2014 Community Counts
September 2014
1
Introduction________________________________________________
Community Counts is a project of The Community Foundation. The purpose of this
annual report is to establish benchmarks and monitor trends in key economic and social
indicators for the Shreveport-Bossier City area. By tracking progress in each of these
priority indicators, the Community Foundation seeks to assess the impact of funding, as
well as identify areas needing additional research and support.
Community Counts serves as a scorecard on the quality of life for the ShreveportBossier City area. In its sixth edition, the 2014 Community Counts report builds upon
the previous years’ benchmarking and evaluation approaches. The report examines ten
comparative communities across a broad array of socio-economic indicators. The report
provides community rankings for the area’s peer, comparative communities and
provides a tool to assess how far we have “moved the needle” in improving our area’s
social and economic health.
Unlike previous reports, this year’s report places special emphasis on the social and
economic indicators that contribute to our community’s progress in a number of
important educational and workforce areas. Referred to as “cradle to career,” the report
adds available school, parish, state and federal data to create an objective assessment
tool to evaluate where we are making progress, identify areas that need more attention,
and point to strategies and approaches that are already working and should be
replicated across our area to support and create opportunities for long-term success for
our area’s youth.
While no report can provide an exhaustive evaluation of a community, this report uses
the most recently available government and private data to create an objective
assessment tool of how the Shreveport-Bossier City area fares in terms of its economic
and social health when compared to other similar communities in our region. By
providing a comparative context, this report can better inform community leaders, the
media and the public about whether our area’s improvement or deterioration in a
particular indicator is factual or a matter of perception. It also offers an additional
resource for informing decisions about where future efforts and resources from both the
public and private sectors should be directed.
Comparative Communities
The U.S. Census Bureau describes a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) as an area that
has “at least one urbanized area of 50,000 or more population, plus adjacent territory
2
that has a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured by
commuting ties.” 1 The Shreveport-Bossier City, LA MSA includes Caddo, Bossier and De
Soto parishes.2
A preliminary search of all MSA areas in the United States with a population within a
130,000 population range (+/- 130,000) of the Shreveport-Bossier MSA was conducted.
The search yielded more than 90 areas. The search was narrowed to include MSAs
located in Louisiana, states bordering Louisiana (Texas, Arkansas and Mississippi),
Alabama, and Georgia. The search yielded fifteen areas. See Table 1.
Table 1. Select MSAs by Population, 2012
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
Population
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX Metro Area
389,980
Brownsville-Harlingen, TX Metro Area
415,557
Columbus, GA-AL Metro Area
306,326
Corpus Christi, TX Metro Area
435,596
Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO Metro
Area
482,013
Fort Smith, AR-OK Metro Area
298,110
Huntsville, AL Metro Area
430,734
Jackson, MS Metro Area
548,945
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX Metro Area
420,133
Lafayette, LA Metro Area
279,781
Laredo, TX Metro Area
259,172
Lubbock, TX Metro Area
291,548
Mobile, AL Metro Area
413,936
Montgomery, AL Metro Area
377,844
Savannah, GA Metro Area
361,941
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
Median household income and racial demographics were compared. Areas with median
household incomes more than twenty-five percent higher or lower than the ShreveportBossier MSA area were eliminated.3 Areas with White, Black and Hispanic (any race)
populations more than twenty percentage points higher or lower than the ShreveportBossier MSA were also eliminated.4 See Figure 2.
1
Office of Management and Budget, OMB Bulletin No. 10-02, December 1, 2009.
Webster Parish was added to the Shreveport-Bossier City MSA in February 2013. Data reflecting this
change will be included in next year's report.
2
MSAs with median household income above $55,147 and below $33,089 were eliminated. In this case
one MSA, Brownsville, TX, was eliminated.
3
4
Five MSA areas were eliminated.
3
Table 2. MSAs by Population, Income, and Race/Ethnicity, 2012
Median
Household
Income
White
Black
Hispanic
(any
race)
389,980
$
43,421
69.5%
23.6%
13.8%
415,557
$
30,953
89.0%
0.7%
88.4%
Columbus, GA-AL Metro Area
306,326
$
42,972
52.6%
40.5%
6.1%
Corpus Christi, TX Metro Area
Fayetteville-SpringdaleRogers, AR-MO Metro Area
435,596
$
49,047
86.0%
3.9%
58.3%
482,013
$
45,611
84.0%
2.2%
15.5%
Fort Smith, AR-OK Metro Area
298,110
$
36,061
81.4%
3.5%
8.6%
Huntsville, AL Metro Area
430,734
$
36,382
71.6%
22.1%
4.9%
Jackson, MS Metro Area
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
Metro Area
548,945
$
42,604
48.9%
48.3%
2.2%
420,133
$
48,633
67.2%
19.9%
21.2%
Lafayette, LA Metro Area
279,781
$
46,813
69.0%
25.4%
3.8%
Laredo, TX Metro Area
259,172
$
36,624
94.2%
0.1%
95.4%
Lubbock, TX Metro Area
291,548
$
41,667
79.8%
7.2%
33.3%
Mobile, AL Metro Area
413,936
$
39,691
60.6%
35.1%
2.5%
Montgomery, AL Metro Area
377,844
$
44,674
52.3%
43.1%
3.0%
Savannah, GA Metro Area
361,941
$
47,059
61.0%
33.7%
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
Metro Area
406,253
$
44,118
56.4%
39.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
5.5%
City (MSA)
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
Metro Area
Brownsville-Harlingen, TX
Metro Area
Population
Percent
3.7%
Shreveport-Bossier City’s peer, comparative MSA communities in this year’s report are
Beaumont-Port Arthur (TX), Columbus (GA-AL), Huntsville (AL), Jackson (MS),
Killeen-Temple-Ft. Hood (TX), Lafayette (LA), Mobile (AL), Montgomery (AL), and
Savannah (GA). All communities remain unchanged from last year’s report.5
In an effort to keep the 2014 report consistent and manageable in terms of scope, this year’s report used
a population cutoff within +/- 130,000 of the Shreveport-Bossier City MSA. Had last year’s cutoff within
+/- 150,000 of the Shreveport-Bossier City MSA been used, the Chattanooga, TN-GA MSA and GulfportBiloxi, MS MSA would have both been within the population range, although the Chattanooga MSA would
have been eliminated on the basis of its racial composition.
5
4
Table 3. Comparative Communities for 2014 Community Counts
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
Columbus, GA-AL
Huntsville, AL
Jackson, MS
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
Lafayette, LA
Mobile, AL
Montgomery, AL
Savannah, GA
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
Social and Economic Indicators
The 2014 Community Counts report examines twenty-five indicators. New indicators
(2) in this year’s report include Early Childhood and Workforce Training, both in the
Education and Sciences section of the report. The Adult Literacy and Reading, which
was new in last year’s report, was eliminated due to a lack of new data. The Commuting
indicator was eliminated in this year’s report. While a short commuting time is a very
appealing aspect of life in the Shreveport-Bossier City area, it is not one of the area’s
most-pressing issues.
The indicators are roughly categorized into four broad categories: Social (9 total);
Economic (6 total); Education & Sciences (6); and Quality of Life (4 total). Due to
limited data across comparable communities, the Juvenile Justice, Health Outcomes,
Municipal Debt, Workforce Training, and Civic Involvement (5) are provided for
illustrative purposes and are not included in the scores.
5
Indicators
Social
1. Population
2. Poverty
3. Government Dependence
4. Juvenile Justice
5. Health Outcomes
6. Community Wellness
7. Health Care Coverage
8. Housing Affordability
9. Philanthropy
14. Productivity
15. Municipal Finance
Economic
10. Employment & Workforce
11. Income
12. Income Equality
13. Credit Worthiness
Quality of Life
22. Air and Water
23. Cost of Living
24. Civic Involvement
25. Crime
Education & Sciences
16. Early Childhood
17. K-12 Education
18. Higher Education
19. Workforce Training
20 Innovation
21. Internet & Computer Literacy
Additional data in is included in the Appendix. This data does not affect the rankings.
6
1. Population_____________________________________
RANK  7 of 10
MSA
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
Columbus, GA-AL
Huntsville, AL
Jackson, MS
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood,
TX
Lafayette, LA
Mobile, AL
Montgomery, AL
Savannah, GA
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
Population Growth
Data
Rank
2.3%
10
8.8%
5
22.0%
2
8.7%
6
24.5%
1
15.6%
3.9%
7.7%
20.1
8.1%
4
9
8
3
7
Commentary
Between 1992 and 2011, the Shreveport-Bossier MSA, which includes Caddo, Bossier
and DeSoto parishes, lost over $290 million in adjusted gross income (AGI) as a result
of people -- and their money -- departing the area for new opportunities. 6
A failure by political and civic leadership to communicate and address an area's
population growth -- or a lack thereof -- is not only evidence of a deep and systemic
failure, it portends an inability to navigate the area into a position taking one of the top
spots in future years. It must be understand that this issue not only represents money
that might have otherwise been spent in our geographic area to support and grow the
local economy, it should also represents future contributions to the area's economic and
civic life.
The Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), was home to just over
406,000 residents in 2012.7 While a population growth rate of just over eight percent
might seem strong, it is sluggish when compared to the area's comparative
communities.
The population category is comprised of one measure: population growth from 2002 to
2012 (See Figure 1.1). At an 8.1 percent population growth rate, the Shreveport-Bossier
City area lags behind all but three of its comparable communities. In fact, the leading
Author's calculations based on IRS wealth migration data provided by Travis Brown, How Money Walks
at http://www.howmoneywalks.com/irs-tax-migration/.
6
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
7
7
MSA, Killeen-Temple-Ft. Hood, grew at 24.5 percent over the past decade and the
Huntsville MSA grew at 22 percent.
Moving the Needle
All nine of the comparative communities in the 2014 Community Counts report positive
population growth over the ten-year period from 2002 to 2012. The Shreveport-Bossier
MSA improved its rate by just over 1 percent, increasing to 8.1 percent in this year’s
report.
While the area's most robust population growth in the past thirty years took place in
Bossier Parish, Caddo and De Soto Parishes have both near even with their 1982
population counts.8 Both parishes suffered dramatic population losses in the 1980s and
have only recently recovered. See Figures 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4.
Figure 1.1. Population Growth, 2002 to 2012
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
8.1%
Savannah, GA
20.1%
Montgomery, AL
Mobile, AL
7.7%
3.9%
Lafayette, LA
15.6%
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
24.5%
Jackson, MS
8.7%
Huntsville, AL
22.0%
Columbus, GA-AL
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
0.0%
8.8%
2.3%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
Source: Author’s calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year
Estimates at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml and custom search of U.S Census Bureau
and U.S. Economic Development Administration data at
http://www.statsamerica.org/innovation/anydata/custom.asp.
8
8
Figure 1.2. Population Growth in Bossier Parish, 1982 to 2012
45.0%
42.1%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.4%
17.8%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.2%
0.0%
1982-2012
1982-1992
1992-2002
2002-2012
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml and custom search of U.S Census Bureau
and U.S. Economic Development Administration data at
http://www.statsamerica.org/innovation/anydata/custom.asp.
