3, table 9 :981 ,ensus, tables 5.1 &1,2 27 The total number of or is 24,471 which is almost the same number as in 1970. university in 1981 attending school between the sges of 6 and 12 The proportion of children has also remained constant at close to 100/.. After age 13 the proportion of boys at school has declined slightly since 1970, wheras the proportion of girls has increased.
persons reported attending school to be TABLE D2 DOMINICA Population Currentlv at School or University.
by Type of School Census figures Male Female Total Nursery or Infant Primary Secondary University Other Not stated 775 9808 1426 69 47 2 719 9081 2421 26 84 13 1494 18889 3847 95 131 15 Total 12127 12344 24471 School enrollment figures Male Female Total Primary Secondary 9516 1113 8854 2004 18370 3430 sources: 1981 ce",us, table 5.1 DOlini,a Statistics Office note: The total enrolilent figure for secondary schools includes 313 pupils In sixth for.

college for .ho.
college for .ho.

infor.ation on se, .as not supplied in 1981.

Table D2 shows the school/university population by type of school primary schools, nearly 4,000 at 1,500 at nursery or infant schools.

Because there abroad so the figure of 95 university the true number currently being attended secondary schools and is no university in Dominica many Dominican students would be studying students may be a substantial underestimate at university.
19,000 are at time of census, the the at of It is interest i ng to note that al though females are attending primary schools, about 63/.

o~ the secondary population are femal~.

sl i ght 1 y mOI-e mal es than school Tables D3 to D6 the adult population defined as those descr1be in three different ways the educational attainment of aged 15 and over who From Table D3 are not currently attp.nding primary or secondary school.

it is apparent that some 5/.


of adults have had no schooling at all, while the remaining 15/., nearly all nearly 80/.

have only primary schooling.

as having reported received secondary education only 1.3/.

are but Of 28 unive~sity.

Conside~ing the sex is clea~ that attended slightly mo~e females than males have some seconda~y education, but this advantage as the~e a~e less than continued to highe~ education half as many female g~aduates (178) as males(377).
b~eakdown, it is not TABLE 03 DOMINICA Adult Population by Sex and Highest School Attended, 1970 and 1981 Male Female Both sexes Type of school 1970 1981 1970 1981 1970 1981 None Nursery o~ infant P~ima~y Seconda~y/Comp~ehensive Multi-high Othe~ secondary Unive~sity Othe~ Not stated 6.1 0.0 82.1 10.

1 1.2 0.5 0.0 4.7 0.2 79.3 11.
Total number (=100%) 15763 20455 19667 21014 35430 41469 source: 1970 census, vol 6, table 3 1981 census, table 5.2 note ,ooprehenslve, lultl-high and other secondary schools .ere groupEd 1n one ,ategorv In 1970 o~ in 65 The ove~, rapid increases attainment in age, with than the young.
This is appa~ent the 1981 figu~es given in Table 03. years recent va~ies g~eatly with education means that the old being educational In Table 04 which gives less educated The p~opo~tion an age b~eakdown of those with little o~ no education inc~eases with age to about 15% amongst unde~ 2% among those aged unde~ 35. aged the proportions with secnndary education is at its maximum of Conversely, Inte~estingly this maximum occu~s ove~ 20% fo~ those in thei~ twenties.

in the 20-24 age g~oup fo~ females.


in the 25-29 age g~oup fo~ males, but seconda~y education but only In the 20-24 that in Table 18% of males.

males though diffe~ential mig~ation may also cont~ibute to the ~elatively low numbe~ of males with seconda~y education in these age g~oups.
figu~es ~einfo~ce the finding seconda~y age g~oup 30% of females have inte~~upting thei~ education ea~lie~, These whe~eas 01, a~e is it those The substantial sex diffe~ential in favou~ of females amongst with secondary education is again reversed in each age group when looking fact that male g~aduates p~edominate in at unive~sity g~aduates.

The phenomenon.
The phenomenon.

suggests eve~y g~oup a maximum, of about 3.5% The p~opo~tions with unive~sity education ~each this that ~ecent age not 15 a 29 1.9% of females, This does not of males ano reflect a de~line years but the fact in university attendance in recent that it is necessary to leave Domini~a for higher edu~ation and that many people who do not do so until their late some years after qualifying.

Differential twenties, emigration of graduates and non-graduates may also be significant.
abroad or stay abroad for age group.

the 30-34 to study either go in TABLE D4 DOMINICA Educational Attainment of Adult Population by Age Group and Sex.
1981 Sex Male Female Highest school attended Age group 15-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ infant None, nursery, Primary Secondary University Other, not stated Total nos (=100%) 3658 3667 4273 2531 2105 1908 2180 infant None, nursery, Primary Secondary University Other, not stated 1.7 1.2 74.5 75.3 19.9 20.2 0.1 0.9 2.7 3.5 1.4 5.8 4.0 75.6 81.4 85.4 6.7 11.
7 19.5 0.8 1.4 1.8 1.3 1.7 1.5 8.6 15.3 83.8 78.8 4.7 0.1 1.1 6.0 0.5 1.

1 Total nos (=100%) 2986 3251 3937 2741 2601 2286 3104 5Durce , 1981 census, table 5,2 a In is For not the same example, populations their educational attainment cohort in 1981 than they did in some Caribbean tendency has been observed for individuals to sometimes exaggerate the census.
of adults may report higher education levels 1970 of such a magnitude that it A migration the 1970 census figures (not reproduced here) with the 1981 comparison of figures in Table D4, does show some eVidence consistent with there being but this could be a consequence of greater emigration some exaggeration, For example, 5.5% of males aged 30-34 among those with the education, in percentage doing so in the 40-44 age gruup was 9.1%.

attaining secondary by differential less education.

or mortality.
or mortality.

explicable reported 1970 1981 but in in school Highest easily measured, guide to educational attainment essentially because it reflects problem IS partially only overcome The passed.

Caribbean, mult'plicity of attendance, not performance at school.

organisations examination throughout examining in Table somewhat attended showing highest though crude, This the D5 is a 3@ in that used 1970.
~hanges in are given in the Explanatory Notes, together with the since 1970 and earlier, make these, both categorisation and ranking very difficult.

Details of the ~lassifi~ation used in 1981 section 4.4, it should be warned that this ~lassifi~atlon is somewhat different and more complex than 1981 that population had passed any substantially less and examination, the "School Leaving the lowest ranked qualification.
About 3-4% of adults have Certificate", (or CXC 'General 'passes) and only 0.9% of males and 0.4% of GCE '0' Level shows 1.3% of adults ever females had these must having have failed or only obtained att~ndance is being exaggerated.

there has been a ~onsiderable increase in Considering ~hanges since 1970, the proportions having qualifi~ations, most marked among those having 1-4 GCE '0' Levels or 1-3 CXC 'General' grades.
of unless university attended university, many Given that Table D3 However, Table D5 20% of of the those a degree.

diplomae, shows adult about only than half had in TABLE D5 DOMINICA Adult Population by Highest Exam Passed.
1970 and 1981 Highest exam pass~~ Male Female None PCE or school leaving CP I CHS - dip I SSPE eXC(B) 1 - 3 GCE'O' 1-4 I CXC(G) 1-3 GCE'O' 5+ I se I GCE'A'l GCE 'P' 2+ Diploma Degree Other Not stated 1970 88.3 6.2 1.4 1.3 0.1 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.0 1981 ~ ~ 85.2 ...J ••J Total number (=100%) 15763 20455 19667 21014 ~------------------------------------------------------------------ source: 1970 censLls, vol 6, part 3, table 4 1981 census, taole 5.3 of of years schooling.
The number third measure of edu~ational attainment used in the census is Table D6 gives the proportion of the adults with ~even or more years group.

The proportions are around 90% for those aged below 35.

Thereafter they Females once more tend decline slowly should be noted that to have had attending s~hool full-time, so the 15-19 the figures for levels 1970 unfor~unately relate only to that will Figures for primary rather than all schooling and are thus not ~omparable.
thi3 ~ohort are an underestimate of the eventual slightly more education than males.

