The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About2010 - Jefferson City School District Demographics Study - posted with permissionDEMOGRAPHICS STUDY ~~ Business In fo rm atio n Scn~ccs ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC A High-Tec h Bus iness Doing Bus i n ess the Old-Fash i oned Way ~ '" November 2010 © ro c !!! z ITI (/) (/) z "11 0 ;o 3:: ~ 0 z (/) ITI ;o < n ITI ~(/) r r () )> r r ::u Gi :I -i (/) ::u ITI (/) ITI ;o < ITI 0 -• 0 1 ~ __, Jefferson City School District Mile S 6 0 Belair Elem. 0 Lawson Elem. 0 South Elem. CD Lewis and Clark Middle G Ca l l away H ill s El em. 0 Moreau Heights El em. G) Thorpe Gordon Elem . G T homas Jeffer son Middl e 0 Cedar Hill Ele m . 0 Nor th El e m . CD West El em. CD Simonse n 9th Grade Ctr. 0 East Elem. 0 Pioneer Trail Elem. G Jefferson City Academic Ctr. Str eets Ri ver s .. Parks School District CD Jefferson City High Highways ~ Water .. A irports MoCounties CD Nichols Career Ctr . ----~ Uusincss I nfo nna rion Sen ices ~ Demographics Study Table of Contents Executive Summary 4 Reasons for the Study 7 Overview of the District 8 Building Analysis 46 ,. Projection Summary 78 Demographic Comparisons 88 MAP Analysis 96 Assessor Data Analysis · 100 Maps 186 Third-party Demographic Data 26'2 District Financial Comparisons 290 © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 3 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED J~fferson City School District Executive Summary he Jefferson City School District, seat of the state gov- ernment, is remarkably diverse in its ethnic and in- come groupings. It has a high population of private school students. We believe that during the next 10 years , the district enrollment could increase by about 500 students to 8,93 7 or grow under an optimistic high-growth model to 11,628. In this study, we analyzed many elements of the district's population, such as its homeless students, transfers, free-and- reduced lunch students and the population as a whole. Internet use among the district's students is high-with almost half the stu- dents having access, about twice as high as the district's residents overall. The entire report spans 309 pages with 375 figures , the largest demographic study we 've produced. Business Information Services , LLC has no financial inter- est in the Jefferson City School District. Special thanks go to Su- perintendent Dr. Brian Mitchell and Director of Community Ser- vices David Luther who have helped provide data upon request. Neither the school administration nor school board has attempted to influence the findings of this study in any way. A draft was delivered to the district via email on June 15 , 2010. A second draft was emailed on July 2, 2010. A third draft was emailed on Sept. 21 ,2010 . A final report was mailed on Oc- tober 28, 2010. Preston Smith Principal Owner Business Information Services , LLC © BUSINESS I NFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 4 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Key Findings • Under three different statistical projections, the Jefferson City School District would have a total enrollment by 2020 of 8,937, virtually no change from today's enrollment or as high as 11,628. Much ofthe demographic data in this study indi- cates only pockets of increased enrollment, based on the un- der-5-year-old projections, average household sizes and num- ber of childbearing-age women. When the 201 0 Census data is released, we will know whether the estimated data is as pessimistic as it shows now. • In 1990-2000, the school district population grew by an addi- tional 8,080 persons. Enrollment increased by only 270 dur- ing that same time. That means that for every 29 people who moved to the school district during the 1990s, only one stu- dent was added to the enrollment. This is the highest ratio of population to students that we have ever seen, where usually the ratio is seven or nine new person added for each student enrolled. Similar calculations are presented on p. 39 in Figure 41 that shows that for every new single family home added during the last 23 years, an average of0.20 new students were added to the district. • The district has an incredibly wide range of incomes and eth- nic populations. We estimate the student body represents 11 different languages at home. • We could not establish a statistical relationship between em- ployment in the district and enrollment. Employment in Calla- way County has increased by 22 percent since 1990 and by 34 percent in Cole County, but district enrollment has increased only 2.8 percent during the last 20 years. The trend toward lower state government employment cannot be positive for the district, but we could not document a relationship between increased state government employment and increased enroll- ment. © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 5 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Figu re 1. A erial v i ew of the Jefferson City Schoo l District. ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 6 I Vl ... QJ QJ .... ... VI Ul 0 0 ..c 0 C/) 0 A L L RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Reasons for the Study T he Jefferson City School District, at the center of the state and hosting the center of the state's government, has a diverse and highly changeable population. In Feb ru ary 20 I 0, district admin- istrators asked our firm to perform this analysis w ith an in-depth demographic study of the district 's residents and student population. In this study, a wide range of sources were used , includin g enroll - ment data from the Missouri Department of E lementary and Secondary Ed- ucation, National Center for Educational Statistics, the Cole and Callaway County Assessor's Office. As part of our usual evaluation of district capacity, Figure 2 shows that in nearly every building in the district there are pre liminary signs of overcrowding, especially in the Simonsen 9th Grade Center and Jefferson City High School. A national standard calculation shows that the Jefferson City High School ha s abo ut 11 4 sq. ft. avail ab le per student and that ana- tional standard of 1 60 sq. ft . per student should be available. A rebalancing of the elementary capacities could occur by adjust in g attendance bounda- ries. We realize that a much more detailed evaluation of capacity and facili- ties is usually conducted by the district's architects. Figure 2. Current building enrollment and room capacity levels. These square footage standards come from research by the Council of Educational Facility Planners International (CEFPI). The red ranges mean that the percentage of square footage available for students varies less than 10 percent of the standard, yellow means that the percentage is between 10 and 50 percent and green is greater than 50 percent be- yond the required square footage. 2009-10 G ross Square 2010-11 Square Square Footage Square Footage School Grades Footage Per Variance Advantage/ Enrollment Footage per Student D isadvantage Building per Student Standard BelairEiem K-5 416 47 ,530 114 110 4 ;)• 3 .87% Callaway Hills Elem K-5 261 43,357 166 110 56 51 .02% Cedar Hill Elem K-5 381 46583 . 122 110 12 I 11 .15% EastEiem K-5 365 35,151 96 110 -14 )• -12.45% Lawson Elem K-5 425 44,226 104 110 -6 ')I -5.40% Moreau Heights Elem K-5 381 41,374 109 110 -1 1<.)1 -1 .28% North Elem K-5 379 40 866 108 110 -2 )I -1 .98% Pioneer Trail Elementary K-5 555 65,000 117 110 7 )I 6.47% SouthEiem K-5 271 44,104 163 110 53 47.95% Thorpe Gordon Elem K-5 273 40,598 149 100 49 48.71% WestEiem K-5 372 40,784 110 100 10 9 .63% Lewis & Clark Middle School 6-8 947 140,000 148 130 18 13.72% Thomas Jefferson Middle School 6-8 904 140,000 155 130 25 19.13% Simonsen 9th Grade Center 9 714 80,020 112 160 -48 J ' -29.95% Jefferson City High School 9-12 1 899 216,000 114 160 -46 ·'): -28.91% Nichols Career Center 9-12 68 50,356 741 160 581 :>• 362.83% 16 8 ,611 1,025,062 © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 7 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED J~tferson City School District Overview of the District T he Jefferson City School District covers approximate ly 215.6 sq. miles in central Missouri. The average school district in the state is 142.4 sq. miles. It is surrounded by I 0 other school districts adjacent to it. The schoo l district is nearly exactly half in Cole County and h a lf in Callaway County, with the Missouri River and Highway 50 splitting the district. Figure 4 compares the population growth in municipalities w ithin Jefferson City and the Jefferson City School District. (No 1980 data is available for the schoo l district population and only Census esti- mates are available for counties and cities between the 1 0-year Census.) Between 1990 and 2000, the population growth rate for the City of Jefferson City was 11.7 percent. During this same period the popu- lation growth rate for the school district was 13 .5 percent, averaging 1.4 percent per year. Figure 3. School districts near the Jefferson City School District. Jefferson City School District Surrounding School Districts High Point C:oie C:o R·i R·lll Streets --Hi g hways GJ School District ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 8 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study T o g ive s ome perspect ive o n thi s growth. th e po pul a tio n i n the U ni t- ed Sta tes incre as ed na ti onall y b y 13 .1 pe rce nt be tween 1990 a nd 2 000, o r 1.3 1 p e rc e nt per year, a nd increased by on ly a n es tim ate d 9.09 pe rce nt over- a ll betwe e n 2000 a nd 2 009. T hat is o nl y a bo ut I pe rce nt p e r year gro wth. But a s Fi g ure 4 s hows, t he Jeffer so n C it y Sc hoo l D is tric t po pu la t io n g rew at j us t a bit more t h an th e natio nal ave rage . In thi s report , we w ill atte m pt to d e te rmi ne how s tro ng t he re la ti o n- s hi p is to added p opu la ti o n or n e w ho us ing a nd new e nro llm e n t. For exam- ple, in 19 90-2000, t h e s c hool d i st rict po pul a t io n g rew by a n a dditional 8,080 pe rs on s . Enro llme nt incr eased by o n ly 270 during t ha t same t ime. That m eans th a t for every 29 people w ho m oved to th e sc hool di s tr ict during the 1990s, onl y one s tud e nt was adde d to the e nro ll me nt. T hi s is the h ig hest rati o o f po pula tion to s tudents th at we have eve r seen , w he re u s uall y th e ra - t io is seven o r n ine n e w person added f o r e ac h s t ude nt e nro lled. Similar ca l- c ul ati o ns are presented o n p . 39 in F ig ure 41 th at s ho ws th a t for eve ry new s in g le f ami ly h ome a dd ed d u rin g th e la st 2 3 yea rs, an ave rage of 0.20 new stud e nt s w e re a dd ed to the d i st r ic t. Figure 4. Total population growth in Cole and Callaway counties, the Cities of Holts Summit, Centertown , St. Martins and Jefferson City. 1980 1 9 90 %Growth 2000 %Growth Est. 2009 %Growth Geography Popu l ation Popula ti on 198 0-1 9 90 Population 1990-2000 Populati on 2000-2009 (Es t ) Cole County 56,663 63,579 12.2% 71 ,397 12.3% 75,018 5.1% Callaway County 32,252 32,809 1.7% 40,766 24.3% 43,727 7.3% City of Holts Summit 2 ,540 2,292 -9.8% 2,935 28.1% 3 ,735 27.3% City of Centertown 304 356 17.1% 257 -27 .8 % 251 -2.3% City of St. M artins 739 717 -3.0% 1,023 42.7% 1,122 9.7% City of Jefferson City 33,619 35,481 5.5% 39,636 11 .7% 38,732 -2 .3% Jefferson City School Dist rict 59,769 67,849 13.5% 61 ,252 -9.7% Growth Per Year 808 1.4% -733 -1 .1% © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES , LLC Page 9 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © Ill c (/) z 1'11 (/) (/) z , 0 ::0 !:: )> -i 0 z (/) 1'11 ::0 < n 1'11 (/) r r () )> r r ::u Gi :r -i (/) ::u 1'11 (/) 1'11 ::0 < 1'11 0 ~>;-,,,~ ', l • ); T \ -~-\"-·. 1 Hartsburg " I l . ____:_..-Gent~ftown ,...-I .I ; -.,-../ I l I I ' ' "L.. Ru,ssellvrll~' · .~ 1 -- ·\ ~8_ r ~ \' \ Lon man ..... ,r ,{! · .... ,-.., s r. .,(-\.. ... I 'r ..... r ~ L 0 0 .5 1 2 =>J 1 Mil es 3 . ~ ( )- '/ ~ '\ I , ..- :s: c: :::1 I 'I c;· N "t:l Ill ;:;: IV.E (D' . I Ill ,J' '· s ~ ;:;: '::t' ~ Mokar:u( :::1 Ill :::1 ~ c. a :::1 CD a Ill .., ~ \ I 1 r+ t:J '::t' / CD c.. ~. CD ~ ::::: CD ::t .., Ill 0 ~. :::1 ("J (") -... ;:;: '< <" en (') '::t' 0 0 c ~ iii' r+ .., c;· ~ Wardsville / ' I \ --It '· Streets Hi ghways Sc h oo l District .....---~ llusin~-. l nfonnatio n Scr\'iCCS ~ Demographics Study Figure 5 on p. I 0 shows that th e City of J e ffe r son C it y (purple) makes up about one-third the area of the school di s trict. Holts Summit, Cen- tertown a nd St. Martin s are other municipalities w ithin the di s trict. The population base of the di s trict c e nters around Jeffe rs on City . Since 2000 the city's popu lati on g rowth has been s teady and s table until 2009 when an estimated 2,039 fewer persons li ved in the city. Figure 6. Population growth in the City of Jefferson City, 1900-2009. City of Jefferson City, Population (1900-2009) 40 ,000 35 ,000 30,000 25,000 20 ,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 1900 19 10 1920 1930 19~0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 200 1 2002 2003 200~ 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 ©BUSINESS IN FORMATION S ERVIC ES, LLC Page 11 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je.:[[erson City School District In some school d istricts, there is a high correlation between births in a county or city and Kinder garte n emollment five years lat er. T hat is defi - nitel y not t he case in t he Jefferso n C ity Schoo l D is trict as shown in Figure 8 o n page 13. The correlation rate is 0.3 1 for b irths in the ZIP codes w it hin the di s trict with Kindergarte n enro llm ent in the Jefferso n C ity Schools. A rate of 1.0 wou ld mean that every time there is a birth in the district's ZIP codes, for exa mple, there wou ld be a Kindergart ner entering Jefferson City sch oo ls. The s tatisti cal pred ictabi lity is on ly 0.1 0 , w hich 1.0 wou ld be per- fect. T he births in t he Jefferso n Ci ty ZIP codes, s teadil y in c reased s ince 2002. (The g reen numbers s how the predicted K inde rgarten enrollment based o n the actual births.) The tab le in Figure 8 s hows the total number of births and the vari- ance between the actual Ki ndergarten enro ll ment and predicted Kinde rgar- ten enroll ment based on the model. As you can see, it was fairly accu rate until 2003, but s in ce then , wo ul d be in accurate. Figure 7. Relationship between births, Kindergarten enrollment and projected births. Kindergarten Enrollment: Predicted and Actual, 1986-2013 900 .----------------=----------------------------------~--------------------~ 804 800 !-----, 701 1't55 676 672' ... ' 678 --7 \662 ..... -·-_ji~ll;' ,. ... ... 701 565 500 +--------------------------------------------l -+-Actual Kindergarten Enrollment (x+S) 400 -~ Pred icte d Kinderga rten Enrollment 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 12 ALL RIGHTS R ESERVED ~ r Demographics Study Figure 8. Relationship between births, and actual and projected Kindergarten enrollment. (Shown in chart in Figure 7.) Actual Predicted Variance Birth Total Kindergarten Kindergarten Kindergarten Actual vs Year Births Year Predicted Enrollment Enrollment Kindergarten 1980 1981 1986 669 1982 1987 565 1983 1988 699 1984 1989 652 1985 1990 680 1986 1991 62 1 1987 1992 619 1988 1993 626 1989 1994 670 1990 974 1995 669 665 4 1991 979 1996 628 63 1 -3 1992 923 1997 708 638 70 1993 897 1998 653 634 19 1994 943 1999 643 655 -12 1995 962 2000 654 648 6 1996 971 2001 658 644 14 1997 942 2002 640 676 -36 1998 967 2003 651 672 -21 1999 1,04 1 2004 597 701 -104 2000 949 2005 632 662 -30 2001 1,007 2006 632 678 -46 2002 968 2007 632 679 -47 2003 1,032 2008 653 688 -35 2004 1,073 2009 732 720 12 2005 1,039 2010 804 712 92 2006 1,099 2011 719 2007 1,075 2012 701 2008 1,108 2013 755 © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES , LLC P age 13 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED _jg,fferson City School District Figure 9. Average live births by ZIP code in the Jefferson City School District, 1990-2008. ..... u t~ ..... ..... Vl Cl 0 0 @ ~ u Vl + ~ 0 ~~ . ~ Lf\ N \jj I ~J 0"1 ~ '<:1'" N 0 Lf\ I 0"1 '<:1'" 0 N © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 14 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 10. Tot al live bi rths by ZIP code in Jefferson Cit y School Distric t, 1990-2008. :"I ;-... ':'"I Q • © BUSIN ESS INFORM ATI ON SERVICES , LLC Page 15 ---..... ~ ~ ~ ' ...... u ·;:::: ...... VI 0 0 0 ..c u VI + 0 0 1.1'\ N~ I 0'\ 0'\ ~ ~ N ' 0 0 1.1'\ I 0'\ 0'\ ~ 0 0 N 0 0 N v ~ ~] \Jj ~..J -~ ~ ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Enro llme nt in the J efferson City Schoo l District has s hown a steady inc rease fr om 1986, the earli est year data f ro m th e Nati onal Center fo r Edu- cat ion S ta ti s tic s i s avai la ble . until 1997. S ince 1997, emollment has de- creas ed until 2007, w he n e nro llm e nt h as increased. Figure 12 s hows a g rowth projection model , based on the last l 0 yea rs of growth , and assum es that the next l 0 years will follow the same growth tre nd . T hi s mode l s hows th e district's e nro llment increasin g to 8,421 by 2020, o r abo ut the same enro ll m e nt w he re it is today. Fi gure 11. Total enrollm e nt, J efferso n City School District, 1986-20 09. Source: National Center for Educa- tion Statistics, based on data provided by the Miss ouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Educa- tion. Jefferson Ci!Y School District Enrollmen f (1986.-87 to 2009-10 9.000 8,806 8.800 8,679 8,695 8,620 8.600 8,543 8,-'92 8,476 8.395 8,-'38 8.4 00 ¥,):,;:, 8,338 8,3 11 8,270 8,268 8 zr 8,206 8,205 8,2 28 8,2 10 ' ;:, 8 196 1-t-8.200 8.000 ~,984 1-t- 7,866 7.800 7,726 7,61 1 7.600 v r-t-1- 7.400 v 1-i--i--f-1- 1-t- 7.200 1-1- 7,000 t--i--1-7 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 199 -' 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 200 1 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 200 9 ©B U SINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page }6 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Based on this growth model, the Jefferson City School District could have 8,421 students by 2020, as shown in Figure 12 . This, of course, would be based on the same level of enrollment during the next 10 years as has occurred during the last 10. Figure 12. Projected enrollment in the Jefferson City School District, 2010-2020. 8,450 8,400 8,350 8.300 8,2 50 8,200 2010 Potential Enrollment Based on Growth Since 2000 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 2015 © BUSINE S S IN F ORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 1 7 20 16 20 17 2018 2019 2020 ALL RIGHTS R E S ERV E D © Ill c Ill z 1"11 Jefferson City School District Ill 0 Ill < CD ~ ~ --[.J -v~ -·c---1 ,;..___t r/ s. 0 ,..._, 1 --..., ' "'-CD Al • r-~ . 0 ~\ ', (' l '\. -' \r W.$\E :E 3: -. '~~ J ).._ ' \((E7 0 ~ ......... 'J ,'~ I .... _ -. ~ L ' \._ ( ' , I t -~ s ~ 0 [1f 179 r , --'-<. ' -) "r· J L ~ a z '""') '-J I -........~ A . [ ~ . )--,.. ~ I g: VJ lfl 'i J ·{ . ~ (,_ ·t-} ~ ~I \ , t • ~~, L-( , ,.,. ('";) ;u ( ,. I \ 179 ' ~ . J"'-'1.., L . T"-{..__ J c. ~ < ' !...... I · · -.l J ' CD --,. .... .1'\ ( ~ () ' I . . /J -;:~. l . ·. ,; :.1 . , · ) ·• -f . 1 1 C/1 a 1"11 , 'f -j: l • -~ I ·'' \ ,/ .,.,.._ ' ;:;: a Ill ' • '1"" -~ ·-{ . -\-~ t ) _.-,....A '< I • J; -l; , '-,_,(1 k ./' ' . I ') I ' -,.t'{ -" , / -. ... ~ -...., r 'lot :'. . • ' I ~ , ~ ~ -L:_}.,__ I ' ,;.._,)"""".. ' ,., CD r H--1'~ · 1 ~. r • ---.._ \--}'-,,, \ 1 ~"!" 4. ... "" / \ \... =: t:::J () I If l I I ~ ... ~ ---~ " " ". • _ _j ' ~ ._. IJ) V) 0 ~ J r t:Y ' -> Lt so 1 , -. \, ~ ...----I ~-,.,.. , :::s ~ ~):) ~ < ) I ,t ? -<--....... T (") ._. (JCl ' ' -.. ~ ~ ~ -r 'v'"· '\ ~ ('";) ~ l I -l ··-· ' ~ . r ~. i . I / ,. ~~./-r ./ J. ~ ~ ( . -1 . '\'-' ' ' ,. ,.. 'I ; / .~ \ ' . . 1 (/) -1 o,. ,.._, 1 / \ ( '-~/ ,,.....-\ • /'< ~ I \_ ' \ g. 00 . y ~ c ,r . • . • ·-• \ 0 )> r r :::0 G) J: -i Ill :::0 1"11 Ill 1"11 ;u < 1"11 0 c=J 0-58 -117-174 .. 59 -116 -175-2.32. 2.33 -2.90 ~ 349-406 .. 465-52.3 2.91 -348 .. 407 -464 ........----"7 ll u . .,in~ l nfonn~tinn Scrvil.."l."'i ~ ....... _,.. ' ' ' (~ \ ~-I Highways A Schools Streets School District 0 iii I I ' © m c rJ) z rr1 rJ) rJ) z 6 ::u ~ :I> -1 0 z (/) rr1 ::u < (i rr1 rJ) r r () ~ r r ::u Gi :I -1 rJ) ::u rr1 rJ) rr1 ::u < J'T1 0 • K • 2 • 4 • 6 • • 3 0 5 • 7 • • 8 9 • 10 • • 11 • ---~ IJu~i i K-.... --..Infu nnarion Scn i t'CS ~ 12 13 Hi g h w a y s S tre e ts .A Sch o ols S c h oo l Distri c t 'T1 ce· r:: ~ ..... ~ c c;;· ... :::!. C" r:: ... c:r :::l 0 .... c.. CD ;: (;; 0 :::l (") ~ en (") ::r 0 0 c c;;· ... ... r;· ... Ill ... r:: a. CD :::l ... Ill C" '< (Q @ a. CD © m c (/) z 1'11 (/) (/) z "'11 0 AI 3: ~ 0 z (/) 1'11 AI < () 1'11 (/) r r () ~ ~ (JQ ~ N 0 )> r r ::u (;) :I -l (/) ::u 1'11 (/) 1'11 AI < 1'11 0 Re-K Ki1derganen 1s1 Glade 2nd Glade 3rd Glade 41h Glade 5lh Glade 6th Glade 7th Glade &I> Glade !kh Glade IOih Glade 11th Glade 121h Glade t.ngraded TOTAL Re-K Kildefganen 1s1 Glade 2nd Glade 3rd Glade 41h Glade 5t h Glade 61 h Glade ilh Glade 8th Glade !kh Glade 10th Glade 11th Glade 12th Glade t.ngraded TOTAL 19 !6~7 19 8 7~8 C % 198U 9 C % 1989-90 '.4 1990-91 Ch % 1991-92 C % 1992·93 Ct..% 1 993-~ C % t..ngo t..ng o Ct..ngo ongo t..nge ngo t..nge 0 0 0~ 0 0 ~ 0 0~ 153 0~ 0 0.~ 0 0~ 0 0 ~ 669 565 ·1555% 699 23 72% 652 -672% 680 4 29% 621 -8.68% 619 -032% 626 1.13% 598 700 17 .06% 585 ·1643% 711 21.54% 680 -4 36% 685 0.74% 632 % 651 3.01% 578 568 1.73% 660 1224% 58 1 -1197% 676 1635% 657 -281 % 688 4.72% 646 -6 10% 568 605 6.5 1% 595 ·165% 662 11 26% 581 ·12 24% 668 18.42% 683 -0.73% 697 2.05% 54 0 560 7.41% 616 6 .55% 585 -534% 659 1265% 597 -9.41% 69 1 15 75% 702 1.59% 553 577 4.34% 603 4 51% 652 6.13% 598 -8 28% 682 14.05% 599 ·1217% 697 1636% 522 569 9~ 590 369% 6 18 4.75% 633 243% 621 -1 90% 688 10 79% 641 -6 83% 520 571 981 % 603 5 60% 622 3.15% 6 17 -0 60% 665 7.78% 617 -7 22% 726 1767% 562 586 42 7% 582 -0 68% 601 326% 626 4 16% 636 1.60% 669 519% 652 ·2 54% 621 640 306'1(. 647 1 09% 650 046% 655 077% 696 6.26% 680 -2 30% 686 088% 605 649 727% 638 -169% 627 ·1 72% 623 -0 84% 61 4 -1 44 % 637 375% 692 8631(, 564 559 -089% 543 ·286% 510 -6.081(, 542 627% 570 5.17% 560 -175% 577 3.04% 482 537 11.41 % 503 -633% 513 1.99% 483 ·5 85'!1. 473 -20T\4 507 719% 499 ·1.58% 229 0 0.~ 0 000% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.~ 0 0 ~ 0 0.00% 7,611 7,726 1.51% 7,866 1 81% 7,964 1.50% 8,206 2.78% 8,205 -0.01% 8,270 0.79% 8,492 2.68% 11.1 ::T 3 -· ,... 11.1 n n (!) 1 3 c.. 0" -n .... -· (/1 ::T (/1 .... 0 ::I ;:,;; (!) '< -· Cl)(QCI)~»""'o"·Cl)::s...,,...Cl):::S:I(Q 11.1 ::T ::I .... 11.1 .... 0 ::T ::I .... '< c: n ,... :: c: ::T f/1 -· -..., ,... .... (!) ..., ::T~ O"@<C o (!) ~ §'o (niil 11.1 (!) ::T -0 -::T ~ (!) .... .... c: -· 0 .... ~ ~ -· ............ '"' .... 10 ::s ::s n w •v On:T----a.::s 0 < o " o -· -· n ,... ,... ::T n 0 3 f/1 ~ -0 ::I ::I ::T 0 0" N (!) -· ::T (!) ~. Q. N ;:T f/1 f/1 O ::I N .:t "C 0 ~=,...o(!)n:Tna.g(!)~~ o ~» ~~ go "G>o::s ur(/1 =:::S:f/1 · G)O~:T""'w ""'ollol 3~Cl)~ii1-~~.~~~o~~;:T2.::s'< (!) ,...::s :TO.'< a.fll (!) (!) 'o (!) a a!!:3l~Cl) "C -~ :;=(1)-l:>o-. I (il I 19 94-95 Ch % 1995-96 C % 1996-97 Ch % 1997-98 ango t..ng e ango % 199&-99 % Ct..ng e Change 0 0~ 0 0 ~ 41 0~ 70 0~ 48 0~ 670 703% 669 ·0 15'4 628 -613'4 708 1274% 653 -777% 626 -384% 649 367% 680 4 78% 658 -3 24% 668 1.52% 645 -0 15% 607 ·5 89% 654 7.74% 655 0.15% 643 ·1 83% 676 -3 01% 645 -4.59% 621 -372% 664 6 .92% 629 ·527% 682 -2 65% 660 -323% 645 ·2 27% 63 1 -217% 68 1 4.75% 695 -029% 713 259% 657 -785% 666 % 624 -631% 714 11 39% 672 ·5 88% 7 13 6.10% 663 33 ~ 680 256% 640 -11 85% 728 13.75% 685 -591% 720 5.11 % 654 -9 17% 720 1043% 660 -556% 729 7 21% 669 -5 49% 718 421% 843 -6 27% 736 14461(, 653 ·11 28% 730 1179% 684 -630% 716 347% 705 ·I 54'4 781 1078% 694 ·1114'\ 783 12 82% 602 433% 652 831 % 602 -767% 678 1262% 551 -1873% 514 301 % 563 9.53% 606 7641(, 580 -4 29% 624 7 59% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 000% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 8,543 0.60% 8,679 1.59% 8,695 0.18% 8,806 1.28% 8,620 -2 11% 1999-% % % % % % % % % % % 1986 V$ 2000 Ct..nge 2000-01 Cha nge 2001-02 Ch ang e 2002-03 Chang o 2003-04 Change 2004-05 Chang e 200 6-06 Change 200 6-07 Ct..nge 2007-08 Ct..ngo 2008-09 Ct..nge 2009-10 Cha ngo 200 9 56 r--I'A 72 2857% 71 ·1 39% 75 0 00% 0 -100 00'4 0 0 00% 0 0 00% 0 0 00% 0 I-tA 0 0 00% 0 0 00% HIA 843 -1 53% 654 1 71% 658 061% 840 -27411. 65 1 1.72% 597 ·829% 632 5.86% 632 000% 632 0.00% 653 3 32% 732 12.10% 9A2% 638 -4 49% 65 1 204% 637 -215% 64 1 063% 649 125% 645 -062'!1. 639 300% 620 -297% 628 129% 844 255% 673 4.50% 12.54% 66 1 260% 633 -4 24% 625 -1 26% 620 -0 130% 842 3.55% 634 ·125% 627 -1 10% 613 ·223% 589 -3 92% 843 917% 64 1 -031'll. 10.90% 670 6.52% 652 ·2 69% 626 -3 99% 607 -3 04 % 606 -0.16% 637 5.12% 652 2.35% 636 -2 45% 606 -440% 607 -0 .16% 653 7.58% 14.96% 657 -061% 659 030% 670 1.67% 626 -6 57% 596 -4 79% 622 4.36% 623 0.16% 66 1 6.10% 6 19 -635% 622 0.48% 614 -1.29% 13.70'.4 665 6.57% 644 -3 16% 656 1.86% 662 0.91% 635 -4.08% 61 3 -346% 616 0.49% 629 2.11% 660 4.93% 625 -5 30% 618 -1.1 2% 11 .75'.4 624 -824% 655 4.97% 646 -1 37% 66 3 263% 668 0.75% 636 -4 79% 595 -6 45% 613 3.03 % 630 2.77% 64 4 222% 622 ·3.42% 19.16% 666 1.63% 611 -826% 67 1 982% 641 -4 47% 655 2.18% 676 321% 650 -385% 592 -8 92% 617 4.22% 651 551% 680 4.45% 30.7 7'.4 675 -5 99% 650 -3 70% 608 -646% 67 1 1036% 652 -2 83% 666 2 15% 672 0.90% 637 -521 'll. 596 -6 44% 6 18 369% 640 3.56% 13.88% 705 3.07'll. 664 -5 82'1(. 842 -331% 611 -4 83% 673 10.15% 719 684% 759 556% 765 300% 775 1.31% 712 -8 1 ~ 691 ·295% 11.2714 729 -6 90% 760 425% 70 1 -7 76'1. 714 1 85% 678 -5 04% 673 -0 7411. 654 -282% 673 291% 67 1 -0 30% 682 184'll. 653 -425% 7.93% 632 14 70% 569 -991'1. 608 685% 574 -5 59% 601 4.70% 575 -4 33'1(, 635 10.43% 598 -5 83% 634 602% 845 1 74% 644 -0.16% 14.18'.4 374 -40 06'1. 602 6096% 536 -1096'1. 593 10631(, 522 -11 91'1. 517 -096'1(, 514 -058% 566 10 12% 537 -5 121(, 565 521% 577 2 12% 19.71 '.4 0 0 .~ 0 000% 0 000% 0 000% 0 0.00% 0 000% 0 0 0 000% 0 000% 0 0 00% 0 0.00% 0.00% 8,395 ·2.6 1% 8,476 096% 8,355 -1.43% 8,338 -020% 8.228 -1.32% 8.210 -022% 8,268 0.71% 8.235 -0 40% 8.196 -047% 8,311 140% 8,438 1.53% 10.87'.4 "T1 (Q ' c: .... (!) .... ~ -< (!) 11.1 .... I 0" '< I '< (!) 11.1 .... (!) ::I .... 2. 3 (!) ::I ,!+ c.. (!) ;: CiJ 0 ::I () ;::;: '< en n ::T 0 0 Jii .... <D ()) Q) I N 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ (j ~. tJ ~ . V:l ~ ~. ~ -.. Demographics Study Figure 15 o n page 20 s h ows the cl asses s izes in rece nt years are fairly uni- form, w it h no rea l large c lass in any year. There have been some s light decreases in cl ass s izes from year to year, but overa ll t he varia ti on is negligible. During the las t 16 years, e nro llm e nt growth at the J effe rson City Schoo l Dis- trict has been growin g overall until 1997. It has been flat to decl ini ng since 1997 . As sh own in Figure 16 , s ince 2000, growth in th e di s trict has been a m o ng t he weakest of all others compared. As Figure 16 a lso s hows, e nro llme nt growth among the sch oo l di strict s s hown is a ny thing but unifo rm. It s ho uld be noted that s inc e 2000, seven di s - tri cts in the comparison experienced n egati ve e nro llm ent a nd two had a decrease of more than I 0 percent. Figure 16. Percent growth in enrollment for Jefferson City School District. 200 6 2009 School District 1989_1990 1999.2000 2006 Total 2006 Middle 2006 Sr. 2009 Middle 20 09 Sr. 2009-10 Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment Elementary schooV Jr. High Elementary schooV Jr. Enrollment High Enrollm ent Enrollment High Enrollment Enrollment ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 21 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Figure 17 shows th at eve n though the enrollment has decreased at Je ffer so n Cit y di strict sinc e 20 00 by 1 percent , th e overall popu lation is esti - mated to have actua ll y increased by 5.95 perc e nt. When the 20 10 Ce nsus data is re lea se d nex t yea r we'll know for sure whether that happen ed. But thi s trend is pointing to much hi g her proporti on of th e population not chil - dren. Co mparative to ot he r pee r sc hoo l di st ri cts , the decrease in enr o ll- ment a nd increase in pop ul at ion is a common tr end among di st ri cts th at con - tinue to lose e nro lment, get much older as a gro up. and the perce ntages are mor e in-sy nc together. Mos t of the peer d istri cts realized a population increa se , with the exc eption of Fe rguson -Flori ssa nt , Hickman Mill s , No rthwe st a nd River view Garden s. When enrollment is co mpared in F igure 16 on p. 2 1, a few s imi lar- iti es s ta rt to emerge. Co lumbi a. for examp le, had a large increase in popu la- tion a nd e nr o llment wen t dow n. Th e schoo l districts with the fastest - grow ing enr o llmen t a ll rea li zed e nrollment increas in g faster than overa ll populati on growth. Despite the growt h in po pul at io n in mo st of these di s- Figure 17. Total population at school districts near the Jefferson City School District. School District Area Sq Miles T ota l Population Total Population (1990) (2000) %Population Growth 1990- 2000 Est. T ota l Population 2009 %Cha nge 2000-2009 _ • 1 : I ,: , , ~ • ~ -;-_ --·--------·---· Liberty 82.5 23,620 34,580 46.40% 48,388 39.93% Mehl..n ll e R-IX 39.2 84,11 1 93,755 11 .47% 96,021 2.42% Northwest R-1 123.8 39,678 43,539 9.73% 42,714 -1 .89% © BUSINESS INFORMATION S ERVICES , LLC Page 22 ALL RIGHTS R ESE RVED C' Demographics Study Figure 18. Total enrollment by grades of nearby school districts. Percentage of Percentage Percentage Est. Percentage of of District of District . . . . School -Age Ch "ld Fr Ch"ld Fr Dastnct Distract Total School· Total School· Average Teacher Salary 2005 Average Teacher Salary 2009 School District Age Population 2000 Age Population 2009 School -Age Children living in the District Who Attend District Schools 2000 Children livi ng in 1 ren ee-1 ren ee-Composite Composite the District Who and Reduced and Reduced ACT Scores ACT Scores Attend District l unch l unch 2005 2009 Schools 2009 Classification Classification 2005 2009 7,484 9,385 88.63% 106 .92% 13.80% 16.40% Mehl'oille R-IX 17,182 15,229 69.84 % 70.84 % 20 .60% 22.20% Northwest R-1 9,228 7,862 31 .80% 35.10% tricts , the 2009-10 e nrollment numbe rs s how that th e eco nom y has done much to s low do wn normal in creases in enrollment. Thi s further emphasizes th e need to u se the 2 0 I 0 Census to validate the tre nd of agin g p opu lation witho ut children. Figure 19 , be low, s hows that, s ince 2005 , th e percentage of students receiving free -a nd-reduce d lunc h es has vari ed littl e. Many other area school di stricts have seen the ir free-and -re duced lunch s tatus pe rcentage increase markedly, espec ia ll y during the la st yea r. Figure 19. Comparison of free and reduced lunch classification at Jefferson City schools and statewide. Comparison of Free and Reduce Lunch Classifications for the Jefferson City School District and Statewide (2005-2009) Change in Change in Free & Reduced Lunches 2004.()5 2005.()6 2006.()7 2007.()8 2008.()9 Overall Overall Enrollment Percentage 2005-20 09 2005-2009 Number (Jefferson City) 2,934 3,071 3,135 3 ,243 3 ,370 437 Percent (Jefferson City) 37.6 0% 39.30% 40.40% 42.00 % 43.40% 14.89% 15.43% Number (Missouri) 364,441 367,461 366,547 367,724 380,376 15,935 P ercent (Missouri) 41 .70% 40.80% 41 .80% 42.10% 43.70% 4 .37% 4.80% ©BUSIN ESS INFORMATION SERVI CES, LLC Page 23 22.7 21 .8 21 .6 22 .6 $43,414 $50,213 22 .0 $48,675 $50,910 21 .8 $42,789 $52,707 Figure 18, above, shows that the Jefferson City School District has among the lowest percent- ages of the school -age population attending the dis- trict schools. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District During the last two years , the housing industr y , as well as the general eco nom y, ha s suffered through a severe recession . W ith a large re li ance on the state government for employment, th e d is trict 's enro llm e nt is intertwined w ith the local economy. D e mo graphic data we ha ve purchased shows the unemploy m ent rate within the district as high as 65 percent in some areas for 2009. Figure 20 . Unemployment rate in Jefferson City School District, 2009 . Jefferson City School District o•or:::=.s =-, -=3 Miles Unemployment_Rate_09 -2.4%-3.3% Unemployment Rate (2009) -8.6%-10.9% -13.6%-17.4% -11%-1 3.5% -17.5%-65% -Highways Streets GJ Sc ho o l District © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES , LLC Page 24 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Data from th e Misso uri Economic Com mi ssion d isp layed in Figu re 21 on page 25 s h ows seve ra l key ind u s tries have lost emp loyees s ince 2004. (Information, Admin is tra tion, Hea lth Care a nd Local Govern me nt reali zed e mployme nt gain s.) S tate government has lo st as ma ny as 900 j o bs since 2004 in the Jeffe rson City area (F igure 28 o n p. 29.) Figure 21. Average employment by industry in Cole County, 2004-2009 . Cole County, Average Employment, Se lected Industries, 2004-0 9 20.000 •2004 •2005 18,000 2006 2007 16,000 2008 2009 14.000 12.000 10.000 8.000 6.000 Manufacturing Retail Trade Information Finance and Administrative llcalth care Loca l State Federal insurance Government Government Governm ent © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 25 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je.:[[erson City School District Average e mplo y ment in Cole County. fo r p ri vate businesses, de- c reased b y 771 pe rsons s ince 2004. Not every sector has been affected eq ua ll y in thi s recession. We asked t he state econom ic development depart- ment to produce a special data run , showing a ll e mploy m ent s ince 1990, and we wanted to see if th ere was a corre lati on between emp loyment and the district 's e nro llme nt. A nswer: T he re is no relation ship, other than a weak stati st ical one that shows th at w he n e m ployment in Ca ll away Coun ty in - c reases, enro llm e nt in t he Jefferson C it y Schoo l Di s trict actuall y decreases . Figure 22. Total number of firms by industry in Cole County, 2004-2009 . Cole County, Number of Firms, Selected Industries, 2004-09 300.-----------------------------------------------------------------------, • 2004 • 2005 2006 2007 • 2008 2009 200 -1--------- 150 +-------- 100 +-------- 50 0 Manufacturing Retail Trade lnfommtion Finance and Administrative l lealth care Loca l State Federal in surance Gov ernment Government Government © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 26 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED r- ~ Demographics Study Comparison of Callaway and Cole County Employment a nd D istrict Enrollment, 1990-2009 Year Callaway County Cole County District Private Gove rnment T otal Private Government Total Enrollment 1990 8,320 3,529 11,849 23,432 15,781 39,213 8 ,206 1991 8,296 3,411 11 ,707 23,763 15,969 39,732 8,205 1992 7 ,891 3,558 11 ,449 24,628 16,176 40,804 8,270 1993 7,565 3,564 11 ,129 25,491 16 ,354 41,845 8,492 1994 7,843 3 ,505 11 ,348 27,000 17,370 44,370 8,543 1995 8,285 3,562 11 ,847 27,894 17,801 45,695 8,679 1996 8,265 3,803 12,068 29,054 18,192 47,246 8,695 1997 8,427 3,749 12,176 29,833 18,777 48,6 10 8,806 1998 8,502 4 ,067 12,569 30,507 19,444 49,951 8,620 1999 9,041 4 ,214 13,255 31,299 19,51 4 50,813 8,395 2000 9,178 4 ,347 13,525 31,667 19,911 51 ,57 8 8,476 2001 9,130 4 ,378 13,508 31 ,559 2 1,611 53,170 8,355 2002 9,376 4,355 13,731 31,382 20,901 52,283 8,338 2003 9,302 4,480 13,782 31,973 21,950 53,923 8,228 2004 9,462 4,588 14,050 31,984 21,922 53,906 8,210 2005 10,041 4,288 14,329 3 1,886 21 ,468 53,354 8 ,268 2006 9,986 4,403 14,389 32,247 21,154 53,401 8 ,235 2007 10,029 4,531 14 ,560 32,567 21,015 53,582 8 ,196 2008 10,353 4,644 14 ,997 32,609 21,404 54,01 3 8 ,311 2009 10,065 4,501 14,566 31,213 21 ,615 52,828 8,438 Average Employment in Cole County, 2004-09 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Change 2004-09 In dustry Total-Private 3 1,213 32,609 32,567 32 ,247 31,886 31 ,984 -771 Manufacturing 2,291 2,517 2 ,528 2 ,678 2,681 2 ,835 -544 Ret ail Trade 4646 4786 4967 4774 4828 4965 -319 In fo rm at ion 975 11 09 1041 870 498 497 478 Fina nce and in s urance 1,863 1,915 1,988 2,1 48 2,057 2,065 -202 Administrati ve 2,050 2,066 1,899 1,728 1,769 1,686 364 Healt h care 3,376 3,417 3,395 3,168 3,099 3 ,131 245 Local Gove rn ment 2,930 2,832 2 ,781 2 ,757 2,754 2 ,762 168 State Government 18,1 46 18,053 17,747 17,832 18,168 18,621 -475 Federal Go~.emment 539 519 487 565 546 539 0 Total 36,816 37,214 36,833 36 ,520 36 ,400 37,101 -285 Number of Firms in Cole County, 2004-09 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Change 2004-09 In dust ry Total-P ri vate 2,035 2 ,055 2 ,098 2 ,107 2,105 2,086 -51 Manufact uring 65 67 68 67 67 65 0 Retail Trade 262 271 275 277 279 279 -17 Information 29 28 28 29 16 17 12 Finance and insurance 137 139 151 142 143 143 -6 Administrati~.e 123 117 110 105 111 11 1 12 Health care 179 179 186 188 185 188 -9 Local Go~.emment 53 53 55 55 54 54 -1 State Go~.emment 90 90 89 91 97 100 -10 Fede ral Go~.emment 20 20 19 21 20 19 1 Tota l 958 964 981 975 972 976 -18 ©BUS IN ESS INFORMATION SER VICES , LLC Page 27 Figure 23. Employment in Callaway and Cole coun- ties, 1990-2009, and district enrollment. Even though employment in Callaway County has increased 22 percent and in Cole Coun- ty, by 34 percent, since 1990, enrollment at the dis- trict has increased by only 2.8 percent. Figures 24-25. Average em- ployment and number of firms in Cole County, 2004- 2009. ALL RIGHTS R ESERVE D Je._fferson City School District E mpl oy ment in Ca ll away County h as seen d ecreases durin g the las t fi ve years, as has Co le County , in so me sector s . R et a il T rad e and Sta te Gov - ernme nt acco unts fo r 599 j o bs lost. O verall , the numbe r of pri vate indus tr y j o bs in c reased by 6 03 . O ur map of unempl oy me nt in the di s tri c t s hows th at overa ll , Callaway County has weathered the rec essio n b ette r tha n Co le C ounty as far as th e decrease in number of jobs o r firm s . Figures 26-27 . Average employment and number of firms in Cole County, 2004-2009 . Average Employment in Callaway County, 2004-09 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Change 2004-09 Industry Total-Private 10,065 10,353 10,029 9 ,986 10,041 9 ,462 603 Manufacturing 1 ,628 1,842 1,752 1 ,654 1 ,633 1,615 13 Retail Trade 951 1069 1290 1264 1302 1287 -336 Information 143 170 183 178 166 176 -33 Finance and insurance 273 274 287 284 265 268 5 Administrative 251 241 305 252 233 208 43 Health care 711 697 654 674 625 626 85 Local Government 1 ,641 1 ,636 1,603 1 ,572 1 ,549 1 ,530 111 State Government 2 ,598 2,754 2 ,676 2 ,676 2 ,565 2 ,861 -263 Federal Government 262 254 252 155 174 197 65 Total 8,458 8,937 9,002 8,709 8,512 8,768 -310 Number of Firms in Callaway County, 2004-09 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Change 2004-09 Industry Total-Private 755 762 743 722 709 694 61 Manufacturing 36 39 39 38 38 40 -4 Retail Trade 98 103 100 95 97 102 -4 Information 7 7 8 9 10 11 -4 Finance and insuranc e 38 36 36 34 31 32 6 Administrative 42 42 42 39 42 33 9 Health c are 53 52 52 53 50 51 2 Lo cal Government 40 40 39 39 40 40 0 State Government 21 2 0 19 18 18 18 3 Federal Government 10 9 10 10 10 10 0 Total 345 348 345 335 336 337 8 © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC P age 28 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 28. Change in number of jobs by industry in Jefferson City, 2004-2010 . Change in the Number of Jobs in the Jefferson City Metro Area Change 2010 Percentage Industry Nuni>er of Jobs Chang e 2010 < < 2004 2004 Jan-10 Jan..09 Jan..08 Jan..07 Jan..OS Jan..()5 Jan..04 Total Nonfarm 76,700 78,500 79 ,100 78,200 77,100 77 ,700 77 ,100 -400 ..0.52% Total Private 48,600 49,400 50 ,400 49 ,800 49,200 48,500 48,500 100 0.21 % Goods Producing 8,700 9,600 10,000 10,000 10,400 9,800 10,500 -1,800 -1 7.1 4% Service-Providing 68,00 0 68,9 00 69,100 68 ,200 66,700 67,900 66,600 1,400 2.10% Private Service Providing 39,900 39,800 40,400 39 ,800 38,800 38,700 38,000 1,900 5.00% Trade 13,200 13,300 13,800 13,700 13,800 13,800 13,600 -4 00 -2.94% Retail Trade 8,500 8,100 8,900 8,900 8,800 9,000 9,200 -700 -7.6 1% Governrrent 28,100 29,100 28 ,700 28,400 27,900 29,200 28,600 -500 -1.75% Federal Government 900 900 800 800 800 800 90 0 0 0.00 % State Governm ent 21,400 22 ,400 22 ,300 22 ,100 21,700 23 ,000 22,300 -900 -4.04% Local Gove rn ment 5,800 5,800 5,600 5,500 5,400 5,400 5,400 400 7.4 1% © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 29 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je,f[erson City School District F ig ure 29, be low, s hows t hat , in 2000, 72 .32 percent of t he c hil d ren living w it hin th e scho o l d istri ct attend ed th e Jefferson C ity schools . In 1990 , the perce n tage was 76.12. Ad mi ttedly, th e sch ool e nro llme nt data was gath- ered in the fa ll and th e Census data was cap tured in t he spring of the fo ll ow- ing year. But thi s is the closest compari son t hat we have of ach1a l versus poss ib le enro ll me nt. T h is means t hat in 2000, 28 percent of the c hild ren were e it he r ho me -schoo led, or attended p ri vate sc hools or other pu bl ic schools in 2000 . S tatewide, a bo ut 14 per cent ofthe stud e nts do n ot atte nd p ub li c sc hools at t he d istri c t in w h ic h they l ive . T he latest demograp h ic d ata estimates s how that 9,492 children live i n the school d i strict but the e m o llment is 8 ,438. If t hi s est imate were accu - rate, nearly a t ho usan d c h il d re n w h o cou ld attend the d istrict's sch oo ls do not, o r o n ly 12.1 per cent. If accurate, t h is would be a h uge increase in the percentage of c hi ldren in th e d istri ct atte nding the publ ic sch ool d istrict. But it does not appear thi s wo ul d be accurate. I n F i gure 3 1 on p . 31, we geocoded addresses for ho me -schoolers and all the a rea private schools, then overl ay t he boundaries of the sch ool distri ct. T h is s hows th at i n 1990 , 2000 and aga in in 20 I 0 , less than 76 percent of t he school-age chi ld re n who l ive in t he J efferson City Schoo l D istri ct attend t he distri ct's schools. We fi nd it espec ia ll y interestin g th at the best dem ographic data th at we can pur- Fi gure 29 . 2000 Census versus 2009 esti m ate d population w i t h J efferson City Sc hool Di strict en r ollment. Comparison o f 2000 C e ns us a nd 2009 Estim at ed Pop u lation and Jefferson City Scho ol District Enrollment %of 2009 -10 %of Estimat e d 2000 2000..()1 Ce nsu s to Esti m ate d 2009-10 Popula tion to Ce nsu s Enro llm e nt E 11 t Tota l En r oll m ent n ro m e n p 1 ti En r ollment opu a on Under 1 yrs 820 1 y r olds 945 ---"'" ~ ,~,an_ _!fl_ _.::_ ~~ ::I ~ - 2 y r olds 910 3 y r o lds 820 4 y r o lds 1,065 Kinderga rte n 810 654 80.74% 715 732 102.38% 1st G rade 880 651 73.98% 733 673 91.8 1% 2 nd Grade 970 633 65.26% 745 641 86 .04% 3rd Grade 920 652 70.87% 755 653 86.49% 4th Grade ~ 990 -659 66.57% 730 614 84 .1 1% ~· 5th G rade 780 644 82.56% 740 618 83.51% 6th Grad e 990 655 66.16% 715 622 86.99% 7th Grade 895 61 1 68.27% 720 680 94.44% 8th Grade 785 650 82.80% 704 640 90.91% 9t h G rad e 975 664 68.10% 749 691 92.26% 10th Grade 985 760 77.16% 730 653 89.45% 11th Grade 820 569 69.39% 735 644 87.62% 12th Grade 820 602 73.41% ...::_ _:: . T otal (K-12) 11 ,6 20 8,4 04 72.3§.. 9,492 8,438 88.90% ~ ©B U S I N ESS I N F O R MATIO N S E RVI CES, LLC Page 3 0 ALL RIG HTS R ESERV ED ~ Demographics Study Figure 30. 1990 Census versus 1990 estimated population with Jefferson City School District enrollment. Comparison of 1990 Census and Jefferson City School District 1990 Enrollment 1990 %of %o f Total 1990 ..()1 C e n sus to Ce nsus Enrollme nt Enrollme nt Popul a ti o n Under 1 yrs 861 18.20% 1 yr olds 883 ~ ~ Iv ~T71~ tL... ;:: 18.66% 2 y r ol ds 715 15.11 % 3 y r ol ds 775 16.38% 4 yr olds 788 16.65% Ki nderga rten 846 680 80 .38% 17.88% 1st Grade 866 680 78 .52% 18.30% 2n d G ra de 842 676 80.29% 17.79% 3rd Grade 913 581 63.64 % 19.29% 4th G rade 890 659 74 .04 % 18.81 % 5th G rade 928 598 64.44% 19.61% 6th G rade 823 633 76 .91% 17.39% 7th Grade 751 617 82 .16% 15.87% 8th Grad e 718 626 87 .19% 15.17% 9th G rade 725 655 90 .34% 15.32% 10th Grade 773 623 80 .60% 16.34% 11th Grade 694 542 78 .10% 14.67% 12th Grade 811 483 59 .56% 17.14% Total (K-1 2) 10,580 8 ,053 76 .12% chase t oday appears to h ave underes t imated the total school-age popu lation by mo re than 15 percent. (We calculated the hom e-schoo l atte nd ance by u s in g a factor of 3 chi ldren per househo ld and multiply i ng by 160 confirmed home-school households within t he di strict 's bo rder. S i nce home -schoo l fa m il ies m ay be large r than that fac - to r, we have li ke ly underesti m ated t he home-schoo l enroll ment.) W e cannot e mpha- s ize e no ug h th at t he impact of no n-publi c school s tud e nt s on t he attendance leve ls of the Jefferson C ity School D is tr ict is s ignificant. Figu re 31 . Analysis of the school-age population in the Jefferson City School Distri ct, 2010. Analysis of the School-Age Popu lation in the Jefferso n C ity Sc h oo l Di str ic t Criteria N umber 0/o 2009-10 Jefferson City School District Enrollment 8,438 75 .7% 2010-11 Private School Enrollment 2 ,226 20.0 °/o 2010-11 Est. Home-School Enrollment 480 4.3°/o Estimated Number of Total School-Age Ch ild ren 1 11144 100.0 % Est. School-Age Population from Demographic Data 9,492 Variance Demographic Data Estimate 1,652 17.4% © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 3 1 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED I I Jefferson City School District We have bee n able to d oc um e nt 2,226 private school s tudents li ving in the Jeffers on C ity School Di strict , based on rosters s ubm itted by some of th e pri vate schoo ls to o ur fi rm . Sin ce we d idn 't have a ll th e private schoo l rosters , we a re und e restimating the impact of t he pri vate schoo l enrollment on th e pub l ic school district. Interesting ly , we found tha t it is not unusual for private-school fami l ies to li ve more than 35 m il es away from the sch oo l th e ir children a tt end , which was abo ut twice as far as we exp ec ted. We were a bl e to match 1,4 14 unique private-schoo l househo lds to our main demographic data . Of the 160 un ique home-scho o l households in th e di s trict , we ma tc he d 94 to ou r m a in d e mogra ph ic data. T hi s data was used to prod uce the ta bl es sh own in Figures 33 through 39 o n pp. 33 thro ug h 35 . Stati stic a lly , the hom e-sc hoo l ho useho ld s have a s lightl y hi gher in - come than t he pri vate-schoo l ho useho ld s, but when t he square footage of Figure 32. Distri bution of pri va te -school st uden ts near t he Jefferson City School District, 2010-11 . 8 ... -~ :::·· 8 e '· .\e 8 :.J /·:.:> e Mark Twa~ e •· Ua'Uon e l ... forest .· eoo rae 8 8 ( ~"! ....... , 8 8 CA L L AWAY .... / E A U ' ,I © BUSINESS I N FOR M A T IO N SERVICES, LLC Page 32 ALL R IGHT S RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 33. Comparison of private-school, home-school, public school households and households in the Jefferson City School District, age of the household head. It appears that the private school household heads are younger than the home-school heads, and not as young as the public school heads. The income differences between the groups are stark: 72.3% of the home-school families have incomes exceeding $60,000 and 67% of private school households do, but only 45 percent of the public school households exceed $60,000 and only 30 percent of the district residents overall exceed that income level. Age of Household Head Households of Private-Households of Home-Households of Public Households Overall School Students School Students School Students Age Range Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage 18-24 0 0.0% 1 1.1% 34 1.0% 459 1.5% 25-29 60 4 .2% 1 1.1% 206 5.9% 1,500 5.0% 30-34 139 9.8% 3 3.2 % 384 11 .0% 1,900 6.3% 35-39 285 20.2% 13 13.8% 632 18.2% 2 ,998 10.0% 40-44 336 23.8% 18 19.1% 721 20.7% 3,147 10.5% 45~9 340 24.0% 26 27.7% 660 19.0% 3,516 11.7% 50-54 163 11 .5% 12 12.8% 411 11.8% 3 ,599 12 .0% 55-59 53 3.7% 9 9.6 % 2 11 6.1% 3,494 11.6 % 60-64 18 1.3% 5 5.3% 102 2.9% 2 ,884 9.6 % 65-69 7 0.5% 2 2.1% 76 2.2% 2 ,576 8.6 % 70-74 9 0.6% 2 2.1% 25 0.7% 1,269 4.2% 75 + 4 0.3% 2 2.1% 15 0.4% 2,652 8.8% Grand Total 1,414 100.0% 94 100.0% 3,477 100.0% 29 ,994 100.0°/c Figure 34. Incomes of private-school, home-school, public school and all households in the JCPS d istrict. Income Ranges for Households Households of Private-Households of Home-Households of Public Households Overall School Students School Students School Students Income Ranges Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Under $20,000 70 5.0% 5 5.3% 705 20 .3 % 9,120 30.4% $ 20,000-$29,999 39 2.8% 4 4 .3% 235 6.8% 2 ,640 8.8% $ 30,000-$39,999 57 4.0% 6 6.4% 21 3 6.1 % 2 ,541 8.5% $ 40,000-$49,999 110 7.8% 5 5.3% 30 3 8.7% 3,158 10.5% $ 50,000-$59,999 181 12.8% 6 6.4% 435 12.5% 3 ,357 11.2% $ 60 ,000-$69,999 300 21.2% 18 19.1% 522 15.0 % 3 ,157 10.5% $ 70,000-$79 ,999 239 16.9% 11 11 .7% 368 10.6 % 2 ,179 7.3% $ 80,000-$89,999 165 11 .7% 12 12.8% 224 6.4% 1,345 4.5% $ 90,000-$99,999 100 7.1% 9 9.6 % 126 3.6 % 747 2.5% $100,000-$124,999 98 6.9% 2 2.1% 185 5.3% 995 3.3% $125,000-$149,999 23 1.6% 1 1.1% 103 3.0% 415 1.4% $150,000-$174,999 16 1.1% 7 7.4% 26 0.7 % 170 0.6 % $175,000-$199,999 9 0.6% 1 1.1 % 16 0.5% 82 0.3% $200,000-$249,999 2 0.1% 2 2.1% 12 0.3% 45 0.2% $250 ,000-$299,999 4 0.3% 5 5.3% 3 0.1% 24 0.1% $300 ,000-$399,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 9 0.0% $400,000-$499,999 1 0.1 % 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 0.0% $500,000 Plus 0 0.0% 0 0 .0% 0 0.0% 7 0.0% Grand Total 1,414 100.0% 94 100.0% 3,477 100.0% 29,994 100.0% © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 33 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Figure 35. 