HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-19-DemographicChangeTaskForce-FinalReportReport of the Demographic Change Task
Force - Final
March 19, 2010
Executive Summary
Lexington is experiencing a dramatic change in its racial composition and a substantial modification of its
age profile.
In 1990, just over 6% of the Town's residents were of Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Korean or other Asian
origin. By 2000, the percentage of residents of Asian origin had risen to 11 %; at the end of 2009 it may
have reached 20 %. This percentage is substantially higher in Lexington than in any other neighboring
community. According to the 2005 -2007 American Community Survey, conducted by the Census
Bureau, Asian Americans of Chinese origin represented about 10% of Lexington's population; they were
followed by Indians and Koreans, each at about 2.5 %, and Japanese and Vietnamese at 0.5% each. At
present, residents of Asian origin are significantly under - represented in the Town's Departments, Boards
and Committees.
The quantitative impact of this demographic change has been most evident in schools and in subsidized
housing. The schools, with about 5% of students having limited English proficiency, have responded by
expanding English Language Learner programs. With respect to housing, over 50% of the residents of
Vinebrook and Greeley Villages (low income, elderly and handicapped housing) are now of Asian origin;
twenty years ago there were none.
Data on English proficiency from the 2000 Census reveal that about 300 Asian - American residents did
not speak English or spoke it poorly and could present a communication challenge for Town
Departments, particularly in emergencies.
Although Lexington's population has not grown over the past 30 years, its age profile (distribution by
age band) has changed considerably. It now most closely resembles the profiles of suburban
communities with highly -rated school systems, and differs from all immediately neighboring
communities except Lincoln. Currently, it consists of one peak in the 10 -14 year age band; falls to a
minimum in the 25 -29 year band; rises to its maximum in the 50 -54 age band; and then drops off with
higher ages. The profile is consistent with the following interpretation: Older parents move into
Lexington to place their children in its excellent schools, while young adults move elsewhere. Over the
past 10 to 20 years, the initial peak has grown and the maximum of the distribution has shifted out by
10 years. The average age of the population is slowly rising now, but is projected to rise faster at a
faster pace over the next 20 years according to projections from the Metropolitan Area Planning
Council. The aging population, coupled with the trend of more seniors living alone, is placing new and
additional demands on Town services. In particular, minor problems that may have once been handled
1
by family members can evolve into crises by the time they finally come to the attention of the Police,
Fire, Health, and Human Services Departments.
Relative to Massachusetts as a whole, Lexington's median home values and median family income both
rose from the 1990 Census to the 2005 -2007 ACS. In this sense, we are becoming a more exclusive
community.
Our recommendations stress the need to develop a better understanding of in- and out - migration and
of the growth and makeup of the Asian - American population. Only by taking these steps will the Town
be able to respond appropriately. Accordingly, we recommend interviewing members of the community
(e.g. teachers) and others (e.g. real estate agents) who have direct and frequent dealings with Asian
Americans and older residents who are at the center of these trends. We also recommend analyzing
the steps taken by other communities, not only in Massachusetts, that have experience with similar
demographic trends. In parallel with these actions, we believe it is essential to identify and implement
ways to accelerate and broaden participation of the Lexington's Asian - American population in Town
business, including the shaping the appropriate response to the trends identified in this report.
We also recommend that — to the extent permissible by law — Town Departments begin to include age -
and language - related data when documenting incidents, particularly emergencies. Finally, we
recommend that the Town derive much greater value from its annual census by slight modification of
the form and a more detailed analysis of the data.
2
Background and mission of the Task Force
Noting "significant changes in the composition of Lexington's population over the last 15 -20 years" and
the need for municipal government and schools to take them into account, the Lexington 2020 Vision
Committee established the Demographic Change Task Force (DCTF). In announcing its formation in
March 2008, the 2020 Vision Committee issued the following statement:
"Identifying the nature of demographic change is essential for local government to
meet the needs of the community now and in the future. Different ways of thinking
and communicating result from changes and increased diversity over time.
Understanding and responding appropriately to these changes can promote a sense
of community and strengthen the democratic process. The data analysis and
recommendations provided by the Task Force will inform long -range community
decisions and actions for the Board of Selectmen and other Town officials."
Subsequently, Town Manager Carl Valente defined three primary objectives for the Task Force:
1. Identify the most important demographic changes currently taking place in Lexington and identify the
changes that are likely to occur by 2020.
2. Explore how these changes will affect town services.
3. Understand how to maintain and create a sense of community despite these demographic changes.
Membership
The current members of the Task Force are:
Marian Cohen (2020 Vision Committee Liaison)
Margaret Coppe (Lexington School Committee)
Ben Esty (Resident)
Bebe Fallick (Resident)
Dan Krupka (Resident)
Candy McLaughlin (Assistant to the Town Manager; staff to the Task Force)
Carl Valente (Lexington Town Manager; staff to the Task Force)
Activities
Whereas "demographics" can be interpreted to encompass a broad range of topics, the Task Force has
addressed the following: age, race, language, income and home values. Although, the 2020 Vision
Committee's Scoping Group had suggested that residency (moves into and out of town) and religion be
included among the demographic topics, we were unable to obtain data on the former and did not
explore the latter.
The Task Force pursued two lines of inquiry: (1) collection, analysis and discussion of demographic data
and (2) meetings with managers of Town Departments and organizations of interest. The activities in
3
the first category were predominantly data gathering and analysis, followed by discussion within the
Task Force as a whole. The second category consisted of sessions whose objectives were to become
familiar with the responsibilities of Town Departments, and to learn how demographic changes were
affecting them or might affect them in the future.
We thank all who met with us1 for their preparation and for the candid discussions. We also thank
Arthur Bakis of the US Census Bureau for patiently answering questions regarding data sources and data
interpretation; Tim Reardon of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) for discussions of the
models used by the MAPC and for providing data; Robyn Dowling- Grant, K -12 Coordinator — English
Lerner Education Program for Lexington Schools for data on the English Language Learner (ELL) program;
and Aaron Henry, Senior Planner, Town of Lexington, for Appendix A and historical data on the Town's
population.
A. Demographic data
The data in this report are drawn primarily from the US Census Bureau and from the Massachusetts
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). The former performs decennial censuses
and, during the intervening years conducts surveys, spanning three years, known as the American
Community Surveys. This report includes results from the 2005 -2007 American Community Survey (ACS)
because it was the most recent one available when the Task Force assembled its data. In December
2009, the US Census Bureau published its 2006 -2008 ACS. Because its results, related to the topics of
interest to the Task Force, do not differ substantively from the previous ACS, we have continued to use
the 2005 -2007 ACS in the body of this report. Most recently, Aaron Henry, Senior Planner for the Town
of Lexington, drafted a Demographic & Socioeconomic Profile Report for the Town, comparing the
results of the 2006 -2008 ACS with those of the 2000 Census. That report constitutes Appendix A.
As the data reported in this section demonstrate, Lexington is experiencing substantial change both in
its age profile and in its racial composition. The evolution of its age profile resembles that of Boston -
area communities with highly- ranked schools. By contrast, Lexington's Asian - American population
(16.5% according to the 2005 -2007 ACS) is significantly higher than any of the communities mentioned
above and any neighboring community.
In this Section, we present data on the following demographic topics:
1. Age
2. Race
3. Language
4. Housing and income
1 Please see Table 2 for the list.
4
Caveats
Before discussing the data, it is important to keep in mind the following:
1. It has been nearly ten years since the last US census, which, being based on a count of the entire
population, represents the most accurate data. Because the ACS data are based on a sample,
not the full population, they can be less accurate. This tradeoff — accuracy of data vs. timeliness
— must be recognized in any analysis and interpretation.
2. In addition to historical data, we include one projection for 2020 developed by the MAPC. It is
based on a forecast for the total population of a group of "similar" neighboring towns whose
results are then allocated to the towns in the group. Because the forecast is not based solely on
data for Lexington, its reliability and validity may be limited.
3. There is a need to distinguish what has been an historical trend from what is likely to be a future
trend from now through 2020, and to understand the methods and potential biases involved
with forecasting methods. In some cases, we have extrapolated current trends to arrive at
estimates of future values, recognizing that such extrapolations need to be considered with
caution.
4. There is a need to distinguish temporary trends and permanent trends (e.g. something that is
important for first generation citizens, such as English classes, may not necessarily be important
for future generations).
1. Age
After almost doubling from its 1950 level, Lexington's population reached 33,400 in 1970. It then
declined to about 28,500 in 19802 and, as reported by the Census Bureau's decennial Censuses, has
been roughly stable at about 30,000 since then. Although the MAPC forecasts3 that it will grow to nearly
32,000 in 2010 and nearly 33,000 in 2020, the projections appear to be high in light of the past 30 years
of relative stability and the limited opportunities to add to the Town's housing stock.
The overall stability of the past 30 years masks major underlying change. Figure 1 shows age profiles,
described by number of Lexington residents in five -year age bands. The figure is based on historical data
from the US Census Bureau (1990 and 2000 Censuses and the 2005 -2007 ACS) and a projection for 2020
from the MAPC. The most recent age profiles are characterized by one peak for the 10 —14 age band
and a second peak, which has been shifting to higher ages, in the 50 — 54 age band. The population dips
in the 20 — 35 year band, with the dip appearing most pronounced in the 2005 -2007 ACS data. Over the
past 20 years or so, the number in the 60 — 69 age band has dropped while the number in the 70+ age
band has risen. This will change if the MAPC projection proves to be accurate: It forecasts a large
2 We are grateful to Aaron Henry, Senior Planner of the Town of Lexington for providing Town population at ten -
year intervals starting in 1860.
3 Timothy Reardon of the MAPC provided historical data for 1990 and 2000 and forecasts through 2030 for
communities in the Boston Metropolitan Area.
5
increase in the number of residents between the ages of 50 and 80 by 2020. The MAPC has also
developed projections for 2030, which suggest an even greater shift to an older population. If this
proves to be even directionally correct, it would have major implications for Lexington.
Figure 1— Age profile
3,500
3,000
0. 2,500
O
w 2,000
bA
a
E
z
1,500
1,000
Lexington Population:
History and MAPC forecast
US Census 1990
US Census 2000
ACS 2005 -2007
MAPC 2020 f'cast
Source: US Census Bureau and MAPC
Age Group
With the exception of Lincoln, no immediately neighboring community had an age profile in 2000 that
rose substantially from the 0 -4 age band to 10 -14; for these neighboring communities, the profile was
essentially flat from 0 to 19. By contrast, other suburban towns with highly- ranked schools, Carlisle,
Concord, Dover, Newton, Sherborn and Weston exhibited age profiles similar to Lexington's.
