NACo has played a leading key role in President Clinton’s Y2K Initiative and has worked with county governments across the nation to recognize and address this problem. It has partnered with PTI to develop a Y2K Toolkit and coordinated a nationwide Y2K satellite broadcast for county officials.

In November, the National Association of Counties conducted its initial Y2K survey of county governments. In order to determine the readiness of America’s counties, 500 randomly selected counties told us how they were doing. This second survey, conducted in April and May 1999 is a followup survey to measure the continuing progress of counties toward Y2K compliance. Many of the same questions were asked in order to measure progress, but a new section on outreach was added. Responses to this section indicate that not only are counties working on their own Y2K issues, but many are assisting businesses, vendors and private citizens with an understanding of this issue.

We are pleased with the results of this second survey because it shows that counties are continuing their progress to Y2K compliance. These results reaffirm the success of NACo’s efforts in this area, but they also demonstrate that NACo, PTI and other public interest groups must continue to provide the technical assistance, training and information that counties need to successfully meet this challenge.

Betty Lou Ward, NACo President, Commissioner, Wake County, North Carolina
Larry Naake, NACo Executive Director

 NACo’s Second Y2K Survey

of America’s Counties

Methodology

In early November 1998, the National Association of Counties commissioned National Research, Inc., to conduct a random survey of 500 county governments on the status of their Y2K activities. In April 1999, NACo commissioned a follow-up survey to measure the progress of counties in achieving Y2K compliance. Although both surveys were random surveys, no effort was made to exclude previous respondents from the second survey. The proportional breakdown of respondent counties again correlates to the population breakdown of counties nationwide.

Of the 500 counties that completed the survey:

• 19 (4 percent) had a population 500,000 or above
• 15 (3 percent) had a population between 250,000 and 499,999
• 44 (9 percent) had a population between 100,000 and 249,999
• 60 (12 percent) had a population between 50,000 and 99,999
• 96 (19 percent) had a population between 25,000 and 49,999
• 144 (29 percent) had a population between 10,000 and 24,999
• 122 (24 percent) had a population below 10,000

The responding counties represented 47 states and 351 of the counties (70 percent) are NACo member counties. The largest number of responding counties (270) are from the South, followed by 170 counties in the Midwest, 67 counties in the West and 33 counties in the Northeast.

Strategic Plans

• In the earlier survey 250 (50 percent) of the counties responded that they had countywide plans to address Y2K issues. In the new survey 368 counties, or an increase of 24 percent, (74 percent) have countywide plans. Only 26 percent of all respondents to the latest survey don’t have plans compared to 49 percent in the earlier survey.
• The 500 counties that responded to the survey represent 40.5 million people. The 368 counties that report having countywide plans represent 37.2 million people or 92 percent of the population represented by survey participants. Extrapolating this to a national level means that the vast majority of the people in the country live in counties that are addressing Y2K issues. More that 94 percent (125 counties) of the counties with a population above 50,000 have plans. Sixty-seven percent of the counties with a population below 50,000 have plans, but only 55 percent of the smallest counties (below 10,000) indicate that they have a countywide plan.
• Of the current plans, 60 percent (304 counties) are using in-house staff to develop their plans, compared to 39 percent in the earlier survey. State agency staff use has increased from only 3 percent in the earlier survey to 19 percent in the current survey. The use of private consultants has increased from 14 percent to 27 percent.
• In response to the question concerning the department to which the person leading the Y2K effort is assigned, there has been very little change from the previous survey. Administration remains the primary department (41 percent compared to 43 percent in the earlier survey) followed by Information Technology at 26 percent in both surveys. Nine percent indicate they have an Interdepartmental Task Force, an option not offered in the earlier survey.

Priorities: Counties were asked to list the top three priorities for their compliance efforts.

• Public safety, which includes emergency management and jails, was the number one response from 410 counties (82 percent).
• It was followed closely by taxation and finance (71percent or 355 counties) and general government administration (292 counties at 58percent).
• Other major areas of concern included social services (17 percent), roads and traffic management (13 percent), utilities (11 percent) and schools (11 percent). Nearly 100 counties reported having only two priorities.