It of schooling, broken down by age aye ~roup excludes those still remai.l aoove 60% at all ages.

be attained.
but TABLE D6 DOMINICA Adults with 7+ Years of Schooling, by Age Group and Sex Age group ~le Female number Yo of age gp number Yo of age gp 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 65+ Not stated 3249 3253 2234 1548 1183 894 775 776 h95 664 1361 88.8 88.7 88.9 87.9 84.5 79.0 73.4 74.0 73.2 69.3 62.4 2758 2978 2033 1590 1227 '.067 1004 1033 836 885 2013 Total 16632 81.3 17424 sDurce : 1981 census, table 5.4 92.4 91.6 93.0 90.8 86.8 80.4 77.8 78.9 76.3 74.4 64.9 82.9 TABLE D7 DOMINICA Adult Population with Vocational Training by Occtlpation Trained For Occupation Male Female Occul1ation Male Female Physical scientist Architect, engineer Aircrft & shp offcr Life scieutist MedicI, dentl & vet S~atistician etc.
Economist & Accntnt Judge & 'a,.yer Teacher Religiou~ worker Author, Sculptor, painter Composr, perfm artst Athletes, sportsmen nthr prof & tech journalist 0.6 7.4 0.5 1.4 6.6 0 .. 3 2.5 0.5 5.8 3.1 O.

1 0.9 0.6 0.1 2.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 21,2 0.1 0.9 0.4 19.6 1.2 0.1 0.9 0.3 0.1 3.1 Typist Book-keeper Computer operator Cook, waiter, etc Hairdresser Protective service Agric.

& fishing Tailor & dressmaker Cabinet maker Macnine f i t..ter Electricl & Electrnc Plumber Printer t'tason Miscellaneous n.e.c.
0.1 0.4 0.0 0.4 14.4 6.1 2.3 14.2 B.6 3.8 4.4 0.3 0.4 11.

8 28.0 1.4 0.1 0.9 1.4 1.6 0.1 14.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.3 Total number (=100;1) 2173 1338 source: 1981 census, ta.ble 6.2 32 The total number of persons with vocational 2,173 and their distribution by occupation trained for is shown in table D7.
Males with vocational training are distributed fairlY widely over the different the only relatively large categories being in the protective occupations, large services and, rather surprisingly, cabinet makers; classified by occupation.

Fewer females are not proportion of males trained than males, in medical they and services, typing and dress making.
heavily concentrated there is also a training is teaching, are TABLE D8 DOMINICA Method of Training fOr those With Or Receiving Training, 1970 and 1981 Method of training On the job Private study Agricultural college Teacher tra"ning college Tecnical school Other instit~tions Hotel Other Not stated Total number (=100%) Males Females ------------------------------------------------------------------------ source: 1970 census, vol 6, part 21 table 7 19B1 cenlul, table •• 2 note: in 1970 all coll_q_s &t_c~nlcal sc~ooIs .ere cIa55lfled loget,er of The 1970, number vocational from 2312 adults with adult population to 8.5%.
Table D8 training appears to have 1981. increased dramatically since from about 3.5% Proportionately the increase has been even mOre dramatic: training was of the aquired.

Taking both the job training has increased its share of the distribution from 3% in 1970 to 25% in 1981.

An increase of this size is most likely to be an artefact due to changing perceptions about what constitutes vocational changes the distributions of males and females by in training practises.
method relative importance of agricultural and teacher training colleges.

than a reflection of sexes together, on shows how this training are similiar, training, to 4511 In 1981, broadly except the for in of This change in training is highlighted training in vocational through coports +ollowing hat even in the oldest age uch training to occur, perceptions by table each sex from one and about what 09, which age constitGtes vocational shows the proportions with both years.
By group census to the next, one can see expect reported doubling of the proportions for groups, where one would not normally there is a 33 trained.

Eg., males aged 50-54 in 1970, who would be aged about 60-64 in 1981, reported an increase in proportions trained from 3.17. to 6.87.. TABLE D9 DOMINICA Proportions of Adults with Vocational Training by Age and Sex.
1970 and 1981 Age group Males Females 15 20 25 ;!O 35 40 45 50 55 60 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 65+ not stated All ages source , 1970 ,ensus, vol 6, part 3, lable 6.1 1981 ,ensus, table 6 note: 1970 figures relato to all persons over 15, .
:,eras 1981 figures exclude those still at school In to in all and their other three first, Turning training race and from schooling breakdowns, by each ce~sus the being Amerindians.
total population in censuses the proportion of socia-economic charact~ristics, Tables DI0 and D11 gives by religion respectively, of the 1960, 1970 and 1981. the race Considering population that is either black or of mixed race is over 977., most of the remainder instructions given to enumerators were t~ ac~ept the answer given by the r~spondent rather than to parents who were of assessment.

to make The dramatic drop differing racial groups were to be classed as "mixed".
from in the prnportion of the descent nearly one-third in 1960 to just 67. in 1981 must be due to changes ir.

the black or o·f mixed race.

No being classed as perceived desirability of longer a higher social status than have race The changes are far too great to be accounted for by differences blacks.

assertion cannot be in mortality, fertility or migration, mi~ration data ~onclusively, because proved broken down by race are not available, either frD~ registration or census sources.
population classified as of mixed fertility, mortality or though this of mixed persons Persons born own do 34 TABLE 010 DOMINICA Pooulation by Race.

1960.
1960.

1970 and 1981 Race Numbers Percent 1960 1970 1981 1960 1970 1981 Negro I Black Mi >led Amerindian White Others Not stated 39575 19606 395 251 81 8 55492 12323 1270 317 135 11 b7272 4433 1111 341 219 419 66.1 32.7 0.7 0.4 0.1 .0 79.8 17.7 1.8 0.5 0.2 .0 91.2 6.0 1.5 0.5 0.3 0.6 Total 59916 69548 73795 100.0 100.0 100.0 sDurce : 1960 census, vDI II, table 5 1970 census, vDI 7, table I 1961 census, tabll 7.2 TABLE 011 DOMINICA Population by Religion.

1960.
1970 and 1981 Religion Numbers Percent 1960 1970 1981 1960 1970 1981 Roman Catholic Seventh Day Adventist Anglican Baptist Pentecostalist Methodist Church of God Other Christian * HindL" Muslim Other None Not stated .0 0.1 6.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 88.1 1.8 1.2 0.1 0.6 5.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 .. 1 76.9 3.2 0.8 2.3 2.9 5.0 0.7 0.9 .0 0.1 4.2 1.8 1.1 Total 59916 69548 7-::795 100.0 100.0 100.0 source, 19.0 census, vol II, table.
1970 ,ensus, vDI 7, table 2 1981 ,ensus, table 7.1 note : ... 1neludes Presbyt~rl ans I CorgregatLOnall !its, Jehcvah 'IS ~ii tnesSES 1 Dre~rE!re~, Sal vat!

elr] Ar~y I "oravign, "enonlte, and P.".E.
(llon) 35 and IINone lf the changes The religious composition of the population, shown in Table Dll for 1960, 1970, and 1981 reveals that Roman Catholicisim is followed by over three-quarters of the population and most of the remainder is spread over though there are a significant numbers numerous other Christian churches, "Other-II 1960 and 1970 are classed as complicated by in In particular, questionnaire 1970 those whose religion was so are labelled "Not were asked The stated" Roman Catholics constitute a sloWly declining, broad pattern is though Several of the the population.
smaller Christian sects have been increasing rapidly in both relative and there seem to have been a considerable absolute though the changes in increase in the numbers following "Other" faiths, the classifications make the extent of this difficul~ measure.

Comparisons with categories used.

nut explicitly given on the Those who did to write in a in the tabulations, still predominant, proportion of rather than "Other" and "Not stated".

terms since 1960, and response.


in the that • 36 SECTION E MARRIAGE AND UNIQN STATUS status of any union Respondents were asked both about their legal marita!

status, and about the in.

