Community Needs Assessment

Transcription

2012
HRDC District IX, Inc.
12/1/2012
Contents
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 2
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 4
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY ....................................................................... 4
FOCUS GROUPS .................................................................................................................. 5
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Summary- By Focus Area ........................................................................................................................ 6
Summary- By Community ..................................................................................................................... 14
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT ONLINE TOOL ............................................................ 20
Population ............................................................................................................................................. 222
Poverty………………………………………………………………………………… ......26
Employment ............................................................................................................................................ 39
Education ................................................................................................................................................. 46
Housing .................................................................................................................................................... 49
Income ...................................................................................................................................................... 53
Nutrition ................................................................................................................................................... 55
Health Care ............................................................................................................................................ 56
PARTNER DATA................................................................................................................. 59
Early Childhood Needs Assessment ................................................................................................... 59
Opportunities Ahead: 2011 Analysis of Workforce Needs, Gallatin Valley ........................... 62
Affordable Housing Needs Assessment ............................................................................................ 64
Streamline 2012 Business Plan ........................................................................................................... 68
Gallatin County Community Health Profile ...................................................................................... 73
HRDC ASSESSMENT RESULTS ............................................................................................ 74
KEY FINDINGS ................................................................................................................... 74
ASSESSMENT SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 75
AREAS OF NEED ................................................................................................................ 76
UNDERSTANDING BARRIERS TO SELF-SUFFICIENCY ........................................................ 77
COMMUNITY PROFILES ..................................................................................................... 78
Belgrade ................................................................................................................................................. 78
Big Sky .................................................................................................................................................... 79
Bozeman.................................................................................................................................................. 80
Four Corners/ Gallatin Gateway ...................................................................................................... 81
Livingston ................................................................................................................................................. 82
Three Forks ............................................................................................................................................. 83
West Yellowstone .................................................................................................................................. 84
White Sulphur Springs .......................................................................................................................... 85
Page 1
INTRODUCTION
The Human Resource Development Council of District IX, Inc. (HRDC) was established in 1975 to serve
Gallatin, Park, and Meagher Counties in southwest Montana. We are a private, not-for-profit
Community Action Agency, dedicated to strengthening community and advancing the quality of
peoples’ lives. We work to achieve this by developing resources; both talent and capital, to help
people of all ages and situations confront and overcome obstacles so that they can improve their
lives. We focus on seven strategic challenges and operate multiple programs to address these
pressing human needs. We serve our community in these seven areas: Food and Nutrition; Housing
and Homelessness; Child and Youth Development; Senior Empowerment; Community Transportation;
Home Heating, Efficiency, and Safety; and Community and Economic Development. Through our
programs, we foster sustainable results through practical, comprehensive approaches to social and
economic challenges.
This comprehensive HRDC District IX community assessment is structured according to the National
Association for State Community Services Programs: A Community Action Guide to Comprehensive
Community Needs Assessments. This assessment helps the agency understand and address both
emerging and ongoing needs by providing a snapshot of households in the service area, including
their current economic well being and welfare. With this information HRDC can begin to create
change either by setting a framework for programs and plans that work toward ending poverty (or
helping individuals and families to move up and out) or family stabilization (helping individuals and
families to stop moving down).
A comprehensive assessment will provide important HRDC IX service area information as to who and
what partners/agencies may be working on issues, and where gaps in community services lie. This
assessment offers a focus on local conditions and an analysis of the opportunities and barriers for all
of its residents. The assessment process itself provides an opportunity to meet and develop
partnerships in each community and strengthen services for citizens in the area.
Based on the time and resources available to complete this assessment, communities were
geographically clustered based on their population size. Smaller and more rural communities were
clustered geographically (ex: Three Forks, Logan, Manhattan) and larger communities (ex: Livingston)
remained separated. If the community is geographically isolated (ex: West Yellowstone) it also
remain segregated. The information gathered and documented will include individual assessments for
each of the following clusters within Park, Gallatin, and Meagher counties:
Cluster Number
Community/Communities
1
Belgrade
2
Amsterdam/Churchill/Manhattan
3
Logan/Three Forks/Willow Creek
4
Four Corners/Gallatin Gateway
5
West Yellowstone
6
Livingston
Page 2
7
Gardiner/Cooke City/Silvergate
8
Emigrant/Pray/Corwin Springs
9
Clyde Park/Sedan/Wilsall
10
Big Sky
11
White Sulphur Springs/Martinsdale
12
Bozeman
The rationale for this layout is such that it allows for the documentation and understanding of the
inherent diversity of local areas and information. Moreover, each service area will benefit from an
assessment containing local information to (i) facilitate greater communication among community
partners and key stakeholders, (ii) streamline data collections processes, grant writing and other
reporting, and (iii) serve as a tool for orienting new staff to the work of the agency in implementing
programs and projects in the service areas.
The structure of each individual cluster assessment follows a format that examines local geographic,
economic and demographic information. A discussion of opportunities and barriers identified by
individuals and families, community partners and agencies, and then follows and includes the following
areas:
Education • Mental Health and Disabilities • Nutrition • Family Services • Childcare • Housing
Transportation • Seniors • Youth Services
Assessment data is organized around the CSBG Information System Survey Service Categories of:
 Employment
 Education
 Housing (ex: assistance in locating affordable housing and applying for rent subsidies and
other housing assistance)
 Nutrition (ex: preparing and delivering meals, especially to the homebound elderly,
operating food banks/pantries)
 Youth development (youth at-risk)
 Senior services
 Emergency services (LIEAP, rental or mortgage assistance, intervention with landlords,
emergency food, clothing, and furniture)
 Self-sufficiency programs
 Transportation
The assessment helps HRDC leaders in the planning process by providing the foundation for strategic
planning, assessing whether the agency is meeting the needs of the community, and determining what,
if any, program and projects are obsolete and what projects and programs will provide new
opportunities.
Page 3
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Multiple methods were employed to ensure the diversity of primary and secondary data, including:



Paper and online surveys of community residents and service agencies and community partners
Focus groups with community members, program participants, and representatives from local
social service providers and community partners.
Inventory of secondary data sources, including service providers and community partners.
It is noted that each of the above methods was carried out using purposeful, convenience sampling
techniques. A convenience sample surveys individuals by chance. There is no way to guarantee
representativeness. Given this, a purposeful, convenience sampling will be gathered from specific
locations in community clusters and findings will be compared to the average demographics of the
larger population in this cluster to ensure sample findings are valid. By comparing the demographics
of those who participated with the larger population (those who did not participate) and no significant
differences are found, and then our findings will be supported. Descriptive statistics methods were
chosen to analyze data within each cluster.
This assessment process exhibits both flexibly and a richness of data that could not have been
achieved by other sampling techniques (e.g., random, stratified, proportionate). Accordingly, the
HRDC Community Assessment acknowledges concerns dealing with the ability to make inferences from
the results of this assessment to the general population. While cluster-level analysis is possible with
this methodology, we are unable, unless sample size calculation was reached set at a 90 percent
confidence level, to make inferences at a community-level (ex: we can accurately describe the
conditions in the Three Forks/Logan/Willow Creek cluster, but cannot describe conditions/barriers at
the specific community-level). However, that said, given the changing nature of demographic,
economic, and social conditions in local communities, this assessment represents a representative, living
document which places value on actual experiences and stories of respondents as much as on facts,
figures and statistics.
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY
The HRDC conducted a community needs assessment to inform its upcoming strategic planning efforts.
A mixed methodology research strategy that employs both qualitative and quantitative elements with
a cross-sectional design was utilized. This methodology consisted of a self-completed questionnaire
which contained both open-ended and closed questions to determine respondents’ view of community
needs, observed community effectiveness at addressing community needs, and basic demographic
information.
Respondents were first asked to list their five greatest needs/ challenges. They were then invited to
speak to how well the community was addressing the topics of K-12 education, affordable rental
housing, home heating costs, job training, home ownership, volunteer opportunities, substance abuse,
homelessness, youth/tween services, transportation, availability of food, senior services, mental health,
post secondary education, parent support, childcare, and entrepreneurial resources. These topics were
designed to encompass all of the needs within the community. The survey showed the needs of the
community members as well what was lacking in addressing those needs.
Page 4
Testing Questions
After the survey was created, it was tested for reliability and validity to assess the ability of the
survey to obtain accurate data. A reliable survey yields consistent results—for example the
respondent would answer the questions the same if the survey was administered two times in a row. A
valid survey is one that correctly measures respondent attitudes, beliefs, behavior, etc.
The survey was pilot tested to look for ways to increase validity and reliability. If respondents
skipped questions or did not provide similar answers, the questions were revised because they were
not reliable. Select individuals taking the pilot test were asked if the survey options represent their
attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, etc. If they did not, the question was revised.
Responses
The survey was distributed in both electronic and paper versions in Gallatin, Park, and Meagher
counties through a regimen which included both convenience and snowball sampling. There were 792
survey respondents. Of those respondents the average age was 45, the average household size was
2.64, and 70.5% of respondents were male. The majority of respondents were also from within the
city limits of Bozeman (53.3%), with the next most common location for respondents being Belgrade
(16.5%), Livingston (9.5%), and Three Forks (8.7%).
Respondent by Community
2.20%
5.40%
# of Respondents
% of Respondents
Bozeman
422
53.28%
Belgrade
131
16.54%
Livingston
75
9.47%
Logan, Three Forks, Willow Creek
69
8.71%
Manhattan, Amsterdam, Churchill
33
4.17%
White Sulphur Springs, Martinsdale
20
2.53%
West Yellowstone
13
1.64%
Four Corners, Gallatin Gateway
7
0.88%
Big Sky
5
0.63%
Household Income of
Respondants
Employment Status
of Respondants
20.50%
7.30%
Unemployed
$0 - $15,000/year
FOCUS GROUPS
27.30%
10.00%
$15,001 - $30,000/year
$30,001 - $45,000/year
15.00%
46.30%
Part Time Employed
Full Time Employed
$60,000/yearmethod utilized in the second phase of the Community
Focus group discussions were$45,001
the -research
Full Time Caregiver
$60,001 - $75,000/year
12.20%
Needs Assessment to gain greater insight on the issues presented in the survey. The two overarching
20.40%
15.20%
Retired
$75,001 - $90,000/year
$90,001 - $105,000/year
More than $105,000/year
5.50%
11.00%
Unable to Work
1.70%
Page 5
themes from the survey of what people need and aren’t being sufficiently addressed were cost of
living and housing. Focus group participants were asked to further describe and elaborate on those
two topics.
Methodology
For the focus groups, a number of individuals (typically between 4 and 8) were selected from survey
respondents and other community members found by a local contact to participate in a facilitated
discussion. These focus groups were held in Bozeman, Belgrade, Livingston, Three Forks, and White
Sulphur Springs.
Six focus groups were facilitated in the month of June at the following locations:
 Livingston Public Library
 Belgrade Senior Center
 White Sulphur Springs Senior Center
 Three Forks Church of Christ
 Livingston Food Pantry
 United Methodist Church
Each participant was offered the chance to win a prize basket valued at $50 and a light meal (either
lunch or dinner).
Upon completion of the focus group discussions, the data was carefully examined to determine key
findings and implications for the HRDC.
Summary- By Focus Area
Childcare/Family Activities
Belgrade/Manhattan
Limited things to do with children
 Nothing for families to do, have to go to Bozeman to do pretty much anything
 Parks need updated equipment
 Childcare or things to do with children around there is limited
 Splash Park works from ages 0 to 3, but they outgrow that
 Older children stay at home and get in trouble because there’s nothing to do.
 Lack of activities, athletic facilities such as bowling alley, outdoor skating rink, pool, etc.
 Need a Recreation Department in Belgrade that would provide camps for kids
Available Childcare
 Location- it’s like winning the lottery finding a place taking more than one child.
 Hours are always fairly inflexible.
Affordable childcare
 Childcare cost is an issue.
 I’m working just to pay childcare and I’m not even making enough for that right now. Bozeman
“Does Head Start run through the summer?”
 “Unless you’re really low-income, it’s just really expensive.”
 “It’s an impairment for a lot of people to hold down a job because they can’t find childcare.
Accessible or available or affordable childcare.”
Page 6