Needs Assessment:

• Sixty-two percent of responding counties (309) have identified up to 10 computer applications that need to be repaired or replaced compared to only 237 counties (47 percent) in the earlier survey.
• The number of counties that have identified more than 100 applications decreased slightly from six percent (29 counties) to five percent (24 counties)
• but the number with 11 to 50 systems slightly increased from 17 percent ((83 counties) to 18 percent (91 counties) as did the number of counties with 50 to 100 systems (5 percent as compared to 3percent in the earlier survey.)

System Assessment: When asked the percentage completion of the system assessment for their county,

• 254 counties (51percent) stated that they were 100 percent completed. This compares with only 179 counties (32 percent) that indicated that they were completed in the earlier survey.
• Another 158 counties (32 percent) indicated that they were between 75 percent and 99 percent complete (compared to 28 percent) in the earlier survey.
• Only 9 counties stated that they have not started compared to 23 counties in the earlier survey.
• Eighty-six percent of the responding counties have completed at least 50 percent of their systems assessment compared to just 61 percent in the first survey.

System Repair or Replacement:

• Nearly 25 percent of the responding counties (118) are 100 percent completed, compared to only 79 (16 percent) in the first survey.
• Thirty one percent (153 counties) are between 75 percent and 99 percent completed close to twice as many (88 counties) as reported in the earlier results.
• Less than half (23 counties as compared to 57 counties) stated that they had not started their system repair or replacement.
• More than 80 percent of all responding counties are at least 50 percent completed in this area compared to just 55 percent in the earlier survey.

System Testing:

• Twenty-seven percent of the responding counties (135 counties) have completed their systems testing compared to only 16 percent (79 counties) in the first survey. Nearly 40 percent (196 counties) have completed between 75 percent and 99 percent of the system testing compared to only 18 percent (88 counties) in the earlier survey. Seventy five percent of all responding counties have completed at least 50 percent of their system testing compared to only 51 percent from the first responses. Only 37 counties (seven percent) indicate that they have not started compared to 91 counties (18 percent) who indicated that they had not started at the time of the first survey.
• The vast majority of counties (337 counties or 67 percent) are working with their original vendors to solve the embedded chip problem. Nearly as many (302 or 60 percent) are also addressing the problem with in-house staff, many using both to develop a solution. Only 106 counties (21percent) are hiring private consultants to resolve this problem.
• In the first survey only 202 counties or 40 percent were working with their original vendors and only 41percent (207 counties) were using in-house staff. The same percentage (21percent) or 105 counties indicated that they were hiring private consultants to resolve the embedded chip problem.

 Y2K Testing: It is interesting that 55 percent of the counties in the first survey indicated that they had no plans for a system wide test and 49 percent of the counties in the latest survey also have no plans for a test. Forty one percent of responding counties stated that they have already conducted their tests or plan to conduct the test before the year is over. Only 10 percent of respondents didn’t know whether there would be a test compared to 17 percent who did not know in the early questionnaire.

Prior to FY98 : Three hundred fifteen counties (63 percent) had not spent any money on Y2K compliance before FY98. Only 12 counties (two percent) had spent more than $1 million prior to FY98. In the earlier survey only seven counties (one percent) spent more than $1 million. The percentages for the lower amounts varied very little from the first survey. Three percent spent less than $10,000 compared to four percent in the first survey, while five percent spent between $100,000 to $999,999 on both surveys. The total amount budgeted for Y2K compliance was $53.4 million compared to $56 million on the first survey.

 FY98/99/00: Twenty-four counties (five percent) have budgeted more than $1 million of which seven have budgeted between $11 and $41 million. On the earlier survey only 16 counties (three percent) had budgeted more than $1 million with amounts ranging between $12 million and $123 million. A major increase in the number of counties (124 or 25 percent) spending between $10,000 and $99,999 occurred from the first survey where only 91 counties (18 percent) had budgeted this amount. The number of counties reporting no dollars budgeted decreased from 175 (35 percent) on the first survey to 147 (29 percent). The amount budgeted for Y2K compliance changed very little from the first survey with the latest respondents reporting budgets of $218 million compared to the earlier budgets of $223 million.