However, whereas marital status was collected for all persons, males and female, aged 14 and over, union status was asked over who were not females aged 45 and over were not attending school full-time.

asked at age 45. females aged 15-44 not Current union attending school.
only available for for their current union status, but for their status status is thus females aged they were Further, only of 14 and TABLE E1 DOMINICA Marital status of the population aged 14+, by sex.
1981 Marital status Number Percent Male Female Male Female Never married Married Widowed Divorced Legally separated Not stated 15773 6150 470 125 97 174 15289 6521 1533 133 117 175 69.2 27.0 2.1 0.5 0.4 0.8 64.3 27.4 6.4 0.6 0.5 0.7 Total 22789 23768 100.0 100.0 50urte : I'Bl tenSu5, table B.l and that very It must small be legally separated.
proportions emphasised Those living apart but Table E1 gives the basic distribution of the population by marital Roughly one-third of the population aged 14 or more is status for 1981. are widowed, divorced or legally married the "separated" category only separated.

legally not includes those females than males separated are classified as married.

Slightly more 6Y.
Slightly more 6Y.

or 400. report themselves to be married, reasons for this are differential migration, omission from the Possible enumerated in institutions or temporarily tables of married men who were In this last possibility, it abroad, and misreporting of marital status.
may be that some persons, males, legally or otherwise separated reported themselves as single or perhaps women who are not The is the difference between the only other significant feature of Table E1 than three times as many sexes in the numbers widowed.

widows attributable to as widowers, generally lighter mortality among females, though possibly differences in remarriage rates between males and females are also contributing to this.

formally married but have children may claim to be married.
females or both sexes, who are There are more a the discrepancy being about feature common this and is 37 TABLE E2 DO/'tINICA Marital Status of the Population Aged 15 - 64, by Sex , 1960, 1970, 1981 Marital status Males Females Never married Married Widowed Divorced Legally separated Not stated Total no.
(=100%) 14300 13357 18142 18116 16183 17802 sour,.

: 19bO "n5u5, vol II, tabl' 10 1970 census, vol 8, part 1, tabl, 1 1981 "n5U5, table 8.1 not.

: figur •• for 19bO in,lude thos, aged b5 and ov'r 15 and over and Table E2 persons aged 1981 figures in higher proportions' widowed at those for 1960 and 1970. aged 15 to 64 not attending school, so the have also been restricted to that population.
cover all example the apparently from this artefact, the 1981 the while for females assess rather structure increased divorce changes in since 1970. significant.
compares the marital status distribution for 1981 with for those The 1970 figures are only available this table The 1960 figures, however, explains, for Except the main trends apparent arp a substantial decline in 1970 and proportion of males who were married dropped from 36% to 26%, is difficult to due to changes in age in the popularity of marriage or though, there have been substantial the prime marriage ages the reporting of marital status may also be than ratesa Certdinly, particularly amongst males.
£etween the proportion of Improvements in the decline was from 35% to 30%.

proportions married, to which a th~ population in this difference that date.

decline trends extent these are the It The small numbers widowed, A breakdown of the 1981 marital status distribution by age is shown dIvorced or separated make the in Table E3.

erratic and unreliable, especially figures for these categories somewhat ages.
By the age group 30-34 nearly one-third of mem and 40% of at young that women women are married, dIscussed tend to marry earlier the proportion of earlier may also affect these figures.

women that are married drops below that of men.

This may be primarily a reflection of the increasing number widowed and low sex ratios caused by differential mortality.
the difference being mainly due to the fact though the possible biases After age 40 than men, TABLE E3 Se~ Males Females 38 Ma... ital status dist... ibution by age group and sex , 1981 Age g ... oup Neve... Ma...... ied Widowed Divo... cedl sepa... ated married Not stated Total no.

(=100%) DOMINICA 19 15 24 20 29 25 34 30 39 35 44 40 49 45 54 50 59 55 60 - 64 65+ n.s.
All ages Age g... oup 15 - 19 20 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 44 45 - 49 50 - 54 55 - 59 60 - 64 65+ n. s. All ages 99.1 97.6 85.3 66.0 52.8 42.5 40.0 31.7 29.9 23.6 17.8 63.9 69.1 0.1 1.9 13.8 32.3 45.0 53.0 55.0 61.9 63.1 65.9 65.3 22.6 2'7.0 .0 0.2 0.6 1.7 1.2 2.8 3.5 6.9 13.6 0.0 2.
1 .0 10Sl 950 959 2184 155 0.8 22789 Neve... Ma...... ied Widowed Divorcedl sepa... ated ma...... ied Not stated Total no.

(=100;0 98.6 91.4 73.3 57.6 51.
(=100; .0 source: 1981 census, table 8.
I iage is be summa... ised using a measu... e of The ...ate and ultimate extent of ma... riage desc ... ibed in the fi ... st two columns of Table E3 can the mean age at Inar-riage and the proportion who never marry.

Here a " s ingulate ll medn age of ma advantage that it cont ... ols fo... age structu e. Unfo... tunately this measu... e in the Ca... ibbean ... elatively as elsewhe... e because old ages and this makes the measu... e slightly sensitive to the cut-off age used.
and 1981 are shown the p ... oportions neve... married by age.

in Table E4, which also includes for The mean ages at ma ... riage a ... e about fou ... years highe ... for males than and the figures for 1970 substantial numbe... s of is not as ... obust people ma...... y at He... e age 60 used which has the is used 39 It In than in 1981 they were 3b and 32 year& respectively, about one year females.
the proportions of higher 1970. males and females who truncated at age 65, but the impression is that about 70X of females ~d over 75% of males suggest a do at slight decline For only some bOX were married; example whereas, in the prevalence of marriage during the seventies.

1981 among males in 1970 the figure was b8Y.. some stage marry.
Comparisons with the eventually marry as the data are is difficult 1970 figures to estimate 40-44 aged in TABLE E4 DOMINICA Mean Age at Marriage and Proportions Never Marrying.
1970 &< 1981 Mean age at marriage Percent never marrying male 34.7 35.8 female male female 31.0 32.1 22 27 30 33 1970 1981 'our,e : 1970 ,en,u" '01 8, part I,table I 1981 cen5u5, t.ble B.I.l note: the5e .e.5ures .re deri,ed frol proportion5 5ingle reported in each age group TABLE E5 DOMINICA Mean Age at Marriage and Proportions Never Marrying.

by Highest School Attended.


1981 Highest &chool attended infant None I Primary Secondary University 50ur,e: 19B1 ,en,u" table B.l.l Mean age at marriage Percent never marrying male 41.0 3b.9 31.8 30.7 female male female 35.3 33.3 28.9 38 2b 15 15 41 33 27 note, these .e.5ure, ar, deri'ed fro.
proportion, 'Ingle reported in eacn age group Table educat i onal the figures E5 presents the proportions never married according attainment, as measured by highest school is ba~e are small this table on which attended.

and thus to Some of somewhat 40 those who the table, are highest females who trends are clear.

particularly for for those with little Or no reached university, but the unreliable, Mean ages at marriage, given in the last row overall schooling and of are very lowest for large indeed.
Males who attend university marry, on average at about age have a mean age at marriage 31 while those with is still some seven or of over 40. eight years.

similar steep show a and 40X of females with little or no grAdient by education; 30X of males schooling never marry, while for the more educated the figures are 10 to 15X of males and 20 to 25'l.

of females.

Among females the range is less, but never marrying little or no education attended university.
The differentials The proportions TABLE E6 DOMINICA Union Status Di stri buU on of Females Aged 15-44, 1970 and 1981 Year Age group 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 1970 1981 1970 1981 1970 1981 1970 1981 1970 1981 1970 1981 U n i o n s t a t u s Married Common Visi- No lngr No lngr Nvr had partner ting w hsbnd w clp law 3.1 0.4 10.9 7.7 29.b 24.9 41.2 37.5 49.9 42.3 54.3 44.2 5.0 7.6 15.3 18.0 22.1 21.8 19.0 20.1 Ib.7 20.4 12.2 16.1 14.1 12.7 21.2 Ib.7 15.7 12.b 10.1 7.9 5.3 4.8 2.8 3.5 0.8 2.0 3.6 b.l b.2 6.2 7.2 8.3 7.5 8.1 9.b 10.8 77.0 b5.1 48.7 44.5 25.9 28.9 20.8 19.b 16.9 15.5 14.5 14.7 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.7 2.7 3.7 4.1 b.b 6.2 Not Total stated 100% 12.2 0.1 b.8 0.1 4.7 3.9 4.8 4.5 2666 298b 2589 3251 1713 218b 14M 1751 1523 1414 1349 1327 'Duree I 1970 c.n,u" 1981 c••,u" vDI 8, part 2, tabl.
8.2 table 1 not attending school, and Turning now to consider union status rather than formal marriage, as has already been m~ntioned.

this was only asked of females aged 14 and over 45 were asked to give over their union Seven in the Explanatory categories were used Notes, Section 4.7.
It is important in particular to note that women were defined as a birth in a marriage or Common Law union during the previous year and were not themselves to be in a have at rather than and these are defined in detail being in a "visiting union" o"ly if they had had their current status.

