Back to Tax Revision Commission main page — Back to list of research papers
|
Columns DCWatch
Archives Elections Government and People Budget issues Organizations |
The Changing Population of the District of Columbia 1990-1996 An Analysis of Results from the Greater Washington Consumer Survey November 1997 CONTENTS
In the first six years of the 1990s, the District of Columbia saw its decades-long trend of population loss accelerate, dropping by 10.7 percent and bringing the total below 600,000 for the first time since the 1930s. As of March 1, 1996 we estimate that it was 541,800. More seriously still, the population decline was accompanied by a loss of nearly seven percent of its households, which are the primary consuming unit amd whose dwellings are a source of property taxes. We estimate the 1996 total as 231,900, down by 17,200 since 1990. In the four previous decades since the District's population peaked in 1950, households had become smaller as families with children moved out and were replaced by singles and childless couples. But the number of households was actually 11 percent larger in 1990 than it had been in 1950, while the population was 24 percent smaller. The 1990s decline in households has erased much of the previous gain. Average household size has also continued to decrease, dropping from 2.27 persons in 1990 to 2.16 in 1996. Children -- Some of the household decline may be related to the departure of families with children from the District. The number of children decreased from 114,200 in 1990 to 96,800 in 1996. Despite this decline, the percentage of the District's household population that was made up of children showed little change, dropping slightly from 20 percent to 19. Owners vs. Renters -- The household loss was almost equally divided between owners and renters, so the percentage of renters increased only slightly, from 61 to 62 percent. Racial Composition of Householders --There also was little change in racial composition, with the percentage of Black householders continuing the gradual decline of the 1980s to reach 59 percent, compared to 60.7 percent in 1990. White householders increased their share further but also slightly, up from 35.5 percent to 36.9 percent. Other races increased from 3.7 percent to 4.0 percent. Household Incomes -- This report analyzes the change in household incomes two ways: in current dollars, as people saw them when they were received and spent, and in constant 1996 dollars, adjusted for the role of inflation in lowering the buying power of the dollar since 1990. In current dollar terms, there was a large decrease in the under-$15,000 income group between 1990 and 1996 (nearly 41 percent), but less change in most other income categories. In constant dollars, the lowest income group also decreased but by a somewhat smaller amount, about 31 percent. There were also substantial decreases in the higher income categories, $50,000 to $99,999 (20 percent) and $100,000 and up (31 percent). Ages of Household Members -- Every age group of household members decreased. The largest numerical decline occurred among persons between 25 and 44 years of age -- a total of 28,000 persons. Preschool children under five and persons 55 and older also showed substantial declines. Changes in the Wards -- Among the city's eight wards, only two escaped losses in households -- Ward 3, the affluent ward west of Rock Creek Park, and Ward 8 in lower Anacostia. In both cases, the increases were slight. The largest decreases were recorded in Ward 2 (Foggy Bottom- Dupont Circle-Southwest) and Ward 7 (upper Anacostia). It appears likely that Ward 3 escaped decline because it had relatively low rates of crime and social problems. The small increase in Ward 8 may be an artifact, however, resulting from a shift in the boundaries between Wards 7 and 8 which was made in 1993 to equalize their populations. Together these two wards lost 4,000 households. I. Recent Population Change in Historical Context Between 1990 and 1996, the District of Columbia lost 65,100 people. That decrease took its population below 600,000 for the first time since the 1930s. The sharp drop -- 10.7 percent in only six years -- has aroused serious concern. But before we look more closely at the population changes that occurred in this brief period, we would like to put them in historical perspective. First of all, population loss is nothing new for the District. It peaked in 1950 at 802,000 persons, and has been going down in every decade since. Nor is this the biggest loss the city has ever incurred. The largest was in the 1970s, when over 118,000 people left the District, mainly through exodus to its suburbs. Yet their departure was barely noticed. The District's economy continued to be robust for quite a while longer. This time the situation is different, however. The population decline of 65,100 since 1990 has been accompanied by a drop of 17,200 households, 6.9 percent of the total. (A household is defined as all the occupants of a housing unit. A household can consist of a family, but it can also be a single person or two or more unrelated individuals sharing living quarters.) This household loss is a much more serious matter for the city than that in population. Households, not individuals, are the principal consuming unit. And the dwellings they occupy are a source of property taxes for