2000 House values of private-school, home-school, public school and households overall. More than one out of three private-school households are valued at more than $200,000; fewer than 15 percent in the other households would live in the higher-value homes. House Values for Households Households of Private-Households of Home-Households of Publi c Households Overall School Students School Students School Students Value Ranges Number Percentage Numbe r Pe rce ntage Number Percentage Numbe r Percentage $1-$24 ,999 0 0.0% 0 0 .0% 0 0.0% 6 0.0% s 25,000-549,999 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 15 0.4% 83 0.3% s 50,000-$74,999 19 1 .3% 5 5 .3% 165 4 .7% 1,691 5.6% s 75,000-S99,999 12 1 8 .6 % 12 12.8% 562 16.2% 4 ,236 14.1% $100,000-$124,999 269 19.0% 32 34.0% 1,066 30.7% 8,134 27.1% $125,000-$149,999 181 12.8% 12 12.8% 433 12.5% 3,287 11 .0% $150,000-$174,999 142 10.0% 8 8.5% 227 6.5% 2,046 6 .8% $175.000-$199,999 131 9 .3% 4 4.3% 140 4 .0% 1,346 4 .5% $200,000-$249,999 221 15.6% 11 11 .7% 221 6.4% 1,828 6.1% $250,000-$299,999 120 8 .5% 2 2.1% 96 2.8% 888 3.0% $300,000-$349,999 70 5.0% 1 1.1% 58 1 .7% 439 1.5% $350,000-$399,999 52 3.7% 0 0.0% 39 1 .1% 227 0.8% 5400,000-$449,999 21 1.5% 0 0.0% 9 0.3% 96 0.3% 5450,000-$499,999 18 1.3% 0 0.0% 11 0.3% 58 0.2% $500,000-$599,999 10 0.7% 0 0.0% 11 0.3% 57 0.2% $600,000-$699,999 6 0.4% 0 0.0% 3 0.1% 24 0.1% $700,000-$799,999 2 0.1 % 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 11 0.0% $800,000-$899,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% $900,000-$999,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 0.0% $1 ,000,000 + 2 0 .1% 0 0.0% 0 0 .0% 9 0.0% blank 29 2 .1% 7 7.4% 419 12.1 % 5,524 18.4% Grand Total 1,414 100.0% 94 100.0% 3,4n 100.0% 29,994 100.0"/c Figure 36. Home square footages for private-school, home-school, public school and households overall. Home Square Footages for Households House holds of Private-Households of Home -Households of Public Households Overall School Students School Students School Students S ize Ranges Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Under 1,000 18 1.3% 0 0.0% 66 1.9% 626 2.1% 1 '000-1 ' 1 00 16 1.1% 1 1.1% 80 2.3% 655 2.2% 1 '101-1 ,200 34 2.4% 2 2 .1% 118 3.4% 927 3.1% 1,201-1,300 39 2.8% 2 2 .1% 154 4.4% 1,085 3.6% 1,301-1 ,400 63 4 .5% 9 9 .6 % 177 5.1% 1,211 4.0% 1,401-1 ,500 70 5.0% 4 4.3% 163 4.7% 1,177 3.9% 1,501-1 ,600 70 5.0% 4 4.3% 165 4.7% 1,203 4.0% 1,601 -1,700 71 5.0% 7 7.4% 137 3.9% 1,157 3.9% 1 '701-2,000 197 13.9% 8 8 .5% 323 9.3% 2 ,522 8.4% 2,001-2 ,200 93 6.6% 4 4.3% 126 3.6% 1,061 3.5% 2,201-2,400 86 6 .1% 5 5 .3% 90 2 .6% 741 2.5% 2,401-3,000 135 9.5% 8 8.5% 159 4.6% 1,218 4.1% 3,001-3,500 55 3.9% 4 4.3% 55 1.6% 439 1.5% 3,501-4,000 33 2.3% 0 0.0% 27 0.8% 233 0 .8% 4,001-5,000 47 3.3% 1 1.1% 36 1.0% 258 0 .9% 0-.er 5,000 36 2.5% 0 0 .0% 28 0.8% 154 0 .5% blank 3 51 24.8% 35 37.2 % 1,573 45.2% 15,327 51 .1% Grand Total 1,414 100.0% 94 100.0% 3,477 100.0% 29,994 100.00fc ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 34 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study th e home is cons id e re d , pri vate s chool ho useh o lds ar e muc h la rger. Education levels a re s imi lar for a ll g ro ups, w ith home-sc hoo l ho use ho lds s l ig htly hi g he r e duca t ed . T he re is a w id e di s tributi o n o f re li g io ns fo r a rea pri vate sc hools , as s hown in F ig ure 38 . Three out of f our ho m e-scho o l ho use ho ld a re Protest a nt , s lig htly hi g h e r tha n t he public school s tud e n t ho u seho ld s o r h o u seho ld s overa ll in the d is trict. Figure 37 . Education levels of household heads at p r i va t e-s c hool, home-school, public school and households over all. Mea n Education L evels for Households Househol ds of P rivate-Hous e h olds of Home-Households of Public Househ o lds Overall School Stu d e nts Sch ool Stu d e nts Sch ool Students L evel N u mber P ercentage N u mber P e r cen tage Numbe r P erce ntage Num b er P e rce ntage Atte nded/Graduated Hig h Scho ol 32 2.3% 2 2 .1% 106 3.0 % 831 2.8% S ome Colle g e (up to 2 y rs.) 11 3 1 80 .0% 72 76 .6% 2,644 76.0% 24 ,058 80.2 % More Than 2 Yrs . College/College Grad. 251 17.8% 20 2 1.3% 7 27 20 .9% 5 ,105 17.0 % G rand T ota l 1 ,414 100.0% 94 100.0% 3 ,477 100.0 % 29,994 100.0"/c I Figure 38. Rel i gions by p rivate school. B reakdown of Religions by Private School CON CO RD HE LI AS OUR ST I MACULATE LADY OF ST ST ST ST ST ST Grand CHRIS TIAN HIGH CONCEPTI ON THE FRANCIS JOS EPH MARTIN PETER PETER· STANISLAUS THOMAS Tota l SCHOOL SCHOOL SNOWS FULTON BUDDHIST 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 CATHOLIC 7 74 30 1 17 45 13 39 0 19 1 246 EAS1ERN ORTHODOX 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 GREEK ORTHODOX 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 HINDU 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 ISLAMIC 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 JEWISH 2 8 5 0 3 4 2 7 0 5 1 37 PR01ESTANT 42 258 133 5 53 151 56 140 1 68 33 940 UNCOOE D 3 45 28 1 29 15 12 19 0 21 7 180 Gra nd Total 68 390 196 7 102 216 83 20 6 1 113 42 1,414 I Fi gure 39. House hold religi o ns f or priv ate-schoo l, home-sc h ool, public school and households overall. Hou sehol d Religion Hou s eholds of Private· Hou se ho lds of Home-House ho lds o f Public Hou se holds Ove rall Sch ool Student s Sc hoo l Stud ents School Stude nts Re l igion Num b e r Percentage Nu mbe r Perce n tage Numbe r Pe r ce ntage Numbe r Percentage B UDD HIST 2 0.1% 0 0 .0% 13 0.4% 91 0.3% CATHOLIC 246 17.4% 12 12.8% 510 14.7% 4 ,5 18 15.1% EASTER N ORTHODOX 4 0.3% 0 0 .0% 13 0.4 % 94 0.3% GREEK ORTHODOX 2 0.1% 0 0 .0% 4 0.1 % 33 0.1% HINDU 2 0.1% 0 0.0% 18 0.5% 79 0 .3% ISLAM IC 1 0 .1% 0 0.0% 16 0 .5% 100 0 .3% J EWI SH 37 2.6% 2 2.1% 68 2 .0% 658 2.2 % LUTH ERAN 0 0 .0% 0 0.0 % 0 .0% 5 0.0% PROTE STA NT 940 66.5% 72 76.6% 2,543 73 .1% 2 1,052 70.2% SHINTO 0 0 .0% 0 0.0 % 1 0.0% 16 0 .1% SIKH 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 0 .1% 3 0 .0% UN CODED 180 12.7% 8 8.5% 288 8 .3% 3,345 11 .2% Gra nd T o ta l 1,414 100.0% 94 100.0% 3,477 100.0% 29 ,994 1oo .o•;. © BUS IN ESS INFORMA TION S ERV I C ES , LLC Page 35 ALL RIG H T S R E SERV ED J~tferson Cif)J School District Figure 40 on p. 37 shows the current number of children in the area ~ who attend private schools. We called each school, some multiple times, in order to get the latest enrollment. In those instances when the school would not give us the latest enrollment, we relied on the 2007-08 enrollment re- ported to the National Center for Education Statistics. Most areas of the country have seen reductions in private school enrollment from anywhere between 5 percent and 30 percent during the last two years. Of the schools that did provide current enrollment, we saw a mixed bag-some had enrollment increases and other, decreases. Overall, the number of students remained fairly consistent. In 2010-11 school year, there were just over of 4,000 students in the Jefferson City area who attend pri- vate schools that we could verify. (Where no enrollment is listed, we could not obtain an enrollment figure from the school.) We estimate there are nearly 300 employees at private K-12 schools in the area with annual sales totaling $8. 7M. ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 36 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 40 . Private school enrollment, number of employees , sales , and square footage. Total2010· Tota12009· Tota12007· Grad es Number or Est Years Number or Square Schooll'iame 2011 2010 2000 Served Oty County Website Emp loyees Sa les Established PCs Footage Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment Cal vary Lutheran 10.000. HighSchool 43 NA 9·12 Jefferson C1ty Cole IS S570,000 3 10.29 39,999 Conoord Christian 10,00(). School Ill 100 NA PreK·S th Jefferson City Cole 9 so 4 2·9 39,999 He! las High School 784 815 869 9-12 Jefferson C1ty Cole ll cllashlghschooi.Com 64 $3.400.000 27 30 • 40,000• ~ Immaculate Conception School -162 412 •160 l'reK·Oth Jefferso n City Cole lca ngels.Co m 41 so 27 30• 40,00 0• Immanuel Lutheran 10,00(). School 95 95 67 K·8 Jefferson City Cole www.immanuellcms.org 10 S370,000 27 10-29 39,999 Early Kids Un li mited 65 65 childhood-6th efferson Cltv Cole 5 $88.000 3.936 Kim School 35 10 PreK·l st Jefferson C1ty Cole 3 s 100,000 3.241 Kin~om Christian 10,000- Academy 142 80 PreK ·8th Fulton Callaway Kcasalnts.Org 12 S260,000 16 10·29 39,999 Liberty Acade my & 10,00(). Chlldllevmnt 20 20 PreK-12 Auxvasse Callaway 3 so 6 2·9 39,999 Lighthouse 10,00(). PreparatOrY Academy 70 70 Grades 6·12 Jefferson City Cole 12 so 3 10-29 39,999 ~1o reau Mon tessori School 55 34 PreK·3rd Jefferson City Cole Our Lady or Snows 10,00(). School 91 98 98 PreK·8th Eugene Cole 13 so 27 10·29 39.999 Saint Francis Xavier ElemScho 185 183 182 K-8 I Jefferson City Cole www.cathollcmarria~etitlon.org 13.534 Saint Peter's School 450 11 8 11 8 PreK·Bth Fulton Callaway 17 $500.000 10,829 South Callaway Academy 886 886 PreK-12 Mokane Callaway 2 so 10 2·9 2.50·9,999 St Joseph Cathedral School 537 467 410 PreK·Sth !Jefferson City Cole IS S!.200,000 27 2·9 8,685 St Martin Elementary 10,00(). School 214 225 220 K·B !Jefferson City Cole Sa1nt·Martin.Us 17 so 25 10.29 39,999 St Pecer lnterpartsh Catholic School 450 454 60 K-8 I Jefferson City Cole Early StStanlslaus childhood · Elementary Schl 242 247 243 8th grade ilefferson City Cole Ststan.Net 40 Sl.OOO.OOO 23 30• 40,000 • 10,00(). St Thomas School 92 101 74 l'reK·Oth St Thomas Cole 8 $320,000 23 2·9 39.999 (' Trinity Lutheran School 323 323 319 K·B Jefferson City Cole TlcsJc.Org 27 $910.000 20 10.29 40,000• Total 4,036 4,293 66 $8,718,000 © BU S IN ESS IN F O R M ATI O N SERVICES , LLC Page 37 A LL R IGHTS R ESERVED Jefferson City School District Figure 41 on p. 39 takes the Cole County parcel data for new struc-~ tures built since 1986 and compares that with the actual enrollment in the school district. (The Callaway County Assessor did not provide data that would permit the same type of comparison.) As shown in the figure, there is no statistical relationship between enrollment growth or decreases and the number of new homes built or sold. In other districts we have seen a lag of about two years from when there is a large increase in homes built to sold before that is reflected in additional enrollment. In many cases when there are new homes built, there are sever- al years where the enrollment decreases. Consider in 1995, there were 239 new homes built, with 136 new students added that year and 111 in 1997. But since 1986, an average of 248 homes have been built in Cole County and enrollment has increased an average of 36 students. © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 38 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 41 . Enrollment projection based on houses built, 1986-2009. Count of Ratio of District Enrollment Year SF New District Enrollment Increase to Home Built Houses Enrollment Increase New Houses Built Built 1986 379 7 ,611 1987 348 7,726 115 0 .330 1988 344 7 ,866 140 0.407 1989 248 7,984 118 0.476 1990 229 8 ,206 222 0.969 1991 206 8 ,205 -1 -0.005 1992 272 8 ,270 65 0 .239 1993 246 8,492 222 0 .902 1994 328 8 ,543 51 0 .155 1995 239 8 ,679 136 0 .569 1996 273 8 ,695 16 0 .059 1997 266 8 ,806 111 0.417 1998 264 8 ,620 -186 -0.705 1999 276 8 ,395 -225 -0.815 2000 274 8,476 81 0.296 2001 207 8 ,355 -121 -0.585 2002 236 8 ,338 -17 -0.072 2003 212 8 ,228 -110 -0.519 2004 269 8 ,210 -18 -0.067 2005 297 8 ,268 58 0 .195 2006 231 8 ,235 -33 -0.143 2007 120 8 ,196 -39 -0.325 2008 116 8 ,311 115 0 .991 2009 66 8,438 127 1 .924 Average 248 36 0 .204 © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 39 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED jjifferson City School District The Jefferson C it y Schoo l District is comprised of 57 block groups from the 2000 U.S. Cens us, wh ich are s hown in Figure 42 on p. 41. A key e lement of this stud y was to use a Geographi c Infom1a ti o n System (GIS) computer program to link Census block group s to the entire district. (The district boundary was determined by using a G IS file, set w ith longitude and latitude coordinates by the U .S. Geo log ical Survey office.) A Census block group is a n area determined by the Censu s Bureau based on common factors. Cens us block g roups provide the fou ndation fo r this s tud y s ince this is the m ost compre hensive data avail ab le on population and the demographics between the 2000 Censu s and the 20 I 0 Census. For the 20 10 Census, blocks and block groups will b e a foundat ion of the data, and th e lin es may not follow the same patterns as the 2000 Census map lines. Throughout thi s report, Census data is referenced. The Jefferson C ity Schoo l Di stri ct is a s ub set of Cole and Callaway counti es; the Cen sus data w ill be unique to the schoo l district. Simply because an "average" sta- tistical factor appl ies to the State of M issouri, or even one of these two counties, one cannot in fer that th e same factor wo uld apply to the Jefferson City School District. The colors on Figure 42, on the opposite page, represent Census blocks. It is the fundamental demographic element based on the most comprehensive data available today. ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 40 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Figure 42. Jefferson City School District 2000 Census blocks. ©BUSINESS IN FORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 41 Demographics Study -+-' v ·;:: -+-' VI 0 0 0 .!: v l/'1 VI -+-' Q.) Q.) .... -+-' l/'1 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District We have repeated the maps on the se two pages late r in thi s s tudy as we ll as th ose on pp . 44-45 because they he! p p rovide a picture of w hat de - mographic changes are pre dicted to occur during the next five years. Ea ch prov ides a pi ece of t he puzzle and togeth e r, they fi ll in many details. Figure 43 , below, s hows the p redicted c hange in average hou sehold s ize fo r the sc hoo l d is tr ict in 20 14. As yo u can see, across t he entire distr ict the average ho useho ld s ize is pre dicted to d ec rease, except fo r the s mall ye l- low area in the cente r of th e di strict. Us ually fewer m e mb e rs in a ho usehold m ea n fewer students e nro ll ed in a schoo l di s tric t. Figure 43 . Percent change i n ave rage household s ize , 2009 -2014 . Jefferson City School District Estimated Percent Change i n Average Household Size from 2009 to 2014 o•o-::=.5=-1 -=3 Miles -< -1.0 % --0 .?%--0 .6% -0 .3 %--0 .1 % St r eets (il Sc hool Distri ct --0.9%--o .B% --o.s %--o-4 % o.o% + -Highwa ys © BUSINESS I NFORMATION SERVICES , LLC Page 42 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study For most areas in the sch ool district, the numbe r of child-bearing age females w ill decrease. There are a few pocke ts of double-digit in c reases- and those are in a reas w h ere the population is fairl y d e nse. Thi s factor points to hi g her e nro llment from th ose areas, but w he n co up led w ith th e previous map s how in g lower h o use ho ld s izes, t he o nl y way enro llm e nt would increase wo uld be for m ore c hild-bearin g age wom e n to move to the di strict. Figure 44. Percent change of childbearing-age women, 2009-2014. Jefferson City School District Estimated Percent Change in Child-Bearing Female Population from 2009 to 2014 ....,...,( 0 .. 0~.5 =-1 -=2=3 Miles ~ -<0.0% -0 .0 %-2-4 % 2.5%-4·9% -7·5%-9 ·9 % 5.0%-7-4% -1o.o% + © BUSINESS IN F ORMATION S ERVIC ES , LLC Page 43 Streets -Hig hways GJ Sc hool Di stri ct ALL RIGHTS R E SERVED Je.fferson City School District Most of the district is s howin g o nl y small increases or even decreas- es in the number of childre n und er five year s old. The g reen a rea in the west -centra l a rea has a couple of a reas of do ubl e -di g it growth predicted. Figure 45. Percentage of change in children under five years old, 2009-2014. Jefferson City School District Estimated Percent Change i n Children Under Age 5 from 2009 to 2014 -==--=== Miles 0 0.5 1 3 -<0.0% .o.o%-2.4 % 2.5 %-4.9% -7.5 %-9.9 % Street s GJ School Di strict 5.0%-7-4 % -10.0% + -Highways © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES , LLC Page 44 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Finally, Figure 46, below, points to higher enrollment in the district. The demographic data predicts that many of the block group areas wi ll see increases in the number of schoo l-age chi ld ren , with th e greatest increase coming where most of the students presently li ve , and by double-digit in- crease. We believe t hat when th ese series of maps are a nalyzed in whole, thi s points to the probability of a s li ght enro llm ent increase. Figure 46. Percent change of school age children, 2009-2014. Jefferson City School District Estimated Percent Change in School-Age Children from 2009 to 2014 -<0.0% 2.5 %-4.9% -7.5 %-9 .9% Streets GJ Schoo l District -o.o%-2-4 % s.o% -7.4 % -10.0% + -Highways © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES , LLC Page 45 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED J~{ferson City School District Figure 47. Aerial photo of Belair Elementary School. Fi gure 48. Racial demogr aphic percentages o f Bela ir Elementary, 2006-2009 . %Change %Change Race 2006 % 2007 % 2008 % 2009 % Ch ange Rac i a l Ov e rall 2006-2009 Ma keup Enrollment 2006-2009 2006-2009 Asian 6 1.20% 11 2 .20% 9 1.70% 16 3.20% 10 166.67% 166.67% Black 58 11 .30% 63 12.80% 79 15.20% 72 14.20% 14 25.66% 24 .14% Hispanic 17 3.30% 18 3.60% 19 3.70% 26 5.10% 9 54.55% 52.94% Indi an 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 .00% 0 0.0 0% 0 #D IV/0! #DIV/0! Wh ite 434 84.30% 402 81 .40% 4 12 79.40% 392 77.50% -42 -8.07 % -9 .68% Figure 49 . Admi nist rative s t atistics at Belair Elementary, 2006-2009. Actual %Change Statistic 2006 2007 2008 2009 Change 2006-2009 2006-2009 Students per admin istrator 515 494 519 506 -9 -1.75% Students per teacher 21 20 19 19 -2 -9 .52% Average adm inistrator sa lary $72,180 $75 ,880 $80 ,280 $83 ,120 $10 ,940 15.16% Average teac her salary $42 ,423 $43 ,360 $44 ,464 $47 ,105 $4 ,682 11.04 % Avera ge teacher experience (in yea rs) 15 .1 14.2 12 .5 13.4 -1.7 -11 .26% Percent of teachers with a master's degree 50 .80% 39.80% 36 .90% 53.60 % ~- 0.00% ©BUSINESS INFORMATI ON SERVICES, LLC Page 46 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 50 . Number and percent of free and reduced lunches at Belair Elementary, 2006-2009. Change in Change in Free & Reduced 2006 2007 2008 2009 Overall Overall Lunches Enrollment Percentage 2006-2009 2006-2009 Number 119 112 131 127 9 Percent 25.60% 25.10% 27.40% 28.30% 7 .17% 10.55 % Belair E lem e ntary Sc hoo l re sembl es man y of th e other school s' proj ecti o n pattern s, m od e ra te and stead y g rowth under t he hi g h-g r owth model , fl a t enro llm e nt s under the medi um m odel, and declines w ith the low m ode l. This school is we d ged between th e te rrito ri a ll y -larger North and Pi oneer T rail E lementary Schoo l attendance zo nes (as well as ha v in g We st E le me ntary School as it s southern neighbor), and these s tud e nts w ill attend Thomas Jefferson Middl e Sc hool after fifth g rade . This zone is pa rt of the hi ghly populated and mode rately growin g 65 1 09 Z l P code. Figure 51 . Belair Elementary projections, based on low-, medium-and high-end estimates, 2011-2021. Belair E.S. (K-5) Enrollment 2011-2021 650 627 600 .... 1:: <II E 550 0 539 .... z ~H ig h w -c <II -Medi um .... u 500 <II '0' ..,._Low .... 0.. 450 ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 47 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je__(ferson City School District Figure 52 . Aerial photo of Callaway Hills Elementary School. Fi gure 53. Racial demographic percentages of Callaway Hills Elementary, 2006-2009. %Change %Change Race 2006 % 2007 % 2008 % 2009 % Change Raci al Overall 2006-2009 Makeup Enrollment 2006-2009 2006-2009 As ian 5 1.90% 3 1.00% 2 0.80% 2 0.80% -3 -57 .89 % -60.00 % B lack 13 4.90% 19 6.60% 14 5.70% 13 5.20% 0 6.12% 0.00% Hispanic 11 4.10% 15 5.20% 10 4.10% 12 4.80% 1 17.07% 9.09% Indian 1 0.40% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% -1 -100.00% -100 .00% W hite 236 88.70% 252 87 .20% 220 89.40% 225 89.30% -1 1 0.68% -4 .66% Fi gure 54. Administrative statistics at Callaway Hills Elementary , 2006-2009 . Actual %Change Statistic 2006 2007 2008 2009 Change 2006-2009 2006-2009 Students per administrator 266 289 246 252 -14 -5.26% Students per teacher 15 15 14 14 -1 -6.67% A-.erage adm ini strator salary $72 ,070 $75,770 $80,17 0 $83,120 $1 1,050 15.33% A -.era g e teac her s alary $46 ,746 $45,259 $50,010 $47 ,0 19 $27 3 0 .58% A-.erage t eacher experience (i n years) 22.4 16.9 19.7 14.4 -8.0 -35.7 1% P e rce nt of teachers with a master's degree 56 .80% 61.20% 70.20% 60.80% 0 .00% © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 48 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study I Figure 55 . Number and percent of free and reduced lunches at Callaway Hills Elementary, 2006-2009. Change in Change in Free & Reduced 2006 2007 2008 2009 Overall Overall Lunches Enrollment Percentage 2006-2009 2006-2009 Number 146 168 149 146 0 Percent 60 .60% 66 .10% 66 .70% 65.50% 0.00% 8.09% Callaway Hill s Ele mentary School , located in the fa r northeastern portion of the di s tri ct and compri sing about half of th e small and slowly growin g Z IP code 65043 , s ho uld experie nce stead y enro llment rates t hat will either s l ightly rise under high growth, remain very constant under m ed ium g rowth, or possibly eve n decline if th e district experiences low growth. T hi s sc hoo l 's s tud e nts move o n to Lewis a nd C lark M iddl e School after fifth grade . r' Figure 56. Callaway Hills Elementary projections, based on low-, medium-and high-end estimates, 2011- \.. 2021 . Callaway Hills E.S. (K-5) Enrollment 2011-2021 400 ~ ; 350 .§ 0 ... z w "'C Q.l ~ u Q.l ·e-300 c.. 250 291 293 290 © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 49 287 384 330 -+-Hi gh -Med i um ~Low I .... 284 280 278 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je.fferson City School District Figure 57. Aerial photo of Cedar Hill Element ary School. Figure 58. Racial demographi c percentages of Cedar Hill Elementary, 2006-2009. %Cha nge %Change Race 2006 % 2007 % 2008 % 2009 % Change Racial Ove rall 2006-2009 Ma k e up Enrollment 2006-2009 2006-2009 Asian 2 0 .60% 1 0 .30% 5 1.40% 5 1.40% 3 133.33% 150.00% Black 45 12.60% 56 15.80% 59 16.50% 49 13.40% 4 6 .35% 8 .89% Hispanic 8 2.20% 5 1.43% 5 1.40% 5 1.40% -3 -36.36% -37.50% Indian 2 0 .60% 1 0 .30% 0 0 .00% 0 0.00% -2 -100.00% -100.00% White 301 84.10% 292 82.30% 288 80.70% 308 83.90% 7 -0 .24% 2 .33% I Figure 59. Administrative s t atistics at Cedar Hill Elementary, 2006-2009. Actual %Change Statistic 2006 2007 2008 2009 Change 2006-2009 2006-2009 Students per administrator 358 355 357 367 9 2.51% Students per teacher 15 15 16 16 1 6.67% A-.era ge administrator salary $63 ,300 $67 ,000 $72 ,000 $74,950 $11,650 18.40% A-.e rage teacher salary $40 ,749 $44,233 $47 ,7 00 $48 ,982 $8,233 20.20 % A-.erage teacher experience (i n years) 12 .8 12.3 13.8 13.6 0.8 6.25% Percent of teachers with a master's degree 4870.00% 53 .90% 55.90% 70.80% 0.00% © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 5 0 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (' Demographics Study Figure 60. Number and percent of free and reduced lunches at Cedar Hill E lementary, 2006-2009. Change in Change in Free & Reduced 2006 2007 2008 2009 Overall Overall Lunches Enrollment Percentage 2006-2009 2006-2009 Number 104 91 107 109 5 Percent 31 .30 % 27 .90 % 31 .40 % 31 .90% 4.83% 1.92 % Cedar Hill Elementary School serves th e south-central po rtion of the di strict but i s the western-most el e- mentary school that sends its students to Lewi s and C lark Middle School. T hi s sc hool 's projections re - sem ble Callaway Hill s' e xcept t hat the spread between the high-and low-growth models is much wider, and the numbers of s tudents overall a re much lar ger. Th is sc hool is in t he la rge and moderately growing Z IP code 65109 , though only th e hi g h-growth model projects a ny fut ure g rowth of this schoo l. Fi gure 61. Cedar Hill Elementary projections, based on low-and high-end estimates , 2011-2021. Cedar Hill E.S. {K-5) Enrollment 2011-2021 500 c 450 Ql E 0 .... z w "C Ql t Ql ·e-400 c.. 381 38 1 © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 51 487 ~H ig h 4 18 -Medium .,.._Low ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je.fferson City School District Figure 62 . Aerial photo of Clarence Lawson Elementary School. Figure 63. Racial demographic percentages of Clarence Lawson Elementary, 2006-2009. I %Change %Change Race 2006-% 2007-% 2008-% 2009-% Change Racial Overall 07 08 09 10 2006-2009 Makeup Enrollment 2006-2009 2006-2009 Asian 11 2.80% 7 1.70% 7 1.70% 12 2.70 % 1 -3.57% 9 .09% Black 102 25.60% 111 26.30% 115 27.20% 119 26 .50% 17 3.52% 16.67% Hispan ic 17 4.30% 17 4 .00% 15 3.50% 23 5.10% 6 18.60% 35.29% Indian 2 0.50% 2 0 .5 0 % 2 0.50% 3 0.70% 1 4 0.00% 50.0 0% Wh ite 266 66.80% 285 67.50 % 284 67.10% 292 65.00% 26 -2.69% 9 .77% Figure 64. Administrative statistics at Clarence Lawson Elementary, 2006-2009. I Actual %Change Statistic 2006 2007 2008 2009 Change 2006-2009 2006-2009 Students per administrator 398 422 423 449 5 1 12.8 1% Students per t eacher 11 11 12 12 1 9 .09% Average administrator salary $76 ,300 $80,000 $84,400 $87,350 $11 ,050 14.48% Average teacher salary $42 ,611 $44,154 $46,479 $48,612 $6,001 14.08% Average teacher experien c e (in years ) 12.4 11.5 12 .1 13.2 0.8 6.45% Percent of teachers wit h a master's degree 58.10% 57 .30% 57.90% 76.20% 0 .00% ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 52 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 65. Number and percent of free and reduced lunches at Clarence Lawson Elementary, 2006-2009 . Change in Change in Free & Reduced 2006-2007-2008-09 2009-10 Overall Ove rall Lunches 07 08 Enrollm e nt Percentage 2006 -2009 2006-2009 Number 166 161 155 172.5 7 .0 Percent 43 .50 % 4 3 .00 % 41 .10% 43 .00% 4.23% -1 .15% Lawso n E le m e nta r y Schoo l is in t he s o u t hwes te rn portio n of t he di s tri ct w ith in the 65 109 ZI P c ode and is ve ry close to T ho m as Jefferso n M idd le School, to whic h its s t ud e nts tran sfe r after fifth g ra de. Lawson s hows o n e ofthe health iest growth p ro fi le s up to 20 14 w he n t he fami liar flatten in g-o u t of the m e d iu m g rowth proj ection a r ri ves; in 2 00 9-10 Lawson t ied fo r sec o nd -l a rgest e le m e n ta ry sch ool (wi t h Belai r) w it h 42 1 s tu d e n ts, a nd l ike B e la i r, very health y K in d e rgarte n e nro llm e nts the pa st fou r years, in t he 8 0s and even a s hi g h as 90, a re d ri v ing t he s tro ng g rowth projectio ns between 20 1 0 and 2 0 14. Fi gure 66. Clarence La wso n Elementary projectio ns, based on low-, medium-and high-end estimates , 2011 -2021 . .... s:::: Ql 6 50 6 00 E 550 0 ..... z w "C Ql ~ 500 Ql ·c; ..... 0. 450 400 Lawson E.S. (K-5) Enrollment 2011-2021 60 5 425 © B U SINE SS I N F ORMAT ION SERVICES , LLC Page 53 ALL R IGHTS RESERVED Je.,fferson City School District Figure 67. Aerial phot o of East Elementary School. Figure 68. Racial demographic percentages of East Elementary, 2006-2009. %Change %Change Ra ce 2 00 6 % 2007 % 20 08 % 20 0 9 % Change Racial Ove ra ll 2006-2009 Makeup En rollment 2006-2009 2006-2009 Asian 4 1.50% 3 1.10% 3 1.10% 2 0.70% -2 -53 .33% -5 0.00% Black 135 52 .10% 135 50.20% 143 52.40% 165 55 .00% 30 5 .57% 22.22% His panic 10 3.90% 12 4.50% 9 3.30% 9 3.00 % -1 -23.08% -10.00% Indian 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 .00% 1 0.30 % 1 #DIV/0 ! #DIV/0 ! White 110 42.50% 119 44.20% 118 43.20% 123 41 .00% 13 -3.53% 11 .82% Figure 69. Admi nistrative statistics at East Elementary, 2006-2009 . Actual %Change Statistic 2006 2007 2008 2009 Change 2006-2009 2006-2009 Students per adm inistrato r 259 269 237 300 4 1 15.83% Student s per teac her 13 13 12 13 0 0.00% A\erage administrator salary $63 ,300 $67 ,000 $72 ,000 $77 ,000 $13 ,700 21 .64% A\erage teache r salary $44 ,263 $45,625 $48,218 $49 ,913 $5,650 12.76% A\erage t eac he r ex pe ri enc e (in y ears) 15.6 15.2 15.7 16.0 0.4 2.56% Percent of teac hers with a master's deg ree 49.80% 47.40% 54.30% 53 .10% ~ 0.00% © BUSINESS INFORMA TION SERVICES, LLC Page 54 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (' Demographics Study Figure 70. Number and percent of free and reduced lunches at East Elementary, 2006-2009. Change in Change in Free & Reduced 2006 2007 2008 2009 Overall Overall Lunches Enrollment Percentage 2006-2009 2006-2009 Number 196 197 207 221 25 Percent 80 .60% 77 .50% 78 .80 % 80 .60 % 12.79 % 0.00% East E lementary Schoo l 's g rowth patterns revea l moderate projected g rowth for all models until2013. T h e rapid pace between 20 10 a nd 20 13 is due to t he s tructure of current e nrollments , with just 45 fift h g raders last year but over 60 stud e nt s each in Kind e rgarten and fi rst and second g rades . After 2013 -1 4, nearly a ll projected e nro llment is based sole ly o n estim ates of in coming Kindergarteners as opposed to known numbe rs of students in a pa rti cu lar cohort, and so the projections then strongl y resembl e the previ - ous two schools' pattern of hi g h growth predicting real growth, m ed iu m growth holding enrollments stead y, and low growth actually indicating decl in es. East E le m e ntary School is "landlocked" between North, with Moreau H eights and Thor pe Go rdon E le mentary Schools a long the southern bank of the Mis- souri River. Figure 71. East Elementary projections, based on low-, medium-and high-end estimates, 2011-2021 . East E.S. {K-5} Enrollment 2011-2021 -c Q) E 0 .... 550 500 ~ 450 "C Q) t Q) ·a .... 0.. 400 350 376 391 390 365 © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 55 516 -+-High -Medium ~L ow 386 382 378 374 - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je.:{[erson City School District Figure 72. Aer ial photo of Moreau Heights Elementary School. Figure 73. Racial demographic percentages of Moreau Heights Elementary, 2006-2009. %Change %Chang e Race 2006 % 2007 % 2008 % 2009 % Change Ra c ia l Ove rall 200 6-2009 Make up En rollme nt 2006-2009 2006-2009 As i an 4 1.00% 4 1.10% 3 0.80 % 2 0 .50% -2 -50.00% -5 0.00% Black 6 1 16.00% 65 17.20% 58 15.10% 64 16.80% 3 5.00% 4 .92 % Hispanic 9 2.40% 15 4 .00% 12 3.10% 8 2.10% -1 -1 2.50% -11 .11 % Ind ia n 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0 .00 % 0 0.00% 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0 1 White 308 80 .60% 295 77 .80% 3 12 81.00% 306 80 .50% -2 -0 .12% -0 .65 % Figure 74. Administrative statistics at Moreau Heights Elementary, 2006-2009. I Actual %Change Statisti c 2006 2007 2008 2009 Change 2006-2009 2006-2009 St udents per adm inistrat or 382 379 385 380 -2 -0 .52 % St ud ents per teacher 16 15 15 15 -1 -6.25% Average adm inistrator salary $72 ,180 $75,880 $8 0,280 $84,230 $12,05 0 16.69% Average tea cher s alary $43 ,657 $46 ,007 $46 ,68 3 $4 8,742 $5,085 11.65% Ave rage teac he r expe ri ence (in years) 17.0 17.1 15.1 16.1 -0 .9 -5 .29 % Pe rce nt of t eache rs with a mas ter's deg ree 40.60% 39 .70% 39 .7 0% 49 .30% -0.00% ©B U S IN E SS INFO RMA TION SERVIC E S, LLC P age 56 ALL RI G H T S R ES E R V ED (' Demographics Study Figure 75. Number and percent of free and reduced lunches at Moreau Heights Elementary, 2006-2009. Change in Change in Free & Reduced 2006 2007 2008 2009 Overall Overall Lunches Enrollment Percentage 2006-2009 2006-2009 Numbe r 125 133 139 155 30 Percent 3 5.60% 37.50% 39.3 0 % 4 3 .50% 23 .60% 2 2 .19% Mo reau He ig hts E le m e ntary School 's f utu re enro ll me n t is t he most unu s ua l of the sc hools. T hi s is due to a s ituatio n in w hich, d uring t he 20 10-20 II schoo l year, the sc hool is l ikely to have fo urth a nd fi fth g rades hous ing over 70 studen ts each, second and t h ird grades each cons isting of 60 or so students , and t he Kindergarten and fi rst grade c lasses each compr isi ng 50 to 55 s tudents. W it h t his inverted enro ll men t pattern, thi s sc hool w ill d ecl ine in s ize under c ur rent bounda ry a rrangemen ts and g rowth pattern s, and only after 20 14 w hen a ll projections are based o n estimates of incom in g K inde r gartene rs w ill th e fa mili a r pattern emerge of high growth equaling real growth , medi um growth h o ld ing e nro llments s tead y, and low growth in d icatin g dec lines. Moreau He ig h ts E lementary Schoo l serves t he so utheastern portion of t he di stric t in the 65 10 1 Z IP code, w h ich has a relati ve ly h ig h number (ar ound 400) of a nn ual bi rt h s but whi ch is n ot exp e r ie nc in g a n y growth in the birt h totals. T h is sch ool 's studen ts move o n to Lewis a nd C lark M id d le School after fi ft h g ra d e . Figure 76. Moreau Heights Elementary projections, based on low-, medium-and high-end estimates, 2011- 2021 . Moreau Heights E.S. {K-5) Enrollment 2011-2021 450 ~----------------------------------------------------44.~ 380 -Hi g h -M e dium -Low 345 -I 338 337 -334 331 327 324 -320 300 © BUS IN ESS INFORMATION S E RVIC ES , LLC Page 5 7 ALL RIG H T S R E S E RVE D Je.,fferson City School District Figure 77. Aerial photo of North Elementary School . Figure 78. Racial demographi c percentages of North Elementary, 2006-2009. %Change %Change Race 2006 % 2007 % 2008 % 2009 % Change Racial Overall 2006-2009 Makeup Enrollment 2006-2009 2006-2009 A s i an 0 0 .00 % 1 0.30% 1 0.30 % 2 0.60% 2 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Black 18 5 .00% 15 4 .00% 19 5.30% 17 4.70% -1 -6.00 % -5.56% Hispanic 6 1.70% 4 1.10% 3 0.80% 2 0.60% -4 -64 .71% -66 .67% Indian 1 0 .30% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 0.60% 1 100.00% 100.00 % Whit e 334 93.00% 353 94 .60% 333 93.50% 338 93.60 % 4 0.65% 1.20 % Figure 79. Administrative statistics at North Elementary, 2006-2009. Actual %Change Statistic 2006 2007 2008 2009 Change 2006-2009 2006-2009 Stude nts per administrator 359 373 356 361 2 0.56% Students per teacher 16 17 15 16 0 0.00% A-..erage admin istra tor salary $67,130 $70 ,8 30 $75,630 $78 ,850 $1 1,720 17.46% A-..erage teacher salary $44,414 $46 ,523 $46,035 $48,609 $4,195 9.45% A-..e ra ge teac her experience (in years) 16 .0 16.1 13.2 14.4 -1 .6 -10 .00 % Pe rcent of teachers w ith a master's degree 57.00 % 58.00 % 43.70 % 62.40% 0 .00% © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES , LLC Pa ge 58 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 80 . Number and percent of free and reduced lunches at North Elementary, 2006-2009. Change in Change in Free & Reduced 2006 2007 2008 2009 Overall Overall Lunches Enrollment Percentage 2006-2009 2006-2009 Number 105 127 106 125 20 Percent 32.40% 35.90 % 32.90% 37 .10% 19.05% 14.51 % North E lemen tary Sch oo l serves t h e n orth-centra l po rt io n of t he distri ct, like Call away H ill s is p art of the 6504 3 Z IP code experi e nc in g s l ig ht growth but with lower overall po pulatio n den s iti es a nd b irth t o ta ls , and is likely to decl ine so m ewh a t fo r th e next few year s d ue to s li g h t ly lower proj ections of in comi ng K in dergarteners compared to c urrent enro ll me nts in K-5 a t the sc hoo l. T hese stud e nts a tte nd Lewis a nd C lark M iddle Schoo l afte r fift h g rade. Figure 81. North Elementary projections, based on low-, medium -and high-end estimates, 2011-2021. -s:: C1l 600 550 E 500 0 .... z w "C C1l ~ 4 5 0 ·o .... 0.. 400 350 North E.S. (K -5} Enrollment 2011-2021 575 379 4 9 5 ~Hi g h -M e d ium -+-Lo w © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERV ICES, LLC Page 59 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Mferson City School District Figure 82. Aerial photo of South Elementary. Figure 83. Racial demographic percentages of South Elementary, 2006-2009. %Cha nge %Change Race 2006 % 2007 % 2008 % 2009 % Change Racia l Ove rall 2006-2009 Make up Enrollme nt 2006-2009 2006-2009 As ian 3 1.20% 6 2.40% 11 4.30% 11 4.80% 8 300.00% 266.67% Black 123 48.20% 138 56.10% 126 49.40% 91 39.70% -32 -17.63% -26.02% Hispanic 4 1.60% 4 1.60% 9 3.50% 7 3.1 0% 3 93.75% 75.00% Indian 4 1.60% 1 0.40% 1 0.40% 1 0.40% -3 -75.00% -75.00% White 121 47.50 % 97 39.40% 108 42.40% 119 52 .00 % -2 9.47% -1.65% Figure 84. Administrative statistics at South Elementary, 2006-2009. I Actual %Change Statistic 2006 2007 2008 2009 Change 2006-2009 2006-2009 Students per administrator 2 55 246 2 55 229 -26 -10 .20% Students pe r teac her 13 13 14 12 -1 -7.69% Ave ra ge admini st ra t or sa lary $67,130 $70,830 $75,630 $78 ,580 $11,450 17.06% A ~.e rag e teacher sa lary $42 ,841 $4 3 ,87 5 $47 ,874 $49,052 $6,211 14.50 % A~.erage teacher expe ri ence (in years) 16.5 15.3 15.9 15.5 -1.0 -6 .06% Perce nt of tea c hers with a master's deg ree 44.20% 42.40% 4 2.30% 4 7 .20% ~ 0 .00% ©BUS INESS INF ORMA TION SERVICES, LLC P a g e 6 0 ALL R I GHTS R E S ERV E D Demographics Study Figure 85. Number and percent of free and reduced lunches at South Elementary, 2006-2009. Change in Change in Free & Reduced 2006 2007 2008 2009 Overall Overall Lunches Enrollment Percentage 2006-2009 2006-2009 Number 181 172 151 169 -12 Percent 73.40% 74.40% 68.60% 74.40% -6.65% 1.36% South Elementary Sch ool is centrally-located in the di stri c t and is one of t hree "landl ocked" schools th at are complete ly s urrounde d by other e le m enta r y school s , East and West E le m e ntary School s be in g the ot hers. Thi s school , with a limited, mostl y d evelop ed t e rri to ry ne ar the ur ban core, has few pros pects fo r s ignificant growth as evidenced b y th e proj ections bel ow. Figure 86. South Elementary projections, based on low-, medium-and high-end estimates, 2011-2021. 550 500 ... ;; 450 .E 0 .... ~ 400 "tl Ql tJ Ql ·e-350 0.. 300 250 South E.S. (K-5) Enrollment 2011-2021 502 431 ~H igh -M e dium ~L ow © BUSINESS IN F ORMATION S ERVI CES, LLC Page 61 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED J~fferson City School District Figure 88. Racial demographic percentages of Pioneer Trail Elementary , 2009. I Race 2009 % Asian 7 li 1.34 % Black 47 8.99% Hispanic 28 5 .35 % Indian 2 0 .38% White 439 83 .94% Figure 89 . Administrative statistics at Pioneer Trail Elementary, 2009. Statisti c 2009 Students per administrator 523 Students per teacher 22 A\erage adm inistrator s alary $82 ,100 A \erage teac her sala ry $40,88 4 A\erage teacher experience (in years ) 8.2 Percent of teachers with a master's degree 45 .20 % © BUSINESS INFORMATION S ERVICES , LLC Page 62 ALL R I GHTS RESERVED (' Demographics Study Figure 90 . Number and percent of free and reduced lunches at Pioneer Trail Elementary, 2009. Free & Reduced 2009 Lunches Number 222 Percent 42.40% P io neer Tr a il E le me nta ry School i s the largest e le me nt a ry schoo l in t he d istri ct w it h 523 stud e nts duri ng 2009-20 I 0. T hi s sc hool re pl aced So ut hwest Elementa ry Sc hoo l t h is past year and the an a lysts, provided w it h no informat io n to t he cont rary, have ass um ed t hat Pioneer Tra il's attendance boundary is identical to So uthwest's. He nce, So u thwest's enro ll m e nt numbers for the 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008 -09 were used t o inform th e projections for Pioneer Trai l Elementary Schoo l. Dominating the large and growing western p ortion ofthe d istrict, primaril y in t he 65109 Z IP code but inc l uding portions ofthe smaller 65023 and 65053 codes o n its western edge, t hi s sc hoo l s ho uld contin ue to experience growth under all model s for at least a few year s due to a huge Kindergarte n e nrollment of 1 00 in 2009-10 compared to Kindergarten class sizes below 50 i n the school's previ o us i ncarnation as Southwest Elementary. We assume the new bui lding probably was designed w it h c lassrooms to accommodate more Kindergarteners than Southwest Elementary coul d. Figure 91. Pioneer Trail Elementary projecti ons, based on low-, medium-and high-end estimates, 2011- 2021. Pioneer Trail E.S. {K-5) Enrollment 2011-2021 950 9 0 0 850 ... c: C1l 800 ..5 0 ... z w 750 "C C1l ... u ·5-700 ... c.. © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 63 907 780 -H ig h ~Med i u m A L L RIGHTS RESERVED Je._fferson City School District Figure 92. Aerial photo o f Thorpe J. Gordon Elementary School. I Figure 93. Racial demographic percentages of Thorpe J. Gordon Elementary, 2006-2009. %Change %Change Race 2006 % 2007 % 2008 % 2009 % Change Raci al Overall 2006-2009 Makeup Enrollment 2006-2009 2006-2009 As ian 0 0.00% 2 0.70% 2 0.80% 5 1.80% 3 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Black 136 47.10% 137 49.30% 112 42.40% 121 44.00% -15 -6.58% -11.03% Hispanic 8 2.80% 7 2.50% 5 1.90% 6 2.20% -2 -21 .43% -25.00% Indian 0 0 .00% 0 0.00% 1 0.40% 5 1.80% 5 #DIV/01 #DIV/01 White 145 50 .20% 132 47 .50% 144 54 .50 % 138 50.20% -7 0.00% -4.83% Figure 94. Administrative statistics at Thorpe J. Gordon Elementary, 2006-2009. Actual %Change Statistic 2006 2007 2008 2009 Change 2006 -2009 2006-2009 St udents per administrator 289 278 264 275 -14 -4.84% Students per tea cher 14 15 15 14 0 0.00% Average adm i nistrator sal ary $69,300 $69,900 $66 ,60 0 $72 ,000 $2 ,700 3.90% Average te acher salary $41,919 $44,628 $46 ,698 $46 ,648 $4,729 11.28% Average teacher experience (in years) 13.5 14.9 14.5 13.1 -0.4 -2 .96% Percent of teachers with a mas ter's degree 52.60% 58 .10% 61 .30% 52 .90% ~ 0.00% © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 64 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 95. Number and percent of free and reduced lunches at Thorpe J. Gordon Elementary, 2006-2009. Change in Change in Free & Reduced 2006 2007 2008 2009 Overall Overall Lunches Enrollment Percentage 2006-2009 2006-2009 Number 167 160 167 169 3 Percent 66.90% 62.80% 66.20% 65.80% 1.62% -1 .64% Thorpe Gordon E lementary School is the on ly e lementary sc hool whose students are di v ided after fifth grade, those l iving no11h of Stadium Drive m ovi ng on to Thomas Jefferson Middl e School after fifth grade whi le those livin g south of Stadium Dri ve s ubsequent ly attending Lewis and C lark Middle School. Geocoded student addresses revealed tha t about 57 perce nt of s tudents a tt e nding Thorpe Gordon in 2 009- 10 li ved south of the dividing l in e and thus w ill eventua ll y move on to Lewi s and C lark; a 57%-43% split was maintained across the 2010-2020 proj ectio n hori zon lacking any other information to the con trary, thoug h in reality s tudent population pattern s and thus the actual s plit w ill like ly s hift somewha t over the coming decade. Some w idely var y in g e nrollm e nt number s acro ss K-5 during the 2009-10 school year produce ri ses a nd dips in enro llment projection s through 20 14 , after w hich the famil iar fanning-out pat- tern observed at al l the other e lementary schoo ls occurs h e re. This fan pattern represents the stati stical smoothin g of what w ill undoubtedl y be un even actua l enro llm e nts occurring from year to year but which the proj ection m e th odology cannot pre di c t. Figure 96. Thorpe J . Gordon Elementary projections, based on low-, medium-and high-end estimates, 2011-2021. ..... t:: Cll ..5 0 ... 450 400 as 350 "'0 Cll ..... u Cll 'o ... c.. 300 250 Thorpe Gordon E.S. {K-5} Enrollment 2011-2021 4 28 368 -High -M e dium -+-Low 273 © BUSIN ESS IN FORMATI ON SERVICES , LLC Page 65 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED .Jjjferson Ci ty School District Figure 98. Racial demographic percentages of West Elementary, 2006-2009. %Change %Change Race 2006 % 2007 % 2008 % 2009 % Change Racial Overall 2006-2009 Makeup Enrollment 2006-2009 2006-2009 As ian 9 2.10% 8 2.00% 12 3.10% 7 1.90% -2 -9.52% -22.22% Black 65 15.40% 50 12.60% 45 11.70% 45 12.00% -20 -22.08% -30.77% Hispanic 14 3.30% 18 4.50% 24 6.30% 20 5.30 % 6 60.61 % 42.86% Indian 0 0 .00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! W hite 334 79.10% 32 1 80.90 % 303 78 .90% 302 80.70% -32 2 .02% -9.58% Figure 99. Administrative statistics at West Elementary, 2006-2009. Actual %Change Statistic 2006 2007 2008 2009 Change 2006-2009 2006-2009 Students per administrator 422 397 3843 374 -48 -11 .37% Students per teacher 18 17 16 16 -2 -11.11% A~.erage admin is t rato r s alary $73,375 $77,075 $81,475 $84,425 $11 ,050 15 .06% A~.erage t eac her sa lary $44,650 $46,326 $49 ,186 $52 ,475 $7,825 17.53% A~.erage teacher ex perien ce (in years ) 17.1 16.8 16.7 18.8 1.7 9.94% Perc ent of teachers w ith a master's degree 72.00% 76.30% 80.50% 7 8.40% 0.00% ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 66 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 100. Number and percent of free and reduced lunches at West Elementary, 2006-2009 . Change in Change in Free & Reduced 2006 2007 2008 2009 Overall Overall Lunches Enrollment Percentage 2006-2009 2006-2009 Number 179 175 175 18 1 2 Percent 4 7 .00% 49.90% 49.20% 53 .50% 1.40% 13 .83% West E lementary School , located in th e centra l portion of the distri ct between the Missouri River and South E lementary School , is nonetheless projected to experi ence healthy growth for a w hil e due primarily to it having more Kindergarteners and fi rst g raders than a ny other g rades. Once a ll students are "hypothetical " (i.e. based so lely on Kindergarten projections) after 2014, the fami li ar fan pattern once agam e merges. Figure 101 . West Elementary projections, based on low-, medium-and high-end estimates, 2011-2021 . ... c Q) 600 550 E 500 0 ... z w "C Q) ... ~ 450 ·o ... a. 400 350 West E.S. {K-5} Enrollment 2011-2021 561 -Low 372 © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVIC ES, LLC Page 67 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Figure 103. Racial demographic percentages of Thomas Jefferson Middle School, 2006-2009. %Change %Change Race 2006 % 2007 % 2008 % 2009 % Change Racial Overall 2000.2009 Makeup Enrollment 2006-2009 2006-2009 Asian 24 2.50% 26 2 .80% 19 2.00% 17 1.80% -7 -28.00% -29.17% Black 183 19.10% 198 21 .00% 203 21 .60% 217 22.40% 34 17.28% 18.58% Hispanic 19 2.00% 22 2.30% 32 3.40% 38 3.90% 19 95.00% 100.00% Indian 1 0.10% 1 0.10% 1 0.10 % 1 0.10% 0 0.00% 0.00% W hite 732 76 .30% 695 73.80% 684 7 2.80% 694 71 .80% -38 -5.90% --5.19% Figure 104. Administrative statistics at Thomas Jefferson Middle School, 2006-2009. Actua l %Change Statistic 2006 2007 2008 2009 Change 2006-2009 2006-2009 St udents pe r administrator 320 314 313 322 2 0.63% Student s per teacher 15 15 15 15 0 0.00% A\erage administrato r s alary $68,0 51 $73,01 7 $78,500 $83,183 $15,132 22 .24% A\erage teac her salary $42 ,936 $44,92 1 $47,50 9 $49,585 $6 ,649 15.49% A\erage teacher ex perience (in years) 15.2 15.7 15.8 14.9 -0 .3 -1 .97% Percent of teachers with a master's degree 45.10% 46.50% 44.40% 53 .30% 0.00% © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 68 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 105. Number and percent of free and reduced lunches at Thomas Jefferson Middle School, 2006- 2009. Change in Change in Free & Reduced 2006 2007 2008 2009 Overall Overall Lunches Enrollment Percentage 2006-2009 2006-2009 Number 387 414 406 428 4 1 Percent 40.30% 43.60% 43.70% 44.80% 10.59% 11 .17% T homas J efferson Middl e Schoo l, s ituated in the fas te r gro w in g weste rn ha lf of the di stri ct, s hows much strong er prospects fo r future g rowth. T he s m a ll gr o up of curre nt fo urth-s ix th g rade rs s impl y ho ld s thi s school 's e nro llm ent pr oj ectio ns fl at fo r a few years be fore takin g off a t a he a lth y r ate for a ll p rojecti o n mo d e ls . Ho wever , vari o u s co m b in ati o n s of un even g rowth across thi s sch oo l's fee de r e le m e ntary sc hoo ls (Be la ir, Lawson, P ioneer T ra il , South , West, and th e no rth e rn po rtion of T horpe Gord on E le m e ntary Schools) r es ult in a predicted fl atte ning out afte r 2 017 for a ll m o d els . T h is rep rese nts the c o mbinat ion of student s w ho a re currentl y Kind e rgar teners, Pre-K, a nd yo un ger , a nd is m o re l ike ly an artifact of t he pro- j ecti o n m e th od o logy than a ny real indica ti o n th at th e re a re c urre ntl y fewer 3 -, 4-, an d 5-year-o ld s in th e western ha lf of th e di strict a t thi s time . Figure 106 . Thomas Jefferson Middle School projections, based on low-, medium-and high-end esti- mates, 2011-2021. T. Jefferson M.S. (6-8) Enrollment 2011-2021 1500 143 3 1400 1300 ..... s:::: Ql .§ 0 1200 .... z ~H i g h w '"C Ql 1100 -Medi u m ..... u Ql '0' .... -.-Lo w 0.. 1000 904 900 904 895 888 9 03 800 © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC P a ge 69 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Figure 107. Aerial photo of Lewis and Clark Middle School. Figure 108. Racial demographic percentages of Lewis and Clark Middle School, 2006-2009 . %Change %Change Race 2006 % 2007 % 2008 % 2009 % Change Racial Overall 2006-200 9 Makeup Enrollmen t 2006-2009 2006-2009 Asian 13 1.40% 10 1.10% 7 0.80% 7 0.70% -6 -50.00% -46.15% Black 187 19.50% 177 19.70% 175 19.40% 190 20.10% 3 3.08% 1.60% Hispanic 29 3.00% 27 3 .00% 27 3 .00% 24 2.50% -5 -16.67% -17.24% Indian 1 0.1 Oo/o 2 0.20% 2 0 .20% 4 0.40% 3 300.00% 300.0 0% W hite 728 76.00% 684 76.00% 693 76.70% 721 76.20% -7 0.26% -0.96% Figure 10 9. Administrative statistics at Lewis and Clark Middle School, 2006-2009. Actual %Change Statistic 2006 2007 2008 2009 Change 2006-2009 2006-2009 Students per adm inistrat or 3 19 30 0 301 3 15 -4 -1.25% Students pe r teac her 15 14 14 15 0 0 .00% A-.erage ad min istrato r sa lary $63,623 $76 ,190 $81 ,500 $85,133 $2 1,5 10 33.8 1% A-.erag e teacher salary $43,790 $45 ,098 $4 7,154 $50 ,044 $6,2 54 14.28% A-.erage teacher experience (i n years) 15.5 15 .0 15 .6 16 .0 0.5 3.23% Pe rcent of teachers wit h a mas ter's deg ree 39.50% 42 .00% 39.60% 48.20% ·" 0.00% © BUSINESS IN FO RMATION S E RVIC ES , L LC Page 70 ALL RI G HTS R E SERVE D Demographics Study Figure 110. Number and percent of free and reduced lunches at Lewis and Clark Middle School, 2006-2009. Change in Change in Free & Reduced 2006 2007 2008 2009 Overall Overall Lunches Enrollment Percentage 2006-2009 2006-2009 Number 396 383 404 422 26 Percent 42.00% 42 .20% 45.00% 44.90% 6 .57% 6 .90% Lewis and C lark Midd le School , which serves the eastern half of the d istri ct and draws its students fro m Callaway Hill s , Cedar Hill , East, Moreau He ights, North , and the so uthern portion of T ho rpe Gordon El - ementary Schoo ls, shows s l im prospects for futu re growth even under the high -g rowth model. This por- tion of town is large ly co m p ri sed of Z IP codes 65043 and 6510 1. Z IP code 65 101 is the second-largest in terms of b irth s, but there has been little growth in births in that area. Although Z I P code 65043 ha s en- joye d steady growth, th is Z IP code is much s ma ll er with on ly around 130 b irths per year , in contrast to the western half of the d i strict, w h ic h has the largest ZIP code (651 09 , with about 500 births per year) that a lso happens to be growing at a healthy rate with respect to bi rths. Like the high school, but three years sooner, small er c u rrent numbers of fourth, fift h, and s ixth graders in the di s trict point to a short term d ip in a few ye ars. Beyond this approac hin g drop, however, th is school shou ld have a s lowly un du- lating, b ut ove ra ll flat , enro llme nt pattern fo r the nex t decade . r' Figure 111 . Lewis and Cla rk Middle School projections, based on low-, medium-and high-end estimates, \ 2011-2021 . +J s:: 1200 1150 1100 Cll .E 1050 e z w "C Cll +J .... Cll ·a .... Q. 1000 950 900 850 800 Lewis & Clark M.S. {6-8) Enrollment 2011-2021 121 -Medium Low 837 837 © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 71 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Mferson City School District Figure 112. Aerial photo of Simonsen Nint h Grade Center. Figure 113. Racial demogra phic percentages of Simonsen Ninth Grade Center, 2006-2009 . %Cha n ge %Cha nge Race 2006 % 2007 % 2008 % 2009 % Change Ra cial Ove rall 2006-2009 Makeup Enrollm e n t 2006-2009 2006-2009 As i an 14 2.00% 12 1.70% 12 1.80% 11 1.80% -3 -10.00% -21.43% Bl ac k 108 15.60% 129 18.70% 128 18.70% 11 7 18.80% 9 20.51 % 8.33% Hi spa nic 18 2.60% 17 2 .50% 15 2.20% 17 2.70% -1 3.85% -5.56% indian 1 0.10% 3 0 .40% 2 0.30% 0 0.00% -1 -1 00.00% -100.00% White 551 79.60% 528 76.60% 527 n .OO% 479 76.80% -72 -3.52% -1 3.07% I F igure 114. Administrative statistics at Simonsen Ninth Grade Center, 2006-2009. I Actual %Change Statistic 2006 2007 2008 2 009 Ch a nge 2006 -2009 2006 -2009 Students per ad ministrator 346 345 342 312 -34 -9 .83% Student s per teacher 16 16 16 14 -2 -1 2.50 % Average admin ist rato r sa la ry $66,750 $71 ,350 $77,250 $8 1,250 $14,5 00 2 1.72 % Average t eac he r salary $43,992 $47 ,103 $48,718 $52,490 $8,498 19 .32% Ave rage teacher experie nce (i n years) 14 .1 15.2 14.8 14.4 0.3 2 .13% Percent of teachers with a master's degree 44.80% 46.80% 48 .30% 60 .50% ~ u 0 .00% ©B U S IN E S S I NFORM ATION SERVIC ES, L L C P a ge 72 A LL RIG H TS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 115. Number and percent of free and reduced lunches at Simonsen Ninth Grade Center, 2006-2009. Change in Free & Reduced 2006 2007 2008 2009 Over all Lunches Enrollment 2006-2009 Number 246 278 294 253 7 Percent 36.00% 40.30% 43.80% 41.60% 2 .97% Analysis of future enro llme nt fo r S imonsen Cente r is incl uded in the Jeffer- son City Hi g h School o n p p . 