The rise from the 0 -4 age band to the 5 -9 age band, which became more pronounced in the 2000
Census, is reflected in the "Birth -to -K" progression rates used to project Kindergarten enrollment on the
basis of births five years earlier.4 The average for this factor over a five -year period beginning with the
2004 -2005 school year is 1.59.
US Census Bureau data reveal that the Town's average age is rising very slowly: It was 40 in 1990 and
rose to 41 according to the 2005 -2007 ACS. The MAPC projects that it will be 45.5 in 2020.
Because the Town is required by Massachusetts law to conduct a simple annual census that includes the
age of its residents, we could have used those data to construct Figure 1. However, the Town includes
4 Paul B. Ash, Four and Ten -Year Enrollment Forecasts, December 10, 2008
6
anyone living away, either at college or in the Armed Forces. By contrast, the US Census Bureau counts
people where they live most of the year. As a result, the Town census reports a higher count for the 18-
25 age band. Because this problem does not exist for the older residents, we are able to use the Town's
data to characterize recent trends for this population segment. Figure 2 demonstrates that it has not
been declining; in fact, it is growing, albeit slowly. This finding is consistent with Figure 1 for the 60+
population.
Figure 2 — Trends in Lexington's older population
30%
• 25%
O
0.
p 20%
O
• 15%
cuX
N
O
0o 10%
N
N
N
a 5%
Lexington Population:
Percentages in the 60 +, 70+ and 80+ groups
23.7%
22.6%
25.9%
® 60+
m
80+
1999
Sourre:Town census
2004
2009
2. Race
Note on the definition of "race" and "ethnicity"
Race is generally used to describe genetic heritage while ethnicity describes one's cultural background.
The Census Bureau makes this distinction by defining "race and Hispanic origin to be two separate and
distinct concepts" and stating that "Hispanics and Latinos may be of any race.i5 In a reflection of this
practice, the 2000 Census form began by asking, "Is this person Spanish /Hispanic /Latino ?" It next
inquires about the person's race. A section of the Census 2000 form is shown in Figure 3. It includes
many Asian races and allows for even more to be written in. The form used for the 2005 -2007 ACS uses
the same definitions.
5 American Fact Finder Glossary, http: / /factfinder.census.gov /home /en /epss /glossary e.html, accessed January 8,
2010.
7
Figure 3 — Questions related to ethnicity and race in the 2000 Census
Reproduction of Questions on Race and
Hispanic Origin From Census 2000
Fj
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
IJ
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
u1
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
The breakdown of Lexington's population by racial origin is shown in Figure 4 for the 1990 and 2000
Censuses and for the 2005 -2007 ACS. The most obvious feature is the growth in the number of
residents of Asian origin. (Henceforth, this report will refer to them as "Asian Americans. ") By contrast,
the African American percentage is small and shrinking. The 2000 census shows that 1.4% of Lexington's
population identified itself as Hispanic.
Figure 4 — Breakdown of Lexington's population by racial origin
Multi -race*
80.7 % - - -- " Other
Pacific Islander
Native American
1990 Census
Source: USCensus Bureau
2000 Census
2005 -2007 ACS
8
• Black or African
American
• Asian
• White
*The category
"Multi- race" consists
of pairs of races
According to the 2005 -2007 ACS, Lexington now has a higher percentage of Asian Americans — 16.5% —
than does any other neighboring community in the Boston area with highly -rated schools. In 2000,
Brookline — a community with high- ranked schools but whose age profile does not have a "school -age"
peak like Lexington's — had the highest percentage of Asian Americans: 13 %, compared to Lexington's
10.9 %. However, by the time of the 2005 -2007 ACS, Brookline's Asian - American percentage had risen
only slightly to 13.6 %.
The 2005 -2007 ACS reveals Chinese now represent about 10% of Lexington's population and about 60%
of the Asian - American population; they are followed by Indians (2.5 %), Koreans (2.3 %), Japanese (0.5 %)
and Vietnamese (0.5 %). The remainder includes Bangladeshis, Cambodians, Indonesians, Pakistanis, Sri
Lankans and Thai. Figure 5 shows the trends since 1990 by racial origin. Note the rapid growth in the
Chinese and Korean populations. Since 1990, they have approximately tripled.6
The Asian Americans in Lexington are well educated. Nearly 55% possess a graduate or professional
degree compared to 42% for the Town as a whole.'
Figure 5 — Breakdown of Lexington's Asian- American population
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
Breakdown of Lexington's Asian population
USCensus 1990
USCensus 2000
ACS 2005 -2007
........................
Chinese Asian Indian Korean Japanese Vietnamese Filipino Other Asian
Source: US Census Bureau
The growth in the Asian - American population is even more evident in Lexington's public schools. In
1998 -99, according to data of the Massachusetts DESE, shown in Figure 6, the percentage of Asian -
American students was 13 %, about two percentage points higher than for the Town as a whole. By
6 The Institute for Asian American Studies has published profiles of Asian populations in several Massachusetts
Communities, including Lexington ( "Asian Americans in Lexington" published in 2005), based on US Census
Bureau data. For data including the 2000 Census, see
http: / /www.iaas.umb.edu /research /census /community profiles /profile Lexington 2000 Final.pdf
' Asian Americans in Lexington, Table 23
9
2008 -09, it had grown to 24.5 %. If the percentage of Asian - American students in Lexington's public
schools has remained slightly higher than the Asian - American population in the Town as a whole, we
estimate Lexington currently has an Asian - American population in the neighborhood of 20 %. (Because
the data published by the Massachusetts DESE is based on an actual count, performed annually, it is
arguably the most up -to -date demographic data available. However, it omits the students in private
schools).
Note that the Lexington schools include Hispanic as a category for race /ethnicity. In the 1993 -94 school
year, Hispanic students represented 1 %; by 2008 -09, their percentage had grown to 4.3 %. Over the
same period, African American students dropped from 6.9% to 4.3 %.
Figure 6 — Breakdown by race /ethnicity — Lexington and Massachusetts public schools
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Lexington Public Schools
Enrollment by Race /Ethnicity
93 -94 98 -99
Source: MA DESE web site
03 -04
08 -09 Mass 08 -09
Multi -race
Pacific Islander
Native American
Hispanic
m African American
Asian
N White
As demonstrated by Figure 6, Lexington's distribution by race differs substantially from that of
Massachusetts as a whole, which is shown on the far right of the figure with lighter colors corresponding
to the same colors for the other bars. In 2009, Hispanic students were 14.3% of the state total, while
African Americans were 8.2 %; Asian - American students represented 5.1 %.
Within Lexington, during the 2008 -09 school year, Estabrook and Harrington Schools had the highest
percentages of Asian - American students — 31.6% and 30.1 %, respectively, while Fiske had the lowest in
(19.1 %).
10
3. Language
In light of the large and growing Asian - American population, it is not surprising that, in an increasing
number of Lexington households, English is not the language spoken at home. Figure 7 shows the
number and percentage of residents who speak an Asian or Pacific Islander language at home and who
do not speak English "very well. "8 (In addition to "very well ", the Census Bureau uses three additional
classifications for English proficiency: "well," "not well and "not at all. ")
Figure 7 — Number and percentage of residents who speak an Asian or Pacific Islander at home and
who speak English less than "very well"
1400 .
1200
1000
Total (Left -hand scale)
of Lexington population (Right -hand scale)
800
600
400
200 .....
1990 Census
2000 Census
2005 -2007 ACS
4.5%
4.0%
3.5%
3.0%
2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
For Town planning purposes it would be more useful to know how many residents don't speak English or
speak it poorly, i.e., "not well" or "not at all" in the Census Bureau's terminology. Unfortunately, the
1990 Census and the 2005 -2007 ACS do not provide those data. However, the data are available in the
2000 Census where they are broken down by Indian, Korean and Chinese, and by age band. The data9,
plotted in Figures 8a — 8c, reveal very substantial differences among the three groups. (Please note the
different vertical scales). With the exception of about 20 residents, all Indians could be considered to be
proficient in English (spoke "well" or better). By contrast, about one third of Koreans (163) in all age
groups spoke English poorly or not at all, including about 45% in the 18 -64 age band and everyone over
65. Almost 80% of the Chinese were proficient in English, and only 108 (out of a population three times
° It is important to note that not all Asians speak an Asian language at home. Some speak only English; others
speak other Indo- European languages.
9 Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data. Table P19
11
larger than the Korean) spoke no English or spoke it poorly. Overall, then, about 300 of this subset of
Asian - American residents would have been expected to encounter problems communicating in English.
Figure 8a — English proficiency of Indians in Lexington
Number of residents in age group
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
English proficiency of Indians (2000)
5 to 17 18 to 64 65+
Source: US Ce n su s Bureau
Agegroup
® Only English
- -` Very Well
Well
Not Well /Not at All
Figure 8b — English proficiency of Koreans in Lexington
Number of residents in age group
English proficiency of Koreans (2000)
160 .. ............
140 ..... ..........
120 ............
100
80
60
40
20
5 to 17 18 to 64 65+
Source: US Census Bureau Agegroup
® Only English
- -'- Very Well
Well
'=;'.113 Not Well /Not at All
Figure 8c — English proficiency of Chinese in Lexington
a
600
o°`0 500
v
P 400
300
N
F.2 200
° 100
v
E
Z
English proficiency of Chinese (2000)
5 to 17 18 to 64 65+
Source: USCensus Bureau
Age Group
® Only English
Very Well
Well
Not Well /Not at All
12
One would expect the trend, shown in Figure 7 (page 11) for the population as a whole, to be reflected
in a similar trend for students in Lexington's public schools. Indeed, Figure 9, based on data from the
Massachusetts DESE shows that, from the 1991 -92 school year to 2000 -01 school year, the percentage
of students whose first language was not English lay between 6% and 10 %, with little discernable trend.
It then began to climb rapidly, and reached 20% in 2008 -09. If the current trend continues, we estimate
that about 30% of students Lexington's public schools will speak a first language other than English in
2020.
Figure 9 — Percentage of students with limited English proficiency and percentage of students whose
first language is not English
6%
Limited English proficiency (Left -hand scale)
First language not English (Right -hand scale)
e " o " o " 40 40 ° oo a" CP c0 OP CP 0h o " dd ° o" oO
Source: MA DESE web site
School year
25%
L
To
20%
O
15%
i
O
3
10%
cs
v
0
5% m
u
CI.
As Figure 9 also shows, the percentage of students with limited English proficiency began to rise rapidly
in the 2001 -02 school year, and reached nearly 5% in 2008 -09. By 2020, should this trend continue, 8-
9% of students in the Lexington public schools might be classified as having limited English proficiency.