the local government. At the beginning of the 1990s, despite the huge population decline of over 195,000 from 1950 to 1990, households living in the District numbered 249,000, compared to only 224,000 in 1950. This was an 11 percent increase at the same time that the population was decreasing by 24 percent. All of that household growth had occurred in the 1950s and 1960s. (During the 1960s, in fact, a loss of over 7,200 persons was accompanied by a gain of nearly 10,500 households.) Thereafter, households declined, but at a much slower rate than population. From 1970 through 1990, while the population dropped by nearly 150,000, households decreased by a mere 13,500. However, in the six years since 1990, households have plummeted at over four times the annual rate of the preceding two decades. How could the population and household trends be so different -- when, as we know, households are made up of people? The reason is that throughout the 1950-1990 period the District was in transition to a different type of households. Families with children were moving out of the city, but they were being replaced on a virtually one-to-one basis by singles and childless couples. The number of non-family households -- consisting of single persons living alone or unrelated individuals sharing living quarters -- increased from 26,000 to 125,500. By 1990 there were more of them than families. Over the four decades from 1950 to 1990, the average household size dropped from 3.19 persons to 2.27, or about nine-tenths of a person. At the latter figure, the average household was no longer large enough to include two parents plus a child. At the same time, the number of households increased from 224,000 to 249,000. This was an 11 percent increase at the same time that the population was declining by 24 percent. While the new households were smaller in size, a larger proportion of their members were wage-earning adults, who pay income taxes. Often every member of the household was employed. Conversely, far fewer were children, who make far greater demands upon city services, especially schools. The number of children decreased from nearly 185,000 to 116,600. By 1990 only 41 percent of families in the District had children under 18 living with them. Not surprisingly, the 1950-1990 period was one of general prosperity for the District. In most years municipal revenues matched or even exceeded expenditures. The city's poverty population in 1990 was a relatively small share of the total. It stood at 16.9 percent, a smaller percentage than in 16 other of the 25 largest cities. In the mid-1980s it even looked as if the District's population was about to stabilize at around 625,000, or even to increase somewhat. Two independent sources indicated this: the Greater Washington Research Center's 1986 census updating survey, and the Census Bureau's annual population estimates. But that was before the advent of crack cocaine and the large-scale importation of guns from nearby states without gun control laws. By 1988 the decline had resumed in earnest. In 1990 the remaining population was measured by the Census at 606,900, a drop of 31,500 since 1980. Total Population and Households Between April 1, 1990 and March 1, 1996, we estimate the population of the District of Columbia to have decreased further from 606,900 to 541,800. That is a loss of 65,100 or 10.7 percent. On an annualized basis, it amounts to 11,000 persons per year. This rate is more than twice as rapid as the average of 4,900 over the previous 40 years. Households decreased in number from over 249,000 to under 231,900. The household loss of 17,200 during this period amounts to nearly 3,000 annually, compared with an average of 675 per year from 1970 through 1990. (Prior to 1970, as we have noted, households were increasing in the face of population decline.) The Greater Washington Consumer Survey's demographic database covers people living in households only. This household population omits persons living in what the Census Bureau calls "group quarters." These include military barracks and college dormitories, of which the District has many, as well as institutions like nursing homes, homeless shelters, and prisons. Also included are group homes such as halfway houses if occupied by ten persons or more. The Census Bureau has estimated the population in "group quarters" of all types at 40,407 in 1996. We have added this amount to the household population of 501,400, as measured by the Consumer Survey, to get the District's total population of 541,800. Our estimate of 541,800 is as of March 1, 1996. The Census Bureau has estimated the District of Columbia's total population as of July 1, 1996 to be 543,000. The Census Bureau's estimation process is a complex and sophisticated one, using data derived from public records, while our data come from a large and representative sample survey of District householders. We regard the estimates from these two independent sources to be so close as to confirm each other. Had our population figure been taken as of July 1, 1996, as was the Census Bureau's, we estimate that it would have decreased further to approximately 539,000. The difference of 4,000 persons between the Census Bureau and Consumer Survey numbers is a fraction of one percent. Household Size The average size of District households in 1996, as measured by the Consumer