Figure 1.3. Population Growth in Caddo Parish, 1982 to 2012
4.0%
3.3%
3.0%
2.0%
0.9%
1.0%
0.0%
-1.0%
-0.4%
-2.0%
-3.0%
-4.0%
-5.0%
1982-2012
-4.5%
1982-1992
1992-2002
2002-2012
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml and custom search of U.S Census Bureau
and U.S. Economic Development Administration data at
http://www.statsamerica.org/innovation/anydata/custom.asp.
9
Figure 1.4. Population Growth in DeSoto Parish, 1982 to 2012
5.5%
6.0%
3.0%
2.3%
1.8%
0.0%
-3.0%
-4.7%
-6.0%
1982-2012
1982-1992
1992-2002
2002-2012
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml and custom search of U.S Census Bureau
and U.S. Economic Development Administration data at
http://www.statsamerica.org/innovation/anydata/custom.asp.
10
2. Poverty________________________________________
RANK  6 of 10
Poverty Rate
Data
Overall
Rank
19.1%
8
MSA
Beaumont-Port Arthur,
TX
Columbus, GA-AL
Huntsville, AL
Jackson, MS
Killeen-Temple-Fort
Hood, TX
Lafayette, LA
Mobile, AL
Montgomery, AL
Savannah, GA
Shreveport-Bossier
City, LA
18.7%
11.9%
22.2%
15.0%
7
1
10
2
17.9%
21.1%
18.0%
18.0%
18.1%
3
9
4 (tie)
4(tie)
6
Commentary
This year, 2014, marks the 50-year anniversary of the War on Poverty. For all of the
resources spent and efforts made, poverty is a seemingly intractable problem. The
nation has already spent $20 trillion9 and, in the most optimistic analysis the poverty
rate has fallen from 26 percent in 1967 to only 16 percent in 2012.10 Even if one believes
that the War on Poverty has been effective, one is left wondering how to address the
double-digit poverty that remains.
In 2012, the poverty threshold for a family of four that included two related children
under age 18 was $23,283.11 The poverty threshold for a single person under age 65 was
$11,945.12 If a family’s pre-tax income is below the poverty threshold, then that
individual or related individuals in the household are in poverty.
The poverty indicator is comprised of one measure: poverty rate for 2012 (See Figure
2.1). The Shreveport-Bossier City MSA poverty rate of 18.1 percent is the sixth-highest
among its comparative communities.
Robert Rector, "How the War on Poverty was Lost," Wall Street Journal, January 7, 2014 at
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303345104579282760272285556.
9
Dylan Matthews, "Everything you need to know about the war on poverty," Washington Post, January
8, 2014 at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/08/everything-you-need-toknow-about-the-war-on-poverty/.
10
United States Census Bureau Poverty Thresholds at
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html.
11
12
Ibid.
11
Moving the Needle
The poverty rate for the Shreveport-Bossier City area has declined compared to 2011,
improving the area's ranking by one spot. Unfortunately, the area's black population saw
an increase in poverty over the prior year.
Poverty in our area remains significantly higher for blacks (32.4 percent) than for
whites, (8.0 percent) who saw a dramatic decline over 2011. See Figure 2.2.
Thirty-two percent of adults age 25 and over with less than a high school degree or
equivalency faced poverty in 2012. This is down slightly from 2011. See Figure 2.3.
The poverty rate increased for high school graduates (or equivalency) to 17.3 percent,
declined slightly for those with some college or associate’s degree to 11.5 percent, and
fell to 3.2 percent for college graduates.
Bossier, Caddo and De Soto parishes have seen increases in their poverty rates over the
past decade. See Figures 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6.
The Shreveport-Bossier City, LA area has a long way to go to effectively counter and
reverse our seemingly intractable poverty problem. As discussed in the 2011 Community
Counts report, New York City Mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, created a Center for
Economic Opportunity to implement innovative and evidence-based approaches to
combating poverty.13 Any evaluation should include a full inventory of both government
and private efforts. Area leaders should – publicly or privately – conduct similar
evaluations to determine if more effective strategies are available to combat poverty in
our area.
13
For more information, visit http://www.nyc.gov/html/ceo/html/home/home.shtml.
12
Figure 2.1. Poverty Rate by MSA, 2012
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
18.1%
Savannah, GA
18.0%
Montgomery, AL
18.0%
Mobile, AL
21.1%
Lafayette, LA
17.9%
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
15.0%
Jackson, MS
22.2%
Huntsville, AL
11.9%
Columbus, GA-AL
18.7%
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
0.0%
19.1%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
Figure 2.2. Poverty by Race for Shreveport-Bossier City, LA MSA, 20102012
35.0%
30.0%
32.4%
31.2%
29.9%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
9.6%
10.5%
8.0%
5.0%
0.0%
2010
2011
2012
Non-Hispanic White
Black
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
13
Figure 2.3. Poverty by Educational Attainment for Shreveport-Bossier City,
LA MSA, 2010-2012
40.0%
32.6% 32.0%
30.0%
27.6%
20.0%
15.4% 16.1%
17.3%
11.8% 11.5%
9.5%
10.0%
4.8% 4.6%
3.2%
0.0%
Less than high school High school graduate
graduate
(includes equivalency)
2010
Some college,
associate's degree
2011
Bachelor's degree or
higher
2012
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
Figure 2.4. Poverty in Bossier Parish, 2002 to 2012
20
15
12.5
13.4
14.4
15
14.9
13.6
12.1
14.3
14
14.1
13.3
10
5
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml and custom search of U.S Census Bureau,
Bureau of Economic Analysis, and U.S. Economic Development Administration data at
http://www.statsamerica.org/innovation/anydata/custom.asp.
14
Figure 2.5. Poverty in Caddo Parish, 2002 to 2012
25
20
23.1
19.6
19.7
22.2
22.9
20.5
19.8
19.5
20.4
18.7
16.9
15
10
5
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml and custom search of U.S Census Bureau,
Bureau of Economic Analysis, and U.S. Economic Development Administration data at
http://www.statsamerica.org/innovation/anydata/custom.asp.
Figure 2.6. Poverty in De Soto Parish, 2002 to 2012
30
27.3
25
20
21.6
19.1
19.2
19.5
19.9
18.1
19.3
21.2
21.2
22.4
15
10
5
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml and custom search of U.S Census Bureau,
Bureau of Economic Analysis, and U.S. Economic Development Administration data at
http://www.statsamerica.org/innovation/anydata/custom.asp.
15
3. Government Dependence___________________________
RANK  5 of 10
Percent Families
w/ Food
Stamp/SNAP
Benefits
MSA
Beaumont-Port
Arthur, TX
Columbus, GA-AL
Huntsville, AL
Jackson, MS
Killeen-TempleFort Hood, TX
Lafayette, LA
Mobile, AL
Montgomery, AL
Savannah, GA
ShreveportBossier City, LA
Data
Rank
6 (tie)
18.5%
20.2%
12.7%
18.5%
8
3
6 (tie)
11.0%
14.1%
23.8%
20.4%
12.1%
1
4
10
9
2
18.4%
5
Commentary
In a highly-controversial article, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof told of the
Jackson, Kentucky community where children were discouraged from attending literacy
classes due to parents' fears of losing disability checks.14 Our area is facing increases in
its under age 18 disability caseload. See Figure 3.1. While there has been no
investigation into the reasons for these increases in the Shreveport-Bossier City area, it
is important to be aware of the incentives that are in place that could influence caseload
levels.
The government dependence indicator is composed of one measure: the percent of
families receiving Food Stamp / SNAP benefits. (Participation in TANF and SSI both
trigger automatic eligibility in the SNAP program.)15 Of the ten comparative
communities, the Shreveport-Bossier City, LA MSA ranks 5th, with the Killeen-TempleFort Hood MSA being the least-dependent and the Mobile, AL MSA being the mostdependent.
Nicolas D. Kristof, "Profiting from a Child's Illiteracy, New York Times, December 7, 2012 at
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/opinion/sunday/kristof-profiting-from-a-childsilliteracy.html?pagewanted=all.
14
Karen Spar, “Federal Benefits and Services for People with Low Income: Programs, Policy, and
Spending, FY2008-FY2009, Congressional Research Service, January 31, 2011, p. 31 at
http://greenbook.waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/greenbook.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/2012/docu
ments/RL41625_gb.pdf.
15
16
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 was designed to change
the nature of the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) cash assistance
program now known as TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families). Time limits
and work requirements on receiving benefits were established. And while there has been
a dramatic decline in the share of the population receiving these benefits, a large share
of this population has merely been moved to rolls of the SSI (Supplemental Security
Income) rolls which provide cash assistance for the disabled.16
While the federal SSI program has work incentives, it does not have work requirements
and cash benefits are more lucrative than TANF. In fact, according to a study published
by the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) Office of Policy and highlighted in the
2013 Community Counts, it is financially advantageous to both the state and the
individual to move from TANF to SSI.17
More than one-third of the children in our area are living in families receiving
government assistance. There is a growing number of children on welfare -- and
disability, in particular -- in our area, as well as a growing number of adults in these
programs. See Figure 3.3. This poses important questions about how to break the cycle
of inter-generational government dependency, as well as recognizing that a failure to do
so will only lead to higher social costs and diminished prospects for many of these
children.
Steve Wamhoff and Michael Wiseman, “The TANF/SSI Connection,” Social Security Bulletin, vol. 66,
no. 4, 2005/2006 at http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v66n4/v66n4p21.html.
16
17
Ibid.
17
Figure 3.1. Total SSI Recipients under age 18 by Parish, 2002 vs. 2012
4,000
3,214
2,118
2,000
781
422
170
257
Bossier Parish
Caddo Parish
DeSoto Parish
December 2002
December 2012
Source: U.S. Social Security Administration, SSI Recipients by State and County, December 2002 at
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_sc/2002/la.html and SSI Recipients by State and
County, December 2012 at http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_sc/2012/la.html.
Figure 3.2. Percent Children in Housholds Receiving SSI, Cash Assistance and/or
Food Stamp / SNAP Benefits by MSA in 2012
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
35.0%
Savannah, GA
27.3%
Montgomery, AL
36.9%
Mobile, AL
43.8%
Lafayette, LA
27.1%
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
22.6%
Jackson, MS
36.6%
Huntsville, AL
35.8%
Columbus, GA-AL
35.8%
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
0.0%
34.8%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
18
Figure 3.3. Total SSI Recipients by Parish, 2002 vs. 2012
16,000
13,043
12,000
9,988
8,000
4,000
3,181
2,035
1,234 1,356
Bossier Parish
Caddo Parish
December 2002 Total
DeSoto Parish
December 2012 Total
Source: U.S. Social Security Administration, SSI Recipients by State and County, December 2002 at
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_sc/2002/la.html and SSI Recipients by State and
County, December 2012 at http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_sc/2012/la.html.