Those who may those aged considered status at age 45 time.

the 41 the women instructions issued to enumerators, always followed because, husband or Common Law partner".
However, year were, visiting relationship but who did not have a birth during the to be categorised according to the these somewhat as "Never had a as Table complex definitions were clearly not aged 14-44 who are classified as 8.2 shows, nearly half of having had a birth during the being in a visiting union did not report Further, Table 8.2 shows that 101 or 6.5X of women in the previous year.
unexpectedly high, given visiting category are aged 45 or over, which is it ~hould have been their status at age 45 that was recorded.

A few that be attributed to coding errors, but of these wrong categorisations may clearly many enumerators were not following their instructions closely, and were perhaps instead accepting the woman's own statement of whether or not she was in a visiting union.
Nevertheless, at least to the extent that the definitions given above were actually followed, the figures are probably an underestimate of the number of women who consider themselves the 1981 definitions were to be in visiting unions.

1960) so it is virtually id9ntical possible to measure trends.

in the previous so it is impossible to show definitively that year were produced in 1970 the definitions were likely that it enumerators also failed to follow the instr~ctions in earlier censuses.
<and 'ndeed of births No tabulatio.,s to those used Fortunately, then, but followed in 1970 though, seems not group 15-19 for Dominica.

up to 40-44 for Table E6 gives the distribution of females by u~ion status for each 1960 figures are not 1970 and age not attending school only available 3~X of females aged full-time are included 15-19 were still at school and if they were to he included in the table then the figures for that age group would probably change substantially.
Note show around 5X in the "IJot stated" a consequence of the recoding of inconsistent responses during category, In 1970 there were hardly any "Not 5tated" responses.

data editing.

Note in the table.
In 1981 about 1981. those figures al so that that 1981 the in importance more Consider'ing first the 1981 figures nlone, the proportion of females in a visiting union rises to a maximum of 17X in the 20-24 age group and Common La~ unions show a declines thereafter to under 4X Dy slower rise and a la~er peak of around 22~ ~n ~he They by the age also decline group 40-44 Formal marriages, which some 16X of increase in importance occur ste«dily so that the predominant form of by alie union and over half of females are married.
It should be remembered that figures give the proportions of females who are in each type of these union at in any way measure the proportion of women who ever enter each uni'on type.

slowly so that females are in a Common Law union.

numbers only after age 25, they are in substantial 25-29 age group.

group 40-44 age 40-44. the time census.
of the do not They A comparison of be stated that this Law and Visiting unions the 1970 figures in Table E6 with those reveals that the while Common should the reporting of marital status since report have either changes except for 1981 incidence of formal marriage has fallen at all ages, it change may be partly due to improvements in proportions who The small their husband or Commo~ Law partner The proportions who have never had Common Law partner do not show any consistent in the 15-19 age group where it has declined substantially that they are no longer with have increased.
Once again also increased a husband since 1970.

1970. or a 42 from 79X to 65%.

attending form unions.

distortions in the distribution.


The 12% of school This could a consequence of increased numbers in that age group rather than any greater propensity to age group also suggests "Not stated" in this be in as 60 45, Just than rather discussion as before, the earlier of marriage a mean age at marriage was calculated, so an analogous measure of the mean age at union Here one is forced to use a cut-off age formation can also be computed.
but this should not significantly of bias downwards the values obtained as the number of women entering unions the for the first time after age 45 is likely to be negligible.

However, effect and the of in the "Never inclusion of some had a husband The formation in 1970 was about 22 years while by 1981 it mean age at union had dropped at marriage, a mean age The extent of union formation does not already given, of about 32 years.
seem to have changed aged 40%-44 never having had a husband or Common Law partner.

or Common Law partner" category may during the decade, with about 15% of females had a visiting union This contrasts with attending school, of those who have be significant.

those still to 21 years.


exclusion the of TABLE E7 DOMINICA Mean Age at Union Formation and Proportions Never Entering a Union by Highest School Attended, 1981 Hi ghest school attended Mean age at union formation Percentage never in a union infant None / Primary Secndry / univrsty All schools 50u,ce , 19B1 cen5u5, table B.2.1 Table E7 gives comparable 20.6 20.6 23.2 21.0 23 14 10 15 for three figures years older educational attainment categories.
higher education have a mean age of union some Similarly the proportions never in a those with secondary or university education (10.5Y.)

those with little or no education.

the biases that might exist in a but the differentials they reveal are likely to be real, same biases affect al~ the categories of women compared.

for different 1981 It shows that those with secondary or formation of about 23 years, education or less.
for and rise to 27% for be emphasised that, due to these estimates only give figures, and mean ages at, union formation, in so far as the these broad indication of the extent of, union by ages 40-44 are lowest those with It should primary than SUQN F 43 FERTILITV females Four questions in the census related directly to fertility.
These over who were not attending school first the last twelve A fifth question asked for the number of still-births during the been produced because of only covered full-time and asked for the number birth, months.

previous year, but no tables t~.

poor quality of the responses.
of children ever borne, age at age at last birth, and number based on it have of births during aged and 14 TABLE F1 DOMINICA Births Last Year and Age Specific Fertility Rates,1981 Age group Total women Births in lAst year ASFR's (per 1000) registered births 15 20 25 30 35 40 15 19 24 29 34 39 44 44 2951 3244 2185 1751 1414 1327 459 744 437 252 115 31 12872 2038 Total fertility rate Mean age at childbearing source: 1981 c,nsus, tabl, 8.4 r,gist,r,d birth data not available for 1981 155.5 229.3 200.0 143.9 81.3 23.4 158.3 4.2 26.5 not.
: Wo-en .ho are still at school, and those .ho did not report the nuober of births l.st year .re e,cluded froo the table, 8irtb~ last year reported to 14 yr olds ar, inclUded in tho births to age group 15-[9. number of live births Table F1 the shows the twelve months during age-specific fertility rates implied by them.

peak in the 20-24 mid-thirties.

4.2 births ~er woman and the mean age of Unfortunately it figures tabulations using the information were published.
occurring the These ASFR's show an early the age group, but remain at fairly high levels until The Total Fertility Rate calculated from these figures is 26.5 years.
these data with 1970 census collected in 1970, no child bearing is information was together with is impossible reported as to compare although because, census, before the th~ 44 TABLE F2 DOMINICA Age Specific Fertility Rates by Highest School Attended Highest school attended Age group Primary or none Secondary ~ higher 15 20 25 30 35 40 15 19 24 29 34 39 44 44 Total fertility rate Mean age at childbearing soureo : 1911 eonsus, tablo 1.4.1 155.1 242.9 211.5 143.7 81.9 21.2 158.3 4.3 26.4 169.8 199.6 171.
1 145.6 84.4 45.1 164.1 4.1 27.0 as measured As one might expect, F2 shows attainment age-specific categories, small numbers of births only a fertility rates by different Table school educational two-way split can attended.

Because of lower usefully be made.

(27 Total Fertility Rate of but the differences years) considerable differences in are remarkably education described in the previous union mean (Table E7).
the less shows section educated group have a more concentrated pattern of childbearing than the more educated with a higher peak during the twenties and lower figures at younger and older ages.
small, especially gIven the the less educated (4.3 and educated have a child bearing the ASFR's 26.4 years) Comparison later mean formation the more highest 4.1 and age at age of than that for of by The fact of births, occur to Homen largest number in visiting unions classed as being in a visiting union, A breakdown of births in the last year by that the union status is given in the Table F3.

is unsurprising given the way total, As stated in the Explanatory Notes, section visiting unions are defined.
in theory it was necessary to have had a birth in the last 12 months 4.7, though in practice this rule to be followed.

Nevertheless it remains true that over half of was not always a marriage or Common Law union.

Only 20~ occur all births occur outside a Common Law union.