Survey, is 2.16 persons. The 1990 Census measured it as 2.27 persons. The difference between the two is 0.11 persons, or a little over one-tenth of a person. On an annual basis this is just under 0.02 persons, almost identical to the average annual rate of decline in household size over the previous 40 years. Households of one person, as well as those of three or more persons, declined during this period. In fact, nearly 60 percent of the household loss of 17,200 consisted of one-person households, while the rest was spread among households of three persons or more. The drop in one-person households was particularly sharp, falling from 102,900 in 1990 to 92,800 in 1996 and amounting to 10,100 households or 9.8 percent. From 1980 to 1990, one-person households had increased from 100,000 to 102,900, continuing a decades-long upward trend. (In 1950, a mere 32,000 D.C. households had contained only one person.) The trend reversal of the '90s may be attributable in part to doubling-up in the face of high housing costs and income losses resulting from "downsizing". In other cases it may have been due to an exodus of single persons, especially women, out of fear of crime. In any event, the 10,100 drop accounts for nearly 60 percent of the total loss of over 17,000 households between 1990 and 1996. Two-person households were the only size group to increase in number, rising from 66,900 to nearly 70,900, a gain of about 3,900 or six percent. Doubling-up may be responsible for this increase. All larger household size groups decreased. The extent of these declines was strongly and positively related to size. Three-person households decreased by two percent, four-person households by nearly 10 percent, five-person households by 25 percent, six-person households by 32 percent, and households of seven or more by 57 percent. Children Under 18 Some of the decline in the larger household size categories may well be related to the departure from the District of households with children. Some may also be due to the departure from their parents' homes of older children who had grown to adulthood during the 1990s. There was a net decrease of nearly 17,400 children between 1990 and 1996. There were 114,200 children in D.C. households in 1990, and by 1996 this number had dropped to 96,800, for a 15 percent loss. Despite the decline, the percentage of the District's household population that was made up of children changed only slightly between 1990 and 1996. In 1990 it was 20.2 percent, and in 1996 had decreased only to 19.3 percent. Childless households declined in number also. The numerical loss of 5,800 such households was larger than that for households with any given number of children. However, this 5,800 decrease amounted only to three percent of all childless households. This was true because the number of households without children was very large. They amounted to 184,200 in 1990, and were 74 percent of all households. By 1996 their number had dropped to 178,400, but their share of the total had risen to 77 percent. Among households with children, the percentage loss varied by the number of children. However, the relationship was not simple. The decline amounted to nearly 16 percent for one-child households, 24 percent for two-child households, and almost nine percent for three-child households. It dropped to three percent among households with four children, but rose again to 32 percent among those with five or more. In the size categories over three, however, the numbers were small, and the differences should not be given much weight. Tenure (Owner-Renter Status) The household loss was almost equally divided among owners (8,400) and renters (8,900). Thus, the large decline in number of households had little effect on the relative percentage shares of owners and renters in the District. The percentage of owners decreased from nearly 39 to 38 percent, while the percentage of renters increased from just over 61 to just under 62 percent. Race of Householders The loss was overwhelmingly concentrated among households headed by Blacks. 83 percent had Black householders, and the remainder were White. Householders of Asian/Pacific Island and other races increased slightly. Relatively little change resulted in the racial composition of householders. What change there was continued the gradual trends of the 1980s. In that decade, Blacks had decreased from 63.8 percent of householders to 60.7 percent. In the 1990-96 period their share decreased further to 59 percent. The figures here do not refer to the Black population as such, because the Greater Washington Consumer Survey asked race only for the householder and not for every member of the household. Different average household sizes for the two major races make the population figures for Blacks and whites somewhat different from those for householders. In 1990 Blacks were 65.8 percent of the population but 60.7 percent of householders. A roughly similar difference will exist now. In the 1980s, white householders had increased from 33.4 to 35.5 percent. In the 1990-96 period their share increased further to 36.9 percent. Other racial groups' share had grown from 2.8 to 3.7 percent during the '80s. After 1990 it moved up slightly to 4.0 percent. Household Incomes Household income trends are compared here in two ways: in current dollars and in constant 1996 