“There’s a large issue around childcare. It’s cost for one. If you’re sitting at home, you can’t
find a job and can’t collect unemployment because you’ve got to be able and available to go
to work. If you have to watch your kids you can’t look for a job and can’t go to work so you’re
not really available. It’s a waterfall effect. One thing leads to another and you stop paying
your bills, you can’t afford a decent place to live, and you don’t know what to do. Then it
becomes a mental health issue.”
 “It’s kind of a chicken and egg thing because I’m working two jobs only because I have to
afford childcare. I don’t want to put my kid in childcare but I need to work.”
 “What about having a cooperative childcare facility? It wouldn’t cost anything but your time.
You would volunteer to work four hours and maybe in return you get eight hours of care.
You’re working towards something, but for those people trying to get out of that cycle, you
work a couple hours and then you know on Thursday, my kids are taken care of so I can go to
job interviews.”
Livingston
 “The cost makes it an issue. It costs $1400 a month just for childcare. That is most people’s
entire paycheck!”
 “The average cost is $32 per day.”
 “It’s so hard with because you work to make money, but you have to make enough to pay for
childcare. It almost evens out so you should just stay home to avoid the costs of childcare! It’s a
terrible oxymoron.”
 “If there could be a pro-rated system, like there is for SNAP. I see a lot of people who make
just a few cents more an hour and it puts them out of the assistance bracket. If you do the
math, the amount they lose in assistance is way more than the value of the raise.”
Lack of Quality Childcare
 “The licensing requirements need to be addressed. It is way too easy to be licensed and they
should be more restricted.”
 “There is a lack of quality that is just crazy. You can easily find childcare that costs like $1 per
hour but that just isn’t safe for my kids.”
Lack of things to do with children
 “The summer gets hard. Especially with those that are too old for daycare but not old enough
to take care of themselves. There’s no place for them.”
Financial Literacy
Belgrade/Manhattan
Financial education needed
 Education in high school- budgeting, credit cards, student loans and future implications
 Financial planning class for adults- how to budget your money
 Financial counseling- free or low charge- how to get out of bad financial situation
Bozeman
 “Student loans and delinquencies have been in the news lately. That can be a huge cost and
maybe one of the first things that people don’t pay when they don’t have money.”
Livingston
Budgeting classes
 Helping people budget so they don’t spend all their food money in the beginning of the month
 Overspending- living beyond your means
 Banks offer classes
 Have it be a requirement to receive public assistance like at Job Service
Page 7
There is a stigma associated with being uneducated about finances.
 “It seems as if those who would seek it out are probably not the ones who need it the most.”
Education in alternate forms
 “We do a lot of education in a stealth manner. We put together crock pot meals with just the
ingredients available here. People can sample it and can get a recipe. We have found you
can deliver the message effectively with one or two people but as soon as you say
Wednesday night 7:00 we are having a class, everybody just tunes out.”
Three Forks
Budgeting Class
 Financial Peace University by Dave Ramsey was really well attended- speaks to the need
 If a secular program was offered a lot of people would take advantage of it.
Lack of education
 Poor anticipation of the fluctuation in costs and not preparing for it
 “It goes back a lot to education. I know there are some people there who struggle because
they don’t know how to take care of their money. There are also people who will come in and
pay $20 on their bill and then walk next door to the bar.”
 “It is an interesting cultural phenomenon; I was doing marriage prep with a young couple in
Three Forks and they told me about the house they had bought, the cars they had, and the
student loans. I mentioned that they’re not even legally a single entity and have already
amassed a third of a million dollars in debt. They were offended because I seemed to be
questioning their judgment. Our parents didn’t do that, our grandparents didn’t do that. You’re
creating intense liabilities up for yourselves and your children and you are setting yourself up
for a fall and serious marriage problems. Nobody would have done that 20 years ago.”
White Sulphur Springs
Budgeting/ Credit Counseling Class
 “I think young couples and single moms would benefit for something like that, those that don’t
have a lot of experience.”
 It would be hard to get people to come. You could sneak it in with some other information that
they are wanting.
 Relationships could help them participate.
Education on Business Start-Up
 Need information on business start-up for entrepreneurs.
 “Even if it’s just a website that explains the steps to start a business in Meagher County and
who to contact.”
Cost of Living
Belgrade/Manhattan
Everything adds up
 You pay for everything and then see how much of the credit card you can pay this month.
Bozeman
Basic necessities will cost more but there will not be a matching increase in income
 Insurance premiums go up 10, 12% a year
 The cost of food
Everybody has car payments and credit card debt, but you have to know how to live within your
means.
Employment
Page 8
Belgrade/Manhattan
Job Service branch office in some of the smaller communities
 Career Transitions in Belgrade- help with resume
 Ready Workforce
Employment and Childcare
 “Employment is kind of ridiculous at times because I’m working just to pay childcare and I’m
not even making enough for that right now.
Pay decreases
 “Some people’s income has dropped and their job is the same. The company has to. Either
someone loses their job or everyone’s pay is cut.”
Trade based programs desired
 Programs such as diesel, welding, woodworking, HVAC Tech, mechanic
 Workforce Training group- can take courses that are offered through that system
Bozeman
The wages do not support the costs.
 Wages aren’t increasing equivalent to the cost of living increases.
Employment and Childcare
 “There’s a large issue around childcare- what the issue really is. If you’re at home watching
the kids, you can’t find a job and can’t collect unemployment because you’re not able and
available to go to work.
 “It’s kind of a chicken and the egg thing because I’m working two jobs only because I have to
afford childcare and I don’t want to put my kid in childcare but I need to work, so half my
paycheck then goes to pay childcare.”
Transportation
 Streamline stops running at 6:00. It doesn’t allow people to work two part time jobs or one
part time job in the evenings
Employment contributing to well-being
 It allows mobility and independence which gives a sense of well being as well as flexibility.
Livingston
Service Sector/ Minimum Wage
 Surrounded by service sector dependent on the summer. These jobs have lower wages.
 “I read in an article that if minimum wage had kept up with the rise in executive pay over the
last like 20 years, minimum wage would be like $22.00.”
 “I hear that all the time with new people coming in. I ask why did you move here? They say to
find work. Why would you come here?”
 There are lots of service jobs.
 A class is being put together that will prepare people to apply for service jobs.
Hygiene
 If a guy’s homeless, essentially living in his car, and gets a job interview, where does he
shower? If he goes in dirty and smelly, he’s not going to get the job!
 “Where do we get the tools to allow that person to get ready for a job interview? You could
stretch it a little bit and call personal hygiene economic development because we’re helping
somebody get a job.”
Three Forks
There are few jobs in the town of Three Forks. Most require transportation.
New Opportunities
 Summers are good because of construction
Page 9
o Road construction
o Fiber optic cables being put in
 New fiber optics gives opportunity for work from home.
 Possible copper mine
 Further tourism
Difficulties of small town economy
 Once the construction is done, then what
 It has been 35, 40 years with no industry and we’re still here so it’s a strong town
 Citizens can’t just drum up industry.
Housing
Belgrade/Manhattan
Lack of affordable housing when you consider all the other costs
 I’m already paying $1200 per month in childcare and then I have to pay for food, car
expenses, and what I have left wouldn’t even pay for an electricity bill for me.
 There’s always that fear, I can save this much money, but once I get my own place, how long
can I keep meeting that?
 “I own my own home. There’s the mortgage, taxes, escrow, insurance, and HOA dues. I’m
paying almost $1200 per month average, just to live there. I’m working full time and I’m
taking home $1800 a month.”
 “In Belgrade itself you can get a one bedroom apartment for $700 and sometimes you can
get a two bedroom, but it then you have utilities and you have all the stuff that goes with it.”
 “I don’t understand how I pay as much as one of my friends who lives in Bozeman. I don’t pay
utilities, but we pay the same amount every month. I thought it was supposed to be cheaper to
live in Belgrade and that’s why people chose to live here and commute to Bozeman.”
More efficient heating systems
 More efficiency is always going to help.
 “In the smaller towns especially with our senior citizens is where there’s always a problem
because you usually don’t have any kind of a good heater/ heating system at all.”
Lack of appropriate affordable housing
 There’s no entry-level housing, for people who are just out of high school or college or single
people who are new married couples. They have no options.
 There’s no family housing, other than maybe a big apartment complex
 “There’s no reason why a trailer park couldn’t happen here. You get into these nice trailer
parks where the sunbirds go all winter and they’re nice. They’re well kept. That’s a perfect
opportunity for low-income.”
Bozeman
Expensive
 Can’t find a decent two bedroom for under $850
 For some people, 50% of their monthly salary is going to rent.
 There are families living in their cars, living in tents in the forests, or under the bridge.
 Cost of rent in Bozeman vs. other places like Billings
 Very limited market
 Shouldn’t necessarily be forced to live with 10 other people
Lack of Support for Affordable Housing
 This town has never been really supportive of affordable housing.
Page 10

There is a dichotomy between haves and have nots in this community, have always been
separate and distinct.
Livingston
Lack of affordable housing
 The amount of low income housing is inadequate.
 There really isn’t anything for the single families or single individuals.
 The rent does not match the wage. Many people make minimum wage, but there is not housing
for that income level.
 The elderly and disabled have more options. The Sherwood is sufficient for that demographic.
 Having to pay 1st and last month’s rent along with a security deposit- don’t have that much
 Section 8 doesn’t have enough vouchers; the wait list is too long.
 Decent, affordable housing for the unemployed and the underemployed.
Lack of emergency housing
 Need a safety mechanism to make sure that people who are in an emergency homeless
situation have some safe, clean place to sleep.
 The homeless are not just single men; it’s families, pregnant women, young veterans’ etc.
 The Warming Center is in Bozeman and only operates in the winter.
 This community tends to not want those people here.
Lack of transitional housing
 Could use some very inexpensive subsidized housing that can be available for a week at a
time while getting into a job and then into long term housing of some form
Three Forks
Affordable rental housing
 Years ago there were always a few cheap places to rent. You very seldom see anything
under $500 a month anymore in Three Forks.
 Not a whole lot of infrastructure in terms of small units
Lack of support for low-income housing
 “Many years ago we looked at property and tried to put together a deal. I was proposing
moderate income rentals and the town said we don’t want them. They said we don’t want that
kind of people in our town.”
 Neighborhoods don’t want renters as neighbors. That’s a barrier to overcome.
 “I don’t know if the attitude would have changed since then, but personally I think you could
say that would be an authentic need. That would be an authentic benefit to the community.”
 “I think it comes down to perception. There are units in Bozeman that don’t have much room;
it’s a bunch of townhomes or condos. It’s a small, economical unit. Somebody can make them
cute and attractive. People can see themselves living there because it doesn’t look restricted.”
Existing houses need repairs
 Houses are old so there’s a lot of repairs to be done
 Repairs haven’t been done because the community is older
 Homes need to be handicap accessible which is a huge expense
 Substandard housing exists
 Current housing is old and run down, with wind blowing through it on a regular basis
 Heating bills are outrageous because of bad insulation and old windows.
 There are fairly decent houses but probably only ten have updated wiring.
Page 11

Repairs needed include leaking roofs, plumbing, improved electrical, cabinets falling off the
wall, windows, flooring
Need for affordable rentals for economic expansion
 Lack of housing available for those coming in for new industries is an issue. If the copper mine
goes through we don’t have housing for them.
 There are not a lot of rentals and current ones are really expensive and in bad shape.
More education about benefits of home-ownership
 Forgivable loan program, down payment assistance through HRDC
 Important because home ownership builds equity, simple self-accomplishment of owning a
home. It’s a step up in life and towards bettering your situation.
 Home ownership benefits the community because people are more likely to stay when they
own their house.
 People don’t realize that rent payments are sometimes even more than house payments
Outreach and Education
Belgrade/Manhattan
Need to promote services more
 “You have to know about it. A lot of families don’t know about these kinds of programs or how
to find out about them so they’re not able to get assistance.”
 Coordination of services is lacking
 “We could us some kind of a clearinghouse for places that are doing this kind of work.”
 Idea such as the “Welcome Wagon”- when new people move to the community or have a
baby they are given a folder with resources
The website needs to be updated.
 More informative about what is offered
 More interactive, perhaps the ability to file your paperwork online.
Bozeman
Could use a little newsletter
 Like “Friday Things to Do” in the paper, instead smaller “Community Resources”.
Pamphlet/ brochure with all resources available
 More user-friendly. Big writing.
 All together; one-stop shop
 Have at medical providers’ offices- resources if struggling to make your payments
Livingston
 “We need better communication. Information is very limited in Livingston; it’s all word-ofmouth.”
Three Forks
 There’s help out there, but how do you get people to it? Transportation is an issue.
 Need for that networking, sharing
Need to education on the programs available
 “There are programs out there that do home repairs for the elderly, but if it doesn’t get done
and some 30 years old buys it, it’s all out of pocket.”
 Brochures and flyers
 Good places for information pamphlets would be the Senior Center, First American Bank,
Clearwater River Realty, waiting room at the clinic
Page 12
Transportation
Belgrade/Manhattan
Manhattan lacks transportation
 Senior citizens have a bus they can take to Bozeman for the doctor and other appointments
 There isn’t any other transportation other than your own personal vehicle.
 “Probably one of the biggest problems we have is fuel. It’s so expensive to get around. To go
check out a book, it’s 3 miles into Belgrade, 10 miles into Bozeman. It would be nice if there
was some transit expanded out into this area more.”
Expand public transit
 An hourly circular bus around the Belgrade area and then an express into Bozeman every
hour would be great.
 A bus going from River Rock to Belgrade, even just in high traffic times. A lot of traffic would
be cut at that intersection.
 “Generally you have to drive so many miles to get onto Streamline and then you go where
they put you and pick you up again. If I drive the car once I might as well I just as well drive a
few miles further and have my own vehicle.”
Need for cheaper mechanic service
 Don’t have idea of how much it’s going to cost, so out of fear just never call
 Have to pay to have someone look at it
 You could get some help figuring out what’s wrong. Maybe not necessarily fixing it for you,
but letting you know this is what’s wrong, this is probably what someone would charge you so
that way you have an idea.
Bozeman
People don’t pay for car insurance
 People don’t have car insurance and if they get in an accident, they get a ticket and have
restitution to pay.
 “It’s another communication piece. I don’t think anyone ever says, “You know if you get in an
accident, it’s going to cost you $5,000 to fix that person’s car and you’ve got fines.” I don’t
think people really consider the consequences.”
Need for extended Streamline services
 Need the half hour schedules go during the summer too
 “I have to sit here and wait before I can go home.”
 Service ends at 6:00 which doesn’t allow people to get across town and work another job or
work a part time job in the evenings.
Community Mechanic Program
 There are a lot of people out there who can’t maintain their automobile
 Set up a community program where mechanics could volunteer.
 Have a one or two day event with mechanics willing to give back to the community
 Prioritize maintenance- what is affordable, what needs to be done, how much it’s going to
cost. Be able to see whole picture and prioritize
 Installment plans for payment
Livingston
Need to expand public transportation
 The Streamline could have better hours.
 People have to take taxis to get to appointments.
 Biking and walking is only a viable option for a few months of the year.
 Need a better bus stop with the hours and times posted.
 Streamline could make a couple of different stops within Livingston.
Page 13


If they had other good options, car repair wouldn’t be such a big issue.
Angel Line is important but it only is available for seniors and disabled. It also requires
appointments far in advance.
Need for bikes
 Community bike rack- take a bike and leave it in the rack at your location
 Cool Rent-a-Bike program in Missoula that could be helpful as an example
 Get somebody to donate bikes
Need for reduced vehicle maintenance payments
 Make a deal with a local automotive repair place that people could bring their vehicle there
and get a certain amount of work done on it and they would be reimbursed.
 People buy the cheap car that they can afford but it’s constantly breaking down and needs
maintenance.
Three Forks
The overall cost of running a car
 Gas is one of the cheaper parts of it.
Many people commute to jobs or to Bozeman for other needs
 There are very few jobs that don’t require driving at least a few miles and thus a vehicle.
 A lot of seniors have limited access to medical specialists.
 Any trip to the hospital is a 30 minute drive.
Lack of support for public transportation
 When surveys were done, ridership was not there.
 Can you run Streamline out here long enough to get people used to the idea?
People are uncomfortable using a Bozeman-based system
 If the bus originated here, went to Bozeman and came back I bet it would be totally different.
 “For a number of years Galavan came out here. They found out that it would stop at the
Senior Center and that was their contact point. They couldn’t really put a finger on it, but
people were not for some reason comfortable riding it.”
 Seniors on a trip to Bozeman would just as soon have a friend take them.
Transportation for the elderly
 The elderly need to go to Billings for the right kind of medical care
 It would be good to start a program here
Summary- By Community
Belgrade Themes
 Transportation
o Expand Public Transportation
 River Rock to Belgrade
 More Streamline times
 Express to Bozeman
o Bike and pedestrian lanes
o Tunnel/ bridge over train
o Cost of fuel
o Safety
 Driving at night
 Biking
 Pedestrian trails
Page 14

Childcare/ Family activities/ Things for kids to do
o Pool, bowling alley, skate park
o Recreation Department/ YMCA
o Lack of maintenance of existing facilities
 Utilities
o Weatherization
o Alternative Energy
 Housing
o No low-income housing units like those in Livingston
o Unreasonable rent- not any cheaper than Bozeman
 Education
o Financial counseling/ planning
 Fear of initial costs
o Weatherization in home
o Car repairs
 Satellite office
o Help fill out paperwork
o Don’t have to take paperwork into Bozeman
o Comprehensive list of services
 Awareness of services
o Coordination
o Seems secretive- don’t tell, so don’t have to serve
o Website needs more information- contact info, links
Bozeman Themes
 Medical Expenses
o Outrageous costs- premiums and extraordinary costs not covered by insurance
o Community clinic for middle income people
 Deferred Maintenance- exasperates the situation
o Medical
o Car repairs
 Food
o Healthy food is expensive
o Qualifications for food stamps don’t fit Bozeman- cost of housing higher
o Cooking classes/ recipes with food from Food Bank
 Transportation
o More hours, more frequent
o Car maintenance
 Need an educational program at Gallatin College
 Could take cars there for low cost, beginner maintenance
 Community Clinic for cars- weekend event
 Mechanics volunteer
 Get an estimate, what needs to be done
 No cost
 Maybe shops get the business from it if decide to fix
Page 15





