PRIVATE AND PUBLIC EDUCATION IN WISCONSIN
Implications for the Choice Debate
John F. Witte
Christopher A. Thorn
Kim A. Pritchard
The Robert M. La Follette Institute of Public Affairs
Created in 1984, the Robert M. La Follette Institute of Public Affairs is a department of the University of
Wisconsin-Madison, which carries out a multifaceted mission of instruction, research, and outreach. The Institute
takes no stand on policy issues and publishes papers that present many points of view. Opinions in these pages
reflect the views of the authors.
John Witte is professor at the Robert M. La Follette Institute of Public Affairs and in the Department of Political
Science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Christopher Thorn is associate researcher at the La Follette
Institute and the University of Bielefeld, Germany. Kim Pritchard is research assistant at the La Follette Institute.
© 1995 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
All rights reserved
Additional copies may be requested from:
Robert M. La Follette Institute of Public Affairs
The University of Wisconsin-Madison
1225 Observatory Drive
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC EDUCATION IN WISCONSIN
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CHOICE DEBATE
This paper describes the location and demographic characteristics of families with children in kindergarten
through twelfth grade in both private and public schools in Wisconsin. Wisconsin has pioneered public funding
for private schools through the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) enacted in 1990. The program is
targeted toward low-income families and students who were not in private schools in the prior year. It is limited
to nonreligious private schools in the City of Milwaukee. If more students apply to a school than there are places
for the students, the schools must select students randomly. Enrollment in the program is limited to approximately
1,500 students in any given year and is limited within each school to 65 percent of the student enrollment. Private
schools receive the state aid that would have gone to the Milwaukee Public School System (MPS) in lieu of
tuition ($3,209 in 1994-95).
Governor Thompson has recently proposed expanding the program to include any private school in Milwaukee.
He would also increase the enrollment limit to 3,500 in 1995-96, 5,000 in 1996-97, with no limit after that. All
other current program conditions would continue to apply. Four years of data support the conclusion that the
current program has primarily benefited poor families (annual income approximately $12,000) that are often
headed by single parents (75%). Approximately 58 percent of parents in the program were on public assistance,
and only 36 percent were employed full time. Students applying to choice schools are primarily racial minorities
(95%). Choice families are headed by parents (primarily mothers) who on average are more educated than
Milwaukee Public School parents.1
Because this program may eventually expand beyond Milwaukee, and may relax income restrictions and the
random selection stipulations, we feel it is important to include in the debate descriptions of private school
students and their schools in Wisconsin. The general picture of the private school population, in almost all
respects, contrasts sharply with the portrait of families currently enrolled in the Choice Program.
Data Sources
The data in this paper came from two sources. The location of students by school district and the characteristics
of those districts (shown in tables 1-4) are drawn from public records collected by the Wisconsin Department of
Public Instruction for the 1993-94 school year. Demographic characteristics of students and households
presented in tables 5 and 6 are from the 1990 U.S. Census Public Use Micro Sample (PUMS).2 Most census
data are released in aggregate form (cities, counties, etc.), but the Census also releases a 5 percent stratified
random sample of individual household data. For this study we used the Wisconsin sample of PUMS. We
included all households in which a child between the ages of 5 and 19 was present and enrolled in some grade
between kindergarten and twelfth grade.
Unfortunately, neither data source allows us to distinguish between private parochial schools and private
nonsectarian schools. In the United States, approximately 90 percent of private school enrollment is in religious
schools. We have no way of judging whether Wisconsin deviates significantly from this average. It is probably
safe to conclude, however, that a considerable majority of private school students in Wisconsin are enrolled in
religiously affiliated private schools.3
Finally, as indicated in the footnote for table 6, the definition of "Milwaukee Suburbs" is not precisely the same in
the two data sources because PUMS data do not allow breakdowns by school district. In tables 1 through 4,
Milwaukee suburbs are those suburban districts participating in the Milwaukee Chapter 220 program; in table 6,
the suburbs include Milwaukee County (minus the city), and Waukesha and Ozaukee counties.