In response to the growing number of students with limited English proficiency, Lexington schools have
increased the number of teachers in the English Language Learner (ELL) program. As shown in Table 1,
the number of full -time equivalents (FTEs) assigned to the program has grown by about 50% from 2006-
07 to the current school year. ELL students in Kindergarten and First Grade typically receive 30 minutes
of instruction daily. At the secondary level, the class duration rises to 50 -60 minutes, and beginners may
receive two such classes daily. Although the target for class size is eight students, some classes include
as many as 15, especially in schools with large Asian - American populations.
13
Table 1— Students enrolled in, and staffing for, the English Language Learner (ELL) programlo
School
year
Number of
students
Number of
ll
teachers
Comments
2005 -06
196
1.6
In addition, 8 Instructional Assistants (lAs) were used
2006 -07
210
6.25
4 !As became certified; 1 Spanish teacher "bumped" in
2007 -08
249
7.1
Includes a partial FTE supported by Title III
2008 -09
310
8.65
Includes a partial FTE supported by Title III
2009 -10
320
8.9
Includes a partial FTE supported by Title III
4. Housing and Income
The dip in the 20 -35 age group and the shift of the "middle -age" peak toward higher age, shown in
Figure 1 (page 6), suggests that housing in Lexington may be getting progressively less affordable,
limiting residence to the wealthy and possibly older people with more savings and higher income. To
examine this possibility, we reviewed census data on median home value and median family income.
As shown in Figure 10, median home values12 in Lexington rose from nearly $300,000 in 1990, or about
1.75 times the median home value in Massachusetts, to nearly $700,000 in 2007, or 1.85 times the
Massachusetts benchmark. However, in 2000 the median home value in Lexington had climbed to
nearly $420,000 or 2.25 times the median home value in Massachusetts. From 1990 to 2007, the ratio
of the median home value in Lexington to the median home value in Massachusetts rose by 6% ([1.85-
1.75]/1.75 = 6 %).
Figure 10 — Median home value in Lexington and as a multiple of median home value in MA
Lexington median home value (dollars)
Median Home Value
700,000 2.50
Lexington
Ratio
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
1990
Source: US Census Bureau
2000
2007
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
Median home value in Lexington /median home value in MA
10 Source: Robyn Dowling- Grant, K -12 Coordinator — English Lerner Education Program.
11 Only certified teachers are counted.
12 The Census Bureau defines home value as "the respondent's estimate of how much the property (house and lot,
mobile home and lot, or condominium unit) would sell for if it were for sale."
14
According to Charles Hornig, Lexington Planning Board Chair, the average price of new houses exceeded
$1 million in 2009, well above the average of all houses. Many of these houses are "tear- downs."
Recently, these have averaged about 50 per year, nearly 0.5% of all dwelling units.13
The increase in Lexington's home values and their ratio to home values in Massachusetts were matched
by trends in family income. Figure 11 indicates that median family income rose by about 80% from
nearly $80,000 in 1989 to just over $140,000 in 2007. That translates to a rise from 1.72 to 1.84 times
the median family income in Massachusetts or a relative rise of about 7 %, very close to the relative rise
of 6% in median home values. Whether median income was tracking median home values — or vice
versa — it is evident that both were rising relative to Massachusetts as a whole.
Figure 11— Median family income and as a multiple of the median family income in Massachusetts
Median Family Income in Lexington
160,000 - --
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
Income
Ratio
Lexington Family Income
Source: USCensus Bureau
1989
1999
2007
1.86
1.84
1.82
1.8
1.78
1.76
1.74
1.72
1.7
1.68
1.66
Median income in Lexington /Median income in MA
It is important to keep in mind that the foregoing data were collected before the start of the current
economic recession. Data from Zillow.com14 indicate that its Zillow Home Value Index15 had risen by
37% in the past 10 years, but fallen by 13% since 2004 and 4% over the twelve -month period ending in
November 2009. By contrast, the Index for the Boston area and for Massachusetts had risen by 1.4%
and 1.5% respectively during the past year. The results 2010 Census will provide more data for direct
comparison with the data plotted in Figure 10.
13 According to the 2000 Census, there were 11,333 dwelling units in Lexington.
14 http: / /www.zillow.com /local - info /MA- Lexington -home-
value/r 19005/# metric= mt% 3D34% 26dt% 3D1 %26tp %3D5 %26rt %3D8 %26r %3D19005, accessed January 16,
2010.
15 Average market value estimated by Zillow.
15
B. Meetings with Town departments and organizations
Table 2 lists the meetings held by the Task Force. Representatives of Town Departments were guests at
many of them. Appendix B summarizes the topics discussed at meetings with guests and the findings
from each meeting related to demographic trends.
Table 2 — List of meetings
Date
Town Department or Organization
Representative(s)
June 11, 2008
No guests. Organizational meeting
NA
July 9, 2008
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
(MAPC)
Holly St. Clair, Data Center Manager,
MAPC
September 24, 2008
Police Department
Fire Department
Chris Casey, Police Chief
Bill Middlemiss, Fire Chief
October 29, 2008
Health Department
Human Services Department
Gerard Cody, Health Director
Charlotte Rodgers, Director
December 17, 2008
Town Clerk
Cary Library
Donna Hooper, Town Clerk
Connie Rawson, Director
January 7, 2009
Schools
Dr. Paul Ash, Superintendent
March 4, 2009
Public Works
Recreation
Bill Hadley, Director
Karen Simmons, Director
May 20, 2009
Transportation
Bill Levison, Co -Chair Transportation
Advisory Committee
Gail Wagner, Transportation Coordinator
June 1, 2009
Planning Board
Charles Hornig, Planning Board Chair
Maryann McCall - Taylor, Planning Director
July 29, 2009
No guests. Working session
NA
August 26, 2009
Town Clerk; working session
Donna Hooper, Town Clerk
September 23, 2009
No guests. Working session
NA
September 28, 2009
(Candy McLaughlin and
Dan Krupka only)
Housing Authority
Patricia Sullivan, Federal Program
Coordinator
(Meeting held at Housing Authority)
October 14, 2009
No guests. Working session
NA
December 2, 2009
No guests. Working session
NA
January 6, 2010
No guests. Working session
NA
16
Findings from meetings
The following represent the most significant findings regarding demographic trends, gleaned from the
records of the meetings listed in Appendix B.
1. Age - related
a. Most of the managers of Departments mentioned that they had noticed an increase in the
number of elderly citizens. Their observations are consistent with the demographic trends
for this age group.
b. More senior citizens appear to be living alone. As a result, simple problems, which in the
past might have been identified and handled by their children or spouses, end up being
dealt with by the Fire, Police, Health or Human Services Departments. Furthermore, a
secondary line of defense is no longer available: Because the Public Works' water meter
readers no longer need to enter homes, the opportunity to perform an informal check on
living conditions has been eliminated.
To fill the gap, the Police Department has created an "At Risk" form, filed on a voluntary
basis by family members or caregivers. Although it was originally created to assist in
tracking down and dealing with residents with Alzheimer's or dementia, the list of
conditions was subsequently expanded to include autism. More recently, it has been
further expanded to include any disease or behavior that could endanger an adult or child.
The form, shown in Appendix C, includes a photo, a description of the person's medical
condition, whether the person is able to speak and a list of emergency numbers.
2. Language- and culture - related
a. The growth in the Asian - American population has created some communication problems
with the Town. It appears that many from this population are reluctant to seek help from
the Town when it would be in their best interests to do so. Occasionally, during
emergencies, members of the Police and Fire Department have difficulty communicating
with residents who either don't speak English or who speak it poorly. In recognition of the
demographic trends, the Police Department subscribes to AT &T's translation service,
available by phone. It has also hired an officer who speaks Mandarin.
b. The Cary Library is building modest collections of Mandarin and Bengali books and DVDs. It
is also seeking to diversify its staff in response to the growth in Asian - American members.
c. More than 50% of the residents of Greeley and Vinebrook Village (low- income and disabled
housing) are Asian - American. In 1997, there were no Asian - American residents in these
units.
17
Discussion and Implications
Age
The trends that shape the age profile up to the age of 60, shown in Figure 1 (page 6), are possibly the
following:
a. Parents move to Lexington as their children approach, or reach, school age because they are
attracted by the highly- ranked school system; they move here when they are able to afford to live in
Lexington. This explanation is consistent with the fact that the number of children in the 5 -9, 10 -14
and 15 -19 age bands exceed the number of children in the 0 -4 age group.
b. The parents who are moving in are getting older, thereby helping to shift the peak of the age profile
to higher ages.
c. Adults in the 20 — 35 age band appear to be leaving the Town. They may be finding that they are
unable to afford to live Lexington, or they may prefer to live in communities with more to attract
them.
Because other Boston -area communities with excellent schools and relatively expensive housing (e.g.
Carlisle, Dover, Lincoln, Sherborn and Weston) have similar age profiles we have some confidence in the
above explanation. We acknowledge, however, that we have but anecdotal evidence to support it.
If the attraction of Lexington's schools slightly accelerates in- migration, the increase in school -age
children may contribute to offsetting, or partially offsetting, the decline in enrollment anticipated as a
result of the falling birth rate. In fact, the most recent projections released by Dr. Paul Ash16 are based
on a mean Birth -to- Kindergarten Progression Factor of 1.65, slightly higher than the factor of 1.59 he
used in developing the forecast one year ago. This is equivalent to recognizing a higher rate of in-
migration of children approaching Kindergarten age. In addition, Dr. Ash's most recent forecast assumes
a slightly higher birth rate (215) than last year (210). The slight increase in the two factors has led Dr.
Ash to project a slower decline in enrollment than anticipated in January 2009.
In contrast to school enrollment projections, which are keenly studied because of their impact on the
Town's budget, forecasts for the senior population receive limited attention. The slight growth in the
population exceeding 60 years of age, discussed in connection with Figure 2 (page 7), may be the result
of better health of this age group and the ability of elderly citizens to remain in their existing homes or
to find other suitable housing in Town. Indeed, one of the explanations given by the MAPC for the
growth of the 55+ age group in its projections for 2020 and 2030 is the postulated availability of smaller
homes or apartments in Lexington. In the MAPC model, seniors would move from their larger houses
thereby making them available for families and increasing the Town's population. Without growth in
16 Dr. Paul B. Ash, Four- and Ten -Year Enrollment Forecasts, January 5, 2010
18
the number of smaller homes or apartments, however, it is difficult to see how the senior population
would rise.