Non-profit/ low cost/ flexible payment garage
 Can prioritize maintenance
 Pay off in installments rather than all at once
o Car Insurance
 People don’t have it, get in accident, all out of pocket expense
 Need more communication about the risks
Childcare
o Costs too expensive
o Chicken or the egg- need a job to pay for childcare, but can’t get one because of
childcare
o Cooperative- restrictions would be enormous
Middle income bracket
o Too much money to qualify
o Not enough money to really make it
o Food stamps, medical care
Information
o Pamphlet about all services
Cooperative
o Barter Network- Santa Cruz County
o Trade services
Livingston Themes
 Childcare
o Lack of quality
 Licensing needs to be addressed
o Cost- some people’s entire paycheck
 Vicious cycle- work to pay bills but then need childcare, childcare takes up
most of paycheck so there is not money for bills
 Perhaps a pro-rated system, like SNAP- can be easily be put out of assistance
bracket if receive even a small raise
 Transportation
o Can’t get to appointments- job, hospital, service
 Some people have to take taxis to appointments
 Can’t take the bus to the Food Pantry
o Streamline
 Better hours
 Need a bus stop with times and schedule posted
 Add stop(s) in town at possibly Senior Center
 Maybe a van that just goes around Livingston
o Angel line
 Expanded
 Not require to schedule 24 hours in advance
 More than just senior and disabled
Page 16
o Vehicle Repair
 People buy old cars that then need constant repair
 Make a deal with a local repair shop
o Community Bike Rack- borrow the bike and return it back to the rack
 Housing
o Emergency homeless- shelter
o Transitional housing
 Unemployed and underemployed
 Inexpensive, subsidized
 For a week at a time
o Long term affordable
 Hygiene
o No public drinking fountain
o Need a place for shower- accessible
 Beach shower, pool facility, Civic Center
 Can’t get a job if smelly and dirty
o Toiletries- Food Pantry mostly takes care of
 Lack of low-income housing available
o Elderly and disabled have more options
o Not much for single families or single people
o Lack of adequacy
 Low wages because of mostly service sector
o Rent does not match wage- no housing for minimum wage level
 Could use a financial management class
o Sometimes offered by Livingston Credit Bureau and local banks
o What is the incentive to attend?
 Stigma associated with being uneducated about finances
 Could have it be a requirement to receive public assistance- Job Service
sometimes has clients do it
 Need an office in Livingston
o Open more than Fridays
 Maybe Tuesday and Thursday so match Food Pantry
o Doesn’t have to be all day- 10 A.M. - 5 P.M.
o Have a second person seasonally
o Not enough time to help everyone with their needs
 Need better communication of services
 Educate other service providers so they can answer questions
 Info and applications in more places
 Angel Line
 Service Providers
 Doctors offices
Three Forks Themes
 Transportation
Page 17






o Very spread out- need a vehicle for anything
o Lack of public transportation
 Galavan- people not comfortable riding it
 Streamline- ridership not there
o Still a huge cost to community members
Financial education- would be well received if free
Housing
o Need more affordable rentals
o Mostly want houses to rent- town does not necessarily want condos and apartments
Partner site
o Need a Three Forks resident to staff it
o Try it to see if utilized
Concern for privacy, anonymity
Feeling of Bozeman condescending
Needs to be Three Forks based to have local buy-in
White Sulphur Springs Themes
 Medical
o Elderly transportation to appointments
 Have had a variety of solutions over the years, but something more reliable
and permanent
 Lack of specialists in WSS
o Handicap accessibility- older homes
 Water bills- so high to pay for new infrastructure
o Can’t avoid these costs- should have slowly raised them a long time ago
 Affordable, quality housing
o Lots of trailer parks
o All old houses, need repairs to windows, doors, roofs, furnace
o Need rentals for temporary workers
o Cost & quality of current rentals
o Need houses for residents- build community
 Also need knowledge of how easy and cheap it is to buy a house
o Adequate and not substandard in WSS is no mold, no wind blowing through, nonleaky roof, plumbing that doesn’t drip, windows that open and close, cabinets not
falling off the wall, circuits that don’t trip. Doesn’t have to be granite countertops
 Wages don’t match costs
o Mostly service jobs, some work from home being added because of fiber optics,
potential for copper mine
 Need for education
o Elderly- programs available to their houses are fixed up for when they sell
o Small business start-up- where to go, steps to do, encourage local businesses, link on
Chamber website
o Financial class
 Difficult to make people who need it attend- utilize churches and their
relationships, pair it with a class about services offered
 Centralized place for information
o Confidential
Page 18
o
o
o
o
Get comfortable with it here, advertisement
Don’t have to go all the way to Bozeman or Helena
Don’t necessarily need fully staffed partner site
Give information to key places in town, educate influential people
Page 19
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT ONLINE TOOL
SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENTS
PREPARED ON SEPTEMBER 04, 2012
Introduction and Overview
This report presents an overview of the current community conditions for the following areas (see map
below):
Gallatin County, Montana
Meagher County, Montana
Park County, Montana

This report includes information derived from national sources on:
Population Profile
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Population Change
Age and Gender Demographics
Race Demographics
Veterans, Age and Gender Demographics
Poverty
Poverty Rate Change
Households in Poverty
Poverty Rate (ACS)
Households in Poverty by Family Type
Household Poverty Rate by Family Type
Child (0-17) Poverty Rate Change
Child (0-17) Poverty Rate (ACS)
Page 20
o Seniors in Poverty

Employment
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Current Unemployment
Unemployment Change
Household Income
Commuter Travel Patterns
Travel Time to Work
Thirteen Month Unemployment Rates
Five Year Unemployment Rate

Education
o Educational Attainment
o Adult Literacy
o Veterans - Educational Attainment

Housing
o
o
o
o
Housing Age
Homeowners
Vacancy Rates
Number of Unsafe, Unsanitary Homes

Income
o Income Levels
o Household Income

Nutrition
o Free and Reduced Lunch Program
o Households Receiving SNAP by Poverty Status