Where Do Students Attend Private and Public Schools?
Tables 1 through 4 present geographic data based on the enrollment by school district in private and public
schools in Wisconsin. We focus on the five largest cities, the Milwaukee and Madison suburbs, and the rest of
the state. In tables 1 through 3, enrollments are broken down by kindergarten through eighth grade and high
school.4 Table 1 provides percentage breakdowns; table 2 a set of ratios of private school to public school
percentages; and table 3 the exact enrollment figures. Table 4 provides average household income and wealth
characteristics of districts aggregated by the relevant categories.
Figures in table 1 should be read as the percentage of either public or private school enrollment in the relevant
category. For example, the figure in the upper left-hand cell-for Milwaukee, K-8, percent in public school-means
that 12.27 percent of the public school K-8 students in 1993-94 were enrolled in MPS. This can be contrasted
with the fact that only 8.93% of the high school students in public schools are in Milwaukee. Figures in the
bottom panel of table 1 combine the five largest cities, the suburban areas of the two largest districts, and the
remainder of the state. Adding across rows and allowing for rounding errors, these figures total 100 percent.
A comparison of public and private enrollment allows us to ascertain the areas in which private schools are overor underrepresented relative to public school enrollments. The private to public school ratios computed from
table 1 are presented in table 2. For example, for K-8 in Milwaukee, the private/public ratio of 1.09 is computed
by taking the Milwaukee private school K-8 population in table 1 (13.42%) and dividing it by the K-8 public
school percentage for the district (12.27%). The ratio of 1.09 indicates that private school elementary students
are slightly overrepresented in Milwaukee relative to public school enrollment. Multiplying these ratios by 100
gives an over- or underrepresentation percentage.
The findings reported in these tables support a number of conclusions. Overall private school enrollment is
spread throughout the state, with only 28.16 percent of private school students in the five largest cities. Public
schools are less concentrated, with only 21.15 percent of public school students in large cities. If we look at
grade level, however, the large cities account for close to half (47.54%) of all the private school enrollment in
grades nine to twelve. Milwaukee alone accounts for 34.33 percent of the private high school enrollment. This is
in sharp contrast to the 8.93 percent of the public high school enrollment accounted for by MPS students.
The ratio of private school overrepresentation for Milwaukee in grades nine to twelve is 3.84 (table 2). This
means that private high school enrollment in Milwaukee is 384 percent higher than would be expected if public
and private enrollments were proportionate in geographic regions.
Two factors may explain this pattern. First, private high schools must respond to economies of scale and so are
most likely to exist in concentrated population areas. Thus in Milwaukee there are two large parochial high
schools (Pius and Marquette), which presumably draw from the larger metropolitan area. Green Bay, which has
almost 200 percent overrepresentation also supports two large parochial schools (one Luthern, the other
Catholic). Second, the overrepresentation at the high school level in Milwaukee may be associated with parental
concerns about Milwaukee public high schools.
The elementary school pattern is considerably different. Although the five largest cities also have some
overrepresentation of private school students, the ratio is only 1.09. That percentage is brought down by
Madison, which has lower private school enrollment in all categories. The elementary school number that stands
out is the considerable overrepresentation of private schools in the Milwaukee suburbs. They have 177 percent
of the expected private school enrollment in comparison to an assumption of even distribution between public
and private schools. That enrollment does not carry over into high schools, but some of these students
undoubtedly enroll in private high schools in the City of Milwaukee.
Table 4 provides income and wealth statistics for these geographic areas. The results are not unexpected. The
last two columns, which provide ratios of average income and property wealth relative to state averages, show
that cities have both lower income and lower wealth than the rest of the state. The two suburban areas have
much higher income and wealth than the state averages. The most extreme contrast is between MPS and the
surrounding suburban districts. In terms of average income per pupil, the suburbs have almost twice as much as
the city ($45,010 compared with $23,627). In terms of property wealth per pupil, suburbs have 2.45 times more
than the Milwaukee average ($359,735 to $146,623).