74-76 © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES , LLC P age 73 Change in Overall Percentage 2006-2009 15.56% ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District I Figure 116. Aerial photo of Jefferson City High School. I Figure 117. Racial demographic percentages of Jefferson City Hi gh School, 2006 -2009 . %Ch a n ge %Ch a nge Ra ce 2006 % 2007 % 2008 % 2009 % Cha nge Ra c i a l Overall 2006-2009 M a ke up Enrollme nt 2006-2009 2006-2009 Asian 22 1.20% 30 1.60% 35 1.80% 38 1.90% 16 58.33% 72.73% Black 270 14.40% 270 14.10% 298 15.40% 337 17.00% 67 18.06% 24 .81% Hisp anic 36 1 .90% 47 2.50% 47 2.50% 53 2.70% 17 42.11% 47.22% Indian 7 0.40% 5 0.30% 8 0.40% 4 0.20% -3 -50.00% -42.86% White 1 ,535 82.10% 1,561 81 .60% 1 ,545 81.00% 1 ,548 78.20% 13 -4 .75% 0.85% Figure 118. Graduation numbers and percentages of J efferson City High School by race, 2006-2009. The number of dropouts comes from the 9th-12th grade cohort. Cha nge %Cha nge %Ch a nge Racial Ove r a ll Race 2 006 % 2 007 % 2008 % 2009 % 2 006-M a keup Enrollmen1 2 009 200 6-2009 2 006-2009 Asian Graduates 7 1.43% 7 1 .22 % 6 1 .03% 1 7 2.86% 10 100.34% 142.86% B lack Graduates 73 14.90 % 72 12.59% 86 14.75% 6 9 11 .62% -4 -22.0 3% -5.48% His pa n ic Graduates 6 1.22% 10 1 .75% 10 1 .72% 1 8 3.03% 12 147.47% 2 00.00% Indian Graduates 0 0 .00% 0 0.00% 4 0.69% 1 0 .17% 1 #DIV/01 #DIV/01 W hite Graduates 404 82.45% 483 84.44% 477 81 .82% 489 82.32% 85 -0.1 5% 21.04% Tot a l Graduates 490 100.00% 572 100.00% 583 100.00% 594 100.00% 104 21.22% Asian Dropouts 1 0.78% 0 0 .00% 1 0.73% 0 0.00% -1 -100.00% -100.00% B lack Dropouts 29 22.48% 31 28.44% 28 20.44% 36 28.13% 7 25.11% 24.14% H ispanic Dropouts 3 2.33% 4 3.67% 4 2.92% 5 3.91% 2 67.97% 66.67% Indi an Dropouts 1 0 .78% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% -1 -100.00% -100.00% White Dropouts 95 73.64% 74 67.89% 104 75.91 % 87 67.97% -8 -7.71 % -8.42% Total Dropouts 129 100.00% 109 100.00% 137 100.00% 128 100.00% -1 -0.78% © BUSINE S S IN FOR MAT ION S E RVICES, L L C Page 74 ALL RIG H TS R ESERVE D Demographics Study I Figure 119. Administrative statistics at Jefferson City High School, 2006-2009. I (' Actual %Change Statistic 2006 2007 2008 2009 Change 2006-2009 2006-2009 St udents per adm inistrator 468 383 322 330 -138 -29.49% Student s per teacher 17 17 17 18 1 5.88% A\erage adm ini strator salary $80 ,186 $76 ,847 $79 ,350 $84 ,083 $3 ,897 4.86% A\erage teacher salary $47,163 $48 ,787 $51 ,190 $54 ,524 $7 ,36 1 15.61% A\erage teacher experience (in years) 18.1 17.5 17.7 17.4 -0.7 -3.87% Percent of teachers with a master's degree 48 .30% 49 .90% 46 .50% 56.80% 0.00% Figure 120. Disciplinary incidents at Jefferson City High School, 2006-2009. Actual % Incident 2006 2007 2008 2009 Change Change 2006-2006- 2009 2009 Alcohol 2 3 0 9 7 250.00% Drugs 8 13 15 34 26 225.00% Tobacco 0 0 0 1 -a 1 #DIV/0! C' Violence 6 0 0 0 -6 -200.00% Weapons 6 0 3 3 -3 -1 50.00% Other 3 32 31 56 53 1666.67% Total 2 5 48 49 103 78 2 12 .00% Figure 121 . Number and percent of free and reduced lunches at Jefferson City High School, 2006-2009. Change in Change in Free & Reduced 2006 2007 2008 2009 Overall Overall Lunches Enrollment Percentage 2006-2009 2006-2009 Number 439 418 504 548 109 Percent 24.90% 23.90% 2 8 .2 0% 30.8 0 % 24 .76% 2 3.6 9 % Figure 122. ACT statistics at Jefferson City High School, 2005-2008. (2006 and 2009 data not available.) I %Change ACT 2005 2006 2007 2008 2005- 2008 r A\.erage composit e score 22 .2 NA 22 .0 22 .0 -0 .90% Percent taking test 7 1.90% NA 66.80 % 65 .90% -8.34% ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 75 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson Cif)l School District Jefferson City High School (Figure 123) shows an approaching, temporary ~ drop in enrollment due to currently smaller classes of fourth, fifth, and sixth graders compared to the cohorts ahead of and behind them. Once they move through the system, larger numbers of younger elementary students (K-3) will come through and send the high school on an upward trajectory regard- less of the growth projection (high, medium, or low). Another puzzling aspect of the district's peak enrollment in the 1990s is the fairly constant size of each successive grade cohort. The aver- age size for each "class" was averaged across the entire 13-year career of that class (K-12). The Class of 1999 (graduating seniors in 1999) averaged 687 students per year in their class, the Class of2004 averaged 639 students per year, and the class of2009 averaged 648 students per year. © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 76 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 123. Projected enrollment at the Jefferson City High School, 201 1-2021 . ..... c: 3100 30 00 2900 E 28oo 0 ... ~ 2700 "'0 C1l tJ ·5-26 00 ... 0.. 2500 2400 2300 Jeff erso n Ci ty H.S. (9 -12) Enrollm e nt 2011-2 0 21 3041 -+-High 2613 2618 -M ediu m 2613 -e-Low ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 77 ALL R I GHTS RESERVED J~fferson Cif)l School District Summary The 20 1 0 Census is wrapping up, but until detailed results are published in 2011 or 2012, making population or enrollment pro- jections will be a challenge. Between censuses, various second- ary data purveyors are marginally useful as they face the same limitations we do-trying to guess at population growth given a few indirect methods and annual Census sampling. Given the lack of reliable, updated population data at a fine enough geo- graphic scale for the purposes of a school district enrollment pro- jection project, it seems more useful to carefully examine the ac- tual data at hand to predict the near-future enrollment prospects in the district. In this vein, the projections reported here are the result of a detailed statistical examination of the district's actual enroll- ment figures dating back to 1986, a secondary analysis of birth trends in the district's six ZIP codes (65023, 65043, 65053, 65080, 65101, and 651 09) dating back to 1990, and a modest ef-~ fort to study home building permits and population patterns in block group level data. However, parental choices concerning home or private schooling will always confound precise esti- mates linked to a school district's population of school-aged mi- nors. This district has proven very challenging to model due to its unusual enrollment patterns. From 1986-87 onwards the dis- trict's K-12 student body (we entirely omit erratic Pre-K enroll- ments from our analysis) grew at a very consistent rate, adding an average of 99 students per year and peaking at 8, 700 students in 1997-98. District enrollment then quickly plunged and hov- ered at 8,200 students for nearly a decade before rebounding over the last two years (2008-10), adding over 100 more students in 2008-09, and another 200 student in 2009-10. Hence, the task is to predict whether the recent upswing is a new trend mirroring the previous growth era of the district or just a two-year blip that ) will not be sustained. Unfortunately, demographic statistics for ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 78 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study the district provide ve ry little guidance in this district, as we ex- plain below. Births across t he six ZIP cod es have been extreme ly steady (Figure 124), with very modest upward trends in two of the three largest ZIP codes (65 1 09 a nd 65043) r esulting in an overall di strict-wide ri se in births from the mid-900s during the 1990s to the mid-I ,OOOs during th e 2 000s, topp in g 1, 100 for the first time in 2008. The rapid rises in enrollme nt between 1986 and 1997 were not reflected in the birth data , but neither were the sudd en decreases in enr o llm e nt that occurred primarily be- tween 1997 and 2004, when enro llm ent more or less stabili zed around 8,200 stu dents. Other, untraceable causes apparently were at work. T hus , there are several trends in ev idence that mu st be weighed again st one another: lin ear trends based on births as well as the district 's overall enrol lm ent since about 2000, cubic and quadratic g ro wth models that account for the 24-year span of enrollment data, a nd cubic and quadratic growth mode ls Births 6 00 500 400 300 ----- 200 --------------------- 100 =--::::: = a 0 -65109 -65101 -65():l3 -6502 3 -65053 -6 5 080 ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 79 Figure 124. Births in the Jefferson City School District. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED J~fferson Cif)l School District based primarily on the enrollment of the district since about ~ 2000. The linear growth model takes the functional form Y-b0+b 1t, the quadratic growth model takes the functional form Y=b0+b 1t+b 2t 2, and the cubic model takes the functional form Y b0+b 1t+b2t 2+b3e, where the b values are intercept (b 0) and slope coefficients (b 1) and tis a sequence (time) indicator, with values of b; differing between the models. Although in-migration of potential students and parents surely accounts for a notable share of this district's growth, it is possible to use the coefficients for the enrollment models to make predictions out to any future time period t if one assumes current trends will continue. However, none of the models perform as well statistically as those we have seen for other districts in the state. The choice of models for the projections we propose below are based on both the strength of the statistical analysis and professional expe- rience studying the various influences on enrollment (births, mi-~ gration, home schooling, and drop-out rates) with a goal of pro- ducing reasonable enrollment projections for the next decade. Analysis of enrollments since 1986 produces some decent- ly-fitting statistical trends that, unfortunately, produce wildly di- vergent enrollment outcomes for the 2020-21 school year. A cu- bic model for the period 1986-87 through 2009-10 produces the best statistical fit of any model, with an r2 of 0.859, but this mod- el produces an unlikely enrollment above 11,000 by the fall of 2020. If the district continues to follow growth the pattern wit- nessed over the last two or three years this total could be ob- tained, but we do not think this will occur. The quadratic model also has a reasonably good fit (r2 =0.656) but it takes enrollment projections to the other extreme, bottoming out in 2020-21 at fewer than 6,600 students. Hence, we do not feel that analysis of the entire 24-year range of available data is informative in mak- ing projections for the next decade (Figure 125). ~ © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 80 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study 0 s 10 15 Sequence Enroll Instead , a variety of projections are made based on trends over the past eleven years. The year 1999-2000 ended two straight years of dramatic declines-a 182 student drop from 1997-98 to 1998-99, and then a 222 student drop from 1998-99 to 1999-2000. After 2000, the trend was still mostly downwards but with a few gains, then there was a fairl y large gain of 118 students for the 2008-09 year and a very notabl e 200 student increase for the 2009-2010 year. Linear, quadratic, and cubic models are subsequently fit to this shorter time period in an ef- fort to obtain better projections, though still with mixed results. Trend Analysis A review of the statistical analysis is given next to prov ide background to the choice and calibration of model s used to make the enrollment projections. All projection data and trend charts are provided in a spreadsheet that was submitted along with this document. Both the cubic (r2 =0. 788) and quadratic (r2 =0 .6 71) ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 81 Figure 125. Enrollment trends, 1986-2009. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED J~fferson City School District Figure 126. Enrollment trends, 1998-2009. models shown in Figu re 126 below fit the last eleven years' trend fairly closely, though the vertical line at sequence 12 (representing the 2010-11 schoo l year) already reveals a fairly large divergence in estimates for the coming school year -8,577 stud ents for the c ubi c m odel and 8,459 students for the quadratic model. These models continu e to diverge over the com in g dec- a d e, and ultimately the cubic model predicts ove r 14,000 students by 2020. This estimate is beyond an y rea li stic possibility, but the quadratic model predicts 9 ,96 1 students by 2020, a reasonab le number if the district contin ues to gain between 100 and 200 stu- dents per year as it has the past two years (as well as in the early 1990s ). T h e e leven-year quadratic model thus serves as our high growth model. \ 0 \ -. -0 0 0 ' 0 ' 0 ' 'o ' -.. .... 0 Sequ ence Enroll /0 0 I I I . I I . d I I . 1/ ,. / 12 The linear model shown in Figure 126 represents the lower boundary on our projection e nve lop e. Though the fit is extremely © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 82 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study poor, if the past t wo years prove to be a n anoma ly, then the trend prior to that (flat enrollment) t akes precedence as the lo wer bound on our estimates. This model s hows a decrease of one or two stude nts every year for the next decade, w ith an estimated enrollment of 8,416 by the 2 020-2 1 sc hool year. Fi nally, a b asic trend a n a lys is is used to produce a middl e - of-the-envelope projection if the district contin ues to experience growth , but at a lower rate of about 60 s tudents per year. This is nota bl y lower than the quadratic growth of, on average, 160 stu- d ents per year. This trend is th e m e dium g rowth model a nd es- sentia ll y spl it s the hi g h and lo w growth model s. A quadratic model b ased on the period 1999-2009 thus produces the hi ghest e nroll ment proj ection s for the di strict (Quadratic _11 ), a linear growth model of 60 st ud e nts p e r year for the same period produces int e rm edi ate projections (Trend_60), an d a flat lin ear model provides a low-end set of projections (L in ear_ll ). T h ese three mode ls are s hown in Figure 127. Given a Jack of a reliabl e, b lock-l evel, age-and gender- specific dataset for t he di stri ct for 2010, th e next step is to make District Enrollment 2010-2020 12000 11628 11500 11 000 .. c ~ 10500 0 ... ~ 10000 "0 21 v -Medium ·~ 9500 ... 0.. 9000 8543 8500 ----881 5 8856 8897 8937 8543 8569 8000 © BU S IN ESS IN FORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 83 Figure 127. K-12 Enroll- ment projections to 2020. ALL RIGHTS R ESERVED J~fferson City School District grade-l evel estimates across the district based on th e three afore- mentioned models. A standard co hort progression model provides an estim ate of each year's b asic enrollment assuming steady-state trends , w hich are then a dju sted by the varying growth rates r ep - resented by the High, Medi um , and Low growth models ev in ced above . Finall y, K -8 enroll ments must be divided across various schools in their current configurations. Current proportions of stud ents at each of the e leven e lementary schoo ls at any given grade level K -5 and both of the middl e schools ' grades 6-8 are assumed to remain in effect, lacking any other sound source of information except the last fou r years ' enroll ment figures. A lthough ninth g raders are actua ll y located at the Simonsen Cen- te r, they are simp ly treated as hi g h schoo l students in ninth grade to reduce the need for an extra table and graph in the spreadsheet for that grade. Likewise, an y students in grades 9-12 who are ac- tually atte nding classes at the Jefferson City Academic Center (JCAC) are allocated to their respective grades at the h igh school. Model Details The s tati stica l info rmation , espec ia ll y goodness-of-fit statistics (r2, F), the in t e rc e pt b0 (cons tant) a nd s lope b 1 and b2 (Case Se que nce) p a rameters, th e s tandard e rrors , and th e functiona l fo rms of th e mo dels used, a re prov ided be lo w . High growth profil e Model s ummary Ad justed R Std . Error of th e R R Square Square E s tim ate .819 .671 .589 50 .1 30 ANOVA Sum of Squa res d f Mea n Sq ua re F Reg ressio n 40974 .162 2 20487 .081 8 .152 Res idual 20 10 4.0 20 8 25 1 3.002 Total 6 1078 .182 10 Coefficients Sta ndardized U nstan dard ized Coeffici e nts C oeffi cien ts B Std . Error Be ta b ,: Ca se Seq uen ce -84 .127 21 .086 -3.57 0 b 2: Case Seque nce ·· 2 6 .892 1.7 1 1 3 .603 b o: (Constant) 8476.473 55 .053 Si g. .012 t Sig . -3 .990 .004 4 .02 7 .004 15 3.969 .000 ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 84 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study The Hi g h g rowth profile i s based on a qu a d ra ti c mode l fit to e nro llme nt trend s in the K -1 2 g rades of the d istrict for the period 1999 to 2009. Thi s mode l is s hown in Figure 12 6 w ith the ·-· pa tt e rn. The funct iona l for m of thi s m odel is : Medium a nd Low g ro w th profiles The Medium and Low g rowth pro fil es are based o n a linear mod e l fit to enrollment trends in the K-12 grades of the di s trict for the period 2003 to 2009 (Medium) and 1999 to 2009 (Low). The Low mode l is s hown in Fig- ure 126 wi th the -pattern. The fu nct io nal form of bo th mo d e ls is: The Medium mode l b0 parameter is 8443 and th e b 1 parameter is 60 . Model Summary Pdjusted R Std. Error of th e R RSquare Square Estimate .061 .004 -.107 82.229 Sum of SQuares df l'lean Square Regres sion 224.082 1 224 .082 Res idual 60854.100 9 6761.567 Total 6 1078.182 10 Coefficients Standa rd122d Unstandardi22d Coefficients Coe fficients B Std. Error Beta The Low mode l info 1m ation i s g iven be low: F Sig . .033 860 t Sig. b,: Cas e Sequence -1.427 7.840 -.061 -.182 860 bo: (Constant) 8297.291 53.175 156.038 000 © BUSI NESS I NFORMATI ON SERVICES , LLC Page 85 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je._([erson City School District Figure 128. Enrollment projections by grade in the Jefferson City School District, 201 1-2021. ©BUSINESS IN F O R M A TION S ERVI CES , LLC Page 86 ALL RIG HTS R ESERVE D Demographics Study Figure 129. Enrollment projections by building in the Jefferson City School District, 2011-2021. Enrollment Projections for the Jefferson City School District, 2011-2021, by Buildi ng Actual Di st rict 201G-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 202G-21 Hiah 8543 8651 8807 9000 9232 9506 9827 10196 10617 11093 11628 Medium 8543 8610 8732 8869 9022 9192 9377 9579 9797 10031 10280 Low 8543 8569 8610 8651 8692 8733 8774 8815 8856 8897 8937 Hhrh School 201G-11 2011-12 20U-13 2013-14 2014-15 20 15-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 202G-21 High 2613 2618 2582 2566 2481 2449 2472 2522 2616 2813 3041 Me d iu m 2613 2609 2568 2545 2450 2404 2408 2433 24 94 2646 2807 low 2613 2600 2541 2498 2386 2320 2301 2301 2333 2446 2553 l&CM.S. 201G-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 202G-21 Hi Rh 947 863 850 860 900 912 946 981 1040 1079 1121 Medi um 947 860 846 853 889 895 922 943 980 992 1004 low 947 857 837 837 866 864 881 888 906 895 885 TJM.S. 201G-11 2011-12 20U-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 202G-21 High 904 901 929 912 939 991 1115 1237 1329 1379 1433 Medium 904 898 924 904 928 973 1086 1188 1253 1267 1284 Low 904 895 914 888 903 939 1037 1119 1157 1144 1132 Callawav 201G-11 2011-U 20U-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2 016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 202G-21 High 261 28 1 297 306 315 328 337 347 358 370 384 Medium 261 279 294 300 305 313 315 319 322 326 330 Low 261 277 289 291 291 293 290 287 284 280 278 Cedar 201G-11 2011-U 20U-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 202G-21 High 381 382 391 396 404 416 427 440 454 470 4 8 7 Medium 381 380 386 388 391 397 400 405 409 414 4 18 Lo w 381 3 78 380 376 373 372 367 364 360 356 352 East 201G-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 202G-21 High 365 376 388 409 423 441 453 467 482 498 516 Medium 365 374 384 401 410 421 425 429 434 439 444 Low 365 372 377 389 391 395 390 386 382 378 374 Moreau 201G-11 2011-U 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2 015-16 2016-17 2017 -18 2018-19 2019-20 202G-21 High 381 377 364 363 365 378 388 400 413 427 443 Medi um 381 375 360 355 353 361 364 368 372 376 380 Low 381 372 354 345 337 338 334 331 327 324 320 North 201G-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2 017-18 2018-19 2019-20 202G-21 High 379 397 419 432 459 492 505 520 537 555 575 Medium 379 395 414 423 444 469 473 478 483 489 495 Lo w 379 392 407 410 424 440 434 430 425 421 41 6 Thorpe Gordo 201G-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2 017-18 2018-19 2 019-20 202 G-21 High 273 293 303 325 349 365 375 387 399 413 428 Medi u m 273 29 2 299 319 338 349 352 356 359 363 368 Low 273 290 294 309 322 327 323 320 316 313 310 Belair 201G-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017 -18 2018-19 2019-20 202G-21 High 4 16 446 470 485 510 536 550 567 585 605 627 Medium 4 16 443 465 475 493 511 516 521 527 533 539 low 4 16 440 4 57 460 471 479 473 468 463 458 454 Lawson 201G-11 2011-U 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 202G-21 High 4 25 450 465 483 509 517 531 547 565 584 605 Me di u m 4 25 448 460 473 493 493 497 503 508 514 520 Low 425 445 4 52 459 471 462 457 452 447 442 438 Pione e r 201G-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 202G-21 High 555 581 620 668 726 775 796 820 847 875 907 Mediu m 555 578 61 2 654 702 740 746 754 762 771 780 Low 555 574 601 634 670 693 685 678 671 663 657 South 201G-11 2011-U 20U-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 202G-21 High 271 298 327 365 395 429 440 454 468 484 502 Mediu m 271 296 323 357 383 409 412 417 421 426 431 Low 271 294 317 346 365 383 379 375 371 367 363 West 201G-11 2011-U 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 202G-21 High 372 388 402 432 458 479 492 507 523 541 561 Medium 372 386 397 423 444 457 461 466 471 476 482 Low 372 383 39 1 410 423 428 423 419 414 410 406 © BUSINESS IN FORMATION S E RV IC E S , LLC Page 87 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED lffferson City School District Figure 130 . Age of household heads in the Jefferson City School District. A s pa rt of o ur de mo gra phi c a na ly sis, o ur firm p urc ha s ed a spec ia l set of data for a ll the ho useho ld s in Ca ll away a nd Co le co unti es w ith in the Z IP codes of th e Jefferso n C ity Schoo l Di stri ct. T h is d ata incl ud ed m ore t han Age Range 18-24 25-29 30.34 35-39 4Q.44 45-49 50.54 55-59 6Q.64 65-69 70.74 Age of Household Head Hous eholds of Stude nts Ho useholds Ove ra ll Number Percentage Number Pe rc entage 34 1.0% 459 1.5% 206 5.9% 1,500 5.0% 384 11.0% 1,900 6.3% 632 18.2% 2,998 10.0% 72 1 20.7% 3,147 10.5% 660 19.0% 3,516 11 .7% 411 11 .8% 3,599 12.0% 211 6.1 % 3,494 11.6% 102 2.9% 2,884 9.6% 76 2.2% 2,576 8.6% 25 0.7% 1,269 4.2% 25 0 di ffe re nt da ta para m eters fo r th e 29,994 h ou se- ho lds . Bes ides th e h o u s e ho ld he ad's fu ll name, birthd ate, address, and phone number, t he d at a in- cluded mo re than 100 ho bb ies thi s hou seho ld had , inco m e levels , le n gth of resid e nce , t ype of ho use a nd deta ils abo ut it, v oter ten de nc ies, religio n and ma ny oth e r fac to rs . ln s hort, thi s was the most com prehe n- s ive data set a vail a b le fo r a na lysis . T hi s is c o mpi led tlu-o ugh s ur veys, produ ct r e bat es, te l ephone s urveys, cros s-refe re nce s pec ia lty ma il lists a nd data aggrega- ti o n based o n product p urchases. Next , we par sed t he d istr ic t's roster d ata so we co uld link th e st ude nt records to thi s co mpre h e n - .----------------------------. sive d e m ogra phic d ata set. By hand 75+ 15 0.4% 2,652 8.8% Gra n d Tota l JAn 100.0% 29,994 100.0o/c Figure 131 . Income ranges for households o f students and overall. we d id o ne mo re pa ss-tlu-o ug h to link Income Ranges for Households Households of Students Households Overall Income Ranges Number Percentage Number Percentage Un der $20 ,000 705 20.3 % 9,120 30 .4 % $ 20 ,00 0-$29,999 23 5 6 .8% 2,640 8.8% $ 30,000 -$39 ,999 2 13 6 .1% 2,54 1 8.5% $ 40,000 -$49 ,999 303 8.7% 3,158 10.5% $ 50 ,000-$59,999 43 5 12 .5% 3,357 11.2% $ 60,000-$69 ,999 522 15.0% 3,157 10.5% $ 70 ,000-$79,999 36 8 10.6% 2,179 7.3% $ 80,000 -$89 ,999 224 6.4% 1,345 4.5% $ 90 ,000 -$99 ,999 126 3.6% 747 2.5% $100 ,000 -$124 ,999 18 5 5.3% 995 3.3% $125 ,000 -$1 49,999 103 3.0% 415 1.4% $150 ,000 -$174 ,999 26 0.7% 170 0.6% $17 5,000-$199 ,999 16 0.5% 82 0.3% $20 0,000 -$24 9,999 12 0.3% 45 0.2% $250 ,000 -$299 ,999 3 0.1 % 24 0.1% $300 ,000 -$399 ,999 1 0.0% 9 0.0% $400 ,000 -$499 ,999 0 0.0% 3 0.0% $500 ,000 Pl us 0 0.0% 7 0.0% Grand Total 3 ,477 100.0% 29,994 100.0°~ ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES , LLC Page 88 th e stude nt ros te r re cord s to the m a in de m ogra p h ic fi le. If t he add re ss d id not matc h t he name o f th e guardian, we d id not code it as a m atch to the main d e mograp hi c data. In s h o rt, we ha d to be c o nfi den t it was as co mp le te a matc h as possib le befo r e we select- ed t he recor ds for fu rthe r a na ly si s. For a ll of the se tab les, t he blue secti o n s hows the ana lys is of st udent ro ster re cord s I inke d to th e dem o - g raph ic da ta. T h e pink sectio n wo ul d be a ll the h o u se ho ld s in t he school d istric t overal l. T he side-by-s ide co m- pari son can s how w het he r the student ho useho ld s a re hi gh e r o r lower th an the di s t ri ct resid e nt s a s a w ho le . In F ig u re 130 , w e see th a t on e out of ft ve s t uden t h ouse ho ld hea ds is between 40 and 4 4 years o ld a nd th e d istric t population overall is only o ne o ut 10 . O ne woul d expec t the ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study childbea ring years to be in a hi g he r pro p o rti o n fo r t he sc h oo l fa mili es than the dis trict o ve ra ll. Income ran ges, in F ig ure 13 1, are fa irly clo se . N earl y one out of three h o useh o ld s in the di s tri c t have in co me be low $20,00 0 a year but it is o nl y o ne out of fi ve am o n g schoo l fa mili es. Wh e n th e previ- ous tabl e and t hi s o n e a re ana lyzed t ogeth er, th e ass umpti o n co uld be ma de that the lower incomes a re m o re p revale nt fo r th e o ld e r reside nts . We fo und th a t 88.5 p e rc e nt of th e Jeff e rson C ity schoo l di s tri c t families li ve in s in g le -fa mil y h o u ses, and two -thi rd s li kely own th e ir h o use s. Thi s is a hi g he r p e rc e n tage th a n a m on g the res id e nt s in th e di s tri ct overall. We s ho uld p o int o ut tha t d a ta on a pa rtme nt-dwe ll e rs is di fficult to obta in s inc e th ey us ually have a hi g h e r m o bility . Because n a mes a nd a d- dresses may n o t link up a m o n g the s tudent data, w e could n ot confi rm m an y f a milies w h o li ve in a p a rtme nt s , thu s expla ining w h y fewe r di s tri c t stude nt s live in apartments. Figure 132. Type of residential housing of students and overall. Type of Residential Housing Households of Students Households Overall Type Number Percentage Number Percentage Apartments 401 11.5% 4,963 16.5% Single-Family Houses 3,076 88.5% 25,031 83.5% Grand Total 3,477 100.0% 29,994 100.0% Figure 133. Type of home ownership of students and overall. Type of Housing Ownership Households of Students Households Overall Type Number Percentage Number Percentage Own Housing 1,871 53.8% 14,462 48.2% Rent Housing 356 10.2% 3,821 12.7% Unknown 750 21 .6% 6 ,249 20.8% Confi rmed Owner 500 14.4% 5,462 18.2% Grand Total 3,477 100.0% 29,994 1 00.0°./c © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 89 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED l§fferson City School District Figure 134. House values in Jefferson City School District. House Values for Households Households of Students Households Overall Value Ranges Number Percentage Number Percentage S1-$24,999 0 0.0 % 6 0.0% s 25,000-$49,999 15 0.4% 83 0.3% s 50 ,000-$74,999 165 4.7% 1,691 5.6% s 75,000 -$99,999 562 16.2% 4,236 14.1% $100,000 -$124,999 1,066 30.7% 8,134 27 .1% $125,000-$149,999 433 12.5% 3,287 11 .0% $150,000-$174,999 227 6.5% 2,046 6.8% $175,000-$199,999 140 4.0 % 1,346 4.5% $200,000-$249,999 221 6.4% 1,828 6.1% $250,000 -$299,999 96 2 .8 % 888 3.0% $300,000-$349,999 58 1.7 % 439 1.5% $350,000-$399,999 39 1.1% 227 0.8% $400,000-$449,999 9 0 .3% 96 0.3% $450,000 -$499,999 11 0.3% 58 0.2% $500,000 -$599 ,999 11 0.3% 57 0 .2% $600,000-$699,999 3 0.1% 24 0 .1% $700,000-$799,999 1 0.0% 11 0.0% $800,000 -$899,999 1 0.0 % 1 0.0% $900 ,000 -$999,999 0 0.0 % 3 0.0% $1,000,000 + 0 0.0 % 9 0.0% blank 419 12.1% 5,524 18.4% Grand Total 3,4n 100.0% 29,994 100.0o/c Home Equ ity Estimate for Households O ne o ut of three stud ent s l ive in houses va lu ed at $100,000 t o $124,999. Two-thirds of th e s tud ent s live in houses valued at less than $150,000. The trend in mo st newer hous in g deve lopments h ave been in price ranges of $150,000 and up . T hi s wo uld mean th at in any new deve lopment in the hi g her price ran ges, the district cou ld expect very few students liv- in g in it. In most d istricts, the ho usi ng profile of school-age families is one where they have littl e equity in t he lowe r-p r iced, o ld e r h omes. More than 1 0 percent of the residents have mo re than $70 ,000 in equity co mpa red w ith 6 .6 pe rcent for t he households w ith students. T he home square footage s and mean education leve ls fo r s tud e nt hou se holds and house holds in th e district are j ust abo ut in t he s am e proportion. Households of Students Households Overall Figure 135. Home equity estimate for households in Jefferson City School Di s - trict. Value Ranges Number Percentage Number Percentage $0 -$9,999 394 11 .3 % 2,724 9 .1% $ 10,000 -$19,999 444 12.8 % 2,300 7 .7% $ 20,000 -$29,999 343 9.9 % 2,161 7 .2% $ 30,000 -$39,999 326 9.4% 2,354 7 .8% $ 40 ,000 -$49,999 293 8.4 % 2,712 9 .0% $ 50,000 -$59,999 209 6.0 % 2 ,505 8.4% $ 60,000 -$69,999 132 3.8 % 1,902 6 .3% $ 70,000 -$79,999 74 2.1 % 1,058 3.5% $ 80,000 -$89,999 51 1.5 % 687 2 .3% $ 90,000 -$99,999 28 0.8 % 444 1.5% $100,000-$149,999 59 1.7 % 881 2.9% $150,000 -$199,999 12 0.3 % 138 0 .5% $200,000 -$299,999 6 0.2% 48 0 .2% $300,000-$499,999 0 0.0% 7 0 .0% $500,000 + 0 0.0 % 3 0 .0% blank 1,106 31 .8 % 10,070 33.6% Grand Total 3,477 100.0% 29,994 100 .0°/c ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 90 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Mean Education Levels for Households Households of Students Households Overall Figure 136. Edu- cation levels for households in Jefferson City School District. Level Number Percentage Number Attended/Graduated High School 106 3.0 % 831 Some College (up to 2 yrs .) 2 ,644 76 .0 % 24 ,058 More Than 2 Yrs . College/College Grad. 727 20 .9% 5,105 Grand Total 3 ,477 100.0% 29,994 Home Square Footages for Households Households of Students Households Overall Size Ranges Number Percentage Number Percentage Under 1,000 66 1.9% 626 2.1% 1,000-1 '100 80 2.3% 655 2.2% 1,101-1 ,200 118 3.4% 927 3.1% 1,201-1,300 154 4.4% 1,085 3.6% 1,301-1,400 177 5.1% 1,211 4 .0% 1,401-1,500 163 4 .7% 1,177 3.9 % 1,501-1 ,600 165 4 .7% 1,203 4.0% 1,601-1 ,700 137 3.9% 1,157 3.9% 1,701-2 ,000 323 9.3% 2,522 8.4% 2,001-2 ,200 126 3.6% 1,061 3.5% 2,201-2,400 90 2.6 % 741 2.5% 2,401-3,000 159 4 .6 % 1,218 4.1% 3,001-3,500 55 1.6 % 439 1.5% 3,501-4,000 27 0.8 % 233 0.8% 4,001-5,000 36 1.0% 258 0.9 % 0\er 5,000 28 0.8% 154 0.5 % blank 1,573 45 .2 % 15,327 51 .1% Grand Total 3,477 100.0% 29,994 100.0o/c © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC P a ge 91 Percentage 2.8% 80.2% 17.0% 100.0°/c Figure 137. Home square footage for households in Jefferson City School Dis- trict. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Figure 138. Household eth- nicity i n Jefferson Ci ty School District. House hold Ethnicity House holds of Stude nts Households OVorall Do scription Number P ercentage Number Percentag e A FRIC AN (01HER) 38 1.1% 250 0 .8% A FRI CAN A MERI CAN 65%+ 21 0.6% 11 4 0.4% A FRICAN AMERICAN 95%+ 12 0.3% 80 0.3% ALBA NIA N 0 0.0% 1 0.0"~ A NGOLAN 0 0.0% 2 0.0% ARAB 5 0.1% 42 0.1% ARMENIAN 0 0.0% 4 0 .0% ASHANTI (A SANTE) 0 0.0% 2 0 .0% A U SlRIAN 21 0 .6% 224 0 .7% BE LGIA N 2 0 .1% 46 0.2"A> BULGA RIAN 1 0 .0% 1 0 .0% BYELORU SSIA N (BELARUSIAN) 1 0 .0% 7 O.O"A> CAMEROONIAN 0 0 .0% 1 0 .0% CARIBBEAN A FRICA N A MERICAN 1 0 .0% 1 0 .0% CHINESE 9 0 .3% 56 0 .2% CROATIAN 0 O.O"A> 5 O.O"A> CZE CH 4 0 .1% 58 0 .2"A> DA NIS H 16 0 .5% 135 0 .5% DUTCH 106 3.0% 1,1 69 3.9% E GYPTIAN 0 0.0% 12 0 .0% ENGLISH 1,4 92 42.9% 1 1,218 37.4% E STONIAN 1 O.O"A> 5 0 .0% ETHIOPIAN 1 0 .0% 7 0.0% FILIPINO (PHILIPPINE) 0 0 .0% 13 0 .0% FINNISH 2 0.1% 8 O.O"A> FRE NCH 84 2.4% 744 2.5% GERM AN 435 12.5% 4 .982 16.6% GHANAIAN 0 0.0% 3 0.0% GREEK 4 0.1% 33 0.1% HAWA IIAN 0 0.0% 1 0.0% HISPA NIC 71 2.0% 372 1.2% HUNGARIAN 13 0.4% 76 0.3% INDIA N 21 0.6 % 82 0.3% IRISH 198 5.7% 1 ,768 5.9% ITALIAN 38 1.1% 263 0.9% JAPA NES E 1 0.0% 16 0.1% JEWISH 68 2.0% 658 2 2% KENYAN 1 0.0% 4 0.0% KHMER (KAMP UCHEAN, CAMBODIAN) 0 0.0% 6 0.0% KOREAN 0 0.0% 7 0.0% K URDISH 0 0.0% 2 0.0% LAOTIAN 0 O.O"A> 1 O.O"A> LA'TVIAN 0 0.0% 7 0.0% LITHUANIAN 0 0.0% 4 0.0% LU)(EMBOURGIAN 0 0.0% 1 0.0% MONGOLIAN 0 0.0% 1 O.O"A> MULTI-ETHNIC 2 0.1% 3 0.0% NATIVE AMERICAN (AM ERI CA N INDIAN) 1 0.0% 12 0.0% NIGERIA N 9 0.3% 14 0.0% NORWEGIAN 1 1 0 .3% 133 0.4% PA K ISTA NI 0 0.0% 2 0 .0% P ERS IAN 1 0 .0% 17 0.1% P O LISH 10 0 .3% 88 0.3% P ORTUGUE SE 7 0 .2% 18 0 .1% ROMANIAN 1 O.O"A> 14 O.O"A> RUANDA N (RWAN DA N) 0 0 .0% 5 O.O"A> RUSSIA N 9 0 .3% 54 0 .2% SCOTllSH (SCOTCH) 318 9 .1% 2,522 8 .4% SENEGALESE 0 O.O"A> 1 O.O"A> SE RBIAN 0 0.0% 7 0 .0% S IERRA LEONE 0 0 .0% 1 0 .0% SLOV A KIAN (S LOVAK) 0 O.O"A> 12 O.O"A> SLOV E NIAN (S LOVE NE) 0 O.O"A> 3 0 .0% SWAZILAND 2 0 .1% 16 0 .1% SWE DISH 25 0 .7% 2 12 0 .7% SWISS 0 0.0% 17 0.1% THAI 1 0.0% 5 0.0% TURKISH 0 0.0% 1 0.0% UKRAINIA N 1 O.O"A> 8 0 .0% UNKNOW N 261 7.5% 2,756 9.2% V IETNAMESE 3 0.1% 22 0 .1% W ELSH 123 3.5% 993 3.3% ZAIRIA N (DEMOCRATIC REPUB LIC OF THE CON 1 0.0% 1 O.O"A> ZI MB A BWEAN 0 0.0% 3 0.0% (blank) 24 0.7% 562 1.9% Gra nd Total 3,4n 100.0% 29,994 100.0"/. ©BUSINESS INFORM ATION SERVICES, LLC Page 92 ALL RIGHTS RES ERVED Demographics Study Fi gure 139. Religion in households from Jefferson City School District. Household Religion Households of Students House holds Ove r a ll Rel i gion Number P e rcentage Number Percentage BUDDHIS T 13 0.4% 9 1 0.3% CATHOLIC 5 10 14 .7% 4,518 15.1% E ASTERN O RTH O D OX 13 0.4% 94 0 .3 % GREEK ORTHO DOX 4 0 .1% 33 0.1% HINDU 18 0 .5 % 79 0 .3 % ISLAM IC 16 0 .5 % 100 0 .3 % J EWIS H 68 2 .0 % 658 2 .2 % LUTHERAN 0 .0 % 5 0 .0% PROTESTA NT 2 ,543 73.1% 21 ,052 70.2% SHINTO 1 0.0 % 16 0.1% SI K H 3 0.1% 3 0 .0% UNC ODED 288 8.3% 3,345 11 .2% Grand Total 3 ,477 100.0% 29,994 100.0°/c Selected Hobbies in Households and Students (Number w ith High Level of Interest) Num be r of Stud ents House holds Ove r all Hobby Number Percentage Nu mbe r Pe r centa ge Auto Racing 21 7 6 .2% 1,013 3 .4% Automobiles 462 13.3% 2 ,177 7 .3% Bargai n-Seeking 64 1 .8% 2 8 5 1 .0% Baseball 40 3 11.6% 2 ,313 7 .7% Basketball 337 9 .7% 1,958 6.5% Beauty/Cosmetics 6 7 1 .9% 415 1.4% Bible 103 3 .0% 549 1 .8% Camping/Hiking 346 10.0 % 1 ,521 5 .1 % Cats 78 2 .2% 331 1 .1% Cooking 221 6 .4% 1 ,945 6.5% Computers 86 2.5% 362 1.2 % Current E-.e nts 83 2 .4% 6 53 2.2% Dieting 11 0 3.2% 520 1 .7 % Do-lt-Yourselfer 151 4 .3% 1 ,120 3.7 % Dogs 131 3 .8% 446 1 .5 % Fishing 5 2 1.5% 320 1.1% Fitness/Exercise 5 3 0 15.2% 2 ,969 9 .9 % Football 4 7 0 13 .5 % 2 ,407 8 .0 % Gambling 115 3 .3% 722 2 .4% Gardening 13 0 3 .7 % 1,247 4 .2% Golf 260 7 .5 % 1,5 30 5.1% Gourmet Cooking 51 1.5 % 48 2 1.6% Hockey 13 0 3.7 % 4 95 1.7% Hunti ng 6 91 19 .9% 3,648 12.2% Internet Buying 299 8 .6 % 1,012 3.4 % M usic 260 7.5 % 1,2 91 4.3% Photogra phy 1 7 1 4 .9 % 899 3 .0% Reading Current E\ents 83 2 .4% 653 2.2% Reading Fiction 48 1.4 % 273 0 .9% Reading Non-Fict ion 17 0 .5% 64 0.2% Sewing 55 1.6% 320 1 .1 % Soccer 0 0 .0% 6 0 .0% Tenni s 35 1 .0% 148 0 .5% Tra-.el Cruises 386 11 .1% 1 ,8 90 6.3% Tra-.el by RV 50 5 14.5% 2 ,9 88 10.0% Grand Total 3 ,477 100.0 % 29,994 1oo.o •1c ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 93 Figure 140. Hob- bies engaged in by households and students in Jeffer- son City School Dist rict. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Fi g ure 141. Lan gu ages spoken in ho useho lds of students and overall. Languages Spoken in Households Households of Students Households Overall Language Number Percentage Number Percentage AMHARIC 1 0 .0% 6 0 .0 % ARABIC 3 0 .1% 17 0 .1% CHINESE 2 0 .1% 26 0 .1% DUTCH 1 0.0% 7 0 .0 % ENGLISH 3 ,120 89.7% 26,252 87.5% FARS I (PERS IAN) 0 0 .0% 8 0 .0 % FRENCH 0 0 .0% 10 0 .0 % GERMAN 3 0 .1% 46 0.2% GREEK 0 0 .0% 5 0.0% HEBREW 0 0.0% 4 0 .0% HINDI 10 0 .3% 45 0.2% HUNGARIAN 0 0 .0% 11 0.0% ITALIAN 1 0 .0% 15 0.1% JAPANESE 0 0 .0% 2 0 .0% KOREAN 0 0 .0% 2 0 .0% LAOTIAN (LAO) 0 0 .0% 1 0.0% LATVIAN (LETTISH) 0 0 .0% 3 0 .0% LITHUANIAN 0 0 .0% 1 0 .0% NORWEGIAN 0 0.0% 1 0 .0% PORTUGUESE 6 0.2% 9 0 .0% ROMANIAN 1 0 .0% 7 0 .0% RUSSIAN 2 0.1 % 8 0 .0% SERBO-CROA TIAN 0 0 .0% 1 0 .0% SLOVENIAN 0 0 .0 % 1 0 .0% SPANISH 39 1.1% 165 0.6% SWEDISH 0 0 .0% 3 0.0% TAGALOG 0 0 .0% 1 0.0% THAI 0 0 .0% 2 0.0% TURKISH 0 0 .0% 1 0.0% TWI (ASHANTI) 0 0 .0% 1 0.0% UNKNOWN 261 7.5% 2 ,756 9.2% URDU 0 0.0% 1 0.0% V IETN A MESE 3 0.1% 14 0 .0% (blank) 24 0 .7% 562 1.9% G rand Total 3,477 100.0% 29,994 100.0o/c © BUSIN ESS I NFORMATION SERVICE S , LLC Page 94 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study {('I ~PAGEPURPOSELYLEFTBLANK © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 95 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je.:fferson City School District F o r th e next leve l of a na lys is, we dec ided to link student de mogra phic d at a that we've a lread y co mp i le d to stud e nt MAP scores fo r 2 00 6, 2007 , 2 00 8 a nd 2009. The two tables o n th ese pages a re s ummari zed two d iffe re nt wa ys-one by a to tal fo r th e inco me ra nges and a no th er by tota li n g t he pro - fi c ie ncy leve ls . In F ig ure 142, the inco m e ra ng e tot als s ho w t hat in the un de r $20,0 00 in co me ran ges. th e re a re just ab o ut as m a ny s tud e nts who score Be - low Bas ic as th ose in th e Adva nced leve l. About l 0 pe rc e nt o f the s tud e nt s w ho ho useho ld s earn less th a n $2 0 ,000 a year a re i n t he B e lo w Bas ic p rofi - ci e ncy level and a bo ut I 0 pe rce nt a re in th e Adva nced level. But as the in - c ome leve ls in crease, t he pe rce ntages c ha n ge g reatl y . For examp le, in the $100,0 0 0 to $124 ,999 inc o me ra nge , aro und on ly 5 pe rcent of s tud e nt s w hose househo ld s are in that in co me catego ry have s tud e nts w ho a re in th e Be low Basic profi c ie nc y leve l. B u t more than 2 0 p e rcent o f stud e nts liv ing in t hat in come level sco re in t he A dvanced level. Can we say definite ly tha t Figure 142. Nu m b er o f students by MAP profic iency leve l s and household income l ev el s ca l cul ate d by in - come ranges , 200 6-20 09. Th is is an aggregati on of all tested subjects. MAP Profici en cy L evels a nd Hous ehold Income L evels -Number of Stu d e nts in Each Category , by Year, 2 00 6-200 9 (Ca l c ulated by In c o me Ra n ges) 2006 2007 Income Range Be l ow % Ba sic % Pr ofic l ont 'l'o Adva nced % Tota l % Be low % Basic % Proficient % Advan ce d % To ta l % Basic Ba sic Under 520.000 ~~TIIW; , ...... "3M-Sl.ft 183 2ll.a -112" ~ l"e50r oo;'"' 9 1 12.6 % 330 45.5% 229 31 .6% 75 10.3 % 725 100.0% S20.000 -S29.999 19 8 .8 % 1 11 51.4% 65 30.1% 21 9.7% 216 100.0% 25 11 .1% 92 40.9% 61 36.0% 27 12.0% 225 100.0% S30,000 -S39,999 241.' 11U.4W f11 142-a 112 35.nlo 27 11 nil 23U 100.0.. 22 9.4% 100 42.6% 65 36.2% 26 11 .9% 235 100.0% S40,000-S49,999 18 4 8 % 148 43.7% 139 416% 33 9.9% 334 100.0% 14 42% 137 40.9% 132 39.4% 52 15.5% 335 100.0% 550.000-S59,999 '-21 -, :Aft; 145 31lft 1118 CZ.fto eo 15-a -1CIII.IM 33 7 .6% 145 33.3 % 176 40.4% 82 166% 436 100.0% S60,000-S69,999 36 67% 209 369% 222 392% 96 17.3% 567 100.0% 33 55'!1. 232 364'!1. 228 37.4'!1. 113 18 7% 604 100.0% S70 ,000-S79,999 1'21'1' ·-::IIIII ICZ.ft 127 20.11'11 ·-11CIII.IJIJI 25 3 .9% 197 31.0% 253 39.6% 160 25.2% 635 100.0% seo.ooo -S89, 999 13 34% 122 3 1.9% 161 42.0% 87 22.7% 383 100.0% 11 3 .0% 126 34.3 '!1. 140 36.1% 90 245'!1. 367 100.0% S90,000-S99,999 ..:O~Vf 4'15 .114 / ·-vs CZ.II% $4 24.3'11. I 222 100.11'11 11 5.2% 50 23.7% 91 43.1% 59 28.0% 211 100.0% S100,000-S124,999 15 4.6% 94 269% 147 45.2% 69 21.2% 325 100.0% 18 54% 96 28.6% 126 37.8% 93 27.9% 333 100.0% 5125,000-S149,999 ff1 ~ r;r 14ft 34 2ll.a 130 100.0.. 6 4 .3% 44 314% 50 35.7% 40 28.6 '!1. 140 100.0% S150,000-S174,999 4 5.3 % 34 44.7% 28 36.8 % 10 13.2% 76 100.0% 3 3 .6% 36 45.8 % 31 37.3% 11 13.3 '!1. 83 100.0% S175,000-S199,999 ··I> at a 8 I IIU.O.. a tan. 111 00.11'11 0 0 .0% 5 4 1,7% 4 33.3% 3 25.0% 12 100.0% S200,000-S249,999 5 15.6% 15 46.9% 9 26.1% 3 9.4% 32 100.0% 5 15.6% 10 31.3% 13 40.6% 4 12.5% 32 100.0% S250,000-S299,999 O.CM 2 33.3'1!. 2 33.~ 8 100.~ 2 33.3% 0 0 .0% 2 33.3% 2 33.3% 6 100.0% S300,000-5399,999 0 00% 0 0 .0% 2 1000% 0 0.0% 2 1000% 0 00% 0 0 0% 0 0.0% 0 00% 0 00% Gra n d Tota l 111ZS ....,. 111311 an. 1110 ,.....,. 14.211 1110.1M 299 6.8% 1,602 36.6% 1,639 37.4% 639 19 .2% 4,379 100.0% 2008 2009 Income Ra nge Be l ow % Basic % Profic1o nt % Ad va nce d % Tota l % Below % Basic % P roficie nt % Advanced % Total % Basic Basic Under 520,000 136 131% 496 47.9% 299 288% 106 10.2% 1,039 100.0% 152 11 .9% 566 44.3% 417 32.6% 144 11 .3% 1.279 100.0% 520,000-S29,999 36 12.0% 122 40.7 % 104 34.7% 36 12.7% 300 100.0% 28 7 .6% 153 414% 130 351% 59 159% 370 100.0% 530.000-S39.999 27 8 .7% 152 48 9% 95 305% 37 11 .9% 311 100.0% 23 5.9% 164 41 .8% 153 39.0% 52 13.3% 392 100.0% 540,000-S49,999 28 5.8 % 189 42.0% 178 39.8 % 57 12.7% 450 100.0% 2 1 4.0% 190 35.9% 242 45.7% 78 144% 529 100.0% 550,000-559,999 42 7.7% 197 36.2% 205 37.7 % 100 18 .4% 544 100.0% 32 4.6% 208 29.7% 316 45.1% 144 20.8% 700 100.0% seo.ooo. S69,999 49 6.2% 277 35.2% 328 41 .7 % 133 16.9% 787 100.0% 48 4 .9% 296 31.9% 409 43,8% 181 19 4 % 934 100.0% 570,000 -579,999 28 37% 216 286% 344 45.8 % 186 22 0% 754 100.0% 18 1.9% 263 27.6% 4 33 45.4% 239 25.1% 953 100.0% seo.ooo-S89,999 24 4 9% 146 30.5% 195 40 2% 118 24.3% 485 100.0% 11 2 .1% 149 279% 235 43.9% 140 262% 535 100.0% 590,000 -599.999 19 62% 81 264% 142 48.3% 65 21.2% 307 100 0% 15 4 .6% 76 23.3 % 144 44.2% 91 279% 326 100.0% 5100,000-5124,999 22 5.1% 132 30.4% 180 41 ,5 % 100 23.0% 434 100.0% 31 8 .1% 124 24 3% 228 44.7% 127 249% 510 100.0% 5125,000-S149,999 6 3 .1% 55 288% 78 40.8 % 52 2 7.2% 191 100.0% 12 5.6% 51 23.8 % 87 40.7% 64 29.9% 214 100.0% 5150,000-S174,999 1 1.1% 44 50.0% 31 35.2 % 12 13.6% 86 100.0% 4 3 .5% 41 36.0% 42 36.8% 27 237% 114 100.0% 5175,000-5199,999 0 0 0% 8 33 3% 10 41 .7% 8 25 0% 24 100.0% 0 0 .0% 5 21 .7% 10 43.5% 8 34.8% 23 100.0% 5200,000 -$249,999 5 14 3% 14 40.0% 13 371% 3 8.6 % 35 100.0% 3 71% 14 33.3% 18 36.1% 9 21.4% 42 1000% 5250,000-5299,999 2 50 0% 1 25 0% 1 25.0% 0 0 .0% 4 100.0% 2 25.0% 1 12.5% 4 50.0% I 12,5% 8 100.0% 5300,000 -5399,999 0 0.0% 0 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0% I 100.0% 0 0 .0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1000% 1 1000% Gra n d Tota l 4 23 7.4 % 2,134 37.1% 2,204 38 .3% 993 17.3% 5,7 54 100.0% 398 5.7% 2,303 3 3.2% 2,866 41 .4% 1,36 3 19.7% 6,930 100.0% © B U S IN ESS INFORMAT ION SERV ICES , LLC Page 96 A LL R I G H TS RES ERV E D Demographics Study in co me level in the ho useh o ld can be a pred ic to r as to h ow we ll st udents s core in the MAP tes t? No, but the re d oes seem to be a re la ti o ns hip s in ce th e hi g he r p e rcen tage o f stude nts sco rin g in t he lower p roficiency levels seem to a lso li ve in h o useh o ld s w ith t he lower inco me leve ls. F ig ure 143, below, takes th e same d a ta presente d i n the prev io u s ta - bl e and c alcul at es t he pe rce ntages based o n a s in g le pro fi c ie ncy leve l at a tim e. F or e xampl e, fo r 2 006, of all th e s tu dent s s co rin g in t he B e low Bas ic pro fici e ncy leve l, 2 7.2 pe rce nt of th e m li ve in ho use ho ld s ea rning less th a n $20,000 a year. In 2 009, of the 398 s t udents w ho m we were able to matc h to an h o usehold in com e th a t s co re d Below Bas ic p ro fi c ie ncy, 38.2 percen t of the m we re fro m h o u seho ld s w it h in co mes un der $20,0 00. Hi g he r ho useh o ld in com es do not necessa ril y e qua te to hi g h e r test sco res , however. O nl y 17.4 pe rcent of the Advanced pro fici e n cy scores came fro m s tud e nt s I i ving in ho useho ld s earn in g m o re than $100,000 a yea r. Figure 143. Number of students by MAP proficiency levels and household income levels calculated by pro- ficiency levels, 2006-2009. This is an aggregation of all tested subjects. MAP Proficiency Levels and Household Income LeVelS-Number of Students in Each Category, by Year, 2006-2009 (Calculated by rruii.-,., '"Y Levels) Income Range nde• S2C .00 S2S.999 S39 .999 10.( S49 999 S59.999 ,999 999 ,999 1,001 ,999 00,000 S1!4,999 1- I · I · I · Srano ota Income Range Under S20.00C IS2o.boo . s29:999 $30,000 · S39. 999 S40.ooo . 549.999 'SSO.OC · S59.999 IS60.000 • 569.999 170,000-S79.999 seo.oc 1-S89.999 S90. OOC • S99. 999 >.ooo . s124.999 1125.000 • S149,999 ) • 199 )· 199 )· 199 ). 199 Jrand rot~ 2006 2007 lsasl c % Advanced % Total 74 I 2 131 I 20.4% 183 11 .2% 9. )5( I 3C 11 6.8% 65 4.0% 3. !16 8.4 8 . 6 .0% 82 5.0% 3. !30 7.4 5 . 146 9.0% 139 8.5% 4. 134 4. 8 . 145 8 .9% 168 10.3% 8 . 196 33 14 .0% 209 12.9% 222 13.6% 98 14.2% 567 33 .0% 232 22 !8 10.3% 211 13.0% 268 16.4% 12~ 1a4% 634 25 a4% 197 25 13 4.8% 122 .5 % 161 9 8% 87 12.6% 383 3.7% 126 7. 14 9 3.3% 64 3.9% 95 5.8% 54 7.8 % 222 3.7% 50 3.1% 9~ 5.6% 59 -~ 15 5.5% 94 5 .8% 147 9.0 % 69 10.0% 325 18 6.0% 96 6.0% 126 .7% 93 .3' 1.4' 1.4~ 13 1.5' 1.3~ 2 .1 ~ o D.O% 2 o.b% o o.o% o 1.0o/o o . 2: 100.0% 11 ,621 ! 100.00A 1,636 1100.0'!. 690 299 I100.0'A.I 1 ,602 I100.0'A 1,639 . 100.00!. 839 1100:0% 200 8 2009 Total 136 1 32.2% 498 123.3% 299 13 6% 106 .7% 1,039 152 I 38.2% 566 24 6% 4' 14.5% 144 11 . -36 as% 122 5 .7% 104 4 7% :l8 38% 30C 28 •.o% 153 6 .6% 130 4.5% 59 27 6.4% 152 7.1% 95 43% 37 3.7% 311 23 5 .8 % 164 1% 15 5 .3% 52 26 6.1% 189 8 .9% 178 8 1% 57 5. 7% 450 2' 5 .3% 190 8.3% 24: 8 .4% 76 42 9.9% 197 9.2% 205 9.3% -100 :.i% 544 32 8 .0% 208 9.0% 311 11.0% 144 49 1.6% 27 13.0% 328 14.9% 133 13.4% 787 46 11 .6% 298 12.9% 4( 14.3% 181 -,-3.3% 28 6.6 % 216 10.1% 34 "16 16. -18 -4.5% 263 11 .4% 43 15.1% 239 '.5% 953 24 5.7% 146 6 .9% 19 1.8 ' 15 1-19 6.5"11 235 8 .2% 140 10.3% 535 19 4.5% 81 3.8% 14 i.4' _5 .( l_1 ''lfl% 22 5.2% 132 6 .2% 18 1.2' 1: 2: 8 . 27 9.3% 6 1.4% 55 2.6 % 71 15 3. 1 0.2% 44 2.1% 3 ' 1 .4 ~ 1. _1 % 6 o:6% -24 0 0. --3 ·o.3~ 35 3 o.a ~r 14 o.6% 16 ).6% 0 ).~ 4 2 0.5 % 1 0.0% 4 0.1% 0 ).~ 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0 .1 ~ 4 12.134 1)",(, 2, !04 993 111 398 I100.0 'A 12,303 100.0 'A 2 ,866 1100.0% 1 ,363 [100:0% 6,930 © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 97 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je.;f[erson City School District Education th e ories often inc lude t ry ing to use the education level of parents to pred ict performance leve ls of t he ch ildren . That does not seem to be a s cut-and-dried in the Jeffe rs on City School District. In 2009, 24 s t u- den ts fi·om ho useho lds whe re the hi g hest educati o n level of the head of the househo ld fini s hed was "atte nded/g raduated high schoo l". scored "Bel o w Bas ic" profic iency; 24 students from the s ame ed ucation level household s cored Ad vance d. Figure 136 on p . 91 shows t he education levels for th e s tuden t ho u se ho ld s a nd ho use ho ld s overa ll . As yo u can s ee, these pe rcent- ages do n 't vary much from those be low in Figures 144 and 145. Figure 144. Education levels by MAP proficiency calculated by educatio n level , 2006-200 9. This is an ag - g re gation of all tested subjects. Comparison of Mea n Ed ucation Level s o f Household an d Nu mber of Students, by MAP Proficiency Level, 2006·2009 (Calcu la ted by Ed ucation Level) 2006 2007 Below Basic % Basic % Proficient % Adva nced % Total Below Basic: % Ba si c % Proficien t % Ad va n ced % Tota l Attended/Gnl<luated Hig h School 8 e.a :ae 1315 • .,. 3IS .,. 17 I ;s,. w 9 8 .0% « 38.9% 4 3 38.1% 17 15 .0% 113 Some Co llege (up to 2 YfS .) 209 6 .4 % 1,265 39.0 % 1,2 47 38.5% 499 15 4% 3,242 229 8 .9% 1,238 37.0% 1,2 48 37.4 % 625 18 .7% 3,343 M:>re Tha n 2 y,., ColleoeiCotteoe Grad. 64 11.0% 320 135.4~ 353 138.~ 174 18oft liOII 6 1 6 .5% 322 34.5% 347 37.2% 197 21 .1% 932 Gno n d Total 272 6.4% 1,621 38.2% 1,636 38.5% 690 16.3% 4,245 299 6.1% 1,602 38.5% 1,631 37.4% 639 11.1% 4,388 2008 2009 Below Balfe % Balle % Proficient % Advanced % Total Be low Beale % Be al e % Profici ent % Advance d ., Total Attend ed/Gtaduated High School 13 8.6% 56 37.1% 64 4 2.4% 18 11.9% 151 24 11 .4% 74 35.1% 89 42 2% 24 11 4% 211 Some Coleg e (u p to 2 YIS ) 317 7.3% 1,664 38.4% 1,640 378% 709 163% 4 ,338 287 5.5% 1.759 33.6% 2.181 4 1.6 % 1.005 19.2% 5.237 M:>re Th an 2 Yn;. COiego/Colege Grad 93 7.3% 4 14 32.5% 500 39 3% 266 20.9% 1.273 87 5 .8% 4 70 31 .8% 5!18 40.0% 334 22 4% 1.419 Grond Total 423 7.3% 2,134 37.0% 2,204 38.3% 993 17.2% 5,762 398 5.7% 2,30 3 33.2% 2,866 41 .3% 1,363 19.6% 6,937 Figure 145. Educati on l evels by MAP proficiency calculated by proficiency level, 2006-2009 . Comparison of Mean Ed ucation Levels o f Househo ld and Number of Stud ents, by MA P Proficiency Level, 20 06·2009 (Calc ulated by Proficiency Level) 2006 2007 Below Basic % Baslo % P roftclent % Advonced ,., Total Below Basio % Basic % Pronclent 'lo Ad vo n ced 'lo Total Al!ended.Qaduated Hig h School 9 3.3% 36 2.2% 36 2.2% 17 2.5% 98 9 30% 44 2.7 % 4 3 2.6% 17 2 .0% 113 Some College up 10 2\fS. 209 76.8% 1,265 78.0% 1,247 76.2% 499 72 3% 3,242 229 76.6% 1,236 77.2"1. 1,249 76.2% 625 74 5% 3,343 M:>re Tha n 2 Yn;. College /College Grad 54 19.9% 320 19.7% 3S3 216% 174 25.2"1. 905 61 20.4% 322 20.1% 347 2 1.2% 19 7 23.5% 932 Gr2nd Total 272 100.0% 1,621 100.0% 1,636 100.11% 690 100.11% 4 ,246 m 100.0% 1 ,602 100.0% 1,63, 100.11% 83, 100.0 ~ 4,388 2008 ~ Below Balle % Ba llo 'lo P roft c le nt % Ad va nced 'lo Total Below Baslo 'lo Balle % Pronclent % Advanced % Tota l Al!ended/Groduated Hig h School 13 3.1% 56 2.6% 64 29% 18 1.8% 151 24 6.0 % 74 3.2"1. 89 3.t % 24 1.8% 2 11 Som e College (up to 2 )".) 