Health Care
o Medicare and Medicaid Providers
o Persons Receiving Medicare
o Uninsured Population
Page 21
Population
Population Profile: Population Change
Population change within the 3 county report area from 2000-2010 is shown in Table 1.
During the ten-year period, U.S. Census population counts for the report area grew by
25.25%, increasing from 85,458 persons in 2000 to 107,040 persons in 2010. The greatest
growth occurred in Gallatin County, Montana, which experienced a 31.96% increase in
population, whereas Meagher County, Montana, experienced a -2.12% change.
Table 1. Population Change, 2000 – 2010
Geographic Area
Census 2000
Population
Census 2010
Population
Population Change
% Change
Gallatin County,
Montana
67,832
89,513
21,681
31.96
Meagher County,
Montana
1,932
1,891
-41
-2.12
Park County,
Montana
15,694
15,636
-58
-0.37
Report Area
85,458
107,040
21,582
25.25
902,190
989,415
87,225
9.67
281,424,602
312,471,327
31,046,725
11.03
Montana
United States
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Census 2010. Release Date: February 2011
Page 22
Population Profile: Age and Gender Demographics
Population by gender within the 3 county report area is shown in Table 2. According to the
2010 U.S. Census population counts for the report area, the female population made up
48.42% of the report area, while the male population represented 51.58%.
Table 2. Population By Gender, 2010
Geograp
hic Area
0 to 4
M
5 to 9
F
10 to 14
15 to 19
20 to 64
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
65 and Over
F
M
F
Gallatin
County,
Montana
2,882
2,859
2,681
2,592
2,473
2,402
3,447
3,082
31,057
27,568
3,922
4,548
Meagher
County,
Montana
46
42
50
35
66
38
56
72
525
533
214
214
Park
County,
Montana
440
380
407
375
436
498
392
399
4,935
4,785
1,183
1,406
3,368
3,281
3,138
3,002
2,975
2,938
3,895
3,553
36,517
32,886
5,319
6,168
32,129 30,294
30,932
29,833
31,620
29,504
34,515
32,209 299,426 292,211
68,045
78,697
Report Area
Montana
United
States
10,434,6 9,991,5 10,512,8 10,075,7 10,717,1 10,228,6 11,448,5 10,876,0 92,853,9 94,522,2 17,599,3 23,210,6
00
18
66
95
51
14
19
83
80
19
81
01
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Summary File 1, Release Date August 25, 2011.
Page 23
Population Profile: Race Demographics
Population by race and gender within the 3 county report area is shown in Table 3.
According to U.S. Census population estimates for the report area, white population
comprised 95.93% of the report area, black population represented 0.29%, and other races
combined were 1.95%. Persons identifying themselves as some other race made up 1.82%
of the population.
Table 3. Population By Race, 2010
Geogra
phic
Area
White
Black
Gallatin
County,
Montana
44,155
40,929
178
111
382
399
491
536
40
28
888
770
Meagher
County,
Montana
940
912
1
1
1
4
0
6
0
0
14
10
Park
County,
Montana
7,527
7,563
8
13
67
64
13
39
1
4
129
128
52,622
49,404
187
125
450
467
504
581
41
32
1,031
908
444,487
440,474
2,623
1,404
30,965
31,590
2,490
3,763
374
111,492,45
3
114,885,91
2
18,795,764
United
States
M
F
M
Native
Some
Hawaiian / Other Race
Pacific
Islander
F
Montana
F
Asian
M
Report
Area
M
American
Indian
F
M
F
M
F
294 12,490 12,486
20,595,053 1,473,115 1,478,972 6,974,010 7,707,073 274,22 266,15 4,503,0 4,628,2
8
5
21
98
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Summary File 1, Release Date August 25, 2011.
Page 24
Population Profile: Veterans, Age and Gender Demographics
Table 4 shows the numbers of veterans living in the 3 county report area. In the adult
population, the greatest percentage (17.3%) of veterans live in Meagher County, Montana,
while Gallatin County, Montana, has the smallest percentage of Veterans (9.1 percent). 9.9
percent of the adult population in the report area are veterans, which is less than the
national average of 10.1 percent.
Table 4. Age and Gender Demographics of Veterans, 2006 - 2010
Geographic Area
Veterans
Total
Gallatin County,
Montana
Males
Percent of Population over 18 by
Gender
Females
Total
Males
Females
6,293
5,816
477
9.1
16.0
1.4
265
260
5
17.3
34.0
0.7
Park County,
Montana
1,666
1,572
94
13.2
25.3
1.5
Report Area
8,224
7,648
576
9.9
17.7
1.4
517,703
486,285
31,418
11.6
22.8
1.4
22,894,580 21,324,620
1,569,958
10.1
19.5
1.3
Meagher County,
Montana
Montana
United States
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2010 Data Release, December 2011. The
2010 American Community Survey 5-year data is an average of data collected from 2006 through 2010.
Page 25
Population Profile: Poverty
2010 poverty estimates show a total of 13,581 persons living below the poverty rate in the
report area. In 2010, Meagher County, Montana, had the highest poverty rate (19.5
percent), while Gallatin County, Montana, had the lowest poverty rate (12.9 percent).
Table 5. Poverty Information, 2010
Geographic Area
All Ages
Number of
Persons
Gallatin County,
Montana
Age 0-17
Poverty
Rate
Number of
Persons
Age 5-17
Poverty
Rate
Number of
Persons
Poverty
Rate
11,085
12.9
2,489
13.5
1,552
12.2
354
19.5
97
31.0
63
27.9
Park County,
Montana
2,142
13.9
642
21.2
412
18.6
Report Area
13,581
13.2
3,228
14.8
2,027
13.4
146,257
15.2
46,183
21.1
29,085
18.7
21.6 10,484,513
19.8
Meagher County,
Montana
Montana
United States
46,215,956
15.3 15,749,129
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE), 2010.
Page 26
Population Profile: Poverty Rate Change
Poverty rate change in the 3 county report area from 2000 to 2010 is shown in Table 6.
According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for the 3 county area increased by 2.5
percent. Gallatin County, Montana, experienced the greatest change in poverty, increasing
by 2.7% from 2000-2010 and Meagher County, Montana, experienced the least amount of
change, increasing by 1.4 percent.
Table 6. Change in Poverty Rate, 2000 - 2010
Geographic
Area
Gallatin County,
Montana
Persons in
Poverty, 2000
Poverty Rate,
2000
Persons in
Poverty, 2010
Poverty Rate,
2010
Change in
Poverty Rate,
2000 - 2010
6,808
10.2
11,085
12.9
2.7
349
18.1
354
19.5
1.4
Park County,
Montana
1,836
11.8
2,142
13.9
2.1
Report Area
8,993
10.7
13,581
13.2
2.5
117,677
13.3
146,257
15.2
1.9
31,581,086
11.3
46,215,956
15.3
4.0
Meagher
County,
Montana
Montana
United States
Page 27
Population Profile: Households in Poverty
Table 7 shows the number and percentage of households in poverty in the 3 county report
area. At 12.2 percent, Gallatin County, Montana, had the lowest percentage of households
in poverty while the Meagher County, Montana, had the largest percentage of households in
poverty. In 2010, it is estimated that there were 5,391 households, or 12.39 percent, living in
poverty within the report area.
Table 7. Households in Poverty, 2006 - 2010
Geographic Area
Gallatin County,
Montana
Meagher County,
Montana
Report Area
Montana
United States
Total Households,
2006/2010
Households in Poverty,
2006 2010
% Households in
Poverty, 2006 2010
35,753
4,348
12.2
767
145
18.9
6,983
898
12.9
43,503
5,391
12.4
401,328
55,079
13.7
114,236,000
14,865,322
13.0
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2010 Data Release, December 2012.
The 2010 American Community Survey 5-year data is an average of data collected from 2006 through
2010.
Page 28
Population Profile: Poverty Rate (ACS)
Table 8 shows the total population estimates for all persons in poverty for the 3 county
report area. According to the American Community Survey 5 year estimates, an average of
13.61 percent of all persons lived in a state of poverty during the 2006 - 2010 period.
Gallatin County, Montana, had the lowest poverty rate (13.5 percent) while Meagher
County, Montana, had the highest poverty rate of 19 percent. The poverty rate for all
persons living in the 3 county report area is less than the national average of 13.8 percent.
Table 8. Poverty Rate (ACS), 2006 - 2010
Geographic Area
Poverty Rate for All Persons
Total Population
In Poverty
Poverty Rate
Gallatin County,
Montana
83,903
11,318
13.5
Meagher County,
Montana
1,996
380
19.0
Park County,
Montana
15,602
2,118
13.6
Report Area
101,501
13,816
13.6
Montana
949,414
138,109
14.5
296,141,152
40,917,512
13.8
United States
Page 29
Population Profile: Households in Poverty by Family Type
Table 9 shows the number of households in poverty by type in the 3 county report area. At
49 households, Meagher County, Montana, had the lowest number of female-headed
households in poverty while Gallatin County, Montana, had the largest number of femaleheaded households in poverty. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that there were 1,966
households living in poverty within the report area.
Table 9. Households in Poverty by Family Type, 2006 - 2010
Geographic Area
Gallatin County,
Montana
Total
Households,
2006-2010
Households in Poverty
Total
Married
Couples
Male
Householder
Female
Householder
21,061
1,559
694
238
627
481
68
15
4
49
Park County,
Montana
4,423
339
161
27
151
Report Area
25,965
1,966
870
269
827
256,130
24,874
11,210
2,540
11,124
76,254,320
7,685,345
2,773,694
760,085
4,151,566
Meagher County,
Montana
Montana
United States
Note: The poverty rate for Household type is based on the total number of households for that household
type.
Page 30
Population Profile: Household Poverty Rate by Family Type
Table 10 shows percentage of households in poverty by household type in the 3 county report area. At
29.46 percent, Gallatin County, Montana, had the lowest percentage of female-headed households in
poverty while the Meagher County, Montana, had the largest percentage of female-headed households in
poverty. In 2010, it is estimated that 7.57 percent of all households were living in poverty within the report
area, compared to the national average of 10.08 percent. Of the households in poverty, female headed
households represented 42.07 percent of all households in poverty, compared to 13.68 and 44.25 percent
of households headed by males and married couples, respectively.
Table 10. Household Poverty Rate by Family Type, 2006 - 2010
Geographic Area
All Types
Married Couples
Male Householder
Female
Householder
Gallatin County,
Montana
7.40
3.94
17.98
29.46
Meagher County,
Montana
14.14
4.04
8.51
77.78
Park County,
Montana
7.66
4.30
15.79
29.55
Report Area
7.57
4.01
17.44
30.61
Montana
9.71
5.41
16.53
33.06
10.08
4.90
14.58
28.86
United States
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2010 Data Release, December 2011. The 2010 American Community
Survey 5-year data is an average of data collected from 2006 through 2010.
Note: The poverty rate for Household type is based on the total number of households for that household type.
Page 31
Population Profile: Child (0-17) Poverty Rate Change
The poverty rate change for all children in the 3 county report area from 2000 to 2010 is shown
in Table 11. According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for the 3 county area increased by
1.3%, compared to a national increase of 5.4 percent. Meagher County, Montana, experienced
the greatest change in poverty, increasing by 4.6% from 2000-2010 and Gallatin County,
Montana, experienced the least amount of change, increasing by 1.2 percent.
Table 11. Change in Childhood (0-17) Poverty Rate, 2000 - 2010
Geographic
Area
Gallatin County,
Montana
Children in
Poverty, 2000
Poverty Rate,
2000
Children in
Poverty, 2010
Poverty Rate,
2010
Change in
Poverty Rate,
2000 - 2010
1,797
12.3
2,489
13.5
1.2
Meagher
County,
Montana
118
26.4
97
31.0
4.6
Park County,
Montana
594
17.0
642
21.2
4.2
2,509
13.5
3,228
14.8
1.3
40,497
18.8
46,183
21.1
2.3
11,587,118
16.2
15,749,129
21.6
5.4
Report Area
Montana
United States
Page 32
The poverty rate change for children under five years of age in the 3 county report area from
2000 to 2010 is shown in Table 12. According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for the 3
county area decreased by -1.9%, compared to a national increase of 6.0 percent. Gallatin
County, Montana, experienced the greatest change in poverty, decreasing by -2.4% from 2000 2010 and Gallatin County, Montana, experienced the least amount of change, decreasing by 2.4 percent.
Table 12. Poverty Rate Change for Children (under 5), 2000 - 2010
Geographic
Area
Gallatin County,
Montana
Meagher
County,
Montana
Park County,
Montana
Report Area
Montana
United States
Children 0-4 in
Poverty, 2000
Poverty Rate,
2000
Children 0-4 in
Poverty, 2010
Poverty Rate,
2010
Change in
Poverty Rate,
2000 - 2010
765
18.8
937
16.4
-2.4
38
38.9
34
39.0
0.1
217
23.8
230
28.3
4.5
1,020
20.1
1,201
18.2
-1.9
15,513
28.1
17,098
27.0
-1.1
4,050,543
20.3
5,264,616
26.4
6.0
Page 33
The poverty rate change for children ages five to seventeen in the 3 county report area from
2000 to 2010 is shown in Table 13. According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for the 3
county area increased by 2.3%, compared to a statewide increase of 1.7%. Meagher County,
Montana, experienced the greatest change in poverty, increasing by 5% from 2000-2010 and
Gallatin County, Montana, experienced the least amount of change, increasing by 2.4%.
Table 13. Poverty Rate Change for Children Ages (5 -17), 2000 - 2010
Geographic
Area
Gallatin County,
Montana
Meagher
County,
Montana
Park County,
Montana
Report Area
Montana
United States
Children 5-17 in
Poverty, 2000
Poverty Rate,
2000
Children 5-17 in
Poverty, 2010
Poverty Rate,
2010
Change in
Poverty Rate,
2000 - 2010
1,032
9.8
1,552
12.2
2.4
80
22.9
63
27.9
5.0
377
14.6
412
18.6
4.0
1,489
11.1
2,027
13.4
2.3
24,984
15.6
29,085
18.7
3.1
7,536,575
14.6
10,484,513
19.8
5.2
Page 34
Population Profile: Child (0-17) Poverty Rate (ACS)
Table 14 shows the population and poverty estimates for children in the 3 county report
area. According to the American Community Survey 5 year data, an average of 13.67
percent of children lived in a state of poverty during the 2010 calendar year. Gallatin
County, Montana, had the lowest poverty rate (12.5 percent) while Meagher County,
Montana, had the highest child poverty rate of 21.7 percent. The poverty rate for children
living in the 3 county report area is less than the national average of 19.2 percent.
Table 14. American Community Survey, Child (0-17) Poverty Rate
Geographic Area
Children, Ages 0 - 17 years
Total Population
Gallatin County,
Montana
In Poverty
Poverty Rate
18,258
2,286
12.5
474
103
21.7
Park County,
Montana
3,044
587
19.3
Report Area
21,776
2,976
13.7
218,738
42,000
19.2
72,850,296
13,980,497
19.2
Meagher County,
Montana
Montana
United States
The 2010 American Community Survey 5-year data is an average of data collected from 2006 through 2010.
Page 35
Table 15 shows the population and poverty estimates for children under five years of age for the
3 county report area. According to the American Community Survey 5 Year data, an average of
12.61 percent of children under five years of age lived in a state of poverty during the 2010
calendar year. Gallatin County, Montana, had the lowest poverty rate (11.8 percent) while
Meagher County, Montana, had the highest poverty rate for children under five years of age of
39.3 percent. The poverty rate for children under five years of age living in the 3 county report
area is less than the national average of 22.3 percent.
Table 15. Child (0-4) Poverty Rate
Geographic Area
Total Population
Gallatin County,
Montana
In Poverty
Poverty Rate
5,572
658
11.8
Meagher County,
Montana
173
68
39.3
Park County,
Montana
758
94
12.4
6,503
820
12.6
58,902
13,964
23.7
19,822,550
4,418,983
22.3
Report Area
Montana
United States
Page 36
Table 16 shows the population and poverty estimates for children aged five to seventeen for the
3 county report area. According to the American Community Survey 5 year data, an average of
14.12 percent of children aged five to seventeen lived in a state of poverty during the 2010
calendar year. Gallatin County, Montana, had the lowest poverty rate (18 percent) while
Meagher County, Montana, had the highest poverty rate of 34.2 percent for children aged five to
seventeen. The poverty rate for children age five to seventeen living in the 3 county report area
is less than the national average of 26.4 percent.
Table 16. Child (5-17) Poverty Rate
Geographic Area
Total Population
Gallatin County,
Montana
In Poverty
Poverty Rate
12,686
1,628
18.0
301
35
34.2
Park County,
Montana
2,286
493
25.7
Report Area
15,273
2,156
14.1
159,836
28,036
26.3
53,027,752
9,561,514
26.4
Meagher County,
Montana
Montana
United States
Page 37
Population Profile: Seniors in Poverty
Poverty rates for seniors (persons age 65 and over) are shown in Table 17. At 8.2 percent,
Gallatin County, Montana, had the lowest percentage of seniors in poverty while Meagher
County, Montana, had the highest percentage of seniors in poverty. According to American
Community Survey estimates, there were 927 seniors, or 8.8 percent, living in poverty
within the report area.
Table 17. Seniors in Poverty, 2006 - 2010
Geographic Area
Gallatin County,
Montana
Meagher County,
Montana
Report Area
Montana
United States
Seniors
Seniors in Poverty
Senior Poverty Rate
7,665
625
8.2
348
44
12.6
2,536
258
10.2
10,549
927
8.8
138,990
11,916
8.6
38,221,316
3,554,291
9.3
Page 38
Employment
Employment: Current Unemployment
Labor force, employment, and unemployment data for each county in the 3 county report
area is provided in Table 18. According to the U.S. Department of Labor in June,
unemployment in the report area varies from 5.6 percent in Gallatin County, Montana to 6.2
percent in Meagher County, Montana. Overall, the report area experienced an average 5.6
percent unemployment rate in June 2012.
Table 18. Employment/Unemployment Information, June 2012
Geographic Area
Gallatin County,
Montana
Labor Force
Employment
Unemployment
Unemployment
Rate
50,785
47,954
2,831
5.6
791
742
49
6.2
Park County,
Montana
9,044
8,499
545
6.0
Report Area
60,620
57,195
3,425
5.6
518,039
485,800
32,239
6.2
157,652,275
144,292,950
13,359,325
8.5
Meagher County,
Montana
Montana
United States
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, August 8, 2012.
Page 39
Employment: Unemployment Change
Unemployment change within the 3 county report area during the 1-year period from June
2011 to June 2012 is shown in the chart below. According to the U.S. Department of Labor,
unemployment for this one year period fell from 4,263 persons to 3,425 persons, a rate
change of -1.8 percent. The greatest change in the unemployment rate occurred in -1.7,
with a rate decrease of -1.7 while the smallest change was in Meagher County, Montana,
with a rate decrease of 3.5 percent.
Table 19. Change in Unemployment, June 2011 - June 2012
Geographic Area
Gallatin County,
Montana
Meagher County,
Montana
Park County,
Montana
Report Area
Montana
United States
Unemployment,
June 2011
Unemployment,
June 2012
Unemployment
Rate, June 2011
Unemployment
Rate, June 2012
3,482
2,831
7.3
5.6
83
49
9.7
6.2
698
545
8.0
6.0
4,263
3,425
7.4
5.6
39,580
32,239
7.8
6.2
14,602,982
13,359,325
9.4
8.5
Page 40
Employment: Household Income
Median annual household incomes in the 3 county report area are shown in Table 20.
According to the U.S. Census, Median Annual Household Incomes ranged from a low of
$29,026 in Meagher County, Montana to a high of $49,354 in Gallatin County, Montana in
2012.
Table 20. Median Annual Household Income, 2010
Geographic Area
Median Household Income ($)
49,354
29,026
37,835
Montana
42,303
Page 41
Employment: Commuter Travel Patterns
Table 21 shows the mode of transportation workers used to travel to work for the 3 county report
area. Of the 56,597 workers in the report area, 82.33 percent, or 46,595 workers used private
automobiles to travel to work. Of these, 69.90 percent drove to work alone while 12.43 percent
carpooled. 0.58 percent of all workers reported that they used some form of public transportation,
while 10.24 percent (or 5,794 workers) used some other means including walking, bicycles, and
taxicabs to travel to work.
Table 21. Method of Transportation to Work, 2006 - 2010
Geographic Area Workers
Method of Transportation to Work (Percent)
16 and Up Drive Carpool
Public
Bicycle
Walk
Taxi/Oth Work at
Alone
Transportati
er
Home
on
Gallatin County,
Montana
49,041
70.6
12.6
0.7
3.0
5.6
0.8
6.7
869
66.2
5.5
0.0
2.8
12.0
2.9
10.7
Park County,
Montana
6,687
65.2
11.7
0.0
2.5
11.3
1.6
7.6
Report Area
56,597
69.9
12.4
0.6
2.9
6.4
0.9
6.9
467,330
74.0
10.7
1.0
1.3
5.1
1.0
6.8
140,243,93
6
76.0
10.4
4.9
0.5
2.8
1.2
4.1
Meagher County,
Montana
Montana
United States
Page 42
Employment: Travel Time to Work
Travel times for workers who travel (do not work at home) to work is shown in Table 22 for
the 3 county report area. Park County, Montana, had the shortest median commute time of
20 minutes while Gallatin County, Montana, had the longest commute time at 22 minutes.
The median commute time for the report area of 26 minutes is shorter than the national
median commute time of 29 minutes.
Table 22. Travel Time to Work, 2006 - 2010
Geographic Area
Gallatin County,
Montana
Workers
16 and
Up
Travel Time to Work in minutes (Percent of Workers)
Less
than 10
10 to 20 20 to 40 40 to 60 60 to 90
More
than 90
Median
Commut
e Time
(mins)
45,761
24.2
40.4
26.5
3.4
3.0
2.5
22
776
51.3
19.1
11.3
9.5
2.6
6.2
22
Park County,
Montana
6,179
41.7
27.6
16.5
9.0
2.7
2.4
20
Report Area
52,716
26.7
38.6
25.1
4.1
2.9
2.6
26
435,342
28.8
38.8
24.0
4.3
2.5
1.7
21
134,459,6
93
14.1
30.0
14.1
36.8
5.6
2.5
29
Meagher County,
Montana
Montana
United States
Page 43
Employment: Thirteen Month Unemployment Rates
Unemployment change within the 3 county report area from June 2011 to June 2012 is shown in
the chart below. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, unemployment for this thirteen
month period fell from 7.4 percent to 5.6 percent. The greatest increase in the unemployment
rate occurred in Gallatin County, Montana, with a rate decrease of -0.7 while the greatest drop
was in Meagher County, Montana, with a rate decrease of -2.7 percent.
Table 23. Change in Unemployment Rates, June 2011 - June 2012
Geographi
c Area
Jun
2011
Jul
2011
Aug
2011
Sep
2011
Oct
2011
Nov
2011
Dec
2011
Jan
2012
Feb
2012
Mar
2012
Apr
2012
May
2012
June
2012
Gallatin
County,
Montana
7.3
6.3
6.1
6.2
6.9
6.7
6.2
6.3
5.8
6.2
5.8
6.1
5.6
Meagher
County,
Montana
9.7
8.1
7.9
7.2
7.4
7.0
7.3
8.7
7.4
7.5
7.4
6.8
6.2
Park
County,
Montana
8.0
7.0
6.6
6.8
7.4
8.5
8.5
8.3
7.6
8.0
7.7
6.9
6.0
Report
Area
7.4
6.4
6.2
6.3
7.0
7.0
6.5
6.6
6.1
6.4
6.1
6.2
5.6
Montana
7.8
7.2
7.1
6.8
6.9
6.6