Part of the reason within marriage and 24'l.

within for the high ocurring within visiting unions is that numbers of births visiting unions most frequently occur durlng the prim~ childbearIng ages.
at Similarly the least in part, a con5~quence of the fact that ~or many couples marriage does not occur until after childbearIng is completed.

occurring WIthIn marr~ages is, low number of births 37.5'l.

of 45 TABLE F3 DOMINICA Births in Last Year by Union Status.

1981 Union status Number Percent Births Married COllmon law Visiting No longer with husband No longer in common law union Never had husband or c.l.
partner Not stated Total sourte : 1981 tensus, table 8.4.2 405 486 765 13 76 206 87 19.9 23.8 37.5 0.6 3.7 10.1 4.3 2038 100.0 TABLE F4 DOMINICA Age Specific Fertility Rates (per 1000) by Union status Un i o n s t a t u s Age group Married Common law Other 15 20 25 30 35 40 15 19 24 29 34 39 44 44 T.f.r.
Mean age 583 328 255 156 95 29 153 7.2 355 355 224 171 76 37 227 6.1 145 187 167 127 59 13 146 3.:5 23.8 24.9 26.1 sourte : 1981 tensus, table 8.4.2 note: the ·otfler U category incluaes walen in V151ting unions and those oho no longer ha,e, or ne,er h.D a h,sb.nD or tD,oon-lao partner.

F4, Table status eliminates the The extraordinarily effects of these variat,ons in union status by age.
high flgures for visiting unions are a consequence of the definition of visiting unions and are not comparable with the others.

Fertility within giving ASFR's union each for 46 marriage appears not to be consistently higher or Common based on are inflated by the exclusion of figure for the married in any case the figures small numbers and, those still at school.

Law unions.

The high lower than in 15-19 year olds is for that age group that TABLE F5 DOMINICA Mean Children Eyer Borne by Age Group of Mother.
1970 and 1981 1970 1981 Age group Total Children women ever borne Mean Parity Total Children women ever- borne Mean Parity 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 65+ Total 2666 2589 1713 1489 1523 1349 1343 1372 1165 974 924 4112 5981 7357 9006 8301 7532 7209 5554 4615 0.347 1.588 3.492 4.941 5.913 6.15::; ~ource : 197Q census, ~ol B, part 3, table 1 1981 c,nsus, tibl' 8.3 note: Waler attending school full ti~e are eKcluded fro.
this table, but WDlen for whoI nUlb~r of chlldr~n pver borne was nat stated are inclu~ed.
for each referr1ng gives mean parities relate to different birth cohorts, 1961-65 Turning to the question on the number of children ever born, Table The age 15-19 figures for be information on the fertility (or indeed from censuses is not strictly those who a-e Those who have died their fertility is biased picture of the true F5 figures thus born 1981 any remembered, anything else) of cohorts that is derived comparable with registration or similar data because only present on census night are included in the former.
or emigrated are not different, the experience of the cohorts.

to the extent that a group, for 1970 and 1981. to women that census data will covered and, though, during should yield etc.

the It rise steadily with age The mean parities from the 1981 census in the last column of Table F5 6.

1 children per woman in the 45-49 age group, and thereafter decline.
This decline at older ages 1S a of kInd very and IS usually due not the past, but to the om1ssion of in to lower feature fertility at these somet1me peak of common data to a of 47 actually giving about childr~n who have This bias is often caused by women "fDrgetting" children by older women.

children who died in infancy, Or by a younger member of the household who o~ behalf of the older woman not is or are living elsewhere.
knowing reveals that there has Comparing the been fertility affecting all age groups under 40. example, had, on average, 3.5 children in 1970 but Those aged 25-29, for only 2.3 Or the 20-24 and 30-34 age in 1981. groups are almost as large.

1981 figures with those a marked decline in The declines in perhaps died information 36'Y.
fewer fOr 1970 the TABLE F6 DOMINICA Percentage Di str i buti on of Women in Each Age GrOuD by Parity A g e g r 0 u p Parity 15- 20- 25- 30- 35- 40- 44 39 29 34 24 19 45- 49 50- 55- 60- 59 64 54 65+ All 0 10+ n.s.

 .0 2.6 11.8 14.6 11.
1 8.7 6.7 6.5 7.5 8.2 6.7 7.2 8.0 5.3 7.2 6.8 6.1 6.8 1.0 5 .. .. 3 2.4 2.3 3.4 3.4 0.5 6.3 13.8 13.5 11.3 8.4 0.1 2.5 10.6 14.2 '7.9 8.8 8.1 .0 0.1 .0 0.1 9.5 3.8 2.')
.0 0.9 3.5 8.6 8.8 7.6 8.3 6.6 2 .. 6 ages 22.2 15.4 11.8 8.8 6.8 6.3 5.5 4.5 4.1 3.1 7.7 3.7 29136 3251 2186 1751 1414 1327 1291 1310 1096 1190 3104 20906 Total (=100%) -------------------------------------------------------------------- source: 19B1 census, t,ble 8.3 the table, increase with The proportions childless, them to remain fairly steadly after that Further evidence of the tendency of older women to omit children is the distribution of women by parity for prOVided in Table F6 which gives shown along the first each age group in 1981. age 45, whereas one would rOW of expect Smaller rises are also observable in the parity-one and parity-twD rows~ though this could be explained of secondary st~rility in the past.
This misreporting makes it difficult to aSSesS what proportion lives, but of women the figure is tabl .. s.lggests that over probably around 25% of all woomen aged 45-49 have ten or mOre children.

This very great variability in numbers of children ever borne should be remembered when considering the ~ean parities given in other tables in thl~ section .. throughout their other extreme the childless the At by higher levels to some extent age after remain age.
5'Y.. 48 TABLE F7 DOMINICA Mean Child... en Eve... Bo... ne by Union Status and Age, 1970 and 198i Age g ... oup Ma...... ied Common law Othe... s 1970 1981 1970 1981 1970 1981 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 65+ 1.
source: 1970 census, vol B, table 3 19B1 cen,u" tabl' B.3.2 note: The category "oth,r' consIsts of those In visiting unions and those .ho ne"r had, or no longer have a busband or cOI.on la.
partn,r.

Union status for thos, aged o,er 45 is tbat .hich .,ist.d at 45. fo... and age 1970 thei... example, to ... epo... t based on cu ep ... oductive pe... fo ... mance.

a 45 yea... old ma ent union status and inte... p ... etive p oblems.

Table F7, showing a b ... eakdown of mean child... en eve... status and because the table is of p ... evious union histo... y.
Yet, fo may have ... eached that status by many va... ied ... outes and these a to significantly affect he the visiting union catego y and status asked c ... eates fu ... the... highest mean pa... ity, 7.1 child en, whi I e child... en.

figu... e of 6.1 child... en.

those who neve... pa... tne... , the mean is figu ... es a ... e substantially highe ove... all decline in Te... tility du ing the decade.

of imp ... oved ... epo... ting ... at~e... inc ... ease.
age 40 the 1981 -figu... es a ... e gene... ally ma... kedly lowe... categories excp.pt those not bo... ne by union 1981 is pa... ticula... ly ha... d to inte...p ...et, takes no account ied woman likely e The definition of 45 we... e than cu...... pnt status, 45-49 the those who a ... e ma...... ied, lowe... mean of 6.2 numbe... s of women in visiting unions have a simila... both had and those who no longe... have a husband 0 ... Common Law these than those ... epo... ted in 1970; despite the eflection cont ast below 1970 in all ThIS may be a In than in a union, which includes substantially lowe... at Howeve... , by age g ... oup that 45 ... athe... in The small the fact at those aged ove'" is ... epo... ted by Inte... estingly, than any ... eal Law uni ons in a union.
a son.ewhat those not Common those have 4.9.

Fo... age in Table attainment previou~ t£hle because, F8, showiGg catego... ies and mean is agf?, unlike pa ities ve y much easie... union ~tatus, educational to inte... p ... et than the educational attainment fo... diffe... ent 49 fixed from a group 45-49 relatively early age.
remains substantial and generally fertility declines as education the age no education children and those with primary education, those with 6.2, while However, at ages under 45 the pattern with little or no schooling with primary education.