19
4. Juvenile Justice__________________________________________
RANK  No Score Assigned Due to Lack of Data Across MSAs
Commentary
In the first report of its kind in more than a decade, the U.S. Department of Education's
Office of Civil Rights (OCR) analyzed civil rights data from every public school in the
U.S. The study found that ethnic and racial minorities, led by boys, faced school
suspensions and disciplinary action at higher rates than their white counterparts -- even
in the earliest school years. Among the study's conclusions, nationally: "Black students
represent 18% of preschool enrollment but 42% of students suspended once, and 48% of
the students suspended more than once."18
A similar pattern is observed in the Shreveport-Bossier City area for public school
students.19 In all three area parish school districts, black students were far more likely to
face in-school suspensions, out-of-school suspensions, and expulsions compared to
their white counterparts. See Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3.
Figure 4-1. Black school enrollment and discipline vs. white school
enrollment and discipline in Bossier Parish, 2011-2012 school year
75.0%
60.5%
50.7%
50.0%
41.6%
47.3%
42.3%
46.9%
35.3%
27.0%
25.0%
0.0%
U.S. Department of Education, "Expansive Survey of America's Public Schools Reveals Troubling Racial
Disparities," March 21, 2014 press release at http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/expansive-surveyamericas-public-schools-reveals-troubling-racial-disparities.
18
Author's search of U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection
database at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/data.html?src=rt/.
19
20
Source: Author's search of U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, Civil
Rights Data Collection database at
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/data.html?src=rt/.
Figure 4-2. Black school enrollment and discipline vs. white school
enrollment and discipline in Caddo Parish, 2011-2012 school year
100.0%
81.2%
75.0%
82.2%
83.5%
63.2%
50.0%
32.1%
25.0%
15.9%
15.1%
14.4%
0.0%
Source: Author's search of U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, Civil
Rights Data Collection database at
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/data.html?src=rt/.
Figure 4-3. Black school enrollment and discipline vs. white school
enrollment and discipline in DeSoto Parish, 2011-2012 school year
75.0%
50.0%
65.7%
45.5%
68.2%
73.2%
50.4%
30.4%
25.0%
28.7%
22.7%
0.0%
-25.0%
Source: Author's search of U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, Civil
Rights Data Collection database at
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/data.html?src=rt/.
21
The sample size for our area's pre-school enrollment was too small to draw useful
comparisons to the national averages. However, the national data suggests that
disciplinary action disproportionately affecting minority children is observed in the
earliest pre-school years.
Community efforts should be directed toward investigating whether these trends are
present in the earliest years of education in our area public schools, the possible causes
of these disproportionate outcomes, and what types of personnel training and/or
student interventions might have a positive impact on discipline in the schools.
While it would be premature to draw any conclusions from these findings, the impact of
suspensions are well-documented. According to the U.S. Department of Education,
"Suspended students are less likely to graduate on time and more likely to be suspended
again. They are also more likely to repeat a grade, drop out, and become involved in the
juvenile justice system."20
The racial disparities observed in the public school system are also evident in the
juvenile justice system. There has been a rapid increase in the number of juvenile
arrests, but the racial disparity of those arrests is even more alarming. (Due to
unavailable arrest data from the De Soto Parish Sheriff, Bossier Parish Sheriff, and the
Bossier City Police Department for the under age 18 population, this analysis examines
arrest and population data from Caddo Sheriff and the Shreveport Police Department.)
Not only have arrests increased dramatically, they have increased despite a decline in
youth population. See Figures 4.4 and 4.5.
For many children, the intersection of poverty, educational failure, family violence or
addiction, and neighborhood disorder leads them to a point where they fall into criminal
activity. It is imperative that a community understands that this is, likely, the last
opportunity to re-direct the trajectory of many of these children’s lives.
The questions of why these racial disparities exist and have been identified even among
our area's youngest population should be a top priority. The costs of not re-directing
these children’s lives will be paid by in the forms of police and incarceration, as well as
immeasurable social costs. The criminal justice system is where our citizens are sent as a
last resort – a signal that every other institution of government and civil society has
failed.
20
U.S. Department of Education.
22
Figure 4.4. Population Growth for Under Age 18 in Caddo Parish by Race,
2012 vs. 1994
White
Black
0.0%
-5.0%
-5.3%
-10.0%
-15.0%
-20.0%
-19.7%
-25.0%
Source: Custom search using Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs, Easy
Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2012 at
http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/asp/profile_selection.asp.
Figure 4.5. Arrests for Under Age 18 in Caddo Parish, 1994 and 2012
600
557
500
425
413
400
300
200
291
144
134
100
0
White
Black
1994
Total
2011
Source: Custom search using Bureau of Justice Statistics, Arrest Data Analysis Tool –
Agency Level Counts at
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=datool&surl=/arrests/index.cfm# and custom
search using Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs, Easy Access to
Juvenile Populations: 1990-2011 at
http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/asp/profile_selection.asp.
23
5. Health Outcomes_________________________________
RANK  No score assigned due to lack of data across MSAs
Mortality
Morbidity
(rank out of 64
(rank out of 64
Louisiana parishes) Louisiana parishes)
Parish
Bossier
Caddo
De Soto
6
47
51
Health Outcome
(rank out of 64
Louisiana parishes)
16
43
49
9
47
54
Commentary
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin’s Population
Health Institute has developed a tool to measure health care outcomes and health
factors at the county-level in the United States.21 The purpose of this data is to assist
policymakers and community leaders in improving community health.
Using vital statistics data from the National Center for Health Statistics and the
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), researchers measured health
outcomes using length of life (mortality) and quality of life (morbidity) for counties
within each state.
The health outcomes indicator is composed of two measures: mortality and morbidity.
Of the 64 parishes included in this project in Louisiana, Bossier Parish ranked in the top
half for both mortality and morbidity.22 Caddo and De Soto Parishes ranked in the
bottom half of parishes for both measures. See Table 5.1.
Table 5.1. County Health and Rankings Roadmaps Health Outcomes
Measure
Weighted Value
Mortality
50 percent
 Premature death
Morbidity
10 percent
 Poor or fair health
 Poor physical health days 10 percent
10 percent
 Poor mental health days
20 percent
 Low birthweight
Source: County Health and Rankings Roadmaps, Health Outcomes at
http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/health-outcomes.
County Health and Rankings Roadmaps (A project of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the
University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute) at http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/roadmaps.
21
22
County Health and Rankings Roadmaps at http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/rankings/data/LA.
24
Unfortunately, our area seems to be losing ground in terms of its relative health care
outcomes. See Figure 5.1. Between the 2010 and 2013 reports, our area's health care
outcomes are getting worse when compared to the rest of the state.
Even Bossier Parish, which is among the healthiest parishes in the state, has lost
ground. Bossier remained constant in its relative morbidity compared to last year's
report, but it lost ground in its relative mortality.
Caddo Parish lost ground in both its relative mortality and morbidity. DeSoto Parish lost
ground in its relative mortality, but saw gains in morbidity. All three parishes fell in
their relative health outcomes rankings.
Figure 5.1. Health Outcomes Rank by Parish, 2010 and 2013
60
54
47
50
42
40
36
30
20
10
9
4
0
Bossier
Caddo
2010
De Soto
2013
Source: County Health and Rankings Roadmaps at
http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/rankings/data/LA.
The report also provides detailed data and a summary rank of health factors that,
according to their report, have the greatest influence on health outcomes. The data for
our area's health care outcomes and health care factors are listed in Table 5.2.
While this project is a great first step in assisting local communities in identifying the
areas of health care need in the community, both more information and more timely
information on these factors is needed in order to track the impact of local efforts on
community health.
25
Table 5.2 Health Care Outcomes and Factors by Parish
County
Bossier
Caddo
De Soto
7,538
11,115
11,669
Mortality
Premature death (years of
potential life lost before age
75 per 100,000 pop)
Morbidity
Percent poor of fair health
Number of poor physical
health days (avg. # in past 30
days)
18
18
20
3.5
3.7
3.8
Number of poor mental
health days (avg. # in past 30
days)
3.5
2.8
3.8
10.9
14.2
13.4
29
22
28
31
32
37
27
31
32
18
13
13
Percent low birthweight
births (percent of live births
with weight < 2500 grams)
Health Behaviors
Percent smokers (percent of
adults that smoke)
Percent obese (percent of
adults that report a BMI >=
30)
Percent physically inactive
(percent of adults that report
no leisure time physical
activity)
Percent excessive drinkers
(percent of adults who report
heavy or bringe drinking)
26
Motor vehicle mortality rate
(crash deaths per 100,000
population)
15
19
26
510
1512
874
53
67
63
2304:1
998:1
4455:1
2254:1
1606:1
13473:1
94
84
109
82
80
73
61.1
59.8
62.5
11.3
11.2
10.8
2
84
50
11.1
9.4
7.5
STD infections (chlamydia
rate per 100,000 population)
Teen birth rate (per 1,000
females ages 15-19)
Clinical Care
Primary care physician ratio
(Ratio of population to
primary care physicians)
Dentist ratio (Ratio of
population to dentists)
Preventable hospital stays
(rate per 1,000 Medicare
enrollees)
Diabetic screening (percent
of diabetics that receive
HbA1c screening)
Percent mammography
screening (percent of
Medicare females that
receive screening)
Physical Environment
Daily fine particulate matter
(average daily measure in
micrograms per cubic meter)
Drinking water safety
(percent of population
exposed to water exceeding
a violation limit in the past
year)
Access to recreational
facilities (rate per 100,000
27
population)
Access to healthy foods
(percent of population who
lives in poverty and more
than 1 or 10 miles from a
grocery store)
7
14
10
56
55
47
Percent fast food restaurants
(percent of all restaurants
that are fast food)
Note: The social and economic environment factors that are used to calculate health care outcomes are
not included in this table. Most are covered in the education and poverty indicators of this report.
Source: County Health and Rankings Roadmaps at
http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/rankings/data/LA.
28
6. Community Wellness______________________________
RANK  7 of 10
MSA
Beaumont-Port Arthur,
TX
Columbus, GA-AL
Huntsville, AL
Jackson, MS
Killeen-Temple-Fort
Hood, TX
Lafayette, LA
Mobile, AL
Montgomery, AL
Savannah, GA
Shreveport-Bossier
City, LA
Percent of Obese Adults
Data
Rank
32.5
9
32.1
23.8
28.9
25.3
8
1
6
3
26.6
33.7
27.1
25.2
30.8
4
10
5
2
7
Commentary
Three out of ten adults in our area are obese and the vast majority is overweight,
according to a recent Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Survey. The community wellness
category is comprised of one measure: percent of obese adults. Obesity is calculated
using the Body Mass Index (BMI) define obesity which is a measure of body fat based on
height and weight that is calculated separately for adult men and women.23 The
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA MSA ranked 7th in this category with an obesity rate of 30.8
percent.24 See Figure 6.1.
Obesity is well-documented as a leading cause of a host of other health care problems,
such as hypertension, heart disease, and diabetes. The National Institutes of Health
estimates that obesity costs $1,429 per person per year in additional healthcare costs.25
If our area were able to cut the obesity rate in half, the annual savings could exceed $70
million. That would be in addition to non-monetary gains that come with a healthier
lifestyle and, in some cases, sharing that lifestyle with one's children.
