P25-1135 

U S C E N S U S B U R E A U 

Helping You Make Informed Decisions 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 

Domestic Net Migration in the 

United States: 2000 to 2004 

Population Estimates and Projections 

Issued April 2006 

Current 

Population 

Reports 

By 

Marc J. Perry 

Migration is playing a larger role in 

population redistribution within the 

United States. With birth and death 

rates currently low and largely similar 

across the country, natural increase 

(the excess of births over deaths) 

exerts less influence than it used to 

in explaining why some regions, 

states, or counties have faster population growth than others. 

This report describes recent patterns 

of population redistribution reflected 

in the domestic net migration component of population estimates data.1 

Analysis will focus on net migration 

for a number of different kinds of 

geographic areas, including regions, 

divisions, states, metropolitan and 

micropolitan statistical areas, and 

counties. While limited to domestic 

net migration, this report is similar to 

several of the migration reports in the 

Census 2000 Special Reports series 

that covered both domestic and international migration.2 The primary 

focus of this report is the postCensus 2000 period (July 1, 2000, 

through July 1, 2004), although annualized migration data for the period 

1990 to 2000 are included to provide 

1 The data in this report are from the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s Population Estimates Program and are based 

largely on administrative records data. The county 

population estimates covering the period July 1, 2000, 

to July 1, 2004, are vintage 2004 estimates released to 

the public in 2005. The population estimates for the 

period July 1, 1990, to July 1, 2000, are vintage 2000 

estimates available at <www.census.gov/popest 

/eval-estimates/county/c8/county-2000c8.html>. The 

population universe is the resident population of the 

United States (the 50 states and District of Columbia). 2 See Rachel S. Franklin, 2003, Domestic 

Migration Across Regions, Divisions, and States: 

1995 to 2000, Washington, DC, Census 2000 Special 

Report, CENSR-7, U.S. Census Bureau, available on 

the Census Bureau’s Internet site at 

<www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-7.pdf> and 

Jason P. Schachter, Rachel S. Franklin, and Marc J. 

Perry, 2003, Migration and Geographic Mobility in 

Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan America: 1995 to 

2000, Washington, DC, Census 2000 Special Report, 

CENSR-9, U.S. Census Bureau, available on the 

Census Bureau’s Internet site at <www.census.gov 

/prod/2003pubs/censr-9.pdf>. 

Definitions and Explanations 

Migration is commonly defined as a 

move that crosses jurisdictional boundaries. Local moves–for instance, those 

within a county—are considered residential mobility and are not included in 

this report. Domestic migration is the 

movement of people within the United 

States. International migration is the 

migration of people across country borders. Inmigration is movement into an 

area during a given period, while outmigration is movement out of an area during a given period. 

Net migration for a given geographic 

area is the difference between inmigration and outmigration during a specified 

time frame. Net migration can be either 

positive or negative. Positive net migration indicates net inmigration, while negative net migration indicates net outmigration. In this report, the net migration 

rate for a particular period is calculated 

by dividing total net domestic migration 

by the average population living in that 

area over the period and multiplying the 

resulting figure by 1,000. 
a historical perspective on the 

migration patterns discussed. All 

migration figures in this report refer 

to domestic migration and do not 

include migration exchanges 

between the United States and 

other countries or U.S. territories, 

possessions, or the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico. The domestic migration figures may include people 

who are native or foreign born. For 

readability, domestic net migration 

in the text of this report will be 

termed net migration. 

Migration Patterns for 

Regions and Divisions 

At the broadest geographic levels—the four regions and their nine 

divisions—differences in migration 

patterns are apparent (Table 1). 

Net outmigration from the 

Northeast region has moderated in 

recent years, dropping from an 

average of 314,000 per year in the 

1990s (an outmigration rate of 6.1 

per 1,000) to 247,000 per year (a 

rate of 4.6 per 1,000) between 

2000 and 2004.3 In the 

Northeast’s New England division, 

average annual net outmigration 

fell from 50,000 to 28,000. Net 

outmigration from the Middle 

Atlantic division also declined, 

from 265,000 to 218,000, but its 

net outmigration rate of 5.5 per 

1,000 remained the highest of the 

nine divisions. 

3 The Northeast region includes the New 

England division (Maine, New Hampshire, 

Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and 

Connecticut) and the Middle Atlantic division 

(New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania). 

The Midwest region includes the East North 

Central division (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, 

Michigan, and Wisconsin) and the West North 

Central division (Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and 

Kansas). The South region includes the South 

Atlantic division (Delaware, Maryland, District 

of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and 

Florida), the East South Central division 

(Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and 

Mississippi), and the West South Central division (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and 

Texas). The West region includes the 

Mountain division (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, 

Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and 

Nevada) and the Pacific division (Washington, 

Oregon, California, Alaska, and Hawaii). 

Net outmigration from the Midwest, 

which averaged about 73,000 per 

year in the 1990s, increased to 

161,000 per year in the post-2000 

period. This increase in net outmigration reflects both the East North 

Central division’s increase in average annual net outmigration from 

84,000 to 133,000 and the West 

North Central division’s reversal 

from net inmigration in the 1990s 

to outmigration in the later period. 

The South remained the primary 

destination for migrants within the 

United States, with average net 

inmigration of 353,000 annually (a 

rate of 3.4 per 1,000) between 

2000 and 2004. While these were 

the highest figures of any region, 

they reflect a modest decline from 

even higher migration figures for 

the 1990s, when net inmigration 

averaged 380,000 per year (a rate 

of 4.1 per 1,000). This decline was 

due entirely to steep declines in 

net inmigration for the East and 

West South Central divisions. In the 

East South Central division, 

2 U.S. Census Bureau 

Table 1. 

