New Report Projects Sharp Enrollment Decline in DJUSD without New Housing
- Apr 8
- 4 min read
By David Greenwald. April 8, 2026
DAVIS, Calif. — A new demographic report prepared for the Davis Joint Unified School District projects a steady decline in student enrollment over the next decade while identifying housing development as a key factor that could alter or even reverse those trends.
The report, prepared by MGT and released April 1, 2026, forecasts that resident student enrollment will decline from approximately 6,944 students in 2025 to about 5,693 by 2035.
The report attributes the projected decline to three primary factors. It explains that “there are three primary factors that can directly influence a forecast: birthrates, mobility, and student yield factors,” adding that “if all factors register at a lower level, they suggest a decrease in the district’s population.”
Birth rates are identified as a central driver of long-term enrollment.
The report finds that “increases or decreases in the number of births in the area will translate to increases or decreases in future kindergarten enrollment,” noting that kindergarten classes reflect birth trends from five years prior.
Mobility is also a contributing factor, referring to how students move into and out of the district.
The report explains that “mobility refers to the increases or decreases in the movement of students within and out of the district boundary’s existing housing,” and that it is calculated based on “the movement of students from grade in that geographic area.”
At the same time, the report highlights the importance of housing development in shaping enrollment outcomes.
It notes that “a district can maintain stability or expansion by fostering adequate development to counterbalance the decreasing birth trend.”
The study relies on student yield factors to estimate how many students are generated by new housing.
It states that “the Student Yield Factor (SYF) for Davis Joint Unified School District measures the number of school-aged children residing in housing units built within the last ten years,” and explains that “for every 100 single-family detached homes constructed in the past five years, the district gains approximately 44 school-aged children.”
For other housing types, the report notes lower yields, stating that “for multi-family attached homes, such as townhomes, the district gains about 12 students for every 100 homes built,” and that “in the case of apartments, the SYF indicates a gain of 5 students for every 100 apartments constructed.”
The forecast is based on a residence-driven methodology, which the report says is intended to improve long-term planning.
It explains that “these forecasts are based on where the students reside and where they are assigned to attend school,” adding that “the best way to plan for future student population shifts is to know where the next group of students will be living.”
The report contrasts this with traditional enrollment-based projections, stating that “district-generated forecasts are based on school enrollments” but that this approach “is often inadequate for long-range planning needs” because “the location of the students is not taken into consideration.”
The study also details the role of planned housing in the forecast model.
It finds that “planned residential development data is collected to determine the number of new residential units that will be built over the period of the student population forecasts,” and that this data was gathered from “local municipalities” and “project developers.”
However, the report warns that this information is incomplete and evolving.
It argues that “planned residential development information is subject to changes in the marketplace; therefore, this data should be reevaluated annually.”
The report includes a list of planned and potential developments, including projects such as Village Farms and Willowgrove, which are identified as future developments but are not fully incorporated into the baseline forecast totals .
Because the forecast is based on resident students, the report notes that it excludes certain populations.
It states that “resident students refer to students who reside within the district boundary,” and that the model excludes “non-resident students” and those with incomplete address data.
As of the 2025 school year, the report indicates that the district had 8,241 total students, including 6,946 resident students used in the forecast.
The report notes that its findings are intended to guide long-term planning decisions, noting that “the district-wide summary enables the district to see a broad overview of future population shifts and what effect these shifts may have on existing and future facilities.”
It adds that the forecasts “present the means for identifying the timing of future population shifts and overall facility adjustments needed to accommodate these shifts.”
The study further notes that demographic trends and housing development are closely linked in shaping future enrollment.
It states that “moving forward with the forecast, the Davis Joint Unified School District can anticipate an increase in student enrollment from upcoming residential developments based on the Student Yield Factors (SYF).”
At the same time, the report reiterates that its projections are dependent on current assumptions and available data. It notes that forecasts are based on “data gathered at the time of the study” and are subject to change as conditions evolve .
The report’s findings suggest that future housing production could play a significant role in altering the projected enrollment decline, particularly if development occurs at a scale sufficient to offset declining birth rates and ongoing demographic shifts.
While the baseline forecast incorporates currently identified projects, the report indicates that additional housing beyond what is presently planned could generate more resident students than reflected in the current projections, depending on the type, timing, and location of that development.
The report also underscores that its projections are contingent on existing assumptions and do not fully account for potential policy-driven changes in housing production, including efforts to meet state housing requirements under the RHNA requirements this cycle and next.
If the city advances additional housing consistent with state mandates, particularly projects that produce family-oriented units with higher student yield factors, those developments could further stabilize or increase enrollment beyond the levels currently forecast.
Comments