The differentials are By 6.7 by far the largest group, had only 5.2 children.

is somewhat more complex and those fertility than those have distinctly lower increases.
had about those with secondary education little or had TABLE F8 DOMINICA Mean Parities by Age Group and Highest School Attended Age group Highest !

!
!

'chool attended 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 65+ None - infant Primary Secondary Uni versi ty (0.000) <0.077) 0.55.3 1.382 1.857 (1.235) 3.231 (2.000) (1.571> (1.400) (1.

000) 50urc.
000) 50urc.

: 1991 cen,u" table 9.3.1 note: figule, In par.nthe,., are ba'ed on fe ••r than 20 reports the during rather previous by women home duties diffi~ult and is gi\-en in Table F9.
A breakdown of mean parities according to the main activity engaged As was in year pointed out earlier; the classification cf Homen by e~onomic actiVity is a arbitrary exer~i~e and the pr~sence of to same ext~nt, themselves a~ engaged children may for example, encourage women to report Therefore it is not in all ages in the "Home surprising to find the highes~ mean parities at in home duties duties" category.

have a mean had o~ly 5.6.


The unemployed have c:>nsi derabl y more chi 1 dren than those wor:,; ng at ages a hindrance to under obtaining a and who s~ate a rather vague ambition that they actually eventually to try to return to work rather currently searching actively for work.

presence of Of course women who are raising children 45-49 thGse engaged those who were working 35, suggesting job.

of 6.6 children whi12 ~erhaps unemployed.


are unemployed may only be reportIng the age group children is than that they are than that the In 50 TABLE F9 OOMIt-IICA Mean Pa.. ities by Age G.. oup and Main Activity in P.. evious Yea.. Age g .. oup 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 65+ Main activity Wo.. ked Skng fi .. st job Othe.. unemplyd Home duties 0.294 0.800 1.730 2.935 4.145 5.295 5.669 5.609 4.835 4.652 4.008 0.235 1.009 1.837 3.286 (4.333) (1.
500) (5.000) <1.000) 0.351 1.250 2.261 3.809 3.756 6.050 5.730 5.657 2.400 1.889 2.400 0.503 1.550 2.891 4.070 5.256 6.388 6.646 6.575 5.703 5.706 5.110 saurc.

: 1981 c~nsus, table 8.3.3 nat.

: figur., in par.nth.s•• are bas.d an fe.er than 20 repart.

In have how many p .. oblem with fo.. women aged last birth a"e the info.. mation but unavoidable childbearing has indeed ~irs~ birth.
fi .. st births will bi .. ths women have had, addition to asking about 35 and ave.. , al .. eady given only fa.. the census also makes possible some investigation of when they had them since questions we..e asked about both age at fi .. st bi .. th and age at last bi .. th.
A se.. ious, obtained f .. om questions is that many women, especially the young, will not yet these have had their last, or To avoid as ~ar as possible the bias caused by this t .. uncation effect, Table FlO only gives the mean by whlch age the vast ag~s at fi ..st bi .. th Fa.. simila.. majo.. ity of reasons, ages at and ave.. when these figu ..es a ..e on the .. epo.. ts of older women who have al .. eady been shown to thus based children ever borne, and also give unreliable answers to the question on that 1970. age at which women Neve.. theless, 23 yea.. s for fi .. st become mothe.. s has those aged 55 and above in 1981 to about 20.5 yea.. s fo .. those aged 35-39. given in Table FlO a ..e between 36 and 37 The mean compa..able figu ..es yea.. s, and show little sign of at de.. ived f .. om the 1970 Census fe .. tility tabulations a .. e somewhat age g .. oups ~5.9, .. esp~ctively.
This, the mean age at be emphasised that last bi .. th may than these data may well be unreliable and the t .. end may .. eflect no mo.. e imp .. oved .. epo.. ting s;.nce 1970. been bo.. n. those aged 50 that somewhat su.. p .. isingly, suggests that been declining slowly f .. om a .. ound .. efe.. mainly the figu .. es be .. ising slightly.

Again to bi .. ths suggest that which the ave.. age finished.

Note 50-54, 55-59 36.0 years last bi .. th any trend.
and 60-64 35.5 and occu.... ed Howeve.. , howeve.. , ages at it must befo.. e lowe.. they the fo.. ages FlO also shows differentiated by union status catego.. ies.

Table mean at last birth and Interpretation is complicated fi .. st 52 SECTION 8 HOUSING AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS the Explanatory Notes, Section 2, persons liVing together and sharing at a household is As was stated in least one defined as one or more are thus included as members daily meal.
Boarders, servants and guests of the household, but tenants and others who only rent a room constitute is excluded entirely separate households., The institutional population from all household-based in this section.

not considered further tabulations and are There were figure had increased by this increase was greater consequently from 4.6 in 1970 to 4.3 in 1981. there has been a than some 15,100 households in Dominica in some 2,200 or nearly the overall reduction in By 1981 15% to 17,310.
This po~ulation increase of 6% and the average household size 1970.

TABLE 81 DOMINICA Households by Area - Numbers and Mean Size.
1970 and 1981 Area Number Percent Mean size Roseau twn St George rem St John st Peter St Joseph St Paul St Luke St Mark St Patrick St David St Andrew 3_67 4.09 5.13 5.60 4.85 3.85 4.45 3.94 3.44 3.88 4.24 3.43 4.04 4.47 4.96 4.58 DOMINICA 15148 17310 100.0 100.0 4.59 4.26 sour"s , 1970 "nsus, '01 9, table 1 1981 "nsus, t'ble 11.1.4 note th,nges in .re.
bound.ries ••y .fie,t tOlp.r'blllty o"r tl" parish.
average are David in the Table Gl shows that this national picture is not reflected in ever substantially larger than t' Mean in sizes east coast pa~ish~s of St. Andrew 1981 household found in the (4.6), f (5.0) and St. Patl-ick (4.5) while below average fIgures are fc and in the !O' northern parishes Peter and, St. Joh.l of St. 51 that the union status by the fact the census in 1981 rather than at the time of the births, or, of wom.n aged 45 and over, diff.rences betw.en the categories th~ Common Law unions appear than generally have the highest means.
is that which existed at the time of in the case The in mean age at first birth, shown in those in slightly younger ages not surprisingly, the union status which existed at age 45. table, are generally not to enter motherhood at never in a union categoires.

the other top half of the though large, Those TABLE FlO DOMINICA Hean Ages at First and Last Birth by Age and Union Status.
1981 Age group Union status Married Common law Other First birth Last birth 35 -'0 45 50 55 60 50 55 60 65+ 65+ All 20.5 20.5 21.4 22.1 22.9 22.3 23.1 36.7 36.7 36.4 36.5 'ource : 1981 cen,u" table' 8,5 and 8.6 note: the category other include' tho,.
,n ,i"t,ng union' a' oell a, tho,e oho never had or no longer have a husband or COIBon ia_ partner 34 years, while those in The mean ages at last birth, in the lower part of Table FlO, are having the lowest figures of more variable, with those never in a union the married category appear to complete around their childbearing It must, be emphasised again that t~ese data are derived from the possibly unreliable report:> of older women, occut-ring ,"ometime in A more up-to-date picture of the trends the past, usually prior to 1970. though in fertility could be not, other socia-economic variables.
o~tained from registration derived data, educ~tion or and they relate to births average, approaching breakdowns 38 years.

course, status, at, an unio~ of by 54 seventies seven or the total has been there proportion of more persons, and a corresponding decline in the population they contain from 50% to 43%.

a decline in the households of proportion of TABLE 63 DOMINICA Households by Number of Rooms, 1970 and 1981 No.
of rooms Number Percent and over Not stated Total 15149 17310 100.0 100.0 source: 1970 census, vol 9, table 8 1981 census, table II.l.4 Of course the number of The extent of of the extent persons per household of overcrowding because provide a measure size.

the number of rooms available to each household.


that kitchens, bathrooms, toilets these substantially more than in 1970 when it was 2.7. that this increa~e is due to a reduction, terms, comprised 587. of the total stock, but 467. in 1981. does not in itself houses vary in this variation can be seen in Table G3 which shows should be mentioned arriving at per household in 1981 was 3.0.