Who Goes to Public and Private School in Wisconsin?
District breakdowns and aggregates do not allow us to make accurate comparisons of families and households
sending their children to public schools and those sending them to private schools. Individual level data are
required for those comparisons. Such data are presented in tables 5 and 6. Because the Milwaukee Parental
Choice Program is in Milwaukee, and because the Milwaukee area has more than its share of private school
students, we focus on the Milwaukee metropolitan area and the state as a whole. Tables 5 and 6 differ in that
table 5 is based on individual student statistics, table 6 on household characteristics. In most regards, both tables
present a picture of private school students and households that is very different from the portrait of families and
students participating in the current Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.
For the state as a whole, in terms of race, as indicated in the top panel of table 5, private school students were
more likely to be white than public school students.5 The differences are larger in elementary school than in high
schools. For the latter, the percentage of nonwhite students is quite close to the percentage of whites (9 percent
of private school students are nonwhite; 11.5 percent of public school students are nonwhite).
The racial differences between public and private schools in Milwaukee were considerable (see panel b of table
5). Between 84 and 85 percent of the private school students in the City of Milwaukee were white, but only 33
percent of the public elementary and 37.9 percent of the public high school students were white. For African
Americans the differences were particularly sharp, with 55 percent of elementary students and 51 percent of the
public high school students being African American. In contrast, only 12.8 percent and 9.8 percent of the private
school students were African Americans. Racial differences in the suburbs were trivial, with almost all students in
both types of schools being white (see panel c of table 5).
Family demographics indicate sharp contrasts between public and private school users. Parental employment
status is indicated in the three panels of table 5. Across the state private school parents were more likely to be
employed full time and less likely to be unemployed. Again, the contrasts are most pronounced in the City of
Milwaukee. From 28 to 29 percent of the public school families reported neither parent being employed. This is
in contrast to 4 to 5 percent private school parents being unemployed. Again, in the suburbs the two groups look
very similar, with exceptionally high employment levels for both public and private school families.
Statistics in table 6 are for households and are presented in three categories: households with students only in
public or only in private schools, and households with students in both. The statistics provide a uniform picture of
higher socioeconomic status for households with at least one child in private school. Statewide, private school
households were more likely to headed by a married couple; household income was approximately 23 percent
higher; the likelihood of being on public assistance was considerably less; parent education was higher (by .9
years); and property values and property taxes were more for the private school households.
As with other data, the contrasts are considerably more extreme in the City of Milwaukee. This is especially true
when comparing the largest groups-public school households-with households having students only in private
schools. For example, although household income of both groups in Milwaukee was below the state average,
private school household incomes in the City of Milwaukee were 69 percent higher than public school incomes
($42,583 compared with $25,203). Thirty-five percent more private school households were headed by two
parents, and the householder had, on average, 1.7 more years of education. Finally, Milwaukee public school
households were over eight times more likely to be on public assistance than Milwaukee households with
children only in private schools (25.8% to 3.1%).
The contrasts between the city and suburbs were stark for both public and private school users. As with earlier
results, the differences between public and private school suburban households were less pronounced because
both sets of households were relatively affluent, well educated, and living in expensive homes. On all of these
measures, the differences between public school households in the city and the suburbs were greater than the
differences between private school households in the respective locations. The widest differences of all, however,
can be obtained by comparing City of Milwaukee public school families with suburban Milwaukee families who
have at least one child in private school.
Policy Implications
Private school students and their families in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program are very different from the
private school students and families in the rest of Wisconsin and from other students and families in the City of
Milwaukee. The average student in the Choice Program is not white, is from a single-parent family with a very
low annual income and a high probability of being on public assistance. In contrast the average private school
student in both the state and in the City of Milwaukee is white and comes from a two-parent family with a
considerably higher than average income and very low possibility of being on public assistance.