Compared to the prior year's survey data, the obesity rate in our area increased by more
than three percent. Preliminary steps to combat and reverse the obesity problem should
Gallup-Healthways defines normal weight as BMI as 18.5 to <25, overweight as BMI 25 to <30, and
obese as BMI 30 and above.
23
24
Source: Custom search of Gallup Analytics at https://analytics.gallup.com.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Adult Obesity Facts at
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html.
25
29
focus on evaluating food retail in our area26, investigating if and what mobile social
marketing strategies might be used to promote nutrition and physical activity in our
community27, and conducting a community-wide inventory of current programs and
initiatives to determine if successful programs around the country can be integrated into
our area’s current efforts.28
The ultimate solutions to obesity are simple: better food choices and exercise, which can
be an activity as simple as walking. How to best educate and change lifestyles is where
the challenge lies.
Figure 6.1. Percent Adult Obesity by MSA in 2012
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
30.8%
Savannah, GA
25.2%
Montgomery, AL
27.1%
Mobile, AL
33.7%
Lafayette, LA
26.6%
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
25.3%
Jackson, MS
28.9%
Huntsville, AL
23.8%
Columbus, GA-AL
32.1%
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
32.5%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
Source: Custom search of Gallup Analytics at https://analytics.gallup.com.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity,
“Healthier Food Retail: Beginning the Assessment Process in Your State or Community” at
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/downloads/hfrassessment.pdf.
26
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Social Marketing Resources at
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/DNPAO/socialmarketing/index.html. Financial incentives - discounts and
financial payments - could be provided for participation in events and activities.
27
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Stories from the Field” at
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/stateprograms/statestories.html.
28
30
7. Health Care Coverage_____________________________
RANK  8 of 10
Percent Uninsured
Data
MSA
Beaumont-Port Arthur,
TX
Columbus, GA-AL
Huntsville, AL
Jackson, MS
Killeen-Temple-Fort
Hood, TX
Lafayette, LA
Mobile, AL
Montgomery, AL
Savannah, GA
Shreveport-Bossier
City, LA
22.4%
Overall
Rank
10
15.0%
12.1%
16.0%
14.2%
4
1
5 (tie)
3
16.0%
16.1%
12.2%
17.4%
16.5%
5 (tie)
7
2
9
8
Commentary
The health care coverage indicator is comprised of one measure: health care coverage in
2012. While the Shreveport-Bossier City MSA reduced its uninsured rate by two
percentage points, it did not change its ranking from the eighth spot. The ShreveportBossier City area lags behind all but two of its comparable communities, the Savannah,
GA and Beaumont-Port Arthur MSA areas. See Figure 7.1.
Moving the Needle
The Shreveport-Bossier City MSA area’s uninsured rate decreased from its 2011 level of
18.5 percent.29 But this decrease has been relatively consistent nationally as the
economy continues its slow recovery from the financial crisis.
Since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, 49 of 50 states have experienced
reductions in the adult uninsured population. In Louisiana, the adult uninsured
population decreased from 21.7 percent to 18.4 percent.30 Simply put, one in five
Louisianan lacked health insurance coverage in 2013. Today, that number, while
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
29
Dan Witters, "Arkansas, Kentucky Report Sharpest Drops in Uninsured Rate," Gallup Well-Being,
August 5, 2014 at http://www.gallup.com/poll/174290/arkansas-kentucky-report-sharpest-dropsuninsured-rate.aspx#2.
30
31
improved, is closer to one in six.
The irony of the highly-anticipated health insurance overhaul is that the issue of the
uninsured could actually become worse. That is because health insurance premiums will
likely increase over time -- making health insurance less affordable for those who are
not eligible for generous subsidies. According to researchers at the University of
Minnesota, the number of uninsured could increase by 489,000 in the next five years. 31
In Louisiana, the state's largest insurance carrier is predicting increases as high as
almost 20 percent for some in 2015.32 Double-digit increases are likely for many. While
the law has undoubtedly assisted many, the issue of the seemingly intractable problem
of the uninsured will likely remain so.
Figure 7.1. Percent Uninsured by MSA in 2012
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
16.5%
Savannah, GA
17.4%
Montgomery, AL
12.2%
Mobile, AL
16.1%
Lafayette, LA
16.0%
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
14.2%
Jackson, MS
16.0%
Huntsville, AL
12.1%
Columbus, GA-AL
15.0%
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
0.0%
22.4%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
31
Stephen T. Parente and Michael Ramlet, "National and State Impact Analyses of the ACA on Insurance
Prices and Enrollment Beyond 2014," Medical Industry Leadership Institute, May 20, 2014 at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2014/05/ParenteAnalysis.pdf.
Ted Griggs, "Hikes sought in health coverage rates," The Advocate, August 6, 2014 at
http://theadvocate.com/news/business/9849885-123/hikes-sought-in-health-coverage.
32
32
8. Housing Affordability_____________________________
RANK  3 of 10
Percent Households
in Which Gross Rent
> 30 Percent of
Income
MSA
Beaumont-Port
Arthur, TX
Columbus, GA-AL
Huntsville, AL
Jackson, MS
Killeen-TempleFort Hood, TX
Lafayette, LA
Mobile, AL
Montgomery, AL
Savannah, GA
Shreveport-Bossier
City, LA
Percent MortgageHolders in Which Owner
Cost > 30 Percent of
Income
Data
Rank
Data
Rank
Overall Rank
52.4%
47.2%
45.3%
53.3%
7
2
1
8
27.6%
31.8%
21.4%
27.3%
6
9
1
5
6 (tie)
5
1
6 (tie)
47.5%
51.1%
54.6%
51.7%
58.1%
3
5
9
6
10
24.2%
27.0%
29.7%
30.2%
35.2%
2
4
7
8
10
2
4
9
8
10
49.3%
4
24.6%
3
3
Commentary
The housing indicator is composed of two measures: percent renters where rent exceeds
30-percent of income and percent mortgage-holders where housing costs exceed 30percent of income. See Figure 8.1. The Shreveport-Bossier City ranks 3rd in the housing
affordability category behind the more-affordable Huntsville, AL, and Killeen-TempleFt. Hood, TX MSA areas.
Moving the Needle
Not only is this an improvement in rank by one spot, but both rentals and home
ownership became more affordable over the prior year. Since 2011, the percentage of
renters spending more than 30 percent of income on rent decreased from 54.4 percent
to 49.3 percent and from 27.7 to 24.6 percent for mortgage holders.33
Multiple streams of federal, state, local and charitable streams of money are addressing
the local area housing issue, but many of these approaches are decades-old and
inflexible – and not necessarily appropriate in the current economic climate. In order to
continue to meet the area’s unmet housing needs and to bolster the quality of area
neighborhoods, area leaders in the public, nonprofit and for-profit areas should conduct
an area-wide “housing resource audit” to identify available resources, evaluating how
effectively these resources are meeting the multiple and diverse housing needs of the
local community, and explore new and innovative approaches to assistance delivery.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
33
33
Figure 8.1. Percent Households with Gross Rent 30 Percent or More of
Monthly Household Income by MSA, 2012
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
49.3%
24.6%
Savannah, GA
Montgomery, AL
30.2%
Mobile, AL
29.7%
Lafayette, LA
51.7%
54.6%
51.1%
27.0%
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
47.5%
24.2%
Jackson, MS
53.3%
27.3%
Huntsville, AL
45.3%
21.4%
Columbus, GA-AL
31.8%
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
0.0%
58.1%
35.2%
47.2%
52.4%
27.6%
10.0%
20.0%
Renters
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Owners with mortgage
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
34
9. Philanthropy____________________________________
RANK  4 of 10
MSA
Beaumont-Port Arthur,
TX
Columbus, GA-AL
Huntsville, AL
Jackson, MS
Killeen-Temple-Fort
Hood, TX
Lafayette, LA
Mobile, AL
Montgomery, AL
Savannah, GA
Shreveport-Bossier
City, LA
Median Philanthropic Contribution
Data
Rank
$3,790
6
$3,855
$4,373
$4,674
$3,306
5
2
1
8
$2,672
$3,519
$4,316
$3,196
$4,253
10
7
3
9
4
Commentary
The rise of social media is changing philanthropy. Whether it has essentially "thrown a
bucket of ice" on the traditional charitable fundraising model remains to be seen.
Charities rely on the generosity of donors’ time and money. But the questions of how
sensational fundraising tactics might impact donor preferences and whether this is an
opportunity to reach new audiences should loom large for these organizations.
The philanthropy indicator is composed of one measure: the total median contribution
donated to charity. See Figure 9.1. The Shreveport-Bossier, LA MSA ranked 4th with a
$4,253 median total donated to charity. The leading comparative community in this
category, the Jackson, MS MSA, had a median contribution total of $4,674 and the
lowest, the Lafayette, LA MSA, came in at $2,672.34
Navigating the world of social media could pose both serious challenges and enormous
opportunities for fundraising. On the one hand, the impact of social media can drive
donations, but there is a risk in not being able to convert this interest into long-term,
sustainable support. There is also a risk of undermining an organization's credibility if
there is a reliance on silly stunts.
The Chronicle of Philanthropy, “How America Gives,” August 19, 2012 at
http://philanthropy.com/section/How-America-Gives/621/.
34
35
Figure 9.1. Median Philanthropic Contribution by MSA
Savannah
$3,196
Montgomery
$4,316
Mobile
$3,519
Lafayette
$2,672
Temple
$3,306
Jackson
$4,674
Huntsville
$4,373
Columbus
$3,855
Beaumont
$3,790
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
Source: The Chronicle of Philanthropy, “How America Gives,” August 19, 2012 at
http://philanthropy.com/section/How-America-Gives/621/.
36
10. Employment and Workforce________________________
RANK  5th of 10
Unemployment Rate,
November 2013
Data
Overall Rank
9.1%
10
7.6%
9
4.8%
2
6.0%
4
6.6%
7
MSA
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
Columbus, GA-AL
Huntsville, AL
Jackson, MS
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood,
TX
Lafayette, LA
Mobile, AL
Montgomery, AL
Savannah, GA
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
4.2%
6.5%
5.8%
6.7%
6.1%
1
6
3
8
5
Commentary
The Shreveport-Bossier City MSA never faced the same catastrophic effects of the
economic downturn that pummeled many areas of the nation. The harmful effects to our
area were, in part, offset by the area's then-thriving oil and gas industry.
While the Shreveport-Bossier City MSA’s unemployment rate has continued to remain
low compared to the national economy, many of its comparable communities are now
recovering. In fact, every community saw its unemployment rate remain stable or
decline between October 2012 and November 2013.35 See Figure 10.1.
The employment and workforce indicator is comprised of one measure: the
unemployment rate for November 2013. Despite falling 0.4 percent over the past year,
the Shreveport-Bossier City, LA MSA unemployment rate of 6.1 percent ranks 5th in this
year's report.