Total and Average Annual Domestic Net Migration for Regions

and 2000–2004 

(Rates per 1,000 midpoint population) 

and Divisions: 1990–2000 

Region/division 

Total number Average annual number Average annual rate 

1990–2000 2000–2004 1990–2000 2000–2004 1990–2000 2000–2004 

Northeast . . . ............................ –3,144,570 –987,262 –314,457 –246,816 –6.1 –4.6

New England ........................... –495,961 –113,536 –49,596 –28,384 –3.7 –2.0 

Middle Atlantic .......................... –2,648,609 –873,726 –264,861 –218,432 –7.0 –5.5 

Midwest . ................................ –730,087 –644,792 –73,009 –161,198 –1.2 –2.5

East North Central ...................... –844,723 –533,163 –84,472 –133,291 –1.9 –2.9 

West North Central . .................... 114,636 –111,629 11,464 –27,907 0.6 –1.4 

South ................................... 3,801,093 1,411,172 380,109 352,793 4.1 3.4

South Atlantic . . . ....................... 2,538,633 1,250,540 253,863 312,635 5.4 5.8 

East South Central ...................... 629,824 78,435 62,982 19,609 3.9 1.1 

West South Central ..................... 632,636 82,197 63,264 20,549 2.2 0.6 

West .................................... 73,564 220,882 7,356 55,221 0.1 0.8

Mountain . . . ........................... 1,804,226 523,235 180,423 130,809 11.6 6.9 

Pacific ................................. –1,730,662 –302,353 –173,066 –75,588 –4.1 –1.6 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2004. For additional information, see <www.census.gov/popest/counties 

/CO-EST2004-04.html> and <www.census.gov/popest/eval-estimates/county/c8/county-2000c8.html>. 
average annual net inmigration Net inmigration to the West aver­ (76,000 per year, a net outmigration 

dropped from 63,000 per year in aged 55,000 per year (a rate of 0.8 rate of 1.6), but at lower levels than 

the 1990s to 20,000 per year per 1,000) for the period 2000 to the 1990s, when net outmigration 

between 2000 and 2004, while 2004, up from an average net inmi­ averaged 173,000 per year, for a 

average annual net inmigration in gration of 7,000 per year (a rate of net outmigration rate of 4.1. 

the West South Central division 0.1) in the 1990s. The region’s two The migration story at this broad dropped from 63,000 per year to divisions continued to follow differ­ geographic level is one of net out- 21,000 per year. In contrast, the ent migration patterns. The rapidly migration from the Northeast and South Atlantic division, the most growing Mountain division aver­ the Midwest and net inmigration to populous of the region’s three divi­ aged net inmigration of 131,000 the South. Within the Northeast, sions, saw its net inmigration per year (a rate of 6.9) for New England continued to experi­ increase from an average of 2000–2004, compared with ence net outmigration between 254,000 per year in the 1990s 180,000 per year (11.6 per 1,000) 2000 and 2004, but at lower levels (5.4 per 1,000) to 313,000 per in the 1990s. The Pacific division than during the 1990s. Within the year (5.8 per 1,000) in 2000–2004. continued to experience net outmi­ West, net inmigration continued to gration in the period 2000–2004 

U.S. Census Bureau 3 

Figure 1. 

Highest and Lowest Average Annual Levels of Net Domestic Migration 

for States: 2000–2004 

Highest 

Florida 190,894 

Arizona 66,344


Nevada
 50,803


Georgia
 41,298 

North Carolina 39,137


Texas
 36,566 

Virginia 20,535

South Carolina 18,756


Tennessee
 16,634


Washington
 13,354 

Lowest 

Utah –9,495

Kansas –11,469


Louisiana –16,945

Michigan –28,467


Ohio –31,613 

New Jersey –32,147 

Massachusetts –42,402 

Illinois –71,854


California –99,039


New York –182,886


Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2004. 
the Mountain division and net out- State-Level Migration New York, in contrast, had the 

migration occurred from the Pacific largest annualized net outmigra­ Migration patterns for the individ­ division; in both cases, these tion during the period, averaging ual states varied for the period trends moderated from the 1990s’ 183,000. California (99,000) and 2000 to 2004. Florida had the 

pace. The South continued to have Illinois (72,000) were ranked sec­ largest annualized amount of net the most net inmigration of any ond and third, respectively. Three inmigration during 2000–2004, region, due to the continued of the 10 states with the most net averaging 191,000 per year higher levels of net inmigration to outmigration between 2000 and (Figure 1). Arizona (66,000) and the South Atlantic division. Net Nevada (51,000) were second and 2004 are located in the Northeast, 

inmigration to the East South third, respectively. Of the 10 4 are in the Midwest, 1 is in the 

Central and West South Central states with the largest annualized South, and 2 are in the West. 

divisions dropped from their net migration amounts for the respective average annual levels in Nevada had the highest annualized period, 7 are located in the South the 1990s. net migration rate of any state, and 3 are located in the West. 

4 U.S. Census Bureau 

Figure 2. 