The distribution shows both relative and absolute In 1970 these etc.
are not counted when The mean number of rooms two roomed households.

in the number of one and numbers.

in It the Table together thus of presented information tables the then in 1981 327. of households, 64 puts and number looks more directly at persons previous considering overcrowding is defined as, household, total population, are overcrowded.

127. the population is position is nevertheless a considerable improvement of the population two or more persons households) enjoyed ,.-uom per person.
the two by If there being two or- mare persons per room in a In WhICh lived nearly half the In only 277. of households with just This person.

since 1970 when 627. a density of (227. of haVing more than one in overcrowding each household.
households> lived at per room, the (comprising 42% of the population comparative there more than one and only room per room in luxury 97. of per of of 53 The town of Roseau the 1981 figures with of St. Luke and St. Mark, also tends to have small households, dropping there to below 3.5 southern parishes in persons.

of the parish of St. George.


contrast to the surrounding other parts Comparing that the range of values was even greater in 1970, with mean sizes greater than 5.0 persons in St. Patrick and parishes (the average household exc~ption being St.Josephl have seen declines in ~he size since 1970, A decline has also occurred in the non-urban part of St. George, suggesting that house-building in this area is more than keeping pace with its rapid population growth.
This is also true grew particularly rapidly during the 1970's.

this being greatest in St.Patrick and St. David.

those for 1970 shows in St. Paul, the other area which' st. David.

However, almost all TABLE 62 DOMINICA Di str i buti on of Households and Population by Household Size.

1970 and 1981 Household Households Population size Total (=100l0 1970 18.0 14.6 11.

9 11.

0 9.9 8.6 7.7 6.1 4.5 3.
1 .. 2 12.5 12.6 11.5 9.8 7.2 5.4 3.1 2.3 3.8 15149 17310 69032 73578 ---------------------------------------------------- sour" : 1970 c,nsus, .olu., 9, table 8 19BI census, tablell.I.4 in Table 61, though informative, The means presented households, ~ome 20% of the total, very great variability in household shows the distribution by household size of both population, for 1970 of contain households households comparatively small A comparison 4.3. jo hide the in Table 62.
This the households and the that the greatest number they the other extreme, population.

At constitute the total, 21% of total ~Goulation.
Thus only a close to the mean size of 1981 figure~ shows that during the persons over 43% of the are of single persons, but less than 5% of households are sizes apparent It can be seen and contain number of the total and 1981. or more 1970 and seven the of uf 55 TABLE 64 DOMINICA Persgns per Room, 1970 and 1981 Households Numbers Percent Persons per room 1970 1981 1970 1981 Under one One Between one 8< Two or more Rooms not stated two 3371 2615 2536 6410 217 4707 2872 3210 5482 1(.39 22.3 17.3 16.7 42.3 1.4 27.2 16.6 18.5 31.7 6.0 Total 15149 17310 100.0 100.0 Population Numbers Percent Persons per room 1970 1981 1970 1981 Under one One Between one 8< Two or more Rooms not stated two 6122 5965 13366 42731 848 9092 7053 17272 35997 4164 8.9 8.6 19.
'1 61.9 L2 12.4 9.6 23.5 48.9 5.7 Total 69032 73578 100.0 100.0 SOU'C' : 1970 censu5, vol 9, table B 1981 cen5U5, table 11.1.4 note: for the purposes of cOlputing the persons per roam ratio, 7+ rooms 15 taken as 7, end 13+ persons is taken as 13.

TABLE 65 DOMINICA Distribution of Households and Persons by Family Type, l Q SO Family type households persons Nuclear Extended Composite types All (=100%) 56.4 34&0 9.6 41.
9 45.2 12.9 17310 73578 source ~ 1980 census, tablE 11,3 note: fa' definition, of famliy type see explanatory note5 56 Households have been classified in the or "composite" "ex tended ll servants etc are present in the head~, designated as II n I,Jclear ll "composi tell househol ds other non-relatives.

~pou~e or their Common ; acc:ordillg to whether household.
Law partner as census "nuclear I', relatives, boarders, only children are HOu~ehold~ comprising their and those containing other relatives are Il ex tended ll are contain boarders, domesti cs or ones whi ch ; type The distribution of ~hown i~ population in 1981 by hou~eholds are family nuclear,one-third contain another relative and are thus "extended II , while some lOt.

are of composite type.


the population shows that 45% of the people live in households containing another relative and only just over 40% of persons live in simple nuclear households.

households 65.

The distribution of both in 57% of Table and TABLE 66 DOMINICA Mean Number of Persons per Room by Family Type, 1981 Family type Mean persons per room Nuclear Extended Composite types All (=1001.)

1.24 1.

81 1.66 1.

51 SOU".

: 1981 ,.n5u5, tabl.

ILl note: for deflnlt,on5 of ,a,ily ty~.

5.'


.,pl,natory not.s to investigate Because the mean size of households important overcrowding.

person~ per persons per room while for extended are 1.8 and 1.7 persons, which must favourable conditiDns as regards overcrowding.

by "family type" varies, it is "family type" and 66 which gives mean numbers of Nuclear households have a mean of 1.2 the means indicates that nuclear families enjoy the is room for each type.
and composite households relationship between in Table done This the Overcrowding also varies by area, as can be seen in Table The least overcrowding appears to occur in St. Peter and St. Luke where there are fewer tha~ and is greatest in the east coast parishes of St. David (1.84) and st. Andrew (1.63).

1.3 persons per room on average, 67. another economic the maln considers Table G8 aspect of household characteristics, heads of households during the namely C2 described earlier previous vear.
except that itis confined to heads of hous~holds rather than all adult~.

labour force participation Compari~g the amo~gst all adul~5.

However, rates are much the same proportion of heads within the economically active category a mucn lower amongst heads as activity of is identical first that The table to Table tables shows two 57 TABLE G7 DOMINICA Persons per Room by Area.
1981 Area Mean persons per room Roseau twn St George rem St John St Peter St Joseph St Paul St Luke St Mark St Patrick St David St Andrew DOMINICA sourre : 1981 toOSUS, table 11.1 1.40 1.49 1.48 1.
17 1.43 1.49 1.28 1.45 1.48 1.84 1.63 1.51 TABLE 68 DOMINICA Main Economic Activity of Heads of Households, 1970 and 1981 Main activity Males Females Economically active Worked Seeking first Others se~king work Wanted work and available job Economically inactive Home duties Student Retired Disabled 1970 1981 1970 1981 87.7 86.7 0.2 0.6 0.2 11.4 0.3 0.2 10.9 81.6 77.7 0.7 1.1 2.1 12.2 0.8 0.2 5 .. 8 5.4 45.3 44.0 0.2 0.7 0.4 54.2 36.9 0.1 17.2 43.2 39.2 0.6 1.3 2.1 53.7 34.0 0.2 9.1 10.4 Other and not stat.ed 0.9 6.2 0.5 3.1 Total number (=100X) 8723 10787 6425 6521 source: 1970 censu;, vol 1"', table 6 1981 rensus, table 11.2 58 unemployed than non-heads.
shown in Table C3.

a~e and a~e least, an age effect as heads non-heads olde~, unemployment va~ies ma~kedly with age.

ave~age, than on The figu~es have This lowe~ unemployment may of households a~e and, as has al~eady been discussed in pa~t at somewhat al~eady been seen, likely to be be, the Amongst economically the~e a~e also significant diffe~ences between heads of households are mo~e likely to be ~eti~ed o~ disabled and less likely to classify theMselves as being engaged p~ima~ily in home duties.
Again this could be in pa~t an age effect.

inactive and non-heads.
Heads TABLE G9 DOMINICA Dist~ibutign of Households by Type of Dwelling Type of dwelling Sepa~ate house Flat o~ appa~tment Range type o~ ba~~acks Out-~oom Pa~t of comme~cial building Othe~ p~ivate G~oup dwelling No fixed abode Not stated 1970 81.8 13.7 0.2 0.7 1.8 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.8 1981 78.3 12.7 1.0 1.1 1.6 2.9 0.7 0.1 1.6 Total numbe~ (=100X) 15148 17310 -------------------------------------------------- source: 1970 cenSU5, vol 9, table 2 [981 censu., table 9.1 of tables The last hous2holds section of conditions and quality.
type and dwelling sepa~ate houses, and most of of inclUdes boats, tents, of the this catego~y.

in 1970. households living in ~anges, att~ibutable to the dest~uction caused by the hu~~icanes.

desc~ibe va~ious aspects of housing Table 69 shows the dist~ibution of households by nea~ly 80X of households live in ~eveals that the ~emainde~ live in flats.
Some 500 o~ 3% catego~y which undoubtedly a consequence the~e we~e ve~y few households in The inc~eases since 1970 in the small numbe~s of simila~ly be hu~~icanes of 1979 and 1980 as ba~~acks, out~ooms etc.

may t~aile~s etc.

