WORK-FORCE
1
Live Oak County Profile, 2nd ed.
Philip W. Rhoades, Ph.D.
Valerie Villarreal B.A.
Stephanie Jackson B.A.
Swathi Yarlagadda B.S.
Social Science Research Center
June 30, 2005
Live Oak County Profile, 2nd ed.
Authors
Philip W. Rhoades, Ph.D.
Valerie Villarreal B.A.
Stephanie Jackson B.A.
Swathi Yarlagadda B.S.
This report has been produced for Work-Force 1 by the Social Science Research Center at Texas A&M
University – Corpus Christi. Funding was provided through a contract with the Coastal Bend Work-Force
Development Board.
Copyright 2005
All or portions of this report may be duplicated in support of public education, grant writing or planning
efforts, if citation is made of sources: The Social Science Research Center, Texas A&M University –
Corpus Christi and Work-Force 1.
ii
LIVE OAK COUNTY
OVERVIEW
According to Texas Economic Development, Live Oak County is bordered by
McMullen, Atascosa, Karnes, Bee, San Patricio, Jim Wells, and Duval counties. The
County consists of 1079 square miles with a 2000 population density of 11.9 residents
per square mile. The average density in Texas is 79.6 persons per square mile which is
the same as the national average. This county ranked 155th in 2000 population compared
to all 254 counties in Texas with an estimated population of 12,309.
The County seat and largest town is George West followed by Three Rivers.
Special events and attractions include Lake Corpus Christi, Mathis Lake, Choke Canyon
Reservoir, and Tips State Recreation Area.
The population context for Live Oak County is important. The 2004 census data
indicate that Live Oak County’s population decreased 4.3% from 2000 to 2004 while the
State grew 7.9%. In 2004, 17.2% of the County’s population was 65 years old and over
while only 10.2% of the State was 65 or over.
In 2004, Live Oak County had only 45.1% of its population in the 16 years and
over labor force as compared to 63.7% for Texas. The County has a median household
size of 2.48 that is slightly lower than the State’s 2.67. Also, with lower household
median income in 2004 than the State ($43,487), Live Oak County ($34,372) has more
families, adults, and children in poverty.
DEMOGRAPHICS
Live Oak 2004 Population by Age
2004 Live Oak County Elderly
Population
17.9
14.4
7.1
12 & under
13-17
18 +
78.4
under 64
65+
82.1
Source: 2000 U.S Census Bureau
Source: 2000 U.S Census Bureau
According to the 2004 U.S. Census Bureau, the total population for Live Oak
County was 11,777, a decrease in population since 2000. When looking at Race in terms
of population numbers, the total number of Whites was 10,262 this includes Hispanics
and other due to that some individuals marked more than one option for Race. The total
of number of Hispanics or Latinos (of any race) was 4,476. The total number of Blacks
or African-Americans was 295. The total number of all other races was 1265 this
includes American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, some other race, and two or more races.
The total number of males in the county was 6,435 and total number of females was
5,342. The 12 and under population was 1,697, 13 – 17 age range was 842 and 18 and
over (includes elderly population) was 10,004. The total number of elderly population
over 65 was 2,110.
2004 Racial and Cultural Diversity
Percent (%)
2004 Percent of Male and Female
for Live Oak County
45.4
Male
Female
54.6
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
87.1
38
10.7
2.5
White,
Including
Hispanics
Hispanic
Black
Other
Source: 2000 U.S Census Bureau
Source: 2000 U.S Census Bureau
YOUTH CRIME
In 2004, Live Oak County had the same juvenile arrest rate as the State in alcohol related
arrests but a lower rate than the State in drug-related arrests. In Live Oak County, the
rate of juvenile violent crime arrests was 0.0 as compared to 0.6 in the State. The
juvenile property crime arrest rate in Live Oak County was 1.2 which was lower than the
State at 4.6.
2004 Juvenile Arrests
2.5
2
1.5
State
Live Oak
1
0.5
0
Alcohol Related
Drug Related
Source: TX Uniform Crime Report
When looking at runaway arrests, the rate in Live Oak was lower than that of the
State. Juvenile arrests for curfew, vandalism, and disorderly conduct were also lower in
Live Oak County as compared to the State.