Highest and Lowest Average Annual Rates of Net Domestic Migration 

for States: 2000–2004 

(Rates per 1,000 average population based on population estimates for July 1, 2000, and July 1, 2004) 

Highest 

Nevada 23.3

Arizona 12.2


Florida
 11.4


Idaho
 7.2


Maine
 6.3 

New Hampshire 6.1


Delaware
 5.9


Georgia
 4.8


North Carolina
 4.7


South Carolina
 4.6 

Lowest 

Iowa –3.0


Nebraska –3.1


New Jersey –3.8


Louisiana –3.8


Utah –4.1


Kansas –4.2


Illinois –5.7


North Dakota –6.3


Massachusetts –6.6


New York –9.6


Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2004. 
23.3 per 1,000 average population 

for the period, with Arizona (12.2) 

a distant second (Figure 2). New 

York (–9.6) and Massachusetts 

(–6.6) had the lowest rates of any 

states, that is, the highest rates of 

net outmigration. The rate for the 

District of Columbia was –18.1. 

Comparison With the StateLevel Patterns of the 1990s 

Domestic migration patterns by 

state were different in the period 

2000 to 2004 than they were in the 

1990s (Table 2). Hawaii and Rhode 

Island registered the largest rate 

increases among the states. 

Hawaii’s rate went from –10.3 to 

–1.7, while Rhode Island switched 

from net outmigration (–6.1) to net 

inmigration (1.3). In the period 

2000–2004, the average annual rate 

of net outmigration for the District 

of Columbia declined to 18.1 from a 

rate of 26.1 in the 1990s. 

Nevada’s net migration rate, which 

dropped from 29.8 to 23.3, 

U.S. Census Bureau 5 

remained highest in the country, the corresponding drop in the 

while Colorado’s rate fell from number of potential inmigrants to 

11.7 to 1.9. Other large declines other states from California. 

occurred in Utah (from 3.5 to –4.1), During the 1990s, outmigration 

Idaho (12.4 to 7.2), and Georgia from California led to substantial 

(10.0 to 4.8). migration gains for many western 

states. As California’s net outmigra­ Compared with the 1990s, 21 tion has lessened in recent years, states and the District of Columbia so too has net inmigration to many had higher average annual levels of of these states. 

net migration in 2000–2004, while 

29 states had lower levels. Most states that experienced net 

California experienced the largest inmigration in both periods are in 

numerical change in average annual the South and the West, but the 

net migration between the 1990s pattern is not geographically uniform (Figure 3). Two southern and the 2000–2004 period. While 

states (Mississippi and Oklahoma), the state continued to experience 

two midwestern states (Indiana net outmigration between 2000 and and Minnesota), and one western 2004, the average annual net out- state (Utah) switched from net migration of 99,000 was smaller inmigration states in the 1990s to than the comparable figure of net outmigration states in 221,000 per year during the 1990s. 2000–2004. In the Northeast, Florida had the second-largest Maine and Rhode Island reversed numerical change in average net from net outmigration states in the migration, going from 112,000 per 1990s to net inmigration states year to 191,000 per year. during 2000–2004, as did 

One consequence of the drop in Maryland in the South and 

net outmigration from California is Wyoming in the West. 
Table 2. 

Total and Average Annual Domestic Net Migration for States: 1990–2000 and 2000–2004 

(Rates per 1,000 midpoint population) 

State 

Total number Average annual number Average annual rate 

1990–2000 2000–2004 1990–2000 2000–2004 1990–2000 2000–2004 

Alabama . . . .............................. 106,027 394 10,603 99 2.5 0.0 

Alaska ................................... –30,354 –2,918 –3,035 –730 –5.2 –1.1 

Arizona . ................................. 620,256 265,376 62,026 66,344 14.5 12.2 

Arkansas ................................ 120,940 19,493 12,094 4,873 4.9 1.8 

California . ............................... –2,208,709 –396,156 –220,871 –99,039 –6.9 –2.8 

Colorado ................................ 435,184 33,120 43,518 8,280 11.7 1.9 

Connecticut .............................. –227,982 –16,682 –22,798 –4,171 –6.9 –1.2 

Delaware ................................ 36,708 19,059 3,671 4,765 5.1 5.9 

District of Columbia ....................... –146,480 –40,703 –14,648 –10,176 –26.1 –18.1 

Florida .................................. 1,124,535 763,576 112,454 190,894 7.9 11.4 

Georgia . . ............................... 723,338 165,192 72,334 41,298 10.0 4.8 

Hawaii ................................... –118,201 –8,213 –11,820 –2,053 –10.3 –1.7 

Idaho . ................................... 141,657 38,524 14,166 9,631 12.4 7.2 

Illinois ................................... –617,856 –287,417 –61,786 –71,854 –5.2 –5.7 

Indiana . . ................................ 78,783 –19,030 7,878 –4,758 1.4 –0.8 

Iowa .................................... –19,409 –34,938 –1,941 –8,735 –0.7 –3.0 

Kansas .................................. –21,993 –45,876 –2,199 –11,469 –0.9 –4.2 

Kentucky . . .............................. 103,319 21,614 10,332 5,404 2.7 1.3 

Louisiana ................................ –155,312 –67,781 –15,531 –16,945 –3.6 –3.8 

Maine . .................................. –4,406 32,637 –441 8,159 –0.4 6.3 

Maryland ................................ –57,067 21,680 –5,707 5,420 –1.1 1.0 

Massachusetts ........................... –248,356 –169,606 –24,836 –42,402 –4.1 –6.6 

Michigan ................................. –205,397 –113,867 –20,540 –28,467 –2.1 –2.8 