 Estimated Total Costs of Compliance:

• The total amount estimated for Y2K compliance by the responding counties is $255 million compared to $283 million on the earlier survey. Extrapolating this latest figure to develop a cost of compliance for all counties in the county provides an estimate of $1.53 billion as compared to the earlier estimated cost of $1.7 billion.
• The number of counties whose respondents did not know the cost of compliance decreased substantially, from 40 percent on the earlier survey (20 counties) to 22 percent (111 counties) on the latest survey. Thirty-four counties (seven percent) estimate compliance costs above 1 million compared to 22 counties (four percent) who estimated the same amounts on the earlier survey. The number of counties estimating compliance costs of less than $10,000 doubled (10 percent) from the first survey (5percent) and the same percentage (16 percent) estimate compliance costs between $100,000 and $999,000 (79 counties or the earlier survey and 80 counties on the latest responses). The highest estimated cost by a county was $44 million

Funding Compliance: Counties are still looking primarily to general funds for Y2K compliance funding. More than 88 percent of the counties (441 counties) plan on using these funds. In the earlier survey a comparable number (431 counties or 86 percent) indicated the same funding plans. A larger number (eight percent) indicated the use of state grants than on the earlier survey where only five percent planned to use state funding. The number that plan to use federal grants increased from two percent to four percent and the private sector funding increased from less than one percent to two percent. The number of counties that don’t know how they will fund compliance nearly doubled from five percent in the earlier survey to zero percent in the latest responses.

Compliance Difficulties: The vast majority of the counties indicated that they have had no difficulty with Y2K compliance or didn’t know if there were any difficulties. The two areas that were reported by counties as causing the most difficulty with compliance are public safety, including emergency management and law enforcement, and finance, including accounting and taxation. Sixty-five counties reported finance related difficulties and 56 counties reported difficulties with public safety compliance. The primary difficulties in public safety compliance are 911 issues and jail administration.

Contingency plans

• The questions on contingency plans were added to the second survey because of interest expressed by many interested in county Y2K compliance.
• Fifty-eight percent of counties do not have a contingency plan for computer /chip failures. Although these 289 counties have no plan, 190 counties (38 percent) do. Only four percent of respondents didn’t know if their county has a plan or not.
• The majority of counties (160 or 32 percent) indicated that in-house staff developed their plans. The number of responses to plan development questions indicate that some counties are using multiple sources for plan development with 75 counties or 15 percent using vendors and contractors and 7 percent using private consultants. Eight percent are using state officials to assist with plan development.
• When asked if they plan to develop a plan if they don't have one now, the majority (29 percent or 144 counties) said no, but 114 counties (23 percent) said yes. The 52 counties responding that they did not know included some who did not know if a plan had been prepared as well as some who did not know if their county was going to develop a contingency plan.
•  The majority of the counties that will be developing a contingency plan, will be completing their plans in the July-September quarter (64 of 114 counties). Twenty-two counties are completing their plans in the April-June quarter and 18 counties (four percent) will be completing their plans in the October-December quarter. Only 10 percent don’t know when their plans will be completed.

Outreach:

• Seventy-four percent of the counties are reaching out to other entities in their communities to deal with Y2K. More than 200 counties (40 percent) are working with municipalities and 192 counties (38 percent) are working with other counties to achieve compliance. Forty-two percent are working with public and private utilities and 36 percent are working with business and private industry groups. Thirty-one percent are working with their local medical service providers, 29 percent are working with special districts, agencies and authorities, while 20 percent are working with nonprofit and community groups. Only 57 counties are working with the Federal Government. Only 128 counties (26 percent) have not done any outreach or worked with other groups on Y2K compliance issues.
• Forty five percent (226 counties) of the responding counties have put articles in the local newspaper to help educate residents about Y2K issues. A large proportion of counties (33 percent or 164 counties) have held public meetings and forums for residents and 129 (26 percent) have designated county phone contacts for inquiries from the public. Eighteen percent have published guidebooks and 15 percent have prepared local television and radio spots, while 15 percent have set up website notices. Even with all of the activities mentioned above, nearly 200 responding counties (39 percent) have done nothing to educate or prepare their residents.