2
2004 Juvenile Arrests
6
5
4
3
State
Live Oak
2
1
0
Runaways
Curfew, Vand,
Dis. Conduct
Source: TX Uniform Crime Report
ADULT CRIME
When examining adult crimes, it is apparent that lower rates of arrests exist in
Live Oak County as compared to the State except for alcohol-related offenses. In 2004,
the rates of alcohol-related (28.4) arrest were higher than that of the States. The number
of drug-related adult arrests (5.3) was lower for the county than for the State. In Live
Oak County, the rate of violent crime arrests was 0.5 as compared to 1.8 in the State. The
property crime arrest rate in Live Oak County (1.7) was lower than that the State’s rate of
6.1.
2004 Adult Arrests
30
25
20
State
Live Oak
15
10
5
0
Alcohol Related
Drug Related
Source: TX Uniform Crime Report
VICTIMIZATION
When examining confirmed cases of child abuse, the rate confirmed victims of
child abuse per 1,000 children in Live Oak County (27.2) was higher than that of the
State (8.2) in 2004. The rate was lower when examining confirmed cases of adult abuse
in Live Oak County (2.2) as compared to the State (2.7).
3
2004 Rate of Confirmed Victims
30
25
20
State
Live Oak
15
10
5
0
Child Abuse
Adult Abuse
Source: TX Uniform Crime Report
When looking at victims of domestic violence, Live Oak County has significantly
lower incidences of family violence. According to the 2003 Texas Uniform Crime
Reports, Live Oak County had a rate of 1.9 incidents of family violence compared to 8.5
for the State.
EDUCATION
Education is a key component to the success of a community. In the 2003 – 2004
academic school years, Texas implemented the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and
Skills (TAKS), system of exams to replace the TAAS. For that year, the percentage of
met standard (panel), passing the Reading test was lower than the State in George West
ISD in Live Oak. For the Math test, the percentage of met standard (panel), passing the
test was higher than the State (66) in Three Rivers ISD’s (71) but lower for George West.
Reading TAKS Met Standard (Sum of All
Grades Tested) (Panel Recommendation)
86
84
82
80
78
76
74
72
70
68
66
2004
Texas
Three Rivers
George West
4
Math TAKS Met Standard (Sum of All
Grades Tested) (Panel Recommendation)
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
2004
Texas
Three Rivers
George West
Another area examined was the proportion of eligible students scoring at or above
the Texas Education Agency accountability criteria on the SAT or ACT. For the 2003 2004 school year, George West ISD had higher proportion than the State.
Attendance is another important factor in success in school. For the years 2002 –
2003, of the two school districts Three Rivers reported having a higher average of daily
attendance rate as compared to the State average. In the years 2003 – 2004, both, George
West and Three Rivers ISD had a slightly lower attendance rate at a combine average of
95.3% as compared to the State rate of 95.6%.
Drop-out rates reported for the graduating class of 2003, indicated that Three
Rivers ISD (0) had a lower drop-out rate compared to the State’s (4.5). George West had
a much higher rate (11) compared to the state.
Dropped Out
(4 Year % of Students)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2003
George West
Three Rivers
State
Source: Texas Education Agency
When looking at the high school graduation rates in Live Oak County both school
districts in Live Oak are below the State average of 84.2%.
5
Rate of High School Graduation
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2000
2001
George West
2002
Three Rivers
2003
State
Source: Texas Education Agency
Institutions of higher learning were also examined. Texas A&M UniversityCorpus Christi, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Del Mar College, and Coastal Bend
College were the four institutions that were examined.
In the spring semester of 2005 academic enrollment by ethnicity at TAMU-CC
was 55.9% White, 36.8% Hispanic, 3.1% Black, 4.1% and other. The total number of
students was 7,849. The greatest proportion of students was enrolled in the College of
Arts and Humanities (27.3%) followed the College of Education (25%), College of
Science and Technology (20.3%),College of Business (17.4%), and the College of
Nursing and Health (10.1%).