Minnesota ............................... 102,106 –10,348 10,211 –2,587 2.2 –0.5 

Mississippi ............................... 48,792 –10,110 4,879 –2,528 1.8 –0.9 

Missouri ................................. 107,617 19,008 10,762 4,752 2.0 0.8 

Montana ................................. 50,902 12,717 5,090 3,179 6.0 3.5 

Nebraska . . .............................. –9,201 –21,779 –920 –5,445 –0.6 –3.1 

Nevada .................................. 462,329 203,211 46,233 50,803 29.8 23.3 

New Hampshire .......................... 38,666 31,082 3,867 7,771 3.3 6.1 

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –395,066 –128,588 –39,507 –32,147 –5.0 –3.8 

New Mexico . . ............................ 29,789 6,565 2,979 1,641 1.8 0.9 

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –1,964,488 –731,543 –196,449 –182,886 –10.8 –9.6 

North Carolina . . .......................... 580,687 156,547 58,069 39,137 8.1 4.7 

North Dakota ............................. –41,783 –15,995 –4,178 –3,999 –6.6 –6.3 

Ohio .................................... –195,627 –126,452 –19,563 –31,613 –1.8 –2.8 

Oklahoma . .............................. 50,625 –15,777 5,063 –3,944 1.6 –1.1 

Oregon .................................. 262,897 51,519 26,290 12,880 8.5 3.7 

Pennsylvania ............................. –289,055 –13,595 –28,906 –3,399 –2.4 –0.3 

Rhode Island ............................. –60,941 5,337 –6,094 1,334 –6.1 1.3 

South Carolina ........................... 154,225 75,022 15,423 18,756 4.2 4.6 

South Dakota . . .......................... –2,701 –1,701 –270 –425 –0.4 –0.6 

Tennessee ............................... 371,686 66,537 37,169 16,634 7.1 2.9 

Texas . . ................................. 616,383 146,262 61,638 36,566 3.3 1.7 

Utah .................................... 67,544 –37,981 6,754 –9,495 3.5 –4.1 

Vermont ................................. 7,058 3,696 706 924 1.2 1.5 

Virginia .................................. 120,548 82,141 12,055 20,535 1.8 2.8 

Washington .............................. 363,705 53,415 36,371 13,354 6.8 2.2 

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,139 8,026 214 2,007 0.1 1.1 

Wisconsin ............................... 95,374 13,603 9,537 3,401 1.9 0.6 

Wyoming ................................ –3,435 1,703 –344 426 –0.7 0.9 

Note: The Population Estimates Program data include Puerto Rico among all movers from abroad. Because this report focuses solely on 

domestic migration, Puerto Rico has been excluded from this table. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2004. 

6 U.S. Census Bureau 
Comparison of Domestic Net Migration by State:


igration in both periodsigration in 1990s,

igration 2000–2004

m

igration in 1990s,

m

igration in both periods

m

m

igration 2000–2004

m

ttt

ME 

uu

m

u

RI 

InInOOInO

NH

MA 

CT

NJ 

VT

DE 

DC 

Comparison of Net Migration

NY

MD

VA 

PA

NC 

SC

FL 

WV 

GA

OH 

KY 

1990–2000 and 2000–2004


MI 

IN 

AL 

TN 

IL

MS 

WI 

Table 2.

AR 

rce: 

MO 

LA 

u

IA 

So

MN 

OK 

Figure 3.


KS 

ND 

SD 

NE 

TX 

s eliM100 

CO 

0 

WY 

NM 

MT 

UT 

s eliM

AZ 

100 

ID 

0 

HI 

AK 

WA 

NV 

OR 

s eliM

CA

100 0 

U.S. Census Bureau 7 
Net Migration for Metropolitan 

and Micropolitan Statistical 

Areas4 

Eighteen of the country’s 25 largest 

metropolitan statistical areas experienced average annual net outmigration during the period 2000 to 

2004 (Table 3). Four areas (New 

York-Northern New Jersey-Long 

4 Analysis in this report uses the 

November 2004 Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) definitions. These 2004 metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas are 

based on application of 2000 standards to 

2000 decennial census data as well as to 

July 1, 2002, and July 1, 2003, population 

estimates. Definitions also reflect local opinion in specified circumstances. More information about metropolitan and micropolitan 

statistical area definitions and concepts is 

available on the Census Bureau’s Internet site 

at <www.census.gov/population/www 

/estimates/metroarea.html>. 

Island, Los Angeles-Long Beach- its average annual net outmigraSanta Ana, Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, tion increase from 22,000 in the 

and San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont) 1990s to 61,000 annually between 

each had average net outmigration 2000 and 2004. 

of more than 60,000. One area Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, (Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario) known locally as southern had average net inmigration of California's “Inland Empire,” had the more than 60,000. largest average annual rate of net 

Levels of domestic net migration inmigration (23.0 per 1,000) of the 

for some of the largest metropoli­ 25 largest metropolitan statistical 

tan statistical areas are different areas between 2000 and 2004, up 

from their corresponding levels in from 6.4 per 1,000 during the 

the 1990s. Average annual net out- 1990s. Tampa-St. Petersburgmigration from Los Angeles-Long Clearwater (14.6) and PhoenixBeach-Santa Ana, for instance, Mesa-Scottsdale (13.9) ranked secdeclined from 180,000 in the ond and third, respectively. In 

1990s to 118,000 between 2000 contrast, San Francisco-Oaklandand 2004. San Francisco-Oakland- Fremont had the largest average 

Fremont, on the other hand, saw annual rate of net outmigration 

8 U.S. Census Bureau 

Table 3. 