Moving the Needle
The Lafayette, LA MSA which remained at 4.2 percent in both last year's and this year's
report retained its ranking as 1st in lowest unemployment. The Shreveport-Bossier City
area dropped from 2nd to 5th despite showing a lower unemployment rate over last year.
The reason that the area lost ground in this measure is due to the very dramatic
improvement other areas are experiencing in their declining unemployment rates.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment (Monthly) at
http://www.bls.gov/schedule/news_release/metro.htm.
35
37
Over the past decade, the Shreveport-Bossier City area’s annual unemployment rate has
been as low as 3.9 percent in 2006 and as high as 7.0 percent in 2009 and 2010. 36 The
area's annual unemployment rate is now at the same level as it was a decade ago. See
Figure 10.2.
Figure 10.1. Percent Unemployment by MSA, Oct. 2012 vs. Nov. 2013
6.1%
6.5%
6.7%
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
Savannah, GA
7.9%
5.8%
Montgomery, AL
8.0%
6.5%
Mobile, AL
8.7%
4.2%
4.2%
Lafayette, LA
6.6%
7.0%
6.0%
6.7%
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
Jackson, MS
4.8%
Huntsville, AL
Columbus, GA-AL
6.7%
7.6%
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
Nov. '13
8.0%
8.7%
9.1%
9.8%
10.0% 12.0%
Oct. '12
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment (Monthly) at
http://www.bls.gov/schedule/news_release/metro.htm.
36
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics custom search at
http://www.bls.gov/data/#employment.
38
11. Income_______________________________________
RANK  6th of 10
MSA
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
Columbus, GA-AL
Huntsville, AL
Jackson, MS
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood,
TX
Lafayette, LA
Mobile, AL
Montgomery, AL
Savannah, GA
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
Median Household
Income for 2012
Data ($)
Overall Rank
43,421
7
42,972
8
54,617
1
42,604
9
48,633
2
46,813
39,691
44,674
47,059
44,118
4
10
5
3
6
Commentary
The income category is comprised of median household income for 2012 (See Figure
11.1). The Shreveport-Bossier City area’s median household income of $44,118 was
higher than four of the comparative communities.
Moving the Needle
The Shreveport-Bossier City’s retained its 5th ranking from the prior year. The area's
median income increased by about $500, which was a much smaller increase than the
$3,000 increase between 2010 and 2011.37
The Huntsville, AL MSA, which held the top ranking in both last year's and this year's
reports, saw an increase of almost $3,000. Three communities -- Jackson, MS; Mobile,
AL; and Montgomery, AL -- experienced declines in their median household income for
2012.
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
37
39
Figure 11.1. Median Household Income by MSA, 2012
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
$44,118
Savannah, GA
$47,059
Montgomery, AL
Mobile, AL
$44,674
$39,691
Lafayette, LA
$46,813
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
$48,633
Jackson, MS
$42,604
Huntsville, AL
$54,617
Columbus, GA-AL
$42,972
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
$43,421
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
40
12. Income Equality_________________________________
RANK  7 of 10
MSA
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
Columbus, GA-AL
Huntsville, AL
Jackson, MS
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood,
TX
Lafayette, LA
Mobile, AL
Montgomery, AL
Savannah, GA
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
Data
0.4734
0.4751
0.4537
0.5039
0.4256
0.5035
0.4792
0.4598
0.4656
0.4758
Gini Index
Overall Rank
5
6
2
10
1
9
8
3
4
7
Commentary
The issue of income inequality has been the subject of recent media attention, as well as
a central topic among economic policy analysts. The complex issues of what income
inequality means, how it affects intergenerational mobility, and what to do about it
deserve increased attention in the Shreveport-Bossier City MSA area.
The income equality indicator is comprised of one measure: the Gini coefficient for 2012
(See Figure 12.1). The Gini coefficient is a measure of relative household income
distribution across a community or region.38 A coefficient of zero corresponds to perfect
household income equality, while a coefficient equal to one indicates totally inequitable
income distribution. That means the smaller the Gini Coefficient, the more even the
distribution of income.
The Shreveport-Bossier City ranks 7th in the income inequality category with a
coefficient of 0.4758, which is an improvement of both the area's 9th place ranking, as
well as improved measure for 2012.
The U.S. Census Bureau defines household income as “the sum of money income received in the
calendar year by all household members 15 years old and over, including household members not related
to the householder, people living alone, and other nonfamily household members. Included in the total
are amounts reported separately for wage or salary income; net self-employment income; interest,
dividends, or net rental or royalty income or income from estates and trusts; Social Security or Railroad
Retirement income; Supplemental Security Income (SSI); public assistance or welfare payments;
retirement, survivor, or disability pensions; and all other income.”
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_IPE010208.htm
38
41
Moving the Needle
The coefficient for the Shreveport-Bossier City MSA increased from 0.471 in 2006 to
0.4758 in 2012. See Figure 12.2. While the overall trend over this time period is in the
direction of increasing inequality, the slight improvement between 2006 and 2012
might, if sustained, be an early indication of long-term improvement for this indicator.
More investigation confirming this trend is needed, as well as research into the
underlying reasons for slightly more equality -- increasing opportunity for all versus
diminished opportunity for those is the upper echelons of the economy.
Figure 12.1. Income Equality(as measured by the Gini coefficient) by MSA, 2012
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
0.4758
Savannah, GA
0.4656
Montgomery, AL
0.4598
Mobile, AL
0.4792
Lafayette, LA
0.5035
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
0.4256
Jackson, MS
0.5039
Huntsville, AL
0.4537
Columbus, GA-AL
0.4751
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
0.4734
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
42
Figure 12.2. Income Equality(as measured by the Gini coefficient) for the
Shreveport-Bossier City MSA, 2006 and 2012
0.48
0.4758
0.471
0.47
0.46
2006
2012
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
43
13.Credit Worthiness________________________________
RANK 8 of 9 (Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX not scored)
Average Credit Score
City
Data
Overall Rank
Beaumont, TX
659
5
Columbus, GA
651
6
Huntsville, AL
673
1
Jackson, MS
644
9
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood,
N/A
N/A
TX
Lafayette, LA
662
3
Mobile, AL
666
2
Montgomery, AL
649
7
Savannah, GA
653
5
Shreveport, LA
648
8
Note: Credit worthiness data is not available for the Killeen-Temple-Ft. Hood, TX area.
Commentary
According to the annual Experian What is Your State of Credit?report, which examines
the average credit scores of consumers in cities across the country, both Shreveport, LA
and Jackson, MS remain among the ten cities with the lowest average credit score.39In
fact, none of the comparable communities have average credit scores above the national
average of 681 for 2013. See Figure 13.1.
The credit worthinessindicator is comprised of one measure: the average Vantage credit
score. Credit cards, auto loans, and personal loans/student loans are the types of credit
and debt used to calculate the credit score.
Recent academic research indicates that financial literacy plays a large role in economic
inequality (and ultimately income mobility).40 This, as well as credit measures showing
that all age groups in our area, with the exception of those ages 66+, consistently rank in
the ten cities with the lowest credit scores,41may indicate the need for long-term
financial literacy effortsfor both adults and students in our local area.
Experian, “What is your State of Credit?” at http://www.experian.com/live-credit-smart/state-ofcredit-2013.html.
39
40Annamaria
Lusardi, Pierre-Carl Michaud, Olivia S. Mitchell, “Optimal Financial Knowledge and Wealth
Inequality,” NBER Working Paper No. 18669, January 2013 at
http://papers.nber.org/papers/w18669?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntw.
Experian at http://www.experian.com/assets/consumer-information/infographics/experian-state-ofcredit-2013.pdf.
41
44
Figure 13.1. Average Credit Score by City, 2013
Shreveport, LA
648
Savannah, GA
653
Montgomery, AL
649
Mobile, AL
666
Lafayette, LA
662
Jackson, MS
644
Huntsville, AL
673
Columbus, GA
651
Beaumont, TX
659
National average
681
580
620
660
700
Source: Experian, “What is your State of Credit?” at http://www.experian.com/livecredit-smart/state-of-credit-2013.html.
45
14. Productivity____________________________________
RANK  10 of 10
MSA
Beaumont-Port Arthur,
TX
Columbus, GA-AL
Huntsville, AL
Jackson, MS
Killeen-Temple-Fort
Hood, TX
Lafayette, LA
Mobile, AL
Montgomery, AL
Savannah, GA
Shreveport-Bossier
City, LA
Compound Annual
Growth Rate in Real
GDP, 2002-2012
Data
Rank
2.92%
3
1.51%
3.50%
1.39%
3.44%
6
1
8
2
2.13%
1.91%
0.67%
1.41%
0.17%
4
5
9
7
10
Commentary
Gross Regional Product (the market value of all final goods and services produced in an
area), also referred to as Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The productivity indicator is
comprised of one measure: compound annual growth rate in real GDP for 2002 to 2012.
According to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, real GDP for the ShreveportBossier City MSA grew at a compound annual growth rate of 0.17 percent during that
time period.42 Huntsville, AL MSA (3.5 percent) and the Killeen-Temple-Ft. Hood, TX
MSA (3.44 percent) had the strongest growth among the comparative communities. See
Figure 14.1.
Moving the Needle
While the majority of the comparable communities saw a lower growth rate over the
time period, the Shreveport-Bossier City area was the only community to drop its
ranking more than one place since last year's report. The area was previously ranked 6th
and has now dropped to 10th place, which is last.
Unfortunately, the area's GDP for 2012 is below that of the previous two years of 2010
and 2011. See Figure 14.2. In fact, the level for 2012 has dropped back to its 2006, prerecession levels.
Custom search at Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Data Tool, GDP & Personal Income at
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=70&step=1&isuri=1&acrdn=2.
42
46
Both the area's private sector growth, which makes up the vast majority of the area's
economic activity, and the government's economic activity are now both on the decline.
See Figure 14.3. Government GDP figures include federal civilian, federal military, and
state & local activity.
There should be no doubt that rapid decline in the area's mining industry (which
includes oil and gas extraction) accounts for the area's dramatic reduction in private
sector activity. Between 2011 and 2012, the area's mining activity lost almost 2.7 billion
in economic activity -- a decline of more than half of the mining industry's total activity
from 2011. The overall private sector activity declined by almost 2.5 billion.
Figure 14.1. Compound Annual Growth Rate of Real GDP by MSA between
2002 and 2012
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA (MSA)
0.17%
Savannah, GA (MSA)
Montgomery, AL (MSA)
1.41%
0.67%
Mobile, AL (MSA)
1.91%
Lafayette, LA (MSA)
2.13%
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX (MSA)
Jackson, MS (MSA)
3.44%
1.39%
Huntsville, AL (MSA)
Columbus, GA-AL (MSA)
3.50%
1.51%
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX (MSA)
0.00%
2.92%
2.00%
4.00%
Source: Custom search at Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Data Tool, GDP & Personal Income at
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=70&step=1&isuri=1&acrdn=2.