In the spring semester of 2005 academic school year, enrollment by ethnicity at
Del Mar College was 56.5% Hispanic, 36.7% White, 2.8% Black, and 4.0% other. The
total number of students was 11,495. A large proportion of the students are enrolled in
the Occupation Education & Technology Department (35.5%), followed by Business and
Career (27.1%), Arts and Sciences (20.3%) and undeclared (17.1%).
In the fall semester of 2004 academic school year, enrollment by ethnicity at
TAMU-K was 27% White, 62% Hispanic, 5% Black, and 6% other. The total number of
students was 6,200. A greatest proportion of students are enrolled in the Arts and
Sciences (35.0%) followed the Education (24.9%), Engineering (14.9%), Business
Administration (14.2%) and Agriculture and Human Sciences (11.1%).
In the spring semester of 2005 academic school year, enrollment by ethnicity at
Coastal Bend Community College was 30.7% White, 62.6% Hispanic, 4.5% Black, and
2.2% other. The total number of students was 3,565.
In 2004, the educational attainment level of the population 25 years and over
demonstrates that Live Oak County has a greater proportion of its residents that had not
completed high school. It falls below the State proportion at the associate, bachelor and
graduate degree levels.
6
Educational Attainment: Population
25 yrs & over
30
25
20
State
Live Oak
15
10
5
0
Less than 9th
9-12
H.S Grad
Source: Demographicsnow.com
Educational Attainment: Population
25 yrs & over
25
20
15
State
Live Oak
10
5
0
Some Coll
Assoc.
Bach
Graduate
Source: Demographicsnow.com
ECONOMIC DEPRIVATION
A significant stress on families is poverty. The data reveal that poverty is quite
present in Live Oak County. One way of examining poverty is looking at the per capita
income in 2002. For Live Oak County, the per capita income was $15,973 as compared
to the State’s $21,502. The median household income in 2004 was $34,372 for Live Oak
County and $43,487 for the State. From 2001 to 2004 the unemployment rate in Live
Oak County was lower than the State and National rates.
Unemployment Rate
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2001
2002
State
2003
Live Oak
7
2004
Source: Texas Workforce Commission
When examining poverty in Live Oak County, similar proportions of individuals
and families are living in poverty as compared to the State. According to the 2000
Census data in 2004 the percent of individuals under 18 years of age below the poverty
level was 22% as compared to the State at 21.3%. The proportion of all ages below the
poverty level in Live Oak County is 20.9% as compared to that of the State at 15.4%.
In 1999, the proportion of families living in poverty (with related children under
18) was 18.9 % in Live Oak County as compared to 16.6% for the State. When
examining single parent households, families with only a female householder present,
Live Oak County had 44.4% living below the poverty level as compared to the State at
29.5%. In single parent households, with related children under 18, the proportion living
below the poverty level was 53.8% as compared to 36.2% for the State.
The number of recipients receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) decreased slightly from 2003 to 2004. Also, recipients of Food Stamps from
2003 to 2004 decreased 1.7% in Live Oak County. The number of recipients on
Medicaid decreased 1.2% from 2003 to 2004 in Live Oak County.
Recipients of Food Stamps, Medicaid, & TANF
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
Food Stamps
2002
Medicaid
2003
2004
TANF
Source: Texas Department of Human
Services
The percentage of children enrolled in CHIPS in 2004 is lower in the
county than for the state. Infants and children receiving WIC in 2004 is lower in Live
Oak (31.5), compared to the State (35.6). Children enrolled in head start for Live Oak
County is 18.5%, compared to 9.8% for the state in 2002.
Poverty in Live Oak County is a problem and effects many individuals and
families. An example of this is grandparents as caregivers. Grandparents as caregivers
according to the U.S. Census Bureau is defined as grandparent living in household with
one or more grandchildren under 18 years of age, and being responsible for the
grandchildren. In Live Oak County that percentage in 2000 was 53.5 compared to the
State at 46.7%. This represent 14.6% of the County’s population compared to 9.4% in
Texas and 7.0% in the Nation.