Private school families throughout the state and in Milwaukee are considerably higher on every socioeconomic
measure than the average public school user. Students in private schools tend to come from households with
higher incomes, more education, more two-parent families, higher employment rates, and much lower incidence
of being on public assistance. Finally, the contrasts between public and private school students and households
are most extreme where private school use is heaviest-in the city and suburbs of Milwaukee.
Changes in participant demographics in an expanded Choice Program. Given the sharp differences
between public and private school households in Milwaukee, it is likely that if the Choice Program expands
according to the governor's current proposal, the socioeconomic level of families and the percentage of white
students in the program are likely to increase. Several safeguards exist, however, against too great a change in
the short term. First, the income limit of 175 percent of the poverty line will remain. Second, schools will still be
required to select students randomly if they are oversubscribed. And, third, students already in private schools
would not be eligible.
Changes are likely, however, because there remains considerable difference between the actual income of
current Choice Program applicants and the income limit of the program. For the first four years of the program,
the average applicant had family income just under $12,000, while the program limit for a family of three was
approximately $21,000. Thus we must anticipate that some families with higher incomes who would or are
currently using private schools will enter the program, causing the average income level to rise.
This conclusion is based not only on our estimates of the income of the average private school student in
Milwaukee, but also on data on a privately funded, low-income scholarship program (Partners Advancing
Values in Education, or PAVE) which parallels the Choice Program. That program has income limits similar to
the Choice Program's, but allows students to attend religious and independent schools while paying half the
tuition for the students (up to $1,000). It enrolled 2,370 students in 1993-94 (compared with 742 in the Choice
Program) and gave 95 percent of its scholarships to students in parochial schools.6 One common feature of both
programs is that the mothers of enrolled students tend to have more education than the average MPS parent. The
PAVE Program differs from the Choice Program in several important respects, however. The Choice Program
has very few white students (5%). In contrast, of the parents of students in the PAVE program, "roughly half"
(46% of the females and 52% of the males.) are white.7 In addition, while only 25 percent of the families in the
Choice Program have two parents, 43 percent of the PAVE participants come from two-parent households.8
These higher incomes and more prevalent two-parent families are undoubtedly due in part to the tuition-matching
requirement of the PAVE program, but some of the higher socioeconomic status is also due to the inclusion of
families attending religious schools. The increased voucher program proposed by the governor, with much higher
levels of school subsidy ($3,200), could be expected to displace many of the PAVE scholarships. The result
would be a more integrated Choice Program serving families with somewhat higher socioeconomic status.
Implications for expanded vouchers. If the Choice Program conditions are relaxed (such as dropping
geographic and income limits, eliminating random selection, and dropping the ban on current private school
students), we can anticipate a major shift in beneficiaries of the program. If most current private school families
would continue to apply to private schools, and most private schools would continue to admit students similar to
the ones they admit now, an open-ended voucher program would clearly benefit households that are more
affluent than the average household in Wisconsin. If religion is a primary motivation for private school enrollment,
and a voucher program is in effect, we would expect that motivation to remain with a voucher program in effect.
Thus the current characteristics of public and private school users are a useful guide for what would occur under
a general voucher system.
One could argue, however, that with vouchers available to everyone, private schools would change
considerably-essentially opening them up to the poor. But the opposite argument seems equally plausible. With
more money available, private schools that now cannot afford to be selective (such as inner-city private schools)
could become more selective. And without regulations preventing tuition increases, already highly selective
schools could maintain that status by requiring add-on payments in addition to vouchers.
New private schools undoubtedly would develop to serve families who have vouchers to spend. But again it is
unclear how many new schools would spring up, where they would be located, and what type of clients they
would seek. It is impossible to predict the answers to these questions. There are no dynamic equilibrium models
to simulate even estimates of new school creation. The existing private school market provides mixed signals.
Clearly, private schools cater to families with higher socioeconomic status, although the range is considerable.
Nonreligious private schools are in general not the inner-city schools in the Choice Program. They are highpriced schools that provide "elite" education.