This is p~ivate" dwellings, "othe~ live in a The Table 610. p~ivate dwellings tied to a institutions etc.

now ~ent p~ivately.
now ~ent p~ivately.

landlo~d dist~ibution of ~lmost 56X of and the housing households own thei~ house, 21X ~ent be seen in f~om a p~esumably mainly in job such as ca~etake~s flats, apa~tments fo~ staff in though fewe~ 1970 the~e have been few chnnges, tenu~e can stock by 9% live some f~ee; ~ent Since 59 TABLE 610 DOI'IINICA Distribution of Households by Type of Tenure, 1970 8< 1981 Tel)ure r ..nted Owned Leased Privat..
Rent free Squatted Hire purchase Government rented Other Not stated 1970 64.8 1.0 25.6 7.3 0.1 0.4 0.8 1981 65.3 0.8 21.

1 8.6 0.7 1.

1 0.5 0.5 1.4 Total (=1001.)

15148 17310 ,.ur,.

, 1970,.n,u" vol 9, labl.

1 1991 ,.n,u" l.bl.

9.2 TABLE GIl DOMINICA pistribution of Households by Construction Material.
1970 and 1981 Material Wood Concrete Stone Brick Noggin Dr stucco Wattle or adobe Wood and brick Wood and concrete Other Not stated 1970 81.2 9.6 0.3 0.3 .0 0.2 7.6 0.8 1981 61.6 19.7 0.4 0.7 .0 0.7 13.6 0.7 2.6 Total number (=1001.)

15148 17;:;10 'our,.

, 1970 ,.n,u5, vol 9, l.bl.

2 1991 ,.n5u5, table 9.1 The distribution of there has been dwelling is shown wood, dwellings built of 1981.

1970 to 5,000 i,1 1981. households a marked incr~ase since of consturction of by material in Table GIl.
Although most houses are still built of of concrete Dr wood and concrete from 17% to over 331. in in r.ogging, wattle and has more than doubled from 2,600 The number of hOuses built of 1970 in the proportion In absolute terms the number 60 "other" materials The prDportions~ substantially from TABLE 612 declined has proporti on of over 801.. 0+ the during same period to negligible dwellings built of wood has declined the total to just 627.. DOMINICA Distributlon of Households by Year of Construction of Dwelling.
1981 Date of construction Number Percent Rate per 1960 or earlier- 1969 1961 1970 - 1977 1978 1979 1980 - 1981 Not stated 7845 2516 2684 367 1098 1406 1394 45 .. 3 14 .. 5 15.5 2.1 6.3 8.

1 8.1 year apr.
1 8.1 year apr.

252 336 367 1098 937 Total 17310 100.0 source: 19B1 ce~S]"5, table 9.3 to or by the real year Table glves "new".. before destroyed of course, demolished households It does nDt~ to be called subsequently extent as the modifications the distributlon of have The -Figures improvements carrled out after the dwelling was built, 512 construction of the dwelling.. and built Neither does it, structural some considered house the c:ategor-ised suspects, when their live in dwellings built the 1960·s.
the number of dwellings built period.

and very high rates for 1979 and 1980, after: 1981 there was 1981, with those built in 1980. of include dwellings census.

in theory, cover renovations, reconstructions and other though of these may in pr~ctice be includeu, especially if the respondent been sufficiently major for the thus underestimates of here a .... e of households are About 8/.
Clearly many people, particularly, one those who rent rather than own -r.:.hell'"" houses, simply do not know one-third of households duriJlg The annual construction ~dtes are derived simply by dividing in the period by the number of years in the They show rising construction rates during the 1960's and 1970's the recorstruction Because the census was postponed from 1980 to May no place on the questlonnalre to mark dwellings built in lnclude dwellings built in 1981 dwellIng was built.
However- 1 nearly so enumerators were lnstructed to further 15/.

were built bUllding stated".

since 1970 and a a reflection of the hurricanes.

act1vity.

of ltNot Tables G13 to G16 descrlbe the amenltles available to households.

improvements i~ water Table G13 shows households still have to supplies fetch their water from a households which obtained their water from "other" sources~ Including wells, streams 1981, while th~ and that durlng the 1970's substantlal decline~ from 24% In took place.
Although the proportion of public standpipe, nearly half of ponds, 1970 16X to In 61 proportions which had water to 22% over the same the public piped water supply either in their yard or their dwelling.

1970 the figure was 16%.

piped into their dwelling increased from 13% Som~ 22% of households now have access to In period.

TABLE 813 DOMINICA pistribution of Households by Method of Water Supply.
1970 and 1981 Method of water supply Public - piped int.o dwelli ng Public - piped into yard Private - piped into dwelling Private catchment, not piped Public stand-pipe Public tank Other Not stated 1970 8.3 7.4 5.1 2.2 51.

1 0.7 24 .. 4 0.8 1981 12.8 9.5 9.3 1.6 47.3 1.0 15.6 2.9 Total number (=-100%) 15148 17310 source , 1970 census, vol 9, t'ble 3 1981 census, table 10,1 TABLE 814 DOMINICA Distribution of Households by Toilet Facilities.
1970 and 1981 Avallability 1970 1981 Type 1970 1981 Shared Not shared None Not stated 10.3 38.0 51.1 0.6 8.6 46.4 40 .. 2 4.8 Pit we link'?d to sewer linked WC not Other None Not stated 33.6 8.8 3.5 2.4 51.1 0.6 33.9 20.2 0.9 40.2 4.8 Total number (=100%) 15148 17310 Total number (=100%) 15148 17310 sourCe' 1970 census, vDI 9, t'bles 4, and 4b 19B1 census, labie 10.2 Modast decade, the households still have no toilet facilities 1970 51%.

facilities only have a pit latrine.


Only improvements in toilet facilities have also been made during in Table 814 show that 40% of at all available to them.

The have acces~ to some which 20% of households have access figure was figures though those given Most the do of 62 in 1981.

~hough ~heir number has,increased The apparen~ disappearanc.

of WC's linked ~o a w.e.


subs~an~ially from 1,900 ~o ~o sewerage 3,200 have ~his kind sys~ems (nearly 9 percen~ is due to coding of and/or infact has no public sewerage sys~em.

The edi~ing procedure adop~ed in 1980 ensured tha~ this error was no~ repeated.

repor~ing errors in 1970: Dominica of households were repor~ed ~o toile~ facility in 1970 and none in 1980) at all TABLE G15 DOt1INICA Pistribu~ion of Househglds by Type of Lighting.
1981 L i 9 h ~ i n 9 t y p • electric kerosene o~her 3C..O 65.2 2.4 Total number (=100%) 17310 n.s.

2.4 5Dur,e : l~Bl ,en5U5, table 10.3 1981.

Tables G15 and G16 show the ~ypes of fuel used for ligh~ing and for be made da~a were collec~ed, no ~abulations based on them have elec~ric ligh~ing predominant cooking fuel, used by some cooking in because, al~hough ~hH were published.

and ~wo-~hirds use kerosene.

70X of households is wood or charcoal.

Unfor~una~ely, comparisons with Mos~ of ~he res~ use gas.
30% of households In 1981 only 1970 cannot The TABLE G16 DOMINICA Dis~ribuhon of Households by Cooking fuel used.

1981 C 0 0 k i n 9 f u e 1 Gas ElEctrc~y Wood or Kerosene charcoal O~her or none no~ s~a~ed To~al number (=1007.)

19.9 17310 ---_..~----------------------------------------------- --------------------- 5Dur,.

: l~Bl :.n5u5, table 10,4 3.3 1.2 4.8 70.4 0.4 ·,.. 11llNTED BY THE PRINTI"lG UNIT, STA T1STICAL IHSTITUT[ 0' JANAICA