OCCUPATION & EMPLOYMMENT BY INDUSTRY DATA
According to the 2000 Census data, a majority of the residents in Live Oak are
employed by the following top six industries: Education Services, 11.7%, followed by
8
Public Administration at 10.6%, Manufacturing at 8.9%, Construction at 8.4%,
Agriculture forestry fishing and hunting at 7.2% and Accommodation and Food Services
at 6.7 %. Other than Construction these proportions are greater than the State’s. The
County has fewer employees in Information, Retail Trade, Wholesale Trade, and
Manufacturing.
SOCIAL SERVICES
When examining the area of social services, two variables were examined: adults
with mental illness and individuals with disabilities. The estimated number of adults with
mental illness from 2001 to 2005 has remained relatively stable with an average of 1,921
adults in the last 5 years.
In 2000, individuals with disabilities in Live Oak County were about the same
percent as the State. The percent of individuals with disabilities from 5 – 15 years of age
was 5.6% in Live Oak County in the State of Texas it was 5.3%. The percent of
individuals with disabilities from 16 to 64 years of age was 24.0% for Live Oak County
and 19.2% for the State. For individuals 65 and over it was 45.3% for Live Oak County
and 44.8% for the State.
HEALTH DATA
Several variables were examined in regard to health data including: teen births,
infant mortality, mortality, chronic liver disease, diabetes, and heart disease.
The percent of teen births in 2003 in Live Oak County was (11.5) higher than the
State (5.1).
The percent of low birth weight infants was slightly higher in 2003 at 6.7% in
Live Oak County as compared to 7.9% for the State. The infant mortality rate per 1,000
in Live Oak County in 2002 was 0.0 as compared to 6.4 for the State. The mortality rate
per 1,000 in Live Oak County was 7.1 the same as for Texas.
When looking at the long term effects of alcohol use, the chronic liver disease
death rate per 10,000 in 2003 for Live Oak County was 0.6 as compared to only 1.1 in the
State. The death rate due to diabetes rate for the county is 1.6 compared to 2.6 for the
state. The death rate due to heart disease is higher in the county at a rate of 18.5
compared to 19.1 for the state.
The HIV rate per 1,000 in Live Oak County was 0.0 and the AIDS rate was 0.7 in
2003, as compared to the state’s HIV rate of 0.9 and the AIDS rate of 3.
9
Per 10,000 population
Chronic Liver Disease
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
00
01
State
02
Live Oak
2003
Source: Texas Dept. of Health: Texas Vital
Statistics
QUALITY OF LIFE DATA
When looking at the quality of life in Live Oak County, several variables were
examined. Public transportation was one variable that was looked at. In 2000,
individuals in Live Oak County did not report using public transportation. For the State
in 2000, it was 1.9% of individuals.
Another area examined was residence county to workplace. In 2000, the percent
of residents that worked in Live Oak County was 67.3 % as compared to 32.7 % that
work outside of the County.
The total number of housing units in 2004 in Live Oak County was 6,027. Of
those 55.9% were owner-occupied housing units, 12.3% renter-occupied housing units,
and 31.8% were vacant-housing units.
The average number of vehicles available per household was 1.7. The percentage
with 0 vehicles available was 6.7%, 1 vehicle 35.1%, and 2 vehicles 58.2%.
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE
When looking at the divorce rate per 1,000 in Live Oak County for 2003, it shows
there has been an increase of 12.5% since 2000. The outcome is much higher than that of
the state which has decreased by 2.5%. In 2003, Live Oak County had a marriage rate of
4.7% which is lower than the state’s rate of 8.2%.
DISCUSSION
Live Oak County is the eighth largest in the Coastal Bend Region by population.
Its population decreased from 2000 to 2004 compared to the 4.3% growth rate of the
State. The County’s population is older than the State’s with 7% more in the 65 and over
age group.
10
With only 45.1% of its population in the labor force age group, Live Oak County
has 18.6% fewer residents available for employment. Potentially compounding the
availability of these residents for employment is that 24.0% of this age group reports one
or more disability and 20.1% may need services for mental illness.
Live Oak County (1.2%) has a lower property crime rate than the States which is
4.6%. The County’s arrest rates for adult violent and property offenses were lower than
the State’s. However, its arrest rates for drug and alcohol offenses were higher. The
alcohol arrest rate was more than double that of the State. The County’s rate of child
abuse is higher and adult abuse is lower than the State. Live Oak County ranks the
highest in child and tenth in adult abuse rates among the 12 counties of the region.