47
15. Municipal Finance_______________________________
RANK  No score assigned due to lack of data
Commentary
In the Fall of 2013, the City of Shreveport was featured in a national media story
focusing on whether or not municipalities had recovered from the national recession. Of
particular interest was how local governments were faring in terms of having a
"cushion" for tough economic times. According to the Wall Street Journal article:
"Of the 250 cities, more than half still have reserves below their 2007 levels. They also
have taken on more debt: 114 cities saw overall debt loads increase from 2007 to 2012.
The real-estate markets in 100 cities are still worse than they were in 2007, an acute
problem for governments that rely on property taxes as a top source of revenue."43
In particular, the City of Shreveport was reported as having only ten days of cash on
hand and ranked as the 10th-worst city in this category. While many local leaders across
the country have taken the difficult steps to put their areas on solid financial footing, the
Cities of Shreveport and Bossier seem to have more work to do.
State law requires Louisiana municipalities to operate a balanced budget.44 When local
government wants to spend more money than they will get in revenue, they issue bonds
– a debt security to finance capital spending. Bond debt is repaid over time in the same
that one would pay a mortgage or a credit card.
Based on the cities’ General Funds, the City of Shreveport spends more per capita than
the City of Bossier City. But when the entire Operating Budgets are considered, the City
of Bossier City spends more per capita than the City of Shreveport.45 See Figure 15.1.
To meet bond debt principal and interest payments, the City of Bossier City is spending
the equivalent of 11.4 percent of its General Fund compared to the City of Shreveport
which is spending 13.7 percent.46 See Figure 15.2.
A debt service ratio of under 10 percent is generally considered to be acceptable. Both
the City of Bossier and the City of Shreveport are spending more than 10 percent to
Jeannette Neumann, "U.S. Cities Grapple with Finances," Wall Street Journal, October 27, 2013 at
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304799404579157780077670894.
43
Louisiana Legislative Auditor, “Local Government Budget Act FAQ,” July 28, 2008 at
http://www.lla.state.la.us/userfiles/file/LGBA.pdf.
44
U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/22000.html, City of Bossier
City, 2014 Operating Budget, p. 1 at http://www.bossiercity.org/files/2014%20Budget%20%20Operating.pdf and City of Shreveport, 2014 Annual Operating Budget, p. 19 at http://lashreveport.civicplus.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1138.
45
46
City of Bossier City, p. 57 and City of Shreveport, pp. 19 and 32.
48
service their bond debts.
Not only do fiscally responsible governments attract businesses and new residents
through lower taxes, these measures will help to keep these counties’ borrowing costs
low and limit the amount of belt-tightening should another economic shock occur.
City and community leaders should develop strategic and long-term fiscal plans to
contend with the area’s troubling household income realities, as well as the realities of
the industries upon which the local economy relies.
Figure 15.1. Per Capita Local Municipal Government Spending per Resident
by General Fund and Total Operating Budget
$4,000.00
$3,090.98
$3,000.00
$2,304.55
$2,000.00
$1,059.11
$1,000.00
$727.77
$General Fund
Bossier City
Operating Budget
Shreveport
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml, City of Bossier City, 2014
Operating Budget, p. 1 at http://www.bossiercity.org/files/2014%20Budget%20%20Operating.pdf and City of Shreveport, 2014 Annual Operating Budget, p. 19 at http://lashreveport.civicplus.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1138.
49
Figure 15.2. Total Debt Service Payments as a Percent of General Fund
15.0%
13.7%
11.4%
10.0%
Bossier City
Shreveport
Note: These calculations do not include public pension liabilities.
Sources: City of Bossier City, 2014 Operating Budget, p. 57 at
http://www.bossiercity.org/files/2014%20Budget%20-%20Operating.pdf and City of
Shreveport, 2014 Annual Operating Budget, pp. 19 and 32 at http://lashreveport.civicplus.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1138.
50
16. Early Childhood_________________________________
RANK  4th of 10
MSA
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
Columbus, GA-AL
Huntsville, AL
Jackson, MS
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood,
TX
Lafayette, LA
Mobile, AL
Montgomery, AL
Savannah, GA
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
Percent enrolled in early
childhood education
Data
Overall Rank
40.5
9
55.3
1
30.8
10
53.9
3
45.2
8
46.7
49.9
54.9
48.6
52.8
7
5
2
6
4
Commentary
Arriving in kindergarten with letter-recognition and counting abilities are important in a
child’s long-term success. Children who arrive in kindergarten without these skills could
face an increased risk of not catching up or, in the worst case, falling even further
behind their peers in school. While many children arrive in kindergarten ready to learn
as a result of a parent or loved-one's close attention at a young age, the ShreveportBossier City, LA area has a large proportion of students who, in recent years, have not
been arriving ready to learn.
While enrollment in an early childhood program does not provide a guarantee for
kindergarten readiness, and many children who do arrive kindergarten ready may not
have attended a pre-K program, there are strong indicators that these programs do
increase the likelihood of kindergarten readiness.
The education indicator is comprised of one measure: percent children enrolled in early
childhood education. The Shreveport-Bossier City area is 4th among its peer
communities with 52.8 percent of the area's 3- and 4-year-olds enrolled in a formal, preK program.47 Public and private programs are included in this measure. The Columbus,
GA-AL community leads this indicator with a 55.3 percent enrollment and the
Huntsville, AL community is last with a 30.8 percent enrollment. See Figure 16-1.
A closer look at the Shreveport-Bossier City, LA area's public school reveals rapid
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
47
51
progress being made in kindergarten readiness among its three school systems. See
Figure 16-2.
Figure 16.1. Percent 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Pre-K Program by MSA,
2012
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
52.8
Savannah, GA
48.6
Montgomery, AL
54.9
Mobile, AL
49.9
Lafayette, LA
46.7
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
45.2
Jackson, MS
53.9
Huntsville, AL
30.8
Columbus, GA-AL
55.3
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
40.5
0
20
40
60
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
Figure 16.2. Percent Kindergarten Students Arriving Kindergarten Ready
by Parish, 2008 and 2012
60.0
56.0
55.0
52.6
51.0
50.0
48.0
45.0
40.0
37.3
38.5
35.0
30.0
Bossier 2008Bossier 2012 Caddo 2008 Caddo 2012 DeSoto 2008DeSoto 2012
Source: Louisiana Department of Education at
http://www.kidsdashboard.la.gov/?fuseAction=viewKPI&cat=Education&idx=1.
52
17. K-12 Education_________________________________
RANK 8th of 10
MSA
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
Columbus, GA-AL
Huntsville, AL
Jackson, MS
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood,
TX
Lafayette, LA
Mobile, AL
Montgomery, AL
Savannah, GA
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
Less than High School
Graduate or Equivalency,
Ages 18 to 24
Data
Overall Rank
23.9
9
14.7
4
13.9
3
16.2
6
12.4
1
15.9
24.3
20.2
12.6
21.6
5
10
7
2
8
Commentary
The education indicator is comprised of one measure: educational attainment for the
age 18 to 24 year-old population. The Shreveport-Bossier City area is fifth (8th) among
its peer communities with just over one in five, or 21.6 percent, of its 18 to 24 year-old
population having less than a high school diploma or equivalency.48 See Figure 17.1.
That is compared to the Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood area which is first among the peer
communities with 12.4 percent, or just over one in ten, lacking a high school diploma or
equivalency.
Moving the Needle
Six of the ten communities improved in this metric over last year's report.
Unfortunately, the Shreveport-Bossier City, LA MSA lost ground on both the percent of
young adults with a high school diploma or equivalency and its rank. The area dropped
from 5th place at 18.5 percent in last year's report to 8th at 21.6 in this year's report.
The cohort graduation rate, which measures the percent of students who started 9th
grade and graduated four years later, is almost 68 percent for the Shreveport-Bossier
U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.General Education Development (GED)
holders are categorized as "High School Graduate or Equivalent” by the Census Bureau.
48
53
City, LA area. But the progress in this area has been mixed the past several years.49 See
Figure 17.2. Both Caddo and De Soto Parishes have seen dramatic improvements in
their cohort graduation rates since 2008 while Bossier Parish has seen a small decline.
The National Dropout Prevention Center / Network at Clemson University’s success
strategies that are proven to have reduced dropout rates across the country should be
aggressively pursued.50The programs fall into four strategic categories: School and
Community Perspective, Early Interventions, Basic Core Strategies, and Making the
Most of Instruction.
The Shreveport-Bossier City, LA area is already dealing with the long-term
repercussions of an educational system that fails to keep pace with the demands of a
global economy, much less fails to provide the basic skills for language and math. The
importance of educational attainment to a community’s economic and social well-being
cannot be overstated.
Figure 17.1. Less Than High School Graduate or Equivalency, Age 18 to 24
Years by MSA, 2012
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
Savannah, GA
21.6%
12.6%
Montgomery, AL
20.2%
Mobile, AL
24.3%
Lafayette, LA
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
Jackson, MS
Huntsville, AL
Columbus, GA-AL
15.9%
12.4%
16.2%
13.9%
14.7%
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
10.0%
23.9%
20.0%
30.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
49Louisiana
Department of Education at
http://www.kidsdashboard.la.gov/?fuseAction=viewKPI&cat=Education&idx=3.
Comprehensive information on each strategy is available at the National Dropout Prevention Center /
Network website at http://www.dropoutprevention.org/modelprograms/program-strategies. The Center
serves as a national clearinghouse for research and professional development.
50
54
Figure 17.2. Cohort Graduation Rate by Parish, 2008 and 2012
80
77.6
77
74.4
68.7
70
63.4
60
59.1
50
Bossier 2008 Bossier 2012 Caddo 2008 Caddo 2012 DeSoto 2008 DeSoto 2012
Source: Louisiana Department of Education at
http://www.kidsdashboard.la.gov/?fuseAction=viewKPI&cat=Education&idx=3. According to
the LDOE, “The Cohort Graduation Rate is the percentage of a school’s graduation cohort that
obtained a regular high school diploma. Each cohort of students is tracked for four years, from
entry as first-time 9th grade students through the 12th grade. It is of particular note that
students that do not graduate may: 1) still attend school; 2) drop out of school; or 3) complete
school—those students that obtain something other than a regular High School diploma; i.e.,
Certificate of Achievement (special education), GED.” The 2010-11 rate is a preliminary
estimate.
55
18. Higher Education________________________________
RANK  6th of 10
MSA
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
Columbus, GA-AL
Huntsville, AL
Jackson, MS
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood,
TX
Lafayette, LA
Mobile, AL
Montgomery, AL
Savannah, GA
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
Bachelor’s Degree or
Higher, Ages 25+
Data
Overall
Rank
17.2%
10
21.9%
7
36.9%
1
30.2%
2
20.9%
9
24.4%
21.5%
26.8%
29.2%
23.4%
5
8
4
3
6
Commentary
The "Starbucks Effect" is widely known in business circles as the firm's impact on
innovation in the coffee industry, as well as the overall cache of coffee as a product.51
Soon, the Starbucks Effect may also have a similar effect on higher education.
According to a recent report in The Chronicle of Higher Education:
"Starbucks is teaming up with Arizona State University on an exclusive program that
could send thousands of its baristas, store managers, and other employees to ASU
Online for their undergraduate degrees, with the coffee company picking up about
three-quarters of the tuition tab.