Y2K Activities Telephone Survey Results, April 1999

• Northeast 33 (7%)
• South 230 (46%)
• Midwest 170 (34%)
• West 67 (13%)

Y2K Activities Telephone Survey

Part I: System Assessment

• Forty seven counties (9%) did not know.
• Of the remaining counties:
  • 9 (2%) are 0% completed
  • 6 (1%) are between 1-24% completed
  • 6 (1%) are between 25-49% completed
  • 20 (4%) are between 50-74% completed
  • 158 (32%) are between 75-99% completed
  • 254 (51%) are 100% completed

Part II: System Repair or Replacement

• Forty counties (8%) did not know.
• Of the remaining counties:
  • 23 (5%) are 0% completed
  • 10 (2%) are between 1-24% completed
  • 11(2%) are between 25-49% completed
  • 92 (18%) are between 50-74% completed
  • 196 (39%) are between 75-99% completed
  • 118 (24%) are 100% completed

10. How much money has your county budgeted for Y2K compliance?

Part I: Spent prior to FY98

• Ninety nine counties (20%) did not know.
• Three hundred fifteen counties (63%) spent zero dollars for Y2K compliance prior to FY98.
• Fifteen counties (3%) spent below $10,000;
• thirty six (7%) spent between $10,000 and $99,999;
• twenty three (5%) spent between $100,000 and $999,999; and
• twelve counties (2%) spent above $1 million, ranging from $1 million to $10 million.
• The total number of dollars spent prior to FY98 on Y2K compliance was approximately $53.4 million.

Part II: Budgeted for FY98/99/00

• Ninety eight counties (20%) did not know.
• One hundred forty seven (29%) said zero dollars are budgeted.
• Forty four counties (9%) have budgeted less than $10,000;
• one hundred twenty four (25%) have budgeted between $10,000 and $99,999;
• sixty three (13%) have budgeted between $100,000 and $999,999; and
• twenty four counties (5%) have budgeted millions, of which seventeen have budgeted between $1 to $7 million and seven have budgeted between $11 and $41 million.
• The total number of dollars budgeted for FY98/99/00 on Y2K compliance is approximately $218 million.

• One hundred eleven counties (22%) did not know.
• Seventy nine (16%) said zero dollars.
• Fifty two (10%) estimate compliance costs below $10,000;
• one hundred forty five (29%) estimate compliance costs between $10,000 and $99,999;
• eighty (16%) estimate compliance costs between $100,000 and $999,999; and
• thirty four (7%) estimate millions, of which twenty seven estimate between $1 and $8 million and seven estimate $14.5, $15, $19, $20, $20 and $44 million respectively.
• The total numbers of dollars estimated for Y2K compliance is approximately $255 million.

Y2K Survey State List

• Alabama (13)
• Barbour County
• Chilton County
• Coosa County
• Dale County
• Dallas County
• Etowah County
• Geneva County
• Jefferson County
• Limestone County
• Lowndes County
• Madison County
• Mobile County
• Washington County