dollars. The current dollar method deals with incomes in the dollars people saw as they were received and spent. In the constant-dollar mode, the 1989 income distribution has been revised to reflect the change in the value of the dollar between 1989 and 1996, using the Consumer Price Index for the Washington area. This procedure takes account of inflation's effect in lowering the buying power of the dollar during the period between the 1990 Census and the 1996 Consumer Survey. The Census asked people their incomes in the previous year, i.e., 1989. The Consumer Survey asked them their incomes in the present year. We have taken this fact into account in our calculations. Current Dollars -- Based on current dollars, the District had a large reduction in the number of households in the under-$15,000 income bracket -- from 58,500 or 23.5 percent of all households in 1990 to 34,700 or 15 percent of households in 1996. This decrease in the lowest income stratum amounted to more than the total decline in households. Households in the $15,000-$24,999 bracket also declined a bit in number, but increased slightly in percent share. The reduction was from 43,700 households in 1990 to 41,100 in 1996, or by 5.9 percent. Their percent share of all households grew slightly from 17.6 to 17.7 percent; this increase occurred because the total number of households decreased somewhat faster, by 6.9 percent. One other income bracket decreased in numbers but increased its percent share of the total. That was the $50,000-$99,999 bracket. It declined by 2,300 households or 4.4 percent. But in this case also, this group's share increased -- from 21.0 to 21.5 percent. Three middle income brackets saw their numbers increase despite the decline in total households. The $25,000-$34,999 group grew by 4,300 or 11.7 percent. The $35,000-$49,999 bracket increased by 5,200 or 13 percent. And the $100,000-plus category went up by nearly 2,000 or 11.1 percent. In all three groups, the percent shares of total households increased. Constant Dollars -- The constant-dollar method, in which 1989 dollar income categories have been revised to take account of decreased buying power in the years since, shows quite different results. As with the current-dollar method, the under-$15,000 bracket has also declined, but by a considerably smaller amount, 15,500 households or 31 percent. Nonetheless, the drop in this one income group accounts for 90 percent of the drop in the total number of households in the city. This lowest income category's share of all households has dropped from 20 percent to 15 percent. The $15,000-$24,999 group has increased instead of decreasing, as it does under the current-dollar method. It has gained 7,600 households or 22 percent, and its share of all households has grown from 13.5 to 17.7 percent. The $25,000-$34,999 bracket has behaved almost identically. Its numerical increase has been 7,400, its percent increase nearly 22 percent, and its share of the total has also grown from 13.5 to 17.7 percent. The $35,000-$49,999 bracket also shows an increase. The growth has been somewhat smaller, 5,200 or 13 percent, and its share of the total has risen from 16 to 19 percent. With inflation taken into account, then, all income brackets from $15,000 through $49,999 have increased. The under-$15,000 group has decreased. And the two highest brackets have also decreased. The $50,000-$99,999 group has been hit hardest, declining by 12,800 or 20 percent, and the $100,000-up category is down by 9,100 or 31 percent. These two brackets together have had their numbers decline from 91,800 to 69,900, and their combined percent of all D.C. households has slipped from 37 to 30 percent. Viewed in terms of current dollars, the changes of the 1990-1996 period have had minimal impact on the number of D.C. households at upper income levels. The net loss at incomes of $50,000 or more has been a mere 300 households out of nearly 92,000. Virtually all the decline has taken place at the lower end of the income scale. Viewed in terms of constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, however, the effect has been quite different. Here, there has been a loss of nearly one-fourth at the upper end of the income distribution -- while the lower-income end has been less affected, though still quite heavily. Ages of Household Members There have been losses since 1990 in every age bracket of household members from under four years to 75 and up. Numerically, by far the greatest losses have occurred among those aged 25-34 (14,600) and 35-44 (13,400). These are the ages at which people are most likely to be parents of children in the school or preschool years. The 25-34 age group declined by 12.5 percent, and the 35-44 by 14.8 percent. Even larger percentage losses, although somewhat smaller numerical ones, took place among older adults aged 55 and above. The declines ranged from 17.5 percent in the 55-64 group upward to 18.7 percent among those 75 and older. Deaths become an increasingly important factor in these age brackets, especially after age 65. So do moves to retirement housing and to be nearer grown children. But between 1980 and 1990 the over-65 household population had actually increased by about seven percent. Preschool-age children (under age 5) also declined by 12.5 percent or about 4,500 in the 1990- 1996 period. Losses were smaller in