Approximately half the private schools in the United States are Catholic. Catholic, and undoubtedly other
religious schools, consider aiding the poor part of their mission. For example, Milwaukee Archbishop Weakland,
in commenting on the prospects for an extended voucher system, recently said, "Others fear that the private
schools would then take only elite children and leave those with special difficulties behind. I can say without
equivocation that Catholic schools would be eager to educate all if they had the funds to do so. Such challenges
are not foreign to our tradition."9 This may be true, but the Archbishop does not make decisions for individual
parish schools or for independently run Catholic high schools. And repeated studies confirm that those currently
attending Catholic schools remain above the average in socioeconomic status.10 Whether that would change
with an influx of public money is simply not clear.
Other issues. Several issues in the voucher debate are beyond the scope of this paper. One finding that
proponents of broad-based vouchers can use to support their view is that current private school families pay
considerably more property tax than public school families (22% more statewide). And because their children do
not attend public schools, they get much less in return. Other arguments involve issues of church and state
separation and the potential regulation of private schools which might result if this separation is relaxed to allow
vouchers. Finally, there is the matter of funding such a program. Is it good public policy to use public monies to
fund what until now have been private choices? And can the state afford such a venture?
Notes
1. See John F. Witte, Christopher A. Thorn, Kim M. Pritchard, and Michele Claibourn, "Fourth-Year Report:
Milwaukee Parental Choice Program" (Madison, Wis.: Department of Public Instruction, December 1994).
2. The subset of data from the U. S. Census used in this study was purchased from the Wisconsin Applied
Population Lab at the University of Wisconsin-Madison with private funds of John and Mary Witte. Time
devoted to this project by the authors was volunteered and strictly separate from their other duties as faculty,
staff, and students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
3. For example, of the 109 private schools in Milwaukee, only 22 are not religious.
4. For the sake of brevity, we will refer to the kindergarten through eighth grade population as "elementary"
students.
5. One longstanding "problem" with census data is that Hispanic origin is not considered a racial category. Thus
those of Hispanic origin must select one of the racial groups. There is little reason to expect, however, that public
and private school Hispanics would select differently. Thus the relative comparisons are probably quite accurate.
6. Janet Beales and Maureen Wahl, "Given the Choice: A Study of the PAVE Program and School Choice in
Milwaukee," The Reason Foundation (Los Angeles, January, 1995), p. 6.
7. Ibid., p. 8.
8. Ibid., p. 10.
9. Catholic Herald, February 16, 1995, p. 3.
10. See, for example, Anthony Bryk, Valerie Lee, and Peter Holland, Catholic Schools and the Common
Good (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993), especially chapter 7. For an update on this
literature see John F. Witte, "School Choice and Student Performance," Paper presented at The Brookings
Institution Conference on Performance-Based Approaches to School Reform, Washington, D.C., April 6, 1995.
Table 1. Where Do Wisconsin Students Go to School (1993-94)?
Milwaukee
Madison
Racine
Green Bay
Kenosha
PK-8
12.27
3.01
2.71
2.25
2.14
9-12
8.93
2.64
2.46
2.22
1.95
Total
11.29
2.90
2.64
2.24
2.09
13.42
2.47
3.04
3.41
1.95
% in Public
School
% in Private
School
PK-8
9-12
34.33
2.68
3.33
4.42
2.78
Total
16.90
2.50
3.09
3.58
2.09
Five Largest
Cites
Suburbs of
Milwaukee
Suburbs of
Madison
Rest of
Wisconsin
PK-8
22.38
8.92
2.91
65.79
9-12
18.20
9.56
2.72
69.52
Total
21.15
9.11
2.85
66.89
PK-8
24.29
15.78
1.53
58.40
9-12
47.54
10.28
0.54
41.64
Total
28.16
14.86
1.35
55.63
% in Public
School
% in Private
School
The first six rows of percentages describe what percent of students in Wisconsin were enrolled in public and
private schools in 1993-94, broken down by grade level, for each of the five urban areas listed. For example,
the first row of Table 1 indicates that for all Wisconsin students in grades PK through 8 attending public schools,
12.27% of those students are in Milwaukee, 3.01 % of those students are in Madison, and so forth. For
Wisconsin students in private schools in all grades (the sixth row), Table 1 indicates that 16.90% of those
students are in private schools in Milwaukee, and 2.50% are in private schools in Madison. The last four
columns are read the same way. The "Five Largest Cites" column is simply the sum of the percents in the five
urban areas. These last four columns sum to 100%.