The George West school districts in Live Oak County reported a lower proportion
of students passing both the TAKS Math and Reading test than the State averages. Three
Rivers reported fewer achieving the accountability criteria on the SAT or ACT. Both
districts reported a lower attendance rate. Three Rivers reported a lower dropout rate and
both George West and Three Rivers have lower graduation rates than the State averages.
Problematic for workforce development is that 32.9% of the residents have not completed
high school and only 18.2% have completed a college degree at any level. Both
conditions are worse than State averages.
All ages in Live Oak County suffer from poverty at a higher rate than the State as
a whole with 5.5% more in poverty. However, Live Oak County has 2.0% more children,
2.3% more families with children and 17.6% more single parent families with children
living in poverty than the State. Recently, an increased proportion of the County
population qualified for forms of public assistance.
The proportion of low birth weight infants was higher than the State. Its mortality
rate was the same as the State rate.
The County’s employment opportunities appear to be as diversified as those of the
State. However, the proportions of employees in each industry vary from the State’s. A
significant proportion of its population (fourth highest in the region) travels outside the
County to work.
11
DATA SOURCES
1. America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being 2002.
2. Driscoll Children’s Hospital. Corpus Christi.
3. Comptroller, Texas State. City Mixed Beverage Comparison Summary (Quarterly). Austin, 2001-2002.
4. Health, Texas Department of. HIV/STD Epidemiology Division, Surveillance Branch
5. Human Services, Texas Department of. Estimates of the Texas Poverty Population by County. Austin,
various years.
6. Mental Health and Mental Retardation, Texas Department, Central Office Program Statistics and
Planning. Austin, 2001.
7. Nueces County Children’s Advocacy Center. Corpus Christi.
8. Protective and Family Services, Texas Department of. Annual Reports 2000 [to] 2003. Austin, 2000 2003.
9. Public Safety, Texas Department of. Crime Records Service. Uniform Crime Reporting. Austin, 2001.
10. Women’s Shelter of South Texas. Corpus Christi.
10a. WIC Headquarters Office in Austin, Texas
WEB SITES
11. http://stats.bls.gov/blshome.htm Bureau of Labor Statistics
12. http://www.demographicsnow.com Demographics Now
13. http://www.fedstats.gov Fed Stats
14. http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/hivstd/stats/surv/default.htm HIV/STD Epidemiology Division,
Surveillance Branch, Texas Department of Health
15. http://www.mhmr.state.tx.us/CentralOffice/ProgramStatisticsPlanning/Data.html. Mental Health and
Mental Retardation, Statistical Data.
16. http://www.nahb.org National Association of Homebuilders
17. http://socrates.cdr.state.tx.us/ Standardized Occupational Components for Research and Analysis of
Trends Employment System
18. http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/staxqtr/stxqtr13.html. State Sales and Use Tax Analysis Report.
19. http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/bvs/default.htm. Bureau of Vital Statistics, Texas Department of Health.
20. http://www.tcada.state.tx.us. Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse.
21. http://www.dhs.state.tx.us. Texas Department of Human Services.
12
22.. http://www.tdh.state.tx.us. Texas Department of Health
23. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ Texas Department of Public Safety
24. http: //www.tdprs.state.tx.us. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services.
25. http://www.tded.state.tx.us. Texas Economic Development.
26. http://community.txed.state.tx.us. Texas Economic Development: Community Profiles.
27. http://www.tea.state.tx.us. Texas Education Agency.
28. http://www.tjpc.state.tx.us. Texas Juvenile Probation Commission.
29. http://www.twc.state.tx.us. Texas Workforce Commission.
30. http://www.window.state.tx.us/. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts.
31. http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/. Texas Youth Commission.
32. http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/. Texas Health and Human Services Commission
33. http://www.texasworkforce.org/lmi/lfs/lfshome.html. Texas Labor Market Information.
34. http://www.cppp.org/kidscount. Texas Kids Count.
35. http://www.census.gov. United States Census Bureau.
36. http://www.bea.doc.gov. Bureau of Economic Analysis
37. http://www.aecf.org
Anne E Casey Foundation
13