317 74.9% 1,664 78.0% 1,640 7H% 709 71 .4% 4 ,338 287 72.1% 1.759 76.4% 2,18 1 76.1% 1.005 73 .7% 5,237 More Tha n 2 y,., College/College Gnl d. 93 22.0% 4 14 19.4% 500 22.7% 266 268% 1,273 87 2 1.9% 470 20.4% 596 20.8% 334 24 .5% 1,489 Gr2ndTotal 423 100.1)% 2,134 100.11% 2,204 100.1)% 993 100 .1)~ 6 ,762 398 100.11'.4 2 ,303 100.0% 2,866 100.1)% 1,363 100.0 6,,37 Figure 146. Students living in apartments versus houses compared to MAP pro fic iency, 2006-2 009 . Co mpari son of Students who Live in Ap artments o r Ho u ses and MAP Proficien cy Levels, by Number of Studen ts, 2006-09 2006 2007 Be l ow Ba sic 'h Basic 'lo Pnoficlent 'lo Advanced 'h Total Be l ow Basic 'lo Basic 'h Pnoflci ent 'h Advance d 'lo Total Ap artm ents 42 11 .0% 190 49.7% 1 16 30.4% 30 7.9% 382 52 12.0% 207 4 7.7 % 125 28.8% 50 11.5% 434 Houses 230 6.0% 1,43 1 37.0"A, 1,520 39.3% 660 17.1% 3,863 247 6.2% 1,395 35.3% 1,514 38.3% 789 20.0% 3 ,954 Grand Tota l 272 6.4'h 1,621 38.2% 1,636 38.5% 690 16.3% 4,24S 299 6.8% 1,602 36.5% 1,639 3 7.4% 839 19.1% 4,388 2008 2009 Be l ow Basic 'h Basic % Pnoficlo nt % Adva nced % Total Be l ow Basic % Basic 'lo Pro fi ci ent % Advanced % Total Apartments 8 1 13.4% 299 49.3% 171 28.2% 5 1 8.4% 606 83 10.5% 351 44.5 % 269 34.1% 84 10.7% 788 Ho uses 342 6.6% 1,835 35.6% 2 .033 39.4% 942 18.3% 5,156 315 5.1% 1,952 31.7 % 2.597 42.2% 1,279 20.8% 6,149 Gra nd Tota l 423 7.3'h 2,134 37.0% 2,204 38.3% 993 17.2% 5,762 398 5.7% 2,303 33.2 '/o 2,866 4 1.3% 1,363 19.6% 6,937 © BUSINESS IN F O RMATI ON SERVICES, LLC Page 98 ALL RIGHTS RESERV ED Demographics Study When we matc he d the vote r reg ist ratio n ro ll to th e 2009-10 stude nt ro s ter, we found that about 30 percent of th e h o u sehold s with s t ud ent s have voted in o ne o r no e lections, w hich is s li ghtl y highe r than th e population a s a who le. One o ut of fou r househo ld s with stude nts have vot ed in m ore th a n I 0 e lecti o ns; m o re tha n one o ut of three ho u seh o ld s in th e di s trict overa ll have vo ted in more th a n 10 . So t he re is quite a bit of ro o m fo r improvement w ith the voting percentages amon g the ho u seh o ld s w it h s tude nts . Age of Voters in Household Households of Students Households Overall Age Range Number Percentage Number Percentage 18-24 1,213 9.8% 9,511 14.1% 25-29 773 6 .3% 6 ,765 10.0% 30-34 1,723 14.0% 6 ,039 8.9% 35-39 2,538 20.6% 5,641 8.3% 40-44 2,490 20.2% 5,648 8.4% 45-49 1,951 15.8% 6,297 9.3% 50-54 940 7.6% 6 ,330 9.4% 55-59 386 3.1% 5,898 8 .7% 60-64 136 1.1% 4,931 7.3% 65-69 84 0.7% 3,327 4 .9% 70-74 36 0.3% 2,325 3.4% 75 + 46 0.4% 4 ,893 7.2% Grand Total 12,316 100.0% 67,605 100.0% Frequency of Voting: Number of Elections Voted by Household Households of Students Households Overall Number of Number Percentage Number Percentage Elections 0 1 ,631 13.2 % 9 ,123 13.5% 1 2,128 17.3% 9,900 14.6% 2 1,066 8.7% 5 ,299 7.8% 3 985 8 .0% 4,008 5 .9% 4 694 5 .6% 3 ,263 4 .8% 5 591 4 .8% 2 ,722 4.0% 6 509 4 .1% 2 ,231 3 .3% 7 410 3.3% 1,919 2 .8% 8 404 3.3% 1,856 2 .7% 9 365 3.0% 1,655 2 .4% 10 322 2 .6% 1,480 2.2% 0\er 10 3 ,211 26.1% 24,149 35.7% Grand Total 12,316 100.0% 67,605 100.0°/c © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 99 Figure 147. Age of voters in households. Figure 148. Frequency of voting by in households. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je_fjerson City School District Figure 149. Number of bed- roo ms in households. Figure 1 50. Square foot ag- es of homes in Jefferson City School District. A s a final data g roupin g. we matched the assessor data from Cole and Call away counties to the student ro s te r reco rds. (Data we rece ived from Call away County d id not a lways have enoug h detai l to include in this co m- parison, w h ich is s hown as "b la nk" in th ese tables.) We consider t hi s the mos t accurat e data available s ince it is upd ated regularly, usually w ith an ind e pe nd e nt ins pection of the pro perty. Aga in, we matche d o n ly names and addresses to the s pec ific reco rd s ; w he re both e lements cou ld not be matched. we d id not in c lude the records in th is comparison . Number of Bedrooms, based on Assess or Data Households of Students House h o lds OVerall Year Built Number Percentage Numbe r Pe rcenta g~ 0 3 0 0 .6 % 17 1 0 .8% 1 23 0 .4% 186 0 .8% 2 3 0 9 5.9% 2 ,613 11 .7% 3 3 ,321 63.5% 11 ,971 53.6% 4 655 12.5% 2 ,221 9.9% 5 6 6 1 .3% 207 0 .9% 6 26 0 .5% 58 0 .3% 7 0 0.0% 5 0.0% 9 0 0.0% 1 0 .0% Blank 798 1 5 .3% 4 ,889 21 .9% Grand Total 5 ,228 100.0 % 2 2 ,322 100.0% Home Square Footages , based on Assessor Data House holds of St udents Households Overall Sq. Footage Number Percentage Number Percentage Under 1,000 288 5.5% 1,643 7.4% 1 '000-1 ' 1 00 248 4.7% 1,163 5.2% 1,101-1,200 348 6.6% 1,455 6.5% 1,20 1-1,300 353 6.7% 1,567 7.0% 1,301-1 ,400 426 8.1% 1,630 7 .3% 1,401-1,500 347 6.6% 1,436 6.4% 1,501 -1,600 409 7.8% 1,353 6 .1% 1,601 -1 '700 277 5.3% 1,199 5.4% 1,701-2 ,000 589 11.2% 2,490 11 .2% 2 ,001 -2 ,200 316 6.0% 951 4 .3% 2 ,201 -2 ,400 167 3.2% 685 3.1% 2 ,4 01-3 ,000 317 6.1% 1,145 5.1% 3,00 1-3,500 99 1.9% 370 1.7% 3,501 -4 ,000 4 8 0.9% 160 0.7% 4 ,001-5,000 27 0.5% 119 0.5% Over 5,000 10 0.2% 40 0.2% Bl ank 969 18.5% 4 ,916 22.0% Grand Total 5 ,238 100.0 % 2 2 ,322 100.0°A ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES , LLC Page 100 A L L RIG H TS R E SERVED Market Value of Houses, based on Assessor Data Households of Students Households Overall Market Value Number Percentage Number Percentage $0-$50,000 330 6 .3 % 2 ,926 13.1% $50,000-$75 ,000 444 8.5% 2,181 9.8% $75 ,000-$100,000 1,061 20.3% 4 ,065 18.2% $100 ,000-$150 ,000 1,839 35.1% 6 ,726 30.1% $150,000-$200,000 787 15.0 % 3,015 13.5% $200 ,000-$250 ,000 372 7.1% 1,631 7.3% $250 ,000-$300 ,000 170 3.2 % 804 3.6% $300 ,000-$350 ,000 113 2 .2 % 418 1.9% $350 ,000-$400 ,000 54 1.0% 231 1.0% $400 ,000-$450 ,000 12 0 .2 % 124 0.6% $450 ,000-$500 ,000 22 0.4 % 67 0.3% 0-.er $500 ,000 34 0 .6 % 133 0.6% Not Assigned 0 0 .0% 1 0.0% Grand Total 5 ,238 100.0% 22 ,322 100.0°/c Year Houses were Built, based on Assessor Data Households of Students Households Overall Year Built Number Percentage Number Percentage Before 1900 30 0 .6% 50 0 .2 % 1900-1910 72 1.4% 436 2.0% 1911-1920 92 1 .8% 515 2 .3% 1921-1930 204 3 .9% 785 3.5% 1931-1940 141 2 .7% 697 3 .1% 1941-1950 155 3.0% 740 3 .3% 1951-1960 360 6 .9 % 2 ,075 9 .3% 1961-1970 470 9 .0 % 2 ,272 10.2% 1971-1980 875 16.7% 2 ,769 12.4 % 1981-1985 284 5.4% 1 ,12 1 5 .0 % 1986-1990 389 7.4% 1 ,548 6.9% 1991-1995 336 6.4% 1 ,291 5 .8 % 1996-2000 371 7.1 % 1 ,353 6 .1% 2001 56 1 .1% 207 0 .9 % 2002 45 0 .9 % 236 1.1% 2003 74 1.4% 212 0 .9 % 2004 93 1 .8 % 269 1.2 % 2005 94 1 .8 % 297 1.3 % 2006 53 1 .0 % 231 1.0 % 2007 43 0 .8 % 120 0 .5% 2008 25 0 .5 % 116 0 .5% 2009 7 0 .1% 66 0 .3 % Blank 969 18.5 % 4 ,916 22.0 % Grand Total 5,238 100.0% 22,322 100.0% © BUSINESS IN FORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page } 01 Demographics Study Figure 151 . Market value of houses in Jefferson City School District. Figure 152. Number of houses built by year. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District When the parcel data is li nked to the s tudent ro ste r s, Figure 153 can b e d eveloped. It shows that 358 s tudents li ve in houses val ued at less t han $75 ,000 w ho pay for their lun ches and they wou ld likely be e li g ibl e for free or reduced-lunches. Interestin g ly , th ere are 26 students who li ve in houses va lu ed at more t ha n $200,000 w ho receive free lunches. The map on p. 10 3 s hows where the stud ents li ve who receive free a nd r educed lunches. Figure 153. Market value of homes and free or reduced lunches of Jefferson City students. Market Value of the Homes of Jefferson City Students , and Free-Reduced or Paid Lunch Classification Free-Lunch Students Reduced-Lunch Students Paid-Lunch Students Ove rall Total Market Value of Horne Number of Percent Number of Students Percent Number of Percent Number of Percent Students Students Students $0-$50,000 149 12.40% 22 5.30% 159 4.39% 330 6.30% $50,000-$75,000 185 15.39% 60 14 .46 % 199 5.50% 444 8.48% $75 ,000-$100 ,000 354 29.45% 129 31.08 % 578 15.96% 1,061 20.26 % $100,000-$150,000 419 34.86% 142 34 .22 % 1,278 35.29% 1,839 35.11 % $150,000-$200,000 69 5.74 % ~ 44 10 .60 % 674 18.61% 787 15.02 % $200,000-$250,000 15 1.25% 12 2.89% 345 9.53% 372 7.10% $250 ,000-$300,000 7 0.58 % 5 1.20% 158 4.36% 170 3.25% $300 ,000-$350,000 0 0.00 % 0 ~ 0.00% 113 3.12% 113 2.16% $350,000-$400,000 2 0.17% 0 0.00% 52 1.44 % 54 1.03% $400 ,000-$450,000 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 12 0.33% 12 0.23% $450 ,000-$500,000 0 0.00 % 0 0.00% 22 0.61% 22 0.42% 0\er $500,000 2 0.17% 1 0.24% 31 0.86% 34 0.65% Total 1,202 100.00% 415 100 .00% 3,621 100.00% 5,23 8 100.00% ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 102 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED )> r r ::0 Gi :I -i (/) ::0 IT1 (/) IT1 AI < IT1 0 r: ( .. • Free Lunch • Reduced Lunch Highways Streets ---~ 1\usi n<x't lnfoml:J.tio n Scl'\it"CS ~ "T1 ce· c ... CD ..... (11 ~ r 0 C') Dl -(5 ' :::::1 0 -(/J -c c.. CD :::::1 -J (/J :E ;:::;: =r -... CD CD 0 ... ... CD c.. c C') CD c.. i: :::::1 C') =r CD (/J :::::1 -=r CD ty\--_)j c.. t:) CD :::s: CD ~ (i1 ~ 0 :::::1 a 0 ;:::;: ~ '< en C') ~ =r 0 £ ~ 0 -· School District (ij ' (J -~ ... c:;· !"+ ~ ~ ~ Je_,fferson City School District We matched the li st of students who had dropped out during the last fou r years to the comprehens ive demog raphic data, hoping to be able to p ick up some type of pattern o r common factor among th e dropouts . The de mographics associated w ith th e h ouseholds of dro pouts are sho w n i n the gray boxes , w ith the b lu e s howin g t he households of a ll students in the district and the red , a II househo ld s overall in the d istrict. There were only 90 househo ld s of dropouts f rom 2009 -1 0 that we cou ld accurately match to th e demographi c data. Other dat a tab les on pp. 105 -109 s ho w matching dropo uts for othe r years . Househo ld s w he re th e re are dropouts are gen era ll y older tha n hou seh o lds w ith s t udents or re sidents overal L They a lso are dis pro por- tionately lower-incom e-nearl y one out of three come fro m househo ld s w ith less than $2 0 ,000 of in come. Nearl y 70 perc e nt of the dropou ts come from hou seho ld s earning l ess than $50,000 a year. A higher p er- c entage of dropout ho useho lds have li ved at the same add ress fo r less th a n two years than other ho useholds. Figure 155. Age of household heads including households of dropouts, students, and overall. Age of Household Head Households of Dropouts Households of Students Households Overall Age Range Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage 18-24 0 0 .0 % 34 1.0% 459 1.5% 25 -29 9 10.0% 206 5 .9% 1,500 5.0 % 30-34 9 10.0% 384 11 .0% 1,900 6.3% 35-39 6 6 .7% 632 18 .2% 2 ,998 10.0 % 40-44 16 17.8% 721 20.7% 3,147 10.5% 45-49 20 22.2% 660 19.0% 3,51 6 11 .7% 50-54 18 20.0% 411 11 .8% 3,599 12.0% 55-59 7 7.8% 211 6.1% 3 ,494 11 .6% 60-64 3 3.3% 102 2.9% 2 ,884 9 .6% 65-69 0 0 .0% 76 2.2 % 2 ,576 8.6% 70-74 2 2 .2% 25 0.7% 1,269 4 .2% 75 + 0 0 .0% 15 0.4% 2,652 8 .8% Grand Total 90 100.0% 3 ,477 100.0% 29 ,994 100.0% © BUSINESS INFORMATIO N SERVICES, LLC Page} 04 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 156. Income ranges includi ng households of dropouts, students, and overall. Income Ranges fo r Households Households of Dropouts Households of Students Househol ds Overall Income Ranges Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Under $20,000 31 34.4% 705 20.3 % 9,120 30.4% $ 20,000-$29,999 8 8.9% 235 6 .8 % 2 ,640 8 .8 % $ 30,000-$39,999 11 12.2% 213 6 .1 % 2 ,541 8 .5 % $ 40,000 -$49,999 12 1 3 .3 % 303 8.7% 3 ,158 1 0 .5 % $ 50,000 -$59,999 8 8 .9 % 435 12.5% 3 ,357 1 1 .2 % $ 60,000-$69,999 7 7 .8 % 522 15.0% 3 ,157 10.5 % $ 70,000-$79,999 6 6 .7 % 368 10.6 % 2 ,1 7 9 7.3% $ 80,000-$89,999 5 5 .6% 224 6.4% 1 ,345 4.5% $ 90,000-$99,999 1 1 .1 % 126 3.6% 747 2 .5 % $100,000 -$1 2 4 ,999 1 1 .1 % 185 5 .3 % 995 3.3% $125 ,000-$149,999 0 0 .0 % 103 3 .0 % 41 5 1.4% $150,000-$174,999 0 0 .0 % 26 0 .7 % 170 0 .6 % $175 ,000-$199,999 0 0 .0 % 16 0 .5 % 8 2 0.3% $200,000-$249,999 0 0 .0 % 12 0 .3 % 45 0 .2 % $250,000-$299,999 0 0 .0 % 3 0 .1 % 24 0 .1 % $300,000-$399,999 0 0 .0 % 1 0.0% 9 0 .0 % $400 ,000-$499,999 0 0 .0 % 0 0.0% 3 0 .0 % $500 ,000 Plus 0 0 .0 % 0 0 .0 % 7 0 .0 % Grand Total 90 100.0% 3 ,477 100.0% 29,994 100.0% Figure 157. Length of residency at households in Jeffer son Cit y School Dist rict. Length of Residency for Households Households of Dropouts Households of Students Households Overall Years Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage 1 10 11.1 % 465 13.4% 3,824 12 .7% 2 10 11 .1% 173 5.0% 1,456 4.9% 3-5 24 26 .7% 664 19.1 % 5,310 17 .7% 6-10 21 23 .3% 1069 30.7% 6,350 21 .2% 11-15 13 14.4% 646 18 .6% 4,600 15.3% 16-20 8 8.9% 308 8.9% 3,557 11.9% 21-25 0 0.0% 94 2.7% 1,737 5.8 % 26-39 4 4.4 % 50 1.4% 2,516 8.4 % More than 40 0 0.0% 8 0.2% 644 2.1% Grand Total 90 100.0% 3,477 100 .0% 29,994 100.0% © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 105 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je._fferson City School District A s li g ht ly hi gher perce ntage of dropout ho u seh old s li ve in a par t- me nts an d re nt th e ir ho us ing th a n othe r ho useholds. More than twic e as many dropou ts come f rom ho useho ld s valued less than $100,000 t ha n pro- porti onal ly m ake up t he stud e nt households and households of all residents overal l. Figure 158. Type of residential housing of households with dropouts, students, and overall. Type of Residential Housing Households of Dropouts Households of Students Households Overall Type Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Apartments 16 17.8% 401 11 .5% 4,963 16.5% Single-Family Houses 74 82 .2% 3,076 88 .5% 25 ,031 83 .5% Grand Total 90 100.0% 3,477 100.0% 29,994 100.0% Fi gure 159 . Type of housing ownership of households in Jefferson City School District. Type of Housing Ownership Households of Dropouts Households of Students Households Overall Type Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Own Housing 34 37 .8% 1,871 53 .8% 14,462 48 .2% Rent Housing 16 17 .8% 356 10 .2% 3,821 12.7% Unknown 30 33.3 % 750 21.6% 6,249 20 .8% Confirmed Owner 10 11 .1% 500 14.4% 5,462 18.2% Grand Total 90 100.0% 3,477 100.0% 29,994 100.0o/i ©BUSIN E SS INF ORMAT ION S E RVICES , LLC Page 106 A LL RIGHTS R E S E RVED Demographics Study Figure 160. House values for households. House Values for Households Households of Dropouts Households of Students Households Overall Value Ranges Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage $1-$24,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 0 .0% $ 25,000-$49 ,999 1 1 .1% 15 0.4% 83 0.3% $ 50,000-$74,999 11 12.2% 165 4.7% 1,691 5.6% $ 75 ,000-$99,999 29 32.2% 562 16.2% 4 ,236 14 .1% $100,000-$124,999 16 17.8% 1 ,066 30.7% 8,134 27 .1% $125,000-$149,999 9 10 .0% 433 12.5% 3,287 11 .0% $150,000-$174,999 2 2 .2% 227 6 .5% 2,046 6.8% $175,000-$199,999 0 0.0% 140 4 .0% 1,346 4.5% $200 ,000-$249,999 5 5.6% 221 6.4% 1,828 6 .1% $250,000-$299,999 2 2.2% 96 2 .8% 888 3.0% $300,000-$349,999 0 0.0% 58 1.7% 439 1.5% $350,000-$399,999 0 0 .0% 39 1.1% 227 0 .8% $400,000-$449,999 0 0.0% 9 0.3% 96 0 .3% $450,000-$499,999 0 0 .0% 11 0.3% 58 0 .2% $500,000-$599,999 0 0 .0% 11 0.3% 57 0 .2% $600,000-$699,999 0 0 .0% 3 0.1% 24 0.1% $700,000-$799,999 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 11 0.0% $800,000-$899,999 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 1 0 .0% $900,000-$999,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 0 .0% $1,000,000 + 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 9 0 .0% blank 15 16.7% 419 12.1% 5,524 18.4% Grand Total 90 100.0% 3,477 100.0% 29,994 100.00fc Figure 161. Home equity estimates for households. I Home Equity Estimate for Households Households of Dropouts Households of Students Households Overall Value Ranges Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage $0 -$9,999 4 4.4% 394 1 1.3% 2 ,724 9.1% $ 10,000 -$19,999 7 7.8% 444 12.8% 2 ,300 7 .7% $ 20,000 -$29,999 8 8.9% 343 9.9% 2 ,161 7.2% $ 30,000 -$39,999 11 12.2% 326 9.4% 2,354 7.8% $ 40,000 -$49, 999 6 6.7% 293 8.4% 2,712 9.0% $ 50,000 -$59, 999 2 2.2% 209 6.0% 2 ,505 8.4% $60,000 -$69,999 3 3.3% 132 3 .8% 1,902 6.3% $ 70,000 -$79,999 1 1.1% 74 2 .1% 1,058 3.5% $ 80,000 -$89,999 0 0.0% 51 1 .5% 687 2 .3% $ 90,000 -$99,999 1 1 .1% 28 0 .8% 444 1 .5% $100,000-$149,999 1 1.1% 59 1 .7 % 881 2 .9% $150,000-$199,999 0 0 .0% 12 0 .3% 138 0.5% $200,000-$299,999 0 0.0% 6 0 .2% 48 0.2% $300,000 -$499,999 0 0.0% 0 0 .0% 7 0.0% $500,000 + 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 0.0% blank 46 51.1% 1,106 31.8% 10,070 33.6% Grand Total 90 100.0% 3,477 100.0% 29,994 100.0o/c ©BUSINESS INF ORMATION S ERVICES, LLC Page 107 ALL RIGHTS R ESERVE D Jefferson City School District Figures 162 through 172 on these two pages as well a s pp. 110- 112 , s h ow se ve ral additiona l compari son s, but there is little difference be- tween the house holds of dropouts , thos e hous e ho ld s of stude nts within the di s trict and a ll the household s in the di s trict overall. Figure 162 . Home square footage for households compared by dropouts, students, and overall . Home Square Footages for Households Households of Dropouts Households of Students Households Overall Size Ranges Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Under 1 ,000 2 2.2% 66 1 .9% 626 2.1% 1,000-1,100 4 4.4% 80 2 .3% 655 2.2% 1,101-1 ,200 4 4.4% 118 3.4% 927 3.1% 1,201-1,300 2 2.2% 154 4.4% 1 ,085 3.6% 1,301-1,400 2 2.2% 17 7 5 .1% 1,211 4.0% 1 ,40 1-1 • 500 4 4.4% 163 4 .7 % 1,177 3.9% 1,501-1 ,600 2 2.2% 165 4 .7 % 1 ,203 4.0% 1,601-1,700 1 1.1% 13 7 3 .9% 1,157 3.9% 1, 701-2,000 6 6 .7 % 323 9.3% 2 ,522 8 .4% 2, 001-2,200 3 3.3% 126 3.6 % 1 ,061 3 .5% 2 ,201-2,400 5 5.6% 9 0 2 .6 % 741 2.5% 2,401-3,000 0 0.0% 159 4 .6 % 1 ,218 4.1% 3 ,001-3,500 0 0.0% 55 1 .6 % 439 1.5% 3 ,501-4,000 0 0 .0% 2 7 0 .8 % 233 0.8% 4 ,001-5,000 0 0 .0% 3 6 1 .0 % 258 0.9% 0\.er 5,000 0 0 .0% 2 8 0 .8 % 154 0 .5% blank 55 61 .1% 1 ,573 45.2 % 15,327 51.1% Grand Total 90 100.0% 3,477 100.0% 29,994 100.0% Figure 163. Education levels of households compared by dropouts, students, and overall. Mean Education Levels for Households Households of Dropouts Households of Students Households Overall Level Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Attended/Graduated High Schoo l 5 5.6% 106 3.0% 831 2.8% So me College (up to 2 yrs.) 66 73.3% 2,644 76 .0% 24,058 80.2% More Than 2 Yrs . College/College Grad. 19 21.1% 727 20 .9% 5,105 17.0% Grand Total 90 100.0% 3,477 100.0% 29,994 100.0°/c ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 108 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 164. Languages spoken in households. Languages Spoken in Households Households of Dropouts Households of Students Households Overall Language Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage CHINESE 1 1 .1% 2 0 .1% 26 0.1% ENGLISH 77 85.6% 3,120 89.7% 26,252 87.5% SPANISH 2 2.2% 39 1.1% 165 0 .6% (blank) 10 11 .1% 24 0.7% 562 1 .9% Grand Total 90 100.0% 3,185 91 .6% 29,994 90.0°/c Figure 165. Ethnicity for households with dropouts, students, and overall. I Household Ethnicity Households of Dropouts Households of Stu dents Households Overall Description Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage AFRICAN (OTHER) 1 1.1% 38 1.2% 250 0.9% AFRICAN AMERICAN 65 %+ 1 1.1% 21 0 .6% 114 0.4% CHINESE 1 1.1% 9 0 .3% 56 0.2% DUTCH 1 1.1% 106 3 .2% 1,169 4.1% ENGLISH 28 31 .1% 1,492 45.6% 11 ,218 39.5% FRENCH 2 2.2% 84 2 .6% 744 2.6% GERMAN 11 12.2% 435 13.3% 4 ,982 17.6% HISPANIC 2 2 .2% 71 2 .2% 372 1.3% IRISH 5 5.6% 198 6 .0% 1,768 6.2% JEWISH 2 2.2% 68 2 .1% 658 2.3% SCOTTlSH (SCOTCH) 11 12.2% 318 9 .7% 2 ,522 8.9% SLOVENIAN (SLOVEN E) 1 1.1% 0 0 .0% 3 0.0% SWEDISH 2 2 .2% 25 0 .8% 212 0.7% UNKNOWN 9 10.0% 261 8 .0% 2 ,756 9.7% WELSH 12 13 .3% 123 3 .8% 993 3.5% (blank) 1 1.1% 24 0 .7% 562 2.0% Grand Total 90 100.0% 3,273 100.0% 28 ,379 100.0% Figure 166. Religion for households with dropouts, students, and overall. Household Religion Households of Dropouts Households of Students Households Overall Religion Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage BUDDHIST 1 1 .1 % 13 0.4% 91 0.3% CAlliOLIC 10 11 .1% 510 14.7% 4,518 15.1 % EASTERN ORlliODOX 0 0 .0 % 13 0 .4% 94 0 .3 % GREEK ORlliODOX 0 0 .0 % 4 0.1% 33 0 .1 % HINDU 0 0.0% 18 0 .5% 79 0 .3 % ISLAMIC 0 0 .0 % 16 0.5% 100 0 .3% JEWISH 2 2 .2 % 68 2 .0% 658 2 .2% LUlliERAN 0 0 .0 % 0 .0% 5 0 .0 % PROTESTANT 67 74.4% 2,543 73.1% 21,052 70.2% SHINTO 0 0 .0 % 1 0 .0% 16 0 .1% SIKH 0 0.0% 3 0 .1% 3 0 .0% (" UNCODED 10 11 .1 % 2 88 8 .3% 3,345 11 .2% Grand Total 90 100.0% 3,477 100.0% 29,994 100.0°/c © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page } 09 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je.:fferson City School District Figure 167. A g e for head of househ o l d o f dropouts. Age of Household Head f or Dropout Households, Multiple Years 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07 Age Range Number Percentage Number Pe r centage Number Percentage Number Percentage 18-24 0 0 .0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0% 0 0 .0% 25-29 9 10 .0 % 5 13.2% 7 9 .2 % 7 8 .5% 3 0-34 9 10.0% 6 15.8 % 6 7 .9 % 7 8.5% 35-39 6 6 .7% 5 13.2% 6 7 .9 % 7 8.5% 40-44 16 17 .8% 5 13.2% 14 18.4% 16 19.5 % 45-49 20 22.2% 10 26 .3% 17 22.4% 18 22 .0% 50-54 18 20 .0% 3 7 .9% 16 21 .1% 17 2 0.7% 55-59 7 7 .8% 1 2 .6% 6 7 .9% 5 3 .0% 60-64 3 3.3% 2 5.3% 2 2 .6% 3 3.7% 65-69 0 0.0 % 0 0 .0% 0 0.0 % 0 0 .0% 7 0-74 2 2.2% 1 2 .6% 2 2 .6 % 2 2.4% 75 + 0 0.0% 0 0 .0% 0 0.0% 0 0 .0% Grand Total 90 100.0% 38 100.0% 76 100.0 % 82 100.0°/c Figure 168. Income ranges for households o f dropouts. Income Ranges for Households of Dropouts, Multiple Years 2009-10 2008-09 2 007-0 8 2006-07 Income Ra nges Numbe r Pe rc entage Number Percentage Numbe r Pe rcentage Number Perce ntage Und er $20 ,000 31 34.4% 12 31.6% 23 30.3% 27 32 .9% $ 20,000-$29,999 8 8.9% 3 7.9% 6 7.9% 5 6.1% $ 30,000-$39,999 11 12.2% 6 15.8% 13 17.1% 11 13.4% $ 40 ,000-$49,999 12 13.3% 3 7.9% 9 11 .8% 11 13.4% $ 50 ,000-$59,999 8 8.9% 5 13.2% 9 11.8% 10 12.2% $ 60,000 -$69,999 7 7.8% 3 7.9% 5 6.6% 5 6.1% $ 70,000 -$79,999 6 6.7% 4 10.5% 5 6.6% 5 6.1% $ 80 ,000 -$89,999 5 5.6% 1 2.6% 5 6.6% 6 7.3% $ 90,000 -$99,999 1 1.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.2% $100,000-$124,999 1 1.1% 1 2.6% 1 1.3% 1 1.2% $125,000-$149,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% $150 ,000-$174,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% $175,000-$199,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% $200 ,000-$249,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% $250 ,000 -$299 ,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% $300,000 -$399 ,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% $400 ,000-$499,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% $500,000 Plus 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Grand Total 90 100.0% 38 100.0% 76 100.0% 82 100.0o/c ©B U S INESS INFOR M ATI O N S ERV I CES, LLC Page 110 ALL R IG H TS R ESERVED ~ Demographics Study About one-third of the househo lds of dropo ut s earn less than $20,000 per year. Thi s is shown consi stent for each of the years . Most of the dropouts li ve in houses valu ed at less than $100,000. Th e hou seho ld heads also a re generally o ld er than heads of othe r ho useholds . Figure 169. Types of housing ownership for dropouts, 2007-2010. Type of Housing Ownership for Dropouts, Multiple Years 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07 Type Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Own Housing 34 37.8% 14 36.8% 31 40.8% 34 41 .5% Rent Housing 16 17.8% 5 13.2% 9 11 .8% 11 13.4% Unknow n 30 33.3% 14 36.8% 27 35.5% 29 35.4% Confirmed Owner 10 11.1 % 5 13.2% 9 1 1.8% 8 9 .8% Grand Total 90 100.0% 38 100.0% 76 100.0 % 82 100.0% Figure 170. House values for households of dropouts, 2007-10. House Values for Households of Dropouts, Multiple Years 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07 Value Ranges Number Percentage Number Percentage Number P e rcentage Number Percentage $1-$24,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 27 32.9% $ 25,000-$49,999 1 1 .1% 1 2.6% 1 1 .3% 5 6 .1% $ 50,000-$74,999 1 1 12.2% 6 15.8% 10 1 3.2% 11 13.4% $ 75,000-$99,999 29 32.2% 15 39.5% 27 35.5% 11 13.4% $100,000-$124,999 16 17.8% 4 10.5% 13 17.1 % 10 12.2% $125,000-$149,999 9 10.0 % 5 13.2% 9 1 1 .8% 5 6 .1% $150,000-$174,999 2 2.2% 1 2.6% 1 1 .3% 5 6 .1% $175,000-$199,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 7 .3% $200,000-$249,999 5 5 .6% 4 10.5% 5 6.6% 1 1 .2% $250,000-$299,999 2 2.2% 0 0.0% 1 1 .3% 1 1 .2% $300,000-$349,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 .0% $350 ,000-$399,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 .0% $400,000 -$449,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 .0% $450,000 -$499,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 .0 % 0 0 .0% $500,000 -$599,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 .0 % 0 0 .0% $600,000 -$699 ,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0 % $700,000-$799,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% $800,000-$899,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% $900,000 -$999,999 0 0 .0% 0 0.0% 0 0 .0% 0 0.0% $1 ,000,000 + 0 0 .0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% blank 15 16.7% 2 5.3% 9 11 .8% 0 0 .0% Grand Total 90 100.0% 38 100.0% 76 100.0% 82 100.0°/c © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 111 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je,f[erson City School District Figure 171. Home equity for households of dropouts. Home Equity Estimate for Households of Dropouts, Multiple Years 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07 Value Ranges Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage $0 -$9,999 4 4.4% 2 5.3% 3 3.9% 3 3.7% $ 10,000 -$19,999 7 7.8% 4 10.5% 7 9.2% 7 8.5% $ 20,000 -$29,999 8 8.9% 3 7.9% 5 6.6% 7 8.5% $ 30,000 -$39,999 11 12.2% 4 10.5% 12 15.8% 13 15.9% $ 40,000 -$49,999 6 6 .7% 2 5.3% 6 7 .9% 3 3.7% $ 50,000 -$59,999 2 2 .2% 2 5.3% 3 3.9% 3 3.7% $ 60,000 -$69,999 3 3.3% 0 0.0% 3 3.9% 3 3.7% $ 70,000 -$79,999 1 1.1% 1 2.6% 0 0 .0% 1 1.2% $ 80,000 -$89,999 0 0 .0% 0 0.0% 0 0 .0% 0 0.0% $ 90,000 -$99,999 1 1.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.2% $100 ,000-$149,999 1 1.1% 1 2.6% 1 1.3% 1 1.2% $150 ,000-$199,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0 % 0 0.0% 0 0.0% $200,000 -$299,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0 % 0 0.0% 0 0 .0% $300,000-$499,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0 % 0 0.0% 0 0 .0% $500,000 + 0 0.0% 0 0.0 % 0 0.0% 0 0.0% blank 46 51.1% 19 50.0 % 36 47.4% 40 48.8% Grand Total 90 100.0% 38 100.0% 76 100.0% 82 100.0°/c Figure 172. Ethnicity for households of dropouts. Household Ethnicity of Dropouts, Multiple Years 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07 Description Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage AFRICAN (OTH ER) 1 1.1% 1 2.6% 1 1.3% 1 1.2% AFRICAN AMERICAN 65%+ 1 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1 1.2% CHINESE 1 1.1 % 1 2.6% 1 1.3% 1 1.2% DUTCH 1 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1 1.2% ENGLI SH 28 31 .1% 11 28.9% 24 31.6% 23 28.0% FRENCH 2 2.2% 2 5.3% 2 2.6% 2 2.4% GERMAN 11 12 .2% 2 5.3% 10 13.2% 8 9.8% HISPANIC 2 2.2% 0.0% 1 1.3% 2 2.4% IRISH 5 5.6% 3 7.9% 6 7.9% 5 6.1% JEWISH 2 2.2% 2 5.3% 2 2.6% 2 2.4% SCOTTISH (SCOTCH) 11 12 .2% 4 10.5% 9 11 .8% 10 12.2% SLOVEN!AN (SLOVENE) 1 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1 1.2% SWEDISH 2 2.2% 0.0% 2 2 .6% 1 1.2% UNKNOWN 9 10.0% 6 15.8% 11 14 .5% 11 13.4% WELSH 12 13.3% 6 15.8% 7 9.2% 12 14.6% (blank) 1 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1 1.2% Grand Total 90 100 .0% 38 100 .0% 76 100.0% 82 100.0°/c © BUSIN ESS INFORMATION SERVIC E S , LLC Page 112 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study The equity and ethnicity percentages for the dropout households ap- pear to be consistent for each year. Dis~ct administrators asked us to determine where the dropouts are living today after leaving the district. The National Change of Address data- base was able to track the current addresses of 234 students who had dropped out since 2006 of the total 286, or 81 percent. We found only 34 of the dropout household heads actually changed addresses, and 21 of them still lived within the Jefferson City School District. Only one moved out of state. The weakness of the NCOA is that it tracks an address change when a change of address form is completed. A dropout's parents or guardians could remain living in the district and the former student could live else- where. A system doesn't currently exist to track only children in a house- hold and when they move, but only entire households and when they move. (""' Figure 1728. Total official dropout counts for the Jefferson City School District and all Missouri school dis- tricts. As pointed out on p. 104, the tables In this section reflect the number of dropout households that matched our main demographic database. But the official DESE dropout counts are shown below for the district and state overall. What this shows Is that during the 2009-10 school year, there were 120 total dropouts In the district, and those student's addreBS matched 90 of the addresses In our demographic da- tabase (the gray column In the tables), giving a match rate of 76 percent. The students whose addresses could not be matched to the demographic database might have moved, changed names or other factors to cause a non-match. Obviously, the 128 total actual dropouts In the 2008-09 school year had a weak match rate of only 38 households in the data (purple column). Annual Dropout Rate for the Jefferson City School District and Missouri School Districts Jefferson City School District Missouri School Districts OVerall 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 912ASIAN 0 0 2 2 3 81 104 97 10tl 9 12 ASIAN RATE 0.00% 0.00% 4.40% 4.00% 7.80% 1.90% 2.40% L10% 2.20% 912BLACK 33 48 36 43 44 3,387 3,177 4,024 ·4,87~ 912 BLACK RATE 8.60% 12.50% 8.70% 9.70% 9.50% 7.00% 6.50% 8.00% 9.50% 9 12 HISPANIC 5 4 4 5 3 384 496 448 414 9 12 HISPANIC RAlE 8.700A. 6.20% 6.60% 7.00% 4.50% 5.50% 6.80% 5.80% 5.00% 9121NDIAN 0 0 0 0 0 64 55 •44 ·65 9121NDIAN RATE 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.()0% 0.00% 5.90% 4.50% 3~50% ._·4:90% 912WHJTE 82 114 82 78 70 6w890 ·&w541 . "6,844 :. -6,86S 912 WHnE RATE 3.90% 5.50% 4.10% 3.80% 3.50% 3.10% 3.00% . 3.00% 3~1J)% 91210TAL 120 166 124 128 120 10,806 . 10,373 . >11·257 -·12,323 9 12 TOTAL RAlE 4.60% 6.50% 4.90% 4.80% 4.70% 3.90% 3.70% ·4.00% . 4.30% © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 113 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District In order to get an idea of how often students changed addresses after en- rolling in the fall, we sent the district's 2009-10 roster to the National Change of Address database, maintained by the U.S. Postal Service. We found that 328 students moved between October 1, 2009 and May I, 20 I 0, and 136 of them, or 41 percent, moved from one address within the Jeffer- son City School District to another within the district. More than half of the intra-district moves were to apartments. Forty-five of the overall moves were to out-of-state. When this data is taken into account with other data in this study about the overall mobility of the student population, we believe that it shows that the district's population is more mobile than we would expect. This creates issues of trying to educate a student population that is so changeable and variable. ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 114 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ~\ ~ ~ PAGEPURPOSELYLEFTBLANK © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 115 Demographics Study ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je,(ferson City School District In o rder to d e te rmi ne a profil e o f stude nt s w ho are n ew to th e di stri ct, w e a na lyzed the 20 09 -10 s tud ent roste r a nd m at c he d it to the c o mpre hen s ive d e mog ra phic d at a. Those ma tch es show in the brown c olumns, w ith c o unts a nd percen tages of a ll ho use ho ld s in th e di s trict w ith s tud e nt s in blue and a ll ho useho lds in th e di s tri c t s hown in pink. Mo re tha n 70 pe rc e nt of th e new s tude nts to th e di stri c t hav e li ved at th e sam e a ddress fo r m o re th an a ye ar. T hi s wo uld seem to indi c ate th a t th ey a re t ra nsfe r s tudent s f ro m p ri va te school s or previo us ly ho m e -schoole d . Reco rd s fro m th e d is tri c t woul d no t put thi s pe rce ntage tha t hi g h . A h ig he r pe rcentage of the ne w e r s tud e nt s ' house ho ld s would be re nte r s th an th e s tu- d e nt popul ation as a w ho le. Figure 173 . Income ranges for households of new students, current students, and overall. Income Ranges for Households Households of New Students Households of Students Households Overall Income Ranges Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Under $20,000 184 25.1% 705 20.3% 9,120 30.4% $ 20,000 -$29,999 68 9.3% 235 6 .8% 2,640 8 .8 % $ 30,000-$39,999 42 5 .7 % 213 6 .1% 2 ,541 8 .5 % $ 40,000 -$49, 999 61 8.3% 303 8 .7% 3,1 58 10.5% $ 50,000-$59,999 79 10.8% 435 12.5% 3 ,357 11 .2% $ 60,000-$69,999 105 14.3% 522 15.0% 3 ,157 10.5% $ 70,000 -$79, 999 60 8 .2% 368 10.6% 2 ,17 9 7 .3% $ 80,000 -$89,999 42 5 .7% 224 6.4% 1,345 4 .5% $ 90,000 -$99,999 21 2.9% 126 3 .6% 74 7 2 .5% $100,000-$124,999 38 5 .2% 185 5 .3% 995 3 .3% $125,000 -$149,999 23 3.1% 103 3.0% 415 1.4% $150,000 -$174,999 5 0 .7 % 26 0 .7% 170 0 .6 % $175,000 -$199,999 6 0.8% 16 0 .5% 82 0 .3 % $200,000-$249,999 0 0 .0 % 12 0 .3% 45 0 .2 % $250,000-$299,999 0 0 .0% 3 0.1% 24 0 .1% $300,000-$399,999 0 0 .0% 1 0 .0% 9 0 .0% $400,000-$499,999 0 0.0% 0 0 .0% 3 0 .0% $500,000 Plus 0 0 .0 % 0 0.0% 7 0 .0% Grand Total 734 100.0% 3 ,477 100.0% 29,994 100.0o/c ©BUSIN E SS IN F ORMATION S ERVIC ES, LLC Pa ge 116 ALL RIGHTS RES E RVED Demographics Study Age of Household Head Households of New Students Households of Students Household s Ove rall Age Range Number Percentage Number Perce ntage Number Percentage 18-24 13 1.8% 34 1 .0% 459 1 .5% 25-29 64 8 .7% 206 5 .9% 1 ,500 5 .0 % 30-34 134 18.3% 384 11 .0 % 1 ,900 6.3% 35-39 177 24.1% 632 18 .2% 2,998 10.0% 40-44 148 20.2% 721 20.7 % 3 ,147 10.5% 45-49 80 10.9% 660 19.0% 3,516 11 .7% 50-54 59 8.0% 411 11 .8% 3,599 12.0% 55-59 26 3.5% 211 6 .1% 3,494 11 .6% 60-64 16 2.2% 102 2.9% 2 ,884 9.6% 6~9 10 1 .4 % 76 2 .2 % 2 ,576 8 .6 % 70-74 5 0.7% 25 0.7 % 1 ,269 4 .2% 75 + 2 0 .3% 15 0 .4 % 2 ,652 8.8% Grand Total 734 100.0% 3,477 100.0% 29,994 100.0"/c Length of Residency for Households Figure 1 74. Age of househ old heads of new s, current stu-student dents, a nd overall. Figure 1 residenc 75. Length of y for house- students and holds of overall. Households of New Students Households of Students Hous eholds Overall Years Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage 1 218 29.7% 46 5 13.4% 3,824 12.7% 2 41 5.6% 173 5.0% 1,456 4.9% 3-5 143 19.5% 664 19.1% 5,310 17.7% 6-10 212 28.9% 1069 30 .7% 6 ,350 21.2% 11-15 83 11.3% 646 18.6% 4 ,600 15.3% 16-20 19 2.6% 308 8.9% 3,557 11 .9% 21-25 12 1.6% 94 2 .7% 1,737 5.8% 26-39 4 0.5% 50 1.4% 2,516 8.4 % More than 40 2 0.3% 8 0.2% 644 2.1% Grand Total 734 100.0% 3,477 100.0% 29,994 100.0°/c Figure 176. Type of residential housing with households of students and overall. Type of Residential Housing Households of New Students Households of Students Households Overall Type Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Apartments 125 17.0% 401 11 .5% 4 ,963 16.5% S i ngle-Family Houses 609 83.0% 3 ,076 88 .5% 25,031 83 .5% Grand Total 734 100.0% 3,477 100.0% 29,994 100.0o/c Figure 177. Type of housing ownership for households of new students, current households, and overall. Type of Housing Ownership Households of New Students Households of Students Households Overall Type Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Own Housing 347 47.3% 1,871 53.8 % 14,462 48.2% Rent Housing 126 17.2 % 3 56 1 0 .2 % 3 ,821 12.7% Unknown 212 28.9% 750 21 .6 % 6,249 20.8% Conti rmed Owner 49 6 .7% 500 14.4% 5,462 18.2% Grand Total 734 100.0% 3,477 100.0% 29,994 100.0% © BUSINESS INFORMATI ON SERVICES, LLC Page 1J7 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED _!__gfferson Ci()}_ School District I Figure 178. House values for households with students and overall. House Values for Households Households of New Students Households of Students Households Overall Value Ranges Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage $1 -$24,999 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0 % 6 0 .0 % $ 2 5,000-$49,999 4 0.5% 1 5 0.4% 8 3 0 .3% $ 50,000-$74,999 45 6 .1% 165 4 .7 % 1 ,6 91 5 .6 % $ 75,000-$9 9 ,999 113 15.4% 562 16.2 % 4 ,2 3 6 14.1% $100,000-$124,999 198 27.0% 1 ,066 30.7 % 8 ,134 27 .1% $125,000-$149,999 89 12.1% 4 33 12.5 % 3 ,287 11 .0 % $150,000-$174,999 44 6 .0 % 227 6 .5% 2 ,046 6 .8 % $175,000-$199,999 28 3 .8 % 14 0 4 .0 % 1 ,346 4 .5 % $2 00,000-$249 ,999 49 6.7% 221 6 .4 % 1 ,828 6 .1% $2 50,000-$299,999 15 2 .0 % 9 6 2.8% 888 3.0% $300,000 -$349,999 12 1 .6 % 5 8 1.7 % 4 39 1 .5 % $350,000-$3 99,999 6 0 .8 % 3 9 1 .1% 227 0 .8 % $400,000-$449,999 1 0 .1% 9 0 .3 % 96 0 .3 % $450,000 -$499,999 1 0 .1% 11 0.3% 58 0 .2 % $500,000 -$599,999 2 0 .3 % 11 0 .3% 57 0 .2 % $600,000 -$699,999 0 0.0% 3 0 .1% 24 0.1 % $700,000-$799,999 0 0 .0% 1 0 .0 % 11 0 .0 % $800,000 -$899,999 0 0.0 % 1 0 .0 % 1 0 .0 % $900,000-$999,999 0 0 .0 % 0 0 .0 % 3 0 .0 % $1 ,000,000 + 0 0 .0 % 0 0 .0 % 9 0 .0 % b lank 127 17.3 % 419 12.1% 5 ,5 24 1 8 .4% Grand Total 734 1 3,477 100.0% 29,994 100.0% Figure 179. Home equity for households with students and overall. Home Equity Estimate for Households Households of New Students Households of Students Households Overall Value Ranges Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage $0 -$9,999 97 13.2% 394 11.3 % 2 ,724 9.1% $ 10,000 -$19,999 89 12.1% 444 12.8 % 2 ,300 7 .7 % $ 20,000 -$29,999 76 10.4% 343 9 .9 % 2 ,161 7 .2 % $ 30,000 -$39,999 57 7.8 % 326 9.4% 2 ,354 7 .8 % $40,000 -$49,999 22 3.0% 293 8.4% 2 ,712 9 .0 % $ 50,000 -$59,999 23 3.1% 209 6 .0 % 2 ,505 8.4% $ 60,000 -$69,999 9 1.2% 132 3 .8 % 1 ,902 6 .3 % $ 7 0,000 -$79,999 7 1.0% 74 2 .1% 1,058 3 .5 % $ 80,000 -$89,999 4 0.5% 51 1 .5 % 6 87 2 .3 % $ 90,000 -$99,999 2 0.3% 28 0 .8 % 444 1 .5 % $100,000-$149,999 6 0 .8 % 59 1 .7 % 881 2 .9% $150,000-$199,999 3 0.4% 12 0.3% 138 0.5% $200,000-$299,999 1 0.1% 6 0 .2 % 48 0 .2 % $300,000-$499,999 0 0.0 % 0 0.0% 7 0 .0% $500,000 + 0 0.0 % 0 0 .0 % 3 0 .0% blank 338 46.0 % 1,106 3 1 .8 % 10 ,07 0 33.6% Grand Total 734 100.0% 3,477 100.0% 29,994 100.0% ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 118 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED C' (' Demographics Study The percentages for ho usi ng valu es, e quity, home square footages and mean education le vels of the household heads vary li ttle among the three groups of households. Figure 180. Square footage of homes for households of students and overall. Home Square Footages for Households Households of New Students Households of Students Households Overall Size Ranges Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Under 1,000 10 1.4% 66 1.9% 626 2.1% 1,000-1 ,100 11 1 .5% 80 2.3% 655 2.2% 1, 1 01-1 , 200 15 2.0% 118 3.4% 927 3.1% 1,201-1,300 29 4.0% 154 4.4% 1,085 3.6% 1, 30 1-1 , 400 24 3.3% 177 5.1% 1,211 4.0% 1,401-1 ,500 35 4.8% 163 4.7% 1,177 3.9% 1,501-1,600 36 4.9% 165 4 .7% 1,203 4 .0% 1,601-1,700 24 3.3% 137 3 .9% 1,157 3.9% 1, 701 -2,000 46 6.3% 323 9 .3% 2 ,522 8.4% 2,001-2,200 20 2.7% 126 3.6% 1,061 3.5% 2 ,201-2,400 10 1.4% 90 2 .6% 741 2.5% 2,401-3,000 24 3.3% 159 4.6% 1,218 4.1% 3,001-3,500 7 1.0% 55 1.6% 439 1.5% 3, 501-4,000 4 0.5% 27 0.8% 233 0 .8% 4 , 001 -5,000 6 0 .8% 36 1 .0% 258 0.9% 0\er 5,000 3 0.4% 28 0 .8% 154 0 .5% blank 430 58 .6% 1,573 45.2% 15,327 5 1.1% Grand Total 734 100.0% 3,477 100.0% 29,994 100.0% Figure 181 . Education levels for households of new students, current students, and overall. Mean Education Levels for Households Households of New Students Households of Students Households Overall Level Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Attended/Graduated High School 29 4.0% 106 3.0% 831 2.8% Some College (up to 2 yrs.) 546 74.4% 2,644 76.0% 24,058 80.2% More Than 2 Yrs. College/College Grad . 159 21.7% 727 20.9% 5,105 17.0% Grand Total 734 100.0% 3,477 100.0% 29 ,994 100.0o/c © BUSINESS IN F ORMATION SERVICES , LLC Page 119 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je_,fferson City School District Figure 1 82 . Eth- nicity of house- holds wit h s tu- dent s and overall. Description AFRICAN (OTHER) AFRICAN AMERICAN 65%+ AFRICAN AMERICAN 95%+ ALBANIAN A NGOLAN ARAB ARMENIAN ASHANll (ASANlE) AUS1RIAN BELGIAN BU LGARIAN BYELORUSSIAN (BELARUS IAN) CAMEROONIAN CARIBBEAN A FRICAN AMERICAN CHINESE CROATIAN CZECH DANISH DUTCH EGYPTIAN ENGLISH ESTONIAN ETHIOPIAN FILIP INO (PHILIPPINE) FINNISH FRENCH GERMAN GHANAIAN GREEK HAWAIIAN HISPANIC HUNGARIAN INDIAN IR IS H ITALIAN JAPANESE JEWISH K E NYAN KHME R (KAMPUCHEAN. CAMBODIAN) KOREAN KURDISH LAOTIAN LA1VIAN LITHUA NIAN LU~MBOURGIA N M ONGOLIAN MUL Tl-ETHNIC NAllVE A MERICAN (AMERICAN INDIAN) NIGERIAN NORWEGIAN PAKISTANI PERSIAN POLISH PORTUGUESE ROMANIAN RUANDAN (RWANDAN) RUSSIAN SCOTTISH (SCOTCH) SENEGALESE SERBIAN SIERRA LEONE SLOVA KIAN (SLOVAK) SLOV ENIAN (SLOVEN E) SWAZILAND SWEDISH SWISS THAI TURKIS H UKRAINIAN UNKNOWN VIETNAMESE WELSH ZAIRIAN {DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CON ZIMBABWEAN (b lank) Grand Total Ho use hold Ethnicity Households of Now Students Num ber Percen tage 7 1.0% 6 0.8% 4 0.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8 1.1% 0 0 .0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 1 0.1 % 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 25 3.4% 0 0.0% 335 45.6% 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 0 O.OOA, 0 0.0% 17 2.3% 76 10.4% 0 O.O"A, 0 0.0% 0 O.O"A, 15 2.0% 1 0.1% 7 1.0% 39 5.3% 5 0.7% 0 0.0% 13 1.8% 0 O.O"A, 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 0.8% 2 0.3% 0 0.0% 0 O.O"A> 1 0.1% 1 0.1% 0 O.OOA> 0 O.O"A> 1 0.1 % 54 7.4% 0 0.0% 0 0 .0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 7 1.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 57 7.8% 0 0.0% 26 3.5% 1 0.1% 0 0.0% 15 2.0% 734 100.0% ©B U S I NESS I NFORMATION SERVI CES, LLC Page 120 House holds of Stude nts Households Overall Num ber Per cen tage Number Percentage 38 1.1% 250 0.8% 2 1 0.6% 114 0.4% 12 0.3% 80 0.3% 0 O.OOA, 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 O.OOA, 5 0.1% 42 0.1% 0 O.OOA, 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.0% 21 0.6% 224 0.7% 2 0.1% 46 0.2% 1 0.0% 1 O.OOA, 1 0.0% 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 1 O.O"A, 1 O.O"A, 9 0.3% 56 0.2% 0 0.0% 5 0.0% 4 0.1% 58 0.2% 16 0.5% 135 0 .5% 106 3 .00,!, 1,169 3.9'% 0 O.O"A, 12 0.0% 1,492 42 .9% 11.218 37.4% 1 0.0% 5 0.0% 1 0 .0% 7 O.OOA> 0 0.0% 13 O.O"A, 2 0.1% 8 0 .0% 84 2.4% 744 2.5% 435 12.5 % 4 ,982 16.6 % 0 0.0% 3 0.0 % 4 0 .1% 33 0.1% 0 0.0% 1 0 .0 % 7 1 2.0% 372 1.2% 13 0 .4% 76 0 .3 % 21 0.6% 82 0 .3 % 198 5.7% 1,768 5.9% 38 1.1% 263 0 .9% 1 0.0% 16 0.1% 68 2 .0% 658 2.2% 1 0.0% 4 0.0% 0 0 .0% 6 0.0 % 0 0.0% 7 0.0% 0 O.OOA> 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0 .0% 0 0.0% 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 2 0.1% 3 0.0% 1 0.0% 12 0.0% 9 0.3% 14 0 .0% 11 0.3% 133 0.4% 0 0.0% 2 0.0% 1 0.0% 17 0.1 % 10 0.3% 88 0.3% 7 0.2% 18 0.1% 1 0.0% 14 O.O"A> 0 0.0% 5 0.0".4 9 0.3% 54 0.2% 318 9.1% 2.522 8.4% 0 0.0% 1 0.0".4 0 0.0% 7 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 12 O.O"A> 0 0.0 % 3 0.0% 2 0.1% 16 0.1% 25 0.7% 212 0.7% 0 0.0% 17 0.1% 1 0.0% 5 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 8 O.OOA> 261 7.5% 2,756 9.2 % 3 0.1 % 22 0.1% 123 3.5% 993 3.3% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 0.0% 24 0.7% 562 1.9% 3,477 1oo.o •1c 29,994 100.0'!. ALL RIGHT S RESERV ED Demographics Study The new stud e nts to the distri ct a re s imila r in e thnicity, rel ig ion and la n guages spoken at h ome as a ll the other ho use ho lds in the di stri ct. Household Religion Households of New Students House holds of Students Religion Number P e rcentage Nu mbe r P e r ce n tage BUDDHIST 1 0 .1% 13 0 .4% CATHOLIC 100 13.6% 5 1 0 14.7 % EASTERN ORTHODOX 1 0 .1% 1 3 0 .4 % GREEK ORTHODOX 0 0.0% 4 0 .1 % H INDU 5 0 .7% 1 8 0.5% ISLAMIC 8 1.1% 16 0 .5 % J EW ISH 1 3 1.8% 68 2 .0 % LUTHERAN 0 0 .0% 0 .0 % PROTESTANT 532 72.5% 2,543 7 3 .1% SHINTO 0 0 .0% 1 0 .0 % S IKH 2 0 .3% 3 0 .1% UNCODED 72 9.8% 288 8.3% Grand Total 734 100.0 % 3,477 100.0 % La ng uages Spoken in Households Households of New Students Househo lds of Studen ts Language Numbe r Percentage Number Pe rcentage AMHARIC 1 0 .1% 1 0 .0% ARABIC 0 0 .0% 3 0 .1% CHINESE 0 0 .0% 2 0 .1% DUTCH 0 0 .0% 1 0 .0% ENGLISH 649 88 .4 % 3,120 89 .7% FARSI (PERSIAN) 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% FRENCH 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% GERMAN 0 0 .0% 3 0 .1% GREEK 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% HEBREW 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% HINDI 3 0 .4% 10 0.3% HUNGARIAN 0 0 .0% 0 0.0% ITALIAN 0 0 .0% 1 0.0% JAPANESE 0 0.0% 0 0.0% KOREAN 0 0 .0% 0 0.0% LAOTIAN (LAO) 0 0 .0% 0 0.0% LAlVIAN (LETTISH) 0 0 .0% 0 0.0% LITHUANIAN 0 0 .0% 0 0.0% NORWEGIAN 0 0 .0% 0 0.0% PORTUGU ESE 1 0 .1% 6 0.2% ROMANIAN 0 0 .0% 1 0.0% RUSSIAN 0 0.0% 2 0.1% SE RBO-CROA TIAN 0 0.0% 0 0.0% SLOVENIAN 0 0.0% 0 0.0% SPAN ISH 8 1.1% 39 1.1% SWEDISH 0 0.0% 0 0.0% TAGALOG 0 0.0% 0 0.0% THAI 0 0 .0% 0 0.0% TURKISH 0 0 .0% 0 0.0% 1WI (ASHANTl) 0 0 .0% 0 0.0% UNKNOWN 57 7 .8% 26 1 7.5% URDU 0 0.0% 0 0.0% VI ETNAMESE 0 0 .0% 3 0.1% (blank) 15 2.0% 24 0.7% Grand Total 734 100.0% 3,477 100.0% © BUSINESS IN F ORMA TION SERVICES, LLC Page 121 Households Overall Number Pe r centag e 91 0.3% 4 ,518 15.1 % 94 0 .3 % 33 0 .1% 79 0 .3% 100 0.3% 658 2.2% 5 0.0% 21,052 70.2% 16 0 .1% 3 0.0% 3,345 1 1 .2 % 29,994 1oo.o•1c Hou seh olds Overa ll Number Percentage 6 0 .0% 17 0.1 % 26 0.1% 7 0 .0% 26,252 87 .5% 8 0 .0% 10 0 .0% 46 0 .2% 5 0 .0% 4 0 .0% 45 0 .2% 11 0.0% 15 0 .1% 2 0.0% 2 0 .0% 1 0 .0% 3 0 .0% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 9 0.0% 7 0.0% 8 0.0% 1 0 .0% 1 0 .0% 165 0 .6% 3 0.0% 1 0 .0% 2 0 .0% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 2,756 9.2% 1 0.0% 14 0.0 % 562 1 .9% 29,994 100.0o/c Figure 183. Rel igion of households with students. Figure 184. Languages spoken in households with students. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © m c (/) z 111 (/) (/) z '11 0 ;o 3: )> -i 0 z Ul 111 ;o < () 111 (/) r r () ~ ~ (JCl (D 1-" N N )> r r ::0 Gi :I -i (/) ::0 111 (/) 111 ;o < 111 0 l --1 Miles 0 QS 1 2 3 CJ 0 -23 -47-69 ~ 24 -46 -70 -92 93-115 139 -161 ~ 185 -208 116 -138 ~ 162 -184 Highways Streets N WeE s School District CJ CD :J C/1 ;:::;: '< 0 -:J 0 0 3 ~ :J t:O C/1 ~ ..... a s::: a. a CD :J ~ ..... C/1 b :J '-~. CD ~ == ~ CD iii ~. 0 ~ :J (") -... ;:::;: '< (JJ 0 :T 0 0 CJ iii' ..... .., c:;· ~ Demographics Study Figure 186. Location of incoming students by school year in Jefferson Cit y School Dist rict. Ul • ~ z "' :::: ....... v (f' ~ ....... VI I~ 0 •t ,_r~ 0 0 • ri ..!:: 1 v f Vl ) • ) • • VI I ....... • Q) ..... • • Q) • , ~ ....... ) _,. ,. .. Vl • • • -•A..., • -;• r •• • • ' . ,.. • ' /~~ • • • VI • , • >--: .;:~ ~~ ro 5: ..!:: 'o.O I ··t 8 . --. ..... ,~ • • -) / i--~{-'-,. .1 •' 0 'j ,£ ..... ~J /tt;J 0 N -~ r • 0'\ 0 ·~ 0 N • r---- 0'\ 0 0 N -00 0 0 N • • 00 0 0 • N -r-... 0 0 • M N • •• I ©BUSINESS IN F ORMATION SERVIC E S , LLC Page 123 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Figure 187. Density of outgoing students in the Jefferson City School District. ..... +' v ·c: +' Vl 0 0 0 ..c ~ v \/) "' 00 ,.... \0 \0 ,.... I g r-l ... ..,... 1.1'\ \Jj ..,... \0 ,.... ,.... 1.1'\ 1.1'\ iJ ('j ..,... ·:g ,.... ,.... "' I rr\ ..,... ('j 0 ,.... ,.... ' ..,... rr\ 0 00 ,.... ('j ('j \0 00 ('j rr\ ..,... \0 I I "' ~ :E 0 ,.... -M <; ('j ..,... ' ,.... 0 ('j Dl © BUSINESS IN FOR MATION S ERVI CES, LLC Page 124 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 188. Location of outgoing students by school year in the Jefferson City School District. • • /" ? • . \ . -f • -- ,. . ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES , LLC Page 125 4-' v ,_ 4-' Vl 0 0 0 ..r: v l/l Vl 4-' <lJ <lJ ,_ 4-' l/) Vl >.. r1J 3: ..r: 'o.O I 0'\ 0 0 1"1 -00 0 0 1"1 • 00 0 0 1"1 -('... 0 0 1"1 • ('... 0 0 1"1 -\0 0 0 1"1 • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District I Figure 189. Entry status of new students. From Where New Students Came: Comparison of 2009-10 Roster 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 Students Students Students Entrance Code who were % who were % who were 0/o not not not enrolled in enrolled in enrolled in 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07 Initial Entry 661 42.4% 661 24.7% 661 18.4% Remained : Advanced 44 2.8% 1 ,057 39.4% 1,896 52.8% Remained : Retained 3 0.2% 4 9 1.8% 52 1.4% Remained : Other 6 0.4% 12 0.4% 14 0.4% Remained : Changed a grade 7 0.4% 10 0.4% 10 0.3% Stopout 4 0 .3% 7 0.3% 9 0.3% Transfer from public school outside district 435 27.9% 408 15.2% 4 16 11.6% Transfer from public school within district 21 1.3% 113 4.2% 178 5 .0% Transfer from home school in state 16 1.0% 14 0.5% 16 0.4% Transfer from private school in state 122 7 .8% 119 4.4% 115 3.2% Transfer from public school out of state 209 13.4% 200 7.5% 194 5.4% Transfer from private school out of state 6 0.4% 6 0.2% 6 0 .2% Transfer from drop-out 2 0.1% 1 0.0% 3 0 .1% Transfer from another country 23 1.5% 23 0.9% 23 0.6% Grand Total 1,559 100.0% 2 ,680 100.0% 3,593 100.0% I Figure 190. Reasons students left the Jefferson City School District, 2006-2010. Reasons Students Left the Jefferson City School District, by year 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07 Reason Number % Number % Number % Number % Dropped Out : Other 62 0 .7% 61 0 .7% 67 0 .8 % 77 0 .9 % Dropped Out: Expu lsion 2 0 .0 % 2 0.0% 0.0% 0 .0 % Dropped Out: Reached Max Age 0 0 .0 % 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Dropped Out: GED Program 15 0 .2 % 16 0 .2% 12 0.1 % 0 .0 % Dropped Out: Moved not know continuing 5 0 .1 % 4 0 .0% 0.0% 0.0% Grad uated with non-college prep 23 0 .3% 427 4.8% 386 4.4% 554 6 .5 % Graduated with coll ege prep 1 0.0% 1 94 2 .2 % 237 2.7% 0 .0 % Remained: Advanced 0 0.0% 7 ,272 82.5% 7,101 81.1 % 56 0 .7 % Remained : Retained 0 0 .0 % 65 0 .7% 146 1 .7% 165 1.9 % Remained: Other 0 0 .0 % 14 0 .2 % 22 0 .3 % 2 0 .0 % Remained: Changed a grade 0 0 .0 % 4 0 .0% 0 .0 % 0 .0 % Stopout 9 0 .1% 52 0 .6 % 58 0.7% 1 0 .0 % Transfer out Unknown 4 0 .0 % 0 .0% 34 0.4% 426 5 .0 % Transfer to public school ou tside district in state 323 3 .6 % 330 3 .7% 254 2 .9 % 35 0.4% Transfer to public school within district 241 2 .7% 182 2 .1 % 225 2 .6 % 33 0.4% Transfer to home school i n state 22 0 .2 % 33 0.4% 4 1 0.5% 7 0 .1 % Transfer t o private school in state 30 0 .3% 25 0.3% 14 0 .2 % 3 0 .0 % Transfer to public school out of state 124 1.4% 126 1.4% 136 1.6% 17 0.2 % Transfer to private school out of state 1 0 .0 % 1 0.0% 4 0.0% 0 .0 % Transfer to home school out of state 4 0 .0% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 .0 % Transfer to another country 5 0 .1 % 1 0.0% 3 0.0% 0.0% Deceased 4 0 .0% 2 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 .0 % (blank) 8,011 90.2% 2 0.0% 17 0 .2 % 7 ,110 83.8% Total Students In Roste r 8,886 100.0% 8,815 100.0% 8,759 100.0 % 8,486 100.0% © BUSINESS IN FORMAT ION SERVICES, LLC Page 126 A LL RIG HTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figures 189 through 191 on these pages come fr o m information provided b y th e di strict, and the e n t ra nce and exit codes we re assigned to th e s tudent. W e m a de the co mpari son s from o n e y ear to th e next to determine w he th e r there were m ajor d iffere nces in each set of new s tudents. We be li eve it is s ig nifi cant th a t in the 2009-10 s chool year , the percentage of students that transferred from a p ri vate s chool into t he d istrict 's s chools had doubled compared w ith the 2006-07 roster of s t ud e nts . (We compared th e 2009-1 0 roster wi th th e 2006-07 roster and found 3,593 s tud e n ts w ho d id not ap pear o n the 2006 roster. We fo und 2 ,680 stude nts listed on th e 2007-08 ro s te r w ho d id no t app ear on the 2009 -I 0 ro s ter.) F ig ure 1 91. Ethnicity and en tra n ce status of new students, 2009-20 10. Ethnicity and Entrance Codes for New Students in the 2009-10 School Yea r Asian % Black % Hispanic % Native % Mixed % Whi te American Ini tial Entry 12 46.2% 127 38.4% 29 44.6% 3 75.0% 1 100.0% 489 Remained : M.anced 1 3.8% 7 2.1 % 1 1.