Table 2. What is the Ratio of Private to Public School Enrollment in Wisconsin (1993-94)?
Milwaukee
Madison
Racine
Green Bay
Kenosha
PK-8
1.09
0.82
1.12
1.51
0.91
9-12
3.84
1.02
1.35
1.99
1.43
Total
1.50
0.86
1.17
1.60
1.00
Public/Private
Five Largest
Cites
Suburbs of
Milwaukee
Suburbs of
Madison
Rest of
Wisconsin
PK-8
1.09
1.77
0.53
0.89
9-12
2.61
1.08
0.20
0.60
Total
1.33
1.63
0.47
0.83
Public/Private
The rows describe the ratio of private school students to public school students in the given areas. Thus, the
13.42% of students in private schools in grades PK through 8 in Milwaukee is divided by the 12.27% of
students in public schools in grades PK through 8 in Milwaukee to get a ratio of 1.09, indicating a slightly higher
percent of PK through 8 students in private schools in Milwaukee. The same ratio is run for grades 9 through 12
and for all grades (Total) for each of the given areas.
Table 3. What are the Actual Enrollment Numbers (1993-94)?
Public
Schools
Private
Schools
PK-8
9-12
PK-8
9-12
Total
Wisconsin
595717
248284
124889
24893
993783
Milwaukee
73084
22175
16764
8546
120569
Madison
17903
6549
3081
667
28200
Racine
16142
6118
3799
829
26888
Green Bay
13431
5510
4263
1101
24305
Kenosha
12768
4840
2432
692
20732
Five Largest
Cities
133328
45192
30339
11835
220694
Suburbs of
Milwaukee
53166
23724
19702
2558
99150
Suburbs of
17315
6754
1909
135
26113
Madison
Rest of Wisconsin
391908
172614
72939
10365
647826
Table 4. What Are The Income and Wealth Ratios of These Areas (1990)?
Average
Household
Income in 1990
($)
Average Per
Pupil Property
Value in 1990
($)
Ratio of Avg.
Income/ State
Avg.
Ratio of PPP
Value/ State
Avg. PPP
Value
Milwaukee
23627
146623
0.81
0.68
Madison
29361
327771
1.00
1.51
Racine
31577
193918
1.08
0.90
Green Bay
28843
200941
0.99
0.93
Kenosha
29411
202406
1.01
0.94
Five Largest
Cities
26499
188447
0.91
0.87
Suburbs of
Milwaukee
45010
359735
1.54
1.66
Suburbs of
Madison
38627
234597
1.32
1.08
Rest of Wisconsin
28102
204955
0.96
0.95
Table 5. The Race and Parental Employment Status
of Students in Wisconsin (1990)
5a. State
of
Wisconsin
Race:
White
African
American
Hispanic
Asian
Native American
Public
Elem.
Public HS
Private
Elem.
Private HS
86.8
8.4
0.3
1.8
1.4
1.6
88.5
7.4
0.3
1.6
1.2
1.3
95.1
2.4
0.3
1.2
0.3
1.1
91.0
4.4
0.2
2.7
0.7
1.2
Other Minority
Parental
Employment
Status:
1 or more
full-time
1 or more
part-time
No parent
employed
82.6
10.2
7.2
86.1
8.4
5.5
91.0
6.5
2.6
90.6
6.8
2.5
(N)
(515183)
(269489)
(117725)
(25182)
Public
Elem.
Public HS
Private
Elem.