6.7
7.4
6.9
7.0
6.3
6.2
6.2
United
States
9.4
9.4
9.1
8.8
8.6
8.3
8.3
8.9
8.8
8.4
7.8
8.0
8.5
Page 44
Employment: Five Year Unemployment Rate
Unemployment change within the 3 county report area from June 2008 to June 2012 is
shown in the chart below. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, unemployment for
this five year period grew from 3.7 percent to 5.6 percent. The greatest increase in the
unemployment rate occurred in Park County, Montana, with a rate increase of 2 percent,
while the smallest increase was in Meagher County, Montana, with a rate increase of 0.2
percent.
Table 24. Five Year Unemployment Rate, June 2008 - June 2012
Geographic
Area
June 2008
June 2009
June 2010
June 2011
June 2012
Gallatin County,
Montana
3.7
6.6
7.4
7.3
5.6
Meagher
County,
Montana
6.0
8.0
8.6
9.7
6.2
Park County,
Montana
4.0
6.7
7.4
8.0
6.0
Report Area
3.7
6.7
7.4
7.4
5.6
Montana
4.4
6.2
7.1
7.8
6.2
United States
5.8
9.7
9.7
9.4
8.5
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, August 8,2012.
Page 45
Education
Education: Educational Attainment
Table 25 shows the distribution of educational attainment levels in the 3 county region.
Educational attainment is calculated for persons over 25, and is an average for the period
from 2006 to 2010.
Geographic
Area
Table 25. Percent Attaining Educational Levels, 2006 - 2010
% No High
% High
% Some
%
% Bachelors, % Graduate
School
School Only,
College,
Associates,
2006/2010
or
Diploma,
2006/2010
2006/2010
2006/2010
Professional,
2006/2010
2006/2010
Gallatin
County,
Montana
4.03
21.03
23.62
6.3
28.9
16.13
Meagher
County,
Montana
17.65
40.08
20.32
6.1
13.2
2.67
Park County,
Montana
10.62
29.85
21.72
6.4
23.9
7.55
Report Area
5.46
22.96
23.22
6.3
27.7
14.36
Montana
9.04
31.25
23.98
7.9
19.2
8.65
14.97
28.99
20.62
7.5
17.6
10.30
United States
Page 46
Education: Adult Literacy
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) produces estimates for adult literacy
based on educational attainment, poverty, and other factors in each county. Estimated
literacy rates for the 3 county report area ranged from 6 in Gallatin County, Montana, to 11
in Meagher County, Montana, in 2003.
Table 26. Persons Lacking Basic Prose Literacy Skills, 2003
Geographic Area
Estimated Population over 16
Percent Lacking Literacy Skills
56,655
6
1,550
11
12,538
9
Report Area
70,743
7
704,494
9
15,058,111
22
Montana
United States
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, State and County
Estimates of Low Literacy, 2003.
Page 47
Education: Veterans - Educational Attainment
Table 27 contrasts the distribution of educational attainment levels between military
veterans and non-veterans in the 3 county region. Educational attainment is calculated for
persons over 25, and is an average for the period from 2006 to 2010.
Table 27. Percent Attaining Educational Levels by Veteran Status, 2006 - 2010
Geographic Area
Veterans
% No
Diploma
Non-Veterans
% High %Some
%
% No
% High %Some
%
School College Bachelors Diploma School College Bachelors
Diploma
or Higher
Diploma
or Higher
Gallatin County,
Montana
4.0
26.1
33.1
36.8
4.0
20.4
29.5
46.1
Meagher County,
Montana
26.8
40.4
21.5
11.3
15.6
40.0
27.6
16.9
Park County,
Montana
9.0
33.8
31.4
25.8
10.9
29.2
27.6
32.3
Report Area
5.7
28.1
32.4
33.8
5.4
22.3
29.1
43.2
Montana
8.5
33.5
33.8
24.2
9.2
30.9
31.4
28.5
United States
9.1
30.4
34.9
25.6
15.8
28.9
27.2
28.2
Page 48
Housing
Housing: Housing Age
Total housing units, median year built and median age in 2010 for the 3 county report area
are shown in Table 28. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median age of housing
ranged from 23 years in Gallatin County, Montana, to 40 years in Meagher County,
Montana.
Table 28. Median Housing Unit Age, 2006 - 2010
Geographic Area
Total Housing Units
Median Year Built
Median Age (in 2010)
Gallatin County,
Montana
40,448
1987
23
Meagher County,
Montana
1,379
1970
40
9,215
1970
40
471,723
1974
36
130,038,080
1975
35
Report Area
Montana
United States
51,042
Page 49
Housing: Homeowners
The U.S. Census Bureau estimated there were 21,558 homeowners in the 3 county report
area in 2000, and 27,690 homeowners in the report area in 2010.
Table 29. Homeowners, 2000 - 2006/2010
Geographic Area
Report Area
Montana
United States
Homeowners, 2000
Homeowners, 2006/2010
16,434
22,286
588
491
4,536
4,913
21,558
27,690
247,723
277,023
69,815,753
76,089,650
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 1, 2000.; U.S. Census Bureau, American
Community Survey, 2010 Data Release, December 2011. The 2010 American Community Survey 5-year data is an average of data
collected from 2006 through 2010.
Page 50
Housing: Vacancy Rates
The U.S. Postal Service provided information quarterly to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development on addresses identified as vacant in the previous quarter. Residential and business
vacancy rates for the 3 county report area in the third quarter of 2010 are reported in Table 30. In the third
quarter of 2010, a total of 1,085 residential addresses were identified as vacant in the report area, a
vacancy rate of 2.29, and 414 business addresses were also reported as vacant, a rate of 7.33.
Geographic
Area
Table 30. USPS Address Vacancies, Third Quarter, 2010
Residential
Vacant
Residential
Business
Vacant
Addresses
Residential
Vacancy
Addresses
Business
Addresses
Rate
Addresses
Business
Vacancy
Rate
Gallatin
County,
Montana
40,151
682
1.70
4,884
320
6.55
Meagher
County,
Montana
350
0
0.00
8
0
0.00
Park County,
Montana
6,901
403
5.84
756
94
12.43
Report Area
47,402
1,085
2.29
5,648
414
7.33
418,775
11,362
2.71
39,686
3,461
8.72
132,389,902
4,850,831
3.66
11,015,221
1,209,932
10.98
Montana
United States
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Aggregated USPS Administrative Data on Address Vacancies, Third
quarter, 2010.
Page 51
Housing: Number of Unsafe, Unsanitary Homes
The number and percentage of occupied housing units without plumbing are shown in the 3 county
report area in Table 31. U.S. Census data shows 168 housing units in the report area were without
plumbing in 2000 and 158 housing units in the report area were without plumbing in 2010.
Geographic
Area
Table 31. Housing Units without Plumbing, 2006 - 2010
Occupied
Housing
Percent
Occupied
Housing
Housing
Units without
without
Housing
Units without
Units, 2000
Plumbing,
Plumbing,
Units, 2006Plumbing,
2000
2000
2010
2006-2010
Percent
without
Plumbing,
2006-2010
Gallatin
County,
Montana
26,323
113
0.38
35,753
98
0.27
Meagher
County,
Montana
803
11
0.81
767
16
2.09
Park County,
Montana
6,828
44
0.53
6,983
44
0.63
Report Area
33,954
168
0.49
43,503
158
0.36
358,667
2,776
0.67
401,328
2,873
0.72
106,741,426
736,626
0.69 114,235,996
602,324
0.53
Montana
United States
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 3, 2000.; U.S. Census Bureau, American
Community Survey, 2010 Data Release, December 2011. The 2010 American Community Survey 5-year data is an average of data
collected from 2006 through 2010.
Page 52
Income
Income: Income Levels
Two common measures of income are Median Household Income, based on U.S. Census
Bureau estimates, and Per Capita Income, based on U.S. Department of Commerce
estimates. Both measures are shown for the 3 county report area in Table 32. Household
incomes ranged from $32,509 in Meagher County, Montana, to $47,065 in Gallatin County,
Montana. The average Per Capita income for the 3 county report area is $32,140 as
compared to a national average of $39,635.
Table 32. Income Levels by County, 2009
Geographic Area
Median Household Income, 2009
Per Capita Income, 2009
47,065
34,769
32,509
28,224
39,525
33,428
Report Area
39,700
32,140
Montana
42,222
34,828
United States
50,221
39,635
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE), 2009.; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System (REIS), 2010. Bureau of Economic Analysis, County Personal Income
and Employment (CA1-3), April 2011.
Page 53
Income: Household Income
Median annual household incomes in the 3 county report area are shown in Table 33.
According to the U.S. Census, Median Annual Household Incomes ranged from a low of
$29,026 in Meagher County, Montana, to a high of $49,354 in Gallatin County, Montana, in
2008.
Table 33. Median Annual Household Income, 2010
Geographic Area
Median Household Income ($)
49,354
29,026
37,835
Montana
42,303
United States
50,046
Page 54
Nutrition
Nutrition: Households Receiving SNAP by Poverty Status
Table 35 shows that 1,946 households (or 4.47 percent) received SNAP payments during
2010. During this same period there were 4,247 (or 9.76 percent) households with income
levels below the poverty level that were not receiving SNAP payments. At 3.74 percent,
Gallatin County, Montana, had the smallest percentage of households receiving SNAP
payments, while Meagher County, Montana, had 9.91 percent of households receiving
SNAP payments, which is more than the national average of 9.26 percent.
Table 34. Households Receiving SNAP by Poverty Status, 2006 – 2010
Geographic Area
Households Receiving SNAP
Total
Gallatin County,
Montana
Meagher County,
Montana
Park County,
Montana
Report Area
Montana
United States
Percent
Income
Below
Poverty
Households Not Receiving SNAP
Income
Above
Poverty
Total
Percent
Income
Below
Poverty
Income
Above
Poverty
1,336
3.74
784
552
34,417
96.26
3,564
30,853
76
9.91
44
32
691
90.09
101
590
534
7.65
316
218
6,449
92.35
582
5,867
1,946
4.47
1,144
802
41,557
95.53
4,247
37,310
32,783
8.17
19,488
13,295
368,545
91.83
35,591
332,954
10,583,720
9.26 5,817,716 4,766,004 103,652,272
90.74 9,047,606 94,604,672
Survey 5-year data is an average of data collected from 2006 through 2010. SNAP numbers are for the last 12 months of the fiveyear average (2010).
Page 55
Health Care
Health Care: Medicare and Medicaid Providers
Total institutional Medicare and Medicaid providers, including hospitals, nursing facilities,
federally qualified health centers, rural health clinics and community mental health centers
for the 3 county report area are shown in Table 36. According to the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, there were 24 active Medicare and Medicaid institutional
service providers in the report area in 2011. Gallatin County, Montana, had the most active
providers (16), while Meagher County, Montana, had the fewest (2).
Table 36. Institutional Medicare and Medicaid Providers, Second Quarter, 2011
Geographic
Area
Total
Institutional
Providers
Hospitals
Nursing
Facilities
Federally
Qualified
Health
Centers
Rural Health Community
Clinics
Mental Health
Centers
Gallatin
County,
Montana
16
1
3
3
2
0
Meagher
County,
Montana
2
1
0
0
1
0
Park County,
Montana
6
1
1
1
1
0
Report Area
24
3
4
4
4
0
347
67
86
41
53
0
75,166
7,195
15,714
4,923
3,899
633
Montana
United States
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Provider of Services File,
Second Quarter, 2011
Page 56
Health Care: Persons Receiving Medicare
The total number of persons receiving Medicare is shown, broken down by number over 65
and number of disabled persons receiving Medicare for the 3 county report area in Table
37. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported that a total of 12,954
persons were receiving Medicare benefits in the report area in 2010. A large number of
individuals in our society are aware that persons over 65 years of age receive Medicare;
however, many of them are unaware that disabled persons also receive Medicare benefits.
A total of 1,519 disabled persons in the report area received Medicare benefits in 2010.
Gallatin County, Montana, had the highest number (1,068) of Medicare recipients among
disabled persons, while Meagher County, Montana, had the lowest number (65) of
Medicare recipients among disabled persons.
Table 36. Medicare Enrollment by County, July 2010
Geographic Area
Gallatin County,
Montana
Meagher County,
Montana
Report Area
Montana
United States
Persons Over 65
Receiving Medicare
Disabled Persons
Receiving Medicare
Total Persons Receiving
Medicare
8,538
1,068
9,606
414
65
479
2,483
386
2,869
11,435
1,519
12,954
143,017
25,390
168,407
38,802,763
7,865,374
46,668,299
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Medicare County Enrollment
Report, as of July 1 2010.
Page 57
Health Care: Uninsured Population
The uninsured population is calculated by estimating the number of persons eligible for
insurance (generally those under 65) minus the estimated number of insured persons. In
2009, the percentage of persons uninsured ranged from 19.3 in Gallatin County, Montana,
to 26.7 in Meagher County, Montana.
Table 37. Uninsured Persons, 2009
Geographic Area
Insurance
Population (2009
Estimate)
Number Insured
Number Uninsured Percent Uninsured
Gallatin County,
Montana
80,454
64,905
15,549
19.3
Meagher County,
Montana
1,453
1,066
387
26.7
Park County,
Montana
13,231
10,171
3,060
23.1
Report Area
95,138
76,142
18,996
20.0
816,788
639,952
176,837
21.7
154,195,253
130,124,115
18,071,139
11.0
Montana
United States
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Health Insurance Estimates, 2009 (October 2011 release).
Page 58
PARTNER DATA
During the completion of the HRDC Community Needs Assessment, there were other needs assessments
being done in the areas of healthcare, employment, early childhood care and education, housing, and
transportation. These assessments from local partners were also utilized in our analysis of community
needs. Summary of the data from the assessments used can be found below. For the specific needs
identified, please see the document cited.
Early Childhood Needs Assessment 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Early Childhood Community Council (ECCC), a community-wide collaborative effort to promote thriving
children 0-5 and offer resources to families to ensure every child will succeed in school and life, completed the
Gallatin County early childhood system needs assessment in 2013. This assessment examined the experience
families have using services, how well services matched identified needs, and gathered information that could be
useful in characterizing how successful this community is in readying all its young children for school and life.
The needs and community assets were determined through interviews, focus groups, targeted surveys and
available data. 32 parents from around the county participated in interviews and focus groups and another 145
completed a detailed survey. Over 70 professionals, including child care providers, employers, health care
providers, mental health providers, special needs providers, teachers and other early childhood professionals
participated in interviews, a focus group, a home visiting assessment, surveys or facilitated ECCC discussions. This
detailed information, along with available data, was used to identify community-level needs.
This needs assessment focused on six major outcome areas:
• Family Support: Home visiting, parent support groups, activities and parks, trails and other infrastructure.
• Parent Education: Classes, coaching, mentoring and other forms of education.
• Early Care and Education: Child care, preschool and other early education.
• Social-Emotional Development and Mental Health: Social-emotional development, behavior, and mental health.
• Health and Medical Homes: Medical care, insurance and health outcomes.
• Economic Self-Sufficiency: Financial security and financial literacy.
Many excellent services, resources and activities exist for families with young children in Gallatin County. The
pieces to help families build foundations for success are mostly in place and generally work well. However, gaps
exist and some elements need to be further developed to ensure that a comprehensive system is available for
every member of the community. Six major types of needs exist. These are:
Information and Messaging: Substantial information and messages exist within the community or are available
through state or national level organizations. Missing is a truly systematic approach at the community level.
• Families, businesses and professionals need more centralized ways to access information about services and
activities. Finding child care providers was a standout in terms of difficulty, but finding information about any
specialized resources and even knowing where to get started was sometimes a problem.
• More widespread awareness of the benefits of parent education, home visiting and early childhood services is
needed.
• Clearer messaging on family support, being ready for school, social-emotional and behavioral development, and
healthy habits are needed.
1
2013 ECCC Early Childhood System Needs Assessment – Executive Summary
Page 59
Coordination Gaps or Missing Links: Many of the major partners already coordinate well, as evidenced by many
examples of how parents use multiple services and the existence of the ECCC with many critical partners at the
table. However:
• Not all partners are equally well-linked in a system of relationships and referrals. It is currently a system of
several central organizations and agencies, with fewer connections between other organizations.
• Missing or less well-connected partners include parts of the medical community, business community, faithbased community, the mental health community, some schools, the child care provider community, and the lawenforcement community.
• Some geographic areas are not as well represented, though no area of the county completely lacks associations
with early childhood service providers.
• The experience of using multiple services can be frustrating and fragmented for parents or quite streamlined,
depending on the services used and parent ability to navigate multiple organizations.
Difficulties in Accessing Services: Overall, services are being used and many parents reported positive outcomes.
However:
• Challenges with paperwork, the lack of a centralized application procedure, and slowness or inaccuracies in
qualifying for services were barriers. Best Beginnings child-care scholarships, SNAP (food stamps), Medicaid, and
Healthy Montana Kids were mostly frequently mentioned, but paperwork came up as at least somewhat of a
barrier for any service with a screen.
• Qualifying requirements, either financial or in severity of need (for special needs and mental health services),
meant that some families with needs were not served or only partly served.
• The vast majority of children have some kind of insurance, but underinsurance affects health care access, and
mental health care is mostly determined by the type of insurance, with underinsurance thought to be a major
problem.
• Affordability was reported as a major barrier for child care. The average estimated cost of full-time care per
month is $800.
• Seasonal and self-employed parents and caregivers had significantly more difficulty with access issues—their
circumstances didn’t mesh well with program requirements, though positive examples exist.
• Geography poses a barrier to reach services that aren’t close, especially for those in the West Yellowstone area.
• Transportation poses a major access problem for those in outlying areas of the county, particularly for those with
financial insecurity.
• At least part of the Hispanic population has difficulty accessing services due to language, isolation and cultural
barriers.
Capacity and/or Eligibility Issues: Great services exist, but do not always meet demand.
• Quality, affordable child care and preschool was a challenge for many families. Head Start has not been able to
add preschool slots for about a decade, despite major population growth and a waiting list. Many types of care,
including respite, drop-in, odd-hour, special needs, school-aged summer care, before- and after-school care, and
infant care were reported as limited or missing.
• Many services cannot serve everyone with a need. Eligibility is often described as a “cliff” and those just outside
the eligibility threshold may receive very limited services. At this time, finding funding to fill many of those gaps
has not been successful.
• Affordable housing, especially in Bozeman and West Yellowstone, is insufficient to meet needs.
• Funding for emergency and other services is not always sufficient to meet existing needs.
• Space to accommodate services like after-school programs has been a limiting factor.
• Funding and staffing limitations prevent physical proximity to all services throughout the county.
• Professional development and training is not geared to or available to all levels of participants, particularly in the
area of social-emotional development and mental health.
Page 60
Advocacy Gaps: Several of the access and capacity gaps cannot be solved solely through local action.
• Legislation, policies and procedures that pose barriers for use of programs with financial and other eligibility
criteria require changes at the state or federal level.
• Solutions involving private partners may require greater levels of community support and buy-in to be effective.
Achieving that support may require advocates for those changes.
Data Gaps:
• Community level data are missing in the areas of behavioral trends, children’s mental health, and measures of
readiness for school. More detailed information would also be useful in health and mental health.
• A set of community-level indicators to track long-term outcomes for children has not been determined.
Page 61
Opportunities Ahead: 2011 Analysis of Workforce Needs, Gallatin
Valley 2
Executive Summary
Within two years, it is likely that Gallatin Valley businesses could annually absorb every Gallatin College
graduate seeking a job in key workforce sectors. Based on their own quantification of need, businesses
could potentially hire hundreds of graduates. However, many of these hires will stay for many years, so
annual need will potentially level off.
Two sectors studied for this report are in high need of associate and certificate programs as soon as they
can be established. These are the health care sector and the restaurant/hospitality sector. Area
employers in both sectors are eager for MSU and Gallatin College to launch programs, and are eager to
hire graduates. In the culinary arts field, it is likely that every graduate of a Gallatin College program
would be able to find employment in the greater Bozeman area immediately upon graduation.
In the health care field - despite high competition from out of state and out of the area applicants - the