"The unusual program, the Starbucks College Achievement Plan, will be available to
more than 100,000 of its employees. The partnership, which could cost Starbucks
hundreds of millions of dollars a year, is likely to add luster to the company’s reputation
for corporate social responsibility. It could also be a welcome enrollment jolt to ASU
Online, which has about 10,000 distance-education students and aspires to enroll 10
times that many."52
Vijay Vishwanath and David Harding, "The Starbucks Effect," Harvard Business Review Magazine,
March 2000 at http://hbr.org/2000/03/the-starbucks-effect/ar/1.
51
Goldie Blumenstyk, " Starbucks Will Send Thousands of Employees to Arizona State for Degrees, The
Chronicle of Higher Education, June 14, 2014 at http://chronicle.com/article/Starbucks-Will-SendThousands/147151/.
52
56
The Starbucks announcement will only serve to propel the current seismic shift in
higher education that is already well-underway. The intersection of technology and high
costs of college has paved the way for a new model of higher education.
The higher education indicator is comprised of one measure: Percent Bachelor’s degree
or higher for the age 25 and older population. The Shreveport-Bossier City area ranks
6th in this category with 23.4 percent of the area population holding a Bachelor’s degree
or higher, which is virtually unchanged from last year's measure. See Figure 18.1.
While this revolution in higher education is still in its infancy, the challenge for local
leaders in higher education will be to insure that our institutions of higher education
will have the flexibility and capacity to respond to the changing higher education
landscape.
In order to make college more affordable, the state of Texas is focusing its public higher
education efforts on reducing tuition. In Texas, the Affordable Baccalaureate Degree
Program is currently limited to a handful of programs at ten schools, but a student with
no prior work or higher education experience can expect to compete the degree in three
years at a total cost of up to $15,000.53 For students with work experience or college
credit, the program could be completed in as little one year for a cost of as little as
$4,500.54
There should be no doubt that higher education has already changed. Initiatives aimed
at making tuition more affordable, as well as demonstrating a high rate of job placement
after graduation, will be essential in any long-term strategy that aims to attract and
retain students.
Katrina Trinko, “The $10,000 Degree,” National Review Online, December 13, 2012 at
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335522/10000-degree-katrina-trinko.
53
Office of the Governor of Texas Rick Perry, "ICYMI: Texas Affordable Degree Program Launched," Press
Release, February 5, 2014 at http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/19375/.
54
57
Figure 18.1. Percent Population Age 25 and Older Holding a Bachelor’s
Degree or Higher by MSA, 2012
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
23.4%
Savannah, GA
29.2%
Montgomery, AL
26.8%
Mobile, AL
21.5%
Lafayette, LA
24.4%
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
20.9%
Jackson, MS
30.2%
Huntsville, AL
36.9%
Columbus, GA-AL
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
10.0%
21.9%
17.2%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
58
19. Workforce Training______________________________
RANK 9th of 10
MSA
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
Columbus, GA-AL
Huntsville, AL
Jackson, MS
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood,
TX
Lafayette, LA
Mobile, AL
Montgomery, AL
Savannah, GA
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
Data
6.7
8.5
6.8
7.8
10.1
Overall Rank
8
2
7
3
1
5.0
7.5
7.4
7.6
6.5
10
5
6
4
9
Commentary
About one-third of our area's young adults, ages 18 to 24, is enrolled in college or
graduate school. But only 6.5 percent of our area's adult population age 25 and over has
actually completed a two-year Associates degree. While this number does not capture
the entire spectrum of workforce training across comparable communities, it does
provide a proxy measure for workforce training.
The workforce training indicator is comprised of one measure: Percent Associates
degree for the age 25 and older population. The Shreveport-Bossier City, LA area ranks
9th and only leads the Lafayette, LA area where five percent of its population holds an
Associate's degree. That is compared to the leading communities of Killeen-Temple-Fort
Hood at 10.1 percent and Columbus, GA-AL at 8.5 percent.
59
Figure 19.1. Percent Population Age 25 and Older Holding an Associate's
Degree by MSA, 2012
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
6.5
Savannah, GA
7.6
Montgomery, AL
7.4
Mobile, AL
7.5
Lafayette, LA
5
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
10.1
Jackson, MS
7.8
Huntsville, AL
6.8
Columbus, GA-AL
8.5
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
6.7
4
8
12
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml
60
20. Innovation ____________________________________
RANK  5 of 10
Innovation Index Score
Data
Overall Rank
80.2
8
85.3
2
98.8
1
82.4
3
81.5
6
MSA
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
Columbus, GA-AL
Huntsville, AL
Jackson, MS
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood,
TX
Lafayette, LA
Mobile, AL
Montgomery, AL
Savannah, GA
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
79.5
81.3
81.8
79.8
81.6
10
7
4
9
5
Commentary
Large urban centers, such as Boston and New York, are often recognized as centers of
innovation, but innovations are constantly taking place outside these areas. While some
in our community aspire to be the next Austin, whose metro area has a population about
five times that of ours, perhaps a better goal would be to nurture and strengthen the
factors that lay the groundwork for achieving such an ambitious goal.
The path to successfully nurturing innovation in a smaller community depends, in large
part, to aligning the community's resources, talents, and capacity with a realistic
implementation plan. According to the Thriving Places project:
"Decision-makers may pursue short-term approaches that are less realistic or not viable
over the longer term. For example, a town may declare their goal to be a regional or
national leader for aerospace or technology or a hub for artisans and creative [class].
While little is inherently wrong with any of these aims, the objectives must be based on
existing assets and industry clusters to some extent and must include a plan and the
capacity to implement the plan."55
Shreveport's own Moonbot Studies demonstrates an outstanding example of how a
smaller city can effectively achieve a large-scale goal.56 It may also point to a question of
Scott Tate, "Innovation and Small Towns," Thriving Places Project, April 25, 2014 at
http://thrivingplacesproject.com/2014/04/25/innovation-and-small-towns/.
55
Louisiana Economic Development case study of Moonbot Studios at
http://opportunitylouisiana.com/page/moonbot-studios.
56
61
whether these goals should be pursued organically rather than through top-down
government planning. In other words, should a community's focus be based on a
particular goal to lure a specific number of tech jobs to the area, for example, or to
create a an environment that fosters innovation?
The innovation indicator is comprised of one measure: the U.S. Economic Development
Administration Innovation Index score.57 The index measures seventeen inputs
(“innovation capacity”) in four categories.
Inputs (innovation capacity) are divided into two categories: Human capital and
economic dynamics. Each of these categories accounts for 30 percent of the index score.
Outputs (results) account for 40 percent of the index score: Productivity & Employment
(30 percent) and Economic Well-Being (10 percent).58 See Table 20.1.
A score of 100 reflects the national average. The Shreveport-Bossier area ranked fifth
among its comparative communities. See Figure 20.1. While none of the comparable
communities scored above the national average, the Huntsville, AL MSA is very close
with a score of 98.8 and was 13.5 points higher than the second-highest community of
Columbus, GA-AL.
Table 20.1. Innovation Index Variables
Human Capital
Educational Attainment (tertiary degrees)
Population Growth Rate
Occupational Mix
High-Tech Employment
Economic Dynamics
Venture Capital Investment
Broadband Density
Churn (rate of firm entry and failure)
Business Sizes
Productivity and Employment
High-Tech Employment Share Growth
Job Growth-to-Population Growth Ratio
Patent Activity
Gross Domestic Product
Economic Well-Being
30 percent
30 percent
30 percent
10 percent
Custom search of U.S. Economic Development Administration, Innovation Index at
http://www.statsamerica.org/innovation/innovation_index/region-select.html.
57
U.S. Economic Development Administration, Innovation Index Methodology at
http://www.statsamerica.org/innovation/innovation_index/methodology.html.
58
62
Average Poverty Rate
Average Unemployment Rate
Net Migration
Compensation
Growth in Per Capita Personal Income
A closer look at our area’s score reveals that, while our area is strong in the economic
well-being category (which is the lowest weighted category for scoring purposes) and
scores above the national average of 100, we have a lot of work to continue to do in the
human capital, economic dynamics, and productivity & employment areas which all fall
well-below the national average. See Figures 20.1 and 20.2.
A community that is poised to flourish in the “innovation economy” is far more likely to
attract and retain talent, develop new products, and contribute to new business
formation and growth.
Figure 20.1. Innovation Index Score by MSA
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
81.6
Savannah, GA
79.8
Montgomery, AL
81.8
Mobile, AL
81.3
Lafayette, LA
79.5
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
81.5
Jackson, MS
82.4
Huntsville, AL
98.8
Columbus, GA-AL
85.3
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
80.2
60
80
100
120
Source: Custom search of U.S. Economic Development Administration, Innovation Index at
http://www.statsamerica.org/innovation/innovation_index/region-select.html.
63
Figure 20.2. Innovation Index Score by Parish
90
83.6
80.7
80
73.7
70
Bossier Parish
Caddo Parish
DeSoto Parish
Source: Custom search of U.S. Economic Development Administration, Innovation Index at
http://www.statsamerica.org/innovation/innovation_index/region-select.html.
64
21. Internet and Computer Literacy_____________________
RANK  10 of 10
MSA
Beaumont-Port Arthur,
TX
Columbus, GA-AL
Huntsville, AL
Jackson, MS
Killeen-Temple-Fort
Hood, TX
Lafayette, LA
Mobile, AL
Montgomery, AL
Savannah, GA
Shreveport-Bossier
City, LA
Percent Population with HighSpeed Internet
Data
Rank
86.9
8
91.9
87.8
88.6
86.2
4
7
5
9
94.8
92.6
88.4
93.5
85.2
1
3
6
2
10
Commentary
The proportion of internet users has been steadily increasing over time. As recently as
1995, only 14 percent of adults used the internet with 86 percent of the population as
non-users. Those statistics have now flipped.59
According to a data from the Pew Research Internet Project, only 14 percent of adults
today do not use the internet.60 The Internet is rapidly changing the way we consume
information, access entertainment, and engage with others. There is little doubt that, for
most of us, access to online information will play an ever-increasingly important life in
education, civic participation, and gains in workforce productivity.
Referred to as the “digital divide” – the gap between those who have and do not have
access to the internet – is closely tied to economic and educational status. Users are
more likely to have higher incomes, are more urban, have more education, have higher
incomes, and be younger.
The internet connectivity indicator is based on one component – the percent of
households using high-speed internet services.61 The Shreveport-Bossier City, LA MSA
Pew Research Internet Project, Internet Use over Time at http://www.pewinternet.org/datatrend/internet-use/internet-use-over-time/.
59
Pew Research Internet Project, Offline Adults at http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/internetuse/offline-adults/.
60
High speed is defined as more than 3mbps DL and more than 768 kbps UL as reported by the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), National Broadband Map at http://www.broadbandmap.gov/analyze.
61
65
is last among its comparable communities.