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 35 Remained: Retained 0 O.OOk 1 0.3% 0 0.0% 0 O.OOk 0 O.OOk 2 Remained : Other 0 O.OOk 1 0.3% 1 1.5% 0 O.OOk 0 0.0% 4 Remained: Changed a grade 0 O.OOk 1 0.3% 0 0.0% 0 O.OOk 0 O.OOk 6 Stopoot 0 O.OOk 3 0.9% 0 0.0% 0 O.OOk 0 O.OOk 1 Transfer from public school outside district in state 2 7.7 % 93 28.1 % 8 12 .3% 0 O.OOk 0 O.OOk 332 Transfer from pu blic school within district 0 om, 9 2.7 % 2 3.1 % 0 O.OOk 0 O.OOk 10 Transfer from home school in state 0 0.0% 1 0.3% 0 0.0% 1 25.00/o 0 0.0% 14 Transfer from private school in state 4 15.4% 15 4.5% 1 1.5% 0 O.OOk 0 0.0% 102 Transfer from public school out of state 4 15.4% 65 19.6% 17 26.2% 0 0.0% 0 O.OOk 123 Transfer from private school out of state 0 0.0% 1 0.3% 0 O.OOk 0 O.OOk 0 O.OOk 5 Transfer from drop-out 0 O.OOk 1 0.3% 0 0.0% 0 O.OOk 0 O.OOk 1 Transfer fi"om another country 3 11 .5% 6 1.8% 6 9.2% 0 O.OOk 0 O.OOk 8 Grand Total 26 100.0 % 331 100.0% 65 100.0% 4 100.0% 1 100.0% 1,132 % Grand Total % 43.2% 661 42.4% 3.1 % 44 2.8% 0.2% 3 0.2 % 0.4% 6 0.4% 0.5% 7 0.4% 0.1% 4 0.3% 29.3 % 435 27.9% 0.9% 21 1.3% 1.2% 16 1.0% 9.0% 122 7.8% 10.9% 209 13.4% 0.4% 6 0.4% 0.1% 2 0.1% 0.7% 23 1.5% 100.0% 1,559 100.0% ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page }27 ALL R I GHTS R ESERVED Je.,fferson City School District Acco rdin g to th e di strict's ass ig ned codes, mo re than ha lf-56 per- cent-of the new s tud e nt s in th e 200 9-10 schoo l year rece ived f ree-or re - duce d-lun c hes. In F ig w-e 192 , we pre pared a c ross-tab of grades an d e n- trance co des fo r th e new s tud ent s. As yo u'd expect, the yo un ger grades had m an y more new s tud e nt s th a n th e upper o nes. For every p r ivate school st u- de nt who tr a nsfers into the d istri ct, there ar e more tha n seven pu b li c-school s tu de nts who transf er in . Figu re 192. Entrance status compared t o free or reduced lunches for new s t udent s , 2009 -2010. Free-and-Redu ce Lunch Sta tus and Entrance Codes for New Students in the 2009-10 Sc hool Year Fre e % Re duce d % Pai d % Grand Total % Init ial En try 275 34 .9% 49 51.0% 337 49.9% 661 42.4o/c Remained : Advanced 19 2.4% 2 2.1 % 23 3.4 % 44 2.8o/c Rema ined : Retained 1 0.1% 0 0.0% 2 0.3% 3 0 .~/c Remained : Other 2 0.3% 1 1.0% 3 0.4 % 6 0.4°/c Remained : Changed a grade 4 0.5% 0 0.0% 3 0.4 % 7 0.4o/c Stopout 4 0.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 0.3o/c Transfer from public schoo l outside district in sta te 278 35 .3% 28 29.2% 129 19.1 % 435 27.9 o/c Transfer from public schoo l wi th in district 17 2.2% 0 0.0% 4 0.6% 21 1.3o/c Transfer from home school in sta te 5 0.6% 2 2.1% 9 1.3% 16 1.0o/c Transfer from pri vate schoo l in state 20 2.5% 6 6.3% 96 14.2% 122 7.8o/c Transfer from pub lic school out of state 143 18.2 % 7 7.3 % 59 8.7% 209 13.4°/c Transfer from private schoo l out of state 1 0.1% 0 0.0 % 5 0.7 % 6 0.4°/c Transfer from drop-out 2 0.3% 0 0.0 % 0 0.0% 2 0.1°/c Transfer from another coun try 16 2.0% 1 1.0% 6 0.9% 23 1.50/c Gra nd Tota l 787 100 .0% 96 100.0% 676 100.0% 1,559 100.0o/c ©BUSINESS INFO RMAT ION S ERVICES, LLC Page 128 ALL RIG H TS RESE RVED Demographics Study Figure 193. Entrance status by grade level for new students, 2009-2010. Grade and Entrance Codes for New Students in the 2009·10 School Year K % 1 % 2 % 3 % 4 % 5 % 6 % Initial Entry 652 87.6% 3 2.9% 0 0.0% 1 1.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Remaned: Ad\anced 35 4.7% 0.0'/o 1 1.6% 3 3.9% 1 1.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Remained: Ret ained 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0'/o 0 0.0% 1 1.2% 0 0.()% 0 0.0% Rem ained: Other 2 0.3% 0.0'/o 0 0.0% 0 0.0'/o 0 0.0% 0 0.0'/o 0 0.0% Remained: Changed a grade 1 0.1% 1 1.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0'/o 1 1.2% 1 1.6% 0 0.0% St~ 0 0.0% 0.0'/o 0 0.0% 2 2.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Transfer from public school outside district in state 31 4.2% 55 52.4% 26 41 .9% 37 48.7% 49 57.6% 32 51 .6% 43 53.8% Transfer from public school within district 13 1.7% 4 3.8% 1 1.6% 1 1.3% 1 1.2% 0 0.()% 0 0.0% llllr\Sfer from h001e school in state 0 0.0% 1 1.0% 3 4.8% 2 2.6% 2 2.4% 1 1.6% 3 3.8% Transfer from pri\6te school in state 1 0.1% 24 22.9% 6 9.7% 9 11 .8% 11 12.9% 6 9.7% 11 13.8% ~ransferfrom pubr~e school out of state 9 1.2% 16 t5.2% 22 35.5% 17 22.4% 18 21 .2% 21 33.9% 21 26.3% ~ransferfrom pri\6te sc hool out of state 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Transfer from drojKAA 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% ~ oosfer from another coontry 0 0.0% 1 1.0% 3 4.8% 4 5.3% 1 1.2% 1 1.6% 2 2.5% Grand Total 744 100.0% 105 100.0% 62 100.0% 76 100.0% 85 100.0% 62 100.0% 80 100.0% 7 % 8 % 9 % 10 % 11 % 12 % 13 % Grand Total % Initial Entry 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 100.0% 661 42.4% Remaned: Ad\anced 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 4.8% 0 0.0% 1 4.5% 0 0.0% 44 2.8% Rem aned: Ret ained 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 2.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 0.2% Rem aned: Other 1 1.5% 1 1.9% 1 1.2% 0 0.0'/o 0 0.0% 1 4.5% 0 0.0% 6 0.4% Rem ained: Changed a grade 0 0.0'/o 0 0.0'/o 0 0.0% 0 0.0'/o 2 4.1% 1 4.5% 0 0.0'/o 7 0.4% St~ 0 0.0% 0 0.0'/o 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 4.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0'/o 4 0.3% Transfer from public school outside district in state 38 57.FJ!o 25 46.3% 38 44.2% 26 41.3% 26 53.1% 9 40.9% 0 0.0% 435 27.9% ransfer from public school within district 0 0.0% 0 0.0'/o 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 2.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0'/o 21 1.3% ransfer from h001e school in state 0 0.0'/o 0 0.0% 2 2.3% 1 1.6% 1 2.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 16 1.0% Transfer from pri\6te school in state 4 6.1% 5 9.3% 21 24.4% 13 20.6% 8 16.3% 3 13.6% 0 0.0% 122 7.8% Transfer from public school out d state 21 31.8% 21 38.9% 16 18.6% 16 25.4% 8 16.3% 3 13.6% 0 0.0% 209 114% Toosferfrom pri\6te school out d state 1 1.5% 0 0.0% 3 3.5% 1 1.6% 1 2.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 0.4% ransfer from drojKAA 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.5% 0 0.0% 2 0.1% oosfer from another coontry 1 1.5% 2 3.7% 2 2.3% 3 4.8% 0 0.0% 3 13.6% 0 0.0% 23 1.5% Grand Total 66 100.0% 54 100.0% 86 100.00.4 63 100.0% 49 100.0% 22 100.0% 5 100.0% 1,559 100.0% ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 129 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je.:fferson City School District Figure 194. Density of student households with less than 5 years of residence. ©BUSI NESS INFORMATI ON SERVICES, LLC Page J3Q ~ ., ~ ~ r <"> <f) •: J 1 ...... u ..... ...... V1 0 0 0 ~ u Vl V1 >-ro V1 5: ...... ~ <J.) 'o.O ~ ...... I Vl ~ \!) .... 0 ll'l .... I .... ~ rt"' '¢ .... .... rt"' f"' .... rt"' .... .... I rt"' f"' .... ~ .... ll'l '¢ ("'-... ~ \!) '¢ ll'l ("'-... 00 ("'-... rt"' ll'l I I ("'-... 00 rt"' .... ~ 0 .... 0 1 ~ r-~ \Jj ~J ·~ :: ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study District administrators a sked u s to analyze ho w long di strict stude nt s have li ved at their same address. W e found that among a ll students ' ho use- hold s , about one out of three had li ved at the same ad dress for s ix to I 0 years. Another third h ave li ved for one to five year s a t th e s ame address. And a final third have li ved from 11 t o 40 year s a t the same ad dress. Figure 195 be low s umma ri zes that compariso n. Households across th e di s tri ct h ave s li ghtl y m o re longev it y at an address than the househ o ld s w ith s tud e nts. The map on p. 130 shows a de ns ity analys is of where th e pocke t s with the greatest mobility exist. H o lt s Summit appear to have a greater turn- over than the inn er city of Jefferso n C ity . Figure 195. Length of residency for households in Jefferson City School Dis- trict. Length of Residency for Households Households of Students Households Overall Years Number Percentage Number Percentage 1 465 13.4% 3,824 12.7% 2 173 5.0% 1,456 4 .9% 3-5 664 19.1% 5,310 17.7% 6-10 1069 30.7% 6,350 21 .2% 11-15 646 18.6% 4,600 15.3% 16-20 308 8 .9% 3,557 11 .9% 21-25 94 2 .7% 1,737 5.8% 26-39 50 1.4% 2,516 8.4% More than 40 8 0.2% 644 2.1% Grand Total 3,477 100.0% 29,994 100.0% © BUSINESS INFORMATION S ERVIC ES, LLC Page ]3) ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je_,{[erson City School District Fig ure 196. Length of residence in years for househol ds with students in the Jefferson City Scho ol Dis - trict. ...... u .... ...... Vl 0 0 0 .!: u 1.1'1 ("'I ... Vl >-ro Vl ~ ...... Q) .!: Q) 'o.O .... I ...... Vl 0'\ 0 ~ ('(\ 1.1'\ r-~ 0 0 \lj ('(\ '<:~"" ..2 • • ~J ~ 0'\ 0'\ .... N 1.1'\ 0 .... N • • '<:~"" 0'\ .... \0 0 .... • • 1.1'\ ('(\ I v ('(\ • © BU S IN ESS INF O R MATION S E RVICES, LLC Page 132 A LL RIGHTS R E SERVED Demographics Study Figure 197. Density of households with more than 20 years of residence in Jefferson City School District. © BUSINESS IN F ORMATION S ERVI CES, LLC Page }33 ....... v 1-. ....... V1 0 0 0 ~ v 1/'1 I' ..- 1.0 ..- I ('("\ ..- N ..- 0'\ 00 LJ'\ ..- '¢ ..- I ..-..- 0 ..- I I ..-('("\ I 1 0 N Dl (! ~~ \ij J ALL R IGHTS R ESERVED Jefferson City School District Distri c t admini s tra tors as ke d us to perform an anal ysis of ho m e less s tu- de nts. T he definiti o n of a hom e less stud e nt, according to th e Nati o na l Asso- ci a ti o n fo r th e Ed uc a ti o n of H o me less Childre n and Yo uth , me ans c hildre n a nd yo uth w ho a re o th e rw ise legall y e ntitl e d to or eligible fo r a f re e publi c e du cati o n , in c luding presc ho o l, and w h o lack a fi xed , regul a r, and ad equate ni g httime resid ence, in c luding: • C hildre n and yo uth w h o are s haring the h o us ing o f othe r persons due to loss of ho us ing , eco nomi c ha rds hip, o r a similar reason ; a re I iving in mote ls , ho te ls, campg ro unds , or traile r p arks due to lac k o f a lte r- native adequa te accommodati o n s; ar e li v ing in em e rgen cy o r tra ns i- ti o na l s he lt e rs; a re a band o ne d in hospitals; or a re awaiting fo s te r care pl ace me nt. • C hildren and yo uth w ho have a primary ni g httime resid e nc e that is a pri vate or p ubli c place not d esi g n e d for or ordina ril y u se d as re g ul ar s leeping acco mm odati o n s for human be ings. • C hildre n and youth w h o a re li v ing in a car, public sp ace , a ba ndo ne d bui I d in g, s ubs tan dard ho u sing, bu s or tra in st a tion, or similar settin g. • M ig ra to r y childre n a nd yo uth who are living in a s itua tion described a bove. Litt le info rmati o n a bout home less students exist in mo st di stri cts . T he J effe rson C it y Schoo l Di s tri c t provided us w ith a li s t of208 Lmiqu e stu- de nt s fo r th e schoo l year s 2 00 7 -08 ,20 0 8-09 and 2009-10 w ho were in ho m e less ho us in g s it uat io n s. We were abl e to matc h 11 5 of th ese s tud e nts' ho useho ld s in o ur c o mpre he ns ive de mographic d a tabase, w hi c h was mo re Figure 198. Types of housing arrangements for homeless students, 2007-2010. 2007-08 2008-09 © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 13 4 ALL RIGHTS R E S E RVED Demographics Study ~ than half and a very good percentage, we thought, given how mobile this \ group likely was. The common demographic factors that we saw among the 115 households were quite stark: • Nearly all lived in households with the marital status of"Single." • More than 70 percent lived in households where the purchasing power was under $20,000 per year. There was also a percentage- about 20 percent-where the purchasing power exceeded $100,000. So there were both ends of the spectrum for households containing homeless children. • More than 90 percent of the households were coded as having no children in the household. (We knew children had to exist since they were registered with the district, so this would likely indicate a "double-up" housing arrangement.) In fact, "DU" was the code that was flagged in the student data in nearly every instance. This was verification that our demographic data was accurate. As a final step in this analysis, we wanted to get an idea of how r' many other students would fit into this profile in the district. We found, in- credibly, 2,330 students who had these codings in our demographic data match of households. Some of these, we believe, would be where a single parent would be living unmarried with another adult. There would also be instances where a single parent may be living with the children's grandpar- ents, at a higher income and would be flagged as having no children present in the house. Finally, there could easily be instances of more than one single parent living together with another non-related parent. This is a significant finding and one where additional research should be conducted. We will pass onto the district administration the list of students who fit the criteria of homeless children. We believe it is very safe to say that the level of homeless children in the district is far greater than the district has coded in its rosters as a result of guardians self-disclosing in their student registration forms each year. ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 135 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED J~([erson Ciry School District District administrators asked for an analysis of the extent of non-~ English speaking families in the district. We found there are 14 different languages spoken in the homes of students. (See Figure 141 on p. 94, "Languages Spoken at Home.") In the district as a whole, there are 33 dif- ferent languages spoken. We estimate as high as 11 percent of the house- holds with district students speak a language at home other than English. Other tables that show ESL comparisons in the district include Fig- ure 184 on p. 121, Figure 164 on p. 109. © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 136 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © m c Ul z fT1 Ul Ul z 'TI 0 ;u ~ ~ 0 z (/) fT1 ;u < 0 fT1 Ul ~~ () )> r r ;o C) :I -t Ul ;o fT1 Ul fT1 ;u < fT1 0 1 -Miles \ 0 0.5 1 2 3 / • AMHARIC • DUTCH • ARABIC GERMAN e CHINESE • HINDI • • ITALIAN e RUSS IAN PORTUGUESE e SPANISH ___ ......--___ Highways A. Schools Streets School District ROMAN I AN e VIETNAMESE ---~ lh t..,iru...._......, l nfomtJcion Scnit~ ~ -j , IE ' r:: ., (!) ..... C.D ~ r 0 n Ill -(5' :::::1 0 ..... m :::::1 (Q iii ' :T Ill Ill Ill (!) n 0 :::::1 c. ii:i :::::1 (Q r:: Ill (Q (!) Ill -r:: c. (!) :::::1 -Ill 0" '< ii:i :::::1 (Q t; r:: Ill (Q ~ (!) Ill ~ "C 0 ~ ="' (!) :::::1 :::::1 -~ :T (!) :T ~ 0 -· r:: (J Ill (!) ~ :T 0 ~ 0:: ~ ~ © OJ c: (/) z I'T1 (/) (/) )> a. z , 0 a. ;:::;: (5 ' AI 3: :::1 ~ > ::! 0 (') 0 z Ul I'T1 AI < n I'T1 (/) • r • • ) r • () Ql r+ ~ (5 ' :::1 (/) ~ 0 ...... 0 m :::1 0 <C ~ iii ' t:1 ::r Ql (/) ~. (/) VJ ""0 ::.;1 (JQ ~ ~ (.H 00 (1) ~ (') 0 :::1 ~. a. ~ iii ~ :::1 <C c:: Ql • <C •• (1) ::r 0 • c:: (/) (1) ::r 0 c: (/) C' '< iii :::1 <C c:: Ql <C (1) (/) '0 0 ,.... (1) ? PAGEPURPOSELYLEFTBLANK ~ '-' © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 139 Demographics Study ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je,fferson City School District Most publi c sc hool distri cts are un able to dete1mine the religious make -u p of their student population w itho ut so m e form of se lf-disc l osure. But we were ab le to perform that ana lys is by lin k in g student roster data to our com- pre hens ive de mographic data fi le. T a bles at F igure 38 on p. 35, Figure 39 on p. 35, Figure 166 on p. 109 and Figure 183 on p. 12 1 s how s ummaries of religi o ns among t he stu- dent coho rts in th e d istri ct, as well as a ll households across the district. T he maps in Figures 20 I and 202 on these two pages s ho w an inte r- esting corre lation. Below, a re a ll Catholi cs in the district and Figure 191 on p. 135 s hows w here the Catholic s tud e nts live. The concentration is particu- larl y la rge in Cole County, and drops off signi ficant ly in Callaway County. Figure 201. Locati on of Catholic households in Jefferson City School District. Jefferson City School District Location of Catholic Households -==--== Miles 0 0.5 1 3 o CATHOLIC -Highways Streets t:jl School Di strict ©BUSINESS INFORMATI ON SERVICES, LLC Page 140 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study We found a la r ge le vel of re ligi o us d ivers it y in t he J effe rso n C ity School D istrict a mong th e 2009-1 0 s tu d e nt body . Protestan ts a re mo re w ide- ly s pread across the di s tri c t, into Call away Co unt y . Figure 202. Location of Catholic students in Jefferson City School District. Jefferson City School District Location of Catholic Students 0 0.5 1 e CATH OLIC -Highways Streets t::;J School District ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVI CES, LLC Page 141 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je.fferson Ci ty School District Figure 203. Location of Protestant households in Jefferson City School District. <" )!; • • ·' .4J . .. "' ,.~ ·\ ~. t ,.(J. : j ' ' I ~~-~ • ,. .. ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC P age 142 ...... v .... ...... VI 0 0 0 .c v VI VI ...... Q) Q) .... ...... VI VI >-ro ~ .c 'a.O I 1--z <( I- VI L.1.J 1-- 0 0::: 0.. • a ~] \ij ~-~ ~ ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 204. Location of Protestant students in Jefferson City School Distri ct. Ul ~z e ~ 3: ;( )-~~ I '<,-., I I f ( ,________<,.__ ! -. };;/ ---r \ . ( ( (',.. ' '" ' ,r, ,-T" t...L J ' " .~ \ ""+ ',J 1 ~ ee \_'\_'-I\ A • ~I e e. ',,\ "\------) . -~-r-' ' ., '/ 1 I I rt • • . .-' <' J / \ V \.. .. . . '· -. ,. ' . I •, • ~--• • .r-'-J ~-j ..-.. • • • • ·-• . ., • • • ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 143 1..< ;"'" >-· '--,~ ~l V> ~ ;:, <') .j-1 u ..... .j-1 Vl 0 0 0 ..r:: u Vl Vl .j-1 Q) Q) ..... +-' Vl Vl >-ro ~ ..r:: 'o.O :r: 1-z ~ Vl L1.J 1- 0 0::: 0... • ~ r-~ \]\ ~J' j ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © lll c Ul z 1'11 Ul Ul z "11 0 ;u ~ ~ 0 z Ul 1'11 ;u < () 1'11 Ul r r () :x> r r :::0 Gi :I -i Ul :::0 1'11 Ill 1'11 ;u < 1'11 0 • r --Miles I 0 0.5 1 2 3 .. .. • • • • • • • • • -~. • • • • j • • • • • • BUDDH I ST • GREEK ORTHODOX • LUTHERAN • H IN DU • I S LAM I C SH I N T O • EAS T ERN ORTH ODO X • JEWISH • S I KH .......---~ Business Jnfonmrion Scniccs ~ • • High w ays Streets Schoo l Di s trict l N We E s ' N 0 ~ r 0 () Ill -(5" ::I 0 -Ill 0 ~ -=r <D .., ;:s-.. .., <D 0 cE " (5 " 0 c: -... Ill t::J =r 0 c: -. Ill ~ <D ~ =r 0 c:: -. Ill ('J ::I ~ c... <D ;: .., Ill 0 ::I (") ;:; '< (/) () =r 0 0 0 u;· -.., c:;· :-+ © [D c (/) z J'T1 (/) (/) z '11 0 ;:u ~ )> -1 0 z (/) J'T1 ;:u < 0 J'T1 (/) r r () ~ ~ (JQ ttl """'" ,. Ul ~ r r ::u Gi :I -1 (/) ::u J'T1 (/) J'T1 ;:u < J'T1 0 e BU DDH IS T e EA STER N ORTH O DOX HI N DU • GR EE K ORTH O D OX e I S L AM IC SHINT O e JEW I SH e SI K H .,-----~ Bu.._~~-...Jn ruml:uiu n Scn ius ~ High ways Street s Sc h ool Di st r ict ., ce· c: ... I'D "' 0 ?> r 0 n Dol .... a· ::l 0 -Dol 0 .... ::r I'D .., ... I'D ce· a· c: C/1 C/1 .... c: Q. I'D ::l .... C/1 ::l c.... I'D :::: I'D ... C/1 0 ::l (") ;::;: '< en \:::1 n ::r 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 iii' c .... ... ~ c:;· !"' ~ ~ -· ("';) VJ ~ ~ ~ J~fferson City School District Poverty is a reoccurring theme in many of the previous pages, regarding ~ new students, dropout students and several other instances. District adminis- trators asked us to perform an analysis of poverty and determine where it is prevalent. We decided to repeat Figure 207 on p. 14 7 to show the income dis- tribution of student households in the district. We estimate that one out of five students live in households earning less than $20,000 a year. That is high, but not nearly as high as the district as a whole, where nearly one out of three earn at that $20,000 or below level. The latest demographic data that we could purchase shows that the number of households across the district in 2009 living in poverty have gone down significantly from those reported in the 2000 Census, as shown on p. 263. The percentage change in the poverty level has been huge-in some cases falling by 50 percent in some areas in the district. ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 146 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 207. Income ranges for households of students and overall. c:· Income Ranges for Households Households of Students Households Overall Inco me Ranges Number Percentage Number Percentage Under $20 1000 705 20.3% 91 120 30.4% $ 201000 -$29 1999 235 6.8% 2 1640 8 .8 % $ 30 1000-$39 1999 213 6.1% 21 54 1 8 .5 % $ 40 1000-$49 1999 303 8.7% 31 158 10.5 % $ 50 1000-$59 1999 435 12.5% 313 57 11 .2% $ 60 1000-$69 1999 522 15.0 % 31 157 10 .5% $ 70 1000 -$79 1999 368 10.6% 21179 7 .3% $ 801000-$891999 224 6.4% 11345 4 .5 % $ 901000-$991999 126 3 .6 % 747 2 .5 % $100 1000 -$124 1999 185 5 .3 % 995 3.3% $125 1000-$149 1999 103 3 .0 % 4 15 1.4% $150 1000 -$1741999 26 0 .7 % 170 0.6 % $175 1000 -$199 1999 16 0 .5 % 82 0.3% $200 I 000 -$2491999 12 0.3 % 45 0.2 % $250 I 000 -$299 1999 3 0.1% 24 0 .1% $300 1000 -$399 1999 1 0.0% 9 0 .0% $400 1000-$499 1999 0 0.0% 3 0 .0 % ~ $500 1000 Plus 0 0.0% 7 0.0 % G ra nd T o ta l 3,477 100.0% 29,994 100.0% ©BUS I N E S S IN F ORMAT ION S E RVI CES , LLC P a ge 147 ALL RIGHTS R ESERVED © ro c !II z rrl !II !II z "11 0 ;u ~ :1> -1 0 z Ul rrl ;u < 0 rrl !II r r () ~ t.:l (J"Q ~ ~ ~ 00 )> r r ::0 (;; J: -1 !II ::0 rrl !II rrl ;u < rrl 0 --Miles I 0 0.5 1 2 3 < so .. 10 0-149 .. 200-249 .. so-99 .. 1SO -199 .. 250 + _,..--~ B u~im ... -ss Jnfimnatio n Scniccs ~ .. • I Streets Highways School Di strict z c: 3 C" (1) ... 0 .... :r 0 c: C/1 (1) :r 0 0: C/1 :::s ""C 0 < (1) ;:::$. '< :::s C- (1) ~ ... C/1 0 :::s (") ;::;,: '< en (') :r 0 0 0 iii' ,.... :::!. (') .:+ ~ 0 0 p ~ ;:s-.. a a ~ b ~. V:l ~ ~. ~ ~ © m c Ul z f11 Ul Ul z "11 0 ::0 ~ > -! 0 z Ul f11 ::0 < n f11 Ul r r () "'C ~ (JQ ~ -.. \0 )> r r :::0 G) :I -! Ul :::0 f11 Ul f11 ::0 < f11 0 --Miles 0 0.5 1 2 3 < so .. 100-149 .. 200-2 49 .. so -9 9 .. 1S O -199 .. 2SO + _,.,..--~ BusillCSi lnrumu.rion Scni t.~ ~ Stree t s Hi g hw ays Sc h o o l Dis trict ;~ (~ "T1 ce· r:::: .., ctl N 0 ~ z r:::: 3 c:r ctl .., 0 -::r 0 r:::: (/) ctl ::r 0 a: (/) :r "'C 0 < ctl ;:::!. '< ::I c.. ctl ~ ctl .., (/) 0 ::I 0 ;::::;: '< en 0 ::r 0 2. 0 c;;· ,.. .., c:;· .r N 0 0 (0 t:J (\) ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ VJ ~ ~ ~ © Ill c !!! z 11'1 (J) (J) z ., 0 ;u ::: > ::j 0 z (/J 11'1 ;u < () 11'1 (J) r r () )> r r ;o (5 :I -i (J) ;o 11'1 (J) 11'1 ;u < rrl 0 , __ l 0 0.5 1 2 J Miles 3 .. <-6o % .. -59.9 %--45 % .. -44 ·9%--30 % .. -29 ·9%--15 % -14.9 %-o% o% + ---~ Busi ness lnfom1ation Scn iCC8 ~ Streets High ways Schoo l Distri c t j "'tJ ctl ... (') ctl ::I -Dl (Q ctl (') ::I" Dl ::I (Q ctl 0 -::I" 0 c: Ill ctl ::I" 0 a: Ill ::I "C 0 < ctl ~ ::I c... ctl ;: ... Ill 0 ::I (') ;:::;: '< en (') ::I" 0 0 0 u;· -... c:;· --N 0 0 0 I N 0 0 !D ~ ~ a a ~ t:J -. V) ~ -· \J ~ © ro c (/) z 1'1'1 (/) (/) z "'11 0 ;u 3: ~ 0 z (/) 1'1'1 ;u < n 1'1'1 (/) r r () ~ ~ (JCI ('t> ...... VI ...... )> r r ::0 Gl :I -i (/) ::0 1'1'1 (/) 1'1'1 ;u < 1'1'1 0 --0 0.5 1 2 .. < -1o.o % .. -7-4 %--5.0 -2-4 %-o% .. -1o.o %--7 .5 % .. -4 .9 %--2 .5 % o % + Streets Highways , ce · c: ., (1) N ..... ..... :::0 Ill ... (1) 0 -n ::::r Ill ::I c.o (1) 0' ., ::::r 0 c: (fj (1) ::::r 2. a. (fj ::I "C 0 < (1) .... ... '< ::I c.... (1) =: (1) .... (fj 0 ::I n ;:;: tJ '< CJ) n ('\) ::::r ~ 0 0 0 a a;· ~ ... :::!. Schoo l District n ~ .r+ N 0 ~ 0 0 ~. I N \':I 0 0 c-....., ~ ~ ~ ~ Je.,f[erson City School District The m ost severe leve ls of po ver ty in th e di s trict wou ld be in t he inn e r c it y of J effer so n C ity (F igure 2 12 , be low), but t her e a re house ho ld s in po verty scattered t hro ugho ut the di strict. T he center fo r t he pov er ty lev - e ls of student ho u se ho ld s is somewhat s m a ll e r and shifted a bit to the east. Figure 212. Density of households in poverty in Jefferson City School District. Jefferson City School District Density of Households in Poverty (per square mile) -==--=== ,..,,.. 0 0.5 1 3 D o-122 -245 -3 6 6 D 489 -6 10 D 733 -85 4 -9 77-1 ,0 99 -Highwa ys GJ Schoo l Dist ri ct -123 -244 D 36 7-488 D 6 11 -732 D 855 -9 76 St re e t s © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES , LLC Page 15 2 ALL RI G H TS R E S E RVED Demographics Study Figure 213. Density of student households in poverty in Jefferson City School D istri ct. © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 153 .. "' ~ M -+-' v '--+-' Vl 0 0 0 ..c v Vl Vl >-ro Vl ~ -+-' ..c <lJ 'o.O ~ ·--+-' I Vl \0 00 .- 1 I "¢ Lf\ "¢ \0 .-.- 1 I I N"\ N"\ N 0 .- .-I I "¢ N"\ 0 00 .- .-N \0 00 I I N N "¢ \0 I I .-0 "¢ N I I .- 0 N Dl ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © ro c 1/) z 11'1 1/) 1/) z "II 0 AI ~ )> -l 0 z Ul 11'1 AI < (i 11'1 1/) r r () ~ ~ f1CI t'D ..... Ul ~ )> r r ::0 Gi J: -l 1/) ::0 11'1 1/) 11'1 AI < 11'1 0 • -· • Househo l ds Highways Street s -----~ Bt L5incss lnfomurion St.·rviccs ~ .. , @: cE ' c: ~ N ~ ..... ~ ~ )> .... 0 ~ ;:s Ill Ill 0 (j ..... "C 0 ~. < 'L • • ..... \l .,.. ' ·-- ~ ::l. ~ '< C' '< Ill ~ • • • -r : .. • ,. .. ;:r 0 0 0 c: Ill -... ~ t:1 ;:r 0 a: ~. Ill V.) ::s ~ c... ~ ~. ;: \J .... ~ Ill 0 ::s (") ;::;: '< en n ;:r 0 0 0 (ij' ..... .... c:;· :+ School District Demographics Study Figure 215. Areas of poverty by student households in Jefferson City School District. ~ .,J ..... .-- ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES , LLC Page 155 ....... u ,_ ....... Vl 0 0 0 ..r:: u Vl Vl ....... Q) Q) ,_ ....... Vl Vl >-ro ~ ..r:: 'Q() I Vl ""0 0 ..r:: Q) Vl ::::l 0 I ....... c Q) ""0 ::::l ....... Vl • ~ r-~ \1) g.J ~ ALL RI G HTS RES ERV E D J~fferson Cif]J School District Minority populations in the Jefferson City School District are incredibly ~ diverse. We have shown dozens of ethnic groups that call the district home, and the school district enrollment shows a wide diversity. In our analysis, we went beyond only a race classification but built maps and analysis based on ancestry. © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 156 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © til c (/) z (TI (/) (/) z "11 0 ;tJ ~ ~ 0 z (/) (TI ;tJ < n (TI (/) r r () ""d to:~ (JC:I ('t) ~ Ut -......) )> r r :::0 i5 ::t -1 (/) :::0 (TI (/) (TI ;tJ < (TI a • • ~ e. ' • .... •• ··-• • •• • • • • . . . () • AFR I CAN AMER I CAN • FAR EASTERN • MED I TERRANEAN PACIFIC ISLANDER H i ghways • CENTRAL & SOU T HW • H ISPAN IC MIDDLE EASTERN • SCAND I NAVIAN Streets • EASTERN EUROPEAN • JEWISH • NATIVE AMER I CAN • SOUTH AS I AN School Distric t ---~ Busirxss l nfum1atiu n ~"f\~CCS ~ '"T1 ce· r::::: ... (!) ,_, .... ~ r 0 C') Q) -(5 ' ~ 0 .... ~. ~ 0 ... ;:;: '< ::::r 0 r::::: Ill (!) ::::r 0 c: Ill ~ c... (!) =: (!) ... Ill 0 ~ 0 ;:;: '< CJ) C') ::::r 0 !2.. ti 0 iii' -~ ... ~ c;· r" 0 ~ ~ ~ -· ('J V:l ~ s::: ~ Je,fferson City School District We co ll ected a ll th e ava il a b le preschoo l provid e rs in the school d is t ric t, a nd the n re peated ly call e d them until we were a bl e to o b ta in to ta l e m o llm e nt fi g ure s . Thos e fac ilities w ho gave us informatio n is be low, w ith o nl y abo ut a d o ze n home-r un fac ili t ies no t p roviding info rm a ti o n . B y o ur best es ti- mates, the re are 1,324 ch il dren e nro ll ed in p re sch ool s e rv ices within th e J ef- fers o n C ity Sc hoo l Di s tri c t. If we ta ke th e e s ti ma te in Figure 3 17 o n p . 264, t he re wo uld be 4 ,675 presc hool c hildren in th e di s tri ct in 2 009. T hi s would m ea n th a t a lm o s t o ne o ut of tlu·ee c h il dre n in the di s tri ct are in n o n-di s tri ct p re sc hoo ls. Figure 217. Preschool services available in Jefferson City School District area. Pre-School Childcare Facilities in the Jefferson City School District NA ME ADDRE SS CITY FA CIL TY TYPE I ENROLLMENT 1 TENDER MOW.EHT LEAANINGACAOEMY [3!108 GLOVERS FORD RD I CITY I GROUP HOME 21 iNES REINSCH !BERM BEXTEN LYNNBAX 'PLE .APPLE TREE I rPROGRAM BETTY BLAKENSHIP BIG TOP CHIL CENTER ~~:o~G~~i: CLUB OF THE CAPITI'I. CITY EAST ~~::,~SITE THE CAPITioL CITY SOUTH cL ~""'' BUSY BEES I ; CENTER I LC :APITI'I. OAVI:ARE<:ENTER :AROL YN SUE WOOD HAN MORE :HARLENE K Wn ««<De"'" ~~TV~,,_. ~<n•o. HILL SCHOOL V CAAE I CITY \'MCA LAWSON SCHOOL V CARE «<«oo• I CITY YMCA MOREAU HEIGHTS SCHOOL Y CAR E o«<<D<""1 CITY YMCA THORPE GORDON SCHOOL Y CARE [JEFFERSON CITY YMCA' • VCAAE [KIDS >JNLIMTEO ONE ONE ISTIN LYNN OA\iiS nsHASSI~TH LEARNING' I CHILO llffiE LEARNERS ' OGE INC MARCIA FAY SETSER MARCY CNIKKf) RHODES MARGAREl .YNN K OCHER 1.11LUBAKER I.!S NOF TH SC iDOL VCARE PHH.ERl NS PU PKIN :H PRE SCHOO . & CHILOCARE oSALING 'HE \BACKUES ,j,'J' FRY > """ WONDER :H IL :ENTER ,pe LEARNING CENTER ys 'STAVNPLAYOAYCARE THE LEARNING TREE ~ME US. INC. rRINITYLUTHERAN CHILOCARE C ENTER YMCACHILO> 'CENTER TOI>I :ENTER LC 1950ROLLINGHILL S OR !CITY CHILDCARECENTER 35 ~RIC !CITY FF<~LVHOf.£ 7 lf2550uTHWOOO HIUS RO !JEFFERSON CITY FAI.tLV HOf.£ 6 I KAYLOR o ROAD FF<~L' HOt.'E I 0 281 IE, [JEFI'~N' I CHILO CARE CENT ER 78 2002 'Sl I CITY UCENSE EXEMPT PROGRAM 28 ~ORBLOG9A [HOLTSSUIIJ.tl FAMLVHOI.E ~ :RC !JEFFERSON• F.OMLVHOt.£ 19 HEN~ LN !JEFFERSON CITY FAML" HOt.'E 1123 CHAAM\iiLLA JEFFERSON CITY CH ILO CARE CENTER 104 1229 E l JEFFERSON CITY CH ILO CARE CENT ER 0 727 EELM JEFFERSON CITY .n~. '".CENTER 0 707 LINDEN OR JEFFERSON CITY CHILO CARE CENTER 0 601 OIXRO I GROUP HOME 18 151 ! SWFTS_HWY JEFFERSON CITY LICENSE EXEMPT PROGRAM 50 806 t~LBE RR\ JEFFERSON CITY FAMLYHOI.E 10 <4211 JEFFERSON I FH.tLY HOl-E 15101/EITH DR JEFFERSON CITY '"CENT ER 0 11 05 FAJRr.RnllMM RO JEFFERSON CITY CHILO CARE CENT ER 0 1410 HOUGH PARK JEFFERSON CITY ~"" n roo<. CENT ER 0 1 10 I JACKSON ST JEFFERSON CITY ~"" n ~=<.CENTER 0 l100 OIXRO -~:~ "" '~''~CENTER 0 1108 oCENTER 52 I405WELMS' I CITY GROUP HOME 17 [708 JEFFERSON Sl [JEFFERSON CITY CHILO CARE CENTER 70 [48~ [HOlTS SUI.1M' I CHILO CARE CENT ER 5o li92SROLUNcfHrLLSDR I JEFFERSON Cl' I FH.tLVHOr.£ 4 f542iS BROOKS DR !JEFFERSON I IFH.tL IHOf.£ 4 136 IRC !JEFFERSON TY CHIL CARE CENTER 70 601 noNRO I CITY [CHILO CARE CENTER 80 3522 SROCK BEAcON RO I CITY [FAMLYHOt.'E 12 LIBERl IRD JEFFERSON ' TV IFH.tL 'HOt.'E 10 197 LORENE ,HOL IS SUMI.tl [FAI~L 'HO~E 7 I r.t.JLBERR\ I CITY [FM~LYHOr.£ 3 '09 OR TV IFA'~L 'HOt.'E 10 10 ARDEN OR I CITY [CHILO CARE CENTER 8 28S S SUt.MT DR ~MI.tT I CHILO CARE CENTER 0 1614 • OR ONI TV IFAML 'HOI.£ 8 124 MADISON ON• rv LICENSE EXEMPT PROGRAM 2500 ' I CITY [CHILO CARE CENTER .. 1 7 WNORIVER OR I CITY [FMtLYHOI.£ 10 ~.OR ICil lROUPHOME 15 141 BOON\iiL' RO ~:rv 'l<.tLYHOI.E 7 1614 'BLVD :ENSE EXE••PT PROGRAM 32 1514 SAINT tYS BLI.Q I CITY :H ILO CARE CENTER 46 1115 >RO I CITY :HILD CARE CENTER 100 24• iiusoif OR I CITY CH ILO CARE CENTER 30 ~ PoST I CITY FM.tLVHOI.E 8 STADIUM/ :HIU CARE •:ENTER -Nil 2!100 ROUTECl I CI TY GROUPHOII.E .. 2508 SOUTHEF tN lo/R DR I CITY FH.tLVHOI.E 9 809swFfSHW< JEFFERSON CITY LICENSE EXEMPT PROGRAIA 60 ~ JEFFERSON CITY CH ILO CARE CENTER 136 54 I ,324 NOTES © BUSINESS INFORMAT ION SERVIC ES, LLC Page 158 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © ro c (f) z 111 (f) (f) z ., 0 Al 3: )> -1 0 z CJl 111 Al < n 111 (f) r r () ~ ~ (JCI ~ -Ul \0 )> r r ::u G) J: -1 (f) ::u 111 (f) 111 Al < 111 0 .N • • ••• , • •• • • CH I LD CARE CEN T ER • GR OUP H OM E ~-- • FAMI LY HOME LI C ENSE EX EM PT PROGRAM Hi ghways Streets "T1 ca · c:: ... (1) N ...... ~ r 0 (") I» r+ (5 ' ::I 0 .... 'C ... (1) (/1 (") :::r 0 0 (/1 (1) < r;· (1) Q;' £? . ;::;: (D' (/1 ::I c... (1) =: (1) ... (/1 0 ::I (") ;::;: '< en t; (") :::r 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 iii' a r+ ... ~ r;· !'* ~ ~ Sc h oo l Di st rict -· ("J ~ ~ s::: ~ Jefferson City School District I ntemet usage among Jefferson City School District students was some-"'""' thing that district administrators asked us to determine. If an assessment could show a widespread use of the Internet, then the Jefferson City School District could use their web site and email as a cost-effective way to com- municate with district students and residents. By matching the student roster with our comprehensive demograph- ic data, we found a relatively low level of online usage among most district student households. Our best estimate is that about one-third of the students have online access at home. The demographic data suggests that students are likely to use the Internet by a large margin, but they probably have ac- cess to the Internet at school, libraries or other public locations rather than at home. The map on p. 161 shows a where the usage of the Internet is dis- persed in the district. ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 160 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 219 . Density of households w ith high internet usag e in Jefferson City School District. © BU S INESS IN FORM A T ION S ERVI CES, LLC Page 161 1: 1/) 10 _:c__, .j-1 u L- .j.-1 V'l 0 0 0 .I: u Vl 00 0 0 0 l"'l \0 00 0\ '¢ m 00 m I"-- I"-- l"'l I"-- I"--...... \0 \0 I"-- ...... l"'l \0 I I"-- 0\ '¢ '¢ 00 m \0 I"-- l"'l 1./'\ 00 0\ ~ I I '¢ I"--0\ l"'l I I 00 0 l"'l Dl ~ ~~ \Jj ~J ~ A L L RI G H TS RES ERV E D Jefferson City School District Figure 220. Location of households with internet usage and usage in Jefferson City School District. r ·~ •-ae L( • • ca \ \ Oi .;;;;. i ct • . r' / (f lJ '{'u·-~-~· ~ -(!~-~-~J ~~(/;-"~] ~ -. . ~ -~-i .,-1: .... :3 ~ r "' 1: "'! ·~ +-' Q) c \-Vl Q) \- +-' Q) c Vl +-' ...c "o.O ::i ~ 0 . ,.... • 0"1 • co • "' • \.0 0 l./'1 • .;:!- • N'\ • N . ,.... +-' Q) c \- Q) Vl +-' \-c Q) -Vl >-~ > ro Q) :r: ..... u .... ..... VI 0 0 0 ..r:: u \/) VI ..... Q.J Q.J .... ..... l/) VI >. ro ~ ..r:: '00 I e r-] \Jj ~J £ ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 162 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © ID c Ul z fT1 Ul Ul z ., 0 AI ~ ~ 0 z (/) fT1 AI < 0 fT1 Ul r r () )> r r ::u G) :I -1 Ul ::u fT1 Ul fT1 AI < fT1 0 Cl 0-96 .. 193 -289 .. 97 -192 .. 290 -385 579-67 4 .. 77 1-868 48 2-578 -675-770 ..,..---~ llu~inQ. .. tnfonu.\tion Sct'\i t"C::o ~ Highways St re et s , 10' c ... ctl N N .... c ctl ::J (J) ;:::;: "< 0 .... :r 0 c (J) ctl :r ---0 c: (J) / :E ;:::;: :r / 10' :r / ... ::J ... ctl ... ::J ctl ... c (J) Q) (0 ctl ::J c... ctl =: ctl ... (J) tJ 0 ::J (") ~ ;:::;: ~ "< en (') ~ :r 0 0 c ~ c;;· ... ... ~ c:;· Sc h oo l Dist r ict !"'"' ~. 0.1 V:l ~ ~ ~ Jefferson City School District Figure 222 . Intensity of internet usage by household. Number of Heavy Internet Users by Households (1 =heaviest/1 O=lightest) Hou s ehold s of Students Hous eholds Overall Code Number Percentage Number Perce nta ge 1 409 11 .8% 1,491 5.0% 2 589 16.9% 2 ,84 3 9.5% 3 687 19.8% 4 ,187 14.0% 4 688 19.8% 4 ,340 14.5% 5 418 12.0% 4 ,151 13.8% 6 389 1 1.2% 3,578 11.9% 7 149 4 .3% 2 ,536 8.5% 8 90 2.6% 2,2 54 7.5% 9 49 1.4% 2,960 9.9% 10 9 0.3% 1,654 5.5% Grand Total 3,477 100.0 % 29 ,994 100.0% Figure 223. Early technology adopters by household. Number of Early Technology Adopters by Households (1 =earliest/1 O=latest) Hous ehold s of Students House hold s Overall Code Number Percentag e Numbe r Percentage 1 298 8.6% 902 3.0% 2 735 21 .1% 2 ,577 8.6% 3 660 19.0% 3 ,523 11.7% 4 532 15.3% 3 ,884 12.9% 5 375 10.8% 3 ,704 12.3% 6 32 3 9.3% 3,71 1 12 .4% 7 286 8.2 % 3,876 12 .9% 8 149 4.3% 3,580 11.9% 9 72 2.1 % 2,394 8.0% 10 4 7 1.4% 1,843 6.1% Grand Total 3,477 100 .0% 29,994 100.0 % ©BUSINESS IN F O R M ATI O N S E RVIC E S , LLC Page 164 F ig ure 222 on thi s p age shows th a t 4 8 .5 pe rc e n t of the househo ld s w it h s tud e nt s a re in the to p three level s of In - t ern et usage . It is li ke ly tha t th ey have access from ho me , but we cannot docu- ment th a t. It wo uld be po ss ibl e , w e s up- pose, to be a hi g h Intern e t user fro m a p u bli c locati o n. Just about the s am e n umb e r of s tud e nts' h ou seho lds conside r the m selves "earl y techno logy a d op te rs ." Bo th categori e s of ho useho ld s w ith s tu- de nts are cons id e ra bl y h ighe r in Inte rn et a nd techno logy usage tha n the resid e nts in th e di s trict overa ll. ALL R I G H TS R ESER V E D Demographics Study Figure 224. Density of student households with light internet usage in Jefferson City School District. -+-' u I 1- -+-' Vl 0 0 0 ~ .) u Vl Vl >. ro Vl ~ -+-' Q) ~ Q) 'o.O 1- ::c -+-' Vl ..-..-..- co Q'\ I .~ ~~ \J) Li"' 1'- co Q'\ v \.0 @..J 1'-co £ I ..-(V'\ \.0 1'- Q'\ N v \.0 \.0 co (V'\ v l(\ 1'- N (V'\ I I v N N "' ..- .S! ~ 0 (V'\ l "' ..- 01 ·I N </) ·~ © BUS INESS INF ORMAT ION SERVI CES , L L C Page )65 A LL RI G HTS R ESERV E D _fjifferson City School District Figure 225 . Locati on of student households with internet access and usage. 1 a. • •••• I) I • ,?• ··j . ©BUSINESS IN F ORMATION SER V ICES, LLC Page 166 M • 0'\ • 00 • I"'- • \0 ., Ll"l ., '¢ • rY'\ • N . ,.... ~ <l) c 1- 2 ~ c <l) -ll) >-:::::> > ru <l) :r:: -+-' u 1... -+-' Vl 0 0 0 ..c u l/) -~ Vl r-~ -+-' Q) \Jj Q) 1... -+-' ll) ~J -~ ::: Vl >. ro ~ ..c '0.0 I A L L RIGHTS RESERVED ©,_--------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ Ill c (J) z 111 (J) (J) z "TJ 0 ::tJ 3:: ~ 0 z en 111 ::tJ < n IT1 (J) r r () ~ ~ (fQ ttl -0\ -..) )> r r ::u G) :I -1 (J) ::u 111 (J) 111 ::tJ < 111 0 r=J 0-27 .. 56-83 .. 28-55 .. 84-111 112 -139 168 -195 .. 224-252 140 -167 .. 196 -223 ..,..----~ BlL'>ilk..'' l nfomution S<..T\ku. ~ Highways Streets School District 'TI <0' c: @ N N en c (!) :l (/) ~ a (/) -c: c. (!) :l -:T 0 c: (/) (!) :T 0 a: (/) ~ ;:;: :T :T cE ' :T :l -(!) ... :l (!) ..... c: (/) Q) (Q (!) Jefferson City School District The Jefferson City School District asked for our ideas about how to modify its attendance boundary lines. Usually this is a project unto itself, and can take up to two years of community meetings, different scenario configurations and much additional data, such as traffic count patterns, long -term plans for school buildings and specific subdivision designations. That said, we do believe there is a need to reconfigure the current elementary attendance boundaries. We will repeat Figure 2 from p. 7. This shows that at Callaway, South and Thorpe Gordon Elementary the square footage is almost 40 percent higher than the industry standards. On the oth- er extreme, Belair, East, Lawson, Moreau Heights and North elementaries all have fewer than the recommended square footage space for the students. Initially, we would want to move students to the three surplus square footage schools from the five schools that are overcrowded. But to do this accurately, we would want to have a complete breakdown of students by subdivision so the new lines would not split a subdivision. We would also want to help make the bus routing efficient by drawing the lines so that both sides of a road, if possible, would attend the same school. We would also need to receive from the district the specific criteria it would want to use for redrawing the lines. ~ As we said, this is a much more involved process than a typical de- mographic study would include. ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 168 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 227. Current bui lding enrollm en t and room capac ity levels. 2009-10 Gross Square 2009-10 Square Square Footag e Square Footage S c hool Gra d es Enrollment Footage pe r Footage Pe r Va ria n ce Adv antage/ B uildin g per Student Disadvantage Student Stand ard Belair Eiem K-5 4 37 47,5 3 0 109 1 10 -1 -1 .12% Callaway Hills Elem K-5 276 4 3 ,357 15 7 110 4 7 42.81 % Cedar Hill E lem K-5 395 46583 1 18 11 0 8 7 .2 1% East Elem K-5 3 6 3 35,151 97 110 -13 -11 .97% LawsonEiem K-5 4 3 7 44 ,226 101 110 -9 -8.00% Moreau Heights Elem K-5 400 41 ,374 103 110 -7 -5 .97% North Elem K-5 3 8 6 40 ,8 6 6 10 6 110 -4 -3.75% P io neer Trail Elementary K-5 539 65000 121 110 11 9 .63% South Elem K-5 290 44104 152 110 42 38.26% Thorpe Gordon E lem K -5 2 77 40,598 147 100 47 46.56% WestEiem K-5 340 40,784 120 100 20 19.95% Lewis & Clark M id dle School 6-8 1 ,101 140,0 0 0 12 7 1 30 -3 -2.19% Thomas Jefferson Middle School 6-8 9 7 3 140 000 144 130 14 10 .68% Simonsen 9th Grade Center 9 701 80,020 114 160 -46 -28 .66% Jefferson Citv Hioh School 9-12 1 903 216 000 114 160 -46 -29.06% Nichols Career Center 9 -1 2 6 8 50356 741 160 5 81 362.83% 16 8,8 86 1 ,025,062 © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERV I C E S , LLC Page 169 ALL R I G HTS RESERVED Je.:{ferson City School District Figure 228. New single-family houses in Jefferson City School District, 1986-2009. New Single-Family Hous es Built and Occupied in the Jefferson City School District (1986-2009) .J OO 379 f11' 350 v l-3-"~:t:t ,.. 328 ,.. 300 v I--I--_2()~ ,. 272 273 276 27.J ~ ,. 266 26.J ,. ~ 269 ?Jjl ,. ,. ,. t: 250 v -1-... 246-239 1-1--~ 1-,.. 23 6 229 It= ,. t: 231 ~ I~ lc• ~ ~ ~ 206 ~ l~·~-207 ~: 212 F,!j t: 200 v -1-ii ~ 1- ! ~ ~~ ~~ ~ [<'I ttl ~~ ~ ~ lit. 150 / I---1-1--1-1.' . ~ r- ~: f'; ~. 120 11 6 1- ~f ~ 100 / I--1-r--1-1-1-1-1-1--1-r--li" r~ ~: 66 50 / 1-I--1-r-1-1-1-1-1-1---r-1-I--1-1-~ 1 ~----If f--1--1-I---1-~+. o IL -1-1-1-I--I---1-I--1-I---1-I--~--~ 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 199 1 199 2 1993 199-l 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 200 2 2003 200 -l 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 170 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study S in ce 2007, a t otal of302 new s in gle-famil y ho uses have been bui lt in t he Jefferson C ity Sch oo l District in Co le County. (We could not obt a in data fro m C all away Coun ty to in d icate leve ls of hous- in g.) In 2005 th e re were 297 new homes cons tru cted and occu- pi ed. T he na ti o nw ide d ep ressio n in t he ho me bui ldi ng ind ustry h as affected the schoo l di s trict, w he re there has bee n a hu ge d rop-off in co ns tru ction. We s how in F igure 2 29 b e low th at jus t because th e re a re a la rge numbe r of buil d in g permits issue d does no t necessaril y mean the house was co ns tru ct ed. B u i lders m ay not have been a bl e to get fi na nc in g after gettin g t he pe rmit. We a lso have s h own t he re is littl e re lat ionsh ip between new ho mes bui lt and actual enrollme nt i nc reases, therefore, we w ill focus for the rest of t hi s section on an an a lysis of parce ls t ha t im pacts the fi na nces of t he dis t r ic t. Figure 229. New single-family house building permits in Cole and Callaway Counties, 1980-2009. 800 Single-Family House Building Permits in Cole and Callaway Counties (1980-2009) --FULTON HOLTS SUMM IT 69 -t 700 ..... CO LE CO UNTY UNINCO RP ORAT ED AREA JEFFER SO N CITY 600 500 400 35 1 300 200 100 0 1980 198 1 1982 1983 198-1 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 199 1 1992 1993 199 -1 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 200 I 2002 2003 200-1 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 © BUS INESS IN F ORMATION SERVICES, LLC P a ge 17 1 ALL RIGHTS R E S E RVE D Jgfferson City School District Since 20 05 , there have been at least 830 new ho m es constmcted in the Jeffer so n C it y Sc hoo l Distri ct , in Cole Coun ty . The maps on pp. 172 through 183 in d ic ate w he re th e new homes have bee n cons tructed in the d is- tri ct s in ce 2005 . The newer construction , s hown in b lu e , i s concentr ated in th e far northwestern sectio n of the di s trict. Figure 230. Structures built within the last 5 years in the northwest region of Jefferson City School District. ... ' Jefferson City School District Structures Built Within the Last 5 Years -NW ·~ •, '. ·, . I , I I ... ---====::~ Miles • 0 0.5 1 2 2005 -2007 -2009 -Highways O Sc hool District -2006 -2008 ~Unavailable Streets © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 172 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 231. Overview of all new buildings in 2005 through 2009 in the Jefferson City School District. ©B USIN ESS IN F ORMAT ION S ERVIC ES, L L C Page 173 +-' u I- +' VI 0 0 0 ..c u Vl A LL RIGHTS RESERV ED Je.:fferson City School District Figure 232. New buildings in the southwestern region of Jefferson City School District, 2005-2009. I ~-~ ... .. s . . ' ....... u ,__ 4 ....... ~ . V1 0 ~ . .) ... r 0 0 { ..c I ) u I ~ Vl 'l . I V1 • >- ;;· "' ro V1 ~ ....... < QJ ---~ ( ..c QJ -'ol) ,__ ....... / I 1./) ./ ; -~ I ' ../ ~J .-~ • QJ \Jj . .. .. .0 \!»" ro • l·. rlt l ro ~J 0'\ > ~ 0 ro 0 c N :::> ···f-1 · I r I ~ ~-! . - '· ......... 00 • W'J 0 0 ··~ ·~ 0 0 ·~ ~ N N ... , . .. ,:.. ,r-/ I I • -• • ' "-, If\ \[) ____! 0 0 • 0 0 N N "' I .91 e-~ ::g ,/ N y I © BUSINESS INFORMA TION SERVICES, LLC Page 174 ALL R IGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 233 . New buildings in the southeastern region of Jefferson City School District, 2005-2009. © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 17 5 J \ I t ,.,N I~ -1-' u 1-. -1-' Vl 0 0 0 .!: u V\ Vl >. lil ~ .!: 'oO I 0'1 0 0 N Vl -1-' QJ QJ 1-. -1-' V\ QJ .0 lil lil > lil c ::> I ~ "' 00 0 0 0 0 N N I I If\ \!) 0 0 0 0 N N I ~ ~~ \I ~ ~J g ~ ALL R I GHTS RESERVED Je.fterson City School District In 2009, there were 30.258 parcels in Jefferson City, with 4,890 in Callaway County and 25,447 in Cole County. The total appraised value of the parcels in the district is $3,917,881,100 in Cole County and $402,044,446 in Callaway County, for a total of$4,319,925,546. In the pag- es that follow, we have prepared some maps that show the current market values in the district. There are 516 parcels in the Jefferson City School District that are exempt from property tax. Maps for those are shown starting on p. 183. Most county assessors offices assign a market value to the exempt property, so that it could be determined how much assessment value is being given up. By our estimates, in Cole County the school district foregoes $70,289,500 in market value in the exempt property. That is a large number given the population of the district, but as the seat of state government, it is remarkable that the value of exempt properties is not larger. Maps on pp. 188 through 193 show the distribution of students by grade within the district. The dispersion of students is anything but equal. The maps demonstrate that the majority of students at all grade levels live in and around Jefferson City and along Highway 50. This is further validated with the maps on pp. 197 and 205 showing the distribution of total and pro- jected population. © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 17 6 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study PAGEPURPOSELYLEFTBLANK ~ © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 177 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je__fferson City School District Figure 234. Parcel values i n the northeastern region of Jefferson C ity School District, 2009. "' ~ .... ~ u .-,N I... .... I Vl 0 0 E 0 ~ u Vl Vl I >. ro Vl ~ .... Q) ~ Q) 'OI) I... I .... Vl 0"1 0"1 0"1 ~ 0"1 '¢ -V)- + 0 0 .~ 0 0 0 0 ~~ 0 ~ 0 \jj '¢ Lf\ -V)--V)- I I ~ 0"1 0"1 0"1 0"1 0"1 0"1 ~ ~ 0"1 Q"' l"l N"' -V)--V)- 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 l"l N"' -V)--V)- J I I Q"' Q"' J] Q"' Q"' .... -V)--0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... 0 -V)-.... v -V)- © BUS IN ESS INFOR M ATI O N S E RVICES , LLC Page 178 ALL RI G HTS R ESERVED © llJ c !!! z ITt (f) (f) z "T1 0 ;o ~ > -i 0 z (J) ITt ;o < ?i ITt (f) r r () "'0 ~ ~ ~ --....l \0 )> r r :::0 G) :I -i (f) :::0 ITt (f) ITt ;o < ITt 0 Jefferson City School District "r~ -----Miles ~ 0.5 1 2 3 1-. !._ r,. ('-.. < $10,0 00 .. $20,0 0 0 -$2 9,999 .. $40,000-$4 9,999 $10,000 -$19 ,999 .. $30,000-$3 9,999 .. $50 ,000 + ..,.---~ l ha'\incss l nfhnn:uion Sc:f"\i(\.8 ~ Hi ghways St reets \ N_,. l I . w@ E I t~ s · .. J l --'} 1 '>~-,_ -- ! .J;.-~~ \ Sch ool Di stric t "TT ((l' c: (iJ N w (11 -1 0 ... ~ 11.1 "0 '0 ... 11.1 (ii' (!) c. < 11.1 c: (!) (f) 0 -'0 11.1 ... (') (!) iii :::l ... ::r (!) c... (!) ;: ... (f) 0 :::l 0 ~ '< en (') \::) ::r 0 g_ ~ c ~ c;;· ... a ::::!. (') ~ ... N 0 ~ 0 CD ~ ~. ('J V:l ~ ~ ~ © OJ c: (/) z ITl (/) (/) z , 0 ::0 :s: > -i 0 z (/) ITl :t1 < 0 ITl (/) r r () ""= ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 0 )> r r ::0 G) :r -i (/) ::0 ITl (/) ITl :t1 < ITl 0 0 0.5 Miles 2 • < $10 ,000 .. $20 ,000-$29,999 .. $4 0,00 0-$49,999 $10,000-$19,999 .. $30,000-$3 9,999 .. $50,000 + Hi g h ways Street s Schoo l Di stri ct )> "0 "0 ... Ill c;;· (!) c.. < Ill c: (!) ~ (/1 ~ (/1 ~ 0 0 c: -0 =r (!) ~ Ill (/1 t::J -(!) ... ~ ~. ... ~ (!) ~ (Q a· ~. ~ ("J 0 -~ c... (!) ::t (!) ... (/1 0 ~ (") ;:;: '< (J) n =r 0 0 0 c;;· -... c;· .r+ N 0 0 ....., I N 0 0 <D © m c (/) z 1'11 (/) (/) z "T1 0 ::0 s:: :I> -l 0 z Ill 1'11 ::0 ~ n 1'11 (/) r r () '"'0 to.? (JQ ~ """' 00 """' )> r r :::0 G) :I -l (/) :::0 1'11 (/) 1'11 ::0 < 1'11 0 ~ 0.5 Miles 2 < $10,000 .. $20,000-$29,999 .. $40,000-$49,999 $10,000 -$19,999 .. $30,000-$39,999 .. $50,000 + ......---~ nu. .. incss l nformarion Scnil.'Qo ~ Hi g hways St re ets -._ Sc h ool Dis trict ., ce· c: ... C1) N (..) ~ )> "'C "'C iii u;· C1) Q. < ~ c: C1) Ill ::::J ::::J 0 ;::!. :::r :E C1) Ill ... C1) ... ::::J ... C1) (Q o· ::::J 0 -'-C1) ;: Cil 0 ::::J 0 ~ t; en 0 ~ :::r 0 ~ 0 0 ~ u;· ... ... c;· r-~ N 0 0 ~ ...., I ~. N ~ 0 0 ~ !D ~ ~ ~ © tD c Ul z ITI Ul Ul z ., 0 ::0 3: > j 0 z (/) ITI ::0 < 0 ITI Ul r r () '"C ~ (fQ ~ -00 N )> r r ::0 Gi :I -i Ul ::0 ITI Ul ITI ::0 < ITI 0 '"$' I s ~ ,.· _( I r ., l Miles 0 0.5 2 < $10,000 .. $20,000-$29,999 .. $40,000-$49,999 $10,000-$19,999 .. $30,000-$39,999 .. $50 ,000 + ..,---~ l hL\incss Infonn:u io n Scn i u.:s ~ Highways Streets School District )> Ill Ill (1) Ill Ill (1) a. "C ~ 0 "C (1) ~ '< < l:ll c (1) Ill ::I Ill 0 c -::r ~ (1) Ill -(1) ~ ::I ~ (1) co c;· ::I 0 -'-(1) ~ ~ Ill 0 ::I (") ;::o: '< en 0 ::r 0 0 0 c;;· -~ c:;· ~- N 0 0 ~ I N 0 0 !D ~ ~ 0 0 ~ t; ~. V:l ~ ~. (J ~ © Ill c (/) z IT! (/) (/) z "II 0 ;Q 3: ~ 0 z (J) IT! ;Q < 0 IT! (/) r r () ~ ~ (J'Q ~ .... QO ~ )> r r ;:u Gi :I -1 (/) ;:u IT! (/) IT1 ;Q < IT! 0 0 94 ~· '-. 2 .. Tax -Exempt 8S?S Unavailable Highways Streets School District _,.,.--~ l lu~i '~'lnfonnarion SeniL-e-. ~ Jefferson City School District Figure 240. Exempt prop- erty owners with current market value in Cole County. 