percentage terms among those 5 to 14 and 15-24, although of about the same order of magnitude numerically. This suggests that many parents may take their children out of the District before they become of school age. As one result of these changes in individual age groups, the median age of all household members in the District actually dropped from 33.2 years in 1990 to 31.6 years in 1996. This downward shift does not denote an increase among the younger age groups -- only a smaller decrease. The 45-54 age group of adults has declined less than any other in the first part of the 1990s, in both numerical and percentage terms (-1,800 or -2.9 percent). Perhaps adults in this age category were less likely to leave the District than those either younger or older because many had children still in college, placing heavier burdens on their budgets and making it temporarily harder for them to move. Still, there was a net loss. Household Changes by Ward All wards except two lost households between 1990 and 1996. The two that did not were Wards 3 and 8. Both gained, but not by much: Ward 3 by a mere 200 households or less than one percent, Ward 8 by 1,100 or 4.5 percent. It appears likely that Ward 3 escaped decline because it had a relatively low incidence of crime and social problems. The gain in Ward 8, however, may be an artifact of a 1993 shift in ward boundaries between Wards 7 and 8 to equalize their populations. Together, the two wards lost 4,000 people. The losses ranged from 800 or three percent in Ward 5 to 5,000 or nearly 18 percent in Ward 7. Ward 2 was also a heavy loser, declining by 6,000 or 15.5 percent. The rest lost more moderately. The data in this report were collected from two principal sources: 1. The Greater Washington Consumer Survey; and 2. The U. S. Census for the District of Columbia. The Consumer Survey provided the data for 1996 in this report. It is a regular monthly survey of households in the District of Columbia and its greater metropolitan area. This survey is supported by local businesses and institutions. It is conducted by Greater Washington Consumer Survey, Inc., which was founded by and remains affiliated with the non-profit Greater Washington Research Center but was recently acquired by PSC Systems, Inc. The U.S. Census The U.S. Census needs no introduction, but a few words about the specific data we have drawn from it may be in order. The Census data have been used to provide a historical baseline against which to measure the changes that have recently occurred in the District of Columbia. In most cases we reference data from the most recent Census in 1990. On occasion, however, we use data on trends over a longer base period, extending back as far as 1900. Wherever possible, we have drawn the 1990 figures from published reports and from computer printouts of the Census long-form responses found in the Census Bureau's STF-3 (Summary Tape File 3) series of pre-formatted tabulations. Long-form questionnaires were administered to a randomly-selected 15 percent sample of all Census respondents. The STF-3 tabulations are produced by many planning offices and other public agencies. We used the exceptionally well-organized and comprehensive printouts graciously provided by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments and the D.C. Planning Office. Where these tabulations did not tell us all we needed to know, we turned to a still more comprehensive source: the Bureau's five percent Public Use Microdata Sample, or "PUMS." This is a sample of magnetic facsimiles of individual Census long-form questionnaires. While they have been scrubbed of data that could serve to identify and hence to break the confidentiality of the respondents, these computer-readable questionnaires are otherwise virtually complete. They permit the user to produce "custom" tabulations of responses to almost any desired questions asked in the Census. Two or more questions can be cross-tabulated, and specific sub-populations can be singled out for in-depth analysis. Because the STF-3 and PUMS data are two different samples from the same source, the results do not always agree exactly. The differences are minor, and to avoid confusing the reader and make for easy comparison we have adjusted the PUMS totals to conform to those from STF-3 where appropriate. Greater Washington Consumer Survey This unique community resource is a survey conducted monthly by telephone. It interviews a randomly-selected and hence representative sample of more than 1,000 households throughout the Washington Metropolitan Area. (1) Local businesses and institutions may subscribe to the Survey, asking questions of their own devising in order to obtain better information about their market. By their participation, they also help to support the collection through the Survey of a fairly comprehensive database on the demographic and economic characteristics of the respondents. The Survey was initiated in June of 1994, and in most months since it has collected a broad range of data closely patterned on the major Census questions. Like the Census Bureau, the Consumer Survey scrupulously avoids releasing data that could identify the individual respondents. But summaries of the data such as those found in this report can provide a fairly complete update of the major items collected by the U.S. Census. Different households