Average Annual Domestic Net Migration for the Most Populous Metropolitan Statistical 

Areas: 1990–2000 and 2000–2004 

(Metropolitan statistical areas as defined by the Office of Management and Budget, November 2004. Rates per 1,000 midpoint 

population) 

2004 

Population 

size rank 

Metropolitan statistical area 

Average annual number Average annual rate 

1990–2000 2000–2004 1990–2000 2000–2004 

1 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA . ........ –190,939 –211,014 –11.1 –11.4 

2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA ...................... –180,025 –117,780 –15.3 –9.3 

3 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI............................ –57,216 –63,249 –6.7 –6.8 

4 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD............... –27,739 –8,647 –5.1 –1.5 

5 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX . . . ........................... 25,450 17,119 5.7 3.1 

6 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL ...................... 2,768 –5,745 0.6 –1.1 

7 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX ............................ 10,058 12,212 2.4 2.5 

8 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV . ............. –12,386 –4,124 –2.8 –0.8 

9 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA .......................... 58,131 31,026 16.1 6.9 

10 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI ................................... –24,466 –26,696 –5.6 –6.0 

11 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH . . ......................... –20,356 –41,851 –4.8 –9.5 

12 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA ......................... –21,587 –60,984 –5.5 –14.7 

13 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA . . . ..................... 18,981 81,460 6.4 23.0 

14 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ ................................ 42,832 48,598 16.1 13.9 

15 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA . ............................... 9,147 –7,793 3.3 –2.5 

16 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI ..................... 7,609 –3,053 2.8 –1.0 

17 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA ......................... –13,766 –14,797 –5.1 –5.1 

18 St. Louis, MO-IL ............................................ –6,730 –2,966 –2.5 –1.1 

19 Baltimore-Towson, MD ...................................... –5,292 –222 –2.2 –0.1 

20 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL ......................... 17,645 36,395 8.1 14.6 

21 Pittsburgh, PA.............................................. –8,840 –5,720 –3.6 –2.4 

22 Denver-Aurora, CO ......................................... 19,203 –3,103 10.3 –1.4 

23 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH . . . .............................. –11,643 –12,306 –5.5 –5.7 

24 Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA . ...................... 17,388 8,350 10.2 4.2 

25 Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN . . ........................... 2,586 –2,239 1.3 –1.1 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2004. For additional information, see <www.census.gov/popest/counties 

/CO-EST2004-04.html> and <www.census.gov/popest/eval-estimates/county/c8/county-2000c8.html>. 
(14.7 per 1,000), followed by New East Stroudsburg, PA (28.7) to take 

York-Northern New Jersey-Long the top spot. 

Island (11.4), Boston-Cambridge- New Bern, NC, (6.7 per 1,000) had Quincy (9.5), and Los Angeles-Long the largest average annual net out- Beach-Santa Ana (9.3). migration rate between 2000 and 

Twenty-one of the country’s 25 2004 among the 25 largest microlargest micropolitan statistical areas politan statistical areas. 

had net inmigration between 2000 Jamestown-Dunkirk-Fredonia, NY, 

and 2004 (Table 4). Five areas— (4.6) and Lumberton, NC, (4.4) 

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ; East were ranked second and third, 

Stroudsburg, PA; Homosassa respectively. 

Springs, FL; Daphne-Fairhope, AL; Of the 10 micropolitan statistical and Seaford, DE—had average areas in Table 4 that are located in 

annual net inmigration of more than the Northeast or the Midwest, 8 3,000 during the period, as well as had average annual net inmigra­ the highest net migration rates tion between 2000 and 2004. In 

among the 25 largest micropolitan contrast, all 10 metropolitan statis­ statistical areas, with Lake Havasu tical areas in Table 3 located in the 

City-Kingman, AZ, (34.0) edging out Northeast or Midwest had net outHomosassa Springs, FL, (33.3) and migration during that time.5 

County-Level Migration 

Patterns 

Migration trends that are invisible 

at larger levels of geography can 

come into focus when a smaller 

geographic unit is analyzed. 

Continuing a decades-long outmigration trend, many counties of 

the Great Plains, stretching from 

western Texas to North Dakota, 

experienced net outmigration 

between 2000 and 2004, some 

with net outmigration rates of 20.0 

or more (Figure 4). A smaller band 

5 The Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington 

metropolitan statistical area and the 

Cincinnati-Middletown metropolitan statistical area both extend into the South, but the 

majority of their populations are in the 

Northeast and the Midwest, respectively. 

U.S. Census Bureau 9 

Table 4. 

Average Annual Domestic Net Migration for the Most Populous Micropolitan Statistical 

Areas: 1990–2000 and 2000–2004 

(Micropolitan statistical areas as defined by the Office of Management and Budget, November 2004. Rates per 1,000 midpoint 

population) 

2004 

Population 

size rank 

Micropolitan statistical area 

Average annual number Average annual rate 

1990–2000 2000–2004 1990–2000 2000–2004 

1 Torrington, CT.............................................. 298 1,242 1.7 6.7 

2 Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ .............................. 3,950 5,718 34.0 34.0 