If the MAPC projections, showing a large increase in Lexington's senior population are correct, however,
they have several implications. If the aging population combines with a social trend of seniors living
alone, it will create greater demands on the Health Department (screens, shot clinics etc), Human
Services (home visits, senior center, meals, etc.) and Police and Fire Departments (EMT, ambulance). The
seniors may also have an important impact on town finances as more of them will be living on
retirement income or fixed income. As a result, the town's ability to pay for incremental services may
be limited. Interestingly, it appears that seniors are a declining percentage and number of Lexpress
riders in recent years, but may well increase in the coming year.17
Race
While Lexington's age profile may resemble the age profiles of some neighboring communities known
for their schools, its race profile is very substantially different, and the difference is accelerating. If
current trends continue, Lexington's Asian - American percentage could reach 25% by 2020. (To put this
in perspective, San Francisco's Asian - American population, reported in the 2005 -2007 ACS is 31 %).
Asian Americans are significantly under - represented not only in Town Departments, e.g. Police and Fire,
but also in Town government and on Boards and Committees. Of approximately 800 Board and
Committee slots, only 20 appear to be occupied by Asian Americans based on a count of names and
identification of many known to members of this Task Force. Although this issue appears to have been
broadly recognized, little progress seems to have been made in improving it.
While we have treated changes in the age and race profiles as distinct demographic trends, they are in
fact linked: The in- migration rate of Asian Americans with school -age children exceeds the in- migration
rate of other races with school -age children because the proportion of Asian - American students
continues to grow.
Language
If the Asian - American population continues to grow, Town Departments can expect to encounter more
problems in communicating with members of this population, particularly during emergencies.
Although it is unlikely that the number of Asian Americans with very limited English proficiency currently
exceeds 600,18 it is the oldest of these residents who tend to be the least proficient and the most likely
to require help from the Departments. Without more data on the frequency of such incidents, however,
it will be difficult for the Departments to plan appropriate measures.
It is not just emergencies that need to concern Town Departments. Should the Town websites include
sections in Chinese, Korean and Japanese on Town regulations, services, including public health services
such as flu shots? Should the school websites include translations of vital pages and important
17 Bill Levison, data presented to the DCTF, May 20, 2009
18 It was 300 in 2000 when the Asian percentage stood at 10.9 %, and we estimate that the current percentage is
20 %. See discussion on page 9 and Figures 8a — c on page 12.
19
announcements? How much should the Cary Library invest in books in Mandarin or Korean? Should the
Fire, Police, Health and Human Services Departments actively recruit people who speak Mandarin?
By contrast, the challenges for Lexington's schools are readily quantifiable. As the number of students
with limited English proficiency has grown, the schools have had to keep pace by adding ELL teachers.
Communicating with parents, however, has not been a problem for the schools because, in most cases,
at least one parent speaks English.19
Recommendations
While Massachusetts law requires that schools provide ELL programs for students with limited English
proficiency, no analogous requirements are prescribed for other Town services. This gives Lexington the
freedom to shape its response as it deems appropriate. We believe that this requires (a) deeper insight
into in- and out - migration and (b) better understanding of the growth, makeup and needs of the Asian -
American population, while recognizing that the two are not independent. Our recommendations,
therefore, center on moving beyond high -level statistics to acquiring insight as well as learning from
other communities that may have experienced or are experiencing similar trends.
We also believe that the Town of Lexington has opportunities to collect additional quantitative
demographic data to assist it formulating its response to current trends.
Although we draw attention to a likely linkage between the growing Asian - American population and the
changing age profile, we nonetheless recommend that be considered as distinct for now.
Growing Asian-American population
Our recommendations on this topic progress from obtaining additional available data and information to
developing an understanding of the individual and common challenges and needs of the Town's Asian -
American population to learning how other communities successfully handled a comparable
demographic change. They are listed roughly in the order in which they might be addressed.
1. Consult the authors of "Asian Americans in Lexingtoni20 to learn if they have developed an
understanding of what brings Asian Americans to Lexington and how long the trend may last.
This is a step that the DCTF can take immediately.
2. Request that Town Departments track emergency situations in which they encounter difficulties
in communicating with Town residents who don't speak English or speak it poorly. By recording
the language spoken by the person (whenever it is not English) the Town will acquire data on
the severity of the issue, and will be able to explore appropriate responses. We make this
recommendation mindful of the big difference between running a town with 70% English
speakers and 30% Chinese speakers (only two languages), and running a town with 70% English
19 Dr. Paul B. Ash. Discussion with Dan Krupka, July 20, 2009.
20 See Reference 6, page 9.
20
speakers and 15 other languages represented among the remaining 30% of citizens (16
languages). It is much more difficult to staff town services, provide public information, provide
library services, and handle emergencies as the number of languages spoken by residents
increases, assuming they have limited knowledge of English.
3. Interview people with first -hand experience in working with Asian Americans (e.g., real estate
agents, Robyn Dowling- Grant, school principals, teachers) regarding what attracts Asian
Americans to Lexington and to shed light on the breakdown of Asian Americans who move to
Lexington with the intention of living here indefinitely and those who are temporary residents.
4. Set up a task force to identify and implement effective ways to accelerate and broaden
participation of Town's Asian - American population in its government, boards, associations, and
committees.
5. Conduct a series of focus groups with Asian - American residents to develop an understanding of
the individual and common challenges faced by the various ethnic groups in the Asian - American
population; to learn about what has attracted them to Lexington; and to become acquainted
with their interests and needs.
6. Assess steps taken by Massachusetts communities that have experienced significant
demographic changes in recent years. Determine what worked and what did not, and what
could be applied in Lexington. (DCTF /2020 Vision Committee, possibly with the help of MIT's
Department of Urban Studies and Planning and the MAPC)
7. Conduct an analysis of other communities across the country that have experienced significant
demographic changes and the ways in which they responded (e.g., analyze Berkeley, California
and its response to an increasing Asian - American population). (DCTF /2020 Vision Committee,
possibly with the help of MIT's Department of Urban Studies and Planning)
Changing age profile
1. Conduct a focus group with real estate agents, who are particularly active in Lexington,
regarding the major forces driving in- and out - migration of residents in the 60+ age group. In
preparation for such a focus group, obtain data on moves from the Town Clerk and the
Assessors' database. The MAPC may be interested in assisting with this because it might help in
building the models for population projections.
2. Modify the annual Town Census, possibly with the assistance of the MAPC and certainly with the
concurrence of the State, as follows:
a. Add a request to identify legal residents of Lexington who are away at college or serving
in the Armed Forces. This step would ensure that the Town has the mandatory list of
registered voters, while producing annually an age profile constructed in accordance
with Census Bureau practice. This would give the Town more solid data for responding
21
to demographic trends. Including ethnicity and race (as defined by the Census Bureau)
be most valuable in light of current trends.
b. Arrange for the data to be analyzed down to a single -year age band, thereby improving
the data needed for planning resources for incoming Kindergarten classes and
projecting enrollment in the schools.
3. Reconvene a task force on demographics when the results from the 2010 census are available —
probably in mid 2011— and request that it update this report with the most recent data.
22
Appendix A - Demographic and Socioeconomic Profile Report
Town of Lexington, MA
Demographic &
Socioeconomic
Profile Report
SECOND DRAFT
23
Lexington Planning Department
January 2010
Data Sources
Census 2000
The Decennial Census collects data every 10 years about households, income, education,
homeownership, and more for the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas. The data is
used for apportionment of the seats in the House of Representatives.
Besides providing the basis for congressional redistricting, Census data are used in many other
ways. Since 1975, the Census Bureau has had responsibility to produce small -area population
data needed to redraw state legislative and congressional districts. Other important uses of Census
data include the distribution of funds for government programs such as Medicaid; planning the right
locations for schools, roads, and other public facilities; helping real estate agents and potential
residents learn about a neighborhood; and identifying trends over time that can help predict future
needs. Most Census data are available for many levels of geography, including states, counties,
cities and towns, ZIP codes, census tracts and blocks, and much more.
The American Community Survey
The American Community Survey is a new nationwide survey designed to provide communities a
fresh look at how they are changing. It is a critical element in the Census Bureau's reengineered
2010 census plan. The ACS collects information such as age, race, income, commute time to
work, home value, veteran status, and other important data. As with the 2010 decennial census,
information about individuals will remain confidential.
The ACS collects and produces population and housing information every year instead of every ten
years. Collecting data every year provides more up -to -date information throughout the decade about
24
the U.S. population at the local community level. About three million housing unit addresses are
selected annually, from across every county in the nation.
In 2008, the Census Bureau released its first 3 -year estimates based on ACS data collected from
2005 through 2007. These 3 -year estimates are available annually for geographic areas with a
population of 20,000 or more, including the nation, all states and the District of Columbia, all
congressional districts, approximately 1,800 counties, and 900 metropolitan and metropolitan
statistical areas, among others.
Measuring Meaningful Change
To try to get at meaningful trends two methods were used to compare the datasets. The first simply
compared the percentage change from Census 2000 to the ACS 2006 — 2008 data, where a 10%
swing in either direction is highlighted.
The second method is a test of statistical significance, specifically a Z -test, as recommended by the
Census Bureau. This type of test highlights characteristics that have a p -value of ±1.645, which
means that there is a 90% chance that the variation between the two numbers is not a natural
variation in the population. A Z -test incorporates both surveys' margin of error (MOE), which is
reported in the datasets as well. Generally, the MOE in Census data is quite small due to the large
sample size, in fact for Summary File 1 (SF1) it is zero. Unfortunately the MOE for SF 3 is not and
must be calculated manually.
Summary of Information
Population Characteristics
Age
The community is continuing to get older, generally at the expense of those in their late 20's and
early 30's. These changes resulted in the average median age of the population to increase
meaningfully from approximately 44 to 46 years.
25
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
ender 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84 85 years
years years years years years years years years years years years years and over
OCensus 2000 Estimate OACS Estimate
Households
There are more family households today than in 2000; more of them have children under 18, and
more of them are married. This change comes at the expense of nonfamily households, which
includes those living alone. While it wasn't significant this change also seems to reducing the
number of households 65 years and over.
School Enrollment
According to the Census Bureau there are fewer people enrolled in grades 1 - 8, but this is offset
by an almost equal rise in the number of high school students.
While not significant, there has been an increase in the population enrolled in nursery school and
college. The college -age increase may be a factor of the economy (perhaps more students living at
home) as the number of 20 to 24 year olds also increased.
Educational Attainment
There has been a drop in the educational attainment of the population for those who have attended
some college, but did not earn a degree and those who earned Associate Degrees. These
decreases however, are offset by a big increase in those with a graduate or professional degree. In
fact, 3 out 4 people in the community over the age of 25 now have at least a Bachelor's degree.
Veteran Status - Armed Forces
The community is losing its veteran's, and essentially none of the population over 16 is currently in
the Armed Forces.