need for qualified medical assistants, surgical assistants, and licensed practical nurses is high, and local
employers feel that Gallatin College graduates would fare well right from the start.
For other sectors, however, projections are more qualified, reflecting the hesitancy of area employers. It
is essential to provide context to the findings, as this study has been conducted before Montana has
emerged from the current recession. The recession came late to Gallatin County and the Southwestern
portion of Montana but for many industries and employment sectors it is likely to linger for a number of
years. 1 This has had a profound impact on most employer views expressed in this report for the
manufacturing, business, IT and construction-related sectors. Several employers declined to be
interviewed for this study because they are not anticipating hiring any employees in the foreseeable
future. Others noted that their employment needs are greatly diminished. A number expressed lack of
optimism that jobs would be available when students graduate. Over all, most local employers in
sectors outside culinary/hospitality and medic al who were interviewed for this study stated it will be at
least five years before the local economy regains strength to the point where hiring will pick up. At that
point the employers say they will hire the most qualified individuals with the highest level of training and
experience.
These concerns are mitigated by Montana’s Department of Labor and Industry Research and Analysis
Bureau, which finds that job creation will pick up as soon as 2012 for some industry groupings; and that
job creation continues within the health care field, which saw no negative impact during the recession.
In fact, the Department’s projections note that between 2012 and 2016, most industry sectors offering
potential positions for Gallatin College graduates will be back to hiring new workers. Thus, despite local
current pessimism, the longer view shows that now is indeed the time to begin planning for new
programs that will position Montana students for employment opportunities.
Opportunities Ahead: 2011 Analysis of Workforce Needs for Montana State University and Gallatin College
Programs developed by ArtsMarket.
2
Page 62
For their part, prospective students want certificate and associate programs to be top quality and of a
depth that will help them compete successfully to win jobs as compared to workers with similar degrees
who can move here from other places. For some fields, the high level of competition is a given. For
example, even during the current economy Bozeman Deaconess Hospital receives upwards of 175 job
applications a week. In such situations, local workers want a way to stand out from other applicants.
Job turn-over in the Gallatin Valley is low. Employers across all fields stress that employees leave jobs
for others at a lower rate they do in larger markets, and they don’t migrate out of the area for new jobs.
As a result, employment opportunities are largely concentrated in new fields or areas where the
workforce is not able to provide enough skilled workers or in fields where there is overall growth.
Today, numerous employers have exceeding low turn over to the point where they simply don’t seek out
prospective employees. Employers with popular offerings and locations such as Bridger Bowl, for
example, have multi-year waiting lists, but even employers such as a local motel which, prior to the
recession, continuously sought qualified bookkeepers now finds that the employees are not leaving at
pre-recession rates.
That said, there are decided areas of opportunity for Gallatin College to both meet area employer needs
in workforce preparation and to meet student needs and interests. The greatest needs for qualified
employees are in the medical field, hospitality, business-related information technology, and
technology-based manufacturing. Employers in all three fields are continuously searching for qualified
local employees, and even go the distance of providing their own in-house training programs, often
lasting two or three months. Students seeking jobs in these fields include both traditional and
alternative high school graduates, as well as older non-traditional students.
Page 63
Affordable Housing Needs Assessment 3
Executive Summary
The Economy, Demographics and Housing Market
Bozeman experienced exceptionally rapid growth in employment, households and its housing stock
during the first decade of the 2000s, even considering a serious economic decline that began in 2007.
The number of Bozeman residents at work declined from 2007-2010 but stabilized in 2011, although the
local unemployment rate, at 6.1%, is near its 10-year peak.
Despite a decline in home prices and rents, the number of Bozeman households paying over 30% of
their incomes for housing increased substantially during the 2000s—placing 28% of homeowners and
49% of renters in this category. Cost burden data is the most reliable indicator of gaps between what
housing costs and what Bozeman households can afford. The numbers of homeless people and special
populations needing affordable housing also increased.
Lack of housing affordability in Bozeman is primarily a function of housing development costs, housing
supply and demand, the incomes of residents, and financing costs. Each of these factors is dynamic,
so the most accurate measure of non-affordability is the number of residents who are housing costburdened at any point in time. For the majority of residents, housing costs are affordable. But
insufficient income to afford market-rate housing is a relatively constant factor among low- and verylow-income families. Due to the Great Recession, a temporary surplus of housing and lower demand
has led to lower sales prices and rents as well as reductions in the cost of land and construction,
though rents are once again increasing. The cost of financing is near all-time lows—benefiting
homebuyers but, generally speaking, not renters.
Job growth generally drives growth in the number of households and therefore demand for housing and
increases in home prices and rents. Employment statistics and interviews with several major employers
did not indicate a future trend in employment levels, either upward or downward. For this reason, this
study does not include projections of future growth in employment, households and needs for
affordable housing. Instead, estimates of affordable needs and gaps in the housing stock were based on
current market and demographic conditions. The unemployment rate in Gallatin County was near 10year highs in October, 2011, at 6.1%, indicating job insecurity and lower incomes for some Bozeman
families—further reducing housing affordability for some households.
Reflecting the economic downturn and reduced overall demand for housing, housing starts have been
reduced in 2008 through 2011 to levels that are about half that of 2000-2001, and less than a quarter of
the starts in 2004 and 2005. Sales of homes reported by the Gallatin Association of Realtors declined at
a slower rate, with an estimated 594 sales in 2011, compared to 828 in 2006, the last year of the real
estate boom—a decline of 29%. The median sale price of all types of homes declined 20%, from
$257,875 in 2006 to $207,000 during 2011. A substantial number of homes are currently on the
market in price ranges considered “affordable” and not available just a few years go. Forty eight
one- and two-bedroom homes were listed at prices averaging just under $100,000, while 16 threeAffordable Housing Needs Assessment for the City of Bozeman, MT developed by Werwath Associates, March 6,
2012.
3
Page 64
bedroom condos were listed at a median price of $129,900. Included in these tallies are 22 new
condominium units either acquired by or built by the Human Resource Development Council (HRDC)
with federal subsidies.
Distress sales of properties in foreclosure have added to the inventory of for-sale homes and
undoubtedly reduced the median sale price, but this trend abated in 2011. As of October 2011, there
were 129 homes in Bozeman estimated to be in stages of the foreclosure process of which about twofifths are estimated to be valued at $200,000 or less. Monthly trustee foreclosure sales peaked at 38
in January 2010 and averaged 25 per month countywide since then.
A sample survey of low- and moderately-priced apartment properties indicated that average rents
for two-bedroom apartments in Bozeman are currently $738, with average three-bedroom rents
much higher, at $977. The survey found only 15 vacant units out of 796 apartments surveyed, 15 of
which were newly acquired by a property management agency, indicating an exceptionally tight
market for apartment rentals. A survey of selected mobile home parks in Bozeman indicated an
average rent of
$530, with only four vacancies out of 106 rental homes surveyed, most of them three-bedroom
models. Mobile homes are thus an important source of very affordable rental housing. Some mobile
home parks located just outside Bozeman are endangered by failing well and septic systems.
Regulations Affecting Affordable Housing
Due to the substantial decline in residential construction, the drop in home prices, and concerns with
technical complexities as well as administrative costs, Bozeman’s Workforce Housing Ordinance
dating from 2007 was suspended for one year in September 2011, having resulted in no production of
affordably-priced homes.
Selected homebuilders who were interviewed pointed to Bozeman’s impact fees as a major factor in
the costs of constructing homes. The fees average about $11,000 per home. The Workforce Housing
Ordinance had provisions for full or partial reimbursement or deferral of these fees for income- and
price-restricted homes, but no such provisions are now in effect.
Concerns were also expressed about newer subdivisions that include “restricted-size lots”—lots sized
less than 5,000 square feet that were intended to encourage the construction of smaller homes that
would remain relatively more affordable. The requirements are now suspended, but apply to
approximately 14 approved subdivisions. Several builders stated that it is difficult, given current market
conditions, to sell smaller, low-cost homes on small lots, and the dispersal of these small lots
throughout subdivisions makes it more difficult to market higher-priced homes.
Affordable Housing Activities
HRDC is a major provider of affordable housing and related services in Bozeman. In 2011, it provided prepurchase counseling to 116 Bozeman clients and built 36 of the affordable condos referred to above,
adding to 20 “land trust” homes built in the 1990s. HRDC made one down payment assistance loan in
2011 in Bozeman, apart from assistance to buyers of the condos that HRDC developed. Habitat for
Humanity has built 61 affordable homes countywide. HRDC, Family Promise and other organizations
Page 65
currently operate 49 emergency shelter beds, along with facilities and rent subsidies for 67 families and
individuals in transitional and supportive housing.
No affordable, subsidized rental housing has been built in Bozeman since 2005, to add to the current
stock of 368 apartments for low-income families and 161 apartments for low-income seniors. Federal
rent subsidies are provided to 273 very low income households and individuals.
Affordable Housing Price Points
The needs study indicated a need for more rental housing priced to be affordable to households within
incomes at or below 40% of area median income (for example, under $600 for a two-bedroom unit), as
well as a general need for additions to the rental stock.
The study indicated affordability gaps for homebuyers with incomes at or below 65% of area median
income, translating to prices at or below $152,000 for a three-bedroom home. The gaps become
substantial for homebuyers with incomes at or below 50% of area median income. Due to market price
reductions and the supply created by HRDC, this need is currently satisfied for homebuyers with
incomes above 65% AMI (and some below that level) but a future supply will be needed in this category.
If home prices start increasing, mortgage assistance will be needed and/or regulatory changes or
incentives to builders to provide more homes at the low end of the for-sale housing market.
Indicated Programmatic and Regulatory Initiatives
The housing needs described in this report indicate the following potential programmatic priorities for
nonprofits, for-profit developers and the City. These are not in priority order, and are suggested for
consideration during the process of drafting a new affordable housing plan.
Subsidized construction of for-sale housing. Projects sponsored by nonprofits should continue, but at
a measured pace until existing inventories are absorbed.
Assistance for purchasing lower-priced market-rate homes. Reduced home prices create a major
opportunity to step up pre-purchase counseling and down payment assistance programs.
Construction of new rental housing. Development of rental housing using the federal Low Income
Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program should be a high priority. The City might consider providing
incentives and setting formal criteria for the types of LIHTC projects that it endorses for federal
subsidies.
Construction of housing for special populations. Given the unmet needs of special populations for
affordable and supportive housing options, construction or acquisition and rehab of more residential
properties should be a priority, to serve very low-income seniors, disabled people, recently homeless
people and those with other special needs.
Workforce Housing Ordinance and possible regulatory changes. The needs study indicates that the
City’s Workforce Housing Ordinance should not be reinstated at this time due to the softness of the
real estate market, technical issues with the ordinance and administrative costs.
Page 66
Reinstatement of a revised ordinance could be considered as the housing market strengthens. In the
meantime, the City may wish to consider enacting a set of incentives for builders to construct
affordable, for-sale homes and rental units. Some incentives could simply provide builders with more
flexibility in responding to market demand—for example, allowing construction of detached homes on
small but adequately-sized lots. In addition, clarification or amendment of zoning requirements for
group homes and accessory dwelling units may be needed.
Re-platting subdivisions. If existing subdivisions are re-platted, as some builders propose, and the
City agrees, some incentives or requirements for construction of affordable homes and rental units
could be retained. Donation of house lots or sub-tracts for affordable home or rental construction is
among the options to be considered.
Impact fees. The City might consider allowing, in some form, deferrals or reimbursement of impact
fees as an additional incentive to produced discount-priced housing for lower-income buyers,
whether or not the Workforce Housing Ordinance is reinstated.
Possible actions regarding mobile home parks. The City may wish to consider encouraging older mobile
home parks just outside Bozeman, with failing septic systems and wells, to connect to the City’s water
and sewer systems, in exchange for agreements to maintain certain levels of affordability. Nonprofits
might consider a concerted program of helping low-income families and/or landlords replace, repair
and weatherize older, substandard mobile homes.
Financial assistance for home repairs in older neighborhoods. The City may also wish to consider
encouraging one or more nonprofits to start multi-year programs to assist low-income seniors and
other low-income homeowners repair their homes, in neighborhoods with the greatest needs.
Page 67
Streamline 2012 Business Plan 4
Executive Summary
The Current Transportation Solutions team has developed a five-year business plan for Streamline
focused on the goal of determining how the existing service and organization can be modified to better
meet the needs of riders and potential riders in the greater Bozeman area. This plan includes a broad
range of recommendations addressing opportunities to improve service for existing riders, increase
public awareness of Streamline’s services, and serve new riders.
The opportunities and challenges facing Streamline are largely a product of Streamline’s success and
growth in its first six years. In spite of very limited resources compared to most peer communities,
Streamline has managed to not only keep pace with growing demand but improve its services at the
same time. We believe demand will continue to grow over the next five years as long as Streamline
continues to offer quality service, and especially if service quality continues to improve. Continuing to
keep pace with this increasing demand will present management with a significant challenge if funding
remains static of declines. To meet this challenge, management will need to be creative and will need to
engage the community to expand its resources and ensure that opportunities are not missed.
Since Streamline was launched in 2006, it has experienced a steady and significant increase in ridership
every year and there is no reason to believe this trend will not continue. In fact our peer review indicates
that any improvements or expansion in service or marketing are likely to result in ridership increases.
Streamline has the lowest investment per capita of any of the peer communities we reviewed. It also has
one of the lowest numbers of annual passenger trips – less than half the median for peer communities – as
well as one of the lowest numbers of passenger trips per capita. We believe these statistics are closely
related and indicate significant potential for Streamline to increase ridership. This year Streamline
celebrated providing over a million rides in its first six years, however the median number of annual
passenger trips provided by peers is 0.66 million.
Value to Riders and the Community
Streamline’s high level of success is reflected both by statistics and by comments from riders and
stakeholders. In addition to the increasing ridership trend, the overwhelming majority of riders who
completed our on-board survey gave high satisfaction ratings for nine aspects of Streamline’s service. In
all categories for all lines, average satisfaction ratings never fell below 3.4 on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5
being “very satisfied”. This included safety ratings over 4 on all lines. Overall satisfaction was also
reflected in the high number of complementary comments in the open ended questions (89 comments),
as well as many more compliments received during the stakeholder meetings and via email. Many of
these comments were enthusiastic and included statements such as “I don’t know what we would do
without Streamline” and a comment from a Montana State University (MSU) rider who described
Streamline’s service as “priceless” and said that funding the service is the best thing that ASMSU does.
The bottom line of this success is the value Streamline provides to the communities it serves. Most
significant is the value Streamline provides to Montana State University which is the area’s largest
employer and a cornerstone of the community. Streamline is heavily used and highly valued by
4
Streamline 2012 Business Plan Draft produced by Current Transportation Solutions, December 7, 2012.
Page 68
students, staff and faculty who make up 63% of ridership based on our on board surveys. Streamline
also provides an essential service to many people who can’t drive or don’t have a car available – 52% of
ridership falls into this category. At the same time, 41% of riders own a car but choose to ride
Streamline. This statistic shows that Streamline is achieving a meaningful reduction in number of cars
on the road by offering a convenient, safe, high quality alternative to driving. Finally, Streamline’s value
is reflected in the fact that current riders overwhelmingly want more service. Frequency of service
received the lowest satisfaction scores, and the majority of open ended question responses (357
comments out of a total of 623 comments) requested some form of expanded service – increased
frequency, geographic expansion, longer hours or weekend service.
Another measure of Streamline’s value to the community is that an estimate for the first ten months
of FY 2009 showed that the transit service resulted in a net savings of 1,041,642 pounds of CO2 based
on trips not taken by automobile.
Methodology
Our methodology for developing this plan included several different market research efforts;
analysis of transit services in peer communities; analysis of standard industry performance measures; a
review and assessment of Streamline’s maintenance and operations practices; and research and analysis
of options for upgrading Streamline’s fleet and technology. To understand the market for Streamline’s
services and the needs of existing and potential riders, the team conducted market research efforts
including collecting information directly from riders and stakeholders; modeling conducted by Dr. Pat
McGowen; analysis of Streamline’s ridership data and other information. Rider and stakeholder
outreach included 565 rider surveys collected onboard the four daytime routes and the Livingston route;
stakeholder meetings with the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), MSU students/staff/faculty,
and local government and business leaders; as well as several one-on-one interviews with important
stakeholders.
Current Ridership Characteristics & Needs
Current Transportation broadly classifies transit services as “safety net” services or “community
services”. A safety net service primarily serves populations with no other transportation options
including low income, people with disabilities and seniors. The transit systems in Butte and Helena fall
into this category. In contrast, transit systems such as Streamline and Missoula’s Mountain Line are
clearly community services that serve a much broader cross section of the community while still
providing a safety net function. The on-board surveys provide the following picture of Streamline’s
ridership overall, though there are significant differences between routes:


Riders are overwhelmingly MSU students, faculty and staff. This is both because
universities tend to generate significant ridership, and because Streamline’s
service is MSU-centric, with routes and schedules designed to serve MSU
students and employees.
More than half of riders (52%) cannot drive or do not have a car available. This
includes “transit dependent” who do not have a choice of driving a car, students
who are able to attend MSU without the expense of car ownership, and
households that choose to use Streamline to reduce transportation expenses.
Page 69




Large percentages are “choice riders” who own cars but choose to ride
Streamline, especially on the Belgrade and Livingston services.
Riders are overwhelmingly using Streamline to travel to and from work or school.
Only 13% of riders using the service to access commercial areas for shopping.
Streamline’s ridership age distribution tracks Bozeman’s age distribution very
closely.
As predicted by national statistics, Streamline’s ridership includes a higher
percentage of young adults. However, in contrast to national trends ridership by
seniors is very low.
Comments from MSU students, faculty and staff expressed strong support for Streamline’s services
including the Latenight service along with strong interest in expanded services. MSU comments also
emphasized the following issues and needs:




The importance of coordinating schedules with class times.
Strong support for keeping the service fare free.
Interest in airport shuttle service.
Desire for improved bus stop amenities including shelters, better ADA access, bike
racks, and a park and ride facility in Belgrade.
 The need for improved marketing and communications – in particular the need to
increase awareness of the real time tracking features and to make the schedules
easier to understand.
While Streamline currently has routes and stops serving the community’s large commercial areas and
largest employers, comments from business community leaders indicated a disconnect between the
business community and Streamline. This is an important area for improvement because for many transit
services large employers are important funding partners. Additionally, regardless of whether businesses
help to directly fund transit services, their political support is important for maintaining local
government funding. The following issues, needs and opportunities were identified in comments from
participants in our Business and Community Leaders Stakeholders’ Meeting as well as on-board survey
results from tourists and visitors.



Some Employers are interested in partnering financially or otherwise to provide
improved service for their employees and customers.
There is need for transportation services for employees and customers living in the
county and nearby communities as well as for employees living in the city who work
outside city limits.
There are opportunities that are being missed to better serve the community’s commercial
areas. These include needs for better connections between Downtown, the Gallatin Valley
Mall (which is connected to Big Sky via the Skyline Bus), the high concentration of large
hotels on 19th, and the airport.
Page 70

There needs to be better marketing and communication so that residents, visitors,
employees and employers have greater awareness of Streamline’s services and the
opportunities those services offer.
Service Coverage
As summarized in the following table, Streamline’s service covers only a small portion of the
study area, yet a large portion of the population, houses and job sites are covered. Coverage was
estimated using GIS analysis that included all areas within a ¼-mile radius of each stop on the system,
representing the low-end of expected walking distance for most riders, and ½-mile, representing the
high-end of expected walking distances. As illustrated in Section 4.1, the study area includes the heart of
the Gallatin Valley and most of Bridger Canyon. This table does not include the Livingston route and only
includes daytime service.
Spatial Statistics for Streamline: ½ Mile Distance and ¼ Mile Distance from Stops
Area (sq. mi.)
2010 Population
2010 Housing
2010 Job Locations
2030 Housing
2030 Job Locations
Study Area
911
82,462
32,344
53,366
45,478
89,506
½ Mile Distance
Streamline
% Covered
16.85
2%
38,994
47%
15,686
48%
34,863
65%
18,949
42%
48,943
55%
¼ Mile Distance
Streamline
% Covered
8.8
1%
29,405
36%
11,242
35%
28,488
53%
12,762
28%
36,669
41%
If the area of coverage does not increase with time these proportions of coverage will likely decrease as
population grows in the area, particularly if growth occurs away from the core areas.
Peer Comparison & Performance Measures
A peer system analysis, used commonly throughout the industry, provides important
benchmarks and comparisons for planners and local policy makers. Our peer review included both rural
systems and small urban systems similar to Bozeman and Streamline. The urban systems were included
in part because of the much higher quality data available from the Integrated National Transit Database
Analysis System www.ftis.org/INTDAS, and also because this group included very relevant peers such as
Missoula’s Mountain Line. We selected 14 rural systems serving micropolitan areas with universities, and
seven systems serving small metropolitan areas with universities. We did not include resort communities
because their investment in transit is generally disproportionately high. Of the 21 peers we reviewed,
five stand out because of their strong performance and their close similarity to Bozeman: Boone, NC;
Arcata/Eureka, CA (technically two transit systems in adjacent communities, but operated as a single
system); Pullman, WA; Logan, UT; and Missoula, MT. Missoula is particularly significant because it
operates with many of the same funding restraints that face Streamline.
Table 3-1 presents standard industry performance measures for Streamline compared to peers. These
performance measures are discussed in detail in Section 3.2 along with suggestions for improving
Page 71
Streamline’s data tracking to significantly improve the accuracy of this information. Overall, Streamline is
performing well for a new system, however the comparison shows that as Streamline continues to
mature there is lots of potential for improvement relative to peer communities. Passenger trips per
capita is one of the most important measures of a transit system’s value to the community and this is
clearly an area where Streamline has potential to improve.
In FY 2012, Streamline’s average number of rides per day was over 1,000; the average number of miles
per month was 23,121; and the average number of hours of operation was 1,320 per month. The cost
efficiency performance measures for these services are not as good as those for FY 2010. During FY 2012,
Streamline had an average cost of $3.95 per mile; an average ride cost of $3.99; and an average cost per
hour of operation of $70. We believe the primary reason for this change is that these FY 2012 number
reflect a more accurate allocation of costs between Streamline, Galavan and coordinated services.
Fare Free Service
Continuing to operate a fare free system is both viable and preferable to introducing fares.
Switching to a fare-based service would be costly and time-consuming, with many other significant
downsides and minimal (if any) benefits. Charging fares is unlikely to increase revenue, likely to result in
reduced service, and guaranteed to reduce ridership. Focusing on developing new partnerships is a far
more effective strategy for increasing revenue while also expanding service and increasing ridership. The
pros and cons of introducing fares are discussed in more detail.
Opportunities for Improvement
Streamline has many opportunities to improve its service and operations over the next five years to
better meet the needs of riders and potential riders in the greater Bozeman area. Areas where
opportunities exist are listed below, and action steps for each of these areas are included in the
Implementation Plan in Chapter 2.
Improvement opportunities include the following areas:











Increasing service (frequency / hours / geography)
Data tracking for performance metrics/better board reports
Vehicle quality and capacity
Maintenance
Bus stop infrastructure
Community outreach/partnerships
Organizational structure
Communication / marketing
Technology
Policies and procedures (including driver training)
Record keeping and regulatory compliance
The overarching theme for the next five years was well stated by one of the participants in the
TAC meeting who commented that while it was not realistic to launch a perfect transit system in
2006, everyone involved has worked hard using the resources available over the last six years to build a
successful system that is achieving much of its mission; and “Our goal now should be to keep maturing
so that over time we will achieve performance measures comparable to peer communities.”
Page 72
Gallatin County Community Health Profile 5
Key Findings
In the following pages of this report, you will find a great deal of information that has enabled the
Healthy Gallatin folks to begin to understand the health of the county. Below are some issues that stood
out in the data that was collected, and that Healthy Gallatin believe are most impactful to the health of
the residents of Gallatin County. Residents can find this full report as well as the Community Health
improvement Plan at www.healthygallatin.org.
 Barriers to access: as the Latino population grows, language barriers become an increased
challenge to access to health care. This contributes to significantly poorer health status among
Hispanic residents: 71% of Hispanic residents in Gallatin County say that in general their
health is poor. Furthermore, many residents have to travel far distances for certain health
services, and, especially as gas prices rise, people are less willing to travel.
 Engaging youth is important to pre- venting risky behaviors: the challenge of engaging youth
was mentioned throughout the assessment. Communities wanted to provide the youth with
more healthy activities in order to prevent them from turning to risky behaviors, such as
alcohol, drugs, and sex.
 Gallatin County has a large population lacking health insurance: Residents in rural areas
and throughout the county consider access to health services a major health challenge.
Twenty-two percent of Gallatin County residents are uninsured, and many more are underinsured. This rate is nearly twice as high for those living below 200% of the federal poverty
level. Insurance is a major barrier to accessing preventable health services.
 Health organizations can work together more to increase referrals and maximize impact. A
challenge heard throughout the assessment was collaboration between human service
organizations to refer people between organizations and improve health.
 Mental health: Communities in Gallatin County experience mental health challenges
regularly. The suicide rate in Gallatin County is almost 60% higher than US suicide rates.
Stigma against mental health issues and against seeking mental health services are barriers to
receiving care.
 Sense of community is important to quality of life: all communities voiced a desire to increase
community activities. It is this sense of community that was viewed as an asset, but also an
area of opportunity. Communities wanted increased knowledge of community events and
services and more community gatherings.
 Substance abuse contributes to costly problems: twenty percent of residents admit to
binge drinking, which is associated with teen- age pregnancy, sexually transmit- ted
diseases, domestic violence, motor vehicle crashes, and crime. Furthermore, 9.5% of adults
use smokeless tobacco, which is much higher than national rates.
5
2012 Gallatin County Community Health Profile created by Healthy Gallatin published December 2012.
Page 73
HRDC ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Content from the survey, focus groups, and other assessments were presented to staff for discussion.
The staff, as key informants, was divided into six discussion groups to further define the HRDC’s role in
the community needs. Data from our own customer base was also cross referenced with the data
collected. Committees were formed around the focus areas that evolved out of the previous steps to
further research and develop action plans to address the needs that were found.
KEY FINDINGS
The survey was first analyzed to find the greatest community needs that were not being met
sufficiently. A content analysis of the open ended questions related to the respondents perceived
needs were coded for emergent themes with frequent meetings to ensure inter-coder reliability. The
data resulting from the content analysis of the first question which asked respondents to identify their
primary needs were categorized; the top five identified needs were Cost of Living (30.6%),
Employment (19.1%), Housing (16.4%), Insufficient Income (13.2 %), and Health (9%). These issues,
along with Food, Transportation, and Supportive Services were frequently cited as a major need by
respondents as they listed their top five needs. Question 2 of the survey used a Likert Scale to
determine respondents feeling about the effectiveness of the community to address those needs. The
resulting data showed that 74.22% of respondents stated that the community was not effectively
addressing housing (represented by Homelessness, Affordable Rentals, and Home Ownership) and
68.6% of respondents felt that employment (represented by Job Training and Entrepreneurial) was
not being effectively addressed.
Focus groups were conducted on the issues of Cost of Living and Housing to gain greater insight on
what the community felt the greatest needs were and possible solutions to these issues. The consistent
themes which emerged these focus groups related to cost of living were insufficient income/inflation,
the need for financial counseling and planning, and the high cost of housing, utilities, childcare, taxes,
transportation, food, and daily household items. In addition, the emergent focus group themes related
to housing were affordability (both renting and owning), adequacy (size, repairs, and
efficiency/weatherization), housing valuation, tenant rights, home owner education, and housing for
families and seniors.
An analysis of the data resulting from the questionnaire, focus groups, and the incorporation of
information obtained in various other needs assessments which were being conducted in the
communities we serve at the time created six focus areas. These areas were Cost of Living/Financial
Literacy, Housing, Rural Outreach & Education, Transportation, Childcare, and Employment.
Page 74
ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
Page 75
AREAS OF NEED
Belgrade Bozeman
Home Ownership
Parent Support
Entrepreneurial
Resources
Youth/ Tween
Services
Childcare
Volunteer
Opportunities
Homelessness
Substance Abuse
Senior Services
Affordable Rental
Housing
Mental Health
Job Training
Home Heating Costs
Transportation
K-12 Education
Post Secondary
Education
Availability of Food
Park Manhattan/ Meagher
Four
County Three Forks
County
Corners/
Area
Gateway
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
?
•
•
•
•
•
Big
Sky
West
Yellowstone
•
•
•
•
•
•
?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
?
?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Page 76
UNDERSTANDING BARRIERS TO SELF-SUFFICIENCY
HRDC utilizes six categories to determine self-sufficiency of customers. These categories were created
utilizing Results Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA) principles and needs assessment
data. This content is cross tabulated to create the categories of income, employment, housing,
education, transportation, and childcare. Customers’ data is entered into an individual outcome matrix.
An outcome matrix allows programs to capture a baseline for the customer and then compare that to
their situation as it changes over time. By having multiple categories instead of focusing on one area,
programs get a comprehensive view of a customer’s position. Families must bring in enough income to
provide safe and secure housing, reliable transportation, and affordable childcare. In order to have a
sufficient income to provide for those needs, satisfactory employment is also needed, which is
attainable with the right level of education. By using the outcome matrix, programs can identify
where the customer has strengths, and where they need improvement. The goal is to move all
categories into a stable place, or above the prevention line. The outcome matrix will also indicate
what other services are needed by each specific household, which allows for agencies to bundle their
services for each unique situation and wrap necessary services around the customer.
This approach is statistically supported by a study done by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The study
showed that reaching a level of self-sufficiency in life depends on the coming together of multiple
aspects that enable an individual to become stable, rather than fragmented services in a variety of
timeframes. Bundled services tracked using the outcome matrix gives customers the best chance to
succeed.
Communities can also be assessed on the same type of matrix. A thriving community provides
adequate housing, transportation, education, employment, and childcare to citizens. These services
would need to be affordable, reliable, and valuable to help the community attain a thriving level.
Page 77
COMMUNITY PROFILES
Belgrade
Belgrade is one of the fastest growing communities in the state. Local families are active and dedicated
to seeing the town prosper. The community is located ten miles northwest of Bozeman. It is centered on
the railroad that splits the town. It has a “small-town feel” with all the amenities of a larger city found
nearby.
Demographics
According to the 2010 census, the population of Belgrade is 7,389 which is a 30% increase from 2000.
The American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates states that the median household income is $41,806.
10.6% are below poverty level. The town is predominately white with the largest minority being
American Indian and Alaskan native at nearly 1%. Belgrade is a young community in the county, with
only 10.9% of households having individuals 65 years and over. The median age is 30.8. Almost all
(97.7%) of the population aged 25 and over have graduated from high school and 29.5% have a
bachelor’s degree or higher. Nearly 4% speak a language other than English. 82% of Belgrade
residents are in the labor force. The most common occupations of Belgrade residents are Management,
Business, Science, and Arts (23.9%) as well as service (24.6%) and sales and office (22.9%). The largest
industries are education and social assistance, construction, and retail. The mean travel time to work is
18.1 minutes, indicating that most do not actually work in Belgrade itself.
Utilization
39.8% of Belgrade residents access HRDC services, compared to 10.6% of Belgrade residents living
below the poverty line.
Identified Needs
Action Items for Consideration
Trade based programs
Expanded Public Transportation
Childcare/ Family activities/ Things for kids to do
 Recreation Department/ YMCA
 Maintenance of existing facilities
Housing
 No low-income housing units Unreasonable
rent- not any cheaper than Bozeman
Belgrade
Increased awareness of services
Work with Gallatin College to make more
trade programs available
Expand Public Transportation
 River Rock to Belgrade
 More Streamline times
 Express to Bozeman
Childcare/ Family activities/ Activities for kids
 Pool
 Bowling alley
 Skate park
 Recreation Department/ YMCA
 Maintenance for existing facilities
Housing
 Creation of more low-income units in
Belgrade
Awareness of services
 More coordination
 Comprehensive list of services
 Improve website- contact info, links
Page 78
Big Sky
The community of Big Sky is a census-designated place (CDP) located in both Gallatin and Madison
counties. It is primarily dependent on tourism, due to the two ski resorts located there. There are
many other outdoor activities for all seasons that also bring people to Big Sky. It is largely a resort
town with a thriving service sector.
Big Sky has access to affordable housing only through the neighboring communities of Ennis and
West Yellowstone. While the affordable housing issue began as a seasonal challenge, it has since
expanded to include the year-round workforce including teachers and emergency personnel.
Demographics
The total population is 2,308 according to the 2010 census. The median age is 35 years. Most
people (94.2%) have a high school graduate or higher. The median household income is the highest
of all communities studied at $57,179. Even with this high income, there is a 9.7% rate of individuals
below poverty level. The population is 56.6% male. There are 5.7% living in group quarters, which
is significant for the region. 20.2% of households have individuals under 18 years of age living in
them. Only 29.6% of the housing units in Big Sky are occupied, and 65.1% of those that are vacant
are for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. 44.3% of males and 69.5% of females are
currently married. Almost half of those enrolled in school are in college or graduate school. The
mean travel time to work is 15.9 minutes. Much of the industry is from Entertainment and Recreation
(26.2%) as well as construction (20.3%).
Utilization
6.6% of Big Sky’s population accesses HRDC services, compared to 9.7% of residents living below
the poverty line.
Identified Needs
Access to affordable, quality foods
Satellite food bank services
Affordable housing
Conduct Big Sky Specific housing needs
assessment in conjunction with Big Sky Area
Chamber of Commerce; provide technical
assistance throughout the housing planning
process
Train food bank personnel as service
navigators for both HRDC and other
available community resources.
Big Sky
Accessible services
Page 79
Bozeman
Bozeman is located in the center of the Gallatin Valley and is the fourth most populated city in Montana.
The city sits in the valley at the foot of the Bridger Mountains. Completely surrounded by mountains, its
location makes it a destination for skiing, fishing, and other outdoor activities. The university brings a
unique vibe to the town, affecting many of the demographic indicators. Physical and outdoor
opportunities abound in Bozeman.
Demographics
The population of Bozeman is 37,230 according to the 2010 census. The median age is 27.2 which can
be attributed to the university. There is more diversity in Bozeman than in any of the other towns studied.
Whites make up only 72.4% of the population, while Black or African Americans make up 12.6% of the
community. Asians also make up 4.8%. This diversity is partly due to the university’s presence. Families
make up 66.4% of the households in Bozeman. The mean travel time to work is 25.4 minutes, indicating
that many people do not live close to their employment. Even with a long mean travel time, only five
percent of residents use public transportation when commuting. The most common occupations include
Management, Business, Science, and Arts (40.7%) and Sales and Office positions (26.6%). The largest
industries are Educational Services, Health Care, and Social Assistance (24.2%) as well as Retail
(15.0%). 19.8% of people have income below the poverty level. The median income for Bozeman is
$44,412. Most (97.1%) have high school degrees and 52.3% have a bachelor’s degree or higher.
Utilization
17.3% of Bozeman residents access HRDC services, compared to 19.8% of the population living
Identified Needs

Medical Expenses
o Outrageous costs
o Extraordinary costs not covered by
insurance
o Cost of premiums
Transportation
o More hours, more frequent
o Car maintenance- cost, prioritize
maintenance
o Lack of car insurance- out of pocket
expenses if in accident
Childcare Expensive
Community clinic for middle income people

Middle income bracket- earn too much to
qualify but not enough to really make it

Information- Pamphlet about all services
Housing
 Creation of more low-income units in
Belgrade
Awareness of services
 More coordination
 Comprehensive list of services
 Improve website- contact info, links

Bozeman

Create non-profit/ low cost/ flexible
payment garage for car repairs;
Increased communication about risks of not
having car insurance
Encourage cooperative for childcare
Page 80
Four Corners/ Gallatin Gateway
Four Corners and Gallatin Gateway are each census-designated places between the valley floor
and Big Sky. The location makes it a food desert.
Four Corners has a population of 3,146 and Gallatin Gateway has a population of 856 people.
The median income is much higher in Four Corners at $67,802 compared with Gallatin Gateway at
$52,679 but Four Corners has a higher percentage (8.4%) of people living below poverty level
than Gallatin Gateway (3.3%). The median age is about 40 years old. Around 90% are high
school graduates. Mean travel time to work is just over 20 minutes, indicating most drive to
Bozeman for work.
Utilization
16.6% of Gateway/Four Corners residents access HRDC services, compared to 8.4% and 3.3%
(respectively) residents living below the poverty line.
Identified Needs
Access to quality, affordable food products
Expand/Promote Mobile Outreach Activities
(including emergency food distribution)
Conduct town hall fashion meetings regularly
with interested parties to help identify areas
of need
Four Corners | Gallatin Gateway
Better identify other/outlying community needs
Page 81
Livingston
The town of Livingston lies on the banks of the Yellowstone River and is surrounded by the three
mountain ranges of the Crazies, Absarokas, and Bridgers. It’s proximity to Yellowstone National Park
makes it one of the common gateways that is used by locals and travelers alike. The small town charm is
supported by a variety of local shops, restaurants, and cultural offerings.
Demographics
According to the 2012 census, the population of Livingston is 7,044. The average age is 41.1 years old.
11.7% live below the poverty level. The median income is $36,797. 87% have a high school degree or
higher. Only 21.8% have a bachelor’s degree. Almost 30% of households have people 18 years or
younger. 60.8% of males and 53.5% of females are married. The mean travel time to work is 18
minutes which is not surprising considering many commute to Bozeman or Chico Hot Springs for
employment.
Livingston
Utilization
14.2% of Livingston residents access HRDC services, compared to 11.7% living below the poverty line.
Identified Needs
Childcare
 Lack of quality- loose licensing requirements
 Expensive
 Vicious cycle- if work to pay bills then need
childcare which costs most of paycheck so
there is no money for bills
 Pro-rated systems- easily out of assistance
bracket if receive even a small raise
Transportation
 Increased Streamline access
 Cars in constant need of repair
Housing
 Emergency homeless shelter
 Long term affordable housing
Lack of low-income housing available
 More options for elderly and disabled
 Need more for families or singles
 Lack of adequacy
Hygiene
 No public drinking fountain
 No public shower- can’t get a job if smelly
and dirty
Financial management class
Encourage licensing requirements for
childcare;
Review feasibility of sliding fee scale for
childcare services vs. eligible/ineligible
Increase Streamline hours, stops;
Create non-profit/ low cost/ flexible
payment garage for car repairs
Engage the Livingston community in conducting
housing specific needs assessment;
Partner with providers to identify potential
day shelter/access to showers, etc.
Expand financial literacy coursework to
Livingston, partner with Learning Partners to
provide courses
Page 82
Three Forks
Three Forks is located at the convergence of the Jefferson, Madison, and Gallatin Rivers that
creates the Missouri River. It is known as “the best little town”. That designation is supported by the
variety of things to do outdoors as well as the friendly people. The main employers are the local
talc mine and wheat operations.
Demographics
The population of Three Forks is 1,869. The mean travel time to work is 17.1 minutes. Median age
in Three Forks is 40.8 years. 92.7% have receive a high school diploma but only 14.8% have a
bachelor’s degree or higher. The main industry is manufacturing with some social assistance as well.
According to the US Census (2009), 11.1% of Three Forks residents are living below the poverty
line.
Utilization
24.2% of Three Forks residents access HRDC services, compared to 11.1% living below the poverty
line.
Identified Needs
Transportation
 Very spread out- need a vehicle for
anything
 Lack of public transportation still a huge cost
to community members
Financial education needed
Increase transportation options, evaluate
van pool and RideShareMT opportunities to
connect with Streamline

Free
Housing
Need more affordable rentals
Houses to rent- not condos and apartments
Work with the greater Three Forks area and
our Food Bank presence to further evaluate
specific housing needs, create plan
Three Forks


Evaluate opportunities to partner with
financial institutions in Three Forks to provide
financial education coursework
Page 83
West Yellowstone
West Yellowstone is another entrance to Yellowstone National Park, located in Gallatin County. It is
located 90 miles south of Bozeman and fairly isolated, making it difficult to access services. Tourism
is an important part of this town’s economy. The landscape is beautiful, making outdoor recreation
in all seasons a fun experience.
During the past 5 years, West Yellowstone has realized the loss of more than 40 affordable
housing units (multi-family rentals). The existing housing stock that is available for rentals is quickly
deteriorating, creating safety issues for potential tenants. The Town cannot expand its buildable
space and must look to creative approaches to infill to generate additional affordable housing.
The housing issue is more than seasonal, and is impacting the business community immensely. In
addition, West continues to experience a significant increase in its Hispanic population, creating
unique challenges for school personnel, human services, and employers.
Demographics
The population is 1,271. The median age is 39.4 years. Most (98.7%) have a high school degree.
37.1% have a received a degree in higher education. Around 40% of the population is married.
70.4% of the residents live in the same house as one year ago. The commute time is very short at
5.6 minutes. Most are employed in sales and service occupations. 14.5% speak a language other
than English at home. The largest industry is Recreation and Accommodation. The poverty level is
high at 28.7%. The town is 86.6% white with 17.9% reporting as Hispanic or Latino.
Utilization
8.6% of West Yellowstone residents access HRDC services, compared to 28.7% of residents living
Identified Needs
Mental Health Services
Work with area service providers to identify
what services are available, at what
cost/time/price and to whom; evaluate
accessibility
Work with area service providers to identify
what services are available, at what
cost/time/price and to whom; evaluate
accessibility
Conduct needs assessment to further identify
parental support gaps (expand ECCC
assessment specifically for West)
Work with the Town of West Yellowstone and
area partners to create housing strategy
addressing West’s unique housing needs.
West Yellowstone
Substance Abuse Services
Parental Support
Affordable Housing
Page 84
White Sulphur Springs is the largest community in Meagher County with a population of 939
people. There are a variety of things to do in both the summer and winter, including visiting natural
hot springs, as well as cross country skiing and snowmobiling. Surrounded by Little Belt, Big Belt, and
Castle Mountains, it is also the headwaters of the Smith River. As one of the country’s premier trout
streams, floating the Smith River is a once in a lifetime experience. The lack of industry makes living
difficult, but there are many efforts to increase tourism. Construction in the area is also helping the
economy. The Senior Center is the heart of the town, providing services as well as space for a
variety of groups. Although the population is in slow decline, it is still a tight-knit community
dedicated to White Sulphur Springs.
Demographics
The town has an aging population (total population of 965) with a median age of 51.2 years. The
town is predominately white. Most of the industry in White Sulphur Springs is centered on service as
well as social assistance. 89% are high school graduates or higher. The median income is $30,221.
The poverty rate here is high at 23.2%. Most of the population is employed in service occupations,
which comprises most of the industry in town. There is also a bit of agriculture, forestry, and mining.
With an aging population, medical care and transportation will continue to create challenges.
Utilization
17.8% of White Sulphur Springs residents access HRDC services, compared to 23.2% of the
population experiencing poverty.
Identified Needs
Medical
 Elderly transportation
 Lack of specialists in WSS
Housing
 Handicap accessibility in older units
 Water bills- high to pay for new infrastructure
 Affordable, quality housing
o All old houses, need repairs
 Windows, doors, roof, furnace
o Rentals for temporary workers
Work with Angel Line and other
transportation providers to increase access
to medical care
Expand HOME Rehab program and
Weatherization Program to reach an
increased number of units in White
Sulphur;
Need for education
 Elderly- programs available so houses are
fixed when sold
 Small business start-up- where to go, steps to
do, encourage local business
 Financial class (Difficult to make people who
need it attend)
Lack centralized place for information
Work with Town of White Sulphur Springs
to create TIF district or other opportunity to
subsidize water infrastructure
Evaluate expansion of financial literacy,
post-purchase counseling, foreclosure
prevent, and reverse annuity mortgages
programming to Meagher County;
Approach partners to provide small business
services to White Sulphur.
Identify centralized information location and
engage others to participate
Page 85
Page 86

Community Needs Assessment

Transcription

Similar documents

11x17 APAAT PAGES copy

3031 Candy Lane Bozeman, Montana

Montana Inc Real Estate

Leading Montana`s Grain Industry For Over 55 Years. 750 6th Street

MONTANA

Wotanin Wowapi - University of Montana

Download, fill, print and mail membership brochure

Our Latest Newsletter Opens a New Window.

class i (2013-2015)

State Activation Locations - Montana Army National Guard