• Bristol Bay Borough, AK
• Montgomery County, AR
• Modoc County, CA
• Cheyenne County, CO
• Conejos County, CO
• Custer County, CO
• Dolores County, CO
• San Juan County, CO
• Gilchrist County, FL
• Lafayette County, FL
• Candler County, GA
• Charlton County, GA
• Evans County, GA
• Lanier County, GA
• Pulaski County, GA
• Stewart County, GA
• Towns County, GA
• Treutlen County, GA
• Twiggs County, GA
• Adams County, ID
• Owyhee County, ID
• Hardin County, IL
• Adair County, IA
• Howard County, IA
• Worth County, IA
• Anderson County, KS
• Donipahn County, KS
• Grant County, KS
• Jewell County, KS
• Kearny County, KS
• Lincoln County, KS
• Mitchell County, KS
• Ottawa County, KS
• Republic County, KS
• Scott County, KS
• Woodson County, KS
• Ballard County, KY
• Cumberland County, KY
• Hancock County, KY
• Menifee County, KY
• Caldwell Parish, LA
• Baraga County, MI
• Keweenaw County, MI
• Big Stone County, MN
• Mahnomen County, MN
• Wilkin County, MN
• Choctaw County, MS
• Atchison County, MO
• Gentry County, MO
• Monroe County, MO
• Shelby County, MO
• Broadwater County, MT
• Carbon County, MT
• Golden Valley County, MT
• Mineral County, MT
• Musselshell County, MT
• Sheridan County, MT
• Wibaux County, MT
• Burt County, NE
• Butler County, NE
• Deuel County, NE
• Dixon County, NE
• Garfield County, NE
• Hooker County, NE
• Howard County, NE
• McPherson County, NE
• Pawnee County, NE
• Pierce County, NE
• Sioux County, NE
• Stanton County, NE
• Webster County, NE
• Eureka County, NV
• Pershing County, NV
• Mora County, NM
• Hyde County, NC
• Billings County, ND
• Burke County, ND
• Cavalier County, ND
• McIntosh County, ND
• Ransom County, ND
• Sheridan County, ND
• Traill County, ND
• Grant County, OK
• Grant County, OR
• Sherman County, OR
• Bon Homme County, SD
• Brule County, SD
• Corson County, SD
• Grant County, SD
• Hyde County, SD
• Jackson County, SD
• Marshall County, SD
• Moody County, SD
• Shannon County, SD
• Spink County, SD
• Ziebach County, SD
• Meigs County, TN
• Trousdale County, TN
• Coleman County, TX
• Collingsworth County, TX
• Dickens County, TX
• Garza County, TX
• Hartley County, TX
• Kenedy County, TX
• Live Oak County, TX
• Lynn County, TX
• Menard County, TX
• Rains County, TX
• Schleicher County, TX
• Shackelford County, TX
• Sutton County, TX
• Swisher County, TX
• Rich County, UT
• Wayne County, UT
• Essex County, VA
• Highland County, VA
• Richmond County, VA
• Wahkiakum County, WA
• Pleasants County, WV
• Pocahontas County, WV
• Pepin County, WI
• Washakie County, WY

Population Group II: 10,000-24,999 (144 counties)

• Coosa County, AL
• Geneva County, AL
• Lowndes County, AL
• Washington County, AL
• Bradley County, AR
• Chicot County, AR
• Cross County, AR
• Franklin County, AR
• Little River, AR
• Polk County, AR
• Plumas County, CA
• Logan County, CO
• Rio Grande County, CO
• Gulf County, FL
• Berrien County, GA
• Bleckley County, GA
• Brantley County, GA
• Burke County, GA
• Crisp County, GA
• Dade County, GA
• Emanuel County, GA
• Jeff Davis County, GA
• Jefferson County, GA
• Jones County, GA
• Meriwether County, GA
• Monroe County, GA
• Pierce County, GA
• Rabun County, GA
• Terrell County, GA
• Fremont County, ID
• Idaho County, ID
• Bond County, IL
• Edgar County, IL
• Fayette County, IL
• Marshall County, IL
• Moultrie County, Il
• Piatt County, IL
• Washington County, IL
• Decatur County, IN
• Owen County, IN
• Perry County, IN
• Pike County, IN
• Spencer County, IN
• Buena Vista County, IA
• Cass County, IA
• Chickasaw County, IA
• Floyd County, IA
• Hancock County, IA
• Humboldt County, IA
• Kossuth County, IA
• Plymouth County, IA
• Shelby County, IA
• Winnebago County, IA
• Bourbon County, KS
• Marshall County, KS
• Rice County, KS
• Butler County, KY
• Garrard County, KY
• Larue County, KY
• Lawrence County, KY
• McCreary County, KY
• Montgomery County, KY
• Powell County, KY
• Rowan County, KY
• Webster County, KY
• Assumption Parish, LA
• Pointe Coupee Parish, LA
• Sabine Parish, LA
• Kent County, MD
• Somerset County, MD
• Clare County, MI
• Crawford County, MI
• Manistee County, MI
• Roscommon County, Mi
• Hubbard County, MN
• Jackson County, MN
• Marshall County, MN
• Meeker County, MN
• Chickasaw County, MS
• Greene County, MS
• Holmes County, MS
• Scott County, MS
• Walthall County, MS
• Audrain County, MO
• Barton County, MO
• Cooper County, MO
• Iron County, MO
• Madison County, MO
• Mississippi County, MO
• Moniteau County, MO
• Stone County, MO
• Wayne County, MO
• Big Horn County, MT
• Park County, MT
• Custer County, NE
• Dakota County, NE
• Saline County, NE
• Cibola County, NM
• Socorro County, NM
• Bertie County, NC
• Hoke County, NC
• Madison Couny, NC
• Polk County, NC
• Yancey County, NC
• Rolette County, ND
• Monroe County, OH
• McIntosh County, OK
• Pawnee County, OK
• Pushmataha County, OK
• Curry County, OR
• Hood River County, OR
• Potter County, PA
• Hampton County, SC
• Jasper County, SC
• Lawrence County, SD
• Haywood County, TN
• Smith County, TN
• Burnet County, TX
• Colorado County, TX
• Falls County, TX
• Frio County, TX
• Limestone County, TX
• Montague County, TX
• Red River County, TX
• Uvalde County, TX
• Wilson County, TX
• Sanpete County, UT
• Lamoille County, VT
• Buckingham County, VA
• Dickenson County, VA
• King George County, VA
• Lee County, VA
• Nottoway County, VA
• Prince Edward County, VA
• Rockbridge County, VA
• Klickitat County, WA
• Monroe County, WV
• Morgan County, WV
• Ritchie County, WV
• Webster County, WV
• Iowa County, WI
• Price County, WI
• Converse County, WY
• Uinta County, WY