Race, Ethnicity, & Ancestry
Race
26
This data shows that the community continues to become more diverse, specifically it is less Black,
less White, and increasingly Asian. The Asian category can be further subdivided; there is a
significant increase in number of Chinese and Vietnamese individuals. There has also been an
increase in the number of people reporting more than one race.
There isn't one characteristic to turn to, but looking at a few indicators, the population claiming to be
"Asian" ranges from approximately 16 to 18 percent, or about 5,000 individuals. The vast majority
of these are Chinese and to a lesser extent Indian.
100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
ACS Estimate
Census 2000 Estimate
®Two or more races
O Some other race
® Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
❑Asian
❑American Indian and Alaska Native
® Black or African American
O White
Place of Birth
There has been a significant decrease within the community in number of people born in the
United States. Within those born in the States, less than half of those were born in Massachusetts,
a significant decrease. The flip side to these statistics is the corresponding increase in the foreign
born population.
Language Spoken at Home
Given the above changes there should be little surprise that the number of people speaking
English only has decline significantly. The analogous increase is in the number of people speaking
Indo- European and Asian languages.
Ancestry
Unfortunately the Census Bureau's standardized categories for Ancestry include mainly European
nations, with some exceptions. Approximately 13% of the population is not represented in the
table.
Employment
Unemployment
27
It should be no surprise that the rate of unemployment has risen significantly since the last
Census. The rate has risen from 1.6% to 2.5 %.
Commuting to Work
Great news here; the number of folks commuting to work alone has decreased significantly. While
neither increased significantly, it would seem that rather than drive people are increasingly using
carpools and working from home. Public transportation use however, was unchanged.
Occupation & Industry
Lexingtonians are decreasingly employed in construction, maintenance, and production. As in
Census 2000, 7 out of 10 residents in the labor force are employed in management and /or
professional jobs.
The sectors in which people are employed are changing a bit however. Retail has decreased
significantly, while professional, scientific, and management service jobs have increased. Other
trends, although not statistically significant, include decreases in wholesale, transportation and
warehousing and increases in arts, entertainment and food services.
Sector
No significant changes here but an interesting trend — a 20% increase in the number of self -
employed. This may have some connection to the increase in the number of folks working from
home.
Income
More number crunching needed here. The values from Census 2000 need to be adjusted for
inflation to 2008 dollars. There are few characteristics that can not be included until more work is
done, like value of homes, housing costs, etc., as these values must be corrected to be
worthwhile. What comments are provided below pertaining to income and /or value are
provisional!!!
Earnings
Across all households it appears that the trend is that we are losing the bottom rungs of the ladder
while increasing the number of households at the top, which are those earning greater than
$150,000 per household, per year. These trends are even more pronounced in Family
Households.
Poverty
While there has generally been a decrease in the number of households earning under $150,000,
when we look at the those who earn the least in Town, we see that there has been an increase in
the number of families who have dipped below the poverty line. While this is just a trend and not
significant, it is important to keep in mind as we consider how we spend Town resources on items
like affordable housing.
Housing
Year Household Moved into Unit
28
As might have been guessed from some of the other characteristics reported, there are fewer long-
term residents than in 1999. Specifically there have been significant decreases in folks who have
been since before 1989. Essentially, nearly half of the households in town have moved here since
the last Census!
Number of Units in Structure
Interestingly the number of structures with 3 or 4 units within them has decreased dramatically, by
approximately 45 %. This is hard to reconcile with our understanding of housing development since
April of 1999, and not sure that this statistic is correct, but may be depending on this is tabulated.
Year Structure Built
This category is not readily compared to Census 2000 data as they only share some of the same
time frames, but what we can analyze yields interesting results. While there are fewer homes built
at anytime before 1989 in Lexington today than in 1999, it would seem that structures built in the
1980's are the most likely to be torn down.
Rooms in Unit
Vehicles
Housing units in Town are growing larger, with most homes having over 9 rooms. There are less of
all units with less than 6 rooms, with 2 -room units decreasing significantly.
There has been a decrease in the number of household that have no vehicle available. While this
could be viewed as a negative, a silver lining is the trend that there are fewer households with 3 or
more cars available.
Housing Unit Heating
While fuel oil remains the primary method of heating our homes, there have significant changes in
the way we heat our homes. Utility gas (natural gas) usage increased significantly, as has liquid
petroleum and the use of wood. This increases come at the expense of fuel oil and electricity. The
chart below depicts these changes.
29
2000
Estimate
2006 -08
Estimate
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
O Fuel oil, kerosene, etc. ❑Utility gas 0 Electricity 0 Bottled, tank, or LP gas O Wood ®Coal or coke ®Solar energy OOther fuel • No fuel used
30
ACS & Census 2000 Comparison
Demographics
Selected Characteristics
SEX AND AGE
Total population
Male
Female
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75 to 84 years
85 years and over
Median age (years)
18 years and over
21 years and over
62 years and over
2006 -08 MoE 2000 MoE
Estimate ( +/ -) Estimate ( +/ -)
31
30,065 925 30,355 0
47.3% 1.5% 47.0% 0.0%
52.7% 1.5% 53.0% 0.0%
5.6% 1.1% 5.7% 0.0%
6.9% 1.2% 8.0% 0.0%
7.8% 1.2% 8.2% 0.0%
7.3% 1.1% 5.8% 0.0%
3.0% 0.8% 2.1% 0.0%
3.6% 1.0% 6.5% 0.0%
14.7% 1.2% 16.1% 0.0%
18.3% 1.5% 17.6% 0.0%
7.8% 1.1% 6.0% 0.0%
6.2% 1.2% 4.9% 0.0%
9.0% 1.2% 8.9% 0.0%
6.7% 1.1% 6.9% 0.0%
3.0% 0.7% 3.1% 0.0%
%A
- 1.0%
0.7% 0.336
- 0.6% -0.329
Z Value
( ±1.645)
- 0.516
- 1.8
- 4.9
- 0.150
- 1.508
- 0.548
- 8.7%
4.0% 0.768
- 2.9% -0.299
- 3.2%
45.6 0.9 43.7 0.0 4.3%
74.0% 1.0%
71.8% 1.1%
22.0% 1.8%
- 0.235
73.6% 0.0% 0.5% 0.658
71.9% 0.0% -0.1% -0.150
21.9% 0.0% 0.5% 0.091
Selected Characteristics
65 years and over
18 years and over
Male
Female
65 years and over
Male
Female
RACE
Total population
One race
Two or more races
One race
White
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian
Asian Indian
Chinese
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Vietnamese
Other Asian
2006 -08 MoE
Estimate ( +/ -)
32
2000 MoE
Estimate ( +/ -)
18.7% 1.4% 19.0% 0.0%
22,244
735
45.6% 1.30%
54.4% 1.30%
22,352 -
33.5% 0%
40.1% 0%
%A
- 1.6%
- 0.5%
5,633 448 5,767 - -2.3%
40.7% 3.70% #REF! 0% #REF!
59.3% 3.70% #REF! 0% #REF!
30,065 925 30,355 - -1.0%
97.6% 1% 98.6% 0 %.. -1.0%
2.4% 1% 1.4% 0%
97.6% 1.0% 98.6% 0%
79.6% 2.3% 86.1% 0%
0.6% 0.5% 1.1% 0%
0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0%
16.5% 2.2% 10.9% 0%
3.6% 1.5% 2.2% 0%
9.7% 2.0% 5.6% 0%
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0%
0.4% 0.4% 0.7% 0%
1.0% 0.6% 1.4% 0%
0.7% 0.6% 0.1% 0%
1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0% ..
- 1.0%
- 7.5%
Z Value
( ±1.645)
- 0.353
- 0.242
- 0.492
#REF!
#REF!
- 0.516
0.823
1.535
- 0.823
- 1.234
- 1.097
0.658
Social
Selected Characteristics
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
Some other race
or more races
Race alone or in combination with one or more other races
Total population
White
Black or African American
Asian
Some other race .........
HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE
2006 -08 MoE 2000
Estimate ( + / -) Estimate
0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
0.5% 0.5% 0.3%
2.4% 1.0% 1.4%
30,065 925 30,355
81.7% 2.2% 87.4%
1.1% 0.8% 1.5%
18.3% 2.3% 11.8%
1.2% 0.8% 0.6%
population 30,065 925 30,355
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 1.6% 0.8% 1.4%
Not Hispanic or Latino 98.4% 0.8% 98.6%
White alone 78.5% 2.5% 85.1%
Black or African American alone 0.6% 0.5%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0.3% 0.4%
Asian alone 16.5% 2.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 0.0% 0.2%
Some other race alone
Two or more races
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Two races including Some other race
Two races excluding Some other race, and Three or more races
Selected Characteristics
33
MoE
(+1-)
0%
0%
0%
0%
%A
#DIV /0!
Z Value
( ±1.645)
0.000
0.658
- 1.0% -0.516
- 6.5
-0.823
1.234
- 1.0% -0.516
0% 0.411
0 %.... -0.2% -0.411
0% -7.8%
2006 -08 MoE 2000 MoE
Estimate ( + / -) Estimate ( + / -)
%A
Z Value
( ±1.645)
2006-08 MoE 2000 MoE Z Value
Selected Characteristics %A
Estimate (+/-) Estimate (+/-) (±1.645)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE
Total households
10,878 (X) 11,110 - -2.1% #VALUE!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family households (families) 81.3% 2.6% 75.9% 0% 7.1%
With own children under 18 years 40.6% 2.3% 37.8% 0% 7.4%
Married-couple family
69.6%
3.5%
66.0%
0%
5.5%
With own children under 18 years 34.9% 2.4% 33.4% 0% 4.5% 1.028
Male householder, no wife present, family
With own children under 18 years
3.9% 1.6%
1.4%
1.0%
0%
0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Female householder, no husband present, family 7.7% 2.2% 7.7% 0% 0.0% 0.000
With own children under 18 years
Nonfamily households
4.3% 1.5%
18.7%
2.6%
3.6% 0%
24.1%
0%
Householder living alone 16.9% 2.4% 20.8% 0%
65 years and over
0.768
11.1% 2.1% 12.3% 0% -9.8% -0.940
Households with one or more people under 18 years 41.6% 2.4% 39.1% 0% 6.4%
Households with one or more people 65 years and over
Average household size
Average family size
RELATIONSHIP
33.4% 2.1% 33.4% 0% 0.0% 0.000
(X) (X) 2.7 - #VALUE! #VALUE!
(X) (X) 3.1 - #VALUE! #VALUE!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population in households 29,485 (X)
Householder 36.9% 1.0% 36.6% 0% 0.8% 0.494
Spouse
25.8% 1.2% 24.2% 0% 6.6% .....