In an effort to lure new business, the leading comparable community of Lafayette, LA
laid more than 800 miles of fiber optic cable to provide public high-speed internet. The
project is publicly-financed and it estimate to cost the city $125 million.62 While this
endeavor has garnered national media attention and enthusiasm among some in the
technology field, the impact of this endeavor on both jobs and the digital divide remains
to be seen.
Figure 21.1. Percent Population with High-Speed Internet Connectivity by
MSA in 2012
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
85.2
Savannah, GA
93.5
Montgomery, AL
88.4
Mobile, AL
92.6
Lafayette, LA
94.8
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
86.2
Jackson, MS
88.6
Huntsville, AL
87.8
Columbus, GA-AL
91.9
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
86.9
60
80
100
Note: High-speed is reported as more than 3mbps DL and more than 768 kbps UL.
Source: National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), National Broadband Map at
http://www.broadbandmap.gov/analyze.
Rick Jervis, "Louisiana city blazes high-tech Web trail," USA Today, Feb. 5, 2012 at
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-01/broadband-telecomlafayette/52920278/1.
62
66
22. Air and Water__________________________________
RANK  No score assigned due to lack of data across MSAs
Commentary
A lack of consistent data across the MSAs makes it difficult to provide reasonable comparisons
for both air and water quality. In fact, the data is so sparse for the Shreveport-Bossier City MSA
that this indicator is largely subjective in nature.
The EPA tracks six air pollutants but is currently only providing data for one in our area. Ozone
(O3), which can be highly variable based on weather, has generally declined over the past decade
in the Shreveport-Bossier City MSA area. See Figure 22.1.
Nationally, ozone declined by 14 percent between 1990 and 2012. Our area's reduction was 24
percent, far exceeding the national average. See Figure 22.2.
While there is no national standard measurement for water quality data, polling data does shed
some light on perceived water quality. Gallup polling data, which is available for seven of
the ten comparable communities, asks: In the city or area where you live, is it easy or not
easy to get clean and safe water?
While the percent of "easy" responses ranged from a low of 90 percent in the Jackson, MS MSA
to a high of 97 percent in the Montgomery, AL MSA, the Shreveport-Bossier City MSA came
in at 95 percent. Four percent in our area responded that it was "not easy" to get clean and safe
water. See Figure 22.3.
Figure 22.1. Air Pollution by Ozone in the Shreveport-Bossier City MSA, 2000-2012
(with trend line)
0.1
0.093
0.09
0.086
0.084
0.08
0.082 0.082
0.08
0.077
0.076
0.07
0.079
0.074
0.071
0.07
0.066
0.06
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Note: Units for ozone are parts per million (ppm).
Source: Author’s calculations based on United States Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Trends - Ozone at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/ozone.html.
67
Figure 22.2. Air Quality Percent Improvement (Ozone) for the U.S. and the
Shreveport-Bossier MSA, 2000-2012
30%
24%
20%
14%
10%
0%
Shreveport-Bossier City MSA
National Average
Note: The Shreveport-Bossier MSA had a 24 percent reduction in ozone air pollution, while the
nation had an average 14 percent reduction over the same time period.
Source: Author’s calculations based on United States Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Trends - Ozone at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/ozone.html.
Figure 22.3. Easy or Not Easy to Get Clean and Safe Water by MSA in 2012
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
4%
Savannah, GA
5%
95%
95%
2%
Montgomery, AL
97%
Mobile, AL
4%
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
4%
96%
95%
10%
Jackson, MS
90%
7%
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
0%
20%
93%
40%
Not easy
60%
80%
100%
Easy
Source: Custom search of Gallup Analytics at https://analytics.gallup.com.
68
23. Cost of Living___________________________________
RANK  8 of 9 (Columbus, GA not scored)
Average cost of Living
Index
MSA
Data
Rank
Beaumont
$50,373
7
Huntsville
$49,962
5
Jackson
$47,404
2
Temple
$46,632
1
Lafayette
$51,145
9
Mobile
$48,747
3
Montgomery
$50,596
8
Savannah
$48,944
4
Shreveport
$50,000
6
Note: Cost of living data is not available for the Columbus, GA-AL MSA. It will not be scored in this
indicator.
Commentary
The cost of living indicator is the relative cost of maintaining the same standard of living
in another area. The cost of living index measures differences in prices among the
comparative communities at a single point in time.63
The composite index is based on six components – housing, utilities, grocery items,
transportation, health care and miscellaneous goods and services and comparable
communities are measured in relative comparison to the Shreveport area.
Shreveport ranked sixth in overall affordability. Lafayette (which is the only other
comparative community in Louisiana) retained its spot as the highest cost of living
among the group. See Figure 23.1.
63
The Council for Community and Economic Research at http://coli.org/Method.asp.
69
24. Civic Involvement_______________________________
RANK  No score assigned due to lack of data across MSAs
Commentary
The level of voter participation can be an important measure for determining the level of
civic involvement in a community. Unfortunately, voter participation often wanes in
elections that are not electing a president or Member of Congress. See Figure 24.1.
But it is these local elections and "off-year" races that can, ultimately, have the greatest
impact on a citizens day-to-day life. Fewer than ten percent of registered voters in
Bossier, Caddo, and DeSoto Parishes voted in the October 2013 election.
While a more engaged community is desirable, there is evidence indicating that the
community, overall, is generally satisfied. Gallup polling data, which is available for
seven of the ten comparable communities, asks: Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the
city or area where you live?
In the Shreveport-Bossier City MSA, 82 percent of respondents reported that they felt
satisfied with the area. See Figure 24.2. The Savannah, GA MSA led with 89 percent of
respondents reporting satisfaction. The Beaumont-Port Arthur MSA had the lowest
reported satisfaction at 75 percent.
Figure 24.1. Percent of Registered Voters by Parish Casting a Ballot,
November 2012 vs. October 2013
80.0%
72.6%
68.1%
66.3%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
9.6%
6.3%
5.8%
0.0%
Bossier Parish
Caddo Parish
November 2012
DeSoto Parish
October 2013
Source: Louisiana Secretary of State, Election Results and Registration Statistics at
http://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/GetElectionInformation/FindResultsAndStatistics/Pa
ges/default.aspx.
70
Figure 24.2. Satisfied with Area by MSA, 2012
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
82%
Savannah, GA
89%
Montgomery, AL
83%
Mobile, AL
80%
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
83%
Jackson, MS
77%
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
75%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
Source: Custom search of Gallup Analytics at https://analytics.gallup.com.
71
95%
25. Crime________________________________________
RANK  No score assigned due to lack of data across MSAs
City
Beaumont
Columbus
Huntsville
Jackson
Killeen
Lafayette
Mobile
Montgomery
Savannah
Shreveport
City Crime Rate Rankings
Score
National
Rank
Rank (of
437)
124.71
386
9
56.42
310
4
88.43
355
7
272.88
427
10
63.08
318
5
34.00
265
2
47.94
291
3
107.48
372
8
26.29
253
1
70.37
328
6
Commentary
It is disappointing that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) consistently excludes
the City of Bossier City from its national crime statistics. The bureau asserts that the
city's data were underreported. While the crime data for every other one of our area's
comparative communities is consistently available, the crime data for Bossier City is
routinely excluded.
Since crime data is not available for the Shreveport-Bossier City, LA MSA, this year's
report examines crime statistics from each comparative community's largest city. The
crime indicator is composed of one measure: the City Crime Rate Rankings.64 See Figure
25.1. A score of zero means that the crime level is equivalent to the national score. A
score above zero is a crime level above the national level. A score below zero is a crime
level below the national level.
The composite score is based on six components – murder, rape, robbery, aggravated
assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft. Shreveport scored 70.37 and ranked 6th
among the ten comparable communities.65 It is interesting to note that all ten
comparable communities had scores above the national average of zero.
Shreveport's score placed it #328 among the 437 cities. The community with the lowest
crime rate was Savannah, GA which came in at #253. The highest crime was Jackson,
MS which came in at #427, just ten spots above the city ranked as least safe, Camden,
NJ, at #437.
Kathleen O'Leary Morgan, Scott Morgan and Dr. Rachel Boba, eds. City Crime Rankings 2014
(Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2014) at
http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/2013/2014_CityCrimeRankings(LowtoHigh).pdf.
64
65
Ibid.
72
While crime statistics sheds light on the crime level, it does not reveal how safe people in
the community actually feel. Gallup polling data, which is available for seven of the ten
comparable communities, asks: Do you feel safe walking alone at night in the city or
area where you live?
In the Shreveport-Bossier City MSA, 64 percent of respondents reported that they did
feel safe walking alone at night. See Figure 25.2.
Figure 25.1. 2013 Crime Rate Rankings by City
Shreveport
70.37
Savannah
26.29
Montgomery
107.48
Mobile
47.94
Lafayette
34
Killeen
63.08
Jackson
272.88
Huntsville
88.43
Columbus
56.42
Beaumont
124.71
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Source: Kathleen O'Leary Morgan, Scott Morgan and Dr. Rachel Boba, eds. City Crime Rankings 2014
(Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2014) at
http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/2013/2014_CityCrimeRankings(LowtoHigh).pdf.
Figure 25.2. Safe Walking Alone, 2012
36%
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
64%
30%
Savannah, GA
69%
38%
Montgomery, AL
61%
48%
51%
Mobile, AL
34%
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
65%
39%
Jackson, MS
41%
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
0%
20%
40%
No
60%
58%
60%
Yes
Source: Custom search of Gallup Analytics at https://analytics.gallup.com.
73
80%
Conclusions______________________________________
RANK  8th of 10
The Shreveport-Bossier City area ranks 8th among the ten peer communities, ahead of
only the Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX and Mobile, AL Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(MSA). Of the twenty indicators that are scored in this report (25 total), the ShreveportBossier City area scored in the top-half (a rank of one to five) in only six instances and
placed as high as 3rd only once.
The Shreveport-Bossier City area has enormous potential to be a regional economic and
cultural powerhouse – providing many of the opportunities and benefits of a large city
within the confines of a more-manageable small city. But this potential will never be
realized if a large segment of the population is unable to benefit from educational and
economic opportunities.
In 1982, researchers from The Johns Hopkins University began studying 790 of
Baltimore's public school first-grade children. Karl Alexander and Doris Entwisle
followed the children for twenty-five years. What they found was startling.
Fewer than half graduated high school on time, only four percent of "urban
disadvantaged" completed college, ten percent of the black men -- about age 28 at the
conclusion of the study -- were incarcerated, and only 33 of 314 low-income students
had moved beyond the socioeconomic rung of their parents'.66
One is left wondering how the children in Shreveport-Bossier City MSA who were in
first grade in 1982 are now faring. And without any additional commitment and action,
what will become of today's area first graders?
The cornerstone of the regional economy and area’s social wellbeing will be determined
by the ability of the public school systems in the region to academically prepare students
to attend college or enter the workforce, experiencing the joy that comes from learning.
Every day that these goals are not achieved, opportunities for the community and those
children are lost.
Emily Badger, "What your 1st-grade life says about the rest of it," Washington Post, August 29, 2014 at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/29/what-your-1st-grade-life-says-aboutthe-rest-ofit/?utm_content=buffer64d29&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffe
r.
66
74