Population Group III: 25,000-49,999  (96 counties)

• Barbaur County, AL
• Chilton County, AL
• Dale County, AL
• Dallas County, AL
• Santa Cruz County, AZ
• Greene County, AR
• Independence County, AR
• Siskiyou County, CA
• Hendry County, FL
• Baldwin County, GA
• Bulloch County, GA
• Decatur County, GA
• Murray County, GA
• Polk County, GA
• Bingham County, ID
• Effingham County, IL
• Livingston County, IL
• Cass County, IN
• Dearborn County, IN
• Dubois County, IN
• Fayette County, IN
• Miami County, IN
• Noble County, IN
• Warrick County, IN
• Warren County, IA
• Geary County, KS
• Boyle County, KY
• Floyd County, KY
• Graves County, KY
• Beauregard Parish, LA
• Morehouse Parish, LA
• St. Martin Parish, LA
• Washington County, ME
• Huron County, MI
• Mecosta County, MI
• Beltrami County, MN
• Douglas County, MN
• Morrison County, MN
• Mower County, MN
• Alcorn County, MS
• Coahoma County, MS
• Yazoo County, MS
• Barry County, MO
• Dunklin County, MO
• Pulaski County, MO
• Ravalli County, MT
• Carson City County, NV
• Elko County, NV
• Sullivan County, NH
• Eddy County, NM
• Rio Arriba County, NM
• Essex County, NY
• Alexander County, NC
• Beaufort County, NC
• Franklin County, NC
• Sampson County, NC
• Stokes County, NC
• Watauga County, NC
• Defiance County, OH
• Hardin County, OH
• Highland County, OH
• Mercer County, OH
• Union County, OH
• Grady County, OK
• Jackson County, OK
• Logan County, OK
• Osage County, OK
• Washington County, OK
• Clinton County, PA
• Huntingdon County, PA
• McKean County, PA
• Tioga County, PA
• Dillon County, SC
• Georgetown County, SC
• Brookings County, SD
• Cumberland County, TN
• Henry County, TN
• Robertson County, TN
• Caldwell County, TX
• Cass County, TX
• Hood County, TX
• Matagorda County, TX
• Upshur County, TX
• Washington County, UT
• Amherst County, VA
• Frederick County, VA
• Warren County, VA
• Wise County, VA
• Franklin County, WA
• Fayette County, WV
• Marshall County, WV
• Mineral County, WV
• Calumet County, WI
• Green County, WI
• Oconto County, WI
• Shawano County, WI