Child 32.1% 1.3% 31.5% 0% 1.9% 0.759
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other relatives 3.7% 1.2% 2.7% 0% 37„1„).31; 1.371
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonrelatives 1.5% 0.9% 2.4% 0%
34
2006-08 MoE 2000 MoE Z Value
Selected Characteristics %A
Estimate (+/-) Estimate (+/-) (±1.645)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unmarried partner 0.8% 0.5% 0.7% 0%
MARITAL STATUS - EXCLUDED
-------------
0.329
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
Population 3 years and over enrolled in school 8,413 (X) 8082 4.1% #VALUE!
Nursery school, preschool 11.3% 2.7% 9.7% 0.2% 0.972
Kindergarten 4.8% 2.1% 5.4% 0.1% -0.469
Elementary school (grades 1-8) 42.9% 4.2% 50.3% 0.4%
High school (grades 9-12) 25.2% 3.5% 20.9% 0.3%
College or graduate school 15.8% 3.2% 13.7% 0.2% 1.077
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Population 25 years and over 20,869 (X) 21295 -2.0% #VALUE!
0.704
9th to 12th grade, no diploma 1.6% 0.8% 2.4% 0.1% : :: ",,,". -1.642
High school graduate (includes equivalency) 11.0% 2.2% 13.0% 0.1% : :..4':. -1.493
Some college, no degree 7.4% 1.4% 9.9% 0.1%
Associate's degree 2.2% 1.0% 4.4% 0.1%
Bachelor's degree 26.7% 2.7% 26.8% 0.2% -0.4% -0.061
Less than 9th grade 1.6% 0.7% 1.3% 0.0%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graduate or professional degree 49.5% 2.9% 42.2% 0.2%
Percent high school graduate or higher 96.8% 1.2% 96.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.661
Percent bachelor's degree or higher 76.2% 3.0% 69.1% 0.3%
VETERAN STATUS
Civilian population 18 years and over 22,244 (X) 22363 0 -0.5%
35
2006-08 MoE 2000 MoE Z Value
Selected Characteristics %A
Estimate (+/-) Estimate (+/-) (±1.645)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Civilian veterans 8.1% 1.2% 11% 0.1%
PLACE OF BIRTH
Total population 30,065 (X) 30355 0 -1.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Native 77.5% 2.0% 83.5% 0.3% -7.2%
Born in United States 76.3% 2.1%
82.6% 0.3% -7.6%
State of residence 48.8% 2.4% 53.2% 0.3% -8.2%
Different state 27.5% 2.3%
Born in Puerto Rico, U.S. Island areas, or born abroad to American parent(s)
29.4% 0.2% -6.5%
1.2% 0.7% 0.9% 0.0%
Foreign born 22.5% 2.0% 16.5% 0.1%
U.S. CITIZENSHIP STATUS
-1.368
0.636
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign-born population 6,761 (X) 5001 35„2„31 #VALUE!
Naturalized U.S. citizen
59.4% 6.4% 8.9% 0.1%
Not a U.S. citizen 40.6% 6.4% 7.6% 0.1%
LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME
Population 5 years and over 28,383 (X) 28648 -0.9% #VALUE!
English only 72.7% 2.8% 81.2% 0.3%
Language other than English 27.3% 2.8% 18.8% 0.2%
Speak English less than "very well" 6.6% 1.5% 5.4% 0.1%
1.314
Spanish 1.9% 0.9% 1.6% 0.0% . 0.548
Speak English less than "very well" 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.0% -0.547
Other Indo-European languages 12.3% 2.2% 8.5% 0.1%
Speak English less than "very well" 2.2% 1.1% 1.7% 0.0% 0.747
Asian and Pacific Islander languages 12.2% 2.1% 7.4% 0.1%
Speak English less than "very well"
36
4.1% 1.1% 3.1% 0.1%
1.493
Selected Characteristics
Other languages
Speak English less than "very well"
ANCESTRY
Total population
Reported
American
Ara b
Czech
Danish
Dutch
English.........
French (except Basque)
2006 -08 MoE
Estimate ( +/ -)
French Canadian
......German.......
Greek
Hungarian
Irish
Italian
.......Lithuanian
Norwegian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Scotch -Irish
Scottish ...
Slovak
37
0.8% 0.9%
0.0% 0.2%
2000
Estimate
30,065 (X) 35,082
2.3%
0.6%
0.4%
0.9% 0.5%
0.5% 0.3%
0.7%
0.5%
MoE
( +/ -)
115.6
4.1% 0.1%
0.7% 0.0%
0.4% 0.0%
0.4% 0.0%
0.9% 0.0%
12.7% 2.2% 14.7 %....... 0.2%
3.9% 0.1%
3.9%
2.4%
10.2%
1.7%
1.0%
1.5%
1.3% 0.7%
1.4%
17.5%
11.3%
0.5%
1.2%
2.6%
2.3%
0.3%
0.6% 0.4%
4.4% 1.1%
1.4%
0.8%
4.6% 1.2%
2.1% 0.7%
3.5%
0.0%
0.2%
%A
Z Value
( ±1.645)
- 0.329
0.329
- 0.150
0.0% 0.000
0.0%
0.658
- 0.137
0.253
- 0.357
- 1.503
- 0.410
- 0.149
0.000
0.685
-6.1% - 0.700
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.195
0.000
0.0%
Selected Characteristics
Sub - Saharan African
Swedish
Swiss
Ukrainian
Welsh
West Indian (excluding Hispanic origin groups)
Other .........
Economic
Selected Characteristics
EMPLOYMENT STATUS
Population 16 years and over
In labor force
Civilian labor force
Employed
Unemployed
Armed Forces
Not in labor force
Civilian labor force
Percent Unemployed
Females 16 years and over
In labor force
Civilian labor force
Employed
2006 -08 MoE 2000 MoE
Estimate ( + / -) Estimate ( + / -)
0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 0.0%
1.6% 0.8% 2.5 %....... 0.1%
0.7% 0.5% 0.8% 0.0%
1.4% 1.0% 0.6 %....... 0.0%
0.7% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0%
0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0%
26.5 %....... 0.2%
2006 -08 MoE
Estimate ( + / -)
38
2000
Estimate
MoE
( +/ -)
%A
%A
Z Value
( ±1.645)
- 0.822
- 0.164
Z Value
( ±1.645)
23,405 (X) 23,229 0.3% 0.8% #VALUE!
64.1% 2.4% 64.7% 0.3% -0.9% -0.409
64.1% 2.4% 64.7% 0.3% -0.9% -0.409
61.7% 2.5% 63.0% 0.0% -2.1% -0.855
2.5% 0.7% 1.6 %....... 0.1%
0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% #DIV /0! 0.000
35.9% 2.4% 35.3% 0.2% 1.7% 0.410
15,007 (X)
1.20%
3.80%
15,020
1.6% 0.1%
-0.1% #VALUE!
12,727 (X) 12,589 1.1% #VALUE!
56.2% 3.6% 56.6% 0.3% -0.7% -0.182
56.2% 3.6% 56.6% 0.3% -0.7% -0.182
54.4% 3.7% 55.2% 0.3% -1.4% -0.354
Selected Characteristics
Own children under 6 years
All parents in family in labor force
COMMUTING TO WORK
Workers 16 years and over
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled
Public transportation (excluding taxicab)
Walked
Other means
Worked at home
Mean travel time to work (minutes)
OCCUPATION
Civilian employed population 16 years and over
Management, professi
occupations
Service occupations
I, and related
2006 -08 MoE
Estimate ( +/ -)
2000
Estimate
2,022 (X) 2,149
54.5% 11.2%
MoE
( +/ -)
60.1% 0.3%
%A
Z Value
( ±1.645)
- 5.9% #VALUE!
- 9.3% -0.822
14,112 (X) 14,482 -2.6% #VALUE!
74.5% 3.6% 78.5% 0.4% -5.1%
7.7% 2.2% 6.1 %....._ 0.1%......._ 1.195..
6.5% 1.9% 6.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.000
1.1% 0.7% 1.7% 0.1% -1.405
1.4% 0.9% 0.5% 0.0% 1.644
8.7% 2.1% 6.7% 0.1% 1.564
(X) (X)
27 #VALUE! #VALUE!
14,433 (X) 14,637 -1.4% #VALUE!
72.1% 3.5% 70.1% 0.4% 2.9% 0.935
6.9% 1.8% 5.6% 0.1% 1.186
Sales and office occupations 17.5% 3.2% 18.3% 0.2% -4.4% -0.411
Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% -0.411
Construction, extraction, maintenance and repair occupations 1.6% 0.9% 2.8% 0.1%
Production, transportation, and material moving occupations
INDUSTRY
39
1.9% 1.1% 3.2% 0.1%
Selected Characteristics
Civilian employed population 16 years and over
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities
Information
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing
Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services
Educational services, and health care and social assistance
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation, and food services
Other services, except public administration
Public administration
CLASS OF WORKER
Civilian employed population 16 years and over
Private wage and salary workers
Government workers
Self- employed workers in own not incorporated business
Unpaid family workers
INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2008 INFLATION-ADJ
DOLLARS)
Total households
Less than $10,000
2006 -08 MoE
Estimate ( +/ -)
40
2000
Estimate
14,433 (X) 14,637
0.0% 0.4%
3.0% 1.4%
10.2% 2.0%
1.7% 0.9%
4.0% 1.3%
1.1% 0.9%
5.4% 2.0%
9.2% 2.0%
26.0%
3.0%
28.9% 3.1%
4.1% 1.3%
3.5%
2.8%
14,433
76.4%
12.0% 2.1%
11.4%
0.2%
1.2%
1.2%
MoE
( +/ -)
0.4% 0.0%
%A
Z Value
( ±1.645)
- 1.4% #VALUE!
- 1.641
3.3% 0.1% -9.1% -0.352
10.0% . . . . . . . 0.1% . . . . . . . . 2.0%
2.5% 0.1% `'
7.1% 0.1%
1.4% 0.1% -0.547
5.0% 0.1%
0.164
- 1.458
7.4% 0.1%
22.7% 0.2%
30.8% 0.2%
3.3% 0.1%
3.5% 0.1%
2.6% 0.1%
(X) 14,637
2.8%
2.2%
0.3%
78.6% 0.4%
11.8% 0.2%
9.5% 0.1%
0.1% 0.0%
10,878 (X) 11,119
2.1%
3.4% 0.1%
8.0%
0.329
1.478
- 6.2% -1.005
1.010
0.000
0.274
0.0%
7.7%
- 1.4% #VALUE!