Private HS
5b. City of
Milwaukee
Race:
White
African
American
Hispanic
Asian
Native American
Other Minority
33.0
55.2
0.2
3.3
1.6
6.9
37.9
51.4
0.3
3.4
1.1
6.3
83.7
12.6
0.6
0.4
0.3
3.0
85.2
9.8
0.0
1.9
0.4
2.8
Parental
Employment
Status:
1 or more
full-time
1 or more
part-time
No parent
employed
52.8
19.6
27.6
65.6
14.1
29.3
87.6
8.6
3.8
84.3
10.8
5.0
(N)
(54714)
(26200)
(16325)
(5856)
Public
Elem.
Public HS
Private
Elem.
Private HS
5c.
Milwaukee
Suburbs
Race:
White
African
American
Hispanic
Asian
Native American
Other Minority
96.7
1.0
0.5
1.4
0.3
0.9
97.0
1.2
0.3
1.2
0.3
0.3
98.8
0.3
0.1
0.8
0.0
0.1
98.3
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.1
0.2
Parental
Employment
Status:
1 or more
full-time
1 or more
part-time
No parent
employed
90.9
6.9
2.2
91.7
5.8
2.5
91.0
7.1
2.0
91.6
8.1
0.3
(N)
(67472)
(42892)
(17138)
(9206)
Table 6. Household Family Structure, Income, Housing Characteristics, and Education in Wisconsin
(1990)
6a. State of Wisconsin
Public School
Public & Private
Private School
Family Structure:
Married
Male Householder
Female Householder
75.8%
4.4%
19.7%
86.9%
2.1%
11.0%
86.2%
2.4%
11.4%
Income:
Mean HH
$39,625
$48,640
$49,202
Receiving Public
Assistance:
Householder
Spouse
7.9%
2.4%
4.8%
1.1%
2.4%
0.9%
Housing:
Mean property value
Mean property tax
Mean rent
Rent as a % of income
$61,800
$1,529
$444
28.2%
$68,600
$1,893
$496
27.7%
$67,850
$1,870
$471
23.9%
Mean Education: (Years)
Householder
Spouse
12.7
12.7
13.6
13.3
13.6
13.4
(N)
(418491)
(30160)
(59,894)
Public School
Public & Private
Private School
Family Structure:
Married
Male Householder
Female Householder
45.4%
4.8%
49.8%
61.1%
5.3%
33.6%
80.0%
3.7%
16.3%
Income:
Mean HH
$25203
$35201
$42583
Receiving Public
Assistance:
Householder
Spouse
25.8%
6.5%
16.3%
1.7%
3.1%
1.3%
Housing:
Mean property value
Mean property tax
Mean rent
Rent as a % of income
$49060
$1428
$443
35.8%
$51122
$1695
$473
31.8%
$57425
$1883
$473
25.3%
income
6b City of Milwaukee.
income
Mean Education: (Years)
Householder
Spouse
11.7
11.7
12.3
12.5
13.4
13.2
(N)
(46660)
(3323)
(11183)
Public School
Public & Private
Private School
Family Structure:
Married
Male Householder
Female Householder
83.2%
3.5%
13.3%
90.0%
3.0%
7.0%
89.9%
1.5%
8.6%
Income:
Mean HH
$54385
$67980
$62689
Receiving Public
Assistance:
Householder
Spouse
2.3%
2.2%
1.9%
3.2%
1.3%
0.0%
Housing:
Mean property value
Mean property tax
Mean rent
Rent as a % of income
$83383
$2413
$568
28.9%
$92171
$2731
$616
36.8%
$91153
$2623
$595
29.0%
Mean Education: (Years)
Householder
Spouse
13.5
13.3
14.6
13.7
14.2
13.8
(N)
(64163)
(3638)
(11061)
6c. Milwaukee suburbs*
income
*The Milwaukee suburbs in the census data are composed of the remainder of Milwaukee County, excluding
Milwaukee, plus Waukasha County and Ozaukee County. The Milwaukee suburbs in tables 1 and 2 are roughly
equivalent to the Chapter 220 Program districts. They include only about half as much area, so the (N) of the
two categories will not match.