3 Seaford, DE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,407 3,059 18.8 18.6 

4 Lebanon, NH-VT ........................................... 385 606 2.4 3.6 

5 Hilo, HI .................................................... 873 1,988 6.6 12.7 

6 East Stroudsburg, PA ....................................... 2,987 4,284 26.1 28.7 

7 Hilton Head Island-Beaufort, SC. ............................. 1,453 1,899 12.4 12.7 

8 Daphne-Fairhope, AL ....................................... 3,574 3,311 30.0 22.2 

9 Thomasville-Lexington, NC .................................. 1,055 663 7.8 4.4 

10 Ottawa-Streator, IL.......................................... 41 –157 0.3 –1.0 

11 Pottsville, PA. . . ............................................ 9 60 0.1 0.4 

12 Concord, NH............................................... 549 1,649 4.4 11.7 

13 Traverse City, MI ........................................... 1,679 1,446 14.3 10.6 

14 Kahului-Wailuku, HI ......................................... 494 746 4.4 5.6 

15 Jamestown-Dunkirk-Fredonia, NY ............................ –784 –633 –5.6 –4.6 

16 Statesville-Mooresville, NC . ................................. 2,121 2,270 19.8 17.4 

17 Chambersburg, PA ......................................... 398 881 3.2 6.7 

18 Salisbury, NC . . ............................................ 1,342 211 11.3 1.6 

19 Homosassa Springs, FL ..................................... 3,088 4,147 29.1 33.3 

20 Tupelo, MS ................................................ 844 356 7.3 2.8 

21 Eureka-Arcata-Fortuna, CA .................................. –429 222 –3.6 1.7 

22 Lumberton, NC............................................. 248 –546 2.2 –4.4 

23 Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ .................................... 255 540 2.4 4.5 

24 Augusta-Waterville, ME. . .................................... –237 775 –2.0 6.5 

25 New Bern, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –147 –770 –1.4 –6.7 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2004. For additional information, see <www.census.gov/popest/counties 

/CO-EST2004-04.html> and <www.census.gov/popest/eval-estimates/county/c8/county-2000c8.html>. 
of counties, most with net outmi­ exist nationwide. Groups of coun­ Will County—an outlying county of 

gration rates of 10.0 to 19.9, is ties with high levels of net inmigra­ that metropolitan statistical area— 

seen in the lower Mississippi River tion are found in Florida, the desert had net domestic inmigration of 

valley. Other counties with high Southwest, and east of the San more than 20,000 each year, the 

rates of net outmigration are found Francisco Bay area. Clusters of sixth-largest amount of any county 

across the country, including in counties with large amounts of net (Table 5). Neighboring Kendall 

states with overall high net inmi­ outmigration are seen in New York County, IL, had the fifth-highest 

gration such as Nevada or Arizona. and coastal California. average annual rate of net domestic migration of any county, at 54.5 Nearly every state includes coun­ Nearly all of the 25 counties with per 1,000. Other high net inmigra­ ties with high rates of net inmigra­ the most net inmigration between tion counties located in net outmi­ tion. Large numbers of counties 2000 and 2004 are located in the gration states include: Lincoln with high net inmigration rates are South or the West (Table 5), with County, SD (south of Sioux Falls); seen in Florida, Georgia, Virginia, seven in Florida and five each in Delaware County, OH (north of and Texas. Counties surrounding California and Texas. Ocean Columbus); and Scott County, MN the larger cities in Texas present a County, NJ, and Will County, IL, are (south of Minneapolis). These net distinctive pattern of high net the only two such counties in Table inmigration counties often are out­ inmigration. In the Dallas-Fort 5 not located in the South or West. lying counties within metropolitan Worth metropolitan statistical area, Migration within a particular metro­ statistical areas, and their net inmi­ a solid band of high net inmigra­ politan statistical area from a cen­ gration is sometimes the result of tion counties entirely surrounds its tral county to an outlying county is suburbanization and outmigration two central counties. Similar pat­ also seen in Figure 5, where coun­ from the major city of the area. terns are seen in the counties surties with sizable net inmigration are rounding Atlanta, Minneapolis-St. Many of the 25 counties with the frequently adjacent to counties with Paul, and Washington, DC. highest average levels of net out- sizable net outmigration. In Figure migration between 2000 and 2004 While a number of counties in 5, this pattern is seen in the geo­ are home to slow-growing or Figure 4 had net migration rates in graphic pairing of a net outmigra­ declining cities in the Northeast or the highest and lowest categories, tion county with one or more coun­ the Midwest, such as Cook County in most cases these large rates were ties with net inmigration. (containing Chicago), Wayne associated with relatively small pop­ Will County, IL, southwest of County (containing Detroit), and ulations and resulted in compara­ Chicago, illustrates that contrast­ Cuyahoga County (containing tively low amounts of net in- or out- ing migration patterns can occur Cleveland) (Table 6). Thirteen of migration (Figure 5). Among the within a particular state. While the 25 counties with the largest country’s 3,141 counties and county Illinois had an average annual net levels of net outmigration are equivalents, 117 had annualized net outmigration of 72,000 people located in the South or the West, in- or outmigration of 5,000 or during 2000–2004, and the including seven in California and more people in 2000–2004. A few Chicago-Naperville-Joliet metropoli­ two in Texas. bands of counties with relatively tan statistical area averaged net high or low levels of net migration outmigration of 63,000 each year, 

10 U.S. Census Bureau 
Annualized Rate

20.0 to 79.110.0 to 19.90.0 to 9.9–9.9 to 0.1–19.9 to –10.0–68.4 to –20.0 

Average Annual Rate of Domestic Net Migration


(per 1,000)

Gain

No

change

Loss 

, 2004. 

, 

m

u rea u s B

by County: 2000–2004

rce: U.S. Censu

ates Progra m lation Esti u

u So

Pop

Figure 4.