- 2.8% -1.280
1.7% 0.156
1.418
0.548
- 2.2% #VALUE!
2006-08 MoE 2000 MoE Z Value
Selected Characteristics %A
Estimate (+1-) Estimate (+1-) (±1.645)
$10,000 to $14,999 2.2% 0.8% 1.9% 0.1% 0.615
$15,000 to $24,999 4.0% 1.5%
$25,000 to $34,999 3.4% 1.1% 5.8% 0.1%
$35,000 to $49,999 5.8% 2.0% 7.7% 0.1% -1.560
$50,000 to $74,999 10.1% 2.2% 14.8% 0.2%
$75,000 to $99,999 10.6% 2.5% 13.1% 0.2%
-1.641
$100,000 to $149,999 20.7% 3.2% 21.0% 0.2% -1.4% -0.154
$150,000 to $199,999
$200,000 or more
Median household income (dollars)
Mean household income (dollars)
With earnings
Mean earnings (dollars)
With Social Security
Mean Social Security income (dollars)
With retirement income
Mean retirement income (dollars)
With Supplemental Security Income
Mean Supplemental Security Income (dollars)
15.4% 2.7% 12.9% 0.2% 1.520
25.6% 3.1% 14.5% 0.2%
(X) (X) 96,825
(X)
(X)
118271
82.2% 2.6% 81.8% 0.4%
0.5% 0.250
(X) (X) 118,271 #VALUE! #VALUE!
29.1% 2.0% 30.3% 0.3% -4.0% -0.979
(X) (X) 13,405 #VALUE! #VALUE!
18.8% 2.8% 20.7% 0.2% -9.2% -1.113
(X) (X) 28,575 #VALUE! #VALUE!
1.0% 0.6% 2.2% 0.1%
(X) (X) 6,106 #VALUE! #VALUE!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With cash public assistance income 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0.0% -0.235
Mean cash public assistance income (dollars)
(X) (X) 7,722 #VALUE! #VALUE!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With Food Stamp benefits in the past 12 months 1.0% 0.8%
41
2006-08 MoE 2000 MoE Z Value
Selected Characteristics %A
Estimate (+/-) Estimate (+/-) (±1.645)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Families 8,841 (X) 8474 4.3% #VALUE!
Less than $10,000 1.3% 1.0% 1.4% 0.1% -7.1% -0.164
$10,000 to $14,999 1.2% 0.7% 0.5% 0.0% 1.643
$15,000 to $24,999 1.5% 1.1% 2.2% 0.1% -1.044
$25,000 to $34,999 1.7% 1.0% 4.2% 0.1%
$35,000 to $49,999 4.1% 2.1% 6.5% 0.1%
$50,000 to $74,999 9.1% 2.5% 13.4% 0.2%
$75,000 to $99,999 10.3% 2.7% 14.9% 0.2%
$100,000 to $149,999 23.7% 3.7% 23.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.000
$150,000 to $199,999 16.9% 3.2% 15.4% 0.2% 9.7% 0.769
$200,000 or more
Median family income (dollars)
Mean family income (dollars)
Per capita income (dollars)
30.1% 3.8% 17.9% 0.2%
(X) (X) 111,899 #VALUE! #VALUE!
(X) (X) #VALUE! #VALUE!
(X) (X) 46,119 #VALUE! #VALUE!
Nonfamily households 2,037 (X)
Median nonfamily income (dollars)
(X) (X)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean nonfamily income (dollars) (X) (X)
Median earnings for workers (dollars) (X) (X) #VALUE! #VALUE!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Median earnings for male full-time, year-round workers (dollars) (X) (X) 81857 #VALUE! #VALUE!
Meer' an earnings for female full-time, year-round workers (dollars)
All families
42
(X) (X)
50090
#VALUE! #VALUE!
2.5% 1.3% 1.8% 0.5% 0.819
Housing
Selected Characteristics
With related children under 18 years
With related children under 5 years only
Married couple families
With related children under 18 years
With related children under 5 years only
Families with female householder, no husband present
With related children under 18 years
With related children under 5 years only
All people
Under 18 years
Related children under 18 years
Related children under 5 years
Related children 5 to 17 years
18 years and over
18 to 64 years
65 years and over
People in families
Unrelated individuals 15 years and over
Selected Characteristics
HOUSING OCCUPANCY
Total housing units
Occupied housing units
Vacant housing units
2006 -08 MoE
Estimate ( + / -)
43
3.1%
2.2%
3.6% 5.7%
1.3%
0.5%
0.8%
0.8%
0.0% 9.4%
11.3% 9.8%
19.8%
16.9%
0.0% 60.1%
3.2%
2.8% 1.8%
2.4% 1.7%
1.3%
2.7%
2.2%
2.0%
3.3% 1.1%
2.7%
5.2%
1.2%
2.9%
1.9% 1.0%
16.4%
6.8%
2000 MoE
Estimate ( + / -)
2.3 %... 0.6%
1.7 %....... 0.5%
10.6% 1.7%
18.2 %....... 2.2%
14.9% 2.0%
3.4% 0.4%
3.2 %....... 0.4%
3.6% 0.4%
3.4% 0.3%
3.4% 0.4%
13.8% 0.7%
2006 -08 MoE 2000 MoE
Estimate ( + / -) Estimate ( + / -)
11,639 (X) 11333
93.50%.. 2.20% 98%
6.50% 2.20% 2%
%A
6.6%
8.8%
- 5.9
Z Value
( ±1.645)
0.577
0.546
0.116
0.154
- 0.408
- 0.285
- 0.758
- 0.729
- 2.9% -0.143
%A
1.013
0.626
Z Value
( ±1.645)
2.7% #VALUE!
- 4.6%
2006-08 MoE 2000 MoE Z Value
Selected Characteristics %A
Estimate (+1-) Estimate (+1-) (±1.645)
Homeowner vacancy rate (X) (X) 0.4% #VALUE! #VALUE!
Rental vacancy rate (X) (X) 1.7% #VALUE! #VALUE!
UNITS IN STRUCTURE
Total housing units 11,639 (X) 11333 2.7% #VALUE!
1-unit, detached
81.3% 2.4% 79.7% 0.3%
2.0% 1.086
1-unit, attached 4.7% 1.3% 4.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.000
2 units
3 or 4 units
2.9% 1.3%
3.1% 0.1% -6.5%
1.7% 0.9% 3.1% 0.1%
5 to 9 units 2.2% 1.0% 2.0% 0.1% 10.0%
10 to 19 units
2.8% 1.1%
3.1% 0.1% -9.7%
- 0.253
0.329
- 0.448
20 or more units 4.4% 1.5% 4.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.000
Mobile home 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% #DIV/0! 0.000
Boat, RV, van, etc.
YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT
Total housing units
0.0%
11,639
0.5%
1.3
Built 2005 or later 2.1% 1.7%
Built 2000 to 2004
Built 1990 to 1999
4.4% 2.0%
6.7%
1.7%
0.0% 0.0%
11333
5.7%
Built 1980 to 1989 7.0% 1.6% 9.3% 0.1%
Built 1970 to 1979
9.0% 2.5% 9.7% 0.1%
#DIV/0!
2.7%
0.000
-7.2% -0.460
Built 1960 to 1969 14.8% 2.9% 15.8% 0.2% -6.3% -0.566
Built 1940 to 1959 32.4% 34.0%
Built 1939 or earlier 23.6% 2.0% 25.4% 0.2% -7.1% -1.472
ROOMS
44
Selected Characteristics
Total housing units
1 room ......... .........
2 rooms
3 rooms ......... .........
4 rooms
5 rooms
6 rooms ......... .........
7 rooms
8 rooms
9 rooms or more
Median rooms
BEDROOMS
Total housing units
No bedroom
1 bedroom
2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms
4 bedrooms
5 or more bedrooms
HOUSING TENURE
Occupied housing units
Owner - occupied
Renter - occupied
Average household size of owner - occupied unit
45
2006 -08 MoE 2000 MoE
Estimate ( + / -) Estimate ( + / -)
11,639
0.7% 0.7%
1.0% 0.6%
3.5% 1.3%
(X)
11333
0.1% 0.0%
1.7% 0.1%
4.7 %....... 0.1%
6.4% 1.7% 5.7% 0.1%
8.8% 2.1% 9.9% 0.1%
16.3% 2.9% 18.8 %....... 0.2%
18.3% 2.6% 18.4% 0.2%
16.7% 2.5% 17.6% 0.2%
28.4% 3.1% 23.1 %....... 0.2%
(X) (X)
11,639
0.70% 0.7
5.20%
15.90%
36.30% 3.1
30.50%
11.40%
(X)
1.6
2.6
2.8
2.3
(X)
10,878 (X) 11110
84.5% 2.5% 82.6%
15.5% 2.5% 17.4%
(X) (X)
%A
Z Value
( ±1.645)
2.7% #VALUE!
1.410
- 1.514
0.676
- 0.860
- 1.415
- 0.5% -0.063
- 5.1% -0.590
#VALUE! #VALUE!
- 2.1% #VALUE!
2.3% 1.250
- 1.250
2.8 #VALUE! #VALUE!
Selected Characteristics
Average household size of renter - occupied unit
YEAR HOUSEHOLDER MOVED INTO UNIT
Occupied housing units
Moved in 2005 or later
Moved in 2000 to 2004
Moved in 1990 to 1999
Moved in 1980 to 1989
Moved in 1970 to 1979
Moved in 1969 or earlier
VEHICLES AVAILABLE
Occupied housing units
No vehicles available
1 vehicle available
2 vehicles available
3 or more vehicles available
HOUSE HEATING FUEL
Occupied housing units
Utility gas
Bottled, tank, or LP gas
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Electricity
Fuel oil, kerosene, etc.
Coal or coke
Wood
Solar energy
46
2006 -08 MoE 2000 MoE
Estimate ( + / -) Estimate ( + / -)
(X)
(X)
2.2
10,878 (X) 11110
17.0% 2.9%
19.2% 3.1%
26.0% 2.9%
12.3% 2.4%
11.3% 2.0%
14.2% 2.2%
10,878 (X)
3.3% 1.1%
28.3% 3.3%
55.7% 3.4%
12.7% 2.2%
10,878 (X) 11110
38.2% 3.0% 31.6% 0.2%
2.5% 1.2% 1.1% 0.0%
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.7% 1.5% 8.9% 0.1%
51.9% 3.0% 58.1% 0.3%
0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% #DIV /0! 0.000
0.7% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% #DIV /01
0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% #DIV /0! 0.000
48.8%
17.9% 0.2%
14.0% 0.2%
19.3 %....... 0.2%
11110
5.1% 0.1%
26.3 %....... 0.2%
54.2% 0.3%
14.4% 0.2%
%A
#VALUE!