were interviewed each month, and the resulting database contains more than 30,000 interviews throughout the metropolitan area as a whole and 8,537 in the District of Columbia. (The District, as the area's central city, was over-sampled for most of this period to improve the precision of the monthly results.) We know of no other metropolitan area in the nation that has a similar community-supported census updating capability based upon real-time survey data. It owes its heritage to two earlier efforts. The first was the Greater Washington Research Center's 1974 mid-decade "Trends Alert" survey, supported by the Ford Foundation. The second was the Research Center's "Census 86" survey conducted in 1986. This similar effort was financed in major part by the Rockefeller Foundation, with additional support from the D.C. Government. Both of these surveys identified important shifts in population trends that were later confirmed by the next regular Census. Both helped to develop and hone the exacting techniques that made this latest effort possible. Special Procedures to Improve Survey Results Because census updating requires especially rigorous methods, procedures were employed in the Greater Washington Consumer Survey that are not normally used in commercial surveys because of their cost. They help to improve the precision and representativeness of the resulting database. All these special procedures were in addition to rigorous quality controls over every aspect of the survey process, with special attention to any that could introduce systematic bias into the results. Extra Efforts to Reach Households Chosen for Survey -- One such procedure was to make up to ten callbacks to each household in the sample in an effort to contact hard-to-reach households. These callbacks were made over a number of days at different times of the day or evening. The industry standard is four, and these calls are sometimes made in rapid succession. The extra attempts were undertaken because the Washington area has a higher labor force participation rate than most other major metropolitan areas. About 70 percent of families have two or more earners, and many of these people moonlight in order to meet the area's high living costs. Substitution for Phoneless Households -- Since the Consumer Survey is conducted by telephone, it naturally cannot reach households that are without phones. In the District of Columbia, these are a significant and rapidly growing group. The most recent data from the Census Bureau indicate that they are now about ten percent of all households residing in the District. To compensate for their omission and thus to correct to the extent possible for the resulting bias, we used a procedure developed and tested in our 1986 survey. We incorporated into the database a "pseudo sample" chosen to be as representative as possible of phoneless households. To do this, we first drew a profile of phoneless households from the computer tapes of the Census Bureau's annual Current Population Survey (CPS) demographic supplement. Every year the Census Bureau conducts a sample survey of approximately 60,000 households throughout the U.S. The questions asked are quite closely modeled on those in the regular every-ten-years federal Census, and the result is a fairly complete update of the Census results for the nation as a whole. Households both with and without phones are sampled. Whether or not each household has a phone is indicated in the results. While a sub-sample of this survey is available for the District of Columbia, the annual sample is too small for reliable use in Census updating (typically between 500 and 600 households). Nonetheless, by combining the D.C. results from several years of the C.P.S., we were able to construct a profile of phoneless households. (Most are small, young, and low-income.) We then drew from the survey database a "pseudo sample" that was closely representative of those households, with the exception that its members did have phones. These records were added back into the database. Thus about ten percent of the households in that database appear twice, once on their own behalf and a second time as surrogates for the missing phoneless households. Accounting for the "Group Quarters" Population In addition to households without phones, the Consumer Survey misses D.C. residents who live on "group quarters." These include persons in college dormitories and military barracks, of whom there are thousands in the District. They also include patients in psychiatric hospitals and nursing homes and inmates of correctional institutions. Finally they include residents of halfway houses and other group homes that are occupied by ten or more unrelated individuals. To represent this missing population as accurately as possible, we have incorporated the Census Bureau's 1996 estimate of the group quarters population of the District into our estimate for the total population. This estimate, little changed from the 1990 Census count, is 40,407 persons. While it is contained in our estimate of the total population, most of the figures in this report -- either from the 1990 Census or from the Consumer Survey -- are for the household population only, and hence do not include it. 1. The Washington Metropolitan Area is defined as it was for the 1990 Census.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)