Miles 0 010 

Miles 0 010 

Miles 0 010 

U.S. Census Bureau 11 
Annualized Level

6,719 10,000 to 5

,000 to 9,999

,000

50 to 4,999–4,999 to –1–9,999 to –5–94,896 to –10,000 

Gain

No

Loss 

estic Net Migration


change

, 

m, 2004. 

u rea u s B

004

u .S. Cens

mates Progra n Esti

rce: U u So

Figure 5.
Average Annual Domby County: 2000–2

latio u Pop

Miles 100 0 

Miles 100 0 

Miles 100 0 

12 U.S. Census Bureau 
Comparison to County-Level 

Patterns of the 1990s 

The basic in- and outmigration patterns for counties shown in Figure 

4 are not a departure from the pattern for the 1990s. Figure 6 shows 

that a majority of counties experienced either inmigration for both 

periods or outmigration for both 

periods. Of the 740 counties 

nationwide that switched course, 

579 went from net inmigration in 

the 1990s to net outmigration in 

the 2000–2004 period, while 161 

went in the reverse direction. 

Many of the counties that transitioned from outmigration to inmigration are located in the 

Northeast or in California, which 

reflects the migration rebound that 

has occurred in these two areas 

since the 1990s. 

SUMMARY 

Domestic migration continues to 

redistribute the country’s population. The longstanding pattern of 

net outmigration from the 

Northeast and the Midwest and net 

inmigration to the South and the 

West continued between 2000 and 

2004 with modest change from the 

regional patterns in the 1990s. 

Among individual states, Florida 

continued to be the largest migration destination in the South, while 

Arizona and Nevada were the primary destinations in the West. Net 

outmigration from California 

between 2000 and 2004 contracted 

from the high levels in the 1990s, 

leading to less net inmigration to 

many other states in the West. 

At the county level, a variety of 

migration patterns often exists 

within a state, as seen in several of 

the figures. Many states with overall net outmigration between 2000 

and 2004 contained one or more 

counties, usually outer counties of 

metropolitan statistical areas, with 

sizable net inmigration. Future 

analysis of annual migration data 

will reveal whether these current 

migration patterns continue. 

U.S. Census Bureau 13 

Table 5. 

Highest Average Annual Numbers and Rates of Net Domestic Inmigration for Counties: 

2000–2004 

(Rates per 1,000 midpoint population. Limited to counties with midpoint populations of 10,000 or more. Ranks based on unrounded values) 

Numerical 

rank County 

Average 

annual 

number Rate rank County 

Average 

annual 

rate 

1 Riverside, CA . . .................... 56,719 1 Flagler, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.1 

2 Clark, NV . . . ....................... 42,116 2 Rockwall, TX....................... 60.1 

3 Maricopa, AZ....................... 42,066 3 Loudoun, VA ....................... 58.7 

4 San Bernardino, CA ................ 24,742 4 Henry, GA ......................... 56.4 

5 Collin, TX.......................... 21,048 5 Kendall, IL ......................... 54.5 

6 Will, IL . ........................... 20,333 6 Newton, GA........................ 53.4 

7 Palm Beach, FL .................... 18,106 7 Lincoln, SD ........................ 51.7 

8 Pasco, FL ......................... 15,934 8 Forsyth, GA. ....................... 51.4 

9 Lee, FL............................ 15,654 9 Lake, FL........................... 51.2 

10 Fort Bend, TX...................... 14,928 10 Douglas, CO ....................... 50.9 

11 Denton, TX ........................ 14,678 11 Lyon, NV .......................... 50.7 

12 Sacramento, CA.................... 13,608 12 St. Johns, FL . . .................... 48.4 

13 Hillsborough, FL .................... 12,978 13 Paulding, GA....................... 47.5 

14 Montgomery, TX.................... 12,177 14 Delaware, OH . . .................... 44.6 

15 Placer, CA . . ....................... 12,177 15 Spencer, KY ....................... 44.2 

16 Loudoun, VA ....................... 12,135 16 Placer, CA ......................... 43.6 

17 Lake, FL........................... 12,124 17 Rains, TX.......................... 43.3 

18 San Joaquin, CA ................... 11,521 18 Currituck, NC ...................... 43.3 

19 Williamson, TX ..................... 11,380 19 Pasco, FL . . ....................... 42.2 

20 Gwinnett, GA ...................... 11,214 20 Scott, MN. ......................... 41.9 

21 Douglas, CO ....................... 10,648 21 Walton, FL......................... 40.9 

22 Brevard, FL ........................ 10,283 22 Stafford, VA. . . ..................... 40.7 

23 Ocean, NJ ......................... 9,225 23 Spotsylvania, VA ................... 40.0 

24 Volusia, FL ........................ 8,953 24 Hernando, FL ...................... 39.8 

25 Wake, NC ......................... 8,702 25 Williamson, TX . . . .................. 39.7 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2004. For additional information, see <www.census.gov/popest/counties 

/CO-EST2004-04.html> and <www.census.gov/popest/eval-estimates/county/c8/county-2000c8.html>. 
METHODOLOGY AND 

SOURCE OF DATA 

The data in this report are from the 

Census Bureau’s Population 

Estimates Program and are based 

largely on administrative records 

data. The county population estimates covering the period July 1, 

2000, to July 1, 2004, are vintage 

2004 estimates released to the 

public in 2005. The population 

estimates for the period July 1, 

1990, to July 1, 2000, are vintage 

2000 estimates available at 

<www.census.gov/popest/eval county. Estimates for counties were 

-estimates/county/c8/county aggregated to create estimates for 

-2000c8.html>. all of the geographic areas 

included in this report, including The methodology used by the the metropolitan and micropolitan Census Bureau’s Population statistical areas. The population Estimates Program to produce pop­ universe is the resident population ulation estimates for counties is of the United States (the 50 states available on the Census Bureau’s and District of Columbia). Internet site at <www.census.gov 

/popest/topics/methodology This report uses average annual 

/2004_st_co_meth.html>. Each rates of domestic net migration, 

component of population change, expressed per 1,000 average 

including domestic net migration, population. 

is estimated separately for each 

14 U.S. Census Bureau 

Table 6. 