Z Value
( ±1.645)
#VALUE!
- 2.1% #VALUE!
- 2.1% #VALUE!
7.6% 0.994
2.8% 0.722
-1.267
- 2.1%
•
2006-08 MoE 2000 MoE Z Value
Selected Characteristics %A
Estimate (+/-) Estimate (+/-) (±1.645)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other fuel 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0%
-------------
-0.329
No fuel used 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 400,0% -0.821
SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupied housing units 10,878 (X) 11110 -2.1%
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0%
0.0% 0.000
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 0.5% 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.000
No telephone service available
OCCUPANTS PER ROOM
Occupied housing units
1.5% 1.0%
0.1% 0.0%
10,878 (X) 11110 -2.1%
1.00 or less 99.8% 0.4% 99.2% 0.5% 0.6% 1.475
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.01 to 1.50 0.2% 0.4% 0.5% 0.0% -1.228
1.51 or more
VALUE
Owner-occupied units
0.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% E.E -0.985
9,194
(X)
8382
Less than $50,000 0.1% 0.2% 0.5% 0.0%
$50,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,999
0.9% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0%
0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0%
$150,000 to $199,999 0.0% 0.6% 1.8% 0.1%
$200,000 to $299,999
2.4% 1.1%
15.4% 0.2%
9.7%
$300,000 to $499,999 15.0% 2.7% 49.4% 0.4%
$500,000 to $999,999 64.2% 3.8% 28.2% 0.3%
1.409
-0.328
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1,000,000 or more 17.1% 3.1% 3.9% 0.1%
Median (dollars) (X) (X) 417,400 #VALUE! #VALUE!
47
Selected Characteristics
MORTGAGE STATUS
Owner - occupied units
2006 -08 MoE 2000 MoE
Estimate ( + / -) Estimate ( + / -)
9,194 (X) 8382
Housing units with a mortgage N N
Housing units without a mortgage N N
SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS (SMOC)
Housing units with a mortgage N
Median (dollars)
(X)
(X) (X) 2192
Housing units without a mortgage N
Median (dollars)
Housing unit without a mortgage (excluding
units where SMOCAPI cannot be computed) -
EXCLUDED
GROSS RENT - EXCLUDED
GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD
INCOME (GRAPI) - EXCLUDED
(X)
(X) (X) 660
%A
Z Value
( ±1.645)
9.7% #VALUE!
#VALUE! #VALUE!
#VALUE! #VALUE!
#VALUE! #VALUE!
#VALUE! #VALUE!
#VALUE! #VALUE!
Appendix B - Meetings with Town Departments and others
Organization
Representative
Topics and issues discussed
Takeaways
Metropolitan
Holly St. Clair, Data
•
Information on data sources and how
•
MAPC represents a
Area Planning
Council (MAPC)
Center Manager
to access them
valuable resource that
we can draw on in
•
Trends and projections for Metro
carrying out our work
Boston and Lexington
Police
Department
Chris Casey, Chief
•
Growth of elderly population and its
impact on auto accidents and on
exploitation by strangers and family
members
•
Police responding to
issues with the elderly
by creating "At Risk"
files for use by
responding officers
•
•
Problems with exploitation
exacerbated because many of the
elderly live in single family homes and
no one is aware of problem
Members of growing Asian - American
population reluctant to seek help from
Town
•
Police Dept. hired a
Mandarin speaker to
assist in
communicating with
growing Chinese
population
•
Police does not track
calls by estimated age
or ethnicity
•
Both use a service
(national call center)
for language
interpretation to assist
with the town's
changing ethnicity (also
used by Health Dept ?)
Fire
Department
Bill Middlemiss,
Chief
•
Collaboration with neighboring towns
for emergency medical services and
fire
•
None relative to
mission of our Task
Force
Human Services
Department
Charlotte Rodgers,
Director
•
•
Programs run by the Department
Trends
o Demand for senior citizen's services
rising, particularly with the growth
of 85+
o Increase in demand for mental
health services, often with requests
for financial assistance
o Financial crisis increasing demand
for youth and family services
•
Trends, while possibly
important, were
presented
qualitatively, not
quantitatively
49
Organization
Representative
Topics and issues discussed
Takeaways
Health
Department
Gerard Cody,
Health Director
•
Key mandates for department:
Environmental inspections; community
health programs; emergency
preparedness
• Trends for seniors
living alone are similar
to those observed by
Chief Casey of the
•
Trends
o Senior citizens living alone, some in
unsafe or unhealthy housing. Some
situations further complicated by
mental illness
o Diverse workforce, e.g. in
restaurants may complicate
communications. Interpreter
services used occasionally.
Police Department
• Diversity in the
workforce
encountered in
Lexington unlikely to
differ from situations in
other towns
Schools
Dr. Paul Ash,
Superintendent
•
•
Four and 10 -year enrollment forecasts
Surprise increase in K enrollment in
• About 25% of students
are Asian American
F2008
•
Vision for collecting population data
that could be readily linked to lots,
thereby facilitating projections of
specific school enrollments
• Although forecasting K
enrollment has proven
to be difficult, there
exist methods that
•
Trends
o Expect drop of about 300 in
elementary schools over next 5 yrs
o 22% of students non - white,
predominantly Asian American
o 17% from homes where English is
not the first language
o 3.6% are non - English speakers;
could be used to
improve the forecasts
English Language Learners up by
25% from 2006
Town Clerk
Donna Hooper,
Town Clerk
•
Annual Town census does not collect
data on race, but, judging from visits to
the Town offices, there is an apparent
increase in the Chinese and Indian
population
• Residents who are 60
or older do not appear
to be moving out of
Lexington
•
According to the Town's census
numbers, the percentage of residents
aged 50 or older rose from about 35%
in 1997 to about 42% in 2009; more
half of this increase can be attributed
to the 60+ component
•
Interest in non - citizen voting
occasionally arises
50
Organization
Representative
Topics and issues discussed
Takeaways
Cary Library
Connie Rawson,
Director
•
Trends
o Increase in Asian - American users
o Small collection of Chinese books
and DVDs; small Bengali collection
o Library used as a shelter by people
with various need of services
(mental health, homelessness,
adequate comfort at home)
o Library trying to hire diverse staff
•
•
Library is observing the
same trends as other
Town departments
Library is responding
with some collections
and objective of hiring
diverse staff
Public Works
Bill Hadley,
Director
•
•
Elimination of the need to read water
meters in homes has eliminated the
opportunity of the Town's meter
readers to report problems,
particularly in the homes of the elderly
Loss of an employee who spoke
Bengali ( ?) eliminated the sole
employee who was able to
communicate with residents from
India
•
•
Public Works is yet
another department
that has noticed that
informally keeping tabs
on elderly citizens is
becoming more
difficult
Public Works is also
aware of the benefits
of someone who
speaks an Asian
language
Recreation
Karen Simmons,
Director
•
The golf course is becoming
increasingly popular with the Town's
•
This is one of the few
instances in which the
Asian - American population
Asian - American
population is
participating in the
Town's activities
Transportation
Bill Levison, Co-
Chair
Transportation
•
Data on yearly Lexpress ridership for
Senior and Disabled and other
ridership data
•
Although Lexpress
would seem to be very
convenient for seniors
Advisory
Committee
Gail Wagner.
•
•
Lexpress ridership dominated by
students
Funding is ongoing concern
who are unable to
drive, it is used
predominantly by
students
Transportation
Coordinator
51
Organization
Representative
Topics and issues discussed
Takeaways
Planning Board
(elected)
Charles Hornig,
Planning Board
Chair
•
Challenges faced by the Planning
Board, including the inability to make
zoning changes based on
demographics
•
Planning Board
encourages greater
diversity in housing
units, particularly with
Maryann McCall-
Taylor
•
Avalon Hills required 10 years of
planning and negotiation with Belmont
and Waltham
more attached units
•
Little demand for age- restricted
housing
•
Conversion of schools has produced
many housing units, but not always
successfully for either affordability or
livability
•
Difficulty in obtaining data from Town
Assessor's office
•
Data from Town census increasingly
difficult to obtain owing to privacy
laws
Housing
Authority
Patricia Sullivan,
Federal Program
Coordinator
•
•
Percentage of units rented to Asian
Americans in Greeley and Vinebrook
(both State - supported)have risen from
"almost zero" to over 50% in 2009
Most renters are on Transitional
•
Over 50% of the
renters in the State -
supported units for
low- income seniors
and disabled are Asian
•
Support
Most of the Asian Americans may be
related to Asian Americans living in
Lexington, and were initially brought
from China to care for their
grandchildren
American; this
percentage has grown
near zero ten years
ago
•
It is unclear at the time of writing of
this report whether the average
waiting time for units in Greeley and
Vinebrook are becoming longer
•
Many senior in Lexington are unaware
that they may be eligible to rent in
Greeley and Vinebrook despite
publicity from Lexington Housing
Authority
52
Appendix C - At Risk form
A POLICE DEPARTMENT REGISTRY TO ASSIST PERSONS AT RISK
Instructions: Complete form, affix photograph and return to: Lexington Police Department
1575 Massachusetts Avenue
Lexington, MA 02420 -3889
Attn: Family Services Officer
Last Name
F irst Name
MI
Fo. �;e Fe i�ra;;erk�imen Ca]
MN#
Personal Description
Affix Recent Photo Here
Date of Birth
Race & Sex
Race I Sex
Height
Weight
Hair Color
Eye Color
Scars /Marks
Glasses
Facial Hair
Important Address Information
Home
Phone #:
Work
Phone #:
School
Phone #:
Emergency Contacts
AT HOME -Name
Relationship
Phone
Address
AT WORK— Name
Relationship
Phone
Address
AT SCHOOL -- Name
Relationship
Phone
Address
OTHER — Name
Relationship
Phone
Address
SEE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS FORM FOR IMPORTANT QUESTIONS
53
AT RISK INFORMATION
Medical Condition:
Physician
Phone
Address
Current Medications:
Does person drive? YES ❑ NO ❑ I If a vehicle is being used, please describe below:
Plate #
Make
Model
Year
Color
Does person speak? YES • NO • If not, how does person communicate?
Does person wander? YES ❑ NO ❑ If yes, to where?
Describe medical alert ID, if worn:
Additional information that will help identify the risk or assist an officer find, communicate with, or care for
person. If necessary, attach a separate sheet.
RELEASE
I, , give my permission to the Lexington Police Department to retain this
information, to be kept confidentially on file for the purpose of identification and assistance relative to people at risk
and related investigative activities.
Print Name:
Status update:
Signature:
Date:
54