• Etowah County, AL
• Limestone County, AL
• Jefferson County, AR
• Mississippi County, AR
• Sutter County, CA
• Santa Rosa County, FL
• Bartow County, GA
• Cherokee County, GA
• Columbia County, GA
• Houston County, GA
• Lowndes County, GA
• Rockdale County, GA
• Bannock County, ID
• Twin Falls County, ID
• Kankakee County, IL
• Vermillion County, IL
• Floyd County, IN
• Clinton County, IA
• Hardin County, KY
• Iberia Parish, LA
• Terrebone Parish, LA
• Vernon Parish, LA
• Aroostook County, ME
• Oxford County, ME
• Lenawee County, MI
• Blue Earth County, MN
• Lee County, MS
• Cole County, MO
• Franklin County, MO
• Cheshire County, NH
• Salem County, NJ
• Otero County, NM
• San Juan County, NM
• Allegany County, NY
• Sullivan County, NY
• Cabarrus County, NC
• Harnett County, NC
• Iredell County, NC
• Lenoir County, NC
• Nash County, NC
• Grand Forks County, ND
• Erie County, OH
• Pottawatomie County, OK
• Umatilla County, OR
• Monroe County, PA
• Pennington County, SD
• Anderson County, TX
• Angelina County, TX
• Bowie County, TX
• Comal County, TX
• Hunt County, TX
• Cache County, UT
• Windsor County, VT
• Montgomery County, VA
• Spotsylvania County, VA
• Cowlitz County, WA
• Ohio County, WV
• Ozaukee County, WI
• Washington County, WI
• Laramie County, WY

Population Group V: 100.000-249,999 (44 counties)

• Madison County, Al
• Washington County, AR
• Shasta County, CA
• Kent County, DE
• Charlotte County, FL
• Hernando County, FL
• Martin County, FL
• Clayton County, GA
• McLean County, IL
• Tazewell County, IL
• Elkhart County, IN
• Linn County, IA
• Wyandotte County, KS
• Kenton County, KY
• Rapides Parish, LA
• Charles County, MD
• Calhoun County, MI
• Saginaw County, MI
• St. Clair County, MI
• Jackson County, MS
• Boone County, MO
• Strafford County, NH
• Hunterdon County, NJ
• Somerset County, NJ
• Rensselaer County, NY
• St. Lawrence County, NY
• Davidson County, NC
• Gaston County, NC
• Rowan County, NC
• Fairfield County, OH
• Greene County, OH
• Beaver County, PA
• Butler County, PA
• Northhampton County, PA
• Florence County, SC
• Horry County, SC
• Rutherford County, TN
• Jefferson County, TX
• Webb County, TX
• Clark County, WA
• Kitsap County, WA
• Kanawha County, WV
• Rock County, WI
• Sheboygan County, WI

Population Group VI: 250,000-499,999  (15 counties)

• Mobile County, AR
• Pulaski County, AR
• Tulare County, CA
• Lee County, FL
• St. Clair County, IL
• Genesee County, MI
• Washtenaw County, MI
• Hillsborough County, NH
• Union County, NJ
• Cumberland County, NC
• Butler County, OH
• Lane County, OR
• Charleston County, SC
• Nueces County, TX
• Waukesha County, WI

Population Group VII: 500,000-999,999  (15 counties)

• Jefferson County, AL
• Pima County, AZ
• Hillsborough County, FL
• Palm Beach County, FL
• Fulton County, GA
• Honolulu County, HI
• Montgomery County, MD
• Kent County, MI
• Camden County, NJ
• Middlesex County, NJ
• Erie County, NY
• Westchester County, NY
• Montgomery County, OH
• Bucks County, PA
• Milwaukee County, WI

Population Group VIII: 1,000,000+  (4 counties)

• Maricopa County, AZ
• Harris County, TX
• Broward County, FL
• Suffolk County, NY

Copyright 1988-2012  Richard Collins, All Rights Reserved