Highest Average Annual Numbers and Rates of Net Domestic Outmigration for Counties: 

2000–2004 

(Rates per 1,000 midpoint population. Limited to counties with midpoint populations of 10,000 or more. Ranks based on unrounded values) 

Numerical 

rank County 

Average 

annual 

number Rate rank County 

Average 

annual 

rate 

1 Los Angeles, CA ................... –94,896 1 Chattahoochee, GA................. –40.5 

2 Cook, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –94,499 2 Geary, KS . ........................ –40.5 

3 Kings, NY ......................... –55,074 3 Reeves, TX ........................ –35.3 

4 Queens, NY ....................... –54,631 4 Finney, KS......................... –35.0 

5 Santa Clara, CA.................... –43,167 5 Charlottesville, VA .................. –31.9 

6 Dallas, TX ......................... –40,528 6 Kodiak Island, AK................... –31.5 

7 Miami-Dade, FL .................... –31,537 7 Alexandria city, 1 VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –31.1 

8 Wayne, MI ......................... –27,382 8 Arlington, VA....................... –30.8 

9 Alameda, CA....................... –26,030 9 Suffolk, MA ........................ –28.2 

10 Harris, TX . . ....................... –23,193 10 Vernon, LA ........................ –27.7 

11 Orange, CA........................ –22,883 11 Seward, KS........................ –26.0 

12 Philadelphia, PA . . .................. –21,822 12 Santa Clara, CA.................... –25.6 

13 New York, NY ...................... –21,579 13 Phillips, AR . ....................... –24.7 

14 Bronx, NY ......................... –21,199 14 San Francisco, CA.................. –24.6 

15 Suffolk, MA ........................ –19,147 15 Queens, NY ....................... –24.5 

16 San Francisco, CA.................. –18,684 16 Hudson, NJ ........................ –24.1 

17 Middlesex, MA ..................... –18,292 17 Denver, CO ........................ –23.4 

18 Cuyahoga, OH ..................... –15,783 18 Texas, OK ......................... –23.3 

19 San Mateo, CA..................... –15,198 19 St. Louis city, 1 MO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –23.1 

20 San Diego, CA ..................... –14,797 20 Humboldt, NV ...................... –22.7 

21 Hudson, NJ ........................ –14,669 21 Mississippi, AR . . ................... –22.4 

22 Hennepin, MN...................... –14,538 22 Kings, NY ......................... –22.3 

23 Fulton, GA......................... –14,528 23 Minidoka, ID ....................... –22.2 

24 Fairfax, VA......................... –14,082 24 Prowers, CO ....................... –21.6 

25 King, WA .......................... –14,021 25 San Mateo, CA..................... –21.6 

1 Independent cities such as St. Louis city, MO, and Alexandria city, VA, are considered county equivalents. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2004. For additional information, see <www.census.gov/popest/counties 

/CO-EST2004-04.html> and <www.census.gov/popest/eval-estimates/county/c8/county-2000c8.html>. 
Comparison of Net Migration

igration in 1990s,

migration 2000–2004

igration 2000–2004

igration in both periods

field, CO) m

m

nty did not exist before 2001

migration in both periods

igration in 1990s, m

m

ttt

u

uu

m

u

InInOOInOCo(Broo , 2004. , mu rea u s B u rce: U.S. Cens mates Progra lation Esti uu SoPop

Figure 6.
Comparison of Domestic Net Migration by County:
1990–2000 and 2000–2004


s eliM100 0 

s eliM100 0 

s eliM100 0 

U.S. Census Bureau 15 
U.S. Department of Commerce 

Economics and Statistics Administration 

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 

Washington, DC 20233 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

FIRST-CLASS MAIL 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

U.S. Census Bureau 

Permit No. G-58 

FOR MORE INFORMATION 

Population estimates at the 

national, state, county, and city 

and town levels are produced each 

year by the Census Bureau’s 

Population Estimates Program and 

are available at <www.census.gov 

/popest/estimates.php>. The 

Population Estimates Program publishes total population estimates 

each year for the nation, states, 

counties, and subcounty units 

(cities and minor civil divisions). 

For the nation, states, and counties, population estimates also 

include demographic components 

of change (births, deaths, and 

migration) and, later in the year, 

estimates by age, sex, race, and 

Hispanic origin. The reference date 

for population estimates is July 1. 

For more information on migration 

in the United States, visit the 

Census Bureau’s Internet site at 

<www.census.gov/population 

/www/socdemo/migrate.html>. 

To find information about the availability of data products, including 

reports, CD-ROMs, and DVDs, call 

the Customer Services Center at 

301-763-INFO (4636). 

CONTACTS 

Information and 

Research Services Branch 

pop@census.gov 

301-763-2422 

Marc J. Perry 

marc.j.perry@census.gov 

301-763-2419 

USER COMMENTS 

The Census Bureau welcomes the 

comments and advice of users of 

our data and reports. Please send 

suggestions or comments to: 

Chief, Population Division 

U.S. Census Bureau 

Washington, DC 20233 

Or send e-mail to: 

pop@census.gov