0\MjERS OF E XEMPT PROPERTY IN COLE COUNTY OL L ~O UN l cr OF JEFFEI 'TRIUMFI I OUN' r EMP ~TIREW.ENT FUNL [MSSOURI cr f AAEA OA ,,..., COW.M U N I (HEAlT-H :ENTER OU i COUN f C [MISSOURI AI. :HRISTlAN CHL :H OUNl OF IMSSOURI 1-'l :EN' rY MSSOURI ONSERVATIC L INCOLN UN! fSiTY IML .lAMS s· >I N C IB.AR [RIVER Cl .-FOR HUMANI IROI. iN< )SING. IU- rR. ;AY ,FIR~ INr CAF TAL t< IR T S YSTEM r H flS[ ~UST D ISTRK: ;ASSOC "MAAINE METHOOIS' CHU RCH ~:ENTER i N " LiVING RESOURCE CENTER I MISSOURI [MSSOURIML MOREAL MC I PAAK & 'AATMENT OF I >UE i!N C )N ASSOC DIAL fSIS <.:LIN II : INC MISSOURI I HEALTH COUNCIL INC CHURCH OFC IM:IHWf& TR ill )N COW.M :HARirY OF IMSSOUR UE FOR NURSING :APr OL fiN( CHI~IS TIAN L E\1\SION NETWORK INC TH :HURCH I AG I IOUSTRIES C OUN CIL I I'OL ; CHIEFS UNITARIAN I CAPIT AL cr . .., !.AMERICAN Nl'( [SALVATION. URCH .R E~ :ROSS GREA" TEMPLE IN C lONE IN . BAPTIS C HURC H D IX R OAC :Hl [MISSOURI OU R S A\1\0RS :IATION OF C O UNTIES IFIRs ·r 6N'TI S -OF :ENTRAL UNI" OHURCH OF C HRIST OFMSSOURI :AL FREE CHURCH I F l I FRATERNAL >Ri5EROF POLIC E QUINN . AFRICAN METHOOISl [MISSOURI s· OF :IT ICEN-tH • FREE CHURCH r oF '" LAGEOF NIT EC I STA" 'AM ;R ICA ISSOURI S" ~TE IGH VAY PATROL ISCAI.CEC C ARN ; NUNS [SOU T HERN 0 1 1UNCIL CAPITAL IM;Sf C H RISTIAN CHURC H CHUR CH OF fHE TE R . J OSEPHE OF [BRIKEN I' ;L [MISSOURI I IIN C rAL CITY SHRINE CLUB URI s· ATEEMPLOYEES iAP CHURC 01. CIL OF URAL I ( Y< I SC L EAGUE ~-'ERENC ~SOC OF "HE I SCHOOL ASSN IMTC f COMMUN11 CENTER ()URI HIGHWAVS & -. EC ONAL MEDICAL 'A HS ~RUCH .ss• i MC RIAL POS" . 35 ISICt GER. i PAJ~SONS & IA 'DK rPETERS ::>LIC © BUSINESS INFORMA TION SERVICES, LLC Page 184 MARKET VALUE s· S6.900 s~ w .H s: 3~6 O< S2. 14 41 I .U< '.41 s S1 .6 -- NUMBER OF PARCELS ~~- 1 9 _:t 2 $482 !~00----71 $48 ;5 100 $434, lOO •4u soc IOC $357 "'" 100 >27 5241 i.4 0C 10C 1 0( 51 6<.200 <00 s· :oc S97.00C UiC S8! ooc S81 50 SB<:;;5~0C-----;il $. 600 $82.000 .500 f.'l(j( ·~· .90C S50AOO $42.000 eoc DOC ~00 511 .eoc 70C .coo . .. ALL R I GHTS RESERVED r' Demographics Study r There are a total of 116 parcels in Co le County that pay no tax, and Figure 240 on p . 184 shows only 49, but we left the over a ll tota l of $2 20M in th e table for all the parcels . We did not receive parce l c lass ificat ions from Callaway County, so the table below shows on ly those coun ts and valu es for Jeffers on City. It shows that single family parc e ls account for 56 percent of the total market value of$969M and 5 ,001 parcels, or 57.5 percent of the total. Top 50 Land Use Codes in the Jefferson City School District in Cole County, 2009 Rank, Number of Total Market o/o Total o/o Total based on La nd Use Code s Number of Value of value Parcels Value Parcels Parcels Total Cola County Parcels In School District 25,447 $3,921,017,200 100.00% 100.00% 1 111 Single Fam ily Ho me 16,750 52,378,501 '100 65.82% 60.66% 2 631 Office Bl dg Low Rise 1 -4 Story 290 $208,565,000 1.14% 5.32% 3 115 Condo 583 S92, 789,100 2.29% 2 .37% 4 811 Farm La nd With Home & Farm lmprol.€ments 541 $89,467,500 2.13 % 2 .28 % 5 119 Garden Apt (1 -3 Stories) 236 S88, 756,500 0 .93% 2.26% 6 112 Duplex 528 $80,590,500 2 .07% 2 .06% 7 535 Di scount Chain Store 11 $65 ,110,600 0.04% 1 .66% 8 511 Warehouse, Distribution Facility 161 $64,526,500 0.63% 1 .65% 9 540 Shopping Center Neighborhood 27 $52,705,300 0.11 % 1 .34% 10 114 Fourp lex 241 $48,470,100 0.95% 1 .24% 11 659 Convalescent Home -Nurs ing Home 16 $42,038,400 0.06% 1 .07% 12 532 Retail Store Free Standing 102 $39,627,100 0.40% 1.01% 13 124 Resident Conl.€rted To Apts 432 $33,451 ,000 1.70% 0.85% 14 500 Vacant Commercial Land 231 $30,579,300 0.91% 0.78% 15 100 Vacant Res idential Lot 2,132 $26,860,400 8 .38% 0.69% 16 171 Hotel W/0 Restaurant 12 $25,901 ,400 0 .05% 0 .66% 17 514 Warehouse-Office Combo 60 $25,885,000 0.24% 0.66% 18 658 Surgical Cl inic -Health Center 4 $23,604,500 0 .02% 0.60% 19 635 Medical -Dental Office 4 1 $23,566,800 0 .16% 0.60% 20 612 Bank Bra nch W/Dril.€up 19 $23,129,300 0 .07% 0.59% 21 272 Periodicals Publishin g & P rintin g 9 $21 ,846,900 0 .04% 0.56% 22 513 Warehouse-Retail Combo 53 $20,114,200 0 .21 % 0.51 % 23 638 Service Garage 85 $17,964,000 0 .33% 0.46% 24 651 Gol.€rmental Offices 42 $17,013,300 0 .17% 0.43% 25 583 Restaurant Chain Fast Food 28 $16,828,4 00 0.1 1% 0.43% 26 539 Supermarket Free Standing 5 $16,232,900 0.02% 0.41 % 27 113 Triplex 81 $15,590,900 0.32% 0.40% 28 581 Res tau rant Free Standing 35 $15,509,500 0.14% 0.40% 29 541 Shopp ing Ce nter Coumminty 1 $15,300,000 0.00% 0.39% 30 170 Hotel W/Restaurant 3 $14,700,300 0.01 % 0 .37 % 31 2 19 Beauthy Heal th Care -Mfg 2 $14,670,000 0.01% 0 .37% 32 282 Plastic Materials -Mfg 2 $11 ,669,700 0.01 % 0.30% 33 262 Paper Manufacturin g 1 $11 '264 , 800 0 .00% 0.29% 34 537 Conl.€nience Store 29 $11 ,252,800 0 .11 % 0 .29 % 35 531 Downtown Row Retail 62 $10,987,500 0.24% 0 .28 % 36 551 Dealership Auto Full Servi ce 11 $10 ,883,600 0 .04% 0 .28 % 37 630 Office Conl.€rted From Residence 85 $10,517,500 0 .33% 0 .27 % 38 460 Auto Parking Lot 98 $9,451,600 0 .39% 0.24% 39 515 Mini Storage Units 33 $9,120,700 0 .13% 0 .23 % 40 530 Downtown Row Office 22 $9,028 ,500 0 .09% 0 .23% 4 1 399 Industrial Uses N.E .O 3 $8,856,600 0 .01 % 0 .23% 42 611 Full Servic e Bank 7 58,799,000 0.03% 0.22% 43 483 Water Utility & Irrigation 26 $8,622 ,900 0.10% 0.22% 44 340 Machinery Manufacturing 5 $8,027 ,500 0.02% 0.20% 45 800 Farm Land No lmprol.€ments 893 $7,607,200 3.51 % 0.19% 46 516 Cold Storage Facili ty 3 $6,528,500 0.0 1% 0.17% 47 271 Newspapers Publish ing & Pri nting 2 $6,070,600 0.01 % 0.15% 48 175 Modular Home 87 $6 ,008,000 0.34% 0.15% 49 634 Office Condo Unit 17 $5 ,608,700 0.07% 0 .14% 50 661 Day Care-Learning Center 22 $5,383,200 0.09% 0 .14% ©BUSIN ESS I NFORMAT I O N SERVICES , LLC Page 185 F i gure 241. Land use codes ran k ed by v alue in Cole Count y , 2009. ALL RIGHTS RES ERVED Je.fferson City School District Desc riptio n of Map s in App en dix Page Fig u re Density of elementary school students 188 242 Overall dispersion of elementary students by grade 189 243 Density of mi ddle school students 190 244 Overall dispersion of middle school students by grade 191 24 5 Density of high school students 192 246 Overall dispersion high school students by grade 193 247 Total pop ulation, 2009 194 248 Total projected population, 2014 195 249 Total projected percent change in poulation , 2009-2014 196 250 Projected population rate of change , 2009-2014 197 251 Dispersion of child ren under the age of five 198 2 52 Projected dispersion of child re n unde r the age of five , 2014 199 253 Projected percent change in children unde r age five, 2009-2014 200 254 Projected rate of change in children under five ye a rs old , 2009-14 201 255 Overall dispersion of scho o l age c hi ld ren 202 256 Projected d ispersio n of school-age chi ldre n, 2014 203 257 Projecte d percent change in school-ag e children, 2009-14 204 258 Projected rate of chang e i n school-age children, 2009-14 205 259 Dispersion of child-bearing age women 206 260 P rojected dispersion of chi ld-bearing age women, 2014 207 261 Projected percent chang e in child-bearing age women, 2009-14 208 262 Projected ra te o f cha nge in child-bearing age women, 2009-14 209 263 Total number of househo ld s 210 264 Total proje cted number of households 211 265 Projected p ercent cha nge in tota l ho use ho lds, 2009-2014 212 266 Projected rate of change in tota l ho useholds , 2009-2014 213 267 Ove rview of avera ge size house holds 214 268 P rojected size of ave rage households, 2014 215 269 P rojected percent chang e in average size households, 2009-2014 216 270 Projected ra te of cha nge in ave rag e size of ho useholds, 2009-14 217 271 Dispersion of average household income 218 272 Projected averag e ho us ehold income 219 273 Projected percent cha nge in aver~ge household i ncome 220 274 Projected rate of change in ave rage household income 221 275 Med ian Household lncome,2009 222 276 Projected median household income, 2014 223 277 P rojected percent change in med ian ho usehold income, 2009-14 224 278 P rojected ra te of change in median household income , 2009-1 4 22 5 279 © BUSINESS INFORM ATION SERVICES , L L C Page 186 A LL R I G HTS RESERV ED Demographics Study Description of Maps in Appendix Page Figure Estimated White population, 2009 226 280 Projected White Popu lation, 2014 227 281 Projected percent change in White population 228 282 Projected rate of change in White population 229 283 Estimated Black population, 2009 230 284 Projected Black Population, 20 14 231 285 Projected percent change in Black population 232 286 Projected rate of change in Black population 233 287 Estimated Hispanic population , 2009 234 288 Projected Hispani c population , 2014 235 289 Projected percent change in Hispanic population 236 290 Projected rate of change in Hispan ic population 237 291 Estimated Asian and Pacific Islander population , 2009 238 292 Projected Asian and Pacifi c Islander popula tio n, 2014 239 293 Projected percent change in Asian and Pa cific Islander population 240 294 Proje cted rate of change in Asian and Pacific Islander population 241 295 Estima ted Native American population, 2009 242 296 Projected Native American population , 2014 243 297 Projected percent change in Native American population 244 298 Projected rate of change in Native American population 245 299 Land classi fication in northwestern region 246 300 Land classification overview 247 301 Land cla ssification in southeastern region 248 302 Land classification in southwestern region 249 303 Total tax exempt parcels in southeastern region 250 304 Total tax exempt parcels in northwestern region 251 305 Total tax exempt parcels in southwestern region 252 306 ZIP codes in the Jeffers on City Schoo l District 253 307 Household expenditures on cigarettes 254 308 Household expenditures on alcoholic beverages 255 309 Household expenditures on candy and gum 256 310 Household expenditures on cookies 257 311 Household expenditures on fresh fruit 258 312 Household expenditures on sugar and sweeteners 259 313 Household expenditures on snacks 260 314 ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 187 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Figure 242. Density of elementary school students. ...... Vl v 0 .__ ...... 0 Vl ..c 0 v l/) 0 E 0 Q) ..c v L.U VI ~ Vl >. ro Vl ~ ...... Q) ..c Q) '0!) .__ ...... I l/) ""'" 0 I"J I"J co ~ I ~ ~~ co ~ \Jj l/\ co ~ ~ \0 0'\ ~J N"' l/\ ~ ~ ~ I l/\ N"' N"' ~ ~ ~ ~ ""'" ~ 0'\ ~ 1'-0 \0 0'\ \0 co '<j-\0 "' I I "' :1 ~(') l/\ " 1: ! I"J '<j- I"J I I N"' 0 I"J Dl "' 10 0 I ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 188 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 2 43. Overall dispe rs io n o f J effe r son City School D istri ct elem e nta ry s t udents by grade. ~ rl G , ~ ~· ~ +-' Vl -~ R--f ~ ~ f ... } ~~ ' ~~ I -1-~~ R·) \ \~0 l. $ ~~~ 0 +-' 0 -~ ..c 0 u 1/) -0 E o rl_l_t • . \ -. I . ·," ~ Q) ..c -u UJ 1/) l (I • \ ,. ,/• /, " -~ ~~).,. ... : ~ . \ 7 0' !f~ Vl ~ 6 ( ~-; ~} 'Q -' ).. J >- . J ._, ,o • "-~ --J.. J / ro Vl ~ +-' ..c Q) 'oO ~ • . ---·-·-+-' ::r: 1/) : .. .) $.1 v /\ ~r ca ... -·---; r _, 8 1.1'\ r-~ • \I) • 0 J """"~~s:--'\j ./)> ,,~-~J '¢ ~ • e( y ~~ ~}·lb -..----~ ; / -'/)..1., m , ... \ ...... ~ -~AI I ~ " • f'j 8 ©BUSIN E S S INFORMATION SERVI CES, L L C Page 189 ALL RIGHT S R ESERVE D J~f]erson City School District Figure 244. Density of middle school students in Jefferson City School District.. -- VI ...... 0 u 0 '-..c ...... u VI V'l 0 Q) 0 -o 0 -o ..c ~ u Vl ... VI >. ro VI ~ ...... Q) ..c Q) 'oO '- I ...... Vl .... ff\ .... r-.. .... .... I ~ ~~ .... \() \jj 0 .... .... .... 00 N 0 ·~ 00 ::: I N r-.. r-.. 00 0'1 ff\ lJ"\ r-.. ff\ 00 ~ lJ"\ 0 ~ ff\ ~ I I .. ~ ~ 0'1 'l "' ' N ~ I .... I r-.. 1: ' 0 lJ"\ .... Dl l d 0 • ' © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES , LLC Page 190 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study I Figure 245. Overall dispersion o f middle school students by grade i n J efferson City School District. I "' z ·~ ~ \ ,7 -{ r?~ +J -Y:. (~ ~f· rl _L~ • J< ~- I-" I/ . (_ • • . ' .... • • . \ I \ • © BUSIN ESS IN FORMATION SERVICES , LLC Page 191 -- I _... ?- '-.... ~ ':.-rl."'i '\._...,. ('-'"'\ Vl +" 0 u ·.:::: 0 +" ''·. I ..r:: Vl u 0 Vl Q) 0 -o 0 -o ..r:: u ~ Vl ~ Vl >-ro Vl ~ +" 8 Q) ,..._~ ..r:: Q) 'o.O ..... +" \i) I Vl ~J ~ 00 • 1'- • -..r. .. ' . \{) r-~ -.,_ J' • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED j_ifferson City School District Figure 246. Density of high school students in Jefferson City School District. ..... VI v .... 0 ..... 0 VI ..c 0 u VI 0 ..c 0 'o.Q..C ·-v t~ I VI -01111 VI >. ro VI ~ ..... Q) ..c Q) 'o.O .... ..... I Vl l"l o::t .... \0 l"l .... I ~ ~~ 0 Lf\ \Jj .... l"l .... .... ~J Lf\ .... 'll .... 0\ .... "' I 00 o::t 1'-0\ rr'o 0\ \0 1'- I I .... Ll"' rr'o ,_ I IN j ~ ';? .; 0 1 0 ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVIC ES, LLC Page 192 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 247 . Overall dispersion of Jefferson City School District high school students by grade. ••• ~-. • dfiJI' • .• I J.: • ©BUS INESS INF ORMAT ION SERVI CES, LLC Page 193 f )- VI -0 0 ..c v VI ..c 'o!l I ~ VI >. ro ~ ..c 'o!l I N ,.... • ,.... ,.... • 0 ,.... • .j-1 v 1- .j-1 VI 0 0 0 ..c u VI VI .j-1 Q) Q) 1- .j-1 Vl ALL RIG HTS R ESERV E D Je__fferson City School District Figure 248 . Total population in Jefferson City School District, 2009. © BUS INESS INF ORMATION S E RVICES , LLC Page 194 -1 <II ., ~ r "" 1 1: -+-' v 1-. -+-' VI 0 0 0 ..r:::. v Vl VI >.. VI ro -+-' ~ Q) ..c ~ 'a.O -+-' Vl I 0'\ 0'\ '¢ ~ ~ + 0 0 0 0 0 Ll'\ ~~ ~ ~ I I 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ '¢ 0'\ .... .... 0 0 0 0 0 Ll'\ .... ,.... I I 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0 0 0 Ll'\ 0 v Ll'\ I .~ ~~ \Jj ~J £ A LL RIG H TS R ESERV E D Demographics Study Figure 249. Total projected population in Jefferson City School Distri ct, 2014. © BUSINESS INFORMATION S E RV ICES , LLC Page 195 ...... u .... ...... VI 0 0 0 ..r: u Vl Q'\ Q'\ o::t N~ I 0 0 0 N + 0 0 1.1"\ N I I Q'\ Q'\ Q'\ Q'\ o::t Q'\ ~ ,.... ,.... I 0 0 0 0 0 1.1"\ ,.... ,.... I I Q'\ Q'\ Q'\ 0 I 0 0 1.1"\ 0 v 1.1"\ I g r'~ \I) ~J ·iii :§ ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © CD c (/) z Ill (/) (/) z "II 0 ;:o 3:: > -1 0 z (/) Ill ;:o < n Ill (/) r r () :t> r r ::u G) :r -1 (/) ::u Ill (/) Ill ;:o < Ill 0 .. <0 .0 % .. 0.0%-1.9 % 2.0 %-3-9 % .. 6.0%-7-9 % 4.0 %-s.9 % .. s.o % + Streets Hi ghways Sch ool Distri ct -1 0 -111 "'C ... .2. ctl 0 -ctl c. "'C ctl ... 0 ctl ::s r+ 0 ::r 111 ::s (C ctl ::s "'C 0 "'C c: iii r+ c;· ::s 0 -c.... ctl ;: ... (/) 0 ::s ('") ~ '< en 0 ::r 0 52. 0 c;;· r+ ... c;· --N 0 0 <.0 I N 0 .... ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ t; ~. ~ ~ ~. \J ~ Demographics Study Figure 251 . Projected population rate of change i n Jefferson City School Di strict, 2009-2014. © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 197 ( +-' v ·c +-' Vl 0 0 0 .£: v Vl Vl >- Vl ro +-' $: Q) .£: ~ 'o.O +-' Vl :c ~ \0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0"1 0 ~ r-... 0 ~ m 0 ~ I 0 ~ 0 0 v 0 I I ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je.:fferson City School District Figure 252 . Dispersion of children under f ive yea rs old in Jefferson City School Distri ct, 2009. t +J , u ·;: +J VI 0 0 0 ..c u Vl VI >.. VI ro +J ~ <lJ <lJ ..c ,_ '0.0 +J I Vl a 0'\ ~~ '¢ \Jj 1"'1 + 0 0 ~J 0 ll'\ 1"'1 1"'1 ~ I I 0'\ 0'\ '¢ 0'\ ..... ..... 0 0 0 ll'\ ..... ..... I I 0'\ 0'\ 0 ll'\ 0 v ll'\ I © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page )98 ALL RIGHTS RESE R VED @ OJ c Ill z IT1 Ill Ill z "11 0 ;u s:: )> -l 0 z (/) IT1 ;u < n IT1 Ill r r () ""0 ~ (JCI ~ ,.... \0 \0 )> r r ::0 (5 J: -l Ill ::0 IT1 Ill IT1 ;u < IT1 0 I r1 \ . ~· I \_ ---~ M ~es 0 QS 1 2 3 ~ _,.- "T1 cE' c: .... (I) N 0'1 w ""C .... ~. (I) 0 -(I) c. c. c;;· "C (I) ~ (5 ' ::I 0 -0 ::r c:: .... (I) ::I c: ::I c. (I) .... :=! < (I) '< (I) Q) .... en /f ""t'fl --:r.~ •=-y~ 0 c:: c.. \ I,),\. < so .. 100 -149 .. 20 0 -249 Streets .. so-99 .. 1SO -19 9 .. 2SO + Hi g h w a ys Sch o ol Distri ct ~ t; (I) .... en 0 (\) ::I ~ (') ;::;: a '< CJ) ~ 0 ::r 0 ~ £ 0 c;;· ~ .... ~. .... ('J c:;· _ ... VJ N V') 0 ..... ~ -.... ..,.,---~ llu._..Jncss lnrum1 Jtion S<:nic..'Ci ~ ~ ~ Jefferson City School District Figure 254. Projected percent change in children under five years old in Jefferson City, 2009-2014. "' "' (!il ::::"1 .,. ~ " ~;I :-i "' "' :., ;-.: ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 200 1 1 ,~ f 0 0 0 0 ..c v Vl Vl >.. Vl ro .j.J $: Q) ..c ~ '0.0 .j.J VI I ~ 0\ 0\ + ~ ~ 0 If\ 0 ('.. ..... I I ~ ~ 0\ o:;r o:;r ('.. ~ ~ If\ 0 N If\ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 v 0 I I .g ~~ \ij ~J .!I "' ALL R IGHTS RESERVED )> ----=--1 Miles F . o o.5 1 2 3 ::0 f~ G) :I -1 Ul ::0 rr1 Ul .. <o .o % .. o.o%-0-4% o .s%-o.g% .. 1.5%-1.9 % 1.0%-1-4 % .. 2 .0% + rr1 ~ .....--~ < 1\usii"ICS-.I n(omlation S<..'f\~ Streets Highways School District rr1 ~· O L-----------------------------------~--------------------------------------~ "TT ce· c: ~ (!) ~ "' !-" ., ~ .2. (!) 0 .... (!) a. ~ Ill .... (!) 0 -0 ~ Ill ::l (C (!) ::l 0 ~ c:: ~ (!) ::l c: ::l a. (!) ~ -;::· (!) '< (!) Ill ~ VI 0 c:: ::l t:J (... (!) (\:) =: ~ (!) Cil 0 ~ ::l (") ;:::;: '< ~ ~ 0 0 ~ <0 I -· ~ ('J 0 .... V:l ~ V) E' ~ Je,fferson City School District Figure 25 6. Overall dispersio n o f school age children in Jefferson City S ch o ol District, 2009 . "' ., :E r '"' IN "' 10 0 i .j.J u ·c .j.J V1 0 0 0 ..c u I/) V1 .j.J Q.J Q.J '- .j.J I/) 0'\ 0'\ <;!- 0 0 <;!- V1 >. ro ~ ..c -~ I + 0 0 ll"' I I 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ I"J N'\ 0 0 0 0 I"J N'\ I I 0'\ 0'\ ,.... 0 0 0 ,.... 0 v ,.... I ~ ~~ \ij ~J ·~ "' ©BUS IN E SS I NFO R M ATI O N S ERV I CES , L LC Page 2 02 A L L R I G HTS R ESERVE D Demographics Study Figure 257 . Projected dispersion of school age children in Jefferson City School District, 2014. ~ +' u ·c +' Ill 0 0 0 ..r: u V'l Ill >- Ill ro +' ~ Q) Q) ..r: ..... '0.0 +' V'l I e (j"\ ~~ (j"\ <;t \lj + 0 0 0 0 ~J <;t Lf\ I I ~ (j"\ (j"\ (j"\ (j"\ N ('(\ ( 0 0 0 0 N ('(\ I I (j"\ (j"\ ..... 0 I 0 0 ..... 0 v ..... I © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES , LLC Page 203 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED @ ro c !!! z 1'11 (/) (/) z ., 0 ;o ~ ~ 0 z (/) 1'11 ;o < (i 1'11 (/) r r () )> r r ::u G) J: -i (/) ::u 1'11 (/) 1'11 ;o < 1'11 0 l --0 0.5 1 2 .J Miles 3 -<0.0% -0.0%-2.4% 2.5 %-4·9% .. 7·5 %-9·9% 5.0%-7-4% .. 1o.o% + Streets Highways School District "'C ., .2. CD 0 -CD c. "C CD ., 0 CD :::s .. 0 :::1" Ill :::s co CD :::s (/) 0 :::1" 0 0 Ill co CD 0 :::1" 0: ., CD :::s :::s c... CD = CD (il 0 :::s (") :::0: '< en 0 :::1" 0 0 0 ~· -., c:;· ~- N 0 0 <D I N 0 .... ~ ~ ~ a a -..... tJ ~. V:l ~ ~. \'::) ........ © tD c (/) z 1'1'1 (/) (/) z 'TJ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 z (/) 1'1'1 ~ < 0 1'1'1 (/) r r () ~ ~ (JQ ~ N 0 Ul )> r r ::0 G) J: -1 (/) ::0 1'1'1 (/) 1'1'1 ~ < 1'1'1 0 _ --Miles l 0 0.5 1 2 3 .. <0.0% .. o .o %-0-4% o.s%-o.9% .. 1.5 %-1.9 % 1.0 %-1-4 % .. 2.0 % + Streets High w ays L School Di s trict "T1 ce· c .., (!) N <.n !D "tJ .., .Q. (!) (') -(!) c. .., I» -(!) 0 -(') ~ I» :::s co (!) :::s C/1 (') ~ 0 0 I» co (!) (') ~ c:: .., (!) :::s ~A :::s c... (!) I =: (!) J1 .., C/1 t; 0 :::s C') (t) ;:;: ~ '< '1 en (') ~ / I ~ t\~ 0 t 0 0 ~ iii' -.., ~ c:;· ~ -· N (J 0 V:l 0 (0 ~ I N 0 ..... ~ !>-~ Je.:fferson City School District Figure 260 . Dispersion of child -bearing age women in Jefferson City School District , 2009 . .. -~ ~ r "" ~I: "' ·~ .j..J u ·;:: .j..J Vl 0 0 0 ..c u Vl Vl .j..J Q.J Q.J ,_ .j..J Vl ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ Vl >. ro ~ ..c 'a{) J: + 0 0 lf'l I I ~ ~ ~ ~ l"l IY'I 0 0 0 0 l"l IY'I I I ~ ~ T'" 0 0 0 T'" 0 v T'" I a ~~ \!j ~J ~ © BUSIN ESS INFO R MATION SER VI CES , LLC Page 206 ALL R IGHT S R E S ERV ED Demographics Study Figure 261. Projected d i spersion of child-bearing age women in Jefferson City School District., 2014. ~ +J u ·.:: +J VI 0 0 0 ..c u Vl V1 >- V1 ro +J ~ Q) Q) ..c I-'o.O +J I Vl .s 0'\ ~~ 0'\ \lj ¢ + 0 0 0 0 ~J ¢ Ll'\ I I ~ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ N ,.,.,. f 0 0 0 0 N ,.,.,. I I 0'\ 0'\ ..- 0 I 0 0 ..-0 v ..- I <'> '-L '~ I.,., ·~ _....__ ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 207 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © OJ c Ul z fT1 Ul Ul z , 0 ;u :3: > -i 0 z Ul fT1 ;u < n fT1 Ul r r () )> r r ::u G) :r irl ::u fT1 Ul fT1 ;u < fT1 0 J Mil es 3 -<0.0% -o .o %-2-4% 2.5%-4·9% .. 7·5%-g.g% 5.0 %-7-4 % .. 1o.o% + ----~ Bus iness Information Scni~ ~ Streets Highways School District "'0 ... ~. (I) n ... (I) a. "0 (I) ... n (I) ~ :I ... n '::t' ~ Ill :I 0 (Q (I) 0 :I ~ n \:) '::t' a: -· I V:l C' (I) ~ Ill ::::!. -· :I (";) (Q Ill -.... (Q (I) :e 0 3 (I) :I :I (.. (I) ~ ... (/) 0 :I (') ~ N 0 0 U) I N 0 .... ~ © Ill c !!! z 1'11 (/) (/) z "II 0 ;u ~ ~ 0 z (J) 1'11 ;u $ () 1'11 (/) r r () ""'0 ~ (JCl ('t) N 0 \0 )> r r ::0 G) :I -i (/) ::0 1'11 (/) 1'11 ;u < 1'11 0 .. <0 .0 % .. o.o%-0-4% o.s %-o .g % .. 1.5 %-1.9% 1.0%-1-4% .. 2.0 % + _,.,..---, I Ju-.i~ t nfomlJ.rion Scnico ~ Stre ets Highway s Sc hoo l Di stri c t , cE' c: ... Ctl N 0) ~ "tJ ... 0 ...... Ctl n -Ctl a. ... Ill -Ctl 0 -n ';j' Ill :J co Ctl 0 -n ';j' a: I 0' Ctl Ill ... :;· co Ill co Ctl ~ 0 3 Ctl :J :J c... Ctl ;: .., (/) 0 :J (') ;:;: '< N 0 0 (0 I N 0 ..... ~ t1 (\:) ~ c ~ ~ ~ -· (J V:l ~ ~ ~ J~fferson City School District Figure 264. Total number of households in Jefferson City School District, 2009. z &~ ~ :l: ©BUSINE SS INFORMAT ION SERVI CES, LLC Page 210 ....__ ~ .j.J v ' ·;:: .j.J VI 0 0 0 ~ v Vl a 0"1 r-~ 0"1 0"1 + \Jj 0 0 0 0 0 ~J 00 ~ ,.... I I .B <:: 0"1 0"1 0"1 0"1 Lf'l !'- 0 0 0 0 oq-\() I I 0"1 0"1 IV\ 0 0 0 N 0 v N .. "' ~ I <"> I 1: t "' ~~ I ./ ~ ALL RIGHTS R ESERVED Demographics Study Figure 265. Total projected number of households in Jefferson City School District, 2014. ©BUS INESS INFORMATION SERVICES , LLC Page 211 +J u ,_ +J Vl 0 0 0 ..r: u \/) Vl +J Q) Q) ,_ +J \/) "' "' "' , 0 0 00 Vl >. ro ~ ..r: '0.0 :::X: + 0 0 0 ..- I I "' "' "' "' l.f'\ ('.. 0 0 0 0 ¢ \.0 I I "' "' ('("\ 0 . 0 0 N 0 v N I e ·c: r-~ \!) .g ~J ·7 ~ A LL RIGHTS R ESERVED © lD c (/) z fTl (/) (/) z , 0 ;u ~ ~ 0 z (/) fTl ;u < n fTl (/) r r () )> r r ::0 G) :I -i (/) ::0 fTl (/) fTl ;u < fTl 0 --'J Miles 0 Q5 1 2 3 .. < o.o % .. o .o %-1.9 % 2.0 %-3 ·9 % .. 6.0 %-7·9 % 4 .0%-s .9 % .. B.o % + ------~ Business lnfonnarion Scniu:o. ~ Street s Hig hways Schoo l Dis tri ct "tJ ., .2. (!) C') .... (!) Q, "C (!) ., C') (!) ~ :::l .... C') ::r ~ 11.1 :::l a (Q (!) a :::l ~ .... tJ 0 .... 11.1 -. ::r VJ 0 ~ s:: (/) (!) -· ::r \J 0 ~ c:: (/) :::l c... (!) ;;: Ci1 0 :::l (") ;::;: '< (/) C') ::r 0 2.. 0 iii' .... :::!. C') _ .... 1\l 0 0 CD I 1\l 0 ~ ~ Demographics Study Figure 267 . Projected rate of change in total households in Jefferson City Sc hool D istrict, 2009-20 14. ~ ~~ '" 0 "' ~ -:-1 © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVIC E S , LLC Page 213 +-' v ·;:::: +-' VI 0 0 0 .c v Vl o-.e "<:t" ,.... o-.e 0 ,.... I o-.e \0 0 o-.e "<:t" 0 ~ + o-.e Ll'\ ,.... I o-.e ()'\ 0 o-.e I' 0 0 o-.e 0 0 v 0 I I ~1 \Jj ~J ~ ALL R IGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Figure 268. Overview of average size households in Jefferson City School District, 2009. +-' u ·;: +-' Ill 0 0 0 ..c u Vl \ Vl >. Vl ro +-' ~ Cl) Cl) ..c I-'o1) +-' Vl I 0'\ -~ 0'\ r-~ l"'l + \tj Ll\ 0 " 0 l"'l "" I I ·:~; :§ 0'\ '¢ '¢ " l"'l l"'l Ll\ 0 l"'l Ll\ l"'l l"'l I I '¢ l"'l l"'l 0 0 0 l"'l 0 v l"'l .. I ., ~ ~<"> -I N I() ~·= ©BUS INESS IN FORMATI O N SERVIC ES, LLC Page 214 ALL RIG H TS RESERV E D © Ill c Ul z 1"1 Ul Ul z ., 0 ;u 3: ~ 0 z Ul 1"1 ;u < n 1"1 Ul r r () ~ ~ (JQ ~ N -Ul )> r r ::0 C5 :I: -i Ul ::0 1"1 Ul 1"1 ;u < 1"1 0 < 2.00 .. 2.25. 2-49 .. 2.75. 2.gg .. 2.00. 2.24 .. 2.50. 2 .74 .. 3.00 + Streets Highways School District , ce· c .., (!) 1'\,) en U) "'tJ .., 0 '-• (!) C') -(!) Q. (/1 ;:::;· (!) 0 .... Ill < (!) .., Ill (Q (!) ::::r 0 c (/1 (!) ::::r 0 0: (/1 ::I '-(!) ;: .., (/1 0 ::I ("') ;::; '< C/) C') ::::r 0 0 0 iii' -.., r;· ~ 1'\,) 0 .... ~ t::J ('\) ~ C) ~ ~ ~ ~. ('J VJ ~ ~ ~ Je.,f[erson City School District Figure 270 . Projected percent change in average size of households in Jefferson City, 2009 -2014 . ~ ~ <I) ., ~ C') 1: 1 "' I ~ 1 ' ...... v ·;:::: ...... Vl 0 0 0 ~ v Vl Vl ...... <IJ <IJ ...... ...... Vl a-e '": 0 I a-e IY\ 0 I a-e \!) 0 I a-e ('... 0 I Vl >-ro ~ ~ 'o.O I + a-e 0 0 ~ '¢ 0 I I ~ Lf\ 0 I I I a-e co 0 I a-e 0 ~ ..-0"\ I v 0 I II a r-~ \lj iJ ~ ©BUS INESS IN F OR MATI O N S ERVI CES, LLC Page 216 A LL RIGHTS RESERV ED Demographics Study Figure 271. Projected rate of change in average size of households in Jefferson Ci ty, 2009-2014 . ...... v 1-...... VI __.,.~"i 0 0 0 ..r: v l/) VI >-ro ~ ..r: 'oO '" :c "" .,.... ~ ;:; 2.1 . 'j VI ...... Q.) Q.) 1-.~ '" ...... ·" l/) .,...! ~9. 'j \J) ~ ~J 0 .,. 0 ~ 0 • ~ 1"1 0 I ~ 1'1'\ 0 . .. v ~ I 'l"' ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC P age 2 }7 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je.fferson City School District Figure 272 . Dispersion of average household income in Jefferson City, 2009 . There is a large variation in household income in the district. I \ ©B U S IN ESS INFORM ATI O N S ERVICES , LLC Page 218 l j_ ., ~ :E "' 1: It') lei 0 -1-' u 'i: -1-' Vl 0 0 0 £ u Vl 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ ~ 0'\ ....... 0 0 0 0 ....... + 0 0 0 ~ 0 00 I I 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ ~ ~ 0'\ 0'\ l/'\ $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l/'\ \() I I 0'\ 0\ 0'\ 0\ <;!- 0 0 0 0 0 l/'\ 0 f"l ~ l/'\ v f"l I ~ r-~ $~ ~J ·~ :: ALL RIG HTS R ESERVE D Demographics Study Figure 273 . Projected average h ousehol d income i n Jeffe rson City School District, 201 4. L.. r .j..J )--u 1... .j..J Ill 0 0 /~ 0 £ u -l/) 0\ 0\ 0\ ~ 0\ 1""-. I + ~ 0 0 r-~ 0 0 0 0 \Jj 0 0 1""-. co I I ~J ~ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 1./'\ \!) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1./'\ \!) I I 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ '¢ 0 0 0 "' 0 0 ~ 1./'\ 0 ~ N -.<"> 1./'\ v N I ©B U S INESS I NFORMATION S E R VI C E S , LLC Page 219 ALL R I GHTS R E SERV ED )> r r ::0 G) J: -i VI ::0 fTI VI fTI ;o < fTI a © m c VI z fTI VI VI z , 0 ;o ~ > -i 0 z (/) fTI ;o < n fTI VI r r () --Miles I 0 0 .5 1 2 3 .. < 0.0 % .. o .o %-0.9 % 1.0%. 1.9% .. 3 .0 %-3 ·9 % 2 .0 %-2 .9 % .. 4 .0 % + ----~ l lu~i nc:ss l nfom1arion Scniccs ~ Streets Highways Sch ool Di st ri ct I N l W*E s l -<. . ~ n ~ ::::r ~ Q) ::l C) (Q CD C) ::l ~ Q) t:i < CD ... -. Q) VJ (Q CD ~ ::::r 0 -. c:::: ('";) 1/) CD -... ::::r 0 a: ::l n 0 3 CD 5 ' c... CD ;: ... 1/) 0 ::l C') ;:;: ~ N 0 0 (0 I N 0 ...... ~ © lll c (/) z 111 (/) (/) z "TI 0 ;o ~ > -i 0 z Ul 111 ;o < 0 111 (/) r r () '"0 ~ (JQ ~ N N """"' )> r r ::0 G) :I -i (/) ::0 111 (/) 111 ;o < 111 0 ---...::=J Miles 0 0.5 1 2 3 / .. < o.o % .. o.o %-0.2% !'.).:;% 0.3%-0-4% .. 0.7%-o.g% o .s %-o.6% .. 1.o % + ..,----:~ Bu..~in<.....~ I nfonn:uion Scnicx:, ~ Stre ets Highw ay s Schoo l District "T1 10' c ... C1) N ...... !.II "'tt ... .2. C1) (") -C1) a. ... Ill -C1) 0 .... (") ::r Ill ::I (Q C1) ::I Ill < C1) ... Ill (Q C1) ::r 0 c VI C1) ::r !2. a. 5' (") 0 3 C1) ::I tJ c.. C1) it ~ ... ~ VI 0 ::I a (") ~ ;:;: '< N ~ 0 0 co ~ I N 0 too.! • .... (';) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Jfifferson City School District Figure 276. Overview of median household income of Jefferson City School District, 2009. I~ .... ..... u ( 1-..... Vl Q T'"'"'~ 0 0 ..c u Vl 0"1 0"1 0"1 ~ 0"1 \0 + g 0 0 r-l 0 0 0 0 \Jj ~ ~ 0 0 \0 I'-- I I ~J ·~ = 0:: 0"1 0"1 0"1 0"1 0"1 0"1 ~ ~ 0"1 0"1 o::t" If\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 o::t" If\ I I 0"1 0"1 0"1 ~ 0"1 ,.,... 0 0 0 "' 0 0 "' ~ s; If\ 0 " "' '1 N If\ v N 1: . I ., 10 0 < ~ ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, L LC Page 222 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 277 . Proj ected median household income i n Jefferson Ci ty School Di stri ct, 2014. "' I 1 ~z ·~ L •, yf I ~ ;:_ +-' u ~ +-' Vl ---0 rt 0 ~ 0 ..c u \/) Vl >. Vl ro +-' ~ <lJ <lJ ..c ~ 'oO -1-' I \/) 0"1 0"1 0"1 0"1 \.0 ~]. \ij ~J .,., ~ 0"1 0"1 0"1 0"1 0"1 0"1 0"1 0"1 ~ 1./\ . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 1./\ I I 0"1 0"1 0"1 0"1 ('(\ 0 I 0 0 ., 0 0 ~ 1./\ 0 l"'l ~ (0') 1./\ v l"'l IN I ~~ . ©BUSIN E SS IN F ORMAT ION S ERVICES , L L C Page 223 A LL RIG HTS R ESERVED )> r r ;u G) :I -f (/) ;u 1'11 (/) 1'11 ::0 < 1'11 0 © [D c (/) z 1'11 (/) (/) z ., 0 ::0 3: > -f 0 z (/) 1'11 ::0 < n 1'11 (/) r r () 3 Miles .. <0.0 % .. o .o%-0 .9 % 1.0%-1.9 % .. 3 .0 %-3 ·9% 2.0 %-2.9% .. 4.0 % + ---~ n m..irKSS I nfomu:riCH1 Scni<.'Qi ~ Streets Highways "tJ ... -l .S!. N (I) w@ E (') .... (I) c. "C ~ (I) ... (') (I) ~ L :::::1 r+ (') :r ~ AI :::::1 a (C (I) a 0 -..... -/ 3 t; !.~~~ (I) c. -· iii' VJ :::::1 ~ :r 0 -· c: ("'J Ill (I) -.... :r 0 c: :::::1 (') 0 3 ~ 1\) 0 0 <D I 1\) 0 .... !'- School District © OJ c (/) z 111 (/) (/) z Tl 0 ;o s: ~ 0 z (f) 111 ;o < n 111 (/) r r () ~ ~ (JCl ~ N N Ul )> r r ::0 Gl J: -i (/) ::0 111 (/) 111 ;o < 111 0 -. --___:] Miles 0 ~5 1 2 3 .. <o .o % .. o.o %-0 .2% 0.3 %-0-4 % .. 0.7%-o .B% o.s%-o.6% .. o.9 % + ..,----~ UusirK..""'-" lnfumr.nton Scni~ ~ Streets Highways Sc h oo l Di strict "T1 <C' c .., CD N ....... CD ., .., 0 ...... CD (') -CD c. .., Ill -CD (') ::r Ill ~ (Q CD ~ 3 CD c. jij' ~ ::r 0 c "' CD ::r 0 0:: ~ (') 0 3 ~ N 0 0 CD t:J I N 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ too.! • ('"'J V:l ~ ~ ~ Je.:fferson City School District Figure 280. Total Wh ite population i n Jeffers on Ci t y School Dist r i ct, 2009 . f '\ f ..... ....... v t, ·;:: ....... _.r \11 0 0 0 .!: v Vl 0'1 0'1 B "<t-~~ ~ N + \lj 0 0 0 0 0 If'\ N N ~J I I ·:o "' 0"\ 0'1 0'1 0'1 "<t-0'1 .... .... 0 0 0 0 0 If'\ .... .... I I 0'1 0'1 0'1 0 0 0 If'\ 0 v If'\ "' I -~ :E <'"> \IN -~ . • ~ l 0 © BUSINESS INFORMATION SER V I C ES , LLC Page 226 ALL RIGHT S RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 281 . Projected White population in Jefferson City School District, 2014. ....__ ....... v ~ I-....... ~ Ill 0 -0 0 ..£: v VI ()"\ ()"\ e ¢ ""~ N I + \'j 0 0 g 0 0 .g 0 1.1'\ ~J ~ N N I I ~ ()"\ ()"\ ()"\ ()"\ ¢ ()"\ ~ ~ ..... ..... I I 0 0 0 0 0 1.1'\ ..... ..... I I ()"\ ()"\ ()"\ 0 I 0 0 1.1'\ 0 v 1.1'\ I ©B U S IN E SS IN FORMAT I O N SERVIC E S, LLC Page 227 A LL R IG H TS RESERV ED Je.,(ferson City School District Figure 282. Projected percent change in White population, 2009-2014. ~ "' "' IS :;'1 ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 22 8 ~.j -M +-' u ·;: +-' Vl 0 0 0 .c u Vl Vl >. Vl ro +-' ?; Q) Q) .c '-'O!l +-' I l/') eN! ~ rt'\ + eN! eN! 0 0 rt'\ .q- I I eN! ~ ~ ~ .-N eN! ~ 0 0 .-N eN! 0 ~ 0 0 v 0 I I a r-~ \Jj ~J ·~ c:: A L L RIGHTS RESERVED © OJ c !!! z JTI Ul Ul z "11 0 :0 ~ ~ 0 z (f) JTI :0 < 0 JTI Ul r r () )> r r ::u Gi :I -1 Ul ::u JTI Ul JTI :0 < JTI 0 -l., 0 0.5 1 2 .. <0 .0 % .. o .o %-0.3 % 0-4%-0.6% .. 1.0 %-1.3 % 0 .7 %-0.9 % .. 1-4% + _.---, ll usincss lnro m1J_tion S<."f\i cei ~ Streets Highways School District "TT <C' c::: ... CD N co ~ "'tt ... .2. CD (') -CD c. ... Ill -CD (') :::r Ill ::s (Q CD 5 ' ~ :::r ;::;: CD "C 0 "C c::: Ill -(5 ' ::s N 0 0 <0 I N 0 .... ~ t1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. (J VJ ~ s:: ~ Jefferson City School District Figure 284. Total Black population in Jefferson City School District, 2009. +"' ~· v =-· ·;:::: +"' V1 @ 0 0 0 ~;'I ..r:: ~· v 1/l V1 >.. V1 nJ +"' ~ QJ QJ ..r:: '-"oO +"' :r: 1/l ~ ~~ 0"\ \lj 0"\ .... + s 0 0 ~J 0 0 ·g .... '"" c: I I ~ 0"\ ,....... 0"\ 0 1.1'1 1.1'1 ,....... I I 0"\ ~ 1.1'1 I '"" lf'l v '"" I .. .!! ~ <'> • IN J ~ ' ©BUSIN ESS INF ORMATION SERVICES , LLC Page 230 ALL RIGHTS RESERV ED Demographics Study Figure 285 . Projected Black population in Jefferson City School District, 2014. © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 23) ...... v ...... ...... Vl 0 0 0 .c v Vl Lf'\ I N Ll'\ V N I ALL RIGHTS RESERVED )> r r ;u G) :r: -i lfl ;u 11'1 lfl 11'1 AJ < 11'1 0 © ro c lfl z 11'1 lfl lfl z , 0 AJ :s: > -i 0 z (/) 11'1 ::tJ < n 11'1 lfl r r () --1 Miles 0 0.5 1 2 3 .. <0 .0 % .. 0 .0 %-9 ·9 % 10 .0 %-14 .9 % .. 20.0%-24 .9 % 15 .0 %-19 .9 % .. 2 5 .0 % + "tt .., .2. It) (') r+ It) c. "'0 It) .., (') It) ~ ::I r+ (') =r ~ Q) ::I 0 (C It) 0 0 ~ -OJ t; iii (') ~. :11:' ~ "'0 ~ 0 "'0 c: ~. Q) (;) !:!: -.... 0 ::I ::I '-It) ;: .., (/) 0 ::I (") ;::;: '< ~~~50 63 ...... en (') =r 0 2. 0 u;· r+ .., c:;· ~ Street s Sc h oo l Dist ri ct to.) 0 0 <D Hig h ways I to.) 0 _., !"' © [Il c !!! z 111 (/) (/) z , 0 ;u ~ ~ 0 z (/) 111 ;u ~ () 111 Jl r r () '"'C ~ (Jel ~ N (jJ (jJ :> r r ::0 G) :I ..; (/) ::0 111 (/) 111 ;u < 111 0 2 .. <0 .0 % .. o.o %-1.9% 2.0%-2.9 % .. 4 .0 %-4 ·9 % 3.0 %-3 .9 % .. s .o % + .......--~ Bl&incss ln runnarion Scniccs ~ St reet s Hig h ways Sc h oo l District "T1 tO . c: .., (!) N co ~ ""C .., 0 .... (!) C') -(!) c. .., I» -(!) C') :r I» ::I cc (!) 0 ..... OJ ii) C') ~ "0 0 "0 c: ii) -cs· ::I ::I c... (!) ;: .., (/) 0 ::I 0 ;:::;: tJ '< C/) ~ C') :r ~ 0 £ ~ 0 c;;· -.., c:;· ~ ,!+ N 0 ~ 0 CD ~. I ('J N 0 ~ .... ~ ~ ~ ~ Jefferson City School District Figure 288 . Total Hispanic population in Jefferson City School District, 2009 . ©B U S INESS IN F ORMATI O N SERVI CES, L L C Page 234 ...... u ·;:: ...... VI 0 0 0 .c u Vl VI ...... Q) Q) '-...... Vl 0\ "<:j- 0 "<:j- VI >. rc ~ .c .~ I + 0 ll'\ I I 0\ 0\ 1"'1 IV"\ 0 0 1"'1 IV"\ I I 0\ .... 0 .... 0 v .... I ~ ~~ \Jj ~J ~ ALL R IGHTS RESERV ED Demographics Study Figure 289 . Projected Hispani c population in Jefferson City School District, 2014. ©BU S INESS IN F ORMAT ION SERVICES, LLC Page 235 +-' u I- +-' Vl 0 0 0 ..!: u V'l Vl +-' Q) Q) 1- +-' V'l ~ <;t" I 0 <;t" Vl >-rn 3: ..!: 'o.O I ~ ~ N IY\ 1 I 0 0 N ('(\ I I ~ ...... 0 I ...... 0 v ...... I -~ ~J \Jj ~J ~ ALL R IG H TS R ESERVED Je.fferson City School District Figure 290 . Projected percent change in Hispanic population, 2009-2014. ~ " 0 :-1 '"' ~1 ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVIC ES, LLC Page 236 -+-' v ·c -+-' Vl 0 0 0 .J:: v VI Vl -+-' <1.1 <1.1 ~ -+-' VI ~ 0'1 0'1 N ~ 0 1.1"'1 N Vl >. ro ~ .J:: 'o.O :::c + ~ 0 0 N'\ I I ~ ~ 0'1 0'1 0'1 '¢ ,.... N ~ ~ 0 0 1.1"'1 0 ,.... N ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ,.... v ~ I I -~ ~~ \1j ~J ~ ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study F igur e 291 . Projected rate c hange in Hispanic population , 2009 -2014. '" "'' 1;'\ :--i © BUSI NESS INF ORMAT ION SERVICES, LLC P a ge 237 +-' ~E Vl 0 0 0 ..!: u l/) ~ 0\ '¢ ' ~ 0 '¢ + ~ 0 1.1"\ I I ~ ~ 0\ 0\ N N"\ . ' ~ ~ 0 0 N N"\ I I .e ~9. \lj lJ ~ ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Figure 292 . Total Asian and Pacific Islander population, 2009 . \ ...... I" ~ .Z., -+-' u 'i: -+-' Vl 0 0 0 ..c u V) .. .. Vl >.. Vl ro -+-' ~ <lJ <lJ ..c ..... 'o.O -+-' I V) -~ ft'J. \lj ~ s N ~J + 0 lf\ .B N N "' I I ~ ~ ,... ,... I I 0 lf\ ,... ,... I I _, ., ~ lf\ I v lf\ _, I ., M ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 23 8 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Figure 293. Projected Asian and Pacific Islander population, 2014. © BUS INESS INFORM AT ION S E RVI CES, L L C Page 239 Demographics Study -+J v ·;:: -+J Vl 0 0 0 .c v Vl Vl -+J Q) Q) .... -+J Vl ¢ N . 0 N Vl >. ro 3: .c '0.0 :r: + LA N 0 LA .,.... .,.... I I LA ' V LA I .~ r-~ \!j ~J ~ ALL RIG H T S RESERV E D © Ill c (/) z !T1 (/) (/) z ., 0 ;:u 3: > -1 0 z (/) !T1 ;:u < n !T1 (/) r r () ""0 ~ (fQ ('I) N .. 0 )> r r :::0 G) J: -1 (/) :::0 !T1 (/) !T1 ;:u < !T1 0 ---1 ~.51 -2 --. Miles 3 .. < 10.0% .. 10 .0 %-14-9% 15 .0 %-19 .9 % .. 25.0 %-29 .9 % 20 .0 %-24.9 % .. 30.0 % + Streets Highways School District "C Cl) ... (') Cl) :::1 ~ r+ (') ::r ~ I» :::1 a (Q Cl) a :::1 ~ l> tJ (/) I» -· :::1 V:l I» ~ :::1 a. "'0 -· I» \':) (') :::0: -... c:;· u; iii :::1 a. Cl) _ ... 1\l 0 0 co I 1\l 0 ..... ~ (Q) tD c Ill z I'll Ill Ill z "11 0 ;o ~ ~ 0 z (/) I'll ;o < n I'll Ill r r () ""0 ~ I1Cl t'e N ~ """" )> r r :::0 (5 :::t: -1 Ill :::0 I'll Ill I'll ;o < I'll 0 .. <2.0 % .. 2.0 %-3·9 % 4 .0 %-4·9 % .. 6.0 %-7·9% s .o %-5.9 % .. B.o% + Street s Hig h w ays Sc h oo l Di strict .,.. cE' c: ... (II N <D ~ "tJ ... 0 ..... (II 0 -(II 0. ... Ill -(II 0 ::::r Ill :::1 co (II :::1 )> (/) iii' :::1 Ill :::1 0. "tJ Ill 0 :o; c;· iii Ill :::1 0. (II .;" N 0 0 <D I N 0 ~ ~ t::J ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ -· (J VJ ~ ~ ~ Je.fferson City School District Figure 296. Total Native American and Alaskan population, 2009 . © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 2 4 2 't +-' v ·;::: +-' Vl 0 0 0 ..c v Vl Vl +-' Q) Q) 1... +-' V) 0'1 ...- LA ...- Vl >-. ro ~ ..c 'o!) I + 0 N I I '¢ 0'1 ...- 0 LA ...- I I '¢ N v N I ·~ ~~ \Jj ~ ALL R IGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 297. Projected Native American and Alaskan population, 2014. ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 243 1 ~: ~-I ---.. ~/~ """< ~ J r1 j ...... u 1-...... Vl 0 0 0 ..r::. u Vl Vl ...... Q) Q) 1-...... Vl (]\ ..... I Vl >.. ro ~ ..r::. .~ :::c + lf'\ 0 ..... N I I .;t' (]\ ~ I lf'\ 0 ..... I I .;t' N I v N I .~ \' .g 1) ~-.J ~ ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson Citv School District Figure 298. Projected percent change in Native American and Alaskan population, 2009-2014 . ~ I~ 1 ·, ...... u ._ ...... Vl 0 0 0 .!::: u Vl Vl >- Vl ro ...... 3: QJ .!::: ~ '0.0 ...... ·-Vl I ~ 0\ '<:!'" I"J + ~ ~ 0 0 0 ll'\ I"J I"J I I ~ 0\ '<:!'" """ I ~ 0 0 """ ~ 0\ 0\ """ I ~ 0 ll'\ """ ~ 0\ 0\ ~ ~ 0 """ 0 0 I I a r-~ \1j ]J ~ ©BUSI NESS INFORMA TION SERVICES, LLC Page 244 ALL R IGHTS RESER VED © ro c Ill z 1'1'1 Ill Ill z "T1 0 ;u 3: ~ 0 z (/) 1'1'1 ;u < () 1'1'1 Ill r h )> r r ;u G) J: -i Ill ;u 1'1'1 Ill 1'1'1 ;u < 1'1'1 tJ --0 0 .5 1 2 --- ' ~Miles 3 .. o.o% .. 0 .1%-1.9 % 2.0 %-2.9 % .. 4 .0 %-4·9% 3.0%-3 .9 % .. s.o % + Streets High w ay s Sc h ool Di stri ct "T1 ce· c: .... CD N CD CD "'tt .... .2. CD 0 ..... CD c. .... 11.1 ..... CD 0 ~ 11.1 :::J (Q CD :::J z 11.1 ..... ;::· CD > 3 CD .... c;· 11.1 :::J 11.1 :::J c. > iii (/) ;II:' 11.1 :::J "'C 0 "'C c: iii ..... 5' :::J N 0 0 CD I N 0 ..... ~ \::1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -· ~ VJ ~ ~ ~ © CD c (/) z 1'1'1 (/) (/) z r N 0 t ~ E '11 . ;ij w 3: s ~ f en 1'1'1 ;ij < n 1'1'1 (/) r r () ~ 1:1:1 (JQ ~ N ~ 0'\ )> r r ;:o 0.5 Miles 2 Gi :I iil c:J Agr ic ul t ura l Vaca n t Resi d e n tia l -Transportation /Utility -In d u stria l ;:o 1'1'1 (/) 1'1'1 ;ij < 1'1'1 0 Vaca n t A g r icult u ra l -Co m mercia l -Vacant Tr a n sp o r tation/U ti lity U n cl assified Res ide n tial Vaca n t Commercia l -Gove rnm e n t/In stitu t i o n a l OO<:s( Unavailab l e ---~ nu~I'K..'"'i':i ln lhm lation Scnit"CS ~ r I» :l c. (") iii Ul Ul :::;; (i' I» ... ~ 5' :l :l ~ :l 0 0 ~ 0 ::r ~ :: I'D t:J Ul ... I'D ~ . .., :l ~ .., ~ I'D (Q c;· ~. :l ~ 0 -.. -c... I'D ;: .., Ul 0 :l (") ;::;: '< (/) (") ::r 0 2. 0 iii' -.., (i' ~ _........._ --__,~ I I Hi g h ways Str eets Sc h oo l District (Q) llJ c: (/) z IT\ (/) (/) z , 0 ;u ~ > -i 0 z Ul IT\ ;u < n IT\ (/) r r () ~ ~ CJtl ~ N ,&;;. -....l )> r r ::u Gi :I: -i (/) ::u IT\ (/) IT\ ;u < IT\ 0 0 J Miles 2 4 '" -Agr icu l tural Vaca n t Residentia l -Transportati on/Util ity -Industria l Vaca nt Agricu l t ura l -Comme r cia l -:: Vacant Transportation/Uti li ty Un c lassifi ed Res i dent ia l , Vaca n t Comme r cia l -Government/I nsti tutiona l 0<:50< Un avai l ab le ~~ IJ u...,incs" l nfi)mJJ.tion Scl"\i~ ~ [' --.\r·~l -r-,wwE Ct~ · l 5-I'\ Hi ghways Streets Sc h ool Di strict ., ce · c: .., en c.> 0 ...... 0 < en < (j)' :E 0 -iii ::I Q. ~ Ill en en :::;; (::;' Ill -(5' ::I :; c... en ;: .., en 0 ::I (") ~ en 0 ::r 0 0 0 c;;· tJ -.., (::;' ('\) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -("':). V:l ~ ~ ~ © m c Ill z 1'11 Ill Ill z ., 0 ::tJ 3: ~ 0 z (/) 1'11 ::tJ < (i 1'11 Ill r r () > r r ::u Gl :r -1 Ill ::u 1'11 Ill 1'11 ::tJ < 1'11 0 0 0.5 -Agricultura l Vaca n t Residential -Transpo r tation/Utility -Ind u strial Vacant Agri c ul t u ra l -Commercia l Vacant Transportation/Utility Un c l assified Residential Vacant Commercia l -Government/Institutional ~Un avai l ab l e ---~ nu~n<SS l nfo mlario n ScniCl.~ ~ Highways Streets School District r Ill ::s Q. £!.. Ill (/1 (/1 9i 0 Ill .... cs· ::s ::s (/1 0 c ... -=r (!) Ill (/1 CD' ... ::s ... (!) co 0 ::s 0 -c... (!) ;: Cil 0 ::s n ~ CJ) 0 -=r 0 0 0 (ij' .... ... n· ~ © ro c (/) z 1'1'1 (/) (/) z "T1 0 ;u ::: ~ 0 z (/) 1'1'1 ;u < n 1'1'1 (/) r r () ~ ~ (J'Cj ~ N ..... \0 )> r r ::u G) J: -1 (/) ::u 1'1'1 (/) 1'1'1 ;u < 1'1'1 0 / " I. ~ r~ K . ~ -~ · l c~ -T' 0 0.5 J Miles 2 -Agricultu r a l ~ I - I 1 . ., r <., r /'+\1 / '--/ ( ~;+~ Vacant Residential -Transportation/Utility -Indu stria l Vacant Agricultural -Commerci a l -:: Vacant Tra n spo r tatio n/Utility Unclassified Residential . Vaca nt Commercial -Go v ernment/Institutional Q<:>O< Unavailable ......----"7 l~u~~'i lnfonnation Scn iccs ~ Highways Streets School District "T1 cE ' c @ w 0 w r Ill ::l c. (') jij' (/) (/) ::;; c:;· Ill ... (5' ::l ::l (/) 0 c ... ::r :E (!) (/) ... (!) ., ::l ., (!) (Q 0 ::l a c... (!) ;: Cil 0 ::l 0 ~ (/) (') ::r 0 Q.. c c;;· ... ::::!. (') ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -· ~ ~ s=:: ~ Jefferson Citv School District Figure 304. Total tax exempt parcels in s out heast ern region of Jeffer son Ci t y School District. • --··~~---~ ~-..- ,Y , ' ft._..........- __.'..· / I ----. I ~~1 '1 ~· • ~.-.~. ~ . J • -·. II -~-- -L & t ' < l \ I . ' .. T ' ' ·-r '""' \ ( ... © BUSI NESS INFORMATI ON SERVI CES , LLC Page 250 .J I "' I -~e~. ~:;: ~ '._/ \ '\ \ I I ~- ( ) ) ' .• I ..( . / --"--0 . 4-v;,::/1 ~~g~:1 J ,---1" I ~(--<r --~ ) \.. ' r l ~ \ Y-~-- 1 \ _..__, ~ <."' ./'-1 ~, I L _.r J ~ ,.-~ -.. >- I -,.-,.-1 ~--1 ' '\ "-~ tJl <1> 1 ~ Nl ' r -~'\-~ ,_/ li ~ r ~-___ ., 1 I ) Fl r- 0 ..... u .... ..... Vl 0 0 0 ..c u Vl Vl ..... Q) Q) .... ..... Vl Vl >. ro ~ ..c 'o.O I Q) ..0 ro ro > ro c :::J ~ ..... 0. E Q) X UJ I X ro 1- I g r-~ \!j ~J ~ I ALL R I GHTS RESERVED Jefferson Citv School District Figure 304. Total tax exempt parcels in s out heast ern region of Jeffer son Ci t y School District. • --··~~---~ ~-..- ,Y , ' ft._..........- __.'..· / I ----. I ~~1 '1 ~· • ~.-.~. ~ . J • -·. II -~-- -L & t ' < l \ I . ' .. T ' ' ·-r '""' \ ( ... © BUSI NESS INFORMATI ON SERVI CES , LLC Page 250 .J I "' I -~e~. ~:;: ~ '._/ \ '\ \ I I ~- ( ) ) ' .• I ..( . / --"--0 . 4-v;,::/1 ~~g~:1 J ,---1" I ~(--<r --~ ) \.. ' r l ~ \ Y-~-- 1 \ _..__, ~ <."' ./'-1 ~, I L _.r J ~ ,.-~ -.. >- I -,.-,.-1 ~--1 ' '\ "-~ tJl <1> 1 ~ Nl ' r -~'\-~ ,_/ li ~ r ~-___ ., 1 I ) Fl r- 0 ..... u .... ..... Vl 0 0 0 ..c u Vl Vl ..... Q) Q) .... ..... Vl Vl >. ro ~ ..c 'o.O I Q) ..0 ro ro > ro c :::J ~ ..... 0. E Q) X UJ I X ro 1- I g r-~ \!j ~J ~ I ALL R I GHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 305. Total tax exempt parcels in northwestern region of Jefferson City School District. ~____/' ----------\. Ul . • \ l' I z <I) {_ 'j I ;;-;' L ~ ·~ a .. J , : 0 .~ ( ..... ;·~ ''\ - \ 41 I \ - ©BUSINESS INF ORMATION S ERVICES , LLC Page 251 ~ ".> ' -. \\ .. , i • ~· ~ .... ~~1 ... ~ .. ll ., , . I If -~.I . "\" ·.· .~ a I # --t '' ... -. 1 I I • ~..-; ,,'\ ~ \ 'L (/) .£1 ~ .-,C\1 ~~~ 0 +' u 1- +' Vl 0 0 0 .r. u Vl Vl +' <lJ <lJ 1- +' Vl Vl >.. ro 3: .r. '00 I <lJ .0 ro ro > ro c :::::> ~ +' 0. E <lJ X UJ ' X ro I- I -~ ~~ \Jj ~J ~ ALL RIGHTS R E S ERVED Jefferson City School District Figure 306. Total tax exempt parcels in southwestern region of Jefferson City School District. • ~· "'-t. - --- ~~, . . ~. ·~ , ~·r ' •. --- I • )_x- "·~~I ~@ ~ ~ --\. ~ & ~ I """""" " I .. I ) )' ~; ( v ~ ' • L I ~"' ©BUSINESS INFORMATI ON SERVICES, LLC Page 252 I _. _,.j >01 .Yr ',J 1l ) ~ N I ~ -+-' v ... -+-' Ill 0 0 0 ..c v VI Ill -+-' ClJ ClJ ... -+-' VI Ill >. ro ~ ..c 'o.O I ClJ ..0 ro ro > ro c :::> ~ -+-' 0. E ClJ X UJ I X ro I- I r-~ \·Ej § .£ 1J ~ ALL RIGHTS R E SERVED Demographics Study Figure 307. Overview of ZIP codes in Jefferson City School District. r-~r~ ."'. ?. l :z ~V> ~ ;?; -+-' v I- -+-' Vl 0 0 0 .!: v Vl ~ Vl ~~ -+-' \I) Q) Q) I- -+-' Vl g.J ~ Vl >-ro ~ .!: '00 ::r: m Ill 0 Ill \0 © BUS IN ESS INFORMATI ON SERVICES, LLC Page 253 A LL RIG HTS R ESERV ED © [D c (/) z Ill (/) (/) z ., 0 ;u 3: )> -! 0 z Ul Ill ;u < (i Ill ~(/) r r () ~ ~ (JQ (D N Ul .&;:.. )> r r ::u G) J: -! (/) ::u Ill (/) Ill ;u < Ill 0 1 I I --0 0.5 1 2 Mile s 3 Av e_Hhd_Cigarettes -$0.00 -$0.0 1 -$203.23 $203.24-$230.05 $270 .06-$285.04 -$298.83-$304.64 $230.06-$252.24 -$285.05-$292.47 -$304.65-$358.34 $252.25 -$270.05 -$292.48 -$298.82 -$358.35 -$374.7 1 Hig h wa ys Streets Sc h ool Dist rict ---~ Business Information Scni<..~ ~ N ~ IV~E s )> < (1) ... Dol (C (1) ;:r 0 1: C/1 (1) ;:r ~ 0 0:: (1) ;::s-.. >< a "0 (1) a ::l a. ~ ;:::;: 1: tJ ... (1) C/1 ~. 0 ~ ::l ~ (') cE ' ~. Dol (":) ... (1) -... .... .... (1) C/1 ::l c... (1) ;;: ... C/1 0 ::l 0 ;:::;: '< en (') ;:r 0 52. 0 (ij' -... c:;· ~ N 0 0 ~ © Ill c: (/) z J'T1 (/) (/) z d ;o 3: )> -1 0 z (/) J'T1 ;o < n J'T1 (/) r r () "'C ~ (J'<:l ~ N Ul Ul )> r r ::0 Gi :I -1 (/) ::0 J'T1 (/) J'T1 ;o < J'T1 0 Ave _H hd_Aicohol ic _Bever ages .. $0.00 .. $0 .0 1 -$369.91 $476.54 -$546.90 $36 9.92-$476.5 3 .. $5 46 .91 -$624 .96 Highways Streets School District 1\woinQ.S I nrnm1ation Scn·icrs ~ .. $624 .97-$697.76 .. $6 97 .77-$861 .96 'TI ca· c: ... Cl) w 0 ~ l> < Cl) ... Ill co Cl) :7 0 c: 1/1 Cl) :7 2. a. Cl) >< '0 Cl) :l 1/1 Cl) 0 :l Ill 0 0 :7 0 ()' tT Cl) < Cl) ... Ill co Cl) 1/1 :l c... Cl) b ;: ... ~ 1/1 0 ~ :l (") a ;:;: '< ~ en 0 :7 ~ 0 0 0 ~ c;;· ~. -~ ... ()' --1\) ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ © OJ c: Ul z J'T1 Ul Ul z "II 0 ;u 3:: ~ 0 z U> J'T1 ;u < 0 J'T1 Ul r r () > r r ::0 G) :r -i Ul ::0 J'T1 Ul J'T1 ;u < J'T1 0 --Miles I 0 0.5 1 2 3 Ave_Hhd_Candy_And_Chewing_Gum .. $0.01-$59 .52 .. $0 .00 $59.53 -$73.49 Highways Streets ---~ Business l nfom11rion Scnia:s ~ $73 .50-$81.16 .. $81 .17 -$88 .57 School District .. $88 .58 -$98 .23 .. $98 .24 -$113 .38 ..... ? )> < (!) ... Ill (Q (!) =r 0 t:: Ill (!) =r 0 0:: (!) >< '0 (!) :::s Ill (!) 0 :::s (') Ill :::s a. '< :::s c... (!) ;: ... Ill 0 :::s ("') ;::;: '< en (') =r 0 2. 0 u;· .... ... r;· ~ .... N 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ t; -· V:l ~ -· (J ._._ © (D c (/) z rr1 (/) (/) z "I') 0 ::0 3: > -1 0 z (/) rr1 ::0 < 0 rr1 (/) r r () ""C ~ (fQ ~ N Ul ......:) )> r r ::0 G) :I -1 (/) ::0 rr1 (/) rr1 ::0 < rr1 0 --= Mites 0 Q S 1 2 3 Ave_Hhd_Cook ies -$0.00 $0.01 -$39 .73 $49.45-$53.62 $39 .74 -$4 9.44 -$53.63 -$56.53 Highways Streets ..,---~ l h L,ille.S'i l nromuriun Scn ic;."CS ~ -$56 .54-$61.40 -$6 1 .41 -$73.29 Schoo l District "T1 ce· 1: "" CD w ...... ...... )> < CD "" Dl c.o CD ::r 0 1: (/) CD ::r £. c. CD >< "C CD ::l (/) CD (/) 0 ::l (") 0 0 c. CD (/) ::l c.... CD =I: CD "" (/) 0 ::l ('") ;::;: t; '< en (") (t) ::r 0 ~ 0 0 ~ c;;· r+ ::::!. (") ~ :+ 1\J 0 0 ;::s--. ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (Q) llJ c Ul z , Ul Ul z , 0 ;o 3: > -t 0 z Ul rT'I ;o < () , Ul r r () ""C ~ (JQ ttl N Ul QO )> r r ::0 Gi :I -t Ul ::0 , Ul , ;o < , 0 --Miles 0 0.5 1 2 3 Ave Hhd_Fresh_Fruits -$0 .00 -$0.01-$158.81 $158.82 -$201 .80 Highways $201 .81 -$220 .09 .. $220.10 -$232.65 .. $232 .66 -$254 .59 -$254 .60-$299 .87 Streets Sc ho ol District ----~ IJu.•,i"'-"iS Info m1at io n Sc.nices ~ )> < CD ... Ql (Q CD ::r 0 c:: Ill CD ::r ~ £. c. CD ~ >< 0 "C CD 0 ::l Ill ~ CD 0 t::J ::l .... ~ . ... CD v., Ill ~ ::r .... ... ~. c:: \J ;::;: -... ::l c... CD ~ ... Ill 0 ::l (") ;:;: '< en (') ::r 0 £. 0 c;;· ... ... c:;· _ ... N 0 0 ~ © Ill c (/) z (TI (/) (/) z "II 0 ;u ~ > -! 0 z Ul (TI ;u < (i (TI (/) r r () ~ ~ (JCl ~ N til \0 )> r r ::u G) J: -! (/) ::u (TI (/) (TI ;u < (TI 0 __, Miles 2 3 Ave_Hhd_Sugar_And_Sweeteners -$0.00 -$0.01 -$19.72 $24.58-$26.86 $19.73-$24.57 -$26.87-$28.69 -$28 .70-$31 .20 .. $31.21 -$36.96 Highways Streets .......--~ School District IJus im ..... "tS l nfo nnatio n Scn i t."CS ~ "TI !0' c ., CD w ~ ~ )> < CD ., Dl (Q CD ::r 0 c (/1 CD ::r 0 0: CD >< "0 CD ::I (/1 CD 0 ::I (/1 c (Q Dl ., Dl ::I Q. (/1 :E CD CD .... CD ::I CD iii ::I c... t::J CD =: ~ CD iii ~ 0 ::I c (') ~ ~ C/) ~ C') ::r 0 £ ~ 0 ~. (ij' ('J .... ~ .... (::;' ~ :+ N 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ (Q) CD c: 1/) z J'T1 1/) 1/) z "Tl 0 ;o ~ > -1 0 z (/) J'T1 ;o < 0 J'T1 1/) r r () ""0 ~ (JQ (D N 0\ 0 )> r r ;:u G) :r -1 1/) ;:u J'T1 1/) J'T1 ;o < J'T1 0 I --Miles 0 QS 1 2 3 Ave_Hhd_Potato_Chips_And_Other_Snacks .. $0.01 -$71 .98 -$0 .00 $71.99-$89.92 Hi g hw ays Streets ---~ ll lbinc ... "'-o; l nfom t:uiolt Sc._ni~ ~ $89.93 -$98.53 .. $98 .54-$103.74 Schoo l District N W.E s .. $103 .75 -$111 .08 .. $111 .09 -$132.09 w ~ ~ )> < It) ... D.l (Q It) :T 0 c f/1 It) :T 0 c:: It) >< "C It) ::I f/1 It) f/1 -0 ... f/1 ::I D.l (") 'A f/1 ::I c.. It) = It) Cil 0 ::I (") ;:;: '< en (") :T 0 2. 0 (ij' r+ ... c:;· .r+ N 0 0 !-" ~ ~ C) C) ~ t:J ~. ~ ~ ~. (J -+- Demographics Study PAGEPURPOSELYLEFTBLANK r'l © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 261 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je.,fferson City School District Figures 315 through 341 show dat a for th e Jeffer s on City School District for the 2000 Cen sus, 2009 data, and 2014 projections. T his data is prov ide d by ESRI, a d emographic data company. Proj ec- tion data is b ased on consume r purchases , utility hook-ups and other factors tra cked by national d a ta a ggre gators. Figure 31 5. Total populati on an d ho usin g project i o ns f o r 2014. The median income f or the d istrict i s p re- d ic ted t o inc re ase s u bsta ntially , bu t t he me d ia n ag e i s also pre d ict ed t o in c reas e by 201 4. The largest de- c rea s e in household in- come has b een i n t he $3 5,000 - $49 ,999 range a nd the larg es t in c reas e in the $50 ,000-$7 4,999 range. This trend is project- ed t o c o ntin ue in 2014. ____.., -::...:;..--··-Market Profile JEFFERSON CITY SC HOOL DISTRICT SitP Type: Custom S~!>!fiiP a 2000 To u l Population 68.959 2000 Group Oua.rters 5 .779 2 009 Toul Pop ulation 7 1.9 18 2 014 Toul Populaoon 73.894 2009 • 20 14 Annu.al Rate 0-54 % 1JJ 2000 Households 26.347 2000 A verage Household Size 2 .4 2009 Households 28.467 2009 Average Househ old Size 2.36 20 14 Households 29.474 20 14 Average Household S ize 234 2009 -2014 Annual Rate 0.7% 2000 Families 17 .233 2000 Average Family SIZe 2.97 2009 F amilies 17 .816 2009 Average Family Size 2.98 20 14 Families 17 .979 2014 Ave rage Family Size 3 2009-2014 Annual Rate 0 .18% ...:ll 2 000 H o u s i ng Units 28.12 1 Ia 1:1 Owner Occupied Housing Units 62.6% M l l!'l Renter Occupied Housing Unils 31.1% V:1c a.nt Housing U nits 6 .3% 2009 Ho u sing Units 31.078 Owner Occupied Housing Units 60.9% Renter Occupied Hous ing Unils 30.7% Vacant Housing Units 8.4% 2014 H o u sing Units 32 .188 Owner Occupied H ou sing Units 6 0 .6% Rent er Occupied Housing Units 30.9% Vacant H ousing Units 8 .4% Median H o u se ho ld Incom e 2000 $42.245 2009 $54.4 90 2014 $57.077 M edian H ome Value 2000 $94 .533 2009 $127.6119 20 14 Per C<~p ita In com e $144.790 2000 $20.572 2009 $26.406 20 14 $27.444 Me d i an Age 2000 35.4 2009 36.7 201 4 37.0 Dob Note: Houoehol d po pulanon lneludM persons not reald!;Sin IK:'P qu:vtMa. AYO~ Houolhold SIH Ia tne nouHIIOid rn:pu llllon OMa.cJ ~tot.ol noueonolda. ~':n~~:.~ ~~ O:,g""O:.~~~ ... a;~~~~"':n.tg.bll ~"'n':~;,. ~ ~10 ':~~~non. Por Caplb ncomo lllprHent. 1ne0m1 rocoMO ~ce : u.s. Bwe:w Of tne cenaua. 