When it comes to growth rankings, Douglas County has become accustomed to being above average.

During the ’90s, according to census data, Douglas County’s 22.2 percent growth rate ranked third in the state. Its 24.9 percent increase in jobs during that decade was the fifth fastest in the state.

But Douglas County’s growth is just average when it comes to household income, according to numbers compiled recently by The Associated Press.

The AP project compiled growth rates of the median household income for every Kansas county by looking at residents’ median income as listed on the 1990 census and their new median income according to the 2000 census.

Douglas County had a 48.7 percent income growth rate for the 10 years, ranking 62nd out of the 105 Kansas counties. The income growth rate was slightly below the statewide average of 48.9 percent, and well below top-ranked Ellsworth County’s rate of 78.3 percent.

“As a community, we’ve thought we’re above average in a lot of ways. But we’re definitely below average in income, and that has been the case for quite some time,” said David Burress, an economist and researcher at Kansas University’s Policy Research Institute. “It’s not a surprise to me, but maybe these numbers will be a wake-up call to show people that our income situation isn’t changing.”

Playing catch-up

The fact that Douglas County’s average income isn’t growing as fast as the state’s average isn’t necessarily troubling by itself, Burress said. After all, the numbers show Johnson County the state’s richest county had a growth rate of just 43.8 percent. But its median income of $61,455 is nearly $20,000 above the state’s average.

In Douglas County both the growth rate and median income are below state average. According to the 2000 census, the median household income in Douglas County was $37,547, about 8 percent behind the statewide average of $40,624.

“If that trend continues, then we never catch up,” Burress said.

But it’s not because Douglas County isn’t adding jobs, said David Darling, a community development economist with Kansas State University. The county is clearly a leader in the state in that category. Rather it is more the type of jobs it is adding, he said.

“Think of what has happened over the past 10 years in Lawrence,” Darling said. “You’ve seen a lot of new growth in retail and restaurants, and those are the jobs that aren’t core jobs. They’re more part-time.

“Lawrence is in the same situation as a lot of college towns. It has a large service sector because of the students, and really that sector hasn’t done a great job of keeping up with inflation.

“Just think of the minimum wage ($5.15 an hour). It hasn’t changed for years, and because of the large number of student workers available, there’s lots of service jobs that can still get by with paying those type of wages.”

University challenge

The numbers appear to bear out Darling’s thoughts. Five of the six counties that are home to a Kansas Board of Regents university had income growth rates lower than the state average.

Crawford County, where Pittsburg State University is based, was the only one slightly above the average with a rate of 49.9 percent. Lyon County, home of Emporia State University, had the lowest income growth rate of the group at 36.5 percent. Douglas County had the second-highest income growth rate of the six counties. Douglas County’s median income also was the second highest of the group, trailing only Sedgwick County’s $42,485.

“I think it is going to be real hard for Lawrence to change its position a lot because one-third of our adult population is students, and their income is just going to be what it will be,” Burress said. “When you don’t have much ability to change the income of a third of your residents, it limits your ability to change the growth rate.”

University advantage

But it doesn’t necessarily have to be that way. Take Larimer County in Colorado, for example. As home of Colorado State University, it is one four Midwestern college communities that KU researchers routinely use as a measure for Douglas County.

According to census data, Larimer County saw its median income increase by a brisk 63.9 percent during the ’90s. But in Larimer County, the university is far from the only major employer. It has Hewlett-Packard, Anheuser-Busch and Teledyne Water Pik, among others.

Darling said there are several examples of university communities successfully breaking free from the grasp of a low-income economy.

“One of the strategies is to spin off research at the university, and I think you are doing a good job of that in Lawrence,” Darling said. “Another is attracting firms that want to take advantage of the talent at the university. A major strategy is to take advantage of the human capital that comes through the university, and that really is a tremendous opportunity.

“What really has to happen is for the university to become a smaller and smaller part of the total economy. That means the economy is diversifying and that is when the private sector can start generating the type of jobs that can make that income number go up.”

Lynn Parman, vice president of economic development for the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, agrees that a diverse economy is the key to increasing income.

“I would really look for the median income to increase as we’re able to start appealing to more of those companies that are really looking to take advantage of our work force.

“I definitely think it should increase. Certainly, I think the income levels are a very good measure of the vitality of the community. That’s why when we are working with companies, one of the very first questions we ask is ‘What is your average wage?’ One of our top priorities is increasing the number of high-paying jobs we have in the community.”