2000 Clneua or POpWaUon and Houalng. ESRI rorecaar. ror 2'0()$ ana 20 14.. © BUSINESS IN FOR MATI O N SERVICES , L LC P a ge 262 ALL RI GHTS R E S E RVE D Fi gure 316 . Household income projections, 2000 -201 4. JEFFERS ON CITY SCH OO L D ISTRICT 2 0 00 Households by Income Hou sehold l n~ome Base < S 15 ,000 S15.000-$:24 ,999 525.000-S34 ,9 9 9 S35.000 -$49 .999 S50.000-S74 ,999 S75.000-S99.999 S l OO.OO O -S 149,999 5 15 0 ,000 -s 199,999 S200,000+ Average Household In com e 2 009 H ouseholds by Inco me Hou s ehol d In come Base < S 15.000 S 15 .000 -S24 .999 525.0 0 0 -S34 .999 S35,000 -$49,999 5 50.0 DO-S74,999 S75.000 -S99,999 S 100,000-S 149,999 S 150,000 -S 199.999 S200,000+ A v erage Househo ld Incom e 2014 Households by Income Hou sehol d IOoCome Base < S 15 ,000 S 15 .DOO -S24,999 525.0 00-S34.999 S35.000 -S49,999 S50.000 -S74.999 S75.000-S99,999 5 100,000 -s 149,9 99 5 150,000 -5 199,999 S200,000+ Average H o u sehol d Incom e 2000 Owner Occt.~p ied HUs by Val u e Tota l <S50,000 550.000-99 .999 S 100,000 -149,999 S 150,000 -199.999 S200,000 -5299,999 S300,000 -499.999 5500,000 -999.999 5 1 ,00 0 ,00 0+ Average Home V a l ue 2 0 0 0 Spe c ified Renter Occu p ied H Us by C o ntra ct Rent Tota l With Cash R e nt N o C ash R e n t Median Rent Average Rent Demographics Study Market Profile S ite Ty pe: Custom S ha pefi le 26 ,348 13.5% 13.7% 13.9% 17.5% 22.2% 1 1.4 % 5.4% 0 .8% 1.6% $52,357 2 8 ,467 9.6% 9.0% 1 1.5% 15.3% 22.1% 18.9% 9 .6% 2 .1% 1.9% $64,462 29,474 9.6% 8 .5% 9.8% 13 .1% > 26.9% 17.8% 10.0% 2 .2% 2 .0% $66.349 17 .604 1 1.5% 45.0% 2 4.7% 10.5% 5.9% 1.8% 0.5% 0.1% $1 12 .656 8 ,689 96.0% 4.0% S362 S368 Data N ota: Income re pre3en ta tne prece<ltng year_, expressea In curr&flt doll3lll. Houaetlolll lnocome lnct udea wage and aal3ry earnings. lntereat. d!VIdend a, net rent&. penalona, SSI and W&ll'are paymantil, child au ppon and 3J imony. Speclrled Renter occupl&d Hol£81n g Units exClude IMlii&N on 1G+ acna. Aver:~ga Rent exdu dN unb pay ing no caeh rent. soon:e: u .s. Bu rea u or the Cen8118, 2()00 C&flaua or PopUlation and Hollalng. ESRI roreC38 ta for 2009 3lllJ 2014. © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 263 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Mferson City School District Figure 317. Populatio n project ions by age and g ender. T here is a trend toward a much old er po pula- tio n i n the dis- trict, wit h fewer school-age chil dren . With fewer students decid ing to at- tend the dis- trict's schools, this makes it even more im- perative that a higher percent- age of school- age residents attend the dis- trict's schools. _, -.._,.-·- JEFFERS ON CITY SC HOOL DISTRICT ~ttt 2 000 Populatio n by A ge ToLl I Age 0 • 4 Age 5 • 9 Age 10-14 Age 15-10 ..A!J!' 20 -24 Age 25-34 Age 35 -44 Age 45-54 Age 55 -64 Age 65-74 Age 75-84 Age 85+ Age 18+ 2 009 Population by Age Tota l Age 0-4 Age 5 -Q Age 10-14 Age 15-10 Age 20-24 Age 2 5-34 Age 35-44 Age 45-54 Age 55 -64 Age 65 • 74 AJ:jp 7 <; • A4 Age 85+ Age 18+ 2014 Population by A ge Tota l Age 0-4 Age 5 • g Age 10 . 14 Age 15-10 A4e 20 • 24 Age 25-34 Age 35 ·44 Age 45 -54 Age 55 -64 Age 65 • 74 A4e 75 • 84 Age 85• Age 18+ 2 0 00 Po p u lat ion by Sex Males Fem ales 2009 Populat i on by Sex Males Fe ma les 2 014 Po pulation by Sex Males Females ou~: u .s. Buruu o r 11w Con au., 2000 Conau. Of PopU!IIIon and Houllng. E$RllbrtC311la ft>r 2003 :IIMI 201ol ©BUSIN E SS INFORMATI ON SERVI CES, L L C Page 264 Market Profile Si~~ Custom S~~fi le 68.059 6.6% 6.5% 6.8% 7.0% 7.0% 15 .4% 17.1% 14 .4% 8 .0% 5 .8% 3.8% 1.5% 76.0'!1. 7 1.0 18 6.5% 6 .3% 6 .2% 7.0% 7 .0% 14.5% 14.4% 14 .6% 11.6% 6 .1% ~ 1.8% 77.4% 7 3,8 94 !1.4% !1.3% !1.3% 6.8'!1. 6.8% 14.5% 14.1% 13.2'!1. 12.2% 7.6% 3.8c;b > 1.8% 77.4% 5 1.4 % 48.6% 50.4% 4 g.6<;(, 50.4% 49.6% ALL R IGHTS RESERVED ('· (' Demographics Study Figure 318. Population projections by race, school enrollment, and education level. JEFFERS ON CITY SCHOOL DISTRIC T [[] 2000 Po pulation by Racel Ethnici ty Total W hite Alone Bladt Alone American Indian A lone Asian or Pacific Islander Alone Some O ther R ace Alone Two or More Raoes Hispanic O rigin Diversity Index 2009 Population by Racel Ethnicity Total White Alone Bladt Alone Amerk:an Indian Alo ne Asian or Pacific Islander Alone Some O ther R ace Alone Two or More Raoes Hi spanic Origin Diversity Index 2014 Po pulati on by Racel Ethnicity Tota l Wh ite A lone Bladt Alone American Indian Alone As ian or Pacific Islander Alone Some Other R ace Alone Two or Mor e Raoes Hi spanic O rigin Diversity Index 2000 Popu lation 3+ by School Enrollmen t To ta l Enrolled in Nursery/Preschool Enrolled in Ki nderganen Enrofled in Grade 1-8 Enrolled i n Grade 9-12 Enrolled i n College Enrolled i n Grad/Prof School Not Enrolled in School 2009 Population 25+ by Edue3tional A ttai nment Tota l Less than 9th Grade 9th -12th Grade. No Dip loma H igh School Graduate Some Coll ege. No Degree Associate Degree Bachelor's Degree Graduate/Professional Degree Market Profile Site Tyfl!: Custom Shap!lile 68,959 86.2% 10.5% 0.4% 1.0% 0.6% 1.4% 1.4% 26.8 71 ,9 18 83.6% 12.0% 0.4% 1.5% 0.8% 1.6% 2.0% 3 1.3 73,894 82.1% 12.9% 0.4% 1.9% 1.0% 1.7% 2.3% 33.9 66.245 1.6% 1.3% 1 1.1% 6 .0% 5 .3% 1.2% 73.4% 48,227 3.8% 7.7% 30.3% 20.7% 6.0% 20.7% 10.9% Dati Nota: Pwaona 01 Hlapanlc Ortgtn may be 01 any rxe. The Dlvararty lndu messum the probab Dity tha t two peopla from tll9 ume are3 wtll be rrom dl!l!!renl race/ etnnlc groups. soo rce: u.s. Bure1u ortne C&nall8. 2000 C&n aus or PopUlation and HoU81ng. ESRI roreC38ta for 2003 and 201'. The trend has been an in- crease in all race or ethnic groups except for among the White popula- tion. ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 26 5 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Figure 319 . Population projections by marital and employment stat us. The unemploy- ment rate is expected to decrease dur- ing the next five years to about half the current rate . JEFFERSON CITY SCHOO L DISTRICT 2009 Popu lation 15+ by Marital Stat us Tota l Never Ma rried Married Widowed Divorce d 20 00 Pop ulation 16+ by Employmen t Status Tota l In Labor Force Civi lian Employed Civi lian Unem ployed In Armed Forces Not in Labor Foree 2009 Civilian Population 16+ i n Labor Force Civi5an Employed Civi5an Unemployed 20 14 Civ il ian Populati on 16+ i n Lab or Fo rce Civ ilia n Employed Civ ilia n Unemployed 2000 Females 16+ by Employmen t Status and Ag e of Chil dren Tota l Own Children <. 6 Only Employed/in Arm ed Fo rces Unemployed Not in Labor Fo rce Own Children < 6 and 6-17 On ly Employed/in Armed Forces Unemployed Not in Labor Force Own Children 6-17 Only Emp loyed/in Ar med Forces Unemployed Not in labor Force No Ow n Ch ildren < 18 Employed/in Arm ed Forces Unemp loye d Not in labor Force souroe : u.s. Bureau or tne Censll8, 2000 Censll8 or Populabon and Housing. ESRJ rora cas ta 10r 20os illld 20 14. ©BUS INESS IN F O RMAT ION S E R VIC ES, LLC P a ge 266 Market Profile Site Type: Custom S hapefile 58,302 27 .8% 53.2% 5.4 % 13.6% 54 ,1 B3 67.0% 63.ll% 2.7% 0.3% 33.0% 92.7% > 7.3% 95 .7% 4.3% 26.256 7.ll% 6.2% 0.3% 1.4% 7.0% 5.3% 02% 1.5% 17.3% 15.1% 0.2'l6 2.0% 67 .B'l6 39.6% 2.3% 26.0% A LL RIG H TS R ESERV E D Figure 320. Population projections by industry and occupation . JEFFERSON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2003 Employed Population 16• by Industry Toul Agriculture/Mining Construction M.:anuf.:acturing Wholesale Trade Ren;tTgtf.e Tr "" sport.:a tion/Utrlities lnlorm.1tion FiMnceJins ur.mceJReal Est ate Services Public AdnmistralrOt'l 2003 Employed Population 16+ by Occup.:ation Toul White Collar M .ln3geme nt/8 us1n es s!Fin.:ancul Professional S.:a les Admi ni strative Support Serv~ces B..,e CoUar F.:armingJForestry/Fishing ConstructioniExtr.:action l nsta ii.JtioniM .:aint enan ceJRepa ir Production Tr.:anspon.:ation/M.:ateri.:al MoVIng 2000Workers16+ by Muns ofTr<~nspo rtati on to Work Tot.:a l Drove A lone -Car. Truck. or Van C.upooled-Car. Truck. or Va n Pub6c Tr.:anspon.:at 1on Walked Other Means Worked .:at H ome 2000 Workers 16+ by Travel Time to Work ToUI Did No t Work at Home less than 5 minutes 5 to 0 m in utes 10 to 19 minutes 20 to 24 minutes 25 to 34 minutes 35 to 44 minutes 45 to 59 minutes eo to 81l minutes 90 o r m ore m inutes Worked .lt Home Average Travel Tim e to Work (in m in ) 2000 Househol ds by Vehi cles Avaibble Tot.:a l None I 2 3 4 5+ Averag4! N u mber of Ve hiCl es Av.1ilable SOUrct: u.s. Burt.u or tno Conlllt. :zooo c.n.ua 01 PopiUtlon and HoUIInll-E$Rl nx.caoiiiDr 20o:1 ano 201-1. ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES , LLC Page 267 Demographics Study Market Profile S ite Tyf?!: Custom S~P!fil~ 34.1 10 0.6% 5.3'111 5.7% 2.5% P3% 3.4% 1.0% 6 .1'111 37.0% 28.3% 34,1 10 68.5'111 15 .0% 22.8'111 8.6% 22.0% 15.0'111 16.5'111 0.4% 4.5% 2 .6% 5 .1'111 4 .0'111 34.42 1 81.0'111 13.6% 1.0'111 1.5% 0.5% 2.5% 3-1 .421 97.5% 3.8% 15.6'111 52.3% 11.2'111 7.5% 2 .3% 2.4% 1.2'111 1.1'111 2.5% 16.8 26,350 6.8'111 34.5% 40.5'111 12 .9'111 3 .0% 1.3% 1.8 One out of four residents in the district work in construction and manufac- turing , two sec- tors of the economy that have been hit very hard in this recession. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Figure 321 . Composition of housing units and households. Households with children made up 34.4 percent of the population in 2000 . This is 50 percent greater than households with persons 65 years or older as well as 5 percent higher than house- holders living alone. JEFFE RSON CITY SCHOOL DISTRI CT 2000 Ho u se hol ds by Typl!' Tota l Family Hou seholds Married-couple Family With Related Childrl!'n Other Fami ly (No S pouse) With Related Children No nfam ily Hou seholds Householde r Living Alone Householder Not Living Alone Households with Related Child ren Households with Persons 65+ 2000 H o u seh olds by Size Tota l I Person Household 2 Person Household 3 Person Household 4 Person Ho usehold 5 Person Household 6 Person Household 7+ Person Household 2000 Ho u se h o ld s by Yea r Ho useholder Moved In ToL1I Moved i n 1 999 to Marc h 2000 Moved i n 1 g95 to 1 gg9 Moved i n 1 990 to 1994 Moved in 1980 to 19 89 Moved in 1 97 0 to 1 g79 Moved 1n 1969 or Earher Med ian Yea r Househo lder Moved In 2000 Ho u sin g Units by Units i n St r u c tur e To tal 1, Detached 1. Attached 2 3 or 4 5 to 9 10 to 19 20+ Mobile Home Other 2000 Ho u s i n g Un ils by Year Structure Built Total 1 999 to 11.1 arch 2000 1995 to 199 8 199 0 to 1994 1980 to 1989 1970 to 1979 1969 or Earlier Median Ye ar Structure Built sourco: U.5 . Bureau or tne C&rl aua, 2000 C&rlaua or PoputatJon anll ttousln g. ©BUS INE SS INFORMATION S E R VICES, LLC Pag e 268 Market Profile Sit e Type: Cust om Sh.l peflle 26,347 65.4% 51.4% 24.4% 14.0% 10.0% 34.6% 29.3% 5.3% 34.4% 2 0.2% 26.347 29.3% 33.3% 16.4% 13.5% 5.5% 1.5% 0.6% 26 ,350 22.6% 29.9% 15.8% 15 .5% 7.7% 8.6% 1995 28.125 65.4% 2.0% 6.1% 8.2% 5 .2% 3.2% 3.6% 6.2% 0.0% 28.125 2.7% 9.3% 8.6% 18.3% 20.3% 4 0.8% 1975 ALL RIG H T S R E SERVE D Demographics Study Figure 322. Areas of consumer spending in Jefferson City School District, 2009 . JEFFERSON CITY SCHOO L DIS TRIC T 1. 2. 3. Top 3 Tape s try Segments Market Profile Si te Type: Custom Shapefile Midl.lnd Crowd In Style Molk and Cook ies \ko 2009 Con s u mer Spe n din g shows the amount spent on a vanety of goods and setvic.!s by h ouseho lds !hat reside on the m.ltket Mea. Expenditures are shown by b10.1d budget categon es that are not mutual ly excl usove. Consumer spending does n o t equal <W 'Jt bus iness revenue . Apparel & Services: To tal S $45.863_8go Average Spent Spending Potential Index Computers & Accessories: Tota l S Average Spent Spending Potentia l Index Ed uca tion: Total 5 Average Spent Spending Pot enlial lnd ex Entertain ment/Recreation: Tota l 5 Average Spent Spen ding Potenli.ll l ndex Food at Home: Tot.ll S Average Spent Spending Potential Index Food AwJ.y from Home: Total S Average Spent Spending Potenli.lllndex Health C.lre: Total 5 Average Spent Spending Potentia l Index HH Furn ishings & Equip ment: Total S Average Spent Spending Potentia l Index Investments: Total S Average Spent Spending Potential Ind ex Re~I Goods:TouiS Ave rage Spent Spending Potential I ndex Shelter: Total 5 Average Spent Spending Potentia l Index TVMdeo/Sound Equipment To ta l 5 Average Spent Spending Potential Index Travel: Total S Average S pent Spending Potential I ndex Vehicle Maintenance & Rep:~ors: Total 5 Average Spent Spending Potentia l Index 0 01ta Note: The Spendi ng Potenti al Index represents the a moun t spent on the area re l.ltive to a na tional average of 100. 51 .6 1 1.12 64 $5.953.435 $209.13 g2 $32.8 16 .927 51.152.81 g2 $64.244.67 1 52.959.38 9 1 s 118.249.979 $4.153.93 9 1 $87.483.764 53.073.16 92 $98,562.597 $3.462.35 92 $50.105 .298 $1.760.12 8 1 $34.4 19.525 S\.209.10 84 $640.2 15.225 $22.489.73 87 $403.208.830 $14.1 64.08 9 1 $3 1.843.260 $1.118.60 92 $47.168.584 $1.656.96 90 $24.3 16 .979 $854.22 9 1 So u rce: Consumer Spending d ata are derive d fro m the 2005 and 2006 Co nsumer Expenditure Surveys. B ureau of L.lbor Statistics . ESRI. Education is in the bottom four of consumer spending out of 14 categories. ©BUSIN E SS INFORMATION S ERVICES , LLC Page 26 9 ALL RIGHTS R E S E RVED Jefferson City School District Figure 323 . Total populat ion by detail ed age i n Jefferson City School Distri ct. J EF FER SO N C ITY SCHOOL DISTRIC T o,o l iD -<1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 ID 11 12 13 14 ~ IS 16 ~ 11 18 19 20-24 25-29 30-3-1 35-39 4()..44 45-49 50-54 I ~ '/ 60-<;4 ' ~9 75-79 -iliiil e~ 65+ 2.0 Detailed Age Profile Site Type: Cu stom Sh apefl le To ta l Po pula t io n by Detailed Age Percent 3 .0 ~.0 I -Census 20 00 -200~ Th is shows the aging of the di stri ct's population during the next fi ve years, as the 2014 bars rise taller t han the 2 000 Censu s ba rs fo r these age co horts . ! [:J 201 4 1 © B U S I N E S S I NFORMATIO N SERVI C E S , LLC P age 270 ALL R I GHTS RESERV ED Demographics Study Fi gure 324 . Net worth o f households, 2009. ~ ..---> -y -...... Ne t Wo rth Profi le JEFFERSON CITY SCHOOL D ISTR IC T Si t e Type: Custom Shapefile Censu s 2000 2009 2014 2009-20 14 2009-201 4 Change Ann u al Rate Pop ul ation 68.95Q 7 1.9 18 73,894 1.976 0 .54% Median A g e 35.4 36.7 37.0 0 .3 0 .16% Hou seholds 26,347 28.46 7 2QA74 1,007 0.7".4 Ave-rage Househ old S ize 2.40 2.36 2 .34 -0.02 -0.17".4 2009 Households by Net Worth N u mbet" Percent Approximat ely 29 per- Total 28.467 10 0.0 % cen t of h o useholds <S t 5 .000 6,976 2 4 .5 % have a net worth of be - $15 ,000 . $34,QQQ 2.178 7.7 % tween $1 50,000 an d $35,000 • $4Q,QQQ 1.290 4 .5 % $500 ,000 . T his con- $50,000.$74.999 1.736 6.1%. trasts with one in four $75,000 . SQQ,QQQ 1.509 5.3 % households who hav e a $100.000 .$14 9 .999 2.39 7 8.4% net worth less t han I $150.000 .$24 9 .999 3,953 13.Q% I $1 5,000 a year. This l' S250,000 • $499,999 4,290 15 .1% truly i s a d i stri ct o f con-$500,000 . $Q99 .999 2.355 8 .3 % $1 ,000 .000+ 1.783 6.3~. tras t s between the top Media n Ne t Worth $108.982 and low income homes. Average Net W orth $391 ,778 2009 Net Worth by Age o f Househ older N umber of Households <25 2 5 -34 35-44 45-54 55~ 1>5-7 4 75+ Total 1,8 ().6 4 .9 78 5 .292 5 .Q70 4 .932 2 .76 6 2 .723 <S 15 ,000 1,4 16 2.466 1,220 7 22 508 234 31:10 s 15,000 . $34,QBQ 206 6 26 586 35 1 2 1 1 9 1 107 $35,000. $49,QQQ 4 9 286 367 2 44 207 49 88 $50,000 . $99,999 9 1 8 38 8 12 724 427 3 10 243 s 100.000 • s 14 9 .Q99 29 188 62 1 6 52 369 237 301 S 150.000 -S24 9 .Q99 13 344 676 1.196 sea 402 454 $250,000 . $499 ,999 2 333 506 972 1,237 749 49 1 $500 ,0 00 ~ 0 97 504 1.1 09 1,050 6Q4 679 Median Net Worth SQ,506 S15.4 13 $72,Q7 0 $166.6 05 $222,532 $260.259 S 197 .4 14 Average Net W orth $17 ,526 S8 8 ,392 $2..?2,21:10 S472.l 1 1 $6 11,533 $727.381 $555,383 Dab N ote : Net Worth is total h ousehold \\'ealth m inus d ebt. !>eCU red a nd unse<:ured . Net worth includes h ome e qui ty, equ ity i n pension plans . net equity in vehi cles. IRAs and Keogh aGCOun ts. busin ess equity. interest-earnin g assets an d mu tual fund sh ares. stocks. etc . Examp les of s.ecu r ed debe inc l ude home mortgages and veh ic le loa n s : ex am ples of unsecur ed d ebt inclu de credit card debt. ce nain bank l oans. and other o u tstan ding bills . Forecasts 0: net \vorth are l based o n the Su n.oey of Consumer Finances. Federal Reserve B oard . Detail may not sum to tota ls du e to rcuooing. Source: U.S . Bureau 0: the Censu s. 2000 C e nsu s of Popu lation and 1-'.ousin 9-ESRI forecasts ;or 2000 and 2 0 14 . © BUSIN E S S I NFORMATION S E RVI C E S , L LC Page 2 71 ALL RI G HTS R E S E R V E D Jefferson City School District Figure 325. Population and household totals by quarter, 2009 . ......._., -~_:...... .... J EFFERSON CrTY SCH O OL DISTR IC T Quarter January 2008 April 2008 July2008 October2008 January 2009 April200ll July 2009 October200Q January 2008 -January 2000 April 2009 • A pnl 2009 July 2008 • July 2000 October 2008 • Oc tober 2000 Jan uary 2008 • Oc tober 2000 source: ESRJ Quart.er1y Popul ation Update Quarte r ly Household Update Pop u lation Percent Change 7 1.963 72.028 0.1"k 72.0 11 0.0".4 72.M2 0.1"4 72 .204 0.2% 72 .15 1 ..0 .1 ~4 7 1,9 18 -0 .3".4 72 ,0 18 0 .1·~ 0 .3% 0.2~~ -0.1% -0.1% 0.1% © BUSINESS IN FORMA T I O N S E R VICES , LLC Page 272 Quarterly Demographic Profile Si te Type: Custom Sh apefile Hou!>!!hol ds Percent Change 28.308 28,369 0.2% 28,378 0.0% 29,409 0.1 ~{. 28,465 0.2% 28.443 -0.1% 28,467 0.1% 28.5 16 0.2% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.7% ALL R I GHTS R ESERV E D Demographics Study Figure 326 . Profile of households and population ,2009. Graphi c Profile J EF FERSO N CITY S CHOOL D ISTRIC T S i te Type: Cu stom Shapefile Househo l ds 2009 Households by Incom e 2009 Popul atio n by AIJe 2009 Ow ner O ccupied HUs by Val ue S200.2.99K 0 2.7'l'o ) (6.5%) 10!l-199K {52..J"1s) 2009 E mployed 16+ by Occupat io n 200 9 Po p ulation by Race 200Q Perc ent Hispanic Origin: 2 .0 % source: u.s. Bureau or the cenws, 20CO census or PopUiatlco allll Housing.. ESRI !Orecasts ~ 2009 ana 20 1-t. ©BUSINESS I NFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 273 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Figure 327 . Population projections by age and gender . ..--> -f/ ...... The projected rate of population in-Housing Profile crease is t rending downward over the next f ive years. The percent of J EF FE RSO N CfTY SCHOOl DISTR ICT occupied homes is predicted to fol- low the same pattern . Si te Type: Cu stom Sh apeflle 2000 Total Population 68 ,9 59 2000 Median HH Income $42 .245 2009 Total Population 7 1.9 18 2009 Median HH Income $54,400 2014 Total ~a tion 73.894 201 4 Median HH Income $57.077 2009-2014 A nnual Rate 0.54% 2000 -2 0 14 An nual Rate o.ro'l'. Housi ng Un its by Occup an cy Status and Ten u re Cen"S u s 2000 2009 2 014 Number Percent Number Percent Numb e r Percent Total Housi n g Unit s 28.121 100.0 ~~ 3 1,07 8 100.0% 32 ,188 100 .0% Occupied 26.347 93.7% 28 ,4 67 9 1 .6~. 29.4 74 91.6'% Owner 17 .593 62.6'l'. 18 ,936 60.9% 19 .51 8 60.6% Rent er 8 .754 3 1.1'1. 9 .53 1 30.7'1. 9,9 56 30.9 '% Vacant 1.774 6.3% 2.611 8.4% 2 .7 14 8.4 '% Own e r Occ upied Housin g Un i ts by Value Cen"Su s 2 000 2009 2 0 14 N umber Percen t Nu mber PN c en t Numbe r Percent Total 17 ,604 100.0 % 18 .930 100.0% 19 ,518 10-ll.O'% < 5 10,000 266 1.5"k 24 7 1.3% 2 32 12'% 5 10.000 -$14.999 167 0 .9% 11 9 o .o% 10 5 0 .5'% $15 ,000 -$19,999 165 0 .9% 17 9 0 .9'1'. 145 0.7 ~4 $2 0,000 -$24 ,999 19 1 1.11. 153 0 .8% 171 0 .9".4 $2 5,0 00 -$29,999 167 0.9% 124 0 .7 % 136 0.7 ~' $30,0 00 -$34,99'9 273 1.6% 193 1.0% 102 0.5".4 S35,000 -$39,999 202 1.1% 172 0 .9.,.. 186 1.0 ~' S40 ,000 -$49,99 9 5{,14 3.4% 4 22 2 .2.,.. 3 55 1.8 ~' 550 .00 0-559.99'9 7 4 1 4 .2% 4 08 2.2% 396 2.0 '% 560 .000 -$6Q,99Q 1,263 7.2% 596 3 .1% 343 1.8'% $70 ,00 0 -$7Q ,99Q 1,756 10 .0 % 664 3 .5% 589 3 .0'% 580 .000 -$8Q ,999 2 .Ct66 11.7% 952 5 .0% 6 05 3.1"-' 590,000 -$99,99Q 2 .00B 11 .Q% 1.16 2 6.1% 880 4.5"k $100.000 -S124 ,QQ9 2 .504 14 .2% 3 .763 1Q.9 % 2 .7 03 13 .8'% S l 25.ooo-S1 4 9 .m 1.850 10.5 % 2.9 09 15.4% 3,55 1 182 ".4 $150.000 -$174 ,QQ9 1,11 3 6.3% 1.844 Q.7% 2.254 1 1.5'% $175,0 00 -$1Q Q,QQ9 73Q 4 .2% 1.374 7 .3% 1,784 Q.1'% $200 ,0 00 -$24 9,Q99 7 0 1 4 .0 % 1.706 Q.O% 2 .0 23 10 .4 '% $250,000 -$2Q9,Qil9 337 1.Q% 70 5 3 .7% 1.342 6 .9'% S300,000-$3Q9,Qil9 268 1.5 % 728 3.8% 7 18 3.7~'- S4 00,000-$499,999 4 7 0.3 '1. 252 1 .3~/D 5 06 2.6~' $500 ,000 -$749 .999 53 0.3 % 179 0 .9% 248 1.3'% $750.000 -$009 ,Q99 33 0.2% 39 0.2~/D 73 0 .4 '% s 1.000.0 00 + 10 0.1% 46 0 .2% 7 1 0 .4% Median Val ue $94,533 5 127 .699 5 144.7 90 Average Value $112 .656 5 15 1.91 9 5 172.462 Data Not&: Detail may ROt aum to totala dus to rou nding. Source: u s . Burasu or thil censua. 2000 cana ua or Popu tstton ana Housing. ESRJ ro racaats fOf 20os ant120 14.. © BUS INESS IN F O R M A T IO N S E RVI C E S , L L C Page 274 A LL RIGHTS RES ERVE D Demographics Study Figure 328. Househ olds and fami lies by i ncom e . (' ..,--, The largest i ncrea s e in f amil ies by in --~.:_:::;....--.... Detailed Incom e Profile com e from 2000 t o 2009 occurred i n t he $75,000 -$7 9,999 ran g e. This range is pro j ected t o r ema in rel atively s t able J EFFERSO N CITY S CHOO L DIS TRI CT th roug h 20 14. S ite Type: Cu s tom Shapefil e Ce ns us 2 000 2009 2014 2009 -2014 2009-2014 C hang e Ann u al Rate P op ula tion 6 8,95'tl 71 ,Q18 73 ,8 94 1,Q7 6 0 .54"4 Households 26,:!.47 28,407 29.474 1.007 0 .7% Ave1age Hou sehold S ize 2 .40 2 .36 2 .34 -0 .02 .{).17% Famili~:s 17,233 17,8 16 17 ,Q7 9 16 3 0 .18% Ave1age Family S ize 2 .97 2 .Q8 3 0.02 0 .13% Cen s us 2 000 2009 2 01 4 Number Pe rcent Numbe r Percent Nu m ber Percent Household s by Inco me HH Income Base 26.348 100.0".4 28 .467 100.0"/, 2 9 .474 100 .0".4 < $10,000 1.995 7 .6% 1.647 5 .8"11. 1.5 56 5 .3% $10,000 -5 14.999 1.5 56 5 .9% 1.083 3 .8 "/. 1.284 4.4 % $15,000 -5 19 .999 1.8 09 6 .9"k 1.257 4 .4 ... ~ 1.0 14 3 .4 ".4 $20.000 -524.999 1.796 6.8 ~4 1.301 4 .6 ".4 1.487 5 .0 ".4 $25.000 -529 .999 1.9 20 7 .3% 1.622 5 .7 % 1.4 5 1 4 .9 "4 $30.000 -534.999 1.745 6 .6% 1.648 5 .8 "1. 1.439 4 .9""- $35.000 -539.900 1.5 76 6 .0% 1.4 80 5 .2 "4 1.409 4 .8 ".4 $40,000 -S44.999 1,622 6 .2"4 1,490 5 .2 ".4 1.38 2 4.7"4 $45,000 -S4 9.999 1.4 14 5 .4".4 1.3 85 4 .9 "4 1.082 3 .7 "4 $50.000 -559 .999 2.74 9 10 .4 ".4 2 .667 9 .4 ".4 3 .5 19 1 1.9".4 $60.000 -574.900 3 .104 1 1.8% 3 ,8 11 12 .7".4 4 .4 12 15.0"4 $75.000 -599 .999 3 ,0 08 11 .4% 5 .386 18 .9 % 5.244 17 .8% ~ $100,000 -5 124,9 99 1.0 11 3 .8"1. 1.Q56 6 .9 "4 2 .12 3 72"1. $125.000 -5 149 ,9 99 4 19 1.6% 7 85 2 .8 "4 8 15 2 .8 % $150,000 -5 199 ,9 00 2 13 0 .8"1. 609 2 .1% 660 2.2"k $200,000 -5 249,9 00 4 11 1.6% 2 64 0 .9 "4 271 0 .9 "4 $250,000 -5499,999 N/A 228 0 .8% 264 0 .9 % $500.000+ NIA 48 0 .2 "4 62 0 .2% Median Ho u !>Ehold Income S4 2.245 554 ,490 S57.on A~~eta9 e Hous e hol d Income 552.35 7 564.4 62 566.349 Per Capita Income 520 .572 526.406 527.444 Families by Inco me Family Income Base 17 .24 9 100.0"4 17 ,8 16 100 .0"4 17 ,Q79 100 .0".4 < $10 ,000 634 3 .7 "4 497 2 .8% 447 2 .5% $10,000 -5 14 .999 589 3.4% 309 1.7% 3 15 1.8% $15,000 -5 19 ,999 774 4 .5 % 521 2 .9"4 438 2 .4 "1. $20,000 -524 .999 936 5 .4 % 5 0 7 2 .8'% 530 2 .9% $25,000 -52 9 .999 956 5 .5 ... '. 75 2 4 .2% 649 3 .6".4 $30.000 -S34.999 9 12 5 .3"4 7 75 4 .4 "4 8 5 1 3 .6% $35.000 -S39 ,999 878 5 .1""-8 23 3 .5"4 573 3 .2"4 $40.000 -$44.999 1.102 6 .4 ".4 880 4.9".4 689 3 .8".4 $45.000 -$49 .999 1.174 6 .8".4 6 98 3 .9"4 596 3 .3 "k S50.000 -S59.999 2.178 12 .6"k 1.745 9 .8 ".4 2.235 12.4 ".4 $60,000 -$74.999 2.670 15 .5".4 2.9 82 16 .7"4 2 ,19 1 12.2 ".4 $75.000 -S99 .999 2 .641 15 .3".4 4 ,199 23.6 % 4 .294 23.9 ".4 $100.000 -5 124 ,900 9 0 1 5 .2% 1.421 8 .0 "/. 2.223 12.4 ".4 $125,000-5 149 ,999 39 1 2 .3"4 899 5 .0 % 9 73 5 .4 ".4 $150,000 -s 199,9 99 18 0 1.0% 5 76 3 .2% 670 3 .7% $200,000 -5 24 9 ,9 00 333 1.9"4 2 35 1.3 % 2 4 5 1.4 "4 $250.000 -$499.999 N/A 169 0 .9% 221 1.2"4 $500.000+ N.IA 28 0 .2% 39 0.2% Median Family In come S5 2.6 19 S67 .0 11 S72.320 AYera9 e Family Income S62.10 1 575 .8 7 0 58 1.237 C" Data Note: Income repreaenta th e annual In come for 111& prececllnJJ:ar· expreasa d ln CUJTen t oo uara . ln el ull~an a~uatment ro r ln naUon (Io r 2 00:1 and 2 014). ln 2000. th e Censu s Bureau reported InCOme to an upp&r Interval or $200, . ESRI rorecaata &xt!ln a Income to $5 00. . IU meana Not AvaiLJble . SOUI'Ce: U.S. BUf83 U of lite Cenau a,. 2000 C&DB UB of PojKJia tl on and Houatng. ESRI f0r&c:l8t8 l or 2009 a nd 20 14. ©BUSI NESS INFORMATION SERVI CES , LLC P age 275 ALL R I GHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Figure 329. Disposable income of households, 2009 . D is p osab le Inco me Profi le JEFFERSO N CITY S CHOOL D IS TRICT Si te Ty p e : Cu stom Sh apeffle Ce nsus2000 2009 2 014 2 00 9-201 4 2009-2014 C hange Ann ual Ra te Populat ion 68 ,Q5'i! 7 1.9 18 73.894 1,976 0 .54 ~' Median Ag e 35.4 38.7 37.0 0.3 0 .16"..:. Households 26 ,347 28.467 29,474 1,0ID 0 .7 '% Average Household Size 2 .40 2..36 2 .34 -0.02 ..{).1 7 ~' 2009 House ho lds by Disposable Income Numb er Perc-e nt Total 28.4a7 100.0'% <5 15 ,000 3 ,151 11.1'% $15.000-524.999 3.555 12.5% $25 ,000 -S34 ,Q99 4 .100 1 4.4'}~ $.35 ,000 -S4 9,Q99 5 ,129 18 .0% $50,000 -574 .999 8 ,280 29 .1"..:. $75,000 -599.999 2 .146 7 .5·..:. $100 ,000 -5 149 .99 9 1,531 5 .4".4 $150 .000-5199 .99 9 272 1.0% $200,000+ 200 1.o•..:. Medi3I1 Disposable In come $43,779 Average Disposable Income $52,183 200 9 Disposable Inc o m e by Age o f Ho u seh o l d e r Numb e r o f Households <25 2 5-34 3544 45-54 55-64 SS-74 Total 1,806 4,978 5 ,292 5 .970 4 ,932 2,766 <5 15,000 48Q 533 344 3 16 470 319 S 15,000 -S24 ,QQQ 358 642 662 599 468 333 525.000-S34,QQQ 387 1,106 724 6 09 461 45 1 $35,000 -$49,W9 209 1.119 1.150 864 9 11 465 s so.ooo-$74 ,QQQ 22 4 1.2 18 1.740 2 ,378 1,539 821 $75,000-$99 ,QQQ 52 186 332 645 621 15 5 $100,000 -514 9 .999 68 116 256 380 356 164 $150,000-5199.999 1 1 27 5 1 87 43 24 $200,000+ 12 31 34 92 63 34 Median Dis posable Income $26,037 S36 .P20 545,939 553.508 551,426 $42,771 Ave-rage Di spos~e Income $35,549 544.202 S52.2eo se2.235 S5Q,344 $52 ,703 Data No te: Disposab le Income i s ai ter-tax household i ncome. D isposable income forecasts are based on the CUJTent Population Survey, U.S . C ens us Bureau. D etaa may n ot sum to to tal s due to rounding. 75+ 2,723 6 80 496 36 8 4 11 360 156 194 29 30 $29 ,285 $43,969 © B U S INESS IN F ORMATI O N SERVIC ES , LLC Page 276 ALL RIG HTS R E S E R V E D Demographics Study Figure 330. Map showing lifestyle personality t ypes in the J efferson C ity School Distri ct. J E FFER SO N CITY S CHOO L DIST RICT 65074 65074. __ _j 26 \ -, Cole Coul(ty 65064 26 65032 J '7$--ll @ 65040 65026 Dominant Tapestry Site Map S it e Ty pe: Cu stom Sha pefil e ___@ BS251 26 6~063 65043 65085 o ,.,,g t: Cou n t y I ....... 65059 ' 65016 25 6~0 5 4 r J 6 ~0!>4 65035 2 ' ~ C ::t l/.'l wny Tapa'!! tr y Llfalllooc V ounty :,. .. ~ ~ Coui ~~ S<>urce: ESR I • l l t;-,n ... oOn!t,· ;.n..er&. "'c+wu.-Jt-: H-' ott.J .y,-~J-~)IJ !ot"\._-..,.c, • U L -h' ~A s. P.c~ ~ n.moJ <<•fk hTl'--wt"*H F1 •J~-1 t•)l..9rt) Ll U :tlt p >6a ...,.,, t,hr-cb a'' '+S:'I I•nct l e'1•.;')"\~f"'.,..tt..,t"f tii ((UI'\MiiY,. u 5,., .\rtt 1""""" to,_,., an;., cr u.-"" .. l l !d't~~o~ Slrlct Scru ~.e·;r~u Lr nCJr ., J ~ ~"*"n ;t;pt 1.; :;,.. .......... •~d PA·h:,_a Cct.?" T<tbrf ,_,._,.rn...., -t''9111(("'' l OJ~h..O).:<"'t'b:t-""'""9 \..t~.=.-.~a.·C't i"''m 1.•'~•--c<.fl (;<:n• an t ct OT.,..IY.~·-'1-t -t.!"-f .. nf1 :.,.,.at fCAD\ r.-.., U: .lt1Jtl4 .. rn LIC'Tt h .'1 tJ,.n~ U•tkO>_rt ""~:t. rcrn.--Vl kJ... ~1-..nca lll r .xt.tle'\ llf\j r'oJ I U. ..... \tA \rl~'"dil'W1 n u 'UIII stt"W ...-..t•. ~tt.~ """ ,..~. ... 1:' "n•n :., Ou-t 1-b.o:t.•tdl.k r u rud .,._,n M1J tlz•&r ~ ©BUSI NESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 277 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Figure 331 . Top twenty t apestry segments and area profile . ....-> Tapestry Segmentation Area Profile -~:::---"~ Ranked b y Househol ds Prepared by Business Information Services , LLC J EFFERSON CITY SCHOOL D ISTRICT Site Type: Custom S hapefi:le Top Twenty Tapestry Segments Tapestry seg~n1 description s can be found a t htto:h'vi\WJ.esri.ccmtlibrarv!MiiteoaDers.IQdisl commun ino:-taoes!!)!. odf Ho useho lds U.S . Hous ehol ds C umu lativ e Cumulative Ra nk Tapestry Segment Percent Percent Percent Pe r cent Index 1 26. Midlan d Crov1d 15 .6% 15.6% 3 .8% 3.8 % 4 13 2 13.1n Style 14.9% 30.5% 2.5~~ 6.3~. co2 3 19. Milk an d Cooki es 8 .5% 39.0 % 2.0,o 8.3% 432 4 28. Aspiring Young Fam ili es 6.5% 4 5.5% 2.4 ~. 1 0.7~~ 275 5 18 . Cozy and Comfortabl e 6 .1% 5 L6"k 2 .8% 1 3.5 ~~ 2 16 Subtotal 51 .6 % 13 .5% 6 33. Midl ce Jtmction 52% 5 6 .8% 2 .5% 16 .0~. 21 1 7 4 B. Great Elq>eclations 4.8% 6 1.6% 1.7% 1 7 .7~~ 278 8 17. Gree n Acres 4.5% 66.1% 3 .2~~ 20 .ll':'. 14 1 9 14. Prosperous Empty Nesters 4 .4% 70.5°r~ 1.8% 22.7% 241 10 07. &urb-an ites 4.4% 74.9% 2 .5~o 252% 175 Su bt.o tal 23..3% 11.7% 11 39. Young and ReSIIess 3 .ll% 78.8% 1 .4 ~. 26.6~. 273 12 52. Inn er City Tenants 3..8% 82..6% 1.5~~ 28.1~. 250 13 29. Ru stbelt Ret ire es 3.7% 86.3% 2.1 ~~ 3 0.2~~ tao 14 25. Salt of the Earth 3.5% 89.8% 2.8~. 33.0% 126 15 4 1. Crossroads 2..4% 9 2..2 % 1.5% 34.5 % 156 Sub total 17..3 % 9..3% 16 30. Retirement Communities 1.9% 9 4.1% 1 .5~o 36.0 "1~ 128 17 65. Social Security Set 1.8% 95.9% 0 .6% 36.6':'. 278 18 36. Old and Ne'V/comers 1.5% 97.4% Ul':'. 38.5% 79 19 32. Rustbelt Tradi1icos 1.3% 98.7% 2 .8~~ 4 1.3% 46 20 64. City Common s 0.8% 99 .5% 0 .7~\. 42.0% 114 Subto tal 7..3% 7.5% Total 99.5% 42.0% 237 To p Ten Tapestry Segme n ts Slteva. us. 2 ,0 ,.,u 6 . 8 ,0 11/.U 1<;: 1-\.D l <j.D 07. Exumanae6 14. Prosperous Empty Net.1Efli 17. Gree n AJ:ret; 48. Great ExpectaU0116 ~ 33. Mkllll!! Junction 16. COZ)• and COO!I'Onatte . 28. Mpllng 'ltx.ng Famll!e6 19.1r...l and cooues 13.111 Sl)~ 26. Midland CroA·<I Pe rcent of Hou seholds by Tapestry Segment Sou rce: ESRI © BUSIN ESS INFORMATIO N S E R VIC ES , LLC Pa ge 278 A L L RIG HTS R ESERVED Demographics Study Figure 332. Descriptions of Midland Crowd and In Style lifestyle types. De scr iptions of the Midland Crowd life sty le type With more than 4.2 million households, Midland Crowd has the highest count of all the Community Tapestry markets, with an annual household growth of 2.6 percent since 2000. The median household i ncome is $49,748, slightly lower than the U.S. median. Households derive primary income from wages and sa laries, although the percentage of households t hat re - ceive income from self-employment ventures is slightly higher than the national level. The m edian net worth is $86,362, somew hat below the U.S. median. Half of the employed re sidents work in w hite-collar occupation s. Approxima tely 30 per- cent of Midland Crowd re sidents aged 25 years and older have attended co ll ege; 15 pe r cent ho ld a bac helor's or gradua te degree. Midland Crowd r esiden t s live in housi ng developments in rural areas throughout the United States (mo r e v illage or town than farm), mainly in the South . Three-fourths of the housing was built after 1969. Homeowners hip is at 84 percent; the median home val ue is $137,727. Two-th i rds of the h ouseho lds are sin gle-fami ly structures; 28 percent are mob i le homes. One -fourth of the households own three or more vehicles. Midland Crowd is a somewhat politically conservative market. The rural location and their traditional lifestyle di ctate the consumer preferences of t he se r esiden t s. How t he y take care of their homes, lawns, and vehicles demonstrates th eir do-it-yo urse lf mentality. Households typically ow n or lease a truck; many own a used motorcycle. Hunting, fi sh in g, and wood wo rk ing are favorite pursuits. Generally, hous eholds have pets, espec iall y birds and dogs. Recent purcha ses include used vehicles, household furniture, and giant-screen TVs. Their department store of choice is Belk. When eating takeout, they ofte n choose a fa st-food re sta urant and use the drive- through window. Many hou seholds have a satellite dish. Favorite stations include CMT and Outdoor Life Network. In addi- tion to watching rodeo/bull riding, truck and tractor pull s/mud racin g, and fish i ng programs on TV, r esiden ts watch a va riety of news programs. Fittin g right in w ith their rural surroundin gs, they prefer to listen to country music on the radio and read fishing and hunting magazines. De sc riptions of the In Style lifestyle type In Style re si dents are prosperous, with a median household income of $72,112 and a median n et worth of $18 7,956 (mor e than one and one-half times that of the national median). Wages and salaries prov id e inco me for 84 per cent of the house- holds; 47 percent also receiv e some fo rm of investm ent income. In Style residents are more educated compared to t he U.S. leve l : nearly 40 percen t of t he population aged 25 years and o ld er hold a bachelor's or grad uate degree, and 31 percent have attended college. At 70 percent, labor force p artici pation is above average, and t he unemployment figu re of 4 percent is low. Forty-five percent of employed resident s have p ro fessio nal or management positions, with above average concentra- tions in the finance, insurance, technical services, and education industry sectors. In Style resi dents live in affluent neighbor- hoods of metropolitan areas, scattered all ove r the country. More suburban than urban, they neve rtheless embrace an ur- bane lifesty le; many prefer townhomes (14 percent of household s) to t rad itional si ngle-fami ly dwe llings (56 percent of households). The median home va lu e is $271,279 . Hom eownersh ip is just slightly above average at 71 percent. More tha n three-fourths of the housing units were built in the last 30 yea r s. Computer savvy, In Style res id ents use the Internet daily. On li ne activities includ e obtaining information about real es tate, new or used cars, medical iss ues, general news, or sports; tracking invest m en t s; trading stocks; making trave l arran geme nts ; and buying co m puter hardware or so ftware, clothes, toys, and concert or sporting events tickets. They use a finan cial planner an d invest in stocks, bonds, money market funds, money market bank accounts, and securities. Looking toward the future, res ide n ts hav e long-ter m care and universa l life insurance and contribute to IRA and 401 (k) retirement acco unts. To m aintain th ei r homes, they hire professional household cleaning services and contractors. To kee p fit, r es id e nts exe rci se, follow a healthy di et m e t hod for weight control, bu y food specifically labeled as low fat, and take vitamins. Th ey enjoy goi ng to the beach, sno r keling, pl aying golf, and casi no gam- bling. The y favor domestic travel and keep golf in mind when choosing a vac atio n destination. In Style res i dents read boating, business, and finance magazines and listen to news-talk, classical , and alternative radio formats. TV viewing i n- cludes bicycle r aci ng, ski jumping, and golf, so it is n ot surprising that the Go lf Channe l is a f avo rite cable station. © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 279 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Figure 333. Descriptions of Milk and Cookies and Aspiring Young Families lifestyle type. Descriptions of the Milk and Cookies lifestyle type For 90 percent of Milk and Cookies household s, income is derived from wages. The labor force participation of 71 percent is above average. Although unemployment is at 6 percent, this market has one of the highest con- centrations of multiple wage earners in the family. The median househo ld income is $63,574, and the median net worth is $139,152. Approximately 58 percent of residents aged 25 years and older hold a bachelor's or graduate degree or have attended college. Milk and Cookie s residents prefer single-family homes in suburban neighborhoods of cities, largely in the South, particularly in Texas. Smaller concentrations of households are located in the West and Midwest. The median home value is $155,183. Housing units are generally 2Q-30 years old. Given the concentration of dual -income families, 71 percent of households have at least two vehi- cles. A family with two or more workers, more than one child, and two or more vehicles is the norm for these neighborhoods. As M i lk and Cookies residents settle into their family-oriented lifestyle, they focus on family and the future. They are properly insured, carry life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance at a minimum, and contribute to 401(k) retirement plans. They use a credit union, have overdraft protection, and usually have a new car loan. They prefer motorcycles, pickup trucks, SUVs, and minivans. Many househo l ds own a dog. The presence of children in Milk and Cookies households drives their large purchases of baby and- children's products including baby food, baby equipment, clothe s, shoes, medicine, vitamins, board games, bicycles, toys, video games, and children's DVDs . Most households own a video game system, whether it's a Game Boy Advance, Xbox, or PlayStation 2. Although many households have older personal computers, they invest in software. To save time in their busy lives, they frequently buy prepared dinners from the grocery store, and fast food (e specially from Little Caesars, Whataburger, or Sonic Drive-In). For fun, Milk and Cookies residents play various games including chess and backgammon, participate in football, or fly kites. Their inter- est in basketball is evident: they play bask etball, attend professional basketball games, watch games on TV, and listen to them on the radio. Favorite cable channels in c lude Toon Disney, Discovery Health Channel, ESPNews, and Lifetime Movie Network. In their spare time, Milk and Cookies residents work on their lawns, paint the inside of their homes, or do minor maintenance on their vehicles. Descriptions of the Aspiring Young Families lifestyle type The median household income is $50,392, and income is derived mainly from wages. The median net worth for thi s market is $74,245. Approximately 60 percent of employed residents have professional, management, sales, or office/administrative support positions. Overall, 85 perce nt of r es idents aged 25 years and older have graduat- ed from high school, 35 percent have attended college, and 22 percent hold a bachelor's or graduate degre e. As - piring Young Families neighborhoods are located in the large, growing metropolitan areas primarily in the South and West, with th e high est state concentrations in California, Florida, and Te xas. Although almost three-fourths of the household s are in the South and West, one-fifth of the housing is located in the Midwest. Half of the households are occupied by renters, half by homeowners. Residents live in moderately priced apartments, single- family houses, and sta rtup townhomes. Th e average gross rent is approximately $674 per month, ju st slightly higher than the U.S. average. The median home value is $170,342. Most of the hou sing units were built after 1969. Aspiring Young Families residents spend much of their discretionary income on their children and their homes. They buy baby and children's products and toys and furniture for the home. Electronic purcha ses include cameras and video game systems. Residents spen d time online vi si ting chat rooms, searching for employment, playing ga mes, researchin g real estate, and making travel arrangements. They carry multiple life insurance poli- cies. Vacations are likely to inc lude visits to theme parks. Leis ure time includes dining out, dancing, going to the movi es, and attending professional football games. Other activities include fishing, weight lifting, playing basket- ball, and watching dramas or horror movies on DVD. Residents listen to urban stations and professional basket- ball games on the radio. When watching TV, they favor sports, news, and entertainment programs and court- room TV shows. When eating out, Aspiring Young Families residents prefer family restaurants such as Tony Roma's and IHOP and fast-food establishments suc h as Checkers an d Ja ck-in-the-Bo x. © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 280 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 334. Descriptions of Cozy and Comfortable and Midlife Junction lifestyle types. Descriptions of the Cozy and Co mfortab le life sty le type Although the labor force is older, they are in no hurry to retire. The labor force participation rate of 66 percent is above average. Unemployment is relatively low, at 5 percent. Employed residents represent a range of occupa- tions, from professional or managerial to service, in a variety of industries. Occupation distributions are similar to U.S. values . The median household income is $65,768. Income is derived from wages and salaries for 80 percent of Cozy and Comfortable households . Forty-six percent of households receive income from investments. The me- dian net worth for this market is $176,556.Cozy an d Comfortable neighborhoods are located in suburban areas, primarily in the Midwest, Northeast, and South . Many residents are still living in the homes in which they raised their children . Single-family structures make up 88 percent of the household inventory. The median home value is $186,456. Sixty-two percent of housing units were built before 1970. Hom eownership is at 88 percent, and vacancies are lo w at 4 percent. Cozy and Comfortable residents prefer to own shares in mutual funds (bonds) and consult a financial planner. Typically, they have a second mortgage, new ca r loan, and home equity line of credit in addition to medical insurance with Blue Cross/Blue Shield and insurance to cover loss of income from medical causes. Home improvement and remodeling w o rk, includin g lawn care, are important to Cozy and Com- fortable residents . Although they will contract for some work, these homeowners will ta ke an active part in many projects, especially painting, hanging wallpaper, and lawn care. For exercise, they play softball and golf, and to rela x, they attend ice hockey games, watch science fiction films on DVD, and gamble at casinos . Residents eat at family restaurants such as Bob Evans Farms, Perkins , Big Boy , and Fri en dly's. Pretzels are a favorite snack along with a caffeine-free diet cola. Vacations are do mestic trips, often to the beach . Disney World is a popular destina- tion. Their home computers are generally severa l years o ld, because accessing the Internet is not a priority. Tele- vision is significant to Cozy and Comfortable residents; many househ olds own four or more sets. Favorites in- clude watching ice hockey and golf games along w ith prog rams such as Live with Regis & Kelly, Antiques Road- show, and King of Queens. Preferred cab le stations include QVC , Home & Garden Television, and the Hi story Channel. Residents listen to ice hockey and professional football games along with clas sic hits, rock, and soft adult contemporary music on the radio. Des cription s of the Mid life Jun ction li festyle type Most Midlife Junction residents are still working, although at 61 percent, the labor force participation rate is slightly below average. One-th ird of the house hold s are no w drawing Social Security benefits . Both the median household income of $47,683 and the median net worth of $106,734 are slightly below the U.S. medians . Educa- tional attainment leve ls are co mparable to U.S. levels. Midlife Junction commun ities are found in suburbs across the country, more in the South and Midwest than in the Northeast and West. Homeownership is at 67 percent, near the U.S. rate . Nearly two-thirds of the hous eho ld s ar e single-family structure s; mo st of the remainder are apartments in multiunit buildings. The median home va lu e of $153,336 is somewhat lower than the U.S. median. As Midlife Junction residents pass from child rearing into r etirement, they live quiet, settled lives . They have been planning and saving for their retirement, owning certificates of deposit and participating in IRA or 401(k) plans . They spend their money carefully and do not succumb to fads. Mindful of their expenses, they always search for bargains . Midlife Junction re sid ents enjoy dining out at full -s ervice restaurants, particularly on weekends, and also take advantage of the conven ience of fa st -fo od re st aurants. Th ey favor d o mesti c cars, and prefer to shop by mail or phone from catalogs such as L.L. Bean and Lands ' End . They are comfortable shopping by phone or over the Internet. Comfortable with computer technology, they use e-ma il to commun icate with fri ends and families . Residents enjoy practicing yo ga, attending co untry music co ncerts and auto r aces, refinishin g furniture, reading romance novels, and watching classic movies on DVD . © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 281 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Figure 335. Descriptions of Great Expectations and Green Acres lifestyle types. Descriptions of the Gre at Expectations li fes tyle type The median household income of $37,684 and the median net worth of $43,152 are low compared to the U.S. values. Approximately 29 percent of residents aged 25 years and older have attended college (slightly above the U.S. average), but only 16 percent hold a bachelor's or graduate degree (somewhat below the U.S . average). Sev- en percent are enrolled in college or graduate schoo l. The higher proportion of younger residents improves the 68 percent labor force participation rate . The manufacturing, reta il, and service industry sectors are the primary employers in this market. Great Expectations neighborhoods are located throughout the country, with higher proportions in the Midwest and South . Half of the householders own their homes; the other half rent. More than ha lf of the households are single-family dwellings; approximately 40 percent are apartments in lower mid-rise bui l dings . Th e median home value of $114,837 is appro ximately three-fifths that of the U.S . median. Most of the hous ing units in these older suburban neighborhood s were built before 1960 .Great Expectations homeowners are not afraid to tackle smaller maintenance and remodeling projects, but they also enjoy a young and active lifestyle . They go out to dinner, to the movies, to bars, and to nightclubs. They enjoy roller-ska ting; roller-blading; playing Frisbee, chess, and pool; watching foreign films on DVD ; and attending auto races . They read music mag- azines and listen to rock music on the radio . Residents watch courtroom dram as, reality shows, sitcoms, news programs, and dramas on TV . They occasionally take advantage of the convenience of fa st-food restaurants. Little traveling is done in this market. Still focuse d on starting a career, many are not preparing for retirement by inve sting for the future. Re sid e nts shop at major discount and department stores, and also order frequently from catalogs Descriptions of the Green Acres lifesty le type Green Acres residents are educated and hardworking; more t han half who are aged 25 years and older hold a degree or attended co lle ge . Labor forc e participation is appro xi mately 69 perce nt, with hi gher employment con- cen tratio ns in the manufacturing, construction, health care, and ret ail trade industry sectors . Seventeen percent of households derive income from self-emp loyment ventures . Occupation distributions are similar to the United States . The median household income is $63 ,922 , and the median net worth is $163,372. Green Acres neighbor- hoods are located throughout the cou ntry but mainly in the Midwest and South . The highest state concentra - tions are found in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania . A little bit country, Green Acres residents live in pastoral settings of developing suburban fringe areas. Hom eownership is at 88 percent. Eighty-seven percent of the household inventory is dominated by sing le-fam il y dwellings. These newer homes carry a median va l ue of $205,460. Typical of rural reside nts, Green Acres households own multiple vehicles: 78 percent own two or more veh icles . Country living describe s the lifesty le of Green Acres residents. Pet dogs or cats are considered part of the family . These do-it-yourselfers maintain and re model the i r ho mes; projects incl ude painting, installing carpe t or insu lation, or addin g a deck or patio. They own all the necessary power tools, including routers, welders, sand- ers, and various saws, to finish their projects. Residents maintain their lawns, flower ga rdens, and vegetable ga r- dens, again with th e right tools. They own ridin g lawn mowers, garden tillers, tractors, and even separate home freezers for t he harvest . Fitting in with the do-it yourse lf mode, it is not surprising that Green Acres is th e top market fo r owni ng a sew in g machine . A f av orite pas time is u sing the i r ice cream maker to produce homemade ice cream . They prefer motorcycles and full-size pi ck up trucks. For exerc ise, Green Acres residents ride their mountain bikes and participate in water sports such as waterskiing, canoe in g, and kayaking. Other activities in- clude bird-watching, power boating, target shooting, hunting, and attending auto racing events. They prefer to l isten to co ll ege football, auto racing, and news-tal k program s on t he radio and read fishing, hunting, and motor- cycle magazines . Accommodating the country l ifestyle, many households watch TV by satellite di sh instead of cable. Events they enjoy watching on TV include alpine skiing, sk i j umping, motorcycle racing, equestrian events, and bicycle racing. A favorite station is the Speed Channel. ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 282 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 336. Descriptions of Prosperous Empty Nesters and Exurbanites lifestyle types. Description s of the Prosperous Empty Nesters With a median net wort h of $228,809, Prosperous Empty Nesters in v est prudently f or the future. The median hou se hold incom e is $69,834. Alth o ugh 71 percent of ho us eho ld s derive in co me from wages and salaries, 59 percent receive in come from inves tments, 38 percent collect Social Se cu rity benefits, and 28 percent receive re - tirement income. Approximately 40 percent of residents aged 25 years and o lder hold a ba chelor's o r graduate degree; another 29 percent have attended college . Many Prosperous Empty Nesters re sidents are still working in we ll -estab lished caree r s holding professional and management positions, especia lly in the education and he alth care industry sectors . Prosperous Empty Nesters residents live in we ll-e stablished neighborhoods located throughout the United States; approximately one-third of these households are found on the eastern seaboa rd . These neig hborhoods expe rienc e little turnover, with nom in al change from year to year. Most housing units (77 percent) were built before 1980. Most hou sin g is single-family st ructures, with a median home value of $230,594. Prosperous Empty Nesters residents place a high va lu e on th eir physical and financial well-being. Their in vestments include annu ities, certificates of deposit held longer than six months, mutual funds, m oney mark et funds, ta x-exempt funds, and common stock . They ha ve in sura nce to cover lo ss of in co me due to medical causes. Residents exe rci se r egu larly and take a multitud e of vitamins. Leisure activities include refinishing furniture, play- ing go lf and attend ing go lf tournam e nts, going power boating, attending sports events (co ll ege ba sketball, co l- le ge fo otba ll, socce r, and ice hockey ga mes), and going to the horse r aces. Shoppi ng habits include o rderin g from catalogs by phone and usi ng coupons . The clothing sto r e of choice is Eddie Bauer. Hou se ho ld s are like ly to own o r lea se a lu xury car. Prosperous Empty Ne sters re si dents take an acti ve interest in their homes and co mmuni- ties. Home remodeling, home improve ments, and lawn care are priorities . The ir civ ic participation i ncludes bein g a member of a civic cl ub or charitable organization, engag in g in fund-r aising, writing to a radio st ation o r newspa- per editor, and working as a volunte e r. Residents travel extensive ly, both at home and abroad, and are partial to staying at a Super 8, Holiday Inn, or Comfort Inn . Read ing preferences in clude mystery books, two or mor e da il y newspape r s, and busi ness or finance ma gaz in es. Reside nts enjoy li ste ning to news-ta l k, public, and spo rts radio and watchi ng Home & Ga r den Tel ev ision. Descriptions of the Exurbanites life style type At 66 per ce nt, lab o r force parti cip ation for th e Exu rbanites market is above average . Residents are educated: more than 40 perce nt of the populatio n aged 25 years and o lder ho ld a bac he lor's or gra duate degree, and more than 30 percent have attended co ll ege . Th ey are al so well employe d. Ap proxi m ately hal f of employed persons hold profess i ona l o r management po sitio ns. Th e median net worth is $277,391, more than twice that of th e na - tional m edian. The median house ho ld in come i s $88,195. More tha n 20 perce nt of hou se ho ld s draw r etiremen t income, and 57 percent of hou se ho lds re ce ive add itional income from investments. Although Exurbanites house- holds ar e growing by alm ost 2 pe r ce nt annually, these are not the newest neighborhoods. Recen t construction compri ses on ly 22 percent of the ho usin g stock . However, 70 percent of the ho usin g units were built afte r 1969. Most homes are si ngle-fa mily st ru ct ures. The median home value is $302,435, more than o ne and one-ha lf times th at of the national median . Exurban li ving is not supported by public transpo rtation . Ne arly 80 perce nt of hou se holds own at least two vehicle s. The average travel tim e to work fo r this market is com par ab le to the U.S . average . Because of their l if estage, Exurbanites res idents focus on financial sec ur ity. Th ey co nsul t with financial plann er s; have IRA acco unts; own shares in money market fun ds, mutual fu nd s, and ta x-exemp t fu nd s; own com- mon sto ck; and track their investmen t s onlin e. Betwee n long-t erm ca re in sura nce and substantial life in surance policie s, they are w ell in sured . Many have hom e equity line s of c redit. Exurbanites res id ents work o n their home s, lawns, and ga rd ens. To e nhan ce their properties, th ey purchase ga rd e n and lawn care products, shrubs, and plants. Many home improvement tasks, such as interior or exteri or pa intin g, are accomplis hed by a house - hold me mb er, although co ntractors are hi r ed for some work . The y own all ki nd s of too ls, such as sa w s, san ders, and wallpaper strippers, to help them comp lete their projects. Leisure activities includ e bo ati ng, hiki ng, kayaking, playing Fri sbe e, p hotog r ap hy, and bird-wat chin g. Exurbanites r es id ents trave l, typically w it hin the United State s, and enjoy hiking, playin g go lf, and vis iting national parks on vaca tion. Th ey li ste n to public radio and donate to PBS . Parti cipation in civ ic activities includes address ing public meetings and doin g vo lu nteer wo r k. Many are members of fraternal o rd ers and c hari tab le orga ni zatio ns. ©BUSIN ESS INFORMATION S ERVI CES , LLC Page 283 ALL RIGHTS R ESERV ED Jefferson City School District Figure 337. Descriptions of Young and Restless and Inner City Tenants lifestyle types. Descriptions of t he Youn g and Restless lifesty le t ype The median household income is $43,645, and the median net worth is $46,514 . Although the median household income is below the U.S. median, because on ly 23 percent of these households include children, discretionary income is higher than for segments with similar income levels . Young and Restless is an educated market; one- third of res idents aged 25 years and older hold a bachelor's or graduate degree and another one-third have attended college. Thirteen percent are enrolled in co ll ege or graduate school. Career is a common element shared by these ethnically diverse residents. Both men and women participate in the labor force at much higher rates than the U.S. rates . The 75 percent labor force participation rate is the highest among all the Community Tapestry segments; the female labor force participation of 73 percent is also the highest. Most employed resi- dents work in professional, sales, service, and office/administrative support positions. Young and Restless neigh- borhoods are found in metropolitan areas, almost entirely in the South (56 percent), West (23 percent), and Mid- west (19 percent). The state with the highest concentration is Te xas . Householders are primarily renters who l ive in multiunit buildings. Because 85 percent of the households rent, this segment is ranked fifth for the highest percentage of renters among all the Community Tapestry segments. Most of the housing units were built in the 1970s and 1980s. This market is mobile; 85 percent of the householders have moved in the last five years. Career pursuit affects their decision of where to l ive . These young, sing le professionals are pursuing the ir careers and living a busy lifestyle. They are technologically savvy and take advantage of the convenience provided by many products and services. Young and Restless residents rely on the Internet to communicate with friends and fami- lies, shop, bank, and look for new employment opportunities. They enj oy the convenience of cell phones, voice mail, and other phone services. They read magazines to stay current on the latest l ifestyle and entertainment trends and are just as likely to read a music magazine as a business publication . They do not read the newspaper as much as the general population. Television viewing is average . Radio is a good way to reach them; favorite formats are urban and alternative music as well as public radio . Seeing movies at theaters and on DVD is a major source of enterta inm ent. They also enjoy going to bars or nightclubs. Their busy schedule also includes working out at the gym and playing various sports. Domestic vehicles have a slight edge in this market. These residents are one of the more politically liberal segments . Some are still paying off school loans . Many have not yet begun sav ing for retirement or contributing to investments. De scriptions of th e Inn er City Tenan t s li festyle type The median household income for this segment is $32,497; the median net worth is $23 ,508 . Because few own their homes, most of thei r net worth comes from savings. Eighty three percent of households derive income from wages and salaries; 7 percent receive public assistance income. Thirty percent of the residents aged 25 years and older have attended college. Earning a co ll ege degree is at the forefront of their goals, so many work part-and full-time to fund their college education . Approximately half of the employed residents work in wh ite - collar occupations . This market has twice the national level of residents who work in the accommodation/food services industry. Th ese neighborhoods are located primarily in the South and West. Most Inner City Tenants res- idents rent economical apartments in mid-or high-rise buildings. One-fifth of the housing is owner-occupied, and the median home value is $132,310. Most of the housing units were built in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. For their average commute to work of 24.6 minutes, many residents drive their vehicle or depend on other modes of transportation . Seventeen percent of the households do not own a vehicle. With their busy lifestyle, Inner City Tenants re sidents frequently eat at fa st-food restaurants and shop for groceries at nearby stores such as Path- mark and Food Lion . They prefer easy-to-prepare frozen and canned foods. Internet access at home is not typical in this market, but those who have no access at home will surf the Internet at school or at the library. Playing games and visiting chat rooms are typical online activities. Resid ents refer to the Ye ll ow Pages frequently to look up all kinds of information. Recent household purchases by this market include video game systems as well as baby food , baby products, baby furniture, and baby equipment. M any hou seho ld s carry renter's insurance . Resi- dents prefer to shop at discount stores such as Wai-Mart and T.J. Maxx. Inner City Tenants residents go to the movies and attend professional football and basketball games . They water-ski and play football, basketball, and soccer. Th ey read music, baby, computer, and sports magazines; enjoy religious books and adventure stories; and listen to professional football and urban radio . Some enjoy the nightlife, vi siting bars and nightclubs to go dancing . © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES , LLC Page 284 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 338. Descriptions of Rustbelt Retirees and Salt of the Earth lifestyle types. Descriptions of the Rustbelt Retirees lifestyle type Approximately 60 percent of employed residents work in professional, management, sales, or office/ administrative support positions. Although man y are still working, labor force participation is low. Most house - holds derive income from wages . Howeve r, 45 percent of households derive income from interest , dividen ds, and rental properties; 40 percent draw Social Security benefits; and 28 percent rece ive retirement income. The median household income is $50,977, just below that of the U.S. median. The median net worth is $131,002, slightly above the U.S. va lue. Overall, 83 percent of residents aged 25 years and o l de r ha ve graduated from high school, approximately 28 percent have attended college, and 18 percent ho ld a bachelor's or graduate degree. Most Rustbelt Retirees neighborhoods can be found in older, industrial northeaste rn cities, especial ly in Pennsyl- vania, and other states surrounding the Great lakes; 67 percent of the households are located in the Northeast and Midwest. In addition, 28 percent can be found in the South. Eighty-fo ur percent of these households are sin- gle-family homes with a median value of $134,314. Three-fourths of the housing units were built before 1970. Unlike many retirees, those in the Rustbelt Retirees segment are not inclined to move. The hardworking Rustbelt Retirees residents are settled; they ha ve li ved in the same house for years. loyal to their country and communi- ties, they participate in vo lu nteer and fund-rais ing work, v isit elected officials, and work for political parties or candidates. Some are members of veterans' clubs. Rustbelt Retirees residents are practical individuals who take pride in their homes and gardens. They continue to update their homes with new furn ish i ngs and work on re- modeling projects. They watch their pennies, loo king for bargains at discount stores and ware house clubs, and use coupons frequently. These residents own shares in tax-exempt funds and have substantia l life insuran ce pol i- cies. They dine out at family restaurants, such as Per ki ns and Friendly 's, and would r ather ren t a movie on DVD than go out to the theater. leisure activities include playing bingo, gambling in Atlanti c City, going to horse races , working crosswords, and playing golf. Rustbelt Retirees residents en j oy a va r i ety of p rogr ams on TV, especially home shows, sports events, news programs, game shows, and old TV sho ws. Favorite cable channels include QVC, Home & Garden Television, TV land, and the Weather Channel. Residents listen to classic rock, o ld ies, and golf tournaments on the radio. Th ey read the d aily newspaper thoroughly. Descriptions of the Salt of the Earth lifestyle type Employed Salt of the Earth residents work in a variety of occupations including management and professional positions and unskilled labor jobs. Higher-th an-ave rage proportions work in sk il led labor occupations. Approxi- mately one-fifth work in the manufacturing industry. The 66 percent labor force participation is high, and unem- ployment is low at 5 percent. The median hou se hold inco me is $50,538, close to the U.S. median. Besides wages, household income is supplemented by inte re st income, dividends, re ntal income, self-employment income, re- tirement income, and Social Security benefits, all above national proportions. The median net wo rth for this mar- ket is $108,631. One-fourth of Salt of the Earth r es idents aged 25 years and o ld er ha ve attended co l lege; 13 per- cen t hold a bachelor's o r graduate degree . Salt of the Earth neighborhoods are located in ru ral areas throughout the United States. Nearly half of the household s are in the Midwest; the other half are found almost entirely in the South and Northeast. States with the highest concentrations of these households are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indi ana, and Michigan. Homeownership is at 86 percent, and the median home va l ue is $139,060. The majorit y of households are single-family units (83 percent); 12 percent are mobile homes. Twenty-two percent of the housing units were built before 1940. Salt of the Earth residents are rooted in thei r settled, traditional , and hard- working lifestyles. Independent and self-reliant, they take on small home improvement and remodeling projects themselves. They also spend a lot of time and money on their vegetable and flower gardens, owning the neces- sary tools and equipment to make them a suc cess. Twenty eight percent of the households own three or more vehicles, making Salt of the Earth one of the top segme nts with this distinction. These rural ho useho lds typically own or lease many vehicles including a truck. Many own a motorcycle. Overall, they prefer domestic vehicles to imports and handle the maintenance themselves . Most r es idents carry insurance p olicies to protect themselves and their families and invest in annuities, certificates of deposit, and U.S. savings bonds. Families often ha ve t wo or more pets, either dogs or cats . They enjoy fishing, hunting, target shooting, attending country music concerts and auto races, and flying kites. They read fish ing and hunting magazines also . Their radio dia ls are often tuned to country music stations, but they also like to follo w auto racing . Many households have a satellite dish . Fa vorite stations include CMT, Outdoor Life Network, and the Speed Channel. In addition to watching ho r se racing, auto racing, and truck and tractor pulls/mud r acing on TV, a favorite week ly show is According to Jim. Families tra vel to vacation destinations by car; for overnight st ays, they prefer a Super 8 motel. © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 285 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Figure 339. Descriptions of Crossroads and Retirement Communities lifestyle type. Descriptions of the Crossroads lifestyle type The median household income for this market is $41,213, somewhat below the U.S. median; the median net worth is $47,37 1, le ss than half the U.S. va lue. Educational attainment lev els are lower than U.S. leve ls; on ly 36 percent of residents aged 25 years and older hold a bachelor's or gr ad uate deg r ee or have attended college. Most of the employed r eside nts wo r k in the manufacturing, construction, r etai l trade, and service industry sec- tors. Lab or force participation is comparable to the U.S . level, but unemployment is slightly higher. Crossroads communities are growing neighborhoods that are frequently found in small towns throughout the South , Mid- west, and West. The se small towns provide affordable housing for young families, providing them an opportunity to own their homes. Homeownership is 77 percent; the median home va lue is $74,804, much lower than the U.S. median . More than half of Crossroads households are mobile homes; 36 percent are single-family dwellings. Most of the housing was built after 1969. Mindful of their expenses, Crossroads households budget for what they buy and choose selectively where to spend their money. They shop at discount department stores such as Wai - Mart and Kmart. Many shop for groceries at Wai-Mart Supercenters. The ir priorities are their families and their cars. Children are the focus of thei r li ves, and they buy children's products in addition to gr oceries. They prefer domestic cars or trucks, commonly buy used vehicles, and handle the maintenance themselve s. Investing and saving for retirement are a low priority; many h ouseholds do not own mutual funds, stocks, or retirement sav- ings accounts. Home improvement projects also rank low. Crossroads residents enjoy watching television, espe- cially cartoon channels for the kids and fishing or NASCAR racing for the adults. Typically, they own a satellite dish or subscribe to cab le . They also like to listen to the radio, preferring country and contemporary hit music to other formats. They read the newspaper less f requently than average U.S . households; however, they read mag- azines, especially automotive, boating, motorcycle, and fishing publications. They like to fish and go to the mov- ies. Most households have pets such as cats and dogs. Birds are especially popular. Descriptions of the Retirement Communities lifestyle type The median household income for Retirement Communities is $48,045, slightly be low the U.S. median, but the median net wort h of $170,490 is much higher than the U.S . value. Nearly half of the households earn income from interest, dividends, and rental properties; 45 percent receive Social Security benefits; and 26 percent re- ceive retirement income. Most of those still work in g are employed in white-collar occupations. Retirement Com- munities residents are an educated group: 13 percent of the residents aged 25 years and older hold a graduate degree, 19 percent have a bachelor's degree, and 26 percent have attended college. Retirement Communities neighborhoods are found mostly in cities scattered across the United Sta tes. Most housing was built after 1959. Congregate housing that commonly includes meals and other services in the rent is a feature of these neighbor- hoods. Most househo ld s are multiunit dwellings (57 percent); howeve r, the housing inventory also includes sin- gle-family structures (34 percent) and townhomes (8 percent). Homeownership stands at 58 percent; the median home value is $233,245. Retirement Communities residents spend their leisure time working crosswords, p laying bingo, canoeing, going horseback riding, gambling in Atlantic City, traveling overseas, attending adu lt education courses, and gardening indoors. They enjoy going to the movies; attending ice hockey, basketball, and football games; and going to auto races. Residents listen to jazz and public radio . Th ey li ke to spend time w ith their grandchildren and spoi l them with toys. Home remodeling or improvement projects are usually in the works. These residents belong to civic clubs, have insured money market accounts, and own shares in mutual funds (bonds) and tax-exempt funds. They prefer to own or lease a domestic vehicle . Retirement Communities resi- dents watch syndicated television programs such as Home Improvement, People's Court, Live with Reg is & Ke l ly, The Oprah Winfrey Show, and Jeo pardy! They also like to watch news programs such as Inside Edition and NBC's Meet the Press as we ll as horse racing and bicycle racing. Favorite cab le channels are Bravo , Discovery Health Channel, BBC America, and CNBC. Retirement Communities residents like to drink Maxwell House decaffe i nated ground coffee and champagne. They eat at family restaurants and steak house s including Ponderosa, Big Boy, and Bakers Square. For fast food , they prefer Checkers. Their favorite department store is T .J. Maxx. Good health is a priority, so they visit their doctors regularly, use Weig ht Watchers as their diet method, exercise regu larly, pur- chase low-sodium and low-cholestero l food, and take vitamins and dietary supplements. ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 286 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 340 . Descriptions of Social Security Set and Old and Newcomers lifestyle types. Descriptions of the Social Security Set lifesty le type Social Security Set individuals subs ist on ve ry low fixed incomes . Reside nts have accumulated some wealth over their lifetime that they tap into for support now that they are retired . The median household income for this market is $16,632; the median net worth is $35,073. Unemployment is high among the younger residents who are still part of the labor force. Approximately 8 percent of households rely on public assistance; 16 percent re - ceive Supplemental Security Income . The serv ice industry provides more than half of the jobs held by these em- ployed residents. Overall, 62 percent of re sidents aged 25 years and older ha ve graduated from high school. Only one-fifth have some college education; 13 percent hold a bachelor's or graduate degre e. Located in large cities scattered across the United States, these communities are dispersed among business districts and around city parks. Most Social Security Set residents rent apartments in lo w-rent, high-ri se buildings; a few elderly residents opt to live in congregate housing . Approximately 85 percent of the households are renters. The average gross rent is approximately $404 per month. Owner-occupied households in the se neighborhoods have a median value of $141,444 . Because more than half of these households do not own a vehicle, many residents rely on easily accessible public transportation . Limited resources somewhat restrict the activities and purcha ses of re si dents in the Social Security Set markets. They shop at discount stores but pre fer grocery sto res close to home. This mar- ket ranks high for dependence on Medicare or Medicaid to cover health care costs. They bank in person and pay cash when they shop . Most homes subscribe to cable television; residents watch both daytime and primetime TV. They particularly enjoy watching game shows, sports, and entertainment news shows. Their taste in sports entertainment is diverse including football , basketball, boxing, wrestling, figure skating, and golf. Description s of the Old and Newcomers type Labor force participation is above average at 66 percent, but the unemployment rate mirrors the U.S. rate. Th e median household income of $42,971 and the median net worth of $74,682 are below the U.S. medians . Educa - tional attainment is above average as is college and graduate sc hool enrollment. The distribution of employed residents by occupation is similar to the U.S. distribution, with slightly higher proportions of workers in food preparation and office/administrative support positions. Spread throughout metropolitan areas of the United States, Old and Newcomers neighborhoods sustain a lot of transition. More than half the population aged five years and older has moved in the last five years. More than 60 percent of these householders rent. Approximate- ly half of the households are mid-rise or high-rise buildings; nearly 14 percent are two-to four-unit buildings. Average gross rent is approximate ly $649 per month, very close to the U.S. average. Six in 10 housing units were built from 1960 to 1989. The median home value in these neighborhoods is $188,795. Purchases of Old and Newcomers residents reflect their unencumbered renters' and singles' lifestyle. Compact cars fit the needs of these nonfamily households. Although they prefer domestic cars, the gap is not pronounced . Typically, residents have substantial life insurance policies and renter's insurance as well as medical in su rance , which includes long - term and disability care. Old and Newcomers residents like reading fiction and nonfiction, ne ws papers, and mag- azines. Old and Newcomers resid ents have the highest readership among the markets with median household income below the U.S. level. They enjoy watching television and listening to the radio , especially contemporary hit radio. They like going to the mov ies and rentin g DVD s. Leisure ac tivities are also as varied as the ages of Old and Newcomers residents. They play sports such as racquetball and golf in addition to jogging or walking. They fly kites, go to the zoo, and enjoy cooking. Age is not always obvious from their activity choices. © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVI CES, LLC Page 287 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Figure 341 . Descriptions of Rustbelt Traditions and City Commons lifestyle type. Descriptions o f the Rustbelt Tr ad itions lifestyle type The median household income is $49,579, slightly below that of the U.S . median. Half of the employed residents work in white-collar jobs. For years, these residents sustained the manufacturing industry that drove local econo- mies. Now, the service industry predominates, followed by manufacturing and retail trade. The median net worth for this segment is $90,754. Overall, 80 percent of residents aged 25 years and older have graduated from high school, 12 percent hold a bachelor's or graduate degree, and 29 percent have attended college . Rustbelt Traditions neighborhoods are the backbone of older industrial cities in states that border the Great Lakes . Most residents live in modest, single-family homes. Homeownership is at 76 percent . The median home value of $107,222 is approximately three-fifths of the U.S. median. The relatively lower median home value is partially due to the age of the homes in these communities; nearly two-thirds of the housing units were built prior to 1960. Residents of Rustbelt Traditions are aptly named: They have lived, worked, spent, and played in the same area for years. They do not follow fads; they stick with the products and services they know. They prefer domes- tic car manufacturers . Some of their purchases reflect their attention to the maintenance of their homes and yards . For specia lized projects, they will contract for roofing, floorin g, and carpet installations. Financially con- servative, Rustbelt Traditions resident s prefer to use a credit un ion and invest in certificates of deposit. They are likely to have a personal loa n that is not a student or vacation loan, and hold low-va lu e varia ble life and home- owner's insurance policies. Residents watch their pennies, u si ng coupons regularly, especially at Sam 's Club . They prefer to see a doctor for diet control and own a stationary bike for exerc ise. Favorite leisure activities in - clude bowling; fishing; hunting; and attending auto races , country music shows, and ice hockey games. Watching television is a common pastime for Rustbelt Tradition s residents. They subscribe to cable TV and watch it regular- ly, but their favorite programs are sports events . Descriptions of the City Commons lifestyle type Appro ximately 31 percent of the employed residents work in service occupations (twice the national level). Near- ly 19 percent ofthe households receive public assistance; 13 percent receive Supplemental Security Income . Overall, 57 percent of residents aged 25 years and older have graduated from high school. Six percent hold a bachelo r's or graduate degree; 19 percent have attended college. Because their employment options are limited, more re sidents work in part-time than in full-time positions. Unemployment is at 27 percent, almost four times the national level, giving this market the highest unemployment rate among all Community Tapestry segments. The median household income is $16,565, and th e median net worth is $13,079. City Commons neighborhoods are found in large metropolitan areas, mainly in the South and Midwest. Appro x imately 77 percent of the house- holds rent. Although the average gross monthly rent of $365 i s very econom ical, vacancy rates are high at 18 per- cent. Approximately 63 percent of households rent apartments in multiunit buildings primarily with fewer than 20 units. One-fourth of the housing is single-family dwellings . The median home value for this market is $78,982. Typical of a young renters' market, these residents are movers; nearly 50 percent have moved within the last five years . Baby and children's products, food, and clothing are the primary purchases made by City Commons resi- dents. They shop primarily at discount sto res and occasionally at department stores . Most families will enjoy fast food several times a month as a break from preparing mea ls at home or go out to a family restaurant. For exer- cise, they take their children to nearby city parks and playgrounds . Once in a while, they treat themselves to tick- ets to a sporting event, parti cularly a baseball game. An annual outing to a theme park is common . Many young residents participate in community basketball. Residents tune in to prime-time TV, and many watch daytime TV courtroom programs such as Judge Judy, Judge Mathis, and Divorce Court. Most households do not rent movies from video stores . Some go to movie theaters occasionally; they also enjoy watching movies on television . Favor- ite radio formats are gospel , urban, and jazz. © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 288 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ~ 'Z .· ~ PAGE PURPOSELY LEFT BLANK © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 289 Demographics Study ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je.:fferson City School District Figure 342 . Total levy and debt service expenditures for surrounding school districts, 2005-2009. Figure 342 shows that all, but two districts, have a higher total levy than Jef- ferson City School Dis- trict. School District Levy Adjusted-2009-1 0 Debt Service Debt Service Total All Total Expenditures Expenditures 2005 > 2009 Funds Levy 2004-2005 2008-09 2006-07 Figure 343. Total expenditures at school districts near the Jefferson City School District, 2004-2009. School District Total Expenditures (w/o Debt Service) 2004 Total Expenditures 2004 Total Expenditures 2006 © BU SINESS INFORMATION SERVICES , LLC Page 290 Total Expenditure s 2008 Total Expe nditures (w/o Debt Service) 2008-09 % Expenditure Growth 2004- 2009 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 344. Total assessed valuation for Jefferson City and surrounding school districts. School District Total Assessed Total Assessed Valuation 2005 Valuation 2006 %Valuation Total Assessed Valuation 2009 Growth 2004 -2009 Figure 344, left, shows the total assessed valua- tion at Jefferson City has been among the slow- est growing of any area district. Jef- ferson City has a high percentage of its funding from local sources, so the district is more dependent on local assess- ment than most other districts. Figure 345. Percentage of funding at surrounding school districts, 2004 -2009. School District % Funding % Funding %Funding %Funding %Funding from Local from State from Federal from Local from State 2005 2005 2005 2009 2009 © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC P age 2 91 % Funding from Federal 2009 o t Ch · ot Cha . %Change to ange m t o nge m . F di F d . F d. m un ng un 1ng un 1ng f rom from Local from State Federal 2004-2009 2004-2009 2004-2009 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Figure 346 . Percent population age 17 and under, and average household size at nearby school districts. 1 990 Estima t ed 2009 Pe r cent 2000 Pe r cent 2009 % % 1990 2 000 % Estimated Po pula t ion Population 1 7 P erce nt Chan ge Cha n ge Ave r a g e Average Change %Change Aver age Sc h ool Di s trict 17 yea r s years o l d o r Population 1990 -2 000 -Ho u s eho ld Househ old 1990-2 000-2009 Househ o ld old or younger 17 years o l d 2000 2009 Size S ize 2 000 Size y o unger or younger J efferson City has a lower percent population under 17 years old than on l y four other districts, and its av- erage household size since 20 00 has decreased more than 10 other districts. Fi gure 347. College graduates at school districts near the Jefferson Ci ty School District. School Dis trict 1990 P e r cent Colle ge Gf"a dua t e or Profess iona l Degre e 2 000 Colle g e Gf"a dua t e o r Pro f ess ional Degree ©BUS IN ESS I N F ORMATIO N SERVI CES, LLC Page 2 92 Est. 2009 Colle g e %Cha nge Gf"a dua t e or %Change 2 000- Professional 1990-2 000 2 009 Degree A LL R IGH TS R ESERV E D Demographics Study Figure 348. Single-family housing units, five or more units and mobile homes comparison of school dis- tricts nearby the Jefferson City School District. 1990 2000 % % 1990 2000 % Est. 2009 Median Median Change Est. 2009 Change Number Number Change Number School District Median Single Home Home 1990-Home Value 2000-Single Family 1990-Single Fami Value Value 2000 2009 Family Units Units 2000 Units Jefferson City School District has average median home values and average household incomes compara- ble to surrounding school districts. I Figure 349 . Average household income. School District 1990 Housing Units with 5+ Units 2000 Housing Units with 5+ Units % Change 1990- 2000 1990 Mobile Homes 2000 Mobile Homes % Change 1990- 2000 ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 293 1990 2000 Average Average Household Household Income Income % Change 1990- 2000 Esl2009 Average Household Income % Change 2000- 2009 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je.fferson City School District Figure 350 . Po pulation by race and ethnicity. 2 009 20 14 % 2 000 2 009 Est. 2 014 % 2000 2009 201 4 2000 Cen s u s Cen s u s Est.% Est.% %Chang e Cen s u s Est.% Est.% Ch a n ge % Est.% Ch ange % Sch ool Dis trict %White White White 2 0 00-%Black B lack Black 200 0-Hispan ic Hispan ic 2000 - P o p P o p P op 20 0 9 P op P op P op 2009 Hisp a nic P op Pop 2 0 0 9 Po p Asian popu lation in t h e Jefferso n City district is esti mated to hav e increased by 66 p ercent, Hispanic pop- ul ation increased by 39 perce nt a nd Black p o p ul ati o n i ncreased by 13 .3 percent since 2000 . Appro ximately 82 percent of student popu latio n is Wh i te . Figure 351. Population by race and ethnicity. 2 009 2 014 0/o 2000 2 009 Est. 2014 Est . 0/o 2000 C ensu s 0/o School Dis trict C e n sus 0/o Est.% Est .% Cha n ge N a tive %N a tive 0/o N a tive Change A s ian Pop A s ian A sia n 2000-Ame rica n Ame ric a n Ame ric an 2000- Pop Pop 2 009 Pop Pop Pop 2 009 ©BUS INE SS I N F ORMATION S ERV ICES, LLC Page 294 A L L RIGHT S R ESERV E D Figure 352. Enrollment by race and ethnicity. School District 2009 °/o White 2009 °/o Bla ck Enrollment Enrollment 2009 °/o Hispanic Enrollme nt Demographics Study Native 2009 °/o 2009 °/o Asian Enrollment American Enrollment Only three school districts have lower special education expenditures than Jefferson City School District. The interesting part of this statistic is that other districts spend less but have more students enrolled in special education programs including Blue Springs and Ferguson-Florissant. Figure 353. Special education expenditures. Total Special Total Special Total Special 2000-01 2007-08 %Change %Change Education Education Education %Change Special Special Enrollment Enrollme nt Enrollment School District 2000-2000-2007-Education Ed ucation 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2007 2009 (Inside Regular (Inside Regular (Inside Regular 2009 Expenditures Expenditures Cla ss) Class) Class) ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 295 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je.,tferson City School District Figure 354. Guidance expenses for nearby school districts. Part 111 -A Part 111 -A Fund Fund 2120 Jefferson City has the fifth largest increase in guid- ance expenses of any area district, in terms of cost per student. 2120 T otal Per Total School District Guidance Student Guidance Expenses Expenses Exp enses 2006-07 Figure 355. Health, psych speech, and audio expenses . Only three dis- tricts spend less per student for health, psych, speech and au- dio expenses. School District Part 111-A Fund 2130-2190 Total Health, Psych, Speech, Audio Expenses 2006-07 Per Student Expenses ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 296 2008-09 Part 111-A Fund 2130-2190 Total Health, Psych, Speech, Audio Expens e s 2008-09 Pa rt 111-A Fund 2120 Per T otal Per Student Guidance Student Expenses Expenses Expenses Change 2006· 07 to 2008-09 P:art 111-A Fund 2130-2190 Total Por Studont Health, Psych , Por Expenses Speech, Audio Student Expens es Chango Expe nses 2006-07 to 2008-09 ALL RIGHTS R ESERV ED Figure 356. Expenses for improvement instruction. Part 111-A Fund Part 111-A Fund 2210 Total Per lm provement in Student Instruction Expenses Expens e s 2008-09 2210 Total School District Per lm provement Student in Instruction Ex enses Exp e nses 2006-p 07 I Figure 357. Expenses for Board services. Part 111-A Pa rt 111-A Fund 2310 Fund 2310 School District Total Board Per Student Total Board Per Student Services Expens es Service s Expe n s es Expenses Expenses 2006-07 2008-09 ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 297 Demographics Study Part 111-A Fund 2210 Total Improvement in Instruction Expenses Change 2006- 07 to 2008-09 Part 111-A Fund 2310 Pe r Student Expenses Jefferson City School District expenses for total improve- ment instruction have remained relatively level with a 4 percent increase since 2006. Total Board S e rvices Per Student Board expenses have decreased 37 percent since 2006. Expenses Expenses Change 2006· 07 to 2008-09 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Figure 358 . Total executive administr ation expenses. Jefferson City School District is the third high- est per student expense for total executive ad- ministration costs with an increase of 25 percent since 2006 . Sc h ool Di s trict Part 11 1-A Fund 2320 T otal Executive Ad m in istration Expe n ses 2006-0 7 Pe r Stude nt Expe nses Figure 359 . Total building level administration expenses. Jefferson City has the third lowest per stu- dent expense for buildi ng level administration costs compared to surrounding districts. School Di stric t Par t 11 1-A Fund 24 00 Total Build i ng Leve l AdmIn is !ration Expe nses 2006-07 Per Studen t Expenses © BUSINESS INFORM ATION SERVICES, LLC Page 2 98 Part 111-A Fund 2320 T o t al Execut ive Administr ation Expenses 2008 -09 Pa rt 111 -A Fund 2400 Total Bu ild ing L evel Adm lnlstr atlon Expenses 2008-09 Pe r Studen t Expenses Pe r Stu dent Expenses Part 111 -A Fund 2320 Total Executive Adm in is !ration Expenses Change 2006-07 to 2008-09 Pa r t 111-A Fund 2400 Tot al Bu ildin g L evel Adm lnlst ratlon Expe n ses Change 2006-07 to 2008-09 Pe r Student Expenses Pe r Student Expenses ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Figure 360 . Total operation plant expenses. Part 111 -A Fund Part 111 -A Fund 2540 Total 2540 Total Op e ration of Per Stude nt Ope r ation of Pl ant Exp e n s e s Pl an t School District Exp e ns e s Exp e n ses 2006-07 2008-09 Figure 361. Total securi ty services expenses. Pa rt 111-A Fund P a r t 111 -A Fu n d 2546 Tota l 2546 T otal School Dis t r ict Security P e r Student Securi t y Ser v ice s Expe n ses Se r v ice s Exp e n s e s Exp e n s e s 2006-07 2008-09 Pe r Stude nt Exp e n ses Per Stude nt Expens es Demographics Study Par t 111-A Fund 2540 Total Ope rat ion of Plan t Ex pe n ses C h an ge 2006 - 07 t o 200 8-09 Pa rt 111 -A F u nd 2 546 T o t a l Securit y Service s Expe n s es C h a n ge 2006- 07 to 2 008-09 Pe r Stud e n t Exp e n ses P e r S tuden t Exp e n s e s J efferson City has the lowest operat ion of plant expenses per student since 2006 . Jefferson City and Joplin are the only two dis- tricts that do not incur any per student expens- es for total secu- rity services. -. ·--. ·--' - , ,. : 1 • ( ~ /-,. : w ~ I ,• , ' '• ·,., • ~, •, • ";_ .:. •, ;; , :, ' © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 299 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District Fi gure 362 . Overall distri ct-owned and contracted expenses for student transportation. Only four dis- tricts pay more than Jefferson City for per stu- dent expenses of pupil trans- portation costs. School District Pa rt 111-A Fund 2551 and 2552 T o t a l Pupil Transportation , 2006-07 Pa rt 111-A Fund Pe r Stude nt 2551 and 2552 Expen ses Total Pupil Transpo rtation 2008-09 © BUS INES S INFORMATION S ERVIC ES , LLC Page 3 00 Part 111-A Fu n d 2 5 51 and 2552 Per Stude nt Total Pupil Per Student Expe n s es Transpor t a t ion , Expens e s Cha nge 2006-07 to 2008-09 ALL R IGH T S RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 363 . Total food servi ces expenses. School District Part Ill-A Fund 2 561 Tot al Fo o d Services Expen se s 2006-07 Pe r Student Ex pe ns es Part ill-A Fu nd 256 1 Tot al Food Ser vices Expe ns e s 2008-09 Figure 364. Expenses for elementary instruct ion. Pa rt 111-BFund 1110, Pa rt 111-BFund 1110, Part 111 -A Fu nd 2561 Per Stud e nt :ot al Foo d Per St udent Exp e nses Se r vrce s Expen ses Expen ses Change 2006-07 t o 2008-09 Pa rt 111 -BFund 11 1 0 , School Distric t Ins truction Pe r Stude nt Ins truction Pe r Student Ins truction Ex pe n ses , B e m e ntary Per Stude nt Expe n ses Expe n ses , Expenses Expenses, Expe n ses B e m e ntary 2006-07 B e m e ntary 2008 -09 Ch ange 2006-07 to 2008-09 Jefferson City's per student food expense has increased the most than any other surround- ing district. Elementary in- struction ex- penses per stu- dent has in- creased the most for Jeffer- son City than any other dis- trict, however, Jefferson City still has one of the two lowest total expenses. ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Pag e 3 01 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je.,fferson City School District Figure 365 . Expenses for middle school and junior high instruction. Middle school instruction ex- penses for Jef- ferson City are about average, compared with other nearby districts. School District Part 111-B Fund 1130, Instruction Expenses , Middle/Jr. High 2006-07 Figure 366. Expenses for high school instruction. Per student ex- penses for sen- ior high instruc- tion by Jeffer- son City re- mains in the bot- tom half of all districts. School District Part 111-B Fund 1160, Instruction Expenses, Sr. High 2006-07 Per Student Expenses Per Student Expenses ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 302 Part 111-B Fund 1130, Instruction Expenses , M iddle / Jr. High 2008-09 Part 111-BFund 1130, Instruction Per Student Expenses , Expenses Middle/Jr. High Change 2006-07 to 2008-09 Part 111-B Fund 1160, Pe r Student Expenses Part 111-B Fund 1160, Instru ction Per Student Instruction Per Student Expenses , Sr. Hi gh Expenses Expenses, Sr. High Expenses 2008 _09 Chango 2006-07 to 2008-09 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 367. Expenses for special education instruction. Pa rt 111-B Fund 1220, Part 111-B Fund 1220, Part 111 -B Fund 1220, Instruction School District In struction Per Student Instruction Per Student Exp enses , Special Expens es, Sp ecial Expe nses Exp enses , Special Exp ens es Fnucation 2006-07 rnucation 2008-09 Fnu cation Change 2006-07 to 2008-09 Figure 368. Student activities, instruction expenses. School District Part 111-B Fund 1400, Part 111-B Fund 1400, Part 111-B Fund 1400, Instruction Instruction Per Student In stru ction Per Student Expenses , Student Expenses, Student Expenses Expenses, Student Expenses Activitie s Change Activities 2006-07 Activities 2008-09 2006_07 to 2008•09 Page 303 Per Stud e nt Expenses Per Student Expenses Special educa- tion instruction expenses at Jef- ferson City have barely de- creased since 2006 and they have one of low- est per student expense com- pared to other d i stricts. Student activi- ties, instruction expenses for Jefferson City has increased slightly since 2006 and com- pared to area districts they have one of the lowest per stu- dent expense. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Je.:fferson City School District Figure 369 . Expenses for certificated salaries. Since 2006 , in- struction ex- penses for cer- tificated salaries have increased 2.77 % at Jeffer- son City whi ch places it among the top four area districts. School District Part 111-B Fu nd 9999, In str uction Exp e n ses , Total Ce rtificat ed Sal aries 2006-07 Figure 370. Non-instruction support expenses. Per Stude nt Exp e n ses Part 111 -B Fu n d 9999, Ins truction Exp e n ses, Tota l Ce rtificat ed Sala r ies, A ll Fu nd s 20 08-0 9 Pe r Stud e nt Expen s e s Pa rt 111 ·8 Fund 9 999, Instru ct ion Ex pense s , To tal Ce rtificate d Salaries , All Fu nds Change 2006-07 to 20 08-09 Pe r St ud e nt Exp enses Non-instructi on support expens- es for Jefferson City have almost increased by 86% since 2006. There is a wide range of costs per student for the area dis- trict s , spanning from $721 per student to al- most $7 ,000. Part 111·8 Fund 9998, Part 111·8 Fund 9998, Part 111·8 Fund 9 998, Tot al Non - School District Total Non- In s truction Support Ex penses 2006 -07 Pe r Stud e nt Expe n ses © BUSINESS INFORMAT ION SERVICES , LLC Page 304 Total Non- In struct ion Su p port Exp e n ses 2008 -09 Per St udent In s t r u ction Exp e nses Support Exp e n ses Change 2006-07 to 2008-09 Per Stud e nt Expenses ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 371 . Expenses for total salaries . School District Par t 111-C Fund 6100, Tot al Salaries Exp enses 2006-07 Part 111 -C Fu nd Per Stud ent Part III-C Fund Per Student 6100, Tot al Sala r i es Expe n ses 6100 , Tota l Salan es Ex pe nses Ex pe nses Change Ex pe nses 2008-09 2006-07 to 2008-09 Per Stude nt Expenses I Figure 372. Total employee benefit expenses. Part 111-C Fund Pa rt 11 1-C Fund Part 111-C Fund 6 299, Tota l Pe r Stude nt Employ e e Benefit Expense s Expe n ses 20 06-07 6299, Total 6299, T o t a l Per St u d ent Emplo yee Ben e f it Per Stu dent Em I Be f .t Expenses Expen ses P oyee n o 1 Expe n se s C h ang e Expe n ses 2008 -09 2006-07 t o 2008-09 Sc hool District Of 1 6 area dis- tricts, Jefferson City ranks elev- enth in total sal- ary expenses per student. Employee bene- fits are fairly uniform among the area dis- tricts, with Jef- ferson City hav- ing the second largest per stu- dent increase since 2006. ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 305 ALL R I GHTS RESERVED ~rson City School District Figure 373. Total capital outlay expenses . Jefferson City school district had the largest increase of Total Capital Outlay Expense since 2006 both in to- tal dollar and per student ex- pense. Sc hool District Part 111 -C Fund 6599, Total Capital Outlay Expenses 2006-07 Per Student Expenses Part 111-C Fund 6599, Total Capi tal Outlay Expenses 2008-09 Figure 374 . General bond expenses with beginning of year balances. Bond expenses at Jefferson City have increased just over 250% since 2006. School District Part IV L o n g and Short Term Debt General Obligation Bon ds Boginning o f tho 20 06-07 Year 8001 Per St ud ent Expenses © BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 306 P;~rt IV Long an d Short Term Debt Ge n eral Obligation Bond s Boginning of the 2008-09 Yea r 8001 Part 111-C Fund 6599, Total Capital Per Stude nt Per St udent Outlay Expenses Expenses Expenses Change 2006-07 to 2008 -09 Part IV L ong and Short Term Debt Pe r Student General Obligat i o n Per Stud ent Exp e n ses Bonds Beginning Expenses of the Change 2006- 07 to 2008-09 Year ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Figure 375 . General bond expenses with end of year balances. Part IV Long and Part IV Long and Short Term Debt Short Term Debt School District General Obligation Pe r Student Ge neral Obligation Bonds Balanc e End Expenses Bon ds Balance End of 2006-07 Yea r of 2008·09 Year 8004 8004 I Figure 376 . Total long and short term debt. School District Part IV L ong and Short Term Debt Total All Do bt Balance End of 2006-07 Yoar Pe r Student Expenses Part I V Long and Short T erm Debt Total All Debt Balance End of 2008-09 Yoar Per Student Expenses Pa r t IV Long and Sh ort Te r m Debt Gen e r al Obligati on Bonds Balance End of Ch ange 2006-07 to 2008 -09 Year Part I V Lon g and S hort To rm Debt Per St ude nt Expenses Per Student Total All Debt Por Student Expenses Balance End of Expenses Chango 2006-07 to 2008 -09 Year Jefferson City ranks in the bot- tom third of gen- eral obligation bond expenses compared to other districts. Long and short- term debt per student at Jef- ferson City is in the bottom third of area district's ex penses. ©BUSINESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 307 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Jefferson City School District -- Philosophy and Ethics Statement I am an entrepreneur who strives to serve my firm's clients as best I can. I provide information and analysis to several clients on a contractual basis. I also commit to the following business principles: • Uphold a high professional level of competence, honesty and confidentiality. • Provide my clients the tnost current, accurate and complete infonnation requested , within their titne:frame and budget constraints. • Accept only those projects that require that I use legal and publicly-available techniques to obtain information. • Respect my client's confidentiality. • Maintain a professional relationship with my clients, and comply with all their requirements for information disclosure. • Assume responsibility for all my e1nployees and subcontractors to comply with this statement. • Meet all deadlines and modifications for my clients. • Deliver first-rate value for my clients with the aim of establishing a long-term relationship where both patties receive what they expected. Business Information Services ~ I I C © BUSINESS INFORMAT ION SERVICES, LLC Page 308 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Demographics Study Business Information Services, LLC is a Missouri-registered Limited Liability Corporation, owned by Preston Smith of Blue Springs, Missouri. Smith has an undergraduate journalism degree from the University of Missouri and a Master's in Public Administration from the University of Missouri-Kansas City, with a specialization in statistics and quantitative analysis. Certified GIS analyst Sarah Rose provided the maps. Researcher Deb Liptak provided in-depth research. Data analysts Macy Kay Halliday and Kathleen Atwell collected data for the spreadsheets, charts and tables. Special thanks for FinCo GeoD emographics, LLC principals Dr. Jonathan C. Comer and G. Allen Finchum, who are also geography professors at Oklahoma State University, for their work on the enrollment projections in this study. We appreciate their credibility and in-depth analysis. Smith consults with school districts around the M idwest and has prepared more than 60 demographic analysis studies for school districts. Preston Smith, pvsmith@sbcglobal.net 8 16-224-3 4 98 www .businessinformationservices. biz ©BU S IN ESS INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC Page 309 ALL RI GHTS RESERV ED